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

ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians.

AT the end of the Praemon.] This Epistle is with more pro∣bability referred by Dr. Pearson to the Year of Christ lxii. or the ninth of Nero. The same learned Man proves that what our Author mentions in this Premonition, about Ti∣mothy's being left at Ephesus, happened in the Year of Christ lxiv. Consult himsel••.

Instead of the single Sect of the Gnosticks, which our Author thinks St. Paul opposes in this Epistle, Grotius with much more reason sup∣poses that the Apostle inveighs against the Heathens and Jews. For it is certain there were Jews and Heathen Philosophers almost every where at that time, but it is not so clear that the followers of Simon were dispersed in all places.

CHAP. I.

Vers. 4. Note a. WHAT is here said by our learned Author is true, but the thing must be proved a little more Grammatically. To choose properly is out of many things proposed to us to prefer one thing before the rest, which we may make use of to a certain end, rather than any other. Upon which follows the execu∣tion of that preference, whereby we do what we had before purposed, and which is also sometimes called choosing. In this latter sense God did not choose us before the foundation of the World; but in the former only, wherein he purposed to call those Nations whom he afterwards called actually to the knowledg of the Gospel, by Christ Jesus. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is all one as if St. Paul had said: before the World was made he preferred us before other People, as those whom he intended by Christ and his Apostles (that being very fitly attributed to Christ, which is done by his Apostles in

his Name) to call, &c. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ap∣pears by the Verse following; and nothing is more common in these Books than that Hebraism of in for by. See Chap. ii.14, 15. and iii.6.

Hence the execution of that preference is sometimes signified by the same word as the Decree it self: As we may see by Clemens Roma∣nus in Epist. i. to the Corinthians, chap. I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: This blessedness came upon those that were chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And the same Writer in Chap. lvii. saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: God the overseer of all things, and soveraign of Spirits, and Lord of all Flesh, who has chosen Jesus Christ, and us by him, for a peculiar People.

CHAP. II.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I cannot see why Dr. Hammond chose rather here to follow other Interpreters than Grotius, who with good reason thought that St. Paul in this place speaks of the Jews; especially seeing he himself thought that the same word ought to be so taken in Chap. i.11. of this Epistle, as appears by his Pa∣raphrase. For St. Paul did not write this Epistle in the name of the Church of Rome; so that when he says 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he should be understood to speak of the Christians who dwelt in that City. And besides, no∣thing could be said more flat in the name of the Roman Gentiles than, among whom also we all had our Conversation, &c. seeing every body knew that the Romans had lived in the same Vices with other Hea∣thens, yea had been worse it may be than their Neighbours, as the Inhabitants of great Cities are generally most devoted to the Vices of the Age. But that might very fitly be said of the Jews, whom St. Paul would otherwise have seemed to distinguish from other Nations, as to the course of their Lives; in which as he would not have de∣clared the truth, so he might have offended the Gentiles. And for this reason he says here, we all, that is, Jews as well as Gentiles.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The meaning of this expression I have shewn at large in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. i. cap. 7. to be no more than this; that the Jews were a People of as wicked Dispositions, and de∣served as much the Wrath of God as other Nations.

Vers. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I have set down the whole

Verse to shew that the sense of the last words is different from what is vulgarly thought. They render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by quae praeparavit, which he hath prepared, and I do not deny but that according to the Greek Construction it may be so rendred; but the thing it self, and the Phrase, ought to have admonished Interpreters that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was ra∣ther to be understood, and that it should be rendred for which he hath prepared us or made us fit. The foregoing words, in which Christians are called God's workmanship, and said to be created by Christ, shew that St. Paul speaks of a change made in Men, who of bad and in∣disposed to good Works, were made good and fit for the exercise of Christian Vertues. And therefore the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have been referred to them. It's certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

There can scarce be a harsher Phrase, and more destitute of examples than this, to prepare good Works that Men might walk in them. But Men themselves are frequently said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So in Rom. ix.23. where St. Paul speaks of a like matter, God is said to make known the riches of his Glory on the vessels of Mercy, which he had before prepared, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Glory; whom he also hath called, not only us of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. God is here said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to have prepared us to good Works, because the knowledg and belief of the Gospel has that influence upon us as to fit us for the performance of vertuous Actions. So in the Book of the Son of Sirach Chap. ii.1. all that intend to serve God are exhorted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to prepare their Souls for Temptation. See vers. 18. of the same Chapter, and Chap. xvii.25.

Vers. 14. Note a. The place in Ecclesiasticus is nothing to this bu∣siness, which perhaps our Author did not look into, in the Book it self, because he quotes it wrong out of Chap. xix.29. whereas it is in Chap. xxix.30. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies an honorable Man, and the discourse there is about another thing. Nor was the stranger com∣manded to go out of the Sanctuary of Israel, but forbidden to enter in∣to it.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Here our Author tells us in the Margin that the Kings Manuscript reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he renders together; but to ex∣press that, St. Paul should have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vers. 19. Note b. It is truly observed by Dr. Hammond that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here refers to the Jews, but there was no necessity of recurring to Procopius for the reason of their being so called. The Jews are stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saints, because they were consecrated to the true God, and not because their Forefathers were holy in their Lives. See Exod. xix.6. and my Notes on that place.

CHAP. III.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] The same thing which is here said in other Ages not to have been made known to the Sons of Men, is said in vers. 10. to have been unknown also to Angels. Which being so, I confess I do not well understand how those who are neither Prophets nor Angels, can find out so many places in the Prophets, in which the calling of the Gentiles is manifestly and directly foretold. For cer∣tainly if it was of old revealed to the Prophets, they understood it; for that which is not understood cannot be thought revealed. And if it could have been gathered from the literal sense of any Prophe∣cies, the Angels might have understood it by those Prophecies. But the event, you will say, which is the best Interpreter of Prophecies, has unfolded the sense of them. But I demand whether such an event can be easily supposed to be respected in Prophecies, which are so ob∣scure, that neither Men nor Angels could before understand them to contain any such sense? If that can be supposed, I do not see what event may not be found in them. But, you will say again, the Apo∣stles, and so the Angels, came to know that they had a respect to such an event by divine Revelation. But, as I said before, that cannot be called a Revelation which no body understands, and therefore it was of no use to the Prophets: See what has been alledged out of the learned H. Dodwell on Mat. ii.2. From hence all that I here infer is, that we ought not presently to condemn those who look for other events, which happen'd before Christ in the antient Prophecies, of which number the great Grotius must be reckon'd the chief: otherwise this matter would deserve to be more exactly discussed.

CHAP. IV.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] It is a conjecture of a Friend of mine, that by Captivity here is meant the dead bodies of Saints, which were held captive by Death, but were raised with Christ at his Resurrection, and ascended with him into Heaven, Mat. xxvii. And accordingly he thought that St. Paul says, Christ descended into the lower parts of the Earth, because he descended into the Grave, that he might bring them out from thence. And there is nothing in the thing it self, nor in the words repugnant to this Interpretation.

Ibid. Note a. I. Marcus Aurelius gave nothing to the common Peo∣ple of Rome in the time of Triumph, nor any thing of his own accord. The story is thus related by Xiphilinus out of Dio: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: As he was making a speech to the People, and saying among other things that he had been abroad many Years, they cryed out, Eight; and this they signified also with their Hands, that they might receive so many pieces of Gold. Ʋpon which he smiled, and said himself also Eight; and afterwards distributed among them two hundred Drachms. It had been better therefore to have instanced in some other Triumph, which might easily have been done: See what is said by Suetonius about the Gifts of Julius Caesar upon that occa∣sion, in Chap. xxxviii. of his Life.

II. What our Author says here about the signification of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he owes to Mr. Pocock; whose conjecture that is, in Porta Mosis Cap. ii. But when that Verb signifies to give, there follows a Dative case, because to receive for any one is to receive that we may give it to him: See Exod. xviii.12. and xxv.2. But the Hebrew here has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Man; which has made learned Men conjecture, and not without rea∣son, that St. Paul read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laadam, to Man.

Vers. 14. Note c. Seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies a square Body, and secondarily a Dye because of its figure; and seeing Impostours made use of Dice or Lots for divination, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here would not be ill rendred sortilegium, a Lottery or divination by Lots. And this is what was meant by Irenaeus, in the place alledged by the Doctor; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is magical divination by Lots, not deceitful Artifices, such as are used by Conjurers. And tho the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here follows, it is not therefore consequent that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the same with that, but only that they were often joined together. Conjectures about the meaning of words which are grounded neither upon their Etymology, nor their proper signification, nor use, are not to be much regarded, nothing being more uncertain.

Vers. 16. Note e. I confess the Apostles words in this place are somewhat dark and intricate, but yet they did not need such a labo∣rious explication as this, whereby tho the substance of the matter be made clearer, yet the particulars are more obscured. The Doctor, who never minded propriety of words in his Stile, or knew what it was to carry on one design with the same simple thred of Discourse, confounds here every thing with his forced and perplexed reasonings, and has no regard at all to the use of words.

I. His first question is altogether unnecessary and impertinent in this place, for St. Paul says nothing here about the Heart; nor is there any Metaphor taken from the Heart in his words. So that in explain∣ing this Verse there can be no room for any enquiry about the Heart: tho the Heart be as it were the workhouse of the Blood, in which the vital Moisture is temper'd, and whence it is spread by a recipro∣cal flowing through the whole Body, St. Paul has no reference at all to that, but to the effluvia of the Brain, from which proceed Spirits, that help the motion of the Blood, and moisten the whole Body; and so the Body, which would otherwise wither and decay, is made to encrease.

II. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must not be joined with those immediately going before, but with the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so as to signify those Conduits or Passages by which the Body receives Spirits from the Brain, thus: from which (Head) the whole Body being fitly com∣pacted and joined together, according to the working or efficacy of the Head in proportion to every part, maketh encrease of the Body, i. e. is encreased by receiving Spirits from the Brain, through the joints of sup∣ply, or by which the Spirits are conveyed for the supply of the whole Body. It's certain the Body cannot be said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Nerves, Arteries, and Veins; but rather with Muscles, Tendons, and Bones. But St. Paul says nothing of these, but only that the Body being fitly compacted and joined together, re∣ceiveth effluvia from its Head, by Conduits belonging to the whole Body; which therefore it would not receive if the Members were put out of Joint, or divided from one another, because those effluvia pass through the Joints or Ligaments of the Body. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the Joints and Ligatures of the Members properly so called, through which the Nerves pass, which convey the Spirits proceeding from the Brain to all the parts of the Body.

III. The place in the Colossians is wrested by our Author while he supposes it to be clear and undoubted that St. Paul has a respect there to Veins and Arteries, of which perhaps he had not the least thought. He speaks thus, after making mention of the Head: from which all the Body, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, increases with the increase of God. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Apostle means the Joints and Ligaments of the Body, that is, the Muscles; Tendons and Gristles, which are in those places where the Members are joined to∣gether, to perform as it were two Offices; first, to receive the Con∣duits whereby the effluvia which proceed out of the Brain descend into the Body: secondly, to cement or knit together all the Members with one another. So that the Apostles meaning is this: From which

Head the whole Body receives a divine Increase, by the Joints and Ligaments whereby those Spirits are supplied, and by which the Members are joined together as by so many strong Bands. This seems to me to be clear, especially seeing every one knows that no Arteries descend from the Brain, but only Veins, by which the Blood is carried back to the Heart and Nerves, which are dispersed through the whole Body.

IV. I cannot tell what made our Author think that the Genitive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was in the place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the only signification of that being, that the Joints are the ways by which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is made: as the Joints of Tubes which receive Water flowing into them out of some large Fountain, and convey it wheresoever they are directed, are the Joints of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that Water.

V. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must not be referred to the Conduits, through which the effluvia that proceed out of the Head do pass, which Conduits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 operate nothing, but to the Head it self, from which, to use the words of Virgil with a little alteration,

— infusa per artus Vis agitat molem, & toto se corpore miscet.

So St. Paul, who was none of the extreme Members in the Body or Church of Christ, says that he laboured, striving according to his work∣ing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he worked in him, in Coloss. i.29. See also Chap. i.19. and iii.7. of this Epistle.

VI. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a noted Hebraism, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is repeated for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Grotius observes. What is said by our Author is taken from the use of the Rabbins.

Vers. 19. Note f. I. Who this Pausanias is I cannot tell, but per∣haps Dr. Hammond wrote Phavorinus, whom he often cites, and who has, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To which places our Author refers, which Suidas also has out of Thucydides and Polybius.

II. But wheresoever Dr. Hammond had this, it is certainly false, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 never signifies algere in Latin, to be cold, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 algor cold, tho they resemble one another in sound. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to lose ones feeling, to be no longer sensible of any Pain, whatever be the cause of it. I con∣fess it proceeds sometimes from extremity of Cold, when the parts of the Body being congealed with the sharpness of Air or the like, cease to feel any Pain; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not therefore signify to cease to feel cold, but any sort of Pain. So in Hesychius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that will no longer work, that are become insensible, that are tired. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, insensible, one that is past pain. Besides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always has a Passive sig∣nification, and never an Active. The thing is manifest and needs no proof, yet this is not the first time of our Author's mistaking the sense of this word. See Note on Rom. i.29.

Vers. 26. Note h. I. I confess I do not see any allusion in the words of the Apostle to those three kinds of angry Persons mention'd here by our Author out of Aristotle. He teaches us that all excessive Anger is to be avoided, but he does not seem to refer to the distincti∣on made by that Philosopher between the several degrees of Anger; at least there is no sign of it in his words. Besides, why did not the Doctor say that St. Paul had a respect to four sorts of angry Persons, seeing so many sorts are reckon'd up by Aristotle, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? The reason of that, I suppose, was because he did not look into Aristotle himself, but cited his words upon trust; for what he alledges out of him is not in either of those places which he refers to, but in Lib. 4. Cap. 11. If we reason out of Aristotle, St. Paul here will not condemn the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, those who tho they are soon an∣gry, soon forgive, but the excessive anger of other Persons.

II. The place referred to in the Psalms is in Psal. iv.4. not in ii.4. but our Author could not infer any thing from thence, because the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rigzou, ought rather to be rendred fear, tho the Septuagint, whom St. Paul follows out of Custom, translate it other∣wise.

III. The Passage alledged out of Plutarch is much more pertinent than that out of Aristotle. And it is pag. 488. Ed. Wechelianae.

Vers. 30. Note k. I. By the Holy Spirit, here seems to be meant the Gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred by God on the Ephesians, whereby they were enabled to work Miracles; for by them they were sealed, as sufficiently appears from what is said by Dr. Hammond. But be∣cause those Gifts were bestowed on the Ephesians by a Person, there∣fore they are forbidden here to grieve them, that is, to do any thing which might displease the Person from whom those Gifts came, or pro∣voke him to withdraw them. But St. Paul seems principally to refer to the Gift of Prophecy, which lewd Discourse corrupted and renderd useless. For it appears by other places, that those who had received that Gift were obliged to preserve it by care and holiness of Life, which if they neglected to do, it was taken away from them. See 1 Tim. iv.14.

II. Our Author confounds things which ought to be distinguished; for Christ is not said to have been sealed by the Father, just in the same sense as the Ephesians and others, who had received the Gifts of the Spirit. God is said to have sealed Christ by way of Allusion, not to any ordinary Servants, but to the Ambassadors of Kings; who are then first believed when they produce their Masters Letters marked with their Seal. Labour not, saith Christ in John vi.27. for the Meat which perisheth, but for that Meat which endureth unto everlasting Life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; for him hath God the Father sealed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, hath sent with Power and Instructions, as you may see by his Miracles, which are as the Seal of God, for which ye ought to believe me. But the Ephesians are said to be sealed to the day of Redemption, by a Metaphor taken from Merchandizes or Slaves, which the buyer did not take away with him as soon as he had bought them. See my Note on 2 Cor. i.22.

III. I cannot see to what purpose our Author, tho it is but by the way, sets down the Etymology of the word servi from servando, when he is explaining an Author who wrote in Greek, and could not have any respect to that Latin word.

IV. Our Author's interpretation of the words, to grieve the Holy Spirit, and to the day of Redemption, is perfectly forced. The mean∣ing of the Apostle is this:

Ye that have received Gifts from the Holy Spirit, do not either by neglecting them or despising them grieve him, and provoke him to take away from you those things which he has given you, to distinguish you from other Men even in this World; till that day comes, in which in the view of Men and Angels, he will distinguish you from all the rest of Adam's Posterity.

See my Note on Rom. viii.21.

Vers. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] By these words Dr. Hammond might have discerned that St. Paul had no refe∣rence, when he wrote this, to Aristotle's distinction between the several degrees of Anger, because he does not reduce them to the Order and Notions of that Philosopher: Which it may not be unuseful to shew briefly, out of Aristotle himself, by alledging his words. For by this alone it will appear that Interpreters ought to omit all unnecessary Niceties, in explaining the rude or idiotick Stile (as St. Paul himself calls it) of this Holy Apostle. That Philosopher therefore in Mar. Lib. 4. c. ii. setting down the several degrees of Anger, and pro∣ceeding from those who are least vitious in that kind, to those who are tainted with the highest degree of this Vice, defines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be so called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: They that are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are such as are soon angry, and with those that they ought not, and for those things which they ought not, and more than they ought. But their Anger is soon over, and this is their best property. And a little after he says: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are those that are beyond measure fierce and angry at every thing, and for every thing, which is the reason of their being so called. After which he proceeds to the third sort, and saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are (those that) are hardly reconciled and are angry a great while; for they keep in their Anger, and it ceases when they have revenged themselves. For revenge extinguishes anger, by cau∣sing Pleasure where before was Grief. But when this is not done they are pressed with (an inward) weight; for because they do not manifest their Anger, no one endeavours to appease them. And for a Man to digest his Anger within himself, requires time. Now such Men as these, as they are a great torment to themselves, so they are most of all to their Friends. Lastly, those who are vitious in the highest degree in this kind, he describes thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: We call those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who are angry both for those things which they ought not, and more and longer than they ought, and are never appeased without Revenge or Punishment. By these descriptions it sufficiently appears that St. Paul did not take the several words whereby he describes Anger in this place, from the use of Philosophers, or dispose them in the same order; nor is that his Custom, but to take mostly what he says from vulgar use, and dispose it without any Philosophical or Rhetorical Artifice.

CHAP. V.

Vers. 2. Note a. I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may, I confess, be distinguished as Dr. Hammond would have them, but they are very often confounded; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 particularly frequently signi∣fies all kind of Oblations, in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Korhan, or whatever is laid upon the Altar, as Kircher's Concordances will inform those who are ignorant. In this place they seem to signify the same thing, because the scope of the Apostle does not oblige us to distinguish them.

II. Our Author's reasoning to this purpose from Heb. x.5, 6. has no validity in it: for it is not necessary that these two words occur∣ring in vers. 6. should be perfectly synonimous or answerable to those two others in ver. 5. Wherefore, saith that divine Writer, when he cometh into the World, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not, but a Body hast thou sitted me, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whole Burnt-offerings, and for Sin thou hast had no pleasure. If according to Dr. Hammond••s reasoning, a whole Burnt-offering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a Sacrifice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be exactly the same, an offering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and a sacrifice for Sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will be literally the same also, which yet he would not allow. But the words of the sacred Writers must not be reduced to the rules of Rhetoricians.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author in his Note on Rom. i.29. endea∣vours all he can to prove that this word signifies a desire, not of Rich∣es, but of Pleasures; tho with what success I leave the Reader to judg, by what I have written on that Annotation. This is the chief place that gives any countenance to his conjecture. And indeed there are two specious reasons which, as to this Passage of St. Paul, may be alledged on his behalf.

I. It is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋncleanness OR Covetousness, and the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or seems to join together words of the same significati∣on. In answer to which I acknowledg that that is very frequently the use of the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or; but it is very often also a Disjunctive, and connects together words of a different sense. And when a Negation follows or goes before, it is equivalent to nor, as in this place; for it is all one as if St. Paul had said: "Let neither Fornication, nor any "Uncleanness, nor Covetousness be named amongst you.

II. It may be said that the words not be named among you, contain a prohibition which agrees better to Lusts, whereof the very names are obscene, than to Covetousness, or the Sins which proceed from that Vice. Which I do not deny; nay, I think St. Paul spake thus, mere∣ly because he had before made mention of Fornication and Ʋncleanness, to which that prohibition seems properly to belong. But it cannot hence be inferred, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a vice of the same kind with those beforemention'd, contrary to the etymology and perpetual use of the word; for it is very common for one Verb to be subjoined or prefixed to many Nouns, with all which it does not equally well agree. See my Index to the Pentateuch, on the word Verbum.

Vers. 4. Note b. All that our Author here says is very much to the purpose; to which add, that Men of debauched Lives use to call their Vices by soft and gentle names. Far which reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

might properly signify, in common use, not only light and rash, but even obscene and filthy Discourses, such as the Jests which we every where meet with, especially in antient Comedies. This Plu∣tarch has observed with relation to the Athenians, in the Life of Solon, p. 86. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: For what is said of late, that the Athenians, covering odi∣ous things with mild and pleasing Titles, to avoid giving offence, call Strum∣pets Companions, Taxing Registring, Garisons Safeguards of Cities, and a Prison a House; that seems to have been first the device of Solon, who called the forgiving of Debts an Acquittance. Other examples to the same purpose may be had out of Helladius Besantinous in Chrestomathiis. We may easily conceive how such sort of Men might call their obscene and filthy Discourses by the names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ibid. Note c. This latter Interpretation would very well agree to this place, if it were certain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was ever taken in the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies elegancy of Speech, as well as of o∣ther things. The passage cited out of Prov. xi. does not at all belong to this matter, the Discourse there being about a beautiful, not a pious Woman.

Vers. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scripture, the Apostle here refer∣ring to the place in Isaiah alledged by our Author in his Paraphrase, tho rather expressing its sense than citing the Prophet's own words. Barnabas in Epist. Catholica, particularly in cap. v. often uses the same term in citing the Scriptures words: Scriptum est enim, saith he, de illo, quaedam ad populum Judaeorum, quaedam ad nos. DICIT autem sic: Vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, &c. Supergratulari enim debemus Domino, quia & praeterita nobis ostendit & sapientes fecit, & de futuris ut non simus sine intellectu. DICIT autem: Non injuste ten∣duntur retia avibus. For it is written of him, some things (relate) to the People of the Jews, and some to us. And he SAITH thus: He was wounded for our Transgressions, &c. For we ought to be exceeding thank∣ful to the Lord, because he hath both shewed us past things, and (so) made us wise, and (instructed) us also in the knowledg of things Future, that we might not be without understanding (as to them.) And he SAITH: Not without cause are Nets spread for Birds. A great many more examples to the same purpose might be alledged out of that Epistle.

Vers. 16. Note e. It being manifest from the place cited out of Daniel in the beginning of this Annotation, that the phrase to redeem

the time, signifies to delay, or put off as long as possible; that only Notion of it should have been kept to; and not things of an Affinity with it, or very distant from it mixed together, as they are here by our Author, that he might have an occasion to obtrude his Gnosticks upon us: See Grotius on this place. St. Paul here advises the Ephesi∣ans to endeavour by all lawful means to get time allowed them by the Heathens, and to take heed lest by their rash fervour they should bring Persecution upon themselves, especially in an evil and troublesom time, such as that was wherein he wrote this Epistle; which was towards the end of Nero's reign, or those black and dismal days in which that monster of a Man outdid all that ever went before him in Wickedness and Villany. The reason of the Apostle's Admonition is this, that there was a time coming wherein the Truth might be defended with less danger. And the nature of Truth is such, that if it have but time allowed it, and is not presently extinguished, tho it lie cover'd as it were under Ashes for a while, yet afterwards in a fitter time it shines out, and makes an universal day. So that those who defend it, ought never, as long as they can avoid it, to run all adven∣tures, or undergo the last hazard, that it may either triumph instant∣ly over Falshood, or else unavoidably be oppressed for ever.

Now I am apt to think that this phrase had its rise from the custom of Debters, who when paiment is demanded of them, and they can∣not restore the whole sum or principal due, obtain a longer time to discharge their Debt in, either by a present Fee, or by advancing the use of the Mony lent them. For this is truly to redeem time; whence it afterwards came to pass, that because the solution of a Debt is thus deferred, therefore to defer or delay is sometimes called to redeem the time. Parallel to this is the Latin phrase moram acquirere, which oc∣curs in Cicero pro Caecina cap. ii. or Num. 6. where the Delegates, who had, after twice hearing the Cause, deferred to pass Sentence, are said moram ad condemnandum acquisivisse, and also to have given the Defendant a space wherein to recollect himself.

Vers. 18. Note f. There was no need here of the Bacchanals or Gnosticks, because there were Heathens enough in Asia that loved Wine, and whenever they had an opportunity drank to excess, and in∣dulged themselves in other Lusts; whose example might have had a bad influence upon the Christians, if they did not take great heed to themselves.

Vers. 19. Note g. Our Author has shewn indeed here, that Songs are called by three several names; but that those were so many dif∣ferent kinds no one can prove, because they are often confounded, as

appears by the titles of the Psalms. The Greek words might also be referred to several sorts of Songs, if the most frequent use of them be respected, but those also are often put one for another. So that I should rather say that St. Paul here does but express the same thing in three different words.

Vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, so complying with each other, as yet to do nothing which may displease God to gratify any one whatsoever. That this is here the signification of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may appear by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which shews that it is a mutual subjection, that is, compliance, which is here spoken of. So the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be understood in Gal. ii.5. where St. Paul speaking of false Brethren saith: To whom we did not so much as for an hour give place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by compliance. Yet Grotius to explain the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here saith thus: nempe secundum ordinem naturalem, civilem, ecclesiasticum, quae omnia nobis servanda, propter Christum: viz. according to order, whether natural, civil, or ecclesiastical, which must all be kept for Christ's sake. And this Dr. Hammond follows in his Para∣phrase. But to signify that, it should have been said: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or something to that purpose, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which shews that it is a mutual Duty here intended.

Vers. 30. Note h. Our Author here compares together things that have no agreement with one another, for to be of Christ's Flesh and Blood, is not to be Christ himself, as that which is called the Heaven and Earth is the very Universe, but to be very intimately joined to Christ, in like manner as Kinsmen by Blood, and Man and Wife are to one another. See Grotius on this place, and my Notes on Gen. ii.34.

Vers. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This is not a Precept wherein Matri∣mony is commanded, or its Laws enforced; but an observation of a Custom begun ever since Adam, and propagated to all Mankind. See my Note on Gen. ii.24.

Vers. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I. From vers. 23. of this Chapter St. Paul compares the love which does or ought to intercede between Man and Wife, with the love of Christ and the Church; for which reason he mixes Precepts belonging to married Persons, with Precepts which relate to the love of the Church towards Christ. And there∣fore he subjoins vers. 31. in which the union of the Husband with the Wife is described, immediately and without any transition after the foregoing words, whereby he had described the union of the Church with Christ; not because they belong to the same Argument, but be∣cause he so mixes the thing compared, with the thing to which it is compared. If he had intended to make a perfect Comparison, he

would first have set down that which relates to Christ and the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and afterwards described the conjunction of Man and Wife 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but he makes use of an imperfect comparison, in which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is hardly distinguished from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His meaning may be expressed in this Paraphrase.

Vers. 30. For between us and Christ there intercedes so near a conjunction, that we may be called his Flesh and Bones, as it is said of a Woman with relation to her Husband. So that as Christ loves his Church, as if it were his Wife and so his own Body; 31, 32. so Husbands having left their Fathers House for the sake of their Wives, and become as it were one Flesh with them, should look upon it as their Duty to love their Wives as themselves.

If we carefully read St. Paul's words, and consider the scope of his Discourse, we shall not doubt but this is his meaning. For the Apostle's design here, at least primarily and professedly, is not to teach any thing concerning Christ; but from the noted example of Christ to shew what conjunction and intimacy of Affection there ought to be between Man and Wife. So that what he says of Christ, is said but by the way, and assumed as sufficiently known.

II. This being supposed, it will be easy to perceive that the 32d verse is a Parenthesis inserted between words belonging to the same thing, but which make nothing to the series of the Discourse. And by this Parenthesis the intention of the Apostle is only to shew, that what he had said about that intimate union of Christ with his Church for which he suffer'd Death, was hitherto unknown to Mankind. This he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in 1 Tim. iii.16. and so these words are re∣ferred, not to the mystical sense of the place in Genesis, but to the thing it self; that is, to the love of Christ to his Church, which was so great that he did not refuse to die for its sake. Away therefore with that mystical sense, which is without reason sought for in the words of Moses, as by the suggestion here of the Apostle.

III. But what shall we say then to those Jews, whom our Author cites in his Paraphrase, as knowing that great Mystery from the secret sense of the words of Moses? To speak what I think, they are either the words of some Impostor acting the part of a Jew, or mis∣construed to a wrong sense. Our Author took this Testimony from H. Grotius, who on this place saith: Sic & Hebraei aiunt mulierem de latere viri desumtam, ad significandum conjugium viri supremi, benedicti: So the Jews also say that the Woman was taken out of the side of the Man, to signify the marriage of the highest, blessed Man. But where are those Jews who say this? Do they with one consent speak thus in any pub∣lick form? Or is it some Rabbin who proposes his own Conjecture, or

the Tradition of the Antients? Such Citations as these, in a matter of no small moment, or not universally known, should be avoided by learned Men; seeing they cannot be relied on, unless it be supposed that a vain uncertain report may be so. But I know, if I am not mistaken, whence Grotius took this observation; to wit from Camero, who himself had it from Sebast. Munster, the first Author of it, in his Annotations on Gen. ii.24 Hebraei magistri, saith he, docent id quod Paulus docuit, &c. The Jewish Rabbins teach the same thing which is taught by St. Paul, that a Man should love his Wife as his own Body, and honour her more than his own Body, because of that signification and Mystery. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of which Mystery St. Paul also makes mention, who teaches that we are espoused to Christ. He did not render the Hebrew words, which seem to be corrupt; but they are rendred by Camero, after promising that he took them from Munster, thus: ad significandum conjugium viri superni, qui benedictus est; to sig∣nify the marriage of the Man on High, who is blessed. And so they are rendred by Grotius. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not vir, but Homo; besides what is the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Should it be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to thee? What can be the sense of these words, the most high Adam shall be blessed? In fine, both M••nster ought to have more exactly cited his Witnesses, and others been more cautions in believing him. For who will not prove any thing from the Jews or others, if such Testimonies as these be admitted? I know this was the custom of the Philologers of the last Age; but it was certainly a very bad one, and justly censured by the more exquisite Wits of ours. I am apt to think it proceeded either from want of Judgment, or unfaithfulness, in their not being sensible with what caution and tenderness Testimonies ought to be handled, from which any Consectary is to be deduced, or being un∣willing to have their Citations examined. Both which a Man that aims at Accuracy and pursues Truth, should be very far from; for he that would neither be deceived himself, nor deceive others, cannot desire to have what he affirms believed rashly and without examina∣tion.

IV. A vast inconvenience arises from the custom of writing out o∣ther Mens Citations, unless we look into the Authors themselves from whence they are taken; because something may easily be added, whilst the sense is rather expressed than the words. The Hebrew words alledged by Munster can hardly be understood, and he dared not translate them. Camero has rendred them, and added of his own, that the Jews confess the creation of a Woman out of the rib of the Man, was to signify, &c. when Munster says nothing of that, but only what

I have produced out of him. Grotius followed Camero, and neither added nor changed any thing, but Dr. Hammond has changed the highest Man, who is blessed, into the most High, God blessed for ever. Perhaps there will come some body afterwards, and add to these words, that which our Author subjoins out of St. Chrysostom, as taken out of some Rabbin; from whence he will infer that all the mysteries of the Christi∣an Religion were very well known to the antient Jews. As common Fame is magnified the further it goes, so Testimonies not looked into in the Authors themselves, are many times enlarged, as they are deliver'd from hand to hand.

CHAP. VI.

Vers. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author here in his Paraphrase adds to Children, Subjects, and to Parents, Princes; in which he seems to have committed a double fault. First, in supposing that the word Children here comprehends under it Subjects, and the word Parents, in the Decalogue, Magistrates; which appears by no example, nor any reason. I do not deny indeed but that accord∣ing to the most sacred Laws of human Society, and consequently of God himself, People ought to obey Magistrates, as long as they com∣mand nothing which is contrary to true Devotion, Society, or good Manners. That Obedience being as necessary and natural a Duty as for Children to obey their Parents; because without it Society, for which we are formed and born, cannot consist. But hence it does not follow that, when the Scripture speaks of the honour due to Parents, we must presently run the discourse to Magistrates. Secondly, he ought to have represented St. Paul, in his Paraphrase, speaking so as he speaks; and not fasten'd upon him a Consectary, which he did not think of. Dr. Hammond might, if he would, in his Annotations have deduced from the words of the Apostle, what seemed deducible from them, but not in his Paraphrase, in which St. Paul himself ought to speak, and not his Interpreter. But even in this Dr. Hammond is not so consistent with himself as he ought to be; as I shall observe on vers. 4. See my Notes on the fifth Commandment in Exod. xx.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] That is, as far as the Laws of God will permit, as Interpreters generally observe, which was a necessary Admonition, especially at that time in which without doubt there were a great many Heathen Parents, who were displeased with their Children for having embraced the Christian Religion. But Dr. Hammond, who makes the Apostle here to speak of obedience to Magistrates, interprets these words in the Lord by under the Gospel; for as to Parents, it would have

been but flat to say, that they ought as much to be honoured under the Gospel as under the Law, for who could have doubted of it? But there might have been some among Christians who thought, as most of the Jews did, that they were not to be subject to the Roman Ma∣gistrates; for which reason St. Paul more than once in his Epistles teaches the contrary. But he says nothing at all about it in this place. See Rom. xiii.1.

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I am apt to think there is a Hebraism in this place, and that St. Paul renders the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which perhaps he had in his mind, by the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because that word signifies both first and one. And thus as the Hebrew word and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frequently signify first; so reciprocally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first will be taken here for one.

Vers 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This promise, in Moses, belongs only to the Jews, and to those only among them who were obedient to their Parents, and gave them all due Respect and Honour. Besides, that which is there promised is a long and happy Life in Canaan, and that respected not so much particular Persons as the whole Commonwealth; for if the Commonwealth were overthrown, a small number who had honoured their Parents could not expect by virtue of this Promise, to live happily in their own Country. I do not believe that St. Paul un∣derstood this Promise in any other sense, because there can be no doubt raised about it. Why therefore did he mention here a Promise which did not at all concern the Ephesians? Undoubtedly not to move or perswade them by that Promise to honour their Parents; but to shew them how very pleasing the performance of that Duty was to God, because he had formerly annexed a promise to the Precept wherein the Duty of Children to their Parents was enjoined. As for what our Author says here about a peaceable Life being the effect of obedience to Superiors or Magistrates, that as it is often true, so it is frequently false. Civil or foreign Wars, not to mention Tyranny or Arbitrary Government, do no more spare faithful than unfaithful Subjects. Tho it be very true, that factious Persons, and such as are desirous of Innovations, do bring upon themselves a great many evils from the supreme Power; it do's not therefore follow that such as are quiet and willing to obey, do enjoy a longer or more happy Life. Which as it holds good at all times, so then especially when the su∣preme Power is of a different perswasion in Religion from those who honour their Parents, as it was in the time of St. Paul. So that what the Doctor says here about the honour which is to be given to Magi∣strates, tho true, does not belong to this place.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here undoubtedly signifies the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the first Verse of this Chapter, that is both Parents. But I cannot but wonder that Dr. Hammond, who took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that first Verse to be meant of Princes as well as Parents, and thought the Apostle spoke there of that honour which is due from Subjects to Magistrates, should not have one word about them in his Paraphrase on this place, but make mention only of Parents. Is it so therefore, that when the Discourse is about the Duty of Children to Parents, to Parents must be joined Princes; but when the Scripture speaks of the Duty of Parents to Children, in that Magistrates are not at all concerned? Or is it true, that tho Subjects ought to obey Ma∣gistrates, yet there is no Duty incumbent upon Magistrates with re∣spect to Subjects? What can be the reason of this difference? Surely it deserved to be mentioned if there was any. But, to speak my thoughts, our learned Author writing this in a time when he saw his Countrymen had rose up in Arms against the King, whose cause he very much favoured, and that a great many abused the Power which they thought was lodged in the People, resolved to omit no occasion of magnifying the Authority of Kings; and carefully to avoid every thing which might seem to countenance the Cause of the People, lest his Adversaries should abuse it. By which it came to pass, that some∣times he does not so much perform the Office of an Interpreter, as a Preacher for the King's party. About the Cause it self, which I have not sufficiently consider'd as to England, I pass no judgment; but it had been better to interpret St. Paul so, as if there never had been any seditious Persons in England, because our learned Author wrests a great many things in favour of his own side.

Vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word must not be rendred all the Arms, as if St. Paul had said, take all the Arms which you have. For tho this word be compounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Arms; yet Use has made it to signify another thing, which belongs to a particular sort of Souldiers: To wit, that heavy Armour which was born by the Legionarii among the Romans, or those that served in the Phalanges, Brigades of the Macedonians. For tho the Slingers and Archers were furnished with all the Arms, wherewith according to Custom they ought to be armed, yet the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was never said to belong to them. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified heavy armed Souldiers, without any Addition. And St. Paul very fitly made use of that word in this place, where he does not speak about a Skirmish which might be made with light Armour; but about a long and sharp engagement with very formidable Adver∣saries. To which purpose he advises them not to take a Sling or a

Bow, which are light Weapons, but the Armour of Legionary Souldiers.

Vers. 12. Note a. I will not deny but that the Devils made use of the assistance of Hereticks, whoever they were, to destroy the Pi∣ous and Orthodox; but I do not believe that St. Paul has here a direct reference to any Hereticks. For all that is here said, immediately at least, belongs to evil Spirits, as Grotius has shewn, and Dr. Hammond acknow∣ledges. So that there was no necessity for introducing here the Gnosticks.

Vers. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Apostle here alludes to Isa. xi.5. and at the same time to the Custom of Soldiers. The first thing they did was to put a Girdle upon their Coat to keep it fast, and hinder it from moving one way or other under their Breastplate; but they did not put it over their Armour, as Dr. Hammond thought: See Ever. Feithius Ant. Homeric. Lib. iv. c. 8. And therefore St. Paul says 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it must not be particularly or nice∣ly enquired, why St. Paul compares some Vertues with this kind of Armour, rather than with any other; because he might as well have said that Christians ought to take the girdle of Righteousness, and the breastplate of Truth, as the girdle of Truth and the breastplate of Righteousness. All that he means in this whole Discourse is, that Christian Vertues are Arms which good Men may and ought to use, both to repel the assaults of their Enemies, and to overcome them. Nothing else is here to be sought for, unless we have a mind to feed our selves with Fancie•• instead of Realities.

Vers. 15. Note b. I. It may be worth our while to read what the learned and diligent Ant. Bynaeus, Lib. 1. Cap. 5. de Calceis Hebraeo∣rum, has written on this place. But I am rather of Dr. Hammond's Opinion, which may be confirmed by several places which he alledges, or which are to be found in those Authors whom he cites. But to give further light to St. Paul's words, I shall subjoin here a Passage out of Virgil, in which he describes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Aeneas, and omits no part of the Armour mention'd by the Apostle, but the Girdle, nor adds any thing but the Spear, in Aeneid. viii. beginning at vers. 619.

Miraturque, interque manus & brachia versat Terribilem cristis galeam flammasque vomentem, Fatiferumque ensem, loricam ex aere rigentem, &c. Tum laeves ocreas, electro auroque recocto, Hastamque & clypei non enarrabile textum.

II. I cannot tell whence our learned Author took this Interpretati∣on of the Egyptian Custom, that the Egyptian Virgins were not permitted

to wear Shoes, lest they should be ready to go abroad. I have shewn out of Diodorus Siculus, on Exod. xii.11. that it was the Custom not only for Virgins, but also for Children to go unshod, in Egypt, because of the mildness of the Air.

Vers. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author in his Para∣phrase is of opinion, that the Apostle here alludes to poisonous Darts, which, saith he, are called fiery because they inflame the parts that are wound∣ed with them, as Serpents with poisonous Stings are called fiery Serpents. But I do not think that all sort of poisonous Serpents may be called fiery; because the biting of all such Serpents does not hurt by causing an inflammation, and there is a peculiar kind of Serpents called by that name. I should rather say that the Darts of the Devil are called here fiery, by a Metaphor taken from the fiery Darts, which the besieged use to fling at the Souldiers and Works of the Besiegers, where∣of there is frequent mention made in the Histories of the Antients, where Sieges are described. I shall produce but one example, in a matter very well known, out of the Writer of the Spanish War, cap. xi. Noctis, saith he, tertia vigiliâ, in oppido acerrime pugnatum est, ig∣nemque multum miserunt; sicut & omne genus, quibus ignis per jactus so∣litus est mitti: In the third watch of the Night, they fought in the Town very sharply, and threw a great deal of Fire, as also all kind (of Darts) in which Fire uses to be thrown. These are fiery Darts properly so called; which lighting upon an iron Shield, could do no harm to the Souldiers. And St. Paul here seems to have called the Darts of the Devil fiery, ra∣ther than by any other Epithet; because they do mischief by inflaming the sensual Appetite.

Vers. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author, as appears by his Para∣phrase, and the Note in the Margin, thought that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should here be understood, and so renders this last part of the Verse, concerning all Holy things. And it is certain that an Ellipsis of that word is very common in the Greek Language, but never in such a Phrase as this that I know of. And therefore I had rather follow the Vulgar and other Interpreters, till an example be alledged, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, evidently, Prayers for the obtaining all Holiness.

Notes

• Chapter I.
• Chapter II.
• Chapter III.
• Chapter IV.
• Chapter V.
• Chapter VI.