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.

* 1.1ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. (Book 1 Corinthians)

CHAP. I.

Vers. 5. Note b. IT is easily discernible, that all Dr. Hammond says in this Annotation are mere Niceties, which have no founda∣tion in Grammar, but depend upon bare reasoning, eve∣ry part of which almost may be denied. Nor is it need∣ful to confute it all particularly. It is much more natural, both here and in 2 Cor. viii.7. by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to understand the knowledg of Religion; which the Apostle Paul calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same sense that the Latins call Learning litteras, and the Greeks litteras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as every one knows, or if they do not, they soon may by the Lexicons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore signifies in all knowledg; that which relates, for instance, to the interpretation of Prophecies, that which concerns the speculative part of Religion, and that which respects the government of the Life. Nor is it any objection against this Interpretation, that hereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are made to signify the same thing, nothing being more com∣mon than for synonimous words to be joined together. But see also Dr. Hammond's next Annotation.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, that they might be called my Disciples, or receive a denomination from me, and be stiled Paulites. See my Note on Mat. xxviii.16.

Vers. 20. Note f. What our Author says on this place, is certain∣ly very ingenious; and some things he has transcribed out of Grotius so as to mend, and add to them. But if we consider, we shall find that the Prophet Isaiah is cited as a Witness to the Gospel only in ver. 19. out of Chap. xxix.14. and that the following words in ver. 20. are taken by St. Paul out of Isa. xxxiii.18. not to prove any thing, but only express his mind by them as his own words. Just as the Greeks and Latins frequently borrow passages out of their own Poets, not

to prove any thing by their Authority,* 1.2 but to express their mind in their words more elegantly than they could do in their own; and to the same end likewise the Hebrews frequently alledg the words of the Old Testament. And as the Greeks and Latins make no difficulty of applying the sayings of their Poets to a different purpose than they intended them, provided they do not apply them absurdly; the same is observable also among the Hebrews: Of which there are innumera∣ble Instances to be met with in the Talmudists, and the mystical Inter∣preters of the Scripture; and before them in Philo, who seldom ever cites the Scripture but in that manner. And this being a usual prac∣tice in the time of the Apostles, it is no wonder if they followed the custom of the Age wherein they lived, there being no harm at all in that custom. A very remarkable instance of such a Citation we have in Rom. x. where the discourse is about the Righteousness of the Gos∣pel. But those passages are carefully to be distinguished from others, by which any thing is proved, or any conclusion drawn from them. I don't think St. Paul did so subtilly examin the agreement of the words of Isaiah with what he designed to say, as Dr. Hammond.

CHAP. II.

Vers. 4. Note a. WHAT our Author says here about the several Ar∣guments that might be used to procure credit to the Gospel, is all very true and undeniable; but the greatest part of it is besides the scope of this place: For by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is meant only the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were used by those who are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this very Chapter, in the Church; as the Gift of Tongues, which was no small evidence of the truth of Christianity. Achaia at that time being a place of great commerce, a great many Jews and Gentiles, out of Africa, Egypt, and other places where the Inhabitants were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if I may so speak, resorted to it. And these could not hear the Apostle speaking properly in their several Languages without the highest ad∣miration, knowing that he had never learned them. See Chap. xii. of this Epistle, where the word Spirit often signifies such Gifts. And by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Grotius rightly observes, is meant the Gift of healing Diseases, or the like. See the same Chapter, vers. 10, 28, 29. St. Paul's mean∣ing therefore is, that he did not come to the Corinthians as a Philoso∣pher, to perswade them to believe what he said by argument and rea∣soning, but endued with miraculous Gifts, such as the Gift of Tongues and the like, and a power of curing the diseased; that the credit they

gave to him might not be as to a Philosopher, who confirmed the truth of his Doctrin by probable reasons, but as to God's Messenger, demon∣strating by Miracles that he had a Command from Heaven to say what he preached to them, and did not discover it by reasoning.

The Arguments for the truth of the Christian Religion taken from Prophecies, which Grotius and our Author would have to be partly here intended, were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 demonstrations to any but the Jews, who had already fixed a certain sense upon them, and believed them; but they could not in the least move the Heathens. The rest also were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, distinct from reasonings, but to those that had seen them: It is present Miracles that are here meant, whereby the Apostle, with∣out any long arguing, proved 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he was sent from God. Our Author in his Paraphrase on this Chapter, puts in so many things foreign to the sense of St. Paul's words, that it is rather he himself than the Apostle that reasons in it.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, the Power of God; from which he received an ability to work 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This word in the foregoing Verse signifies the effect of the divine Power, but here the divine Power it self which was the cause of those Miracles. That Faith which relies upon Miracles wrought by a divine Power, relies upon the divine Power it self by which those Miracles are wrought. Dr. Hammond here, according to his manner, makes a difficulty where there is none.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] This Verse should be paraphrased thus:

All that throughly understand what is true Wisdom, will easily perceive that the Gospel is so. It is not, I confess, such Wisdom as that of Philosophers or Orators, who by their subtilty and eloquence render themselves so acceptable to the great Men of the World, which Wisdom is made vain by the preaching of the Gos∣pel.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Philosophical Learning, which is vain in the account of those that are perfect, or that throughly know what it is to be wise, as Christians do. And by the Wisdom of the Princes of the Age seems to be meant Eloquence, which in that Age the Nobility of Rome did diligently study, as appears by both the Seneca's, Quin∣tilian, both the Pliny's, and others. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I render the Nobility, to make that word comprehend, not only the Roman Emperors, but also lesser Powers, such as the Presidents or Governors of Provin∣ces.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word is not to be referred to the Autho∣rity of the Roman Magistrates, which at that time prevailed, and af∣terwards continued, but to their Wisdom or Learning, which was vain

and empty, because it could not make them happy, or lead them to the knowledg of the true Religion.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I don't think this Phrase signifies the chief Men among the Jews, excluding the Heathen Magistrates; or these latter only, and not the Jews. For both may be intended, it being manifest that some multitude is designed in this expression: NONE of the Princes of this Age, &c.

Vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, to spiritual Men speaking spiritual things. For that after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we are to supply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, appears by the next Verse, where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is op∣posed to them: And spiritual things are such as agree with the spiri∣tual Nature of the Gospel, according to the usual notion of that word; not Arguments deduced from Prophecies, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no where else used to signify: this appears further from the following Verse, which makes me wonder that both Grotius, and Dr. Hammond who follows him, should talk here of Prophecies, of which St. Paul does not speak one syllable in this place.

Vers. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I don't think that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is meant a Man that makes use of nothing but reason, as our Author supposes, after Grotius; such a Man should rather have been stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for reason is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I rather think it signifies a Man who is no more raised in his Mind to spiritual things than any other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 living Creature, i. e. than Plants and Animals. Perhaps Plants were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but at least Animals were stiled so in Greek at that time, in imitation of the Latins, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were all one. And to this the old Glosses seem to have a reference, which interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by animalia, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by animalis. It is cer∣tain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequently taken for that life which is common to us with Brutes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore is a Phrase used by way of contempt to signify a Person that is wholly devoted and enslaved to earthly things, and entirely taken up with the concernments of this Life, like a brute Creature: As on the other hand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the Mind or reasonable Soul, which is peculiar to Men, and capable of discern∣ing and assenting to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spiritual things. The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies here to assent, in the notion it is more than once met with in Thu∣cydides, as H. Stephanus will inform us. Tho there is no need of Thucy∣dides's authority, it being often so taken in the New Testament, as in Mat. xi.14. where Christ speaking to the multitude concerning John the Baptist, saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if ye will admit or receive it (that is, assent to what I say) this is Elias, which was to come: See Mark x.15. Luk. viii.13. and xviii.17. Acts xi.1. and xvii.11. Jam. i.21. The

sense according to this interpretation is very proper:* 1.3

He that is not raised above an animal Life, and so thinks of nothing but this World, does not assent to those things which come from the Spi∣rit of God, for he looks upon them as Trifles.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The simple Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here seems to be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to discern them, viz. from such as are false. So it is used in John x.14. I know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my Sheep, and am known 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by them. That is, as I discern those who are so disposed as to believe in me from all others, so they in like manner discern me from Impostors. And I interpret this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to discern, because of what follows, where on the contrary spiritual Men are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to discern, for it is a clear opposition: "For such a Man does not distinguish or discern "those things which are from the Spirit of God, from Trifles. When it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he cannot discern them, the meaning of that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as long as he continues sensual, and judg∣es sensually, viz. because being biassed by his sensual disposition, he minds only present and sensible things.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, because the Doctrin of the Gospel is grounded not upon carnal reasonings, which respect on∣ly present things, but upon spiritual, which take in the knowledg of things Future and Invisible, and suppose it to be already in the Mind: or in fewer words; by such a disposition of Mind as whereby wise Men are not less affected with incorporeal and future Things, than those which are present and sensible. It is true what our Author here says in his Paraphrase, but beside the scope of this place: The opposition here made between Spiritual and Animal things, plainly proves what I have said. So in John vi.63. by the Spirit is meant such things or Doctrines as could not be understood by the use or knowledg of things sensible. See afterwards Chap. iii.1, 11. and x.3, 4.

CHAP. III.

Vers. 15. Note b. IT is truly observed by learned Men, that this is a pro∣verbial form of Speech, taken from those who hastily and narrowly make their escape from a Fire which had like to consume them. Such another Metaphor there is in Livy, Lib. 22. cap. 35. L. Aemilium Paulum, qui— ex damnatione collegae, & sua, prope ambustus evaserat— ad petitionem compellit. And cap. 40. the same Aemilius saith, se populare incendium, priore consulatu, semi∣ustum effugisse; That in his former Consulship, he had escaped out of a com∣mon Fire, half burned.

But our learned Author forcedly applies all this to his Gnosticks: for tho in Judaea it is possible the Gnosticks might feign themselves to be Jews, to escape persecution from them, because the Jews there were far more numerous than the Heathens; it does not follow there was any reason to be afraid of them at Corinth, or in Achaia, where the Jews were much fewer in number than the Greeks, and where their Complaints of the Christians were not hearkened to by the Roman Magistrates, as appears from Acts xviii.12, &c. And after the Jews once began for their Seditions to be suspected by the Romans, as not long after it happened, it had not been carnal Policy for any to join themselves to their party: So that there is no room here for what the Doctor says about the compliance of the Gnosticks with the Jews.

If the Gnosticks had reason to fear any danger in Greece, it was from the Romans; but it does not appear there was any persecution raised against the Christians in those parts, till a great while after the de∣struction of Jerusalem: See Mr. Dodwell's Dissert. de paucitate Marty∣rum, among his Cyprianicae. So that that day of which St. Paul speaks, cannot be referred to the destruction of the Jews. It is much better by Grotius understood of a long space of time, which very often dis∣covers what is true, and what is false, as many of the Antients have observed. Consult Stobaei Excerpta de Rerum Natura, Tit. 11. where there are a great many sayings to that purpose. As for the Fire which St. Paul here makes mention of, that is nothing but an examination of Doctrins, which after some time the Christians would set themselves to, and upon which all that were false would be rejected, and the true re∣tained; which is called Fire by a Metaphor taken from Metals. They that retained the foundation of Christianity, tho they built strange Doctrins upon it, would at length upon that examination of them, find that they had built stubble upon Gold; and when they understood that they had been in danger of casting away the foundation of Re∣ligion it self for those Errors, they would presently forsake them, and escape as out of the Fire, not without the loss of their Reputation and Time, besides what they must be reckoned to have lost in pious Actions and right Apprehensions, by continuing so long in their Errors.

That Character of the Gnosticks, which our Author would have to be contained in the following words, agrees to any others that err through a false notion of Wisdom, and do mischief to the Christi∣an Church. So that what he thought to be manifest, seems to me to be plainly false.

* 1.4CHAP. IV.

Vers. 6. Note a. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly is to think, and does not signify to be proud simply taken, but only when there is something else ad∣ded to it, as here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, be not lifted up in your Minds, beyond what these Instructions will allow which I have already written, either in this Chapter, or the foregoing, but especially in Chap. iii. where St. Paul had taught the Corinthians what they ought to think both of themselves, and of their Teachers.

Vers. 13. Note b. I. It is true indeed what our Author says about the signification of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But there is another notion given by the same Grammarians of these words which I like better, as seeming to be more agreeable to this place, for pur∣gamenta, filth, quisquiliae, retrimenta, the dregs or refuse of any thing. For the Apostles meaning is no more than that he was the Object of every bodies Contempt, and so was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, look'd upon by all the World as refuse. And this notion of the words is agreeable to their Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 coming from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to purge, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to wipe off. Hesychius has indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but without any interpretation of it, which must be supplied out of Phavorinus, who seems to have had the most correct Copy of that Grammarian, and tells us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for filth, and as refuse. The other word is interpre∣ted in Hesychius by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to wipe off, and ought not to be alter'd. It follows; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it should be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but the former word was omitted because of its likeness to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which went before. In Suidas also it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Aemil. Portus observed, who ought to have corrected the whole passage by Hesychius: For it follows in Suidas; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he ridiculously renders; ipsa sub vestigiis redemptio, when it is manifest the words ought to be read with a Comma after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or what is under foot, also redemption. Phavorinus interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abomination, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a Towel which wipes the Sweat off one that is tired with work: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: or refuse which is cast away, as useless: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: by a Metaphor taken from those who wipe down Tables after eat∣ing. He adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for that which signifies to purge, to wipe off with a sponge; but he ought

to have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for it is a Compound of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to wipe,* 1.5 to shave. Whence in an old Onomasticon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred scobs, sha∣vings or filings. The old Glosses published together, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 purgamentum. And Eustathius in the place alledged Edit. Rom. p. 1935. interprets both the words by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which is washed and wiped with a Sponge. And Apostolius in Cent. 16.3. interprets them also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which every one treads under foot or despises.

II. I do not think that those Nations who had purifications, in some respect like the Jewish, imitated therein the Jews, to whom most of them were perfect Strangers, and some of them more powerful and antient than they, as the Egyptians. Nor have such Rites considered in themselves any thing Divine in them, that they should be referred to God as their first institutor. It is much more probable that the Jews had been already accustomed to them, whilst they were among other Nations; and that God in those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beggarly elements of the World, as St. Paul calls them, did accommodate himself to their Capacity and Temper. Of which matter I have had occasion to speak in many places of my Commentary on the Pentateuch.

CHAP. V.

Vers. 1. Note a. THE word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can signify but two things in this place. First, it may denote the certainty of the Report, and be referred to the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so St. Paul's mean∣ing will be, that that report had been a long while spread, and it was universally affirmed for a certain truth, by all that knew the Church of Corinth; in which sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Adverb of affirming. Secondly, it may be a Particle, whereby the Apostle signifies he would tell them briefly and in one word, why he should come to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a Rod. In both these senses this Particle is used in good Authors, but never in Dr. Hammond's, that I know of; and if it were, yet in this Construction, that could not be the sense of it. It signifies also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wholly or altogether; but for that signification of it there can be no room neither here: See Mat. v.34. and afterwards Chap. xv.29. of this Epistle. I rather think it is here an Adverb of affirming, because the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 immediately follows it.

Vers. 2. Note c. Lin. 13. After the reference to Rom. xii. Note c.] This passage of St. Clement, as also the Citation out of Origen, was taken by our Author out of Grotius, as is evident by this, that Grotius refers us only to Constit. 2. without setting down the Chapter, which

he ought to have done in the quotation of a Book that had been long since divided into Chapters: and so does the Doctor. Grotius does not truly cite the words of the Constitutions; no more does Dr. Hammond. The place is in Lib. 2. cap. 41. and the last word of it here alledged, is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cut off. By this it appears that learned Men are not to be absolutely trusted in citing the Testimonies of the Antients.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] If our learned Author to this passage in St. Paul, had added only that in 2 Cor. xii.21. no one would ever have disputed with him about these interpretations. But all that he says afterwards is manifestly forced, because St. Paul does not speak of that Sorrow which was caused by the censures of the Church, or Excommunication, but concerning Sorrow which proceeded from a depravation of Manners in the Corinthians, for which St. Paul had justly reprehended them. For it is apparent that St. Paul speaks to the whole Corinthian Church, which no one would say was excommuni∣cated because the Apostle had in this Epistle reproved their Manners, or because he had ordered that one incestuous Person, spoken of in this Chapter, to be delivered to Satan. The thing confutes it self upon the very mention of it; and I dare say our Author had never written in this manner, if he had not some time before composed a disputati∣on about the Power of the Keys, which he was very much in love with, and perhaps more than he should have been, and that made him think he saw those Keys where no body else would ever have thought of them.

Vers. 5. Note e. I. It had been better in my judgment, if our learned Author had insisted only on the second reason he assigns of this phrase, which is manifestly grounded on the Apostle's writings; for what need was there of inventing another new one, when the A∣postles had given one very sufficient reason of it? But, unless I am mistaken, the Doctor did not sufficiently distinguish the common Ex∣communication, as it is described by the Jews, or as it obtained in after Ages, from that delivering up to Satan in the time of the Apostles. For this was a consectary of that miraculous Power of the Apostles, where∣as the power of Excommunication was not conjoined with any Miracle. What Josephus relates concerning the Esseni, may so be understood, as that the Excommunicate Person should be said to have died for Grief, not by the miraculous Virtue of the Excommunication; which yet if Jose∣phus had believed, it would be no Crime to refuse to give Credit to him. And it is certain those Esseni were neither Prophets themselves, nor instituted by Prophets: But of this and other things which belong to

Excommunication, we may consult Mr. J. Selden, de Synedr. Judaeorum, Lib. 1. cap. 7, &c.

II. What our Author conjectures about the sense of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it signifies here to deliver up upon Demand or Petition, is certainly ingenious; but if it should be denied, I don't see how it could be proved. For an Executioner does not use to require the Ma∣gistrate to deliver up Malefactors to him, but they are delivered up to him without his demanding them. And when it is said that Satan desired permission of God to sift the Apostles, that was not properly to execute Punishment on them for their Sins, but to assault them the more vehemently with his Temptations and wicked Suggestions: Nor indeed can the Devil be supposed to demand bad Men of God in or∣der to torment them, whom he would rather make happy, if he could, that he might entice others into sin by the example of their Prosperity; so that he is rather to be thought to punish bad men a∣gainst his will, than to ask leave of God to afflict them. And it's vi∣sible that bad men who serve Satan, are so far from being more mise∣rable and obnoxious to diseases than the good, that the contrary is generally true. Whence also by the way we may infer, that if to be delivered to Satan, were all one as to be cast out of the Church, those who never were within the Church must have been reckoned from their very birth to have been delivered up to Satan, and by consequence have been all more obnoxious to diseases than the Christians: And all likewise that were rightfully Excommunicated should have been said to have been delivered to Satan, and been afflicted with Diseases, which yet that it was of old so, no Writer has ever asserted, nor does any one believe. But delivering up to Satan, tho conjoined with Excom∣munication, is not the same thing: And therefore our Author ought not to have confounded this unusual Punishment inflicted by Aposto∣lical Authority, with the ordinary Censures of the Church. Nor is he more fortunate in conjecturing that this delivering to Satan was an imitation of God's dealing with Sinners, when he leaves them to the power of the Devil to execute his pleasure upon them.

Vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Many Interpreters would have this to be understood of this very Epistle, contrary to all the rules of Grammar, lest it should be thought that any of St. Paul's Epistles were lost; which yet why they might not, no reason at all can be given: For if so be, we want none of those things which are neces∣sary to Salvation, what reason can we have to accuse the Providence of God, if any of the Writings of the Apostles were lost? Should we have been ever the less Disciples of Christ, if any of those Epistles

had been lost, which we now have? Was it absolutely necessary that every thing which the Apostles wrote should be transmitted to Poste∣rity? Nay we may suppose that there were some such Epistles, which it was the interest of the Churches, and Men of that Age to conceal; for there are secrets which every body need not to be acquainted with. And it would be no hard matter to produce instances of such secrets, if every one could not easily find such himself. So that there being no sufficient reason to perswade us that all the Apostles writings ei∣ther were or ought to have been preserved, if it be most agreeable to the rules of Grammar to suppose, that the Discourse here is about an Epistle which is lost, I do not see why we should not be of that Opinion. And there are three things that shew St. Paul to speak of some other Epistle.

First, That he had no where in the foregoing part of this admo∣nished the Corinthians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to associate with Fornicators: For what he had said about the Corinthian who was guilty of Incest, can∣not be the thing here referred to, because that had no ambiguity in it; and it appears by the following Verse, that the ambiguity of St. Paul's words either did, or at least might have given the Corinthians an occa∣sion to mistake: I wrote unto you, saith he, in an Epistle not to keep compa∣ny with Fornicators; but not altogether with the Fornicators of this World, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or Idolaters, for then must ye needs have gone out of the World. But now I have written unto you, not to keep Company with any Man that is called a Brother, and is a Fornicator, &c.

Secondly, The 11th Verse which begins with the Particle NYNI now, sufficiently shews that the Apostle in that speaks of this Epistle, and in the 9th Verse of another: I WROTE unto you, saith he, in an Epistle, not to, &c. But NOW I have written unto you, &c. There is here a plain opposition between the time of the Apostles writing the one and the other; for tho the Particle now be sometimes only a transi∣tion, and does not signify any difference of time, yet it is manifest that St. Paul speaks here of a thing that was past, which he now explains more clearly. Nay tho we should grant the Particle now to be here a form of transition, and the Apostle to speak of the same Epistle in both Verses; yet that Epistle must be an Epistle in which St. Paul had spoken ambiguously, and not this in which there is no ambiguity, as I have just now said.

Thirdly, If the Apostle had meant this Epistle, he would not have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but either have wholly omitted it, or said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this Epistle; tho even that could not be handsomly enough said, if but just before he had written that which by many he is sup∣posed

here to refer to. But undoubtedly he meant another Epistle, as in his 2d Epist. Chap. vii.8. where he speaks of this, which is come to our hands: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I made you sorrowful in a Letter, viz. formerly written to you. Tho I confess the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used elsewhere by St. Paul, to signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Epistle, viz. in Colos. iv.16. and 1 Thess. v.27. But I do not rely on∣ly on this reason, or the bare omission of the Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

All this did not hinder Dr. Hammond, who was an excellent Divine, but an indifferent Grammarian, from declaring himself of another Opinion in his Note upon this Verse, which, if I am not mistaken, was owing to a Theological prejudice, mentioned in the beginning of this Animadversion.

Ibid. Note g. Col. 2. Lin. 23. After the words, guilty of those Sins.] I have already confuted what Dr. Hammond here says, who would have done better to follow Grotius whom he so often had recourse to. That none of the Antients have made any mention of that Epistle to the Corinthians, which I say is lost, does not prove that there was no such Epistle; because there might be reasons, as I before said, for the concealing of it, or perhaps also after it was read, for the tearing and burning it, by the Apostle's own order who had written it.

Vers. 10. Note h. I. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no where signifies a Voluptuary, un∣less it be in Dr. Hammond's Lexicon, as I have shewn on Rom. i.29. so neither does 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it is alone, signify a Ravisher of Boys or Wo∣men; but the circumstances of the place where that word occurs, must oblige us to take it in that sense; otherwise it always signifies one that is greedy of Mony, and takes away what is anothers, either under a pretence of right, or by abusing his Authority to that pur∣pose. And in this place where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is set in the first place, and signifies a Person addicted to Venery, there is no necessity to take it in any other than its ordinary sense: See especially the following Verse, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is last mentioned after the names of four other Vices.

II. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 2 Pet. ii.12. signifies no such thing; for Animals made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Animals therefore created that they might be taken and destroyed: See Grotius on that place. There was no necessity of recurring to the Version of the Septuagint, to shew that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies rapere to ravish; for who does not know that?

III. What is said of the sense of Gen. vi.11. is all mere conjecture, which has no ground either in the History, or the proper signification of the words. The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hhamas does not signify Violence but Injury; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 schihheth, he was corrupted, signifies any change

whatsoever for the worse, and not only Lusts, as any Lexicon will shew. It's true, the Marriages of the Ensidae with the Cainites, were a means of corrupting all Mankind; but it does not thence fol∣low that Lust was their principal Sin, no more than from St. Peter's joining the Men who lived before the Flood with the Sodomites; for to put them together, it is sufficient that they were both Sinners, tho their sins were different, and both utterly destroyed, tho not in the same manner.

IV. I grant a lustful Person was the occasion of what the Apostle here says; but it does not follow therefore that the Vices which he mentions in vers. 10, and 11. belong to the same thing. Surely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do not signify one given to Venery, tho I confess, Idolaters, Railers, and Drunkards, have been often ad∣dicted to Lust.

V. There is no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes taken for a Ravisher of Boys or Women; but as I said before, the Circumstances of the place must shew that the word is used in that sense, as in the place alledged out of Harmenopulus, which nevertheless I do not warrant, because I have not look'd into him. But the Passages cited out of the Sybillin Oracles, are certainly wrested; nor do I believe that our learned Author took them out of the Book it self: For the first is in the first Book, not the second, out of which he cites it. And the place it self shews that he mis∣interprets it; for after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is subjoined the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tyrants, who are rather Ravishers of Goods and Possessions than of Men. In the second are collected the names of several Vices, whe∣ther they have any Affinity with one another or not: and tho Men are called by the Sybil, A race of Adulterers, Idolaters, Deceivers, and Per∣sons whose breasts are full of Rage; and she adds,

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

Snatching to themselves, having an impudent Mind; it does not thence follow that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must here be understood of the ravishing of a Boy or a Woman, tho there were nothing added which shewed the con∣trary. But it follows,

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

For no rich Man that has great possessions, will make another participate of them. By which it is evident that it is not so to be understood. Two Verses after that it follows,

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

Many Widows will privately love others for Gain. Which is nothing to the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the last Verse but two of the Book, the Sybil saith, that the day of Judgment, of which she had before spoken, would come

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

When the smell of Brimstone should be gone. In which I cannot tell whe∣ther she had any respect to the destruction of Sodom.

VI. In Mat. xxiii. the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are used in their ordi∣nary signification; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is opposed to them, is not only that purity which consists in Abstinence from carnal Pleasures, but from any sort of Wickedness, as appears by the place alledged out of St. Luke, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies all kinds of Vice, as the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rahah in Gen. vi.5. They who think otherwise, can bring no Argu∣ment either from the thing it self, or the word to confirm their Opi∣nion: So that upon the whole here is, as the Poet speaks,

Pergula pictorum, veri nihil, omnia falsa.

Ibid. Note i. Here is, I confess, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a mighty flood of Ex∣amples, but

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

For it is true indeed, the Solemnities used in the worship of some Dei∣ties, in some places, were accompanied with shameful Lusts, as I have shewn my self on Exod. xxxiv.15. But that either every where, or for the most part it was so, I leave them to believe who are ignorant of the antient Heathen Customs. Our Author speaks as if the Greeks and Romans did very freely suffer their Wives and Children to be corrupted and prostituted in their sacred Mysteries; and as if that was the general Custom, than which nothing can be more false: Nay there were severe Decrees sometimes made against Impurities in the worship of their Gods, as appears from Livy, Lib. 39. and by an order of the Senate it self still extant: See also Cicero de Legibus,

Lib. 2. Cap. 14, 15. I do not therefore believe that an Idolater sim∣ply is ever taken for a Fornicator or Adulterer, as if Idolatry and Un∣cleanness had always gone together: Nor does our Author produce any one Passage to make it probable; for tho all the Sins which are joined with Idolatry here and elsewhere, respected carnal Pleasures, it would in no wise follow that by Idolatry is meant Impurity, when neither the proper signification of that word, nor its use will ad∣mit that sense; and it is very common for Sins of various kinds to be joined together. And yet upon this only ground almost, our learn∣ed Author in his Note on Rom. i.29. endeavoured to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified Luxury, against the proper signification of the word, and the constant use of all Writers, as I have there shewn. And the same I shall do here, as to the word Idolatry, lest any should be de∣ceived by his Authority, or multitude of Examples.

I. The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gilloul signifies Dung properly, and Idols are by way of contempt so called, not because of those carnal Pollutions that accompanied the Worship of them, but because they were made no more account of than Dung by the Jews: For Dung did not pollute, viz. with any legal Pollution. By the Septuagint this word is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not as if that were the proper signification of it, but because the Jews who spake Greek, commonly called Idols 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abominable things, not polluted; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not signify to be polluted, but to abhor, to detest. And the same is the signi∣fication of the Hebrew root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 schakats, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an abominable thing, not properly because of carnal Pollution, but because it is evil. Lyra's Authority is not to be regarded. See my Notes on Gen. xxi.7.

II. I do not doubt but in the Bacchanalia, or night Revels of Bacchus, there were horrible Villanies committed; but I do not think it was universally known in Greece, that those things were done there in ho∣nour of that God. Our learned Author might have produced a great many fitter Testimonies, to shew that the Mysteries of Ceres were se∣cret, than those which he alledges out of Horace and Seneca; or rather have let them quite alone, since every Child knows such things.

III. That passage in Jerem. xliv.19. is perfectly foreign to this busi∣ness, there being nothing there said about nocturnal Sacrifices: For thus the Women who had offered Sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven, that is, the Moon, speak: When we burned Incense to the Queen of Hea∣ven, and poured out drink Offerings, did we make her Images without our Husbands? &c.

IV. I am of opinion indeed with our Author, that God by the sa∣cred mark of Circumcision, did signify the amputation of inordinate

Pleasures; but whether he had a particular respect to the shameful practices of the Heathens in their Religious Solemnities, which in that Ceremony he condemned, I cannot tell; nor is it evident from any place of Scripture.

V. Our Author had not look'd into 2 Kings xxiii.7. for the word there in the Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laascherah, that is, in a Grove, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hastheroth, which has a different signification. But he was deceived by an overhasty reading of what Mr. Selden says about this matter, de Diis Syris, Synt. ii. Cap. 2. who may be consulted; and who has also treated at large of Milytta and the rest here spoken of, in Syntag. 2. Cap. 7. To me likewise it seems most probable, what he conjectures about the original of the names Atergatis and Derceto, in cap. 3. of the same Syntagm. as if they were the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 addir-dag, a magnificent Fish, because he sets down a story which agrees with his conjecture, as he at large shews.

VI. By a pleasant mistake our Author produces Verses out of the 3d Book of the Sybillin Oracles, as respecting the Roman Lustrations, of which there is not in them the least mark or footstep; merely, if I am not mistaken, because Joan. Opsopaeus, who turned the Sybillin Oracles into bad Latin Verse, had thus translated the two first which Dr. Ham∣mond alledges:

Masque mari se junget, statuentque pudendis In LUSTRIS pueros.

But these Lustra any one will see to be Bawdy-Houses, who observes it to be in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The other places prove nothing, but only that the Heathens were generally given to inordinate Lusts, but not that those Lusts were reckoned by the most of them a part of Religion.

VII. In the Eleusinia Sacra, or Rites performed in honour of Ceres, there were indeed some indecent things practised, as Joannes Meursius in Eleusiniis will inform us; but that any horrible Villanies, and such as are not to be named, were committed in them, will not be thought by any that shall read what is said of them by Cicero de Legibus, Lib. 2. in the place before cited.

VIII. In Coloss. iii.5. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken in its usual and constant signification for Covetousness, and not for lustful Idolatry: The same I say of Ephes. v.5. The rest of the places alledged prove nothing at all, for the Affinity there is between some Vices does not make it necessary that all others should be of the same kind. What is pro∣duced

out of Polycarpus and Beza, has been already confuted on Rom. i.29. The words of the Council of Illiberis are figurative, and signify no more than that the Heathen Priests, who after they had taken upon them the profession of Christianity, did again return to the worship of Idols, were as guilty as if they had committed the three Sins there mentioned.

Vers. 11. Our Author did well to add this at last, for it is false that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ever signifies a lustful Person: See Hesychius, Phavorinus, the Old Glosses, and all the Lexicons in the World. I name Hesychius among the rest, because he interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a Railer, for there is one sort of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which lies only in words: Whence the Old Glosses render it not only injuriam Injury, but also convitium, probrum, railing, revil∣ing, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convitiatur, convitium facit, contumeliatur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contu∣meliosus. Phavorinus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As for the Gnosticks, I should no more imagin them to be here referred to, than any other bad Men, unless our Author meant to give the honourable name of Gnosticks to all the vile wretches that in the Apostles times had crept into the Christian Assemblies; tho why he should, I can see no reason.

Vers. 12. Note l. Our Author who makes his stile both in English and Latin rugged with unnecessary and misplaced Parentheses, and thereby often renders it tedious to the Reader, makes too much use of that expedient to connect the Discourse of the Sacred Wri∣ters. Besides, if we read the Greek words, it will appear that the Discourse does not sufficiently hang together; for we should be obliged to read: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doing this ye shall put away.

I shall propose here a Conjecture, which if it were true, would make all things plain. We read the words in our Copies thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Now what construction this is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I confess I do not understand. I know the sense commonly put upon it is, What have I to do, or what business is it of mine to judg them that are without? i. e. it is not my business. But there is no example given of any such Phrase. Besides, the Conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intervening, makes the Phrase still more harsh; for which reason it is left out in the Alexandrian and other Manuscripts, and omitted by the Syriack Inter∣preter; but in my judgment rashly, because that Particle may be of use to direct us to the true reading, which seems to be this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For what have I to do with those that are without? But do you judg those that are within; and those that are without

God judgeth: and ye shall put away the wicked Person from among you.* 1.6 First, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Phrase very common in the Sacred Writers, and is as much as, take care of your own Business, and I'll take care of mine: See Mat. viii.29. John ii.4. and Interpreters on those places. And the sense here must certainly be; It is not my business to take care of the Manners of the Heathens, who have not yet embraced the Gospel. Next, the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might easily enough be chang∣ed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occurs twice in the following words. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Adversative Particle frequently used by St. Paul: See Rom. iv.20. and x.18. and Phil. iii.8. This makes the sense very plain, whereas that interrogation, do not ye judg them? is very harsh and improper in this place. If St. Paul had said; It is not my business to judg those who are among you, do not ye judg them? this would be some sense, the foreign to this place, and the discourse would be current; but as it is now, the connexion of the words is extremely harsh. Thirdly, the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (there be∣ing here a manifest opposition between the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shews there ought to have preceded the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is contained in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and if we believe H. Stephanus, ought to be so distinctly written. Fourthly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is evidently con∣join'd with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, judg and ye shall put away: The words intervening, and those that are without God judgeth, ought not to be included in a Pa∣renthesis, because they are set in opposition to that which went imme∣diately before, and not inserted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And it cannot seem strange, that I suppose this place to be corrupted, seeing the Syriack Interpreter seems to have thought the same, who has left out in the 12th Verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 again in the 13th, because he did not see how the Apostle's words could otherwise be made to hang together. The Latin also and the Arabian Interpreters omit the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in both Verses. The Ethiopian departs yet further from the rest, who has; & eum qui intus homines judicabit. And there are o∣ther variations in the Manuscript Copies, which I pass by.

CHAP. VI.

Vers. 2. Note a. WHAT our Author says here about the notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is true; but as that word has more significations than one, so in this place it seems ra∣ther to be taken for judgment: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not Persons unworthy to sit in the lowest Judgment-seats, but to judg of the smallest matters; and therefore is very rightly rendred by the Vulgar

qui de minimis judicetis. And thus the Old Glosses render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 judi∣cium, examen, sensus, Judgment, Examination, Opinion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ju∣dicia. But in vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to signify to have things to be judged of relating to life, as Dr. Hammond himself interprets it in his Paraphrase. So that in this Verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for the act of judging, and in Vers. 4. for things to be judged of.

Vers. 7. Note b. Here the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as omnino, or a Par∣ticle of affirming, as I have shewn on that place in Chap. v.1.

Vers. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word our Author here in the Margin, ac∣cording to his manner, interprets of a Person of inordinate Lusts. But if that were the true sense of it, it should have been joined with the foregoing words in the 9th Verse, and not have been put here in the 10th after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in this place, as it is rendred in the Old Glosses, fraudator, avidus, A cheating, covetous Person.

Vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be washed and sanctified, which went just be∣fore. The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, when ye became Christi∣ans, or took upon you the profession of the Christian Religion in Bap∣tism; which obliged all those that received it, to reformation of Life. See Acts ii.38.

Vers. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This expression may be illustrated by a passage in the Epistle of Barnabas, where he saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: For the habitation of our Heart is a holy Temple to the Lord. The Holy Spirit is said to dwell in our Bodies, because it is present with our Minds, which inhabit our Bodies. Grotius does but trifle when he tells us, that the Spirit of the Mind is the Sanctuary, the other parts of the Mind the Court of the Temple, and the Body the Porch and its outward parts. Such a Remark as this might perhaps be tolerable in a Pulpit, but by no means in an exact Interpreter. Claudian has an expression much like this in his Second Book, on the first Consulship of Stilichon, speaking of the Goddess Mercy:

Haec Dea, pro templis & thure calentibus aris, Te fruitur, posuitque suas hoc pectore sedes.

And a little after:

Huic Divae germana Fides, eademque sorori Corde tuo DELUBRA tenens.

Vers. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] St. Paul seems to allude here to a House,* 1.7 which none but he may use how he pleases that has purchased it. And God having, as it were, bought our Bodies as well as our Souls, he only has a soveraign Right to prescribe to us how we shall use them.

CHAP. VII.

Vers. 3. Note a. OF this matter, according to the Doctrine of the Rab∣bins, Mr. Selden has treated at large in his Ʋxor Hebra∣ica, Lib. 3. c. 4. and seqq.

Vers. 5. Note b. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and its opposite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the subject matter, are taken sometimes in a larger, and sometimes in a more contracted Notion. In general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies one that has not the command of his Passions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but is commanded or overruled by them: And on the contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one that is not subject to the dominion of any Passion, but is always his own master: But because the Passions are various, proportionable to the variety of objects to which they may be carried out, therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have also divers objects, as Aristotle will teach us in the beginning of his 7th Book of Ethicks, ad Nicomachum. And so in this place, where the discourse is about the lawful pleasures of Marriage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in a much narrower signification, not for a Vice, i. e, a disposition of Mind contrary to the Law of God, and pernicious to humane Society, but a certain natural heat of Body, which of it self is neither a Vice nor a Vertue. But it is described as a Vice, because it is an occasion of becoming vitious to those who do not govern it with reason.

Vers. 6. Note c. Col. 1. Lin. 45. After the words, on the other side.] Our learned Author might have confirmed this observation about the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for malo, I had rather, by that Passage in Hos. vi.6. I will (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) have Mercy and not (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Sacrifice; which is all one as if God had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mizzebahh, than Sacrifice: and if the Prophet had written so, it could not have been rendred otherwise than by I will, or had rather. And that this the Prophet meant is evi∣dent by the next words; and the knowledg of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meholoth, than burnt Offerings: whence the Septuagint according to the Vatican Copy, read; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Jonathan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than Sacrifice: But in Mat. ix.13. and in the Alex∣andrian Copy we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is yet to the same sense. It is certain the Hebrews have no Verb whereby to express the Latin malo or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek.

Vers. 14. Note d. From this place I readily allow the deduction of this Consectary, that the Infants of Christian Parents may be baptized, because they are Holy, i. e. reckoned as a part of God's People; but that this Phrase signifies Baptism it self, does not appear by any thing that Dr. Hammond here says: For tho the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to sanctify, signify also to wash, it does not follow that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be meant one whose condition is such as to make him capable of being washed, or baptized. And on the contrary, the Children of Heathens were accounted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 impure, that is, as part of those who were out of God's Covenant; and so could not be baptized, because Baptism follows the profession of Christianity, which could neither be made by Parents who were Heathens, nor by Infants. This is the Notion of the words Holy and Impure, which being first used in that sense by the Jews, came afterwards to be taken in the same by the Christians; which is the reason why Christians are so often stiled Saints in the Epis∣tles of the Apostles. See the inscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles.

Vers 17. Note e. I. The same reason which moved Dr. Ham∣mond to prefer the reading of some antient Copies mentioned by The∣ophylact, before that in ours, makes me think that the ordinary read∣ing ought to be retained: Namely, because the obscurity arising in the sense from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might easily induce some Scribe or Critick to change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and join these words with the foregoing, to make the sense more perspicuous; but there was no reason why, when the sense was clear, it should be made more obscure.

II. I have more than once observed, that the end of an Annotation does not agree with the beginning; the reason of which I suppose to be, that the Doctor did not write it all at the same time: For otherwise he would have made his Discourse here hang better together. For af∣ter he had said, it will be reasonable to acquiesce therein, viz. in that other reading, he gives a reason for so doing, which makes it unreasonable; for if the sense will be current, tho we retain the ordinary reading, and only change the pointing of the words, what reason can there be to acquiesce in any alteration of them?

III. We ought therefore to keep to the present reading of all Co∣pies and Interpreters, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendred but, as the Syriack and Arabick render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vers. 34. Note h. The Oxford Edit. of the New Testament, Anno 1675. takes notice of some Copies which read this place in the same manner as the Alexandrian, here mentioned by our Author, except∣ing that the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is omitted; but there is no mention there made of the Alexandrian Copy, the difference between which and

others in the reading of this place,* 1.8 is nevertheless set down in the London Polyglott: But in that Edition there are other instances of very great negligence. I am perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion, as to the use of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I shall confirm by these Verses of Virgil, wherein he elegantly describes the Mind distracted with variety of Cares, and uses the word dividere, Aeneid. 8. at the beginning.

—Magno curarum fluctuat aestu, Atque animum nunc huc celerem, nunc DIVIDIT illuc, In partesque rapit varias, perque omnia versat.

Nay and the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to be vexed with Care, is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. to be divided between different Re∣solutions, because it comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by changing the Letter E into H. See Eustathius on Homer, pag. 80. and 1427. Edit. Rom.

But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to censure. The first is his Citation out of the Jerusalem Paraphrase, which makes nothing to the purpose, it being manifest that those words signify Distrust or Ʋnbelief, not Cares or Distractions. And the second is his saying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns: whereas nothing is more common in all the best Authors in both Languages than that Construction, and, which I wonder he did not take notice of, it must be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy, which he prefers before the other: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

CHAP. VIII.

Vers. 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a respect to the Hebrew word, which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians, but to the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it self which he here uses, and which properly signifies an Image conceived in the Mind, which is no where but in our Understanding; and afterwards was ap∣plied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres. And this is the reason why the Jews who spake Greek, gave the name of Idols, first to the Gods of the Heathens themselves, and then to their Statues. All which I shall deduce a little more particularly, because it will conduce very much to the clear understanding of this Passage. And first of all it must be observed that the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to be

like unto, in which sense it is often used in Homer, as for instance in Iliad B. Vers. 280.

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

And near to him stood greyeyed Minerva, like to a Cryer; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Scholiast. Whence the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came to signify an Image or representation of things, such as is formed in the Mind. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as H. Stephanus has shewn out of Plutarch, signifies sometimes the same. And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus, p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin. calls an in∣corporeal thing, supposing it appeared in a visible shape, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that remarkable Sentence: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Men would be extreamly in love with Wisdom, if it did but present some lively Image of it self to their view. And because they thought that the Souls of dead Persons were clothed with a certain airy Form, resembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when those Persons were alive, that Form they usually called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Images of deceased Men. Virgil ren∣ders it simulachra & figuras, which he thus describes in Aeneid. 6. Vers. 292. speaking of Aeneas, who was going to encounter the Ghosts, if Sybilla had not diverted him:

Et ni docta comes tenues sine corpore vitas Admoneat volitare, cava sub imagine formae, Irruat & frustra ferro diverberet umbras.

This was the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks, when the Jews first came acquainted with them; and therefore when they had learned to speak Greek, they fitly called the Gods of the Nations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, part∣ly because they were but meer human Inventions, having no real Ex∣istence; and partly because they generally worshipped dead men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or to use the words of Virgil,

Horum umbras tenues, simulachraque luce carentum.

Which shews likewise the reason why the Apostle says that an Idol is nothing in the World, for the Fictions of Men have no real Existence, nor are there any such Images or Apparitions of dead Persons, as the Poets speak of, no more than there is any

Horrendum stridens, flammisque armata Chimaera.

Philo Judaeus, Lib. de Monarchia affirms, that Riches also are called in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they are but the fading Images of true good: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: these are the things which [the Scripture] calleth Idols, like Shadows and Phantoms, which depend upon nothing firm or certain.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] The sense of this Verse is not truly expressed by our Author out of Theophylact. It must be rendred; for tho there be they which are called Gods, whether in Hea∣ven or in Earth (as really there are Gods many, and Lords many) yet to us there is one God the Father, &c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels; in the Earth Magistrates, who are also called the Lords of the World. But Christians called only the Father, by whom all things were created, God; and Jesus Christ, by whom were all things, Lord in the most excellent sense. The Apostle has no reference to the false Gods or Idols of the Heathens, nor to the common way of speak∣ing among the Jews themselves; for he grants that those were truly called Gods and Lords. He seems when he wrote this, to have had in his mind that passage of Moses in Deut. x.17. The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, mighty and terrible, whom the Jews ought alone to serve. And in like manner St. Paul here teaches, that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords, yet there was but one of those Gods, and one of those Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worship.

Vers. 7. Note b. No body will deny but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where the Dis∣course is about the Body, signifies to be sick, and is taken also for a disease of the Mind, if the discourse be about the Mind. But I don't think St. Paul here has a respect to the general Notion of a distemper of the Mind, or of Sin, but rather speaks of an infirm purpose in the profession of the Christian Religion, and the observation of its Precepts; such as is usual in ignorant People, who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors. This is the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And these the Apostle calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. xiv.1, 2. which does not signify sick or diseased in the Faith, but Persons whose Faith was not so firm and strong as it should have been. As on the other hand in Chap. iv.19. of the same Epistle, speaking of Abraham, he says that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was not weak in Faith, i. e. he did not doubt: And so in the Septuagint, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes taken for to stumble, because those who do not take their steps firm, often stumble; as Children do when they first begin to go alone.

* 1.9Our Author alledges St. Paul's words in the 7th Verse, as if St. Paul had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Conscience of the Idol; in which he follows the Alexandrian and two other Roman Co∣pies. But I suspect that to be only the gloss of some Men, that did not understand the meaning of the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which sig∣nifies an Opinion or Perswasion concerning the favourable presence of the Idol at their Holy Feasts, with which some of the Corinthians were still at that time possessed, as Dr. Hammond has well observed.

Vers. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, confirmed, as I have shewn in my Ars Critica, Par. 3. Sect. 1. c. 16.11.

CHAP. IX.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;] Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wife? So it must be rendred, for I have already shewn on Rom. xvi.1. that the Opinion which Dr. Hammond follows here in his Paraphrase, in concurrence with some of the Antients, is very improbable. If St. Paul had designed to say what they affirm, he would not have added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone would have been sufficient; and the Greeks do no more use to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a Sister, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a Brother. St. Paul therefore here intimates that he had married indeed a Wife, whom he might if he pleased take along with him as a Com∣panion in his Travels, but he did not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lead her about, lest she should be burdensom to the Churches; for tho he could have easily got his own living by working, yet it would have been much more difficult for him to provide both for himself and his Wife, if she had travelled with him.

It is groundlesly therefore inferred by some from this place, that St. Paul was a single man, for he does not say, have not we power to have a Wife, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but to lead about a Wife, viz. which he already had. And to this place perhaps the Interpolator of Ignatius's Epistle to the Philippians, pag. 98. Ed. Ʋsser. had a respect; where having spoken of unmarried Persons, he saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but I do not derogate from the rest of the Blessed that were joined in marriage, which I have now mentioned. For I desire to be found worthy of God at their footsteps in his Kingdom; as of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, as of Joseph and Isaiah, and the rest of the Pro∣phets,

and as of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the other Apostles, who were married Men. Nor is it any objection against this, what St. Paul says in Chap. vii.7, 8. of this Epistle; for the meaning of the Apostle in that place is only, that he wished every body else had as little Appe∣tite to the lawful pleasures of Marriage as himself, and that it was expedient for Widows and unmarried People at that time to remain as he was, that is, not to be more desirous of Marriage than he was of the Society of his Wife.

Vers. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has a twofold Notion in this place; for the former signifies the thing hoped for, and the latter the Affection it self. Such things are common in the writings of the Apostles. See Note on St. John's Gosp. c. i.16.

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over you: See Mat. x.1. John xvii.2. and what I have observed in my Ars Critica, Par. 2. S. 1. c. 12.11. So likewise afterwards Chap. x.6. of this Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, examples for our Instruction.

Vers. 17. Note a. Some such works of Supererogation may really be done, but have a care of thinking upon that account that they de∣serve any reward from God: The reason is, because tho Men may out of a pious zeal do that whereof the omission would not bring punish∣ment upon them; yet they have offended in other respects, and stand in need of God's Mercy, by which alone they can obtain the pardon of their Sins. If God had dealt according to strict justice with St. Paul, he had never pardoned those Sins which he had been guilty of whilst he remained a Jew, nor had his successful Zeal in the service of God when a Christian, been sufficient to expiate the Persecutions he had formerly stirred up against the Christians. But as he had mer∣cifully forgiven him all his past Sins, so also out of his infinite Bounty and Goodness, which is as it were the peculiar Character of the Di∣vine Nature, he resolved to reward his pious Actions.

Vers. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;] That is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for what does God propound to me a reward? Not simply for preaching the Gospel, but for preaching it gratis, so as to be able to say I never used the Power I had, to take Mony of my Hearers to maintain me. So that I should render this interrogation: of what sort then is my Reward? i. e. what is the condition of the Reward that God proposes to me. Which I think is better than to interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which follows by if or when, tho I confess the signification of that as well as other Particles is va∣rious. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, tho set without any addition, must be observed to signify an extraordinary Reward, greater than that which should be conferred on all that preached the Gospel; for they might

all expect from God some degree of Reward, upon the performance of their Office, tho they did no more than what they were necessarily obliged to.

Vers. 25. Note h. I have several Animadversions to make upon this foregoing Annotation. I. That the Doctor did not sufficiently un∣derstand the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he supposed it to signify a custom of the Athletae, "In forcing themselves to eat, that "by that means they might become fleshy and corpulent. For the Athletae did not strive to make themselves fat or thick beyond measure; because that would have lessened their Activity, and been a great hindrance to them both in Cuffing and Running; but they endeavoured to get such a habit of Body as was requisite for the well performing of those Exercises, i. e. to become strong and nimble: For which pur∣pose the Gymnasiarchae, or Masters of the Games, did prescribe to them the eating of certain Meats, and such a proportion of them at stated times; and it was not lawful for them to use any other sort of Diet, or to eat how and when they pleased, but they were bound to follow anothers prescriptions. And this is the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not to cram themselves per force, as the thing it self will after∣wards shew. Lucian in Lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 describes the Athletae, or those that often exercised themselves in these sort of Games, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: they are neither shrivelled or wasted away, nor yet so extraordinary big as to be heavy, but of a just size; the useless and superfluous parts of their Flesh having been consumed in Sweat. See also what follows.

II. Our learned Author seems to owe the greatest part of what he here says to Pet. Faber, or Hier. Mercurialis; whom he also hastily per∣haps looked over, and collected as much as he had occasion for about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Grecians, out of the works of those Writers. For by his citation of some Passages, it appears that he did not look into the Authors themselves, out of which they are taken. The place alledg∣ed out of Lucian, is in Dialogis mortuorum, p. 279. Ed. Amst. and it is not Charon, but Mercury that is there represented, as afraid of letting Damasias with so much Fat about him come into his Boat; which yet we are not to understand was so much neither as to hinder his Acti∣vity, as if he had been a Man that had minded nothing but his Belly. The passage cited out of Julian does not shew that the Athletae ate im∣moderately, but only certain Meats, in a certain quantity, and at a certain time; which would be very inconvenient for an Emperor, especially when journeying, or engaged in important Affairs, who

must eat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: when Business will permit.

III. If our Author had looked into Suidas, or at least not read him negligently, he would have alledged his definition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which shews what that word properly signifies: It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a disposition which will not suffer a Man to go in any thing beyond reason: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a Habit which cannot be conquered by Pleasures: So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is one that has such a power over his Passions, as to abstain from those things which he judges hurt∣ful to him, notwithstanding the pleasantness of them. And accord∣ingly where the discourse is about an Athleta, who is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the meaning is, that he is one who in all things is so much his own Master, as to eat nothing, and do nothing which may impair his Strength. Which the Apostle did in another sense, who governed his Affections so as not to gratify them in any thing, tho lawful, that might in the least hinder the propagation of the Gospel.

IV. The place in Aelian is absurdly thus quoted by our Author: So Aelian of the Tarentinus Luctator; as if the Luctator's name had been Tarentinus, whereas he was called Iccus, and Tarentum was the name of his Country. I shall set down the words of Aelian entire, which are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Iccus the Tarentinian was a Luctator, who lived soberly all the time of his combating, and used to eat moderately, and abstained to the last from Venery. See Joach. Kuhnius on the words put in Capital Letters, who by other Testimonies proves that the Athletae lived quite different∣ly from what the Doctor imagined.

V. Our Author erroneously thought that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place of St. Paul was governed by the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is understood, and the words ought to be rendred, is temperate in all things, or with relation to all things. Which all things must be understood, according to the subject matter, of those things which were capable of weakning, if the Discourse be about an Ath∣leta; and if about St. Paul, of those things which might obstruct the course of the Gospel.

Vers. 26. Note l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was an exercise performed by the Com∣batants standing, whereas they often strove on the Ground, as we are told by Lucian in Dial. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and fighting both with their Hands and Feet. So, in that Book, Anacharsis after he had described the Combatants in Sand and in Clay, represents them: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and these stand∣ing upright and all covered with Dust, strike and kick one another. And

Solon a little after,* 1.10 reciting the names of the Exercises which Anachar∣sis had described, is brought in as speaking thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Of these Exercises, that which is performed in that Clay is called Wrestling: And those in the Dust do also wrestle, but their striking one another standing upright, we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of these saith Suidas: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they fight with their Hands and Feet; in which kind of combat they used to exert all their Strength.

Ibid. Note m. The place cited out of Eustathius is not in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on Iliad Ε, but Iliad Υ. pag. 1215. Ed. Rom. and if Dr. Ham∣mond had took it out of the Author himself, he would have set it down intire, because it may help us to understand St. Paul's words. Homer had said of Achilles, who had endeavoured thrice to strike Hector to no purpose: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thrice he struck the thick darkness, with which Apollo had covered Hector; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Eustathius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: From whence the Proverb to beat the Air seems to be taken, which is applied to Persons who undertake impracticable things. But some think this Proverb was taken from Cuffers, who often, &c.

Vers. 27. Note n, and o. I have confuted Dr. Hammond on Rom. vi.6. where he endeavours, to no purpose, to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies my self: and therefore what he here says upon that Hypothesis is all vain. Besides, it is refuted by what he himself adds last of all in this place; for it is the Body that is subdued by bodily exercises, and not the Mind, any further than as the Body being once subdued, the Mind is no longer infected with those evil Affections which arise from the Body.

CHAP. X.

Vers. 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 19. AFTER the words, to do them.] What our Au∣thor here says about the symbolical significa∣tion of the Wings of the Cherubims, he ought to have confirmed by some express Testimony out of Moses or the Prophets; for it is not necessary to think that God had a respect to all those things in instituting of the Mosaical Rites, which learned Men con∣jecture he might have a respect to. An infinite number of such things were of old fancied by the Fathers, who thought they might say what they pleased in this kind, tho they had no ground for it; and as many

more are every day invented by our late Divines, which if denied, they can bring no Argument to make them appear probable. As to the known saying which Dr. Hammond speaks of among the Jews, that is taken from a passage in Moses, which is in his last Song in Deut. xxxii.11. in these words: As an Eagle stirreth up her Nest, fluttereth over her young, and spreadeth abroad her Wings; so the [Lord] took him (viz. the People of the Jews) and bore him upon his Wings. Which place is at large illustrated by Sam. Bochart, in Hieroz. Part. 2. Lib. 2. c. 3.

Ibid. In that Note, Col. 2. Lin. 7. after the words, that followed them.] Any one may see that this is a forced interpretation, which seems to be grounded only on this, that St. Paul says the Israelites were under a Cloud; as if they could not have been said to be under a Cloud, if the Cloud had lain only on the foremost part of the Camp. Rabbi Eliezer never saw that Cloud, or knew any thing about this matter, no more than the rest of the pretending Tribe of Rabbies, but what they could collect from Moses, who has no such thing. But, saith our Author, the protection of God will be better represented by a Cloud encompassing the Camp, than only going before it. That I utterly deny, for the Divine Protection was sufficiently signified by a perpetu∣al symbol of his Presence whatever it was, if it could but be seen by all; and we are not to change stories written in the plainest words, into intolerable improprieties, to make them express what we would have them.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 24. after the words, under thy Wings, &c.] A pillar of Cloud cannot be otherwise understood than of an oblong Cloud, which like a Pillar suspended in the Air, was visible to all the Israelites: And under it might be said to be, not only those over whom it hung perpendicularly, but also who were placed on every side of it. As under the constellation of the Crab are said to be, not only those to whom that Constellation is vertical, but also all the Ethiopians: So that what our Author dreamt in order to explain this Phrase, like other Dreams, has no truth in it. The phrase under the shadow of his Wings is not, as I have already said, taken from a Cloud, but from the custom of Birds, who use to defend their tender Brood against the heat of the Sun with their Wings.

Ibid. In that Note, Col. 3. Lin. 17. after the words, mention of both.] St. Paul rather seems here to make mention of the Cloud, as afterwards he does of the Fire, because he intended to allude to the Christian Baptism, which is more resembled by a Cloud, that is, a watry Vapour, than by Fire.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 39. after the words, were by the other.] This passage in Moses is misunderstood, as I have shewn in my Dissert. de tra∣jectu maris Idumaei, and I shall not here repeat what I have there said, which overthrows all that the Doctor here discourses.

Ibid. In that Note, Lin. 56. after the words, belongs to the Fathers.] The miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Red-Sea, and the Cloud going before them, were undoubtedly signal Evidences of the love of God to that People, as the thing it self shews; but that they are to be look'd on as a tacit Declaration from the Israelites to yield Obedience to God, I should hardly grant; and it is certain there is nothing either in the Scripture-History, or in the thing it self upon which such a Supposition can be grounded. These sort of things are only the products of a fruitful Invention, which if they be look'd on as Demonstrations, what will not Divines find in the Scripture? The Israelites are said to have been baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea, because the Cloud that hung over them, and the Sea that encompassed them, were Water, which may be reckoned as it were to have wet them, because of its nearness; as we are washed by the Water of Baptism. Besides this reason, taken from the nature of the thing it self, all others are mere Trifles and Niceties, and have no more truth in them than what our Author says about the Cloud environing the Israelites on every side, or the Sea's being divided in the form of a Semicircle.

Ibid. At the end of that Note.] Here our Author, for the sake of his Gnosticks, says a great many forced things, and shews himself a very unfortunate Critick. For 1st, the Passage he has a reference to in Irenaeus, is in Lib. 1. c. 9. but there is nothing there about the Cloud or Sea, which may illustrate this place in St. Paul: He says only that the Disciples of Marcus believed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that by their Redemption they became incapable of being taken or seen by a Judg. Which Irenaeus compares to Pluto's Helmet in Homer.

2. It is true indeed, that the Sect of Marcus was a branch of the Valentinians, yea of the Gnosticks too; for, as Irenaeus afterwards says, these Men called themselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Children of Knowledg: but will it thence follow that they added nothing, nor took away any thing from the dotages of the Gnosticks, that we should be able to affirm for certain, that whatever the followers of Marcus said, was truly attributed to the antient Gnosticks, who lived in the time of the Apostles? I think not.

3. Our Author should have produced some plain Testimony to prove that those antient Gnosticks made themselves parallel to the primitive Jews, and that in those things which St. Paul here mentions: for otherwise, whilst he produces only slight Conjectures, I don't know who is bound to believe them.

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author did not under∣stand the meaning of this Phrase, nor is there any thing said about it in Grotius, whom he follows sometimes right or wrong. Baptism being a Ceremony of initiation, whereby he that received it, openly testified his willingness to be accounted his Disciple whose discipline he sub∣mitted himself to; to be baptized into Moses, is no more than to pro∣fess in Baptism, whether true or metaphorical (as that is whereof the Apostle here speaks) his resolution to become the disciple of Moses, and is all one as if St. Paul had said to be baptized into the name of Moses; of which phrase I have spoken before, on Chap. iii.15. of this Epistle, and Mat. xxviii.16.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 natural, not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 corporeal; for Manna was a corporeal Food, which could not be called spiritual in any other respect than as it was prepared, not by sensible Causes, but by Spirits, viz. Angels, whose Bread therefore it is said to be in Psal. lxxviii.2. I know the general Opinion is, that it is called spiritual Food, because it re∣presented, or also typified spiritual things. But first this should be proved out of the Old Testament; for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any such apprehensions of it, there is no reason to say that Manna signified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews understood by it. But it may be proved perhaps out of the New. If it be asked where? out of John vi.31. & seqq. where Christ opposes his Doctrin to Manna: As if a mere allusion or opposition put by Christ between his Doctrin and Manna, did necessarily imply that it was the design of God in giving the Israelites Manna, to typify the future pro∣mulgation of the Gospel by Christ! But I further ask, for whose sake were these typical representations made? Was it for the sake of the Jews? This cannot be pretended, for that dull Nation hardly under∣stood the plainest and expressest things, tho frequently inculcated up∣on them, and much less such as were obscure and intricate. And it is not probable that any thing was instituted by God for the sake of the Jews, which they did not at all understand. But that those Types were given for the sake of Christians is yet far more unlikely; because if they were to be believed by us, they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apostles, whose Authority alone would move us in

this matter; when otherwise we should never have so much as dreamt of them. So that in order to our understanding that kind of Pre∣dictions, the assistance of other Divine Persons would have been ne∣cessary, whom for other reasons we already believe, viz. for the ex∣cellency of their Doctrin, and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it. But this being supposed, what need is there of Types to those who already believe Christ and his Apostles upon the firmest grounds? They illustrate, it may be you'l say, the Apostles Doctrin; that I deny, and say that they would rather obscure it if they occurred in their Writings, for the alledged reasons: See my Note on Mat. ii.2. Let the Learned judg of these things, and consider whether it be not better at last to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone, which the Heathens of old derided, and the Jews ridicule at this day; and only make use of the most convincing Arguments where∣by to prove the truth of Christianity. But this would be the subject of a whole Volume, which I have here but transiently touched, intend∣ing wherever there is a fit occasion, to shew the weakness of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apostles Writings.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, of that spiri∣tual Water, which God made to proceed out of the Rock, which Water followed the Camp. So Gen. iii. and elsewhere, to eat of the Tree, is to eat of the fruit of the Tree. Which must be carefully observed, lest any one think that the Rock it self is here properly called spiri∣tual, that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock, which tho not expressed, is yet to be understood: For no one will suppose that the Rock, from which the Water proceeded, followed the Israelites, or was carried about with them through the Wilderness. But granting, may some say, that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it, yet how is it said that the Water it self followed the Jews? The common opinion is, that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock follow∣ed the Jewish Camp whithersoever it moved. But there is not one syllable about that in Moses, who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of so great a Miracle, if any such had been; for it would have been no small Miracle for God to have made a Chan∣nel for that Water to run in, and follow the Israelites whithersoever they went. But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle, in order to explain St. Paul's words, which may be very well understood with∣out it, to wit, by supposing only that this Water was carried about by the Israelites through the Deserts of Arabia, in leathern Bottles, or any other Vessels, that followed them with the rest of their Carriage.

For thus this Phrase is used by Aelian Var. Hist. Lib. 12. Chap. 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: about the Convoy that followed Xerxes. Which he begins thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Among other Provisions full of Magnificence and Ostentation which followed Xerxes, WATER also FOLLOWED him out of Choaspes. And this was the Custom of all the Kings of Persia, if we believe Herodotus, Lib. 1. c. 188. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaspes, that runs by Susa, of which alone, and no other River the King drinks.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, saith Grotius, prefigured Christ. But it may every whit as well be interpreted:

And that which might be said of that Rock in a carnal sense, may in a spiritual be affirmed of Christ.

As all the Israelites drank of the Waters of that Rock, and yet those among them who rebelled, were destroy∣ed in the Wilderness: so all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Christ, but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it, shall perish. This is the sense of the Apostle, which needs no typical Pre∣figuration to explain it, his Discourse not being at all grounded thereon: or else this Passage may be rightly paraphrased to the same sense thus:

And the case was the same of the Water that flowed out of that Rock, and those that drank of it; and of the Doctrin of Christ and Christians.

So in the Parables of Christ, the parts of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are often called the parts of a Parable, because they are compared with one another, and the case is the same in both: As Mat. 13.19. When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom, and under∣standeth it not, then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his Heart: THIS IS he which received Seed by the way side. But he that received the Seed into strong places, THIS IS he that heareth the Word, &c. And it is known that the Jews, whom the Apostles fol∣lowed, do very frequently borrow Comparisons from the Old Testa∣ment, and allude to the stories of it so, as often to apply the words of them to their purpose; not that they thought those places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to, but be∣cause they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Testament. See Gal. iv.24, 25, 16.

Ibid. Note b. I. Something, but briefly and obscurely, there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon, on Numb. xx.2. perhaps taken from the Christians; for it is not easily to be believed that all the late Rabbins say, they owe to antient Tradition. It's certain neither the

Paraphrase of Jonathan, nor the Jerusalem Targum, have any thing about the Water which followed the Israelites, on Exod. xvii. but in quite another place, viz. on Num. xxi.19, 20. where Moses speaks of a Well that was digged upon the border of the Moabites, the year before the Israelites entred into Canaan. The words of Jonathan are these: And ever since the Well was given them in Mattan, it went up again with them into the high Mountains, and from the high Mountains is de∣scended with them ihto the Hills. It encompassed all the Camp of Israel, and yielded it self for every one to drink of at the door of the Tabernacle. It descended also with them out of the high Mountains into the low Vallies, &c. The like we read in the Jerusalem Paraphrase, but with this difference, that there is nothing there said of this Well encompassing the Camp, or breaking out at the Gate of the Tabernacle, as Jonathan affirms.

II. The Jews did not want Water, because they both carried about with them the Water of Horeb, and might also meet with Springs in other places; for tho the rocky Arabia be a dry Country, yet it is not every where without Water, there being mention made of several Rivers which run through it. See my Notes on Gen. ii.12.

III. What Dr. Hammond says about the Water's ceasing to follow the Jews, upon the course of their Travels being changed, is a mere Invention, to support his tottering Interpretation.

IV. If the Water of Horeb followed the Israelites without a Mira∣cle, they must have all along journied near a Valley, in which it might have a free course after them, from the time of their departure from Horeb. But that is another of Dr. Hammond's Fictions, which I need not say much about.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] It is warily here said by St. Paul, with the Most of them God was not well pleased, not with all of them, except two, as our Author says in his Paraphrase, which is not true. See my Note on Num. xxiv.65.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, the punishments inflicted on the re∣bellious Israelites, are so many examples which God proposes to us, to take heed of falling into the like Sins. So also vers. 11. St. Paul having again made mention of God's destroying the murmuring Jews, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all these things happened unto them for examples, and were written for our Admonition, &c. that is, God de∣signed those things for Examples, to be recorded in the Holy Scrip∣tures, and proposed as Warnings to every one that should read them. They that render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here by in figura, in a Figure, or typice, typically, must shew that God intended to prefigure the punishments of Sins by the punishments of the Israelites; which I suppose they will

never be able to do. But it is certain this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken only in a threefold sense in the New Testament.

And first for any Form, whether corporeal, or conspicuous only to the Mind; which sense does not belong to this place. See John xx.25. Acts vii.43, 44. and xxiii.25. Rom. vi.17. Heb. viii.5.

Secondly, It signifies an Example, as here and in many other places, as we shall presently see. The first signification of it is proper, this metaphorical. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly a Figure or Form into which any thing is beaten or hammer'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But because such figures were sometimes made to serve instead of patterns to others (in French, pour servir de modelles) therefore it was metaphorically applied to any sort of Figure or Example proposed to others for their imitation or warn∣ing. So Phil. iii.17. Brethren, be ye followers of me; and mark them which walk so, as ye have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 us for an example. So 1 Thess. i.7. Ye were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 examples to all that believe in Macedonia, &c. See also 2 Thess. iii.9. 1 Tim. iv.12. Tit. ii.7. 1 Pet. v.3.

Thirdly, In another metaphorical signification, because a Model or Pattern is like those things which are made according to it, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one place of St. Paul is taken for a thing which in some re∣spect resembles another: And that is in Rom. v.14. where Adam is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, like him that was to come, viz. in this, that he alone had done something that was propagated to all Mankind, as Christ did something alone which extends to all Men. For in other things the Apostle observes not only a dissimilitude, but an opposition between them. But now who will believe that it was God's design, that Adam should first of all sin alone, and that that Sin should do mischief to all his Posterity, to prefigure what was to be done by Christ? Who was able to discern the Similitude before the Event? Who after the Event finds his Faith confirmed by that Simi∣litude? Nor certainly was this the Apostle's meaning, but only that in the respect I have mention'd there was a Similitude between Adam and Christ, as there is between a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This last word perhaps may be made the ground of an Objection, which is twice found in the New Testament. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ch. ix.24. denies that Christ was entred into Holy Places made with Hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but that is, which were made after the example of the true, viz. Heaven, or which were the images of Heaven, not which prefigured Heaven. So Baptism is said in 1 Pet. iii.21. to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Noah's Ark, that is, in some measure to resemble it. But no Man of sense would thence infer that it was

God's intention by the Ark to prefigure Baptism,* 1.11 and reval this Mystery which was before unknown by St. Peter.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] These words manifestly shew that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be rendred Examples, for Punishment is inflicted on guilty Persons, for an example to others not to imitate them: So that it is absurdly rendred by the Vulgar and Erasmus, figura, and as ill by Beza, typi; but rightly in Castalio, and in the English and Gene∣va Translations, Examples. Which being so, I wonder Grotius should speak here of Prefigurations.

Vers. 7. Note c. Notwithstanding all the Doctor has with so much care here put together, I rather think the place in Exodus here refer'd to, is to be understood of Dancing about the Golden Calf, on which place see my Notes, as also on Gen. xxi. I do not pay so great a defe∣rence to the Rabbins, as to take all which those Men fancy, to explain the Old Testament, for certain truth; nor perhaps would our Au∣thor himself have attributed so much to their Authority, if he had not resolved to force his Gnosticks here upon us.

Vers. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place does not necessarily signify Devils, or evil Spirits; for the Heathens did not always sacrifice to evil Spirits, if we consider what were their true Thoughts. But the greatest part of their Idolatry consisted in this, that when they ought to have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the Heathens also themselves have confessed that they did not offer sacrifice to Gods, but to Demons: As appears by the words of Porphyry, in Lib. 2. de Abstinentia: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nor did those who knew the powers of the World offer bloody Sacrifices to the Gods, but to Demons; and this is affirmed [in the Latin it is translated creditur,* 1.12 which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by Divines themselves.

CHAP. XI.

Vers. 4. Note a. IF it had been the Custom in capital Punishments, to cover the Heads only of Men and not of Women, our Author would have rightly deduced what St. Paul here says from that practice; but seeing there was no difference between Men and Women in this respect, why would it have dishonoured the head of a Man to have a Veil cast over him like a condemned Person, and not of a Woman? I rather think therefore that the Apostle had a respect only to the Custom of the Greeks, among whom it had been a disgrace

for a Man to speak publickly with his Head covered, and a Woman with her Head bare. Our Author's distinction between the Preposi∣tions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will appear to be vain, if we compare Mark xiv.3. and Mat. xxvi.7.

Vers. 7. Note b. Here our learned Author abuses an impropriety in the Septuagint, to enlarge our Lexicons with new significations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he does also elsewhere.

I. It is false that the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chabod simply taken, signifies a Beam, tho if it be added to the word Sun, it signifies its Splendor and Beams. It is false also, that because the Septuagint have perhaps somewhere (tho I cannot tell where) improperly rendred what ought to have been translated a Beam by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies a Beam. To authorize that signification, it was requisite they should have frequently and industriously used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to that purpose, and not rashly before they were aware.

II. Nor is it true that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was ever rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be metaphorically called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that those words are promiscuous. The Doctor should have produced but one example, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified a Beam or Splendor. Besides, is this Phrase, the Woman is the beam of the Man, any thing plainer than this, is the glo∣ry of the Man, which he interprets by the former? But the truth is, what our Author here says is only a misinterpretation of Grotius's Note upon this place, to which I refer the Reader.

III. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by the Septuagint for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or that symboli∣cal likeness of God which appeared in the Tabernacle, because that used to be so called, and not because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies any Similitude, as well as the Hebrew word. There is nothing more deceitful than such sort of reasonings, as the Doctor often makes use of in order to find out the signification of words, unless at the same time their Use and Analogy be regarded.

IV. Setting aside what is said about the Glory of God in the Pentateuch, which does not at all belong to this place, tho Grotius thinks otherwise; the Man is called the Glory of God, because whoever looks upon a Man, will perceive him to be a piece of Workmanship worthy of the di∣vine Majesty, and give Glory to him upon that account. And the Woman is the glory of the Man, because there is some ground for the Man to glory, when he considers that the Woman was formed out of his Body, and created for his Help and Assistance. The follow∣ing Verse does shew that by being his glory, the Apostle means that for which he was made, and we need not go any further to understand St. Paul's Mind: The sense of the whole place is, that

the Man indeed ought to have his Head uncovered, because God made him, as his other Works, to be beheld; and it is not for the glory of God, to have that Work of his hid by a Veil: but the Woman, which was made for the Man, ought to be veiled, because she is inferior to the Man, who uses her as he pleases, and would have her veiled. It is for the Man's glory to have his Authority appear over the Woman, and as in other instances, so in this particularly, of having her con∣ceal her self whenever he pleases. Solomon has a saying in the xith Chapter of Proverbs, vers. 16. which according to the Version of the Septuagint is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And so saith Esdras, Lib. 3. c. iv.7. of Women: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But of this whole reasoning, and many other such, it must be ob∣served, that they are not at all demonstrative, because they are not grounded upon things that are unchangeable, but alterable according to the Custom or Opinion of Men. It was thought by the Greeks to be a token of the Mens Authority over the Women, for the Men to ap∣pear abroad with their Heads uncovered, as being their own Masters, and exposing themselves to every ones view; and on the contrary an Argument of subjection in Women to go abroad veil'd, because that signified them to be but one Man's, who had power to remove their Veil, and would not have them publickly beheld. But if a contrary Custom had prevailed, St. Paul would have reasoned quite otherwise, to perswade the Corinthians to what he endeavoured to induce them, viz. to do all things decently in the Church, and wherever any one prophesied. I confess he grounds his Argument also upon the History of the Creation; but if we consider the thing, who can deny but that the Woman was created after the Image of God, and for his Glory as well as the Man? See Gen. ii.27. Nor indeed is this denied by St. Paul, but only in a certain sense, viz. as the Woman is said to have been created after the Man, and to be an assistant to him. And in this sense only his reasoning is valid, and not by a general, and, if I may so speak, mathematical deduction.

Vers. 10. Note d. The Rabbi cited by Schickard was not a Talmu∣dical Doctor, but only cited a place out of the Talmud, as we may see by the words that Schickard alledges.

Ibid. Note e. About this difficult place of Scripture, I have written two years ago two Letters in answer to a Friend, who desired to have my Opinion of it, which I shall here propose to the Readers ex∣amination, declaring my self ready to alter it whenever I see suffici∣ent reason. That part of those Letters which relates to this matter is as follows.

I. I shall never forget that advice of St. Austin, than which nothing in such matters can be more seasonably call'd to mind: That in things obscure and remote from our senses, if so be we read any thing in Holy Scripture, which may without endangering the Faith we profess, be made to comply with different Opinions, we should not rashly espouse any of them; or if we do, yet not so as to resolve not to change our Judgment whatever light be offer'd to us afterwards, or to contend not so much for the sense of the Holy Scriptures, as our own Opinion, as the true sense of the Scripture, when it is our own, whereas we ought rather to make that to be ours which is the assertion of the Scripture. I have set down the whole Passage at length, to shew you that I am not so wedded to my present Opinion in this matter, as to resolve that no reasons shall move me to forsake it. Two things must here in the first place he observed. First, that the Discourse in 1 Cor. xi. is about Men and Women praying, or pro∣phesying among others at home: For the Women among the Greeks did not appear abroad without a Veil, nor therefore stand in need of the Apostle's Admonition, which no honest Matron ever acted con∣trary to. And that some of their Neighbours or Acquaintance were present with them in those Exercises is manifest; because it is absurd for a Woman praying by her self to cover her Head, or to prophesy alone. Secondly, that as far as the fifteenth Verse, the chief scope of the Apostle's Discourse is to shew the Corinthian Women, they ought not to prophesy or pray when Men were present, without being veil∣ed. These two things I take here for certain, because they offer them∣selves to the Readers Mind at first view. After therefore St. Paul had alledged Reasons to that purpose, at the 10th Verse he concludes thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For this cause ought the Woman to have upon her Head, what? viz. a Veil, which the Apostle calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dominatus est, of which see Dr. Hammond, and my Notes on Gen. xxiv.64. If St. Paul had added nothing more, there would have appeared no defect in his Discourse; but there follow three words which have extremely perplexed Interpreters, because they seem to be altogether superfluous, and to have no dependence upon what goes before. And indeed if in the Conclusion, as Logicians speak, there ought to be nothing but what is contained in the Premises; either it must be shewn that the sense of these words is couched in what went before, or we must acknowledg them to be supervacaneous: and to me the former seems to be very easy, as it is certainly the best, if we do but instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is manifestly not contained in the Premises, read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, when she declares the Revelations made to her, or while she is delivering her 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So a

prophetical Doctrin, which Isaiah, Chap, xxviii.9. calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 schmouha, is stiled by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To which I might add a passage out of Herodotus, where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to be taken in the same signification; but because it is obscure, and St. Paul did not learn from him to speak Greek, I shall abstain from it. But you will ask me, I suppose, how it came to pass that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was chang∣ed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; To which I answer, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word much more common in Scripture than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which occurs but once in all the New Testament, and not often in the Old. And many times it happen'd that the Transcribers substituted a more usual and familiar word in the room of one less known, as St. Jerom thought of the Name Isaiah, which occurs in Mat. xiii.35. The Apostle adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was not necessary for the Woman to cover her self with a Veil at home, but only when she went abroad, unless there was this or the like reason for it. They that make the discourse here to refer to the Church, do not remember that it was unlawful for Women, covered or uncovered, to speak in the Church, as St. Paul teaches in this same Epistle, Chap. xiv.34. But at home amongst their Acquaintance nothing hinder'd but they might prophesy, if they had received that Gift from God; but they ought to have their Heads covered, as when they appeared in publick. This is my conjecture about this place, which I shall not abandon till I meet with something more probable.

II. It is a place of that nature, that as by its obscurity it opens a door for Conjectures, so likewise it leaves room for innumerable Dif∣ficulties; and it is no wonder that very great ones are objected against this of mine, which would not be a conjecture if those who are of another opinion could bring no probability against it. Nevertheless what you alledg, I shall consider as briefly as I can. 1. You suppose the Apostle's Discourse here to refer to publick Assemblies, in which all or most of the Christians of the Church of Corinth met. But it is plain St. Paul forbids Women to speak in publick Assemblies, either covered or uncovered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in private Conversation, say you, it does not seem probable that the Spirit of Prophecy was given: Why so? It's true, the principal use of it was in Churches, but it might be useful also sometimes in private Conversation amongst familiars, for Christians to edify one another privately. And it is certain, Women had it not to preach, that being not allowed them by the Apostle. 2. But you say, tho it was not lawful for Women to teach others, yet they might 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, sing in the Church, as the learned J. Mede interprets that

word. I do not deny but the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testa∣ment has that signification, and is rendred by the Greek Interpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but in the New Testament I do not know of any place wherein that word is so taken, and in this disputation of St. Paul I am sure that signification does no where agree to it. 3. That the fault of the Corinthian Women lay in their coming to Church with their Hair all loose, is no where intimated by St. Paul, who would have much more vehemently inveighed against Christian Women that should have imitated the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Prophetesses or Interpreters of impure Spirits. He does not say one word about their Hair being loose or bound up, but speaks only of a Veil. 4. But why did the Apostle call the pious Discourses of the Corinthian Women, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or predictions? In answer to that, I acknow∣ledg that the latter was the most common word, but the former also was used, as I have shewn. And then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, at least for the most part, the thing it self prophesied, not the act of prophesy∣ing; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only the thing declared, but the Action it self, or Office of declaring, if we believe Eustathius on Iliad Λ. vers. 140. where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he thinks that Homer means 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in this place I did not say that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was meant the spiritual Gift of Prophecy, but either Prophecy, or the action it self of prophesy∣ing of what kind soever that be, which the Apostle has chiefly a re∣ference to; tho because of their affinity they may be easily confound∣ed, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken both for the thing it self preached, and for the Office or Action of preaching. 5. Another thing which you seem very much to stick at is, that this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is but once used in all the New Testament: but consider first that it is very com∣mon in Homer, Xenophon, and other Greek Writers, and therefore taken from the vulgar use. And then secondly, there are in St. Paul's Epistles, as well as in other Authors, words that are but seldom used, as for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Chap. xiii.4. of this Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 2 Cor. xi.9. and several others which learned Men have taken notice of. 6. You add that in vers. 16. the Apostle draws an Argument from the Custom of the Churches; but that Custom does no more re∣spect publick than private Assemblies; for the Apostle does not say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Paul here has a respect to the Custom of the Jews, which the Apostles had introduced into Churches consisting partly of Jews, and partly of Greeks, together with other Jewish Customs. Hear what Tertulli∣an says, de Corona, Chap. 4. Among the Jews it is so ordinary for the Women to have their Heads covered, that they are distinguished by it from

others. This is what I had to reply to your objections, which are so far from satisfying me, that they confirm me in my conjecture. If we had any Old Copy which instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I should have no manner of doubt about this place, what∣ever others thought.

Vers. 14. Note f. I. I have at large shewn in my Ars Critica, P. 2. Sect. 1. c. vii. §. 6. that St. Paul's meaning in Ephes. ii.3. is this, that the Jews (meant by the word us, and not the Romans) were of as lewd and wicked a Disposition as other Nations.

II. But in this place to the Corinthians, the word Nature does not signify properly a Custom or Disposition, but is opposed to Instructi∣on. It is just as if the Apostle should have said, Do not you know this of your selves? Do you want any one to teach it you? So the Latin natura is used by Cicero in Lib. 1. Tuscul. Quaest. where com∣paring the Romans with the Greeks, he saith: Illa quae naturâ, non lit∣teris, adsequuti sunt neque cum Graecis, neque ulla cum Gente sunt confe∣renda. As to those things which they have acquired the knowledg of by Na∣ture, not by Learning, they (viz. the Romans) incomparably go beyond the Greeks and all other Nations. The same Author in Philip. 2. thus bespeaks Antonius: An verebare, ne non putaremus natura te potuisse tam improbum evadere, nisi accessisset etiam disciplina? Were you afraid lest we should think you could not have arrived to such a pitch of wickedness by Na∣ture, unless you had also been instructed?

Vers. 29. Note g. I. The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Book of Joshua, ma∣nifestly signifies to consecrate, the Discourse being about places of Re∣fuge, which were esteemed Sacred. The Septuagint unnecessarily ex∣pressed the sense, rather than the proper meaning of the word; for the Cities consecrated for places of Refuge, were by that Consecrati∣on distinguished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from others. But hence it does not follow that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies reciprocally to sanctify.

II. The Apostle's sense is best interpreted by those who affirm this to be an Elliptical Phrase, and the meaning of it to be, not discerning the Lord's Body, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from other Bread; or not eating the Con∣secrated more reverently than any common Bread. In the 31st verse we have the same expression again; for if we did but distinguish (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) our selves, we should not be condemned; that is, if we distinguished those that were not rightly disposed or qualified, from those that were; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To look here for any thing else, is to seek a knot in a Bulrush.

CHAP. XII.* 1.13

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I do not often find fault with our Author's Paraphrase, tho in a great many places the mind of the Apostles might have been more fitly expressed. I am contented if he does but any how interpret the sense. But his Para∣phrase of this Verse is intolerable; for the Heathens did not believe that their Idols spake of themselves, or that their Priests answered them of their own Heads, but were both moved by the Gods, whose Priests and Statues they were: So that the two first could not be charged upon them, and all that could be objected against them was, that it was not any God, as they supposed, that answered them by their Idols, but an evil Spirit. But the Apostle does not upbraid them so much as with that in this place, but only that they had formerly suf∣fered themselves by their own blindness to be led to the worship of Idols, which gave no answers to them that enquired of them, either by their Priests or by evil Spirits; but were shamefully deceived by their crafty Priests, who pretended themselves to be acted by the Spirit of the Gods, or by mere human artifice imposed on the cre∣dulous, so as to perswade them that Images could speak, which were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And such sort of Men were very unfit to distinguish be∣tween true Inspiration and feigned, which therefore the Apostle here teaches them how to do. I confess Dr. Hammond had Grotius to go be∣fore him, but the thing it self confutes him.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This place was imitated by St. Clement in his 1 Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 46. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Have we not one God and one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace given unto us, and one calling in Christ?

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This Similitude also is used by the same St. Clement more than once, in the forementioned Epistle, and among other places in Chap. 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The great cannot be with∣out the small, nor the small without the great; there is a kind of mixture in all things, and every thing has its use. Let us take for instance our Body. The Head without the Feet is nothing, nor the Feet without the Head. The

smallest parts of our Bodies are necessary and useful to the whole Body; but they all conspire and jointly subserve the preservation of the whole.

Vers. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, we were baptized that we might be called by one name, of one Society, the Church of Christ. See my Note on Chap. x.2.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Having spoken before of Baptism, which is performed with Water, the Apostle here keeps to the same Meta∣phor, and says, that Christians had drank of the same Spirit. Which is to be understood both of the Spirit of Miracles, and of the Spirit of Christianity. Such another Metaphor is made use of by Cebes in the beginning of his Table, where he feigneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Imposture making those who enter into Life to drink of her power.

Vers. 28. Note d. I. Of the difference between a Teacher and a Prophet, some things must be further observed, which our Author ha∣ving omitted has left us not a little in the dark about this matter. The Prophets under the Old Testament had a twofold Office: The first and highest consisted in declaring those things which they had received immediately from God, or by the mediation of Angels, and were such as could not have been known by Men, without a Divine Reve∣lation: The other was to perswade Men to the observation of the Law already revealed, by pious Exhortations, Reproofs and Counsels. And to this seems to belong those Schools of the Prophets, so often mentioned in the Old Testament, and particularly in 1 Sam. xix.20. 2 Kings iv.38.

Because the Worship of the only true God was to be firmly establish∣ed among the Jews, a generation of Men that chiefly regarded the things of this Life, and defended against the encroaching Idolatry of their neighbour Nations for several Ages, God saw it necessary to raise up Prophets, by inspiring them in an extraordinary manner. And under the New Testament likewise, to establish the Authority of the Apostles, God vouchsafed them and others the same extraor∣dinary Inspiration; but as the Christian Religion grew and flourished, and by growing acquired Strength, the gift of foretelling things to come was by degrees more sparingly conferred. And because Christianity did not much regard what was to happen in this World, but put Men upon the thoughts and expectations of another Life, the principal Office of the New Testament Prophets lay in in∣terpreting those things more clearly and at large, which were reveal∣ed by Christ and his Apostles, for the benefit of the common People.

In which Office there are two things to be carefully distinguished: one is, their preparation for the exercise of that Office, in which besides natural Gifts, and Knowledg acquired by Industry, they were endued with the Holy Ghost, which was conferred on them by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles, as appears from 1 Tim. iv.14. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. And tho we do not know how the Holy Spirit influenced their Minds, or what change it produced in them; yet it appears by what is afterwards said about these Prophets by St. Paul, that this was the effect of that divine Inspiration, to fit them to preach the Gospel: Which fitness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as St. Paul calls it, was all at once conferred upon them.

And when they were thus made fit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for this Office, they executed it not by a particular sort of Inspiration, by which such things were revealed to them as they knew not before, or which unaccountably and extraordinarily moved them to speak, but as they saw fit themselves; and those things which they had received from Christ and the Apostles, they interpreted after their own man∣ner. Which was the ground of those Disorders and Tumults in the Church, of which St. Paul speaks in the 14th Chapter, when more Prophets than one would be heard at the same time. And hence this Gift did not supersede the necessity of Study and diligent reading, as appears by that advice of St. Paul to Timothy: Till I come, give at∣tendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrin. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, &c. —Meditate upon these things, give thy self wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all.

These are they whom the Apostle calls Prophets; the Teachers seem to be those who had qualified themselves for preaching the Gospel on∣ly by Study, and had not received the extraordinary Gift of the Spi∣rit. The Prophets, for the most part at least, did not teach by Inspi∣ration, but had been fitted to teach by Inspiration; but these who are here peculiarly called Teachers, did not only teach without Inspirati∣on what they had learned, but had received no extraordinary prepa∣ration from God for the exercise of their Office. In which particu∣lar they were inferior to the Prophets, besides that these did sometimes foretel things to come. Unless this Interpretation be admitted, it will be hard to understand any thing that St. Paul says afterwards about Prophets.

II. As for these Teachers in that Age having been always Bi∣shops or Priests of the first Rank in the Church, I do not know whence that can certainly be concluded. I am sure what our Author alledges

to that purpose, does by no means prove it; nor is there any reason from the thing it self, which should oblige us to be of his opinion.

Ibid. Note e. If the Apostles had shewn any other instances of severity beside that on Ananias, in the beginning of their Ministry, I do not think but St. Luke would have related them, and therefore I suppose they are other Miracles intended in Acts ii.43. But why doth St. Luke say there was such a general fear upon that account? To wit, because that fear might as well follow upon beneficial Miracles, as punishments inflicted on wicked Persons; for any Miracles joined with a pious and reasonable Doctrin, are capable of impressing an aw upon the Minds of Men, and making them afraid to oppose the Teachers of it, lest they should be found fighters against God. This is a much better Interpretation, than to say that the Apostles terrified Men by inflicting Diseases upon them, and menacing them with Death; which they very seldom did, and could not have been frequently done without giving a fair occasion to the enemies of Christianity to cavil both at the Apostles conduct, and it. And I as little believe that this power belonged to all Governors of Churches, which we read of none that used besides the Apostles, and those to whom the Apostles did as it were lend it, as St. Paul did to the Corinthians: See chap. v. But the Doctor thought he could never say enough about Church Censures.

Ibid. Note h. I. Of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phil. Jac. Maussacus has co∣piously and learnedly treated, in a Dissert. premised to Harpocration, where he has at large shewn that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not only Languages in general, but strange Languages, and words peculiar to certain Di∣alects, for the interpretation of which Glossaries were composed.

II. Tho it is said in Acts ii.5. that there were at Jerusalem devout Men, out of every Nation under Heaven, who heard the Apostles speak∣ing in their own Languages; yet that expression is not to be taken in the strictest and most comprehensive sense, because it is certain univer∣sal Phrases are often used for indefinite or particular ones, of which see my Notes on Gen. vii.19. and Part. 2. Sect. ii. cap. vi. §. 16. of my Ars Critica. And indeed it is not at all probable that the Apostles could speak all the Languages so much as of the Asian People, among which were the Scythians, who inhabited a great and vast Country towards the North, and the Seres and Japanners, and divers Indian Nations, to which they never went. And therefore by all Nations and all Lan∣guages must be meant the most and most famous within the Roman Em∣pire, and in bordering parts of the World: Tho I do not doubt but that if the Providence of God had called the Apostles to the most re∣mote Countries, God would have miraculously conferred on them the

knowledg of their Languages.* 1.14 But it was time enough for that when they had occasion to use them.

III. There are some things to be observed about the Gift of Tongues, which I shall afterwards set down, because our Author has past it by.

CHAP. XIII.

Vers. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] St. Paul here seems to speak according to the opinion of the Vulgar, who think that the Angels cannot communicate their Thoughts to one another without speech; tho Spirits, whether pure, or clothed with another kind of Body, may have other ways to convey their Thoughts to each other: And those ways altogether as conceivable as the manner how we understand one anothers Thoughts by Speech, which is not at all, as I might easily shew, if this were a proper place to philosophize in: But I shall rather set down a passage out of Michael Psellus, in his little Book de operationibus Daemonum, where he describes thus the manner of their discoursing: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He that speaks, if he be afar off, is forced to speak very loud; but if he be near, he whispers what he has to say into the Ear of the Person he speaks to. And if he could have an immediate ac∣cess to the spirit of the Mind, he would not need so much as to whisper, but he might make himself be understood, and communicate whatever he had a mind by a secret way, without any noise; in the same manner as they say Souls do after their separation from the Body, who converse without making any sensible impression on each other. And this way the Devils also discourse with us Men, and wage war with us unperceived. And afterwards he saith thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That Demons have any peculiar Language we shall not find; for instance, Hebrew or Greek, or Syriack, or any other barba∣rous Tongue: For what occasion have they for Speech, who converse together without Speech, as I before said? But he goes on and saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But as among the Demons of the Nations, some presided over one, and some over another, and had each their distinct place of Residence; so they severally spake the peculiar Languages of those Nations. For which reason those of them that resided in Greece, gave their responses in Greek Heroick Verses, and those in Chaldea were invoked in the Chaldean Language, &c. This as it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any examination to be admitted, so nor absolutely I think to be rejected; wherefore I thought fit to set it down here, that the Learned might judg of it.

Ibid. Note a. There are several things in this Annotation which I cannot assent to, and are undoubtedly false.

I. From the order observed, in reckoning up the Consort in Psalm cl. it cannot be inferred that the Cymbal was a musical Instrument of a bigger sound than those before named; for who told Dr. Hammond that the Discourse ascended? Does the Psalmist use to be so exact in placing his words? They must have read the Psalm but very carelesly that can think so.

II. The Cymbal cannot be said to have been a wind Instrument. It was made in the form of a Hemisphere, hollow within, and two Cymbals were shaken and struck one against another, to make a sound.

If any one ask me (saith Adr. Turnebus in Advers. Lib. 26. c. 33.) what sort of Instrument a Cymbal was, I will send him to the Herb Cotyle∣don, Pennywort, whose Leaves resemble a Cymbal. So saith Scribonius Largus, Mentastrum vel radicem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quae herba similia folia Cymbalis habet, Wild Mint, or the root of the Herb Cotyledon, the leaves of which are like Cymbals.

He might have added, that this Herb was for that reason called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as appears by Dioscorides in Lib. 4. c. 92. who gives this description of it, and at the same time tells us what was the form of the Cymbal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Cotyledon, some call it Scytalium, others Cymbalium, hath a Leaf like a Sawcer, of a round shape, and gradually concave. That the manner of sounding these Instruments was by dashing or shaking them against one another, appears by this Verse of Virgil Georg. Lib. 4. vers. 64. where he shews the way how to call back a swarm of Bees:

Tinnitusque cie & matris quate cymbala circum.

On which place Servius hath this Note, by whose words it will more fully appear what was the form of the Cymbal: quae (viz. cymbala) in ejus (Matris Deûm) tutela sunt, quia sunt similia HEMICYCLIS

coeli, quibus cingitur Terra, quae est mater Deorum: Which are under her protection, because they are like the half Circles of the Heaven, by which the Earth is encompassed, which is the Mother of the Gods. That they were shook together, we may learn also from the words of Isidore in Orig. Lib. 2. c. 21. Cymbala & acetabula quaedam sunt, quae percussa in∣vicem se tangunt & sonum faciunt. Dicta autem Cymbala, quia cum ballematica simul percutiuntur. Ita enim Graeci dicunt Cymbala ballema∣tica. Cymbals are a sort of Sawcers, which being struck against one ano∣ther, make a sound. The reason why they were called Cymbals was because, &c. What the meaning of the word ballematica is I do not under∣stand; but the word Cymbal must be derived not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies concave, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whence Cymbals are called concave by Lucretius, Lib. 2. speaking of Cybele's Priests:

Tympana tenta sonant palmis & cymbala circum Concava.

Nonius Marcellinus interprets cymbalissare, cymbala quatere. And it's certain they were used in Dances, as the Timbrels and Tabors, as ap∣pears by Lampridius in Commodo: Praefectum Praetorio suum Julianum —saltare etiam nudum ante concubinas suas jussit, quatientem Cym∣bala deformato vultu: He commanded his Praefect Julian to dance naked in the Court before his Concubines, shaking Cymbals, and with his Countenance disfigured. But the manner of sounding Cymbals is best of all described by Ausonius, in Ep. 25.

Cymbala dant flictu sonitum, dant pulpita saltu Icta pedum, tentis reboant cava tympana tergis, Isiacos agitant Mareotica sistra tumultus. * 1.15

III. The matter of these semicircular Instruments being Brass, they made a tinkling or shrill sound, not a loud or big one, as the Doctor thought; whence they are stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Epigram of Alexis Priest of the Mother of the Gods, of which I shall here pro∣duce these Distichs out of the Anthol. Lib. vi. p. 416. cap. 5.

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

The female Alexis bequeaths this to thee, the mad tokens of her Fury, leaving off her brass striking Rage: Her shrill sounding Cymbals, and high grave sounding Pipes, which are made of the crooked Horns of a Calf: And her ecchoing Drums and Swords died with Blood, and yellow Hair, which she formerly shook.

IV. Hesychius interprets the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, brazen Kettles, Cymbals, as Phavorinus also reads it, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 brazen Cymbals, as it is falsly quoted by our Author. And the reason why these Instruments are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is because they were made of Brass, not because they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wind Instruments.

V. The Epithet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here proves nothing but that the Cymbal was an Instrument of a shrill sound; and indeed two such semicircular Instruments made of Brass could not be beat one against another, without making a pretty great Ringing or Tinkling, which yet was not so great as to equal the sound of Organs, especially if of a large size. Hence Xenophon, in the beginning of his Book de re Equestri, compares the sound of the hollow hoof of a Horse to the sound of a Cymbal: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a hollow Hoof struck upon the ground makes a noise like a Cymbal. Besides the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to make any sort of confused noise, not only for Joy, but for Grief, as appears even from Mark v.38. Consult what H. Stephanus says about this word under its primitive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with which what is said here by our Author is nothing to compare. So that St. Paul admirably resembles the sound of the words of an unknown Language to the confused noise of a Cymbal, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Perhaps Tiberius Caesar had almost the same reason for calling the Grammarian Apio, Cymbalum Mundi, the Cymbal of the World, viz. because he dun∣ned mens ears by his vain and unprofitable talking. See Pliny's Pref. to his Nat. Hist.

VI. The use of the Cymbal does not belong to this place. The Apostle does not here respect the occasions or times in which it was made use of, but only its confused sound: However I shall in a few words here set down the use of that Instrument, because our Author

had not a true Notion of it. It was used whenever any confused noise was to be made, either as a signification of Joy or Mourning. For the antient Eastern People used that sort of Musick on both those occasions, whether in War or Peace. It was a token of Mourning in the sacred Solemnities of the Mother of the Gods, as we are told by Martial, Lib. 14. Epig. in Cymbala, 204.

Aera, Celaenaeos lugentia Matris amores, Esuriens Gallus vendere saepe solet.

Of which see the Additions of T. Demsterus to the Rom. Ant. of Ro∣sinus. But in the worship of other Deities, they played upon Cym∣bals for the sake of mirth; as appears by Athenaeus's description of the Parilia, or Feasts in honour of the Goddess Pales, Lib. 8. p. 361. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: There was heard through all the City, the noise of Pipes, and the sound of Cymbals, and the beating of Drums, and singing. So Herodian, Lib. 5. speaking of Heliogabalus, cap. 5.19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He danced about the Altars, with the sound of all sorts of Instruments; and the wo∣men of the Country danced with him, running round the Altars, and carry∣ing Cymbals or Tabers in their bands. That there were Cymbals also used in private Meetings for dancing and mirth, I have already shewn, and could easily prove more at large. It is known also that they were used in War, but it was only among the Arabians. And so saith Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, Stromat. 2: p. 164. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Egyptians in their Wars use Drums or Tabers, and the Arabians, Cymbals.

VII. Because I have said so much about the Cymbal, I shall add something about its Original, tho it contribute nothing to the illustra∣tion of St. Paul's meaning in this place. It sufficiently appears by the places already alledged, that it was neither a Roman nor a Greek In∣strument, but an Asian: because it was principally in use among the Phrygians and Phenicians, as we have seen out of Herodotus; and the Arabians, as we have been told by Clemens. And hence saith Apu∣leius, in Lib. de Deo Socratis: Gaudent Aegyptia numina ferme plango∣ribus, Graeca plerumque choreis, barbara autem strepitu cymbalistarum, & tympanistarum & choraularum: The Egyptian Deities are pleased gene∣rally with Beatings, the Greek for the most part with Dances, and the Bar∣barian with the noise of men playing upon Cymbals, or Tabers, or Pipes.

It was very common among the Jews,* 1.16 in whose Language it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsiltsel, from a Root which signifies to ring or tinkle, both among them and the Arabians. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsiltsel is constantly ren∣dered by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, except in one or two places, which are perhaps corrupt. Possibly it signified also Sistrum, a Timbrel, as I shall have occasion hereafter to observe on Psal. cl. It is certain both these Instruments might by an Onomatopaea be so called.

I have been larger than I usually am, in treating of the Cym∣bal, partly because Dr. Hammond did not know what it was, and partly because two other great Men were as ignorant in this matter as he: One is H. Grotius, who tells us, that for the most part this In∣strument was made of Silver, which by what I have said already, ap∣pears to be false; and for further proof take this passage out of Jose∣phus, in Lib. 7. cap. 10. p. 243. where among the rest of David's mu∣sical Instruments, he reckons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and describes them thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they were broad, great, and brasen. The o∣ther is S. Bochart, who in his Phaleg. Lib. 4. c. 2. affirms, that the Cymbal differed hardly in any thing but the roundness of its form from the Timbrel, whereas the Timbrel was an Instrument with holes in it, and made with little cross bars of Metal, not like a pewter Sau∣cer as the Cymbal. Which it is not proper in this place to prove at large.

Vers. 4. Note c. See my Note on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Mat. xi.30.

CHAP. XIV.

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] What is said in this Verse, seems to be by way of concession, and therefore should be paraphrased thus:

For granting that he who speaks in an unknown Language, does really use a Gift which he has re∣ceived from God; yet he should remember that he can speak in that Language only to God, not to men who do not understand it, and to whom all that he says is unintelligible.

It was certainly a piece of folly and arrogance, not to say any worse of it, to speak so as to be understood by no body; for it was a mere ostentation of the Gift of Tongues. But there are some things to be observed with re∣lation to that Gift, which our Author has past by, and will it may be give light to this whole Business.

I. They who received the Gift of Tongues, were doubtless in∣structed with them, in order to propagate the Gospel among those Nations whose Languages they were; whether they went into their

Countries, or discoursed with such as came out of them: and therefore the time for using them was only when they could not be better un∣derstood in any other Language. Those that were at that time at Corinth, and could speak Greek, ought to use the Greek Tongue among the Corinthians, and not strange Dialects which they could not understand, and for which they might be suspected of Imposture, be∣cause no body understood them. For certainly one who could speak Greek, and industriously used another Language among Grecians who understood nothing but their native Dialect, might not without rea∣son be taken for a Deluder or Impostor.

II. But besides Grecians, and those who understood Greek, there were at Corinth some other People out of Africa, Asia, and Europe, who resorted thither for the sake of Trade, and were unskilful in the Greek Language, and who having been converted by the Apostle to the Christian Faith, had also received the Gift of Tongues, to enable them when they went into their own Country to preach the Gospel a∣mong barbarous Nations. And these seem to be the first who might abuse the Gift of Tongues in the Church of Corinth; as if for instance, a man that could speak Latin, because born and bred in Italy, had used the Illyrian, Celtick or Spanish Language, the knowledg of which had been conferred upon him by God, when no body was present that un∣derstood any of those Tongues.

III. It must be acknowledged notwithstanding, that a Grecian, be∣fore Grecians, might, for example, speak Spanish, that those of his own Country might know he was instructed by God with the know∣ledg of the Spanish Tongue; to which purpose there was need of an Interpreter, who by a faithful interpretation of what he said, might shew that he did not speak some fictitious Language, or use sounds that had no sense belonging to them, but the true Spanish Language. For if he himself had first used a strange Language, and then spoken in Greek what he had said before in an unknown Tongue, he might be suspected by those who did not understand that strange Language. But if no body were present, who could perform the Office of an In∣terpreter? It was better for the Person so miraculously endued with the knowledg of the Spanish Language to hold his peace, lest he should speak to those who did not understand it, to no purpose, or become suspected to the Hearers, if he himself should take upon him to be his own Interpreter, or at least by his proud ostentation of an useless accomplishment, at that instant of time, offend them.

IV. These two sorts of men St. Paul here reproves, who used the Gift of Tongues in an improper place and time, and prefers such Pro∣phets

as spake nothing but Greek to them. But you will say, Were not those who preached the Gospel in strange Languages, also Prophets? Yes, undoubtedly; but not to those who did not understand those Languages, and therefore the Apostle distinguishes them from those who spake only Greek. And he justly prefers a Grecian, endued on∣ly with the Gift of Prophecy, and speaking to his Countrymen in their own Language, to one who did not use the Gift of Prophecy, but of Tongues, among those who did not understand them. These things being diligently observed, which, if I am not mistaken, are true, or very probable, the Apostle's whole discourse will be perspicu∣ous, which is otherwise very dark and intricate.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I do not think this is to be understood of a particular Inspiration, for they who had once received the Gift of Tongues, were not inspired as often as there was occasion to use them; but they expressed their minds whenever they pleased, in any of those Languages with which the Spirit of God had instructed them. So that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is meant to his own understanding, but not to another's.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]

That is, not as our Author says, un∣less he afterwards speak in a known Language, what he had expressed in an un∣known; for it would have been absurd to speak, for instance, in Spanish to Grecians, that which one should be forced afterwards to speak ones self in Greek; but, he is a greater Prophet who prophesies in one known Language, than he that prophesies in many unknown, if he cannot deliver his mind without them in a known Tongue.

A Car∣thaginian, for example, who besides the Punick, should have under∣stood all the Dialects of the Mores and Lybians, could not be so much esteemed at Corinth, as a Greek Prophet that understood only his native Language, unless he were able also to express in Greek what he could say in the Language of the Mores or Libyans. This St. Paul calls here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because he is speaking of a man who did not understand Greek, and wanted an Interpreter among the Grecians, and so would have been his own, if he had understood that Language. No other Person can be intended, for who doubts but a native Grecian was able to speak in his own Tongue what he said in a strange one? Grotius would have the Gift of Interpretation to be understood of a faithful Memory, but that is manifestly a harsh and far-fetch'd Interpre∣tation.

Vers. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I wonder Dr. Hammond in his Para∣phrase should represent St. Paul as using that Fiction of some of the Antients about seventy Languages; which has been confuted by S. Bo∣chart

in his Phaleg. Lib. 1. c. 15. to whom I refer the Reader.

Vers. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Of one that could speak Greek this cannot, as I have said, be understood; for what need had any man of a miraculous Gift, to enable him to express that in his Mother Tongue, which he himself spake in a strange Language, if he did but understand what he said? And every one that uses a Language, the knowledg of which he has received from God, is supposed to under∣stand what he himself says; for he would really be a sounding Brass, or a Cymbal making a confused noise, who should speak words in a strange Dialect, which yet he did not know the meaning of. Grotius interprets these words thus: Let him pray that he may faithfully retain in his memory what he speaks outwardly with his Tongue, that so he may deliver the same things in Greek. But, first, this Interpretation does not agree with the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to interpret, not to remember. Secondly, He supposes that those who used strange Lan∣guages, spake from Inspiration, not their own thoughts, but what was suggested to them by the Spirit; which we have no certain ground to believe, nor is it probable it was so, at that time particularly, and in that place: For if this supposition of Grotius were true, the Holy Ghost would have inspired a Corinthian to speak, for example, in the Punick Language, in such time and place as he would least of all have stood in need of that Tongue, there being no Carthaginian present. But to what end I pray? Was it that he might hold his peace in the Church; in which certainly it would have been very improper to speak in the Punick Dialect, if there was no body there that under∣stood it? Or was it that he might keep his skill in that Language till a fitter occasion? But he had better have been inspired with the know∣ledg of the Punick Tongue, when there was need of that Inspiration, lest his memory should not retain it, or there should be occasion for a new Miracle to confirm his memory. For if (which I observe in the third place in opposition to Grotius's Interpretation) he could not have interpreted by his memory in Greek, what he had said by heart and extempore in the Punick Language, without a Miracle, much less could he have performed that some time after. And the Interpretation which Dr. Hammond gives of these words in his Paraphrase, is alto∣gether as insignificant, unless we understand the Apostle to speak of a Stranger that could not speak Greek.

Vers. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I have set down this whole Verse in Greek, that the Rea∣der may compare it with our Author's Paraphrase, in which he speaks so barbarously and improperly, that he rather obscures the sense of

the Apostle, which is dark in it self, than explains it. What mortal would have interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by my Gift, or the Gift of Tongues which is given me? and what intolerable Language is it to say my Gift prays? and so of the rest. This is lapides loqui, as one said, not verba humana, to break a Man's teeth with hard words. Grotius much more fitly in∣terprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a motion from Inspiration, and explains the last words by this Paraphrase: Mens mea nihil bene excogitatum profert; My own mind produces no good thoughts. But this is nothing to the purpose, for who had not rather hear an inspired discourse, it he can but understand it, than one that is merely the product of a man's own meditation? Some other Interpretation therefore must be given of this place; and St. Paul's mind, if I am not mistaken, expressed thus:

If I make use of an unknown Tongue, I pray indeed my self with my mind, because I understand what my words signify; but the sense of what I say is of no use to others who do not know it; and if they join with me in that Prayer, pray rather with their bodies than with their minds.

First, The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, I pray with my mind; and is tacitly opposed to the action of the Hearers who were then present, and prayed rather with their bodies than their minds, be∣cause they did not understand what he that made use of a strange Lan∣guage said. Nothing is more ordinary than for the Spirit and the Body to be opposed to one another; which in the use of the Sacred Writers are such perpetual correlates, as the Logicians speak, that upon the mention of one, the other is presently thought on. See Rom. viii.23. and Gal. v.16.

Secondly, The phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, my mind or understanding signifies the sense or meaning of what I say; which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without Fruit; viz. to others who do not understand it. So this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequent∣ly used, and among other places in the Book of Wisdom, Chap. ii.16. These things being supposed, the sense also of the following words is evident, which will otherwise be very obscure.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, I will pray so, as at the same time to pray to God with my mind, and that the sense of what I say may be understood by the standers by. I confess an Attick Writer, or one that had studied to express himself neatly and ele∣gantly, would never have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pray so as that those who are present may understand the meaning of my Prayer. But St. Paul was never cu∣rious in his stile, and he said to pray with my mind, tho in a different sense, because he had said before to pray with the Spirit. But he cer∣tainly

meant what I have said, or something like it, as appears by what follows: See vers. 19. Grotius interprets this Verse thus: Optandum est, ut orem, id est, ut oret aliquis non tantum motu illo afflatitio, verum etiam iis quae ipse excogitavit; It were to be wished that I prayed, that is, that a Man prayed not only from that Divine impulse, but also out of his own Thoughts. But I say it were to be wished rather that all who pray in publick, prayed by Inspiration or a Divine Impulse, but in a known Language. St. Paul in this Discourse does not oppose that which a Man devises himself, and speaks in a known Tongue, to a Prayer that is inspired, but is expressed in a strange Language; but only a Prayer which cannot be understood, to one that may. They who had the Gift of Tongues might as well express their own Thoughts in a strange Dialect, as that which was revealed to them by Inspiration. This our Author in some measure perceived, and therefore mollified a little Grotius's Interpretation.

Vers. 16. Note a. I rather think the Apostle means here other acts of Thanksgiving, which particular Persons, according as it seemed good to them, offer'd up to God in the Church, in strange Languages, to which they who did not understand those Languages, could not say Amen. For who will believe that there was any Governor of a Church so sensless, as when he celebrated the Eucharist, a religious Ceremo∣ny in which all the Members of the Church were to join, to use an unknown Language? This is confirmed by the Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy, which shews the Apostle to speak of Thanksgivings offer'd up in the name of one Man, and not of the whole Church.

Vers. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vers. 15. seems to be but a harsh Phrase, to signify, that I may be understood; yet that that is the meaning of it, may appear by the fol∣lowing words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that I might teach others also; as also by its being opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 words in an unknown Tongue. Gro∣tius interprets this also a me ipso cogitata, The product of my own Thoughts; as if one that had been endued with the Gift of Tongues, could not have expressed the product of his own private Thoughts in an unknown Language! Or as if he that so unseasonably made ostentation of that Gift, spake by Inspiration!

Vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Dr. Hammond fol∣lows indeed for the most part Grotius, and not without reason, as be∣ing unquestionably the best of all the Interpreters of Scripture. But here he justly forsakes him, because that great Man puts such an In∣terpretation upon this Passage alledged out of Isaiah, as makes it to be nothing to the purpose. Besides, there are other things in his Annota∣tion

on this place liable to reprehension:* 1.17 As when he saith; Haec ci∣tari à Paulo, ex loco quidem Esaiae xxviii.11, 12. non tamen ex versione LXX Intt. sed ex versione Aquilae docet nos Origenes Philocaliae viii. For, first, Origen speaks of this passage, not in the viiith, but ixth Chapter of his Philocalia. Secondly, he does not say that St. Paul had cited Isaiah according to the Version of Aquila, whom he very well knew to have lived but in the time of the Emperor Adrian. All that he says is this, after he had set down this place of St. Paul, wherein he alledges Isaiah's words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for I have found what is equivalent to this expression in the interpretation of Aquila. St. Paul, who understood the Hebrew Language, cited these words out of the Hebrew Copy, not out of the Version of Aquila, which was composed a great many Years after the Apostle's death. If Aquila translated them in the same manner, the reason of that was, because he also carefully follow'd the Hebrew. This was an error in Grotius, which proceeded not from carelesness or oscitan∣cy, and much less from ignorance, but from an unavoidable weakness in human Nature, which will not bear a perpetual Intention of Mind. For I do not doubt but this difficult Chapter kept that great Man's Thoughts a long while employed; and so writing this after he was tired with too long Study, he fell into a double Mistake, which I do not speak to upbraid him, far from that, but only to caution the Reader.

CHAP. XV.

Vers. 8. Note b. WHAT is observed by Baronius out of Suetonius, and here since him by Dr. Hammond, is vain, being grounded up∣on a corrupt reading of the words of Suetonius, where instead of Abortivos, the best Copies have orcinos or orcivos, which Is. Casaubon and Laev. Torrentius have shewn to be the true reading. The phrase used here by St. Paul, is much older than Augustus; for the Hebrews metaphorically call any mean or contemptible thing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that word the Septuagint very truly render by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Job iii.16. and Eccles. vi.3. So any thing whatsoever that is in its kind little, might be called abortive, as Antonius's Dwarf in Horace, Sat. 3. Vers. 46.

Appellat — pater—pullum male parvus Si cui filius est, ut abortivus fuit olim Sisyphus.

On which place see the old Interpreter.

Vers. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Two things St. Paul proves in this Discourse: 1. That the Apostles did not falsly pretend themselves to expect a Happiness after this Life from Christ, but truly expected it; because otherwise they would never have underwent so many Hardships and Dangers for his sake. 2. That this their expectation was not vain, because it was grounded upon the Resurrection of Christ, whereof they were wit∣nesses, and therefore credible, because they suffer'd so much for be∣ing so, and it was a thing in which they could not be deceived. This arguing has a great deal more strength and certainty in it, than that of Cicero in a like matter, and grounded in part upon the same Topicks, Acad. Quaest. iv. where saith Lucullus: Ille vir bonus, qui statuit omnem cruciatum perferre, intolerabili dolore lacerari potius, quam aut officium pro∣dat aut fidem; cur has sibi tam graves leges imposuit, cum quamobrem ita oporteret nihil haberet comprehensi, percepti, constituti? Nullo igitur modo fieri potest, ut quisquam tanti aestimet aequitatem & fidem, ut ejus conser∣vandae causâ nullum supplicium recuset, nisi iis rebus adsensus sit, quae falsae esse non possunt. That good Man who resolves to undergo all manner of Torments, and to be torn in pieces with unsufferable pain, rather than to be∣tray his Duty or Trust; why has he imposed upon himself such severe Laws if he did not see sufficient reason for him to do so? It is utterly impossible that any Man should put such a value upon Justice and Honesty, as to sub∣mit to any Tortures rather than act contrary to them, unless he have assented to such things as cannot be false. And Tuscul. Lib. 1. Cicero himself speaks thus: Nescio quomodo inhaeret mentibus quasi saeculorum quoddam augurium futurorum, idque in maximis ingeniis, altissimisque animis & exstitit maxime & apparet facillime; quo quidem demto, quis tam esset a∣mens, qui semper in laboribus & periculis viveret? I know not how, there abides in the Minds of Men as it were a presage of a future State, and especially in Persons of the greatest Capacity and deepest Thoughts, in whom it most easily discovers it self; and if this apprehension was taken away, who would be so mad as to live perpetually in Troubles and Dangers? This in∣deed shews that those Heathens believed another Life after this, but does not prove that they were not mistaken. For it was possible they might be deceived by an Opinion taken up in their Childhood, for which they could produce no sufficient Arguments. But the case of the Apostles was quite otherwise, who proved the reality of a future State by the Authority and Resurrection of Christ; which they them∣selves had seen, and confirmed the truth of by their Sufferings.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Who can neither live quietly nor die na∣turally, nor so much as find a Grave after Death. To this purpose is

that Inscription on the Monument of Callistus, if it be an antient one, in Rom. Subterran. Par. 1. p. 307. ALEXANDER mortuus non est, sed vivit super astra, & corpus hoc tumulo quiescit. Vitam explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multùm beneficii antevenire praevideret, pro gratia omnium, odium reddit. Genua enim flectens, vero Deo sacrificaturus, ad supplicium ducitur. O tempora infausta! quibus, inter sacra & vota, ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus. Quid miserius vita? Sed quid mise∣rius morte, cum ab amicis & parentibus sepeliri nequeant?

Vers. 29. Note c. I. That Ellipsis, which our Author would have to be in this Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the se∣ries of such a Discourse as St. Paul's here is, and in the middle of a Disputation which required that every thing intended should be ex∣pressed, is very harsh, and has nothing common with those examples which he alledges.

II. What he confidently asserts in the latter end of this Annotati∣on, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vers. 12. is the Nominative case to the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is groundless and unnecessary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having a Nomina∣tive case belonging to it in this very 29th verse, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which immediately goes before. But that intricate way of Writing which the Doctor had accustom'd himself to, made him able to digest what none besides himself could do.

III. I confess the opinion of St. Chrysostom and others about this place, contains a very commodious sense, if we consider it in it self, but compar'd with the Apostle's words it cannot stand. And to me their Interpretation seems to be most probable, who take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to be equivalent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the sense to be this:

If there were no Resurrection, what would become of those who every day, tho they see Christians put to Death for their Profession, do yet chear∣fully receive Baptism, that they may supply the place of those that are dead in the Christian Church?

By the same way of arguing we might prove, that bearing of Arms is not without a reward annexed to it: If those that bore Arms were to have no reward for so doing, when so many Soldiers are continually killed, what should they do who are listed in the room of those that are dead, and supply their place? That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequently used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no one can doubt. Yet I shall add a Passage out of Dionysius Halicarnass. in which he speaks of Soldiers substituted in the room of others that are killed, whereby not only that appears, but St. Paul's words may be very much illustra∣ted. And it is in his Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 553. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: FOR those that DIED in the War with the Antiatians, they de∣termined to levy other Soldiers.

IV. What our Author relates out of Photius concerning Synesius, is in Cod. 26. But there was a great difference between Synesius and those against whom St. Paul disputes: For he being a Platonick, be∣lieved the Immortality of the Soul, and the Rewards and Punishments of another Life; but these Corinthians, together with the Resurrecti∣on of the Body, denied the Soul's Immortality, and a future Judg∣ment, and were perhaps Jews, who of Sadduces had embraced the Christian Religion. Now St. Paul, in order to prove the Resurrecti∣on, proves that there were rewards to be expected after this Life; which reasoning could not be designed against the Platonists, because they confessed a future Happiness, tho they did not believe the Re∣surrection of the Dead. And Religion might well enough consist with the opinion of the Platonicks, tho the Sadduces who disowned the Immortality of the Soul utterly overthrew it. And therefore the Egyptians bore with Synesius, notwithstanding he was a Platonick, which they would never have done if he had been a Sadduce.

Vers. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] There are some who from this place, and the citation out of Aratus, infer that St. Paul was con∣versant in the Writings of the Heathen Poets: But without sufficient ground, because such as these were common proverbial forms of Speech used by every one, and might be easily learned from ordinary Dis∣course, even of ignorant Persons, by which means I am apt to think the Apostle came to the knowledg of them. For the Jews did not use to read much the Writings of the Heathens; nor does the stile of St. Paul otherwise give us the least reason to imagin that he ever so much as attempted any thing in that sort of Study. For if he had been at all conversant in Heathen Authors, we should doubtless have seen more effects of it in his way of Writing. However we may learn from hence, that Christians ought not to reject any thing which was well said by the Heathens: And therefore I think it not amiss to pro∣duce two more Passages, besides those which have been alledged by Grotius, out of Heathen Writers to this purpose. Aeschylus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

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

That is, according to the interpretation of Grotius:

Adeo malorum, scilicet, commercio Nil pejus usquam est; oritur infelix seges, Nam sceleris arvum nil nisi mortem parit.

Epictetus in Enchirid. cap. xlv. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: If a Companion be corrupted, he that converses with him must needs also be corrupted, tho per∣haps he were [before] pure.

Ibid. Note e. I take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in the sense in which it is com∣monly understood, because those who denied the Resurrection were undoubtedly Persons of evil Manners; and that this was St. Paul's meaning, appears by the following words; Awake to Righteousness, and sin not. So in Aristophanes in Nub. p. 177. Ed. majoris, Act. 3. Sc. 2. the Chorus addressing themselves to just Reason, say:

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

But O thou who hast crowned our Ancestors with abundance of good Manners, speak and declare thy Nature. Where unquestionably 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies good Manners, as in many other places: Yet Dr. Hammond's Interpre∣tation and this may be joined together.

Vers. 54. Note g. This remark our Author took out of H. Grotius; but tho the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify for ever, and Death be to be finally abolished after the Resurrection, yet St. Paul does not refer to that here: for if he had, he would have rendred the words of Isaiah, Chap. xxv.8. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he now interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because he had before reckoned Death in the number of Christ's Enemies, vers. 25, and 26. and afterwards in vers. 57. he saith that God had given us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the victory over Death. So that of two significations, whereof the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Inetsahh is capable, viz. for ever, and in victory, St. Paul here follows the latter, which made most for his pur∣pose: And indeed that signification agrees best to the place in Isaiah it self.

CHAP. XVI.* 1.18

Ver. 19. Note c. I. Wonder our learned Author should begin this Annota∣tion with saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Church did not ONLY signify the place of assembling together, but also the Persons that used to do so: When it is certain the former signification of the word, for a Place, was wholly unknown in the times of the Apostles, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was always used for an Assembly, as well among the Christians as by the Greeks.

II. I rather also understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the House it self; which is said here to have had a Church in it, because there were in it seve∣ral Christians, so that that House seemed to contain a whole Church. Tertullian in Lib. de Exhort. ad castit. cap. vii. Where there are three Persons, there is a Church, tho they be Laicks.

Vers. 22. Note d. I. Those learned Men who affirm there were only two degrees of Excommunication among the Jews, are Selden and his followers: See his Treatise de Synedriis Judaeorum, Lib. 1. cap. 7. And I confess I could never meet with any that has an∣swered his Arguments, tho Dr. Hammond does not doubt but he was mistaken; but our Author was too great a favourer of Ecclesiastical Punishments, which yet it is certain have done more mischief than good to the Christian Church.

II. What he says about the word Maran, is taken out of Grotius, without Care or Examination. (1.) The Etrurians did not call their Kings Marani, but Murrani, as Grotius tells us out of S••rvius on Aeneid. 12. vers. 529. (2.) The Syrians are not stiled Maronitae be∣cause they call Christ Lord, but from one Maron an Abbot, whom the Maronitae affirm to have been Orthodox, but others a Heretick; or from Maronia a Territory of Syria: on which matter there is extant a Dissertation of Gabriel Sionita and Joannes Hezzonita, both Maronites. It is certain Maron is a Syrian name, there being in the Recognit. of S. Clement, Lib. 3. c. 2. mention made of Maron the Tripolite who entertained St. Peter. (3.) I cannot tell where Epi∣phanius says that God was called by the Gazari, Marnas; but I know that Mr. Selden, a great while before this was published by Dr. Ham∣mond, or before ever Grotius first wrote it, had shewn that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 marnascha was the name of a Deity among the Gazaeans, in his Trea∣tise de Diis Syris, Synt. 2. c. 1. (4.) Stephanus was mistaken, when he said that the Cretians called their Virgins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for they were

called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which see J. Selden, and C. Salmasius on cap. 11. of Solinus.

III. The Spaniards do not say, Anathema Maranatha, but Anathe∣ma Marano, as it is rightly set down by Grotius out of Mariana, Lib. 7. cap. 6. Rerum Hispanicarum. The Arabick words subjoined to that form of speaking among the Spaniards, are not an interpretati∣on of it, nor brought as such by Grotius, but of this place in St. Paul, out of the Arabick Translation, published by T. Erpenius.

IV. The conjecture set down by the Doctor concerning the passage in Steph. Byzant. on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is taken from Dan. Heinsius, whose name he ought to have mentioned, tho it be but an unhappy conjecture. The Shepherd there spoken of, said in Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ram-anth, thou art high, viz. O God. Stephanus misunderstood Philo, as S. Bochart well observes in Chanaan. Lib. 2. c. 12. to whom I refer the Reader.

Vers. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is omitted in the Alexandrian Copy. But I have sometime suspected that the true reading was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which by a mistake came to be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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

  ☞
• * 1.13

  Chapter XII.
• * 1.14

  Chapter XIII.
• * 1.15

  Since the Impression of this I have observed that the learned Laur. Pignorius has print∣ed Figures of Cymbals from the antient Marbles, exactly in the same form as I have de∣scribed them.
• * 1.16

  Chapter XIV.
• * 1.17

  Chapter XV.
• * 1.18

  Chapter XVI.