A paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the New Testament briefly explaining all the difficult places thereof / by H. Hammond.

Annotations on the first Epistle of John. Chap. V.

[ a] * 1.1 V. 6. Came by water and blood] What 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he that came by water and blood, here signifies, will appear by considering the Context, and the relation of these to the former words. There the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, is the means of victory over the temptations of the world, the baits then offered by the Gnosticks, carnal pleasures on one side, and immunitie from persecutions on the other. And to that this belief is a very proper instrument. For considering wherein Christ's sonship was exercised here on earth, his innocence and his sufferings, and that if we will behave our selves as sons of God, we must imitate him, and that our faith in him consists in thus transcribing these his filial qualifications, the conclusion hence follows, that he that is such a child of God, v. 4. that is, that believes that Jesus is the Son of God, v. 5. doth, or will, overcome the world. This then being the force of the Apostles arguing, it must follow that these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this is he that came by water and blood, must be the description of Christ, as that sonship of his is express'd for our imitation in this matter, that is, as he approv'd his innocence, faultlesness to God on one side, and his patience, and (in spight of temptations, even of death it self) perseverance on the other side. And this is here figuratively express'd, and the figure fetched from an eminent passage in the story of Christ, particu∣larly considered and related by S. John, and that with a special weight laid on it, both for the truth and the considerablenesse of it, viz. the water and blood that at his crucifixion came out of his side at the piercing of it, the water being a most proper embleme of his inno∣cence, and the blood of his patience and constancy; and then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.2 his having come by these two, is no more then the having had these two emblemes, and the things signified by them, most eminently observa∣ble in the discharge of his office here on earth. For we know that being sent, or coming are the words that refer to discharge of office. Christ is said to be sent by God, and, which is all one, to come, and is prover∣bially styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he that cometh, and he that cometh into the world, that is, the great Prophet sent by God for the discharge of this office, which as Son of God, Mat. 3. 17. he was ordained to, and for which he came into the world, and which he did with per∣fect singlenesse, and resisting unto blood, suffering death in the cause: and those two were express'd by that joint embleme at his death, the water and blood, which John saw flow from him. In this matter also it is, that the Spirit is also joined as a testifier (that is the mea∣ning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.3 is testifying) viz. of the inno∣cence of Christ (which being granted, the constancy and sufferings were sufficiently known and proved by that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, flowing out of water and blood, which was an evidence of the wounding and piercing him to the heart.) For first, the Spirit's descending on him at his baptism, and lighting on him as a dove, was one testimonie of his perfect innocence and acceptable∣nesse in the sight of his Father. And secondly, by that Spirit's descent being instated on his Prophetick office, he is also furnished with the gift of miracles, &c. which were sure testimonies that what he preached was Gods message, that he was no sinner, no seducer, no false prophet, seeing, as the Jews confess'd, he did such mira∣cles. Thirdly, the coming down of that Spirit upon the Apostles, and that according to the promise of Christ, was a testimonie of the truth of what else he said, and by this descent the Spirit became a Paraclete or Ad∣vocate of Christ, and so testified and convinced the world, as of their sin in crucisying him, so of his righ∣teousnesse, in that, after his crucifixion, he was raised and taken up to the Father. All this being thus said in this verse, as it is the proving of what went before, by these three witnesses, so doth it introduce what follows, v. 7, 8. which is but the saying the same again, and joi∣ning a parallel with it; for so, I suppose, the following words are to be understood,* 1.4 For there are three that bear witnesse in heaven, &c. not that that is a reason of what went immediately before (for it would be hard to shew how thus the seventh verse could be a reason of v. 6. how the trinity of witnesses in heaven should be a proof that the water, and blood, and spirit, do wit∣nesse, v. 6.) but that it is a parallel to illustrate it by, and might in sense be best express'd thus, As there be three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost; and these three are one: So also there are three that testifie on the earth, the spirit, and water, and blood; and these three, though they are not one by any kind of unity of nature, as the former three are, yet they agree in one, that is, in one testimony, evi∣dently confirming the same thing which they were brought to testifie, v. 6. Of such like idioms of speech we have formerly noted many, in Note on Mat. 9. d. By this means, as this whole place is competently explai∣ned, and freed from all difficulty, so is it vindicated from a first mis-interpretation, which some late writers have fastned on it, interpreting the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 7. are one, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they agree in one. But of this, first, there can be no evidence, nor indeed any reason assigned that the phrase should be so suddainly altered, v. 8. if the same thing were meant which was (so immediately be∣fore, v. 7.) so differently expressed. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are one had signified no more but agree in one testimonie, v. 7. is it imaginable that of those other three, which had so lately been affirmed to testifie the same, v. 6. this would have been affirmed in other (so much plainer) words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.5 are to one purpose, or agree in one? If there had been any reason thus to vary the phrase, it would probably have been by applying the obscurer phrase to those three, of whom it had been before sufficiently af∣firmed, and the more perspicuous and explicite to the three in heaven, of whom it had not been formerly af∣firmed, and not so directly contrary as here we finde it is. Secondly, the only reason pretended why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are one, should not inferre really, as literally it doth, the unity of the Trinity, being this, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, agree in one, is attributed to the three on earth. That argument is of no kinde of force; for the paral∣lel here held between those in heaven and those on earth being only in respect of the testimonies, and of the number of the testifiers, there is no necessity that the Apostle or we should extend it to all other cir∣cumstances; or if there were, it would be as reasonable to interpret the latter by the former,* 1.6 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they are to one purpose, by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they are one, (which were absurd, and is not imagined) as the former by the latter. Indeed no reason for either of them: But on the other side, having to the mention of the three wit∣nesses in heaven, annex'd, out of the Christian doctrine, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these three are one, it was rea∣sonable, when he came to the other three, of whom that could not be affirmed, to affirm of them as much as the matter would bear, that is, that they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, te∣stifiers to the same purpose, though not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of one and the same nature. Lastly, if it were granted that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are one, did note (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth) the according of their testimonies, yet that no way excludes the unity of the testifiers, because both those senses may belong to the place and be true, the unity of the testifiers necessari∣ly inferring the according of their testimonies, though the according of the testimonies infer••e not the unity of the testifiers. And then both these being so conse∣quent one to the other, and so pertinent to the Apostle's purpose, (viz. the consent of all witnesses to the truth

he had to prove) and the words being in themselves so clear for the asserting of the unity, there can be no pretence or reason to doubt but this is the importance of them. One thing onely is here needful to be ad∣ded, that in the King's MS. (and many other Copies) a great part of these two verses is left out, and in stead of them no more read but this,* 1.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For there are three that bear witnesse, the spirit, and the water, and the bloud. But of this it must first be observed, that the ordinary reading hath the authority of many anti∣ent, and all, but one, printed Copies: secondly, that the omission may have been casual, by the error of some scribe, who having transcribed in the Copie before him as far as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his eye might by error passe to ver. 8. where the same words are again repeated, and so leap over what is in the midst, and immediately subjoin what there immediate∣ly follows after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Many ex∣amples of visible omissions on this occasion are obser∣vable in this and most other MSS. as might largely be evidenced; and it is that to which the hast of transcri∣bers, and the necessity of taking off the eye from the Copie, renders them very liable. Which error being once committed in one Copie, he that should come after, and transcribe that, might, upon judgement and reason, omit somewhat more, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because those two parts of the verse being set distinctly by way of opposition to two for mer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the former verse, in which those two were, being once lost, these latter were by congruity to goe after them, and to be left out also. To which purpose it is observable, that (as to these two phrases) there is yet a greater variety in the Copies, the Syriack and Arabick having the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and these three are one, or to one purpose, and many Copies having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on the earth, which yet have not the former verse; which shews that the former casual error was first commit∣ted before this other, which was taken up on judge∣ment, and that all that followed the one, where there was no place of choice, did not, where there was choice, chuse to follow the other. Thirdly, that it is not imaginable how, if this of the King's MS. and those others were the right reading, this which is now in the ordinary Copies should get in, unlesse it were by grosse fraud and forgery: for to the infirmities of a Scribe (to which omissions may) these additions cannot be imputable. Fourthly, that if the addition be thought imputable to a fraud on one side, the leaving it out may much more reasonably be imputed to a fraud on the other side. For first, supposing it thus far equal, that as the omission was useful to the Arrians and Anti-Trinitarians, so the addition was of ad∣vantage to the Catholicks or Orthodox; yet it is pre∣sently visible, that the interest of those that were con∣demned in the Church as hereticks was far greater, and the necessity more pressing on their part, (that I mention not the greater likelihood of hereticks adven∣turing to make use of such a forgery) to leave out the words and commit this fraud, then that of the Catho∣licks was to put them in. For if the words be once ac∣knowledged to be the words of Scripture, it gives a con∣clusion to all the hereticks pretensions and it necessa∣rily follows, first, that they that deny the Trinity, most diametrically oppose the plain words of Scripture, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.8 these three, here; & secondly, that they that deny the Unity, contradict distinctly S. John's affirma∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.9 these three are one; thirdly, that they that deny the holy Ghost to be God, and yet do not af∣firm him to be a creature, and consequently conclude him to be nothing but the vertue and efficacy of God, do oppose the plain words here, which distinguish the holy Ghost from the Word, and from the Father, as much, and in the same manner, as the Word, or second hypo∣stasis, from the Father on one side, or from the holy Ghost on the other. And so as long as these words stand in force, it is not possible for the hereticks do∣ctrines to be maintained, (and therefore it is that So∣cinus and his followers find it necessary to affirm, that these wordsare certainly supposititious.) But for the Catholicks, that maintain the doctrine asserted by the first great general Councils, against the hereticks of the Church, they had no such need of inserting and for∣ging these words: their cause might be otherwise main∣tained, if these words were expunged, and put out of the Canon, first, by the form of Baptism, Mat. 28. 19. instituted by Christ; which, first, clears the distin∣ction of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost, as fully as this; and secondly, by making them the object of our faith, supposeth each to be God as well as any, the holy Ghost, and the Son, as well as the Father; which being supposed, the Unity may from thence be collected also, by force of Eph. 4. 5. where parallel to the one Baptisme is added one God and Father of all,* 1.10 nothing the one form of Christian Baptisme, In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, to be the entring of us into the faith and name of the one God. Secondly, by the expresse words of Christ, I and my Father are one,* 1.11 John 10. 30. which affirming the unity of the Father and the Son, leaves no place to doubt of the like unity of the holy Ghost also. Thirdly, by the Apostles swearing by Christ, and (which is all one) calling to witnesse the holy Ghost, Rom. 9. 1. which is an act of Divine worship appropriated to God, by whom onely we are to swear. Fourthly, by the Apo∣stle's praying to our Lord Jesus Christ for his grace, to the holy Ghost for his communication, or liberal effu∣sion of his gifts, as well as to God the Father for his love; which is become the solemn form of Apostolical benediction at the end of the Epistles. Fifthly, (as far as concerns the holy Ghost,) by Act. 5. where deceiving or robbing the holy Ghost,* 1.12 v. 3. is lying to God, v. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 11. where the Spirit, as a person, is said to work, and to divide to every one according as he will. Lastly, (as far as concerns Christ, who bath been most eminently opposed by all sorts of hereticks from the Gnosticks to the Arians and Photinians) by the frequent Doxologies, or forms of giving glory to Christ, in the very same style as the Jews, (from whom those forms are taken) customarily and solemnly made use of, to acknowledge the God of Israel to be the eter∣nal God, (see Note on Rom. 9. c.) By all which & much more it appears, how impertinent and unnecessary it was for the Orthodox to feign and forge these words, and withal, how easie for their enemies to have disproved them, and detected their forgery, if they had attemp∣ted it; and how much more temptation there was on the hereticks side to free themselves from the importu∣nity of this place, by rasing that out of their Bibles, which could not otherwise be perswaded to comply with their pretensions. And accordingly, as in S. Cy∣prian, (who wrote before Arius was born, and conse∣quently before the time in which there could be any motive to have made this insertion) the words are di∣stinctly found, l. De Unit. Eccles. Dicit dominus, Ego & Pater unum sumus, & iterum de Patre & Filie & Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt. The Lord saith, I and my Father are one, and again of the Father, Son and holy Ghost it is written, And these three are one. And in like manner Tertullian Contra Praxeam, Quitres unum sunt, which three are one. So it is confessed of S. Hierome, that he asserted the truth of our reading from the Greak Copies which he had, and defended it against all, publickly com∣plaining, and contesting it, that in those Copies where it was wanting, it was omitted or rased out by the fraud

of hereticks: and so S. Ambrose saith, that the here∣ticks did erade that place. And this was so farre from yielding matter of recrimination against the Ortho∣dox in those daies, that some learned men, who have expressed their opinion that the addition of these words is supposititious, have laid that to the Arians charge also, who, say they, from thence desired to conclude, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one only by con∣sent in this testimony, as the water and blood and spi∣rit are said to be. But with how little reason this is suspected, appears already by what hath before been said, and needs no farther answer or refuting. It were here easie to deduce the doctrine of this verse, as it is most largely set down, from the tradition of the Church through all times. I shall only affix some few testimonies before the time of the first Council of Nice, since which there can be no place of dispute. In the first Age, that of Clemens Romanus is observable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost. A testimony produced out of him by S. Basil the Great, c. 29 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. where speaking of the Doxologie, as one especial Apostolical tradition, and reckoning up the antients from whom it was derived, he urgeth this saying of Clemens for the use of it. In the second Century we have Justine Martyr Apol. 2. pro Christianis, who having mentioned the Father of righteousness, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Him and the Son coming from him, and the prophetick Spirit we worship and adore. A tract also there is cited by Leontius Hierosol. and by Euthymius owned as Justin's, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of the holy and coessential Trinity, which, if genuine, will clear the whole matter: for there we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the God of all, who is known in Father, Son, and holy Ghost: and of them all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these three partake of one and the same essence, have one and the same divinity: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, three persons, asserted and cited from S. Paul, 2 Cor. 13. 13. and from Christ, Mat. 28. 19. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. So again the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Ortho∣doxos, under Justin's name, resp. ad Quaest. 139. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, There is one God in the coexistence of three divine sub∣sistences, differing from one another not in essence, but in the manner of existence. So Athenagor as in his Ambassie for the Christians, who were by the heathens looked on as Atheists; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Who would not wonder to hear them called Atheists, who acknowledge God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, and demonstrate their power in the Union, and their distinction in the or∣der? So Clemens Alexand. in the conclusion of his Paedagogus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To the only Father and Son-with the holy Ghost, one in all things, &c. So in the third Centurie Origen is by S. Basil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. recko∣ned among the assertors of this Tradition, l. 6. Comm. in Johan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Deity of the Trinity, which is to be adored; and on the Ro∣mans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Deity of the holy Ghost. So Dionysius Bishop of Rome cited by Athanasius in Epist. de Decret. Synod. Nic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, These, that is, the true disciples of Christ, evidently know that the Trinity is preached by divine Scripture, but that three Gods are not preached by the Old or New Testament. So Tertullian against Praxe∣as, Deum unicum quidem, sed cum oeconomia, esse cre∣dendum: expavescunt ad oeconomiam, numerum & dis∣positionem Trinitaetis divisionem credunt Unitatis, quando Unit as ex semetipso derivans Trinitatens not destruatur ab illa, sed administretur, We are to believe one God, but with the oeconomie, or administration: they are affrighted at the oeconomie, and think the number and order of the Trinity is the division of the Unity•• when indeed the Unity deriving the Trinity from it self is not destroyed by it, but administred. And, Ecce dico alium esse Patrem, alium Filium, alium Spiritum sanctum; non tamen diversitate alium, sed distributio∣ne, nec divisione alium, sed distinctions, Loe I affirm the Father to be another, the Son another, the holy Ghost another; yet not another by diversity, but by distribu∣tion, nor another by division, but distinction. And, Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, Quom••do dictum est, Ego & Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem, These three are one (nature) not one (person) as it was said, I and my Fa∣ther are one, for the unity of the substance, not the sin∣gularity of the number. The like place out of S. Cy∣prian was before produced, and this text from 1 Joh. 5. made use of for the asserting it. And so we see the truth of what we find in the debates of the first Ni∣cene Council, on which their decrees are founded, Chri∣stum consubstantialem Filium Patri- juxta olim tra∣ditam Ecclesiae Apostolicam fidim expressis testimoniis demonstrantes, that the doctrine of the consubstantiali∣ty of Christ the Son to the Father- is by express testi∣monies demonstrated to be according to the Aposto∣lick faith of old delivered to the Church: and that of Hosius in the name of the Council, Trinita∣tem individuam, ineffabilem, unam divinitatem, & candem ipsius essentiam esse credentes; & eandem con∣fitemur juxta nobis ab initio traditam ipsius fidei dog∣matum integritatem à Domino per sanctos ejus Apo∣stolos, & à sanctis ejus Apostolis, & à sanctis anti∣quis nostris Patribus qui Apostolorum sanctam fidem illibatam conservaverunt, We believe the individual Trinity, the ineffable, one Godhead, and that the essence thereof is the same; and we confesse it the same accor∣ding to the integrity of the doctrines of the faith from the beginning delivered to us from our Saviour by his holy Apostles, and from his holy Apostles, and from our holy antient fathers, who conserved the holy faith of the Apostles intire. So in* 1.13 Athanasius's Epistle to the Africans, telling them of the Acts of the Coun∣cil, and of the decree of adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the consubstantiability of the Son with the Father, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishops, in the Council, did not invent these words for themselves, but having testimony from their fa∣thers, thus they wrote. For there were antient Bishops about one hundred and thirty years, before that Coun∣cil, both of Rome and of this city, who reprehended those who affirmed the Son to be a creature, and not con∣substantial with the Father. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And this Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea acknowledged, who having formerly gone on in the Arian heresie, but afterward subscribed to the Council of Nice, wrote and confirmed it with his own words, saying, We have found some of

the antients, considerable persons, and eminent Bishops and writers, which concerning the Divinity of the Fa∣ther and the Son used the word Consubstantial. And these words of Eusebius are at length to be seen in his Epistle in Theodoret, l. 1. c. 11. All which being evi∣dences of the doctrine of the Church before the Coun∣cil of Nice, are of full force to demonstrate that which I have now in hand, viz. that the Catholicks in their controversie against the Arians had no occasi∣on to insert these words, and that this was the doctrine of the Church before that Council of Nice. Much more might be added on this subject. This I have cho∣sen to say, on so great an occasion, once for all.

[ b] * 1.14 V. 14. Aske any thing according to his will]'] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asking according to God's will, seems to comprehend two things; the first in respect of the matter of his prayer, that that be according to God's will; and the second in respect of the disposition of the petitioner, that he duly be have himself in asking, according to God's will. For the former of these, the matter of the prayer, that must be according to the will of God: and so it may be two waies; First, by being not only perfectly lawful, and so not contrary to his will, (for so is every indifferent thing, which we have no reason to be confident that God will grant us upon our demand) but also good and acceptable in the sight of God: such is the gift of his Spirit, Luc. 11. 13. such the increase of faith, which the Disciples prayed for, meaning thereby God's gift of grace, so farre as to enable them thus to grow and increase; not the habit, or degrees of the habit of that vertue, for those are regularly to be acquired by our acts or exercises of that strength which God be∣stowes, our making use of that talent intrusted to us, to which his promise of more grace is confined, whilst from him that laies it up in a napkin he takes away that which he hath; nor again the acts of that vertue, for those are no otherwise given us by God then as he gives us strength to perform them, which the Apostle ex∣presses by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.15 Phil. 2. 13. his working in us to work or doe, upon which the exhorta∣tion is founded of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, working, and working out our own salvation. Secondly, it may be according to his will, by being agreeable to his wisdome, which alwaies bounds and limits and determins his will. And thus a thing may be supposed to be three waies; First, when that which is prayed for is not con∣trary to any decree of God, which being an act of his will, is also an efflux of his (incomprehensible) wis∣dome. This decree of God is to us expressed by God's oath past on any thing, which makes it immutable, Hebr. 6. 17. as when of the provokers, Hebr. 3. 18. God sware that they should not enter into Canaan: for in that case it was certain that neither Moses's prayers for them, nor their own for themselves, should prevail to reverse it, though that others, who did not thus pro∣voke, should thus enter, was perfectly acceptable to God, agreeable to his will and wisdome. And so when the iniquity of the people is grown to such a pitch that God decrees their excision (and the same may be said of any particular man, that hath so fil'd up his measure) though Noah, Daniel and Job should inter∣cede, they shall not prevail for them. Secondly, when that which is prayed for is not foreseen by God to be inconvenient or hurtful for him that prayeth for it; for if it be, in that case God's denying to grant the prayer is a greater mercy then the granting of it; He were au enemy if he would thus hear us to our ruine.

Evertêre urbes tot as optantibus ipsis Dii faciles:—

The heathens could charge it on their Gods as too great a facileness to destroy whole cities by this means of granting men their wishes. Thirdly, when although that which is prayed for be good for the petitioners, yet somewhat else is better, and really more desireable to them. And then thus to deny what is asked, and thus to exceed their asking, what is that but the divinest and most advantagious way of granting it? And in that case God, that knows what we really most want, what is most truly agreeable to our desires, being able to chuse for us better then we for our selves, when he grants not our prayers in the kind, yet he grants them by way (not only of equivalence, but) of running over, denies us what we demand, and gives us what is more for our advantage; denies us what is good, but grants us that which is much better for us. Thus when Christ pray'd for the departure of that cup, his prayer was not heard, but in stead of it the angels sent to strengthen him, and enable him to drink it up, as that which was more for his & the world's advantage. And thus when S. Paul prayed thrice that the thorn in the flesh should de∣part from him, that prayer was not granted, but in stead of it that grace given which was sufficient to enable him to support that affliction; and that was bet∣ter to him then the other: for God's strength was per∣ficted and magnified in him through that weaknesse, or affliction, viz. by his Christian bearing of it. The se∣cond thing, that which respects the disposition or quali∣fications of the petitioner, may be reduced to these three branches; First, that he be such as to whom God's promises do belong, such an one as performs his part of the Covenant of mercy, the pious Christian liver, he that is a worshipper of God, and doth his will: For other∣wise God, which is a hearer of prayers indefinitely, is not the hearer of his; we know that God heareth not sin∣ners, If they incline to iniquity in their heart, the Lord will not hear them, when they make their long prayers, the Lord will hide his face, their hands are full of bloud; they must wash and make them clean before they have any title to God's hearing or answering their prayers. Secondly, that in that particular for which he prays, he apply himself onely to God, and such means as he knows to be acceptable to him. This is it which is called in S. James, asking in faith, c. 1. b. and is op∣posed to wavering (that is, doubting and demurring whether God's ways or his own are to be adhered to for the obtaining his end) and to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 double-minded man, ver. 8.* 1.16 who sending one mind, one will unto God in prayer, hath another for the most un∣godly instruments, makes a secret addresse unto them, which renders him there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.17 unsetled and va∣rious, one while in the ways of God, and another while of the Devil, and, Let not such an one think, saith the Apostle, that he shall receive any thing of the Lord, v. 7. Thirdly, that his asking be joined with importunity; for to that qualification of our praiers the promise is expressly made, in the Parable of the widow and the unjust judge, and in the joining together of asking, seeking, knocking, to which the having, finding, ope∣ning unto, are promised by Christ; by this importuni∣ty meaning a continuance and perseverance in our prai∣ers for that which we want, and when at the first asking the mercy is not conferr'd, repeating and re-inforcing the request, waiting upon the Lord which hideth his face, and never giving over the importunity until the request be graciously answered by God. All these be∣ing thus set down are the several ingredients to make up the intire qualification signified hereby, praying accor∣ding to God's will; and to them that are thus qualified in each branch this confidence here belongs, that what∣soever they shall thus ask, God will hear them. By which it appears in what sense it may be deemed to be required of the petitioner to believe that his petition shall be granted, viz. onely according to the importance of these words thus explicated. It being certain that no man is bound to believe that which is not true, or to be∣lieve that absolutely which depends upon so many con∣ditions, upon performing of which, as he lawfully may,

nay (as a duty of faith to God's promises) is obliged, and must believe that what he thus prays shall be gran∣ted; so if he perform them not, he is not obliged to believe that his prayers shall be granted him: and if through a great measure of humility and undervalu∣ing his own performances he chance to erre, and think himself unqualified when he is not unqualified, and consequently want this confidence toward God, that he will hear his prayers, when he hath (if he knew it) due grounds for that confidence, it is not to be imagined that the want of that confidence, or the excess of that hu∣mility, which is so acceptable in the sight of God, should render him or his prayers unacceptable and in∣effectual to him.* 1.18 And accordingly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let him ask in faith, in S. James chap. 1. 6. must no otherwise be interpreted.

[ c] * 1.19 V. 16. Sin unto death] What is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sin unto death, may, I suppose, be best learned from what we read in the Law, of him that sins contemptuously, to whom death without mercy was prescribed. This was described, Heb. 10. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He that set at nought Moses's Law died without mercy, upon a sufficient proof of it. And so he that is guilty of that, and, proportionably to him, he that useth the Son of God, now under the Gospel, after that manner,* 1.20 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 treading or trampling upon the Son of God, v. 29. setting his commands and terrors at nought, as there he is thought worthy of sorer punishment, so here his sin may fitly be said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto death. What this contempt is, may ap∣pear by the second Council of Nice, which expounds the sin unto death by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to continue un∣reformed and incorrigible after all the admonitions and censures of the Church; of which as there were seve∣ral degrees, so he that did not reform upon the first was, within some time, to be put under the second, or higher, and not reforming then, was to fall under the third, which was wont to be called by the Jewes, Schammatha, which signifies there is death, a punish∣ment proportioned to this sin, and from the title there∣of this seems to be called here a sin unto death. Not that every deliberate or wilful sin is here so styled (though that also be mortiferous without repentance) for of this sort is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sin, (indefinitely taken, ac∣cording to the use of this writer; see Note on c. 3. a.) and according to that which follows,* 1.21 v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every iniquity is sin, and yet every such, as it there follows, is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto death in this sense; but the phrase peculiarly belongs to a wilful sin (to which, without repentance or reformati∣on, eternal perdition is denounced) heightned and ag∣gravated farther with the addition of obstinacy against all perswasions and means of melting, which renders him hopelesse and own'd to ruine, and there is nothing left for him but a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversa∣ries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.22 these that walk thus contrary to God, resist his admonitions, his grace, all his methods of reducing them. Of these the Apostle here saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.23 I say not that he, that is, the Christian brother, shall pray for such an one. Which words may seem very cautiously set, not that he forbids, but onely doth not command to pray for them, or doth not pro∣mise any good successe to the prayers that are offered up for such an one. Agreeably to what is said of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.24 c. 10. 26. those that sin wilfully after the receiving the knowledge of the truth, (where the wilfulnesse is added to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sinning deliberately, and denotes the contumacious continuing in any such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.25 or deliberate sinne) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there remains no longer any sacrifice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for such sinnes so wilfully continued in, noting thereby the suspension of the prayers of the Church (or the inefficaciousnesse of them) which are answerable to the sacrifices of old time; as when of obdurate sinners it is said, that if Noah, Daniel and Job, the three great examples of powerfull intercession, were there a praying for them, they should not be available for the pardon of such. That such as these were deprived of the benefit of the prayers of the Church, and out of meet pity delivered up to Satan, as the onely remaining charitable method, by that means to rouze and awake them out of sinne, is suffici∣ently known in the Antient Canons. And it is the ad∣vice of Clemens Alexandrinus, Str. l, 7. concerning such insensate, incorrigible sinners, that we should pray to God for some temporal punishments upon them, as the onely reserve behinde to make impression on them. And that was done in the anathema or Cherem, where they used execrations upon them, not as an act of ha∣tred, but kindnesse toward them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.26 to the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord. Where still it is not de∣fined unlawful to pray for such, either for their pardon, or for their repentance to qualifie them for it, but they are onely look'd on as excommunicate persons, that must not be encouraged with admission to the publick prayers of the Church or the privileges of Christi∣ans, but marked out and branded and shamed to refor∣mation.

[ d] * 1.27 V. 21. Idols] The idols that are here mentioned are sure those that the Gnosticks used. To which purpose there is an eminent place in Eusebius,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —Those that were of the heresie of Simon Magus, pretended to be of the Christian religion, and to have for∣saken the superstition of the heathens in worshipping of idols, and yet came back again to that which they pre∣tended to have forsaken, falling down to the pictures and statues of Simon and Helene, and by sacrifice and incense and drink-offerings doing adoration to them. And besides these, many abominable impurities, not fit to be named, there were among them. All which together may well be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idols, which the Chri∣stians are here warned to beware of.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.13

  See Thea∣••eret. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. C. 7.
• * 1.14

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.24

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉