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

ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to the Romans.* 1.1 (Book Romans)

AT the end of the Premon.] Tho most of what our Author says in this Premonition be true, yet there are two things in him liable to reprehension; and those are, first, that he supposes many times the Apostle to have a respect to the Gnosticks, where the Heathens or Jews are thought to be spoken of by other Interpreters, and that with more probability, as will appear by those places, and especially by Chap. i, and ii. The second relates to his Paraphrase, which is many times intricate and obscure, full of Re∣petitions, harsh and forced, and in a word not sufficiently adapted to explain the Series of St. Paul's Discourse; tho as to the main, he sel∣dom misses the true scope of it. But no body will ever explain an ob∣scure Epistle, without endeavouring perspicuity and brevity; which two things our Author's Paraphrase is extremely defective in.

CHAP. I.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] This passage S. Au∣stin, de Praedest. Sanct. c. 15. says, may be so almost un∣derstood as the Unitarians commonly understand it. Praedestinatus est ergo, saith he, Jesus, ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem filius David, esset tamen in virtute filius Dei, secundum Spiritum sanctifica∣tionis; quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto, ex Virgine Maria. Jesus therefore was predestinated, as one who was to be according to the flesh the Son of David, and yet should be in Power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Sancti∣fication; because he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost. But the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must have a different sense put upon them, which I take to be this; viz. that the Holy Ghost, which Jesus had received, was as it were a Voice whereby it was miraculously [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signified or declared that he should be the Son of God, after his resurrection from the dead, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He was the

Son of God it's true, not only in decree as the Schoolmen speak, but actually before his Resurrection; but he was again called the Son of God in a peculiar manner after his Resurrection, as appears from Acts xiii.32▪ 33. And therefore in this respect he might be said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be ordained by the Holy Ghost [to be] the Son of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after his Resurrection. This same Verb is used by St. Peter in Acts x.42. in a like matter, where having said that he and the rest of the Apostles had eaten and drank with Jesus after he was risen from the dead, he adds: And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ordained by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. As by the Holy Ghost which des∣cended upon him, he was ordained or marked out by God to perform the Office of the Messias, and so to rise again, and upon that account to be called the Son of God, besides other reasons, for which he has that title, by a special Right and Privilege given to him; so also by his being raised from the dead, he was ordained or marked out by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here are the same, is truly observed by Grotius, who yet interprets the sense of this passage somewhat confusedly. Add to the Examples and Au∣thors by him alledged, the Authority of the Old Glosses, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered statuta dies, an appointed day; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praestituto, foreordained or appointed. And that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies sometimes after, appears from John xiii.4. and 2 Pet. ii.8.

Vers. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] He does not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the great∣est part of those who professed the Christian Religion in Rome at that time, were not Roman Citizens, but Jews, and people of other Nati∣ons who lived at Rome upon the account of Commerce. This has been imitated by Clemens Romanus, and Polycarpus Smyrnensis, in the inscriptions of their Epistles; on which see the Notes of learned Men.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, as a Christian I thank my God. So Ephes. v. 20. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, i. e. as Chri∣stians: See Note on John xiv.14. and xv.16.

Vers. 17. Note b. It is a harsh transposition which our Author and others before him suppose to be in the Apostles words; nor is there any need of it, the sense being commodious if we understand them thus:

That from the Faith whereby the Jews believed the Prophets, and the Gentiles their Ancestors, they might proceed to another Faith.

The opposition here which is between, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, con∣firms this Interpretation. Clemens Alexandrinus uses the same phrase

in his Book intitled, Quis dives salvetur? Sect. 8. p. 24. Edit. Ox∣on. where he speaks of a Jew that was converted to the Christian Faith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He is carried from Faith to Faith, as being unsafely tossed in the Law, [like a Sea] and having a dangerous station in it, he betakes himself to our Saviour as to a Ha∣ven.

Vers. 20. Note d. I shall set down in this place an Animadversion of the learned Doctor Pearson, formerly Bishop of Chester, which is in his Exposition of the Apostle's Creed, Art. 1. p. 19. Ed. 5. wherein he reprehends Dr. Hammond, and sharply confutes Socinus; from whom our Commentator seems to have borrowed this Interpretation:

This place, saith he, must be vindicated from the false gloss of Socinus, who contends that it cannot be proved from the Creature that there is a God; and therefore to this place of St. Paul answers thus: Sciendum est verba à creatione mundi debere conjungi cum verbo Invisi∣bilia — Ait igitur eo in loco Apostolus, aeternam divinitatem Dei, id est, id quod nos Deus perpetuo facere vult, (Divinitas enim hoc sensu alibi quoque apud ipsum enuntiatur, ut Coloss. ii.9.) aeternamque potentiam, id est, promissiones quae nunquam intercident, (quo sensu paulo superius dixerat Evangelium esse potentiam Dei) haec, inquam, quae nunquam postquam mundus creatus est ab hominibus visa fuerant, id est, non fuerant eis cognita, per opera, hoc est, per mirabiles ipsius Dei & divinorum hominum, praesertim verò Christi & Apostolorum ejus, operationes, conspecta fuisse. In which Interpretation there is no∣thing that is not forced and distorted: for tho his first observation seem plausible, yet there is no validity in it. He bringeth only for proof Mat. xiii.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which proves not at all that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has the same sense: and it is more than proba∣ble that it hath not, because that is usually expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark x.6. and xiii.19. 2 Pet. iii.4. never by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Besides, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in St. Matthew bears not that analogy with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Socinus pretends, signifying not things unseen or un∣known till then, but only obscure Sayings or Parables; for which purpose those words were produced out of the Psalms by the Evan∣list, to prove that the Messias was to speak in Parables, in the Ori∣ginal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. wise, antient Sayings, which were not unseen and unknown, for it imme∣diately follows, which we have heard and known, and our Fathers have told us, Psal. lxxviii.3. And tho he would make out this Interpre∣tation, by accusing other Interpreters of unfaithfulness, Plerique

interpretes ex praepositione â fecerunt ex, contra ipsorum Graecorum co∣dicum fidem, qui non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 habent: yet there is no ground for such a Calumny, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be, and is often rendered è or ex as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Matth. iii.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, è pi∣lis camelinis, and vii.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex oculo tuo. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex spinis; and even in the same sense which Socinus contends for, Mat. xvii.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vulg. ex illa hora, as Tully, ex eo die, and Virgil, ex illo Corydon, Corydon est tempore nobis, and, Tempore jam ex illo casus mihi cognitus urbis Trojanae. So the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Latins render ex parte, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex aequo: of which Examples are innumerable. There is no unfaithfulness then im∣putable to the Interpreters: nor can such pitiful Criticisms give any advantage to the first part of Socinus's Exposition.

However, the Catholick Interpretation depends not on those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but on the consideration of the Persons, that is, the Gentiles, and the other words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he farther perverts, rendring them the miraculous Operations of Christ and his Apostles, or, as one of our Learned Men [Dr. Hammond] their Doings, mistaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is from the Passive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Active 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly the thing made or created, not the operation or doing of it; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes taken for the Creature, sometimes for the Creation, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Creature only. As therefore we read 1 Tim. iv.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: So Eph. ii.10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this sense spake Thales properly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Laertius.

The other Interpretations which he was forced to, are yet more extravagant; as when he renders the eternal Godhead, that which God would always have us to do, or his everlasting Will, and proves that rendring of it by another place of St. Paul, Col. ii.9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; that is, says he, all the Will of God: (whereas it is most certain, that where the Godhead is, especially where the fulness, even all the fulness of the Godhead is, there must be all the Attributes as well as the Will of God:) and when he interprets the eternal Power to be the Promises which shall never fail, and thinks he has sufficiently prov'd it, because the same Apostle calls the Gospel the Power of God. For by this way of Interpretation no Sentence of Scripture can have any certain sense.

Thus he with a great deal of reason refutes Faust. Socinus, who in this matter shewed himself neither a Philosopher nor a Grammarian:

But he is too sharp upon him, and at the same time upon Dr. Hammond for understanding the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same manner as Beza did, who renders it jam inde a Creatione mundi, ever since the Creation of the World. They went according to the proper significa∣tion of the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which follows, being understood in the sense that Dr. Pearson would have it to be, proves it: the invisible things of God, from or ever since the Creation of the World, being understood by the things which he has made, are seen. For if it had been St. Paul's design to say what the learned Bishop would have him, he should have expressed it thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Creation and [his] Works, and not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Creation by [his] Works. The Examples he brings to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are nothing to the purpose, because the Phrases are different. He should have given us an Example in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to know any one from any thing was put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Greeks say; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But they say also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (see Matth. vii.16, 20.) tho the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more commonly used in this Phrase. I could confirm this by the Authority of many Interpreters who are far enough from Socinianism; but this way Dr. Pearson himself does not take.

Further, tho it be very true that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not signify an Action, but the Work it self, or thing done; yet because there is no Work with∣out an Action, nor any Action of God without a Work, Dr. Hammond might well enough in his Paraphrase make use of a word which signi∣fied an Action, being it included also in it the Work it self. In fine, Dr. Hammond thought that what is here said respected chiefly the Gnosticks, in which I think he was mistaken; but being of this opinion he was obliged to understand by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not so much the Works of Creation as of Providence, both ordinary, and principally such as were extraordinary, and made a mighty impression upon the Minds of Men in Christ's time. As for Socinus's Interpretation of the words Power and Divinity, as it is manifestly forced; so it is rejected by his Brethren of the Polish Society, Crellius and Slichtingius, in their Commentaries on this Epistle.

Vers. 23. Note f.] There are some things with relation to what our Author here says about the Gnosticks, that deserve to be considered, and I shall briefly set them down in this place, not designing after∣wards to repeat them.

I. It cannot be deny'd, that there were even from the Apostles time pernicious Hereticks, to whom there is often a respect had in

these Epistles, as our Author has shewn: Of which number were the followers of Simon, if what the Antients say concerning them be true. And it is possible likewise that these Men might even at that time boast of their extraordinary Knowledg, and call themselves Gnosticks, tho that Name came to be more famous afterwards. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Christians of that Age did not signify only Knowledg or Learning in general, but also some peculiar knowledg of the abstruse Points of Religion, and the mystical sense of Scripture; in which sense we more than once meet with it in an Epistle of St. Barnabas. See in the Greek, Chap. 6. not. 35. and Chap. 10. not. 60. and in the Latin, c. 1. not. 15. of the Amsterdam Edition, and the learned Dr. Pearson's Vindic. Ignat. Part 2. c. 6. But yet that the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 21st Verse has a reference to these Hereticks, I do not think, nor is it necessary.

II. The Doctor is rash in following Justin Martyr, who erroneously thought that Simon Magus was deified by the Romans, because there was a Statue at Rome consecrated to SEMON SANCƲS, which was an antient Roman Deity. Caesar Baronius indeed had gone before Dr. Hammond in this, but he had been corrected by Des. Heraldus in Comment. ad cap. 13. Apolog. Tertul. And his Opinion was after∣wards confirmed by Henr. Valesius on Euseb. H. E. lib. 2. c. 13. and Ant. Pagus in Epicr. Baroniana, ad An. 142. I do not think there is any more truth in what is related concerning the Contest between St. Peter and him; but if it were true, the Romans had undoubted∣ly pulled down his Statue: for how could they have thought him to be a God who was overcome by a Man? but Heraldus justly calls this a Fable in his Notes on the second Book of Arnobius.

III. I do not doubt but the Gnosticks, or followers of Simon, imitated the Heathens; but I am of opinion, with most other Inter∣preters, that the Apostle had a respect here to the Heathens them∣selves, and particularly to their Philosophers, not those who imitated them. See Grotius. All that the Apostle here says very fitly agrees to the Heathens, but there are some things which cannot commodiously be applied to the Gnosticks.

IV. I wonder our learned Author should think the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to refer to Exod. xxiv. and signify that Splendor which appeared on the top of Mount Sinai, when the Law was given to the Jews; and afterwards say that the Phrase to change the Glory, is borrowed from Psalm cvi.20. For it had been sufficient to mention that Passage in the Psalmist, to which this here manifestly refers, and not to that Splendor or glorious Appearance. The Glory of God is God himself, or his

eternally glorious Nature. If by the glory of God in this place, were to be understood that glorious appearance before spoken of, the crime charged upon the Gentiles would be, not that they had represented God by a visible shape, but that they had made use of another than that. They ought to have expressed that splendor by Fire, as the Persians use to do; not by figures of living Creatures, as the Greeks and Romans. In the Psalm it is said they changed their Glory 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chbodam. But St. Paul could not call God the glory of the Heathens, who knew very little of him; and perhaps in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Psalms, which was used at that time by the Synagogues, the words were read as they are now in ours 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the glory of their Lord.

V. To shew how aptly what St. Paul here says, may be applied to the Heathens, and particularly their Philosophers, I shall express the sense of his Discourse from Vers. 17 to the 26th, in a short Para∣phrase.

17. For in the Gospel there is a way shewn, whereby those that believe it may obtain the pardon of their Sins from God, to the end that from the Faith which they had in their former Religion, they might be induced to believe the Gospel; for to such only we may apply that passage of the Prophet Habakkuk, The just shall live by Faith. 18. Those who refuse to believe it, shall be punished by the Divine Justice for their former Sins, which cannot be expiated any otherwise than by Faith in the Gospel; and whereof the greatest by far is that whereby the Heathens, and even their Philosophers do dissemble the knowledg which they have of the true God, and do not conform their Divine Worship to it. 19. For many of them understood what God would have them know concerning himself, and hath manifested to them, 20. From the beginning of the World, by his Works, wherein his infinite Power and tran∣scendent Nature do illustriously shew themselves, and are as it were visible; so that they have no excuse to make for the absurd Religi∣on which they profess. 21. Tho they knew how wise and power∣ful a Being God was, and had great experiences of his Goodness and Bounty, yet they neither gave that honour to him openly, which the perfection of his Nature challenged from them, nor thanked him for his Benefits. And therefore God in just Indigna∣tion suffered them to fall into so many errors, which he would o∣therwise have delivered them from, that they even rendered the most certain things doubtful. 22. And whilst they professed the study of Wisdom, they lost their Understandings. 23. Being

blinded through their own fault, as one error produces another, they represented God whom they might, as I said, have under∣stood to be an infinitely more perfect Being than a Man, not only like a Man, but even like a Beast.

24. Nor did their depravation stop here, in the errors of their Minds, or in Divine Worship, but they became also most impure and abominable in their Lives, God not restraining them. 25. For the same Persons who had formed such vile Images of the Godhead, and so extremely unworthy of the Divine Majesty, and worshipped those Images, neglecting God himself; 26. As they had as much as in them lay, disgraced the Divine Nature; so forgetting also, as it were, themselves, they confounded the Offices of both Sexes, which Nature has distinguished, by Lusts not to be named, &c.

All these things the Heathens fell into, even their Philosophers not excepted, as might be easily proved out of Aristophanes, Laertius, Lucian, the Satyrick Latin Poets, Seneca, and in a word all Anti∣quity.

Vers. 29. Note i. Lin. 7. After the words, giving over all labour] This is an absurd Translation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which never had any such sense, but signifies having lost all sense of Pain or Grief. See on Ephes. iv.19.

Ibid. At the end of that Note] Tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be truly deduced 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is used both in a good and bad sense, of Riches, or Power, or Victory, or endowments of Mind, and other things in which some exceed and go beyond others; yet I do not think it any where signifies a desire of Pleasure; nor does any of all those places which our Author has here heaped together, prove what he intends, as I shall shew by a brief examination of them. For it is not ground enough, that such or such a sense of a word is not foreign to the design of any place, nay that it is very agreeable to it, to infer that that is sometimes the signification of that word; seeing the series of the discourse will often permit it to be taken in other senses altogether as commodious; and less proper words likewise are many times made use of instead of more proper. And therefore before we make use of reasoning to find out the signification of any word, the certain use of it must be otherwise known; for else it is very easy to mistake. Now to review the Passages alledged by our Author: (1.) The words of St. Paul in Ephes. iv.19. will very well bear to be understood of Cove∣tousness, as Grotius has observed, because there were a great many of the Male Sex, that prostituted themselves for the sake of Gain. (2.) The words of Photius, St. Chrysostom and Antiochus, do not ne∣cessarily

require the sense of Lusts, but may easily be understood like∣wise of Covetousness. (3.) The example of Asterius proves nothing at all, because his words may be very well understood of a desire of Riches and Power, yea ought to be so. I have not indeed Alexander Aphrodisiensis, nor can I conveniently get him; but I dare lay any wager, we ought to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more than he should; for that is the definition of an unjust Man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor does that word among the Greeks ever signify a voluptuary. (4.) Tho the Septuagint render the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does not follow that these Greek words ought to be used promiscuously. It is not to be thought that the Greek words made use of in the barbarous stile of those Interpreters, are always of the same latitude with the He∣brew; and besides, there was no necessary reason for the Septuagints translating the Hebrew word in that place of Ezekiel by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Interpreters on the place. (5.) In the Prayer of Ephraim, there is nothing that should oblige us to understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any otherwise than it commonly is; for why may not we suppose him to ask pardon for his Covetousness, as well as his Lusts or Uncleanness? Do not those Vices sometimes go together? (6.) Tho Plato uses the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the mention of Pleasures, it does not follow that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there signifies Lust, for that Phrase may be very well rendered a great∣er abundance of these things, major horum copia, as Mars. Ficinus has translated it. See Plato himself, pag. 508. Ed. Genev. of Ficinus. (7.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Epist. of Barnabas, does not signify to be lustful, but multiplicare anum. See Cap. 10. Not. 51. Edit. Amstel. (8.) It is without cause that the Doctor interprets avaritia, in Poly∣carpus and Bede, by Sensuality or the love of Pleasures. Could not Valens be at the same time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or covetous, and lustful too? And do not sensual or lustful Persons use to be covetous, and to seize upon other peoples Possessions when they have opportunity, that they may spend them upon their Lusts? Bede does not seem neither to have con∣founded the word avaritia with the love of Pleasure, tho he joins to∣gether things that are in effect often conjoined. The same may be said of other Authors who have any like Passages; for what is more common than to speak of several Vices together? (9.) Tho the Sodo∣mites be upbraided for their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does not follow that these words properly signify villanous Lusts; they are general terms, by which their wickedness may be described, whatsoever it consisted in, as the constant signification of those words shew. (10.) Of the Passages cited by the Doctor out of St. Paul, I shall speak when I come to them, as also of the other places of the New Testament. (11.) The word

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Gen. vi.5.* 1.2 is a general name likewise, signifying any sort of Vice or Wickedness, and not particularly Lust. Our Author made it his business to enquire not what was the constant and usual significati∣on of a word, but what he would have it to signify, that he might the better apply some passages in St. Paul to his Gnosticks.

CHAP. II.

Vers. 1. Note a. THE Apostle as far as the eighth Verse, goes on to condemn the Heathen Philosophers, who did those things which they condemned in others, and knew to be evil; upon which account they were reproached even among the Heathens themselves: See Lactantius Instit. Divin. Lib. 3. c. 15. who produces out of Cicero, Corn. Nepos and Seneca, very remarkable Tes∣timonies against those who were Philosophers more in words than in manners. Dr. Hammond, to make these things agree to his Gnosticks, puts several things into his Paraphrase, whereof there is not the least footstep in St. Paul. It is easy to find out what sense we please in any Author whom we interpret, if we may take the liberty to patch up his Thoughts in that manner with our own. I wonder also at Grotius for thinking the Apostle here had reference to the Roman Magistrates, because of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he saith properly signifies a Judg; when that word may as well be taken for any one that judgeth, as a Philosopher who judgeth concerning Vice and Virtue, as a Magistrate. Yea Plato in Lib. 9. Reip. p. 506. Edit. Ficini, applies that word to a Philosopher, where he speaks of judging concerning what is good or evil. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: A covetous or ambitious Man is not qualified to judg, but only a Philosopher. And a great many more such examples, if I had time, and it were necessary, might be found out to shew that a Philosopher may be properly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] This has a respect to the Philosophers, who when they ought, according to their own Doctrin, to have obey∣ed the Gospel, abused that skill in disputation which they had acquired by the study of Philosophy in resisting it. And such were afterwards Lucian, Celsus, Porphyrius, Hierocles, and others, who out of a love to contention, opposed the Christian Religion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is aptly to this pur∣pose defined by Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contradicting or evil speaking, or contending by words, for which most of the Philosophers were infamous.

Vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] Here the Apostle returns to what he had said in the 15th Vers. of the foregoing Chapter, viz. that the Gospel be∣longed to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and brought Salvation e∣qually to them both; as in this place he tells them that if they conti∣nued in their Sins and Unbelief, and neglected the only way of Sal∣vation, they would both bring destruction upon themselves. These he compares first with one another, and then inveighs against the Jews who persisted in their Sins; nor is there any thing that properly concerns the Gnosticks, as any one will see that does but read the Apostle.

Vers. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This Passage perhaps Porphyry had in his mind, who often read the Holy Scriptures that he might be able to oppose them, when he wrote in his Book de Abstinent. c. 57. that it was impossible for a Man to attain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to Hap∣piness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unless he were nailed, if I may so speak, to God, and divided from the Body and the Pleasures which by that affect the Mind: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for we are saved by WORKS, not by a bare HEARING of words.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, they were not in∣structed out of the written Law, but their own Reason informed them what was good, and what was evil. For that is said to be writ∣ten in the Heart or Mind, which we understand by reasoning, without any written Institution. This is not opposed to the knowledg of the Gnosticks, but of the Jews.

Ibid. Note c. To this purpose is that elegant Passage in Plautus in Rudente, Act. 4. Sc. 7.

Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad istum modum. Sapienter dicta dicere atque iis plaudier, Cum illos sapientes mores monstrabant poplo; Sed cum inde suam quisque ibant diversi domum, Nullus erat illo pacto ut illi jusserant.

Vers. 17. Note e. This is all forced. Read the Apostle himself, and it will appear that he speaks of a Jew properly so called, and one that was circumcised.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, is not properly to be called or denominated, but to be celebrated or famous; so that St. Paul's meaning is this: it is a thing universally known, that thou art a Jew, or a Disciple of Moses; this is

what thou pretendest thy self to be, and gloriest in. The Apostle has no respect in this to the Gnosticks, who could not neither be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to rest in the Law, which they took not the least care to observe, as our Author confesses, but when the fear of the Jews urged them to it.

Vers. 18. Note f.] Dr. Hammond's Interpretation of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be confirmed by the Authority of an old Glossary, in which that Verb is render'd not only by perpendere, examinare, to weigh, to examin, but also approbare, comprobare, to approve. And in the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered by praesto, praecello, to excel. But yet be∣cause the Discourse is concerning one that is able to teach others what is good and profitable, and what is not, or of a Master, I chuse ra∣ther to understand it of trying those things that differ, or trying the difference of things, that is, distinguishing between lawful and un∣lawful. And so in that Passage of the Epist. to the Philippians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify to distinguish carefully good from evil, or not ignorantly to confound things which are different: Whence the Apo∣stle adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that ye may be sincere, that is, without mixture of good and evil, not sufficiently distinguished by you; and conse∣quently, as it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without offence. However, it is most true, that the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not only signify the examining of a thing, but also that which is consequent upon it, the approba∣tion of it. But this may very aptly be said of the Jews compared with the Heathens, because the Jews were instructed out of the Law, which the Gnosticks were not, but were part of them Heathens.

Vers. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Blind cannot discern the right way from the Path which would lead them out of the Road they desire to take; and therefore they need a Guide to discern it for them. And in like manner such as cannot 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to those things between which the Will of God makes a difference, have need of a Teacher to shew them the difference between what is lawful and unlawful. This, and what follows, plainly confirms the Opinion which I have preferred to Dr. Hammond's Interpretation, and agrees exactly to the Jews compared with the Heathens.

Vers. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I do not think the Doctor has expressed the Apostle's sense here in his Paraphrase, I chuse rather to understand this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of stealing the Vessels that were consecrated to Idols; as if the Apostle had said;

Thou who pretendest to abhor Idols, as most polluted things, which thou wouldst not so much as touch, dost nevertheless, if thou hast an opportunity, steal the

Vessels which are consecrated to them, and are as polluted as the Idols themselves.

In which he has a respect undoubtedly to that Law in Deut. vii.25. The graven Images of their Gods shalt thou burn with fire; thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is upon them, &c.

Vers. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] That is, it is advantageous for a Person to profess himself a Jew, and to carry about him the sacred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that Religion in his body, provided he observe its Laws, and those especially which relate to a good Life, and the Interest of Human Society. I know Divines usually call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant, in the sense our Author uses those words. But see what I have said of that matter in my Notes on Gen. xvii.10.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] If those who boast themselves to be circumcised Persons, and bear the token of God's Covenant in their Bodies, neglect the most holy Laws delivered to them by Moses, their Circumcision can be of no use to them, which is only a sign of their professing Judaism, not the whole Jewish Religion.

Vers. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, as all Interpreters have ob∣served, the uncircumcised. Circumcision was instituted as a sign of God's Covenant, with which all that were marked professed their Resolution to obey the only true God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. But if there were any among other Nations who, without that mark set upon the Jews only, obey'd God in those things which they knew to be acceptable to him, their Piety was as pleasing to God as that of the circumcised Jews. That Sign was instituted only to put the Jews constantly in mind of their Duty, and not as a thing in it self grateful to God.

Ibid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] That is, whoever observes those Laws that are of eternal Equity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherever he be, and what Na∣tion soever he be of, shall be accounted by God in the number of his People, as much as if he were circumcised. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks properly signifies Equity, or that which is alledged to shew a Cause to be just or good: But in the Septuagint it is used to signify the Laws of God of what kind soever they be: But in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are those things which God may equitably require of all Nations, such as Experience and right Reason dictate to be just.

Vers. 27. Note h.] I wonder learned Men did not perceive there was an Ellipsis in this Phrase, and that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be understood, which is expressed afterwards. The meaning of S. Paul is this: They that have been hitherto uncircumcised, as they are born (for so the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies) and yet observe the Moral Laws, are Jews, that is, in the number of God's People, not indeed accord∣ing

to the letter of the Laws themselves,* 1.3 but according to the mind of the Lawgiver; and accordingly will shew by their Example that you are justly condemned, who by the letter of the Law and Circum∣cision are esteemed the People of God: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Those that are Jews by the Spirit and Righteousness, shall condemn such as are Jews by the Letter and Circumcision. Afterwards in Chap. iv.11. the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has another signification, to wit, among the uncircumcised Nations, or whilst they are uncircumcised; for the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 often signifies dis∣tance of place or time. See ver. 29. in which this Interpretation is confirmed. Of the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is opposed to the Intention or Mind of the Lawgiver, I have already spoken in a Note on Mat. v.17.

Vers. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] That is, that Circumcision is wor∣thy of Praise, which is agreeable to the spiritual Intention of God in instituting carnal Circumcision; not that which according to the letter of the Law is made in the Flesh, which in it self is neither good nor evil. So that when the Apostle uses the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is as if he had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the spiritual Intention or Will of God: as on the other hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the letters of the Law. Whence in the Wri∣tings of St. Paul, the Law of Moses is often called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Letter; and the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Spirit, because this revealed the spiritual Intention of God, which was concealed under the letter of the Law. See 2 Cor. iii.6.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] To wit, the Jews, who highly preferred a Person that was circumcised to one that was not, having little or no regard to how they both lived. They considered the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Lawgiver; and so neglecting Mens internal Qualifications, commended chiefly their external.

CHAP. III.

Vers. 2. Note a. Col. 3. lin. 16. NOthing could have been said more falsly con∣cerning the Original of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was commonly used by the Greeks in that sig∣nification before ever the Greek Language was spoken in the Land of Canaan. It was used by Herodotus and Thucydides, who lived whilst the Persian Monarchy stood; nor did the Septuagint for any other reason call the Pectoral 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tho improperly and barbarously, than because that word ordinarily signified in Greek an Oracle, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the

Plural, Oracles; which were so called because they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, audibly pronounced or expressed, when otherwise the Gods were supposed to give their Responses by Dreams, Intrails, Signs, or Omens without any Voice. This derivation of the word seems to be more proper than that which is given of it by Thucydides's Scholiast in Lib. 2. p. 104. Ed. Aem. Porti, where on those words of the Histo∣rian; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Many Oracles or Responses were given, many things were sung by the Prophets; he makes this Remark; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are those Responses which are made by God in Prose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those which are given in Verse. Hence also the Author of the Book of Wisdom, chap. xvi.11. and the Son of Syrach in chap. xxxvi.16. call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Revelations of God by the Prophets. And such the Apostle here means, and not the Responses given by the High Priest, as Grotius has shewn. But our Author being deceived by the ambigui∣ty of the word, treats of the Pectoral in an improper place.

Ibid. In the same Col. after the words, Judgment of Ʋrim.] How foreign all this is to this place in St. Paul, I have already shewn. But I have one or two things more here to observe. First, That the Doctor took what he here says out of Rob. Scheringamius in his Notes on cap. 8. Jomae, as he has done other things also of that nature. Secondly, That the Rabbins, whose Authority he here alledges, were as ignorant of this matter as we, only they had the confidence to set down their own Inventions for known and certain Truth, which is a very usual thing with them. Every one knows, that during the se∣cond Temple there was no Ʋrim and Thummim; and I would not have any one so silly as to think that the Rabbins, who lived some Ages after the destruction of that Temple, understood by certain Tradition what Ʋrim and Thummim were. Their Opinion is evidently confuted by Spencer in his Treatise of Ʋrim and Thummim, cap. 3. sect. 11. As for me, I think quite otherwise of the whole matter, as I have de∣clared in my Notes on Exod. xxviii.30. and Numb. xxvi.21.

Ibid. Col. 4. in that Note, lin. 10. after the words dead Witnesses.] I have shewn that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Greek God's Responses, without any respect had to the Pectoral; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as has been well observed by H. Grotius, are enlivening or quickning words. I wonder he did not alledg to that purpose Heb. iv.12.

Ibid. lin. 20. after the words there consisted] Our learned Author heaps Mistakes upon Mistakes; for it is certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has no allusion to the Pectoral, and does not signify Letters, but the Rudiments or first Principles of Piety.

Vers. 4. Note b.] That the Doctrine which our Divine here teaches is very true, considered in it self, no one can doubt, that under∣stands the nature of the Gospel-Covenant. But I expected he should have acted the part of a Grammarian rather than a Divine, and rea∣soned not from the Analogy of Faith, but the grammatical use of words. What our Author therefore has not done, shall be briefly done by me. And, first, It must be observ'd, that the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, are most frequently used in the largest sense, to signify a good Man, or one that loves Righteousness, but are sometimes taken in a more limited notion, and signify a Man who is guiltless of any particular Crime. Of the first signification we may every where meet with Examples; of the latter there is an Instance in Prov. xvii.15. He that justifieth the guilty (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and he that condemneth the just (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) are both an Abomination to the Lord. See also Isa. v.23. And agreeably to this twofold sense of the word Just, the sig∣nification also of the Verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to justify, is twofold; either for to esteem just, that is, good; or just, that is, innocent or guiltless of the Crime charged upon him. In this latter signification they are used in the Passages before mentioned in the Proverbs and Isaiah; but this Notion in this dispute concerning Justification, can have no place: For God does not justify any Man from all Sin, that is, account him guiltless; because all Men are Sinners. But there remains another sense, in which God may properly be said to esteem those just, that is, good Men, and acceptable to him, who believe in Christ, tho their Righteousness be not perfect or sinless; because he mercifully accepts of an imperfect Vertue instead of a per∣fect one, upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice. And in this sense it is said of Abraham that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he was justified, that is, accounted a just Man, not according to strict Justice, but the gracious acceptance of God, who judged him to be a good and pious Person: Whence it is said in Scripture, that Abraham believed God, and it was counted, or imputed to him for Righteousness; that is, that Faith was look'd upon as the Act of a good Man, and one that feared God; and therefore Abraham was judged by God to be such an one. See my Notes on Gen. xv.6.

These things, if carefully observed, will give great light into this whole Disputation of St. Paul, which is otherwise hardly intelligible. The Jews affirmed, that by the bare observation of the Law of Moses, as they interpreted it, a Man was justified in the sight of God, that is, accounted just by God, and accordingly accepted by him, and might expect from him the Reward promised to all good Men. And they

thought they could exactly fulfil the Law in all points, and so be justi∣fied as good Men upon that account; meaning by the observation of the Law, a Life so regulated, that no Charge could by any one be brought against them out of the Law, as Transgressors of any of its Precepts, which had a threatning of Punishment annexed to it: And if they lived so, they thought the Reward of pious Men was justly due to them. This was the Opinion of the Jews, against which St. Paul disputes, and shews that Men are not justified by the Works of the Law, that is, esteemed pious by God; but by Fa••th, i. e. upon their believing God's Revelations, and for the future obeying them, tho they had not before observed the Law, or any of its Ceremonies: To which purpose he alledges the Example of Abraham, who, when uncircumcised, was ac∣counted just by God, upon believing his Promise. And he urges that no Man can justly contend with God, because all have heinously sinned, and therefore stand in need of God's pardoning Mercy in order to their being accounted just: With many other Arguments, of which, as the matter shall require, I shall afterwards speak.

Two things I will further observe in this place; First, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is taken in that sense in which I said a Person was justified, who is not esteemed guilty of any unjust or wicked Action: for David's meaning in Psalm li. 6. is this, that he acknowledged he had com∣mitted a very great Sin, so that he had no reason to doubt of the Di∣vine Justice in threatning to punish him. Secondly, That towards the end of the foregoing Annotation, Dr. Hammond does ill compare the Phrases to be imputed to Righteousness, and to be accounted worthy of a Reward, with one another, as will appear if we look into St. Paul's words.

Vers. 8. Note d.] There is no necessity of any Parenthesis in this place; if we do but supply the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from what follows, the sense will be plain thus: Why yet am I also judged as a Sinner? Why do not we do, as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, that we will do evil that good may come?

Vers. 25. Note b. lin. 13. after the words propitious to the People.] Our learned Author is mistaken in thinking that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chapporeth is indifferently rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There is only one place in Exod. xxvi.34. where the Septuagint can seem to have translated it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but if it be more narrowly look'd into, it will appear that they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pharocheth, which is the name of the Veil that was drawn over against the most Holy-place, and thought that Moses was commanded to put the Ark there within that space. I have rendered the place, impones operculum areae testimo∣nii

in sanctissimo adyto, Thou shalt put the Covering upon the Ark of the Testimony in the most Holy Place; and they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And it is certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies only a Veil, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is extended, in order to hide any thing; and so they constantly translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pharocheth, which is the name of the Veil or Curtain that hid the most Holy Place. But a Covering, such as that was which was put upon the Ark, would be more fitly called in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or by another Name. I fear our learned Author confounded the Hebrew words alledged, because of the similitude there is between them, and through want of me∣mory.

Ibid. Lin. 39. After the words, to be performed.] To speak freely my opinion, I am apt to think there is no allusion here to the Covering of the Ark, but that Christ is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, subintell. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sacrifice; because immediately there is mention made of Blood, which has no affinity with a Covering. So the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Sacrifice offered up by way of Thanksgiving. But I confess I never could meet with that word in this sense save in the old Onomasticon, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred propitiabile, which word is to be understood actively, for that which is capable of pacifying or rendring God pro∣pitious, as in like manner impetrabilis signifies one that can easily obtain what he desires. So that the vulgar who renders this word Expiationem, and Beza who renders it Placamentum, i. e. an expiatory Sacrifice, have translated it better than others, who render it by propitiatorium, a propitiatory, by which word is generally understood the Covering of the Ark.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] Tho what our Author here theo∣logically discourses be very true, yet it does not much conduce to the understanding of St. Paul's words, if the proper signification of them be considered. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is here spoken of, not for the reasons mentioned by our Author, but because the Discourse is about an expiatory Sacrifice, whereof the Blood can be of no use to us unless we believe on Christ, and hope that by his Sacrifice God will become propitious to us, tho we have been great Sinners against him.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Doctrin indeed laid down by our learn∣ed Author in the foregoing Annotation, I heartily subscribe to; but I think it is foreign to this place, as depending upon a wrong inter∣pretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The scope of the Apostle is to shew that there is another kind of Righteousness brought in by Christ, which he calls the righteousness of God, different from that which re∣sults from Works, and by which we are justified freely by his Grace,

through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And for the clearer ex∣plaining of that, he adds; whom God hath set forth as an Atonement, through Faith in his Blood; that is,

which Jesus God declares in the Gospel to be an expiatory Sacrifice, by whose Blood the Sins of those who believe on him are expiated: To make known his Righteous∣ness, because of the remission of former Sins under the forbearance of God; "— To shew that those are just in his sight, whose past Sins he has "remitted, and whose Repentance he did not in vain wait for: At this time, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus; which at this time only is manifest to all: whence we may con∣clude, that God is both a lover of Righteousness, and also accounts those just who have believed in Christ, and heartily obey him.

The whole series of the Discourse does as it were proclaim this to be the scope and sense of the Apostle; and I wonder that Grotius him∣self did not see it, tho the Doctor, who often gives forced Interpreta∣tions of Places, might easily not discern it.

Tho I do not deny that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Righteousness of God, is often put for his Goodness and Mercy, as Grotius has shewn; yet in this dispute it has another signification, as appears from Chap. i.17. and vers. 21, 24, and 26 of this Chapter, where it is manifestly taken for Gospel-Righteousness, that is, for sanctity of Life, consequent upon Re∣pentance. And this Righteousness which God accepts, upon the ac∣count of Christ's Sacrifice, is not grounded upon a connivence or taking no notice of past Sins, but the remission of them. For God accounts those just, not whose Sins he overlooks or connives at, but those whose Sins he has already pardoned, and upon their Repentance takes into his favour, contrary to their deserts.

I contend that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot be urged to prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nothing is more common in the Greek Language, than for Prepositi∣ons to lose their proper force in compound words, as every one knows, who has had but the least taste of that Language. And there∣fore Grammarians and Greek Writers make the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 promiscuous. Hesychius interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to suffer, to omit, but also by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to grant, to re∣mit, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remission. So Dionysius Halicarnass. Antiq. Rom. Lib. 2. p. 103. Ed. Sylburg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: We forgive them this Offence without setting any fine upon them; or if you please, we let it go unpunished, which is the same with par∣doning. And Lib. 7. he opp••ses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to remission, but delaying or putting off: p. 446. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:* 1.4 They did not, tho they begged very hard, obtain from the Tribunes a full REMIS∣SION, but as long a delay as they desired. So in Ecclesiasticus, Chap. xxiii.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to spare, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are put one for another: Sins committed through Ignorance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do thou spare O Lord; but the reproaches of those who by profession are Sinners 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do not pardon. So that all that learned Men have said about the distinction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and remission, comes to nothing.

Vers. 16. Note k. I have before interpreted the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not a revenger of Sin, but a lover of Righteousness, or Gospel-sanctity; which agrees very well with the scope of the Apostle. For having said that God accounted those Persons just, whose Sins he had re∣mitted, he adds with great reason, that God was nevertheless Just or Holy; lest the Jews should perhaps object, that by his Doctrin the Justice or Holiness of God was impeached, because he justified Men that had lived in a course of Sin. But he does but touch upon this here transiently, designing in the vi, vii, and viiith Chapters to speak to that matter more at large: So God is said to be just, in Deut. xxxii.4. and elsewhere often.

CHAP. IV.

Vers. 1. Note a. THO as to the thing it self, our Author seems to have reached the scope of this place, yet as to all the words he will not satisfy an exact Grammarian. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot without violence be interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or also by human strength, both which he seems to think are meant by that Phrase. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the places alledged by him, signifies according to the course of the Flesh or human Generation, as Christ is said Chap. i.3. to have been of the Seed of David according to the Flesh; which signification cannot be pertinent here, unless these words be joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fa∣ther, which yet he will not allow of: See Chap. ix.3, 5. St. Paul's words therefore must be explained thus; What shall we say then? that Abraham our Father hath found (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 grace) according to the Flesh? that is, in the judgment of Man, or according to a carnal Judgment. It is certain this alone can be said; for if Abraham was justified by Works, he hath whereof to glory before Men, but not before God. So John viii.15. to judg according to the Flesh, signifies to judg after the manner of Men. See also 2 Cor. 1.17. which very thing is expressed in 1 Cor. ix.8. by speaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The use of the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this sense, being thus known, it must be considered whether the Context requires it to be understood in this sense here. Now St. Paul shews in the foregoing Chapter, that all Men were Sinners, and therefore had nothing to alledg in their own defence; and that none could boast of their justification before God, as if they were therefore accounted just by him, because they had never sinned. This is the sum of the foregoing Chapter, whence it might be justly inferred that Abraham himself was not justified by Works before God; and therefore in that sense could not be said to have found or obtained Grace before God, but only in the judgment of Men, who cannot judg of things exactly, and to talk of whose judg∣ment in this case is absurd. For which reason to the question pro∣posed, that Abraham our Father hath found Grace according to the Flesh? the Apostle answers nothing, because it is confuted by the bare pro∣posal of it, it being manifest that in this dispute he speaks of the judg∣ment of God, and not that of Men. And therefore he goes on, If Abraham was justified by Works, if he was accounted just for his works 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the judgment of Men, he hath whereof to glory, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before Men; but not before God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These last words manifestly shew the judgment of God here to be opposed to the judgment of Men, of which there should accordingly have been something said before, and yet of which nothing will have been said, unless 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This our Author was in some measure sensible of, as appears by his Paraphrase on the 2d verse; but he discerned it as other Interpreters also did, just as a Man sees the Moon through the Clouds, which put him strangely upon the wrack to find out the sense of these words, and the connexion of the Discourse. This Verse does not contain any objection made by the Jews, who not only said that Abraham was justified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Scripture declares. It is rather a concession of St. Paul, wherein he grants that Abraham might possibly in the judgment of Men, for his spotless Life before them, be accounted just; which is not the thing here spoken to, the Discourse being about the judgment of God.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, him who accounteth one just, that was before ungodly; because he believes in Christ, and obeys his Precepts. The Works which are excluded from Justification, are those which precede Faith and Repentance, and are wicked Works; in the room of which succeed Faith and new Obedience, which are accepted instead of constant Righteousness and Innocence: and there∣fore Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness.

* 1.5Vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our learned Author's Paraphrase on this and other Verses, is so very full of his own Additions and Re∣marks upon what the Apostle says, that it is impossible almost to know what to attribute to St. Paul. He puts in so many Parentheses, and repeats the same thing so often, that he makes it very difficult to discern the contexture of the Apostle's Discourse: And here parti∣cularly in this Verse the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might have been explained in much fewer words, which refers only to God, and signifies a sign whereby God assured Abraham that he accepted of his Piety. So this word is used in 1 Cor. ix.2. where St. Paul bespeaks the Corinthians thus; If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet I am so to you; the seal (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord: that is, by you it may be known that I am an Apostle, or you are a certain Evidence of my Apostleship. It is a Metaphor taken from the custom of confirming things by setting a Seal to them. See Note on Gen. xvii.11.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I have said on Chap. ii.27. that these words signify among the uncircumcised Gentiles, or in the time of their Ʋncircum∣cision, not in Ʋncircumcision. And here it is visible, that when the Apostle had a mind to express that, he uses the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both in the Verse before and after. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Chap. ii.26, 27. sig∣nifies the uncircumcised Gentiles; and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may sig∣nify among the uncircumcised Gentiles, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies through the middle of, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among all things. And it may also signify the time in which any one is uncircumcised, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does in Life, and the like.

Vers. 17. Note b. St. Chrysostom's Interpretation is a mere Nicety, as Beza rightly thought, nothing being more common in Scripture than this Phrase, before God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which has no such signi∣fication, as in the place alledged by our Author out of Gen. xvii. In this it signifies truly, tho Men, viz. the Jews falsly thought otherwise. See my Notes on Gen. x.9.

CHAP. V.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That which seems to be intended by these words is, a power of doing Miracles conferred on the Apostles and innumerable others by Christ, as the Doctor intimates in his Paraphrase. For hereby the Apostles and the rest of the Christians were assured that Christ would not disappoint those who waited for the accomplishment of his promises, having al∣ready so plentifully bestowed on them the promised gifts of his Spirit.

Vers. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is,* 1.6 as our Author well observes in his Para∣phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beneficent or charitable, which is more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just. So in a great many places God is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies not his Goodness, that is, his Sanctity, but his Bounty, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 towards Men: See Psalm cxxxvi. So Mat. xx.15. Is thine Eye evil because I am good? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, bountiful, as the Parable shews. So in Aelian Var. Hist. Lib. 3.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Archytas was good to the Tarentines, i. e. a Benefactor to them. So the old Glosses; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bonus, benignus, good, gracious; and Phavorinus among other things says, it signifies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that without asking bestows good things freely.

CHAP. VI.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The sense of this Phrase is not suf∣ficiently expressed by our Author, nor by other Inter∣preters. The Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signifies, as it usually does, the end of Baptism; and the Apostle's meaning is no more than this, we were baptized ΤΟ this end, that we might be Christians. So in 1 Cor. x.2. the antient Jews are said to have been baptized 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to that end that they might be the Disciples of Moses: See Note on Mat. xxviii.19. And so in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to the end we might imitate his Death, viz. Christ's.

Vers. 6. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 34. after the words, in the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] There are several things in the beginning of this Annotation I cannot assent to.

I. To confirm the sense our learned Author puts upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he alledges places as parallel that are not. For there is a great difference between places in which the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is joined with Pro∣nouns Possessive, where the discourse is about Men, as my Body, &c. and places in which it is joined with the names of other things. There is no doubt but the Phrase my Body, is often all one with I my self, by a Synechdoche of the part for the whole, common in many Lan∣guages. But when other Names are added to the word Body, the Phrase is quite different, because they cannot be said to consist of two parts, of which one may be called the Body, and give a denominati∣on to the whole thing, as to a Man. Nor is there any comparison be∣tween Phrases, whereof one, as the Logicians speak, signifies a sub∣stance, as when Body is attributed to a Man, and the other an accident, as the body of Sin, if that Phrase be to be understood of Sin it self.

II. I had rather in this place, and such others, recur to another very frequent Idiom of the Hebrew Language, whereby a Noun Sub∣stantive in the Genitive Case is put for an Adjective, and so by the Body of Sin understand a sinful Body, or a Body obnoxious to Sin: which Interpretation how agreeable it is to this place I shall afterwards shew. So in Chap. vii.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Body obnoxious to death, as I shall prove. And Phil. iii.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is manifestly a vile Body and a glorious Body. From whence, saith St. Paul, (viz. from Heaven) we look for our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our Body of Vileness, that it may be fashioned like unto the Body of his Glory.

III. By the Body of Sin, or obnoxious to Sin here, we are to under∣stand reduplicativè, as the Schoolmen speak, the Body as such, or the Body as a body of Sin. The Apostle does not respect the Substance it self of the Body, but this quality of it, that it is the original, in∣centive and instrument of Sin, as he tells us in the next Chapter. And it is certain sensible things do not draw us to sinful Actions any other way than by affecting our Bodies, and by that means impressing our Minds. And that most of the Sins we are guilty of, proceed from an inordinate love of sensible things, every body will readily acknowledg. After therefore the Apostle had said our old Man was crucified, that is, we had left our old sinful Customs, he very fitly adds, that hereupon that deadly and destructive Power which was in our Bodies to draw us to Sin was taken away, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so that the body of Sin is weakned or disabled, for so I interpret the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the figure called Echasis, not as a Causal. So Col. ii.11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in the put∣ting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh; for that Body which before served Sin, is as it were put off, in order to put on another new Body which may serve Righteousness. The change is in the use of the Body, not in the substance of it, that is here meant.

IV. The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hetsem properly signifies a Bone, not the Body, of which there is no Example, and comes from a Root which signifies to be strong, because the Bones are the strongest parts of the Body. But afterwards, I know not for what reason, it came to signify the thing it self, which the Discourse related to. Instead of Judg. 9. our Author writes Jos. 9. as it is falsly quoted also in Val. Schindler, from whom, or some other Lexicographer, he took it upon trust, without looking into the place, which is thus: Remember that I am 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, your Bone and your Flesh, which is a Hebrew Phrase used to signify Consanguinity. See my Notes on Gen. ii.23. The Phrase in

Job ii.5. Touch his Bone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and his Flesh, is a Periphrasis of the Body, which consists chiefly of Flesh and Bones. Nor do either of those places serve the Doctor's design. I confess, among the Rabbins, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used to signify a Substance, as it is opposed to Accidents, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies my self; but it would not be properly rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Body. Of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Col. ii.9. I may have occasion to speak elsewhere, for we have nothing to do with it here.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] These descriptions of Regeneration illustrate indeed the thing St. Paul here speaks of, but do not shew us what is the proper meaning of the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was most requisite. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as seldom used by Heathen Writers, as it is frequently by St Paul, in whom it oc∣curs more than twenty times. The simple Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to be at rest, to cease, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idle, one that has nothing to do. And hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to make to cease, and by consequence to render vain or useless. In the Old Glossary it is rendered by casso to frustrate or make void, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by avocat calls off, viz. from business, to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idleness, or rest. And Phavorinus has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should overcome, should make to cease; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make to cease, and finish: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it was made to cease. And so here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to make those Sins which have their rise from the Body to cease.

Vers. 19. Note b.] I. I believe our Author never look'd into the Passage in Demosthenes, for if he had, he would have seen that it was nothing to his purpose, and would have otherwise translated it. It is in the Greek Ed. of Morellus, Num. 72. where Demosthenes, speaking of the Stripes inflicted on him by Midias, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what excuse will seem human and modest for those things which he has done? That is, in which a Man would ac∣knowledg that he had been humanly treated; of which Phrase see H. Stephanus in his Thesaurus. The place in Horace ought to have been more exactly referred to: For who ever alledged a Testimony out of Horace, lib. 2. without adding Carm. Sat. or Epist.? That place is in Epist. 2. Lib. 2. ver. 70. where, speaking of the tediousness of the ways, which could not be travelled but with great pain, he ironically says, Intervalla vides humanè commoda, that is, valde commoda, or such as you would in all reason desire. The Doctor, who did not look into the place, renders it parum commoda, little profitable.

II. The latter Interpretation is favoured by Phavorinus, who saith out of a Lexicon which contained perhaps the words of Scripture, of

which sort there are a great many in the Italian Libraries:* 1.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But S. Chrysostom seems to favour the former, who interprets it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: from human reasonings, from those things which are commonly or customarily done. And indeed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sufficiently shews, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Apostles form of speaking: And because words borrowed from common use are plain and clear, therefore the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to speak plainly, as it is usual to speak, not in a bigger or more swelling stile than ordinary, and consequently more obscure. A Cook in Strato in Phoenicide is brought in speaking of another that used old fashioned and poetical words, thus:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But I earnestly beseech him to change his Dialect, and speak humanely. It is in the 9th Book of Athenaeus cap. 7. on which see Is. Casaubon. It is certain what St. Paul had said before was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and therefore it is no wonder if, changing the form of his Discourse, he says here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So also the Latin humanè is opposed to poeticè in Petronius cap. 50. Minùs quàm duabus horis mecum moraris, & saepius poeticè quàm humanè loquutus es; You have been with me less than two hours, and have talked oftner poetically than humanely.

CHAP. VII.

Vers. 5. Note c. OUR Author confounds here things that ought to be distinguished, and distinguishes between things that are the same, because he had a greater regard to Di∣vinity than to Grammar.

I. Being in the Flesh is a Phrase here applied to the Jews, who ob∣served only the letter of the Law, as St. Paul speaks, that is, its carnal Commands, which respected only the Body, but had no regard to the spiritual design of them. But this could not be said of all the Jews, among whom such as were pious did doubtless take more care about real and inward Holiness, than external Ceremonies. To this pur∣pose is that Declaration in Hosea vi.7. concerning the excellency of Mercy above Sacrifices, and the like sayings in the Prophets.

II. The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to enjoy the spiritual sense of the Law, not the literal or grammatical; that is, to regard the

Mind or Spirit of the Lawgiver more than his Words,* 1.8 as the Christians did. See on Chap. ii.29. and compare that Verse with the foregoing, which will shew what is the meaning of the word Spirit on one hand, and Letter or Flesh on the other; for these two last are used promis∣cuously.

III. But because they that followed only the carnal sense of the Law, were not lovers of true Piety, the Phrase to be in the Flesh, taken in this sense, draws another Notion along with it, which is to indulge the Lusts of the Body, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be according to the Flesh, those Phrases being indifferently used by St. Paul, chap. viii.5, 8, 9.

Vers. 7. Note e.] But the discourse is not about a Jew, who could not doubt but that Coveting, which was forbidden by the Law, was a Sin, but one that knew not the Law, as those Jews which lived before the Law was given. Unless God had prohibited coveting, they had not believed it to be a Sin no more than most of the Heathens. To seize upon what was anothers by force, or secretly take it away, they knew to be Theft, and a thing manifestly prejudicial to human Society, and therefore evil and offensive to God; but they did not think it unlawful either to covet what was not their own, or to get what was another's by Artifices, such as are used by Merchants, who think they may lawfully do a great many things either to raise the Price of their own Goods, or to buy anothers cheap, and the like, which are un∣doubtedly unjust, tho very agreeable to the Custom of most Nations. But this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or coveting, God forbad, and that inward affection from which such Sins proceed, as I have shewn on Exod. xx. See also on Mat. v.28.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, would, vellem, as Grotius and others have rightly observ'd. See 1 Cor. vii.7. So it is used also by Anacreon in the beginning of his first Ode:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

I would speak of the Atridae, I would sing also of Cadmus.

CHAP. VIII.

Vers. 2. Note a. THO it be very true, that he who is freed from the Law of Sin, is freed from Sin; and that the Law of the Spirit is not without the Spirit, so that what is said of the Law of the Spirit may be said also of the Spirit; yet neither of these Phrases can be properly and literally explained so as our Author

interprets them. The Law of Sin is properly the Dominion of Sin, as appears from the 23d Verse of the foregoing Chapter, namely, be∣cause it belongs to a Ruler to impose Laws. And on the contrary, the Law of the Spirit is the Dominion of the Spirit: So that St. Paul's meaning is, that the Spirit which Christ gives, and whose Commands Christians obey, does free them from the Dominion which Sin former∣ly had over them; which is so manifest, that in his Paraphrase the Doctor has followed this Interpretation: Only having no regard to propriety of Speech in his own stile, he is as careless of it in inter∣preting anothers.

Vers. 4. Note c.] Grotius in his Notes on Chap. ii.16. interprets this word in a sense quite contrary to Dr. Hammond. The Apostle, saith he, here explains what he means by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is usually rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only by Interpreters, but also by Josephus, and properly signifies such things as are in their own nature good and just, as I have said on Luke i.6. and in Lib. 1. c. 1.9. de Jure B. & P. But they are both in an error; for, First, The distinction which the Rab∣bins make between the Hebrew words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mitsvoth and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hhukkim, has no foundation either in their Etymology or Use, as I have ob∣serv'd on Gen. xxvi.5. Secondly, The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by Greek Interpreters to signify the Divine Laws in general; and tho they most commonly render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet they use also that word sometimes where the Hebrew has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Deut. xxx.15. and 1 Kings ii.3. Among Attick Writers, or the best Grecians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Statute, Jus, or Record, Instrumentum, by which the justice of any Cause is determined; but in the Old and New Testament God's Ordinances or Institutions, of what sort soever they be, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it is just 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to obey them; and sometimes the observation of those Laws it self, as in Rev. xix.8. which place our Author forces. So that it must be collected from the thing it self, and not from the word, whether the Discourse be about Moral Precepts or others.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The word Spirit here manifestly signifies an affection of the Mind, as the Spirit of Jealousy in Numb. v. the affection of a jealous Mind, and so in many other Phrases of the same kind. St. Paul's meaning here therefore is, that the manner of God's Behaviour toward the Jews, had rather produced in their Minds a slavish Disposition, than a filial one. But wherein did that servile Temper consist? This we are told in the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to fear, that is, that ye should be governed more by fear than by hope; for that is the case of Servants who stand in great fear of their

Masters, but hope for very little from them; whereas Children hope much from the bounty of their Parents, and fear but little. But what was the reason why the Jews fear of God was greater than their hopes? Namely, because the breach of his Laws, excepting Sins of Infirmity, and some of less moment, was threatned with Temporal Punishments, which were unavoidable whilst the Jewish Common∣wealth stood and flourished, and God had not any where promised Mercy to Persons so offending, either in this Life or in the next, or allowed any place for Repentance: Because he had not appointed any Expiatory Sacrifices in the Law for spiritual Sins, such as Pride, or Covetousness, or the like, tho he had denounced no Temporal Punishments against them; whereby it came to pass, that tho cove∣tous, proud, or any other such sort of Sinners had nothing to ap∣prehend from the Magistrate, yet they were afraid of being punished by God, who had made no Promises so much as to the penitent. But under the Gospel things are quite otherwise, as I need not here at large shew.

This is what Dr. Hammond ought only to have expressed in his Pa∣raphrase, which may be gathered from St. Paul's words themselves, and not arbitrarily have inserted foreign things into his Discourse. Com∣pare with this place Gal. iv.1, &c. Who in reading St. Paul would ever have dream'd that under those things, which are signified by the Spirit of Adoption, were contained the mild Punishments of the Church? Where did Christ, where did his Apostles teach any such thing? More might be said which I designedly pass over.

Vers. 19. Note f.] If ever any thing was written by Dr. Ham∣mond that was harsh and forced, (and a great many Instances of such things might be given) it is certainly what he says in this place, as I shall briefly prove.

I. He confesses that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the 18th Verse, is either a deliverance from the Persecutions of the Jews in this Life, or the happiness of the next; of which last it is only to be under∣stood, the Discourse being about that Inheritance whereof we are joint Heirs with Christ, which respects only the other World. But the Apostle goes on: For the Creature lifting up (as it were) its head (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) waits for the Revelation (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of the Sons of God; which manifestly shews that he still speaks of the Glory which is to be revealed, and which makes nothing to the distinction that was to be put between the incredulous Jews, and those among them who believed and obey'd the Gospel. If our Author had not been

used to a most intricate Stile, he would soon have perceived that he offered Violence to the Series of the Discourse.

II. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot be applied to such an expectation as he describes, for we are properly said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when upon previ∣ous notice given of it, we understand there is some great happiness to be looked for, and which we impatiently expect, tho perhaps we do not know perfectly what it is. But the Gentiles knew nothing at all of their vocation to the true Religion upon the Gospel's being rejected by the Jews. Who will believe that St. Paul, in order to express the Affection of the Gentiles, plunged in the greatest ignorance and wick∣edness, and who accordingly could not be said otherwise than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be in expectation of the Gospel, would make use of a word that has a singular emphasis in it? It had been hardly tolerable if he had mollified it as much as possible, by adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or some such other form. The phrases to seek death, and to love death, which signify to do those things which such as sought or loved death would do, are not here to the purpose. For the Heathens did not do what those ought to have done who were in a longing expectation of the Gospel. The words of Jacob in Gen. xlix. are otherwise to be understood, as in my Notes on that passage I have shewn. Nor is there any necessity of interpreting the words of Haggai of the Gentiles, to whom Christ should be as yet unknown; but they may be very well understood of those which, after they had already embraced the Gospel, should make Christ their desire, that is, should long to enjoy his promised Benefits, and see him returning from Heaven to judg the World. This is that which is the object of our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or earnest expecta∣tion.

III. It is very true that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Language of the Rabbins, signi∣fies men. Our Author might also have added, that in the same dia∣lect the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Heathens, in opposition to Jews, as his Countryman Dr. Lightfoot on Mark xvi.15. has observed. The mean∣ing of St. Paul therefore is, that the Heathens who were converted to the Christian Faith, did earnestly expect the time when the Sons of God were to be revealed, that is, as the foregoing and following context shews, were to be made partakers of eternal Glory and Happiness by Christ after the universal Judgment. He distinguishes afterwards him∣self and the believing Jews from the Heathens, when he says that not only they, or the Creature, did expect that time, but we also that have the first fruits of the Spirit, i. e. we Jews who have first received the Holy Spirit from God. The Gentiles at this time were no longer in expecta∣tion

of what the Jews were about to do; for the Gospel upon their rejection of it, and continuing incredulous, had been preached a good while ago to the Gentiles, as is plain from the History of the Apostles, and that account of times which our Author himself gives us in his Premonition to this Epistle.

4. Besides, I cannot imagin whence our Author inferred, that the happiness of the Gentiles did depend upon the obduracy of the Jews; as if upon supposition that the whole Jewish Nation, or the greatest part of it, had believed in Christ, the Gentiles were never to have had the Christian Faith preached to them! We are told indeed, both by Christ and his Apostles, that the Gospel was to be preached first to the Jews, pursuant to God's decree, but no where to them alone. There was no difference to be made in this matter between the Jews and the rest of the World, but only in the time of preaching the Gospel. If the whole Jewish Nation had received Christ, they had understood that the Gentiles were to be called to the same Faith, and that they must aban∣don their Rites and Ceremonies; and so all the Jews had become the Disciples of Christ. I confess the obstinacy of the Jews was the occa∣sion of the Apostles going to the Gentiles; but what the Jews obstina∣cy was the occasion of, Religion and Charity would have obliged the Apostles to, if the Jews had all or most of them believed in Christ. This we may conclude from the story of Cornelius in Acts x. to whom St. Peter was directly sent before the Apostles had departed from the Jews. And this Christ expresly commanded in Mark xvi.15. and Acts i.8. So that it hence also appears that our Author puts a wrong in∣terpretation on this discourse of St. Paul.

Ibid. Note g. The Revelation of the Sons of God is manifestly the same with the Adoption spoken of in vers. 23. and that being nothing else but an admission into the Kingdom of Heaven in the view of all the World, the Revelation of the Sons of God must be that same Action of God whereby he will make known to all, who those are that he acknowledges for his Sons. The series of the discourse puts this out of all doubt: The CREATURE earnestly waits for the REVELA∣TION OF THE SONS OF GOD, in hope because the Creature it self also shall be delivered from the bondage of Corruption, into the glo∣rious liberty of the Sons of God: for we know that every Creature groaneth, and travelleth in pain until now; and NOT only they [expect, to wit, the Revelation of the Sons of God, and groan because of their pre∣sent condition] BUT we our selves also who have the first Fruits of the Spirit, groan likewise our selves within our selves, waiting, for the A∣DOPTION of Sons, viz. the Redemption of our Body. The Doctor

hinder'd his discerning this, by mixing a great many foreign things with St. Paul's discourse, of which there is not the least mark or foot∣step in the Apostle, perhaps to have the reputation of saying some∣thing new.

By the Revelation or Adoption of the Sons of God, is signified an act of Christ, acknowledging those that are his, at the day of Judgment, in some such words as those, Come ye blessed, &c. because it does not now appear who are the Sons of God by any particular and visible evidences of the divine Favour towards them above the rest of Man∣kind, and so others deny them to be by a special privilege the Sons of God; but when Christ comes to separate the Godly from the Wicked, this will be plain and manifest. See John 1 Ep. iii.1, 2.

Vers. 20. Note i.] Our Author covers one Mistake with another, to keep them, as one said, from leaking. This I most of all won∣der at, that he should produce the Example of a most superstitious Heathen, and most malicious and implacable Enemy to the Christian Religion, viz. Porphyry, as a Philosopher who groaned under the burden of Idolatry. Whoever reads his Writings and his Life, writ by the learned Luc. Holstenius, and understands but the nature of that new Platonick Philosophy, will soon perceive that no Men were ever more devoted to Idolatry, than Porphyry, and the rest of the Phi∣losophers of that Age. Our Author ought rather to have produced the Examples of Socrates, Plato, and others, who in some measure dis∣approved Idolatry, than of such as were its greatest Champions, and with all their might defended it against Christianity.

But there was no need of recurring to that, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not signify Idolatry, nor is the Discourse here about Idolaters. For tho I should grant our Author that Idolatry is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Idolaters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does not follow, that wherever that word is used it must be so interpreted, or that it respects the Worship of Idols rather than any other Vanities of the Heathens. It may be better un∣derstood here of that Emptiness or Vanity which is in all the things of this Life. For the Heathens who had embraced the Gospel did earnestly expect that time wherein they knew they should be delivered from the Vanity of this World; to wit, when Christ should openly acknowledg and declare them to be the Sons of God, as I before said. Those who have entertained the Christian Religion, and seriously considered it, do best of all know that those things which relate only to this Life are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, perfect Vanity; such only under∣stand the truth of that saying of the Preacher, Vanity of Vanities, all things are Vanity, and of the Poet, Heu quantum est in rebus inane!

And accordingly the Heathens who had been converted to Christiani∣ty did groan and as it were travel in pain, till they were set free from those vain Occupations, which partly necessity, and partly the igno∣rance and weakness of human Understanding, has imposed on us.

That is the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. a vain de∣sire or labour, for it signifies what is done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in vain, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies frustraneous, insignificant, and in the old Glosses is rendered by inanis, cassus, vanus, supervacuus, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frustratio, vanitas. Such are most of the Employmenss of this Life, designed either to pro∣cure what we judg profitable, or to redress those Evils which trouble and torment us, in which we often find our selves disappointed; so that we grow weary of our present Condition, and are made to wish for that time wherein being delivered from all these vain distractions we shall enjoy the happiness of the Sons of God.

Ibid. Note h. Having already overthrown what Dr. Hammond says in the foregoing Annotations, what he has here about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must needs fall to the ground. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is God who has made Men for their Sins subject 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to vanity, that is, as I said be∣fore, the vain employments of Life; which the Wise Man in Eccles. i.13. and iii.10. calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 habalim, and the Septuagint elegantly render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This sore Travel, saith he, (this vain Labour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it may be rendred in Greek) hath GOD given to the Sons of Men, to be exercised therewith. And to so many vain labours with which humane Life is encumbred, we are unwillingly subject, and should not patiently undergo them but for God, who has subjected us to them, and in whose most wise and just Providence it is fit we should acquiesce. But in the mean while nothing hinders but we may desire to be de∣livered from these vexations, which will then only be, when the Sons of God shall be revealed, who now together with the wicked are subject to the same Troubles and Labours, and will not be set at Liber∣ty till Christ's return. In comparison of this Interpretation, to omit the rest, Dr. Hammond's is violent; and all he says besides is nothing to the purpose.

Vers. 21. Note k. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, signifies nothing but that corruption to which our Body is naturally liable, and which in this Life we are unwillingly in Bondage to: So it is used in 1 Cor. xv.42, 50. It is not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vanity, that being but a conse∣quent of it; for the corruptibleness of our Bodies is the reason of our being exercised with so many vain Labours.

Vers. 23. Note l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I before said, is that solemn acknow∣ledgment of the Sons of God which will be made at the day of Judg∣ment,

presently after the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Resurrection of the Dead. Now we are rather ordained or appointed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the Sons of God, than actually enjoy that Dignity; as Jesus was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 determined the Son of God after his Resurrection, as St. Paul speaks in Chap. i.2. No one besides Dr. Hammond would say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is delivered from Persecutions.

Ibid. Note m. Lin. 9. After the words, in a different sense.] Our Author forgot himself when he wrote this, for we do not find this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the 22d verse, nor any where else in this Chap∣ter, or in this Epistle, but in Chap. iii.24.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] It is much more agreeable to St. Paul's stile and the series of his Discourse in this place, to understand the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the resurrection of the Body; after which we shall enter upon that Happiness which is opposed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or vanity of this Life.

Vers. 26. Note n. There was no need of proving that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament often signifies Diseases, that being very well known, and to be learned by any Concordance. The rest our Author had from Grotius, and nothing is his own but his translating the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by labour, which in this place ought to have been rendred grief; for the Hebrew never signifies labour, and the Greek is very of∣ten used in the other sense.

Vers. 28. Note o. Col. 1. Lin. 36. After the mention of 1 Kings i.41, 49. 2 Sam. 14.11.] Our learned Author is mistaken in his in∣terpretation of these two places, as I have shewn on Mat. xx.16. Numb. ii.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here seems to be taken for that purpose or course of Life which those who embraced the Gospel lived in before they came to the knowledg of it; and so St. Paul's meaning will be, that all things turn to the advantage of those to whom the Gospel-call was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, agreeable to their former pur∣pose, i. e. disposition of Mind, and manner of Life. And indeed those Persons prove the most constant, who receive the Gospel in an honest Heart, as Christ tells us in the Parable of the Sower, Luke viii.15. because they throughly discern the beauty and excellency of it a∣bove all other Doctrins, and suffer it to sink deep into their Minds. They are distinguished in the New Testament by several commend∣able Characters, which Dr. Hammond has excellently treated of in his Annotations on John vi.37. and Acts xiii.48. and elsewhere. Such a one was Cornelius the Centurion, whose manner of Life was such that he needed not to change his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or purpose, to believe the Gospel.

Such also were the Beraeans, whom that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or excellent and generous Disposition, which God had before planted in their Minds, had prepared for a ready submission to the Gospel, and all others among the Jews who with a pious Mind waited for the Kingdom of God, or among the Gentiles like them. These all persisted in their former purpose of living piously, and did not alter it when they embraced the Gospel.

The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to resolve or decree beforehand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must also be a previous Purpose, or Resolution formerly taken up: And that Purpose may be either concerning any thing in particular, or about the whole course of a Man's Life: so that what comes to pass 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be understood of what is either contrary or agreeable to a particular purpose, or the whole scope and aim of a Man's Actions. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both a single purpose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the general course a Man resolves to live in. So Propositum in Latin is used in both those senses: And these words we may the more confidently compare with that here in St. Paul, because the Greek Grammarians use the former by which to interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the latter is manifestly an imitation of the Greek.

Hence when the discourse is about any particular thing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies on set purpose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which comes to pass against our Will or Intention. Thus in Suidas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will or design, of which he gives this Example: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but he did not injure any one wilfully, or on set purpose. So the Author of the Quest. and Answ. to the Orthodox Quest. 19. speaking of the palpitation of the Heart, which takes Men sometimes on a sudden, demands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; if this be an evil, how comes it to happen against our Will? The same Phrase he uses in his Answer. That Propositum among the Latins sig∣nifies a certain way of Life, Rob. Stephanus in his Thesaurus has shewn by several Examples, as his Son Henricus will furnish us with others of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for design or purpose.

So that whereas Beza supplies here ipsius, his, and renders the words ex praestituto ipsius, according to [his] purpose, referring the word pur∣pose to God; if any thing be supplied, I think it should rather be suum their. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to their purpose. For that it is ra∣ther the purpose of Men than of God that is here intended, appears by the Active Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because if St. Paul had spoken only of God, he would have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to them that are be∣loved of God.

* 1.9Vers. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] The discourse here be∣ing about a thing, which at the time that St. Paul wrote was as well both present and future as past, I would not have all these Aorists render'd by the Preterperfect tense, because it is certain the Aorist among the Greeks, as the Future among the Hebrews, often signifies a Custom: See my Notes on Gen. x.9. So that I think these words should be translated thus: Whom he hath predestinated, them he also cal∣leth (i. e. useth to call) and whom he hath called, them he also justi∣fieth; and whom he hath justified, them he also glorifieth. That this is the Apostle's sense all Interpreters acknowledg, only they did not observe that the Aorists denote a Custom.

Vers. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, who shall implead or prove them to be guilty? For so the Lawyers speak, amongst whom this is an Axiom: Peregisse reum non aliàs quis videtur, nisi & condemnaverit, A Person does not seem to be proved guilty, unless he be also condemned. St. Paul speaks of an accusation before God, against Christians, which he affirms would be ineffectual to procure their condemnation, because they had Jesus for their Advocate with the Father, if they lived according to the Laws of the Gospel.

CHAP. IX.

Vers. 1. Note a. IT is a perfect force our Author puts upon that expression in Acts v. to lie to the Holy Ghost, of which see what I have said on that place, as also of the Vow that Ananias is groundlesly supposed by learned men to have made.

Vers. 4. Note c. Col. 2. Lin. 38. After the mention of Heb. ix.5.] By the glory of God in Acts vii.55. I rather understand some dazling glorious Light, than Angels. See my Note on Mark xvi.19.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 41. After the words, most High.] There is no such expression as this in Job i.5. and I cannot tell whence our Author took it, unless it were from some Greek Interpreter on that place.

Vers. 5. Note d.] It were to be wished our learned Author had ex∣amined here the Animad version of Grotius on this place, rather than copied out Jewish Fables that make little to the purpose; especially seeing Erasmus had long ago written enough to overthrow all that can be inferred from them. For if what Grotius, and before him Eras∣mus, have observed stand good, Dr. Hammond's reasoning cannot be thought of any force. Let those that are inquisitive into these mat∣ters compare both places.

Vers. 9. Note e.] By the place in 2 King. iv.16. it appears that the Doctor was in the wrong, to think that the Passage in Genesis was corrupted, on which see my Notes.

Vers. 11. Note g.] There is no election or chusing without preferring, and therefore there was no need of observing that the Hebrew word is rendred to prefer as well as to chuse.

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] It being certain that these words are alledged by St. Paul in the same sense that they are used in Gen. xxv.23. they must here be understood not of the Persons of Esau and Jacob themselves, but of their Posterity: for these are the words of the Oracle; Two Nations are in thy Womb, and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels, and the one shall be stronger than the other, and the greater shall serve the less. Of which prediction see my Notes on that place in Genesis. Therefore in this Passage of St. Paul, the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ought not to have been ren∣dred in the English Translation, the elder shall serve the younger, but the greater shall serve the less. And so the Apostles scope also requires, who manifestly speaks of the Election, not of particular Persons, but of whole Nations.

Vers. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] It is manifest from the Prophet, that this has a reference to the Nations that descended from Jacob and Esau, and not to them themselves. So that I wonder our Author in his Paraphrase, on occasion of these words, should observe that that Prophecy, the greater shall serve the less, was fulfilled personally in them, especially seeing the contrary appears from the History of Moses, as in my Notes on the forementioned Chapter of Genesis I have observed.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This place I have interpreted on Exod. xxxiii.19. and shewed the meaning of God to be, that "because he had began to shew Favor and Mercy to the "Israelites, he would continue to do so: and this is all that is here intended by these words. The Apostle having said that the Poste∣rity of Jacob were preferred by God before the Idumaeans, because it so seemed good to him, and not because Esau's Posterity were worse than that of Jacob, proposes to himself an objection, Is there unrighte∣ousness with God? Which he denies with detestation, saying, God for∣bid; for, saith he, he said to Moses, I will have Mercy on whom I have Mercy, and I will have Compassion on whom I have Compassion: that is, as God began to shew kindness to Jacob himself, so he continued his kindness to his Posterity, without the least injustice; because he did not deny any benefit to the Idumaeans which they had deserved, but

only went on to do good to the Israelites tho unworthy. For it is no injustice to be merciful to those that do not deserve it, tho it would be so to punish those that do not deserve it. Mercy may be justly shewn, when punishment cannot be justly inflicted.

As this Interpretation is favoured by the place referred to in Moses, as I have shewn in my Comment on Exodus, so it agrees also with the Greek words as they are here accented, for we read them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the present tense Indicative, which is not so favourable to the vulgar Translation, according to which we ought rather to read in the Sub∣junctive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is generally accented in the Greek Copies of the Septuagint, so that it might be rendred as it is by Beza; Miserebor cujus misertus fuero, & commiserabor cujus commiseratus fuero; I will have Mer∣cy on whom I shall have Mercy, and I will have Compassion on whom I shall have Compassion. But this is contrary to the Hebrew words which are thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have favoured him whom I will favour, I have had Mercy on whom I will have Mercy; where one of the Verbs is in the future tense, and the other in the preterperfect; which preterperfect is rendred here in the Present, be∣cause it is the same thing, for God did still then shew Mercy to the Israelites, and had never ceased to shew Mercy to them, when he so spake. Which being so, I wonder that Beza should find fault with the Vulgar, and Erasmus for making use here of the present Tense, and rendering it cui misereor, or cujuscunque misereor, To whom I shew Mercy, or to whomsoever I shew Mercy, and give this reason for it, that in the Hebrew the Verb is in both places in the future, which the Reader has just now seen to be false. He adds that the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shews it must be interpreted by the future as past; and I cannot deny but that Particle uses to be joined to a Subjunctive, but it being joined to a Preterperfect tence Indicative, it may be also joined to the Present, especially where the purity of the Greek Language is not observed, as it is not in St. Paul. It must be observed further, that the words of Moses are in∣verted; for whereas in him it is, I have favoured him whom I will favour, &c. the Septuagint understood it as if it had been said, I will favour him whom I do favour, &c. because tho those Phrases signify the same thing, yet the order of the words in the latter sutes better with the Greek Language.

Vers. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This seems to be a prover∣bial form of Speech, commonly used to signify that all human endea∣vours are insignificant unless God countenance them. I suppose it was taken from the Grecian Games, to which St. Paul often alludes. In like manner an unknown Poet, in Grotius's excerpta, says that,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Man void of Counsel, labours and runs in vain.

The meaning is, that from the meer arbitrary pleasure of God proceed∣ed that favour he continued to shew to Jacob's Posterity, rather than to Esaus; not from any thing that the Israelites had done to deserve the divine Favor more than the Idumaeans. From which Doctrin it fol∣lowed that God might without any injustice, call the Heathens to the knowledg of the Gospel, and reject the carnal Jews, tho otherwise the Heathens had done no more to merit this token of God's favour than the Jews. Having thus far endeavoured to clear the Apostle's sense in this place, I shall subjoin a Paraphrase of seven Verses, from the tenth to the sixteenth, to shew how aptly what I have said agrees with St. Paul's scope, and the series of his Discourse.

Vers. 10. And not only the Example of Isaac and Ishmael teaches us, that it is not sufficient for any Nation to have descended from the Patriarchs, to claim to themselves a right in the Divine Pro∣mises, or entitle them God's People. This appears likewise by the instance of Esau and Jacob, which Rebecca bare to one Isaac. 11. For before ever they were born, and consequently had done good or evil, by which to procure the favour of God, or make him their Enemy; that the purpose of God concerning chusing a certain Peo∣ple to himself, might appear to proceed from his own arbitrary pleasure, and not to have been excited by any Virtue or Merits of that People; 12. God answered Rebecca when she consulted him a∣bout her Children striving in her Womb: That she carried in her Bowels the Fathers of two great People; of which People that which did first become the most numerous, and acquired the greatest Riches and Power should afterwards serve the other, tho in the be∣ginning not so powerful. 13. To which purpose also is that saying of God in Malachi, that he had preferred Jacob and his Posterity, to Esau and his Progeny, and upon the former conferred much greater Benefits. 14. Perhaps some may object that God, accord∣ing to this Doctrin, seems to be unjust, who, as I affirm, so much prefers one People before another, that are no better than they. But that does not in the least follow from this Doctrin. 15. For Moses, whom none will affirm to charge God with any injustice, tells us, that when he had prayed God to continue to go before the Camp of the Israelites, tho they had deserved his anger, and prevailed, he received this answer from him, that the Israelites, tho they had

heinously offended him, since he had begun to shew them favour, should find him also for the future gracious to them, and still be ac∣counted by him his People. 16. So that the Mercy of God in cal∣ling any Nation to the knowledg of himself, and making them his peculiar People, does not use to depend on the Merits of that Na∣tion, but on his own free Will and arbitrary Purpose.

This is, if I am not mistaken, the Series of the Apostle's discourse; which being so explained, directly answers his design in this place, and admirably agrees with the sense of the places he refers to in Moses, as it is in Moses himself. About the 12th Verse we must con∣sult Grotius.

Vers. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here seems to refer to the sense latent in the foregoing words, in which tho St. Paul speaks only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the election, yet by this very thing, that he declares God to chuse a Nation whom he may shew a peculiar kind∣ness to, he intimates that he leaves other non-elect Nations in their Sins. For as I before suggested, there can be no election where some∣thing is not cast off, because that which is not chosen must necessarily be rejected. And to this the Apostle's words in this and the Verses fol∣lowing refer, wherein he discourses separately concerning rejection, as in the foregoing he had mostly treated about election. So that I should paraphrase this 17th Verse thus:

Moses also teaches us that, as to the rejection or praeterition of sinful Nations, whereby it comes to pass that the People so abandoned fall into the greatest evils and calamities, that may without blasphemy be imputed to God, be∣cause he says he was commanded to speak to Pharaoh in God's name to this sense, that he, if he so pleased, could easily destroy both the King himself and the whole Egyptian Nation, and so make his People a free passage, which they had so often refused them, out of their Country; but he would suffer Pharaoh still to live, that he might give further demonstrations of his Power, and make his Name great and famous throughout the World.

See what I have written on Moses's words, in Exod. ix.15, 16. for what our Author says in the following Annotation, does not agree with them.

Ibid. Note h. Tho the Hebrew word be in the Preterperfect tense, yet I have rendred it in its proper place, as if it were the Future, be∣cause of the Verse foregoing, which seems to require its being so ren∣dered: See my Notes on that place, by which this must be under∣stood.

Vers. 18. Note i. By God's hardening the Heart of Pharaoh, I think is neither intended any action of God upon Pharaoh's Mind, nor so

much as any withdrawing of his Grace from him, seeing there is neither any mention made of such withdrawing in Moses, nor is it necessary to suppose it. Nor do I think that Moses purposely abstained from using the Phrase, the Lord hardened his Heart, till the sixth Plague that he inflicted upon that Egyptian King was past, as if then, and not before, he particularly forsook him. For before ever Moses went to Pharaoh, God foretold that he would harden him, Exod. iv.21. which refers to all his obstinacy from first to last. See therefore my Notes on that place.

Vers. 28. Note k. What our Author says in this Annotation he took from Grotius, with whom nevertheless I cannot agree in correcting this place out of one Alexandrian Copy, contrary to the Authority of all the rest, and the Antient Interpreters. It is harsh I confess for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be put after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the construction is intricate; but neither is it much clearer in the Septuagint. Besides, in alledging Testimonies of Scripture, there is but little regard had to the series of the Discourse, provided the Writers words are but to the purpose, and rightly quoted. The words in the Hebrew are thus, vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Septuagint render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, finish∣ing and making up his account in Righteousness; whence it is probable they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hhorets, the Participle Benoni for Pahul. Then follows in v. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which they render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because an account cast up will the Lord make in all the Earth, by which it appears that they thought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chiljon & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chalah, to signify an account; and if that be true, we may render the words something more commodiously, tho to the same sense, thus: he will hasten an ac∣count exactly cast up in Righteousness; for an account, and that exactly cast up, will the Lord God of Hosts make in the whole Earth. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify diligently and particularly cast up; and this very thing in part 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also seems to signify, so as to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to cast up, or draw together several sums into one. And the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the use of the Chaldee, I render by to hasten. In French the words might be translated thus: il dépêchera de faire ex∣actament son compte avec justice, car le Seigneur créateur, Dieu des ar∣mées, fera un compte & un compte exact, dans tout le païs; He will hasten to make exactly his account with Justice, for the Lord God of Hosts will make an account and an exact account in all the Land. The Prophet's meaning is, that as one who carefully casts up an account of his expences and receits, sees if there remains any thing over, and tho it be but a small sum lays it safe up; so God will destroy all the wicked, and save only

the good,* 1.10 tho they be but very few: which admirably well sutes with the design of the Apostle. I shall add nothing more in this place, be∣cause I intend hereafter, if God permit, to handle this matter more largely in a Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah.

Vers. 33. Note m. As there are two Passages here in the Prophet Isaiah, at a considerable distance from one another, put together by the Apostle, so there are two Figures also conjoined. First, Christ is considered as a stone of Offence, at which whether it be in walking or running, if any one do stumble, he is in danger of falling; and this refers to the Metaphors the Apostle had before taken from the Gre∣cian Games, and particularly that of Running, which made him think of a stone of Offence, than which, in a swift motion, nothing can be more dangerous. Afterwards in the next words, every one that believeth on him shall not be confounded, Christ is represented not as a stone of Of∣fence, but as a corner stone, which he that builds any Wall upon, must trust to the firmness of; and if he be deceived in his confidence, after he has finished his Structure, his building falls, and that fills him with shame.

This latter Similitude is in Isa. xxviii.16. where God speaks thus; I lay in Sion for a foundation, a Stone, an elect Stone (if we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 behhourah elect, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bohhan a Tower) a corner Stone and pretious, a most firm foundation. He that believeth shall not make hast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, shall never be judged to have made too much hast in choosing it, nor ever be ashamed of his choice. And the former is in Chap. viii.14. He shall be for a stone of Stumbling and for a rock of Offence to the two Houses of Israel; where the Metaphor is quite different, and it is no longer a corner Stone that is spoken of, but a stone on which a Per∣sons foot or the wheel of a Chariot happens to strike, as the following Verse more clearly shews.

CHAP. X.

Vers. 5. Note b. THE meaning of St. Paul in this place seems to be only this, that the Law promised nothing, but to those that observed it so as Moses taught it was to be ob∣served; that is, unless either all its Precepts were obeyed, or the Sa∣crifices appointed by the Law were offered up for the expiation of some sort of Sins against it. Otherwise it promised no Mercy from God to those who had committed such a Sin as the Law threatned with death, or allowed no Sacrifice for. But on the contrary, the Gospel assures us that God will pardon such sins as those, if the Sin∣ner

does but firmly believe they shall be remitted to him,* 1.11 and abstain from them for the future. This is all we are here to consider; for what our Author says in his Paraphrase, that it was impossible the Law should be observed, that is so far from being the assertion of Moses, that he every where supposes the contrary, as appears even by the very next words. See my Notes on Deut. xix.9.

CHAP. XI.

Vers. 8. Note b. OUR Author truly observes, that according to the use of the Atticks, or those that spake the purest Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies compunction; but he might have ad∣ded that the Greek Interpreters, whether through ignorance, or ac∣cording to the use of the Alexandrians, confounded the Verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first of which signifies to prick, to pierce, and the latter to nod or slumber; which made them think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified nodding, tho it comes from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It will be worth our while to read Lud. Cappellus about this matter, in his Critical Notes on Psalm iv.4.

Vers. 12. Note d. I have often observed our Author to write so as not to make what he says at last to agree with what he had said at first; because, I suppose, after he had written half an Annotation he changed his Mind, and yet was loth to blot out what he had already written. And this we have an instance of in this place; for after he had proved that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a multitude, he alters his opinion, and gives it another signification. But his second thoughts here were not the best, as I shall briefly shew. For

1. That this word does sometimes signify a multitude, appears also by Hesychius, who interprets it among other things, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

2. The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not used for collecting, but for that which fills up, as the Lexicons will shew. Neither was a multitude so called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from a piece of Cloth put into a torn Garment to make it whole again, but because it makes a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or full and com∣plete Assembly, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it fills the pla∣ces into which it is gathered together. Perhaps also there may be a respect here had to the original of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is thus set down in the E••ymologicon: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. The Jews who were to come in late to Christ, are no more called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of their filling up what remained empty in the Church, than the Heathens, who are called by the same name, and made up the greatest part of the Church.

* 1.124. I wish our learned Author had alledged the Passage he speaks of in S••der Olam, in Hebrew, or referred to the Page; for I have not leisure to read it all through, and the words he produces out of it look very suspiciously.

CHAP. XII.

Vers. 1. Note a. IT is so manifest that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be understood only in this last sense, that I wonder our learned Author would spoil Paper, and lose time in proposing the other Conjectures. For they are such as may be reckoned indeed in the number of those things that have no natural repugnancy in them; but there is not the least shadow of likelihood in them, nor can they be confirmed by any example. But, unless I am mightily mistaken, he had never set them down, but only to fill up his Annotations on this Chapter, which he found would otherwise be but short. And a great many other things there are of the like nature in this Vo∣lume, which yet I pass by without reprehension: Such is what he in∣serts into his Paraphrase on this Chapter about the Gnosticks, without any necessity; as if there could have been none corrupted with Vices contrary to the Vertues which the Apostle here commends, besides the Gnosticks!

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here does not signify only knowledg, or an opinion conceived in the Mind, but an affection of the Soul: And thence comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is not only a change of Judg∣ment or opinion, but also of Affections. See Beza on Mat. iii.2.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, we all make one body of Christians, or all we Christians are one Body. The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often used by St. Paul for being a Christian. So Chap. viii.1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, that is, to Christians: See likewise Rom. xvi.3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. and 2 Cor. xii.2, &c. This I thought fit to observe, because I perceived this expression was not understood by Grotius, who says here; We are one body in Christ, that is, by Christ who was the Compactor of that Body; for tho that be true, yet it is not the meaning of the Phrase.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, let him say no more than what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he is entrusted with; in which word the Apostle has a re∣ference to the antient Prophets, who were to say nothing but what God revealed to them: See Vers. 3. and Ephes. iv.7. and Beza and Grotius on these words, whom our Author would have done well to follow, and not suffered himself to be imposed on by that which is

now ordinarily called the Analogy of Faith. I wonder the English Translation did not suggest to him another Interpretation of this Phrase, in which it is truly rendered, according to the proportion of Faith.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 our Author in his Notes on Mat. vi.22. has very well shewn to signify liberality or bounty; of which interpretation I shall here give this brief account. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or simplicity is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 putting a difference, or using too much Caution in distinguishing those that are proper objects of our Charity from those which are not. Hence the Wisdom which comes from above is said in James iii.17. not only to be full of MERCY and good Fruits, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without difference, that is, not too nice or scrupulous in putting a difference between those which it does good or shews Mercy to. To which purpose is that advice in Herma, Past. Lib. 2. Mand. 2. OMNIBUS in opibus da SIMPLICITER, nihil dubi∣tans cui des. Omnibus da. Omnibus enim dari vult Deus de suis donis. Qui ergo accipiunt reddent rationem Deo quare acceperunt, & ad quid. Qui autem accipiunt ficta necessitate, reddent rationem, qui autem dat in∣nocens erit. Sicut enim accepit à Domino, ministerium consummavit, nihil dubitando cui daret & cui non daret; & fecit hoc ministerium SIMPLI∣CITER gloriose ad Deum, Give to ALL that are poor SIMPLY, with∣out scrupling whom you give to. Give to all. For God will have all to partake of his Gifts. Those therefore that receive shall give an account to God, why they received it, and to what end. And such as feigned themselves to be poor that they might receive the Charity of others, shall be called to a strict account for it, but the giver shall be judged innocent. For by giving universally and without difference to all, he fulfilled the Trust committed to him by God, and did it SIMPLY and to God's Glory. The Greek words are thus set down by Antiochus, Hom. 98. tho perhaps with some alteration. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Several other Passages might be produced out of the Antients to the same purpose. See Lib. 3. Constit. Apostol. cap.4.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Partly because that chearfulness discovers a truly liberal disposition of Mind, it being natural to Men to be chearful in following their own Inclinations, and partly because it makes the be∣nefit seem the greater to him that receives it, if it be bestowed chear∣fully. See Seneca de Ben••ficiis, Lib. 2. cap. 4.

Vers. 11. Note b. This conjecture of Dr. Hammond is favoured by the series of the discourse, in which it is not probable that among particular Precepts the Apostle would bring in that general one, comprehending all the duties of a Christian's Life, of serving the Lord. Besides, after the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it very aptly follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and both together make up an excellent Precept to this sense:

In the business of Piety you must be zealous and fervent, but yet so as to observe the proper time for it, lest by your unseasonable fervor you should bring your selves into danger without doing any body else any good.

The Apostle here makes use of a known Proverb, and ordinary both in Greek and Latin Authors. So Phocylides:

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

We must serve the season, and not blow against the Winds. So Cicero de Finibus, Lib. 3. num. 73. among other Precepts of the antient Sages sets down this, tempori parere, for one. So the Author of the Pane∣gyrick ad Pisonem:

Temporibus servire decet, qui tempora certis Ponderibus pensavit, eum si bella vocabunt, Miles erit; si pax, positis toga gestiet armis. Hunc fora pacatum, bellantem castra decebunt.

It's true, in St. Paul, the sense is something different, but it is suffici∣ent if it have but an affinity with that which it is commonly taken in; for such sort of sayings have generally more senses than one. Which the Transcribers of the New Testament not sufficiently understand∣ing, and knowing that this Proverb was sometimes used in an ill sense, for hypocritical time serving, changed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is much more probable than that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Phrase to serve the Lord so very common in these Books, into one less usual, to serve the time.

Ver. 15. Note c. Tho Grotius also, as well as our Author, supposes this Verse to have a reference to the two Gates of the Temple, yet I am not of their opinion, nor do I think the Apostle had any particular respect here to excommunicated Persons. The words are general, and contain an excellent general Precept to all Christians, to endeavour to get the Love and Friendship of those with whom they live, nothing being more pleasing to Men than to see others sympathize with them in their Afflictions, and rejoice at their Prosperity. I know they are for the

most part Flatterers and Hypocrites that practise this;* 1.13 but then it is not for that that they are to be condemned, but their hypocrisy in pre∣tending to grieve or rejoice at what happens to others when they re∣ally do not, but have other Ends and Designs. But a good Man also not only may, but ought to be truly affected with others Prosperity or Adversity. I am apt to think also that St. Paul here rather made use of a common proverbial form of Speech, than a new phrase not before heard of. We meet with the like expression, tho to another purpose, in Horace de Arte Poetica:

Ʋt ridentibus arrident, ita flentibus adflent Humani vultus.

Adflent, for so the word must be read, according to the opinion of learned Men, not adsunt. Of the thing it self see Stobai Florileg. Tit. 113, and 115.

CHAP. XIII.

Vers. 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 21. AFter the words, avenger of Wrath.] I don't well understand what our Author meant, in ta∣king so much pains to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Power signifies the person of the Ruler or Magistrate; for who would have ever question'd it? But perhaps his design was to shew that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or governing Power was so confined by God to some particular Persons or Families, that it could never pass from them. Which is true, where the Kingly or any other Power, according to the custom of the Country, descends by Succession to the next Heir, and that Custom cannot be altered without great danger. But where the Custom is otherwise, as it was in the Roman Empire, in the time of St. Paul, I do not see the use of what our Author here says: For it is known, that the supreme Power was not confined to any one Family in Rome, but belonged to those whom the Army elected.

Ibid. Col. 2. Lin. 4. After the words Fideni or Gabii.] Our learned Author misquotes here the words of Juvenal, and puts Fidenorum Gabiorumque, instead of Fidenarum Gabiorumque, which for want of sufficient skill in the Roman Antiquities, he seems to have taken for the names of two People; whereas Fidenae was the place where Juve∣nal wrote; and every Child that has read but the first Book of Livy, knows that Fidenae and Gabii were two Cities of that name, whereof the People were called Fidenates and Gabini, not Fideni and Gabii.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies no more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have something that another hath not, to excel or be eminent in any thing; and so may be applied, not only to that which is in its kind and order supreme, but also to that which in any thing whatsoever excels others destitute of it. Thus in the Old Glosses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred by exsto, emineo, excello, praecello, exsupero, antecello; all signifying to excel: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eminet, existit: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exstans, excellens. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore here is rendred rightly by the Vulgar sublimioribus. The Powers here meant, are the Emperor, and all the other Roman Ma∣gistrates, who 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were at that time superior to all the Princes of the Nations contained within the bounds of the Roman Empire. And these Powers were all from God; not that God had conferred a greater or a less degree of Power to this or that person immediatly, but be∣cause it being the Will of God that men should form themselves into political Societies, and live peaceably with one another, he is said, upon that account, to will also that there should be Magistrates, both supreme and subordinate; because there can be no Commonwealth, nor any Peace kept without Government. And this being so, whenever any one, either with the consent of the People, or by an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superiority of strength seizes upon the Government, provided we may live peace∣ably under it, we ought to be subject to him for the sake of the Com∣monwealth, and consequently of God's Ordinance, and of Conscience. So did the Christians under the Heathen Emperors; and so did also the wisest men among the Heathens.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] viz. Because it is but just that those who employ themselves in the service and defence of the Common∣wealth, should be furnished for all necessary expences. This being a necessary consequent of Society, God who will have men live in So∣ciety, must accordingly be supposed to require the paying of Tribute to its Governors. In which nevertheless the Laws always are to be regarded which appoint that Tribute: For this Reward given to the Magistrate for serving the Community, is constituted by Men, not by God immediatly; tho it ought not therefore to be accounted the less sacred, because in this particular of requiring Tribute, men act ac∣cording to the Notions they have received from God, by the very Constitution of human Nature. This is what St. Paul means, and not that God has immediatly ordained either Kings, or the pai∣ment of Tribute to them, as our Author seems to think, which no one would say concerning the Roman Emperors, and the Tribute paid to them.

Vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.* 1.14] As it is very certain to me that Ho∣nor is due to Kings, and none but seditious persons can make a questi∣on of it; so I cannot tell whether any one can prove that the fifth Commandment requires us to pay that Honor which is due to Magi∣strates. There is the same reason indeed for both; but they are not required in the same Precept. See what I have written on the begin∣ning of the Decalogue, in my Comment on Exod. xx.

Vers. 13. Note e. All this, Plautus's Interpreters, and the Greek Lexicographers had observed a great while before our Author. But what is the meaning of lotis in the last Verse he cites out of Plautus? Perhaps it is a false print for lotus: The ordinary reading is thus;

Tute tibi puer es lautus, luces cereum.

Which needs no alteration. See Taubmannus on that place.

CHAP. XIV.

Vers. 1. Note a. I. OUR Learned Author, on Matth. xv.19. took abun∣dance of pains to affix a sense upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which does not belong to it in that place. And so he does here to as little purpose; for tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signi∣fy that reasoning which respects the regulation of a man's Life, yet that is not the literal importance of the word, which signifies any o∣ther sort of reasoning equally with that.

II. In Epicurus his Epist. to Idomeneus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies all the In∣ventions and Disputations of that Philosopher, of what kind soever they were, which he had committed to writing, and the remembrance of which so much refreshed him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Epist. to Menaeceus, is another thing, and signifies the act of reasoning it self. Hence Ci∣cero (not in Lib. 5. Tuscul. Quaest. but de Finibus Lib. 2. Cap. 30. where he recites that whole Epistle) renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by rationes & inventa, Reasons and Inventions. As for St. Ambrose, who did not de∣sign to be extraordinary exact in rendring that word, his Authority can signify nothing.

III. In this place I take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify a Speculation, or Opinion conceived in the Mind, and the meaning of the Apostle to be, that those among them who were more knowing and intelligent, ought to re∣ceive and treat the ignorant with all mildness, tho weak in the Faith; that is, tho having a less degree of knowledg and understanding in

Christianity, they differed from them in their Opinions. So tha•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will be equivalent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without discrimination of Opinions. The Judaizing Christian was to be received and entertained with as much affection by those that under∣stood their liberty better, as if he did not Judaize. It is plain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies discrimination in 1 Cor. xii.10. and Heb. v.14. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the reasonings of the Philosophers, in Chap. i.2. of this Epistle, on which their Opinions or Errors were grounded.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] H. Grotius has observed before the Doctor, that the phrase to stand or fall, signifies to be acquitted or condemned; and that the Latins say, cadere causa. We have an Example of both in this one Verse of Ovid, in Lib. Fastorum, where speaking to Ger∣manicus, he saith:

Ingenium vultu statque caditque tuo.

That is, according as you receive this Work, favourably or other∣wise, my Wit will find its endeavours either condemned or approved.

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This Verse is strangely paraphrased by the Doctor; for what occasion was there here to say any thing a∣bout the Power of the Keys? any thing else might as well have been found out in this place.

Vers. 15. Note c. 1. The following words shew that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies something more in this place, than barely to be grieved, as Dr. Hammond well observes, viz. to be prejudiced and alienated by that grief from the Christian Religion, which is the Notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to perish, or be destroyed. But the reasons he gives for this significa∣tion are not only forced, but also in part contrary to what he endea∣vours to prove. In one word, he might have shewn us what he meant, if he had said that the Antecedent was put here by a Metonymy for the Consequent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ for the effect of that grief, i. e. for a de∣fection from the Christian Religion. By a like figure the words to love and hate signify the effects of those Passions, as in that famous place in Malach. i.2, 3. Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated; that is, I have confer'd those benefits upon Jacob, which I never be∣stowed upon Esau. See other Examples of the same, in Sal. Glassius Rhet. Sact. Tract. 1. Cap. 1. On the contrary, our Author produces Examples wherein the Effect is put for the Cause; which are nothing to the purpose, the Cause here being put for the Effect.

2. It is yet less to the purpose, what he says about the Conjugation Hiphil, and its being rendred in Greek by a Verb Active. For that

which is used here is a Verb Passive, which is taken for the effect of that which it properly signifies. Besides, he confounds Nouns with Verbs, and Verbs with Nouns, as if they were all one; and is hard put to it to extricate himself out of the maze of his perplexed rea∣soning.

He had said afterwards that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies destruction, and is often rendered by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, in Prov. xxxi.6. rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

Just as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abad were a Noun, and in the place of Pro∣verbs were not the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obed, perishing, but a Noun.

Vers. 17. Note d. The most simple and natural sense of this Verse seems to be this:

That which Christ, who is our King, requires of us, does not consist in abstaining from meat or drink, but in living righteously, peaceably, and chearfully under the sense of those Gifts of the Holy Ghost which we have received from God; and there∣fore we should endeavour to follow after Righteousness and Peace, and not be morose towards others who do not abstain from the Meats forbidden by the Law.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here properly signifies chear∣fulness or pleasantness, in opposition to the moroseness of the Jews, who could not look upon those who ate of all sorts of Meats indifferently without frowning. The same word signifies Joy, in Gal. v.22. which is reckoned among the Fruits of a Gospel-Spirit, and com∣prehends both that affection of mind which I have described, and that behaviour towards our Neighbour which proceeds from it, and which consists in living and conversing with him in a friendly manner. And this amicable disposition and behaviour St. Paul re∣commends elsewhere, as in 1 Thess. v.16. where he exhorts Chris∣tians to rejoice always; or, as it is in Phil. iv.4. to rejoice in the Lord always, that is, for the Benefits they have received from the Lord. This Joy, as it shews that we are satisfied with our condition, so in all our transactions with our Neighbour it clearly discovers it self, in the courteousness and affableness of our behaviour towards him. Whereas on the contrary men who are discontented with the condi∣tion they are in, as they want this Joy, so they are generally rugged and morose in their deportment. Of which number were the Jews, who were very much offended at the approaching destruction of their Temple, and could not upon any terms be friends with the Gentiles, who did not observe the difference between Meats prescribed by the Law. It is truly said of such a man by Amphis in Florileg. Stobaei, Tit. 99.

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

How ingrateful a thing is a pensive discontented Man!* 1.15 in every thing he carries himself morosely.

Vers. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] i. e. Whatever we do, not knowing whether it is lawful or not, is a Sin, because it proceeds from a Mind careless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Actions. This Philo Judaeus has expressed almost in the same words as St. Paul, in Lib. de Profugis, pag. 336. where after he had given an allegorical inter∣pretation of Abraham's Sacrifice, he subjoins that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The best Sacrifice is Forbearance and Abstinence, in things about which we have no certain Faith.

Ibid. Note e. Our learned Author had no reason to speak of the Posthumous Notes of Grotius, as if he doubted whether they were genuin or not. They were committed to the care of Joan. Mercerus, who published them very faithfully; nor did any of Grotius's Family ever complain that they were not faithfully published. I speak this, be∣cause I know Dr. Hammond has elsewhere, for no reason, call'd into question the fidelity of that honest Man. Nor indeed is there any thing here or elsewhere in those Notes unworthy of Grotius, tho there may be some things in them liable to censure, as there are in his other works, and in all the Writings almost of all other Men.

However it is well shewn by the Doctor out of St. Paul himself, that Doxologies are not only used by way of Conclusion: Which may be confirmed by the instance of St. Clement, one of St. Paul's Disciples, who has the like Doxologies more than once in his 1st Epistle to the Co∣rinthians. See the end of Cap. 20. and what Patric. Junius has observed on that place, and Cap. 58.

CHAP. XV.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] In this Citation we have an instance of what I observed on Chap. ix.28. that when any passages of Scripture are cited, the connexion of the Discourse is generally neglected. For the sense here is imperfect, and must be made up by the Reader thus, or to this purpose:

For even Christ did not please himself, but was very careful to avoid every thing that might prejudice the weak, and did not give his own Judgment that free liberty that he might have done, for fear of giving them an occasion to blaspheme against God, which he was as careful to shun as if those Blasphemies had fallen upon himself; so that it may be justly said of him, The reproaches of them that reproach∣ed thee fell on me.

It is certain Christ might have said a great many

things as to the abrogation of the Law of Moses, and the calling of the Gentiles, which afterwards he revealed to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to others; he might have gone before them himself by his example, in neglecting the vain Ceremonies of the Law, and con∣versing freely with the Heathens, which undoubtedly would have been more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 grateful and pleasing to him than to hold his peace, because the Apostles could not as yet bear what he had to say, and much less the rest of the Jews; or to avoid the society of the Heathens as polluted Persons, who would more readily have be∣lieved on him than the Jews, lest he should give these latter an oc∣casion to blaspheme the Christian Religion, which was then but in its infancy. This is the sense, if I am not mistaken, of this place, which our Author did not sufficiently understand.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] Here also there must be something supplied to this purpose.

These words of the Psalmist shew you what it is your duty to do in endeavouring to avoid giving any occasion to Men to blaspheme Religion: For whatever things were written, &c.

The despising of the scruples of the weak was a thing of very dangerous consequence, because it might alienate their Minds from Christianity, and make them turn Apostates and Blasphemers, and so expose it also to the contempt of Infidels, when they saw it forsaken by them that had first of all embraced it, and that the Christi∣ans were divided amongst themselves.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, preached only to the Circumcised; which our learned Author has not clearly enough ex∣pressed in his Paraphrase. See Grotius.

Vers. 12. Note a. Those which are here called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the Pro∣phet People and Nations, are literally the Tribes of Israel, as will ap∣pear to any one that compares the 10th verse, out of which the Apostle cites this Passage, with the following verses. But as under the person of Hezekiah is described the Messias, so by the Jews and their several Tribes are represented all the Nations throughout the World, that should believe on the Messias. And the Jews, in St. Paul's time, ge∣nerally took those Passages to belong to the Messias, and therefore they are here fitly urged.

But our Author is mistaken when he supposes the power of making War, which belongs only to him that is supreme, is here referred to; for Isaiah does not speak of making War, but of bringing back the Is∣raelites that were dispersed in the neighbouring Countries in Judaea, of which he says that Hezekiah should be an Ensign: See Isa. xiii.2.

It is a Metaphor indeed taken from Military Affairs,* 1.16 because at the setting up of an Ensign Souldiers use to gather together, but the power of making War is not alluded to. Nor had the Septuagint any such thing as that in their thoughts when they translated this Passage, but only for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lnes, for an Ensign, read, or thought it ought to be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a Prince; by which the sense is not much alter'd, because the same Person that was to be a Prince, was also to set up an Ensign.

Vers. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Two ways any Offering might be said to be sanctified; first, by him that determined to offer up any Sa∣crifice to God, and delivered it already consecrated in his Mind to the Priest to be actually offer'd up: and 2dly, when it was placed up∣on the Altar, which sanctified, i. e. made it to be esteemed Sacred whatever that touched: See Exod. xxix.37. and Mat. xxiii.19. This I suppose, the Apostle here has a reference to, rather than, as the Doctor, to the Priests, or as Grotius, to Salt; and that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are meant the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, whereby the Gentiles, af∣ter they had believed, were consecrated to God as by the sacred fire of the Altar. See Acts x.

Vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] To understand here Dr. Ham∣mond's Paraphrase, we must read Grotius on this place, and on Isa. lii. where he interprets the words of the Prophet as spoken primarily of Jeremiah, and secondarily of Christ, forcedly indeed in my opinion. But I have not room here to discuss that matter: I shall only remark, that St. Paul might very pertinently alledg this Prediction, speaking of the calling of the Gentiles, because it was commonly supposed to have a reference to the Messias.

Vers. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase inter∣prets of the judaizing Christians; but I think it ought rather to be in∣terpreted of the unbelieving Jews, whom St. Paul had most reason to be afraid of, as the thing it self shews.

CHAP. XVI.

Vers. 1. Note a. IT is very true that in the New Testament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to supply the poor with necessaries, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liberali∣ty; but it does not appear from any example that any one was therefore called either simply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. No Grecian ever spake in that manner, to signify a Woman that was liberal to the poor of any Church, but of her own substance. So that

it is much more probable a Deaconess is here meant, as the Christians afterwards used to speak, which had the oversight of the publick Alms of the Church, and performed perhaps other Offices in it. Not all it may be then that have since been attributed to them, but there were undoubtedly in those Primitive times Deaconesses, which administred several things relating to the Church; as appears both by this place, and by an Epistle of Pliny to Trajan, wherein he makes mention of such ministrae (so he calls them) among the Christians. On which passage Ger. Vossius has put together almost all that belongs to that Office, as Joan. Bapt. Cotelerius has also done on several places of the Apostolical Constitutions. See particularly on Lib. 3. cap. 15.

I wonder Dr. Hammond, when he had Grotius to go before him, did not rather keep to this, than say things which are nothing to the pur∣pose: For it is no where said that Phaebe accompanied any of the A∣postles, and what is affirmed of such Women is very suspicious. For it is true, certain rich Women did sometimes follow Christ, but this seems neither to have been constant, nor ever practised in great Jour∣neys, when the longest were from Galilee to Jerusalem, and that at the time of the Feasts, in which Women otherwise used to go up to that City. But that in the journeys which the Apostles made into far distant Countries, they had rich Women to accompany them, and sup∣ply them with necessaries, which might otherwise have been more easily and decently done, let them believe who use to give credit to all that the Antients affirm, without the least appearance of likelihood. It were easy to shew the improbability of it, and I shall say something to that purpose on 1 Cor. ix.5.

Vers. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, Christians, as I observed on Chap. xii.5. See there.

Vers. 16. Note c. It is uncertain whether St. Paul here had a re∣spect to that Salutation which the Christians us'd to give to one ano∣ther in their holy Assemblies; nay it is very improbable, and that for these two reasons. First, because the Apostle here speaks of such a Sa∣lutation as was given by Friends in the room of their Friends, to persons whom they desired in a Letter to be saluted in their name; which Salutation has nothing common with that Church-salutation. Secondly, in the Church where Men and Women sat apart from one a∣nother, the Men were saluted by the Men, and the Women by the Wo∣men; not promiscuously the Men by the Women, or the Women by the Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, Lib. 2. c. 57. where he sets down the whole order observed in the Christian Assem∣blies,

describes that Custom thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Then let the Men salute one another, and the Women one another, with a kiss in the Lord. He had said before: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Let the Laicks sit on one side in all quietness and good order; and the Women also sit apart by themselves, keeping silence. I know there were several alterations made in the Order of the Church in the following Age, but thus in all probability it was antiently, not only because of the decency of it, but also because it is certain this was the Custom ••mong the Jews, whom in many things the Primitive Church followed, as J. Bapt. Cotelerius on this place in the Constit. Num. 32. Edit. Amst. has well observed.

Vers. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] At the end of the Premonition to this Epistle, I said I did not think that the Gnosticks were referred to whereever Dr. Hammond thought so; but I did not deny that some∣times the reproofs of the Apostles might belong to them, as these do in this place. They were subtil crafty Persons, who perceiving that a great many had embraced the Christian Religion, who were very liberal to the poor of that Profession, and ready to hearken to any that made a shew of Piety and Learning, took occasion to deceive the simple, that they might live idly at their cost, and privately in∣dulge themselves in all manner of Sensuality: Of which number seems to have been that Peregrinus, whose death is related by Lucian, if we may give credit to an Epicurean and an Orator. And to these Here∣ticks seem to be owing that multitude of supposititious Writings which were received and used by the Christians ever since the first Ages, and those Philosophical Opinions with which Christianity was very early corrupted, and were taken by the ignorant and unwary for Apostolical Doctrines. See Col. ii.8. and 2 Tim. iii.2, &c.

Vers. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase puts several things together, to shew the full importance of this Phrase. But I believe it has a reference only to the persecuting Jews, who waged an irreconcileable War with the Christians as Apostates: For these being the instruments of the Devil, who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satan, or an Adversary, and by his inspiration endeavouring to oppress the Christian Religion at its first rise, could not be destroyed, but Satan must be trod under foot as it were, at the same time. The Hea∣thens had not as yet begun to persecute the Christians for Religi∣ons sake, but only under the notion of seditious Persons, by which

name the Jews endeavour'd to defame them amongst the Romans, as appears from the History of the Acts. So that the Christians had no Adversaries at that time but the Jews; who having some years after become odious themselves to the Romans upon the account of their Seditions, were not in a condition to do the Christians any great harm. And that seems to be the reason why St. Paul promised the Christians peace 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shortly, from the God of Peace. What the Doctor says here besides this, is besides the meaning of the Apostle: That about the silencing of the Ora∣cles is perhaps false; and it is certain Satan ceased not to stir up the Heathens for some Ages after against the Christians.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chapter I.
• * 1.2

  Chapter II.
• * 1.3

  Chapter III.
• * 1.4

  Chapter IV.
• * 1.5

  Chapter V.
• * 1.6

  Chapter VI.
• * 1.7

  Chapter VII.
• * 1.8

  Chapter VIII.
• * 1.9

  Chapter IX.
• * 1.10

  Chapter X.
• * 1.11

  Chapter XI.
• * 1.12

  Chapter XII.
• * 1.13

  Chapter XIII.
• * 1.14

  Chapter XIV.
• * 1.15

  Chapter XV.
• * 1.16

  Chapter XVI.