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:

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

[Page 3]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:

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.

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

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

[ First therefore, I suppose that God did intend the Prophecies which were committed to writing, and enrolled in the public Canon of the Church, should be understood by the Persons concerned in them. For otherwise it could not properly be called a Revelation, if after the discovery things still remained as intricate as formerly. And it is not credible that God should publish Revelations only to exercise and puzzle the in­dustry of human enquiries; or as an evidence of his own knowledg of things exceeding ours (tho indeed that it self cannot be known [Page 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] 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 9] 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 10] 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.

2 dly. Since it is no where found in the old Testament, that any such Intimation or Advertisment was given, either we must acknowledg that no Prophecy being [...] could be understood by the Jews be­fore the event; or else that the Prophets did privately instruct their Disciples, if not also admonish the common People, that whenever they [Page 11] recounted any of God's past favours, or when they spake of themselves, they had in their minds a respect to something future. Nay it was ne­cessary they should have particularly and severally interpreted every Pre­diction of that kind, and pointed to the event which it had a respect to; for otherwise who could be so subtil as between two not much differing events, to discern which of'em was designed in the Predicti­on? But the first of these having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell, we must necessarily admit the latter, and say that there remained among the Jews in Christ's time several traditions concerning the sense of Pro­phecies, handed down from the Prophets themselves. The reason why they did not commit those traditions to writing, I confess I do not clearly see, but it does not follow from thence that there were no such unwritten Doctrines. Nor do I deny but that this way of teach­ing had its inconveniences, and that some false opinions might creep in amongst the true traditions; but our enquiry is not what would be most convenient, or what we our selves should have done, but what was done; which is the only thing to be considered in searching into Antiquities.

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

4 thly. Unless these things be so, all the use of those typical Predicti­ons must have been confin'd to those to whom they were explained after the event, which how small that is, appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2 d vers. And not to repeat what has been said by him, I might at least gather from hence, that no Arguments could be brought from that sort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Christians, it was intirely ow­ing to the Authority of the Apostles, and not to the Evidence of the Arguments. For it is manifest to all that understand Hebrew that the Prophet speaks concerning Israel; and that he should, speaking of their going out of Egypt, have had a respect to Christ's return into Judaea, would have been impossible for us to know without a Revelation. And therefore we must be oblig'd to say that the Prophets left their Dis­ciples a Key, q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions, which would otherwise have been shut up out of every body's view. And had not this been so, it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Messias upon some places in the Prophets, out of which no such matter could be fetch'd by the mere assistance of Gram­mar; nor would the Apostles have cited them as making for their purpose. For both the former had made themselves ridiculous if [Page 12] 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 13] [...], &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.

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 14] (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:

And a little after,

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,

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 15]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 16] 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.

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.

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

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

and those in Ovid,

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 20] 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 21] 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 22]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,

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 23] 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 24] 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 25]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 26] 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 27] 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.

[Page 28]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 29] 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 30] 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 31] 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 32] 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 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 33] 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.

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 35] 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 36] 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 37] 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 9 th Verse, and often elsewhere, he gives that Title, were it not plain that either he had no manner of desire to express himself clearly; or else if he had, that how great soever his other excellen­cies were, Perspicuity was not his Talent. When therefore he de­nies John to have been a Prophet, he must mean that, compared with the Apostles, he was to be look'd upon rather as a Disciple than a Master, as he shews in his Note upon the 9 th Verse.

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

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

[Page 38]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.

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 39] 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 40]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 41] 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 42] 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,

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.

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 44] 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 45] 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 33 d Vers.

[Page 46]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 47] 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.

[Page 48]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 77 th 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 49] into its room, whose name was more familiar and better known. Much after the same manner he speaks upon the 78 th 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.

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 51] 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 52] 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 53]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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] [...], 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 58] 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 59] 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:

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 60] 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 17 th 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 61] ‘ 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 62] 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 63] 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 64] 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 65] 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 18 th verse in reference to the 17 th. And then vers. 19, &c.’

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

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

Vers. 28. Note d.] The Verb [...] is used here in its proper sig­nification; for when we take any man by the Collar, and hale him [Page 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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 69] 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 70] 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 71]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 72] regard almost to its primitive [...]; which often occurs in the Septua­gint, and is frequently made use of in the books of the Prophets, to sig­nify what God did, when he called the People of the Jews to the know­ledg of himself. See Isa. xliii.1. and xlv.3, 4. In the same Prophet we might have read [...] in this sense, if the Septuagint had pleased, Chap. xlviii.12. Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and thou Israel [...] mkoraï, my called [...]. Hence [...] also is taken for the Exhor­tation of the Prophets, calling the People to the Worship of God, Jerem. xxxi.6. And this is the sense in which [...] and [...] are used in the New Testament; nor does the difference of Circumstances make any change at all in their signification, as appears by what the Doctor has said, who is but too curious and accurate in discussing the places where they are found. Several of them might from the Significa­tion I have here given, be more grammatically and simply interpreted.

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

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

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

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

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 74] 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 75] 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.

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

[Page 76]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 77]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 24 th 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 78] 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 79] 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 iv th 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;

[Page 80]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,

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 81] 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 82] 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 83] 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 84] 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 85] 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 86] 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:

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 87] 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 88] 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 89] 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 90] 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.

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 92] 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 93] 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 94] 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 95] 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 96] 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.

CHAP. 1.

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

Vers. 2. [...], &c.] We must conceive this beginning thus: AS it is written in the Prophet Isaiah; Behold I send my Messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee: A Voice crying in the Desart, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths streight: John BAP­TIZED, &c. The force of the Particle AS belongs to the 4 th Verse, where thre is, as it were, an [...], by which the Evangelist shews that the Event was answerable to what was foretold. Some learned Men have thought that the beginning of Herodotus is just like [Page 98] 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.

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.

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:

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.

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 101]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 102] 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 103]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,

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 104] 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 105]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 106] 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 107] 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 108] 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 109] [...], 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 12 th Verse, is all one with [...] as, as I observed before up­on Chap. ix.49. In this respect Christ levels the Husband with the Wife; whereas under the Law it was lawful for a Man to put away his Wife, tho not for a Woman to put away her Husband.

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

Vers. 19. Note b.] What our Author says about the sense of the tenth Commandment is, I grant, true; but we shall interpret both Moses and St. Mark more Grammatically, if we understand the verb [...] of those fraudulent methods by which a Person may endeavour [Page 110] 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 111] 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 112] [...]. 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 113] 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.

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 115] 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 116] 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.

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.

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.

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 119] 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.

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 121] 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 122]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 123]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 124] discreta. Siquidem alii sunt professores sapientiae, per quos utique ad Deos non aditur; alii Religionis Antistites, per quos sapere non discitur; apparet nec illam esse veram sapientiam, nec hanc Religionem. Philosophy and the wor­ship of the Gods are two very different things among the Heathens. For their Professors of Wisdom are one sort of men, who teach nothing that relates to divine worship, and their Priests another sort, which give men no instructions how to grow wiser. But it is manifest, that neither the former is true Wisdom, nor the latter true divine Worship.

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

Ibid. After the 4 th sense given of that word, pag. 190. lin. 29.] When the verb [...] signifies to interpret Scripture, or exhort the People to Virtue, or both, it ought not to be rendered by prophesying or foretelling, which is its most usual signification, but by preaching or speaking publickly. And the reason of this is, because the Preposition [...] is ambiguous, and does not only signify ante before, when it is re­ferred to time; but also when the Discourse is about things and Per­sons, i. e. propè or coram, nigh to, or in the presence of; which last signi­fication it manifestly has in many compound words. Thus [...] is producere, provehere, to bring forth, to carry on; [...], promere, pro­ferre, to bring out, to produce; [...], progredior, procedo; to go forward, to proceed; [...], promoveo, proveho, to put forward, to lead on; [...], proscriptum, a publick order posted up in writing; [...], proscribo, profiteor, to publish, to profess, with many more which may be had out of any Lexicon. I have transcribed these out of the old Glossa­ries of Philoxenus and others, and to transcribe more was needless. It cannot therefore seem strange to any, if we interpret this verb [...] by proloqui to utter or pronounce, which is rendered in the old Ono­masticon by [...], and accordingly call him a Prophet who delivers or pronounces a pious discourse in a Church Assembly. It is certain that the word [...] is used thus in Lucian in Auct. Vitarum, where Dioge­nes is represented as giving this short Character of himself, that he was one who took it to be his province publickly to teach Vertue, and in­veigh against Vice: [...], saith he, [...] [Page 125] [...], in short, I am resolved to be a PROPHET of truth, and liberty of speech; i. e. to speak freely whatever I think to be true and just. I con­fess, Diogenes seems here to have taken [...] and [...] for two God­desses by whom he was inspired; but then it was only in order to this end, that he might boldly speak the truth concerning mens manners, and not that he might foretel things to come. This is the sense in which the Verb [...] is used by Aristotle in lib. de mundo, where he speaks thus concerning Philosophy: [...]: understanding, I sup­pose, easily things agreable to her nature, and comprehending divine things with the divine eye of her mind, and declaring them to men. In this place also there is a respect had to inspiration, but not such a one as has any relation to the knowledg of things future. These two passages were not understood by H. Stephanus. Because therefore the Genius and use of the Greek language would admit preachers to be called [...], St. Paul made use of this word; and so much the more willingly, because therein he did not depart from the custom of his Country-men the Jews; among whom it was a Prophet's office not only to foretel things to come, but also to teach the People Piety and Vertue. The Egyptians also had their [...]; but that they prophesied, or confer'd with the People about their manners, is not known.

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

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

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

[Page 126]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 127] 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 128] 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 129]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.

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 130] 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 3 d Verse, nor in Matth. iv.6. And therefore Beza, who uses to render that Arti­cle by a demonstrative Pronoun, has here omitted it, and told us in his Notes that he suspected it. It was possible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joseph, that Jesus was conceived without the assistance of a Man, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; and that for that reason the Angel who had fore­told his Birth, had said that he should be called the Son of God: but it was possible also, that he might question whether that was true or no, and so be willing to tempt our Saviour himself, that he might be more fully satisfied about it. And accordingly the Temp­tation may be thus expressed; ‘If thou art the Son of God, and not of a Man, as thy Mother says, cast thy self down from hence; for since thou may'st put thy trust in God thy Father, there is no­thing that thou needest to fear, because it is written in Psal. xci. concerning those that trust in God, that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them.’

CHAP. V. Chapter V.

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

CHAP. VI.

Vers. 13. Note c. I. 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 132] 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.

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 134] 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 135] 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.