A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament in which his interpretation of many important passages is freely and impartially examin'd, and confirm'd or refuted : and the sacred text further explain'd by new remarks upon every chapter / by Monsieur Le Clerc ; English'd by W. P. ; to which is prefix'd a letter from the author to a friend in England, occasion'd by this translation.

A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament in which his interpretation of many important passages is freely and impartially examin'd, and confirm'd or refuted : and the sacred text further explain'd by new remarks upon every chapter / by Monsieur Le Clerc ; English'd by W. P. ; to which is prefix'd a letter from the author to a friend in England, occasion'd by this translation.

Table of contents

Title page

A Letter from Mr. Le Clerc to a Friend in England, occaſion'd by the Engliſh Tranſlation of his Additions to Dr. Hammond on the New Teſtament; with ſomething relating to his Ars Critica.

Errata.

ADDITIONS TO Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE New Teſtament. Addition to the Annotation on the Title of the whole Book.

ADDITIONS To Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Matthew.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

CHAP. XXII.

CHAP. XXIII.

CHAP. XXIV.

CHAP. XXV.

CHAP. XXVI.

CHAP. XXVII.

CHAP. XXVIII.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Mark.

CHAP. 1.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Luke.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

CHAP. XXII.

CHAP. XXIII.

CHAP. XXIV.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. John.

The Author's Preface to the 2d Edition of his Paraphraſe on the firſt eighteen Verſes.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE ACTS of the Holy Apoſtles.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

CHAP. XXII.

CHAP. XXIII.

CHAP. XXIV.

CHAP. XXV.

CHAP. XXVI.

CHAP. XXVII.

CHAP. XXVIII.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epiſtle of S. Paul the Apoſtle to the Romans.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Corinthians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Corinthians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Galatians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

THE JEWISH 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

THE CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIST.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Epheſians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Philippians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Coloſſians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Theſſalonians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Theſſalonians.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Timothy.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Timothy.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Titus.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Philemon.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Hebrews.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE General Epiſtle of St. James the Apoſtle.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

ANNOTATIONS On the firſt Epiſtle General Of St. Peter the Apoſtle.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Second Epiſtle General of St. Peter.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Firſt Epiſtle General of St. John.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

ANNOTATION ON THE Second Epiſtle of St. John.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epiſtle of St. Jude.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Revelation of St. John the Divine.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XIII.

CHAP. XIV.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

CHAP. XVIII.

CHAP. XIX.

CHAP. XX.

CHAP. XXI.

CHAP. XXII.

An INDEX Of the Greek Words and Phraſes, newly or more largely explained in the Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Annotations.

A

B

Γ

Δ

E

Z

H

Θ

I

K

Λ

M

N

O

Π

P

Σ

T

Υ

Φ

X

Ψ

An INDEX OF THE Memorable things contained in theſe Remarks.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S

T

V

W

Z

Books printed for Sam. Buckley, at the Dolphin in Fleetſtreet.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

[Page]

A SUPPLEMENT To Dr. HAMMOND's Paraphraſe and Annotations ON THE New Teſtament.

IN WHICH His Interpretation of many important Paſſages is freely and impartially examin'd, and confirm'd or refuted:

And the SACRED TEXT further explain'd by new Remarks upon every Chapter.

By Monſieur LE CLERC.

Engliſh'd by W. P.

To which is prefix'd, A LETTER from the Author to a Friend in England, occaſion'd by this Tranſlation.

LONDON: Printed for Sam. Buckley, at the Dolphin againſt St. Dunſtan's Church in Fleetſtreet. M.DC.XC.IX.

A Letter from Mr. Le Clerc to a Friend in England, occaſion'd by the Engliſh Tranſlation of his Additions to Dr. Hammond on the New Teſtament; with ſomething relating to his Ars Critica.

[Page]

[Page]

HAVING perus'd ſeveral Sheets of an Engliſh Verſion of my Additions to Dr. Hammond on the New Teſtament, which were ſent me over, I was well ſatisfied with the care and faithfulneſs of the Tranſlator, not doubting of his exactneſs in the other Sheets, which I have not yet look'd over; but conſidering how unfit Judges of ſuch kind of Writings, thoſe who can read them only in their mother Tongue often are, I could not tell whether I had any occaſion to rejoice. For hereby thoſe things are ſubmitted to the Cenſure of the Vulgar, which are in part above a vulgar Capacity; for there are ſeveral things in this Volume, which, tho render'd into Engliſh, cannot be underſtood but by thoſe who have ſome skill in the Greek Language, and in Heathen and Eccleſiaſtical Antiquities. No others can ſafely enough judg of them, becauſe the force of Arguments many times entirely depends upon knowing the uſe of the Greek Tongue, or Eccleſiaſtical or Profane Hiſtory. Yet no Men determine more confidently of theſe things than thoſe who want that knowledg; becauſe they think themſelves competent Judges of every thing that is written in their own Language. And therefore I have often wonder'd that the learned Man, whoſe Annotations I have tranſlated into Latin, did not chuſe rather to write in Latin, than in Engliſh; when he very well knew that a great many, nay all the beſt things he had written in them, were ſuch as could not be underſtood by mere Engliſh Readers. Beſides, I did not know whether ſome learned Men of your Church-Clergy might think well of a Tranſlation of my Additions; not becauſe I have any where oppoſed the Doctrins of the Church of England, but becauſe many, I can't tell why, are diſpleaſed that the Books of Strangers ſhould be read by their Countrymen. I have found this by experience, both before [Page] and not long ſince, when one that was a perfect Stranger to me, without my Knowledg and Conſent, turned into Engliſh the Lives of ſome Fathers that I had written in French a conſiderable time before, in the Bibliotheque Ʋniverſelle. For thoſe Engliſh Lives, which I have not yet ſeen, ſtirred up againſt me the learned Dr. Cave, who perhaps would have ſaid nothing about the French Lives; at leaſt he was till that time ſilent, when in truth he had no reaſon to reflect upon me for any thing I had ſaid in them, as I ſhall ſome time or other, and perhaps ſoon, ſhew. And yet there is no man it may be in the Continent, that has a greater value for the Engliſh Clergy, and other learned Men of that Nation, than I, or that ſpeaks or writes oftner in their praiſe; and this not out of Flattery (for what Advantages have I, or can have from thence, who have long ſince ſettled my ſelf in Holland?) but becauſe I am really of that mind. And this I have teſtified alſo by my Actions, having tranſlated ſeveral of their Writings into more known Languages than Engliſh, that every one might have the benefit of the Learning of the Engliſh Nation. What therefore can be the reaſon, why ſome Engliſh Gentlemen are unwilling to have my Writings read in Engliſh? I do not know, nor do I think my ſelf concerned to be very inquiſitive into it.

But as I am a lover of Peace, and utterly averſe to all Contention, it would perhaps have been more for my ſatisfaction if I had continued under the ſhelter, if I may ſo ſpeak, of the Latin Tongue, and ſo neither feared the raſh Cenſures of the ignorant, nor provoked the diſpleaſure of thoſe learned Men, who would have no body heard but themſelves. Yet ſince I am forced to take my Chance, and the Bookſeller has thought fit to make me appear to his Countrymen in Engliſh, I ſhall ſay a few things to you, as my Friend, by which I may perhaps remove the prejudices and miſapprehenſions of ſome People.

Since my Latin Verſion of Dr. Hammond was publiſhed, I find he is become very famous, by that multitude of Copies which have been diſperſed into all parts of Europe, and are much uſed by all that ſtudy the Scriptures. But notwithſtanding the eagerneſs of Buyers and Readers, there have been divers Cenſures paſſed upon this my Undertaking. And ſome of them are come to my knowledg, to which I ſhall briefly reply.

There are ſome who would not have had me taken up ſo much time and pains in tranſlating Dr. Hammond; but rather my ſelf have written a new Paraphraſe on the New Teſtament, adding thoſe things which I thought were omitted by other Interpreters. Theſe think too [Page] favourably of me, and not honourably enough of the learned Doctor. But I who know my ſelf and him better, and underſtand what it is to keep within compaſs, count it an honour to have my fragments added to his completer Labours; if I may but do it with the leave of thoſe who are of a contrary opinion. And that I ſpeak herein ſincerely, and not out of any feigned Modeſty, ſufficiently appears by the great trouble I have taken upon ſelf, more for Dr. Hammond's ſake than my own; for if I had not had a great eſteem for his Writings, I ſhould never have tranſlated ſuch a large Volume; nor would I have added any thing to idle Fictions, or ſpent time in confuting things, the weakneſs of which every one might ſee. And indeed as there are three things requiſite in an Interpreter, without which nothing extraordinary can be expected from him, and which, if any one has, he does ill except he employs them for the publick good; thoſe, in my judgment, were all found in Dr. Hammond. To wit, a knowledg of the Tongue wherein the Author writes whom we undertake to interpret, and the Subject of which he treats; a continual and careful reading of that Writer, ſo as to become perfect Maſters of his Stile and Method; and laſtly a ſort of Critical or Grammatical Habit, acquired by long Cuſtom, and confirmed by reading the beſt Interpreters, ſo as to be able to apply what we know of the Language and Things, skilfully and pertinently, whenever there is occaſion.

Dr. Hammond was not only a very skilful Divine, but an excellent Grecian and likewiſe Hebrician, the Idioms of which Language are often mixed by the Writers of the New Teſtament with Greek Expreſſions. They that underſtand only ſpeculative Divinity, often ſtumble in particular Paſſages, and many times look for Doctrins, true indeed in themſelves, but nothing at all to their purpoſe, in places where they are not; and know not how to make a right uſe of thoſe places whence they may really be deduced. They are contented not to oppoſe the received Doctrins, and think they cannot do amiſs in ſeeking them any where, provided the words do not too plainly oppoſe it. By which means we ſee the Antient Interpreters of Scripture, both Greek and Latin, becauſe they had no regard to Words or Grammar, but minded only truth of Doctrine, have ſtrangely miſtaken the genuin ſenſe of Scripture. Hence, in part, came innumerable vain Allegories; which I do not call vain, becauſe they contain falſe Doctrins, but becauſe they are grounded upon no certain reaſon. Hence proceeded the violent Interpretations, and pitiful Subtilties, with which the Writings of thoſe Interpreters abound. We need but read St. Auſtin's Commentaries on the Pſalms, where we ſhall ſcarce [Page] meet with a page, that has not ſome examples of this kind. Which if it were a true way of interpreting, any thing, almoſt might be proved or diſproved out of any place whatſoever. This Dr. Hammond carefully avoided, and would have avoided more, if ſome particular things had not a little too often occurred to his thoughts; as the Hereſy of the Gnoſticks, the Deſtruction of Jeruſalem, and Church-Diſcipline; which three things he frequently ſought for, where no body acquainted with the Apoſtles ſtile, had ever before look'd for them, and few again ever will. Yet, as I ſaid before, Dr. Hammond does not near ſo often daſh upon this Rock, as the Antient, or moſt late Interpreters, eſpecially thoſe who have written in the laſt Age. I might add this alſo, which is no ſmall commendation of his Annotations, that he follows moſtly that ſcheme of Divinity which is more agreable to Scripture, than the Opinions of many Interpreters, keeping a middle way between thoſe who deduce a ſort of fatal Neceſſity from all eternity, of which neceſſity the Mind of Man is a mere Inſtrument; and thoſe, who like the Heathens, are ſaid to deny that Vertue is at all owing to God.

No Man that reads his Annotations can doubt, whether he had that other faculty of an excellent Interpreter, which I ſaid lay in an exact knowledg of the ſtile of Scripture, and cannot be acquired but by a conſtant reading of it. We ſhall find but few Interpreters ſo well acquainted with the Sacred Writings: That frequent and exact comparing of the words and expreſſions of Scripture with one another, which the Reader, upon the firſt opening of the Book, may obſerve, puts this matter beyond all doubt.

The third Qualification, which I ſaid was a Critical Habit of judging concerning the meaning of places, tho it was not ſo great in him as the two former, was however conſiderable. And this I doubt not he attained by a diligent reading of the beſt Writers, eſpecially Grotius; and he would have acquired it in a much greater degree, if the conſtant trouble of defending the Church of England, againſt ſeveral ſorts of Adverſaries, had not diverted him. But if we compare him with the Antient Interpreters, or with the greateſt part of thoſe who have written in the foregoing Age, we ſhall find none among the Antients, and but few among thoſe of late, that can be thought his Equals. For the Antients tho they underſtood Greek, truſted more to their skill in Rhetorick than Language; and took more pleaſure in running out into common places, or Allegories, than in ſeriouſly interpreting words and expreſſions. Origen and St. Jerom, who beſides underſtood Hebrew, did alſo much more ſeldom [Page] uſe their knowledg in that kind, than a ſort of Eloquence which took much in their Age. And later Interpreters have been more induſtrious to fill up their Commentaries with their own Divinity, and Controverſies with other Sects of Chriſtians, than with ſtrict enquiries into the ſignification of Words and Phraſes. But Dr. Hammond, conſidering what is expected from an Interpreter, and knowing the difference between a Preacher or a Divine, and an Expoſitor of Scripture, ſets himſelf to perform the part of an Interpreter, and ſeldom concerns himſelf about any thing elſe.

Which being ſo, it cannot reaſonably be ſaid that I have ſpent my time ill in tranſlating Dr. Hammond's Annotations, or in illuſtrating, correcting, and enlarging them. But as mens Judgments commonly are, proceeding not from love to Truth, but from Paſſion, I find there are others, who whether really or ſeemingly, affirm that I am not indeed to be blamed for tranſlating Dr. Hammond; but for annexing thoſe things to his Annotations, wherein I often charge him with Error, or do otherwiſe contradict his Opinion; as if I were bound to aſſent to all that he ſays, or ought to have ſo great a reverence for him, as to be afraid of profeſſing that I think he was miſtaken in his interpretation of ſome Paſſages.

But to give theſe Men ſatisfaction, if they are willing to be ſatisfied, I would fain know which of the two ought to be moſt valued, Dr. Hammond's Honour, or Truth? The Reputation of a Man long ſince dead, and whoſe Opinions no Law divine or humane obliges us to follow; or the defence of immortal Truth, which we cannot forſake without offending both God and Men? If they are of that humour, that they had rather maintain the Honour of a learned Divine, as I before ſaid, but ſubject to error, than Truth, they are not fit to be ſpoken with. I will have no conteſt with ſuch Men as profeſs themſelves enemies to Truth; but ſhall leave them, without any reply, to the Mercy of their own perverſe Temper. But the Errors, they ſay, of great Men, ought to be conceal'd, rather than aggravated. I anſwer, I have no where aggravated any thing, but confuted him in the ſofteſt terms, whenever I ſuppoſed him in a miſtake. However, I don't think the greateſt Mens Faults ought to be conceal'd, who the greater they are thought to be, the more liable unwary men are to be deceived by them, and therefore whenever they are out of the way, they ought above all others to be ſet right again. It is juſt we ſhould forgive their Miſtakes, and bear with their Defects, in conſideration of their greater Vertues, and the notable Service they have done the learned World; but we ought not to let Errors [Page] paſs under the diſguiſe of Truths. It becomes all Candidates of Learning, eſpecially thoſe that ſtudy the Scriptures, to endeavour all they can, and contend earneſtly, that Truth upon all occaſions may appear; not that it may be concealed, out of reſpect to any man, or Error receiv'd inſtead of Truth. The only thing juſtly blamable, in thoſe who take upon them to correct the Miſtakes of great Men, is, if they charge them falſly, paſſionately, or maliciouſly, not for the manifeſtation of Truth, but to leſſen their Reputation; or if they endeavour to obſcure their great Excellencies, and ſeverely inveigh againſt ſmall Offences as unpardonable Crimes.

But when Miſtakes in men, that have otherwiſe done great ſervice to the World by their Learning, are modeſtly cenſured, only with this deſign, that others may not follow them in an Error; the Admirers of great Men are ſo far from having any reaſon to complain, that if thoſe great Men themſelves were to live again, they could not, without the greateſt ingratitude, and being chargeable with intolerable Pride, but thank thoſe that had civilly ſhewn them their Error, and ſet them in the right way. Men are not ſo perfect in this World as to be liable to no Miſtakes; and thoſe to whom we give the higheſt Commendations are not ſuch as have never erred, but whoſe Miſtakes are but few, or only in things of little moment. Let us not therefore extol Men ſo, as if the greatneſs of their Judgment, or Learning, had exempted them from the common danger of erring; nor on the contrary, think them excluded out of the number of great Men, becauſe they are convinced of ſome Error. I have ſo high an opinion of Dr. Hammond, upon reading over his Works, that I think there have been few Interpreters ever in the World comparable to him; tho I have often differ'd from him, and ſhewn ſometimes that he was miſtaken. So no man has a greater value for H. Grotius, or is more forward to commend him, or does it more frequently than I; yet I have ſometimes confuted him, both in theſe Additions and elſewhere, without any abatement of my eſteem or veneration for him. I am none of thoſe, who are always upon the extreams both in applauding men and reviling them. I am for commending, without envy, what is praiſe-worthy; and rejecting, without malice, what is oppoſite to Truth.

But you ought not, they ſay, to have mixed things of another kind with Dr. Hammond's Annotations. Why not? for it's true he ought not to have any thing attributed to him that he did not ſay; but in a Work publiſhed ſo long after his death, and that in another language, I don't ſee why I might not add what I thought wanting in him, [Page] tho perhaps he himſelf would not have approved of my Additions, if he had been alive. For I did not publiſh this work for his uſe, but of them who are now living, or for poſterity, who may reaſonably have a greater regard to Truth than to Dr. Hammond. They who do not like my Additions, may refuſe to buy them. They may get Dr. Hammond's Annotations in Engliſh by themſelves. But are there not great Volumes publiſhed both in England and Holland, in which the Commentaries of learned men both Papiſts and Proteſtantes, greatly differing in their opinions from one another, are printed together? And who even among the Papiſts, was ever diſpleaſed upon that account, or did not rather highly commend the deſign, becauſe by that means what is wanting in ſome is ſupplied by others? But tho I am not always of Dr. Hammond's judgment, yet the differences between us are much fewer, than between the Critical Interpreters of the Old and New Teſtament; and if they had not, I would certainly never have undertaken to tranſlate any thing of his. But becauſe I agreed with him as to the chief points of Religion and the manner of Interpreting, therefore I tranſlated his Annotations, tho I differ'd from him in ſome things. As I would have others bear with me whenever I diſagree with them, ſo I cannot only bear with, but alſo love and reſpect others when they diſagree with me. I count it an honour, as I ſaid before, to have my ſhort Remarks publiſhed with his accurate Labours; but if I may ſpeak a little boldly without offence, I do not think ſo meanly of my own performances as that their value, if it be any, can ſeem e're the leſs by their being joined with Dr. Hammond's. If I had thought ſo, I would never have publiſhed them either together or alone. I might be miſtaken indeed, as all men are commonly dim-ſighted in that which concerns themſelves; which whether it be true of me, let learned and impartial Readers only judg: but I could not but do what I thought fit to be done.

There is fallen lately into my hands an Engliſh Pamphlet intitled A Free but Modeſt Cenſure of ſome Controverſial Books written in Engliſh, and among the reſt of my Ars Critica, tho a Latin Treatiſe, and quite of another nature from thoſe Controverſies. To which there is alſo added the Authors judgment concerning my deſign in tranſlating Dr. Hammond, of which I ſhall here ſubjoin a few things. That Modeſt, but Free Writer, whoſoever he be, will not take it amiſs, or at leaſt cannot in reaſon, if I modeſtly and freely vindicate my intention. He [Page] ſays, it is a harmful project to publiſh Dr. Hammond''s Annotations on the New Teſtament, and at the ſame time to mix my own Additional Notes with them, This, ſays he, is a politick way to promote the Cauſe, eſpecially in England, where the Works of that learned and pious Annotator are in ſo great eſteem: When his Criticiſms and Interpretations are blended with the Socinian ones, how eaſily will they be both imbibed together? I thought fit to caution my Countrymen about this hazard, that they may not be betrayed into Error, even the worſt of Errors, whilſt they are intent upon ſtudying the Truth.

The Cauſe I have undertaken to defend, both in all my other printed Works, and my Additions to Dr. Hammond, is no other than the Cauſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles; whoſe Authority alone (in matters of Religion) all Proteſtants think is to be regarded and followed, if we may judg of their Opinion by the Confeſſions they ſubſcribe; of which mind I always was and ever ſhall be. I value the Authority of Socinus, or any other uninſpired perſons whatever, deſtitute of reaſon, no more than Dr. Hammond's or the Council of Trent's. When I think they agree with Chriſt and his Apoſtles, I aſſent to them; and if not, I differ from them. I never read all Socinus his Works, nor like his peculiar Opinions, ſo far as I know them, any more than other mens, whom I judg to be in an Error. Nay, I have ſometimes confuted them, and as I ſee occaſion ſhall confute more of them; not with a deſign to make his Followers odious, or to gain the favour of any Mortal, but to vindicate Truth. However, I am not of their mind who becauſe men err in ſome things, that are otherwiſe obedient to the Precepts of the Goſpel, and look for the coming of Chriſt to judg the quick and the dead, after the reſurrection, by the rule of the Goſpel, and reward the Good and puniſh the Wicked; and think not that they can attain Salvation by any other means, than the Faith they have in Chriſt, as one ſent from God, which Faith alone they hope by the mercy of God, to have imputed to them for righteouſneſs: I am not, I ſay, of their mind that ſentence ſuch men to everlaſting Flames, into which they would, if they were able, immediately hurry them, without the leaſt mercy; and in the mean time decree in a cruel manner to perſecute them with Execrations, and Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Puniſhments. I have not ſo learned Chriſt, I do not find the Apoſtles ever acted in that manner: and whilſt they are ſilent, and do not lead the way by their Example, I had rather incur the danger of being too merciful, than expoſe my ſelf to the Charge of the leaſt Cruelty and Barbarity. God will much ſooner forgive [Page] them that heartily love him, that is, who keep his Commandments, and eſpecially that great and ſo often repeated one of loving our Neighbour, their exceſſive Charity, if any Charity can be exceſſive towards men fearing God and Chriſt, tho in ſome things erroneous; than that horrible inhumanity, with which they are frequently defamed, and perſecuted, and forced to endure all manner of Puniſhments, only becauſe they profeſs themſelves not to believe, what they think Chriſt or his Apoſtles never revealed. I had infinitely rather ſtand in the number of the merciful, before the tribunal of the great Judg, than in the company of Perſecutors, whatever their Riches or Honours are in this World. I had rather be in the mean while evil ſpoken of and ſuſpected of Errors, which I am as far from as can be, than appear by any means to countenance ſuch Barbarity.

Nor am I of their mind, who oppoſe thoſe that differ from them with any kind of Arguments, after the example of bad Lawyers, who deny all that their Adverſaries affirm, and affirm all they deny. Truth, in my judgment, can never be well defended but by Truth. Let others contend with Paſſion, and affirm what it is the intereſt of their party ſhould ſeem true, or deny, not that which they are ſure is falſe, but which they think it neceſſary ſhould appear ſo, that their ſide may prevail; as for me I will always ſay what I think true, and ſhall never fear any danger to the Chriſtian Religion from Truth. This was heretofore the mind of a great man, for whom Dr. Hammond had always a very high value, whom he often tranſcribed, whom he defended againſt the Calumnies of his Adverſaries, and in whoſe praiſe he every where ſpeaks. All know very well that I deſcribe Hugo Grotius, who whenever he thought Socinus, or Crellius, truly interpreted any place of Scripture, made no ſcruple to follow them; tho he knew at the ſame time that ſome ill minded men reviled him for it. Wherefore Dr. Hammond has juſtly more than once pleaded his Cauſe, as every one, that has read over the ſecond Volume of his Works, knows.

I am not at all for diminiſhing Dr. Hammond's Reputation, as I have already ſufficiently declared; I do not deny but he was a pious and learned man; nay if I had not thoſe thoughts of him, I would never have undertaken to tranſlate one line of his Writings. But my Animadverſions neither need his Piety nor Learning to make them be read, if they are valuable; and if they are not, the Learning and Piety of Dr. Hammond will not procure me the Reader's favour: on the [Page] contrary, if I am any where miſtaken, the comparing them with Dr. Hammond will but render my Miſtakes the more viſible. But Socinian Doctrins, ſays my Cenſurer, will be imbibed with the true. I anſwer, I have before denyed, that I follow Socinus as my Guide; but I don't underſtand why this Cenſurer ſhould be ſo much afraid leſt the true Doctrins aſſerted by Dr. Hammond ſhould not be effectual to prevent the ill impreſſions▪ that falſe and Socinian Interpretations may make upon Readers minds. If I were to reaſon after his manner, I ſhould ſay that this Cenſurer is a cloſe Socinian; who by ſecret methods e [...]ours to advance the credit of Socinus his Opinions. For it muſt needs be a very powerful Doctrine in his apprehenſion, which if any, tho never ſo little, of it be mixed with the Writings of Orthodox Divines, it ſo obſcures all their Reaſons, that whether they will or no, it is eaſily imbibed. This way of arguing tends more to magnify and promote, than to depreſs and extinguiſh Socinianiſm, againſt which the moſt learned Annotations on the New Teſtament are not, it ſeems, a ſufficient Preſervative. Beſides this, there is another thing which gives ground for ſuſpicion, and it is what my Cenſurer, and other ſuch as he generally ſtand by. To wit, If a perſon be any thing ingenious, or more learned than ordinary, and writes out of the common road, he is preſently a Socinian; as if all men of ſenſe muſt needs turn Socinians. We have lately had a remarkable inſtance of this in the worthy and ingenious Mr. Lock, who, becauſe he reaſons more accurately about many things, than any before him had done, in his Excellent Treatiſe of Humane Ʋnderſtanding, is immediately cried down as a Socinian, by this Cenſurer and others. This is in earneſt to favour the Socinians, to make all good wits of their number. Juſt ſuch reports were formerly ſpread at Hug. Grotius, and Ren. Carteſius; which were no diſgrace at all to thoſe men, but an honour to the Socinians. So Eraſmus was before charged with Arianiſm, by the Monks of thoſe times, and others no better than they; as if it had been impoſſible for a man of his capacity to be Orthodox. I am conſcious to my ſelf how far I come ſhort of thoſe great men in learning and natural abilities; but if my Cenſurer was in earneſt in the commendations he beſtows upon me, he muſt needs own, that thoſe endowments of mind which he attributes to me, were alſo the occaſion of my falling into thoſe Opinions, which he calls the worst of errors. But if he only flatter'd me, that he might ſpeak the more ſpitefully of me afterwards, let me tell him, that feigned Reſpect is an argument of very little candour, to ſay no worſe of it.

[Page]If he will ſay that Socinus was miſtaken in a great many things, I fully agree with him; but I can reckon up a great many worſe Errors than his, whereof I ſhall mention but one out of reſpect to my Cenſurer: that is, of thoſe who think men deſerve eternal Torments whom Chriſt never condemned; who by all means perſecute thoſe that differ from them, tho they own themſelves to be as liable to Error as the very men whom they perſecute; who, in a word, think they may upon very ſlight ſuſpicions traduce men that are heartily devoted to Chriſtianity, and ſober in their lives, as a kind of Plagues to be carefully ſhunned. He that does not aſcribe to Chriſt, what he thinks Chriſt never aſſumed to himſelf, if otherwiſe he perform conſtant obedience to all his Precepts which he fully underſtands, may obtain the forgiveneſs of his Ignorance from a moſt favourable and compaſſionate Judg; but he that breaks the Command of loving his Neighbour, which is as clear as the Sun at noon-day, by Slandering, and Bitterneſs, and Cruelty, and dies in thoſe Vices, ſhall never, unleſs a new Goſpel be made for him, be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Here I might take leave of my Cenſurer; but becauſe he has thought fit to ſet ſuch another mark of Infamy upon my Ars Critica, I ſhall briefly ſhew, that he is mightily miſtaken, and did not diligently read what he was reſolved to condemn. He ſays in the firſt place, that my Deſign in that Treatiſe was, by a new and cunning way to propagate Socinianiſm. But I who know my own mind and purpoſe a great deal better, utterly deny it: and there is nothing in the thing it ſelf, which argues that I did ſo undeſignedly. My intent was to ſhew how Students might arrive to a ſolid and uſeful ſort of Learning. And therefore I intermixed a great many Examples, taken from things of the greateſt moment, to prove that Criticiſm was no contemptible Art.

But my Cenſurer produces ſome Paſſages by which he endeavours to ſhew that my Deſign was to clear the way for Socinianiſm; which places I ſhall briefly conſider, that every one may ſee with what Integrity and Modeſty he deſcants upon them.

I ſaid in Part 1. Chap. 1. §. 3. That many things in the Writings of the Antients had a reſpect to the Opinions of their Times; which muſt therefore be known, that we may underſtand what they mean. Ita cum Judaeorum praecipua in divino cultu ceremonia in ſacrificio eſſent ſita; ideo in Novo Teſtamento omnia fere pietatis officia ſacrificii nomine interdum indigitari. So becauſe the chief Ceremony of the Jews in divine[Page]Worſhip was Sacrificing, therefore in the New Teſtament almost all religious duties are ſometimes expreſſed by the name of Sacrifices. Then I add, Mortem Chriſti ſacrificium quoque vocari, quod fuerit praecipua ejus pietatis pars, & quaedam habeat ſacrificiis ſimilia: That the death of Chriſt is called alſo a Sacrifice, becauſe it was the chief part of his Obedience, and had ſome things in it reſembling Sacrifices. Here my Cenſurer tranſlated my words ſo negligently, that he renders the Phraſe ejus pietatis, of that Religion, as if I had a reſpect to the Jewiſh Religion; whereas I manifeſtly ſpeak of Chriſt's Piety towards his Father. Then hence he infers, that I ſuppoſe the Sacrifice of Chriſt was only a metaphorical and improper Sacrifice, to ſide with thoſe that reject Chriſt's Satisfaction. But what kind of Logick is this? That action of Chriſt, by which he principally redeemed men, is called a Sacrifice, by a Phraſe taken from the Cuſtom of the Jews, tho it did not in all things reſemble a Sacrifice: therefore Chriſt did not redeem us. By what revelation came my Cenſurer to know, that to the end Chriſt might redeem men, it was requiſite he ſhould be ſlain juſt like a Victim, without any manner of difference? And how will he prove that there was every thing in the death of Chriſt which was obſervable in a Sacrifice? It's certain the Prieſt and the Sacrifice was not the ſame; the Sacrifice was ſlain in a conſecrated place, the Blood of it was poured out at the foot of an Altar; and many other Rites were uſed, none of which, properly ſpeaking, were obſerved in Chriſt's Crucifixion. Notwithſtanding which, the Death of Chriſt might have all the efficacy of a Sacrifice. It is fit, for my Cenſurer's information, to obſerve that we are not to ſeek for all the circumſtances of a Sacrifice in the death of Chriſt; becauſe in ſo doing men often mix their own rotten Inventions with divine Revelation: as for inſtance, ſome inconſiderately ſay, that the Croſs was an Altar; whereas there neither was, nor could be, any Altar in this Oblation, upon which the Sacrifice was to be conſecrated; as it was in the Levitical Sacrifices. But this every one knows, and I would not have mention'd it, but that my Cenſurer ſpeaks as if he was ignorant of it. As for his ſaying that what I affirm of the word Sacrifice being attributed to the Death of Chriſt, is nothing to the buſineſs of which I undertook to treat in that place of my Ars Critica, I leave that to the examination of the Reader. I have not ſo much time to ſpare, that I ſhould always be teaching the Elements of Logick or Grammar.

[Page]In Part II. §. 1. c. 3. I have put it beyond all doubt, that tho the most high God is ſtiled by the Jews Elohim, yet that word ſignifies God, as he is the object of Worſhip, [...], not his most perfect Nature. I have ſhewn alſo that the word [...] was uſed by the Jews that ſpake Greek, by the Gentiles and the Chriſtians themſelves in the ſame ſenſe; which is of no ſmall uſe to the underſtanding of innumerable Paſſages in antient Writers, both ſacred and profane, which would otherwiſe be very obſcure. Nothing can be more evident; and the deſign of the whole Chapter, to thoſe who are not wilfully blind, is very plain. The thing it ſelf is not oppoſed by my unknown Cenſurer, becauſe it is undeniable, and is confirmed by the Conſent of the moſt learned men; but he ſuſpects that my deſign in writing it was, to intimate that tho our Saviour might be the object of divine Worſhip, yet that he is not God. Whether he ſpeaks as he thinks I cannot tell, be that to himſelf; but I beſeech him never to treat any other man at the ſame rate as he has done me. For to pretend to know the ſecret deſigns of Men, is not only immodest, but ſenſleſs; and in this matter I aſſure him he is utterly miſtaken. I never thought Chriſt might be the object of divine Worſhip, tho he was not God: that would be mere Idolatry. Nay, the Socinians themſelves do not ſay that Chriſt ought to be worſhipped as the moſt high God, while they do not think him to be the moſt high God; but only with ſuch a Worſhip as is due to an Ambaſſador from the ſupreme Majeſty. I would have my Cenſurer read their Books before he undertakes to oppoſe them; and not attribute to me what neither I nor any man elſe ever imagin'd. It is not the part of a modest Man to cavil at what he does not underſtand, nor of a man of Candor, to miſrepreſent other mens Principles.

In the following Chap. IV. I ſaid I did not think there was any Emphaſis in this Phraſe, thou ſhalt die the death, Gen. ii.16. but that it ſignified ſimply, Death; and I rejected both the Opinion of S. Auſtin, who looks here for I know not how many kinds of Death, and thoſe who interpret it of Mortality, which Interpretation I affirmed to be contrary to the conſtant uſe of the Hebrew Language. What ſays my Cenſurer to this? Does he ſhew that Uſe is againſt me? Does he prove that I was miſtaken? By no means; but he contends that I ſide with a Party, viz. of Socinians; as if there were not learned Interpreters of all Parties that reject that Interpretation; which can be defended by no Example, but only by weak Arguments. Beſides, for my Cenſurer's ſatisfaction, tho I do not think Mortality is there meant, [Page] yet I doubt not but Adam was immortal before he ſinned, and that he really became mortal by Sin, which he might have underſtood from my Commentary on Gen. iii.19.

In the ſame Chapter I proved by manifeſt Examples, not only out of Heathen Writers, but out of S. Paul and Joſephus, that the Phraſe to write laws in the heart, in Jeremiah, is not to make them neceſſarily be obeyed, but only remembred without a Monitor. My Cenſurer ſays, that the Prophet ſpeaks of the New Covenant, which I never denied; then he adds, that this Phraſe ſignifies that by virtue of the holy Spirit the underſtandings of the faithful are ſo enlightned, and their wills and conſciences ſo effectually wrought upon, that they are enabled to obſerve the Law. But by what undoubted. Example does he prove this? None at all. Nor could it any more than that irreſiſtible efficacy, be demonſtrated by any Theological Arguments. But I have proved by examples out of St. Paul Rom. ii.15. and Joſephus, that that Phraſe is not to be ſtrained too far. And as to St. Paul's words, my Cenſurer ſays nothing, only he denies that examples taken out of Heathen Writers are any proofs; as if I had produced none but them. Then he ſays that in the paſſages of Joſephus, the Writing of the Law in Mens Minds, and the preſerving it in their Memories, ſeem to him to be two diſtinct things. But let the Reader conſult thoſe places, and he will wonder at the ſhrewdneſs of this free Cenſurer.

I ſaid that by this Phraſe of St. Luke in Acts xvi.14. The Lord opened her Heart, that ſhe attended to thoſe things which were ſpoken of Paul, was meant no more than that, by divine Providence it came to paſs, (quibuſcunque tandem machinis uſus ſit Deus) whatever engines God made uſe of that Lydia attentively gave ear to St. Paul: As ſufficiently appears by the foregoing Examples. My Cenſurer thinks this to be a ſtrange expreſſion, quibuſcunque tandem machinis uſus ſit Deus; as if any that underſtood Latin did not know it to be a metaphorical Phraſe taken from Cities, are batter'd with Engines. And my uſing ſuch a Metaphor cannot ſeem ſtrange to thoſe, who have read in St. Paul 2 Cor. x.4. that the Weapons of the Apoſtles warfare were not Carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of ſtrongholds. For why may not I uſe ſuch another Metaphor, and ſay Engines? Who, beſides, that has any thing of Learning does not know that the beſt Latin Writers uſe that word in this Metaphorical ſenſe? Let my Cenſurer read but this Paſſage of Cicero in Epiſt. xviii. to Brutus: ad reliquos his quoque labor mihi acceſſit, ut omnes adhibeam machinas, ad tenendum adoleſcentem. But would you know, good Sir, what thoſe machines were, which God [Page] made uſe of to open the Heart of Lydia, ſeeing I have not expreſſed my Mind more clearly in my Ars Critica? Why they were thoſe ſpiritual Weapons of St. Paul, by which he pulled down ſtrong holds; namely, the Goſpel, which opens the Hearts of its Hearers, unleſs they are wilfully ſhut againſt God's call. So the Jews ordinarily ſaid that the Law opened their Hearts, as you may be informed by Lud. Cappellus on Luke xxiv.25. A ſort of Inſpiration whereby God works upon all the hearers of the Goſpel, to enable them to receive it as they ought, if it be not their own fault, or upon ſome only, whom he irreſiſtibly works upon, is no where intimated in Scripture, as ſome of the moſt learned Men have long ſince ſhewn, whom my Cenſurer may read. Whereas he ſays that I inſiſt upon the ambiguity of the words to redeem, and Spirit, on purpoſe to patronize Socinianiſm, that is but the repetition of a Calumny which he brings over ſo often as to make it nauſeous. He can't deny that what I ſaid is true, but to leſſen my Reputation, he pretends I wrote it with an ill deſign. I muſt undoubtedly, to pleaſe him, not only have reviled the Socinians, but made my ſelf alſo a Liar, or concealed the Truth, that they might be the more eaſily refuted, or rather ſeem to be ſo. Then the commendableneſs of my deſign would have made all my diſſimulations and falſhoods praiſe-worthy: But theſe are the tricks of a Man whoſe own Conſcience condemns him, and who is a great favourer of the Socinian cauſe, whilſt to undiſcerning Perſons he ſeems to oppoſe it. Which if it was not my Cenſurer's deſign, as I will not affirm; at leaſt he manages things ſo, that it is as eaſy to ſee he is as unfit a Man to put an end to that Controverſy, as he is good at detracting and calumniating.

In Cap. vii. I ſhewed that [...] are properly Gods, by the inſtitution of Men, or ſuch as are accounted Gods. And yet, ſays my Cenſurer, ſuch was our Saviour, ſay the Socinian Maſters, he is a God by divine Inſtitution. Therefore hence he ought to have inferred, if he would be conſiſtent with himſelf, that it was not my deſign to gratify the Socinians, whom yet he unfitly compares to the Heathens.

In the viiith Chapter I ſaid that irreſiſtible Grace, which is aſſerted by S. Auſtin, did not ſeem to me to be agreable to Scripture; and that the word Grace had no evident meaning in it. My Cenſurer does not prove the contrary, but endeavours to make me odious, for ſaying that St. Auſtin was a popular Speaker, but no Critick. As if that were not a thing very well known to all that have read his Works, or as if any doubted of it. I eaſily believe my Cenſurer never read St. Auſtin's works, in which I deal more fairly with him, than he does with me. Otherwiſe I [Page] ſhould ſay that either he had no knowledg at all of the Holy Scriptures, or a great deal of impudence, who ſhould attribute to St. Auſtin a critical Skill, and that in the Scriptures (for here the Diſcourſe is about the interpretation of Scripture) and endeavour to make me ill thought of for denying it. He calls him a pious and learned Father, which titles he gives to Dr. Hammond, whom he knew to be of a contrary opinion. But in this matter St. Auſtin neither thought piouſly, nor wrote learnedly of God. And as little piety or learning does he ſhew in his Epiſtles to Boniface and Vincentius; where he zealouſly defends Perſecution on the account of Religion, and that with very abſurd Arguments. He was one of the very firſt that promoted ſome two Doctrins, which take away all Goodneſs and Juſtice, both from God and Men. For by the one God is repreſented as creating the greateſt part of Mankind to damn them, and ſentence them to eternal Torments, for Sins committed by another, or which they themſelves could not avoid; and by the other, Magiſtrates, and all that have the Adminiſtration of publick Affairs, are ſtirred up to perſecute thoſe that differ from them in matters of Religion. However that firſt Doctrin might be born with, becauſe if any Man raſhly ſhuts others out of Heaven, and erroneouſly reflects upon the Goodneſs and Juſtice of God, provided he does not perſecute thoſe that differ from him, and force them to profeſs themſelves of his Opinion; he does more hurt to himſelf than others, becauſe God is nevertheleſs Gracious and Merciful. But he that is for being cruel to thoſe that differ from him, does miſchief both to others, and to the Truth. He makes himſelf a Beaſt, and forfeits eternal Happineſs, which is promiſed to reaſonable Creatures, not to Savages; he perſecutes the innocent, and expoſes them to innumerable Calamities; in fine, he diſparages Truth, if he defends it by ſuch Methods; and if he oppoſes it, he profanes the moſt Sacred thing in the World, and fights againſt God who is its Author. And this is no vain fear about what perhaps will never be; we have reaſon to be afraid leſt St. Auſtin's Authority ſhould move Chriſtians to perſecute one another for differences in Religion. The thing is actually come to paſs already; for a certain great and powerful Monarch, in whoſe Kingdom many thouſands of Proteſtants lately lived, was chiefly by that Father's Authority moved to attempt and execute thoſe things; for which all Europe has juſtly rung with the loud Complaints of poor wretches that have been forc'd to fly their Country. It's certain the French King, who is otherwiſe no Tyrant, could not by any means have been induced to cancel all his paſt Edicts in favour [Page] of the Reformed; and make uſe of the barbarity of Souldiers, to extort from them a confeſſion which none of the Clergy of that Kingdom could by all their falſe reaſonings bring them to, unleſs it were after the foremention'd Letters of St. Auſtin had been read to him, whoſe Authority, being impoſed upon by Flatterers, he thought he might ſafely follow. Let my Cenſurer go now and reſent my being ſo hardy as to ſay the truth of St. Auſtin. I ſpeak in that manner, who do not uſe, like many others, to calumniate the Living, and ſpeak untruths in favour of the Dead.

My Cenſurer pretends, that in Chap. ix. where I ſaid that Philoſophers and Divines often uſe words that have no meaning in them, and which if any one deſire them to interpret, they can give no ſolid anſwer, for which I inſtanc'd in the words Tranſubſtantiation and Conſubſtantiation. My Cenſurer, I ſay, pretends that I have a reſpect alſo to the Trinity, and other particular points belonging to the ſame matter. This forſooth is that modeſt Cenſurer, otherwiſe called ſearcher of Hearts, who can divine what other Men think, tho they are never ſo profoundly ſilent. Were I to make a Conjecture from what he has written, I ſhould ſay that he did not only exterminate Charity, but even Juſtice and Truth out of the number of Chriſtian Vertues. But I had rather think he erred through I know not what Paſſion, that hurried him to the violation of thoſe Duties of Religion, which he himſelf accounted the moſt ſacred.

My Interpretation of the words Righteouſneſs of God, in Chap. xii.17. for God's righteous Precepts, has no affinity with the peculiar Doctrins of the Socinians, unleſs it be in the brains of a Man that ſees things where they are not, and has conceived ſuch a dreadful Notion of the Socinians, that upon the leaſt noiſe he preſently imagins a whole Army of them to be coming upon him. I am ſure Crellius and Schlictingius, their chief Leaders, give us a quite different interpretation of this place.

In Chap. xiv. I did not ſay that St. John had the ſame thoughts of the eternal Reaſon, as Plato; but only called the Divinity which dwelt in Chriſt, [...], in a Platonical manner; and added, that it remained to be enquir'd whether S. John underſtood that word in a Platonical ſenſe, plainly intimating that I thought the ſame word might be taken in different notions. I ſaid alſo that if that word were to be underſtood in a Platonical ſenſe in St. John, we ſhould be forced to go over▪ to the Arians; which, according to the opinion my Cenſurer repreſents me to be of, no Man in his wits would ſay it were neceſſary to do. [Page] But this ſearcher into Hereſies forgot that Platoniſm or Arianiſm was very different from Socinianiſm. And he knows not, or makes as if he did not know, that I have in a particular Diſſertation, explained the beginning of St. John's Goſpel, in a ſenſe contrary to Platoniſm. Whereas I ſaid that all Chriſtians do at this day very much differ from the Opinion of the Nicene Council, he knows that can be manifeſtly proved from Engliſh Books, not to mention Latin. He knows very well that the learned Dr. Cudworth has proved that the Nicene Fathers, and others, thought the three Hypoſtaſes to be three equal Gods, as we ſhould now expreſs it. Let him read alſo the Life of Gregory Nazianzen, which I have written, and has been tranſlated into Engliſh, if he does not underſtand French; and he will find that Gregory was undoubtedly of that Opinion. The thing is ſo clear, that it cannot be queſtion'd by thoſe who have conſider'd it. But of this elſewhere.

In Chap. xvi. I rejected the myſtical and high flown interpretations, and [...] of the Antients which are deſtitute of reaſon; and I ſtill reject them, with all the beſt Interpreters of Scripture. I value Rhetorical Arguments, which depend only upon the Speakers fancy, and are not to be tried by the rule of right Reaſon, no more than my Cenſurer's Calumnies, which are the products of his own fruitful brain. Such is his ſaying that I rejected the Rhetorical Diſcourſes of the Fathers, becauſe I think all things to be clear and plain in Chriſtianity, and that no Myſtery is to be admitted. Of which there is not ſo much as one word in that Chapter, where I ſpeak of vain Rhetorick, and not of the obſcurity or perſpicuity or Religion. I never thought we had a clear and perfect Notion of all things revealed, as I have ſufficiently ſhewn in the 2d Part of my Ars Critica, where I treat of clear and adequate Notions. My Cenſurer, who knows the ſecret Thoughts of mens Hearts, ought to have known what I had written in a Treatiſe he took upon him to cenſure. But he read it only to find matter of Calumny, not to do himſelf any good by it.

What I ſaid about Concrete and Abſtract Notions in Part. ii. c. 5. let my Cenſurer read over again a little more ſedately; and he will find I had great reaſon to ſay that the names of Synods were names of abſtract Ideas; becauſe many attributed to them things which rather ſhould have been in them, than which really were ſo, to heighten their Authority to the prejudice of Religion. The Council of Trent is alone enough to ſhew the neceſſity of this Obſervation. But theſe Leſſons were written for the ſake of ſuch as love Truth; not [Page] ſuch as are ready to defend or oppoſe any thing for Reward.

In the viiith Chap. of the ſame Part, I ſaid that all Men had not the ſame Notion of God, but ſome a larger and more noble one, and others a meaner and more contracted one, of which I alledged very plain examples, which I thought were almoſt uſeleſs, becauſe no Man that had the leaſt knowledg of Mankind could have any doubt of it. But this Cenſurer neither underſtood what I ſaid, nor himſelf, while he affirms that theſe are no very reverent thoughts of God. They only think irreverently of God, who either worſhip Idols, or after they have endeavour'd, without any regard to Truth, Juſtice or Charity, to defame Men that fear God, think they have deſerved well of Religion and their Country, and that therefore thoſe Revenues are due to them, which the Piety of the Antient Chriſtians inſtituted only in favour of good and learned Men, not of Slanderers.

Afterwards my Cenſurer upbraids me for reciting in Part iii. ſeveral places of the New Teſtament, wherein the Diſcourſe is of Chriſt, corrupted by bad Men in the antient Copies, whether they thought well or ill of Chriſt; which I did not enquire into, nor did I deduce any Conſectary, relating to any Theological Doctrin, from thence. He does not ſhew that there was no alteration made in thoſe Copies, becauſe he could not; but he interprets all theſe things in a bad ſenſe according to his cuſtom. What he himſelf thinks of theſe things, I cannot tell, nor am I concern'd to know; but I muſt needs ſays he defends the Cauſe which he affirms to be the beſt, both here and elſewhere; juſt as the moſt deſperate Cauſes uſe to be defended; that is, by concealing Truth, and endeavouring to make thoſe who declare it, as odious as is poſſible. Which whether it be for the honour of a Party, I leave him to conſider, and thoſe whoſe province that is.

At laſt he concludes his unjuſt Accuſations with an Obſervation, which effectually confutes almoſt all he had ſaid before: to wit, that I have alledged nothing new in favour of the Socinians about thoſe places, nor endeavour'd to confute Biſhop Pearſon, and Biſhop Stillingfleet. For thence he ought to have inferred, that I had another deſign, which I ſhould not have executed otherwiſe than I have done, if there had never been any Socinians in the World. My intention having been only to ſhew the uſe of Criticks in things of the greateſt moment, and if I am not miſtaken, I have reached my end. The reſt of what my Cenſurer ſays, has either been already confuted, or does not deſerve conſideration.

[Page]This, worthy Sir, is what I thought fit to ſay of Dr. Hammond and my Ars Critica, which I had a mind ſhould be publiſhed, that the World might have this Teſtimonial of my Intentions, not to engage my ſelf in a Quarrel with my Cenſurer; who if he be not brought to righter Apprehenſions by what I have here ſaid, no Arguments would ever convince him. Let him now call himſelf to an account for his Accuſations, and not hope that God ſhould be propitious to him, unleſs he repent of his unchriſtian Behaviour; which I ſpeak with ſo hearty a good will to him, that I earneſtly pray God not to lay this thing to his charge, but rather reduce him to a better Mind.

YOƲRS, J. LE CLERC.

Amſterdam, Jan. 25. 1698/9.

Errata.

P. 3. lin. 8. r. their bold. P. 48. l. 8. r. deep rooting, or like weeds. P. 95. l. 16. r. Verſ. 51. P. 214. l. 13. f. has not r. had. P. 234. l. 14. f. Ibid. r. Verſ. 28. Note h. P. 473, and 475. run Tit. r. COLOSSIANS. P. 545. l. 18. r. compared [...] former, yet they.

ADDITIONS TO Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE New Teſtament. Addition to the Annotation on the Title of the whole Book.

[Page]

T0 this which Dr. Hammond has obſerved of the word διαθήκη, if we add what is ſaid of the ſame word by Grotius, there will remain but this one thing further to be noted, whereby many places of Scripture, yea, the whole Chriſtian Doctrin may be illuſtrated: Namely, that the word [...], in whatever ſenſe it be taken, is metaphorical, and borrowed from the Cuſtoms of Men; for Covenants and Teſtaments properly ſo called, are only made amongst Men. Now Metaphorical Terms are ſeldom grounded upon a perfect Similitude between thoſe things, to which they are indifferently applied; and therefore they cannot always be ſcrued up to the whole Latitude of their natural ſignification. It is ſufficient if there be any Agreement, tho but ſmall, between [Page] the thing, of which any word is uſed in a metaphorical ſenſe, and that which it properly ſignifies. So that all that can be inferred from the bare word, is, that the ſeveral things expreſſed by it, have ſome affinity with one another. And in order to determin wherein that ſimilitude lies, we muſt carefully conſider both things themſelves: Which being done, we may argue from the thing to the ſignification of the word, but not from the word to the thing.

So that from the ſacred Writers calling the Laws of God [...] a Covenant or Teſtament, this only in the firſt place can be concluded, that there is ſome likeneſs between the Laws of God and Covenants or Teſtaments. But that we may diſtinctly know wherein that likeneſs conſiſts, we muſt firſt conſider in what manner God deals with Men, ſetting aſide all metaphorical Notions, and looking as narrowly as poſſible into things themſelves; then we muſt enquire what Men do when they enter into Covenants, or make Teſtaments; and laſtly, by a compariſon of both, we may gather the true ſenſe of the metaphorical Word or Phraſe. So that they labour in vain, who whilſt things themſelves remain obſcure, deduce as many Similitudes as they can from words.

Now if we conſider the way in which God deals with Men under the Goſpel, and then think what is ordinarily done in Teſtaments, we ſhall find that there is only this ſimilitude between the Goſpel and a Teſtament, that in both there is ſomething given, and in both Death intervenes. So that wherever the Goſpel is called a Teſtament, provided the Speaker can be thought to have a clear knowledg of things themſelves, only one or other of theſe will be ſignified. For this is alſo to be carefully obſerved, that the mind of the Speaker muſt be known before [...]ny thing be affirmed of it; for tho two things agree in many particulars, yet we often think but of one, or a few of them, and would not always have them all urged. To illuſtrate this by an example, It appears from the place in Heb. ix.16, 17. which Dr. Hammond here interprets, that the Sacred Writer only compares the Goſpel and a Teſtament ſo far, as there is a Death and Gift in both. And therefore the ſignification of the word [...] ought not, as to thoſe words, to be extended any farther. In like [Page] manner where it is taken for a Covenant, it is not to be inferred that all thoſe things are to be ſought for in God's 0economy, either Old or New, that are obſervable in Covenants, and that every thing muſt be interpreted according to the Notion of a Covenant. From a ſteddy conſideration of the thing it ſelf, it appears that God's Diſpenſations are nothing but Laws: And therefore whatever is ſaid about foederal Signs, by which God and Men do more cloſely bind themſelves to one another, being beſides Scripture, and not to be certainly concluded from the word Covenant, is perhaps to be reckon'd among thoſe things, which Divines have more ſubtilly invented than ſolidly proved. God has no where declared that it was his deſign to deal with Men ſo as that all his Diſpenſations ſhould perfectly reſemble Covenants, even in the ſmalleſt Circumſtances.

But perhaps ſome may reply that ſometimes neither the mind of the Speaker, nor things themſelves are ſufficiently known to us, and ask what we are to think then of the ſignification of words: I do not ſee what elſe can be done in ſuch a caſe, than to determine nothing raſhly as if it were certain. It is undoubtedly the part of a wiſe Man to refrain from judging of what is doubtful, and I confeſs I do not know, in this dark ſtate of Mortality, what can be ſafer than laying ſuch a reſtraint upon our ſelves. But this Doctrin will pleaſe but few, becauſe moſt Men love to conceal their Ignorance, and had rather ſeem learned than really be ſo. This may ſuffice to have been ſaid once for all about an over ſubtil interpretation of metaphorical words, that I may have no occaſion to inculcate it.

Addit. to the Remark on the words [...] in the Title of the firſt Goſpel, after theſe words, ſtill remaining to us.] Barnabas who wrote in the ſame Age with St. Matthew, Ep. Cath. c iii. cites this Goſpel in theſe words: Attendamus ergo, ne forte, ſicut ſcriptum eſt, multi vocati, pauci electi, inveniamur. Let us take heed therefore, leſt we ſhould be found as it is written, many are called, but few are choſen. Theſe words are twice found in St. Matthew Chap. xx.16. and xxii.14. and in no other place of Scripture. For it is obſervable that St. Matthew is here cited as Scripture, as that [Page] form of Speech, SICƲT SCRIPTƲM eſt, manifeſtly ſhews: whence we may infer in how great Eſteem this Goſpel was, as ſoon as ever it was publiſhed. Hence it came to paſs that when Barnabas his Sepulchre was thought to have been found out by Revelation, by Anthemius Biſhop of Salamis in Cyprus, it was feigned that St. Matthew's Goſpel was found alſo on the breaſt of Barnabas, written in Tables of Thyne wood (Thyinis tabulis.) See Theodor. Lector Lib. 11. at the beginning: and Nicephorus Calliſt. Lib. xvi. c. 37. and Suidas on the word [...]. It is reported alſo that the ſame Goſpel was carried by Bartholomew into India, that is Aethiopia, where it was found by Pantenus Catechiſt of the Church of Alexandria, under the Reign of Commodus: ſee Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. Lib. v. c. 10. Theſe things, whether true or no, ſhew that the Antients thought this Goſpel was written before the others, and that the Apoſtles carried it about with them.

ADDITIONS To Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Matthew. Chapter I.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. Note a. THO [...] which is properly to bring forth, metaphorically ſignifies to effect, yet it does not thence follow that [...] Tholedah ſignifies every event; for the Metaphors of derivative words are often different from thoſe of their Primitives. In all the places that the Doctor alledges, Tholedah plainly ſignifies the origin of a thing, which the Greeks call [...]. If Gen. ii.4. & v. 1. be examin'd, it will appear, that the meaning of the ſacred Hiſtorian is this; viz. that that was the origin of the World and Mankind which he had deſcrib'd. Chap. xxxvii.2. Theſe are the generations, refers to what goes before; and the meaning of Moſes is nothing but this, that the Anceſtors of Jacob were the ſame with thoſe of Eſau, whoſe Genealogy he had declared in the Chapter immediately preceding. So Numb. iii.1. The Generations of Moſes and Aaron ſignify their origin from the Tribe of Levi. In the ſame ſenſe we meet with the word [...] ſeveral times in Homer:

[...].

The Ocean from which all things had their origin.

And elſewhere, ſpeaking of the Ocean, he calls it [...], that from which the Gods had their origin. [...] therefore, as Grotius very well interprets it, is a deſcription of the Origin, which title muſt be reckon'd prefix'd only to this Chapter.

[Page]Verſ. 8. [...].] Here are three Kings left out, Ahaziah, Joas, and Amaziah. Again, St. Luke reckons up nineteen Generations of natural Deſcendents from Salathiel to Joſeph, whilſt St. Matthew numbers but ten, according to legal extraction; the later muſt needs have omitted ſeven perſons likewiſe in his last claſs of Generations. Concerning theſe Omiſſions, many make divers Conjectures. That of Grotius is generally look'd upon to be the beſt; that St. Matthew kept to the number of Generations in the first claſs from Abraham to David, which was most known, for memory ſake, in the rest; and ſo it was neceſſary that ſome Generations ſhould be omitted, that there might be juſt three fourteens. But it does not ſeem probable at all to others, that the Evangelist, merely for the ſake of keeping to the number of fourteen, ſhould deſignedly paſs over ten perſons, and eſpecially in that part of his Computation in which it behov'd him to uſe the greatest exactneſs, becauſe it was least known; for till the time of the Captivity, the Genealogical ſeries of the Royal Family of David was very well underſtood, but from that time to Christ it was known but obſcurely. Beſides, a perſon cannot be ſaid to retain any Genealogy in his memory, that out of fifty perſons, or thereabouts, omits ten; and if the Genealogy of Chriſt muſt needs have been divided into certain claſſes, it was not therefore neceſſary that a fifth part of his Anceſtors ſhould be paſs'd over to make a diviſion into fourteens, when it had been eaſy to make another diviſion. This made a very good Friend of mine think that St. Matthew lighted upon a genealogical book of David's family that was defective; and accidentally obſerving there three claſſes of fourteen Generations between theſe three great periods of time, viz. before the ſetting up of the Regal Government, during its continuance, and after its fall, was thereby mov'd to make ſuch a diviſion in his account of Christ's Lineage; which he would not ſo much as have thought of, if he had made uſe of an entire Book. There was no reaſon, he ſaid, to wonder at his ſaying that a genealogical Book might be corrupted, ſince a very great and conſiderable Error, that had formerly perplex'd the Antients, and by that appears to be a very old one, was crept into the 11th verſ. of St. Matthew's Text it ſelf, and that notwithſtanding his accurate enumeration of perſons, and indication of their number. And hence alſo he thought it was, that there are ſome perſons omitted in 1 Chron. iv.1. as likewiſe in chap. vi. in the recounting of Aaron's Race, which Grotius upon this place obſerves. But this is ſubmitted to the Judgment of the learned Reader. Yet it looks as if Matthew did in the 1st verſe cite a Book of the origin of Chriſt, from whence he took all that follows as far as verſ. 16.

[Page]Verſ. 16. [...].] There are ſome Manuſcripts in which the words [...] are wanting, becauſe the Tranſcribers thought them too languid; but in moſt of 'em, and thoſe the oldeſt, they are found, as alſo in the antient Verſions. That Chriſtian who inſerted a Paſſage concerning Chriſt into Joſephus's Antiquities, lib. 20. c. 8. did likewiſe make uſe of the ſame Phraſe; upon which Origen againſt Celſus ſays, Joſephus wrote that the Jews were oppreſs'd with ſo many evils for the hold attempts upon James the brother of Jeſus, [...], that was call'd Chriſt, lib. 1. p. 37. concerning which place, ſee Tan. Faber in his Critical Epiſtles.

Verſ. 18. [...]] i. e. it fell out or happen'd that ſhe was big with child. So the word is taken in Apollodorus, Biblioth. lib. 1. c. 4. ſ. 2. where he treats of the ſtrife between Apollo and Marſyas; [...], when Apollo had overcome.

Verſ. 19. Note g.] To the Examples brought by Grotius and our Author, add this one more out of Terence, Heaut. Act. 4. Sc. 1. where the Wife thus beſpeaks her Husband:

Mi Chreme, fateor, vincor; nunc hoc te obſecro

Ʋt meae ſtultitiae in juſtitia tua ſit aliquid praeſidii.

Ibid. note h.] Salmaſius ſeems rather to be in the right, who in his Comment. de Helleniſt [...]a Praef. after he had obſerv'd that [...] ſignifies to puniſh, becauſe Puniſhments are [...] examples, in which ſenſe it is often met with in the antienteſt Greeks, remarks that among the more modern it has the ſignification of expoſing to ſhame; which he promiſes to confirm in another place by examples, and to ſhew that it ought to be ſo taken in St. Matthew. He adds, that if the Evangelist had meant by it a capital puniſhment, he would rather have ſaid, [...], being unwilling ſhe ſhould be puniſh'd.

This Remark of Salmiaſius is confirm'd by an example out of Plutarch, lib. de curioſitate, p. 520. where he ſays that a perſon who is prying and inquiſitive into the evils of other men, is like one that ſhould have a Book full of Homer's Verſes without a beginning, of tragical Incongruities of Speech, [...]: and of thoſe things which were indecently and filthily ſpoken against women by Archilocus, by which he traduc'd himſelf, that is, made himſelf infamous, becauſe ſuch foul Speeches could come from none but a lewd and impure perſon.

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. Note c. NEW Stars, among the Gentiles, were ſometimes look'd upon as Omens that the Infants born at the time of their appearance ſhould arrive to great power. See my Note upon Num. xxiv.13. But whatever truth there was in ſuch Omens, it was only underſtood and brought to mind after thoſe Infants were actually poſſeſs'd of the ſupreme Authority; for no Aſtrology can aſſure ſuch a thing any length of time before-hand. Suppoſe a new Star appears upon the birth-day of any one; was there no other Child born in all the Country, beſides that one, on that day? Or is it written upon the Star in ſuch characters as the reſt of Mankind cannot underſtand, but are eaſily legible by Aſtrologers, that it appear'd in honour of ſuch a particular Infant?

There is no recurring here therefore to Aſtrology; no more than to Balaam's or any ſuch like prophecy, which had been too dark to help the Wiſe-men, upon ſight of the Star, to divine that there was a King born to the Jews. It is much more credible, that they had been warn'd of it by a heavenly viſion, as afterward v. 12. they are admoniſhed to return another way into their own Countrey. However this Star was no Comet, for Comets are too high, to mark out certainly ſo ſmall a place as a little Houſe. It ſeems to have been a firy meteor that was miraculouſly ſo long preſerv'd, and appear'd in the middle of the Air like one of thoſe we call falling Stars, or the like. This is the likelieſt account of this matter; but it may not be unuſeful, to ſhew out of a very learned Gentleman of Ireland what Arguments there are to ſupport their opinion who attribute ſomething here to Aſtrology, and the rather becauſe there is ſomething in his Opinion that is very well worth our obſervation, and of ſpecial uſe in the Interpretation of Prophecies. It is Mr. Henry Dodwell in his 2d Letter of Advice. His words are theſe.

[Firſt therefore, I ſuppoſe that God did intend the Prophecies which were committed to writing, and enrolled in the public Canon of the Church, ſhould be underſtood by the Perſons concerned in them. For otherwiſe it could not properly be called a Revelation, if after the diſcovery things ſtill remained as intricate as formerly. And it is not credible that God ſhould publiſh Revelations only to exerciſe and puzzle the induſtry of human enquiries; or as an evidence of his own knowledg of things exceeding ours (tho indeed that it ſelf cannot be known [Page] by us unleſs we be able to diſcern ſome ſenſe which otherwiſe could not have been known than by ſuch Propheſies) much leſs to give occaſion to Enthuſiaſts, and cunningly deſigning Perſons, to practiſe ſeditions and innovations under the pretence of fulfilling Propheſies, without any poſſibility of rational confutation by the Orthodox, who upon this ſuppoſal muſt be preſumed as ignorant of them as themſelves: and there is no prudent way of avoiding this uſeleſneſs and dangerouſneſs but by rendring them intelligible to the Perſons concerned. And Secondly, the Perſons concerned in theſe kinds of Revelations, cannot be the Prophets themſelves, or any other private Perſons of the Ages wherein they were delivered, but the Church in general alſo in future Ages. For as Propheſie in general is a gratia gratis data, and therefore as all others [...] that kind given primarily and originally for the publick uſe of the Church; ſo certainly ſuch of them as were committed to writing, and deſignedly propagated to future ages, muſt needs have been of a general and permanent concernment. And Thirdly, the Church concerned in thoſe Propheſies, cannot only be thoſe Ages which were to ſurvive their accompliſhment, but alſo thoſe before; and therefore it cannot be ſufficient to pretend, as many do, that theſe Propheſies ſhall then be underſtood when they are fulfilled, but it will be further requiſite to aſſert that they may be ſo before. For the only momentous reaſon, that muſt be conceived concerning theſe, as well as other Revelations, muſt be ſome duty which could not otherwiſe have been known, which muſt have been ſomething antecedent; for all conſequent duties of patience and reſignation are common to them with other Providences, and therefore may be known in an ordinary way. Now for antecedent duties, ſuch as ſeem to be intimated in the Propheſies themſelves where any are mentioned, nothing can ſuffice but an antecedent information. Beſides, to what end can this poſtnate knowledg ſerve? For ſatisfying Christians of the Divine preſcience upon the accompliſhment of his Predictions? This is needleſs; for they already profeſs themſelves to believe it. Is it therefore for the conviction of Infidels? But neither can this be preſumed on a rational account. For how can it be known that a prediction was fulfilled when it is not known what was predicted? Or how can it be known what was predicted when the prediction is ſo expreſſed as to be capable of many ſenſes, and no means are acknowledged poſſible for diſtinguiſhing the equivocation? Nay, will not ſuch a deſign of ambiguity ſeem to ſuch a Perſon ſuſpicious of that ſtratagem of the Delphick Oracles, to preſerve the reputation of a Prophetick Spirit by a proviſion beforehand for avoiding the danger of diſcovery? for indeed this kind of Propheſie will be ſo weak an argument for proving Divine Inſpiration, as that indeed [Page] it may agree to any natural Man of ordinary prudence. For in publick affairs (the ſubject of theſe Propheſies) which proceed more regularly, and are leſs obnoxious to an interpoſition of private Liberty, the multitude who are the cauſes of ſuch Revolutions generally following the complexion of their Bodies, and therefore being as eaſily determined, and therefore predicted from natural cauſes, as ſuch their complexions; it will not be hard, at leaſt very probably, to conjecture future contingences from preſent appearances of their natural cauſes. And then by foretelling them in ambiguous expreſſions, he may provide that if any of thoſe ſenſes, of which his words are capable, come to paſs, that may be taken for the ſenſe intended; ſo that a miſtaking in all but one would not be likely to prejudice his credit. And at length if all ſhould fail, yet a refuge would be reſerved for their ſuperſtitious reverencers of his Authority, that themſelves had rather failed of underſtanding his true ſenſe, than that had failed of truth. Eſpecially if among a multitude of attempts, but one hit in one ſenſe (as it is hard even in a Lottery that any ſhould always miſs, much more in matters capable of prudential conjectures) that one inſtance of ſucceſs would upon thoſe accounts more confirm his credit than a multitude of failures would diſparage it; becauſe in point of ſucceſs they would be confident of their underſtanding him rightly, but in miſcarriages they would lay the blame, not on the prediction, but their own miſunderſtandings. Now ſeeing this way is ſo very eaſily pretended to by Cheats beyond any probable danger of diſcovery, it cannot to perſons not already favourably affected (who only need conviction) prove any Argument of a Divine Inſpiration, and therefore will, even upon this account, be perfectly uſeleſs. Suppoſing therefore that it is neceſſary that theſe predictions be underſtood before, as well as after that they are fulfilled; it will follow Fourthly, that where they were not explained by the Prophets themſelves, there they were intelligible by the uſe of ordinary means, ſuch as might, by the Perſons to whom the Revelations were made, be judged ordinary. For that they ſhould be explained by new Prophets to be ſent on the particular occaſion, there is no ground to believe; and if theſe Propheſies were ſo expreſſed as that they needed a new Revelation for explaining them, they muſt have been uſeleſs, and indeed could not have deſerved the name of Revelations, they ſtill tranſcending the uſe of human means as much as formerly. For if they had been revealed formerly, what need had there been of a new diſcovery? And if this need be ſuppoſed, it muſt plainly argue that the former pretended Revelation was not ſufficient for the information of mankind in the uſe of ordinary means; and that which is not ſo, cannot anſwer the intrinſick ends of a Revelation. [Page] This therefore being ſuppoſed, that old Revelations are thus intelligible without new ones, it muſt needs follow that their explication muſt be derived from the uſe of ordinary means. And then for determining further what theſe ordinary means are that might have been judged ſuch by thoſe to whom theſe Revelations were made, I conſider Fifthly, that this whole indulgence of God in granting the Spirit of Propheſie was plainly accommodated to the Heathen practice of Divination. This might have been exemplified in ſeveral particulars. Thus Firſt, the very practiſe of revealing future contingences, eſpecially of ordinary conſultations concerning the affairs of private and particular perſons, cannot be ſuppoſed grounded on reaſon (otherwiſe it would have been of eternal uſe, even now under the Goſpel) but a condeſcenſion to the cuſtoms and expectations of the Perſons to whom they were communicated. And Secondly, that an order and ſucceſſion of Prophets was eſtabliſhed, in Analogy to the Heathen Diviners, Dr. Stillingfleet's Orig. Sacr. l. 2. c. 4. N. 1. is by a very ingenious Perſon proved from that famous Paſſage of Deut. xviii.15, 18. to which purpoſe he alſo produces the concurrent Teſtimony of Origen cont. Celſ. L. 1. And thirdly, that the ſenſe of the Platoniſts and other Heathens, concerning Divine Inſpiration, its nature and parts and different degrees, and diſtinction from Enthuſiaſm, does very much agree with the notions of the Rabbins concerning it, will appear to any that conſiders the Teſtimonies of both, produced by Mr. Smith in his excellent Diſcourſe on this ſubject. Hence it will follow Sixthly, that, as this Divination of which they were ſo eager, was originally Heatheniſh, ſo they were moſt inclinable to make uſe of thoſe means of underſtanding it to which they had been inured from the ſame principles of Heatheniſm; eſpecially where God had not otherwiſe either expreſly provided for it, or expreſly prohibited the means formerly uſed; and thoſe Means, others failing, were moſt likely by them to be judged ordinary. And that Oneirocriticks were the proper means among the Heathens for explaining their Divinatio per ſomnium, anſwering the Jewiſh degree of Propheſie by Dreams; and indeed the principal Art of the Harioli and conjectures concerning Viſions, as far as they held Analogy with thoſe Repreſentations which were made to other leſs prepared Perſons in their ſleep, will not need any proof. It might have been ſhewn how the principal Rules of the Jewiſh Cabbala were very agreeable to the like. Arts of Tradition among the Heathen, and among them were a curious myſtical kind of Learning contrived for maintaining a converſation with their Gods; wherein as they were imitated by the Gnoſticks, ſo theſe Rules themſelves were derived from the Heathen occult Philoſophy. And certainly it is moſt likely to have been ſome kind of expreſſing and explaining [Page] Propheſies, and ſome kinds of Learning ſubſervient thereunto, which was ſo ſolemnly ſtudied by the Jewiſh Candidates for Propheſie in their Schools and Colleges, and which made it ſo ſtrange, that Perſons wanting that preparation, ſuch as Saul and Amos, ſhould be by God honoured with it. Beſides that we find the punctual fulfilling of ſeveral predictions of the Chaldeans by virtue of their Oneirocriticks (thoſe moſt eminent Tranſactions of the Conqueſts of Cyrus, and the Death of Alexander the Great, were thus foretold) plainly implying that God himſelf, as he deſigned thoſe Dreams to be Divinatory, ſo he obſerved the Oneirocritical Rules in their ſignification. For it is not probable that Revolutions managed by ſuch ſpecial deſigns, and ſignal interpoſitions of Divine Providence, could have been foreknown or ſignified by the Devil, he being frequently put to his ſolemn ſhifts of equivocation for concealment of his ignorance in affairs of greater moral probability, and conſequently of eaſier prediction. And it cannot ſeem more ſtrange that God ſhould obſerve the Rules of Oneirocriticks and Hieroglyphicks in his Reſponſes when made uſe of with a pious deſign by his own people, than that he ſhould anſwer the Heathens themſelves in their own practice. Thus he obſerved the ſign propoſed by the Philiſtins for diſcerning the true reaſon of their ſufferings, 1 Sam. vi.2, 9, 12. and met Balaam in the uſe of his enchantments, Numb. xxiii.4, 16. and revealed our Saviours Nativity to the MAGI by the means of a STAR. And particularly for Oneirocriticks, their ſutableneſs to this purpoſe will not be ſcrupled by them who admit the Teſtimony of Trogus Pompeius, Somniorum primus intelligentiam condit. Trog. ap. Juſtin. Hiſt. l. 36. who aſcribes the firſt invention thereof to the Patriarch Joſeph, which will be very congruous to that prevailing Opinion among the Fathers, and many late excellent Authors, that all Arts were derived originally from the Jews. Beſides, Daniel who was ſo famous for expounding Dreams, tho he was thought by the Heathens to do ſome things by the Inſpiration of the Holy Gods, Dan. v.11. yet had Chaldean education, Chap. i.4. and was a great proficient in it, verſ. 17. and was accordingly included in the decree for killing the Chaldeans, Dan. ii.13. and was therefore, after his miraculous interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, promoted to be Maſter of the Magicians, Aſtrologers, Southſayers and Chaldeans, Dan. v.11. and therefore certainly was thought, in things not exceeding the power of the Art, to have proceeded according to its Preſcriptions; that is, in the interpretation, tho not in the diſcovery, of the Dream it ſelf. And they, as well as the Jews, being concerned in the event of his Prediction, muſt alſo have been ſo in the underſtanding of them. So alſo Moſes being expreſly affirmed skilful in all the learning of the Egyptians, muſt therefore be preſumed skilful [Page] not only in their Hieroglyphicks, for which they are ſo commonly famed, but alſo in Oneirocriticks to which they were alſo addicted, as appears Gen. xli.8. And methinks that challenge made in the Revelation concerning the name of the Beast, Rev. xiii.18. that here is wiſdom, and that he that hath underſtanding ſhould exerciſe himſelf in counting the number thereof (as it ſeems plainly to allude to the Cabaliſtical way of finding out Names by Numbers, whereof we have among the Heathens a precedent in Martianus Capella, L. 2. who thus fits the names of Mercury and Philology, to ſhew the congruity of their Marriage, beſides very many more in the Gnoſticks in St. Irenaeus, ſo) ſeems to imply that it was, tho hardly, in the exerciſe of this Art, diſcoverable even by human, wiſdom. Certainly St. Irenaeus underſtood him ſo when he attempted to unriddle him by finding out names, whoſe numeral Letters, in the Greek Tongue wherein the Challenge had been made, might amount to ſuch a number. I do not, by all that has been ſaid, intend that all Prophecies are explicable by any Rules of Art or ſuitable Conjectures. I know many of the Heathen Oracles themſelves were not. The Oracles expounded by Themiſtocles, Curtius, Nebrus, &c. did not depend on Art but Luck. My meaning is only concerning the Prophetick Viſions, and only thoſe of them which are left unexpounded by God himſelf, but are to be preſumed ſufficiently intelligible in the uſe of ordinary means.]

Thus far Dodwell, who adviſes them that ſtudy Divinity to read thoſe Writings of the Antients, which concern the critical knowledg of Dreams, and the interpretation of Oracles, as that which would be of uſe to 'em in the underſtanding of obſcure Prophecies. But as it is with great modeſty that he propoſes this, and only as a conjecture which he ſubmits to the Learneds examination; ſo I ſhall alſo leave the Reader to his own Judgment about it.

Ibid. [...].] About the ſignification of this word, conſult Grotius upon this place, and upon the ſecond precept of the Decal. It being uſed promiſcuouſly in Scripture to ſignify both Divine Worſhip, and alſo that Honour which we give to Men, becauſe in the Eaſt the ſame geſtures of Reverence were uſed towards Men as towards God, 1. Chron. xxix.20. it is not credible it ſhould here be taken for an act of divine Worſhip, for the Wiſe-men did not know Jeſus to be the Son of God, but only that he would be a very great King, and therefore they gave that Honour to him which us'd to be ſhewn to Eaſtern Monarchs. And for this reaſon I ſhould decline the uſing of the word adorare here, which tho it had heretofore a doubtful ſenſe amongſt the Latins, yet now by the uſe of the Schools is made to ſignify only divine[Page]Worſhip. And therefore it is alſo a fault in the French Verſions, where this word [...] is all along tranſlated adorer, which in the French Language does by no means belong to civil, but Religious Worſhip only; it being altogether incredible, that all thoſe who proſtrated themſelves at the Feet of Jeſus, knew him to be the Son of God, who might and ought to be honour'd with divine Worſhip. And indeed what one Apoſtle calls [...], another frequently expreſſes by [...] to fall down proſtrate. See Matt. viii.2. compar'd with Luc. v.12. and ix.18. compar'd with Marc. v.22. Luc. viii.41. and Matt. xviii.24, 29.

Verſ. 15. [...], &c.] Conſult what our Author has upon the 22. ver. of the foregoing Chapter, and what Grotius before him has collected upon the ſame place. They ſay that there were two kinds of Prophecy; the one [...], when the event is directly foretold, the words referring to that only; the other [...], when the words of a Prediction are ſo conceiv'd, as to reſpect indeed primarily a certain event, but yet ſo alſo as to ſhadow out ſomething that is of greater importance. So Hoſea ſpake indeed directly of the Iſraelites; but becauſe the bringing of the People of Iſrael out of Egypt was a type of Chriſt's return out of the ſame Country into Judea, therefore in ſpeaking of the type, he is to be thought to have ſpoken concerning the Antitype alſo.

But there are a few things to be obſerved with relation to this matter, which the moſt learned Interpreters have paſt by.

First, to uſe the inſtance of Hoſea, it muſt be confeſs'd that no body living in that Age could have poſſibly diſcern'd any prediction in thoſe words of his, but by an intimation from the Prophet himſelf; viz. that tho he ſpake of a thing that was paſt, yet he had his mind upon an event that was to happen at ſome Ages diſtant, of which the former was a typical repreſentation. Otherwiſe, who could in the leaſt ſuſpect that there was any Prediction latent in a ſimple relation of matter of Fact? Iſrael was a Child, and I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt. No body ſure will ſay, that the Jews who were far from being a ſubtil People, could ever of their own heads, without any advertiſment, have diſcover'd here a Prophecy. The ſame we are to think of all other Prophecies of this kind.

2dly. Since it is no where found in the old Teſtament, that any ſuch Intimation or Advertiſment was given, either we muſt acknowledg that no Prophecy being [...] could be underſtood by the Jews before the event; or elſe that the Prophets did privately inſtruct their Diſciples, if not alſo admoniſh the common People, that whenever they [Page] recounted any of God's paſt favours, or when they ſpake of themſelves, they had in their minds a reſpect to ſomething future. Nay it was neceſſary they ſhould have particularly and ſeverally interpreted every Prediction of that kind, and pointed to the event which it had a reſpect to; for otherwiſe who could be ſo ſubtil as between two not much differing events, to diſcern which of'em was deſigned in the Prediction? But the firſt of theſe having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell, we muſt neceſſarily admit the latter, and ſay that there remained among the Jews in Chriſt's time ſeveral traditions concerning the ſenſe of Prophecies, handed down from the Prophets themſelves. The reaſon why they did not commit thoſe traditions to writing, I confeſs I do not clearly ſee, but it does not follow from thence that there were no ſuch unwritten Doctrines. Nor do I deny but that this way of teaching had its inconveniences, and that ſome falſe opinions might creep in amongſt the true traditions; but our enquiry is not what would be moſt convenient, or what we our ſelves ſhould have done, but what was done; which is the only thing to be conſidered in ſearching into Antiquities.

3dly. The ſame we muſt think of the types and of typical Predictions, for no body that was not firſt warn'd could ever underſtand thoſe things that were done, or which came to paſs, to have been repreſentations of things future.

4thly. Unleſs theſe things be ſo, all the uſe of thoſe typical Predictions muſt have been confin'd to thoſe to whom they were explained after the event, which how ſmall that is, appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2d verſ. And not to repeat what has been ſaid by him, I might at leaſt gather from hence, that no Arguments could be brought from that ſort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Chriſtians, it was intirely owing to the Authority of the Apoſtles, and not to the Evidence of the Arguments. For it is manifeſt to all that underſtand Hebrew that the Prophet ſpeaks concerning Iſrael; and that he ſhould, ſpeaking of their going out of Egypt, have had a reſpect to Chriſt's return into Judaea, would have been impoſſible for us to know without a Revelation. And therefore we muſt be oblig'd to ſay that the Prophets left their Diſciples a Key, q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions, which would otherwiſe have been ſhut up out of every body's view. And had not this been ſo, it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Meſſias upon ſome places in the Prophets, out of which no ſuch matter could be fetch'd by the mere aſſiſtance of Grammar; nor would the Apoſtles have cited them as making for their purpoſe. For both the former had made themſelves ridiculous if [Page] they had neglected the grammatical ſenſe, and recurred, without any other reaſon than their own fancy, to a more ſublime one; and the latter had been but ill Diſputants, to produce ſuch Paſſages as might be hiſs'd at. The Authority of the Apoſtles ought not here to be objected, as that which added ſtrength to their Reaſonings; for they themſelves did not rely upon their own Authority, but upon the force of their Arguments. You will no where find it ſaid, that Prophecies ought ſo or ſo to be interpreted, becauſe the Apoſtles, who were inſpir'd by the Holy Ghoſt, and whoſe Doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles, did in that manner interpret them; but this they take every where for granted, that they ſhould be ſo explained, as they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion amongſt the Jews.

Verſ. 23. Note l.] Many think it ſtrange that the Prophets ſhould here be quoted, when no ſuch thing as what is here mentioned can by the help of Grammar be deduc'd from any words of the Prophets; for there is no place from whence it can be grammatically gather'd that the Meſſias was to be called by this name of a Nazarene. That which is drawn from the meer ſimilitude between the words Netſer and Nezir, is harſh and far-fetch'd. By what means therefore could this be deduced from the Writings of the Prophets? It muſt be, doubtleſs, by an allegorical Interpretation of ſome place which was vulgarly known in thoſe times, but is not now extant. And this ſeems to be the reaſon why St. Matthew did not produce any one Prophet by name, but ſaid [...], the Prophets, in the plural number, as referring rather to ſome allegorical ſenſe than any Scripture words, as Jerom has well obſerv'd. So the Writers of the Apoſtolical times uſed to cite a Tradition just as if they were the very words of Scripture, as we may ſee frequently done in the Catholick Epiſtle of Barnabas, Chap. vi. and eſpecially where the Diſcourſe is about the Scape-goat. He brings us, as out of the Scripture, theſe words, as they are extant in the antient Verſion. Exſpuite in illum omnes & pungite, & imponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius, & ſic in aram ponatur: & cum ita factum fuerit, adducite qui ferat hircum in eremum, & auferat & portet illum in ſtirpem, quae dicitur rubus, cu [...]us & fructus in agris adſumus (leg. adſolemus) invenientes, &c. Spit all upon him, and prick him, and put ſcarlet wool about his head, and ſo let him be laid upon the Altar: and when you have done that, bring ſome body that may carry the Goat into the wilderneſs, and take him away and bear him to a plant call'd a Black-berry buſh, the fruit of which we alſo us'd, finding it in the fields, &c. See alſo what H. Grotius has upon Matth. xxvii.9. Juſt ſo Philo, p. 5. de mundi opificio, cites theſe for the words Of Moſes, [...][Page] [...], &c. Chapter III. That the inviſible and intelligible reaſon, and the reaſon of God, was the image of God, and the image of this was that intelligible light which was the image of the divine reaſon, &c. But this is no where to be found in Moſes. And this is a common practice with him.

That God might deprive the Jews of all pretence for unbelief, he would have all thoſe things accompliſh'd in Christ which the Jews thought were to be fulfil'd in their Meſſias, which were not contrary to the end for which he ſent Jeſus into the world, viz. the Reformation of Mankind, and the making of them happy, whether they were allegorically underſtood from the Scripture, or had their riſe from ſomewhat elſe beſides it. Thus becauſe the Jews interpreted the lxix. Pſal. 22. of the Meſſias, Jeſus knowing that they would give him Vinegar to drink if he ſaid he thirſted, ſaid accordingly, he thirſted: After this Jeſus knowing that all things were accompliſh'd, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ſaid, I thirst, &c. Joh. xix.28. And ſo likewiſe at other times he took the occaſion of fulfilling certain other Prophecies that otherwiſe were of no ſuch great moment in themſelves; which the Apoſtles have ſtudiouſly obſerv'd. See afterwards chap. iv.14.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 2. Note c. IMmediately after that Citat. Tellus confracta peribit] To the Collections that learned men have made, that they might ſhew the meaning of Iſaiah to be only, that John was to prepare the way for Christ, theſe Verſes may be added out of Ovid. lib. 2. Amor. Eleg. xvi.

At vos, qua veniet, tumidi ſubſidite montes.

Et faciles curvis vallibus eſte viae.

The Poet here wiſhes his Miſtreſs a commodious Paſſage, and expreſſes his deſire, by Metaphors taken from what uſes ſometimes to be done, upon the approach of Princes.

Ibid. at the end of that Note.] 'Tis a miſtake in our Author, when he ſays that the Hebrew Judges were ſo denominated from their inflicting of Puniſhments, i. e. from the moſt hateful part of their office. They were called ſo from their judging or determining of Strifes between the Jews, as appears both by the Hiſtory of Samuel, and alſo of the other Judges. This is the proper ſignification of the word Judge, [Page] (which has nothing in it to provoke ſpite or ill-will) and from which this term of their Office is more likely to have been deriv'd. This needs no ampler proof, and nothing could have led our very learned Author into ſuch a miſtake, but only his earneſt deſire to illuſtrate the Subject he was upon, by too great a plenty of Examples, as his uſual cuſtom is.

Verſ. 4. Note e.] We may add to what Dr. Hammond has here obſerv'd, theſe Verſes of Ovid. Faſt. iv. where he is deſcribing how the firſt men, that ſpent their days in the Woods, liv'd:

Et modo carpebant vivaci ceſpite gramen,

Nunc epulae tenera fronde cacumen erant.

And a little after,

Pomaque & in teneris aurea mella favis.

Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 1. relates out of Hellanicus, that the moſt Northern Peoople eat of the tops of trees [...].

Verſ. 7. [...].] This Interrogation has the force of a Negation: for St. John's meaning is this; You have not been taught by any body, that by my Baptiſm merely, without Repentance, you ſhall avoid the Deſtruction that hangs over you, therefore repent, &c. Such another Interrogation the Le [...]rned think to be that in Mic. v.2. which St. Matthew has expreſs'd by a Negation, chap. ii.6. See Grotius upon the place. Of the ſame kind is that Interrogation in Virgil,

Nam quis te, juvenum confidentiſſime, noſtras

Juſſit adire domos?

i. e. no body order'd you, but you came of your own accord. See Iſa. i.11, 12. I make this brief Remark, not for any difficulty there was in the thing, but becauſe our Author has not expreſs'd the negative force of the Interrogation in his Paraphraſe, and no body elſe, that I know of, has taken notice of it.

Verſ. 11. Note g.] Thoſe that know how very antient the Cuſtom was of purifying by Fire and Water amongſt the Heathens, will hardly give their conſent to what Dr. Hammond here ſays, about the Devil's imitating the Baptiſm of John and Chriſt. See what Joh. Lomei [...]rus de luſtrationibus has collected with relation to this matter, Cap. xx. There being an evident and experienc'd aptitude in Fire and Water to purge away filth, it is no wonder that they were by many Nations made Emblems of the purifying of the mind.

[Page]Ibid. Note h.] What our Author ſays here is true;Chapter IV. but raking together all that ſeem'd to countenance or ſupport his Opinion, he has alledg'd a place out of Luc. xxii.27. that makes nothing to his purpoſe, for Chriſt's meaning is not that he converſed with his Diſciples in the quality of a Diſciple, but that tho he was their Lord, yet he had choſen rather to miniſter to them, than to exact any thing from them in an authoritative way. See that place.

Verſ. 12. [...].] Palea, Straw, is not here intended, for that ſerves for many uſes, and is never burnt; but it is the Husk, or that which the Grains of Corn are wrapt up in, and the beards or fragments of the ears, which by the Greeks are call'd [...]. Heſych. [...], a husk, is the name of that which is [...]. We meet with it in a Verſe of Homer, Iliad. E. 499.

[...]

[...]

[...],

[...].

As the wind carries the husks in the ſacred floors, when men are fanning, and when yellow Ceres ſeparates, the winds violently ruſhing in, the fruit from the husks, whilſt the places made to receive the husks wax white.

The manner of fanning amongſt the Greeks is deſcribed by Xenophon, in Oeconom. pag. 863. Edit. Wechel. where we meet with this word [...] ſeveral times both for the ſtraw of Corn, and for a husk. But the Septuagint diſtinguiſh them in Iſa. xvii.13. where they call the husk [...], the ſmall dust of the ſtraw.

Verſ. 16. [...].] I am apt to think there was a parting of the Clouds, and then that a light ſhone very high out of the Sky, as it was in the Goſpel of the Nazarenes; concerning which matter conſult Grotius. Plutarch has ſomewhere this Saying, [...], which cannot be underſtood but of a cleaving of the Clouds by their retiring hither and thither.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 1. [...].] What is here related, may more eaſily be conceived to have happened to Chriſt in a Viſion or Dream, than really. It looks, methinks, very odd, that an Evil Spirit ſhould be permitted to have ſuch a power over our moſt holy Saviour, as to carry him through the Air; and then that proſpect of the Kingdoms of the whole World could [Page] no more be ſhewn from a Mountain than upon a Plain: for what is there to be ſeen from a Mountain, beſides Woods, Fields, Rivers, Villages, Towns, and the like, and thoſe only afar off? But theſe things do not uſe to be ſtiled in any Language, the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. That which we call the glory of Kingdoms, is rather the ſplendor of a King, which conſiſts partly in his ſplendid Attire, partly in his Guards or Attendents, and partly in his coſtly Edifices, and other things of that nature. So the glory of a Kingdom is taken 2 Chron. ix.25. where Solomon is the ſubject of the Diſcourſe; as afterwards here in St. Matthew, chap. vi.29. where the word [...] is uſed. See alſo Rev. xxi.25, 26. Now it's true, in a Dream, the moſt powerful Kings of the Earth, with all their glory, might be ſhewn to Chriſt in a moment of time, as S. Luke ſays theſe things were, but not if he were awake or from a mountain. The Phraſe [...] therefore, may be interpreted here as St. Luke does that of [...] in the Spirit, i. e. in a Viſion, as Rev. i.10. And ſo Ezekiel declares himſelf [...], ch. ii.2. & iii.12. when being in a Viſion he thought the Spirit took him up. And chap. xl.2. we find the ſame perſon again [...] (as he fancy'd) caught up into a high mountain. And ſo likewiſe St. John, Rev. xxi.10. But however, by this Viſion Chriſt might learn that his Life would not be without Temptations, and that he muſt do really what he ſeemed to himſelf to do in a Dream, i. e. ſtrive againſt Unbelief and Ambition.

Ibid. Note a.] As Satan in Hebrew, ſo [...] in Greek imports a Hater; for [...] does not only ſignify to calumniate, but alſo to hate; and to this latter ſignification the Septuagint ſeem to have had a reſpect, when they rendered [...] by [...], for the Hebrew word ſignifies to oppoſe or hate, but never to calumniate. Of the ſignification of the word [...] which I mentioned, we may ſee an example out of Strabo, in Caſaubon's Notes upon p. 545. lib. xviii. where he obſerves that it frequently occurs in the ſame ſignification in Philoſtratus. In that ſenſe 1 Mac. i.38. Antiochus is called [...]. To this the word [...] is ſynonimous; of which ſee Grotius upon 2 Theſſ. ii.4.

Verſ. 8. [...].] i. e. the glory and riches which he ſaw lying in the vaſt tracts of the earth. So [...] amongſt the Jews ſignifies glory and wealth. See what I have obſerved upon Gen. xxxi.1. Apollo in Ovid is repreſented ſpeaking thus to Phaeton, whilſt he was looking down from the palace of the Sun upon the Earth, Metam. l.2.

[Page]

— Quidquid habet dives circumſpice mundus,

Eque tot ac tantis coeli, terraeque, mariſque

Poſce bonis aliquid, nullam patiere repulſam.

Verſ. 14. [...]] See the Notes upon Chap. ii.23. H. Grotius has obſerved upon Jam. chap. ii.23. that it was common for the Hebrews to ſay, that ſuch or ſuch a place of Holy Scripture [...] i. e. [...], or was fulfilled, whenever any thing came to paſs, reſembling what was mentioned in that place. But he gives us no example of it, and therefore I ſhall produce one out of R. Salomon upon Gen. xi.8. where at the words the Lord ſcattered them abroad, he makes this remark, [...] As they had ſaid, leſt we be ſcattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth; ſo that Saying of Solomon was verified concerning them, What he is afraid of ſhall come upon him. And this way of ſpeaking the Greeks alſo themſelves uſed upon a like occaſion. Aelian lib. iii. c. 29. has theſe words: [...], &c. Diogenes Sinopenſis uſed continually to be ſaying, that he fulfilled and underwent all the curſes of Tragedy, for he was a vagabond, and had no home, &c. i. e. that one might ſee ſomething in his condition reſembling that which the Players in Tragedy uſed to wiſh, when they were in a rage, to others. So likewiſe Olympiodorus, in the Life of Plato, applies to him a Verſe out of Homer: [...]. As he was lying all along, a ſwarm of bees came and filled his mouth with honey-combs; that ſo that Saying of Homer might prove true of him, From whoſe tongue proceeded a ſound ſweeter than honey.

Verſ. 15. Note e.] Our Author ſhould rather have ſaid, that ſeveral Nations dwelt in this Coaſt, than round about it. For there were ſeveral Nations that dwelt alſo round about the reſt of Judea. We ſhall be moſt likely therefore to find out the reaſon of this Appellation, by what Strabo ſays about the northern parts of Judea, lib. xvi. [...]: Now theſe Countries lie towards the North, and each of them are moſtly inhabited by a mixt ſort of People, made up of Egyptians, Arabians, and Phaenicians.

Chapter V.CHAP. V.

[Page]

Verſ 1. Note a. THis ſame Hiſtory, and theſe very Diſcourſes of Chriſt, are related by St. Luke, chap. vi. but much more compendiouſly, and not ſo diſtinctly; whence we may perceive that the Evangeliſts have not reported the very words of Chriſt, but only the ſenſe of what he ſaid; according as their own or others memory ſuggeſted it to them. And this may teach us that the ſenſe is that which we ſhould principally look to, and that we ought not to anatomize, or inſiſt too nicely upon every ſingle word. Otherwiſe we ſhall hardly make the Evangeliſts to agree with one another. As for inſtance, Chriſt ſays here in St. Matthew, verſ. 3. bleſſed are the poor in Spirit, but in St. Luke this word [...] is wanting. Now if we take theſe words of St. Matthew in the fineſt and niceſt ſenſe, Chriſt will be found to ſpeak here, not of thoſe that are deſtitute of riches, but thoſe who in what condition ſoever they be are not too much puff'd up in their minds. On the other hand, St. Luke's words do not properly import humble-minded perſons, but perſons of mean eſtate. The like we may obſerve concerning the 6th verſe, and abundance of other places, in which the Evangeliſts report the ſame thing with ſome variation.

Verſ. 8. Note c.] That in theſe words the pure in heart have a bleſſedneſs conferred upon them, is plain enough; but what that bleſſedneſs is, is not ſo clear. Of old the Jews as well as the Heathens thought they might ſometimes have a ſight of the Gods. By the Gods, I do not mean the very divine Nature, but corporal Shapes aſſumed by Angels. Yea and ſo the moſt high God himſelf (if it was not rather an Angel called by his name that appear'd to the Iſraelites) gave notice of his preſence by a cloud or by fire, which form the Jews called by the name of God, as appears from the Pentateuch. They had a conceit alſo, that if any one ſhould ſee thoſe forms againſt the will of the Gods, they would certainly die, or loſe their ſight. See my notes upon Gen. xvi.13. And therefore whoever was admitted by any God to an interview with him, was look'd upon to be his ſpecial favourite; as the Holy Scripture informs us concerning Moſes, who went near to the Cloud, in which the Angel had wrapt himſelf, and talked with him. Hence, this phraſe to ſee God was uſed to expreſs ſome great happineſs, even amongſt the Gentiles, which gave occaſion to thoſe Verſes in Virgil;

[Page]

Ille Deûm vitam adſpiciet, diviſque videbit

Permiſtos Heroas, & ipſe videbitur illis;

and thoſe in Ovid,

Felices illi, qui non ſimulachra, ſed ipſos,

Quique Deûm coram corpora vera vident.

Add to this, that becauſe God was thought, not only by the Hebrews but alſo by moſt Heathen Nations, to have his Habitation in a peculiar manner in Heaven, and Heaven was eſteemed the ſeat of bleſſedneſs; therefore to ſee God, and to be in the ſeat of ſupreme happineſs, came at laſt to ſignify one and the ſame thing. And hence it is ſaid of the Saints, Heb. xii.14. that they ſhall ſee the Lord, and 1 Cor. xiii.12. face to face, i. e. like Moſes, they ſhall be permitted to have an acceſs to the Light it ſelf by which God manifeſts his preſence in Heaven; and becauſe they are to ſee him as he is, they ſhall alſo, as Moſes, whoſe countenance was made to ſhine, become like to God, 1 Joh. iii.2. From this it appears, that if there be any ſolidity in what the Schoolmen ſay about the beatiſick viſion, they muſt deduce it from metaphyſical reaſonings, and not out of theſe places of Scripture.

Verſ. 17. Note. g.] The Law being here ſpoken of, I ſhould rather think that by [...] we are to underſtand the moſt ſimple, or that which we commonly call the Grammatical or Literal ſenſe of the Law, in which reſpect there are innumerable external rites enjoined in it; and that by [...] is meant the mind of the Lawgiver lying hid under thoſe ſymbolical Precepts. Ariſtotle in Lib. de rep [...]. often uſes the word [...] for written laws, in oppoſition to the will of the Governour, or the interpretation that he puts upon them. So Lib. 2. ch. 9. [...], it is not the beſt way to paſs ſentence according to our own will and pleaſure, but by the written Statute and Laws. And Lib. 3. c. 15. after he had ſaid that the Law ſpeaks of things but in general terms, without accommodating it ſelf to particular caſes, he adds, [...], that it is a fooliſh thing for a Governour to follow ſtrictly the written law; and a little after, [...], it is not the beſt way of adminiſtring a Commonwealth to keep cloſe to the Letter and the Laws. So alſo Cicero oppoſes the letter of the Law to the intention of the Lawmaker, Lib. 1. de Inventione, cap. 38. Omnes leges ad commodum Reipublicae referre oportet, & eas ex utilitate communi, non ex ſcriptione, [Page]quae in literis est, interpretari. All Laws ought to be directed to the benefit of the State, and have ſuch a conſtruction put upon them as the publick intereſt requires, without ſticking too cloſe to the letters in which they are written. See likewiſe Lib. 2. cap. 48. And under this conſideration the Laws of Moſes are called [...] and [...], viz. when they are underſtood in a Grammatical ſenſe; and are oppoſed to [...], i. e. the deſign of God in enacting them. The word Spirit is uſed in Scripture to ſignify any thing that is out of ſight, in contradiſtinction to what is apparent and conſpicuous, as the letters are of the Law. But this may be more clearly demonſtrated in its due place.

Verſ. 18. Note. i.] Ludovicus Cappellus in Arcano punct. Lib. 2. Cap. 14. has ſaid enough about this place; and if we conſult him, and join what Dr. Hammond and he have obſerved together, we ſhall have as complete a Commentary upon this place as can be deſired. Chriſt's meaning is that none, no not the leaſt moral precept, which did not peculiarly reſpect the Jews as a Commonwealth, but was fitted to all men, and all Ages and Places, of which kind there were many in the Law, ſhould ever be abrogated by God. 'Tis as if he had ſaid, that he would be ſo far from licenſing Men to break any of that ſort of Precepts, that he would require an exact performance of the very leaſt of them. As [...] ſignifies an aboliſhing of a Law, ſo a Law is ſaid [...], which continues in its full force and obligation. And therefore the phraſe [...] does not ſignify until all be fulfilled, but, but all its precepts ſhall be ſtill obliging, for [...], as Grotius has obſerved, has here the force of an Adverſative.

Verſ. 22. [...], &c.] Our Author, in his Paraphraſe, partly makes Christ to ſpeak himſelf directly, and partly inſinuates and intermixes his own Remarks with his words. But yet I muſt ſay, that this is harſh and forced, as the Doctor's way of expreſſion (no diſparagement to his Learning) commonly is. Beſides, his Paraphraſe upon this period does not make the mind of Christ clear enough, which I take to be this. ‘21, 22. Ye know that Murder was forbidden by Moſes, and that this Law of his threatned Death to the Tranſgreſſors of it; but let me tell you, that it is not only thoſe heinous ſort of crimes that will be puniſhed by God in another life: Whoever ſhall but indulge his anger, and make a cuſtom of carrying himſelf haſtily and moroſely to others without reaſon, ſhall have a puniſhment inflicted upon him, comparable to that capital one to which perſons are ſentenced by the leſſer Sanhedrim; and that ſhall be the lighteſt penalty for Sins committed againſt your Neighbour. But whoever ſhall be found to have got an ill habit of mocking and [Page]deriding others, ſhall in this kind of Puniſhments ſuffer as heavy a one, as that which uſed to be inflicted by the greater Sanhedrim for the boldeſt Crimes. But laſtly, he that ſhall accuſtom himſelf to rail, or revile other men, ſhall have a Penalty laid upon him by God reſembling the ſevereſt that is us'd amongſt Men, ſuch as to be burnt alive.’

This Doctrine of Christ may be referred to two Heads, the former of which is, that there are ſome Sins which have no Puniſhment denounced againſt them in the Law of Moſes; and the latter, that for thoſe very Sins men ſhall ſuffer as ſevere, nay and a ſeverer puniſhment in the other life, than the Law of Moſes inflicted for the greatest crimes. Which was a very neceſſary Doctrine for the Jews, who thought themſelves to be very good men, and to have fulfilled their duty in all points, if they were but ſafe from any charge being brought againſt them out of the Law; as is the caſe of many even at this day, among Chriſtians. But then we are not to underſtand by the Sins here ſpoken of, ſingle Commiſſions, ſuch as a ſudden fit of Anger, once mocking, or one abuſeful Speech raſhly thrown out; but a habit of being angry, or of deriding and reviling our Neighbour, and continuing in it as long as we live: for ſingle acts of Sin, which we fall into not through a cuſtom in ſinning, but through infirmity, are according to the Laws of the Goſpel-Covenant, pardoned by God. That which Christ here therefore condemns is, firſt an angry Diſpoſition, or a habit of being eaſily, and for little or no reaſon, diſpleaſed with others; and then Pride, which is, as I may ſay, the Parent of mocking; and laſtly, both an angry and proud cuſtom of ſpeaking abuſively or revilingly. And indeed, theſe corrupt Diſpoſitions of the Mind are like ſo many poiſonous Fountains from whence innumerable Evils proceed; for they do not only induce a neglect of the contrary Duties, but are the occaſion many times of the greateſt Sins. Which I ſhall not, in theſe ſhort [...], at large proſecute.

The names whereby Christ deſcribes the Puniſhments that are to be inflicted for theſe evil habits in another life, are (as Interpreters, and amongſt the reſt Grotius, who is always to be joined with Dr. Hammond, have obſerved) drawn from the Jewiſh Cuſtom. And it is no wonder; for there were no peculiar names given to the unknown and inviſible Puniſhments of the other life; and if Christ had called them by any new names, no body would have underſtood him. And therefore he was neceſſitated to make uſe of ſuch names and repreſentations of Puniſhments as were known by thoſe he ſpake to.

[Page]Verſ. 28. Note o.] Ovid, that Maſter in Debauchery, deſcribes this matter to the life, Metam. vi. where he ſays of Tereus looking paſſionately upon Philomela,

Spectat eam Tereus, praecontrectatque videndo.

Verſ. 33. [...].] A perſon is ſaid to pay his oath to the Lord, that fulfils a Promiſe confirmed by an Oath; becauſe he that calls God to witneſs, does not ſo much oblige himſelf to the Party he makes a promiſe to, as to God. So Joſhua kept to the Promiſes he made, in the Covenant entered into with the Gibeonites; not for the ſake of the Gibeonites who had deceived him, but becauſe of the obligation he was under to God, to whom he had appealed as a witneſs. See Joſ. ix.19. This alſo the Heathens underſtood, as we may ſee by the words of T. Quinctius Cincinnatus, in Livy lib. 6. c. 29. when he was going to fight againſt the perfidious Gauls: Adeſte Dii teſtes foederis, & expetite poenas ſimul vobis violatis, nobiſque per numen veſtrum deceptis. Be preſent, O ye Gods, that were witneſſes of our League, and revenge both your ſelves for the affront that has been put upon you, and us who have been deceived by your Deity. And therefore they thought it no ſmall part of divine Worſhip to keep their Oaths. Iſocrates ad Demonicum: [...]: firſt worſhip the Gods, not only by offering Sacrifices, but by keeping your Oaths.

Verſ. 36. [...].] See what H. Grotius has upon this place; and to what he has obſerved add this Paſſage out of Athenaeus Lib. 2. p. 66. [...], ‘ [...].’ But that they eſteemed the Head ſacred, may appear by their uſing to ſwear by it, and to reverence its Sneezings at ſacred: And alſo by its having been a cuſtom to confirm Agreements or Contracts by nodding of it; as Jupiter ſays in Homer, Go to, I will now nod my head.

Verſ. 39. [...].] This is a proverbial Speech, and ought not to be underſtood properly. It ſignifies to expoſe ones ſelf to be injured or vilified. So Os contumeliis praebere is taken in Livy, lib. 4. c. 35. where a ſeditious Tribune of the People ſays of the Commonalty that aſpired to the Military Tribuneſhip, Petiſſe viros domi, militiaeque ſpectatos; primis annis ſugillatos, repulſos, riſui Patribus fuiſse; deſiſſe poſtremò praebere ad contumeliam os. That ſuch men had ſued [Page]for it as were approved both at home and abroad; Chapter VI. and at firſt were jeered and repulſed, and made a laughing-ſtock of by the Fathers, but now at length they were reſolved not to ſuffer themſelves tamely any longer to be abuſed. We meet with it alſo in Tacitus Hiſt. Lib. 3. c. 31. Circumſteterunt victores, & primo ingerebant probra, intentabant ictus; mox ut praeberi ora contumeliis, & poſita omni ferociâ, cuncta victi patiebantur, ſubit memoria illos eſſe, qui nuper Bedriaci victorae temperaſſent. The Conquerors ſtood round, and at first heaped Reproaches upon them, and lifted up their hands, making as if they would give them blows; but afterwards when they ſaw that the conquered let themſelves be abuſed, and laying aſide all fierceneſs, took every thing patiently, it came into their minds that they were thoſe very ſame perſons, that a little before bad uſed their victory at Bedriacum with moderation.

Verſ. 40. [...]] There is no body that is not a perfect ſtranger to the Greek Language, but knows that [...] ſignifies a Cloak, or that Garment which we wear outermoſt, and [...] a Coat, or one nigher our Bodies. But if, notwithſtanding this is ſo plain and certain, any one ſhould ſtill be in doubt of it, the beſt way for him to ſatisfy himſelf would be to read Aelian Var. Hiſt. Lib. 1. c. 16. and Octavius Ferrarius de Re Veſt. Part. 1. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. and Part. 2. Lib. 4. c. 3.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 7. OF this ſort of Battology, or idle repeating of the ſame thing, there are inſtances alſo to be found in the ritual Books of the Jews; where there are ſome Prayers ſo compoſed, as if they thought a particular laying open of their requeſts neceſſary to make God underſtand them. On the day before that of the Expiation, there are Prayers read, wherein in a long ſeries all the kinds of Sins, together with the reſpective Puniſhments due to them, are diſtinctly enumerated. They begin thus: Let it pleaſe thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our Fathers, to forgive us all our iniquities, and pardon all our offences, and to purge us from all our ſins, the ſins which we have committed againſt thee by compulſion, and the ſins which we have committed againſt thee voluntarily and of our own accord, and the ſins which we have committed againſt thee by uncovering our nakedneſs, &c. The whole form as it was taken out of the manuſcript Copy was publiſhed by Selden de Synedriis lib. 1. c. 12.

Verſ. 8. [...].] Socrates, as Xenophon tells us, lib. 1. Memor. p. 420. Ed. Graecae H. Steph. [...], prayed ſimply [Page] to the Gods that they would beſtow good things upon him, as knowing themſelves beſt what things were good. See what H. Grotius ſays as to this matter: and hence we may conclude that the Heathens did ſometimes ſpeak of things more agreeably to the Precepts afterwards given by Chriſt than many Chriſtians uſually do.

Verſ. 11. Note f.] There is none here but Grotius, whoſe opinion is firſt laid down by our Author, that deſerves our regard; and the Doctor had done better if he had only endeavour'd to confirm his interpretation. Every body knows that the Greeks uſed the Phraſe of [...] to ſignify as well in general the time future as the day immediately enſuing, from the verb [...] to approach or to be at hand. So Euripides in his Alceſtes, v. 171. uſes [...] for an evil that is future or ready to come to paſs. So in that place of Solomon Prov. xxvii.1. Boaſt not thy ſelf of to morrow, for thou knoweſt not what a day may bring forth; the Septuagint have [...] to ſignify the time future. The meaning of Chriſt therefore is this: "Give us every day, all the remaining "part of our lives, as much as may be ſufficient for our ſubſiſtence. Vopiſeus has almoſt ſuch another kind of expreſſion in the Life of Aurelian, where he ſpeaks of the loaves that were daily diſtributed to the People: Siligincum ſuum (viz. panem) quotidie toto aevo quiſque recipiebat, & poſteris ſuis dimittebat. Every one daily received his white loaf as long as he lived, and that cuſtom was continued to their poſterity. Upon this place Salmaſius obſerves out of Chronic. Alexandr. that ſuch Loaves were called [...], i. e. ſuch as every one was ſure to have during his Life: ſo that [...] and [...] ſignify almoſt the ſame thing.

It is likewiſe truly obſerved by Grotius, that this word comprehends under it both food and raiment, i. e. all the neceſſaries of Life, which we pray God we may never want as long as we live. Our Author makes it to relate alſo to the mind or ſoul; but without any neceſſity, for thoſe things which concern the Soul are contained in the foregoing verſes.

In Solomon Prov. xxx.8. [...] does not properly ſignify food convenient for me, but my allowance or proportion of it. 'Tis an alluſion of the Writer of Proverbs to the cuſtom of thoſe who gave daily to their Servants or others a certain allowance which was called [...] hhok, i. e. as if one ſhould ſay, appointed food. See my Notes upon Gen. xlvii.22. Wherefore altho if we conſider the thing it ſelf, the tranſlating of [...] by [...] our proportion of bread may not be much amiſs, as J. Mercerus upon the Proverbs has obſerved; yet the juſt force of the Greek word will be far from being thereby expreſſed.

[Page]Verſ. 16. Note h.] [...] is to make any thing become [...], which is the contrary of both [...] bright or ſhining, and of [...] conſpicuous. And hence the verb [...] has a twofold ſignification, according as it is either oppoſed to [...] to make bright, or to [...] to make conſpicuous. To begin with the latter, a thing becomes inconſpicuous [...], when it is either quite deſtroyed, or elſe carried to another place, or covered; for which ſenſe there ſeems here to be no room, as has been well obſerved by the Doctor. In the former ſenſe of the word, a thing is ſaid to loſe its brightneſs [...], when it is ſome how or other defiled. Thus the countenance, when the face is waſhed and anointed, is [...], ſhines; and when inſtead of uſing oil to make it ſhine, we disfigure it with Aſhes or Duſt, then [...]. In which ſenſe [...] is the ſame with [...], to pollute, to defile. But the Grammarians obſerve the ſignification of polluting to have been more late, and that of taking out of ſight to be the older of the two. Etymol. Magn. [...] was not uſed by the Antients for to pollute as it is now, but for to render wholly inconſpicuous. Concerning the antient uſe alſo of this word, Suidas muſt be thought to ſpeak when he ſays: [...]: it does not ſignify to defile and pollute, but to take quite away and out of ſight. But of this later ſignification of Greek words, diſcerned by the other which properly belongs to them, there are abundance of inſtances in the New Teſtament, amongſt which the verb [...] muſt be reckoned one. Of this notion of the word the Doctor has given us ſeveral examples, and one out of Nicoſtratus, whoſe words he ought to have ſet down at their full length, for he underſtands them in a ſenſe quite contrary to the intention of the Author. He is ſpeaking concerning Women that had too great a paſſion for Ornaments, and brings reaſons to diſſwade and reclaim them from it. [...]: Far be it from a healthful woman to think ſhe has any need of white paint, or red, to put under her eyes, or any other colour, in order to daub and pollute the face: not to make it more beautiful; for that is againſt the Writer's deſign, and contrary to what this Verb conſtantly ſignifies. And that this word [...] is uſed by Christ in the ſenſe of polluting, and denotes a purpoſed endeavour to deform the face, is manifeſt from the manner of the oppoſition: When ye fast, be not as the Hypocrites, of a ſad countenance, [...], that they may appear unto men to faſt; but thou, when thou faſtest, anoint thine head, and waſh thy face. It is as plain as the Sun at Noon-day, [Page] that an anointed head and waſhed face is oppoſed [...],Chapter VII. i. e. a dirty unwaſhed face, and one that is not anointed; ſuch as theirs uſed to be who faſted in ſackcloth and aſhes. About anointing the face with oil, in order to make it the more ſhining, ſee Pſalm civ. 15. and what Interpreters ſay upon that place. But this uſed to be neglected by Mourners, as appears from 2 Sam. xii.20. So that tho what Dr. Hammond ſays upon this place contains a great many learned things in it, and is worth our reading, yet he has certainly miſs'd the ſcope of it.

Verſ. 22. Note l.] Our learned Author is miſtaken in the ſenſe he puts upon the words of Heſychius; for that which that Grammarian ſpeaks of is the ſoundneſs of the body. See my Notes upon Levit. xxi.17. It is moſt true that [...] ſignifies liberal; but that Virtue, as on the contrary an envious and ſordid way of giving, or alſo a denying any charitable aſſiſtance, is imputed to the eye; becauſe there is a mighty diſcernible difference between the looks of a man that gives chearfully and willingly, and one that either belies himſelf in ſaying he has nothing to give, or elſe gives but ſparingly and unwillingly. It would be needleſs to go about to confirm what is plain from the Teſtimonies of the Antients; I ſhall only obſerve that oculos dolere was a Latin Phraſe applyed to a perſon who could not, without regret, behold what another poſſeſſed, becauſe that Paſſion chiefly diſcovers it ſelf in the eyes. See Plautus, Aſinar. Act. v. Scen. 1. v. 4. and upon that place Fr. Taubmannus.

Verſ. 27. after the words proportionable ſtature.] [...] in Greek, and Quadratus in Latin, does not ſignify as broad as high, which is abſurd, but a juſt Stature. Conſult Conſtant. Lexic.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 14. [...] for [...] Grotius tells us is after the manner of the Helleniſts, i. e. of the Jews, who ſpake Greek not ſo correctly as they ſhould have done, and produces Examples of it. But Salmaſius, in the Epiſt. Dedic. to his Commentar. de Helleniſt. ſays, that he elſewhere proves it to be Alexandrian. Where this proof is I cannot tell; but it is enough to juſtify its being called a Helleniſm, if it be but improper Greek, and has ſomething diſcernible of a Hebraiſm in it. The Hebrews uſe [...] to expreſs [...] and [...], which it is no wonder if he that interpreted S. Matthew imitated. Now the reaſon why the Gate that leads to Happineſs is ſaid by Christ to be ſtraight, is becauſe as men live, it lets [Page] in but few. The ſame ſimilitude is made uſe of, to intimate this to us,Chapter VIII. by Cebes in his Table, where we find theſe words: [...]; Do you ſee alſo a certain little gate, and a path before that gate which is not much frequented, but trodden only by a very few, as ſeeming to be unpaſſable, rugged, and uneven? And he that was asked, making anſwer, that he did ſee it; [...]: This, he ſaid, was that way that leads to true Learning.

Verſ. 23. Note d.] Our Author is here miſtaken; for in all the beſt Greek Writers there is nothing more common than this Phraſe, which is a form of turning the Diſcourſe that was before indirect into a direct one, or of mixing both thoſe ways of ſpeaking together, and it makes the ſenſe to be no other than if all the Sentence was indirectly ſpoken: I will profeſs to them that I never knew them, and will bid all that work Iniquity to depart from me. And this way of confounding a direct and indirect Speech together, tho it ſeems I know not how to have ſomething that looks careleſs in it, yet it expreſſes the thing more to the life than any other way would do. There is an inſtance of this in Theophraſtus, Charact. cap. iii. de Adulatione: [...]: As he was on his way to a certain Friend of his, the (Flatterer) overtook him and told him, his (Friend) was coming to him; and then returning back, I have given him, ſays he, notice beforehand of your coming. Such Examples as theſe we may, in our reading, every where meet with; which makes the bare ſuggeſting of it here to be ſufficient.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 2. [...].] It was the cuſtom of the Jews, ſays Grotius, to give any one they ſpake to, this title, yea tho they did not know the perſon, Joh. xx.15. Were it needful, I could bring a multitude of proofs of its having been alſo the cuſtom of the Romans. Seneca Ep. iii. ſays, Obvios, ſi nomen non ſuccurrit, dominos ſalutamus. If we meet with any one, and cannot juſt then call to mind his name, we give him the title of Sir, or Lord. So Martial lib. i. Ep. 113.

Cum te non noſſem, dominum, regemque vocabam;

Cum bene te novi, jam mihi Priſcus eris.

[Page]I rather think nevertheleſs that there is ſomething more here meant by it, and that the Leper gave our Saviour this title of [...] adoni with a deſign to honour him, tho perhaps ſo great and famous a Prophet's name might not be unknown to him. And ſo the Romans uſed alſo to do. Sueton. in Claudio cap. xxi. Hortando, rogandóque ad hilaritatem homines provocabat, dominos identidem appellans. He uſed by careſſes and intreaties to excite people to chearfulneſs, calling them every now and then Lords. So Seneca Epiſt. civ. Illud mihi in ore erat Domini mei Gallionis. I had in my mouth that (ſaying) of my Lord Gallio. So the Hebrews uſe the word [...] See Gen. xxxiii.8. and xliv. where you may meet with this word ſeveral times.

Verſ. 4. Note b.] Beſides the reaſons which the learned Dr. Hammond has aſſigned of Chriſt's unwillingneſs to have it divulged that he was the Meſſias, there may be two others given of no ſmall importance. The firſt is, that Chriſt had rather this ſhould be gathered from his works than by his Diſciples or his own publiſhing it, becauſe the faith that was hereby begotten in Men would be much the firmer, as having the true grounds of a ſolid faith to rely upon. And thus when thoſe that were ſent to him by John the Baptiſt, deſired of him to be ſatisfied whether he was that perſon that was to come, he made anſwer: Go and tell John the things which ye hear and ſee; The blind receive their ſight, &c. Matt. xi.4, 5. The other is, becauſe if his Diſciples had openly proclaimed him to be the Meſſias, they would have drawn after them a vaſt multitude of People who expected the Meſſias under the notion of a temporal King, and were exceeding deſirous of innovations; which ſort of Men were more fit to raiſe a ſedition than to advance the Kingdom of Heaven by juſt and proper Methods. To prevent therefore the reſorting of evil men to him with a deſign to innovate, and ſo making a wrong uſe of his Name and Authority, he thought it better, till that danger was over, to have the publiſhing of the truth deferred. Thus Joh. vi.15. we ſee, the multitude after they had been fed by him, fell into ſuch a ſort of conſultation; whereupon when he knew that they would come and take him by force, to make him a King, he departed alone by himſelf into a mountain. It was an extraordinary piece of Wiſdom in Chriſt, to take care there might be no ſedition laid either to his or his Diſciples charge, whilſt the Goſpel was but begun to be preached; for if ſuch a thing could have been done with any appearance of juſtice, every body eaſily perceives that it would have been a mighty prejudice to the Chriſtian Religion.

Verſ. 10. Note f.] Since our Author in his Notes upon this place has thought fit to put together all that he had obſerved concerning [Page] the different notions of the word [...], I will contribute alſo my ſhare. [...] has ſeveral ſignifications amongſt the Greeks that have nothing to do here; but this is to be taken notice of, viz. that tho truſt be the firſt notion of that word, and its ſecondary ſignification is that credit or aſſent which we give to one who affirms things that we never ſaw, nor have any mathematical demonſtration of; yet becauſe among things of that kind, there are ſome aſſerted by all Nations that relate to divine matters, and which in points of faith challenge the firſt place, altho we neither ſee them, nor have any mathematical evidence for them, therefore [...] ſignifies [...] or by way of eminence a perſwaſion about matters of Religion. So Aelian Var. Hiſtor. lib. ii. c. 31. having ſaid that there was no Atheiſt to be found amongſt the Barbarians, but only among the Greeks; and that the Barbarians believed that there were Gods who took care of human affairs, and foretold things to come, adds: [...]: having a firm perſwaſion of theſe things, they offer up ſacrifices in a pure manner, and keep themſelves chaſt and holy, &c.

When the Jews began to write Greek, they uſed the word [...] in the ſame ſenſe; for the credit yielded to their ſacred Writings, and thoſe that believed them, they called [...] and [...]. So the Son of Sirach, Chap. i.25. [...]: the things that pleaſe him (i. e. God) are faith and meekneſs: and Ch. xlv.6. [...]: he ſanctified him by faith and meekneſs. So 1 Macc. iii.13. [...] ſignifies a body of Jews. But the Chriſtians that followed the Jews in their way of ſpeaking, gave the name of [...] to the Perſwaſion of thoſe that believed in Chriſt, and oppoſed it to a twofold kind of [...] Ʋnbelief, one of which was proper to the Heathens, and the other to the Jews, who notwithſtanding they credited the Old Teſtament, yet refuſed to believe Chriſt and his Apoſtles. However, in all theſe inſtances [...] ſignifies a perſwaſion, of thoſe things particularly which the Diſcourſe relates to; and as thoſe are various, ſo we may, if we pleaſe, make Faith to be of ſeveral kinds. But becauſe no one can believe the Authority of any Laws, but he muſt alſo obſerve them, provided he does not diſagree with himſelf; therefore no body could ſeriouſly and heartily believe that Christ was ſent down from Heaven to men, to teach them the way of eternal Salvation, without obeying Christ's Precepts: juſt as no body believed the Law of Moſes to be the only Rule of Life revealed by God, who did not, in part at leaſt, conform themſelves thereto. And hence this word [...] came, in the Writings of the Apoſtles, to ſignify not only a perſwaſion of the truth of the Chriſtian [Page] Doctrin, but alſo a diſpoſition of Mind, and Practice agreeable to it, the neceſſary effect of believing.

But it muſt be obſerved, that in different places of the New Teſtament, in proportion to the Subject treated of, this word has a larger or more contracted Notion. 1. Where the Diſcourſe is about the Faith of the Patriarchs, we are to underſtand by it ſuch a perſwaſion of the truth of thoſe things they received as divine Revelations as was accompanied with an anſwerable temper of Mind and Life. In which ſenſe it occurs frequently in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Chap. xi. and elſewhere. 2. Where Chriſt's diſcourſe is of thoſe that believed in him as tranſacting upon earth, as he does here in S. Matthew, and up and down every where in the Goſpels, by Faith is meant a perſwaſion of his having been truly ſent of God, with a power of doing Miracles, and of the truth of all his Doctrine as far as it was known. 3. But after the Apoſtles had received the Holy Ghoſt, and expounded the whole Chriſtian Doctrine more at large, the notion of Faith included in it a perſwaſion not only of the truth of Chriſt's Miſſion, but alſo of his Apoſtles and Diſciples, whoſe Doctrine God gave a teſtimony to by innumerable wonders; and an aſſent accordingly yielded to whatever they aſſerted, joined with a Life ſutable to ſuch a perſwaſion. And this notion the word [...] has in the Epiſtles to the Romans and Galatians, where St. Paul diſputes about Juſtification. For in theſe places [...], i. e. a living according to the Chriſtian Inſtitution, ſetting aſide the works commanded by the Law of Moſes only, is ſaid to juſtify, i. e. to procure mens being eſteemed just, or good and pious by God, and being acceptable to him. And on the other hand, the Apoſtle denies that Works, viz. thoſe which were oppoſed by the Jews to Faith, or the Chriſtian Religion, did either under the Goſpel, or ever of old, juſtify. And this he makes good by ſeveral Arguments, which ſhall in their proper places be explained. It ſhall ſuffice at preſent to have run over the different ſenſes that the word [...] is capable of, and pointed to its original Signification.

But there is this further to be added, that as Faith includes more than a bare perſwaſion about the truth of a thing in the mind; ſo this perſwaſion it ſelf muſt be ſuch a one, as is the reſult of having ſeriouſly weighed and examined the Arguments by which the truth of the Chriſtian Doctrine is confirmed. For it is not to be imagined that the Centurion, for inſtance, did believe in Chriſt, hand over head, without reaſon or due conſideration: He had, without doubt, ſeen ſome of his other Miracles, and heard his Doctrine, and had been made to believe that there was nothing too difficult for Chriſt, who [Page] had all power given him by God, to do. This his Diſcourſe manifeſtly ſhews. But he could never have examined Chriſt's Doctrine and Miracles, as it was requiſite he ſhould, unleſs he had been freed from two of the mightieſt Impediments to it, whereof one is Obſtinacy, whereby we become impenetrable to all reaſons, be they never ſo ſtrong; and the other, a wicked Life, which makes Men unwilling to believe thoſe things, the acknowledgment whereof would render it neceſſary for them to live otherwiſe than they did before. And therefore it is, that Faith has ſuch a commendation beſtowed upon it; which matter I have diſcourſed upon in my Notes upon Gen. xv.6. and have there quoted out of Philo a very remarkable paſſage in which Faith is commended.

Verſ. 11. Note h.] It is no wonder, (when men are neither able to diſcourſe themſelves, nor to underſtand what Beings of a different nature ſay about the Concernments of another Life, but in Metaphors taken from the things of this) that the future Happineſs is deſcribed in this place by the ſimilitude of a Feaſt. But yet I believe that Chriſt was not the firſt inventor of this ſimilitude, but borrowed it from the Jews of that time, amongſt whom it was in daily uſe, and who alſo were beholden for it, as they were for many other things, to the Greeks. The Poets of that Nation in order to repreſent Ixion as a moſt happy King, feigned him to have been entertained at a Feaſt by the Gods. The ſame they ſaid of Tantalus, who, to uſe the words of Pindar in Olympion, Od. 1. [...], could not digeſt that great felicity. Hence that of Empedocles about the eternal Fellowſhip and Converſation of the Juſt with one another:

[...]

[...].

Companions with the rest of the immortal ſociety, making themſelves merry with feaſting, free from thoſe pains to which mortals are ſubject, and never weary. And Epictetus following his example, in Enchirid. c. xxi. beſpeaks in this manner one that had made a great proficiency in Wiſdom: [...]; you will be a worthy gueſt, another day, for the Gods.

Verſ. 12. [...].] For the underſtanding of this, we muſt reflect upon the ſimilitude of a Supper here made uſe of. Now the time of ſupping was after the Sun was ſet, and the night came to be almoſt at the darkeſt. And therefore thoſe that were thruſt out of the place where the Supper was made, and the Room full of lights, are, in agreement with the other part of the ſimilitude, ſaid to be [Page] caſt into outward darkneſs. Chapter IX. See alſo Ch. xxii.13. This is the original of this form of Speech, and the meaning of it is eaſy to be underſtood: for as that which is ſignified by being a Gueſt at the Supper is Happineſs; ſo to be put out of the place where the Supper was made, into the ſtreet, ſignifies the loſing or falling ſhort of it.

Ibid. Note g.] What authority the Doctor had for ſaying that [...] ſignifies to cry out, I cannot tell; but tho that word may denote wailing or lamenting as well as ſilently weeping, yet it does not follow that it may be rendered by crying out, the word that he makes uſe of. Conſult the Lexicographers.

Verſ. 22. Note k.] To what Grotius has ſaid, according to the Opinion of Philoſophers, about the various kinds of Death, add the Collections of John Pricaeus upon the ſame ſubject, on 1 Tim. v.5. Thoſe words, If ye walk contrary, &c. are in Lev. xxvi.21, 24. and there is no [...] in them. See my Notes on the place.

Verſ. 28. Note 1.] Our Author here ſeems to be of the Opinion of the Platoniſts, who thought the Devils uſed to rove about mens Sepulchres. Synecius, who every body knows ſpeaks conſtantly like a Platoniſt, gives them upon that account the Title of [...], Hym. iv.v.47.

[...]

[...],

[...],

[...],

[...]

[...]

[...].

But now let the interrupters

Of ſacred hymns,

That delight in lurking holes,

And beſet tombs,

The Devils,

Be gone from my

Holy prayer.

But I do very much doubt whether any ſuch thing as this can be concluded from this paſſage in the Evangeliſt; for it was very poſſible that the Devils might drive two men to the tombs, and yet thoſe evil Spirits not make their uſual abode in thoſe places.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 14. Note d. I Queſtion very much whether the Doctor rightly interprets the places he had occaſion to quote in his Annotations upon this Verſe. They will all very well admit of a different Explication. I. That Queſtion, Why do we and the Phariſees faſt often, and thy Diſciples fast not? may be conſtrued as if the Diſciples of John had ſaid, Since we and the Phariſees often fast, [Page]why do not thy Diſciples alſo fast? or, Why do not they fast as we do? It was not the deſign of John's Diſciples to enquire ſimply why the Diſciples of Christ did not faſt, but why they did not follow the example of all devout men among the Jews, who uſed to faſt often. II. God's meaning in Exod. xx. is this: "After thou haſt labour'd ſix days, "thou ſhalt make the ſeventh a day of reſt. Had God ſpoken any otherwiſe than he did, it could hardly have been known which that ſeventh day was which he would have to be kept as a day of reſt; for it might have been the ſeventh day of every month, or of every year. III. That place in St. Mark, Chap. x. is nothing at all to the purpoſe: Whoſoever, ſays Chriſt, ſhall put away his wife, and ſhall marry another, committeth adultery; and if a woman ſhall put away her husband and be married to another, ſhe committeth adultery. Where Chriſt does not reſpect what might be done in purſuance of the Law, but the practice of the Gentiles, who allowed Women this power. We are ſure that Salome, Herod's Siſter, followed this example, and there were perhaps ſome others that would have been ready enough to have done the like. IV. St. Paul's meaning in Epheſ. iv. is really, that Anger is not unlawful if it be but kept within bounds. V. The place cited out of St. James ſerves not in the leaſt the Doctor's deſign. For the comforting of the rich upon the loſs of their riches, is not the only thing that the Apoſtle there intends. See the Notes upon that place. VI. The form of ſpeech uſed by St. Paul Rom. vi.12. But God be thanked that ye were the ſervants of ſin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, into which ye were delivered, is almoſt like that of the Diſciples of John. But that ye were [...] ſignifies either, that ye are no longer the ſervants, &c. or, that tho ye were the ſervants of ſin, nevertheleſs ye have obeyed.

But notwithſtanding all this, Dr. Hammond's Obſervation is true, if it be accommodated to other places. There are, for inſtance, ſeveral things ſaid in Parables which do not concern the ſcope of them, but are only for ornament ſake, and to make the Hearers the more attentive; tho it ſeems to have no manner of ground in the places by him alledged. But it is common for thoſe that have not from their very youth made it their buſineſs carefully to ſtudy the Criticks, to find difficulties in the plaineſt things. And Dr. Hammond is far from being the only inſtance of this.

Chapter X.CHAP. X.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. Note b. [...] and [...] are certainly uſed indifferently; but thoſe that ſpake Greek preferred the uſe of the former becauſe they thought a word of the maſculine Gender more proper for the Sirname of a Man than one of the feminine. But of this name here given to Simon there will be a fitter occaſion to ſpeak when we come to the xvi. Chapter.

Verſ. 9. Note e.] Our learned Author in this Annotation is miſtaken, I. in that he denies the words ſpoken by Jacob of himſelf Gen. xxxii. to be declarative of his poverty; for all the meaning of that Patriarch is, that when he croſſed over Jordan, in his way to Meſopotamia, he was poor, and that afterwards he returned back from thence rich. See the place, and my Notes upon it. Tho it would be but ill inferred from thence that he went thither in the habit of a beggar. II. Homer does certainly deſcribe Ʋliſſes at his return in the quality of a beggar. See Odyſſ. P. verſe 197. & ſeqq. where Ʋliſſes is repreſented as carrying a filthy purſe full of holes in a great many places, and Eumaeus is ſaid to have led him into the City, ‘ [...],’ Like a dirty beggar, and an old man, leaning upon a ſtaff. It was a long while ſince the Doctor had read Homer, when he was writing this. III. I think we ought to take quite another method to reconcile the Evangeliſts, of which I ſhall ſpeak, when I come to the parallel in St. Mark.

Verſ. 16. Note f.] Our ingenious Author, to illuſtrate the general propoſition he lays down by examples, plainly miſapplies moſt of the paſſages here alledged by him. For excepting one place out of Matt. xxiii.16. all the reſt are eithar precepts or admonitions, as thoſe who will but examin them will eaſily ſee. I ſhall inſtance but in two. Behold, ſays Chriſt, I ſend you forth as ſheep in the midſt of wolves; be ye therefore wiſe as ſerpents, and ſimple as doves. Theſe words contain a plain precept, and that a very neceſſary one, as well as one that is agreeable to Chriſt's Doctrine. For the Apoſtles being not ſent to men that were lovers of Truth and Juſtice, but to ſuch Perſons as were more like Beaſts than reaſonable creatures, there was a neceſſity of their uſing prudence, leſt going to addreſs themſelves to Men who were wicked to a degree of madneſs, their pains ſhould not only prove ineffectual and to no purpoſe, but they themſelves alſo be oppreſſed by them. And [Page] this Chriſt commands Matt. vii.6. Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, &c. But they were at the ſame time to take heed that that prudence of theirs did not turn to craftineſs or deceit, as it would have done, if they had either privately renounced the Goſpel which they had publickly preached, or feigned themſelves inclined to the wicked opinions of the Phariſees. They were not to ſay every thing in all places and in all companies, but they were to ſay nothing that was in the leaſt repugnant to the Doctrines which they had received from their Maſter, or that might hinder the Goſpel's propagation. That which Chriſt therefore enjoyns his Apoſtles, is, to mix prudence and a ſincere plainneſs together. Of which vertues he himſelf was a moſt perfect pattern, who never expoſed himſelf to the fury of the Jews but when there was a neceſſity for it. But St. Peter offended againſt this precept by acting the part of a Diſſembler, of which we have an account given us by St. Paul, Gal. ii.12. making uſe of prudence to an extreme, he forfeited the commendation of being ſincere and upright.

The following words, Beware of men for they will deliver you, &c. are a prohibition of Chriſt to his Apoſtles not to publiſh immediately to every one the inſtructions they had received from him, for fear they ſhould be dragged to the Synagogues upon the very firſt beginning of their miniſtry. A thing which he himſelf alſo practiſed, delivering his mind in parables, that he might not give too great an occaſion for the paſſions of ill minded men to exert themſelves, and ſaying nothing which he thought would not at preſent be endured by the Perſons he ſpake to. But this was to be no hindrance, as it really was not to the Apoſtles, from expoſing themſelves to ſuch dangers as they could not avoid but by a culpable diſſembling. Theſe things are too manifeſt to need any longer inſiſting upon.

Verſ. 16. Note g.] The word [...] being immediately ſubjoined to [...], it cannot ſignify one that does not hurt, but one who together with his prudence does not uſe any cunning or ſhifting, but is fair and upright. In this ſenſe we find it uſed by S. Paul Rom. xvi.19. But yet I would have you wiſe unto that which is good, and ſimple concerning evil, i. e. far from being cunning to do evil. So in the Addit. to Eſther, Chap. vi.4 crafty men are ſaid [...], to have deceived the ſimple honeſty of Rulers. Accordingly [...] ſignifies ſuch a ſort of temper, in the ſame manner that [...] ſignifies ingenuity or ſincerity; to wit, when things are ſimple, and not corrupted by any art or deceit: whence this word [...] came to denote a perſon who had not the leaſt guile to be found in him. And ſo in the ſame manner, [...] [Page] or [...], is uſed not only for pure, as [...] pure wine, but alſo for a man that is free from craft or deceit.

The Etymology which Euſtathius gives of the word from [...] is harſh, and will not do in this place. And therefore the Author of the Etymologicon magnum ſupplies us with another, which is from [...], i. e. [...], to mingle, inſtead of which [...] is the word in uſe; from whence [...] came to ſignify primarily pure, and ſecondarily alſo one that is not corrupted with any diſhoneſty. And therefore the old Greek and Latin Copy, which contains rather a ſort of Paraphraſe than (as is generally but erroneouſly ſuppoſed) the bare words of the Evangeliſts, uſes here the word [...], most ſimple. And thus alſo Heſychius renders [...] by [...], unblameable, pure, without deceit.

I know that [...] ſignifies likewiſe unhurt; but there is no room here for that ſignification. It would be nearer the ſenſe, if we took it in the notion that it occurs ſeveral times in Dionyſius Halicarnaſſaeus, for one that is free from making a party either with the Grandees or the common People, and meddles with none of their deſigns. But neither does this notion of the word ſute this place. There is nothing can be objected againſt the interpretation I have given of it, except that Doves may be ſaid indeed to be harmleſs, but not properly ſincere. But we muſt not be too critical about ſuch things as theſe; for otherwiſe we might ſay in the ſame manner, that a prudent Nature is not ſo aptly repreſented by Serpents as one that is treacherous and hurtful. Theſe are proverbial Sayings, which muſt not be over narrowly ſearched into; but we muſt gather their ſenſe very often from Cuſtom rather than the conſideration of the things themſelves. And of this kind of Sayings we may meet with an infinite number in common Speech.

Verſ. 27. Note k.] Hither perhaps may be aptly referr'd that Paſſage in Herodotus, lib. 3. cap. 24. where it is ſaid that the Magi or learned Philoſophers of the Country, who had ſeized upon the Perſian Empire, would have obliged Prexaſpes, by whom Smerdis the Son of Cyrus had been killed, to proclaim from a high Tower to the Perſians in a full Aſſembly, that Smerdis was in the Throne. [...]: Saying that they would gather together all the Perſians under the wall of the palace, they commanded him to go up upon a Tower, and proclaim to them that they were governed by Smerdis the Son of Cyrus.

Verſ. 29. Note l.] Tiberius's Aſſarium (which is that here ſpoken of) is ſaid by Doctor Edward Bernard, lib. 2. concerning weights and [Page]meaſures, ſect. 2.Chapter XI. to have been equivalent to ſix Engliſh grains of Silver.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 11. [...], &c.] It would ſeem very ſtrange that our Author, in his Paraphraſe upon this Verſe, ſhould deny John to have been a Prophet, to whom at the 9th Verſe, and often elſewhere, he gives that Title, were it not plain that either he had no manner of deſire to expreſs himſelf clearly; or elſe if he had, that how great ſoever his other excellencies were, Perſpicuity was not his Talent. When therefore he denies John to have been a Prophet, he muſt mean that, compared with the Apoſtles, he was to be look'd upon rather as a Diſciple than a Maſter, as he ſhews in his Note upon the 9th Verſe.

Verſ. 19. [...].] Of what ill repute the [...] were among the Greeks, our Author informs us in his Notes upon Chap. ix.10. But there were two ſorts of Men at that time in the Roman Empire, that might be called [...]. There were ſome Roman Knights, Men of Honour and Credit, who were Publicans, and farm'd the Cuſtoms, and are often mention'd with Honour by Cicero, eſpecially in his Orations pro lege Manilia and pro Plancio. This ſort of Publicans do not ſeem to be referred to in the Goſpels; and that S. Matthew, who is call'd [...], was not of this ſort, is beyond all doubt: but then thoſe Roman Gentlemen did not gather the Cuſtoms themſelves, but by their Servants, or Freed-men, or by other men of a low rank. And theſe alſo were called [...], and were infamous perſons, becauſe many times they levied the Taxes and Duties by force, and, as is common in thoſe caſes, exacted more than was due. See Suidas upon this word. Upon this account it was that they had an ill name, and eſpecially among the Jews, who paid Tribute to the Romans very much againſt the grain, and could not, without indignation, ſee their Countrymen employed by the Romans to gather it for them. Theſe ſort would in Latin be better called Portitores, if we ſhould truſt the old Latin and Greek Gloſſary, in which Portitor is put to anſwer [...], and Portitorium [...]. But in that wherein the Greek ſtands before the Latin, [...] is render'd by Publicanus, Vectigalium conductor.

Verſ. 23. Note i.] I have ſome things to obſerve upon this laſt Note of the Doctor's, which may ſerve partly to confute, and partly to confirm what he ſays.

[Page]I. It is true indeed, that the word [...] did not, as we ſhall preſently ſee, immediately and properly ſignify among the Gentiles any place; but it is a miſtake that it was put to denote the State of the dead, if we take the word in its proper ſignification. It is the name of a Deity, who was believed to be chief Ruler in Hell, and was otherwiſe ſtiled [...], Pluto, which every child knows. And hence the place where the Souls of the dead were thought to be, was uſually called [...], the houſe of Hades. As in Homer Odyſſ. Κ. 512.

[...]

But do you go into Pluto's dark houſe:

and up and down elſewhere. And [...] was uſed as a contraction of the ſame Phraſe, as [...], to go down into (ſub. the houſe) of Hades. Nevertheleſs, afterwards this word was taken for the place over which Pluto was thought to reign, as Iliad. Θ. v. 16. where [...] is ſaid to be ‘ [...],’ as much lower than Hades, as heaven is diſtant from the earth. The like Examples we may every where meet with. That this place was ſuppoſed to be under ground, no body needs to be told. This is the conſtant acceptation of the word [...] amongſt the Greeks; it is either Pluto himſelf, or his Kingdom that is ſignified by it, but never the State of the dead.

II. But Dr. Hammond produces a place out of Phurnutus or Cornutus, where he interprets it by [...]: but not to ſay that no ſort of Writers can be imagined more impertinent than allegorical Interpreters of Fables, that Triflemonger never intended to ſhew what was the common ſignification of the word [...], or what Idea thoſe had in their minds who heard that word pronounced; but what ſenſe might be put upon it, that thoſe nauſeous Fables might be found to have a meaning in them not perfectly abſurd. But the ſignification of a word muſt be drawn from the ſenſe that it is vulgarly taken in, and not from an allegorical Interpretation of it, which is generally unknown, and for the moſt part ridiculous. We muſt enquire what notion ſuch a word uſed to excite in the minds of thoſe that heard it, not what ſignification ſome doting Stoick that thinks every thing to be intended in Fables that his own idle fancy ſuggeſts to him, affixed to it.

III. But it will be ſaid that the Etymology of the word is on Phurnutus and Dr. Hammond's ſide. And I acknowledg it is ſo, if that [Page] be the true Etymology of it, which may with reaſon be doubted, becauſe the word whoſe original we are inquiring into, is almoſt every where written with a Spiritus aſper which is not uſual in words compounded with α Privative. I confeſs that [...] is alſo written with a Spiritus lenis; but this not being conſtant, it is probable that the former is the true pronunciation of the word, and that the manner of writing it was varied for no other reaſon than becauſe the Greeks afterwa [...]ds thought that to be the true Etymology of the word which Dr. Hammond gives us. So the Author of the Etymologicon magnum ſays, [...]. But with all the Greek Grammarians leave, I ſhould ſay that this is not the true Etymology of the word; but that it muſt be deduced from the Hebrew [...] which may be pronounced not only as the Authors of the Maſora do, ed, but ajid. The Phoenicians perhaps wrote it [...], as it is common for the guttural Letters to be confounded in the Oriental Languages, and as the Arabians at this day write it: and ſo from [...] Hajid came haïdes and hades; and that word, as it is very well known, ſignifies deſtruction. There are a great many words that the Greeks have in vain attempted to find the original of in their Language, and which have with good ſucceſs been derived by learned men from the Phoenicians. I could ſhew why the youngeſt of Saturn's Sons was ſo called, and aſſign the reaſon of the Names of the reſt of them out of the ſame Language: but this is not a proper place for it.

IV. I cannot ſee the reaſon why our learned Author citing Eſth. xii.7. will not allow the Heathen King Artaxerxes (a Decree of whoſe is in that Chapter recited) to have had any thoughts of Hell, or a place of puniſhments. That heathen King, ſays he, cannot be thought to dream of Hell. For who does not know that the Heathens believed there was a place under the earth, in which bad men were puniſhed? 'Tis plain the Greeks did, and I need not prove the Perſians to have been of the ſame opinion; for he that wrote the Additions to Eſther, was not ſo well skill'd in the ſentiments of the Perſians, but that he might confound them with thoſe of the Greeks. Or however there is nothing that ſhould oblige us to think, that as to this matter, the opinion of the Greeks and Perſians was not the very ſame. Beſides, [...] is not as much as to ſay in Engliſh to Hell, or in French en enfer; for theſe words do only ſignify the place of puniſhments, whereas the Greek are more comprehenſive, and take in not only Hell or the place of Torments, but likewiſe the Elyſian fields.

[Page]V. One queſtion there is behind that is not eaſy to be reſolved, viz. what notion the Jews who uſed the Greek Tongue, affixed to that word [...]: I will not heap together all that might be ſaid with relation to this matter; Two things only I ſhall obſerve, that may help us to find out the meaning of Chriſt's words. 1. That the Jews had a word in their Language which ſignified a grave, any ſubterraneous places, and the State of the dead; and that was [...] Scheol, which I have treated of on Gen. xxxvii.35. and which upon all accounts it ſeems likely that Chriſt here made uſe of. The Syriack, I am ſure, has [...] Now when this word is oppoſed to Heaven, it ſignifies, among the Hebrews, the loweſt places of the earth; and where Heaven is by a metaphor taken for Glory and Proſperity, [...] denotes obſcurity and adverſity. Thus Iſai. xiv.11, 12. it is ſaid in this ſenſe of the King of Babylon: thy pride is brought down [...] — how art thou fallen from Heaven! &c. And juſt in this manner Chriſt here ſpeaks to Capernaum, and uſes the word [...] in the ſame ſenſe with Iſaiah, for a miſerable and low condition; as he had before uſed the word Heaven, to expreſs the happy State of that City whilſt he preached and wrought Miracles in it. 2. Amongſt the reſt of the ſenſes attributed to the word [...] by the Jews who ſpake the Greek Language, all which I ſhall not enumerate, there was that which I ſaid belonged to the Hebrew word, inſtead of which they generally uſed this. Which appears clearly from hence, that [...] and [...] were in their ſpeech ſynonimous. Thus whereas it is ſaid by St. Peter, that it was impoſſible for Chriſt to be left [...], Act. ii.27. St. Paul ſays that he deſcended [...], Eph. iv.9. And in this ſenſe St. Matthew or his Interpreter, in the room of the word [...] which Chriſt made uſe of, has uſed the Greek [...]. If this be true, as it is likely, almoſt all that our Author ſays upon this place muſt of neceſſity fall to the ground. To the other places of the New Teſtament, where this word is found, I ſhall ſay ſomething when I come to them.

Verſ. 27. [...], &c.] This Verſe muſt be joined to the 25, that Chriſt may be underſtood to declare to the Jews, as well as Gentiles, that notwithſtanding their profeſſed eagerneſs after divine knowledg, the true Worſhip of God his Father, and the offices of the Meſſias, were things that they were ſtrangers to. For the Jews imagined that the obſervation of the letter of the Law rendered them acceptable to God, whilſt they neglected the purpoſe of the Lawgiver; which was to make them truly vertuous, in the manner that Chriſt alone has taught us to be. And they expected alſo the Meſſias [Page] to come in the quality of an earthly Prince, and free them from that extream bondage which they were under to the Romans. So that they neither knew the Father nor the Son.

Verſ. 28. [...]] We are to underſtand this only of the Jews, who [...] were tired, by reaſon of the frequent journies that the Law obliged them to make to Jeruſalem, and which they took for fear of offending God, tho not without a great deal of trouble. The deſign of Chriſt is to inſinuate to the Jews, without ſpeaking his mind in plain terms, which would have been unſeaſonable at that time, that he was about to teach his Diſciples a way how they might worſhip God acceptably without that bodily labour. This he teaches the Samaritan woman more clearly Joh. iv.21. to whom he might declare a thing which the Jews were utterly averſe to without any preſent danger. The [...] are perſons burden'd with Legal rites, and all thoſe things which they were to pay to God, the Prieſts and Levites, which were much more inculcated on them, than charity or any other vertue. And therefore theſe things are afterwards, chap. xxiii.4. called [...]. See alſo Luc. xi.46. Thoſe who underſtand Chriſt to ſpeak here of vices, beſides deſtroying their connexion with what goes before, offer violence to the very words; for ſuch as ſerve their vices, are not weary or heavy laden, which are words that denote perſons under trouble or diſquiet, but they indulge their wicked inclinations with delight, and are hardly brought to renounce them. Thoſe men do not think themſelves to want any [...], for they acquieſce in their vices with abundance of pleaſure. But the Jews groaned under a yoke of Ceremonies, which they were unable to bear, as St. Peter declares Act. xv.10. and had need of reſt, which under the Law it was impoſſible for them to enjoy, becauſe they were forced to make a journey, thrice a year at leaſt, to Jeruſalem.

Verſ. 29. [...].] The Doctors of the Law, eſpecially thoſe of the Sacerdotal race, were neither meek nor lowly, being cruel exactors of thoſe burdenſom things that were commanded in the Law, and proud of having the common People of the Jews tributary to them. But there is nothing of this nature in Chriſt, who requires only a good Life, and condeſcends to the very meaneſt, whoever they be. How extreamly haughty and diſdainful the Prieſts in thoſe times were, Joſephus informs us, Lib. xx. c. 6. Antiq. Jud.

Verſ. 30. Note l.] [...], when ſpoken of a perſon, ſignifies good, bountiful, courteous, or merciful; but when it is a thing that is ſpoken of, as it is here, then it ſignifies the ſame with [...] profitable, which comes from the ſame Primitive, or elſe ſomething like it, according as [Page] the nature of the thing is. Jerem. xxiv.3, 5. good figs are called [...] by the Septuagint; and Ezek. xxviii.13. a precious ſtone, [...] ▪ Aeſchylus, in Ariſtophanes, Ran. Act. iv. Sc. 2. ſays to Euripides: [...]: We muſt by all means ſpeak uſeful things. Whence in following Ages, any collections of uſeful things were called [...], and the ſentences mark'd in the margin of the Books with the letter X, which needs no proof. So in Heſych. [...] (for ſo it is to be read and not [...]) is interpreted by [...], and [...] by [...]. If this were not a thing paſt doubt, I would add the words of Suidas and Phavorinus; but I muſt not take up my own or the Readers time. [...] therefore ſignifies a profitable yoke, which is for the benefit or advantage of thoſe that bear it; which the Moſaical was not, but as it is oppoſed to the Goſpel yoke, was of it ſelf unprofitable. For of what uſe were ſo many ſacrifices, ſo many taxes, under the name of Firſt-fruits and Tithes, taking ſo many journeys, and ſo many Purifications, if we conſider them in themſelves? All that they ſerved for was only to conſume that wealth which was gotten with a great deal of pains, and to render Life more troubleſome. For theſe things did not of themſelves make men good or acceptable to God. And therefore they were not [...], or, to ſpeak in the words of Ezekiel c. xx.25. they were precepts that were not good. But the yoke of Christ is uſeful to him that takes it upon him, many times in this Life, and always in that which is to come. It makes men good, and well pleaſing to God, and confers eternal happineſs upon them.

Ibid. [...]] This is oppoſed to the [...] of the Doctors of the Law, which neither the antient Jews nor the men of that Age were able to bear. This was a moſt heavy burden even to good men, who were deſirous to obſerve every thing which the Law commanded, and yet could not do it but with a very great deal of pain and difficulty; but on the other hand, nothing is more eaſy to a good man, than obedience to the Goſpel, which requires nothing but what all that are good muſt needs approve. If any man thinks the precepts of the Goſpel to be difficult, he is ſtill a bad man; and that may be fitly applied to him,

Nulla eſt tam facilis res, quin difficilis ſiet,

Quam invitus faciat.

It is ſtrange that neither Grotius nor the Doctor ſhould perceive that theſe things were ſpoken in oppoſition to the Jewiſh rites.

CHAP. XII.Chapter XII.

[Page]

V. 8. middle of Note a. OUR learned Author goes about here to confute H. Grotius, who thinks that by the Son of Man we muſt underſtand Man in common, and not Chriſt. The whole ſtrength of the Doctor's reaſoning is from the uſe of that phraſe; for all that he ſays beſides is ſo forced, that the bare comparing of it with what is ſaid by Grotius is enough to ſhew how much he is that great man's inferiour in this debate. But however let us examin what he ſays. I. Thoſe words in the 6 Verſe, one greater than the Temple is here, are not connected with the following 8 v. for the Son of Man is Lord alſo of the Sabbath, but with what goes before; and therefore it is not neceſſary that he who was greater than the Temple and the Son of Man ſhould be the ſame. II. In Dan. vii.13. the Son of Man is taken for a Man, and not for the name of the Meſſias, whatever was the uſe of that phraſe in Chriſt's time. I ſaw, ſays the Prophet, in the night viſions, and behold there came with the clouds of heaven one like the Son of Man, [...], i. e. the appearance of a Man. This is known to be the conſtant uſe of this phraſe in the Old Teſtament; and that Chriſt ſhould ſometimes uſe it in the ſame ſignification will not ſeem ſtrange to any, tho at other times he calls himſelf the Son of Man, or a Man. III. The phraſe for man in St. Mark does certainly ſignify for the good of Man; to wit, that Servants might have reſt, which was the principal end of the Sabbath; from whence it follows that man is Lord of the Sabbath, in this reſpect, that he may either obſerve, or neglect the Sabbath, according as affairs, upon which his ſafety depends, require. For otherwiſe, if this had not been lawful, man had been for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man; in as much as it would have been his duty to ſet leſs by his own Life than the obſervation of the Sabbath. Thus, if there be a juſt occaſion, we are obliged to lay down our lives, rather than not obſerve thoſe precepts of eternal equity and obligation, that are contained in the Goſpel; becauſe the keeping of thoſe precepts was the end for which God created us. And yet they too, I acknowledg, may in a ſort be ſaid to be for us, becauſe, if they were but univerſally obſerved, they would be a means of making men happy both in this life, and everlaſtingly in the other. But the Sabbatical days of reſt come quite under another conſideration, and were not appointed for the good of the mind, ſo much as of the body. The Jews, according to the intention of the Lawgiver, were bound only to obſerve them ſo far as they could without inconvenience, and conſiſtently with ſelf-preſervation. In all other caſes [Page] they were to have a greater regard to their life than to the keeping of holy days. Dr. Hammond therefore has made an ill advantage of the ambiguity of this phraſe for the good of man, which does not always ſignify the ſame thing. Add to this that I have ſaid what Grotius has upon this place, and then there will be no room to doubt but that this learned Engliſh Gentleman has miſtaken the true deſign of it.

Verſ. 20. Note e.] Few that are skilled in the Hebrew, will allow our Author that [...] he ſhall bring forth judgment unto truth is the ſame with he ſhall bring forth a true judgment; for to expreſs this the Jews would ſay [...] he ſhall bring forth the judgment of truth. It is more probable that the Evangeliſt, who produces rather the ſenſe than the very words of the Prophecy, expreſſes that which the Prophet calls to bring forth judgment unto truth by [...], and would be underſtood thus, to advance the Doctrine of true Piety ſo as that it ſhall prevail over falſhood; which is the ſame, as to lay down that Doctrine in ſuch a manner as to make it appear true. Undoubtedly that Doctrine which is looked upon as true, muſt be ſaid to have overcome; and this is the only victory that the Goſpel can obtain, to be looked upon as true.

Ibid. Note d.] This proverbial expreſſion, not to break a bruiſed reed, nor to quench ſmoking flax, is rightly expounded by Dr. Hammond as well as by many others before him. I add, that the Latins much after the ſame manner uſed the phraſe extinguere extinctos, to ſignify the killing or deſtroying outright ſuch as had before but little hope left of ſafety. Thus the Writer to Herennius Lib. 4.52. after he had told how a City was taken by the Soldiers, brings in a Woman deprecating the Conquerors anger in theſe terms: Parce, & per ea quae tibi dulciſſima ſunt in vita, miſerere noſtri; noli extinguere extinctos. We beſeech you, by all that you count ſweeteſt in life, to ſpare and take pity upon us, do not reſolve to deſtroy thoſe that are already destroyed.

Verſ. 24. Note f.] What our Author has about the God Achor, perhaps he took out of Selden de Diis Syris, Synt. 11. c. 6. where this matter is copiouſly handled. Certain it is that Mr. Selden wrote firſt. But both of them were deceived by a falſe reading in Pliny, whoſe words, in the vulgar editions were corrupted. In the Manuſcript Copy there is no mention made of the Cyrenaeans, nor of Achor Deus, as Salmaſius in his Plinian. exercit. p. 10. Edit. Ʋltraj. obſerves, who muſt be conſulted by thoſe that have a mind to enquire more throughly into this matter. He thinks, and very rightly, that we may from the marks that are found in the old written copy read the words thus: invocant — Elei Myiagron Deum, muſcarum multitudine peſtilentiam [Page]afferente; and this reading was taken into the context of the Paris Edition, ann. 1685.

It will bear likewiſe a diſpute, whether it be a probable conjecture of our Author, that the Ekronites God Beelzebub was the ſame with the Grecians Jupiter. For Jupiter, a Deity among the Greeks, was as unknown to the Philiſtines, as Dagon the God of the Philiſtines was to the Greeks. It was a piece of vanity in the poor ſilly Grecians, raſhly to think that their Gods were every where worſhipped, as I might eaſily ſhew if it was a thing to be done in this place: But I do not here take upon me to explain the Greek Mythology.

Verſ. 27. Note g.] The Doctor might perhaps have added, that the whole of Chriſt's reaſoning in this place conſiſts of Arguments ad hominem; for there are ſeveral things here ſuppoſed as true, becauſe they were believed by the Jews, which are no where deſignedly laid down for certain by Chriſt, nor any where confirmed by the Apoſtles. One is, that there is ſuch a political order amongſt the Devils, as that one rules over the reſt in the quality of a Prince, and under the name of Beelzebub; which every one muſt needs look upon as doubtful. Another thing is, that that political order ſhould continue for a great while after that time, and conſequently the Devils ſhould have no civil diſſenſions among themſelves. It's certain that the Perſians, who called the Devil by the name of Arimanes, thought that his Empire would never be at an end till it was overthrown by Oromazes or the good God. See Stanley Philoſoph. Oriental. Lib. ii. c. 6. And much ſuch an opinion as this ſeems to have been taken up by the Jews, who perhaps had it from the Chaldeans, and, if we believe learned men, the reſt alſo of the Doctrine about the ſeveral orders that there are among the Angels. It may be further asked perhaps, why Chriſt did not anſwer an objection which eaſily ſprings up in a mans mind upon the reading of this reaſoning of his. For it might have been pretended by the Phariſees, that this was only an artifice in the Prince of the Devils to expel his ſubject Devils for a little time, who might afterwards enter in again unobſerved and ſettle him more ſecurely in his Dominion; and ſo that there ſeemed to be a diſſenſion among the Devils, tho really there was none. But this pretence the Doctrine of Chriſt it ſelf ſufficiently confuted; and his Reſurrection, which was purpoſely intended as a confirmation of his Doctrine, put the matter out of all doubt. For how could it be imagined that ſo holy a Doctrine, confirm'd by miracles from Heaven, ſhould owe its being ſo univerſally ſpread to a previous juggle and contrivance among the Devils? This is in effect, tho but obſcurely, ſuggeſted by Chriſt at the 33d Verſ.

[Page]Verſ. 32. Note h.] It is very true that [...], which properly ſignifies a word, is taken very often for a thing; but the phraſe to ſpeak a word [...] was never uſed to ſignify to do any thing. The firſt, therefore is very well obſerved by the Doctor, and demonſtrated before by examples at chap. xi. ver. 23. of this Goſpel. But the latter no body will ever be able to prove. For tho [...] ſignifies both word and thing, yet it does not follow that verbs of a near ſignification, as particularly that the verb [...] to ſpeak ſignifies to do, nor can any ſuch inſtance be given. It is true alſo, that thoſe who ſpeak words againſt the Holy Ghoſt do oppoſe him; but the reaſon of that is, becauſe out of the abundance of the heart the mouth ſpeaketh, and it is impoſſible that a man ſhould ſpeak vilifying words of thoſe Miracles that are wrought by a divine power, but he muſt have a deſign to reſiſt them. So that our Author, which I am ſorry for, has not in the beginning of this laſt Annotation of his, given us any Evidence of his great skill in Grammar: What he ſays beſides is extraordinary; and no body, that I know of, has ſo happily explained wherein the Sin againſt the Holy Ghoſt conſiſts. This Sin is excellently compared to ſinning under the Law with a hand lifted up; which thoſe were guilty of who, after warning given them, put an open contempt upon the Laws authority, and ſpake in reproachful terms concerning it, as we have ſhewn in our Notes on Numbers. For juſt as thoſe who are here ſaid to ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, defamed the Miracles wrought by Chriſt; ſo thoſe that ſinned under the Law with a high hand derided the Miracles wrought by Moſes.

Verſ. 36. Note m.] There are ſome who would have Chriſt to argue here à minori ad majus. q. d. If men muſt give an account even of idle words, much more muſt they do ſo of ſlanderous ſpeeches, ſuch as had been utter'd by the Phariſees. But there is not ſo much as the leaſt footſtep of this [...] in our Saviour's words. And therefore I rather think with Dr. Hammond that this word [...] implies ſomething in it more than ordinary bad. For tho it properly ſignifies idle, yet according to uſe, which often ſtretches the ſenſe of words beyond what is contain'd in their true original, it may ſignify ſomewhat more. When any man was ſaid to be [...], the only meaning certainly was not that he had a great deal of leiſure, which may be true ſometimes of good and induſtrious perſons, but that he was a lazy, ſluggiſh, ſtupid Fellow, as the word is rendred in an old Lexicon. And ſo [...] is not only a vain or idle word, ſuch as the Diſcourſe of trifling perſons is oftentimes full of; but alſo a wicked one, ſuch as is a means of corrupting the minds of the Hearers, and [Page] making them lazy and ſlothful, i. e. Chapter XIII. hindering them from doing any good works; and as a conſequence of that, occaſioning their running headlong into all manner of evil practices. And of this ſort were the Diſcourſes of ſuch men as the Phariſees, who, in reſpect of Piety, might be juſtly ſaid to be [...] ſlothful perſons, performed no good works, but were wicked themſelves, and by their bad Converſation kept others from becoming ſober or ſerviceable. Their Diſcourſes were the Diſcourſes of [...], lazy men (in point of Virtue) and ſuch as induced the Hearers to be alike ſlothful. This Chriſt more than once upbraids them with. See afterwards Chap. xxiii.13. And in this place we have an inſtance of it in them, in their not only refuſing to believe Chriſt themſelves, but uſing Arguments to perſwade others that he was not to be believed, whilſt they wickedly aſcribed the Miracles that were done by him to the Prince of the Devils. So that I ſhould underſtand the word [...] not only in a paſſive, but alſo in an active ſenſe, i. e. that Chriſt ſpeaks of ſuch Diſcourſes as were not only without the leaſt ſpark of goodneſs in them, but had a bad influence likewiſe upon others. Thus the Doctrine of the Stoicks was by the reſt of the Philoſophers called [...], in an active ſenſe, as appears from a paſſage in Cicero Lib. de Fato: Nec nos impediet, ſays he, illa ignava quae dicitur ratio (appellatur quidem à Philoſophis [...]) cui ſi pareamus nihil eſt omnino quod agamus in vita. So [...], of which [...] is but a contraction, is uſed alſo actively. Heſych. [...], idle or miſchievous.

Verſ. 42. [...].] See my Notes upon Abd. ver. 20.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 8. Note a. SEe my Citations out of Pliny, about the fruitfulneſs of Egypt, Africa, and Sicily, upon Gen. xli.47.

Verſ. 12. [...].] i. e. He that makes an ill uſe of God's benefits, ſo as that they prove almoſt inſignificant to him, and makes little or no advances in Piety, ſhall be ſo forſaken of God, as to fall even from thoſe firſt beginnings he has made in Virtue. Juſt ſuch another expreſſion, but in a different caſe, there is in Juvenal, Sat. iii. verſ. 208.

Nil habuit Codrus, quis enim negat? & tamen illud

Perdidit infelix totum nihil.

[Page]Verſ. 21. [...].] The ſame Metaphor is uſed by Quintilian, de praecocibus ingeniis, Inſt. lib. 1. c. 3. Non ſubest, ſays he, vera vis, nec penitus immiſſis radicibus, ut quae ſummo ſolo ſparſa ſunt ſemina, celerius ſeſe effundunt; & imitatae ſpicas herbulae, manibus ariſtis, ante meſſem flaveſcunt. Their forwardneſs is not the effect of any ſettled ſtrength of Judgment, but they are like ſeeds ſcattered upon the ſurface of the ground, which preſently ſhoot up before they have taken any rooting; or like deep weeds growing amongst the corn, which ripen before the Harvest.

Ibid. The Expoſition of this Parable is full of improprieties of ſpeech, ſuch as in their ordinary and daily diſcourſe it is uſual for men to be guilty of; but this does not make the ſenſe obſcure, becauſe the thing is of it ſelf ſo very manifeſt. We muſt not therefore criticize too much upon the words, but mind the thing it ſelf. When any one, ſaith Chriſt, heareth the word of the Kingdom, and underſtandeth it not, the wicked one cometh and catcheth away that which was ſown in his heart: this is he which was ſowed by the way ſide. It is juſt as if he had ſaid, and his meaning is no other than this; ‘That whoſoever hears the Goſpel, and does not with all his heart entertain it, is not long obedient to it; for the Examples and Speeches of wicked men ſoon engage him to return to his former evil courſe. This man is repreſented by that part of the field which is by the way ſide.’ After the ſame manner the reſt is to be expounded.

Verſ. 28. Note e.] That the Phraſe [...] is a Hebraiſm, may perhaps be true; but that Criticiſm is of no uſe here. For in this part of the Parable, where a Houſholder is repreſented as the Speaker, by a man-enemy is meant a man, and not the Devil.

Verſ. 35. [...].] It is ſtrange that in the antient Copies, ſtill extant, there ſhould be no footſtep to be found of that reading which is ſo often mentioned by S. Jerom, and which gave Porphyrius an occaſion to endeavour the leſſening the Evangeliſts Authority. I have read in ſome Copies, ſays he upon this place, and perhaps any diligent Reader may find the ſame, in the place where we have put, and the vulgar Edition has dictum eſt per Prophetam dicentem; I ſay, I have read in ſome Copies per Eſaiam Prophetam dicentem. And becauſe no ſuch thing as is here mentioned was to be found in Iſaiah, I believe this was taken away afterwards by ſome prudent men; but I am apt to think that it was at first written per Aſaph Prophetam (for the 77th Pſalm, out of which this Teſtimony is taken, is entitled a Pſalm of the Prophet Aſaph) and that the first Tranſcriber did not underſtand what was meant by Aſaph, but thinking it to be a miſtake in the Writer, corrected it by putting Iſaiah [Page] into its room, whoſe name was more familiar and better known. Much after the ſame manner he ſpeaks upon the 78th Pſalm; for all that is there ſaid on this head ſeems to be truly S. Jerom's, tho there be perhaps, as Eraſmus thought, a great deal of another man's added to that Commentary. It is ſaid therefore, ſays he, in St. Matthew, Haec facta ſunt ut impleretur quod ſcriptum eſt in Aſaph Propheta; but ſome ignorant men took that away, and ever ſince that time, MANY Goſpels at this day have it, Ut impleretur quod dictum eſt per Eſaiam Prophetam, tho it was not Iſaiah that ſaid this, but Aſaph. In a word, that wicked wretch Porphyrius objects this very thing againſt us, ſaying, Your Evangelist Matthew was ſo ignorant as to ſay, Quod ſcriptum eſt per Eſaiam, &c. — it was an error in the Tranſcribers, who wrote Eſaiam for Aſaph: for we know that the Primitive Church was gathered out of ignorant and unskilful people; and ſo reading in the Goſpel, Ut impleretur quod ſcriptum eſt in Aſaph Propheta, he that first tranſcribed the Goſpel began to queſtion with himſelf, who ſhould this Aſaph the Prophet be? and becauſe he was not known among the People, thinking it to be an error, and going about to correct it, committed one himſelf. If we believe thoſe who have made it their buſineſs to collect the various Readings, there is no Copy now extant but what wants the Prophet's name. But tho there was a very important reaſon for blotting his name out, the antient Tranſcribers had none at all for adding it; which is a thing that deſerves our conſideration, as well as what S. Jerom ſays beſides in that place.

Verſ. 54. [...], i. e. Nazareth, where his Parents had fixed their habitation. One and the ſame man, as Cicero tells us, may have two diſtinct Countries. Lib. 2. de Legibus, Municipibus duae ſunt patriae, altera naturae, altera civitatis; ut ille Cato, cum eſſet Tuſculi natus, in populi Romani civitatem ſuſceptus est. Itaque cum ortu Tuſculanus eſſet, civitate Romanus, habuit alteram loci patriam, alteram juris. Strangers that are free of any City have two Countries, one where they were born, the other the City of which they are made free; as the famous Cato, who having been born at Tuſculum, was admitted to the Privileges of a Roman Citizen: and ſo being a Tuſculan by birth, and by freedom a Citizen of Rome, he had one Country which was his native ſoil, and another where he was naturalized.

Chapter XIV.CHAP. XIV.

[Page]

V. 5. middle of Note a. THis obſervation ſeems to be taken out of H. Stephens's Theſaurus, and with very little care: for what is aſcribed to Budaeus, Stephanus ſets down as out of the vulgar Lexicons; and thoſe which are cited for the words of Xenophon, are Aeſchines's; and Budaeus interprets [...] by progredi facio. So that it would have been better if the Doctor had left out what he here ſays.

CHAP. XV.

Chapter XV.Verſ. 7. [...]] I do not think, with Grotius, and Dr. Hammond, that there is any reſpect here had to a further ſecond accompliſhment of a Prophecy of Iſaiah, whoſe words contain not a Prediction of any thing, but are only a reproof which he gives to the Jews of his time. But the reaſon of Chriſt's uſing ſuch a form of ſpeech, is that Iſaiah, in deſcribing the antient Jews, did at the ſame time exactly repreſent the diſpoſition of their poſterity, even at that diſtance. And therefore the word [...] here muſt not be inſiſted on, the meaning of Chriſt's words being no other than this: the Prophet Iſaiah ſpake that of your forefathers which may very well be apply'd to you. Something like this we may read in Cicero's Orat. pro Sextio Cap. lvii. where that Prince of Orators tell us that a great many things out of antient tragedy ſuting his caſe, were by Roſcius and all the Romans accommodated to him; and after he had recited this Verſe, O ingratiſici Argivi, inanes Graii, immemores beneficii, with a few more, he goes on thus: illud ſcripit diſertiſſimus poeta pro me; i. e. theſe things do ſo exactly ſit my caſe, that if the Poet had wrote about me on ſet purpoſe, he could not poſſibly have deviſed any thing more ſutable. And juſt thus I ſhould here underſtand Iſaiah, to be figuratively ſaid to have propheſied that which did ſo well agree to the Jews in the time of Chriſt, as that if he had really had a reſpect to them, he could not have ſpoken otherwiſe.

Verſ. 19. Note e.] I. The phraſe to proceed out of the heart does not ſignify for any thing that lies hid in the heart to diſcover it ſelf by ſome external Action, but to have a Fountain in the Mind, which is the original of all our thoughts. And therefore it cannot be gathered from this phraſe that [...] in this place ſignifies any thing more than bare thoughts. And indeed Chriſt oppoſes here thoſe things which [Page] are conveyed from without into the body, to thoſe which have their riſe from the Mind, whether they are latent, or whether they manifeſt themſelves by outward Actions. Nor do evil thoughts leſs defile a man whilſt they remain ſecret in the mind, than when they are expreſſed in words. II. If there was a neceſſity of proving that [...] ſignifies Machinations or Conſultations, the way would not be to conſider the ſignifications of the Noun [...], but of the Verb [...], from which the word [...] immediately comes, and which amongſt other things ſignifies to conſult. III. Our Author's reaſoning from the ſins here enumerated being diſpoſed according to the order of the precepts of the Decalogue, beſides that it is overthrown by comparing this with the parallel place in St. Mark, does by no means agree with St. Matthew's way of writing, in which there is no ſuch accuracy to be obſerved, no more than in the other writings of the Apoſtles. IV. As I do not deny but that part of the Wickedneſs ſpoken of in Gen. vi.5. was the murders committed by thoſe who lived before the Flood, ſo I am far from thinking that this is the only ſignification of thoſe words the imaginations of the thoughts of the heart, and I am ſure it cannot be proved to be ſo. In a word, the Doctor in this whole Annotation takes more pains, and uſes greater ſubtilty than he needed to have done. It would have been ſufficient for him to have ſhewn that [...] does not only ſignify the thoughts of particular perſons, but alſo the conſultations of ſeveral perſons together, and that Chriſt had a reſpect to both, and by that word was meant all kinds of evil thoughts and wicked conſultations.

Verſ. 22. Note f.] I. I have not that Edition of Pliny which our learned Author made uſe of, nor Budaeus; but I read the place in Pliny, in the late Paris Edition of M. J. Harduin, thus: Qui ſubtilius dividunt circumfundi Syriâ Phaenicem volunt, & eſſe oram maritimam Syriae cujus pars ſit Idumaea & Judaea, deinde Phaenice, deinde Syria. Thoſe that divide more ſubtilly tell us that Phaenice is comprehended in Syria, and is the Sea-coast of Syria, of which Idumaea and Judaea make a part, then Phaenice, then Syria: where the word circumfundi ſignifies to be contained or comprehended, not encompaſſed, as the Doctor and Pliny's interpreter thought, as appears by the following words, by which Phaenice is made a part of Syria, and not meerly a Country which Syria ſurrounded. And the reaſon why the Phaenicians are commonly called Syrophaenicians, is not becauſe they border'd upon the Syrians, but becauſe the ſame Perſons were both Syrians and Phaenicians too; and that perhaps on purpoſe to diſtinguiſh them from the Carthaginians, or thoſe Phaenicians who inhabited the Sea-coaſt of Africa. II. The Barbarians mentioned [Page] by Laertius in Proaem. Chapter XVI. can be no more the Jews than the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Brachmans, or any other Nation which were all called by the Greeks Barbarians. I know the Fathers generally affirm that the Greeks borrowed a great many things from the Hebrews; but I know too, that the examples produced by them are not ſufficient to prove it: for the Greeks might as well be beholden for every thing that they inſtance in, to the Tyrians, Egyptians, or Chaldeans, as to the Jews; or it may be they might invent them themſelves. This I could eaſily demonſtrate if this were a proper place for it.

CHAP. XVI.

Verſ. 6. Note a. THO I will not deny but that the Sadduces favoured Herod, and ſo were Herodians, as Grotius has obſerved upon this place; yet I am inclined to think that Herod is mentioned by name inſtead of the Sadduces here in St. Mark, by reaſon he was a Sadducee or one that denied a future State; and ſo it was all one for the Evangeliſt to ſay Herod or the Sadduces. And this ſeems to me to be the more probable, becauſe it does not appear, from the account we have of Herod, that he had any opinion peculiar to himſelf; whereas that the Sadduces had ſo is manifeſt, which therefore Herod rather ſeems to have embraced than the Sadduces any Doctrine of his, he having none that was properly his own.

Verſ. 10. Note b.] Between [...] and [...] there is not the leaſt difference, they both ſignify a veſſel made of twigs worked together, and might be both of ſeveral ſhapes and ſizes. And therefore that [...] is uſed in one of the Goſpels and [...] in another, ſeems to me to be by mere accident, not from any choice or deſign of the Evangeliſt. In the old Gloſſaries, [...] is rendred by Corbis, Corbula, Qualus, Ciſta; and [...] by Sporta, Fiſcella, Fiſcina. All which words tho different in ſound have the ſame ſignification.

Verſ. 13. Note c.] I ſhould not think it at all ſtrange if a Roman or Graecian Writer ſhould ſay that Caeſarea was in Syria; becauſe Palaeſtine was reckoned by the Greeks and Romans a part of Syria. But a Chriſtian, that uſes to follow the cuſtom of the Scripture, which always makes a diſtinction between [...] Syria and Canaan, would have ſpoken more accurately, if he had ſaid that Caeſarea was in the territory of the Tribe of Manaſſe, on the weſt ſide of Jordan in Paleſtine or Judea. But the contention between the Jews and the Syrians, which he afterwards mentions, was the reaſon doubtleſs why our Author thus ſpake.

[Page]Verſ. 18. [...]] Such another [...] I have obſerved in my Notes upon Gen. xlix.8. which ſee. Had Interpreters taken notice only of this, they would never have denied Petrum and Petram here to be one and the ſame man, viz. Simon, that eminent Member of the Apoſtolical Society. Conſult Camero in his Praelect. upon this place, or in his Myrothec. where he has put this matter beyond all doubt.

Ibid. Note g.] There are two things here to be conſidered in Christ's words: 1. It muſt be enquired what the demonſtrative Pronoun [...], which concludes this Verſe, is the Relative to. 2. What is meant by [...] the gates of Hell. As to the former, tho Expoſitors generally agree in making [...] to refer to the Church, which is its immediate Antecedent, yet it might be referred to [...] the rock upon which the Church is built, or to Peter the Apoſtle; and this, notwithſtanding the Pronoun's being uſually the Relative to the Noun which moſt nearly precedes it; for it is frequently alſo to be joined with that which is fartheſt off, as Commentators have obſerved. See Act. vii.19, 20. and x.6. 2 Joh. ver. 7. And that here [...] ought rather to be referred to Peter than the Church, appears by the ſcope of Christ's words: for his deſign in this place, as the thing it ſelf declares, and Camero has ſhewed, is to promiſe ſomething ſingular to Peter, who was no more concerned in the ſtate of the future Church than the reſt of the Apoſtles.

2. The phraſe [...] cannot otherwiſe be interpreted than according to the uſe of that phraſe in Scripture in which it occurs more than once. And we are not here to conſider what the word Gates ſignifies when it is alone, or joined with any other word, but what is the meaning of this phraſe [...]; for the ſignification of that word may be various, according as the place is in which it is found. Now no body will deny that [...] and portae mortis the gates of death are the ſame; and this phraſe the gates of death ſignifies nothing but death it ſelf. So Job xxxviii.17. Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or haſt thou ſeen the doors of the ſhadow of death? So Pſal. ix.13. Thou that lifteſt me up from the gates of death, i. e. delivereſt me from death. So Iſai. xxxviii.10. Hezekiah being in fear of an untimely death, ſays, In the cutting off of my days I ſhall go to the gates, [...] i. e. as it is rendered by the Septuagint, [...], I ſhall go to the gates of death. So that the phraſe [...] ſignifies death it ſelf.

But what does Chriſt then mean, when he ſays that the gates of hell ſhould not prevail againſt Peter, or not overcome him? namely this; that the danger of a certain and ſpeedy death upon the account of his [Page] preaching the Goſpel, ſhould not deter him from diſcharging the office impoſed on him, and ſo not death it ſelf. So that Jeſus in theſe words promiſes Peter, after he had profeſſed his belief that he was the Meſſiah, that he ſhould be a foundation of his Church, and conſtant in the profeſſion of the Truth he had declared; which he fulfilled accordingly; for Peter, as we are told by Clemens Ep. c. v. [...], did not only undergo one or two, but many ſorrows; and ſo becoming a Martyr, went to his proper place in glory. We may apply to him that paſſage of Seneca as we find it in Lactantius Lib. vi. c. 17. Hic eſt ille homo honeſtus, non apice, purpuráve, non lictorum inſignis miniſterio, ſed nulla re minor, qui cum MORTEM in VICINIA videt, non ſic perturbatur, tanquam rem novam viderit; qui ſive toto corpore tormenta patienda ſunt, ſive flamma ore recipienda eſt, ſive extendendae per patibulum manus, non quaerit quid patiatur, ſed quam bene. This is that brave and honorable perſon, who is not remarkable for his fine hat of feathers, his purple robe, or his guard of Lictors, which is the leaſt part of his glory; but who when he ſees death juſt before him, is not ſurprized with the ſtrangeneſs of the ſight; and whether he is to undergo the torment of the rack, or to receive fire into his mouth, or have his arms ſtretched out upon a croſs, does not regard what, but how well he ſuffers.

There is one thing that may perhaps here be objected, viz. that according to this interpretation Christ does not keep to the Metaphor; for after he had called Peter a ſtone, he adds that death ſhould not overcome him. It is true, but it was neither neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould go on in the ſame Metaphor; nor yet ſuppoſing that what we refer to Peter did, as it is commonly thought, belong to the Church, will he be found to continue the ſame Metaphor. For he compares the Church to a building, which cannot properly be ſaid to be overcome by the gates of death, but only to be pulled down or deſtroyed. Nothing is more ordinary in all ſort of Writers than to begin with one Metaphor and end with another. As for inſtance, Clemens ſays a little before the words already alledged, concerning St. Peter and St. Paul: [...]: the faithful and moſt righteous pillars of the Church were perſecuted even to death. Pillars can neither be perſecuted nor dy.

However, by this it appears that St. Matthew or his interpreter very fitly uſes here the word [...], which properly ſignifies to overcome by force; for this is what Chriſt means, that the terror of having a violent Death ſet before him, ſhould not overcome St. Peters conſtancy; tho he ſaw the gates of death opened for him, yet he ſhould notwithſtanding [Page] hold faſt his pious reſolution. If any doubt of the ſignification of the verb [...], let them turn to the Greek Indexes to the firſt 5 books of Diodorus Siculus, and the Roman Antiq. of Dion. Halicarnaſſaeus, collected by Rhodomannus and Sylburgius, where they will meet with more examples than in any Lexicons. But it occurs likewiſe in the ſame ſenſe often in the verſion of the Septuagint. I know very well, that Interpreters commonly make uſe of theſe words to prove the perpetuity, if not alſo the [...] impeccability of the Church; but they will never be able to evince any ſuch thing from this place by Grammatical reaſons. The thing it ſelf ſhews that the Church is liable to error, nor is there any mention made in this place of errors. That the Church has and always will continue, I do not in the leaſt doubt, becauſe of the nature and force of the Evangelical Covenant; but this cannot be concluded from theſe words, in which it is much more probable that St. Peter is ſpoken of; both what goes before and what comes after belonging to him and not to the Church. However I ſubmit the whole matter to the judgment of the Learned.

Verſ. 19. Note h.] I. It is certain, I confeſs, that there was a great difference between that Perſon's power who is ſaid to have had the key of the houſe of David, in Iſaiah, and his who is repreſented in the Revelation as carrying the key of David; but it would be hard to prove this from the ſound of the phraſes, if it were not otherwiſe plain and manifeſt: for the key of David is the key by which the houſe of David was open'd and ſhut, and therefore the ſame with the key of the houſe of David. Tho a key be an enſign of power, the key of David does not ſignify the power of David himſelf, but a power over the Kingdom of David. Our learned Author is not always happy in his ſubtilties about little things. However Mr. Selden has ſeveral Obſervations with relation to this matter, lib. 1. de Synedriis, cap. ix. which thoſe that will may read in himſelf.

II. Indeed for my own part, I do not doubt but that the Apoſtles committed the Government of the Churches to ſingle Biſhops, and accordingly that theſe ought to be reckon'd their Succeſſors; but as their Gifts were not alike, ſo neither was their Authority equal. And therefore whatever Chriſt ſays to the Apoſtles ought not preſently to be accommodated to Biſhops, at leaſt by the ſame Rule and in the ſame Latitude: Eſpecially in this place, where Chriſt promiſes to St. Peter and the Apoſtles ſomething extraordinary for the Confeſſion made by St. Peter in the Name of all the reſt, no Grammarian would ſay that the Apoſtles Succeſſors were alſo included: and therefore the words of Chriſt cannot, till the thing is firſt proved by Argument, be applied [Page] to Biſhops; as if Chriſt had by theſe words alone conferred an equal Power upon the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors. Cyprian, it's true, and ſome other Biſhops did ſo interpret them, as if by virtue of theſe words of Chriſt they ſucceeded in the Apoſtles Rights and Privileges; but it were to be wiſh'd they had given their Grammatical Reaſons for ſuch an Interpretation of them.

Verſ. 22. Note i.] Mr. Fuller is the firſt that ever explain'd this Phraſe right, Miſcell. Sacr. lib. ii. c. 2. where he ſhews that the word GOD muſt be underſtood, as if it were [...], God be merciful or favourable to you, i. e. God forbid it, and not be ſo angry with you as to ſuffer you to do ſuch a thing. See likewiſe H. Grotius, who has confirm'd this in many places.

Verſ. 24. Note l.] A Servant who is come to be under another man's power, no longer [...], i. e. is his own Maſter, as Ariſtophanes ſpeaks in the beginning of his Plutus. He muſt do, not what he might do, if he were free, or what he thinks moſt ſit to be done, but what his Maſter commands him, without any regard to himſelf. He may be ſaid [...], that he ſhould altogether depend upon the will of another. In the ſame manner Chriſt here would have his Diſciples to reſign themſelves abſolutely to the Will of God, renouncing all their former Deſires, and reſolving both to do and ſuffer whatever God ſhould think fit to require of them. To deny ones ſelf therefore is to conform ones ſelf entirely to the Divine Will. In the place which the Doctor cites out of Porphyry, the Phraſe [...] does not ſignify to himſelf, but his own Houſe.

Verſ. 26. Note m.] Our learned Author is miſtaken, for nothing is more common with all Writers than to join the Verb [...] with an Accuſative Caſe, as H. Stephens, R. Conſtantin, or any other Lexicographer whatever will inform us. Thus St. Paul ſays, Phil. iii.8. [...], I have loſt all things; in which place there is no room at all for the Prepoſition [...], which is a reſtrictive Particle; for the meaning of the Apoſtle is, that he had abandoned all and every of thoſe things of which he there ſpeaks. So likewiſe Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus Antiq. Rom. lib. x. p. 675. Edit. Sylburg. ſays, [...], to ſuffer loſs by the death, reproachful treatment and baniſhment of famous Men.

The Original of this Phraſe is from the Attick way of ſpeaking, in which Verbs very often govern an Accuſative Caſe in Nouns of a near ſignification; and to ſpeak properly according to that Dialect, we muſt ſay [...] & [...], not [...]: to which purpoſe is the Obſervation of H. Stephens, that the Greeks do not uſe to ſay [Page] [...], but [...],Chapter XVII. to be puniſhed with the Puniſhment of Death, but with the Puniſhment Death. Beſides, the Doctor's Annotation is manifeſtly confuted by the parallel place in St. Luke, ch. ix.25. where the Phraſe is [...], loſing himſelf, not [...]. It is paſt all doubt, that as to ſave Life does not ſignify in this Diſcourſe of Chriſt, to ſave thoſe things which concern or belong to Life, but Life it ſelf; ſo to ſuffer the loſs of the Soul is to loſe the Soul, i. e. Life eternal.

Ibid. [...].] The meaning is, that there is nothing which is equally valuable with Life. This matter is well enough expreſſed by Achilles in Homer, Iliad, 1. ver. 401. & ſeqq.

[...]

[...]

For there is nothing ſeems to me fit to be laid in the Balance with Life, no not all the Wealth that they ſay is contain'd in the populous City of Troy, &c.

CHAP. XVII.

Verſ. 5. [...]] Theſe words in Moſes, Deut. xviii.15. Ʋnto him ye ſhall hearken, are not a Prediction, as the Loctor tells us in his Paraphraſe, but a Command. See the place.

Verſ. 24. Note e.] It is ſtrange that our Author, when he had ſaid that the name of Drachms came to the Jews after the time of the Seleucidae, ſhould produce as a proof of it, a place out of Ezra ii.69. who lived in the Reign of Cyrus. Did he think that the Book of Ezra was written or altered after the time of Alexander? I do not believe ſo. It muſt be therefore an Error, occaſion'd either through want of care, or that common Infirmity to which Human Nature is liable, which in ſo great a Man ought eaſily to be overlooked. Thinking with himſelf that [...] Drachmon was a Greek word, and knowing that the Jews had no Commerce with the Greeks before the time of the Seleucidae, he imagined that that word was not before known to the Jews; and not taking ſufficient heed to Chronological Accounts, alledg'd, before he was aware, that place out of Ezra. To the queſtion, [Page] whether it was a double,Chapter XVIII. ſacred or common Shekel, I have ſpoken upon Exod. xxx.13.

Verſ. 25. Note f.] The Doctor juſtly rejects the ſecond Opinion mention'd by him, both for the reaſons alledged by himſelf, and for this alſo (which he paſſed over) that what is ſaid concerning the Praetor of Syria is perfectly falſe. The Publicans never exacted Tithes of the Jews, nor is there any mention made of Syria in Cicero's Orations againſt Verres. In his third Book, and particularly where he accuſes Verres, he lays open the whole affair about the Tithes of Sicily, but there is not ſo much as one word about Syria. Without doubt the Author of this Opinion was deceiv'd by his Memory, which as he was writing ſuggeſted Syria to him inſtead of Sicily.

CHAP. XVIII.

Verſ. 6. [...]] S. Jerom upon this place tells us that Chriſt ſpeaks according to the Cuſtom of the Country, and the practice of the antient Jews, who uſed to puniſh extraordinary Crimes by drowning the guilty Perſon in the Sea with a Stone tied to him. Secundum ritum Provinciae loquitur, quo majorum criminum iſta apud veteres Judaeos poena fuerit, ut in profundum, ligato ſaxo, mergerentur. He had been more perhaps in the right if he had ſaid, apud veteres S [...]mos, the antient Syrians: for, as Grotius has obſerv'd, we do not any where find that this kind of Puniſhment was us'd among the Jews. About this Puniſhment ſee Iſaac Caſaubon upon the LXVII Chapter of Suetonius's Auguſtus, where he relates how the Tutor and Miniſters of Caius Caeſar for taking the opportunity of his Sickneſs and Death to infeſt and ruin the Province by their Pride and Covetouſneſs, were with a heavy weight put about their Necks thrown headlong into a River. Oneratis gravi pondere cervicibus, praecipitatos eſſe in flumen. And the place where that was done ſeems to be Syria.

Verſ. 7. [...].] That is, Men are ſo wicked, that they will certainly put Stumbling-blocks in others way, but they ſhall be ſeverely puniſhed for doing ſo; namely, becauſe there is no neceſſity of Mens being bad, tho when they are bad, and as long as they continue bad, they muſt needs be an offence to others. There is an Expreſſion not much unlike this in Herodotus, lib. i. cap. vii. where he ſpeaks of the folly of Candaules, who was deſirous to have Gyges ſee [Page] his Wife all naked: [...]: not long after that (for it was neceſſary that Candaules ſhould have ſome evil befal him) he ſaid to Gyges; i. e. Candaules was ſo fooliſh that he could not poſſibly avoid bringing by his folly ſome miſchief upon himſelf. I remember that I have alſo read the Verb [...] uſed much to the ſame purpoſe in Ariſtophanes, but the particular place where is out of my mind.

Verſ. 8. [...], &c.] The ſenſe of theſe words is admirably well expreſſed in one Verſe of Dionyſius Cato:

Quae nocitura tenes, quamvis ſint cara, relinquas.

Verſ. 10. Note a.] Grotius ought to be read upon this place, tho I ſhould by no means grant him that Chriſt does here make good the Opinion of the Jews, that every particular Man had a Guardian Angel aſſigned him. It was ground enough for Chriſt to ſpeak as he did, that Angels had [in general] the care of Men committed to them, as Dr. Hammond well obſerves: And it was much at one whether they thought that every Man had conſtantly his own Angel to guard him, or that ſome number of them had the care of a whole Society, and upon ſome occaſions of a particular Perſon. And therefore Chriſt neither contradicted nor juſtified either of theſe Opinions in particular, but left them in an uncertainty.

One thing there is which he here contradicts, viz. an Opinion that ſeems to have been common to the Jews with the Heathens, that according as Men differed in rank and condition, they had more or leſs powerful Genius's appointed to watch over them: So that great and rich Perſons were attended, they thought, with a Genius of greater Power and Might than thoſe that were poor, or of the loweſt rank. So Plutarch in the Life of Antonius, p. 930. [...] — [...]. The ludicrous Contentions that Antony had with Caeſar in his Childhood, and in which he was always beaten, vexed him to the heart. For he had a certain Fortune-teller with him out of Egypt that pretended to underſtand what Men were born to — who told him, that tho his Fortune was great and extraordinary, yet it was obſcured by Caeſar's. And therefore he advis'd him to [Page]ſeparate himſelf as far as poſſible from that young Prince. For, ſays he, your GENIƲS is afraid of his Genius; and tho it is fierce and lofty when alone, yet at his approach it grows remiſs and cowardly. Now what our Saviour here ſays, directly thwarts this Opinion; for he teaches us, that Angels of the higheſt dignity are appointed to take care [...], of little ones. For to ſee the face of God, is all one as to be permitted a near acceſs to him, as Grotius has obſerv'd.

Verſ. 15. [...].] Becauſe our Author in his Paraphraſe upon the 17th Verſe refers the Reader to his Treatiſe of the Power of the Keys, where he explains this place more largely, I ſhall take out thence what is not to be found in his Annotations, that thoſe who want that Book, may ſee fully what is Dr. Hammond's Opinion here.

‘Mat. xviii.15. If thy Brother ſhall offend againſt thee: it ſeems the place belongs not primarily (but only paritate rationis, by analogy of Reaſon) to all Sins in the latitude, but peculiarly to Treſpaſſes or perſonal Injuries done by one Brother, one Chriſtian to another; as beſides the expreſs words v. 15. (if thy Brother treſpaſs againſt thee) is more clear by St. Peter's Queſtion to the ſame purpoſe, v. 21. How oft ſhall my Brother treſpaſs againſt me, and I forgive him?’

‘Go and reprove him, [...], i. e. either reprehend him for it, as the word is uſed ſometimes when 'tis join'd with [...], chaſten, or diſcipline, Heb. xii.5. Apoc. iii.19. or again [...] *, make him ſenſible of the Wrong he hath done thee, or as it may be rendred, † make him aſham'd of his Fact.’

‘Betwixt thee and him alone, i. e. do thy beſt by private admonitions to bring him to a ſenſe.’

"If he hear thee, be thus wrought on:

[Page] ‘Thou haſt gain'd thy Brother; gain'd him, firſt to thy ſelf (gotten a Friend inſtead of an Enemy;) and ſecondly to Chriſt, gained a Convert, a Proſelyte to him, and this alſo a great acquiſition to thee, to have had the honour of doing that glorious thing, and of being capable of the Reward of them that convert any to Righteouſneſs.’

‘But if he hear thee not, if this firſt method of thy Charity, and diſcipline of this calmer making ſucceed not, another eſſay muſt be made, another artifice uſed.’

‘Take with thee ( [...] farther, or over and above) one, or two, that in the mouth of two or three Witneſſes every word may be eſtabliſhed, i. e. that the thing which thou layeſt to his charge, be ſo confirmed; according to that Joh. viii.17. The Teſtimony of two Men is true, i. e. of ſufficient authority in Law (according to an Hebraiſm, whereby [...] true, among the Greek Tranſlators ſignifieth [...], fit to be credited) that ſo either by the Teſtimony of theſe as Witneſſes, he may no longer be able to deny the Fact (as Heb. vi.16. an Oath is ſaid to be [...], for eſtabliſhing, or confirmation, in that it is [...], an end of affirming and denying; the thing ſo eſtabliſh'd ( [...] or [...]) by Oath, cannot be denyed, or the Parties denial will no longer ſtand him in ſtead) or by authority of theſe he may be induced (as the Judg is on the accuſed, Deut. xix.15. Heb. x.28.) to give ſentence on, to condemn himſelf; which if it may be obtained, is the prime end of all theſe charitable Artifices, to bring the Injurious to a ſight and ſhame, the beſt Preparatives to Reformation: To which purpoſe is that of Tertullian, Apol. cap. 39. Diſciplinam praeceptorum inculcationibus denſamus, We thicken the Doctrine of Precepts with ways of inculcating, i. e. preſs them to Reformation whom our Doctrine will not prevail on; where he mentions theſe three degrees, Exhortationes, Caſtigationes, Cenſura; Exhortations and Chaſtiſements, and then Cenſure.’

‘But if he hear not them ( [...], if he be ſtill refractory, either through non-conviction of the Fact, or non-contrition for it) if this ſecond Admonition be not in event [...], 2 Cor. xiii.10. to Edification, or Inſtruction; if it work not on him,’

‘Then tell it to the Church, I ſhall tell you what that is preſently:’

‘And if he hear not the Church, (continue his Refractorineſs ſtill) let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican; which may [Page] poſſibly ſignify, that in that caſe thou haſt liberty to implead him, as thou wouldſt do any Heathen in any foreign Heathen Court for that Injury, that Treſpaſs done to thee, which was at the firſt mentioned. For certainly though it were unlawful for a Chriſtian both here, and 1 Cor. vi.1. to implead a Chriſtian for a perſonal Treſpaſs before a Heathen Tribunal, yet to deal thus with a Heathen (or Publican, which was in account the ſame) was not either by Chriſt, or the Apoſtle counted unlawful (but only the [...], i. e. Chriſtian with Chriſtian, v. 6.) and conſequently with a perverſe refractory Brother, whom you ſee Chriſt gives leave to account and deal with as with a Heathen or Publican, it would not be unlawful alſo. But another Interpretation I ſhall not doubt to propoſe and prefer, that by Heathen and Publican may be meant a deſperate deplored Sinner, ſuch as the Rabbins call [...] i. e. [...] a Sinner, as in the Goſpel [...], a deplored Sinner: Thus in Muſar, If he will not then (i. e. when two or three Friends have been taken to be preſent at his Admonition) be reconciled, go and leave him to himſelf; for ſuch an one is implacable, and is called [...], of whom again 'tis there ſaid, Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecerit, i. e. adhibitis amicis, if this ſecond Admonition do no good, debet eum pudefacere coram multis, he muſt be aſhamed before many, (which may be the meaning of Dic Eccleſiae, tell it to the Church, as will anon appear by 1 Tim. v.20.) And this interpretation of that Phraſe will ſeem moſt probable, if you mark, 1. That [...] & [...], Publicans and Sinners are frequently joyned together in the Goſpel, as once Publicans and Harlots, thoſe [...] Sinner-women. 2. That the Heathen are call'd [...] Sinners, as when 'tis ſaid that Chriſt was by the Jews delivered into the hands of Sinners, i. e. Romans Heathen, and in St. Paul [not Sinners of the Gentiles] and then thoſe words, [let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican] will ſound no more, but [give him over as a deſperate deplored Sinner] to whom thoſe Privileges of a Chriſtian (viz. of not being impleaded before an Heathen Tribunal) &c. do not belong, i. e. leave him to himſelf. This ſure is the ſimpleſt rendring of the place; and then he that is ſuch, that is capable of that Denomination, is certainly ſit and ripe for the Cenſures of the Church, which follow in the next Verſe, and are appointed to go out againſt this refractory incorrigible.’

‘For ſo immediately it follows, Verily I ſay unto you; who are thoſe you? Why, 1. In the plural Number [ [...].] Secondly, [...] [Page] to you Diſciples, the ſame that were after made Apoſtles, (for ſo in the firſt verſe [...], the Diſciples came to him with a queſtion; and v. 3. he ſaid, verily I ſay to you, i. e. to you Diſciples: and ver. 12. [...]; what do you think? asking the Diſciples, or appealing to their own judgment, and ſo ſtill the ſame Auditors continued, and his Speech addreſt to them, I ſay unto you Diſciples) whatſoever you ſhall bind on earth, &c.’

‘After this, it follows ver. 19. again I ſay unto you, that if two of you ſhall agree upon earth, &c.] Many falſe illations are by men of different perſwaſions made from theſe words, which will all vaniſh, I conceive, and the truth be diſinvolv'd, if the Reader will not deſpiſe this one obſervation, which I ſhall offer to him; and it is this, that the method oft-times uſed in Scripture is (when it hath propoſed one or two ſeverals to ſpeak of) to reſume the laſt first, and ſo orderly to go back, till it come to the first, to which you may accommodate that expreſſion, and deſcription of God's method in other things. Many that are last are firſt (the laſt in propoſing, firſt in handling or reſuming) and the first last.’

‘Other Examples of this Obſervation I ſhall leave the Reader to obſerve, when he reads the Scripture more ponderingly, and only proceed to help him to take notice of it in the point in hand. Three caſes, it is apparent, are here mention'd orderly by our Saviour in the matter of treſpaſs: 1. Telling the Treſpaſſer of his fault between him and thee alone. 2. Taking one or two with thee, to do it more convincingly, and with greater Authority. 3. Telling the Church of it. Having ſaid ſomewhat to each of theſe, as he delivered them in the three firſt Verſes, 15, 16, 17. he reſumes the matter again, and ſpeaks firſt to the laſt of them, ver. 18. telling them what, after the not ſucceeding of the third admonition, the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors are to do, when the cognizance of this injury and contumacy comes before them, (which, that in every caſe of treſpaſs it always ſhould, I conceive, doth not hence appear to be neceſſary, ſave only in caſe that the Magiſtrate or ſecular Tribunal be Heathen, becauſe that Suppoſition may perhaps be the ground of the ſit tibi Ethnicus, on which this other is ſuperſtructed) viz. excommunicate ſuch a Refractory till reformation, and then upon that, abſolve him again; and [verily I ſay unto you, whatſoever you ſhall bind on earth, &c.] From this view it is not irrational to conclude, that the [...] and the [...], the Church, and the Diſciples (conſidered prophetically under [Page] the notion of Apoſtles, Chapter XIX. i. e. Founders firſt, then Governours of Churches) may in that place ſignify the ſame thing. So ſaith St. Chryſoſtom in Mat. Hom. 6. [...], Tell it to the Church, i. e. to the Preſident and Rulers of it; and Theoph. in Matt. xviii. [...], &c. the Church for the Rulers of the Church: To which purpoſe it is obſervable, what Kimchi a Jewiſh learned Rabbi hath affirmed, that the Governours and Rulers are oft meant by the word [...], or Congregation; and ſo the word People, Exod. iv.29. doth clearly ſignify the Elders, not all the People, Exod. iii.16. Agreeable to which is the Inſcription of the antient Apoſtolical Epiſtle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, [...], The Church of God that dwells at Rome, meaning I conceive by the Title [the Church] himſelf (who wrote the Epiſtle, and was chief there, or Biſhop at that time) and the other Clergy with him; for ſo the other part of the Inſcription [ [...], to the Church of God at Corinth] is after explained by him in the words [...], to the Biſhops and Deacons. But if this will not be acknowledged, then by [...] I ſhall give you leave to underſtand any meeting, or Congregation of pious men, either a conſeſſus Presbyterorum, a College of Presbyters, which were ordinarily aſſiſtant to the Biſhop in the antient Church, or poſſibly the whole or any part of the People convened, whoſe Authority or conſent may work ſomewhat upon the Offender, as S. Paul conceives it were apt to do, when he commands Timothy, [...], to rebuke the offenders before all men, i. e. in the preſence of the community of the People, 1 Tim. v.20. and perhaps when he ſpeaks of the [...], 2 Cor. ii.6. the rebuke that was by or under the many, though it be not certain whether that ſignify the chaſtiſement, (as our Engliſh reads) puniſhment and cenſure inflicted by the Presbytery, or [...] under them, thoſe aſſiſting or joining in the cenſure, [...], Acts of Canonical ſeverity, (which in caſe of ſorrow and relenting of the Offender upon rebuke, or admonition before ejection out of the Church, were wont to be thought ſufficient without excommunication; and after excommunication, as in this place to the Corinthians, if they were ſubmitted to, were ſufficient, tho not preſently to reſtore him to the Communion, yet to make him capable of being prayed for by the Church, 1 John v.16. and to be delivered from the ſtripes of Satan, the diſeaſes that the delivering to Satan in the [Page] Apoſtles times brought upon them;) or whether,Chapter XVIII. as the words may be render'd, it import the rebuke, or reproof, viz. the third admonition (or the ſecond given by the Biſhop, which was equivalent to that) which was [...] under, or in the preſence of many, viz. of the People or Congregation. The former of theſe ſenſes ſeems more agreeable to the place to the Corinthians, the latter rather to belong to that in 1 Tim. and ſo that which even now in Muſar was coram multis, before many, and in St. Paul (if not [...] under many, yet) [...], in the preſence of all men, Christ may here expreſs by [...] the Church. This Interpretation being admitted, or not rejected, it then follows commodiouſly and reaſonably, in the Text of the Evangelist, that after the matter is brought to them (i. e. to thoſe many) or after this act of reproof, or rebuke before them, and upon continued refractorineſs to theſe laſt admonitions, then the [...] (that ſure is) the Apoſtles or Governors of the Church, the Paſtors (which cannot be in any reaſon excluded from under the former word [...] Church, whatſoever it ſignifies) and thoſe already promiſed this power, chap. xvi. may, or ſhall bind, or excommunicate them. And that is the ſum of the 18th verſe in reference to the 17th. And then verſ. 19, &c.’

Thus Dr. Hammond, who adds ſome things like what we have had already upon Chap. vii.6. If any be deſirous of more, they may turn to the Treatiſe it ſelf, viz. Power of the Keys, Chap. ii. Sect. 6. & ſeqq. We ſhould compare theſe things with what Grotius ſays upon this place of S. Matthew, which is a great deal more plain and natural. The Doctor takes for granted, what he ought to have proved, that Christ ſpeaks to his Apoſtles as the Governours of the Church.

Verſ. 23. Note c. [...].] The Eaſtern People uſed but one word [...] hebed, to ſignify both miniſtros liberae ſortis, Servants who were at their own diſpoſal, and Mancipia, Slaves, as I have obſerved in my Notes upon Gen. xx.8. And [...] in the Greek Interpreters and Writers of the New Teſtament has alſo the ſame ambiguity in it. But when we ſpeak Latin, there is no reaſon why we ſhould not uſe various words, according to the nature of the ſubject ſpoken of. Thus thoſe whom S. Matthew here calls [...] ought to be render'd by Miniſtri, Servants, becauſe Slaves or [...] are never ſold by their Maſter that he may have what is owing him paid.

Verſ. 28. Note d.] The Verb [...] is uſed here in its proper ſignification; for when we take any man by the Collar, and hale him [Page] along againſt his will,Chapter XIX. we almoſt choak him. The Latin Phraſe for it is obtorto collo trahere, which Eraſmus here makes uſe of. So Plautus in Paenulo, Act. iii. Sc. 5. ver. 45. ‘Priuſquàm hinc obtorto collo ad praetorem trahor.’ Which is well interpreted by learned men, to take hold of a man's collar, and ſqueeze his jaws together, and then drag him along. So a Philoſopher is repreſented by Lucian in Hermotimo, demanding his pay of one of his Scholars, and haling him before the Juſtice or Praetor, [...], having thrown his cloak about his neck. And in the ſame Author, in Lapithis, this Stoick Philoſopher is reproached with this very thing thus: [...]: nor do I take my Scholars by the throat and drag them before the Juſtice, if they do not pay me my ſtipend when it is due. See alſo the Dial. between Aeacus, Proteſilaus, Menelaus and Paris.

Verſ. 35. [...].] Every body muſt perceive that theſe words cannot be urged to ſignify that the Juſtice of God will in its Retributions take notice of every ſingle circumſtance in the ſins of men. We muſt conſider only the main ſcope of Chriſt, which is no more than that thoſe who do not forgive their Brethren their Offences, ſhall not obtain forgiveneſs from God for theirs. This is all therefore that can be concluded from this place; not as the Doctor, and Grotius before him, ſays, that Sins which are once pardoned in this life may be again charged upon a man. If we conſider the thing in it ſelf, 'tis then only that God paſſes Judgment upon men, when after the courſe of their life is ended, they are ſent into the place of Rewards or Puniſhments. So that that is the time when perſons are pardoned or condemned; and there is no need of any previous Sentence.

CHAP. XIX.

Verſ. 8 [...].] But you will ſay then, that to ones thinking God ſhould have changed it: True, if it were the ordinary way of God to change the diſpoſitions of men by the exerciſe of his infinite power; but becauſe in order to that end he for the moſt part makes uſe of Laws, Threatnings, Promiſes, and ſuch other means, he could not poſſibly have acted otherwiſe than he did, when no Laws could prove effectual to reform the Jews as to this point of the hardneſs of their hearts. He would not therefore require of them what he knew they would never do. And this was partly the [Page] reaſon that Solon went upon, when he reformed the ſevere Laws made by Draco, as Plutarch in his Life tells us: [...]: He that makes Laws must conſider the poſſibility of their being obſerved, if he intends to puniſh but a few, and do good by it, and not a great many to no purpoſe.

Verſ. 12. Note a.] The place in Ariſtophanes is in Nub. p. 151. Edit. Genev. and needs no Correction, no more than S. Matthew did this Rapſody, to explain his meaning, occaſioned by a fooliſh Etymology of the word [...].

Verſ. 24. Note c. lin. 10. after the words hole of a needle. Theſe words are in Berachoth fol. 55.2. and the foregoing in Babametſia fol. 38.2. as they are rightly cited by J. Buxtorf in [...] and Mr. Lightfoot in h. l.

Ibid. at the end of that Note.] Bochart has treated much more accurately concerning this Proverb in Hieroz. Part. 1. l. 11. c. 5. We may learn from him, in oppoſition to what the Doctor thought, 1. That there was no need of Chriſts changing the Elephant into a Camel, as the Beaſt which was moſt known, ſince the word [...] amongſt the Jews who uſed the Greek Language might ſignify a Cable as well as a Camel, the word [...] amongſt the Arabians and Syrians ſignifying both. 2. That it was as common with the Jews, when they ſpake of a difficult thing, to ſay that the performing it was like making a Cable to paſs through a narrow hole. I cannot alſo but wonder why the Doctor makes Phavorinus the Author of that Interpretation of the word [...] for a Cable; when Phavorinus quotes Theophylact, who was much older than himſelf, to the ſame purpoſe, and without doubt followed him in that Interpretation of it. The word Cable, as Bochart and others have obſerved, came rather from the Phoenician word [...] chebel, which ſignifies a rope. To conclude, we muſt be cautious how we correct Heſychius in the word [...], for [...] cannot be ſaid to be any part of a ſhip, tho the place where the fire is kindled may fitly be called [...]. Beſides, Phavorinus has both [...] and [...] diſtinct, whence it appears he did not borrow from Heſychius what he ſays about the word [...].

Verſ. 28. Note d.] It is indeed truly obſerved by the Doctor, that the [...] or regeneration here ſpoken of, is not like that of the Pythagoreans; but he might have added that it was of a nearer ſimilitude with that of the Stoicks, and that the Stoick Philoſophers were the firſt that uſed this word to expreſs the Reſtoration of the World after the burning of it. Tho in the circumſtances they differ very much in their opinion from the Chriſtians, yet in the general they agree as to [Page] this, that the World ſhall be firſt conſumed by Fire, and then afterwards reſtored; and the Chriſtian Writers, who knew the thing more certainly, and came another way by their knowledg, ſeem to have borrowed the word [...], in this ſenſe, from them. Philo, in his book de Incorruptibilitate mundi, p. 728. Ed. Genev. after he had ſpoken of the conflagration of the World, proceeds thus in giving an account of the Stoicks opinion: [...], from which the Stoicks ſay that there ſhall be another regeneration of the World, brought about by the Providence of its Author. [...]: Now according to theſe mens opinion, it may be ſaid that there is one World which is eternal, and another which is corruptible; the corruptible one, ſo called, becauſe of its Constitution; the eternal one, that which after its Conflagration, will by the perpetual REGENERATIONS and Revolutions of it be render'd immortal. And often in that book he uſes the word [...] in this ſenſe. So Marcus Antoninus, Lib. xi. Sect. 1. ſaith, [...]: it perfectly comprehends (viz. human Reaſon) the periodical regeneration of all things. So Euſebius Praep. Evan. Lib. xv. c. 19. ſhews out of Boethus, [...], what the Stoicks think about the Regeneration of all things. And ſo likewiſe others ſpeak of this opinion, which puts it out of all doubt that this word was borrowed from the Stoicks, who had a great many more of the ſame kind peculiar to their Sect. Seneca, in his Nat. Quaeſtion. Lib. iii. c. ult. ſaith, Omne EX INTEGRO animal GENERABITUR, dabiturque terris homo inſcius ſcelerum, & melioribus auſpiciis natus. Every living creature ſhall be regenerated, and the earth ſhall have men to inhabit it, that ſhall not know what it is to be vicious, and whoſe birth ſhall be attended with better tokens. About the opinion it ſelf ſee Juſt. Lipſius Phyſ. Stoicae, Lib. ii. c. 22.

But to paſs over this, we muſt obſerve, that tho in ſome ſort the regeneration of Mankind is begun by the preaching of the Goſpel, yet what is here ſaid cannot in any wiſe be underſtood of that initial regeneration; for in what ſenſe can the Apoſtles be ſaid to have ſat upon twelve thrones, and judged the twelve tribes upon earth? And therefore moſt of the Fathers, St. Auſtin himſelf not excepted, underſtand the words of Chriſt of the time after the Reſurrection. See the Paſſages which Suicer has collected under this word in his Theſaurus Eccleſiaſticus.

I wiſh our Author had warranted by ſufficient teſtimonies what he ſays in concurrence with Grotius, about the authority of the [...] or heads of the tribes among the Jews. For tho it be evident from the i, ii, and [Page] vii, &c. Chapters of Num. Chapter XX. that there were ſuch Perſons in the Camp of the Jews in the time of Moſes as were called [...], yet we find afterwards no mention made of them, nor were the heads of the tribes Judges in the Apoſtles time. I rather think that when Chriſt ſpake of twelve Thrones he had no regard at all to the [...], but only to the number of the Apoſtles; and that he did not aſſign each man his own Tribe, but made them every one Rulers over them all. And that expreſſion of the Thrones, I rather think to be an alluſion to the Seats of the Sanhedrim, the Council of 72 Men, who were the chief Judges in Iſrael, than to the Seats of the [...], about which the Scripture is wholly ſilent. It is a very unhappy thing, that great men do often take things that are doubtful for known and certain, and uſe them as confirmations of what they ſay; for from uncertainties nothing but uncertainties can be concluded, and no man is obliged to believe what another ſays meerly becauſe he ſays it.

Verſ. 29. Note e.] Of ſuch fruitfulneſs as this, ſee my Notes upon Gen. xli.7.

CHAP. XX.

Verſ. 15. Note b. I Do not at all doubt but that Chriſt often made uſe of Proverbs and Phraſes borrowed from the common way of ſpeaking amongſt the Jews, as learned men, and in particular Dr. Lightfoot, has ſhewn; but that he borrowed whole parables or [...] entire diſcourſes, I can by no means think. It does not ſeem to be the part of an inſpired Teacher to propoſe to his hearers Parables that were vulgarly uſed, for his own. And indeed it does not appear that any body uſed them before Chriſt's time; for thoſe which are alledged out of the Talmudical or other Jewiſh Writers, were all written ſome ages after Chriſt's birth. As for inſtance, this Parable of the Houſholder and the Labourers, which is extant in the Jeruſalem Gemara, was written an age and a half at leaſt after the Deſtruction of the Temple. And this being ſo, it ſeems to me a great deal more probable, that the Author of the Jeruſalem Gemara, or whoever it is that is there repreſented as uſing this Parable, did it in imitation of Chriſt, than that he owed it to any antient tradition. The ſame I ſay of many others, as of that which learned Men produce upon Matt. xviii.17. out of the book Muſar, and of another Parable like that, which we have afterwards in Chap. xxv.1. & ſeqq. Or if this conjecture be not approved, it would not be perhaps abſurd if one ſhould ſay that ſometimes the Jews happened upon the ſame thoughts with Chriſt; juſt as we ſee the Heathen Writers, who undoubtedly never read the Scripture, [Page] did by accident ſometimes ſay much the ſame things. I had rather ſay ſo, than imagin Chriſt, juſt like a Rabbi, repeating what he had learned from his Maſters, as if he had not been ſelf taught. Let this ſuffice for what may be ſaid upon this and other the like places in our Author. It muſt be obſerved here beſides, by the way, that the Hebrew words [...] are not rightly tranſlated by the Doctor, he hath received his hire in peace, but ought to be render'd, he received his whole hire. He ſeems in his haſte to have read [...] Bſchalom, tho that has no ſenſe in it here.

Verſ. 16. Note c.] In this long Annotation wherein the Doctor has taken ſo much pains, there are ſeveral things fit to be approved of, and others that may, with good reaſon, be found fault with, eſpecially in the firſt part of it. I ſhall, without making any reflection upon ſo great a man, ſet down thoſe things which ſeem to need correction.

I. If it were his deſign to expreſs and accurately diſtinguiſh the proper and figurative ſignifications of the word [...], he ſhould have begun with the proper ſignification of the Primitive. [...] properly ſignifies to call any perſon by name, with a deſign to ſpeak to him, or admoniſh him of any thing, or to obtain ſomething of him. Hence, by a figure, it was uſed to ſignify ſeveral things. For inſtance, [...] is to invite to a feaſt, becauſe he that is ſo invited is called upon by name; which there was no need of proving, nothing being, in all Writers, more common. And hence [...] is put to ſignify one that is called to a feaſt, as in Homer Odyſſ. p. verſ. 386.

II. The Doctor had not look'd into that place in 1 King. i.41, 49. where the [...] called are manifeſtly thoſe that were invited to a feast. See v. 9. of that Chapter. Read but the place, and you will ſee that nothing can be more foreign to the ſenſe of it, than to interpret the called there to be the Adonijans, or thoſe that adhered to Adonijah, when the diſcourſe is about Gueſts, and the Hebrew Language will not bear to have [...] the invited that were preſent with Adonijah, underſtood of ſuch as were called by his name, as being of his ſide or party. 'Tis a miſtake alſo that thoſe who are ſtiled [...] in 2 Sam. xv.11. ought to be underſtood to be any other than they commonly are. They were Abſalom's friends whom he called, as to a Feaſt, which, as he ſaid, he was about to make in Hebron at the time that he paid his pretended vow; and yet they had no ſhare in his Conſpiracy, for it is expreſly denied by the ſacred Writer, nor could they be called Abſalomians. By this it appears, that the Obſervation which Dr. Hammond hereupon makes, is vain.

[Page]III. In that place of Ariſtotle, near the end of lib. ii. of his Oeconomicks, there is no connexion between [...] and the word [...], for theſe are the words; [...]: he obſerved all the Governours, Satrapae, who were expected (viz. to come to Babylon) and the Soldiers, and not a few Embaſſadors, and Artificers leading others that were ſent for. Theſe [...] ſeem to have been Fidlers, or any other ſort of Muſicians, who carried others along with them to Babylon, in order to make a Conſort: for [...] ſignifies one that is ſent for or choſen out by name. So Homer Iliad. 1. v. 165. calls the Embaſſadors, which were choſen out of the Captains, and ſent by Agamemnon to Achilles, [...], i. e. as Euſtathius interprets it, [...], pitched upon by name, or as the Scholiast [...].

IV. The Septuagint cannot be juſtified from the charge of having barbarouſly and improperly tranſlated [...], ſince not only the thing it ſelf, but Grammar, ſhews that it is a holy Convocation that is there ſpoken of. See my Notes on Exod. xii.16. Their deſign, as it ſhould ſeem, was to ſay that the days upon which holy Aſſemblies were kept, were called holy days, which is indeed true; but the place was improper for it, and they expreſſed themſelves contrary to the Rules of Grammar: for to put [...] for [...], is intolerable. However, [...] is indeed the ſame with [...], but this word ſignifies called not renowned. Nevertheleſs, to ſpeak freely, it may perhaps be imagined that where we find [...] or [...], we muſt ſuppoſe the Subſtantives [...] or [...] to be underſtood; ſo that [...] may be put for [...]. This is certainly the meaning of Moſes, whoſe words the Doctor manifeſtly ſtrains. A feſtival day was called [...], becauſe there was a holy Convocation or ſolemn Aſſembly of the People, kept on that day.

V. The [...] in Numb. i.16. are thoſe that were choſen or called by name out of the Congregation. The [...] in chap. xvi. v. 2. of the ſame Book, are the called together of the Aſſembly, and [...] the called out of the Aſſembly or to the Aſſembly. In the former place the Septuagint have, and that rightly, [...] thoſe that were called to the Council, and in the latter [...], which is to the ſame ſenſe. So Xerxes in Herodotus takes counſel about his flight [...], with the Perſians called together about him.

VI. I admire that our learned Author, whilſt he was inquiring into the ſignification of the word [...] in the Old Teſtament, had no [Page] regard almoſt to its primitive [...]; which often occurs in the Septuagint, and is frequently made uſe of in the books of the Prophets, to ſignify what God did, when he called the People of the Jews to the knowledg of himſelf. See Iſa. xliii.1. and xlv.3, 4. In the ſame Prophet we might have read [...] in this ſenſe, if the Septuagint had pleaſed, Chap. xlviii.12. Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and thou Iſrael [...] mkoraï, my called [...]. Hence [...] alſo is taken for the Exhortation of the Prophets, calling the People to the Worſhip of God, Jerem. xxxi.6. And this is the ſenſe in which [...] and [...] are uſed in the New Teſtament; nor does the difference of Circumſtances make any change at all in their ſignification, as appears by what the Doctor has ſaid, who is but too curious and accurate in diſcuſſing the places where they are found. Several of them might from the Signification I have here given, be more grammatically and ſimply interpreted.

VII. I am ready to believe that this Phraſe Many are called but few are choſen, is a proverbial form of Speech, as Grotius remarks, which alludes to that more ſublime ſenſe in which the words Calling and Election are uſed in the New Teſtament, but has another different original; which, if I am not miſtaken in my conjecture, is from the way of muſtering and chooſing Soldiers, when all that were fit to carry Arms were ordered to preſent themſelves upon ſuch a certain day, and ſo were called to ſome particular place, where when more had met than were neceſſary to carry on the War they were going to be engaged in, the moſt valiant only were choſen: So that there were many called and few choſen. Thus when Gideon, Judg. vii. had called or ſummoned together many to repulſe the Midianites who made War with the People of the Jews, there were but few choſen to perform that Service. See alſo Joſh. viii.3. And ſo likewiſe Christ, Luk. vi.13. called unto him his Diſciples, which were many, and out of them he choſe twelve, whom alſo he named Apoſtles. The meaning therefore of this Proverb Many are called and few are choſen, is this, that among many that undertake the ſame thing, there are few that excel, and deſerve to be preferred before others. And this ſenſe very well agrees with the ſcope of the Parable that Christ makes uſe of; which is, that there are but a very few of thoſe that believe, who are worthy of an extraordinary reward.

Verſ. 28. [...].] Interpreters here juſtly inſiſt upon the force of the particle [...], which denotes a Subſtitution whereby Chriſt died not only for our good, but in our place or ſtead. And ſo the Heathens, in a matter of this nature, underſtood that Particle. Thus Alceſtis ſaith in Euripides:

[Page]

[...]

[...]

[...].

I honouring you, and ſubſtituting your ſeeing this light in the room of my life, die, when I might refuſe to die for you.

And Ovid. de Art. Amand. lib. 3. ſpeaking of the ſame Woman, ſays,

Fata Pheretiadae conjux Pegaſaea redemit,

Proque viri eſt uxor funere lata ſui.

The Particle [...] has alſo the ſame ſignification, as appears by the laſt Verſe of that paſſage of Euripides. The Heathens in thoſe firſt Ages, and not only then, but alſo in latter times, thought that any one might eſcape Death, if another put himſelf into his place. Ariſtides, who was of the ſame Age almoſt with the Emperor Adrian, tells us in V. Sacrarum, that when he was dangerouſly ſick, he was admoniſh'd by an Oracle, [...] That Philumena (one that was nurſed with the ſame Milk) gave Life for Life, and Body for Body, her's for his. See more Examples to this purpoſe in Iſaac Caſaubon upon Suetonius's Caligula, cap. xiv. and Spartianus's Adrian, upon which conſult alſo Salmaſius. Such Perſons as theſe were called [...], which is a word often us'd by Ignatius in his Epiſtles, concerning which read Dr. Pearſon's Vindiciae, Part 2. cap. xv.

Verſ. 29. Note d.] It were to be wiſh'd that Dr. Hammond, as well as others who quote that Greek and Latin Manuſcript, had given us alſo the Latin Verſion out of it, or rather that it were publiſhed entire. But in the mean time, the more I conſider the various readings of that Manuſcript, as they are ſet down both in many places of Beza, and in the Oxford Edit. of the New Teſtament, the more I am confirmed in the Opinion which I have ſometime ſince made learned Men the Judges of, viz. that that Manuſcript does not ſo much contain the words of the Evangeliſts as of ſome Paraphraſt, who now and then fills up what he thought was wanting, and where the Greek was not good mended the Language; and all that will but examine it with a particular care will be of the ſame Opinion. The Paraphraſe of Epictetus's Enchiridion publiſhed by Meric. Caſaubon, is much ſuch another, in which there are moſt of Epictetus's words ſet down, but often in a different order and with ſeveral Enlargements. And therefore I diſagree with the Doctor in his ſuſpecting that St. Matthew ought to [Page] be ſupplied out of that one Manuſcript, Chapter XXI. which all the reſt contradict, it being more probable that that Addition is taken out of St. Luke, tho with ſome Alterations. But I ſay again, that it were to be wiſhed that that Copy were publiſhed entire; and thoſe who keep up ſuch things to be burnt by the next Fire, are not to be commended.

Since the writing of this, I have happened to ſee ſome new Annotations upon the New Teſtament made by R. Simon, who is of the ſame Opinion with me, viz. that this Copy of Beza is nothing but a Compoſition made out of the four Goſpels compared with one another. And this ſame Addition which Dr. Hammond mentions, he found alſo in thoſe antient Manuſcripts which have the Latin Verſion as it was before it was corrected by S. Jerom. He tells us Part 1. c. 2. that he had read theſe words in the Latin Manuſcript of the four Goſpels, which is extant in the Jeſuits Library at Paris: Vos autem quaeritis de puſillo creſcere, & de majore minores eſſe. Intrantes autem & rogati ad coenam, nolite diſcumbere in locis eminentioribus, ne forte clarior te ſuperveniat & accedens, qui ad coenam vocavit te, dicat tibi adhuc deorſum accede, & confundaris. Si autem in loco inferiori diſcubueris, & ſuperveniat humilior, dicet tibi qui ad coenam vocavit: accede ſurſum, & erit tibi hoc utilius. The ſame he tells us, Part 2. c. 21. there is in another Copy in the Colbertine Library, and likewiſe in the King's MS. and ſome others of which he treats.

CHAP. XXI.

Verſ. 7. [...].] Our Author underſtands this rightly of the Colt. [...] is improperly put for [...] or [...]. See what I have ſaid upon this place in my Ars Critica, Part 2. Sect. 1. cap. 10.

Verſ. 9. Note a.] About the cuſtom of carrying Boughs, ſee my Notes upon Levit. xxiii.40. I cannot readily agree with the Doctor in what he ſays about the typical ſignification of the Feaſt of Tabernacles: All the ground that he has for that Conjecture, is only S. John's making uſe of the word [...], ch. i.14. which does not neceſſarily allude to the Feaſt of Tabernacles.

Verſ. 12. Note b.] I cannot imagine what ground our Author had to ſay, that the Jews were bound to go up to Jeruſalem to pay their half Shekel, it being no where commanded in the Law, and the contrary being manifeſt from Chap. xvii.24. of this Goſpel, where Chriſt is ſaid to have paid [...] to thoſe who collected it, not far from Capernaum. And then ſuppoſing them to have been obliged [Page] to carry this Tribute to the Temple,Chapter XXII. yet there was no neceſſity of their uſing a [...] to pay a quarter of an ounce of Silver. But it is certain that all the Males among the Jews were bound by the Law thrice a year to go up to the Temple, Exod. xxiii.17. And becauſe the richer ſort did not uſe to go thither without offering Sacrifices, and being at great Expences, the aſſiſtance of the Mony-changers was needful to furniſh them for thoſe Expences.

Verſ. 25. Note e.] I know that the Rabbins uſed to reckon the word [...] Heaven amongſt the Names of God: but they abuſe the word [...] Name; for tho Heaven is often ſet to ſignify God who dwells in Heaven, not only in Hebrew, but alſo in other Languages, yet none beſides the Rabbins, ever ſaid that this is one of God's Names. Tho a City is often taken for the Townſmen or Citizens in it, yet no body would ſay that that word is one of the Citizens Titles; as for inſtance, that the Inhabitants of Athens were called the Athenian Citizens and the Athenian City. Every body knows that it is a [...], a Synechdoche, whereby the Container is put for the thing contained.

Verſ. 41. [...].] This Phraſe has ſomething proverbial in it in the Greek Language, in which an Adverb is elegantly join'd with a Noun that is of a near affinity with it. Ariſtophanes in Pluto has this very Phraſe [...]. This could not be expreſſed the ſame way in the Syrian and Chaldee Dialect, but only by [...] in deſtroying he will deſtroy.

CHAP. XXII.

Verſ. 2. Note a. I Do not think that it can be gathered from this Parable, that whoever was invited to a Feaſt and did not come finely enough clothed, was therefore thruſt out; for who could be ſo inhuman to a Perſon that he knew and had invited? Parables ought not to be ſo ſtrained, as if all that is related in them, uſed really to be done. And I am ſure Juvenal Sat. v. ver. 131. repreſents to us a poor Man with a ragged Gown, as one of the Gueſts at a rich Mans Feaſt.

Quis veſtrum temerarius uſque adeo, quis

Perditus, ut dicat Regi, bibe? Plurima ſunt quae

Non audent homines, pertusâ, dicere, laena.

About the Garments uſed at Feaſts conſult Oct. Ferrarius de Re Veſt. Part 2. l. 1. cap. ix, & xi.

[Page]Verſ. 14. [...]] See what has been ſaid already upon Chap. xx.16. In that place the called refers only to the Jews, but in this it reſpects alſo the Gentiles; for this ſaying muſt be underſtood as well of thoſe who came to the Supper out of the croſs Streets and Highways, as thoſe who were firſt invited. The meaning is; God calls a great many both Jews and Gentiles, but few anſwering, as they ought, his Call, are choſen or ſet apart by him to be his peculiar People. So this place is interpreted by Barnabas, who was an Apoſtolical Perſon, Chap. iii. Attendite ne quando quieſcentes jam vocati addormiamus in peccatis noſtris, & nequam accipiens poteſtatem noſtrum ſuſcitet & excludat a Regno Domini, i. e. leſt the [...] that wicked one the Devil, as the Miniſter of God's Diſpleaſure, getting us in his power, caſt us out of the Feaſt. And a little after he ſays, Attendamus ergo ne forte ſicut ſcriptum eſt, multi vocati, pauci electi inveniamur. Let us therefore take heed leſt haply that ſaying of the Scripture prove true of us, Many are called but few are choſen.

Verſ. 16. Note b.] Our learned Author's Memory has fail'd him as to ſome things in this place, which I ſhall briefly take notice of.

I. In his Paraphraſe, he deſcribes the Herodians thus, Others that adhered to Herod the Roman Governor: in which words who would not think that he affirmed Herod to have been a Roman ſent by Tiberius to govern Judaea? than which nothing can be imagined more abſurd; neither can I conceive that a Man ſo learned as he could ever be guilty of ſo groſs a Miſtake. And therefore I rather think that it was his deſign to ſay, Thoſe that adhered to the Roman Government, as Herod. See his Note upon Chap. xvi.6. Herodes Antipas, who lived in thoſe times, and was in favor with Tiberius, was the Tetrarch of Galilee, not of Judaea, of which Pontius Pilate was Procurator.

II. I do not ſee what uſe the Doctor could make of the Syriack Interpreter, who does not read Herod's Followers, but [...] the People of Herod's Houſe, [...], Herod's Domeſticks: What he ſays afterwards does not concern Herod. I am apt to think that the Reaſon why the Sadduces are called Herodians, was becauſe Herod the Great was known to be a Sadduce, not becauſe ſome part of the Sadduces were called by that Name.

III. I wonder that our Author ſhould think all thoſe things which he ſays in his Paraphraſe, to have been implied in that Queſtion of our Saviour's, Whoſe is this Image and Superſcription? We ſhould read about this matter the learned Diſcourſe of M Freherus de Numiſmate Censûs, where we ſhall find all theſe things more accurately handled, and better▪ diſcuſſed than they are here by the Doctor.

[Page]IV. Chriſt's Anſwer, if throughly conſidered, will be found to have nothing in it that reſpects the dueneſs of the Tribute; he only warns the Phariſees that they had no ground for their thinking it to be a Sin againſt God to pay Caeſar the Tax impoſed on them, becauſe the rendering of a piece of Mony to Caeſar which had his Image impreſſed upon it, was no wiſe inconſiſtent with the ſtrict and due Obſervation of the Jewiſh Religion. And all that we can gather from this is, that it was lawful to pay Tribute, not that the Tribute was juſtly impoſed, which was not the thing enquired into. Our Author has ſeveral things upon this occaſion that do not at all belong to this place, which I do not intend in theſe [...], or ſhort Remarks, to examin.

Verſ. 20. Note c.] It might as well be one of Tiberius's Denarii as Auguſtus's, nor was it neceſſary that it ſhould have the year wherein Judaea was ſubdued inſcribed upon it. The Denarius that was required to be paid, was only ſuch a one as had on it the Image of Auguſtus or Tiberius. See M. Freherus, whom I before mentioned.

Verſ. 31. Note d.] There are ſeveral things both in our Author's Paraphraſe upon the Objection of the Sadduces, and in his Annotation upon this place, that need Correction.

I. Moſes does not ſay, as the Doctor repreſents him at the 24th Verſe, that the Children of the Perſon who raiſes up Seed to his Brother, ſhould be accounted his dead Brother's Children, but only the firſt-born. See Deut. xxv.6.

II. What he ſays about the Doctrine of the Sadduces is very true, as appears from Acts xxiii.6. but his ſuppoſing that the Sadduces Objection was deſigned as a Confirmation of their whole Doctrine, is without any ground. Their words oppoſe only the Reſurrection of the Body, for they knew well enough that marrying was a thing which reſpected only the Body, and had no place at all among ſeparate Souls.

III. The word [...] was never uſed in Scripture to ſignify any thing but the Reſurrection of the dead, i. e. of Men whoſe Bodies were deſtroy'd; and which being raiſed, Men are ſaid to be raiſed, becauſe the Nature of Man conſiſts in the conjunction of Soul and Body. [...], when this is the thing ſpoken of, never ſignifies any thing but to riſe or to riſe again. In this ſenſe it is uſed by Achilles in Homer Iliad. φ. 56. where he ſpeaks of the Trojans that he had killed.

[...] ▪

[...].

[Page] The valiant Trojans whom I have kill'd, will certainly riſe again out of obſcure Darkneſs. Tho St. Paul uſes the word [...] where the Septuagint have [...], it does not follow that theſe words ſignify the ſame thing, but rather that St. Paul and the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word differently, Tho therefore, abſolutely ſpeaking, [...] may be called [...], a ſecond State or Subſiſtence; yet ſince it is never met with in that ſenſe, it muſt according to its conſtant uſe be underſtood of a thing that is fallen and then raiſed up again, [...] & [...] are, as the Logicians ſpeak, in this caſe Correlates. See 2 Maccab. xii.43, 44. This word was ſo very commonly uſed in that ſenſe, that even when it is put alone it ſignifies the Reſurrection of the Body. It is a miſtake alſo that the words [...] in this Phraſe [...] are of the Neuter Gender, the Subſtantive [...] being to be underſtood, as appears from ſeveral places where the [...] are ſaid to be raiſed up, as in Mat. x.8. and xi.5. Luke xx.37. Joh. v.21. 1 Cor. xv.15, 16, &c. Our Author's reaſonings againſt the perpetual uſe of the word are not to be regarded. The place which he cites out of Luke xiv.14. may moſt fitly be underſtood of the Reſurrection of the Body, as being the principal Reward which is oppoſed to the Rewards of this Life.

IV. Laſtly, That the force of Chriſt's reaſoning, ver. 32. might be diſcerned, he puts in as a ſupply to it in his Paraphraſe upon that Verſe, the words [...]: it was ſpoken by God, I am the God of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, after their death. I had rather infer it from the import of the Phraſe, I am the God of Abraham, &c. conſidered in it ſelf, whereby God dos not only ſignify that he had bin in time paſt the Object of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob's Worſhip, but that he had had a peculiar kindneſs for them which he ſtill retain'd; but now the dead, that is, thoſe that are eternally dead, cannot be ſaid to be the Objects of God's Favour or Kindneſs, but only thoſe whoſe Souls live with him after Death, and whoſe Bodies alſo are to be raiſed. See my Notes upon Gen. xvii.8.

Verſ. 37. [...].] Tho the Love of God is often ſet to ſignify the whole Duty which we owe to him, both the Duties of the firſt and ſecond Table; yet it being in this place diſtinguiſhed from the Love of our Neighbour, I am apt to think that by that great Commandment we are only to underſtand the Worſhip of the one true God, whom we may be ſaid to worſhip with all our Heart, with all our Soul, and with all our Mind, when we worſhip him alone and not any other. For thoſe that worſhip more Gods than one, worſhip none at all with their whole Soul, but divide, as it were, their Minds between [Page] many. This ſeems to be the proper meaning of this Phraſe,Chapter XXIII. which is ſo much diverſified to ſignify the higheſt Affection and Intention of the Soul in Divine Worſhip. See Deut. vi.5. and my Notes upon that place.

Verſ. 40. Note f.] It is a Metaphor taken from thoſe things which are hung upon a Nail or Peg, which ſticking faſt to the Wall, whatever hangs upon it is firm and ſecure, and it cannot be plucked out but all tumbles down at once. And ſo as long as theſe two things, the Worſhiping of God alone, and the loving our Neighbour as our ſelves, ſtand firm, Religion and Probity are ſafe; but theſe being once looſened and removed out of the Soul, all Probity and Religion are at the ſame time rooted out. There is the ſame Metaphor uſed in all the places which the Doctor quotes, tho their ſenſe be various, and he does not rightly compare or apply them. The proper ſignification of the Phraſe being thus once ſuggeſted, it will be eaſy, if we have but a regard to the thing ſpoken of, to put a fitter Interpretation upon them. Grotius tells us he is of their Opinion who think this to be a Latin Phraſe, of which kind there are many in the Books of the New Teſtament. But that he is miſtaken, will appear by this Paſſage in Plato lib. x. de Legibus, at the beginning, where after he had ſaid that there ought to be a Law made againſt Violence, that no body might take away what was another Man's, againſt the Owner's conſent, he adds: [...]: for upon this all the Evils which I have mentioned, have hanged, do hang, and will hang.

CHAP. XXIII.

Verſ. 5. Note b. COncerning theſe Phylacteries, ſee my Notes upon Exod. xiii.9. where I have confirm'd what the Doctor ſays.

Verſ. 15. [...].] So zealous were the Jews to make Proſelytes to their Law, that it became almoſt a Proverb among the Romans, as we may ſee by Horace, who in the ivth Sat. of his Lib. 1. after he had ſaid that he ſometimes made Verſes, and that ought to be excuſed in him, becauſe it was but a ſmall fault, concludes thus;

—Cui ſi concedere nolis

Multa Poetarum veniet manus, auxilio quae

Sit mihi, nam multo plures ſumus, ac veluti te

JƲDAEI, cogemus in hanc concedere turbam.

[Page]Verſ. 22. [...]] This form of ſwearing the Jews uſed in imitation of the Heathens, amongſt whom nothing was more common in ordinary diſcourſe than to ſay [...], as ſufficiently appears from Ariſtophanes. And this Oath was uſed by the Heathens either becauſe they thought Heaven it ſelf to be a Deity, or elſe underſtood by Heaven [...], the Gods that dwelt in Heaven. But the Jews who charged the Heathen with folly and lightneſs in their Oaths, thought that they themſelves might uſe that form of ſwearing. And hereupon Chriſt teaches them, that whenever they ſwore in that form of words, by Heaven, it was as if they ſwore by the true God himſelf, who dwells in a peculiar manner in Heaven. So Achilles in Homer Iliad. A, v. 214. ſwearing by his Scepter, the Scholiaſt obſerves that at the ſame time he ſwore by God: [...], ſays he, [...]: It muſt be obſerved that in ſwearing by his Scepter, he ſwears by God himſelf who rules over Kingdoms. The reaſon of which is, becauſe the Scepter is an Enſign of Kingly Power. And therefore he did but diſcover his Ignorance, whoever he was, that ridiculed this Oath, by ſaying,

—Sceptrum non putat eſſe Deos.

Verſ. 27. Note h.] The Doctor contradicts himſelf, while he endeavours to reconcile St. Luke and St. Matthew: For he tells us that the Sepulchres were called [...], becauſe they were grown over with Graſs, and ſo were [...] undiſtinguiſhable from other ground. And yet in the mean while he affirms that they were whited over with Lime on purpoſe that they might be diſtinguiſhed; whereas on the one hand, as Lime hinders the growing of Graſs, ſo on the other, it was impoſſible that they ſhould at the ſame time be [...] becauſe of their being covered with Graſs, and yet [...] by the ground's being daub'd with Lime. We had better therefore ſay, that Chriſt made uſe of both theſe Compariſons in the ſame Diſcourſe, and ſpake in ſome ſuch manner as this. ‘Wo unto you Scribes and Phariſees, Hypocrites, for ye are like to Sepulchres, which are whited over that they may be diſtinguiſhed from other ordinary ground, and which indeed appear outwardly clean and beautiful, but are within unclean, becauſe of the dead Bodies that lie in them: or ye are like alſo to Sepulchres which are covered with Graſs, which cannot be diſcerned from the plain ground, and yet pollute thoſe that go over them.’ The former ſort appeared fair by their being whited, theſe latter becauſe of the Graſs that grew upon them. The cuſtom [Page] of whiting Sepulchres has been ſhewn likewiſe out of the Talmudical Writers, by Dr. Lightfoot upon this place of St. Matthew.

Verſ. 35. [...], &c.] A Thief who ſhould ſee his Father ſuffer for the ſame Crime, and yet ſhould not forbear robbing and ſtealing, would undoubtedly be much worſe than he, and deſerve a more ſevere Puniſhment, becauſe no warning or example would reform him. And therefore when he came to ſuffer for his own Crimes, it would be but juſtice that he ſhould bear, in the firſt place, what his Father ſuffered; and then as an addition to his Puniſhment, that which he deſerved more than his Father, by being worſe than he. And in this reſpect he might be ſaid to bear his Father's and his own Puniſhments. And thus thoſe Murderers the Jews, who were very ſenſible that the Scripture denounced a moſt heavy Puniſhment upon ſuch as committed Murder, and knew that a great many that were guilty of that Sin had been ſeverely puniſhed both by God and Man, did not only deſerve to ſuffer what thoſe ſuffered who had before been guilty of that Crime, and by whoſe Example they ought to have been deterred from doing the like, but as much as all thoſe Murderers had endured, whom they knew had been condemned and puniſhed for committing Murder. Conſult H. Grotius upon Chap. xxvii.27.

Ibid. in Note i.] After theſe words, the Name of Jehojada for this of Barachiah] See Note on Chap. xiii.35. where there is ſuch another Example of a Name leſs known being changed into one more known.

Ibid. after Note i.] Among the ſeveral Opinions ſet down by the Doctor, the moſt probable by far is that wherein Chriſt is ſuppoſed to have had a reſpect to 2 Chron. xxiv. That Zachariah who is there ſpoken of is very fitly put to anſwer Abel; becauſe as Abel was the firſt of thoſe righteous Perſons, whoſe Murder the Scripture gives us an account of, ſo Zachariah the Son of Jehojada, or Barachiah, was the laſt of the Prophets whoſe Murder is recorded in the Old Teſtament. And therefore the ſecond Objection which our Author mentions againſt this Opinion is plainly of no force: as for the reſt, they are ſufficiently anſwered by himſelf.

For my own part, I cannot by any means digeſt that laſt Interpretation to which the Doctor gives the preference. For of the Sins that the Jews would afterwards be guilty of in this kind, Chriſt had ſpoken before in the future Tenſe: Ye ſhall kill and ye ſhall crucify, ſays he, and ye ſhall ſcourge and perſecute; and then it follows: That upon you may come all the righteous Blood ſhed upon the Earth, from the Blood of [Page]righteous Abel,Chapter XXIV. &c. whence it is plain that all the Murders mentioned in this Verſe (the number whereof Chriſt ſays in the Verſe before, the Jews would afterwards augment) were already paſt. If I might be allowed to make a Conjecture, that which here biaſſed the Doctor was his deſire of finding an Example to confirm what he ſays about Antipas in his Premon. to the Revelations, of which in its proper place.

Ibid. Note k.] 'Tis through a miſtake ſaid by our Author, that the High-prieſt proſtrated himſelf before the door of the Porch; for there was no door in that place but the door of the Sanctuary it ſelf, which had a Veil drawn before it. The Porch facing the Prieſt's Court was all open, and was only ſurrounded with Pillars. See Joſephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. 1. c. 14.

CHAP. XXIV.

Verſ. 3. Note b. IT had been better if our learned Author had omitted his Compariſon between Veſpaſian and Chriſt, wherein he is both too nice, and not ſo exact as he ſhould be, as will appear by theſe following Ramarks. I. Who can bear to have the Predictions of the Prophets concerning the future Reign of Chriſt, compared to a Prediction of flattering Joſephus, or to meer uncertain Surmiſes? II. The place the Doctor refers to in Suetonius, in the ſecond part of the Compariſon, is this. Caenante bos arator decuſſo jugo, Triclinium irrupit; ac fugatis miniſtris, quaſi repente defeſſus, procidit ad ipſos accumbentis pedes, cervicem (que) ſubmiſit: i. e. as he abbreviates him, an Ox brake in, and fell down at Veſpaſian's feet, as an Omen of his becoming Emperor. But all that is ſaid by St. Luke of Chriſt, is that he was born in a manger, and wrapped in ſwadling clothes; as to any Beaſts being with him in the Stable, or falling down before him, he is altogether ſilent, nor had the Doctor any good Authority for his aſſerting it. III. I confeſs Suetonius and Tacitus do give us that account of Veſpaſian's Miracles of which the Doctor ſpeaks; but that what they tell us was real matter of Fact, is not ſufficiently clear: for what aſſurance can any Man give us, that ſome vain fellows among the Egyptians did not make it their buſineſs to flatter Veſpaſian, or that he himſelf being a Politick Man did not ſeek ſuch an occaſion to gain the favour of the ſuperſtitious multitude, at his entrance upon the Government? or elſe it may be it was an invention of Idolaters to oppugn Chriſtianity, by making people believe that Chriſt was not the only Perſon that had healed the blind with Spittle; and it was dangerous [Page] for any man to go about to detect a Cheat which was countenanced by the Emperor. IV. I cannot imagin where the Doctor read in Suetonius that Veſpaſian was Humillimus & Clementiſſimus; for theſe words are not to be found in the Life of Veſpaſian. He ſays indeed in Chap. xii. Principatus ad ultimum civilis & clemens; but he never calls him humilis, which amongſt the Latins is a Reproach, and not the name of a Vertue. 'Tis only Eccleſiaſtical Writers who call that Humilitas which the old Latins call Modeſtia. Humilis with theſe ſignifies one of the common ſort of People, a poor mean-ſpirited perſon, as I need not prove. V. I wiſh our Author had ſet down the place out of Joſephus which made him think that he believed Veſpaſian to be the Meſſias. For it is poſſible, I confeſs, he might foretel that he ſhould be Emperor, by miſconſtruing in his favour an antient and ſettled Opinion, famous throughout all the eaſtern parts, that the Fates had decreed, that there ſhould come out of Judea at that time, thoſe who ſhould govern the World; but he never ſaid nor could ſay that he was the Meſſias, i. e. the Deliverer of the Jews. And the ſame I ſay of his attributing afterwards the ſame Opinion to the other Jews: for tho ſome few of them might perhaps accommodate ſome Prophecies which were before thought to belong to the Meſſias, to Veſpaſian; yet it was impoſſible they ſhould take one who almoſt extinguiſhed the very Jewiſh name, for the Deliverer of their Nation.

I could find as many faults alſo with the Doctor's next Collection of Parallels, which are but manifeſt Niceties. I. What tolerable agreement is there, for inſtance, between what Iſaiah ſays of John the Baptiſt, and the levelling of the High-ways for the coming of the Roman Engines? II. It is falſe, that it was at the approach of the Baliſtae that the Jews cried out filius venit, the Son cometh, as our Author ſays. The Story according to the Diſtinction made in the Latin Tranſlation, is in cap. 7. lib. 6. of Joſephus, but in the Greek in cap. 18. That Cry was made from the Watch-towers of the Jews, when the Stones were flung out of the Engines. Joſephus's words are theſe: [...]: The Spies ſitting upon the towers gave them notice before-hand when the Engine opened and a Stone was coming, crying out in their mother-tongue, the Son cometh. Which I take, nevertheleſs, to be a miſtake in Joſephus, who ſtanding without, did not diſtinguiſh the word [...] eben, which ſignifies a stone, from [...] habben a Son; for without doubt they cried, when the Stone was flung out, [...] the stone cometh, not [...] the Son cometh. And if this be true, then this part of the parallel is quite [Page] ſpoiled. Our learned Author ſeems not to have looked into Joſephus when he wrote theſe things, or rather when he copied them out of ſome other book; as appears partly by the place alledged, and partly by the Chapters in Joſephus not being always rightly referred to, but ſometimes according to the diviſion in the Greek, and other times in the Latin.

However, it is moſt certain that the Jews themſelves acknowledged that deſtruction to have been brought upon them by God, and this is more than once obſerved by Joſephus in his 6 and 7 Books of the Jewiſh War. See Lib. vi. Cap. ii. and Cap. xi. in the Latin, and Lib. vii. Cap. xvi. And Titus thought the ſame, who after he had viewed the fortifications of the City, [...]: We have fought, ſaid he, with the aſſiſtance of God, and it was God who diſpoſſeſſed the Jews of thoſe ſtrong holds. For what human force, or engins could ſignify any thing againſt thoſe Towers? Lib. vii. c. 16.

Verſ. 3. Note c.] The Phraſe [...] cannot be underſtood unleſs we firſt know the juſt import of the word [...]. Now that word ſeems to ſignify properly and primarily Eternity, for it comes from [...] always, and [...] ſignifies eternal. Afterwards it was uſed in a figurative ſenſe to ſignify as long a duration as could agree to the thing ſpoken of, whence the time of mans life was called [...], as in Latin aevum. The Diſcourſe here cannot be about Eternity, which has no [...] conſummation, or end; nor is it about the time of mans life, but about the ſpace of time during which God had determined to preſerve the Temple and Jeruſalem, as our Author has beſt of all obſerved. So that if we conſider only the ſeries of the Diſcourſe, this Phraſe [...] will be Elliptical, and the words [...], in which the Temple was to stand, muſt be underſtood. But becauſe the duration of the World is ſometimes taken for the World it ſelf, therefore [...] and [...] alſo in Greek, and Saecula amongſt the Latins, do now and then ſignify the World it ſelf. The ſame may be ſaid of the Hebrew [...] holam, as learned Men have long ago obſerved. For which reaſon we uſe to interpret that word in the writings of the Rabbins ſometimes Eternity, ſometimes any long ſpace of time during which a thing laſts, whatſoever it be, and ſometimes the World it ſelf. It is plain, that in the place cited out of the Book of Tobit, [...] ſignifies both that determinate ſpace of time during which the Temple was to continue, and alſo the whole duration of the World. For firſt Tobit ſays that they ſhould build a Temple, but not ſuch a one as the firſt, which ſhould continue [...] till the [Page]times of the duration (viz. of the Temple) were accompliſhed. Then he ſays that there ſhould be afterwards [...], a ſtructure that ſhould be famous throughout all the ages of the world. Hence, by moſt Interpreters, the Phraſe [...] in this place of St. Matthew, is underſtood of the end of the world. They tell us that the Apoſtles ask'd Chriſt firſt, when the Temple was to be deſtroyed, and then what were to be the ſigns of his coming, and ſo of the end of the World? It being undeniable that the word [...] is ambiguous, Chriſt's anſwers muſt be ambiguous too; ſome of his expreſſions agreeing beſt to the deſtruction of the Jews, as Dr. Hammond has extraordinarily well ſhewed, and others more properly deſcribing the Concluſion of the World it ſelf. I like Dr. Hammond's Opinion beſt; which yet may in ſome meaſure be reconciled with the other, if we do but ſuppoſe the Deſtruction of the Jews to have been deſigned as a faint Repreſentation of the end of the World, as our Author likewiſe thinks in his Paraphraſe upon Ch. xxv. And ſo this Prophecy will be juſt of the ſame kind with thoſe Old Teſtament Predictions which were ſo worded as to reſpect ſome greater event than that which was expreſly and plainly foretold in them; of which ſee Grotius upon Matt. i.22.

Verſ. 7. Note e.] Our Author's Remarks upon the word [...] are indeed true, which is often uſed to ſignify, not the Nations belonging to ſeveral Commonwealths, and which were of different originals; but the Inhabitants of various Tracts or Territories, notwithſtanding they were Members of the ſame Commonwealth, and of the ſame Lineage, ſuch as were the ſeveral Tribes of the Jews. See my Notes on Gen. xlix.10. upon the word People. But yet there really were in Judea it ſelf very ſharp Contentions between different Nations, viz. the Jews and Syrians, which are treated of by Joſephus in lib. ii. cap. xix. in Latin, de Bello Judaico.

Verſ. 11. [...].] Grothius thinks that the perſons here intended were the ill Interpreters of the Law; and indeed, as Cicero lib. 1. de Divin. ſays, Oraculorum interpretes, ut Grammatici Poetarum, proxime ad eorum quos interpretantur divinationem videntur accedere. The Interpreters of Oracles, as Grammarians are to Poets, ſeem to be near akin to the Diviners themſelves which they interpret.

Verſ. 17. Note h.] Caeſarius was in a miſtake; for as Joſephus lib. vii. Bell. Jud. cap. xvi. and xviii. Lat. informs us, Jeruſalem was taken on the eighth day of September, i. e. in the beginning of Autumn. And his deſcription likewiſe of the Slaughter has more Rhetorick than Truth in it.

[Page] Chapter XXV.Verſ. 19. [...].] Namely, becauſe they could not eaſily fly away, which is the caſe likewiſe of thoſe that have ſucking infants or little children. To this purpoſe are the words of Silius Italicus, Punic. lib. iv. where he deſcribes the flight of the Romans upon the approach of Hannibal's Army:

— Tum crine ſoluto,

Ante agitur conjux, dextrâ, laevaque trahuntur

Parvi non aequo comitantes ordine nati.

Verſ. 22. Note k.] By the [...] here are meant Chriſtians, as alſo in the places where they are ſet in oppoſition to the [...] called, as chap. xx.16. See the Notes upon that place.

Verſ. 26. Note l.] [...] are properly the inner rooms or chambers of the houſe; and it being uſual to hide thoſe things which we would have ſafely kept in ſuch private places, whenever a Commonwealth is ſpoken of, it ſignifies a Treaſury; and whenever a Family is ſpoken of, a Storehouſe. So the Old Gloſſaries. [...], fiſcus, aerarium, the publick Treaſury. [...], Cellarium, Cella, a private Storehouſe or Cellar, &c. In this place it muſt be taken in the firſt ſignification, for an inner room, or that part of the houſe into which perſons uſe to retire who are deſirous of being private. It is not probable that there ſhould be a reſpect here had to a fortified City, in which there are no more [...] or places for men to conceal themſelves in, than in others; but only to a ſecret place in ſome houſe where the Meſſias might be ſaid to lie hid. See the Septuagint in Gen. xliii.30. and Exod. viii.3. The word [...] is put in oppoſition to open places, ſuch as is a Deſert; and Chriſt's meaning is nothing but this, that there ſhould be no Deliverer to be found either without doors or within. See Deut. xxxii.25.

CHAP. XXV.

Verſ. 1. [...].] Grotius has obſerved that the Syriack and Latin add here [...]; and ſo does alſo the Cambridg Greek and Latin Copy.

Verſ. 4. [...].] There is not ſuch a perfect decorum kept in Parables, as I have already obſerved elſewhere, as that every thing in them is an alluſion to what was generally practiſed. This appears ſufficiently from this place; for thoſe that uſed Lamps, did not for one night, beſides the oil that was in their Lamps, carry oil in [Page] another veſſel, with which they might ſupply their Lamp that ſame night; but they filled their Lamp once for the whole night. But it is ſufficient if what is ſaid in Parables be not impoſſible, and there be a fitneſs in them to expreſs the mind of the perſon that uſes them.

Verſ. 9. [...].] The words [...], or ſome other ſuch, muſt be underſtood, and ſupplied thus; [...] ▪ An Ellipſis before the Particle [...] lest that, is very common among the Hebrews.

Verſ. 14. [...].] By [...] here I am apt to think we muſt underſtand thoſe which the Romans called Liberti, rather than Servi, or at leaſt Hirelings who were at their own diſpoſal. See my Note upon Chap. xviii.23. To this agrees the Saying of Trimalchio in Petronius; Poſtquam coepi plus habere quam tota patria mea habet, manum de tabula, ſuſtuli me de negotiatione, & coepi libertos foenerare. After I had once gotten more than all my kindred put together, I threw by my Accounts, left off my Trade, and began to put out my money to ſuch as had ſerved for their freedom, upon Ʋſury.

Verſ. 15. [...] muſt here be underſtood, that he might traffick to the best of his ability. Each Servant had a certain ſum given him by the Maſter of the Family, that he might trade proportionably to the ſum which he received, and according to the degree of his Prudence: for there are ſome that can manage prudently a great ſum, and are fit to engage in much buſineſs, and there are others whoſe ability is leſs, and muſt have leſs employment given them. This has a myſtical ſenſe in it, and ſignifies that ſome have received more light and gifts from God than others; and that every one muſt give an account according to his Receipts. This is more natural than what is ſaid by Grotius; and is the ſenſe that Dr. Hammond puts upon it in his Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 21. [...].] I cannot imagin what our Author's thoughts were taken up with, when he wrote his Paraphraſe upon theſe words, for it has no agreement at all with the words of Christ. The word [...] here ſignifies a Feaſt, to which a Patron uſually invited his Libertus or Client, upon his having well executed his Orders. The Septuagint, in Eſther ix.19. render the Hebrew [...] a feast, by [...]. And it is no wonder that things which do ſo often accompany one another, as joy and a feast, are ſometimes promiſcuouſly uſed. That the Liberti uſed to lie down at meat with their Patrons, a Privilege not granted to the Servi by their Maſters, is notorious. Demetrius the Libertus of Pompey the Great, is particularly branded for his inſolence in lying down before his Patron. The Patron therefore here in this part of the Parable, is repreſented as [Page] ordering his Libertus or Client to come into the Dining-room that he might partake of his Feaſt.Chapter XXVI.

Verſ. 24. [...].] In this part of the Parable there is no decorum at all obſerved; for no Servant or Client would dare to ſpeak at this rate to his Maſter or Patron. But, as I ſaid before, this is not neceſſary in a Parable; and theſe words are very fitly made uſe of to repreſent to us the idle Excuſes that bad Servants are apt to alledg in their own behalf. However, it muſt be obſerved alſo, that this part of the Parable is but as the [...], or that which ſerves to fill up in a Picture; for there is nothing to anſwer it in the [...] or myſtical ſenſe. All that Christ meant by it is, that no Excuſe will be admitted for thoſe who do not make a good uſe of the favours they have received.

Verſ. 29. [...].] See my Notes upon Chap. xiii.12.

Verſ. 30. [...].] I wonder that our learned Author ſhould interpret this Expreſſion outer darkneſs of the darkneſs of a Dungeon, which ſhould rather be called [...], inner darkneſs. I have explained this Phraſe already in a Note on Ch. viii.12. where the diſcourſe, as it is here, is about men excluded from the Feast, and caſt out of the houſe where it was kept.

Verſ. 34. [...].] Our Author very improperly paraphraſes theſe words before all eternity; as if any thing could be prior to eternity. This is what I had to obſerve on this Chapter, to which the Doctor has ſaid nothing. And I have only touched on thoſe things which others have wholly paſſed by, referring the Reader for a more full Interpretation of it to Grotius.

CHAP. XXVI.

Verſ. 7. Note b. I Don't believe that that is the true original of the word [...] which the Greek Grammarians, who are very notable men at inventing trifling Etymologies, give us of it; for if it were, that ſort of veſſel would rather have been called [...] or [...], than with ſo little regard had to the analogy of the derivation, [...]. Beſides, if that veſſel had been ſo called, becauſe it had no [...] handles, it oughts to have been ſaid adjectively [...], whatever is deſtitute of handles, (which yet the Greek Language will not admit of) whence a particular ſort of veſſels were afterwards called [...]. If the words were to be derived from a Greek original, I ſhould rather deduce it, with Salmaſius, [...] imponere, and ſo make [...] to be an Atticiſm for [...]. See Salmaſ. on Ch. xiii. of Solinus. But the true original of the word is certainly [Page] from that ſort of Marble which was called Alabaſter, of which thoſe Veſſels that bore that name were commonly made. For to ſay that Marble was ſo called, becauſe out of that were formed Veſſels without handles, as the Doctor and Salmaſ. himſelf does, is abſurd; ſince not only Veſſels of all ſhapes and forms, but even Pillars alſo were made out of it. 'Tis as if one ſhould ſay, becauſe the word Onyx ſometimes ſignifies a Veſſel, therefore that ſort of ſtone was ſo called, becauſe it was the matter of which thoſe Veſſels were made. Now as for the word Alabaſter it ſelf, it is an Arabian name for that kind of Marble, for [...] batſraton is the Noun it ſelf in uſe, which by an addition of the Arabian Article [...] becomes [...] albatſraton, [...]. The reaſon why I think it had an Arabian name is, not only becauſe the Arabian Article [...] makes it probable, but becauſe it was cut out of the Arabian Mountains, and was firſt brought from thence. So Pliny tells us, Lib. xxxvi. C. 7. Onychem etiam tum in Arabiae montibus, nec uſquam aliubi naſci putavere Veteres. The Antients alſo at that time thought that Alabaſter grew in the mountains of Arabia and no where elſe. And a little after he ſays, Naſcitur circa Thebas Aegyptias, Damaſcum Syriae; it grows about Thebes in Egypt, and Damaſcus in Syria. And there was a City, ſomewhere between the Nile and the Red ſea, or in Egyptian Arabia, called for that reaſon [...], which is mentioned by Pliny Lib. v. c. 9. and by Ptolomy Lib. iv. c. 5. who places it in the Province of Cynopolis, near to which was the Alabaſter Mountain mentioned by the ſame Author. So that the Doctor finds fault with Iſ. Caſaubon unjuſtly, for ſaying that Veſſels not made of Marble were but by a [...], or improperly, called [...].

Nor can I imagin how a perſon ſo extraordinary well verſed in the Scriptures could deny that this Veſſel was broken by the Woman who poured the Ointment out of it upon Chriſt, this being expreſly affirmed by St. Mark Chap. xiv.3. And tho it had not, yet our Authors reaſon againſt it is of no weight, for what ground had he to think that a little Veſſel made of thin Marble could not eaſily be broken? As for the Reaſon of the Womans breaking the veſſel, that ſeems to be becauſe the mouth of it was ſo narrow that the Spikenard which is a thicker ointment than ordinary could not run eaſily enough out of it.

Ibid. Note c.] I have ſhewed in a Note on Matt. xxv.21. that [...] there, and ſometimes the Hebrew [...] ſignifies a feast. The French would ſay une rejouïſſance, which tho it does not ſignify properly a feaſt, yet never uſes to be made without one. What our Author ſays about the uſe of ointments in Feaſts is very true, but who does [Page] not know it? He had better only have referred us to ſome Critick who had treated upon that Subject. The indignation which Judas expreſſed againſt the Woman who poured the oil upon Chriſt concealed his covetouſneſs the better, becauſe none but delicate or voluptuous perſons made uſe of ſuch pretious ointments, and Chriſt was a profeſſed enemy to all ſenſual pleaſures. So Ariſtippus perceiving that he could not anoint himſelf without incurring peoples cenſures, cried out: Male iſtis effaeminatis eveniat, quia rem tam bellam infamaverunt: A miſchief take thoſe effeminate perſons for bringing ſo good a cuſtom into diſgrace. See Diog. Laert. Lib. ii. S. 76.

Verſ. 26. Note e.] I. Concerning the phraſe the body of the Paſſover and the like, ſee Buxtorf in Diſſ. de Instit. Coenae Domin. Sect. 25. from whom our Author ſeems to have borrowed what he here ſays.

II. The word [...] is not the relative to the ceremony or action, but only to the bread; for who, beſides Dr. Hammond, would ever have thus explained Chriſt's words, This eating and drinking denotes my body? That learned man did not care how he expreſſed himſelf, provided the skilful Reader could but gueſs his meaning; but the words of Scripture muſt not be forced in that manner. 'Tis bread, not a ceremony, that is called the body of Chriſt; and eating and drinking are only the ſigns of our ſpiritual participation of that body. And it makes nothing againſt this that [...] is of the neuter gender, it being uſual in all Languages ſo to demonſtrate any thing whatſoever; and the word [...] being always to be underſtood in the Greek Language, when the name that belongs to the thing intended is not expreſſed. Beſides, the word [...] may be very well referred to [...], and not to [...], and yet the ſenſe be the ſame. The words of St. Luke are contrary to the Doctor's opinion, for who would ſay, the eating of bread is the figure of my body? In the reſt of this Annot. our Author acts the part of a Divine rather than an Interpreter, and ſpeaks as if he were making a common place about the Lords ſupper.

Verſ. 33. [...], &c.] It is an old Greek Proverb, [...]: he that undertakes a thing confidently is generally fearful. And to the ſame purpoſe is that ſaying of Epicharmus in the Scholiaſt upon Homer at ver. 93. Iliad [...]: a coward is at firſt very confident of himſelf, and afterwards runs away. And this was juſt St. Peter's caſe before he had been confirmed by the Holy Ghoſt, upon Chriſt's praying for him.

CHAP. XXVII.Chapter XXVII.

[Page]

Verſ. 5. Note a. OUr learned Author, that he might be able to reconcile S. Matthew with S. Luke, follows for the moſt part D. Heinſius, who by the word [...] underſtands a ſuffocation cauſed by grief. But, I. There is no place by any one alledged, wherein the word [...] ſignifies ſuch a diſeaſe, eſpecially in men; for thoſe which are cited by the Doctor are nothing to the purpoſe, as I ſhall preſently ſhew. That word is always taken for ſtrangling with a Halter, or ſome other violent way. II. The place alledged out of Aelian does not prove that the Verb [...] ſignifies any thing but ſtrangling with a Halter. When he ſays that Scoffs have not only grieved men, but alſo killed them; he does not mean that ſome who had been ſcoffed had laid it ſo to heart as to die only with Grief, but that they had been ſo impatient of Deriſion, as to kill themſelves. Thus Poliager being jeered hanged himſelf, [...]. And ſo Archilochus's Iambicks made Lycambe and her Daughters hang themſelves. III. The word in Chryſoſtom is ſimply [...], which is ſometimes taken metaphorically for the anguiſh of the mind, but never a Suffocation. Nor does that place ſignify any thing to the buſineſs, as has been well obſerved by the learned Jac. Gronovius in his Diſſ. de Caſu Judae; for Chryſoſtom ſpeaks of wicked men, who he tells us at the laſt day, when their Sins ſhall be made publick and manifeſt, will be [...], ſuffocated and ſtrangled with Conſcience, which is not the ſame with what is ſaid here of Judas. IV. The words [...] in Tobit, ſignify ſo as to think of hanging her ſelf, as is plain from what follows; where ſhe is repreſented as blaming her ſelf for entertaining ſuch Thoughts, and ſaying, I am my fathers only daughter; if I ſhould do this, it would be a reproach, &c. and a little after, I ſaid (i. e. I thought, according to the genius of the Hebrew) that I had best free my ſelf from the earth, and hear no more reproaches; for ſo we ought to render the words [...], and not, I ſaid, free, or take me away; for it follows, [...], which does not ſignify and do not hear me, but I ought not to hear or hearken. And this, I know not for what reaſon, Dr. Hammond has omitted; by which it would have appear'd that the foregoing words were not rightly tranſlated. Let but the place it ſelf be read, and the thing will be plain. V. The Hebrew word [...] in Job vii.15. is rightly rendered by Aquila [...] a halter, becauſe the thing intended is evidently a ſqueezing of the throat with a rope, as a way of dying: My [Page]ſoul hath choſen ſtrangling, and death rather than my bones; i. e. My grief is ſo great, that I had rather die by ſtrangling, or any other ſort of death, than live. The Septuagint neither underſtood Job's meaning, nor knew perhaps what they meant themſelves. It is certain at leaſt, that their words do no more favour Dr. Hammond's Interpretation than any other. The Tranſlation of the Vulgar Latin is very exact, elegit ſuſpendium anima mea, &c. VI. There is no doubt but that the Hebrew [...] ſignifies to choak or ſuffocate by any means whatſoever, but it does not follow that the Greek [...] is uſed in any other notion than that of hanging; nor is any other ſignification to be affixed to it where the diſcourſe relates to a perſon in deſpair, and that chuſes Death rather than Life, which was the caſe of Judas and Achitophel. VII. But our Author tells us, that it is neceſſary to put another ſenſe upon this word, in order to reconcile St. Luke with St. Matthew. This would be true, if we could not make them agree any other way; which we may very well do by compounding both their accounts together thus: [...]: And going away hanged himſelf, and falling down forwards he burſt aſunder in the midſt, and all his bowels guſhed out. But it may be asked, if he hanged himſelf, how could he fall down? to which I anſwer, [...], by the ropes breaking, or by being cut down by ſome body; which circumſtance, as long as it was known that he killed himſelf in deſpair, was not thought material enough to be ſet down. But it may be ſaid again, How came he to burſt aſunder, and his bowels to guſh out? I anſwer, becauſe he fell down from on high, as he muſt needs have done if he hanged himſelf upon the battlement of ſome Terras, or upon a Tree that leaned over a deeper Valley than ordinary; for then if he fell upon ſome ſtone, or ſtump, or ſtake, that was underneath, his belly might eaſily be ripped open. Pricaeus upon this place has given us ſeveral Examples of this nature, and the thing is plain. But never did any Woman, by a ſuffocation of the Mother, burſt aſunder in the midſt, and much leſs did ever any Man do ſo. Our Author ſhould have given us but one ſuch inſtance at leaſt; but I am ſure he was not able. The Interpretation I have given is not only the moſt natural, but agrees exactly with the words. The learned Perſon I but now ſpake of, who has written largely and on ſet purpoſe about this matter, does indeed very well ſhew that the verb [...] ſignifies to kill by hanging; but he has not proved that Judas, as he conjectures, was thrown down from ſome ſteep Rock as a mark of infamy ſet upon him. It does not appear from [Page] any Teſtimony, that thoſe who killed themſelves were ſo puniſhed by the Jews. Beſides, the Phraſe [...] ſufficiently intimates that the Body of Judas was not conveyed to any other place to be thrown down from; for that would rather have been expreſſed by [...], or ſome other ſuch words; but the word [...] ſignifies that the Body fell down without any forcible impulſe. It may be enquired perhaps why St. Matthew did not add the Circumſtance taken notice of by St. Luke, and why St. Luke did not make mention of Judas's hanging himſelf? To which I anſwer, it may reaſonably enough be ſuppoſed that St. Matthew heard only of his hanging, and St. Peter who ſpeaks in Acts i. only of his falling down ſome ſteep place; and tho both were true, yet they related ſeverally the ſtory juſt as they had heard it. That in a matter of no great moment, all the Circumſtances are not exactly ſet down, let ſuch only wonder, as have not obſerved that Circumſtances of much greater moment are frequently paſſed over by one or other of the Evangeliſts, as appears from other places. Compare St. Matthew and St. Luke as to what they both ſay about the Thieves that were crucified with Chriſt.

Verſ. 15. Note d.] There are ſome things in this laſt Note that need Correction. I. The Phraſe ad faciendum populum is not a Latin Phraſe, nor has any ſignification, but I believe it was an Error of the Printer's, and that the Doctor wrote ad faciendum ſibi favorem apud populum. II. What is here ſaid about the ſingular Privilege of the Citizens of Rome, has no affinity with the matter in hand; for tho a Roman Citizen could not be put to death without the Suffrage of the People, yet I ſuppoſe Pilate did not wait for the conſent of the Jews to empower him to behead ſuch as he judged guilty. He gratified the Jews when he let go a Criminal at their requeſt; and he did not condemn any at their requeſt, when they were otherwiſe affected, but of his own accord to get their favour: but in Rome no Magiſtrate had authority to behead any Citizen without the peoples Conſent, and thoſe that the people abſolved were to be let go whether the Magiſtrates would or not, and thoſe whom they condemned were certainly to be puniſhed. III. It would have been better obſerved that it was the cuſtom alſo among other Nations to releaſe their Priſoners upon feſtival days. So in Athens it was a Law, [...], that at the time when the Feaſts were kept in honour of Ceres, the Priſoners ſhould be let looſe. And the ſame was practiſed upon other Athenian Feaſts, as Sam. Petitus has ſhewn, Lib. 1. de Legg. Att. Tit. 1. See likewiſe Iſ. Caſaubon in his Notes upon Suet. Tib. cap. lxi. IV. This Cuſtom was imitated by the Chriſtian Emperors, who for joy at the Paſſover gave [Page] order in their Letters that the Priſons ſhould be opened. But that you may not miſtake, this was done in honour not of the Jewiſh, but of the Chriſtian Paſſover, and the Jews were releaſed no more than others; which contradicts what the Doctor ſays. So in Cod. lib. 1. Tit. iv. Leg. 3. there is this Law made by Valentinian, Theodoſius and Arcadius: Ʋbi primus dies Paſchatis extiterit, nullum teneat carcer incluſum, omnium vincula diſſolvantur. As ſoon as the firſt day of the Paſſover is come, let there be none kept ſhut up in Priſon; let them be all releaſed of their Chains. There is no mention at all here made of the Jews. And there are a great many ſuch like Orders in Cod. Theodoſ. where the Jews are not mentioned. See the Collections of Sam. Petitus in the place before cited. 'Tis oftner than once that Dr. Hammond either adds or diminiſhes the ſayings of the Antients, which he thought by being a little changed, would better illuſtrate the Writings of the New Teſtament. But yet I do not believe he did it deſignedly, who was ſo good a Man, and ſo great a lover of Truth, but rather was miſled by others who were not ſo faithful as they ſhould have been in their Citations.

Verſ. 28. [...].] It is true indeed that the Conſuls and Pretors wore Gowns of divers colours, or ſuch as were uſed in Triumphs when they made any publick Shows, as has been ſhewn by Oct. Ferrarius, Part ii. Lib. 2. cap. 8. but that which is reſpected here is the Cuſtom of Kings, who thought it lawful for no body to wear Purple Robes but themſelves. Thus it is obſerved by Hirtius cap. lvii. de Bello Africano. Cum Scipio ſagulo purpureo ante Regis adventum, uti ſolitus eſſet, dicitur Juba cum eo egiſſe, non oportere illum eodem uti veſtitu, atque ipſe uteretur. Scipio uſing to wear a Purple Coat before the King's arrival, they ſay that Juba reproved him, and told him that he ought not to wear the ſame Garment that he wore. About this ſort of Robe called Chlamys conſult Ferrarius.

Verſ. 34. Note f.] Tho it be very true what our Author obſerves concerning the abuſe of the Greek words [...] & [...] in the Tranſlation of the Septuagint, yet he perfectly forces the place which he cites out of Rev. xiv.10. as the Reader would eaſily have perceived, if he had ſet it all down. For theſe are the words: The ſame ſhall drink of the Wine [...] of the Wrath of God which is mixed with pure Wine in the cup of his Anger. See Iſa. li.17.

Verſ. 44. Note h.] I confeſs that this latter Interpretation carries no repugnancy in it, but yet it has not the leaſt ſhadow of likelihood. For who can conceive that a wicked wretch, who had juſt before reviled Chriſt, ſhould be ſo changed in a moment of time as to acknowledg [Page] him to be the Meſſias? Yes, they ſay,Chapter XXVIII. becauſe it was effected by a ſecret divine Power? But who reveal'd this to them? The Evangeliſts ſay no ſuch thing. It is much more likely that Thieves being many times puniſh'd not only for Crimes which they have lately committed, but alſo for old ones, this Man had already had ſome knowledg of Chriſt, and repented, and believed on him before he was caſt into Priſon; and then being afterwards apprehended and convicted of Theft, was crucified by the Romans without any regard had to his Repentance.

I do by no means therefore think that this Thief railed at Chriſt: Nor do I think that St. Matthew ſpake figuratively, when he ſaid Thieves for Thief: It is a meer Impropriety, as the Examples cited by our Author ſhew, to which add thoſe words in Chap. ii.20. where ſpeaking of Herod's being dead, it is ſaid — they are dead that ſought the young Child's Life.

Verſ. 15. Note i.] I. Whether any ſuch Earthquake is mentioned by Macrobius I do not know, but there is mention made of it in Tacitus Annal. lib. 2. cap. 47. and Suetonius in Tiber. cap. 48. See Interpreters upon the place. II. Since our Author reckons the Tombs amongſt the parts of the Temple, he had done well to tell us what perſons were ever buried in that Mountain upon which the Temple ſtood; for nothing being more unclean according to the Jewiſh Statutes than a Sepulchre, which polluted thoſe that went over them, as has been obſerved upon Chap. xxiii.27. it is too ſtrange to be true that there were any Sepulchres in a place of the greateſt Sanctity. I know St. Jerom in Catal. Script. Eccleſiaſt. tells us this of St. James who was thrown down by the Jews from the Pinacle of the Temple, out of Hegeſippus: Juxta Templum, ubi & praecipitatus fuerat, ſepultus eſt. Titulum uſ (que) ad obſidionem Titi, & ultimam Hadriani notiſſimum habuit. He was buried near the Temple, and in the place where he had been thrown down, and had a Monument erected for him which continued famous to the ſiege of Titus, and the laſt of Hadrian. Hegeſippus's Teſtimony is extant in Euſebius's Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 2. c. 23. But this very thing renders the Hiſtory ſuſpicious, as has been well remarked by H. Valeſius, to paſs by others that have very little appearance of truth in them.

CHAP. XXVIII.

Verſ. 2. [...]] This is well interpreted by our Author, of a concuſſion in the Air; for in the Septuagint alſo the Whirlwind by which Elijah was caught up into Heaven, [Page] is called [...], 2 King. xi.11. So Suidas: [...], a Storm, a Whirlwind. And thus the Latins alſo ſay coelum tonitru concuti, to ſignify the concuſſion that is made in the Air when it thunders.

Verſ. 19.] [...].] That is, by Baptiſm make them the Diſciples of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and willing to be ſo called. For [...] is to make Diſciples, and [...] is to be baptized, that we may be called by that name. The Jews might have bin called the Diſciples of the Father, becauſe they profeſſed themſelves his Diſciples; the Apoſtles, before they had received the Holy Ghoſt, and the reſt of Chriſt's Diſciples might properly have bin called the Diſciples of the Father and the Son; but thoſe who were afterwards baptized by the Apoſtles, were the Diſciples of the Father, as revealing his Will in the Old Teſtament, and of the Son as ſpeaking in the Goſpels, and of the Holy Ghoſt, as more clearly explaining the Precepts of the Father and Son by the Apoſtles. The Hebrew Phraſe for this would be [...] i. e. they were baptized that they might be called by their name. That this is the true importance of this form of Speech may appear by 1 Cor. i.12. and ſeqq. where the Corinthians ſaying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt, i. e. calling themſelves their Diſciples, and as it were diſtinguiſhing themſelves from one another by the names of their ſeveral Maſters or Teachers; Paul ſays, Were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul? I thank God, that I baptized none of you, but Criſpus and Gaius, leſt any ſhould ſay that I had baptized IN MY NAME; that is, that ye might be called my Diſciples, and diſtinguiſhed from others by the Title of Paulites. So in the Writings of the Rabbins, to be baptized [...] in the name of Servitude is for the Perſon ſo baptized to become a Servant, and to take that name upon him. And on the contrary, to be baptized [...] in the name of a Son of free Men, or in the name of Proſelytiſm, is to receive Baptiſm upon condition that the Perſon baptized be called a Freeman or Proſelyte. Conſult Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. lib. 2. c. 3. Grotuis has committed a miſtake in his Tranſlation of the laſt words; but diſcerned however the import of the Phraſe, tho juſt as a Man ſees the Moon through the Clouds.

Notes

*

[...], Phavor. & [...], ib. and ſo Joh. iii.20. He that doth evil cometh not to the Light, leſt his Deeds ſhould be reproved, [...] [diſcovered] in our Margin: and therefore 1 Cor. xiv.24. when 'tis ſaid of the Ʋnbeliever, that he is convinced of all, &c. 'tis added v. 25. Thus are the Secrets of his Heart made manifeſt: ſo Epheſ. v. 13. All things that are reproved, or diſcovered, are made manifeſt by the Light; for whatſoever doth make manifeſt, is Light.

↵

†

[...], & [...], Phavor.

↵

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Mark. Chapter I.

[Page]

CHAP. 1.

Verſ. 1. [...].] Theſe words I rather take to be as an Inſcription to this whole Book, than a form of introducing what follows, as the Doctor does in his Paraphraſe. For even in the moſt antient times, theſe Books were called the Goſpels, as Grotius has obſerved out of Juſtin, at the beginning of St. Matthew. And it is ordinary in Latin Manuſcripts to find it written in the front, ſuch or ſuch a Book BEGINS, that the Reader may know the work to be entire, and that there wants nothing at the beginning. Such another Inſcription as this, is that of the Book of the Prophet Hoſea i.2. The beginning of the word of the Lord to Hoſea. I conceive therefore that theſe words ought to have a full ſtop made at the end of them.

Verſ. 2. [...], &c.] We muſt conceive this beginning thus: AS it is written in the Prophet Iſaiah; Behold I ſend my Meſſenger before thy face, who ſhall prepare thy way before thee: A Voice crying in the Deſart, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths ſtreight: John BAPTIZED, &c. The force of the Particle AS belongs to the 4th Verſe, where thre is, as it were, an [...], by which the Evangeliſt ſhews that the Event was anſwerable to what was foretold. Some learned Men have thought that the beginning of Herodotus is juſt like [Page] this,Chapter II. but without reaſon, as will appear to any one that compares them.

Verſ. 38. Note b.] Our learned Author is miſtaken, when he ſays that the word [...] ſignifies here adjoining, from the uſe of it in the Septuagint. For ſo all the beſt Greek Writers, who were ſtrangers to the barbarous Dialect of the Septuagint, uſed that word. It occurs very often in Herodotus in that ſignification, as the Ionick Lexicon of Aemilius Portus alone will ſhew.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 26. Note b. I Chuſe rather to interpret the Particle [...] by apud, at or to, according to its uſual ſignification, and ſo the ſenſe will be, He went (viz. David) into the Houſe of God, to Abiathar the High-prieſt. The Phraſe [...], the Houſe of God, is taken here more largely, not for the Tabernacle only, but alſo for the houſe in which the High-prieſt lived, which joined to the Tabernacle or Court. For the Loaves which David took away were not any longer in the Sanctuary, but had been removed before he came, that freſh ones might be put in their place, as the ſacred Hiſtorian informs us, 1 Sam. xxi.6. So in the ſame Book Chap. iii.3. by the Temple of the Lord, we are to underſtand the Houſe adjoining to the Court, in which Samuel ſlept, not far from the place where Eli lay down. But you will ſay, why dos not Chriſt ſay [to Abimelech] who was at that time the High-prieſt, but inſtead of that ſays [to Abiathar] who was Abimelech's Son, and lived rather in his Father's Houſe than his own? The reaſon is, becauſe Abiathar was more known than Abimelech, by the Sacred Hiſtory, as the Learned have obſerved. And ſo the meaning of Chriſt is this: he went to Abiathar, who was High-prieſt, tho not at that time.

CHAP. III.

Chapter III.Verſ. 21. Note c. DAvid le Clerc, my Uncle, has treated upon this place in his Quaeſtiones Sacrae, Quaeſt. xiii. which is worth the reading.

CHAP. IV.Chapter IV.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. [...]] i. e. in a little ſhip at a ſmall diſtance from the ſhore. Thus Prov. xxiii.34. he that lieth down in the heart of the Sea, is one that lies down in a Ship. And to the ſame ſenſe is that of Propertius Lib. 1. Eleg. xiv.

Tu licet, abjectus Tiberinâ molliter unda,

Lesbia Mentoreo vina bibas opere.

This would have been a needleſs remark, unleſs a man of a ſharp wit, and whoſe judgment in critical matters is not to be deſpiſed, viz. Tan. Faber in Epiſt. Crit. Part 2. Epiſt. xvii. would have had this place, contrary to the Authority of all Copies, altered, by reading it [...] in a Ship, and not [...] in the Sea, which would not go down with him.

Verſ. 12. Note a.] This form of ſpeech has ſomething proverbial in it, and is ſet to ſignify ſuch Perſons as, if they made a right uſe of their faculties, would take notice of thoſe things which their folly makes them paſs over without attention. And in this ſenſe the Greeks alſo uſed it. Thus Prometheus is repreſented in Aeſchilus as ſpeaking in this manner of the ignorance of men in the firſt age, before he had taught them arts:

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...].

They at first ſeeing, ſaw in vain;

Hearing they did not hear; but juſt

As men in dreams, for a long time

Confounded all things.

And ſo Demoſthenes Orat. 1. contra Ariſtogit. ſect. 123. [...]: according to the Proverb, that thoſe that ſee do not ſee, and thoſe that hear do not hear.

Chapter V.CHAP. V.

[Page]

Verſ. 22. Note c. SInce a Synagogue does ſometimes ſignify a Conſiſtory of Judges, whoſe Authority related to civil matters, it is certain that the perſon who preſided over them might well enough be called [...]. Of the word [...] as ſignifying a Conſiſtory or Sanhedrim, ſee our Author's notes upon Matt. vi.5. The Judges and the Preſidents of Eccleſiaſtical aſſemblies, which our Author has forgot to obſerve, were called by the ſame name of [...], becauſe they were the ſame Perſons; of which ſee the learned Camp. Vitringa, de Synag. Lib. 2. c. 9. But Dr. Hammond in what follows ſeems to confound [...] a School with [...] a conſiſtory of Judges, which are quite different things.

Verſ. 30. [...]] If this Phraſe were to be underſtood properly and literally, we ſhould be obliged to think that Chriſt cured the ſick of their Diſeaſes by certain effluvia that proceeded from him, which is very difficult to conceive. And therefore I rather think, with Grotius, that this was a vulgar way of ſpeaking, by which we are to underſtand no more, than that this Woman was cured by God, at the inſtant in which ſhe touched our Saviour. See Luke vi.19. where it will appear that that expreſſion was taken from the uſe of the common People.

Verſ. 34. [...]] i. e. hath healed thee. Thus Barnabas in Epiſt. Cathol. Cap. ix. brings in Moſes ſpeaking in this manner of the brazen Serpent: [...]: it being dead can make alive, and he ſhall preſently be ſaved, i. e. healed, viz. that looks upon it.

CHAP. VI.

Chapter VI.Verſ. 2. [...], &c.] i. e. What is this wiſdom which is given unto him? And how is it that ſuch Miracles are wrought by his hands? For the particle [...] muſt not be joined with Wiſdom, which may be very great and yet ſeparate, in the Perſon that has it, from the power of doing Miracles; but it ſignifies the ſame with [...] how. And ſo the Hebrew [...], which is very frequently rendered by [...], is ſometimes uſed, as Iſai. xxix.16. [...] How ſhould the work ſay of him that made it, he made me not? See afterwards Chap. ix.11, 28, of this Goſpel.

[Page]Verſ. 5. [...]] i. e. According to the laws which he had preſcribed to himſelf, he could not there do any miracles. For he did not uſe to work Miracles where he was not ſought unto to work them, or where no body believed that he was able to work them. He could not therefore, is as much as he would not. The Evangeliſt, to uſe the words of Hierocles, [...], ſpeaks of a moral and not a natural power. And Hierocles is in the right when he tells us, [...]: that the neceſſity of the mind is more powerful than any external force, with wiſe men. See his Notes on Pythag. Aur. Carm. ver. 8.

Verſ. 8. [...].] To reconcile theſe words with Matt. x.10. it muſt be taken for certain in the firſt place, that the Evangeliſts do not always ſet down the very words of Christ, but very frequently only his ſenſe, as appears manifeſtly by comparing them together. And then the ſenſe may be the ſame, tho at firſt ſight the words ſeem to contradict one another. Now the meaning of Christ here is only this, that the Apoſtles were not to make any preparation or proviſion for their journey; and that may as well be expreſſed in the words of one Evangeliſt as the other. In St. Matthew it is, Do not get any gold or ſilver or braſs in your purſes, nor any ſatchel for your journey, nor any ſtaff, for the workman is worthy of his food. The plain meaning of this is, that God would take care of thoſe things which were neceſſary for the Apoſtles, and therefore that they were immediately to ſet upon their Journey without making any preparation for it, but juſt as they were. If it happened that they had a Staff already in their hands, there is no command given them to throw it away; but if they had never a one, they ave forbidden to get any, or to furniſh themſelves with any thing that they then had not. And this, as to the ſenſe, is not contrary to what is here ſaid in S. Mark; He commanded them that they ſhould take nothing for their journey, ſave a ſtaff only, no ſatchel, &c. i. e. to begin their Journey juſt as they were when he ſpake to them, with a ſtaff only, which ſome of them perhaps already had, without getting any thing that they wanted. If the words of both the Evangeliſts were to be expreſſed together in a Paraphraſe, they might moſt fitly be explained thus: Go immediately and preach the Goſpel, provide no money, nor clothes, nor victuals for your Journey. Thoſe that have ſtaves let them travel only with them; and thoſe that have none let them not get any, but enter upon their Journey without. They whom you preach the Goſpel to, God ſo ordering it, will furniſh you with all neceſſaries.

[Page] Chapter VII.Verſ. 20. Note b.] Dr. Hammond's Opinion may be confirmed by the Authority of the Gloſſes of Philoxenus, in which [...] is rendered by conſervo, to preſerve, and [...] conſervat, tuetur, preſerves, defends.

Verſ. 46. Note f.] See my Notes on Gen. iv.8.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT is true indeed that the word [...] ſignifies polluted as well us common; but the proper ſignification of it ſeems to be common, whence by a Metaphor it was uſed to ſignify polluted, becauſe thoſe things which are intended for common uſe, are generally polluted, by ſuch uſe. II. The Greek [...] cannot properly be ſaid to be a part of the hand or arm, but is the hand contracted to make the fiſt. So Heſych. [...], the fiſt, or the ſhutting up of the fingers. And Phavorinus, [...]: in the hand, when a perſon has his fingers contracted. It is rather the contraction of the hand than the hand it ſelf; but by a Metaphor it may ſignify the hand it ſelf. The Phraſe [...] therefore is not properly to be waſhed up to the wrist [...], as the Rabbins ſpeak, but to put the fiſt into water, or to be waſhed with the hand contracted; tho conſidered in it ſelf, the thing be much the ſame. See Joſ. Scaliger upon Serarius cap. 7. and H. Grotius. Palladius abuſed the word when he applyed it to the feet. III. This Cuſtom of waſhing the hands amongſt the Jews, had its riſe in part from the Law: Levit. xv.11. Whomſoever he that hath the iſſue toucheth, and hath not waſhed his hands, he ſhall waſh his clothes, &c. The Jews thought that by this Law, as they miſunderſtood it, he that had been touched by one who had an Iſſue, was preſently to waſh his hands, or elſe he was obliged to waſh his clothes and all his body. And therefore when they came out of any mixed aſſembly of people, amongſt which there might poſſibly be ſome ſuch unclean perſons, they immediately waſhed their hands. But the not having the hands waſhed, in that place of Moſes, relates to the man that had the iſſue, and not to him whom he had touched.

Verſ. 4. Note c.] In the beginning of this Note our Author ſpeaking of Eupolis, ſays Tragedy inſtead of Comedy; for Eupolis was a Comedian, and we have no account of his having ever wrote any Tragedy. The Play called Baptae is ſaid alſo to have been a Comedy, and it's certain that Poets did not uſe to inveigh againſt thoſe that they had a hatred againſt in Tragedies, but only in Comedies. See the Scholiast upon Juvenal, Sat. 2. v. 92. concerning this Comedy of Eupolis.

[Page]Ibid. [...].] Here our Author, in his Paraphraſe, has theſe words, and alſo of beds ON which they did eat then as NOW on tables. Now it is certain that they had heretofore Tables to eat on as well as now; but only whereas we ſit upon chairs or benches, they ſat upon beds: the Meat was placed upon Tables, as well as it is now, tho the Gueſts ſat upon beds. And this, I doubt not, Dr. Hammond very well knew, only he was not careful enough to avoid ſpeaking improperly. As for the reaſon why the beds in thoſe Chambers where they dined were waſhed, that was becauſe poſſibly they might be polluted by ſome or other that ſat upon them; and ſo if they were not waſhed, they might defile the next comers. See Levit. xv.4. & ſeqq.

Verſ. 22. Note d.] Tho St. Paul charges thoſe that boaſt with folly [...], yet it does not follow that that word ſignifies boaſting, and may be underſtood ſo when it is alone; becauſe all boaſting indeed is [...], but all [...] is not boaſting. Our Author very often impoſes new ſignifications upon words different from what they are uſed in; tho it is certain that Uſe is the great thing that determins what words ſignify, according to that of the Poet,

Quem penes arbitrium eſt & jus & norma loquendi.

That I may diſcuſs therefore the ambiguity of this word, by the uſe of it; I obſerve that [...] ſignifies two things, whereof one is a diſtemper of the brain, and the other of the mind. Sometimes it is taken for madneſs proceeding from ſome diſeaſe, or diſturbance of the brain, without any fault in the patient. And in this ſenſe the word [...] ſignifies a Perſon that is not in his right ſenſes. But this ſignification has no place here, where the diſcourſe is about a diſtemper of the mind. And in this acceptation again it is uſed two ways; firſt [...] ſignifies imprudent, and is oppoſed to [...] prudent: and [...] ſignifies imprudence in oppoſition to [...] prudence. Secondly, [...] ſignifies alſo intemperate, contrary to which is [...] temperate, as in like manner [...] is uſed for intemperance, and is oppoſed to [...] temperance. And in this laſt ſenſe it is taken here in St. Mark; for imprudence without malice, which is very common, does not pollute the mind out of which it proceeds. But as [...] ſignifies a habit and actions oppoſite to [...], that is, Intemperance and its uſual effects, are ſins which do really defile the mind. I need not bring many examples to prove that theſe words are uſed in the ſignifications mentioned, for they may be had out of Lexicons, tho theſe do not ſufficiently [Page] diſtinguiſh them. I ſhall produce only a few: I. [...] ſignifies mad in theſe words of Xenophon, de Exped. Cyri, lib. 4. towards the end, where he ſpeaks of the honey of Colchis, whereof the Greeks, not knowing its nature, had eaten: [...]: all the Soldiers that did eat of it became mad, and vomited. But the next day after, as he tells us in what follows, [...], about the ſame hour they came to their right ſenſes again. II. [...] ſignifies imprudent, and [...] imprudence. Thus Homer Iliad. Γ. ver. 220. ſpeaking of the outward appearance of Ʋlyſſes, ſays:

[...].

You would ſay that he was an angry ſort of man, and one that acted raſhly and imprudently. And Iliad. H. ver. 110. Menelaus deſiring to fight with Hector in a ſingle combat, is commanded to abſtain from that piece of imprudence, [...], ſays Agamemnon, [...], you have no need to be guilty of this imprudence. III. Laſtly, [...] is oppoſed to [...], and in contrary actions is uſed in the ſame latitude. As in Xenophon lib. 3. de Inſtit. Cyri, not far from the beginning, where after Tigranes had ſaid [...], that without temperance no other vertue is of any uſe, [...] is ſeveral times oppoſed to [...]: and then afterwards Tigranes adds, [...]; have you never obſerved ſo much as one man, that through intemperance (i. e. tranſported with Anger or any other extravagant paſſion) went to fight with one ſtronger than himſelf, how after he was beaten, his intemperance againſt that man was preſently cooled?

So likewiſe among the Hebrews [...] nabal ſignifies mad and intemperate, and [...] nbalah madneſs and intemperance; and the former is rendered in both ſenſes by [...], and the latter by [...] in the Septuagint. See Pſalm xiv.1. where the word [...] mad does not ſignify one that is mad [...] through a bodily diſtemper, or is imprudent through an error in his mind, but a wicked evil man. And ſo [...] is not only folly, but a bad or wicked action. See Deut. xxii.21. Judg. xix.23, 24. xx.6, 10. And yet the Septuagint have in theſe places [...], and in Pſal. xiv. [...]. And hence it came to paſs that Phavorinus, and Suidas before him, miſinterpreted the word [...] by [...], one that is ignorant of the true God, and unacquainted with the first principles of Wiſdom.

[Page]Verſ. 35. [...].] If this man was naturally deaf and dumb,Chapter VIII. as Dr. Hammond ſeems to think, the meaning of theſe words muſt be, that he imitated rightly thoſe ſounds which he heard made by others; for it was neceſſary that he ſhould have ſome time allowed him to learn to diſcourſe in, even after that which obſtructed his organs of ſpeech was removed. But if we ſuppoſe, that whereas he heard and ſpake before readily, he came by a diſeaſe to be deprived almoſt of his hearing, and to ſpeak with difficulty, as Grotius thought, then theſe words muſt be underſtood in their uſual and obvious ſenſe. And this makes me prefer this Opinion to the former, which is moſt agreeable alſo to the proper ſignification of the word [...], which cannot ſignify a dumb perſon any otherwiſe than figuratively.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 11. [...].] Tho all divine Miracles are from Heaven, i. e. from God; yet I am apt to believe that here is meant ſuch a Miracle as was ſeen by John the Baptiſt at the time when he baptized our Saviour, viz. when the heavens were opened unto him, and he ſaw the Spirit of God deſcending like a dove and lighting upon him, and behold a voice from heaven, ſaying, This is my beloved ſon in whom I am well pleaſed.

Verſ. 12. [...]] This word is uſed to expreſs the vehemence of the groan, which Chriſt fetched upon this occaſion; juſt as Acts xvii.16. when St. Paul was at Athens, and ſaw the City filled with Idols [...], it is ſaid [...], his Spirit was ſtirred up within him; which expreſſion denotes the vehemence of the commotion that was in St. Paul's mind. The word [...] does not only ſignify barely the mind, but the mind moved by ſome paſſion; as the Hebrew [...], of which conſult Schindler's Lexicon.

Verſ. 24. [...].] The ſenſe of theſe words is rightly expreſſed by our Author in his Paraphraſe; but he tells us in the Margin that the King's MS. and many printed Copies, read [...]. Yet ſtill theſe words [...] make but harſh conſtruction, and I do not know but that the antient reading was [...], as trees that walk; and ſo the meaning of the blind man will be, that two ſorts of objects preſented themſelves to him, whereof one ſtood ſtill, viz. Trees; and another, which were alſo like Trees to his apprehenſion walked, or were like walking Trees. The Syriack [...] is ambiguous, and may as fitly be rendered I ſee men like walking trees, as like trees walking. Perhaps [Page] the Evangeliſt wrote as I ſaid,Chapter IX. but the Tranſcribers would not endure [...] walking trees.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 13. [...]] Grotius thinks that what is ſaid here of the Jews, that they had done to John whatſoever they would, is ſaid to have been foretold by Malachi, becauſe he called him Elias: and this very thing, ſays he, ſhewed that he ſhould not want Ahabs and Jezebels. But this ſeems to have too much ſubtilty in it, nor was it neceſſary that there ſhould be a perfect ſimilitude between John and Elias, that he might be intended by the Prophet by his name. I chuſe rather to make the words as it is written of him, to refer only to thoſe, Elias is come; as if Chriſt had ſaid, Elias is come, as it is written of him, and they have done to him whatſoever they would; the miſplacing and croſs ordering of words being uſual in Scripture. See my Notes upon Gen. xiii.10. As for the ſenſe of this whole paſſage, it is in the general well enough expreſſed by our Author in his Paraphraſe; but if we read Chriſt's words, and would underſtand by what Dr. Hammond ſays, the ſeries or connection of his Diſcourſe, we ſhall find our ſelves diſappointed. I expreſs it therefore thus: ‘12. But Chriſt anſwered them, it was requiſite indeed that Elias ſhould firſt come, and call all the Jews to their duty, that they might entertain the Meſſias, who was ſuddenly to come amongſt them, in a fit manner; nor was this Prophecy contrary to thoſe by which it was foretold that the Meſſias ſhould be ill treated by the Jews: 13. For Elias alſo was already come, who was John the Baptiſt, intended for certain reaſons by that name, and had gone about to call the Jews to Repentance, that they might be ſo diſpoſed as perſons ought to be who were to receive the Meſſias; but the Jews had refuſed to hearken to that holy man, yea and had killed him.’ The words of the Evangeliſt muſt be rendered thus: 12. And he anſwering, ſaid unto them, Elias indeed muſt firſt come and reſtore all things. But how ( [...]) is it written of the Son of Man, that he muſt ſuffer many things, and be ſet at nought? 13. But yet ( [...]) I ſay unto you, that both Elias is come, and they have alſo done unto him whatſoever they would.

For the better underſtanding of theſe words there are theſe three things to be obſerved: Firſt, That the Apoſtles underſtood the verb [...] of the event, whence they inferred that it was impoſſible that Chriſt ſhould be killed by the Jews; becauſe he was not to enter upon his Reign till a great Reformation had been made among the People of the [Page] Jews by Elias. But Chriſt's anſwer, which is grounded upon matter of fact, ſhews that this ought to be underſtood of the deſign of John's preaching, and what it would have effected if the Jews had hearkened to it, and not of what really came to paſs. That active Verbs do commonly ſignify a deſign and endeavour to do any thing, tho it may be the event does not follow, is known to every one. See my Notes upon Gen. xxxvii.21. Secondly, that the words [...], and how, &c. contain another Objection which might be made againſt what Chriſt had ſaid, beſides that which was made by the Apoſtles, as the interrogatory Particle [...] ſhews. Thirdly, That the Particle [...] muſt be rendered by attamen nevertheleſs, or but yet, according to its uſual ſignification. See 1 Cor. iv.4.

Verſ. 23. [...].] The Article [...] is indeed, as Grotius has obſerved, ſuperfluous in Luke xxii.2. as well as here; but the conſtruction in that place is different from what it is in this. I know all that is ſaid by others about this Particle; but to me nothing ſeems more probable, than that it proceeded from ſome Tranſcriber's repeating the laſt ſyllable of the foregoing word. It is certain, it is left out in Beza's antient copy, and two others in the Barberine Library; and that neither the Vulgar nor Syriack verſion take any notice of it.

Verſ. 49. Note e.] I. That Chriſt's words here may be underſtood, they muſt firſt be ſet down in Hebrew, and then it muſt be ſhewn how fitly they are turned into Greek. The expreſſion in Hebrew is: [...] for every one ſhall be conſumed by fire, and every offering of corn ſhall be ſeaſoned with ſalt. And in the ſame manner it may be expreſſed in Syriack, as appears from the Syriack Interpreter. All the elegancy of the expreſſion lies in the ambiguity of the word [...] jimmaleahh, which ſignifies both ſalietur ſhall be ſeaſoned with ſalt, and abſumetur ſhall be conſumed; which ambiguity cannot be expreſſed in Latin. Nor is the Greek Language more fit for this purpoſe, in which there is no word that ſignifies both to ſeaſon with ſalt and to conſume. Which the Evangeliſt perceiving, in imitation of the Septuagint, and the Jews who ſpake Greek in Syria and Palestine, he abuſed the verb [...] which properly ſignifies to be ſeaſoned with ſalt, by putting a new ſenſe upon it. And ſo Symmachus rendered afterwards the word [...] in Iſai. li.6. for the Heavens [...] ſhall be conſumed like ſmoke, by [...], or rather [...]. The meaning therefore of Chriſt in theſe words is this: that as every Corn-offering according to the Law extant in Levit. ii.13. was ſeaſoned with ſalt [...]: ſo likewiſe every bad man ſhall at laſt be conſumed [...] with fire. The conjunction [...] [Page] prefixed to the words every ſacrifice, is of the ſame import here as the particle [...] as, as it is afterwards Chap. x.12. and John xiv [...]. That which ſeems to have occaſioned Chriſt's comparing bad m [...] ſacrifices, is partly his having made uſe of the word [...] in order to deſcribe the future condition of the wicked; and partly his having m [...] mention of unquenchable fire, ſuch as was the fire of the Altar, as Grotius has obſerved. And ſo becauſe the words by which he had deſcribed the Puniſhments of bad men had led him as it were to it, he did not decline the uſing of ſuch an ambiguity as might eaſily be underſtood by perſons skilful in the Language he ſpake in. And ſo likewiſe God, in the books of the Prophets, ſometimes uſes ſuch kind of elegances, proceeding from the ambiguity of words. See Jer. i.11, 12. and at your leiſure Mer. Caſaubon in Diſſ. de Lingua Hebraica.

II. The conjecture of Joſ. Scaliger is by Grotius, and here by our Author deſervedly rejected; but he might have been more effectually confuted, if they had obſerved that St. Mark did not want a proper Greek word whereby to expreſs the Hebrew [...], and ſo that there was no need of his coining that new and unheard of word [...]. For that which the Hebrews expreſs by [...] an offering to be conſumed ( [...]) with fire, the Greeks call [...], a word which often occurs in Euripides and Callimachus, to mention no more. Aquila, who tranſlated words according to their Etymologies, could not have rendred the Hebrew word into Greek more fitly; it being derived from [...] fire, as the Hebrew from [...], which has the ſame ſignification. Heſychius and Phavorinus interpret [...] by [...], ſacrifices which are burnt.

III. Nevertheleſs, Dr. Hammond is miſtaken when he ſays that [...], which is the verb [...] to take, ſignifies ſhall be conſumed. [...] indeed from [...] has that ſignification, but this is not to be confounded with the tenſes of the verb [...].

Verſ. 50. Note f.] I do not know whence the Doctor took the paſſage he ſpeaks of out of Aeſchines, but he does not ſeem to have looked into Aeſchines himſelf. For it will appear to any one that reads the whole paſſage, that it is to be underſtood of the proviſion which was allowed to the Embaſſadors out of the publick revenue. The ſtory in ſhort is this. Aeſchines and Demoſthenes were ſent together as Embaſſadors to King Philip, and eat at the ſame Table with the reſt of the Embaſſadors throughout the whole journey; nevertheleſs Demoſthenes accuſed Aeſchines and the reſt of the Embaſſadors of having ill diſcharged their Commiſſion. And hereupon Aeſchines, p. 31. Ed. Stephani, not far from the beginning, charges him with practiſing [...] [Page] [...],Chapter X. ſuch Treachery towards his Companions at the ſame Table, and in the ſame Embaſſy, as a man would hardly be guilty of to his greateſt Enemies. And then it follows, [...]: for he profeſſes to have a high value for the ſalt of the City, and the publick Table, not being a Native of our Country, &c. So among the Latins the publick Corn that was allowed to the Military Tribunes and others, was called Salarium.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 6. [...].] This word [...] not being in Beza's antient Copy, nor in the Syriack, nor in the parallel place in St. Matthew, may juſtly be ſuſpected. It is poſſible that ſome Tranſcriber thinking it not to be ſufficient to ſay [...] might add the word [...], to ſhew that the beginning of the World was ſpoken of. But this was needleſs; the beginning of the World being called [...], by way of eminence as it were. See my Notes upon Gen. i.1.

Verſ. 12. Note a.] See my Notes upon Mat. ix.14. and Grotius upon this place in St. Mark. The ſenſe of Chriſt's words is this: Whoſoever puts away his Wife and marries another ought to be reputed an Adulterer, as a Woman that puts away her Husband and is married to another Man is an Adultereſs. The Particle [...] and, which begins the 12th Verſe, is all one with [...] as, as I obſerved before upon Chap. ix.49. In this reſpect Chriſt levels the Husband with the Wife; whereas under the Law it was lawful for a Man to put away his Wife, tho not for a Woman to put away her Husband.

Verſ. 17. [...], &c.] This whole Paſſage is explain'd by Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitled [...], and in §. 4. he ſets it down, but not without ſome alterations, ſubſtituting ſynonimous words, and correcting ſome Hebraiſms in it; which makes it probable to me, that tho he did not indeed read the Paſſage ſo in his Copy, yet thought however that it was all one whether he expreſſed it in the Evangeliſt's own words, or in a little better Greek, in compliance perhaps with critical Ears. The beginning of it is this: [...], &c.

Verſ. 19. Note b.] What our Author ſays about the ſenſe of the tenth Commandment is, I grant, true; but we ſhall interpret both Moſes and St. Mark more Grammatically, if we underſtand the verb [...] of thoſe fraudulent methods by which a Perſon may endeavour [Page] to invade another man's Poſſeſſions.Chapter XI. For there are two ways of injuring our Neighbour, viz. by Theft, whether privately or by force, againſt the will of the Owner, and by taking away what belongs to another without any pretence of Right or Juſtice, which is forbidden in the ſeventh Precept of the Decalogue, or elſe by ſecret and cunning Devices, where the Law and a pretence of Right is made uſe of to cover the Injury, which is prohibited in the tenth Commandment, whereby all ſuch Artifices are made unlawful, whether they prove ſucceſsful or unſucceſsful: And this Chriſt here calls [...], i. e. to defraud. So the Old Gloſſes; [...] privo, defraudo, abnego, to deprive, to defraud, to deny ones Truſt. [...], inficiatur, he diſowns or denies his Truſt, or the Debt charged upon him. [...] fraus, abnegatio, denegatio. [...] fraudator, fraudulentus, inficiator. See my Notes upon the Decalogue.

Verſ. 24. [...]] Chriſt here ſhews what ſort of [...], or rich Men, they are that cannot heartily entertain his Doctrin, viz. ſuch as truſt more in their Riches, than to God's Promiſes. And thoſe are ſaid to truſt in their Riches, who had rather preſerve them, than obey God; who promiſe themſelves a happy Life if they are but rich, and think themſelves ſo miſerable that no Piety can afford them any Comfort, if they are poor.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 13. Note a. THat the time of Harveſt was earlier in Judaea than ordinary, is well proved by our Author, of which ſee my Notes alſo upon Exod. ix.32. And hence likewiſe he rightly infers that other Fruits were gathered ſooner in that Country than in many other places. But I have ſeveral Obſervations to make both with relation to this matter, and to what Dr. Hammond ſays in this Note.

I. That Ariſtophanes does ill confound the time of Wheat and Barly Harveſt among the Phoenicians, which fell out in divers Months. See my Notes upon Gen. xxx.14.

II. I wonder that the Doctor ſhould ſpeak of the Fruit of Trees in Judaea without any diſtinction; whereas it is certain that all ſort of Fruits do no more come to their full growth at the ſame time in that Country than in other places: They have their Summer and Autumn Fruits in Judaea as well as elſewhere. Nor does it appear by the Paſſage cited out of Philo, that the Fruits of Trees were gathered at the ſame time with the Corn, as our Author ſays. but only that if the [Page] Statue of Caius was ſet up in the Temple, it was to be feared that the Jews would deſtroy the ripe Corn: and then he adds that care was alſo to be taken for the gathering in of the Fruits, which the Country that was planted with Trees brought forth; which may be underſtood not only of the Fruits that were ripe at that time, but alſo of thoſe that were of a later growth, and which could not have been gathered if the Trees were deſtroyed before they came to perfection.

III. I ſhould not doubt but that the Interpretation given by the Doctor of this place were true, if he had but produced any Example to ſhew that the Greek Phraſe [...] might ſignify what he calls a good Fig year, or a kindly ſeaſonable year for Figs; and we French Men une ſaiſon favorable aux figues, i. e. ſo temperate a year that abundance of Figs came to their perfect ripeneſs in their proper ſeaſon. Thus in Horace a fruitful year is called pomifer, and locuples frugibus annus. But the words [...] and [...] muſt not be confounded; for tho the latter do indifferently ſignify any time whatſoever, yet the former is taken only for a particular juncture of time, and for opportunity, and is therefore capable indeed of being uſed to ſignify ſet ſeaſons in the year, but not ſimply a year. Tho this it may be might be obſerved in favor of Dr. Hammond, that by [...] here is not meant ſimply year, but as I may ſay [...], a ſeaſonable year, or a fit ſeaſon to look every where for Figs in. But this likewiſe is ſomething harſh, and I want ſtill Examples of the like Phraſe, having never been able to find or meet with any.

IV. It had been better if our Author, inſtead of what he ſays about the time of Harveſt, had obſerved that there were two ſorts of Figs in Judaea, one of which might have been ripe at the time of the Paſſover, but the other not till the height of Summer. The former ſort are mentioned by Solomon in Cant. ii. [...]3. where, deſcribing the beginning of the Spring, he ſays among other things, the Fig-tree hath brought her Figs to perfection. And theſe were called early Figs, as we learn from Theophraſtus and Pliny, and were common in Syria. Theophraſtus Hiſt. Plant. lib. 4. c. 2. [...]— i. e. as Pliny lib. xiii. c. 8. interprets him, Quidam Aegyptiam ficum dixere, errore manifeſto, non enim in Aegypto naſcitur, ſed in Syria, ſemper comantibus foliis. Some have ſaid that it was the Egyptian Fig, but they were manifeſtly miſtaken, for it does not grow in Egypt, but in Syria, and its leaves always flouriſh. And a little after Theophraſtus ſays; [...] [Page] [...]. The ſenſe of which is thus expreſſed again by Pliny; Pomo antecedentis anni circa canis ortus detracto, ſtatim alterum parit. Poſtea florem per Arcturum, hyeme foetus enutriente. The laſt years Fruit being pulled off about the beginning of the dog-days, it preſently brings forth more. Then when the Sun riſes with Arcturus it bloſſoms again, the Winter nouriſhing its Fruit. And that ſuch a ſort of Fig-tree as this is meant here, appears both by its having Leaves at that time, and by Chriſt's going to look for Fruit upon it. This Fruit the Jews called [...] biochourah, as appears from Hoſ. ix.10. where it is ſaid, I found Iſrael like Grapes in the Wilderneſs, as the firſt ripe [...] in the Fig-tree. And theſe Figs were very much valued, as Jeremiah informs us, Chap. xxiv.2. One Basket had very good Figs, like the Figs that are firſt ripe [...]. See alſo Iſa. xxviii.4. and Mich. vii.1.

The other ſort of Figs were of a later growth, and ripened at the ſame time with Grapes. And it is this ſort that is mentioned in Numb. xiii.24. and which were gathered in the Land of Canaan together with the Grapes, by the Spies that were ſent by Moſes, and brought to the Jewiſh Camp. The Trees which bear this ſort have no Leaves at the Paſſover, but the time of their firſt ſhooting out is at the approach of the Summer, as Chriſt teaches us, Matth. xxiv.32. Now learn, ſays he, a Parable from the Fig-tree: when its branch is yet tender, and putteth forth Leaves, ye know that Summer [...] is nigh. And ſo likewiſe afterwards here in St. Mark xiii.28. I could illuſtrate all theſe things by a multitude of Citations out of the Antients if it were neceſſary: But I am not ambitious of the uſeleſs Copiouſneſs of ſome learned Men, who ſpend abundance of time in proving what might have been ſhewn in fewer words, and of whom I may ſay with Callimachus,

[...]

[...].

V. Our Author indeed juſtly rejects the Conjecture of D. Heinſius, but he cenſures too ſeverely the changing of an accent or ſpirit, which it is certain are wanting in the moſt antient Copies; for who can be certain when he ſees this Particle OΥ written without an accent, whether it is to be read [...] not, or [...] where? This muſt neceſſarily be learned by the ſenſe, and when that is obſcure, the Reader is left in ſuſpence. And before ever he had objected to that learned Man, that no Example could elſewhere be found of any ſuch form of Speech as he conjectured this here to be, he ought himſelf to have produced a place in which [Page] the Phraſe [...] ſignified a fruitful ſeaſon for ſuch or ſuch ſort of Fruit.Chapter XII.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 14. Note a. THis one thing is enough to ſhew that that MS. dos not contain the very words of the Evangeliſts, but a kind of a Paraphraſe of them: For it interprets the Latin word [...], to Grecians who did not underſtand that word, by one more familiar, to them. So in the Gloſſaries for Law-terms publiſhed by Car. Labbaeus, [...] is explained to be [...]: whence it may be inferred that the [...] here ſpoken of was to be paid in a certain ſpecies of Mony, viz. in Denarii, which had the image of the Caeſars impreſſed upon them, as was conjectured by Marq. Froherus.

Verſ. 44. Note b.] The Phraſe [...], Coloſ. i.24. is, what remained for St. Paul to ſuffer for the ſake of Chriſt, as I have ſhewn in my Ars Critica, Part 2. Sect. 1. cap. xii.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 32.Chapter XIII. Note b. IT is no wonder that it is ſo hard to underſtand wherein the Hereſy of the Agnoetae lay, becauſe if it was their Opinion that Jeſus, i. e. the Man that was born of the Virgin Mary, was ignorant of any thing, it is manifeſt that they were of the ſame opinion with our Saviour himſelf, who could not have affirmed this more plainly; but if they aſſerted that God alſo who dwelt in the human Nature of Chriſt, knew not when the day of Judgment was to be; ſuch an Abſurdity as this hardly any but mad Men could be guilty of. For my part, I am apt to think that the Grecians at that time were mightily given to be contentious, and falſly attributed Opinions to one another which they diſowned, and were unwilling to underſtand themſelves. Some have been inclined to think the ſame as to the buſineſs of Eutyches and Neſtorius, who differed from one another and the reſt of Chriſtians more in Words than in Things. It is plain the Greeks took no care at all to ſpeak their mind clearly in theſe matters, and a contentious humour might eaſily make them miſtake one anothers ſenſe. But this is not a place to treat of this matter in.

Chapter XIV.CHAP. XIV.

[Page]

Verſ. 3. Note a. THere are ſome things in this laſt Note that may lead the Reader into a miſtake, which I ſhall therefore briefly confute.

1. If Nard were a dry Ointment, yet it might as eaſily be contained in a Marble or Alabaſter Box as if it were liquid. Do not [...] or dry Ointments uſe to be put in ſuch ſort of Veſſels for the better preſervation of them? This every body knows that has but once been in an Apothecary's Shop.

II. Nard is not always liquid. There was a liquider and a thicker ſort of it, as Dioſcorides informs us, Mat. Med. lib. 1. cap. lxxv. where having deſcribed the manner of making this Ointment, he ſays; [...]: it is liquid, and not thick like dregs unleſs it have gum in it. Now nothing hinders but that the Ointment which St. Mark here ſpeaks of might have gum mixed with it, and ſo be a thicker ſort of Nard, which might eaſily alſo be if it had been a great while kept.

III. Our Author deſcribes a ſort of Nard unknown to all Antiquity, who never reckoned Nard among the [...]. None of the Antients, and perhaps no one Modern Author beſides Dr. Hammond, ever ſpake thus, who ſeems to have confounded Nard with Myrrh. Nard is an Herb of an indifferent bigneſs, as Dioſcorides lib. i. cap. vi, and viii. and Pliny lib. 12. cap. xii. tell us. The words of Pliny are theſe: De folio Nardi plura dici par eſt, ut principali in unguentis. Frutex eſt gravi & craſſa radice, ſed brevi ac nigra fragilique—folio parvo, denſoque, Cacumina in ariſtas ſe ſpargunt; ideo gemina dote, Nardi ſpicas ac folia celebrant. Of the leaf of the Herb Nard more ought to be ſaid, as that which has the principal place in Ointments. It is a Plant that has a thick and heavy Root, but a ſhort black and brittle one—its Leaf is ſmall and thick, the top of it is bearded; Nard therefore is famous both for the virtue of its ſpikes and leaves. So he deſcribes the Indian Nard, and having mentioned other kinds of it, adds; Sunt autem omnia herbae, praeter Indicam; they are all Herbs, except that which comes from India. Of theſe leaves, or the ſpikes bruiſed together and mixed with Oil and other Spices, the Ointment of Nard was made, and not of any Liquor which is diſtilled from them. This appears alſo from Dioſcorides, lib. 1. cap. lxxv. and from Pliny lib. 13. cap. i. Our Author ſeems again to have confounded Nard with Myrrh, which makes an Ointment of it ſelf without Oil, as Pliny tells us. He confounds alſo the [Page] word Nard, as that ſignifies either the Plant before deſcribed, or the Ointment which is made of it; for the Plant indeed is called ſpicata Nardus, becauſe of its ſpiked leaves, but not the Ointment which was called unguentum ſpicatum, or unguentum Nardi ſpicatae, not Nardus ſpicata, viz. becauſe the ſpike was the principal Ingredient in that Ointment, which Name was given to Nard by way of eminence. See Salmaſius upon Solinus, p. 750. Ed. Ʋltraj. about this matter.

IV. The Phraſe pura Nardus, pure Nard, in Tibullus does not ſignify, as the Doctor thinks, Ointment made only of Nard, or the juice of Nard, but that which was called Ointment of Nard, in which beſides other Spices there was pure Nard, i. e. not adulterated, as it frequently was, as Dioſcorides and Pliny tell us. And this Ointment it is that St. Mark calls [...], i. e. Nard faithfully made or prepared, ſuch as had true unſophiſticated Nard in it, which was the reaſon of its being [...] of great price. Pliny lib. 12. cap. 12. Pretium ſpicae in libras x. c. Folii diviſere annonam, ab amplitudine hadroſphaerium vocatur, majoribus foliis, x.xxx. &c. The price of Nard is x.c. a pound. The difference in the bigneſs of the Leaves made a difference in the price; that which had the biggeſt Leaves was called Hadroſphaerium, and the price of it was x.xxx.

V. The Ointment of Nard cannot be called Nardus ſpicata, but the Plant only, and therefore Grotius is miſtaken when he ſays that [...] and ſpicata are the ſame. Tho [...], for that which we expreſs by faithfully made, is none of the beſt Greek, yet it is poſſible that thoſe whoſe trade it was to make Ointments, the Apothecaries or Perfumers, might uſe it in that ſenſe; and that St. Mark made uſe of their terms, eſpecially where he ſpeaks of their Commodities, ought not to ſeem ſtrange. Conſult alſo Salmaſius in the place before-mentioned.

Ibid. Note b.] I grant the Verb [...] does not ſignify always to break, when the diſcourſe is about a thing which may be hurt without being broken, as about a wounded Man, or a bruiſed Reed; but where the diſcourſe is about a Veſſel, and eſpecially ſuch an one as is made of brittle matter, it has ever that ſignification: and whoever ſays, [...], it muſt be rendered to break a Marble or Glaſs Veſſel. See Levit. vi.28.xi.33.xv.12. Rev. ii.27. And thoſe that endeavour to put any other ſenſe upon that Phraſe here, ſtrain it. Dr. Hammond's two firſt Reaſons for another Interpretation I have confuted already in a Note upon the parallel place in St. Matthew. The third, together with the reſt, are, I ſuppoſe, taken out of Baronius, and relie upon a nauſeous Fable which is related in the following words by Suidas, whom, if our Author had but look'd [Page] into, I believe he would never have made uſe of this Teſtimony. Thus Suidas tells the ſtory in [...], out of ſome unknown Fable-maker, as he uſed to do. [...], (or rather [...] Croſſes, as Aemil. Portus has obſerved) [...]: under the Market-place were buried the two Croſſes of the two Thieves, and the little Ointment Pot out of which Chriſt was anointed, and many other remarkable things that were laid there by Conſtantine the Great, but taken away by Theodoſius the Great. Suidas does not give the leaſt intimation that he thought this ſilly Fable to be true; he only tells it, as he does many others, as he had read it. And therefore the Conſequences that the Doctor draws from his Authority and Learning are inſignificant. Nay, tho Suidas had ſaid that he believed this Fable, yet it would be much more likely that he had either forgot this Paſſage in St. Mark, or that it did not come into his mind, than that he thought the Phraſe [...] to ſignify any thing different from what I have ſaid it does.

Neither is there any more weight in the Argument which our Author grounds upon a Paſſage out of Pollux, becauſe the Phraſe [...] cannot ſignify to open the Cruiſe and ſtir the Ointment about with a Spathula, or Slice. All the reſt that he ſays is manifeſtly beſides the cauſe, becauſe he conſiders the Verb [...] abſtractly, not as it is joined with the name of a brittle Veſſel; nor have I leiſure to examine every thing particularly. I conclude therefore that this Phraſe is rightly tranſlated in the vulgar Latin fracto alabaſtro. See what I have ſaid on the parallel place in St. Matthew.

Verſ. 54. Note f.] What our Author ſays about the words [...] & [...] he ſeems to have borrowed from Dan. Heinſius; who may be conſulted by thoſe that have leiſure.

Verſ. 72. Note i.] The Participle [...] ought not to be ſeparated by a Comma from the following word, which is the Verb to that as its Nominative Caſe. The opinion of Grotius which is by our Author mentioned in the ſecond place, is the moſt probable. The Verb [...] alone does not ſignify to ſee or look upon, but only when the Noun [...] or ſome other like that is added to it, and [...] or [...] for the moſt part follows. I am apt to think that in the place cited out of Phavorinus we ought after [...] to read [...], becauſe [...] for to look upon any one, is no Greek Phraſe; and [...] alſo muſt be underſtood, [...].

CHAP. XV.Chapter XV.

[Page]

Verſ. 6. [...]] That is, [...], he uſed to releaſe, as it is in St. Matthew Chap. xxvii.15. After this manner the future Tenſe in Hebrew, and the aoriſt in Greek, and the preterperfect in Latin is many times uſed. See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word futurum, and Rom. viii.29, 30.

Verſ. 8. [...]] In ſome Manuſcripts it is [...], the reaſon of which is not, as Grotius thought, that ſome Greek Copies of this Goſpel were altered to make them agree with the Latin Verſion; for beſides the Vatican mentioned by him (but omitted in the Oxford Edit. of the New Teſtament) and the Manuſcript that was ſent by Beza to Cambridg, the Copy alſo which thoſe that made the Coptick and Gothick Tranſlations uſed read it ſo, which it is plain could never have it from the Latin Verſions. If we admit this reading, the ſenſe will not be inconvenient. And the multitude going up (into the Hall) began to deſire, &c.

Verſ. 17. Note a.] Concerning thoſe things in this Hiſtory which relate to the Roman Cuſtoms, we muſt read the Philological Notes of that learned Lawyer Edm. Merillus upon the Paſſion; who has treated of this matter on ſet purpoſe. Add alſo what I have ſaid about this place in St. Matthew.

Verſ. 33. [...]] This is very well expreſſed by our Author in agreement with the Roman Cuſtom, in his Paraphraſe. For they uſed as in the night, ſo alſo in the day time, to give notice what hour it was by the ſound of a Trumpet. This appears from a Paſſage in Lucan, lib. 2. ver. 689. where, ſpeaking of Pompey's flight, he deſcribes him forbidding ne buccina dividat horas, that his flight might be the more ſecret.

Verſ. 42. [...]] This Interpretation of the word [...] is added for the ſake of the uncircumciſed Gentiles who were ignorant of the Jewiſh Cuſtoms. Every Friday, or [...], was ſo called, as Bochart in concurrence with others before him tells us, Hieroz. P. 1. lib. 2. cap. 50. p. 567. And not only the Jews, but Chriſtians alſo afterwards made uſe of that word [...]. See Grotius upon Luke xviii.11.

Verſ. 43. Note d.] I rather think that by [...] we are to underſtand that dignity that Joſeph was in among the Jews, by being one of the Sanhedrim of LXXII Men, or the leſſer of xxiii. For Arimathaea was not a Roman Colony.

Chapter XVI.CHAP. XVI.

[Page]

Verſ. 18. Note c. I Will not undertake here to examine whether thoſe antient and true Sibyls did foretel any thing concerning Christ; but I ſhall obſerve that no ſuch thing can be inferred from thoſe Verſes of Virgil: for it is not neceſſary to ſuppoſe that the ſenſe of that Sybil's words are ſo expreſſed by Virgil, as to have no addition made to them. Perhaps the Sybil had propheſied that after the tenth Age, which was that of the Sun, there ſhould be another Golden Age; and that Saying alone gave Virgil occaſion enough to deſcribe that new Age, juſt like that Golden one which was ſaid by the Poets to have been in the Reign of Saturn. And it was only in the Silver Age, as they tell us, that Serpents became poiſonous, which in the Golden Age had no Poiſon. This we are told, to go no farther, by Virgil himſelf, Georg. 1. ver. 128.

Ille (viz. Jupiter) malum virus ſerpentibus addidit atris.

Verſ. 19. [...].] Grotius has very well obſerved, that this form of Speech is borrowed from the Cuſtom of Kings, who uſe to command thoſe whom they have a mind to confer the higheſt Honour upon, to ſit at their right-hand. See his Notes upon Mat. xx.21. The Greek Poets ſpeak alſo in the ſame manner concerning the Heathen Gods, as that great man has ſhewed by an Example out of Pindar. And, if you pleaſe, you may add this out of Callimachus about Apollo, in his Hymn conſecrated to that God, ver. 28.

[...]

[...].

Apollo will honour this Quire, becauſe it ſings to pleaſe him; for he is able, ſince he ſits at Jupiter's right-hand.

But this might by the Poets, who fancied their Gods to be in the ſhape of men, be underſtood properly: the difficulty is, how S. Mark, who had quite another Notion of God, underſtood this Phraſe [...]. Interpreters tells us that it is a Metaphor, and muſt be underſtood to ſignify only the great Glory to which Christ was exalted, and nothing more. And it is certain, that this Expreſſion of the right hand of God, if by God we underſtand the divine Nature conſidered in it ſelf, muſt needs be metaphorical; but is it not ſomething [Page] odd that a Chriſtian Hiſtorian ſhould in a naked account of things make uſe of ſuch a Metaphor? So it will ſeem, if I am not miſtaken, to thoſe that attentively conſider it. And therefore perhaps (for I affirm nothing poſitively) we ought rather by the Word God to underſtand a Light inacceſſible to any but Christ, which is a Symbol of the divine Preſence, and on the right ſide of which he, whom the Father hath made King of Heaven and Earth, ſits. And this is that which the Martyr Stephen ſeems to have ſeen when he beheld [...], the glory of God, and Jeſus ſtanding on the right hand of God, viz. of that inacceſſible Light or Glory; of which ſee my Notes upon Exod. xxxiv.18. For without doubt, properly ſpeaking he did not ſee God; and to ſay that when it is affirmed of him that he ſaw Jeſus on the right hand of God, the meaning is, that he ſaw him in the enjoyment or poſſeſſion of the higheſt Glory, is harſh and unnatural. See alſo Matth. xxvi.2. and Mark xiv.62. Let the Learned conſider whether this be not what the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews alſo intended in Chap. xii.2. where he ſays, that Jeſus is ſet down at the right hand of God. I have not time at preſent to proſecute theſe things at large: Which I mention, leſt the Reader ſhould think that I had too ſlightly paſſed over a Subject which deſerves to have a great many Thoughts ſpent upon it.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Luke.

[Page]

Chapter I.CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. IT might have been ſaid without any more ado, that the verb [...] ſignifies to certify, or aſſure, and is properly ſpoken of perſons. Thus in the collections of Cteſias Cap. xxxviii. [...]: having by many words and oaths aſſured Megabizus. So in Socrates Orat. Trapezit. pag. 360. Ed. H. Steph. [...]: when he knew for certain that I had in the hearing of a great many witneſſes denied that I had any thing. And from hence the word being applied to things, [...] ſignifies ſuch things which we are ſure are true, as in this place in St. Luke, as the following words ſhew. [...] no where ſignifies to come to paſs, or to be fulfilled, where the Diſcourſe is concerning a Prophecy. II. [...] is to comply with or ſatisfy a deſire; for ſo the verb [...] alſo ſignifies. As in the old Gloſſes; [...] morigero, ſatiſfacio. Agreable hereto is the Latin phraſe explere animum, libidinem, &c. And which is much to the ſame ſenſe, the Greek [...] ſignifies to fulfil his truſt or office, which the Latins expreſs by implere partes officii ſui, numeros omnes implere. III. [...] is often of the ſame ſignification with the ſimple verb [...], and [...] with [...]. And in the old Gloſſes [...] alſo is rendred by plenitudo, ſatiſfactio, fulneſs, ſatisfaction. What is further obſervable about this word, Dr. Hammond has here ſet down.

Verſ. 2. Note b.] I. The [...] are thoſe which have fulfilled their office of preaching the Goſpel, purſuant to Christ's Command. The word [...] is often taken for the Goſpel. See Act. iv.4, &c. In the ſame phraſe almoſt the office of ſuch Perſons is deſcribed by St. Luke in Act. vi.4. where he calls it [...] the ministry of the [Page]word or Goſpel. II. The reaſon why St. John calls the Godhead dwelling bodily in Chriſt, by the name of [...], I have ſhewn in my Animadverſions upon St. John, Chap. i.1. I cannot tell whether our Author thought that the Chaldee Paraphraſts lived before Chriſt's time; but there are a great many things in them, which make it probable that they are of a later date. Beſides, the Phraſe [...] the word of the Lord, which is ſo often uſed by them, does not ſignify a diſtinct [...] or ſubſistence, as has been ſhewn by a learned man in a Diſcourſe intitled de ſermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphraſtas Chaldaeos; tho I am not in all things of his opinion. III. In what ſenſe the word [...] was known to the antient Heathens, I have ſhewed in the forementioned Animadverſions, out of older Authors than Amelius. Amelius's Teſtimony is extant in Euſebius Praep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. 9.

Verſ. 27. Note f.] Our learned Author truſting too much to his memory, vainly contends that the prepoſition ב in Malachi iv.6. ought to be rendered with, not to; for it is the prepoſition [...] and not ב that is uſed in that place of Malachi, and he ſhall turn the fathers [...] upon or to the children, and the heart of the children [...] upon or to their fathers. It ſeems to be a proverbial form of ſpeech, to ſignify that John was to call the Jews, who were at very great variance among themſelves, to agreement and concord. Our Saviour, that he might repreſent the great diſſenſions that were occaſioned by the variety of mens opinions about matters of Religion, ſpeaks in this manner, Matt. x.21. The brother ſhall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children ſhall riſe up againſt their parents and kill them; and verſe 35. I am come to ſet a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother. Now to ſhew that John was to extinguiſh all ſuch animoſities, or at leaſt uſe the propereſt means to that end, the Prophet made uſe juſt of a contrary expreſſion, and ſaid, he ſhall turn the heart of the fathers, &c. This is by two Evangelists called the restoring of all things, and here by the Angel turning the diſobedient to the ſentiments of the just; and indeed, the Jews could not be reclaimed from their diſſenſions, and diſpoſed to ſubmit to one Maſter Jeſus Chriſt, unleſs John had been to make it his endeavour to reſtore the whole Jewiſh Nation, and to bring them over to the [...] mind or opinion of the juſt. See Grotius on Malach. and this place in St. Mark. The Doctor here takes abundance of pains to interpret this place, to little purpoſe, becauſe he had not looked into the words of Malachi. He repreſents the Prophet ſpeaking the ſame thing over and over, like him that ſaid: ‘[Page]Semivirúmque bovem, ſemibovémque virum.’ For what elſe but a nauſeous Tautology are thoſe words, old and young, young and old? But that which the Prophet ſays, is, that John ſhould endeavour to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, i. e. the fathers who were miſtaken in their Opinions, to the Children who had righter apprehenſions of things; and the hearts of the children to the fathers, or the erroneous Children to the judgment of their Fathers, who embraced the true Doctrine of Chriſt; in a word, to bring [...] the incredulous and diſobedient to be of the mind or ſentiments of the juſt.

II. The word [...] I render mind or ſentiment, and not Wiſdom, becauſe that is the moſt uſual ſignification of the word, and agreable to the common acceptation of the primitive [...] for ſentire to think, or be of ſuch a ſentiment, as it is uſed by St. Paul in Phil. ii.2. where the Phraſes [...], and [...], ſignify to think the ſame thing, to be of the ſame mind. And my reaſon for this is, becauſe the Diſcourſe here is [...], the conſent of the Jews who diſagreed among themſelves. But then it muſt not be thought that by ſententiam, ſentiment, I underſtand the ſame with [...] a ſpeculation or opinion, which entertains only the underſtanding, but an affection or diſpoſition of the Soul, which diſcovers it ſelf in external actions, and is that vertue which the Latins uſually call prudentia, as the Greeks [...]. And this was the reaſon it may be, why the Evangeliſt rather made uſe of the word [...], than [...]; for [...] is properly neither ſententia opinion, nor prudentia prudence or wiſdom; but an affection of the Soul, by which we not only think and judg, but alſo love and hate. See H. Stephens Theſaur. upon the word [...].

Verſ. 28. Note k.] I. For the underſtanding of what is meant by [...] in this place, it muſt be enquired not what Noun [...], but what the Verb [...] ſignifies, and particularly in the New Teſtament. And we find this verb [...] uſed by St. Paul in a very clear notion, in Eph. i.6. where he ſays that God has predeſtinated us to the adoption of children, by Jeſus Chriſt, to the praiſe of the glory of his grace, [...], in which he hath gratified us in the beloved, i. e. by which he hath dealt moſt bountifully with us through Chriſt. And agreably hereto the meaning of the Angel here muſt be: "O Virgin, "who art highly favoured by God. Phavorinus renders [...] by [...], beloved, bleſſed.

[Page]II. What our Author quotes out of Heſychius, relates rather to the body, or to elegancy of ſpeech, than to the Mind, which certainly we can have nothing to do with here. Thus [...] he interprets by [...] and [...] pretty, elegant ſayings. And the old Onomaſticon, [...] facetus, gratioſus, witty, pleaſant. In which ſenſe it is taken in the Son of Sirach Chap. xviii.19. where the diſcourſe is concerning one that was well skilled in the art of ſpeaking, or an eloquent man. The word [...] in Heſychius ought not to be changed into [...]. The old Gloſſes have that word, and render it by gratus, gratuitus, acceptus, grateful, freely beſtowed, acceptable. But [...] is undoubtedly, as the Doctor ſuppoſes, a falſe print for [...].

III. The Phraſe [...] in Prov. xi.16. ſignifies a handſom Woman; for which ſenſe there can be no room here.

Verſ. 39. Note m.] Of this Phraſe in thoſe days, ſee my Notes on Gen. xxxviii.1.

Verſ. 67. Note n. at the end of the third ſenſe of the word [...] pag. 190. lin. 24.] I. Our Author had done well, if he had produced the words of thoſe Grammarians who ſay that [...] ſignifies naturally no more than one that ſpeaks [...], for or in the stead of another. And he might have ſhewn us too at the ſame time, that [...] in compoſition is the ſame ſometime with [...] or [...], as pro in Latin in Proconſul. For as for me, I know of no Grammarian that has proved this, but I know of one that thinks them both falſe. When Poets are ſaid to be the [...] or [...] of the Muſes, it is not meant that they ſpeak in the place or stead of the Muſes, but by their inſpiration, no leſs than Prophets by the inſpiration of that particular Deity to which they are conſecrated. For it muſt be obſerved, that tho the word [...] properly ſignifies one who foretels things to come, yet when Poets are ſo ſtiled, it ſignifies only men inſpired by the Muſes. Which is the reaſon alſo, why Poets uſed to invoke them.

II. Amongſt the Heathens, the Divines, Prophets or Priests, did not teach the People how they were to live, but only the manner of worſhipping and pacifying the Gods. And therefore Lactantius Lib. v. c. 3. ſpeaking of the Heathen Divinity, very truly ſaith: Nihil ibi diſſeritur quod proficiat ad mores excolendos, vitamque formandam, nec habet inquiſitionem aliquam veritatis, ſed tantummodò ritum colendi. That it does not in the leaſt teach men how to live, nor give any rules how to find out the Truth, but declares only in what manner and with what ceremonies the Gods are to be worſhipped. It was the buſineſs of the Philoſophers to teach thoſe things which related to Peoples Manners, as the ſame Author obſerves. Philoſophia, ſays he, & religio Deorum disjuncta ſunt, longeque [Page]diſcreta. Siquidem alii ſunt profeſſores ſapientiae, per quos utique ad Deos non aditur; alii Religionis Antiſtites, per quos ſapere non diſcitur; apparet nec illam eſſe veram ſapientiam, nec hanc Religionem. Philoſophy and the worſhip of the Gods are two very different things among the Heathens. For their Profeſſors of Wiſdom are one ſort of men, who teach nothing that relates to divine worſhip, and their Prieſts another ſort, which give men no inſtructions how to grow wiſer. But it is manifeſt, that neither the former is true Wiſdom, nor the latter true divine Worſhip.

III. As for Epimenides, who wrote no books of Ethicks, but rather taught the way of purifying or expiating, I know not why our Author ſhould deny him to have been a Foreteller of things to come, merely becauſe of Ariſtotle's ſingle Teſtimony, and thereupon argue that he was not for that reaſon called a Prophet. For others do affirm him to have been skilful in the art of Divination, and produce ſome inſtances to that purpoſe. See Laertius Lib. i. Sect. 114. and his Interpreter. And we have no reaſon to ſuppoſe but that St. Paul might rather have a reſpect to the general Opinion than to Ariſtotle's.

Ibid. After the 4th ſenſe given of that word, pag. 190. lin. 29.] When the verb [...] ſignifies to interpret Scripture, or exhort the People to Virtue, or both, it ought not to be rendered by propheſying or foretelling, which is its moſt uſual ſignification, but by preaching or ſpeaking publickly. And the reaſon of this is, becauſe the Prepoſition [...] is ambiguous, and does not only ſignify ante before, when it is referred to time; but alſo when the Diſcourſe is about things and Perſons, i. e. propè or coram, nigh to, or in the preſence of; which laſt ſignification it manifeſtly has in many compound words. Thus [...] is producere, provehere, to bring forth, to carry on; [...], promere, proferre, to bring out, to produce; [...], progredior, procedo; to go forward, to proceed; [...], promoveo, proveho, to put forward, to lead on; [...], proſcriptum, a publick order poſted up in writing; [...], proſcribo, profiteor, to publiſh, to profeſs, with many more which may be had out of any Lexicon. I have tranſcribed theſe out of the old Gloſſaries of Philoxenus and others, and to tranſcribe more was needleſs. It cannot therefore ſeem ſtrange to any, if we interpret this verb [...] by proloqui to utter or pronounce, which is rendered in the old Onomaſticon by [...], and accordingly call him a Prophet who delivers or pronounces a pious diſcourſe in a Church Aſſembly. It is certain that the word [...] is uſed thus in Lucian in Auct. Vitarum, where Diogenes is repreſented as giving this ſhort Character of himſelf, that he was one who took it to be his province publickly to teach Vertue, and inveigh againſt Vice: [...], ſaith he, [...] [Page] [...], in ſhort, I am reſolved to be a PROPHET of truth, and liberty of ſpeech; i. e. to ſpeak freely whatever I think to be true and juſt. I confeſs, Diogenes ſeems here to have taken [...] and [...] for two Goddeſſes by whom he was inſpired; but then it was only in order to this end, that he might boldly ſpeak the truth concerning mens manners, and not that he might foretel things to come. This is the ſenſe in which the Verb [...] is uſed by Ariſtotle in lib. de mundo, where he ſpeaks thus concerning Philoſophy: [...]: underſtanding, I ſuppoſe, eaſily things agreable to her nature, and comprehending divine things with the divine eye of her mind, and declaring them to men. In this place alſo there is a reſpect had to inſpiration, but not ſuch a one as has any relation to the knowledg of things future. Theſe two paſſages were not underſtood by H. Stephanus. Becauſe therefore the Genius and uſe of the Greek language would admit preachers to be called [...], St. Paul made uſe of this word; and ſo much the more willingly, becauſe therein he did not depart from the cuſtom of his Country-men the Jews; among whom it was a Prophet's office not only to foretel things to come, but alſo to teach the People Piety and Vertue. The Egyptians alſo had their [...]; but that they propheſied, or confer'd with the People about their manners, is not known.

Ibid. under the 6th ſenſe of that word.] See my Notes upon the paſſage cited by the Doctor out of Numbers.

Verſ. 70. Note p.] I. The learned Jac. Rhenferdius has written a Diſcourſe very well worth our reading about this phraſe, ſaeculum praeſens & futurum, the preſent and future age; in which he aſſerts that the Phraſe [...] the age to come, was uſed in antient times, and ſo in the time of Chriſt, to ſignify only the next life, and not the age of the Meſſias. And indeed all the examples brought by the Doctor do confirm this very thing; nor is there any clear place alledged by him out of the New Teſtament, which puts the contrary out of doubt. One or two paſſages in a late Rabbin ought not to be taken for a certain proof of what was the cuſtom and doctrine of the Antient Jews.

II. The interpretation which the Doctor gives of the phraſe [...] appears to be ingenious at firſt ſight; but if it be narrowly examined, it will be found inconſiſtent with the uſe of the Hebrew language. For as the Phraſe [...] to age and to age ſignifies nothing but to all future ages; ſo the meaning of that other is no more than, for ever. It is a Hebraiſm, wherein the ſame word is repeated to expreſs all that ſuch or ſuch a word ſignifies. And thus [...] man, man, is uſed to ſignify every man.

[Page]III. The Goſpel is called [...], eternal, becauſe it will never be made void by any other Covenant or Diſpenſation, as the Law had been. It has no relation at all to the Phraſe the preſent or future age.

IV. The Phraſe [...] is a Hebraiſm likewiſe, ſuch another as [...] to age of ages, that is, perpetually, or to the very laſt age.

Verſ. 73. Note q.] What is ſaid here about the alluſion of this whole paſſage to the names of John and his Parents, is a meer trifle, only fit for an Allegoriſt to ſay, not for a ſerious and exact Interpreter, ſuch as Grotius, from whom the Doctor took this remark. Our Author ſuppoſes, with others, that the name of Zacharias's wife was [...] Eliſchebah; but if that had been her name, ſhe ſhould have been called in Greek [...] or [...]. Nor do I ſee why her name might not have been [...] Eliſchebat, my God is a Scepter, or [...] Eliſchebath, my God is reſt.

Ibid. Note r.] The word [...] muſt undoubtedly be joyned with [...], as Grotius righly thought; nor can any thing be imagined more harſh, than this Phraſe [...] to be delivered without fear; whereas [...] to ſerve God without fear is a Phraſe that every body will acknowledg to be proper when the enemies of Gods worſhip are ſo puniſhed and kept under by him as to be incapable of hindring his being openly and publickly worſhipped. But that which made our learned Author ſuppoſe that the Evangeliſt made uſe of ſo harſh a Phraſe was the difficulty of underſtanding what deliverance was here properly ſpoken of, conſidering the primary notion of the words. Zacharias here ſpeaks concerning the Kingdom of the Meſſias as the Prophets generally did, viz. as of a deliverance of the Jews from the dangers that hung over them from their enemies. At the time when Zacharias ſpake theſe words, the Syrians, Egyptians and other Heathen Nations that bordered upon Judaea, bore the Jews ſuch a grudg, and were ſuch troubleſom neighbours to them, that they could not exerciſe their Religion [...] without fear, where the Heathens were more numerous than themſelves, nor go up to Jeruſalem to offer Sacrifice without danger. Nay, they were not without ſome fears and jealouſies of the Romans themſelves, leſt being blinded with ſuperſtition they ſhould ſome time or other oppoſe the Worſhip of the true God, as afterwards they often did. Zacharias therefore ſpeaks of the Meſſias as of one that was about to reſcue the Jews from theſe dangers, in agreement with the common opinion; nor did the Spirit of Prophecy undeceive him as to this matter, and the proper ſenſe of his words is this which [Page] I have mentioned. But in a more ſublime ſenſe,Chapter II. this deliverance is to be underſtood in general of the Enemies of Chriſtianity, who were in time to be converted to the Chriſtian Religion, ſo that thoſe who were before a terrour to the Chriſtians, ſhould enter themſelves into Chriſt's ſheepfold, and ſet the Chriſtians free from all their fears, which came to paſs only in the time of Constantine. It was then and not before that [...], all ſuſpicion, miſgiving and fear was taken away from the Chriſtians, as it is ſaid in the Edict of Conſtantine, extant in Euſebius Hiſt. Eccleſ. Lib. ix. c. 10. [...]: and the ſide of the wicked was filled with the higheſt degree of ſhame and diſhonour by the piety of their enemies; as Euſebius expreſſes himſelf in the next Chapter. Theſe ſeem to be the Enemies here ſpoken of.

II. The paſſage cited by the Doctor out of Prov. i.33. in the Greek tranſlation, will not prove that [...] is a proper Phraſe, for theſe are Wiſdoms words: But whoſo hearkeneth unto me, ſhall dwell ſafely, and at peace, and free from fear of evil, which the Septuagint render by [...], that is, he ſhall fear no evil. The reſt of the paſſages which he compares with this place in St. Luke, are foreign to the purpoſe.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note b. I. OF this paſſage in St. Luke, the learned Jac. Perizonius has treated in a particular Diſcourſe by it ſelf, wherein he has confuted Dr. Hammond and others opinion at large, and, if I am not miſtaken, ſolidly. He affirms that St. Luke's words in the 2 verſe ought to be rendred thus: haec deſcriptio ante facta eſt, quam praeeſſet Syriae Quirinus, this enrolling was made before Quirinus was Governour of Syria; and having examined his reaſons, I freely ſubſcribe to them, and refer the Reader to the Diſcourſe it ſelf.

II. Our Author has committed a great miſtake in his paraphraſe upon the 2 verſe, where he tells us that at that time, i. e. in the reign of Herod the Great, Palaeſtine was under Syria; whereas it is moſt certain that the King of Judaea had no dependence upon the Proconſul of Syria, and that Judaea was not a province, at that time. This appears evidently from Joſephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. xviii. c. 1. where he tells us that Judaea was not made a Province till after Archelaus's baniſhment. But perhaps our Learned Author fell into the ſame Miſtake with Euſebius, who ſays that Joſephus made mention of the ſame regiſtring which St. Luke here ſpeaks of, becauſe he affirmed it to have been made by Quirinus, whoſe name is mentioned by St. Luke; for which miſtake nevertheleſs, [Page] he has long ſince been corrected by learned Men. The paſſage which Euſebius refers to in Joſephus is at the end of his ſeventeenth book of Antiq. in theſe words: [...]: after Archelaus's country was made tributary and added to Syria, Ceſar ſent Quirinus, one who had been Conſul, to enroll Syria, and ſell Archelaus's own houſe. See alſo the beginning of the next book.

Verſ. 3. [...]] This was not only the Cuſtom among the Jews, as has been obſerved by Grotius, but alſo among the Romans, as appears by theſe words in Livy, lib. 42. cap. 10. Cenſa ſunt civium Romanorum capita ducenta ſexaginta novem millia & quindecim. Minor aliquanto numerus, quia L. Poſtumius Conſul pro concione edixerat, qui ſociùm Latini nominis ex edicto C. Claudii Conſulis, redire in civitates ſuas debuiſſent, ne quis eorum Romae, ſed omnes in ſuis civitatibus cenſerentur. There were enrolled of Roman Citizens two hundred ſixty nine thouſand and fifteen; a number ſomewhat leſs than ordinary, becauſe the Conſul L. Poſthumius had publickly proclaimed that thoſe of their Conſederates who ſhould have returned into their reſpective Cities, purſuant to the Order made by the Conſul C. Claudius, ſhould not any of them be enrolled at Rome, but in the ſeveral Cities to which they belonged.

Verſ. 8. [...].] From the Shepherds having ſpent the night abroad in the open Field, it cannot be inferred that the Birth of Chriſt was not in December, as G. J. Voſſius has very well ſhewn, in a ſmall Treatiſe de Nat. Chriſti. But the Antients however not agreeing in their Opinions about the day, nor ſo much as the year, in which Christ was born, one might be ready perhaps to queſtion the Authority of Juſtin and Tertullian, who tell us that the Tables on which this enrolling here ſpoken of was made, were extant in their time. For from thoſe Records this whole matter might eaſily have been known, and it would have been an inexcuſable neglect in the Chriſtians of that age, who could have looked into thoſe publick Regiſters, and tranſmitted to Poſterity what they had there read, and yet would not do it. But I am afraid that Tertullian and others ſpake only by gueſs, becauſe it was not certainly known that thoſe Records were loſt. But this is not a place to treat of this matter.

Verſ. 14. Note e.] The Alexandrian and Cambridg Copies which are both venerable for their antiquity, and the Latin and Gothick Interpreters have that reading which the Doctor here expounds. And therefore it is not true, as Grotius ſays, that all the Copies conſent in reading [...], tho the greateſt part read it ſo.

[Page]Verſ. 35. Note f.Chapter III.] It is eaſy to conjecture what was the occaſion of that grief that like a ſword pierced through the heart of this holy Woman. For how could ſhe ſee without extreme ſorrow and trouble, almoſt all the Jews perſecuting her Son, and that with ſuch implacable fury, as to nail him at laſt to a Croſs? As for the [...], that is either Mary her ſelf, according to the genius of the Hebrew, or if you pleaſe her heart which might metaphorically be ſaid to be ſtruck through, when ſhe beheld her Son crucified. So in Statius Lib. x. Thebaid. a Father hearing his Sons life demanded, received the ſentence.

Non ſecus ac torta trajectus cuſpide pectus

— exanimis.

There was no need of interpreting [...] here to be the ſenſitive Soul, to give light to an eaſy phraſe, uſed alſo in other Languages.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 1. [...]] The Doctor interprets this in his paraphraſe thus: Governour of that fourth diviſion of the kingdom called Galilee; by which words there is no body but would think that Herod was here equal'd with Pilate, and was a Preſident ſent by Tiberius. But the difference between a Governour or Preſident and a Tetrarch he explains in part in his Annotations. He ſhould have added that this Herodes Antipas was in poſſeſſion of this Tetrarchſhip in purſuance of Herod the Great's will, and did not ſend the revenue of that territory to Rome as the Roman Preſidents did, but converted it to his own uſe. He depended indeed upon Caeſar, againſt whoſe will he could not have took poſſeſſion of his inheritance, and who could take it away from him when ever he pleaſed, and at laſt did ſo. But he was not however the Emperors tributary, but his friend; and wanted nothing but the title of one to make him a King. And upon this account Joſephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. 17. Cap. 10. calls him [...]. I make this remark becauſe our Author ſeems in another place, by an intolerable impropriety of ſpeech, to give Herod the title of a Roman Governour, as if he had not ruled his Principality in his own name but in the Emperors. See Note on Matt. xxii.16.

Verſ. 23. [...].] The force of this word is not ſufficiently expreſſed by the Doctor in his Paraphraſe. St. Luke's words are to be rendred thus: And Jeſus himſelf when he began to execute his office, or [Page] to preach the Goſpel,Chapter IV. was about thirty years old, and, as was ſuppoſed, was the Son of Joſeph, &c. In the laſt words, [...] is all one with [...], for the Participle [...] is nothing but a form of paſſing over to the next words, and they who interpret it otherwiſe make a difficulty where there is none. [...] cannot be ſaid in Greek for he began, which yet is commonly here ſuppoſed, tho without producing any ſuch Example. I ſhould paraphraſe therefore this Paſſage thus: ‘When Jeſus firſt began to preach the Goſpel, which he did a little after he had been baptized by John, he was about thirty years old; and was of the Stock of David, his Mother being of the ſame Family, and Joſeph her Husband, who was the Son of, &c.’

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 8. [...]] Beſides what has been ſaid by Grotius to confirm the truth of this reading, it may be farther obſerved, that it is read ſo in Beza's Cambridg Copy, and three others which he mentions, beſides that which the Authors of the Coptick and Gothick Verſions made uſe of.

Verſ. 9. [...]] The Article [...] is wanting in the Alexandrian and Beza's antient Copy. It is not expreſſed in the 3d Verſe, nor in Matth. iv.6. And therefore Beza, who uſes to render that Article by a demonſtrative Pronoun, has here omitted it, and told us in his Notes that he ſuſpected it. It was poſſible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joſeph, that Jeſus was conceived without the aſſiſtance of a Man, and by the power of the Holy Ghoſt; and that for that reaſon the Angel who had foretold his Birth, had ſaid that he ſhould be called the Son of God: but it was poſſible alſo, that he might queſtion whether that was true or no, and ſo be willing to tempt our Saviour himſelf, that he might be more fully ſatisfied about it. And accordingly the Temptation may be thus expreſſed; ‘If thou art the Son of God, and not of a Man, as thy Mother ſays, caſt thy ſelf down from hence; for ſince thou may'ſt put thy truſt in God thy Father, there is nothing that thou needeſt to fear, becauſe it is written in Pſal. xci. concerning thoſe that truſt in God, that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them.’

CHAP. V.Chapter V.

[Page]

Verſ. 27. [...]] St. Luke here follows S. Mark; but St. Matthew, Chap. ix.9. mentions his own name. It is ſuppoſed by moſt, and by our Author here among the reſt, that Levi was but another name for S. Matthew; but this is confuted by Grotius by divers conſiderable Arguments, in his Notes on Matt. ix. which I wonder that Dr. Hammond ſhould take no notice of, but follow the common Opinion. St. Matthew and Levi were perhaps Companions in the ſame Cuſtom or Tollhouſe, and dwelt together. And Chriſt ſeems to have called them both, and to have been entertained at a Feaſt by them both at their own houſe. But Levi was not choſen to be one of the twelve Apoſtles. And yet why St. Mark and Luke paſs by Matthew, and make mention of Levi, I confeſs I can give no reaſon.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 13. Note c. I.Chapter VI. THat Chriſt was commiſſioned and authorized by God to found and govern the Church, and the Apoſtles by Chriſt, cannot be matter of doubt with any Chriſtian: but I queſtion whether the importance of the word [...] be ſuch, as that the Authority which belonged to the Apoſtolical Office can by Grammatical Reaſons be thence deduced. Miſſion does not, to ſpeak properly, ſignify Authority, but only the purpoſe or action of ſending by which there is a greater or leſſer Power conferred upon the perſon ſent, according as ſeems good to the perſon that ſends him. Nor can the perſon that is ſo ſent, aſſume to himſelf the Authority of him that ſent him, merely becauſe he ſent him, but only becauſe when he was ſent, he received ſuch or ſuch a Commiſſion, which he is obliged alſo not to exceed. This our Author ſeems indeed to have perceived, tho but obſcurely, whilſt he affirms and denies in the ſame Annotation that the word Apoſtle is a Title of Dignity.

II. The Talmudiſts term'd them [...], or [...] Meſſengers of the Congregation, that were ſent by the Synagogues on any buſineſs whatſoever, and who among other Offices which they performed, offered up Prayers for thoſe who could not pray for themſelves, in the Synagogue, eſpecially at the beginning of the new year, and on the day of expiation. See Joan. Buxtorf, in Lexic. Talmud. and Camp. Vitringa de Synagog. Lib. 3. Part 2. c. 11. But there were never any Tithes either due, or paid to the Synagogues, but only to the Temple, as long as it ſtood; to which alſo it was that the [...] ſpoken of in [Page] Philo, Chapter VII. brought money, and not to the Synagogues. Thus Philo p. 785. Ed. Gen. ſaith of Auguſtus: [...]: he knew that they gathered the conſecrated moneys under the name of firſt-fruits, and ſent them to Jeruſalem by thoſe who were going to offer up ſacrifices there. The like he repeats in p. 801. where he calls thoſe perſons [...].

Verſ. 22. Note e.] Tho it be true that the word [...] is ſometimes taken for a man, yet the phraſe [...] does not ſignify to cast out a man as wicked, but to defame, as Grotius has evidently proved, whom the Reader may conſult.

Verſ. 30. Note f.] It is true that the perſon here intended is a poor man, who makes uſe of what is anothers; but that the Phraſe [...] ſignifies to require Ʋſury, or [...] by it ſelf to receive upon uſe, I am not apt to believe, if thoſe words be conſidered conjunctly. For it is not all one as to the finding out the ſignification of words, what connexion or relation they have with one another. I rather chuſe therefore to underſtand this Precept of Christ thus; That thoſe who can be without what another perſon, who abſolutely needs it, poſſeſſes of theirs, tho it be unjuſtly detained from them, ought rather to recede from their right, than by taking what is their own again, reduce a poor diſtreſſed man to his laſt ſhifts. Indeed if a rich man ſhould unjuſtly keep back what is anothers, which he ſtands in no need of, it would not be the part of a liberal Man, but a Fool, to neglect his right; but there cannot be a more generous or liberal Action, than to connive at ſuch a fault in a poor man. And this being a very good ſenſe of this Precept, and agreeable to the uſual ſignification of every word in it, I do not ſee why we ſhould recur to any other.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 3. Note a. OUR Author might have added, that it was ordinary in Scripture to bring in Meſſengers ſpeaking in the ſame words that thoſe would have done who ſent them, if they had been preſent. See my Index to the Pentateuch, upon the word Nuntius.

Verſ. 29. [...]] i. e. They acknowledged God to be juſt, and themſelves to be guilty, and that they deſerved the deſtruction which John had denounced againſt them. Of the verb [...] ſee our Notes upon Rom. iii.4.

Verſ. 30. [...]] i. e. They rejected Gods purpoſe of reforming them by John's Miniſtry. See Acts xx.27.

Verſ. 44. Note c. See my Notes on Gen. xviii.4.

CHAP. VIII.Chapter VIII.

[Page]

Verſ. 3. Note a. I. IT is true indeed that the meats at Feaſts were divided and diſtributed to the Gueſts by the [...], or [...], miniſtring Servants; but he is miſtaken, whoever thinks with Dr. Hammond, that the Verb [...] ſignifies this particular action rather than any other ſervice, nor do the places alledged by him prove it. Servants had various employments, which were all called [...], as among the Latins miniſteria. He that divided the Meats, was not called by the general name of [...], but [...] or [...] in Greek, and in Latin ſciſſor or carptor. See Laur. Pignorius, and Auſ. Popma in Comment. de Servis. The Verb [...] in Luke xii.37. does not ſignify only to divide to every one his portion of meat, but any errand or employment that uſed to be given to Servants, whilſt their Maſters were feaſting. The ſame I ſay of Matth. xx.28. and Mark x.45. which the Doctor puts a forced ſenſe upon, when they might be moſt fitly explained, according to the conſtant ſignification almoſt of that Verb [...].

II. Our Learned Author had not ſufficiently examined the paſſage he ſpeaks of in St. Matthew; for it is manifeſt that [...] there ſignifies to exerciſe Dominion or Kingly Authority over Subjects, and not that of a Maſter over Servants; the Diſcourſe not being about Maſters and Servants, but about Kings and Subjects: Ye know that the Princes of the Nations, [...], exerciſe Dominion over them. It follows; and thoſe that are great exerciſe Authority upon them, [...], ſuch an Authority as belongs to a Vice-Roy, or the King's Lieutenant. Chriſt here forbids the Governours of his Church to aſſume a Regal Power over Chriſtians, which they do whenſoever they put them to death, or perſecute ſuch as cannot ſay juſt as they ſay: or to take any ſuch Authority upon them, which, on pretence of acting in the name of the Supreme Governor Jeſus Chriſt, they might eaſily abuſe to the deſtruction of Chriſtians. In fine, he would have nothing done in an imperious domineering way, but all by perſwaſion and entreaty.

III. The [...] in John ii. are thoſe that ſerved the Gueſts in all things which they wanted, as well as in diſtributing to them Meat and Drink. It is not from this latter that the Deacons of the Church were ſo called, as by a Metaphor taken from a Feaſt, but rather from a borrowed ſignification of the word [...], which is taken ſometimes for furniſhing, i. e. [...] ſupplying, or delivering out. And the reaſon [Page] of the Metaphor's being taken from hence,Chapter IX. ſeems to be becauſe Servants or Miniſters, at their Maſter's command, uſed to bring out whatever was neceſſary, not only for a Feaſt, but all other uſes of Life. But this ſignification of that word ſeems to have obtained only after the purity of the Greek Language had bin loſt; for in the antienteſt Writers, it is certain that [...] is never uſed for [...], nor [...] for [...]. And in like manner the Latins have altered the ſignification of their words miniſtrare and ſubminiſtrare, which are frequently of late uſed for ſuppeditare, to ſupply. Perhaps alſo in this place there is a Latiniſm, of which kind there are a great many in the New Teſtament. But I leave this to be conſidered by the Learned.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 12. Note b. THE Verb [...] ſignifying properly and literally to looſe, it is much more likely that it was uſed metaphorically for baiting or lodging by the way, from the cuſtom of thoſe who uſe to travel in Coaches or Chariots, and whenever they light and betake themſelves to any Inn, have their Horſes looſed and carried into a Stable; and becauſe the word [...] came thence to ſignify the end of any Journey, therefore [...] was uſed in general for leaving off, or putting an end to, and amongſt other things, a Sea Voyage. The Verb [...] is ſo far from being properly ſaid of a Ship's leaving off ſailing, if we conſider the natural and primitive ſignification of that word, that on the contrary they ought then rather to be ſaid [...], to be tied faſt or laid up, and [...] to be looſed when they are put to Sea. And therefore alſo the Greeks do not uſe the Verb [...] ſimply, in the ſignification of arriving or coming into Port, but the phraſe [...]. It's true, our Author follows Phavorinus, who ſays, [...]. But this obſervation of that, otherwiſe very learned, Grammarian, is contrary both to the uſe and genius of the Greek Language; nor is it always ſafe to rely upon his Authority. And he himſelf alſo confirms in another place what I have ſaid, by a much better remark: [...], ſaith he, [...] is taken from lodging in an Inn; and hence comes [...] for an Inn, becauſe therein the Beaſts or their burdens were looſed. He ſeems to have taken this obſervation from Euſtathius on Odyſſ. p. 1480. Ed. Rom. who ſays there the ſame. And Suidas whom the Doctor has elſewhere (ſee Not. upon Mat. xiv.3.) commended for his great skill in Grammar, [Page] when there was no occaſion for it, plainly favours what I ſay: [...], ſays he, [...] in Thucidides is ſaid of thoſe who ride in Chariots; [...], of thoſe who travel in Ships, viz. who are come to the place to which they were bound. Which is ſaid in ſo many words by the Scholiaſt upon Thucydides, Lib. 1. p. 89. Ed. F. Porti. Theſe things being evident, it muſt be obſerved by the way, that before ever we can ſafely make uſe of the antient Grammarians for finding out the ſignifications of words, the genius and uſe of the Greek Language muſt be known ſome other way, viz. by a long and careful reading of the antient Writers, both in Verſe and Proſe; for otherwiſe he that hath no more knowledg of the Greek Tongue than what he has attained to by reading the New Teſtament, and a few of the Fathers, and that not ſo much with a deſign to underſtand the Language, as for the ſake of Divinity, and only occaſionally conſults the old Lexicons, will frequently be led into Miſtakes. And I wiſh this could not be ſaid of Dr. Hammond, who was otherwiſe a very excellent Divine, and a man of an extraordinary Judgment.

Verſ. 31. Note c.] In my laſt Note I undertook to confute our Author, becauſe I thought he was in a miſtake; but in this I ſhall confirm his Opinion becauſe I think it to be true, and agreeable both to the uſe of Scripture and the Greek Language. For the word [...], where the diſcourſe is concerning a King, ſignifies his going forth to make War with any one, as Chriſt did with the unbelieving Jews. So 2 Sam. xi.1. at the time when Kings go forth, [...], is very well rendered by the Vulgar, Tempore quo ſolent Reges ad bella procedere, at the time when Kings uſe to go forth to battel. The ſame word which is there uſed [...], the Septuagint tranſlate by [...], Prov. xxx.27. So alſo the Greeks uſed this word, as H. Stephanus, out of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Herodian, ſhews. Add likewiſe theſe Paſſages to the ſame purpoſe out of Dionyſius Halicarnaſſ. Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 303. [...], the firſt Expedition that I ſerved in was when I was very young. Lib. 11. p. 734. [...], not to hinder the going out of the Souldiers to battel. In the ſame ſenſe he uſeth [...] for to make an Expedition, Lib. 8. p. 531. So the old Gloſſes, [...], an expedition. [...], a military Expedition, or the going out of Souldiers to war.

And it cannot ſeem ſtrange that the Vengeance that Chriſt was about to take upon his Enemies the Jews, ſhould be repreſented by his going out to battel againſt them; for alſo in the Old Teſtament the puniſhments [Page] which God threatned to inflict upon wicked men,Chapter X. are often repreſented in the ſame manner. So Iſa. xlii.13. where there is the ſame Phraſe made uſe of as here, it is ſaid, The Lord ſhall go forth as a mighty Man, he ſhall ſtir up jealouſy like a Souldier; he ſhall cry and roar, he ſhall prevail againſt his Enemies. Which might be rendered into Greek very well thus; [...], &c. See alſo Chap. xiii. of the ſame Prophet, where God is repreſented as leading an Army of the Medes againſt Babylon.

Ibid. [...]] The Evangeliſt might have expreſſed it by [...]; but the reaſon of his uſing the word [...] was, becauſe this Expedition of Chriſt againſt the Jews was foretold by Malachi in Chap. iv.1.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 12. [...].] Altho the Sodomites had been puniſhed long ago, and ſtill ſuffer by a fearful expectation of further Vengeance from God, yet it ſeems by this place that they will not have their utmoſt puniſhment inflicted upon them till the univerſal Judgment. And the ſame we are to think of all the reſt of the wicked; ſee verſ. 14. of this Chapter. And upon this account it is, that the puniſhments of bad men are frequently referred to that day, not only in the Scripture, but alſo in the Books of the Antient Fathers. Read to this purpoſe the excellent Diſcourſe of Lud. Capellus about the State of the Soul after Death.

Verſ. 18. [...]] i. e. I was thinking and repreſenting to my ſelf before-hand, the deſtruction that is ſuddenly to befal the Devil's Kingdom. The overthrow of the Devil's Kingdom is deſcribed by his falling from Heaven; becauſe as being lifted up to Heaven, ſignifies the greateſt Glory, as we may ſee here by the 15th Verſe, where it is ſaid, And thou Capernaum which haſt been exalted to Heaven, &c. ſo the falling from Heaven, or being thruſt down to Hell, ſignifies the loſing of that former Glory. So, Iſa. xiv.12. the King of Babylon being dethroned and dead, the other deceaſed Kings of the Nations are repreſented as meeting him, and ſaying amongſt other things; How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, Son of the Morning? i. e. How cameſt thou to be dethroned and killed? So the Latins alſo uſed to expreſs themſelves. Thus Cicero ſaith of Antonius, who had deprived his Collegue of all his Authority, Phil. 2. Collegam quidem de coelo detraxiſti. And, Lib. 1. ad Atticum, Ep. 20. ſpeaking of [Page] Pompey he ſaith; Quia deciderat ex aſtris, Chapter XI. lapſus potius quam progreſſus videbatur.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 7. [...].] Tho this word [...] doth for the moſt part ſignify Children; yet I ſhould chuſe here to interpret it Servants, ſo as to make it anſwerable to the Hebrew [...] which ſignifies both Child and Servant, and is rendered [...] by the Septuagint in 1 Sam. xxi.5. where the Diſcourſe is not about Children, but about Servants: [...] & [...] often ſignify the ſame.

Verſ. 42. [...].] If this be interpreted according to the Doctrin of the Talmud, the Adjective [...] muſt be underſtood; for the Jews paid Tithes of ſuch Herbs only as were eaten, and not of all ſorts: ſee Selden of Tithes, Chap. 2. S. 7.

Verſ. 47. Note e. I am apt to think that it is the very adorning of the Sepulchres it ſelf, with which the Jews are here upbraided, tho they did it with a contrary deſign, as if this had been a ſymbolical expreſſion of their cruelty. See Grotius upon Mat. xxiii.29. what our Author ſays here is forced.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 13. [...], &c.Chapter XII.] The Doctor follows Grotius in his Paraphraſe upon this Verſe; but if we carefully conſider the words we ſhall find, that the Man who here makes his complaint to Chriſt, does not deſire him to perform the Office of a Judg or Arb [...]trator between him and his Brother, but to make uſe of his prophetical Authority to oblige his Brother who detained the whole Inheritance, to divide it with him. But Chriſt tells them that ſuch civil Matters did not belong to his Office. Tho he might have occaſionally concerned himſelf in them, yet he declined it; not that he feared the ingratitude or ill-will of the contending Parties, if they were not both ſatisfied; but as I rather think, leſt he ſhould be ſaid by the Phariſees, to leſſen the Magiſtrates Authority, and be ambitious of Government: See Note on Mat. viii.4.

Verſ. 19. [...].] Seneca Ep. c. 1. hath a very elegant Paſſage to this purpoſe, concerning ſuch another man as Chriſt here ſpeaks of: In ipſo actu, ſays he, bene currentium rerum, in ipſo procurrentis pecuniae impetu, raptus eſt. He was ſnatched away in the full career of his Fortune.

[Page]

Chapter XIII.

Inſere nunc, Melibaee, pyros, pone ordine vites.

Quam ſtultum eſt aetatem diſponere? ne craſtino quidem dominamur. O quanta dementia eſt ſpes longas inchoantium! Emam, aedificabo, credam, exigam, honores geram, tum demum laſſam & plenam ſenectutem in otium referam. Omnia mihi crede, etiam felicibus dubia ſunt. How fooliſh a thing is it for a man to diſpoſe of his life, when even ſo much as to morrow is not in our power? O how great is the madneſs of thoſe who propoſe to themſelves deſigns that muſt be a long while in compaſſing! who ſay within themſelves, I will buy, I will build, I will truſt out, I will gather in again, I will go through ſuch and ſuch Honours and Dignities, and then at length ſpend a full and tired old Age in reſt and eaſe. Alas, the moſt fortunate are ſure of poſſeſſing nothing long.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 23. Note b. I. THE Verb [...] properly ſignifies to preſerve ſafe, and comes from [...] ſafe. It uſes for the moſt part to be applied to bodies, and ſuch things as relate to the Body. The Hebrew Verb [...] has the ſame ſignification, as appears by abundance of places. So Pſal. xxxvi.6. Thou preſerveſt man and beaſt, [...] is rendered by the Septuag. [...]. So the word [...] is taken by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iv.14. where, ſpeaking of God, he ſays, He is the Saviour of all men, but eſpecially of them that believe. Our Author produces a great many more Examples.

II. Afterwards this word was applied to the ſafety of the Mind; in which ſenſe alſo we find it uſed by the Heathen Writers, out of whom I ſhall ſet down ſome Inſtances which will confirm what Dr. Hammond ſays. Thus Cebes in his Tab. p. 11. Ed. Amſt. Gronov. ſpeaking of the Genius which he ſuppoſed every one had to direct and inſtruct him, ſaith; [...]: it ſhews what way they are to take if they would be SAVED in life, i. e. if they would be preſerved from thoſe Calamities and Evils with which Vice is uſually attended. And, pag. 13. ſpeaking of the Paſſions that were drawn in the ſhapes of Women, and which are the cauſes either of Mens ſafety or deſtruction, he ſaith; [...]; but whither do they lead them? [...]: Some lead them to ſafety, and others to ruin. And, pag. 25. ſpeaking of one that embraced the opinion which led to true Learning, he ſaith; [...] [Page] [...]: being purged thereby, Chapter XIV. he is ſaved and made bleſſed and happy all his life; that is, he is preſerved from vice, and the miſeries that accompany it. And, pag. 43. he that is repreſented as the explainer of the Table, ſays to his inquiſitive Hearers, after they had promiſed to live according to what they had heard; [...], If you do ſo you ſhall be ſaved. So Plutarch in his Book of the difference between a Friend and a Flatterer, towards the end; [...]: Diogenes ſaid, That he that would be ſaved, muſt either have good Friends, or furious Enemies. For Diogenes, who was a deſpiſer of Riches, and all thoſe things that related to the Body, conſidered nothing but the ſafety of the Mind. I have met with ſeveral other Examples to the ſame purpoſe, which I cannot at preſent remember, but theſe are more than enough.

CHAP. XIV.

Verſ. 23. [...].] See Grotius upon this place, and how he corrects St. Auſtin for his moſt ſhameful abuſe of it, for it deſerves to be called no better. And yet there are ſome that reſolve ſtill to follow St. Auſtin, contrary to all the rules of Grammar, the nature of the Chriſtian Religion, and common Senſe it ſelf. Nay, there is a late Enthuſiaſtical upſtart, a contemptible Woman's follower, that has fooliſhly attempted to skim over and defend St. Auſtin's Opinion, tho he either never read him, or never underſtood him; and he every where falls foul upon the Criticks for not interpreting the words of Scripture according to the wild fancies of crackbrain'd Women, but according to the nature of things themſelves, and the conſtant uſe of Languages. But this Paſſage alone is enough to ſhew us of what advantage Grammar, or if you pleaſe Criticiſm, is to the right interpretation of Scripture, ſeeing St. Auſtin, who was otherwiſe a very ingenious man, but an abſolute ſtranger to this ſort of Learning, did ſo wretchedly force and miſinterpret this Paſſage, and make uſe of it to defend the moſt cruel Opinion imaginable. Add to what Grotius has ſaid upon this place, my Notes upon Gen. xix.13. If there were any ſort of force here intended, it muſt be that which God makes uſe of by his ſevere and afflictive Providences, which do often conſtrain, as it were, wicked men to live better than they did before, tho gentler methods had been ineffectual to reform them. There is an elegant Paſſage, and a true one (if we do but change the word Gods into God) to this purpoſe, in Aeſchylus in Agamemn. not far from the beginning:

[Page]

Chapter XV.

[...],

[...]

[...].

Even the unwilling have grown wiſe by force, through a particular favour of the Gods, who ſit in a venerable Seat. But whatever God does, doubtleſs men ought not to force their fellow Creatures to be of their Perſwaſion.

Verſ. 34. [...], &c.] Becauſe Proverbs, and proverbial forms of Speech are commonly grounded upon what is really done, when the matter of them is ſomething poſſible. I have been ready ſometimes to imagin, that the [...] here is not to be underſtood of Salt properly ſpeaking, becauſe that which is here ſaid of Salt, neither does nor ever can happen to it. For, Firſt, Salt is never infatuated, [...]. Secondly, Salt which keeps its ſavour, is not fit either for the Land, or for the Dunghil. Thirdly, When it is infatuated, it is not CAST OƲT. What if we ſhould ſuppoſe therefore that Wood-aſhes was by the Husbandmen called Salt? They, it's certain, are, 1. infatuated, if they are waſhed or ſoak'd in Water, as it happens when they are made uſe of for the cleanſing of foul Linen. And, 2. after they have been thus ſoaked in water, they are unfit to be uſed as a means to enrich the ground, either alone or mixed with dung, becauſe it was only the Salt that was in them before their being ſo ſoaked, which made them proper for that purpoſe. And if they be ſpread upon the Land before the Salt is waſhed out, they ſerve very much to make it fruitful, either by themſelves, or elſe mixed with dung. And, 3. when they are infatuated, that is, when all the Salt Particles are waſhed out of them, they uſed rather to be caſt out into the way or ſtreet, than upon a dunghil or the fields. But I confeſs I can produce no Example to ſhew that theſe Wood-aſhes were called Salt, and therefore I affirm nothing peremptorily. But let the Learned conſider what there may be in this Conjecture.

CHAP. XV.

Verſ. 16. Note b. OF this Fruit Salmaſius hath treated at large in his Exercit. Plin. in Solin. p. 326. & ſeqq. Ed. Ʋltraj. who may be conſulted by thoſe that are curious about ſuch matters. However it is no where ſaid by Pliny that this Fruit was ordinary among the Egyptians; nay, on the contrary, he denies, [Page] as Theophraſtus had done before him, that it grew in Egypt, Lib. 13. c. 8. but affirms that it was common in Syria; ſo that in this alſo our Author is miſtaken. Conſult Salmaſius.

Verſ. 22. [...].] H. Grotius thinks, that as we ought not to be ſuperſtitious in ſearching for Allegories in every part of a Parable; ſo neither ought we to overlook them when they are ſuggeſted by the agreement of what is ſaid in Parables, with other places of Scripture. And therefore if we believe him, the [...], or Robe, here ſignifies that conſtant innocency of Life, which by God's Grace, a Perſon who has receiv'd ſo much mercy from him, is enabled to perſevere in. And for this he refers us to Rev. vi.11. & vii 13, 14. & xix.8. Now I do not indeed deny, but that a white Robe is taken ſometimes for an Emblem of Innocence; but I ſay that there is nothing ſaid of that here; and that the beſtowing of the precious Robe, ſignifies the Father's Joy for the return of his Son: ſo that we are not to conſider the Robe in it ſelf, but only the Father's Affection in giving it. He tells us alſo, as the Antients have done before him, that by the Ring we are to underſtand the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, by which we are ſealed, as the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks 2 Cor. i.21. But this part of the Parable likewiſe is only a farther deſcription of the Father's Joy for the ſafe return of his prodigal Son, whom he thought to have been loſt, and mourned upon that account. And to repreſent this Joy to us, Chriſt makes uſe of Similitudes taken from the received cuſtom; for at that time a Superior could not confer a greater Honour upon his Inferior, than by beſtowing a Ring and a Robe upon him. Of which we have an Example in Gen. xli.42. See my Notes on the place. The beſt way therefore had been to look only to the main ſcope of the Parable, which is ſufficiently plain, and not to inſiſt upon the ſignificancy of every particular word: For whatſoever may be ſaid of that kind, tho not altogether frivolous, is certainly beſides Chriſt's deſign; and has no other foundation than the ingenious fancy of the Interpreter. But that learned Expoſitor had put almoſt all the principal Obſervations which he had to make upon the three firſt Goſpels, in his Notes upon St. Matthew, and therefore he could not be large upon the two following; and ſometimes, that he might not be wholly ſilent, he was forced to ſay a great many far-fetch'd things, and now and then intermix Allegories in his Annotations. Tho I would not have this taken as an Argument that I have the leaſt undervaluing thought of that incomparable Man.

Chapter XVI.CHAP. XVI.

[Page]

Verſ. 9. Note b. IT is moſt true, that there are a great many Verbs uſed in the Scripture without any Nominative caſe to them; and that therefore we muſt ſupply that defect in our own thoughts, unleſs they be imperſonal Verbs. See my Notes upon Gen. xi.9. and my Index to the Pentat. on the word Perſona. But this Obſervation can have no place in 1 Sam. xxi.8. becauſe it holds only when the Verb is in the third perſon maſculine, and in that place it is in the feminine.

Verſ. 12. Note c. This interpretation of [...] is, with the learned Doctor's leave, a mere nicety. The word [...] is taken here in a Philoſophical ſenſe, for that which does not belong to the Mind, and is ſuch as may be taken away from us againſt our will, as Riches. And on the other hand, that which Chriſt calls [...], is that which pertained to the minds of thoſe whom he ſpake to, and could not be taken away from them againſt their wills, viz. the Truths of the Goſpel. The meaning of Chriſt in this place is, that thoſe who abuſed their Riches, and could not obtain of themſelves to employ them to better purpoſes, were unfit to receive the true Goſpel riches as they ought, and would not uſe them better than they did the other. Nothing is more common among the Philoſophers, and eſpecially the Stoicks, than this diſtinction of [...] & [...]. Pricaeus upon this place has given us ſome Examples of it; and a great many more might be added out of Epictetus only. Thus, Enchirid. Cap. 1. telling us what things are not in our power, he inſtances in the Body, Riches, Honours, Empires, and in a word, ſaith he, [...], every thing but our own Works. And, Cap. 2. he ſays, that thoſe things which have their dependence on us, cannot by any one be hindered; but thoſe which are not in our power, are weak, obnoxious to ſervitude, and a great many impediments; in fine, they are [...]. And, Cap. 3. he hath theſe words; [...], &c. Remember therefore, that if thou thinkeſt thoſe things which are ſervile to be free, and thoſe things which are [...], anothers, to be thy own, thou wilt be hindered,— but if thou counteſt that only to be thy own which is thy own, and that which is anothers to be as it is another, then no body will compel thee, &c. See likewiſe his [...]rger Diſcourſes, Lib. 3. c. 24. I have alſo taken notice of a word borrowed from the Stoicks, in a Note on Mat. xix.28.

[Page]Verſ. 19. Note d. This Tranſlation which the Doctor gives us of the Parable ſet down in Gemara Babyl. is partly according to the words in the Hebrew, and partly according to the Latin Verſion of R. Sheringamus, and taken from thence; and this has led our exact Author into a miſtake which ought indeed eaſily to be forgiven him: but whereby it appears that Learned Men are overſeen ſometimes when they ſeem to be moſt exact. That part of the Parable which there is a miſtake in the Doctor's Tranſlation, is word for word according to the Talmudical Dialect thus; A King of Fleſh and Blood made a great Feaſt, and called to it all the Children of his City. There came a certain poor Man and ſtood at the Gate, &c. Sheringamus in Praef. ad Cod. Joma, ſets down this Parable in Hebrew and Latin, and with more freedom than ordinary tranſlates the words [...], which ought to have been rendred omnes filios urbis ſuae, by multos hoſpites. And Dr. Hammond knowing that the word hoſpes is ſometimes uſed in the ſame Notion with exterus or peregrinus; and not ſufficiently conſidering that the Diſcourſe here was about Gueſts, tranſlates that by Strangers, whereas it is very manifeſt that the words [...] ſignify Citizens, i. e. Perſons belonging to the ſame City. And this I have thought fit here to take notice of, not out of a captious humor, but only to warn the Reader that he ought not to be too ſevere a Judg of thoſe miſtakes which the Learned ſometimes fall into through want of care, ſince we err ſometimes when we are moſt careful. But I have this farther to add, that I cannot ſee any reaſon why this Parable ſhould be thought to be the ſame with that here in St. Luke, when all the likeneſs that there is between them is only, that the ſubject of them both is a rich Man and a Beggar. But their ſcope is quite different.

Verſ. 22. [...].] Plato in Phaedone, S. 41. (however he came by the Notion) has a Paſſage much to this purpoſe, for he ſuppoſes the Souls of good men to have their [...], Gods who accompany and conduct them, [...], into their proper place.

Ibid. [...], ſays Titus Boſtrenſis, Pag. 808. C. [...], &c. [...]: he did not ſay cruel and inhuman wretch, &c. but what? my Son, ſaith he.

Chapter XVII.CHAP. XVII.

[Page]

Verſ. 7. [...].] This word the Doctor in his Paraphraſe interprets an hired Servant; but the proper Greek word for that is [...], not [...], which is the name of a Slave. I know the word [...] is uſed in the New Teſtament in both theſe ſenſes; but there is no mention made here of any hire or reward due for ſervice, and I do not ſee any reaſon why we ſhould depart from the moſt uſual ſignification of the word.

Verſ. 9. [...]] A Maſter whoſe Authority over his Servant is abſolute, is not obliged, [...], to thank that Servant who does nothing but what he is commanded; for the condition of a Slave is ſuch, that he is bound to do whatſoever he is ordered, and is able to do. But on the other hand, a Hireling is not obliged to perform any ſervile Offices againſt his will. Having agreed with his Maſter for ſuch a reward for ſuch or ſuch work, he cannot be compelled againſt his will to any other employments; and if he voluntarily undertake them, he ought to be thanked for it. It was the general Notion of Maſters, that giving attendance was the peculiar office of a Slave, whoſe condition was ſuch, that nothing which he did was looked upon as an obligation by his Maſter. They are the words of Seneca, Lib. 3. c. 18. de B [...]nefic. who nevertheleſs, contrary to the vulgar opinion, affirms, that a Maſter may receive a benefit from his Slave. But Chriſt here ſpeaks of Maſters that uſe the utmoſt rigour and according to the received Notion and Cuſtom. I ſhall only add that our Author has admirably connected this Parable with what goes before in his Paraphraſe.

CHAP. XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.Verſ. 5. Note b. THO the Verbs [...] & [...] come from the ſame Primitive, yet they cannot therefore be compared with one another; for we ought not to conſider the ſignifications of their Primitives, but the words from which they are moſt immediatly derived. [...] is that part of the face or countenance which lies juſt under the eye, and is taken alſo for a blue Scar cauſed by a bruiſe given to that part. And becauſe the pugils or cuſſers uſed often to ſtrike thoſe parts with their Fiſts, the Verb [...] properly ſignified ſugillare, to give one a black and blue Eye, as it is rendered in the Old Gloſſes. Afterwards the Noun [...] was metaphorically uſed to ſignify diſgrace or infamy, as by Cicero and Nilus. [Page] And in the ſame ſenſe alſo the Latins often uſed the words nota and plaga: And from this ſignification of the Noun [...],Chapter XIX. it is that the Verb [...] came to ſignify, as in this place, to defame; juſt as among the Latins likewiſe the Verb ſugillare, which is properly to give one a blow upon the Eye, ſignifies alſo the ſame with infamare. And in this ſenſe undoubtedly it is that the Greek is rendered in the vulgar by ſugillare, and that rightly. The unjuſt Judg was afraid leſt the Woman ſhould defame him, and ruin his reputation every where where ſhe went, by her cries and complaints.

The proper ſignification of the Verb [...], according to its etymology, is indeed that which our Author ſays; but where the diſcourſe is of God, it ſignifies only to beg ſo as to obtain; and we ought not to inſiſt upon the original of the word: for to put God to ſhame is a phraſe that muſt needs ſeem intolerable to all, but ſuch as are not aſhamed when they ſpeak never ſo clowniſhly or improperly; of which number certainly was the Doctor, whoſe want of expreſſion was equal to his learning. The Heathens perhaps would not ſcruple ſaying, that they put their Gods to ſhame; but I ſhould hardly forgive a Chriſtian that would ſpeak in that manner of God.

CHAP. XIX.

Verſ. 9. [...].] It is a Synechdoche, ſaith Grotius; for the houſe is put for the maſter of the houſe. But I rather think that it is put, as it moſt uſually ſignifies, for the Family, which by the Maſter's example might be reduced to a better life; or for his Wife and Children, who perhaps imitated the one her Husband, and the other their Father.

Verſ. 12. [...], &c.] Tho the meaning of Chriſt in this Parable be ſufficiently plain, and rightly enough explained by the Doctor; yet he did not ſee the reaſon of its being ſo conceived or worded by Chriſt, neither ought Chriſt to be underſtood to ſpeak of an independent King, or one that went to take poſſeſſion of a Kingdom which he had a natural right to. But he took this Parable from the cuſtom of the Kings of his time, who reigned rather by the courteſy of the Roman Emperors, than by any privilege of birth: Such as all thoſe were, who were in Judaea from the time of Herod the Great. They could not take the Scepter in their hands, without the permiſſion of thoſe who had the ſupreme Government at Rome. Herod the Great took a long Journey, that he might obtain the Kingdom of Judaea from Antonius, and he did not go in vain; for as Joſephus tells us, [Page] Antiq. Jud. Lib. 14. c. 25 & 26. he went out of Judaea to Rome, and thence, [...], having received the Kingdom, he returned into Judaea. And afterwards he took another Journey, that he might have his Kingdom confirmed to him by Caeſar, as we are told by the ſame Hiſtorian, Lib. 15. cap. 10. And his Succeſſors were forced to do the ſame, as that Author likewiſe informs us, Lib. 17. cap. 13. Againſt theſe the Jews ſometimes ſent Embaſſies to Rome, either to hinder the Kingdoms being conferred upon them, or elſe that they might procure their being depoſed. So they accuſed Archelaus to Caeſar by their Embaſſadors at that Court; ſee Cap. 11, & 15. of that Book. And this ſhews us the reaſon why this Parable here is ſo conceived, which it is impoſſible to learn by our Author's Paraphraſe. Archelaus, for example, was [...], a Man of noble birth, for he was the Son of Herod. And this Nobleman went into a far Country (viz. Italy) to receive for himſelf the Kingdom (of Judaea) and to return (into Judaea.) But his Citizens hated him, and ſent a meſſage after him, ſaying (to Caeſar) we will not have this man to reign over us; which nevertheleſs they could not obtain. And ſo he returned, having received the Kingdom, or [...], as Joſephus ſpeaks: And ſeverely puniſhed thoſe Enemies of his who would not that he ſhould reign over them, What is ſaid here by Interpreters about the Grammatical ſenſe of this Parable, (give me leave to ſay it) is very obſcure in compariſon of this.

Verſ. 20. [...].] Grotius who is followed therein by a great many others, thought that the word [...] here ſignified any ſort of Linen cloth. But I believe it is to be underſtood properly of that particular piece of Linen which ſerves to wipe the ſweat off the Face, and which uſed in Latin to be called Orarium, a Handkerchief; as has been proved at large by Iſ. Caſaubon, and Cl. Salmaſius upon Aurelian. And this, as it is now, being conſtantly wore, ſerved People for want of a Purſe to tie and wrap up their money in, which is alſo ſometimes ſtill practiſed.

Verſ. 21. [...].] Inſtead of this St. Matthew hath [...], gathering where thou haſt not ſcattered, which is to the ſame ſenſe. But St. Luke ſeems to have expreſſed this proverbial form of ſpeech moſt exactly, which had its riſe from a Law common to the Jews, with many other Nations: Quae non poſuiſti, ne tollito; What thou haſt not laid down, do not take up: Of which Law ſee my Notes on Levit. vi.3. This was a kind of theft: but becauſe thoſe that found any thing after it was loſt, could not be proſecuted at Law, as being for the moſt part alone when they found it, and telling [Page] no body of their good Fortune;Chapter XX. ſuch as reſtored what they had ſo found to the right owner, were looked upon as fair and juſt men, who acted from religious Principles, and not the fear of human Laws. And on the other hand, a covetous or greedy perſon generally kept whatever he found, becauſe he could not be forced by the Law to reſtore it. And therefore ſuch a man as lays hold of every opportunity which offers it ſelf for his own intereſt, without having any regard to equity, is called by St. Matthew [...], and by St. Luke [...], a hard, cloſe-fiſted, tenacious, rough man, as Pricaeus upon Mat. xxv.44. has well obſerved. [...] is an ambiguous word, and ſignifies both a grave and ſevere man, and one that is ruſtick and ſavage. Suidas: [...]: They call all wiſe and grave men auſtere, becauſe they neither converſe themſelves for pleaſure, nor admit any pleaſant diſcourſe from others; and there is another ſort of men called auſtere, juſt as Wine is ſaid to be auſtere, which is uſed in medicinal Potions, but never drank; becauſe in Comedy a ruſtick man is called auſtere. In the ſignification of fierceneſs or ſavageneſs, it is uſed by Diodorus Siculus, Lib. 3. p. 168. where, ſpeaking of a ſort of beaſt that has a head like a dog, he ſaith; [...] They are exceeding fierce Creatures, and impoſſible to be tamed by any means whatſoever. They have a fiercer aſpect under the Eyebrows than ordinary. I need not tell the Reader, that this word is taken here in the worſt ſenſe.

CHAP. XX.

Verſ. 16. [...] ▪ &c.] This is the anſwer of the Sanhedrim, tho their name for brevity ſake be here omitted; as appears from Mat. xxi.41. See on verſ. 24.

Ibid. [...].] This muſt be rendered thus; And when they had underſtood (viz. that theſe things were ſpoken againſt them) they ſaid (within themſelves) God forbid; for they did not apply the Parable to themſelves aloud: See Mat. xxi.45. and afterwards ver. 19. of this Chapter. Thus the omiſſion of a Circumſtance often ſeems to alter a Hiſtory; ſo that thoſe who tell it large, ſeem to contradict thoſe who relate it more briefly, when yet really they agree with one another.

[Page]Verſ. 20. [...].] It is well obſerved by learned Men, that this Verb [...] ſignifies to wait for an opportunity of doing miſchief: See Chap. xiv.1. of this Goſpel, and my Notes upon Gen. iii.15.

Verſ. 24. [...].] St. Luke omits here what St. Matthew expreſſes, and muſt neceſſarily be underſtood, viz. And they brought unto him a Penny, and he ſaid unto them, Mat. xxii.19. Such another omiſſion I have already taken notice of on verſ. 16.

Verſ. 27. [...].] Our learned Author interprets this word in his Paraphaſe, a future ſtate after this life: And indeed the Sadduces did deny, not only the reſurrection of the Body, but alſo the immortality of the Soul. But [...] never ſignifies ſimply a future State, and the Argument of the Sadduces oppoſes nothing but the Reſurrection. I have elſewhere confuted the Doctor's opinion about this word; ſee Note on Mat. xxii.31.

Verſ. 46. [...].] It is very well known that the Greek word [...] is uſed as well for a man's as a woman's Garment, tho the Latin ſtola ſignifies only a woman's. This is more than once proved by Oct. Ferrarius Lib. de Re Veſtiaria. And yet Epiphanius ſeems to have underſtood the word [...] here of a woman's Garment, who Haereſ. 16. ſays, that the Phariſees were like the Scribes, [...], for their apparel and womaniſh Garments. But perhaps he ſpeaks in that manner, becauſe amongſt the Greeks the men wore ſhort Garments, or [...] Coats, and the women long Gowns, ſuch as were uſual among ſeveral of the Eaſtern Nations. In antient times alſo ſtola talaris, a gown reaching down to the Ancles, ſeems to have been a Garment worn by Women among the Aſſyrians; See Oct. Ferrarius in Analectis, cap. 23. But it is a good obſervation that Pope Celeſtine the firſt makes concerning Clergymen, in his Epiſtle to the Biſhops of the Provinces of Vienne and Narbonne; Diſcernendi, inquit, à plebe vel caeteris ſumus doctrinâ, non veſte; converſatione, non habitu; mentis puritate, non cultu. We ought, ſaith he, to diſtinguiſh our ſelves from the common people, or the reſt of mankind, by our Doctrin, not by our Apparel; by our Converſation, not by our Habit; by the purity of our Minds, not by our Dreſs ▪

CHAP. XXI.Chapter XXI.

[Page]

Verſ. 4. Note a. THO [...] & [...], be all one as to the ſenſe, yet it is falſe that [...] & [...] are the ſame; for the latter phraſe properly ſignifies to caſt in among the Gifts or Offerings, and the former only into a Cheſt, of which there were ſeveral in the Temple wherein the Money was depoſited, that was voluntarily conſecrated to the uſe of the Temple. See Lightfoot's Deſcript. of the Temple, Chap. 19.

Verſ. 6. [...].] There are ſome that add here a note of interrogation, as if Chriſt had ſaid, Are theſe the things which ye look upon? as it is in the Cambridg Copy, wherein the Goſpels are rather paraphraſed, than the words only variouſly read: and therefore Grotius juſtly rejects this note of Interrogation. The Evangeliſt expreſſes himſelf here juſt as the beſt Writers ſometimes do. The end of the ſentence does not anſwer the beginning, but the whole is made up of two different forms of ſpeech mixed together: For either he ſhould have ſaid [...], &c. Theſe things which ye behold ſhall be quite deſtroyed, for the days will come, &c. or [...], &c. Of theſe things which ye behold, the days will come in which there ſhall not be left one ſtone upon another. But the Evangeliſt begins juſt as if he was about to expreſs himſelf the former of theſe ways, and ends with the latter. Grotius has given us two examples of the like Syntax; and I add this one more out of Terence, Phorm. Act. 3. Sc. 2. O fortunatiſſime Antipho, qui quod amas domi eſt. He ſhould have ſaid, Qui quod amas domi habes, or cui quod amas domi eſt, Who haſt what thou loveſt at home. Such phraſes as theſe have ſomething of that impropriety in them which is frequent in ordinary ſpeech.

Verſ. 24. Note b. 1. Our Author tells us as out of Euſebius, that there died during the Siege of Jeruſalem eleven millions of People, i. e. ten times more than there did according both to Euſebius and Joſephus's account, who reckon up but eleven hundred thouſand. 2. The words in Euſebius which the Doctor tranſlates to be ſlaves there, are [...], which Henr. Valeſius renders ut metalla exercerent, to work in the Mines, and ſo they ought to be interpreted. 3. Euſebius is miſtaken in the laſt Circumſtance, and diſagrees with Joſephus whom he profeſſes to follow; for that Hiſtorian tells us, that the number of thoſe that were taken during the whole War was ninety ſeven thouſand, Lib. 7. c. 45. de Bell. Jud. which was very ill underſtood by Euſebius of [Page] thoſe that were made Captives after the taking of the City. Chapter XXII. Beſides that Euſeb. reckons but 90000, whereas Joſephus reckons 7000 more.

Ibid. Note c. The phraſe [...] may, I think, much more naturally be underſtood of the time in which the Heathens, i. e. the Idolaters ſhould continue the Governors of the World, as if the meaning of Chriſt's words was this: Jeruſalem ſhall be poſſeſſed and inhabited by Idolaters until the time during which the Idolaters muſt govern the World is expired; for then it ſhall be inhabited and poſſeſſed for the moſt part by Chriſtians; which came to paſs in the time of Conſtantin, who ordered the Temples of the Idols which were in Jeruſalem to be deſtroyed. See his Life as it is written by Euſebius, Lib. 3. c. 26. [...] ſignifies the time during which the Nations were to have the ſupreme Authority in the World; as afterwards Chap. xxii.53. of this Goſpel, Chriſt ſpeaking to thoſe who had apprehended him, ſaith, This is your Hour, i. e. the time in which you may do to me what you pleaſe. That [...] here ſhould be taken for Idolaters, is not ſtrange, becauſe all Nations beſides Judaea where wholly given up to Idolatry. If this conjecture about the ſenſe of this place be not true, I am ſure Dr. Hammond's interpretation of it is leſs likely to be ſo.

Verſ. 25. [...].] The Sea, ſaith Grotius, in the Books of the Prophets, ſignifies the ſtate of the World when it is troubled with various events: I do not think it has any reference to that. But the Prophets uſed, when they deſcribe any great alteration, to ſpeak in the words of Juvenal, Miſcere coelum terrâ & mare coelo, i. e. to repreſent the changes that are made in Mankind by the motions of the Heavens, Earth and Sea; ſee Iſa. xiii. For the ſame reaſon I ſhould refuſe to interpret the powers of Heaven ſpoken of in the next Verſe, of the Chriſtian Churches: We muſt take all theſe Metaphors together, and not examin each ſingly by it ſelf, as if there was ſomething particular ſignified by every one of them.

CHAP. XXII.

Verſ. 6. Note a. [...] ſignifies he accepted the Reward offered him, or he agreed to the Bargain; for [...] is ordinarily taken for a Bargain or Agreement, as Stephanus has proved by many examples. In the 2 Cor. ix.13. it ſignifies conſent, as the ſame Author obſerves. And the old Gloſſes render it by ſtipulatus, pactio, convenientia, covenanting, bargaining, agreeing; the Verb [...] includes indeed a Promiſe: and the Greeks uſed that word in Bargains or Contracts, where the Latins uſed promitto and [Page] ſpondeo. After the propoſing of the Terms, the propoſer demanded of the other party, whether he would ſpondere engage, or promittere promiſe to ſtand to thoſe Terms; and the anſwer was ſpondeo, promitto. Thus the Latins uſed to ſpeak, but the Greeks made uſe of the word [...] or [...], i. e. not properly indeed I promiſe, but I conſent. The Cambridg Copy has [...] which is moſt common, and ſignifies often the ſame with conſenting or agreeing about a price, [...], after the propoſal of it as it was here, as appears by the foregoing Verſe: See the Greek Index to Xenophon made by Aemil. Portus, and to Dionyſius Halicarn. Ant. Rom. by F. Sylburgius, in which there are a great many examples given of this ſignification: [...] therefore here ſignifies, he conſented to the Price, and Dr. Hammond has manifeſtly miſſed the ſenſe of it.

Verſ. 26. Note d. The phraſe [...], ſignifies to ſerve the intereſts of the reſt, as young People uſed to obey the commands of their Seniors. Tho [...] be a name not only of Age but of Dignity, yet I have never ſeen it demonſtrated by any example hitherto, that thoſe who are deſtitute of any Office are called [...], without any reſpect had to their Age. The places which the Doctor refers us to, do not in the leaſt prove what he would have them, for they may all be very well underſtood concerning Age.

Verſ. 52. Note g. For the reconciling of Joſephus with St. Luke, and ſo the underſtanding of the Evangeliſt's words, it muſt be obſerved that there were two Gariſons placed in the Temple, which had their ſeveral Captains; one conſiſted of Levites, who kept guard in the Temple night and day, down from the time of David, as appears from 2 Chron. viii.14. For that there was a guard kept in the 2d Temple, the Talmudiſts aſſure us in Cod. Middoth, Chap. 1. §. 1 and 2. And the Captain of this Gariſon was a Jew, whom the Talmudiſts call [...] the Man of the Mountain of the Houſe, or [...] the head of the Watch, as appears from the forementioned place in the Talmud. And this Man might have other inferior Captains under him, whom he ſet over each ſingle Band or Guard, which are all called by St. Luke [...] Captains of the Temple; who nevertheleſs calls the chief Captain in the ſingular Number [...], Act. iv.1. & v.24. So that it is not to be wondred at if Joſephus gives the ſame title to Jews, this Office belonging only to them: And hence we ſee that the Captain or Captains of the Temple are always by St. Luke joined with the Prieſts and Princes of the Jews. Now it was lawful for the Sanhedrim, who might employ for that purpoſe the Levites which kept watch about the Temple, to apprehend any Jew, and [Page] caſt him into Priſon,Chapter XXIII. if he offended againſt the Law; tho they had no power to put him to death, as appears from the Hiſtory of Chriſt's Paſſion, and the Acts of the Apoſtles.

But beſides this, there was a Roman Gariſon put into the Tower called Antonia, which had a Roman Tribune for its Captain, not a Jew. And this St. Luke makes mention of Acts xxi, and xxii. The Soldiers that were under the command of this Captain are ſtiled Mat. xxvi.65. [...], a word borrowed from the Romans, either becauſe they were themſelves Romans, or elſe becauſe they had taken an Oath of Fidelity to the Romans. Theſe were under the Procurators Authority, and obeyed him and their Tribunes and Centurions only; not the [...], who was a Jew, and commanded only the Levites.

But it may be demanded perhaps why the Captain of the Guard of Levites is called [...], which properly ſignifies a military Captain or Commander, whereas the Levites were no Soldiers? And this is undoubtedly the reaſon why Dr. Hammond thought it was the Tribune who was ſet over the Roman Gariſon that was called by that name. But he and others who have fallen into the ſame miſtake, ſhould have remembred that the ſacred Functions of the Levites are more than once ſtiled by Moſes a Warfare, [...]: See Num. viii.24, 25. where the Septuag. have [...]. And therefore he that was chief over the Levites might very well be called [...], which in Greek is uſually rendred by [...]. See the Doctor upon Chap. xxiii.11. Note a.

CHAP. XXIII.

Verſ. 11. Note a. HAVE a care of thinking that [...] ever ſignifies to ſerve, or [...] Servants. The Hebrew word [...] which is applied ſometimes to the ſervice of the Levites, is therefore made uſe of becauſe it ſignifies congregari to aſſemble or gather together, as the Levites uſed to do about the Tabernacle or Temple; or becauſe they were God's gariſon Soldiers, who came together for the defence of the Temple, not becauſe that word ever ſignifies to ſerve. Timothy is called a good Soldier, not ſimply as a Servant of God, but as a fighter in God's cauſe: tho the thing conſidered in it ſelf be the ſame, yet the ſignifications of words are various; and it is not all one whether we ſay a Servant or a Soldier, tho both may be ſaid ſometimes of the ſame Perſon. Our Author therefore here looked for a knot in a Bulruſh, when it had been eaſy to underſtand the word here uſed of Herod's guard.

[Page]Verſ. 35. [...], &c.] The Cambridg Copy here reads,Chapter XXIV. [...]: and in a great many other places there is as great a variation as this between it and other Copies, which diſcovers it to be a ſort of a Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 47. [...].] i. e. He acknowledged the truth, he confeſſed that Jeſus was indeed the Perſon whom he would have himſelf believed to be. That this is the meaning of this Phraſe, appears by the following words, ſaying, truly this was a Juſt Man; and juſt in the ſame manner it is uſed in Chap. v.26. of this Goſpel, and in Joſh. vii.19. And therefore Grotius who interprets it, he acknowledged the power of God, and our Author who follows him in his Paraphraſe, are miſtaken.

CHAP. XXIV.

Verſ. 16. [...].] i. e. Their Sorrow was ſo great that they had not ſufficiently taken notice, nor looked ſtedfaſtly enough upon the Man that had joined himſelf to their Company, to know him to be Jeſus. So Hagar was ſo overwhelmed with Grief at the thoughts of her Son's dying, that ſhe did not ſee, or did not take notice of the Well of Water that was juſt by her, Gen. xxi.19. And ſo when it is ſaid afterwards, Verſ. 31. of this Chapter, that the ſame Diſciples Eyes were opened, [...], the meaning is nothing but this, that looking more ſtedfaſtly upon Chriſt, they knew him; which very Phraſe is uſed in the ſtory of Hagar in the ſame ſenſe.

Verſ. 19. [...].] i. e. Pious and Eloquent, not like the Phariſees who talked very big of Virtue, without practiſing it; and were powerful men in words, but not works, which was the general reproach caſt upon the Philoſophers among the Heathens. Cebes Thebanus in his Table, deſcribing a true Philoſopher, tells us, that he is [...]; a prudent Man, and mighty in Wiſdom both in Word and Deed: See Acts vii.22.

Verſ. 23. [...].] Theſe two Diſciples of Chriſt do not ſeem to have ſpoken with the Women themſelves, but only to have heard the report of others, by which means they came to know but half the Truth; for the Women affirmed that they had alſo ſeen Jeſus himſelf. Nor can this ſeem ſtrange, ſince it is evident from the 21ſt verſe, that theſe Diſciples went from Jeruſalem the ſame day that Chriſt roſe from the Dead, a very few Hours after his Reſurrection, and ſo could not have a perfect knowledg of all the Circumſtances of it.

[Page]Verſ. 28. [...].] See my Notes on Gen. xix.2.

Verſ. 29. [...].] i. e. they beſought him inſtantly; ſo 2 Kings v.16. Naaman the Syrian [...] urged or importuned Eliſha to take the Gift which he refuſed, for curing him of his Leproſy: See note on Chap. xiv.23.

Verſ. 31. [...].] i. e. he went out of the Room on a ſudden, and they could not poſſibly underſtand whether he was gone: for it is not neceſſary to ſuppoſe that he became inviſible before he went out of the Room. Pindar uſes the ſame word of Pelops who had conveyed himſelf away, but certainly without becoming inviſible; Olympion. 1. [...], ſaith he, you diſappeared. So afterwards verſ. 36. of this Chapter, [...] is, he came amongst them on a ſudden and before they were aware.

Verſ. 45. [...].] viz. by his explaining the Scriptures to them, whereby they came to perceive that there were ſeveral things ſpoken of Chriſt, which they did not before take notice of. For Chriſt had not as yet given them the Holy Ghoſt; and it appears from Acts i.6. that after all theſe Diſcourſes of his, they did not underſtand the nature of Chriſt's Kingdom. In my Ars Critica, I have interpreted this Phraſe more at large.

Verſ. 46. [...], &c.] St. Luke who often omits ſeveral Circumſtances which are related by the other Evangeliſts, joins together ſeveral Diſcourſes that were delivered by Chriſt at different times; and here in this place he ſeems to connect theſe words with the foregoing, tho they were ſpoken by Chriſt many days after; for he ſaid the former on the very day of his Reſurrection, but theſe latter were not ſpoken till after the Apoſtles were come back from Galilee. Compare theſe things with the Hiſtory of the other Evangeliſts.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. John.

[Page]

NB. Tho Mr. Le Clerc did not inſert this Paraphraſe and Animadverſions on the 18 firſt Verſes of the firſt Chapter of this Goſpel in his Latin Edition of Dr. Hammond, becauſe it had been publiſh'd twice before; yet 'twas thought fit, for the convenience of Engliſh Readers, and to make the Work more complete, to put it here in its proper place.

The Author's Preface to the 2d Edition of his Paraphraſe on the firſt eighteen Verſes.

I Have already in the firſt Edition of this little Commentary, given the Reaſons which induced me to publiſh it, and therefore I ſhall not here repeat them. I freely give my conſent to the reprinting of it, becauſe it is my intereſt to have my thoughts concerning the beginning of St. John's Goſpel publickly known. I have ſo confuted Socinus, as yet ſufficiently to intimate, that I intend not to publiſh any Theological Diſputations about thoſe things in which I diſagree with him; and have expreſly ſaid ſo in a former Preface to theſe Animadverſions. For that reaſon I have not affirmed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, do not [...] in one and the ſame manner, but that each has his peculiar [...]: Nor was I under any obligation to do ſo from the thing it ſelf; for Philo to whom St. John ſeems to have had a reſpect (in the beginning of this his Goſpel) did not deny that the Father, the firſt begotten Son, and the Soul of the World, had their ſeveral diſtinct [...]. The Evangeliſt corrects only what that Alexandrian Philoſopher ſaid concerning Reaſon, or the Son.

[Page]Some have been diſguſted with my rendering the Greek word, which is uſually tranſlated Word, or Sermo diſcourſe, by Reaſon. But I intreat them firſt throughly to conſider the Reaſons I have given for that rendring of it, and then to remember that the word [...] is in it ſelf ambiguous, and may as well be tranſlated Reaſon as Word. And tho this latter ſignification obtained in the Weſt, becauſe of the unskilfulneſs of the old Latin Interpreter, or, if you pleaſe, the poverty of the Latin Language; yet the Greek Fathers do ſhew, when they treat of this matter, that they underſtood Reaſon by it, no leſs than Word: ſee Dion. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. T. 2. Lib. 6. c. 1.

Nay the Latin Fathers alſo themſelves, who examined the Greek word made uſe of by St. John, do acknowledg that we ought rather to underſtand Reaſon by it, than what the Latins call Verbum, when they ſay that they do not underſtand by it [...] verbum prolatum, but [...] inſitum; or an internal, not an external word: for what is an internal word but Reaſon, or reaſoning? Beſides, the whole Chriſtian Church, both Greek and Latin, do frequently confound the word [...] with [...] Wiſdom, which is the ſame with Reaſon, but vaſtly different from a word uttered or pronounced. So that tho I have receded in ſome meaſure from the cuſtom of the Latins as to the ſound, yet not at all as to the thing it ſelf.

If any object that the word Reaſon ſignifies rather a Quality than a Subſtance, let them ſhew me that the term Word is any fitter than that to ſignify a Substance, and I engage to revoke publickly all that I have ſaid: But if any one think he may make uſe of an improper word, becauſe it was generally uſed by the Latin, and thoſe unlearned men, let him give me leave to make uſe of one that is altogether as proper, becauſe it was conſtantly uſed by the most learned Greek Fathers. In the mean time let him permit me to intend by the word Reaſon that which, if he were asked the meaning of the term Word, he would be forced to expreſs by internal diſcourſe, i. e. reaſoning. And laſtly let him hear what Tertullian ſays, in Lib. adverſus Praxeam, Cap. 5. where he diſcourſes thus: Ceterum ne tunc quidem ſolus (Deus, nempe, erat) habebat enim ſecum, quam habebat in ſemetipſo; Rationem ſuam, ſcilicet. Rationalis etiam Deus, & Ratio in ipſo priùs; & ita ab ipſo omnia. Quae Ratio ſenſus ipſius eſt. Hanc Graeci [...] dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam ſermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in uſu eſt noſtrorum per ſimplicitatem interpretationis (i. e. imperitiam interpretandi) Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuiſſe; cum magis Rationem competat antiquiorem haberi; quia non Sermonalis à principio, ſed Rationales Deus, etiam ante principium; & quia ipſe quoque ſermo Ratione conſiſtens, priorem eam, ut ſubſtantiam[Page]ſuam, oſtendat, &c. But neither then was he alone (viz.Chapter I. God) for he had with him his Reaſon, which he had within himſelf. God is Rational alſo, and Reaſon was before in him; and ſo all things were of him. Which Reaſon is his Senſe. This the Greeks call [...], which word alſo we uſe to ſignify Sermo. And therefore it is become the common cuſtom among us, through a ſimplicity of interpretation (i. e. an unskilfulneſs in interpreting) to ſay that Diſcourſe, Sermo, was in the beginning with God, whereas it would be more proper to ſay, that Reaſon was ſo which is more antient; becauſe God was in the beginning not ſermonal, but rational, even before the beginning; and becauſe Diſcourſe it ſelf depending upon Reaſon, does ſhew that to be prior to it, as its ſubſtance, &c.

CHAP. I.

SOME who have joined the ſtudy of the Heathen Philoſophy, with the Profeſſion of the Jewiſh or Chriſtian Religion, have took upon them to teach a great many things concerning the Divine REASON, LIFE and LIGHT, and the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, which they have inculcated upon their Diſciples as points of Faith of the greateſt moment. And becauſe what they have aſſerted is neither all true, nor all falſe, that we may know what we are to reject, and what we are to admit of, I ſhall in few words ſet down that which is agreeable to the Doctrin of Jeſus Chriſt, before I enter upon his Hiſtory.

Verſe 1. In the beginning was REASON, and that REASON was with GOD, and GOD was that REASON.

1. It is true, before the Creation of the World, there was REASON, for REASON was then in GOD, yea GOD himſelf, ſince God cannot be without REASON.

2. The ſame was in the beginning with GOD.

2. There was, I ſay, REASON in GOD, before the World was created.

3. All things were made by it, and without it was not any thing made that was made.

3. For every thing in the World was made with the higheſt REASON; nor can any one thing be inſtanced in, that was created without REASON.

4. In it was LIFE, and this LIFE was the LIGHT of Men.

4. Heretofore was lodged only in this REASON, a full and complete knowledg of the way that leads to Eternal LIFE; and this Knowledg wanted only to be communicated to Men, to be a ſufficient LIGHT to guide them in their purſuit after that LIFE.

[Page]5. And the LIGHT ſhineth in darkneſs, and the darkneſs comprehended it not.

5. And now that LIGHT has been brought down upon Earth, amongſt Men, and has ſhined for many years paſt upon the way that leads to LIFE; but the greateſt part of Mankind chuſe rather to wander in the darkneſs of Ignorance than to make uſe of that LIGHT.

6. There was a Man ſent by God, his name was John.

7. The ſame came for a Witneſs, to bear witneſs of the LIGHT, that all Men through him might believe.

6, 7. John the Son of Zacharias was ſent by God to the Jews, to ſhew them in whom that LIGHT reſided, and by bearing witneſs to him openly, to induce them to believe on him.

8. He was not the LIGHT, but was ſent to bear witneſs of the LIGHT.

8. But John had not this LIGHT in himſelf, nor was it the end of his Coming, to make Men partakers of that LIGHT; but only by his Teſtimony to procure Credit and Authority to him who had that LIGHT among the Jews.

9. That LIGHT was the true LIGHT, which came into the World, and lightneth every Man.

9. In that Man, and no other reſided this LIGHT, which in the moſt excellent Senſe deſerves only to be ſo called, and which now ſhines among Men; ſo that every one who will but follow this Light may be ſure of being brought to eternal LIFE.

10. REASON was in the World, and the World was made by it, but the World knew it not.

10. And he in whom that LIGHT was, converſed for ſome time among Men; but they notwithſtanding their having been created by the Divine REASON which dwelt in that Man, did not diſtinguiſh him from falſe Teachers.

11. It came to its own, but its own received it not.

11. Nay he lived amongſt thoſe who alone were called the People and Children of God, and yet they did not know the Doctrin of their God.

12. But to as many as received it, it gave power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on its Name.

12. But all that embraced his Divine Revelations, were thereupon made God's People, and taken, tho they were not Jews, into the number of his Children.

13. Who were born not of Blood, nor of the will of the Fleſh, nor of the will of Man, but of God.

13. Tho they were neither Jews by Birth, nor by Marriages, nor Proſelytes, yet God was pleaſed freely to honour them with that Title.

14. And that REASON was made Fleſh, and dwelt among us, (we beheld its Glory, the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father) full of Grace and Truth.

[Page]14. That REASON which I before ſpake of, and aſſerted to have been with GOD from the beginning, yea to have been GOD himſelf, and in which was LIFE and the LIGHT of Men, did not always, as I ſaid, conceal it ſelf from us; but by the Man in whom it was, became conſpicuous, and dwelt for ſome time among us. (We ſaw the majeſty of the Divine REASON which was never before beheld, diſcovering it ſelf in that Man, as it became him who is the SON of God, not in that manner that we are, but in a manner peculiar and proper to himſelf alone.) That Eternal REASON made it ſelf viſible and manifeſt to us in him, and ſhewed it ſelf Merciful and Gracious to us.

15. John bare witneſs of him, and cried, ſaying: This was he of whom I ſpake, He that is to come after me, is preferred before me, becauſe he was before me.

15. John bare witneſs concerning this Man openly, and declared him to be the Perſon whom he had deſcribed in theſe words: He that is to come after me, ſhall be greater than I.

16. And of his Fulneſs have we all received, and Grace for Grace.

16. From that Knowledg wherewith the divine REASON hath MOST FULLY enlightned that Man, all the Knowledg that every one of us have, is derived; and by him we are aſſured that the Mercy and Goodneſs of God to us is ſuch, as that for all the GRACE and Favour which he reſolved to ſhew us, and thoſe great Benefits which flow from his Love towards us, he requires nothing in return but a GRATEFUL Mind.

17. For the Law was given by Moſes, but Grace and Truth came by Jeſus Chriſt.

17. For whereas Moſes publiſhed Laws, in which he impoſed moſt grievous and burdenſom Rites upon the Jews, and threatned with Death thoſe who did not punctually obſerve them; Jeſus who is the true CHRIST, and in whom the Divine REASON reſides, came to aſſure us of the Goodneſs and Mercy of God in pardoning all our paſt Sins, and eaſing us of that intolerable Moſaical Yoke.

18. No Man hath ſeen God at any time; the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the boſom of the Father, has been his Interpreter.

18. Before, that Will or Purpoſe of God was not fully uuderſtood by any but he of whom I ſpake; the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD, who was ſingularly and peculiarly beloved by his Father, was ſent by God to declare it to us.

BEFORE I come to enquire ſeverally into the ſenſe of the words here made uſe of by the Evangeliſt, I muſt endeavour to aſcertain ſome things on which the Interpretation I ſhall afterwards give of them, will in a great meaſure depend. As firſt, I ſhall examin whether this Goſpel (as I my ſelf think it is, and all the Antients univerſally almoſt affirm) be juſtly attributed to the Apoſtle John, there [Page] being ſome in our Age, who, treading in the ſteps of the antient Alogi, a ſort of Hereticks ſo called, and deſcribed by Epiphanius in Haereſ. 51. endeavour to bring that opinion into queſtion. Secondly, I ſhall enquire into the time when it was written. And, lastly, where St. John writ it; and what was the occaſion and deſign of his beginning his Goſpel in this manner.

1. That the Apoſtle JOHN was the Writer of this Goſpel, the Antients do univerſally, as I ſaid, affirm, whoſe Teſtimony in a matter of this nature cannot by any one be rendered invalid, unleſs he can plainly make it appear, that the Antients were all miſtaken, and ſhew us at the ſame time the occaſion and original of their miſtake. For to juſtify our diſſent from the moſt antient Chriſtian Writers, who ſaw the Diſciples of St. John, and teſtify that they heard this affirmed by them; and to charge the Chriſtian Churches of that Age with Error, who read this Goſpel as the genuin product of the Apoſtle John; it is not ſufficient to propoſe ſome ſlight conjectures▪ or ſhew a Metaphyſical poſſibility, if I may ſo ſpeak, of their erring. But to make it credible that they were all really miſtaken, and that ſo ſoon after St. John's death, there muſt be thoſe evident proofs given of their miſtake, as none of the weighty reaſons I ſhall hereafter alledg can be thought ſufficient to cope with: For it is abſurd, againſt moſt probable Arguments, and ſuch as in another caſe we ſhould acquieſce in, to object bare ſuſpicions or conjectures which have not the leaſt appearance of likelihood in them, and prefer theſe to the former, merely becauſe the opinion which we have eſpouſed, and are reſolved to maintain, makes it neceſſary for us to think that thoſe conjectures are of great weight. It is juſt as if one that was accuſed of writing bad Latin, upon comparing and examining it with Livy's, who was certainly a very clean Writer, ſhould therefore begin to doubt whether the Hiſtory, which goes under Livy's name, and which all the Antients with one conſent attribute to him, were really his; and propoſing ſome very ſlight conjectures againſt it, ſhould think he had rendered the Authority of that Hiſtory queſtionable; and becauſe it might poſſibly have been written by ſome other, pretend that no body ought to produce any teſtimony out of it ever after. And yet this they do, who, as I underſtand, go about to rob the Apoſtle John of that Goſpel, which has always been reckoned his; as I ſhall briefly ſhew, by producing ſome of the moſt antient Teſtimonies to that purpoſe; which are well enough known already to learned Men; but it may be not ſo well to thoſe for whoſe ſake I now write, who ſeldom ſpend much time in reading the Writings of the Antients.

[Page]The firſt Teſtimony I ſhall mention, and the moſt antient of all, is at the end of St. John's Goſpel it ſelf. Chap. xxi.24. where, after a Prediction delivered by Christ concerning the great Age that St. John ſhould live to, it is immediately added; [...], &c. THIS is the Diſciple which teſtifieth of theſe things, and wrote theſe things, and we KNOW that his Teſtimony is true. We may read what Grotius ſays in his Notes on Chap. xx.29. and Dr. Hammond on this place it ſelf. Where thoſe great men have ſhewn that this is the Teſtimony of the Church of Epheſus; whereby it appears that from the very firſt, this Goſpel was thought to be the Apoſtle John's, even by thoſe who lived and converſed with him; which is a certain evidence of its being genuine, becauſe this Teſtimony was given by Perſons who lived at the time when it was written, and might certainly know who was the Author of it. Nor let any one ſay that this Teſtimony, or this whole Chapter was an addition put in by ſome other a conſiderable time afterwards, for it is read in all the Copies, and all Interpreters acknowledg it.

Another proof of this may be taken out of Juſtin Martyr, who when a Child might perhaps have ſeen St. John himſelf. And he in that Apology, which is commonly called his ſecond, and which he preſented to Antoninus Pius, in the year of Christ 140. where he deſcribes the ſacred Aſſemblies of the Chriſtians, ſays, that in them were read [...], the Commentaries of the Apostles, pag. 98. Ed. Pariſ. & Colon. By which he means the Goſpels, as appears by what he ſays a little before: [...], &c. The Apostles in their Commentaries, which are called the Goſpels, &c. And tho he does not very often cite the Apoſtles words themſelves in thoſe Writings of his which are extant; yet he frequently alludes to them, and particularly to the beginning of St. John's Goſpel, from whence he took what he ſays in ſeveral places, about the [...] and its Incarnation, and which he every where ſets down as points of Faith generally received among Chriſtians: Which he durſt not to have done, unleſs he had relied upon the Authority of the Apoſtles; for who among the Orthodox would have preſumed firſt to uſe the word [...], which was commonly abuſed by the Valentinians and others at that time? Who would have ventured to make uſe of the word [...], which might eaſily, by bad or unwary men, have been perverted to a wrong ſenſe, unleſs an Apoſtle had firſt uſed it? It belonged only to the Apoſtles who were the [...], inſpectors of Myſteries, and not to the ordinary ſort of Mystae, to uſe new words in ſuch kind of matters; for they alone might ſafely [Page] impoſe new names upon things above the reach of human underſtanding, who underſtood them better than others, and ſo as none ever did without a particular Inſpiration. I know indeed this was not obſerved in later times, but in thoſe firſt it unqueſtionably was. Now Juſtin frequently makes mention of the [...], as all know that have but occaſionally read any thing in his Writings. I ſhall produce only one or two paſſages out of the forementioned Apology. In pag. 74. he has theſe words; [...]: The firſt Power next to the Father and Lord of all things God, and the Son is the Reaſon, which how it became man by being incarnated, I ſhall afterwards ſhew. And hence, pag. 83. he affirms, that all mankind who follow the direction of Reaſon, are alſo partakers of Christ: And adds; [...]: They who lived according to reaſon were Chriſtians, tho they were thought to be Atheists, as among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus, and others like them. And afterwards, pag. 98. [...], ſaith he, [...]: Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour was incarnated by the Reaſon of God, and had both fleſh and blood for our Salvation. Any body may ſee that theſe are manifeſt alluſions to the beginning of this Goſpel, and none but an Ignoramus will deny it. But there are extant alſo in that Book the expreſs words of Christ as they are related by St. John, in Chap. iii.3, 5. [...]. He cites likewiſe the Apocalypſe as that Apoſtle's Work, in Dial. cum Tryphone, which yet many have doubted of, tho all agreed as to the Goſpel.

Thirdly, Among thoſe who acknowledged the Apoſtle John to be the Writer of this Goſpel, I might alledg the Teſtimony of the Valentinians, who, as Irenaeus tells us, endeavoured to pervert it to their own advantage: For they pretended that St. John aſſerted what they called an Ogdoas Pleromatis, in the beginning of his Goſpel, and thought, tho erroneouſly, that he very much confirmed their opinions; which makes it evident however, that before Irenaeus's time, this Goſpel was vulgarly reputed to be St. John's. See what the Valentinians themſelves ſay, in Irenaeus Lib 1. c. 1. p. 36.

A fourth Teſtimony may be taken out of Irenaeus himſelf, who lived almoſt at the ſame time with Juſtin; his words I ſhall afterwards produce, to avoid repeating them.

The laſt ſhall be out of Euſebius, Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 3. c. 24. who relying on the Authority of former Ages, and not merely on his [Page] own, or of the Age in which he lived, ſpeaks in this manner: [...]: Let his (viz. St. John's) Goſpel, which is very well known to (all) the Churches under Heaven, be firſt acknowledged. And about the latter end of the ſame Chapter, he ſays; [...]: Of St. John's Writings, beſides his Goſpel, the firſt of the Epiſtles is, and always was acknowledged without diſpute: See alſo Chap. xxv. I ſhall not alledg the Teſtimonies of any other Writers, becauſe it is certain, that from Irenaeus's time this was the general opinion; and if theſe Teſtimonies which I have alledged, as one ſaid, be not ſufficient, I know not what is. But certain Hereticks, whom Epiphanius Haereſ. 51. ſeems to have called [...], becauſe they denied the [...], for the ſame reaſon, rejecting the Authority of all the Antients, denied St. John to be the Author of this Goſpel. It were to be wiſhed that Epiphanius had given us their right name inſtead of catching at the ambiguity of the word [...], to ſhew his wit. But whoever they were, it is certain they were ignorant Criticks, who for the ſake of a preconceived opinion, affirmed this Goſpel to be ſuppoſititious, which they would have owned to be genuin, if it had not contradicted that opinion. But to paſs this by, Epiphanius obſerves that they appeared after the Cataphryges, Quintilians and Quartadecimans, i. e. about the end of the ſecond Century, or the beginning of the third. Nor are they any where mentioned by Irenaeus, who ſpends a great many words in praiſe of St. John's Writings, and would certainly have taken notice of them, if there had been any ſuch perſons in his time.

And therefore ſince they began ſo late to oppoſe the Authority of this Goſpel, which before was univerſally owned and received, they ought to have given very clear proofs of its being ſuppoſititious, which yet they neither did nor were able to do. For whereas they ſay in the firſt place, that St. John writ in a ſingular method; this is plainly nothing to the purpoſe: for why might not St. John uſe a different way of writing from the reſt of the Evangeliſts? But there are a great many puzling difficulties, they tell us, in his account of the laſt years of Chriſt's Life. But this is not peculiar to St. John, for there are great difficulties alſo in St. Luke's Chronology, as every one knows; nor can it be denied, that the ſacred Hiſtorians had generally very little regard to the order of time, in their relation of the Life and Diſcourſes of Christ. But that is no Argument that all their Writings are ſuppoſititious. The Evangeliſts, it is plain, did not [Page] deſign to make a Chronology, or an exact Hiſtory of Christ's Life, but only to record his principal Diſcourſes, and the main Circumſtances of his Life, and ſome of his Miracles. But this pretence is confuted by Epiphanius, who has ſhewn that thoſe times of Christ may be eaſily digeſted by an attentive Reader; and his Animadverſions are excellently illuſtrated by Petavius.

But there are ſome, I underſtand, who object alſo againſt the opinion commonly received about the Writer of this Goſpel, That the Diſcourſes of Chriſt, which are recorded in it, are many times more intricate and obſcure, than thoſe which are related in the other Goſpels, nor ſo often intermixed with Parables. But doubtleſs all Chriſt's Diſcourſes, for three years together or thereabouts, were not of the ſame ſort, but ſome were plainer, and others more obſcure: and when the cleareſt of them, and moſt of his Parables had been already related by the other Evangeliſts, it is no wonder that St. John ſhould not have ſo many Parables as they; or that the Diſcourſes which he relates as ſpoken by Chriſt, have ſometimes more obſcurity in them than thoſe which they have recorded. Beſides, the Holy Ghoſt, by whom the Writers of the Goſpels were inſpired, that they might not ſay any thing that was not agreable to Truth, did not alter any thing peculiar to each in their way of ſpeaking or writing, but left them to uſe their own ſtile in relating the principal heads of Chriſt's Diſcourſes; and poſſibly St. John's ſtile might be more intricate ſometimes than ordinary, which is alſo diſcernible in his Epiſtles, and in the Revelations. There is no body but has obſerved that St. Luke writes the pureſt Greek, and that there are more Latiniſms to be found in that Evangeliſt, than in any of the reſt. And ſo St. John likewiſe has his Peculiarities, as Interpreters, and among the reſt Grotius and Dr. Hammond, have obſerved.

Theſe being the only Arguments that can be alledged to prove this Goſpel to be ſuppoſititious; and thoſe being very ſlight and frivolous, or rather none at all, it is no wonder that the Alogi of old had no followers: and I dare ſay, whoever ſhall revive their Hereſy, and have no better grounds for it than they had, will meet with as few; If they will but lay aſide their preconceived opinions, and apply themſelves for ſometime to the ſtudy of Criticks, they will be aſhamed of their own raſhneſs. When the Alogi were asked who it was that wrote this Goſpel, if it was not St. John, they anſwered Cerinthus, notwithſtanding it was univerſally reckoned that Cerinthus's Opinion was directly oppoſite to this Goſpel: and the ſame is pretended now by thoſe who follow the Alogi. But their making ſuch an abſurd conjecture, [Page] manifeſtly ſhews what excellent Criticks the Antients and we have to deal with: For it's moſt certain that Cerinthus's error was oppoſed by St. John, as I ſhall ſhew on verſ. 1. And then can any one be induced to believe, that any thing which was written by ſo deteſted a Perſon as Cerinthus, could be ſo obtruded upon the Diſciples of St. John, and all the Orthodox, as to be unanimouſly received by all the Chriſtian World for Genuin, not long after St. John's Death? Who will believe that all the Antients were ſo blind as to think an opinion was confuted in a Book that aſſerted it? Theſe things are abſolutely incredible; nor would they have ſeemed leſs ſo to the Alogi of old, or now to their followers, than to us, if they had been able then, or could at preſent ſhew that the beginning of this Goſpel does not contradict the opinion of the Ʋnitarians; which becauſe they deſpaired of, they reſolved, contrary to all the Rules of Criticks, to deny this Goſpel to be the Apoſtle John's. But with what ſucceſs may be diſcerned from what I have hitherto ſaid, and it is ſuperfluous to add more.

II. The Antients which ſpeak of the time when St. John wrote his Goſpel do agree, that it was not written before his departure into the Iſland of Patmos; but ſome ſay that it was dictated in that Iſland, and publiſhed at Epheſus; and others that it was written in that City after the Apoſtles return. Now St. John was ſent into the Iſle of Patmos in the year of Chriſt 94. and thence he returned to Epheſus in the year 96. as appears from St. Jerom in Catal. Script. Eccleſ. And therefore it muſt either have been written between thoſe two years, and afterwards made publick about the end of St. John's Life, or elſe both written and publiſhed at Epheſus after the year 97. The Author of the Synopſis of the Holy Scripture, whether Athanaſius or ſome other, a very antient Writer, tells us that, [...]: the Goſpel according to St. John was dictated by the holy and beloved Apoſtle John himſelf, when he was an Exile in the Iſland Patmos, and was publiſhed by him at Epheſus, by Gaius the beloved and hoſt of the Apoſtles. But Suidas on the word [...] affirms, out of a more antient Author, that it was written at Epheſus: [...], ſaith he, [...]: Being returned from his Baniſhment tn the Iſle of Patmos, he compoſes his Goſpel when he was a hundred years old. It is no matter to us which of theſe O [...]inions be true, as long as we are certain that St. John wrote his Goſpel about the end of the firſt Century. Epiphanius confeſſing, that St. John wrote it [...] [Page] [...], after the ninetieth year of his Age, and after his return out of Patmos, erroneouſly makes that to have been in the reign of Claudius, as learned Men have obſerved: See his words in Hereſ. Alogorum, which is the 51. Sect. 12.

III. By theſe Teſtimonies it appears that St. John either wrote or publiſhed his Goſpel at Epheſus, which Irenaeus alſo expreſly affirms, Lib. 3. c. 1. [...]: St. John one of our Lord's Diſciples, who alſo leaned upon his Breaſt, and himſelf publiſhed a Goſpel, dwelling at Epheſus in Aſia.

If it be enquired on what occaſion, and to what end St. John began his Goſpel, ſo as we ſee he does? Irenaeus anſwers in theſe words, Lib. 3. c. 11. after he had ſpoken of the other Evangeliſts: St. John the Diſciple of our Lord, deſigning to extirpate that error which had been ſowed (in mens Minds) by Cerinthus, and a great while before by thoſe that are called Nicolaitans, who are a branch of that Hereſy, which is falſly called Knowledg, ( [...] from whence they had the name of Gnoſticks) that he might confound them, and perſwade them, that there is one God who made all things by his Word, &c. So that St. John, if we believe Irenaeus, began his Goſpel ſo as he did, on purpoſe to refute the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Gnoſticks, as he declares afterwards more at large. Euſebius in Hiſt. Eccleſ. Lib. 3. c. 24. affirms, that the intention of St. John was to fill up what was wanting in the relation of the other Evangeliſts: In his room I ſhall ſubſtitute St. Jerom, who in Catal. Script. Eccleſ. has theſe words: Noviſſimus omnium ſcripſit Evangelium, rogatus ab Aſiae Epiſcopis, adverſus Cerinthum, alióſque Haereticos, & maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma conſurgens, qui aſſerunt Chriſtum ante Mariam non fuiſſe; unde & compulſus eſt divinam ejus nativitatem ediſſerere. Sed & aliam cauſam hujus ſcripturae ferunt, &c. He wrote his Goſpel laſt of all, at the deſire of the Biſhops of Aſia, againſt Cerinthus and other Hereticks, and the Hereſy of the Ebionites which began to prevail exceedingly at that time, who aſſerted that Chriſt was not before the Virgin Mary; upon which account alſo he was forced to declare his Divine Birth. But there is another reaſon likewiſe given of this writing, which is the ſame I have alledged out of Euſebius, and is not to our purpoſe. The ſame Author in Proaem. ad Matthaeum, ſpeaks thus, Joannes Apoſtolus & Evangeliſta — cum eſſet in Aſia, &c. St. John the Apoſtle and Evangeliſt — being in Aſia, and the Hereſies of Cerinthus, Ebion, and others, who denied that Chriſt was come in the Fleſh, and whom he alſo in his Epiſtle calls Antichriſts, ſpringing up at that very time — he was compelled almoſt by all the then Biſhops of Aſia, and the Meſſages of many [Page]Churches, to write concerning our Saviour's Divinity more particularly — Whence it is alſo related in Church-Hiſtory, that being urged by his Brethren to write, he promiſed that he would, provided they would all keep a faſt and implore the aſſiſtance of God on his behalf, which being accordingly performed, he was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, and immediately dictated as from Heaven that Proemium: In the beginning, &c.

Altho all theſe Authors had been ſilent, we might eaſily enough have drawn a conjecture from the thing it ſelf: for celebrated Writers, and Sects of Hereticks, having introduced ſeveral Platonick terms into the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Religion, before St. John wrote; and the Apoſtle John being the firſt Chriſtian Writer that uſed thoſe terms in a peculiar Senſe, in the beginning of his Goſpel; it may be eaſily conjectured that he alluded to the Doctrin of thoſe Men, and that it was his deſign to teach Chriſtians in what ſenſe thoſe terms might be made uſe of. If the Writings of thoſe antient Hereticks were now extant, they would be a great help doubtleſs to our underſtanding of this matter; but ſince they are loſt, we can only make uſe of their fragments which are extant in Irenaeus, the moſt antient Writer that has related their Opinions. There are extant alſo ſeveral Books of the famous Philo Alexandrinus, who was contemporary with the Apoſtles, and if we believe ſome of the Antients, familiar with them; where the ſame terms are ſo often uſed, that I am apt to think St. John has as great a reſpect to him as the forementioned Hereticks. It is certain that all his Writings were publiſhed a long while before ever St. John wrote; and his eloquence is ſuch, that he was juſtly had in admiration by all who lived in his time, and is ſtill read by learned Men with great delight. What high Commendations Joſephus, Juſtin Martyr, Euſebius, St. Jerom, and others give him, I need not ſay.

So celebrated a Writer therefore could not be unknown to the Apoſtle John, who dwelt ſo long at Epheſus, in the very eye of Aſia. That he had been carefully read by the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, the great Grotius has obſerved. And therefore being often read by the Chriſtians, and having a great many things in him of a near affinity▪ with the Chriſtian Tenets, it was poſſible that many who were taken with his Eloquence, might imitate him, and mix his Opinions before they were aware with Chriſtianity. To prevent which St. John in the beginning of his Goſpel, made uſe of thoſe terms which were moſt likely to impoſe on the unwary, that the Chriſtians might underſtand in what ſenſe they might be uſed: and how probable this is, will, by comparing the words of the Apoſtle with thoſe of Philo, ſufficiently appear.

[Page]But before I come to that, I ſhall endeavour to ſtrengthen this conjecture, by producing ſome paſſages out of him parallel to ſeveral ſayings of Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles in this Goſpel: For the more I ſhew to be in Philo reſembling the Diſcourſes of Chriſt and his Diſciples, the more likely it will be that he was frequently read and delighted in by the Chriſtians of that Age; and accordingly that St. John had a reference to him in the beginning of his Goſpel.

1. There is nothing in Chriſtianity that more offends the Jews, than our ſo aſſerting God to be one, as yet to make mention of Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, in whoſe names we are baptized. And there is ſomething ſo like this Ten [...]t in Philo, that you would almoſt think you were reading the words of ſome Chriſtians. He ſeems indeed to ſpeak more agreeably to the opinion which Arius afterwards eſpouſed, than of the Orthodox, but he came nearer the Chriſtians in this matter than the Jews, and might eaſily have impoſed upon the unwary. His words are theſe in Lib. de Abrahamo, p. 287. [...]: The FATHER is in the middle of all, who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar Name ſtiled, the Being: and on each ſide are [two] moſt antient Powers next to the Being; whereof one is called the effective [Power] and the other Royal; and the Effective, GOD, for by this [the Father] made and adorned the Ʋniverſe; and the Royal, LORD, for it is fit he ſhould rule and govern what he has made. And in the next words he aſſerts alſo, that God is Three and One: [...]: Being therefore attended on both ſides with his Powers, to a diſcerning Ʋnderſtanding he appears one while to be ONE, and another while to be THREE. ONE when the Mind being in the higheſt degree purified, and paſſing over not only a multitude of numbers, but alſo that which is next to an Ʋnit, the number of two, endeavours after a ſimple and uncompounded Idea, perfect of it ſelf: and THREE, when not as yet ſufficiently exerciſed in great Myſteries, it buſies it ſelf about leſſer, and is not able to conceive the Being without any other of it ſelf, but by his Works, and either as creating or governing. [Page] This it is certain was thought by learned Men among the Arians, to be the very Tenet of the Chriſtians, as may be gathered from what Euſebius in Praep. Evangelica ſays out of Philo.

2. But eſpecially he affirms thoſe things concerning the Divine Reaſon, which as to the words, and ſometimes alſo as to the ſenſe, are very like the Chriſtian Doctrin, of which I ſhall produce ſome examples. He calls Reaſon more than once the [...], as St. Paul Col. i.15. in Lib. de Agricultura, p. 152. where after he had mentioned the parts of the Univerſe, he tells us that God, [...], had ſet over it his right Reaſon, his firſt born Son, who undertook the care of this ſacred Flock as ſome great King's Deputy.

3. He deſcribes it as executing the Office of a Mediator between God and Men, in his Book entitled, Quis rerum divinarum haeres, p. 396. [...]: On the Prince of Angels, and moſt antient Reaſon, the Father who created all things, conferred this excellent gift, to ſtand as a Mediator, and divide that which comes to paſs from that which he has made. And he perpetually intercedes for periſhing Mortals with the incorruptible Nature, and is the Princes Embaſſador to his Subjects — He is neither unbegotten as God is, nor made as we are, but of a middle Nature between both extremes, acting the part of a Surety or Pledg with both; with the Creator, by engaging that Mankind ſhall never all grow corrupt, or rebel, preferring Confuſion to order; and with the Creature, by giving them good hope, that the Merciful God will never overlook or neglect his own Workmanſhip.

4. Upon this account he calls him alſo [...] a High-Priest, in Lib. de ſomniis, p. 463. [...]: God ſeems to have two Temples, whereof one is this World, whoſe High-Priest is the Divine Reaſon, his firſt begotten Son, and the other the reaſonable Soul, the Prieſt whereof is he that is truly a Man. In like manner St. Paul ſays, that we are the Temples of God, 1 Cor. vi.19. and elſewhere.

5. In the ſame Book, pag. 461. Philo tells us, that there are [...], viz. a Divine, and a human [...] [Page] [...], whereof one (i. e. the Divine) purifies and cleanſes the Soul from Sin.

6. The ſame Author in ſeveral places affirms, that the [...], the Image of God. So in Lib. [...], pag. 11. [...]: The inviſible and intelligible [...]ivine Reaſon, and the Reaſon of God, he calls the Image of God, viz. Moſes. So in Lib. de Somniis, towards the end, he tells us that thoſe who cannot underſtand God himſelf, yet ſometimes [...], do underſtand the Image of God, his Angel Reaſon, as himſelf. And elſewhere he gives the ſame deſcription of the [...], which St. Paul alſo called the Image of the inviſible God, the Firſt-born of every Creature: ſee Lib. de Profugis, p. 363.

7. In his Book inſcribed, Quod pejus est meliori inſidiatur, he ſays, that the Lawgiver (viz. Moſes) [...], calls by the name of Manna the moſt antient of all Beings, the divine Reaſon: ſee alſo Lib. 2. de Allegoriis Legis, p. 70. & ſeqq. So in his Book intitled, Quis rerum divinarum haeres, pag. 784. he interprets [...]: the divine Reaſon, the celeſtial and incorruptible Food of a contemplative Soul. Which compare with the words of Chriſt in John vi.31. & ſeqq. There are many other things in Philo, reſembling the Chriſtian Doctrin, which I ſhall not here tranſcribe; for what I have alledged out of him [...], is over and above ſufficient to ſhew the poſſibility of his leading the Chriſtians into an error by his Eloquence, if it were not prevented by the Apoſtles Authority. I ſhall now endeavour to interpret St. John's words, and ſhew that in many things he had a reſpect to Philo.

Verſ. 1. In the beginning was] [...]. Tho the word [...] be in the number of thoſe which ſignify [...], or in the language of the Schools, relatives; it is not therefore to be thought that it refers to the Argument or Subject of this Book, which is the Goſpel. According to all the rules of Grammar we ought rather to regard the ſignification of the words which immediatly follow, and their connexion. And here the following words are [...], and all things were made by it; and the Evangeliſt ſays, the World was made by it; which ſhews that he ſpeaks of the beginning of all things, or of the Creation of the World. None of thoſe that made uſe of the word [...] in this ſenſe, viz. for a Nature, which is with God, and is God, could underſtand theſe words otherwiſe, becauſe they attributed, as I ſhall afterwards ſhew, the Creation of the World to Reaſon. And no wiſe [Page] man ought to take uncommon phraſes in a quite different ſenſe from that wherein they are underſtood by thoſe who moſtly uſe them, and yet never warn the Reader of his underſtanding them otherwiſe. Nor is it the part of a skilful Interpreter to underſtand Phraſes in a perfectly new and unuſual ſenſe, unleſs it manifeſtly appears by the Writer whom he interprets, that they ought to be ſo underſtood.

Ibid. Reaſon] [...]. So I interpret the Greek word, and not by Verbum the Word, or Sermo Speech or Diſcourſe; becauſe thoſe who firſt and moſtly uſed it to ſignify a divine Mind, or God himſelf, did never mean by it a Nature ſpeaking in the Name of God, but only underſtanding and diſpoſing all things into order. Timaeus. Locrus, a Pythagoraean, who perhaps firſt uſed this word, in his deſcription of the Creation of the World ſpeaks thus: [...]. Before therefore the Heaven was made, there were in Reaſon the Idea and Matter, and God the Creator of a better. So Epicharmus the Comaedian, in his Commonwealth, as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. Lib. 5.

[...].

[...]

[...],

[...].

[...]

[...].

Which Grotius interprets thus;

Eſt humana ratio; hanc praeter eſt & divina altera.

Ratio humana circa vitam & victum ſemet occupat;

At divina Ratio eſt artis opifex & comes omnibus,

Edocens ipſos quid uſus maxime facto ſiet.

Quippe homo non reperit artem, ſed dat hanc auctor Deus,

Ipſaque illa humana ratio nata eſt ex ratione Dei.

Plato, Timaeus's Interpreter, and Epicharmus's Imitator, in his Timaeus, calls likewiſe the [...], reaſoning, p. 528. Ed. Gen. of Ficinus: [...]: All this true reaſoning of God — being reaſoned, &c. But in his Epinomis he uſes the word [...], ſpeaking of the World: [...], ſaith he, [...]. The Stoicks who, as Diogenes Laertius tells us, in Lib. 7. Sect. 135 & 136. affirmed, [...], [Page] [...], That it was the ſame thing which was called God, and the Mind, and Fate, and Jupiter, and by a great many other names, ſaid alſo that God [...], did in the beginning, being the ſeminal Reaſon of the World, diſpoſe all things. The ſame Author, in Sect. 134. ſays, it was the Doctrin of the Stoicks, that there were two Principles of all things, viz. an Active and a Paſſive; the latter of which was Matter or Subſtance without any Quality; [...]; but the former, viz. the Active, was REASON, which was in it, and which was GOD; for this being eternal, out of all that (viz. Matter, or Paſſive principle) formed every thing. And to this Doctrin of the Stoicks, Tertullian in Apol. cap. 21. had a reſpect, when he ſays; Apud veſtros quoque ſapientes [...], id eſt, Sermonem atque Rationem, conſtant artificem videri Ʋniverſitatis. Hunc enim Zenon determinat factitatorem, qui cuncta in diſpoſitione formaverit; eundem & fatum vocari & Deum & animum Jovis, & neceſſitatem omnium rerum. It is well known that alſo among your wiſe men, [...], i. e. Speech and Reaſon, was thought to have been the maker of the Ʋniverſe. For this Zeno affirms to have been the Creator, who formed and diſpoſed all things, and was called Fate, and God, and the Mind of Jupiter, and the Neceſſity of all things. There was no need of joining the word Sermo to Ratio, to render the Greek word [...]; for what place could there be for Speech in the Creation and Diſpoſition of the Univerſe? But there was for Reaſon; and therefore Seneca ſetting down the Opinion of Plato and the Stoicks, makes frequent mention of that, as in Ep. 65. Cauſa autem, ſaith he, id eſt Ratio, materiam format, & quocunque vult verſat— Quaerimus quid ſit cauſa? Ratio faciens, id eſt, Deus, &c. The cauſe, that is Reaſon, formeth Matter, and turns or diverſities it how it pleaſes— If you ask what is meant by Cauſe, it is Reaſon creating, that is, God. And in Lib. de Vita Beata, cap. 8. he ſtiles it, incorporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex; incorporeal Reaſon, the Author of great Works. Conſult alſo Philo wherever he ſpeaks of the [...], and the Creation of the World, and we ſhall ſee that he never underſtands Speech by it, but only Reaſon. See his Book de mundi opificio, where he ſays that it was the intelligible Pattern of the World, and had no other place, [...], than the divine Mind or Reaſon which diſpoſed thoſe things: Other Paſſages out of him I ſhall produce afterwards. I might alledg alſo the Teſtimonies of Modern Platonicks, and Eccleſiaſtical Writers to this purpoſe, but that I have determined to ſhew only how the Antients uſed this word. The Jews who were more antient than Philo himſelf, called Angels, [Page] both good and bad, [...], which is the ſame as if they had ſaid, [...], Powers endued with Reaſon, not with Speech; which Philo alſo imitated. So the Author of the Book of Wiſdom, Chap. xviii.15, 16. ſpeaking of the revenging Angel that was ſent againſt the Egyptians, ſays: [...], &c. Thine almighty Reaſon leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne, as an inexorable Warrior, into the midſt of a land of deſtruction, and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a ſharp Sword, and ſtanding up filled all things with Death; and it touched the Heaven, but it ſtood upon the Earth, &c. The Writer of this Book attributes a Throne to this Angel, in agreement with the cuſtom of the Eaſtern Nations, who called Angels Thrones. Otherwiſe he imitates Homer, who Iliad Δ, verſ. 443. ſpeaking of Iris, ſaith: [...] She fixes her head in the Heaven, and walks upon the Earth.

I know indeed there are ſome Interpreters who would make St. John to have a reſpect to the Expreſſion of Moſes, who repreſents God as creating the World by ſpeaking or ſaying. But tho Moſes teaches us, that God made all things, as it were, by a Command, yet it is manifeſt he does not mean ſpeech properly ſo called, as I have ſhewn in my Notes on Gen. Ch. i. So that it would be but a dull Alluſion to ſay upon that account, that the Word was with God, yea, God himſelf; nor are there any ſuch Alluſions obſervable in St. John's ſtile.

Ibid. And that Reaſon was with God.] [...]. It is ſaid here, that Reaſon was with God, by way of antitheſis or oppoſition to what is afterwards ſaid concerning the manifeſtation of the divine Reaſon among men. Afterwards it was [...], when it dwelt in Jeſus Chriſt, nay [...]; foraſmuch as Chriſt converſed with men, and by the inſpiration of the divine Reaſon called them to a better life. I might produce out of Plotinus, if he were not a late Author, a like expreſſion, [...]. But I ſhall alledg only the words of Ignatius, in his genuin Epiſtle ad Magneſios, concerning Jeſus Chriſt, pag. 33. Ed. Voſſ. [...]; who before [all] Ages was with the Father, but in the end appeared. Which words allude to this place in St. John, and may ſerve inſtead of an interpretation of it, as alſo what he ſays a little after: [...]: There is one God, who has revealed himſelf by Jeſus Chriſt his Son, which is his eternal Reaſon.

Ibid. God was that Reaſon.] [...]. St. John adds this, leſt it ſhould be thought that there was any thing beſides the Divine Nature before the Creation of the World. Philo alſo calls the [...] [Page] God, in Lib. de Somniis, p. 465. on theſe words in Geneſ. xxxi.13. I am the God that appeared to thee, in the place of God. [...], ſaith he, [...] That which the [Scripture] calls God, is his moſt antient Reaſon. But there is this difference between St. John and Philo, that Philo would have the [...] to be called God only abuſively, or improperly; for a little before he ſaith: [...]: He that is truly God is one; thoſe that are abuſively ſo, are many. And after the words before alledged, he ſubjoins that the Scripture does not, [...], is not ſuperſtitious about the impoſing of names. But St. John teaches us, that Reaſon not only was from the beginning, and with God, by which word he underſtands him who is in the moſt excellent ſenſe ſo called, but adds, as it were, [...], by way of correction, And that Reaſon was God; which, according to Philo, could only be ſaid improperly. And indeed Philo every where makes his [...] inferior to the moſt high God; whereas St. John aſſerts the [...], which he ſays converſed afterwards with men, to have been the one only true God, properly ſo call'd. And this he ſays alſo in oppoſition to Cerinthus, of whom Irenaeus in Lib. 1. cap. 25. ſpeaks thus: But one Cerinthus in Aſia affirmed that the World was not made by the ſupreme God, but by a certain Power ſeparate and very diſtant from that Principality which is over all things, and which did not know him who is over all things, God. See alſo Lib. 3. c. 11. For if Reaſon be God, even that God with whom it was from the beginning; and if Reaſon made the World, as St. John affirms, then Cerinthus was manifeſtly miſtaken.

Verſ. 2. The ſame was in the beginning with God.] Theſe words St. John repeats out of the foregoing Verſe, for the ſake of connexion, being about to ſay, that all things were made by Reaſon.

Verſ. 3. All things were made by it.] [...]. This is nothing to Cerinthus, who did not deny that all things were made by Reaſon; but it is ſaid, that the Chriſtians might underſtand it to be true, what Philo and others before him among the Jews, aſſerted concerning the Creation of the World by the [...]. He oppoſes the Doctrin of the Epicureans, who contended that all things were made by Chance, and without Reaſon. That this was the opinion of Epicurus, contrary to the ſentiments of moſt other Philoſophers, and particularly of Plato, every one knows, and it is needleſs to prove. Lucretius alſo, in Lib. 5. expreſly denies that the Univerſe was made by Reaſon, where he affirms that it is ſenſeleſs to ſay,

— Deûm quod ſit Ratione vetuſtâ

Gentibus humanis fundatum —

[Page] That the [World] was founded for Mankind by the antient Reaſon of the Gods. In which he has a reſpect to the Platoniſts, who uſed ſo to ſpeak, as the following words ſhew, in which he denies that God had exemplum gignundis rebus ullum, any Pattern to make the World by. So that according to the Opinion of Epicurus, the World was produced [...], without Reaſon; or as Plutarch, de Philoſ. Placitis, Lib. 1. c. 4. ſpeaks, [...], by indiviſible Bodies having an unforeſeen and fortuitous motion. But Lactantius ſpeaking of this Opinion in Lib. de ira Divina, cap. 10. after he had deſcribed the beauty of the Univerſe, and proved it to have been created by God, againſt Leucippus and Epicurus, very well ſays, Tanta ergo qui videat & talia, poteſt exiſtimare nullo effecta eſſe conſilio, nulla providentia, nulla RATIONE divina, ſed ex atomis ſubtilibus, exiguis concreta eſſe tanta miracula? Can therefore one that beholds ſuch and ſo great things, think that they were made with no deſign, no foreſight, no divine REASON, but that all theſe great Miracles were produced by the conjunction of ſubtil ſmall Atoms? And Inſtit. Divin. Lib. 1. c. 2. after he had ſaid that Democritus and Epicurus thought all things were made and are governed by Chance, he ſubjoins a little after, Quos tamen & ceteri Philoſophi ac maxime Stoici, acerrime retuderunt, dicentes nec fieri mundum SINE divina RATIONE potuiſſe; nec conſtane, niſi ſummâ RATIONE regeretur. Whom yet the reſt of the Philoſophers, and particularly the Stoicks, did moſt ſharply oppoſe, affirming that the World could neither have been made without the divine REASON, nor conſiſt unleſs it were governed by the higheſt REASON. And Lib. 3. c. 17. he expreſſes again the Opinion of Epicurus thus; Nihil in procreandis animalibus Providentiae RATIO molita eſt, REASON uſed no foreſight in the producing of living Creatures. In oppoſition to which he ſays a little after, Non poteſt quidquam rationale perficere niſi RATIO, Nothing but REASON can make any rational being.

But let us return now to the Jews, and particularly to Philo, who ſpeak in the ſame manner as St. John: So the Author of the Book of Wiſdom, cap. ix.1. addreſſes himſelf to God thus; [...]: who haſt made ALL THINGS by thy Reaſon, and adorned Man by thy Wiſdom. And Philo Lib. 2. de Monarchia, p. 736. ſaith, [...]: Reaſon is the Image of God, by which the whole World was created. But there is this difference between St. John and Philo in this matter, that whereas St. John affirms, that the [...] was God himſelf, viz. the moſt High, Philo would have it ſaid that the World was created by it, as God's Inſtrument. So in Lib. de Cherubinis, [Page] p. 100. after he had ſaid, that there muſt be four things conſidered in every Production, viz. the cauſe, the matter, the inſtrument and end for which it is produced, and had applied thoſe things diſtinctly to an Edifice, he adds concerning the World, that: [...]: you will find that the cauſe of it was God, by whom it was made — and the inſtrument the Reaſon of God, by which it was diſpoſed. But in St. John, all things are ſaid to have been made by Reaſon, in the ſame manner as if it were ſaid the World was created by the Divine Power [...]: which words do not ſignify an inſtrument diſtinct from God, but God himſelf. Tho it's true, Origen thought it followed from hence, that Reaſon was ſomething inferior to God, as we may ſee in his Comment. on St. John, T. 11. p. 55. Ed. Huet. But his reaſoning is vain, as appears by what I ſaid: So St. Paul ſays, that he was an Apoſtle [...], by the Will of God, 1 Cor. i.1. and 2 Cor. i.1. but it cannot be inferred from thence, that the will of God is inferior to God.

That the word [...], all things, is to be underſtood of the Univerſe, I need not here prove; for tho that word may have ſeveral ſignifications, yet in this matter it cannot be otherwiſe underſtood: They are bad Criticks who conſider what words ſignify ſeparately, and think that any of thoſe ſignifications may be any where applied, without any regard had to the Phraſes in which they occur, or the occaſion on which they are uſed; or who think that an interpretation ought to be admitted, only becauſe it does not make the ſenſe altogether abſurd, and it is not Metaphyſically, if I may ſo ſpeak, impoſſible but that the Writer, whom they interpret, might mean as they would have him. We ought carefully to conſider, in what ſenſe words are commonly uſed in any Language, with the occaſion of the writing, and all the circumſtances of the Diſcourſe, in order to give a right interpretation of them.

Ibid. And without it was not any thing made that was made.] [...]. Tho it be a very true Obſervation of a great Man, that the Holy Scriptures do many times explain what they aſſert by a Negation of the contrary; yet I do not think that theſe words are added to that end. The Epicureans thought that all and every particular thing was made without Reaſon; in contradiction to which the Apoſtle here affirms, that not only all things, that is, the Univerſe, but every ſingle thing was made with Reaſon. The Epicureans, when any objected againſt their opinion the beauty of the World, and the great Benefit which Men received by the Order and Diſpoſition of it, pretended to prove

[Page]

Nequaquam nobis divinitus eſſe paratam

Naturam rerum, tanta ſtat praedita culpa!

That the World was not made by a divine Power and Wiſdom for our uſe, there are ſo many faults in it And they compoſed a Catalogue of things that were hurtful to Mankind, and ſeemed to be made without Reaſon, as we may ſee in Lucretius, Lib. 5. after the words alledged. And ſo Cicero likewiſe in Acad. Quaeſt. 4. c. 38. diſputes thus againſt the Stoicks: Cur Deus omnia noſtri cauſâ cum faceret (ſic enim vultis) tantum natricum, viperarumque fecerit? cur mortifera tam multa pernicioſa terra, marique diſperſerit? &c. Why God having made all things for our uſe, as ye affirm, ſhould make ſo many Waterſnakes and Vipers? Why he ſhould diſperſe ſo many deadly and pernicious things on the Earth, and in the Sea, &c. Theſe Arguments had ſuch an effect upon ſome who were otherwiſe friends to Providence, that they granted the Epicureans there were ſome things made [...] without Reaſon. And among theſe Philo was one, to whom I make little doubt but that the Apoſtle had a reſpect in this matter alſo: as he has approved ſome things in his Doctrine, ſo he has rejected others, leſt by the unwary the bad ſhould be mixed with the good, and leſt becauſe he had approved ſome things, he ſhould ſeem to have aſſented to all. That Doctrine of Philo was extant in his Book de Providentia, out of which we have a long diſputation ſet down in Euſebius, Praep. Evang. Lib. 8. c. 14. where among other paſſages we meet with this: [...]: Thoſe creeping things that are poiſonous are not made by Providence, but come of courſe as I before ſaid: For they are generated when the moiſtneſs that is inherent in them, or whereof they conſiſt, becomes warmer than ordinary. ☜ [I think Mr. le Clere does not expreſs the ſenſe of this period, when he tranſlates it, Naſcuntur enim cum humiditas terrae inhaerens calore mutatur;] ſome are animated by Putrefaction, as worms in the Belly, viz. by the putrefaction of Food, and lice of Sweat. But every thing which is procreated from a ſeminal and antecedaneous Nature [in the Latin it is praeviſam, which I take to be a miſtake either in Mr. le Clerc, ☜ or in his Printer, for praegreſſam] out of its proper matter, is juſtly aſcribed to Providence. This is contrary to the Chriſtian Doctrin, which teaches us that all things were created, and are taken care of by God; ſee Mat. x.29. and Interpreters upon that place.

[Page]Verſ. 4. In it was Life] [...]. Life in this place ſeems to ſignify a clear Doctrin concerning eternal Life, and the way of attaining it, which were but obſcurely known before Chriſt; upon which account St. Paul, 2 Tim. i.20. ſays, that Chriſt brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Goſpel. And that this is here St. John's meaning he himſelf ſhews, in 1 Epiſt. i.2. For the Life, ſaith he, was manifeſted, and we have ſeen it and bear witneſs, and declare unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father, and was manifeſted unto us. And in the ſame Epist. Chap. v.11. God hath given to us Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son: Or elſe the [...] may be called Life, becauſe it gives ſpiritual Life to Men in this world, and eternal Life in the other. Ignatius, St. John's Diſciple, in his genuin Epiſtle to the Inhabitants of Smirna, after he had ſaid that it was difficult for bad Men to repent, ſubjoins; [...]: but this is in the power of Jeſus Chriſt, (who is) our true Life. And in his Epiſt. to the Trallians, p. 51. Ed. Voſſ. ſpeaking of Chriſt, he ſaith; [...], without whom we have no true Life. There are ſome who think that St. John has a reſpect to the Doctrin of the Gnoſticks, who affirmed, that Reaſon and Life were two ſeveral divine Emanations. But whether this, which was afterwards the opinion of Valentinus, was before known, is very uncertain: See Note on Verſ. 16. Beſides, the ſenſe I have given is plain, and agreeable to what follows.

The Apoſtle ſeems rather to allude here to a Paſſage in Philo, who in his Book entitled, Quis rerum divinarum Haeres, p. 381. ſaith, [...], &c. There is a threefold kind of Life, one which is with God, another which is with the Creature, and a third which is of a middle Nature mixed of both: That which is with God has not deſcended to us, or come for the neceſſities of the Body, &c. But St. John teaches us, that that kind of Life was brought down upon Earth by Chriſt.

Ibid. And this Life was the Light of Men. [...]. The light of the Mind is a thing very often mentioned by Philo; but becauſe he does not fetch that light from the Doctrin of Chriſt, but from Judaiſm, mixed with an opinion of Plato, it is all frivolous that he ſays of it. It is only therefore to the Goſpel that that Paſſage of his, concerning the Divine Light, in Lib. de Humanitate, p. 551. agrees; [...]: For as when the Sun riſes the darkneſs is diſſipated, and all [Page]things are filled with Light; ſo when the Sun made by God ariſes and enlightens the Soul, the darkneſs of Vice and Paſſion is diſpelled, and a moſt pure and amiable form [in the Latin it is ſanctiſſima ſpecies, but it ſhould have been tran [...]lated digna amatu] of moſt ſhining Vertue appears. ☜

Verſ. 5. Shineth in darkneſs.] [...] i. e. is riſen to diſpel Mens ignorance.

Verſ. 7. Through him might believe] [...] i. e. that they might by John's Miniſtry be induced to believe in Chriſt. Grotius's interpretation is harſh, that through the Light they might believe in God.

Verſ. 8. He was not the Light] viz. that excellent Light of which St. John ſpeaks both before and after: For otherwiſe in Chap. v.35. of this Goſpel, John the Baptiſt is called a burning and a ſhining Light.

Verſ. 9. That Light was the true Light] [...]. In Plato and his followers, and amongſt the reſt Philo, those things are ſaid to be ſuch or ſuch truly, which may be ſo called in an excellent ſenſe. Thus in Lib. de mundi Opificio, p. 13. Philo ſays, that in the harmony of the parts of the World, there is [...] true Muſick. And this phraſe St. John ſeems to have taken delight in, and frequently makes uſe of, as in 1 Epist. ii.8. where he ſays again, the true Light. And ſo in this Goſpel Chap. vi.32. Chriſt is called the true Bread, and his Fleſh, verſ. 55. true Meat, and Chap. xv.1. he is ſaid to be the true Vine.

Ibid. Which came into the World] [...]. This I refer, as Grotius does, to the Light, not to Men. Conſult his Notes.

Ibid. Every Man] Not only the Jews, as John Baptiſt and the other Prophets did, but all Men of what Nation ſoever they are, of whom vaſt numbers had received the Chriſtian Faith at that time. This is afterwards more clearly explained by St. John.

Verſ. 10. Reaſon was in the World. I have ſupplied the word Reaſon, becauſe the Pronoun [...] preſently follows, which is the Relative to [...]. By the World here we are to underſtand men, amongſt whom Chriſt converſed.

Ibid. And the World was made by it] i. e. eſpecially mankind, whoſe firſt Parents were created by the divine Reaſon.

Ibid. Knew it not] viz. to be the divine Reaſon, when they ought to have collected from the Diſcourſes and Actions of Chriſt, that that ſame [...], by which all things had been created, dwelt in him. He did not bring Laws that were uſeful for one Nation, and hurtful to others, but ſuch as were equally profitable for all mankind, and therefore manifeſtly proceeded from the common Parent of mankind. They were Laws becoming the Creator of all things to make, and fit for all Nations and all Ages; and if the Jews had not been blind, Si mens non [Page]laeva fuiſſet, as the Poet ſpeaks, they might have eaſily diſcerned their Author.

Verſ. 11. To its own.] [...], i. e. the Jews: Conſult Grotius. The Jews are ſo ſtiled, becauſe they are called the People of God, and ſo of the [...].

Ibid. Received it not.] For they rejected the Doctrin of Chriſt, by whoſe Mouth the divine Reaſon ſpake, and in whom it dwelt.

Verſ. 12. As many] viz. of what Nation ſoever, becauſe the greateſt part of the Jews rejected him.

Ibid. Received,] [...], viz. as their only Maſter.

Ibid. It gave them power to become the Sons of God,] that is, to be called God's Children as well as the Jews, and that in a more excellent ſenſe than they. Moſes, Deut. xxxii.6. calls God the Father of the Iſraelites. In Pſalm lxxiii.15. the ſame People are called the Generation of God's Children; and Hoſ. i.10. the Sons of the living God. In this Goſpel, Chap. viii.41. they boaſt of their having one Father, even God. Now thoſe are called the Sons of God, who worſhip the true God, and living conformably to his Commands, have a well-grounded hope of being made partakers of the good things he has promiſed. And this privilege the Jews contended to belong only to themſelves, and thoſe who embraced their Religion, by virtue of the Moſaical Covenant. But St. John teaches us, that the Divine Reaſon has conferred this privilege on all that believe the Goſpel. Perhaps the Apoſtle deſigned alſo in this paſſage to contradict Philo, who diſtinguiſhes between the Sons of God and the Sons of Reaſon, in Lib. de confuſione Linguarum, p. 267. [...], ſaith he, [...]. Thoſe that make uſe of knowledg, are deſervedly called the Sons of one God; as Moſes alſo acknowledges, ſaying; Ye are the Sons of the Lord God: and, God who hath begotten thee: and, is not he himſelf thy Father?— If any one be not as yet worthy to be called a Son of God, let him endeavour to be adorned by his firſt-born, Reaſon, the moſt antient Angel: For if we are not yet fit to be reputed the Sons of God, yet (let us ſtrive to be ſo) of moſt holy Reaſon, his eternal Image.

Verſ. 13. Born not of blood·] As thoſe who were deſcended from Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, and thought themſelves to be the Sons of God upon that account: See Chap. viii.33. & ſeqq.

[Page]Ibid. Nor of the will of the fleſh.] Strange women that were taken Captives in war, and married to Jews, were look'd upon to be admitted into the number of God's Children, that is, to be alſo Jews. And of ſuch it is properly ſaid, that they became Iſraelites (or Children of God) by the will of the fleſh, that is, by fleſhly concupiſcence: ſee Deut. xxi.11. & ſeqq.

Ibid. Of the will of man.] This has a reference to the Children of Proſelites, who upon their Father and his Family's turning Jews, became, if they were little, the Sons of God only by the will of one man. Yea, and an adult Perſon, who embraced the Jewiſh Religion, may be ſaid to have become a Jew by the will of man, viz. his own. It muſt be carefully obſerved, that St. John here uſes the word [...] viri, and not [...] hominis; to diſtinguiſh that kind of adoption which was made by the will of a Father, from the former, whereby a ſtrange woman became a Jew by the will of the fleſh.

Ibid. But of God] viz. By Regeneration, or a change of manners, whereby, forſaking Heatheniſm, and embracing the Goſpel, they lived according to the rules of Chriſtianity. Of this Regeneration St. John ſpeaks afterwards in Chap. iii.3. & ſeqq. And St. Paul inſiſts upon it very much, in his Epiſtle to the Romans and elſewhere; for to this all that he ſays almoſt about the [...], or adoption of the Gentiles, has a reſpect. Which my deſign in this place will not permit me at large to ſhew.

Verſ. 14. Was made fleſh.] [...]. That by fleſh we are to underſtand human nature, is generally obſerved by Interpreters, who may be conſulted. But the [...] may be ſaid to have been made fleſh, or man, in more reſpects than one; and here it is ſaid to have been made fleſh, in regard that, being clothed, as it were, with the Fleſh of Chriſt, it became conſpicuous; for Fleſh ſometimes ſignifies a conſpicuous nature in oppoſition to one that is ſpiritual or inconſpicuous. So it is uſed by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iii.16. where he tells us that God appeared in Fleſh, [...], was juſtified in Spirit, &c. i. e. God became, as it were, conſpicuous, when all the fulneſs of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Chriſt; in Chriſt, I ſay, who being a Man, was conſpicuous and viſible, and in whom God ſhewed himſelf to be preſent. I know other Copies have [...], but the ſenſe is the ſame. That the word Fleſh is taken here for human Nature, as conſpicuous, appears by the following words in this, and by the 18th verſe. Tho when I ſay that Fleſh is conſidered here by St. John as conſpicuous, or preciſely under that notion, that is ſo far from excluding the other properties, as the Schoolmen ſpeak, of human nature, that on the contrary it ſuppoſes [Page] them. For our Fleſh is therefore conſpicuous, becauſe it is a neceſſary property of human nature to be conſpicuous.

It is rightly ſaid by Divines, that Reaſon was made Fleſh, not by a converſion of the divine Nature into a human, which is as impoſſible as for a human to be changed into a divine; but by an unexpreſſible indwelling of God, whereby the humanity of Chriſt became the humanity of God, in a ſingular and extraordinary manner; as on the other hand the divine Reaſon was made the Divinity of Chriſt, by that ſecret union. From that time God might be called Fleſh, and reciprocally the name of God might be attributed to Fleſh or Man. And upon the account of this conjunction of two Natures in Chriſt, the Apoſtles ſpeak of him ſometimes as God, ſometimes as a Man; and do not only aſcribe to Chriſt, what they had ſeen done by the man Jeſus, but alſo what the divine Reaſon did before Jeſus was born: ſee Col. i.14. & ſeqq. & Heb. i.2, 10.

Ibid. Dwelt among us.] [...]. That is, it dwelt in a man who converſed among us. All theſe things Philo was ignorant of, or elſe reſolved to be ſo, if it be true what ſome of the Antients ſay, that having embraced the Chriſtian Religion, he afterwards apoſtatized from it: ſee Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. Lib. 2. c. 17. & Photius Cod. 105.

Ibid. We beheld its Glory] i. e. ſuch Miracles as were never before, or in the ſame manner done by any. That Miracles are called the Glory of God, I have ſhewn in my Notes on Exod. xvi.7. Amongſt thoſe Miracles which were wrought for the honour of Chriſt, a very eminent one was that of his Transfiguration, ſpoken of by St. Peter in his 2 Epiſt. i.16, 17. whoſe words give great light to this paſſage: For we have not followed, ſaith he, cunningly deviſed Fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; but were eye witneſſes of his Majeſty. For be received from God the Father, honour and glory, [ [...]] when there came ſuch a voice to him from the magnificent Glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed: ſee Mat. xvii.

Ibid. As of the only begotten] whom he accordingly gave that glory to, which he had never before conferred on any, or ever will. The Prophets who were Brethren, and the Sons of God in the ſame manner as one another, had often an equal glory put upon them by the Miracles which God wrought at their requeſt. But the Miracles of Jeſus Chriſt were ſo many and great, that they were capable, if I may ſo ſpeak, of obſcuring all that had been formerly wrought by their multitude and ſplendor.

[Page]By this word only begotten perhaps St. John might have a ſecret deſign to oppoſe the Doctrin of Philo, who generally calls the [...] not [...] the only begotten, but only [...] the firſt begotten, and [...] the moſt antient of the Angels. Grotius thinks that the Gnoſticks are here condemned, who made the [...] to be two different perſons; but it is uncertain whether thoſe frivolous Syzigiae Pleromatis had been invented when St. John wrote: ſee on verſ. 16.

Ibid. Of or from the Father] [...]. This muſt be referred to the word Glory: ſee Grotius.

Ibid. Full of Grace and Truth,] [...]. If theſe words be referred to the immediatly foregoing, we muſt ſupply [...] who was, viz. the only begotten. Otherwiſe they muſt be included in a Parentheſis, as I have done them. Grotius however is of another opinion, who may be conſulted.

Grace and Truth] that is, in Hebrew [...] bheſed veemeth, of which phraſe I have diſcourſed in my Notes on Gen. xxiv.27. There is an oppoſition made here between the Goſpel and the Law, as appears from the 17th verſe. The Moſaical Law appointed Sacrifices for the expiation of ſome ſort of Sins; which if they were wilfully and knowingly neglected, tho it were but once, it denounced death upon the Sinner, whatever his Repentance was afterwards. For other ſins there were no expiatory Sacrifices inſtituted, but they were to be puniſhed with death. Neither did God by virtue of that Covenant promiſe to any one that died for tranſgreſſing the Law, tho never ſo penitent, any mercy in the life to come. And yet theſe were Sins, which by reaſon of the multitude of the Laws were frequently committed; ſo that God diſcovered nothing but his inflexible Juſtice in the Law. It's true, he promiſes Forgiveneſs to the whole Jewiſh Nation, becoming penitent after the deſtruction of their Commonwealth, in Levit. xxvi. and elſewhere. But particular Perſons, as long as the Commonwealth ſtood ſinning in that manner as I have ſaid, had no hopes of pardon. But it is quite otherwiſe under the Goſpel, in which God promiſes pardon to the greateſt Sinner, upon repentance and amendment of life, and that without the intervention of Sacrifices. And in this ſenſe the Goſpel alone is full of the grace and mercy of God.

Verſ. 15. John bare witneſs] or bears witneſs, [...], viz. in the Goſpels. But I have preferred the former, becauſe it follows (in the Preterperfect tenſe) [...] he cried. It is thought by ſome, that this is repeated by the Evangeliſt, becauſe there were ſome who choſe to be the Diſciples of John the Baptiſt rather than of Chriſt, and ſo gave the [Page] preference to him. And when the Goſpel was firſt preached, it is certain there were ſuch perſons, as appears by John's having Diſciples of his own that went under his name, and from Acts xix. But that ſo many years after Chriſt's aſcenſion into Heaven, there remained any ſuch perſons, is not probable; and the words of the Evangeliſt may reſpect any of the Jews whatſoever, who having a good opinion of John the Baptist, becauſe he was of a Sacerdotal Order, and uncondemned by the Sanhedrim, did yet reject Christ, becauſe he was condemned unjuſtly, and did not know that John the Baptist had given a moſt clear teſtimony of him.

Ibid. That is to come] viz. In the Name of God to his People.

Ibid. Was before me.] That is, in dignity, or a more eminent Perſon than I: ſee Grotius. And to the paſſages alledged by that great Man to this purpoſe, add this out of Euripides, in Oreſte ver. 488. where it is ſaid to be the Character of a Greek:

[...]:

Not to deſire to be above the Laws, or ſuperior to the Laws, [...], as the Scholiast well explains it.

Verſ. 16. Of his fulneſs] [...]. Irenaeus ſuppoſes this to have a reference to the [...], which he attributes not only to the Valentinians, but to Cerinthus, and ſuch as were antienter than he, the Nicolaitans, Lib. 3. c. 11. But I cannot perfectly agree with him for the following reaſons.

1. He himſelf in Lib. 1. c. 25 & 27. where he ſets down the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, has nothing about this Pleroma, which he affirms to have been peculiar to the Valentinians in Chap. 1. of the ſame Book.

2. Theſe words do not confute thoſe who invented that term, for all whom it might be ſaid, that men do receive Grace from the fulneſs that is in Reaſon: ſee Irenaeus himſelf, Cap. 1. lib. 1.

3. Irenaeus might eaſily confound the Doctrins of various Hereticks, as he did the Fooleries of the Millenaries, with the Doctrin of the Apoſtle John. He was a very pious man, and a great lover of the Chriſtian Religion, the truth of which he ſealed with his Blood; but that he was any great Judg of things or opinions, will not be thought by any who ſhall but carefully read his Writings. It were to be wiſhed alſo, that he had rather left us inſtances of his Charity to the Heterodox, than of his Zeal, which is often ſo like Anger, that it can hardly be diſtinguiſhed from it. I am ſure the innumerable dotages of thoſe [Page] men deſerved rather pity than anger. In fine, it is highly probable that the word [...] came into St. John's mind, and was therefore uſed by him, becauſe he had ſaid juſt before, that Chriſt had appeared [...]; and he uſed it the rather, becauſe he knew that St. Paul had made uſe of it in a like ſenſe in his Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, Chap. ii.9. and elſewhere. Now [...] here ſignifies the fulneſs of the Godhead, as St. Paul ſpeaks, which dwells in Chriſt; that is, the divine Reaſon it ſelf, from whence iſſued the Goſpel, which is often called [...] by St. Paul.

Ibid. Grace for Grace.] [...]. Theſe words have ſtrangely perplexed Interpreters, whoſe conjectures I ſhall not here ſet down. They have been collected by J. C. Suicerus in Theſauro, on the word [...]; I ſhall only propoſe my own. The [...] which we have received from God is, as I before ſaid, the Goſpel it ſelf, and all the benefits of it, which he beſtows upon us [...], that is, gratis, and with a proviſo only that we are thankful to him; which comprehends all the duty of a Chriſtian, becauſe we cannot heartily [...] return thanks to God unleſs we alſo obey his Goſpel. For when God promiſes us eternal life, if we believe on Chriſt, and renounce our former ſins, and amend our lives; How can we be ſaid to be thankful to him, if we do not ſo ſmall a thing for that great benefit? God therefore in this ſenſe may be ſaid to give us [...]. When I interpret [...] by thankfulneſs, or a thankful diſpoſition of mind, I go according to the common uſe of that word among the Greeks, with whom [...] or [...] is an ordinary phraſe. So alſo it is taken by St. Paul in Rom. vi.17. [...], thanks be to God. See likewiſe 1 Cor. xv.57. & 2 Cor. viii.16. And there is a ſort of an elegance in repeating the ſame word in a different ſenſe, of which ſee Grotius. As for the Prepoſition [...], I take that alſo in its proper and moſt uſual ſenſe, whereby it ſignifies a permutation, as in theſe words which others have cited out of Euripides's Helena, [...], let benefit come for benefit, V. 1250. Not to depart from the words before us, or to be laborious in the proof of what is plain, it ſhall ſuffice to obſerve that the Greeks call a benefit, which is return'd for a benefit received, [...], and thence deduce the Verb [...] to return, or repay a benefit: So that that paſſage of Euripides would be almoſt perfectly parallel to this in St. John, if we could but demonſtrate our thankfulneſs to God in the ſame manner as we can to men. Which being unable to do, we expreſs our gratitude to him by our words and faithful obedience. Summus rerum inviſibilium procreator, to uſe the words of Arnobius, dignus eſt verè, ſi modo eum [Page]dignum mortali dicendum eſt ore, Chapter II. cui ſpirans omnis intelligenſque natura, & habere & agere nunquam deſinat gratias. The great Creator of things inviſible is worthy, is truly worthy, if mortal lips are not too mean to ſay that he is worthy, to be inceſſantly praiſed and thanked by every living and intelligent nature. This is our [...] which we give to God. What ſhall I render unto the Lord? ſaith the Pſalmiſt in Pſalm cxvi.12. All his benefits are above me: I will take the cup of Salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

Verſ. 17. The Law was given by Moſes.] [...] is often in St. Paul, as it is here, oppoſed to [...] the Law of Grace, which I have obſerved on verſ. 14.

Verſ. 18. No man hath ſeen God at any time] That is, before the revelation of his Son, no body ever underſtood the will of God; for ſometimes we are ſaid to ſee thoſe things which we have an exact knowledg of: See Grotius.

Ibid. Which is in the boſom of the Father] That is, moſt dear to God, as the ſame learned Interpreter has ſhewn.

Ibid. Was his Interpreter.] [...], viz. God, i. e. his Will: See Mat. xi.27. and Expoſitors on that place.

Verſ. 46. [...]— [...]] For [...]. Of the like miſplacing of words, ſee Examples in Chap. x.36. & xvii.3.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 4. Note a. THere are two things which I would have here further obſerved for the underſtanding of Mary's Petition, and Chriſt's anſwer. One is, that the words they have no Wine, are the expreſſion of Mary's requeſt to her Son to ſupply that defect, as appears by the anſwer which Chriſt made her. But how was it that ſhe would have him do that? Undoubtedly not by purchaſing Wine with Money, with which ſhe knew Chriſt did not abound; but, as Interpreters generally ſuppoſe, by working a Miracle, and ſupplying the new married couple with Wine, in the ſame manner as Elijah of old had ſupplied the widow of Sarepta with Oil. And hence it may be probably inferred that Chriſt had done ſome other Miracles before this time: For how could his Mother have deſired him to work a Miracle, if ſhe had never ſeen him do any before? She knew indeed by the revelation of the Angel, that her Son was the Meſſias; but ſhe could not from thence conclude that he would work Miracles, eſpecially ſuch a one as that, when ſhe pleaſed to deſire it. And therefore [Page] when it is ſaid at verſ. 11. that this beginning of Miracles did Jeſus, &c. we muſt underſtand the Evangeliſt to ſpeak of ſuch Miracles as were done publickly.

Secondly, I would have it obſerved, that the anſwer which Chriſt here gave to his Mother, contains nothing in it whereby ſhe might conclude his purpoſe to comply with her Requeſt; nay that on the contrary he ſeems to have rejected her Petition. And therefore it may be matter of enquiry, whence ſhe gathered that he intended to fulfil it, and doubtleſs it muſt be from ſome other words of his, which perhaps St. John not having heard, has omitted, or ſome ſign he afterwards gave her to aſſure her of it, tho her Requeſt was at that time unſeaſonable.

Verſ. 6. [...]] It Is the part of a conſcientious Witneſs, ſaith a great Man, to affirm nothing too peremptorily or particularly. But St. John had not been the leſs conſcientious a Witneſs, if he had determinately ſaid either [...] or [...], for there is no ſuch exactneſs requiſite in ſuch matters as theſe; and the reaſon of his ſpeaking as he did, was, becauſe he did not juſtly know the ſize of the Waterpots. Nothing is more ordinary than this way of ſpeaking in common diſcourſe.

Verſ. 9. [...].] This word in the Vulgar, and other Interpreters, is rendered by vocat, called, which is properly the ſignification of [...]; but it ought rather to have been rendered by compellat, ſpake to him, [...] here ſignifying the ſame as [...]; for the tranſlating it by vocare, calling, ſeems to imply that the Bridegroom was not at that time preſent with the company, but came when the Governour of the Feaſt called him, which is not at all likely.

Verſ. 11. [...],] viz. which he did publickly: See Note on verſ. 3.

Verſ. 18. [...]] The reaſon of their queſtioning Chriſt thus, was becauſe none might alter any thing that was done in the Temple, unleſs he had either a Commiſſion from the Sanhedrim, or Prophetical Authority; and that Chriſt had no Commiſſion for doing what he did from the Sanhedrim, they were very well ſatisfied, and therefore they preſently ask him how he proved himſelf to be a Prophet, ſince he acted in that quality. This our Author ought to have expreſſed more diſtinctly than he has, in his Paraphraſe; in which he often elſewhere hooks in leſs neceſſary Remarks.

Verſ. 23. [...].] This might be expreſſed in Hebrew by [...], i. e. they did not only believe him, but they believed him alſo to be the Perſon that he was called, or that the name of a Prophet or Meſſias was truly attributed to him.

Chapter III.CHAP. III.

[Page]

Verſ. 5. Note a. THE [...] or regeneration ſpoken of in Matt. xix.28. has no relation at all to Baptiſm. See my Notes on that place.

Verſ 19. [...].] The proofs of the Divinity of the Goſpel are ſuch, that as perſpicuous as they are, they are only ſo to thoſe that are of a teachable temper and diſpoſition, and not blinded by their luſts. The holineſs of Chriſts Commands, notwithſtanding their agreableneſs with human nature, and the intereſt of men, diſpleaſes thoſe who are obſtinately addicted to the contrary Vices; who do not fall into Sin through ignorance or infirmity, but knowingly and wilfully ſerve their wicked inclinations, and would not be reſcued from that ſlavery or bondage. Such men as theſe do not deſire to have their evil deeds enlightened by the Goſpel, and ſo made manifeſt to every one. But on the other hand, thoſe that for the moſt part lived agreably to Nature, and were miſled only by ignorance or infirmity, were mightily refreſhed and pleaſed with the light of the Goſpel, and moſt readily entertained it, either becauſe it was agreable to thoſe true notions that they had before, or delivered them from that ignorance and impotency which they would gladly have been freed from if there had been any light to convince them of the Truth, or confirm them in it. See Chap. vii.17. This ſubject is excellently and eloquently proſecuted by Lactantius Inſtit. Divin. Lib. 7. c. 1. out of whom I ſhall tranſcribe one or two paſſages. Haec noſtra, ſaith he there, quae tradimus, pravae vitioſaeque mentes aut omnino non intelligent (hebetatur enim acies eorum terrenis cupiditatibus, quae ſenſus omnes gravant, imbecilleſque reddunt) aut etiamſi intelligent, diſſimulabunt tamen, & haec vera eſſe nolent, quia trahuntur à vitiis & ſcientes malis ſuis favent, quorum ſuavitate capiuntur; & virtutis viam deſerunt, cujus acerbitate offenduntur. Nam qui avaritia & opum inexplebili quadam ſiti flagrant, quia non poſſunt venditis aut dilargitis, quae amant, tenui cultu vitam degere; ſine dubio malunt id eſſe fictum, quo deſideriis ſuis renuntiare coguntur. Theſe things which I have ſaid, vitious and depraved minds will either not underſtand at all (their apprehenſions being darkned with earthly deſires, which weaken and ſtupify all the ſenſes) or if they underſtand them, they will make nevertheleſs as if they did not, and be unwilling that theſe things ſhould be true, becauſe they are overpowered and hurried away by their luſts, and knowingly indulge their evil practices, with the ſweetneſs of which they are captivated; and forſake the paths of virtue the ruggedneſs whereof[Page]offends them. Chapter IV. For thoſe who are inflamed with a covetous and inſatiable deſire after riches, becauſe they cannot ſell or give away thoſe things which they love, and be content to live upon a little, will doubtleſs be willing to believe that falſe, which would oblige them to renounce their ſinful deſires. And having inſtanced in ſome other ſorts of perſons, he proceeds thus, Ii ſunt homines, qui contra veritatem, clauſis oculis, quoquo modo latrant. Qui autem ſani erunt, id est, non ita vitiis immerſi, ut inſanabiles ſint; & credent his & libenter accedent; & quaecunque dicimus aperta, plana, ſimplicia, & quod maxime opus eſt, vera & inexpugnabilia illis videbuntur. Nemo virtuti favet niſi qui ſequi poteſt, ſequi autem non eſt facile omnibus, &c. Theſe are the men that ſhut their eyes againſt the truth, and do all they can to oppoſe it. But all unprejudiced perſons, that is, ſuch as are not incurably vitious, will eaſily aſſent to theſe things, and readily entertain them; and whatever we ſay will ſeem plain and natural to them, and as it is eſpecially requiſite they ſhould, true and impoſſible to be confuted. No man favours the ſide of virtue but he that has the heart to practiſe it, and the practice of virtue is not eaſy to all, &c.

Verſ. 21 [...]] This is not properly to be underſtood of one that acts ſincerely, as Grotius ſpeaks, that is, whoſe vertue is not counterfeited, but of an honeſt or good man. The Hebrew [...] truth is taken for righteouſneſs and goodneſs in 2 Chron. xxxii.1. and ſo the Greek [...] is uſed in Eph. v. 9. And the oppoſition that is here made between theſe perſons and [...], not particularly Hypocrites, confirms this Interpretation.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 1. [...]] viz. by his divine knowledg, ſaith Grotius. But there is no reaſon to ſuppoſe but he might know it too by the report of others, ſince it is not ſecret thoughts that are here ſpoken of.

Verſ. 5. [...]] S. Jerom it ſeems read it in his Copies, or at leaſt thought that it ought to be read Sichem; for in his Epitaph on Paula he has theſe words: Tranſivit Sichem, non ut plerique errantes legunt Sichar, quae nunc Neapolis appellatur, & ex latere montis Garizim exſtructam, circa puteum Jacob, intravit Eccleſiam; ſuper quo reſidens Dominus, ſitienſ (que) & eſuriens Samaritanae fide ſatiatus eſt. She paſſed through Sichem, not Sichar, as moſt erroneouſly read it, which is now called Neapolis, and entered into the Church that was built on the ſide of the mountain Garizim, near Jacobs Well, on which our Saviour ſat, and ſatisfied his hungry and thirſt with the faith of the Samaritan Woman. But all our Copies [Page] and the Antient Inter [...]reters agree, and poſſibly Sichar and Sichem might be two different Towns, as Euſebius thought, who in locis Hebr. ſpeaks thus: [...]: which words are thus rendered by S. Jerom: Sychar ante Neapolin, juxta agrum, quem dedit Jacob filio tuo Joſeph, in quo Dominus noſter atque ſalvator, ſecundum Evangelium Johannis, Samaritanae mulieri ad puteum loquitur, ubi nunc Eccleſia fabricata eſt. Sychar before Neapolis, near the field which Jacob gave to his ſon Joſeph, in which our Lord and Saviour, as St. John tells us in his Goſpel, diſcourſed with the Samaritan woman, ſitting upon a Well, where there is a Church now built. Yet Grotius and other learned men confound theſe two Cities. And doubtleſs they were near to one another.

Verſ. 20. [...]] Dr. Hammond underſtands this of the mountains of Shiloh, which are twelve miles diſtant from that of Garizim, as S. Jerom affirms. But Grotius and others more truly think that we are to underſtand it of the mountain Garizim it ſelf, becauſe the diſcourſe is concerning a mountain in which God was at that time publickly worſhipped by the Samaritans.

Verſ. 34. [...]] The Apoſtles diſcourſe gave Chriſt an occaſion to make uſe of this Metaphor; by which he intended to ſhew that the bringing of men to repentance was that which he was moſt intent upon, and could for ſometime alſo neglect eating and drinking for. There is ſuch another metaphor in Plautus, Ciſtellar. Act. 4. Sc. 2. v. 54. where a Servant, to ſhew that he was attentive to what a Woman ſaid, is repreſented ſpeaking in this manner: ‘Iſtuc ago, atque iſtuc mihi cibus eſt, quod fabulare:’ i. e. I ſhould not eat more heartily when I am hungry, than I now liſten to what you ſay. So likewiſe edere ſermonem is another phraſe made uſe of by that Comedian in Aulular. Act. 3. Sc. 6. v. 1. See Taubmannus upon the place.

Verſ. 42. [...]] i. e. he that is come to ſave or deliver us. By the World here is meant only the Circumciſed, for it is not likely that the Samaritans had any thoughts about the ſalvation of the Gentiles, which the Apoſtles themſelves knew for a long while nothing of. Compare Chap. vii.4. with xii.19. where the word [...] ſignifies only the Jews. And ſo in our modern languages, and particularly in the French, the Phraſe tout le monde, is taken ſometimes more ſtrictly, and ſometimes more comprehenſively.

CHAP. V.Chapter V·

[Page]

Verſ. 2. [...]] Either the Verb [...] here muſt be underſtood to ſignify the time paſt, or elſe inſtead of it we muſt, as ſome Copies do, read it [...] was; for St. John, as the Antients unanimouſly teſtify, wrote a great many years after the Deſtruction of Jeruſalem. See my Animadverſions on the beginning of this Goſpel.

Verſ. 31. [...], &c. i. e. If I only affirmed my ſelf to be ſent from God, and did not prove my ſelf to be ſo, you might juſtly reject my teſtimony. For he that ſays he is a Prophet, and does nothing at all to confirm ſuch an aſſertion, is certainly no Prophet, becauſe God does not leave his Prophets without any teſtimony from himſelf that they are ſo. This argument quite overthrows the pretence of Mahomet. See Chap. viii.16.

Verſ. 32. [...]] The Cambridg Copy reads [...], and ſome others [...]. The former indeed ſeems proper, but the Copy is ſuſpected. And beſides, the latter is oftner uſed by St. John. See Chap. xxi.24. I ſhould render it in French by on ſait, tis known, for it is put for the Indefinite [...].

Ver. 38. [...]] i. e. Ye have heard and read indeed his word, but it has not entered into your hearts, ſo as to be a perpetual rule of life always in your view, and never to be forgotten by you. When we deſpiſe any thing that another ſays, the remembrance of it ſeldom abides with us long; but what we are affected with, manet, as the Poet ſays, alta mente repoſtum, abides deeply fixed in our mind, and upon the next ſit occaſion it breaks out. This is the importance of the Verb [...] here, and we meet with it in the ſame ſenſe ſeveral times in the 2d Chap. of the 1ſt Epiſt. of St. John, and in the 2d Epiſt. and 2d verſe.

Verſ. 39. [...]] This verb I rather take to be in the Indicative than in the Imperative mood, and interpret the words of Chriſt to this ſenſe: ‘You are generally very curious in ſearching into the abſtruſe meaning of the Scriptures, becauſe ye think, and that juſtly, that ye ſhall derive thoſe inſtructions from thence which will lead you to eternal Life; and theſe give their Teſtimony to me which ye do not hearken to, becauſe ye ſuffer your ſelves to be prejudiced by perverſe Affections.’ It is very probably conjectured by a Learned Man, that the [...], or ſearching, here ſpoken of, does not refer to the Grammatical, but the Myſtical ſenſe of the Scriptures. It is certain that the Jews at that time neglected the [Page] ſtudy of Grammar,Chapter VI. and therefore thoſe Scripture paſſages which concerned the Meſſias, do not ſeem to have been underſtood by them by the aſſiſtance of that Art, but by the inſtructions of the antient Prophets: See Bruno Diſſert. de Therapeutis. Perhaps Chriſt uſed the word [...], which at that time did not ſignify ſimply to inquire, but to ſearch into the Allegorical meaning of any Paſſage: Conſult Buxtorf in Theſauro, if you doubt of it.

Verſ. 46. [...].] i. e. "By whoſe Doctrin which ye profeſs "to believe, ye think ye can attain to Salvation; for Chriſt here ſpeaks of what will be at the day of Judgment. I do not believe theſe words are to be underſtood of Moſes making interceſſion for the Jews, tho I know what is alledged by a great Man in favour of that opinion, out of the Rabbins. The ſenſe will be moſt commodious, if we underſtand it to be that thoſe who imagined themſelves to act conſonantly to the Law in rejecting Chriſt, ſhall be condemned hereafter by the Law it ſelf, according to which they were certainly obliged to receive him. See Deut. xviii.15.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 15. Note a. CHRIST avoided the Multitude who took counſel together about making him a King, not only becauſe this was a bad deſign, and proceeded from Perſons of wicked and carnal Minds; but alſo becauſe he would not give the leaſt occaſion for a Sedition, and that his enemies might never be able to accuſe him with any appearance of Juſtice, of having affected to be an earthly Prince. If he had tarried among theſe Men, tho he had oppoſed them, and openly rebuked them, and hindred them from executing their deſigns; yet their very attempt alone would have cauſed ſuſpicious Men to conceive ſuch a bad opinion of the Goſpel (which was then but in its infancy) as it would have been very hard to diſpoſſeſs them of. Chriſt's enemies would have ſaid that he had plotted a change in the Government, and that he was not ſo much diſpleaſed with his followers for their deſire to deliver the Kingdom into his hands, as for their unſeaſonable reſolution to make him their King, before he had brought his Conſpiracy to a head, and encreaſed the number of his Followers: They would have ſaid that it was dangerous to ſuffer ſuch a Teacher to live amongſt the Jews, who might even without his knowledg and conſent, give the common People an occaſion to take up arms againſt the State. It is well known how miſtruſtful and cautious thoſe to whom the government [Page] of the World belonged at that time, were in ſuch matters; and when I do but mention the name of Tiberius, every one will preſently apprehend that it was a moſt dangerous thing then, ſo much as unwillingly to be the cauſe of a Sedition. This ſeems to be the reaſon why Chriſt would not have it divulged that he was the Meſſias, viz. leſt the very mention of that name ſhould, like the ſetting up of a Flag, occaſion a great confluence of People to him. See Note on Mat. viii.4.

Verſ. 27. Note b. [...], to ſpeak properly, is neither operari cibum, as it is rendred in the Vulgar, nor acquirere cibum, to acquire Food, as by our Author; but laborare ut acquiras, to acquire it by Labor. And ſo the Greeks ſay likewiſe, [...] & [...], for neceſſaria or victum labore ſuo lucrari, to earn neceſſaries or a livelihood by ones Labor, or as the French call it gagner ſa vie, to get ones living: See only Conſtantin's Lexicon. So in the example brought out of Palaephatus, [...] ſignifies he got his living by his Labour. In the example of the Pounds, Luk. xix.16. the word [...] ſignifies rather peperit, genuit, it hath produced or brought forth, than comparavit it hath acquired.

Verſ. 44. [...]] i. e. unleſs they have been already ſo affected with God's former benefits, as to be ready to follow God whitherſoever he leads them, which will make them come to me aſſoon as ever they hear my Doctrin. I like what is ſaid by Fauſtus Regienſis, Lib. 1. c. 17. de Lib. Arbitrio. Quid eſt, ſays he, attrahere niſi praedicare, niſi Scripturarum conſolationibus excitare, increpationibus deterrere, deſideranda proponere, intentare metuenda, judicium comminari, praemium polliceri? Audi Dominum non duris manibus, ſed ſpei nexibus attrahentem, & dilectionis brachiis invitantem, ſicut ait Propheta, attraxi eos vinculis caritatis, Hoſ. xi.4. What is it to draw, but to preach, but to encourage People by the conſolations of the Scriptures, and deter them by its Reproofs, to propoſe to Men ſuch things as they ſhould deſire, and menace them with what they ought to fear, to threaten them with Puniſhments, and promiſe them Rewards? Hearken therefore to God who draws not with rough hands, but with the ties of Hope, and invites with the arms of Love, according to that of the Prophet, I drew them with the bands of Love.

Verſ. 55. Note f. For the underſtanding of what the word [...] ſignifies, when it is thus metaphorically uſed, we muſt conſider whence ſuch forms of Speech had their riſe; which in all probability was from the cuſtom of Merchants who uſed to diſtinguiſh true merchandizes from falſe, i. e. thoſe to which the name they went by was truly attributed, (the received Cuſtom determining that) from thoſe to which it cannot be given but falſly: thus true Amomum, for inſtance, [Page] will be that Plant to which this name is properly attributed;Chapter VII. and falſe Amomum another on which it is abuſively impoſed. And becauſe any ſort of Plant which is truly called by the name it bears, has a much greater Virtue in it than a Plant falſly denominated, therefore true Amomum was preferred before falſe. And for the ſame reaſon, when any two things are compared together, which are endued with a like quality, tho in a different degree; that which has the ſtrongeſt and beſt, and which is of moſt uſe, is ſaid to be true, and the other compared with it, falſe. So the Platonicks uſed to call the divine Patterns of all things, as they expreſſed themſelves, true, when they compared them with the things upon Earth, which are only their Pictures, according to them. And whatever Virtue there is in things viſible, it could be no otherwiſe compared they thought with the Celeſtial, than as counterfeit things With thoſe that are ſincere and genuin: and therefore they called theſe falſe, and the other true. And juſt thus Chriſt in this place is ſaid to be the true Bread, and the true Meat, and elſewhere the true Light, viz. becauſe whatever propriety there is in Bread or Meat to nouriſh the Body, or in Light to illuminate the Eyes, that and a much greater there is in Chriſt's Doctrin to nouriſh and enlighten the Mind. Bread nouriſhes the Body, but does not exempt it from Death, which corrupts and diſſolves at length its frame; but the Doctrin of Chriſt, whilſt it nouriſhes the Soul with Hope, and excites and cheriſhes in it the love of Vertue, does not only fill it with ſolid and ſubſtantial joy at preſent, but alſo reſcues it from dying for ever. Light illuminates the Eye, and ſhews it viſible Objects when it is rightly diſpoſed in their proper forms; but it neither cures the diſtempers of the Eyes, nor can hinder them from being cloſed at laſt by Death: but the Doctrin of Chriſt makes blind Souls to ſee clearly, and enlightens them for ever; ſo that in this ſenſe it is moſt truly called both the true Meat and the true Light.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 35. Note d. 1. IT is true indeed that there was a vaſt number of Jews at Alexandria, who uſed the Tranſlation of the Septuagint, as appears by many paſſages in Philo Alexandr. See Lib. againſt Flaccus. But that the European Jews had their chief Aſſembly at Alexandria, I cannot tell how our Author could have proved, unleſs he thought Alexandria to be in Europe, which would have been a ſtrange miſtake. It's true, ſome of the old Geographers [Page] place it in Aſia, and others in Africa;Chapter VIII. but none of them ever ſaid that it was in Europe, which is too abſurd. II. He ought alſo to have proved, that the Onkelos was at that time read in the Synagogues of the Jews at Babylon; for it is not ſafe to rely upon the Authority of the Rabbins, who are always for putting as great a face of Antiquity upon their Writings as they are able.

Verſ. 53. Note i. It is ſtrange that Dr. Hammond, after giving ſufficient proofs of this ſtory of the Adultereſs being ſuppoſititious, and ſaying nothing almoſt on the other ſide to confirm its being thought genuin, ſhould yet aſſent to Grotius who has not in the leaſt ſolv'd the matter. If the Church in the time of Papias, or in the next Age after him, judged this Tradition of his to be true; how comes it to paſs that ſo many Fathers and ſo many Copies a great while after thoſe times omitted this Story? It is much more probable that it was added at firſt only to a few Copies by ſome Tranſcribers or Criticks, who took it from the Tradition or Copy of the Nazarens, and in time came to be inſerted by that means into more; nor is there any footſtep any where to be found, of the judgment of the Antient Church concerning this Story: So that I think we ought rather to be of Beza's opinion, who ſuſpects this Story; at leaſt what he ſays as to this matter, is worth conſidering.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 3. [...], &c.] It is true indeed, that at this time the power of inflicting capital Puniſhments was taken away from the Jews by the Romans; but the Jews had no occaſion to enquire about this matter of Chriſt, who might eaſily have anſwered them, that the Woman deſerved indeed, according to the Law of Moſes, to be put to Death, but that the execution of the Puniſhment depended upon the pleaſure of the Roman Preſident. There was no room here for any ſcruple, and I do not conceive how the Scribes or Phariſees could have taken any occaſion to accuſe Chriſt if he had given them this ready anſwer, tho he declined it by giving them that which follows.

Verſ. 6. [...], &c.] Thoſe who are of opinion that this Story is ſuppoſititious, might probably enough ſuſpect that Papias or ſome other, borrowed this Circumſtance here mentioned from that which is related of Menedemus, as it is thus ſet down by Diogenes Laertius, Lib. 2. §. 127. [...] [Page] [...]. For he was a Man that took a great liberty in talking, and uſed to jeer People; and once when a young Man ſpake ſomething roughly and ſharply to him, he made him indeed no anſwer, but taking up a little ſtick he drew upon the ground the figure of a Man, muliebria patientis, till the young man perceiving the Affront put upon him before all there preſent, went away.

Verſ. 7. [...].] But no Law makes it requiſite, that thoſe who bring a Criminal taken in the very act to judgment, ſhould be perfectly innocent themſelves. It is ſufficient if they do but prove him to be really guilty of the Crime they charge him with, by competent Witneſſes. And beſides, by giving ſuch an anſwer as this, Chriſt might have expoſed himſelf to the invidious Cenſures both of the Jews and Romans: for the Jews might have ſaid, that he made the Law of no force, becauſe he ſticked at pronouncing a Harlot to be worthy of death; and did in effect affirm, that Offenders could not juſtly be puniſhed but by thoſe who were conſcious of no guilt themſelves. And the Romans might have complained that he would have had the Power of inflicting capital Puniſhments reſtored to the Jews, becauſe he authorized thoſe of that Nation that were innocent, to ſtone a Woman to death: I confeſs I do not ſee what danger Chriſt could think to avoid by ſuch an anſwer.

Verſ. 9. [...].] Is it credible that all that were there preſent had been guilty of Adultery, or ſome other crime as heinous as that, not ſo much as one excepted? That the Nation of the Jews was extremely corrupted at that time I grant; but it is improbable that lewd Men who had committed Adultery themſelves, or been guilty of as great a ſin otherwiſe, ſhould be for having an Adultereſs condemned to death.

Verſ. 10. [...].] This queſtion could not properly be made in ſuch general terms, for ſhe might have been condemned by one, viz. the Roman Procurator: For the word [...] cannot be underſtood but of ſuch a Condemnation, becauſe queſtionleſs every one of them condemned, that is, diſapproved Adultery, at leaſt in words; and Chriſt himſelf accounted it a very great Crime.

Verſ. 13. [...]] i. e. Your teſtimony does not only deſerve to be rejected by us, but you your ſelf cannot reaſonably believe your ſelf in this caſe, becauſe you may be deceived by ſelf-love: you think you are the Light of the World, but you ought alſo to regard the judgment of others who think otherwiſe. That this is the meaning of theſe words Chriſt's anſwer ſhews, My Teſtimony is true, becauſe I know whence I came, &c. which is as if he had ſaid, I am ſure I am [Page] not deceived, I do not ſpeak out of love to my ſelf, for I know that I was ſent from God.

Verſ. 18. [...], &c.] The Teſtimony of two Witneſſes was principally required, when the queſtion was about the puniſhment of a Criminal: See Numb. xxxv.30. Deut. xvii.6. and xix.15. For any one to prove himſelf a Prophet, he needed no other witneſs of his Miſſion but God, who confirmed his word by a Miracle: See Deut. xviii.

Ibid. [...];] Tan. Faber in his Epiſt. Crit. conjectured that it ought to be read [...], go afar off. But as long as the ſenſe is good according to the vulgar reading of the word, and all Copies as well as Interpreters favor that reading, it ought by all means to ſtand as it is.

Verſ. 25. Note b. There is a third, not leſs probable, interpretation that may be given of theſe words [...], viz. for jam tum, already, or at that very time, i. e. in the beginning of this my Diſcourſe with you. So the old Onomaſticon; [...], jam tum, already, I have told you what I was; the Light of the World, verſ. 12.

Verſ. 29. Note c. 1. I eaſily believe our Learned Author when he ſays, that the Phraſe Common-Pleas in Engliſh ſignifies a Court of Judicature; for it is hard if he did not underſtand his own Language: but that in Latin the phraſe Placita Principum, and Arreſts of Parliament among the French ſignifies any thing but the Decrees of both, no body would ſay that would not be guilty of an intolerable impropriety of Speech, which is a thing the Doctor never ſcrupled.

2. What need was there of recurring to this? [...] are thoſe things that are grateful or pleaſing to God, without enquiring any further: And ſo in Acts vi.2. the phraſe [...] does not ſignify 'tis not determined, but it is not grateful or pleaſing to us to leave the word of God and ſerve Tables. And Acts xii.3. [...] is not what was determined or voted by the Jews, but what was pleaſing to them, with whom Herod endeavoured to ingratiate himſelf, as ſufficiently appears by the paſſage alledged by the Doctor out of Euſebius. What he ſays, he ſeems to have taken from Budaeus, who out of love to the Greek Language, thought that the French word arreſt ought to be derived from the Greek [...], whereas it manifeſtly comes from arrêter, which ſometimes ſignifies to decree or determine, and is derived from the Latin Verb reſtare, from which comes the French reſter, to ſtay. But he has produced no example out of any Greek Writer, to ſhew that [...] ſignifies a decree or determination.

3. It is utterly falſe, what our Author ſays about the Roman Cuſtom's being obſerved in the Provinces, where he ſpeaks of Capital [Page] Cauſes: For tho the Citizens of Rome, whilſt the Commonwealth ſtood, might appeal firſt to the People, and then to the Emperor in ſuch Cauſes; and accordingly the Magiſtrates, whilſt the Commonwealth ſtood, could not condemn any one, either without the conſent of the People if they were appealed to, or without the Authority of the Emperor, if an Appeal was afterwards made to him; yet it will not follow that what the Doctor ſays is true. Whilſt the Government of the Roman Empire was in the hands of more than one, the Roman Magiſtrates no where expected the Suffrage of their Provincials, to empower them to condemn or abſolve; and much leſs did they do ſo, when the ſupreme Authority came to be lodged in the hands of the Emperors. Tho the Jews were permitted to live according to their own Laws, yet at that time they had no power to ſentence any one to death, as appears from Chap. xviii.31. when Pilate condemned Chriſt becauſe of the importunity of the Jews, he did it to gratify them, when he might have refuſed to do it; and not as our Author thought, becauſe he was obliged to do ſo, as I have elſewhere already obſerved. The Proconſuls, Pretors and Procurators, did always with unlimited Authority, by the advice of their Council, i. e. a few Roman Citizens, paſs ſentence upon their Provincials, without ever conſulting or convening their Provincials, unleſs they had a particular mind to gratify them. This ſufficiently appears by Cicero's Orations againſt Verres. But the Doctor objects that Pilate asked the Multitude; What then ſhall I do with Jeſus, who is called Chriſt? as if he waited for their Suffrages. I anſwer, it is certain that the common People of the Jews condemned none, no not whilſt their Commonwealth ſtood. This Office belonged to the Judges, and in ſuch Cauſes as theſe, to thoſe of the Great Sanhedrim; ſee Grotius on Mat. v.22. And after Judaea was made a Roman Province, the common people had not, I ſuppoſe, a greater Power allowed them, than they ever had by the Laws of their own Country. The reaſon therefore why Pilate asked the multitude this queſtion, was not that he might hear their reſolution or determination, without which he could not have proceeded to paſs Sentence, either of Abſolution or Condemnation; but becauſe he thought they favoured Chriſt, and would have reſcued him out of the hands of the chief Men among the Jews, who had accuſed him out of malice and envy, as St. Mark in ſetting down this ſtory tells us. He could have releaſed him indeed without their conſent, if he had not feared a Sedition; but he thought it better to condemn the innocent than to run that hazard. This is apparent from the relation that all the Evangeliſts give us of [Page] this matter,Chapter IX. according to which the people did not condemn Chriſt by any Authority they had ſo to do, but ſeditiouſly demanded of Pilate his life. Pilate did not in the leaſt act in this caſe as a Tribune of the People, who upon the peoples determination pronounced ſentence in the name of the Commons; but as the Roman Preſidents uſed to act, who gave judgment according to the advice of their Counſel. I have been the larger upon this ſubject, leſt Dr. Hammond's Authority ſhould deceive ſuch as are not very well verſed in the Roman Cuſtoms. Or elſe to skilful Perſons, it had been ſufficient juſt to admoniſh them of his miſtake.

Verſ. 48. Note d. I have obſerved in my Notes on Gen. xxxi.20. that the name of Syrian carries in it ſomething, I know not what, reproachful; ſee there. Levit. xxv.47. is a falſe quotation in our Author for Deut. xxvi.5. for in this place indeed we may find the word Aramaean uſed in a bad ſenſe, but in the other there is no mention made of Aramaeans. Many ſuch faults there are in Dr. Hammond's Annotations, which are owing either to the careleſneſs of the Printers, or the Author's thoughts being otherwiſe employed, which is no ſtrange thing, and I do not reproach him with it.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT was a long while before this time, that many of the Jews believed the preexiſtence of Souls, and that they were ſent down into ſuch or ſuch Bodies according to their ſeveral deſerts, as appears evidently by theſe words in the Book of Wiſdom, Chap. viii.19, 20. [...]: I was a witty child, and had a good ſpirit; yea rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.

Verſ. 22. Note b. Of this word [...] Seldon has treated at large, Lib. 1. c. 7. de Synedriis. And if we believe him, [...] here ſignifies any aſſembly of people whatever, publick as well as private, in which it was not lawful for any that were [...], put out of the Synagogue, familiarly to converſe. But they were not excluded from the publick Prayers, or forbidden to be preſent at Sacrifices, as the ſame Author ſhews, who is well worth our reading, and to whom I refer the Reader, tho all are not of his opinion.

Chapter X.CHAP. X.

[Page]

Verſ. 35. Note b. IT muſt be obſerved that the word Law includes ſometimes the Book of Pſalms, (ſee Chap. xii.34.) as ſometimes all the Old Teſtament is called the Law and the Prophets; tho ordinarily it is divided into three parts, whereof a third makes the [...], under which the Book of Pſalms is contained.

CHAP. XI.

Chapter XI.Verſ. 4. [...]] i. e. ſhall not die of this Diſeaſe as others do, who continue under the power of Death till the general Reſurrection. It is a form of ſpeech peculiar to St. John: So in his 1 Epiſt. v.16, 17. by [...] he means, a ſin that is not of ſuch a nature, as to make it probable that the Sinner will continue ſpiritually dead as long as he lives: See the Notes upon that place.

Verſ. 22. [...], &c.] Theſe words have no agreement with Chriſt's anſwer, unleſs ſomething be underſtood which is not expreſſed, and which Chriſt perceived to be in Martha's mind. Our Author ſhould have ſolv'd this difficulty in his Paraphraſe; which becauſe he has not done, I ſhall endeavour to do my ſelf. ‘Ver. 21. And when ſhe was come to him and had ſaluted him, ſhe told him that ſhe ſhould have been very glad if he had come ſome days before to Bethany; becauſe he would then have healed her Brother, who had been dead now four days, and ſo he would have been ſtill alive. 22. But now he was dead, there was no hope of recovering him; for tho ſhe very well knew that God would grant Jeſus whatſoever he asked of him, yet ſhe hardly believed that he would raiſe up a dead man at his requeſt. 23. To which Chriſt replied, that Lazarus ſhould be raiſed up again. 24. But Martha ſaying, that ſhe did not doubt indeed but he ſhould at the univerſal Reſurrection; 25. Jeſus told her more plainly, that God had endued him with a Power to bring the dead to life again, eſpecially thoſe that had believed on him.’ I have here expreſſed the whole connexion of the diſcourſe, that the ſenſe might be the more evident. But the 22d verſe might alſo be thus expreſſed: ‘That ſhe knew indeed that all that the Lord Jeſus asked of his Father would be granted him. She did not dare to add, that ſhe did not believe he would preſume to ask his Father [Page] to raiſe a man that had been dead four days to life. 23.Chapter XII. But this being in her thoughts, Chriſt anſwered, &c.’ Chriſt anſwered therefore [...] to ſomething not expreſſed; and it is eaſy to underſtand the reaſon of the [...], viz. that Martha broke off her diſcourſe for fear of offending her Lord. Unleſs this Interpretation be admitted, the 22d verſe muſt be placed after the 27th, and then there will be no difficulty in the ſeries of the diſcourſe: But this would be contrary to the Authority of all the Copies.

Verſ. 39. [...].] Our Author repreſents Martha in his Paraphraſe ſpeaking too learnedly, according to the opinion of ſome Phyſicians, for ſhe never thought perhaps of the time of the revolution of the Humors. And indeed as the thing it ſelf is falſe, ſo it is nothing at all to the purpoſe. The revolution of the Blood is completed in a ſhorter time, and the climate or ſeaſon of the year is the chief thing to be conſidered, when the diſcourſe is concerning the putrefaction of a dead body; but this is not very material.

Verſ. 48. Note b. Our learned Author had done well to produce the Teſtimony of ſome antient Writer, that related what he ſaid here concerning Armillus; for the later Rabbins fancy a great many things for which they have no Tradition. We read indeed in a Chaldee Paraphraſe which is ſaid to be Jonathans, on Iſa. ii.4. that a wicked Armillus ſhould be ſlain by the Meſſias. But who ſhall certify us of the time when this Jonathan lived? For it is childiſh to give credit to the boaſting pretences of the Jews. I am apt to think that by this word theſe men meant the Romans, whoſe Empire, after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem by them, they had a very great ſpite againſt, and therefore gave out that it ſhould be overthrown by the Meſſias. Afterwards they invented ſome other ſtories about this Armillus; of which ſee Buxtorf's Lexic, Talmudicum.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 28. [...].] One of the Copies of R. Stephanus has [...] inſtead of [...], becauſe the Tranſcriber thought that this agreed better with Chriſt's diſcourſe. And the Author of the Coptick Tranſlation ſeems to have read [...]. But there is no need of theſe Alterations, for God the Father glorifies his Name, when he openly acknowledges his Son whom he ſent to men in his Name; ſee Pſal. cxvi.1. and afterwards Chap. xiii.31, 32. of this Goſpel.

Chapter XIII.CHAP. XIII.

[Page]

Verſ. 26. Note c. THE Doctor's conjecture is confirmed by Heſychius and Phavorinus, who interpret [...] by [...]. And ſo I find [...] expounded by [...] to draw, in the Lexicons, out of the Scholiaſt on Nicander.

Verſ. 27. [...].] See my Notes on Exod. iv.13.

CHAP. XIV.

Chapter XIV.Verſ. 14. [...].] This phraſe deſerved in the Paraphraſe at leaſt to be expreſſed in other words, for a great many uſe it every day that do not underſtand it. And therefore I ſhall here briefly explain it. The Jews uſed to ask God, particularly in their ſolemneſt Prayers, in the name of their Forefathers, and eſpecially the Patriarchs and Prophets; i. e. to pray to God that he would grant them their requeſts, becauſe they were their Poſterity, and called by their Name, or Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob's Poſterity: This was to call upon God in the name of the Patriarchs. But Chriſt would have his Diſciples to pray to God in his Name, i. e. to deſire what they would have granted to them, becauſe they were called, and were the Diſciples of Chriſt. So the gathered together in the Name of Chriſt, are Chriſtian Aſſemblies in oppoſition to an Aſſembly of Jews; ſee Mat. xviii.20. And ſo afterwards, verſ. 26. of this Chapter, the Holy Ghoſt is ſaid to be ſent in the Name of Chriſt, i. e. as that Spirit which was to be called the Spirit of Chriſt, and to be conferred only on Chriſt's Diſciples. A great many Paſſages may receive light from this Interpretation.

Verſ. 16. Note b. What our Author obſerves about the ſignification of the Greek words, is very true; but that Chriſt uſed the word [...], as the Talmudiſts did [...], or [...] phraklita, I very much doubt. Perhaps he uſed [...] mnahhman, which in Syriack ſignifies only a Comforter; and if that were out of doubt, the Greek were to have no other ſignification put upon it. It is certain that there is no Hebrew word of the ſame latitude with the Greek [...].

CHAP. XVI.Chapter XVI.

[Page]

Verſ. 7. Note a. Col. 2. Lin. 14. THERE is not the leaſt footſtep of any mention made of the Devil in this matter by Moſes. Our learned Author lent the Prophet, before he was aware, his own conjecture.

CHAP. XVII.

Verſ. 1.Chapter XVII. [...]] Grotius conjectures that this Prayer was conceived in the view of the Temple, when Chriſt went into the Garden of Gethſemane. But if we carefully read Chap. xiii.21. it will ſeem rather to have been pronounced in the ſame Room in which the Paſſover was celebrated after Judas's departure; and that Christ did not go with his Diſciples into the Garden till he had ſaid this Prayer, becauſe Chap. xviii. begins thus; When Jeſus had ſpoken theſe words, he went forth with his Diſciples over the Brook Cedron.

Verſ. 3 [...].] Theſe words muſt be rendred thus; That they may know thee who art the only true God, and Jeſus who is the Chriſt that thou haſt ſent: For the article [...] muſt be repeated before the word Chriſt. 'Tis as if the ſenſe were expreſſed by the Infinitive Mood thus; That they may know thee to be the only true God, and Jeſus to be the Meſſias whom thou haſt ſent, as if it had been ſaid in Greek, [...]. Chriſt here ſays, that this is eternal Life, not becauſe the whole Chriſtian Faith in its greateſt extent, is comprehended under theſe two Heads conſidered in themſelves; but becauſe theſe two things are, as it were, the foundations of all the reſt, to believe him who is the Father of Jeſus Chriſt, to be the only true God, and Jeſus to be the Meſſias whom he purpoſed to ſend. Without theſe Chriſtianity cannot ſtand, becauſe all the reſt of the Truths aſſerted in it are built upon theſe; and theſe being admitted as true, every one muſt admit the reſt, and regulate his Life according to them, unleſs he be mad, and reſolve to be inconſiſtent with himſelf, as every body eaſily perceives: See verſ. 7, 8, 25.

Verſ. 6. [...].] Tho the word [...] ſignifies all Men in this Goſpel, yet in this Chapter it ſeems to reſpect principally the Jews, as that word is alſo uſed elſewhere by St. John, as I have obſerved in a Note on Chap. iv.42. That Christ choſe Diſciples out of all Mankind, [Page] is too general a Phraſe to ſignify his chooſing ſome Jews. Thus verſ. 14. [...], the World hateth them becauſe they are not of the World: by the word [...] there is meant the wicked Jews, who hated the Apoſtles becauſe they were no longer of their number; and not the Heathens to whom they were perfectly unknown.

Verſ. 12. [...]] i. e. by a Power derived from thee, being preſent with them, and acting as an Embaſſador in thy Name, and taking upon me that Character. There ſeems here to be underſtood, [...], but do thou keep them in my abſence, by thy Spirit. For there is nothing ſet to anſwer the words, while I was with them in the World I kept them in thy Name, in what comes after, which yet the context requires: And therefore what Christ did not expreſs in words, he made up in his thoughts, as the Apoſtles eaſily underſtood, for whoſe ſake this Prayer was made. And accordingly after Chriſt's Aſcenſion the Holy Ghoſt came down to ſupply his place, as Chriſt had promiſed, Chap. xvi.7, 13.

Verſ. 15. [...]] i. e. I do not pray thee to take them away from this wicked Generation of Men, and particularly of Jews, and within a few days tranſlate them along with me into the regions of Happineſs; but that thou wouldſt preſerve them from being corrupted by thoſe evil Cuſtoms and Opinions with which Mankind is ſo univerſally infected. By the World here, we are to underſtand wicked Men whom the Apoſtles could not avoid converſing with.

Ibid. [...]] i. e. Cauſe them to be ſo affected with that true Doctrin that I have taught them, as to expreſs it in their Lives. And indeed whoever underſtands Chriſt's Doctrin, and thinks it to be true, if he ſuffers that thought to ſink deep into his Mind, will at length be ſanctified by the Truth. The Doctor did not underſtand theſe words, as appears by his Paraphraſe. There is an expreſſion much to the ſame purpoſe in Chap. viii.31, 32. Then ſaid Jeſus to thoſe Jews which believed on him; If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Diſciples indeed, and ye ſhall know the Truth, and the Truth ſhall make you free. It is all one as to the ſenſe, whether we ſay to be made free by the Truth, or to be ſanctified by it.

Verſ. 19. [...]] i. e. I offer up my ſelf a Sacrifice to thee, to obtain for them the pardon of their Sins, and alſo the Spirit of Sanctification, that they may be ſo affected with the Truth they are to preach, as to regulate their actions according to it, as I have done. Chriſt puts up this Petition principally for his Apoſtles, becauſe it was impoſſible they ſhould preach the Goſpel with [Page] any ſucceſs, if they did not live according to its Precepts.Chapter XVIII. There could not have been a greater prejudice to the ſucceſs of the Goſpel, than the ill Life of thoſe that preached it: and next to the Apoſtles were all other Chriſtians, upon whoſe behaviour the ſucceſs of the Goſpel did alſo depend, and for whom Chriſt therefore prays. This is the deſign of the following words, and therein lies that agreement both in Doctrin and ſanctity of Life, whereby the Apoſtles would become one among themſelves, and one with Chriſt, as Chriſt himſelf had been one with God. Theſe things are not ſufficiently expreſſed in our Author's Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 22. [...].] This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor of the Power of working Miracles, conſequent upon which is their obtaining the higheſt Credit and Authority with thoſe who ſaw the Miracles which were done by them. So likewiſe in Numb. xxvii.20. the Hebrew [...] hod, which the Septuagint render [...], ſignifies that Authority which Moſes at his Death conferred upon his Succeſſor Joſhua. Thou ſhalt transfer, ſaith God there, [ſome] of thine Authority to him, that all the Congregation of the Iſraelites may be obedient to him. [...], as it is in the Septuagint.

Verſ. 24. [...]] The Doctor renders this in his Paraphraſe, before all eternity, which is an unſufferably improper Phraſe, elſewhere made uſe of by him, as I have already obſerved. This is what I had to obſerve upon this Chapter, on which our Author has made no Annotations. But for a more full explication of it, I refer the Reader to H. Grotius, whom the Doctor follows in his Paraphraſe, deſiring this may ſtand only as a Supplement to what Grotius has ſaid.

CHAP. XVIII.

Verſ. 10. [...]. There are ſome who tell us that this name muſt not be derived from the Verb [...] to reign; and their reaſon is, becauſe a Servant would never have had ſuch a Name given him, as imported authority in it: But notwithſtanding that reaſon, this was a very uſual name, and common to Noble Perſons with Ignoble. Thus Porphyrie, who being a Tyrian had a Phoenician name, was called Malchus. His own words in the Life of Plotinus, where he ſpeaks of a Book that was dedicated to him by Amelius, are theſe: [...]: he dedicated that Book to me under the [Page]title of a King; Chapter XIX. and I Porphyrius had this name of King, becauſe I was called Malchus in my own Country Dialect, which was alſo the name of my Father; for Malchus, if it be turned into Greek, ſignifies King. There was alſo one Malchus a Hermit, whoſe Life is written by St. Jerom; There was, ſays he, there a certain old Man named Malchus, whom we in Latin may call Regem a King, by Birth and Language a Syrian. Whence it appears that this was a very common name in Syria, as Luc. Holſtenius has alſo ſhewn by many examples, in the life of Porphyrius, Chap. ii.

Verſ. 31. Note c. See the words of the Rabbins themſelves, concerning the power of Judicature in Capital cauſes being taken away from the Jews, as they are ſet down by Dr. Lightfoot on this place. It is no good cuſtom to mention Authors names and words, without citing the very place, as the Criticks of the laſt Age generally do. Of the manner of hanging, conſult the Talmudical Book de Synedrio, Cap. 6. §. 4.

CHAP. XIX.

Verſ. 14. Note b. WHAT our Author has here is borrowed from Grotius, who ſays the ſame in his Notes on Mat. xxvii.45. and confirms it by Teſtimonies. But there are ſeveral things to be obſerved in relation to what Grotius there ſays, which I ſhall briefly ſet down. 1. He produces a paſſage out of Ignatius, as in his Epiſtle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna, which is not in that Epiſtle, but in his Epiſtle to the Trallians. 2. He makes uſe of an Interpolator inſtead of the true Ignatius, but in this he ought to be excuſed, becauſe Ignatius's true Epiſtles were not then publiſhed by themſelves. 3. But it is ſtrange that he ſhould alledg that Paſſage as agreeable to the reading of our Copies, both in St. Mark and St. John, when if we believe that Interpolator, we ought in St. John to read the third and not the ſixth Hour; and in St. Mark, the ſixth, not the third, juſt contrary to the reading of the Copies: For his words in Chap. 9. Ep. ad Trall. are theſe: [...] on friday therefore, at the third hour he received ſentence of Death from Pilate, the Father ſo permitting it; at the ſixth hour he was crucified; at the ninth he expired. But St. Mark ſays, [...], it was the third Hour, and they crucified him. And according to St. John he did not receive the Sentence of Death, but [...], about the ſixth Hour. 4. The Clementine Conſtitutions, which Grotius alſo quotes, [Page] ſay the ſame, Lib. 5. c. 14. and Lib. 8. c. 34. and almoſt in the ſame words; whereby the Author of them appears to have thought that the Hours of Chriſt's Condemnation ought to be ſo diſtributed as to make that in which he received the Sentence of Death to have been the third (and not as it is in our Copies of St. John, the ſixth) and that of his Crucifixion the ſixth, and not (as we read it now in St. Mark) the third. 5. And yet that Great Man infers from the Authority of Ignatius and the Clementine Conſtitutions, that we ought not to admit any alteration, contrary to the Authority of the moſt antient Copies, and of the Metaphraſts. But not to ſay again, that the contrary ought to have been inferred, I would fain know what Metaphraſts he means? Nonnus it is certain, who generally goes only by that name, expreſſes himſelf in his Metaphraſis of St. John, ſo as that he ſeems to have read in him [...] and not [...], for he ſays thus: ‘ [...].’ The third mortal Hour was lengthened out; i. e. was not yet paſt. And it is plain that if the Hours be thus diſpoſed, and the Evangeliſts ſuppoſed to have written ſo, there will be no difficulty; and it is highly probable that there was a conſiderable interval of time between Pilate's pronouncing the Sentence and Chriſt's Crucifixion. For there was a Croſs to be provided, which perhaps was not yet got ready; and it would take up ſome time to go to the place of Execution, becauſe Chriſt was not well able to carry his Croſs, and then there muſt be ſome time alſo allowed for their crucifying him.

It can hardly be doubted but that it was ſo, and therefore if Chriſt was not condemned, properly ſpeaking, till a little before the ſixth Hour, as the Doctor ſuppoſes, it will be difficult to underſtand how he was crucified in the ſecond quarter of the day. And yet I hardly think that the Copies of both the Evangeliſts are corrupted. It would not indeed be incredible that St. Mark was corrected out of St. John, or St. John out of St. Mark; and there are frequent inſtances of ſuch corrections as thoſe; but that this ſeeming contrariety between them is owing to the corrections of ſome Criticks is not credible: and therefore I am apt to think that the ordinary reading is true, but we muſt take another Method to ſolve the difficulty.

St. Mark who wrote before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, ſeems to have reckoned the Hours after the manner of the Jews: and the Jews dated their firſt Hour from the riſing of the Sun, and ſo by the third Hour we muſt underſtand the third from that time, viz. the Sun's [Page] riſing; and accordingly if we ſuppoſe that the Sun (purſuant to our way of computation from Midnight) roſe about ſix a Clock, that which is St. Mark's third Hour will be our ninth. And the relation which the Evangeliſts give us of this matter, makes it reaſonable to think that Chriſt was not crucified ſooner. For early in the Morning he was ſent by the Sanhedrim, and accuſed before Pilate, Mat. xxvii.1, 2. Mark xv.1. John xviii.28. Then Pilate queſtioned him, and ſent him to Herod, and tried to reſcue him out of the hands of the Jews, by ordering him only to be ſcourged, and ſuffering him to be mocked; and at laſt being no longer able to reſiſt the Jews importunity, he condemned him. And about the third hour from the riſing of the Sun we will ſuppoſe that he was faſtened to the Croſs; and after he had hanged there three hours, at the ſixth from the Sun's riſing, but the twelfth from Midnight, began that darkneſs mentioned in Mat. xxvii.45. which reſted till the ninth (i. e. our three in the Afternoon) upon Judaea. And then a little after the ninth Chriſt expired.

But how then is it ſaid by St. John, that Chriſt was condemned about the ſixth Hour? viz. according to the cuſtom of the old Romans who uſed to reckon the beginning of their civil or artificial day from Midnight: of which ſee A. Gellius Noct. Attic. Lib. 3. c. 2. & Cenſorinus de die Natali, c. xxiii. I grant the ſame way of computation obtained afterwards among the Romans as among the Jews; but nevertheleſs the old Cuſtom might alſo continue in ſome parts of the Empire: and therefore Plutarch in his Quaeſt. Rom. 83. makes it a matter of enquiry as a thing then in uſe, [...]; why they counted the beginning of the day from Midnight? And this Cuſtom was probably followed by St. John, who wrote a great while after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem.

Verſ. 23. [...]] If we believe the conjecture of Oct. Ferrarius de Re Veſt. Lib. 3. c. 16. this Coat was like our ſilk or worſted Stockings, which are knit with long Needles: or at leaſt if that art was not then found out, it was, as he thinks, made only with hands without any Needle, and of the nature of ſmall Nets, or a particular ſort of Hoods which Women ſometimes wear. And upon this account, he ſuppoſes, it is ſaid to be [...], i. e. wrought upwards, and [...], i. e. orbicularly, and all together, without having any Seam made in it. After this manner were made the ſtraight Garments which Fathers, as Feſtus tells us, cauſed to be wove for their Children, as an omen of their being lucky; ſo called, becauſe they were wrought from the bottom upwards, and by Perſons ſtanding: which Cuſtom alſo prevailed amongſt the Inhabitants of Palaeſtine, as has been ſhewn by [Page] learned Men out of Theophylact. But Euthymius tells us,Chapter XX. that this Coat was wrought from the upper parts, juſt, ſaith he, as amongſt us the Winter-coverings for the Head or Feet; and he is in the right, for the Phraſe [...] cannot ſignify towards the top upwards, as Ferrarius would have it, but from the top downwards, ſo as Stockings uſe to be knit.

However, thoſe are miſtaken who are of opinion that the Workmanſhip of this Coat was extraordinary rare and curious, which does not at all ſute with the humility and poverty of Chriſt. Let us rather hear what Iſidorus Peluſiota ſays, Lib. 1. Ep. 74. [...]; But who does not know the meanneſs of that Garment which the poor of the Galileans wore, amongst whom chiefly this ſort of Garment uſed to be made, like Stomachers preſſed or wove?

Verſ. 35. Note e. lin. 29.] Bartholinus in Diſſ. de latere Chriſti aperto has treated more exactly of this whole matter, who may be conſulted.

CHAP. XX.

Verſ. 23. Note d. SUppoſing the ſame thing to be conferred upon the Apoſtles in this place, as in Matth. xvi and xviii. Our Author juſtly rejects the interpretation of Mr. Selden. But perhaps ſome may doubt whether it be juſt the ſame thing which is promiſed in both theſe paſſages, they being delivered upon different occaſions, and no proof being given that the promiſe made in them is the ſame. And beſides, the ſenſe of the phraſes to remit and retain Sins, is ſometimes quite different from that which can belong to them in the buſineſs of the excommunication of an Offender, or the admiſſion of a Penitent. The phraſe to remit ſin in the New Teſtament, ſignifies ſometimes to deliver a perſon from the puniſhment inflicted upon him by God for his ſins; and if we admit that ſenſe here, to retain ſins will be to inflict or continue the infliction of ſuch puniſhment. Thus Matth. ix.2. Thy ſins are remitted to thee, is all one as, I deliver thee from thy Palſy, which has been ſent upon thee as a puniſhment for thy ſins, as the following words manifeſtly ſhew, and Dr. Hammond acknowledges; and ſo if we apply the phraſe in this ſenſe to this place, that which Chriſt here beſtows upon his Apoſtles, will be a power of delivering up to Satan, as St. Paul ſpeaks, i. e. of inflicting diſeaſes upon the impenitent, [Page] and curing them upon their repentance. Which Power depending upon the gift of doing Miracles, can have no place where that gift is not conferred, as learned men have obſerved on 1 Cor. v.

Thus alſo to bind, ſignifies ſometimes to inflict diſeaſes, and to looſe, to cure them. So Luke xiii.12. Chriſt ſpeaking to the Woman that had been diſeaſed eighteen years, ſays: [...], thou art looſed from thine infirmity. And, ver. 16. Ought not this Daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound [...], behold theſe eighteen years, be looſed from that bond [...]. So that granting our Author that the ſame thing, as it ſeems to be, is intended in Mat. xviii. and here; yet it does not follow, that Chriſt ſpeaks of mere excommunication, without any diſeaſe conſequent upon it. Let the Learned conſider and judg of this matter.

Verſ. 27. [...].] After Christ had ſaid, Reach hither thy finger, it was conſequent that he ſhould ſay, [...], and feel my hands, or ſomething like that, for we do not reach out our finger to ſee a thing, but to feel or touch it. And therefore there is an impropriety of ſpeech here, ordinary in every ones diſcourſe, whereby we apply a word that belongs properly to one ſenſe, to another. And particularly, nothing is more common than to find this Verb to ſee, uſed for that which is to try or examin by ſome other ſenſe. See Exod. xx.18. and more Examples which have been collected by Sal. Glaſſius Rhet. Sacr. Tract. 1. Cap. 12. where he treats of the Metaphors that are taken from human ſenſes. However, Chriſt ſeems to have kept the marks of the Nails and Spear uncloſed, that that might be a certain ſign to know him by; otherwiſe he needed not to have left the leaſt ſign of them in his body.

Ibid. [...].] He does not add [...], becauſe his feet had not been pierced through with nails, but only bound, contrary to what our Painters and Statuaries now adays generally think. And therefore Dr. Hammond alſo well obſerves, that the Legs of the Thieves were broken, that they might not be able to run away; which the Roman Procurator would never have been apprehenſive of, if both their feet had been faſtened to the Croſs by a huge nail driven through the ſoles of them.

Verſ. 28. [...]] Tho the Nominative caſe is often put for the Vocative, I chuſe rather with the Vulgar to uſe here, the Nominative, as if the words [...] were to be underſtood, thou art my Lord and my God, i. e. I acknowledg thee to be truly that ſame Lord whom I before followed; and not a Man only, but to be alſo God, in as much as thou haſt overcome death, which keeps all men under its [Page] power: which ſenſe exactly agrees with Chriſt's words;Chapter XXI. be not incredulous, but believing.

Verſ. 29. [...].] Faith is properly of thoſe things which are not ſeen; becauſe what we ſee, we are ſaid to know, not to believe: ſee Heb. xi.1. But yet ſometimes any perſwaſion whatſoever is called Faith, even that which is built upon the teſtimony of the Senſes. Thus the Latin credere is taken in that Verſe of Plautus, Aſinar. Act. 1. Sc. 3. Semper oculatae manus ſunt noſtrae, credunt quod vident.

Ibid. [...].] This ſeems to refer to the time future: Bleſſed are thoſe who tho they will not ſee, yet ſhall believe. And this is Faith properly called, whereby we aſſent to a thing upon ſolid reaſons, which we never ſaw, notwithſtanding the ſeeming ſtrangeneſs of it. Conſult Interpreters on Heb. xi.1. and what I have ſaid concerning Faith, on Gen. xv.6.

CHAP. XXI.

Verſ. 1. [...]] i. e. in Galilee, or at the Lake of Genneſareth, as Grotius has obſerved; for at Jeruſalem he had appeared to his Diſciples before, more than once. This ought to have been expreſſed in the Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 5. [...]] does not ſeem to ſignify in this place [...], but that which being ſold might help to buy any ſort of [...]: for by what follows it appears that the Apoſtles had [...] already by them on the ſhore; and the end of their fiſhing was not ſo much to get fiſh for themſelves to eat, as to ſell that they might provide themſelves with other neceſſaries. As long as they followed Chriſt, they ſubſiſted by the ſame liberality of pious Women that he himſelf did; but at this time the Apoſtles not being yet in any repute, there ſeems to have been a ſtop put to that liberality. And therefore they had been forced to betake themſelves to their old trade of fiſhing again to get their living.

Verſ. 9. [...].] The Doctor in concurrence with Grotius and others ſuppoſes that theſe Fiſh were produced out of nothing, which yet is unneceſſary, conſidering that the Lake was very full of Fiſh, and that there was no body to ſee how they came upon the Coals; not to ſay that St. John gives no ground for ſuch a ſuppoſition.

Ibid. [...]] Since the words knowing that it was the Lord follow, the Verb [...] here cannot ſo properly ſignify dared, as thought fit or adviſable; nobody judged it convenient to ask him who he was, perceiving it to be the Lord, tho they did not preſently know his face, [Page] which had a greater majeſty in it than before. But yet St. John choſe rather to ſay [...], becauſe the Diſciples abſtained from asking that queſtion, not only becauſe of the Tokens by which they knew him to be the Lord, but alſo out of fear, leſt he ſhould be diſpleaſed with them as incredulous. They knew indeed that it was the Lord, but their knowledg of it was not ſo certain as to make it perfectly needleſs to ask him; but yet they dared not do it.

Verſ. 14. [...].] I have already intimated that our Author in his Paraphraſe does not clearly enough interpret this word. As therefore I have before interpreted the word [...] in verſ. 1. with Grotius, of a Place, viz. Galilee; ſo in like manner I think that this [...] ought to be underſtood of a place. And indeed it can hardly be underſtood of the third day after the Reſurrection, it being certain that on the day of the Reſurrection it ſelf, the Diſciples tarried at Jeruſalem, and incredible that the Apoſtles could be a fiſhing ſo ſoon as the third day after it; for it is at leaſt two days journey from Jeruſalem to the Lake of Genneſareth, eſpecially on foot. But beſides, this was not the ſixth, but the ſeventh or eighth time, if we reckon right, that Chriſt appeared to his Diſciples: Conſult Steph. Curcellaeus Inſtit. Rel. Chriſt. Lib. 5. c. 14. about this matter.

Verſ. 15. Note b. I am apt to think that the immediate occaſion of Chriſt's queſtion (for that there might be ſome remoter reaſons of it I do not deny) was St. Peter's over-haſty deſcent into the Sea, not being able to ſtay till the Ship came to Land. For as ſoon as ever he had notice given him by St. John that Jeſus ſtood on the ſhore, he preſently leaped into the water, impatient of delay; that he might, as ſoon as poſſible, come to the Lord, whilſt the reſt tarried in the Ship, till they could ſtep out of it upon Land. This occaſion St. Peter gave Chriſt to ask him whether he loved him more than the reſt of his Diſciples, becauſe he came ſooner to him than they.

Verſ. 18. [...].] Grotius here has this gloſs: When thou haſt added almoſt forty years to thoſe which thou haſt lived already. But out of what Chronology did he learn, that from the year of Chriſt's death to the laſt of Nero, beyond which the death of St. Peter cannot be deferred, there was the ſpace of forty years? From the year of Chriſt 33, in which he aſcended into Heaven, to the 68th in which Nero died, there were only 35 years. And ſuppoſing St. Peter to have died Anno Chriſti 65, as the moſt exact Chronologers think, there will be fewer. I wonder that Dr. Hammond too ſhould follow Grotius here, without any examination.

[Page]Verſ. 22. Note c. This coming of Chriſt is very well interpreted by Dr. Hammond, who deſerves to have almoſt all the glory of it. For few other Interpreters beſides him ever diſcerned the true meaning of it, and no body has ever ſo clearly explained it, or ſo copiouſly demonſtrated it. This opinion of his is confirmed by the Church of Epheſus, which in verſ. 24. declares the truth of St. John's Teſtimony, both as to this and all other things. If the Chriſtians of that Age had believed the words [...] to ſignify till I come to judg the living and the dead, as the Apoſtles had thought, they muſt have judged the teſtimony of St. John not be true; becauſe he was dead, and yet that laſt day was not come. Since therefore they thought St. John a faithful Witneſs, both of Chriſt's Doctrin and Reſurrection, and knew that he was dead, they muſt have underſtood this coming of Chriſt in another ſenſe. And nothing happened in all that interval of time which could be called Chriſt's coming, but that remarkable Vengeance which he took upon the Jews.

Verſ. 24. Note d. How could the Epheſians ſay [...], We know that his teſtimony is true? namely, not only by thoſe evidences of veracity and prudence which they obſerved in St. John himſelf, but chiefly by his Doctrin and Miracles, the former being a holy Doctrin, and the latter God's Seal to the truth of it.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE ACTS of the Holy Apoſtles.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] It is much more probable that St. Peter died in the Reign of Nero, and that in the year of Chriſt 65. as A. Pagus has ſhewn in Baron Epicr. ad Ann. 67.

Chapter I.CHAP. I.

Verſ. 13. Note d. I Have ſeveral Remarks to make on this Interpretation of Dr. Hammond.

I. That he recurred to this ſingular Interpretation, becauſe he thought that theſe two Paſſages of St. Luke could hardly otherwiſe be reconciled. In the laſt Verſe of his Goſpel he has not ſaid that the Apoſtles were always in the Temple, [...]. And here he ſpeaks, [...], of an upper room where they abode, and pray'd to God. But the Doctor himſelf acknowledges that the Apoſtles were not in the Temple the whole day, but only at the ſtated times of publick Prayer: At other times therefore they were at their own Houſes, in which I do not ſee why there could not be [...], into which they might retire in order to pray, or to ſpend their time with their Maſter, or in pious Diſcourſes about him. And therefore this place may be very well underſtood thus; where they abode when they were not in the Temple, or hinder'd by other Affairs; where they were for the moſt part when they kept at home.

II. It is indeed very true, that there were ſeveral Chambers or Rooms in the Temple, which might be called ſo many [...], and the Doctor might have taken leſs pains in proving it; but he ſhould have given us ſome Examples, to aſſure us that the common People, and eſpecially Strangers, did not only pray in the Court of Iſrael, but went up alſo into the Chambers that lay over the Porches, in order to pray with the more ſecrecy. For it is not at all probable that the Apoſtles [Page] who were poor men, and Galileans, and odious for their Maſter's ſake to the Jews, dared to do any thing which others could not in the Temple, in which they might have been taken notice of by the Prieſts and Levites. Our Author therefore ought to have ſhewn that it was the cuſtom of pious Men to retire ſometimes into the more ſecret Chambers of the Temple for their private Devotion, which I cannot tell whether any body can prove; at leaſt I never met with any footſtep of that cuſtom.

III. He perfectly forces the words in Chap. ii.46. as I ſhall afterwards ſhew.

IV. Epiphanius doth not affirm that the [...] here ſpoken of was where the Temple had been, but in Mount Sion, upon which, as all know, was built the Palace or City of David, and not the Temple, which lay more towards the Eaſt and South, and ſtood upon another Hill, ſuppoſed to be Mount Moriah, and commonly called the Mountain of the Houſe. He that does not know this, let him conſult Dr. Lightfoot in Cent. Chorograph. premiſed before St. Matthew, Cap. xxii, xxiii, and xxvii. where, by Paſſages taken out of Joſephus and the Rabbins, he puts this matter out of all doubt. It muſt be acknowledged however that Epiphanius by the inaccurate order of his words gave the Doctor an occaſion to miſtake: For he ſpeaks thus; [...]: He found the whole City demoliſhed, and the Temple of God trampled upon, except a few Houſes. The three laſt words the Doctor makes to refer to the Temple, when they ought to be referred to the City. It follows; [...]: and the Church of God which was little, in the place to which the Diſciples returning, when our Saviour was caught up from Mount Olivet, went up into the upper room, for there it was built. This Church was not on the ground where the Temple ſtood, but in Mount Sion, as Epiphanius tells us in the next words: [...]: that is, in a part of Sion which was left undeſtroy'd, and ſome parts of the Houſes that were about the ſame Sion, and ſeven Synagogues which ſtood alone in Sion.

Verſ. 15. Note e.] It is true indeed, that the Name of God in Scripture is often put for God himſelf, and that the Rabbins call God [...] the Name with an Emphaſis: But we never find it ſet to ſignify Men or Perſons in the Old Teſtament. I am apt to think that it is rather a Latiniſm than a Hebraiſm: For in Latin Authors nothing is more [Page] common than for the word Names to be put for Men or Perſons. Chapter II. So Ovid. Amor. Lib. 2. El. 1.

—Heroum clara valete

Nomina

So Statius lib. 6. Thebaidos.

—Quiſnam iſte duos, fidiſſima Phoebo

Nomina, commiſit Deus in diſcrimina Reges?

So Valerius Flaccus, lib. 4. ‘Nomen ait praedulce mihi, nomenque ſequutus Otreos;’ That is, Otreus. See verſ. 225. of the ſame Book, and Lib. 5. verſ. 61. and 120.

Verſ. 18. Note g.] See my Note on the parallel place in St. Matthew, and what I have ſaid there in oppoſition to Dr. Hammond's Opinion.

Verſ. 25. Note k.] If our Author's Interpretation were true, the Conjunction [...] ſhould have preceded the Verb [...]. It will be very modeſtly ſaid concerning Judas by the Apoſtles, that he went into his proper place, if by [...] be meant that State, whatſoever it was, which he paſſed into after his Death. Such another Phraſe Plato makes uſe of in Phaedone; [...]: the Soul which has lived purely and ſoberly, dwells in a place ſutable to it ſelf.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 17. Note b. lin. 49. AFter the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi.29.] I have ſhewn in my Notes on Deuteronomy, that theſe words ſignify only in general, after days. If they ſignify the days of the Meſſias, the reaſon of that is becauſe thoſe days were after-days, or days then to come. Sometimes the Phraſe [...] ſignifies the laſt days, not of the Meſſias, but of thoſe Writers that made uſe of it, i. e. the days juſt paſt, or that were near at hand. This may eaſily be applied to the places that Dr. Hammond alledges.

Verſ. 46. [...]] This is well tranſlated by the Vulgar, circa domos, i. e. not in any one Houſe, but ſometimes in one and ſometimes [Page] in another, for fear of being ſurprized by the Jews. Chapter III. I do not deny but that the word [...] may be ſet to ſignify a Chamber or Room in the Temple; but the Phraſe [...] can no more ſignify in one of the Rooms of the Temple, than [...] in Jeruſalem, Chap. xv.21. & xx.23 Tit. i.5. Who will ever believe that a vaſt multitude of Chriſtians did every day eat in the Chambers of the Temple? No body beſides Dr. Hammond.

Ibid. It is true indeed that the word [...] ſignifies often a Benefit, as alſo the Latin gratia; but the Phraſe [...] ſignifies only to be in favor with him, and not to give any thing to him. The caſe is plain. We muſt not enquire what words ſignify by themſelves, but in conjunction with one another. Our Author's arguing here is abſurd.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 19. Note a. line 15. AFter the words utter ruin.] Our learned Author's Memory here failed him. See my Notes on Gen. v.29.

Verſ. 21. Note b.] This Interpretation which the Doctor here gives us of the words [...], is not, as he pretends, moſt agreeable to the Context, but a very harſh one; for it is manifeſt that what is here ſaid concerning Chriſt, viz. that the Heaven muſt receive him, is oppoſed to the foregoing words, And he ſhall ſend Jeſus Chriſt which before was preached unto you. St. Peter firſt exhorts the Jews to repent of their Sins, that they might obtain Mercy and Forgiveneſs when Chriſt ſhould come from Heaven, and then he adds, [...], &c. i. e. whom the Heaven muſt contain, or who muſt continue in Heaven until the times of the reſtitution of all things. There could be no mention here made of Chriſt's Government, or his having taken upon him the Government of Heaven, but only of his ſtaying in Heaven, which is the oppoſite to his returning from thence. Our Author out of a deſire to propoſe ſomething new, ſays ſometimes ſuch things as none that have any skill in this ſort of Learning can admit of.

Ibid. [...].] What the Syriac and Chaldee word was that St. Peter made uſe of I cannot tell. But St. Luke expreſſing his ſenſe, and meeting with a word proper to his purpoſe among the Stoicks, he uſed that. Thus Numenius in Euſebius Praep. Evang. lib. 15. cap. 19. ſetting down the Opinion of the Stoicks ſays, that after the Conflagration of the World, Nature [...], will return to its firſt, as it is called, Reaſon, and that [Page]Reſurrection which will make the great Year, Chapter IV. in which year the reſtitution of it ſelf alone into the ſame will be brought about. See Lipſius de Phyſiol. Stoic. lib. 2. c. 22. where there is a very remarkable Paſſage out of Julius Firmicus to this purpoſe.

Verſ. 24. Note c.] I wiſh our Author had given us the Reaſons which made him think that Samuel firſt of all inſtituted the Schools of the Prophets, for I confeſs I do not know how he could be certain of this. It is true, Samuel is deſcribed the firſt in the company of the Prophets, and going before them, 1 Sam. xix.20. But it no where appears that he was the firſt Inſtitutor of ſuch Schools. I ſhould rather ſay that his Name is here put firſt, becauſe he was indeed the firſt famous Prophet, whoſe Predictions are extant, that ſucceeded Moſes.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 1. [...].] This was not a Heathen, but a Jew, the Captain of the Levites, of which ſee my Note on Luke xxii.44. The Prieſts did not uſe to walk ſo cloſe together with Heathens for fear of being polluted.

Verſ. 7. [...];] Did you do this by a magical Power, or a Power derived from the Devil, or from God? [...]; or by whoſe authority, ſince you had none from the Sanhedrim? In whoſe Name do you pretend to be ſent? That the invocation of any Name is here intended, I do not think.

Verſ. 12. [...].] This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor in his Paraphraſe, ſo as to make the ſenſe of St. Peter's words here to be, that Jeſus is the only Mediator by whom we can have acceſs or admiſſion to God, and that God has ſent no other; from which it is conſequent that thoſe muſt fall ſhort of Salvation, who rejecting him, betake themſelves to any other Mediator, as the Jews did who placed their Confidence in Moſes. But this is nothing at all to the Heathens, who have neither ever heard any thing of Chriſt, nor ever caſt him off to ſubſtitute any Mediator in his room. If God will think fit to pardon ſome of them who live the moſt agreeably to right Reaſon, and confer upon them ſome meaſure of Happineſs out of mere Grace and Mercy; do we think that Chriſt will intercede that he may not? Sure he will not; and I do not ſee why we ſilly Mortals ſhould ſet bounds to God's Mercy. But this belongs to the Theory of Divinity, which I have purpoſed not to meddle with.

Verſ. 28. [...] muſt be underſtood. The meaning of the Apoſtles is, that God had before decreed not to hinder by his [Page] Wiſdom and Power what he foreſaw would be done by them, Chapter V. unleſs his Wiſdom and Power interpoſed to hinder it. Affirmatives, as they call them muſt be often expounded by Negatives. And ſo [...] here is all one as [...], not to hinder its being done. See Gen. xii.13. and my Notes on that place, as alſo on Chap. v.3. of this Hiſtory. And whereas the Apoſtles ſay not only [...], but alſo [...], when it is only the Counſel of God, to ſpeak properly, that determins, and his Hand, that is, his Power, which executes what he has decreed; the reaſon of that is, becauſe they would have it underſtood, that God did not want Power to have hinder'd this if he had pleaſed, but only he did not make uſe of it; which confirms the Negative Senſe I have given of the word [...], to be done.

Verſ. 35. [...], &c.] The Teſtimonies of Philoſophers, who thought all things ought to be common, and Examples likewiſe of ſome Nations which have reduced that into practice, have been collected by Lucas Holſtenius on the Life of Pythagoras, p. 82. Amongſt the reſt he ſets down theſe Verſes of Scymnus, an antient Geographer of Chios, concerning the Nomades in Scythia who dwelt beyond Panticape.

[...]

[...].

[...]

[...].

They live in common upon what they all poſſeſs, every one receiving as much as he has need of from the publick Stock. And the wiſe Anacharſis, they ſay, came of this very pious Nation of the Nomades.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 1. [...].] I cannot ſee any reaſon to ſuppoſe, as the Doctor does in his Paraphraſe, that Ananias and Saphira did this in purſuance of a Vow they had made to do it, i. e. to ſell their Eſtate. It is not neceſſary to add any thing to St. Luke's Hiſtory. Ananias and Saphira hoped, that giving part of the Price to the Apoſtles, they ſhould enjoy the reſt themſelves, and at the ſame time have a maintenance allowed them out of the common Stock of the Church. In which they were guilty of a double Sin; Firſt, That tho they had no need of it, yet they would have the Church maintain them, and ſo rob thoſe that were really indigent: And, ſecondly, That to that end they told a Lie, by ſaying that they had brought the [Page] whole Price for which they had ſold their Eſtate. That this is the true ſtate of the Caſe, the bare reading of St. Luke's words will ſhew, in which there is nothing that implies theſe two Perſons to have been guilty of breaking any Vow.

Verſ. 2. [...].] The Context ſhews, that in this place we muſt ſupply in our thoughts this Circumſtance; [...], and ſaid that it was the whole Price of the Poſſeſſion. See my Index to the Pentateuch, on the word Circumſtantia: Otherwiſe St. Peter could not have been angry with Ananias, or upbraided him with lying.

Verſ. 3. [...].] Theſe words muſt be interpreted by a Negation, for St. Peter's meaning is no more than this; Why didſt not thou hinder Satan from filling thy mind? i. e. Thou oughteſt to have hinder'd Satan from having ſo great a power over thee, as to perſwade thee to tell a Lie, viz. by begging God's Grace to enable thee to reſiſt and overcome that Temptation. Of this way of interpreting an Affirmation by the help of a Negation, ſee my Note on Chap. iv.28. The Verb [...] here includes not only the Devil's tempting Ananias, but the noxious effect or prevalency of his Temptation: for when the Devil tempts a Man he does but as it were knock at the Door, without entring in; but when his Temptation prevails, being admitted, he fills his Mind, and caſts all thoughts of Virtue out of it. St. Jerom, not ſufficiently underſtanding the force of this Interrogation, or of the Verb [...], tranſlated it by cur tentavit, Why hath he tempted? Beza indeed ſuppoſes the reaſon of his rendering it ſo to have been, that he read the Greek [...], i. e. tentavit, tempted. But there are two things which make it probable, that he endeavour'd rather to expreſs the ſenſe of the place, or if he thought that it ought to be ſo read, that he relied only upon his own Conjecture, and not on any Copies. Firſt, All the Copies out of which any various readings have been taken, that ever I could meet with, read it as we do. Secondly, It is certain that the old Tranſlation before St. Jerom's time, had implevit, filled; for ſo this place is alledged by S. Cyprian Teſtim. Lib. 3. Sect. 30.

Ibid. Note b.] The ſenſe which our Author prefers before the reſt, relies only on this ſuppoſition, which has been liked alſo by many others, that Ananias and Sapphira made a Vow, of which there is not the leaſt word ſaid by St. Luke. It will be much more natural to interpret the words ſo, as to underſtand [...], to ſignify to lie to the Holy Ghoſt, ſpeaking by the Apoſtles, or by lying to deceive him. Conſult H. Grotius. If it be demanded why Ananias and [Page] Sapphira ſuffered ſo ſevere a Puniſhment for telling a Lie? the Anſwer is ready. There were three very important Reaſons why that Severity ſhould be uſed. Firſt, Thoſe that acted in that manner, can hardly be ſuppoſed to have thought the Apoſtles to be Prophets, who could know Secrets by Revelation from God; which Opinion, if it had ſpread, would mightily have leſſened the Apoſtles Authority, and conſequently very much hindered the propagation of the Goſpel. If any ſhould doubt whether it were generally thought that Prophets could diſcern Secrets, he need only read Luke vii.29. Secondly, It was for the intereſt of the Chriſtian Religion, that above all Crimes, diſſembling ſhould be moſt ſeverely puniſhed, none being more pernicious or of more fatal Conſequence, according to thoſe words of Cicero de Offic. Lib. 1. c. 3. Totius injuſtitiae nulla capitalior eſt, quam eorum qui cum maxime fallunt, id agunt ut viri boni eſſe videantur. Of all Crimes there is none more heinous and capital than theirs, who whilſt they deceive moſt, endeavour to appear honeſt Men. Thirdly, It was alſo of very great concernment, that thoſe who firſt joined themſelves to the Apoſtles, ſhould not be hypocritical Perſons, that made a ſhew of Piety, when they had none, becauſe the Sins of ſuch Perſons would have diſcredited the Chriſtian Religion it ſelf, among thoſe to whom it had not been yet preached. Eſpecially, if it had been commonly reported, that Men that were ſlothful or covetous had joined themſelves to the Chriſtians; becauſe all that brought a little Mony to the Apoſtles, pretending it to be their whole Eſtate, were maintained at the publick Charge: as this would have been a great Reproach to Chriſtianity, ſo it would have induced a great many lewd People to feign themſelves Chriſtians, that they might abuſe the Churches Liberality, as it frequently, I believe, happened in ſucceeding Ages, when the Poſſeſſions of the Chriſtians were enlarged: Of which we have a famous Example in one Peregrinus mentioned by Lucian.

Verſ. 4. Note c. There is no difficulty at all in this place, if we do but lay aſide the thoughts of a Vow, about which St. Luke is perfectly ſilent. The ſenſe will be very natural and commodious, if we underſtand the Apoſtle thus: ‘Who compelled thee to ſell thy Eſtate? Would it not have continued thy own if thou hadſt not ſold it? But thou wert reſolved to ſell it. And couldſt thou not have kept all the money which thou hadſt for it after it was ſold? Who required any part of it from thee? Thou mighteſt have kept it all to thy ſelf, and no body would have complained; but thou oughteſt not to come with a lie to thoſe that are Prophets, and inſpired by [Page] the Holy Ghoſt, and feign thy ſelf to have brought the whole Sum, that thou mighteſt be maintained by the publick Liberality; as if thou hadſt left thy ſelf nothing at all, and made thy ſelf as indigent as the pooreſt.’ The word [...] never ſignifies an immoveable Eſtate; that is nothing but our learned Author's own invention.

Verſ. 13. [...].] The word [...] here does not ſignify thoſe that believed and heartily embraced the Goſpel, but rather Hypocrites or Diſſemblers; who would in vaſt numbers have joined themſelves to the Church, if the Apoſtles could have been impoſed on. This Grotius perceived, whom our Author ought to have followed in this, as he ordinarily does in other things. The Apoſtles were not ſolicitous how many profeſſed the Chriſtian Faith; but how good and ſincere they were in that profeſſion, leſt by the evil practices of its Profeſſors, the Chriſtian Religion, when it was but in its riſe, ſhould be diſhonoured; which would have been a thing of very bad conſequence, as I have already obſerved.

Verſ. 24. [...]] i. e. The Captain of the Gariſon of Levites, as I have ſhewn on Luke xxii.52. And hence verſ. 26. St. Luke calls thoſe that he had under his command, not [...] Souldiers, but [...] Miniſters or Officers, viz. of the Levitical Tribe, who according to the direction of the Law, obeyed the Prieſts that had the overſight of the Temple.

Verſ. 33. Note f. If our learned Author had look'd a little further into Heſychius, he would have underſtood what was the proper ſignification of this word: For thus that learned Grammarian interprets the word [...], They were angry, they gnaſhed with their teeth. Which Phavorinus, as he uſes to do, has tranſcribed.

Verſ. 41. Note k. It is true, among the Romans ſcourging was a ſervil puniſhment, becauſe it was not lawful to ſcourge any Roman Citizen; but it was not among the Jews, tho thoſe upon whom it was inflicted, [...], were alſo reproachfully uſed. And St. Luke makes uſe of that word rather than [...], becauſe the reproachful uſage [...] of the Apoſtles, was worſe than their puniſhment [...]: See the Doctor on Luke xxiii.16.

CHAP. VI.Chapter VI.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. THE words [...], in the place alledged by the Doctor out of Phavorinus, are not well tranſlated by him to have skill in the Greek learning, but ought to be rendered to be on the Greeks ſide, or of the ſentiments of the Greeks. And hence the learned Iſ. Voſſius, De Sybillinis Oraculis, Cap. 16. affirms thoſe to be miſtaken who interpret the word [...] as Dr. Hammond does, becauſe [...] does not only ſignify to imitate the Language of the Greeks, but alſo to ſide with the Greeks, as [...], ſignify to imitate the Manners or Cuſtoms, or be of the ſide of the Romans, Perſians, Medes, or Antigonus, or any who howſoever countenance them. For it is certain, ſaith he, that the Jews were divided into two parties: Thoſe that were for the Rites and Cuſtoms of their Country, bore the Grecian and Roman yoke, &c. impatiently. But thoſe that were of a more peaceable temper, and exhorted the reſt to bear with patience the yoke which God had laid upon them, were ſaid to be on the Grecians ſide, and upon that account were called [...] and [...]. But notwithſtanding this, it is poſſible that ſome of the Jews might have this name of Helleniſts given them merely becauſe they underſtood Greek, and others becauſe beſides that, they were more favourable to the Greeks than the [...] profound Hebrews, and imitated in ſome meaſure their manners; nor do I ſee how either of theſe can be denied obſtinately. But thoſe, I think, are guilty of a miſtake, who make a diſtinct language of that which was uſed by the Helleniſts, and call it the Helleniſtical Tongue; whereas it ſeems only to have been the Language of thoſe who could ſpeak nothing well but Hebrew, and ſpake Greek very ill; ſuch as were thoſe who tranſlated the Old Teſtament into that Language, and likewiſe the Apoſtles and others who had learned to ſpeak Greek in Judaea. But this was rather a corruption of the Greek Tongue, by mixing it with Hebraiſms, than a diſtinct Language or Dialect, as Salmaſius and others have ſhewn at large.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 3. [...].Chapter VII.] Twice Abraham received ſuch a command as this from God; firſt when he was in Ʋr of the Chaldees, from whence he ſet out with his Father, and went to Charran, as we are told by Moſes, Gen. xi.31. and here by [Page] St. Stephen; and then afterwards at Charran, where he left his Father, of which Moſes gives us alſo an account, Gen. xii.1. Unleſs we diſtinguiſh theſe, we ſhall hardly make Moſes agree with St. Stephen, or he conſiſtent with himſelf: See my Notes on Gen. xii.1.

Verſ 4. [...].] If this diſcourſe of St. Stephen were not extant, and the ſacred Chronology were taken only out of Moſes, every thing in Moſes would be plain; for Abraham would be underſtood to have began his Journey whilſt Terah was alive, as I have ſhewn on Gen. xii.4. But becauſe St. Stephen here ſays that Abraham departed from Charran after his Father's death; therefore the Moſaical Chronology is otherwiſe digeſted, and Abraham is reckoned to have gone into Canaan ſixty years later. But if we examin the matter more throughly, it will ſeem much more probable that St. Stephen ſpake according to the account generally received in that Age, in which there might have been a miſtake, than that he was inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt to ſpeak as he did, becauſe it ſignified very little whether the year of Abraham's departure were exactly known; and the force of St. Stephen's reaſoning, or the truth of the Chriſtian Religion, did not at all depend upon that Chronology. And I ſuppoſe the reaſon of this miſtake in the common account of the Jews, viz. that Abraham ſet out from Charran not till after his Father was dead, was becauſe Moſes in Gen. xi. made mention of the death of Terah before he ſpake of Abraham's departure. And it is no wonder that the Jews, who took little or no care to improve in any ſort of Learning, were ſo miſtaken in matters of Chronology, and overlooked thoſe things which later Writers on Gen. xii.1. have obſerved. Juſt ſuch another Error I have taken notice of in Joſephus, on Gen. xxv.20.

Thoſe who correct the Moſaical Chronology by St. Stephen's diſcourſe, of which number is Lud. Cappellus, think that Abraham was born, not in the ſixtieth, but in the hundred and thirtieth year of Terah's Age. But if this were ſo, why did Abraham think it ſo ſtrange that a man of a hundred years of Age ſhould be able to get Children, when he himſelf had been begotten by his Father when he was thirty years older? See Gen. xvii.17. But then they on the other hand, ask us whether it is likely that Terah, who accompanied Abraham out of Ʋr, ſhould rather chuſe to ſtay five and ſixty years at Charran, than go to Abraham? Why not, ſince he had his Son Nachor there with him, who had a numerous Family? But at leaſt, ſay they, after the miraculous birth of Iſaac, he ſhould have gone to Abraham. This cannot according to them be any ſuch great Miracle, and their inference from it is weak: For Terah might have a great many reaſons for his ſtaying at Charran, more than we know of.

[Page]Verſ. 14. Note g. Col. 2. lin. 12. after the words,Chapter VIII. Jacob's going into Egypt.] Our learned Author is miſtaken: See my Notes on Gen. xxviii.1.

Verſ. 51. Note i. See my Notes on Exod. xxxii.9.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 32. Note g. GGrotius juſtly rejects the Opinion of Beza, who thought that the word [...] was made out of the Hebrew [...], tho there be no great difference between them, either in ſound or ſignification. Nor is Dr. Hammond's Conjecture any thing more probable, which relies upon the ſame grounds with that of Beza. Grotius has ſhewn out of Cicero, that [...] is a genuine Greek word which ſignifies periodus, a Period. For it comes from the Verb [...], to contain or comprehend, which is uſed by St. Peter, 1 Ep. ii.6. where, citing a place of Scripture, he ſays, [...], it is contained in the Scripture. I confeſs [...] has other ſignifications belonging to it; but amongſt thoſe ſignifications there is one that has a near affinity with this. So in the Old Gloſſes: [...] argumentum, [...] argumentum, [...] continentia, [...] tenore, leg. tenoris; all which ſignify what may be otherwiſe barbarouſly called in Latin contentum, in French le contenu, the Contents.

Verſ. 33. Note g. If St. Luke ſpake Hebrew, there is no doubt but that he cited the words of Iſaiah as they are in the Hebrew; and that therefore his meaning is to be underſtood by the ſignification of the Hebrew words. But the Septuagint do not differ much from the ſenſe of the Hebrew, if their words be but rightly pointed, thus: [...], in his humility was his judgment, he was taken away: That is, Chriſt appearing to be a perſon of a mean and low condition, the Jews and Pilate paſſed judgment on him as an inconſiderable contemptible man, who ought to be put to death to prevent any Seditions being made upon his account: And ſo in effect he was by Pilate's order. The words in the Hebrew are to be rendered thus: By reaſon of force and puniſhment he was taken away, or by reaſon of reſtraint and puniſhment; for the Verb [...] ſignifies both to force and to reſtrain. The Prophet's meaning is, that Chriſt ſuffered that puniſhment of death, by reaſon the Jews hindered Pilate to paſs an equitable judgment upon him, or forced him, as it were, to condemn him. It appears by the paraphraſe on verſ. 35. that Dr. Hammond was of Grotius's opinion, or one very near it; for he thought that this Prophecy was literally fulfilled [Page] not long after Iſaiah's time:Chapter IX. I wiſh he had ſpoken more plainly. It is not, as the Doctor tells us, the word [...] hotſer in the Hebrew, but [...] hatſarah that is render'd [...]; but they may, I confeſs, be uſed promiſcuouſly, and therefore I will not quarrel with him about that.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 31. Note d. THE 9th Similitude in the 3d Book of Herma's Paſtor is worth our reading upon this Subject.

CHAP. X.

Chapter X.THE Hebrew word alledged by our Author, ſignifies Incenſe or Perfume, not an Offering: See my Notes on Levit. ii.4.

Verſ. 25. [...].] The Cambridg Copy, which was formerly Beza's, reads this Paſſage thus; [...], &c. It is manifeſtly a Paraphraſe on St. Luke's words, and not a various reading taken out of any antient Copy; for the Greek is purer, and the ſtile more natural and fluent than is uſual in the New Teſtament Writers. There are in this Book a great many Paſſages paraphraſed by the Author of that Copy: See Chap. xi.1, 2, 16. and xiii.44. and xiv.1. and xxiii. by which places it will evidently appear, that the Writer of that Manuſcript, being more skilful than St. Luke in the Greek Language, has every now and then changed the Phraſe to make the conſtruction more elegant. Thoſe who affirm theſe, notwithſtanding the contrariety of them to all the other Copies, and the agreement of the moſt Antient Fathers with thoſe Copies, to be various readings, and that too older than any in our Copies, were certainly never any great maſters of Criticks.

CHAP. XI.

Chapter XI.Verſ. 30. Note b. COL. 1. lin. ult. after the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi.28.] Our Author would have ſaid what was more likely, if he had told us that old Men ſignified Magiſtrates, becauſe publick Truſts were generally committed to aged Perſons, upon the account of their great experience, and the Government which they have over their Paſſions above the younger ſort.

CHAP. XII.Chapter XII.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. YEA, and which is more than that, it ſignifies to do a thing, for in Gen. iii.22. by putting forth the hand and taking, we are to underſtand taking, and not merely an attempt to take.

Ibid. [...]] There never really happened any thing that was wonderful almoſt, but fanciful Men have feigned ſomething or other like it. So Ovid. Metam. Lib. 4. Fab. 10. ſpeaking of one Acaetas who had been caſt into Priſon by Pentheus, upon Bacchus's account, and was afterwards releaſed, ſays that,

Sponte ſua, patuiſſe fores, lapſaſque lacertis,

Sponte ſua fama eſt, nullo ſolvente, catenas.

It was the common report that the [Priſon] doors opened of their own accord, and the Chains fell off from his hands of themſelves, no body looſing them.

Verſ. 13. Note d. Tho the Verb [...] often ſignifies to anſwer me that calls, as Stephanus, before Dr. Hammond, had obſerved, and proved at large in his Theſaurus; yet when the Diſcourſe is about one whoſe buſineſs it is to keep a Gate, it ſignifies the ſame as in Latin ſubauſcultare, i. e. to hearken from within ſide to the Voice of them that knock, in order to know who they are: For the Porter or Portreſs uſed to ask who it was that knocked before ever they opened the Door, and to hearken to the Voice to ſee if they knew the Perſon: At Night eſpecially this was requiſite, leſt they ſhould let in Thieves inſtead of Friends. See Stephanus and Pricaeus on this place, and there will be no room to doubt but that Eraſmus has righteſt of all tranſlated this Verb, by ſubauſcultare.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 10. Note d. IT is ill ſuppoſed by the Doctor, Chapter XIII. that the words laſt cited by him out of Heſychius, are to be read without a comma; for the Greeks do never, after the Engliſh manner, heap up three Adjectives without any Conjunction, or Noun Subſtantive, no not the Poets themſelves; in which if there be two that ſeem to meet together, one of them ſtands for a Subſtantive, as Euſtathius has obſerved on Iliad. Γ. Ed. Rom. p. 427. [...], ſaith he, [...] [Page] [...]: for there are never two, and much leſs three Epithets put together, without ſome Noun proper or appellative. The ſame learned Grammarian in his Notes on Odyſſ. Δ. p. 1506. explains the words [...] & [...] thus; [...]: the firſt, according to Aelius Dionyſius, ſignifies miſchievous or wicked, and the latter, ſaith he, careleſneſs and confidence about all things. But there is no ſignification which will better ſute this place, where the diſcourſe is about a Magician, than that which we meet with in the Old Gloſſes, where [...] is rendered by falſum a cheat or falſhood, and [...] falſarius, a falſifier or deceiver; for it is well known that a Magician is for the moſt part but another name for an Impoſtor. Dionyſius Halicarnaſſ. Lib. 1. Antiq. Rom. p. 63 and 64. uſes the words [...] & [...], ſpeaking of ſome falſe Miracles by which a certain lover of the Female Sex was ſuppoſed to have deceived a ſimple young Girl.

Verſ. 15. Note e. That it was the Office of an Archiſynagogus to appoint one to read in the Synagogue, as St. Luke here teaches us, the Jews alſo ſaid. See Camp. Vitringa in Synag. Veteri, Lib. 3. P. 1. c. 9.

Verſ. 31. That Chriſt by his Reſurrection received as it were a new birth, and ſo was begotten of God, might be properly enough ſaid alſo according to the way of ſpeaking uſual among the Greeks; as appears by Heſychius on the word [...], ſaith he, [...].— [...]: which is the ſame with the [...] of others, applied to a Perſon who having had the funeral Rites performed for him, as for one that was dead, afterwards appeared alive — or who after he was reported to have died in a foreign Country returned again, or one who had again paſſed from between his Mother's Breaſts, as the cuſtom was among the Athenians, was ſaid to be born or begotten again.

Verſ. 48. Note m. It is a true Obſervation of the Doctor, that the word [...] is uſed by a Metaphor taken from military Affairs, to ſignify that courſe of Life to which we are called by God. Thus it is uſed by Socrates, in his Apology, extant in Plato, whoſe words for brevity ſake ſhall be ſet down only in Engliſh. In whatever place a Perſon either puts himſelf ( [...]) thinking that to be the beſt, or is put by his Commander, ( [...]) in that, in my judgment, he ought to abide and face danger, fearing neither death nor any thing elſe more than baſeneſs. Really, O Athenians, I ſhould be guilty of a very [Page]great fault, if when the Captains choſen by you to be my Commanders, Chapter XIV. had placed me ( [...]) at Potidaea, at Amphipolis, or at Delius, I then kept the poſt in which they had ſet me, and underwent the danger of Death; and yet when God, as I thought has ſet me ( [...]) and I have determined with my ſelf to ſpend my Life in Philoſophizing — there fearing Death or any other thing, I ſhould forſake my rank, [...]. So likewiſe Epictetus in Enchirid. c. 29. [...]: Thoſe things thou accounteſt beſt, adhere to, as if placed by God in ſuch a Station.

CHAP. XIV.

Verſ. 17. [...]] i. e. God did not ſo entirely conceal himſelf from the Heathens, as to give them no evidences at all of his Providence; for every thing in nature was a ſtanding witneſs of God's Wiſdom, Power and Goodneſs. Nor were the Heathens altogether deaf to this voice of Nature, as appears by many of their ſayings which learned Men have collected on this place, to which I ſhall here add theſe remarkable words out of Cicero, Tuſcul. Lib. 1. Hic autem, ſaith he ubi habitamus, non intermittit ſuo tempore:

Coelum miteſcere, arbores frondeſcere,

Vites laetificae pampinis pubeſcere,

Rami baccarum ubertate incurveſcere,

Segetes largiri fruges, florere omnia,

Fontes ſcatere, herbis prata conveſtirier.

Tum multitudinem pecudum, partim ad veſcendum, partim ad vehendum, partim ad corpora veſtienda, hominemque ipſum quaſi contemplatorem coeli ac Deorum, ipſorumque cultorem, atque hominis utilitati agros omnes & maria patentia. Haec igitur & alia innumerabilia cum cernimus, poſſumuſne dubitare, quin his praeſit aliquis aut effector, ſi haec nata ſunt, ut Platoni videtur; vel ſi ſemper fuerint, ut Ariſtoteli placet, moderator tanti operis & muneris? And here on this Earth on which we dwell, the Sky does not ceaſe to grow calm, nor the Trees in their proper ſeaſon to ſhoot forth Branches, nor the Vines to bud and bring their reviving Fruit to perfection, nor the Boughs to hang down with ripe Berries, nor the Corn to yield its expected increaſe; but all things flouriſh, the Springs are conſtantly running, and the Fields are clothed with Graſs. And then if we conſider what a multitude there is of Cattel, partly for Food, partly for carrying and partly for[Page]clothing our Bodies, Chapter XVI. and the nature of Man it ſelf, who ſeems to be formed for contemplating Heaven and the Gods, and to adore and worſhip them, and that the whole Earth and Sea lies open for his uſe: When we ſee, I ſay, and conſider theſe and innumerable other things, can we doubt whether there is a ſuperior Being, who is either the Creator of theſe things, if they were indeed created, as Plato thinks; or if they always were, as Ariſtotle ſuppoſes, who is the manager and diſpoſer of ſo great a work and charge?

Verſ. 23. Note b. P. 394. Col. 2. Lin. 42. after the words uſed of the Apoſtles] If we add what Mr. Selden has obſerved, concerning the word [...], in Syned. Hebraeorum, Lib. 1. c. 14. to what is here ſaid of it by Dr. Hammond, there will be nothing material left for us to know, either about the various ſignifications of that word, or about that particular ſignification of it for ſimple conſtituting, which Mr. Selden, as well as Dr. Hammond, has ſhewn to belong to it, in this place. You may add if you pleaſe, the Teſtimony of Cicero about the Decrees of the Greeks, Orat. pro Flacco Cap. 6. Sunt expreſſa illa praeclara quae recitantur pſephiſmata, non ſententiis, neque auctoritatibus declarata, nec jurejurando conſtricta, ſed porrigenda manu, profundendoque clamore multitudinis concitatae. Thoſe excellent Decrees which are recited (among them) are expreſſed, not declared by Opinions or Authorities, or ratified by Oaths, but by the ſtretching out of the Hand, and the loud cries of the heated Multitude. By this it appears what [...] properly ſignifies, but it is metaphorically applied to ſignify any conſtitution, or, as Eccleſiaſtical Writers ſpeak, ordination, as thoſe learned Men thought, and have at large proved.

CHAP. XVI.

Verſ. 13. Note a. I Cannot imagin what took up our Author's Thoughts, when he ſaid that the Neapolis here mentioned in verſ. 11. was the ſame with that in Epiphanius; for St. Luke ſpeaks of a City in Macedonia, which was ſituated upon the Gulph of Strymon; and Epiphanius, Haereſ. 80. which is that of the Maſſalians, of the City Sichem, in the middle of Paleſtine. But the greateſt Men do ſometimes commit miſtakes through forgetfulneſs or want of care. Of Proſeuchae, Oratories or places for Prayer, conſult at leiſure the Collections of St. le Moine Var. Sac. p. 74. & ſeqq.

Verſ. 16. Note b. 1. What our Author here ſays about the word Python, as a name of the City Delphos, he took out of Grotius, as he often does other things. If you would ſee more of that matter, conſult Luc. Holſtenius ad Stephanum Byzantinum. For my own part I [Page] do not think that the Spirit of Python here has any thing common to it with the City Delphos, or with Apollo, beſides the name.Chapter XVII. That name of the City Delphos was grown quite out of date, before ever the word Python was in uſe in this ſenſe; nor would the Greeks upon that account have called a divining Spirit Python, or the Spirit of Python. Apollo himſelf was not called in Greek [...], but [...]. But in the Phoenician Language, as in the Hebrew, [...] photh, or perhaps [...] phython, was uſed to ſignify a Womans Privy-parts: See Iſa. 3.17. And hence a Propheteſs, out of whoſe Privy-parts the voice proceeded or ſeemed to come, might be called in that Language [...] a Propheteſs by Phython, i. e. one that propheſied out of her Privy-parts; of which kind ſhe that firſt of all reſided at Delphos ſeems to have been, who having been killed by Apollo, gave occaſion to that Fable about the killing of the Serpent Python, becauſe the Phoenician word [...] nahhaſch ſignifies both a Serpent and a Prophet, and [...] Phython was looked upon as a proper Name. Afterwards by a word borrowed from the Tyrians or Sidonians, the [...] were called Pythons, or ſuch as had the Spirit of Python; for this word having grown out of uſe among the Greeks, was afterwards brought in again, as Plutarch affirms, who is cited by Grotius to that purpoſe. And hence the Antients always interpret [...] by [...], and attribute this kind of Divination chiefly to Women. Beſides the Paſſages alledged by Grotius, add this out of Heſychius; [...]: a Man or Woman that ſpeaks or propheſies out of the Belly, or a Byzantian by Birth. Read [...], &c. an Orator who was a Byzantian by Birth, of whom ſee Suidas. [...], a divining Spirit or Devil.

2. The Hebrew [...] ob does not ſignify the Belly but the Womb: It is rendered indeed by the Septuagint [...], but not rightly, as I have ſhewn in my Notes on Levit. it being rather to be rendered [...].

CHAP. XVII.

Verſ. 11. [...].] Beza has rightly obſerved, that there is a compariſon here made between the Jews of Theſſalonica and thoſe of Beraea; and that by this Word [...] we are to underſtand an extraordinary excellency of temper in the Beraeans, which was not in thoſe of Theſſalonica. Thus the Philoſophers thought a Perſon had need of [...] to make him deſpiſe pleaſure, and ſet himſelf to the ſtudy of Philoſophy. Zeno in his Epiſtle [Page] to Antigonus, extant in Diogenes Laertius, Lib. 8. Sect. 8. has theſe words: [...]: For having a great deſire to become a Philoſopher, and ſhunning that pleaſure which is ſo much cried up, and which effeminates the minds of ſome young men, thou manifeſtly ſheweſt thy ſelf enclined to generoſity, not only by nature but by choice. [...]: And a generous diſpoſition with a little exerciſe, and a good Maſter, eaſily attains to the perfection of Virtue. The Beraeans are as certain and noble an example of this as any that can be given. The word [...] ſignifies properly nobility of Birth or Deſcent; but it is metaphorically uſed to ſignify greatneſs of Mind. Seneca likewiſe interprets the Latin generoſus thus, Epiſt. 44. Quis generoſus? ſaith he, Ad virtutem bene à natura compoſitus: Who is a generous man? He that is by nature well diſpoſed and formed for virtue. Plato, or as others think, Speuſippus in his Definitions tells us that [...] is [...]: The virtue of a generous diſpoſition, a pliableneſs of mind to good thoughts and actions.

Verſ. 19. Note e. Long before I had read what the Doctor here ſays, or had any thoughts of interpreting the New Teſtament, the etymology of the word [...] ſeemed ſuſpicious to me; becauſe I had obſerved that the ſilly Greeks do often very unhappily pretend to diſcover the originals of old Names in their Language, and afterwards endeavour to confirm thoſe Etymologies by feigned Stories, as might be made appear by a hundred inſtances. And therefore ſearching a little further back, it came into my mind that it was a reproach formerly caſt upon the Athenians, that they came from Ionia into Attica, and were called [...] by Homer; of which ſee Bochart in Phaleg. Lib. 3. c. 3. And I knew otherwiſe that the Language of the Pelaſgi, the moſt antient Inhabitants of Greece, was a barbarous Language, and unknown to thoſe that came after them, as the Glory of Great Britain Dr. Stillingfleet in his Origines Sacrae has ſhewn. And hence I made no great difficulty to infer that the Iaones and Pelaſgi were the Poſterity of Javan or Jon, [...], who ſpake that Language which they had brought with them out of the Eaſt, i. e. the Hebrew, or one very like it. Now in that Language [...] Har-pega ſignifies a Mountain of violence, or incurſion, or alſo of ſlaughter; whence it may be conjectured, that that Hill was by the firſt Inhabitants of Attica ſo called, becauſe of ſome ſlaughter or fight that had happened in that place; of which ſome footſtep remained in the ſtory about the ſlaying of Halyrrothius [Page]Neptune's Son, mentioned by Dr. Hammond, and which may be read in thoſe Authors which he alledges. [...] alſo the name of Mars, is a Hebrew word, for [...] or [...] ſignifies a Mountaineer, as Mars was, who is ſaid to have had his aboad in the Mountains of Thrace, and was made the God of War, becauſe, as thoſe that live in mountainous places generally are, he was a valiant Man, and had made himſelf famous in War. Athens alſo had its name, as the Greeks ſay, from [...] an Epithet of Pallas, which is the ſame with the Hebrew [...] ethar, i. e. valiant. And Pallas is feigned to have been the Goddeſs of War in the ſame manner as Mars; and ſeems to have been ſome Amazon or warlike Woman that ruled over Attica in thoſe fabulous times. She is called alſo the Goddeſs of Wiſdom; and this ſeems to be intimated by the name [...], if that be derived from the Hebrew [...] palas, i. e. directed, conſidered, examined; from whence comes the Noun [...] peles, which ſignifies Juſtice, Prov. xvi.11. But theſe things do not belong to this place.

Verſ. 22. Note f. Col. 2. lin. 32. after the words, move for it.] One that had never read Plutarch's Treatiſe [...], and ſhould take ſtrict notice of Dr. Hammond's words, would eaſily perſwade himſelf, that what he produces as out of Plutarch, were taken out of that Author himſelf; but they are not.

1. What he alledges as out of the Life of Alexander, is in the forementioned little Treatiſe [...], p. 170. [...]. Edit. Francofurtenſis, Ann. 1599. which is the Edition that I have, and is ſet down thus: [...].

2. An ingenious thought of Plutarch's is manifeſtly perverted by him, which is in the laſt lines of the foregoing Page, and the beginning of that which I have mentioned. Plutarch affirms that ſuperſtitious people are worſe than Atheiſts; and he ſubjoins: [...]: I had rather, for my part, that men ſhould ſay of me, that there never was, nor is any ſuch man as Plutarch, than ſay that Plutarch is an inconſtant, changeable man, one that is eaſily provoked to anger, greedy of revenge upon every ſlight provocation, and melancholy upon the leaſt adverſity that befals him.

3. The whole paſſage about the Jews, which is alſo in p. 169. is not ſet down by him intire; for Plutarch juſtly derides their Superſtition, who ſat ſtill on the Sabbath and let their Enemies ſcale the walls of the City, without making the leaſt oppoſition againſt them, but lay all tied and bound by their Superſtition as in one net. However, this is not a [Page] common practice with our learned Author,Chapter XVIII. to cite the Teſtimonies of the Antients upon the Authority of others.

Verſ. 23. Note g. The place referred to by the Doctor in Pauſanias is nothing to the purpoſe; for Pauſanias does not ſay that the Lydians ſacrificed to a God which they did not themſelves know, but which was unknown to him. It is in pag. 391. Edit. Hanov. Ann. 1613. where ſpeaking of a Magus, he ſays that [...]: He ſang an Invocation to any of the Gods in a barbarous Language, impoſſible for the Greeks to underſtand. Beſides, our Author miſrepreſents Pauſanias as ſaying the Lydians and Perſians, whereas his words are, [...], The Lydians ſirnamed Perſian. If you would ſee more Teſtimonies about the unknown God of the Athenians, conſult M [...]urſius de Piraeeo, cap. 10.

Ibid. The Doctor ſhould have added the name of the Poet, or the place where he took thoſe Verſes, for there will be ſome that may ſuſpect them to be made by ſome Chriſtian. This paſſage of St. Paul may be illuſtrated by the words of Apuleius in Lib. de mundo: Vetus opinio eſt, atque cogitationes omnium hominum penitus inſedit, Deum eſſe originis, & haberi auctorem; Deumque ipſum ſalutem eſſe & perſeverantiam earum, quas effecerit, rerum. Neque ulla eſt tam praeſtantibus viribus, quae viduata Dei auxilio, ſui natura contenta ſit. Hanc opinionem vates ſequuti profiteri auſi ſunt, omnia Iove plena eſſe; cujus praeſentiam, non jam cogitatio ſola, ſed oculi & aures, & ſenſibilis ſubſtantia comprehendit. It is an antient opinion, which has poſſeſſed the minds of all men; that God is, and is accounted the Author of the World; and that God himſelf is the ſafety and perſeverance of thoſe things which he has made: And that there is nothing of ſo great ſtrength, as to be ſelf-ſufficient, and not to ſtand in need of God's aſſistance. And this opinion the Poets having eſpouſed, have not ſtuck to ſay, that all things were full of God; whoſe preſence it ſeems not our minds only, but alſo our eyes and ears and every ſenſible ſubſtance comprehends. He had a reſpect to the ſame paſſage of Aratus as St. Paul.

CHAP. XVIII.

Verſ. 22. Note c. OUR learned Author is miſtaken, when he ſays that Caeſarea Philippi was not far from that Caeſarea which was alſo called Turris Stratonis, between which there was the diſtance of two days journey, which is a great deal in a little Country: See the Maps of Judea.

CHAP. XIX.Chapter XIX.

[Page]

Verſ. 33. Note g. I Had rather interpret the word [...] with the Vulgar by propellere to puſh forward, or to carry along to Judgment; for it did not belong to the Jews to queſtion any man, but only to the Judges. So this word is taken, in that excellent ſaying of Solon in Plutarch: [...]: That City is extremely well governed, in which thoſe that are not injured, as well as thoſe that are, carry ſuch as do any injury to judgment, and puniſh them.

Verſ. 35. Note i. The title of [...] is common in the Coins of the Cities of Aſia; but Epheſus gloried in it above the reſt. For there are ſome pieces of Epheſian Money to be ſeen at this day, in which Epheſus is not only ſimply ſtiled [...], or twice [...], but there is alſo a piece coined under the reign of Caracalla inſcribed [...]; and another under Heliagabalus, [...], in which they boaſt that they only of all the Cities of Aſia had been four times [...]. See J. Foy-Vaillant in Num. Aer. Impp. coined in Colonies and Corporations, T. 2. pag. 171.

CHAP. XX.

Verſ. 28. [...].Chapter XX.] In the Alexandrian Copy the word [...] is omitted, as the Oxford Edition of the New Teſtament obſerves. I wonder that Dr. Hammond, who often ſets down the various readings of that Copy, ſhould take no notice of this. It is obſervable alſo, that inſtead of [...] many Copies read [...], and ſome [...]. And ſuch variations as theſe are common in the places heretofore controverted, in the time of the Nicene Synod.

CHAP. XXI.

Verſ. 7. Note a. THE Vulgar reading is certainly right,Chapter XXI. and ought not to be changed; for no body beſides the Doctor ever uſed [...] as a Greek phraſe for ſailing; but [...], as [...] is very properly made uſe of to ſignify the finiſhing of a Voyage. The meaning of St. Luke is clear: Having finiſhed our Navigation from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais; for they had firſt finiſhed their Navigation before they came to Ptolemais, from [Page] whence they went on foot to Caeſarea. Chapter XXII. Whether a Comma be put between [...] and [...], or whether it be omitted, the thing is the ſame, for [...] is to be connected with [...], having finiſhed, or made an end of our Navigation, we arrived.

CHAP. XXII.

Verſ. 11. [...].] God did ſometimes ſhew himſelf to Perſons, encompaſſed with ſo dazling a light, as even blinded the lookers on. And hence that ſaying of Hagar in Gen. xvi.13. where ſee my Notes, as alſo what I have written on Exod. xxxiv.18, 20.

Verſ. 25. Note e. lin. 24. after the word ſuch an one?] 1. Our Author's memory failed him, when he ſaid, So ſaith Philo of Agrippa, &c. for what is there ſaid, is ſpoken by Agrippa of Caligula, in Philo de Leg. ad Caium, p. 798. Edit. Genev. Philo produces a Letter of Agrippa to Caius, in which Agrippa writes to him thus: [...]. And it is certain that could only be done by the Emperor at that time, and not by Agrippa, as every one knows. He ſhould have ſaid therefore: So ſaith Agrippa of Caligula in Philo.

2. It is ſtrange our Author ſhould produce a paſſage, as out of the 47th Book of Diodorus Siculus, who wrote only 40, as Photius affirms Cod. 70. of which we have only half extant and ſome fragments. But he meant Dion Cocceianus, whoſe words thoſe are in Lib. 47. p. 228. Edit. Graec. Rob. Stephani. Beſides, thoſe words of Dion. [...], ought not to be tranſlated, that from his own name he call'd them Juliopolis, but that they changed their name and called themſelves from him, Juliopolis. For it was a piece of flattery in the Inhabitants of Tarſus, who afterwards alſo out of flattery to other Emperors, called their City Adriana, Antoniniana, and Severiana: Of which ſee Luc. Holſtenius on Stephanus Byzantinus. The words of Dion are no proof at all that Tarſus had the freedom of the City of Rome given to it; and it otherwiſe appears, that after Auguſtus's time that was a free City, which was govern'd not by the Roman Laws but by its own, and therefore did not enjoy the privileges of the City of Rome: Conſult on this place H. Grotius, whom the Doctor would have more ſafely followed, as being not ſo well acquainted with antient Hiſtory. Perhaps St. Paul had been made a Roman Citizen, becauſe his Father, tho a Jew, had been made free of Rome; ſuch as Philo ſpeaks of in the place quoted by the Doctor in the next Annotation.

CHAP. XXIII.Chapter XXIII.

[Page]

Verſ. 5. [...].] St. Paul ſeems at that time to have looked another way, ſo as not to have obſerved who it was that had commanded him to be ſmitten. So that we muſt ſupply out of what goes before, the words; [...], who had ordered him to be ſmitten on the mouth. There is nothing more natural than this; others ſeek a knot in a bulruſh.

CHAP. XXIV.

Verſ. 1.Chapter XXIV. [...]] The Doctor has hit the true ſenſe of this word in his Paraphraſe, but only, as he now and then does, he borrows terms from the preſent cuſtom to expreſs it by, which he ſhould not have done, becauſe at that time thoſe who had an accuſation againſt any, did not uſe to bring in the heads of it to the Proconſuls in writing, but only to ſpeak what they had to ſay. However [...] is not comparere to appear or come before, as it is rendered by Beza, but to accuſe, to lay open a Crime, as it is explained by Suidas, [...], with whom agrees Phavorinus, who interprets it by [...], I ſhew it you manifestly. It comes from [...], as Pricaeus upon this place has well obſerved; and [...], according to Ariſtophanes's Scholiaſt on Equites, is [...], an accuſer, and one that lays open cauſes, and an informer. And the Old Gloſſes have [...] allego, intimo, to alledg, to intimate: [...] declarare, to declare: [...] intimatio, an intimation.

Verſ. 25. Note a. We may apply thoſe Verſes of Juvenal, Sat. 13. even to the Heathen Judges of that lewd and wicked Age.

—Prima eſt haec ultio, quod ſe

Judice nemo nocens abſolvitur, &c.

—hos tu

Evaſiſſe putas, quos diri conſcia facti

Mens habet attonitos, & ſurdo verbere caedit

Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum?

Ver. 27. [...]] i. e. To pleaſe or gratify the Jews, leſt they ſhould ſend Informers to Rome, and complain of his lewd actions to Nero; or elſe that he might appeaſe and ſilence in ſome meaſure the Jews [Page] Complaints.Chapter XXV. The Governors of the Provinces uſed to be particularly cautious how they offended any, juſt before their departure, as we may perceive by the Counſel given by Cicero in his firſt excellent Epiſtle ad Quintum fratrem: Tanquam Poetae boni, & Actores induſtrii ſolent; ſic tu in extrema parte & concluſione muneris diligentiſſimus ſis. As good Poets and induſtrious Actors uſe to be; ſo be you very careful in the laſt part and concluſion of your Office.

And yet for all this Felix could not avoid making himſelf Enemies, for the chief Men among the Jews went to Rome in order to accuſe him; and he had certainly been puniſhed, but that Nero was prevail'd upon by his Brother Pallas, whom he had an extraordinary love for at that time, to pardon him, as Joſephus, lib. 20. c. 7. informs us.

CHAP. XXV.

Verſ. 12. [...].] That is, with a Council of his own Friends, ſuch as the Preſidents of Provinces uſed to have with them, as Grotius has well obſerved; by not following of whom in ſuch matters as theſe, our Author ſometimes falls into Miſtakes. So in Joſephus Ant. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 17. Julius Caeſar himſelf begins an Edict in favour of the Jews thus; I Julius Caeſar, made again Emperor and High-prieſt, [...], have decreed with the advice of my Council. It is abſurd to repreſent a Roman Preſident, before he paſſes Judgment, conferring with the Accuſers at the Judgment-ſeat, and eſpecially when he could not gratify them. See Grotius.

Verſ. 23. Note b.] Inſtead of Dio, where the Doctor alledges the words of Laertius, read Bio; for thoſe words of Laertius are in the Life of Bio Boryſthenites, Lib. 4. Sect. 53. Ed. Amſtel.

CHAP. XXVI.

Chapter XXVI.Verſ. 18. [...].] That is, to teach them, as the Doctor rightly paraphraſes it. See my Notes on Gen. xxi.18.

Verſ. 23. [...].] Verbatim, that the Meſſias was paſſible. Examples of this ſignification of the Particle [...] have been given by Budaeus out of Demoſthenes, Comment. L. Gr. p. 978. And ſo the Hebrew [...] chi, which for the moſt part ſignifies [...], is often uſed for ſi, if; ſee Chr. Noldius num. 24. and [...] im, which is ſi if, ſignifies alſo quòd that, Gen. xxxi.52.

[Page]Verſ. 28. [...].] This is certainly an Irony, Chapter XXVII. and ſhould have been explain'd as ſuch by our Author in his Paraphraſe; for it is ſufficiently known that Agrippa never became a Chriſtian.

CHAP. XXVII.

Verſ. 2. [...].] Grotius thinks with St. Jerom, that it is Adramyttum, a City of Africa, that is here intended: But I am rather of Beza and Dr. Hammond's Opinion, who ſuppoſe it to be Adramyttium a Town in Myſia, for two reaſons. Firſt, Becauſe St. Luke ſays that they were to ſail by the Coaſts of Aſia; and a Ship in its return out of Paleſtine to Adramyttium, could not avoid coaſting Aſia, as any one that does but look into the Maps will plainly ſee. And, ſecondly, Becauſe it ſeems to have been the Centurion's Reſolution to go into that part of Aſia, and croſs over from thence to Thrace or Macedonia, the Paſſage being but ſhort and much frequented: And then from Thrace or Macedonia to Epirus, and ſo into Italy. It is certain this was the ſafeſt way, becauſe of the uncertainty of the Wind. And this ſeems alſo to be the reaſon. why Ariſtarchus the Macedonian travell'd in the ſame Ship, becauſe accompanying St. Paul, he ſhould have an opportunity of paſſing through his own Country.

Verſ. 6. [...].] viz. Which in its courſe to Italy had been driven by a violent South-wind on the Coaſt of Lycia. The Centurion ſeems to have alter'd his firſt Reſolution upon this occaſion, becauſe perhaps he thought he ſhould be at leſs charges if he ſailed directly to Italy.

Verſ. 7. [...].] This Grotius interprets of an Iſland that lay over againſt Caria, and was famous for the Image and Worſhip of Venus. And Cnidus indeed properly was a Town ſituated in a Peninſula, but there was before that Peninſula a little Iſland which the Cnidians poſſeſſed; and which, as Strabo ſpeaks, lib. 14. [...] divided in a ſort Cnidus into two Cities.

Verſ. 14. [...].] For ſo the word ought to be read, and not [...], as Grotius has ſhewn, to whoſe Reaſons add this; that whilſt that Wind blew, the Mariners were afraid of falling into the Quickſands, viz. one of the African Syrtes, which was called ſimply Syrtis [...]. For with ſuch a Wind one might ſail directly from Crete thither. The letter Λ might eaſily be changed into Δ, and the Greek Tranſcribers underſtanding well enough the word [...], which is in [Page] Engliſh a Storm, Chapter XXVIII. but not the word [...], which is Latin, it is no wonder they miſtook and writ [...].

Verſ. 15. [...].] For in order to ſail into Italy it was neceſſary they ſhould have a contrary Wind, which blew from that quarter of the Heaven that is between the South and the Eaſt.

Verſ. 23. [...].] Subintell. [...], which word ſignifies not only a Worſhipper, but a Miniſter or Servant, as appears by the Inſcriptions of St. Paul's Epiſtles.

Verſ. 39. [...].] The word [...] here does not ſignify any ordinary ſhore, for there is no Gulph or Bay but has ſome ſhore; but a ſandy or gravelly ſhore, as it is interpreted by Heſychius; [...], ſaith he, [...]. And it appears that this ſhore was [...] ſandy by the 41ſt Verſe.

Verſ. 44. [...].] The words [...] in the foregoing Verſe, muſt be here repeated, and he commanded the reſt to get to Land, ſome on boards and ſome on broken pieces of the Ship, i. e. to take pieces of wood to bear themſelves up with. The Vulgar abſurdly renders it & ceteros alios in tabulis ferebant, as if thoſe that could ſwim, had carried the reſt to land upon Planks.

CHAP. XXVIII.

Verſ. 3. [...], &c.] This place has been largely handled by the learned Bochart in Hieroz. Part. 2. Lib. 3. c. 2. But I wonder ſo diligent a Man, as well as Steph. Curcellaeus in Parallelis, ſhould overlook that Paſſage in the Prophet Amos, Chap. v. 19. where, ſpeaking of wicked Men who endeavoured in vain to eſcape the Juſtice of God which purſued them, as the Maltees thought St. Paul did, he ſays, The day of the Lord is darkneſs and not light. As if a Man did flee from a Lion, and a Bear met him; or went into a houſe and leaned his hand on the wall, and a Serpent bit him.

Verſ. 4. Note b.] [...] is the proper Name of a Goddeſs, which was look'd upon by the Heathens as the Revenger of Wickedneſs, and was otherwiſe ſtiled Nemeſis. So ſaith Suidas, [...], Accuſation, Juſtice. There is a notable Deſcription given of her in Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. 14. cap. 11. which I ſhall here ſet down, that the reaſon of this Speech of the Maltees may be the better underſtood. After he had ſpoken of the Puniſhments which ſome wicked Men had ſuffered for their evil Practices, he proceeds thus: [Page] Haec & hujuſmodi quaedam innumerabilia ultrix facinorum impiorum, &c. Theſe and innumerable other ſuch things the Revenger of wicked and villanous Actions, and the Rewarder of thoſe that are good, Adraſtia, many times effects, (and I wiſh ſhe always did) whom we otherwiſe call Nemeſis. Some ſublime Power of an irreſiſtible Deity, plac'd, as Men ſuppoſe, upon the Circle of the Moon; or as others define it, a ſubſtantial Guardianſhip preſiding with a general Power over particular Fates: Which the antient Divines feigning to be the Daughter of Juſtice, from ſome hidden Eternity, affirm to inſpect all Affairs here on Earth. She, as the great Miſtreſs on whom the deciſion of all Cauſes depends, and the Diſpoſer and Determiner of Chances, varying the courſes of Lots by turns, and many times giving our Actions a different iſſue than it ſeemed at firſt they would have, works a manifold change in the Purpoſes and Acts of our Will. And by an indiſſoluble chain of neceſſity tying up the Haughtineſs of Mortals, vainly puffing themſelves up, and (as ſhe underſtands how) turning and winding about the Junctures of thriving and decaying in tho World, one while ſhe treads upon the Necks of the proud and inſolent, and quite diſpirits them; and another while ſhe raiſes the good from a low and mean to a happy and proſperous condition. The fabulous Antients feigned her to have Wings, that by her extraordinary ſwiftneſs ſhe might be thought preſent with every one, and repreſented her as holding a Rudder, and ſtanding over a Wheel, that ſhe might be underſtood to ſteer and govern the Ʋniverſe by running over all the Elements. On which words ſee Valeſius and Lindenbrochius.

Verſ. 15. Note e.] To confirm what is ſaid by Joſ. Scaliger, our Author might have alledg'd the Teſtimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, who ſeems to have been the Writer out of whom he learned it, and who in Lib. 16. cap. 11. has theſe words: Converſus hinc Julianus ad reparandas Tres Tabernas, munimentum ita cognominatum, haud ita dudum obſtinatione ſubverſum hoſtili quo aedificato conſtabat ad intima Galliarum, ut conſueverant, adire Germanos arceri. From hence Julian went and repaired the Tres Tabernae, a Fortreſs ſo called, that not long before had been ruined by the Stubborneſs of the Enemy; which being rebuilt, he retired into the innermoſt parts of Gallia, and ſtayed there, in order to hinder the Incurſions which the Germans uſed to make into the Country. And the Tabernae having been ſo called, becauſe they conſiſted of Tabulae, Boards or Planks; it is probable that there were little Houſes built there with Boards for the Souldiers to lodg in, becauſe they could not endure to abide always in the Camp.

[Page]Verſ. 20. [...].] Both by this place and what we find ſaid in Chap. xxii.6. and xxiv.15. and xxvi.6, 7. it ſeems probable that St. Paul's chief Adverſaries and Accuſers were not the Phariſees but the Sadduces; who were moſt of all offended with his ſaying that Chriſt had been raiſed from the Dead, and lived with God in Heaven; becauſe they denied the Reſurrection. And ſo beſides the hatred common to them with the Phariſees, there was this peculiar reaſon of their cruelty towards the Chriſtians. It's true, there is no mention made of this, either in the Accuſation brought againſt St. Paul, or in any other part of St. Luke's Hiſtory relating to that matter; but from the defence which St. Paul makes for himſelf, this may be collected, who here mentions a circumſtance which St. Luke left out in its proper place; and that is no rare thing in the Hiſtory of the Scripture. See my Index to the Pentateuch, on the word Circumſtantia, and Note on Verſ. 5. This is better I think than to ſay, as ſome others do, that it was a ſtratagem made uſe of by the Apoſtle Paul, to feign himſelf accuſed for aſſerting the Reſurrection of the Dead, when the queſtion was about ſomething elſe, that he might get the Phariſees to be more favourable to him.

Verſ. 21. [...].] Our Author did not ſufficiently mind who the Perſons were that ſpake this, when he interpreted the word [...] Brethren by Chriſtian Jews: For it is clear that they were unbelieving Jews whom theſe Perſons (who were alſo themſelves ſuch) called Brethren.

Verſ. 22. [...].] It cannot from the foregoing words be inferred, that St. Paul was a favourer [...], or of the Chriſtian Religion; and theſe Jews having no knowledg of him any other way, they could hardly have made this anſwer, if he had ſaid nothing but what St. Luke here relates. But St. Luke has not ſet down all the Circumſtances or particulars of St. Paul's Diſcourſe, but only the principal part of it, and ſo it cannot ſeem ſtrange if it be inferred from what follows, that there was ſomething done or ſaid which in the foregoing Context is omitted, viz. that St. Paul did declare himſelf to believe that God had raiſed Chriſt from the dead, or that ſome others had affirmed this of him. See on Verſ. 20.

Verſ. 23. [...], &c.] Theſe words are diſplaced, and for the better underſtanding of them, are to be read in this order: [...], &c.] to whom he expounded thoſe things which concerned Jeſus, bearing Teſtimony to the Kingdom of God, and perſwading them both out of the[Page]Law of Moſes, and out of the Prophets. I know very well that there are a great many inſtances to be found of the miſplacing of words in the very beſt Greek Writers, and particularly in Ariſtotle, as Iſ. Caſaubon in his Notes on Theophraſtus's Characters c. 7. [...] has obſerved. But ſuch tranſpoſitions ſounding very harſh in Latin, and much more to thoſe who underſtand only the Modern Languages; this here in St. Luke ought not to have been retained by Interpreters, becauſe tho the thing is plain to one that is skilled in the Greek, yet it makes the ſenſe very obſcure to others. Tranſlators ought no more to imitate the Original in ſuch things, than the peculiar conſtruction of the Greek Language, which it is impoſſible without altering to turn into other Languages. For the clearer perceiving of which I ſhall here ſet down the words of a few Verſions of this Paſſage. The Vulgar has, Exponebat teſtificans regnum Dei, ſuadenſque eis de Jeſu, ex lege Moyſis, &c. What is exponebat teſtificans? Beſides, de Jeſu does not expreſs the ſenſe of the words [...], which ought to have been rendered quae pertinent ad Jeſum, thoſe things which concern Jeſus. But yet Eraſmus ſo tranſlates them, omitting the article [...] as ſuperfluous. And Caſtellio was guilty of the ſame fault, who otherwiſe uſes to recede, when there is no reaſon for it, from the Phraſe of the Sacred Writers: for thus he renders the words, quibus ille diſſerebat, divinum regnum teſtificans, & eis de Jeſu ex Moſis lege perſuadere conans; which is neither Latin, nor expreſſes St. Luke's ſenſe. Beza's tranſlation is a great deal better, cum atteſtatione exponebat regnum Dei, ſuadens eis quae de Jeſu Chriſto ſunt ex lege, &c. but he did not obſerve there was a tranſpoſition here, nor come up to the ſenſe of every word. The not underſtanding of this, was the occaſion of the Geneva and other French Interpreters miſtranſlating this Paſſage. The Geneva renders it, auſquels il expliqu [...]it par divers temoignages le Royaume de Dieu, & les induiſit a croire ce qui concerne Jeſus, &c. as if St. Luke had ſaid [...]. The Port-Royal has, il leur prêchoit le Royaume de Dieu, leur confirmant ce qu' il leur diſoit, par pluſieurs témoignages, &c. which is taking too great a liberty, whereas they ſhould have ſaid, il leur racontoit ce qui concerne Jeſus, rendant temoignage au Royaume de Dieu, & les perſuadant par la Loi, &c.

In the firſt place, the Verb [...] does not ſignify to interpret, but to relate or declare, when the Diſcourſe is about matters of Fact, ſuch as the coming of Chriſt, his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion into Heaven. Secondly, the words [...] ſignify the Hiſtory of Jeſus, by which he was underſtood to be the Meſſias. Thirdly, [...] is to bear Teſtimony to the truth of any Hiſtory, as the Apoſtles did, [Page] when they teſtified that Jeſus was riſen from the Dead and gone up to Heaven; upon which account they are called his [...] Witneſſes: See Acts i.8, 22. and x.39, 41. St. Paul indeed was not capable of bearing the ſame Teſtimony to Chriſt as the reſt of the Apoſtles, who declared that they had ſeen him dead, and a little after alive again, and had heard and touched him, &c. But he was able to teſtify that he was ſtill alive, which he knew by what had happened to him in his way to Damaſcus, Acts ix. See alſo Chap. xxii.15. And thus we find the word [...] uſed in Chap. x.42. of this Hiſtory; He commanded us to preach unto the People, and to teſtify [...], that it is be which is ordained of God to be the Judg of the living and the dead, viz. by giving account of what had happened to him, and of his Doctrin. St. Paul bore Teſtimony in a peculiar manner to the Kingdom of God, when he declared that Chriſt reigned in Heaven, and had been ſeen by himſelf ſurrounded with immortal Light and Glory. Of the tranſpoſing of words there is another plain inſtance in Chap. i.2. of this Book.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epiſtle of S. Paul the Apoſtle to the Romans. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] Tho moſt of what our Author ſays in this Premonition be true, yet there are two things in him liable to reprehenſion; and thoſe are, firſt, that he ſuppoſes many times the Apoſtle to have a reſpect to the Gnoſticks, where the Heathens or Jews are thought to be ſpoken of by other Interpreters, and that with more probability, as will appear by thoſe places, and eſpecially by Chap. i, and ii. The ſecond relates to his Paraphraſe, which is many times intricate and obſcure, full of Repetitions, harſh and forced, and in a word not ſufficiently adapted to explain the Series of St. Paul's Diſcourſe; tho as to the main, he ſeldom miſſes the true ſcope of it. But no body will ever explain an obſcure Epiſtle, without endeavouring perſpicuity and brevity; which two things our Author's Paraphraſe is extremely defective in.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 4. [...], &c.] This paſſage S. Auſtin, de Praedeſt. Sanct. c. 15. ſays, may be ſo almoſt underſtood as the Unitarians commonly underſtand it. Praedeſtinatus eſt ergo, ſaith he, Jeſus, ut qui futurus erat ſecundum carnem filius David, eſſet tamen in virtute filius Dei, ſecundum Spiritum ſanctificationis; quia natus eſt de Spiritu Sancto, ex Virgine Maria. Jeſus therefore was predeſtinated, as one who was to be according to the fleſh the Son of David, and yet ſhould be in Power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Sanctification; becauſe he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghoſt. But the following words [...], muſt have a different ſenſe put upon them, which I take to be this; viz. that the Holy Ghoſt, which Jeſus had received, was as it were a Voice whereby it was miraculouſly [ [...]] ſignified or declared that he ſhould be the Son of God, after his reſurrection from the dead, [...]. He was the [Page] Son of God it's true, not only in decree as the Schoolmen ſpeak, but actually before his Reſurrection; but he was again called the Son of God in a peculiar manner after his Reſurrection, as appears from Acts xiii.32▪ 33. And therefore in this reſpect he might be ſaid, [...], to be ordained by the Holy Ghoſt [to be] the Son of God, [...] after his Reſurrection. This ſame Verb is uſed by St. Peter in Acts x.42. in a like matter, where having ſaid that he and the reſt of the Apoſtles had eaten and drank with Jeſus after he was riſen from the dead, he adds: And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to teſtify that it is he which was [...] ordained by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. As by the Holy Ghoſt which deſcended upon him, he was ordained or marked out by God to perform the Office of the Meſſias, and ſo to riſe again, and upon that account to be called the Son of God, beſides other reaſons, for which he has that title, by a ſpecial Right and Privilege given to him; ſo alſo by his being raiſed from the dead, he was ordained or marked out by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. That [...] & [...] here are the ſame, is truly obſerved by Grotius, who yet interprets the ſenſe of this paſſage ſomewhat confuſedly. Add to the Examples and Authors by him alledged, the Authority of the Old Gloſſes, in which [...] is rendered ſtatuta dies, an appointed day; and [...] praeſtituto, foreordained or appointed. And that the Prepoſition [...] ſignifies ſometimes after, appears from John xiii.4. and 2 Pet. ii.8.

Verſ. 7. [...].] He does not ſay [...], becauſe the greateſt part of thoſe who profeſſed the Chriſtian Religion in Rome at that time, were not Roman Citizens, but Jews, and people of other Nations who lived at Rome upon the account of Commerce. This has been imitated by Clemens Romanus, and Polycarpus Smyrnenſis, in the inſcriptions of their Epiſtles; on which ſee the Notes of learned Men.

Verſ. 8. [...].] That is, as a Chriſtian I thank my God. So Epheſ. v. 20. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father, in the Name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, i. e. as Chriſtians: See Note on John xiv.14. and xv.16.

Verſ. 17. Note b. It is a harſh tranſpoſition which our Author and others before him ſuppoſe to be in the Apoſtles words; nor is there any need of it, the ſenſe being commodious if we underſtand them thus: ‘That from the Faith whereby the Jews believed the Prophets, and the Gentiles their Anceſtors, they might proceed to another Faith.’ The oppoſition here which is between, [...] and [...], confirms this Interpretation. Clemens Alexandrinus uſes the ſame phraſe [Page] in his Book intitled, Quis dives ſalvetur? Sect. 8. p. 24. Edit. Oxon. where he ſpeaks of a Jew that was converted to the Chriſtian Faith: [...], ſaith he, [...]: He is carried from Faith to Faith, as being unſafely toſſed in the Law, [like a Sea] and having a dangerous ſtation in it, he betakes himſelf to our Saviour as to a Haven.

Verſ. 20. Note d. I ſhall ſet down in this place an Animadverſion of the learned Doctor Pearſon, formerly Biſhop of Cheſter, which is in his Expoſition of the Apoſtle's Creed, Art. 1. p. 19. Ed. 5. wherein he reprehends Dr. Hammond, and ſharply confutes Socinus; from whom our Commentator ſeems to have borrowed this Interpretation: ‘This place, ſaith he, muſt be vindicated from the falſe gloſs of Socinus, who contends that it cannot be proved from the Creature that there is a God; and therefore to this place of St. Paul anſwers thus: Sciendum eſt verba à creatione mundi debere conjungi cum verbo Inviſibilia — Ait igitur eo in loco Apoſtolus, aeternam divinitatem Dei, id eſt, id quod nos Deus perpetuo facere vult, (Divinitas enim hoc ſenſu alibi quoque apud ipſum enuntiatur, ut Coloſſ. ii.9.) aeternamque potentiam, id eſt, promiſſiones quae nunquam intercident, (quo ſenſu paulo ſuperius dixerat Evangelium eſſe potentiam Dei) haec, inquam, quae nunquam poſtquam mundus creatus eſt ab hominibus viſa fuerant, id eſt, non fuerant eis cognita, per opera, hoc eſt, per mirabiles ipſius Dei & divinorum hominum, praeſertim verò Chriſti & Apoſtolorum ejus, operationes, conſpecta fuiſſe. In which Interpretation there is nothing that is not forced and diſtorted: for tho his firſt obſervation ſeem plauſible, yet there is no validity in it. He bringeth only for proof Mat. xiii.35. [...], which proves not at all that [...] has the ſame ſenſe: and it is more than probable that it hath not, becauſe that is uſually expreſſed by [...], Mark x.6. and xiii.19. 2 Pet. iii.4. never by [...]. Beſides, the [...] in St. Matthew bears not that analogy with [...] which Socinus pretends, ſignifying not things unſeen or unknown till then, but only obſcure Sayings or Parables; for which purpoſe thoſe words were produced out of the Pſalms by the Evanliſt, to prove that the Meſſias was to ſpeak in Parables, in the Original [...], in the LXX [...], i. e. wiſe, antient Sayings, which were not unſeen and unknown, for it immediately follows, which we have heard and known, and our Fathers have told us, Pſal. lxxviii.3. And tho he would make out this Interpretation, by accuſing other Interpreters of unfaithfulneſs, Plerique [Page]interpretes ex praepoſitione â fecerunt ex, contra ipſorum Graecorum codicum fidem, qui non [...] ſed [...] habent: yet there is no ground for ſuch a Calumny, becauſe [...] may be, and is often rendered è or ex as well as [...], as Matth. iii.4. [...], è pilis camelinis, and vii.4. [...], ex oculo tuo. 16. [...], ex ſpinis; and even in the ſame ſenſe which Socinus contends for, Mat. xvii.18. [...], Vulg. ex illa hora, as Tully, ex eo die, and Virgil, ex illo Corydon, Corydon eſt tempore nobis, and, Tempore jam ex illo caſus mihi cognitus urbis Trojanae. So the Greek [...] the Latins render ex parte, [...], ex aequo: of which Examples are innumerable. There is no unfaithfulneſs then imputable to the Interpreters: nor can ſuch pitiful Criticiſms give any advantage to the firſt part of Socinus's Expoſition.’

‘However, the Catholick Interpretation depends not on thoſe words [...], but on the conſideration of the Perſons, that is, the Gentiles, and the other words [...], which he farther perverts, rendring them the miraculous Operations of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, or, as one of our Learned Men [Dr. Hammond] their Doings, miſtaking [...], which is from the Paſſive [...], for [...], from the Active [...]; for [...] is properly the thing made or created, not the operation or doing of it; as [...] is ſometimes taken for the Creature, ſometimes for the Creation, but [...] is the Creature only. As therefore we read 1 Tim. iv.4. [...]: So Eph. ii.10. [...]. In this ſenſe ſpake Thales properly, [...], in Laertius.’

‘The other Interpretations which he was forced to, are yet more extravagant; as when he renders the eternal Godhead, that which God would always have us to do, or his everlaſting Will, and proves that rendring of it by another place of St. Paul, Col. ii.9. For in him dwelleth all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily; that is, ſays he, all the Will of God: (whereas it is moſt certain, that where the Godhead is, eſpecially where the fulneſs, even all the fulneſs of the Godhead is, there muſt be all the Attributes as well as the Will of God:) and when he interprets the eternal Power to be the Promiſes which ſhall never fail, and thinks he has ſufficiently prov'd it, becauſe the ſame Apoſtle calls the Goſpel the Power of God. For by this way of Interpretation no Sentence of Scripture can have any certain ſenſe.’

Thus he with a great deal of reaſon refutes Fauſt. Socinus, who in this matter ſhewed himſelf neither a Philoſopher nor a Grammarian: [Page] But he is too ſharp upon him, and at the ſame time upon Dr. Hammond for underſtanding the Phraſe [...] in the ſame manner as Beza did, who renders it jam inde a Creatione mundi, ever ſince the Creation of the World. They went according to the proper ſignification of the Prepoſition [...]; and the word [...], which follows, being underſtood in the ſenſe that Dr. Pearſon would have it to be, proves it: the inviſible things of God, from or ever ſince the Creation of the World, being underſtood by the things which he has made, are ſeen. For if it had been St. Paul's deſign to ſay what the learned Biſhop would have him, he ſhould have expreſſed it thus: [...], by the Creation and [his] Works, and not by [...], from the Creation by [his] Works. The Examples he brings to prove that [...] is uſed for [...] are nothing to the purpoſe, becauſe the Phraſes are different. He ſhould have given us an Example in which [...] to know any one from any thing was put for [...]. The Greeks ſay; [...]. But they ſay alſo [...], (ſee Matth. vii.16, 20.) tho the Prepoſition [...] is more commonly uſed in this Phraſe. I could confirm this by the Authority of many Interpreters who are far enough from Socinianiſm; but this way Dr. Pearſon himſelf does not take.

Further, tho it be very true that [...] does not ſignify an Action, but the Work it ſelf, or thing done; yet becauſe there is no Work without an Action, nor any Action of God without a Work, Dr. Hammond might well enough in his Paraphraſe make uſe of a word which ſignified an Action, being it included alſo in it the Work it ſelf. In fine, Dr. Hammond thought that what is here ſaid reſpected chiefly the Gnoſticks, in which I think he was miſtaken; but being of this opinion he was obliged to underſtand by the word [...], not ſo much the Works of Creation as of Providence, both ordinary, and principally ſuch as were extraordinary, and made a mighty impreſſion upon the Minds of Men in Chriſt's time. As for Socinus's Interpretation of the words Power and Divinity, as it is manifeſtly forced; ſo it is rejected by his Brethren of the Poliſh Society, Crellius and Slichtingius, in their Commentaries on this Epiſtle.

Verſ. 23. Note f.] There are ſome things with relation to what our Author here ſays about the Gnoſticks, that deſerve to be conſidered, and I ſhall briefly ſet them down in this place, not deſigning afterwards to repeat them.

I. It cannot be deny'd, that there were even from the Apoſtles time pernicious Hereticks, to whom there is often a reſpect had in [Page] theſe Epiſtles, as our Author has ſhewn: Of which number were the followers of Simon, if what the Antients ſay concerning them be true. And it is poſſible likewiſe that theſe Men might even at that time boaſt of their extraordinary Knowledg, and call themſelves Gnoſticks, tho that Name came to be more famous afterwards. [...] among the Chriſtians of that Age did not ſignify only Knowledg or Learning in general, but alſo ſome peculiar knowledg of the abſtruſe Points of Religion, and the myſtical ſenſe of Scripture; in which ſenſe we more than once meet with it in an Epiſtle of St. Barnabas. See in the Greek, Chap. 6. not. 35. and Chap. 10. not. 60. and in the Latin, c. 1. not. 15. of the Amſterdam Edition, and the learned Dr. Pearſon's Vindic. Ignat. Part 2. c. 6. But yet that the Participle [...] in the 21ſt Verſe has a reference to theſe Hereticks, I do not think, nor is it neceſſary.

II. The Doctor is raſh in following Juſtin Martyr, who erroneouſly thought that Simon Magus was deified by the Romans, becauſe there was a Statue at Rome conſecrated to SEMON SANCƲS, which was an antient Roman Deity. Caeſar Baronius indeed had gone before Dr. Hammond in this, but he had been corrected by Deſ. Heraldus in Comment. ad cap. 13. Apolog. Tertul. And his Opinion was afterwards confirmed by Henr. Valeſius on Euſeb. H. E. lib. 2. c. 13. and Ant. Pagus in Epicr. Baroniana, ad An. 142. I do not think there is any more truth in what is related concerning the Conteſt between St. Peter and him; but if it were true, the Romans had undoubtedly pulled down his Statue: for how could they have thought him to be a God who was overcome by a Man? but Heraldus juſtly calls this a Fable in his Notes on the ſecond Book of Arnobius.

III. I do not doubt but the Gnoſticks, or followers of Simon, imitated the Heathens; but I am of opinion, with moſt other Interpreters, that the Apoſtle had a reſpect here to the Heathens themſelves, and particularly to their Philoſophers, not thoſe who imitated them. See Grotius. All that the Apoſtle here ſays very fitly agrees to the Heathens, but there are ſome things which cannot commodiouſly be applied to the Gnoſticks.

IV. I wonder our learned Author ſhould think the word [...] here to refer to Exod. xxiv. and ſignify that Splendor which appeared on the top of Mount Sinai, when the Law was given to the Jews; and afterwards ſay that the Phraſe to change the Glory, is borrowed from Pſalm cvi.20. For it had been ſufficient to mention that Paſſage in the Pſalmiſt, to which this here manifeſtly refers, and not to that Splendor or glorious Appearance. The Glory of God is God himſelf, or his [Page] eternally glorious Nature. If by the glory of God in this place, were to be underſtood that glorious appearance before ſpoken of, the crime charged upon the Gentiles would be, not that they had repreſented God by a viſible ſhape, but that they had made uſe of another than that. They ought to have expreſſed that ſplendor by Fire, as the Perſians uſe to do; not by figures of living Creatures, as the Greeks and Romans. In the Pſalm it is ſaid they changed their Glory [...] chbodam. But St. Paul could not call God the glory of the Heathens, who knew very little of him; and perhaps in the Chaldee Paraphraſe of the Pſalms, which was uſed at that time by the Synagogues, the words were read as they are now in ours [...] the glory of their Lord.

V. To ſhew how aptly what St. Paul here ſays, may be applied to the Heathens, and particularly their Philoſophers, I ſhall expreſs the ſenſe of his Diſcourſe from Verſ. 17 to the 26th, in a ſhort Paraphraſe.

‘17. For in the Goſpel there is a way ſhewn, whereby thoſe that believe it may obtain the pardon of their Sins from God, to the end that from the Faith which they had in their former Religion, they might be induced to believe the Goſpel; for to ſuch only we may apply that paſſage of the Prophet Habakkuk, The juſt ſhall live by Faith. 18. Thoſe who refuſe to believe it, ſhall be puniſhed by the Divine Juſtice for their former Sins, which cannot be expiated any otherwiſe than by Faith in the Goſpel; and whereof the greateſt by far is that whereby the Heathens, and even their Philoſophers do diſſemble the knowledg which they have of the true God, and do not conform their Divine Worſhip to it. 19. For many of them underſtood what God would have them know concerning himſelf, and hath manifeſted to them, 20. From the beginning of the World, by his Works, wherein his infinite Power and tranſcendent Nature do illuſtriouſly ſhew themſelves, and are as it were viſible; ſo that they have no excuſe to make for the abſurd Religion which they profeſs. 21. Tho they knew how wiſe and powerful a Being God was, and had great experiences of his Goodneſs and Bounty, yet they neither gave that honour to him openly, which the perfection of his Nature challenged from them, nor thanked him for his Benefits. And therefore God in juſt Indignation ſuffered them to fall into ſo many errors, which he would otherwiſe have delivered them from, that they even rendered the moſt certain things doubtful. 22. And whilſt they profeſſed the ſtudy of Wiſdom, they loſt their Underſtandings. 23. Being [Page] blinded through their own fault, as one error produces another, they repreſented God whom they might, as I ſaid, have underſtood to be an infinitely more perfect Being than a Man, not only like a Man, but even like a Beaſt.’

‘24. Nor did their depravation ſtop here, in the errors of their Minds, or in Divine Worſhip, but they became alſo moſt impure and abominable in their Lives, God not reſtraining them. 25. For the ſame Perſons who had formed ſuch vile Images of the Godhead, and ſo extremely unworthy of the Divine Majeſty, and worſhipped thoſe Images, neglecting God himſelf; 26. As they had as much as in them lay, diſgraced the Divine Nature; ſo forgetting alſo, as it were, themſelves, they confounded the Offices of both Sexes, which Nature has diſtinguiſhed, by Luſts not to be named, &c.’

All theſe things the Heathens fell into, even their Philoſophers not excepted, as might be eaſily proved out of Ariſtophanes, Laertius, Lucian, the Satyrick Latin Poets, Seneca, and in a word all Antiquity.

Verſ. 29. Note i. Lin. 7. After the words, giving over all labour] This is an abſurd Tranſlation of the word [...], which never had any ſuch ſenſe, but ſignifies having loſt all ſenſe of Pain or Grief. See on Epheſ. iv.19.

Ibid. At the end of that Note] Tho [...] be truly deduced [...], and is uſed both in a good and bad ſenſe, of Riches, or Power, or Victory, or endowments of Mind, and other things in which ſome exceed and go beyond others; yet I do not think it any where ſignifies a deſire of Pleaſure; nor does any of all thoſe places which our Author has here heaped together, prove what he intends, as I ſhall ſhew by a brief examination of them. For it is not ground enough, that ſuch or ſuch a ſenſe of a word is not foreign to the deſign of any place, nay that it is very agreeable to it, to infer that that is ſometimes the ſignification of that word; ſeeing the ſeries of the diſcourſe will often permit it to be taken in other ſenſes altogether as commodious; and leſs proper words likewiſe are many times made uſe of inſtead of more proper. And therefore before we make uſe of reaſoning to find out the ſignification of any word, the certain uſe of it muſt be otherwiſe known; for elſe it is very eaſy to miſtake. Now to review the Paſſages alledged by our Author: (1.) The words of St. Paul in Epheſ. iv.19. will very well bear to be underſtood of Covetouſneſs, as Grotius has obſerved, becauſe there were a great many of the Male Sex, that proſtituted themſelves for the ſake of Gain. (2.) The words of Photius, St. Chryſoſtom and Antiochus, do not neceſſarily [Page] require the ſenſe of Luſts, but may eaſily be underſtood likewiſe of Covetouſneſs. (3.) The example of Aſterius proves nothing at all, becauſe his words may be very well underſtood of a deſire of Riches and Power, yea ought to be ſo. I have not indeed Alexander Aphrodiſienſis, nor can I conveniently get him; but I dare lay any wager, we ought to read [...] more than he ſhould; for that is the definition of an unjuſt Man [...], nor does that word among the Greeks ever ſignify a voluptuary. (4.) Tho the Septuagint render the Hebrew word [...] both by [...] and [...], it does not follow that theſe Greek words ought to be uſed promiſcuouſly. It is not to be thought that the Greek words made uſe of in the barbarous ſtile of thoſe Interpreters, are always of the ſame latitude with the Hebrew; and beſides, there was no neceſſary reaſon for the Septuagints tranſlating the Hebrew word in that place of Ezekiel by [...]. See Interpreters on the place. (5.) In the Prayer of Ephraim, there is nothing that ſhould oblige us to underſtand [...] any otherwiſe than it commonly is; for why may not we ſuppoſe him to ask pardon for his Covetouſneſs, as well as his Luſts or Uncleanneſs? Do not thoſe Vices ſometimes go together? (6.) Tho Plato uſes the Phraſe [...] after the mention of Pleaſures, it does not follow that [...] there ſignifies Luſt, for that Phraſe may be very well rendered a greater abundance of theſe things, major horum copia, as Marſ. Ficinus has tranſlated it. See Plato himſelf, pag. 508. Ed. Genev. of Ficinus. (7.) [...] in the Epiſt. of Barnabas, does not ſignify to be luſtful, but multiplicare anum. See Cap. 10. Not. 51. Edit. Amſtel. (8.) It is without cauſe that the Doctor interprets avaritia, in Polycarpus and Bede, by Senſuality or the love of Pleaſures. Could not Valens be at the ſame time [...] or covetous, and luſtful too? And do not ſenſual or luſtful Perſons uſe to be covetous, and to ſeize upon other peoples Poſſeſſions when they have opportunity, that they may ſpend them upon their Luſts? Bede does not ſeem neither to have confounded the word avaritia with the love of Pleaſure, tho he joins together things that are in effect often conjoined. The ſame may be ſaid of other Authors who have any like Paſſages; for what is more common than to ſpeak of ſeveral Vices together? (9.) Tho the Sodomites be upbraided for their [...] and [...], it does not follow that theſe words properly ſignify villanous Luſts; they are general terms, by which their wickedneſs may be deſcribed, whatſoever it conſiſted in, as the conſtant ſignification of thoſe words ſhew. (10.) Of the Paſſages cited by the Doctor out of St. Paul, I ſhall ſpeak when I come to them, as alſo of the other places of the New Teſtament. (11.) The word [Page] [...] in Gen. vi.5.Chapter II. is a general name likewiſe, ſignifying any ſort of Vice or Wickedneſs, and not particularly Luſt. Our Author made it his buſineſs to enquire not what was the conſtant and uſual ſignification of a word, but what he would have it to ſignify, that he might the better apply ſome paſſages in St. Paul to his Gnoſticks.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note a. THE Apoſtle as far as the eighth Verſe, goes on to condemn the Heathen Philoſophers, who did thoſe things which they condemned in others, and knew to be evil; upon which account they were reproached even among the Heathens themſelves: See Lactantius Inſtit. Divin. Lib. 3. c. 15. who produces out of Cicero, Corn. Nepos and Seneca, very remarkable Teſtimonies againſt thoſe who were Philoſophers more in words than in manners. Dr. Hammond, to make theſe things agree to his Gnoſticks, puts ſeveral things into his Paraphraſe, whereof there is not the leaſt footſtep in St. Paul. It is eaſy to find out what ſenſe we pleaſe in any Author whom we interpret, if we may take the liberty to patch up his Thoughts in that manner with our own. I wonder alſo at Grotius for thinking the Apoſtle here had reference to the Roman Magiſtrates, becauſe of the word [...] which he ſaith properly ſignifies a Judg; when that word may as well be taken for any one that judgeth, as a Philoſopher who judgeth concerning Vice and Virtue, as a Magiſtrate. Yea Plato in Lib. 9. Reip. p. 506. Edit. Ficini, applies that word to a Philoſopher, where he ſpeaks of judging concerning what is good or evil. [...], ſaith he, [...]: A covetous or ambitious Man is not qualified to judg, but only a Philoſopher. And a great many more ſuch examples, if I had time, and it were neceſſary, might be found out to ſhew that a Philoſopher may be properly called [...].

Verſ. 8. [...], &c.] This has a reſpect to the Philoſophers, who when they ought, according to their own Doctrin, to have obeyed the Goſpel, abuſed that skill in diſputation which they had acquired by the ſtudy of Philoſophy in reſiſting it. And ſuch were afterwards Lucian, Celſus, Porphyrius, Hierocles, and others, who out of a love to contention, oppoſed the Chriſtian Religion. [...] is aptly to this purpoſe defined by Phavorinus, [...], contradicting or evil ſpeaking, or contending by words, for which moſt of the Philoſophers were infamous.

[Page]Verſ. 9. [...], &c.] Here the Apoſtle returns to what he had ſaid in the 15th Verſ. of the foregoing Chapter, viz. that the Goſpel belonged to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and brought Salvation equally to them both; as in this place he tells them that if they continued in their Sins and Unbelief, and neglected the only way of Salvation, they would both bring deſtruction upon themſelves. Theſe he compares firſt with one another, and then inveighs againſt the Jews who perſiſted in their Sins; nor is there any thing that properly concerns the Gnoſticks, as any one will ſee that does but read the Apoſtle.

Verſ. 13. [...].] This Paſſage perhaps Porphyry had in his mind, who often read the Holy Scriptures that he might be able to oppoſe them, when he wrote in his Book de Abſtinent. c. 57. that it was impoſſible for a Man to attain [...], i. e. to Happineſs, [...], unleſs he were nailed, if I may ſo ſpeak, to God, and divided from the Body and the Pleaſures which by that affect the Mind: [...] for we are ſaved by WORKS, not by a bare HEARING of words.

Verſ. 15. [...].] That is, they were not inſtructed out of the written Law, but their own Reaſon informed them what was good, and what was evil. For that is ſaid to be written in the Heart or Mind, which we underſtand by reaſoning, without any written Inſtitution. This is not oppoſed to the knowledg of the Gnoſticks, but of the Jews.

Ibid. Note c. To this purpoſe is that elegant Paſſage in Plautus in Rudente, Act. 4. Sc. 7.

Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad iſtum modum.

Sapienter dicta dicere atque iis plaudier,

Cum illos ſapientes mores monſtrabant poplo;

Sed cum inde ſuam quiſque ibant diverſi domum,

Nullus erat illo pacto ut illi juſſerant.

Verſ. 17. Note e. This is all forced. Read the Apoſtle himſelf, and it will appear that he ſpeaks of a Jew properly ſo called, and one that was circumciſed.

[...] here, is not properly to be called or denominated, but to be celebrated or famous; ſo that St. Paul's meaning is this: it is a thing univerſally known, that thou art a Jew, or a Diſciple of Moſes; this is [Page] what thou pretendeſt thy ſelf to be, and glorieſt in. The Apoſtle has no reſpect in this to the Gnoſticks, who could not neither be ſaid [...], to reſt in the Law, which they took not the leaſt care to obſerve, as our Author confeſſes, but when the fear of the Jews urged them to it.

Verſ. 18. Note f.] Dr. Hammond's Interpretation of the Verb [...] may be confirmed by the Authority of an old Gloſſary, in which that Verb is render'd not only by perpendere, examinare, to weigh, to examin, but alſo approbare, comprobare, to approve. And in the ſame [...] is rendered by praeſto, praecello, to excel. But yet becauſe the Diſcourſe is concerning one that is able to teach others what is good and profitable, and what is not, or of a Maſter, I chuſe rather to underſtand it of trying thoſe things that differ, or trying the difference of things, that is, diſtinguiſhing between lawful and unlawful. And ſo in that Paſſage of the Epiſt. to the Philippians, [...] may ſignify to diſtinguiſh carefully good from evil, or not ignorantly to confound things which are different: Whence the Apoſtle adds [...], that ye may be ſincere, that is, without mixture of good and evil, not ſufficiently diſtinguiſhed by you; and conſequently, as it follows, [...], without offence. However, it is moſt true, that the Verb [...] does not only ſignify the examining of a thing, but alſo that which is conſequent upon it, the approbation of it. But this may very aptly be ſaid of the Jews compared with the Heathens, becauſe the Jews were inſtructed out of the Law, which the Gnoſticks were not, but were part of them Heathens.

Verſ. 19. [...].] The Blind cannot diſcern the right way from the Path which would lead them out of the Road they deſire to take; and therefore they need a Guide to diſcern it for them. And in like manner ſuch as cannot [...], as to thoſe things between which the Will of God makes a difference, have need of a Teacher to ſhew them the difference between what is lawful and unlawful. This, and what follows, plainly confirms the Opinion which I have preferred to Dr. Hammond's Interpretation, and agrees exactly to the Jews compared with the Heathens.

Verſ. 22. [...].] I do not think the Doctor has expreſſed the Apoſtle's ſenſe here in his Paraphraſe, I chuſe rather to underſtand this word [...] of ſtealing the Veſſels that were conſecrated to Idols; as if the Apoſtle had ſaid; ‘Thou who pretendeſt to abhor Idols, as moſt polluted things, which thou wouldſt not ſo much as touch, doſt nevertheleſs, if thou haſt an opportunity, ſteal the [Page] Veſſels which are conſecrated to them, and are as polluted as the Idols themſelves.’ In which he has a reſpect undoubtedly to that Law in Deut. vii.25. The graven Images of their Gods ſhalt thou burn with fire; thou ſhalt not deſire the Silver or Gold that is upon them, &c.

Verſ. 25. [...], &c.] That is, it is advantageous for a Perſon to profeſs himſelf a Jew, and to carry about him the ſacred [...] of that Religion in his body, provided he obſerve its Laws, and thoſe eſpecially which relate to a good Life, and the Intereſt of Human Society. I know Divines uſually call Circumciſion a Seal of the Covenant, in the ſenſe our Author uſes thoſe words. But ſee what I have ſaid of that matter in my Notes on Gen. xvii.10.

Ibid. [...].] If thoſe who boaſt themſelves to be circumciſed Perſons, and bear the token of God's Covenant in their Bodies, neglect the moſt holy Laws delivered to them by Moſes, their Circumciſion can be of no uſe to them, which is only a ſign of their profeſſing Judaiſm, not the whole Jewiſh Religion.

Verſ. 26. [...].] That is, as all Interpreters have obſerved, the uncircumciſed. Circumciſion was inſtituted as a ſign of God's Covenant, with which all that were marked profeſſed their Reſolution to obey the only true God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. But if there were any among other Nations who, without that mark ſet upon the Jews only, obey'd God in thoſe things which they knew to be acceptable to him, their Piety was as pleaſing to God as that of the circumciſed Jews. That Sign was inſtituted only to put the Jews conſtantly in mind of their Duty, and not as a thing in it ſelf grateful to God.

Ibid, [...]] That is, whoever obſerves thoſe Laws that are of eternal Equity, [...], wherever he be, and what Nation ſoever he be of, ſhall be accounted by God in the number of his People, as much as if he were circumciſed. [...] among the Greeks properly ſignifies Equity, or that which is alledged to ſhew a Cauſe to be juſt or good: But in the Septuagint it is uſed to ſignify the Laws of God of what kind ſoever they be: But in this place [...] are thoſe things which God may equitably require of all Nations, ſuch as Experience and right Reaſon dictate to be juſt.

Verſ. 27. Note h.] I wonder learned Men did not perceive there was an Ellipſis in this Phraſe, and that the word [...] muſt be underſtood, which is expreſſed afterwards. The meaning of S. Paul is this: They that have been hitherto uncircumciſed, as they are born (for ſo the Phraſe [...] ſignifies) and yet obſerve the Moral Laws, are Jews, that is, in the number of God's People, not indeed according [Page] to the letter of the Laws themſelves,Chapter III. but according to the mind of the Lawgiver; and accordingly will ſhew by their Example that you are juſtly condemned, who by the letter of the Law and Circumciſion are eſteemed the People of God: [...]: Thoſe that are Jews by the Spirit and Righteouſneſs, ſhall condemn ſuch as are Jews by the Letter and Circumciſion. Afterwards in Chap. iv.11. the Phraſe [...] has another ſignification, to wit, among the uncircumciſed Nations, or whilſt they are uncircumciſed; for the Prepoſition [...] often ſignifies diſtance of place or time. See ver. 29. in which this Interpretation is confirmed. Of the ſignification of the word [...] as it is oppoſed to the Intention or Mind of the Lawgiver, I have already ſpoken in a Note on Mat. v.17.

Verſ. 29. [...]] That is, that Circumciſion is worthy of Praiſe, which is agreeable to the ſpiritual Intention of God in inſtituting carnal Circumciſion; not that which according to the letter of the Law is made in the Fleſh, which in it ſelf is neither good nor evil. So that when the Apoſtle uſes the Phraſe [...], it is as if he had ſaid [...], according to the ſpiritual Intention or Will of God: as on the other hand, [...] is the ſame with [...], according to the letters of the Law. Whence in the Writings of St. Paul, the Law of Moſes is often called [...], the Letter; and the Goſpel [...], the Spirit, becauſe this revealed the ſpiritual Intention of God, which was concealed under the letter of the Law. See 2 Cor. iii.6.

Ibid. [...].] To wit, the Jews, who highly preferred a Perſon that was circumciſed to one that was not, having little or no regard to how they both lived. They conſidered the letter of the Law, and not the ſpirit of the Lawgiver; and ſo neglecting Mens internal Qualifications, commended chiefly their external.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 2. Note a. Col. 3. lin. 16. NOthing could have been ſaid more falſly concerning the Original of the word [...], which was commonly uſed by the Greeks in that ſignification before ever the Greek Language was ſpoken in the Land of Canaan. It was uſed by Herodotus and Thucydides, who lived whilſt the Perſian Monarchy ſtood; nor did the Septuagint for any other reaſon call the Pectoral [...], tho improperly and barbarouſly, than becauſe that word ordinarily ſignified in Greek an Oracle, and [...] in the [Page] Plural, Oracles; which were ſo called becauſe they were [...], that is, audibly pronounced or expreſſed, when otherwiſe the Gods were ſuppoſed to give their Reſponſes by Dreams, Intrails, Signs, or Omens without any Voice. This derivation of the word ſeems to be more proper than that which is given of it by Thucydides's Scholiaſt in Lib. 2. p. 104. Ed. Aem. Porti, where on thoſe words of the Hiſtorian; [...]: Many Oracles or Reſponſes were given, many things were ſung by the Prophets; he makes this Remark; [...] are thoſe Reſponſes which are made by God in Proſe, and [...] thoſe which are given in Verſe. Hence alſo the Author of the Book of Wiſdom, chap. xvi.11. and the Son of Syrach in chap. xxxvi.16. call [...] the Revelations of God by the Prophets. And ſuch the Apoſtle here means, and not the Reſponſes given by the High Prieſt, as Grotius has ſhewn. But our Author being deceived by the ambiguity of the word, treats of the Pectoral in an improper place.

Ibid. In the ſame Col. after the words, Judgment of Ʋrim.] How foreign all this is to this place in St. Paul, I have already ſhewn. But I have one or two things more here to obſerve. Firſt, That the Doctor took what he here ſays out of Rob. Scheringamius in his Notes on cap. 8. Jomae, as he has done other things alſo of that nature. Secondly, That the Rabbins, whoſe Authority he here alledges, were as ignorant of this matter as we, only they had the confidence to ſet down their own Inventions for known and certain Truth, which is a very uſual thing with them. Every one knows, that during the ſecond Temple there was no Ʋrim and Thummim; and I would not have any one ſo ſilly as to think that the Rabbins, who lived ſome Ages after the deſtruction of that Temple, underſtood by certain Tradition what Ʋrim and Thummim were. Their Opinion is evidently confuted by Spencer in his Treatiſe of Ʋrim and Thummim, cap. 3. ſect. 11. As for me, I think quite otherwiſe of the whole matter, as I have declared in my Notes on Exod. xxviii.30. and Numb. xxvi.21.

Ibid. Col. 4. in that Note, lin. 10. after the words dead Witneſſes.] I have ſhewn that [...] ſignifies in Greek God's Reſponſes, without any reſpect had to the Pectoral; and [...], as has been well obſerved by H. Grotius, are enlivening or quickning words. I wonder he did not alledg to that purpoſe Heb. iv.12.

Ibid. lin. 20. after the words there conſiſted] Our learned Author heaps Miſtakes upon Miſtakes; for it is certain [...] has no alluſion to the Pectoral, and does not ſignify Letters, but the Rudiments or firſt Principles of Piety.

[Page]Verſ. 4. Note b.] That the Doctrine which our Divine here teaches is very true, conſidered in it ſelf, no one can doubt, that underſtands the nature of the Goſpel-Covenant. But I expected he ſhould have acted the part of a Grammarian rather than a Divine, and reaſoned not from the Analogy of Faith, but the grammatical uſe of words. What our Author therefore has not done, ſhall be briefly done by me. And, firſt, It muſt be obſerv'd, that the words [...] in Hebrew, and [...] in Greek, are moſt frequently uſed in the largeſt ſenſe, to ſignify a good Man, or one that loves Righteouſneſs, but are ſometimes taken in a more limited notion, and ſignify a Man who is guiltleſs of any particular Crime. Of the firſt ſignification we may every where meet with Examples; of the latter there is an Inſtance in Prov. xvii.15. He that juſtifieth the guilty ( [...]) and he that condemneth the juſt ( [...]) are both an Abomination to the Lord. See alſo Iſa. v.23. And agreeably to this twofold ſenſe of the word Juſt, the ſignification alſo of the Verbs [...] and [...] to juſtify, is twofold; either for to eſteem juſt, that is, good; or juſt, that is, innocent or guiltleſs of the Crime charged upon him. In this latter ſignification they are uſed in the Paſſages before mentioned in the Proverbs and Iſaiah; but this Notion in this diſpute concerning Juſtification, can have no place: For God does not juſtify any Man from all Sin, that is, account him guiltleſs; becauſe all Men are Sinners. But there remains another ſenſe, in which God may properly be ſaid to eſteem thoſe juſt, that is, good Men, and acceptable to him, who believe in Chriſt, tho their Righteouſneſs be not perfect or ſinleſs; becauſe he mercifully accepts of an imperfect Vertue inſtead of a perfect one, upon the account of Chriſt's Sacrifice. And in this ſenſe it is ſaid of Abraham that [...], he was juſtified, that is, accounted a juſt Man, not according to ſtrict Juſtice, but the gracious acceptance of God, who judged him to be a good and pious Perſon: Whence it is ſaid in Scripture, that Abraham believed God, and it was counted, or imputed to him for Righteouſneſs; that is, that Faith was look'd upon as the Act of a good Man, and one that feared God; and therefore Abraham was judged by God to be ſuch an one. See my Notes on Gen. xv.6.

Theſe things, if carefully obſerved, will give great light into this whole Diſputation of St. Paul, which is otherwiſe hardly intelligible. The Jews affirmed, that by the bare obſervation of the Law of Moſes, as they interpreted it, a Man was juſtified in the ſight of God, that is, accounted juſt by God, and accordingly accepted by him, and might expect from him the Reward promiſed to all good Men. And they [Page] thought they could exactly fulfil the Law in all points, and ſo be juſtified as good Men upon that account; meaning by the obſervation of the Law, a Life ſo regulated, that no Charge could by any one be brought againſt them out of the Law, as Tranſgreſſors of any of its Precepts, which had a threatning of Puniſhment annexed to it: And if they lived ſo, they thought the Reward of pious Men was juſtly due to them. This was the Opinion of the Jews, againſt which St. Paul diſputes, and ſhews that Men are not juſtified by the Works of the Law, that is, eſteemed pious by God; but by Fa [...]th, i. e. upon their believing God's Revelations, and for the future obeying them, tho they had not before obſerved the Law, or any of its Ceremonies: To which purpoſe he alledges the Example of Abraham, who, when uncircumciſed, was accounted juſt by God, upon believing his Promiſe. And he urges that no Man can juſtly contend with God, becauſe all have heinouſly ſinned, and therefore ſtand in need of God's pardoning Mercy in order to their being accounted juſt: With many other Arguments, of which, as the matter ſhall require, I ſhall afterwards ſpeak.

Two things I will further obſerve in this place; Firſt, That [...] here is taken in that ſenſe in which I ſaid a Perſon was juſtified, who is not eſteemed guilty of any unjuſt or wicked Action: for David's meaning in Pſalm li. 6. is this, that he acknowledged he had committed a very great Sin, ſo that he had no reaſon to doubt of the Divine Juſtice in threatning to puniſh him. Secondly, That towards the end of the foregoing Annotation, Dr. Hammond does ill compare the Phraſes to be imputed to Righteouſneſs, and to be accounted worthy of a Reward, with one another, as will appear if we look into St. Paul's words.

Verſ. 8. Note d.] There is no neceſſity of any Parentheſis in this place; if we do but ſupply the word [...] from what follows, the ſenſe will be plain thus: Why yet am I alſo judged as a Sinner? Why do not we do, as we are ſlanderouſly reported, and as ſome affirm that we ſay, that we will do evil that good may come?

Verſ. 25. Note b. lin. 13. after the words propitious to the People.] Our learned Author is miſtaken in thinking that the Hebrew word [...] chapporeth is indifferently rendered [...] and [...]. There is only one place in Exod. xxvi.34. where the Septuagint can ſeem to have tranſlated it by [...]; but if it be more narrowly look'd into, it will appear that they read [...] pharocheth, which is the name of the Veil that was drawn over againſt the moſt Holy-place, and thought that Moſes was commanded to put the Ark there within that ſpace. I have rendered the place, impones operculum areae teſtimonii[Page]in ſanctiſſimo adyto, Thou ſhalt put the Covering upon the Ark of the Teſtimony in the moſt Holy Place; and they, [...]. And it is certain [...] ſignifies only a Veil, which [...] is extended, in order to hide any thing; and ſo they conſtantly tranſlate [...] pharocheth, which is the name of the Veil or Curtain that hid the moſt Holy Place. But a Covering, ſuch as that was which was put upon the Ark, would be more fitly called in Greek [...], or [...], or [...], or by another Name. I fear our learned Author confounded the Hebrew words alledged, becauſe of the ſimilitude there is between them, and through want of memory.

Ibid. Lin. 39. After the words, to be performed.] To ſpeak freely my opinion, I am apt to think there is no alluſion here to the Covering of the Ark, but that Chriſt is called [...], ſubintell. [...] or [...] ſacrifice; becauſe immediately there is mention made of Blood, which has no affinity with a Covering. So the Greeks call [...], a Sacrifice offered up by way of Thankſgiving. But I confeſs I never could meet with that word in this ſenſe ſave in the old Onomaſticon, where [...] is rendred propitiabile, which word is to be underſtood actively, for that which is capable of pacifying or rendring God propitious, as in like manner impetrabilis ſignifies one that can eaſily obtain what he deſires. So that the vulgar who renders this word Expiationem, and Beza who renders it Placamentum, i. e. an expiatory Sacrifice, have tranſlated it better than others, who render it by propitiatorium, a propitiatory, by which word is generally underſtood the Covering of the Ark.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] Tho what our Author here theologically diſcourſes be very true, yet it does not much conduce to the underſtanding of St. Paul's words, if the proper ſignification of them be conſidered. [...], is here ſpoken of, not for the reaſons mentioned by our Author, but becauſe the Diſcourſe is about an expiatory Sacrifice, whereof the Blood can be of no uſe to us unleſs we believe on Chriſt, and hope that by his Sacrifice God will become propitious to us, tho we have been great Sinners againſt him.

Ibid. [...].] The Doctrin indeed laid down by our learned Author in the foregoing Annotation, I heartily ſubſcribe to; but I think it is foreign to this place, as depending upon a wrong interpretation of the word [...]. The ſcope of the Apoſtle is to ſhew that there is another kind of Righteouſneſs brought in by Chriſt, which he calls the righteouſneſs of God, different from that which reſults from Works, and by which we are juſtified freely by his Grace, [Page]through the Redemption that is in Chriſt Jeſus. And for the clearer explaining of that, he adds; whom God hath ſet forth as an Atonement, through Faith in his Blood; that is, ‘which Jeſus God declares in the Goſpel to be an expiatory Sacrifice, by whoſe Blood the Sins of thoſe who believe on him are expiated: To make known his Righteouſneſs, becauſe of the remiſſion of former Sins under the forbearance of God; "— To ſhew that thoſe are juſt in his ſight, whoſe paſt Sins he has "remitted, and whoſe Repentance he did not in vain wait for: At this time, that he might be juſt, and the juſtifier of him that is of the Faith of Jeſus; which at this time only is manifeſt to all: whence we may conclude, that God is both a lover of Righteouſneſs, and alſo accounts thoſe juſt who have believed in Chriſt, and heartily obey him.’ The whole ſeries of the Diſcourſe does as it were proclaim this to be the ſcope and ſenſe of the Apoſtle; and I wonder that Grotius himſelf did not ſee it, tho the Doctor, who often gives forced Interpretations of Places, might eaſily not diſcern it.

Tho I do not deny that the [...], or Righteouſneſs of God, is often put for his Goodneſs and Mercy, as Grotius has ſhewn; yet in this diſpute it has another ſignification, as appears from Chap. i.17. and verſ. 21, 24, and 26 of this Chapter, where it is manifeſtly taken for Goſpel-Righteouſneſs, that is, for ſanctity of Life, conſequent upon Repentance. And this Righteouſneſs which God accepts, upon the account of Chriſt's Sacrifice, is not grounded upon a connivence or taking no notice of paſt Sins, but the remiſſion of them. For God accounts thoſe juſt, not whoſe Sins he overlooks or connives at, but thoſe whoſe Sins he has already pardoned, and upon their Repentance takes into his favour, contrary to their deſerts.

I contend that [...] is all one with [...], and that the Prepoſition [...] cannot be urged to prove [...] to be the ſame with [...]. Nothing is more common in the Greek Language, than for Prepoſitions to loſe their proper force in compound words, as every one knows, who has had but the leaſt taſte of that Language. And therefore Grammarians and Greek Writers make the words [...] and [...] promiſcuous. Heſychius interprets [...] not only by [...], to ſuffer, to omit, but alſo by [...], to grant, to remit, and [...] by [...] remiſſion. So Dionyſius Halicarnaſſ. Antiq. Rom. Lib. 2. p. 103. Ed. Sylburg. [...]: We forgive them this Offence without ſetting any fine upon them; or if you pleaſe, we let it go unpuniſhed, which is the ſame with pardoning. And Lib. 7. he opp [...]ſes [...] not to remiſſion, but delaying or putting off: p. 446. [...] [Page] [...]:Chapter IV. They did not, tho they begged very hard, obtain from the Tribunes a full REMISSION, but as long a delay as they deſired. So in Eccleſiaſticus, Chap. xxiii.2. [...] to ſpare, and [...] are put one for another: Sins committed through Ignorance [...] do thou ſpare O Lord; but the reproaches of thoſe who by profeſſion are Sinners [...] do not pardon. So that all that learned Men have ſaid about the diſtinction of [...] and remiſſion, comes to nothing.

Verſ. 16. Note k. I have before interpreted the word [...], not a revenger of Sin, but a lover of Righteouſneſs, or Goſpel-ſanctity; which agrees very well with the ſcope of the Apoſtle. For having ſaid that God accounted thoſe Perſons juſt, whoſe Sins he had remitted, he adds with great reaſon, that God was nevertheleſs Juſt or Holy; leſt the Jews ſhould perhaps object, that by his Doctrin the Juſtice or Holineſs of God was impeached, becauſe he juſtified Men that had lived in a courſe of Sin. But he does but touch upon this here tranſiently, deſigning in the vi, vii, and viiith Chapters to ſpeak to that matter more at large: So God is ſaid to be juſt, in Deut. xxxii.4. and elſewhere often.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 1. Note a. THO as to the thing it ſelf, our Author ſeems to have reached the ſcope of this place, yet as to all the words he will not ſatisfy an exact Grammarian. For [...] cannot without violence be interpreted [...], or alſo by human ſtrength, both which he ſeems to think are meant by that Phraſe. [...] in the places alledged by him, ſignifies according to the courſe of the Fleſh or human Generation, as Chriſt is ſaid Chap. i.3. to have been of the Seed of David according to the Fleſh; which ſignification cannot be pertinent here, unleſs theſe words be joined with [...] Father, which yet he will not allow of: See Chap. ix.3, 5. St. Paul's words therefore muſt be explained thus; What ſhall we ſay then? that Abraham our Father hath found ( [...] grace) according to the Fleſh? that is, in the judgment of Man, or according to a carnal Judgment. It is certain this alone can be ſaid; for if Abraham was juſtified by Works, he hath whereof to glory before Men, but not before God. So John viii.15. to judg according to the Fleſh, ſignifies to judg after the manner of Men. See alſo 2 Cor. 1.17. which very thing is expreſſed in 1 Cor. ix.8. by ſpeaking [...].

[Page]The uſe of the Phraſe [...] in this ſenſe, being thus known, it muſt be conſidered whether the Context requires it to be underſtood in this ſenſe here. Now St. Paul ſhews in the foregoing Chapter, that all Men were Sinners, and therefore had nothing to alledg in their own defence; and that none could boaſt of their juſtification before God, as if they were therefore accounted juſt by him, becauſe they had never ſinned. This is the ſum of the foregoing Chapter, whence it might be juſtly inferred that Abraham himſelf was not juſtified by Works before God; and therefore in that ſenſe could not be ſaid to have found or obtained Grace before God, but only in the judgment of Men, who cannot judg of things exactly, and to talk of whoſe judgment in this caſe is abſurd. For which reaſon to the queſtion propoſed, that Abraham our Father hath found Grace according to the Fleſh? the Apoſtle anſwers nothing, becauſe it is confuted by the bare propoſal of it, it being manifeſt that in this diſpute he ſpeaks of the judgment of God, and not that of Men. And therefore he goes on, If Abraham was juſtified by Works, if he was accounted juſt for his works [...] in the judgment of Men, he hath whereof to glory, viz. [...], before Men; but not before God, [...]. Theſe laſt words manifeſtly ſhew the judgment of God here to be oppoſed to the judgment of Men, of which there ſhould accordingly have been ſomething ſaid before, and yet of which nothing will have been ſaid, unleſs [...] be interpreted [...]. This our Author was in ſome meaſure ſenſible of, as appears by his Paraphraſe on the 2d verſe; but he diſcerned it as other Interpreters alſo did, juſt as a Man ſees the Moon through the Clouds, which put him ſtrangely upon the wrack to find out the ſenſe of theſe words, and the connexion of the Diſcourſe. This Verſe does not contain any objection made by the Jews, who not only ſaid that Abraham was juſtified [...], but alſo [...], as the Scripture declares. It is rather a conceſſion of St. Paul, wherein he grants that Abraham might poſſibly in the judgment of Men, for his ſpotleſs Life before them, be accounted juſt; which is not the thing here ſpoken to, the Diſcourſe being about the judgment of God.

Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, him who accounteth one juſt, that was before ungodly; becauſe he believes in Chriſt, and obeys his Precepts. The Works which are excluded from Juſtification, are thoſe which precede Faith and Repentance, and are wicked Works; in the room of which ſucceed Faith and new Obedience, which are accepted inſtead of conſtant Righteouſneſs and Innocence: and therefore Faith is ſaid to be imputed for Righteouſneſs.

[Page] Chapter V.Verſ. 11. [...].] Our learned Author's Paraphraſe on this and other Verſes, is ſo very full of his own Additions and Remarks upon what the Apoſtle ſays, that it is impoſſible almoſt to know what to attribute to St. Paul. He puts in ſo many Parentheſes, and repeats the ſame thing ſo often, that he makes it very difficult to diſcern the contexture of the Apoſtle's Diſcourſe: And here particularly in this Verſe the word [...] might have been explained in much fewer words, which refers only to God, and ſignifies a ſign whereby God aſſured Abraham that he accepted of his Piety. So this word is uſed in 1 Cor. ix.2. where St. Paul beſpeaks the Corinthians thus; If I be not an Apoſtle unto others, yet I am ſo to you; the ſeal ( [...]) of my Apoſtleſhip are ye in the Lord: that is, by you it may be known that I am an Apoſtle, or you are a certain Evidence of my Apoſtleſhip. It is a Metaphor taken from the cuſtom of confirming things by ſetting a Seal to them. See Note on Gen. xvii.11.

Ibid. [...].] I have ſaid on Chap. ii.27. that theſe words ſignify among the uncircumciſed Gentiles, or in the time of their Ʋncircumciſion, not in Ʋncircumciſion. And here it is viſible, that when the Apoſtle had a mind to expreſs that, he uſes the Phraſe [...], both in the Verſe before and after. [...] in Chap. ii.26, 27. ſignifies the uncircumciſed Gentiles; and therefore [...] may ſignify among the uncircumciſed Gentiles, as [...] ſignifies through the middle of, and [...] among all things. And it may alſo ſignify the time in which any one is uncircumciſed, as [...] does in Life, and the like.

Verſ. 17. Note b. St. Chryſoſtom's Interpretation is a mere Nicety, as Beza rightly thought, nothing being more common in Scripture than this Phraſe, before God, [...], which has no ſuch ſignification, as in the place alledged by our Author out of Gen. xvii. In this it ſignifies truly, tho Men, viz. the Jews falſly thought otherwiſe. See my Notes on Gen. x.9.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 5. [...].] That which ſeems to be intended by theſe words is, a power of doing Miracles conferred on the Apoſtles and innumerable others by Chriſt, as the Doctor intimates in his Paraphraſe. For hereby the Apoſtles and the reſt of the Chriſtians were aſſured that Chriſt would not diſappoint thoſe who waited for the accompliſhment of his promiſes, having already ſo plentifully beſtowed on them the promiſed gifts of his Spirit.

[Page]Verſ. 7. [...].] That is,Chapter VI. as our Author well obſerves in his Paraphraſe, [...] beneficent or charitable, which is more than [...] juſt. So in a great many places God is ſaid to be [...], which ſignifies not his Goodneſs, that is, his Sanctity, but his Bounty, or [...] towards Men: See Pſalm cxxxvi. So Mat. xx.15. Is thine Eye evil becauſe I am good? [...], that is, bountiful, as the Parable ſhews. So in Aelian Var. Hiſt. Lib. 3.17. [...], Archytas was good to the Tarentines, i. e. a Benefactor to them. So the old Gloſſes; [...], bonus, benignus, good, gracious; and Phavorinus among other things ſays, it ſignifies, [...], one that without asking beſtows good things freely.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 3. [...].] The ſenſe of this Phraſe is not ſufficiently expreſſed by our Author, nor by other Interpreters. The Particle [...] here ſignifies, as it uſually does, the end of Baptiſm; and the Apoſtle's meaning is no more than this, we were baptized ΤΟ this end, that we might be Chriſtians. So in 1 Cor. x.2. the antient Jews are ſaid to have been baptized [...], i. e. to that end that they might be the Diſciples of Moſes: See Note on Mat. xxviii.19. And ſo in the next words, [...], ſignifies to the end we might imitate his Death, viz. Chriſt's.

Verſ. 6. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 34. after the words, in the notion of [...]] There are ſeveral things in the beginning of this Annotation I cannot aſſent to.

I. To confirm the ſenſe our learned Author puts upon the word [...] he alledges places as parallel that are not. For there is a great difference between places in which the word [...] is joined with Pronouns Poſſeſſive, where the diſcourſe is about Men, as my Body, &c. and places in which it is joined with the names of other things. There is no doubt but the Phraſe my Body, is often all one with I my ſelf, by a Synechdoche of the part for the whole, common in many Languages. But when other Names are added to the word Body, the Phraſe is quite different, becauſe they cannot be ſaid to conſiſt of two parts, of which one may be called the Body, and give a denomination to the whole thing, as to a Man. Nor is there any compariſon between Phraſes, whereof one, as the Logicians ſpeak, ſignifies a ſubſtance, as when Body is attributed to a Man, and the other an accident, as the body of Sin, if that Phraſe be to be underſtood of Sin it ſelf.

[Page]II. I had rather in this place, and ſuch others, recur to another very frequent Idiom of the Hebrew Language, whereby a Noun Subſtantive in the Genitive Caſe is put for an Adjective, and ſo by the Body of Sin underſtand a ſinful Body, or a Body obnoxious to Sin: which Interpretation how agreeable it is to this place I ſhall afterwards ſhew. So in Chap. vii.24. [...] is a Body obnoxious to death, as I ſhall prove. And Phil. iii.21. [...] and [...] is manifeſtly a vile Body and a glorious Body. From whence, ſaith St. Paul, (viz. from Heaven) we look for our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who ſhall change our Body of Vileneſs, that it may be faſhioned like unto the Body of his Glory.

III. By the Body of Sin, or obnoxious to Sin here, we are to underſtand reduplicativè, as the Schoolmen ſpeak, the Body as ſuch, or the Body as a body of Sin. The Apoſtle does not reſpect the Subſtance it ſelf of the Body, but this quality of it, that it is the original, incentive and inſtrument of Sin, as he tells us in the next Chapter. And it is certain ſenſible things do not draw us to ſinful Actions any other way than by affecting our Bodies, and by that means impreſſing our Minds. And that moſt of the Sins we are guilty of, proceed from an inordinate love of ſenſible things, every body will readily acknowledg. After therefore the Apoſtle had ſaid our old Man was crucified, that is, we had left our old ſinful Cuſtoms, he very fitly adds, that hereupon that deadly and deſtructive Power which was in our Bodies to draw us to Sin was taken away, [...], ſaith he, [...], ſo that the body of Sin is weakned or diſabled, for ſo I interpret the Particle [...] by the figure called Echaſis, not as a Cauſal. So Col. ii.11. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without hands, in the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh; for that Body which before ſerved Sin, is as it were put off, in order to put on another new Body which may ſerve Righteouſneſs. The change is in the uſe of the Body, not in the ſubſtance of it, that is here meant.

IV. The Hebrew word [...] hetſem properly ſignifies a Bone, not the Body, of which there is no Example, and comes from a Root which ſignifies to be ſtrong, becauſe the Bones are the ſtrongeſt parts of the Body. But afterwards, I know not for what reaſon, it came to ſignify the thing it ſelf, which the Diſcourſe related to. Inſtead of Judg. 9. our Author writes Joſ. 9. as it is falſly quoted alſo in Val. Schindler, from whom, or ſome other Lexicographer, he took it upon truſt, without looking into the place, which is thus: Remember that I am [...], your Bone and your Fleſh, which is a Hebrew Phraſe uſed to ſignify Conſanguinity. See my Notes on Gen. ii.23. The Phraſe in [Page] Job ii.5. Touch his Bone [...] and his Fleſh, is a Periphraſis of the Body, which conſiſts chiefly of Fleſh and Bones. Nor do either of thoſe places ſerve the Doctor's deſign. I confeſs, among the Rabbins, the word [...] is uſed to ſignify a Subſtance, as it is oppoſed to Accidents, and that [...] ſignifies my ſelf; but it would not be properly rendred [...] Body. Of the word [...] in Col. ii.9. I may have occaſion to ſpeak elſewhere, for we have nothing to do with it here.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] Theſe deſcriptions of Regeneration illuſtrate indeed the thing St. Paul here ſpeaks of, but do not ſhew us what is the proper meaning of the Phraſe [...], which was moſt requiſite. The word [...] is as ſeldom uſed by Heathen Writers, as it is frequently by St Paul, in whom it occurs more than twenty times. The ſimple Verb [...] ſignifies to be at reſt, to ceaſe, from [...] or [...], idle, one that has nothing to do. And hence [...] is to make to ceaſe, and by conſequence to render vain or uſeleſs. In the Old Gloſſary it is rendered by caſſo to fruſtrate or make void, and [...] by avocat calls off, viz. from buſineſs, to [...] idleneſs, or reſt. And Phavorinus has [...], ſhould overcome, ſhould make to ceaſe; [...], to make to ceaſe, and finiſh: for [...], is as much as [...], it was made to ceaſe. And ſo here [...] is to make thoſe Sins which have their riſe from the Body to ceaſe.

Verſ. 19. Note b.] I. I believe our Author never look'd into the Paſſage in Demoſthenes, for if he had, he would have ſeen that it was nothing to his purpoſe, and would have otherwiſe tranſlated it. It is in the Greek Ed. of Morellus, Num. 72. where Demoſthenes, ſpeaking of the Stripes inflicted on him by Midias, ſaith, [...]; what excuſe will ſeem human and modeſt for thoſe things which he has done? That is, in which a Man would acknowledg that he had been humanly treated; of which Phraſe ſee H. Stephanus in his Theſaurus. The place in Horace ought to have been more exactly referred to: For who ever alledged a Teſtimony out of Horace, lib. 2. without adding Carm. Sat. or Epiſt.? That place is in Epiſt. 2. Lib. 2. ver. 70. where, ſpeaking of the tediouſneſs of the ways, which could not be travelled but with great pain, he ironically ſays, Intervalla vides humanè commoda, that is, valde commoda, or ſuch as you would in all reaſon deſire. The Doctor, who did not look into the place, renders it parum commoda, little profitable.

II. The latter Interpretation is favoured by Phavorinus, who ſaith out of a Lexicon which contained perhaps the words of Scripture, of [Page] which ſort there are a great many in the Italian Libraries:Chapter VII. [...]. But S. Chryſoſtom ſeems to favour the former, who interprets it by [...]: from human reaſonings, from thoſe things which are commonly or cuſtomarily done. And indeed the word [...] ſufficiently ſhews, that [...] is to be underſtood [...] of the Apoſtles form of ſpeaking: And becauſe words borrowed from common uſe are plain and clear, therefore the Phraſe [...] ſignifies to ſpeak plainly, as it is uſual to ſpeak, not in a bigger or more ſwelling ſtile than ordinary, and conſequently more obſcure. A Cook in Strato in Phoenicide is brought in ſpeaking of another that uſed old faſhioned and poetical words, thus:

[...],

[...].

But I earneſtly beſeech him to change his Dialect, and ſpeak humanely. It is in the 9th Book of Athenaeus cap. 7. on which ſee Iſ. Caſaubon. It is certain what St. Paul had ſaid before was not [...], and therefore it is no wonder if, changing the form of his Diſcourſe, he ſays here [...]. So alſo the Latin humanè is oppoſed to poeticè in Petronius cap. 50. Minùs quàm duabus horis mecum moraris, & ſaepius poeticè quàm humanè loquutus es; You have been with me leſs than two hours, and have talked oftner poetically than humanely.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 5. Note c. OUR Author confounds here things that ought to be diſtinguiſhed, and diſtinguiſhes between things that are the ſame, becauſe he had a greater regard to Divinity than to Grammar.

I. Being in the Fleſh is a Phraſe here applied to the Jews, who obſerved only the letter of the Law, as St. Paul ſpeaks, that is, its carnal Commands, which reſpected only the Body, but had no regard to the ſpiritual deſign of them. But this could not be ſaid of all the Jews, among whom ſuch as were pious did doubtleſs take more care about real and inward Holineſs, than external Ceremonies. To this purpoſe is that Declaration in Hoſea vi.7. concerning the excellency of Mercy above Sacrifices, and the like ſayings in the Prophets.

II. The Phraſe [...], ſignifies to enjoy the ſpiritual ſenſe of the Law, not the literal or grammatical; that is, to regard the [Page] Mind or Spirit of the Lawgiver more than his Words,Chapter VIII. as the Chriſtians did. See on Chap. ii.29. and compare that Verſe with the foregoing, which will ſhew what is the meaning of the word Spirit on one hand, and Letter or Fleſh on the other; for theſe two laſt are uſed promiſcuouſly.

III. But becauſe they that followed only the carnal ſenſe of the Law, were not lovers of true Piety, the Phraſe to be in the Fleſh, taken in this ſenſe, draws another Notion along with it, which is to indulge the Luſts of the Body, or [...], to be according to the Fleſh, thoſe Phraſes being indifferently uſed by St. Paul, chap. viii.5, 8, 9.

Verſ. 7. Note e.] But the diſcourſe is not about a Jew, who could not doubt but that Coveting, which was forbidden by the Law, was a Sin, but one that knew not the Law, as thoſe Jews which lived before the Law was given. Unleſs God had prohibited coveting, they had not believed it to be a Sin no more than moſt of the Heathens. To ſeize upon what was anothers by force, or ſecretly take it away, they knew to be Theft, and a thing manifeſtly prejudicial to human Society, and therefore evil and offenſive to God; but they did not think it unlawful either to covet what was not their own, or to get what was another's by Artifices, ſuch as are uſed by Merchants, who think they may lawfully do a great many things either to raiſe the Price of their own Goods, or to buy anothers cheap, and the like, which are undoubtedly unjuſt, tho very agreeable to the Cuſtom of moſt Nations. But this [...], or coveting, God forbad, and that inward affection from which ſuch Sins proceed, as I have ſhewn on Exod. xx. See alſo on Mat. v.28.

Verſ. 15. [...].] That is, would, vellem, as Grotius and others have rightly obſerv'd. See 1 Cor. vii.7. So it is uſed alſo by Anacreon in the beginning of his firſt Ode:

[...],

[...] ▪

I would ſpeak of the Atridae, I would ſing alſo of Cadmus.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 2. Note a. THO it be very true, that he who is freed from the Law of Sin, is freed from Sin; and that the Law of the Spirit is not without the Spirit, ſo that what is ſaid of the Law of the Spirit may be ſaid alſo of the Spirit; yet neither of theſe Phraſes can be properly and literally explained ſo as our Author [Page] interprets them. The Law of Sin is properly the Dominion of Sin, as appears from the 23d Verſe of the foregoing Chapter, namely, becauſe it belongs to a Ruler to impoſe Laws. And on the contrary, the Law of the Spirit is the Dominion of the Spirit: So that St. Paul's meaning is, that the Spirit which Chriſt gives, and whoſe Commands Chriſtians obey, does free them from the Dominion which Sin formerly had over them; which is ſo manifeſt, that in his Paraphraſe the Doctor has followed this Interpretation: Only having no regard to propriety of Speech in his own ſtile, he is as careleſs of it in interpreting anothers.

Verſ. 4. Note c.] Grotius in his Notes on Chap. ii.16. interprets this word in a ſenſe quite contrary to Dr. Hammond. The Apoſtle, ſaith he, here explains what he means by [...], to wit, [...], which is uſually rendered [...], not only by Interpreters, but alſo by Joſephus, and properly ſignifies ſuch things as are in their own nature good and juſt, as I have ſaid on Luke i.6. and in Lib. 1. c. 1.9. de Jure B. & P. But they are both in an error; for, Firſt, The diſtinction which the Rabbins make between the Hebrew words [...] mitſvoth and [...] hhukkim, has no foundation either in their Etymology or Uſe, as I have obſerv'd on Gen. xxvi.5. Secondly, The Greek word [...] is uſed by Greek Interpreters to ſignify the Divine Laws in general; and tho they moſt commonly render [...] by [...], yet they uſe alſo that word ſometimes where the Hebrew has [...]. See Deut. xxx.15. and 1 Kings ii.3. Among Attick Writers, or the beſt Grecians, [...] ſignifies a Statute, Jus, or Record, Inſtrumentum, by which the juſtice of any Cauſe is determined; but in the Old and New Teſtament God's Ordinances or Inſtitutions, of what ſort ſoever they be, are called [...], becauſe it is juſt [...], to obey them; and ſometimes the obſervation of thoſe Laws it ſelf, as in Rev. xix.8. which place our Author forces. So that it muſt be collected from the thing it ſelf, and not from the word, whether the Diſcourſe be about Moral Precepts or others.

Verſ. 15. [...].] The word Spirit here manifeſtly ſignifies an affection of the Mind, as the Spirit of Jealouſy in Numb. v. the affection of a jealous Mind, and ſo in many other Phraſes of the ſame kind. St. Paul's meaning here therefore is, that the manner of God's Behaviour toward the Jews, had rather produced in their Minds a ſlaviſh Diſpoſition, than a filial one. But wherein did that ſervile Temper conſiſt? This we are told in the following words [...] to fear, that is, that ye ſhould be governed more by fear than by hope; for that is the caſe of Servants who ſtand in great fear of their [Page] Maſters, but hope for very little from them; whereas Children hope much from the bounty of their Parents, and fear but little. But what was the reaſon why the Jews fear of God was greater than their hopes? Namely, becauſe the breach of his Laws, excepting Sins of Infirmity, and ſome of leſs moment, was threatned with Temporal Puniſhments, which were unavoidable whilſt the Jewiſh Commonwealth ſtood and flouriſhed, and God had not any where promiſed Mercy to Perſons ſo offending, either in this Life or in the next, or allowed any place for Repentance: Becauſe he had not appointed any Expiatory Sacrifices in the Law for ſpiritual Sins, ſuch as Pride, or Covetouſneſs, or the like, tho he had denounced no Temporal Puniſhments againſt them; whereby it came to paſs, that tho covetous, proud, or any other ſuch ſort of Sinners had nothing to apprehend from the Magiſtrate, yet they were afraid of being puniſhed by God, who had made no Promiſes ſo much as to the penitent. But under the Goſpel things are quite otherwiſe, as I need not here at large ſhew.

This is what Dr. Hammond ought only to have expreſſed in his Paraphraſe, which may be gathered from St. Paul's words themſelves, and not arbitrarily have inſerted foreign things into his Diſcourſe. Compare with this place Gal. iv.1, &c. Who in reading St. Paul would ever have dream'd that under thoſe things, which are ſignified by the Spirit of Adoption, were contained the mild Puniſhments of the Church? Where did Chriſt, where did his Apoſtles teach any ſuch thing? More might be ſaid which I deſignedly paſs over.

Verſ. 19. Note f.] If ever any thing was written by Dr. Hammond that was harſh and forced, (and a great many Inſtances of ſuch things might be given) it is certainly what he ſays in this place, as I ſhall briefly prove.

I. He confeſſes that the [...], in the 18th Verſe, is either a deliverance from the Perſecutions of the Jews in this Life, or the happineſs of the next; of which laſt it is only to be underſtood, the Diſcourſe being about that Inheritance whereof we are joint Heirs with Chriſt, which reſpects only the other World. But the Apoſtle goes on: For the Creature lifting up (as it were) its head ( [...]) waits for the Revelation ( [...]) of the Sons of God; which manifeſtly ſhews that he ſtill ſpeaks of the Glory which is to be revealed, and which makes nothing to the diſtinction that was to be put between the incredulous Jews, and thoſe among them who believed and obey'd the Goſpel. If our Author had not been [Page] uſed to a moſt intricate Stile, he would ſoon have perceived that he offered Violence to the Series of the Diſcourſe.

II. The word [...] cannot be applied to ſuch an expectation as he deſcribes, for we are properly ſaid [...], when upon previous notice given of it, we underſtand there is ſome great happineſs to be looked for, and which we impatiently expect, tho perhaps we do not know perfectly what it is. But the Gentiles knew nothing at all of their vocation to the true Religion upon the Goſpel's being rejected by the Jews. Who will believe that St. Paul, in order to expreſs the Affection of the Gentiles, plunged in the greateſt ignorance and wickedneſs, and who accordingly could not be ſaid otherwiſe than [...], to be in expectation of the Goſpel, would make uſe of a word that has a ſingular emphaſis in it? It had been hardly tolerable if he had mollified it as much as poſſible, by adding [...], or ſome ſuch other form. The phraſes to ſeek death, and to love death, which ſignify to do thoſe things which ſuch as ſought or loved death would do, are not here to the purpoſe. For the Heathens did not do what thoſe ought to have done who were in a longing expectation of the Goſpel. The words of Jacob in Gen. xlix. are otherwiſe to be underſtood, as in my Notes on that paſſage I have ſhewn. Nor is there any neceſſity of interpreting the words of Haggai of the Gentiles, to whom Chriſt ſhould be as yet unknown; but they may be very well underſtood of thoſe which, after they had already embraced the Goſpel, ſhould make Chriſt their deſire, that is, ſhould long to enjoy his promiſed Benefits, and ſee him returning from Heaven to judg the World. This is that which is the object of our [...], or earneſt expectation.

III. It is very true that [...] in the Language of the Rabbins, ſignifies men. Our Author might alſo have added, that in the ſame dialect the word [...] ſignifies Heathens, in oppoſition to Jews, as his Countryman Dr. Lightfoot on Mark xvi.15. has obſerved. The meaning of St. Paul therefore is, that the Heathens who were converted to the Chriſtian Faith, did earneſtly expect the time when the Sons of God were to be revealed, that is, as the foregoing and following context ſhews, were to be made partakers of eternal Glory and Happineſs by Chriſt after the univerſal Judgment. He diſtinguiſhes afterwards himſelf and the believing Jews from the Heathens, when he ſays that not only they, or the Creature, did expect that time, but we alſo that have the firſt fruits of the Spirit, i. e. we Jews who have firſt received the Holy Spirit from God. The Gentiles at this time were no longer in expectation [Page] of what the Jews were about to do; for the Goſpel upon their rejection of it, and continuing incredulous, had been preached a good while ago to the Gentiles, as is plain from the Hiſtory of the Apoſtles, and that account of times which our Author himſelf gives us in his Premonition to this Epiſtle.

4. Beſides, I cannot imagin whence our Author inferred, that the happineſs of the Gentiles did depend upon the obduracy of the Jews; as if upon ſuppoſition that the whole Jewiſh Nation, or the greateſt part of it, had believed in Chriſt, the Gentiles were never to have had the Chriſtian Faith preached to them! We are told indeed, both by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, that the Goſpel was to be preached firſt to the Jews, purſuant to God's decree, but no where to them alone. There was no difference to be made in this matter between the Jews and the reſt of the World, but only in the time of preaching the Goſpel. If the whole Jewiſh Nation had received Chriſt, they had underſtood that the Gentiles were to be called to the ſame Faith, and that they muſt abandon their Rites and Ceremonies; and ſo all the Jews had become the Diſciples of Chriſt. I confeſs the obſtinacy of the Jews was the occaſion of the Apoſtles going to the Gentiles; but what the Jews obſtinacy was the occaſion of, Religion and Charity would have obliged the Apoſtles to, if the Jews had all or moſt of them believed in Chriſt. This we may conclude from the ſtory of Cornelius in Acts x. to whom St. Peter was directly ſent before the Apoſtles had departed from the Jews. And this Chriſt expreſly commanded in Mark xvi.15. and Acts i.8. So that it hence alſo appears that our Author puts a wrong interpretation on this diſcourſe of St. Paul.

Ibid. Note g. The Revelation of the Sons of God is manifeſtly the ſame with the Adoption ſpoken of in verſ. 23. and that being nothing elſe but an admiſſion into the Kingdom of Heaven in the view of all the World, the Revelation of the Sons of God muſt be that ſame Action of God whereby he will make known to all, who thoſe are that he acknowledges for his Sons. The ſeries of the diſcourſe puts this out of all doubt: The CREATURE earneſtly waits for the REVELATION OF THE SONS OF GOD, in hope becauſe the Creature it ſelf alſo ſhall be delivered from the bondage of Corruption, into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God: for we know that every Creature groaneth, and travelleth in pain until now; and NOT only they [expect, to wit, the Revelation of the Sons of God, and groan becauſe of their preſent condition] BUT we our ſelves alſo who have the firſt Fruits of the Spirit, groan likewiſe our ſelves within our ſelves, waiting, for the ADOPTION of Sons, viz. the Redemption of our Body. The Doctor [Page] hinder'd his diſcerning this, by mixing a great many foreign things with St. Paul's diſcourſe, of which there is not the leaſt mark or footſtep in the Apoſtle, perhaps to have the reputation of ſaying ſomething new.

By the Revelation or Adoption of the Sons of God, is ſignified an act of Chriſt, acknowledging thoſe that are his, at the day of Judgment, in ſome ſuch words as thoſe, Come ye bleſſed, &c. becauſe it does not now appear who are the Sons of God by any particular and viſible evidences of the divine Favour towards them above the reſt of Mankind, and ſo others deny them to be by a ſpecial privilege the Sons of God; but when Chriſt comes to ſeparate the Godly from the Wicked, this will be plain and manifeſt. See John 1 Ep. iii.1, 2.

Verſ. 20. Note i.] Our Author covers one Miſtake with another, to keep them, as one ſaid, from leaking. This I moſt of all wonder at, that he ſhould produce the Example of a moſt ſuperſtitious Heathen, and moſt malicious and implacable Enemy to the Chriſtian Religion, viz. Porphyry, as a Philoſopher who groaned under the burden of Idolatry. Whoever reads his Writings and his Life, writ by the learned Luc. Holſtenius, and underſtands but the nature of that new Platonick Philoſophy, will ſoon perceive that no Men were ever more devoted to Idolatry, than Porphyry, and the reſt of the Philoſophers of that Age. Our Author ought rather to have produced the Examples of Socrates, Plato, and others, who in ſome meaſure diſapproved Idolatry, than of ſuch as were its greateſt Champions, and with all their might defended it againſt Chriſtianity.

But there was no need of recurring to that, for the word [...] does not ſignify Idolatry, nor is the Diſcourſe here about Idolaters. For tho I ſhould grant our Author that Idolatry is called [...], and Idolaters [...], it does not follow, that wherever that word is uſed it muſt be ſo interpreted, or that it reſpects the Worſhip of Idols rather than any other Vanities of the Heathens. It may be better underſtood here of that Emptineſs or Vanity which is in all the things of this Life. For the Heathens who had embraced the Goſpel did earneſtly expect that time wherein they knew they ſhould be delivered from the Vanity of this World; to wit, when Chriſt ſhould openly acknowledg and declare them to be the Sons of God, as I before ſaid. Thoſe who have entertained the Chriſtian Religion, and ſeriouſly conſidered it, do beſt of all know that thoſe things which relate only to this Life are [...], perfect Vanity; ſuch only underſtand the truth of that ſaying of the Preacher, Vanity of Vanities, all things are Vanity, and of the Poet, Heu quantum eſt in rebus inane! [Page] And accordingly the Heathens who had been converted to Chriſtianity did groan and as it were travel in pain, till they were ſet free from thoſe vain Occupations, which partly neceſſity, and partly the ignorance and weakneſs of human Underſtanding, has impoſed on us.

That is the proper ſignification of the word [...], viz. a vain deſire or labour, for it ſignifies what is done [...] in vain, as [...] ſignifies fruſtraneous, inſignificant, and in the old Gloſſes is rendered by inanis, caſſus, vanus, ſupervacuus, and [...] fruſtratio, vanitas. Such are moſt of the Employmenss of this Life, deſigned either to procure what we judg profitable, or to redreſs thoſe Evils which trouble and torment us, in which we often find our ſelves diſappointed; ſo that we grow weary of our preſent Condition, and are made to wiſh for that time wherein being delivered from all theſe vain diſtractions we ſhall enjoy the happineſs of the Sons of God.

Ibid. Note h. Having already overthrown what Dr. Hammond ſays in the foregoing Annotations, what he has here about the word [...] muſt needs fall to the ground. The [...] is God who has made Men for their Sins ſubject [...] to vanity, that is, as I ſaid before, the vain employments of Life; which the Wiſe Man in Eccleſ. i.13. and iii.10. calls [...] habalim, and the Septuagint elegantly render [...]. This ſore Travel, ſaith he, (this vain Labour, [...], as it may be rendred in Greek) hath GOD given to the Sons of Men, to be exerciſed therewith. And to ſo many vain labours with which humane Life is encumbred, we are unwillingly ſubject, and ſhould not patiently undergo them but for God, who has ſubjected us to them, and in whoſe moſt wiſe and juſt Providence it is fit we ſhould acquieſce. But in the mean while nothing hinders but we may deſire to be delivered from theſe vexations, which will then only be, when the Sons of God ſhall be revealed, who now together with the wicked are ſubject to the ſame Troubles and Labours, and will not be ſet at Liberty till Chriſt's return. In compariſon of this Interpretation, to omit the reſt, Dr. Hammond's is violent; and all he ſays beſides is nothing to the purpoſe.

Verſ. 21. Note k. [...] in this place, ſignifies nothing but that corruption to which our Body is naturally liable, and which in this Life we are unwillingly in Bondage to: So it is uſed in 1 Cor. xv.42, 50. It is not the ſame with [...] vanity, that being but a conſequent of it; for the corruptibleneſs of our Bodies is the reaſon of our being exerciſed with ſo many vain Labours.

Verſ. 23. Note l. [...], as I before ſaid, is that ſolemn acknowledgment of the Sons of God which will be made at the day of Judgment, [Page] preſently after the [...], that is, the Reſurrection of the Dead. Now we are rather ordained or appointed [...] to be the Sons of God, than actually enjoy that Dignity; as Jeſus was [...] determined the Son of God after his Reſurrection, as St. Paul ſpeaks in Chap. i.2. No one beſides Dr. Hammond would ſay [...], when it is delivered from Perſecutions.

Ibid. Note m. Lin. 9. After the words, in a different ſenſe.] Our Author forgot himſelf when he wrote this, for we do not find this word [...] uſed in the 22d verſe, nor any where elſe in this Chapter, or in this Epiſtle, but in Chap. iii.24.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] It is much more agreeable to St. Paul's ſtile and the ſeries of his Diſcourſe in this place, to underſtand the word [...] of the reſurrection of the Body; after which we ſhall enter upon that Happineſs which is oppoſed to the [...] or vanity of this Life.

Verſ. 26. Note n. There was no need of proving that [...] in the New Teſtament often ſignifies Diſeaſes, that being very well known, and to be learned by any Concordance. The reſt our Author had from Grotius, and nothing is his own but his tranſlating the Greek word [...] by labour, which in this place ought to have been rendred grief; for the Hebrew never ſignifies labour, and the Greek is very often uſed in the other ſenſe.

Verſ. 28. Note o. Col. 1. Lin. 36. After the mention of 1 Kings i.41, 49. 2 Sam. 14.11.] Our learned Author is miſtaken in his interpretation of theſe two places, as I have ſhewn on Mat. xx.16. Numb. ii.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] [...] here ſeems to be taken for that purpoſe or courſe of Life which thoſe who embraced the Goſpel lived in before they came to the knowledg of it; and ſo St. Paul's meaning will be, that all things turn to the advantage of thoſe to whom the Goſpel-call was, [...], agreeable to their former purpoſe, i. e. diſpoſition of Mind, and manner of Life. And indeed thoſe Perſons prove the moſt conſtant, who receive the Goſpel in an honeſt Heart, as Chriſt tells us in the Parable of the Sower, Luke viii.15. becauſe they throughly diſcern the beauty and excellency of it above all other Doctrins, and ſuffer it to ſink deep into their Minds. They are diſtinguiſhed in the New Teſtament by ſeveral commendable Characters, which Dr. Hammond has excellently treated of in his Annotations on John vi.37. and Acts xiii.48. and elſewhere. Such a one was Cornelius the Centurion, whoſe manner of Life was ſuch that he needed not to change his [...] or purpoſe, to believe the Goſpel. [Page] Such alſo were the Beraeans, whom that [...], or excellent and generous Diſpoſition, which God had before planted in their Minds, had prepared for a ready ſubmiſſion to the Goſpel, and all others among the Jews who with a pious Mind waited for the Kingdom of God, or among the Gentiles like them. Theſe all perſiſted in their former purpoſe of living piouſly, and did not alter it when they embraced the Goſpel.

The Verb [...] ſignifying to reſolve or decree beforehand, [...] muſt alſo be a previous Purpoſe, or Reſolution formerly taken up: And that Purpoſe may be either concerning any thing in particular, or about the whole courſe of a Man's Life: ſo that what comes to paſs [...], or [...], may be underſtood of what is either contrary or agreeable to a particular purpoſe, or the whole ſcope and aim of a Man's Actions. So [...] ſignifies both a ſingle purpoſe, and [...] the general courſe a Man reſolves to live in. So Propoſitum in Latin is uſed in both thoſe ſenſes: And theſe words we may the more confidently compare with that here in St. Paul, becauſe the Greek Grammarians uſe the former by which to interpret [...], and the latter is manifeſtly an imitation of the Greek.

Hence when the diſcourſe is about any particular thing, [...] ſignifies on ſet purpoſe, and [...] that which comes to paſs againſt our Will or Intention. Thus in Suidas [...] is rendred by [...] will or deſign, of which he gives this Example: [...], but he did not injure any one wilfully, or on ſet purpoſe. So the Author of the Queſt. and Anſw. to the Orthodox Queſt. 19. ſpeaking of the palpitation of the Heart, which takes Men ſometimes on a ſudden, demands [...]; if this be an evil, how comes it to happen againſt our Will? The ſame Phraſe he uſes in his Anſwer. That Propoſitum among the Latins ſignifies a certain way of Life, Rob. Stephanus in his Theſaurus has ſhewn by ſeveral Examples, as his Son Henricus will furniſh us with others of the word [...] for deſign or purpoſe.

So that whereas Beza ſupplies here ipſius, his, and renders the words ex praeſtituto ipſius, according to [his] purpoſe, referring the word purpoſe to God; if any thing be ſupplied, I think it ſhould rather be ſuum their. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to their purpoſe. For that it is rather the purpoſe of Men than of God that is here intended, appears by the Active Participle [...], becauſe if St. Paul had ſpoken only of God, he would have ſaid [...], to them that are beloved of God.

[Page] Chapter IX.Verſ. 30. [...], &c.] The diſcourſe here being about a thing, which at the time that St. Paul wrote was as well both preſent and future as paſt, I would not have all theſe Aoriſts render'd by the Preterperfect tenſe, becauſe it is certain the Aoriſt among the Greeks, as the Future among the Hebrews, often ſignifies a Cuſtom: See my Notes on Gen. x.9. So that I think theſe words ſhould be tranſlated thus: Whom he hath predeſtinated, them he alſo calleth (i. e. uſeth to call) and whom he hath called, them he alſo juſtifieth; and whom he hath juſtified, them he alſo glorifieth. That this is the Apoſtle's ſenſe all Interpreters acknowledg, only they did not obſerve that the Aoriſts denote a Cuſtom.

Verſ. 34. [...].] That is, who ſhall implead or prove them to be guilty? For ſo the Lawyers ſpeak, amongſt whom this is an Axiom: Peregiſſe reum non aliàs quis videtur, niſi & condemnaverit, A Perſon does not ſeem to be proved guilty, unleſs he be alſo condemned. St. Paul ſpeaks of an accuſation before God, againſt Chriſtians, which he affirms would be ineffectual to procure their condemnation, becauſe they had Jeſus for their Advocate with the Father, if they lived according to the Laws of the Goſpel.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 1. Note a. IT is a perfect force our Author puts upon that expreſſion in Acts v. to lie to the Holy Ghoſt, of which ſee what I have ſaid on that place, as alſo of the Vow that Ananias is groundleſly ſuppoſed by learned men to have made.

Verſ. 4. Note c. Col. 2. Lin. 38. After the mention of Heb. ix.5.] By the glory of God in Acts vii.55. I rather underſtand ſome dazling glorious Light, than Angels. See my Note on Mark xvi.19.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 41. After the words, moſt High.] There is no ſuch expreſſion as this in Job i.5. and I cannot tell whence our Author took it, unleſs it were from ſome Greek Interpreter on that place.

Verſ. 5. Note d.] It were to be wiſhed our learned Author had examined here the Animad verſion of Grotius on this place, rather than copied out Jewiſh Fables that make little to the purpoſe; eſpecially ſeeing Eraſmus had long ago written enough to overthrow all that can be inferred from them. For if what Grotius, and before him Eraſmus, have obſerved ſtand good, Dr. Hammond's reaſoning cannot be thought of any force. Let thoſe that are inquiſitive into theſe matters compare both places.

[Page]Verſ. 9. Note e.] By the place in 2 King. iv.16. it appears that the Doctor was in the wrong, to think that the Paſſage in Geneſis was corrupted, on which ſee my Notes.

Verſ. 11. Note g.] There is no election or chuſing without preferring, and therefore there was no need of obſerving that the Hebrew word is rendred to prefer as well as to chuſe.

Verſ. 12. [...].] It being certain that theſe words are alledged by St. Paul in the ſame ſenſe that they are uſed in Gen. xxv.23. they muſt here be underſtood not of the Perſons of Eſau and Jacob themſelves, but of their Poſterity: for theſe are the words of the Oracle; Two Nations are in thy Womb, and two manner of People ſhall be ſeparated from thy Bowels, and the one ſhall be ſtronger than the other, and the greater ſhall ſerve the leſs. Of which prediction ſee my Notes on that place in Geneſis. Therefore in this Paſſage of St. Paul, the Phraſe [...], ought not to have been rendred in the Engliſh Tranſlation, the elder ſhall ſerve the younger, but the greater ſhall ſerve the leſs. And ſo the Apoſtles ſcope alſo requires, who manifeſtly ſpeaks of the Election, not of particular Perſons, but of whole Nations.

Verſ. 13. [...].] It is manifeſt from the Prophet, that this has a reference to the Nations that deſcended from Jacob and Eſau, and not to them themſelves. So that I wonder our Author in his Paraphraſe, on occaſion of theſe words, ſhould obſerve that that Prophecy, the greater ſhall ſerve the leſs, was fulfilled perſonally in them, eſpecially ſeeing the contrary appears from the Hiſtory of Moſes, as in my Notes on the forementioned Chapter of Geneſis I have obſerved.

Verſ. 15. [...].] This place I have interpreted on Exod. xxxiii.19. and ſhewed the meaning of God to be, that "becauſe he had began to ſhew Favor and Mercy to the "Iſraelites, he would continue to do ſo: and this is all that is here intended by theſe words. The Apoſtle having ſaid that the Poſterity of Jacob were preferred by God before the Idumaeans, becauſe it ſo ſeemed good to him, and not becauſe Eſau's Poſterity were worſe than that of Jacob, propoſes to himſelf an objection, Is there unrighteouſneſs with God? Which he denies with deteſtation, ſaying, God forbid; for, ſaith he, he ſaid to Moſes, I will have Mercy on whom I have Mercy, and I will have Compaſſion on whom I have Compaſſion: that is, as God began to ſhew kindneſs to Jacob himſelf, ſo he continued his kindneſs to his Poſterity, without the leaſt injuſtice; becauſe he did not deny any benefit to the Idumaeans which they had deſerved, but [Page] only went on to do good to the Iſraelites tho unworthy. For it is no injuſtice to be merciful to thoſe that do not deſerve it, tho it would be ſo to puniſh thoſe that do not deſerve it. Mercy may be juſtly ſhewn, when puniſhment cannot be juſtly inflicted.

As this Interpretation is favoured by the place referred to in Moſes, as I have ſhewn in my Comment on Exodus, ſo it agrees alſo with the Greek words as they are here accented, for we read them [...] & [...] in the preſent tenſe Indicative, which is not ſo favourable to the vulgar Tranſlation, according to which we ought rather to read in the Subjunctive [...], as it is generally accented in the Greek Copies of the Septuagint, ſo that it might be rendred as it is by Beza; Miſerebor cujus miſertus fuero, & commiſerabor cujus commiſeratus fuero; I will have Mercy on whom I ſhall have Mercy, and I will have Compaſſion on whom I ſhall have Compaſſion. But this is contrary to the Hebrew words which are thus: [...] I have favoured him whom I will favour, I have had Mercy on whom I will have Mercy; where one of the Verbs is in the future tenſe, and the other in the preterperfect; which preterperfect is rendred here in the Preſent, becauſe it is the ſame thing, for God did ſtill then ſhew Mercy to the Iſraelites, and had never ceaſed to ſhew Mercy to them, when he ſo ſpake. Which being ſo, I wonder that Beza ſhould find fault with the Vulgar, and Eraſmus for making uſe here of the preſent Tenſe, and rendering it cui miſereor, or cujuſcunque miſereor, To whom I ſhew Mercy, or to whomſoever I ſhew Mercy, and give this reaſon for it, that in the Hebrew the Verb is in both places in the future, which the Reader has juſt now ſeen to be falſe. He adds that the Particle [...] ſhews it muſt be interpreted by the future as paſt; and I cannot deny but that Particle uſes to be joined to a Subjunctive, but it being joined to a Preterperfect tence Indicative, it may be alſo joined to the Preſent, eſpecially where the purity of the Greek Language is not obſerved, as it is not in St. Paul. It muſt be obſerved further, that the words of Moſes are inverted; for whereas in him it is, I have favoured him whom I will favour, &c. the Septuagint underſtood it as if it had been ſaid, I will favour him whom I do favour, &c. becauſe tho thoſe Phraſes ſignify the ſame thing, yet the order of the words in the latter ſutes better with the Greek Language.

Verſ. 16. [...].] This ſeems to be a proverbial form of Speech, commonly uſed to ſignify that all human endeavours are inſignificant unleſs God countenance them. I ſuppoſe it was taken from the Grecian Games, to which St. Paul often alludes. In like manner an unknown Poet, in Grotius's excerpta, ſays that,

[Page]

[...].

A Man void of Counſel, labours and runs in vain.

The meaning is, that from the meer arbitrary pleaſure of God proceeded that favour he continued to ſhew to Jacob's Poſterity, rather than to Eſaus; not from any thing that the Iſraelites had done to deſerve the divine Favor more than the Idumaeans. From which Doctrin it followed that God might without any injuſtice, call the Heathens to the knowledg of the Goſpel, and reject the carnal Jews, tho otherwiſe the Heathens had done no more to merit this token of God's favour than the Jews. Having thus far endeavoured to clear the Apoſtle's ſenſe in this place, I ſhall ſubjoin a Paraphraſe of ſeven Verſes, from the tenth to the ſixteenth, to ſhew how aptly what I have ſaid agrees with St. Paul's ſcope, and the ſeries of his Diſcourſe.

‘Verſ. 10. And not only the Example of Iſaac and Iſhmael teaches us, that it is not ſufficient for any Nation to have deſcended from the Patriarchs, to claim to themſelves a right in the Divine Promiſes, or entitle them God's People. This appears likewiſe by the inſtance of Eſau and Jacob, which Rebecca bare to one Iſaac. 11. For before ever they were born, and conſequently had done good or evil, by which to procure the favour of God, or make him their Enemy; that the purpoſe of God concerning chuſing a certain People to himſelf, might appear to proceed from his own arbitrary pleaſure, and not to have been excited by any Virtue or Merits of that People; 12. God anſwered Rebecca when ſhe conſulted him about her Children ſtriving in her Womb: That ſhe carried in her Bowels the Fathers of two great People; of which People that which did firſt become the moſt numerous, and acquired the greateſt Riches and Power ſhould afterwards ſerve the other, tho in the beginning not ſo powerful. 13. To which purpoſe alſo is that ſaying of God in Malachi, that he had preferred Jacob and his Poſterity, to Eſau and his Progeny, and upon the former conferred much greater Benefits. 14. Perhaps ſome may object that God, according to this Doctrin, ſeems to be unjuſt, who, as I affirm, ſo much prefers one People before another, that are no better than they. But that does not in the leaſt follow from this Doctrin. 15. For Moſes, whom none will affirm to charge God with any injuſtice, tells us, that when he had prayed God to continue to go before the Camp of the Iſraelites, tho they had deſerved his anger, and prevailed, he received this anſwer from him, that the Iſraelites, tho they had [Page] heinouſly offended him, ſince he had begun to ſhew them favour, ſhould find him alſo for the future gracious to them, and ſtill be accounted by him his People. 16. So that the Mercy of God in calling any Nation to the knowledg of himſelf, and making them his peculiar People, does not uſe to depend on the Merits of that Nation, but on his own free Will and arbitrary Purpoſe.’

This is, if I am not miſtaken, the Series of the Apoſtle's diſcourſe; which being ſo explained, directly anſwers his deſign in this place, and admirably agrees with the ſenſe of the places he refers to in Moſes, as it is in Moſes himſelf. About the 12th Verſe we muſt conſult Grotius.

Verſ. 17. [...].] The Particle [...] here ſeems to refer to the ſenſe latent in the foregoing words, in which tho St. Paul ſpeaks only [...] concerning the election, yet by this very thing, that he declares God to chuſe a Nation whom he may ſhew a peculiar kindneſs to, he intimates that he leaves other non-elect Nations in their Sins. For as I before ſuggeſted, there can be no election where ſomething is not caſt off, becauſe that which is not choſen muſt neceſſarily be rejected. And to this the Apoſtle's words in this and the Verſes following refer, wherein he diſcourſes ſeparately concerning rejection, as in the foregoing he had moſtly treated about election. So that I ſhould paraphraſe this 17th Verſe thus: ‘Moſes alſo teaches us that, as to the rejection or praeterition of ſinful Nations, whereby it comes to paſs that the People ſo abandoned fall into the greateſt evils and calamities, that may without blaſphemy be imputed to God, becauſe he ſays he was commanded to ſpeak to Pharaoh in God's name to this ſenſe, that he, if he ſo pleaſed, could eaſily deſtroy both the King himſelf and the whole Egyptian Nation, and ſo make his People a free paſſage, which they had ſo often refuſed them, out of their Country; but he would ſuffer Pharaoh ſtill to live, that he might give further demonſtrations of his Power, and make his Name great and famous throughout the World.’ See what I have written on Moſes's words, in Exod. ix.15, 16. for what our Author ſays in the following Annotation, does not agree with them.

Ibid. Note h. Tho the Hebrew word be in the Preterperfect tenſe, yet I have rendred it in its proper place, as if it were the Future, becauſe of the Verſe foregoing, which ſeems to require its being ſo rendered: See my Notes on that place, by which this muſt be underſtood.

Verſ. 18. Note i. By God's hardening the Heart of Pharaoh, I think is neither intended any action of God upon Pharaoh's Mind, nor ſo [Page] much as any withdrawing of his Grace from him, ſeeing there is neither any mention made of ſuch withdrawing in Moſes, nor is it neceſſary to ſuppoſe it. Nor do I think that Moſes purpoſely abſtained from uſing the Phraſe, the Lord hardened his Heart, till the ſixth Plague that he inflicted upon that Egyptian King was paſt, as if then, and not before, he particularly forſook him. For before ever Moſes went to Pharaoh, God foretold that he would harden him, Exod. iv.21. which refers to all his obſtinacy from firſt to laſt. See therefore my Notes on that place.

Verſ. 28. Note k. What our Author ſays in this Annotation he took from Grotius, with whom nevertheleſs I cannot agree in correcting this place out of one Alexandrian Copy, contrary to the Authority of all the reſt, and the Antient Interpreters. It is harſh I confeſs for [...] to be put after [...], and the conſtruction is intricate; but neither is it much clearer in the Septuagint. Beſides, in alledging Teſtimonies of Scripture, there is but little regard had to the ſeries of the Diſcourſe, provided the Writers words are but to the purpoſe, and rightly quoted. The words in the Hebrew are thus, verſ. 21. [...] which the Septuagint render, [...], finiſhing and making up his account in Righteouſneſs; whence it is probable they read [...] hhorets, the Participle Benoni for Pahul. Then follows in v. 22. [...] which they render, [...], becauſe an account caſt up will the Lord make in all the Earth, by which it appears that they thought [...] chiljon & [...] chalah, to ſignify an account; and if that be true, we may render the words ſomething more commodiouſly, tho to the ſame ſenſe, thus: he will haſten an account exactly caſt up in Righteouſneſs; for an account, and that exactly caſt up, will the Lord God of Hoſts make in the whole Earth. The words [...] & [...] ſignify diligently and particularly caſt up; and this very thing in part [...] alſo ſeems to ſignify, ſo as to be the ſame with [...] to caſt up, or draw together ſeveral ſums into one. And the Verb [...], according to the uſe of the Chaldee, I render by to haſten. In French the words might be tranſlated thus: il dépêchera de faire exactament ſon compte avec juſtice, car le Seigneur créateur, Dieu des armées, fera un compte & un compte exact, dans tout le païs; He will haſten to make exactly his account with Juſtice, for the Lord God of Hoſts will make an account and an exact account in all the Land. The Prophet's meaning is, that as one who carefully caſts up an account of his expences and receits, ſees if there remains any thing over, and tho it be but a ſmall ſum lays it ſafe up; ſo God will deſtroy all the wicked, and ſave only [Page] the good,Chapter X. tho they be but very few: which admirably well ſutes with the deſign of the Apoſtle. I ſhall add nothing more in this place, becauſe I intend hereafter, if God permit, to handle this matter more largely in a Commentary on the Prophet Iſaiah.

Verſ. 33. Note m. As there are two Paſſages here in the Prophet Iſaiah, at a conſiderable diſtance from one another, put together by the Apoſtle, ſo there are two Figures alſo conjoined. Firſt, Chriſt is conſidered as a ſtone of Offence, at which whether it be in walking or running, if any one do ſtumble, he is in danger of falling; and this refers to the Metaphors the Apoſtle had before taken from the Grecian Games, and particularly that of Running, which made him think of a ſtone of Offence, than which, in a ſwift motion, nothing can be more dangerous. Afterwards in the next words, every one that believeth on him ſhall not be confounded, Chriſt is repreſented not as a ſtone of Offence, but as a corner ſtone, which he that builds any Wall upon, muſt truſt to the firmneſs of; and if he be deceived in his confidence, after he has finiſhed his Structure, his building falls, and that fills him with ſhame.

This latter Similitude is in Iſa. xxviii.16. where God ſpeaks thus; I lay in Sion for a foundation, a Stone, an elect Stone (if we read [...] behhourah elect, for [...] bohhan a Tower) a corner Stone and pretious, a moſt firm foundation. He that believeth ſhall not make haſt, [...]; that is, ſhall never be judged to have made too much haſt in chooſing it, nor ever be aſhamed of his choice. And the former is in Chap. viii.14. He ſhall be for a ſtone of Stumbling and for a rock of Offence to the two Houſes of Iſrael; where the Metaphor is quite different, and it is no longer a corner Stone that is ſpoken of, but a ſtone on which a Perſons foot or the wheel of a Chariot happens to ſtrike, as the following Verſe more clearly ſhews.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 5. Note b. THE meaning of St. Paul in this place ſeems to be only this, that the Law promiſed nothing, but to thoſe that obſerved it ſo as Moſes taught it was to be obſerved; that is, unleſs either all its Precepts were obeyed, or the Sacrifices appointed by the Law were offered up for the expiation of ſome ſort of Sins againſt it. Otherwiſe it promiſed no Mercy from God to thoſe who had committed ſuch a Sin as the Law threatned with death, or allowed no Sacrifice for. But on the contrary, the Goſpel aſſures us that God will pardon ſuch ſins as thoſe, if the Sinner [Page] does but firmly believe they ſhall be remitted to him,Chapter XI. and abſtain from them for the future. This is all we are here to conſider; for what our Author ſays in his Paraphraſe, that it was impoſſible the Law ſhould be obſerved, that is ſo far from being the aſſertion of Moſes, that he every where ſuppoſes the contrary, as appears even by the very next words. See my Notes on Deut. xix.9.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 8. Note b. OUR Author truly obſerves, that according to the uſe of the Atticks, or thoſe that ſpake the pureſt Greek, [...] ſignifies compunction; but he might have added that the Greek Interpreters, whether through ignorance, or according to the uſe of the Alexandrians, confounded the Verbs [...] & [...], the firſt of which ſignifies to prick, to pierce, and the latter to nod or ſlumber; which made them think that [...] ſignified nodding, tho it comes from the Verb [...]. It will be worth our while to read Lud. Cappellus about this matter, in his Critical Notes on Pſalm iv.4.

Verſ. 12. Note d. I have often obſerved our Author to write ſo as not to make what he ſays at laſt to agree with what he had ſaid at firſt; becauſe, I ſuppoſe, after he had written half an Annotation he changed his Mind, and yet was loth to blot out what he had already written. And this we have an inſtance of in this place; for after he had proved that the word [...] ſignifies a multitude, he alters his opinion, and gives it another ſignification. But his ſecond thoughts here were not the beſt, as I ſhall briefly ſhew. For

1. That this word does ſometimes ſignify a multitude, appears alſo by Heſychius, who interprets it among other things, by [...].

2. The Hebrew [...] is not uſed for collecting, but for that which fills up, as the Lexicons will ſhew. Neither was a multitude ſo called [...] from a piece of Cloth put into a torn Garment to make it whole again, but becauſe it makes a [...] or full and complete Aſſembly, or [...], becauſe it fills the places into which it is gathered together. Perhaps alſo there may be a reſpect here had to the original of the word [...], which is thus ſet down in the E [...]ymologicon: [...].

3. The Jews who were to come in late to Chriſt, are no more called [...] becauſe of their filling up what remained empty in the Church, than the Heathens, who are called by the ſame name, and made up the greateſt part of the Church.

[Page] Chapter XII.4. I wiſh our learned Author had alledged the Paſſage he ſpeaks of in S [...]der Olam, in Hebrew, or referred to the Page; for I have not leiſure to read it all through, and the words he produces out of it look very ſuſpiciouſly.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 1. Note a. IT is ſo manifeſt that the word [...] is to be underſtood only in this laſt ſenſe, that I wonder our learned Author would ſpoil Paper, and loſe time in propoſing the other Conjectures. For they are ſuch as may be reckoned indeed in the number of thoſe things that have no natural repugnancy in them; but there is not the leaſt ſhadow of likelihood in them, nor can they be confirmed by any example. But, unleſs I am mightily miſtaken, he had never ſet them down, but only to fill up his Annotations on this Chapter, which he found would otherwiſe be but ſhort. And a great many other things there are of the like nature in this Volume, which yet I paſs by without reprehenſion: Such is what he inſerts into his Paraphraſe on this Chapter about the Gnoſticks, without any neceſſity; as if there could have been none corrupted with Vices contrary to the Vertues which the Apoſtle here commends, beſides the Gnoſticks!

Verſ. 2. [...].] The word [...] here does not ſignify only knowledg, or an opinion conceived in the Mind, but an affection of the Soul: And thence comes [...], which is not only a change of Judgment or opinion, but alſo of Affections. See Beza on Mat. iii.2.

Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, we all make one body of Chriſtians, or all we Chriſtians are one Body. The Phraſe [...] is often uſed by St. Paul for being a Chriſtian. So Chap. viii.1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, that is, to Chriſtians: See likewiſe Rom. xvi.3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. and 2 Cor. xii.2, &c. This I thought fit to obſerve, becauſe I perceived this expreſſion was not underſtood by Grotius, who ſays here; We are one body in Chriſt, that is, by Chriſt who was the Compactor of that Body; for tho that be true, yet it is not the meaning of the Phraſe.

Verſ. 6. [...].] That is, let him ſay no more than what [...] he is entruſted with; in which word the Apoſtle has a reference to the antient Prophets, who were to ſay nothing but what God revealed to them: See Verſ. 3. and Epheſ. iv.7. and Beza and Grotius on theſe words, whom our Author would have done well to follow, and not ſuffered himſelf to be impoſed on by that which is [Page] now ordinarily called the Analogy of Faith. I wonder the Engliſh Tranſlation did not ſuggeſt to him another Interpretation of this Phraſe, in which it is truly rendered, according to the proportion of Faith.

Verſ. 8. [...].] This word [...] our Author in his Notes on Mat. vi.22. has very well ſhewn to ſignify liberality or bounty; of which interpretation I ſhall here give this brief account. [...] or ſimplicity is oppoſed to [...] putting a difference, or uſing too much Caution in diſtinguiſhing thoſe that are proper objects of our Charity from thoſe which are not. Hence the Wiſdom which comes from above is ſaid in James iii.17. not only to be full of MERCY and good Fruits, but alſo [...] without difference, that is, not too nice or ſcrupulous in putting a difference between thoſe which it does good or ſhews Mercy to. To which purpoſe is that advice in Herma, Paſt. Lib. 2. Mand. 2. OMNIBUS in opibus da SIMPLICITER, nihil dubitans cui des. Omnibus da. Omnibus enim dari vult Deus de ſuis donis. Qui ergo accipiunt reddent rationem Deo quare acceperunt, & ad quid. Qui autem accipiunt ficta neceſſitate, reddent rationem, qui autem dat innocens erit. Sicut enim accepit à Domino, miniſterium conſummavit, nihil dubitando cui daret & cui non daret; & fecit hoc miniſterium SIMPLICITER glorioſe ad Deum, Give to ALL that are poor SIMPLY, without ſcrupling whom you give to. Give to all. For God will have all to partake of his Gifts. Thoſe therefore that receive ſhall give an account to God, why they received it, and to what end. And ſuch as feigned themſelves to be poor that they might receive the Charity of others, ſhall be called to a ſtrict account for it, but the giver ſhall be judged innocent. For by giving univerſally and without difference to all, he fulfilled the Truſt committed to him by God, and did it SIMPLY and to God's Glory. The Greek words are thus ſet down by Antiochus, Hom. 98. tho perhaps with ſome alteration. [...]. Several other Paſſages might be produced out of the Antients to the ſame purpoſe. See Lib. 3. Conſtit. Apoſtol. cap.4.

Ibid. [...].] Partly becauſe that chearfulneſs diſcovers a truly liberal diſpoſition of Mind, it being natural to Men to be chearful in following their own Inclinations, and partly becauſe it makes the benefit ſeem the greater to him that receives it, if it be beſtowed chearfully. See Seneca de Ben [...]ficiis, Lib. 2. cap. 4.

[Page]Verſ. 11. Note b. This conjecture of Dr. Hammond is favoured by the ſeries of the diſcourſe, in which it is not probable that among particular Precepts the Apoſtle would bring in that general one, comprehending all the duties of a Chriſtian's Life, of ſerving the Lord. Beſides, after the words [...], it very aptly follows [...], and both together make up an excellent Precept to this ſenſe: ‘In the buſineſs of Piety you muſt be zealous and fervent, but yet ſo as to obſerve the proper time for it, leſt by your unſeaſonable fervor you ſhould bring your ſelves into danger without doing any body elſe any good.’ The Apoſtle here makes uſe of a known Proverb, and ordinary both in Greek and Latin Authors. So Phocylides: ‘ [...].’ We muſt ſerve the ſeaſon, and not blow againſt the Winds. So Cicero de Finibus, Lib. 3. num. 73. among other Precepts of the antient Sages ſets down this, tempori parere, for one. So the Author of the Panegyrick ad Piſonem:

Temporibus ſervire decet, qui tempora certis

Ponderibus penſavit, eum ſi bella vocabunt,

Miles erit; ſi pax, poſitis toga geſtiet armis.

Hunc fora pacatum, bellantem caſtra decebunt.

It's true, in St. Paul, the ſenſe is ſomething different, but it is ſufficient if it have but an affinity with that which it is commonly taken in; for ſuch ſort of ſayings have generally more ſenſes than one. Which the Tranſcribers of the New Teſtament not ſufficiently underſtanding, and knowing that this Proverb was ſometimes uſed in an ill ſenſe, for hypocritical time ſerving, changed [...] into [...]. This is much more probable than that the word [...] was changed into [...], or the Phraſe to ſerve the Lord ſo very common in theſe Books, into one leſs uſual, to ſerve the time.

Ver. 15. Note c. Tho Grotius alſo, as well as our Author, ſuppoſes this Verſe to have a reference to the two Gates of the Temple, yet I am not of their opinion, nor do I think the Apoſtle had any particular reſpect here to excommunicated Perſons. The words are general, and contain an excellent general Precept to all Chriſtians, to endeavour to get the Love and Friendſhip of thoſe with whom they live, nothing being more pleaſing to Men than to ſee others ſympathize with them in their Afflictions, and rejoice at their Proſperity. I know they are for the [Page] moſt part Flatterers and Hypocrites that practiſe this;Chapter XIII. but then it is not for that that they are to be condemned, but their hypocriſy in pretending to grieve or rejoice at what happens to others when they really do not, but have other Ends and Deſigns. But a good Man alſo not only may, but ought to be truly affected with others Proſperity or Adverſity. I am apt to think alſo that St. Paul here rather made uſe of a common proverbial form of Speech, than a new phraſe not before heard of. We meet with the like expreſſion, tho to another purpoſe, in Horace de Arte Poetica:

Ʋt ridentibus arrident, ita flentibus adflent

Humani vultus.

Adflent, for ſo the word muſt be read, according to the opinion of learned Men, not adſunt. Of the thing it ſelf ſee Stobai Florileg. Tit. 113, and 115.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 21. AFter the words, avenger of Wrath.] I don't well underſtand what our Author meant, in taking ſo much pains to prove that [...] Power ſignifies the perſon of the Ruler or Magiſtrate; for who would have ever queſtion'd it? But perhaps his deſign was to ſhew that the [...] or governing Power was ſo confined by God to ſome particular Perſons or Families, that it could never paſs from them. Which is true, where the Kingly or any other Power, according to the cuſtom of the Country, deſcends by Succeſſion to the next Heir, and that Cuſtom cannot be altered without great danger. But where the Cuſtom is otherwiſe, as it was in the Roman Empire, in the time of St. Paul, I do not ſee the uſe of what our Author here ſays: For it is known, that the ſupreme Power was not confined to any one Family in Rome, but belonged to thoſe whom the Army elected.

Ibid. Col. 2. Lin. 4. After the words Fideni or Gabii.] Our learned Author miſquotes here the words of Juvenal, and puts Fidenorum Gabiorumque, inſtead of Fidenarum Gabiorumque, which for want of ſufficient skill in the Roman Antiquities, he ſeems to have taken for the names of two People; whereas Fidenae was the place where Juvenal wrote; and every Child that has read but the firſt Book of Livy, knows that Fidenae and Gabii were two Cities of that name, whereof the People were called Fidenates and Gabini, not Fideni and Gabii.

[Page] Ibid. At the end of that Note.] The Verb [...] ſignifies no more than [...], to have ſomething that another hath not, to excel or be eminent in any thing; and ſo may be applied, not only to that which is in its kind and order ſupreme, but alſo to that which in any thing whatſoever excels others deſtitute of it. Thus in the Old Gloſſes [...] is rendred by exſto, emineo, excello, praecello, exſupero, antecello; all ſignifying to excel: [...] eminet, exiſtit: [...], exſtans, excellens. [...] therefore here is rendred rightly by the Vulgar ſublimioribus. The Powers here meant, are the Emperor, and all the other Roman Magiſtrates, who [...], were at that time ſuperior to all the Princes of the Nations contained within the bounds of the Roman Empire. And theſe Powers were all from God; not that God had conferred a greater or a leſs degree of Power to this or that perſon immediatly, but becauſe it being the Will of God that men ſhould form themſelves into political Societies, and live peaceably with one another, he is ſaid, upon that account, to will alſo that there ſhould be Magiſtrates, both ſupreme and ſubordinate; becauſe there can be no Commonwealth, nor any Peace kept without Government. And this being ſo, whenever any one, either with the conſent of the People, or by an [...], ſuperiority of ſtrength ſeizes upon the Government, provided we may live peaceably under it, we ought to be ſubject to him for the ſake of the Commonwealth, and conſequently of God's Ordinance, and of Conſcience. So did the Chriſtians under the Heathen Emperors; and ſo did alſo the wiſeſt men among the Heathens.

Verſ. 6. [...].] viz. Becauſe it is but juſt that thoſe who employ themſelves in the ſervice and defence of the Commonwealth, ſhould be furniſhed for all neceſſary expences. This being a neceſſary conſequent of Society, God who will have men live in Society, muſt accordingly be ſuppoſed to require the paying of Tribute to its Governors. In which nevertheleſs the Laws always are to be regarded which appoint that Tribute: For this Reward given to the Magiſtrate for ſerving the Community, is conſtituted by Men, not by God immediatly; tho it ought not therefore to be accounted the leſs ſacred, becauſe in this particular of requiring Tribute, men act according to the Notions they have received from God, by the very Conſtitution of human Nature. This is what St. Paul means, and not that God has immediatly ordained either Kings, or the paiment of Tribute to them, as our Author ſeems to think, which no one would ſay concerning the Roman Emperors, and the Tribute paid to them.

[Page]Verſ. 9. [...], &c.Chapter XIV.] As it is very certain to me that Honor is due to Kings, and none but ſeditious perſons can make a queſtion of it; ſo I cannot tell whether any one can prove that the fifth Commandment requires us to pay that Honor which is due to Magiſtrates. There is the ſame reaſon indeed for both; but they are not required in the ſame Precept. See what I have written on the beginning of the Decalogue, in my Comment on Exod. xx.

Verſ. 13. Note e. All this, Plautus's Interpreters, and the Greek Lexicographers had obſerved a great while before our Author. But what is the meaning of lotis in the laſt Verſe he cites out of Plautus? Perhaps it is a falſe print for lotus: The ordinary reading is thus; ‘Tute tibi puer es lautus, luces cereum.’ Which needs no alteration. See Taubmannus on that place.

CHAP. XIV.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. OUR Learned Author, on Matth. xv.19. took abundance of pains to affix a ſenſe upon the word [...], which does not belong to it in that place. And ſo he does here to as little purpoſe; for tho [...] may ſignify that reaſoning which reſpects the regulation of a man's Life, yet that is not the literal importance of the word, which ſignifies any other ſort of reaſoning equally with that.

II. In Epicurus his Epiſt. to Idomeneus, [...] ſignifies all the Inventions and Diſputations of that Philoſopher, of what kind ſoever they were, which he had committed to writing, and the remembrance of which ſo much refreſhed him. [...] in his Epiſt. to Menaeceus, is another thing, and ſignifies the act of reaſoning it ſelf. Hence Cicero (not in Lib. 5. Tuſcul. Quaeſt. but de Finibus Lib. 2. Cap. 30. where he recites that whole Epiſtle) renders [...] by rationes & inventa, Reaſons and Inventions. As for St. Ambroſe, who did not deſign to be extraordinary exact in rendring that word, his Authority can ſignify nothing.

III. In this place I take [...] to ſignify a Speculation, or Opinion conceived in the Mind, and the meaning of the Apoſtle to be, that thoſe among them who were more knowing and intelligent, ought to receive and treat the ignorant with all mildneſs, tho weak in the Faith; that is, tho having a leſs degree of knowledg and underſtanding in [Page] Chriſtianity, they differed from them in their Opinions. So tha [...] [...], will be equivalent to [...], without diſcrimination of Opinions. The Judaizing Chriſtian was to be received and entertained with as much affection by thoſe that underſtood their liberty better, as if he did not Judaize. It is plain [...] ſignifies diſcrimination in 1 Cor. xii.10. and Heb. v.14. And [...] are the reaſonings of the Philoſophers, in Chap. i.2. of this Epiſtle, on which their Opinions or Errors were grounded.

Verſ. 4. [...].] H. Grotius has obſerved before the Doctor, that the phraſe to ſtand or fall, ſignifies to be acquitted or condemned; and that the Latins ſay, cadere cauſa. We have an Example of both in this one Verſe of Ovid, in Lib. Faſtorum, where ſpeaking to Germanicus, he ſaith: ‘Ingenium vultu ſtatque caditque tuo.’ That is, according as you receive this Work, favourably or otherwiſe, my Wit will find its endeavours either condemned or approved.

Verſ. 12. [...].] This Verſe is ſtrangely paraphraſed by the Doctor; for what occaſion was there here to ſay any thing about the Power of the Keys? any thing elſe might as well have been found out in this place.

Verſ. 15. Note c. 1. The following words ſhew that [...] ſignifies ſomething more in this place, than barely to be grieved, as Dr. Hammond well obſerves, viz. to be prejudiced and alienated by that grief from the Chriſtian Religion, which is the Notion of [...] to periſh, or be deſtroyed. But the reaſons he gives for this ſignification are not only forced, but alſo in part contrary to what he endeavours to prove. In one word, he might have ſhewn us what he meant, if he had ſaid that the Antecedent was put here by a Metonymy for the Conſequent, [...] ▪ for the effect of that grief, i. e. for a defection from the Chriſtian Religion. By a like figure the words to love and hate ſignify the effects of thoſe Paſſions, as in that famous place in Malach. i.2, 3. Jacob have I loved, and Eſau have I hated; that is, I have confer'd thoſe benefits upon Jacob, which I never beſtowed upon Eſau. See other Examples of the ſame, in Sal. Glaſſius Rhet. Sact. Tract. 1. Cap. 1. On the contrary, our Author produces Examples wherein the Effect is put for the Cauſe; which are nothing to the purpoſe, the Cauſe here being put for the Effect.

2. It is yet leſs to the purpoſe, what he ſays about the Conjugation Hiphil, and its being rendred in Greek by a Verb Active. For that [Page] which is uſed here is a Verb Paſſive, which is taken for the effect of that which it properly ſignifies. Beſides, he confounds Nouns with Verbs, and Verbs with Nouns, as if they were all one; and is hard put to it to extricate himſelf out of the maze of his perplexed reaſoning. ‘He had ſaid afterwards that [...] which ſignifies deſtruction, and is often rendered by [...], is, in Prov. xxxi.6. rendred [...];’ Juſt as if [...] abad were a Noun, and in the place of Proverbs were not the Participle [...] obed, periſhing, but a Noun.

Verſ. 17. Note d. The moſt ſimple and natural ſenſe of this Verſe ſeems to be this: ‘That which Chriſt, who is our King, requires of us, does not conſiſt in abſtaining from meat or drink, but in living righteouſly, peaceably, and chearfully under the ſenſe of thoſe Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt which we have received from God; and therefore we ſhould endeavour to follow after Righteouſneſs and Peace, and not be moroſe towards others who do not abſtain from the Meats forbidden by the Law.’ [...] here properly ſignifies chearfulneſs or pleaſantneſs, in oppoſition to the moroſeneſs of the Jews, who could not look upon thoſe who ate of all ſorts of Meats indifferently without frowning. The ſame word ſignifies Joy, in Gal. v.22. which is reckoned among the Fruits of a Goſpel-Spirit, and comprehends both that affection of mind which I have deſcribed, and that behaviour towards our Neighbour which proceeds from it, and which conſiſts in living and converſing with him in a friendly manner. And this amicable diſpoſition and behaviour St. Paul recommends elſewhere, as in 1 Theſſ. v.16. where he exhorts Chriſtians to rejoice always; or, as it is in Phil. iv.4. to rejoice in the Lord always, that is, for the Benefits they have received from the Lord. This Joy, as it ſhews that we are ſatisfied with our condition, ſo in all our tranſactions with our Neighbour it clearly diſcovers it ſelf, in the courteouſneſs and affableneſs of our behaviour towards him. Whereas on the contrary men who are diſcontented with the condition they are in, as they want this Joy, ſo they are generally rugged and moroſe in their deportment. Of which number were the Jews, who were very much offended at the approaching deſtruction of their Temple, and could not upon any terms be friends with the Gentiles, who did not obſerve the difference between Meats preſcribed by the Law. It is truly ſaid of ſuch a man by Amphis in Florileg. Stobaei, Tit. 99.

— [...]

[...].

[Page] How ingrateful a thing is a penſive diſcontented Man! Chapter XV. in every thing he carries himſelf moroſely.

Verſ. 23. [...].] i. e. Whatever we do, not knowing whether it is lawful or not, is a Sin, becauſe it proceeds from a Mind careleſs of the lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs of Actions. This Philo Judaeus has expreſſed almoſt in the ſame words as St. Paul, in Lib. de Profugis, pag. 336. where after he had given an allegorical interpretation of Abraham's Sacrifice, he ſubjoins that, [...]: The beſt Sacrifice is Forbearance and Abſtinence, in things about which we have no certain Faith.

Ibid. Note e. Our learned Author had no reaſon to ſpeak of the Poſthumous Notes of Grotius, as if he doubted whether they were genuin or not. They were committed to the care of Joan. Mercerus, who publiſhed them very faithfully; nor did any of Grotius's Family ever complain that they were not faithfully publiſhed. I ſpeak this, becauſe I know Dr. Hammond has elſewhere, for no reaſon, call'd into queſtion the fidelity of that honeſt Man. Nor indeed is there any thing here or elſewhere in thoſe Notes unworthy of Grotius, tho there may be ſome things in them liable to cenſure, as there are in his other works, and in all the Writings almoſt of all other Men.

However it is well ſhewn by the Doctor out of St. Paul himſelf, that Doxologies are not only uſed by way of Concluſion: Which may be confirmed by the inſtance of St. Clement, one of St. Paul's Diſciples, who has the like Doxologies more than once in his 1ſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians. See the end of Cap. 20. and what Patric. Junius has obſerved on that place, and Cap. 58.

CHAP. XV.

Verſ. 3. [...].] In this Citation we have an inſtance of what I obſerved on Chap. ix.28. that when any paſſages of Scripture are cited, the connexion of the Diſcourſe is generally neglected. For the ſenſe here is imperfect, and muſt be made up by the Reader thus, or to this purpoſe: ‘For even Chriſt did not pleaſe himſelf, but was very careful to avoid every thing that might prejudice the weak, and did not give his own Judgment that free liberty that he might have done, for fear of giving them an occaſion to blaſpheme againſt God, which he was as careful to ſhun as if thoſe Blaſphemies had fallen upon himſelf; ſo that it may be juſtly ſaid of him, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.’ It is certain Chriſt might have ſaid a great many [Page] things as to the abrogation of the Law of Moſes, and the calling of the Gentiles, which afterwards he revealed to the Apoſtles, and by the Apoſtles to others; he might have gone before them himſelf by his example, in neglecting the vain Ceremonies of the Law, and converſing freely with the Heathens, which undoubtedly would have been more [...] grateful and pleaſing to him than to hold his peace, becauſe the Apoſtles could not as yet bear what he had to ſay, and much leſs the reſt of the Jews; or to avoid the ſociety of the Heathens as polluted Perſons, who would more readily have believed on him than the Jews, leſt he ſhould give theſe latter an occaſion to blaſpheme the Chriſtian Religion, which was then but in its infancy. This is the ſenſe, if I am not miſtaken, of this place, which our Author did not ſufficiently underſtand.

Verſ. 4. [...], &c.] Here alſo there muſt be ſomething ſupplied to this purpoſe. ‘Theſe words of the Pſalmiſt ſhew you what it is your duty to do in endeavouring to avoid giving any occaſion to Men to blaſpheme Religion: For whatever things were written, &c.’ The deſpiſing of the ſcruples of the weak was a thing of very dangerous conſequence, becauſe it might alienate their Minds from Chriſtianity, and make them turn Apoſtates and Blaſphemers, and ſo expoſe it alſo to the contempt of Infidels, when they ſaw it forſaken by them that had firſt of all embraced it, and that the Chriſtians were divided amongſt themſelves.

Verſ. 8. [...].] That is, preached only to the Circumciſed; which our learned Author has not clearly enough expreſſed in his Paraphraſe. See Grotius.

Verſ. 12. Note a. Thoſe which are here called [...], and in the Prophet People and Nations, are literally the Tribes of Iſrael, as will appear to any one that compares the 10th verſe, out of which the Apoſtle cites this Paſſage, with the following verſes. But as under the perſon of Hezekiah is deſcribed the Meſſias, ſo by the Jews and their ſeveral Tribes are repreſented all the Nations throughout the World, that ſhould believe on the Meſſias. And the Jews, in St. Paul's time, generally took thoſe Paſſages to belong to the Meſſias, and therefore they are here fitly urged.

But our Author is miſtaken when he ſuppoſes the power of making War, which belongs only to him that is ſupreme, is here referred to; for Iſaiah does not ſpeak of making War, but of bringing back the Iſraelites that were diſperſed in the neighbouring Countries in Judaea, of which he ſays that Hezekiah ſhould be an Enſign: See Iſa. xiii.2. [Page] It is a Metaphor indeed taken from Military Affairs,Chapter XVI. becauſe at the ſetting up of an Enſign Souldiers uſe to gather together, but the power of making War is not alluded to. Nor had the Septuagint any ſuch thing as that in their thoughts when they tranſlated this Paſſage, but only for [...] lnes, for an Enſign, read, or thought it ought to be read [...] for a Prince; by which the ſenſe is not much alter'd, becauſe the ſame Perſon that was to be a Prince, was alſo to ſet up an Enſign.

Verſ. 16. [...].] Two ways any Offering might be ſaid to be ſanctified; firſt, by him that determined to offer up any Sacrifice to God, and delivered it already conſecrated in his Mind to the Prieſt to be actually offer'd up: and 2dly, when it was placed upon the Altar, which ſanctified, i. e. made it to be eſteemed Sacred whatever that touched: See Exod. xxix.37. and Mat. xxiii.19. This I ſuppoſe, the Apoſtle here has a reference to, rather than, as the Doctor, to the Prieſts, or as Grotius, to Salt; and that by [...] are meant the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, whereby the Gentiles, after they had believed, were conſecrated to God as by the ſacred fire of the Altar. See Acts x.

Verſ. 21. [...], &c.] To underſtand here Dr. Hammond's Paraphraſe, we muſt read Grotius on this place, and on Iſa. lii. where he interprets the words of the Prophet as ſpoken primarily of Jeremiah, and ſecondarily of Chriſt, forcedly indeed in my opinion. But I have not room here to diſcuſs that matter: I ſhall only remark, that St. Paul might very pertinently alledg this Prediction, ſpeaking of the calling of the Gentiles, becauſe it was commonly ſuppoſed to have a reference to the Meſſias.

Verſ. 31. [...].] This Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe interprets of the judaizing Chriſtians; but I think it ought rather to be interpreted of the unbelieving Jews, whom St. Paul had moſt reaſon to be afraid of, as the thing it ſelf ſhews.

CHAP. XVI.

Verſ. 1. Note a. IT is very true that in the New Teſtament [...] ſignifies to ſupply the poor with neceſſaries, and [...] liberality; but it does not appear from any example that any one was therefore called either ſimply [...] or [...]. No Grecian ever ſpake in that manner, to ſignify a Woman that was liberal to the poor of any Church, but of her own ſubſtance. So that [Page] it is much more probable a Deaconeſs is here meant, as the Chriſtians afterwards uſed to ſpeak, which had the overſight of the publick Alms of the Church, and performed perhaps other Offices in it. Not all it may be then that have ſince been attributed to them, but there were undoubtedly in thoſe Primitive times Deaconeſſes, which adminiſtred ſeveral things relating to the Church; as appears both by this place, and by an Epiſtle of Pliny to Trajan, wherein he makes mention of ſuch miniſtrae (ſo he calls them) among the Chriſtians. On which paſſage Ger. Voſſius has put together almoſt all that belongs to that Office, as Joan. Bapt. Cotelerius has alſo done on ſeveral places of the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions. See particularly on Lib. 3. cap. 15.

I wonder Dr. Hammond, when he had Grotius to go before him, did not rather keep to this, than ſay things which are nothing to the purpoſe: For it is no where ſaid that Phaebe accompanied any of the Apoſtles, and what is affirmed of ſuch Women is very ſuſpicious. For it is true, certain rich Women did ſometimes follow Chriſt, but this ſeems neither to have been conſtant, nor ever practiſed in great Journeys, when the longeſt were from Galilee to Jeruſalem, and that at the time of the Feaſts, in which Women otherwiſe uſed to go up to that City. But that in the journeys which the Apoſtles made into far diſtant Countries, they had rich Women to accompany them, and ſupply them with neceſſaries, which might otherwiſe have been more eaſily and decently done, let them believe who uſe to give credit to all that the Antients affirm, without the leaſt appearance of likelihood. It were eaſy to ſhew the improbability of it, and I ſhall ſay ſomething to that purpoſe on 1 Cor. ix.5.

Verſ. 7. [...].] That is, Chriſtians, as I obſerved on Chap. xii.5. See there.

Verſ. 16. Note c. It is uncertain whether St. Paul here had a reſpect to that Salutation which the Chriſtians us'd to give to one another in their holy Aſſemblies; nay it is very improbable, and that for theſe two reaſons. Firſt, becauſe the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of ſuch a Salutation as was given by Friends in the room of their Friends, to perſons whom they deſired in a Letter to be ſaluted in their name; which Salutation has nothing common with that Church-ſalutation. Secondly, in the Church where Men and Women ſat apart from one another, the Men were ſaluted by the Men, and the Women by the Women; not promiſcuouſly the Men by the Women, or the Women by the Men. The Author of the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions, Lib. 2. c. 57. where he ſets down the whole order obſerved in the Chriſtian Aſſemblies, [Page] deſcribes that Cuſtom thus: [...]: Then let the Men ſalute one another, and the Women one another, with a kiſs in the Lord. He had ſaid before: [...]: Let the Laicks ſit on one ſide in all quietneſs and good order; and the Women alſo ſit apart by themſelves, keeping ſilence. I know there were ſeveral alterations made in the Order of the Church in the following Age, but thus in all probability it was antiently, not only becauſe of the decency of it, but alſo becauſe it is certain this was the Cuſtom [...]mong the Jews, whom in many things the Primitive Church followed, as J. Bapt. Cotelerius on this place in the Conſtit. Num. 32. Edit. Amſt. has well obſerved.

Verſ. 17. [...], &c.] At the end of the Premonition to this Epiſtle, I ſaid I did not think that the Gnoſticks were referred to whereever Dr. Hammond thought ſo; but I did not deny that ſometimes the reproofs of the Apoſtles might belong to them, as theſe do in this place. They were ſubtil crafty Perſons, who perceiving that a great many had embraced the Chriſtian Religion, who were very liberal to the poor of that Profeſſion, and ready to hearken to any that made a ſhew of Piety and Learning, took occaſion to deceive the ſimple, that they might live idly at their coſt, and privately indulge themſelves in all manner of Senſuality: Of which number ſeems to have been that Peregrinus, whoſe death is related by Lucian, if we may give credit to an Epicurean and an Orator. And to theſe Hereticks ſeem to be owing that multitude of ſuppoſititious Writings which were received and uſed by the Chriſtians ever ſince the firſt Ages, and thoſe Philoſophical Opinions with which Chriſtianity was very early corrupted, and were taken by the ignorant and unwary for Apoſtolical Doctrines. See Col. ii.8. and 2 Tim. iii.2, &c.

Verſ. 20. [...].] Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe puts ſeveral things together, to ſhew the full importance of this Phraſe. But I believe it has a reference only to the perſecuting Jews, who waged an irreconcileable War with the Chriſtians as Apoſtates: For theſe being the inſtruments of the Devil, who is called [...] Satan, or an Adverſary, and by his inſpiration endeavouring to oppreſs the Chriſtian Religion at its firſt riſe, could not be deſtroyed, but Satan muſt be trod under foot as it were, at the ſame time. The Heathens had not as yet begun to perſecute the Chriſtians for Religions ſake, but only under the notion of ſeditious Perſons, by which [Page] name the Jews endeavour'd to defame them amongſt the Romans, as appears from the Hiſtory of the Acts. So that the Chriſtians had no Adverſaries at that time but the Jews; who having ſome years after become odious themſelves to the Romans upon the account of their Seditions, were not in a condition to do the Chriſtians any great harm. And that ſeems to be the reaſon why St. Paul promiſed the Chriſtians peace [...] ſhortly, from the God of Peace. What the Doctor ſays here beſides this, is beſides the meaning of the Apoſtle: That about the ſilencing of the Oracles is perhaps falſe; and it is certain Satan ceaſed not to ſtir up the Heathens for ſome Ages after againſt the Chriſtians.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Corinthians.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 5. Note b. IT is eaſily diſcernible, that all Dr. Hammond ſays in this Annotation are mere Niceties, which have no foundation in Grammar, but depend upon bare reaſoning, every part of which almoſt may be denied. Nor is it needful to confute it all particularly. It is much more natural, both here and in 2 Cor. viii.7. by the word [...] to underſtand the knowledg of Religion; which the Apoſtle Paul calls [...] in the ſame ſenſe that the Latins call Learning litteras, and the Greeks litteras [...], as every one knows, or if they do not, they ſoon may by the Lexicons. [...] therefore ſignifies in all knowledg; that which relates, for inſtance, to the interpretation of Prophecies, that which concerns the ſpeculative part of Religion, and that which reſpects the government of the Life. Nor is it any objection againſt this Interpretation, that hereby [...] and [...] are made to ſignify the ſame thing, nothing being more common than for ſynonimous words to be joined together. But ſee alſo Dr. Hammond's next Annotation.

Verſ. 15. [...].] That is, that they might be called my Diſciples, or receive a denomination from me, and be ſtiled Paulites. See my Note on Mat. xxviii.16.

Verſ. 20. Note f. What our Author ſays on this place, is certainly very ingenious; and ſome things he has tranſcribed out of Grotius ſo as to mend, and add to them. But if we conſider, we ſhall find that the Prophet Iſaiah is cited as a Witneſs to the Goſpel only in ver. 19. out of Chap. xxix.14. and that the following words in ver. 20. are taken by St. Paul out of Iſa. xxxiii.18. not to prove any thing, but only expreſs his mind by them as his own words. Juſt as the Greeks and Latins frequently borrow paſſages out of their own Poets, not [Page] to prove any thing by their Authority,Chapter II. but to expreſs their mind in their words more elegantly than they could do in their own; and to the ſame end likewiſe the Hebrews frequently alledg the words of the Old Teſtament. And as the Greeks and Latins make no difficulty of applying the ſayings of their Poets to a different purpoſe than they intended them, provided they do not apply them abſurdly; the ſame is obſervable alſo among the Hebrews: Of which there are innumerable Inſtances to be met with in the Talmudiſts, and the myſtical Interpreters of the Scripture; and before them in Philo, who ſeldom ever cites the Scripture but in that manner. And this being a uſual practice in the time of the Apoſtles, it is no wonder if they followed the cuſtom of the Age wherein they lived, there being no harm at all in that cuſtom. A very remarkable inſtance of ſuch a Citation we have in Rom. x. where the diſcourſe is about the Righteouſneſs of the Goſpel. But thoſe paſſages are carefully to be diſtinguiſhed from others, by which any thing is proved, or any concluſion drawn from them. I don't think St. Paul did ſo ſubtilly examin the agreement of the words of Iſaiah with what he deſigned to ſay, as Dr. Hammond.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 4. Note a. WHAT our Author ſays here about the ſeveral Arguments that might be uſed to procure credit to the Goſpel, is all very true and undeniable; but the greateſt part of it is beſides the ſcope of this place: For by [...] here is meant only the Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, which were uſed by thoſe who are called [...] in this very Chapter, in the Church; as the Gift of Tongues, which was no ſmall evidence of the truth of Chriſtianity. Achaia at that time being a place of great commerce, a great many Jews and Gentiles, out of Africa, Egypt, and other places where the Inhabitants were [...], if I may ſo ſpeak, reſorted to it. And theſe could not hear the Apoſtle ſpeaking properly in their ſeveral Languages without the higheſt admiration, knowing that he had never learned them. See Chap. xii. of this Epiſtle, where the word Spirit often ſignifies ſuch Gifts. And by [...], as Grotius rightly obſerves, is meant the Gift of healing Diſeaſes, or the like. See the ſame Chapter, verſ. 10, 28, 29. St. Paul's meaning therefore is, that he did not come to the Corinthians as a Philoſopher, to perſwade them to believe what he ſaid by argument and reaſoning, but endued with miraculous Gifts, ſuch as the Gift of Tongues and the like, and a power of curing the diſeaſed; that the credit they [Page] gave to him might not be as to a Philoſopher, who confirmed the truth of his Doctrin by probable reaſons, but as to God's Meſſenger, demonſtrating by Miracles that he had a Command from Heaven to ſay what he preached to them, and did not diſcover it by reaſoning.

The Arguments for the truth of the Chriſtian Religion taken from Prophecies, which Grotius and our Author would have to be partly here intended, were not [...] demonſtrations to any but the Jews, who had already fixed a certain ſenſe upon them, and believed them; but they could not in the leaſt move the Heathens. The reſt alſo were not [...], diſtinct from reaſonings, but to thoſe that had ſeen them: It is preſent Miracles that are here meant, whereby the Apoſtle, without any long arguing, proved [...], that he was ſent from God. Our Author in his Paraphraſe on this Chapter, puts in ſo many things foreign to the ſenſe of St. Paul's words, that it is rather he himſelf than the Apoſtle that reaſons in it.

Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, the Power of God; from which he received an ability to work [...]. This word in the foregoing Verſe ſignifies the effect of the divine Power, but here the divine Power it ſelf which was the cauſe of thoſe Miracles. That Faith which relies upon Miracles wrought by a divine Power, relies upon the divine Power it ſelf by which thoſe Miracles are wrought. Dr. Hammond here, according to his manner, makes a difficulty where there is none.

Verſ. 6. [...], &c.] This Verſe ſhould be paraphraſed thus: ‘All that throughly underſtand what is true Wiſdom, will eaſily perceive that the Goſpel is ſo. It is not, I confeſs, ſuch Wiſdom as that of Philoſophers or Orators, who by their ſubtilty and eloquence render themſelves ſo acceptable to the great Men of the World, which Wiſdom is made vain by the preaching of the Goſpel.’ [...] is Philoſophical Learning, which is vain in the account of thoſe that are perfect, or that throughly know what it is to be wiſe, as Chriſtians do. And by the Wiſdom of the Princes of the Age ſeems to be meant Eloquence, which in that Age the Nobility of Rome did diligently ſtudy, as appears by both the Seneca's, Quintilian, both the Pliny's, and others. [...] I render the Nobility, to make that word comprehend, not only the Roman Emperors, but alſo leſſer Powers, ſuch as the Preſidents or Governors of Provinces.

Ibid. [...].] This word is not to be referred to the Authority of the Roman Magiſtrates, which at that time prevailed, and afterwards continued, but to their Wiſdom or Learning, which was vain [Page] and empty, becauſe it could not make them happy, or lead them to the knowledg of the true Religion.

Verſ. 8. [...].] I don't think this Phraſe ſignifies the chief Men among the Jews, excluding the Heathen Magiſtrates; or theſe latter only, and not the Jews. For both may be intended, it being manifeſt that ſome multitude is deſigned in this expreſſion: NONE of the Princes of this Age, &c.

Verſ. 11. [...].] That is, to ſpiritual Men ſpeaking ſpiritual things. For that after [...] we are to ſupply [...], appears by the next Verſe, where the [...] is oppoſed to them: And ſpiritual things are ſuch as agree with the ſpiritual Nature of the Goſpel, according to the uſual notion of that word; not Arguments deduced from Prophecies, which [...] is no where elſe uſed to ſignify: this appears further from the following Verſe, which makes me wonder that both Grotius, and Dr. Hammond who follows him, ſhould talk here of Prophecies, of which St. Paul does not ſpeak one ſyllable in this place.

Verſ. 14. [...].] I don't think that by [...] here is meant a Man that makes uſe of nothing but reaſon, as our Author ſuppoſes, after Grotius; ſuch a Man ſhould rather have been ſtiled [...], for reaſon is called [...] not [...]. I rather think it ſignifies a Man who is no more raiſed in his Mind to ſpiritual things than any other [...] living Creature, i. e. than Plants and Animals. Perhaps Plants were called [...], but at leaſt Animals were ſtiled ſo in Greek at that time, in imitation of the Latins, ſo that [...] & [...] were all one. And to this the old Gloſſes ſeem to have a reference, which interpret [...] by animalia, & [...] by animalis. It is certain [...] is frequently taken for that life which is common to us with Brutes. [...] therefore is a Phraſe uſed by way of contempt to ſignify a Perſon that is wholly devoted and enſlaved to earthly things, and entirely taken up with the concernments of this Life, like a brute Creature: As on the other hand [...] ſignifies the Mind or reaſonable Soul, which is peculiar to Men, and capable of diſcerning and aſſenting to [...] ſpiritual things. The Verb [...] ſignifies here to aſſent, in the notion it is more than once met with in Thucydides, as H. Stephanus will inform us. Tho there is no need of Thucydides's authority, it being often ſo taken in the New Teſtament, as in Mat. xi.14. where Chriſt ſpeaking to the multitude concerning John the Baptiſt, ſaith: [...], if ye will admit or receive it (that is, aſſent to what I ſay) this is Elias, which was to come: See Mark x.15. Luk. viii.13. and xviii.17. Acts xi.1. and xvii.11. Jam. i.21. The [Page] ſenſe according to this interpretation is very proper:Chapter III. ‘He that is not raiſed above an animal Life, and ſo thinks of nothing but this World, does not aſſent to thoſe things which come from the Spirit of God, for he looks upon them as Trifles.’

Ibid. [...].] The ſimple Verb [...] here ſeems to be put for [...] to diſcern them, viz. from ſuch as are falſe. So it is uſed in John x.14. I know [...] my Sheep, and am known [...] by them. That is, as I diſcern thoſe who are ſo diſpoſed as to believe in me from all others, ſo they in like manner diſcern me from Impoſtors. And I interpret this word [...] here to diſcern, becauſe of what follows, where on the contrary ſpiritual Men are ſaid [...] to diſcern, for it is a clear oppoſition: "For ſuch a Man does not diſtinguiſh or diſcern "thoſe things which are from the Spirit of God, from Trifles. When it is ſaid [...], he cannot diſcern them, the meaning of that is [...], as long as he continues ſenſual, and judges ſenſually, viz. becauſe being biaſſed by his ſenſual diſpoſition, he minds only preſent and ſenſible things.

Ibid. [...].] That is, becauſe the Doctrin of the Goſpel is grounded not upon carnal reaſonings, which reſpect only preſent things, but upon ſpiritual, which take in the knowledg of things Future and Inviſible, and ſuppoſe it to be already in the Mind: or in fewer words; by ſuch a diſpoſition of Mind as whereby wiſe Men are not leſs affected with incorporeal and future Things, than thoſe which are preſent and ſenſible. It is true what our Author here ſays in his Paraphraſe, but beſide the ſcope of this place: The oppoſition here made between Spiritual and Animal things, plainly proves what I have ſaid. So in John vi.63. by the Spirit is meant ſuch things or Doctrines as could not be underſtood by the uſe or knowledg of things ſenſible. See afterwards Chap. iii.1, 11. and x.3, 4.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 15. Note b. IT is truly obſerved by learned Men, that this is a proverbial form of Speech, taken from thoſe who haſtily and narrowly make their eſcape from a Fire which had like to conſume them. Such another Metaphor there is in Livy, Lib. 22. cap. 35. L. Aemilium Paulum, qui— ex damnatione collegae, & ſua, prope ambuſtus evaſerat— ad petitionem compellit. And cap. 40. the ſame Aemilius ſaith, ſe populare incendium, priore conſulatu, ſemiuſtum effugiſſe; That in his former Conſulſhip, he had eſcaped out of a common Fire, half burned.

[Page]But our learned Author forcedly applies all this to his Gnoſticks: for tho in Judaea it is poſſible the Gnoſticks might feign themſelves to be Jews, to eſcape perſecution from them, becauſe the Jews there were far more numerous than the Heathens; it does not follow there was any reaſon to be afraid of them at Corinth, or in Achaia, where the Jews were much fewer in number than the Greeks, and where their Complaints of the Chriſtians were not hearkened to by the Roman Magiſtrates, as appears from Acts xviii.12, &c. And after the Jews once began for their Seditions to be ſuſpected by the Romans, as not long after it happened, it had not been carnal Policy for any to join themſelves to their party: So that there is no room here for what the Doctor ſays about the compliance of the Gnoſticks with the Jews.

If the Gnoſticks had reaſon to fear any danger in Greece, it was from the Romans; but it does not appear there was any perſecution raiſed againſt the Chriſtians in thoſe parts, till a great while after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem: See Mr. Dodwell's Diſſert. de paucitate Martyrum, among his Cyprianicae. So that that day of which St. Paul ſpeaks, cannot be referred to the deſtruction of the Jews. It is much better by Grotius underſtood of a long ſpace of time, which very often diſcovers what is true, and what is falſe, as many of the Antients have obſerved. Conſult Stobaei Excerpta de Rerum Natura, Tit. 11. where there are a great many ſayings to that purpoſe. As for the Fire which St. Paul here makes mention of, that is nothing but an examination of Doctrins, which after ſome time the Chriſtians would ſet themſelves to, and upon which all that were falſe would be rejected, and the true retained; which is called Fire by a Metaphor taken from Metals. They that retained the foundation of Chriſtianity, tho they built ſtrange Doctrins upon it, would at length upon that examination of them, find that they had built ſtubble upon Gold; and when they underſtood that they had been in danger of caſting away the foundation of Religion it ſelf for thoſe Errors, they would preſently forſake them, and eſcape as out of the Fire, not without the loſs of their Reputation and Time, beſides what they muſt be reckoned to have loſt in pious Actions and right Apprehenſions, by continuing ſo long in their Errors.

That Character of the Gnoſticks, which our Author would have to be contained in the following words, agrees to any others that err through a falſe notion of Wiſdom, and do miſchief to the Chriſtian Church. So that what he thought to be manifeſt, ſeems to me to be plainly falſe.

Chapter IV.CHAP. IV.

[Page]

Verſ. 6. Note a. [...] properly is to think, and does not ſignify to be proud ſimply taken, but only when there is ſomething elſe added to it, as here [...]: that is, be not lifted up in your Minds, beyond what theſe Inſtructions will allow which I have already written, either in this Chapter, or the foregoing, but eſpecially in Chap. iii. where St. Paul had taught the Corinthians what they ought to think both of themſelves, and of their Teachers.

Verſ. 13. Note b. I. It is true indeed what our Author ſays about the ſignification of the words [...] and [...]. But there is another notion given by the ſame Grammarians of theſe words which I like better, as ſeeming to be more agreeable to this place, for purgamenta, filth, quiſquiliae, retrimenta, the dregs or refuſe of any thing. For the Apoſtles meaning is no more than that he was the Object of every bodies Contempt, and ſo was [...], or [...], look'd upon by all the World as refuſe. And this notion of the words is agreeable to their Original, [...] coming from [...] to purge, and [...] from [...] to wipe off. Heſychius has indeed [...], but without any interpretation of it, which muſt be ſupplied out of Phavorinus, who ſeems to have had the moſt correct Copy of that Grammarian, and tells us, that [...] is [...], for filth, and as refuſe. The other word is interpreted in Heſychius by [...] which comes from [...] to wipe off, and ought not to be alter'd. It follows; [...], it ſhould be, [...]: but the former word was omitted becauſe of its likeneſs to [...], which went before. In Suidas alſo it ſhould be read [...], as Aemil. Portus obſerved, who ought to have corrected the whole paſſage by Heſychius: For it follows in Suidas; [...], which he ridiculouſly renders; ipſa ſub veſtigiis redemptio, when it is manifeſt the words ought to be read with a Comma after [...] thus: [...], or what is under foot, alſo redemption. Phavorinus interprets [...] not only [...] abomination, but alſo [...]: a Towel which wipes the Sweat off one that is tired with work: [...]: or refuſe which is caſt away, as uſeleſs: [...]: by a Metaphor taken from thoſe who wipe down Tables after eating. He adds, [...] is put for that which ſignifies to purge, to wipe off with a ſponge; but he ought [Page] to have ſaid [...], for it is a Compound of the Verb [...], to wipe, Chapter V. to ſhave. Whence in an old Onomaſticon [...] is rendred ſcobs, ſhavings or filings. The old Gloſſes publiſhed together, render [...] purgamentum. And Euſtathius in the place alledged Edit. Rom. p. 1935. interprets both the words by [...] & [...], that which is waſhed and wiped with a Sponge. And Apoſtolius in Cent. 16.3. interprets them alſo [...], that which every one treads under foot or deſpiſes.

II. I do not think that thoſe Nations who had purifications, in ſome reſpect like the Jewiſh, imitated therein the Jews, to whom moſt of them were perfect Strangers, and ſome of them more powerful and antient than they, as the Egyptians. Nor have ſuch Rites conſidered in themſelves any thing Divine in them, that they ſhould be referred to God as their firſt inſtitutor. It is much more probable that the Jews had been already accuſtomed to them, whilſt they were among other Nations; and that God in thoſe [...] beggarly elements of the World, as St. Paul calls them, did accommodate himſelf to their Capacity and Temper. Of which matter I have had occaſion to ſpeak in many places of my Commentary on the Pentateuch.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 1. Note a. THE word [...] can ſignify but two things in this place. Firſt, it may denote the certainty of the Report, and be referred to the Verb [...], and ſo St. Paul's meaning will be, that that report had been a long while ſpread, and it was univerſally affirmed for a certain truth, by all that knew the Church of Corinth; in which ſenſe [...] is an Adverb of affirming. Secondly, it may be a Particle, whereby the Apoſtle ſignifies he would tell them briefly and in one word, why he ſhould come to them [...] with a Rod. In both theſe ſenſes this Particle is uſed in good Authors, but never in Dr. Hammond's, that I know of; and if it were, yet in this Conſtruction, that could not be the ſenſe of it. It ſignifies alſo [...], wholly or altogether; but for that ſignification of it there can be no room neither here: See Mat. v.34. and afterwards Chap. xv.29. of this Epiſtle. I rather think it is here an Adverb of affirming, becauſe the Verb [...] immediately follows it.

Verſ. 2. Note c. Lin. 13. After the reference to Rom. xii. Note c.] This paſſage of St. Clement, as alſo the Citation out of Origen, was taken by our Author out of Grotius, as is evident by this, that Grotius refers us only to Conſtit. 2. without ſetting down the Chapter, which [Page] he ought to have done in the quotation of a Book that had been long ſince divided into Chapters: and ſo does the Doctor. Grotius does not truly cite the words of the Conſtitutions; no more does Dr. Hammond. The place is in Lib. 2. cap. 41. and the laſt word of it here alledged, is not [...], but [...] cut off. By this it appears that learned Men are not to be abſolutely truſted in citing the Teſtimonies of the Antients.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] If our learned Author to this paſſage in St. Paul, had added only that in 2 Cor. xii.21. no one would ever have diſputed with him about theſe interpretations. But all that he ſays afterwards is manifeſtly forced, becauſe St. Paul does not ſpeak of that Sorrow which was cauſed by the cenſures of the Church, or Excommunication, but concerning Sorrow which proceeded from a depravation of Manners in the Corinthians, for which St. Paul had juſtly reprehended them. For it is apparent that St. Paul ſpeaks to the whole Corinthian Church, which no one would ſay was excommunicated becauſe the Apoſtle had in this Epiſtle reproved their Manners, or becauſe he had ordered that one inceſtuous Perſon, ſpoken of in this Chapter, to be delivered to Satan. The thing confutes it ſelf upon the very mention of it; and I dare ſay our Author had never written in this manner, if he had not ſome time before compoſed a diſputation about the Power of the Keys, which he was very much in love with, and perhaps more than he ſhould have been, and that made him think he ſaw thoſe Keys where no body elſe would ever have thought of them.

Verſ. 5. Note e. I. It had been better in my judgment, if our learned Author had inſiſted only on the ſecond reaſon he aſſigns of this phraſe, which is manifeſtly grounded on the Apoſtle's writings; for what need was there of inventing another new one, when the Apoſtles had given one very ſufficient reaſon of it? But, unleſs I am miſtaken, the Doctor did not ſufficiently diſtinguiſh the common Excommunication, as it is deſcribed by the Jews, or as it obtained in after Ages, from that delivering up to Satan in the time of the Apoſtles. For this was a conſectary of that miraculous Power of the Apoſtles, whereas the power of Excommunication was not conjoined with any Miracle. What Joſephus relates concerning the Eſſeni, may ſo be underſtood, as that the Excommunicate Perſon ſhould be ſaid to have died for Grief, not by the miraculous Virtue of the Excommunication; which yet if Joſephus had believed, it would be no Crime to refuſe to give Credit to him. And it is certain thoſe Eſſeni were neither Prophets themſelves, nor inſtituted by Prophets: But of this and other things which belong to [Page] Excommunication, we may conſult Mr. J. Selden, de Synedr. Judaeorum, Lib. 1. cap. 7, &c.

II. What our Author conjectures about the ſenſe of the Verb [...], that it ſignifies here to deliver up upon Demand or Petition, is certainly ingenious; but if it ſhould be denied, I don't ſee how it could be proved. For an Executioner does not uſe to require the Magiſtrate to deliver up Malefactors to him, but they are delivered up to him without his demanding them. And when it is ſaid that Satan deſired permiſſion of God to ſift the Apoſtles, that was not properly to execute Puniſhment on them for their Sins, but to aſſault them the more vehemently with his Temptations and wicked Suggeſtions: Nor indeed can the Devil be ſuppoſed to demand bad Men of God in order to torment them, whom he would rather make happy, if he could, that he might entice others into ſin by the example of their Proſperity; ſo that he is rather to be thought to puniſh bad men againſt his will, than to ask leave of God to afflict them. And it's viſible that bad men who ſerve Satan, are ſo far from being more miſerable and obnoxious to diſeaſes than the good, that the contrary is generally true. Whence alſo by the way we may infer, that if to be delivered to Satan, were all one as to be caſt out of the Church, thoſe who never were within the Church muſt have been reckoned from their very birth to have been delivered up to Satan, and by conſequence have been all more obnoxious to diſeaſes than the Chriſtians: And all likewiſe that were rightfully Excommunicated ſhould have been ſaid to have been delivered to Satan, and been afflicted with Diſeaſes, which yet that it was of old ſo, no Writer has ever aſſerted, nor does any one believe. But delivering up to Satan, tho conjoined with Excommunication, is not the ſame thing: And therefore our Author ought not to have confounded this unuſual Puniſhment inflicted by Apoſtolical Authority, with the ordinary Cenſures of the Church. Nor is he more fortunate in conjecturing that this delivering to Satan was an imitation of God's dealing with Sinners, when he leaves them to the power of the Devil to execute his pleaſure upon them.

Verſ. 9. [...].] Many Interpreters would have this to be underſtood of this very Epiſtle, contrary to all the rules of Grammar, leſt it ſhould be thought that any of St. Paul's Epiſtles were loſt; which yet why they might not, no reaſon at all can be given: For if ſo be, we want none of thoſe things which are neceſſary to Salvation, what reaſon can we have to accuſe the Providence of God, if any of the Writings of the Apoſtles were loſt? Should we have been ever the leſs Diſciples of Chriſt, if any of thoſe Epiſtles [Page] had been loſt, which we now have? Was it abſolutely neceſſary that every thing which the Apoſtles wrote ſhould be tranſmitted to Poſterity? Nay we may ſuppoſe that there were ſome ſuch Epiſtles, which it was the intereſt of the Churches, and Men of that Age to conceal; for there are ſecrets which every body need not to be acquainted with. And it would be no hard matter to produce inſtances of ſuch ſecrets, if every one could not eaſily find ſuch himſelf. So that there being no ſufficient reaſon to perſwade us that all the Apoſtles writings either were or ought to have been preſerved, if it be moſt agreeable to the rules of Grammar to ſuppoſe, that the Diſcourſe here is about an Epiſtle which is loſt, I do not ſee why we ſhould not be of that Opinion. And there are three things that ſhew St. Paul to ſpeak of ſome other Epiſtle.

Firſt, That he had no where in the foregoing part of this admoniſhed the Corinthians [...], not to aſſociate with Fornicators: For what he had ſaid about the Corinthian who was guilty of Inceſt, cannot be the thing here referred to, becauſe that had no ambiguity in it; and it appears by the following Verſe, that the ambiguity of St. Paul's words either did, or at leaſt might have given the Corinthians an occaſion to miſtake: I wrote unto you, ſaith he, in an Epiſtle not to keep company with Fornicators; but not altogether with the Fornicators of this World, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or Idolaters, for then muſt ye needs have gone out of the World. But now I have written unto you, not to keep Company with any Man that is called a Brother, and is a Fornicator, &c.

Secondly, The 11th Verſe which begins with the Particle NYNI now, ſufficiently ſhews that the Apoſtle in that ſpeaks of this Epiſtle, and in the 9th Verſe of another: I WROTE unto you, ſaith he, in an Epiſtle, not to, &c. But NOW I have written unto you, &c. There is here a plain oppoſition between the time of the Apoſtles writing the one and the other; for tho the Particle now be ſometimes only a tranſition, and does not ſignify any difference of time, yet it is manifeſt that St. Paul ſpeaks here of a thing that was paſt, which he now explains more clearly. Nay tho we ſhould grant the Particle now to be here a form of tranſition, and the Apoſtle to ſpeak of the ſame Epiſtle in both Verſes; yet that Epiſtle muſt be an Epiſtle in which St. Paul had ſpoken ambiguouſly, and not this in which there is no ambiguity, as I have juſt now ſaid.

Thirdly, If the Apoſtle had meant this Epiſtle, he would not have ſaid [...], but either have wholly omitted it, or ſaid [...], in this Epiſtle; tho even that could not be handſomly enough ſaid, if but juſt before he had written that which by many he is ſuppoſed [Page] here to refer to. But undoubtedly he meant another Epiſtle, as in his 2d Epiſt. Chap. vii.8. where he ſpeaks of this, which is come to our hands: [...], ſaith he, [...], I made you ſorrowful in a Letter, viz. formerly written to you. Tho I confeſs the Phraſe [...] is uſed elſewhere by St. Paul, to ſignify [...], this Epiſtle, viz. in Coloſ. iv.16. and 1 Theſſ. v.27. But I do not rely only on this reaſon, or the bare omiſſion of the Pronoun [...].

All this did not hinder Dr. Hammond, who was an excellent Divine, but an indifferent Grammarian, from declaring himſelf of another Opinion in his Note upon this Verſe, which, if I am not miſtaken, was owing to a Theological prejudice, mentioned in the beginning of this Animadverſion.

Ibid. Note g. Col. 2. Lin. 23. After the words, guilty of thoſe Sins.] I have already confuted what Dr. Hammond here ſays, who would have done better to follow Grotius whom he ſo often had recourſe to. That none of the Antients have made any mention of that Epiſtle to the Corinthians, which I ſay is loſt, does not prove that there was no ſuch Epiſtle; becauſe there might be reaſons, as I before ſaid, for the concealing of it, or perhaps alſo after it was read, for the tearing and burning it, by the Apoſtle's own order who had written it.

Verſ. 10. Note h. I. As [...] no where ſignifies a Voluptuary, unleſs it be in Dr. Hammond's Lexicon, as I have ſhewn on Rom. i.29. ſo neither does [...] when it is alone, ſignify a Raviſher of Boys or Women; but the circumſtances of the place where that word occurs, muſt oblige us to take it in that ſenſe; otherwiſe it always ſignifies one that is greedy of Mony, and takes away what is anothers, either under a pretence of right, or by abuſing his Authority to that purpoſe. And in this place where the word [...] is ſet in the firſt place, and ſignifies a Perſon addicted to Venery, there is no neceſſity to take it in any other than its ordinary ſenſe: See eſpecially the following Verſe, where [...] is laſt mentioned after the names of four other Vices.

II. The word [...] in 2 Pet. ii.12. ſignifies no ſuch thing; for Animals made [...] are Animals therefore created that they might be taken and deſtroyed: See Grotius on that place. There was no neceſſity of recurring to the Verſion of the Septuagint, to ſhew that [...] ſignifies rapere to raviſh; for who does not know that?

III. What is ſaid of the ſenſe of Gen. vi.11. is all mere conjecture, which has no ground either in the Hiſtory, or the proper ſignification of the words. The Hebrew [...] hhamas does not ſignify Violence but Injury; and [...] ſchihheth, he was corrupted, ſignifies any change [Page] whatſoever for the worſe, and not only Luſts, as any Lexicon will ſhew. It's true, the Marriages of the Enſidae with the Cainites, were a means of corrupting all Mankind; but it does not thence follow that Luſt was their principal Sin, no more than from St. Peter's joining the Men who lived before the Flood with the Sodomites; for to put them together, it is ſufficient that they were both Sinners, tho their ſins were different, and both utterly deſtroyed, tho not in the ſame manner.

IV. I grant a luſtful Perſon was the occaſion of what the Apoſtle here ſays; but it does not follow therefore that the Vices which he mentions in verſ. 10, and 11. belong to the ſame thing. Surely [...], & [...], do not ſignify one given to Venery, tho I confeſs, Idolaters, Railers, and Drunkards, have been often addicted to Luſt.

V. There is no doubt but [...] is ſometimes taken for a Raviſher of Boys or Women; but as I ſaid before, the Circumſtances of the place muſt ſhew that the word is uſed in that ſenſe, as in the place alledged out of Harmenopulus, which nevertheleſs I do not warrant, becauſe I have not look'd into him. But the Paſſages cited out of the Sybillin Oracles, are certainly wreſted; nor do I believe that our learned Author took them out of the Book it ſelf: For the firſt is in the firſt Book, not the ſecond, out of which he cites it. And the place it ſelf ſhews that he miſinterprets it; for after the word [...] is ſubjoined the word [...], Tyrants, who are rather Raviſhers of Goods and Poſſeſſions than of Men. In the ſecond are collected the names of ſeveral Vices, whether they have any Affinity with one another or not: and tho Men are called by the Sybil, A race of Adulterers, Idolaters, Deceivers, and Perſons whoſe breaſts are full of Rage; and ſhe adds, ‘ [...],’ Snatching to themſelves, having an impudent Mind; it does not thence follow that [...] muſt here be underſtood of the raviſhing of a Boy or a Woman, tho there were nothing added which ſhewed the contrary. But it follows, ‘ [...].’ For no rich Man that has great poſſeſſions, will make another participate of them. By which it is evident that it is not ſo to be underſtood. Two Verſes after that it follows,

[Page]

— [...]

[...].

Many Widows will privately love others for Gain. Which is nothing to the Verb [...]. In the laſt Verſe but two of the Book, the Sybil ſaith, that the day of Judgment, of which ſhe had before ſpoken, would come ‘— [...],’ When the ſmell of Brimſtone ſhould be gone. In which I cannot tell whether ſhe had any reſpect to the deſtruction of Sodom.

VI. In Mat. xxiii. the words [...] & [...] are uſed in their ordinary ſignification; and [...], which is oppoſed to them, is not only that purity which conſiſts in Abſtinence from carnal Pleaſures, but from any ſort of Wickedneſs, as appears by the place alledged out of St. Luke, where [...] ſignifies all kinds of Vice, as the Hebrew [...] rahah in Gen. vi.5. They who think otherwiſe, can bring no Argument either from the thing it ſelf, or the word to confirm their Opinion: So that upon the whole here is, as the Poet ſpeaks, ‘Pergula pictorum, veri nihil, omnia falſa.’

Ibid. Note i. Here is, I confeſs, [...] a mighty flood of Examples, but

— [...]

[...].

For it is true indeed, the Solemnities uſed in the worſhip of ſome Deities, in ſome places, were accompanied with ſhameful Luſts, as I have ſhewn my ſelf on Exod. xxxiv.15. But that either every where, or for the moſt part it was ſo, I leave them to believe who are ignorant of the antient Heathen Cuſtoms. Our Author ſpeaks as if the Greeks and Romans did very freely ſuffer their Wives and Children to be corrupted and proſtituted in their ſacred Myſteries; and as if that was the general Cuſtom, than which nothing can be more falſe: Nay there were ſevere Decrees ſometimes made againſt Impurities in the worſhip of their Gods, as appears from Livy, Lib. 39. and by an order of the Senate it ſelf ſtill extant: See alſo Cicero de Legibus, [Page] Lib. 2. Cap. 14, 15. I do not therefore believe that an Idolater ſimply is ever taken for a Fornicator or Adulterer, as if Idolatry and Uncleanneſs had always gone together: Nor does our Author produce any one Paſſage to make it probable; for tho all the Sins which are joined with Idolatry here and elſewhere, reſpected carnal Pleaſures, it would in no wiſe follow that by Idolatry is meant Impurity, when neither the proper ſignification of that word, nor its uſe will admit that ſenſe; and it is very common for Sins of various kinds to be joined together. And yet upon this only ground almoſt, our learned Author in his Note on Rom. i.29. endeavoured to prove that [...] ſignified Luxury, againſt the proper ſignification of the word, and the conſtant uſe of all Writers, as I have there ſhewn. And the ſame I ſhall do here, as to the word Idolatry, leſt any ſhould be deceived by his Authority, or multitude of Examples.

I. The Hebrew word [...] gilloul ſignifies Dung properly, and Idols are by way of contempt ſo called, not becauſe of thoſe carnal Pollutions that accompanied the Worſhip of them, but becauſe they were made no more account of than Dung by the Jews: For Dung did not pollute, viz. with any legal Pollution. By the Septuagint this word is rendred [...], not as if that were the proper ſignification of it, but becauſe the Jews who ſpake Greek, commonly called Idols [...] abominable things, not polluted; for [...] does not ſignify to be polluted, but to abhor, to deteſt. And the ſame is the ſignification of the Hebrew root [...] ſchakats, whence [...] an abominable thing, not properly becauſe of carnal Pollution, but becauſe it is evil. Lyra's Authority is not to be regarded. See my Notes on Gen. xxi.7.

II. I do not doubt but in the Bacchanalia, or night Revels of Bacchus, there were horrible Villanies committed; but I do not think it was univerſally known in Greece, that thoſe things were done there in honour of that God. Our learned Author might have produced a great many fitter Teſtimonies, to ſhew that the Myſteries of Ceres were ſecret, than thoſe which he alledges out of Horace and Seneca; or rather have let them quite alone, ſince every Child knows ſuch things.

III. That paſſage in Jerem. xliv.19. is perfectly foreign to this buſineſs, there being nothing there ſaid about nocturnal Sacrifices: For thus the Women who had offered Sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven, that is, the Moon, ſpeak: When we burned Incenſe to the Queen of Heaven, and poured out drink Offerings, did we make her Images without our Husbands? &c.

IV. I am of opinion indeed with our Author, that God by the ſacred mark of Circumciſion, did ſignify the amputation of inordinate [Page] Pleaſures; but whether he had a particular reſpect to the ſhameful practices of the Heathens in their Religious Solemnities, which in that Ceremony he condemned, I cannot tell; nor is it evident from any place of Scripture.

V. Our Author had not look'd into 2 Kings xxiii.7. for the word there in the Hebrew is [...] laaſcherah, that is, in a Grove, not [...] haſtheroth, which has a different ſignification. But he was deceived by an overhaſty reading of what Mr. Selden ſays about this matter, de Diis Syris, Synt. ii. Cap. 2. who may be conſulted; and who has alſo treated at large of Milytta and the reſt here ſpoken of, in Syntag. 2. Cap. 7. To me likewiſe it ſeems moſt probable, what he conjectures about the original of the names Atergatis and Derceto, in cap. 3. of the ſame Syntagm. as if they were the ſame with [...] addir-dag, a magnificent Fiſh, becauſe he ſets down a ſtory which agrees with his conjecture, as he at large ſhews.

VI. By a pleaſant miſtake our Author produces Verſes out of the 3d Book of the Sybillin Oracles, as reſpecting the Roman Luſtrations, of which there is not in them the leaſt mark or footſtep; merely, if I am not miſtaken, becauſe Joan. Opſopaeus, who turned the Sybillin Oracles into bad Latin Verſe, had thus tranſlated the two firſt which Dr. Hammond alledges:

Maſque mari ſe junget, ſtatuentque pudendis

In LUSTRIS pueros.

But theſe Luſtra any one will ſee to be Bawdy-Houſes, who obſerves it to be in the Greek [...]. The other places prove nothing, but only that the Heathens were generally given to inordinate Luſts, but not that thoſe Luſts were reckoned by the moſt of them a part of Religion.

VII. In the Eleuſinia Sacra, or Rites performed in honour of Ceres, there were indeed ſome indecent things practiſed, as Joannes Meurſius in Eleuſiniis will inform us; but that any horrible Villanies, and ſuch as are not to be named, were committed in them, will not be thought by any that ſhall read what is ſaid of them by Cicero de Legibus, Lib. 2. in the place before cited.

VIII. In Coloſſ. iii.5. the word [...] is taken in its uſual and conſtant ſignification for Covetouſneſs, and not for luſtful Idolatry: The ſame I ſay of Epheſ. v.5. The reſt of the places alledged prove nothing at all, for the Affinity there is between ſome Vices does not make it neceſſary that all others ſhould be of the ſame kind. What is produced [Page] out of Polycarpus and Beza, has been already confuted on Rom. i.29. The words of the Council of Illiberis are figurative, and ſignify no more than that the Heathen Prieſts, who after they had taken upon them the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, did again return to the worſhip of Idols, were as guilty as if they had committed the three Sins there mentioned.

Verſ. 11. Our Author did well to add this at laſt, for it is falſe that [...] ever ſignifies a luſtful Perſon: See Heſychius, Phavorinus, the Old Gloſſes, and all the Lexicons in the World. I name Heſychius among the reſt, becauſe he interprets [...] by a Railer, for there is one ſort of [...] which lies only in words: Whence the Old Gloſſes render it not only injuriam Injury, but alſo convitium, probrum, railing, reviling, & [...] convitiatur, convitium facit, contumeliatur, [...] contumelioſus. Phavorinus; [...]. As for the Gnoſticks, I ſhould no more imagin them to be here referred to, than any other bad Men, unleſs our Author meant to give the honourable name of Gnoſticks to all the vile wretches that in the Apoſtles times had crept into the Chriſtian Aſſemblies; tho why he ſhould, I can ſee no reaſon.

Verſ. 12. Note l. Our Author who makes his ſtile both in Engliſh and Latin rugged with unneceſſary and miſplaced Parentheſes, and thereby often renders it tedious to the Reader, makes too much uſe of that expedient to connect the Diſcourſe of the Sacred Writers. Beſides, if we read the Greek words, it will appear that the Diſcourſe does not ſufficiently hang together; for we ſhould be obliged to read: [...], doing this ye ſhall put away.

I ſhall propoſe here a Conjecture, which if it were true, would make all things plain. We read the words in our Copies thus: [...]; Now what conſtruction this is, [...], I confeſs I do not underſtand. I know the ſenſe commonly put upon it is, What have I to do, or what buſineſs is it of mine to judg them that are without? i. e. it is not my buſineſs. But there is no example given of any ſuch Phraſe. Beſides, the Conjunction [...] intervening, makes the Phraſe ſtill more harſh; for which reaſon it is left out in the Alexandrian and other Manuſcripts, and omitted by the Syriack Interpreter; but in my judgment raſhly, becauſe that Particle may be of uſe to direct us to the true reading, which ſeems to be this: [...], &c. For what have I to do with thoſe that are without? But do you judg thoſe that are within; and thoſe that are without [Page]God judgeth: and ye ſhall put away the wicked Perſon from among you. Chapter VI. Firſt, [...] is a Phraſe very common in the Sacred Writers, and is as much as, take care of your own Buſineſs, and I'll take care of mine: See Mat. viii.29. John ii.4. and Interpreters on thoſe places. And the ſenſe here muſt certainly be; It is not my buſineſs to take care of the Manners of the Heathens, who have not yet embraced the Goſpel. Next, the words [...] might eaſily enough be changed into [...], becauſe the Verb [...] occurs twice in the following words. And [...] is an Adverſative Particle frequently uſed by St. Paul: See Rom. iv.20. and x.18. and Phil. iii.8. This makes the ſenſe very plain, whereas that interrogation, do not ye judg them? is very harſh and improper in this place. If St. Paul had ſaid; It is not my buſineſs to judg thoſe who are among you, do not ye judg them? this would be ſome ſenſe, the foreign to this place, and the diſcourſe would be current; but as it is now, the connexion of the words is extremely harſh. Thirdly, the following words [...] (there being here a manifeſt oppoſition between the [...] & [...] ſhews there ought to have preceded the Particle [...], which is contained in [...], for [...] is all one with [...], and if we believe H. Stephanus, ought to be ſo diſtinctly written. Fourthly, [...] is evidently conjoin'd with [...], judg and ye ſhall put away: The words intervening, and thoſe that are without God judgeth, ought not to be included in a Parentheſis, becauſe they are ſet in oppoſition to that which went immediately before, and not inſerted [...].

And it cannot ſeem ſtrange, that I ſuppoſe this place to be corrupted, ſeeing the Syriack Interpreter ſeems to have thought the ſame, who has left out in the 12th Verſe [...] & [...], & [...] again in the 13th, becauſe he did not ſee how the Apoſtle's words could otherwiſe be made to hang together. The Latin alſo and the Arabian Interpreters omit the Particle [...] in both Verſes. The Ethiopian departs yet further from the reſt, who has; & eum qui intus homines judicabit. And there are other variations in the Manuſcript Copies, which I paſs by.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 2. Note a. WHAT our Author ſays here about the notion of the word [...] is true; but as that word has more ſignifications than one, ſo in this place it ſeems rather to be taken for judgment: for [...] ſignifies not Perſons unworthy to ſit in the loweſt Judgment-ſeats, but to judg of the ſmalleſt matters; and therefore is very rightly rendred by the Vulgar [Page]qui de minimis judicetis. And thus the Old Gloſſes render [...] judicium, examen, ſenſus, Judgment, Examination, Opinion, and [...] judicia. But in verſ. 4. [...] ſeems to ſignify to have things to be judged of relating to life, as Dr. Hammond himſelf interprets it in his Paraphraſe. So that in this Verſe [...] is taken for the act of judging, and in Verſ. 4. for things to be judged of.

Verſ. 7. Note b. Here the word [...] is as much as omnino, or a Particle of affirming, as I have ſhewn on that place in Chap. v.1.

Verſ. 10. [...].] This word our Author here in the Margin, according to his manner, interprets of a Perſon of inordinate Luſts. But if that were the true ſenſe of it, it ſhould have been joined with the foregoing words in the 9th Verſe, and not have been put here in the 10th after the word [...]: But [...] ſignifies in this place, as it is rendred in the Old Gloſſes, fraudator, avidus, A cheating, covetous Perſon.

Verſ. 11. [...].] [...] in this place is the ſame with [...] & [...], to be waſhed and ſanctified, which went juſt before. The Phraſe [...] ſignifies, when ye became Chriſtians, or took upon you the profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion in Baptiſm; which obliged all thoſe that received it, to reformation of Life. See Acts ii.38.

Verſ. 19. [...].] This expreſſion may be illuſtrated by a paſſage in the Epiſtle of Barnabas, where he ſaith: [...]: For the habitation of our Heart is a holy Temple to the Lord. The Holy Spirit is ſaid to dwell in our Bodies, becauſe it is preſent with our Minds, which inhabit our Bodies. Grotius does but trifle when he tells us, that the Spirit of the Mind is the Sanctuary, the other parts of the Mind the Court of the Temple, and the Body the Porch and its outward parts. Such a Remark as this might perhaps be tolerable in a Pulpit, but by no means in an exact Interpreter. Claudian has an expreſſion much like this in his Second Book, on the firſt Conſulſhip of Stilichon, ſpeaking of the Goddeſs Mercy:

Haec Dea, pro templis & thure calentibus aris,

Te fruitur, poſuitque ſuas hoc pectore ſedes.

And a little after:

Huic Divae germana Fides, eademque ſorori

Corde tuo DELUBRA tenens.

[Page]Verſ. 20. [...].] St. Paul ſeems to allude here to a Houſe,Chapter VII. which none but he may uſe how he pleaſes that has purchaſed it. And God having, as it were, bought our Bodies as well as our Souls, he only has a ſoveraign Right to preſcribe to us how we ſhall uſe them.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 3. Note a. OF this matter, according to the Doctrine of the Rabbins, Mr. Selden has treated at large in his Ʋxor Hebraica, Lib. 3. c. 4. and ſeqq.

Verſ. 5. Note b. [...] and its oppoſite [...], according to the ſubject matter, are taken ſometimes in a larger, and ſometimes in a more contracted Notion. In general [...] ſignifies one that has not the command of his Paſſions, [...], but is commanded or overruled by them: And on the contrary, [...] one that is not ſubject to the dominion of any Paſſion, but is always his own maſter: But becauſe the Paſſions are various, proportionable to the variety of objects to which they may be carried out, therefore [...] & [...] have alſo divers objects, as Ariſtotle will teach us in the beginning of his 7th Book of Ethicks, ad Nicomachum. And ſo in this place, where the diſcourſe is about the lawful pleaſures of Marriage, [...] is uſed in a much narrower ſignification, not for a Vice, i. e, a diſpoſition of Mind contrary to the Law of God, and pernicious to humane Society, but a certain natural heat of Body, which of it ſelf is neither a Vice nor a Vertue. But it is deſcribed as a Vice, becauſe it is an occaſion of becoming vitious to thoſe who do not govern it with reaſon.

Verſ. 6. Note c. Col. 1. Lin. 45. After the words, on the other ſide.] Our learned Author might have confirmed this obſervation about the uſe of the word [...] for malo, I had rather, by that Paſſage in Hoſ. vi.6. I will ( [...]) have Mercy and not ( [...]) Sacrifice; which is all one as if God had ſaid, [...] mizzebahh, than Sacrifice: and if the Prophet had written ſo, it could not have been rendred otherwiſe than by I will, or had rather. And that this the Prophet meant is evident by the next words; and the knowledg of God, [...] meholoth, than burnt Offerings: whence the Septuagint according to the Vatican Copy, read; [...]; and Jonathan, [...] than Sacrifice: But in Mat. ix.13. and in the Alexandrian Copy we read [...], which is yet to the ſame ſenſe. It is certain the Hebrews have no Verb whereby to expreſs the Latin malo or [...] in Greek.

[Page]Verſ. 14. Note d. From this place I readily allow the deduction of this Conſectary, that the Infants of Chriſtian Parents may be baptized, becauſe they are Holy, i. e. reckoned as a part of God's People; but that this Phraſe ſignifies Baptiſm it ſelf, does not appear by any thing that Dr. Hammond here ſays: For tho the Verb [...] to ſanctify, ſignify alſo to waſh, it does not follow that by [...] may be meant one whoſe condition is ſuch as to make him capable of being waſhed, or baptized. And on the contrary, the Children of Heathens were accounted [...] impure, that is, as part of thoſe who were out of God's Covenant; and ſo could not be baptized, becauſe Baptiſm follows the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, which could neither be made by Parents who were Heathens, nor by Infants. This is the Notion of the words Holy and Impure, which being firſt uſed in that ſenſe by the Jews, came afterwards to be taken in the ſame by the Chriſtians; which is the reaſon why Chriſtians are ſo often ſtiled Saints in the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles. See the inſcriptions of St. Paul's Epiſtles.

Verſ 17. Note e. I. The ſame reaſon which moved Dr. Hammond to prefer the reading of ſome antient Copies mentioned by Theophylact, before that in ours, makes me think that the ordinary reading ought to be retained: Namely, becauſe the obſcurity ariſing in the ſenſe from [...] might eaſily induce ſome Scribe or Critick to change [...] into [...], and join theſe words with the foregoing, to make the ſenſe more perſpicuous; but there was no reaſon why, when the ſenſe was clear, it ſhould be made more obſcure.

II. I have more than once obſerved, that the end of an Annotation does not agree with the beginning; the reaſon of which I ſuppoſe to be, that the Doctor did not write it all at the ſame time: For otherwiſe he would have made his Diſcourſe here hang better together. For after he had ſaid, it will be reaſonable to acquieſce therein, viz. in that other reading, he gives a reaſon for ſo doing, which makes it unreaſonable; for if the ſenſe will be current, tho we retain the ordinary reading, and only change the pointing of the words, what reaſon can there be to acquieſce in any alteration of them?

III. We ought therefore to keep to the preſent reading of all Copies and Interpreters, and [...] muſt be rendred but, as the Syriack and Arabick render it [...], that is, [...].

Verſ. 34. Note h. The Oxford Edit. of the New Teſtament, Anno 1675. takes notice of ſome Copies which read this place in the ſame manner as the Alexandrian, here mentioned by our Author, excepting that the ſecond [...] is omitted; but there is no mention there made of the Alexandrian Copy, the difference between which and [Page] others in the reading of this place,Chapter VIII. is nevertheleſs ſet down in the London Polyglott: But in that Edition there are other inſtances of very great negligence. I am perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion, as to the uſe of the Verb [...], which I ſhall confirm by theſe Verſes of Virgil, wherein he elegantly deſcribes the Mind diſtracted with variety of Cares, and uſes the word dividere, Aeneid. 8. at the beginning.

—Magno curarum fluctuat aeſtu,

Atque animum nunc huc celerem, nunc DIVIDIT illuc,

In parteſque rapit varias, perque omnia verſat.

Nay and the Verb [...], which ſignifies to be vexed with Care, is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be [...]. to be divided between different Reſolutions, becauſe it comes from [...] by changing the Letter E into H. See Euſtathius on Homer, pag. 80. and 1427. Edit. Rom.

But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to cenſure. The firſt is his Citation out of the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe, which makes nothing to the purpoſe, it being manifeſt that thoſe words ſignify Diſtruſt or Ʋnbelief, not Cares or Diſtractions. And the ſecond is his ſaying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns: whereas nothing is more common in all the beſt Authors in both Languages than that Conſtruction, and, which I wonder he did not take notice of, it muſt be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy, which he prefers before the other: [...], &c.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a reſpect to the Hebrew word, which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians, but to the meaning of the word [...] it ſelf which he here uſes, and which properly ſignifies an Image conceived in the Mind, which is no where but in our Underſtanding; and afterwards was applied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres. And this is the reaſon why the Jews who ſpake Greek, gave the name of Idols, firſt to the Gods of the Heathens themſelves, and then to their Statues. All which I ſhall deduce a little more particularly, becauſe it will conduce very much to the clear underſtanding of this Paſſage. And firſt of all it muſt be obſerved that the Verb [...] ſignifies to be [Page]like unto, in which ſenſe it is often uſed in Homer, as for inſtance in Iliad B. Verſ. 280.

— [...],

[...].

And near to him ſtood greyeyed Minerva, like to a Cryer; [...], ſaith the Scholiaſt. Whence the words [...] came to ſignify an Image or repreſentation of things, ſuch as is formed in the Mind. And [...], as H. Stephanus has ſhewn out of Plutarch, ſignifies ſometimes the ſame. And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus, p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin. calls an incorporeal thing, ſuppoſing it appeared in a viſible ſhape, [...], in that remarkable Sentence: [...]: Men would be extreamly in love with Wiſdom, if it did but preſent ſome lively Image of it ſelf to their view. And becauſe they thought that the Souls of dead Perſons were clothed with a certain airy Form, reſembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when thoſe Perſons were alive, that Form they uſually called [...]. We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verſe, [...] the Images of deceaſed Men. Virgil renders it ſimulachra & figuras, which he thus deſcribes in Aeneid. 6. Verſ. 292. ſpeaking of Aeneas, who was going to encounter the Ghoſts, if Sybilla had not diverted him:

Et ni docta comes tenues ſine corpore vitas

Admoneat volitare, cava ſub imagine formae,

Irruat & fruſtra ferro diverberet umbras.

This was the uſe of the word [...] among the Greeks, when the Jews firſt came acquainted with them; and therefore when they had learned to ſpeak Greek, they fitly called the Gods of the Nations [...], partly becauſe they were but meer human Inventions, having no real Exiſtence; and partly becauſe they generally worſhipped dead men, [...], or to uſe the words of Virgil, ‘Horum umbras tenues, ſimulachraque luce carentum.’ Which ſhews likewiſe the reaſon why the Apoſtle ſays that an Idol is nothing in the World, for the Fictions of Men have no real Exiſtence, nor are there any ſuch Images or Apparitions of dead Perſons, as the Poets ſpeak of, no more than there is any ‘[Page]Horrendum ſtridens, flammiſque armata Chimaera.’

Philo Judaeus, Lib. de Monarchia affirms, that Riches alſo are called in Scripture [...], becauſe they are but the fading Images of true good: [...], ſaith he, [...]: theſe are the things which [the Scripture] calleth Idols, like Shadows and Phantoms, which depend upon nothing firm or certain.

Verſ. 5. [...], &c.] The ſenſe of this Verſe is not truly expreſſed by our Author out of Theophylact. It muſt be rendred; for tho there be they which are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth (as really there are Gods many, and Lords many) yet to us there is one God the Father, &c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels; in the Earth Magiſtrates, who are alſo called the Lords of the World. But Chriſtians called only the Father, by whom all things were created, God; and Jeſus Chriſt, by whom were all things, Lord in the moſt excellent ſenſe. The Apoſtle has no reference to the falſe Gods or Idols of the Heathens, nor to the common way of ſpeaking among the Jews themſelves; for he grants that thoſe were truly called Gods and Lords. He ſeems when he wrote this, to have had in his mind that paſſage of Moſes in Deut. x.17. The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, mighty and terrible, whom the Jews ought alone to ſerve. And in like manner St. Paul here teaches, that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords, yet there was but one of thoſe Gods, and one of thoſe Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worſhip.

Verſ. 7. Note b. No body will deny but [...], where the Diſcourſe is about the Body, ſignifies to be ſick, and is taken alſo for a diſeaſe of the Mind, if the diſcourſe be about the Mind. But I don't think St. Paul here has a reſpect to the general Notion of a diſtemper of the Mind, or of Sin, but rather ſpeaks of an infirm purpoſe in the profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion, and the obſervation of its Precepts; ſuch as is uſual in ignorant People, who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors. This is the proper ſignification of the word [...]: And theſe the Apoſtle calls [...], Rom. xiv.1, 2. which does not ſignify ſick or diſeaſed in the Faith, but Perſons whoſe Faith was not ſo firm and ſtrong as it ſhould have been. As on the other hand in Chap. iv.19. of the ſame Epiſtle, ſpeaking of Abraham, he ſays that [...] he was not weak in Faith, i. e. he did not doubt: And ſo in the Septuagint, [...] is ſometimes taken for to ſtumble, becauſe thoſe who do not take their ſteps firm, often ſtumble; as Children do when they firſt begin to go alone.

[Page] Chapter IX.Our Author alledges St. Paul's words in the 7th Verſe, as if St. Paul had ſaid [...], and not [...] with Conſcience of the Idol; in which he follows the Alexandrian and two other Roman Copies. But I ſuſpect that to be only the gloſs of ſome Men, that did not underſtand the meaning of the Phraſe [...], which ſignifies an Opinion or Perſwaſion concerning the favourable preſence of the Idol at their Holy Feaſts, with which ſome of the Corinthians were ſtill at that time poſſeſſed, as Dr. Hammond has well obſerved.

Verſ. 10. [...].] That is, confirmed, as I have ſhewn in my Ars Critica, Par. 3. Sect. 1. c. 16.11.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 5. [...];] Have we not power to lead about a Siſter, a Wife? So it muſt be rendred, for I have already ſhewn on Rom. xvi.1. that the Opinion which Dr. Hammond follows here in his Paraphraſe, in concurrence with ſome of the Antients, is very improbable. If St. Paul had deſigned to ſay what they affirm, he would not have added [...], for [...] alone would have been ſufficient; and the Greeks do no more uſe to ſay [...] for a Siſter, than [...] for a Brother. St. Paul therefore here intimates that he had married indeed a Wife, whom he might if he pleaſed take along with him as a Companion in his Travels, but he did not [...] lead her about, leſt ſhe ſhould be burdenſom to the Churches; for tho he could have eaſily got his own living by working, yet it would have been much more difficult for him to provide both for himſelf and his Wife, if ſhe had travelled with him.

It is groundleſly therefore inferred by ſome from this place, that St. Paul was a ſingle man, for he does not ſay, have not we power to have a Wife, [...], but to lead about a Wife, viz. which he already had. And to this place perhaps the Interpolator of Ignatius's Epiſtle to the Philippians, pag. 98. Ed. Ʋſſer. had a reſpect; where having ſpoken of unmarried Perſons, he ſaith: [...]: but I do not derogate from the reſt of the Bleſſed that were joined in marriage, which I have now mentioned. For I deſire to be found worthy of God at their footſteps in his Kingdom; as of Abraham, and Iſaac, and Jacob, as of Joſeph and Iſaiah, and the reſt of the Prophets,[Page]and as of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the other Apoſtles, who were married Men. Nor is it any objection againſt this, what St. Paul ſays in Chap. vii.7, 8. of this Epiſtle; for the meaning of the Apoſtle in that place is only, that he wiſhed every body elſe had as little Appetite to the lawful pleaſures of Marriage as himſelf, and that it was expedient for Widows and unmarried People at that time to remain as he was, that is, not to be more deſirous of Marriage than he was of the Society of his Wife.

Verſ. 10. [...].] The ſame word [...] has a twofold Notion in this place; for the former ſignifies the thing hoped for, and the latter the Affection it ſelf. Such things are common in the writings of the Apoſtles. See Note on St. John's Goſp. c. i.16.

Verſ. 12. [...].] That is, [...] over you: See Mat. x.1. John xvii.2. and what I have obſerved in my Ars Critica, Par. 2. S. 1. c. 12.11. So likewiſe afterwards Chap. x.6. of this Epiſtle, [...] are [...], examples for our Inſtruction.

Verſ. 17. Note a. Some ſuch works of Supererogation may really be done, but have a care of thinking upon that account that they deſerve any reward from God: The reaſon is, becauſe tho Men may out of a pious zeal do that whereof the omiſſion would not bring puniſhment upon them; yet they have offended in other reſpects, and ſtand in need of God's Mercy, by which alone they can obtain the pardon of their Sins. If God had dealt according to ſtrict juſtice with St. Paul, he had never pardoned thoſe Sins which he had been guilty of whilſt he remained a Jew, nor had his ſucceſsful Zeal in the ſervice of God when a Chriſtian, been ſufficient to expiate the Perſecutions he had formerly ſtirred up againſt the Chriſtians. But as he had mercifully forgiven him all his paſt Sins, ſo alſo out of his infinite Bounty and Goodneſs, which is as it were the peculiar Character of the Divine Nature, he reſolved to reward his pious Actions.

Verſ. 18. [...];] That is, [...], for what does God propound to me a reward? Not ſimply for preaching the Goſpel, but for preaching it gratis, ſo as to be able to ſay I never uſed the Power I had, to take Mony of my Hearers to maintain me. So that I ſhould render this interrogation: of what ſort then is my Reward? i. e. what is the condition of the Reward that God propoſes to me. Which I think is better than to interpret [...] which follows by if or when, tho I confeſs the ſignification of that as well as other Particles is various. The word [...] here, tho ſet without any addition, muſt be obſerved to ſignify an extraordinary Reward, greater than that which ſhould be conferred on all that preached the Goſpel; for they might [Page] all expect from God ſome degree of Reward, upon the performance of their Office, tho they did no more than what they were neceſſarily obliged to.

Verſ. 25. Note h. I have ſeveral Animadverſions to make upon this foregoing Annotation. I. That the Doctor did not ſufficiently underſtand the meaning of the word [...], when he ſuppoſed it to ſignify a cuſtom of the Athletae, "In forcing themſelves to eat, that "by that means they might become fleſhy and corpulent. For the Athletae did not ſtrive to make themſelves fat or thick beyond meaſure; becauſe that would have leſſened their Activity, and been a great hindrance to them both in Cuffing and Running; but they endeavoured to get ſuch a habit of Body as was requiſite for the well performing of thoſe Exerciſes, i. e. to become ſtrong and nimble: For which purpoſe the Gymnaſiarchae, or Maſters of the Games, did preſcribe to them the eating of certain Meats, and ſuch a proportion of them at ſtated times; and it was not lawful for them to uſe any other ſort of Diet, or to eat how and when they pleaſed, but they were bound to follow anothers preſcriptions. And this is the meaning of the word [...], and not to cram themſelves per force, as the thing it ſelf will afterwards ſhew. Lucian in Lib. [...] deſcribes the Athletae, or thoſe that often exerciſed themſelves in theſe ſort of Games, thus: [...]: they are neither ſhrivelled or waſted away, nor yet ſo extraordinary big as to be heavy, but of a juſt ſize; the uſeleſs and ſuperfluous parts of their Fleſh having been conſumed in Sweat. See alſo what follows.

II. Our learned Author ſeems to owe the greateſt part of what he here ſays to Pet. Faber, or Hier. Mercurialis; whom he alſo haſtily perhaps looked over, and collected as much as he had occaſion for about the [...] of the Grecians, out of the works of thoſe Writers. For by his citation of ſome Paſſages, it appears that he did not look into the Authors themſelves, out of which they are taken. The place alledged out of Lucian, is in Dialogis mortuorum, p. 279. Ed. Amſt. and it is not Charon, but Mercury that is there repreſented, as afraid of letting Damaſias with ſo much Fat about him come into his Boat; which yet we are not to underſtand was ſo much neither as to hinder his Activity, as if he had been a Man that had minded nothing but his Belly. The paſſage cited out of Julian does not ſhew that the Athletae ate immoderately, but only certain Meats, in a certain quantity, and at a certain time; which would be very inconvenient for an Emperor, eſpecially when journeying, or engaged in important Affairs, who [Page] muſt eat, [...]: when Buſineſs will permit.

III. If our Author had looked into Suidas, or at leaſt not read him negligently, he would have alledged his definition of [...], which ſhews what that word properly ſignifies: It is [...], ſaith he, [...]: a diſpoſition which will not ſuffer a Man to go in any thing beyond reaſon: [...], and a Habit which cannot be conquered by Pleaſures: So that [...] is one that has ſuch a power over his Paſſions, as to abſtain from thoſe things which he judges hurtful to him, notwithſtanding the pleaſantneſs of them. And accordingly where the diſcourſe is about an Athleta, who is ſaid [...], the meaning is, that he is one who in all things is ſo much his own Maſter, as to eat nothing, and do nothing which may impair his Strength. Which the Apoſtle did in another ſenſe, who governed his Affections ſo as not to gratify them in any thing, tho lawful, that might in the leaſt hinder the propagation of the Goſpel.

IV. The place in Aelian is abſurdly thus quoted by our Author: So Aelian of the Tarentinus Luctator; as if the Luctator's name had been Tarentinus, whereas he was called Iccus, and Tarentum was the name of his Country. I ſhall ſet down the words of Aelian entire, which are theſe: [...]: Iccus the Tarentinian was a Luctator, who lived ſoberly all the time of his combating, and uſed to eat moderately, and abſtained to the laſt from Venery. See Joach. Kuhnius on the words put in Capital Letters, who by other Teſtimonies proves that the Athletae lived quite differently from what the Doctor imagined.

V. Our Author erroneouſly thought that the word [...] in this place of St. Paul was governed by the Verb [...], whereas the Prepoſition [...] is underſtood, and the words ought to be rendred, is temperate in all things, or with relation to all things. Which all things muſt be underſtood, according to the ſubject matter, of thoſe things which were capable of weakning, if the Diſcourſe be about an Athleta; and if about St. Paul, of thoſe things which might obſtruct the courſe of the Goſpel.

Verſ. 26. Note l. [...] was an exerciſe performed by the Combatants ſtanding, whereas they often ſtrove on the Ground, as we are told by Lucian in Dial. [...], and fighting both with their Hands and Feet. So, in that Book, Anacharſis after he had deſcribed the Combatants in Sand and in Clay, repreſents them: [...]: and theſe ſtanding upright and all covered with Duſt, ſtrike and kick one another. And [Page] Solon a little after,Chapter X. reciting the names of the Exerciſes which Anacharſis had deſcribed, is brought in as ſpeaking thus: [...]: Of theſe Exerciſes, that which is performed in that Clay is called Wreſtling: And thoſe in the Duſt do alſo wreſtle, but their ſtriking one another ſtanding upright, we call [...]. Of theſe ſaith Suidas: [...], they fight with their Hands and Feet; in which kind of combat they uſed to exert all their Strength.

Ibid. Note m. The place cited out of Euſtathius is not in his [...] on Iliad Ε, but Iliad Υ. pag. 1215. Ed. Rom. and if Dr. Hammond had took it out of the Author himſelf, he would have ſet it down intire, becauſe it may help us to underſtand St. Paul's words. Homer had ſaid of Achilles, who had endeavoured thrice to ſtrike Hector to no purpoſe: [...], thrice he ſtruck the thick darkneſs, with which Apollo had covered Hector; [...], ſaith Euſtathius, [...]: From whence the Proverb to beat the Air ſeems to be taken, which is applied to Perſons who undertake impracticable things. But ſome think this Proverb was taken from Cuffers, who often, &c.

Verſ. 27. Note n, and o. I have confuted Dr. Hammond on Rom. vi.6. where he endeavours, to no purpoſe, to prove that [...] ſignifies my ſelf: and therefore what he here ſays upon that Hypotheſis is all vain. Beſides, it is refuted by what he himſelf adds laſt of all in this place; for it is the Body that is ſubdued by bodily exerciſes, and not the Mind, any further than as the Body being once ſubdued, the Mind is no longer infected with thoſe evil Affections which ariſe from the Body.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 19. AFTER the words, to do them.] What our Author here ſays about the ſymbolical ſignification of the Wings of the Cherubims, he ought to have confirmed by ſome expreſs Teſtimony out of Moſes or the Prophets; for it is not neceſſary to think that God had a reſpect to all thoſe things in inſtituting of the Moſaical Rites, which learned Men conjecture he might have a reſpect to. An infinite number of ſuch things were of old fancied by the Fathers, who thought they might ſay what they pleaſed in this kind, tho they had no ground for it; and as many [Page] more are every day invented by our late Divines, which if denied, they can bring no Argument to make them appear probable. As to the known ſaying which Dr. Hammond ſpeaks of among the Jews, that is taken from a paſſage in Moſes, which is in his laſt Song in Deut. xxxii.11. in theſe words: As an Eagle ſtirreth up her Neſt, fluttereth over her young, and ſpreadeth abroad her Wings; ſo the [Lord] took him (viz. the People of the Jews) and bore him upon his Wings. Which place is at large illuſtrated by Sam. Bochart, in Hieroz. Part. 2. Lib. 2. c. 3.

Ibid. In that Note, Col. 2. Lin. 7. after the words, that followed them.] Any one may ſee that this is a forced interpretation, which ſeems to be grounded only on this, that St. Paul ſays the Iſraelites were under a Cloud; as if they could not have been ſaid to be under a Cloud, if the Cloud had lain only on the foremoſt part of the Camp. Rabbi Eliezer never ſaw that Cloud, or knew any thing about this matter, no more than the reſt of the pretending Tribe of Rabbies, but what they could collect from Moſes, who has no ſuch thing. But, ſaith our Author, the protection of God will be better repreſented by a Cloud encompaſſing the Camp, than only going before it. That I utterly deny, for the Divine Protection was ſufficiently ſignified by a perpetual ſymbol of his Preſence whatever it was, if it could but be ſeen by all; and we are not to change ſtories written in the plaineſt words, into intolerable improprieties, to make them expreſs what we would have them.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 24. after the words, under thy Wings, &c.] A pillar of Cloud cannot be otherwiſe underſtood than of an oblong Cloud, which like a Pillar ſuſpended in the Air, was viſible to all the Iſraelites: And under it might be ſaid to be, not only thoſe over whom it hung perpendicularly, but alſo who were placed on every ſide of it. As under the conſtellation of the Crab are ſaid to be, not only thoſe to whom that Conſtellation is vertical, but alſo all the Ethiopians: So that what our Author dreamt in order to explain this Phraſe, like other Dreams, has no truth in it. The phraſe under the ſhadow of his Wings is not, as I have already ſaid, taken from a Cloud, but from the cuſtom of Birds, who uſe to defend their tender Brood againſt the heat of the Sun with their Wings.

Ibid. In that Note, Col. 3. Lin. 17. after the words, mention of both.] St. Paul rather ſeems here to make mention of the Cloud, as afterwards he does of the Fire, becauſe he intended to allude to the Chriſtian Baptiſm, which is more reſembled by a Cloud, that is, a watry Vapour, than by Fire.

[Page] Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 39. after the words, were by the other.] This paſſage in Moſes is miſunderſtood, as I have ſhewn in my Diſſert. de trajectu maris Idumaei, and I ſhall not here repeat what I have there ſaid, which overthrows all that the Doctor here diſcourſes.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 56. after the words, belongs to the Fathers.] The miraculous paſſage of the Iſraelites through the Red-Sea, and the Cloud going before them, were undoubtedly ſignal Evidences of the love of God to that People, as the thing it ſelf ſhews; but that they are to be look'd on as a tacit Declaration from the Iſraelites to yield Obedience to God, I ſhould hardly grant; and it is certain there is nothing either in the Scripture-Hiſtory, or in the thing it ſelf upon which ſuch a Suppoſition can be grounded. Theſe ſort of things are only the products of a fruitful Invention, which if they be look'd on as Demonſtrations, what will not Divines find in the Scripture? The Iſraelites are ſaid to have been baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea, becauſe the Cloud that hung over them, and the Sea that encompaſſed them, were Water, which may be reckoned as it were to have wet them, becauſe of its nearneſs; as we are waſhed by the Water of Baptiſm. Beſides this reaſon, taken from the nature of the thing it ſelf, all others are mere Trifles and Niceties, and have no more truth in them than what our Author ſays about the Cloud environing the Iſraelites on every ſide, or the Sea's being divided in the form of a Semicircle.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] Here our Author, for the ſake of his Gnoſticks, ſays a great many forced things, and ſhews himſelf a very unfortunate Critick. For 1ſt, the Paſſage he has a reference to in Irenaeus, is in Lib. 1. c. 9. but there is nothing there about the Cloud or Sea, which may illuſtrate this place in St. Paul: He ſays only that the Diſciples of Marcus believed, [...]: that by their Redemption they became incapable of being taken or ſeen by a Judg. Which Irenaeus compares to Pluto's Helmet in Homer.

2. It is true indeed, that the Sect of Marcus was a branch of the Valentinians, yea of the Gnoſticks too; for, as Irenaeus afterwards ſays, theſe Men called themſelves [...] the Children of Knowledg: but will it thence follow that they added nothing, nor took away any thing from the dotages of the Gnoſticks, that we ſhould be able to affirm for certain, that whatever the followers of Marcus ſaid, was truly attributed to the antient Gnoſticks, who lived in the time of the Apoſtles? I think not.

[Page]3. Our Author ſhould have produced ſome plain Teſtimony to prove that thoſe antient Gnoſticks made themſelves parallel to the primitive Jews, and that in thoſe things which St. Paul here mentions: for otherwiſe, whilſt he produces only ſlight Conjectures, I don't know who is bound to believe them.

Verſ. 2. [...].] Our Author did not underſtand the meaning of this Phraſe, nor is there any thing ſaid about it in Grotius, whom he follows ſometimes right or wrong. Baptiſm being a Ceremony of initiation, whereby he that received it, openly teſtified his willingneſs to be accounted his Diſciple whoſe diſcipline he ſubmitted himſelf to; to be baptized into Moſes, is no more than to profeſs in Baptiſm, whether true or metaphorical (as that is whereof the Apoſtle here ſpeaks) his reſolution to become the diſciple of Moſes, and is all one as if St. Paul had ſaid to be baptized into the name of Moſes; of which phraſe I have ſpoken before, on Chap. iii.15. of this Epiſtle, and Mat. xxviii.16.

Verſ. 3. [...].] The word [...] here is oppoſed to [...] natural, not to [...] corporeal; for Manna was a corporeal Food, which could not be called ſpiritual in any other reſpect than as it was prepared, not by ſenſible Cauſes, but by Spirits, viz. Angels, whoſe Bread therefore it is ſaid to be in Pſal. lxxviii.2. I know the general Opinion is, that it is called ſpiritual Food, becauſe it repreſented, or alſo typified ſpiritual things. But firſt this ſhould be proved out of the Old Teſtament; for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any ſuch apprehenſions of it, there is no reaſon to ſay that Manna ſignified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews underſtood by it. But it may be proved perhaps out of the New. If it be asked where? out of John vi.31. & ſeqq. where Chriſt oppoſes his Doctrin to Manna: As if a mere alluſion or oppoſition put by Chriſt between his Doctrin and Manna, did neceſſarily imply that it was the deſign of God in giving the Iſraelites Manna, to typify the future promulgation of the Goſpel by Chriſt! But I further ask, for whoſe ſake were theſe typical repreſentations made? Was it for the ſake of the Jews? This cannot be pretended, for that dull Nation hardly underſtood the plaineſt and expreſſeſt things, tho frequently inculcated upon them, and much leſs ſuch as were obſcure and intricate. And it is not probable that any thing was inſtituted by God for the ſake of the Jews, which they did not at all underſtand. But that thoſe Types were given for the ſake of Chriſtians is yet far more unlikely; becauſe if they were to be believed by us, they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apoſtles, whoſe Authority alone would move us in [Page] this matter; when otherwiſe we ſhould never have ſo much as dreamt of them. So that in order to our underſtanding that kind of Predictions, the aſſiſtance of other Divine Perſons would have been neceſſary, whom for other reaſons we already believe, viz. for the excellency of their Doctrin, and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it. But this being ſuppoſed, what need is there of Types to thoſe who already believe Chriſt and his Apoſtles upon the firmeſt grounds? They illuſtrate, it may be you'l ſay, the Apoſtles Doctrin; that I deny, and ſay that they would rather obſcure it if they occurred in their Writings, for the alledged reaſons: See my Note on Mat. ii.2. Let the Learned judg of theſe things, and conſider whether it be not better at laſt to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone, which the Heathens of old derided, and the Jews ridicule at this day; and only make uſe of the moſt convincing Arguments whereby to prove the truth of Chriſtianity. But this would be the ſubject of a whole Volume, which I have here but tranſiently touched, intending wherever there is a fit occaſion, to ſhew the weakneſs of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apoſtles Writings.

Verſ. 4. [...].] That is, of that ſpiritual Water, which God made to proceed out of the Rock, which Water followed the Camp. So Gen. iii. and elſewhere, to eat of the Tree, is to eat of the fruit of the Tree. Which muſt be carefully obſerved, leſt any one think that the Rock it ſelf is here properly called ſpiritual, that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock, which tho not expreſſed, is yet to be underſtood: For no one will ſuppoſe that the Rock, from which the Water proceeded, followed the Iſraelites, or was carried about with them through the Wilderneſs. But granting, may ſome ſay, that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it, yet how is it ſaid that the Water it ſelf followed the Jews? The common opinion is, that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock followed the Jewiſh Camp whitherſoever it moved. But there is not one ſyllable about that in Moſes, who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of ſo great a Miracle, if any ſuch had been; for it would have been no ſmall Miracle for God to have made a Channel for that Water to run in, and follow the Iſraelites whitherſoever they went. But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle, in order to explain St. Paul's words, which may be very well underſtood without it, to wit, by ſuppoſing only that this Water was carried about by the Iſraelites through the Deſerts of Arabia, in leathern Bottles, or any other Veſſels, that followed them with the reſt of their Carriage. [Page] For thus this Phraſe is uſed by Aelian Var. Hiſt. Lib. 12. Chap. 40. [...]: about the Convoy that followed Xerxes. Which he begins thus: [...]: Among other Proviſions full of Magnificence and Oſtentation which followed Xerxes, WATER alſo FOLLOWED him out of Choaſpes. And this was the Cuſtom of all the Kings of Perſia, if we believe Herodotus, Lib. 1. c. 188. [...]: And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaſpes, that runs by Suſa, of which alone, and no other River the King drinks.

Ibid. [...].] That is, ſaith Grotius, prefigured Chriſt. But it may every whit as well be interpreted: ‘And that which might be ſaid of that Rock in a carnal ſenſe, may in a ſpiritual be affirmed of Chriſt.’ As all the Iſraelites drank of the Waters of that Rock, and yet thoſe among them who rebelled, were deſtroyed in the Wilderneſs: ſo all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Chriſt, but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it, ſhall periſh. This is the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, which needs no typical Prefiguration to explain it, his Diſcourſe not being at all grounded thereon: or elſe this Paſſage may be rightly paraphraſed to the ſame ſenſe thus: ‘And the caſe was the ſame of the Water that flowed out of that Rock, and thoſe that drank of it; and of the Doctrin of Chriſt and Chriſtians.’ So in the Parables of Chriſt, the parts of the [...] are often called the parts of a Parable, becauſe they are compared with one another, and the caſe is the ſame in both: As Mat. 13.19. When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom, and underſtandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was ſown in his Heart: THIS IS he which received Seed by the way ſide. But he that received the Seed into ſtrong places, THIS IS he that heareth the Word, &c. And it is known that the Jews, whom the Apoſtles followed, do very frequently borrow Compariſons from the Old Teſtament, and allude to the ſtories of it ſo, as often to apply the words of them to their purpoſe; not that they thought thoſe places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to, but becauſe they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Teſtament. See Gal. iv.24, 25, 16.

Ibid. Note b. I. Something, but briefly and obſcurely, there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon, on Numb. xx.2. perhaps taken from the Chriſtians; for it is not eaſily to be believed that all the late Rabbins ſay, they owe to antient Tradition. It's certain neither the [Page] Paraphraſe of Jonathan, nor the Jeruſalem Targum, have any thing about the Water which followed the Iſraelites, on Exod. xvii. but in quite another place, viz. on Num. xxi.19, 20. where Moſes ſpeaks of a Well that was digged upon the border of the Moabites, the year before the Iſraelites entred into Canaan. The words of Jonathan are theſe: And ever ſince the Well was given them in Mattan, it went up again with them into the high Mountains, and from the high Mountains is deſcended with them ihto the Hills. It encompaſſed all the Camp of Iſrael, and yielded it ſelf for every one to drink of at the door of the Tabernacle. It deſcended alſo with them out of the high Mountains into the low Vallies, &c. The like we read in the Jeruſalem Paraphraſe, but with this difference, that there is nothing there ſaid of this Well encompaſſing the Camp, or breaking out at the Gate of the Tabernacle, as Jonathan affirms.

II. The Jews did not want Water, becauſe they both carried about with them the Water of Horeb, and might alſo meet with Springs in other places; for tho the rocky Arabia be a dry Country, yet it is not every where without Water, there being mention made of ſeveral Rivers which run through it. See my Notes on Gen. ii.12.

III. What Dr. Hammond ſays about the Water's ceaſing to follow the Jews, upon the courſe of their Travels being changed, is a mere Invention, to ſupport his tottering Interpretation.

IV. If the Water of Horeb followed the Iſraelites without a Miracle, they muſt have all along journied near a Valley, in which it might have a free courſe after them, from the time of their departure from Horeb. But that is another of Dr. Hammond's Fictions, which I need not ſay much about.

Verſ. 5. [...]:] It is warily here ſaid by St. Paul, with the Moſt of them God was not well pleaſed, not with all of them, except two, as our Author ſays in his Paraphraſe, which is not true. See my Note on Num. xxiv.65.

Verſ. 6. [...].] That is, the puniſhments inflicted on the rebellious Iſraelites, are ſo many examples which God propoſes to us, to take heed of falling into the like Sins. So alſo verſ. 11. St. Paul having again made mention of God's deſtroying the murmuring Jews, ſaith, [...], all theſe things happened unto them for examples, and were written for our Admonition, &c. that is, God deſigned thoſe things for Examples, to be recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and propoſed as Warnings to every one that ſhould read them. They that render the word [...] here by in figura, in a Figure, or typice, typically, muſt ſhew that God intended to prefigure the puniſhments of Sins by the puniſhments of the Iſraelites; which I ſuppoſe they will [Page] never be able to do. But it is certain this word [...] is taken only in a threefold ſenſe in the New Teſtament.

And firſt for any Form, whether corporeal, or conſpicuous only to the Mind; which ſenſe does not belong to this place. See John xx.25. Acts vii.43, 44. and xxiii.25. Rom. vi.17. Heb. viii.5.

Secondly, It ſignifies an Example, as here and in many other places, as we ſhall preſently ſee. The firſt ſignification of it is proper, this metaphorical. For [...] is properly a Figure or Form into which any thing is beaten or hammer'd, [...]. But becauſe ſuch figures were ſometimes made to ſerve inſtead of patterns to others (in French, pour ſervir de modelles) therefore it was metaphorically applied to any ſort of Figure or Example propoſed to others for their imitation or warning. So Phil. iii.17. Brethren, be ye followers of me; and mark them which walk ſo, as ye have [...] us for an example. So 1 Theſſ. i.7. Ye were [...] examples to all that believe in Macedonia, &c. See alſo 2 Theſſ. iii.9. 1 Tim. iv.12. Tit. ii.7. 1 Pet. v.3.

Thirdly, In another metaphorical ſignification, becauſe a Model or Pattern is like thoſe things which are made according to it, the word [...] in one place of St. Paul is taken for a thing which in ſome reſpect reſembles another: And that is in Rom. v.14. where Adam is ſaid to be [...], that is, like him that was to come, viz. in this, that he alone had done ſomething that was propagated to all Mankind, as Chriſt did ſomething alone which extends to all Men. For in other things the Apoſtle obſerves not only a diſſimilitude, but an oppoſition between them. But now who will believe that it was God's deſign, that Adam ſhould firſt of all ſin alone, and that that Sin ſhould do miſchief to all his Poſterity, to prefigure what was to be done by Chriſt? Who was able to diſcern the Similitude before the Event? Who after the Event finds his Faith confirmed by that Similitude? Nor certainly was this the Apoſtle's meaning, but only that in the reſpect I have mention'd there was a Similitude between Adam and Chriſt, as there is between a [...] and an [...].

This laſt word perhaps may be made the ground of an Objection, which is twice found in the New Teſtament. The Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Ch. ix.24. denies that Chriſt was entred into Holy Places made with Hands, [...], but that is, which were made after the example of the true, viz. Heaven, or which were the images of Heaven, not which prefigured Heaven. So Baptiſm is ſaid in 1 Pet. iii.21. to be [...] to Noah's Ark, that is, in ſome meaſure to reſemble it. But no Man of ſenſe would thence infer that it was [Page] God's intention by the Ark to prefigure Baptiſm,Chapter XI. and reval this Myſtery which was before unknown by St. Peter.

Ibid. [...].] Theſe words manifeſtly ſhew that [...] ought to be rendred Examples, for Puniſhment is inflicted on guilty Perſons, for an example to others not to imitate them: So that it is abſurdly rendred by the Vulgar and Eraſmus, figura, and as ill by Beza, typi; but rightly in Caſtalio, and in the Engliſh and Geneva Tranſlations, Examples. Which being ſo, I wonder Grotius ſhould ſpeak here of Prefigurations.

Verſ. 7. Note c. Notwithſtanding all the Doctor has with ſo much care here put together, I rather think the place in Exodus here refer'd to, is to be underſtood of Dancing about the Golden Calf, on which place ſee my Notes, as alſo on Gen. xxi. I do not pay ſo great a deference to the Rabbins, as to take all which thoſe Men fancy, to explain the Old Teſtament, for certain truth; nor perhaps would our Author himſelf have attributed ſo much to their Authority, if he had not reſolved to force his Gnoſticks here upon us.

Verſ. 20. [...]. The word [...] in this place does not neceſſarily ſignify Devils, or evil Spirits; for the Heathens did not always ſacrifice to evil Spirits, if we conſider what were their true Thoughts. But the greateſt part of their Idolatry conſiſted in this, that when they ought to have been [...] they were [...]. And the Heathens alſo themſelves have confeſſed that they did not offer ſacrifice to Gods, but to Demons: As appears by the words of Porphyry, in Lib. 2. de Abſtinentia: [...]: nor did thoſe who knew the powers of the World offer bloody Sacrifices to the Gods, but to Demons; and this is affirmed [in the Latin it is tranſlated creditur, ☞ which is [...]] by Divines themſelves.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 4. Note a. IF it had been the Cuſtom in capital Puniſhments, to cover the Heads only of Men and not of Women, our Author would have rightly deduced what St. Paul here ſays from that practice; but ſeeing there was no difference between Men and Women in this reſpect, why would it have diſhonoured the head of a Man to have a Veil caſt over him like a condemned Perſon, and not of a Woman? I rather think therefore that the Apoſtle had a reſpect only to the Cuſtom of the Greeks, among whom it had been a diſgrace [Page] for a Man to ſpeak publickly with his Head covered, and a Woman with her Head bare. Our Author's diſtinction between the Prepoſitions [...] and [...] will appear to be vain, if we compare Mark xiv.3. and Mat. xxvi.7.

Verſ. 7. Note b. Here our learned Author abuſes an impropriety in the Septuagint, to enlarge our Lexicons with new ſignifications of the word [...], as he does alſo elſewhere.

I. It is falſe that the Hebrew [...] chabod ſimply taken, ſignifies a Beam, tho if it be added to the word Sun, it ſignifies its Splendor and Beams. It is falſe alſo, that becauſe the Septuagint have perhaps ſomewhere (tho I cannot tell where) improperly rendred what ought to have been tranſlated a Beam by [...], therefore the word [...] ſignifies a Beam. To authorize that ſignification, it was requiſite they ſhould have frequently and induſtriouſly uſed the word [...] to that purpoſe, and not raſhly before they were aware.

II. Nor is it true that the word [...] was ever rendred by [...], or tho [...] be metaphorically called [...], that thoſe words are promiſcuous. The Doctor ſhould have produced but one example, in which [...] ſignified a Beam or Splendor. Beſides, is this Phraſe, the Woman is the beam of the Man, any thing plainer than this, is the glory of the Man, which he interprets by the former? But the truth is, what our Author here ſays is only a miſinterpretation of Grotius's Note upon this place, to which I refer the Reader.

III. [...] is uſed by the Septuagint for [...] or that ſymbolical likeneſs of God which appeared in the Tabernacle, becauſe that uſed to be ſo called, and not becauſe [...] ſignifies any Similitude, as well as the Hebrew word. There is nothing more deceitful than ſuch ſort of reaſonings, as the Doctor often makes uſe of in order to find out the ſignification of words, unleſs at the ſame time their Uſe and Analogy be regarded.

IV. Setting aſide what is ſaid about the Glory of God in the Pentateuch, which does not at all belong to this place, tho Grotius thinks otherwiſe; the Man is called the Glory of God, becauſe whoever looks upon a Man, will perceive him to be a piece of Workmanſhip worthy of the divine Majeſty, and give Glory to him upon that account. And the Woman is the glory of the Man, becauſe there is ſome ground for the Man to glory, when he conſiders that the Woman was formed out of his Body, and created for his Help and Aſſiſtance. The following Verſe does ſhew that by being his glory, the Apoſtle means that for which he was made, and we need not go any further to underſtand St. Paul's Mind: The ſenſe of the whole place is, that [Page] the Man indeed ought to have his Head uncovered, becauſe God made him, as his other Works, to be beheld; and it is not for the glory of God, to have that Work of his hid by a Veil: but the Woman, which was made for the Man, ought to be veiled, becauſe ſhe is inferior to the Man, who uſes her as he pleaſes, and would have her veiled. It is for the Man's glory to have his Authority appear over the Woman, and as in other inſtances, ſo in this particularly, of having her conceal her ſelf whenever he pleaſes. Solomon has a ſaying in the xith Chapter of Proverbs, verſ. 16. which according to the Verſion of the Septuagint is, [...]. And ſo ſaith Eſdras, Lib. 3. c. iv.7. of Women: [...].

But of this whole reaſoning, and many other ſuch, it muſt be obſerved, that they are not at all demonſtrative, becauſe they are not grounded upon things that are unchangeable, but alterable according to the Cuſtom or Opinion of Men. It was thought by the Greeks to be a token of the Mens Authority over the Women, for the Men to appear abroad with their Heads uncovered, as being their own Maſters, and expoſing themſelves to every ones view; and on the contrary an Argument of ſubjection in Women to go abroad veil'd, becauſe that ſignified them to be but one Man's, who had power to remove their Veil, and would not have them publickly beheld. But if a contrary Cuſtom had prevailed, St. Paul would have reaſoned quite otherwiſe, to perſwade the Corinthians to what he endeavoured to induce them, viz. to do all things decently in the Church, and wherever any one propheſied. I confeſs he grounds his Argument alſo upon the Hiſtory of the Creation; but if we conſider the thing, who can deny but that the Woman was created after the Image of God, and for his Glory as well as the Man? See Gen. ii.27. Nor indeed is this denied by St. Paul, but only in a certain ſenſe, viz. as the Woman is ſaid to have been created after the Man, and to be an aſſiſtant to him. And in this ſenſe only his reaſoning is valid, and not by a general, and, if I may ſo ſpeak, mathematical deduction.

Verſ. 10. Note d. The Rabbi cited by Schickard was not a Talmudical Doctor, but only cited a place out of the Talmud, as we may ſee by the words that Schickard alledges.

Ibid. Note e. About this difficult place of Scripture, I have written two years ago two Letters in anſwer to a Friend, who deſired to have my Opinion of it, which I ſhall here propoſe to the Readers examination, declaring my ſelf ready to alter it whenever I ſee ſufficient reaſon. That part of thoſe Letters which relates to this matter is as follows.

[Page]I. I ſhall never forget that advice of St. Auſtin, than which nothing in ſuch matters can be more ſeaſonably call'd to mind: That in things obſcure and remote from our ſenſes, if ſo be we read any thing in Holy Scripture, which may without endangering the Faith we profeſs, be made to comply with different Opinions, we ſhould not raſhly eſpouſe any of them; or if we do, yet not ſo as to reſolve not to change our Judgment whatever light be offer'd to us afterwards, or to contend not ſo much for the ſenſe of the Holy Scriptures, as our own Opinion, as the true ſenſe of the Scripture, when it is our own, whereas we ought rather to make that to be ours which is the aſſertion of the Scripture. I have ſet down the whole Paſſage at length, to ſhew you that I am not ſo wedded to my preſent Opinion in this matter, as to reſolve that no reaſons ſhall move me to forſake it. Two things muſt here in the firſt place he obſerved. Firſt, that the Diſcourſe in 1 Cor. xi. is about Men and Women praying, or propheſying among others at home: For the Women among the Greeks did not appear abroad without a Veil, nor therefore ſtand in need of the Apoſtle's Admonition, which no honeſt Matron ever acted contrary to. And that ſome of their Neighbours or Acquaintance were preſent with them in thoſe Exerciſes is manifeſt; becauſe it is abſurd for a Woman praying by her ſelf to cover her Head, or to propheſy alone. Secondly, that as far as the fifteenth Verſe, the chief ſcope of the Apoſtle's Diſcourſe is to ſhew the Corinthian Women, they ought not to propheſy or pray when Men were preſent, without being veiled. Theſe two things I take here for certain, becauſe they offer themſelves to the Readers Mind at firſt view. After therefore St. Paul had alledged Reaſons to that purpoſe, at the 10th Verſe he concludes thus: [...], For this cauſe ought the Woman to have upon her Head, what? viz. a Veil, which the Apoſtle calls [...], as the Jews [...] from [...] dominatus eſt, of which ſee Dr. Hammond, and my Notes on Gen. xxiv.64. If St. Paul had added nothing more, there would have appeared no defect in his Diſcourſe; but there follow three words which have extremely perplexed Interpreters, becauſe they ſeem to be altogether ſuperfluous, and to have no dependence upon what goes before. And indeed if in the Concluſion, as Logicians ſpeak, there ought to be nothing but what is contained in the Premiſes; either it muſt be ſhewn that the ſenſe of theſe words is couched in what went before, or we muſt acknowledg them to be ſupervacaneous: and to me the former ſeems to be very eaſy, as it is certainly the beſt, if we do but inſtead of [...], which is manifeſtly not contained in the Premiſes, read [...], that is, when ſhe declares the Revelations made to her, or while ſhe is delivering her [...]. So a [Page] prophetical Doctrin, which Iſaiah, Chap, xxviii.9. calls [...] ſchmouha, is ſtiled by the Septuagint [...]. To which I might add a paſſage out of Herodotus, where the word [...] ſeems to be taken in the ſame ſignification; but becauſe it is obſcure, and St. Paul did not learn from him to ſpeak Greek, I ſhall abſtain from it. But you will ask me, I ſuppoſe, how it came to paſs that [...] was changed into [...]; To which I anſwer, becauſe [...] is a word much more common in Scripture than [...] which occurs but once in all the New Teſtament, and not often in the Old. And many times it happen'd that the Tranſcribers ſubſtituted a more uſual and familiar word in the room of one leſs known, as St. Jerom thought of the Name Iſaiah, which occurs in Mat. xiii.35. The Apoſtle adds [...], becauſe it was not neceſſary for the Woman to cover her ſelf with a Veil at home, but only when ſhe went abroad, unleſs there was this or the like reaſon for it. They that make the diſcourſe here to refer to the Church, do not remember that it was unlawful for Women, covered or uncovered, to ſpeak in the Church, as St. Paul teaches in this ſame Epiſtle, Chap. xiv.34. But at home amongſt their Acquaintance nothing hinder'd but they might propheſy, if they had received that Gift from God; but they ought to have their Heads covered, as when they appeared in publick. This is my conjecture about this place, which I ſhall not abandon till I meet with ſomething more probable.

II. It is a place of that nature, that as by its obſcurity it opens a door for Conjectures, ſo likewiſe it leaves room for innumerable Difficulties; and it is no wonder that very great ones are objected againſt this of mine, which would not be a conjecture if thoſe who are of another opinion could bring no probability againſt it. Nevertheleſs what you alledg, I ſhall conſider as briefly as I can. 1. You ſuppoſe the Apoſtle's Diſcourſe here to refer to publick Aſſemblies, in which all or moſt of the Chriſtians of the Church of Corinth met. But it is plain St. Paul forbids Women to ſpeak in publick Aſſemblies, either covered or uncovered, [...]. But in private Converſation, ſay you, it does not ſeem probable that the Spirit of Prophecy was given: Why ſo? It's true, the principal uſe of it was in Churches, but it might be uſeful alſo ſometimes in private Converſation amongſt familiars, for Chriſtians to edify one another privately. And it is certain, Women had it not to preach, that being not allowed them by the Apoſtle. 2. But you ſay, tho it was not lawful for Women to teach others, yet they might [...], that is, ſing in the Church, as the learned J. Mede interprets that [Page] word. I do not deny but the Hebrew [...] in the Old Teſtament has that ſignification, and is rendred by the Greek Interpreters [...], but in the New Teſtament I do not know of any place wherein that word is ſo taken, and in this diſputation of St. Paul I am ſure that ſignification does no where agree to it. 3. That the fault of the Corinthian Women lay in their coming to Church with their Hair all looſe, is no where intimated by St. Paul, who would have much more vehemently inveighed againſt Chriſtian Women that ſhould have imitated the [...], the Propheteſſes or Interpreters of impure Spirits. He does not ſay one word about their Hair being looſe or bound up, but ſpeaks only of a Veil. 4. But why did the Apoſtle call the pious Diſcourſes of the Corinthian Women, [...], and not [...] or predictions? In anſwer to that, I acknowledg that the latter was the moſt common word, but the former alſo was uſed, as I have ſhewn. And then [...] ſignifies, at leaſt for the moſt part, the thing it ſelf propheſied, not the act of propheſying; but [...] not only the thing declared, but the Action it ſelf, or Office of declaring, if we believe Euſtathius on Iliad Λ. verſ. 140. where by [...] he thinks that Homer means [...]. And in this place I did not ſay that by [...] was meant the ſpiritual Gift of Prophecy, but either Prophecy, or the action it ſelf of propheſying of what kind ſoever that be, which the Apoſtle has chiefly a reference to; tho becauſe of their affinity they may be eaſily confounded, as the word [...] is taken both for the thing it ſelf preached, and for the Office or Action of preaching. 5. Another thing which you ſeem very much to ſtick at is, that this word [...] is but once uſed in all the New Teſtament: but conſider firſt that it is very common in Homer, Xenophon, and other Greek Writers, and therefore taken from the vulgar uſe. And then ſecondly, there are in St. Paul's Epiſtles, as well as in other Authors, words that are but ſeldom uſed, as for inſtance [...] in Chap. xiii.4. of this Epiſtle, [...] in 2 Cor. xi.9. and ſeveral others which learned Men have taken notice of. 6. You add that in verſ. 16. the Apoſtle draws an Argument from the Cuſtom of the Churches; but that Cuſtom does no more reſpect publick than private Aſſemblies; for the Apoſtle does not ſay, [...], but [...]. St. Paul here has a reſpect to the Cuſtom of the Jews, which the Apoſtles had introduced into Churches conſiſting partly of Jews, and partly of Greeks, together with other Jewiſh Cuſtoms. Hear what Tertullian ſays, de Corona, Chap. 4. Among the Jews it is ſo ordinary for the Women to have their Heads covered, that they are diſtinguiſhed by it from [Page]others. This is what I had to reply to your objections, which are ſo far from ſatisfying me, that they confirm me in my conjecture. If we had any Old Copy which inſtead of [...] read [...], I ſhould have no manner of doubt about this place, whatever others thought.

Verſ. 14. Note f. I. I have at large ſhewn in my Ars Critica, P. 2. Sect. 1. c. vii. §. 6. that St. Paul's meaning in Epheſ. ii.3. is this, that the Jews (meant by the word us, and not the Romans) were of as lewd and wicked a Diſpoſition as other Nations.

II. But in this place to the Corinthians, the word Nature does not ſignify properly a Cuſtom or Diſpoſition, but is oppoſed to Inſtruction. It is juſt as if the Apoſtle ſhould have ſaid, Do not you know this of your ſelves? Do you want any one to teach it you? So the Latin natura is uſed by Cicero in Lib. 1. Tuſcul. Quaeſt. where comparing the Romans with the Greeks, he ſaith: Illa quae naturâ, non litteris, adſequuti ſunt neque cum Graecis, neque ulla cum Gente ſunt conferenda. As to thoſe things which they have acquired the knowledg of by Nature, not by Learning, they (viz. the Romans) incomparably go beyond the Greeks and all other Nations. The ſame Author in Philip. 2. thus beſpeaks Antonius: An verebare, ne non putaremus natura te potuiſſe tam improbum evadere, niſi acceſſiſſet etiam diſciplina? Were you afraid leſt we ſhould think you could not have arrived to ſuch a pitch of wickedneſs by Nature, unleſs you had alſo been inſtructed?

Verſ. 29. Note g. I. The Hebrew [...] in the Book of Joſhua, manifeſtly ſignifies to conſecrate, the Diſcourſe being about places of Refuge, which were eſteemed Sacred. The Septuagint unneceſſarily expreſſed the ſenſe, rather than the proper meaning of the word; for the Cities conſecrated for places of Refuge, were by that Conſecration diſtinguiſhed [...] from others. But hence it does not follow that [...] or [...] ſignifies reciprocally to ſanctify.

II. The Apoſtle's ſenſe is beſt interpreted by thoſe who affirm this to be an Elliptical Phraſe, and the meaning of it to be, not diſcerning the Lord's Body, [...], from other Bread; or not eating the Conſecrated more reverently than any common Bread. In the 31ſt verſe we have the ſame expreſſion again; for if we did but diſtinguiſh ( [...]) our ſelves, we ſhould not be condemned; that is, if we diſtinguiſhed thoſe that were not rightly diſpoſed or qualified, from thoſe that were; [...]. To look here for any thing elſe, is to ſeek a knot in a Bulruſh.

CHAP. XII.Chapter XII.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. [...].] I do not often find fault with our Author's Paraphraſe, tho in a great many places the mind of the Apoſtles might have been more fitly expreſſed. I am contented if he does but any how interpret the ſenſe. But his Paraphraſe of this Verſe is intolerable; for the Heathens did not believe that their Idols ſpake of themſelves, or that their Prieſts anſwered them of their own Heads, but were both moved by the Gods, whoſe Prieſts and Statues they were: So that the two firſt could not be charged upon them, and all that could be objected againſt them was, that it was not any God, as they ſuppoſed, that anſwered them by their Idols, but an evil Spirit. But the Apoſtle does not upbraid them ſo much as with that in this place, but only that they had formerly ſuffered themſelves by their own blindneſs to be led to the worſhip of Idols, which gave no anſwers to them that enquired of them, either by their Prieſts or by evil Spirits; but were ſhamefully deceived by their crafty Prieſts, who pretended themſelves to be acted by the Spirit of the Gods, or by mere human artifice impoſed on the credulous, ſo as to perſwade them that Images could ſpeak, which were [...]. And ſuch ſort of Men were very unfit to diſtinguiſh between true Inſpiration and feigned, which therefore the Apoſtle here teaches them how to do. I confeſs Dr. Hammond had Grotius to go before him, but the thing it ſelf confutes him.

Verſ. 4. [...].] This place was imitated by St. Clement in his 1 Epiſtle to the Corinthians, Chap. 46. [...]; Have we not one God and one Chriſt, and one Spirit of Grace given unto us, and one calling in Chriſt?

Verſ. 12. [...].] This Similitude alſo is uſed by the ſame St. Clement more than once, in the forementioned Epiſtle, and among other places in Chap. 36. [...]: The great cannot be without the ſmall, nor the ſmall without the great; there is a kind of mixture in all things, and every thing has its uſe. Let us take for inſtance our Body. The Head without the Feet is nothing, nor the Feet without the Head. The[Page]ſmalleſt parts of our Bodies are neceſſary and uſeful to the whole Body; but they all conſpire and jointly ſubſerve the preſervation of the whole.

Verſ. 13. [...].] That is, we were baptized that we might be called by one name, of one Society, the Church of Chriſt. See my Note on Chap. x.2.

Ibid. [...].] Having ſpoken before of Baptiſm, which is performed with Water, the Apoſtle here keeps to the ſame Metaphor, and ſays, that Chriſtians had drank of the ſame Spirit. Which is to be underſtood both of the Spirit of Miracles, and of the Spirit of Chriſtianity. Such another Metaphor is made uſe of by Cebes in the beginning of his Table, where he feigneth [...], Impoſture making thoſe who enter into Life to drink of her power.

Verſ. 28. Note d. I. Of the difference between a Teacher and a Prophet, ſome things muſt be further obſerved, which our Author having omitted has left us not a little in the dark about this matter. The Prophets under the Old Teſtament had a twofold Office: The firſt and higheſt conſiſted in declaring thoſe things which they had received immediately from God, or by the mediation of Angels, and were ſuch as could not have been known by Men, without a Divine Revelation: The other was to perſwade Men to the obſervation of the Law already revealed, by pious Exhortations, Reproofs and Counſels. And to this ſeems to belong thoſe Schools of the Prophets, ſo often mentioned in the Old Teſtament, and particularly in 1 Sam. xix.20. 2 Kings iv.38.

Becauſe the Worſhip of the only true God was to be firmly eſtabliſhed among the Jews, a generation of Men that chiefly regarded the things of this Life, and defended againſt the encroaching Idolatry of their neighbour Nations for ſeveral Ages, God ſaw it neceſſary to raiſe up Prophets, by inſpiring them in an extraordinary manner. And under the New Teſtament likewiſe, to eſtabliſh the Authority of the Apoſtles, God vouchſafed them and others the ſame extraordinary Inſpiration; but as the Chriſtian Religion grew and flouriſhed, and by growing acquired Strength, the gift of foretelling things to come was by degrees more ſparingly conferred. And becauſe Chriſtianity did not much regard what was to happen in this World, but put Men upon the thoughts and expectations of another Life, the principal Office of the New Teſtament Prophets lay in interpreting thoſe things more clearly and at large, which were revealed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, for the benefit of the common People. [Page] In which Office there are two things to be carefully diſtinguiſhed: one is, their preparation for the exerciſe of that Office, in which beſides natural Gifts, and Knowledg acquired by Induſtry, they were endued with the Holy Ghoſt, which was conferred on them by the impoſition of the hands of the Apoſtles, as appears from 1 Tim. iv.14. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. And tho we do not know how the Holy Spirit influenced their Minds, or what change it produced in them; yet it appears by what is afterwards ſaid about theſe Prophets by St. Paul, that this was the effect of that divine Inſpiration, to fit them to preach the Goſpel: Which fitneſs, [...] as St. Paul calls it, was all at once conferred upon them.

And when they were thus made fit, [...], for this Office, they executed it not by a particular ſort of Inſpiration, by which ſuch things were revealed to them as they knew not before, or which unaccountably and extraordinarily moved them to ſpeak, but as they ſaw fit themſelves; and thoſe things which they had received from Chriſt and the Apoſtles, they interpreted after their own manner. Which was the ground of thoſe Diſorders and Tumults in the Church, of which St. Paul ſpeaks in the 14th Chapter, when more Prophets than one would be heard at the ſame time. And hence this Gift did not ſuperſede the neceſſity of Study and diligent reading, as appears by that advice of St. Paul to Timothy: Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrin. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, &c. —Meditate upon theſe things, give thy ſelf wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all.

Theſe are they whom the Apoſtle calls Prophets; the Teachers ſeem to be thoſe who had qualified themſelves for preaching the Goſpel only by Study, and had not received the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit. The Prophets, for the moſt part at leaſt, did not teach by Inſpiration, but had been fitted to teach by Inſpiration; but theſe who are here peculiarly called Teachers, did not only teach without Inſpiration what they had learned, but had received no extraordinary preparation from God for the exerciſe of their Office. In which particular they were inferior to the Prophets, beſides that theſe did ſometimes foretel things to come. Unleſs this Interpretation be admitted, it will be hard to underſtand any thing that St. Paul ſays afterwards about Prophets.

II. As for theſe Teachers in that Age having been always Biſhops or Prieſts of the firſt Rank in the Church, I do not know whence that can certainly be concluded. I am ſure what our Author alledges [Page] to that purpoſe, does by no means prove it; nor is there any reaſon from the thing it ſelf, which ſhould oblige us to be of his opinion.

Ibid. Note e. If the Apoſtles had ſhewn any other inſtances of ſeverity beſide that on Ananias, in the beginning of their Miniſtry, I do not think but St. Luke would have related them, and therefore I ſuppoſe they are other Miracles intended in Acts ii.43. But why doth St. Luke ſay there was ſuch a general fear upon that account? To wit, becauſe that fear might as well follow upon beneficial Miracles, as puniſhments inflicted on wicked Perſons; for any Miracles joined with a pious and reaſonable Doctrin, are capable of impreſſing an aw upon the Minds of Men, and making them afraid to oppoſe the Teachers of it, leſt they ſhould be found fighters againſt God. This is a much better Interpretation, than to ſay that the Apoſtles terrified Men by inflicting Diſeaſes upon them, and menacing them with Death; which they very ſeldom did, and could not have been frequently done without giving a fair occaſion to the enemies of Chriſtianity to cavil both at the Apoſtles conduct, and it. And I as little believe that this power belonged to all Governors of Churches, which we read of none that uſed beſides the Apoſtles, and thoſe to whom the Apoſtles did as it were lend it, as St. Paul did to the Corinthians: See chap. v. But the Doctor thought he could never ſay enough about Church Cenſures.

Ibid. Note h. I. Of the word [...], Phil. Jac. Mauſſacus has copiouſly and learnedly treated, in a Diſſert. premiſed to Harpocration, where he has at large ſhewn that [...] ſignifies not only Languages in general, but ſtrange Languages, and words peculiar to certain Dialects, for the interpretation of which Gloſſaries were compoſed.

II. Tho it is ſaid in Acts ii.5. that there were at Jeruſalem devout Men, out of every Nation under Heaven, who heard the Apoſtles ſpeaking in their own Languages; yet that expreſſion is not to be taken in the ſtricteſt and moſt comprehenſive ſenſe, becauſe it is certain univerſal Phraſes are often uſed for indefinite or particular ones, of which ſee my Notes on Gen. vii.19. and Part. 2. Sect. ii. cap. vi. §. 16. of my Ars Critica. And indeed it is not at all probable that the Apoſtles could ſpeak all the Languages ſo much as of the Aſian People, among which were the Scythians, who inhabited a great and vaſt Country towards the North, and the Seres and Japanners, and divers Indian Nations, to which they never went. And therefore by all Nations and all Languages muſt be meant the moſt and moſt famous within the Roman Empire, and in bordering parts of the World: Tho I do not doubt but that if the Providence of God had called the Apoſtles to the moſt remote Countries, God would have miraculouſly conferred on them the [Page] knowledg of their Languages.Chapter XIII. But it was time enough for that when they had occaſion to uſe them.

III. There are ſome things to be obſerved about the Gift of Tongues, which I ſhall afterwards ſet down, becauſe our Author has paſt it by.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 1. [...].] St. Paul here ſeems to ſpeak according to the opinion of the Vulgar, who think that the Angels cannot communicate their Thoughts to one another without ſpeech; tho Spirits, whether pure, or clothed with another kind of Body, may have other ways to convey their Thoughts to each other: And thoſe ways altogether as conceivable as the manner how we underſtand one anothers Thoughts by Speech, which is not at all, as I might eaſily ſhew, if this were a proper place to philoſophize in: But I ſhall rather ſet down a paſſage out of Michael Pſellus, in his little Book de operationibus Daemonum, where he deſcribes thus the manner of their diſcourſing: [...]: He that ſpeaks, if he be afar off, is forced to ſpeak very loud; but if he be near, he whiſpers what he has to ſay into the Ear of the Perſon he ſpeaks to. And if he could have an immediate acceſs to the ſpirit of the Mind, he would not need ſo much as to whiſper, but he might make himſelf be underſtood, and communicate whatever he had a mind by a ſecret way, without any noiſe; in the ſame manner as they ſay Souls do after their ſeparation from the Body, who converſe without making any ſenſible impreſſion on each other. And this way the Devils alſo diſcourſe with us Men, and wage war with us unperceived. And afterwards he ſaith thus: [...]; That Demons have any peculiar Language we ſhall not find; for inſtance, Hebrew or Greek, or Syriack, or any other barbarous Tongue: For what occaſion have they for Speech, who converſe together without Speech, as I before ſaid? But he goes on and ſaith: [...] [Page] [...], &c. But as among the Demons of the Nations, ſome preſided over one, and ſome over another, and had each their diſtinct place of Reſidence; ſo they ſeverally ſpake the peculiar Languages of thoſe Nations. For which reaſon thoſe of them that reſided in Greece, gave their reſponſes in Greek Heroick Verſes, and thoſe in Chaldea were invoked in the Chaldean Language, &c. This as it is not [...] without any examination to be admitted, ſo nor abſolutely I think to be rejected; wherefore I thought fit to ſet it down here, that the Learned might judg of it.

Ibid. Note a. There are ſeveral things in this Annotation which I cannot aſſent to, and are undoubtedly falſe.

I. From the order obſerved, in reckoning up the Conſort in Pſalm cl. it cannot be inferred that the Cymbal was a muſical Inſtrument of a bigger ſound than thoſe before named; for who told Dr. Hammond that the Diſcourſe aſcended? Does the Pſalmiſt uſe to be ſo exact in placing his words? They muſt have read the Pſalm but very careleſly that can think ſo.

II. The Cymbal cannot be ſaid to have been a wind Inſtrument. It was made in the form of a Hemiſphere, hollow within, and two Cymbals were ſhaken and ſtruck one againſt another, to make a ſound. ‘If any one ask me (ſaith Adr. Turnebus in Adverſ. Lib. 26. c. 33.) what ſort of Inſtrument a Cymbal was, I will ſend him to the Herb Cotyledon, Pennywort, whoſe Leaves reſemble a Cymbal. So ſaith Scribonius Largus, Mentaſtrum vel radicem [...], quae herba ſimilia folia Cymbalis habet, Wild Mint, or the root of the Herb Cotyledon, the leaves of which are like Cymbals.’ He might have added, that this Herb was for that reaſon called [...], as appears by Dioſcorides in Lib. 4. c. 92. who gives this deſcription of it, and at the ſame time tells us what was the form of the Cymbal. [...]: Cotyledon, ſome call it Scytalium, others Cymbalium, hath a Leaf like a Sawcer, of a round ſhape, and gradually concave. That the manner of ſounding theſe Inſtruments was by daſhing or ſhaking them againſt one another, appears by this Verſe of Virgil Georg. Lib. 4. verſ. 64. where he ſhews the way how to call back a ſwarm of Bees: ‘Tinnituſque cie & matris quate cymbala circum.’ On which place Servius hath this Note, by whoſe words it will more fully appear what was the form of the Cymbal: quae (viz. cymbala) in ejus (Matris Deûm) tutela ſunt, quia ſunt ſimilia HEMICYCLIS [Page] coeli, quibus cingitur Terra, quae eſt mater Deorum: Which are under her protection, becauſe they are like the half Circles of the Heaven, by which the Earth is encompaſſed, which is the Mother of the Gods. That they were ſhook together, we may learn alſo from the words of Iſidore in Orig. Lib. 2. c. 21. Cymbala & acetabula quaedam ſunt, quae percuſſa invicem ſe tangunt & ſonum faciunt. Dicta autem Cymbala, quia cum ballematica ſimul percutiuntur. Ita enim Graeci dicunt Cymbala ballematica. Cymbals are a ſort of Sawcers, which being ſtruck againſt one another, make a ſound. The reaſon why they were called Cymbals was becauſe, &c. What the meaning of the word ballematica is I do not underſtand; but the word Cymbal muſt be derived not [...], but [...], which ſignifies concave, as [...]. Whence Cymbals are called concave by Lucretius, Lib. 2. ſpeaking of Cybele's Prieſts: ‘Tympana tenta ſonant palmis & cymbala circum Concava.’ Nonius Marcellinus interprets cymbaliſſare, cymbala quatere. And it's certain they were uſed in Dances, as the Timbrels and Tabors, as appears by Lampridius in Commodo: Praefectum Praetorio ſuum Julianum —ſaltare etiam nudum ante concubinas ſuas juſſit, quatientem Cymbala deformato vultu: He commanded his Praefect Julian to dance naked in the Court before his Concubines, ſhaking Cymbals, and with his Countenance disfigured. But the manner of ſounding Cymbals is beſt of all deſcribed by Auſonius, in Ep. 25.

Cymbala dant flictu ſonitum, dant pulpita ſaltu

Icta pedum, tentis reboant cava tympana tergis,

Iſiacos agitant Mareotica ſiſtra tumultus. *

III. The matter of theſe ſemicircular Inſtruments being Braſs, they made a tinkling or ſhrill ſound, not a loud or big one, as the Doctor thought; whence they are ſtiled [...] in the Epigram of Alexis Prieſt of the Mother of the Gods, of which I ſhall here produce theſe Diſtichs out of the Anthol. Lib. vi. p. 416. cap. 5.

[Page]

[...]

[...].

[...]

[...].

[...]

[...].

The female Alexis bequeaths this to thee, the mad tokens of her Fury, leaving off her braſs ſtriking Rage: Her ſhrill ſounding Cymbals, and high grave ſounding Pipes, which are made of the crooked Horns of a Calf: And her ecchoing Drums and Swords died with Blood, and yellow Hair, which ſhe formerly ſhook.

IV. Heſychius interprets the word [...] by [...], that is, brazen Kettles, Cymbals, as Phavorinus alſo reads it, not [...] brazen Cymbals, as it is falſly quoted by our Author. And the reaſon why theſe Inſtruments are called [...] is becauſe they were made of Braſs, not becauſe they were [...] wind Inſtruments.

V. The Epithet [...] here proves nothing but that the Cymbal was an Inſtrument of a ſhrill ſound; and indeed two ſuch ſemicircular Inſtruments made of Braſs could not be beat one againſt another, without making a pretty great Ringing or Tinkling, which yet was not ſo great as to equal the ſound of Organs, eſpecially if of a large ſize. Hence Xenophon, in the beginning of his Book de re Equeſtri, compares the ſound of the hollow hoof of a Horſe to the ſound of a Cymbal: [...]: a hollow Hoof ſtruck upon the ground makes a noiſe like a Cymbal. Beſides the word [...] ſignifies to make any ſort of confuſed noiſe, not only for Joy, but for Grief, as appears even from Mark v.38. Conſult what H. Stephanus ſays about this word under its primitive [...], with which what is ſaid here by our Author is nothing to compare. So that St. Paul admirably reſembles the ſound of the words of an unknown Language to the confuſed noiſe of a Cymbal, or [...]. Perhaps Tiberius Caeſar had almoſt the ſame reaſon for calling the Grammarian Apio, Cymbalum Mundi, the Cymbal of the World, viz. becauſe he dunned mens ears by his vain and unprofitable talking. See Pliny's Pref. to his Nat. Hiſt.

VI. The uſe of the Cymbal does not belong to this place. The Apoſtle does not here reſpect the occaſions or times in which it was made uſe of, but only its confuſed ſound: However I ſhall in a few words here ſet down the uſe of that Inſtrument, becauſe our Author [Page] had not a true Notion of it. It was uſed whenever any confuſed noiſe was to be made, either as a ſignification of Joy or Mourning. For the antient Eaſtern People uſed that ſort of Muſick on both thoſe occaſions, whether in War or Peace. It was a token of Mourning in the ſacred Solemnities of the Mother of the Gods, as we are told by Martial, Lib. 14. Epig. in Cymbala, 204.

Aera, Celaenaeos lugentia Matris amores,

Eſuriens Gallus vendere ſaepe ſolet.

Of which ſee the Additions of T. Demſterus to the Rom. Ant. of Roſinus. But in the worſhip of other Deities, they played upon Cymbals for the ſake of mirth; as appears by Athenaeus's deſcription of the Parilia, or Feaſts in honour of the Goddeſs Pales, Lib. 8. p. 361. [...]: There was heard through all the City, the noiſe of Pipes, and the ſound of Cymbals, and the beating of Drums, and ſinging. So Herodian, Lib. 5. ſpeaking of Heliogabalus, cap. 5.19. [...]: He danced about the Altars, with the ſound of all ſorts of Inſtruments; and the women of the Country danced with him, running round the Altars, and carrying Cymbals or Tabers in their bands. That there were Cymbals alſo uſed in private Meetings for dancing and mirth, I have already ſhewn, and could eaſily prove more at large. It is known alſo that they were uſed in War, but it was only among the Arabians. And ſo ſaith Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. 2: p. 164. [...]: The Egyptians in their Wars uſe Drums or Tabers, and the Arabians, Cymbals.

VII. Becauſe I have ſaid ſo much about the Cymbal, I ſhall add ſomething about its Original, tho it contribute nothing to the illuſtration of St. Paul's meaning in this place. It ſufficiently appears by the places already alledged, that it was neither a Roman nor a Greek Inſtrument, but an Aſian: becauſe it was principally in uſe among the Phrygians and Phenicians, as we have ſeen out of Herodotus; and the Arabians, as we have been told by Clemens. And hence ſaith Apuleius, in Lib. de Deo Socratis: Gaudent Aegyptia numina ferme plangoribus, Graeca plerumque choreis, barbara autem ſtrepitu cymbaliſtarum, & tympaniſtarum & choraularum: The Egyptian Deities are pleaſed generally with Beatings, the Greek for the moſt part with Dances, and the Barbarian with the noiſe of men playing upon Cymbals, or Tabers, or Pipes. [Page] It was very common among the Jews, Chapter XIV. in whoſe Language it is called [...] tſiltſel, from a Root which ſignifies to ring or tinkle, both among them and the Arabians. The word [...] tſiltſel is conſtantly rendered by the Septuagint [...], except in one or two places, which are perhaps corrupt. Poſſibly it ſignified alſo Siſtrum, a Timbrel, as I ſhall have occaſion hereafter to obſerve on Pſal. cl. It is certain both theſe Inſtruments might by an Onomatopaea be ſo called.

I have been larger than I uſually am, in treating of the Cymbal, partly becauſe Dr. Hammond did not know what it was, and partly becauſe two other great Men were as ignorant in this matter as he: One is H. Grotius, who tells us, that for the moſt part this Inſtrument was made of Silver, which by what I have ſaid already, appears to be falſe; and for further proof take this paſſage out of Joſephus, in Lib. 7. cap. 10. p. 243. where among the reſt of David's muſical Inſtruments, he reckons [...], and deſcribes them thus; [...], they were broad, great, and braſen. The other is S. Bochart, who in his Phaleg. Lib. 4. c. 2. affirms, that the Cymbal differed hardly in any thing but the roundneſs of its form from the Timbrel, whereas the Timbrel was an Inſtrument with holes in it, and made with little croſs bars of Metal, not like a pewter Saucer as the Cymbal. Which it is not proper in this place to prove at large.

Verſ. 4. Note c. See my Note on the word [...], in Mat. xi.30.

CHAP. XIV.

Verſ. 2. [...].] What is ſaid in this Verſe, ſeems to be by way of conceſſion, and therefore ſhould be paraphraſed thus: ‘For granting that he who ſpeaks in an unknown Language, does really uſe a Gift which he has received from God; yet he ſhould remember that he can ſpeak in that Language only to God, not to men who do not underſtand it, and to whom all that he ſays is unintelligible.’ It was certainly a piece of folly and arrogance, not to ſay any worſe of it, to ſpeak ſo as to be underſtood by no body; for it was a mere oſtentation of the Gift of Tongues. But there are ſome things to be obſerved with relation to that Gift, which our Author has paſt by, and will it may be give light to this whole Buſineſs.

I. They who received the Gift of Tongues, were doubtleſs inſtructed with them, in order to propagate the Goſpel among thoſe Nations whoſe Languages they were; whether they went into their [Page] Countries, or diſcourſed with ſuch as came out of them: and therefore the time for uſing them was only when they could not be better underſtood in any other Language. Thoſe that were at that time at Corinth, and could ſpeak Greek, ought to uſe the Greek Tongue among the Corinthians, and not ſtrange Dialects which they could not underſtand, and for which they might be ſuſpected of Impoſture, becauſe no body underſtood them. For certainly one who could ſpeak Greek, and induſtriouſly uſed another Language among Grecians who underſtood nothing but their native Dialect, might not without reaſon be taken for a Deluder or Impoſtor.

II. But beſides Grecians, and thoſe who underſtood Greek, there were at Corinth ſome other People out of Africa, Aſia, and Europe, who reſorted thither for the ſake of Trade, and were unskilful in the Greek Language, and who having been converted by the Apoſtle to the Chriſtian Faith, had alſo received the Gift of Tongues, to enable them when they went into their own Country to preach the Goſpel among barbarous Nations. And theſe ſeem to be the firſt who might abuſe the Gift of Tongues in the Church of Corinth; as if for inſtance, a man that could ſpeak Latin, becauſe born and bred in Italy, had uſed the Illyrian, Celtick or Spaniſh Language, the knowledg of which had been conferred upon him by God, when no body was preſent that underſtood any of thoſe Tongues.

III. It muſt be acknowledged notwithſtanding, that a Grecian, before Grecians, might, for example, ſpeak Spaniſh, that thoſe of his own Country might know he was inſtructed by God with the knowledg of the Spaniſh Tongue; to which purpoſe there was need of an Interpreter, who by a faithful interpretation of what he ſaid, might ſhew that he did not ſpeak ſome fictitious Language, or uſe ſounds that had no ſenſe belonging to them, but the true Spaniſh Language. For if he himſelf had firſt uſed a ſtrange Language, and then ſpoken in Greek what he had ſaid before in an unknown Tongue, he might be ſuſpected by thoſe who did not underſtand that ſtrange Language. But if no body were preſent, who could perform the Office of an Interpreter? It was better for the Perſon ſo miraculouſly endued with the knowledg of the Spaniſh Language to hold his peace, leſt he ſhould ſpeak to thoſe who did not underſtand it, to no purpoſe, or become ſuſpected to the Hearers, if he himſelf ſhould take upon him to be his own Interpreter, or at leaſt by his proud oſtentation of an uſeleſs accompliſhment, at that inſtant of time, offend them.

IV. Theſe two ſorts of men St. Paul here reproves, who uſed the Gift of Tongues in an improper place and time, and prefers ſuch Prophets [Page] as ſpake nothing but Greek to them. But you will ſay, Were not thoſe who preached the Goſpel in ſtrange Languages, alſo Prophets? Yes, undoubtedly; but not to thoſe who did not underſtand thoſe Languages, and therefore the Apoſtle diſtinguiſhes them from thoſe who ſpake only Greek. And he juſtly prefers a Grecian, endued only with the Gift of Prophecy, and ſpeaking to his Countrymen in their own Language, to one who did not uſe the Gift of Prophecy, but of Tongues, among thoſe who did not underſtand them. Theſe things being diligently obſerved, which, if I am not miſtaken, are true, or very probable, the Apoſtle's whole diſcourſe will be perſpicuous, which is otherwiſe very dark and intricate.

Ibid. [...].] I do not think this is to be underſtood of a particular Inſpiration, for they who had once received the Gift of Tongues, were not inſpired as often as there was occaſion to uſe them; but they expreſſed their minds whenever they pleaſed, in any of thoſe Languages with which the Spirit of God had inſtructed them. So that by [...] here is meant to his own underſtanding, but not to another's.

Verſ. 5. [...].] ‘That is, not as our Author ſays, unleſs he afterwards ſpeak in a known Language, what he had expreſſed in an unknown; for it would have been abſurd to ſpeak, for inſtance, in Spaniſh to Grecians, that which one ſhould be forced afterwards to ſpeak ones ſelf in Greek; but, he is a greater Prophet who propheſies in one known Language, than he that propheſies in many unknown, if he cannot deliver his mind without them in a known Tongue.’ A Carthaginian, for example, who beſides the Punick, ſhould have underſtood all the Dialects of the Mores and Lybians, could not be ſo much eſteemed at Corinth, as a Greek Prophet that underſtood only his native Language, unleſs he were able alſo to expreſs in Greek what he could ſay in the Language of the Mores or Libyans. This St. Paul calls here [...], becauſe he is ſpeaking of a man who did not underſtand Greek, and wanted an Interpreter among the Grecians, and ſo would have been his own, if he had underſtood that Language. No other Perſon can be intended, for who doubts but a native Grecian was able to ſpeak in his own Tongue what he ſaid in a ſtrange one? Grotius would have the Gift of Interpretation to be underſtood of a faithful Memory, but that is manifeſtly a harſh and far-fetch'd Interpretation.

Verſ. 10. [...].] I wonder Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe ſhould repreſent St. Paul as uſing that Fiction of ſome of the Antients about ſeventy Languages; which has been confuted by S. Bochart [Page] in his Phaleg. Lib. 1. c. 15. to whom I refer the Reader.

Verſ. 13. [...].] Of one that could ſpeak Greek this cannot, as I have ſaid, be underſtood; for what need had any man of a miraculous Gift, to enable him to expreſs that in his Mother Tongue, which he himſelf ſpake in a ſtrange Language, if he did but underſtand what he ſaid? And every one that uſes a Language, the knowledg of which he has received from God, is ſuppoſed to underſtand what he himſelf ſays; for he would really be a ſounding Braſs, or a Cymbal making a confuſed noiſe, who ſhould ſpeak words in a ſtrange Dialect, which yet he did not know the meaning of. Grotius interprets theſe words thus: Let him pray that he may faithfully retain in his memory what he ſpeaks outwardly with his Tongue, that ſo he may deliver the ſame things in Greek. But, firſt, this Interpretation does not agree with the ſenſe of the word [...], which ſignifies to interpret, not to remember. Secondly, He ſuppoſes that thoſe who uſed ſtrange Languages, ſpake from Inſpiration, not their own thoughts, but what was ſuggeſted to them by the Spirit; which we have no certain ground to believe, nor is it probable it was ſo, at that time particularly, and in that place: For if this ſuppoſition of Grotius were true, the Holy Ghoſt would have inſpired a Corinthian to ſpeak, for example, in the Punick Language, in ſuch time and place as he would leaſt of all have ſtood in need of that Tongue, there being no Carthaginian preſent. But to what end I pray? Was it that he might hold his peace in the Church; in which certainly it would have been very improper to ſpeak in the Punick Dialect, if there was no body there that underſtood it? Or was it that he might keep his skill in that Language till a fitter occaſion? But he had better have been inſpired with the knowledg of the Punick Tongue, when there was need of that Inſpiration, leſt his memory ſhould not retain it, or there ſhould be occaſion for a new Miracle to confirm his memory. For if (which I obſerve in the third place in oppoſition to Grotius's Interpretation) he could not have interpreted by his memory in Greek, what he had ſaid by heart and extempore in the Punick Language, without a Miracle, much leſs could he have performed that ſome time after. And the Interpretation which Dr. Hammond gives of theſe words in his Paraphraſe, is altogether as inſignificant, unleſs we underſtand the Apoſtle to ſpeak of a Stranger that could not ſpeak Greek.

Verſ. 14. [...].] I have ſet down this whole Verſe in Greek, that the Reader may compare it with our Author's Paraphraſe, in which he ſpeaks ſo barbarouſly and improperly, that he rather obſcures the ſenſe of [Page] the Apoſtle, which is dark in it ſelf, than explains it. What mortal would have interpreted [...] by my Gift, or the Gift of Tongues which is given me? and what intolerable Language is it to ſay my Gift prays? and ſo of the reſt. This is lapides loqui, as one ſaid, not verba humana, to break a Man's teeth with hard words. Grotius much more fitly interprets [...] of a motion from Inſpiration, and explains the laſt words by this Paraphraſe: Mens mea nihil bene excogitatum profert; My own mind produces no good thoughts. But this is nothing to the purpoſe, for who had not rather hear an inſpired diſcourſe, it he can but underſtand it, than one that is merely the product of a man's own meditation? Some other Interpretation therefore muſt be given of this place; and St. Paul's mind, if I am not miſtaken, expreſſed thus: ‘If I make uſe of an unknown Tongue, I pray indeed my ſelf with my mind, becauſe I underſtand what my words ſignify; but the ſenſe of what I ſay is of no uſe to others who do not know it; and if they join with me in that Prayer, pray rather with their bodies than with their minds.’

Firſt, The Phraſe [...] ſignifies, I pray with my mind; and is tacitly oppoſed to the action of the Hearers who were then preſent, and prayed rather with their bodies than their minds, becauſe they did not underſtand what he that made uſe of a ſtrange Language ſaid. Nothing is more ordinary than for the Spirit and the Body to be oppoſed to one another; which in the uſe of the Sacred Writers are ſuch perpetual correlates, as the Logicians ſpeak, that upon the mention of one, the other is preſently thought on. See Rom. viii.23. and Gal. v.16.

Secondly, The phraſe [...], my mind or underſtanding ſignifies the ſenſe or meaning of what I ſay; which is [...], without Fruit; viz. to others who do not underſtand it. So this word [...] is frequently uſed, and among other places in the Book of Wiſdom, Chap. ii.16. Theſe things being ſuppoſed, the ſenſe alſo of the following words is evident, which will otherwiſe be very obſcure.

Verſ. 15. [...].] That is, I will pray ſo, as at the ſame time to pray to God with my mind, and that the ſenſe of what I ſay may be underſtood by the ſtanders by. I confeſs an Attick Writer, or one that had ſtudied to expreſs himſelf neatly and elegantly, would never have ſaid [...], for [...], to pray ſo as that thoſe who are preſent may underſtand the meaning of my Prayer. But St. Paul was never curious in his ſtile, and he ſaid to pray with my mind, tho in a different ſenſe, becauſe he had ſaid before to pray with the Spirit. But he certainly [Page] meant what I have ſaid, or ſomething like it, as appears by what follows: See verſ. 19. Grotius interprets this Verſe thus: Optandum eſt, ut orem, id eſt, ut oret aliquis non tantum motu illo afflatitio, verum etiam iis quae ipſe excogitavit; It were to be wiſhed that I prayed, that is, that a Man prayed not only from that Divine impulſe, but alſo out of his own Thoughts. But I ſay it were to be wiſhed rather that all who pray in publick, prayed by Inſpiration or a Divine Impulſe, but in a known Language. St. Paul in this Diſcourſe does not oppoſe that which a Man deviſes himſelf, and ſpeaks in a known Tongue, to a Prayer that is inſpired, but is expreſſed in a ſtrange Language; but only a Prayer which cannot be underſtood, to one that may. They who had the Gift of Tongues might as well expreſs their own Thoughts in a ſtrange Dialect, as that which was revealed to them by Inſpiration. This our Author in ſome meaſure perceived, and therefore mollified a little Grotius's Interpretation.

Verſ. 16. Note a. I rather think the Apoſtle means here other acts of Thankſgiving, which particular Perſons, according as it ſeemed good to them, offer'd up to God in the Church, in ſtrange Languages, to which they who did not underſtand thoſe Languages, could not ſay Amen. For who will believe that there was any Governor of a Church ſo ſenſleſs, as when he celebrated the Euchariſt, a religious Ceremony in which all the Members of the Church were to join, to uſe an unknown Language? This is confirmed by the Pronoun [...] thy, which ſhews the Apoſtle to ſpeak of Thankſgivings offer'd up in the name of one Man, and not of the whole Church.

Verſ. 19. [...].] Tho [...] in this place as well as [...] verſ. 15. ſeems to be but a harſh Phraſe, to ſignify, that I may be underſtood; yet that that is the meaning of it, may appear by the following words, [...], that I might teach others alſo; as alſo by its being oppoſed to [...] words in an unknown Tongue. Grotius interprets this alſo a me ipſo cogitata, The product of my own Thoughts; as if one that had been endued with the Gift of Tongues, could not have expreſſed the product of his own private Thoughts in an unknown Language! Or as if he that ſo unſeaſonably made oſtentation of that Gift, ſpake by Inſpiration!

Verſ. 21. [...].] Dr. Hammond follows indeed for the moſt part Grotius, and not without reaſon, as being unqueſtionably the beſt of all the Interpreters of Scripture. But here he juſtly forſakes him, becauſe that great Man puts ſuch an Interpretation upon this Paſſage alledged out of Iſaiah, as makes it to be nothing to the purpoſe. Beſides, there are other things in his Annotation [Page] on this place liable to reprehenſion:Chapter XV. As when he ſaith; Haec citari à Paulo, ex loco quidem Eſaiae xxviii.11, 12. non tamen ex verſione LXX Intt. ſed ex verſione Aquilae docet nos Origenes Philocaliae viii. For, firſt, Origen ſpeaks of this paſſage, not in the viiith, but ixth Chapter of his Philocalia. Secondly, he does not ſay that St. Paul had cited Iſaiah according to the Verſion of Aquila, whom he very well knew to have lived but in the time of the Emperor Adrian. All that he ſays is this, after he had ſet down this place of St. Paul, wherein he alledges Iſaiah's words: [...]: for I have found what is equivalent to this expreſſion in the interpretation of Aquila. St. Paul, who underſtood the Hebrew Language, cited theſe words out of the Hebrew Copy, not out of the Verſion of Aquila, which was compoſed a great many Years after the Apoſtle's death. If Aquila tranſlated them in the ſame manner, the reaſon of that was, becauſe he alſo carefully follow'd the Hebrew. This was an error in Grotius, which proceeded not from careleſneſs or oſcitancy, and much leſs from ignorance, but from an unavoidable weakneſs in human Nature, which will not bear a perpetual Intention of Mind. For I do not doubt but this difficult Chapter kept that great Man's Thoughts a long while employed; and ſo writing this after he was tired with too long Study, he fell into a double Miſtake, which I do not ſpeak to upbraid him, far from that, but only to caution the Reader.

CHAP. XV.

Verſ. 8. Note b. WHAT is obſerved by Baronius out of Suetonius, and here ſince him by Dr. Hammond, is vain, being grounded upon a corrupt reading of the words of Suetonius, where inſtead of Abortivos, the beſt Copies have orcinos or orcivos, which Iſ. Caſaubon and Laev. Torrentius have ſhewn to be the true reading. The phraſe uſed here by St. Paul, is much older than Auguſtus; for the Hebrews metaphorically call any mean or contemptible thing [...], and that word the Septuagint very truly render by [...] in Job iii.16. and Eccleſ. vi.3. So any thing whatſoever that is in its kind little, might be called abortive, as Antonius's Dwarf in Horace, Sat. 3. Verſ. 46.

Appellat — pater—pullum male parvus

Si cui filius eſt, ut abortivus fuit olim Siſyphus.

On which place ſee the old Interpreter.

[Page]Verſ. 19. [...].] Two things St. Paul proves in this Diſcourſe: 1. That the Apoſtles did not falſly pretend themſelves to expect a Happineſs after this Life from Chriſt, but truly expected it; becauſe otherwiſe they would never have underwent ſo many Hardſhips and Dangers for his ſake. 2. That this their expectation was not vain, becauſe it was grounded upon the Reſurrection of Chriſt, whereof they were witneſſes, and therefore credible, becauſe they ſuffer'd ſo much for being ſo, and it was a thing in which they could not be deceived. This arguing has a great deal more ſtrength and certainty in it, than that of Cicero in a like matter, and grounded in part upon the ſame Topicks, Acad. Quaeſt. iv. where ſaith Lucullus: Ille vir bonus, qui ſtatuit omnem cruciatum perferre, intolerabili dolore lacerari potius, quam aut officium prodat aut fidem; cur has ſibi tam graves leges impoſuit, cum quamobrem ita oporteret nihil haberet comprehenſi, percepti, conſtituti? Nullo igitur modo fieri poteſt, ut quiſquam tanti aeſtimet aequitatem & fidem, ut ejus conſervandae cauſâ nullum ſupplicium recuſet, niſi iis rebus adſenſus ſit, quae falſae eſſe non poſſunt. That good Man who reſolves to undergo all manner of Torments, and to be torn in pieces with unſufferable pain, rather than to betray his Duty or Truſt; why has he impoſed upon himſelf ſuch ſevere Laws if he did not ſee ſufficient reaſon for him to do ſo? It is utterly impoſſible that any Man ſhould put ſuch a value upon Juſtice and Honeſty, as to ſubmit to any Tortures rather than act contrary to them, unleſs he have aſſented to ſuch things as cannot be falſe. And Tuſcul. Lib. 1. Cicero himſelf ſpeaks thus: Neſcio quomodo inhaeret mentibus quaſi ſaeculorum quoddam augurium futurorum, idque in maximis ingeniis, altiſſimiſque animis & exſtitit maxime & apparet facillime; quo quidem demto, quis tam eſſet amens, qui ſemper in laboribus & periculis viveret? I know not how, there abides in the Minds of Men as it were a preſage of a future State, and eſpecially in Perſons of the greateſt Capacity and deepeſt Thoughts, in whom it moſt eaſily diſcovers it ſelf; and if this apprehenſion was taken away, who would be ſo mad as to live perpetually in Troubles and Dangers? This indeed ſhews that thoſe Heathens believed another Life after this, but does not prove that they were not miſtaken. For it was poſſible they might be deceived by an Opinion taken up in their Childhood, for which they could produce no ſufficient Arguments. But the caſe of the Apoſtles was quite otherwiſe, who proved the reality of a future State by the Authority and Reſurrection of Chriſt; which they themſelves had ſeen, and confirmed the truth of by their Sufferings.

Ibid. [...].] Who can neither live quietly nor die naturally, nor ſo much as find a Grave after Death. To this purpoſe is [Page] that Inſcription on the Monument of Calliſtus, if it be an antient one, in Rom. Subterran. Par. 1. p. 307. ALEXANDER mortuus non eſt, ſed vivit ſuper aſtra, & corpus hoc tumulo quieſcit. Vitam explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multùm beneficii antevenire praevideret, pro gratia omnium, odium reddit. Genua enim flectens, vero Deo ſacrificaturus, ad ſupplicium ducitur. O tempora infauſta! quibus, inter ſacra & vota, ne in cavernis quidem ſalvari poſſimus. Quid miſerius vita? Sed quid miſerius morte, cum ab amicis & parentibus ſepeliri nequeant?

Verſ. 29. Note c. I. That Ellipſis, which our Author would have to be in this Phraſe [...], in the ſeries of ſuch a Diſcourſe as St. Paul's here is, and in the middle of a Diſputation which required that every thing intended ſhould be expreſſed, is very harſh, and has nothing common with thoſe examples which he alledges.

II. What he confidently aſſerts in the latter end of this Annotation, that the [...] verſ. 12. is the Nominative caſe to the Verb [...], is groundleſs and unneceſſary, [...] having a Nominative caſe belonging to it in this very 29th verſe, viz. [...], which immediately goes before. But that intricate way of Writing which the Doctor had accuſtom'd himſelf to, made him able to digeſt what none beſides himſelf could do.

III. I confeſs the opinion of St. Chryſoſtom and others about this place, contains a very commodious ſenſe, if we conſider it in it ſelf, but compar'd with the Apoſtle's words it cannot ſtand. And to me their Interpretation ſeems to be moſt probable, who take [...] here to be equivalent to [...], and ſo the ſenſe to be this: ‘If there were no Reſurrection, what would become of thoſe who every day, tho they ſee Chriſtians put to Death for their Profeſſion, do yet chearfully receive Baptiſm, that they may ſupply the place of thoſe that are dead in the Chriſtian Church?’ By the ſame way of arguing we might prove, that bearing of Arms is not without a reward annexed to it: If thoſe that bore Arms were to have no reward for ſo doing, when ſo many Soldiers are continually killed, what ſhould they do who are liſted in the room of thoſe that are dead, and ſupply their place? That [...] is frequently uſed for [...] no one can doubt. Yet I ſhall add a Paſſage out of Dionyſius Halicarnaſſ. in which he ſpeaks of Soldiers ſubſtituted in the room of others that are killed, whereby not only that appears, but St. Paul's words may be very much illuſtrated. And it is in his Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 553. [...], ſaith he, [...]: FOR thoſe that DIED in the War with the Antiatians, they determined to levy other Soldiers.

[Page]IV. What our Author relates out of Photius concerning Syneſius, is in Cod. 26. But there was a great difference between Syneſius and thoſe againſt whom St. Paul diſputes: For he being a Platonick, believed the Immortality of the Soul, and the Rewards and Puniſhments of another Life; but theſe Corinthians, together with the Reſurrection of the Body, denied the Soul's Immortality, and a future Judgment, and were perhaps Jews, who of Sadduces had embraced the Chriſtian Religion. Now St. Paul, in order to prove the Reſurrection, proves that there were rewards to be expected after this Life; which reaſoning could not be deſigned againſt the Platoniſts, becauſe they confeſſed a future Happineſs, tho they did not believe the Reſurrection of the Dead. And Religion might well enough conſiſt with the opinion of the Platonicks, tho the Sadduces who diſowned the Immortality of the Soul utterly overthrew it. And therefore the Egyptians bore with Syneſius, notwithſtanding he was a Platonick, which they would never have done if he had been a Sadduce.

Verſ. 33. [...].] There are ſome who from this place, and the citation out of Aratus, infer that St. Paul was converſant in the Writings of the Heathen Poets: But without ſufficient ground, becauſe ſuch as theſe were common proverbial forms of Speech uſed by every one, and might be eaſily learned from ordinary Diſcourſe, even of ignorant Perſons, by which means I am apt to think the Apoſtle came to the knowledg of them. For the Jews did not uſe to read much the Writings of the Heathens; nor does the ſtile of St. Paul otherwiſe give us the leaſt reaſon to imagin that he ever ſo much as attempted any thing in that ſort of Study. For if he had been at all converſant in Heathen Authors, we ſhould doubtleſs have ſeen more effects of it in his way of Writing. However we may learn from hence, that Chriſtians ought not to reject any thing which was well ſaid by the Heathens: And therefore I think it not amiſs to produce two more Paſſages, beſides thoſe which have been alledged by Grotius, out of Heathen Writers to this purpoſe. Aeſchylus [...]:

[...]

[...].

[...].

That is, according to the interpretation of Grotius:

[Page]

Adeo malorum, ſcilicet, commercio

Nil pejus uſquam eſt; oritur infelix ſeges,

Nam ſceleris arvum nil niſi mortem parit.

Epictetus in Enchirid. cap. xlv. [...]: If a Companion be corrupted, he that converſes with him muſt needs alſo be corrupted, tho perhaps he were [before] pure.

Ibid. Note e. I take [...] here in the ſenſe in which it is commonly underſtood, becauſe thoſe who denied the Reſurrection were undoubtedly Perſons of evil Manners; and that this was St. Paul's meaning, appears by the following words; Awake to Righteouſneſs, and ſin not. So in Ariſtophanes in Nub. p. 177. Ed. majoris, Act. 3. Sc. 2. the Chorus addreſſing themſelves to juſt Reaſon, ſay:

[...]

[...].

But O thou who haſt crowned our Anceſtors with abundance of good Manners, ſpeak and declare thy Nature. Where unqueſtionably [...] ſignifies good Manners, as in many other places: Yet Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and this may be joined together.

Verſ. 54. Note g. This remark our Author took out of H. Grotius; but tho the Hebrew [...] ſignify for ever, and Death be to be finally aboliſhed after the Reſurrection, yet St. Paul does not refer to that here: for if he had, he would have rendred the words of Iſaiah, Chap. xxv.8. by [...], which he now interprets [...], becauſe he had before reckoned Death in the number of Chriſt's Enemies, verſ. 25, and 26. and afterwards in verſ. 57. he ſaith that God had given us [...] the victory over Death. So that of two ſignifications, whereof the Phraſe [...] Inetſahh is capable, viz. for ever, and in victory, St. Paul here follows the latter, which made moſt for his purpoſe: And indeed that ſignification agrees beſt to the place in Iſaiah it ſelf.

CHAP. XVI.Chapter XVI.

[Page]

Ver. 19. Note c. I. Wonder our learned Author ſhould begin this Annotation with ſaying that [...] the Church did not ONLY ſignify the place of aſſembling together, but alſo the Perſons that uſed to do ſo: When it is certain the former ſignification of the word, for a Place, was wholly unknown in the times of the Apoſtles, in which [...] was always uſed for an Aſſembly, as well among the Chriſtians as by the Greeks.

II. I rather alſo underſtand [...] of the Houſe it ſelf; which is ſaid here to have had a Church in it, becauſe there were in it ſeveral Chriſtians, ſo that that Houſe ſeemed to contain a whole Church. Tertullian in Lib. de Exhort. ad caſtit. cap. vii. Where there are three Perſons, there is a Church, tho they be Laicks.

Verſ. 22. Note d. I. Thoſe learned Men who affirm there were only two degrees of Excommunication among the Jews, are Selden and his followers: See his Treatiſe de Synedriis Judaeorum, Lib. 1. cap. 7. And I confeſs I could never meet with any that has anſwered his Arguments, tho Dr. Hammond does not doubt but he was miſtaken; but our Author was too great a favourer of Eccleſiaſtical Puniſhments, which yet it is certain have done more miſchief than good to the Chriſtian Church.

II. What he ſays about the word Maran, is taken out of Grotius, without Care or Examination. (1.) The Etrurians did not call their Kings Marani, but Murrani, as Grotius tells us out of S [...]rvius on Aeneid. 12. verſ. 529. (2.) The Syrians are not ſtiled Maronitae becauſe they call Chriſt Lord, but from one Maron an Abbot, whom the Maronitae affirm to have been Orthodox, but others a Heretick; or from Maronia a Territory of Syria: on which matter there is extant a Diſſertation of Gabriel Sionita and Joannes Hezzonita, both Maronites. It is certain Maron is a Syrian name, there being in the Recognit. of S. Clement, Lib. 3. c. 2. mention made of Maron the Tripolite who entertained St. Peter. (3.) I cannot tell where Epiphanius ſays that God was called by the Gazari, Marnas; but I know that Mr. Selden, a great while before this was publiſhed by Dr. Hammond, or before ever Grotius firſt wrote it, had ſhewn that [...] marnaſcha was the name of a Deity among the Gazaeans, in his Treatiſe de Diis Syris, Synt. 2. c. 1. (4.) Stephanus was miſtaken, when he ſaid that the Cretians called their Virgins [...], for they were [Page] called [...], of which ſee J. Selden, and C. Salmaſius on cap. 11. of Solinus.

III. The Spaniards do not ſay, Anathema Maranatha, but Anathema Marano, as it is rightly ſet down by Grotius out of Mariana, Lib. 7. cap. 6. Rerum Hiſpanicarum. The Arabick words ſubjoined to that form of ſpeaking among the Spaniards, are not an interpretation of it, nor brought as ſuch by Grotius, but of this place in St. Paul, out of the Arabick Tranſlation, publiſhed by T. Erpenius.

IV. The conjecture ſet down by the Doctor concerning the paſſage in Steph. Byzant. on the word [...], is taken from Dan. Heinſius, whoſe name he ought to have mentioned, tho it be but an unhappy conjecture. The Shepherd there ſpoken of, ſaid in Syriack [...] ram-anth, thou art high, viz. O God. Stephanus miſunderſtood Philo, as S. Bochart well obſerves in Chanaan. Lib. 2. c. 12. to whom I refer the Reader.

Verſ. 24. [...].] The Pronoun [...] here is omitted in the Alexandrian Copy. But I have ſometime ſuſpected that the true reading was [...] the ſame with [...], which by a miſtake came to be changed into [...].

Notes

*

Since the Impreſſion of this I have obſerved that the learned Laur. Pignorius has printed Figures of Cymbals from the antient Marbles, exactly in the ſame form as I have deſcribed them.

↵

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Corinthians. Chapter. I.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 11. Note a. THIS Obſervation our Author had out of Grotius; but it is falſe, that the Hebrew [...] ever ſignifies in reſpect of: And if it did, the phraſe [...] would not ſignify in reſpect of many, viz. men, but in many reſpects; and the latter part of the Verſe ſhould be rendred thus: That the Gift beſtowed upon us in many reſpects, might be received by many with thankſgiving for us. To make ſenſe of which words, we ſhould be obliged to interpret in many reſpects, by to many purpoſes or ends; which yet will not agree either with the Hebrew or Greek phraſe. I believe therefore indeed that there is here a Hebraiſm, but ſo as that [...] is anſwerable to the Hebrew words [...] mipphene rabbim, from the face of many, that is, from many. It is certain [...] often ſignifies from, as Chr. Noldius in Conc. Particularum has obſerved. The Greek words are only tranſpoſed, and [...] put for [...], from the faces of many. And [...] which follows, is put for [...], as it is ſet at length in Chap. ix.12. of this Epiſt. juſt as [...] ſignifies in a few words, in Heb. xiii.22. So that this Verſe ought to have been rendred thus: That many thanks may be given for us by many, for the Gift beſtowed upon us by God.

Verſ. 13. [...].] This is a Paranomaſia, or figure in which words of a like ſound and different ſenſe are joined together. Such another as that of Dionyſius Cato: Nam legere & non intelligere, negligere eſt; on which ſee Joſ. Scaliger. It is a noted ſaying of Julian; [...], I have read, I have known, I have, condemned.

[Page] Chapter II.Verſ. 22. [...].] Thoſe who purchaſe any thing, for which they do not pay ready Mony, nor take it immediately away, uſe, for fear of its being changed, or a worſe commodity ſubſtituted in its room, to mark it with their Seal, and give the Seller earneſt. And this ſeems to be the ground of this metaphorical deſcription here, of thoſe benefits which God confers upon us, whilſt we live in this world, by the names of Seal and Earneſt. God has redeemed us with the Blood of his Son, and yet he does not preſently for ever make us his own, by beſtowing eternal Bleſſdneſs upon us, but leaves us in this mortal Life. But that the Primitive Chriſtians might not doubt whether God had really bought them, they were diſtinguiſhed, as it were, by God's Seal from the reſt of mankind, and received as an Earneſt from him the Spirit of Miracles. See Epheſ. i.13. and iv.30. Yet the thing from whence the Metaphor is taken, does not in every reſpect agree with that which is thus metaphorically deſcribed; nor is it neceſſary it ſhould, for it is ſufficient if there be but ſome ſimilitude between them.

CHAP. II.

Note b. THO, properly ſpeaking, the Apoſtle was the Author, both of the Puniſhment inflicted upon the inceſtuous Corinthian, and of his Cure upon repentance, yet [...] ought not therefore to be rendred under many, or in the preſence of many, contrary to the uſe of the Greek Language. St. Paul here joins others with himſelf, becauſe they had conſented to the puniſhment; which thereupon might be ſaid to have been inflicted by them, eſpecially conſidering it was denounced by their mediation.

Verſ. 11. [...]] It may poſſibly, not without ſome colour of truth, be conjectured that by Satan in this place we are to underſtand a man who was an enemy to the Corinthian Church, rather than the Devil; which endeavoured to draw away him who had been delivered to Satan and others from its Communion. And therefore it follows; for we are not ignorant of his devices: Which words if they be underſtood of the Devil, ſeem to be flat and ſuperfluous; for who does not know that the Devil does all he can to pluck men out of the hands of Chriſt? Thus the word [...] Satan is uſed in 2 Sam. xix.22. and Mat. xvi.23. which word the Apoſtle ſeems to have paraphraſed in his Epiſtle to Titus, Ch. ii.8. by [...] I cannot tell whether Dr. Hammond had not alſo ſome ſuch thoughts about [Page] this place, becauſe he paraphraſes it as if the Apoſtle had ſaid;Chapter III. for we are ignorant of his Devices.

Verſ. 16. [...], &c] Namely, by their fault, whoſe folly and wickedneſs made them reject the Divine Mercy; and not without commendableneſs in thoſe who received ſo great a favour as they ought to do. Such another [...] came into the mind of Cebes, when he was compoſing that excellent little piece called his Table, wherein he repreſents the old Man that undertook to explain the deſign of it, ſpeaking in this manner to the Spectators: [...]: If you mind and underſtand what is ſaid, you will become wiſe and happy; but if not, you will be fooliſh and miſerable, and wicked in your lives. For the explication (of this Table) is like the Riddle of Sphinx, which ſhe propoſed to men; if any one underſtood it, he was ſaved; but if not, he was deſtroyed by the Sphinx. This is the caſe of all thoſe whoſe fate it is, ‘Virtutem ut videant, intabeſcantque relicta.’

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 1. Note a. THE Epiſtles commendatory uſual among Chriſtians, did not ow their Original to the teſſerae hoſpitales of the Heathens, but to an univerſal cuſtom among all Nations of writing Letters of Recommendation in behalf of their Friends. And thoſe publick Letters which were ſent by the Biſhops of one Church to another, were inſtituted eſpecially upon the account of Heathens and Hereticks, for fear Idolaters, or Perſons of erroneous Opinions in the Faith, ſhould creep into the Churches, and make an ill uſe of their Liberality. See Beveridge on Can. Apoſt. 12. and 33.

Verſ. 5. [...].] It is certain that all our Faculties, Encouragements and Helps to Faith and Piety, both General and Special, Natural and Evangelical, are entirely owing to God; and therefore all thanks and praiſe muſt be given for them to him alone: But theſe things St. Paul does not here ſpeak of, but of thoſe Thoughts and Gifts which were neceſſary to enable men, whether [Page] Jews or Gentiles, to preach the Goſpel. And it is certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles could any of them of their own heads have preached any thing like the Chriſtian Doctrin; but it was requiſite that thoſe firſt Preachers of the Goſpel ſhould receive the Evangelical Doctrin by Revelation from God and Chriſt, and be endued with neceſſary extraordinary Gifts, to communicate the knowledg of it to others, ſuch as the power of working Miracles, a ſingular conſtancy and unweariedneſs of mind, and incredible patience to undergo all manner of Afflictions, and the like. Both the foregoing and following Context clearly ſhew, that the Apoſtle here ſpeaks about a ſufficiency to preach the Goſpel, and nothing elſe; and therefore our Author ſhould have kept to that alone in his Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 6. [...].] I have already more than once obſerved, that by [...] is meant the Law, as it was underſtood by the Jewiſh Doctors, in a literal or grammatical ſenſe, and ſo propoſed by them to the obſervation of their Diſciples; and by [...] the mind of the Lawgiver, in giving the Law, that is, the Doctrin of the Goſpel, of which the Law contained only the [...] Elements. And this St. Paul here ſeems to have a reference to, and tacitly to oppoſe his Apoſtolical Miniſtry to the Induſtry of thoſe Jews who travelled over Sea and Land to make Proſelites to the Letter of the Law. There is a manifeſt oppoſition put between the Law and the Goſpel in the 3d Verſe. See my Note on Mat. v.17▪ and Rom. ii.29.

Ibid. [...].] The mere obſervation of the Letter of the Law would not ſave any Man, or make him acceptable to God, unleſs he had alſo a regard to the Spirit or Intention of the Lawgiver, that is good Works, ſuch as are preſcribed in the Goſpel. But the Spirit, that is, the Goſpel, ſaves alone, without the obſervation of the Letter of the Law. This is the meaning here of St. Paul, and not what our Author ſays in his Paraphraſe, which has no manifeſt ground in Scripture, but relies purely upon Theological conjecture.

Verſ. 17. [...] ▪] That is, the Lord Jeſus, and his Goſpel, is the ſpiritual End of the Law, or the ultimate Scope to which the Lawgiver had a reſpect. And where that ſpiritual Intention of God or the Goſpel is known, there is Liberty; that is, men are no longer dealt with as Servants, who obey more out of fear than love. See my Note on Rom. viii.15. There is nothing here that has any reference to a Veil, which is a token of ſubjection, as Dr. Hammond thought. The Veil which [Page] St. Paul mentions belongs no more to that than the Veil of Moſes, Chapter IV. which was not put upon thoſe that obeyed, but on him that commanded.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 7. Note b. I Am apt to think that the word [...] properly ſignifies teſta, that is, baked Clay; and thence by a Metaphor was applied to Animals covered with a certain Shell, which for the hardneſs of it might be compared to [...]. Yet I affirm nothing poſitively; but this I affirm, that in this place [...] undoubtedly ſignifies earthen Veſſels; becauſe that is the perpetual ſignification of this Phraſe, and the other alledged by Dr. Hammond is without example. Beſides, the place it ſelf neceſſarily requires the word [...] ſhould be ſo underſtood; for it is manifeſt that St. Paul compares the Apoſtles to frail and contemptible, and not precious or artificial Veſſels, ſuch as are made of the fineſt ſort of Shells. There is a clear oppoſition here put between the great Excellency of the Goſpel, and the meanneſs of its Preachers; or between the Power of God which exerted it ſelf in the Goſpel, and the Infirmity of the Apoſtles.

Verſ. 8. Note c. I fully agree with our learned Author in interpreting St. Paul's words here, by the cuſtoms of the Heathens in their Agones. But there are ſome things to be obſerved on this Annotation.

I. It is ſtrange he ſhould confound the Verb [...] in Greek with the Latin algeo, when the Greek conſtantly ſignifies to grieve, to be tormented, and the Latin to be cold. Yet he has elſewhere committed the ſame miſtake, leſt any one ſhould think it was by mere accident. It is manifeſt that St. Chryſoſtom interprets the Verb [...] by the word [...], and this latter does no more ſignify to be cold than the former, but to be grieved or afflicted.

II. In the place of St. James, [...] is not an Agoniſtical term. The words of the Apoſtle are: Let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, deficient in nothing, [...]: where the thing ſpoken of is manifeſtly a defect, and not any Victory which might be gained over the Chriſtians.

III. It would have been worth obſerving that the Prepoſition [...] in compoſition, carries a greater emphaſis with it than [...]; for which reaſon [...] ſignifies only to be perplexed, but [...] to deſpair utterly. So Ariſtophanes in Nubibus, Act. 4. Sc. 1. [...], [Page] he ſaith he will deſtroy and utterly ruin, Chapter V. or undo me.

Verſ. 13. [...].] That is, ſaith Grotius, Habentes communem nobiſcum Dei Spiritum, qui non datur niſi credentibus. Iterum hic genitivus cauſam ſignificat; id eſt, conditionem requiſitam. Having the common Spirit of God with us, which is not given to any but Believers. Again here the Genitive Caſe ſignifies a Cauſe; that is, a neceſſary Condition. But I ſhould rather interpret the Spirit of Faith, of a diſpoſition of Mind ſutable to what we believe, or to the Faith which we profeſs. So the Spirit of Jealouſy, and the Spirit of Bondage, &c. are the diſpoſitions of jealous Perſons, or Servants. Which Interpretation agrees better with what follows; for becauſe the Apoſtles were ſo diſpoſed, as Perſons who did not doubt of the truth or excellency of the Goſpel, ought to be, therefore they boldly preached it, and could not be deterred from ſo doing by any danger.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 1. [...].] I don't think this is an Hypallage, whereby [...] is put for [...], as Beza ſuppoſed, and therefore without neceſſity inverted the words in his Tranſlation. But an Houſe of a Tabernacle is a Hebraiſm, for a Houſe which, like a Tabernacle, is eaſily diſſolved, a Houſe that is built of Boards which maybe eaſily taken aſunder; in oppoſition to a Houſe of Stone, which abides firm after its Tenant is removed. So that the Genitive [...] is equivalent to an Adjective, which would ſignify like a Tabernacle, ſuch as [...], if it were in uſe, for then it might have been ſaid, [...], if our earthly Houſe, like a Tabernacle, were diſſolved. Which the Greek not permitting, it is no wonder that St. Paul, after the manner of the Hebrews, ſupplied the place of an Adjective by a Subſtantive. Hippocrates in Aphoriſmis: [...], the Soul having left the Tabernacle of the Body.

Verſ. 10. Note a. The Vulgar Interpreter read alſo [...], as appears by his tranſlating it propria, and the ſenſe is not improper; but have a care of thinking that [...] ſignifies a Man himſelf. See what our Author has ſaid about that matter on Rom. vi.6. and what I have there objected againſt him.

Verſ. 11. Note b. Tho [...] be often joined with a great opinion of the Perſon who perſwades; and he that deſires to perſwade, muſt above all things endeavour to get the approbation and good opinion of his Hearers; yet the uſe of the Greek Language will not permit [Page] that word to be taken in the ſenſe which our Author here fixes upon it. The Accuſative caſe to the Verb [...],Chapter VI. which muſt be repeated from what goes before. The ſenſe is: knowing how much the Judgment of God ought to be feared, we perſwade others to fear it, that we may induce them to a Holy Life; of which God is our witneſs, and you alſo if am not miſtaken, conſcious. Nor is it to be expected that the Doctor will any where elſe prove that [...] ſignifies any thing but to perſwade. It is common with him to impoſe ſignifications upon words, collected from mere uncertain reaſonings; whereas Uſe is that which ought to be principally regarded, and nothing elſe, when a word may be conveniently taken in its uſual ſenſe. Nothing is more dangerous than thoſe kind of reaſonings, which ought never to be recurred to, but when it is impoſſible to apply the ordinary ſignification of words to any particular places in which they occur.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 2. Note a. I Have already elſewhere ſaid, that out of Judaea the Chriſtians had no reaſon to fear the Jews, in thoſe times; and therefore the day of Salvation here cannot reaſonably be referred to the Jews, the Apoſtle writing to Perſons that lived in Achaia. But Grotius and others more fitly underſtand it of eternal Salvation. But I am not againſt thinking that the Apoſtle here oppoſes his own and the reſt of the Apoſtles Life, to the ill Manners and Effeminacy of falſe Teachers; provided the 2d verſe be not interpreted of a Deliverance from them, by a ſudden deſtruction which was to befal them. For what deliverance could this be from Hereticks, when the Heathen Perſecutions daily encreaſed from this time, throughout all the Roman Empire?

Verſ. 14. Note b. Our learned Author, who finds fault with Budaeus and Stephanus for taking up with a conjecture, rather than attending to the uſe of the word, ought to have produced a place in which the Verb [...] ſignified to incline to one part more than another; not a ſingle Paſſage out of Phocylides, where the Noun [...] ſignifies an uneven balance. For if the ſignification of the Verb muſt neceſſarily be deduced from the Noun [...], by the ſame reaſon I will derive it from another ſignification of the ſame word, viz. for of another kind. In which ſenſe it is uſed by the Septuagint in Levit. xix.19. where for, thou ſhalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverſe kind, they read, [...]. And ſo [...] will be, by joining themſelves to Unbelievers, to mix with another ſort of [Page] Men,Chapter VII. viz. different from Chriſtians, or [...]. St. Paul ſeems to have had a reſpect to that Law in Levit. It's certain at leaſt that Moſes by that Symbolical Law ſignified the ſame which the Apoſtle here forbids, as I have ſhewn in my Notes on that place. But why are Cattel of a different Species called [...]? namely, becauſe they do not uſe to be joined together in the ſame yoke [...]. So ſaith Heſychius: [...], thoſe that are not yoked together. And on the other hand, [...] a Wife is by the ſame Grammarian called [...], becauſe ſhe is linked together in the ſame Yoke with her Husband.

This Interpretation is more natural than that of the learned M. Meibomius, in Lib. de Fabrica Triremium, p. 37. where he renders this place; do not ſtrive with Ʋnbelievers, viz. like Rowers who endeavour by unequal force of rowing to pull the Veſſel to one ſide. But what he ſays is worth our reading, tho it be much more ſimple and agreeable to the ſcope of the Apoſtle to interpret [...], to yoke themſelves with Infidels, ſo as that [...], which is in the compoſition of this Verb, be not oppoſed to the yoke of Unbelievers, but to the Yoke of Chriſt.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, as it is rightly rendred by Beza, quaeſtui habuimus, made gain of them. Our Author's interpretation I have confuted on the place of the Epiſtle to the Romans referred to in his Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 8. Note a. Unleſs our Author had here look'd for Church Cenſures of all kinds, he would not have had one word to ſay upon this Chapter; but with all due reſpect to the Memory of ſo great a Man be it ſaid, he had better have ſaid nothing than wreſted the Apoſtle's words at ſuch a rate.

I. He ſhould not have ſaid indefinitely that the Greeks uſed the word [...] to ſignify a ſhort ſpace of time, but only the latter Greeks, as it is ſaid by Grotius, from whom he took this remark, but ſhould have better tranſcribed him. And the latter Greeks, as the ſame learned Man thinks, borrowed the word in that ſignification from the Latins. So it is taken in Horace, Sat. 1. Lib. 1.

— Horae

Momento cita mors venit aut victoria laeta.

[Page]II. The Verb [...] here does not ſignify to excommunicate, but to grieve by ſevere Reproofs, as I have already obſerved on 2 Cor. v.2 And the Corinthians are ſaid to have been grieved for a ſhort time by St. Paul's reproofs, becauſe they were ſenſible they had deſerved them; but when they had a little while after ſeen that they whom St. Paul had particularly aimed at in thoſe reproofs became ſober and penitent, they rejoiced that the ſeaſonable ſeverity of the Apoſtle had ſo good an effect upon them. St. Paul has no reference here to Excommunication, nor muſt delivering to Satan be confounded with Excommunication, a Puniſhment peculiar to the Apoſtles times, but afterwards unknown, as I have on 1 Cor. v. obſerved.

III. It's true indeed there are others beſides the inceſtuous Perſon here referred to; but that they had the Cenſures of the Church inflicted upon them, is not ſaid by the Apoſtle, nor ſo much as intimated, but only that they were at firſt ſorry that there had been ſuch Diſorders committed among them, as gave St. Paul juſt reaſon to reprehend them; and afterwards rejoiced that they had been reclaimed by his reproofs from thoſe ſinful practices. There is no regard here had to Excommunication, inflicted either for a longer or a ſhorter ſpace of time.

Verſ. 9. [...].] Our Author goes on in his Paraphraſe to interpret this word of excommunication, contrary to the Rules of Grammar: For who does not ſee that, to ſorrow to Repentance, is to be grieved ſo for what we have done amiſs, as to forbear offending for the future? Obſtinate Perſons are troubled indeed when their Sins are reproved, but they are not troubled becauſe they have ſinned, they are troubled only becauſe they are reproved. And therefore they are angry with thoſe who reprehend them, and never think of reforming their evil Practices. But Perſons of a yielding Temper are not ſorry that they are reprehended, but that they have ſinned, and therefore they take it well of thoſe who reprove them for their faults, and carefully abſtain from them ever after. And this Sorrow St. Paul here calls [...].

Ibid. [...].] That is, ſo as not to think that you ſuffered any loſs of Reputation by my ſeverity in reproving you; quite otherwiſe than obſtinate Men would do, who would have cried out that they were injured and defamed, without ever becoming better.

Verſ. 10. [...], &c.] An excellent ſentence is here quite ſpoiled by our Author, and turned into an empty ſound of words, by his wreſting the words of the Apoſtle. [...], ſaith he, is the Diſcipline of the Church, and [...] are puniſhments inflicted by Men. [Page] Who will endure ſuch an Interpretation as this,Chapter VIII. ſo diſtant from the literal ſenſe of the words, eſpecially when a very good and excellent one ariſes from a Grammatical Explication of them? For the meaning of St. Paul is this, ‘That a Sorrow agreeable to the Divine Will, ſuch as is the Sorrow of all good Men, worketh Reformation of Manners, and conſequently Life; but the ſorrow of worldly minded Perſons makes them but ſin the more, and that brings eternal Death upon them, the juſt reward of obſtinate and incorrigible Offenders.’ For, as I have already ſaid, good Men are ſorry that they have ſinned, bad Men that they are diſcovered and reproved; the former upon Reproof amend, but theſe latter grow but the more hardy (tho perhaps more cloſe) in ſinning.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, of Liberality, the original of which phraſe I have ſet down on Rom. xii.8.

Verſ. 10. Note a. I cannot perſwade my ſelf that St. Paul would ſay, ye have begun not only to do, but alſo to will, in the ſame ſenſe as he would have ſaid, ye have begun not only to will but alſo to do; nor is there any example of ſuch an inverſion. So that I had rather, with Dr. Hammond, enquire for ſome other notion to fix here upon this word Will; and becauſe it is common with us to do ſome things, eſpecially in acts of Charity, with ſome kind of regret and not heartily, [...], as Homer ſpeaks, interpret it of a chearful and liberal Mind, and ſo make the ſenſe to be: Ye have not only from a Year ago begun to contribute a ſum of Mony, but alſo as to your manner of doing it, it was not by compulſion, or the bare importunate perſwaſion of thoſe whom you could not deny, but with a ready, chearful and charitable Mind: Without which qualification, the liberality which any Man exerciſes is [...] againſt his Will, and becomes unacceptable, ſo that thoſe who receive a Benefit from one who is not hearty in beſtowing it, had almoſt rather not receive it at all, as eſteeming more the Will of the giver than the Gift it ſelf. And if it be ſo ſometimes among Men, with God it is always ſo, who has ever a greater regard to the Diſpoſition with which a Man gives, than what he gives. St. Paul therefore might aptly ſubjoin a word, which ſignified the affection of the Perſons who gave, to a word which ſignified their Gifts themſelves; and his Diſcourſe does not deſcend, but aſcend. Seneca has a great deal to this purpoſe in the beginning of his Lib. 2. de Beneficiis, and elſewhere in the ſame Book. This interpretation [Page] is confirmed by the following Verſ. and the beginning of the ixth Chapter. Chapter IX.

Verſ. 19. [...], &c.] This our Author muſt needs underſtand of a Synod and Biſhops, as if ſome Churches could not by Letters declarative of their Mind, have agreed about ſending a particular Perſon along with St. Paul. I ſhould rather have uſed general words, becauſe it in no wiſe appears that this matter was determin'd in a Synod. The ſame Perſon that is here intended, is afterwards, verſ. 23. called [...], that is, one deputed by the Churches to accompany St. Paul in his Travels, and eaſe him of part of his work. Of this ſee the learned Mr. Dodwell in Diſſert. Cyprian. 6. S. 17.

Verſ. 23. [...].] That is, inſtruments, ſaith Grotius, of the glory of Chriſt; viz. in advancing the Goſpel, ſaith our Author in his Paraphraſe. But I think it is much more natural to ſay, that thoſe are here called the glory of Chriſt, who are an honour to Chriſt by the integrity and ſanctity of their Life; as bad Chriſtians are a diſgrace and reproach to him. See what I have ſaid about a like expreſſion on 1 Cor. xi.4.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, that from a whole year paſt they had been forward to give, and begun already to contribute. Our Author here fancies ſome new act of liberality in the Corinthians, as if they had already before ſent a ſum of Mony to Judaea, which is no where intimated by St. Paul. This opinion of his proceeded from miſunderſtanding the 10th verſe of Chap. viii. on which ſee my Note. St. Paul had not told the Macedonians, that the Corinthians had a year ago got ready a ſum of Mony to ſend to Judaea, which he knew to be falſe; but that they had begun to contribute from that time, and were ſo forward and chearful in their Contributions, that the whole Sum expected from them would eaſily be completed. So that the word [...] here muſt be referred to a readineſs of Mind. To which it is very properly applied: Gratiſſima (ſaith Seneca de Beneficiis Lib. 2. c. 1.) ſunt beneficia PARATA, facile occurrentia ubi nulla mora fuit, niſi in accipientis verecundia. Thoſe Benefits are moſt grateful which are READILY beſtowed, that come eaſily from a Man, and as it were of their own accord; and if there be any heſitation, it is on the part of the baſhful receiver.

[Page]Verſ. 8. [...].] Our Author interprets what St. Paul here ſays that God was able to do, ſo as if he had ſaid he would certainly do it; and thence he infers that Riches are promiſed to the liberal, even under the Goſpel. But the promiſes of the Goſpel reſpecting all of them, the Soul and a future State, as appears both by the nature of the Evangelical Covenant, and innumerable places in the Goſpels, it is not neceſſary to repreſent St. Paul as ſaying here what he did not ſay. Nay he ſeems to have on ſet purpoſe ſpoken cautiouſly, when he ſaid [...], and not [...] he will make to abound; becauſe God does not promiſe, or give ſuch things under the Goſpel but for certain reaſons, which are many times unknown to us. And if he does not give them; we have no cauſe to complain, becauſe he has not promiſed them, and thoſe things which he gives us are infinitely more valuable. But does not the Apoſtle, you will ſay, pray to God that he would reward the bounty of the Corinthians, by beſtowing upon them greater Riches? I acknowledg he does, but it does not therefore follow that God has promiſed to make the bountiful always rich, but only that this is ſometimes done by him, and that it is lawful to pray for it, becauſe we may deſire Riches both for our ſelves and others, on this condition, that we make a good uſe of them. So that all that our learned Author ſays about Riches being promiſed under the Goſpel to the liberal, is inſignificant, and, to ſpeak the truth, more worthy of thoſe who affirm Riches to be a mark of the true Church, than of Dr. Hammond.

Verſ. 9. [...], &c.] Theſe words only, which are alledged by St. Paul, ought to have been urged, and not others which he omits: For otherwiſe it is not the Apoſtle, but Dr. Hammond that here reaſons, who groundleſly infers from hence that Riches are promiſed in the New Teſtament. The place which he refers to in his Annotation on the foregoing Verſe, viz. Mat. xix.29. does not prove that good Men ſhall be made rich in this World, or receive again their Kindred and Friends, and other things of the ſame nature, which they have forſaken for Chriſt; but only what will be [...] an hundred-fold better in the room of them, viz. a Mind contented with its preſent State, and the ſure hopes of eternal Happineſs. So that what our Author infers from the Paſſage alledged here out of the Pſalms, has no foundation, and cannot be attributed to St. Paul.

Verſ. 11. [...].] See before Chap. viii.2. and my Note on Rom. xii.8.

CHAP. X.Chapter X.

[Page]

Verſ. 4. Note b. I. Do not at all doubt, but that St. Paul here ſpeaks, as Grotius before our Author had obſerved, of that Rod with which he had chaſtized Elymas, the inceſtuous Perſon, Hymenaeus and Philetus, and with which St. Peter had chaſtized Ananias and Sapphira; but I confeſs I cannot digeſt what Dr. Hammond here and elſewhere does, viz. the confounding of that miraculous Power of the Apoſtles with the ordinary Excommunication of Biſhops. He ought to have proved firſt, that that delivering to Satan, or any other ſuch Puniſhments inflicted by the Apoſtles, were the arms not only of the Apoſtles, but of all the Governors of the Chriſtian Church; which he neither ever did before his Death, nor, I believe, would ever do if he were to live again. This was a Seal which God ſet to the Apoſtles Doctrin, to fix the Chriſtian Church upon a laſting and immoveable Foundation; and all the reſt of the Miracles wrought in the Apoſtles time were deſigned to the ſame end: But that being once ſettled, no Man had ſuch a Power granted him, nor can any one be ſuppoſed to have had the like Authority.

II. However, it is well obſerved by the Doctor, that carnal here is all one with weak, which I ſhall confirm both by Reaſon and Examples. The Fleſh is very often oppoſed to the Spirit, that is, the Body to the Soul, in which compariſon the Fleſh is the moſt infirm and feeble; and hence the word carnal came to ſignify weak, as it is uſed in Iſa. xxxi.3. where the Prophet thus beſpeaks the Jews, who put too much confidence in the Egyptians: The Egyptians are Men and not God, and their Horſes Fleſh and not Spirit; the Lord ſhall turn his Hand, and he that helpeth ſhall fall, and he that is holpen ſhall fall down, and they ſhall all be conſumed together. To this purpoſe alſo is that ſaying of Chriſt in Mat. xxvi.41. The Spirit indeed is willing, but the Fleſh is weak.

III. Tho [...] ſignifies ſometimes Excommunication in the Writings of the Fathers, and [...] may very aptly be applied to a Mind full of Pride and Obſtinacy, and by thoſe Vices fortified againſt the Truth; yet it in no wiſe follows that [...] ſignifies the Excommunication of an obdurate Sinner. What words do or may ſeparately ſignify, they do not always ſignify conjunctly, as every one knows, who is any thing of a Critick in this ſort of Learning. The reaſon is, becauſe one Phraſe can have but one metaphorical ſenſe belonging to it, and [...] being properly a ſtrong Hold or Fence, and here tranſlated to ſignify whatever Fleſh and Blood puts in the way of [Page] the Goſpel, to hinder the ſucceſs and efficacy of if; it is neceſſary that [...] & [...] ſhould be rendred the deſtruction of the Fence, and to deſtroy the Fence, by a Metaphor taken from Military Affairs. So in verſ. 5. [...] is not to excommunicate thoſe that reaſon, but to overthrow reaſonings. Nor let any one ſay that Fences are deſtroyed, and Reaſonings overthrown by Excommunication; for granting that, yet it will not follow that the Verb [...] and the Noun [...] in theſe Phraſes ſignify to excommunicate and excommunication.

IV. It is a pleaſant miſtake alſo in our Author, which his too great deſirouſneſs to find Excommunication every where ſpoken of in the Writings of the Apoſtles led him into, when he ſays that [...] in verſ. 8. ſignifies Excommunication, where St. Paul ſaith that he might boaſt of the Power which God had given him for edification, and not for deſtruction, [...]. For who does not ſee that the oppoſite here to the Edification of the Houſe of God, is not excommunication but deſtruction? One may as well ſay an Edifice is excommunicated, meaning that it is deſtroyed, as that an excommunicated Perſon is edified, to ſignify that his Sins are forgiven him. The ſame muſt be ſaid of Chap. xiii.10. where the ſame Phraſe occurs.

V. Even in Eccleſiaſtical Writers, [...] does not properly ſignify Excommunication, but only Abdication or degrading from Office, and is applied to Clergymen; nor is it always joined with Excommunication. See Intt. on the Eleventh Apoſtolical Canon.

Verſ. 5. [...].] Our Author intrudes again into this place the Cenſures of the Church without any diſtinction, whereas thoſe Apoſtolical Arms, of which I before ſpake, are here intended. And indeed with whatever Arguments any Philoſopher came armed, or what ſublimity ſoever his Reaſonings ſeemed to have in them; if he attempted to diſturb the Church by Heretical Doctrins, and went to reſiſt the Apoſtles, as if he had found them in an error; the Apoſtles could preſently ſhew how much he was miſtaken, by ſending a Diſeaſe upon him, ſuch as Blindneſs, which St. Paul inflicted on Elymas, or delivering to Satan, to which others were ſubjected. For theſe were plain ſigns, by which it appeared that God approved of the Apoſtles Doctrin. But in ordinary Excommunication the caſe is otherwiſe: For all that can be concluded from that is, that when any one upon the ſpringing up of ſome new Controverſies, was excommunicated for diſagreeing with the Biſhop of the Church to which he belonged, the Biſhop and the reſt perhaps of the Clergy were of another Opinion; which might as eaſily be the worſe of the two as the [Page] better.Chapter XI. For Excommunication was a certain evidence of Mens differing among themſelves, but not that the excommunicate Perſon was in an error; becauſe one that had the Truth on his ſide, might be excommunicated by ignorant and prejudiced Perſons. But if any were chaſtiſed in the manner aforeſaid by the Apoſtles, viz. by having a Diſeaſe inflicted on their Bodies, this was an infallible proof of their being Hereticks; becauſe God would not have ſuffered any pious orthodox Perſon to undergo a Puniſhment which he had not at all deſerved. Beſides, that a Miracle wrought in confirmation of any Doctrin, ſuch as this was, the preſent inflicting of a Diſtemper upon Mens Bodies, was of it ſelf ſufficient to ſhew the falſneſs of any thing advanced in contradiction to it, tho with ſome appearance of probability; but certainly the Excommunication of any Biſhop, who might as eaſily abuſe his Authority, as others fall into Error, was no ſure evidence of any Man's being an Heretick. Theſe two things therefore muſt not be confounded, nor the ordinary Governors of the Church equal'd to the Apoſtles in their Cenſures, any more than in other Gifts and Endowments, as our Author occultly does, whether deſignedly and knowingly I cannot tell, but I am ſure without reaſon.

CHAP. XI.

Verſ. 2. Note a. I. THE firſt ſignification which our Author produces out of Pollux, ſutes beſt with this place, for St. Paul does not ſay ſimply that he was an [...], or did [...]; but [...], which cannot otherwiſe be rendred than I have eſpouſed you to one Man or Husband. Which words we rightly read with a Comma after them, which cannot be transferred after the Verb [...], but abſurdly, ſo that I wonder Dr. Hammond ſhould judg that to be the beſt punctation. The following words [...], ought, as they are rightly by Grotius, to be rendred, that I may preſent or deliver you a chaſt Virgin to Chriſt. A Virgin is firſt eſpouſed to one Man, and afterwards ſhe is delivered to him. And becauſe it was poſſible, and ſometimes alſo happen'd, that a Virgin who was eſpouſed to any Man, upon intervening ſtrifes, or for ſome other reaſon was given in Marriage to another, and that between her Eſpouſals and Marriage ſhe might be vitiated; St. Paul ſays, I have eſpouſed you to one Man, even Chriſt, and I never intended that this Match ſhould be broken off, or ſuffered you to be privately corrupted by any other, but have done my utmoſt to keep you pure, that I might preſent you a chaſt Virgin to [Page]him. Of thoſe things which might fall out between Eſpouſals and Marriage, we may read Interpreters on Mat. i.18. Now the Chriſtian Church in this World ſeems to be only eſpouſed to Chriſt, and the Marriage between them not to be celebrated till all other things are conſummated: ſo that many things may fall out between that ſpiritual Eſpouſing and Marriage, and really do ſo, whereby the Church which is eſpouſed to Chriſt is vitiated and defiled, or ſometimes alſo married to another. The Corinthian Church was by St. Paul eſpouſed to Chriſt; but before he preſented it, and delivered it as it were into his hand, falſe Apoſtles might allure it again to the love of Heatheniſm, or wed it to another opinion almoſt as bad as that, by which means the Eſpouſals of that Church would have been made of none effect.

II. The Doctor does not ſeem ſufficiently to have diſtinguiſhed between the nuptial Solemnity and Eſpouſals, becauſe he alledges a paſſage out of Cinnamus, where the Diſcourſe is about the marriage Solemnity, which he immediately ſubjoins to the place cited out of Pollux, as parallel to it. He had better have produced ſome examples out of Herodotus, in which the word [...] clearly ſignifies to eſpouſe, and which have the more agreement with this matter, becauſe the Virgins of which that Hiſtorian ſpeaks, were not as yet delivered to their intended Husbands, the very thing which St. Paul was ſollicitous about, as to the ſpiritual Marriage of the Corinthian Church with Chriſt. And he in Lib. 5. c. 47. ſpeaks thus about one Philip the Son of Butacidas: [...]: having eſpouſed the Daughter of Telys a Sybarite, he fled from Croton, and being diſappointed of the Marriage, he ſailed to Cyrenae. And Lib. 6. c. 65. [...]: when Percala the Daughter of Chilo the Son of Demarmenes had been eſpouſed to Leutychides, Demaratus by Treachery deprived Leutychides of the Marriage, coming himſelf and taking away Percala and marrying her. And Lib. 9. c. 107. ſpeaking of Xerxes, who eſpouſed at Sardis the Daughter of his Brother Maſiſtes, he ſaith: [...], &c. Having eſpouſed her, and performed what was cuſtomary, he went to Suſa: And being come thither, and having led home to Darius his Wife, &c. By theſe examples it appears that St. Paul may properly enough be ſaid [...] to have eſpouſed the Corinthians to Chriſt; ſeeing that word is applied as well to a Guardian, or him that eſpouſes, as to the Man to whom a [Page] Virgin is eſpouſed. Nor is there any other Notion of this word to be look'd for, where the Diſcourſe is about Marriage, this being then the perpetual ſignification of it; tho if St. Paul had ſpoken of any thing elſe, it might perhaps be ſaid that he had a reſpect to the cuſtom of the Lacedaemonians, which our Author now unneceſſarily ſuppoſes.

Verſ. 6. [...].] The word [...] in this place ſignifies a ſtile or faculty of ſpeaking, as it is oppoſed to knowledg in the Mind. As there are Perſons of no great Learning, who yet are skilful in the art of ſpeaking; ſo on the other hand there are a great many learned Men, who are unhappy in expreſſing their Conceptions, in which number St. Paul here reckons himſelf. For [...] ſignifies one of the vulgar ſort, a Perſon of no polite Learning. And agreeably [...], and [...] are Phraſes vulgarly uſed among the common People. But here we muſt carefully diſtinguiſh things from words and their oratorical Diſpoſition; for things in themſelves very excellent, may be expreſſed [...], tho thoſe [...] be not elegant, and [...] diſpoſed, tho the diſpoſition be improper. In reſpect of knowledg the Apoſtle Paul was not [...] rude or ignorant; but he does not deny but his ſtile was [...]. Which becauſe learned Men have not ſufficiently underſtood, but have confounded things with words, I ſhall inſiſt on a little more at large.

Orators differ in three things from the illiterate Vulgar, in diſcourſing upon any Subject. Firſt, in Invention and choice of matter, in which they far ſurpaſs the ordinary ſort of People; but this I need not treat of, the Diſcourſe here being about Elocution. Secondly, in Diſpoſition, the rules of which are laid down by Rhetoricians, and are unknown to the Vulgar. Thirdly, in Elocution, or choice of words and Sentences: And as to theſe two laſt, Idiots never equal Orators unleſs it be by chance, and in a very ſhort Diſcourſe. So that [...] is a Stile or Diſcourſe, in which neither the Laws of Diſpoſition nor Elocution, ſuch as are laid down by the Maſters of Rhetorick, are obſerved; tho it be otherwiſe full of excellent Sentences, and ſhew the Speaker to have a great meaſure of Wiſdom and Knowledg.

In Diogenes Laertius in Platone, §. 87. according to the opinion of Plato, [...]: Diſcourſe or Stile is divided into five kinds, whereof one is that which the Adminiſtrators of the Commonwealth make uſe of in publick Aſſemblies, and is called Political. Of this kind is the ſtile of Demoſthenes and other Orators, whoſe Employment lay in pleading at Court. [...]. Another kind [Page]of Stile is that which is uſed by Rhetoricians, and is for oſtentation, in which are written Encomiums, and ſatyrical Diſcourſes and Accuſations; and this kind we term Rhetorical. Such is the Stile of Iſocrates, and other Rhetoricians, who ſpent all their time in Schools. This latter kind has more of Grace and Ornament in it than the former, otherwiſe there is no difference between them. [...]: A third kind of Stile is that which Idiots, or illiterate Perſons, uſe in common diſcourſe; and this is called Idiotick. That is the Stile which I before deſcribed, and which is uſed by St. Paul. And it is not oppoſed only to the painted Eloquence of Rhetoricians, but alſo to the Elegance of Politicians, to whoſe Stile that of the Vulgar is much inferior. This as to St. Paul, and the other Writers of the New Teſtament, has been ſhewn at large by C. Salmaſius in Comment. de Lingua Hellen. Sect. 2. The other kinds of diſcourſe mention'd by Diogenes I omit, becauſe they are not to our preſent purpoſe.

But when I ſay that a Rhetorical or Political Stile excels that of the Vulgar or Idiotae, my meaning is not that it ſurpaſſed it only in Ornaments, which do not belong to the Matter, but alſo in Diſpoſition and Propriety of words, which very much contribute to the perſpicuity of any Diſcourſe. For which reaſon, one that is skilful in the Greek Language may much more eaſily underſtand Demoſthenes or Iſocrates, than St. Paul; not only becauſe the ſtile of this latter has abundance of Hebrew Idioms in it, but becauſe the order of his Sentences is many times inverted, his Phraſes and Terms improper, and his Metaphors harſh. As Diogenes Laertius alſo, who wrote in an Idiotick Stile, and had no great regard to order or choice of words, is in many places very hard to underſtand. And ſuch are, among the Greek Fathers, Epiphanius, and the Author Hiſtoriae Lauſiacae, in whoſe Writings often occur the like difficulties, proceeding from negligence of Stile.

Which being ſo, I cannot ſufficiently wonder why Beza was ſo angry with St. Jerom, becauſe he did not admire St. Paul's Eloquence, which ſetting aſide his Matter, and conſidering only his Words, was certainly none at all. But let us hear Beza himſelf: Quid igitur, ſaith he, an imperitus loquendi Paulus, & elinguis, ut Hieronimus exiſtimat? What then, did not St. Paul know how to expreſs himſelf, or had he not the uſe of his Tongue, as St. Jerom thinks? No, he was not ſo perfectly tongue-tied neither, that the Subſtance of his Diſcourſe and Doctrine cannot be underſtood; but his Stile is not ſo clear, nor his Expreſſion ſo elegant, as to make every thing that he ſays eaſy, or pleaſant to [Page] critical Ears. St. Paul did not aim at that diſpoſition in his Words which might facilitate the underſtanding of a thing in it ſelf obſcure, or render his Diſcourſe more plain and perſpicuous: which Beza very well knew, and no one can be ignorant of who has read but St. Paul's Epiſtles in Greek. But Beza goes on, and ſaith: Imo vero Chryſoſtomum potius, & doctiſſimos quoſque ex Graecis, ipſam denique rationem ſequutus quamvis nativa illa & germana maſculae facundiae ornamenta ipſi videri poſſint non defuiſſe, fateor tamen illum fucatae illius rhetorices pigmentis uti noluiſſe. Yea rather following St. Chryſoſtom, and the moſt learned among the Greeks, and Reaſon it ſelf, tho thoſe native and genuin Ornaments of maſculine Eloquence ſeem not to have been wanting in him; yet I confeſs he uſes none of thoſe colours of falſe Rhetorick. But a clear way of ſpeaking, to begin with his laſt Words, and diſpoſing every thing we ſay in its right order, is no fucus. That artifice of thoſe Rhetoricians who endeavor to magnify by words, things that are in themſelves inconſiderable, or skim over thoſe that are baſe, may properly be ſtiled fucus, daubing; but not apt Expreſſions, or ſoft Metaphors, and an orderly diſpoſition of every part in a Diſcourſe; in which the Speaker has no other end than to make himſelf eaſily underſtood, and carefully to avoid all Ambiguity, which might lead his Hearers into a miſtake. And St. Paul's ſtile is not only without fucus, but deficient alſo in theſe things, which are not diſcommendable: So that if we follow reaſon, we ſhall never ſay that St. Paul was eloquent; provided it be remembred we are ſpeaking of words, or diſpoſition, and not of matter. That St. Paul's matter is praiſed by St. Chryſoſtom, and other Greek Fathers, and preferred before all the Arguments which the antient Greeks have treated of, I know, and none but a Mad-man will deny: but that they commended his Style, or the Order of his Words and Sentences as clear and elegant, I do not think; and if I did, their Authority would not move me, becauſe the contrary is ſo manifeſt. But they were not altogether ſo void of Underſtanding, as to attribute that Eloquence to St. Paul which he himſelf diſclaims. Nor does Beza himſelf diſagree with me in this matter, when he adds, that St. Paul would not make uſe of Rhetorick, Ʋt vi ſpiritus hominum animos ad Chriſtum raperet, non autem Sermonis blanditiis, adulatorum more alliceret. That he might bring men to Chriſt by the Power of the Spirit, and not allure them after the manner of a Flatterer, by ſmoothneſs of Speech. Which is as much as if he had ſaid, Thoſe who are affected with what St. Paul ſays, are affected with his Matter, not with his Words or Expreſſion, as being brought by the Spirit of God to an Enquiry and Love of the Truth, tho deliver'd in a rude Stile.

[Page]He adds: Cum orationis ipſius totam indolem & characterem propius conſidero, &c. When I more narrowly conſider the whole Strain and Form of his (the Apoſtles) Diſcourſe, I must needs ſay I never could ſee any ſuch Loftineſs in Plato himſelf, when ever he undertakes to thunder out the Myſteries of God; any ſuch [...] Majeſty or Force in Demonſthenes, when ever he applies himſelf either to terrify Men with the fear of the Divine Judgment, or to admoniſh them, or to draw them to contemplate the Goodneſs of God, or to exhort them to the Duties of Piety and Mercy; or laſtly a more exact Method in teaching, even in Ariſtotle or Galen, who were otherwiſe very excellent and skilful Artiſts. If we conſider the things themſelves, I acknowledg all this to be very true, but we are ſpeaking now about Stile and Order of Diſcourſe; in which as thoſe Authors mentioned by Beza were ſuperior to St. Paul, ſo as to things themſelves they are vaſtly inferior. Yet I do not deny but there occur even in St. Paul alſo, ſome Sentences admirably well expreſſed, but then they are but rare, and his Stile is for the moſt part barbarous, as the Speech or Idiotae uſes to be. But as things of ſmall moment in themſelves being ſet off with Rhetorical Colours, are and have been often admired; ſo on the other hand, things of the greateſt importance have many times made an obſcure and ill ordered Diſcourſe to be extolled; wheras thoſe two things ſhould be diſtinguiſhed and ſeparatly conſider'd.

I have been the larger upon theſe things, that I might ſhew in what ſenſe, and how truly the Apoſtle here calls himſelf [...]: and what I have ſaid may be of exceeding uſe to direct us in the interpretation of theſe Books; for knowing that they are written in a rude Stile, we muct not go about to anatomize every ſingle Word or Expreſſion in them, or examin all that is ſaid with a kind of Geometrical Exactneſs, which the nature of an Idiotic Stile will not bear, which regards things only in general, and not every minute or particular circumſtance; nor may we deduce too rigorous Conſectaries from any phraſes uſed in theſe Writings, which thoſe who ſpeak rudely never think of. We muſt have always before our Eyes the ſubſtance of the Goſpel, and the main deſign of the Speaker; and by that his expreſſions muſt be explained, rather than by an over-nice and ſubtil ſcanning of every word. But this is a Subject which would require a whole Volume to treat of it as it deſerves; in this place it may ſuffice to have touched briefly upon the chief heads.

Verſ. 9. Note b. It is certain that [...] ſignifies to be burdenſom, eſſe oneri, as it is render'd in the Vulgar, or ſomething like it, that ſignifies a Man's living upon another's Charity. But the only difficulty [Page] is how the word [...] comes to have this ſignification. The Doctor conjectures that it is to ask or importune, becauſe they that ask any thing of another, cauſe a chilneſs or numneſs in thoſe whom they ask. But this is harſh and forced: The paſſage which he refers to in Seneca is in Lib. 2. de Beneficiis, c. 2. But Seneca does not ſpeak of a Perſon of whom any thing is asked, but that asks; and therefore that paſſage is nothing to the purpoſe: Moleſtum verbum eſt, ſaith he, oneroſum, & demiſſo vultu dicendum, Rogo: I ask, is a troubleſom and burdenſom word, and muſt be ſpoken with a ſubmiſſive look. I had rather ſay that [...] is to be burdenſom, becauſe thoſe who are benummed with a Diſeaſe, are much heavier than ordinary, whence by a Metaphor it was uſed to ſignify to be a burden to others through Poverty. Whence St. Paul elſewhere expreſſing the ſame thing, uſes the word [...], 1 Theſſ. ii.9. For ye remember, Brethren, our labour and travel: for working night and day, becauſe we would not burden any of you, [...], we preached unto you the Goſpel of God. See likewiſe 2 Theſſ. iii.8. This Interpretation is confirmed by the oppoſition which is made in this very Verſe between [...] and [...], to keep himſelf from being burdenſom.

Verſ. 22. [...].] The falſe Apoſtles with wonderful haughtineſs, boaſted that they were Hebrews, that they were Iſraelites, that they were the Seed of Abraham; the very ſame thing expreſſed ſeveral ways, for Emphaſis ſake; which St. Paul here, to ſhew the vanity of that empty, vain-glorious boaſting, imitates. Quanquam eadem ferè ſunt, & unâ ſententiâ cooriuntur, plura tamen eſſe exiſtimantur, quoniam aures & animum ſaepius feriunt: Tho they are almoſt the ſame things, and come all to one ſenſe, yet they are thought to be many, becauſe they ſtrike ſeveral times upon the ears and mind, ſaith Favorinus, in Gellius, Lib. 12. c. 24. where he gives us ſeveral Examples of ſuch Repetitions out of the beſt Authors both Greek and Latin.

Verſ. 24. Note c. It is manifeſt that our Author had not look'd into the Paſſage which he cites out of Joſephus, in the Hiſtorian himſelf, becauſe he alledges it but by halves, and tranſlates it abſurdly: It is in Lib. 4. c. 8. in theſe words: [...]: For his bold and raſh Accuſation and Calumny, let him ſuffer puniſhment, receiving forty ſtripes ſave one. Our Author abſurdly renders the word [...], let him extend himſelf, as if it were [...], which would be a corrupt reading, if it were any where extant, becauſe there is nothing that can be referred to the word [...], except [Page] [...],Chapter XII. as other Copies read it, that is, luat, let him ſuffer.

Verſ. 25. Note d. Since ſeveral other hardſhips, which St. Paul here ſays he had undergon, as his being thrice ſcourged by the Jews, &c. are not mentioned by St. Luke, I do not doubt but he has omitted alſo this of his having been in the Deep. And hence it may be infer'd, that Arguments drawn from St. Luke's ſilence about any thing are not very ſtrong, becauſe he has not written an entire Hiſtory of St. Paul's Actions, even for the time that his Hiſtory refers to.

Verſ. 32. Note e. Mr. Pocock in his Notes on Greg. Abul-Farajius his Hiſtory of the People and Cuſtoms of the Arabians, p. 77. acknowledges that many of the Gaſſanii were called Harethi, or Aretae; but he tells us, he never obſerved that all the Arabian Chiefs were ſo ſtiled by them, as Joſ. Scaliger affirmed. But Scaliger does not ſpeak of the Kings of Damaſcus, but of the Hagarens, whoſe ſtrongeſt Fort was Petra. See Lib. 2. de Emend. Temp. p. 111. Ed. Roverianae.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 2. Note a. [...] is rightly here interpreted by Grotius, a Chriſtian, whom our Author ought to have followed, ſince there are manifeſt Inſtances of this Phraſe in that ſenſe, as I have ſhewn on Rom. xii.5. It is a thing to be wonder'd at, that Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe on Rom. xvi. has not once rightly interpreted this Phraſe. The Examples which he here alledges, are perfectly forein to his purpoſe, and all the likeneſs between them is only in the Particle [...].

Verſ. 7. Note b. If St. Paul had ſaid ſimply, that there was given to him a Meſſenger of Satan, that thruſt a [...] Twig in his Fleſh, I ſhould eaſily believe that this paſſage were rightly underſtood by Dr. Hammond and other Expoſitors, of ſome Perſecutions which St. Paul ſuffered. But ſeeing he ſays, there was given me a Twig in the Fleſh, a Meſſenger of Satan to buffet me; I rather think a moleſtation from ſome particular evil Spirit is here meant, who continually afflicted him, and put him to as great pain as if he had thruſt a Twig into his Fleſh, and brought as much contempt upon him as if he had been buffeted; St. Paul not being ignorant of the cauſe of his ſuffering ſo many Evils. And becauſe it is before ſaid, Leſt the greatneſs of the Revelations ſhould exalt me, or leſt I ſhould be lifted up above meaſure by the excellency of the Revelations; I am apt to think that the word [...] is an alluſion to ſome very ſharp piece of Wood, not of any ſort whatſoever, [Page] but one which ſhould be placed over a Man ſtooping,Chapter XIII. ready to prick him grievouſly when ever he roſe up. Let us repreſent to our ſelves the caſe of Regulus, whom the Carthaginians [...], killed by ſhutting him up in a Cage that had Goads on all ſides; which are the words of Appian in Lib. 1. Which way ſoever he moved himſelf, the Goads prick'd him. And ſomething like this would be the caſe of a Man who ſhould have ſome ſharp Stakes or wooden Spears hanging over him, whilſt he bowed his body, that would run into his Fleſh, whenever he raiſed himſelf. And ſo if St. Paul grew proud, or ſuffer'd himſelf to be puffed up becauſe of the Revelations which he had received from God, there was ready at hand an evil Spirit, who had obtained permiſſion of God to oppoſe him, to torment and afflict him.

Verſ. 8. [...].] Theſe words, in my judgment, ſhew that it is not any ſort of Perſecutions ſtirred up by Men againſt St. Paul (which he was always ready to ſuffer for the ſake of the Goſpel) that are here ſpoken of; but a particular evil Spirit, which, as it were, accompanied St. Paul, and wherever he went, did him all the miſchief he could, either of himſelf, or by men as his Inſtruments.

Verſ. 11. [...].] It ſeems then by this, that it is not always unlawful for a Man to ſpeak in his own praiſe. See Plutarch's little Treatiſe de laude ſui.

Verſ. 21. [...].] Our Author thinks the Apoſtle has a reſpect here to the unnatural luſts practiſed at Idol-Feaſts; as if there were no Feaſts kept by the Heathens in honour of their Idol Gods where ſuch Luſts were not practiſed, whereas it is certain that the Heathens, eſpecially in Greece, ſeldom mixed any ſuch vile practices with their Religious Solemnities, as I have already elſewhere more than once obſerved. See on 1 Cor. v.10. So that I rather think any ſort of unlawful Luſts whatſoever are here intended.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. THO the conjecture which our learned Author here propoſes be ingenious; yet if it be more narrowly examined, it will be found not to be ſo probable. His principal reaſon why St. Paul ſhould be thought to have had a reſpect to the words of Chriſt in Mat. xviii. is this, that he makes uſe of ſome part of thoſe words, viz. In the mouth of two or three Witneſſes every Word ſhall be eſtabliſhed. But theſe were not [Page] the words of Chriſt, but of Moſes in Deut. xix.15. and St. Paul in reciting them may as well be ſuppoſed to have had a reſpect to that place in Moſes as the other in St. Matthew: which of the two is ſo much the more probable, becauſe St. Paul does not ſubjoin them to a diſcourſe about Cenſures, but a Journey he was to make to Corinth; which now he purpoſed the third time, becauſe he had been twice before diſappointed. So that it is all one as if he had ſaid: ‘I have twice reſolved already to come to you, and yet have been fruſtrated in my deſign; but a third reſolution which I have taken up about the ſame thing, ſhall not be defeated; as that which was confirmed by the teſtimony of three Witneſſes under the Law, could not be made void.’ It is an adapting the words of Moſes to the preſent buſineſs, [...], as the learned Grotius obſerves.

II. Dr. Hammond unneceſſarily joins the word [...], ver. 2. to [...], from which it is ſeparated by the Participle [...], when from the order of the words as they now lie, ariſes this very commodious ſenſe; ‘I have told you already before, and foretel you again, as intending to be with you a ſecond time, and being abſent I now write, that I will not ſpare, &c.’ [...] here is all one with [...], as Grotius obſerves. The Apoſtle had been once already at Corinth, and he intended to go thither again. The Hebrews having no future Participles, it is no wonder that St. Paul ſpeaking after the manner of the Hebrews, uſes a Greek Participle in the Preſent Tenſe for the Future. See my Notes on Gen. vi.7. & Exod. iii.2.

III. That paſſage in Mat. xviii. is ſuppoſed by our Author to belong chiefly to private Perſons, and not to the Governours of the Church, to whom it is not thought that this Precept, Tell it to the Church, can be directed, without doubt, becauſe they themſelves are ſuppoſed to be the Church whereof Chriſt ſpeaks; which ought to have been proved, this being not an Age wherein Men are apt to believe every thing that ſerves to magnify the Governours of the Church; or elſe it had been better to have ſaid nothing. Of the paſſage in Tit. iii.10. I ſhall ſpeak when I come to it, for it is nothing to the Doctor's purpoſe.

Verſ. 4. [...].] Dr. Hammond refers the word [...] here to Chriſt; but the ſtile of St. Paul ſhews that God the Father is intended. See Rom. iv.24. & viii.11. & x.9 1 Cor. vi.14. & xv.15. 2 Cor. iv.14.

Verſ. 5. Note b. I. It may be not unfitly conjectured, that the word [...] in this place is uſed in an Active ſenſe, for one that cannot [...] prove or try, and ſo the ſenſe will be: Except ye are unable [Page] to try things, you will know that the true Goſpel has been preached among you by a true Apoſtle. But I confeſs I have never yet met with the word [...] uſed any where elſe in this ſenſe.

II. I cannot tell in what Copy our Author read the Particle [...] certainly, for I have never read it in any. If he thought that it was an Omiſſion, he ought to have told us his mind. However, St. Paul's words here are Elliptical, and ſignify what Dr. Hammond would have them. It is all one as if the Apoſtle had ſaid; Do ye not know that Chriſt Jeſus is among you? Ye muſt needs certainly know it, unleſs ye are uncapable of trying and judging in ſuch a caſe.

Verſ. 11. Note c. I. Our Author in this Annotation follows thoſe who deduce the word [...] and its Derivatives from the Verb [...], that is, to fit; which derivation is not altogether ſo certain. But grant it to be true, yet he ſhould have obſerved that the Verb [...] does not immediately come from [...], and therefore ſhould have had a greater regard to its neareſt Original. From [...], which ſignifies entire, ſafe, perfect, is firſt made the Verb [...], which is properly [...], to make, to perfect, as it is taken in Theocritus Idyll. 13. or Hylae Verſ. 43. [...], that is, [...] danced, ſaith the Scholiaſt. And becauſe thoſe things which are deſigned for any particular uſe, ought to be [...], entire and perfect in their kind, or fit, if the forementioned etymology of the word be approv'd; therefore [...] ſignifies alſo fit, and made ready, in Homer and Herodotus, and [...] in Heſychius is explained by [...], to fit, to gather together, to knit, and [...] by [...], to make, to prepare. And ſo in Suidas there are two places alledged, in which this Verb ſignifies, to be ſet in order, or prepared: [...], being ſet into order, they divided the Army. [...], but he being ſubtil, and prepared for all the uncertainties of Fortune. But the Compounds of the Verb [...] are much more in uſe, and eſpecially the Verb [...].

II. The primary ſignification of this Verb, as of the ſimple, is to make, to perfect, to finiſh. For which reaſon in Suidas it is interpreted by [...], without the addition of any other ſignification. But afterwards it ſignified, 1. To make ready, to fit; 2. To repair, or reſtore; which ſignifications belong as well to the Mind as to the Body: 3. To reconcile, or bring to agreement. Of all which Examples may be had out of Lexicons, and eſpecially Henr. Stephanus, whom I ſhall not here tranſcribe. The ſame Lexicographer has obſerved alſo that [...] is ſaid by ſome to be uſed by Plutarch in the Life of Themiſtocles for inſtitution, of which by and by. The Old Onomaſticon renders [Page] [...] by ſtruo, inſtruo, conſtruo, perficio, reficio; to build, to ſet in order, to join together, to perfect, to repair. I ſhall now apply what has been ſaid to the Scripture Examples.

III. [...] a Houſe, a Wall, a Body, is to make or finiſh them, as [...], not to compact them. [...] is to repair or make ready Nets, to make them [...] entire and prepared. [...] is to prepare or make praiſe. [...] is a perfect Diſciple, as Beza in his Notes on St. Luke has ſhewn. [...] muſt be rendred with the Vulgar, complere quae deſunt, to fill up what is wanting, that is, to perfect. [...] is to perfect in every good work, or to render perfect and compleat in all kinds of Virtue. Veſſels [...] are Veſſels prepared for deſtruction. God is ſaid [...], that is, to have made the World, [...]. In all this we meet with no ſuch Notion of the word as that of compacting.

IV. To diſcuſs likewiſe the other places alledged in Epheſ. iv.12. [...], is the perfection of the Saints, or the compleatneſs of all its Members, ſo that nothing is wanting to the Church, [...], which is neceſſary for the Work of the Miniſtry, or for the performing all Offices in the Church. In Gal. vi.1. the Verb [...] has the ſignification of reſtoring, as Dr. Hammond well obſerves. So, as Budaeus remarks, [...] ſignifies to put Members out of joint into their right place again; whence it might be applied to the recovering a Perſon whoſe mind is diſturbed and put out of its natural poſture. In this place, Chap. xiii.9. of 2 Cor. [...] is the ſoundneſs of the Body, and conſequently its health; as in Heſychius [...] is not only explained by [...], ſound or entire, but alſo by [...] healthful. [...]In 1 Cor. i.10. [...] ſignifies unanimous. I beſeech you, Brethren, ſaith St. Paul, that ye all ſpeak the ſame thing, and that there be no Schiſms among you, but that ye be [...], joined together in the ſame mind, and in the ſame judgment. In that ſignification this word is more than once uſed in Herodotus, as appears by Aemilius Portus his Lexicon Ionicum. In which ſenſe it ſeems to be here taken in Chap. xiii.11. of 2 Ep. to the Corinth. In 1 Pet. v.10. [...] will be beſt rendred perficiat vos, make you perfect, with the Vulgar. All which being clear, if the immediate Original of the word [...], and the uſe of it in other Authors be attended to, I do not ſee why we ſhould run to another ſignification deduced from a more remote Etymology, and of which no certain Inſtance can be alledged.

V. As for the word [...], I don't know whether it ſignifies juſt the ſame as [...]; but there is a paſſage in Plutarch, in the Life of [Page] Themiſtocles, in which it ſeems to ſignify the ſame, as it does in the words of Hippodamus, viz. in pag. 112. Ed. Francof. where he tells us, that Themiſtocles uſed to ſay, [...]: That the fierceſt Colts become the beſt Horſes, when they have that management and bringing up which is requiſite. And to this place Henr. Stephanus ſeems to have had a reſpect, tho he reads [...] inſtead of [...]. But between theſe two, as there is no great difference in the ſound, ſo neither ſeemingly in the ſignification. And therefore Dr. Hammond had no reaſon to think that [...] in Heſychius was a corrupt reading for [...]; the Verb [...] being as true Greek as [...], and having that ſignification which Heſychius in the place alledged aſſigns it.

And this is abundantly ſufficient to confute the little ſubtilties of our Author in this place, interpreting the Greek word rather by arguing, than according to uſe.

Verſ. 14. Note d. I. From this place it may be gathered, that we ought not to diſpute too ſubtilly from the order of words in the New Teſtament, ſince Chriſt is here mentioned before the Father: The Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the Love of God, and the Communion of the Holy Ghoſt be with you all.

II. [...] is the favour of Chriſt, from which all his Benefits flow, not his Liberality, properly ſpeaking. [...] does not ſignify Charity, nor would Caritas Dei in Latin ſignify the Love of God to us Men, but our Love to God. I wiſh our Author had cited more exactly the Paſſage which he refers to in Cicero, by ſetting down the Chapter, or noting the Page, for I cannot find it; and any one that underſtands Latin, will preſently ſee that it is miſquoted.

III. [...] I rather take to be the Communion of the Spirit, or the common fruition of Spiritual Graces, whereby all are made partakers of them. So the word [...] is taken in 1 Cor. x.16. & Phil. i.5.ii.1.iii.10. & 1 John iii.6, 7. Our Author indeed interprets [...], in Phil. ii.1. actively alſo, of the Liberality of the Holy Ghoſt, but without reaſon; for who will grant him that that interpretation is rightly deduced from the following words, as if Bowels and Mercies ſignified Liberality? But ſee the Notes on that place.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Galatians.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] I. We have no certain ground to believe that thoſe whom St. Paul confutes in this Epiſtle were Uncircumciſed; but it is much more probable they had received Circumciſion, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

II. That the Chriſtians had ſo much reaſon to be afraid of the Jews in Galatia, that the Gnoſticks ſhould be forced to feign themſelves Jews when they were not, is not at all likely. For the Roman Magiſtrates, as appears by the inſtance of Gallio, did not give much ear to the Accuſations of the Jews, or lend their Axes or Rods to the Circumciſed. And that without the Magiſtrate the Jews could do any great matters, will not be thought by any who know what was the form of the Roman Government. So that it had been much better to ſay that St. Paul here oppoſes the Jews, who indeed had embraced the Chriſtian Religion, but yet were tenacious of their antient Cuſtoms and Ceremonies.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. [...].] We muſt ſupply here the Prepoſition [...], that there may be a perfect oppoſition thus: [...]: not from Men, neither by Men; but by Jeſus Chriſt and from God the Father. Beſides, it is certain that God the Father did not call St. Paul immediately, but by Chriſt, who appeared to him as he was on his Journey to Damaſcus.

Verſ. 7. [...].] Dr. Hammond brings into his Paraphraſe on this place not only his Gnoſticks, but Men that by birth were Heathens and uncircumciſed; as if in Galatia they had been under the [Page] ſame neceſſity of endeavouring to gain the favour of the Jews, as in Judaea. But there ſhould have been ſomething in St. Paul to ſupport this interpretation, otherwiſe it may very reaſonably be rejected, as I have already ſaid at the end of the Premonition. It is more than probable that theſe diſturbers of the Churches of Galatia were Jews, and conſequently circumciſed, and had embraced the Goſpel, the Deſign and Virtue of which they did not however underſtand. I confeſs Grotius, in the Preface to his Annotations, had gone before our Author in the contrary Opinion; but how great ſoever the Authority of that learned Man is with me, when it is not accompanied with ſolid Reaſons, it does not in the leaſt move my aſſent.

He thinks that St. Paul is more vehement in this than in his other Epiſtles, becauſe thoſe who would have deprived the called among the Gentiles of their Liberty as to the Jewiſh Ceremonies, were not Jews, whoſe zeal for their Religion might in ſome meaſure be excuſed, but Strangers who lived in Judaea, of whom the chief was Cerinthus. But it's true, it was a pardonable thing in the Jews themſelves to obſerve the antient Rites impoſed upon their Nation, and to be willing that the reſt of their Countrymen ſhould obſerve them, provided they were otherwiſe obedient to Chriſt; but to impoſe them upon the Gentiles, and endeavour to make all the World ſubmit to the ſame Yoke, this ſurely could no more be born in the Jews than in others. Beſides, there is nothing here that gives the leaſt ground to think that thoſe who were ſo zealous for the obſervation of the Moſaical Ceremonies, were by birth Heathens. But Grotius goes on and ſays: And ſuch were thoſe who at Philippi taught the ſame Doctrine, as St. Paul himſelf tells us, Phil. iii.3. To which I ſay, it appears indeed by St. Paul's words that there were ſome at Philippi, who gloried in the Circumciſion of the Fleſh; but they were Jews and not Gentiles: For we, ſaith St. Paul, are the Circumciſion, who worſhip God in the Spirit, and glory in Chriſt Jeſus, and have no confidence in the Fleſh. In which words he has undoubtedly a reſpect to the Jews, who gloried in fleſhly Circumciſion, as the context evidently ſhews. So that I wonder that both Grotius and our Author ſhould alledg this place.

The ſame Men, ſaith the learned Grotius, aſſerted the neceſſity of conforming to the Law of Moſes, not out of any principle of true Piety, but that they might grow rich and great by the aſſiſtance of the Jews. But I confeſs I do not ſee what Honors or Profits Men that were Heathens and Uncircumciſed could expect from the Jews, a People deſpiſed and hated by the Romans, and that in a Roman Province, as Galatia ever ſince the time of Auguſtus had been, as we are told by Strabo, Lib. 12. [Page] I wiſh either of theſe learned Men had eſſayed to prove more at large what they ſay, for they would preſently have perceived the vanity of ſuch an undertaking. But perhaps they thereby avoided thoſe preſſures which lay upon the Chriſtians, for in thoſe times the Jews, by the Roman Laws and Edicts, had the free exerciſe of their Religion; which the Chriſtians had not, but begun then to be perſecuted, as appears from the Acts, and other Epiſtles of St. Paul. To which I anſwer, if ſuch as were not heartily and really Jews, had a mind to eſcape perſecution, they ought rather to have feigned themſelves Heathens than Jews, in Galatia. Beſides, tho the Jews were allowed the profeſſion of their Religion in the Roman Empire, they had not therefore any power granted them over others, ſo as to be able to do any hurt to the Chriſtians. They might indeed by Calumnies, and ſuch kind of unjuſt Methods, endeavour to miſchief them, but that was all they could do, as ſufficiently appears from the Acts of the Apoſtles. And they annoyed the Chriſtians that way, who were reſolved to obey all Chriſt's commands, and firmly adhered to their purpoſe, whom upon that account they accuſed and charged with Sedition; but they could not moleſt Men, who if it were neceſſary feigned themſelves to be Heathens, of which ſort were the Gnoſticks.

Verſ. 8. [...].] Our Author in his Paraphraſe rightly thinks that this has a reſpect to the ſecond degree of Excommunication; but I don't well underſtand what he means by the laſt words: that none is to have any commerce with in ſacred matters. For if we may judg of the effects of Excommunication by the Doctrin of the Rabbins, excommunicated Perſons were neither excluded out of the Temple nor the Synagogue, as Mr. Selden has ſhewn, de Synedr. Judaeorum, Lib. 1. cap. vii. It was only unlawful to converſe with them familiarly, and within the ſpace of four Cubits, as the ſame Author has proved at large. And if the Chriſtians at that time behaved themſelves otherwiſe towards the excommunicated, our Author would not have ſpent his time ill to have ſhewn it us: For it is not ſafe to judg of what was done in thoſe Primitive times, by the practice of latter Ages.

Verſ. 10. Note b. Tho our Author in this Annotation follows Grotius, yet I cannot aſſent to either of them for this reaſon, becauſe the Verb [...], according to the perpetual uſe both of Sacred and Profane Writers, always ſignifies elſewhere to perſwade, and never to appeaſe. I can neither find after the moſt diligent ſearch, nor remember any paſſage in any Author I have read, in which it can be reaſonably taken in any other ſenſe; and if I can ſhew that this ſignification will agree to all the inſtances produced by the learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond, there will be then no neceſſity of recurring to any other. [Page] And this it will be very eaſy to do, when I have only premiſed that there is an Ellipſis in all the alledged examples, in which that which is wanting muſt be ſupplied to ſhew what the Verb [...] in them ſignifies.

In the example out of the Book of Samuel, there is a manifeſt Ellipſis, which muſt be thus ſupplied: [...], and David perſwaded his Men not to kill the King. Not he appeaſed them, but he prevailed with them not to ſlay him.

A Patron or Advocate is ſaid indeed [...], but that is to perſwade the Judg, not to appeaſe him; that is, perſwade him that his Cauſe is juſt. For it [...] could be rendred to appeaſe the Judg, there ſhould be added the Perſon of the Accuſed, or whoſe cauſe is pleaded, in the Dative caſe thus: [...] or [...], to appeaſe the Judg to the party accuſed or contending, which yet there is no inſtance of.

In Mat. xxviii.14. there is the like Ellipſis, which muſt be ſupplied again in this manner: if this come to the Governor's ear, [...], we will perſwade him, [...], not to be angry with you, and ſecure you.

So in this place, [...], is all one as if St. Paul had ſaid: do I perſwade God or Men [...] not to be diſpleaſed with me. And thus all thoſe Phraſes muſt be underſtood, in which neither the Caſe of the Defendant nor any Infinitive mood is ſubjoined to the Verb [...], which often occurs, contrary to what Beza thought. I know Henr. Stephanus, and other learned Men, render it then, flectere, to incline or bend; but it's plain they have more regard to the ſenſe than the proper ſignification of the word; and in all that multitude of examples which are alledged in the Theſaurus Linguae Graecae, the Figure Ellipſis takes place. I ſhall inſtance only in one, by which we ſhall be able to judg of the reſt. In Plutarch, in Lib. de cohibenda Ira, Euclides to his Brother who had angrily ſaid, [...], let me periſh if I be not revenged on you, returns this mild anſwer, [...], let me periſh if I cannot bend you, Peream niſi te flexero; in which Verſion the ſenſe indeed is expreſſed, but not the juſt import of the word. For we muſt ſupply [...]: If I cannot perſwade you to forgive me this [offence] or ſome ſuch thing. And that ſuch Supplements as theſe are underſtood in all theſe Phraſes, may appear by infinite examples of intire expreſſions wherein the Verb [...] is made uſe of, ſome of them to be had out of any Lexicon. I have been the larger in diſputing againſt our two learned Men about this word, leſt mere reaſoning from ſome few places, contrary to the rules of Grammar and conſtant uſe, ſhould prevail: A thing which Grotius is very ſeldom guilty of, but Dr. Hammond often, as I have ſhewn.

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. THAT correction according to which inſtead of [...], that is, fourteen, we ought to read δ. four, is propoſed by Lud. Cappellus in Hiſt. Apoſtol. Appendice, Character 4. which is worth conſulting, becauſe he ſtarts a great many difficulties there againſt our Author's Chronology. And that Conjecture was approved by Grotius, becauſe of the connexion of the Diſcourſe: Yet Dr. Pearſon has excellently ſhewn in his Annales Paulinae, that St. Paul here reckons the years that had paſſed from the time of his Converſion. But he refers the Jeruſalem Synod to the year of Chriſt xlix, and makes St. Paul's Converſion to have happen'd two Years later than Dr. Hammond, and that with good reaſon. Conſult himſelf, and compare him with Cappellus.

Verſ. 6. Note d. I. It is very true what our Author here ſays about St. Paul's Solaeciſms, which others uſing a ſofter term call [...] ſeeming ſolaeciſms. But it matters not much by what name they are called, if we do but agree as to the thing. And it is univerſally acknowledg'd by thoſe who underſtand Greek, that there are a great many expreſſions in the Writings of St. Paul, which cannot according to the rules of Grammar be reſolved into proper Conſtruction. The examples alledged by Dr. Hammond, put this matter out of all doubt: yet ſome learned Men have made it their buſineſs to collect a certain number of [...] & [...] inconſequences and incoherences out of the beſt Authors both Greek and Latin, to ſhew that the Stile of St. Paul ought not therefore to be accounted the leſs elegant. But there are two things which may make it appear that thoſe Authors are ill compared with St. Paul. The firſt is, that thoſe forementioned defects do ſeldom occur in them, whoſe whole Diſcourſe is otherwiſe agreable to the Rules of Grammar, and has all thoſe ornaments which are requiſite to make it proper and elegant. On the contrary, the ſtile of St. Paul is both deſtitute of all thoſe things which are ſo much admired and commended in any Diſcourſe, (I ſpeak of words and not of Matter) and has abundance of ſeeming Solaeciſms. Secondly, the moſt elegant Heathen Writers, tho they were at the ſame time very well skilled both in Grammar and Rhetorick, do deſignedly ſometimes violate the Rules of Grammar for variety ſake, leſt their Stile ſhould ſeem too ſtudied and artificial; which therefore may be look'd upon as ſo many Figures, and a particular ſort of elegancy. But St. Paul naturally falls, as it were, into theſe kind of [...] & [Page] [...], becauſe regarding things and neglecting words, he thought it enough if he were underſtood by an attentive and diligent Reader, who loved the Truths he declared. So far is he from deſignedly diverſifying his Diſcourſe with that kind of Negligence, that he does not ſeem to have aimed at ſo much as the common ornaments of Stile. Let us hear about this matter Quintilian, in Lib. 9. cap. 3. Eſſet, ſaith he, omne ſchema vitium, ſi non peteretur, ſed accideret. — Virtus eſt, ſi habet probabile aliquid, quod ſequatur. Ʋna tamen in re maxime utilis, ut quotidiani & ſemper codem modo formati ſermonis faſtidium levet, & nos a vulgari dicendi genere defendat. Quo ſiquis parce, & cum res poſcet utetur, velut adſperſo quodam condimento jucundior erit. At qui nimium affectaverit, ipſam illam gratiam varietatis amit [...]et, &c. Every figure would be an imperfection if it were not choſen, but caſual.— It is an excellency if it have ſomething probable following it. But there is one thing in which it is moſt uſeful, and that is to take away that nauſeouſneſs which is bred, by forming our Diſcourſe always after the ſame manner, and to keep us from a vulgar way of expreſſion: Which if any one ſparingly uſe, and only when the thing requires it, it will give a grateful reliſh as it were to his Diſcourſe. But if he unneceſſarily affects it, he will loſe all that agreableneſs which a Variety would otherwiſe cauſe, &c. Now I do not think there is any one will ſuppoſe that St. Paul purpoſely choſe thoſe harſh and frequent [...], to make his Diſcourſe leſs diſtaſtful to his Readers. And therefore it remains that they be looked on as Defects and Imperfections, which yet are no prejudice to his matter, becauſe the Goſpel is a very plain and eaſy thing, which does not need to be illuſtrated by any Light d [...]ding upon Elegancy, or exactneſs of Expreſſion. It is well ſaid by St. Jerom on Chap. vi. of this Epiſtle to the Galatians, verſ. 1. Qui putant Paulum juxta humilitatem & non vere dixiſſe, etſi imperitus Sermone, non tamen ſcientia, defendant hujus loci conſequentiam. Debuit quippe ſecundum ordinem dicere: vos qui ſpirituales eſtis, inſtruite hujuſmodi, in ſpiritu lenitatis conſiderantes voſmet ipſos, & vos tentemini; & non plurali inferre numerum ſingularem. Hebraeus igitur ex Hebraeis & qui eſſet in vernaculo ſermone doctiſſimus, profundos ſenſus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat; nec CURABAT MAGNOPERE DE VERBIS, CUM SENSUM HABERET IN TUTO. They who think that St. Paul ſpake only out of Modeſty, and not the real truth, when he ſaid, tho I am rude in Speech, yet not in Knowledg, let them defend the Connexion of this place. For according to good Syntax he ought to have ſaid, Ye that are Spiritual reſtore ſuch a one in the ſpirit of Meekneſs, conſidering your ſ [...]lves, leſt you alſo be tempted, and not have brought a Singular number upon a [Page]Plural. But being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and very skilful in his own Native Dialect, he could not expreſs his profound ſenſe in another Language; and AS LONG AS THE SENSE WAS SAFE, HE DID NOT MUCH CONCERN HIMSELF ABOUT WORDS.

II. The Paſſage referred to by our Author in the ſame St. Jerom, in Comment. ad Epheſ. iii. I have ſet down a little more fully [in my Latin Tranſlation] than the Doctor, who did not complete the ſenſe, but ended at the word adnotamus; and it is thus: Quotieſcunque ſolaeciſmos aut tale quid adnotamus; non Apoſtolum pulſamus, ut malevoli criminantur, ſed magis Apoſtoli adſertores ſumus, &c. Whenever we take notice of any Solaeciſms or the like, we do not injure the Apoſtle, as ſome malicious Perſons would lay to our charge, but we do him ſo much the more Juſtice, &c. Our Author adds, and ſo Epiſt. cap. 1. Quaeſt. 10. which I have omitted, becauſe to produce the teſtimony of St. Jerom in that manner is abſurd, and I could not find the paſſage to which he referred. I don't think he look'd himſelf into St. Jerom when he ſent us to that place: For otherwiſe he would certainly have cited him with more care, and inſtead of thoſe Divines which he alledges, appealed to the Teſtimony of St. Jerom, whoſe Authority is much more conſiderable. And with St. Jerom he might have joined Origen who lays down this Rule, of which more at large in cap. 8. Philocaliae: [...]: that we ought not to attempt the correcting of any ſeeming Solaeciſms, or verbal incoherences in Scripture, where to diſcerning Perſons the ſenſe is well enough connected.

Verſ. 11. Note g. I. I do not think that from an ill interpretation of one place in the Old Teſtament, we ought to deduce an unheard of ſenſe of the word [...], as if it therefore ordinarily ſignified the ſame with the Hebrew uſed in that place. One ſingle place in the Septuagint where they arbitrarily fix a ſenſe upon a word which they could not properly render, does not change the uſe of a Language, as I have already elſewhere ſuggeſted: For they uſed the word [...] not becauſe they thought it ſignified juſt the ſame with the Hebrew [...], but becauſe it contained a ſenſe not altogether diſagreable to that place, as they imagined. So that I chuſe here to follow the vulgar Interpretation, and eſpecially ſeeing it beſt ſutes with the context, viz. when Peter was come to Antioch, I withſtood him to the face, becauſe he was to be blamed; that is, becauſe he did what he ought not to have done, not becauſe he was look'd upon by others as a Diſſembler. For firſt he did really pretend to avoid the Society of the Gentiles, which he uſed not to do, nor ought to have done. And ſecondly, others did not [Page] ſee him diſſemble, becauſe by his example and manner of Life,Chapter III. the Gentiles began to be perſwaded that they were obliged by the Jewiſh Laws. So that it is rightly obſerved by Grotius, after a great many others, that the Participle [...] here is the ſame with the Verbal [...].

II. The Paſſage in Eccleſiaſticus makes nothing at all to the purpoſe, which is thus: [...]: Shame is upon the Toief, and an evil Condemnation upon the double Tongue; that is, they are at length condemned, and ſuffer a ſhameful Puniſhment. I do not ſee any neceſſity of interpreting [...] here by detection.

Verſ. 14. [...].] They are ſaid to compel not only who uſe Commands, Threatnings, or Violence; but thoſe who when they ſay or do any thing, others dare not but follow their Example or Authority, or cannot neglect any thing which they would have them do, without great prejudice to their Intereſt or Reputation. So the word [...] is taken in 2 Cor. xii.11. where St. Paul ſays that the Corinthians had ſo carried themſelves towards him, that to keep up his Reputation he was compelled to ſpeak ſomewhat more highly and honourably of himſelf than he would otherwiſe have done. And to the ſame ſenſe the Latin cogere is uſed by Cicero in the beginning of his Book de Amicitia, where Laelius ſpeaking to his Sons-in-law, who had earneſtly entreated him to diſcourſe concerning Friendſhip, ſays: Vim hoc quidem eſt afferre, quid enim refert qua me ratione cogatis? Cogitis enim certe, ſtudiis enim generorum, praeſertim in re bona, cum difficile eſt, tum ne aequum quidem obſiſtere. This is pure compulſion; for what does it ſignify what way you take to force me? For force me you certainly do; for not to comply with the deſires of my Sons-in-law, eſpecially in a good thing, as it is hard, ſo it is unreaſonable.

CHAP. III.

Verſ 1. Note a. I. IF the Ebionites were ſo called from an Opinion, I am apt to think that name was given to them by the Chriſtians, after the writing of this Epiſtle in which their Doctrin is called [...], beggarly Elements of the World, chap. iv.9. And this ſeems to be intimated by Origen in the beginning of his 2d Book contra Celſum, where he ſays: [...] ▪ [Page] The Jews, who believe in Chriſt, have not forſaken their antient Law; for they live according to it, and are ſurnamed from the poverty of their Law. For Ebion in the Hebrew Language ſignifies Poor; and thoſe of the Jews who receive Jeſus as the Chriſt, are called Ebionites. And it's true that in Hebrew [...] ebjon, is uſed indeed for Poverty, but never for Folly that I know of, tho I have made diligent ſearch. But to ſpeak what I think, I am of opinion that this name of Ebionites belonged to ſome poor Samaritans, who had embraced the Goſpel; but not being ſufficiently acquainted with its Doctrins, had mixed their antient Religion with it: which mixture they too obſtinately adhered to, when they might have learned better from the Apoſtles and other Chriſtians. The reaſon why I think they were Samaritans and not Jews, is this very conſiderable one, that they received only the Law of Moſes, and rejected the Prophets, as Epiphanius in their Hereſy tells us, which was a principal part of Samaritaniſm. See Num. xv. It's certain the Ebionite who wrote the Clementine Homilies, alledges only the Law: Nor is it any wonder that theſe Men were poor, becauſe they were univerſally hated, both by Jews, Chriſtians, and Heathens, who none of them took any care to relieve their Neceſſities.

II. But I do not think that St. Paul hath a reference here to theſe Hereticks, becauſe he upbraids them with nothing but their obſtinate adherence to the Moſaical Ceremonies; the obſervation of which they endeavoured to impoſe alſo upon the Gentiles. Our learned Author will have them to be the Gnoſticks, whom for that reaſon he repreſents as the Promoters of all kind of Hereſies. But whereas the Caſe as to the Gnoſticks is doubtful, it is certain that the Jews of that Age who had received Chriſt, were very zealous for having the Moſaical Rites obſerved; and there is nothing ſaid here by the Apoſtle which does not exactly agree to them. And therefore we ought not to feign St. Paul to have had any other Adverſaries. Tho if any one think fit to call ſome of the Jews Gnoſticks, becauſe they boaſted of an extraordinary meaſure of [...] knowledg, with all my heart.

III. The Alluſion which Dr. Hammond ſuppoſes the Apoſtle here might have to the name of Ebionites, is vain: for it is not true that their name ſignifies folly; nor is it neceſſary, becauſe St. Paul calls the Jewiſh Rites [...] poor and beggarly, that therefore he ſhould be ſuppoſed to have a reſpect to that name, becauſe there are other reaſons, and thoſe very conſiderable ones, for his ſpeaking in that manner, as we ſhall ſee on Chap. iv.9.

Verſ. 8. Note c. What our Author ſays here at laſt are mere Niceties; but nothing can be truer, than what he has before, as I have [Page] ſhewn on Gen. xii.3. and thoſe who carp at it never conſider'd the Reaſons which Dr. Hammond and I have there given, which yet they ought to have done before they condemned us.

Verſ. 10. [...], &c. to the end of Verſ. 11. and Verſ. 21, 22. [...], &c.] All theſe Verſes I ſhall interpret together, becauſe tho they are disjoined in place, they are united in ſenſe. In interpreting the Law of Moſes, and enquiring into its nature, the firſt thing to be taken care of, is, that we do not confound things which are diſtinct, that is, the Law it ſelf as it is recorded in Moſes, and may be underſtood according to a literal and ſimple interpretation of the words, with the Opinion of the Jews, prevalent in St. Paul's time, and againſt which he here diſputes. For otherwiſe we ſhall hardly be able to reconcile St. Paul with Moſes, or with right Reaſon.

If we conſider the Law of Moſes as it is ſet down in the Pentateuch, we ſhall plainly perceive that it was very difficult indeed to obſerve all the Rites therein preſcribed; but yet that it was not ſuch as that the performance of it was impoſſible, as I have ſhewn on Deut. xix.9. And indeed Moſes every where ſuppoſes that it might be obſerved, as all Lawgivers alſo do; and if they did not, there ſhould be no Laws made, becauſe it is abſurd to make Laws which cannot be kept, and unjuſt to puniſh Men for not doing what they cannot do. Nor indeed is the Law of Moſes ſo very ſevere, as not to pardon the leaſt Sin, or to require ſuch a degree of Holineſs as is above human ſtrength: As appears only by two things which put the matter beyond all controverſy. Firſt, That God had inſtituted Sacrifices for ſome Sins; I do not mean ritual, but moral, upon the offering up of which he promiſed to forgive the penitent Offender; of which we have ſeveral Inſtances in Levit. v.4. & vi.2. & ſeqq. Secondly, That he ſuffered Divorces, which were contrary to Charity, and might be attended with very great Inconveniences, as every one eaſily ſees. Such is the Law conſidered in it ſelf, if we examin it a little more cloſely.

But the Jews in St. Paul's time, had got quite another Notion of it, and boaſted it to be the moſt compleat and perfect Pattern of Sanctity imaginable; as appears by ſeveral places in Joſephus, and particularly in his Books againſt Appio, and of them chiefly the 2d. And it ſignifies nothing to ſay that the Jews otherwiſe thought, and did thoſe things which ſhew that they ought not to have had ſuch a Notion of their Law, if they would be conſiſtent with themſelves; for it is certain they frequently both did and ſpake Contradictions.

[Page]The ſame Perſons interpreted ſeveral places in the Law, not grammatically, as Lawyers uſe to do the Roman Laws, but Theologically; that is, not with a bare regard to the uſe of the Language and the connexion of the Diſcourſe, but to their Opinions, with which they made the Law to agree, as is evident from ſeveral places in Philo, Joſephus, and the Talmudical Doctors. For they made their Traditions equal to the Law, which Chriſt often upbraids them with. As for inſtance, The Rabbins uſed (as appears by the Verſion of the Septuagint, and the Citations of St. Paul in this place) to interpret Deut. xxvii.26. as if the meaning of Moſes there was, that God required of them the moſt perfect Holineſs, which if they did not perform, they were to expect to be curſed by him. But in reality, all that Moſes ſays, is only that the People were to curſe him that did not confirm the words of the Law to do them, as I have ſhewn in my Notes on that place.

St. Paul who diſputes here againſt the Jews, and endeavours to overcome them with their own Weapons, reaſons from theſe Opinions of theirs, and ſhews that ſuppoſing the Truth of what they aſſerted, it was manifeſtly impoſſible any Man ſhould be accounted juſt before God by the Law, becauſe they acknowledged that all men were Sinners. So that it is all one as if the Apoſtle had ſaid: ‘You ſay, O Jews, that ye expect Juſtification from God by the Law, and think that the Law is a moſt perfect Rule of Life. From whence it follows that you lie under the Curſe of the Law, becauſe you have not perfectly kept it, for you do not pretend to be abſolutely ſinleſs; and by your own conceſſion, the Law denounces a Curſe upon all that do not perfectly obey it. So that you cannot hope for Juſtification by the Law, but muſt ſeek it from the Goſpel.’

If it be enquired how I know St. Paul does not reaſon here from the thing it ſelf, but upon the Jews Principles? I anſwer, By his citing the place of Scripture here alledged, not as it really is, but according to the Interpretation of the Rabbins. For the words of Moſes are theſe: [...] Curſed be he that confirmeth not the words of this Law, to do them. Which the Septuagint render, [...]. And theſe St. Paul follows as far as the word [...], but then changes the reſt into [...]. But doubtleſs he would never have alter'd any thing in the words of Moſes, nor followed the Septuagint at all, but render'd the Hebrew himſelf exactly, if he had reaſoned from the bare Authority of the Prophet, and not from the Opinion of the Jews. And it is common with St. Paul to cite the Old Teſtament, ſo as it [Page] was uſually alledged by the Doctors of the Jews, whom they called [...] darſchanim; that is to ſay, with little regard to the circumſtances of the place, or the proper ſignification of the words, and to argue from them ſo alledged, becauſe that was the cuſtom of the Jews. See but the place cited out of the Prophet Habakkuk Chap. ii.4. in verſ. 11.

Verſ. 11. [...].] That is, by perfect Holineſs, for the Law and a pattern of perfect Holineſs was the ſame in the opinion of the Jews. And the thing it ſelf is true, tho the Jews had a wrong Notion of the Law's perfection; which truth of the thing it ſelf made St. Paul expreſs himſelf as the Jews did, tho not ſo accurately as they ſhould have done.

Verſ. 13. [...].] There are three things here worth our enquiring into, which moſt other Interpreters ſecurely paſs over. Firſt, who are meant by the word [...] us; Secondly, what is the Curſe of the Law; Thirdly, how Chriſt has redeemed us from it.

By us we are to underſtand the Apoſtle himſelf and his Countrymen the Jews to whom the Law was given, not all Mankind. This is evident from the thing it ſelf, becauſe other Nations were utter Strangers to the Law of Moſes, which cannot be ſaid to have been given to ſuch as were always ignorant of it. Nay it was not given ſo much as to the Jews themſelves, who were born after the revelation of the Goſpel, and much leſs yet to Chriſtians tho they knew it; becauſe it was already abrogated before they came to the knowledg of it, yea before ever they had a being. The following words alſo ſhew that the Jews are oppoſed to the Heathens in this Verſe: and therefore what Dr. Hammond here ſays in his Paraphraſe, about the redemption of Men in general, tho it be true, does not belong to this place, becauſe the Diſcourſe is not about all Mankind, but the Jews only.

The Curſe of the Law here ſpoken of, ſeems to be that mentioned by Moſes in Deut. xxvii. and denounced upon thoſe who were guilty of ſeveral Impieties, and, as I before obſerved, who refuſed to confirm the Law, and did not think themſelves obliged by it. And thoſe who were ſo curſed, could not expiate their Sins by any Sacrifice, but ought to be puniſhed with Death; which becauſe it could not always be inflicted, (as in caſe the Crime or its Author was not known) therefore the Perſon ſo offending had a Curſe denounced upon him, or was pronounced worthy of all manner of Evils and Calamities: See my Notes on that Chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is certain whilſt the Law remained in force, or before it was abrogated by God, all the Jews ought to have engaged to obſerve it; and it was not lawful for them to ſay [Page] that they would not be obliged by it, or live otherwiſe than according to its preſcription. And if any of them did ſo, they unavoidably ſubjected themſelves to the Curſes of the Law: Nay thoſe who thought the Law required perfect Holineſs, and yet did not think themſelves perfectly Holy, ought, if they would be ſelf-conſiſtent, to look upon themſelves as under the Law's Curſe.

But Chriſt having eſtabliſhed a New Covenant, whereby that old Moſaical one was aboliſhed through his Death, did at the ſame time free the Jews from all the curſes contained in the Law; for whoever brings in a new Covenant, and makes new Laws, abrogates the old: Only that the Jews might partake of that Redemption, or be abſolved from the neceſſity of obſerving the Moſaical Law, and exempted from its Curſes, it was requiſite they ſhould embrace the Goſpel-Covenant, and keep it. And thus the Jews were redeemed from the Curſes of the Law, but not the Gentiles, who were never obnoxious to them, and, as St. Paul tells us in Rom. i. ſhall be judged without the Law. The Jews might therefore, after the New Covenant's being eſtabliſhed by the Death of Chriſt, deny that they were any longer obliged by the Law, and neglect its preſcriptions where they diſagreed with the Goſpel, without any fear of its curſes, to which God from that time ceaſed to have any regard.

Ibid. [...].] Namely, for us Jews; for Chriſt offering himſelf a Sacrifice to God the Father for all Mankind, and expiating thereby the Sins of all Men, died for the Jews as well as others, and at once reconciled them to God, and freed them from a neceſſity of obſerving the Law, which denounced a Curſe upon thoſe who tranſgreſſed it. [...] here is for [...], as is rightly obſerved by Grotius; for nothing worſe could have befallen a Man whom the Law curſed, than Crucifixion. And [...] is in our room: for as a Sacrifice is killed in our ſtead, and ſuffers that Death which we deſerved; ſo Chriſt died in the ſtead of the Jews, and all Mankind.

Ibid. [...].] Of this place I have treated at large on Deut. xxi.23. and I ſhall not here repeat what I have there ſaid. All that remains is to ſhew that St. Paul does not diſagree with Moſes: Moſes had ſaid, that he that is hanged is the curſe or abomination of God, that is, according to the Statutes of the Law, a very polluted thing. But St. Paul follows the Septuagint, excepting that he omits the word [...], which they have, becauſe indeed it is not neceſſary, nay in the Greek Language might have bred a miſtake: For all that the Apoſtle means is this, that Chriſt was dealt with by the Romans as a vile Malefactor, tho he was perfectly innocent, and [Page] underwent a very infamous Puniſhment, which according to the Cuſtoms of the Jews, render'd the Perſon ſo ſuffering a polluted thing; and a greater and more diſgraceful than which could not have been inflicted upon the moſt profligate and curſed Offender. So that [...] is here the ſame with [...] in the foregoing words. If St. Paul had added, by God, tho according to the Hebrew phraſe that ſignifies no more than what I have here ſaid, and ſhewn in my Notes on Deuteronomy; yet thoſe who underſtood only Greek might have been offended with an expreſſion which ſeemed to intimate that Chriſt was curſed by God, that is, hateful to God; which is ſo far from Truth, that God was always well pleaſed with Chriſt, and eſpecially then when he beheld him on the Croſs, performing or having performed the higheſt Office of Love to Mankind, and moſt ſignal inſtance of ſubjection to himſelf. It is certainly known that the Jews, who from that time did not ſufficiently underſtand the Hebrew Language, abuſed that phraſe. Nobis, ſaith St. Jerom on this place, ſolet a Judaeis pro infamia objici, quod Salvator noſter & Dominus ſub Dei fuerit maledicto. It is a thing we (Chriſtians) are often upbraided with by the Jews, as a matter of diſgrace, that our Lord and Saviour was under the curſe of God.

Verſ. 14. [...], &c.] While Chriſt eſtabliſhed a New Covenant through his Death, and thereby abrogated the old one, he did not only free the Jews from the Moſaical Yoke; but dying alſo for the Gentiles, he obtained from God the forgiveneſs of all their paſt Sins, if they did but believe and obey for the future: ſo that upon their Faith they are accounted juſt by God, in the ſame manner as Abraham. The Connexion therefore of this Verſe with the foregoing is this: ‘Ver. 13. Chriſt has delivered the Jews from a neceſſity of obſerving the Moſaical Ceremonies, and from the fear of that Curſe which was threatned againſt thoſe of that Nation who wilfully neglected them, or thought themſelves not bound to obſerve them; having eſtabliſhed a New Covenant between God and Men, by an ignominious and cruel Death, which may be called curſed according to the ſtile of the Law. 14. And he has ſo freed the Jews from the Moſaical Yoke, as at the ſame time to provide that the Gentiles, upon whom it was never impoſed, and who by thoſe Ceremonies were kept off from having any communion with the Jews, might, ſetting aſide the obſervation of thoſe Rites, be adopted into Abraham's Family, become partakers of the ſame benefits with Abraham, and embracing the Goſpel, receive the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, as well as the believing Jews.’

[Page]Ibid. [...].] It ſeems at firſt ſight that the word which here followed ſhould have been [...], becauſe the Verb [...] went before in the third Perſon; but the reaſon of St. Paul's uſing the firſt, is becauſe this latter part of the Verſe belongs as well to the Jews as the Gentiles, with whom he therefore here joins himſelf and his Countrymen.

Verſ. 16. [...].] It is highly probable that this was a commonly received way of arguing in the [...] midraſchim or Allegorical Interpretations of that Age. And the Jews indeed might well enough make uſe of it againſt the Arabians, Edomites and Samaritans, who boaſted that they alſo were the poſterity of Abraham, to ſhew that the Promiſes made to Abraham and to his Seed, did not belong to them. But if it be conſidered in it ſelf, it cannot be thought of any force by thoſe who have other Sentiments, becauſe the Hebrew [...] zerah is a collective name, and ſignifies any ſucceeding Generations whatſoever, tho of a different Race: Nay, as learned Men have obſerved, the Jews never uſed to apply the word [...] in the plural number, but to the Seeds of divers ſorts of Plants. But it was ſufficient that this way of reaſoning was thought to be concluſive by the Jews, to give the Apoſtle ground to make uſe of it againſt them; and what they were wont to ſay on behalf of the Iſraelites according to the Fleſh, againſt the Arabians, Edomites and Samaritans, St. Paul might properly enough alledg in honour of thoſe who were Iſraelites according to the Spirit, to overthrow the carnal Jews with their own Weapons. I have already before obſerved, that St. Paul diſputes againſt the Jews upon their own Principles, and there will be other examples of that in this Epiſtle.

Verſ. 16. Note d. Tho the word Chriſt elſewhere ſignifies the Head of the Church, in conjunction with his Body or Members; yet in this place I rather think it is uſed for his Body alone, that is, Chriſt's Diſciples: for there is nothing in the Covenant made with Abraham, properly ſpeaking, promiſed to Chriſt; but rather Chriſt himſelf was promiſed therein to Abraham, together with all his Benefits.

Verſ. 19. [...].] That is, God did not acquieſce in the Revelations he made to Abraham; but when he ſaw that the Iſraelites tranſgreſſed all rules of Piety and Vertue, he added the Moſaical Law, to keep them in ſome meaſure within the bounds of their Duty, till the Meſſias ſhould come. This is all that St. Paul here means, whatever our Divine pieces up his Paraphraſe with.

Ibid. [...].] So undoubtedly it muſt be read, and not [...], as may appear from the 16th Verſe, where the Promiſes [Page] are ſaid to have been made [...], to the Seed, not the Seed it ſelf promiſed. That is only a correction made by ſome Criticks, who thought Chriſt to be here intended, whereas St. Paul ſpeaks about Chriſtians of all Nations, who without Circumciſion, after the example of Abraham, were accounted juſt and righteous before God, upon the ſole obſervation of the precepts of the Goſpel. And theſe are called [...] the Seed of Abraham, becauſe they obtain Juſtification while uncircumciſed; and the promiſes made to Abraham, at that time uncircumciſed, are fulfilled in them in a more eminent ſenſe than in the believing Jews, as St. Paul himſelf ſhews in Rom. iv.

Verſ. 20. [...].] I cannot ſufficiently wonder at Dr. Hammond's Paraphraſe of this Verſe, and if he had paraphraſed the reſt of this Chapter in the ſame manner, I ſhould have quite loſt my labour in tranſlating him. For who would ever have imagined that the Apoſtle meant any thing like what he ſays, upon reading only St. Paul's words? At this rate of paraphraſing a Man may make any thing what he pleaſes of any Verſe of Scripture. This Verſe therefore muſt be better explained.

It ſeems to be brought in by way of Parentheſis, for the 21ſt Verſe is manifeſtly to be joined with the 19th, and ſo to be conſider'd as a digreſſion in which the Apoſtle upon occaſion of the word [...], admoniſhes the Galatians as he goes along, that as the Covenants made by God with Men were more than one, ſo each had their diſtinct Mediators, tho God himſelf was one. The words [...] ſignify is not one, as appears from the oppoſite member of the Sentence, but God is one; tho they properly ſignify is not of one, [...] or ſome ſuch word being to be underſtood. It is all one as if St. Paul had ſaid: I told you that there was a Mediator between God and the Antient Hebrews; becauſe tho God be one and the ſame, yet he has not appointed one ſingle Mediator of one Goſpel, but the Law likewiſe had its Mediator, viz. Moſes. Which comes to no more than if the Apoſtle had ſaid, there is not one Mediator; for to ſay that the Law had a Mediator appointed it as well as the Goſpel, is nothing but to ſay that it is not one only that may be called by that Name. If it be asked why St. Paul admoniſhes the Galatians of this; I anſwer that it is an Exegeſis by way of Parentheſis, of the word [...], which kind of Parentheſes are very frequent in St. Paul's writings. See Epheſ. ii.5. and iv.9, 10. This I thought to be the ſenſe of this obſcure place, which if not true, does however very little depart from the Apoſtle's words; whereas nothing can be more diſtant from them than Dr. Hammond's Interpretation.

[Page]Verſ. 21. [...].] The Apoſtle here argues upon the Jews Hypotheſis, as I have before ſaid, who affirmed that God required perfect Holineſs in the Law; upon which ſuppoſition, no Man can be juſtified by it, nor conſequently attain to Life. Otherwiſe Moſes every where ſuppoſes and takes it for certain, that it was poſſible to obſerve the Law; but he had not that Notion of the Law which the later Jews had, who interpreted every thing myſtically. And according to theſe Mens Sentiments St. Paul here diſputes, and not that of Moſes: Which unleſs we obſerve, it will be impoſſible to reconcile the Prophet with the Apoſtle.

Verſ. 24. [...].] In this particular St. Paul does not reaſon from the Sentiments of the Jews, but declares his own Mind, tho it be a Conſectary neceſſarily following from what went before, ſuppoſing the truth of the Jews opinion concerning the perfection of the Law. But the ſame alſo might be inferred from the Nature of the Moſaical Law it ſelf, as that which contain'd only the [...] elements of the Chriſtian Religion. And thoſe who are taught only the Elements of a thing, are ſtill under a Schoolmaſter. This might be proved by other Arguments if it were neceſſary: So that what in it ſelf was true and relied upon firmer grounds, that St. Paul proved alſo from the Jewiſh Opinion, by this means the more effectually to put the Jews to ſilence, a thing which he often does. Such is the perverſneſs of Mankind, eſpecially in matters of Religion, that they are not moved ſo much by cogent Reaſon, as by prejudices and opinions taken up in their Childhood. Such is the pride of Mens Hearts, that they cannot bear to have their Errors confuted or inveigh'd againſt, eſpecially when their miſtakes are of a long ſtanding and grown inveterate, or when thoſe who are charged with Error have been always judged by their own party to be in the right, and look'd upon as learned and judicious Men. And for theſe reaſons Chriſt and the Apoſtles reproved as few of the Jews miſtakes as they could, viz. thoſe only which would not conſiſt with Chriſtianity; but their other prejudices that had no very bad conſequences attending them, and which their obſtinacy would not ſuffer the eradication of to be attempted without manifeſt danger, they choſe rather to bear with, and to reaſon againſt them upon their own principles, becauſe they perceived that that way of arguing had the greateſt influence upon them. But ſeeing we now live in a time in which we are to ſearch out the Truth more for our own uſe, than for the uſe of the Jews, it is our part, after the diſcovery of it, to ſet it down juſt as it is: Becauſe if we do not, we ſhall never underſtand the Apoſtle's Writings, nor [Page] be able to defend them againſt the objections of Infidels;Chapter IV. yea perhaps (which God of his infinite Mercy prevent) inſtead of a ſolid Piety eſtabliſhed upon its own Light and Evidence, all our Religion may degenerate into but dark and fearful Superſtition.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 3. [...].] That is, we Jews; for the Gentiles were never under the diſcipline of the Jewiſh Law, which they were ignorant of, and from which they were excluded by the very nature of the Law. For it was a Law given to one Nation living in one Country, the Land of Canaan. This deſerved here to be noted, becauſe if it be not obſerved, the whole Diſcourſe of the Apoſtle in this place will be very obſcure.

Ibid. [...].] The ſame St. Paul calls [...], in verſ. 9. And there is no doubt but he means the Moſaical Law; whence it may be again inferred that St. Paul did not think, with the Jews, that that Law was a perfect rule of Sanctity: For if he had been of that mind, how could he have called it the Elements of the World, and weak and beggarly Elements? The elements are the rude beginnings of any Art or Science, and far from containing the whole art in its greateſt Extent and utmoſt Perfection. Which being ſo, undoubtedly he thought thoſe Elements might be obſerved by Men if they were conſider'd in themſelves, as they are in Moſes; tho perfect Holineſs, ſuch as the Jews affirmed the Law to be a complete pattern of, was never by any Man, excepting the Saviour of all Men Chriſt Jeſus, expreſſed in his Life.

But it will be ſaid, it may be that St. Paul has a reference to the Ceremonial part of the Law, and not that which is Moral. To which I anſwer, by confeſſing indeed that he has a reſpect chiefly to the Ritual part of the Law, but ſo as not to exclude the Moral part of it, nor conſequently the Moral Law it ſelf; which if compared with the Commands of Chriſt, comprehends only the Elements of true Piety, as ſufficiently appears from Mat. v. and the following Chapters. For many things were lawful under the Moſaical Law, relating to Manners, which are there forbidden by Chriſt. What the Moral Law given by Moſes commands is indeed Good and Holy, and what it forbids Evil; but it is not a perfect rule of Holineſs, that is, it does not command every thing that is Holy, nor forbid every thing that is evil. For inſtance, Husbands loving their Wives to ſuch a degree as to bear with their Manners, and never to put them away but in caſe of [Page] Adultery, is a vertue not enjoined in the Moſaical Law; as the contrary Inhumanity in putting them away at every turn, is not therein prohibited, nay is expreſly permitted, if they did but give them a Bill of Divorce. See Mat. v.31, 32.

Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, the Jews, or their Proſelytes, as is rightly obſerved by Grotius, who upon embracing the New Covenant, were no longer oblig'd by the Laws of the old, to which they were before ſubject. See my Note on Chap. iii.13.

Verſ. 6. [...].] The words Spirit of his Son, are capable of two ſenſes, both which St. Paul ſeems to have comprehended under this Phraſe. Firſt, by the Spirit of Chriſt may be meant the Spirit which Chriſt had promiſed to the Apoſtles and the reſt of the Chriſtians, which he accordingly afterwards ſent down upon them, and by whoſe power they were enabled to work Miracles. For on the effuſion of that Spirit upon them, the Jews, and ſuch as of Gentiles had embraced the Jewiſh Religion, perceived that they were then much more bountifully dealt with than when they were under the Law, and called upon God afterwards with greater aſſurance, no longer now behaving himſelf as a hard Maſter, or requiring the obſervation of ſuperfluous Rites upon the ſevereſt Penalties, but as a moſt gracious and compaſſionate Father. Whence that Spirit is ſaid to cry Abba Father, that is, to make the Jews upon their Converſion to the Chriſtian Religion, to look upon God as a Father and not as a ſevere Maſter. Secondly, by the Spirit of his Son may be meant ſuch an affection of Mind towards God as was in his Son; as the Spirit of Elias and the like. And that Affection was produced in the minds of the Jews, by the knowledg and participation of the Benefits of the Goſpel. Both theſe Spirits jointly reſiding in the minds of Men, ſeem to be called by St. Paul [...] the Spirit of Adoption, in Rom. viii.16.

Verſ. 8. [...], &c.] St. Paul here ſpeaks not to thoſe who were [...] by birth Jews, and had been brought up in the knowledg of the true God, but thoſe who were made Jews [...] by aſſumption, that is, Proſelytes to the Jewiſh Religion before their Converſion to Chriſtianity. And it appears that what the Apoſtle here ſays, has a reference to ſuch Perſons, becauſe he afterwards demands of them, how they could turn again ( [...]) to the weak and beggarly Elements; that is, to the Jewiſh Rites which they had before, in part at leaſt, obſerved. If Dr. Hammond had not overlook'd this, which is obſcurely intimated by Grotius on verſ. 5. he would have given a much more clear and exact Paraphraſe of this and the following Verſe.

[Page]Ibid. [...].] That is, to Gods which Men had made and invented for themſelves; for the oppoſite to [...], that is, things which depend upon the decrees and inſtitutions of Men. That this place ought to be thus underſtood, I have ſhewn at large in my Ars Critica, Par. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. vii.

Verſ. 9. [...].] I have already before ſaid, that by weak and poor Elements is meant the Jewiſh Law, and that is clear from this and the following Verſe. But there are two things which I ſhall here a little more particularly enquire into, firſt, why the Moſaical Precepts are called weak and poor; ſecondly, how the Galatians who had worſhipped falſe Gods, are ſaid to return to thoſe weak Elements.

The Elements of any Diſcipline relating to good Manners and divine Worſhip, ſuch as is the diſcipline of Moſes, cannot be ſtiled weak in any other ſenſe, than as they are not effectual to reform Mens Manners, or bring them to worſhip God in that manner as they ought to do. And indeed the Rewards and Puniſhments of the Jewiſh Law, which in a literal ſenſe were only temporal, could not have ſuch an influence upon the Minds of Men, as to bring them to any great degree of Vertue. For tho they might reſtrain them from committing thoſe Sins which would have render'd them infamous in the Eyes of others, or expoſed them to civil Puniſhments; yet they could not keep them from doing a great many things contrary to true Vertue; of which ſee Mat. v. and what is ſaid by Grotius and Dr. Hammond on that Chapter. In this ſenſe therefore the Law was [...] weak, that is, ineffectual and uncapable of making Men truly Pious and Vertuous. See alſo Rom. viii.3. with the ſame learned Mens Notes.

Again, any Inſtitution may be called [...], in a metaphorical ſenſe, when it is imperfect in its kind, and a great many things are wanting in it which muſt be made up and ſupplied out of another: as [...] are Mon deſtitute of the neceſſary ſupports of Life, and who unleſs relieved by the liberality of others, are unable to ſubſiſt. And ſuch an Inſtitution is the Law, which unleſs it be perfected by the Goſpel, cannot bring Men to ſuch a degree of Piety as to make them acceptable to God, and worthy of eternal Life; as manifeſtly appears both from the nature of the thing it ſelf, and a great deal ſaid by Chriſt to that purpoſe in the fifth Chapter of St. Matthew. And this may poſſibly be the reaſon why St. Paul here uſes the word [...] rather than [...] imperfect, to intimate by a word of a ſpecial Emphaſis, that the Law of Moſes was not only in a few things but exceeding poor and defective. For [...] does not only ſignify poor, but poor to [Page] a degree of Beggery. And therefore the Greeks diſtinguiſh [...] from [...], & [...] from [...]. Poverty or [...], in Ariſtophanes in Pluto, in an elegant diſputation, wherein he endeavours to ſhew that Poverty is advantageous to Men, after Chremylus had deſcribed the inconvenices of Beggery, is brought in ſpeaking thus: ‘ [...].’ You have not been ſpeaking of my Life, but declaring that of Beggers. On which words the Scholiaſt makes this obſervation: [...]: The word [...] ſignifies a middle ſort of indigence, when a Man acquires neceſſaries by Labour; and comes from the Verb [...], that is, to labour, and by that to acquire Neceſſaries: but a [...] is ſo called from his begging of every Body. See alſo the following words of Chremylus and Poverty. But I dare not inſiſt too much upon the ſignificancy of this word in St. Paul, who does not uſe to be very critical in the choice of his words.

Further, the Galatians who when they knew not God, did ſervice unto them which by nature are not Gods, are ſaid here by St. Paul, upon their defection to Judaiſm, to have turned to the weak and beggarly Elements, whereunto they deſired again to be in bondage; becauſe, as I have already ſuggeſted, they had gone over from Heatheniſm to Judaiſm, before they became Chriſtians. There is no doubt but many of thoſe who firſt believed the Goſpel among the Gentiles, were before [...], or Proſelytes of the Gate, as the Rabbins ſpeak, or alſo of Righteouſneſs. Of the former ſort were Cornelius the Centurion, ſpoken of in Acts x. and Lydia in Acts xvi. And there is no reaſon to think but the greateſt part of the Galatian Chriſtians were ſuch Men, who certainly might much more eaſily relapſe to Judaiſm, than embrace it if they had not before known it after their Converſion to the Chriſtian Religion. I remark this, becauſe Grotius, who on verſ. 5. had obſerved that St. Paul ſpake of Proſelytes, unmindful of what he had there affirmed, tells us that the Galatians are ſaid here to return to the elements of Piety; non quod Judaizaſſent antea, ſed quia multa uſurpaſſent cum Judaeis communia, ut ciborum delectum, dierum diſcrimina, &c. Not becauſe they had judaized before, but becauſe (whilſt they were Heathens) they had a great many Cuſtoms common to them with the Jews, as the diſtinction of Meats, and Days, &c. But that he is miſtaken is evident, becauſe it is the Jewiſh Law that was before called the Elements of the World, on which words he has an excellent Annotation; [Page] and becauſe the following Verſe here clearly ſhews that they are ſaid to return to the Jewiſh Ceremonies; not to ſay how manifeſt that is from the whole ſeries of St. Paul's diſputation in this place. Beſides, the Religion of the Heathens cannot be ſaid to contain the elements of Piety, which taught the moſt conſummate wickedneſs. So that St. Paul would rather have ſaid that they returned [...], if what Grotius here ſays were true. And therefore we muſt underſtand him to ſpeak of the Moſaical Rites, which the Galatians, who were once Jewiſh Proſelytes, before they had embraced Chriſtianity, had in part at leaſt obſerved.

Verſ. 12. [...].] I don't know which to chuſe, Dr. Hammond's interpretation of theſe words, or Grotius his, who makes them to be a Deſcription of St. Paul's extraordinary affection to the Galatians. The place in Cicero, which Grotius refers to, is in Ep. ad Famil. Lib. 7. Ep. 5. to which add this Diſtich out of the Epigram of Zeno, the founder of the Sect of the Stoicks, which Apuleius ſets down in his Apology:

Hoc modò ſim vobis unus ſibi quiſque quod ipſe eſt.

Hoc mihi vos eritis quod duo ſunt oculi.

Verſ. 15. [...], &c.] I cannot ſee what reaſon moved our Author in his Paraphraſe of this and the following Verſes, to make mention of Perſecution, whereof there is no footſtep in St. Paul's words. He is as much out of the way too in ſeeking here for his Gnoſticks, and the Authority of the Jews, out of their own Country.

Verſ. 21. [...];] That is, do not ye underſtand the Law, or do ye not hearken to it attentively when it is read to you? It deſerved here to be noted, that St. Paul argues from ſome received [...] midraſch vulgarly known: For if that Allegory, whereof he here ſpeaks, had not been before heard of, he would have had no reaſon to wonder that the Galatians had never collected any ſuch thing from the Story which he refers to; it being not at all neceſſary that the words of Scripture ſhould have any ſuch allegorical ſignification as that is, ſuppoſed to belong to them. And therefore undoubtedly it was a known Allegory, tho perhaps ſomewhat otherwiſe expreſſed by the Jews.

Further; ſeeing this Interpretation could not be urged againſt thoſe, who might deny that the Scripture ought to be ſo underſtood, and the Apoſtle does not make uſe of his Authority to confirm it, it is evident that he argues here from what was generally allowed. Which [Page] kind of things it is not material ſhould be true or well grounded, as long as they contain nothing in them prejudical to Piety, and are believed by thoſe againſt whom we diſpute. So that from St. Paul's uſing ſuch an Allegory againſt the Judaizing Galatians, it does not follow that we in this Age are bound to admit it, as a ſecret revealed from Heaven to the Apoſtle. For if we throughly conſider it, we ſhall find that moſt which has ever been ſaid by learned Men againſt this way of interpreting Scripture in general, may be objected againſt this particular Allegory.

Verſ. 24. Note b. [...] is not a Participle in the Middle voice, as every one knows, and as Dr. Hammond himſelf very well knew, tho he ſaid otherwiſe before he was aware. It is to be taken in a Paſſive ſenſe, and rendred thus: which things are allegorically explained, or uſe to be ſo explained, that is, by a myſtical Interpretation applied to ſignify other things beſides thoſe which that Hiſtory literally contains.

This kind of Allegories muſt be carefully diſtinguiſhed from the Allegories of Homer and other Poets: For the Greek Grammarians, and eſpecially their Philoſophers, affirmed that a great many things which were ſaid by their Poets about the Gods, were falſe in a proper ſenſe, and never really happened; but in another obſtruſe and ſecret ſenſe were true. Whereas the Jews did not deny but that their Hiſtories were true, but from real events deduced Conſectaries belonging to other matters, as if thoſe events had been as ſo many repreſentations of other things. Heraclides Ponticus in his little Treatiſe de Allegoriis Homericis, gives us this true definition of a Poetical Allegory; [...]: A Trope wherein one thing ( [...]) is ſaid, and another thing different from that ſignified, is called an Allegory.

Verſ. 25. Note c. Our learned Author has ſufficiently indeed here ſhewn that the Arabians were circumciſed, but not in conformity to the Moſaical Law, but a more antient Precept given to Abraham himſelf; and in imitation of Iſmael, not of Iſaac. Whether they had any other Cuſtom which might be look'd upon as an imitation of the Law of Moſes I cannot tell; but it is falſe that the Iſmaelites ever bound themſelves to obſerve the Moſaical Ceremonies, as was obſerved by Grotius, whom I wonder Dr. Hammond did not give ear to. I have often obſerved that learned Men ſupply out of their own Invention what is wanting in the Teſtimonies of the Antients; and afterwards thence draw Concluſions, as grounded upon the undoubted Authority of Antient Writers; which yet is certainly no good way of arguing.

[Page]The 24th and two following Verſes, may be thus paraphraſed: Ver. 24. ‘Theſe things uſe to be allegorically explained by the Jews, and may be interpreted ſo as to ſignify what I a little before ſaid. Sarah and Hagar are as it were the Symbols of two Covenants; the latter, viz. Hagar, of the Covenant given from Mount Sinai, the Laws of which impoſe nothing but Slavery upon thoſe who ſeek to be juſtified by it. 25. (And Hagar is ſo much the more fitly ſaid to be an emblem of the Covenant delivered from Mount Sinai, becauſe her name ſignifies a Rock.) And to that Covenant, of which the Servantmaid Hagar was an Image, belongs the earthly Jeruſalem, which is entirely taken up in the obſervation of ſervil Rites, and acted by a ſlaviſh Fear. 26. But Sarah the free Woman is a Symbol of the Evangelical Covenant, according to the Laws of which the Citizens of the Spiritual Jeruſalem live, that is, all we Chriſtians.’

The Apoſtle undoubtedly alludes to the name of Hagar, which being written with an ח, according to the uſual confuſion of the guttural Letters, [...] hhagar, ſignifies a Rock among the Arabians. It is probable that the Jews, who were no very great Friends to the Arabians, ſaid a great many things by way of Allegory out of the Hiſtory of Moſes, to extol their Nation, and on the contrary to depreſs the Hagarens; and that St. Paul here applies to thoſe who were Iſraelites according to the Spirit, what the Jews uſed to ſay in honour of their Nation; as on the contrary to the carnal Jews, what they often aſſerted to the diſadvantage of the Hagarens.

I ſhall take the liberty here, which I do not otherwiſe uſe, to allegorize a little after the Jewiſh manner, that we may the better ſee what might give the Apoſtle Paul an occaſion to ſpeak ſo as he does. And firſt I ſhall perform the part of a Jewiſh [...] darſchan, or Allegorical Preacher; and then repreſent a Chriſtian retorting the like Allegory upon the Jew.

THE JEWISH [...]

That ye may be ſenſible, O Iſraelites, of the great benefits which God has conferred upon you, compare your Original with that of your Neighbours the Hagarens. The founder of your Nation Iſaac was born of a free Woman and Miſtreſs of a Family, Sarah; on the contrary, Iſmael the Father and Founder of the Hagarens, was born of a Servant. Iſaac was conceived by a particular efficacy of the Divine Power, when Abraham was neither able to beget, nor Sarah to conceive, by reaſon [Page] of old Age; on the other hand, Iſmael was born of Abraham and Hagar when younger, according to the ordinary courſe of Nature. Nor did the diſtinguiſhing Providence of God terminate only on Sarah and Hagar, and their Sons Iſaac and Iſmael; but drew as it were in them the figure of what has already come to paſs in former Ages, and ſhall hereafter happen to both their Progenies. The Poſterity of Iſaac have been protected almoſt with perpetual Miracles, and often enjoyed the ſweets of Liberty, and had dominion over their neighbour Nations, and ſhall again have, when that great King whom we ſo much expect and long for, and whoſe Reign our antient Prophecies foretel, comes to rule over us. But the Hagarens, like their Mother, caſt out and diſinherited, have already more than once been our Servants, and ſhall hereafter be ſo, being ſubdued by the Power and Authority of the Meſſias. Do not in the leaſt doubt of the truth of what I ſay, for God has heretofore given you a pledg of future events, on one hand in Sarah and Iſaac, and on the other in Hagar and Iſmael, who, as I ſaid before, repreſented the ſeveral Conditions of their poſterity.

THE CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIST.

We take you at your word, O Jews, that antient Events did ſhadow out and repreſent things future. But as of old the Offspring of Abraham was twofold, ſo it is now; and the ſame which was the condition of that twofold race of Abraham, is at preſent the lot of their Poſterity. Hagar and Iſmael were Images of the Carnal Iſraelites, who are the Seed of Abraham indeed according to the Fleſh; but becauſe they do not imitate his Faith and Piety, ſhall not inherit the Promiſes made to him upon believing. They ſhall be caſt out of his ſpiritual Family, and be ſubject in a ſervil manner to the Covenant eſtabliſhed on Mount Sinai in Arabia; of which Hagar may the more fitly be ſaid to be an Emblem, becauſe her name ſignifies a Rock, and her Poſterity ſtill inhabit that Country. So that the Bondwoman Hagar, who was caſt out together with her Son, repreſented the ſtate of the earthly Jeruſalem, which is ſubject to ſlaviſh Rites and Ceremonies. But Sarah the Freewoman, of whom Iſaac was heretofore born beſide the courſe of Nature, in like manner as now Men are made Chriſtians by an extraordinary efficacy of the Divine Power, was an Image of the Evangelical Covenant, and the Jeruſalem which was to come, that is, the Chriſtian Church. As Sarah and Iſaac were Free, ſo alſo Chriſtians freely obey God, and are not tied to any ſervil [Page] Rites. As Iſaac only was Abraham's Heir,Chapter V. ſo none but Chriſtians ſhall obtain that heavenly Inheritance which Abraham by his Faith obtained.

If the Jews thought their reaſoning againſt the Arabians to be cogent, there was no reaſon why they ſhould reject the Chriſtian Allegory. And this I doubt not made St. Paul here uſe an allegorical way of reaſoning, which he otherwiſe would not have done.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 6. Note b. I. SEEING our Author has thought fit to put together in this place all he had to obſerve about the word [...], I ſhall examine all that he ſays; for there are ſome things in it which I cannot aſſent to. I grant the Verb [...] may, according to the Analogy of Grammar, be taken as well in a Paſſive as an Active ſenſe, as the matter requires; but I do not think it is ſo uſed in all the places here alledged. In Rom. vii.5. [...] ſignifies actively, and the whole paſſage is rightly rendred, the affections of Sins which were by the Law, wrought in our Members, not were conſummated or perfected in them; for [...] has never that ſignification, nor do the places alledged out of the Apoſtle James, and Clemens Alexandrinus prove it, as we ſhall preſently ſee. The ſecond place is 2 Cor. i.6. which may receive indeed a Paſſive ſignification, if we read [...], with the Vulgar Interpreter and other Copies. And the ſame may be ſaid of 2 Cor. iv.12. But in Epheſ. iii.20. and Col. 1.29. the Participle [...] muſt in all reaſon be underſtood actively, for the diſcourſe there is about the power of God which is not wrought but works. In 1 Theſſ. ii.13. [...] cannot be rendred obtains its end, by any who underſtand Greek, or conſider carefully what they ſay. But in 2 Theſſ. ii.7. it may well enough be interpreted in a Paſſive ſenſe. In this place [...] is beſt of all rendred working by Love, that is, which performs works of Love.

II. Tho St. James ſays that [...] Faith was made perfect by Works, it does not follow that [...] ſignifies all one with [...] made perfect; for why may not St. James ſay ſomething different from that which is ſaid by St. Paul? How did Dr. Hammond know that St. James performs the part of St. Paul's Interpreter? Beſides, granting theſe two Paſſages in both the Apoſtles to be parallel, it will not thence follow that exactly the ſame thing is ſaid in both; ſo that the Verb made uſe of by St. Paul, may grammatically be interpreted by [Page] that which is uſed by St. James. Chapter III. Nor will the Etymology or perpetual uſe of the word [...] ſuffer it to be rendred, made perfect.

III. The place referred to in Clemens Alexandrinus is in Strom. Lib. iv. Pag. 518, & 519. Ed. Pariſ. & Colon. but is not here pertinently alledged, as will appear by his words, which I ſhall therefore ſet down entire. He is ſpeaking in praiſe of Love, out of Clemens Romanus, and among other things ſays thus: [...]: in Love have all the Elect of God been made perfect. And a little after: [...]: thoſe who are perfected in Love, according to the Grace of God, obtain the place of Pious Men. And underneath he ſays: [...]: Love therefore makes us not to commit Adultery, and not to covet what is our Neighbours, which before we were reſtrained from by fear. So that there is a difference in the ſame action, as it is either done out of Fear, or wrought in Love; or as it is performed only out of Faith, or alſo from Knowledg. In this place [...] is no more than [...] done or wrought, as its ſynonimous words [...] & [...], and the thing it ſelf ſhew. So that it cannot hence be inferred that [...] is the ſame with to be conſummated or made perfect, in French être perfectionné. Beſides, [...] before, ſignifies another thing, where the Diſcourſe is about Perſons, not about Actions.

IV. In James v.16. [...] ſeems to ſignify an earneſt Prayer. Of the word [...], being taken in a good ſenſe, add to what the Doctor ſays, the obſervations of Budaeus and Henr. Stephanus, who have done the World a great deal of Service in the pains they have taken about the Greek Language.

V. The words of Heſychius are much worſe corrupted by our Author, than they are in the common Editions. If he had looked into Phavorinus, perhaps he would have underſtood how they were to be corrected. That Grammarian has out of Heſychius, [...]. But it muſt be read: [...], prepared to work, or working. [...], not vain, heard, perfected, or fulfilled, viz. [...], Prayers; Heſychius having a reſpect to the forementioned Paſſage in the Apoſtle James. So that it's true there was here a void ſpace, or Lacuna, but different from what Dr. Hammond thought. The Scribe, whoever he was, omitted the word [...] becauſe of the next following, which differs only [Page] from that, in having the Letter Α inſtead of Ο.Chapter V. Such Omiſſions are frequent in the Writings of the Antients, proceeding from the ſame Cauſe, as I have ſhewn in my Ars Critica, Part 3. Sect. i. Cap. 5. and it is needleſs to add any thing more about this particular corruption in Heſychius.

Verſ. 12. Note c. [...] ſignifying utinam, I wiſh, is always joined with an Infinitive, Optative or Subjunctive Mood or Preterperfect Tenſe, never with a Future, nor is the Particle [...] ever interpoſed. See Thomas Magiſter on that Particle. And therefore I ſhould underſtand [...] here as if it were [...], if not alſo read it ſo, to this ſenſe: They ought to have been cut off, and ſhall actually be cut off, when I come among you, that trouble you; and ſo it will be an Elliptical phraſe, for this entire one: [...]; Such another as that in theſe Verſes of Virgil in Catalectis, after the Verb debuit:

— quae maxima deterrendi

Debuit, audendi maxima cauſa fuit.

Where out of what follows we muſt ſupply, cauſa eſſe, as here [...]. Or elſe we muſt underſtand [...], Loſs or Puniſhment, which often uſe to be underſtood after the Verb [...]; whence it comes to paſs that [...] is taken ſimply for he was condemned, becauſe condemned Perſons ought to ſuffer Loſs or Puniſhment. As in Dionyſius Halicarnaſſaeus Lib. ix. Ant. Rom. pag. 585. ſpeaking of Menenius who was accuſed by the Tribunes of the People: [...]: the People giving Sentence by Tribes, by no ſmall number of Votes, he was condemned. It is all one which of theſe ways we interpret the word [...]. It might be confounded with [...], of which it is really made, by taking away the augment, unleſs it be thought rather to come from [...], which often ſignifies the ſame with [...]; or elſe the Tranſcribers might eaſily change [...] into [...]. St. Jerom's interpretation of this place, which Grotius follows, is intolerable, utinam abſcindatur, ipſum membrum genitale. Such an imprecation would have been fitter for a lewd Buffoon than for St. Paul. And Dr. Hammond's laſt conjecture leſſens the Apoſtle another way, becauſe it repreſents him as diffident of his Authority among the Galatians, notwithſtanding it was ſupported by ſo many Miracles; which cannot reaſonably be thought. Beſides, as I before ſaid, they are both contrary to the Rules of Grammar.

Verſ. 14. [...].] That is, all in the Law that relates to our Neighbour; againſt which part of it thoſe who offended their Neighbour [Page] by their Liberty in not obſerving the Law,Chapter VI. might ſin, tho not againſt God.

Verſ. 20. Note d. I. Tho Simon and Menander were Magicians, it does not follow that they are here referred to; for there might be other Impoſtors beſides them. Perhaps too [...] may here ſignify Sorceries or Witchcrafts, rather than Magical Arts properly ſo called.

II. The place in Euſebius, or rather in Irenaeus, was not ſufficiently underſtood by our Author, as appears by his making [...] to be the ſame with the [...], which are to be diſtinguiſhed. For Menander would have had it believed that he was [...]: ſent from ſome ſuperior place and inviſible Aeones for Mens Salvation, to overcome the [...].

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 1. Note a. OUR Author ſeems here to ſuppoſe that none were privileged with extraordinary Gifts, but the Officers or Governours of the Church, otherwiſe there is no reaſon why they ſhould be called Spiritual rather than others. For as to the Duty here ſpoken of by the Apoſtle, it may belong to any Chriſtian, who ought to endeavour by Admonition to reduce his wandring Brother into the right way, and that by a gentle way of Admonition, or in the Spirit of Meekneſs. See Rom. xv.1.

Verſ. 2. [...].] I don't believe that the Apoſtle here alludes to a Building, as Dr. Hammond thinks in his Paraphraſe, but to Men travelling together loaded, of which thoſe who have the lighteſt Burden, help ſuch as are overcharged, by taking from them part of their Load. By Burdens here are meant thoſe Difficulties and Temptations which beſet Chriſtians in this World, and endanger their falling into Sin. And ſo we are ſaid to bear one anothers Burdens, when we mutually aſſiſt each other in thoſe difficulties, to prevent our being ſurprized by them into Sin: See Mat. xx.12. where [...], ſignifies to have laboured all the day.

Verſ. 3. [...].] I do not ſee why this may not be meant of any proud conceited Perſons, who deſpiſe their Neighbour, and will not vouchſafe to aſſiſt him; that it ſhould be neceſſary to recur to the Gnoſticks, as our Author does in his Paraphraſe.

Verſ. 12. [...].] Grotius and Dr. Hammond would have St. Paul here to ſpeak of a Perſecution that was to be feared from the Jews, in which I cannot agree with them for the [Page] reaſons alledged at the end of the Premonition to this Epiſtle. All the danger was from the Romans, whom they needed not to fear if they declared themſelves to be circumciſed, becauſe the Jewiſh Religion was tolerated by the Romans; and for that reaſon thoſe here ſpoken of ſtrove to impoſe the Moſaical Yoke, which they themſelves bore, upon the uncircumciſed Gentiles, to ſave them, together with themſelves, from the Roman Perſecution.

Verſ. 13. [...].] Theſe words make it highly probable that the Perſons here ſpoken of were circumciſed; otherwiſe they would not agree to this place. For I cannot ſee with what face or proſpect any number of Men could attempt to force others to become circumciſed, if they themſelves had not received Circumciſion. It is very unlikely that the Heathen Magiſtrates and Jews would ſuffer themſelves to be ſo impoſed upon, as to take uncircumciſed Perſons for Jews; nor could their perſwaſions have any influence upon the Gentiles, if they did not obſerve themſelves what they exacted from others.

Ibid. [...].] That they may boaſt of their bringing you to ſubmit to Circumciſion, becauſe they are Jews, and ſo would be hugely pleaſed to ſee all the Gentiles ſubject to their Laws. The phraſe [...] is all one with [...], in fleſhly Circumciſion. I am not of our Author's Opinion, that the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of the Gnoſticks.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Epheſians.

[Page]

AT the end of the Praemon.] This Epiſtle is with more probability referred by Dr. Pearſon to the Year of Chriſt lxii. or the ninth of Nero. The ſame learned Man proves that what our Author mentions in this Premonition, about Timothy's being left at Epheſus, happened in the Year of Chriſt lxiv. Conſult himſel [...].

Inſtead of the ſingle Sect of the Gnoſticks, which our Author thinks St. Paul oppoſes in this Epiſtle, Grotius with much more reaſon ſuppoſes that the Apoſtle inveighs againſt the Heathens and Jews. For it is certain there were Jews and Heathen Philoſophers almoſt every where at that time, but it is not ſo clear that the followers of Simon were diſperſed in all places.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 4. Note a. WHAT is here ſaid by our learned Author is true, but the thing muſt be proved a little more Grammatically. To chooſe properly is out of many things propoſed to us to prefer one thing before the reſt, which we may make uſe of to a certain end, rather than any other. Upon which follows the execution of that preference, whereby we do what we had before purpoſed, and which is alſo ſometimes called chooſing. In this latter ſenſe God did not chooſe us before the foundation of the World; but in the former only, wherein he purpoſed to call thoſe Nations whom he afterwards called actually to the knowledg of the Goſpel, by Chriſt Jeſus. And ſo [...], is all one as if St. Paul had ſaid: before the World was made he preferred us before other People, as thoſe whom he intended by Chriſt and his Apoſtles (that being very fitly attributed to Chriſt, which is done by his Apoſtles in [Page] his Name) to call, &c. Chapter II. That [...] is the ſame with [...] appears by the Verſe following; and nothing is more common in theſe Books than that Hebraiſm of in for by. See Chap. ii.14, 15. and iii.6.

Hence the execution of that preference is ſometimes ſignified by the ſame word as the Decree it ſelf: As we may ſee by Clemens Romanus in Epiſt. i. to the Corinthians, chap. I. [...]: This bleſſedneſs came upon thoſe that were choſen by God through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. And the ſame Writer in Chap. lvii. ſaith: [...]: God the overſeer of all things, and ſoveraign of Spirits, and Lord of all Fleſh, who has choſen Jeſus Chriſt, and us by him, for a peculiar People.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 3. [...].] I cannot ſee why Dr. Hammond choſe rather here to follow other Interpreters than Grotius, who with good reaſon thought that St. Paul in this place ſpeaks of the Jews; eſpecially ſeeing he himſelf thought that the ſame word ought to be ſo taken in Chap. i.11. of this Epiſtle, as appears by his Paraphraſe. For St. Paul did not write this Epiſtle in the name of the Church of Rome; ſo that when he ſays [...], he ſhould be underſtood to ſpeak of the Chriſtians who dwelt in that City. And beſides, nothing could be ſaid more flat in the name of the Roman Gentiles than, among whom alſo we all had our Converſation, &c. ſeeing every body knew that the Romans had lived in the ſame Vices with other Heathens, yea had been worſe it may be than their Neighbours, as the Inhabitants of great Cities are generally moſt devoted to the Vices of the Age. But that might very fitly be ſaid of the Jews, whom St. Paul would otherwiſe have ſeemed to diſtinguiſh from other Nations, as to the courſe of their Lives; in which as he would not have declared the truth, ſo he might have offended the Gentiles. And for this reaſon he ſays here, we all, that is, Jews as well as Gentiles.

Ibid. [...].] The meaning of this expreſſion I have ſhewn at large in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. i. cap. 7. to be no more than this; that the Jews were a People of as wicked Diſpoſitions, and deſerved as much the Wrath of God as other Nations.

Verſ. 10. [...].] I have ſet down the whole [Page] Verſe to ſhew that the ſenſe of the laſt words is different from what is vulgarly thought. They render [...], by quae praeparavit, which he hath prepared, and I do not deny but that according to the Greek Conſtruction it may be ſo rendred; but the thing it ſelf, and the Phraſe, ought to have admoniſhed Interpreters that [...] was rather to be underſtood, and that it ſhould be rendred for which he hath prepared us or made us fit. The foregoing words, in which Chriſtians are called God's workmanſhip, and ſaid to be created by Chriſt, ſhew that St. Paul ſpeaks of a change made in Men, who of bad and indiſpoſed to good Works, were made good and fit for the exerciſe of Chriſtian Vertues. And therefore the Verb [...] ſhould have been referred to them. It's certain [...], is the ſame with [...].

There can ſcarce be a harſher Phraſe, and more deſtitute of examples than this, to prepare good Works that Men might walk in them. But Men themſelves are frequently ſaid [...] & [...]. So in Rom. ix.23. where St. Paul ſpeaks of a like matter, God is ſaid to make known the riches of his Glory on the veſſels of Mercy, which he had before prepared, [...], to Glory; whom he alſo hath called, not only us of the Jews, but alſo of the Gentiles. God is here ſaid [...] to have prepared us to good Works, becauſe the knowledg and belief of the Goſpel has that influence upon us as to fit us for the performance of vertuous Actions. So in the Book of the Son of Sirach Chap. ii.1. all that intend to ſerve God are exhorted [...] to prepare their Souls for Temptation. See verſ. 18. of the ſame Chapter, and Chap. xvii.25.

Verſ. 14. Note a. The place in Eccleſiaſticus is nothing to this buſineſs, which perhaps our Author did not look into, in the Book it ſelf, becauſe he quotes it wrong out of Chap. xix.29. whereas it is in Chap. xxix.30. and [...] ſignifies an honorable Man, and the diſcourſe there is about another thing. Nor was the ſtranger commanded to go out of the Sanctuary of Iſrael, but forbidden to enter into it.

Verſ. 15. [...]] Here our Author tells us in the Margin that the Kings Manuſcript reads [...], which he renders together; but to expreſs that, St. Paul ſhould have ſaid [...].

Verſ. 19. Note b. It is truly obſerved by Dr. Hammond that [...] here refers to the Jews, but there was no neceſſity of recurring to Procopius for the reaſon of their being ſo called. The Jews are ſtiled [...] Saints, becauſe they were conſecrated to the true God, and not becauſe their Forefathers were holy in their Lives. See Exod. xix.6. and my Notes on that place.

CHAP. III.Chapter III.

[Page]

Verſ. 5. [...], &c.] The ſame thing which is here ſaid in other Ages not to have been made known to the Sons of Men, is ſaid in verſ. 10. to have been unknown alſo to Angels. Which being ſo, I confeſs I do not well underſtand how thoſe who are neither Prophets nor Angels, can find out ſo many places in the Prophets, in which the calling of the Gentiles is manifeſtly and directly foretold. For certainly if it was of old revealed to the Prophets, they underſtood it; for that which is not underſtood cannot be thought revealed. And if it could have been gathered from the literal ſenſe of any Prophecies, the Angels might have underſtood it by thoſe Prophecies. But the event, you will ſay, which is the beſt Interpreter of Prophecies, has unfolded the ſenſe of them. But I demand whether ſuch an event can be eaſily ſuppoſed to be reſpected in Prophecies, which are ſo obſcure, that neither Men nor Angels could before underſtand them to contain any ſuch ſenſe? If that can be ſuppoſed, I do not ſee what event may not be found in them. But, you will ſay again, the Apoſtles, and ſo the Angels, came to know that they had a reſpect to ſuch an event by divine Revelation. But, as I ſaid before, that cannot be called a Revelation which no body underſtands, and therefore it was of no uſe to the Prophets: See what has been alledged out of the learned H. Dodwell on Mat. ii.2. From hence all that I here infer is, that we ought not preſently to condemn thoſe who look for other events, which happen'd before Chriſt in the antient Prophecies, of which number the great Grotius muſt be reckon'd the chief: otherwiſe this matter would deſerve to be more exactly diſcuſſed.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 8. [...].Chapter IV.] It is a conjecture of a Friend of mine, that by Captivity here is meant the dead bodies of Saints, which were held captive by Death, but were raiſed with Chriſt at his Reſurrection, and aſcended with him into Heaven, Mat. xxvii. And accordingly he thought that St. Paul ſays, Chriſt deſcended into the lower parts of the Earth, becauſe he deſcended into the Grave, that he might bring them out from thence. And there is nothing in the thing it ſelf, nor in the words repugnant to this Interpretation.

[Page]Ibid. Note a. I. Marcus Aurelius gave nothing to the common People of Rome in the time of Triumph, nor any thing of his own accord. The ſtory is thus related by Xiphilinus out of Dio: [...]: As he was making a ſpeech to the People, and ſaying among other things that he had been abroad many Years, they cryed out, Eight; and this they ſignified alſo with their Hands, that they might receive ſo many pieces of Gold. Ʋpon which he ſmiled, and ſaid himſelf alſo Eight; and afterwards diſtributed among them two hundred Drachms. It had been better therefore to have inſtanced in ſome other Triumph, which might eaſily have been done: See what is ſaid by Suetonius about the Gifts of Julius Caeſar upon that occaſion, in Chap. xxxviii. of his Life.

II. What our Author ſays here about the ſignification of the Verb [...], he owes to Mr. Pocock; whoſe conjecture that is, in Porta Moſis Cap. ii. But when that Verb ſignifies to give, there follows a Dative caſe, becauſe to receive for any one is to receive that we may give it to him: See Exod. xviii.12. and xxv.2. But the Hebrew here has [...] in Man; which has made learned Men conjecture, and not without reaſon, that St. Paul read [...] laadam, to Man.

Verſ. 14. Note c. Seeing [...] properly ſignifies a ſquare Body, and ſecondarily a Dye becauſe of its figure; and ſeeing Impoſtours made uſe of Dice or Lots for divination, the word [...] here would not be ill rendred ſortilegium, a Lottery or divination by Lots. And this is what was meant by Irenaeus, in the place alledged by the Doctor; for [...] is magical divination by Lots, not deceitful Artifices, ſuch as are uſed by Conjurers. And tho the word [...] here follows, it is not therefore conſequent that [...] ſignifies the ſame with that, but only that they were often joined together. Conjectures about the meaning of words which are grounded neither upon their Etymology, nor their proper ſignification, nor uſe, are not to be much regarded, nothing being more uncertain.

Verſ. 16. Note e. I confeſs the Apoſtles words in this place are ſomewhat dark and intricate, but yet they did not need ſuch a laborious explication as this, whereby tho the ſubſtance of the matter be made clearer, yet the particulars are more obſcured. The Doctor, who never minded propriety of words in his Stile, or knew what it was to carry on one deſign with the ſame ſimple thred of Diſcourſe, confounds here every thing with his forced and perplexed reaſonings, and has no regard at all to the uſe of words.

[Page]I. His firſt queſtion is altogether unneceſſary and impertinent in this place, for St. Paul ſays nothing here about the Heart; nor is there any Metaphor taken from the Heart in his words. So that in explaining this Verſe there can be no room for any enquiry about the Heart: tho the Heart be as it were the workhouſe of the Blood, in which the vital Moiſture is temper'd, and whence it is ſpread by a reciprocal flowing through the whole Body, St. Paul has no reference at all to that, but to the effluvia of the Brain, from which proceed Spirits, that help the motion of the Blood, and moiſten the whole Body; and ſo the Body, which would otherwiſe wither and decay, is made to encreaſe.

II. The words [...], muſt not be joined with thoſe immediately going before, but with the Verb [...], ſo as to ſignify thoſe Conduits or Paſſages by which the Body receives Spirits from the Brain, thus: from which (Head) the whole Body being fitly compacted and joined together, according to the working or efficacy of the Head in proportion to every part, maketh encreaſe of the Body, i. e. is encreaſed by receiving Spirits from the Brain, through the joints of ſupply, or by which the Spirits are conveyed for the ſupply of the whole Body. It's certain the Body cannot be ſaid to be [...] with Nerves, Arteries, and Veins; but rather with Muſcles, Tendons, and Bones. But St. Paul ſays nothing of theſe, but only that the Body being fitly compacted and joined together, receiveth effluvia from its Head, by Conduits belonging to the whole Body; which therefore it would not receive if the Members were put out of Joint, or divided from one another, becauſe thoſe effluvia paſs through the Joints or Ligaments of the Body. So that [...] are the Joints and Ligatures of the Members properly ſo called, through which the Nerves paſs, which convey the Spirits proceeding from the Brain to all the parts of the Body.

III. The place in the Coloſſians is wreſted by our Author while he ſuppoſes it to be clear and undoubted that St. Paul has a reſpect there to Veins and Arteries, of which perhaps he had not the leaſt thought. He ſpeaks thus, after making mention of the Head: from which all the Body, [...], increaſes with the increaſe of God. Where by [...] the Apoſtle means the Joints and Ligaments of the Body, that is, the Muſcles; Tendons and Griſtles, which are in thoſe places where the Members are joined together, to perform as it were two Offices; firſt, to receive the Conduits whereby the effluvia which proceed out of the Brain deſcend into the Body: ſecondly, to cement or knit together all the Members with one another. So that the Apoſtles meaning is this: From which [Page] Head the whole Body receives a divine Increaſe, by the Joints and Ligaments whereby thoſe Spirits are ſupplied, and by which the Members are joined together as by ſo many ſtrong Bands. This ſeems to me to be clear, eſpecially ſeeing every one knows that no Arteries deſcend from the Brain, but only Veins, by which the Blood is carried back to the Heart and Nerves, which are diſperſed through the whole Body.

IV. I cannot tell what made our Author think that the Genitive [...] was in the place of [...], the only ſignification of that being, that the Joints are the ways by which the [...] is made: as the Joints of Tubes which receive Water flowing into them out of ſome large Fountain, and convey it whereſoever they are directed, are the Joints of the [...] of that Water.

V. [...] muſt not be referred to the Conduits, through which the effluvia that proceed out of the Head do paſs, which Conduits [...] operate nothing, but to the Head it ſelf, from which, to uſe the words of Virgil with a little alteration,

— infuſa per artus

Vis agitat molem, & toto ſe corpore miſcet.

So St. Paul, who was none of the extreme Members in the Body or Church of Chriſt, ſays that he laboured, ſtriving according to his working, [...], which he worked in him, in Coloſſ. i.29. See alſo Chap. i.19. and iii.7. of this Epiſtle.

VI. [...], is a noted Hebraiſm, in which [...] is repeated for [...], as Grotius obſerves. What is ſaid by our Author is taken from the uſe of the Rabbins.

Verſ. 19. Note f. I. Who this Pauſanias is I cannot tell, but perhaps Dr. Hammond wrote Phavorinus, whom he often cites, and who has, [...], & [...]. To which places our Author refers, which Suidas alſo has out of Thucydides and Polybius.

II. But whereſoever Dr. Hammond had this, it is certainly falſe, for [...] never ſignifies algere in Latin, to be cold, nor [...] algor cold, tho they reſemble one another in ſound. [...] is to loſe ones feeling, to be no longer ſenſible of any Pain, whatever be the cauſe of it. I confeſs it proceeds ſometimes from extremity of Cold, when the parts of the Body being congealed with the ſharpneſs of Air or the like, ceaſe to feel any Pain; but [...] does not therefore ſignify to ceaſe to feel cold, but any ſort of Pain. So in Heſychius: [...][Page] [...], thoſe that will no longer work, that are become inſenſible, that are tired. [...], inſenſible, one that is paſt pain. Beſides, [...] always has a Paſſive ſignification, and never an Active. The thing is manifeſt and needs no proof, yet this is not the firſt time of our Author's miſtaking the ſenſe of this word. See Note on Rom. i.29.

Verſ. 26. Note h. I. I confeſs I do not ſee any alluſion in the words of the Apoſtle to thoſe three kinds of angry Perſons mention'd here by our Author out of Ariſtotle. He teaches us that all exceſſive Anger is to be avoided, but he does not ſeem to refer to the diſtinction made by that Philoſopher between the ſeveral degrees of Anger; at leaſt there is no ſign of it in his words. Beſides, why did not the Doctor ſay that St. Paul had a reſpect to four ſorts of angry Perſons, ſeeing ſo many ſorts are reckon'd up by Ariſtotle, viz. [...]? The reaſon of that, I ſuppoſe, was becauſe he did not look into Ariſtotle himſelf, but cited his words upon truſt; for what he alledges out of him is not in either of thoſe places which he refers to, but in Lib. 4. Cap. 11. If we reaſon out of Ariſtotle, St. Paul here will not condemn the [...], that is, thoſe who tho they are ſoon angry, ſoon forgive, but the exceſſive anger of other Perſons.

II. The place referred to in the Pſalms is in Pſal. iv.4. not in ii.4. but our Author could not infer any thing from thence, becauſe the Hebrew word [...] rigzou, ought rather to be rendred fear, tho the Septuagint, whom St. Paul follows out of Cuſtom, tranſlate it otherwiſe.

III. The Paſſage alledged out of Plutarch is much more pertinent than that out of Ariſtotle. And it is pag. 488. Ed. Wechelianae.

Verſ. 30. Note k. I. By the Holy Spirit, here ſeems to be meant the Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt conferred by God on the Epheſians, whereby they were enabled to work Miracles; for by them they were ſealed, as ſufficiently appears from what is ſaid by Dr. Hammond. But becauſe thoſe Gifts were beſtowed on the Epheſians by a Perſon, therefore they are forbidden here to grieve them, that is, to do any thing which might diſpleaſe the Perſon from whom thoſe Gifts came, or provoke him to withdraw them. But St. Paul ſeems principally to refer to the Gift of Prophecy, which lewd Diſcourſe corrupted and renderd uſeleſs. For it appears by other places, that thoſe who had received that Gift were obliged to preſerve it by care and holineſs of Life, which if they neglected to do, it was taken away from them. See 1 Tim. iv.14.

[Page]II. Our Author confounds things which ought to be diſtinguiſhed; for Chriſt is not ſaid to have been ſealed by the Father, juſt in the ſame ſenſe as the Epheſians and others, who had received the Gifts of the Spirit. God is ſaid to have ſealed Chriſt by way of Alluſion, not to any ordinary Servants, but to the Ambaſſadors of Kings; who are then firſt believed when they produce their Maſters Letters marked with their Seal. Labour not, ſaith Chriſt in John vi.27. for the Meat which periſheth, but for that Meat which endureth unto everlaſting Life, which the Son of Man ſhall give unto you; for him hath God the Father ſealed, [...] that is, hath ſent with Power and Inſtructions, as you may ſee by his Miracles, which are as the Seal of God, for which ye ought to believe me. But the Epheſians are ſaid to be ſealed to the day of Redemption, by a Metaphor taken from Merchandizes or Slaves, which the buyer did not take away with him as ſoon as he had bought them. See my Note on 2 Cor. i.22.

III. I cannot ſee to what purpoſe our Author, tho it is but by the way, ſets down the Etymology of the word ſervi from ſervando, when he is explaining an Author who wrote in Greek, and could not have any reſpect to that Latin word.

IV. Our Author's interpretation of the words, to grieve the Holy Spirit, and to the day of Redemption, is perfectly forced. The meaning of the Apoſtle is this: ‘Ye that have received Gifts from the Holy Spirit, do not either by neglecting them or deſpiſing them grieve him, and provoke him to take away from you thoſe things which he has given you, to diſtinguiſh you from other Men even in this World; till that day comes, in which in the view of Men and Angels, he will diſtinguiſh you from all the reſt of Adam's Poſterity.’ See my Note on Rom. viii.21.

Verſ. 31. [...].] By theſe words Dr. Hammond might have diſcerned that St. Paul had no reference, when he wrote this, to Ariſtotle's diſtinction between the ſeveral degrees of Anger, becauſe he does not reduce them to the Order and Notions of that Philoſopher: Which it may not be unuſeful to ſhew briefly, out of Ariſtotle himſelf, by alledging his words. For by this alone it will appear that Interpreters ought to omit all unneceſſary Niceties, in explaining the rude or idiotick Stile (as St. Paul himſelf calls it) of this Holy Apoſtle. That Philoſopher therefore in Mar. Lib. 4. c. ii. ſetting down the ſeveral degrees of Anger, and proceeding from thoſe who are leaſt vitious in that kind, to thoſe who are tainted with the higheſt degree of this Vice, defines [...] to be ſo called [...] [Page] [...]:Chapter V. They that are called [...] are ſuch as are ſoon angry, and with thoſe that they ought not, and for thoſe things which they ought not, and more than they ought. But their Anger is ſoon over, and this is their beſt property. And a little after he ſays: [...]: The [...] are thoſe that are beyond meaſure fierce and angry at every thing, and for every thing, which is the reaſon of their being ſo called. After which he proceeds to the third ſort, and ſaith: [...]: But the [...] are (thoſe that) are hardly reconciled and are angry a great while; for they keep in their Anger, and it ceaſes when they have revenged themſelves. For revenge extinguiſhes anger, by cauſing Pleaſure where before was Grief. But when this is not done they are preſſed with (an inward) weight; for becauſe they do not manifeſt their Anger, no one endeavours to appeaſe them. And for a Man to digeſt his Anger within himſelf, requires time. Now ſuch Men as theſe, as they are a great torment to themſelves, ſo they are moſt of all to their Friends. Laſtly, thoſe who are vitious in the higheſt degree in this kind, he deſcribes thus: [...]: We call thoſe [...] who are angry both for thoſe things which they ought not, and more and longer than they ought, and are never appeaſed without Revenge or Puniſhment. By theſe deſcriptions it ſufficiently appears that St. Paul did not take the ſeveral words whereby he deſcribes Anger in this place, from the uſe of Philoſophers, or diſpoſe them in the ſame order; nor is that his Cuſtom, but to take moſtly what he ſays from vulgar uſe, and diſpoſe it without any Philoſophical or Rhetorical Artifice.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 2. Note a. I. [...] and [...] may, I confeſs, be diſtinguiſhed as Dr. Hammond would have them, but they are very often confounded; and [...] particularly frequently ſignifies all kind of Oblations, in Hebrew [...] Korhan, or whatever is laid upon the Altar, as Kircher's Concordances will inform thoſe who are ignorant. In this place they ſeem to ſignify the ſame thing, becauſe the ſcope of the Apoſtle does not oblige us to diſtinguiſh them.

[Page]II. Our Author's reaſoning to this purpoſe from Heb. x.5, 6. has no validity in it: for it is not neceſſary that theſe two words occurring in verſ. 6. ſhould be perfectly ſynonimous or anſwerable to thoſe two others in ver. 5. Wherefore, ſaith that divine Writer, when he cometh into the World, he ſaith, [...], Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldſt not, but a Body haſt thou ſitted me, in [...], whole Burnt-offerings, and for Sin thou haſt had no pleaſure. If according to Dr. Hammond [...]s reaſoning, a whole Burnt-offering, [...], and a Sacrifice [...] be exactly the ſame, an offering [...] and a ſacrifice for Sin [...] will be literally the ſame alſo, which yet he would not allow. But the words of the ſacred Writers muſt not be reduced to the rules of Rhetoricians.

Verſ. 3. [...].] Our Author in his Note on Rom. i.29. endeavours all he can to prove that this word ſignifies a deſire, not of Riches, but of Pleaſures; tho with what ſucceſs I leave the Reader to judg, by what I have written on that Annotation. This is the chief place that gives any countenance to his conjecture. And indeed there are two ſpecious reaſons which, as to this Paſſage of St. Paul, may be alledged on his behalf.

I. It is ſaid [...], Ʋncleanneſs OR Covetouſneſs, and the Particle [...] or ſeems to join together words of the ſame ſignification. In anſwer to which I acknowledg that that is very frequently the uſe of the Particle [...] or; but it is very often alſo a Disjunctive, and connects together words of a different ſenſe. And when a Negation follows or goes before, it is equivalent to nor, as in this place; for it is all one as if St. Paul had ſaid: "Let neither Fornication, nor any "Uncleanneſs, nor Covetouſneſs be named amongſt you.

II. It may be ſaid that the words not be named among you, contain a prohibition which agrees better to Luſts, whereof the very names are obſcene, than to Covetouſneſs, or the Sins which proceed from that Vice. Which I do not deny; nay, I think St. Paul ſpake thus, merely becauſe he had before made mention of Fornication and Ʋncleanneſs, to which that prohibition ſeems properly to belong. But it cannot hence be inferred, that [...] ſignifies a vice of the ſame kind with thoſe beforemention'd, contrary to the etymology and perpetual uſe of the word; for it is very common for one Verb to be ſubjoined or prefixed to many Nouns, with all which it does not equally well agree. See my Index to the Pentateuch, on the word Verbum.

Verſ. 4. Note b. All that our Author here ſays is very much to the purpoſe; to which add, that Men of debauched Lives uſe to call their Vices by ſoft and gentle names. Far which reaſon [...] & [...] [Page] might properly ſignify, in common uſe, not only light and raſh, but even obſcene and filthy Diſcourſes, ſuch as the Jeſts which we every where meet with, eſpecially in antient Comedies. This Plutarch has obſerved with relation to the Athenians, in the Life of Solon, p. 86. [...], ſaith he, [...]: For what is ſaid of late, that the Athenians, covering odious things with mild and pleaſing Titles, to avoid giving offence, call Strumpets Companions, Taxing Regiſtring, Gariſons Safeguards of Cities, and a Priſon a Houſe; that ſeems to have been firſt the device of Solon, who called the forgiving of Debts an Acquittance. Other examples to the ſame purpoſe may be had out of Helladius Beſantinous in Chreſtomathiis. We may eaſily conceive how ſuch ſort of Men might call their obſcene and filthy Diſcourſes by the names of [...] & [...].

Ibid. Note c. This latter Interpretation would very well agree to this place, if it were certain that [...] was ever taken in the ſame ſenſe with [...], which ſignifies elegancy of Speech, as well as of other things. The paſſage cited out of Prov. xi. does not at all belong to this matter, the Diſcourſe there being about a beautiful, not a pious Woman.

Verſ. 14. [...].] Viz. [...] the Scripture, the Apoſtle here referring to the place in Iſaiah alledged by our Author in his Paraphraſe, tho rather expreſſing its ſenſe than citing the Prophet's own words. Barnabas in Epiſt. Catholica, particularly in cap. v. often uſes the ſame term in citing the Scriptures words: Scriptum eſt enim, ſaith he, de illo, quaedam ad populum Judaeorum, quaedam ad nos. DICIT autem ſic: Vulneratus eſt propter iniquitates noſtras, &c. Supergratulari enim debemus Domino, quia & praeterita nobis oſtendit & ſapientes fecit, & de futuris ut non ſimus ſine intellectu. DICIT autem: Non injuſte tenduntur retia avibus. For it is written of him, ſome things (relate) to the People of the Jews, and ſome to us. And he SAITH thus: He was wounded for our Tranſgreſſions, &c. For we ought to be exceeding thankful to the Lord, becauſe he hath both ſhewed us paſt things, and (ſo) made us wiſe, and (inſtructed) us alſo in the knowledg of things Future, that we might not be without underſtanding (as to them.) And he SAITH: Not without cauſe are Nets ſpread for Birds. A great many more examples to the ſame purpoſe might be alledged out of that Epiſtle.

Verſ. 16. Note e. It being manifeſt from the place cited out of Daniel in the beginning of this Annotation, that the phraſe to redeem [Page]the time, ſignifies to delay, or put off as long as poſſible; that only Notion of it ſhould have been kept to; and not things of an Affinity with it, or very diſtant from it mixed together, as they are here by our Author, that he might have an occaſion to obtrude his Gnoſticks upon us: See Grotius on this place. St. Paul here adviſes the Epheſians to endeavour by all lawful means to get time allowed them by the Heathens, and to take heed leſt by their raſh fervour they ſhould bring Perſecution upon themſelves, eſpecially in an evil and troubleſom time, ſuch as that was wherein he wrote this Epiſtle; which was towards the end of Nero's reign, or thoſe black and diſmal days in which that monſter of a Man outdid all that ever went before him in Wickedneſs and Villany. The reaſon of the Apoſtle's Admonition is this, that there was a time coming wherein the Truth might be defended with leſs danger. And the nature of Truth is ſuch, that if it have but time allowed it, and is not preſently extinguiſhed, tho it lie cover'd as it were under Aſhes for a while, yet afterwards in a fitter time it ſhines out, and makes an univerſal day. So that thoſe who defend it, ought never, as long as they can avoid it, to run all adventures, or undergo the laſt hazard, that it may either triumph inſtantly over Falſhood, or elſe unavoidably be oppreſſed for ever.

Now I am apt to think that this phraſe had its riſe from the cuſtom of Debters, who when paiment is demanded of them, and they cannot reſtore the whole ſum or principal due, obtain a longer time to diſcharge their Debt in, either by a preſent Fee, or by advancing the uſe of the Mony lent them. For this is truly to redeem time; whence it afterwards came to paſs, that becauſe the ſolution of a Debt is thus deferred, therefore to defer or delay is ſometimes called to redeem the time. Parallel to this is the Latin phraſe moram acquirere, which occurs in Cicero pro Caecina cap. ii. or Num. 6. where the Delegates, who had, after twice hearing the Cauſe, deferred to paſs Sentence, are ſaid moram ad condemnandum acquiſiviſſe, and alſo to have given the Defendant a ſpace wherein to recollect himſelf.

Verſ. 18. Note f. There was no need here of the Bacchanals or Gnoſticks, becauſe there were Heathens enough in Aſia that loved Wine, and whenever they had an opportunity drank to exceſs, and indulged themſelves in other Luſts; whoſe example might have had a bad influence upon the Chriſtians, if they did not take great heed to themſelves.

Verſ. 19. Note g. Our Author has ſhewn indeed here, that Songs are called by three ſeveral names; but that thoſe were ſo many different kinds no one can prove, becauſe they are often confounded, as [Page] appears by the titles of the Pſalms. The Greek words might alſo be referred to ſeveral ſorts of Songs, if the moſt frequent uſe of them be reſpected, but thoſe alſo are often put one for another. So that I ſhould rather ſay that St. Paul here does but expreſs the ſame thing in three different words.

Verſ. 21. [...].] That is, ſo complying with each other, as yet to do nothing which may diſpleaſe God to gratify any one whatſoever. That this is here the ſignification of the Verb [...] may appear by the word [...], which ſhews that it is a mutual ſubjection, that is, compliance, which is here ſpoken of. So the Noun [...] muſt be underſtood in Gal. ii.5. where St. Paul ſpeaking of falſe Brethren ſaith: To whom we did not ſo much as for an hour give place, [...], by compliance. Yet Grotius to explain the word [...] here ſaith thus: nempe ſecundum ordinem naturalem, civilem, eccleſiaſticum, quae omnia nobis ſervanda, propter Chriſtum: viz. according to order, whether natural, civil, or eccleſiaſtical, which muſt all be kept for Chriſt's ſake. And this Dr. Hammond follows in his Paraphraſe. But to ſignify that, it ſhould have been ſaid: [...], or [...], or ſomething to that purpoſe, and not [...], which ſhews that it is a mutual Duty here intended.

Verſ. 30. Note h. Our Author here compares together things that have no agreement with one another, for to be of Chriſt's Fleſh and Blood, is not to be Chriſt himſelf, as that which is called the Heaven and Earth is the very Univerſe, but to be very intimately joined to Chriſt, in like manner as Kinſmen by Blood, and Man and Wife are to one another. See Grotius on this place, and my Notes on Gen. ii.34.

Verſ. 31. [...].] This is not a Precept wherein Matrimony is commanded, or its Laws enforced; but an obſervation of a Cuſtom begun ever ſince Adam, and propagated to all Mankind. See my Note on Gen. ii.24.

Verſ. 32. [...].] I. From verſ. 23. of this Chapter St. Paul compares the love which does or ought to intercede between Man and Wife, with the love of Chriſt and the Church; for which reaſon he mixes Precepts belonging to married Perſons, with Precepts which relate to the love of the Church towards Chriſt. And therefore he ſubjoins verſ. 31. in which the union of the Husband with the Wife is deſcribed, immediately and without any tranſition after the foregoing words, whereby he had deſcribed the union of the Church with Chriſt; not becauſe they belong to the ſame Argument, but becauſe he ſo mixes the thing compared, with the thing to which it is compared. If he had intended to make a perfect Compariſon, he [Page] would firſt have ſet down that which relates to Chriſt and the Church [...], and afterwards deſcribed the conjunction of Man and Wife [...]; but he makes uſe of an imperfect compariſon, in which the [...] is hardly diſtinguiſhed from the [...]. His meaning may be expreſſed in this Paraphraſe. ‘Verſ. 30. For between us and Chriſt there intercedes ſo near a conjunction, that we may be called his Fleſh and Bones, as it is ſaid of a Woman with relation to her Husband. So that as Chriſt loves his Church, as if it were his Wife and ſo his own Body; 31, 32. ſo Husbands having left their Fathers Houſe for the ſake of their Wives, and become as it were one Fleſh with them, ſhould look upon it as their Duty to love their Wives as themſelves.’ If we carefully read St. Paul's words, and conſider the ſcope of his Diſcourſe, we ſhall not doubt but this is his meaning. For the Apoſtle's deſign here, at leaſt primarily and profeſſedly, is not to teach any thing concerning Chriſt; but from the noted example of Chriſt to ſhew what conjunction and intimacy of Affection there ought to be between Man and Wife. So that what he ſays of Chriſt, is ſaid but by the way, and aſſumed as ſufficiently known.

II. This being ſuppoſed, it will be eaſy to perceive that the 32d verſe is a Parentheſis inſerted between words belonging to the ſame thing, but which make nothing to the ſeries of the Diſcourſe. And by this Parentheſis the intention of the Apoſtle is only to ſhew, that what he had ſaid about that intimate union of Chriſt with his Church for which he ſuffer'd Death, was hitherto unknown to Mankind. This he calls [...], as in 1 Tim. iii.16. and ſo theſe words are referred, not to the myſtical ſenſe of the place in Geneſis, but to the thing it ſelf; that is, to the love of Chriſt to his Church, which was ſo great that he did not refuſe to die for its ſake. Away therefore with that myſtical ſenſe, which is without reaſon ſought for in the words of Moſes, as by the ſuggeſtion here of the Apoſtle.

III. But what ſhall we ſay then to thoſe Jews, whom our Author cites in his Paraphraſe, as knowing that great Myſtery from the ſecret ſenſe of the words of Moſes? To ſpeak what I think, they are either the words of ſome Impoſtor acting the part of a Jew, or miſconſtrued to a wrong ſenſe. Our Author took this Teſtimony from H. Grotius, who on this place ſaith: Sic & Hebraei aiunt mulierem de latere viri deſumtam, ad ſignificandum conjugium viri ſupremi, benedicti: So the Jews alſo ſay that the Woman was taken out of the ſide of the Man, to ſignify the marriage of the higheſt, bleſſed Man. But where are thoſe Jews who ſay this? Do they with one conſent ſpeak thus in any publick form? Or is it ſome Rabbin who propoſes his own Conjecture, or [Page] the Tradition of the Antients? Such Citations as theſe, in a matter of no ſmall moment, or not univerſally known, ſhould be avoided by learned Men; ſeeing they cannot be relied on, unleſs it be ſuppoſed that a vain uncertain report may be ſo. But I know, if I am not miſtaken, whence Grotius took this obſervation; to wit from Camero, who himſelf had it from Sebaſt. Munſter, the firſt Author of it, in his Annotations on Gen. ii.24 Hebraei magiſtri, ſaith he, docent id quod Paulus docuit, &c. The Jewiſh Rabbins teach the ſame thing which is taught by St. Paul, that a Man ſhould love his Wife as his own Body, and honour her more than his own Body, becauſe of that ſignification and Myſtery. [...]. Of which Myſtery St. Paul alſo makes mention, who teaches that we are eſpouſed to Chriſt. He did not render the Hebrew words, which ſeem to be corrupt; but they are rendred by Camero, after promiſing that he took them from Munſter, thus: ad ſignificandum conjugium viri ſuperni, qui benedictus eſt; to ſignify the marriage of the Man on High, who is bleſſed. And ſo they are rendred by Grotius. But [...] is not vir, but Homo; beſides what is the meaning of [...]? Should it be read [...] to thee? What can be the ſenſe of theſe words, the moſt high Adam ſhall be bleſſed? In fine, both M [...]nſter ought to have more exactly cited his Witneſſes, and others been more cautions in believing him. For who will not prove any thing from the Jews or others, if ſuch Teſtimonies as theſe be admitted? I know this was the cuſtom of the Philologers of the laſt Age; but it was certainly a very bad one, and juſtly cenſured by the more exquiſite Wits of ours. I am apt to think it proceeded either from want of Judgment, or unfaithfulneſs, in their not being ſenſible with what caution and tenderneſs Teſtimonies ought to be handled, from which any Conſectary is to be deduced, or being unwilling to have their Citations examined. Both which a Man that aims at Accuracy and purſues Truth, ſhould be very far from; for he that would neither be deceived himſelf, nor deceive others, cannot deſire to have what he affirms believed raſhly and without examination.

IV. A vaſt inconvenience ariſes from the cuſtom of writing out other Mens Citations, unleſs we look into the Authors themſelves from whence they are taken; becauſe ſomething may eaſily be added, whilſt the ſenſe is rather expreſſed than the words. The Hebrew words alledged by Munſter can hardly be underſtood, and he dared not tranſlate them. Camero has rendred them, and added of his own, that the Jews confeſs the creation of a Woman out of the rib of the Man, was to ſignify, &c. when Munſter ſays nothing of that, but only what [Page] I have produced out of him.Chapter VI. Grotius followed Camero, and neither added nor changed any thing, but Dr. Hammond has changed the higheſt Man, who is bleſſed, into the moſt High, God bleſſed for ever. Perhaps there will come ſome body afterwards, and add to theſe words, that which our Author ſubjoins out of St. Chryſoſtom, as taken out of ſome Rabbin; from whence he will infer that all the myſteries of the Chriſtian Religion were very well known to the antient Jews. As common Fame is magnified the further it goes, ſo Teſtimonies not looked into in the Authors themſelves, are many times enlarged, as they are deliver'd from hand to hand.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 1. [...].] Our Author here in his Paraphraſe adds to Children, Subjects, and to Parents, Princes; in which he ſeems to have committed a double fault. Firſt, in ſuppoſing that the word Children here comprehends under it Subjects, and the word Parents, in the Decalogue, Magiſtrates; which appears by no example, nor any reaſon. I do not deny indeed but that according to the moſt ſacred Laws of human Society, and conſequently of God himſelf, People ought to obey Magiſtrates, as long as they command nothing which is contrary to true Devotion, Society, or good Manners. That Obedience being as neceſſary and natural a Duty as for Children to obey their Parents; becauſe without it Society, for which we are formed and born, cannot conſiſt. But hence it does not follow that, when the Scripture ſpeaks of the honour due to Parents, we muſt preſently run the diſcourſe to Magiſtrates. Secondly, he ought to have repreſented St. Paul, in his Paraphraſe, ſpeaking ſo as he ſpeaks; and not faſten'd upon him a Conſectary, which he did not think of. Dr. Hammond might, if he would, in his Annotations have deduced from the words of the Apoſtle, what ſeemed deducible from them, but not in his Paraphraſe, in which St. Paul himſelf ought to ſpeak, and not his Interpreter. But even in this Dr. Hammond is not ſo conſiſtent with himſelf as he ought to be; as I ſhall obſerve on verſ. 4. See my Notes on the fifth Commandment in Exod. xx.

Ibid. [...]] That is, as far as the Laws of God will permit, as Interpreters generally obſerve, which was a neceſſary Admonition, eſpecially at that time in which without doubt there were a great many Heathen Parents, who were diſpleaſed with their Children for having embraced the Chriſtian Religion. But Dr. Hammond, who makes the Apoſtle here to ſpeak of obedience to Magiſtrates, interprets theſe words in the Lord by under the Goſpel; for as to Parents, it would have [Page] been but flat to ſay, that they ought as much to be honoured under the Goſpel as under the Law, for who could have doubted of it? But there might have been ſome among Chriſtians who thought, as moſt of the Jews did, that they were not to be ſubject to the Roman Magiſtrates; for which reaſon St. Paul more than once in his Epiſtles teaches the contrary. But he ſays nothing at all about it in this place. See Rom. xiii.1.

Verſ. 2. [...].] I am apt to think there is a Hebraiſm in this place, and that St. Paul renders the word [...], which perhaps he had in his mind, by the Greek [...], becauſe that word ſignifies both firſt and one. And thus as the Hebrew word and the Greek [...] frequently ſignify firſt; ſo reciprocally [...] firſt will be taken here for one.

Verſ 3. [...].] This promiſe, in Moſes, belongs only to the Jews, and to thoſe only among them who were obedient to their Parents, and gave them all due Reſpect and Honour. Beſides, that which is there promiſed is a long and happy Life in Canaan, and that reſpected not ſo much particular Perſons as the whole Commonwealth; for if the Commonwealth were overthrown, a ſmall number who had honoured their Parents could not expect by virtue of this Promiſe, to live happily in their own Country. I do not believe that St. Paul underſtood this Promiſe in any other ſenſe, becauſe there can be no doubt raiſed about it. Why therefore did he mention here a Promiſe which did not at all concern the Epheſians? Undoubtedly not to move or perſwade them by that Promiſe to honour their Parents; but to ſhew them how very pleaſing the performance of that Duty was to God, becauſe he had formerly annexed a promiſe to the Precept wherein the Duty of Children to their Parents was enjoined. As for what our Author ſays here about a peaceable Life being the effect of obedience to Superiors or Magiſtrates, that as it is often true, ſo it is frequently falſe. Civil or foreign Wars, not to mention Tyranny or Arbitrary Government, do no more ſpare faithful than unfaithful Subjects. Tho it be very true, that factious Perſons, and ſuch as are deſirous of Innovations, do bring upon themſelves a great many evils from the ſupreme Power; it do's not therefore follow that ſuch as are quiet and willing to obey, do enjoy a longer or more happy Life. Which as it holds good at all times, ſo then eſpecially when the ſupreme Power is of a different perſwaſion in Religion from thoſe who honour their Parents, as it was in the time of St. Paul. So that what the Doctor ſays here about the honour which is to be given to Magiſtrates, tho true, does not belong to this place.

[Page]Verſ. 4. [...].] The word [...] here undoubtedly ſignifies the ſame with [...], in the firſt Verſe of this Chapter, that is both Parents. But I cannot but wonder that Dr. Hammond, who took [...] in that firſt Verſe to be meant of Princes as well as Parents, and thought the Apoſtle ſpoke there of that honour which is due from Subjects to Magiſtrates, ſhould not have one word about them in his Paraphraſe on this place, but make mention only of Parents. Is it ſo therefore, that when the Diſcourſe is about the Duty of Children to Parents, to Parents muſt be joined Princes; but when the Scripture ſpeaks of the Duty of Parents to Children, in that Magiſtrates are not at all concerned? Or is it true, that tho Subjects ought to obey Magiſtrates, yet there is no Duty incumbent upon Magiſtrates with reſpect to Subjects? What can be the reaſon of this difference? Surely it deſerved to be mentioned if there was any. But, to ſpeak my thoughts, our learned Author writing this in a time when he ſaw his Countrymen had roſe up in Arms againſt the King, whoſe cauſe he very much favoured, and that a great many abuſed the Power which they thought was lodged in the People, reſolved to omit no occaſion of magnifying the Authority of Kings; and carefully to avoid every thing which might ſeem to countenance the Cauſe of the People, leſt his Adverſaries ſhould abuſe it. By which it came to paſs, that ſometimes he does not ſo much perform the Office of an Interpreter, as a Preacher for the King's party. About the Cauſe it ſelf, which I have not ſufficiently conſider'd as to England, I paſs no judgment; but it had been better to interpret St. Paul ſo, as if there never had been any ſeditious Perſons in England, becauſe our learned Author wreſts a great many things in favour of his own ſide.

Verſ. 11. [...].] This word muſt not be rendred all the Arms, as if St. Paul had ſaid, take all the Arms which you have. For tho this word be compounded of [...] all, and [...], that is, Arms; yet Uſe has made it to ſignify another thing, which belongs to a particular ſort of Souldiers: To wit, that heavy Armour which was born by the Legionarii among the Romans, or thoſe that ſerved in the Phalanges, Brigades of the Macedonians. For tho the Slingers and Archers were furniſhed with all the Arms, wherewith according to Cuſtom they ought to be armed, yet the [...] was never ſaid to belong to them. So [...] ſignified heavy armed Souldiers, without any Addition. And St. Paul very fitly made uſe of that word in this place, where he does not ſpeak about a Skirmiſh which might be made with light Armour; but about a long and ſharp engagement with very formidable Adverſaries. To which purpoſe he adviſes them not to take a Sling or a [Page] Bow, which are light Weapons, but the Armour of Legionary Souldiers.

Verſ. 12. Note a. I will not deny but that the Devils made uſe of the aſſiſtance of Hereticks, whoever they were, to deſtroy the Pious and Orthodox; but I do not believe that St. Paul has here a direct reference to any Hereticks. For all that is here ſaid, immediately at leaſt, belongs to evil Spirits, as Grotius has ſhewn, and Dr. Hammond acknowledges. So that there was no neceſſity for introducing here the Gnoſticks.

Verſ. 14. [...].] The Apoſtle here alludes to Iſa. xi.5. and at the ſame time to the Cuſtom of Soldiers. The firſt thing they did was to put a Girdle upon their Coat to keep it faſt, and hinder it from moving one way or other under their Breaſtplate; but they did not put it over their Armour, as Dr. Hammond thought: See Ever. Feithius Ant. Homeric. Lib. iv. c. 8. And therefore St. Paul ſays [...], and not [...]. But it muſt not be particularly or nicely enquired, why St. Paul compares ſome Vertues with this kind of Armour, rather than with any other; becauſe he might as well have ſaid that Chriſtians ought to take the girdle of Righteouſneſs, and the breaſtplate of Truth, as the girdle of Truth and the breaſtplate of Righteouſneſs. All that he means in this whole Diſcourſe is, that Chriſtian Vertues are Arms which good Men may and ought to uſe, both to repel the aſſaults of their Enemies, and to overcome them. Nothing elſe is here to be ſought for, unleſs we have a mind to feed our ſelves with Fancie [...] inſtead of Realities.

Verſ. 15. Note b. I. It may be worth our while to read what the learned and diligent Ant. Bynaeus, Lib. 1. Cap. 5. de Calceis Hebraeorum, has written on this place. But I am rather of Dr. Hammond's Opinion, which may be confirmed by ſeveral places which he alledges, or which are to be found in thoſe Authors whom he cites. But to give further light to St. Paul's words, I ſhall ſubjoin here a Paſſage out of Virgil, in which he deſcribes the [...] of Aeneas, and omits no part of the Armour mention'd by the Apoſtle, but the Girdle, nor adds any thing but the Spear, in Aeneid. viii. beginning at verſ. 619.

Miraturque, interque manus & brachia verſat

Terribilem criſtis galeam flammaſque vomentem,

Fatiferumque enſem, loricam ex aere rigentem, &c.

Tum laeves ocreas, electro auroque recocto,

Haſtamque & clypei non enarrabile textum.

II. I cannot tell whence our learned Author took this Interpretation of the Egyptian Cuſtom, that the Egyptian Virgins were not permitted [Page]to wear Shoes, leſt they ſhould be ready to go abroad. I have ſhewn out of Diodorus Siculus, on Exod. xii.11. that it was the Cuſtom not only for Virgins, but alſo for Children to go unſhod, in Egypt, becauſe of the mildneſs of the Air.

Verſ. 16. [...].] Our Author in his Paraphraſe is of opinion, that the Apoſtle here alludes to poiſonous Darts, which, ſaith he, are called fiery becauſe they inflame the parts that are wounded with them, as Serpents with poiſonous Stings are called fiery Serpents. But I do not think that all ſort of poiſonous Serpents may be called fiery; becauſe the biting of all ſuch Serpents does not hurt by cauſing an inflammation, and there is a peculiar kind of Serpents called by that name. I ſhould rather ſay that the Darts of the Devil are called here fiery, by a Metaphor taken from the fiery Darts, which the beſieged uſe to fling at the Souldiers and Works of the Beſiegers, whereof there is frequent mention made in the Hiſtories of the Antients, where Sieges are deſcribed. I ſhall produce but one example, in a matter very well known, out of the Writer of the Spaniſh War, cap. xi. Noctis, ſaith he, tertia vigiliâ, in oppido acerrime pugnatum eſt, ignemque multum miſerunt; ſicut & omne genus, quibus ignis per jactus ſolitus eſt mitti: In the third watch of the Night, they fought in the Town very ſharply, and threw a great deal of Fire, as alſo all kind (of Darts) in which Fire uſes to be thrown. Theſe are fiery Darts properly ſo called; which lighting upon an iron Shield, could do no harm to the Souldiers. And St. Paul here ſeems to have called the Darts of the Devil fiery, rather than by any other Epithet; becauſe they do miſchief by inflaming the ſenſual Appetite.

Verſ. 18. [...].] Our Author, as appears by his Paraphraſe, and the Note in the Margin, thought that the word [...] ſhould here be underſtood, and ſo renders this laſt part of the Verſe, concerning all Holy things. And it is certain that an Ellipſis of that word is very common in the Greek Language, but never in ſuch a Phraſe as this that I know of. And therefore I had rather follow the Vulgar and other Interpreters, till an example be alledged, in which [...] is the ſame with [...], or in which [...] ſignifies, evidently, Prayers for the obtaining all Holineſs.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Philippians. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Praemon.] I. I rather refer this Epiſtle, as the foregoing, to the Year of Chriſt LXII. with Dr. Pearſon, whom I deſire the Reader to conſult in his Annales Paulinae.

II. Inſtead of the Gnoſticks, who had formerly been Heathens, and which our Author too eaſily ſuppoſes to have been almoſt in all places where the Apoſtles had preached, I rather think S. Paul here refers to the Jews, who it is certain were diſperſed throughout the whole Roman Empire, and being tenacious of their own Ceremonies, endeavoured to impoſe them upon all others.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. WHat Dr. Hammond here ſays of Philippi, may be confirmed by other Arguments, by which it will become more manifeſt. It is very true that Philippi was a Roman Colony; as appears not only from the expreſs Teſtimonies of the Antients, but alſo from the Coins of that City. There is a piece of Philippian Money coined in honour of Claudius, the backſide of which has this Inſcription; COL. AƲG. JƲL. PHILIPP. that is, Colonia Auguſta Julia Philippenſis. And there are other pieces coined in the times of M. Aurelius, Commodus, and Caracalla, that have the like Inſcriptions. The learned Joan. Foy-Vaillant had reaſon to think that the name Julia ſignified that Julius firſt planted a Colony at Philippi, as Auguſta that another was afterwards order'd thither by Auguſtus. After which Obſervation, he produces a place out of Dio lib. 51. where he ſpeaks thus about Auguſtus, after the Victory at Actium: [...][Page] [...]: Having baniſhed thoſe People in Italy which had favoured Antonius, he gave their Cities and Territories to his Soldiers. But inſtead of them, he gave the greateſt part of thoſe whom he had baniſhed, Dyrrachium and Philippi, and other Towns, to inhabit. By this it appears, how a little before St. Paul's time, Philippi came to be enlarged, becauſe that City had twice received a Colony of Romans. We may conſult Foy-Vaillant, on Numiſmata aerea Coloniarum. The ſame Author teſtifies, that Philippi, in pieces of Coin, is ſtiled Metropolis. But that there was any regard had in that to Eccleſiaſtical order, or dignity of Biſhops, even from the very time of St. Paul, Dr. Hammond has not proved, nor will any other, I believe, prove; tho the thing be undoubtedly more antient than many think. The Paſſage alledged out of the Digeſt. is in lib. 50. tit. 15. de cenſibus, leg. 8. §. 8. and is Paulus's, not Ʋlpian's, as is ſaid by our Author; who, it ſeems, cited him upon truſt. He might have added that of Celſus in leg. 6. Colonia Philippenſis juris Italici est.

II. Our Author affirms, that after Veſpaſian had brought a Colony into Caeſarea, that City became immediately, even in reſpect of Eccleſiaſtical Government, a Metropolis; under which Jeruſalem it ſelf was. But at that time there was no Jeruſalem, becauſe it had been razed to the ground, and was not rebuilt till under Adrian, who put into it a Roman Colony; as we are told by Xiphilinus in the Life of Adrian, and as appears by a great many Medals in which it is called COL. AEL. CAP. Colonia Aelia Capitolina. And who told our Author there was a Biſhop at Caeſarea in the time of Veſpaſian? From what marks of Antiquity did he gather that the Caeſarean Biſhops were reckoned ſuperior in Dignity and Order to thoſe of Jeruſalem, from the Age of Veſpaſian? If what he ſays be true, that a City which had a Roman Colony brought into it was made a Metropolis, Jeruſalem enjoyed that Privilege as well as Caeſarea, tho not quite ſo ſoon. Ʋlpian, in the foremention'd Tit. lib. 1. §. 6. ſaith, Palaeſtina duae fuerunt Coloniae, & Caeſarienſis & Aelia Capitolina, ſed neutra jus Italicum habet. But I look upon this alſo as improbable.

III. I am ready to think, that the reaſon why the Antients place Philippi ſometimes in Thrace, and ſometimes in Macedonia, is not becauſe thoſe Provinces were variouſly divided, which yet I do not deny; but becauſe when Cities ſtand upon the borders of any two Countries, it is doubtful to which of them they belong. The ſame I ſay of Nicopolis. What our Author ſays beſides about many Churches, and thoſe Epiſcopal, depending upon the Metropolis of Philippi, is nothing [Page] but Conjecture, which I am not wholly for rejecting, but which I do not eaſily believe. Learned Men often partly prove things out of the Ancients, and partly make up by Gueſs and Conjecture what they would have to be true; then they equal their Conjectures to that which they have proved, and from all put together they very eaſily infer what they pleaſe. Becauſe St. Paul preached the Goſpel firſt at Philippi, does it preſently follow that that City was alſo accounted the Metropolis, in reſpect of Eccleſiaſtical Order? The reſt alſo is very deceitful and uncertain.

Ibid. Note b. I. The Opinion of Grotius and others ſeems to be much plainer; who think that as the words Presbyter and Biſhop are promiſcuouſly uſed, tho' there was one Biſhop [...] ſo called: ſo alſo the word Biſhop ſignifies both Orders, firſt and ſecond; which is the reaſon why we meet with this word in the Plural Number where the Diſcourſe is but of one Church. There was a Communion of Names between Miniſters of the firſt and ſecond Rank, ſo that thoſe of the firſt Rank were ſometimes ſtiled Presbyters, and thoſe of the ſecond Biſhops; not becauſe their Authority was the ſame, and their Office in every reſpect alike, but becauſe there was little or no difference between them as to preaching the Goſpel, and adminiſtring the Sacraments. But the particular Power of Ordination might belong to one Biſhop, [...], ſo called.

II. That which our Author ſays about Metropolitans, and by the help of which alone he defends himſelf againſt his Adverſaries, as to thoſe Apoſtolical Times, is very uncertain; nor can it be proved by the Authority of the Writers of the following Ages, who ſpeak of the Primitive Times according to the Cuſtoms of their own, and not from any certain Knowledg: not to ſay at preſent, that Biſhops or Presbyters aſpiring to that Dignity, cannot always ſafely be heard in their own cauſe. It is not probable that there was any Epiſcopal Church in the Proconſular Aſia, beſides Epheſus, at the time ſpoken of in Acts xx. or in Macedonia, beſides Philippi and Theſſalonica. But a little while after, when the number of Chriſtians was encreaſed, there were other Epiſcopal Seats conſtituted in them.

Ibid. Note c. I. I alſo have ſpoken pretty largely of the word [...] on Luke viii.2. and I ſhall not repeat what I have there ſaid. Our Author in the beginning of this Note uſes the word dimenſum for demenſum, tho that it ſelf was not proper to be uſed in this place, becauſe demenſum ſignifies the Portion or Allowance of Servants, not of Gueſts. See Frid. Taubmannus on Plautus his Stich, Acts i. Sc. ii. verſ. 3.

[Page]II. I think indeed with Dr. Hammond, that the Original or Deacons muſt be fetched from the Jews, and that Deacons were in the Chriſtian Church what the [...] hhazanim, were in the Jewiſh Synagogue. But I do not think we have any thing to do here with the [...] ſchoterim, which was the Name only of the Officers that attended upon Magiſtrates, or certain publick Criers. See my Note on Exod. ver. 8.

III. Nor do I think that [...] Juniors, ought to be confounded with the Charanitae, eſpecially in Acts v.6. where any of the younger ſort, who were accidentally then preſent, ſeem to be meant. Tho the Diſciples of Doctors are called Juniors, in Maimonides, it does not therefore follow that that word muſt be ſo taken where-ever we meet with it.

IV. The Saying of the Jews about the decay of Learning among them, which our Author ſpeaks of, is, in Sotae, fol. 49.1. thus, [...]: Since the ſecond Houſe was deſtroyed, the wiſe Men began to be as the Scribes, and the Scribes as the Miniſter of the Synagogue, and laſtly the Miniſter of the Synagogue as the People of the Earth. Which Dr. Hammond miſtranſlates, and inverts the Words themſelves. They may be found by thoſe that may perhaps have a mind to turn to them in the Editions of Joan. Chr. Wagenſeilius, in Sotae, Cap. ix. S. 15. It appears that our Author did not look into this Saying himſelf, but went upon truſt for it, and that made him render it ſo ill, and not ſo much as refer to the Book in which it is ſet down.

Verſ. 13. Note e.] Some years ago there aroſe a great Controverſy about this place, between two Gentlemen very skilful in the Roman Antiquities, Ʋlricus Huberus and Jac. Perizonius, concerning the Signification of the word Praetorium here; whence there was a conſiderable Volume made, which may be read by thoſe who are curious about ſuch Matters, not without advantage. Huberus thought that Praetorium, where the Diſcourſe was about Civil Affairs, ſignified the Palace of Caeſar, or properly his Judgment-hall; but Perizonius, a Body of Praetorian Troops, or the Camp in which the Praetor's Guards uſed to pitch their Tents. And there is no doubt but that the moſt frequent notion of the Word, in the beſt Writers, is agreeable to the Opinion of this latter. And ſo S. Paul's meaning will be, that his Bonds, that is, the Reaſon for which he was caſt into Bonds, was known to the Praetor's Guards, to which the Soldiers with whom he was bound, might have brought him. Yet others quote a Paſſage in Cicero, in which Praetorium ſeems to ſignify a publick Place of Judicature, in Orat. 5. againſt [Page] Verres, cap. ult. Vos omnes rerum forenſium, conſiliorum maximorum, legum, judiciorumque arbitri & teſtes celeberrimo in loco PRAETORII locati, Caſtor & Pollux, &c. Ye Judges and Witneſſes of all matters belonging to Court, of the greateſt Counſels, Laws and Suits, who are ſeated in the place of the Praetorium, Caſtor & Pollux, &c. The Forum is the place in which was the Judgment-ſeat of the Praetor, which may ſeem to confirm the Interpretation of Phavorinus and Dr. Hammond. For it appears, that there was in the Forum a Temple dedicated to the Caſtors, by Suetonius in the Life of Julius Caeſar cap. x. But it is not probable that St. Paul, who had appealed to Caeſar, was judged by a City Praetor; and I am rather of Perizonius his Opinion. See his 1ſt. Diſſert. de Praetorio, S. 35. & ſeqq.

Verſ. 23. Note h. I. What our Author ſays about the word [...] he owed in part to Grotius, but it is not a Hebrew word which has that ſignification, but a Chaldee and Syriack one, as Lexicons will ſhew. When Grotius ſaid it was commonly uſed by the Jews to ſignify Death, he meant only the Rabbins; who often ſpeak more in Chaldee than in Hebrew.

II. That which our Author here ſays about the word [...], may ſerve to confirm what I have ſaid againſt him about another compound of the ſame Primitive, on Luke ix.12. The conjecture of Philoponus, about the reaſon why a particular ſort of Method is called [...], tho very agreeable to the nature of the thing, yet ſeems to be falſe; becauſe the term [...] muſt be underſtood by its oppoſition to [...], which is another kind of Method. And that being called [...] which gathers up Principles, and deduces Conſectaries from them compounded and joined together, by [...] muſt neceſſarily be meant that which reſolves things conjoined, and ſeparates the parts, to make way for the knowledg of each particular. And indeed that is the uſe of this Method, as every one knows. Phavorinus ſaith much righter than Philoponus: [...]. Whence it appears that [...] is here rightly indeed rendred by reverti, to return, but that this interpretation of it is ill confirmed by the name [...].

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 6. Note a. OUR Author has well enough confuted, in this place, the Interpretation of Grotius, but has propoſed nothing more certain inſtead of it, nor ſufficiently conſider'd the ſeries of the Diſcourſe.

I. He ought not to have interpreted [...] as if it were [...], without bringing an example of the like phraſe. For as to the word [...] ſeparately conſider'd, ſuppoſing that ſignified what our Author affirms, it will not follow that it has the ſame ſignification in this Phraſe. But Aeſchylus, who was a very bold Poet, is no fit Author to be made uſe of in explaining the ſimple ſtile of St. Paul. And Phavorinus judged of the ſenſe of the word [...] partly by the uſe of the Peripateticks, partly by the opinion of Divines, not by its vulgar acceptation. [...] really ſignifies a ſervil Form or Appearance, as we ſhall afterwards ſee. Theſe things could not be oppoſed to the perpetual uſe of the Septuagint and the Writers of the New Teſtament, according to which, as Grotius has obſerved, that word does not ſignify ſomething internal and ſecret, but apparent and viſible.

II. If that were the meaning of St. Paul in this place, which our Author after others ſuppoſes, the Apoſtle ſhould have expreſt himſelf thus: [...]: who being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be made equal with God, yet emptied himſelf. And ſo [...], &c. would be oppoſed to all which goes before. But as the words now lie, it is oppoſed only to [...], who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery, but, &c. Which is all one as to ſay; tho he was in the form of God, yet he did not think he might aſſume to himſelf an equality with God, but ſubmitted himſelf to his Will, and took upon him the form of a Servant, &c. That this is the ſeries of the Diſcourſe, this the ſenſe of this place, was well underſtood by Novatian in Lib. de Trinitate, cap. xvii. whoſe words I ſhall not think much to ſet down. Imitator omnium paternorum operum, dum & ipſe operatur ſicut & Pater ejus, forma, ut expreſſimus, eſt Dei Patris. Et meritò in forma pronunciatus eſt Dei, dum & ipſe ſuper omnia, & omnis creaturae divinam obtinens poteſtatem, & Deus eſt, exemplo, Patris; hoc ipſum tamen a Patre proprio conſequutus, ut omnium & Deus eſſet & Dominus eſſet, & Deus ad formam Dei Patris ex ipſo genitus, atque prolatus. Hic ergo quamvis eſſet in forma Dei, non eſt rapinam arbitratus aequalem ſe Deo eſſe. Quamvis enim ſe ex Deo Patre Deum eſſe meminiſſet,[Page]nunquam ſe Deo Patri aut comparavit, aut contulit; memor ſe eſſe ex ſuo Patre, & hoc ipſum quod eſt habere ſe, quia Pater dediſſet. Inde denique & ante carnis aſſumtionem, ſed & poſt adſumtionem corporis, poſt ipſam praeterea reſurrectionem, omnem Patri, in omnibus rebus, obedientiam praeſtitit pariter ac praeſtat. Ex quo probatur nunquam arbitratum illum eſſe rapinam quandam divinitatem, ut aequaret ſe Patri Deo; quinimò contra omni ipſius imperio & voluntati obediens atque ſubjectus ut forman ſervi ſuſciperet contentus eſt. Being an imitator of all his Fathers works, and working alſo as his Father does, he is, as I have expreſſed, the form of God the Father. And juſtly was he pronounced to be in the form of God, becauſe he alſo being over all things, and having a divine Power over every Creature, is God after the example of the Father; yet ſo as to have obtained this Dignity from his Father, that he ſhould be God and Lord of all things, and to be God according to the form of God the Father, begotten and brought forth by him. And therefore tho he was in the form of God, he did not think it robbery to be equal with God. For tho he knew within himſelf that he was God of God the Father, yet he never compared himſelf with God the Father, being mindful that he was of his Father, and whatever he was, he was by his Father's Gift. And both before and after his aſſuming Fleſh, and after his Reſurrection, he yielded and ſtill yields all obedience to his Father in all things. Which ſhews that he never thought any Divinity robbery, to equal himſelf with God the Father; nay on tho contrary, being obedient and ſubject to all his Commands and Will, he was content to take upon him the form of a Servant. This is the direct tendency of the form of St. Paul's diſcourſe, which will not admit of any other interpretation. And with this ſenſe all the words made uſe of by him agree, as I ſhall ſhew. But firſt of all it muſt be ſuppoſed that the Diſcourſe here is about the Man Jeſus, and not about the Deity, which is evident, to produce but this one Argument for it, from that which follows; for he whom God hath exalted, and given him a Name above every Name, that in the name of Jeſus every Knee ſhould bow, is undoubtedly the Man Jeſus, and not the Deity, which never received any thing, nor could receive any new Dignity; and he whom God ſo very highly exalted, is the ſame who had humbled himſelf, and ſuffer'd Death in obedience to the Will of his Father. This reaſoning, which yet is the ſum of the common Interpretation, is hardly tolerable. The Divinity of Chriſt, tho equal (yea numerically the ſame with the Divinity of the Father) to the Father, humbled it ſelf to put on Humanity; wherefore, that Humanity received this Reward from the Father, to be raiſed to the higheſt pitch of Glory. On the contrary, it is he that humbled himſelf, that St. Paul [Page] here ſays was rewarded. This premis'd, I ſhall now explain the ſeveral Phraſes the Apoſtle makes uſe of.

III. [...] is beſt of all interpreted by Grotius, of that Power which was obſervable in Chriſt, in ſo great a degree, that he could do whatever he pleaſed, wherein he came as near as poſſible to the moſt High God. The ſame thing is elſewhere intimated by St. Paul, where he ſays that Chriſt was the viſible Image of the inviſible God, Coloſſ. i.15. For [...] are ſometimes the ſame. Heſychius: [...], the word ſignifies a form or ſpecies. So Suidas: [...], a Species, Form, or Aſpect. And Phavorinus hath the ſame. Whence [...] among the Heathens, ſignifies the Images of the Gods; as in Dionyſius Halicarnaſſaeus de Romulo, Lib. 2. Ant. Rom. p. 90. [...], ( [...]) [...] — [...]: he erected therefore their Temples, and Groves, and Altars, and the places of their carved Statues, and their (Images) and Symbols.

IV. [...] ſeems to be all one with [...], that is, he did not think it a thing which he might ſnatch or raviſh to himſelf. So Gregory Nazianz [...]n uſes the word [...], in Orat. 1. againſt Julian pag. 67. where he ſpeaks of the Government's being uſurped by Julian: [...]: which not a rape or robbery of Fortune, but the reward of Vertue, or Time, or the ſuffrage of the King beſtows. But the expreſſion of Cicero, in Latin, comes much nearer that of St. Paul; who in his V. Orat. in Verrem, ſpeaking of Verres, ſays: Omnium bona praedam ſuam duxit, He thought every ones Goods his prey. And in Lib. vii. Ep. 13. ad Atticum, ſpeaking of Caeſar, after Pompey had forſaken Rome, he ſays: Huic tradita urbs eſt, nuda praeſidio, referta copiis. Quid eſt quod ab eo non metuas, qui illa templa & tecta non patriam, ſed praedam putat? The City was delivered up to Caeſar, deſtitute of its Gariſon, and was filled with Souldiers. What is there not reaſon to fear from him who thinks thoſe Temples and Houſes, not his Country, but his Prey? The Man Chriſt, tho he had received all Power both in Heaven and in Earth, yet ſaid in John xiv.28. That his Father was greater than he, and would not ſuffer himſelf to be made equal with God. Contrary to what was done afterwards by Simon Magus, who truſting only to Magical Artifices, dared to equal, if not to exalt himſelf above God: See Acts viii.10. and H. Grotius on that place. Which if our Author had but here thought on, without queſtion he would have greedily took up, to ſay that St. Paul here oppoſed Jeſus Chriſt to Simon the Patriarch of the Gnoſticks.

[Page]V. [...], that is, to make himſelf equal with God. Which Chriſt openly profeſſes in Joh. v.19. for after he had ſaid to the Jews, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; and the Jews thereupon ſought to kill him, not only becauſe he had broken the Sabbath, but ſaid alſo that God was his Father, making himſelf, as they affirmed, equal with God; [...]: Jeſus anſwers, that the Son could do nothing of himſelf, but what he ſaw his Father do; that is, that he only followed the Example of God, in which he ſhewed himſelf to be inferiour to him; for he that follows another's Example, and cannot depart from it, is inferiour to him who ſets the Example. But all this muſt be underſtood of the Humanity of Chriſt, and not of his Divinity.

Verſ. 7. Note b. To keep to the Propriety of the Verb [...], it muſt be rendred thus: He behaved himſelf ſo, as if he were void of all that Power which he had received from his Father. He uſed it no more, than if he had not had it. Which muſt be underſtood only of thoſe times, in which Christ was to ſuffer any thing, either from the Jews, or from the Romans.

Ibid. [...].] He did not really become a Servant, but, having taken upon him the form of a Servant, he ſeemed to be ſuch. For when Chriſt behaved himſelf towards the Jews and Romans, who vilified and loaded him with all manner of Injuries and Reproaches, as if he had been ſubject to their Power, like the reſt of the Jews, he truly took upon him the form of a Servant; that is, a ſervile Appearance. He did no more uſe that Power which he had received from God, and whereby he had wrought ſo many Miracles, and with which he was then endued as much as before, to defend or deliver himſelf, than if he had quite exhauſted it. It is known that among the Hebrews thoſe who obey, are called Servants [...] habadim, and thoſe that are ſubdued by Power, are ſaid to become its Servants. They who underſtand theſe Words of the Divine Nature, interpret them of the Aſſumption of Humanity, becauſe Men are the Servants of God; which might be born, if any thing in the Context favoured their Opinion.

Ibid. [...].] The Apoſtle does not ſay [...], being made Man; which might intimate his Incarnation, and would be the ſame Phraſe with that in Joh. i.14. but he was made in the likeneſs of Men; that is, was like other Men, who ſubmit to a Superiour Power, becauſe they cannot reſiſt it, and ſuffer themſelves to be ill uſed, when they are unable to defend themſelves. Chriſt was neither a Servant to the Jewiſh or Roman Magiſtrates, nor deſtitute of Power, to deliver himſelf from their Injuries and Cruelty; [Page] but he behaved himſelf ſo, as if he were like the reſt of the Jews, and had nothing in him peculiar or extraordinary. The External Appearance of Chriſt at that time was [...], the form of a Servant; he was [...], or, as the Jews ſpeak, [...], chneged bne adam, like the Sons of Men, that is, [...], ordinary Men; for ſo the Hebrew word [...] adam ſometimes ſignifies. I wonder here at Grotius, who interprets theſe Words, made like to the firſt Men, i. e. ſinleſs; which is a Phraſe without Example, and very diſtant from this place; where it is manifeſt the Diſcourſe is about the Humiliation of Chriſt. I know he puts a Diaſtole after [...], and makes theſe Words to begin a new [...], oppoſite Member in the Diſcourſe, but nothing can be more violent.

Verſ. 8. [...].] When the Jews and Romans perſecuted him, he was juſt like an ordinary Man in outward Appearance. This is the proper Signification of the word [...]. Heſychius: [...],☞ [in the Latin it is printed [...]] a Fiction, a Garment, Diſpoſition, Habit, or Ornament: [...], counterfeiting, making a ſhew, or appearance. The old Gloſſes: [...], figura, cultus, habitus, geſtus, geſtamen, forma. And this is extreamly well oppoſed to the form of God, in which tho Chriſt appeared when he wrought ſo many and great Miracles; yet when he was abuſed and perſecuted by the Jews and Romans, he was like one of the Multitude, and put on no other appearance than belonged to any ordinary Perſon.

Here again I cannot but wonder at Grotius, who interprets theſe Words thus: Dignitate talis apparuit qualis Adamus, id eſt Dominio in omnes creaturas, in mare, ventos, panes, aquam, &c. He appeared ſuch in Dignity as Adam, that is, with Dominion over all Creatures, over the Sea, Winds, Bread, Water, &c. For Adam indeed had the uſe of all thoſe things which God had made, and which were within his reach; but he had not a Command over the Sea and the Winds, and every thing in Nature, like Chriſt. See my Note on Gen. i.26.

Ibid. [...].] That is, in obedience to the Will of his Father, he ſubjected himſelf to all manner of Indignities, and Death it ſelf, no leſs than if he had been one of the meaneſt ſort of Perſons. He who had the command of the whole World, ſuffered himſelf to be deſpitefully uſed, and cruelly killed by wicked Men. This cannot in the leaſt be ſaid of the Divine Nature, and therefore nor that which went before. For ſuch a Diſcourſe as this would be intolerable: The Divine Nature of Chriſt condeſcended ſo low as to aſſume Humanity, and humbled it ſelf ſo, as to become obedient to the Death of the [Page] Croſs. The Divinity of Chriſt was not obedient unto Death, but his Humanity only, as all agree. And all that is in the ſame compaſs of Words, and the ſame Antitheſis ought to be referred to one and the ſame Nature, unleſs the undoubted Signification of Words, or the things ſpoken of require the contrary.

Ibid. [...].] In this part of his Humiliation, which was the greateſt, Chriſt might be ſaid in a ſpecial manner to have taken upon him the form of a Servant; the Croſs being, among the Romans, a ſervile puniſhment. See Grotius.

Ver. 9. [...].] This is the reward of the Humiliation which that Nature underwent that was obedient unto death; that is, the Humane. The Divine Nature cannot have any reward conferred upon it, which as it is never leſſened, ſo it is never exalted, or made greater.

Ibid. [...].] This is well interpreted by Grotius, of Chriſt's Dignity; for when a new Dignity is conferred, there is a new Name alſo conferred. St. Paul, who is his own beſt Interpreter, in Eph. i.20. ſays: He raiſed him from the dead, and ſet him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might and dominion, and every NAME that is NAMED, not only in this age, but in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet. Where a Name that is named ſignifies a Dignity, as the foregoing words manifeſtly ſhew.

Verſ. 10. [...].] That is, not becauſe he is called Jeſus, as Dr. Hammond miſinterprets it; but, that all Creatures might reverence the man Jeſus, exalted to ſo high a dignity as to be God's Vicegerent. By his Redemption indeed he acquired to himſelf a power over all men, whom he made his own; but not over other intelligent Natures, who receive, properly ſpeaking, no benefit by the Redemption of Mankind. And therefore the Apoſtle has no reference here to the title of Redeemer, but of King, and one that was ſo even of the Angels, becauſe it ſo pleaſed God, no leſs than of Men.

Verſ. 11. [...].] Lord, namely, of all things, excepting him that put all things under him. This is the Name above every name, which St. Paul before ſpake of, and not the name of Jeſus.

Verſ. 17. Note e. There is no doubt but St. Paul here has a reference to the pouring out of Wine upon Sacrifices, and compares his Blood alſo to Wine. And it is as undeniable, that the Faith of the Philippians is here conſider'd as a Sacrifice which the Apoſtle offered up to God. But what our Author ſays here beſides, are vain Niceties, which have no ground either in the uſe of the Greek Language, or the ſacred [Page] Writers.Chapter III. It is falſe that [...] ſignifies the ſlaying of a Sacrifice rather than the Sacrifice it ſelf, or a Sacrifice generally conſider'd: and as untrue is it, that [...] ſignifies the Office or Action of the Prieſts and Levites in preparing the Sacrifice to be offered, rather than any other part of the publick Worſhip of God. So that [...] is nothing but a publick Oblation of the Philippians Faith to God: and thoſe two words ſignify one and the ſame thing; to wit, the Action of the Apoſtle publickly offering up to God the Faith of the Philippians.

Verſ. 20. I think the place in Heſychius needs no correction, unleſs perhaps inſtead of [...] we ought to read [...], that is, equal, in a balance of equal weight; for ſo the Verb [...] ſignifies, as any Lexicons will ſhew, which I wonder our Author did not conſult.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 1. Note a. [...] here being ſubjoined to [...], cannot otherwiſe be rendred, than is not to me grievous, i. e. I do not think it grievous to write the ſame things. It does not appear by any example, that [...] ſignifies cowardly, or that which is a ſign of Fearfulneſs. Dr. Hammond did not well underſtand Phavorinus, whoſe words are theſe: [...]: that is, It muſt be obſerved, that tho Homer has put [...] for [...], that is, not [...], or not to labour; yet the more common uſe of thoſe who have written ſince Homer, is to put, [...] for Fear, in which ſenſe it is frequently uſed in Sophocles. See about this, Euſtathius p. 545. Ed. Rom. from whom Phavorinus borrowed this Remark.

Verſ. 2. Note b. It is much better to underſtand theſe things as ſpoken of the Jews, to whom Grotius applies them, who may be conſulted. For they who proudly called themſelves the [...], are with reaſon ſtiled here [...], that is, the cutting or rending, becauſe they rent aſunder the Church of Christ.

I. The paſſage which our Author cites out of the Apocal. ſhall be conſidered in its proper place. But from Gal. vi.13. it does not at all appear that thoſe whom the Apoſtle there blames were not circumciſed; nay, the contrary may be inferred, as I have ſhewn on that place. It is ſtrange our learned Author ſhould cite the words of S. Paul ſo, as if he had expreſly ſaid that the Gnoſticks were [...], not ſo much as circumciſed; when the Apoſtle ſpeaks quite otherwiſe, as any one that looks into the place will ſee.

[Page]II. The word [...] belongs to thoſe who were truly Jews, becauſe thoſe men [...] cut aſunder the Chriſtian Church, whilſt they endeavoured to impoſe the Moſaical Rites upon the Gentiles, againſt their will. And ſuch were juſtly call'd both Dogs and Schiſmaticks, who bark'd and ſnarl'd at all that refus'd to ſubmit to the Jewiſh Yoke, and kept up Factions in the Church. See Rom. xiv.

Verſ. 11. [...].] By [...] here, tho ſet ſimply without any addition, muſt be underſtood a Reſurrection to a bleſſed life; becauſe tho the dead bodies of the wicked are to be reſtored to their former ſtate, yet that Reſtoration is hardly worth the happy name of a Reſurrection, which is ſucceeded by eternal death. Thus Polycarpus alſo ſpeaks in his Epiſtle to the Philippians: [...]: He that raiſed Chriſt from the dead, will raiſe us up alſo, if we do his will, and walk in his commandments.

Verſ. 12. Note d. Tho S. Paul here uſes ſeveral words taken from the Agones, and tho [...] may perhaps ſignify the moſt noble and valuable Rewards; yet that [...] is an Agoniſtical term, I ſhall not believe till I ſee ſome place in an antient Writer, who in the deſcription of an [...] uſes it in that ſenſe. For it is not neceſſary to think that St. Paul keeps in every thing to the ſame Metaphor; nor can it be inferred from the phraſe [...], that [...] is to attain to thoſe Rewards, unleſs an example to that purpoſe be alledged.

I. I acknowledg that Gregory Nyſſen calls the Death of a Martyr [...], but he does not therefore allude to the Agoniſtical way of ſpeaking, in that word, as in the word [...]. Eccleſiaſtical Writers very often call Martyrs Athletae, and the Death of Martyrs [...], and uſe [...] to ſignify that they are dead; not that thoſe three words are all by the ſame Metaphor taken from the Agones, but becauſe they who had ſtruggled under the Torments inflicted on them by the Heathens, were at length conſummated by Death; that is, finiſhed ſuffering all that they could ſuffer for the ſake of Chriſt. The learned Joan. Caſp. Suicerus has collected a great many examples of the words [...] and [...] in theſe Acceptations, in his Theſaurus Eccleſiaſticus. And the Latin Fathers frequently uſe the words conſummari and conſummationem, which without doubt are not Agoniſtical terms.

II. It is not probable that the Apoſtle James, in c. i.17. had a reference to the Rewards of the Agones, becauſe [...] and [...] are not Agoniſtical names, ſignifying the Rewards of ſuch as overcame. Of the paſſages alledged out of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, I ſhall treat in that Epiſtle.

[Page]III. What our Author ſays about the word [...] is true; but S. Chryſoſtom's Obſervation does not belong to that, but to the word [...] n [...]tſahh.

IV. St. Paul here uſes the Verb [...] in a more general ſenſe, not for Death, but the attainment of Perfection, from which men cannot fall into an unhappy condition; ſuch as is the Perfection of the Saints, admitted into the manſions of eternal Bleſſedneſs. So that his meaning is this; that he had not as yet attained to ſuch a degree of Holineſs, as was perfect, from which he could not fall. We meet with this Verb uſed to ſignify Perfection in Vertue, in Jam. ii.22. 1 Joh. ii.5. and iv.12, 13, 18. See alſo Verſ. 15. of this Chap.

Ibid. Note f. That which was ſaid of one of the Antients, N [...]ſcivit manum de tabula tollere, may juſtly be applied to our Author, who ſeldom knew when he had ſaid enough about one thing. Becauſe in ſome places he had ſome reaſon to think that the Gnoſticks were referred to by the Apoſtles, therefore wherever there was but the leaſt occaſion for ſuch a ſuſpicion, the Gnoſticks muſt undoubtedly be reſpected; as if all the Hereticks and wicked men that diſturbed the Chriſtian Churches at that time, had been Gnoſticks. And ſo here, becauſe there are ſome Agoniſtical terms uſed, he ſtrains them all to the ſame Metaphor, and can ſee nothing in this place but Metaphors borrowed from the uſe of the Agones. The Verb [...] here may much more naturally be interpreted of that Action of Chriſt, when he ſuddenly [...] apprehended S. Paul as he was perſecuting the Chriſtians in his way to Damaſcus, in order to make him an Apoſtle. But if any one will needs, with Dr. Hammond, have this to be an Agonistical word, I ſhould not interpret it of the attaining a prize, but of overtaking or catching, viz. when a ſwift Runner overtook another that ran more ſlowly; as if Chriſt ſhould be ſaid to have run after St. Paul, and overtook him. Suidas: [...]: The word is applied alſo to the ſwiftneſs of the feet, and therefore we ſay, ſuch a one purſuing another that ran away, overtook him.

Verſ. 20. Note l. I. Our Author, in the beginning of this Note, puts municipium for municipatus; for municipium is the Town corporate it ſelf, and municipatus the Privileges or Condition of municipes, Free-men of any City or Corporation. Which word Tertullian and S. Jerom make uſe of to explain this place, as learned men have obſerved.

II. But, the truth is, neither of theſe words belong to it; for no municeps could ſay, My municipatus, or my municipium is in Rome. Rome could not be called a municipium, which name belonged firſt only [Page] to the Cities of Italy, but afterwards alſo to others,Chapter IV. the Inhabitants of which were indeed Roman Citizens, but in their municipia were govern'd by their own municipal Laws, and not thoſe of Rome: of which ſee A. Gellius, lib. xvi. c. 13. If we would deſcribe the Condition of Chriſtians by a Metaphor taken from the Condition of municipes, we ought to ſay, that they have indeed a municipium on Earth, but their City is in Heaven.

III. I can't tell whether the place in Cicero was tranſcribed by our Author out of Cicero himſelf; but it's certain it is falſe quoted. For it is in lib. 2. de Legg. cap. 2. in theſe words; Omnibus municipibus duas eſſe cenſeo patrias; unam naturae, alteram civitatis (not juris) ut ille Cato cum eſſet Tuſculi natus (not exemplo Catonis qui) in populi Romani civitatem (not ſocietatem) ſuſceptus est. If our Author wrote this paſſage out of Cicero himſelf, he was ſcarce awake; if he tranſcribed it out of another, he did not act prudently. [See Note on Mat. xiii.54.☜ where this place is cited by Mr. le Cler [...] upon another occaſion.]

IV. [...] in Acts xxii.28. does not ſignify municipium or municipatus, but the Privilege of the City of Rome. Beſides, that word does not belong to this place; for no one would ſay, beſides Dr. Hammond who abounds with improprieties of Speech, our privilege of Citizenſhip is in Heaven? [...] here is all one with [...] City, that is, Patria Country; [...], that is, our City or Country is in Heaven, and not on Earth. Elſewhere [...] ſignifies the way of adminiſtring a Commonwealth. According to the twofold ſignification of the Verb [...], which is taken, for living in a City, or adminiſtring a Commonwealth, the word [...] has alſo the two alledged ſignifications. But the former only can be admitted here, becauſe St. Paul ſpeaks of a Place, as appears by the Prepoſition [...], in; [...], in Heaven. See Heb. xi.13. and ſeqq.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 3. Note a. OF this Phraſe ſee my Note on Deut. xxxii.32. where I have ſpoken of it at large, and confirmed what Dr. Hammond here ſays. But he produces imprudently a piece of a Verſe as out of Homer, taking it upon truſt, which is no where extant in him. At leaſt as I never read it, that I remember, ſo neither can it be found by the help of Seberus's Index. It is very ill done in any to alledg the Antients in ſuch a manner, that the Reader cannot know whether they are truly cited: ſuch Perſons deſerve never to be truſted.

[Page]Verſ. 7. Note b. I can eaſily aſſent to what our Author here ſays; if we put but Jews inſtead of Gnoſticks, or if by the name of Gnosticks we underſtand the Jews themſelves; becauſe tho it is certain there were Judaizers wherever the Jews were, it is not certain that the Heathen Sect of the Gnosticks was ſo widely diſperſed. It muſt be further added, that [...] does not ſignify only the Mind, but alſo frequently quickneſs of Wit or Underſtanding; whence [...] is to be ingenious. Heſychius tells us, that this word ſignifies [...], properly, the action of a compoſed mind, that is, a clear underſtanding of things. And ſo St. Paul's meaning here will be, that the love of Peace was much better than all the Wit and Subtilty that the Diſturbers of the Church boaſted of.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Coloſſians. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Praemon.] I. It may not be unuſeful to obſerve that Coloſſae was even in antient Times a wealthy and populous City; as thoſe generally were which the firſt Preachers of the Goſpel went to, becauſe of the likelihood of having a greater harveſt in them than in others. Xenophon in Lib. 1. de Exped. Cyri ſpeaks of it in this manner: [...]: he led (them) through Phrygia one Station, eight Paraſangae, to Coloſſae, a populous, rich and great City.

II. This Epiſtle ſeems to have been written in the ſame Year with the two foregoing, that is, according to the account of Dr. Pearſon whom I follow, Anno Chriſti lxii. and the ixth of Nero.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 15. [...].] The word [...] muſt be ſupplied here after [...], thus: the viſible Image of the inviſible God; which is to be underſtood of the Humanity of Chriſt it ſelf, as Beza well obſerves, who may be conſulted. But to the Humanity of Chriſt we muſt add the viſible Miracles which he wrought in the view of Multitudes. This is that which is otherwiſe called [...] in Philip. ii.6. Our Author ought to have expreſſed this more fully in his Paraphraſe.

Ibid. Note a. I. If we carefully examin the places brought by our Author and others, to prove that [...] ſignifies ſometimes a Lord, we ſhall find them to be of no force. In Pſal. lxxxix.28. the firſtborn of the Kings of the Earth, doth not ſignify a Lord over other Kings, but an excellent or moſt glorious King, as Dr. Hammond himſelf acknowledges, and the thing it ſelf ſhews, But Joh xviii.13. [Page] makes nothing at all to the purpoſe, for the firſtborn of Death is not there the Lord of Death, but a mortal or deadly Diſeaſe. In the Civil Law, Haeres an Heir, does not ſignify properly Dominus a Lord; but Juſtinian tells us, that he who pro Domino gerit, repreſents or manages for a Lord, gerit pro Herede, does the ſame for an Heir; and then he adds: Veteres enim haeredes pro dominis appellabant: For the Antients uſed to ſay Heirs for Lords. But hence it does not follow, that becauſe the Heir was the Firſt-born, therefore the Firſt-born of an Eſtate may be put for an Heir, and ſo for the Lord of an Eſtate.

II. I think therefore with Beza and others, that by [...] is meant he that was before all Creatures; but I interpret [...] juſt in the ſame manner as if St. Paul had ſimply ſaid [...], laying no Emphaſis at all on the two laſt Syllables [...], which come from the Verb [...] to bring forth. Becauſe [...] a firſtborn is before the reſt of his Brethren, therefore St. Paul calls Chriſt the firſt-born of every Creature, juſt in the ſame ſenſe as if he had called him [...]. This Interpretation the Apoſtle himſelf ſuggeſts to us, who explaining his own mind, ſays more clearly in verſ. 17. he is [...] before all things; and in ver. 18. calls Chriſt [...] the firſt-born from the dead, that is, [...], he that was firſt raiſed from the dead. St. Paul proves that Chriſt was before every Creature, becauſe by him all things were created. But no body in his wits ever dreamt that the Man Jeſus was before every Creature; and therefore this muſt be underſtood of the [...] or divine Reaſon, the [...] of which, as St. Paul afterwards ſpeaks, it pleaſed the Father, [...], ſhould dwell in him. See my Notes on John i.

III. I know that not only Joan. Crellius, and other Ʋnitarians, but alſo H. Grotius interpret theſe things of the new Creation, and tell us that Chriſt is called here the firſt-born of every Creature, becauſe he was the firſt and chief in the new Creation. But that is a forced interpretation, and remote from tho moſt uſual ſenſe of the words, if we conſider what follows. Beſides, that in this place it ſhould be ſaid in the praiſe of Chriſt that he was before every new Creature, that is, before the Renovation made by himſelf, and this again proved by that Renovation, and repeated in verſ. 17. is certainly flat and mean, when the thing is ſo evident of it ſelf. Compare this place with John i. and ſee what I have there ſaid.

Verſ. 16. [...].] I acknowledg that things are ſometimes ſaid [...] which are conſtituted, or which have acquired a new State, as Grotius has ſhewn in his Prolegomena [Page] before the Goſpels: So Men converted to Chriſt are called new Creatures, and the like. I have ſhewn alſo that [...] ſignifies colonis inſtruere, To furniſh with Inhabitants, on Gen. i.1. But if we throughly examin this phraſe of St. Paul, we ſhall eaſily perceive that thoſe interpretations can here have no place. Chriſt is ſaid here [...] to have created all things in Heaven, which St. Paul afterwards interprets of Angels. Now, 1ſt. This cannot ſignify to conſtitute the Angels in Heaven which were already in it, and performed the ſame Offices as before, 2ly. Nor can the Angels be ſaid to have been put into a new State, becauſe nothing new befel them, but their becoming ſubject to the Man Chriſt; upon which account they can no more be ſaid [...] by him, than the Romans by Julius Caeſar, becauſe he ruled over them with the title of Perpetual Dictator; that is, not without ſpeaking very improperly. 3ly. Nor would it be any thing more proper to ſay that the Angels [...], becauſe Heaven received new Inhabitants into it. That theſe ſignifications or any of them might be admitted, it ſhould have been ſaid [...], and not the Angels, becauſe we might then indeed think (if there was nothing in the Context to oppoſe it) that things in Heaven were diſpoſed after a new manner, or that there was a certain uſe of it conſtituted and ſettled, or laſtly, that it was furniſhed with Inhabitants; but that the Angels themſelves, who were already in Heaven before the Man Chriſt, and diſcharged the ſame Offices, ſhould be ſaid to be created or conditi made, the uſe of the Holy Scriptures will not bear, nor the genius of the Hebrew or Greek Languages. I obſerve that the Learned do often err, in thinking that any ſignification which belongs to words when they are found ſeparately, or in ſuch or ſuch a particular conſtruction, may alſo be attributed to them in any conſtruction whatſoever. But if the reading of the Antients did not, methinks the very genius of Modern Languages might teach them, that there is a great difference between the ſignifications of words, according as they are joined with one another, and that the ſenſe of Phraſes is quite changed by the addition or alteration of one ſmall Particle.

To underſtand therefore the Apoſtle's mind, nothing can be here more fitly deviſed than this Paraphraſe: [...]: Who among Men was a viſible Image of the inviſible God, and was with God before all Creatures, for by him were all things created, &c.

Ibid. Note b. I do not think the ſame words can be underſtood of Angels and Men, as if the ſeveral Orders among both were intended by the ſame Names. See Grotius on this place.

[Page]Ibid. [...].] All things were created by him, viz. [...], by the divine Reaſon; and for him, that is, that the infinite Wiſdom of the divine Reaſon might be made manifeſt. See John i. and my Notes on the firſt 18 Verſes of that Goſpel.

Verſ. 20. Note c. This Interpretation is violent and forced, and tho agreeable enough to Divinity, quite contrary to Grammar, and therefore I think it is wholly to be rejected. For the queſtion is not, whether what Dr. Hammond ſays be true, but what the Apoſtle ſays in this place.

I. I acknowledg there is ſome agreement between Epheſ. ii.14. & ſeqq. and this place, for in both the Redemption of Chriſt is ſpoken of; but that they are perfectly and in all things parallel, I utterly deny, and ſo will any one who does but read both places with any Application. And therefore this place ought not to be ſtrained, to agree exactly with that other.

II. This reaſoning of our Author is inconcluſive: The Heavens and the Earth ſignify this lower World; this lower World is all one with Men; therefore all things in Heaven and Earth ſignifies all Men, Gentiles as well as Jews. The parts of this Argument are falſe, and the conſequence illegitimate. Firſt, it is falſe that Heaven and Earth does any where ſignify merely this lower World, that is, the Earth and the Air lying round about it, excluſive of the upper ſpaces. For thoſe words are uſed to comprehend the whole Univerſe, not excepting the Starry Heaven, as appears by Gen. i. I confeſs Heaven often ſignifies the Air, but then it is not joined with the Earth, which muſt be carefully obſerved; for the uſual ſignification of an entire Phraſe is one thing, and of ſingle words another. Secondly, granting that the Phraſe Heaven and Earth ſignifies this inferiour World, it will not follow that Men are ſo called, nor indeed are they ſo ever. But thirdly, ſuppoſe that alſo were true, it muſt be obſerved that it is not ſaid here ſimply that Heaven and Earth were reconciled, but all things which are in Heaven or in Earth, which is a quite different thing; for in this phraſe, the Heaven and the Earth, are clearly diſtinguiſhed from thoſe who are in them; nor can the words Heaven and Earth be here thought ſynonimous to the name World, which often ſignifies Men. The Particle [...] or, which being twice repeated is a Disjunctive, ſhews alſo that thoſe who are in Heaven, are not the ſame with thoſe who are on Earth, and therefore that Men only cannot be intended. Beſides, tho the word World ſignifies all Men, and Heaven and Earth is called the World, it does not follow that Men may be ſignified by theſe words, all things which are in Heaven or in Earth. In interpreting Languages [Page] it muſt not only be conſider'd what may be ſaid without abſurdity according to Analogy, but with Analogy we muſt join uſe; ‘Quem penes arbitrium eſt, & lex, & norma loquendi.’ Fourthly, hence it may be inferred, that what our Author adds about the Phraſe [...] every Creature, is to no purpoſe, for it is certain that is often uſed to ſignify all Men; but that this other all things both which are in Heaven and on Earth ſignifies the ſame, appears by no example.

III. If Eph. ii.16. ought to be corrected to Dr. Hammond's mind, we ſhould not change [...] into [...], which would here ſignify nothing, but into [...] into the ſame: But there is no need of any correction. What follows makes nothing to the purpoſe; and as it does not help Dr. Hammond, ſo it does not hurt me.

IV. The reconciliation of Angels is not to be underſtood of a reconciliation with God, but with Men, who being God's Enemies by evil Works, were at the ſame time Enemies to the Holy Angels; which are ſo intimately allied to God, that the Friends and Enemies of the one are the Enemies and Friends of the other. But Men being once converted by Chriſt to a holy and religious Life, and made Friends with God, they become alſo Friends to the Angels, who love the good as much as they deteſt the wicked. Thus God has reconciled all things into him, that is, Angels and Men, acknowledging and worſhipping one Lord Jeſus Chriſt; made them Friends with one another, and compoſed one Family of both theſe orders of Creatures, who were before at a vaſt diſtance from each other, both in their Habitations and Diſpoſitions. This is that which is ſignified in Epheſ. i.10. on which place ſee Grotius. It was a Myſtery before unknown, that the time would come when [...], that is, all the Nations upon Earth, ſhould become one Family with the Angels, as well as the Jews; that is, ſhould own and worſhip the true God according to his own preſcriptions, and ſo be accounted his Children. Which being ſo, what our Author alledges as out of that place in St. Paul, to confirm his interpretation of this, is inſignificant.

Verſ. 22. Note d. Grotius and others, much better interpret this Phraſe of a fleſhly Body, that is, obnoxious to the ſame Infirmities as ours. It is not true, that [...] ſignifies Body, tho our Author has ſeveral times affirmed it.

Verſ. 24. [...].] That is, I that formerly perſecuted the Church of Chriſt, do now on the contrary ſuffer many [Page] evils for its advantage,Chapter II. and go on to ſuffer with undaunted conſtancy all that Chriſt has left me to ſuffer for his Church. So I have interpreted this place in my Ars Critica, Part 2. S. 1. C. xii. where ſee what I have ſaid.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 8. Note b. I Eaſily grant that theſe Words ſignify Philoſophical Doctrines; but it does not appear to me that the Gnosticks are here referred to. For why may not the Apoſtle have a reſpect to the Heathen Philoſophers, who had not a full and entire knowledg of true Vertue, but only ſome Elements of it? No body certainly can doubt but there were Philoſophers in all parts of Aſia, who might oppoſe the Chriſtian Religion; but it is not ſo eaſy to prove that the Followers of Simon were ſo univerſally diſperſed.

Verſ. 9. Note c. The Context ſeeming to require the ſenſe which our Author gives of this place, it is probable to me that [...] ſignifies here indeed Elements, or Rudiments of Vertue; but that S. Paul alludes to another Signification of that Word, becauſe he oppoſes to [...], the Body of the Deity. And that is when it is taken for a Shadow, of which Signification we have a clear Inſtance in theſe words of Julius Pollux, Lib. VI. c. 8. [...]: they gathered from the Shadow when it was time to go to the Supper, which [ſhadow] they called [...]: and it behoved them to make haſte if the [...] was ten foot long. This he took from Ariſtophanes, in whom a Woman is brought in ſpeaking thus, in Concionat. pag. 744. Ed. Maj. Genev.

— [...]

[...].

Take care, as ſoon as the Shadow (on the Sundial) is ten foot long, to go [inſtantly] or neatly to the Supper. On which place the Scholiaſt has the ſame Obſervation with that I have ſet down out ot Pollux. And hence perhaps the Repreſentations which are made to us in Dreams were called [...], becauſe they are as the obſcure Shadows of things. Suidas: [...]: the Images and Fictions of Dreams, which in a ſhorter or longer time have their exit. So that [...], that is, an obſcure and [...]aint Deſcription of thoſe Duties which Men ought to perform, or the groſs and rude Elements of Vertue, are very fitly here oppoſed [...], to all the Fulneſs of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ.

[Page]Verſ. 16. Note e. Tho I deny not but the Hebrew [...] may be rendred by [...], yet two things hinder my aſſenting to Dr. Hammond. Firſt, that the Talmudical Traditions were not written at that time, nor conſequently divided into Chapters. Secondly, that to condemn in the Chapter of the Feaſt is no Rabbinical phraſe, to ſignify the condemnation of a Perſon not obſerving what is taught in the Chapter of the Talmud concerning a Feaſt. What then is [...]; I anſwer, it is an Elliptical expreſſion, the ſenſe of which is this, [...], becauſe ye do not reckon the Jewiſh Feaſts, or New Moons, or Sabbaths, in the place or number of Holy days. So [...], is to condemn you becauſe you do not ſcruple eating, what the Jews thought it unlawful for them to eat or drink. It is a very noted Phraſe, [...], not to reckon in the place of any thing, that is, not to think it ſuch, or the ſame. Of which Henr. Stephanus, or Rob. Conſtantinus, or any other Lexicographer will furniſh us with plenty of examples.

Verſ. 18. Note f. The word [...], by Analogy, may have that ſignification which our Author gives it; but the following words do not favour it, which much better agree to the notion of deceiving than condemning. And indeed [...] may properly ſignify to obtain the prize againſt another, or [...], and then by a Metaphor to deceive, becauſe the Prize which was due to another was often got by deceitful Artifices. Suidas: [...]: recenſeatur, let it be recounted, let him condemn, (perhaps it ſhould be read [...] let him be condemned) let him be overcome. The Apoſtle uſes [...] to ſignify that when one ſtrives, another is crowned. I believe inſtead of [...] we ought to read [...], let him be deceived, for there is no Affinity between [...] and [...] recenſere.

Ibid. Note g. The phraſe [...], is without doubt a Hebraiſm; for the Jews ſay, [...] hhaphats bo, that is, literally, [...]. But to ſpeak my thoughts, if there were any Authority to countenance it, inſtead of [...] I ſhould willingly read the word with an addition but of one Letter [...], which yields an excellent ſenſe thus: let no Man deceive you, ENTICING or ALLURING you by Humility and worſhipping of Angels, &c. Nothing agrees better with deceiving than [...] alluring. But I am not for changing any thing againſt the conſent of the Copies.

[Page]Verſ. 19. [...], &c.] I have explained this place, contrary to Dr. Hammond, on Eph. iv.16.

Ibid. in Note i. pag. 658. col. 2. lin. 16. After the words Advice or Opinion only.] That which Dr. Hammond adds, in the end of this Note, after the words here ſet down, being an explication of ſome paſſages in the Engliſh-Saxon Councils, which cannot be underſtood by thoſe who are ignorant of the old Saxon Language, and is in it ſelf of little moment, I have omitted in my Latin Tranſlation. But inſtead of it I ſhall make ſome remarks on St. Paul's words, and the foregoing part of the Doctor's Annotation.

I. The words [...], are very fitly referred to forbidden Meats; for Swines-fleſh could not be touched according to the Jewiſh Statutes, without pollution; and it was unlawful to taſte or eat ſeveral other ſorts of Meats which might be touched without Deſilement. Or elſe, as Grotius thinks, theſe words might be rendred, ne tangas ut veſcaris, touch not with a deſign to eat, of which ſee my Note on Gen. iii.3. The words [...] I refer alſo to the ſame forbidden Meats. Tho the Verb [...] be uſed in places where another that ſignified to come near might have been uſed almoſt in the ſame ſenſe, it does not therefore follow that that Verb may be ſo rendred, or ſignifies juſt the ſame, becauſe handling is ſomething more than coming near; for one that comes near a thing does not therefore touch it, tho it cannot be touched without coming near it. The Judaizers often made uſe of theſe words, ſpeaking of thoſe Meats which were prohibited by the Law, touch not, taſte not, handle not; not all perhaps at the ſame time, or in the ſame order, but now one, and then another, juſt as it happen'd. So that it is no matter if the ſame thing be repeated, as long as they are different words, which were equally uſed to ſignify one thing.

II. The following words [...], are, I ſuppoſe, to be underſtood, with Grotius, of the corruption of Meats caſt out of the Body [...] (for ſo it muſt be read with ſome of the Antients) by excretion, i. e. by their being turned into excrements. To which there is a parallel ſenſe in Mat. xv.17. In compariſon with this, our Author's interpretation is harſh and violent. For how could it be ſaid of the Meats from which the Jews abſtained, which are abuſed to bring in abominable Luſts? That agrees indeed to the Doctrine about the unlawfulneſs of Marriage, but by no means to abſtinence from Meats, which yet the Doctor would have to be alſo reſpected in the words immediately foregoing.

III. [...] does ſometimes undoubtedly ſignify a Price, or alſo a Reward, from [...] to pay; but [...] cannot therefore here be the ſupplying of [Page]the wants of the Fleſh, becauſe it is oppoſed [...] to pinching and not ſparing the Body. And ſo thoſe who live an auſtere Life, and content themſelves with mean fare, are very fitly ſaid to live [...], becauſe they ſeem to give no honour to their Bodies. It is alſo a forced Interpretation of [...] to ſay that it ſignifies Marriage or the honourable uſe of Marriage, becauſe the conjugal State is ſomewhere ſaid to be [...], honourable, and he that lives chaſtly, and does not pollute his Body with ſhameful Luſts, may be ſaid [...] to poſſeſs his Body in honour. There muſt always be a regard had to places and conſtruction, in finding out what words ſignify, and not any ſignification affixed to them in all places, as our Author ſometimes does.

IV. In 1 Theſſ. iv.5. all Copies read [...], not [...], and Dr. Hammond ought not to have produced his own Conjecture for the words of St. Paul, without an Admonition. See on that place.

V. I do not indeed condemn all [...], as it is deſcribed by our Author; but I cannot perſwade my ſelf that St. Paul here uſes that word in a good ſenſe. When he ſays that the Life of thoſe whom he condemns, had ſome [...], he does not ſpeak his own Sentiments, but the opinion of the Vulgar, who are more taken with thoſe outward ſhews, than with true inward Piety. And I have this reaſon on my ſide, that according to the judgment of St. Paul, that Humility which conſiſted in the worſhip of Angels, had no appearance of Virtue in it; becauſe to ſpeak in the ſofteſt terms, it favoured ſomething of Idolatry. The ſame may be ſaid of [...], which he declares to profit but little; which place I wonder Dr. Hammond would alledg, ſeeing it makes ſo much againſt him. But beſides this, there is another reaſon which puts this matter out of all doubt, and that is, that the [...] here ſpoken of, is the worſhip of Angels, which was therefore unlawful becauſe voluntary; it being unwarrantable to invent [...] objects of Worſhip to our ſelves, of our own accord, without a Command from God. Compare this verſe with the 18th, where St. Paul ſpeaks thus, Let no Man ſeduce you in a voluntary Humility, and worſhipping of Angels; and there will be no doubt but the voluntary Worſhip, which the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of, is the worſhipping of Angels, it being manifeſt that he treats of the ſame thing in both places. So that [...] according to St. Paul's notion of it, ſignifies ſomething unlawful, tho the common ſort of People who did not underſtand the nature of true Piety, admired ſuch voluntary and affected Worſhip.

[Page]VI. But the caſe, as to the freewill-Offerings of the Jews, and the voluntary Worſhip of Angels, of which S. Paul here ſpeaks, was quite different. For God had commanded that Sacrifices ſhould be offer'd to him, and preſcribed the way in which they were all to be offered; ſo that all that was voluntary in thoſe Sacrifices, was the offering them up at ſuch certain times as the Supplicant of his own accord determined, according to God's preſcribed Rule, both as to the matter and manner. But God never commanded or permitted that religious Worſhip ſhould be given to any but himſelf and his only begotten Son; and much leſs has he preſcribed the manner how Angels ought to be worſhipped. So that there can be no compariſon between theſe two things.

VII. I acknowledg there may be ſome things good in themſelves, which yet may be omitted without Sin; but that therefore [...] here is taken in a good ſenſe, I do not think, becauſe [...] properly ſignifies religious Worſhip, which we may not give to any or our own accord. But the Doctor underſtood the matter here ſo, as if [...] ſignified either a lawful way of divine Worſhip, or any Action good in it ſelf, but not indiſpenſably commanded. And ſo indeed [...] may be taken in a good ſenſe: but the former, which I take to be the ſenſe wherein it is uſed by the Apoſtle, is a bad one.

VIII. After all, there are two things which ſeem neceſſary to be obſerved concerning all voluntary Actions relating to Piety; which if they be not conſider'd, this whole buſineſs will be very obſcure, and may be miſunderſtood.

First, That under the Goſpel, to make any voluntary courſe or act of Piety acceptable to God, the matter about which it is converſant muſt be good in it ſelf, and ſuch as cannot be done but by a good man, and conſequently a better than thoſe who do not perform any ſuch Action: otherwiſe, if it be a thing indifferent in its own nature, and may be done by bad men as well as good, that voluntary Piety cannot be thought to pleaſe God. To preach the Goſpel with a pious deſign, and [...] without making it chargeable to the Hearers, that ſo men might be the more eaſily perſwaded to the practice of Vertue, and brought to believe in Chriſt, was a thing good in it ſelf, and could not but be commendable in St. Paul, and acceptable to God. But to live a ſingle Life, tho chaſte, is a thing neither good nor evil, if it be oppoſed to a chaſte married Life; and may be found in a man that is proud, unmerciful, contentious, or imperious, and conſequently worſe than others who are married. And therefore that voluntary Piety, as it is called, cannot pleaſe God, whatever is ſaid [Page] by S. Jerom; who was not a whit the better for being a ſingle man. The ſame may be ſaid of all other things of the like nature.

The ſecond thing to be carefully obſerved in this matter is, that voluntary acts of Piety are commendable only in thoſe who obſerve what is indiſpenſably required, and not in thoſe who neglecting neceſſary and commanded Duty, as mean and trivial, would ſeem to aſpire to ſome higher degree of Piety. For what Maſter would be well pleaſed with a Servant, who omitting his expreſs Orders, ſhould ſet himſelf to do other things greater than he commanded him to do? All Maſters, and that with reaſon, expect their Servants ſhould do firſt what they require of them; and then, and not before, they may attempt to do ſomething extraordinary; otherwiſe they are offended with the pride and perverſneſs of thoſe Servants, who when they do not perform what is exacted from them, are yet vainly ambitious of appearing better than others. St. Paul, after he had done all thoſe things which became a good man and an Apoſtle, preached the Goſpel freely, to his great Commendation, and with the ſure hope of a ſpecial Reward. But if he had neglected plain Duty, or any eſſential part of his Apoſtolical Office, and pleaſed himſelf only with this, that he had preached the Goſpel without making it coſtly to his Hearers, he would not upon that account have been any thing the more acceptable to God. And ſo when we ſee that ſome of thoſe in antient times who ſhut up themſelves in Monaſteries, under a pretence of exerciſing themſelves in a more ſublime courſe of Piety, and being righteous above what is commanded, do manifeſtly diſcover a great deal of Pride, Hatred of their Neighbour, Impatience of Injuries, and the like Vices, in their Writings; he muſt be either ſtupid, or infected with the ſame Vices himſelf, that admires them, or thinks they were for that reaſon at all more pleaſing to God. Such alſo were the Phariſees, at leaſt for the moſt part, whom Chriſt ſo ſharply reproves, and whoſe [...] I cannot but wonder that Dr. Hammond ſhould take in a laudable ſenſe. No one that reads the beginning of the deſcription of their Hereſy, in Epiphanius, can doubt but that word is uſed in a bad notion. The learned Dion. Petavius, tho a Jeſuit, preſently ſaw this, as appears by his Verſion of Epiphanius's words, here ſubjoined: [...]: Qui ideo, ſaith Petavius, Phariſaei dicti ſunt, quod eſſent, propter adſcititiam, ſuperſtitioſamque diſciplinam à reliquis ſejuncti; who were therefore called Phariſees, becauſe by their affected and ſuperſtitious Diſcipline they were diſtinguiſhed from others.

[Page] Chapter III.Hence it may be inferred in the third place, that thoſe whoſe buſineſs it is to perſwade men to Piety, have ſeldom need to recommend [...] to their Auditors, there being very few who perform neceſſary duties as they ought. Theſe are the things which ſhould be urged, and often inculcated; ſeeing, eſpecially, they are of a vaſt extent, and frequently violated. Other things may be ſafely let alone, becauſe thoſe who are fit to be exhorted to works of Supererogation, are not only few in number, but do not need Exhortations to them.

IX. Sacrifices not commanded by God, and Holy-days, and other things of the ſame nature, not preſcribed by any divine Laws, were in themſelves neither good nor evil; nor could they be acceptable to God, any otherwiſe than as they were performed with a devout and affectionate mind: and therefore accurately ſpeaking, it was not thoſe voluntary acts of Piety, materially conſidered, wherewith God was pleaſed, but the devout Mind of thoſe that performed them. Which was then only truly ſo, when, after they had done what was commanded them, they performed over and above thoſe uncommanded things. The ſame may be ſaid now of Eccleſiaſtical Rites, not preſcribed by God, the obſervation of which can no otherwiſe, than upon thoſe terms, be pleaſing to him.

X. I wonder our Author ſhould alledg the words of Maimonides, which have no manner of agreement with what he ſays; nay, are contrary to it. And yet he uſes them elſewhere to the ſame purpoſe. See his Note on 1 Cor. ix.17.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 14. IF the phraſe Bond of perfectneſs were an Hypallage, it would ſignify perfectneſs of Bond, and not a perfect Bond. If we obſerve that S. Paul in the 12th Verſe uſes a Metaphor taken from Garments, and that the word [...] there uſed muſt be repeated again in this, we ſhall eaſily ſee that he continues the ſame Metaphor: And over all theſe things [put on] Charity, which is the bond of perfectneſs. In which words, the Apoſtle alludes to a Girdle, which being put over our Garments, binds them faſt together; and his meaning may be expreſſed in this manner: ‘After ye have put on all other Vertues, over them put on Charity, which, like a Girdle, may bind them faſt together.’ So that [...] will ſignify here what it uſually ſignifies; that is, a concurrence or conſort of all Vertues; which wherever it is found, denominates a Chriſtian [...].

CHAP. IV.Chapter IV.

[Page]

Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, endeavouring to get time allowed by the Heathens for the ſpreading of the Goſpel, leſt it be oppreſſed in its firſt riſe, which it was poſſible for them to obtain by Prudence. See my Note on Eph. v.16.

Verſ. 16. Note a. I. As to the thing it ſelf, I fully agree here with Dr. Hammond; yet I cannot but caution the Reader, that he ſhould not think the words he produces as out of the Digeſt. to be the very words of the antient Lawyers. Our learned Author did not look into the Digeſta, but tranſcribed the words of Grotius in his Annot. on the Inſcription of the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, which he erroneouſly thought to be the ſame with thoſe contained in the Digeſta. Grotius his words are theſe: Litterae ejus ſunt, cujus tabellario ſunt traditae, multoque magis ubi & redditae ſunt. L. Si Epiſtolam D. de acquirendo rerum Dominio. But Labeo in Lib. vi. Pithan. epitomized by Paulus, whoſe words are in Dig. Lib. xli. Tit. 1. S. 65. ſpeaks thus: Si Epiſtolam tibi miſero, non erit ea tua, antequam reddita fuerit. Paulus: imò contrà, nam ſi miſeris ad me Tabellarium tuum, & ego reſcribendi cauſa litteras tibi miſero, ſimul atque Tabellario tuo tradidero, tuae fient. Idem accidet in his litteris, quas tuae duntaxat rei gratia miſero; veluti ſi petieris a me, uti te alicui commendarem, & eas commendatitias tibi miſero litteras. If I ſend you a Letter, it will not be yours before it is delivered to you. Paulus: Nay on the contrary, if you ſend me your Carrier [with a Letter] and I write another in anſwer to it, as ſoon as ever I deliver it to the Carrier, it becomes yours. And the ſame may be ſaid of a Letter which I ſhould ſend only on your behalf to another Perſon; as ſuppoſe you ſhould deſire me to recommend you to any one, and I ſhould ſend you that commendatory Letter. Theſe words Grotius abbreviated, whoſe Epitome of them, the Doctor raſhly took for the words of the Lawyers themſelves. Yet hence it appears that an Epiſtle of Laodicaea may ſignify not only one written by the Laodicaeans, but alſo one ſent to the Laodicaeans. In the mean while, thoſe who deſire neither to be miſtaken themſelves, nor to deceive others, may learn by this example, not raſhly to believe other Mens Citations, nor to alledg Authors themſelves upon truſt.

II. Our learned Author ſeems as little to have look'd into thoſe places of Tertullian, where he ſpeaks of the Epiſtle to the Laodiceans; for he [Page] affirms expreſly, and does not only ſeem to affirm, that it was the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, whoſe Inſcription Marcion had changed. Lib. 5. c. ii. againſt Marcion. Praetereo hic, ſaith he, & de alia Epiſtola, quam nos ad Epheſios praeſcriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. I forbear alſo to ſpeak of another Epiſtle which we have inſcribed to the Epheſians, but the Hereticks to the Laodiceans. And cap. 17. Eccleſiae quidem veritate Epiſtolam iſtam ad Epheſios habemus emiſſam, non ad Laodicenos; ſed Marcion aliquando ei titulum interpolare geſtiit, quaſi & in iſto diligentiſſimus explorator. We of the true Church read that Epiſtle as directed to the Epheſians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion once thought fit to change its Title, deſiring in that alſo to be look'd on as a very diligent Critick.

Verſ. 16. Note b. I. Every time almoſt that Dr. Hammond ſpeaks of St. Paul's Bonds, he uſes the word impriſoned. As here ſpeaking of Epaphras, he ſays, he was impriſoned at Rome with St. Paul, and again, fellow Priſoner with St. Paul. But St. Paul was not impriſoned, but only bound in the ſame Chain with a Souldier, as the Doctor himſelf has ſhewn out of Lipſius, in a Note on Acts xxviii.16. And perhaps he meant no more than that here, when he uſes the word impriſoned; but becauſe ſuch an improper Phraſe might lead his Reader into a Miſtake, it was not to be paſſed by without Cenſure.

II. I do not well underſtand how the Coloſſians ſhould here be exhorted to admoniſh Archippus, who had an Epiſcopal Authority over that Church, according to Dr. Hammond, with theſe words, Take heed to the Miniſtry which thou haſt received in the Lord, to fulfil it; unleſs perhaps Archippus be charged with negligence, and therefore is here commanded to be publickly reproved and admoniſhed by the whole Congregation. But it may be he was not the Biſhop of Coloſſe, but an Evangeliſt, who did not execute his Office ſo diligently as he ought; and lying idle among the Coloſſians, or ſomewhere in the Neighbourhood, was to be admoniſhed by them. Which ſeems the more probable, becauſe this Archippus, in the Epiſtle to Philemon ver. 2. is called the fellow Souldier, [...] of St. Paul. On which place ſee Grotius.

Verſ. 17. [...].] Grotius, who is followed therein by our Author, thinks there is a Hebraiſm in theſe words for, ſee that thou fulfil in the Lord the Miniſtry which thou haſt received; ſo that the phraſe in the Lord ſhould ſignify, according to the Precepts of the Lord. But tho I do not deny but this may be the meaning of St. Paul's words, they are capable of two other ſenſes: [Page] firſt, Conſider throughly the Office which thou haſt received in the Lord, in order to a complete diſcharge of it; or elſe, ſecondly, Conſider in the Lord, that is, as in the ſight of the Lord, or, according to the Precepts of the Lord, &c. So the Verb [...] is ſometimes taken, as in 2 John 8. [...], &c. See your ſelves that we loſe not thoſe things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full Reward; that is, throughly conſider or examin your ſelves, &c. [...] and [...] are all one, and according to the various ſignifications of the Prepoſition ב, which is ordinarily rendred [...], and uſed in a manifold ſenſe, ſignify diverſe things. I confeſs I do not know which of theſe ſenſes is the beſt.

Verſ. 18. [...].] The bare remembring of St. Paul's Bonds being in it ſelf no part of Piety, it is conſequent the deſign of the Apoſtle in theſe words muſt be, to admoniſh the Coloſſians to behave themſelves both towards God and towards him, as became thoſe that were mindful of his Bonds; that is, who very well knew that he was caſt into thoſe Bonds only for the ſake of the Goſpel; or to be conſtant in the profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion, as he was, and love him, and pray to God in his behalf, that he might be ſet at liberty.

ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Theſſalonians.

[Page]

AT the end of the Praemon.] I. Dr. Pearſon and other the moſt exact Chronologers, ſuppoſe this Epiſtle was written in the year of Chriſt lii. or the xiith of Claudius.

II. I have already ſeveral times obſerved, that the Jews were neither ſo formidable as our Author thought, nor the Chriſtians ſo perfectly ſet free from perſecution by their deſtruction throughout all the parts of the Roman Empire; ſo as that thoſe who dwelt in Greece found the Heathens more favourable to them, after the overthrow of Jeruſalem, and the exciſion of the Jews.

III. I do not eaſily believe what Euſebius ſays about the journey of Simon Magus to Rome, nor St. Peter's conteſt with him, which ſeems to be all taken ex Clementinis, and out of Juſtin; the former being a feigned Hiſtory, and Juſtin having run into a miſtake through his ignorance in the Latin Tongue, as learned Men have long ago obſerved. I wonder our Author, in this diſcerning Age, in ‘Quo pueri naſum Rhinocerotis habent,’ ſhould build his Interpretation upon ſuch rotten and nauſeous Fables: But he produces, you will ſay, the Teſtimonies of Euſebius and St. Jerom, and Oroſius. But this is but one Witneſs all this while, becauſe the two latter only tranſcribed Euſebius; and the ſingle Authority of Euſebius is not much to be regarded, becauſe he often affirms things without conſidering whether they are true or falſe, and ſome that are manifeſtly feigned. It's true, Juſtin makes mention of the Statue of Simon, in his Apology, commonly called the Second; but he ſays nothing at all about St. Peter's Conflict or Victory over him, which he would never have omitted, if that had been the general opinion of thoſe times, becauſe it might be made very great uſe of againſt [Page] the Heathens, whom he upbraids with deifying Simon. Chapter I. Irenaeus alſo mentions the Statue, in Lib. 1. c. 20. but ſays nothing about the conteſt. That was but an invention of the falſe Clement, which other raſhly received for truth. There being very few, if any Hiſtorical Records in the firſt Age, excepting the Acts of the Apoſtles, Men that had nothing elſe to do, miſemployed their wits in deviſing Fables, which the injudiciouſneſs of Poſterity has almoſt made it a Crime to queſtion the truth of. But I am ſorry to find Dr. Hammond ſhould ſo eaſily give Credit to theſe Trifles.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. [...].] There are a few things which it may not be amiſs to remark upon this Chapter, tho Dr. Hammond has paſſed it over without any Annotations, contenting himſelf to expreſs what he thought to be the meaning of it in his Paraphraſe. Grotius explaining theſe words tells us, that the Apoſtle non nominat hic Presbyteros & Diaconos, quia recens erat Eccleſia, nec dum formam plenam acceperat; does not name here Presbyters and Deacons, becauſe the Church of Theſſalonica had been but lately gathered, and not yet formed into a regular Church. But if this reaſon be good, none of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote, except that of Philippi, were regularly formed Churches; becauſe there is no mention made of Church-Governors, Biſhops and Deacons, in the inſcriptions of any of the Epiſtles, but to the Philippians. But who will believe that the Epheſian and Corinthian Churches, in which St. Paul had for a great while reſided, were not yet ſo conſtituted as to have Rectors in them; and yet that the Church of Philippi, in which he made a ſhorter ſtay, had? Of the Church of Epheſus the contrary appears from Acts xx.17, 28. and of the Corinthian, by the Epiſtles themſelves written to that Church. So that there muſt be another reaſon given for St. Paul's not making mention of Biſhops and Deacons in the Inſcriptions of all his Epiſtles. And that which ſeems to me the moſt probable is, that the Governors of the Primitive Churches were modeſt, humble Men, who were unwilling to have themſelves diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of the People in the front of St. Paul's Epiſtles, that they might not appear to pretend to any magiſterial Authority, but to look upon themſelves only as Miniſters inſtituted for the ſake of Order and Chriſtian Society. There are a great many ſigns of this, eſpecially in the Epiſtles to the Corinthians, in which the Governors of the Churches of Achaia are no where order'd to uſe any Authority in the [Page] Adminiſtration of their Office, or in curbing evil Men who broke the Order of the Church. St. Paul every where ſpeaks to whole Churches, never to the Governors of them apart from the People. However I would not be thought to deny, that ſome Churches were not yet compleatly formed when St. Paul wrote to them; in which number ſeems to have been the Church of Rome. But this of Theſſalonica muſt be excepted, as appears from Chap. v.12, 13.

Ibid. [...].] That is, the Church of God and Chriſt. The Jews often pleaded that they were [...] Kehal o hedath Jehovah, The Congregation of the Lord, a phraſe not unuſual in Moſes, of which we have an example in Num. xvi.3. Now to diſtinguiſh the Chriſtians from the Jews, St. Paul calls them, not only the Church or Congregation of God, but of Chriſt. The Phraſe [...] to be in Chriſt, is to be a Chriſtian, and being ſubjoined to [...] ſignifies a Chriſtian Church, or a Church of Chriſt. See Note on Rom. xii.5.

Verſ. 3. [...].] The Genitive Caſe here ſignifies the relation of a cauſe to its effect; ſo that [...], is a work of which Faith is the cauſe, or ſuch a work as can proceed only from Faith. Such was mens renouncing Heatheniſm, and totally forſaking their old Cuſtoms and Practices in order to embrace the Chriſtian Religion, and regulate the remaining part of their Lives according to its Precepts; which could not be done but by thoſe who believed Jeſus to be truly ſent from God, and gave the Apoſtles a Commiſſion to preach what they did, and ſo the whole Doctrin of the Goſpel to be true. About the ambiguous ſignification of a Genitive caſe, ſee what I have ſaid in my Ars Critica, Part 2. Sect. 1. C. xii.

Ibid. [...].] Love or Charity creates [...], that is, labour to a degree of Fatigue, when a Man loves his Neighbour ſo as to put himſelf to a great many Hardſhips and Troubles, and reſolves to ſpare no pains whereby he may benefit others. Such was the Charity of St. Paul, who patiently underwent incredible difficulties in thoſe long Journeys, to mention no more, which he made, that he might reſcue multitudes of Men from eternal Deſtruction. And that the Theſſalonians followed his example, as far as they could, he himſelf teaches us in this place.

Ibid. [...].] That patience of Adverſities, which Hope produces, is never more remarkable, than when Chriſtians are perſecuted for their Religion, and ſubmit to any Sufferings rather than comply with the demands of Heathens. For the hope of eternal Happineſs makes them moſt patiently undergo the cruelleſt Torments. [Page] The Apoſtle therefore here teaches us that from the three great Vertues of Faith, Charity, and Hope, proceed as all kind of good Works, ſo particularly an officious Diligence, which declines no Labour, and ſubmits to any Calamities whatſoever.

Ibid. [...].] That is, God looking on, as an Agonotheta or Overſeer of the Games, who confers a Crown on thoſe that exerciſe themſelves in Chriſtian Vertues, and perſevere in them to their lives end. The Arabick and Syriack ſeem to have omitted theſe Words, becauſe they could not connect them with the foregoing, when other Copies have them. But they might have been left out without diſturbing or altering the Senſe.

Verſ. 4. [...].] That is, knowing and ſeeing that upon your embracing the Goſpel, God has actually diſtinguiſhed you from other People. See Note on Eph. 1.4. They who rejected the Goſpel when preached to them, were not diſcriminated from other people, but lay buried ſtill among the unbelieving multitude of Mankind, as before.

Verſ. 6. [...].] Supply [...], having received the Word, which was in much affliction, that is, the Preachers of which were grievouſly afflicted; with joy of the Holy Ghoſt, that is, with a pious chearfulneſs, preferring a good Conſcience and the hope of eternal Happineſs, to carnal Joy, joined with a courſe of Sin, and worldly Poſſeſſions.

Verſ. 7. [...].] See what I have ſaid on this Word on 1 Cor. x.7.

Verſ. 8. [...].] Beza and Grotius think that [...] muſt be prefixed to the Words [...], as if the Senſe ſhould be: For from you not only ſounded forth the Word of the Lord in Macedonia and Achaia, but alſo in every place your Faith is ſpread abroad. But if we carefully conſider theſe words, we ſhall perceive that the oppoſition here is not between [...] the ſounding out of the Word, and [...] the Theſſalonians Faith, but between Macedonia and Achaia, which were parts of Greece, and every place, that is, all the places of the Roman Empire in which there were any Chriſtians. For the Diſcourſe aſcends in this manner: ‘The Goſpel is become famous not only in ſome Countries of Greece, by the means of your Faith, whereof they have heard, but alſo through all the Chriſtian Churches your Faith is ſpread abroad.’ The Word of God is ſaid to have ſounded out from the Theſſalonians in Macedonia and Achaia, that is, to have been made famous by their Faith. And this is what is meant by the [...], the going out of their Faith, for to go out is to be ſpread abroad. See Pſalm xix.4. and Interpreters.

[Page] Chapter II.Verſ. 9. [...].] The Alexandrian Copy here reads [...] we had, which is better than [...], becauſe [...] follows, and the Diſcourſe is about a thing paſt: So that it muſt be read either [...], or [...].

Verſ. 10. [...].] Grotius thinks this is the Preſent tenſe for the Future, but without any neceſſity; for he at preſent frees us from the Wrath to come, that ſets us upon ſuch a Courſe of Life, which if we conſtantly follow, we ſhall have no reaſon to fear that Wrath. Dr. Hammond thinks the Deſtruction of Jeruſalem is alſo here intimated; but I am not of his opinion.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I had rather retain here the uſual ſignification of the Word [...], for vain or light. For St. Paul ſhews in the following Verſe, that it was not any Raſhneſs or Vanity that had put him upon preaching the Goſpel, which he himſelf did not believe to be true, in Macedonia: becauſe notwithſtanding the fierce oppoſition and deſpiteful uſage which he met with from the Jews at Philippi, he had conſtantly perſiſted in his Work. For raſh and vainglorious Men do indeed eaſily ſometimes undertake difficult things, but they as eaſily lay their Deſigns aſide, if they meet with any great difficulties in their way: But thoſe who have throughly conſidered things, and think, for very good reaſons, they ought to do that which they have undertaken, cannot be deterred by any Difficulties from proſecuting their firſt Purpoſe. They may apply to themſelves that Saying of Aeneas to the Sybil, in Virgil, Aeneid. Lib. vi. verſ. 102.

Non ulla laborum,

O Virgo, nova mî facies, inopinave ſurgit;

Omnia praecepi, atque animo mecum ante peregi.

Verſ. 5. Notes d and e. I. I eaſily aſſent to Dr. Hammond, interpreting the Word [...] here by talk or report; for [...] has often that ſignification, as H. Stephanus will ſhew. I ſee alſo that Conſtantine produces out of Ariſtotle the Phraſe [...], for to be the Subject of mens Diſcourſe; hominum ſermonibus celebrari. So that if St. Paul's Words were to be rendred in French, in agreement with that Latin Phraſe, they would be rightly tranſlated thus: nous n' avons jamais [...]té en réputation de flatterie: We were never reputed to flatter.

[Page]II. But I queſtion whether he did not miſunderſtand the Words of Phavorinus, from which he endeavours to prove that [...] ſignifies an Accuſation; for wherever he renders [...] an Accuſation, it might as well be rendred a Cauſe or Plea, whether true or pretended. For inſtance, Phavorinus ſaith, [...]: the word [...] is properly a ſpecious Oration pretended in accuſation of any one, but ſecondarily ſimply a Cauſe. I am apt to think this muſt be underſtood of one that acts the part of an Advocate, and brings an Excuſe in defence of his Client againſt his Plantiff; becauſe the word [...] in good Authors often ſignifies an Excuſe, but never an Accuſation. And the Defendant or accuſed Party is excuſed [...]; that is, by a feigned Cauſe or Plea alledged to ſhew that he ought to have done as he did. His Fault is coloured over with a handſom name. Afterwards [...] ſignified any Cauſe. This I am ſure is agreeable to the perpetual uſe of Greek Authors. Beſides, Phavorinus interprets the Verb [...] in Latin by [...] excuſo, which ought not to be changed, that being undoubtedly often the ſignification of that Verb. However, our Author ſeems to have underſtood the Words of St. Paul rightly as to the Senſe of the Phraſe, tho perhaps he did not perceive the full and critical importance of it, it being more probable that [...] ſignifies in a pretence of Covetouſneſs, and ſo the juſt meaning of the Apoſtle will be, that he never gave any man the leaſt pretence or occaſion to accuſe him of Covetouſneſs. So [...] in the Septuagint on Deut. xxii.14. ſeem to be Diſcourſes, wherein a Man ſeeks a pretence or occaſion to put away his Wife, which agrees with the Vulgar Tranſlation. And in Dan. vi. [...] is to ſeek a pretence, which the Conſpirators might ſpeciouſly uſe to deſtroy Daniel.

III. I have ſhewn on Rom. i.29. that our Author is miſtaken, wherever he interprets the word [...] Luſt, and in this place he commits the ſame Error. St. Paul ſhews that he never gave any one the leaſt ground to ſuſpect him of [...], or Covetouſneſs, in verſ. 6. and 9.

Verſ. 6. Note f. To denominate Letters [...] weighty or ſevere, it is not neceſſary they ſhould threaten Excommunication; for there may be weighty, i. e. ſevere Letters, which have nothing in them about Excommunication. Beſides [...] no where ſignifies Excommunication, or any thing like it; and much leſs can the Phraſe [...] be interpreted to excommunicat [...], according to the uſe of the Greek Tongue, either in Profane, or even in Sacred Writers. [...], as Grotius and others well obſerve, is the ſame with [...], in ver. 9. It is oppoſed [Page] to [...],Chapter III. becauſe he that rigidly or ſeverely exacts his right is [...], burdenſom, but he that recedes from it, [...]. If the Doctor had thought of theſe things, he would not have look'd here for Church-cenſures without any example: but it was his failing to be more inquiſitive after them than he ſhould be, which made him think he had diſcovered them ſometimes where they were not.

Verſ. 19. Note k. [...] is a Crown of which any man boaſts, not in which he rejoices; for tho thoſe things are often joined, yet they are not to be made the ſame, unleſs we would equal Dr. Hammond in impropriety of Speech.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 10. [...].] I am apt to think there is a tranſpoſition in theſe Words, and that they muſt be put into this order: [...]: praying that we might ſee your face, as that which would overflow our heart with joy, or would be a ſuper-abundant cauſe of joy to me. St. Paul was not ſatisfied to know that the Theſſalonians ſtedfaſtly adhered to the Goſpel, tho the news of that was matter of very great joy to him, but he deſired [...], over and above to ſee them. [...] ſignifies ſomewhat, which if not ſuperfluous, is at leaſt unneceſſary, and abounds, and therefore cannot fitly be joined with [...] Prayer, which is always neceſſary: And with the addition of [...] it ſignifies an overflowing or exceſs, which by no means agrees with a neceſſary Duty. That this is the force of that Particle appears by Eph. iii.20. where St. Paul ſays that God is able [ [...]], to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think. So likewiſe in this Epiſtle to the Theſſal. c. v.13. We beſeech you — [...], i. e. to love them with a ſuperabundant love. So that it is better to refer this word to that which St. Paul prayed for, than to his Prayer it ſelf. See an inſtance of the like tranſpoſition in ver. 7. of which there are a great many in St. Paul.

Ibid. [...].] The word [...] here muſt not be underſtood of an aſſent of the Mind yielded to the Goſpel, which was as perfect in the Theſſalonians at that time as it could be, of which their conſtancy in ſuffering Perſecution for Religion was a clear evidence; but Knowledg, which might be increaſed by further Inſtruction. For St. Paul had not tarried long at Theſſalonica, nor had time enough to teach them perfectly all that concerned the [Page] Chriſtian Religion. So the word [...] is taken in Rom. xiv.23.Chapter IV. where ſee my Note.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 4. Note a. WHat our Author ſays here out of Barnabas and the Jews, he took from Grotius, except the interpretation he gives of the word [...] chos; which never ſignified an Inſtrument, but only a Cup: Nor is there any ſuch affinity, as he contends, between that word and the Greek [...], either in ſound or ſignification.

Verſ. 6. Note b. All that our Author here ſays does not perſwade me to believe that [...] or [...] are to be referred to fleſhly Deſires, contrary to the uſe of Scripture, and all other Greek Writers. For,

I. What he infers from the Series of this place, he would plainly have perceived to have been of no force, if the Gnoſticks had not ſtood in his light, and like a Cloud hinder'd him from ſeeing the thing as it is. The Apoſtle here teaches us that there are two ſort of Vices to be eſpecially ſhunned; the luſts of the Fleſh, and an inordinate deſire of other mens poſſeſſions: The former in verſes 3, 4, 5. in theſe words: This is the Will of God, your Sanctification, that ye ſhould abſtain from Fornication; that every one of you ſhould know how to poſſeſs his Veſſel in Sanctification and Honour, not in the luſt of Concupiſcence, even as the Gentiles which know not God. The latter in verſ. 6. where he ſpeaks thus: And that no man go beyond, or overreach his Brother in any matter, becauſe the Lord is the avenger of all ſuch, as we alſo have forewarned you, and teſtified. Then he ſubjoins the ſpecial reaſons of both theſe Injunctions; of the former in ver. 7 and 8. and of the latter in ver. 9. which ſhews that the 7th verſe muſt not be immediately connected with the 6th verſe, as it is by our Author, but with the 5th verſe, and the 9th with the 6th. That this may be the order of the Diſcourſe is undeniable, and that it not only may, but really is ſo, every one will think, who knows that the Verbs [...] and [...] never ſignify what Dr. Hammond would have them. And we ought not to impoſe an unheard of ſignification upon theſe words, becauſe of the Series of the Diſcourſe, when the order of St. Paul's reaſoning is clear without it. Of the Verb [...] and the Noun [...] I have ſpoken on Rom. i.29.

[Page]II. As to the Verb [...], the places alledged by our Author do not prove that word to ſignify the practice of unnatural Luſts. The laſt Verſe of Heſiod's [...]. ſhews that [...] ſignifies Sins or Tranſgreſſions, but that is nothing to Dr. Hammond's purpoſe. The place in Phocylides muſt be ſet down more correctly and at large.

— [...],

[...].

Do not tranſgreſs, of all things a mean is beſt, and Tranſgreſſions are grievous. Where the Diſcourſe is about breaking into another man's Ground, as appears by the words immediatly going before.

[...] —

Abſtain from thy neighbour's Field. But what is this to Sodomy or unnatural Filthineſſes? The place cited out of Heſychius proves nothing, becauſe [...] there is rather taken for an Injury joined with contempt, [...] ſignifying praecellere, ſuperare, to outgo, to ſurpaſs, and [...] being afterwards interpreted in Heſychius by [...]. What our Author adds about the Verb [...] and its Derivatives, or Compounds, does him as little ſervice: for the ſignification of a ſimple Verb, or of ſome of its Compounds, does not neceſſarily paſs to all the reſt; and there is no example brought by the Doctor, where [...] ſignifies to commit filthineſs with him.

III. Beſides, the annexed Words [...] & [...] ſhew that St. Paul did not ſo much as dream of that ſenſe, which our Author here affixes to his words. For no body ever ſaid in Greek [...], to ſignify an act of Uncleanneſs; and, if St. Paul had ſo meant, he would not have ſaid [...], that is, a Chriſtian, but [...] no man, for it was as bad to commit that Sin with Heathens as with Chriſtians.

IV. Nor did ever any one ſay, in that ſignification, [...]; and I wonder how any Expoſitor could differ here as to the ſenſe from Beza, who interprets theſe words: Nequis opprimat aut habeat quaeſtui in ullo negotio fratrem ſuum: That no man oppreſs or make a gain of his Brother in any matter. Conſult himſelf and Grotius on this place. [...] ſignifies to make a gain of in 2 Cor. vii.2. and xii.7, 8.

CHAP. V.Chapter V.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. OUR Author here, as in many other places, meerly ſerves an Hypotheſis, and forces every thing to a compliance with his own opinion.

But I. Why may not we think that St. Paul, after he had ſpoken of the laſt coming of Chriſt in the concluſion of the foregoing Chapter, paſſes here to the time of it, not as to another thing, but as another circumſtance of the ſame thing; ſo as alſo to ſpeak in this place about the laſt coming of Chriſt? The Theſſalonians lamented the condition of thoſe who died under Perſecutions; and therefore St. Paul in the end of the laſt Chapter comforts them with the proſpect of an endleſs Reward, which ſuch perſons were to receive at the coming of Chriſt; and here he adds, that there was no need of his writing to them about the time when that ſhould be, becauſe it would come on a ſudden, and when it was leaſt expected, as Chriſt himſelf had more than once ſaid. Which can be underſtood only of his final coming. For tho the Siege of Jeruſalem might perhaps be ſudden and unexpected to the Jews who lived in that City; yet it was an eaſy matter for others to conjecture that ſome great calamity was like to come upon them from the Romans, for their perpetual ſeditions and unruly tempers. Joſephus has ſhewn at large in Lib. ii. of the Jewiſh War, that the indignation of the Romans againſt the Jews was not preſently ſtirred up. But thoſe eſpecially, who were diſperſed through the Roman Empire had time enough to know that the Jews were upon the point of utter ruin, when they ſaw Judea laid waſt by the Roman Armies. Beſides, the Jews who lived out of Paleſtine, as thoſe who were diſperſed through Greece, did not periſh by any ſudden Deſtruction, in which they involved the Gnoſticks; but only thoſe who took up Arms againſt the Romans, as the Antiochians, Cyrenians, and ſome others. I know indeed the Jews ſuffer'd very great Miſeries under Adrian, in the Iſle of Cyprus; but our Author will not have the time of Adrian to be here referred to, nor did thoſe Calamities befal them on a ſudden. It is not probable that the Gnoſticks, who had no true Zeal for the Jewiſh Religion, and who, as the Doctor often tells us, complied with the Jews to eſcape being accuſed by them before the Roman Magiſtrates, did yet conſpire with a handful of that Nation againſt the whole Roman Power.

[Page]II. Our Author ſuppoſes that a conſtant Faith and holy Life would be an infallible means to preſerve the Chriſtians, which as I acknowledg to be moſt true, underſtood of eternal Salvation, ſo I do not believe it true, if underſtood of a Deliverance from the Perſecutions of the Romans. For could not the Gnoſticks feign themſelves to be Heathens, and do ſacrifice to their Gods, that they might not be accounted Jews? And that, if I am not miſtaken, was abundantly enough to cauſe a diſtinction to be put between them and the Circumciſed, eſpecially if the Gnoſticks, as our Author thinks, were not real Jews. Beſides, the Chriſtians in Greece, whilſt the Romans were incenſed againſt the Jews, did not eſcape the fury of the Magiſtrates becauſe they were Chriſtians, but becauſe they were not Jews, and were look'd upon as peaceable Men, who were not for making any diſturbance in the Government. I wonder our learned Author did not ſee theſe things, but ſo often ſerves himſelf of an Hypotheſis which he never attempted to prove by Hiſtory.

Verſ. 10. Note b. Our Author goes on to faſten his own Conjectures upon St. Paul, without any regard to Grammar.

I. It is true indeed, that to live may ſignify to be in proſperity, and there are ſeveral examples of the word taken in that ſenſe, as our Author has ſhewn on Chap. iii.8. of this Epiſtle; but that to live with Chriſt has ever any ſuch ſignification, Dr. Hammond will never prove without examples, to any that underſtand Greek, or are acquainted with the ſtile of Scripture. Whatever a word ſignifies alone, it does not ſignify in conjunction with others. Whatever is meant by it in one place, it cannot ſignify in all. In this place, to live with Chriſt does not only include the notion of eternal Life, but ſignifies nothing elſe, as the bare reading of the Verſe ſhews: who died for us, that whether we wake or ſleep, we might live together with him. Can Chriſt be ſaid to have died for the Chriſtians of Theſſalonica, that they might not periſh in that deſtruction which was to come upon the Jews, but ſurvive them? Where does the Scripture mention any ſuch end of the Death of Chriſt? Dr. Hammond did not think fit to ſay ſo much as this in his Paraphraſe, where he does not expreſs the words of St. Paul, but what he himſelf thought.

II. But Chriſt having died for Men, that they might live with him, i. e. that they might enjoy eternal Life with him in Heaven, and that being the ſenſe of the Apoſtle's words, the next thing to be conſider'd is, what is meant in this place by waking or ſleeping. And becauſe St. Paul ſays that neither of theſe things ſignifies any thing to Salvation, for whether we wake or ſleep we ſhall live together with Chriſt; [Page] thoſe Phraſes cannot be thought to ſignify either a Vice or a Virtue, contrary to what they do in verſ. 6, 7, & 8. Our Author who thinks the Diſcourſe is about a temporal Deliverance, interprets them of Sollicitude and Security; which I cannot admit, becauſe I affirm that the Diſcourſe is about eternal Salvation, as the thing it ſelf alſo declares. What therefore do they ſignify? why this, and nothing elſe, Whether we are ſtill alive, when he ſhall come to judg the Living and Dead, or whether we die before that time. As in Chap. iv.13, 14. [...], thoſe who were aſleep, are they who ſhall be dead at the coming of Chriſt: ſo here thoſe who ſhall be awake, ſignify them which ſhall be found alive at that time, as Grotius well obſerves, whom our Author ought to have followed. What the Doctor ſays in this Annotation beſides, I have already confuted.

III. Yet there is one thing perhaps that may be objected in favour of Dr. Hammond, viz. that St. Paul ſeems to ſpeak of a thing which was to come to paſs in his time, becauſe he exhorts the Theſſalonians to watch, in ver. 6. leſt they ſhould be found in Darkneſs at the day of the Lord's ſudden Coming. But God having not revealed the day in which he will judg Mankind, ſo much as to his Son Jeſus Chriſt, whilſt he converſed in this World, but only ſaid that it would come on a ſudden, and when it was leaſt expected, with a deſign, ſeemingly, to keep Men from delaying their Repentance, while they hope to have time enough to repent before that day comes; it is no wonder that St. Paul here ſpeaks of the laſt Judgment, as a thing which was to happen in his Age. He could not ſpeak otherwiſe, ſeeing God had not revealed the thing more clearly. To which purpoſe it muſt be obſerved that he does not deny but that the Judgment was deferred, in which there would have been a manifeſt Error, but only teach the Theſſalonians that Men ought to be always prepared, for fear of being ſurprized by the ſudden coming of Chriſt. I know indeed Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe of the 2d Verſe, repreſents the Apoſtle as ſaying that the Coming of Chriſt was not far off; but if we read St. Paul's words, we ſhall ſee that he only teaches that it would be ſudden and unexpected, not that it was near at hand, or ſhortly to be. For it is compared to the coming of a Thief in the Night, in which nothing but the [...] or unexpectedneſs of it is conſidered.

Verſ. 12. Note c. The word [...] may much more ſimply be interpreted to ſignify the Governors of both Orders in the Church, who may be comprehended under the common name of [...], as being all ſet over the Church of Theſſalonica, tho not with an equal Authority. Conſidering this is grounded upon the proper ſignification [Page] of the word, it may much more eaſily be admitted, than that there were more Epiſcopal Churches in Macedonia beſides that of Philippi and Theſſalonica, which were contained under theſe as their Metropolitans. See my Note on Philip. i.1.

Verſ. 22. Note e. Our Author rightly interprets the words of St. Paul in this place of all kind of Evil: for after the Apoſtle had ſaid, [...], prove all things, hold faſt that which is good; it very fitly follows, abſtain from all kind of evil; which is all one as if he had ſaid: When ye have carefully examined all that any Prophet ſhall ſay to you, be ſure to embrace and retain whatever you find to be good, but reject all that is evil. As [...] does not ſignify that which has an appearance of good, ſo [...], which is ſet oppoſite to it, is not every appearance of Evil, but all that is really Evil. That [...] is often taken for kind, there is no need of proving. But if any doubt of it, they may conſult the old Gloſſes of Labbaeus his Edition, on the word [...].

Verſ. 23. Note f. I. This in earneſt is a medly of inſignificant places, and for the moſt part foreign to the words of St. Paul, in which the firſt thing liable to cenſure is, that our Author here follows the old way of Philoſophizing, which in this particular is certainly falſe, there being nothing in a Man but his Body and reaſonable Soul, which Soul is moved by Affections ariſing [...] the Body, without the intervention of any third Faculty, as learned Men have long ago ſhewed, even before this was publiſhed by Dr. Hammond: And that Soul alone, not any inferior Nature, is the ſubject of [...] or Freewill. It is ſtrange that wiſe Men, in order to know what is in Man, that is, in themſelves, ſhould go and conſult Plato or Ariſtotle, as if they were enquiring into the nature of a living Creature, which they only had ſeen, and we knew nothing of, and make it their buſineſs to repeat what Men of little accuracy have ſaid about a thing, which every one may much better underſtand of himſelf.

II. It is falſe that any ſuch thing can be deduced from the Hiſtory of Man's Creation, as it is ſet down by Moſes. For tho it be ſaid that God formed Man out of the Duſt of the Earth, by which words is meant his Body, yet he is not ſaid to have added two other parts to him, for Moſes proceeds thus verbatim: and breathed into his Noſtrils the breath of Life, and Man became a living Soul; or as I have rendered it in more proper terms, ſpiritumque vitalem in nares ejus flavit, atque h [...]no animal factus eſt; And breathed into his Noſtrils a vital Spirit, and Man became a living Creature. Which words ſignify only, that God put Life into Man's Body which he had faſhioned out of the Daſt; and properly [Page] ſpeaking, contain nothing about an immortal and reaſonable Soul; tho there is no doubt, but that God, together with Life, infuſed that alſo into Man's Body. The diſtinction of the Rabbins between the breath of Life [...], and a living Soul, [...] is grounded neither upon the Phraſe it ſelf, nor any Scripture example, tho it is alledged on this place by Grotius. However it muſt be acknowledged, that we may conſider in the nature of Man his Body and Soul as two diſtinct parts; and then his Life, not as another part or effect of ſome third Principle, but as a certain affection of the Body; and that to this St. Paul ſeems to have had a reſpect, [...] being very frequently taken for the Life. And ſo the Apoſtle will be underſtood to pray for the Theſſalonians, that God would preſerve their Bodies, Spirits and Lives unblameable, which he calls their [...], or all that was in them, and indeed there is nothing elſe to be found in Man.

III. I acknowledg alſo that the Soul, in the old Teſtament, is ſometimes taken for the Will, but Gen. xxiii.8. is in vain alledged to that purpoſe. Where the Hebrew has: if it be [with] your Soul that I ſhould bury, and not, if it be your Soul; as our Author has it out of the Engliſh Tranſlation, which renders only the ſenſe, not the words. And the Chaldee Paraphraſt does not render the word Soul by a word which ſignifies Will, but the whole Expreſſion, if it be your Soul, by this entire Phraſe, if there be a will in your Soul, [...]. All choice or will is in the Spirit, but the Spirit is ſometimes divided between carnal Affections and the Law; ſo as on the one hand to ſee what it is obliged to, and on the other to be held by Pleaſure and the luſts of the Body. For all that our Author has here heaped together, I would not give one ruſh.

IV. The only difficulty is, wherein conſiſts that preſervation by which God is ſaid to keep the Spirit, Life and Body blameleſs unto the coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Thoſe three not being of the ſame nature, they cannot be ſaid in the ſame ſenſe to be preſerved blameleſs. The Spirit is blameleſs when it is not perverted by any pernicious Error, or defiled with any habit of Sin. The Life may be ſaid to be blameleſs in a peculiar manner, conſidered ſeparately from the Spirit and Body, when it is kept without diſſembling or revolting from the Chriſtian Religion; in which reſpect fearful Men incurred Blame, who to ſave their Lives, either diſſembled or renounced the Faith. Laſtly, the Body is preſerved blameleſs, in a particular ſenſe, when it is not polluted by the enjoyment of any unlawful Pleaſures. But theſe all making up the [...], neither ought nor can properly be conſidered ſeparately, becauſe they are conjunctly defiled [Page] and incur blame. And the reaſon why St. Paul mentions them ſeverally, is not becauſe he would have them conceived as disjunct, but only that he might deſcribe the whole Man the more diſtinctly.

V. As for the words [...] unto the coming of the Lord, they muſt be underſtood thus: That when Chriſt comes ye may be judged blameleſs, that is, ſuch as according to the tenour of the Goſpel-Covenant, cannot be accuſed before Chriſt. So that it is as if St. Paul had ſaid: [...], that ye may be blameleſs when Chriſt comes; ſo as that your Spirits may neither be upbraided with dangerous Errors, or vitious Habits, nor this charge brought againſt you, that you once redeemed your Lives by diſſembling or Apoſtacy, nor, in fine, that you polluted and profaned your Bodies with ſenſual Luſts. Many periſh by one of theſe three things, but no Man is ſaved but by a conjunction of all the contrary Vertues.

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Theſſalonians. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] This Epiſtle is referred by Dr. Pearſon to the Year of Chriſt LIII, or the XIIIth of Claudius, at which time St. Paul ſtill remained at Corinth, after he had been in vain accuſed by the Jews at the Tribunal of Gallio. Of the occaſion on which it was written I ſhall ſpeak on the Epiſtle it ſelf.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 5. Note a. WHat the Chriſtians ſaid about Chriſt's coming to puniſh the Jews, might poſſibly expoſe thoſe of them that lived in Judea, to the Fury of that Nation; but in Greece, or other remote Provinces of the Roman Empire, that the Chriſtians were perſecuted particularly upon that account I do not believe; ſo as that St. Paul could ſay that the Theſſalonian Chriſtians ſuffered [...]. The Roman Magiſtrates did not ſo much befriend the Jews, eſpecially out of Judea, as to afflict the Chriſtians becauſe they portended that the ſeditious Jews would ere long be deſtroyed by the Romans themſelves. Of which we have a manifeſt inſtance in Gallio, Acts xviii.12, & ſeqq. And it appears no leſs from profane Writers, that the Jews were not at that time in favour with the Romans. Tiberius compeſcuerat, had reſtrained not only the Egyptian but Judaicos ritus, the Jewiſh Rites, as we are told by Seutonius in the Life of Tiberius, Cap. xxxvi. Judaeorumque juventutem, per ſpeciem Sacramenti, in provincias gravioris coeli diſtribuit, reliquos gentis ejuſdem, vel ſimilia ſectantes urbe ſubmovit, ſub poena perpetuae ſervitutis; and diſtributed the Youth of the Jews, under the pretence of a military Expedition, into Provinces of an unwholſom Air, forbidding[Page]the reſt of that Nation, Chapter II. or any that were of the ſame Sect, to make their abode in the City, upon pain of perpetual Slavery. Claudius alſo, a very little while before the writing of this Epiſtle, Judaeos, impulſore Chriſto, as the ſame Author ſpeaks in the Life of Claudius, cap. xxv. aſſidue tumultuantes Roma expulit; that is, I ſuppoſe, caſt the Jews diſagreeing among themſelves about Chriſt or the Chriſtian Religion, ſome ſtanding up for it and others oppoſing it, ☞ [upon which account Chriſt may in ſome ſenſe be ſaid to have been the impulſive Cauſe of their Baniſhment] out of the City. This might be confirmed out of Philo and Joſephus; but the thing is ſo clear that it needs no further proof.

Verſ. 7. Note b. Whatever our Author here ſays, all theſe things may much more fitly be underſtood only of the laſt Judgment; of which ſee Grotius and other Interpreters. Tho St. Paul ſpeaks of the Judgment, as of a thing near at hand, it does not follow that it is not the laſt Judgment which he ſpeaks of; becauſe, not knowing the time when that was to be, he was obliged to ſpeak of it as of a thing not afar off, that ſo the Chriſtians might be always ready, conſidering Chriſt might come when he was leaſt expected.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I Have ſhewn, on the former Epiſtle, that the places which our Author applies to the Deſtruction of the Jews, may very well be underſtood of the laſt Judgment. And what St. Paul ſays here, being written on occaſion of what he had ſaid before, muſt be referred to the ſame coming of Chriſt.

Ibid. Note b. As the [...], or coming of Chriſt, both in the firſt Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians and this, is his final coming to judg the living and the dead; ſo alſo [...] ſignifies, as Grotius has well obſerved, the gathering together of good men to him, that they may be made Copartners with him of eternal Happineſs in Heaven. See Mat. xxv.31. Our Author ſhould have produced an Example in which [...] ſignified to be aſſembled for the Worſhip of Chriſt.

Verſ. 2. Note c. All that our Author here ſays may as fitly agree to thoſe, who through a miſapprehenſion of St. Paul's Words ſhould have thought that the end of all things, and the coming of Chriſt to judg the World, was at hand. And ſo there is no need of recurring to any other coming of Chriſt.

Verſ. 3. Note d. I. To ſpeak the truth, I confeſs none of the various Interpretations which I have read of this place, fully ſatisfy [Page] me: But as I can eaſily find ſomething to object againſt others, ſo there is nothing which I can propoſe my ſelf as certain. The Interpretation which our Author prefers before all others, is grounded only on this ſuppoſition, that there was a vaſt number of Gnoſticks before the Deſtruction of Jeruſalem, who were deſtroyed together with that City; which he has no where ſolidly proved. When the Chriſtians are admoniſhed not to believe Impoſtors, it is not neceſſary to underſtand it as a Caution to them to avoid the Errors of the Gnoſticks; for there were a great many Jewiſh Impoſtors, which Joſephus makes mention of in the Hiſtory of that Age, and there might be many more which he paſſes by. It does not appear by any certain account that all or moſt of the Samaritans, who had embraced the Chriſtian Faith, fell off to the Hereſy of the Gnoſticks. Our Author has not ſo much as attempted to prove this; and indeed it would have appeared by the Vanity of ſuch an Undertaking, that he had not carefully enough examined the Hiſtories of thoſe Times. See my Note on his following Annotation.

II. Tho I acknowledg I can think of nothing here which may be ſatisfactory, I ſhall however propoſe to the Reader a Conjecture, which ſeems to be much more probable than either Grotius's or Dr. Hammond's. And that is, that by [...] the Apoſtle means that great and famous Defection of the Jews, when they endeavoured, tho to no purpoſe, to ſhake off the Roman Yoke. This Chriſt in Mat. xxiv. foretold before the end ſhould come, firſt of the Jewiſh Commonwealth, and then of the whole World; and by this the Chriſtians might know that the end was not at hand, becauſe that [...] had not yet happen'd: For the beginning of the Jewiſh Rebellion was about the end of the Reign of Nero; of which ſee Lib. ii. de Bello Judaico cap. 30. according to the Diviſion in the Greek. And ſuch a defection is often called [...] or [...]. Joſephus in the ſame Book, cap. 31. repreſents the chief of the Jews as [...], being offended with the boldneſs of the defection; and a little after it is ſaid of Agrippa, that he was willing [...] to ſpare the Rebels; and in cap. 33. the ſeditious are ſaid [...], to have revolted from the Romans. The ſame Words frequently occur afterwards in that ſignification in Joſephus and other Writers. The old Gloſſes have [...] rebellio, ſegregatio, abitus, defectio: [...] diſceſſio, diſcidium. [...] rebellis, rebellio, transfuga.

Ibid. Note e. I. I acknowledg that [...], tho in the ſingular number, muſt be underſtood to ſignify not one Man, but a Multitude, who yet were to be headed by ſome one notorious Villain, to whom this and the like Characters ſhould of ſpecial right belong. Nor do [Page] I deny but Simon Magus deſerved to be thus ſignalized, or rather branded, but I do not believe it is he whom the Apoſtle here has a reſpect to; nor is there any certain Hiſtory which relates all that is ſaid of him by Dr. Hammond, or agrees with his conjectures. It is affirmed firſt by Euſebius out of Juſtin, that Simon went to Rome under the Reign of Claudius, [...], which our Author interprets of the beginning of the Government of Claudius, becauſe it ſeemed to agree better with his conjectures. Juſtin, and out of him Euſebius, ſay that Simon was accounted a God, and that a Statue was erected to him as ſuch. In which learned Men have long ſince ſhewn that Juſtin was miſtaken; and it may be probably conjectured that that Journy of Simon to Rome was a Fiction of ſome ignorant Man, who had not a due regard to Truth, and miſunderſtood the Inſcription of that Statue. At leaſt that St. Peter came to Rome in the time of Claudius, there are very important Chronological Reaſons to disbelieve, tho I do not doubt but he came into that City, and ſuffer'd Matyrdom in it, under the Reign of Nero. Juſtin further adds, [...], that almoſt all the Samaritans worſhipped Simon; but perhaps he ſpeaks hyperbolically, perhaps Juſtin relates a thing which he was not ſure of, who wrote all whatſoever he heard without making any difference. That which he ſays about the deifying of Simon is alone enough to ſhew, that he is not an Author, whoſe bare Affirmation may be ſafely truſted. And hence perhaps Irenaeus would not poſitively affirm a Claudio Caeſare ſtatua honoratum propter magiam, that [Simon] was honoured with a Statue by Claudius Ceſar for his magick; but prefixed to this Story dicitur, it is reported. What our Authot ſays about his concealing himſelf, and contending with St. Peter, is taken ex Clementinis, and unworthy of any credit. The reſt which he relates concerning his Followers ſhould have bin particularly proved by the teſtimonies of good Authors; becauſe it is the ground of what he ſays here about the revelation of the Gnoſticks, and that being uncertain, the other muſt be ſo too. Any one may eaſily deduce what Interpretations he pleaſes out of feigned Circumſtances.

II. Now to give my own opinion concerning the Man of Sin, ſeeing I have interpreted [...] of the Rebellion of the Jews, it follows that the [...] muſt be the rebellious Jews themſelves, and eſpecially their Ringleader Simon, not the Magician, but the Son of Giora, ſpoken of by Joſephus towards the end of his 2d Book of the Jewiſh War, and afterwards often: Which Simon gathering together a Company of Robbers in the Lordſhip of Acrabatena, began to play [Page] the Tyrant, but firſt more ſecretly; till at laſt deſpiſing the Authority of the chief men of the Jewiſh Nation, he violated all Laws both divine and human in Jeruſalem it ſelf, as Joſephus in the following Books declares at large. And that ſuch a man, or any who were like him, ſhould be called [...], is not ſtrange.

Ibid. [...].] A ſon of Perdition is one that deſerves to be deſtroyed, or is condemned to Death, as our Author well obſerves; and how properly this Title belonged to Simon and his Companions, Joſephus will inform us, who in Lib. vi. c. 36. ſpeaking of all the People [of the Jews] obſerves that, [...]: It was God, who had condemned all the People, and turned all means of ſafety into Deſtruction. And in Lib. vii. c. 7. ſpeaking of Simon himſelf, after he had related how he ſhewed himſelf out of a Vault under ground, where the Temple had ſtood, and was taken by the Romans, he ſays, [...]: God therefore delivered up Simon for the puniſhment of his Cruelty towards the Citizens, over whom he had bitterly tyrannized, into the hands of his greateſt Enemies, not taken by force, but throwing himſelf of his own accord upon puniſhment (God ſo ordering it) becauſe he had cruelly put a great many [others] to death, bringing falſe Accuſations againſt them, of a defection to the Romans. For Wickedneſs can never eſcape the Vengeance of God, nor Juſtice ever be enfeebled, but early or late it overtakes thoſe that bid defiance to it, and inflicts a heavier puniſhment upon the Wicked, becauſe they expected to be delivered from it, not being preſently puniſhed. He ſuffered in the Publick place at Rome, as this Writer tells us in Cap. xvii. of the ſame Book according to the diviſion in the Greek. By this it appears how fitly thoſe wicked men might be called [...] and [...]. And that the reſt of the characters contained in the following verſe do as well agree to them, ſhall be diſtinctly ſhewn on each.

Verſ. 4. [...].] Theſe Words expreſs the extream Wickedneſs of men, and their marvelous Inſolence towards Governours, proceeding from an incredible Zeal for Innovations. For he is truly called [...] an Adverſary, viz. of God, who has no more regard to his Laws, than if he induſtriouſly oppoſed and fought againſt him with all his might, and [Page] endeavoured to deſtroy his Worſhip,Chapter I. and root his Fear out of the minds of men. And ſuch were Simon, John, and Eleazer, and the reſt of the Captains of the Seditious, whoſe horrible Impieties Joſephus often mentions, openly charging them with Atheiſm. See the laſt Chapter of Book vi. where he ſays that that Generation of men was [...] much more impious than any of thoſe who for their Wickedneſs were ſwallowed up by the Earth, or deſtroyed by the Flood, or periſhed by Lightning. Magiſtrates or Governours are called alſo Gods, as every one knows. And theſe ſeditious men roſe up in great fury, both againſt the Rulers of the Jews, ſuch as were the Prieſts, and againſt the Romans; for they killed the former, and waged an obſtinate War with the latter, as Joſephus throughout his whole Hiſtory relates. See particularly about the Prieſts, Cap. xviii. Lib. iv.

Ibid. [...].] I am apt to think St. Paul added this word [...], by way of Exegeſis, that the Theſſalonians might the better underſtand what he meant by [...], for the Hebrew [...] which is rendred [...], properly ſignifies [...], as coming from the old root [...] alah, which at this very day among the Arabians ſignifies to honour or reverence, [...]. And there could not be a fitter Greek word choſen to expreſs the ſenſe of the Hebrew; for [...] ſignifies as well that Honour which is due to Magiſtrates, as to God. So it is uſed by Charondas in Stobaeus Serm. xlii. [...] [ [...]] We ought to bear as good a will to Rulers as to our Parents, ſubmitting our ſelves to them, and reverencing them. But the ſeditious Jews were ſo far from reverencing the lawful Authority both of their own Countrymen and Strangers, that on the contrary they thought themſelves ſuperiour to them, killing all the chief men among the Jews, and acting in a hoſtile manner againſt the Romans.

Ibid. Note g. I. [...] is not, in the ſtyle of St. Paul, ſimply [...], any Temple, but the Temple of Jeruſalem, which alone was ſo called. This appears by the doubling of the Article, nor can thoſe words, in any Jewiſh Writer, be ever underſtood otherwiſe. The Jews would not allow the Temple of Garizim that title, which they look'd upon as no better than a Temple of Idols.

II. Our learned Author here pays a greater deference to the Authority of Juſtin Martyr than he need; for why might not he be miſtaken in this, who erred in ſo many other things? Did not the ſame man make Herod to be contemporary with Ptolomaeus Philadelphus and the Septuagint? Did not he ſay that the word Satanas was compounded of Sata and nas, tho he was diſputing with a Jew, who could eaſily [Page] refute ſuch a miſtake? Did not he very unjuſtly and falſly,Chapter II. and yet with no ſmall confidence, accuſe the Jews of corrupting the Holy Scriptures? And could not he who erred ſo groſly in theſe things, not to mention any more, raſhly take an occaſion from the inſcription of a Statue, which he miſunderſtood, to ſay what was not true? He was a Martyr, what then? Are Martyrs infallible, or to be believed when they are manifeſtly miſtaken? And if they have been deceived in ſome eaſy things, and are not to be credited in all, why might not they be miſtaken in matters of greater difficulty? Beſides, this Inſcription, if it be underſtood of Simon Magus, is contrary both to the uſe of the Latin Tongue and the Cuſtom of the Romans, nor is it at all countenanced by the Hiſtory of that Age. In Latin there is none ſo called, abſolutely Deus Sanctus, beſides Semon or Simon (if we chuſe ſo to write it, tho corruptly) an unknown God of the Sabins, or Hercules, as Lilius Giraldus will inform us in Hiſt. Deorum. And it was not the cuſtom of the Romans to erect Statues to private men, and that before their Death, ſuch as Simon the Samaritan, as to Gods; nor can any one inſtance to that purpoſe be produced out of all the Roman Hiſtory. And if ſo unuſual a thing had been done by Claudius, whoſe Folly ſo many Writers have recorded, there would be ſome mention made of it by the Heathens, whereas there is not the leaſt mark or ſign of it any where to be found. But, ſays our Author, if Juſtin had been miſtaken, or wrote what he knew to be falſe, the Emperors to whom he wrote, would eaſily have diſcovered the Cheat. But the Emperors perhaps did not ſo much as look into the Apologeticks of Juſtin, it may be which was their ignorance or wickedneſs; they laughed at them, and deſpiſed every thing elſe that was good in them, becauſe of this error. And who can doubt, if there was ever any Tripho Judaeus in the World that ſhould have read his Dialogue, or any other Jew whatſoever, but he would have ſcorned, and that juſtly, what Juſtin upbraids the Jews with, as to the corruption of the ſacred Writings, which in a modern Author would be called a Calumny. The bare authority therefore of Juſtin is not to be regarded.

III. But it is confirmed by Irenaeus and Tertullian. I have anſwer'd this in part already, by obſerving that Irenaeus premiſes before this Story the word dicitur, it is ſaid, which ſhews he was not confident of the truth of it, but only declares what ſome others reported. And Tertullian, as thoſe Apologetick Writers uſed to do, did but tranſcribe thoſe that went before him, never minding or examining whether what they ſaid was true; and out of him again this Story was taken by the later Writers of the Church of Rome: but that theſe [Page] took any great care, not to affirm any thing concerning former Ages, but what was certain and unqueſtionable, no one will believe that reads their Writings with his eyes open.

IV. But if Simon Magus be not the Perſon here deſcribed, who is it, you will ſay, that is thus characterized? I anſwer, Thoſe wicked Zelots and Edomites who forcibly poſſeſſed themſelves of the Temple of Jeruſalem, and ſo ſettled themſelves in the place of God's peculiar reſidence, in which they behaved themſelves very proudly and inſolently, deſpiſing all the Laws of God, filling the Temple with the blood of the Citizens, and profanely uſing the holy things of it as their own; as Joſephus in many places tells us. Firſt, the Zelots made themſelves Maſters of the Temple, and uſed its holy things as their own, as we are told in lib. vi. cap. 1. Then John with his Edomites entred into it, as we may learn from cap. 11. and as little abſtained from the holy things, being uſed to ſay in his own juſtification, [...], That thoſe who ſtood up for God, ought boldly to uſe the conſecrated things, and they who fought for the Temple be maintained out of it, as Joſephus informs us in cap. 37. And thoſe that did ſuch things, might well enough be ſaid to ſit in the Temple of God, as God, ſhewing themſelves as if they were God.

Verſ. 5. [...].] The things here ſpoken of, ſeem to be taken from Chriſt's Diſcourſe in Matth. xxiv. where the like things are mentioned, as forerunners of the Deſtruſtion of Jeruſalem, and ſo of his final Coming. Whence it might be eaſily inferred, that the laſt Judgment was not as yet at hand, becauſe thoſe things, which were as the Harbingers of the exciſion of Jeruſalem, had not as yet happen'd.

Verſ. 6. Note h. The [...] is that which reſtrained the Jews from breaking out into open Rebellion; viz. partly the Reverence of the chief men of the Jewiſh Nation, who were againſt making War with the Romans, becauſe they ſaw there was no hope of ſhaking off their Yoke, and that the thing could not be attempted without the Ruin of the Jews; partly the fear of the Roman Armies, which the Jews had not yet laid aſide, eſpecially while they hoped they might live a quiet life under their Governours. As long as theſe things continued in the minds of the Jews, the Counſels of the Seditious reſted ſecret, and the number of thoſe that were deſirous of Innovations was but ſmall: but aſſoon as the chief Men of the Nation began to be deſpiſed by the Conſpirators, and ſome hope of Victory appear'd, becauſe the greateſt part of the People were incenſed againſt the Romans, and the Preſident was remiſs and cowardly; then the Jewiſh [Page] Nation, like a ſwift Torrent, that ſhould have broken down its banks, ruſhed headlong into its own Deſtruction; then all the vileſt ſort of men began openly to put in practice their impious Deſigns. This Joſephus relates at large in ſeveral places of his Hiſtory of the Jewiſh War, and particularly in lib. 2. And S. Paul wrote this in the 13th year of Claudius, when Felix had been again ſent Procurator into Judea; at which time tho the Jews were weary of their Yoke, and had raiſed the laſt year a Tumult, yet they ſtill obeyed, as to the main body of the Nation.

What the chief Men among the Jews thought of engaging in a War with the Romans, Joſephus in many places ſhews; ſee but Agrippa's Oration in lib. 2. cap. 28. in which he diſſwades the Jews from rebelling, and endeavours to keep in [...] the ſeditious. And till that time he and the reſt of the principal Men of the Jewiſh Nation had ſome Authority over the common People; but Geſſius Florus had ſo highly injured and provoked them, that they utterly refuſed to obey him; and when Agrippa would have perſwaded them to ſubmit patiently to his Government, till there was another ſent in his room, [...]: in a great rage they reviled the King, and commanded him to go out of the City; yea ſome of the Seditious were ſo bold as to fling ſtones at him. And the King ſeeing the fury of the Innovators to be ƲNRESTRAINABLE — departed into his Kingdom. They are the words of Joſephus in cap. 29. Afterwards he relates the beginning of the Rebellion; to which the Prieſts and all the leading Men in vain oppoſed themſelves, being no longer able to hold in the enraged multitude, as they had done in former times. Yea many of them were killed, as Ananias, Ananus, Jeſus and others; whoſe Authority being once deſpiſed, thoſe wicked Captains of the Seditious diſcover'd their minds, and ſhewed that it was a tyrannical Power, and not the Liberty of the People that they had aimed at. At the ſame time they ſet upon the Romans, and took courage from the cowardiſe of Geſſius, as Joſephus declares at large in lib. ii. c. 31. & ſeqq.

So that the Authority of the chief of the Jewiſh Nation, and the fear of the Romans were the [...], or the thing that withheld the Jews. Which obſtacle being removed, the Seditious thought the time was now at length come, in which they might [...], openly declare their purpoſes, and act as the Loaders of the People of the Jews. That Simon the Son of Giora, who affected to become a Tyrant, and robb'd and plunder'd the Acrabatena Toparchia, was repreſſed by [Page] Ananus, [...], by an Army ſent againſt him by Ananus and the Rulers; but he fled to the Robbers which were at Maſſada, and ſtayed till Ananus and the reſt of his Enemies were killed, as we are told by Joſephus in the laſt chap. of the 2d Book. See lib. iv. and v. where the Villanies of theſe wicked men are at large related. This is much move probable, than what Dr. Hammond has invented about the diſſembling of Simon and the Gnoſticks, whilſt the Jews and Chriſtians did in ſome meaſure agree with one another; for which he alledges no Argument out of Hiſtory.

Verſ. 7. Note i. The [...] which began to work at this time, conſiſted in this, that under the pretence of ſetting the people of the Jews at liberty, yea and of a more ſtrict obſervation of the Law of Moſes, a moſt treacherous and wicked Deſign of domineering was concealed, till the ſtrength of the Conſpirators being increaſed, it appeared at laſt what they aimed at. So the Zelots behaved themſelves, who, as an unlawful thing, rejected the Sacrifices which uſed to be offered up for the Romans; tho the Prieſts ſhewed that it was not a crime to receive Sacrifices from the Gentiles. See Joſephus de Bello Judaico, lib. ii. c. 30. who affirms that this was the beginning of the Jewiſh War. In the mean while the Zelots did not think it unlawful for them to commit any villany whatſoever after they had laid aſide the fear of puniſhment. The ſame Hiſtorian ſpeaks of them thus in lib. vi. cap. 1. [...]: Eleazar the Son of Simon, who had first ſeparated the Zelots from the People, and carried them into the Temple, as offended with the continual bold attempts of John, who did not ceaſe from ſhedding of blood, but in truth not enduring to be ſubject to younger Tyrants than himſelf, went off through a deſire of Superiority, and thirst after Dominion. And in lib. vii. cap. 30. after he had ſaid that the Edomites [...] had introduced into all places the higheſt Iniquity: he adds, [...]: in which that ſort of men called Zelots had arrived to the highest pitch, who ſtained their Title with the foulneſs of their Actions. For they imitated every evil work; even that which had never been done before in the memory of man, they did not leave [Page]unimitated. Tho they impoſed on themſelves a ſpecious Name borrowed from the love of virtue, either their ſavage Diſpoſition made them deride thoſe whom they injured, or they thought the greatest Evils to be Virtues. This was a Myſtery, which was concealed under the name of a Virtue, viz. Zeal; but in reality it contained the vileſt Iniquity; which principally diſcover'd it ſelf when Geſſius Florus was Preſident of Judea, towards the end of Nero's Reign.

But there was a Mystery, as I ſaid, in this alſo, that theſe deſperate Villains made the Liberty of the People of the Jews a pretence for their Robberies, whilſt their deſign was to tyrannize over their Countrymen, as appeared afterwards by their Actions. Of this number were the Sicarii who oppoſed the Taxing of Judea by Cyrenius, and as Joſephus a little before ſays, [...]: conſpired against thoſe who were willing to obey the Romans, and exerciſed all manner of Hostilities against them, ſpoiling and carrying away their goods, and ſetting their houſes on fire: for they ſaid there was no difference between them and Strangers, who ſo baſely gave up the Liberty of their Country, for which they ought to fight, and profeſſedly choſe to be in bondage to the Romans. But this was a meer PRETENCE, and ſaid only to cover their Cruelty and Avarice, as their Actions plainly ſhewed. Hence it appears, that before ever S. Paul wrote this Epiſtle, the Mystery of Iniquity began to work among the Jews.

Ibid. [...].] It was not one man who withheld the Jews from breaking out into open Rebellion: but on one ſide they were reſtrained by the Roman Preſident; on the other by the chief men of the Nation, King Agrippa, and a great many Prieſts, as I have before ſhewed. But after theſe were expelled out of the City, or ſlain, the Seditious were at liberty to do what they pleaſed, and accordingly committed the moſt abominable Outrages, and acted contrary to all Laws both of Religion and Humanity. See Joſephus de Bello Judaico from cap. 28. lib. 2.

Verſ. 8. Note k.] I. Our Author truly obſerves, that the [...] here are the ſame wicked perſons which were before called [...], but thoſe, I think, are the Seditious Jews, not Simon and the Gnoſticks, notwithſtanding the mention made afterwards of lying Wonders, as I ſhall preſently ſhew.

[Page]II. The deſtruction of Simon, which he relates out of Arnobius, is a meer Fable, which Arnobius had taken out of the Clementine Homilies, a Book full of Fables. This was the fault of Men and the Times, not of the Chriſtian Religion, which is grounded only upon Truth, to take up right or wrong every thing that offer'd it ſelf to their Minds, and make uſe of it againſt the Heathens, whom otherwiſe they might have overcome with very good reaſons, and really did ſo. Tho it is manifeſt that the foremention'd Book is ſuppoſititious, not St. Clements, and abounds with falſities; yet a great many have cited it as the genuin product of St. Clement, and confidently tranſcribed Fables out of it for certain Truths. Which I know not whether we ought to attribute to want of judgment, or unfaithfulneſs; yet one of them it muſt needs be. But now after the revival, not only of good Learning, but alſo the cultivating and reſtoring of right Reaſon, to give credit to ſuch Fables, is to prefer the darkneſs and deceits of former Ages to Light and Truth.

III. It is ſtrange that Dr. Hammond was not ſenſible of this, but no leſs ſtrange that he ſhould uſe the Authority of the Antients, ſo as to truſt them whenever they ſpeak in his favour, and lay a great ſtreſs upon their Teſtimonies when they ſeem to confirm his Conjectures, but not regard them at all when they ſpeak againſt him. For if they have any Authority at all diſtinct from probabilities of truth taken from things themſelves, it is as great in one thing as another; and if their Authority be none in it ſelf, let probabilities of Truth be alledged, and not vain Teſtimonies. Dr. Hammond produces a ſaying out of Euſebius, whom he would have believed, about the deſtruction of the Gnoſticks, becauſe if that be not thought true, a great many of his Interpretations muſt neceſſarily be rejected. But that Euſebius was miſtaken, I ſhall ſhew out of Euſebius himſelf, and the thing it ſelf at once. After he had mention'd the Hereſies of Menander the Diſciple of Simon, and the Arch Heretick Cerinthus, and the Nicolaitans in Lib. iii. Cap. 26, 27, 28, & 29. he concludes this laſt Chapter thus: [...] And ſo much for thoſe who having attempted to corrupt the truth, about the forementioned times, were in a moment deſtroyed. But if we believe Euſebius himſelf, the followers of Simon were not utterly deſtroyed, even in the reign of Conſtantin, that is, when Euſebuis himſelf lived, who in Lib. ii. c. 13. ſpeaking of Simon, ſays thus: [...] [Page] [...]: From whence (according to H. Valeſius his Interpretation) till our Age, thoſe that profeſs his Hereſy, pretending to have embraced the Chriſtian Religion, which is ſo famous for its Modeſty and Sanctity, have yet relapſed again to the ſuperſtitious worſhip of Daemons, which they ſeemed to have caſt off, falling down before the Pictures and Images of Simon and the aforeſaid Helena, and not ſcrupling to worſhip them with Incenſe, Sacrifices and Drink-offerings. This ſhews that the Diſciples of Simon did not periſh with their Maſter, nor were deſtroyed in a moment of time. It is certain Menander, Baſilides, and Carpocrates, who were either his Diſciples or Imitators, did not die with him, but together with their Followers flouriſhed in the ſecond Age, as every one knows.

III. Which being ſo, it is ſtrange that Dr. Hammond ſhould contend for the extinction of the Gnoſticks at that time, after which they chiefly flouriſhed and were moſt known; viz. after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem. Nay if any of Simon's followers happen'd to periſh with the Jews in Jeruſalem, or Judaea, it is not probable that their obſtinate adherence to the party of the Jews, was the occaſion of it; becauſe the Gnoſticks (as our Author himſelf often tells us) made no ſcruple when it was for their ſafety to comply with the Heathens in their Worſhip, and it was eaſy to conjecture that the Romans would be Conquerors. So that neither Hiſtory nor Probability is on our Author's ſide.

IV. I will not repeat that what he ſays about the Conflict which St. Peter and St. Paul had with Simon is a meer Fable, but ſhall obſerve that by the Spirit of the Mouth of the Lord is meant, not the Goſpel, but the great Eaſe with which Chriſt ſhould deſtroy the obſtinate Jews. So Pſalm x.5. he ſhall blow upon all his Enemies (in omnes hoſtes ſuos ſufflabit;) that is, he ſhall eaſily deſtroy them, as Interpreters will ſhew. So in Plautus, in Milite Glorioſo Act. 1. Sc. 1. v. 17. a certain Flatterer, to intimate the great eaſe with which a Victory is obtained, expreſſes himſelf thus:

Cujus tu legiones difflaviſti ſpiritu,

Quaſi ventus folia, aut panniculum tectoriam.

So Valerius Maximus Lib. ix. cap. 1. Exemp. 5. inter Externa, ſpeaking of the Egyptians, ſaith: Quapropter deliciis tam enerves animi SPIRITUM exercitus noſtri ſuſtinere non potuerunt. The ſame thing is [Page] otherwiſe here expreſſed by [...], that is, by the mere brightneſs of his Coming; as we ſay of an Army which is eaſily defeated, that it could not ſo much as abide the glittering of the enemies Arms. And God is ſaid [...] when he gives the Victory: See Grotius on this place, and Dr. Hammond on Mat. xxiv. It's certain the attempts of the Magicians, of which afterwards, were eaſily defeated, and the Jewiſh War finiſhed by Veſpaſian in little more than a Years time.

Verſ. 9. [...], &c.] Theſe words are thought by our Author to be ſo clear a deſcription of Simon, that he often repeats it as the chief ground of his Interpretation of this whole place. But there were alſo other Impoſtors, of whom this might be ſaid by St. Paul, which are frequently mention'd in Joſephus; to prevent all doubt of which, I ſhall alledg the words of that Hiſtorian; who in Lib. xx. c. 6. Antiq. Judaic. where he relates the tranſactions of Felix, ſaith thus: [...]: the Country was filled again with Robberies, and Magicians who deceived the Multitude. And not long after: [...]: ſome Magicians and Deceivers perſwaded the People to follow them into the Deſert, ſaying that they would ſhew them mighty Signs and Wonders, which were wrought by the Providence of God; and many hearkning to their Perſwaſions, ſuffered for their Folly. Afterwards he mentions the Egyptian, who is ſpoken of in the Acts. The like he ſays in Lib. ii. de Bello Judaico c. 23. To the ſame purpoſe is what he relates in Lib. vii. c. 30. about ſix thouſand Men that were burnt in the Porch of the Temple. [...]: The cauſe of theſe Mens deſtruction was a certain falſe Prophet, who had declared that day to thoſe who were in the City, that God commanded them to go up into the Temple, in order to receive ſigns of their ſafety. And there was a multitude of ſuch falſe Prophets, as Joſephus tells us in the following words: [...]: for there were many Prophets at that time ſuborned by the Tyrants, to admoniſh the People to wait for the aſſiſtance of God, that they might not go over to the Enemy, [Page]and to confirm the hope of ſuch as needed not to be watched, Chapter III. and were above fear. And a Man is ſoon perſwaded to any thing in Adverſity. But when he that deceives promiſes him alſo deliverance from the evils he is under, he that ſuffers becomes all Hope. And therefore thoſe Impoſtors and beliers of God perſwaded the miſerable People. This excellently well agrees with the 10th, 11th, & 12th verſes, where the condition of the unbelieving Jews is repreſented by St. Paul, almoſt in the ſame colours.

Ibid. [...].] It is highly probable that St. Paul has a reference to the words of Chriſt in Mat. xxiv.24. whence it may be inferred that the Diſcourſe here is about Judaea and the Jews, as it is there.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 2. Note a. [...] when ſpoken of a Man, ſignifies lewd, baſe, villanous, and belongs no more to a Gnoſtick than any other wicked Man; ſuch as there were a great many among the Jews and Heathens, who oppoſed the Goſpel, which makes it unneceſſary to recur to the Diſciples of Simon, whom our Author ſuppoſes like ſo many Shadows to have followed or gone before the Apoſtles, without any certain ground from the Hiſtory of that Age. What he ſays, that Simon is deſcribed by Polycarp, is alſo his own Conjecture, not the Affirmation of Polycarp, who ſpeaks of any one poſſeſſed with thoſe errors, and does not mention Simon by name. But this does not belong to this place. Heſychius; [...], wicked, baſe things. [...], baſeneſs, wickedneſs. The old Gloſſes: [...], flagitium, facinus, A villany, a wicked Action. [...], facinoroſus, villanous. [...], facinoroſus, flagitioſus.

Verſ 2. [...].] Dr. Hammond in his Paraphraſe interprets theſe words ſo, as if he thought that [...] Faith here ſignified true Faith, in oppoſition to pretended. Which interpretation he ſeems to have invented for the ſake of the Gnoſticks, who feigned themſelves to be Chriſtians when they were not, and of whom he underſtood theſe words of St. Paul. But St. Paul ſays nothing here about the Gnoſticks, but ſpeaks of any bad Men, who through their wicked Diſpoſitions did not only refuſe to believe the Goſpel themſelves, but alſo hindred others from embracing it. Such were the Jews, who had a greater regard to the Ceremonies of the Law than to true Vertue, and every where oppoſed the progreſs of the Goſpel with all their might, as appears from many places in the Acts, and the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles. Such were the Epicureans and other Pſeudo Philoſophers, [Page] who lived in the practice of the greateſt Vices, which they cover'd with a philoſophical Cloak, and could not endure the ſanctity of the Chriſtian Doctrin; or being blinded by Pride, and a falſe conceit of their own Wiſdom, thought it would be a diſgrace to them to confeſs that Men ſo univerſally learned as they, could learn any thing from Barbarians, as the Greeks called them, or acknowledg that they had all the while before been ſtudying and philoſophizing in vain. Such were thoſe who heard St. Paul at Athens, as St. Luke tells us in Acts xvii. And ſeeing no one can doubt but that theſe Adverſaries of the Goſpel were diſperſed almoſt in all places throughout Europe and Aſia; what need is there of imagining to our ſelves, the Gnoſticks every where oppoſing the Apoſtles, of whoſe being ſo univerſally ſpread we have no account in any credible Author? And therefore ſetting aſide the Gnoſticks, let us ſay that the phraſe [...] is uſed by the Apoſtle in this ſenſe: all Men indifferently are not qualified to embrace the Goſpel, but only thoſe who are lovers of Truth and Vertue, tho they are not ſufficiently acquainted with them before the Goſpel is preached to them. Such a diſpoſition as this is excellently deſcribed by Dr. Hammond on John vi.37. and elſewhere.

Verſ. 5. [...].] Here is an example of that ambiguity in the ſignification of a Genitive caſe, of which I have largely ſpoken in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 12. Grotius interprets the Love of God to ſignify that Love which is terminated upon God, and ſo makes the Genitive [...] to have the relation of an object to [...], which I acknowledg to be a ſenſe worthy of the Apoſtle. But if we interpret it of a Love commanded by God, ſo that the Genitive be underſtood to ſignify a Cauſe, the ſenſe will be altogether as proper and agreeable to the Goſpel. So again by [...] Grotius thinks is meant that patience of which Chriſt is the efficient, and there is no doubt but that is frequently the ſignification of the Genitive caſe, as I have ſhewn in my Ars Critica. But yet [...] may be interpreted of that patience of which Chriſt was a Pattern, and perhaps more fitly. And if by [...] we underſtand not ſo much conſtancy as waiting for the coming of Chriſt, then Chriſt will be the object of our [...]. And ſo this Phraſe is taken in Revel. i.9. I John your Brother, and companion in Tribulation, and in the Kingdom [...], and expectation of Jeſus Chriſt.

Verſ. 6. [...].] That this Phraſe [...] to withdraw your ſelves, ſignifies to excommunicate, as our Author interprets it in his Paraphraſe, I do not believe; the propereſt word for that being [Page] [...]. Grotius thinks, if there had been a Presbytery at Theſſalonica, St. Paul would have commanded theſe diſorderly Men to be excommunicated; but becauſe there was not, he only commands the reſt to avoid all familiar Converſation with them, which every particular Chriſtian had a power to do. But when he ſays there was no Presbytery at Theſſalonica, he is miſtaken, as I have ſhewn on 1 Theſſ. i.1. That double Admonition which our Author in his Paraphraſe finds to be intimated in theſe words, and which ought to precede Excommunication, few doubtleſs would have perceived, without being advertiſed of it: Nor can I, for my part, perceive it yet. I grant the Apoſtle had twice admoniſhed the Theſſalonians about this matter, but does it preſently follow that thoſe Admonitions, which were twice read in the Church of Theſſalonica, were accounted as forerunners of Excommunication? Does it follow alſo that St. Paul had a reſpect to it in this place? I think not.

Ibid. [...].] The Phraſe [...] is not barely to be idle, but to do that which Idleneſs, eſpecially in young people, is the cauſe of, that is, to live wantonly and irregularly. The Old Gloſſes: [...], inquietus, inordinatus petulans, troubleſom, diſorderly, wanton. [...], tumultuoſiores. [...], inordinatè. [...], enormitas, tumultuatio.

Verſ. 12. [...].] That is, the Bread which they ſhall get by their Labour, for that is every ones own which he acquires by lawful Induſtry. This perhaps may lead us into the true meaning of that in the Lord's Prayer, [...], give us OUR Bread; that is, order it ſo by thy Providence, that we may not live by other Mens Labours, but upon Food got by our own Labour. And ſo the ſenſe of the whole Petition will be this, Grant that the remaining part of our Lives we may daily by our Labour provide Food for our ſelves. On the contrary, they are ſaid in Latin alieno pane veſci, not whom another Man maintains, becauſe they are induſtrious in his Service, but who like Drones, live idly at another Man's coſt. So Juvenal begins his vth Sat. againſt Paraſites thus:

Si te propoſiti nondum pudet, atque eadem eſt mens

Ʋt bona ſumma putes, aliena vivere quadra,

Si potes illa pati, &c.

Verſ. 14. [...].] The Antients for the moſt part omitting the uſe of Points, it is uncertain whether theſe words ſhould be rendred, if any Man does [Page]not obey our Word, ſignify that Man by an Epiſtle, i. e. write me word who it is; or, if any Man obey not our Word by this Epiſtle, note that Man. The former is preferred by Eraſmus and Grotius, and indeed [...] is oftner ſaid than [...]. The latter by Beza and Dr. Hammond. Beſides, theſe who are [...] of Excommunication, make [...] to be all one with to brand by Excommunication, but they ought to have produced an example of that ſignification. For all Lexicons indeed tell us, that [...] is to ſignify or notify; but I don't know whether it be ever uſed for to brand or ſet a mark of infamy upon a Man, ignominia notare. I confeſs that is often the notion of the Latin Verb notare, but hence it does not follow that the Greek Verb [...] ſignifies the ſame.

Verſ. 16. [...].] It ſeems the Vulgar Interpreter read [...], having rendred it loco. And that reading is approved by Grotius, who explains the mind of the Apoſtle thus: Deus det vobis res bonas ſive Theſſalonicae eritis, ſive in Judaeam, ſeu Syriam redibitis, ſive aliò migrabitis: God give you good things, whether ye ſtay at Theſſalonica, or whether you return into Judaea or Syria, or wherever elſe you go. This is ſenſe good enough, but moſt Copies have [...], which I chuſe to follow, in this ſenſe: God give you always ( [...], viz. [...]) Peace by all means;☞ [ſo it is in the Engliſh Tranſlation] that is, whether Peace be taken for all Proſperity; or for Tranquillity, which the Heathens may let you enjoy; or for Concord, which ye may preſerve among your ſelves, both publickly and privately. For all theſe things are in Scripture comprehended under the name of Peace. This is certainly the fitteſt ſenſe of theſe words, if the whole Aſſembly be conſidered, which lived at Theſſalonica, and to which St. Paul writes; not to particular Perſons, who might take thoſe Journeys which Grotius ſpeaks of.

ANNOTATIONS On the Firſt Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Timothy. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Praemon.] What Dr. Hammond here attempts in order to aſſign the time in which this Epiſtle was written, is contrary to what he ſays about the Journeys of Timothy; for it is not likely that Timothy was left Biſhop at Epheſus, that preſently after he ſhould leave that City, and travel with St. Paul, and go to viſit him as far as Rome. It is much more probable that Timothy was ordained Biſhop of Epheſus after St. Paul was releaſed from his Bonds, and went from Rome to Aſia, about the year of Chriſt lxiv. or the xith of Nero, and that the year after this Epiſtle was written, as Dr. Pearſon in his Annales Paulinae thinks.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 3, & 4. [...], &c.] Theſe two Verſes muſt be joined with the 18th, all the reſt which intervene being a Parentheſis. It is, I confeſs, a harſh Hyperbaton, but St. Paul was not curious about ſuch things.

Verſ. 4. Note a. What Dr. Hammond ſays here about Antiphanes, as the Author of the Gnoſtick or Valentinian Genealogies, he ows to Irenaeus in Lib. 4. c. 19. who affirms that that Poet wrote ſuch things in his Theogonia. It is ſtrange that Comedy of Antiphanes ſhould no where elſe be cited. But perhaps this was not the name of a Comedy, but Irenaeus refers to a place in which ſomething was ſaid upon that Subject,☜ [viz. the generation of the Gods] as in Ariſtophanes his Aves we have ſomething ſtill extant about that matter. As to Heſiod the thing is plain, if we read the beginning of his Theogonia; and the Valentinians [Page] are more than once upbraided with applying the fabulous Stories of that Poet to their purpoſe, by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. But as to Philiſtio who wrote Mimick Poems, I very much doubt whether he be rightly reckon'd in the number of thoſe who deſcribed the Genealogies of the Gods. I am apt to think our Author was deceived as to him, by miſunderſtanding a Paſſage in Epiphanius, in Haereſ. xxxiii. which is that of the Ptolemaites, S. 1. where Epiphanius ſpeaks thus: [...]: For none of thoſe antient Tragedians, or their Succeſſors the Mimicks, Philiſtio, I ſpeak of, and Diogenes, who wrote things exceeding all belief, nor any of all thoſe other Writers and patchers up of Fables, could have forged ſo great a Ly as theſe men [temerè ſuae ipſorum vitae periculo acti finxerunt] acted by the fear of their own lives, have boldly invented, and intangled the minds of men who believe them, in fooliſh Queſtions and endleſs Genealogies. Epiphanius here compares the [...] falſeneſs or incredibility of the Fables, which were written by the Mimick Poets, with the [...] of the fooleries of the Valentinians, but he does not ſay theſe latter owed their Genealogies to the Mimicks.

Verſ. 15. Note c. I do not believe St. Paul here has a reſpect to the Jews Cabbala, for [...] in Greek very often ſignifies to approve, and [...] approbation. So that [...] is a pure Greek Phraſe, in which there is no alluſion to the Cabbala. Suidas: [...]: The word is joined with an Accuſative and Genitive Caſe, and ſignifies to approve, as [...], &c. I approve your manners. So Heſychius: [...]: eſteemed worthy of acceptation. So the old Gloſſes: [...], probo, acceptum habeo, comprobo, I approve, I account acceptable. [...], comprobat. And hence comes [...], which Heſychius interprets by [...] laudable. See alſo my Note on 1 Cor. ii.14.

Verſ. 17. Note d. I. [...] is an imitation of a Hebrew form of ſpeech very common among the Rabbins, who often call God [...] melech holamim, or [...] melech holam, that is, the King of the World, as appears by their forms of Prayer. It is not probable that St. Paul would uſe a fooliſh term of the Gnoſticks, where he does not diſpute againſt them.

II. I am apt to think that the Gnoſticks called Angels, or inferiour Deities, [...], not from Ezechiel, where they are ſtiled living Creatures, [Page] which has no affinity with [...] ages, but as it were [...] everlasting, as Homer often calls the Gods: And ſo wreſted an uſual word to a ſignification which did not belong to it. In the mean while, what is here ſaid by St. Paul may as well be oppoſed to the Heathens as the Gnosticks; to whom our Author had no reaſon to ſuppoſe the Apoſtle alluded almoſt in every word.

Verſ. 18. Note f. Our Author here confounds things very different with one another, becauſe there is ſome ſimilitude between them in ſound: which is a fault he often commits, not being ſufficiently accuſtomed to a grammatical [...], nor having taken ſo much pains in ſtudying Criticks, as Divinity and Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. I. In Num. iv.3. the word [...] muſt not be rendred into the host, but into the troop, or company, as I have ſhewn on that place. And a troop or company is ſo called, becauſe any company of men marching in order, is in ſome reſpect like an Army, whether put in array or moving forwards. See my Notes on Exod. vi.26. and xii.41.

II. In Numb. 1.50. This Law is given to the Levites: They ſhall bear the Tabernacle, and all the veſſels thereof; they ſhall minister unto it, and ſhall encamp round about the Tabernacle: which words muſt be underſtood in their proper ſenſe; for the Levites in the Deſart did really encamp about the Tabernacle. And therefore they make nothing to the metaphorical ſignification of an Army, tho they gave occaſion to it.

III. Our learned Author had not look'd into the place in Exodus xxxviii.8. for there is no mention there made of Women lately delivered. Moſes is ſaid to have made the Laver of braſs, and its foot of braſs, of the Looking-glaſſes of women aſſembling by troops at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. There is no ſignification here of warring, or of ſacred Miniſtration. See my Notes on that place.

IV. In 2 Sam. vi.2. God is called the Lord of Hosts, in the ſame ſenſe, as frequently elſewhere, not as the Lord of the Ark or Tabernacle, which is a Phraſe that no where occurs, and the Ark and Tabernacle are never called hosts; but the Diſcourſe is about conveying the Ark from one place to another, to which the title of Lord of hosts, that is, Preſident of War, has no manner of relation. But what then? Is not God often called by that name in the Prophets, where neither War, nor the Miniſtry of the Prieſts or Levites is ſpoken of? Yes, it is a title the Prophets frequently make uſe of, whatever be the ſubject of the Diſcourſe; juſt as Homer in abundance of places calls Jupiter [...], where he has nothing at all about Clouds or Rain; and Achilles [...], where there is nothing ſaid about running. Such as [Page] theſe are perpetual Epithets, and as it were Appendages to proper Names, or like Sirnames, which are uſed whenever thoſe Names are mention'd without any certain deſign. The Jews called the true God the Lord of Hosts, becauſe they look'd upon Victory as one of the chief Favours God could confer upon men in this World; and on the contrary, a Defeat in War, whereby whole Nations were ſometimes ſubjected to Slavery, as the greateſt evil. They ſaw alſo often, that thoſe whom God favoured obtained the Victory, tho they were inferiour both in Policy and Strength to their Enemies: and that tho all military Stratagems were uſed in Battels, yet the Event was uncertain, and did not depend upon men; becauſe unforeſeen Accidents, tho very ſmall, are ſometimes the cauſe of Victories and Defeats. Therefore they thought that God did preſide in a ſpecial manner over War, and thence made him a Sirname. The Heathens ſometimes ſpeak almoſt in the ſame manner about their Deities, as Hirtius de Bello Alexandr. c. 75. where he deſcribes the Battel between Caeſar and Pharnaces, whom Caeſar overcame with much fewer Forces, and thoſe not ſufficiently prepared to fight: Clamore ſublato, ſaith he▪ confligitur, multum adjuvante natura loci, plurimum DEORUM immortalium BENIGNITATE; qui cum OMNIBUS CASIBUS BELLI INTERSUNT, tum praecipue eis, quibus nihil potuit ratione administrari: After a great ſhout (on both ſides) the two Armies engaged one another, the ſituation of the place being a great advantage (to Caeſar's Party) but the FAVOUR of the GODS a much greater; who as they are PRESENT in ALL the CHANCES of WAR, ſo eſpecially in thoſe in which there is no room for the exerciſe of Conduct. For theſe Reaſons, the Jews attributed to God the title of Lord of hosts, which muſt by no means be urged, as if it were never uſed but where there is a reſpect had to an Army, either properly ſo called, or metaphorically.

V. The Angels are called Gods Hosts in Pſalm ciii.21. becauſe God uſes them as Kings and Generals do Armies, to aſſiſt their Friends in danger, and ſubdue their Enemies; and the Stars, not the Sun and Moon only, becauſe they are like a ſtraggling Army, diſperſed over all parts of the Heaven.

VI. Our learned Author had not caſt his eyes upon Iſa. xl.2. where there is no mention of the Priesthood, no footſtep of the Levites. The Prophet ſpeaks thus: Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, ſaith your God. Speak that which may pleaſe Jeruſalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accompliſhed, becauſe her ſin is expiated. That which the Prophet here calls Jeruſalems warfare is the baniſhment of the Jews, and the miſeries enſuing thereupon, which he foretels would ſhortly be at an end. [Page] I cannot conceive by what Engines this can be applied to the Ceſſation of the Levitical Prieſthood.Chapter II.

VII. In 2 Tim. ii.4. there is mention indeed made of fighting, but in a proper ſenſe. But the place alledged by Dr. Hammond is in the ſame Epiſtle, chap. iv.7. and the Apoſtle does not there ſpeak about Warring, or make uſe of a Metaphor taken from War, but from the Agones. I have ſtrived, ſaith he, a good ſtrife, [...], I have finiſhed my race, [...], I have kept the faith. So that I wonder our Author ſhould alledg that place.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. THE word [...] in the paſſage of St. Chryſoſtom, alledged in the beginning of this Note, is not well rendred Prieſts; for [...] ſignifies any Believers, that were preſent at the Celebration of the Euchariſt, or any other religious Myſteries. And the reaſon why St. Chryſoſtom ſays the thing was known to them, and not to others, is becauſe the Chriſtians prayed for the Emperors [...], when there were none but Myſtae preſent. In the Apostolical Constitut. lib. 8. c. 13. in a Prayer for the faithful, [...], after a divine Oblation, we meet with theſe words; [...], &c. Let us pray for Kings, and thoſe that are in Authority, that we may live at peace, &c.

II. In St. Chryſoſtom's Liturgy, Dr. Hammond renders the words [...] by Defenders of God, or of the Faith of Christ, becauſe, I ſuppoſe, he had in his mind the Title of the King of Great Britain, who is ordinarily called Defender of the Faith. But [...] ſignifies one that is kept or preſerved by God, not one that preſerves or defends God; as [...] is one taught of God, and not one that teaches God. So in the old Latin Verſion of the Liturgy of St. Baſil, Ed. Plant. An. 1560. Pro piiſſimo & à Deo conſervando Imperatore noſtro, omnique palatio & exercitu ejus, Dominum poſtulemus. Let us beſeech God for our most pious Emperor, to be preſerved by God, and for all the Court, and his Army. So in the Tranſlation of the Maſs of S. Chryſostom, publiſh'd by Leo the Tuſcan: Pro piiſſimis & caelitus cuſtodiits Imperatoribus noſtris, toto palatio & exercitu eorum, Dominum deprecemur. Let us pray earneſtly to the Lord for our most religious Emperors, which Heaven preſerves, for the whole Court, and their Armies. The thing is clear, and needed no proof, if our learned Author had not ſtumbled in it.

[Page] Chapter III.Verſ. 8. Note b. The Doctor read Ariſteas too haſtily; for if he had read the following words, he would have ſeen that there was no need of any Correction, there being immediately added after the words alledged, [...], and ſo the entire ſenſe being, as it is the general cuſtom of the Jews, having waſhed their hands in ſalt water, after they had prayed to God, they went to reading, and every one interpreted.

Verſ. 15. Note d. I wonder our Author has made no mention of the Opinion of Grotius, who following Beza, interprets [...] by [...]; and ſo the Apoſtle's meaning will be, either that Women, tho they are puniſhed for Sin in Child-bearing, ſhould nevertheleſs be ſaved if, &c. as Beza thinks; or, that their bearing of Children ſhould be no hindrance to their Salvation if, &c. which Grotius prefers. Theſe are certainly the moſt natural Interpretations, and from them we may eaſily aſſign a Reaſon of the confuſion of the Numbers, which are often ſet promiſcuouſly, when the Diſcourſe is about a whole Species, as Grotius, and Dr. Hammond himſelf, well obſerves.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 1. Note a. NO Man that underſtands what is the Office of a Biſhop or Presbyter, which may be learned from theſe Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, can doubt but that it is a very honourable and excellent work [...]. But we ought not therefore to decry other conditions of Life, as worldly; in which a man may as truly ſerve God, provided he regulates himſelf according to the preſcriptions of the Goſpel: nor can I aſſent to what our Author here ſays about Demas, of which I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak afterwards.

As to the deſertion of that Office, it is a great Sin without doubt in thoſe, who have applyed themſelves to it being duly qualified, and can diſcharge it as they ought and uſefully; but how many are there who raſhly aſpire to that Office, as to ſome Magiſtracy or ſecular Dignity, for the ſake of Honour and Profit, who are deſtitute of Gifts neceſſary to the right exerciſe of it? And it would be much better if ſuch men repented of their Vow (if a purpoſe reſpecting only Riches and Honours ought to be called a Vow) after they had found by experience how unfit they were for the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, and ſet themſelves to ſome other employment, for which they were better qualified. Such Men [...], who whatever Orders they have entered into, or whatever Promiſes they have made, it [Page] would be well if they were looſed from their Engagements, and returned to the World as they uſe to ſay, than that they ſhould profane and abuſe ſo ſacred an Employment. But if that were done, ſo many Legions of Angels of the Lord would be reduced to a few.

Verſ. 2. Note b. I. There is a fault either of the Printer, or Dr. Hammond in his haſte, in the citation of the Neocaeſarean Synod, for that which he refers to is in Canon 7. and there are but 15 Canons of that Synod.

II. There is ſuch another miſtake in the citation of the Ancyran Synod, for Dr. Hammond referred to Can. 19. and there are no more than 25 in all. Beſides, the word [...] does not ſignify in that Canon a term of time, but a Conſtitution or Determination, by which a certain penalty was impoſed upon ſuch as had been twice married. [...], by [...] is meant a Conſtitution and Canon, ſaith Zonaras.

III. Our Author cites Plutarch in his [...]. as if he had looked into the Greek; whereas Plutarch ſays the quite contrary, as will appear by his words, which I ſhall ſet down entire, that the Reader may ſee Citations are not always to be truſted; becauſe our learned Author relying upon the fidelity of others, obtrudes upon us I know not what Dreams for the ſenſe of Plutarch. Theſe are that Writer's words in Quaest. c. 3. [...]; Why is it not the custom for Virgins to be married on the publick Feaſts, and for Widows to be married? Dr. Hammond ſuppoſes the contrary; tho he is not conſiſtent with himſelf in what follows. Now to that Queſtion Plutarch anſwers thus: [...]. Is it, as Varro ſaid, becauſe Virgins when they are married are ſorrowful, but women joyful? And at a feaſt time nothing ſhould be done ſorrowfully or by constraint. Or rather becauſe it is decent for Virgins to be married in the preſence of a great many, but not for Widows. For the first marriage is deſirable, but the ſecond is abominable. The laſt words are alledged by Grotius, than which nothing can be more pertinent to the buſineſs in hand; and our Author would not have done amiſs, if he had followed him, who is for the moſt part a faithful guide. Plutarch adds ſome things to which our Author refers, which I ſhall therefore tranſcribe: [...]: for they are aſhamed, if while their former Husbands are alive, they are married to others; and if they die, they mourn, which makes them prefer[Page]Quiet, to the noiſe of a Multitude, and pompous Solemnities. Note, that the Law had impoſed this upon Widows, or ſuch as were forſaken by their Husbands, that they might not be too haſty to marry a ſecond time.

IV. To the places alledged by Grotius and our Author, as well here as on Chap. v.9.☞ add this out of Livy, [Lib. x. c. 23. Mr. Le Clere does not cite the place, which I wonder at, becauſe he blames Dr. Hammond ſo often for the ſame thing] by which it will appear, who it is that is ſaid to be the Husband of one Wife. That Hiſtorian deſcribing the ſtrife between the Roman Matrons, in the Nobles Temple of Chaſtity, out of which Virginia was expelled, becauſe ſhe being a Noble Woman, had married a Commoner, ſaith: Brevis altercatio inde, ex iracundia muliebri in contentionem animorum exarſit, cum ſe Virginia patriciam & pudicam in patriciae Pudicitiae templum ingreſſam & UNI NUPTAM, ad quem virgo deducta ſit — verò gloriaretur. A ſhort quarrel occaſion'd by that means, through the Womens peeviſhneſs, grew to a very fierce contention, Virginia boaſting that ſhe being a noble and vertuous Woman, had enter'd into the Nobles Temple of Chaſtity, and had been MARRIED to ONE Man, to whom ſhe had been deliver'd a Virgin.

Verſ. 15. in Note e. Col. 2. Lin. 8. after the words, Donour, or Plenipotentiary.] Dr. Hammond would have done well if he had proved what he aſſerts here about a Metropolitan Power, and the reſt of what he ſays, out of Scripture, or thoſe Antients which lived neareſt the times of the Apoſtles; becauſe he could not but know that there were ſome in the World who would look upon the greateſt part of thoſe things as Fables. But perhaps they were delivered firſt from the Pulpit, in a Diſcourſe to the People, and afterwards inſerted in his Annotations on the New Teſtament, but in an improper place. What he ſays about the Church and the Houſe of God, there is no one undoubtedly but knows, and it might have been ſaid much more clearly in three words, without the tediouſneſs of ſo many repetitions.

Ibid. Lin. 39. after the words, one and the ſame Title.] Our learned Author might have alledged another place out of Maimonides, more like this of St. Paul, which has been already alledged by Mr. Lightfoot in his Deſcription of the Temple of Jeſus, Chap. xxii. This great Council ſetting in Garith [...] was the FOUNDATION of the Oral Law, and the PILLAR of Inſtruction. For this is ſaid of an Aſſembly, as it is alſo an Aſſembly which St. Paul ſpeaks of.

[Page] Ibid. At the end of the ſame Note.] I. All this will be inſignificant, if the words Pillar and ground of Truth ſhould not belong to the Church, but to that which follows, viz. the myſtery of Godlineſs. Which is the opinion of Epiſcopius and Camero, none of the loweſt rank of Divines, who may be conſulted.

II. I wonder our Author ſhould produce theſe words as out of the Epiſtle to the Magneſians: for they that did ſo, &c. when there are no ſuch words in that Epiſtle. Whether they are to be found in any other place of Ignatius, I cannot tell, nor have I time to look; but it was not prudently done to cite them as out of a place where they are not.

III. Nor is that confuſed heap of places out of Ignatius much to the purpoſe, becauſe St. Paul ſays nothing here about Biſhops, and becauſe ſuch times may happen wherein it would be a piece of madneſs to truſt Biſhops, as our Author acknowledges. So that whatever is ſaid by Ignatius, muſt all be underſtood with this exception; provided a Biſhop truly diſcharge the Office of a Paſtor, not if he be a Heretick, or a Tyrant, who thinks he is not for the Flock, but the Flock for him; not if he obſtinately perſiſt in groſs Errors, which he will not by any reaſon be brought to renounce, through his Pride or Covetouſneſs. It was poſſible that in the time of Ignatius, all the Biſhops, of whom many had ſeen the Apoſtles, and many had their Diſciples for their Teachers, might be Men devoted to the Truth, and faithful Paſtors; and that induced him to inſiſt ſo much upon their Authority: but theſe are not leſſons for all times and places.

Verſ. 16. It muſt be owned that our Author in the precedent Annotations, has often acted the part of a Preacher or Divine, rather than an Interpreter. And therefore to ſupply what is wanting in him, I ſhall ſubjoin here out of another Engliſh Gentleman, a Diſcourſe much more critical than any thing ſaid by Dr. Hammond. I mean Dr. Pearſon, who has treated of the true reading of this place, on the 2d Article of the Apoſtles Creed, p. 128. where after he had ſaid that all the Greek Copies have [...], God was manifeſted in the Fleſh, &c. not [...] which was manifeſted, &c. he ſpeaks thus: ‘Nor need we be troubled with the obſervation of Grotius on the place: ſuſpectam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt Interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs & Ambroſius, qui omnes legerunt [...]. I confeſs the vulgar Latin reads it otherwiſe than the Greek, Quod manifeſtatum eſt in carne; and it cannot be denied but the Syriack, however tranſlated by Tremellius, agreeth with the Latin; and both ſeem to have read [...] inſtead of [...]. But the joint conſent of the Greek Copies and Interpreters, [Page] are above the Authority of theſe two Tranſlators; and the Arabick ſet forth in the Biblia Polyglotta, agreeth expreſly with them. But that which Grotius hath farther obſerved, is of far greater conſideration: Addit Hinemarus Opuſculo lv. illud [...] hic poſitum a Neſtorianis. For if at firſt the Greeks read [...], and that [...] were altered into [...] by the Neſtorians; then ought we to correct the Greek Copy by the Latin, and confeſs there is not only no force, but not ſo much as any ground or colour for our Arguments.’

‘But firſt it is no way probable that the Neſtorians ſhould find it in the Original [...], and make it [...], becauſe that by ſo doing they had overthrown their own Aſſertion, which was, that God was not incarnate, nor born of the Virgin Mary; that God did not aſcend unto Heaven, but Chriſt, by the Holy Ghoſt remaining upon him, [...] Concil. Epheſ. Part. 1. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, becauſe the Catholick Greeks read it [...] before there were ſuch Hereticks, ſo called. Neſtoriani à Neſtorio Epiſcopo, Patriarcha Conſtantinopolitano. Aug. Haereſ. Neſtorius, from whom that Hereſy began, was Patriarch of Conſtantinople after Siſinnius, Siſinnius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectarius, who ſucceeded Joannes, vulgarly called Chryſoſtomus. But S. Chryſoſtom read not [...], but [...], as appears by his Commentaries on the place; [...]. And St. Cyril, who by all means oppoſed Neſtorius upon the firſt appearance of his Hereſy, wrote two large Epiſtles to the Queens Pulcheria and Eudocia, in both which he maketh great uſe of this Text. In the firſt, after the repetition of the words, as they are now in the Greek Copies, he proceedeth thus; [...]. Wherefore in St. Paul he reads [...] God, and took that God to be the Word. In the ſecond, repeating the ſame Text verbatim, he manageth it thus againſt Neſtorius: [...]; And in the explanation of his ſecond Anathematiſm, he maketh uſe of no other Text but this, to prove the Hypoſtatical Union, giving it this Gloſs or Expoſition: [...], &c. The ſame he urgeth in his Scholion de Ʋnigeniti incarnatione. So alſo Theodoret contemporary with St. Cyril: [...] [Page] [...]. Thirdly, Hincmarus does not ſay, that the Neſtorians put [...] into the Greek Text, but that he which put it in was caſt out of his Biſhoprick as a Neſtorian. His words are theſe: Quidam nimirum ipſas Scripturas verbis inlicitis impoſturaverunt; ſicut Macedonius Conſtantinopolitanus Epiſcopus, qui ab Anaſtaſio Imperatore ideo a Civitate expulſus legitur, quoniam falſavit Evangelia, & illum Apoſtoli locum ubi dicit, quod apparuit in carne, juſtificatum eſt in Spiritu, per cognationem Graecarum literarum Ο in Θ hoc modo mutando falſavit. Ʋbi enim habuit Qui, hoc eſt [...] monoſyllabum Graecum, litera mutata Ο in Θ vertit; & fecit [...], id eſt, ut eſſet Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Neſtorianus fuit expulſus. Hincm. Opuſc. lv. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus ſays expulſus legitur, we read not in Evagrius, or the Excerpta of Theodorus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was caſt out of his Biſhoprick for any ſuch falſation. It is therefore probable that he had it from Liberatus, a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, who wrote a Breviary, collected partly out of the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtories, and Acts of the Councils, partly out of the relations of ſuch Men as he thought fit to believe, extant in the fourth Tome of the Councils. In which, chap.19. we have the ſame relation, only with this difference, that Ο is not turned into Θ, but into OHgr;; and ſo [...] becomes not [...] but [...].’

‘So that, firſt the Greek Copies are not ſaid to have read it [...], but [...], and ſo not to have relation to the Myſtery, but to the Perſon of Chriſt; and therefore this makes nothing for the Vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus ſays there was but one Letter changed, no ſuch mutation can of [...] make [...], it may [...], as we read in Liberatus; and then this is nothing to the Greek Text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Neſtorian, but Anaſtaſius an Eutychian; and he ejected him not as he did other Catholick Biſhops, under the pretence of Neſtorianiſm, but for other reaſons. However Macedonius could not falſify all the Greek Copies, when as well thoſe which were before his time, as thoſe which were written ſince, all acknowledg [...]. And if he had been ejected for ſubſtituting [...], without queſtion Anaſtaſius would have taken care for the reſtoring [...], which we find not in any Copy. It remaineth therefore that the Neſtorians did not falſify the Text, by reading [...], but that the antient Greek Fathers read it ſo; and conſequently being the Greek is the Original, this Lection muſt be acknowledged Authentical.’

[Page] Chapter IV.This is excellently ſaid by the learned Doctor, but he is miſtaken when he denies that any Greek Copy reads [...], unleſs we are deceived by the Oxford Edition, which ſets down the various Lections, and wherein the Clarimont Copy, of great Antiquity, and another of Lincoln College, are ſaid to have [...], which the Latin and Syriack Interpreters undoubtedly found in their Greek Teſtaments.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 8. Note d. I Am plainly of the mind that St. Paul here deſpiſes bodily Exerciſes, as altogether unprofitable to Salvation, for of that profitableneſs he here ſpeaks, becauſe he conſiders them apart from Piety, which he oppoſes to them; and if they are abſtracted from that, they do not ſerve for few things, but for nothing at all. For let thoſe who are deſtitute of true Piety exerciſe their Bodies as much as they pleaſe, it will never avail them any thing as to eternal Salvation. For who will believe that the Brachmans, [for inſtance] who live an auſtere Life in the Woods, and abſtain from many lawful things, for oſtentation ſake, or out of ſuperſtition, are any thing more acceptable to God than the other Indians, who do not think ſuch Abſtinences neceſſary? If we uſe thoſe bodily Exerciſes, on purpoſe to make our ſelves fitter for the performance of ſome Duties of real Piety, then it muſt be granted that they are not profitable [...] but [...]: and therefore St. Paul does not here conſider that uſe of corporal Exerciſes, but that which does not render Men more fit for the practice of Vertue. He would have commended Socrates, qui inter labores voluntarios, & exercitia corporis, ad fortuitas patientiae vices firmandi, ſtare ſolitus dicitur perdius atque pernox, à ſummo lucis ortu ad ſolem alterum orientem: Who is ſaid to have continued whole Nights and Days from the Sun's firſt riſing, till it roſe again, in voluntary Labours and bodily Exerciſes, to harden himſelf to undergo whatever it might be his lot to ſuffer. Which are the words of A. Gellius in Lib. ii. c. 1. Thus Socrates behaved himſelf, that he might become the more ſtedfaſt in Vertue, and that the fear of bodily pain might never remove him from it. But St. Paul would not have praiſed the patience of a Robber, who exerciſed his Body that he might be the more ſit for ſpoil, and harden himſelf againſt the fear of ſuffering for his Crimes, no more than the exerciſes of the Athletae, which were performed only out a deſire of vain glory.

Verſ. 10. [...].] Theſe words our Author, after others, interprets of eternal Salvation; but I rather [Page] underſtand them of a deliverance from temporal Dangers,Chapter V. out of which God often reſcues all Men, but eſpecially thoſe who put their truſt in him. St. Paul's meaning is this: that he did not refuſe to expoſe himſelf to the greateſt Dangers, Reproaches, or Perſecutions; becauſe he knew that God could reſcue him out of all thoſe dangers if he pleaſed. He has a reſpect to Pſalm xvii.7. where the Pſalmiſt ſpeaks thus: Make thy loving kindneſs marvellous, O thou Saviour, [...], which may be rendred of them that believe; for to hope and believe, when the Diſcourſe is about a thing which is matter of Joy, and that yet future, ſignify almoſt the ſame thing. So, as others have obſerved, God is ſaid to ſave Man and Beaſt, in Pſalm xxxvi.6. So the Author of the Book of Wiſdom, chap. xvi.7. ſpeaking of thoſe who looked up to the brazen Serpent, and were healed, ſays, he that turned himſelf was not ſaved, [...], by that which was ſeen, but by thee the Saviour, [...], of all Men.

Verſ. 15. I will not deny but the word [...] is uſed in an Agoniſtical ſenſe; but there being nothing ſaid here of thoſe Exerciſes, I rather think it ought to be rendered mind, or take care of theſe things; ſo as that [...] ſhould be the ſame with [...], do not neglect, which went before. So, [...], in Heſiod, ſignifies care, [...]. verſ. 380. ‘ [...].’ Where ſaith Proclus: [...], ſo he calls care. And [...] in the ſame Poet is uſed for to take care, as in verſ. 316. ‘— [...]:’ I know in Proſe the word rarely occurs in this ſignification, but as long as it very well agrees to this place, nothing ſhould hinder us to admit I [...] Out of this, which is the proper ſignification of the Verb [...], as appears by its coming from [...], reſulted that other mention'd by Dr. Hammond; for they that exerciſe themſelves in any buſineſs, are careful and diligent about it.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 17. Note d. I. [...] ſignifies unqueſtionably ſometimes Wages or Reward, according to the ſignification of the Verb [...] or [...], for to pay or requite, and I doubt not too, but [...] here muſt be interpreted double Wages. But the other places [Page] alledged by our Author, to prove that [...] ſignifies to reward, or ſomething of that kind, do not ſeem to prove it. For tho there were Rewards joined with the Honours there ſpoken of, it does not follow that the word [...] is expreſſive of thoſe Rewards, which undoubtedly were not the [...] Honour it ſelf, but an outward ſignification of Honour, and are joined with Honour, as its Conſectaries.

II. It is true alſo, what our Author ſays about the Verb [...]; but here it ſeems to ſignify not only to receive, but alſo to be judged worthy to receive, which is the moſt uſual ſignification of the word. In the place of the Expoſition of the Faith, printed with the Works of Juſtin, [...] is not ſimply they have or have had, but they have been endued with that dignity or excellency of Nature as to be partakers of the ſame Divinity. That is the perpetual ſignification of the word, which is hardly ever uſed but in a good ſenſe, and to ſignify that he, of whom it is ſaid, enjoys that of which he is worthy.

Verſ. 22. Note g. Dr. Hammond, in this Annotation, has ingeniouſly cleared the order of the Diſcourſe, but has omitted one thing, which he ought firſt of all to have proved; viz. That the Gnoſticks forbad not only Matrimony, but the uſe of Wine. For tho the former be univerſally charged upon them, yet I cannot tell whether any did ever accuſe them of prohibiting the uſe of Wine. It is certain neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius object any ſuch thing againſt them; and later Writers we need not trouble our ſelves about, who for the moſt part copy after them. Tho thoſe Fathers omit nothing, whereby they may render the Gnoſticks infamous and odious, ſo that we can ſcarce believe all they ſay. Nay, there is a paſſage in Epiphanius, which if true, ſhews the Gnoſticks did not abſtain from Wine; in Haereſ. xxvi. which is that of the Gnoſticks, Sect. 5. where he ſpeaks thus: [...]: Night and day ſorry Fellows and Wenches employ themſelves in taking care of their Bodies, anointing, waſhing, feaſting, whoring, and making themſelves drunk. And they curſe all that fast, ſaying, that People ought not to fast, becauſe faſting belongs to the Maker and Prince of this Age; and they must feed, that their Bodies may be ſtrong, and able to bring forth fruit in its proper ſeaſon. There were indeed afterwards other Hereticks, who taught it was unlawful to drink Wine, as the Eneratites, as we are told by Epiphanius in Haereſ. xlvii. But all the Doctrines of all Hereticks cannot be attributed to the ſingle Sect of the Gnoſticks; unleſs perhaps the Gnoſticks were of ſeveral ſorts.

CHAP. VI.Chapter VI.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT is ſtrange that thoſe who have written about the Hereſy of the Gnoſticks, did not upbraid them with this, That they attempted to deprive Maſters of their Servants; and I do not well underſtand why Dr. Hammond, if any Vice be reproved, preſently imputes it to the Gnoſticks, without any Authority from the Antients. By this way of interpreting, a wide door is opened for innumerable Fictions.

Verſ. 19. Note h. St. Paul ſeems to have attributed to the word [...], from [...], the ſame ſignification as to the word [...], from [...] to lye, viz. in a Storehouſe, unleſs it is to be read in this place [...], which is a very uſual word, whereas the former no where occurs in the notion of a Treaſure or a pretious thing. It is certain there is no great difference between [...] and [...], for inſtead of [...] the Greeks uſe alſo [...].

Verſ. 20. Note i. Seeing the word [...] ſignified Knowledg, and ſuch Knowledg as the Jews boaſted they had received not from the Scriptures, but by Tradition from their Anceſtors; there is no doubt but Men endued with that ſort of Knowledg might be called [...], Gnoſticks. But it may not without reaſon be doubted, whether even from the Apoſtles time that name was peculiarly attributed to one particular Sect of Heathens, who feigned themſelves to have embraced the Chriſtian Religion, and that owed its beginning to Simon Magus, as it was afterwards. Our Author has not ſaid any thing to prove this latter; and I have elſewhere obſerved many things which overthrow his Conjectures. I am apt to think, the Gnoſticks of the Apoſtles times were Jews, either by Birth or Profeſſion, who becauſe they converſed among the Greeks, mixed a great many things out of their Philoſophy with the Jewiſh Divinity, and by that mungril Doctrine interpreted Scripture and Religion. Afterwards the name of Gnoſticks was appropriated to a certain Sect of Heathens mention'd by Irenaeus and Epiphanius.

In Barnabas, the word [...] is more than once uſed in a good ſenſe for the knowledg of the myſtical ſenſe of Scripture. In chap. vi. after he had alledged words out of Moſes in Exod. xxxiii.1. and Lev. xx.24. in which the Jews are commanded to enter into the Land of Canaan, he preſently ſubjoins; [...]: and underſtand, what ſaith Knowledg: hope in Jeſus, who is to be manifeſted to you in the fleſh. Afterwards [Page] he interprets the words of Moſes allegorically, and ſays that by the Land was meant Jeſus. See alſo Chap. x. towards the end, where that word occurs twice in this ſignification. Some perſons ſeem, as they eaſily might, to have abuſed that way of interpreting, whoſe knowledg St. Paul here calls [...], and to whom he often alludes in this Epiſtle. But we muſt beware of ſeeking ſuch Alluſions where it is not neceſſary, as our Author does in many places, who yet ſometimes ſeems to have hit the nail on the head, as in Chap. iv.4. & ſeqq.

ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Timothy. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] Notwithſtanding all that is here ſaid by our Author, it is much more probable that St. Paul wrote this Epiſtle after his laſt Bondage, in the year of Nero XIII. and of Christ LXVII. a little before his death; as it is thought by Dr. Pearſon, who has eaſily ſolved all the Difficulties which our Author here objects againſt that Opinion. I ſhall ſay ſomething to them on Chap. iv.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 3. [...].] The ſenſe of theſe words ſeems to be this; I thank God, that he gives me cauſe to make perpetual mention of you in my Prayers; that is, becauſe thou adhereſt to the Goſpel: for the Apoſtle did expreſly make mention of thoſe in his Prayers for whom he had a particular Affection, and whom he knew to be faithful to Chriſt. This may be gather'd from the beginning of moſt of his Epiſtles. See eſpecially that to Philemon, verſ. 4, and 5.

Verſ. 9. [...].] That is, [...], which of a long time God had purpoſed to give us by Jeſus Christ. He means the Goſpel, which God had purpoſed ſhould be preached both to Jews and Gentiles, as appears from verſ. 10. That [...] is uſed for a long time, is evident from Tit. i.2. where ſee our Author, and Grotius upon this place. And that is ſaid to be given, which is by a certain and immutable Counſel decreed to be given. So Virgil, Aeneid. 1. verſ. 282. repreſents Jupiter ſpeaking thus concerning the Romans:

His ego nec metas rerum, nec tempora pono,

Imperium ſine ſine DEDI.

See Note on Epheſ. i.4.

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 16. Note b. THE place in Tertullian is in Chap. xxxiii. de Praeſer. Haeret. where he ſpeaks thus: Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores & dubitatores reſurrectionis. Haec opinio propria Sadducaeorum. Partem ejus uſurpat Marcion & Apelles & Valentinus. St. Paul in his first to the Corinthians marks thoſe who denied or doubted of the Reſurrection. This opinion was peculiar to the Sadduces. Part of it is eſpouſed by Marcion, &c. And a little after: Aeque tangit eos, qui dicerent factam jam reſurrectionem, id de ſe Valentiniani aſſeverant: He likewiſe takes up thoſe that ſaid the Reſurrection was already paſt, which the Valentinians affirm of themſelves. The reſt which our Author ſays in this Annotation about the Verb [...] and its Derivatives, and about [...], is a mere Medley, and perfectly uſeleſs, I will not ſay to thoſe that underſtand the Greek Language, but thoſe alſo who can conſult Lexicons, in which they may find theſe words more largely and better explained than they are here. I ſhall note only a few things concerning them.

I. Becauſe while Cattel [...] are feeding, they wander out of one place into another, therefore [...] ſometimes ſignifies to wander, as on the contrary the Latin word errare ſignifies to feed, as in that Verſe of Virgil: ‘Mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae.’

The ſame I may ſay of the Hebrew [...], which we find in Numb. xiv.3. where the Vulg. Interp. renders the word [...] rohim by vagos, Wanderers. The Nomades in Scythia, and the Numidians in Africa, were really both Shepherds and Wanderers, ſo that they might be denominated from both; which every one knows. But what is that to the [...] of a Gangrene? Our Author ought to have produced Examples, which ſhewed that [...] is taken for the eating of a ſpreading Ulcer, of which there are ſeveral given by H. Stephanus. The Doctor alledges a Verſe as out of Heſiod, which is Homers, in Iliad. Υ. v. 249. where [...] is a profuſion of words, with which any one feeds himſelf, as Euſtathius on that place obſerves. Yet that word occurs in Heſiod in the ſame ſenſe, in [...]. verſ. 403. where the Poet admoniſhes Perſa, that if he did not labour, there would come a time when he ſhould beg with a great many words in vain:

[...] —

A profuſion of words will be uſeleſs.

[Page]II. There was no need of recurring to the Septuagint, Chapter III. to ſhew that the Verb [...] ſignifies ſometimes to ſhun, that being the uſe of it in the beſt Greek Writers, as Lexicographers will ſhew. And therefore [...] ſignifies to ſhun, becauſe if we meet with any thing in our way which we would not run upon, and we cannot remove, we go round about it. Or if we would come nearer the proper ſignification of the Verb [...] will be to ſtand about, that is, to ſtand ſtill when we meet with any ſtumbling block, for fear of falling upon it. Suidas interprets [...] by [...] flying from or avoiding; and then he produces the place concerning Moſes alledged by our Author, [...]: he always avoided a multitude, and Tumults eſpecially.

CHAP. III.

WHat our Author ſays here about Simon's Conteſt and Flying, he took out of Caeſar Baronius, as alſo other things of no great moment. See Baron. Annal. ad A. C. LXVIII. of Nero the 12th. But theſe things I have already elſewhere confuted. See eſpecially what I have ſaid on 2 Theſſ. ii.3. I ſhall only add, that the place which our Author refers to in Suetonius does not at all belong to this matter: it is in Chap. 12. of the Life of Nero, and the words are theſe: Inter Pyrrhicarum argumenta, Taurus Paſiphaen ligneo juvencae ſimulacro abditam iniit, ut multi ſpectantium crediderunt. Icarus primo ſtatim conatu juxta cubiculum ejus decidit, ipſum (que) cruore reſperſit. Among the Arguments of the Pyrrich Sports (which Nero repreſented to the People) a Bull covered Paſiphae incloſed in an Engine of Wood made in the ſhape of an Heifer. One that acted the part of Icarus immediately, upon the firſt attempt fell down near the Emperor's Pavilion, and ſprinkled him with his blood. What is there here about the Conteſt of Simon with S. Peter? Who does not ſee that Suetonius ſpeaks of a poor miſerable Wretch that was forced to attempt flying to make the People a ſhow? We may be ſure if any ſuch Conflict had paſſed before Nero and the People, in the Amphitheatre, the fame of it would have been ſo great among the Heathens, that it would never have been forgotten. But theſe are the Fables of ſome idle Chriſtians, which Poſterity greedily took up.

Chapter IV.CHAP. IV.

[Page]

Verſ. 6. [...].] Tho [...] is properly ſaid of the Wine which was poured out upon the Head of the Sacrifice yet here I think it ought to be underſtood metaphorically of the Sacrifice it ſelf, upon which the Wine is poured out, a little before it is killed. So Heſychius: [...]. St. Paul uſes the Preſent Tenſe, becauſe of the nearneſs of the danger, as the Particle [...] now ſhews. Our Author forces this place, when he interprets it of a paſt danger.

Ibid. [...].] This indeed is a Verb in the Preterperfect Tenſe, but it is very frequently taken for the Preſent; whence the Vulgar Interpreter, and almoſt all others, render it inſtat, is at hand. And that it is to be ſo underſtood, the foregoing words ſhew. So that our Author had no reaſon to interpret it in the Preterperfect Tenſe, in his Premonition and Paraphraſe of this Verſe.

Verſ. 7. Note a. It is true indeed, that St. Paul here uſes Agoniſtical words; but as the Crown was due not to him who was yet running, but who was come to the end of his race, and that before others, ſo alſo God beſtows a Crown not on him that behaves himſelf manfully in any particular Calamity, but during his whole Life. So that what St. Paul calls a good Combat, is the whole courſe of his Life, which he tells Timothy he had finiſhed [...], becauſe he knew his Death was near, as the foregoing Verſe ſufficiently ſhews. What our Author ſays in his Note on Acts xxi.7. I have confuted already on that place. See 1 Tim. vi.12. and Acts xx.24.

The word [...] ſeems here to be in the place of an Adjective, ſo as that, according to a known Hebraiſm, a Crown of Righteouſneſs ſhould be put for a righteous or juſt Crown, that is, a Crown juſtly due. This is confirmed by the Epithet Juſt added to the word Judg. The places which our Author produces, as if the Hebrew [...] ſignified in them Felicity, I might ſhew to be improperly alledged, if it would contribute any thing to the illuſtration of St. Paul's words.

Verſ. 9. [...].] It is certain indeed that Timothy was preſent with St. Paul when he made his firſt Defence, but whether he could go again to Rome ſoon enough, to he there before St. Paul's Death, is ſomewhat queſtionable.

Verſ. 10. [...].] Our Author will not have Demas to have revolted from the Faith, but only, forſaking his Office of preaching the Goſpel, to have applied himſelf to worldly Affairs. But to love [Page]the preſent age, ſignifies ſomething worſe than that, viz. to prefer it before the future; which he that forſakes an Office, which he finds himſelf inſufficient for, does not. See Matt. xiii.22. and James iv.4.

Verſ. 13. Note b. The Etymologicon Magnum hath it ſo, as Dr. Hammond thinks the words of Phavorinus ſhould be read; but in this matter I neither believe the Writer of the Etymologicon nor Phavorinus, becauſe [...] is not a Greek word, and ſignifies no ſuch thing in the Latin Tongue. See Grotius.

Verſ. 14. [...].] Dr. Hammond thinks St. Paul here has a reference to the Troubles he endured at Epheſus, mention'd in Acts xix. but neither is it from that place ſufficiently evident what Alexander did againſt St. Paul; and if he did any thing, I do not think the Apoſtle here has a reſpect to that, but ſomething which was done at Rome: for this Alexander ſeems to have gone from Aſia to Rome, where he fiercely oppoſed S. Paul, and from thence returned to Aſia; for which reaſon St. Paul here admoniſhes Timothy to beware of him.

Verſ. 16. [...], &c.] This cannot be underſtood of that Defence which St. Paul made for himſelf when he was firſt in bonds: for undoubtedly he would not have told Timothy a thing which he already very well knew, as having been preſent with him at that time, nor have ſaid what was nothing to the purpoſe. He ſpeaks of his pleading before him whom Nero at his departure into Greece left Governour of the City of Rome, by whom he was not preſently condemned, but yet kept ſtill in bonds, perhaps till Nero's Return, by which means many in the mean time had the Goſpel preached to them. See Grotius on the following Verſe, by whom it will appear, it was not well underſtood by our Author, in his Premonition to this Epiſtle.

Verſ. 17. Note d. The mouth of the Lion does not, it's true, ſignify Nero, who ſeems at that time to have been in Greece, but Helius, to whom Nero committed the Government of Rome during his Abſence. See Dr. Pearſon in his Annal. Paulin. ad A. C. LXVII.

Verſ. 18. [...].] Theſe words are alledged by our Author in his Premonition, to prove that St. Paul here ſpeaks of a Danger he was deliver'd from. But the Apoſtle does not add [...], but [...], that is, as Grotius well interprets it, from doing any thing unworthy of a Chriſtian, or unworthy of an Apoſtle. This is clear from the next words, and will preſerve me to his heavenly Kingdom; as Dr. Pearſon alſo has obſerved.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Titus.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] Dr. Pearſon with more reaſon refers the writing of this Epiſtle to the Year lxv. in which alſo St. Paul wrote his firſt to Timothy. It is probable, Titus remained in Crete, under the name of an Evangeliſt rather than of a Biſhop or Archbiſhop (a word then unknown, as well as the thing it ſelf;) becauſe St. Paul afterwards commanded him to meet him at Nicopolis, as appears from Chap. iii.12. and after that he went to Dalmatia, as St. Paul tells us in 2 Tim. iv.10. undoubtedly to perform there the Office of an Evangeliſt. Which Function can hardly conſiſt with the Office of a Biſhop, watching over the Flock committed to him, with that care and diligence he ought. The Teſtimonies of the Antients about this matter, who judged raſhly of the times of the Apoſtles by their own, and ſpake of them in the Language of their own Age, are of little moment; and ſo do no more prove that Titus was Biſhop of the Iſland of Crete, than what Dr. Hammond ſays, proves him to have been dignified with the Title of an Archbiſhop. So the Antients very unanimouſly affirmed that St. Peter was the firſt Biſhop of Rome; but the more judicious ſort of Perſons preſently diſcovered them to be in an Error.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT deſerved to be noted, that in this one Verſe, the word [...] is taken in two ſeveral ſenſes; for [...] ſignifies eternal Life, that is, which ſhall never have any end; but [...], eternal times, is no more than antient times. This is a uſual thing with St. Paul, of which ſee what I have ſaid in my Ars Critica, P. 2. S. 1. c. 6.

[Page]Verſ. 12. Note c. I.Chapter II. I do not believe Phavorinus read theſe words otherwiſe than we, but rather ſet them down as he remembred them. It is an improper Etymology which our Author gives of the word [...], wherein contrary to all Analogy, Μ is inſerted between two words. Clemens Alexandrinus gives us a much better interpretation of it, in Paedag. Lib ii. c. 1. [...]: it is an intemperance about Food, and as the word literally ſignifies, a madneſs in the Belly, for [...] ſignifies Mad. This Etymology is ſuggeſted alſo by Phavorinus, which I wonder our Author did not take notice of.

II. The word [...] both in Epimenides and in St. Paul, ſignifies what it ordinarily ſignifies, that is, idle and ſlothful, as Gluttons uſually are. It's true, Slothfulneſs and Gluttony are very often attended with Uncleanneſs, but Idleneſs and Uncleanneſs are not therefore the ſame. In Ezekiel, Idleneſs does not ſignify Uncleanneſs, but that which is the cauſe of it: Behold, ſaith he, this was the Iniquity of thy Siſter Sodom, Pride, fulneſs of Bread, and abundance of Idleneſs was in her, &c.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 2. Note a. BY a compariſon of this place with 1 Tim. iii. our Author has well ſhewn that the Diſcourſe here is about Deacons; but there are two things he will hardly perſwade thoſe that underſtand Greek, and are exerciſed in the reading of theſe Books to believe. One is that [...] is diſtinguiſhed from the word [...], both thoſe words being promiſcuouſly uſed in the Verſion of the Septuagint, as well when they ſignify Dignity, as Age, as Kircher's Concordances will ſhew. The word [...] is taken for a Judg in Iſa. iii.2. Lament. ii.21. & v. 14. and [...] for the ſame in Levit. iv.15. Num. xvi.25. and elſewhere often. And ſo in many places both theſe words are uſed for an old Man. The degrees of Compariſon ought not to be urged, againſt the perpetual uſe of the Language, eſpecially [...] & [...] being properly ſaid with a reſpect to younger or young. As theſe two laſt words ſignify the ſame, ſo likewiſe the two former; and the two laſt, as Logicians ſpeak, are correlates to the two firſt. They are uſed alſo indifferently in the New Teſtament. Compare Philem. 9. with 2 John 1. & 3 John. 1.

The other is, that the word [...] in verſ. 6. ſignifies Believers, who have no Office in the Church. It ſignifies only young Men, as the word [...] ſignifies before Women. See what I have oppoſed to Dr. Hammond on Luke xxii.26.

[Page] Chapter III.Verſ. 3. Note b. Tho [...] be to ordain or conſtitute, it does not follow that [...] ſignifies the rank of thoſe who are conſtituted in any certain Office. For nothing is more common than for Derivatives to depart from the ſignification of their Primitives. So that the uſe of a word muſt always be joined with Analogy and Etymology; unleſs perhaps it be a ſingular word, or the ſeries of the Diſcourſe ſhews it muſt neceſſarily be underſtood in a particular ſenſe. But neither does the ſeries of the Diſcourſe in this place favour our Author, and Uſe is evidently againſt him. The Deaconeſſes are commanded to be [...], that is, to go in ſuch a dreſs, and behave themſelves in ſuch a manner as became Women conſecrated to God. This very well agrees with the whole ſeries of the Diſcourſe; and Uſe conſtantly interprets [...] of a dreſs, habit, or geſture of Body. Conſult J. C. Suicerus in his Theſaurus Eccleſiaſticus, or any other Lexicographer.

Verſ. 13. [...] — [...].] A Gentleman of great reading, who publiſhed ſome years ago Notes and Obſervations on the Epiſtle of Polycarp, thinks St. Paul here ſo alludes to the Cabiri, or great Gods that were worſhipped not only among the Samothracians, but alſo in the Iſle of Crete, as to oppoſe Chriſt to them. And it is certain [...] chebir in Arabick, ſignifies great, and thence the Greek word [...] ſeems to have been formed, as S. Bochart well conjectured. Thoſe Gods alſo were thought by ſome to be the ſame with the Corybantes, which every one knows were very much worſhipped in Crete. And there was a mighty talk concerning their [...], as well as of other Gods, as the learned Gentleman before mentioned has largely proved. But I think there is more wit than truth in this Interpretation, there being nothing in St. Paul's words that ſhews he had a reſpect to the Religion of the Cretes; for if there be, it muſt be ſomething elſe beſides the words [...] & [...], appearance and of the great God, which were often in the mouth of the Jews, without any alluſion to the Iſle of Crete or its Gods. See the Greek Index of Kircher's Concordances.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 10. Note b. [...] properly is the ſame with [...], that is, he that follows any [...] Sect, whether its Doctrins are true or falſe. But the Doctrins of the Apoſtolical Churches, govern'd by the Apoſtles, or by Apoſtolical Men, [Page] that agreed with their Teachers, being true; whoever departed from their [...] (that word being underſtood in a good ſenſe) did by conſequence maintain falſe Doctrins. And hence Perſons of erroneous Opinions, whether they were ſuch as deſired to live in the Church provided they might be tolerated, or whether they choſe to ſeparate themſelves from it, were afterwards called Hereticks. But as there is a difference to be made between Men and Times, ſo alſo between Hereticks; and therefore this Precept of St. Paul muſt not be urged beyond what he intended it. Whoever heretofore departed from the Apoſtles, did by that very thing deny themſelves to be Chriſtians, becauſe they contradicted inſpired Men, from whom alone the Chriſtian Doctrin could be learned, and whoſe Authority was confirmed by Miracles. Thoſe undoubtedly were to be avoided by Chriſtians, who when they had believed the Apoſtles, did afterwards reject their Doctrin and follow other Teachers. But thoſe who after the Governors of Churches were not inſpired, nor endued with a Power of working Miracles, ſeemed to themſelves to obſerve in the Churches a departure from the Apoſtles in things themſelves, tho they were cunningly diſſembled, and requeſted a reformation of thoſe Errors from the Governors of Churches; theſe, I ſay, were not any longer [...] to be avoided, if they could truly charge others with dangerous Errors and Tyranny. Theſe cannot have that [...] bugbear name of the Church objected to them, as if the greateſt number which are qualified with that name, could not by degrees at leaſt fall off from the Doctrin of the Apoſtles; and all that ſeparated from it muſt neceſſarily be in a ſtate of Damnation.

Ibid. Note c. I. Beſides the difference which our Author has obſerved between this place and the words of Chriſt in Mat. xviii. there is this further obſervable, that there Chriſt ſpeaks of an injury done to any private Man, and which if it endamaged him, it was only with relation to his private Affairs; but here the Diſcourſe is about a departure from the Apoſtles Doctrin, which concerned both the Apoſtles and the whole Church; in which caſe one or two Admonitions might be ſufficient, to know whether thoſe who ſeparated themſelves from the Churches, would again return to them. Yet I do not think the words of St. Paul are to be taken ſo, as if he forbad ſuch Men to be admoniſhed a third time, before they were avoided, if there was any hope of reclaiming them. He only ſays after the firſt and ſecond Admonition, to ſhew Chriſtians that Men are not to be given over for loſt preſently after the firſt Admonition, but to be [Page] often admoniſhed. Surely Chriſtian Charity will not allow us to number St. Paul's words ſo, as if after two Admonitions, without any regard had to Circumſtances, it were neceſſary to proceed to Excommunication. Here are no Lawyers forms, in which Words are weighed, and Citations counted; but only a repreſſing of an overhaſty Judgment, that no one might be condemned unheard, or given up too ſoon.

II. As in Mat. xviii.17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican, does not ſignify Excommunicate him, for the Diſcourſe is about any private Men, who had not the power of Excommunication: ſo alſo in this place, [...] is not to Excommunicate, but do not any longer converſe with him, after ſeveral Admonitions given him to no purpoſe, avoid him. It is plain this is the proper ſignification of the word [...], nor can it be applied to Excommunication, unleſs the thing it ſelf requires it. But here there is no neceſſity of its being taken in that ſenſe, becauſe an Heretick was ſelf-excommunicate, and becauſe he made a new Sect, and did not look upon Excommunication as a Puniſhment. Sinners who deſire to continue in the Church notwithſtanding their ſinful practices, are excommunicated, that they may be reclaimed to a more Holy Life, when they ſee they cannot be accounted Members of the Church as long as they live wickedly; not thoſe who voluntarily ſeparate, and will no longer communicate with the Church. The following words confirm this interpretation, which is alſo Grotius's.

III. I have ſhewn on 2 Cor. xiii. that that place of St. Paul is wreſted by our Author, and I will not repeat what I have there ſaid.

Verſ. 11. Note d. Here our Author does not ſeem to be ſufficiently conſiſtent with himſelf, having before interpreted [...] to avoid of Excommunication; beſides, he does not clearly enough ſhew what is meant by [...], becauſe he confounds the preſent Churches with the Apoſtolical, which in that Age agreed with their Teachers▪ [...] here is one who forſaking the Apoſtolical and Chriſtian Aſſemblies, did by that very thing deny himſelf to be a Chriſtian, and therefore ought not any longer to be accounted a Chriſtian by his own judgment. He was to be avoided therefore by Chriſtians, of whoſe number he denied himſelf any longer to be. But now there are a great many who are called by other Chriſtians by the hateful names of Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, who yet cannot be ſaid to be [...], becauſe they endeavour as much as others, to underſtand the Doctrin and Precepts of Chriſt, and conform themſelves to them, and no leſs hope to be ſaved by the Grace of Chriſt alone. In this imperfect ſtate of Mortality, many Errors creep into mens Minds through ignorance, [Page] or prejudice and weakneſs of Judgment, who live no leſs Chriſtianly, as to other things, than thoſe that are free from ſuch Errors. And it would be very unjuſt to call ſuch [...], becauſe they ſeparate from others. Again, they who denied themſelves to be Chriſtians, could not complain if they were avoided by the Chriſtians; but one that charges others with what he thinks to be Error, and cannot be preſent at their Aſſemblies, unleſs he approve them, and therefore abſents himſelf from them, but yet does not avoid the Men themſelves, or treat them leſs Chriſtianly, is highly injured, if equal courteſy be not ſhewn him. This which was plain of it ſelf, I thought fit to ſay in a few words, becauſe our Author did not ſeem clearly enough to explain the mind of the Apoſtle, not that I deſigned to handle the thing as it deſerves.

Verſ. 14. Note f. In the place of the Acts [...] is a buſineſs, not a providing of neceſſaries for Life. See Grotius on that place.

ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to Philemon.

AT the end of the Premon.] I have obſerved on the Premonition before the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, that that Epiſtle ſeems to have been written, according to the account of the moſt exact Chronologers, in the Year of Chriſt lxii, or the ixth of Nero.

Verſ. 12. [...].] That is, my Son; for St. Paul accounted all thoſe he had converted to the Faith of Chriſt, his Children; and it is uſual for Children to be called the Bowels of their Parents. So Cepteus in Ovid. Met. Lib. v. Fab. 1. ſpeaking of his Daughter Andromeda:

Sed quae viſceribus veniebat bellua ponto

Exſaturanda meis.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the Epiſtle Of St. Paul the Apoſtle to the Hebrews.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 2. [...].] He hath appointed Jeſus Heir or Lord of all things, by whom alſo he made the Worlds; that is, having heretofore by that [...] Reaſon, or eternal Wiſdom which reſided in Jeſus, and was moſt nearly united to him, created all things. In the Paraphraſe, that which diſtinctly agreed to each of theſe, ſhould have been diſtinctly expreſſed, that the meaning of the Apoſtle might be the clearer: For want of which our Author's Paraphraſe is often obſcurer than the Apoſtle's Text it ſelf.

Verſ. 3. [...].] That there are a great many things common to the Writer of this Epiſtle with Philo Alexandrinus, has been obſerved by the great Grotius on Chap. iv. and elſewhere. He might have added theſe expreſſions which Philo alſo has in Lib. de Creatione Mundi pag. 25. Ed. Gen. [...]: every Man, in reſpect of his Ʋnderſtanding, ☞ is allied to the Divine Reaſon, being an IMPRESSED IMAGE, or abſtract [i. e. a Particle broken off] or BRIGHTNESS [a Ray] of that bleſſed Nature. The expreſſions in both places are ſo like one another, that hardly any two can be more like. The word [...] is the ſame in both places, and [...] & [...] are all one in ſenſe. For as [...] is derived from [...], to engrave, and is properly a graven Image: ſo [...] comes from [...], to impreſs, or expreſs, and ſignifies ſuch an Image as is made by the impreſſion of a Seal. And hence theſe words are joined together as ſynonimous in the Writer de Mundo, who paſſed under the name of Philo, pag. 892. Ed. Gen. [...]: for whatever[Page]each of the ſenſes intromits, like a Ring or Seal, Chapter II. it impreſſes its own Image, or it [viz. the ſenſe] retains the impreſſed Image on it ſelf. [...] therefore being the ſame with [...] & [...] will be alſo the ſame. And indeed the Son of God, even as Man, is the brightneſs of his Fathers Glory, becauſe he expreſſed the divine Power in the greatneſs of his Miracles; and the impreſſed Image of his ſubſtance, becauſe he reſembles him in his Perfections. And it muſt be the humane Nature which this ſacred Writer ſpake of, that the Jews might underſtand what he ſaid was true; for that alone is viſible, and nothing but what is ſuch, can be called the Image or Brightneſs of any thing among Men. Other things might be alledged to this purpoſe, which for brevity ſake I forbear to mention.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 3. Note b. IF theſe places, which our Author here wreſts, comprehend eternal Salvation, it is needleſs to recur to that temporal Deliverance, which they cannot be applied to without Violence. For as for his ſaying that the deſign of this whole Epiſtle is to confirm the believing Hebrews in the hopes of a ſudden deliverance from the perſecutions of their Countrymen, if it be denied, he will not prove it, unleſs by ſome wreſted places, as he too often endeavours to do.

Verſ. 7. Note c. I. Tho Men in Pſal. viii. are called [...] & [...], and thoſe words uſually ſignify the meaneſt ſort of Men; yet whoever attentively reads that place, will ſee that all Men without exception are intended, who upon the account of their meanneſs are ſo called; and that they are compared with the Angels, than which they are ſaid to be a little leſs.

II. I cannot ſee why Grotius and our Author interpret [...] for a little while, contrary to the ſignification which it has in Pſalm viii. For doubtleſs Jeſus was a little leſs than the Angels, whilſt he converſed here on Earth, becauſe he was liable to death, and did actually die; to which Infelicity the Angels are not ſubject. But this was but for a ſhort time. I grant it, but neither the Pſalmiſt nor the Apoſtle have any reſpect to that.

Verſ. 10. [...].] This word is not well rendred to conſummate or make perfect, becauſe the Diſcourſe is about a Prieſt, who is ſaid [...], when he is conſecrated for the exerciſe of his Office. The Jews call this to fill the hands (implere manus) which the Septuagint often render by [...]. See Exod. xxix.10, 33, 35. Levit ▪ viii.35. & [Page] xvi.32.Chapter III. & xxi.10. Num. iii.3. The Gloſſes of Philoxenus have: [...], ſa [...]ro, to conſecrate. Chriſt was conſecrated a Prieſt, not by any outward Ceremonies, but thoſe grievous Sufferings which he conſtantly endured. See afterwards verſ. 17. and Chap. vii.28.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 3. Note a. THIS obſervation our Author took out of Grotius, and is very true. See my Notes on Gen. xvi.1. and Exod. i.21.

Verſ. 11. Note c. I. In the time of Moſes, Canaan was called [...] mnouhhah, becauſe it was a place in which the Iſraelites after ſo many and great Labours were to reſt. To enter into reſt, was all one as to enter into a Land where they ſhould be at reſt: Nothing elſe is to be look'd for in that word. See my Note on Gen. xlix.15.

II. Pſalm xcv.11. has nothing prophetical in it, nor is the Diſcourſe ſo much as about David's times. The Pſalmiſt only relates what had happen'd in the time of Moſes, and endeavours to diſſwade the Men of his Age from imitating the Iſraelites of thoſe times, who had provoked God to that degree, that he had ſworn they ſhould not enter into the Land of Canaan. This is ſo manifeſt, that I wonder our learned Author ſhould ſtudy for any thing elſe; for what he adds about the Ark, there is no mention of in the Pſalm. It is a mere gueſs of our Author, who often adds to the ſacred Writers what he pleaſes, tho the ſeries of the Diſcourſe requires no ſuch thing.

III. As the Reſt promiſed to the Jews in the Wilderneſs, was the Land of Canaan; ſo the Reſt promiſed to Chriſtians is Heaven, or a place of eternal Happineſs. Nothing can be more natural, nothing more agreable to the Apoſtles Doctrine: on the contrary, what our Author here ſays is forced, and far fetch'd, nor is it needful to confute it all particularly. They are the fancies of a Man looking into the Clouds, and ſeeing what he pleaſes.

IV. Of the Halcyon Days, which our Author ſo often repeats, we ſhall ſee what may be ſaid on the place in the Revelations, to which he refers us.

CHAP. IV.

Chapter IV.Verſ. 1. [...].] That is, into Heaven, of which the Land of Canaan was a Repreſentation; not the time when the Jews did no longer perſecute the Chriſtians, who nevertheleſs were deſpitefully uſed by the Heathens. Our Author here wreſts every thing.

[Page]Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, we have received a gracious promiſe, as well as they. For if God promiſed to the antient Jews a quiet Habitation in the Land of Canaan, he hath promiſed us eternal Reſt in Heaven. So that here [...] is taken in its proper, that is, in a general ſenſe, for receiving of any good tidings, as it is often uſed in the Verſion of the Septuagint, where the Verb in the Original is [...] biſſer. Nothing can be more flat than what the generality of Interpreters think the ſacred Writer here ſays concerning Chriſtians, we have received the Goſpel as well as the antient Jews; becauſe there can be no compariſon made between the knowledg which the Primitive Jews had of the Goſpel, and ours. What our Author ſays in his Paraphraſe, agrees neither with the words, nor the ſeries of the Diſcourſe.

Ibid. Note a. It is much more probable that the true reading is. [...], for the words are theſe: [...], the Word of HEARING did not profit them, not being mixed by Faith with thoſe that HEARD it; that is, the words of the Promiſe concerning a quiet Habitation, did not profit thoſe who only heard it without believing it. For they who believe the Word of God are nouriſhed by it ſo, as if it were incorporated with them, and converted into their ſubſtance; that is, they are no leſs acted and moved by the things which they receive by revelation from God, than thoſe which they have found to be true by reaſoning and experience. And that which makes this mixture of the Word of God with the hearers of it, is Faith, for which reaſon the ſacred Writer ſaith, [...], that the Word is mixed by FAITH with thoſe that hear it.

Verſ. 3. [...].] Tho the words of the xcvth Pſalm be here alledged, I do not believe the Sacred Writer uſes the Authority of the Pſalmiſt to prove what he deſigns, but only expreſſes an antient Story in his words; which is related in Num. xiv. and Deut. i. And he interprets Reſt in the words of God, expreſſed by Moſes and by David, in a ſublimer ſenſe, according to the cuſtom of his Age, in which all the places of the Old Teſtament were explained in a more ſublime ſenſe than what the words literally contained. And as thoſe who believed, in the time of Moſes, enter'd into the Land of Canaan, which then might be called God's Reſt: ſo the Souls of pious Chriſtians enter into the manſions of eternal Happineſs, to which that name more eminently belongs. Therefore it is ſaid by the ſacred Writer, we that believe do enter into Reſt.

[Page]Verſ. 5. [...].] That is, into Canaan, which was as the ſhadow of the heavenly Reſt. I ſay again, there is no mention in the Pſalmiſt of any future Reſt; but only the Writer of this Epiſtle deters the Men of his Age from ſinning, by the example of the antient Jews.

Verſ. 6. [...], &c.] Theſe words are to be referred and joined to the 2d Verſe in this ſenſe: ‘Seeing therefore we alſo are to enter into Reſt, underſtood in a higher ſenſe, as I have already ſaid; when the greateſt part of thoſe to whom reſt in the Land of Canaan was promiſed, fell ſhort of it.’ That this Verſe is to be joined with verſ. 2. may appear by theſe words [...], which have a reſpect to thoſe other in the 2d Verſe, [...].

Verſ. 7. [...], &c.] Subintellig. [...], the Scripture, which word is often underſtood in antient Chriſtian Writers. The ſenſe of this place is, that not only the Primitive Jews ſhould have taken heed of Unbelief, but all their Poſterity, and conſequently Chriſtians; ſeeing the Scripture teaches that whenever the Voice of God is heard, it is to be obeyed, and Reſt is no leſs promiſed to the Obedient than formerly.

Verſ. 8. [...].] That is, if no other Reſt were to be expected, beſides that which the believing Jews of old obtained under the conduct of Joſhua, the Pſalmiſt would have had no reaſon to admoniſh the Men of his Age and the following Ages, to take heed of imitating the primitive Iſraelites, whom Unbelief excluded out of the promiſed Reſt, leſt God ſhould puniſh them after the ſame manner. In interpreting theſe words, two things are neceſſary to be done. Firſt, we muſt conſider the ſcope of the Speaker, and by that his words are to be underſtood rather than by the proper meaning of every particular Phraſe. The words [...] ſignify literally, as they are rendred in the Vulgar, nam ſi eis Jeſus quietem praeſtitiſſet, For if Jeſus had given them Reſt. But if they be ſo interpreted, the Apoſtle's reaſoning will be of no force: If Joſhua had conducted thoſe antient Jews into a quiet Habitation; the Scripture would not ſpeak of another day, in which the Voice of God ought to be heard. Why not? Ought not the Men of the following Ages to be obedient to the Commands of God? Yes. But the meaning of the Sacred Writer in the words alledged is this, which I have expreſſed in the beginning of this Note, [...] ▪ Secondly, ſomething is to be ſupplied in the following words, for otherwiſe what oppoſition could there be between reſt and another day? If there were no other reſt, beſides that which Joſhua gave the antient [Page] Iſraelites, it would not thence follow there could not be another day or another time, in which the Voice of God could not be deſpiſed without danger. But we muſt ſupply here what I have alſo before intimated, [...], in which we ſhall be excluded out of God's Reſt, if we do not obey his Voice.

Yet two things ought to be carefully obſerved in ſuch Interpretations and Additions, Firſt, no Interpretation is to be admitted, which the deſign of the Speaker clearly underſtood does not require, and to which deſign the Writers reaſoning makes nothing, unleſs it be otherwiſe underſtood than the words properly ſignify. Our Author Dr. Hammond, has but little regard to the ſcope of this place, into which he brings his Gnoſticks by head and ſhoulders, when the ſcope requires no ſuch thing. I have endeavour'd to make directly towards it, and think I have not much erred from it. Secondly, that which is ſupplied, muſt be taken, if I may ſo ſpeak, out of the very bowels of the Diſcourſe, ſo that what is expreſſed do naturally and purely ariſe from propoſitions that muſt neceſſarily be ſuppoſed to be underſtood. And what I have ſupplied ſeems to me to be ſuch, but what Dr. Hammond adds, ſeems altogether foreign to this place, of which let the Reader be judg.

Hence we may infer that the ſtile of this Writer is far from being formed by the Laws of Rhetorick; according to which our firſt care ſhould be to ſpeak properly and clearly what we would have clearly underſtood, that the Reader or Hearer may comprehend what we ſay without any pain; and the ſecond to omit nothing but what any one may eaſily ſupply. Nobis, ſay the Maſters of that Faculty, prima ſit virtus perſpicuitas, rectus ordo, non in longum dilata concluſio; nihil neque deſit, neque ſuperſtuat. Ita ſermo & doctis probabilis, & planus imperitis erit. They are the words of Quintilian Inſtit. Orat. Lib. viii. Cap. 2. But the ſtile of the Jewiſh Midraſchim is nothing leſs than Rhetorical, and them the Writer of this Epiſtle follows, and not without great reaſon, becauſe he ſpake to a Nation accuſtomed to ſuch a ſtile. This by the way, which it may ſuffice to have ſaid once, tho we muſt carry it in our eye throughout this whole Epiſtle.

Verſ. 9. [...].] This inference manifeſtly ſhews that the [...], another day, ſpoken of in the foregoing Verſe, muſt be underſtood of a day wherein, unleſs we obey the Voice of God, we ſhall fall ſhort of a Reſt which he has promiſed; and therefore that this muſt neceſſarily be ſupplied. Otherwiſe there would be more, as the Logicians ſpeak, in the Concluſion than in the Premiſes, which it would be a crime to ſuppoſe of the Sacred Writer.

[Page]Verſ. 10. [...], &c.] Here the Author of this Epiſtle renders a reaſon why he called the [...], by a name taken from the Sabbath, viz. [...]: namely, as the day in which God ceaſed to create, or, as Moſes ſpeaks, reſted from his Works, was called the Sabbath; ſo the time wherein we ſhall reſt from all thoſe Labours and Troubles we are forced to undergo in this Life, may be called a Sabbatiſm. What our Author here ſays in his Paraphraſe, of a reſt from Perſecutions, and a liberty to worſhip God, is violent.

Verſ. 12. [...], &c.] What is ſaid here by Interpreters about the Word of God, is harſh, to which what the Author of this Epiſtle affirms concerning the [...], cannot be applied without violence. Can any Man think this to be a tolerable way of ſpeaking: the Goſpel is living and powerful, and more piercing than any two edged Sword, reaching even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit, and of the Joints and Marrow, and is a diſcerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart, nor is there any Creature that is not manifeſt in his ſight? Yet I can hardly perſwade my ſelf the Diſcourſe is about the Divine Reaſon, which is ſo much ſpoken of by Philo. But I am apt to think this Phraſe is taken from the Cuſtom of the Jews of that Age, who for God, and any of the divine Attributes, uſed to ſay the Word of God [...], of which Cuſtom there are ſtill frequent inſtances in Chaldee Paraphraſes of the Old Teſtament; wherein many places we find the Word of God ſet for God, not for the Meſſias, as ſome think. This conjecture is confirmed by verſ. 13. where all things are ſaid to be naked and opened unto his Eyes, which cannot be ſaid of the Goſpel, but only of God. See about this matter a Diſſertation de Verbo vel Sermone Dei, cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphraſtas Chaldaeos, printed at Irenopolis, Ann. M.DC.XLVI. So that the meaning of the Sacred Writer is this, that God who is diſpleaſed with Apoſtates, cannot be deceived, for God is living, &c.

Verſ. 13. Note c. I do not indeed doubt, but the Metaphor which the Author of this Epiſtle here uſes, is taken from the cutting of the Sacrifices. But 1ſt, it is a miſtake, that this was the buſineſs of a [...], who, among the Jews, ſearched only for outward blemiſhes, ſuch as we find mention'd in Levit. xx.22. & ſeqq. not for inward defects, which were unknown to thoſe who deliver'd the Sacrifice to the Prieſts. 2dly, It is as untrue, which our Author ſays, that the Sacrifice after its being [...] was laid upon the Altar to be ſearched into; for the Altar of Sacrifices had a continual Fire kept in it; nor was any thing laid upon it, but only the pieces appointed by the Law.

CHAP. V.Chapter V.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. [...]] It is not to be thought with Dr. Hammond, that the Apoſtolical Writer of this Epiſtle ſpeaks here ſo, as if no Sacrifices at all were admitted, but for Sins that proceeded from mere Ignorance; for there were alſo other Sins committed againſt Light and Knowledg that were expiated, and are mentioned by Moſes in Levit. Chap. vi.1. to the 7th, where ſee my Notes. But the Sacred Writer ſpeaks in this manner, becauſe the greateſt part of thoſe Sinners, for which Sacrifices were offer'd up, were [...] and [...].

Verſ 7. Note b. I. Our Author tells us in the beginning of this Note, that the word [...] fear, coming from [...] timuit, is rendred [...] in Exod. iii.6. but it is the Root it ſelf which is uſed in that place. It is ſtrange our learned Author ſhould ſometimes cite places of Scripture upon truſt.

II. The words of Iſaiah are in Chap. viii.12, 13. not in verſ. 16. and [...] ſignifies there that which fears, to wit, the People of the Jews who are there ſpoken of, and not the terrible thing, as will appear to any that look into the place. I will not ſay that in the places of Deuteronomy, the word [...] was ill tranſlated by the Septuagint, becauſe they erroneouſly derived it from the Root [...] raah, he ſaw, which was to be derived from [...] jare, he feared. For thoſe places in the Septuagint are nothing at all to the purpoſe; and it is true that fear may be taken for the cauſe of Fear.

Verſ. 9. Note c. It is true what our Author here ſays about the Verb [...], which he might have ſaid before on Chap. ii.10. where ſee my Note. But I think he had better have omitted the Dream of Menander, which has no agreement with the thing here ſpoken of, but only in the likeneſs of ſome words.

Verſ. 14. Note d. Solid Food compared with Milk, and fitter for grown Men than Babes, in that figurative ſenſe which it is here taken in, may be underſtood two ways. It may ſignify either ſomething more excellent, that is, more uſeful than firſt Elements; or ſimply Doctrins hard to be underſtood, and ſuch as cannot be digeſted but by skilful and judicious Perſons. In the firſt ſenſe it cannot here probably be taken; for tho all that is here ſaid be uſeful, yet the Doctrins propoſed as Principles and Foundations, in the beginning of Chap. vi. are much more uſeful than the Allegories we find in Chap. vii. & ſeqq. For theſe were as ſo many ornaments of the Chriſtian Religion, particularly [Page] among the Jewiſh Allegoriſts;Chapter VI. which if we had loſt, we ſhould have miſſed nothing neceſſary. But on the other hand, the Doctrin of Repentance, Faith, the Reſurrection of the Dead, and the Judgment to come, are ſo neceſſary, that being unknown, the Chriſtian Religion is alſo unknown; as on the contrary, being underſtood, nothing neceſſary eſcapes our knowledg. Nay if any one could write of theſe things which belong to the nature of Chriſtianity, wholly omitting Judaiſm, as if there had never been any ſuch thing, in that manner as they deſerve; nothing could poſſibly be deviſed more divine, more excellent, more ſublime. We muſt underſtand therefore by the name of ſolid Food, ſome difficult interpretations of the Old Teſtament, which the Jews mightily valued, and did not uſe to propoſe, if I may ſo ſpeak, to Novices or freſh Men. Such is that repreſentation of Chriſt, which the Author of this Epiſtle finds in the Hiſtory of Melchiſedek. Such is alſo the comparing of the Prieſthood of Chriſt with the Aaronical Prieſthood. None of theſe could well be propoſed to Men newly initiated, becauſe they ſuppoſed this, viz. that the Prieſthood of Chriſt was already very well known. But they are not ſublimer than thoſe things which are taught concerning Chriſt's Sacrifice, ſeparately from Judaiſm, or the reſt of the Doctrins peculiar to the Chriſtian Religion: I am ſure, as I ſaid before, they are not ſo uſeful.

Ibid. [...].] Theſe words ſeem to be taken from the uſe of the Philoſophers, and eſpecially the Stoicks; who defined [...] the avoiding of vain things, [...], a habit reducing Fancies or Viſions to right Reaſon, as we are told by Diogenes Laertius in Lib. vii. S. 47. The ſame Men taught [...], that Perſons who had unexerciſed Fancies, fell into Abſurdity and Vanity.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 1. [...].] By this word the Apoſtle means, not a more uſeful knowledg than of thoſe things which he preſently after enumerates, but ſome Doctrins which might be added to them, to render Chriſtianity more perfect. So a building has ſeveral things added to it, not neceſſarily belonging to a Building, and without which it cannot ſtand firm; but [...], to make it the more complete, ſuch as are ſeveral kinds of Ornaments. Yet no allegorical Interpretation, of whatever ſort it be, is any wiſe comparable either for its Uſefulneſs or Wiſdom, with the elements [Page] of Chriſtianity taught by our Saviour in Mat. v, vi, & vii. What Dr. Hammond adds in his Paraphraſe of this Verſe, about his Gnoſticks, he inſerts purely of his own head; the Sacred Writer did not give him the leaſt occaſion for it.

Verſ. 6. Note a. I. I acknowledg Baptiſm is very frequently in the Fathers, called [...], but that uſe of theirs ſeems to be grounded upon this very place, where they thought [...] to be all one with [...]; in which, becauſe they might be miſtaken, I do not think the Apoſtle's Language can be underſtood by their uſe. And here I had much rather take [...] to be meant of the enlightning of the Mind, than the external rite of Baptiſm: See Grotius about this word; which, I may alſo here add, is to be underſtood of ſpiritual illumination in the Old Teſtament, in the verſion of the Septuagint. See Pſalm xii.4. & xviii.9. & cxix.129. according to the Greek diſtinction.

II. It is very uncertain whether ever [...] or [...] ſignifies the times of the Meſſias; and tho thoſe may be called [...] the latter days, yet compared with former, they are no where [...] ſo called. And in this place [...] much more probably ſignifies the Life to come, the [...] or foretaſts of which Chriſtians have in this, when they are weary of all earthly things, and nothing moves them but the expectation of eternal Happineſs, in which they ſweetly acquieſce. This is indeed to taſt the powers of the World to come, when the hope of that only, accompanied with a contempt of all other things, affects and delights our Minds. Of this and the other words conſult Grotius.

Ibid. Note b. I. The ſignification of the Verb [...] muſt be taken from the ſimple [...], and not from another compound of the ſame Verb. For all that underſtand Greek, know that the compounds of the ſame root have ſometimes very different ſignifications. So that tho [...] be to dedicate, it does not follow that [...] ſignifies the ſame. Beſides, who but Dr. Hammond that had accuſtom'd himſelf to a barbarous and intolerable way of ſpeaking, could endure this phraſe to dedicate to Repentance? [...] is, as every one knows, new, and [...] to make new, whence [...] is to renew or to make new again. They who firſt took upon them the title of Chriſtians, with a ſincere reſolution to live piouſly and vertuouſly, were ſo very much changed from what they were formerly, that they are called new Men, and new Creatures, by the Apoſtles: See 2 Cor. v.17. Gal. vi.15. Epheſ. ii.15. & iv.24. Conſequently thoſe who forſaking theſe firſt purpoſes, fell off again to the weak elements of the Jewiſh Religion, or [Page] to Heatheniſm, muſt, if they would return to Chriſt, [...], be made new again, or become new Men, that they might repent. I alledg the Authority of St. Paul for this interpretation, who ſpeaks thus in Coloſſ. iii.10. Lie not one to another, putting off the old Man, with his Deeds, and putting on the new Man, [...], which is renewed to knowledg, [...], &c. That renovation the ſame Apoſtle calls [...], Rom. xii.12. and [...], Tit. iii.3. Nor let it be ſaid that the word here uſed is [...], for [...] and [...] ſignify juſt the ſame: See the former in the Verſion of the Septuagint, Pſal. cii.5. & ciii.31. Lament. v.21. And the Old Gloſſes have, [...], innovat, & [...], innovatio. So Suidas: [...]. I believe it ſhould be: [...]; the repetition of like words was the cauſe why one of them was omitted, and the decay of a Letter corrupted the laſt; which is obſervable in many places of that and other Lexicons.

II. This being ſuppoſed the genuin and proper ſignification of the Verb, the ſeries of the Diſcourſe is clear, which otherwiſe is ſomething intricate. The Apoſtolical Writer ſaith, that the Jews needed to be inſtructed in that part of the Chriſtian Doctrin, which was propoſed to Proſelytes; which yet he ſays he would not now ſet before them, deferring it to another time; then he ſubjoins the words [...], &c. as if he had ſaid, ‘I will not propoſe again that Doctrin, whereby Proſelytes uſe to be converted to the Chriſtian Faith, that ſo I may reduce thoſe Jews who have apoſtatized from it; for this they know as well as other things, which I might ſay to that purpoſe. By ſuch a Diſcourſe Men who have been once enlightned with divine Light, who had received the heavenly Gift of a quiet Mind, who had been endued with a power to work Miracles, who have had foretaſts in the Church of the promiſed Happineſs of another Life, and nevertheleſs have revolted from Chriſt; by ſuch a Diſcourſe, I ſay, I cannot renew again ſuch Men ſo as that they ſhould repent.’ But why is it [...], impoſſible to renew again ſuch Men? viz. becauſe whatever could be ſaid or done in order to that end, had been done and ſaid already. They had heard all, and had been ſenſible of all that was naturally apt to fix and engage them for ever to Chriſt. And yet they had not adhered to him, becauſe of Perſecutions. There was nothing more could be done to reduce them to a better Mind, unleſs thoſe things which they already perfectly underſtood, and perceived the efficacy of, were again repeated to them, which would have been to no purpoſe. The ſame [Page] is the ſenſe of the following compariſon, and of that which is ſaid about this matter in Chap. x.

III. Now if any one enquire concerning the thing it ſelf, if he throughly conſider it, he will eaſily ſee that it is not without reaſon that the Apoſtolical Writer affirmed it to be [...], that is, if not abſolutely impoſſible, as we now ſpeak with the Vulgar Interpreter, yet at leaſt extremely difficult, and the hardeſt thing poſſible. The reaſon I before intimated, becauſe ſuch Men have abuſed all the Reaſons and Arguments which might have inſeparably united them to Chriſt. They are that Vine of God for which he had done all that could be done to make them bring forth good Fruit, and yet had brought forth wild Grapes: For which reaſon ſome of the Antients plainly affirmed that it was in vain to expect the Repentance of ſuch Men. As Hermas in Lib. iii. Simil. 6. His non eſt, ſaith he, per poenitentiam regreſſus ad vitam; quoniam quidem adjecerunt ad reliqua peccata ſua, quod nomen Domini nefandis inſectati ſunt verbis; hujuſmodi homines morti ſunt deſtinati. Theſe Perſons cannot return by Repentance to Life; becauſe they have added to the reſt of their Sins, that of blaſpheming the Name of the Lord; ſuch Men as theſe are appointed to Death. See alſo Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitl. Quis dives ſalvetur.

IV. [...] is no where in the Holy Scriptures taken for thoſe Church-Penalties which were impoſed upon Penitents before they were admitted again to Communion. Our Author ſhould have produced but one place to make himſelf believed. For it is not ſafe to reaſon about what was done in antient times from the ſtile of the Fathers, becauſe together with new Cuſtoms there were new Names alſo invented, and new ſignifications given to old ones. We have no reaſon to ſuppoſe that the manner of a publick Repentance was the ſame in the Apoſtles times, as afterwards. The Engliſh or German Articles are vainly alledged in this place: But our Author ſhould have cited the viith Can. of the Neocaeſarean Council, in which the phraſe he ſets down is, not the lii, for there are only xv Canons in all of that Council. Such another miſtake I have already elſewhere obſerved.

V. Of the Gnoſticks here, there is not the leaſt mark or footſtep. The Apoſtolical Writer only makes mention of ſome that had revolted from Chriſt, whether to the Heathens or the Jews. And ſuch Men joining themſelves to the perſecutors of the Chriſtians, which had formerly crucified Chriſt, did, as much as in them lay, the ſame; becauſe they approved the fact, and deſpitefully uſed Chriſt's Members. This agrees no more to the Gnoſticks, than to any Apoſtates.

[Page]VI. I don't think the Church of Rome or others, rejected this Epiſtle, becauſe of this place, as contrary to their Cuſtom; but rather becauſe the Author of it was not certainly known. Nor was it admitted becauſe this Paſſage began to be better underſtood, but becauſe at length the moſt judicious Perſons eaſily obſerved that the ſtile and reaſonings of this Epiſtle were agreeable to the Apoſtles times; in which alſo and no other there could be an Epiſtle written to the Jewiſh Brethren, apart from the Gentiles; for in the following Age there was no difference between the Members of the Chriſtian Church, nor any remembrance of Circumciſion and Uncircumciſion. In the antient Church of Rome, as appears from Herma, there was the ſame opinion about the difficulty of Repentance, in thoſe who after they had been throughly inſtructed in the Chriſtian Religion, and been zealous for it, ſhamefully apoſtatized from it. Beſides, that manner of Repentance which was afterwards inſtituted, not having been known in the Primitive times, not to ſay that there is no mention made of it in this place, an Epiſtle could not be rejected as contrary to a Cuſtom which had not yet prevailed.

VII. It is very true that [...] often ſignifies what it is not lawful to do, but here it ſeems to ſignify that which is very difficult; for which reaſon a very antient Greek and Latin Copy of the New Teſtament, kept at Paris in the Library of St. Victor, has in this place, difficile, tho the Tranſlation is uſually literal: So [...] is taken in Mat. xix.26. I ſhall not add any thing about the Gnoſticks, whom our Author here ſeeks for, becauſe I have often confuted him.

Verſ. 7. Note c. Our Author here thinks that in this place the [...] & [...] of a Similitude are confounded; for which reaſon the Apoſtolical Writer ſpeaks of the Earth, as he would ſpeak of Men. And indeed there ſeems to be ſome ground for this ſuppoſition, if the words [...] be rendred, as uſual, receiveth a bleſſing from God. But that mixture of the parts of a Similitude being very improper, I had rather interpret [...] ſo, as that the conſequent ſhould be expreſſed by the antecedent, and that the Verb [...] ſhould not ſignify to receive, but to uſe the bleſſing received from God, that is, Rain, Sunſhine, &c. So the ſenſe will be very proper: for the Earth which drinketh in the Rain that cometh often upon it, and bringeth forth Herbs meet for them for whom it is dreſſed, uſes the Bleſſing which it receives from God; but that which beareth Thorns and Briers, is reprobate and near a Curſe, whoſe end is to be burnt; that is, which is of no uſe, except that the Briers and Thorns which grow upon it are burned, or ſerve to make Fires. It is common for the antecedent [Page] to be taken for the conſequent: See S. Glaſſius Rhetor. Sacr. Tract. 1. c. 1. de Metonymia Cauſae. I might otherwiſe interpret theſe words, is ſaid to have received a bleſſing from God.

Verſ. 20. Note e. I. I don't underſtand what our Author means when he ſays that it was perhaps taken into the Heathen Oracles from the Prophets, that about that time among the Romans the dignity of the Pontificate was joined with the Imperial. What Oracles are thoſe? When and where deliver'd? Was there any need of inferring from the Jewiſh Prophets, contrary to all the rules of Logick, that a thing was done at Rome, which every one knew? But perhaps he meant to ſpeak of the time to come, tho his words ſignify a thing paſt. However that be, either thoſe Oracles were none at all, or only counterfeited; and our Author dared not, or could not produce them.

II. Even from the time of Julius Caeſar, it was decreed, that if he begat a Son, he ſhould be High-Prieſt. Of which ſee J. Andreas Boſius, de Pontificatu Max. Impp. Rom. cap. 1. who will inform us more exactly in ſuch matters than our Author, who ſpent but little time in ſtudying the Heathen Antiquities, but moſtly imployed himſelf in the ſtudy of Eccleſiaſtical.

III. He ſhould have added the Chapter of the Life of Auguſtus, as well as of Galba and Claudius. But we have no reaſon to be ſorry he did not, for all this ſhould have been blotted out, becauſe the places marked in Suetonius are nothing to the purpoſe; which I ſhould have wondred at, if I had not often obſerved a great many more ſuch things in the Doctor: The place in Tacitus is ſhamefully corrupted. It is taken out of the Oration of Servius Maluginenſis Prieſt of Jupiter, Annal. Lib. iii. c. 58. who deſiring to have the Province of Aſia given to him, ſaid this among other things: Privatis olim ſimultatibus effectum, ut a Pontificibus Maximis (Flamines Diales) ire in Provincias prohiberentur; nunc, Deum munere ſummum Pontificum etiam ſummum hominum eſſe, non aemulationi, non odio, non privatis affectionibus obnoxium. Through private grudg it came to paſs in former times, that they (viz. the Prieſts of Jupiter) were not ſuffer'd by the Chief Prieſts to go into the Provinces; but now by the bounty of the Gods the Chief of the Prieſts was alſo the chief of Men, and not ſubject either to envy, or hatred, or private Paſſion. The Latins did not ſay ſummus Pontifex, and perhaps Tacitus would not have uſed the word ſummus, but only for the following [...], oppoſition.

Chapter VII.CHAP. VII.

[Page]

Verſ. 4. [...].] See Grotius on theſe words, and add to the examples which he alledges theſe words of Horace, in Lib. 1. Sat. vi.

— Perſuades hoc tibi vere

Ante poteſtatem Tulli, atque ignobile regnum

Multos ſaepe viros, NƲLLIS majoribus ortos

Et vixiſſe probos, amplis & honoribus auctos.

Where nulli majores are ſuch, whoſe Names and Exploits through length of time are forgotten. And ſuch were the Parents of Melchiſedek, for which reaſon he is ſaid to have been without Father and without Mother, &c. If we conſider this attentively, we ſhall eaſily perceive that before the time of Chriſt no Man could, without a revelation, have imagin'd from the Story of Melchiſedek, there would hereafter come an Eternal Prieſt, who was to be Succeſſor to none, nor have any to ſucceed him. Nor could any Man after the Coming of Chriſt, gather by mere reaſoning, grounded upon critical Rules, that Melchiſedeks Parents and Death were omitted in the Scripture with this deſign, that by ſuch a ſilence he might be an Image of Chriſt. Whoever ſhould have pretended this, might have been confuted by a bare Negation. Why therefore, you will ſay, did the Apoſtolical Writer inſiſt ſo much upon that Story with the Jews? For it's plain he does not ſay here he had any revelation made to him of that matter, nor require credit to be given to his bare Affirmation. I anſwer, the Allegorical Writers of the Jews at that time, accommodated innumerable places to the Meſſias, not relying upon any Grammatical Interpretation, but a certain old Cuſtom of explaining the Scripture in that manner. So becauſe they interpreted Pſalm cx. of the Meſſias, the Sacred Writer makes uſe of that Interpretation to his purpoſe; and becauſe they acknowledged the Meſſias ought to be like Melchiſedek, he reaſons againſt them from their own Conceſſion; not againſt other Men who might have denied what he aſſumed. And he uſed this way of diſputing with the Jews ſo much the more willingly, becauſe nothing followed from ſuch an Interpretation contrary to thoſe things which he knew were true concerning Chriſt; yea he might, according to the Jewiſh Cuſtom, compare Chriſt to Melchiſedek. Otherwiſe, if the thing be conſider'd in it [Page] ſelf, no ſtrong or Grammatical Argument could be drawn againſt others from that Hiſtory; and therefore ſuch things are not to be too much urged now, becauſe that way of explaining the Scripture is grown out of uſe.

Verſ. 4. Note a. I. The true original of the word [...] is well obſerved by our Author out of Phavorinus. It may be further added, that the Fruits gathered out of Fields, and the Spoils taken from Enemies, were piled up in heaps, before the owners of the Fields made uſe of the Fruits, or thoſe who had taken the Spoils divided them; and then from the tops of thoſe heaps, [...], before they were diſpoſed of, were taken the Firſt-fruits which were offer'd to the Gods; whence any Firſt-fruits came to be called [...]. I do not deny but the beſt part was conſecrated, but I do not think [...] ſignifies here the choice. It is plain [...] is uſed to ſignify Fruits, not as if choſen from Trees, but becauſe they are on the extremities of Boughs, or on the tops of Trees. However I wonder our Author ſhould quote pag. 110. of Phavorinus, when what he alledges out of him is in Column 100. and no where elſe.

II. But I more wonder he ſhould produce only in Engliſh the words of Philo, out of Lib. 11. Alleg. Legis, which are no where to be found in that Book. Philo has only this paſſage that can belong to this place, in pag. 57. Ed. Genev. [...]: for he offer'd Bread and Wine, which the Ammonites and Moabites would not give, for which reaſon they are kept out of the Aſſembly and Congregation of God. Then he enquires, why he gave Wine and not Water, and that he interprets Allegorically.

III. It is ſtrange alſo that our Author, in this pious liberality of Abraham, ſhould ſee a ſufficient Example and Teſtimony of the Cuſtom in Abraham's time, of paying Tithes to the Prieſt of ALL our increaſe, of what kind ſoever it is. For he himſelf has obſerved two things contrary to this Inference: Firſt, that Abraham gave Tithes only of the ſpoils of the War, which is no Evidence that the Antients uſed to pay Tithes when ever their Poſſeſſions were encreaſed; for an univerſal Propoſition, as Logicians ſpeak, cannot be concluded from a particular. Secondly, that thoſe Tithes were extraordinary, as being paid to a Prieſt, to whom that tract of Land, wherein Abraham dwelt, did not belong; which ſurely cannot be an example of a perpetual Cuſtom of paying Tithes to Prieſts of the ſame Country.

Verſ. 5. Note b. It is very barbarouſly, and without example, that Dr. Hammond here joins [...] with [...] ſo, as to think that is [Page] a periphraſis of the Jews. The reaſon he alledges for this Interpretation is of no moment, becauſe here is not a mere repetition. The ſenſe is: ‘They have received a Commandment to require Tithes of their Countrymen, in that manner which is preſcribed by the Law.’

Ver. 11. [...].] This word our Author interprets in his Paraphraſe, of a perfect expiation of Sin; but he ought to have produced examples of that Notion. Grotius thinks it ſignifies id quod in genere ſacerdotii perfectiſſimum eſt, That which is moſt perfect in the kind of Prieſthood; but that this might be ſaid the thing ſhould have been expreſſed thus, [...], if therefore there were perfection in the Levitical Prieſthood, and not [...], by the Levitical Prieſthood. I believe therefore that here [...] is taken for Conſecration, whereby not the Prieſts themſelves, but private Perſons who offer'd Sacrifice, were by the hands of the Prieſts ſo conſecrated to God, as to become acceptable to him. So the Heathens thought themſelves by their Prieſts [...], to be through Sacrifices initiated and conſecrated to their Deities, ſo as to be upon that account the more pleaſing to them, as is well known of the Myſteries of Ceres. Hence the Chriſtians uſed [...] to ſignify a Conſecration, whereby we are rendred more acceptable to God: See J. Caſp. Suicerus his Theſaurus on this word. In the ſame manner I underſtand the Verb [...] in ver. 19. Of the [...] of Prieſts, ſee on Chap. ii.10.

Verſ. 19. Note c. I am apt to think [...] has a reference to the myſtical ſignification of the Verb [...], that is, to conſecrate, to initiate in certain Rites. For as thoſe that were initiated drew nearer than others to the Images of the Gods, and entred into the ſecret places of their Temples: ſo the conſecrated Prieſts among the Jews enter'd into the Sanctuary, which was neareſt that place where God was thought in a ſpecial manner to reſide; and among Chriſtians any one whatſoever, as initiated by the moſt Holy Rites, betakes himſelf to God in Prayer without the intervention of any mortal Prieſt. See Note on verſ. 11.

Verſ. 27. [...].] This muſt be referred only to the laſt words [...], and is not to be underſtood ſo as if Chriſt had offer'd not only for the ſins of the People, but alſo for his own; as Grotius and Dr. Hammond underſtood it. For there is no ſuch thing in any other place ſuggeſted by the Apoſtles, and what thoſe learned Men here ſay is violent. Theſe Writers are not to be examined ſo by the Rules of Rhetoricians, as always to be thought to intend what [Page] a Rhetorician would have meant by the ſame words. It's true,Chapter VIII. accurately ſpeaking [...] ſhould be referred to the whole verſe, but the former part of it not agreeing to Chriſt, it muſt be ſuppoſed only to belong to the latter.

CHAP. VIII.

Verſ. 1. [...].] See my note on Mark xvi.19.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is of Heaven, in which Chriſt exerciſed the chief part of his Prieſthood, when he carried into it his blood, as into the moſt holy place. Our Author miſunderſtood this of the Church, in which Chriſt did not execute his Prieſtly Office, but in Heaven. In the words of the Apoſtle, after the true Tabernacle we muſt ſupply [...], of God, which is called true becauſe God there ſhews himſelf in a peculiar manner preſent, by an inacceſſible light, with which his inhabitation of the Moſaical Tabernacle can no more be compared, than the malignant and as it were falſe light of the reflex rays of a Torch, with the true light of the Sun. See what I have ſaid about this phraſe on John vi.55. and about the Tabernacle of God, on Rev. xxi.13.

Verſ. 4. [...].] I don't think we ought to ſupply here only, after the words on earth, with Grotius and Dr. Hammond; for the reaſoning of the Apoſtle is not at all cleared by that Supplement. But to be a Prieſt on earth, is to be underſtood ſo as if he had ſaid, by the Moſaical Law, which appointed only the race of Aaron to be Prieſts, and that to offer up brute Sacrifices in the Temple, whoſe blood they alone, according to the Law of God, might pour out at the Altar, and carry into the Sanctuary. For Chriſt was of the Tribe of Judah, as the Apoſtolical Writer of this Epiſtle elſewhere obſerves.

Verſ. 5. [...].] [...] and [...] here can by no means ſignify a prefiguration of ſomething future; for Heaven was a great while before the Tabernacle and Temple; but ſome faint and obſcure Image of a thing extraordinary beautiful and glorious. For [...] is, as painted Images are, an imitation, as it is uſed in this very Epiſtle, Chap. iv.11. Let us labour to enter into that reſt, leſt any man periſh in the ſame imitation of unbelief; that is, in the imitation of the ſame unbelief; [...]. It comes from the Verb [...], which Phav [...]rinus interprets thus: [...]: he repreſents[Page]for he paints; Chapter IX. I will ſhew a thing by diſcourſe, as by ſome picture. So that [...] is ſometimes the ſame with [...], which is, to delineate, or to draw the firſt and rude lineaments of things; from whence [...] is a rude draught or delineation. And [...] here is the ſame with [...], that is, a dull or rough Picture, like the repreſentation of a body by its ſhadow. Then the Phraſe to ſerve to the delineation and ſhadowing of heavenly things ſignifies to miniſter to the Sanctuary, which was a delineation, &c. as was done by the Jewiſh Prieſts. What our Author ſays here in his Paraphraſe, is beſides the ſcope of this place.

Verſ. 9. Note a. I. What Dr. Hammond here ſays about the miſtakes of Tranſcribers, is very true; as Lud. Cappellus in his Critica Sacra has ſhewn: in which Mr. Pocock has confuted indeed a few ces, but left the foundations untouch'd; tho he ever now and then has a ſtroke at them, both in his Notes ad Portam Moſis, and elſewhere. Yet they cannot be overturned, becauſe they are undeniably true. But it is true alſo, before any place be thought to have been differently read by the Septuagint, the neighbouring Languages ought to be conſulted, which was not always done by Cappellus. In this place our Author might have added, that [...] and [...] are one and the ſame root, but differently written; the Letters of the ſame Organ in the Eaſtern Languages, and eſpecially the Guttural, being very often confounded.

II. I wonder our learned Author thought the Septuagint pointed otherwiſe the word [...]; for melammedah is of the Feminine Gender, and cannot be joined with what goes before. The words may be literally render'd thus: Fuit [...] timere eorum me praeceptum hominum edoctum, their fearing me was a precept taught by men. If any thing elſe were to be changed by the Verſion of the Septuagint, we ſhould read [...] melammedim, teaching. But that is needleſs, the ſenſe being the ſame in the Hebrew words as they are now, as it is in the Greek.

III. Our Author miſtranſlates [...] by I have given or ſent. He confounds this Verb with [...] he hath ſent, in his Explication of Zachar. xi.13.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 1. [...].] The word [...] here does not ſeem to ſignify an Image of the whole World, as Grotius and Dr. Hammond explain it, but rather earthly; for [...] is often taken both for this lower World and for Men. [...] is oppoſed to [...]. This Beza obſerved, whom the learned [Page] Doctor and Grotius ſhould have followed in this matter.

Verſ. 2. [...].] Which is called Holies, in the plural number, becauſe the moſt holy place was called the Holies of Holies, [...], by thoſe that ſpake Greek; for in Hebrew the former is called the Sanctuary or Holineſs, [...] mikdaſch, or [...] kodeſch, never in the plural number; the latter the Holineſs of Holineſſes [...]. By this and what I ſhall obſerve afterwards of the word [...], it may ſeem probable that the Writer of this Epiſtle was a Grecian, or at leaſt one that did not well underſtand Hebrew, and therefore cannot be thought to have been St. Paul.

Verſ. 4. [...].] Grotius underſtands by this word the Golden Cenſer which had fire put into it out of the Altar by the High Prieſt, who afterwards threw Incenſe [...] into it, on the day he entred into the moſt holy place. That Veſſel uſed to be kept in the outward Sanctuary; but non est, ſaith he, difficile intellectu, cur di [...]at hic ſcriptor interius illud tentorium habuiſſe batillum, non quod ibi ſemper eſſet, ſed quod ſemper Arcam, quae erat in Adyto, reſpiceret, & in illo die maxime ſolemni expiationis, in tentorium interius, id est, in Adytum tranſferretur. Habere enim dicimur quod est in noſtrum uſum. It is eaſy to underſtand why this Writer ſays that inward Tabernacle had the Cenſer, not becauſe it was always there, but becauſe it always had a reſpect to the Ark which was in the most holy place, and on that most ſolemn day of Expiation was carried into the inward Tabernacle, and into the most holy place. For we are ſaid to have what is for our uſe. By the ſame reaſon every thing which was in the outward Sanctuary might be ſaid to have been in the moſt holy place, becauſe they had a reſpect to it. It might have been ſaid to have the Fire and the Incenſe before they were carried into it, becauſe they were for its uſe, and were to be carried into it. Which things as they cannot be ſaid, according to the ordinary uſe of Speech, ſo they are by no means agreeable to the Stile of this Writer. For when he ſays, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the ſhewbread, that muſt undoubtedly be underſtood properly; and we cannot otherwiſe underſtand what is ſaid here, which had the golden Cenſer, &c. I am apt to think therefore, that this was a Jewiſh Tradition of that Age, by which they ſuppoſed that the Cenſer uſed on the day of Expiation was kept in the moſt holy place. See on the following words.

Ibid. Note b. It's certain Iſaac Abarbanel on 1 Kin. viii.9. ſays there is a Tradition to that purpoſe. See what Joan. Buxtorfius has collected about this matter out of the Rabbins and other Interpreters, in his Arca Foederis, cap. 5.

[Page]Verſ. 5. Note d. See alſo what I have ſaid on Rom. iii.25.

Verſ. 7. Note e. All the Sins that were expiated by Sacrifices, were not involuntary, but only the moſt, as appears from Levit. vi.1. & ſeqq. and the greater number gave the denomination.

Verſ. 13. Note f. In this place [...] does not ſignify waſhes, abluit, but lustrat, purifies or purges, that is, according to the Inſtitution of the Law, makes one that was before judged unclean with an Uncleanneſs, not properly ſo called, but legal, to be accounted clean; tho neither his Mind was made more holy, nor his Body, properly ſpeaking, more clean. For the ſprinkling of Blood and Aſhes rather defiles than waſhes the body. It is a plain caſe. Why therefore did the Apoſtolical Writer ſay, that it ſanctified the fleſh? I anſwer, It is all one as if he had ſaid, the Body of ſuch a man was accounted holy or clean, and might be touched without Pollution: for thoſe that were accounted unclean were thought to pollute every one that touched them.

Verſ. 16. [...].] Here is as it were a playing with the Ambiguity of the word [...], which in theſe Writers conſtantly ſignifying [...], that is, a Covenant, was uſed by thoſe that ſpake the beſt Greek for a Testament. It is true indeed, a Teſtament is ratified by the death of the Teſtator, and Chriſt is dead. But Chriſt was not the Mediator of a Testament, for Teſtaments do not want Mediators; and if it ſhould be granted that he was, he could not be thought at once a Mediator and a Teſtator, by whoſe death alone a Teſtament was confirmed. The Teſtator here is God the Father, whoſe heirs men are, in conjunction with Chriſt; but God the Father can in no ſenſe be ſaid to die. See Dr. Hammond's Annot. on the Inſcription of the New Teſtament. So that this Diſcourſe is to be look'd on merely as the play of an Hellenistical Writer, who becauſe he ſaw that [...] was uſed for that Covenant whereof Chriſt is the Mediator, and ſignified alſo a Teſtament, and Chriſt was dead, thence deduced Conſectaries which are true indeed conſider'd in themſelves, but here rely upon weak Principles, rather to ſet off his Diſcourſe, according to the cuſtom of that Age, than to convert the unbelieving Jews to the Chriſtian Faith by force of reaſoning.

They who think every thing ſaid in theſe Writings is mathematically demonſtrative, are greatly miſtaken, and have not read them with due Attention. Nor does this leſſen the Authority of this Epiſtle, the Writer of which no where ſays that he would bring nothing but Demonſtrations. All the Heads of the Chriſtian Doctrine which he proſecutes are very true, and may be demonſtrated by other [Page] places of Scripture; but the manner in which he illuſtrates them,Chapter X. is plainly like the cuſtom of thoſe times, as we may ſee by Philo; in whom there are often ſuch accommodations, as Divines ſpeak, of places of Scriptures, and conſequences deduced from them, in which no regard at all is had to Grammar, and the only thing obſerved is, that the thing it ſelf, illuſtrated by them, be true. That was the way of that Age, which we ought no more to wonder at, than at our own preſent Cuſtoms.

Verſ. 18. [...], &c. The ſimilitude between the Old Covenant and a Teſtament, which is here urged, is that in both there is a Death obſervable, in a Teſtament, of the Teſtator, in the Covenant of a Sacrifice; and that by that Death both are confirmed, tho not in the ſame manner. This is but a ſlight Similitude, from which nothing can be philoſophically inferred: but conſidering the Cuſtom of that Age, an elegant way of reaſoning. I know that Grotius would have [...] to be taken in a more general Notion, for an explication of the import of the Teſtator [...] his Will. Which is true, where the Hebrew word [...] brith is tranſlated, and nothing is added to ſhew there is a reſpect had to a Teſtament properly ſo called; but where there is mention made of the death of a Teſtator, the Diſcourſe is about the laſt ſignification of his Will, as in this place.

Verſ. 24. [...].] That is, faſhioned according to the [...]. The Sanctuary of Heaven is the Pattern, or [...], in the likeneſs of which the Tabernacle was made: See my Note on 1 Cor. x.7. But wherein conſiſted that likeneſs? In this, that as God in a ſpecial manner is thought to dwell in Heaven, ſo he dwelt in the Moſaical Sanctuary. This Similitude is certain; what is further added out of Philo, or others, are mere Conjectures, and for the moſt part vain [...], niceties.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 1. [...].] That is, by its [...] ſo to reconcile and render them acceptable to God, as that they might hope for eternal Happineſs from him. See my Note on Chap. vii.11.

Verſ. 26. Note b. I. That it is a defection or falling away from Chriſtianity which is here meant, there can be no doubt; but that we are to underſtand it of a defection to the Gnoſticks rather than to the Heathens or Jews, our Author has not proved: for there is nothing ſaid in this place, which does not exactly agree to thoſe who had revolted [Page] to the Syrians or Jews, after they had known the truth of the Chriſtian Religion.

II. What our Author here adds, about the contempt of the Governors of the Church, I do not ſee upon what ground it relies; for Men did not ordinarily revolt from the Chriſtian Faith, out of a contempt of the Governors of the Church, but rather of the Goſpel it ſelf. They forſook the Aſſemblies of the Chriſtians, not to ſhew they deſpiſed their Biſhops, but to ſecure their Lives and Poſſeſſions for which they had ſo high a value, that for their ſakes they trod under foot the Son of God, accounted the Blood of the Covenant as a profane thing, and reproached the Spirit of Grace. [...] indeed is the Office of Biſhops, but private Men alſo may exhort one another, and there is no mention here of the Governors of the Church.

III. What is meant by [...] the Law of Moſes, I ſhall afterwards explain. But it is ſtrange that Councils are here appealed to, and ſuch examples brought out of them, to ſhew what it is to reproach the Spirit of Grace; which is to ſpeak contumeliouſly of the Spirit vouchſafed under the Goſpel, to the Apoſtles.

Verſ. 28. [...].] The Verb [...] is not ſimply to violate, but by words and deeds to declare a Man will not obſerve the Law, and does not think it ought to be obſerved, or ſcornfully to reject it. And for that wickedneſs among the Jews, there was no Sacrifice of Expiation, as we are told in Num. xv.30. where ſee my Notes: add alſo Deut. xxvii.26. & xxix.19. The Verb [...] ſignifies to reject in Luke vii.30. & x.16. John xii.48. Jude 8. and elſewhere. So the Old Gloſſes: [...] reprobo, to reject; [...] refellit, diſapproves. Heſychius: [...].

Verſ 34. [...].] Dr. Hammond obſerves in the Margin of the Engliſh Tranſlation, that the Alexandrian Copy reads here [...]. So does alſo the Vulgar: vinctis compaſſi eſtis, ye have ſympathiſed with the bound; which reading is countenanced likewiſe by the Syriack Interpreter. So alſo it was read in two Copies of R. Stephanus. And I doubt not but that is the true reading, which was changed by thoſe who raſhly ſuppoſed St. Paul was the Author of this Epiſtle.

CHAP. XI.Chapter XI.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. IN the place cited out of Ezekiel, in the Chaldee Paraphraſt, [...] muſt not be rendred auſi ſunt, they took Confidence, but impudenter confirmant, they impudently confirm, viz. ſermonem ſuum ratum fore, That their word ſhould be made good or come to paſs. The Hebrew Verb [...] muſt be rendred they have made others to hope, that the thing ſhould be accompliſhed. But ſuppoſing this, our Author's conjecture is nevertheleſs good.

II. [...] in the Septuagints Verſion of Mich. v.7. muſt not be tranſlated to ſubſiſt, but to hope. The Hebrew has: The Remnant of Jacob ſhall be among the Nations, and in the midſt of many People, as a dew from the Lord, as ſhowers upon the Graſs; which does not wait for any Man, nor ſtay for the Sons of Men, where the Septuagint, who yet have very ill tranſlated theſe words, have right enough [...], that is, nor waits for the Sons of Men, or puts Confidence in them. For thoſe Interpreters muſt often be underſtood by the Hebrew words, which they endeavour'd to illuſtrate in their Tranſlation. Now [...] never ſignified to ſubſiſt.

III. Our Author in his Paraphraſe interprets the word [...], a Conviction or Perſwaſion; but he ſhould have brought us an example wherein it appeared that [...] ſignified a certain diſpoſition of Mind, and I cannot tell whether any can be found. But till ſuch an inſtance be alledged, I chuſe rather to interpret this word according to its uſual ſignification, that is, argumentum, an Argument, as it is rendred in the Vulgar. The firm and conſtant Faith of wiſe Men, has that weight and influence upon others, as to be an Argument for which they believe with them, the reality of things which they do not ſee. So St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. to prove the certainty of the Reſurrection, to thoſe who had not ſeen it, argues from his own and the reſt of the Apoſtles, and Chriſtians Faith: Elſe what ſhall they do, ſaith he, who are baptized for the dead? If the Dead riſe not at all, why are they then baptized for the Dead? And why ſtand we in jeopardy every hour? — If after the manner of Men I have fought with Beaſts at Epheſus, what advantageth it me, if the Dead riſe not? &c. Theſe things may be called [...], that is, arguments proving the truth of the Reſurrection of the Dead; it being not at all probable that wiſe and good Men would have raſhly, and without reaſon, ſubmitted to ſuch things. The ſame may be ſaid of thoſe examples of Faith, mentioned in this Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews.

[Page]Verſ. 4. [...]. Our Author in his Paraphraſe rightly interprets the word [...] here the beſt, for this Verſe is taken out of the Greek Tranſlation of Geneſ. iv.7. where Cain is ſaid to have offer'd indeed rightly, but not to have divided rightly, that is, to have kept to himſelf what was Gods. See my Notes on that place.

Verſ. 10. [...].] This Grotius rightly refers to Jeruſalem, which our Author interprets in a myſtical ſenſe, I know not for what reaſon; for if we read Geneſis, we ſhall be perfectly of Grotius his Mind, nor does the ſeries of the Diſcourſe here require any other interpretation.

Verſ. 16. [...].] Theſe words are rightly underſtood by Grotius and Dr. Hammond ſo, as if the Apoſtolical Writer had ſaid: [...], they deſired a better Country, which was an antitype of Heaven, that is, the Land of Canaan. For it appears from Gen. xxiii.7. & xlvii.9. that the only meaning of the Patriarchs, in ſaying they were ſtrangers and ſojourners in the Land, was that they had no ground of their own in the Land of Canaan, but dwelt in it merely by the courteſy of the Canaanites.

Verſ. 20. Note d. What our Author ſays in this Note is very ingenious, and if not true, ſeems highly probable, as far as the laſt period, beginning with, and this perhaps. Becauſe that which follows is plainly forced; for who would ſay that the Edomites were Lords of the Jews, becauſe when their Commonwealth was overthrown by the Chaldeans, they did no longer obey them. Is it all one to be any Mans Lord, and not to ſerve him? I think not. So that this laſt remark ſhould have been blotted out, or rather not at all written.

Verſ. 21. Note e. See my Notes on Gen. xlvii.31. We had better here acknowledg the hand of a Writer who did not underſtand Hebrew, and followed without examination the Septuagint, than endeavour to reconcile inconſiſtencies. Our Author commits here another great miſtake, in ſeeking in Gen. xlix. for that which is in Gen. xlvii. and joining the words of Chap. xlix. belonging to another Story, with the words of Chap. xlvii.21. See the places, and you will think it ſtrange that our learned Author, who ſo diligently ſtudied the Scripture, ſhould commit ſuch an error.

Verſ. 29. Note f. This alſo is a Dream, plainly contrary to the Hiſtory, and owing to the falſe reaſoning of Interpreters, as I have ſhewn in a Diſſertation de Maris Idumaei trajectione, added to my Commentary on the Pentateuch, Numb. iv.

Ibid. Note g. All this is true, but had been obſerved before by Grotius and others. See alſo Davidis Clerici Quaeſt. Sacr. x.

[Page]Verſ. 35. Note h. I. Mr. Gataker has treated largely concerning this word in Adverſar. cap. xlvi. who may be conſulted. From the places by him alledged, it ſufficiently appears that [...], where the Diſcourſe is about an inſtrument of Torment, was properly a Club, ſo called from [...] to beat; and ſecondarily the place or torment it ſelf of [...]. From [...] was deduced [...], that is, to ſtrike with a [...] or Club, till the Perſon accuſed made Confeſſion, or elſe died; which Verb was afterwards uſed to ſignify any kind of painful Death. But here where there are particular kinds of Death mention'd, I think it is to be underſtood properly, of thoſe who were beaten to death with Clubs. So that what our Author conjectures of I know not what Engine, that was called [...], and on which Malefactors were hanged, is vain. Mr. Gataker alſo very truly obſerves, that Lexicographers often attribute to words thoſe ſignifications, which either precede or accompany the thing ſignified; and that ſhews the reaſon why [...] is ſaid by Heſychius and Suidas to ſignify to be flea'd or hanged.

II. I do not ſee why [...] and the Yoke, mention'd in Jerem. xxviii.14. ſhould be reckoned the ſame. For from the beginning of the foregoing Chapter it appears that thoſe Yokes are conſider'd as repreſentations of ſlavery, which the Prophet foretold to ſeveral Nations, not of Torment or a Priſon. The only ſimilitude between them, we have any certain knowledg of, is that they were both put upon the Neck.

III. Tho in the [...] of Lucian, [...] and [...] are joined together, it does not follow that [...] is the ſame with [...]; tho tympanum ſometimes ſignifies a Wheel among Architects. It is ſufficient that the Wheel was an inſtrument of Torture, as appears by the Fable of Ixion, that in the deſcription of Hell there might be mention made of [...] and [...]. It is not ſafe to deduce Conſectaries from the order of words. See Lucian Tom. i. p. 334. Ed. Amſtel.

IV. [...], may very fitly be rendred to come to the torment of the Club, or if you pleaſe, to the place in which that Torment was inflicted, becauſe that is abuſively called [...]. Celſus alſo improperly ſaid [...] for that which is to die a painful Death; nor is it neceſſary he ſhould have thought of a [...], or of hanging, as we ſhall afterwards ſee, on the place in Euſebius, which Dr. Hammond laſt of all alledges.

V. The pulling off the Skin, or cutting off the Members, ſignify nothing to a [...] properly ſo called; nor was it neceſſary that thoſe who ſuffer'd this kind of Torment, ſhould alſo have their Skin pulled [Page] off, or be diſmembred. But all theſe ſeverities might improperly be called [...], in the ſenſe that this word is taken for any ſort of Torment.

VI. They who have been a long while beaten with Clubs in all the parts of their Body, may truly be ſaid [as in Ariſtotle] [...], and [...]: but it does not follow that [...] properly ſo ſtiled, was a capital Puniſhment; for there might be a [...] of fewer or more blows, either for Chaſtiſement, or to Death, as the Judges thought fit, or the Crime deſerved.

VII. It is a ſtrange citation of Euſebius, which we have here in our Author, after the place in the Maccabees. Firſt, there is no ſuch thing in Lib. iv. of Euſebius, but the paſſage is in Lib. ix. c. 40. Secondly, it is not taken out of Polyhiſtor, but out of Beroſus himſelf, or rather out of a fragment of his, which we find in Joſephus, out of whom Euſebius cites it, as appears by the very Inſcription of the Chapter. The ſame fragment has been publiſhed by Joſ. Scaliger out of Joſephus. So that the compariſon the Doctor makes between Alexander Polyhiſtor out of Euſebius, and Beroſus, is vain; becauſe one and the ſame Writer is cited in both places, in whoſe different Copies, eſpecially in a barbarous name, there might be a various reading.

VIII. The place in Daniel is in Chap. vii.11. as was well noted by Joſ. Scaliger in Not. ad Fragm. p. 11. and not in Chap. v. But this I ſhould not obſerve, if the foregoing and following things did not ſhew that our Author, in collecting this medly, was extreamly careleſs beyond what he uſes to be, and did not think it worth while to look into the places in the Writers themſelves. He ſays afterwards, "Megaſthenes "out of Abydenus calls the King of Babylon [...]. On the contrary, Abydenus produces the words of Megaſthenes, in Euſebius Lib. xi. c. 41.

IX. I eaſily believe the puniſhment of the Club, even to Death, was uſed among the Greeks and Babylonians. But our Author's [...], as he deſcribes it, was no where uſed; nor can any thing be alledged in his favour out of Juſtin, who ſubjoined a ſynonimous Verb to the Verb [...], thinking there was no difference between them; after which manner both he and other Fathers often cite the Scripture. The place is in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, p. 248.

X. Nothing could have been more impertinently alledged by the Doctor, to prove that his [...] was in uſe among the Romans, than the paſſage of Euſebius, or rather of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons, out of Lib. v. c. 1. of Euſebius. For after he had ſaid that the Emperor had written word, that thoſe who profeſſed the Chriſtian [Page] Religion ought [...], deſcribing the manner how the Preſident had executed the Emperors orders, he ſays: [...]: all that were judged to have been made free of the City of Rome, he cut off their Heads, and the reſt he ſent to the wild Beaſts. Where is here our Author's [...]? Chriſtophorſon miſled him, who had rendred the word tympanis torqueri, which is juſtly cenſured by H. Valeſius, with whom yet I ſhould not render it gladio caedi, for thoſe who were condemned to be devoured by wild Beaſts, [...] as well as thoſe who were beheaded.

XI. Not only our Author, but alſo the great Grotius did not know what [...] ſignified in this place, who on 2 Maccab. vi.19. conjectures that the [...] was fidiculae quibus pellis humana ita tendebatur, quomodo bubula in tympano, & qui ſic cruciabantur dictos [...], little Cords whereby a Mans skin was ſtretched ſo, as the Skin of an Ox on a Drum, and thoſe who were ſo tormented were ſaid, &c. But both the reaſon of the word and uſe are plainly againſt him, as will appear to any one that reads Gataker, whom I will not tranſcribe. I ſhall only add, that in the Old Gloſſes [...] is rendred ſirimpio, which is a corrupt Writing for ſcipio, a Staff.

Verſ. 37. Note i. I wonder our Author here cites Copies which no one elſe has mention'd. I miſtruſt they are Conjectures, which he impoſes upon us for various Lections. Beza affirms that it is ſo read in all his Copies, and there is no variety of reading obſerved in the Oxford Edition, but of one Copy in which this word is wanting. The ſame Beza conjectures that we might read [...], they were burnt; and Tanaquillus Faber in Ep. Crit. Lib. ii. Ep. 14. [...], they were maimed or diſmembred, which kind of puniſhment was common among the Eaſtern People. The Reader may chuſe which of theſe he pleaſes, either of them being better than the received reading.

Verſ. 40. Note k. I. If we ſhould admit the reaſonings of Dr. Hammond, about the ſignification of the words [...], ſo as to grant they ſignified tranquillity in this World, and the perpetual duration of the Chriſtian Church; yet we could not allow him, that this may be referred to the times of the Apoſtles. For what tranquillity did the Chriſtians enjoy for three Ages, greater than the Jews, from the beginning of their Commonwealth to this time? It's true, the Jews in ſo many Ages ſuffer'd various Calamities, but they had alſo long intervals of Reſt and Proſperity, ſuch as the Chriſtians for 300 Years never enjoyed, as the Scripture informs us; as in the reigns of David and Solomon, and other Kings. Did the Chriſtians [Page] enjoy ſo great tranquillity after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, Chapter XII. that there never had been any tranquillity in the Jewiſh Commonwealth, than which that ſhort reſt (if it were any) was not [...]? But who does not know that the Chriſtians from that time were often grievouſly perſecuted, tho not by the Jews, yet by the Heathens, till the time of Conſtantine? If therefore we would interpret [...] of a quiet Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion, that were not to be referred, at leaſt principally, to any time, which preceded the Reign of Conſtantine, but to his age, and the following ages hitherto; becauſe ſince that time the Chriſtian Religion has flouriſhed ſo, that nothing like it was ever ſeen in the Commonwealth of the Jews. See my Note on Luke i.73.

II. The [...], which the antient Jews had not received, I chuſe rather, with Grotius and others, to underſtand of the reſurrection of the Body, and the entire and [...] perfect Happineſs of the whole man; which none had yet enjoyed, except Enoch and Elias, and perhaps Moſes, and a few others that were riſen with Chriſt. That Promiſe is contained in theſe words, I am the God of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, as Chriſt ſhews. God provided better for us Chriſtians, than to raiſe them, whoſe Faith is commended in the Old Teſtament, from the dead, and make them completely happy, [...]. So that [...], is not ſo much to provide better things for us, than for the Jews, as if we were to receive any thing which they are not to receive as to the ſubſtance of the thing; but to have a greater regard to us Chriſtians than to the Jews, whom God would not raiſe from the dead, and make perfectly happy, before the Chriſtians. Thoſe are ſaid [...], who are made happy both in Soul and Body, when ſuch whoſe Souls only are made happy, enjoy but an [...] imperfect Happineſs in compariſon with them.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. TO underſtand what the word [...] ſignifies, it muſt in the firſt place be obſerved that the Verb [...] very often ſignifies circumſtare, to ſtand about, and paſſively circumſiſti, circumveniri, to be ſurrounded, or beſet. And hence comes [...], circa quem ſtatur, one who is ſurrounded. So Suidas; [...]: Iſocrates in his Oration about retribution: Jugling tricks that are of no[Page]uſe, but are ſurrounded by a company of Fools; For, which the ſpectators ſtand about in a ring. This Harpocration has, and adds: [...]. And on the word [...] he ſays, that in Dinarchus [...] is all one with [...]. If we add Α privative, [...] will be one that no body ſtands about, ſuch as thoſe who have no Friends or Relations, nor any to aſſiſt them in the management of their Affairs. This Heſychius had expreſſed, but his words are corrupted: [...]. It ſhould be [...], alone, not having aſſiſtance or means. So it muſt be rendred, not as it is by our Author, who tranſlates theſe words abſurdly. In which ſenſe the word [...] is taken in the words of Georgius Alexandrinus alledged by our Author; and that Notion ought not to have been confounded with the Rhetorical Notion, which Dr. Hammond mentions. Theſe things ſuppoſed, [...] will be properly one whom others eaſily ſtand about or encompaſs; and becauſe [...] ſignifies metaphorically to be circumvented, that is, to be deceived or preſſed with difficulties, [...] is one that is eaſily circumvented. So Suidas: [...] a fooliſh man who is eaſily turned or wound about, that is, deceived. He adds the words of the Apoſtle. So Heſychius: [...], eaſy, viz. to be circumvented and overcome. Phavorinus alſo interprets it [...], her that is eaſily deceived. So that in this place, where agoniſtical words are uſed, I am apt to think that [...] ſignifies, which is eaſily circumvented, that is, overcome; becauſe all that ran, and ſuffer'd themſelves to be eaſily circumvented, were by that means ſure to be overcom; for they who had circumvented them came firſt to the end of the race. And Sin is called [...], becauſe thoſe who are infected with it, are eaſily conquer'd, and terrified by difficulties, from perſiſting conſtantly in their Chriſtian Courſe.

II. It is true indeed that [...] ſignifies ſometimes a caſe wherein a man is in great danger of his life [as in the place cited out of Diogenes Laertius] and that among Rhetoricians a [...] or queſtion is called [...] which is propoſed without any circumſtances; but all this is nothing to this place, and is a mere medly of undigeſted Learning, or rather of a man groping as it were in the dark, and ſeeking for the ſignification of a word, where it was not to be ſought for. In the place of St. Chryſoſtom, [...] is clearly taken in an Active ſenſe, not in a Paſſive: for [...] has an Active ſignification as often as a Paſſive; and that an Active one muſt be aſſigned to it in this place, appears evidently by the following Active Participle [...]. But St. Chryſoſtom is miſtaken; for almoſt all ſuch Nouns have [Page] a Paſſive ſignification, becauſe they are derived from the third perſon of the Preterperfect tenſe Paſſive. So [...], eaſily paſſable, [...], well done, [...], which is eaſily expanded, [...], which is eaſily ſubverted, [...], eaſy to be beheld, [...], which is eaſily taken away, and innumerable others, which may be found in any Lexicon. St. Chryſoſtom interpreted this Paſſage in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews by Conjecture, not by Grammatical Rules.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, on the right ſide of that inacceſſible Light, which is a Symbol of the preſence of the moſt high God. See Note on Mark xvi.19.

Verſ. 3. Note b. [...] is properly to be tired, and metaphorically to faint or languiſh, becauſe when a man is exceſſively tired, his ſtrength fails him. So in the Apopthegm of Coriolanus, [...] is to have his ſtrength fail him, or to do that which fainting perſons uſe to do; for when thoſe who ſtood by him beſought him [...], that being burden'd with labours and Wounds, he would retire into the Camp: [...]: he ſaying that it was not the part of Conquerors to be overcome by wearineſs, purſued them that fled. Theſe Words are found in Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus p. 218. Ed. Wechel. T. 1. I cannot tell whether our Author read them in the Writer himſelf, it's certain he ſets down the ſaying of Coriolanus otherwiſe than Plutarch. However that be, [...] ſignifies, as I ſaid, to be tired; ſecondarily to do that which tired perſons uſe to do, as in this place of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews; as to deſiſt from running, to quit the Field, that is, to betake ones ſelf to another Courſe of Life.

Ibid. Note c. For Jerem. xxxv. we muſt read Iſai. xxxv. which place had bin cited by Grotius and others.

Verſ. 4. Note d. Here our Author confounds [...], that is, a vain fighting with ones own Shadow, with skirmiſhing, or [...], which are not the ſame among the antient Greeks.

Verſ. 16. Note f. That which is here produced out of the Rabbins I have ſhewn to be vain on Gen. xxv.31. Eſau was certainly profane in this, that he deſpiſed the laſt Benediction of his Father, as thinking it to be of leſs value than a Meſs of Pottage.

Verſ. 23. Note h. There may alſo be an alluſion here to Exod. iv.22. where Iſrael is ſaid to be God's Firſtborn, becauſe of the peculiar benefits which God had conferred upon him. For the Chriſtian Church ſucceeded in the place of Iſrael according to the fleſh.

[Page]Ibid. Note i. This is a figurative expreſſion, of which I have ſpoken on Exod. xxxii.32. God is repreſented to have as it were a Book, in which he writes down his peculiar Favourites: as Kings have Regiſters of the names of thoſe whom they imploy in their ſervice, or upon whom they confer any benefits.

Ibid. Note k. I eaſily believe this phraſe was taken from the uſe of the Jews; but our Author who looks here beſides for I know not what Agoniſtical ſenſe, ought to have produced at leaſt one place, in which [...] ſignified a Conqueror in the Games; which he could not do. And therefore he ought to have been contented with what he had borrowed from Grotius, about the uſe of the Jews.

Verſ. 24. Note l. I. Our learned Author would have done much better if he had followed Grotius, what he here ſays being either wreſted or affirmed without reaſon. To begin with his laſt words, I will not ſay that the authority of the Writers of Liturgies, whoever they be, is of little moment to the explication of particular places of Scripture; becauſe they had ſcarce any tincture of Critical Learning, as every one knows. But I will ſay that our Author ſuppoſes here two things, which may be called into queſtion. Firſt, that a bloody Sacrifice was offer'd up by Abel, which is uncertain, as I have ſhewn on Gen. iv.4. Secondly, that all the Sacrifices were Types, that is, in the language of our modern Divines, Prefigurations of the Sacrifice of Chriſt; which if denied, can be proved by no Argument: tho I acknowledg there was ſome likeneſs between them, in which ſenſe they might be called Types and Shadows of the Sacrifice of Chriſt, becauſe of their Similitude, not becauſe of a deſign to preſignify one by the other, which no one knew of. Yet our Author, in his Paraphraſe, attributes his own opinion to the Writer of this Epiſtle, who has nothing at all here about that matter. See my Note on 1 Cor. x.3.

II. The efficacy of Chriſt's Sacrifice is not compared here with the efficacy of Abel's Sacrifice; but the thing which Abel called for (whether by his own, or the Blood of Sacrifices) with the thing which Chriſt demands. And therefore the word is [...] better things, which cannot be referred to efficacy, and reſpects nothing but what Chriſt obtained. But it is ſaid, the deſign of this Epiſtle is to ſhew the preheminence of the Goſpel above the Law. I do not deny it, but every particular word does not tend to that deſign; for there are alſo a great many things intermix'd in it foreign to that deſign. So that I had rather with moſt Interpreters, look upon theſe words as an alluſion to what is ſaid of Abel in Chap. xi.4. which opinion is manifeſtly confirmed by the Verb [...] uſed in both places. For as there Abel is [Page] ſaid [...],Chapter XIII. becauſe of his Blood, which in Gen. iv.10. is ſaid to have cried unto God from the Earth: So here the Blood of Chriſt [...] than Abel, or than the Blood of Abel.

Verſ. 25. [...] — [...], — [...].] I. The [...] is undoubtedly a Periphraſis of Moſes, but he is not to be thought to have ſpoken from Mount Sinai, when he [...], gave Oracles, from which he himſelf ſaid nothing; but in the Camp, when he heard the Reſponſes of God from the Sanctuary, which he afterwards declared to the People.

II. The [...] does not ſeem to be Chriſt, who for the moſt part taught the Goſpel upon Earth; tho ſometimes alſo, but rarely, he revealed himſelf to the Apoſtles from Heaven after his Reſurrection. I rather think it is to be underſtood, with Grotius, of thoſe Voices which came from Heaven on the behalf of Chriſt, mention'd in Mat. iii.17. & xvii.5. and elſewhere.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 4. Note a. DEſ. Eraſmus and Nicol. Zegerus had gone before our Author in this Interpretation, but Beza objects againſt it the following words: [...], where if that interpretation be allowed, [...] muſt be taken for [...], in this manner: Let Marriage be honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled, for Fornicators and Adulterers God will judg. I am of opinion the Antients read [...] for [...], as it is in a Greek and Latin Copy, and in the Vulgar Tranſlation which has enim; and that this was changed into [...] by thoſe who did not think theſe words were an Exhortation.

Verſ. 9. Note d. When our Author made this collection, he does not ſeem to have looked into Acts xv.40. where to be commended or deliver'd to the Grace of God, is without doubt to be recommended by Prayer to the divine Goodneſs. Beſides, the words which he produces is following, are in Acts xiv.26. But he ſeems to have fallen into a miſtake, becauſe there is alſo the ſame expreſſion in this latter place of the Acts, immediately preceding them: And thence ſailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the Work which they fulfilled. But here [...], is not to be ſent to preach the Goſpel, but to be recommended by Prayer to the divine Grace; tho this had been done, that Paul and Barnabas might preach the Goſpel with ſucceſs.

Verſ. 10. [...].] He alludes to the Sacrifices offer'd up on the day of Expiation, as every one ſees. [Page] But to make the ſeries of the Diſcourſe clear, he ſhould have expreſſed what is here to be underſtood, and upon which that which follows depends. Chriſt is an expiatory Sacrifice, which we muſt eat, that we may have an intereſt in the efficacy of it, as we are taught by Chriſt in John vi.50. and ſeqq. But by the Moſaical Rites, no Man taſted of ſuch a Sacrifice, ſo that they who deſire to be dealt with by God according to that Law, cannot partake of the Expiation made by Chriſt. This is the reaſoning of the Writer of this Epiſtle, of which he has only expreſſed the two laſt Propoſitions, by which omiſſion the ſeries of the Diſcourſe is made obſcure. But it will be ſaid perhaps, that there is an ambiguity in this reaſoning in the word [...], becauſe the Chriſtians did no more eat of the Fleſh of Chriſt, properly ſpeaking, than the Jews of the expiatory Sacrifices. I acknowledg there is that ambiguity, but the Sacred Writer did not urge this Argument as a demonſtration. It is a reaſoning which properly proves nothing againſt Men of other Sentiments, but illuſtrates only the Chriſtian Doctrin after the Jewiſh manner; of which kind there are a great many in this Epiſtle, as I have already elſewhere obſerved. That which follows in this place, is of the ſame kind.

Verſ. 11. [...], &c.] Our Author in his Paraphraſe ſays that the Jews themſelves acknowledged that the expiatory Sacrifices typified or prefigured the Meſſias. I wiſh he had produced a paſſage out of ſome Antient Jew, in which that was affirmed; for no one will believe him ſaying this raſhly. For my part I cannot perſwade my ſelf that the Jews had any ſuch Thoughts; whoſe greateſt Argument againſt Jeſus his being the Meſſias, was his Death; and the Goſpels ſufficiently ſhew they imagin'd no ſuch thing of the Meſſias.

Verſ. 15. Note e. I. It being undeniable by all learned Men, that the Septuagint very often read the Hebrew otherwiſe in their Copy, than we do now in ours, what need is there with Mr. Pocock, of inventing forced interpretations, rather than acknowledg what is eaſy and plain? There is much more probability in their opinion, who think the Septuagint read (with a difference in the diviſion of the Letters) [...], fruit out of our Lips, or blotting out מ the fruit of our Lips. Nor muſt it be thought, that becauſe [...] and [...] are derived from the root [...], therefore thoſe words may be confounded. For [...] & [...] are immediately deduced from [...], which is properly to be gathered, and is applied to Fruits; then, becauſe Fruits after they are gathered are conſumed, it ſignifies to conſume, by which ſignification we are to explain the two former words, as alſo [Page] their Compounds [...] & [...], which are often in the Verſion of the Septuagint uſed for whole Burnt-offerings. The ſame Interpreters render the Verb [...] to eat [...] in Joſ. v.12. So alſo they render the Verb [...] to burn in Deut. xxvi.12. So that [...] & [...] may ſignify a whole Burnt-offering, tho the word [...] do not occur in that ſignification; becauſe that word is not deduced from [...], as the two former are.

II. The Rabbinical reaſon, why ſome Holocauſts ſhould be called [...] ſummer Fruit, I do not value a ruſh, becauſe it is not certain that it is an antient Phraſe. For that giving of thanks is here called [...], ſignifies nothing to the name of Holocauſts, which elſewhere are always called by other names. Beſides, it is utterly falſe that Holocauſts, which were the chief and daily Sacrifices, never to be omitted, as appears from Num. xxviii. could be look'd upon as a Banquet over and above the preſcribed Feaſt. In fine, who will believe that in this one place of Hoſ. xiv.2. [...] is uſed for an Holocauſt, which is conſtantly called [...] and [...], or by other names; and that this happen'd accidentally in a place where we may reaſonably ſuppoſe the Septuagint read the Hebrew word [...] phri, which properly ſignifies Fruit? They who can believe ſuch things, after due examination, muſt either have ſpoiled their judgment with a continual reading of Arabick or Rabbinnical Trifles, as ſome have done; or elſe be naturally dull.

III. And therefore our Author, not willing to rely upon Mr. Pococks conjecture, turns himſelf to other things; but 1ſt, he is certainly miſtaken in thinking the Septuagint uſed the ſingle word [...], only becauſe it yielded the ſame ſenſe with [...], as ſufficiently appears by what I have already ſaid: 2dly, he is miſtaken in thinking that [...] is Praiſe expreſſed with the Mouth. It was a kind of Sacrifice, in which a Victim was offered no leſs than in others. 3dly, It is a miſtake that the Septuagint have thrice rendred the word [...] ſo as he ſays; for that word is twice only found in Levit. vii.1, 2. Beſides, our learned Author was deceived by a falſe diſtinction of the Chapters in the Verſion of the Septuagint, which do not anſwer the Hebrew in the Polyglot Bibles. The Verſion of the three firſt Verſes of Chap. vii. of Leviticus, in the Hebrew, is in that Edition of the Septuagint, Chap. vi.31, 32, 33. where [...] is rendred rightly [...]. That which is in the ſame Edition in Chap. vii.1, 2, 3. anſwers to verſ. 11, 12, 13, of Chap. vii. in the Hebrew, and we do not there find the word [...] aſcham, but the words [...] and [...] ſalutaria & celebratio, which bring Salvation, and celebrating. The Septuagint have no where rendred [...] by [...].

[Page]IV. The Offerings joined with the celebration of the Euchariſt are without doubt pious, and the practice of the Chriſtian Church in that particular, both heretofore and now, very commendable; but I do not think there is any reference here had to thoſe Oblations, which cannot but very harſhly, and if I may ſo ſpeak, [...], in the dialect of Dr. Hammond, be called the fruit of the lips. But in the following Verſe there is mention made of Liberality. What then? Can't that be a new Precept? By all this it appears to how little purpoſe Dr. Hammond's Collection is in this place.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE General Epiſtle of St. James the Apoſtle.

AT the end of the Premon.] I. I am apt to think the title of [...] was not added to the name of James, in the Apoſtolical times; wherein no one was called an Apoſtle ſimply and without any addition, beſides Apoſtles properly ſo ſtiled, that is, men called by Chriſt himſelf; as appears by the conſtant uſe of St. Paul. The uſe of following Ages I do not regard, nor the judgment of Theodoret, which is confirmed by no antient Example. So that I think this Inſcription to be of a later date than the Age of the Apoſtles.

II. It is much more probable that St. James was killed in the Year of Chriſt LX. as Ant. Pagus on that year has ſhewn, in Epicriſi Baroniana.

III. The paſſages in this Epiſtle, which our Author underſtands of the Gnoſticks and the deſtruction of the Jews, are as fitly interpreted by others, of any bad men whatſoever, or any other Judgments of God. Of which matter, it will be more proper to ſpeak on thoſe paſſages themſelves.

Chapter I.CHAP. I.

[Page]

Verſ. 3. [...].] This is generally interpreted, the trying of your faith, as if it were [...]; but it is harſh to tranſpoſe the Pronoun [...]; and without any Tranſpoſition theſe words will have the ſame ſenſe, if they be rendred thus: the tryal of you worketh patience of faith, that is patience proceeding from faith, as [...] is obedience proceeding from faith. Yet there is a like tranſpoſition obſervable in 1 Pet. i.7. in this very Phraſe, unleſs perhaps in both places for [...] we ought to read [...].

Verſ. 6. Note a. I have a ſuſpicion that Dr. Hammond, when he firſt ſet about the explication of the New Teſtament, began with the explanation of this Epiſtle, becauſe his ſtile is harſher and more intricate than ordinary, which yet is every where very much neglected; and becauſe beſides there are a great many things here violently and by ſtraining deduced from the words of St. James. In his Paraphraſe he repreſents him ſpeaking what he pleaſes, becauſe he departs far from his words, and in his Annotations he wreſts them with forced conjectures.

I. It is falſe that in verſ. 9. the diſcourſe is about ſufferings; and tho that ſhould be granted, it would not follow that the four antecedent Verſes belong to the ſame matter, becauſe in this Epiſtle there are divers Precepts often ſet one after another without any order or connexion, as well as in other Apoſtolical Epiſtles. Theſe holy men ſpake thoſe things which they thought would be uſeful to thoſe whom they wrote to, without obſerving any method, which is not neceſſary in ſuch Writings and Admonitions.

II. If the Apoſtle had intended to ſay what our Author would have him, he would have expreſſed his mind thus; [...], and not ſaid ſimply [...], which is, let him ask with faith; that is, believing that God can and will do good to us, and grant us every thing that is neceſſary; or not doubting concerning the divine Promiſes. This is properly that Faith which is to be joined with our Prayers.

Verſ. 8. [...].] That is, doubting concerning the divine Promiſes. Clemens, in Epiſt. 1. to the Corinthians, cap. xi. ſays, that Lot's Wife diſagreeing with her Husband, was changed into a Statue of Salt, [...]: that all might know, that double-minded perſons, and ſuch as doubt concerning God's Power, [Page]are for a condemnation and ſign to all generations. The ſame Clemens uſes the Verb [...] in the ſame ſenſe with [...], cap. 23. [...], &c. Let us not be double minded, and let not our Soul heſitate about his excellent and noble Gifts. Far be from us that Scripture where it is ſaid: Miſerable are the double minded, they that are of a doubtful Heart, &c. The ſame Verb is uſed by Barnabas cap. xix. in the way of Light: [...]: do not doubt whether it ſhall come to paſs, or not. Heſychius: [...], doubting. In the ſame ſenſe we more than once meet with the word dubius in Herma's Paſtor. See Lib. iii. Simil. ix. §. 21.

Verſ. 9. Note b. I. Tho joy and boaſting are uſually joined together, yet thoſe words ought not to be confounded, as if they had the ſame ſignification, which really differ; becauſe there may be joy without boaſting, and this place manifeſtly requires the notion of boaſting properly ſo called; which is oppoſed to [...], humiliation, and is joined with [...] height. For if we may mix things which have an affinity with one another, we ſhall make ſtrange confuſion; and here the elegancy of St. James his ſaying will be all loſt. Let the Brother that is low boaſt in his height; that is, that he is a Chriſtian, than which nothing can be more honourable, if we rightly conſider the thing: but on the other hand rich Men, whoſe confidence in their Riches generally makes them proud, ought [...], to bluſh and be aſhamed in their humility, that is, becauſe of their low and baſe diſpoſition, in putting confidence in earthly and fading things. There is a double Antitheſis here obſervable; for firſt the [...] of the poor Man is oppoſed to the [...] of the rich, and ſecondly the [...] of the former to the [...] of the latter. For tho there be no Verb joined with [...], the manner of the oppoſition ſhews that ſome ſuch thing muſt neceſſarily be underſtood, as Grotius and other Interpreters have well obſerved. And nothing can be better oppoſed to boaſting than ſhame: So that we muſt ſupply, with Oecumenius, [...]. To this ſenſe which neceſſarily ariſes from the very words of St. James, our Author's Paraphraſe makes nothing; in which he expreſſes his own forced conceptions, and not the mind of St. James.

II. What is here ſaid of the diſpoſitions of poor and rich Men, has not any ſpecial relation to perſecution for the ſake of Religion, but may be ſaid of them at any time. For as poor Men ought always, to keep themſelves from being caſt down, to think how honourable a Condition [Page] it is to be a true Chriſtian, and to boaſt in the Lord; ſo rich Men, if they are conſcious to themſelves of putting confidence in their Riches, ought at all times to be aſhamed of the vileneſs of ſuch a diſpoſition.

III. But the particle [...], if Dr. Hammond may be judg, ſhews theſe words muſt be connected with what goes before. But [...] here is put for [...], becauſe there follows another [...], and the words are to be rendred thus: Let the Brother indeed that is low, boaſt in his height; but let the rich Man be aſhamed in his being low. We meet with a great many examples in the beſt Writers, where when [...] occurs twice, the firſt is taken for [...], as the manner of the oppoſition ſhews. See Henr. Stephanus.

Verſ. 11. Note c. If there were any thing here to be alter'd, I ſhould chuſe to read [...], in his Riches, that is, together with his Riches.

Verſes 16, 17. [...], &c.] Our Author in his Paraphraſe obtrudes his Gnoſticks here upon us, of whom there is not the leaſt mention or footſtep in St. James. So Men ſee in the Clouds what they pleaſe.

Verſ. 21. [...].] Here again our learned Author forces his Gnoſticks upon us, as if there were none that could be charged with [...] and [...], but the Gnoſticks. St. James alludes to Circumciſion, in which the filthy and ſuperfluous Skin was caſt away, not to any peculiar practices of the Gnoſticks. [...] is a word which is ingrafted in the Minds of its Hearers, that is, takes as it were root in them, if they receive it with Meekneſs, that is, with a teachable Mind. This word is uſed alſo, in the ſame ſenſe, by Barnabas Epiſt. cap. ix. [...]: he knows, who has put into us the ingrafted Gift of his Doctrin. Where the old Interpreter miſtranſlates the word [...] by naturale, which he has alſo in the beginning of that Epiſtle, where the Greek is wanting.

Verſ. 23. Note e. Without doubt the former interpretation is the more probable, if not alſo true. But I had rather,

I. Underſtand [...] of a natural Countenance, not as it is oppoſed to a Vizard or Mask, but as oppoſed to a painted face. For Maskers do not uſe to behold their Vizards in a Glaſs, but their Faces. I might ſhew that Dancers, and other effeminate Men, corrupted the natural colour of their Countenances with Paint; but [...] ſeems to be taken here for [...] homo, as it is often in Poets, ſo as to comprehend alſo Women.

[Page]II.Chapter II. I do not think St. James ſpeaks as well of that which is uſually done, as of that which might be done. For he compares them who having heard the Word, retain the Vices which the Word condemns, with thoſe who ſeeing the ſtains of their countenance in a Glaſs, ſhould not waſh them off; which being accounted a piece of Madneſs and Abſurdity, they muſt alſo neceſſarily be accounted Fools and Madmen, who when they obſerve their Vices repreſented and condemned in the Doctrin of the Goſpel, do not think of forſaking them. The former is very ſeldom done, the latter too frequently; becauſe Men take more care of their Bodies, than of their Souls. They are offended with the ſpots of their Face, but they are not offended with the blemiſhes of their Minds.

Verſ. 27. Note f. This might all be admitted, if it were certain that none but the Gnoſticks thought Religion to conſiſt rather in Faith than in Practice. But who told Dr. Hammond that, among thoſe who lived in the Apoſtolical Churches, there were none who turned the Grace of God into laſciviouſneſs?

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I Do not think there is a reſpect here had to the Shechinah, for the Glory of Chriſt ſignifies rather in this place his Kingdom, as Dr. Hammond himſelf ſeems to have obſerved. So that I take the meaning of this Verſe to be this: ‘Ye who believe that Chriſt reigneth in Glory, ought not to have reſpect to Perſons; becauſe he promiſed to make the Poor, as well as the Rich, provided they believed and obeyed him, partakers of his Kingdom.’ See verſ. 5.

Verſ. 2. Note b. I. To begin with this laſt remark, our learned Author ought to have told us where we might find the Jewiſh Canon he ſpeaks of, and alledged the words of it themſelves; but I am apt to think he had it only from the Mouth of ſome Jew, or learned Man that affirmed he had read it in the writings of the Rabbins. Where are the Chriſtians, who having Controverſies with Jews, and thoſe of mean Condition, think fit to refer them to the judgment of a Chacham? Namely in the Kingdom of Ʋtopia. Yet there is, I confeſs, a Jewiſh Canon to this purpoſe, tho not ſuch as our Author ſpeaks of, ſet down by J. Henr. Hottinger, out of R. Levi Barcinonenſis, in Leg. cxlii. Juris Hebraici: Let not one ſit down, and the other ſtand; but let them both ſtand, becauſe when they are before the Council, it is fit they ſhould ſtand as if they were in the preſence of the divine Majeſty — Yet the Rabbins ſay [Page]that if [the Council] will permit the contending parties to ſit down, they may, which words muſt be underſtood of the time during which the Cauſe is examined; but whilſt Sentence is pronounced, they are obliged to ſtand — But becauſe it became the Cuſtom in all the Conſiſtories of the Iſraelites, that after the deciſion they were commanded to ſit down, to avoid contention, tho they were only Witneſſes, they command them now alſo to ſit down. Hottinger ſets down the Hebrew words, and refers the Reader to other places in the Rabbins.

II. I don't think that [...] in verſ. 6. ſignifies the ſeats of Chriſtian Judges, or places in which they aſſembled; for a rich Man drawing a poor Chriſtian before Chriſtian Judges, could not be ſaid [...] to oppreſs him, becauſe it belonged to the Judges to reſtrain the rich Man's Anger. Beſides, it is a miſtake that [...] in 1 Cor. vi.4. ſignifies a Tribunal, as I have ſhewn on that place.

III. What our Author alledges, does by no means prove that [...] ſignifies Conſiſtories of Chriſtian Judges. For firſt none were Judges properly ſo called, but Roman Magiſtrates, or thoſe of privileged Cities. Secondly, reſpect of Perſons may have place not only in publick Judgments, but in any other; as when we entertain poor Men with ſcorn, whatever Gifts and Vertues they are endued with; and treat the rich with all kind of reſpect, becauſe they are rich. Thirdly, if we ſuppoſe that the Controverſies which aroſe between Chriſtians, according to the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi. were decided by Chriſtian Judges; we muſt not dream here of Tribunals and Footſtools ſet for thoſe Judges. Theſe were the appurtenances of Magiſtrates, not of private Men; unleſs perhaps it ſhould be thought that Biſhops, in that Age, pronounced ſentence from ſome high place, like Magiſtrates; which none, I ſuppoſe, who underſtand theſe matters will ſay in good earneſt. Fourthly, we become [...] or Judges of the dignity of Men, when we aſſign them Seats, as we think their Dignity requires; and when we have only a regard to Riches in this matter, then we imitate corrupt Judges. So that any may be called [...], who do ſomething like them. Fifthly, [...], as I have ſaid, did not belong to Chriſtian Judges, but to Heathens; and therefore that word does not prove that the Diſcourſe is here about Judges. Laſtly, a variety of Seats does not belong ſo much to an aſſembly of Judges, as to a Congregation of many private Men, ſuch as Eccleſiaſtical Meetings.

IV. So that it is much better to underſtand theſe words, with Grotius and other Interpreters, of a Church Aſſembly, in which St. James [Page] not without reaſon complains that the poorer ſort were treated with too much contempt, and the rich with too much honour; for in thoſe Aſſemblies at that time, when there were no Magiſtrates, who, upon the account of their Office, juſtly have the moſt honourable Seats allotted to them, it was abſurd to have a regard merely to Riches. Thoſe who ſat there, were eſtimated by nothing but the name of Chriſtians, and were admitted into thoſe Aſſemblies becauſe they were Chriſtians, and not becauſe they were Rich. And therefore no difference ſhould have been made between Men as to the place of their ſitting, barely upon the account of their poſſeſſions.

Verſ. 4. Note c. I. To begin [...], prepoſterouſly, our learned Author is miſtaken, when he ſays that the Verb▪ [...] is in the middle voice, which dropt from him before he was aware; for any Child knows that [...] is the firſt Aoriſt paſſive.

II. [...] might eaſily be a Hebraiſm for [...] interrogative, or whether or no, becauſe in that Language the Particle And often abounds. It is plain, it is prefixed to interrogations in Mat. xviii.21. and Acts xxiii.3. from which it might be abſent, without any prejudice to the ſenſe. But I had rather in this place blot out [...], with the Alexandrian Copy, to which we may join perhaps the Vulgar Interpreter: [...] here ſeems to have been added by ſome Tranſcriber, who did not ſufficiently underſtand the ſeries of the Diſcourſe.

III. Nothing could have been invented more harſh, than that the [...] of the period ſhould begin in verſ. 5. If ye have a reſpect, &c. —hear, my beloved Brethren, hath not God choſen? &c. Beſides, our Author without neceſſity faſtens a Soleciſm upon St. James; for after five Verbs in the Subjunctive Mood had gone before, which are govern'd by the conditional Particle [...] ▪ he ſuppoſes that [...] and [...] are ſubjoined in the ſame conſtruction. If any one come in, [...], having a gold Ring; and there come in alſo, [...], a poor Man; and ye have reſpect, [...], to him that weareth the gay clothing, and ſay [...] to the poor, Stand thou there; which words, according to Dr. Hammond's opinion, would be followed by theſe, and ye have not doubted in your ſelves, and are become judges, &c. But to avoid a Soleciſm, St. James ſhould have ſaid [...], and [...], in the Subjunctive Mood, whereas we have here two Indicatives, which I wonder our Author could join with the foregoing in the Subjunctive.

IV. [...], tho in the Paſſive voice, ſeems to be taken in an Active ſenſe, as innumerable other Paſſives, in Greek Authors. So in Herodian Lib. iv. c. 6. [...]: the Souldiers having[Page]obtained permiſſion to exerciſe Violence and Rapine, Chapter III. did no longer diſtinguiſh who they were that had ſpoken inſolently. Accordingly the Apoſtle's meaning is this; do not ye put a diſtinction within your ſelves, between a rich and a poor Man, merely for the ſake of Riches, with which one abounds, and the other is deſtitute? In a Church conſiſting of Chriſtians, which at that time were all private Perſons, there ought to have been an equality in ſeats, not a difference made according to Mens Eſtates; as if it had been the buſineſs of the Governors of Churches to take an account of Peoples Poſſeſſions, and according to their ſeveral Eſtates, to diſtribute them into ſeveral Claſſes. The thing it ſelf requiring this ſenſe, there is no need of ſeeking any other.

Verſ. 24. [...].] That is, no one is look'd upon by God as a good Man, merely becauſe he believes the Chriſtian Religion to be true; but beſides that, its Precepts muſt be obeyed, that we may be accounted good Men, and become acceptable to God. St. James here oppoſes thoſe who did not join a vertuous Life with the profeſſion of Chriſtianity. And St. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Romans, oppoſed the Jews who pretended that Men might become good and pleaſing in the ſight of God, by the mere obſervation of the Law of Moſes; and ſhews that thoſe who believe in God, and live piouſly, might be accounted juſt, and be in favour with God, without the performance of legal Works. See my Notes on Rom. iii. and iv.

CHAP. III.

Ver. 1. Note a. I. THE interpretation of Grotius ſeems to me to be much more natural, according to which St. James here forbids every one indifferently to aſpire to the Office of a Teacher; becauſe a ſeverer account will be required of him that undertakes to teach others, and would have himſelf believed by the more ignorant, than if he were content to be wiſe for himſelf, or err alone, without endeavouring to make Proſelytes of others. [...] is not to have a greater Judg, but to receive the greater Judgment, that is, the greater Condemnation if we offend. So [...] is taken in Mat. xxiii.14. Luke xx.47. Mark xii.40. ſee alſo Rom. xiii.2. It concerns indeed every one to bridle their Tongue, leſt they ſhould condemn any raſhly, but eſpecially thoſe who teach others; becauſe their Judgments are moſt valued, and have the worſt conſequences attending them, if they are unjuſt. This makes both Pages in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, and a more wholeſom Precept than this could [Page] not have been given to Chriſtians, which I wiſh they had ſuffer'd to ſink down into their Minds! But there neither was of old, nor is at this day any thing more common than the raſh judgments of [...] maſters.

II. That long and nice Compariſon of this place with others, in which either the ſame thing is not ſpoken of, or at leaſt the Diſcourſe is no more about the Gnoſticks than the Jews, too much addicted to Judaiſm, or about other Men no better than they; that nice Compariſon, I ſay, of thoſe places does not prove that St. James here has a reſpect to the Gnoſticks. Nay, I do not think, here and elſewhere, where the Apoſtles addreſs themſelves to Chriſtians, living under Chriſtian Biſhops in Apoſtolical Churches, that Schiſmaticks are referred to. See verſ. 10. & 13.

Verſ. 5. Note b. [...] is certainly the beginning of an [...] here, and the Particle [...] of the [...]. The ſenſe is: As Horſes are governed by a ſmall Bridle, and a Ship by a ſmall Stern, ſo the Tongue which is a little member, rules whole Societies. I do not ſee why we ſhould depart from the natural ſignification of the particle [...]. But it is no wonder that our learned Author, whoſe ſtile is full of intricacies and windings, ſhould make a difficulty where there was none.

Verſ. 6. Note c. Our Author here follows Grotius. But the Syriack Interpreter ſeems rather to have rendred the place, corrupted, as he thought it ſhould be underſtood, than as he read it, becauſe all the Copies contradict him. Beſides, he rendred it otherwiſe than the Doctor ſays, for he has: and the Tongue is a Fire, and a world of Iniquity is like a Wood. Grotius had not carefully enough look'd into that Interpreter, and Dr. Hammond raſhly followed him. When I read this place, I can hardly forbear thinking that a Gloſs out of the Margin crept into the Context; and if it be caſt out, both a uſeleſs repetition will be avoided, and the ſeries of the Diſcourſe very proper thus: [...]: behold how great a matter a little Fire kindleth; and ſo the Tongue is among our Members, which defileth the whole Body, ſetting on Fire the wheel of our Generation (geniturae noſtrae.) As there is nothing wanting in this ſentence, ſo there is nothing ſuperfluous. Firſt, the word [...] ſhews that thence we muſt begin the [...] of the compariſon, as in the foregoing Similitudes; in which the [...] is begun with the Particle [...], and the [...] with the Conjunction [...], as it is here. Secondly, the words which ſignify the ſame thing, and have no coherence with one another, [Page] being unneceſſarily interpoſed between the parts of the Similitude, are caſt out; for [...] ſignifies the ſame with the whole Similitude, and [...] plainly ſpoils the connexion of the Diſcourſe.

But how ſhould theſe words come to be written in the Margin? to wit, in this manner. Some body had expreſſed the ſubſtance of the whole Similitude in theſe two words [...],▪ and added them to the Margin of his Copy; as many do, who to find out any thing the more eaſily, ſet down by way of Abridgment the ſubject ſpoken of in ſuch or ſuch a place, in the Margin of their Books. Then as an interpretation of [...], he had added [...], the World, namely, is meant; and had ſubjoined [...], to explain the word [...], underſtanding the wheel of Generation to ſignify the wheel of Iniquity; that is, a wicked and unregenerate Life, or ſuch as the Life of Men born, but not born again. And theſe things having, not without ſome reaſon, been ſet down in the Margin, were raſhly inſerted into the Context.

Ibid. [...].] This word I render is, according to its uſual ſignification, in good Authors. What a ſpark of Fire is, put among combuſtible matter, that the Tongue is among our Members.

Ibid. Note d. I have obſerved on Mat. i.1. that the word [...] does not ſignify every event, and I muſt not repeat here what I have there ſaid. I had rather underſtand by [...], the Wheel, or Chariot of Life, ſo called, becauſe at our Nativity we enter into that Chariot, and with reſtleſs Wheels run haſtily, till we come to the Grave.

[...], For like the Wheel of a Chariot

[...]. Life runs rolling.

They are the words of Anacreon Od. iii. on himſelf.

Verſ. 17. Note f. I. I have ſhewn on Chap. ii.4. that our learned Author is miſtaken, in the ſignification he attributes to the Verb [...]. But tho what he there ſays were true, it would not follow that the word [...] ought to have a ſignification deduced from the middle Voice, becauſe it comes from the third Perſon of the Preterperfect tenſe Paſſive [...], as every one knows.

II. But becauſe the Paſſive conjugation of this Verb is taken both in a Paſſive and Active ſenſe, [...] may be taken alſo in either of theſe ſenſes, according as the thing ſpoken of requires. Thus Heſychius firſt interprets [...], which has no difference, [Page] or makes no difference, in an active Notion.Chapter IV. And then [...] (not [...] as it is commonly read) [...], undiſtinguiſhed, in a Paſſive ſignification, as it is expounded alſo in the Old Gloſſes. So Suidas: [...]: it is taken alſo for thoſe who do not know what they ought to do, or that talk triſtingly and fooliſhly. Here it is taken in an Active ſenſe, but in a good one, for him that does good to all without diſtinction. For that other ſignification put upon it by Dr. Hammond is without example, and has no foundation in any antient Grammarian.

Verſ. 18. Note g. I do not think there is here any [...], for it is a Greek phraſe which may be expreſſed in Latin thus: Qui faciunt pacem illi ſerunt in pace fructus juſtitiae, thoſe that make Peace ſow in Peace the fruits of Righteouſneſs; that is, they who promote Peace or Chriſtian Concord, whilſt they follow after Peace, ſow as it were that Righteouſneſs, the fruit of which they ſhall hereafter reap. For to ſow the fruit of Righteouſneſs, is all one as to do righteous Works, which ſhall be rewarded in their proper time. But St. James expreſs'd himſelf ſomewhat harſhly, when he ſaid to ſow Fruit for that which is ordinarily called ſowing Seed, whence a Plant or Tree is produced, which afterwards brings forth Fruit. But he could not ſay to ſow Fruit, that is, a Reward, without ſpeaking very improperly.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 5. Note a. HOW forced what our Author here ſays after other Interpreters is, every one ſees. I had rather ſay here what is ſufficiently evident from ſeveral places of the New Teſtament, and of two very antient Writers, Barnabas and Clemens, that in thoſe times the Jews uſed to produce, as out of Scripture, not only the ſenſe of places without regarding the words, but alſo a Jewiſh Tradition, or interpretation of places of Scripture. So that I ſhould no more look for what is here ſaid, in the Old Teſtament, than what is alledged in Heb. xii.21. as ſpoken by Moſes of himſelf, I exceedingly fear and quake, or what is ſaid in Barnabas of the Scape Goat cap. vi. or in Clemens cap. xvii.

Verſ. 6. Note b. It was a long while ſince Dr. Hammond had read Virgil, when he alledged his words in ſuch a manner. He deſcribes the Manners of the Romans, and not the part of Kings, Aeneid. Lib. vi. l. 851. & ſeqq.

[Page]

Chapter V.

Tu regere Imperio populos Romane memento,

Hae tibi erunt artes, paciſque imponere morem,

Parcere ſubjectis & debellare ſuperbos.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 3. Note a. IF this Epiſtle had been written to the Jews, who lived in Paleſtine, Dr. Hammond's interpretation might be admitted; but what he ſays here does not agree to thoſe of that Nation that were diſperſed through the Roman Empire, for all the Jews every where were not killed by Veſpaſian. Thoſe only who lived in Paleſtine, and the neighbouring Countries, and had riſen up in Arms againſt the Romans, were deſtroyed by them. So that I rather think St. James here ſpeaks of that day, which is much more truly called the laſt, and that his admonition is more general.

Verſ. 7. Note b. Seeing the Jews, who in Italy, or in Greece, and other Provinces remote from Judaea, had embraced the Goſpel, received no harm by the ſtanding of Jeruſalem, and the Jewiſh Commonwealth, nor any benefit by their Deſtruction; I do not ſee why they ſhould be commanded to wait for this with patience. And therefore I rather think what the Apoſtle here ſays is to be underſtood of the laſt Judgment, which he ſpeaks of as near at hand, becauſe it was unknown when it was to be, and therefore every Age ought to look upon it as nigh. And it's certain as to particular Perſons, Chriſt may truly be ſaid to come, when he calls them by Death to Judgment.

Verſ. 9. Note c. Seeing St. James does not ſpeak here to the Jews who had embraced the Chriſtian Faith in Paleſtine, but thoſe who were [...] ſcattered abroad; I am apt to think he does not ſo much reſpect here the Vices of the Jewiſh Zealots, as of thoſe Jews who lived in other places; which yet I do not deny to have followed the Example of the Zealots in Paleſtine.

Verſ. 15. Note g. It is much better to underſtand here after [...], his Sins by the Lord; that the Phraſe may be entire thus: [...]: if he has committed Sins, his Sins ſhall be forgiven him by the Lord: There is no mention here of Eccleſiaſtical Puniſhments, but only of the miraculous curing of a Diſeaſe, and obtaining pardon from God, not from the Prieſt. So that what our Author here ſays about the Abſolution of the Church, is foreign to this place. Whoever ſeriouſly endeavours to reform his paſt Life, and to make continual progreſs in Holineſs, does not need the forgiveneſs of a Prieſt; on which Chriſt has no [Page] where taught that the Hope or Salvation of a Chriſtian depends. And whoever does not amend his ſinful practices, would in vain receive all the Abſolutions and Benedictions of all the Prieſts in the World.

Verſ. 16. Note h. Notwithſtanding what our Author ſays, the word [...] ſhews the Diſcourſe to be about a mutual confeſſion of Faults between equals, or thoſe who are reckon'd equals. That is the perpetual uſe of the Greek Language without any exception, as to the word [...]; nor does the place alledged out of 1 Pet. v.5. prove the contrary, as I ſhall there ſhew. It is ridiculous to ſay that the Prayers of an Elder praying ex officio, are more effectual, than the Prayers of any good Man whatſoever that fears God; as if God granted the thing requeſted of him, for a Mans Office, and not for his Piety. And there is the ſame abſurdity in ſaying that a Prieſt particularly laying open the Sins of his Brother to God, is the more likely by that means to prevail with him; as if God did not know what a Sinner ſtands in need of, or had promiſed more to ſuch Prayers than to general ones. And little better is that which is added about direction, as if it were certain that Elders uſe to give better or more faithful advice in this matter, than any other pious and learned Men; when experience teaches us that they have no more diſcretion than others, and often uſe Religion only as a means to enrich themſelves, or encreaſe their Authority.

Chapter I.ANNOTATIONS On the firſt Epiſtle General Of St. Peter the Apoſtle.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] I. I will not deny that St. Peter wrote this his firſt Epiſtle in that Year which Baronius affirms, for there is nothing ſaid in it from which any certain judgment can be made of the time wherein it was written. But that St. Peter was then at Rome, is a mere invention of thoſe who thought the falſhoods of the Clementine Homilies to be a true Hiſtory. He ſeems not to have gone thither before the reign of Nero, as Dr. Pearſon acknowledges in chap. viii. Diſſ. 1. concerning the Succeſſion of the Roman Biſhops. We may conſult alſo about this matter Lud. Cappellus in Append. Hiſtoriae Apoſtolicae, and Ant. Pagus in Baron. Epicr. on the years of Chriſt xliii. num. 2 & 3. and liv. num. 3. Yet I had rather ſay that this Epiſtle was written later, after St. Paul had preached the Goſpel round about Aſia; for before that time there do not ſeem to have been ſo many Chriſtian Churches, to which St. Peter might write.

II. That by the name of Babylon we are not to underſtand Rome, but a City properly called by that name, is granted by Dr. Pearſon, who alſo ſhews that the Chaldaean Babylon was at that time deſolate, and ſo that it is the Egyptian Babylon that is here meant. Thoſe who deſire to be fully ſatisfied in this matter, may conſult Dr. Pearſon himſelf.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 2. [...].] Seeing there is a change here made in the form of the expreſſion, and after theſe words [...] by ſanctification of the Spirit, the Apoſtle immediately ſubjoins [...] unto obedience, I am apt to think the difference of theſe Propoſitions muſt be obſerved, ſo as that this ſhould be the ſenſe; elect by Sanctification of the Spirit, that they [Page] might perform obedience, and that they might be ſprinkled with the Blood of Chriſt. They are ſaid here to be elected, who are ſeparated from the reſt of Mankind, not by ſome unknown Decree, but by the Spirit of Sanctification, whereby their Lives are amended, that they may become the People of God.

In the mean time I wonder here at Dr. Hammond, who compares [...] and [...] with one another, as if they were both joined with [...], and were taken in a Paſſive ſenſe. For [...], when the Diſcourſe is about one that obeys, is always taken Actively, and cannot here be taken otherwiſe. Beſides, [...] is not joined with [...], but ſtands alone; but [...] is connected with [...], and is taken in a Paſſive ſenſe, for we do not ſprinkle the Blood of Chriſt, but are our ſelves ſprinkled with it. The thing is clear, and no one here could have ſtumbled, but our Author; who in theſe Annotations on the General Epiſtles, has ſurpaſſed himſelf in barbarouſneſs of ſtile.

Verſ. 4. [...].] In this place I ſhall remark what is elſewhere often obſervable in theſe Writings, viz. that the Apoſtles frequently begin a ſenſe without continuing it, and no otherwiſe connect their Diſcourſe, than with the laſt words of the former Period, and the beginning of the next; ſo as on occaſion of the laſt word to begin a new ſenſe. For the better underſtanding of which, I have ſubjoined ſome of St. Peter's words, in which thoſe are printed in Capital Letters, which connect the Diſcourſe.

Verſ. 4. To an Inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reſerved in Heaven for YOU; 5. WHO are kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation, ready to be revealed in the laſt TIME: 6. WHEREIN ye greatly rejoice, tho now for a ſeaſon (if need be) ye are in heavineſs through manifold TEMPTATIONS: 7. That the TRIAL of your Faith being much more precious than of Gold that periſheth, tho it be tried with Fire, might be found unto Praiſe, and Honour, and Glory, at the appearing of JESUS CHRIST; 8. WHOM having not ſeen, ye love; — 9. Receiving the end of your Faith, even the SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS; 10. Of WHICH SALVATION the Prophets have enquired and ſearched diligently.

Verſ. 5. [...].] Here St. Peter ſpeaks only of eternal Salvation, as the foregoing words manifeſtly ſhew: See ver. 4. Nor was there any Salvation revealed to the Chriſtian Jews, ſcatter'd through Aſia Minor, by the deſtruction of Jeruſalem. Our Author ſpeaks every where as if Proconſuls and Pretors had been ſent from Jeruſalem, not from Rome, into the Provinces of the [Page] Roman Empire, who had perſecuted the Chriſtians. But certainly the Chriſtians had reaſon to fear only the Heathen Magiſtrates, not a few contemptible Jews, to whom no part of the Adminiſtration of the Provinces belonged.

Verſ. 10. [...].] That is, of the Salvation of Souls, of which he ſpake in the Verſe before; or of eternal Happineſs, which will then only be conferred, when Chriſt returns from Heaven. Of this Salvation the Prophets enquired; not of a deliverance of the Chriſtians from the fear of the Jews, whom they had no reaſon to be much afraid of, unleſs perhaps in Judaea. Yet ſome may object in favour of Dr. Hammond, the following Verſe, in which the Diſcourſe is principally about things that happen'd in the time of the Apoſtles, whence he inferred that [...] ſignified a Deliverance which happened in the ſame Age. But the learned Doctor did not obſerve, that the Prophets, who deſired to know the time of the laſt Judgment, did at once covet to know when were to be the ſufferings for the ſake of Chriſt, becauſe after them, and not before, Chriſt was to come to Judgment. And hence St. Peter calls all thoſe things which had already followed, and were afterwards to follow, [...], that is, the glorious things that after them ſhould come to paſs; not immediately and all together, but at ſeveral intervals, which not only the Apoſtles, but alſo the Angels themſelves were ignorant of.

Verſ. 11. [...] ▪] This Beza renders, eventuras Chriſti perpeſſiones, The future Sufferings of Chriſt, which Grotius follows, and ſays that [...] is underſtood, and ſo [...] is taken in the foregoing Verſe. But [...] does not ſignify your, but to you: who propheſied of the Grace [...] to you, that is, to be conferred on you; or which God was about to beſtow on you. So alſo in ver. 4. Salvation reſerved in Heaven [...], is either until you, or for your ſakes. And agreeably, [...] muſt ſignify the ſufferings of good Men for the ſake of Chriſt; which the Prophets obſcurely foreſaw, and the Glory of Believers that ſhould follow; but of which they knew not the times, only it was revealed to them that they were not to come to paſs in their Age. This excellently agrees with the ſeries of St. Peter's Diſcourſe, who ſpeaks of the Afflictions which Chriſtians endured for Religion ſake.

Verſ. 12. [...].] This I underſtand of the time of the laſt Judgment, which the Angels do not know. Otherwiſe, if St. Peter had ſpoken of a thing already paſt, he would have ſaid [...], deſired.

[Page]Verſ. 20. [...].] That is,Chapter II. whom God had purpoſed in himſelf, before the Creation of the World, to ſend at this time. The Apoſtle does not ſay [...] preſignified, which makes me wonder why Dr. Hammond here ſpeaks of Types and Images. At this rate, the Apoſtles may be made to ſay any thing.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. [...], &c.] Grotius rightly obſerves that St. Peter here means thoſe Vices which had been very common among the Jews, and with which thoſe to whom he writes had been infected. But our Author, without reaſon, would have the Vices of the Gnoſticks to be intended; which yet at that time, wherein he ſuppoſes this Epiſtle was written, could hardly have infected ſo many. Beſides, the Verb [...] to lay aſide, ſhews that the Diſcourſe here is about Vices, with which thoſe to whom St. Peter writes, had been corrupted, in Judaiſm it ſelf; and not about unknown Vices, againſt which they were only to fortify themſelves.

Verſ. 4. [...].] By a Metaphor taken from Plants, which ſtick yet faſt to their Roots, and are nouriſhed by juice aſcending from them, Stones which remain ſtill in the Quarry are ſaid to be living. By which Epithet here, I ſuppoſe, is meant the firmneſs of that thing which is ſignified by the name of a Stone; becauſe nothing is firmer than Stones, ſtill growing in a Quarry, or cleaving faſt to a Rock by their Roots. For which reaſon a ſteddy and inflexible purpoſe of Mind is compared by Ovid to ſuch a Stone, in Metam. xiv. where he ſpeaks of Anaxaretes:

Durior & ferro, quod Noricus excoquit ignis,

Et ſaxo quod adhuc VIVUM radice tenetur.

Hermas in his Viſion of the Tower, thus deſcribes Chriſt, Lib. iii. Sim. 9. §. 2. In medio campo candidam & ingentem mihi petram oſtendit, quae de ipſo campo ſurrexerat; In the midst of the Field, he ſhewed me a white and huge Rock, which had riſen out of the Field it ſelf.

Verſ. 12. Note f. I. In St. Peter's words there is an Ellipſis, common in all the beſt Greek Writers, who expreſſing only the Relative Pronoun, leave the Demonſtrative to be underſtood. Thus therefore we muſt Grammatically explain this Phraſe, where the Pronoun to be ſupplied is expreſſed in great Letters: [...]: [Page] that wherein they ſpeak againſt you, as evil doers, understanding THIS more throughly, by your good Works, they may glorify God. In the ſame manner we muſt reſolve the Phraſe, occurring about the ſame matter in Chap. iii.16. [...]: that wherein they ſpeak evil of you, as of evil doers, IN THIS they may be aſhamed, that falſely accuſe your good Converſation in Christ.

II. It is true that [...] ſignifies more than [...], to ſee, for it is properly to look into, or underſtand throughly; for this Verb is immediately derived from [...], which ſignifies a Judg or Witneſs of the more ſecret Rites uſed in Holy Myſteries; the ſight of which not only the profane Multitude, but alſo the Mystae themſelves were debarred; which we may learn as from others, ſo eſpecially from J. Meurſius in his Eleuſinia Sacra. I ſhall produce but one Teſtimony out of Suidas: [...]: were thoſe who took part of the Mysteries; they were called at first Myſtae, and the next Year Epoptae and Ephori. Afterwards it follows: [...], in which words he ſeems to intimate that there is the ſame difference between [...] and to know, viz. ſuperficially or externally, as between an Epopta and Mysta. The ſame Author hath: [...], conſideration. Therefore I believe we ought to correct the Old Gloſſes, in which [...] is rendred proſpicio, to look forward, whereas it ſignifies rather perſpicio, to look through, as I ſuppoſe it ſhould be read. This ſignification being ſuppoſed, there reſults an excellent ſenſe; for by the words of the Chriſtians, denying that they were [...], the truth could not be underſtood, which falſe pretenders to Vertue carefully conceal by deceitful words; but by their good Works, whereby the thing it ſelf is throughly diſcerned. For it could not but be a good Doctrin which made ſuch good Men. Chriſt ſhewing his Diſciples how they might diſtinguiſh Hypocrites from good Men, ſaith, beware of falſe Prophets which will come unto you in ſheeps Clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous Wolves: Ye ſhall know them by their Fruits, Mat. vii.15. For tho they cunningly diſſemble their Wickedneſs, it is not long before it diſcovers it ſelf. But on the other hand, when we ſee any Man live well, and that for many Years, we eaſily perceive that Man cannot profeſs a Doctrin which favours Wickedneſs.

III. Our Author therefore, without neceſſity, recurs to Heſychius, and ſuſpects there is a miſtake here committed by ſome Scribe, or that [...] is the ſame with [...], contrary to all Copies, and the Analogy of the Greek Language. But it is the greateſt Abſurdity imaginable, [Page] what he ſays about the Verb [...], which never ſignified ſuſpicere, but only ſuſpicari, to ſuſpect, for which ſignification there is here no place. Beſides, the Latin ſuſpicere is not to look upon the ground, but as it were from ſome low place to look upon another as above us, or reverence him. Our Author was ſcarce awake when he wrote this, and it does not ſeem to have been written by the ſame hand with the reſt of his Annotations.

Ibid. Note g. I. No Body will doubt but [...] phkoudah, [...], viſitation, ſignifies very often Revenge; but it is as well known that this word [...] is ambiguous, and ſignifies alſo God's Benefits. So that we may as fitly underſtand the day of Viſitation, of the time in which God favourably viſits the Heathens, when he converts them to the Chriſtian Religion; and ſo the meaning of St. Peter will be: By your Converſation, ſo reconcile the Minds of the Heathens to the Chriſtian Religion, as that they may at laſt acknowledg its truth, when God ſhall more fully ſet it before their Eyes. The day of Viſitation ſignifies [...] the time when the Goſpel is more fully and clearly revealed, as manifeſtly appears from Luke xix.44. where Chriſt, ſpeaking to Jeruſalem, foretels all thoſe evils which afterwards came upon her; becauſe thou knewest not, ſaith he, the time of thy Viſitation, [...], that is, wouldſt not underſtand that God called thee, by my Miniſtry, to Salvation.

II. The fame of the Chriſtians flight out of Jeruſalem, does not ſeem to have ſo much as reached the Ears of the Heathens who lived in Aſia Minor, or the Roman Magiſtrates, and thoſe that attended them through the Aſiatick Provinces; much leſs to have been taken notice of by them as a remarkable Deliverance. For a great while after the moſt learned Men among the Romans, did not diſtinguiſh Christians from Jews; as ſufficiently appears by Tacitus and Suetonius. The Halcyonian days, which our Author tells us the Chriſtians enjoyed throughout the whole Roman Empire, after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, are mere Dreams.

Verſ. 20. [...];] Aeſchylus, in his Seven Captains that went againſt Thebes, ſays ſomething very much like this:

[...],

[...].

[...].

If any one ſuffer evil, without infamy, well and good; for this is only gain among the dead. But for wicked and vile Men [to ſuffer] cannot be [Page]reckon'd any Glory. Chapter III. [...] here ſignifies wickedneſs, the puniſhment of which is ſuffer'd, not without Shame and Infamy by him that commits it.

Verſ. 24. Note h. If the Apoſtles words had been, [...], who being upon the Tree, bare our Sins, there would have been ſome place for Dr. Hammond's Interpretation. But when St. Peter ſays, [...], he took them up with his Body upon the Tree, it is clearly not ſo much the expiation of Sins, as the Mortification of them, as the Apoſtles ſpeak, that is here ſignified. For St. Peter's meaning is, that our Sins were as it were faſtened to the Croſs, that is, mortified, when Chriſt was lifted up upon it: See Rom. vi.6. [...] I render with his Body, becauſe as [...] and ב in Hebrew is frequently ſo taken, ſo the Phraſe it ſelf will not bear to be otherwiſe rendred.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 4. Note a. OUR ſubtil Author ſees here two Hebraiſms, where others cannot ſee ſo much as one. [...], may be ſaid as well in Greek as in Hebrew; and [...] or [...] is ſo true a Greek Phraſe, that it was uſed by Plato, as Henr. Stephanus in Schediaſmatibus has long ago obſerved.

Ibid. Note b. I. If St. Peter had made mention of [...], perhaps there would have been ſome place for what our Author here ſays, of the corruption of compounded things; but becauſe he mentions no ſimplicity, it is nothing to the purpoſe. Inſtead of [...], he ſhould have written [...], the word uſed by Homer Iliad. 1. verſ. 50. on which Verſe the Scholiaſt makes that remark which Dr. Hammond ſets down.

II. The incorruptibleneſs of a meek and quiet Spirit, wherewith St. Peter would have Women to be adorned, ſeems to be oppoſed to two things which are eaſily corrupted; viz. to the comelineſs of the Body, whereof a part is the Hair, which the Apoſtle had mention'd in the foregoing Verſe; and to Apparel, which is a thing much more liable to corruption than Gold, and which he likewiſe makes mention of. It's plain this Verſe is oppos'd to all the foregoing.

Verſ. 7. Note c. I. If the alledged place of Scripture were ſaid to ſignify any thing [...], I ſhould not doubt but that [...] was taken for ſome ſecret Senſe, which the Jewiſh Allegoriſts ſought for in the Scripture. But it being ſaid that Husbands ought [...], to dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the Wife as the weaker Veſſel; [...] is to manage the diſpoſitions of Women skilfully and prudently.

[Page]II. The examples, which our Author produces, are nothing to the purpoſe; for they do not contain any myſtical interpretation of the places in Geneſis, but conſect [...]ries deduced from the nature of Matrimony it ſelf, and the plain words of Moſes. The place in Epheſ. v.31.32. I have interpreted, contrary to Dr. Hammond, and I ſhall not repeat what I have there ſaid.

III. [...] properly ſignifies to dwell together, or to live in the ſame Houſe, whence it was applied to all the Duties belonging to married Perſons; whether the Diſcourſe be about Procreation, or any other conjugal Office. So that the place in Moſes concerning multiplying, is no more to the purpoſe, than Plato's Fable about the Antient Hermaphrodites. Other things here might be corrected, which I paſs by, but ſhall afterwards touch upon.

Ibid. Note d. [...], where the Diſcourſe is about the Duty of a Husband towards his Wife, never ſignified, to afford her Maintenance; and tho [...] ſometimes comprehends rewarding, it does not ſignify that alone. It may much more naturally and truly be interpreted to honour her, as who, being the weaker Veſſel, is extreamly offended even with the bare appearance of Neglect.

Ibid. Note e. There is no doubt but [...] ſignifies a Benefit, but ſome of the places alledged by our Author might a little otherwiſe be explained, as of John i.14. I have ſhewed in a particular Diſſertation, [inſerted in this Volume.] In this place alſo [...], is vivifying Grace, or the Goſpel, of which the Wife is ſaid to have been made partaker no leſs than the Man, as Grotius has obſerved. But I had rather read with the Vulgar Interpreter [...], for here the Apoſtle extols not the Man, but the Woman, which in this reſpect is made equal to the Man. This the ſeries of the Diſcourſe ſeems to require.

Verſ. 15. [...].] That is, know that God is Holy, or a lover of Sanctity. For this is often the ſignification of the Hebrew Conjugation Hiphil [...] hikdiſch, which is ordinarily rendred [...]. See my Notes on Gen. ii.3. This ſanctifying God in the Heart is the cauſe of our Sanctification before Men, ſpoken of in the following Verſe, whereby we openly ſhew how Holy we eſteem God. See Levit. x.3. and Num. xx.12. and my Notes on thoſe places.

Verſ. 19. Note f. I. On this place, our learned Author has collected a great many things, all which I have neither leiſure to examin, nor is it worth my while, eſpecially having interpreted the place here explained, in my Commentary on Geneſis. And therefore in a few words I ſhall ſay, that the Apoſtle does not ſeem here to have [Page] a reſpect to the place in Geneſis, cited by our Author. It is truly indeed rendred my Spirit ſhall not abide in man, and the thing is to be underſtood of the Soul of Man, as I have ſhewn on Geneſis. But the Souls of thoſe that lived before the Flood cannot therefore be called Spirits in priſon, nor can [...] jadon or [...] jadin, in Hiphil, be by any means deduced from [...] neden, which ſignifies a ſheath. It ſhould be read jindon, to be deduced from the Root [...], which Dr. Hammond does not ſeem to have obſerved.

II. The [...], by which Chriſt was raiſed, is truly underſtood of the Divinity which was afterwards in him, and was with God before Abraham was, and ſo in the beginning of all things, as St. John teaches us in the beginning of his Goſpel. But [...] ſignifies Spirits keeping guard, that is Angels who [...] keep men, as we are told in Pſal. xci.11. The ſame are called [...] hirim, watchers, in Dan. iv.13. which may properly be rendered [...], for watchers and keepers are all one. So that the Divinity is ſaid to have called the Men that lived before the Flood to Repentance, together with the Angels, who admoniſhed Noah to exhort them to a better Life. I ſhould render this place thus: and being quickned by the Spirit, by which he went with the Spirits that watch, and preached to the unbelieving, &c. When God is about to do any thing among men, he is repreſented as coming down from Heaven attended with a guard of Angels, of which I have ſpoken on Gen. i.27. and xi.7. and Exod. xx.1. For this reaſon coming down with the Angels, to admoniſh Noah and command him to call men to repentance, he is ſaid to have gone with the Spirits that watch: and beſides, to have done that which Noah did in his name and by his command. The Example out of St. Paul in Eph. ii.17. clearly ſhews, that St. Peter might ſpeak in this manner.

Verſ. 20. Note g. I. All that is here ſaid by our Author are vain Conjectures, which have no foundation either in things themſelves, or in the uſe of Scripture; tho he often repeats them, and that as very probable. (1) The Verb [...] ſignifies, not to believe, not to obey; which is a heinous ſin, where the thing to be believed or done is of great importance; and a ſmall one where it is a matter of little moment. Here it ſignifies a great ſin, becauſe the men of the old world would not obey God, calling them by the Miniſtry of Noah to a better life. (2) Tho we can ſay nothing particularly of the ſins of the men who lived before the Flood; yet we may deny that it can be gather'd from the words of Moſes that they were corrupted with the ſin of [...] Sodomy, and other ſuch like. Tho they are joined with the Sodomites for their wickedneſs and [...], it does [Page] not therefore follow that they were both guilty of the ſame kind of Impieties, different ſorts of wicked men being often joined together, and the ſame puniſhments ſuffered for divers crimes. (3) The Hebrew [...] rahah, and the Greek [...], ſignify any ſort of vice, and therefore it might be put by St. Luke for [...], intemperance, becauſe it is a more general name which comprehends under it the particular, not that thoſe words are ordinarily confounded. (4) It is true that [...] and [...] ſometimes have thoſe ſignifications, which Dr. Hammond attributes to them, as alſo the Hebrew [...] ſchibheth, uſed by Moſes; but they likewiſe ſignify in general any kind of depravation, or change for the worſe, in which ſenſe I ſhall take the word in Moſes, till it be evidently proved that a general ſignification, in him, can have no place. (5) The word [...] no more ſignifies Violence than any other ſort of Injuſtice, as I have ſhewn on Gen. vi.13. So that what our Author builds upon that ſignification is vain, as all the reſt of his Conjectures which rely upon this foundation. Our learned Author often forges an Interpretation, by heaping together a parcel of very ſlight Conjectures; afterwards he raiſes what Superſtructure he pleaſes upon that interpretation; and then laſtly ſpeaks of the Conſectaries he thence deduces as ſo many certain Truths. But we ought not only to ſet bounds to our Conjectures, but eſpecially to the Conſequences we deduce from them, if we would not be in perpetual danger of erring. That danger no body here will be in, who ſhall ſuppoſe that the men of the old World were very wicked men; there being in that no conjecture, becauſe it is affirmed by Moſes in plain words: but whoever ſhall attempt particularly to explain what Moſes has ſaid in general, and give way in this matter to Conjectures, will find himſelf in the dark. And this may ſuffice to have been ſaid briefly againſt a way of interpreting Dr. Hammond too often takes.

II. It had been better to obſerve, that from the very Expreſſion of St. Peter it may be gather'd that [...] is not to be joined with [...]; for thus he ſpeaks: [...] (to wit, [...]) [...], where after [...] we muſt repeat [...], by which, and by the ſpirits that watch he preached; to whom? Namely, [...], to them who were ſometime diſobedient, &c.

Verſ. 21. Note h. I. I think [...] is the true reading, not [...]; and it might eaſily be, that ſome Tranſcribers not having another Copy to write after, but ſetting down the words from the mouth of a Prompter might confound [...] with [...] is uſed juſt in the ſame ſenſe as if it were ſaid [...] like, as the Word is manifeſtly taken in [Page] Heb. ix.24.Chapter IV. on which place ſee my Note. A pattern is called [...], from the ſimilitude which it has with the [...] or [...]; whence the vulgar Interpreter tranſlates it ſimilis formae. The other interpretations Dr. Hammond gives of this place are forced.

II. He ſays indeed truly, that [...] ſometimes ſignifies contrary, which might be proved from ſeveral places in Xenophon, but not that which he alledges out of Hiero; where [...] is not ſimply contrary, but dura, hard, [...], that is, ſevere, as it is rightly rendered by J. Leunclavius.

CHAP. IV.

Verſ. 1. Note a. OUR Author here ſays that Saint Peter's phraſe in verſ. 6. of this Chapter is hard, and I do not deny it; but I ſay alſo that he is a hard Interpreter, if ever any one deſerved that name. For here, as one ſaid, lapides loquitur, he ſpeaks ſtones, not words to mollify hard phraſes. The whole ſenſe of this verſe depends upon a particular Elegancy ariſing from the ambignity of the phraſe [...], to ſuffer in the fleſh, or to the fleſh; which being uſed of Chriſt, ſignifies that he ſuffered and died in his humane nature, or for the ſake of our humane nature, i. e. of men. But when we are ſaid to die or ſuffer to the fleſh, we are underſtood to be no longer devoted to the fleſh, or to the vices of the fleſh: and accordingly St. Peter's meaning is this; ſeeing I ſay that Chriſt has ſuffer'd to the fleſh, ye alſo who ought to imitate him as far as ye are able, know that you muſt ſuffer to the fleſh, in a ſenſe which is agreeable to you, to wit, wholly renounce it: for he that has ſuffered to the fleſh, has ceaſed from ſin. Juſt ſuch another ſort of reaſoning we have in Rom. vi.10, 11. in the place parallel to this. For in that he died (inſtead of which St. Peter here ſays ſuffered) he DIED UNTO SIN once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewiſe reckon ye alſo your ſelves to be DEAD indeed UNTO SIN, but alive unto God. Inſtead of to die unto ſin, here is to ſuffer to the fleſh; but both theſe phraſes have the ſame ambiguity in them. Theſe places ſhould have been compared, not verſe 6. with this, which have no affinity with one another.

Verſ. 3. [...].] Grotius on this place ſays it is idololatriae quaedam ſpecies adeſſe ſodalitiorum [...], de quibus proſecta falſis Diis dantur, & in hac maxime re credibile eſt Judaeos antequam Chriſtiani eſſent, accommodaſſe ſe Gentium moribus: a ſort of Idolatry to be preſent at ſuch common feaſts where part of the meat is offered in ſacrifice to falſe Gods; and in this particular eſpecially, it is probable the Jews, before they were Chriſtians, conformed themſelves to the manners of the Heathens. [Page] And I do not deny but this might be done by them, but there having been among the Jews every where a great number of Proſelytes, of which many embraced the Chriſtian Religion, I rather think St. Peter has a reſpect here to theſe, who had formerly been Idolaters.

Verſ. 6. [...].] None but Dr. Hammond could have thought that [...] was the ſame as to die to the fleſh, who could digeſt any impropriety, tho never ſo great, in his own ſtile. But it is much more natural to interpret it; ſo that they were condemned indeed in the fleſh, according to men; that is, put to death by the judgment of men, as to the body; but live according to God in the Spirit, that is, their Souls were made partakers of eternal life by God. This is the uſual ſignification of the words, which ought not to be changed without reaſon.

Verſ. 14. Note f. This is all forced, the meaning is evidently this: If ye are reproached for the name of Chriſt (that is, becauſe ye will be called Chriſtians) happy are ye; becauſe the Spirit of glory and of God reſteth with you; that is, thoſe reproaches are ſo far from being a ſign that the Spirit hitherto beſtowed upon you by God, and which has brought ſo much glory to the Goſpel, departs from you, that on the contrary it ſo much the more reſteth, or will more conſtantly abide with you, as long as ye ſtedfaſtly profeſs the Chriſtian Religion. The Spirit of glory and, as it is in the Alexandrian Manuſcript, of power, [...], is the Spirit of Miracles, which was conferred upon Chriſtians. [...] often ſignifies Miracles, and [...] the ſame. See my Notes on Exod. xvi.7. and John i.14.

Verſ. 15. Note g. As I do not ſcruple diſagreeing with our Author, when the matter ſeems to require it, ſo I am ready to commend his inventions when they are ſuch as this interpretation. [...] is in all probability the ſame with [...], that is, who does or takes care of other mens buſineſs; by which word the Greeks ſignify thoſe who uſurp other mens offices in a Commonwealth. Plato lib. iv. de Repub. where he at large proves that all Orders of men in a Political Society have a certain and determinate buſineſs, which they ought to take care of, and that therein conſiſts the juſtice and peace of a Commonwealth, towards the end ſays, that the contrary is injuſtice. [...], ſaith he, [...]: Igitur ſeditionem quandam horum trium hanc eſſe oportet, & affectionem quandam qua nimis multa aggreditur, aliena (que) munera invadit, & rebellat pars quaepiam animi adverſus totum, ut in illo imperet id quod non par eſt, quippe quod eſt ejus naturae[Page]ut deceat id ſervire ei qui eſt ex proſapia imperantium. Chapter V. Suidas: [...], to take ſpiteful counſels. Then he produces theſe words out of an antient Writer. [...]: they obſerved him not to meddle with other mens buſineſs, nor to endeavour alterations. Budeus in Comment. Ling. Graec. gives us alſo other examples. And it is eaſy to diſcern that [...] is all one with [...]; becauſe the chief word, of which theſe names are compounded, is the ſame. So that what Dr. Hammond obſerves, is very pertinent in this place.

Verſ. 17. Note h. The ſenſe of the Hebrew words is this: Behold the righteous uſe to be puniſhed on earth, how much more the unrighteous and the ſinner? For the verb [...] is ambiguous, and ſignifies either to reward or puniſh. But the Septuagint thought Solomon had a reſpect to that ſignification of the verb [...] which is, to be ſafe, and inſtead of [...] read [...] beots, which ſignifies in ſtraits, or in haſt, and which they render [...], becauſe they that eſcape out of any danger by a haſty flight, or are brought into great ſtraits, hardly ſave themſelves.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 1. [...].] Thus St. Peter calls himſelf, out of modeſty, not becauſe he executed any where the Office of a Biſhop, who was inveſted with a much higher, viz. that of an Apoſtle. Biſhops or Elders, properly ſo called, had the overſight but of one Church, from which they were not to depart; but the Apoſtles were Biſhops and Elders of all the Churches in the World, and could not be confined to one particular place. Beſides, he did not write this Epiſtle from Rome, but from Babylon a City of Egypt, as learned men have ſhewn, and I have obſerved at the end of the Premonition to this Epiſtle.

Verſ. 3. Note b. I. The Verb [...] to feed, is indeed truly here uſed to ſignify the Office of a Biſhop, and [...] flock, to ſignify the Church; but it does not therefore follow that the reſt of the words here uſed are taken from Shepherds. No body ever ſaid that Shepherds, properly ſo called, are [...] of the Sheep, when he going before, they follow him, except Dr. Hammond. No body would ſay that [...] and [...] are applicable to Sheep, properly ſo called, which belong to reaſonable Creatures; not at all to Sheep, which are forced to follow with blows, unleſs they go along with the reſt by natural inſtinct.

II. It is true indeed that, whilſt the Roman Commonwealth ſtood, the Roman Magiſtrates choſe their Provinces by lot, which therefore [Page] might be called their lots, to whom they fell by lot. But I can't tell whether, among Latin Writers, or thoſe Grecians that have written about the Roman Affairs, ſors, or [...], are ever uſed for a Province; at leaſt as I never read any ſuch thing, ſo I could not find any example of it in the Writings of Learned men, who do not uſe to omit ſuch things. I dare alſo affirm, that no Greek Writer ever ſaid [...], for that which is, to vex Provinces by Tribute or Extortion.

III. Our Author ſeems to have believed a Fable, which ſome Writers of no repute formerly divulged, about the diviſion that was made of the World by Lots among the Apoſtles; which even Baronius himſelf did not abſolutely give credit to. [...], in Acts i.25. is part of the Apoſtleſhip, not a Province which Matthias obtained by Lot. See Dr. Hammond himſelf on that place. He had much better here have followed Grotius, whom the Reader may conſult.

Verſ. 5. [...].] Ye younger, ſaith he, be ſubject to the elder; and all be ſubject one to another: that is, let the younger give way to the elder, and comply with their Admonitions; and the elder, on the other hand, ſhew themſelves courteous to the younger, not ſcrupling to yield to them, and comply with them, when there is a juſt occaſion. Here the diſcourſe is about an [...] which is a conſequent of Meekneſs and Courteouſneſs, and whereby we eaſily yield and comply with one another; not about that Obedience which is due to Church-Governors, from thoſe who bear no Office in the Church. Therefore the Apoſtle ſays, ALL be ſubject one to another; which ſhews him to ſpeak of a thing that belongs to every one, and which is a mutual duty. See my Note on Jam. v.16. and Eph. v.21.

Verſ. 13. Note d. See what I have ſaid about this matter on the Premonition.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Second Epiſtle General of St. Peter.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premom.] For my part, as I profeſs my ſelf to be of Dr. Hammond's Opinion as to the Apoſtle Peter's being the Writer of this Epiſtle; ſo I cannot forbear ſaying that our learned and pious Author deals a little unfairly with Hugo Grotius. I. He ſuſpects here and elſewhere, without reaſon, that the Poſthumous Annotations of Grotius had not paſt his review before they were publiſhed, as alſo that there were ſome things mixed with them by another hand, contrary to his real ſentiments. But it appears both by Grotius his Epiſtles, lately publiſhed, and others, that the learned J. Mercer, a man of unqueſtionable integrity, received all theſe things from Grotius himſelf, and his Widow, to be ſet forth, and publiſhed them as he had received them. But Grotius is here and elſewhere miſtaken. As if that Learned man had been exempted from all danger of error! It's plain all theſe things have one and the ſame ſtyle, and are written in the ſame ſtrain; and I do not think it would have been an eaſy matter in France, or elſewhere, to find a man that could have obtruded his own works inſtead of Grotius's upon the more judicious ſort of Readers. II. Beſides, why did Dr. Hammond not take notice that there are other reaſons, for which both antient and later Writers have ſuſpected this Epiſtle, drawn from the ſtile, which is not like that of the former Epiſtle? Did not he know that Joſ. Scaliger alſo, who was afterwards followed by Cl. Salmaſius, thought this Epiſtle to be ſuppoſititious? Methinks all this may much extenuate Grotius his error, who only ſtudied for new arguments to confirm the opinion of thoſe great men. III. What our Author alledges out of Chap. iii.1. to prove that this is a ſecond Epiſtle of St. Peter, is of no force, if that Chapter it ſelf be a ſecond Epiſtle of Simeon, as Grotius conjectures, whom he ought to have confuted. IV. The comparing of Grotius his Annotations on Mat. xvii. with thoſe he has on Chap. i.17. of this Epiſtle, does not prove [Page] that theſe were written by another hand;Chapter I. becauſe Grotius might have changed his Opinion, as he plainly here acknowledges. If Dr. Hammond had lived longer, and carefully reviewed his own Annotations, I doubt not but he would have alter'd a great many things which I have corrected in him. V. They that have rejected this Epiſtle as falſly attributed to St. Peter, have not ſtuck to ſay that the Perſon of that Apoſtle is here ill repreſented, Scaliger having adventured to affirm that it is commentum veteris Chriſtiani otio ſuo abutentis, The invention of ſome antient Chriſtian who did not know how to employ his time better. VI. Grotius did not infer from Simeon Biſhop of Jeruſalem's writing this Epiſtle, as he ſuppoſed, that it was written after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; but on the contrary, from its being written after the deſtruction of that City, that we muſt find out ſome Writer who ſurvived it, to whom this Epiſtle might be attributed, and whom he thought to be this Simeon, becauſe of the likeneſs of the name. VII. It cannot be denied that the Chriſtians, who had read Mat. xxiv. did not expect the conſummation of all things before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; but it did not therefore follow that the laſt Day of all the World was immediately to follow that Deſtruction. So that tho the Chriſtians were here commanded to wait patiently for the laſt Judgment, it would not follow that this Epiſtle was written after the demoliſhing of Jeruſalem. This I had rather ſay, than deny there is any mention here made of the laſt Judgment, as Dr. Hammond does with the greateſt confidence, in oppoſition to moſt other Interpreters. VIII. Our Author followed, as he ordinarily does, Caeſ. Baronius, as to the year of Chriſt in which St. Peter ſuffer'd Martyrdom. But Ant. Pagus contends that it happen'd in the year of Chriſt LXV, and Dr. Pearſon in LXVIII, whom I chuſe to follow. But if we ſuppoſe St. Peter died at Rome, in the Year which Dr. Hammond thinks, and that he wrote this Epiſtle a little before his Death, it cannot be ſaid that the Jewiſh War was then approaching, which began in the xiith of Nero, and in the iid of Ceſtius Florus Preſident of Judea, and of Christ LXVI, and in the Month of May. See Dr. Pearſon's Annales Paulinae.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 3. Note a. INſtead of [...], the Alexandrian Copy and others read [...], by his own Glory and Vertue, propria gloria & virtute, as the Vulgar Latin alſo hath it. Which way ſoever of theſe we read it, the ſenſe will be the ſame. Chriſt, namely, hath called us [...], or [...], by the extraordinary [Page] Miracles which he wrought, as Dr. Hammond well obſerves; and by his Virtue, that is, by his moſt holy Example, whereby we are as much affected, as by his preaching; nay without which all his preaching would be vain and inſignificant. They are miſtaken who by [...] here underſtand God the Father, becauſe it is to be underſtood of Chriſt, who himſelf called the Apoſtles and firſt Diſciples; whom he won to himſelf not only by the excellency of his Doctrin, but by the Miracles he wrought, and the Sanctity of his Life. Beſides, [...] no where ſignifies [...], power.

Verſ. 4. [...].] By the Miracles and Vertue of Chriſt are ſaid to be given unto us great and precious Promiſes; becauſe they accompanied the Word he preached, and added weight to it; without which it would have had no greater influence upon Men than the Doctrins of Philoſophers, which did not work upon many, becauſe there were no Miracles wrought in confirmation of them, and they themſelves often contradicted them in their Lives.

Ibid. Note b. I. No one will doubt but that [...] often ſignifies a deſire of unlawful fleſhly Pleaſures, and, if the Diſcourſe be about that, of thoſe which are contrary to nature; but that it may be thought to have thoſe extraordinary ſignifications, the circumſtances of the place muſt require it. Otherwiſe it may be reaſonably thought that word is taken in general for any Deſire or Luſt whatſoever. The ſame may be ſaid of the word [...], which ſignifying any corruption of Manners, does ſometimes peculiarly denote what our Author here ſuppoſes to be refer'd to. But I ſee in this place no circumſtance which ſhould oblige us to take thoſe words in any other than a general ſenſe. For the Apoſtle ſpeaks of that amendment of Life to which Chriſt called all Men; and therefore it is probable that the Corruption through Luſt, which is in the World, ſignifies any ſort of Vice which Chriſt would have us renounce.

II. To corrupt a Youth, where the Diſcourſe is about a Man, and unnatural Luſt, ſignifies what our Author ſays; but when young Men are ſaid to corrupt a Maid, all we can think is meant by it, is the deflouring her, as in the Paſſage cited out of Palladius. The corruption which Socrates was accuſed of, was nothing but a depravation of Manners and Temper, not that peculiar Wickedneſs which our Author ſpeaks of. This appears from the Apology of Socrates, written by Plato. And in the ſame ſenſe we muſt underſtand the words of the counterfeit Epiſtle of Heraclitus to Hermodorus, as appears only by the Paſſive voice uſed by the falſe Heraclitus; for ſuch an abuſe could not be put upon Heraclitus, who was then well ſtept in Years. In the places [Page] of the New Teſtament, there is no reaſon why we ſhould depart from the general ſignification of Corruption. So that it would have been better if Dr. Hammond had here followed Grotius.

Verſ. 5. [...].] Our Author, after Grotius and others, ſeems to have rightly interpreted [...] here by [...] in his Note on verſ. 3. But he did not carefully enough read the place of Euripides in Stobaeus his Florileg. Tit. vii. for the firſt Verſe is produced out of his Bellerophon, the laſt out of Euripides his Aegeus, and ſhould be divided into two Dimeters, as it is in Grotius his Edition.

Ibid. Note c. Becauſe our learned Author often ſpeaks of this [...], and the Gnoſticks, to whom I have ſhewn that he refers a great many things without neceſſity, and in this place ſets himſelf more particularly to explain the original of their Name; it will not be amiſs, if I alſo treat here of that matter in a few words.

I. I cannot deny but [...], which is a general name for any ſort of Knowledg or Learning, is ſometimes taken properly for Chriſtian Knowledg, and where the Diſcourſe is about the Myſtical ſenſe of Scripture, for the underſtanding of Myſteries. It is uſed ſeveral times in this ſenſe in the Epiſtle of Barnabas, as I have thereon obſerved. But I ſhould not compare the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, by which the Minds of the Evangelical Prophets were fitted to underſtand obſcure places of Scripture, with the Jewiſh Cabbala. For this without any regard had to the literal ſenſe, taken from the proper or metaphorical ſignification of words, and the ſeries and occaſion of the Diſcourſe, deduces any thing out of any place of Scripture, and relies either upon trivial reaſonings to prove what it aſſerts, or very uncertain Tradition; ſo that if any deny it, there is no means left to convince them, and thoſe that believe it do ſo upon inſufficient grounds, and may be made to believe any thing, tho never ſo unreaſonable. But the Chriſtian Prophets, who received their Knowledg from the Spirit of Truth, alledged nothing out of Scripture that was not in it, and could not be deduced out of it by Grammatical Reaſons. Otherwiſe Prophecies muſt have been explained by Prophecies, and the new Prophets atteſted to by Miracles, to make it believed, that ſuch a thing was contained in the Old Prophets, becauſe they affirmed it to be ſo, which otherwiſe no Man could have ſeen in them; which method of acting does not ſeem worthy of the Spirit of God, as I have ſhewn out of a learned Man on Matt. i.22. I acknowledg that in the Writings of the Apoſtles, there are ſeveral interpretations of places of Scripture more like Cabbaliſtical than Grammatical ones; but wherever we find them, they are uſed only as Arguments to convince [Page] the Jews, and in compliance with their Opinions and Practices, not as demonſtrations to Perſons of different Sentiments.

II. I [...] is very true that the word [...] ſometimes ſignifies a profound knowledg of the Chriſtian Religion, and ſo is taken in a good ſenſe, as manifeſtly appears from Clemens Alexandrinus, who often ſo uſes that word, both elſewhere, and in Strom. Lib. vi. out of which I ſhall produce a few words, ſo much the rather, becauſe from them we may gather the reaſon why the Apoſtle here joins Knowledg with Faith and Vertue. Now he in pag. 648. ſpeaks thus: [...] ( [...]) [...]: we dare ſay (for here is the Faith enlightned with Knowledg) that a true Gnoſtick knows all things, and underſtands all things, having a firm comprehenſion, even of thoſe things whereof we doubt; ſuch as were James, Peter, John, Paul, and the reſt of the Apoſtles. Then he adds, [...]; for Prophecy is full of knowledg, as having been given by the Lord, and by the Lord again manifeſted to the Apoſtles. And is not Knowledg a property of a reaſonable Soul, trained up to this, that by Knowledg it may be entitled to Immortality? Afterwards he ſhews that Action muſt be preceded by Knowledg; and contends that nothing is [...] incomprehenſible; which is true, if we ſpeak of things neceſſary. For whatever it is neceſſary for us to underſtand, to attain Salvation, we can undoubtedly underſtand. At length he thus deſcribes a Gnoſtick: [...] — [...]: And the Gnoſtick, of whom I ſpeak, comprehends thoſe things which ſeem to others to be incomprehenſible, believing there is nothing incomprehenſible to the Son of God, and therefore nothing which cannot be taught —If any deſire the knowledg of many things, he knows what paſt of old, and conjectures what will be hereafter. A Diſciple of Wiſdom can diſcover the deceitfulneſs of words, and unfold Riddles; he foreknows alſo Signs and Wonders, and the events of Times and Seaſons. So that [...] is taken for a more exquiſite degree of Knowledg, and [...], a Perſon profoundly knowing. Hence St. Peter exhorts Chriſtians to join to their Faith [...], that is, the higheſt degree of Knowledg poſſible.

III. It appears indeed, from the Writings of the Apoſtles, that [Page] [...] ſignifies ſuch a Knowledg; but I don't know whether it hence follows that the Diſciples of Simon were by an Antonomaſia, called even at that time Gnoſticks, or aſſumed to themſelves that name. There is no place alledged from whence this can be concluded. Beſides, I don't know whether all that Epiphanius ſays of the later Gnoſticks be true, much leſs do I believe him in every thing concerning the Antient. Epiphanius is not a Perſon whoſe affirmation ſhould eaſily be credited, where he accuſes and inveighs againſt the antient Hereticks. Yet I do not take upon me to defend the cauſe of theſe Men, of whom there are no Records come to our hands: But I leave the matter undecided.

IV. It is true indeed that in the Epiſtle of Barnabas many places of the Old Teſtament are explained Allegorically, and ſeveral Myſteries unfolded, which otherwiſe no one would have diſcerned in them. But they are interpretations much more like the Jewiſh Cabbala, and the greateſt part of them undoubtedly vain, if not alſo falſe; but yet fit for the Jews of that Age, according to whoſe Opinions rather than to Truth, Barnabas reaſons. So that I ſhould not account this [...] of his, the ſame with that Chriſtian Knowledg which is ſo highly extolled by Clemens. I would alledg ſome examples out of him, but that the Epiſtle of Barnabas was this laſt Year M.DC.XCVII, publiſhed at Amsterdam, with all the Annotations of all Interpreters upon it.

V. In many places indeed St. Peter oppoſes the Errors, which in his time were ſpread among Chriſtians, and the evil Practices of ſome Men; but whether thoſe Errors ſprang from Simon Magus, and were defended by ſome particular Sect, who were notorious for their Wickedneſs, is to me uncertain.

Verſ. 16. Note e. I. The firſt circumſtance, from which our Author gathers that the Transfiguration ſhadowed out the coming of Chriſt to puniſh the Jews, and deliver the Chriſtians who dwelt in Palestine, is altogether vain; becauſe there were at leaſt ſix days interval between the Diſcourſes he mentions, and the Transfiguration, as will appear by St. Mark Chap. ix.2. if we compare his words with Luke ix.28. It is not likely that Chriſt ſpent ſo many days ſilently, without teaching his Apoſtles any thing all that while, or inculcating upon them what he had already ſaid; which if he did, there will be no force in Dr. Hammond's reaſoning, which is grounded only upon this, that the forementioned diſcourſes were made by Chriſt, immediately before his Transfiguration.

II. Secondly, what he here ſays about the [...] of Chriſt, and his comparing [Page] it with the Exodus of Moſes, are mere niceties, as eaſily rejected as they were invented. I have ſhewn on Luke ix.31. that [...] there ſignifies a warlike expedition againſt the obſtinate Jews.

Verſ. 17. Note f. Our learned Author trifles, when he ſubtilly diſtinguiſhes the [...] Majesty or Greatneſs of Chriſt, from the Voice that was heard. For that Voice was no ſmall part of the [...] of Chriſt, becauſe thereby he was pronounced the Son of God, and commanded to be heard. This is clear from the very order of the Diſcourſe: we were witneſſes of his Majeſty. [...], FOR he received from God the Father, Honor and Glory, ſuch a Voice coming to him. By this very Voice, Majeſty, Honour and Glory were conferred on Chriſt. St. Peter ſays they were [...] and [...], becauſe in the Transfiguration they had ſeen ſome things, and heard others. I had rather with Grotius, after [...] underſtand [...] was, than look here for a Hebraiſm, were it only for the Particle [...], which in ſuch an order of words cannot be joined with an abſolute Caſe.

Verſ. 19. [...].] In the firſt place, I would have [...] here to be underſtood in the Preterimperfect Tenſe; as if St. Peter had ſaid [...], a Candle which ſhined, that he may be thought to ſpeak of the Time which preceded the Coming of Chriſt. Secondly, I ſhould render [...], with the Vulgar and Beza, caliginoſum, a dark, or obſeurum locum, an obſcure place, not that [...] properly ſignifies obſcure, which primarily ſignifies dry and naſty; but becauſe Dungeons which are naſty, are alſo dark, therefore [...] here is not naſty, but dark. And the time which preceded the Coming of Chriſt is fitly called dark, compared with that which ſucceeded it; as the Knowledg which Men had of Religion under the Old Teſtament, is aptly reſembled to the light of a Candle, in compariſon of the Sun of Righteouſneſs Christ Jeſus, which being then actually riſen, I ſhould render the words of St. Peter thus: Ʋntil the Day dawned, and the morning Star aroſe in your Hearts. St. Peter here tells the Chriſtians, they did well that they read the Prophets, not as the only Rule of Faith, and a perfect and full Revelation of the Will of God; but as Books which they formerly, when they had nothing more clear and full, made uſe of with great Advantage, till Chriſt came and taught them all things. Our Author ſtrains this place in his Paraphraſe, whilſt he applies it to the deſtruction of Jeruſalem.

Ibid. Note g. I. It is true that [...] ſignifies the Mind in Scripture, but it is not oppoſed here to Heaven, than which nothing could have been ſaid more flat; when the thing it ſelf ſhews, to any one of common ſenſe, that the morning Star is to be underſtood in a metaphorical [Page] ſenſe. The morning Star, and the Day here ſignifie, the Doctrin of the Goſpel, compared with the Old Teſtament; which is ſaid to be riſen in our Hearts, when it is not only heard, but ſinks down into our Minds, ſo that we heartily believe it.

II. To incourage the Chriſtians to bear patiently the Perſecutions which they ſuffer'd in Judaea, in expectation that their Perſecutors ſhould be deſtroyed, it had been improper to propoſe to them the Prophecies of the Old Teſtament about that matter, which were very obſcure; when they had clear ones deliver'd by Chriſt, recorded in Mat. xxiv. and the parallel places of the other Evangeliſts.

III. Tho I will not deny but the Day of Chriſt, and the Day, are uſed for a time of Vengeance; yet wherever theſe Phraſes occur, we ought not preſently to apply them to that time, as our Author too often does. Becauſe he had interpreted ſome places of the New Teſtament not unhappily, about ſome vile Men whom he calls Gnoſticks, there is ſcarce ever any thing ſaid about Impoſtors, or wicked Men, where he does not think the ſame Perſons to be ſpoken of. The like fault he commits almoſt wherever the Diſcourſe is about the Day, or about the coming of Chriſt, which he ſtrains to the Vengeance taken upon the Jews, overlooking all Circumſtances. For tho in his Paraphraſe the ſeries of the Diſcourſe ſeems to have a reſpect thereto, that is of no moment, becauſe he adds to the words of the Apoſtles what he pleaſes. In this place the morning Star and the dawning Day, are the Goſpel, until which the Law and the Prophets continued in force, which were like a Candle in the greateſt darkneſs wherein Mankind lay. Afterwards as the light of a Candle is quite obſcured by the light of the Sun, they were not of ſo great uſe, but yet not to be deſpiſed. The Goſpel is often compared to Light, as in Mat. iv.16. and John i.5. & ſeqq. The condition alſo of the Jews before the Goſpel, is compared to darkneſs in the ſame places. All which clearly enough ſhew that the Interpretation commonly received, is better than Dr. Hammond's.

Verſ. 20. Note h. As [...] ſignifies the place from whence the Racers ſtarted, not [...], the Apoſtle ſhould have ſaid [...] ſending out, and not [...] ſending in, if he had had a reſpect to that Agoniſtical Exerciſe. I had rather interpret [...] as it were a looſing of the Tongue or Mouth; for as they are ſaid to have their Tongues tied who cannot ſpeak, ſo the Mouth or Tongue of thoſe that ſpeak are ſaid to be looſed, [...]. Rob. and Henr. Stephani will ſupply us with examples to this purpoſe in their Theſauri. So that the meaning of St. Peter will be this, that the Prophets did not open their Mouths, ora reſolvere, or [...], of their own accord, but by the Will of God.

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. [...].] If the Gnoſticks had been already every where ſpread, as our Author both in his Paraphraſe and his Annotations often inculcates; St. Peter would never have uſed the future Tenſe, there ſhall be, ſhall bring in, &c. I wonder Dr. Hammond did not obſerve this.

Verſ. 3. [...].] The following Verb, [...], they ſhall make Merchandiſe of you, clearly ſhews that [...] here ſignifies Covetouſneſs, tho our Author, carried away by prejudice, interprets it Filthineſs. But I have already confuted him on Rom. i.29.

Verſ. 5. Note a. This obſervation our Author owed to Sam. Bochart, who treats of the ſame things more fully in his Phaleg. Lib. 1. c. 3.

Verſ. 10. [...].] This Verſe is thought by Dr. Hammond to belong to the Gnoſticks, whom he ſuppoſes to have been by birth Heathens; but it as fitly agrees to thoſe wicked Jews, who took the ready way to deſtroy themſelves and their Nation by their Seditions, whom Joſephus exactly deſcribes in many places of his Hiſtory of the Jewiſh War. From this Writer, who was an Eyewitneſs of what he relates, it certainly appears that there were ſuch Men as thoſe; but it does not appear from any credible Author, that there were in Judaea at that time Dr. Hammond's Gnoſticks.

Verſ. 12. Note b. Our Author is miſtaken when he interprets the words [...] and [...] actively, as appears by the very laſt word of the Verſe. But theſe as living Creatures, void of Reaſon, made by nature [...] to be taken and deſtroyed, ſpeaking evil of the things which they underſtand not, ſhall periſh [...] in their deſtruction. For therefore it is ſaid of them that [...], they ſhould be corrupted, not that they ſhould corrupt, becauſe they were like living Creatures, deſigned by nature to be taken by men and killed. See Grotius on this place.

Verſ. 13. Note c. Seeing our Author had begun to borrow from Grotius what he here ſays, he ought with him to have added that it was read ſo by the Vulgar Latin Interpreter.

Verſ. 14. Note d. Our Author ſhould not have cited, Plutarch de Verecundia, for there is no Book of Plutarch's which has that Title; but de Vitioſo Pudore, [...]. That Rhetorician or Orator was called Amphicrates, as we are told by Longinus de Sublim. cap. iv. on which ſee Interpreters.

[Page]Verſ. 15. Note e. I. Our Author does not ſpeak accurately,Chapter III. when he ſays that the Chaldeans pronounced Ain ע like S, for that is not true, and whenever they wrote that Letter, they pronounced it like the Jews. But his meaning was that צ Tſade is changed into the Guttural ע Ain, and therefore it was poſſible the former might be ſometimes written for the latter; whence it came to paſs that [...], which is expreſſed in Greek by [...], was written for [...] behor.

II. If St. Peter here has a reference to the Gnoſticks, as our Author thinks, and the Gnoſticks had already crept into moſt Chriſtian Churches, as the Doctor contends; I don't underſtand why St. Peter, in the beginning of the Chapter, ſhould uſe the Future Tenſe. But if we underſtand him to ſpeak of the wicked Jews, who had not yet joined themſelves to the Chriſtian Aſſemblies, but yet would join themſelves to them after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, there will be no ſuch difficulty.

Verſ. 19. [...].] The Apoſtle here has a reſpect to the firſt original of Bondage, which was the effect of Victory, and is thus expreſſed by Juſtinian in Instit. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Jure Perſonarum; Servi ex eo appellati ſunt, quod Imperatores captivos vendere, ac per hoc ſervare, nec occidere ſolent. Qui etiam mancipia dicti ſunt, eo quòd ab hostibus manu capiuntur. Servi — fiunt, aut jure gentium, id eſt, ex captivitate; aut jure civili, cum liber homo, major viginti annis, ad pretium participandum ſeſe venum dari paſſus eſt. Servants were ſo called, becauſe it was the Cuſtom of Commanders to ſell their Captives, and to that end ſervare to keep them, and not kill them. Which were called alſo Mancipia Slaves, becauſe manu capiuntur, they were taken captive by the Enemy. Men become Servants, either by the Law of Nations, that is by Captivity; or by the Civil Law, when a Free-man above twenty years of Age, to enjoy part of the price, ſuffers himſelf to be ſold.

Verſ. 22. Note g. This Etymology is given by Sam. Bochart in Hieroz. Part 1. Lib. ii. c. 57. but he adds others altogether as likely.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 1. [...].] Grotius, leſt theſe words ſhould be thought to ſhew that St. Peter wrote two Epiſtles, of which this was the ſecond, contends that this is the beginning of a new Epiſtle of the ſame Simeon, and that the former was comprehended in two Chapters. But it was never the Cuſtom to ſend Epiſtles without any Inſcription, tho they were written to thoſe to whom others had been ſent before. This appears from the ſecond Epiſtles [Page] to the Corinthians, to the Theſſalonians, to Timothy, &c. So that there is no ſufficient reaſon why we ſhould think this to be the beginning of a new Epiſtle.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is, of the Doctrin of the Prophets and Apoſtles, which our Author without reaſon interprets only of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; who on this Chapter has out-done himſelf in ſtraining the Scripture, to prevent our thinking that the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of the end of all things. But a faithful Interpreter ought not to apply general words to a peculiar ſenſe, unleſs the thing it ſelf, or the ſeries of the Diſcourſe, requires it; which cannot in this place be pretended.

Verſ. 3. [...].] That is, as Grotius well obſerves, hereafter, which I have already elſewhere ſuggeſted: ſee my Note on Gen. xlix.1. But our Author interprets it of the laſt Age of the Jewiſh Commonwealth, which was preſent at that time wherein he ſuppoſes this Epiſtle to have been written. So that, according to Dr. Hammond's Hypotheſis, St. Peter ought not to have ſaid, [...] but [...] came; for thoſe wicked Men which the Doctor thinks are here meant, muſt have been already come, or they never would come. Beſides who can bear that [...] Scoffers, ſhould be ſaid to ſignify a mighty defection from the Chriſtian Religion? And what defection happen'd between the XIIth year of Nero, in which the Jewiſh War began, and Jeruſalem was firſt beſieged by Ceſtius Gallus, and the ſecond and laſt Siege of that City? When the Jews were reduced to great ſtraits by the Romans, and there were evident Tokens of their approaching Deſtruction, there was no reaſon why any ſhould revolt to them; nor do we read that the Romans at that time in Judaea compelled the Jews, or the Chriſtians, to renounce their Religion, and worſhip the Roman Gods. Nay when the Chriſtians had ſeen the Prophecy of Chriſt fulfilled, concerning the firſt Siege of Jeruſalem, and after that was raiſed, had retired to Pella; there was no reaſon left to doubt concerning that Coming of Chriſt which our Author here ſpeaks of. And this happen'd in the XIIth year of Nero, from which time the Jews ſuffer'd innumerable Calamities; for in the beginning of the next Year Veſpaſian came with an Army. Our Author had not well conſider'd this, when he thought there might be Scoffers in the XIIth year of Nero, when the Jews were to be deſtroyed, and all the ſigns of their Deſtruction were then preſent. Nay the moſt diſcerning part alſo of the Jews themſelves had a great while before begun to think that their Affairs were in a bad Condition, as we are told by Joſephus in Lib. vii. of the Jewiſh War, cap. 12. and elſewhere.

[Page]Ibid. Note a. I. I ſhall ſay nothing about the ſignification of the word [...] letſim in the Old Teſtament, but whether St. Peter has a reſpect to that I do not know. Yet however that be, the Scoffers mentioned by St. Paul were no better than thoſe of old. I am apt to think they were ſome of the Sect of the Sadduces, or ſuch a ſort of men, who denied the reſurrection of the dead, and the future judgment; and derided thoſe that believed them. That which follows will ſhew the Apoſtle had ſome ſuch thing in his thoughts.

II. Such men muſt neceſſarily, unleſs they diſagreed with themſelves, walk after their own luſts. For thoſe that expect nothing after death ought in reaſon to indulge themſelves in any ſort of pleaſure, at leaſt as far as it can do them no hurt in this life.

III. The Apoſtacy ſpoken of by St. Paul in 2 Theſſ. ii.3. may more fitly be underſtood of the defection of the Jews from the Romans, againſt whom they took up arms; than of the Apoſtacy of the Chriſtians to any other Opinions, as I have ſhewn on that place. The paſſage alſo in 1 Tim. iv.1. is not neceſſarily to be underſtood of thoſe times, becauſe it may very fitly be interpreted of any time after that of the Apoſtles; for [...] ſignifies any after times. Tho there is ſome ſimilitude between the deception of theſe, and thoſe ſpoken of by Chriſt in Mat. xxiv. it does not follow they were the ſame. Nor are there wanting Hereticks, to whom what St. Paul ſays may very properly be applied.

IV. I will not deny that St. Peter here ſpeaks of the Gnoſticks, provided we underſtand him of thoſe that were after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, whom the Antients deſcribe. [...] here ſignifies not firſt in time, but eſpecially, as Grotius well obſerves.

Verſ. 4. [...].] That in this place the Apoſtle has a reſpect not to the coming of Chriſt to puniſh only the Jews, but to judg all mankind, appears by the following words, where theſe Scoffers ſay that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation; which does not belong to the Jews, but to all Mankind, whoſe ſeveral Ages had ſucceeded one another from the beginning of the World. I know our Author thinks there are two objections in this verſe, but doubtleſs he is miſtaken; for it is but one, conceived in theſe words, Where is the promiſe of his coming? which is confirmed by the following: [...], FOR ſince the fathers fell aſleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation. Which words do not contain a new objection, but an enforcement of the former; for becauſe no change had happened among mankind, generally conſidered, tho the Prophets were thought to have often foretold the laſt Judgment, [Page] therefore the Scoffers ſaid, Where is the promiſe of his coming? The Apoſtles had ſpoken much more clearly of that coming, and oftner inculcated it than the Prophets; whereby it came to paſs, that the objection was with greater ſhew of ſtrength renewed againſt them. For which reaſon St. Peter here gives a particular and full ſolution to it.

Ibid. Note b. I. Our Author ought in the firſt place, to have produced an example, by which it appeared that [...] ſignifies, except that, or ſomething like it; for no body will believe him barely affirming what no one perhaps before ever obſerved.

II. Secondly, thoſe wicked men derided the promiſes of the divine Judgment, and ſo of the Reſurrection; becauſe ſince thoſe Fathers, to whom that promiſe was made, whoever they were ſuppoſed to be, not excepting Adam, were dead, there had been always the ſame ſucceſſion of men dying and being born, and no Generation hitherto, from the beginning of the World, had been ever raiſed from the dead, and called to Judgment. That perpetual ſucceſſion for ſo many ages had perſwaded them, as they ſaid, that it would always be ſo, and that the coming of Chriſt to judg Mankind was promiſed in vain. To that objection St. Peter firſt anſwers, that as the Earth had been of old created, with the water, which was mixed with it, and whereby wicked men had been puniſhed in the time of Noah: ſo it would once be that the Earth being diſſolved by means of Fire, which is in nature, bad men ſhould be puniſhed thereby. Which is juſt as if he had ſaid, that the change which will hereafter be made with fire, ought as eaſily to be believed, as that which had been of old made with water. This is clearly the ſenſe of this place, which ſhews the diſcourſe to be about the end of the whole World, not of the Jewiſh Commonwealth only.

III. If the Unbelievers, St. Peter oppoſes, had rejected only that which was ſaid concerning the ruin of the Jewiſh State, they would not have uſed ſuch an argument as this, that there had no change happened ſince the beginning of the World; becauſe no one was ſo ſenſleſs as to deny that both many other Commonwealths had been deſtroyed, and the Jewiſh State had been overthrown in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, to omit other calamities that befel it. All, except a few furious Jews, were afraid of the deſtruction of that Commonwealth by the Roman Power, which at that time not only lay heavy upon its neck, but was alſo an enemy to it. St. Peter likewiſe would not have recurred to the Deluge to prove that the Jewiſh Commonwealth was to be deſtroyed, but to the Hiſtory of that Commonwealth, and to the power of the Roman Empire, and the actions of the Romans. I need ſay no more in ſo clear a caſe.

[Page]Verſ. 5. Note c. I had rather, with Grotius and others, interpret [...] of wilful ignorance; for they who objected ſuch things againſt the Apoſtles, were not unacquainted with the ſtory of the Flood, becauſe that ſtory was known by the Heathens themſelves. Nor could our Author think it was unknown to the Jews or Gnoſticks, to whom he attributes the foregoing objection. And therefore he interprets [...] in his Paraphraſe, not of ignorance but of careleſneſs, or want of conſideration. But I prefer the former interpretation, for the forementioned reaſon.

Verſ. 7. Note e. I. It is true that the whole is ſometimes expreſſed by all or ſome of its parts, by which no more is ſignified, than by the ſingle name of the whole. But I don't think that the heavens and the earth any where ſignifies either the earth alone, or this ſublunary region. At leaſt no place ever occurred to me in which theſe words were ſo taken. See alſo my Note on Col. i.20.

II. Our Author in his Annotation ſays, that the words, heaven and earth, ſignify Jeruſalem, but in his Paraphraſe he makes no mention of their having any ſuch ſignification. Which yet he ought to have done, if that were true which he had obſerved on the foregoing verſes concerning the objection of the Scoffers. For if St. Peter here ſpeaks of the concluſion of the whole World, he ſpake before of the ſame. But if he ſpake before of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, he diſcourſes of the ſame alſo here. So that the 7th verſe, as it is explained in the Doctor's Paraphraſe, has no connexion with the foregoing.

Verſ. 8. [...].] If our Author's mind had not been prejudiced and taken up with a falſe interpretation, he would eaſily have ſeen that St. Peter in theſe words had a reſpect to the delaying of the last judgment. For that which he aims at in them is, that a delay perhaps of many ages might not ſeem long, and that no one might therefore cry out, Where is the promiſe of his coming? No ſuch thing could be ſaid about the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, which St. Peter certainly knew would ſhortly happen, becauſe of Chriſt's prediction, and which, when the Jewiſh War began, diſcerning Perſons might almoſt foreſee. It is abſurd to ſpeak of a thing that is to come to paſs in a ſhort time, as if it were at the diſtance of ſeveral thouſand years, as St. Peter here would ſpeak, according to Dr. Hammond's opinion. If he had thought of the extinction of the Jews, he would have ſaid undoubtedly that the thing would come to paſs in a little time, and that there was no need of any long patience.

[Page]Verſ. 10. Note f. This interpretation of our Author is falſe in all reſpects. [...] is properly ſibilo, ſtrideo, to hiſs, to gnaſh or rattle; and [...] is not ſimply with a noiſe, but with a rattling. This is the proper ſignification of it, which ought not, without reaſon, to have been forſaken. Beſides, [...] is not ſwiftly, but vehemently, in Phavorinus. The reaſon alſo, taken from the compariſon of a Thief in the night, is of no force: for it is not ſaid that the day of the Lord will come [...], as a thief in the night; but that the Heavens will paſs away with a rattling noiſe, when that ſudden and unexpected day comes as a Thief. The coming of the Lord is compared to the coming of a Thief, becauſe both are ſudden, not becauſe the Lord will puniſh the Wicked without noiſe.

II. It is utterly falſe, that the Deſtruction of the Jews was ſo ſudden and unexpected: for certainly after Veſpaſian had entred into Judea, it was not difficult to conjecture that there was an end of the Jewiſh Commonwealth, to thoſe who were able to compare the ſtrength of the Jews with that of the Romans. Even before, under the Government of Geſſius Florus, and when Cestius Gallus came into Judea, the Anger of the Romans was loudly enough proclaimed againſt the Jews.

Ibid. in Note g. Col. 2. Lin. 2. after the words, teſtified by Predictions.] By the way here I ſhall advertiſe the Reader, that the Chapters of Joſephus are to be underſtood according to the Latin Diviſion, and that there is a fault in the citation of the Paſſage where Joſephus ſpeaks of the burning of the Temple, which is ſaid to be in lib. 3. c. 9. when it is in lib. 7. which ſeems to be a miſtake in the Print. Beſides, what Dr. Hammond here ſays about the fatal day, as out of Joſephus, is grounded only upon the Latin Tranſlation of Sig. Gelenius, which runs thus: Evolutiſque temporibus, aderat fatalis dies, qui erat decimus menſis Auguſti. But in the Greek the thing is otherwiſe worded; to wit, [...]: And their fate came, in the revolution of times, in the tenth day of the month Lous. Which ſhews that Dr. Hammond's obſervation is vain. But let us hear him ſtraining the words of St. Peter to the Deſtruction of Jeruſalem.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] I. When our Author refers us to his Premonition, for proof that St. Peter here ſpeaks of the exciſion of the Jews, and not of the end of the World, he makes a mere circle; for what he ſays there is grounded upon theſe violent Interpretations, which if falſe, what he affirms in his Premonition muſt of neceſſity be falſe alſo. It is true indeed, that the Prophets, [Page] when they deſcribe a great change in the Affairs of an Empire or Commonwealth, make, if I may ſo ſpeak, Heaven and Earth meet together (coelum terrae miſcent) and uſe ſuch like Phraſes. But here the circumſtances of the place ſhew that the Diſcourſe is about the end of all things. See my Notes on Verſ. 7. and 8.

II. I acknowledg the word [...] frequently ſignifies the Planets, and the ſigns of the Zodiack, as is at large ſhewn by Aeg. Menagius on Lib. vi. S. 102. of Diogenes Laertius. But it being added here to the Heavens, there can be no doubt but we are to underſtand the ſtarry Heaven, in which thoſe elements are. The word [...], when it is alone, is ambiguous, and may be underſtood as well of the lower regions as of the upper: but when it is joined with the Planets, or the Stars, it ceaſes to be ambiguous, and ſignifies the ſtarry Heaven; as on the contrary, when it is ſaid the birds of heaven, the word Birds ſhews it to ſignifiy the air. But it is the greateſt abſurdity imaginable, becauſe the [...] are in the ſtarry heaven, to ſay that that word ſigfies what is in the Air, the Clouds, Birds, &c. Which can neither be made out by reaſoning, nor confirmed by any uſe of the Greek Language, or of the ſacred Writers.

III. Nor is there any better ground for what our Author ſays about the diſtinct ſignification of the heavens and the earth; for the ſtyle of the Prophets in this matter is ſuch, as he himſelf obſerves on verſ. 7. that every word has not a particular ſignification, but the whole diſcourſe one general meaning. But Dr. Hammond when he has any thing to prove, often takes up every thing that lies in his way, not excepting thoſe things which elſewhere he himſelf has confuted.

Verſ. 16. Note h. I. I agree with Dr. Hammond in keeping here to the ordinary reading. But the reſt of what he ſays is ſo forced, that I wonder ſo learned a man could ſatisfy himſelf in that wherein he will ſatisfy no one elſe. It is a miſtake that St. Paul in moſt of his Epiſtles ſpeaks of the deſtruction of the Jews, as I have ſhewn againſt our Author in ſeveral places; on the contrary, nothing is more true than that he ordinarily ſpeaks of the laſt judgment. It is falſe that in the deſtruction of Jeruſalem there was any thing [...]; for what was there in it hard to be underſtood? Was it ſtrange that a ſinful nation ſhould be puniſhed by God, or that Jeruſalem ſhould be demoliſhed, which had formerly ſuffered the like under Nebuchadnezzar? Was it difficult at that time to underſtand that the Jews were oppreſſed by the Romans, whoſe ſubjects they then were? To none certainly but Fools or Madmen. It is needleſs to confute what our Author here ſays, about the ſeries of St. Paul's diſcourſe from verſ. 3. which I have already ſhewn that he miſinterprets.

[Page]II. As it is improbable, conſidering the thing it ſelf, that Chriſt did not know the point of time in which Jeruſalem was to be deſtroyed; ſo it is yet more improbable, that that Deſtruction was ſo very unexpected at the time when this Epiſtle was written, and the whole Jewiſh Nation had broke out into Rebellion, and divided themſelves into ſeveral Factions. Whoever reads Joſephus of the Jewiſh War, will eaſily ſee that Dr. Hammond invented what he thought would ſerve to confirm his Hypotheſis, and did not take it out of Hiſtory. Of the place in Acts. i.7. conſult H. Grotius.

III. Our Author perpetually ſpeaks of the Deſtruction of the Gnoſticks, as a concomitant of the deſtruction of the Jews; which would be tolerable, if the diſcourſe were only of thoſe that were in Judea, and feigned themſelves to be Jews: But what was this to the Gnoſticks that dwelt in other Provinces of the Roman Empire? What did the Calamities which befel Judea concern alſo the Chriſtians that lived elſewhere, except that they ſaw the Prophecies of Chriſt accompliſhed in them? There was no need likewiſe of their being carefully admoniſhed, that the particular point of time was unknown wherein Jeruſalem was to be burnt, becauſe from the diſturbances that were in Judea, they might eaſily conclude that it was near at hand. The only thing the Apoſtles could then do in this matter, was to admoniſh the Jews that had embraced the Chriſtian Religion, and lived elſewhere, that they ſhould not go into Judea, nor enter into Jeruſalem, unleſs they would incur the ſame danger as threatned Paleſtine and that City.

IV. Many might abuſe thoſe Paſſages of S. Paul, in which he deſcribes the laſt Judgment, as if it were near at hand, becauſe the time of it was uncertain. See 1 Theſſ. c. iv. and v. 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Cor. v. It was now ten years, or more, ſince he had wrote in that manner to the Theſſalonians; from whence ſome might conclude that he was deceived, and ſo revolt from the Faith they had received from him. But this was not properly [...], but other circumſtances of the Judgment, of which the greateſt part are [...] to thoſe who judg of them by humane experience. Such things might more eaſily [...] be wreſted, than thoſe which Dr. Hammond ſpeaks of; tho it's true what might not be wreſted by ignorant and wicked men; when our learned and pious Author, ſerving an Hypotheſis, has ſo ſtrangely wreſted both this Chapter and many other places of the New Teſtament, contrary to all the Rules of Grammar, and Accounts of Hiſtory.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Firſt Epiſtle General of St. John. Chapter I.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] Of the Gnoſticks and the laſt Hour I ſhall ſpeak on the places where Dr. Hammond treats of them.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 1. [...].] That which had been ſaid and done by Chriſt from the beginning of the Goſpel, is here oppoſed to the new Doctrines of falſe Prophets. Beſides this, we have an indirect intimation here of the Writer of this Epiſtle, who was from the beginning with Chriſt, which was neceſſary to make an Apoſtle. See Acts i.21, 22.

Verſ. 5. Note a. I will not affirm, with our Author, that the Apoſtle here has a reſpect to the Gnoſticks, the diſciples of Simon; who did not, as thoſe to whom St John ſpeaks, hope to attain Salvation by Chriſt, ſeeing, if what the Antients ſay be true, Simon oppoſed his Apoſtles, and ſaid that he himſelf was Chriſt, as we are told by Irenaeus lib. i. c. xx. who alſo ſays that Simon affirmed in ſo many words ſecundum ipſius gratiam ſalvari homines, that men were ſaved by his grace. If St. John had been to oppoſe Simon, he would in the firſt place have ſhewn, that he lied in calling himſelf Chriſt. But they ſeem to be bad Chriſtians, who abuſed the Goſpel which the Apoſtles preached; which they pretended to have embraced, and whoſe errors the Apoſtle here confutes. Light, in the ſtyle of the New Teſtament, ſignifies holineſs; and darkneſs wickedneſs. See the Epiſtle of Barnabas towards the end, where he diſcourſes of the way of light, and the way of darkneſs.

Verſ. 10. Note b. That the Gnoſticks, that is the followers of Simon Magus, who did not believe in Chriſt but Simon, are here referred to, [Page] I do not think: for theſe refuſed to be accounted the diſciples of the Apoſtles, nor did the Apoſtles join themſelves to them; and therefore St. John would not have confuted them, as he here does, for it is ſufficiently manifeſt that he confutes men that lived among the Chriſtians. I rather think he has a reſpect to ſome Jews, who were not throughly ſenſible of the ſins they had committed whilſt they were Jews, and in which they ſtill lived after their converſion to the Chriſtian Religion. Theſe ought to acknowledg that they had ſin, that is, as St. John afterwards ſpeaks, that they had ſinned, and ſo had deſerved puniſhment for their paſt ſins; which unleſs they did, they made Chriſt a liar, becauſe they denied they ſtood in need of his Redemption, when he had taught that he came to redeem all the World; for he that has not ſinned, is liable to no puniſhment for ſin, and needs not a Redeemer. Beſides, upon that confeſſion of their ſins, it was conſequent that they ſhould renounce them, if they would have fellowſhip with Chriſt, as he ſpeaks in verſe 7. that is, be his true diſciples, whom he would make partakers with himſelf of eternal happineſs. By this we may underſtand why St. John ſays he writes theſe things to Chriſtians, that they ſin not. But tho he uſes this phraſe [...], to know Chriſt, it does not preſently follow he alludes to the Gnoſticks, becauſe all who profeſſed to embrace the Goſpel, ſaid that they therefore embraced it, becauſe they knew that Jeſus came from God. Such alluſions muſt not be recurred to, but when the thing cannot well be underſtood without an alluſion. Otherwiſe whenever the Apoſtles uſe the Verb [...], where the diſcourſe is about the knowledg of the Chriſtian Religion, or thoſe things which concern it, we muſt always recur to the Gnosticks, who it is not certain in the Apoſtles age were ſo called. Beſides, to find out Dr. Hammond's conceptions in St. John, innumerable things muſt be ſupplied, and added; than which way of interpreting, nothing can be imagined more uncertain.

CHAP. II.

Verſ. 1. [...].] What our Author ſays in his Paraphraſe about the Prayers of the Church, is indeed true, but does not belong to this place, in which St. John does not ſpeak the leaſt word about the Church. And therefore I had rather he had omitted it, and reſerved it for a fitter place; for it is a deceitful Paraphraſe, which aſſumes things that are neither expreſly contained in the words of the Apoſtle, nor neceſſarily deduced from them. Our Author every now and then impoſes his own conceptions upon the [Page] Reader inſtead of St. John's. This by the way,Chapter II. leſt I ſhould ſeem to approve of Dr. Hammond's inſertions, if I had taken no notice of them.

Verſ. 18. Note b. I. I had rather our Author had contented himſelf with a more general Aſſertion, and ſaid that St. John here had a reſpect to divers falſe Chriſtians, which at that time had revolted from the Chriſtian Church, and the Doctrin of the Apoſtles, whether they were Simon's Diſciples, or others. For this only being affirmed, there would have been no need of interpreting ſeveral words of this Chapter, not ſo much as they truly ſignify, as according to the ſignification which he would have to belong to them, that he might find in them his own Opinion. Read what he ſays of the five things foretold by Chriſt, which he ſuppoſes to be ſpoken of in this Chapter as fulfilled; and compare it with St. John's own words, and it will appear that a great many things muſt be ſupplied in them, to make out Dr. Hammond's interpretation.

II. Polycarpus is ſaid by Irenaeus Lib. iii. c. 3. to have ſaluted Marcion when he met him once at Rome, primogenitum Satanae, The firſt-born of Satan. And to him, or rather to any Hereticks who did as he ſays, he ſeems to have had a reſpect, not to the Gnoſticks only.

Ibid. Note e. I. I will not exclude indeed Simon and his followers out of the number of theſe Antichriſts; but that name ſignifying, as is well obſerved by our Author after Grotius, both thoſe that oppoſe Chriſt directly, whilſt they deny that Jeſus of Nazareth is the Meſſias, or was a true Man; and thoſe who take upon themſelves to be Chriſts, or put themſelves in the place of Chriſt, I don't ſee why we ſhould think the Apoſtle here to have a reſpect to the Gnosticks, more than to any others, who did either of thoſe things. It's true, thoſe Antichriſts are ſaid to have gone out of the Chriſtian Aſſemblies; but who knows whether others, beſides the Gnoſticks, that were half Jews, did not depart from the Chriſtian Churches? There being no hiſtorical Records of the Chriſtians of thoſe times, we cannot certainly determin any thing about this matter.

II. Our Author thought that [...] ſignified that which is called in Engliſh to counterfeit, in French contrefaire; but his Memory failed him, for [...] ſignifies only contra facio, adverſarius ſum, altercor, par pari reddo, aggredior, vindico, rependo; To counterwork, to reſiſt, to contend, to return like for like, to ſet upon, to revenge, to repay. Yet it is true that the Prepoſition [...], as when alone, ſo in Compoſition ſignifies that which Dr. Hammond affirms; for it ſignifies loco, in the place of, and pro, for as well as contra, againſt; ſo that the name [...] [Page] may truly be applied not only to him who directly oppoſes Chriſt,Chapter III. but alſo who puts himſelf in the place of Chriſt, tho he denies nothing concerning Jeſus. So [...] is to exchange, that is, to give and receive one thing for another; [...] is one that comes in the place of another Man; [...] is to ſubſtitute; [...], to compenſate; [...], a Proconſul, &c.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 19. Note e. I. OF this word Dr. Hammond has treated on Gal. i.10. and interpreted it in the ſame ſenſe as he does here; but I have ſhewn on that place that he is miſtaken. Here alſo the expreſſion is Elliptical, for [...], we ſhall perſwade our Hearts, is a doubtful Phraſe, for the underſtanding of which, we muſt repeat out of the foregoing words, [...]; that is, we ſhall be conſcious to our ſelves, before God, that we are truly Chriſtians. St. John teaches us that he is a true Chriſtian, who helps his Neighbour not in Words, but in Deeds; and from that true Beneficence only can conclude himſelf to be a good Man, and reſt throughly perſwaded of it in his own Mind. But he that aſſiſts his Neighbour only in words, when he is able indeed to relieve him, if he deceives others, yet he cannot deceive himſelf, but is conſcious to himſelf before God of Uncharitableneſs. And St. John adds [...], before him, to wit, God, becauſe God only is witneſs of the Judgment which we ſecretly paſs upon our ſelves. Hence that noted expreſſion in Scripture, to be juſt before God, to ſignify a true and ſincere Vertue, becauſe God alone is the true and infallible judg of it. See Luke i.6. and Interpreters on that place.

II. [...], is to be purged ſo by a [...], as to be conſcious that God is propitious to us. See my Notes on Heb. ii.10. & vii.11.

CHAP. IV.

Chapter IV.Verſ. 2. [...].] The words [...] muſt be rendred, as Dr. Hammond well obſerves in the Margin of the Engliſh Tranſlation, not that [Jeſus Chriſt] is come in the Fleſh, but which is come in the Fleſh. But beſides, this whole Period is to be underſtood thus: every Spirit that confeſſes Jeſus, who is come in the Fleſh, to be the Chriſt, is of God. Such another Expreſſion there is in St. John's Goſpel chap. xvii.3. where ſee my Note. So alſo St. Paul, 1 Cor. xii.3. [Page] [...], that is,Chapter V. no Man can ſay that Jeſus is the Chriſt, but in the Holy Ghoſt. In St. John's words there are three things contained, firſt, that Jeſus the Son of Mary, who was called a Nazarene, was the Meſſias, which the Jews denied; ſecondly, that Jeſus was come in the Fleſh, that is, was truly a Man, and ſubject to the inconveniencies of human Life, which many of the firſt Hereticks denied, if we believe the Antients; thirdly, that they could not be rejected as Impoſtors, who ſaid that Chriſt was the true Meſſias, and a Man like us. But it may be enquired whether there could not be Impoſtors who confeſſed both, and yet maintained other pernicious Errors? There might without doubt, but at that time all the Impoſtors offended in one or other of theſe points, and to them St. John's marks muſt be referred; not to all Impoſtors which might be, or which afterwards appeared.

Verſ. 12. [...].] That is, it appears by the love which we have for one another, that our love to God is moſt perfect, which otherwiſe is not [...], but [...], when we have ſome degree indeed of Piety towards God, but do not heartily enough love our Neighbour. Such were the Jews, who profeſſed to love none but thoſe of their own Religion, and were not ſincere even in that: ſee Cap. ii.5. Our Author in his Paraphraſe of this and the following Verſes, is very harſh, and ſcarce knows how to ſpeak his own Thoughts, ſo far is he from happily expreſſing the mind of the Apoſtle.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 6. Note a. I. IF I ſhould undertake to examine particularly all the foregoing medly, I ſhould be obliged, inſtead of ſhort Additions, to write a long Diſſertation. And therefore I ſhall touch only upon the chief things. I do not diſagree with our Author about the interpretation of the 6th verſe, but I wonder he ſpends ſo many words in endeavouring to make out the Connection of verſ. 7. with that, and the meaning of the words are one, or are to one, before he had ſhewn, or endeavoured to ſhew that this Verſe and thoſe words are genuin. Of ſuch an order in diſcourſing it may be ſaid, [...]. But to paſs by this, Dr. Hammond does but wrangle with all the moſt learned Interpreters, who interpret are one of conſent. And the reaſon why they underſtand thoſe words of conſent, is, firſt, becauſe they are ſo taken in John x.30. & xvii.21. ſecondly, becauſe here the Diſcourſe is about a unity of Teſtimony, and not about a unity of Nature. But why is this conſent otherwiſe [Page] expreſſed in the following Verſe? I anſwer, for variety ſake, or alſo by mere accident; for in this ſimple ſtile words muſt not be ſo ſubtilly ſcanned or watched. All our Author here alledges beſides, is foreign to the purpoſe, and the ſcope of the Apoſtle.

II. As for his ſaying that tho the Alexandrian, and many other antient Manuſcript Copies, omit the 7th Verſe, yet it is read in many other Manuſcripts, and all the printed Copies except one; that, to ſay no worſe of it, is not accurately ſaid. For in the old Greek Copies, that is, which were written ſeven or eight Ages ago and older, it is no where read, and ſeldom in thoſe that are later. In the moſt antient Latin Copies likewiſe it is not read, tho frequently in the New. Beza alledges a Britiſh Greek Copy, mention'd by Eraſmus, and a Spaniſh Complutenſian Edition, and ſeveral Copies of R. Stephanus, which have this place. But beſides that theſe do not ſufficiently agree with one another, they are by no means to be equal'd with the moſt antient Copies, which with great conſent reject this Verſe; and are confirmed by the Authority of all the Greek and Latin Fathers until St. Auſtin, who never uſed this place againſt the Arians, or other antient Antitrinitarians; tho they often make mention of the three Witneſſes on Earth, as learned Men have long ſince obſerved. For as for our Author's objecting St. Cyprian, Jerom, and Ambroſius, that is to no purpoſe, as we ſhall preſently ſee. There are more printed Copies than one, which omit this place; but tho they all had it, their Authority would ſignify nothing againſt the Manuſcript Copies, and the conſent of Antiquity.

III. The conjecture about the omiſſion of ſome Scribe, becauſe of the repetition of the like words, as it takes place elſewhere, ſo it cannot here be allowed; firſt, becauſe it muſt be ſupported by another Conjecture; and ſecondly, becauſe it oppoſes all Antiquity. For who will believe that ſuch an omiſſion was admitted in all the Copies, which the Chriſtians uſed privately and publickly for ſeveral Ages; and afterwards was diſcovered by I know not whom, without the help of any antient Copy? Who but thoſe who have no regard to truth, and think that Truth may be defended by the help of Falſhood? Our Author's reaſonings againſt the ſuſpition of this place being ſuppoſititious, are inſignificant, becauſe they cannot be oppoſed to the joint Authority of the antient Copies, Fathers, and Interpreters. Beſides, who does not know, that tho Truth may be well defended, and relies upon ſolid grounds, yet the Orthodox, as well as others, invented innumerable falſhoods to ſupport it? Whence came ſo many ſuppoſititious Books in antient times, but from this perverſe practice? But here it [Page] is to be obſerved, that it might eaſily be that theſe words were inſerted into the Context, not out of any deſign to deceive; but ſome Body having in the Margin of his Copy, over againſt the 8th Verſe, noted that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, was ſignified in this place, others afterwards put that into the Text; as is conjectured by Ric. Simon, who has ſet this matter in a clear light, in his Critical Hiſtory of the New Teſtament P. 1. c. 18. and his Diſſert. concerning the Manuſcript Copies of the New Teſtament added to the 3d Part, to whom I refer the Reader. The places our Author here alledges to prove the Doctrin of the Trinity, might have been found in any Theological Syſtem, and in greater number: nor do they make any thing to confirm the ordinary reading, for every thing which is agreeable to the Chriſtian Faith, is not preſently the true Reading. Whereas he adds, that if this place had been corrupted by the Orthodox, the Arians would have taken notice of it; tho that ſhould be admitted as a forcible Argument, it would ſignify nothing to this place; which ſeems to have been inſerted very lately, ſeeing none of the antient Fathers, Greek or Latin, till the time of St. Auſtin, ever alledged it againſt the Arians. Conſult the foremention'd Monſieur Simon.

IV. The paſſage cited out of St. Cyprian, does not prove that he read this place, as we read it in the printed Copies, but only that he underſtood the words of the 8th Verſe, of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt; which is ſo clearly demonſtrated by Mr. Simon, that a Man muſt be very obſtinate, after reading his reaſons, to aſſert the contrary. Our Author produces a place out of Tertullian in Lib. Contra Praxeam, without adding the Chapter or Page; which is a very bad Cuſtom, in a thing eſpecially of ſuch great Moment. So that I was forced to read the greateſt part of that Book, to find out the place, which is in Cap. xxv. p. 515. of the Paris Ed. An. 1675. But Tertullian has not a reſpect to this place in the 1ſt Epiſtle of St. John, but to John x.30. For theſe are his words: Connexus Patris in Filio, & Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero; qui tres unum ſunt, non unus, quomodo dictum eſt: ego & pater unum ſumus; ad ſubſtantiae unitatem, non ad numeri ſingularitatem. The conjunction of the Father with the Son, and of the Son with the Comforter, makes three cleaving together one upon another; which three are (unum) one thing, not (unus) one as it is ſaid; I and my Father are (unum) one thing; as to unity of Subſtance, not as to ſingularity of number. He no where alledges this place in 1 John, which yet in that diſputation he ought to have alledged, if it had been read at that time, as it is now; ſeeing he often alledges the place in John x. which is not ſo expreſs to his purpoſe. Praxeas [Page] was of the opinion of Sabellius or Photinus, who thought that there was but one Perſon in the Godhead; ſo that perhaps he might have abuſed this place in St. John, and ſo have alledged it; or if this place had been thought to be contrary to him, it would have been alledged againſt him. St. Jerom's name is prefixed indeed to the Preface to the Catholick Epiſtles; but that it is not his Preface has been ſhewn by Mr. Simon in the 2d Part of his Critical Hiſtory of the New Teſtament, c. ix. and the Benedictine Monks, who have lately begun to ſet forth the Works of St. Jerom at Paris, tho very great Adverſaries to Father Simon, have confirmed his Arguments, ſo that they ſeem to have ſtopped the Mouth of Obſtinacy it ſelf; which Dr. Hammond alſo would have acknowledged, ‘Si foret hoc noſtrum fato dilatus in aevum,’ If he had lived to this day. As for St. Ambroſe, it is not without intolerable Negligence that his words are not ſet down; becauſe Dr. Hammond knew that he would not be believed in this matter. But really there is no where any ſuch thing in the true St. Ambroſe. And if ſuch a fault had been committed by F. Socinus, our Author would not have ſpared him ſo eaſily, as he forgave himſelf.

V. He would have done much better, towards the confirmation of the Truth, to adhere only to the Scripture, and not to recur to the Fathers, whoſe opinion was quite different from that which is now received; as who, properly ſpeaking, affirmed that there were three conſubſtantial Gods, as has been ſhewn by Dyon. Petavius, Steph. Curcellaeus, Dr. Cudworth, and others. Our Author had read the Fathers upon this Head with a mind full of Prejudice, as it is very common for Perſons to do; and with little care, as appears by the choice of places which he produces. I ſhould not think it ſafe to cite Clemens upon the Authority of St. Baſil, becauſe he might have taken the alledged words out of an Apocryphal and ſuppoſititious writing of Clemens, of which kind there were a great many of old, and are ſome ſtill at this day. For it is notorious that the Antients, neglecting all the rules of Criticks, often confounded ſuppoſititious Writings with genuin. And our Author imitates them, whilſt he alledges Paſſages out of the manifeſtly ſpurious Writings of Juſtin Martyr, as his, or at leaſt as if they were of ſome moment; for why otherwiſe did he produce them? Of the reſt I have nothing to ſay, but that Dr. Hammond could not ſtand by the Faith of the Fathers which he cites; who, to ſpeak the truth, were Tritheiſts rather than aſſertors of the [Page] preſent Opinion. For they believed the unity of Subſtance, not the ſingularity of number, as Tertullian ſpeaks, that is, that the ſubſtance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt was ſpecifically one, but numerically three; as the learned Men, I before mention'd, have clearly ſhewn, and might much more largely be demonſtrated. Thoſe that do not think fit to anathematize the Fathers, ought alſo to be charitable to other erroneous perſons, for a great many reaſons, to every one obvious. Beſides, whoever conſiders theſe things ſeriouſly, will not be ſo apt to boaſt of the conſent of Antiquity, or complain ſo loudly of Hereticks as Dr. Hammond here does; who, I believe, acted therein ſincerely, but without due conſideration, and not very much like a Chriſtian, which I do not ſpeak out of a cenſorious Humor, but only by way of Admonition.

Verſ. 16. Note c. I. I rather think that [...] is a Metaphor taken from Diſeaſes, which are ſaid to be [...], when they are mortal; as appears from John xi.4. I wonder Dr. Hammond ſets down St. John's words, as if he had ſaid [...], when all Copies have [...]. Did not that falſe reading induce him to ſeek here for Excommunication?

II. I don't know why our Author makes mention here of the Prayers of the Church, when the Apoſtle ſpeaks of this matter ſo, as to mention nothing about the Church or its Governors. The Power of the Keys, which was too much in the Doctor's thoughts, made him look for thoſe things which belong to it, even where there is no footſtep of them.

Verſ. 21. [...].] Our Author in the Margin of the Engliſh Tranſlation, remarks that the Alexandrian Copy adds [...], which the Vulgar Interpreter alſo read. And indeed if it be omitted, it muſt be underſtood. See Grotius on this place.

Verſ. 21. Note d. But I don't know why the Idols of the Heathens themſelves may not here be underſtood, whoſe Worſhip the Chriſtians were no leſs obliged to beware of, than the Idolatry of the Simonians. Nay, there was a much greater care neceſſary to be taken, in order to keep themſelves from the worſhip of the Heathens, becauſe Heathens had the government of the World, and compelled the Chriſtians by Torments to join with them in their Idolatry; whereas the followers of Simon had no Authority either in the Roman Empire, or elſewhere.

ANNOTATION ON THE Second Epiſtle of St. John.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. I Wiſh our Author had given us better reaſons for thinking that ſome of the Primitive Chriſtian Churches had a twofold Biſhop, one a Jew, and the other a Gentile. For I can ſee a great many Objections, to which that ſuppoſition is liable, and which I do not underſtand how he could have ſatisfactorily anſwered. There might that alſo be ſaid againſt the Notion he affixes to [...], which would be ſufficient to overthrow it, but which for brevity ſake I paſs by. I rather think the Apoſtle here addreſſed himſelf to ſome Chriſtian Matron, whoſe name, for the reaſon mention'd by Dr. Hammond, he concealed. It's known that the word Elect is often uſed to ſignify all Chriſtians, as Grotius and Dr. Hammond have ſeveral times proved.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epiſtle of St. Jude.

Verſ. 4. Note a. I. I Had rather underſtand [...] according to the common uſe of the Prepoſition [...] in Compoſition, for before; for [...] alſo does not ſeem ſo much to ſignify, if we urge the proper Notion of the word, that which is ſet forth, as that which was before written, but with a deſign that afterwards it may be publickly ſet forth to be read. For an Edict, or an Advertiſement, was firſt written on Paper or a Board, before it was expoſed to be read publickly, and to that end fixed up in ſome [Page] open place. So likewiſe in Gal. iii.1. I chuſe to render [...], hath been before delineated, rather than ſet forth. St. Jude here alludes to Laws, which [...] puniſhments to Malefactors, as a means to deter Men from tranſgreſſing. His meaning is that ſuch Men as he ſpeaks of, were already expreſly condemned by the divine Laws, becauſe Puniſhments were clearly preſcribed to their Crimes. So that I do not think there is a reſpect here had to any prediction of Chriſt.

II. I don't ſee the neceſſity of interpreting what St. Jude here ſays of none but the Followers of Simon, when we may very well underſtand him of any wicked Men whatſoever, who had joined themſelves to the Chriſtians, both Jews and others, ſuch as afterwards was that Peregrinus, ſpoken of by Lucian. For the great Charity of the Chriſtians, who ſuffer'd none that joined with them in their Worſhip, to want neceſſaries; and their frequent [...] Love▪ feaſts drew to them not only thoſe that were good, but alſo many wicked Men. If Dr. Hammond will call theſe Gnoſticks, I ſhall not be againſt it, becauſe I won't contend about a name; but wonder from what credible Author he came to underſtand, that all the bad Chriſtians of thoſe times eſpouſed the opinions of Simon Magus.

III. He thinks that [...] here ſignifies the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, which that it may be true, he muſt ſuppoſe that this Epiſtle of St. Jude was directed only to the Chriſtians of Judaea; for theſe alone were deſtroyed with the Jews, who had joined themſelves with them in taking up Arms againſt the Romans. But I ſee no ſign in this Epiſtle, by which it may appear that it was written to the Chriſtians of Judaea, rather than to others. And then if it be not evident that in this Verſe Condemnation ſignifies the deſtruction of the Jews, it will not be certain that the common Salvation, ſpoken of in the Verſe before, is the deliverance of the Chriſtians out of the hands of the Jews, by whom they were perſecuted. I had rather underſtand, both Salvation, of eternal Happineſs, and Condemnation, of everlaſting Puniſhment, which God was about to inflict upon them. And ſo Men preſcribed to this Judgment, are Men condemned by the divine Laws to ſuffer perpetual Miſery, for the Sins which St. Jude enumerates.

Ibid. Note b. I don't believe the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of a poſitive and open denying of the points of Faith mention'd; for how would the Chriſtians have endured in their Agapae, Men who had denied God the Father, or Jeſus to be the Chriſt? He could not be accounted a Chriſtian, that denied thoſe Doctrins. But he means a denying of them before the Heathens, in caſe they were vehemently urged to it; ſo that it was only to avoid Perſecution that they denied themſelves to be [Page] Chriſtians; which they thought they might very lawfully do: They no more believed Simon, or the Prieſts of the Heathens, than they did Chriſt, nor oppoſed him any more than others; but, according to the time and place they were in, feigned themſelves to believe what it was their Intereſt to appear to believe.

Verſ. 7. Note c. But there is another more proper, if, namely, we underſtand theſe Puniſhments of that Fire, with which, in St. Jude's time, all the Coaſt of Sodom did ſtill burn; for which reaſon it is called eternal, becauſe it continued burning for ſo many Ages. Upon this account the Sodomites will be ſaid [...], that is, before ſet to be an example, and ſtill ſo to be. See what I have ſaid about this matter in a Diſſert. de ſubverſione Sodomae.

Verſ. 8. Note d. Tho I prefer the Apoſtles before all the leſſer or greater Powers of the Roman Empire, yet I do not think they are here reſpected, who are no where elſe called by that name; for as for their being ſaid to be ſtiled the glory of Chriſt in 2 Cor. viii.23. that is foreign to this place, becauſe it is a quite different thing. Beſides, [...] being very frequently uſed among Greek Writers, to ſignify Honours and Empires, or Magiſtrates, it is better to follow here that notion. And ſo I am apt to think the Apoſtle has a reſpect not ſo much to the Gnoſticks, as to the Jews, who bore the Yoke of the Roman Magiſtrates very impatiently, and ſaid that it was unlawful for a Jew to ſerve any but God, whom they called the only Lord and Ruler. This was the Opinion of the fourth Sect of the Jews, founded by Judas Gaulonita, of whoſe followers Joſephus ſpeaks thus, Lib. 18. cap. 2. Antiq. Jud. [...]: in all other things they agree with the Phariſees, but they have an unmoveable love for Liberty, thinking that God alone is their Lord and Ruler, and reputing it a ſmall matter to ſuffer various kinds of Death, and the Puniſhments of their Kindred and Friends, for refuſing to call any man Lord. This Doctrin was by many greedily embraced, as we are told by Joſephus, in the beginning of the ſame Book; and indeed if not openly, at leaſt in their Thoughts it was favoured by moſt of the Jews; and that ſome ſuch Men as theſe had joined themſelves to the Aſſemblies of the Chriſtians, is not at all ſtrange.

Verſ. 9. Note e. I. The words here attributed to Michael, being the very ſame that are found in Zachar. iii.2. it is with reaſon thought by Dr. Hammond in concurrence with other Interpreters, that St. Jude alludes to that Viſion. And becauſe the Angel there is repreſented as [Page] diſputing with the Adverſary, about the reſtoring of the Jewiſh Commonwealth, it is conſequent that the ſame is here ſignified by [...], the body of Moſes, in St. Jude; which Phraſe St. Jude took from the uſe of the Apoſtles, who ordinarily call Chriſtians the body of Chriſt.

II. But what Dr. Hammond ſays afterwards of the Magiſtracy of the Devil, whoſe Dignity the good Angel reverenced, even in an evil Spirit, tho Grotius and others ſay the ſame, that I confeſs I cannot digeſt. For it's true, among Men, not only Subjects honourably beſpeak their Rulers, but Princes alſo themſelves ſhew a mutual reſpect to each other; the Law of Nations requiring it ſhould be ſo, for many weighty reaſons between Nations enjoying an equal Power, leſt they ſhould be at perpetual variance among themſelves, conſtituted, like the Civil Law among Citizens. But there ſeems to be no ſuch Law between good and bad Angels, who are irreconcilable Enemies; the bad having rebelled againſt their common Lord, by whom being put in Chains they are reſerved unto the Judgment of the great Day. So that the [...], which the Angel would not rail at, are ſome others; nor does Satan ſignify the Prince of the Devils. If we conſult the Hiſtory of the times, to which the Viſion ſeen by Zachariah refers, we ſhall find that the Governors of Perſia, who had the overſight of the Provinces ſituated on the Weſt of Euphrates, vehemently oppoſed the deſign of Joſhua about reſtoring the Temple. And of theſe the chief were the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai, whoſe Enterpriſes and Calumnies are recorded in Eſdr. Chap. v. Now theſe things were repreſented to Zachary the Prophet in a Viſion, by which he underſtood that the Jews had indeed powerful Enemies with the King of Perſia, but that God by the Miniſtry of his Angels render'd their Calumnies and Attempts ineffectual. So that Satan are the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai, and other Adverſaries of the Jews, that were repreſented to the Prophet under the perſon of one Accuſer. So in Pſalm cix.5. Satan ſtanding at his Right hand is manifeſtly an Accuſer, and that word often ſignifies any Adverſary who endeavours to fruſtrate any ones deſigns. The ſame is meant by the word [...], which is uſed by the Septuagint; for [...] is as well to reſiſt (adverſari) as to calumniate. And the ſame Perſons that are called Satan in the Prophet Zachary, and here the Devil, were [...], or Magiſtrates ſent from Perſia, to rule, over Syria, and other Countries on the Weſt ſide of Euphrates, ſubject to the King of Perſia; for which reaſon the ſame that are ſignified in this Verſe by the word [...], are in the foregoing and St. Peter, ſtiled [...]. And in the diſputation of the Angel with thoſe Men, mention'd [Page] in Zechariah, the Angel being repreſented as modeſtly rebuking the enemies of the Jews, the Perſian Rulers, becauſe of their Dignity; hence St. Peter and St. Jude with great reaſon infer that the Jews did very ill in reviling the Roman Governors, who ſtood at that time in the ſame relation to the Jews, as formerly the Perſians. This interpretation ſeems to me much more natural and agreable to Hiſtory and things themſelves, than any other; and I doubt not but the Jews in the Apoſtles times did ſo interpret the place in Zachariah.

Verſ. 10. [...].] I do by no means think that the Apoſtle here has a reſpect to Angels, but to general Notions, concerning the neceſſity of the diſtinction of Men into Magiſtrates and Subjects, and about the neceſſity of obeying thoſe whom the divine Providence has ſet over us, tho they do not always behave themſelves as they ought; leſt Wars ſhould enſue, which are much more pernicious than that obedience.

Ibid. [...].] That is, without a Maſter. See my Note on 1 Cor. xi.14.

Verſ. 11. Note f. I ſhould render the words; effuſi ſunt errore Balaami, mercedis cauſa, Were poured out in the error of Balaam, for Reward; which perfectly agrees with the place in St. Peter, which is undoubtedly parallel to this, not Rom. i.27. but in the harſh Conjecture of Dr. Hammond. [...] is exactly the ſame with [...]; for [...], where the Diſcourſe is about Men, ſignifies to be ſpread abroad, or wander, by a Metaphor taken from Liquor poured out. So Judith Chap. xv.2. about the flight of the Aſſyrians, which the Jews purſued, ſome running one way, and ſome another: and there was not a Man which ſtayed before the face of his Neighbour, but [...] being poured out, they fled every way — and then the Children of Iſrael, every warlike Man among them, [...] were poured out upon them. This is what was meant by Heſychius and Phavorinus, when they interpreted this word by [...], becauſe they that thus fly away, run out of others ſight; nor muſt any thing be alter'd in Phavorinus, of whom we have no Manuſcript Copies, becauſe he himſelf firſt printed his own Lexicon in the time of Leo X. Our Author ſeems to have thought that he wrote before Printing was found out: But in Heſychius we muſt read [...].

Verſ. 12. Note g. I prefer the latter interpretation, ſo as to think, it is not a Tempeſt, called [...], but the ſignification of the word that is here referred to, which comes from [...], to corrupt Fruit, as it is in the Etymologicon Magnum; becauſe tho, towards the end of the [...] Trees are deſtitute of Leaves and Fruit, yet [Page] principally during that Seaſon, the fruit of Trees ripen and are gather'd.

Verſ. 16. Note i. I. I acknowledg that the Phraſe here uſed by St. Jude, is taken from Daniel, but it does not therefore follow it muſt be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe; for what is more common either among Jewiſh or Chriſtian Writers, than to take Phraſes out of the Scripture, tho not to be underſtood juſt in the ſame ſenſe? It is ſufficient if they can but with ſome fitneſs be applied to thoſe things which are ſpoken of. Beſides, when the whole place is not alledged, no body will ſay that the whole place is referred to, unleſs the thing require it.

II. Therefore by great ſwelling words, I am apt to think is meant the boaſtings of the wicked Jews, who pretended to defend the Cauſe of God, againſt the Tyranny of the Romans; and promiſed their Aſſociates Victory, and declared that they could not be ſubject to any. To theſe Men, and not to the Gnoſticks, St. Paul ſeems to have had a reſpect in 2 Theſſ. ii. as I have ſhewn at large, againſt Dr. Hammond, on that place. I have ſhewn alſo on Rom. viii.20. that [...] does not ſignify Idolatry.

Verſ. 22. Note m. [...] is a Participle of the Paſſive, and not of the Middle Voice, and muſt be rendred making a difference; namely according to mens Diſpoſitions and Offences. For ſome muſt be dealt with more tenderly, and others more ſeverely, as Dr. Hammond obſerves: See what Pricaeus has collected on this place, and my Note on James ii.4.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Revelation of St. John the Divine.

[Page]

AT the end of the Premon.] Tho I think Dr. Hammond's Interpretation of the Apocalypſe, may as eaſily be defended as any other; yet ſome things he ſays here which ſeem to need correction, and which I ſhall briefly take notice of.

I. He repreſents to us the Chriſtians of Aſia Minor, as being as much afraid of the Jews and Gnoſticks, as if they had ſent Proconſuls into Aſia; or at leaſt the Roman Magiſtrates were ſo entirely in their Intereſt, that the leaſt complaint they made of them would be pernicious to the Chriſtians. For unleſs this be true, the Chriſtians would have had no reaſon to be ſo much afraid of the Jews, or to think they were delivered from Perſecution by the Calamities of that People. But that the Jews had ſo much Power, or were in ſo great favour with the Roman Magiſtrates, that at their inſtigation they dealt cruelly with the Chriſtians, does not appear by any Hiſtory. We find indeed in the Acts that the Jews exaſperated the Heathens as much as they could, and raiſed Seditions, and went to the Magiſtrates to accuſe the Chriſtians; but we find alſo that they were but derided by them: ſee Acts xviii.12. & ſeqq. The Chriſtians that lived in Aſia Minor had moſt reaſon to fear the Statuaries, Painters, Prieſts, and other Men who made a gain of Idolatry, and any ſuperſtitious Perſons whatſoever; but not the Jews, who were as much hated by them as the Chriſtians: ſee the Story of the Tumult at Epheſus, which is in Acts xix. So that what is foretold of the deſtruction of the Jews, belongs primarily to them that lived in Judea and the neighbouring Countries, who were really to be delivered from the Perſecutions of the Jews; and ſecondarily alſo to others, eſpecially thoſe which had gone over from Judaiſm to the Chriſtian Religion, and who would be glad to ſee the Prophecies of Chriſt and the Apoſtles fulfilled, and be confirmed in their Faith by that means.

[Page]II. I don't know why our Author thought the Edict of Claudius, Chapter I. about expelling the Chriſtians or Jews out of Rome, reached as far as Epheſus. For they that were only expelled out of Rome, were not forced to go out of other Cities of the Roman Empire, unleſs it was ſo order'd in the Edict. By the word Rome, no body ever underſtood the reſt of the Cities of the Roman Empire: ſee Interpreters on the place in Suetonius, and on Acts xviii.2. If therefore St. John was baniſhed at that time, and tranſported from Epheſus to Patmos, it was not becauſe of the Edict of Claudius, but for ſome other reaſon. But the Chronology of thoſe times, the accounts of which are not taken out of the Writings of the Apoſtles, is very uncertain.

III. Our Author does not ſpeak accurately, where he ſays that Domitian was Governor of Rome, whilſt Veſpaſian was in Judaea; he ſhould have added, either in Egypt, or whilſt he was upon his Journey; for Veſpaſian did not ſtay long in Judaea, after he was ſaluted Emperor.

IV. There being nothing not only more uncertain, but even more falſe, than the Menology of the Greeks, and the Martyrology of the Romans, as thoſe learned Men who have touched upon them have ſhewn: I don't ſee what made Dr. Hammond ſcruple to diſparage their Authority. This I am ſure would have been much better than to wreſt every thing, that he might not ſeem to contradict them, as to the time when Antipas ſuffer'd Martyrdom. But I ſhall ſay ſomething of that on Chap. ii.12.

V▪ What he ſays here of the ſudden deſtruction of the Gnoſticks, is falſe, as I have ſhewn on 2 Theſſ. ii.8.

CHAP. I.

Verſ. 4. Note a. I. THERE is no doubt but Aſia here ſignifies the Proconſular Aſia. But according to the Roman Cuſtom, the Neighbouring Cities no otherwiſe depended upon a Metropolis, than as they reſorted to it, when a Roman Magiſtrate ſat in Judgment; for they were not governed by Provincial Magiſtrates of Corporations. Which being ſo, I cannot ſee why the Biſhops of theſe Cities are ſuppoſed to have ruled over them with a Metropolitan Power; not to ſay it is very uncertain whether there was in the beginning any Hierarchy conſtituted, according to the pattern of a Civil Government. For what later Writers ſay of that Age, is not ſufficiently certain; becauſe they ſpeak of it in the words of their own times, and call thoſe Metropolitans and Archbiſhops, which were ſtiled ſimply Biſhops. Such a way of ſpeaking is deceitful, and may [Page] be apt to perſwade the unwary, that not only theſe Names, but alſo the Power that was joined with them in the following Ages, were known in the Apoſtles times. I had rather our Author, in his Paraphraſe of the New Teſtament, had abſtained from them.

II. Dr. Hammond had not look'd into the Digg. Lib. 1. Tit. xvi. Leg. 4. S. 5. where Ʋlpian does not ſpeak himſelf, but alledges the words of Antoninus, and ſomewhat alſo otherwiſe: Our Emperor Antoninus Auguſtus, at the deſire of the Aſians, wrote back, that a Proconſul was obliged to go by Sea to Aſia, [...], that is, and among the mother Cities to touch firſt at Epheſus. The place alſo in Pliny is falſe quoted out of Lib. vi. inſtead of Lib. v.

Verſ. 6. Note d. I. I wiſh Dr. Hammond had alledged ſome Edict of the Roman Emperors or Magiſtrates obtained by the Jews, whereby the Chriſtians were forbidden to meet together, before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; for I do not remember that I ever read any in Eccleſiaſtical Writers, or others: which yet if it be uncertain, or falſe, as I verily think, ſome of thoſe things which he ſays in the foregoing Annotation muſt needs be falſe, or at leaſt uncertain. And from the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, to the reign of Adrian, the Jews were too odious upon the account of their Seditions, to prevail with the Roman Emperors or Magiſtrates to perſecute the Chriſtians, as our Author well proves in what follows.

II. That Dr. Hammond might ſhew that the Chriſtians reigned, as he ſpeaks, after all the hopes and power of the Jews were taken away, he is forced to extenuate thoſe ten noted Perſecutions; which it's certain ſome of the Antients too much aggravated, as has been ſolidly proved by Mr. Dodwell in his Diſſert. de Paucitate Martyrum. But tho I do not deny but that in the fourth and following Ages, the number of Martyrs was very much encreaſed; yet I do not ſee how the condition of the Chriſtian Church, in the ſecond and third Centuries, could be repreſented under the ſimilitude of a Kingdom, unleſs that Kingdom be very faintly underſtood. I had rather this had been referred to later times.

Verſ. 10. [...]] This day, which in the words of Andreas Caeſarienſis, alledged by our Author in the Margin of his Paraphraſe, is [...], Barnabas in Ep. Cathol. cap. xv. calls the eighth. For after he had ſaid, that the ſix days of the Week ſignify ſix thouſand Years, during which the World was to continue, and the ſeventh the laſt thouſand, in which God would put an end to it, he ſpeaks thus: [...] [Page] [...]: mind how he ſpeaks: The preſent Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but thoſe which I have made, when putting an end to all things, I ſhall begin the eighth day, that is, another World. [...]: Wherefore alſo we ſpend the eighth day in expreſſions of Joy, in which Jeſus both aroſe from the Dead, and having ſhewn himſelf aſcended into Heaven.

Verſ. 11. [...].] That is, before whom no Man ever was that which I am, nor ever ſhall be; who neither had any Predeceſſor, nor ſhall have any to ſucceed me. This is a Phraſe taken out of Iſa. xli.4. where it is uſed of God the Father. It is explained in the ſame Prophet, Chap. xliii.10. in theſe words: before me there was no God formed, neither ſhall there be after me; and Chap. xliv.6. I am the firſt, and I am the laſt, and beſides me there is no God. God ſeems to have had a reſpect to the Opinion of the Heathens, who feigned Succeſſions of Gods, of which ſome came and dethroned others, and reigned in their ſtead, and which ſeems to have prevailed among the Eaſtern Nations, as it did among the Greeks, whoſe ſentiments are thus expreſſed by Prometheus, in Aeſchylus:

[...],

[...]

[...].

Which Grotius thus interprets:

—Annon hos duos

Ego ipſe conſpexi evolutos arcibus?

Brevi videbo tertium, & faede quidem,

Et derepente.

Verſ. 20. Note h. It were to be wiſhed that our Author had reconciled what he ſays here of ſingle Biſhops, in the Churches of Aſia, with that which he elſewhere ſays of a twofold Biſhop; of which one was ſet over the Jewiſh, and another the Gentile Chriſtians: ſee his Premonition to the 2d Epiſtle of St. John. Did he think that theſe Epiſtles were written only to the Aſſemblies of the Circumciſed?

Chapter II.CHAP. II.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT is not neceſſary we ſhould know who theſe Impoſtors were of which St. John ſpeaks, there being ſo many other things in antient Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory of much greater moment as the Travels and Martyrdoms of moſt of the Apoſtles, altogether unknown to us; either becauſe none committed them to writing, or becauſe the Records of them are loſt. And therefore I had rather confeſs my ignorance in this matter, than violently bring in here the Gnoſticks. I might with more probability ſay that the Apoſtle has a reſpect to ſome Jewiſh Deceivers, who boaſted that they had been familiar with Chriſt, and therefore ſaid that they were Apoſtles. It is not certain that Cerinthus called himſelf an Apostle, or pretended to have received what he aſſerted from a great Apostle. It is ſaid indeed by Gaius in Euſebius Lib. iii. cap. 28. that Cerinthus propoſed his Doctrins [...], by revelations, as written by a great Apostle. But this may be only the Judgment of Gaius, and not Cerinthus his own words.

Verſ. 4. Note b. I. What our Author here ſays about Elxai, out of Euſebius, ſhews that ſome of the Jews (for Elxai was a Jew) were poſſeſſed with an Opinion, before the Apoſtles time, that it was lawful to diſſemble their Religion, yea to renounce it, to avoid Perſecution. So that whenever that Doctrine is oppoſed by the Apoſtles, we need not preſently think they have a reſpect to the Gnoſticks, the Followers of Simon Magus, as our Author often inculcates, not without tiring his Reader.

II. Our Author ſeems to have thought that Elxai was a Chriſtian Heretick, but he was rather an Eſſene, which was the name of a Jewiſh Sect, as we are told by Epiphanius, and took a great many more things from Judaiſm than from Chriſtianity. Dr. Hammond, whilſt he makes him to be a Chriſtian, changes the words of Epiphanius; for inſtead of that which he calls, to worſhip Idols, [...], he writes in Engliſh to abjure the faith; and adds, as out of the ſame Author: From theſe came the Helkeſaitae, &c. Which I could not in find him, nor do I believe they are Epiphanius his words.

Verſ. 13. Note i. I do not commend Mr. Brightman, but I wonder Dr. Hammond ſhould ſo eaſily aſſent to the Menology, which Grotius has ſhewn to be unfit to be here credited.

Verſ. 26. Note o. I, I have ſhewn on 2 Theſſ. ii.3. that it is erroneouſly thought that Simon was look'd upon as a God by the Romans. I have [Page] alledged alſo on the ſame place, a paſſage out of Euſebius, Chapter III. in which he affirms that the followers of Simon were alive in his time. And that we ought to believe him rather than any other, the thing it ſelf ſhews, ſeeing the Valentinians, and other Gnoſticks flouriſhed under the Antonini and afterward, as we are told by the ſame Euſebius out of Irenaeus, Hiſt. Eccleſiast. lib. iv. cap. 2.

II. It is not neceſſary that the name Jezabel ſhould be thought to ſignify any Sect, whereas it might be the name of ſome Woman that took upon her the title of a Propheteſs at Thyatira. Conſidering the great ſcarcity of Records of that Age, is is no wonder there are many things which we cannot underſtand in ſuch kind of alluſions.

CHAP. III.

Verſ. 14. Note a, c. IS there then any difference between [...] and [...]; none certainly. But theſe are the falſe and vain ſubtilties of I know not whom, which our Author collected on this Chapter that he might not ſeem too ſhort. See the verſes about Antipas alledged by him on chap. ii.13. in which a Biſhop is called [...].

Verſ. 15. Note d. I. Tho the Gnoſticks might juſtly be charged with lukewarmneſs and pride, if they were ſuch as the Antients deſcribe them; yet we muſt not therefore think that all the primitive Chriſtians that were guilty of thoſe vices were the Diſciples of the Gnosticks. I am ſorry our Author ſhould recur to thoſe Hereticks without any certain marks of their being here referred to.

II. Lukewarmneſs here is not the oppoſite to gold tryed in the fire, or a white garment, but to poverty which the Laodiceans are ubpraided with in the verſe immediately foregoing. But our Author, who never took any care to ſpeak properly, confounds every thing.

Verſ. 20. [...].] That is, as he entertains me at his houſe and table when I knock at his door, ſo I will receive him when he comes to me. Otherwiſe it would be an idle tautology, if theſe words were underſtood of the ſame Supper; for if we ſup with any one, he cannot but ſup with us. But he is ſaid to ſup with us, whom we entertain; and we to ſup with him that entertains us. The meaning of this figurative Expreſſion is, that if any one in this life, with that ſincerity which he ought, embraces the Chriſtian Religion, he ſhall be received by Chriſt into the Manſions of eternal Happineſs. Our Author did not underſtand this place.

Chapter IV.CHAP. IV.

[Page]

Verſ. 2. [...], &c.] This Viſion, as almoſt all the reſt, has many things in it reſembling the Viſions of the Prophets of the Old Teſtament; and the Apoſtle often uſes Words and Phraſes borrowed from them: for the manner of God's revealing himſelf to men, was, to uſe Phraſes to which they were accuſtomed, rather than any other. And ſo becauſe the Chriſtians were uſed to the reading of the Old Teſtament, God deſcribes future things under the New by the ſame Images and Expreſſions by which he had repreſented them to the antient Prophets. This every one muſt have in his eye that undertakes to explain theſe Prophecies, that by the accompliſhment of the antient Predictions he may judg of the New; which if he does not, he will be apt to fall into very great miſtakes. For inſtance, we read this Prophecy in Joel ii.30, 31. I will ſhew wonders in the heavens above, and wonders in the earth beneath, blood and fire, and vapour of ſmoke. The Sun ſhall be turned into darkneſs, and the Moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. Whoever ſhould underſtand theſe words properly, and according to the preſent way of ſpeaking, would be mightily deceived, and ready to think that they were yet to be fulfilled. But St. Peter, in Acts ii. has told us, that they are to be underſtood figuratively, of a ſpiritual change which the Goſpel was to make in the earth. And ſo when we read the like in this Book, we muſt have a care of thinking that the changes which are deſcribed as future, both in Heaven and Earth, before ſome things here foretold came to paſs, were really and literally to be accompliſhed.

Ibid. Note b. If it were certain that the privileges of Metropolitans were known in that age, that the Apoſtles ſat in a lower place than the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, and the Chriſtians at that time were as obſervant of that external order, as they were afterwards; Dr. Hammond's conjecture might be born. But now to ſpeak in the ſofteſt terms, all thoſe things being uncertain, it will not eaſily be believed by judicious perſons, that St. John here alludes to the Church of Jeruſalem, rather than any other Aſſembly.

Verſ. 4. Note c. The Sanhedrim of the Jews ſat in the form of a half circle, as is largely ſhewn by Mr. Selden de Synedriis, lib. ii. c. 6. and the Head of the Council in the middle ſeat. And hence I rather think that the form of the heavenly Council repreſented to St. John was taken, both becauſe the Sanhedrim was an Aſſembly of Judges, [Page] and becauſe it is not certain that in the Apoſtles times Chriſtians meeting together ſecretly and in a private houſe, did ſo carefully obſerve that order in ſitting. Our Author often takes it for undoubted that the cuſtoms of the ſecond or third Century, or alſo later Ages were Apoſtolical, which he ought not to have done: Of the Epiſcopal ſeat in Churches, ſee Beveridge his Notes on Can. xi. of the firſt Nicene Council.

Ibid. Note d. I. Our Author before [in Note on v. 2.] rejected their opinion, who thought this Image of a Court preſented to St. John, ☜ was taken from the Great Sanhedrim, becauſe the number was not in both the ſame, and it is ſtrange he was not afraid leſt it ſhould be objected to him, that it was altogether as unallowable to feign a certain number of Biſhops, without the authority of antient Records. But tho this Image be ſaid to be taken from the Great Sanhedrim, it is not neceſſary there ſhould be a perfect ſimilitude between them. But, you will ſay, why are there only four and twenty, and not lxxii here repreſented as ſitting in Council? If I ſhould ſay I don't know, Dr. Hammond's conjecture will not be therefore at all more probable. But it may be ſaid, that to deſcribe this Court, four and twenty Heads of the prieſtly Order were choſen out of the Sanhedrim, becauſe they were in a ſpecial manner conſecrated to God; beſides that the Prieſts only were of divine inſtitution, not the reſt of the members of the Sanhedrim.

II. The High Prieſts of the Jews cannot be ſaid to have worn golden Mitres, becauſe they were made of linen, and had no gold belonging to them, but only a thin plate hanging over the Forehead. See my Note on Exod. xxviii.4. Much leſs do I think there is any reſpect here had to the Mitres of Biſhops, which I no more imagin to have been in that age than the reſt of the ornaments at this day uſed by them. They had the thing then without the Ornaments; and now we have the Ornaments without the thing.

Verſ. 5. Note e. I ſee here nothing that looks like a reſpect to the Deacons of the Church of Jeruſalem, unleſs it be the number of ſeven; which ſeems rather to be taken from the number of Lamps uſed in the Sanctuary, and that was otherwiſe common in holy Solemnities among the Jews and other Nations. See my Notes on Exod. xxix.29. and Levit. xiv.7.

Verſ. 6. Note f. I. It is a miſtake that [...] ſignifies in the former part, becauſe where the diſcourſe is about men, to be in the midst of them, is all one as to be before them. The places in the Acts are in vain alledged, for in them it is not properly the middle part or centre that [Page] is ſignified by the words [...], nor properly the former or hinder part; but [...] is ſimply before the rest, or among the rest, in Acts i.15. and iv.7. for in the other places thoſe words are not found. So that [...] here will not ſignify behind.

II. The Interpreter our Author confutes is H. Grotius, who interprets [...] properly over againſt the midſt of the Throne, placing one living Creature upon the ſteps before the Throne, and another behind; which is much more probable, becauſe he takes [...] here, as [...] is taken in verſ. 4. according to Dr. Hammond's own Opinion. Yet I had rather place two living Creatures before the Throne, not on the Steps, but even with the ground, over againſt the middle of the Throne, and two on the ſides; for this reaſon, becauſe afterwards, in Chap. v.6. it is ſaid, that a Lamb ſtood in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the Elders; by which it appears that there was ſome ſpace between the Throne and the living Creatures. From this place our Author diſputes indeed againſt Grotius, but ſo, as it appears that he did not know what himſelf meant.

Ibid. Note g. I. He that ſits upon the Throne is repreſented as much greater than the four living Creatures, as being God himſelf, whom the living Creatures praiſe and worſhip, which are undoubtedly the Angels. I am apt to think, if it were to be enquired, who reſembled them in the Sanhedrim; the only perſons that can be likened to them are the Officers that waited upon the Sanhedrim. But between theſe Miniſters of God and the Miniſters of the Sanhedrim, there was almoſt as much difference as between God and the Prince of the Sanhedrim; and therefore there is no ſimilitude to be ſought for between them, but in this, that they might both be called Miniſters.

II. This is much more likely than what is ſaid by our Author, who, to find out his own meaning, makes Apoſtles inferior to a Biſhop, which is utterly falſe: for the Apoſtles having received their Commiſſion from Chriſt himſelf, had an equal Authority over all Nations, and in all Cities; and therefore wherever they were, had the privilege of the firſt Seats, if any order was to be obſerved in ſitting. And they ought not to yield to the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, whom they themſelves had ordained. What Clemens Alexandrinus ſays of the Biſhoprick of Jeruſalem, juſt as if the Apoſtles out of modeſty had not aſpired to it, is, with that learned Writer's leave, not agreeable to things themſelves. It was not lawful for the Apoſtles to take upon them the Biſhoprick of any one City, becauſe [Page] they were to ſpread the Goſpel through the whole World, according to the Command of Chriſt; nor could they, without diſparaging themſelves, ſeek a Dignity leſs than their own. Yet our Author ſeveral times alledges theſe inconſiderate words of Clemens, as if they were of ſome moment. But you will ſay, St. James having heard the reſt, at length in Acts xv. ſums up the Judgment of the Council, after all were agreed, which is the Office of a Preſident. But it does not therefore follow that he did that as Preſident, and ſo as a thing which of right belonged to him; but rather by the impulſe of the Holy Spirit, who might have pronounced that Decree by the mouth of any that were there preſent. Thoſe holy men were not ambitious of the [...] or [...] like the Phariſees; and therefore among Friends, and thoſe acted by the ſame Spirit, every thing doubtleſs was done without ſtanding upon Order or Ceremonies, the effects of mens Pride and Contention. Nor do I any more think that St. James here acted as a Preſident, than that he ſat on a high Throne, with ſome four Apoſtles attending on him as Metropolitan and Archbiſhop, as our Author calls him, and the Biſhops of Judea ſitting round about: which yet muſt have been done, if this repreſentation of the heavenly Court was taken from thence; otherwiſe it has no more reſemblance with the Council of Jeruſalem than with any other Conſiſtory of Judges.

III. The Objection our Author propoſes to himſelf is of no moment, and might have been ſolved in one word, from what he ſays towards the end of his ſecond Anſwer: for it is viſible, that the Antiochians ſent to enquire at Jeruſalem, becauſe there were there a great many Apoſtles, and other Diſciples, who had converſed with Chriſt on earth, and had received ſpiritual gifts from him from Heaven; who if they had been in the moſt obſcure Village in all Judea, would nevertheleſs have been there conſulted. They had no reſpect therefore to the Metropolitan Dignity of the City, which our Author here, without reaſon, makes a ſhew of, and which was a piece of Grandure not known in thoſe times. Of after Ages I ſay nothing, in which it was lawful for Biſhops to enter, as it were, into Covenant with one another, and attribute a greater dignity to ſome ſeats than to others; which Conſtitution ſeemed uſeful, and ought not to be changed where it has obtain'd, becauſe it may be beneficial to the ordinary ſort of Chriſtians.

Verſ. 7. Note h. I. Theſe things are not only Conjectures, but moſt extravagant Fancies, in which I wonder our learned Author could acquieſce. There is not here ſo much as the leaſt indication [Page] of the Standards or Standard-bearers of Iſrael;Chapter V. nor any ground to imagin them alluded to, beſides that which is ſaid by the Rabbins, who are leſs acquainted with what was done of old than we, and whoſe inventions are juſtly ſaid by our Author to be abſurd. But why then did he believe them? I confeſs I don't underſtand.

II. On the contrary, here is a manifeſt alluſion to the Cherubims, who are the Miniſters of God, not God himſelf. And ſo it is they which are deſcrib'd, and not God; of whom ſee what I have ſaid on Exod. xxv.18. They are the Officers and Miniſters of God in executing his Judgments, which beſt of all agree to this place; and not Apoſtles, whoſe Office was not to puniſh obſtinate Offenders. What our Author here ſays out of Euſebius, and about ſome particular Apoſtles, is as abſurd as the fictions of the Rabbins.

Verſ. 8. Note i. But if we underſtand the Attendants of God to be ſignified by thoſe living Creatures, which ſeems to be more probable; thoſe Eyes will denote the watchfulneſs of the Angels, in guarding thoſe whom God commits to their care. Such another Image preſented it ſelf to the fancies of the Poets, when they deſcribed Argus, as ſet by Juno to watch her Rival: ‘Centum luminibus cinctum caput Argus habebat, &c.’ which may be read in Ovid. Metam. Lib. 1.

CHAP. V.

Verſ. 1. Note b. SCriptus & in tergo, makes nothing to the length of the Roll, which tho ſhort, might be written on the backſide; but to the abundance of matter contained in it, which was ſo much that it could not be all written on the foreſide of the Parchment; as the Oreſtes of a certain unknown Poet, mention'd by Juvenal, Sat. 1.5.

— Summi plena jam margine libri,

Scriptus & in tergo, nec dum finitus Oreſtes.

Verſ. 8. Note c. It is indeed the Office of Biſhops to offer Prayers and Praiſes to God, in the name of the Churches over which they are ſet; but this Aſſembly held as in Heaven, is not a repreſentation of things done on Earth; but as a Celeſtial Court, to ſet out which there are ſome colours taken from earthly things. So that the four and twenty Elders are rather Angels of the higheſt Dignity, which are as it were [Page] God's [...] aſſiſtants in this Council;Chapter VI. which Angels having the Patronage of the Chriſtian Religion aſſigned them, it is no wonder if they are ſaid to preſent the Prayers of Chriſtians to God, and to ſpeak in the name of Chriſtians. An Angel is in like manner repreſented as performing this Office, afterwards in Chap. viii.3, 4.

CHAP. VI.

Verſ. 2. [...].] That is (the words being inverted) he went out to conquer, and did in effect conquer from his very going out. That which is meant is, that the Coming of Chriſt, whether to reform Men, or to puniſh them if they were obſtinate, was neither vain, nor caſual.

Verſ. 4. Note a. I. It was worth obſerving that Euſebius makes mention of two Famines, under the reign of Claudius, one foretold by Agabus, and to be referred to the ſecond year of Claudius, tho he mentions it on his fourth; another in Greece and at Rome, which he refers to the ninth and tenth Years of that Emperor. I know that Joſeph Scaliger thinks that the latter was foretold by Agabus, and refers it to the fifth Year of Claudius; but he gives no reaſon for his Affirmation; expecting, as is common with him, to be believed without proof.

II. Suetonius does not expreſly ſay what our Author attributes to him, but only: Judaeos, impulſore Chriſto, aſſidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. The unbelieving Jews endeavour'd to raiſe a Tumult againſt the Chriſtians, upon the account of Religion, for which reaſon both the Jews and Chriſtians were expelled out of Rome. Suetonius ſays that Chriſt was impulſor, the cauſe or mover of thoſe Tumults, out of Ignorance, when he ſhould only have ſaid that he was the occaſion of them.

III. Whereas our Author affirms, that thoſe who were by the Emperor's Edict expelled out of Rome, were expelled alſo out of the reſt of the Cities of the Roman Empire, he ought to have proved it, and not have ſuppoſed it as certain. But it is falſe, as every one knows that has read any thing of the Roman Hiſtory. Of this I have ſpoken already on the Premonition prefixed to this Book.

Verſ. 6. Note b. The learned Dr. Bernard thinks that the Syrian Chaenix, when full of Wheat, weighed ſomething above four Engliſh Pounds, and that one of Tiberius his denarii, current in the time of John, was worth a little more than ſeven Engliſh Farthings. By which calculation it appears that Wheat was dear, when four Pounds coſt ſeven Farthings; but that our Author is miſtaken, who ſuppoſes that [Page] a Chaenix of Wheat was ſpent by one Man in a day. But I leave theſe things to the examination of thoſe who are curious about ſuch matters.

Verſ. 8. Note d. I. [...] cannot ſignify Cattel, but only wild Beaſts, except improperly: and therefore I prefer the ordinary reading before that of the Alexandrian Copy.

II. There are two faults here in the Citations of Joſephus; one in the Margin, where Lib. vi. c. 8. Bell. Jud. is ſet inſtead of Lib. vi. c. 28. and the other, where Joſephus de Captiv. L. vi. c. 44. is cited inſtead of the ſame Book de Bell. Jud. Lib. vi. c. 45.

Verſ. 9. Note e. I. Our learned Author thought St. John here alludes to the fourth, as it is called, Book of Eſdras, extant only in Latin. But his Publiſhers, knowing this Book to be Apocryphal, cited the ſecond of Eſdras, in which there is no ſuch paſſage. [This muſt be in a different Edition from that which I uſe,☞ where Eſdras 4. is referred to.] In the Epiſtle of Barnabas Chap. xii. there is a place produced out of the ſame Book. But this might alſo be added in Barnabas his Epiſtle; and he that wrote the 4th Book of Eſdras, who ſeems to have been ſome Chriſtian, imitated this place in the Revelation.

II. [...], the Souls of them that were ſlain, may, according to the uſe of the Hebrew Language, which theſe Writers often follow, ſignify their dead Bodies; for [...] Soul is frequently taken for a dead Body. But tho the Soul is taken for the Life, and the Life be in the Blood, it does not therefore follow that in the uſe of Scripture the Blood is ordinarily called the Soul. The uſe of words muſt be ſhewn by examples, and not by reaſonings. He might have produced that Paſſage in Virgil Aeneid. ix. v. 349.

Purpuream vomit ille ANIMAM, & cum ſanguine miſta

Vina refert moriens.

But it is better to underſtand by [...] here the Souls of Martyrs, which being admitted into the heavenly Sanctuary, did by their Preſence put God in mind of taking Vengeance upon the Jews. For the loud Voice here does not ſignify praying, or deſiring Revenge, but the greatneſs of the Crime, which is ſaid to cry unto God, becauſe the thing it ſelf does as much implore the divine Juſtice, as if the injured Perſon called upon him with a loud Voice. This appears by the example of the Blood of Abel, and the Story of the Sodomites, in Gen. xviii.20.

Verſ. 12. Note g. I. There is no doubt but great numbers of dead Bodies ſend forth exhalations into the Air; but that Clouds have been [Page] made by them, and viſible Meteors, whereby the Sun has been made black, and the Moon bloody, was never, I believe, by any one obſerved: And therefore the prophetical Expreſſions, in which great Calamities are repreſented under ſuch Images, are not taken from what really is, but are rather a Proſopopeia, whereby the Sun is ſaid to refuſe to behold the impieties of Men, and the Moon upon that account to bluſh and become red with ſhame, when they are very great. There are a great many ſuch figurative Expreſſions in the Poets, as in Ovid. Metam. v. where ſpeaking of the prodigies that preceded the death of Julius Caeſar, he ſays,

— Phoebi quoque triſtis imago

Lurida ſollicitis praebebat lumina terris.

—Sparſi Lunares ſanguine currus.

II. I do not think we ought, in the repreſentation of thoſe Miſeries that befel Judaea, under the Similitude of the Sun becoming black, and the Moon red, and the Stars falling, to conſider the ſeveral parts diſtinctly, but all theſe things together; which without doubt ſignify very great Calamities, but muſt not be examin'd particularly as if they had each a ſpecial ſignification, which can be proved by no place of Scripture: ſee on the contrary Iſa. xiii.10. where all theſe things ſignify one thing conjunctly, and nothing at all ſeparately. Add alſo the place in the ſame Prophet, alledged by our Author.

Verſ. 15. Note i. I. The [...] in Joſephus ſhould not have been rendred the promiſcuous Noiſe or Voice; for what is a promiſcuous Noiſe, but the ſudden Voice, as it is tranſlated by Sigiſm. Gelonius? The Paſſage which the Doctor afterwards cites as out of Joſephus, without naming him, in theſe words, the ſeditious go to the Palace where many had laid up their Wealth, drive out the Romans thence, kill eight thouſand of them, four thouſand Jews that had gotten thither for Shelter, plunder the place, is not exactly tranſlated from the Greek, which is thus, Lib. vii. cap. 37. according to the Greek diviſion: [...]: that is, the Seditious went into the Palace, in which, becauſe it was a ſafe place, many had laid up their Poſſeſſions, and put the Romans to flight; and killing all the Inhabitants that were there gather'd together, to the number of eight thouſand and four hundred, plunder'd their Riches. Some difficulty there is in the words, [...], which ſeem to be corrupted.

[Page] Chapter VII.II. I don't know why our Author ſhould recur to the Walls of the Temple, to explain [...], when, beſides the Mountain of the Temple, there were two other Mountains contained within the Walls of the City, under which there had been Vaults made, where the Jews hid themſelves, as he himſelf relates out of Joſephus. When there is a natural and literal interpretation ready at hand, what need is there of recurring to a violent one? However he interprets here [...] in Mat. xxvii.51. Walls better than by Sepulchres. See my Note on that place.

CHAP. VII.

Verſ. 4. Note d. I. IT is not to be thought that the Prieſts of the Jews were ſo Religious, as in a matter which made for the Glory and Safety of the Jewiſh Nation, not to exceed at all in their account of the number of the Paſchal Sacrifices. And therefore I ſhould not ſuppoſe it as certain which Joſephus ſays about this matter, who is otherwiſe very profuſe in magnifying every thing which belonged to his own Nation. Nor indeed could Paleſtine contain ſo great a Multitude, in which beſides Jews, there were a great many Syrians, as Joſephus in ſeveral places affirms.

II. The Paſchal Feaſt was eaten by all the Jews which at that time were in Jeruſalem, and not only by the Inhabitants of Paleſtine. For there is no doubt but many that were ſcattered abroad into other Countries, went thither about that time; tho all the Males went not, nor any one perhaps every Year, beſides thoſe that were near. So that if we compare the Chriſtians of Judaea with the unbelieving Inhabitants of the ſame Tracts, they will be more than our Author thought. The calculation which he ſpeaks of is made by Joſephus, de Bell. Jud. Lib. vii. c. 41.

CHAP. VIII.

Chapter VIII.Verſ. 1. Note a. I Will not deny but the figures here uſed in the deſcription of that which St. John ſaw done in Heaven, are taken from the Temple of Jeruſalem: but I do not think that the things done in that Temple are by way of Viſion here deſcribed, as Dr. Hammond ſays; who yet undoubtedly meant that St. John ſaw ſomething, I know not what, done in Heaven, like thoſe things which were done in the Temple; for he never ſo much as dreamt that the Prieſt who went into the Sanctuary, offer'd up the prayers of the Chriſtians. But a habit of ſpeaking improperly made him expreſs [Page] himſelf very aukwardly;Chapter IX. and I doubt not but his Conceptions themſelves were a little dark and perplexed, for otherwiſe he would never have ſpoken ſo harſhly. But by this means, inſtead of giving light to the Writer we attempt to explain, we render him more obſcure. Our Author here ſeveral times mentions the High Prieſt, whom he deſcribes as offering up the daily Incenſe; which it's true he might ſometimes do, but he did not do it daily. For that Office was for the moſt part executed by the ordinary Prieſts. See Luke i.9.

Verſ. 12. Note g. Many things might have been ſaid againſt the former Interpretation, which is certainly very violent, unleſs our Author had preferred the latter; and therefore I ſhall ſpeak only to that, which to me does not ſeem at all more probable. For that prophetical words may be ſaid to ſignify any thing particularly, it muſt either plainly appear by the event, or be ſhewn it is the Cuſtom of the Prophets. But Dr. Hammond here does neither. And therefore I had rather ſay, that as the darkning of the Sun, Moon and Stars, in the Prophets ſignifies very great Calamities, even ſuch as end in utter Deſtruction; ſo proportionably the darkning of a third part of them ſignifies lighter diſtreſſes. This is the only probable interpretation of this place, all others being made up of pure Fancy and Conjecture.

CHAP. IX.

Verſ. 11. Note e. WHAT is this to the Jews, who did not worſhip Apollo? Or why ſhould the Devil be called Apollo rather than Jupiter? I rather think this Title is to be applied to John the Captain of the Sicarii, who is called here himſelf the Angel of the bottomleſs pit, as his Soldiers, like ſo many Locuſts, are ſaid to have come out of its ſmoke, in verſe 2. the meaning of which expreſſions is, that this John and his Soldiers were ſtirred up and aſſiſted by the Devil in contriving thoſe Villanies which they executed with ſo much fury: ſee what Dr. Hammond himſelf ſays on verſ. 1. out of Joſephus, or rather Joſephus himſelf in Lib. iii. de Bell. Jud. Cap. x. & ſeqq. in the Greek.

Verſ. 17. Note g. I chuſe to interpret what is here ſaid ſimply, and in groſs, omitting all niceties which are very uncertain, about an exceeding formidable Army, which ſhould bring very great Calamities, among which the principal are burnings and ſlaughters, upon Judaea. This is what is meant by the colour of the Armour, and the Fire proceeding out of the Mouth of the Horſes. This only ſeems to be certain, every thing elſe is but conjectural. Of the Diſcipline [Page] of the Roman Armies it may be worth our while to read what is ſaid by Joſephus in Lib. iii.Chapter X. de Bell. Jud. Cap. 5. in the Greek.

CHAP. X.

Verſ. 9. [...].] The Alexandrian Copy reads [...], but it is a manifeſt Error. [...] here, as [...] beten, in Ezekiel, is not taken for the Belly, but for the Stomach: For the Meat deſcends out of the Mouth immediately into the Stomach, and thoſe things which remain ſtill in the Stomach may cauſe a bitterneſs in the Mouth, but not thoſe which have paſſed into the Bowels. If any ſhould doubt whether [...] ſignifies the Stomach, he might be referred not only to the Greek Phyſicians, but alſo to Aelian Variar. Hiſt. Lib. 1. c. 1.

CHAP. XI.

Chapter XI.Verſ. 3. Note b. I. IF theſe Witneſſes are to be ſought in Judaea, I had rather ſay that two of the famous Churches of Judaea, in two diſtinct Cities, as Jeruſalem and Caeſarea, are ſignified by that name, than go to explain the uncertain meaning of an obſcure place, by a very uncertain Conjecture. Our Author builds conjectures upon conjectures, and is not afraid leſt a ſtructure that leans upon ſuch weak props, ſhould fall to the ground. But it is the part of a careful Interpreter to be very ſparing in Conjectures, and in doubtful matters to abſtain from Conſectaries; for the more uncertainties are heap'd together, the more that which is ſaid appears to be falſe, or at leaſt the Conjecturers are in greater danger of erring. But I confeſs ingenuouſly I do not underſtand theſe Prophecies; and tho I eaſily ſee what there is wanting in the conjectures of learned Men, to make them ſeem probable, I can my ſelf propoſe nothing better. For which reaſon I have in many places forborn to confute Dr. Hammond's interpretations, becauſe I did not think it worth my while to ſhew that others were unfortunate in their Conjectures, when I my ſelf could produce nothing more certain. But here I thought fit to ſay ſomething about the Conjecture of Dr. Hammond concerning two ſorts of Biſhops in the Apoſtles time, in ſingle Cities; becauſe that may make for the illuſtration of Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory.

II. It appears indeed by Acts xv. and other places, that there was ſome diſagreement between the Jewiſh and Gentile Chriſtians, and that theſe latter had a Letter ſent them, which is there ſet down. But that there were two diſtinct Churches, and two ſorts of Biſhops, can [Page] be gather'd from no ſign. Nor is it at all probable, that after this Apoſtolical Decree, the Jewiſh Chriſtians refuſed to unite with the Gentiles; eſpecially Jeruſalem being deſtroyed, and St. Paul having written ſo many Epiſtles about the unprofitableneſs of the Moſaical Rites. There are no credible Records by which it may appear that Evodius and Ignatius were together Biſhops of the Antiochian Churches. In the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions Lib. vii. c. 46. it is ſaid indeed that Evodius was ordained by St. Peter (not by St. John, as it is ſaid by the Doctor) and Ignatius by St. Paul. But not to ſay that we cannot eaſily believe that Writer, as being a notorious Impoſtor; he does not ſay that they were made Biſhops at the ſame time, and of ſeveral Congregations, as is well obſerved on that place by J. Bapt. Cotelerius, who has alſo other things worth reading about this matter.

III. What is ſaid here about St. John's ruling the Jewiſh Churches in Aſia, while St. Paul, and after him Timothy ruled the Gentiles, is a mere invention of our Author. There is no footſtep of a twofold Epiſcopacy in thoſe places; and that Timothy was firſt Biſhop of Epheſus is alſo very uncertain, becauſe he might be left theſe by St. Paul as an Evangeliſt, not as a Biſhop: for the late Catalogues are not worthy our regard, which reckon up the Biſhops of antient times, according to the opinion of the Age in which they were written, and not according to any certain knowledg. They tell us indeed that the Apoſtles themſelves were Biſhops, which is abſurd, tho Dr. Hammond alſo ſpeaks in the ſame manner. But granting him that Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus, ſtill there are two things that remain doubtful: One is, that John was at Epheſus, or ſomewhere near it, when Timothy was left there by St. Paul. And ſecondly, that both of them performed the Office of Biſhop in different Congregations; and that St. John did not come thither after Timothy's Ordination, and exerciſe only the Office of an Apoſtle, not of a Biſhop. It's plain the Writer of the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions, whoſe Authority the Doctor elſewhere makes uſe of, ſays that Timothy was conſtituted Biſhop of that City by St. Paul, and John by St. John.

IV. What is ſaid here of the Church of Rome was, I believe, invented by Dr. Hammond, to reconcile the Antients that diſagreed among themſelves about the firſt Biſhop of Rome after the Apoſtles; but he never found in any credible Hiſtory, that two Apoſtles were Biſhops of the Roman Church, and had each their Deacon, whom they left in their place. The Apoſtles could not be Biſhops of any particular Church, and they are mere Dreams which are related concerning the Deaconſhip of Linus and Clemens. Whoever deſires to be informed [Page] about thoſe beginnings of the Church of Rome, may conſult Dr. Pearſon, and Mr. Dodwel's Diſſert▪ about the firſt Biſhops of that City. I wonder our Author, who had ſuch ſharp adverſaries to deal with, ventured to propoſe ſuch things without proof. The conjunction of two Churches at Rome under Clemens, is alſo another Fiction, of which there is nothing at all ſaid by any of the Antients. The Author of the Apoſtol. Conſtit. affirms, that Linus was ordained by St. Paul, and Clemens [...], after the death of Linus. On which place ſee Cotelerius.

V. That after the reſtoring of Jeruſalem by Adrian, or a little before, there were two Biſhops of Jeruſalem, none of the Antients ever ſaid. Euſebius, in Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 4. c. 5. where he ſets down the ſucceſſion of the Biſhops of Jeruſalem, tells us, that the time during which they were Biſhops was unknown, but that fifteen ſat till the Siege of Adrian, which were all Jews by deſcent. Then he adds, [...]; that all the Church under them was made up of believing Jews, who had continued from the Apoſtles to the Siege which then happen'd. By this it appears, that there were not two Congregations at that time in Jeruſalem; nor indeed does Euſebius mention thoſe fifteen Biſhops, as if ſome of them had been Biſhops together, but all one after another. That there were many Biſhops within a ſhort compaſs of time, may as well be attributed either to their being of a great age when they were elected, or the ſudden death wherewith ſome of them were overtaken, as to a multiplicity of Biſhops in one City. The ſame Hiſtorian, in the next Chapter, after he had ſpoken of the Calamities which befel the Jews under Adrian, and related how Jeruſalem was reſtored, and called Aelia, in honour of Aelius Adrian, ſubjoins; [...]: and the Church of the ſame place being compoſed of Gentiles, Marcus first, after the Biſhops of the Circumciſion, undertook the Priesthood over them that were there. He does not ſay [...], the Church being compoſed of Jews and Gentiles, as he ought to have ſaid according to Dr. Hammond's Opinion.

VI. Diverſity of languages could be no reaſon for the Jewiſh and Gentile Chriſtians keeping up diſtinct aſſemblies, becauſe the Jews of old, as alſo now, underſtood the languages of the places in which they lived; or at leaſt the Greek, which obtained in all Aſia as well as in Greece: and for that reaſon there were ſo many Greek Tranſlations made of the Old Teſtament for the ſake of the Jews, that of the [Page] Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, &c.Chapter XII. And whatever were the Cuſtoms of the Jews, there are extant no Records whereby it appears, that after the Apoſtles times they refuſed to meet in the ſame Aſſemblies with the Gentiles; nor can any ſuch thing be gather'd from the writings of the Apoſtles, as that they were forced in every particular Town or City to conſtitute two Biſhops and two Churches: For all Differences are not open Schiſms. So that there is no reaſon why we ſhould aſſent to Dr. Hammond, obtruding upon us a raw Conjecture, almoſt for a certain Truth. It would be eaſy to find any thing in antient Hiſtory, if we might be allowed to reaſon after the ſame rate, and interpret the Antients by ſupplying what is wanting in them with Conjecture, as if they ſaid in ſo many words what we infer only by gueſſing from doubtful ſigns.

CHAP. XII.

Verſ. 6. Note c. OUR Author owes what he ſays here to Caeſar Baronius, as many other things, which he took and ſet down out of him without examination, which made him judg amiſs of the place in Tacitus; for Tacitus does not give the leaſt intimation of his thinking that the Chriſtians were guilty of firing the City. For after he had ſaid, in Annal. lib. xv. c. 44. that the ſcandal of the City's being burn'd by the Emperor's order, could not be wip'd off by any humane endeavours, nor by the Princes gifts, nor by imploring the Gods, he ſubjoyns: Ergo abolendo rumori Nero ſubdidit reos, where the Verb ſubdere is all one as loco veri auctoris alium ſupponere, to ſubſtitute another in the place of the true Author; and reus does not ſignify one convinced of any crime, but only one that is accuſed, as all know that underſtand Latin. Afterwards he deſcribes the riſe and progreſs of Chriſtianity from Judaea as far as Rome, and at length relates the Torments endured by the Chriſtians, in theſe words: Igitur primo correpti qui fatebantur, firſt thoſe were taken up who confeſſed, namely, that they were Chriſtians, not thoſe that ſet the City on fire, as Baronius miſinterprets it, and after him Dr. Hammond, which the following words clearly ſhew: Deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens, HAUD PERINDE in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis convicti ſunt: then by their diſcovery a great multitude was convicted NOT SO MUCH of the crime of having ſet on fire the City, as of hatred to mankind. If they had confeſſed it, they would have been found guilty, by their very own confeſſion. I do not vindicate Tacitus for his hatred againſt the Chriſtians, and his ſhameful ignorance in the buſineſs of Religion; but only from the Lye which he is falſly charged with.

[Page] Chapter XIII.Verſ. 7. [...], &c.] Here our Author, in his Paraphraſe, after Grotius, entertains us with a nauſeous Fable about the contention of Simon with St. Peter; which I have confuted on 2 Theſſ. ii. They that believe ſuch Stories, either have not examin'd them, or believe what they pleaſe, not what they are ſure is true.

Verſ. 10. [...].] Of the caſting down the Devil from Heaven, ſee my Note on Luk. x.18. As this caſting down from Heaven is to be underſtood metaphorically, of loſs of power; ſo alſo the War which went before it, of the attempts of the Jews and ſuperſtitious Heathens againſt the Preachers of the Goſpel, which Attempts it is propheſied ſhould be vain; not of the fabulous Conflict of Simon Peter with Simon Magus.

CHAP. XIII.

Verſ. 1. Note a. I. IT was not worth the while to cite Auſonius, a Chriſtian Poet, when there were Heathen Poets ready at hand. And beſides, the laſt Verſe is not rightly quoted, which is; ‘Haec erit aeternae ſeries ab origine Romae,’ not mundi. See the four Epigrams, which are at the end of the Epigr. of Auſonius. There are a great many Medals in which Rome is ſtiled ETERNAL. See Numiſm. Impp. Praeſtant. collected by J. Valentius.

II. Martial in Epigr. lib. xii. Ep. 8.

Terrarum DEA, gentiumque Roma,

Cui par eſt nihil, & nihil ſecundum.

Car. Patinus in the beginning of his Collection Numiſm. Aer. Impp. mentions 4 pieces of Coin, in which over the figure of a Womans head, with a Tower or Helmet upon it, there is this inſcription, [...]. And thoſe pieces were coined by the Synnadenſes, Temenothuritae, Amoriani, and Ancyrani. He alſo ſpeaks of other pieces of Coin inſcribed thus, [...], and [...], which are all names of Blaſphemy attributed to Rome and the Romans.

Verſ. 3. Note b. I ſhall add ſome things here at the end of this Note, which will partly confirm, and partly confute what Dr. Hammond ſays.

[Page]I. It's true that [...] one may by a Hebraiſm ſignify that which is firſt in order, or number; but as the Hebrew word [...] ehhad, which is rendred [...], never ſignifies firſt in dignity, ſo neither can [...] ſignify the chief of the heads. Nor is it neceſſary that this Phraſe ſhould be ſo underſtood, that Grotius and Dr. Hammond's interpretation may ſtand. It is ſufficient if [...] do but ſignify one. So that Dr. Hammond had no reaſon to enlarge Grotius his Note with this falſe Interpretation.

II. It is true indeed that Livy affirms, caput humanum aperientibus fundamenta Templi apparuiſſe: that a mans head was found by thoſe who dug up the foundations of the Temple, but is falſe that the Oracle was conſulted. They conſulted an Hetrurian Prophet, as we are told by Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus lib. iv. Ed. Wechel. pag. 257. and he anſwered: [...]: that the Fates had determined, that that place, in which they had found the Head, ſhould be the Head of all Italy. Which is expreſſed in this manner by Livy lib. 1. c. 51. Quae viſa ſpecies haud per ambages, arcem eam Imperii, caputque rerum fore portendebat; idque ita cecinere vates, quique in urbe erant, quoſque ad eam rem conſultandam ex Etruria acciverant. Which ſight clearly portended that that place ſhould be the chief ſtrength of the Empire, and the Head of the World; and ſo it was interpreted by the Prophets, both thoſe that were in the City, and thoſe that were ſent for out of Etruria to be conſulted about that matter.

III. That the deadly wound here given to the Beaſt may be rightly underſtood of the burning of the Capitol, appears, not only by what is ſaid by Grotius and Dr. Hammond, but alſo by the opinion which the Records of the Heathens ſhew them to have had about ſuch an Event. For here we are not to conſider the thing it ſelf, but the mens opinion, from which the Chriſtians might rightly argue againſt the Heathens. It was ordinarily therefore look'd upon as a Prodigy, if a Temple was touched from Heaven; and that Prodigy was ſo much the greater, by how much more magnificent or venerable the Temple was thought to be. Livy will ſupply us with a great many ſuch Examples, but ſee particularly lib. xxvii. c. 4. where among other Prodigies it is related, Jovis aedis culmen fulmine ictum, ac prope omni tecto nudatum: that the top of Jupiters Temple was ſtruck with a thunderbolt, and almoſt ſtript of all its covering. So alſo Cicero in the ſecond Book about his Conſulſhip, among the Prodigies portending Catilines Conſpiracy, made mention of this, as appears from lib. 1. de Divin. c. 12.

[Page]

Nunc ea Torquato quae quondam & Conſule Cotta,

Lydius ediderat Tyrrhenae Gentis aruſpex,

Omnia fixa tuus glomerans determinat annus.

Nam pater altitonans, ſtellanti nixus Olympo,

Ipſe ſuos quondam tumulos ac Templa petivit,

Et Capitolinis injecit ſedibus ignes.

All thoſe things which were heretofore under the Conſulſhip of Torquatus and Cotta, foretold by Lydius the Etrurian Prophet, are now ratified, and accompliſhed; for Jupiter has ſometime ſince ſmitten his own Hills and Temples, and thrown fire into the Capitol. And therefore the burning of the Capitol under Veſpaſian was counted a very great calamity, as we may ſee by theſe tragical words of Tacitus in Hiſt. lib. iii. c. 72. Id facinus poſt conditam urbem, luctuoſiſſimum, foediſſimumque populo Romano accidit; nullo externo hoſte, propitiis, ſi per mores noſtros liceret, Deis; ſedem Jovis Opt. Max. auſpicato à majoribus pignus imperii conditam, quam non Porſena dedita urbe, neque Galli capta, temerare potuiſſent, furore principum exſcindi. Arſerat & ante Capitolium civili bello, ſed fraude privata; nunc palam obſeſſum, palam incenſum. Quibus armorum cauſis, quo tantae cladis pretio pro patria bellavimus? &c. This Action, ſince the first building of the City, was the most diſmal and ſhameful that ever happen'd to the People of Rome; that when we had no foreign enemy at our gates, and the Gods, for any thing we had done to provoke them, were propitious to us, the ſeat of the great and excellent Jupiter, ominouſly erected as a pledg of Dominion, which neither Porſena, when the City was delivered to him, nor the Gauls, who took it by Aſſault, had been able to break into, ſhould be deſtroyed by the fury of our own Princes. Once alſo before, the Capitol was burnt, during a Civil War, but it was then by ſecret fraud; now it was openly beſet, and openly ſet on fire. Was it for this, and that ſo great a Calamity might befal us, that we have been engaged in ſo many Wars, and fought ſo long for our Country? How great the fame of this Accident was among neighbouring Nations, and how they interpreted it as a Prodigy, the ſame Writer tells us in Hiſt. 1. 4. c. 54. where having made mention of the Commotions that were in Gaul and Germany, he ſaith, Nihil aeque quam incendium Capitolii, ut finem Imperii adeſſe crederent, impulerat. Captam olim à Gallis urbem; ſed integra Jovis ſede manſiſſe Imperium. Fatali nunc igne, ſignum coeleſtis irae datum, & poſſeſſionem rerum humanarum Tranſalpinis-gentibus portendi ſuperſtitione vana Druidae canebant. Nothing had ſo much inclined them to think that the end of the (Roman) Empire was come, as the burning of the Capitol. That the City had been [Page]formerly taken by the Gauls, but Jupiter's Seat ſtanding ſafe, the Empire had continued. Now that by this fatal fire it appeared the Gods were incenſed against the Romans, and deſigned to confer the government of the World upon the Nations beyond the Alps, was the ſuperſtitious tone of the Druids. So that theſe Commotions being appeaſed, and the Capitol rebuilt, it might be ſaid that the deadly wound was healed.

Verſ. 8. Note e. It ſhould have been added, with Grotius, that the word [...] is underſtood, in the book of life of the Lamb ſlain, written from the beginning of the world; that is, in which God from the beginning of the World, until this time, began to write the names of the Confeſſors and Martyrs for the Truth, whom wicked men had perſecuted or killed for its ſake: for of a man that is alive it cannot be ſaid, his name was not written from the beginning of the world, inſtead of never; for it could not be written before he was born, ſuppoſing the Diſcourſe to be about a Catalogue only of thoſe who have begun to live, as it is here, which Dr. Hammond acknowledges.

Verſ. 10. Note f. I do by no means think, that S. John here has a reſpect to Paſſive Obedience, as our Author's Countrymen ſpeak, but to the Perſecutors themſelves; to whom it is foretold, by this Proverb, that it ſhould be their lot to ſuffer the ſame things they inflicted upon others. See Grotius on this place. To this purpoſe is the Subject of Lactantius his Book de mortibus Perſecutorum. So that in this place their Opinion is neither approved nor condemned, who think it lawful to oppoſe force by force, provided there be a proſpect of doing it ſucceſsfully, and without too much bloodſhed. Nor is there any thing ſaid about this matter in the places which the Doctor cites; and it is a thing which it's probable he would not here have thought of, unleſs he had lived in the days of Cromwel. But thoſe things which pleaſe us, we bring to mind upon the leaſt occaſion.

Verſ. 15. Note m. Excepting the place in the Maccabees, all our Author here ſays is taken out of Hugo Grotius, who treats of the ſame matter more largely and accurately. I have alledged a more antient example to this purpoſe on Numb. xxxv.6. than any alledged by either of them. See alſo what Spencer has collected about this Subject, de Rit. Moſ. Legg. l. 2. c. 14.

Verſ. 17. Note n. What our Author here ſays, of the ſeveral ways whereby ſacred marks were received, and what follows as far as the citation of Martianus Capella, he took for the moſt part out of Grotius, but excepting theſe words: Of theſe Servius and Virgil makes frequen [...] mention, [perhaps it may be ſo printed in that Edition of Dr. Hammond which Mr. Le Clere uſed; but in the ſecond Edition of it, it is,☜ [Page] Of theſe Servius ON Virgil, &c. which if Mr. Le Clerc had known he would not have made this remark] which are a manifeſt corruption of theſe words of Grotius: Talia myſtica nomina etiam aliis Diis fuiſſe ex Servio diſcimus: that other Gods alſo had ſuch myſtical names we may learn from Servius. Virgil himſelf no where makes mention of ſuch names, much leſs does he frequently mention them, and perhaps it is but in one place they are mentioned by Servius.

II. They that had received the mark of Bacchus, were not for that reaſon called [...], but becauſe when they danced at Bacchus his Feaſts, they really carried in their hands a bunch of Ivy, or a [...].

III. I wonder that our learned Author, who interprets the firſt Beaſt of the Idolatry of Rome, and eſpecially of the Capitol, did not ſeek for the number of the Beaſt in the names of the Gods of the Capitol. I my ſelf, ſuppoſing what is ſaid by Grotius and Dr. Hammond to be true, and conjecturing that the mark of the name, or of the number of the Beaſt, muſt contain the number made by the letters of the names of Jupiter and Juno, who were chiefly worſhipped in the Capitol, and ſignify that he who bore that mark, was a worſhipper of thoſe Gods, found the number of the Beaſt, χξςʹ, in theſe words:

Δ | 4
Ι | 10
Ο | 70
Σ | 200
Ε | 5
Ι | 10
Μ | 40
Ι | 10
Η | 8
Η | 8
Ρ | 100
Α | 1
Σ | 200
| 666

[Page] So that he who had theſe Letters [...] written on his wriſt, which made 666, it was the ſame as if he had had written upon him [...], I am of Jupiter or of Juno; whereby they profeſſed themſelves to be worſhippers of the Gods of the Capitol. This or ſome ſuch thing ſeems to be ſignified, not that it was always done, or that the Chriſtians were forced to receive ſuch marks upon them, for fear of being barred all commerce with the reſt of mankind; but that which is ſignified is the publick profeſſion of Idolatry, of which the bearing ſuch marks was a notable token. This Conjecture I do not propoſe as certain, for I confeſs there are few things in theſe Prophecies which I clearly underſtand, but as better agreeing with the reſt of the interpretations of Learned men, than that which is ſaid by Grotius, who ſought for the number of the Beaſt in the name [...], which was that of Trajan. For the name of the Beaſt cannot be the name of a Prince, unleſs that Prince be counted a Beaſt; which Grotius did not think, who interprets the beaſt Idololatriam ferino more Jaevientem, Idolatry raging like a wild Beaſt, on verſe 1. in his Explic. of this Chapter, firſt printed with the Goſpels, as alſo in his laſt Works, afterward publiſhed with his Annotations on the Epiſtles.

Verſ. 18. Note o. I. As I was rendring the foregoing Annotation into Latin, I thought of a reaſon of the obſcurity that is in theſe Prophecies; which upon thorow conſideration I looked upon to be very probable, and therefore I ſhall here propoſe it, which is, that a great part of theſe Predictions being about things that were ſhortly to be fulfilled by the Romans, and St. John ſpeaking of theſe as the enemies of God, by whom they were alſo ſuddenly to be deſtroyed, it was not ſafe either for himſelf, or for others to whom he communicated theſe Prophecies, that the matter of them ſhould be more clearly repreſented; leſt the Book falling into the hands of the Romans, ſhould be a means to enrage them. But how could they be underſtood, you will ſay? and of what uſe were they, if they were not underſtood? To this I anſwer, I doubt not but St. John himſelf very well knew what every thing in them meant, and explained the contents of them to the Biſhops of Aſia, and the wiſeſt part of ordinary Chriſtians, ſo far as it was nceceſſary for them to underſtand the accompliſhment of theſe Predictions. But their meaning not being thought fit to be indifferently communicated to all, leſt the imprudence of ſome perſons ſhould bring the Apoſtle and the Churches into danger; the memory of their ſecret ſignification, eſpecially upon the intervening of Perſecution, was in a little time loſt, and it is no wonder that it did not deſcend to Irenaeus.

[Page]II. The diſtance of ſo many Ages is no hindrance at all to our underſtanding theſe Prophecies, conſidered in it ſelf; but the want of Hiſtorical Records, that were perhaps heretofore written both by Chriſtians and Heathens, out of which, if they were extant, we might undoubtedly come to know many of the circumſtances which are here referred to. We ſhould make out the ſenſe better than the Antients themſelves, who did nothing by rule and method; for which reaſon moſt of their Interpretations of Scripture are impertinent, and do not ſute with their great reputation. I wonder that our learned Author rejects the Judgment of Irenaeus, about the way of explaining this place, for ſuch ſilly reaſons; but perhaps after he had ſearched a great while and could find nothing himſelf, he had a mind to deter others from an enquiry, which he thought would be to no purpoſe. It is a miſtake that the cuſtom of expreſſing a name by numbers was not known to the Greeks of that age, for what elſe can be meant by the number of the name? Does not Irenaeus, who lived almoſt in the time of St. John, as he himſelf ſpeaks, mention it as a thing which was known? in lib. v. c. 3. Is there not ſome ſuch thing in the Books of the Sibyls, as Dr. Hammond himſelf has before obſerved, which moſt Learned men ſuppoſe to have been counterfeited in the ſecond age? Does not alſo Irenaeus in lib. 2. c. 40, and 42. expreſly affirm that the Valentinians uſed the art of numbering the letters of names, for their numeral ſignification? But granting St. John to have taken what he ſays from the cuſtom of the Jews, yet why might not he apply to the Greek letters what was uſual in the Hebrew, ſeeing he wrote in Greek? For to ſuppoſe a man writing in Greek, and that to men who underſtand only that language, to think of the Hebrew names of the Idolatry of the Romans, is, in earneſt, too much to indulge Conjectures, and to conſider only what is poſſible, and not what is probable. So, 'tis certain, Barnabas ſearched for an Arithmetical myſtery in the Greek letters, in cap. ix. of his Epiſtle. What our Author ſays about two ways of expreſſing numbers among the Greeks (to grant now that the thing is well expreſſed by him) is nothing to the purpoſe. For however numbers are expreſſed, it is all one, if that number be but found in the name which is written with its letters. We may expreſs DC.LXVI. in Greek thus, [...], or by two H, of which the firſt ſhall be within a great Π, which ſignifies [...], a Δ incloſed in the like figure, and another Δ alone, and then laſt of all the letters 111. But neither way are the letters of the name expreſſed otherwiſe than by their numeral ſignification. Dr. Hammond does not ſeem to have well underſtood what he meant, when he argued from a twofold way of expreſſing numbers againſt Irenaeus.

[Page]III. As he raſhly affirmed that the Greeks, in that Age,Chapter XIV. were not acquainted with this way of expreſſing a name, by the number of the letters; ſo without reaſon he attributes the invention of it to the Rabbins, who perhaps borrowed it themſelves from the Greeks. Doubtleſs Gematria is a mere corruption of the Greek word [...]; and it is probable that that cuſtom would not have had a Greek name, if it had not been derived from the Greeks. I acknowledg indeed that the Rabbins did more frequently uſe this way of ſignifying names than the Greeks.☜ [It ſhould ſeem by this that Mr. Le Clerc miſunderſtood Dr. Hammond, for the Doctor does not ſay, as he repreſents him, that the cuſtom of expreſſing names by numbers was not known at that time by the Greeks, but that it was not ordinary among them, and that it was very uſual among the Rabbins of that age, unleſs not ordinary, inuſitatum, as he tranſlates him, and not known, ignotum, be the ſame.] But this was owing to the vain fancies of the Jews, who made too much uſe of it. So that our Author had no reaſon to ſlight the forementioned way of finding out the name of the Beaſt, if he had not taken ſome pains himſelf about this matter to no purpoſe.

Ibid. [...].] Grotius interprets this in his firſt Explication of this Chapter, nomen viri principis ex quo, poſt exutam libertate Rempublicam, tempora maxime cognoſcebantur: the name of a Prince, by which, after the Commonwealth was deprived of its liberty, the times were eſpecially known; and the ſame he expreſſes in other words in his laſt Explication of it. But firſt, the queſtion here is, what is the number of the name of the Beaſt, not of a Man, as I have already ſaid. Secondly, St. John would rather have ſaid [...] than [...]. Laſtly, it is nothing to this place, that the times were ſignified by the names of Emperors; for St. John does not ſpeak about the time when the Beaſt was to ſhew it ſelf, but about his name expreſſed in numbers. What is then the number of a man? I anſwer, a ſmall number, or one not ſo great that a man cannot count it. So [...] is uſed afterwards in Chap. xxi.17. where ſee my Note.

CHAP. XIV.

Verſ. 2. [...].] This is rightly underſtood by Grotius and Dr. Hammond, of multitudes of converted Gentiles. Ovid twice uſes the ſame compariſon, ſpeaking of a tumult of people, Metam. lib. v. Fab. 1.

[Page]

Adſimilare freto poſſis quod ſaeva quietum

Ventorum rabies motis exaſperat undis.

You may compare them to the Sea, which the fierce rage of the Winds makes rough with Waves. And Metam. xv. Fab. 49.

— Qualia fluctus

Aequorei faciunt ſiquis procul audiat illos,

Tale ſonat populus.

Such a noiſe as the waves of the Sea make, when they are heard afar off, was made by the people.

Verſ. 10. Note d. I have already on Matt. xxvii.34. rejected Dr. Hammond's interpretation of this place, becauſe [...] is no where uſed to ſignify the bitterneſs, or poyſon of God, which is an abſurd phraſe. We muſt render this place thus: of the Wine of the wrath of God, which is without mixture poured into the cup of his indignation, for [...] frequently ſignifies to pour in, as Mr. Gataker had ſhewn at large in Adverſ. cap. v. where he has collected a great many things about this, and the like phraſes.

Verſ. 13. [...].] It is ſaid that riches do not follow rich men, becauſe it is of no advantage after death, to have been rich in this world: but on the contrary, here it is ſaid of good men, that their works follow them, becauſe they receive the reward promiſed to them, from God. To this purpoſe are the verſes of Euripides in Temeno.

[...]

[...]

[...].

Virtue when any one dies, is not deſtroyed,

But lives even after the diſſolution of the body; but when a bad man

Dies, all he poſſeſſes periſhes, and deſcends with him under the earth.

Which are in Florileg. Stobaei Tit. 1. So the Rabbins in Pirke Aboth cap. penult. In the hour wherein a man departs out of this life, [...] neither Silver, nor Gold, nor precious Stones, nor Pearls ſtick by a man, but only the Law and good Works.

Verſ. 20. Note h. Our Author did not, well underſtand Grotius, who does not ſay theſe ſlaughters happen'd in Judea, but interprets [...], extra Judaeae terminos, without the limits of Judea.[Page]Ingens haec, ſaith he,Chapter XV. effuſio ſanguinis Judaeorum & Gentilium facta est, Trajano imperante, non in Judaea, ſed in locis Judaeae vicinis, id est, Syria, Aegypto, Cyrenaica, & Cypro. This great effuſion of blood, both of Jews and Gentiles, was made in the reign of Trajan, not in Judea, but in places near Judea, that is, in Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Cyprus. Yet Dr. Hammond puts a more probable ſenſe upon this whole Chapter than H. Grotius.

CHAP. XV.

Verſ. 3. [...].] That is, juſt and righteous (aequae) are thy ways; for among the Greeks [...], and words properly ſignifying the ſame thing, are often taken for aequus, righteous. So [...], in Homer and Heſiod, is frequently uſed for righteous: whence Heſychius hath, [...], just. It is a noted Verſe of Horace, which is the laſt of Epist. vii. lib. 1. ‘Metiri ſe quemque ſuo modulo ac pede verum est.’ That is, ſay the old Scholia, Aequum est, ac decet, it is juſt and fit. To the ſame purpoſe is the Obſervation of Priſcian, in lib. xviii. fol. 115. Ed. Badianae:

Sophocles in his Ajax ſays, [...] for verus, true. And our Latins alſo often put verus for juſtus, and juſtus for verus. As Virgil, Aeneid. xii.

Quaecunque eſt fortuna, mea eſt, me verius unum

Pro vobis foedus luere & decernere ferro.

By verius he means juſtius.

CHAP. XVI.

Verſ. 12. Note e. I.Chapter XVI. WHat Dr. Hammond ſays about the treacherous Bridg of Maxentius, is falſe, and grounded upon a Miſinterpretation of Euſebius, who ſays indeed that Maxentius had made that Bridg [...], for an engine of his own deſtruction. But that came to paſs accidentally, not that the Bridg was ſo contrived as to fall in pieces of its own accord; for Maxentius would not have been ſuch a Fool, as to make uſe of that Bridg himſelf.

II. It is falſe that Euſebius ſays theſe things happen'd to Conſtantine according to the prediction of the divine Oracles, or thought that [Page] S. John had a reſpect to them in this Viſion.Chapter XVII. He only compares this Event with the antient Miracles, and applies ſome places of Scripture to it.

Verſ. 17. Note i. St. John indeed ſeems to have taken this Phraſe from the Stile of the Greeks and Latins; but that it is uſual in Prophecies to expreſs ſad events covertly, as by an Euphemiſmus, I leave them to believe who never read them, or have forgotten them.

CHAP. XVII.

Verſ. 3. Note b. DR. Hammond ſometimes alledges the words of Writers ſo careleſly, that he does not ſo much as ſet down a perfect ſenſe, as here in the words of Tertullian, which are in cap. 7. Ed. Rigaltianae. In quem enim alium univerſae Gentes crediderunt, niſi in Chriſtum qui jam venit? Cui enim & aliae Gentes crediderunt, Parthi, Medi — tunc & in Jeruſalem Judaei, & caeterae Gentes, ut jam Getulorum varietates, & Maurorum multi fines; Hiſpaniarum omnes termini & Galliarum diverſae nationes, & Britannorum inacceſſa, &c. For in whom elſe have all Nations believed, but in the Chriſt who is now come? For whom have other Nations alſo believed, the Parthians, Medes — then alſo the Jews in Jeruſalem, and the reſt of the World, as now the ſeveral Nations of the Getuli, and many Countries of the Moors; all the People of Spain, and divers Nations of France, and the places, &c. But who will believe that Tertullian, according to the cuſtom of zealous Declamers, did not make the thing more than it really was? It's certain there were but few Chriſtians, if any, among thoſe Nations, when they invaded the Roman Empire, and they did not receive the Chriſtian Religion till they had fixed themſelves in it. I ſhall ſay nothing about the counterfeit Lucius in England.

Verſ. 5. Note c. The word [...] conſidered in it ſelf, ſignifies nothing ſhameful, nor could it be uſed by Achilles Tatius in the ſenſe our Author here mentions, but improperly. I do not deny but in the Eleuſinia ſacra there were ſome indecent Rites uſed; but I do not think they were ſo very unclean and abominable as the Doctor ſuppoſes, nor will any one elſe think ſo that has read Meurſius his Eleuſmia, or is otherwiſe at all verſed in Greek Writers. They concealed rather ſome Secrecies about the Gods, than any Luſts which they there indulged. And that the religious Solemnities of the Romans were commonly joined with Fornication or other ſuch unclean Actions, no body will believe who is not a ſtranger to their Hiſtory. There is no doubt indeed, but the ſtrange Rites which were brought to Rome, were for [Page] that reaſon ſometimes forbidden, as the Orgia of Bacchus, in Livy, lib. xxxix. and the Rites of the Egyptians in Tacitus, Annal. lib. ii. cap. 85. But this very thing ſhows that the Roman Worſhip was not generally accompanied with Uncleanneſs, as our Author frequently affirms. It is falſly alſo ſaid by him, more than once, that Idolatry was propagated in other Countries from the City of Rome, when the Idolatry of the Egyptians, Syrians, and Grecians, was much more antient than the Roman. But Rome may be ſaid to have made the Kings of the earth drunk with the wine of her Fornication, becauſe ſhe reſolutely adhered to Idolatry, and confirmed it by her example, tho the Jews and Chriſtians had for ſome time upbraided her with it; and becauſe alſo ſhe went before many others in the Worſhip of the City of Rome, as a Goddeſs, and her Emperors.

Verſ. 8. Note d. Our learned Author does not ſeem to have well underſtood what it was in the time of Veſpaſian, Caeſarem ſalutari; for he thinks it was juſt the ſame as to be called Auguſtus and Emperor, which it is not; for at that time the Sons of the Emperors were called Caeſars aſſoon as ever their Fathers came to the Throne, but they were not therefore Auguſti. Domitian, in his Father's abſence, was indeed, at leaſt in ſhew, inveſted with the Government, becauſe the ſtate of Affairs requir'd it, no other daring to take upon him to be Emperor whilſt the Prince his ſon was preſent;☜ but he was not therefore accounted Auguſtus [his Majeſty] or made Partaker of the ſupreme Power. So that no one could wonder if that unſettled Authority of Domitian ceaſed at his Father's Return, who had not intruſted him with the Empire. Yet that which our Author meant, might be ſaid, but in the words of Grotius, which he corrupted.

Verſ. 14. Note e. I. Our Author ſets down ſomewhat largely this Story, but without neceſſity, becauſe Oroſius, who lived in thoſe times, often affirms that the Goths were at that time Chriſtians, in lib. 7. The latter place cited out of him by our Author, I was a great while before I could find, for it is not in lib. 11. c. 10. as it is abſurdly ſet in the Margin, when Oroſius wrote only ſeven Books in all; but I met with it at laſt accidentally in lib. 2. c. 3. Et Chriſtiani fuere qui parcerent, & Chriſtiani quibus parcerent, & Chriſtiani propter quorum memoriam, & in quorum memoriam parceretur. The ſame Author has alſo the Story related by Rubeus, in lib. 7. c. 37.

II. But it is true that the neighbouring barbarous Kings often fought againſt the Lamb. Austin de Civ. Dei lib. 18. c. 52. where he confutes thoſe who thought that after the Accompliſhment of the ten Perſecutions which had already been, there was none to come but [Page] the eleventh, which was to happen in the very time of Antichriſt, among other things ſays this; Niſi forte non est perſequutio computanda, quando Rex Gotthorum, in ipſa Gotthia, perſequutus eſt Chriſtianos perſequutione mirabili, cum ibi non eſſent Catholici, quorum plurimi martyrio coronati ſunt; ſicut à quibuſdam fratribus, qui tunc illic pueri fuerant, & ſe iſta vidiſſe incunctanter recordabantur, audivimus. Ʋnleſs perhaps it is not to be reckon'd a Perſecution when the King of the Goths ſtrangely perſecuted the Chriſtians in Gothia it ſelf, becauſe there were not there any Catholicks, of whom a great many were crowned with martyrdom; as we have heard from certain Brethren that were there when Children, and well remembred that they ſaw thoſe things. See alſo Oroſius in lib. 7. c. 32. Then of the Converſion of thoſe Northern People, after their Entrance into the Roman Empire, and there ſettling themſelves, Oroſius ſpeaks thus in lib. 7. c. 41. Quanquam ſi ob hoc ſolum barbari Romanis finibus immiſſi forent, quod vulgò per Orientem & Occidentem Eccleſiae Christi, Hunnis, Suevis, Vandalis, & Burgundionibus, diverſiſque & innumeris credentium populis replentur, laudanda & attollenda Dei miſericordia videretur; quandoquidem, etſi cum labefactatione noſtri, tantae gentes agnitionem veritatis acciperent, quam invenire utique, niſi hac occaſione, non poſſent. Tho if it were only for this, that the Barbarians ſhould have been ſent into the Roman Borders, that generally the Eaſtern and Weſtern Churches are filled with Huns, Suevians, Vandals, Burgundians, and a multitude of other different ſorts of people, who have embraced the Chriſtian faith, yet we ought to praiſe and extol the mercy of God; conſidering that, tho with the weakning of the Empire, ſo great Nations receive the knowledg of the Truth, which they would never have attained if they had not had this opportunity.

Verſ. 16. Note f. There are ſome faults in this Annotation, which I muſt correct. I. It is abſurdly ſaid by Dr. Hammond of Genſericus, that he robb'd the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus OR Olympius. For no body ever called Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome Olympius, nor is there any ſuch thing in Procopius. The Temple of Jupiter Olympius was at Olympia, not at Rome. I might perhaps alſo ſay that this is a Fable, and that it is not likely that the Capitolian Temple had ſtood untouch'd, under ſo many Chriſtian Emperors. But I leave the matter undecided. II. Our learned Author, having reckon'd Illyricum among the provinces which the Barbarians poſſeſſed, mentions alſo Dalmatia, which ſhould have been left out; becauſe every one knows that Dalmatia is the ſame Country, which was before called Illyricum. III. After he had ſpoken of Totilas, and referred us for what he had ſaid about him, as one would think, to Sozomen, lib. ix. c. 6. where that Author ſpeaks of Alaricus, he immediately adds: This being done in the time of Honorius, making, as the Reader [Page] might ſuppoſe, Belliſarius contemporary with Honorius, Chapter XVIII. which he knew to be falſe, but deſigned by the word THIS, tho no body would think ſo, to refer to what he had ſaid before the mention of Totilas and Belliſarius; for the burning of part of Rome by Totilas, was after the time of Honorius and Innocentius. IV. A little after he ſays, that Innocentius was not at Rome (after the firſt taking of it before the ſecond) but he would have ſaid Siege of it, for he knew that Alaricus twice beſieged Rome, and took it but once. V. I have ſet down the place cited out of Oroſius Lib. vii. c. 38. more at large in my Latin Tranſlation, than it is in the Engliſh; becauſe the words which Dr. Hammond omits make more to his purpoſe, than thoſe which he alledges.☜ [And they are theſe:] Rhadagaiſo Romanis arcibus imminente, fit omnium Paganorum in urbem concurſus, boſtem eſſe cùm utique virium copia, tum maxime praeſidio Deorum potentem; urbem autem ideo deſtitutam & maturè perituram, quia Deos & ſacra perdiderit. Magnis querelis ubique agitur, & continuo de repetendis ſacris celebrandiſque tractatur; fervent tota urbe blaſphemiae, vulgo nomen Chriſti, tanquam lues aliqua, praeſentium temporum probris ingravatur. When Rhadagaſus drew near the Roman Towers, all the Pagans ran together into the City (crying out) that an Enemy was come againſt them, who beſides a powerful Army, had alſo the Gods to aſſiſt him; and that the City was deſtitute of all hope, and would ſoon be deſtroyed, becauſe they had loſt the Gods, and forborn to do ſacrifice to them. There were heavy Complaints made in all places, and preſently they enter'd —offering them; all the City was filled with loud Blaſphemies, and the name of Chriſt was reviled and inveighed againſt as ſome preſent Plague.

CHAP. XVIII.

Verſ. 2. Note a. IT is much more natural to think that the Jews groaning under the Roman Tyranny, and believing they ſhould be deliver'd from all manner of Evils by the Meſſias, did upon that ground conclude that the Romans ſhould be deſtroyed by him, that being agreable to their moſt noted ſentiments; than to ſuppoſe, againſt all probability, that they learned it from the Revelation. For nothing is more certain than that the Chriſtians and their Writings were deteſted by the Jews. So that what is here ſaid of the perſwaſion of that People, being nothing at all to St. John, might have been omitted without any loſs to the Reader.

Verſ. 8. Note b. I. If the deſolations that were brought upon Rome by Alaricus Genſericus and Totila be all put together, without doubt the miſery of that City will be the greater; but all theſe are not comprehended [Page] in the Teſtimony of Palladius, who ſpeaks only of the ſacking of Rome by Alaricus, which happen'd An. Chr. CCCCX. when Genſericus took it in An. Chr. CCCCLV. and Totila An. Chr. DXLVII. Which times our Author ſhould have diſtinguiſhed, and not ſpoken of them confuſedly.

II. It is true what he ſays about the ſenſe of prophetical Expreſſions, of which ſee the Examples I have alledged on Rev. iv.2. and elſewhere. But he ought not to have ſaid, that after the Prophecies of Jeremiah, the Dominion of Babylon was tranſlated to the Medes, but to the Perſians, as every one knows: but the confuſed Memory of the four pretended Monarchies put him out.

Verſ. 13. Our Author took almoſt all this out of H. Grotius, as many other things, without ever looking into Julius Pollux; by whom he would have ſeen that Grotius his Animadverſion was falſe. Pollux in Lib. iii. c. 8. S. 2. where he reckons up the names of Slaves, ſays that thoſe were called [...] which were [...], changed for Money; and a little after he ſays: [...]: we muſt not ſay Bodies ſimply, but ſervile Bodies. In which he corrects the common, but barbarous Cuſtom of thoſe who called a Slave [...]; but he does not ſay that [...] ſignifies Freemen which hire themſelves for Money. It is true indeed that [...] is uſed of any Man, whether a Freeman or a Slave, as Lexicographers will ſhew. But when the Diſcourſe is about Wealth, or buying or ſelling Slaves, then [...] ſignifies a Slave, not from the proper Notion of the word, but becauſe of the Circumſtances. Examples are alledged by Iſ. Caſaubon on Athenaeus Lib. v. c. 10. A hireling was never called [...], and therefore the reaſon of that Appellation, invented by Grotius, is groundleſs. But Slaves are ſtiled Bodies, when in reckoning up Poſſeſſions men are oppoſed to other things, which do not uſe to be called by that name. They are ſtiled alſo Souls by the Jews, and by the Greeks, becauſe as many Slaves as there are, ſo many Souls there are, or, as the Lawyers ſpeak, Perſons. Nor is it any thing againſt this ſignification of the word [...], that there are Souls of Men afterwards mention'd, which are Slaves; for ſuch repetitions are not avoided by theſe Writers.

Verſ. 23. Note d. As our Author before raſhly followed Grotius, whom he tranſcribed without examination, ſo here he raſhly forſakes him. For it is the wealth of the Romans, and not that of Strangers, which is extolled in this place. Grotius had produced a Paſſage out of Iſa. xxiii.8. where there is the like Phraſe, whom the Reader may conſult.

CHAP. XIX.Chapter XIX.

[Page]

Verſ. 8. Note a. IT is a miſtake that [...] is uſed in theſe Books for the Ordinances of the Moſaical Law, as I have ſhewn on Rom. viii.4. In this place [...] are the Saints righteous Actions, or [...], which are aptly deſcribed by a white Garment, whiteneſs being a Symbol of Innocence. Nothing could be deviſed more violent than Dr. Hammond's interpretation.

Verſ. 20. [...].] I have ſaid in my Diſſertation about the deſtruction of Sodom, that theſe Phraſes are taken from the Lake Aſphaltites, which is a Lake burning with Fire and Brimſtone. Which ſeems to have been obſerved alſo by Dr. Hammond, as may be gather'd from his Paraphraſe. So it is uſual with the Rabbins to baniſh any thing that is abominable, and the uſe of which they think to be profane, to the ſalt Sea, [...], as is obſerved by Mr. Lightfoot Cent. Chorog. on Mat. Cap. v.

CHAP. XX.

Verſ. 5.Chapter XX. Note b. I Confeſs indeed ingenuouſly I do not underſtand the ſenſe of this Prophecy, concerning the Perſons here mention'd, reigning a thouſand Years: But notwithſtanding that I could, if I pleaſed, confute what is here ſaid by Dr. Hammond. He will never perſwade any one who believes that Chriſt and his Apoſtles were the only arbitrary ( [...]) founders and interpreters of the Chriſtian Religion, that for a thouſand Years after Conſtantin the Church was purer than it was before; or that there were fewer falſe Doctrins by publick Authority, eſtabliſh'd in many Churches. In that interval of time there were not only many Hereſies, which created almoſt perpetual differences, but very great Errors crept in among Chriſtians, which were openly approved by the Governors of Churches; ſo that the Church-Diſcipline which our Author ſo much boaſts of, was uſed only to confirm thoſe Errors, and with the conſent of Princes, to kill, or at leaſt abuſe thoſe who dared to oppoſe them. So that if this Kingdom be to be extended to the thouſand following Years, it muſt not be thought conſiſt in ſanctity of Life, and purity of Doctrin; but only in the Liberty which the Chriſtians ſhould enjoy, in the greateſt part of the Roman Empire, ſo that they might be good and pious Men, without being envied or perſecuted by the Heathens.

[Page]Verſ. 7. Note e. I. I wonder our learned Author here took ſo much pains to confute very weak Objections, and yet took no notice of the Hereſies which diſturbed the Eaſtern and Weſtern Churches at the time when he ſuppoſes the Chriſtians reigned; as I have before obſerved.

II. He takes it for certain that not only Alaricus ſpared the Chriſtians, and deſtroyed none but Heathens, but alſo that Genſericus and Attila did the ſame, which he does not prove. This ſhould have been ſhewn, and not that which he proves of Julian in ſo many words, when no one can deny it, who has read any thing of the Hiſtory of thoſe times.

III. I confeſs I don't approve of the opinion of the Millenaries, but I wonder Dr. Hammond here objects againſt them the condemnation of the Church, and gives them the odious name of Hereticks. For as that is but a ſmall Error, if the reſt of the Doctrins of Chriſtianity be retain'd, as they were by Irenaeus; ſo the Church had not received any Revelation about that matter from the times of the Apoſtles.

Verſ. 8. Note f. I. That Gog and Magog ſignify the People who dwelt about the Mountain Caucaſus, has been ſo clearly ſhewn by Sam. Bochart Geogr. Sacr. Lib. iii. c. 12. that it is impoſſible to doubt of it. And the Turks having invaded Aſia from thoſe places, our Author might hence have confirmed his Interpretation; which I wonder he did not, ſeeing he alledges that Writer elſewhere. For what is ſaid here by Grotius, cannot in the leaſt be compared with what we may learn from Bochart, as to this matter.

II. It is true indeed that Gyges was ſometime Ruler of Lydia; but the Kings which ſucceeded him were not therefore, as I remember, called Gygae; tho it be affirmed by Grotius, and after him by Dr. Hammond, who abſurdly deduces it from this place, whereas Gyges and his Poſterity were in part antienter than Ezekiel, and partly his Contemporaries: and therefore ſure that name could not be taken from the Revelation.

III. If the Empire of the Turks be here referred to, I had rather interpret the beloved City, and the Camp of the Saints, of all the Eaſtern Church, than Conſtantinople alone. But verſ. 9. ſeems to oppoſe it, in which a ſudden Victory over Gog and Magog ſeems rather to be promiſed, than the taking of that City by thoſe People threatned. Yet this, and all other things of that kind, I leave undetermin'd.

CHAP. XXI.Chapter XXI.

[Page]

Verſ. 4. [...].] Cicero Tuſcul. Quaeſt. Lib. ii. c. 15. having defined labor and dolor, Labour and Sorrow, adds: haec duo, Graeci illi, quoram copioſior eſt lingua quam noſtra, uno nomine appellant; Theſe two things, the Grecians, whoſe Language is more copious than ours, call by one name. He means the word [...], as what he ſays afterwards, as well as the thing it ſelf ſhews. So in Epictetus Enchir. Cap. xiv. [...]: If Sorrow preſent it ſelf, you will find patience. In this place alſo Sorrow ſeems to be intended.

Verſ. 12. [...].] Theſe words ſeem alſo to ſignify the Apoſtles, as may be gather'd both from the number here ſpecified, and from this, that by them all Nations enter'd into the Church. If this and the like things be to be applied to the Church in later times, as Dr. Hammond thinks, it muſt be remember'd that the praiſes here given to it, muſt be underſtood comparatively, ſo as for that Church to be oppoſed to the Jews and Heathens, in compariſon of which it is not unworthy of theſe Commendations. But we muſt not meaſure its Doctrins or Practices by the perfect Rule of the Goſpel, from which Dr. Hammond himſelf did not think but it had departed, tho he would not acknowledg it.

Verſ. 16. [...].] To wit, from the bottom of the Mountain on which the City ſtood, to the top of its Walls; for the Walls themſelves were not ſo very high. It is ſomewhat uncertain whether all the ſides of this Square were twelve thouſand Furlongs in length, ſo as that the whole Circuit was forty eight thouſand Furlongs; as alſo the height of the Mountain joined with the height of the Walls; or whether a fourth part only of that number is to be aſſigned to each of the ſides, that is, three thouſand Furlongs. The former is moſt likely, ſo as that an exceeding great City ſhould be deſcribed, nothing but what is great and ſpacious being here to be thought on.

Verſ. 17. Note f. By a man's Cubit here, I rather underſtand an ordinary Cubit, as in Deut. iii.11. where without doubt Moſes ſpeaks of a Cubit of ſix handbreadths. In Ezekiel alſo the Diſcourſe is not about a Cubit of a Foot, but of ſix handbreadths, as is evident from verſ. 5. Chap. xl. where the Angel is ſaid to have had in his hand a meaſuring Reed of ſix Cubits, by the Cubit, and an handbreadth, that is, ſix Jewiſh, not Babylonian Cubits. See Dr. Cumberland of the Jewiſh Meaſures.

Chapter XXII.CHAP. XXII.

[Page]

Verſ. 1. Note a. IT was ſufficient to ſay, that by the Authority of the Lamb ſitting upon his Throne, Baptiſm was inſtituted; which is very true, and is here ſignified, granting that the Water in Baptiſm is meant by the Water proceeding out of the Throne. The reſt Dr. Hammond adds of his own Invention, to find out here the power of the Keys, as he does in other places, where no one elſe would think them referred to. The ſame he does afterwards, but being in haſt to make an end of this tedious work, I ſhall not particularly examin what he ſays, nor would it be worth while. For who but he could here miſtake? He deſcribes to us, for inſtance, the happy Condition of the Chriſtians from Conſtantin, to the Year MCCC. living under the Diſcipline of Church-Governors, and a moſt pure Church during that interval, and moſt worthy of Chriſt. Which that we might believe, either the New Teſtament muſt have been many Ages ago loſt, or no footſteps at all of the Hiſtory of thoſe times remained. Our learned Author was taken up about ſomething elſe when he wrote this, and whilſt he ſerved an Hypotheſis, committed to writing what was inconſiſtent with his ſtated Sentiments.

Verſ. 3. Note e. If allegorical Divinity were argumentative, as the Schoolmen ſpeak, poſſibly ſome or other might be deceived by theſe allegorical Interpretations, and think that Chriſt approved of all the Excommunications that were denounced by Church-Governors, from the time of Conſtantin, for ten Ages; but that Axiom of the Schoolmen being very well known, I ſhall not ſpend time in confuting our Author's Fictions, which the thing it ſelf alſo abundantly confutes.

An INDEX Of the Greek Words and Phraſes, newly or more largely explained in the Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Annotations.

[Page]

A

A.

[...], bountiful, Rom. v.7.

[...], perhaps for [...], 1 Cor. xi.10.

[...], whether it ſignifies the ſtate of the Dead, or rather a place? Mat. xi.23.

[...], whether one that doth not doubt, or one that makes no difference, Jam. iii.17.

[...], in an Active ſenſe for one that cannot try things, 2 Cor. xiii.5.

[...], for that which is very difficult, Heb. vi.6.

[...], to reject the Law, Heb. x.28.

[...], for a ſandy, or gravelly Shore, Acts xxvii.39.

[...], properly, who? Tit. iii.10. [...], who. Ibid. 11.

[...], a Phraſe borrowed from the Stoicks, Heb. v.14.

[...] of the Gnoſticks, whence ſo called, 1 Tim. i.15.

[...], for eternal, and for antient, Tit. i.2.

[...], the different ſenſes of which that Phraſe is capable, Mat. xxiv.3.

[...], applied to the Heathens, ſignifies, their being out of God's Covenant, 1 Cor. vii.14.

[...], whether one that does no hurt, or that is ſincere, Mat. 10.16.

[...], & [...], one that has no command over himſelf, 1 Cor. vii.5.

[...], among the uncircumciſed Gentiles, Rom. ii.27. and iv.11.

[...], the firſt fruits taken off the tops of ſpoils, or any other things heaped together, Heb. vii.4. p. 551.

[...], whence derived and what? Matt. xxvi.7.

[...], not to be cold, but to grieve, 2 Cor. iv.8. Eph. iv.19.

[...], to be ſalted, and to be conſumed, in Mar. ix.49.

[...], for a ſeditious Perſon, 1 Pet. iv.15.

[...], for what cannot always be enjoyed, or belongs not to the Mind, in a Philoſophical ſenſe, Luke xvi.12.

[...], whether to be taken actively, or paſſively, 2 Pet. ii.12.

[...], what, 1 Joh. v.16.

[...], to compel, by example or entreaty, Gal. ii.14.

[...], of the Athletae, what, 1 Cor. ix.25.

[...], to renew, not to dedicate, Heb. vi.6.

[...], the meaſure of Faith, Rom. xii.6.

[...], to return, Philip. i.23. [...], a method ſo called, which, Ibid.

[...], whether it ever ſignifies in Scripture, ſimply a ſecond ſtate, or only the reſurrection of the Dead, Mat. xxii.31. Luke xx.27.

[...], what, Rom. vi.19.

[...], ſignifies a Subſtitution, where the Diſcourſe is about the Death of Chriſt, Mat. xx.28.

[...], to reſiſt, not to imitate, 1 John ii.18.

[...], what, Heb. ix.24.

[Page] [...], what it ſignifies, 1 John ii.18.

[...], whether it ſignifies a ſuffocation ariſing from Melancholy, or only violent ſtrangling, Mat. xxvii.5.

[...], the brightneſs of the glory of God, how Chriſt is ſaid to be ſo, Heb. i.3.

[...], to diſobey, applied either to ſmall or heinous Sins, 1 Pet. iii.20.

[...], liberality why ſo called, Rom. xii.8.

[...], liberal, applied to the Eye, Mat. vi.22.

[...], who, Rom. i.29. Eph. iv.19.

[...], to be underſtood, Gal. i.1.

[...], from the Creation of the World, Rom. i.20.

[...], to approve, 1 Tim. i.15.

[...], approbation, Ibid.

[...], the expectation of the Gentiles, of what kind, Rom. viii.19.

[...], the reſtitution of all things, Acts iii.19.

[...], a departure, a revolt, ſignifies the rebellion of the Jews againſt the Romans, 2 Theſſ. ii.3.

[...], to defraud, Mar. x.19.

[...], whether the name imports any Authority or Dignity, Luke vi.13. who were ſo called, Prem. to James.

[...], caſt out of the Congregation, John ix.22.

[...], a word either reproachful, or which tends to corrupt the Manners of Men, Mat. xii.36.

[...], Idle, not Ʋnclean, Tit. i.12.

[...], that which pleaſes, John viii.29.

[...], whence ſo called, Acts xvii.19.

[...], to eſpouſe, 2 Cor. xi.2.

[...], who, 1 Cor. v.10.

[...], what, Phil. ii.6.

[...], what, 2 Cor. xiii.11.

[...], the meaning of that Phraſe, John viii.25.

[...], who, Mar. v.22.

[...], of Tiberius, how much, Mat. x.29.

[...] & [...], to ſignify a Diſeaſe of the Mind, 1 Cor. viii.7.

[...], what, 2 Theſſ. iii.6.

[...], wicked, 2 Theſſ. iii.2.

[...], covetous, Luke xix.21.

[...], whether it ſignifies except that, 2 Pet. iii.4.

[...], what, Mat. vi.16.

[...] to be joined with [...], Luke i.73.

[...], not boaſting, but imprudence, Mar. vii.22. ſeveral ſignifications of that word, Ibid.

[...], not the ſtraw of Corn, but the Husk, Mat. iii.12.

B

B

[...], whether it ſignifies, to be ſevere, 1 Theſſ. ii.6.

[...], why God is ſo called, 1 Tim. i.17.

[...], an abominable thing, 1 Cor. v.10. p. 316.

[...], whether it ſignify a little while, in Heb. ii.7.

Γ

Γ.

[...], intemperance in eating, its derivation, Tit. i.12.

[...], applied to a Law, ſignifies its continuing in force, Mat. v.18.

[...], the origin of a thing, not taken for any event, Mat. i.1.

[...], for ſtrange Languages, 1 Cor. xii.28.

[...], for a profound ſort of Knowledg, and in a good ſenſe, 2 Pet. i.5.

[...], whether it has any reference to the Gnoſticks, 1 Tim. vi.20.

[...], prudently, or skilfully, 1 Pet. iii.7.

[...], for the literal ſenſe of the Law. Mat. v.17.

Δ

Δ.

[...], not always evil Spirits, 1 Cor. x.20.

[...] for [...], Jam. i.9. p. 574.

[...], to aſſent to, 1 Cor. ii.14.

[...] for in, 1 Tim. ii.15.

[...], as a Diſciple of Chriſt, Rom. i.8.

[...], an Adverſary or Hater, Mat. iv.1.

[Page] [...], an ambigous word, Annot. on the Tit. of the New Teſtament, and Heb. ix.16. where there is an Argument grounded on the ambiguity of it.

[...], from [...], who. Luke viii.2.

[...], ſpoken of a Woman, what. Rom. xvi.1.

[...], what. 1 Cor. xi.29.

[...], to diſtinguiſh, James ii.4.

[...], Thoughts and Counſels, Mat. xv.19. Opinions in Rom. xiv.1.

[...], to finiſh a Voyage, Act. xxi.7.

[...], to gnaſh with the Teeth, Acts v.33.

[...], to doubt: and [...], a Man that doubteth, James i.6, 8.

[...], under the New Teſtament, who, and how they differ'd from Prophets, 1 Cor. xii.28.

[...], St. Paul's ſenſe of it, Rom. iii.4.

[...], any divine Precept, Rom. ii.26. and viii.4.

[...], what, Rev. xix.8.

[...], the ſame with Nemeſis, Acts xxviii.4.

[...], to examin and approve, Rom. ii.18.

[...], for Miracles, John i.14. and the Power of working them, Ib. xvii.22. whether taken for a Beam in 1 Cor. xi.7.

[...], what, Jude 8.

[...], for Servants of a free Condition, in oppoſition to Slaves, Mat. xviii.23.

[...], to prevail with God, Luke xviii.5.

E

Ε.

[...], what Woman, Acts xvi.16.

[...], in Holy things, what, Heb. vii.19.

[...], a power over a Man's ſelf: [...], one that is maſter of his Paſſions: [...], to be Temperate, 1 Cor. ix.25. p. 319.

[...], uſed in a bad ſenſe by St. Paul, Col. ii.19.

[...], for the Inhabitants of ſeveral Territories in the ſame Country, Mat. xxiv.7.

[...], the Gods of the Heathens, whence ſo called, 1 Cor. viii.4.

[...], whether it ſignifies to excommunicate, Luke vi.22.

[...], the uſe of the word in the Primitive Times, 1 Cor. xvi.19.

[...], whether taken for a Church, 2 John 1.

[...], to declare, Act. xxviii.23. p. 243.

[...], by or from many, 2 Cor. i.11.

[...], what, Jud. 11.

[...], whether a Perſwaſion, or an Argument, Heb. xi.1.

[...], a burnt Sacrifice, Mark ix.49.

[...], to accuſe, Acts xxiv.1.

[...], a word which ſinks down into the minds of its Hearers, Jam. i.21.

[...], taken both Actively and Paſſively, Gal. v.6. where the Doctor's Opinion about the uſe of it in the New Teſtament is examin'd.

[...], to deſpair utterly, 2 Cor. iv.7.

[...], to ſignify the Coming of Chriſt to take Vengeance upon the Jews, Luk. ix.31.

[...], to agree about the price of a thing, Luke xxii.6.

[...], for a Veil, 1 Cor. xi.10.

[...], whether to be rendred, ſending out, or looſing, 2 Pet. i.20.

[...], any Luſt whatſoever, 2 Pet. i.4.

[...], that which is neceſſary for the future, Mat. vi.11.

[...], viſitation, either in Mercy or in Vengeance, 1 Pet. ii.12. p. 589.

[...], to look into, or underſtand throughly, 1 Pet. ii.12.

[...], to get his Living by Labour, John vi.27.

[...], the ſame as hereafter, 2 Pet. iii.3.

[...], what, 2 Cor. vi.14.

[...], to receive a gracious Promiſe, Heb. iv.2.

[...], what diſpoſition of Mind, Acts xvii.11.

[...], that is eaſily circumvented, not joined with Temptations, Heb. xii.1.

[...], happened, Mat. i.18.

[...], for [...], Acts xxvii.14.

[...], a cleanly word for obſcene Diſcourſe, Eph. v.4.

[Page] [...], not the Devil, but a Man, in Mat. xiii.28.

[...], uſed as an Adverſative, Mat. v.18.

Z

Z

[...], with an Accuſative caſe, no Elliptical Phraſe, Mat. xvi.26.

[...], what, 1 Cor. v.10.

H

H.

[...], when a Negation goes before it, the ſame as nor, Eph. v.3.

Θ

Θ.

[...], for I would, Rom. vii.15. for I had rather, 1 Cor. vii.6.

[...], the ſame as [...], and perhaps to be ſo read, 1 Tim. vi.19.

[...], preſerved by God, not, one that defends God, 1 Tim. ii.1.

I

Ι.

[...], how St. Paul confeſſes himſelf to be ſo, 2 Cor. xi.6.

[...], what, Rom. iii.25.

[...], the meaning of that Phraſe, Mat. xvi.22.

[...], a Cloak, Mat. v.40.

[...], to be made equal with God, Phil. ii.6.

K

K.

[...], alone, not properly Excommunication but degrading from Office, [...], the deſtroying a Fence, not the excommunicating an obdurate Sinner, 2 Cor. x.4.

[...], what, Mar. xi.13.

[...], which, Luke xxi.24.

[...], a Proverb, Mat. xxi.41.

[...], a Cable, Mat. xix.24.

[...], properly to be tired, metaphorically, to faint or fail, Heb. xii.3.

[...], whether it ever ſignifies a Burnt-offering: [...], whether applicable to the Oblations of Chriſtians at the Euchariſt, Heb. xiii.2.

[...], whether by Works, or in the judgment of Man, Rom. iv.1.

[...], to be deceived, Col. ii.18.

[...], whether it ever ſignifies to diſcover, Gal. ii.11.

[...], whether an Agoniſtical term, Phil. iii.12. p. 458.

[...], to bait or lodg, Luke ix.12.

[...], to be burdenſome, how ſo, 2 Cor. xi.9.

[...], compunction, and ſlumbering, Rom. xi.8.

[...], to mortify Sins ariſing from the Body, Rom. vi.6.

[...], how variouſly taken in the New Teſtament, 2 Cor. xiii.11.

[...], to mould or form, and [...], forming, 2 Cor. xiii.11.

[...], whether the Rank of ſuch as are ordained Miniſters, or rather a dreſs of any ſort, Tit. ii.3.

[...], applied by way of contempt to thoſe who boaſted of Circumciſion, [...], Phil. iii.2.

[...], what, 2 Theſſ. ii.6.

[...], to overcome by force, Mat. xvi.18.

[...], whether it ſignifies falſe, 1 Theſſ. ii.1.

[...], for to pour in, Rev. xiv.10.

[...], whether full of Grace, or ſingularly favour'd by God, Luke i.28.

[...], whether to cry out, Mat. viii.12.

[...], the Doctor's Opinion of the uſe of that word in Scripture examin'd, Mat. xx.16. [...], ſpoken of whom, and what it ſignifies, Ib. xxii.14.

[...], for the Stomach, Rev. x.9.

[...], Ʋnclean, Mark vii.2.

[...], what. 2 Cor. xiii.14.

[...], for earthly, Heb. ix.1.

[...] & [...], words ſignifying the ſame thing, Mat. xvi.10.

[...] to hang upon a thing, ſpoken of the Law, the ground of the expreſſion, Mat. xxii.40.

[...], what, 1 Pet. iv.6.

[...], what. Jam. iii.1.

[...], one that judgeth of Good and Evil, Rom. ii.1.

[...], for a Judgment, 1 Cor. vi.2.

[...], how they are ſaid to have been ſo by Chriſt, Col. i.16.

[...], Divination by Lots, Eph. iv.14.

Λ

[Page]

Λ.

[...], what, Jude 16.

[...], ſet ſimply where [...] is underſtood, Eph. v.14.

[...], Oracles, whence ſo called, Rom. iii.2. [...], what, Ibid.

[...], the Divine Reaſon, prem. to John 1. for Knowledg, 1 Cor. i.5. for Report, 1 Theſſ. ii.5. for the Goſpel, Luke i.2. joined with [...], for God himſelf in Heb. iv.12.

[...], whether it ſignifies Luſtful, 1 Cor. v.11.

[...], to be grieved, ſo as to become diſaffected to Chriſtianity, Rom. xiv.15. whether it ever ſignifies Excommunication, 2 Cor. vii.8.9.

M

M.

[...], whether it ſignifies Idolatry or Vanity, Rom. viii.20.

[...], to mind, or take care of, 1 Tim. iv.10.

[...], what. Col. ii.16.

[...], to diſtract, 1 Cor. vii.34.

[...], for, over againſt the midſt of the Throne, Rev. iv.6.

[...], for to uſe a Bleſſing, Heb. vi.7.

[...], whether ever taken in the New Teſtament for Church Penalties, Heb. vi.6.

[...], whether it ſignifies Dumb, Mar. vi.32.

[...], and [...], what, Phil. ii.6.7.

Municipium & Municipatus in Lat. what, Phil. iii.20.

[...], who, 1 Tim. ii.1.

[...], whether it ſignify any thing indecent, Rev. xvii.5.

[...], his Office among the Jews, Heb. iv.13.

[...], for obſcene Diſcourſe, Eph. v.4.

N

N.

[...], Nard faithfully prepared, Mar. xiv.3.

[...], a common title of the Cities in Aſia, Acts xix.35.

[...], whether applied to Chriſtians that have no Office in the Church, Luke xxii.26. and Tit. ii.2.

[...], in victory, not for ever, 1 Cor. xv.54.

[...], a profuſion of words, 2 Tim. ii.16.

[...], for the meaning or ſenſe of words, 1 Cor. xiv.14. for quickneſs of Wit, or Ʋnderſtanding, Phil. iv.7.

O

O.

[...], a Houſe in the likeneſs of a Tabernacle eaſily diſſolved, 2 Cor. v.1.

[...], from houſe to houſe, Acts ii.46.

[...], whom it grieveth to do any thing, Phil. iii.1.

[...], an Adverb of affirming, or in few words, 1 Cor. v.1.

[...], to carry himſelf like a common Man, Phil. ii.7.

[...], for a Perſon, Acts i.15.

[...], how Chriſt is ſaid to have been ſo, Rom. i.4.

[...], earthen Veſſels, 2 Cor. iv.7.

[...], whether an Expletive, Mat. vii.23. for how, Mar. vi.2.

[...], the beginning of an Apodoſis, Jam. iii.5.

[...], for [...], Gal. v.12.

Π

Π.

[...], what ſort of Exerciſe, 1 Cor. ix.26.

[...], for a Servant, Luke xi.7.

[...], a Philoſophical word, ſignifying the reſtoration of all things, Mat. xix.28.

[...], heavy Armour, Eph. vi.11, 15.

[...], to puniſh, among the antient Greeks; to traduce, among the later, Mat. i.19.

[...], whether it ſignifies to excommunicate, Tit. iii.10.

[...], in what ſenſe uſed by Chriſt, John xiv.16.

[...], Friday, Mar. xv.42.

[...], in an ill ſenſe, Luke xx.20.

[...], Remiſſion, Rom. iii.25.

[...], an ambigous expreſſion, 1 Pet. iv.1.

[...], whether it ever ſignifies to pacify, 2 Cor. v.11. and Gal. i.10. [...], an Elliptical Phraſe, 1 John iii.19.

[...], to avoid, 2 Tim. ii.16.

[Page] [...], the offscouring, a contemptible Perſon, 1 Cor. iv.13.

[...], a period, Acts viii.32.

[...], i. q. [...], q. v.

[...] & [...], the ſame, Mat. x.2.

[...], Faith, ſeveral Notions of it, Mat. viii.10. for a certain knowledg, Rom. xiv.23. and 1 Theſſ. iii.10.

[...], what, John ii.23.

[...], whether it ſignifies unnatural Luſts, Rom. i.29. Eph. v.3.

[...], ſeveral ſenſes of it. Luk. i.12.

[...], a multitude, Rom. xi.12.

[...], for the deſign of the Lawgiver in oppo [...]tion to the Letter of the Law, Mat. v.17. Rom. ii.29. and vii.5. 2 Cor. iii.6. for the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. ii.4. for the mind of Man diſtinct from the Body, 1 Cor. xiv.14. [...] what, Rom. viii.15. [...], what, 1 Cor. xiv.2. p. 356. [...], the Spirits that watch, 1 Pet. iii.10.

[...], for ſupernatural, 1 Cor. x.3.

[...], to drag along by head and ſhoulders, Mat. xviii.28.

[...], a work, Rom. i.20.

[...], the privilege of Citizen, Phil. iii.20.

[...], a City, Ibid.

[...], Grief, Rev. xxi.4.

[...], what, Phil. i.13.

[...] & [...], uſed promiſcuouſly, to ſignify either Dignity or Age, Tit. ii.2.

[...], to puſh forward, or lead to Judgment, Acts xix.33.

[...], who, Jud. 4.

[...] & [...], what, Jud. 4.

[...], a purpoſe of Mind; [...], agreably to ſuch a purpoſe, Rom. viii.28.

[...], what, 1 Cor. xiv.4.

[...] ſignifies both divine and civil Worſhip, Mat. ii.9.

[...] & [...], whether they differ, Eph. v.2.

[...], for that which may be converted into Food, John xxi.5.

[...], the natural Countenance, James [...].2 [...].

[...], a Cauſe true or pretended, 1 Theſſ. ii.5.

[...], Dr. Hammond's opinion about the various ſenſes of that word examin'd, Luke i.67.

[...], ſuperior, John i.15.

[...], what, Col. i.15.

[...], how the Law of Moſes is ſo called, Gal. iv.9.

[...], among the Jews, what, Mar. vii.2.

[...], what, Mat. xvi.18.

[...], what, Acts xvi.16.

P

P.

[...], Deceit, Acts xiii.50.

[...], with a rattling noiſe, 2 Pet. iii.10.

Σ

Σ.

[...], a very fit word to expreſs the Hebrew Elohim, 2 Theſſ. ii.3.

[...], a concuſſion in the Air, Mat. xxviii.2.

[...], whether it ſignifies to brand by Excommunication, 2 Theſſ. iii.14.

[...], a rough Picture, Heb. viii.5.

[...], what, 2 Cor. xii.7.

[...], what, Luke xix.20.

[...], to be ſlain, applied to a Sacrifice, 2 Tim. iv.6.

[...], whether to excommunicate, or only to withdraw himſelf, 2 Theſſ. iii.6.

[...], for a Shadow, Col. ii.9.

[...], long Robes, Luke xx.46.

[...], whether it be to ſerve, Luke xxiii.11.

[...], of two ſorts, Luke xxii.52. Acts iv.1. and v.24.

[...], what word, Heb. iv.2.

[...], why St. Peter calls himſelf, 1 Pet. v.1.

[...], what, 1 Cor. viii.7.

[...], ſometimes ſignifies all conjugal Offices, 1 Pet. iii.7.

[...], to preſerve, Mar. vi.20.

[...], to break a Veſſel, not to ſhake it, Mar. xiv.3.

[...], a ſign, Rom. iv.11.

[...], an outward appearance, Phil. ii.8.

[...], taken for ſeveral things, Luke xiii.23.

[...], whether it ſignifies my ſelf, Rom. vi.6. 1 Cor. ix.27.

[Page] [...], whether Sin, or a Body obnoxious to Sin, Rom. vi.6.

[...], for Slaves, not Hirelings, Rev. xviii.13.

[...], for eternal Salvation, not a temporal Deliverance from Perſecutions, Heb. ii.3.

T

T.

[...], ſecret Chambers, Mat. xxiv.26.

[...], what, 1 Tim. ii.15.

[...], for a ſort of Perfection, which is only ornamental, Heb. vi.1.

[...], to conſecrate, not to make perfect, Heb. ii.10.

[...], whether an Agoniſtical term, Phil. iii.12.

[...], to enjoy perfect Happineſs, Heb. xi.40.

[...], the Conſecration of any one that offer'd Sacrifice, Heb. vii.11.

[...], of two ſorts, Mat. xi.19.

[...], who, Acts xiii.48.

[...], what, Luke iii.1.

[...], one of juſt Stature, Mat. vi.27.

[...], Honour and Reward, 1 Tim. v.17. [...], what, Col. ii.19.

[...], the wheel of Generation, what, James iii.6. p. 580.

[...], what ſort of Torment, Heb. xi.35.

[...], whether a Wheel, or a Club, Ibid.

[...], ſeveral ſignifications of that word, 1 Cor. x.7.

Υ

Υ.

[...], to hearken if any body knocks or calls, Acts xii.13.

[...], ſuperabundantly, 1 Theſſ. iii.10.

[...], in the room or ſtead of thoſe that are dead, 1 Cor. xv.29.

[...], whether it ſignify unnatural Filthineſs, 1 Theſſ. iv.6.

[...], whether it ſignify the ſupreme Power, Rom. xiii.1.

[...], in which the Apoſtles met together, whether in the Temple, Acts i.13.

[...], & [...], what, Luke xviii.5.

[...], an imitation, Heb. viii.5.

[...], what, Mark xii.44.

Φ

Φ.

[...], no Greek word, 2 Tim. iv.13.

[...], whence ſo called, Jud. 12.

[...], ſignifies ſometimes Filthineſs, ſometimes any Corruption, 2 Pet. i.4.

[...], what, 1 Cor. iv.6.

[...], the mind of the Juſt, Luke i.27.

[...], for natural Light, in oppoſition to Inſtruction, 1 Cor. xi.14.

[...], for [...], to ſpeak to, John ii.9.

X

X.

[...], joy for a Feaſt, Mat. xxv.21. and xxvi.7. for a Chriſtian Vertue, Rom. xiv.17.

[...], what, Rev. xiii.15.

[...], for the Goſpel, in oppoſition to the Law, John i.14. p. 183.

[...], whether it be the Charity of Chriſt, 2 Cor. xiii.14.

[...], what, John i.16.

[...], what properly, what metaphorically, Acts xiv.23.

[...], a Coat, Mat. v.40.

[...], whether good Diſpoſitions or good Manners, 1 Cor. xv.33.

[...], of a perſon, bountiful; of a thing, profitable, Mat. xi.30.

Ψ

Ψ.

[...], what, Acts v.3.

[...], may be the dead bodies of the Slain, Rev. vi.9.

[...], a brutiſh ſenſual Man, 1 Cor. ii.14.

An INDEX OF THE Memorable things contained in theſe Remarks.

[Page]

A

A.

ABortive, in a Metaphorical ſenſe, what, 1 Cor. xv.8.

Abraham went from Charran during his Fathers Life, Acts vii.4. whether his paying Tithes to Melchiſedek, can be thought an example of the preſent Cuſtom of paying Tithes of all that a Man poſſeſſes, Heb. vii.4.

Adoption of Sons, what in Rom. viii.23.

Adramyttium, a Town in Myſia, Acts xxvii.2.

Adultery, the Story of the Woman taken in the Act, whether Genuin, John vii.53. and viii.3, 6, 7, 9, 10.

Age to come, which, Luke i.70.

Agnoetae, their Hereſy.

Agoniſtical terms, often uſed by St. Paul, as Rom. ix.16. 1 Cor. ix.24, &c. 2 Cor. iv.8. 2 Tim. iv.7. Phil. iii.12. but not ſo often as Dr. Hammond thought, Phil. iii.12. p. 457, and 458.

Alabaſter box, out of which Chriſt was Anointed, whether broken or not, Mat. xxvi.7, Mark xiv.3.

Alexander the Copperſmith, where he did ſo much evil to St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv.14.

Allegorical interpretations of Scripture, uſed as Arguments, ad hominem, to convince the Jews; Gal. iii.16. and iv.21, 25. cited for the very words of Scripture, James iv.5. Mat. ii.23.

All, put for ſome, or the moſt, 1 Cor. xiii.28. p. 348.

Ambiguity of an expreſſion, improved into an Argument, 1 Pet. iv.1.

Angels, their Tongues, 1 Cor. xiii.1. appointed to offer up the prayers of Chriſtians, Rev. v.8. Guardian Angels, the opinion of the Jews and Heathens about them, and what reſpect Chriſt might have to either of thoſe Opinions, Mat. xviii.10. Angel of the bottomleſs pit, who, Rev. ix.11.

Anger, ſeveral degrees of it mention'd by Ariſtotle, whether they were referred to by St. Paul, Eph. iv.26, 31.

Antecedent put for the Conſequent, Heb. vi.7.

Antichriſts, more than one, 1 John ii.18. who, Ibid.

Antitype, what, 1 Cor. x.6.

A [...]riſt, in Greek, expreſſive of a Cuſtom, Mark xv.6. Rom. viii.30.

Apoſtles, whether the name it ſelf implies any Authority, Luke vi.13. who were properly ſo called, Prem. to James.

Apollyon, who, Rev. ix.11.

Arabians circumciſed, but not in imitation of the Jews, Gal. iv.25.

Areopagus, whence ſo called, Acts xvii.19.

Archippus, whether Biſhop of Coloſſe in St. Paul's time, Col. iv.17.

Arguments for the truth of Chriſtianity, taken from Prophecies, what we are to think of them, Mat. ii.15. and 1 Cor. ii.4. Arguments of the Apoſtles not always demonſtrative, Heb. ix.16. and xiii.10.

Armillus, of the Jews, John xi.48.

Athletae, their Diet, 1 Cor. ix.25.

B

B.

To be Baptized into Chriſt, is to be baptized to the end that we may become Chriſtians, Rom. vi.8. for the dead, what, [Page] 1 Cor. xv.29. into any ones name, what, Mat. xxviii.19. into Moſes, 1 Cor. x.2. in the Cloud and in the Sea, ſpoken of the Iſraelites, what. Ib. ver. 1. p. 332.

Barnabas, his Cabbaliſtical way of reaſoning, 2 Pet. i.5.

Battology, an inſtance of it, out of ſome prayers of the Jews, Mat. vi.7.

Better thing, how God is ſaid to have provided ſome better thing for us Chriſtians than the Jews, Heb. xi.40.

Biſhops, whether included in the commiſſion given by Chriſt to his Apoſtles, Mat. xvi.19. how they differ'd from Presbyters, Phil. i.1. when it is a Sin for a Biſhop to deſert his Office, 1 Tim. iii.1. whether in the Primitive times there were two at once in the ſame City, one over the Jewiſh, and another the Gentile Chriſtians, 2 John, and Rev. i.20. and xi.3. Biſhops and Deacons, why not mention'd by St. Paul, in the Inſcriptions to all his Epiſtles, 1 Theſſ. i.1.

Body of Sin, what, Rom. vi.6.

Bodily exerciſes, in what ſenſe profitable or unprofitable, 1 Tim. iv.8.

Bond of Perfectneſs, why Charity is ſo called, Col. iii.14.

Bread, taken both for Food and Raiment, Mat. vi.11. OUR Bread, in the Lord's Prayer, what, 2 Theſſ. iii.12.

C

C.

Caeſarea Philippi, where, Mat. xvi.13.

Called, its ſeveral acceptations in Scripture, Mat. xx.16. Many are called but few are choſen, the ground and meaning of that expreſſion, Ibid. and xxii.14.

Capital Cauſes; whether the Cuſtom of the Romans in Capital Cauſes, was obſerved among the Jews, John viii.29.

Captains of the Temple of two ſorts, Luke xxii.52.

Capitol of Rome, whence ſo called, Rev. xiii.3. the burning of it under Veſpaſian reckon'd a very great Calamity, Ibid.

Carnal for weak, 2 Cor. x.4.

Cenſures of the Church, when to be inflicted upon Hereticks, Tit. iii.10.

Choenix, how big a Meaſure, Rev. vi.6.

To Chooſe in Chriſt, what, Eph. i.4.

Chriſt, his Birth, by what means known to the wiſe Men, Mat. ii.2. the time of it, whether in the publick Records in Juſtin and Tertullian's time, Luke ii.8. why he would not have it divulged that he was the Meſſias, Mat. viii.4. and withdrew himſelf from the Multitude that would have made him a King, John vi.15. the time of his Death, John xix.14. his Coat of what ſort, and in what manner wrought, Ibid. 23. what it is to be in Chriſt, 2 Cor. xii.2.

Chronology of the Antient Jews faulty, Acts vii.4.

Church, the uſe of the word in the Apoſtles times, 1 Cor. xvi.19. Church of God and of Chriſt, why the Chriſtian Church is ſo called, 1 Theſſ. i.1. p. 478.

Churches Apoſtolical, whether all regularly formed, when St. Paul wrote to them, Ibid.

Circumſtance, omitted in the former part of a ſtory, to be gather'd from what follows, Act. xxviii.22.

Circumciſion, why inſtituted, Rom. i.26.

Citations out of the Old Teſtament, for Ornament ſake, not as proofs, 1 Cor. i.20. places of Scripture often cited without Connexion, Rom. ix.28. and xv.3. the inconveniences of citing Authors upon truſt, Epheſ. v.32.

Cloud, that went before the Iſraelites, how they are ſaid to have been under it, and baptized in it, 1 Cor. x.1.

Coming of Chriſt, to ſignify his puniſhing the Jews, John xx.22.

Communion of the Holy Ghoſt, what, 2 Cor. xiii.14.

Community of Goods enjoyed among ſome Nations, Acts iv.35.

Compel, how God may be ſaid to compel Men to Piety, Luke xiv.23. compelling by entreaty or example, Gal. ii.14.

Conjugal Love, compared to the Love of Chriſt and his Church, Eph. v.32.

Conſummation of the Age, what, Mat. xxiv.3.

Council of the Roman Preſidents, Act. xxv.12.

Crown of Righteouſneſs, for a Crown beſtowed in Juſtice, 2 Tim. iv.7.

[Page] Cubit of a Man, for an ordinary Cubit, Rev. xxi.17.

Curſe, in what ſenſe Chriſt is ſaid to have been made it Curſe, Gal. iii.13.

Cymbals, their form, uſe, and matter, 1 Cor. xiii.1.

D

D.

Day of Chriſt, not always to be underſtood of the Deſtruction of the Jews, 2 Pet. i 19.

Daily Bread, what, Mat. vi.11.

Darts fiery, what, and why ſo called, Eph. vi.16.

Deacons in the Church, whence ſo called, Luke viii.3.

Delivering to Satan, not to be confounded with the ordinary Cenſures of the Church, 1 Cor. v.5. 2 Cor. vii.8. and x.4, 5. whether it has any reference to Satan's deſiring to have Men deliver'd, to him, 1 Cor. v.5.

To Deny himſelf, what, Mat. xvi.24.

Devil, whether any reverence be due to him as a Prince, Jude 9.

To Die unto Sin, an ambiguous expreſſion, 1 Pet. iv.1.

Diogenes Cynicus his Character, Luke i.67.

To be Drawn of God, what, John vi.4

Drowning, not us'd as a Puniſhment among the Jews, Mat. xviii.6.

E

E.

Earneſt of the Spirit, what, 2 Cor. i.22. and of the Inheritance, Eph. i.14.

Ebimites, what Hereticks, and whence ſo called, Gal. iii.1.

Ellipſes many in the Apoſtles ſtile, Heb. iv.8. how they are to be ſupplied, Ibid. examples of Elliptical expreſſions, Gal. i.10.

Elxai, a Jew, his Hereſy, Rev. ii.4.

Epimenides, why ciced us a Prophet, Luke i.67.

Epiſtles of Recommendation, from one Biſhop to another, their original, 2 Cor. iii.1.

Epiſtle to the Hebrews, why rejected for ſome time, but afterwards admitted, Heb. v.6. p. 548. whether written by St. Paul, or another, Ibid. ix.2. and x. 34. and xi.21.

Eternal, why the Goſpel ſo called, Luke i.70.

Evangeliſts relate the ſame thing variouſly, and why, Mat. v. 1.

Excommunication ordinary, not to be confounded with the Puniſhments inflicted by the Apoſtles, 1 Cor. v.5, 2 Cor. vii.8. and x.4, 5.

Excommunicate Perſons, whether debarred all kind of Commerce with the reſt of Chriſtians, Gal. i.8.

Eye, how ſaid to be evil, i. e. covetous, or ſingle, i. e. liberal, Mat. vi.22. opening the Eyes, the meaning of that Phraſe, Luke xxiv.16.

F

F.

Faith, taken in ſeveral Notion, Mat. viii.10. the object of it, John xxi.29. to ask in Faith, what, James i.6.

Famine foretold by Agabus, when it happen'd, Rev. vi.4.

Figs, at what time ripe in Judaea, and of how many ſorts, Mark xi.13.

The Firſt and the laſt, why Chriſt is ſo called, Rev. i.11.

Fleſh; according to it, what, Rom. iv.1. to be in the Fleſh, what, Rom. vii.5.

Fulfilled, in what ſenſe places of Scripture are ſometimes ſaid to be ſo, Mat. iv.14.

Future ſtate, upon what grounds believed by the Heathens, 1 Cor. xv.19.

G

G.

Gates of Hell, what, Mat. xvi.18.

Genealogy of Chriſt, why defective in St. Matt. and how St. Matt. came to divide it into three fourteens, Chap. i.8. Genealogies of the Valentinians, owing to whom, 1 Tim. i.4.

Gentiles, their vocation unknown to the Angels before the event, Eph. iii.5.

Glory of Kingdoms what, Mat. iv.1. glory for miracles, Joh. i.14. glory of God, for God himſelf, Rom. i.23. why the Man is ſo called, and the Woman the glory of the Man, 1 Cor. xi.7.

To Glorify God, is to confeſs the Truth, Luke xxiii.47.

Gnoſticks, whether they had any reaſon to fear the Jews out of their own Country, 1 Cor. iii.15. and Prem. to Galat. whether they were the troublers of the Churches in Galatia, Gal. 1.7. whether [Page] they were all ſuddenly deſtroyed with the rebellious Jews, 2 Theſſ. ii.8. whether they abſtained from Wine, or forbad others the uſe of it, 1 Tim. v.22. or attem [...]ted to draw away Servants from their Maſters, Ib. vi.2. whether there was any one Sect in the Apoſtles times peculiarly ſo called, Ibid. 20.

Gog and Magog ſig [...]ify the Turk, Rev. xx.8.

Grace for Grace, what, John i.16.

Great God, whether he be ſo called, with a reſpect to the Cabi [...]i, or great Gods of the Heathens, Tit. ii.13.

Groti [...]s, his Poſthumous Annotations without reaſon ſuſpected by Dr. Hammond, Rom. xiv.23. and Prem. to 2 Pet.

Guardian Angels, ſee Angels.

Gygae, whether the Kings of Lydia that ſucceeded Gyges, were ſo called, Rev. xx.8.

H

H.

Happineſs of Heaven, why repreſented under the ſimilitude of a Feaſt, Mat. viii.11.

Head, the Cuſtom of Mens having it bare, when they appeared in publick, and Women, veil'd, 1 Cor. xi.4, 7. head of the Beaſt, which had received a deadly wound, to be underſtood of the burning of the Roman Capitol, Rev. xiii.3.

Heart, how the Law is ſaid to be written in it, Rom. ii.15.

Heaven, whether it can be taken for a name of God, Mat. xxi.25. how it is ſaid to have opened, Mat. iii.16. to fall from it, what, Luke x.18. Rev. xii.10. the Phraſe Heaven and Earth, whether it ſignifies only this Earth, or ſublunary Region, 2 Pet. iii.7. all things in Heaven and Earth, whether they ſignify Men, Col. i.20.

Helleniſts, who, Acts vi.1.

Heretick, properly who, Tit. iii.10. of what f [...]rt to be avoided, Ibid. how ſaid to be condemned of himſelf, Tit. iii.11.

Herodes Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, not Procurator of Judaea, Mat. xxii.16. Luke iii.1.

Holy, why the Infants of Chriſtians are ſo reputed, 1 Cor. vii.14.

Hours, how counted by the Jews and the Romans, John xix.14.

Humanely, to ſpeak ſo, what, Rom. vi.19.

Husband of one Wife, in what ſenſe it is ſaid a Biſhop ought ſo to be, 1 Tim. iii.2.

I

I.

St. James reconciled with St. Paul, James ii.24.

Idiotick or rude ſtile, what, 2 Cor. xi.6.

Idle word, which, Mat. xii.36.

Idolatry, whether always joined with unnatural Luſts, 1 Cor. v.10. 2 Cor. xii.21.

Jeruſalem, when taken, Mat. xxiv.17. whether the Deſtruction of it was ſo very ſudden and unexpected, as is ſuppoſed by Dr. Hammond, 2 Pet. iii.16.

Jezebel, whether it need be underſtood of any Sect of Hereticks, Rev. ii.2.

Jews, their zeal to make Proſelytes became a Proverb, Mat. xxiii.15. acknowledg'd their Deſtruction to be from God, Mat. xxiv.3. the Vengeance taken on them by Chriſt repreſented by his going out to battel againſt them, Luke ix.31. how they hoped for Juſtification by the Law, Gal. iii.10. whether they were in ſo great favour with the Roman Magiſtrates, as to be able to put them upon perſecuting the Chriſtians, 2 Theſſ. i.5. and Prem. to Rev. whether they were ſo numerous as Joſephus affirms, Rev. vii.4.

Image of the inviſible God, how Chriſt is ſaid to be, Col. i.15. and the expreſs Image of his Perſon, Heb. i.3.

Immortality of the Soul believed by the Platoniſts, 1 Cor. xv.29.

Impoſtors, how they were to be known in St. John's time, 1 John iv.2.

Impoſſible, for what is very difficult, Heb. vi.6.

Interrogation, equivalent to a Negation, Mat. iii.7.

Joſeph of Arimathaea, one of the Sanhedrim, Mar. xv.43.

Joy for a Feaſt, Mat. xxv.21.

Judas his indignation againſt the Woman that anointed Chriſt, what pretence for it, beſides his Covetouſneſs, Mat. xxvi.7. the manner of his Death, Mat. xxvii.5. p. 92.

[Page] Judges, among the Jews, whence they took their name, Mat. iii.2.

To Juſtify, what in St. Paul's diſpute with the Jews, Rom. iii.4.

Juſtin Martyr, his Authority not much to be regarded, 2 Theſſ. ii.4.

K

K.

Kabbaliſtical interpretations of Scripture, of what kind, 2 Pet. i.5.

Key of David, what, Mat. xvi.9.

Kingdom, whether the condition of the Chriſtian Church could be called ſuch, after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, Rev. i.6.

Kingdom, which a Nobleman went into a far Country to receive, how to be underſtood, Luke xix.12.

Kings Manuſcript, whether properly a different Copy, or rather a Paraphraſe of the New Teſtament, Mat. xx.29. Acts x.25.

Kiſs Holy, with which the Chriſtians ſaluted one another, Rom. xvi.16.

L

L.

Labour of Love, what, 1 Theſſ. i.2.

Lake burning with Fire and Brimſtone, whence the Phraſe is taken, Rev. xix.20.

Laodiceans, whether St. Paul wrote to them, Col. iv.16.

Laſt days, which, Acts ii.17.

Law, taken in a larger or ſtricter Notion, John x.35. Law of Sin, and the Spirit, what, Rom. viii.2. Law of Moſes, in what ſenſe poſſible or impoſſible to be kept, Gal. iii.10, 11. the Jews only freed from the Curſe of it, not the Heathens, Ib. v.13. how it was a Pedagogue, to bring us to Chriſt, Gal. iii.24. why called Elements of the World, and weak and beggerly Elements, Ibid. iv.3.

Letter of the Law, what, Mat. v.17. Mar. xii.14. Rom. ii.29. 2 Cor. iii.6.

Levi the Publican, whether the ſame with St. Matthew, Luke v.27.

Light, in a metaphorical ſenſe, what, 1 Joh. i.5.

To Live with Chriſt, whether it ſignifies to be in Proſperity, 1 Theſſ. v.10.

Lord of Hoſts, why God is often ſo ſtiled, 1 Tim. i.18.

M

M.

Malchus, a Syrian name, John xviii.10.

Martyrs, their ſeveral denominations for diſtinction ſake, trifling, Rev. iii.14.

Man of Sin, whether the Gnoſticks, or the rebellious Jews, 2 Theſſ. ii.3.

Melchiſedek, how ſaid to have been without Father or Mother, and to have repreſented Chriſt, Heb. vii.4.

Meſſenger of Satan, what, 2 Cor. xii.7.

Metropoles, their Privileges as to Civil Government, Rev. i.4.

Metropolitans, whether any in the Apoſtles times, Phil. i.1. 1 Tim. iii.15. Rev. iv.4, 6.

Morning Star, for the Doctrin of the Goſpel, 2 Pet. i.19.

Myſtery of Iniquity, whether the ſecrets of the Gnoſtick Sect, or the hidden Counſels of the ſeditious Jews, 2 Theſſ. ii.7.

N

N.

Nard, an Herb or Ointment, and why of great Price, Mark xiv.3.

Name above every Name, what, Phil. ii.9. to ask in the name of Chriſt, what, Joh. xiv.14.

Nature, for that which is oppoſed to inſtruction, 1 Cor. xi.14. by nature Children of Wrath, ſpoken of the Jews, what, Ib. and Eph. ii.3.

Neapolis in Paleſtine, confounded by Dr. Hammond with that in Macedonia, Acts xvi.13.

Number and name of the Beaſt, what, Rev. xiii.18. number of a Man, what, Ibid.

O

O.

Oaths, why ſaid to be paid to the Lord, tho made to others, Mat. v.33.

Offering might be ſaid to be ſanctified two ways, Rom. xv.16.

To Open the Eyes or Ʋnderſtanding, what, Luke xxiv.16, 45.

Oracles, whence ſo called, Rom. iii.2. living, what, Ibid. counterfeit Oracles cited by Dr. Hammond, Heb. vi.9.

Outward darkneſs, what, Mat. viii.12. and xxv.30.

P

[Page]

P.

Paleſtine, whether ſubject to Syria, in Herod the Great's time, Luke ii.1.

Parables, of Chriſt, whether before vulgarly uſed by the Jews, Mat. xx.15. do not always allude to a Cuſtom, Chap. xxii.2. nor obſerve a perfect decorum, Chap. xxv.24. every thing in them not allegorical, Luke xv.22.

Parents, whether Magiſtrates are included in that word, Eph. vi.1, 4.

Paſſions evil, hinder Men from acknowledging Truth, John iii.19.

Paſſive Verbs often uſed in an Active ſenſe, James ii.4.

St. Paul, how a Roman Citizen, Acts xxii.25. whether a ſingle Man, 1 Cor. ix.5. ſome of his Writings may be loſt, 1 Cor. v.9. whether converſant in Heathen Writers, 1 Cor. xv.33. whether Eloquent, 2 Cor. xi.6. Gal. ii.6. diſputes with the Jews upon their own principles, Gal. iii.10, 16, 24. Chap. iv.3, 12.

St. Peter, how it is ſaid the Gates of Hell and Death ſhould not prevail againſt him, Mat. xxvi.18. whether he propheſied of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, 2 Pet. iii.3, &c. the time of his Death, John xii.18. Prem. to 2 Pet.

Phenice, a part of Syria, whoſe Inhabitants were therefore called Syro-Phaenicians, Mat. xv.22.

Philippi, a Roman Colony, and Metropolis of Macedonia, Phil. i.1.

Pilate could have put Chriſt to Death without the conſent of the Jews, Mat. xxvii.15.

Platoniſts thought the Devils roved about Mens Sepulchres, Mat. ix.28. believed the Immortality of the Soul, 1 Cor. xv.29.

Plural number, put for the Singular, Mat. xxi.7. and xxvii.44.

To Pray in any ones name, what, Joh. xiv.14.

Preexiſtence of Souls, believed by the Jews, John ix.2.

High Prieſthood, when joined with the Dignity of Emperor, Heb. vi.9.

Priſoners, the Cuſtom of releaſing them on Feſtival days, Mat. xxvii.15.

Prophecies antient of two kinds, Mat. ii.15. of the Revelations, like the Antient, Rev. iv.2. why ſo obſcure, Rev. xiii.18.

To Propheſy of any one, for ſaying what may be fitly applied to him, Mat. xv.7.

Prophets, cited inſtead of an allegorical Interpretation of ſome Paſſages in them, Mat. ii.23. whether they commonly expreſs diſmal things covertly, Rev. xvi.17. among the Heathens, whether they taught the People Vertue, Luke i.67. many falſe Prophets during the Siege of Jeruſalem, 2 Theſſ. ii.9.

Prophetical expreſſions, not always to be underſtood in a proper ſenſe; nor every particular Phraſe to have a ſpecial meaning aſſigned it, Rev. iv.2. and ix.17.

Propoſitions univerſal, for particular, 1 Cor. xii.28.

Publicans, of two ſorts, Mat. xi.19.

Purifying, by Fire and Water, common among the Heathens, to ſignify the cleanſing of the mind. Mat. iii.11.

Python, Spirit of Python, what, Acts xvi.18.

R

R.

Redeeming of time, for delaying, Rev. v.16.

Regeneration, the Stoicks notion of it, Mat. xix.28.

To Remit and retain Sins, ſpoken of the Apoſtles, what, John xx.23.

Repetitions for emphaſis ſake, 2 Cor. xi.22.

Reſurrection of the dead, whether it ever ſignifies no more than a ſecond State or Subſiſtence, Mat. xxii.31.

Reſt of God, under the Law, the Land of Canaan, under the Goſpel, Heaven, Heb. iii.11.

Revelation of the Sons of God, what, Rom. viii.19.

Riches whether promiſed under the Goſpel, 2 Cor. ix.8, 9.

Righteous for Merciful, Mat. i.19.

Right hand of God, where mention is made of ſitting on it, what, Mark xvi.19.

Rock that followed the Iſraelites, how it is ſaid to have done ſo, why called Spiritual, and how ſaid to have been Chriſt, 1 Cor. x.4.

Rome, ſtiled a Goddeſs, Rev. xiii.1.

Rude in Speech, how St. Paul ſo calls himſelf, 2 Cor. xi.6.

S

[Page]

S.

Sacrifices under the Law, whether acknowledg'd by the Jews to be Types of Chriſt, Heb. xiii.11.

Saints, why Chriſtians are ſo called, 1 Cor. vii.14. why the Jews, Eph. ii.19.

Salt, for wood Aſhes, Luke xiv.34.

Salutation, ſee Kiſs.

Sanhedrim of the Jews, ſat in the form of a Semicircle, Rev. iv.4. from them the form of the Heavenly Council repreſented to St. John in a Viſion, ſeems to be taken, Ibid. and verſ. 6.

Satan, for a Man, 2 Cor. ii.11.

To Save, taken for to heal, Mar. v.34. to preſerve, Luke xiii.23.

Saved ſo as by Fire, what, 1 Cor. vii.14.

Saviour of all Men, but eſpecially of them that believe, in what ſenſe God is ſaid ſo to be, 1 Tim. v.10.

Scourging, a ſervil Puniſhment among the Romans, not among the Jews, Acts v.41.

Sealed, how Chriſtians are ſaid to be ſo by God, 2 Cor. i.22. Eph. iv.30. how Chriſt, Eph. iv.30.

To See God, what, Mat. v.8. Joh. i.18.

Sepulchres, whited among the Jews, Mat. xxiii.27. adorning them charged on 'em as a Crime, Luke xi.47.

Simon Magus, his fabulous conteſt with St. Peter, Rom. i.23. Prem. to 1 Theſſ. 2 Tim. iii. Rev. xii.7, 9. whether deiſyed by the Romans, 2 Theſſ. ii.3.

Sin unto Death, what, John xi.4.

Sins of the Men that lived before the Flood, 1 Pet. iii.20.

Solaeciſms many in St. Paul's ſtile, Gal. ii.6.

Son of Man, who, Mat. xii.8. of Perdition, for the wicked Jews, 2 Theſſ. ii.3.

To Speak as a Man, what, Rom. vi.19.

Spirit, for the deſign of God in the Law, Mat. v.17. Rom. ii.29. 2 Cor. iii.6, 17. for a diſpoſition of Mind, Rom. viii.15. 2 Cor. iv.13. to be in the Spirit, what, Rom. vii.5. Spirit of Bondage, and of Adoption, what, Rom. viii.15. Spirit of Python, what, Acts xvi.16. Spirit of Faith, what, 2 Cor. iv.13.

Spiritual, who ſo called by St. Paul, Gal. vi.1. ſpiritual Meat, what, 1 Cor. x.3.

Stone, living, whence ſo called, 1 Pet. ii.4.

Strong Meat, how ſome Doctrins are ſo called, Heb. v.14.

To Suffer to the Fleſh, an ambiguous Expreſſion, 1 Pet. iv.1.

Sun becoming black, the Moon as Blood, and the Stars falling, what thoſe Phraſes ſignify, Rev. vi.2. and viii.11.

To Sup with Chriſt, and he with us, what, Rev. iii.20.

Swearing by the Head, Mat. v.38. and by the Throne of God, both Heathen Cuſtoms, Mat. xxiii.22.

Synecius, a Platoniſt, 1 Cor. xv.29.

Syrian, a name or Reproach, John viii.48.

T

T.

Tacitus vindicated from the charge of imputing the burning of Rome to the Chriſtians, Rev. xii.6.

Temple, not profaned with Sepulchres, Mat. xxvii.51. two Gariſons placed in it, Luke xxii.52.

Thief on the Croſs, whether converted in an inſtant by an extraordinary efficacy of God's Power, Mat. xxvii.44.

Times of the Gentiles, which, Luke xxi.24.

Tongues, the Gift of them and its uſe, 1 Cor. xiv.2, 5, 10, 13, 14.

Transcribers of the New Teſtament have ſometimes ſubſtituted more familiar words in the room of others leſs known, Mat. xiii.35. 1 Cor. xi.10.

True for righteous, Rev. xv.3. the true Bread, Meat and Light, why Chriſt is ſo called, John vi.55.

Truth, to do it, what. John iii.21.

Types and typical ſignifications, the common Doctrin concerning them groundleſs and vain, 1 Cor. x.3.

V

V.

Vanity to which the Gentiles were made ſubject, what, Rom. viii.20.

Veſpaſian, ill compared by Dr. Hammond with Chriſt, Mat. xxiv.3.

Ʋnclean, why the Children of Heathens are ſo accounted, 1 Cor. vii.14.

Ʋpper room, in which the Apoſtles met together and prayed, whether in the Temple, Acts i.13.

[Page] Ʋrim and Thummim, Rom. iii.2.

W

W.

Warfare, in a metaphorical ſenſe, for the ſacred Functions of the Levites, about the Temple, Luke xxii.52.

Waſhing the Hands, among the Jews, the occaſion of it, Mark vii.2.

Waters, many compared to a multitude of People, Rev. xiv.2.

Weary and heavy Laden, ſpoken only of the Jews, and in what ſenſe, Mat. xi.28.

To Will, ſet after doing, ſignifies to do a thing heartily or willingly, 2 Cor. viii.2.

Will worſhip, underſtood in a bad ſenſe by St. Paul, but if taken for a lawful courſe of Piety not commanded, when acceptable to God, Col. ii.19.

Wine of the Wrath of God, what, Rev. xiv.10.

Wiſe Men, how they knew the Birth and Dignity of Chriſt, Mat. ii.2. did not underſtand that he was the Son of God, and therefore gave him only civil Worſhip, Ibid. p. 9, 13.

Wiſdom of the World, and the Princes of this World, what, 1 Cor. ii.6.

The Word of God, for God himſelf, Heb. iv.12.

Works of ſupererrogation may be done, but are not meritorious, 1 Cor. ix.17. work of Faith, for a Work of which Faith is the cauſe, 1 Theſſ. i.2.

Z

Z.

Zacharias ſlain between the Temple and the Altar, which, according to Mr. Le Clerc, Mat. xxiii.35.

FINIS.

Books printed for Sam. Buckley, at the Dolphin in Fleetſtreet.

[Page]

AN Inquiry concerning Virtue, in two Diſcourſes. I. Of Virtue, and the belief of a Deity. II. Of the Obligations to Virtue. 8o.

Latitudinarius Orthodoxus. I. In Genere, de Fide, in Religione Naturali, Moſaica & Chriſtiana. II. In Particulari, de Chriſtianae Religionis Myſteriis. Sancta Trinitate. Chriſti Incarnatione. Corporis Reſurrectione. Coena Dominica. Acceſſerunt Vindiciae Libertatis Chriſtianae, Eccleſiae Anglicanae, & Arthuri Bury, S. T. P. contrà ineptias & calumnias P. Jurieu.

Voyages and Diſcoveries in South-America. The firſt up the River of Amazons (which runs a Courſe of above 1200 Leagues thro the [...]neſt Country in the World, not yet planted by the Europeans) to Quito in Peru, and back again to Brazil, perform'd at the Command of the King of Spain, by Chriſtopher D'Acugna. The ſecond up the River of Plate, and thence by Land to the Mines of Potoſi; by Monſieur Acarete. The third from Cayenne into Guiana, in ſearch of the Lake of Parima, reputed the richeſt place in the World. By M. Grillet and Bechamel. Done into Engliſh from the Originals, being the only Accounts of thoſe parts hitherto extant. The whole Illuſtrated with Notes and Maps. 8o.

An Account of Monſieur de la Salle's laſt Expedition and Diſcoveries in North-America. Preſented to the French King, and publiſh'd by the Chevalier Tonti Governor of Fort St. Louis in the Province of the Iſlinois. Made Engliſh from the Paris Original. Alſo the Adventures of the Sieur de Montauban, Captain of the French Buccaniers on the Coaſts of Guinea in the Year 1695. 8o.

Monſieur De Pointi's Expedition to Cartagena: Being a particular Relation, I. Of the Taking and Plundering of that City by the French, in the Year 1697. II. Of their Meeting with Admiral Nevil in their Return, and the Courſe they ſteer'd to get clear of him. III. Of their paſſing by Commadore Norris at Newfoundland. IV. Of their Encounter with Capt. Harlow, at their going into Breſt. Engliſh'd from the Original publiſh'd at Paris, by Monſieur De Pointi himſelf. And Illuſtrated with a large Draught of the City of Cartagena, its Harbour and Forts.

The French Perfumer; teaching the ſeveral ways of Extracting the Odours of Drugs and Flowers, and making all the Compoſitions of Perfumes for Powder, Waſhballs, Eſſences, Oils, Wax, Pomatum, Paſte, Queen of Hungary's Water, Roſa Solis, and other Sweet Waters. The manner of preparing ſweet Toilets, Boxes, &c. with the Preparations and Uſe of Perfumes of all kinds whatſoever. Alſo how to Colour and Scent Gloves and Fans. Together with the Secret of cleanſ [...]ng Tobacco, and Perfuming it for all ſorts of Snuff, Spaniſh, Roman, &c. Done from the Original Printed at Paris. The Second Edition, wherein all the Faults that happened in the firſt are Corrected.

☞ The Hiſtory of Don Quixote, newly Tranſlated out of Spaniſh by ſeveral Hands, with Sculptures, in Folio, is in the Preſs, and will be publiſh'd with convenient ſpeed.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament in which his interpretation of many important passages is freely and impartially examin'd, and confirm'd or refuted : and the sacred text further explain'd by new remarks upon every chapter / by Monsieur Le Clerc ; English'd by W. P. ; to which is prefix'd a letter from the author to a friend in England, occasion'd by this translation.

Le Clerc, Jean, 1657-1736.

Edition statement

1699

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A49907

ID [STC]

Wing L826

ID [STC]

ESTC R811

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13415569

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13415569

ID [VID]

99486

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A49907)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 99486)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 462:7)

Source

— A supplement to Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament in which his interpretation of many important passages is freely and impartially examin'd, and confirm'd or refuted : and the sacred text further explain'd by new remarks upon every chapter / by Monsieur Le Clerc ; English'd by W. P. ; to which is prefix'd a letter from the author to a friend in England, occasion'd by this translation., Le Clerc, Jean, 1657-1736., Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. Paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the New Testament..

Extent

xxiv, [2], 668, [15] p.

Printed for Sam. Buckley ...,. London :: 1699.. (An English translation of LeClerc's additions to his Latin translation of Hammons's Paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the New Testament.) (Reproduction of original in Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.