Sect. 3. The rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the woman] defended, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col. 1.23.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latine author, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16. 1 Pet. 1.5.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. 28.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Psal. 68. My proof of the interpretation from the context.
[ 1] THE 2d concernes the rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I read, [by the woman] but he [to the woman] as [to] is a note of the dative case, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redundant.
[ 2] And the reason, saith he, that he still adheres to his way, is, be-because this seems to him the fairest, easiest, and most congruous Page 70 sense thus to expound it, The believer may abide with the unbe∣lieving yoke-fellow, For though he be an unbeliever, and in him∣self unsanctified, yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified, it's all one in respect of conjugal use, as if be were sanctified.
[ 3] To this reason I have many things to answer, 1. That the very rendring it, is the begging the question, which is onely this (in this matter) whether this be the fairest, easiest, and most congru∣ous sense, and must not be here supposed, when it should be proved.
[ 4] 2dly. That if it were the fairest sense, yet if the words bear it not, it must not be affixt to them, if it be more capable of another; and whether they will bear it or no, is the question again, on occasion of which this inquiry is made into the use of the preposition〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to suppose again that it will signifie [to] in the dative sense, before it is proved it will, is a second begging the question, a paralogisme in stead of a reason.
[ 5] 3dly. The fairenesse of the sense (simply taken) is not attempted to be proved, which yet doth stand in great need of it; For beside the redundance, or unusual sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some other parts of the rendring are none of the fairest, As 1. the believer may abide] as if it were simply free to abide or not abide, whereas in the pre∣sent case (when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer) the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least, if not comman∣ded (and that is more then a liberty, that he may) To him the Apostle saith (and his sayings have sure authority with them) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him not put away. Nay the interdict of Christ be∣longing to all, but that one case of fornication, Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever, that is guilty of no more but unbeliefe; And accordingly the preface, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— But for the rest (or, for the other questions, v. 22.214.171.124.) say I, not the Lord] must be applied not to the immediate consequents, of the believers not putting away the unbeliever, that will stay with him (for that had been determined by Christ in the Negative) but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart, i. e. if the unbeliever wlll not dwell with the believer, except the believer forsake his, or her religion, what shall be done then? And to that the Apostles counsel is, that ma∣riage inslaves not the believer so far.
Page 71 [ 6] All which is a competent prejudice to that part of Mr. T. his sense, The believer may abide, For if that be it, even when the un∣believer is willing to abide, then she may also depart, if she ra∣ther choose, which will be found contrary to Christ's precept, and so may not be admitted.
[ 7] 2dly. In this rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is englished (not by is or hath been sanctified, but) by [is as if he were sanctified] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truely (in any respect) sanctified, and then sure this will be a strange construction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the unbeliever (is not sanctified but) is as if he were sanctified, when yet literally it must be rendred the unbeliever hath been, or (to gratifie Mr. T.) is or continues to be sanctified: For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation, he is sanctified, by he is not? for so assuredly he is not, if he onely be as if he were.
With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given, the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer, i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbeliefe, and this sense inforced by the interrogation, v. 16. For what knowest thou, ô woman, whether thou shalt save the man &c. and by S. Peters aphorisme of daily observation, 1 Pet. 3.1. the husband that obeyes not the word, i. e. the unbeliever, may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife, and then let him imparti∣ally passe judgement, which is the fairest and easiest rendring.
[ 8] His 2d reason is, because though the Dr. deny it, yet (saith he) I averre, that the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for to, as a sign of the dative case, is found more then once in the New Testament.
[ 9] The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation. And his first proofe, is from Mat. 17.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This, saith he, cannot be eluded, because the same speech is Mar. 9.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and rendred by Beza in the former place, fecerunt ei, they did to him, 2. Whereas the Doctor saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon him or against him, It had been meet the Doctor should have given one instance at least of such con∣struction, which, saith he, I do not believe he can do.
[ 10] To this I answer, 1. By two ready instances in one verse, Lu. 23.31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; If they do these things (our ordinary English reades in a green tree,Page 72 but the sense and propriety directs us to) on the green tree, what shall be done on the dry? here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then for S. Markes using (in the parallel place) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that proves not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was redundant in S. Matthew, or that it was a bare sign of the dative case, it being free to S. Marke to use any other expression, different from S. Matthew, so he re∣teined the sense, as it is clear in this place he doth, doing injuries to him, being all one in effect with upon or against him, though the phrases are not the same, which no way inferres that when the change of the phrase changes the sense, it were lawfull so to varie it, as in the place we have in hand (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 'tis on both sides supposed to do.
[ 11] A 2d instance which he conceives cannot be eluded, is Col. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was preached to every crea∣ture, and this he proves to be the onely rendring▪ 1. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to preach, is commonly with a dative case of the object, and though, 1 Tim. 3.16. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet our transla∣tors, and the vulgar, and Beza read it unto the Gentiles, as if there it noted onely a dative case, and if it were among the Gentiles, there, yet here Col. 1.23. it cannot be so, because the object is in the singular number, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is for among, is joyned still with a noun of the plural: and 2. That which, saith he, puts this out of all doubt, is, that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mar. 15.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
[ 12] But to all this the answer is ready, by observing the exact nota∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole creation (as we render it Rom. 8.22.) as that signifies the whole, but especially the Gentile world, and accordingly is exprest by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Mat. 28. and farther ex∣plained by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the whole world, to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go, when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to this whole creation. Now of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this notion it is clear, that though it be in the singular number, yet that hath the power of the plural, as the word [world] and the like, which eve∣ry body knowes, is a noun of Multitude, and so is creation, when it is thus taken for the whole created world, meaning this world of men, the nations or people of the world.
[ 13] And then there can be no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Page 73〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is most exactly thus to be rendred, preached in, or among the whole creation, as Gal. 1.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, preach in the nations, or among the Gentiles, and so 1 Tim. 3.16. also, though the sense being no way altered by rendring it unto the whole creation, or every creature, and to the Gentiles, it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendred in all these places, which yet must not prescribe for other places, where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendring, as in this case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is observable, where therefore the literal rendring being retained, we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it, then that literal rendring will afford us. As for the parallel phrase Mar. 16. that doubtless can prove nothing, 1. Because the places are not, nor can be thought parallel, 2. Because if they were, (as of Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. hath been granted) yet the parallel lying onely in the sense, and that being all one, whether they preacht to or among the Gentiles, this no way concludes that the phrases are the same, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one redundant, which is the onely thing for the proving of which this parallel is produced, but of that I have formerly spoken.
[ 14] His third instance is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 4.12. which he cannot yet conceive, but that it is better rendred, to men, then among men. And his reasons are, 1. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath most regularly and consequently a dative case of the person after it. 2. Because if it had been among men, it had been to be placed after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, other, there is no other name among men, given, but being placed after given, it is to be expounded as referred to given, not to other, and so must be read, to men, not, among men. 3. It seems no good sense, nor true, that Christ was a name given among men, for though he were among men, yet he was given from above. To all which he addes the judgement of Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 12. cited by Beza, and a parallel phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 7.44.
[ 15] To these I answer, 1. That tis true that when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath any case of the person following and governed by it, that is constant∣ly the dative, but that is no way applicable to this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for there the persons,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are governed by the preposition〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
[ 16] To the 2d. That the construction by among, is very good, placing it after given, there is no other name given among men, i. e. Page 74 no means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men.
[ 17] To the 3d. That Christ's being given from above, no way pre∣judges his being given among men, both because the benefit of this gift is as a common donative, distributed among men, and al∣so because this gift is dispenst in forme of humane flesh, Christ is become man, and to be found and seen among men.
[ 18] And to the last, for the place of Irenaeus, tis strange that neither Mr. T. nor Beza whom he transcribed, should remember that Irenaeus wrote Greek, and that as the Latine translation [datum hominibus] is not written by Irenaeus, so there is no question but Irenaeus's Greek was the same with the text in the Acts,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then the Translator (barbarous enough through that whole book) is to be reformed by the Author, and not the Author judged of by the Translator; Or if he were, and Irenaeus's Greek did really read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as the Transla∣tor doth [hominibus] without [in] then I must resolve, that the copie of the Scripture, which he followed, did so read before him [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and if so, then what proof can Mr. T. have from thence that in other places or phrases, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is found in all copies, it shall be redundant, and signifie no more, then if it were not to be found there?
[ 19] As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it must certainly be rendred, among the Fa∣thers, thus, the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness: Tis pity the reader should be exercised and de∣tained with such debates as these, with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him.
[ 20] For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16. and 2 Pet. 1.5. That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith, that he was pleased to reveale his own sonne〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when I had rendred that by, or through me, to others, This exposition, saith he, makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly.
[ 21] This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared, for cer∣tainly there was little temptation for it: why, I pray, might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure, say, God was pleased through me to reveal his sonne, and by way of explication, (and withall to denote the designation of that Apo∣stle to his peculiar province, as the Apostle of the uncircumcision) adde, that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly Page 75 every explication of an obscurer or narrower, by a clearer or larger phrase, is not inept tantologie, but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly, have always been full of.
[ 22] And yet 2dly the latter part here▪ of his preaching the Gospell to the Gentiles (he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter and John were of the Jewes wheresoever dispersed) is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and para∣phrasing the former part of it; for in that those others had not been defined, who they were, or limited to the Gentiles.
[ 23] This Mr T. adverted not in his objection, I desire he will now take notice of it. For that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I need adde no more to what I had before said, that it is most ful∣ly rendred thus, unto or over and above your faith superadde virtue, or fortitude.
[ 24] Two places, he saith, he had formerly produced out of the old Testament, Deut. 28.60. and 2 Kin. 7.27. and now addes one more, Psal. 68.18. But besides that three onely places in the whole old Testament, would never inferre that so it must be in this place of the new, there being many more to preponderate for the contrary, and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it must be here, besides this, I say, it will be found, that these three will be of no availe to him.
[ 25] Of the two former the 2d is not, there be but 20. vers. in that Chapter, and therefore no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 27th: and for the former we well read it, unto thee, where the 72. reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the ordinary way of acception of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
[ 26] And lastly, for his new sprung testimonie, Psal. 68.18. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph▪ 4.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor, tis presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it; For though those two places are perfect∣ly parallel, as to the matter, yet for the expression tis evidently very different, in one [thou hast received] in the other [he hath given] and so [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉for or among men] must of all neces∣sity differ from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to men] For how could it be sense to fay, thou hast received gifts to men? yet so it must be, to make good Mr. T. his observation, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to, or is redundant, or the note of a dative case.
Page 76 [ 17] And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs; never lesse cause to tell others of taking ad randum, when he him∣self was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration. And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very unfit to have exercised us thus long, but that Mr. T. would have it so, and words are the meanes of conveighing realities unto us, and mi∣stakes in them (though minute) may be of substantiall importance.
[ 18] My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt, by comparing it with the reason subjoyned, For what knowest thou, ô wife, whe∣ther thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, ô man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?] he comes next to examine, and hath many exceptions against it, all which (without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally) will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to ly, Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordina∣ry observation, that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptisme by the believing wife, therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever, in case the unbeliever be willing to stay, v. 13. for this reason, v. 16. because what hath been so oft, may very probably be hoped again, and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope, that she may in time gain the husband to the faith, and that, being so fair a reward in her view (the saving or rescu∣ing him from infidelitie, to Christ) may well inforce the coun∣sel of the Apostle, not to depart from him, as long as, without sin, she is permitted to stay.
[ 19] By which it appeares that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 14. (on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally de∣pend) but an application of the argument formerly proposed, but now more signally brought home to them, under the forme of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉for what—] by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelitie: If the reader will but observe what is thus visible, he will want no more help, to get out of the intricacies, and toiles, which Mr. T: hath here spred for him in this matter, which is in it self so manifest, as nothing can be added to it, if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self.