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 GOSPEL according to St. Mark.* 1.1 (Book Mark)

CHAP. 1.

Vers. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] These words I rather take to be as an In∣scription to this whole Book, than a form of in∣troducing what follows, as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase. For even in the most antient times, these Books were called the Gospels, as Grotius has observed out of Justin, at the begin∣ning of St. Matthew. And it is ordinary in Latin Manuscripts to find it written in the front, such or such a Book BEGINS, that the Reader may know the work to be entire, and that there wants nothing at the beginning. Such another Inscription as this, is that of the Book of the Prophet Hosea i.2. The beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea. I conceive therefore that these words ought to have a full stop made at the end of them.

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] We must conceive this beginning thus: AS it is written in the Prophet Isaiah; Behold I send my Messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee: A Voice crying in the Desart, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths streight: John BAP∣TIZED, &c. The force of the Particle AS belongs to the 4th Verse, where thre is, as it were, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which the Evangelist shews that the Event was answerable to what was foretold. Some learned Men have thought that the beginning of Herodotus is just like

this,* 1.2 but without reason, as will appear to any one that compares them.

Vers. 38. Note b.] Our learned Author is mistaken, when he says that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies here adjoining, from the use of it in the Septuagint. For so all the best Greek Writers, who were strangers to the barbarous Dialect of the Septuagint, used that word. It occurs very often in Herodotus in that signification, as the Ionick Lexicon of Aemilius Portus alone will shew.

CHAP. II.

Vers. 26. Note b. I Chuse rather to interpret the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by apud, at or to, according to its usual signification, and so the sense will be, He went (viz. David) into the House of God, to Abiathar the High-priest. The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the House of God, is taken here more largely, not for the Tabernacle only, but also for the house in which the High-priest lived, which joined to the Tabernacle or Court. For the Loaves which David took away were not any longer in the Sanctuary, but had been removed before he came, that fresh ones might be put in their place, as the sacred Historian informs us, 1 Sam. xxi.6. So in the same Book Chap. iii.3. by the Temple of the Lord, we are to understand the House adjoining to the Court, in which Samuel slept, not far from the place where Eli lay down. But you will say, why dos not Christ say [to Abimelech] who was at that time the High-priest, but instead of that says [to Abiathar] who was Abime∣lech's Son, and lived rather in his Father's House than his own? The reason is, because Abiathar was more known than Abimelech, by the Sacred History, as the Learned have observed. And so the mean∣ing of Christ is this: he went to Abiathar, who was High-priest, tho not at that time.

CHAP. III.

* 1.3Vers. 21. Note c. DAvid le Clerc, my Uncle, has treated upon this place in his Quaestiones Sacrae, Quaest. xiii. which is worth the reading.

CHAP. IV.* 1.4

Vers. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. in a little ship at a small distance from the shore. Thus Prov. xxiii.34. he that lieth down in the heart of the Sea, is one that lies down in a Ship. And to the same sense is that of Propertius Lib. 1. Eleg. xiv.

Tu licet, abjectus Tiberinâ molliter unda, Lesbia Mentoreo vina bibas opere.

This would have been a needless remark, unless a man of a sharp wit, and whose judgment in critical matters is not to be despised, viz. Tan. Faber in Epist. Crit. Part 2. Epist. xvii. would have had this place, contrary to the Authority of all Copies, altered, by reading it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a Ship, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Sea, which would not go down with him.

Vers. 12. Note a.] This form of speech has something proverbial in it, and is set to signify such Persons as, if they made a right use of their faculties, would take notice of those things which their folly makes them pass over without attention. And in this sense the Greeks also used it. Thus Prometheus is represented in Aeschilus as speaking in this manner of the ignorance of men in the first age, before he had taught them arts:

〈 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 〉.

They at first seeing, saw in vain; Hearing they did not hear; but just As men in dreams, for a long time Confounded all things.

And so Demosthenes Orat. 1. contra Aristogit. sect. 123. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: according to the Proverb, that those that see do not see, and those that hear do not hear.

* 1.5CHAP. V.

Vers. 22. Note c. SInce a Synagogue does sometimes signify a Consistory of Judges, whose Authority related to civil matters, it is certain that the person who presided over them might well enough be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as signifying a Consistory or Sanhedrim, see our Author's notes upon Matt. vi.5. The Judges and the Presidents of Ecclesiastical assemblies, which our Author has forgot to observe, were called by the same name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they were the same Persons; of which see the learned Camp. Vitringa, de Synag. Lib. 2. c. 9. But Dr. Hammond in what follows seems to confound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a School with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a con∣sistory of Judges, which are quite different things.

Vers. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] If this Phrase were to be understood properly and literally, we should be obliged to think that Christ cured the sick of their Diseases by certain effluvia that proceeded from him, which is very difficult to conceive. And therefore I rather think, with Grotius, that this was a vulgar way of speaking, by which we are to understand no more, than that this Woman was cured by God, at the instant in which she touched our Saviour. See Luke vi.19. where it will appear that that expression was taken from the use of the com∣mon People.

Vers. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. hath healed thee. Thus Barnabas in Epist. Cathol. Cap. ix. brings in Moses speaking in this manner of the brazen Serpent: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it be∣ing dead can make alive, and he shall presently be saved, i. e. healed, viz. that looks upon it.

CHAP. VI.

* 1.6Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] i. e. What is this wisdom which is given unto him? And how is it that such Miracles are wrought by his hands? For the parti∣cle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must not be joined with Wisdom, which may be very great and yet separate, in the Person that has it, from the power of doing Mi∣racles; but it signifies the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 how. And so the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is very frequently rendered by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is sometimes used, as Isai. xxix.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How should the work say of him that made it, he made me not? See afterwards Chap. ix.11, 28, of this Gospel.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. According to the laws which he had pre∣scribed to himself, he could not there do any miracles. For he did not use to work Miracles where he was not sought unto to work them, or where no body believed that he was able to work them. He could not therefore, is as much as he would not. The Evangelist, to use the words of Hierocles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speaks of a moral and not a natural power. And Hierocles is in the right when he tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that the necessity of the mind is more powerful than any external force, with wise men. See his Notes on Pythag. Aur. Carm. ver. 8.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] To reconcile these words with Matt. x.10. it must be taken for certain in the first place, that the Evangelists do not always set down the very words of Christ, but very frequently only his sense, as appears manifestly by comparing them together. And then the sense may be the same, tho at first sight the words seem to contradict one another. Now the meaning of Christ here is only this, that the Apostles were not to make any preparation or provisi∣on for their journey; and that may as well be expressed in the words of one Evangelist as the other. In St. Matthew it is, Do not get any gold or silver or brass in your purses, nor any satchel for your journey, nor any staff, for the workman is worthy of his food. The plain meaning of this is, that God would take care of those things which were necessary for the Apostles, and therefore that they were immediately to set upon their Journey without making any preparation for it, but just as they were. If it happened that they had a Staff already in their hands, there is no command given them to throw it away; but if they had never a one, they ave forbidden to get any, or to furnish themselves with any thing that they then had not. And this, as to the sense, is not contrary to what is here said in S. Mark; He commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only, no satchel, &c. i. e. to begin their Journey just as they were when he spake to them, with a staff only, which some of them perhaps already had, without getting any thing that they wanted. If the words of both the Evangelists were to be expressed together in a Paraphrase, they might most fitly be explained thus: Go immediately and preach the Gospel, provide no money, nor clothes, nor victuals for your Journey. Those that have staves let them travel only with them; and those that have none let them not get any, but enter upon their Journey without. They whom you preach the Gospel to, God so ordering it, will furnish you with all necessaries.

* 1.7Vers. 20. Note b.] Dr. Hammond's Opinion may be confirmed by the Authority of the Glosses of Philoxenus, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered by conservo, to preserve, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conservat, tuetur, preserves, defends.

Vers. 46. Note f.] See my Notes on Gen. iv.8.

CHAP. VII.

Vers. 2. Note a. IT is true indeed that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies polluted as well us common; but the proper signification of it seems to be common, whence by a Metaphor it was used to sig∣nify polluted, because those things which are intended for common use, are generally polluted, by such use. II. The Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot pro∣perly be said to be a part of the hand or arm, but is the hand contracted to make the fist. So Hesych. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the fist, or the shutting up of the fingers. And Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: in the hand, when a per∣son has his fingers contracted. It is rather the contraction of the hand than the hand it self; but by a Metaphor it may signify the hand it self. The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore is not properly to be washed up to the wrist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Rabbins speak, but to put the fist into water, or to be washed with the hand contract∣ed; tho considered in it self, the thing be much the same. See Jos. Scaliger upon Serarius cap. 7. and H. Grotius. Palladius abused the word when he applyed it to the feet. III. This Custom of wash∣ing the hands amongst the Jews, had its rise in part from the Law: Levit. xv.11. Whomsoever he that hath the issue toucheth, and hath not washed his hands, he shall wash his clothes, &c. The Jews thought that by this Law, as they misunderstood it, he that had been touched by one who had an Issue, was presently to wash his hands, or else he was obliged to wash his clothes and all his body. And therefore when they came out of any mixed assembly of people, amongst which there might possibly be some such unclean persons, they immediately washed their hands. But the not having the hands washed, in that place of Moses, relates to the man that had the issue, and not to him whom he had touched.

Vers. 4. Note c.] In the beginning of this Note our Author speak∣ing of Eupolis, says Tragedy instead of Comedy; for Eupolis was a Co∣median, and we have no account of his having ever wrote any Tra∣gedy. The Play called Baptae is said also to have been a Comedy, and it's certain that Poets did not use to inveigh against those that they had a hatred against in Tragedies, but only in Comedies. See the Scholiast upon Juvenal, Sat. 2. v. 92. concerning this Comedy of Eupolis.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Here our Author, in his Paraphrase, has these words, and also of beds ON which they did eat then as NOW on ta∣bles. Now it is certain that they had heretofore Tables to eat on as well as now; but only whereas we sit upon chairs or benches, they sat upon beds: the Meat was placed upon Tables, as well as it is now, tho the Guests sat upon beds. And this, I doubt not, Dr. Ham∣mond very well knew, only he was not careful enough to avoid speak∣ing improperly. As for the reason why the beds in those Chambers where they dined were washed, that was because possibly they might be polluted by some or other that sat upon them; and so if they were not washed, they might defile the next comers. See Levit. xv.4. & seqq.

Vers. 22. Note d.] Tho St. Paul charges those that boast with folly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet it does not follow that that word signifies boasting, and may be understood so when it is alone; because all boasting indeed is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not boasting. Our Author very often imposes new significations upon words different from what they are used in; tho it is certain that Use is the great thing that determins what words signify, according to that of the Poet,

Quem penes arbitrium est & jus & norma loquendi.

That I may discuss therefore the ambiguity of this word, by the use of it; I observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies two things, whereof one is a distemper of the brain, and the other of the mind. Sometimes it is taken for madness proceeding from some disease, or disturbance of the brain, without any fault in the patient. And in this sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Person that is not in his right senses. But this signifi∣cation has no place here, where the discourse is about a distemper of the mind. And in this acceptation again it is used two ways; first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies imprudent, and is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prudent: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies imprudence in opposition to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prudence. Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies also intemperate, contrary to which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 temperate, as in like manner 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for intemperance, and is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tem∣perance. And in this last sense it is taken here in St. Mark; for impru∣dence without malice, which is very common, does not pollute the mind out of which it proceeds. But as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a habit and actions opposite to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Intemperance and its usual effects, are sins which do really defile the mind. I need not bring many examples to prove that these words are used in the significations men∣tioned, for they may be had out of Lexicons, tho these do not suffi∣ciently

distinguish them. I shall produce only a few: I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies mad in these words of Xenophon, de Exped. Cyri, lib. 4. towards the end, where he speaks of the honey of Colchis, whereof the Greeks, not knowing its nature, had eaten: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: all the Soldiers that did eat of it became mad, and vomit∣ed. But the next day after, as he tells us in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the same hour they came to their right senses again. II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies imprudent, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imprudence. Thus Homer Iliad. Γ. ver. 220. speaking of the outward appearance of Ʋlysses, says:

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

You would say that he was an angry sort of man, and one that acted rashly and imprudently. And Iliad. H. ver. 110. Menelaus desiring to fight with Hector in a single combat, is commanded to abstain from that piece of imprudence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Agamemnon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you have no need to be guilty of this imprudence. III. Lastly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in contrary actions is used in the same latitude. As in Xenophon lib. 3. de Instit. Cyri, not far from the beginning, where after Tigranes had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that without temperance no other vertue is of any use, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is several times opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and then afterwards Tigranes adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; have you never observed so much as one man, that through intemperance (i. e. transported with Anger or any other extravagant passion) went to fight with one stronger than himself, how after he was beaten, his intemperance against that man was presently cooled?

So likewise among the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nabal signifies mad and in∣temperate, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nbalah madness and intemperance; and the former is rendered in both senses by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the latter by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Septuagint. See Psalm xiv.1. where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mad does not signify one that is mad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 through a bodily distemper, or is imprudent through an error in his mind, but a wicked evil man. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not only folly, but a bad or wicked action. See Deut. xxii.21. Judg. xix.23, 24. xx.6, 10. And yet the Septuagint have in these places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in Psal. xiv. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And hence it came to pass that Phavorinus, and Suidas before him, misinterpreted the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that is ignorant of the true God, and unacquainted with the first principles of Wisdom.

Vers. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] If this man was naturally deaf and dumb,* 1.8 as Dr. Hammond seems to think, the meaning of these words must be, that he imitated rightly those sounds which he heard made by others; for it was necessary that he should have some time allowed him to learn to discourse in, even after that which obstructed his organs of speech was removed. But if we suppose, that whereas he heard and spake before readily, he came by a disease to be deprived almost of his hearing, and to speak with difficulty, as Grotius thought, then these words must be understood in their usual and obvious sense. And this makes me prefer this Opinion to the former, which is most agreeable also to the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which cannot signify a dumb person any otherwise than figuratively.

CHAP. VIII.

Vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Tho all divine Miracles are from Hea∣ven, i. e. from God; yet I am apt to believe that here is meant such a Miracle as was seen by John the Baptist at the time when he baptized our Saviour, viz. when the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him, and behold a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] This word is used to express the vehemence of the groan, which Christ fetched upon this occasion; just as Acts xvii.16. when St. Paul was at Athens, and saw the City filled with Idols 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Spirit was stirred up within him; which expression denotes the vehemence of the commotion that was in St. Paul's mind. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not only signify barely the mind, but the mind moved by some passion; as the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which consult Schindler's Lexicon.

Vers. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The sense of these words is rightly expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase; but he tells us in the Margin that the King's MS. and many printed Copies, read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet still these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make but harsh construction, and I do not know but that the an∣tient reading was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as trees that walk; and so the meaning of the blind man will be, that two sorts of objects presented themselves to him, whereof one stood still, viz. Trees; and another, which were also like Trees to his apprehension walked, or were like walking Trees. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ambiguous, and may as fitly be rendered I see men like walking trees, as like trees walking. Perhaps

the Evangelist wrote as I said,* 1.9 but the Transcribers would not en∣dure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 walking trees.

CHAP. IX.

Vers. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Grotius thinks that what is said here of the Jews, that they had done to John what∣soever they would, is said to have been foretold by Malachi, because he called him Elias: and this very thing, says he, shewed that he should not want Ahabs and Jezebels. But this seems to have too much subtilty in it, nor was it necessary that there should be a per∣fect similitude between John and Elias, that he might be intended by the Prophet by his name. I chuse rather to make the words as it is written of him, to refer only to those, Elias is come; as if Christ had said, Elias is come, as it is written of him, and they have done to him whatsoever they would; the misplacing and cross ordering of words being usual in Scripture. See my Notes upon Gen. xiii.10. As for the sense of this whole passage, it is in the general well enough expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase; but if we read Christ's words, and would understand by what Dr. Hammond says, the series or connection of his Discourse, we shall find our selves disappointed. I express it therefore thus:

12. But Christ answered them, it was requisite indeed that Elias should first come, and call all the Jews to their duty, that they might entertain the Messias, who was suddenly to come amongst them, in a fit man∣ner; nor was this Prophecy contrary to those by which it was fore∣told that the Messias should be ill treated by the Jews: 13. For Elias also was already come, who was John the Baptist, intended for cer∣tain reasons by that name, and had gone about to call the Jews to Repentance, that they might be so disposed as persons ought to be who were to receive the Messias; but the Jews had refused to hear∣ken to that holy man, yea and had killed him.

The words of the Evangelist must be rendered thus: 12. And he answering, said unto them, Elias indeed must first come and restore all things. But how (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is it written of the Son of Man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought? 13. But yet (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) I say unto you, that both Elias is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would.

For the better understanding of these words there are these three things to be observed: First, That the Apostles understood the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the event, whence they inferred that it was impossible that Christ should be killed by the Jews; because he was not to enter upon his Reign till a great Reformation had been made among the People of the

Jews by Elias. But Christ's answer, which is grounded upon matter of fact, shews that this ought to be understood of the design of John's preach∣ing, and what it would have effected if the Jews had hearkened to it, and not of what really came to pass. That active Verbs do commonly sig∣nify a design and endeavour to do any thing, tho it may be the event does not follow, is known to every one. See my Notes upon Gen. xxxvii.21. Secondly, that the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and how, &c. contain another Objection which might be made against what Christ had said, besides that which was made by the Apostles, as the interrogatory Par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shews. Thirdly, That the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendered by attamen nevertheless, or but yet, according to its usual signification. See 1 Cor. iv.4.

Vers. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indeed, as Groti∣us has observed, superfluous in Luke xxii.2. as well as here; but the construction in that place is different from what it is in this. I know all that is said by others about this Particle; but to me nothing seems more probable, than that it proceeded from some Transcriber's re∣peating the last syllable of the foregoing word. It is certain, it is left out in Beza's antient copy, and two others in the Barberine Library; and that neither the Vulgar nor Syriack version take any notice of it.

Vers. 49. Note e.] I. That Christ's words here may be understood, they must first be set down in Hebrew, and then it must be shewn how fitly they are turned into Greek. The expression in Hebrew is: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for every one shall be consumed by fire, and every offering of corn shall be seasoned with salt. And in the same manner it may be expressed in Syriack, as appears from the Syriack Interpreter. All the elegancy of the expression lies in the ambiguity of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jimmaleahh, which signifies both salietur shall be seasoned with salt, and absumetur shall be consumed; which ambiguity cannot be expressed in Latin. Nor is the Greek Language more fit for this purpose, in which there is no word that signifies both to season with salt and to consume. Which the Evangelist perceiving, in imitation of the Septuagint, and the Jews who spake Greek in Syria and Palestine, he abused the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly signifies to be seasoned with salt, by putting a new sense upon it. And so Symmachus rendered afterwards the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Isai. li.6. for the Heavens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be consumed like smoke, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The meaning therefore of Christ in these words is this: that as every Corn-offering according to the Law extant in Levit. ii.13. was seasoned with salt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so likewise every bad man shall at last be consumed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with fire. The conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

prefixed to the words every sacrifice, is of the same import here as the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as, as it is afterwards Chap. x.12. and John xiv〈…〉〈…〉. That which seems to have occasioned Christ's comparing bad m〈…〉〈…〉 sacrifi∣ces, is partly his having made use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in order to describe the future condition of the wicked; and partly his having m•••••• men∣tion of unquenchable fire, such as was the fire of the Altar, as Grotius has observed. And so because the words by which he had described the Punishments of bad men had led him as it were to it, he did not de∣cline the using of such an ambiguity as might easily be understood by persons skilful in the Language he spake in. And so likewise God, in the books of the Prophets, sometimes uses such kind of elegances, pro∣ceeding from the ambiguity of words. See Jer. i.11, 12. and at your leisure Mer. Casaubon in Diss. de Lingua Hebraica.

II. The conjecture of Jos. Scaliger is by Grotius, and here by our Au∣thor deservedly rejected; but he might have been more effectually confuted, if they had observed that St. Mark did not want a proper Greek word whereby to express the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so that there was no need of his coining that new and unheard of word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For that which the Hebrews express by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an offering to be consumed (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) with fire, the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a word which often occurs in Eu∣ripides and Callimachus, to mention no more. Aquila, who translated words according to their Etymologies, could not have rendred the He∣brew word into Greek more fitly; it being derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fire, as the Hebrew from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which has the same signification. Hesychius and Phavorinus interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sacrifices which are burnt.

III. Nevertheless, Dr. Hammond is mistaken when he says that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to take, signifies shall be consumed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has that signification, but this is not to be confounded with the tenses of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vers. 50. Note f.] I do not know whence the Doctor took the passage he speaks of out of Aeschines, but he does not seem to have looked into Aeschines himself. For it will appear to any one that reads the whole passage, that it is to be understood of the provision which was allowed to the Embassadors out of the publick revenue. The story in short is this. Aeschines and Demosthenes were sent together as Embassadors to King Philip, and eat at the same Table with the rest of the Embas∣sadors throughout the whole journey; nevertheless Demosthenes accu∣sed Aeschines and the rest of the Embassadors of having ill discharged their Commission. And hereupon Aeschines, p. 31. Ed. Stephani, not far from the beginning, charges him with practising 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.10 such Trea∣chery towards his Companions at the same Table, and in the same Embassy, as a man would hardly be guilty of to his greatest Enemies. And then it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for he professes to have a high value for the salt of the City, and the publick Table, not being a Native of our Country, &c. So among the Latins the publick Corn that was allowed to the Military Tribunes and others, was called Salarium.

CHAP. X.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not being in Beza's antient Copy, nor in the Syriack, nor in the parallel place in St. Matthew, may justly be suspected. It is possible that some Transcriber thinking it not to be sufficient to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might add the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to shew that the beginning of the World was spoken of. But this was needless; the beginning of the World being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by way of eminence as it were. See my Notes upon Gen. i.1.

Vers. 12. Note a.] See my Notes upon Mat. ix.14. and Grotius upon this place in St. Mark. The sense of Christ's words is this: Whosoever puts away his Wife and marries another ought to be re∣puted an Adulterer, as a Woman that puts away her Husband and is married to another Man is an Adulteress. The Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and, which begins the 12th Verse, is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as, as I observed before up∣on Chap. ix.49. In this respect Christ levels the Husband with the Wife; whereas under the Law it was lawful for a Man to put away his Wife, tho not for a Woman to put away her Husband.

Vers. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] This whole Passage is explain'd by Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in §. 4. he sets it down, but not without some alterations, substitu∣ting synonimous words, and correcting some Hebraisms in it; which makes it probable to me, that tho he did not indeed read the Passage so in his Copy, yet thought however that it was all one whether he expressed it in the Evangelist's own words, or in a little better Greek, in compliance perhaps with critical Ears. The beginning of it is this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Vers. 19. Note b.] What our Author says about the sense of the tenth Commandment is, I grant, true; but we shall interpret both Moses and St. Mark more Grammatically, if we understand the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of those fraudulent methods by which a Person may endeavour

to invade another man's Possessions.* 1.11 For there are two ways of in∣juring our Neighbour, viz. by Theft, whether privately or by force, against the will of the Owner, and by taking away what belongs to another without any pretence of Right or Justice, which is forbidden in the seventh Precept of the Decalogue, or else by secret and cunning Devices, where the Law and a pretence of Right is made use of to cover the Injury, which is prohibited in the tenth Commandment, whereby all such Artifices are made unlawful, whether they prove successful or unsuccessful: And this Christ here calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to defraud. So the Old Glosses; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 privo, defraudo, abnego, to deprive, to defraud, to deny ones Trust. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inficiatur, he disowns or denies his Trust, or the Debt charged upon him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fraus, abnegatio, de∣negatio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fraudator, fraudulentus, inficiator. See my Notes upon the Decalogue.

Vers. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Christ here shews what sort of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rich Men, they are that cannot heartily entertain his Doctrin, viz. such as trust more in their Riches, than to God's Promises. And those are said to trust in their Riches, who had rather preserve them, than obey God; who promise themselves a happy Life if they are but rich, and think themselves so miserable that no Piety can afford them any Com∣fort, if they are poor.

CHAP. XI.

Vers. 13. Note a. THat the time of Harvest was earlier in Judaea than ordinary, is well proved by our Author, of which see my Notes also upon Exod. ix.32. And hence like∣wise he rightly infers that other Fruits were gathered sooner in that Country than in many other places. But I have several Observations to make both with relation to this matter, and to what Dr. Hammond says in this Note.

I. That Aristophanes does ill confound the time of Wheat and Barly Harvest among the Phoenicians, which fell out in divers Months. See my Notes upon Gen. xxx.14.

II. I wonder that the Doctor should speak of the Fruit of Trees in Judaea without any distinction; whereas it is certain that all sort of Fruits do no more come to their full growth at the same time in that Country than in other places: They have their Summer and Autumn Fruits in Judaea as well as elsewhere. Nor does it appear by the Passage cited out of Philo, that the Fruits of Trees were gathered at the same time with the Corn, as our Author says. but only that if the

Statue of Caius was set up in the Temple, it was to be feared that the Jews would destroy the ripe Corn: and then he adds that care was also to be taken for the gathering in of the Fruits, which the Country that was planted with Trees brought forth; which may be understood not only of the Fruits that were ripe at that time, but also of those that were of a later growth, and which could not have been gathered if the Trees were destroyed before they came to perfection.

III. I should not doubt but that the Interpretation given by the Doctor of this place were true, if he had but produced any Example to shew that the Greek Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might signify what he calls a good Fig year, or a kindly seasonable year for Figs; and we French Men une saison favorable aux figues, i. e. so temperate a year that abundance of Figs came to their perfect ripeness in their proper season. Thus in Horace a fruitful year is called pomifer, and locuples frugibus annus. But the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must not be confounded; for tho the latter do indifferently signify any time whatsoever, yet the former is taken only for a particular juncture of time, and for opportunity, and is therefore capable indeed of being used to signify set seasons in the year, but not simply a year. Tho this it may be might be observed in favor of Dr. Hammond, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is not meant simply year, but as I may say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a seasonable year, or a fit season to look every where for Figs in. But this likewise is something harsh, and I want still Examples of the like Phrase, having never been able to find or meet with any.

IV. It had been better if our Author, instead of what he says about the time of Harvest, had observed that there were two sorts of Figs in Judaea, one of which might have been ripe at the time of the Passover, but the other not till the height of Summer. The former sort are mentioned by Solomon in Cant. ii.••3. where, describing the beginning of the Spring, he says among other things, the Fig-tree hath brought her Figs to perfection. And these were called early Figs, as we learn from Theophrastus and Pliny, and were common in Syria. Theophrastus Hist. Plant. lib. 4. c. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— i. e. as Pliny lib. xiii. c. 8. interprets him, Quidam Aegyptiam ficum dixere, errore manifesto, non enim in Aegypto nascitur, sed in Syria, semper comantibus foliis. Some have said that it was the Egyptian Fig, but they were manifestly mistaken, for it does not grow in Egypt, but in Syria, and its leaves always flourish. And a little after Theophrastus says; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sense of which is thus expressed again by Pliny; Pomo antecedentis anni circa canis ortus detracto, statim alterum parit. Postea florem per Arcturum, hyeme foetus enutriente. The last years Fruit being pulled off about the beginning of the dog-days, it presently brings forth more. Then when the Sun rises with Arcturus it blossoms again, the Winter nourishing its Fruit. And that such a sort of Fig-tree as this is meant here, appears both by its having Leaves at that time, and by Christ's going to look for Fruit upon it. This Fruit the Jews called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 biochourah, as appears from Hos. ix.10. where it is said, I found Israel like Grapes in the Wil∣derness, as the first ripe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Fig-tree. And these Figs were very much valued, as Jeremiah informs us, Chap. xxiv.2. One Basket had very good Figs, like the Figs that are first ripe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See also Isa. xxviii.4. and Mich. vii.1.

The other sort of Figs were of a later growth, and ripened at the same time with Grapes. And it is this sort that is mentioned in Numb. xiii.24. and which were gathered in the Land of Canaan together with the Grapes, by the Spies that were sent by Moses, and brought to the Jewish Camp. The Trees which bear this sort have no Leaves at the Passover, but the time of their first shooting out is at the ap∣proach of the Summer, as Christ teaches us, Matth. xxiv.32. Now learn, says he, a Parable from the Fig-tree: when its branch is yet tender, and putteth forth Leaves, ye know that Summer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is nigh. And so like∣wise afterwards here in St. Mark xiii.28. I could illustrate all these things by a multitude of Citations out of the Antients if it were ne∣cessary: But I am not ambitious of the useless Copiousness of some learned Men, who spend abundance of time in proving what might have been shewn in fewer words, and of whom I may say with Calli∣machus,

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

V. Our Author indeed justly rejects the Conjecture of D. Heinsius, but he censures too severely the changing of an accent or spirit, which it is certain are wanting in the most antient Copies; for who can be cer∣tain when he sees this Particle OΥ written without an accent, whether it is to be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where? This must necessarily be learned by the sense, and when that is obscure, the Reader is left in suspence. And before ever he had objected to that learned Man, that no Example could elsewhere be found of any such form of Speech as he conjectured this here to be, he ought himself to have produced a place in which

the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified a fruitful season for such or such sort of Fruit.* 1.12

CHAP. XII.

Vers. 14. Note a. THis one thing is enough to shew that that MS. dos not contain the very words of the Evangelists, but a kind of a Paraphrase of them: For it interprets the Latin word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Grecians who did not understand that word, by one more familiar, to them. So in the Glossaries for Law-terms published by Car. Labbaeus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is explained to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: whence it may be inferred that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here spoken of was to be paid in a certain species of Mony, viz. in Denarii, which had the image of the Caesars impressed upon them, as was conjectured by Marq. Froherus.

Vers. 44. Note b.] The Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Colos. i.24. is, what remained for St. Paul to suffer for the sake of Christ, as I have shewn in my Ars Critica, Part 2. Sect. 1. cap. xii.

CHAP. XIII.

Vers. 32.* 1.13 Note b. IT is no wonder that it is so hard to understand wherein the Heresy of the Agnoetae lay, because if it was their Opinion that Jesus, i. e. the Man that was born of the Virgin Mary, was ignorant of any thing, it is manifest that they were of the same opinion with our Saviour himself, who could not have affirmed this more plainly; but if they asserted that God also who dwelt in the human Nature of Christ, knew not when the day of Judg∣ment was to be; such an Absurdity as this hardly any but mad Men could be guilty of. For my part, I am apt to think that the Grecians at that time were mightily given to be contentious, and falsly attributed Opinions to one another which they disowned, and were unwilling to understand themselves. Some have been inclined to think the same as to the business of Eutyches and Nestorius, who differed from one another and the rest of Christians more in Words than in Things. It is plain the Greeks took no care at all to speak their mind clearly in these matters, and a contentious humour might easily make them mistake one anothers sense. But this is not a place to treat of this matter in.

* 1.14CHAP. XIV.

Vers. 3. Note a. THere are some things in this last Note that may lead the Reader into a mistake, which I shall therefore briefly confute.

1. If Nard were a dry Ointment, yet it might as easily be contained in a Marble or Alabaster Box as if it were liquid. Do not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or dry Ointments use to be put in such sort of Vessels for the better pre∣servation of them? This every body knows that has but once been in an Apothecary's Shop.

II. Nard is not always liquid. There was a liquider and a thicker sort of it, as Dioscorides informs us, Mat. Med. lib. 1. cap. lxxv. where having described the manner of making this Ointment, he says; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it is liquid, and not thick like dregs unless it have gum in it. Now nothing hinders but that the Oint∣ment which St. Mark here speaks of might have gum mixed with it, and so be a thicker sort of Nard, which might easily also be if it had been a great while kept.

III. Our Author describes a sort of Nard unknown to all Antiquity, who never reckoned Nard among the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. None of the Antients, and perhaps no one Modern Author besides Dr. Hammond, ever spake thus, who seems to have confounded Nard with Myrrh. Nard is an Herb of an indifferent bigness, as Dioscorides lib. i. cap. vi, and viii. and Pliny lib. 12. cap. xii. tell us. The words of Pliny are these: De folio Nardi plura dici par est, ut principali in unguentis. Frutex est gravi & crassa radice, sed brevi ac nigra fragilique—folio parvo, den∣soque, Cacumina in aristas se spargunt; ideo gemina dote, Nardi spicas ac folia celebrant. Of the leaf of the Herb Nard more ought to be said, as that which has the principal place in Ointments. It is a Plant that has a thick and heavy Root, but a short black and brittle one—its Leaf is small and thick, the top of it is bearded; Nard therefore is famous both for the virtue of its spikes and leaves. So he describes the Indian Nard, and having mentioned other kinds of it, adds; Sunt autem omnia herbae, praeter Indicam; they are all Herbs, except that which comes from India. Of these leaves, or the spikes bruised together and mixed with Oil and other Spices, the Ointment of Nard was made, and not of any Li∣quor which is distilled from them. This appears also from Dioscori∣des, lib. 1. cap. lxxv. and from Pliny lib. 13. cap. i. Our Author seems again to have confounded Nard with Myrrh, which makes an Oint∣ment of it self without Oil, as Pliny tells us. He confounds also the

word Nard, as that signifies either the Plant before described, or the Ointment which is made of it; for the Plant indeed is called spicata Nardus, because of its spiked leaves, but not the Ointment which was called unguentum spicatum, or unguentum Nardi spicatae, not Nardus spicata, viz. because the spike was the principal Ingredient in that Ointment, which Name was given to Nard by way of eminence. See Salmasius upon Solinus, p. 750. Ed. Ʋltraj. about this matter.

IV. The Phrase pura Nardus, pure Nard, in Tibullus does not signi∣fy, as the Doctor thinks, Ointment made only of Nard, or the juice of Nard, but that which was called Ointment of Nard, in which besides other Spices there was pure Nard, i. e. not adulterated, as it fre∣quently was, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us. And this Ointment it is that St. Mark calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Nard faithfully made or pre∣pared, such as had true unsophisticated Nard in it, which was the rea∣son of its being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of great price. Pliny lib. 12. cap. 12. Pretium spicae in libras x. c. Folii divisere annonam, ab amplitudine hadrosphaerium vocatur, majoribus foliis, x.xxx. &c. The price of Nard is x.c. a pound. The difference in the bigness of the Leaves made a difference in the price; that which had the biggest Leaves was called Hadrosphaerium, and the price of it was x.xxx.

V. The Ointment of Nard cannot be called Nardus spicata, but the Plant only, and therefore Grotius is mistaken when he says that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and spicata are the same. Tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that which we express by faithfully made, is none of the best Greek, yet it is possible that those whose trade it was to make Ointments, the Apothecaries or Perfumers, might use it in that sense; and that St. Mark made use of their terms, especially where he speaks of their Commodities, ought not to seem strange. Consult also Salmasius in the place before-mentioned.

Ibid. Note b.] I grant the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not signify always to break, when the discourse is about a thing which may be hurt without being broken, as about a wounded Man, or a bruised Reed; but where the discourse is about a Vessel, and especially such an one as is made of brittle matter, it has ever that signification: and whoever says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it must be rendered to break a Mar∣ble or Glass Vessel. See Levit. vi.28.xi.33.xv.12. Rev. ii.27. And those that endeavour to put any other sense upon that Phrase here, strain it. Dr. Hammond's two first Reasons for another Interpreta∣tion I have confuted already in a Note upon the parallel place in St. Matthew. The third, together with the rest, are, I suppose, taken out of Baronius, and relie upon a nauseous Fable which is related in the following words by Suidas, whom, if our Author had but look'd

into, I believe he would never have made use of this Testimony. Thus Suidas tells the story in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of some unknown Fable-maker, as he used to do. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Crosses, as Aemil. Portus has observed) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: under the Market-place were bu∣ried the two Crosses of the two Thieves, and the little Ointment Pot out of which Christ was anointed, and many other remarkable things that were laid there by Constantine the Great, but taken away by Theodosius the Great. Suidas does not give the least intimation that he thought this silly Fable to be true; he only tells it, as he does many others, as he had read it. And therefore the Consequences that the Doctor draws from his Authority and Learning are insignificant. Nay, tho Suidas had said that he believed this Fable, yet it would be much more likely that he had either forgot this Passage in St. Mark, or that it did not come in∣to his mind, than that he thought the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signi∣fy any thing different from what I have said it does.

Neither is there any more weight in the Argument which our Au∣thor grounds upon a Passage out of Pollux, because the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot signify to open the Cruise and stir the Ointment about with a Spathula, or Slice. All the rest that he says is manifestly be∣sides the cause, because he considers the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abstractly, not as it is joined with the name of a brittle Vessel; nor have I leisure to examine every thing particularly. I conclude therefore that this Phrase is rightly translated in the vulgar Latin fracto alabastro. See what I have said on the parallel place in St. Matthew.

Vers. 54. Note f.] What our Author says about the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he seems to have borrowed from Dan. Heinsius; who may be consulted by those that have leisure.

Vers. 72. Note i.] The Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought not to be separated by a Comma from the following word, which is the Verb to that as its Nominative Case. The opinion of Grotius which is by our Author mentioned in the second place, is the most probable. The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone does not signify to see or look upon, but only when the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or some other like that is added to it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the most part follows. I am apt to think that in the place cited out of Phavorinus we ought after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for to look upon any one, is no Greek Phrase; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also must be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

CHAP. XV.* 1.15

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] That is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he used to release, as it is in St. Matthew Chap. xxvii.15. After this manner the future Tense in Hebrew, and the aorist in Greek, and the preterperfect in Latin is many times used. See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word futurum, and Rom. viii.29, 30.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] In some Manuscripts it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the reason of which is not, as Grotius thought, that some Greek Copies of this Gospel were altered to make them agree with the Latin Version; for besides the Vatican mentioned by him (but omitted in the Oxford Edit. of the New Testament) and the Manuscript that was sent by Beza to Cambridg, the Copy also which those that made the Coptick and Gothick Translations used read it so, which it is plain could ne∣ver have it from the Latin Versions. If we admit this reading, the sense will not be inconvenient. And the multitude going up (into the Hall) began to desire, &c.

Vers. 17. Note a.] Concerning those things in this History which relate to the Roman Customs, we must read the Philological Notes of that learned Lawyer Edm. Merillus upon the Passion; who has treated of this matter on set purpose. Add also what I have said about this place in St. Matthew.

Vers. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] This is very well expressed by our Author in agreement with the Roman Custom, in his Paraphrase. For they used as in the night, so also in the day time, to give notice what hour it was by the sound of a Trumpet. This appears from a Passage in Lucan, lib. 2. ver. 689. where, speaking of Pompey's flight, he de∣scribes him forbidding ne buccina dividat horas, that his flight might be the more secret.

Vers. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] This Interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added for the sake of the uncircumcised Gentiles who were ignorant of the Jewish Customs. Every Friday, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was so called, as Bochart in concurrence with others before him tells us, Hie∣roz. P. 1. lib. 2. cap. 50. p. 567. And not only the Jews, but Christians also afterwards made use of that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Grotius upon Luke xviii.11.

Vers. 43. Note d.] I rather think that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we are to under∣stand that dignity that Joseph was in among the Jews, by being one of the Sanhedrim of LXXII Men, or the lesser of xxiii. For Arima∣thaea was not a Roman Colony.

* 1.16CHAP. XVI.

Vers. 18. Note c. I Will not undertake here to examine whether those an∣tient and true Sibyls did foretel any thing concerning Christ; but I shall observe that no such thing can be in∣ferred from those Verses of Virgil: for it is not necessary to suppose that the sense of that Sybil's words are so expressed by Virgil, as to have no addition made to them. Perhaps the Sybil had prophesied that after the tenth Age, which was that of the Sun, there should be another Golden Age; and that Saying alone gave Virgil occasion e∣nough to describe that new Age, just like that Golden one which was said by the Poets to have been in the Reign of Saturn. And it was only in the Silver Age, as they tell us, that Serpents became poi∣sonous, which in the Golden Age had no Poison. This we are told, to go no farther, by Virgil himself, Georg. 1. ver. 128.

Ille (viz. Jupiter) malum virus serpentibus addidit atris.

Vers. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Grotius has very well observed, that this form of Speech is borrowed from the Custom of Kings, who use to command those whom they have a mind to confer the highest Honour upon, to sit at their right-hand. See his Notes upon Mat. xx.21. The Greek Poets speak also in the same manner concerning the Heathen Gods, as that great man has shewed by an Example out of Pindar. And, if you please, you may add this out of Callimachus about Apollo, in his Hymn consecrated to that God, ver. 28.

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

Apollo will honour this Quire, because it sings to please him; for he is able, since he sits at Jupiter's right-hand.

But this might by the Poets, who fancied their Gods to be in the shape of men, be understood properly: the difficulty is, how S. Mark, who had quite another Notion of God, understood this Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Interpreters tells us that it is a Metaphor, and must be understood to signify only the great Glory to which Christ was exalt∣ed, and nothing more. And it is certain, that this Expression of the right hand of God, if by God we understand the divine Nature considered in it self, must needs be metaphorical; but is it not some∣thing

odd that a Christian Historian should in a naked account of things make use of such a Metaphor? So it will seem, if I am not mistaken, to those that attentively consider it. And therefore per∣haps (for I affirm nothing positively) we ought rather by the Word God to understand a Light inaccessible to any but Christ, which is a Symbol of the divine Presence, and on the right side of which he, whom the Father hath made King of Heaven and Earth, sits. And this is that which the Martyr Stephen seems to have seen when he be∣held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, viz. of that inaccessible Light or Glory; of which see my Notes upon Exod. xxxiv.18. For without doubt, properly speaking he did not see God; and to say that when it is affirmed of him that he saw Jesus on the right hand of God, the mea∣ning is, that he saw him in the enjoyment or possession of the highest Glory, is harsh and unnatural. See also Matth. xxvi.2. and Mark xiv.62. Let the Learned consider whether this be not what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also intended in Chap. xii.2. where he says, that Jesus is set down at the right hand of God. I have not time at present to prosecute these things at large: Which I mention, lest the Reader should think that I had too slightly passed over a Subject which deserves to have a great many Thoughts spent upon it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chapter I.
• * 1.2

  Chapter II.
• * 1.3

  Chapter III.
• * 1.4

  Chapter IV.
• * 1.5

  Chapter V.
• * 1.6

  Chapter VI.
• * 1.7

  Chapter VII.
• * 1.8

  Chapter VIII.
• * 1.9

  Chapter IX.
• * 1.10

  Chapter X.
• * 1.11

  Chapter XI.
• * 1.12

  Chapter XII.
• * 1.13

  Chapter XIII.
• * 1.14

  Chapter XIV.
• * 1.15

  Chapter XV.
• * 1.16

  Chapter XVI.