April 26. 1692.  
Imprimatur,  


Gabr. Quadring, Procan.  
Jo. Beaumond.  
Joh. Covel.  
C. Roderick.     

ANNOTATIONS UPON Some DIFFICULT TEXTS In all the BOOKS OF THE New Testament.  
By Sr Norton Knatchbull Kt & Bart.  
CAMBRIDGE, Printed by J. Hayes, Printer to the University; for W. Graves Bookseller there. 1693.   

THE PUBLISHER TO The Reader.  
THese Annotations are entirely the product, and result of all those Critical Researches into, and most solid and happy Conjectures upon the most Difficult passages of the New Testament, made by the sincerely Religious, and profoundly Judicious, as well as Learned Author, the late Sr Norton Knatchbull Kt and Bart: and which are only and altogether his own particular discoveries, and most Select observations. Upon which account, that most distinguishing character, and singular Elegy given by St Luke to those more noble Berean Converts, 
Act. 17.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is most eminently due to Him, who with a like truly noble and generous disposition, with the same pious intention, and application of mind, and with equal success, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  daily searched (or as that word imports, and more significantly might be rendered) critically conferred, or compared the Scriptures together, whether those things were so. Of which most exact and diligent scrutiny of his into those Holy Oracles, this evident proof, and lasting Monument will remain to Posterity; which therefore by most Competent Judges is thought most worthy to be recommended, and communicated, as a more useful, elaborate, and successful Essay in its kind then hath hitherto been published. In which, the most proper sense, and right use of each ambiguous particle, word, and phrase; and likewise the genuine construction of all those intricate periods, obscure transitions, and most perplexing trajections which occur frequently in those Sacred Writers, are vindicated, and cleared, by a more plain, and accurate Version, or a more intelligible, and commodious Exposition of them. Concerning which, perhaps it may not be impertinent to give the Learned Reader especially, this further Advertisement; namely, that this is not a bare Translation only of the former Latin Edition thrice Printed at Oxford, which is now put into his hands; but this English Copy (as that word is commonly understood by the Booksellers,) may rather be esteemed as an Original Piece, or a new, more complete, and perfect draught, begun, and finished afterwards by the same hand; by which it is besides very much enlarged with divers interpolations, and an addition of new remarks upon several other Texts. The whole Work, with the Latin Preface now set before it, as it was also found together with it, being fairly transcribed, and prepared for the Press, by the Author himself, as 'tis most probably supposed, not long before his death.  
Trin. Coll. Febr. 14th 1692/3. J. L.   

AN ENCOMIASTIC Upon the Most Learned and Judicious AUTHOR OF These Critical Annotations.  

SOme have the race of Glory vainly run:  
Have Countries spoiled, and Cities vilely won:  
From hence those Triumphs, and that Grandeur rise,  
Which Flatterers have exalted to the Skies;  
Whilst tears still swell the vanquished captives eyes.   

Knatchbull a  Conquest has obtained,  
Old Greece subdued, and Palestine regained;  
Has o'er the Empire of the Romans run,  
And viewed the Regions of the rising Sun.  
From thence has ample spoils, and Trophies brought,  
T' enrich the soul, and to adorn the thought.  
No tears upon th' unbloudy conquest wait;  
His Gentler victr'y makes the conquered great.   

As in a Map the world described we find,  
And spacious Kingdoms to a spot confined:  
So here; this little Volume does contain  
The Vast Ideas of a thoughtful brain:  
Like Crystal bright, and solid too, they shine  
In each elab'rate page, in every Line.  
Our errors they reform, our doubts dispel,  
And all our weak opposing force repel.  
No dry dull periods here our Fancies cloy;  
Deep sense, and manly lines our wits employ.  
Here no impertinence provokes our rage;  
Nor empty bubbles swell the frothy page;  
But weighty Truths our studious thoughts engage.   

Some Books like Deserts, are of vast extent:  
Much time and pains to trace them o'er is spent.  
Now here, Now there, an useful Plant is found:  
We traverse then large Tracts of moorie ground  
Where only Moss and barren Fern abound.  
In devious paths o'er rugged Hills we go,  
Whose Tops are covered with eternal snow,  
Scarce once saluted by a human face:  
Dragons and Owls possess the baleful place.   

This, like a Plate of rich enclosed Mead,  
Is all with Flowery grass, and herbs or ' espread;  
And yet no Serpent in the Grass lies hid.  
From every part surprising scenes arise,  
And charming objects feed our longing eyes.  
New fresh delights so crowd upon the brain,  
We're forced from too much pleasure to refrain:  
Excess of Joys converted into pain.   

Some have to men assigned a Monstrous birth,  
That they first sprang like Mushrooms from the earth.  
Can such mean thoughts debase the Great and Wise?  
Nothing from earth but earthly things arise.  
The senseless clod may flesh and blood impart;  
Heaven claims the glory of our nobler part.  
The finest Atoms, in their nimblest dance,  
To sense and reason never could advance.  
This truth our Author's Matchless works proclaim,  
Which nothing but immortal wit could frame;  
Which will endure till th' Universal Flame.   

Happy the man whose uncorrupted Soul,  
No vicious passions fetter, and control  
From soaring up to its celestial seat;  
Contemning what the giddy World calls Great.  
Whose willing heart cleaves to the Sacred Laws  
As close as Iron which the Loadstone draws.  
These are his study, these his chiefest Joy,  
These both his Youth, and riper years employ.  
Such was our Author; such was his delight:  
'twas food by day, and rest to him by night,  
To search the Records of the Will divine,  
A rich and yet an inexhausted Mine.  
Great Man! endued with more than human Arts:  
Such heavenly knowledge heaven alone imparts.   

Now he augments the number of the Blessed.  
His Labours end in everlasting rest,  
And hospitable Saint's caress their welcome guest.  
Nor So hath left this World; but that his Name  
Is born aloft upon the wings of Fame.  
Even for his sake these lines may chance to live;  
For his to them will life, and lustre give.  
As Oaks the Ivy which enclasps them round,  
They'll bear them up from sinking to the Ground.   
Sid. Coll. Feb. 8th 1692/3 Tho. Walker.   

Books Printed for and sold by W. Graves Bookseller in Cambridge.  
PEtavii Tabulae Chronolog. Fol.  

A Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge in King's College Chapel on the 25th of March being the Anniversary for Commemoration of King Henry VI the Founder, by W. Fleetwood.  
Divine Hymns, or a Paraphrase upon the Te Deum, etc. and the Song of the Three Children, by T. Walker, B. D. Fellow of Sidney Sussex College. 4ᵒ  
P. Terentii Carthaginiensis Afri Comaediae Sex. Interpretatione & Notis illustravit Nicholaus Camus J. U. D. Jussu Christianissimi Regis, in usum serenissimi Delphini. 8ᵒ  
Inscriptiorum Antiquarum sylloge in duas Partes distributa. Prior Inscriptiones Ethnicas, etc. Alteza Christiana Monumenta, etc. by W. Fleetwood.  
An Enquiry into Four Remarkable Texts of the N. Test. which contain some difficulty in them, with a probable Resolution of them, by John Edward's. 8ᵒ  
Burgusdicius and Heereboords Logicks 8ᵒ  
Enchiridion Militis Christiani, Auctore D es. Erasmo Roterodamo, Ejusdem de Praeparatione ad mortem, etc. 12ᵒ  
De Christo imitando, Contemnendisque Mundi Vanitatibus libellus Authore Thoma Kemprisio, libri Tres, interpret Sebastiano Castellione. Quibus adjungitur Liber Quartus de Caena Dominica Latinè redditus. una cùm Micis aliquot Epidorpidum, per R. Widdrington S. T. D. 12ᵒ  
Vincentii Lirinensis Adversus profanas omnium novitates Haereticorum Commonitorium. Cum Notis V. C. Stephani Baluzii. Adjicitur S. Augustini Liber de Haeresibus, 12ᵒ.    

LECTORI S.  
HAbes hîc, Amice Lector, animadversiones nostras in Libros Novi Testamenti ultimâ manu jam auctas, & emendatas, absque omni partium Studio, ut antea dixi, ruri exaratas, ut ex ipso stylo vel primos enties intuitu. Aliqua quae non ita necessariò faciebant ad sacrum codicem (quod praecipuè fuit in voto) à solaecismis quos vulgò tam in Expositione quàm in Versione sacris Scriptoribus impingunt interprete vindicandum, de industria praetermisi, ne te nimio lassarem taedio. Aliqua jam etiam addidi, Aliqua emendavi. Quod si quis arguat recessisse à sensu veterum vel recentiorum interpretum, ut jam priùs dictum, non est quod reponam. Imò si id non fecissem, omninò non scripsissem. Rursus verò dico me utrisque vehementer suam debere reverentiam, sed nec meam nec alterius fidem velìm mancipari. Si quid profecerim in voto, mercedem habeo, sin minùs, operam non totus perdidi; in magno conatu est voluisse aliquid. Unicum tantùm monendum superest. Quòd si quis suspicetur plagii, quo nihil magìs horreo, & fortè dicat Animadversiones ex nostris aliquas mutuatas vel excerptas esse ex notis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hammondi nostri in Libros Novi Testamenti, quales sunt in verba illa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 7.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 16.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 5.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 7.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 12.24. & perpaucissimae quaedam aliae: Sciat velim, ex nostris istas aliquas à nobis esse Scriptas priùs quam ejus erant omninò editae, neque in ejus prima editione omninò extitisse, at ab ipso in secunda fuisse additas postquam chartas nostras, quas ei pro diuturna inter nos amicitia rogatus non negare poteram, perlegisset, & in suum usum quas voluit accomodasset. Cujus rei testem non desiderarem nisi ipsum, si in vivis permansisset. Etsi rem ipsam abundè testari possem ex variis inter me & ipsum datis literis, & chartis. Nec id solùm, sed etiam sciat, ipsum me ingenter animasse, ut in incaepto pergerem, & nostras etiam publicis mandarem typis, quod tandem factum est eo ipso anno quo ejus erant secundò editae, viz. 1659. Neque haec dixissem sed omnino siluissem, si non Vir Doctissimus nuper in sua Synopsi Criticorum quasdam ex nostris animadversionibus sub ejus nomine Latinè publicasset, adeò ut nisi te hoc etiam monerem publicè, reus forem ego plagii coràm universo literatorum mundo. Hoc te igitur moneri velim. Quisquis verò interìm has chartulas perlegeris, pro candore tuo si quid erratum sit, ignosces. Vale.   

ANNOTATIONS ON S. Matthew.  
St Matthew Ch. 1. v. 19  
_ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Then Joseph her husband being a just man, etc. and so accordingly read all Interpreters. But in my opinion as we ought to speak, so ought we to interpret, if lawfully we may, to the capacity of the vulgar. It being therefore familiar to have recourse to the Idiotisms in the Old Testament for the explanation of words or phrases in the New, as even to profane Authors also, and the involved or complexed sense in this place such as is just in the general signification, being not so explicit and plain, as that it can be rightly understood of the common sort of people, the particular and specific one, whose reason the meanest capacity understands at first sight, is surely the more fit and proper, and that is, merciful. For if the Evangelist in this place had intended Joseph as a just man, in the common acception of the word, then ought Joseph as a just man to have made her an example, and to have divorced her publicly according to the law, Deut. c. 24. v. 1. but he was not willing to make her an example, but was minded to put her away privily, which plainly argues by that intention that he was merciful rather then just. And therefore the translation were more proper, Then Joseph her husband being a merciful man, Misericors existens, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. And for this Translation we have the Authority of the Old Testament, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies an affection of piety and mercy, and that in the very places, wherein we commonly render it mercy or merciful, the Greek Translators render according to the variation of the points, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As Gen. c. 19 v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et magnificasti misericordiam tuam, And thou hast magnified thy mercy. c. 20. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hanc misericordiam facies mecum, This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me. Exod. Ch. 15 v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dux fuisti in misericordia tua populo quem redemisti, Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed. Isai. c. 57 v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et viri misericordiae colliguntur, And merciful men are taken away. And so in many other places. So Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Mitis & benignus. that is meek and courteous. Whom Theophylact expresseth yet more plainly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Noluit crudelis esse, etc. He would not be cruel, but used her with all gentleness and mercy.  
V 24, 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And he took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son. That is from the time he took her home unto him unto the time she brought forth her first born son he knew her not, to wit, the whole intervenient time, in which she was with child. And all this the Evangelist doth purposely record, that he may take away all pretence of cavil, and fix it for an undeniable truth, that Jesus was not only conceived of a Virgin, but also of a pure Virgin born. Lest any prying inquisitor, by sinisterly interpreting the words of Isaiah going immediately before, might chance to argue Thus, Isaiah truly saith, a Virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, but he saith not, a Virgin shall bring forth a son; For he might say, she was a Virgin when she conceived, and yet not when she brought forth. Neither can there be any thing else ingenuously or fairly drawn from these words.  
C. 2. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nequaquam minima, In no wise the least; or, as we translate it, art not the least. This place as to the words doth diametrically fight with that in Micah c. 5. v. 2. out of which nevertheless it was probably cited, it being not to be found in any other Prophet. And thou Bethlehem art not the least, as it is here in Matth. And thou Bethlehem Ephratah art little, as it is in Micah. Though as to the sense all Expositors agree they both mean the same thing. But they say this place in Matt. is the more significant and plain, supposing that he restored it to its original and proper meaning. When as in truth the words are not the words of Matthew, being only by him historically recited, but properly the words of the high Priest and Scribes, who answered Herod upon his demand, where Christ should be born, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the Prophet. And thou Bethlehem in the Land of Juda art not the least among the Princes of Juda, etc. And that they so answered according to the reading of the Greek Bibles which were then among them common, I think there is no cause to doubt. But this difference in the reading giving a just occasion to inquire farther into the reason and mystery thereof, I hope it will be an offence to none, at least to move the question, whether it may not be possible that some fault might creep into this place of Micah by the neglect or inadvertency of one of the first Transcribers, (whom afterwards posterity did follow with a well meaning and uninquiring faith) when as it is so prone and easy to mistake in the Hebrew letters, because of the great likeness of the Characters, as that such mistakes have been in many places is not to be denied. And if so, why may there not have been a mistake in this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Little, which perhaps should have been rather read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Go forth, an error apt enough to be committed by reason of the similitude of the Characters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither is this a new thing in the sacred Page, for the Greek Interpreters did certainly mistake in this very word, Gen. c. 49. v. 22. reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adolescentior, younger, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incidebat, or discurrerunt, as in the English, whose branches did run over the wall. And the like error is also as easy between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so it happeneth in all the four forementioned letters in one and the same word, Ezek. c. 34. v. 16. Where the Greek Interpreters instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will destroy, read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will keep. And if this mistake be granted to be probable, as it is so possible in this place of Micah, then will the sense be without all difficulty plain and extremely suitable to the scope thereof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata progredere, or according to the force of the Hebrew, Cum pompâ progredere, ut sis inter Chiliadas Judae, etc. And thou Bethlehem Ephrata go forth or march forth with pomp that thou mayst be among the thousands of Juda, for out of thee shall he come forth who shall be ruler in Israel. And if I affirm this to be probable, what new thing do I assert, that the most learned and judicious Capellus hath not already abundantly asserted in his Sacred Critics?  
C. 2. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Subaudi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But seeing the Star, understand, stand still, or where it stood. For it's said in the former verse, And behold the Star which they saw in the East, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When therefore they saw the Star stand still, (for they could not but before see the Star which they followed for their guide) they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.  
V 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A bimatu & infra, as the Old Latin, a bimulo & infra, as others, From two years old and under, in our own. But read which you will, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantively, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adjectively understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it matters not, whilst all mean the same with the English, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As it is said, Acts c. 24. v. 27. A biennio expleto, From after two years, or from two years and under. Which sense I can by no means think agreeable to this place, but that the words are rather to be rendered and understood according to the manner of speech with both Greeks and Latins, and the very scope and reason of the place, in this manner, Then Herod when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent fortb and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem and all the coast thereof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a biennio, or bimatu incipiente, and not expleto, or a bimulo & infra, From a two yearing child and under, that is, as I suppose Piscator means, incipiendo a bimulis exclusiuè & descendendo ad eos qui infra bimatum erant; as if he had said, All the male children of a year old and under, according to the time he had diligently inquired of the wise men. For from a full whole year and upward a child beginneth to be called with the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, filius duorum annorum, with the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Latins, Bimus. In which sense the LXX do I conceive rightly translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundo anno post diluvium, Gen. c. 11. v. 10. And so reads St Augustin, de civet. Dei. lib. 5. so Noah is said to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sexcentorum annorum filius, a son of six hundred years 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sexcentesimo anno vitae suae, in the six hundredth year of his life, Gen. c. 7. v. 6. and 11. So thought Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, post annum integrum, after a whole year, as if then a child began to be or to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is usually done, cum de interjecto tempore dicitur, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, post annos fere quadringentos, Plut. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, post annum unum & dimidium, Anonym. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, post plures annos, Act. c. 24. v. 17. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aught to be rendered from after a whole year; so also Aristotle understood the word lib. 9 c. 5. the hist. Animal. whose words there of the Hart or Stagg are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bimi primum generant cornua, the two yearings first generate horns. Now there is nothing more certain than that they begin to generate their horns as soon as they are once a full year old, and have entered into the second, at which time they begin to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so continue to be called, until in the end of that second year they begin to cast them. And to demonstrate this more plainly, that which with us is called the Calf of a red Deer, or the Fawn of a Fallow, the whole space of the first year, is with him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as also a Lamb in the Scripture is with the Hebrews called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Latins, Anniculus, with the English, A lamb of the first year. And what with us is termed a brocket or a pricket, the whole space of the second year of his age, is with him termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin subulo or bimus, in the beginning of which year he gins to generate his horns, and in the end thereof to cast them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he saith, that is, as soon as they enter into the third year of their age, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bifida generant, they begin to have forked horns, and are called that third year of their age with the Latins, trimi, with the English, spaydes or sorells. Where note that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him are all one and the same manner of phrase, so as he might have as well said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From whence it manifestly appears, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken either à bimatu incipiente, or desinente, from the time a child gins to be two years old, or from the time they cease to be so, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being exclusive to the one or to the other, to the beginning or to the end; but because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here added, I conceive it ought to be taken, à bimo, or bimatu incipiente, from the time the child gins to be two years old, or from a two yearing child and downward, as contrariwise, 2. Chron. c. 31. v. 16. where it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it cannot but be understood of children of three years of age complete. A nato tres annos & deinceps, as Jun. as if it were said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So also where Aristotle saith, lib. 2. c. 1. de hist. Animal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cervus solus singulis annis abjicit cornua, incipiens [abjicere] a bimatu, & rursus gene at, The Stagg alone casts his horns every year, beginning to cast them, from two years old, and then again he breedeth new ones; it cannot be otherwise understood, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a bimatu expleto, from two years expired, for until that time they cast not their horns, but then immediately in the entrance of their third year, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they again generate new ones, as was said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If therefore the Evangelist had meant children of two years of age complete, he would surely have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A trimatu & infra, from three years old and under, or from a three yearing child and under. For certainly there must be a difference between, A bimatu & infra, and a bimatu & supra. Neither is the Latin manner of speech at all unlike unto the Greeks: For bimus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bimatus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, trimus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have one and the same signification. Bimus, commonly, qui in bimatu est. Bima dies, that is bimatus, tempus biennii, Vall. lib. 4. c. 80. We have also in the vulgar Latin. Isai. c. 15. v. 5. Vitulam conternantem. i e. as Grammarians expound, quae est in complexione tertii anni, that is in the compass of her third year, which with the LXX is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Arabic, vitula trima, as the Latin expounds it. So that from both manner of speeches either Greek or Latin, we must necessarily conclude, that not one two yearing child was slain of Herod, but only those who were one year old complete and under, all who perished to the Babe that was newly born. And now it remains to demonstrate, how this interpretation is more suitable to reason, and the scope of the place. And that especially for this cause, for that Herod slew the children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a Magis, According to the time which he had inquired out of the wise men. And this was the time wherein the Star appeared to them in the East, according to the computation whereof, supposing that Christ was born about that time he slew the children. Now I do not conceive it agreeable to reason to say, that the Star appeared two whole years before the wisemen came to Jerusalem, which notwithstanding some have thought, being I suppose carried away with the Vulgar interpretation. For it is scarce credible, but that the wise men did immediately after the appearing of the Star begin to prepare themselves for their journey, in the expedition whereof they could not have spent two whole years, had they come from the farthest parts of the world, much then surely less if they came no farther then from Arabia, that is conterminous to Judaea. And that they came from thence there are many convincing arguments. First, for that the Text saith, that they came to Jerusalem out of the East. Now that Arabia is scited on the Eastern side of Judaea the Scripture witnesseth in divers places, as Gen. c. 10. v. 30. c. 25. v. 6. and elsewhere. As doth also Tacitus in his description of Judaea, Terra finesque qua ad Orientem vergunt Arabia terminantur, and Ptolomaeus Geograph. lib. 5. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Palestina Judaea Syria terminatur ab Oriente & Meridie Arabia Petraea, etc. Secondly, because there were Magis or Wise men also in Arabia, as Grotius shows by many arguments. Thirdly, They presented gifts singularly proper to that Country, Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh, of the abundance, pureness and excellency of each whereof in that Country you may see the testimonies of various Authors in Bochart. Geograph. sac. par. 1. Nay Grotius affirms, Myrrah non nisi in Arabia nascitur, nec Thus nisi apud Sabaeos Arabum portionem. Myrrh also seems to have its denomination from an Arabic primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mur. Fourthly, because of the prophecies, Psal. 72. v. 10. The Kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts, and v. 15. And there shall be given to him of the gold of Saba; and Isai. c. 60. v. 5. and 6. The riches; or forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee, they shall all come from Sheba, they shall bring gold and incense, and shall show forth the praises of the Lord. These things might be possibly spoken typically of David or Solomon, but primarily surely they looked at Christ, in whom they were truly fulfilled, when the wise men came to worship him. Fifthly, and lastly, the Arabians were doubly Hebrews, descending from Joctan the son of Heber, and from Abraham by Ketura. And for this it is probable enough, that they were better instructed then other Nations concerning the expectation of a Messiah, or that God had more kindness for them, because of their Original, and therefore gave them a more quick and singular notice of the Birth of a Saviour to be born unto the world, that so they might have the pre-eminence to worship him before any other of the Gentiles. According whereto they are styled, Primitiae Gentium, The first fruits of the Nations. If therefore the Wise men came from Arabia, we must fit a time wherein we may determine the Star to have appeared in the East (for that the Star was and appeared locally in the East, and was not only seen at a far distance as far as Jerusalem of the Wise men who were in the East, as some do say, and that they followed it as their guide I do most firmly believe with our most Reverend Primate) from which and in which time the wise men may properly be said to have been in their journey out of Arabia to Jerusalem. Now though Arabia be conterminous to Judaea, yet some parts and regions of it are so far distant from Jerusalem, as that reckoning the Deserts they were to pass, and the preparations and many impediments which use to accompany such long voyages, you may fitly and lawfully allow them for the finishing of their journey about forty weeks, from the beginning of which time it is not at all absurd to conjecture, (Et qui in hac re bene conjiciet hunc vatem ego perhibebo optimum, And who in this matter shall conjecture well, is to be reputed the best Prophet.) that the Star might appear to the wise men, to wit about the time of the salutation of the Virgin, and the Conception of the Redeemer of the world; About which time, wherein the Son of God descended from heaven to become the son of man in the womb of the Virgin, I say again, it is not at all absurd to conjecture that the wise men first saw the Star in the East, and that as soon as ever they had seen it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being warned from above, that the Star portended a King to be born unto the Jews, began forthwith to prepare themselves for their journey to Jerusalem, in the expedition whereof when they had spent about the aforesaid forty weeks, they arrived at that city. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I say, warned from above, for I do not believe they were so skilled in Balaams' Prophecy or the aspect of the stars, that out of them they could know that that Star did portend a King to be born unto the Jews, unless they had been warned and instructed from above, no more than they knew that Herod had it in his mind to slay the child, had they not been first warned by a dream. If then we add to these forty weeks twelve days after the birth of Jesus before the day in which the wise men came to worship him, which time its reasonable enough to guests they might spend in enquiring out where the New born King of the Jews might be, and after that, thirty days of the Purification of Mary according to the law, and the Presentation of her Son in the Temple were passed, about which time its probable the wise men returned into their Country, and allowing farther for their return from Jerusalem to their own City Nazaret when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, Luk. c. 2. v. 39 and from thence back again into Egypt, Matth. c. 2. v. 14. and 16. according to the order of the Chronology of our most reverend Primate, before that Herod saw that he was mocked of the wise men, and became exceeding wroth, and sent and slew the children, six weeks more, you will have in the whole fifty and two weeks, from the time wherein we say that the Star first appeared to the wise men in the East, unto the time wherein Herod slew the children; so that it will not be at all besides the scope of the text to say, That Herod slew all the male children in and about Bethlehem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were under the second year of their age, or from the second year of their age and under, that is, all who had completed the first year of their age and under, according to the time he had diligently inquired of the wise men. But perhaps it may seem more probable, that Herod did not stay so long, as till the year was expired, because that was beyond the time of life, according to the time which he had inquired of the wise men, but that he rather slew them within the space of a year from the appearing of the Star, about which time he thought the King of the Jews was born, some weeks, that so killing all the male children of a year old, he might be the more sure to kill him whom he so much feared. Though he knew according to the time he had learned of the wise men, that he had not yet attained that age. If any man shall question the distribution of the times, I would have him to know, that it was not in our mind to adjust them so exactly, as that there should be no place left for exception or correction, but that it sufficed me, if what I have here proposed have in it in sum a show of truth. Or if any shall contend, as many of the Learned do, that these wise men came from Persia, it is all one to me, whose main design is to demonstrate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that à bimatu, or à bimulo & infra, is not rightly understood but of children who were under the second year of their age. And that the wise men, wheresoever they were in the East, first saw the Star about forty weeks before the Birth of our Saviour, from which and in which time they were coming to Jerusalem, that space of time fitting their journey from some part of Arabia, as well as from some parts of Persia; though for my part I retain the same opinion firmly with Grotius that they came from Arabia. En verò quàm absurdum errorem peperit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille perperam intellectus? But behold how absurd an error this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath begot being not rightly understood? They are the words of Joseph Scaliger, lib. 6. de Emend. Temp. The Error he understood of those who would have Jesus to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, two whole years old when Herod commanded the male children to be slain à Bimatu & infra.  
C. 3. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Appropinquat enim regnum caelorum, For the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. That is, the time of the Gospel, in which Christ the Messiah was to reign. And this kingdom began immediately after the Resurrection of Christ, when God according to his Prophet had raised up Christ in the flesh to sit upon his throne, Act. c. 2. v. 30. Psal. 132. v. 11. From the time he said unto his Apostles, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, etc. Matth. c. 28. v. 18, 19  
V 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth here is no small dispute among Interpreters. But they generally agree that St John did, vesci cibo parabili, feed on such meat or nutriment as nature did offer of herself unto him, without any help of art or cookery, such as was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wild honey he did feed on. And if so, (though for the most part it be translated locusts) surely the tops of the leaves of trees or plants, which some have thought these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to signify, such as were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, siliquae, husks or cod wherewith the Prodigal son desired to fill his belly, Luk. c. 15. v. 16. were a much more Parable food than that of Locusts. Neither have I read that ever any fed on locusts raw, but they were first prepared by some art or cookery, either boiled, or roasted, or dried in the sun, and after that beat to powder, or dried with smoke and salt, or pickled and eaten with oil; none of which arts or cookeries can we reasonably suppose the Baptist used in the wilderness, where he had no fire to serve his turn, and whether he took the pains to dry them in the sun, or to hunt for them in the fields, there being not like to be many in the wilderness, they for the most part frequenting those places which abound with corn, I submit to sober judgements. Whereas the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, siliquae, husks or cod of trees were ready at his hand without the pains of labour, art, or cookery. And that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not locusts, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tops of shrubs or trees, was the confident Opinion of Isidor. Pelus. lib. 1. ep. 5. and 132. Of which opinion also were Paulinus and Nicephorus, and others whom Euthymius and Theophylactus mention, neither did it displease our most Learned Dr Hammond, nor Baronius whose words are these, Haec cum scribat Isidorus, & non nisi majorum authoritate, quid de his sentiendum, definiendum nobis non est, sed totum relinquimus lectoris arbitrio, Nam constat Graecam dictionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & locustam insecti genus infirmas alas habens ad volandum, & summitates herbarum significare. When Isodorus writes these things, and that with the Authority of the Ancients, what is to be thought of them, is not for us to determine, but we leave it all to the reader's choice, For its apparent that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both a kind of insect, that hath weak wings to fly, and the tops of herbs. Besides, that which moves me much, these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I take to be all one with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and are so called because reflexed like a horn, and interpreted by the Latins siliquae, either ex silo propter formae similitudinem, as some would have, because silus appellatur naso sursum versus repando, and so the tops of these leaves likewise are reversed, or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as others, because they have a wooden taste, are and have been anciently with the Germans called, St Johans Brot, that is, St john's bread, as if it were their constant opinion that the Baptist fed on the tops of those trees when he abided in the wilderness. So that for these reasons, what ever is so strongly contradicted, I cannot but think that the version with Baronius is equally as good, if not more proper, And his meat was the tops of the leaves of trees or shrubs and wild honey. Neither did Erasmus, when he had spoken what he could for the maintenance of those who would have locusts here to be understood, confidently assert it, but modestly concluded, Neque haec commemoramus, quod omnino negem hîc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accipi posse pro frutice, aut herbae genere, Neither do we speak this, as if I did altogether deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not here be taken for some shrub or kind of plant. Now that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, husks or cod of the leaves of trees or shrubs in the Countries where they grow, are frequently the food of the poor, and are commonly sold in the streets and Markets in Italy, Spain and Africa, and elsewhere, is abundantly testified by Authors. Among the rest Lobelius hath it in Advers. Multum haec [nempe siliqua] cognita Nicaeae & maris Ligustici accolis, ubi eam esitant pueri etiam & porci, The siliqua is much known to the inhabitants about Nice, and the Ligurian sea, where the boys eat them and also the hogs. And Galen. 2. de Aliment. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Est autem pravi succi edulium & lignosum. Proinde satius est à regionibus Orientalibus in quibus nascitur ad nos non importari, The Keratium is a food of ill juice and woody. Wherefore it were better it were not imported to us out of the Eastern Countries where it grows. And he was of Pergamus in the lesser Asia, on whose side toward the East was Judaea not very far distant, from whence it's very probable they might be imported to Pergamus in the time of Galen, at least from Syria which was conterminous to both, for they were not worth the carriage from far.  
C. 4. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Supra summitatem, Upon the top of the temple. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fastigium or summitas, Hesych. so the  Interpreter. Statuit eum in summitate domus sanctae, He set him on the top of the holy house. Neither was it at that time the business of the Lord to show a miracle, such as is to stand upon the point of a pinnacle, but he was carried by the Tempter to the top of the Temple there to be set in any part thereof, from whence he might be tempted to cast himself down headlong. The leads or battlements being a sufficient precipice for the Devil's purpose.  
V 7. Jesus said unto him, it is written again. But to my apprehension its better distinguished and translated thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jesus said again unto him, it is written. No readier way to stop the Tempter's mouth, then with a scriptum est.  
C. 5. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the place of a conjunction causal, as it sounds in the English translation, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, etc. But it is an adverb of likeness, which directly answers to the similitude which went immediately before, so that properly it is to be rendered as it stands in the Greek, A city that is set on a hill, cannot be hid, Neither do men light a candle and put it under a tub or bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the room, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In like manner, or even so let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven.  
V 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments. So most interpreters, as if there were some remarkable Emphasis in the expression, these least commandments. But I can by no means think, that Christ did either affect or intent any extraordinary elegance of speech in these words, but that he spoke in the common phrase and obvious sense, so as it ought to be rendered by a familiar transposition of the words, Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, etc. The very same with that c. 25. v. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which we translate, Unto one of the least of these my brethren.  
V 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away. And so accordingly is it in most Translations. But how in construction the words can possibly be rendered so, I do not see. And therefore suppose they should be rather translated thus. Put, or turn him not away that desireth to borrow of thee. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it be the passive voice, yet may it have, as many other passives have in the New Testament, an Active signification, and so we find it hath, Psal. 132. v. 10. Where Symmachus reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Turn not away the face of thine anointed, as our English according to the Hebrew read it.  
C. 6. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They have their reward. Yet in the foregoing verse 'tis said, if ye do your alms to be seen before men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye have no reward, or rather the present being put for the future, Ye shall have no reward from your father which is in heaven. Why then should it be said in the immediately following words, that hypocrites who do the same thing with the same purpose to be seen of men, have their reward? Is not this a contradiction? Surely its more agreeable to the context and to reason, that if any do their alms in the streets or Synagogues, that they may have the glory of men, such persons should be said rather not to have, that is to lose, then to have their reward. To reconcile therefore these words in either verse to one and the same sense, I would translate these latter words quite different from the former. Verily I say unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They forbidden or hinder their reward. By seeking the praise of men, they forbidden their reward from God, from whom its no reason they should expect any, when they did their alms before men to be seen of them, v. 1. I am not ignorant, that the first and common sense is endeavoured to be salved with a proper (as some think) distinction. That is, They have a worldly and perishing reward, but not an heavenly and during one. But what need is there of so faint a sense, or forced distinction, if the sense be plain without it, and the use of words do lawfully bear it? But certainly the use of words will bear it, for with all Lexicographers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify one and the same thing, that is, to forbid or hinder. And in this sense by the leave of the Learned Beza and Grotius, would Plutarch, who I suppose never dreamt of the distinction of a worldly and heavenly reward, have the same word understood in his Solon, where relating something which seemed hard by the sanction of the laws, to wit, that those who were born of harlots were not bound by the law to nourish or relieve their Parents, as they were who were legitimately born. He gives the reason in the words following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words that they may mutually agree, must necessarily be translated thus, For he that despiseth the honour of marriage, doth plainly show, he used not a woman for children's sake, but for his lust, and forbids his reward, and hath not left himself the liberty to speak to those he hath begot, whose very being he hath made their shame. In that he hath not left himself the liberty to speak to those he hath begot, he forbids or hinders his reward, to wit, of alimony, the very thing in question, which it was free for the Parents to have required of all their children that were honestly born. I find the same word likewise in the same Author, in his book of the failing of Oracles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nothing hinders the spirit of divination, etc. As also in Dion. Halic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No fear shall hinder me from speaking what I think. Since therefore there is so good authority for the use of the word in this sense, and that it agrees so well with the context, and needs no strained distinction for its explanation, I see no reason, why it should not be so accordingly translated, Verily I say unto you, they hinder their reward. For surely it is a vanity to fly to a mystical sense, where we have a literal. And thus I suppose 'tis necessary to determine in all the Parallel places where the word is used.  
C. 9 v. 5, 6. The common pointing and inconvenient division of the verses together with the parenthesis do so involve the sense, that it was not without cause that Erasmus said orationem esse duriusculam, That it was a harsh kind of speech. For remedy whereof, it is but pointing and distinguishing thus, v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For which is easier, to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk, but that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins? Then saith he to the sick of the Palsy, arise, take up thy bed, and walk. The sense being plainly this, as if he should have said in a few more words, Jesus knowing their thoughts, that they said within themselves, that he blasphemed because he said to the sick of the Palsy, thy sins are forgiven thee, saith unto them, it is all one to me to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or take up thy bed and walk, but only that you may know that the Son of man hath power to forgive sins upon earth, therefore I said unto the sick of the Palsy, thy sins are forgiven thee. And then fitly follows, Then saith he to the sick of the Palsy, etc.  
V 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Filia mea modo defuncta est, Vet. and Beza, My daughter is even now dead, in our Own: but I conceive the Translation were more proper, My daughter is even or almost dead. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nigh, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is presently to come, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is present, as Phavorinus tells us. So in the parallel places, Mar. c. 5. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Extremè habet, or as the Aethiop. and Arab. morti vic●…a est, or as our English, lieth at the point of death, and Luk. c. 8. v. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & ea moriebatur, as the Interlineary and Old Translation hath it, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, erat moribunda, as the Syriack and Aethiopick have it, or as we interpret it, and she lay a dying. And that she was not altogether dead when the Ruler spoke unto Jesus is abundantly manifest by all three stories.  
V 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tibicines, the Minstrels or Players on the Flute or Pipe. That Flutes or Pipes were used in Funerals among the Heathen, we have the testimony of Ovid. 
Cantabat maestis tibia funeribus.  
In funerals the Flute is sung.  and Artemidorus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To sound with Pythian Flutes betokens mourning. Which custom to be in use among the Jews Jeremy doth seem to intimate, in his Lamentation for the destruction of Moab, c. 48. v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My heart shall sound like Pipes for the men of Kirheris, that is with a mourning sound such as the Minstrels make in Funerals. Such you may suppose to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mourners that go about the streets, Eccles. c. 12. v. 5. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mourning Women, Jerem. c. 9 v. 17. So Joseph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews are said upon the report of his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have hired Minstrels who began their lamentations to them. As the mourning Women in the forementioned place of Jeremy, were to be called to take up a wailing for them. But that which concerns this place most, is that of Servius upon Virgil, Majoris aetatis funera ad tubam proferebantur, minoris ad tibiam, The Funerals of the Elder sort were ushered with the Trumpet, those of the Younger with the Flute, or that of Statius, 
Tibia cui teneros suetum producere manes  
Pelopen monstrasse ferebant  
Exequiale sacrum carmenque minoribus umbris Utile.  
The Flute to usher wont the tender Ghosts  
They say that Pelops taught  
This mystery and charm for lesser souls.  For this Daughter of the Ruler, on whose Funerals the Minstrels were now ready to wait, is called in this place of Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little maid. Mar. c. 5. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his little daughter. and Luk. c. 8. v. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, About Twelve years of age.  
C. 10. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide. That is, worthy with whom ye should abide, siletur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is intended, is suppressed, and understood by the words subsequent or preceding. So Matth. 22.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They which were bidden were not worthy, that is, of the Wedding Feast which was prepared. For they would not come, but went their way one to his Farm another to his Trade. So Apocal. 3.4. They shall walk with me in white Robes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Because they are worthy so to do for that they have not defiled their Garments, & 16.6. Thou hast given them Blood to drink, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For they are worthy to drink Blood, because they have shed the Blood of the Saints, etc.  
C. 11. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et justificata est sapientia à filiis suis, But wisdom is justified of her children. The proper meaning whereof, or at least a good one, having relation to the Context is very difficult to unfold. Why therefore may it not be better Translated thus? And This wisdom is justified of her children, to wit of the Scribes and Pharisees who thought themselves the only Children or Sons of Wisdom, who sat in the chair of Moses, and loved to be called Rabbi, these were they that justified this Wisdom, that would not attend unto the voice of those that exhorted them to repentance, who said that John had a Devil, and that Jesus was a friend of Publicans and sinners. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Examples whereof you may see, c. 15. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, audito isto sermone, when they heard this saying. c. 19 v. 22. the same. Gal. c. 5. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ista persuasio, this persuasion cometh not from him that calleth you, and so elsewhere.  
C. 12. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And he shall preach judgement unto the Gentiles. The words following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he shall not strive, etc. unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till he bring forth his judgement in victory, being to be included in a Parenthesis, so that the sense and cohaerence must be this, He shall preach judgement unto the Gentiles, till he bring forth his judgement in victory, or for ever, as that phrase doth frequently signify with the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By judgement he seems to mean his law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the administration of his Church, that is, his Gospel, so Procopius upon Isaiah. The sum whereof is this, that Christ shall cause his Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles, till he exalt it in triumph over Heathenism; or for ever, that is so that it shall endure for ever, all Nations being converted to the same. The intervenient words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He shall not strive, etc. showing only his great meekness and tenderness in doing of it.  
V 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Smoking Flax he shall not quench. But Flax is here put by a Metonymy for a Lamp which is made of Flax. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some interpret extinctioni vicinum, near to going out, others, caligans, as we say in English, twinkling, and others moribundum, dying, which all express the same meaning. So that to speak to the capacity of the vulgar, it ought to be Translated thus, He will not extinguish or put out the dying Lamp. Wilt thou break a leaf driven to and fro? and wilt thou pursue the dry stubble? Job c. 13. v. 25.  
V 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Through dry places, that is, through desert places, and so reads the  Interpreter, per desertum through the desert. So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies solitudo, a desert, the Greek Interpreters for the most part render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Psal. 106. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And they tempted God in the desert, and Isai. c. 43. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will make a way in the wilderness, and Rivers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the desert. Our Saviour seems to speak this Parable, as many times he doth, to the sense and opinion of the Vulgar, which probably was the same, that Psellus makes mention of in his book of Devils, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod versentur in locis maxime caecis, quae extreme frigida sunt & sicca, That they abide in the most blind places which are extremely cold and dry: who also saith, that there is a certain kind of Devils cold and dry, which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lucisugi, haters of the light. Where by the way we must observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are synonymous. The Devils also with the Syriacks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vastavit, because they abide in waist and desert places, as Schindler observes. And that this opinion was not vain, we may gather from that place of Matthew, where our Saviour is said to be led into the wilderness or desert to be tempted of the Devil.  
C. 13. v. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Occuluit, Vet. Abscondit, Beza. Our English, he hideth. But surely 'tis more significant to say, The which when a man had found he concealed it. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify, celo, as well as, abscondo, to conceal, as well as, to hid. And to be ingenuous the sense requires it. For the Treasure was already hid, which being found the man concealed it, lest it should be known to others. And it had been a vain thing to have hid a new, that which was hid before, and therefore he concealed it.  
C. 16. v. 28. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. This place can scarce mystically be understood, by no means literally, but of the coming of the Son of man to the Destruction of Jerusalem, who then may truly be said to come in his Kingdom, when he came to Triumph over his enemies the Jews, by taking a severe and just vengeance of them. Of his Resurrection, which also is called his Kingdom, it reasonably cannot. For what wonder were it, if some of the standers by should live to see him coming in his Resurrection, which came to pass in so short a time? But if any of them should live to see the Destruction of Jerusalem, which happened so many years after his Passion, that might deserve the notice. And that some of the standers by when our Saviour spoke those words, did remain alive to that very day is true and known And in this sense it is true, Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, c. 24. v. 34. Neither before this time of his coming did the Disciples go over all the Cities of Israel, c. 10. v. 23. And in this sense did John among others remain alive till Christ came, whereof see more, Joh. c. 21. v. 22.  
C. 17. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et consummabit omnia, And shall finish all things. The words are literally spoken of Elias, but by our Saviour interpreted to be meant of John the Baptist. And this version seems to me more agreeable, then that which is commonly received, Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. My reason is, because in John the Law and the Prophets had their end. For the Law and the Prophets were until John, from that time the Kingdom of God is preached, Luk. c. 16. v. 6. and Matth. c. 11. v. 12, 13. so that he may more properly be said to finish all things then to restore. And therefore 'tis said in the last forementioned chapter, v. 11. Among them that are born of women there hath not Risen a greater [Prophet] then John Baptist, notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of heaven, is greater than he. That is, the least Apostle or Disciple under the Gospel, is greater, [for he knew more of the counsel of God and the mystery of Godliness] then the greatest Rabbi or Prophet under the Law. And surely in this sense it is more fit (which is something to the confirming of our Opinion in this place) to translate the same word, Act. c. 3. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quem oportet quidem coelum recipere usque ad tempora consummationis omnium, Whom the heavens must contain until the times of the consummation of all things, that is, to the end of the world, when he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consummatio, Hesych. and Phavor. and in both I conceive misprinted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To finish, perfect, or consummate.  
C. 19 v. 28. This verse may be pointed thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the Throne of his glory, even ye shall sit upon Twelve Thrones judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Renascentia, that is, in Resurrectione, in the Resurrection. So Munster, Haec Secunda generatio est Resurrectio mortuorum. So Augustin, Regenerationem quippe hoc loco, ambigente nullo, novissimam Resurrectionem vocat. Neither should our Lord himself been styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The first born from the dead, unless the Resurrection had been accounted a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a kind of new Nativity. As Philo Judaeus, when the world was as it were born again after the flood, calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
C. 22. v. 32. God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Our Saviour speaks not this as to the present State of Souls, but he brings it as an argument of the Resurrection of the dead, which is so certain and to God already present, as in the parallel place of Luk. c. 20. v. 38. For all live unto him, that he is in present called the God of the living, meaning those that are dead, that is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who in the last day and not till then shall rise in glory. So as the words plainly and strongly intimate, that there is but one only proper Resurrection of the Soul and Body, against those who would have the Fathers of the Old Testament to have risen and ascended with Christ.  
C. 24. v. 22. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved, but for the Elects sake those days shall be shortened. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Non servaretur ulla caro. The most received exposition of this place is this. The mutual slaughters in Jerusalem (of which Christ did now forespeak) were so many and so cruel, that unless the siege of the City had been extremely hastened, there had not been one Person therein left alive, but they had all killed one another, and utterly destroyed themselves. In consideration whereof God having his chosen one's in the City, whom he was willing to save out of the common calamity, or judgement, put it into the hearts of Titus and Vespasian to hasten the siege by all means possible, and so to shorten the days of Jerusalem's destruction. But there may be another sense likewise given of the place, not a whit less probable or proper, taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Scripture phrase, And except those days had been shortened, that is, the days of Jerusalem's destruction, no flesh, that is not one Jew had been saved, but they had all eternally perished. For as long as their Temple stood, and the Jewish Sacrifices and Ceremonies remained, it was such a stumbling block to the whole Nation, that almost all did stumble at it, neither were they few who for that very cause and scruple became Apostates from the Christian faith, which they had once embraced, supposing the Old Religion to be the truer, because God permitted their Temple and Sacrifices to continue, of the certain and short destruction and abolishment whereof they had been taught in the Christian faith. For which cause also, as well as for their Persecutions sake, the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exhort them, c. 10. v. 25. that they would not forsake their Assemblies, as the manner of some was, but that they would exhort one another [to stand steadfast in the faith] and that so much the more, because they saw the day approaching, that is, the day of decurtation, the day of the destruction of Jerusalem, and desolation of the Temple drawing nigh; for so that day here and elsewhere, as also the coming of the Lord, and the end of all things do all relate unto the Destruction of Jerusalem. Because therefore God had his Elect among them, whom he would have saved, that this stumbling stone might be taken away, it pleased him to hasten the day of his coming, and to cut short the time of the Destruction and desolation of Jerusalem.  
V 28. Wheresoever the Carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. You have the same Proverbial speech, Job c. 39 v. 30. Where the slain are there is she, meaning the Eagle. And here I cannot but take notice of the happiness of his exposition, who gives this meaning of the place. The Carcase is the Jews who lay dead in their sins, and by the Eagles are meant the Roman Armies, who for every Legion bore two Eagles for their Ensign, so that the word Eagles became often used by Poets and Historians for the Roman Armies, Nath. Ward. And in my opinion this seems to agree much more with the scope of the place, then that of others who liken our Saviour to a dead carcase, on which Christians like ravenous Eagles should make their prey. For to speak plainly. Quid hoc ad Rhombum? What is this to the purpose? But as it is easy to add to what already is invented, we may perhaps with better reason suppose that by this Carcase may be meant the Jewish State and Government, which now by reason of the many destructions among themselves, and their oppression under the Roman power, lay plainly dead as is a Carcase. And so as Eagles and Birds of prey do usually out of a supernatural sagacity follow Armies in expectation of the prey of the dead bodies after the fight, so should the Roman Armies prefigured in those Eagles, whose pourtractures they carried in their Banners, be gathered together in that place, where the Jewish State lay now as dead and helpless as is a Carcase, in hope and expectation of the spoil. And so our Saviour, Luk. c. 17. v. 37. the Disciples ask where? expressly answers, Where the body is, thither will the Eagles be gathered together. Particularly denoting the place where those things of which he spoke before should happen, to wit, the desolation and sudden destruction of the Jews, which could be no where else but in Jerusalem.  
C. 26. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad sepeliendum me, She did it for my burial. More properly, ad funerandum, she did it for my funeral. So Mark c. 14. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Antevertit tempus ungendi corpus mecum ad funus, it should be also rendered, She is come aforehand to Anoint my body to its funeral, and not unto its burying. For in the Glossary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is funero, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signify the Rites of funerals, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 burial. For in the Rites of funeration they did use to anoint the dead body with Aromatic Spices and Ointments, before they buried them. And so was it the Jewish custom to perform their funerals, Joh. c. 19 v. 40.  
C. 27. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This word is used here in the Hebrews Hiphil, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redire fecit, he caused to return, and so in our English dialect might be properly and Significantly Translated, He returned the Thirty pieces of Silver to the High Priests. In which sense the same word is used before, c. 26. v. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Return thy Sword into its place.  
V 9, 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As to the name of Jeremy I suppose it is a mistake, or slip of oversight or memory. As to the words in General, which as they are commonly Translated, do by no means agree with one another, methinks as now distinguished in the Greek do most perfectly answer each to other. For our Evangelist doth not entirely or precisely cite either Greek or Hebrew, but renders only the sense which perfectly agrees with that of Zachary c. 11. v. 13. The words being expounded according as here the points are varied, without disturbing the construction (as it is in all Translations now disturbed) or common reading, and that word for word neither rendering more or less than is in the Greek. Et accepi Triginta argenteos (pretium aestimati quem aestimarunt) à filiis Israel, qui vel & illi dederunt eos pro agro figuli, quemadmodum praecepit mihi dominus, And I took [in the first Person and Singular Number] the Thirty pieces of Silver, (the price of him that was prized) of the children of Israel, who, or and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me. That is, [to make the construction agree] I took, and not as formerly they took the Thirty pieces of Silver of the children of Israel as the Lord commanded me, and they gave them for the potter's field. The words in the Parenthesis being only appositive to the words going immediately before. And thus the construction is salved, the incoherence avoided, and the sense cleared. Those words, As the Lord commanded me, rightly answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the first Person of the Singular Number, as the Prophet Zachary also reads, c. 11. v. 13. And the Lord said unto me, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And I took the Thirty pieces of Silver and cast them [as it is here in Matth. said immediately before, that Judas cast them down in the Temple] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in domo domini pro conflatorio, into the house of the Lord for the Potter's Forge, by the same Licence that Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by, in this very place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro agro figuli, for the Potter's field, that is, that the Children of Israel, to wit, the Chief Priests might give them for the Potter's field, as it is expressly said, they did, v. 7. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is and may be thus used and interpreted is abundantly common, though rarely observed. You may take these few examples in this place instead of many, Luk. c. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the English render it, And he went and joined himself to a Citizen of that Country and he sent him into his fields, though Beza Translate it, Qui misit eum, Who sent him. Ruth c. 1. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Nunquid ultra mihi filii in ventre meo, qui erunt vobis in viros? Are there yet any more Sons in my womb that, or who may be your husbands? or and shall they be your husbands? In which place it seems to be an Hebraism, for the Hebrew reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And you may find the like, 2 Kings c. 23. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et abiit Rex Josiah in occursum ejus qui, or & ille occidit eum in Megiddo, And King Josiah went against him, who, or and he slew him in Megiddo, that is Pharaoh Necho slew him. You may see the same phrase in later writers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Statim enim in proaemio dicis, O viri Latini, quod est inassuetum, For thou sayest immediately in thy proem, O men of Rome, which is unusual, or not familiar, Sgurop. You have it also in Plutarch in his Timoleon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Monstrarunt eas militibus, qui vel & illi ad precandum deos conversi sunt, They shown them the soldiers, who, or and they turned to supplicate their Gods. See likewise, Mark c. 1. v. 9 and 10. Acts c. 6. v. 6. John c. 15. v. 6.   

ANNOTATIONS ON S. Mark.  
Ch. 3. v. 19, 20, 21.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By the most received Translations Jesus is said to be besides himself. An Interpretation (if it be lawful so to speak) unbeseeming the sacredness of his Person, especially when a more probable one may be given. Thus, Et veniunt in domum, & convenit iterum turba, adeo ut ne panem quidem edere possent, & audientes quidam ab eo exiverunt, ut eam sisterent, dicebant enim quod insaniret, And they went into an house, and the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread, and some hearing of it went out from him, to stay it, for they said, it was mad. To wit, the multitude was mad, which for the vehement desire they had to come near to Jesus, did so violently press upon them, that they could not eat their Bread. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as generally it is made, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth frequently signify, cohibere, or sistere, to restrain or to stay. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be by a common trajection either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some hearing of it, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and some from him when they heard it, that is, that the multitude was so mad to press unto him, went out to stay them, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Grammarians are nuncii tui, or abs te missi, Your Messengers or some sent for you. Besides, Jesus was within the house, so that it cannot be fitly said, that they who heard it went out of the house to hold Him that was within the house. And to say that his Kindred went out of their dwellings to hold him, is neither proper nor probable, for how could the fame of the people's thronging him, or the news of his being besides himself, come so suddenly to them, that they could so soon meet together? And if this perchance might possibly have been, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, advenerunt, they came, had been much more proper than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exiverunt they went out, which is the Genuine signification of the word, notwithstanding the learned Beza endeavours to maintain the other by examples that truly move not my faith at all, it being more credible with me, that the Evangelist spoke in the common dialect rather than in an unwonted phrase, especially when the sense agreeth with the context. And I cannot but extremely wonder, why Learned men do so much labour to explode this interpretation (when the common one is so deservedly misliked) which agrees with the sense, construction, custom of speech, and what is more than all, with the Parallel places in Matth. c. 12. v. 23. and Luke c. 11. v. 14. so perfectly as nothing can do more. For in Matth. it is expressly said in the very word, sense, place and time as all agree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obstupuit tota turba, that is, as Beza interprets it, for admiration were besides themselves; or as we render it, were amazed. In this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the multitude was beside itself, or mad. In Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mirata est turba, And the people wondered. When therefore the sense agrees punctually in all Three Evangelists with all the circumstances relating to the story, as you may there compare, what man can reasonably doubt but one and the same word ought to be understood and to relate in Mark as it doth in Matthew, there being only this difference, Matthew hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Passive voice in the Plural, and Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular Number in the Active voice. Both whom Luke interprets in a word Synonymous. For in Hesych. and Phavor. you shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So as the one place must in all reason be an Expositor to the other, which mention all the same time, place and thing.  
V 29, 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the present for the future, as in Matth. c. 26. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will keep the Passover at thy house, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is surely more, then, in danger, as it is expressed in the English, for its possible to scape from danger, but he shall never have forgiveness, neither in this world nor in that to come, Matth. 12. v. 32. It were better therefore rendered guilty of, or subject to eternal damnation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. The sense of the whole is this, Because they said he had an unclean spirit, therefore our Saviour tells them, that whosoever sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness but is guilty of eternal damnation, that is, bound to suffer eternal judgement. For their sin was therefore unpardonable, because they said it of set malice, who when they could not but acknowledge that the miracles he wrought were done by the operation of the power of the divine spirit, did notwithstanding against the very dictates of the holy Spirit to their conscience say, he did them by the Devil, and by the Prince of the Devils, merely out of spite, to the end they might turn away the people from following of him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Obligatus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Obligatio, Gloss. Vet.  
C. 4. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cum autem se tradat fructus, But when the fruit offers or shows itself, that is, ready to be reaped. For it is not properly called fructus, fruit, dum fruendo sit paratus, till it be ready to be reaped and gathered into the barn, as Varro and Donatus observe: Then doth a man immediately put in his sickle, for the harvest is come. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fruit, comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to dry, which being ripe is so dry as that it will grow no more with any wet. So that properly the corn, is not called fruit, till it be so ripe, that it will grow no more, and then 'tis time for the Husbandman to put in his Sickle.  
C. 7. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye fairly reject the commandment of God. It is spoken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abusively, by way of Irony. Or it may be read with an interrogation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And he said unto them, Do ye well to reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition?  
C. 9 v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elias quidem veniens primo consummat omnia, etiam, quomodo scriptum est de filio hominis, ut multa patiatur & pro nihilo habeatur, Elias verily coming first finisheth all things, even, as it is written of the son of man, that he may suffer many things and be set at nought. Concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, see Matth. c. 17. v. 11.  
V 22, 23, 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Interpreters in this place for the most part pass by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which methinks there is an Emphasis by no means to be pretermitted. That therefore the Emphasis may not be lost, neither the Syntax violated, I would have the words distinguished as above and Translated thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sed si quid potes, succurre nobis miserescens nostri, Jesus vero dixit ei, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; si potes? crede tu, omnia credenti possibilia, But if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us and help us. But Jesus said unto him, If thou canst? do thou believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here taken materialiter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and supposeth the matter whereof it was spoken, and that was a question of the power of Christ. For the Father having before brought his son to his Disciples who could not heal him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of their unbelief, as our Saviour tells them Matth. c. 17. v. 14. doubted probably whether Christ himself could do it, and therefore put the question to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if thou canst do any thing, for thy Disciples cannot, have compassion on us. Whereto our Saviour replies shortly by way of objurgation or exprobration, as it were upbraiding his incredulity with indignation: as if he should say, What dost thou doubt whether I can or no? dost thou say, if thou canst? believe thou, and despair not of my power, for all things are possible to be done for him that believeth. They are the words of our Saviour to the Centurion, As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee, Matth. 8.13. see the like c. 9 v. 22, and 29. and elsewhere. And that this is so; the following words do strongly argue. For immediately the Father of the child being struck with the Reprehension, cried out and said with tears, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. It was the only time that ever question was made to Christ of his power by any who came to be healed of him, whose common address was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord if thou wilt thou canst make me clean, Matth. c. 8. v. 2. or as it is v. 8. Speak the word only, and my Servant shall be healed. No question of his power, but they implored his will, and therefore no marvel at all, if Christ upbraided here the Father of the child for his incredulity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the accent, may be either the first Aorist of the Imperative mood of the middle voice, or the Infinitive of the Active, understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is often frequent.  
C. 11. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nondum enim erat tempus ficuum, For the time of Figs was not yet. If ever that famous Person said any thing to the purpose, certainly his emendation here is very opportune, by changing of the accents, the aspirate into a dence (for the accent is not of the Author) and reading, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so very frequent, Ubi enim erat, erat tempus Ficuum, For where he was, was the time of Figs. And so this History doth perfectly square, if applied to the Jews, of whom it was reasonable for God to expect some fruit, if from any place in the world, for there, was even an inexcusable time for Fruit. But it had been very hard for Our Saviour to have cursed the innocent Tree, if in that place at that time had not been the time of Figs. Surely neither time nor place was wanting to the Jews. Neither can I find in any Author Sacred or Profane, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signified a fruitful year, as some would have it, so as it might be lawfully Translated, Non fuit tempus ferax Ficuum, It was not a fruitful time of Figs, or according to our English phrase, It was not a Fig year. And yet suppose this to be granted, it had not been less hard to have cursed the Tree, when it was not a seasonable year, than if it had not yet been the time of Figs.  
C. 12. v. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Beza saith, there is a Solaecism in these words, and that to make construction between these and the former words, it ought to have been in the Genitive case, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But surely there is no such cause or necessity. For it is an ordinary Elleipsis, frequent almost in every Page, to understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beware of the Scribes which love to go in long clothing, who devour widows houses and for a pretence make long prayers. You may find the like Luke c. 6. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where you must likewise understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And of them he chose Twelve. And Act. c. 24. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood, For we have found this man. You shall have it likewise in the Hebrew, Psal. 4. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, multi dicunt, many say, multi dicentes. Pagnin.  
C. 14. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And having shaken the cruse together, she poured it on his head. The common version is by no means proper, And having broke the box, etc. For if she had broke the vessel whatever it was, how could she have poured it on his head, but most if not all of it had been spilt? Neither is it said in Matth. that she broke it. Concussit therefore, or conquassavit, She took or jogged it together, either that the oil or ointment might give the more pleasing and fragrant smell, or that she might be the surer to pour out all, and let nothing stick to the bottom. For in the old Glossary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concutio, and in Phavor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conquassat, that is, shakes together. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A vessel which hath no ears or handle whereby to take hold of it. Such as are at this day our Jars of Oil: from a privative and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To take hold of: or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vas olearium, or Ampulla unguentaria, such as we commonly call a cruse.   

ANNOTATIONS ON S. Luke.  
Ch. 1. v. 54, 55.  
THESE two verses as they are Translated in the English, may pass for good construction, but then, to express the proper meaning of the place, these words, [as he spoke to our Fathers] must be included in a Parenthesis alone, the words following [to Abraham and his seed for ever] relating necessarily to [by remembering his mercy.] Thus, He hath helped his servant Israel by remembering his mercy (as he spoke to our Fathers) to Abraham and to his seed for ever. That is, by remembering his mercy to Abraham, and to his seed for ever, as he spoke to our Fathers. And not as he spoke to our Fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever. As if [to Abraham] were oppositive to [Fathers] as the Parenthesis implies in the Greek Edition, and the Translation in the Latin. Which though it seem a very nicety, yet is it such a Solaecism in all Translations especially in the Latin, that I cannot but wonder at the inadvertency of former times, I may say stupidity, that could possibly couple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative and the Ablative together, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were oppositive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having little to salve the irregularity of the construction, but by saying, that Luke varied his form of speech, that is in plain terms, he writ incongruously, when in truth he is acknowledged by all Expositors too knowing in the Greek to commit such a Solaecism. Infallibly therefore the words must be pointed thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et sublevavit filium suum Israel, reminiscendo misericordiam (ut locutus est ad patres nostros) Abrahamo & semini ejus in aeternum. The very words for more abundant confirmation are almost verbatim taken out of the last chapter of Micah the last verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dabis veritatem Jacob, misericordiam Abraham, quae jurasti patribus nostris à diebus antiquis, Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham which thou hast sworn unto our Fathers from the days of old. The very thing is now fulfilled by remembering his mercy to Abraham and to his seed for ever, which was before foretold, to wit, the calling of the Gentiles, Psal. 98. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Recordatus est misericordiae suae Jacobo, etc. He hath remembered his mercy to Jacob, and his truth toward the house of Israel, all the ends of the earth have seen the Salvation of our God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Micah, no question was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fault of the Transcriber, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which agreeth with the Hebrew, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jurasti, in the second person, which immediately follows.  
C. 2. v. 34, 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against (yea a sword shall pierce through thy soul) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And to this reading are conformable all Interpreters. But there is no perfect agreement among them in the meaning of the Parenthesis. Some interpret it of a Sword of sorrow that should pierce the Mother's heart, when she saw the bitter passion of her Son; others of a Sword of diffidence, that struck her through the heart, that is, she was overwhelmed with a distrust, that her Son should be the Son of God, when she saw him die, until she was by his Resurrection afterward restored and confirmed in her faith. Others of a Sword of calumny and reproach, which the unbelieving Jews did cast upon her Son, that did pierce her soul. And for the propriety of the Metaphor they have each Interpreter his precedent to his peculiar sense. But take which of the senses you please, they are not easily without some straining applicable to the scope of the place, and therefore the words seem to be abruptly interposed, being as it were severed with a Parenthesis from the context. And this hath made me with submission to conceive, there may be another reading and interpretation, which will better reconcile the sense, without any Parenthesis at all, in manner, thus, Ecce positus est hic in casum & resurrectionem multorum in Israel, & in signum cui contradicetur, & tui ipsius gladius pertransibit animam, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes. Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against, and even thy Sword shall pierce their soul, that the thoughts of many may be revealed. As if it were read by a familiar trajection. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And to speak ingenuously the Translation and the Syntax is as lawful and as regular as the other, if not more proper. Whether the sense be fit, I shall leave to indifferent judgements. It plainly and clearly runneth thus, And that the thoughts of the hearts of many may be discovered, even thy Sword shall pierce their soul. That is, the word of God that shall proceed out of thy mouth, which shall be more penetrating than the sharpest Sword, shall pierce through the souls of many, so that it shall reveal the inmost secrets of their hearts. So Heb. c. 4. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sermo dei vivus & efficax, & acutior gladio qui binas habet acies, etc. For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than a two edged Sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. So, as we have here in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a two edged Sword, have we, Revel. c. 1. v. 16. A sharp two edged Sword, and c. 19 v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sharp Sword, the very word used in this place, which as Grotius saith, is Evangelicus sermo ex Christi ore proficiscens qui intimo penetrate, etc. The Evangelical word proceeding out of the mouth of Christ which penetrates the inmost parts, and discerns not only our actions, but our very thoughts whether good or evil. So Ephes. c. 6. v. 17. We have the Sword of the spirit which is the word of God. And what marvel if the Mother of our Lord with this Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God proceeding out of her mouth should so pierce the hearts of many, as that they should be forced to disclose the inmost secrets of their hearts, by confessing of their sins and acknowledging the ignorance of their ways? Who can question, but that Divine Canticle of hers, I mean her Magnificat, did melt and pierce the souls of all that heard it? And to confirm the propriety of the Metaphor in this sense, We have a Tongue that's like a sharp Razor, Psal. 52. v. 2. and words that were drawn Swords, Psal. 55. v. 21. and a Tongue that's a sharp Sword, Psal. 57 v. 4.  
C. 3. v. 19, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And beyond all the Evils which Herod had done, he added yet this above all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prae omnibus cupere, To desire above all things. Dion. Halic.  
V 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. These words seem to me to be rendered most significantly by trajection, as if it were read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And Jesus was about Thirty years of age, he himself beginning, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning his Genealogy, to wit, on his Father's side by reckoning upward, as Matthew recounted that on his Mother's side by reckoning downward, where he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last. For it is not properly or significantly said that Jesus began to be about such an age, it being either tautologous or dubious. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, About, signifieth a time indefinite, either above or under such a time. As for such trajections, they are most abundantly frequent, as you may see, Animad. Act. 13.27. 2 Cor. 4.4. 1 Pet. 3.21.  
C. 5. v. 14. And he charged him to tell no man, but go and show thyself, etc. That there is an incoherence in the construction of these words, is evident enough. And yet in the Greek the sense and Syntax are both good, and so may be also rendered in the English. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And he charged him, remember, or see thou tell no man, but go and show thyself to the Priest. By a common Elleipsis the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be understood before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As it is in the Parallel story, in Math. c. 8. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as the same phrase is Translated in the English, Act. c. 23 v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. having charged him, see thou tell no man, that thou hast showed these things unto me. See Act. c. 1. v. 4.  
C. 6. v. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 'tis true the common version suits well enough with the place. Et mutuum date nihil inde sperantes, And lend hoping for nothing again. But 'tis as true, which Beza saith, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this signification is not to be found in any Author, and therefore I conceive 'tis fit to use another, which as to the sense suits with the Context well enough, but is much more agreeable to the dialect of the Greeks. With whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth frequently signify in the Hebrews Hiphil, desperare facere, to make desperate. In which sense the Syriack, Arabic, and Persian Interpreters seem all to have understood it, whereof the last most properly reads, Ne quempiam desperabundum faciatis, as if it had been written in the Greek with an Apostrophe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Neminem desperare facientes, Love your enemies, and do good and lend causing no man to despair. And in this sense may you find the word, Isai. c. 29. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Desperati homines implebuntur laetitia, Desperate men shall be filled with gladness. And Ecclesiast. c. 27. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui autem denudavit mysteria desperavit, i. e. desperare fecit, He that hath revealed secrets makes men to despair of him, as it is in the Roman Edition; and in Stephanus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Desperare faciens Parentes reditum, Causing his Parents to despair of his return. And so we have in Pliny lib. 22. cap. 24. Vulnera desperantia, Wounds that make the Chirurgeon to despair the cure. And this I take to be the proper reading and Genuine signification in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Neminem desperare facientes, Causing no man to despair.  
C. 7. v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spreverunt voluntatem dei erga semetipsos. By a frequent trajection, But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the will of God toward themselves, who would have had them called to repentance by the Preaching and Baptism of John the Baptist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych.  
C. 11. v. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot but differ from Interpreters in the Translation and meaning of these words, which I rather render thus, Immo quae insunt date Eleemosynam, & ecce omnia vobis erunt munda, But give you the things that are within for alms, and behold all shall be clean unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phav. And this sense the scope of the place requires. For in allusion to what is said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify one and the same thing, and so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Parallel place in Matthew c. 23. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purga prius quod intus est poculi, ut id quoque quod extra est fiat purum, Clean first that which is within the cup, that is as here, Give you first the things that are within for alms, that the outside may be clean also, that is also as is here, and behold all shall be clean unto you, the sense requiring the same interpretation in both places being Parallel. So as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily be Translated here as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there. The meaning of the place being thus, Ye Pharisees make a fair show without, ye make long Prayers and perhaps ye give alms to the poor openly in the streets, but within ye are full of rapine and extortion. If therefore ye will that all ye have be clean in the eyes of God, give to the poor for alms, all the goods you have gotten by rapine and extortion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these secret ill got goods which lie hid within from the eyes of men, this is truly to purge the inside of the pot, and then that which is without shall be clean unto you. Indefinitely whatever is within, the inside of the cup is throughly to be cleansed, that is to say, all they had got by rapine and extortion, were to be given to the poor in alms. Yet not so, that the bare restitution of their ill got goods was alone satisfactory: No, but until they did refund in alms (for it was impossible to make a restitution to every man of his own,) all which they had got by evil means, nothing they should give or offer unto God would be accepted of him, but that whatever it were he would account it as unclean; but as soon as they had bestowed all their ill got goods in alms unto the poor, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things without, and all the rest they had should be clean before the Lord, so that whatever they offered to him afterward should be pleasing and acceptable to him. And this I conceive to be the proper meaning of this place; for it were a very faint command for our Saviour to bid them, to give of such things as they had, it matters not how little, in comparison of bestowing all their ill got goods in alms.  
C. 12. v. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignem veni mittere in terram, & quid volo? utinam jam accensus esset, I am come to send fire on the earth, and what would I? O that it were already kindled. But I have a Baptism to be Baptised with, and how am I streightened until it be accomplished? It is the speech of a troubled mind, the parallel whereof you may see Joh. 12.27. Now is my soul troubled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but for this cause came I to this hour, Father glorify thy name. He checks himself in either place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the LXX is of the same force as utinam, Num. 22.29. Jos. 7.7. and elsewhere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the fire of Persecution which began with Jesus.  
C. 13. v. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For it may not, or cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem. And in this acception of the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequent in Epicurus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It may be the Moon hath her light from herself, it may be from the Sun, whom Lucretius interpreteth accordingly, 
Lunaque sive notho fertur loca lumine lustrans,  
Sive suam proprio jactat de corpore lucem.  And that it could not be otherwise but all the Prophets must perish in Jerusalem, Drusius hath observed, that the Prophets were not judged but by the Judges in the Sanhedrim, who always had their residence in Jerusalem, in a public house, such as is our Convocation or Chapter house. And so it immediately follows, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem which killest the Prophets, etc.  
C. 15. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, What man of you having an hundred Sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not he leave the Ninety and Nine, and goeth after that which is lost in the Wilderness, until he find it. This trajection is familiar, and so we distinguish and read, Mat. c. 18. v. 12. He leaveth the Ninety and Nine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and goeth into the Mountains and seeketh that which is lost. The desert wherein John Baptist lived and taught, Mat. c. 3. v. 1. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Luk. c. 1. v 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, montana, wherein Zachary did dwell.  
C. 18. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Understand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Old Latin seems to have done, & patientiam habebit? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be Translated two several ways. If you understand the Elect, than it must be Propter illos, & patientiam habebit diu propter illos? And shall he long have patience for them? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Dative doth sometimes signify, For, Scot But if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you understand, their adversaries, as it may well be, for the Widow desired the Judge to avenge her of her Adversary, v. 3. and so I suppose they understood it, who Translate, In longum differet iram in illos? Shall he long defer his anger toward them? then must you Translate, And shall he long have patience towards them, that is towards the Adversaries of the Elect, as we Translate, Ecclesiast. c. 35. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Neither will the mighty be patiented toward them, meaning the unmerciful and Heathen which are forthwith in the same verse mentioned. That the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all its Moods and Tenses is frequently understood, see Animad. on Mar. c. 12. v. 40.  
V 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Verum cum filius hominis venerit, inveniet hanc fidem in hac terra? But when the Son of man cometh shall he find this, that is, such a faith in this land [of Judaea?] For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often understood in Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As is before observed, Matth. c. 11. v. 9 The sense is, When the Son of man cometh to the destruction of Jerusalem shall he find such a Faith in the Land, as shall importune God with its prayers, as did the troublesome or importunate Widow who never left the unjust Judge till he had avenged her? a faith which shall pray and never faint, according to which he commanded his disciples to pray in the beginning of the chapter. Neither is there any other commodious interpretation of the words. You have likewise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visibly and expressly, c. 21. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Erit enim pressura magna in hac terra, & ira in populo isto, For there shall be great distress in this land and wrath upon this people.  
C. 22. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you. But this Translation makes a gross Soloecism in the Greek, whereof I would not willingly allow our Evangelist to be guilty. For in my blood which is shed for you implies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nominative to the Dative, which in Syntax is by no means to be allowed; neither do I think our Evangelist did more intent to join 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here, than he did to couple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 1. v. 55. So that I cannot but admire with admiration, when the Excellent De Dieu is so confident in saying, Et si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casu differat à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dubium tamen non est, quin cum eo sit construendum, neque ullus hic praeterea Solaecismus statuendus. And to prove that this construction is no Solaecism he produceth these examples following, where an Obliqne case may be turned into a Nominative, Eph. c. 3. v. 17, and 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But there as Beza rightly tells you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. doth most properly agree with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be construed by trajection, Ut in charitate radicati & fundati possitis ass●qui, etc. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye being rooted and grounded in love may be able to comprehend, etc. as it is in our English, and Joh. c. 1. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that construction is much better salved by the ordinary Parenthesis, as it is in Rob. Steph. Curcellaeus, the Old Latin, and our English. And lastly Apoc. c. 1. v. 4, and 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For which construction there may be this reasonable account, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab eo, qui est nomine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & à Jesus Christo, qui nomine est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, From him who is by name, Who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from Jesus Christ, who is by name, The faithful witness, etc. like as when we say according to Drusius, Augustinus in de Civitate dei, for in libris de Civitate dei. Besides this is a singular expression in St John, and will not serve however to justify such an irregularity in St Luke, who by all is acknowledged to be generally learned, and not unskilful in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophron. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theophil. so that if there be any way to reconcile the Construction and the Sense I would choose That rather than to fasten such a Barbarism on our Evangelist, which truly I conceive may be done by saying there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vitium scriptoris, a fault in the transcriber, the like fault whereunto we do admit in other places, and that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it should have been written, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you, and this supposition makes the construction regular, and is but a light mistake, unless you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is appositive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then Translate it thus, This cup which is poured forth for you [in token of my blood which is to be shed for the remission of your sins] is, or doth signify the New Testament in my blood. Neither is this exposition or sense so harsh and difficult, but it may be fairly admitted and understood.  
V 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I confess that the Passive is often taken for the Active in the New Testament, and sometimes, though much more seldom, the Active for the Passive, but why it should be taken in this place I see no necessity at all, especially when the proper interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Active sense doth on the contrary better agree with the scope of the place. Thus, The Lord said unto Peter, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired thee to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. And when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. As if he should say, As I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail, when Satan shall tempt thee, so do thou likewise, when thou hast converted any of thy brethren to the faith, pray for them, i. e. confirm them or strengthen them by thy prayers, that their faith may not fail, when Satan shall tempt them. As if it were read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be repeated, a form of speech extremely frequent. You have it in the very preceding verse but even now mentioned. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the 54. following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Then took they him and led him, etc. See Animad. Act. 13.27. According to the common Translation, it should have been written properly in the Passive voice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And thou when thou art converted. Neither doth it seem at all fit to say, And thou one day when thou shalt be converted, who was already before converted, though he afterward fell, as our Saviour had foretold him. Neither I think will any man fix the moment of Peter's conversion in the crowing of the cock, if any do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One day, is said in vain, for that word intimates a more distant time, than the space of a few hours, or minutes.   

ANNOTATIONS ON S. John.  
Ch. 5. v. 4.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whoever then first after the troubling of the waters stepped in was healed, or made whole of whatsoever disease he had. Many things concurred saith learned Grotius, that this should not be thought any natural kind of healing by the water. And I conceive this alone to be argument enough, That none was healed but he who first stepped in after the troubling of the waters. One only was healed by one only moving of the waters. If the cure had been by a natural cause, why were not more healed then one at the same time? But certainly there was something supernatural in this matter, the reason whereof it is not necessary for us to know. It is enough for us that we are assured of the truth by Evangelical Authority.  
Ch. 7. v. 22. Moses therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Certainly these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aught to have been severed by a distinction to the former. Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Unum opus feci, & omnes miramini propter illud. Moses dedit vobis circumcifionem, etc. I have done one work and ye all wonder because of it. Moses gave you Circumcision, etc. And so is the sense perfect without any Solaecism, neither is there any need of any disquisition concerning the unusualness of the phrase or inconsequence of the words. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being familiarly used in our sense with a Preposition, as Mar. c. 6. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum, He marvelled because of their unbelief. And so elsewhere.  
C. 8. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This woman was taken in Adultery in the very act. The Syriack reads aperte. But in my opinion it should be rather written with an Apostrophe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Translated thus, Haec mulier deprehensa est in sui ipfius conspectu Adulterans, This woman was taken committing Adultery in her own very sight. So openly that she cannot with any face deny it. The word cometh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Preterperfect tense of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So saith Phavorinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui à seipso redarguitur, & conspectus est, He who is convinced and seen of himself.  
C. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quia lux non est in eo, that is, in mundo, Because there is no light in it, that is, in the world. Not, in him, as is commonly rendered, which agreeth not with common sense. But thus it is perfect sense and construction both. If any man walketh in the day he stumbleth not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Because he seethe the light of the world, but if a man walketh in the night, he stumbleth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because there is no light in it, that is, relating to the foregoing word, in the world. He doth closely reprehend his disciples by a Parable, who stumbled at the mention of his going up to Jerusalem, telling them they ought not to stumble as long as he who was the light of the world was in the world, c. 9 v. 5. but when he should be taken out of the world, it would be no marvel if they stumbled, and therefore he exhorts them, c. 12. v. 35. To walk while they have light, least darkness should come upon them, for yet a little while the light was with them, and he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. Or thus, The disciples stumbled or were offended, when he said let us go up to Jerusalem. The reason was they walked in the night of infidelity and ignorance, for they would not, or did not understand that our Lord should suffer. As it is likewise said Luk. c. 18. v. 34. When Jesus said unto them, behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be perfected which are written by the Prophets of the Son of man, etc. They understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. They dreamt so of a temporal Kingdom, that they could by no means understand that our Lord should suffer, whom they expected to be a King to restore the Kingdom of Israel.  
V 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He groaned in his spirit, which troubled him. The conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently so to be interpreted in the New Testament, as you may see, Animad. 15.6.20.18. Apocal. 1.6. According to the Hebrew Idiotum, as Beza saith, which while Interpreters do not observe, they often trouble the Syntax and the sense, as in this very place: for certainly it is not good sense to say, He groaned in the spirit and troubled himself. But to say his spirit troubled him, is all one with that, 13.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was troubled in his spirit.  
V 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For he hath been dead Four days. Rasis the Arabic Physician hath left it written, as I have it from Quistorpius, That it was ordained by a law, that no apoplectics, who foamed about the mouth, should be buried, till after 72 hours, and considering the reason he declares it to be an excellent law, because all the humours had perfected and finished their motions in Three days, that is in 72 hours, which term of the motion of the humours being once finished, there is no more of life to be expected. And from hence he infers, that Jesus Christ did not raise up Lazarus again to life till he had been Four days dead, that there might be no place of objection left to the speculation of any Naturalist, who, if he had been raised within the 72 hours, would have denied it to be a Miracle.  
C. 13. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that is washed needeth not to have even his feet washed, but is clean every whit. For what need can there be pretended to wash his feet, who hath been before washed all over from head to foot, yet to follow his discourse, which notwithstanding was besides his purpose which he intended in the washing of his disciples feet, he farther telleth them, But ye are not all clean, for he knew who it was that should betray him. His principle meaning was to teach them Humility by his example as is evident by the Context.  
C. 15. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Si quis in me non maneat projicitur foras ut palmes qui exaruit, If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch which is withered. And thus it is entire and perfect sense, neither is the construction or Translation at all new or unusual, though the want of the thought thereof hath puzzled most Interpreters in the rendering of this place. Our very Evangelist hath the same manner of speech, c. 20. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod vidisset dominum qui ea sibi dixisset, That she had seen the Lord who had spoken these things unto her. And Luk. c. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abiit igitur & adhaesit uni ex civibus regionis illius qui misit eum in agrum, And he went and joined himself to a Citizen of that Country who sent him into his fields to feed swine. And Act. c. 6. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quos statuerunt in conspectu Apostolorum qui adhibitis precibus imposuerunt eis manus, Whom they set before the Apostles who when they had prayed laid their hands on them. In all which places Beza renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui, bringing on this last place in his Annotations two examples of the same phrase, the one out of Mark c. 1. v. 10. the other out of Plutarch. For more abundant satisfaction, see note on Matth. c. 27. v. 9, 10. and Act. c. 7. v. 10.  
V 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without doubt in this place ought not to be taken, for to keep or observe, simply, but rather to be understood in the worse sense, and seems to be used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insidiosè observare, that is to watch, with intention to entrap, as it is said, Luk. 14.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And they watched him, Ut captarent quod in eo reprehenderent, as Stephanus observes. And 20.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And they watched him and sent forth spies, that they might take hold of his words. And that this is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, the joining of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, makes very probable, but the whole sense together beginning from the 18 verse doth evince it clearly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If the World hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you, etc. Remember the word that I said unto you, 13.16. the servant is not greater than the Lord, if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you, if they have watched my say, they will also watch yours, But all these things will they do unto you for my Name sake. Certainly all in the worse sense, They will persecute you, they will treacherously watch your words for my Names sake, that they may catch somewhat out thereof, whereof to accuse you, as they have done to me, for the Servant is not above the lord If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household so? Matth. 10.25. Neither is the use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to watch or to observe in the same sense insolent at all, as you may see in Stephanus. You shall find it bears much the like sense, Ecclesiast. 11.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that observes the wind, shall not sow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In which sense you have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often in the Old Testament, and somewhat more to our purpose. As Psal. 56.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They shall watch or observe my steps, Calcaneum meum observabunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A word Synonymous to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 71.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et observationes animae meae, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And they that lay wait for my soul consult together. In both which places it might have been lawfully Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
C. 16. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In that day ye shall ask in my Name, and not, I say unto you, because I will pray the Father for you, for the Father himself loveth you, etc. I say unto you, intervenes by way of Parenthesis, and answers in effect to both members of the speech. As if he should have said, I say unto you, in that day ye shall ask the Father in my name, and he shall hear you, not because I will pray him for you, but because he himself loved you, for that ye have loved me, and have believed that I came from God.  
V 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee, by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. If any man ask, What means [And needest not that any man should ask thee.] Let him but look back to the 19 verse, where 'tis said that Jesus knew his disciples were desirous to ask him, although they inquired only among themselves, what it meant, that he said unto them, Yet a little while and ye shall see me, etc. For this therefore do they now say that they did believe that he came forth from God, because he knew what they intended in their thoughts, and therefore needed not that they should ask him any question. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For it is God alone that knoweth the secrets of the heart.  
C. 18. v. 17, and 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Nun & tu ex discipulis es hominis istius? Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nun.  
C. 20. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jesus said unto Mary, Touch me not. What can be the meaning of that? Matth. c. 28. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They held his feet. After the Resurrection. They must needs therefore touch him, which Thomas also might have done, v. 27. The Old Latin therefore not willing an argument should be drawn from the words next following, that he would not be touched, doth prudently and very rightly include them in a Parenthesis and so Connects noli me tangere with vade autem ad fratres meos, etc. Meddle not, as may be more significantly rendered, with me, (for I am not yet ascended to my Father.) But go unto my Brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, etc. As if he should say, he would not have her stay any longer in embracing of him, or meddling with him, but that she should forthwith go unto the Disciples and comfort them, who no doubt were dismayed, by telling them, that he was not yet ascended, but that he would shortly ascend to their Father and his, and to their God and his. Then which there never was a more comfortable Message, all circumstances considered.  
C. 21. v. 22. If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee? And by this speech he did plainly intimate, that John should remain alive till in truth he should come, as in very deed he did, to wit, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and Thirty years after, if we may believe Historians and Chronologers, in which number also they are to be reckoned, Matth. c. 16. v. 28. who Jesus saith should not taste of death, though then standing by, till they saw the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. The Destruction of Jerusalem being frequently understood by the coming of Christ. Which notwithstanding was not at that time known. For there went out a saying among the Brethren that this Disciple should not die. And so Tertullian, misled with this error, affirmed, That they were deceived in their hope who expected that John should remain alive until the coming of the Lord; Obiit enim & Johannes, For John was also dead. For he understood not those words of the coming of the Lord in his Kingdom to take vengeance of the Jews by the Destruction of Jerusalem, but of his last coming in the day of Judgement, and in that sense he said they were deceived of their hopes.   

ANNOTATIONS ON The Acts.  
Ch. 1. v. 4.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The proper interpretation of this word is to be fetched out of the parallel place in St Luke's Gospel, c. 24. v. 26. etc. Where he relates the same continued story, which immediately preceded the Ascension of our Lord, varying only the circumstances and words. How Jesus after his Resurrection, that he might take away all doubting out of the minds of his Disciples, who believed they saw a spirit, when he appeared to them, after that he had showed them his hands and feet to feel, and yet they would not believe; for a most certain argument of his Resurrection, that they should no longer think they saw a Vision or Spirit, he asked them if they had any thing to eat, and when they had given him part of a honey comb and a broiled fish, he did eat before them, and at the very same place and time whilst he was eating with them, he said unto them, Behold I will send the promise of my Father unto you. And by this argument, saith St Chrysostom, the Apostles did always assert the truth of his Resurrection, and therefore Peter, as he hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he would gain faith to the Resurrection, useth the same argument, Act. c. 10. v. 41. How God raised him up the third day, and shown him to us, who did eat and drink with him after he was risen from the dead. So as I think we may with confidence resolve, that the true interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is that of the Old Latin Interpreter, that is, Convescens, whilst he was eating together with them. For he repeateth here all the rest of the same things, which he had commanded in his Gospel at the same place and time. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words as I conceive may be more truly Translated being thus distinguished without any supplement or breach of Syntax, and yet with a more commodious sense in this manner, Praecepit eyes. Nolite ab Hierosolyma discedere, sed expectate promissionem patris, quam audistis, mei, He charged them, remember or see ye depart not from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of my Father which ye have heard of me. You have the very same sense, almost the words in the Parallel place in his Gospel, c. 24. v. 49. And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from above. By a most familiar Elleipsis the Infinitive is put for the Imperative, understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the like before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Examples whereof are frequent in Heathen Authors, especially in Phocylides almost in every verse, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Ne ditescas injustè sed ex juste partis vive.  
Esto contentus praesentibus & ab alienis abstine,  
Omnibus justa tribue.  
Wax not rich unjustly but live of well got goods.  
Be content with present, abstain from other men's,  
Give every one his due.  You have the very like in Sacred writ and that often, Act. c. 23. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where the English reads, And charged him, see thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me. And this version the sense and Syntax do in both places necessarily require. So you have Rom. c. 12. v. 14, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benedicite & ne imprecemini, gaudete cum gaudentibus, & fleet cum flentibus, Bless and curse not, rejoyc with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. See Ruth c. 1. v. 6. Matth. c. 5. v. 39 Luk. c. 5. v. 14. Act. c. 23. v. 24. And in many other places. As for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conceive it is more suitably, as without doubt it is more regularly, rendered in this place, The promise of my Father which you have heard, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the very words our Evangelist useth in the Parallel place in his Gospel, much rather then, The promise of the Father which ye have heard of me, as usually they do with a most violent construction. Whereas the trajection is most common and familiar.  
V 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecumenius teacheth clearly in his Exposition on these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His proper place, he either calls the strangling [whereof Judas died] or because Judas being fallen, he had his place who took his Bishopric, for it cannot be imagined what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can possibly signify in this place of Oecumenius, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, locum ejus, his place into which Mathias was to succeed, that is the Apostleship of Judas from which he was by transgression fallen. As out of this very place Clarius hath animadverted on these words, In locum suum, si ad Judam referas, videtur intelligere laqueum quo se dignnm judicavit ob proditionem, sin ad Matthiam, intellige Episcopatum cui successit. Unto his place, if you look on Judas, it seems to mean the halter whereof he thought himself worthy for his treachery, if on Mathias, understand the Bishopric into which he succeeded, that is Judas his Apostleship, for they were not then ordained Bishops. So Cicero doth most frequently use suus instead of ejus, and that in imitation of the Greeks, as Budaeus saith, for, suus, non modò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat & utroque modo apud Graecos accipitur ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saepissime pro sibi & pro ei, Bud. Com. pag. 28. So that the Translation is properly this, Thou Lord who knowest the hearts of all, show whether of these two thou hast chosen to take part of this Ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas is by transgression fallen, that he may enter into his place. That is, that he whom thou hast chosen may succeed into the place of Judas his Apostleship. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same phrase with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes, which Budaeus interprets Haereditatem adire. For in Cicero, Haereditatem adire is haereditatem subire or suscipere, To enter upon or to take upon one the inheritance, as our Holyoak hath well observed. And this interpretation seems to be more reasonable, then that of theirs who interpret it of Judas, as if St Luke should mean, that he was gone to his own or to his proper place, to wit, as they would have it, unto Hell. 'tis true, no man can make other judgement. But I cannot for all that think the Evangelist had any such meaning in these words, I rather with Chrysostom look upon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The prudence of the man, how he speaks not contumeliously nor insults, etc. Which plainly argues that he thought not, that it was the meaning of St Luke in these words to adjudge Judas into Hell, For what could he have said of Judas more contumelious, then that he was gone to his own place, meaning Hell? Neither was it the business of an Historian or Evangelist to interpose his own opinion, but rather to leave Judas to the judgement of God, it being enough for him to have related matter of fact, as he had promised and professed to do in the beginning of his Gospel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Even as they had delivered things unto us who were eye-witnesses from the beginning, etc. But who will you say was an eye-witness of Judas his going to or being in Hell?  
C. 2. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in Hade, neque dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem, Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor give thy holy one to see corruption. The first branch of this verse seems to concern his Soul which was not left in the state of death, as other humane Souls. I say, left in the state of death, for it is not one and the same thing to die, or to be dead, and to be or to remain in the state of death, or if you please, as it is v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vinculis, in the bonds of death, as Athanasius and Beza interpret the word; and so in the Psalmist, in the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Synonymous, or in those receptacles where the Souls of the Godly are reserved till they receive their crown, as St Augustin; or in the middle of the shadow of death where the Souls of the dead are, as Irenaeus; or in Hades, or in Hell, whither we are taught by the Apostles Creed that he descended, or went into. Where by the way I cannot but observe, that our English Hell, comes from the Saxon HELAN, celare, tegere, to hid or cover, so as it may be said to have the same signification with Hades, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a place that cannot be seen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, locus sine luce. Phavor. or else in Paradise with the Soul of the Thief. All which several expressions serve but to signify one and the same thing. For I do not see but Paradise may very lawfully be interpreted a receptacle or separated place for departed Souls, from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, separavit, locus separatus, or septum, a close, such as for pleasure and delight our Parks and Gardens are, from which cause this word hath obtained with the Hebrews the meaning of bliss and pleasure. And I cannot but think the Greeks borrowed the word from the Hebrews, and that neither of them own it to the Persian. For though perchance (which yet is by no means certain) Nehemiah might borrow it from the Persian, who lived in the Persian Court, yet Solomon 'tis certain, which used the same word in Ecclesiastes and in Canticles many ages before Nehemiah's time, writ in the Hebrew tongue, neither is there any reason at all to think that he ever used the Persian dialect. Neither is such a termination with the Hebrews so unusual, with whom such Anomalous words are frequent, that we should so earnestly disown it, as their due. Neither doth the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies death, which is a separation, differ from our sense. Why should we therefore fly from the Hebrew to the Persian, and acknowledge him to be the true owner of the word? I confess I value the Authority of Julius Pollux, but I shall not swear unto it. However in sum I conceive it not unreasonable to say, that the Godly who are in the state of death, are in Paradise, in what ever place secluded, and finally to conclude, that this first branch of the verse concerns only his Soul, as the latter plainly concerns his body, which saw no corruption as other human bodies do. And in this sense doth Peter expressly explain the words, v. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Non relicta est anima ejus in Hade, neque caro ejus vidit corruptionem. That his Soul was not left in Hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. Plainly distinguishing between his Soul and Body, as if he did it of set purpose, to the end that none should think this place concerned the Sepulchre or Grave of Christ alone, as some would have, that say, that Hades signifieth nothing else. For Perversissimum est, etc. as Tertullian, saith, lib. de Carne Christi. It is a most perverse thing, that naming the flesh, we should understand the Soul, or naming the Soul we should understand the flesh, The truth of their names is the safety of their properties. Neither doth Athanasius speak less plainly to our purpose. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Neither did death prevail to subjugate his human nature so far as to detain it in its bonds, neither could corruption by any tyrannical invasion exercise its power to the putrefaction of his body. Humanae ista lex necessitatis, etc. saith Hilary, It is a law of humane necessity, that the bodies being buried, the Souls descend into Hell, which descent the Lord himself did not refuse, to show the truth of his manhood, or human nature. And doubtless this is the scope of Peter's words in this place, of purpose to prove the Resurrection of Christ, and that he was not left in the state of death as other mortals are. And this opinion I hold to be pious and consonant to faith. I believe the immortality of the Soul, I believe the Resurrection of the body, and its reunition with the Soul, and life everlasting, I am no friend to Purgatory, nor to any prayer, supplication or application to any Saint, save only to our sole Mediator Jesus Christ, who for that particular end ascended into the holy of holies, that is, into the highest heavens, that there he may commend our prayers to our Father which is in heaven; who from hence also conceive may be drawn a cogent argument, that prayers ought not to be made to Saints, whom Religion hath not yet placed in that holy of holies, to wit, the highest heavens, and so qualified for fitting Mediators. But there are not few and those no mean ones neither, who positively say, there is no receptacle of Souls, but affirm that the Souls of the Godly do immediately after their separation from their bodies go into heaven, that is to say, as I suppose, that heaven which is properly called heaven. One of whose great Arguments is from that of Luke c. 23. v. 43. Hodie eris mecum in Paradiso, Thou shalt be with me this day in Paradise. But that day our Saviour was not in heaven, unless they speak and mean aequivocally, for he was not yet ascended either in human Soul or Body, as far as Scripture doth, or reason can inform us. Paradise therefore must be some other place, namely, this Hades or Hell, as we Translate it, in which for a short time his Soul was held, to which he properly went, or may be said to have descended, and in which the same day together with his Soul was also the Soul of the Thief, where together with the rest of the Souls of the Godly that are departed (our Saviour's only being delivered or loosened from its bonds the Third day) this Soul of the thieves doth rest till the last day of the Resurrection. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in horto Eden qui locus est receptaculum animarum post hanc vitam, Drusius ad locum, Lucae c. 23. v. 43. He speaks the same lib. praeterit. 3o. Paradisum à caelo distingui, quod ille sit receptaculum animarum post vitam, caelum autem recipiat omnes post judicium extremum. They urge another argument from St Ambrose, Christum introitu suo aperuisse credentibus regnum caelorum, That Christ by his entrance had opened the Kingdom of heaven to all believers. Before which time the Fathers were not made partakers of the Promise, but that from the death and ascension of Christ they also ascended with him into heaven, and were there consummate and made perfect, as to their Souls which then were received into heaven, which before the Ascension of Christ were not ascended. In answer whereunto, I do truly acknowledge, but not in their sense, that Christ by his Entrance or Ascension into heaven did open the Kingdom heaven to all believers, which before was shut to all the world save only to the Jews, but since the time of his Passion and Ascension open to any one that strives to enter, so as it's now lawful for all persons of all Nations to press into it, who shall believe in his Name. But to meet the argument, I beseech you, where were the Souls of the Fathers before they Ascended with Christ into heaven? For where ever they were, reason persuades it, and Scripture doth not deny it, in the same place was the Soul of Christ, and where was the Soul of Christ there was also the Soul of the Thief, They were not yet Ascended, Neither surely were they in a place of torment, for I cannot think it could be any comfort to the Thief, as I suppose, it was intended, if Christ should have told him that he should be that day with him in a place of torment, it must therefore be rationally concluded, that they were in some third place of rest. In which place if we affirm that the Souls of all the Godly departed remain till the last day, what danger is there, what incommodity? If we believe, I say, and believe no more, that there remains to all a Resurrection in the last day, both Fathers and us, in which day we with them shall be most perfectly consummate, and that in the mean while all the Souls of the Godly are in the hands of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In a place due and proper to them, as it is in the Epistle of Polycarpus to the Philippians. And all this while not a moment of time if compared with Eternity. Neither were the old Christians wont, as Grotius saith, to call this middle state of place and time between this life and the Resurrection, by the name of heaven. But I contain myself, this question requiring a longer and larger disquisition, then to be shut up in so narrow limits. And yet a question, which neither Scripture nor any general Council or Synod had ever yet explicitly determined for an Article of Faith, before the Convocation at Dublin 1615. Which did then indeed so define it. That after the end of this life the Souls of the Sons of God were immediately received into heaven, etc. Perhaps of purpose to meet with the Romish Purgatory. Neither should I have said thus much, but that many persons do so tenaciously maintain this last opinion for an Article of their Faith, that they condemn all who hold otherwise of impiety and heresy. And that these words seemed to me so plain, that as it were they led me by the hand to the sense and meaning which I have here laid down, though rarely in that respect observed of any. I am very much pleased with the modesty of Calvin in this very argument, when speaking of the Souls of the faithful, and their place and state after this life, he saith, Valde se torquent multi, etc. Many do very much trouble themselves in disputing what place departed Souls possess, and whether they enjoy a heavenly glory or not, But 'tis a rash and foolish thing to inquire farther or deeper of or in things unknown, then God hath permitted us to know. And elsewhere upon that place of the Gospel aforementioned concerning the Thief and Paradise, De loco Paradisi curiose & argutè disputandum non est, etc. We must not dispute curiously or subtly of the place of Paradise, let it suffice us who are engrafted into the body of Christ by faith, that we shall be partakers of his life, and so after death enjoy a blessed and cheerful rest, till that in the coming of Christ the perfect glory of a heavenly life shall solidly appear unto us. In which opinion I do willingly acquiesce, conceiving that which I hold to be safe, Probable with Peter Martyr, agreeable to reason, and not disagreeable to Scripture.  
V 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is to be taken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as they say, materialiter, and denotes the matter of the oath which God swore unto David, that is, ex fructu lumbi ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, resurgere facturum Christum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in carne ut sederet super solium ejus, That out of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ in the flesh to sit upon his Throne. And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very thing the Apostle seeks to prove, to wit, that Christ risen in the flesh, which out of the Context is most evident and plain. For he seeing this before spoke of the Resurrection of Christ, v. 31. and in the following verse it is positively affirmed, That this Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. So that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, raise up, must not be understood de adventu Christi, of the coming of Christ into the world, as some would have it, but of his Resurrection; and so affirmeth Beza, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, melius praesenti argumento quadrare, si de Resurrectione Christi accipiatur, quam si ad Adventum referas, That, to raise up Christ, doth better square with the present argument, if it be understood of his Resurrection then if you refer it to his Coming. But if that word alone square better with the scope of the place, then doth it much more to raise him up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the flesh, it being the very thing which was to be proved. So as it cannot be denied, but it doth much obscure the sense and scope of the words to say, that according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit upon his Throne. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth frequently signify In, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Antiochia. Act. c. 15. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in tempore, in due time. Rom. c. 5. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, manserant in loco, Phavor.  
C. 3. v. 18, 19, 20. These three verses I suppose may better be distinguished and Translated thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Deus autem secundum ea quae praenuntiavit per os omnium prophetarum Christum perpessurum, implevit ita (paenitemini igitur & convertimini ut deleantur peccata vestra) ut venerint tempora refrigerii ab ira domini, & miserit qui vobis praenunciatus est Jesum Christum, quem oportet caelum recipere, etc. But God according to what he had foretold by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer, hath fulfilled so (repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out) that the days of refreshment from the anger of the Lord are come, and that he hath sent unto you who was before foretold of, Jesus Christ, Whom the heavens must receive, etc. These words by postponing of the Parenthesis to its proper place, according to our common way of speaking, are more clearly understood Thus. But God according to what he had foretold by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer, hath fulfilled so that the days of refreshment or rest from the anger of the Lord are come, and that he hath sent unto you who was before foretold of Jesus Christ, whom the heaven must receive until the times of the consummation of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets, since the world began. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. You have the like intervenient Parentheses in many places, as Joh. c. 1. v. 14. Luk. c. 1. v. 55. c. 2. v. 34, 35. and elsewhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a common Grecism, and so read the Syriack, and the Aethiop. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bud. and so is it Translated often, as Matth. c. 6. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ut appareant, That they may appear. Luk. c. 2. v. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ut revelentur, and elsewhere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lawfully, ab ira domini, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifies faciem and iram. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praenuntiatum, rightly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tempora consummationis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. and Phav. And so Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It behoves all things to be finished and brought to an end. See Matth. c. 17. v. 11.  
C. 7. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Et inde postquam mortuus est pater ejus, transtulit illum in hanc terram in qua vos nunc habitatis, And from thence after his Father was dead, he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell. It hath not a little troubled Interpreters, that Stephen should here say, that God removed Abraham out of Charran after the death of his Father, because it is said, Gen. c. 12. v. 4. That Abraham went out of Charran in the 75 year of his age, and c. 11. v. 26. that he was born in the 70 year of Terah his age, and v. 32. that Terah was 205 years old when he died. For from hence it follows that Terah overlived the departure of Abraham out of Charran 60 years. Therefore to untie this knot almost all our late Chronologers and Interpreters, all other opinions exploded, will have Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terahs' age, and not in the 70, as others of Ancient times have thought, for if to 130 years you add 75 which was the age of Abraham when he went out of Charran, you fall just into the true year of the death of Terah. And to make this opinion good, they say, it is not necessary that from Gen. c. 11. v. 26. it should be understood that Abraham was born in the 70 year of Terah, but that in that year Terah began to be a Father. For that it is not expressly said that Abraham was born in that year, but that Terah lived 70 years and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, from whence they will not have it concluded that Abraham was the Eldest Brother, because first named, but say they, it is more likely he was the Youngest, and that for preeminencies sake only he was first named of Moses. And that they may make this opinion yet surer, they frame an argument out of their own supposita, whereby they think to fasten an absurdity upon those of another judgement. Thus, If Abraham were the Eldest Son, than Sarah his wife the Daughter to his Brother Haran, and but Ten years Younger than Abraham, Gen. c. 17. v. 17. must necessarily be born to Haran in the Eighth year of his age, which would be ridiculous to affirm But to answer this argument in the first place. First, I see no cause to grant that Sarah was the Daughter of Haran. For that question is not yet resolved. For who that reads Gen. c. 20. v. 12. Indeed she is my sister, she is the daughter of my Father, but not the daughter of my Mother, will not confidently conclude that Sarah was the Sister of Abraham and the Daughter of Terah, but not by one and the same wife? especially such a Solemn asseveration being added, as if he had spoke it purposely to free himself from the suspicion of speaking falsely. Whereupon Hierome, after another Exposition of the words first, addeth, Sed quia in Hebraeo habet, Verè soror mea est, filia Patris mei, sed non filia Matris meae, magis sonat quod Abrahae soror fuit. In excusationem ejus dicimus, nec dum illo tempore tales nuptias esse prohibitas. But because it is in the Hebrew, Indeed she is my sister, she is the daughter of my Father, but not the daughter of my Mother, it sounds rather that she was Abraham's sister. We say for his excuse, that as yet such marriages were not prohibited. As also the Hebrew Doctors, among the six sorts of unjust copulations, reckon that for one, cum sorore uterina, with the sister by the Mother. Nay Musculus is yet more plain, Omnia haec commenta simplicitas Hebraica respuit, quid est enim necesse torqueri in re tam clare expressa? etc. The Hebrew simplicity rejects all these devices, for what necessity is there to be troubled in a thing so clearly expressed? He saith, Indeed she is my sister, the daughter of my Father, and that she might not be thought to be of one and the same belly, he adds, and not the daughter of my Mother, so that it is manifest, that Sarah was born to Terah by another wife, then that of whom he had Abraham. To this may be added out of Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abrahamus verò à Patre accipit uxorem suam Saram, Abraham taketh his wife Sarah from his Father, not from Haran. And by this appears that this question is not yet determined But be it granted that Sarah was Ischah and the daughter of Haran, what hinders but Abraham might be born when Haran was Forty years of age? And then how easily might Sarah be the Daughter of Haran, and but Ten years Younger than Abraham, and no absurdity follow that Haran was but Eight years old when Sarah was born? For though the Scripture say, That Terah lived 70 years and begat Abraham, Nahor and Haran, it doth not therefore necessarily follow, that Terah at that time began to be a Father, no more than that Terah begat them all in that year, which I suppose no man will affirm; or that Noah began to be a Father, when he is said to have been Five hundred years old, and to have begotten, Shem, Ham and Japhet. But certainly it is much more probable, that Terah began to be a Father about the 30th year of his age, and about that time begat Haran, about which time his Progenitors began to be Fathers, and about which time our late Chronologers would have Cainan (whom Luke interposeth in his Genealogy) begin to be a Father. I say Haran, because he seemeth to be the Eldest Brother, if both Nahor and Abraham married his Daughters. But if Haran were born to Terah in his Thirtieth year, it behoved him to be 40 years old when Abraham was born to Terah in his 70th, and if Sarah were born to Haran in the 50th year of his age, which it is lawful and fit enough to guests, then must she be Ninety years old when Abraham was an Hundred. So that the argument which would fix an absurdity upon Dissenters, falls to the ground either way. And of this opinion, which to me seems very probable and equal, Josephus gave me the hint, Antiq. Jud. lib. 1. where he expressly affirms that Abraham was born in the 70th year of Terah, and afterwards apart, that he had to his brother's Nahor and Haran, without having any regard to their age, as being not material, and as if they might have been born at any other time, even before the 70th of their Father. For there is mention made of them only because they are named in the sequent History. And the same with Submission I suppose may in the like manner be understood of the Patriarch Noah, that is to say, that he begot Shem in the 500 year of his age, neither in that year began to be a Father, but that Shem had Brothers, Japhet and Cham, who might likewise have been born many years before the 500 year of Noah, named only Gen, c. 5. v. 32. because there is mention made of them in the following Story, as in the same manner are named Nahor and Haran, Gen. c. 11. v. 26. My arguments for either opinion are these. First, It argues, that Shem was born in the 500 year of Noah, because it behooveth his age, as also that of Abraham to be fixed, in whose offspring, Tendens ad Abrahamum civitatis dei ordo dirigitur, The line of the City of God [that is of his Church] was to be directed down to Abraham. As it is in titulo c. 10. lib. 15. August. de Civit. Dei. But it is objected, that Shem could not be born in the 500 year of Noah, because it's said, Gen. c. 11. v. 10. That Shem was an Hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad Two years after the Flood, from whence they gather that Noah begat Shem in the Five Hundred and Second year of his age. Whereof Scaliger gave warning, Can. Isag. lib. 3. Sciant verò Studiosi quosdam biennium plus quam nos ab Adam ad Exodum putare, idque propter Natalem Arphaxad, qui contigerat anno secundo Diluvii. Nos non omisimus quidem illum annum, sed annum Quingentesimum Noae, & Millesimum Sexcentesimum Quinquagesimum Sextum Diluvii currentes accipimus, But let Scholars know, that some do reckon two years more than we do from Adam to the going out of Egypt, and that because of the Birth time of Arphaxad, which happened the second year of the Flood. We have not omitted that year, but we take the Five Hundreth year of Noah, and the Thousand, Six Hundred Fifty and Sixth year of the Flood from the Creation of the World both current. For demonstration sake suppose, that Noah was born the first day of the first month (as all agree that he was born in the beginning of the year) and that in the Five Hundreth year of his age he begat Shem, perhaps Fourteen days before the year was fully ended, and then must Shem be an Hundred years old fourteen days before the Six Hundreth year of Noah's age was expired. So that when the Flood was dried up and Noah went out of the Ark in the Six Hundred and first year of his age, in the second month and the Seven and Twentieth day of the month, Gen. c. 8. v. 13, 14. then was Shem an Hundred years old, 14 days, one month and 27 days, that is, one Hundred years and 71 days old, on which Seven and Twentieth day if Shem did first begin (as it is reasonable and lawful enough to conjecture) to give his mind to the duty of Marriage after the Flood, then from that day within the space of 280 days, according to the time of life, might Arphaxad be born, unto which if you add 71, the remainder of the age of Shem after the Hundreth already reckoned, there will be in the whole 351, so that there will be still remaining of the Hundreth year of the age of Shem yet current, taking out 351 out of 365 days the whole space of a year, 14 days. And therefore did not Scaliger unfitly take the 500 year of Noah current, and it is rightly said according to the plain letter of the Scripture, Et Semus erat Centum annorum filius & genuit Arphaxad secundo anno post Diluvium, And Shem was an Hundred years old and begat Arphaxad the second year after the Flood. But here they further object, that Arphaxad was born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they interpret, duobus annis, two years after the Flood. But what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 means, I conceive the LXX did more rightly interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as also did Augustin and Scaliger, secundo anno Diluvii, or post Diluvium. For if from the Creation of the World to the Flood be reckoned 1656 years, as all confess according to Hebrew account, and from the Flood to the Birth of Abraham, suppose him to be born in the 70 year of Terah, 292, it is necessary, that the first year of those 292 years begin from the Flood beginning, or the beginning of the Flood, and consequently the 1657 year from the Creation of the World, in which we say Arphaxad was born, must of necessity be the second after the Flood. As to this proof it is the same though you admit Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terah. So that Scaliger did neither unfitly take the year of the Flood also current. If any shall yet cavil at the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides the very demonstration, he calls the judgement of the LXX, as also the judgement of those persons whom all ages must acknowledge to be learned, and the very use of speech with the Hebrew into question, with whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is filius secundi anni, that is a son who is in the compass of the second year of his age, with the Latins termed bimus, and with the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof you may see note on Matth. c. 2. v. 16. But suppose the word be taken in the strict sense as they would have it, and be Translated two years after the Flood, why may not Moses, though Arphaxad was born within the space of two years complete, speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 numero completo fortè posito pro fracto, using a complete number perhaps for a broken one, ut etiam apud Demosthenem & Plautum talentum numerari videmus ubi non exiguus drachmarum numerus deest vel superest. Et vulgatissima est haec numerandi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this is a common abuse of numbering, as Scaliger hath observed. And surely very frequent with Moses himself, for who can imagine that all the Fathers lived precisely whole years, no months, nor days over or under? What end is there then in so troubling the Chronology of the Church of God, and the distracting the letter of his Word, when it is so easy to demonstrate, that what the Scripture saith, might lawfully be done, and probably also was so? And if these things be so, how in the second place can it be said, that Noah began to be a Father in the 500 year of his age? For if Shem were born to Noah in his 500 year, and Japhet were the Eldest Brother, as do rightly Translate Pagnin, the LXX, and the Chald. Paraph. Gen. c. 10. v. 24. (rightly I say, for if Moses had intended Shem for the Elder Brother, he would surely have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and Cham also the Younger Son, as for the most part he is said to be, that is younger than Japhet, for Shem was the Youngest of all, which also among many others, Josephus doth confirm, Antiq. Jud. lib. 1. c. 7. Where he calleth Shem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Third son of Noah. And Schindler also, a man of no vulgar judgement in holy matters, who saith in his Pentagl. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Cham was the second son of Noah, and Shem the youngest. How as I said before, can Noah be said to have began to be a Father in the 500 year of his age, when it appears so manifestly that Japhet and Cham must be born before? Neither is it credible, at least not probable, that he began not to be a Father, till his age began to decrease, and that he was made a Preacher of righteousness unto the perishing World; But it sounds much more likely, that he began to be a Father about the same time that his Progenitors began also to beget Sons, perhaps about the Hundreth and Eightieth year of his age, about which time Methuselah begat Lamech, and Lamech begat Noah, or perhaps enlarging the time, about the Two Hundreth or Three Hundreth year of his age. Neither, if Noah had begun to be a Father in the 500 year of his age, and Shem were his Third son, can it in any sense be said that Shem begat Arphaxad in the Hundreth year of his age, two years or the second year after the Flood, but Three years or in the third, unless we will say that all Three were born in the space of Two years, which were a strange thing to affirm. But to return to the matter itself. Their reasoning seems to me so far from reason, that I can by no means rest satisfied in it. For, first, whereas they would have Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terah, hath little probability in it. For why should Abraham wonder so, as if his reason strove with his faith, that a child should be born to him that was an Hundred years old, if he had been born to his Father in the Hundreth and Thirtieth year of his age? But this objection they value not a straw, (although it be indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) They tell you the wonder of the Patriarch is not rightly understood. For he had a respect only to his wife, and not to himself, when he spoke thus within him, It ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women, There was the wonder, as for Abraham, he had sons by a young wife Thirty and Seven years afterward. Say they so? But how then will they answer Paul, Rom. c. 4. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Non consideravit corpus suum jam emortuum, And he considered not his own body being dead, and Heb. c. 11. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quocirca & ab uno orti sunt eoque emortuo, tanquam sidera coeli, Therefore sprang there even of one and him as good as dead, as the stars of the sky in multitude. Out of which places compared together Estius concludes, Satis ex his liquere scripturam non solum in Sara ponere miraculum sed etiam in Abraham. What to Musculus?  negari non potest ista verba Abrahami exprimere quandam senilis & emortui corporis considerationem tam in Abrahamo quam in Sara. What to Ambrose? Non dubito quod facias, ut & centum annorum seni dones filium, & Naturae auctor Naturae metas relaxes. What to Chrysostom? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Supra humanam naturam promissa; erat enim Patriarcha prae senectute prope impotens & ad filiorum procreationem omnino inutilis. As to his having of sons by his young wife 37 years after, Why should not the Author of Nature enlarge the bounds of Nature? Why should not he by divine miracle repair and restore the strength of him that was almost dead, and make him to wax young again, whom he had foretold should be the Father of many Nations? Secondly, It doth not agree with reason, that Moses should leave the age of Abraham, on which depends the whole Chronology of the Church of God, in such uncertainty, that either we must fish it out or extort it by conjecture. They are the words of Langius upon another matter but of the same nature, Quem quaeso in finem haec à Mose proscripta sunt, nisi ut temporum constaret ratio? Propter hoc ergo Moses tempora apposuit, ut veritas manifestior esset, To what end were these things written of Moses, but that there might appear a clear account of the times? For this reason therefore Moses set to the times, that the truth of them might be the more manifest. But that the truth of them might be the more manifest as to the Chronology of the Church of God, whose age I beseech you aught to be more accurately certain, abraham's, or Terah's? The knowledge truly of the time of the Birth of Abraham was absolutely necessary, but so was not the knowledge of the time of the death of Terah. How shall there appear a certain account of times, if it depend wholly upon conjecture, and that so improbable, most certainly disputable? But when you have the time of Abraham's Birth, and of his departure out of Charran, you have a most sure account of the times, in which you may safely rest. Thirdly, That Abraham was not born in the Seventieth year of Terah, is against the most general opinion of the Ancients, to whom some reverence is due. Whereof I shall produce some Testimonies. The first shall be that I mentioned before out of Josephus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thara 70 genuit Abrahamum, and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abrahamus vero habuit fratres Nachorem & Haranem. From whence it manifestly appears what was the Jews opinion in Josephus his time, whatsoever they have written of that matter since, and that he thought it his business to determine the age of Abraham certain separately by itself, being not at all solicitous for the age of Nahor or Haran. There is another Testimony of the Patriarch Nicephorus before Eusebius his time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thara septuagenarius genuit Abrahamum. Besides the judgement of Eusebius himself frequent in his Chronicles, as also of the Latins, as is to be collected out of August. de Civit. Dei lib. 16. c. 10, and 15. and in Quest. super Genesim. Neither is the Testimony and judgement of that learned Arab. Gregorius Abul Pharaiius in his Hist. dinast. to be despised. Tareh filius Nahor. Natus est illi Abraham cum esset secundum utramque simul sententiam 70 annorum, & ab hoc tempore convenit inter duos computos LXX & Hebraeorum, Terah was the son of Nahor. To him was Abraham born when he was according to both opinions jointly of the age of 70 years, and from this time there is an agreement between the two accounts of the LXX and the Hebrews. And this Testimony serves to show the general opinion of the world. But how can there be said to be an agreement, if still they differ 60 years concerning the time of the Birth of Abraham? For these reasons therefore and Testimonies I cannot consent to the judgement of those that would have Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terah. What then remains? If Abraham were born to Terah according to the letter of the Scripture in the 70 year of his age, and went out of Charran after the death of his Father in the 75 year of his own age, then must Terah die but 145 years old, for 70 and 75 make 145. And this is much more agreeable to reason, than the Hebrew reading. For it can scarcely be believed, that Terah should live 57 years longer than his Father Nahor, who lived but 148, when now the age of man began to decrease, neither did any of the succeeding Patriarches ever attain that age, to wit, of 205 years, although they all received the blessing and the Promises, whereas Terah is said to have served other Gods, Jos. c. 24. v. 2. And if you will believe Suidas he was himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A maker of Images; neither doth the Scripture say any thing explicitly of his conversion. Though notwithstanding Charity and even reason itself persuade us to believe that he did not persist in his Idolatry unto the time of his death, because he went out of Vr of the Chaldees with Abraham to go into the land of Chanaan, and abode together with him in Charran until the day of his death. Yet notwithstanding I cannot think he deserved from God the favour of an age so much longer than that of his Fathers, or of any of his successors. And why may it not be lawful by the same licence, whereby they deny that Abraham was born in the 70 year of Terah according to the letter of the Scripture and the opinion of the Ancients, for us to collect, and as confidently to affirm, that Terah was but 145 years old when he died, especially having for our more abundant credit a witness in Eusebius of more than 1300 years' Antiquity, the Samaritan Chronology. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thara cum esset 70 annorum genuit Abrahamum & supervixit 75 usque ad 75 annum Abrahami, Terah being 70 years of age begat Abraham and lived after 75 years until the 75 of Abraham. And with this doth the Samaritan Pentateuch perfectly agree, Gen. c. 11. v. 32. And the days of Terah were 145 years, and Terah died in Haran, Et fuerunt dies Tharae Centum & quadraginta quinque anni, postea mortuus est Thara in Haran. And why should not this Samaritical witness be a witness of good credit, especially in a matter that is of itself so probable? What danger is there if we admit a fault or lapse in the Hebrew copy? We admit various readings in it, and why should not this difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew be reputed a various or divers reading? It was the opinion of incomparable Capellus in his Sacred Critics, Diversitatem inter Cod. Heb. & Samar. non alio referri videri quam ad variam quae inter describendum solet accidere lectionem, That the diversity which is between the Hebrew and Samaritan books, seems not to be referred to any other cause, then to the various reading which doth often happen in the copying of them. Nay, if I mistake not, we meet with as gross a fault (if it be lawful to say so) and not less to be observed, and that likewise in point of number, Gen. c. 2. v. 2. Complevitque deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in die septimo opus suum quod secerat, And on the seventh day God finished the work which he had made. And who is so tenacious of the Jewish Masora who will not acknowledge an error or mistake in this place, and confess it ought to be read, Et perfecit Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in die Sexto opus suum quod fecerat, & requievit in die Septimo ab omni opere suo quod fecerat, And in the Sixth day God finished the work which he had made, and he rested (as it followeth) on the Seventh day from all his work which he had made. As the Samaritan, the Syriack and all the Greek Interpreters do read? If then it be equal to mend the reading in this place, why should it not be lawful to mend it in the age of Terah, the sense requiring an emendation in both places? They are the words of the same Capellus, Non pauca esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae vix alia ratione solvi aut conciliari possunt quam admittendo levem in sacro codice lapsum emendandum, That there are not a few irreconcilable doubts in the Scripture, which are scarce by any other means to be solved or reconciled, then by admitting some light fault to be amended in the holy Bible. Which why it should not be done here in this very place of the age of Terah, when as the Samaritan reading doth so handsomely reconcile Stephen with Moses, and Moses with himself, I see one only obstacle, which also that incomparable man observed, Religio est vel latum pilum à codicibus Hebraeis ut Rabbinorum curâ nobis transmittuntur recedere vel ipsorum lectionem vitii arguere, We count it a scruple of conscience to departed but a hairs breadth from the Hebrew Copies as they are transmitted to us by the care of the Rabbins [our professed enemies] or to find the least fault with their reading. And if we be so resolved, the best way is, with Scaliger, to leave this knot to be untied till Elias comes.  
V 15, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et descendit Jacob in Aegyptum & defunctus est ipse & patres nostri, & translati sunt in Sichem, & positi sunt in sepulchro quod emit Abraham pretio argenti à filiis Emmor Patris Sichem, So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died he and our Fathers, and were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem. This Translation makes this place subject to many mistakes and difficulties out of which we are not yet fairly delivered. For first it implies by the connexion of the conjunction copulative, that Jacob as well as the Fathers were carried over into Sichem, etc. Whereas Jacob was buried long before the coming up out of Egypt by Joseph and the Elders of Israel, in the cave of the field of Macpelah which Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. c. 50. v. 13. Next it avoweth a positive contradiction to the letter of the Old Testament, in saying that Abraham bought a burying place of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, when as that which he bought was of Ephron the Hittite, and Jacob the purchaser of the Sons of Emmor. Lastly it necessarily implies that the Fathers were buried in Sichem, whereas in all reason and probability they were buried in the same place where their Fathers were, to wit, in Hebron. For as I said before Jacob was surely buried in the cave of the field of Macpelah which Abraham bought with the field for a possession for a burying place (questionless for his Family) of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. c. 49. v. 30. As he swore his son Joseph to bury him in the burying place of his Fathers, Gen. c. 47. v 30. Where they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife, where they buried Isaac and Rebecca his wife, and where he buried Leah, Gen. c. 49. v. 31. And where Jacob and Leah were both buried, (and their Fathers and Mothers also) its more than probable, that all their Family was also buried, Joseph being only buried in Sichem (and probably his Family,) according to the oath which he took of the Children of Israel, Gen. c. 50. v. 25. In a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of Emmor and gave his son Joseph for a portion above his Brethren, and which afterwards became the inheritance of his Children, Jos. c. 24. v. 32. And to this conjecture, if it be not more, there is nothing to object (besides this place which I shall endeavour to reconcile) but the testimony of St Hierome who in his Epitaph upon Paula saith, that the brothers of Joseph were buried in Sichem. But with reverence to so great a Father, I suppose I may without offence oppose to his the Testimony of Josephus, who in his second book of Jewish Antiquities expressly saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. And the bodies of these, that is, of the brethren of Joseph, were carried back by their Children and Grandchilds and buried in Hebron, But joseph's bones were carried by the Hebrews into Chanaan when they departed out of Egypt, as he had bound them by an oath, Gen c. 50. v. 25. Exod. c. 13. v. 19 According to which they were buried in Sichem, Jos. c. 24. v. 32. Neither was this at all abhorring from reason or duty, that they should first bury the bones of Joseph in Sichem, for honour's sake, he having been the Precedent of Egypt, and from thence carry over the bones of the rest of the Fathers to be buried in Hebron. And truly if we weigh the Testimonies, I know not why Josephus may not be credited in a matter of Story which concerns his own Nation, also of whom he writ of purpose, especially coming nearest to reason and the sense of Scripture. To rectify therefore the first possible mistake, I would have it rendered thus, Et descendit Jacob in Aegyptum, & defunctus est ipse, & Patres nostri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & ipsi translati sunt in Sichem, understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or qui translati sunt, as Beza interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. c. 6. v. 6. and elsewhere. Whereof you may see examples in note on Matth. c. 27. v. 9, 10. and on Joh. c. 15. v. 6. So Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, and our Fathers, and they were carried, or who were carried over into Sichem. That is, our Fathers and not Jacob. And to reconcile the two latter difficulties, I would have it Translated and pointed thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et ipsi, or Qui translati sunt in Sichem, & positi in sepulchro (quod emerat Abraham pretio argenti) à filiis Emmor Patris Sichem, And they, or Who were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre (which Abraham had bought with a price of money) from the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem. That is by a frequent metathesis, And they were carried over into Sichem, and from the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, or from Sichem, which in effect is all one, they were laid in the Sepulchre which Abraham had bought with a price of money. And by this Translation, which in its self is lawful, as to the Grammar or use of speech, there is no violence at all to the truth of the History, for hereby it is not affirmed that they were laid in the sepulchre, which Abraham had bought of the sons of Emmor, which doth so grossly contradict the letter of the Old Testament, or that they were buried all in Sichem, it implying quite otherwise that from Sichem they were laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought with a price of money, to wit in Hebron according to the saying of Josephus, probability of reason and sense of Scripture. Neither is this Translation forced at all. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as well nay more properly signify, From, then, Of, for it properly signifies motum à persona, the motion from a person, nay sometimes from things inanimate, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the ships, in Homer; so as I know not why if need were it might not by a familiar transposition be rendered thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, From Sichem that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the field of Sichem, as it is called in the Old Testament, which was the sons of Emmor. Neither am I altogether without a witness, Learned De Dieu agreeth with us, when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse construendum cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which opinion he thought was the best because of the Authority of Josephus.  
V 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words under favour are not aptly Translated by any Interpreter that I ever yet read. For I cannot be persuaded that the Hebrews could possibly be so barbarous and inhuman, though forced with never so much cruelty, as to cast forth their own Infants to the end they might not live, as the Translations do generally imply. Neither doth Moses tell us of any such thing in Exodus, but that Pharaoh commanded his own people (the Hebrew Midwives refusing to execute his commands because they feared God) expressly in these words, Every Son that is born to the Hebrews ye shall cast into the river, Exod. c. 1 v. 22. So that to bring these words to a more proper and truer sense, I conceive they may be more rightly Translated, and that without force in this manner, Hic circumveniens genus nostrum, afflixit Patres nostros faciendo projici infantes eorum, ne servarentur vivi, The same dealing subtly with our kindred, evilly entreated our Fathers by causing their children to be cast forth, to the end that they might not live. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Suidas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, projecta, exposed or cast forth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may by good Authority be Translated, faciendo projici, by causing to be cast forth. You may read the same phrase purely in the same sense, 1 King. c. 17. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tu afflixisti viduam faciendo mori filium ejus, or as the Latin Interpreter of the LXX, interficiendo filium ejus, or as our late Interpreter, mortem afferendo filio ejus, Thou hast also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn by slaying of her son. The like you have in Ruth c. 1. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod visitaverat dominus populum ejus dando eis panem. As Pagnin rightly renders it. That the Lord had visited his people by giving them bread. And Psal. 78. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et tentarunt deum in cord suo petendo cibum, etc. And they tempted God in their hearts by ask meat for their lusts.  
V 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et expletis annis quadraginta, And when Forty years were expired. That is, From the time that Moses was said to be full Forty years old, v. 23. for now he was Fourscore, when the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in the bush. v. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the hand of the Angel which appeared unto him in the bush. But that Angel was God himself, Exod. c. 3. v. 6, and 13. and so beneath, v. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who was with the Angel who spoke to him in mount Sina. But that Angel is several times called God, Exod. c. 19 and so again it follows, v. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who have received the law by the disposition of Angels, the same with that, Gal. c. 3. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Law was ordained by Angels. When yet 'tis expressly said, Exod. c. 20. v. 1. Et locutus est Elohim, And God spoke these words and said. So also it is said, Gen. c. 48. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The God of Abraham and Isaac, the God which did feed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads. And Judg. c. 13. v. 21, 22. Manoah calleth the Angel of God, God, for he knew that he was an Angel of God, and yet immediately saith, we shall surely die because we have seen God. So Luk. c. 2. v. 9 The Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, that is of the Angel of the Lord. From which examples it is manifest, That it is no strange thing, to have that ascribed unto Angels, which God doth by their ministry, and that sometimes Angels are called by the name of God, and God, sometime by the name of an Angel. The reason is because all the outward works of God are done by the ministry of Angels. For God cannot properly be said to have a mouth or hands or feet, to speak or go before, or to appear. With or by his will he doth all things, putting it in execution by his ministering spirits, who are his intermediate Messengers and Actors. Which very order is observed also by earthly Princes, who for the most part execute all public matters by their Ministers.  
V 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod etiam introduxerunt Patres nostri accipientes successiuè alius ab alio cum Jesus in possessionem Gentium, Which also our Father's receiving successively one from another brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phav.  
C. 10. v. 36, 37, 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or appositively. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive with the Syriack Interpreter you are to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than which nothing is more frequent. Verbum quod misit filiis Israel annuncians pacem per Jesum Christum (hic est omnium dominus) vos nostis, verbum scilicet quod fuit per totam Judaeam, initium sumens à Galilaea post baptisma quod praedicavit Johannes de Jesus Nazareno, quomodo unxerit eum Deus spiritu sancto, etc. The word which he sent to the children of Israel preaching peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all) ye know, to wit, the word which was through all Judaea beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the holy Ghost, etc. Ye know, that is, ye have heard of, ye cannot be ignorant of a discourse or talk that hath been so common through all Judaea, how the holy Ghost descended upon him when he was baptised of John in the River Jordan, and how afterward he went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil.  
C. 13. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And after that he gave them Judges the space of 450 years until Samuel the Prophet. This place, saith Scaliger, is crux Chronologorum. The truth is, Interpreters also have not been a little vexed with it. Among whom there are not few, who maintain this reading and interpretation, which our English here have used. And this is very plausibly made good by Beroaldus Chron. lib. 3. c. 4. by adding in his computation the years of the Oppressers to the number of those of the Judges, which beginning from the time that Cushanrishathaim began to oppress Israel, Judg. c. 3. v. 8. do make up the just number of 450 years until Samuel. But besides the just exceptions which may be taken to this account, as that the time of the Elders who judged Israel immediately after Joshua is not mentioned nor comprised in it, who cannot be denied to have been Judges, though how long, it is not evident in Scripture. Eusebius saith, Tradition gave them 18 years, Africanus allowed them 30, but how long or short so ever, it adds to the account of 450 years, so that the number cannot be so precise as he would have it: And besides that the 20 years of Samson, in which he Judged Israel in the days of the Philistines, into whose hands God gave the Israelites the space of 40 years, are to be deducted out of those days, which must necessarily make the account not to be so exact. Beroaldus hath made himself an unanswerable objection. And that is this. Putting or supposing that the time from the coming out of Egypt to the building of the Temple may not be questioned to be other then 480 years, as it is punctually set down, 1 King. c. 6. v. 1. which account himself and Beza do both maintain is precisely to be observed, if we allow 450 years to the Judges, adding 40 to Moses in the wilderness, 18 to Joshua, (and none allow him fewer) 40 to Samuel and Saul, 30 to David, and 4 to Solomon before the beginning of the building of the Temple, the whole will be (not reckoning the Elders) 582 years, so as observing his own rule, it is impossible that 450 years can be allowed to the times of the Judges. 'tis true he tells you, That it is to be noted for the better understanding of the Apostle, That some years are repeated twice, as the years of the Israelites oppression are said to be comprehended in and referred to that sum of years, in which it's said there was peace, and that the land had rest from war. Whereof the Apostle being not at all solicitous, did nominate that sum, which all the several sums [of Judges and Oppressors] made up together. But that the Apostle had these considerations, the times of the Elders and the 20 years of Samson making also the account so imperfect and uncertain, or that he had none at all, is not probable. Neither is it credible, that against the light of his own and common knowledge he would have mentioned a sum of years which was not reconcileable with the letter of holy Scripture. For that had been an egregious scandal to the Jews. who were neither ignorant, nor inobservant of the computation of the Times. This reading and interpretation therefore being subject to so just exceptions, I suppose we may without injury inquire into some other, and truly I meet with none less liable to exception then that of those, who would not have it here meant, how long God gave them Judges, but when he gave them, and for that cause distinguish and refer those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the words going before, v. 17. that is to the time when the God of the children of Israel chose their Fathers, so as the words ought to be pointed, and rendered otherwise then commonly they are in most Translations, in English thus, And afterwards about 450 years, that is by a familiar Metathesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And about 450 years afterwards he gave them Judges, etc. according to which sense read the Old Latin and the  Interpreters. Now this time wherein God may properly be said to have chosen their Fathers, about 450 years before he gave them Judges, is by them computed from the Birth of Isaac, in whom God may properly be said to have chosen their Fathers. For God who had chosen Abraham out of all the people of the earth, out of the children of Abraham at this time chose Isaac, in whose Family the Covenant was to rest. And to make this computation evident; From the Birth of Isaac they say, to the Birth of Jacob are 60 years, from thence to their going into Egypt 130, from thence to their coming out 210, from thence to their entrance into the land of Canaan 40, and from thence to the division of the Land, the time wherein it had rest, about which time its probable they began to settle their Government by Judges, 7 years, which altogether make up 447. And if it should be reckoned from the year before when God established his Covenant between himself and Abraham and Isaac, even before he was born, and all his seed after him, Gen. c. 17. v. 19 at which time God may be said as properly to have chosen their Fathers if not more, than it will be 448 years, which comes one year nearer to our number of 450. But our Learned and Judicious Usher makes it from the Birth of Isaac to the division of the Land (which he saith was about 450 years after the election of the Fathers) 452 years. And others almost if not just 450. From whence we may conjecture that by reason of this uncertainty of computation, The Apostle did express the circumstance of the time with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a circiter, an about 450 years. So as Scaliger saith, it was very wisely said of Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That the Apostle spoke not according to exact account, but with a common exception, that is, so as it be a number according to ordinary speaking, whereby we pronounce any sum totally, but not exactly. So with Demosthenes and Plautus we see that called a Talon, where notwithstanding some dramms are wanting or abounding. And this, saith he, is vulgatissima numerandi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as was mentioned before.  
V 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The English Translator hath expressed the sense, but not Translated strictly to the words, which by reason of the Synchysis, and involved and perplexed trajection being not well distinguished, are not for the most part so rightly rendered as they ought. And from hence it is, as Heinsius hath observed, that the force and emphasis of the reprehension is quite lost, by which the Apostle most elegantly seems to reprove the blind ignorance and stupidity of the Jews, who when they pored altogether on the Scriptures, did yet do the very same thing of which they were in them forewarned, that is, they went about to take him away who in them was to the Eye pointed out their Messiah, the very Person whom they expected. The words therefore may in my opinion be more lively rendered, as they are before distinguished, Thus, Qui enim habitabant in Jerusalem, & principes eorum, hunc condemnantes, ignorantes etiam voces Prophetarum quae unoquoque legebantur Sabbato impleverunt, For they which dwelled in Jerusalem, and their Rulers, condemning him, not understanding even the voices of the Prophets which were read every Sabbath, fulfilled them. That is, by condemning of Jesus, they fulfilled the Scriptures although they were duly read unto them every Sabbath. The like implicit and perplexed trajections you may find in Demosthenes, whom Stephanus affirms to have used them. Ad venustutem sermoni conciliandam, To gain a grace unto his speech. And in Plato, such as is that in his Phaedra's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vera, inquit, dicis, Socrates, O Cebes. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vera dicis O Cebes, inquit Socrates. Which kind of speech Cicero seems to have imitated and affected. As, Noli, inquit, mirari, Africanus. And O magnam, inquit, artem, Brutus. See Beza his Exposition upon Act. c. 24. v. 22. and Joh. c. 13. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nunquam lavabis pedes meos. See also Luk. c. 8. v. 14. 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 27. Philp. c. 1. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mihi enim Christus est in vita, & in morte lucrum, understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See James also, c. 2. v. 1. c. 3. v. 3. and Pet. 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 21. and 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19  
V 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Apostle citys neither Greek nor Hebrew strictly, but comes nearest to the Greek, whom saving the sense he hath contracted, For with them Habak. c. 1. v. 5. 'tis read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videte intergentes & aspicite, & obstupescite, obstupescite, as some Translate it, one and the same word being twice repeated. But the LXX whose custom it is to render one and the same word diversely according to the possible diversity of the points or letters, after they had according to the common reading rendered the words suitably, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposing the ingemination of the Hebrew meant some intenceness in the act, as if you should say, mire miremini, be ye wonderfully astonished, suspecting still the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might possibly and aught to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than the other word twice, the mistake also being so easy by reason of the likeness of the letters, especially if blurred or blotted, or any corner of a letter at all omitted in the copy, added likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which aptly suits with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, latibulum quaerite, or tegimini, seek ye a hiding place, or hid yourselves. In which sense you may see it Translated, Psal. 60. v. 4. and Isai. c 30. v. 2. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Hesychius is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tegere or abscondere, to hid or cover. So Plut. de Pyth. Orac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Non vult abscondere veritatem, He will not conceal or hid the truth. And elsewhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cervi quando decidit cornu defodiunt & abscondunt in terrâ, Stags when their Horns fall off dig and hid them in the earth. So Job c. 22. v. 20. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to hid, the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in this sense this word may possibly be more aptly and more significantly rendered here, Videte Contemptores, & obstupescite & adscondimini, Behold ye Despisers, and be amazed, and hid yourselves, or seek ye hiding places. And that this may be so, I believe the rather because of the similitude of the Hebrew Characters, which makes them so prone to be mistaken, and that we may almost infallibly conclude the same hath happened in another word in this very place of Habak. where instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is now read in the Hebrew, and accordingly Translated, inter gentes, among the nations, the Greek Interpreters did surely read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly Translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contemptores, Despisers. And so they frequently Translate the same word, as Prov. c. 13. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Viae contemnentium in perditione, The way of Despisers is in destruction. Zeph. c. 3. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prophetae ejus portantes spiritum, viri contemptores, Her Prophets carry the spirit, men that are despisers. You shall find the same word in this very chapter of Habak. v. 13. And in truth these words seem not to be spoken to the Gentiles, but to the Jews, whom alone the Prophet's immediate discourse did totally concern, upon whom even in their days was to come that great devastation of the Babylonish Captivity, of which he here surely Prophesied (and not against Nebuchadnessar and the Chaldeans, as Expositors do generally conclude, led thereunto by the misreading of these very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter Gentes.) For it is the common opinion Habakkuk prophesied in the days of Manasseh, and it suits well with the matter of his Prophecy and the circumstance of time, For in Manasseh his days for the abominable wickedness which was committed in the same did the Lord speak by his Prophet saying, Behold I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah that whosoever heareth of it both his ears shall tingle, and I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hands of their enemies, and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 2 King. c. 21. v. 12, 14. The very subject matter of our Prophet's prophecy, so that Habakkuk might probably enough be that very Prophet, who here comes with an Ecce to them, because they perverted judgement, despised the Law of God and were full of violence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Behold ye despisers and be amazed, and hid yourselves, for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you, For Lo, I will raise up the Chaldaeans, etc. and they shall gather the captivity as the sand, v. 9 So as without question this denunciation of the Prophet was here directed to the Jews, whom he here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, despisers, that they should behold and with astonishment admire the work of the Lord which he was to do in their days, so as for very amazement and consternation they should seek to hid themselves, and wish the very hills would come down and cover them from the dreadful wrath which was to come. And lest this fate should now come again upon the Jews, the Apostle bids them in this place beware, in the foregoing verse, foresignifying the fearful Destruction of Jerusalem, then near at hand.  
V 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam, as the Old Latin: Ordinati, as Beza, but in the same sense as we Translate it also. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. But this is but a harsh and unusual version of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being no where to be found in that sense, neither doth it agree with the sense of Scripture, as many are of opinion. And truly I for my part doubt whether all that then believed were praeordained to eternal life [might there not be some Apostates?] I am sure there is nothing to oblige my faith thereto, I conceive no more than those which in Corinth are called Saints, who surely believed also, otherwise the Apostle would never have called them Saints, neither had they been reputed part of the Church which was in Corinth, who I suppose there is no man will affirm, were all saved, as are in their sense, those who were preordained to eternal life. That therefore this place may bring no weight to the establishing of so controverted a sense, of which there will never be an end of disputing till Elias comes, why may not these words be better distinguished and Translated, thus? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et crediderunt, quotquot convenerunt, in vitam aeternam, And as many as were met together, believed in eternal life. The Jews held themselves unworthy of eternal life, by putting the word of God from them, v. 46. But the Gentiles when they heard it, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were met together believed in eternal life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word was used, v. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is one of the articles of our Creed, the very subject of the Apostles preaching, Joh. c. 17. v. 3. And as for the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is not unsuitable to the place, no more is it new without Authority. For the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is frequently by the LXX Translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, convenio, and congrego, is also by them Translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exod. c. 29. v. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et conveniam ibi filiis Israel, Pagnin. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, as in our own Translation. And though some perhaps may say that this was a mistake in the Seventy Interpreters, which yet is but spoken of free cost, for Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotio Translated so likewise, or that they meant [praecipiam] as their Latin Interpreter would have it, certainly the genuine sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in it something near of kin to our Interpretation. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in ordine colloco, to place in order, so as it abhorreth not from our sense to say, And as many as were placed in order, [to hear the word of God] believed in eternal life, or as many as were instructed, according to the force of the word, praecipiam, that is, as many as were instructed in what the Apostle taught them. Nor can I be otherwise persuaded, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must necessarily be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what sense soever is put upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
C. 14. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, as some, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And when they had appointed them Elders, or as others, When they had ordained them Elders, in the Ecclesiastical sense as it is at this day used. But which of these two is the truer or more proper in this place, is no small question. If I may speak with liberty, after a serious disquisition, I cannot but profess, I totally assent to them who would have Luke here mean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having appointed, and not Ordained, in the other sense. For I am not convinced with Argument or Testimony, so as to believe, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did by itself alone at that time, or many years after signify either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Imposition of hands, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Consecration. So that all which Zonaras affirms concerning the true acception of this word in the beginning of his Scholia upon the first Canon of the Apostles, (to what end or by what impulse soever) I think is very really right and true. Whose words, because they fully express my meaning, and that they may be better understood by other Authorities, which I shall allege, I have thought fit here to set down. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Now adays a course of prayers, and invocation on the holy Spirit, when one is initiated into the Priesthood, and receiveth consecration, is called Cheirotonia, from thence so termed, because the Bishop extends his hand over him whom he blesseth, when he is chosen into holy orders, But Anciently the choice or suffrage was called Cheirotonia, For when it was lawful for the multitude in their Cities to choose their Priests or Bishops, the multitude met together, and some chose one man, some another, but that it might appear, whose suffrage won, they say the Electors did use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stretch forth their hands, and by their hands so stretched forth or up, they were numbered who chose the one and who the other. And him who was Elected by the most suffrages or voices, they placed in the high Priesthood, that is, made him Bishop. And from hence was the name of Chierotonia taken, which also the Fathers of the Councils are found so to have used, calling their suffrage, Cheirotonia. An example whereof he bringeth out of the fifth Canon of the Council of Laodicea. And thus far Zovaras. From whom it manifestly appears, that the word Cheirotonia in the Ecclesiastical sense, as it is now used of Ordination, was then new and borrowed long after the Apostles times. And to prove this yet more fully, laying aside and barring all suspected and questionable Authorities, let us do it with such Testimonies of Primitive writers, whose Authority is sound and received of all. Beginning first with Paul himself, 2 Cor. c. 8. v. 19 Where the brother whose praise is in the Gospel, and that was questionless St Luke, is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appointed by the Churches, a companion to travel with St Paul. And I cannot think that any man will soberly and seriously affirm, that he was ordained by the Churches in the sense of Ordination as it is now understood, by Invocation, Imposition of hands, and Consecration. And from him let us descend to the next Writers who are universally counted genuine. In which rank in the first place is Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, where you have these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye ought as a Church of God to choose or appoint a Bishop, to wit, for or to the Church of Antioch in Syria. Where I suppose likewise no body can soberly say that the Bishops are there understood, as if he had written to the Church Representative, when he writes indefinitely to all the Philadelphians, whom he calls collectively the Church, and to whom he gives particular instructions, not proper to the Bishops if alone. And from him let us come to the Ecclesiastical Historians, Among whom for the most part, if not altogether the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify or import election or constitution, to choose or to appoint. Nay in some places it must be necessarily Translated, and I believe it may be lawfully so in all. So we read, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib 6. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All the brethren being gathered togetber in the Church for the election of a Bishop. So Socrat. lib. 2. c. 6. Alexander the Bishop of Constantinople is said to have died, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not having appointed any body in his place. And c. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. There was a great contention about the election of a Bishop, some desiring one and some another. So Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I gave a voice with others to thy election. There are many more examples in the same Authors to the same purpose, as in Zozomen, also, lib. 3. c. 7. and elsewhere, and in Evagr. lib. 3. c. 13. Pergamius is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Appointed Precedent of Egypt. And so we have in Philo. in leg. ad Caium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To those who were appointed Governors of Provinces. Not to speak of Profane Authors, among whom Maximus Tyrius hath a notable example of Darius his wanton Horse, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chose his Master to be King. So that as far as I can collect from the Testimonies of the Ancient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them did signify to elect or to appoint. 'tis true, we find the word in the other sense of Ordination, in several Books which pretend to great Antiquity, as in the Canons of the Apostles, the Constitutions of Clemens, and Respons. ad Orthodoxos, which passeth under the name of Justin Martyr, but there being just cause of suspicion among the Learned of the Authors and Antiquities of every one of them, it is not reasonable that their suspected Authority should impose a law for the use of a word, on the Testimony of others whose truth or credit was never yet called in question. I shall only add an argument or two. It is not likely that Luke whom all acknowledge skilful in the language of the Greeks, would use a word in a sense not known unto them, nor possible to be known Neither is it probable that none of the Ancient Lexicographers should make any mention at all of any such sense as is that of Zonaras his Ordination, with Invocation of the spirit and Imposition of hands, who generally say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Being therefore convinced with these Testimonies and arguments I cannot but believe, that in Ancient times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify no more then to elect or appoint, and consequently that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place denotes no more than the bare appointing of Elders by Paul and Barnabas, and not Imposition of hands or Consecration, or, which we call now a days, Ordination. The first notion of that sense in express words in an approved Author is in Hierome upon Isaiah c. 58. where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse ordinationem clericorum, quae non solum ad imprecationem vocis sed ad impositionem impletur manus, That Cheirotonia was the Ordination of Clerks, which is accomplished not only by the prayer of the voice, but also by the Imposition of hands. Which acception of the word in that sense seems first about those times to have been taken notice of, about those days when sundry tumults happening between the people themselves, and the people and the Clergy about the choice of Bishops, the people by the decree of the Bishops were prudently excluded from having or giving any voice any more in election of their Bishop. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remained still, being by them assumed, and in tract of time substituted and accommodated to their use in the sense of Consecration, or as we now call it, Ordination. In sum lest any should wrest my meaning, I have only to do with those, who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this individual place properly and by itself to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is solemn Ordination, by prayer, fasting and Imposition of hands. This only I deny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify in this place. That these Elders whom the Apostles had chosen or appointed in several distant places were all consecrated with prayer and fasting in the several places where they were chosen, I do not deny but verily believe. Though these words in this place do not evince so much, as some have thought, who by 〈…〉 of blessed St Chrysostom, do not imprudently or incogitantly refer the prayers and fasting to the valediction of Paul and Barnabas, and not to the constitution or appointing of Elders, as if that were only mentioned by the by, and that the sense should be according to the right construction, Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros, precati cum jejunio commendarunt eos domino, And when they had appointed them Elders in every Church, having prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. As if the prayers and fasting belonged to the farewell of the Apostles. Neither was such a farewell at all incongruous or unusual. Act. c. 20. v. 36. Paul being to take leave of the Ephesians, prayed with them all, and c. 21. v. 5. taking leave of the disciples in Tyre, he prayed with them kneeling on the shore. If they did also sometime at parting fast, it is a thing probable enough in a business which always was so solemn. Neither could the Ordination of Elders with prayers and fasting in every Church at Derbe, Lystra, Antioch and Iconium possibly be the work of one day and time, as is necessarily implied, if immediately after the Ordination, the Apostles commended them to the Lord and took their leaves, and so departed.  
C. 15. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Nunc ergo quid tentatis Deum imponendo jugum cervici discipulorum? Now therefore why tempt ye God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples? The same manner of speech as is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. c. 7. v. 19  
V 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, simeon narravit quomodo Deus primo visitaverat, sumendo ex gentibus populum nomini suo, Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit them, by taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name. You must understand after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, that is the Gentiles mentioned, v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same phrase with that immediately before. It is an elleiptical kind of speech, and is to be supplied with some Preposition and the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is most congruous to the sense, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Act. c. 27. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  autem decretum est de navigatione nostrâ in Italiam. Or the like.  
C. 16 v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ubi domus orationis lege sancita est esse, Where a house of prayer was by the law appointed to be. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly, lege sancio. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies in all probability in this place, an oratory, or place of prayer, as the Syriack and Arabic both interpret it, which was allowed it seems by the Magistrates of Phillippi to the Jews that dwelled thereabout for the exercise of their devotions. So Josephus who was not long after Luke, if not contemporary with him, calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A great room capable to receive a multitude of people, wherein they used to pray as is evident by the History. So you read in Philo against Flaccus, that the people of Alexandria cried out with one consent that the Images of Caesar were to be set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Oratories of the Jews: and in his Embassadge to Caius, that the people being gathered together in great multitudes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Jewish Oratories cut down some, demolished others, and others burnt, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as many Oratories as they could not burn, they vexed another way, by setting up in them the Statues of Caius. And indeed the word is familiar with him in this sense.  
C. 17. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui curam habebant Pauli, But they who had the care of Paul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. or Qui disponebant Paulum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dispono, Gloss. Vet.  
C. 18. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Constringebatur spiritu, i. e. Intus apud se aestuabat prae zeli ardore, Beza. But it's nearer to the letter, to say, Tenebatur animo testificari Judaeis Jesum esse ipsum Christum, Paul was earnestly minded to testife unto the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysostom, and teneri desiderio and teneri metu with the Latins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Particle is put for the Infinitive with words signifying any affection of the mind.  
C. 19 v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So reads Rob. Steph. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a great letter, as others. In Schola alicujis civitatis principis, Disputing daily in the school of one of the Rulers of the city. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Princeps Civitatis, Phavor. And in this sense the Aethiop. and Arab. Interpreters seem to have understood it. The word is often used by the Chald. Paraph. Jos. c. 13. v. 3. and Judg. c. 16. in several places, instead of the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We have the same very word likewise in the LXX, Dan. c. 3. v. 2. Esth. c. 9 v. 3. Habak. c. 1. v. 10. Neither if it were a proper name, is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proper to be added. Si nomen est proprium cur addit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eras. Yet see Zeger. and Grot.  
V 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Paul resolved in his mind passing through Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Statui dicere, I was resolved to speak. Aelian, de Animal. lib. 2. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes animus, as Ezek. c. 20. v. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And if this come into your mind. So c. 20. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et ecce ego nunc obstrictus animo proficiscor in Jerusalem, And behold I am now bound in my mind to go unto Jerusalem, that is, I am throughly resolved to go unto Jerusalem, though I know not the things that shall befall me there.  
C. 20. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the upper Chamber, In caenaculo, In the Room wherein they usually supped. In the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ascendit. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Schindler is Superior pars domus, etc. The upper part of the house unto which they went by stairs, in which Anciently they were wont to sup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so 'tis frequently Translated in the Old Testament by the Greek Interpreters, and caenaculum by the Latins, Caenacula dicuntur ad quae scalis ascenditur, Fest.  
C. 21. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You must necessarily understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Venerunt simul cum nobis quidam ex discipulis à Caesareâ ducentes ad Mnasonem quendam Cyprium, antiquum discipulum apud quem hospitaremur, And there came also together with us certain of the disciples from Caesarea who conducted us to one Mnason a Cyprian an old disciple with whom we should lodge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, to Mnasons' house. To words that fignisie motion to a place, the Dative is oftentimes put for the Accusative with a preposition. As, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the mean time I cannot but wonder that most Interpreters Translate adducentes secum Mnasonem, and brought with them one Mnason, when as it agrees neither with sense nor Grammar, It being much more probable that Mnason with whom they meant to lodge was at that time at Rome.  
C. 24. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly, Inter quae, The which whilst I was doing, certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the Temple. You have the same phrase in the same sense, c. 26. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The which whilst I was doing, that is, whilst he was persecuting the Jews, v. 11. As he went to Damascus, etc. He saw a light from heaven, etc.  
C. 26. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Saying nothing other then what the Prophets and Moses said should come to pass, if Christ was subject for to suffer, if he was the first from the Resurrection of the dead, etc. Si passibilis Christus, is the Translation of the Interlineary and the vulgar Latin, neither can the Greek words admit any other. The Jews expected then, as still to this very day they do expect, a Messiah whose Kingdom should be of this world, and so did the Apostles also at the first before his Resurrection, and therefore could by no means believe, that he could be subject unto Death or Passion. To root out which opinion out of their thoughts, St Paul would not have them persuaded barely by his word, but convinceth them by the Testimony of their own very Prophets; before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood.  
C. 27. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hanc injuriam, commonly, This harm, but why not better, this storm, if it be true that Suidas saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eo quod pluat pondus, or graviter, Because it raineth heavily, or grievously. And we have in Julius Pollux, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ventus insolens or procellosus, A boisterous or stormy wind. And thus Translated the sense is altogether as good if not better, Oportuit auscultasse mihi, & non solvisse à Creta, vitasse hanc tempestatem & jacturam, Ye ought to have hearkened unto me, and not to have loosed from Crete, and to have avoided this storm and loss.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To the Romans.  
Ch. 1. v. 17.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words seem to be expounded with most significancy by trajection, For the righteousness of God by Faith is in it revealed for Faith, that is to be believed. As if it were written, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That such trajections are very frequent I have showed in sundry places, it is called, c. 3.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The righteousness of God by Faith of or in Jesus Christ. And in truth is the main purpose of this Epistle. As for the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is used in the same sense immediately before, v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To or for the obedience of Faith, that is, that the Faith may be obeyed among all Nations, as also, c. 15.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the obedience of the Gentiles, that is, that the Gentiles may be made obedient. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth, [there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to the Jew first and also to the Greek, v. 16. So that it most fitly follows, For therein is the righteousness of God by Faith revealed that it may be believed, as it is written, Justus autem ex fide vivet, That he that is just by Faith, shall live, to wit, he shall inherit eternal life. For the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth in his Son. You may see the like trajections, Act. 13.27. 2 Cor. 4.4. 1 Pet. 3.21.  
C. 2. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Opus legis, The work of the law. The work or business of the law, is to accuse, or to excuse, and this is that conscience which is written in the hearts of all.  
C. 3. v. 5, 6, 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Si vero iniquitas nostra justitiam dei commendat, quid dicemus? Nun injustus est Deus qui infert iram? (secundum hominem loquor, absit. Tum enim quomodo Deus judicabit mundum?) Si enim veritas dei in meo mendacio abundavit ad gloriam ipsius, quid ego tanquam peccator adhuc judicor & non (sicut blasphemamur, & sicut quidam nos aiunt dicere) quoniam fecerimus mala ut venirent bona? quorum judicium justum est, But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? is not God unjust who inflicteth punishment? (I speak as a man, far be it. For then how shall God judge the world?) for if the truth of God through my falseness hath more abounded unto his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner and not (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say) because we have done evil, that good might follow? whose judgement is just. Most Interpreters do here omit the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as redundant. But I conceive it is by no means to be pretermitted, for that it is the very word that explains the whole sense, which hitherto is very perplexed and obscure. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is commonly rendered in the Imperative, Faciamus, Let us do, I have Translated in the subjunctive Aorist in its proper sense together with the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quoniam fecerimus, because we have done. The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have Translated with Grotius in the Interrogative Negative, Nun, is not? for so the sense requires, it being spoken carnally, or like a man, to charge God with injustice, and so you shall find the word to be taken, Matth. c. 12. v. 23. Joh. c. 4. v. 29. and elsewhere. Those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which divide the coherence, I have distinguished with a larger Parenthesis, that the connexion and inference of the sense may more easily appear, which is plainly thus, For if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God what shall we say? is not God unjust who inflicteth punishment? for if the truth of God through my falseness hath more abounded unto his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner, and not rather judged, because we have done evil that good might come, whose judgement that so judge is just. For if they were called into judgement because they had done evil that good might come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to man they might say, that God was unjust for punishing them as sinners, who had done nothing but what tended to his glory, and this judgement in their opinion is just. But if this should be granted, how should God judge the world? if with this plea the wicked might avoid his judgement, there would be none left to punish. And therefore the Apostle adds, I speak as a man, according to the Sophistical argumentation of the Jews, or as Hierome saith, Secundum te qui talia sentis, According to thee who so thinkest. But far be it from our thoughts, for God cannot be unjust.  
C. 5. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For a righteous man scarce any man will die, but for a good man peradventure some will dare to die. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Glossary is benignus, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Suidas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad misericordiam propensi, such as are very prone to mercy. And in Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui non rogatus bona sua largitur citra invidiam, Who bestows his goods unasked without grudging. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theocritus saith of Menalcas. So that, Good, is a complex word that hath several meanings, it signifieth, Courteous or kind, merciful or liberal, and such is a friend in all respects, and for such a friend perhaps some would dare to die, as some rare examples tell us; or perhaps Good may be taken here as personally good to such a man, and such a one is properly a friend. Let a man be never so just or righteous, there's none will lay down his life for him, but for such a one as hath been good to me, as my friend hath been, perhaps for such a one I shall dare to die, and farther reacheth not the love of man. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. No man hath Greater love than this, that he lay down his life for his friend, Joh. c. 15. v. 13. But God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, that is enemies, Christ died for us. This is the love which exceedeth knowledge, Eph. c. 3. v. 19  
V 12, 13, 14. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In most Interpreters you have in this place an Anantopodoton, that is a deficiency in the reddition of the sense, a sicut without a sic, which ought by all means to be avoided, if without violence to the Text it possibly may. Nor can I assent to those who to prevent the inconvenience of an Anantopodosis would have the 18 and 19 verses answer to the 12. which seems to me too constrainedly forced. I rather approve their judgements who Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a frequent Metathesis, ita quoque, so also, as the Old Latin Interpreter of Chrysostom; the Syriack and Arabic read, or etiam ita, even so, by which version there is no wrong either to the construction or the sense, but all is whole taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in the redditive and not in the copulative sense, as it is in the Lord's prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ut in coelo etiam in terra. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum introiit, & per peccatum mors, etiam ita mors in omnes homines pertransiit eo quòd omnes peccaverunt, Therefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, even so death passeth upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until the Law, that is, before the Law sin was in the world. That sin was in the world before the Law, seems to be the main thing that the Apostle here laboureth to prove, that he might meet with the  or implied objection of those who probably did deny that all men were sinners and the enemies of God, as he had before affirmed, v. 8. and therefore did Sophistically argue, that Christ died not for all, because sin is the transgression of the Law, but they which had no Law, could not transgress that which they had not, for the Law was from Moses, Joh. c. 1. v. 17. To meet therefore with their objection, he useth this argument, As by one man sin entered into the world and by sin death, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For this very reason, Even so is death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, none excepted. So that it appears most certainly true that from the fall of Adam to the Law given by Moses, for he speaks of no other Law throughout the whole Epistle, sin was in the world. But it is farther objected, that sin is not imputed where there is no Law, for the Law worketh wrath, c. 4. v. 5. To which he gives no other answer, but an implicit one, the same in effect which he gave before, Immo, for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive is to be rendered here, Regnavit mors ab Adam, etc. Yea death reigned from Adam to Moses, therefore was sin not only in the world before the Law, but also imputed before the Law. Their dying was an argument not only that they had sinned, but that also their sin was imputed, for the wages of sin is death, and therefore because death hath passed on all men, it's necessarily determined that all have sinned, and so become obnoxious to the punishment of death, even they who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, for death reigned on very Infants, who sinned not actually, as Adam did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is the type of man to come, to wit, of all mankind. For Adam did in his person represent all the Race of men which were to spring from his loins. And in this regard and sense Adam seems to me most fitly to be styled in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The type of man which is to come. I acknowledge all Interpreters elder and later understand Christ to be him that was to come, but I see no cogency in the Text to bind my Faith to that interpretation, but rather arguments to dissuade it. For truly if we speak in a proper sense, Adam cannot be said to be the type of Christ. For a type is the express Image or Figure of the thing it represents, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut sigillo cera, the type answereth to the antitype, as the wax unto the seal. It is absolutely necessary that the type of that which is good be good itself, and the type of that which is evil must be evil, otherwise it cannot be a type. It is the sense of Chrysostom in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, c. 9 v. 23. Neither is there any will say that Adam is a true and proper type of Christ, but that he is so only per antithesim, or analogiam, by opposition of contraries, or proportion, or by some intricate distinction, such as is that of Origen's, Juxta genus constare similitudinem, juxta speciem repugnantiam esse, That there is a similitude as to the Genus, a repugnancy as to the species. Whereas Adam is properly, truly and significantly, I may add aptly and appositely to this place, said to be the type of his offspring which was to come from his loins, and which he did so virtually represent in his person, as that by his sin they all became obnoxious to sin and death. And from these words thus expounded is form as strong an argument for Original sin as from any Text of Scripture. Neither do I seem to be altogether without witness, I have the  Version or Paraphrase for me. The words whereof in Latin are these. Veruntamen dominata est mors propterea ab Adamo usque ad Mosem, tam in iis qui peccaverunt, quem in iis qui non peccaverunt, per illud peccatum Adami, eo quod unusquisque in similitudine Adami creatus est, & quia Adamus typus fuit illius qui erat venturus, Nevertheless death reigned therefore from Adam to Moses, as well in those that sinned, as also in those that sinned not, by that sin of Adam, because that every one is born in the likeness of Adam, and because Adam was the type of him that was to come. From which words I could make no other construction, but that he plainly means that death did reign over all by the sin of Adam, for these two causes, because every one was born, in the likeness of Adam, and because Adam was the type of him who was to come. Both which reasons seem to me one and the same, the one being a reddition or explication only of the other, it being all one to say, that Adam was a type of his Posterity, and that Adam's Posterity was born in his likeness. But to say that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam because Adam was the type of Christ, is surely an inconsequent argument. Whereas to affirm, that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam, because Adam was a type that represented all his Posterity, methinks, answers fitly to the place, and is very easy for the lowest capacity at first sight to apprehend.  
C. 6. v. 4. Christ is said to be raised from the dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the glory of the Father, as it is commonly rendered. Beza would have it, In gloriam Patris, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the glory of the Father. The Translation either way is harsh. Why may it not be much better rendered by a familiar trajection? Per Patrem gloriae, By the Father of glory, which is significant and apt, as he is elsewhere called Dominus gloriae, and Deus gloriae, The Lord of glory, and the God of glory. And so is he expressly called, Eph. c. 1. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pater gloriae, The Father of glory.  
C 7. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Or as it is in our margin from this body of death? And why not, O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the death of this body? that is thus captivated under the Law of sin which is in its members, v. 23. And so the sense without any Metaphor is plain and suitable to the scope of the place. There being nothing more familiar than such trajections. Examples whereof you may see, Heb. c. 7. v. 4. Jam. c. 2. v. 1. c. 3. v. 3. 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 21. 2 Pet. c. 1. v. 19 You have one in the margin of this very place.  
V 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words are to be supplied out of the former, whereto they are a perfect answer. The Apostles trembling question was, Who shall deliver me from the death of this body, that is such a slave to sin? to which he forthwith answers, I thank God he will deliver me, through Jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being to be understood, as a reddition to the question.  
C. 8. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I cannot see how there can be construction here but by a Metathesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Eo enim quod impotentia legis debilis erat propter carnem, Deus filium suum mittens, etc. For in that the weakness of the Law was impotent because of the flesh, God sending his own Son, etc.  
C. 9 v. 10, 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. To reconcile the sense and construction of these words wherein there hath been so much labour, you must understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an Hebraism or Graecism frequent in every Page almost in Holy Writ. Whereof see note on Mar. c. 12. v. 40. Promissionis enim verbum hoc est, secundum tempus hoc veniam & erit Sarae filius, non solum vero, sed & Rebecca ex altero erat gravida ex Isaac patre nostro, nondum enim natis, etc. Dictum est ei, major serviet minori, For this is the word of promise. At this time I will come, and Sara shall have a son, and not only so, but Rebecca also by another was with child by our Father Isaac, For the children being not yet born, etc. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As much as to say, that Rebecca was with child also by another word of promise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, relating to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conceive to be a more proper phrase, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For if a man be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Numb. c. 5. v. 20. then is it rightly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rebecca retinuit semen patris nostri Isaac, that is, concepit, she was with child by her Father Isaac. So that there was not such necessity for the learned Beza to pronounce so positively, Est itaque depravatus hic locus a quopiam Graecae linguae prorsus ignaro, This place is depraved by some person ignorant of the Greek tongue. When as so easy and frequent a remedy is at hand. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, According to this time, are the words of the LXX, whom Paul it seems did follow, and they questionless read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this time, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the time of life, according as it is Gen. c. 18. v. 10. and 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secundum or circa tempus vitae, At or about the time of life I will return unto thee. And I suspect it is not rightly read in the Hebrew itself, Gen. c. 17. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at this time, which should have been rather written conformably with the other places, relating to this story, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at the time of life. As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our sense, it is abundantly familiar, The LXX use it for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altero, another, Gen. c. 43. v. 13. Psal. 108. v. 14. You shall find it likewise in the same sense, 1 Cor. c. 4. v. 6. and in Dioscor. and Greg. Nazian. take but the pains to look in Steph. Thes.  
V 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Here is no necessity for Anantopodosis, the coherence of the place is plain and ready, distinguish but the words aright. Nay but O man who art thou that repliest against God, if God being willing to show his wrath and to make his power known hath endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction? The intervenient words, Shall the thing form say unto him that form it why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? being all to be included in a Parenthesis. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; etc. The Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is expletive, as is usual.  
C. 10. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sed nulli obedierunt Evangelio, But none have obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Who hath believed our report? plainly intimating not any, or scarce any had believed. The phrase is familiar, Act. c. 10. v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, None of you shall see my face any more. 1 Cor. c. 1. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That no flesh should glory. And so frequently in the Old Testament, and elsewhere in the New.  
C. 11. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What need is there of any supplement? For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rightly spoken according to the use of speaking with the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forte, perhaps. For if God spared not the natural branches perhaps he will neither spare thee. See 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 25.  
C. 12. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But give place unto vengeance, that is to the minister of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the avenger to punish him that doth evil, c. 13. v. 4. So frequently in the Old Testament, where God is meant to be avenged of his people, it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And the wrath, that is, the vengeance of God came upon them, Psal. 78. v. 31. So Rom. c. 3. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we Translate, Who taketh vengeance. But we ought by no means to give place unto anger, Eph. c. 4. v. 26. Be ye angry and sin not, let not the sun go down upon your wrath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Neither give place to the Devil, that is, to the passion of anger. So Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We ought not to give place to wrath no not in jest or play.  
C. 14. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Infirmum fide assumite non ad dijudicationes cogitationum, Him that is weak in the Faith receive, not to judge of his inward thoughts. By a frequent phrase, such as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 1. v. 5. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 15. v. 18. In which sense that these words are to be understood the following declare. Tu quis es qui judicas alienum servum? Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? Temerarias censuras prohibet Apostolus, The Apostle forbids rash censures, saith St Hierome. As if he should say, Him that is weak in the Faith receive into your fellowship, but not to discriminate or judge his private opinions, if perhaps out of the weakness of his judgement he thinketh otherwise then ye do. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth. Neither is that Translation, which renders, To doubtful disputations, very significant, besides that it is unusual. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old and New Testament is for the most part taken, Pro cogitatione hominis secum ratiocinantis, For the thought of a man reasoning within himself. As Stephanus hath well observed.  
C. 16. v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, etc. Why this Doxology is annexed now a days to the end of this Chapter, I cannot but wonder at, when 'tis confessed almost by all, that these verses, to wit, the 25, 26, 27, are found in all ancient copies, as they do also remain in the Greek Fathers, written in the end of the 14 chapter, after those words, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, except the Alexandrian transcript, which (perhaps out of abundant caution) reads it in both places. As far as I can conjecture of this matter, it seems to me to be thus. There was a common opinion which possibly from Hieroms words upon this place was derived to posterity, that Martion the Haeretique did raze or cut out all the 15 and 16 Chapters because they thwarted his opinion, and that he might the better cover his fraud, placed this Doxology at the end of c. 14. because he would have had the Epistle to end there. But I do very much doubt that this was ever done by him, though I will not question but he endeavoured to raze out all the rest. I rather believe that the Orthodox Christians of those times and their followers, induced with this opinion out of their zeal to meet with Martion, did purposely remove this Doxology from the end of c. 14. where it was not fixed by the fraud of Martion, but by the Apostle himself, to the end of c. 16. that so they might include all which Martion would have razed out. I say they removed it from its proper place for this cause, for I cannot conjecture for what other reason they should do it. Was it because Doxologies were more commodious in the end of an Epistle? surely no. For Eph. c. 3. v. 20, 21. there is the same Doxology in the middle, and Gal. c. 1. v. 5. and 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 17. there is the like in the beginning, and so in divers other places scattering through Paul's Epistles, but none in the end of any, where it was his solemn custom to use another Epilogue, which was his sign in every Epistle, So I writ, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen. Or was it because this Doxology was more extraordinarily fit and proper for the end of the Epistle? surely no. For it hath no coherence at all with the precedent matter, but it suits and agreeth most exactly well with the end of c. 14. where when the Apostle had through the whole chapter almost discoursed of the danger of a doubting mind, most fitly follows this Doxology, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But to him that hath power to establish you, etc. be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. So Chrysostom and other Greek Interpreters have observed on this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was the custom of Paul to close his exhortations with prayers and Doxologies. Since therefore the cause is ceased, and almost all knowledge at least remembrance of it, for which these verses were perhaps with a pious zeal at first removed to the end of c. 16. that they might reinclude all that Martion would have expunged, I conceive he shall commit no offence, but rather do a grateful service, who ever shall remit them to their proper place at the end of c. 14. After those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

ANNOTATIONS On the I. Ep. To The Corinthians.  
Ch. 2. v. 2.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Non enim decreveram scire quicquam inter vos nisi Jesum Christum eumque crucifixum, For I determined not to know any thing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified. But to confess my ignorance, I profess, I do not comprehend the meaning of this expression, I had rather thought the Apostle intended to tell the Corinthians, what was necessary for them to know, and not for himself. Some therefore seeking to avoid the inconvenience of this phrase, would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to preach or to declare, but that signification is surely strained too far from the genuine sense and common use of the word to deserve acceptance. That the interpretation may be fitted to a better sense, the use of words and Grammatical construction, I think we may more rightly say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an elleiptical expression instead of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like to that in the Hebrew, Habak. c. 1. v. 5. as it is usually read and Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Videte intergentes, Behold among the Heathen, that is, ye who are among the Heathen, or behold ye Heathen. Or in Luk. c. 21. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And some of you shall they cause to be put to death. Or Joh. c. 6. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dixerunt ergo discipuli, as the Old Latin, Then said some of his disciples. And so we may render it with very good sense, Non enim decrevi eos qui inter vos sunt aliquid scire, nisi Jesum Christum eùmque crucifixum, For I determined not, that you or those that are among you should know any thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. And therefore he saith, He came not with excellency of speech, or wisdom, but in weakness and in fear, not with the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power.  
V 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sapientiam loquimur in perfectis, We speak wisdom in things that are perfect. He speaks not of persons, meaning the Corinthians, whom in the following chapter v. 1. he calls babes in Christ, so far were they distant from perfection, but rather in things that are holy or sacred. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. and Phavor. So Heb. c. 2. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make perfect and to sanctify or consecrate, are all one. It is a manner of speech peculiar to this place. My speech and my preaching was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the persuasive words of humane wisdom, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the demonstration of the spirit. We speak wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in things sacred or holy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a mystery, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in words taught of the holy spirit. Through the whole series of his discourse in this chapter there is no mention of to whom he spoke, but of what or how he spoke, to wit of things sacred and mysterious, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man, v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Dionysio vocatur vis divina operans in sacris Ecclesiasticis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sacro & consecro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. appellat baptismum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebant eximia vel sanctiora vel Justa, Bud. come. ling. Grae. p. 624. 625. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was with the Athenians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lawful oath, Andocides in the same place.  
C. 3. v. 12, 13, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The sense of this place is this. If any Minister of the Gospel shall build upon this foundation, which is Jesus Christ, gold, silver, or precious stones, that is, a pure, solid, and stable doctrine, concerning the Faith of Christ, or hay, wood, and stubble, that is, a frail, fading and temporary doctrine, what ever it be, the day shall declare it, when the fire of trial cometh, what every man's work is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fire of persecution shall try. In that day they who were builded on the pure and solid doctrine of Faith, shall remain steadfast, and so the Minister shall receive his reward, to wit, the perseverance of his disciples, but they who were faintly rooted in the Faith, when the trial of persecution cometh, immediately fall away and become Apostates from the Faith, and so that Minister shall suffer loss, he shall lose his labour and the reward of his pains, but he himself shall be saved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But so as he pass through the fire of persecution with constancy and steddiness to the Faith himself. Upon this account it was, that St John, after he had forewarned the Elect Lady and her Children, of the deceivers and the Antichrist who were entered into the world, gives them this farther caution, 2 Ep. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Videte vosmetipsos, ne perdamus quae operati sumus, sed ut mercedem plenam accipiamus, Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we may receive a full reward. Not as in the Vulgar Latin and some Greek copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Videte vosmetipsos, ne perdatis quae operati estis, sed ut mercedem plenam accipiatis. Whereby the allusion to St Paul is wholly lost. See Philip. c. 2. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Verbum vitae firmiter tenentes, Holding fast the word of life, Ut gloriari possim in die Christi, That I may glory in the day of Christ. Behold the reward of Paul, the perseverance of the Philippians in the word of life.  
C. 4. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Literally, of man's day, but the sense is the Judgement of man. In our language we call him a Days man, that is chosen an Umpire to judge between party and party, probably from the Latin phrase, à dicendo diem, from appointing a day in which the Days man was to give his judgement.  
C. 5. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quid enim mihi de iis qui foris sunt judicare? Nun de iis qui intus sunt vos judicatis? eos vero qui foris sunt judicat Deus. Tollite ergo sceleratum istum ex vobis ipsis. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? but them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among you that wicked person. This reading and Translation do neither agree with the context nor with the scope of the Apostle, whose main business is in this Chapter to reprove the Corinthians because they had not judged the incestuous person, who was a brother and within the Church, as they ought to have done; and in the next, because they had no Judgement seats at all, Whereas by this question [do ye not judge those that are within?] is implicitly granted, that they were not to be blamed at all for their slackness in this duty. That therefore we may reconcile the coherence of the Text, and the Apostle to himself, and the meaning of the place may be made somewhat plainer than hitherto it is, We must first alter the points, as Theophylact doth witness some did before his time, and then the reading in a letter, and an accent, and that not without Authority, for so Theodoret did read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evil, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evil person, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall judge, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgeth. And so reads the Greek edition of Aldus prepared by Asulanus and set out in print 1518. And so doth the Old Latin read judicabit for judicat, and malum I suppose in the Neuter gender. Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quid enim mihi eos qui foris sunt judicare●… Non omnino. Eos qui intus sunt judica●… vos, eos vero qui extra sunt judicabit De●…, & tolletis malum è vobis, For what have ●… to do to judge them that are without? Not at all. Judge ye those that are within, but those that are without God will judge, and ye shall take away the evil from among you. As if he should say, It concerns not us at all to judge those that are without the Church, do ye your duty in judging those that are within it, and so doing ye shall take away the evil from among yourselves, that is, ye shall not be guilty of the evil; but as for those that are out of the Church, its fitting for you to leave them to the Judgement of God. And to speak the truth, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evil, in the Neuter gender, doth very well suit with the scope of this place, so doth it with the use of the phrase in the Old Testament, from whence without doubt the Apostle borrowed it. So Chrysostom on the place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Meminit dictionis in Veteri, He remembered the phrase in the Old Testament, and so Theodoret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mosaicum apposuit Testimonium, He put to the Testimony of Moses. But that this phrase will bear no other reading or sense in the Old Testament, but in the Neuter gender, will evidently appear to those who shall diligently examine the circumstances of the places, wherever they find it. For example, where is mention made of the Damosel on whom her virginity was not found, Deut. c. 22. v. 21. She shall be stoned with stones that she die, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So shalt thou put away the evil from among you, that is, the guilt of the evil, as Deut. c. 21. v. 9 And he that is but a smatterer in Greek, will presently discern it to be a fault in the Roman edition of the LXX, which renders in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine gender, as also in the 22. and 24. verses of the same chapter, in both which places the same reading is altogether as incongruous, though it was prudently forborn in our new Poliglott Bibles from the emendation of it, lest the Romanists should from thence have taken occasion to cavil with our Edition for corrupting of their copy.  
C. 6. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Negotium habens, Having a matter, that is, litem, a controversy, suit or action against another, so as it might more properly and significantly be rendered, having a suit or action against another, in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently understood with the Greeks, as is negotium also with the Latins.  
V 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Indigni estis ut de minimis judicetis? As the vulgar Latin. Are ye unworthy to judge of the smallest matters? But this Translation is not adequate to the words. Beza seems to go somewhat nearer. Indigni estis minimis judiciis? But neither is that plain. For the Apostle intends not the act of Judgement, but the place. And therefore it would be more fitly rendered according to the force of the word, Indigni estis minimis fubselliis? Are ye unworthy of the least places of judicature? For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no Author signifies the act of Judgement, but the Bench or Seat where Judgement is given, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which sense 'tis used, Jud. c. 5. v. 9 Dan. c. 7. V 10. Susan v. 49. Jam. c. 2. v. 6. As if he should have said, What? Are ye who shall sit on Thrones (as it is in another place) judging the Twelve tribes of Israel, unworthy of the smallest seats of Judgement here? Subsellia are called the seats of Judicature, in which Judgements are given of the smallest matters, according to Asconius.  
V 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The common version suits neither with the custom of speech among the Greeks, with construction, or with sense. Secularia igitur judicia si habeatis, contemptibiles qui sunt in Ecclesiâ, illos constituite ad judicandum, If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed of the Church. Where by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judicia, judgements, the Interpreters seem to understand suits at Law, but as I told you in the former animadversion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in no Author signifies any such thing as a suit at Law. If they say, they mean Judgement seats, their language is not clear, and besides they then plainly affirm, that which the Apostle positively denies, who reproves them for that very cause, for that they had none, but would be judged rather by Infidels. And if this were granted the inference is not so suitable to sense and reason, but that there may be cause enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to suspend a man's assent, and to inquire further into the truth of the Translation. Which I conceive with the leave of Antiquity may be very easily restored into a more commodious sense and Syntax, thus, only varying the points, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secularia igitur subsellia, si habeatis hos contemptibiles in Ecclesiâ, constituite, Set ye up therefore secular Judgement seats, if ye account these persons contemptible in the Church. As if he should say, What will ye go to Law before the Infidels, who cannot but be despicable to the Church, in that they are no part of it? Will ye suffer the unjust and wicked to judge between you, whom ye yourselves shall one day judge? Are ye ignorant that ye shall Judge the very Angels? How much more worthy than are ye of these petty seats of Judgement? Appoint ye therefore Judges among yourselves, set up some Judgement seats, I speak unto your shame, is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not one who can judge between brother and brother, but that you go to Law with one another and that before the unbelievers? Far is it from the Apostle to bid them place contemptible Persons in the seat of Judgement. Nothing less, He reproves and checks them, that they should think so meanly of themselves, as to appeal to the Courts of Infidels, as though there were not a wise man among themselves, who might be judge among them. Surely by that very speech severely intimating, that he ought to be a wise man and no contemptible person, who should have the Authority to be Judge in the Church. And in contradiction to this Interpretation there is not one thing can be properly objected, the sense, the grammar, and form of speech so perfectly agreeing, whereas there are so apparent Solecisms in the other, as are not to be by any art reconciled. For besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never used in that sense, as it is here commonly taken, the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is extremely harsh and insolent, not to be salved with an Hebraism. For if it were a true Hebraism, it should be read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As to the phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes and Libanius. But the inveterate opinion is more deeply rooted, then to be removed without some Magisterial Authority, or else a supine negligence hath prevailed over us. And indeed the same fate is common to profane Authors, else how is it possible, so stupid or irrational a version should still pass unobserved by Interpreters to this very day, and that in a place of moment, in the very entrance of Ptolemy, in the very definition of Geography, unless men were blinded by some fate, seduced into error by the unhappy connexion of two words together, by reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in one word, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in two. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Geogrophia est imitatio picturae totius partis terrae cognitae, Geography is an imitation of the picture of all that part of the earth which is known. A definition surely absurd and insignificant. Whereas it ought without all question to be read and Translated, Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Geographia est imitatio totius partis terrae cognitae per picturam, per descriptionem, or in tabula, Geography is an imitation of all that part of the earth which is known, by picture, description, or map. The very name of Geography, signifying nothing else but a description of the earth.  
C. 7. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, [that is the believing wife] and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband [that is the believing husband] else, unless one of the Parents were a believer, your children were unclean, that is remain heathen, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in other places understood; but now [because one of the Parents is a believer] are your children holy, that is reputed members of the Christian Church. And in this sense doth the Apostle often use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the beginning of this Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the Church of God which is in Corinth, that are called Saints, Not that all who were in the Church of Corinth were real Saints, but because they were reputed members of the Church, therefore were they called Saints. And for that cause the children of that Parent that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called a Saint, or reputed a believer, were reputed Saints and holy also, and consequently admitted to the participation of Baptism, as the son of a Proselyte was capable of Circumcision, and thereby admitted a member of the Jewish Church. The unbelieving Parent is said to be sanctified by the believing wife or husband, only to this purpose, to the making of the children holy, that is, capable of being members of Gods visible Church, as appeareth by the connexion and consequence of the words.  
V 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But as God hath distributed to every one, etc. To Translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but, in this place is somewhat harsh, and besides it mars the sense. For remedy whereof the Greek Scholiast reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fitly joining the words to the verse before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Or what knowest thou O man whether thou shalt save thy wife, or not? But there is no need to alter the reading at all, the common one with this distinction is enough, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. What knowest thou O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife, whether not? As God hath distributed to every one so let him walk.  
V 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pretio empti estis nolite fieri servi hominum, Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. This reading and Translation seems to respect our redemption by Christ, and literally implies a strange doctrine contrary to what he had taught immediately before, As if because they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, they should no more be servants, whereas before he bade them not to care if they were called being servants, but to remain in the same calling wherein they were called. So that I conceive there is some other sense more proper to the place, which possibly reading the first words with an interrogation may be this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pretio redempti estis? Nolite fieri servi hominum, Are ye redeemed with a price? Become not the servants of men. He speaks not here, of a redemption from the captivity of sin or the bondage of Satan, but from the service of man, as is to be gathered from the context which hath nothing relating or common to or with a spiritual redemption. The coherence being plainly thus. Art thou called being a servant, care not for it, Are ye redeemed with a price? that is, are ye bought out and made free by a sum of money? Why then, become not again the servants of men. If thou mayst be made free, use it rather, otherwise, let every man abide in the calling wherein he was called [to be a Christian.] But for a more perfect understanding of the place, These, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men, whose servants he would have them no more become, are to be supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbelievers; As before, v. 14. where the unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife to be sanctified by the husband, you are to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wife that is a believer, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the husband that is a believer, as it is in some Greek copies and in the Old Latin, so here in like manner is to be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Become not again the servants of men who are unbelievers. As before he advised in impari conjugio, so here he adviseth in impari servitio. As if he should say, Art thou called to the Faith of Christ being a servant to an unbeliever? Care not for it, it is no matter, continue thou still so, and be content, That the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, 1 Tim. c. 6. v. 1. Nevertheless if thou canst be made free and redeemed with a sum of money, choose that rather, and become no more again a servant to any man that is an unbeliever. He doth not advise him for ever to decline all manner of service, from being a servant to all manner of persons. But in case he may have a believer to his Master, surely it was not the Apostles meaning to forbid such service. Who in the place aforementioned of Timothy, adviseth, that the servants who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, believing Masters, should by no means despise them because they were brethren, but to serve them so much the rather because they were believers. For service surely is not only necessary, but in some cases commendable.  
V 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words some would have to refer to the Desolation spoken of by Luke 21.23. But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, great distress, whereof our Saviour did there foretell, was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In this land and in this people, that is, in the land of Judea and among the people of the Jews where then our Saviour spoke. So that it is not probable that Paul should write to the Corinthians to abstain from Marriage for that distress or tribulation, which was so far distant from their borders, neither did personally concern them. Others I confess with more reason understand it of the Persecutions which were then at hand. But if you compare the context, there seems more reason to say, it was for the imminent pressure of the incommodities which for the most part accompany Wedlock, and are after mentioned by the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the difficulties and troubles of Marriage, Theophylact.  
V 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But I say this, [because that which is remaining is but a short time,] that both they that have wives be as though they had none, and they that weep, as those that do not weep, and they that rejoice, as those that rejoice not, etc. For the form of this world passeth away, After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is probably to be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the remainder of their lives. As if he should have said, Because the time of life is so short upon earth, and the world passeth so suddenly away, neither have we here an abiding City, Heb. 13.14. I tell you this, that ye be not too solicitous, as he forthwith admonisheth them not to be, either for the miseries or pleasures of the world, as in some men's sense virginity and marriage, joy and weeping are accounted, but to be of an even temper in both estates.  
V 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hoc vero dico ad utilitatem vestram, non ut vinculum vobis imponam, sed ad id quod honestum est & decorum domino, sine violentâ abstractione, But this I say for your own profit, not that I should put an obligation or bond upon you, but for that which is comely and well befitting the Lord, without any forcible withdrawing or wresting of you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with Suidas is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vi aliquid abripere, To wrest a thing away by force. So as the sense is this, I tell you this for your own good, for that which is becoming you, and well befitting the Lord, not that I go about under the pretence of my Authority to impose a bond of necessity upon you to do the thing I commend unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not that I should compel you to continue in virginity whether ye will or no. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For he calls necessity a bond, as the Greek Scholiast hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But without any compulsion, or forcible wresting of you to my opinion. For, for what I now say, I have no commandment from the Lord, etc. v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the French tongue is, bienseant, well befitting, quod bene assidet, word for word. How the common Translations, either that of the vulgar Latin, Sed ad id quod honestum est, & quod facultatem praebeat sine impedimento dominum obsecrandi, or that of Beza, Sed ut decenter & aptè adhaerescatis domino absque ullâ distractione, or that of the Interlineary, Sed ad decens & bene adhaerens domino indistracte, or that of our English, But for that which is comely, and that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction, may or possibly can be reconciled in any lawful construction to any of the senses imposed by them, I do by no means perceive or understand.  
C. 11. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But the woman is the glory of her husband. The meaning whereof is certainly extremely difficult. Why not rather, the Image of her husband? A man indeed ought not to cover his head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quoniam sit figura & Imago Dei, Because he is the figure and Image of God, but the woman is the Image of man. She is properly termed the Image of man, because she was taken out of him, as properly as Seth may be termed the Image of Adam who begot him in his likeness, Gen. c. 5. v. 3. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which with the Hebrew signifies the Image, Figure or Similitude which is drawn from another thing, the LXX Translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Numb. c. 12. v. 8. and Psal. 17. v. 15. and so Phavorinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Effigies, Imago.  
V 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I was never yet satisfied with any Interpretation or Exposition upon this place, and therefore must crave leave to venture on a new one, resolving not to swerve from rules of Grammar, the use of words, or the scope of the place. Thus, Propter hoc debet mulier potestatem habere in capite per Angelos, For this cause ought the woman to account the power to be in her head by the Angels. So doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signify with the Greeks, and habere with the Latins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in capite, in her head, is, in viro, in her husband, as he is called, v. 3. And Ephes. c. 5. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly enough Translated per, by, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Per Deos servatus sum, five à Diis, I was saved by the Gods, Demost. Or be it Translated propter Angelos, because of the Angels, the sense will be the same. For the confirmation of this sense and Interpretation I shall borrow two arguments, the one from the words immediately preceding, the other from those which immediately follow. The force of the argument from the words preceding is this, For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. v. 8, 9 Ergo, Therefore ought the woman to acknowledge or account the power to be in her husband, who is her head. You have the same argument, 1 Tim. c. 2. v. 11, 12, 13. Let the woman be in silence in all subjection, for I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp Authority over the man, but to be in silence. And why so? For Adam was first made, then Eve. So as for this very cause she ought to acknowledge the power in her husband, to whom she ought to be in subjection, and over whom she ought not to usurp Authority. When therefore the arguments are both the same, why should we question, but the Apostle intends the same direct sense in the one place, as in the other, when construction and the use of words do bear it? Why should we fly to violent notions and remedies when there is no need? The force of the other argument from the words that follow, v. 11, 12. is this, because they are a qualification or mitigation of the rigour of the injunction, lest it might be taken by the husband in too strict and severe a sense. As if he should say, Although a woman ought to acknowledge the power in her husband by the Law of their creation which was delivered by the Angels, Gen. c. 3. v. 16. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man by the Lord, for as the woman is of the man, even so also is the man by the woman, but all things are of God. From whence is necessarily intimated, that such is the mutual bond of relation between the man and the woman, that because one cannot be without the other, and because whatever they be, they are all of God, the man ought not to indulge, challenge or assume by any means too much to his own power, though given him by the Law of his creation by God himself, but to use it with modesty and sobriety, without the admission of which supplemental exposition, these latter verses for aught I know have no coherence with the former. And thus I suppose we rightly take these words as arguments of the woman's subjection, nor deny we, but her subjection was an argument why she should be covered But others who eagerly contend for a Foreign and unusual Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they may expedite their business, pass by or rather reject this argument from the reason of the woman's subjection, which is the most rational and certain, and frame another of their own, as we say per saltum, by a leap, or at least admit it. The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, etc. Therefore ought the woman to wear a hood or covering on her head, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place doth signify velamen or signum potestatis viri, a covering or sign of the husband's power. To defend which opinion, some would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the power, by a Metonymy to be put for a covering, the sign of power. But this I take to be spoken of free cost, till I hear some more cogent Authorities. Others say, that the Apostle put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, pro velo, for a covering or a veil, because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, peplum, or velum, comes from the root, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies subjecit, to subject. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies peplum, a veil, comes not from that root that signifies to subject, but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies extendit or expandit, to extend or spread, and therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is expansum aliquid, something spread, as is, velum or lamina, a veil or plate of metal, but hath nothing common with the former sense, but the sound, and therefore indeed hath no relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is frequent with the Hebrews who have no such abundance of words, for one and the same root as to the letters, to have divers significations, according to the pricks, and according to the divers significations to have divers yet proper derivatives, which I suppose are not promiscuously communicated one to another; or perhaps the same root or word written with the very same letters may be Hebrew, Syriack and Arabic. And so if we may believe Schindler, this very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies peplum a veil, is an Arabic word, and not an Hebrew one, so that I cannot possibly think, that this notion ever came into the Apostles thoughts, but that he rather endeavoured to express what he meant in the most vulgar speech and common phrase. And truly this argument of theirs seems to me very preposterous, as if they meant to tie two extremes together without a medium. For who with reason can affirm, Because a man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, etc. Therefore ought a woman to wear a veil or a hood on her head, by an argument fetched from the moral Law of their creation? truly I have often heard that the whole Law of God was to be known by the discourse of reason, and was called moral, except the Sabbath, which some will not have therefore counted moral, because it is not to be known by the discourse of reason. But whoever could from the dictate of reason know, that a woman because she was made of man and for man, ought therefore to wear a veil or hood on her head especially in the Church? That she is therefore inferior to her husband, and that therefore she ought to be subject unto him, is not abhorrent from the discourse of reason, and because she is for that cause subject to her husband, reason dictates she ought to acknowledge it, but by what means or sign she should do it in the Church or elsewhere, custom seems only to have taught, especially in Christian Churches, as the Apostle intimates in this place. For we read not of any such custom in the Old Testament. Rebecca truly might [which they instance for an example] when she came near to Isaac, Gen. c. 24. v. 65. take a veil, and cover herself as well for modesty as for reverence. But Judah thought Thamar to be an Harlot, because she covered herself with a veil, Gen. c. 38. v. 14.15. So that from the beginning the covering of a veil was no certain sign of subjection. And therefore I cannot but be still of the same opinion, that it is rightly interpreted according to the order of the arguments. Because the woman is of the man, and the man not of the woman, etc. For this cause ought a woman to acknowledge the power in her head, that is, her husband, according to the legitimate and known acception of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, aught to be subject to her husband, and because she is subject, aught in sign of her subjection to be covered in the Church, because it was comely and according to the institute of nature, v. 13, 14. As for the following words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conceive they are properly expounded, either by or because of the Angels, that is, by or because of the Law of their creation or the ordinance of God, who in the first creation did create them in that order by the Ministry of Angels, and at the same time by the same Ministry of Angels did impose this Law of subjection upon the woman, of which the Apostle maketh mention 1 Cor. c. 14. v. 34. where the woman is commanded to be under obedience, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Law saith. Which Law all Expositors agree to be that in Gen. c. 3. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he shall rule over thee. And this was most certainly given by the Ministry of Angels, as was that of Moses, Act. c. 7. v. 53. Gal. c. 3. v. 19 Heb. c. 2. v. 2. For all the external works of God are done and executed by the Ministry of Angels, whereof you may see more at large in Note on Acts c. 7. v. 35. In conclusion, this Interpretation doth flow so naturally from the words, and hath so little need of any Foreign help for its explication, that I have a very strong presumption, it's the true and genuine.  
V 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In most books, if not in all, the comma is after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and accordingly Translated. But that reading and version, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Propriam caenam praesumit in edendo, In eating every one taketh before other his own supper, is surely not only harsh unto the ear, but incommodious also as to the sense. For remedy whereof I have thought it better to distinguish after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it being, as to the trajection of the copulative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so frequent in the New Testament, I cannot but wonder at those that make any scruple of it, especially if it help us to an apt sense, and prevent an insolence of speech, as it doth in this very place, Unusquisque enim praesumit caenam propriam, & in edendo hic quidem esurit, ille vero satur est, For every one taketh his own supper before hand, and in eating one is hungry, and another full. So as the sense and coherence with the verse next going before and following after, and with v. 33, 34. is plainly this, When therefore ye come together in one place, that is into the Church, it is not to eat the Lords supper [that which ye do] for every one taketh and eateth his own supper first, before others are come together, and so when ye eat, one is hungry and another full. The rich are full, but the poor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who have no supper of their own, are hungry. It seems there was a custom among the richer sort of the Corinthians to anticipate the Lords supper by eating every one their own which they brought with them privately, before the poorer sort were come together, But this he tells them was not to eat the Lords supper, and therefore he goeth on to reprove them, What have ye not houses to eat and drink in, but you must surfeit and debauch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here? or despise you the Church of God and shame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them that have no suppers? What shall I say unto you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not; And so at length after a digression to another discourse concerning the Lord's supper, to v. 33. he returneth again to this, which he concludes with a short monition, Wherefore my brethren when ye come together to eat, that is, the Lords Supper, tarry ye one for another, and if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for your condemnation, that is, so as you may be blamed for so doing.  
C. 12. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Arabic Interpreter seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Distribuens unicuique quod ei proprium est, prout vult, Dividing to every one what is proper to him as he will. Rather, Dividens propria, i. e. sua unicuique, etc. Distributing his own [gifts] to every one as he will, which is more suitable to the sense, and to propriety of speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it's said, v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There are diversities of Gifts but the same spirit, And immediately before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, But all these worketh that one and the self same spirit, dividing his own to every one as he will. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ut dominus & Deus, Theophylact. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Distributions, or as we Translate it, the Gifts of the holy Ghost according to his will, Heb. 2.4. See Joh. 3.8.  
V 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; These words are better conjoined and distinguished with those that follow, v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Have all the power of working Miracles, have all the gifts of healing? repeating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as common to both. For surely it is not proper to say, are all powers to work Miracles? as necessarily we must, if we refer the words, to those that went before.  
C. 13. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Certainly these words are rendered best by a vulgar Metathesis. And now abide these three, Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which happens very frequently, to wit, that Comparatives are taken instead of the Superlatives, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Socrates was the wisest of all men, and so you have, c. 15.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The most miserable of all men.  
C. 14. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui loquitur linguâ [exoticâ] non loquitur hominibus sed Deo, nemo enim intelligit, spiritu vero loquitur mysteria, For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men but to God, for no man understandeth him, but with his breath he speaketh mysteries. That with his voice he speaketh hidden things which are not understood of them who are but Idiots and understand no other than their mother tongue. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, as spiritus likewise, is taken as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken in the Hebrew, for halitus, breath, the organ of the voice, Metonymically for the voice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the voice is from the lungs, as Hypocrates, yet not immediately, but by the mediation of the breath which is caused by the lungs, and so Hesychius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spiritús causa est pulmo. But the next cause of the voice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spiritus, the breath, and from thence it is that Phavorinus saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spiritus elatio dictionis, Breath is the bringing forth or the conveyance of the speech, which differs not from the very voice, For without breath the principal organ of the voice its impossible to utter any sound. And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place, appears by the whole series of his discourse in this present Chapter. For it followeth, v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quapropter qui loquitur lingua peregrina precetur ita ut interpretur, Wherefore let him that speaketh [that is, that prayeth] in an unknown tongue, pray so as he may interpret, that is, that himself or some body else may interpret so that others may understand, as it is, v. 27. And of this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may see Budaeus, which also must be necessarily taken in the same sense, Joh. c. 10. v. 17. Because I lay down my life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so as I may take it up again. He laid not his life down, to the end he might take it up again, but in such a manner so as he might take it up again, for as it immediately follows, He had power to lay it down, and he had power to take it up again. And thus it follows still in the same phrase and manner of speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Si enim precer lingua peregrina, spiritus meus precatur, mens vero mea est infructuosa, For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my breath [that is, my voice] prayeth, but my meaning is of no benefit to others, because they understand not what I say. What therefore is to be done? v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Precabor spiritu, precabor etiam cum intellectu, I will pray with my breath or voice, and I will pray with understanding also, that is, so as I may be understood of others. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Aristophanes and in the Glossary is sensus, meaning, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Quis est horum verborum sensus? What is the meaning of these words? And with this key its easy to open the mysteries of this Chapter, which otherwise are hard to be understood.  
V 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sive quis loquatur lingua peregrina, duabus vel ad maximum tribus [scilicet linguis] fiat, idque singulatim, & unus interpretetur, quod si non sit Interpres, sileto, Or if a man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be in two or three [tongues] at the most, and let one interpret, But if there be no Interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church. It is very probable, that there might be divers in the Church, who could speak in many tongues, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for order's sake he permitted them to use but two or three tongues at most, and that by turns and not confusedly, nor without an Interpreter. But whereas most interpret those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the persons, seems to me by no means to agree with the sense or Syntax. For how one man should speak by another man according to the scope of this place is beyond my comprehension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fiat, is familiarly understood.  
V 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But if any thing be revealed unto another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace, that is, before that other speak, to whom it is revealed, as much as to say, Let not him to whom any thing is revealed, offer to speak, till the other who was first speaking, hath made an end. For ye may all prophecy one after another, that all may learn and all be comforted, or exhorted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The meaning of which words is, either, the spirits of the Prophets are subordinate to the Prophets, that is, they are so mutually subordinate one to another, that they ought not to confound one another, or their hearers by unseasonable speaking two or more together, but to keep order in the Churches. For God, as it follows, is not the Author of confusion, but of peace in all the Churches of the Saints. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let all things be done in order, Or thus, The spirits of the Prophets whereby any thing is revealed to them, are subject to those Prophets, to be guided by them, to be suppressed and uttered when they please, so that to prevent confusion in the Church, he to whom any thing is revealed, ought for a while to suppress his Spirit of revelation, till he who was first speaking hath made an end. Nor can I by any means think that out of these words there can be any argument raised for the trial of men's spirits or doctrines, a sense so generally imposed.  
C. 15. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Alioquinquid facient qui Baptizantur pro mortuis si omnino mortui non resurgunt? Quid etiam Baptizantur pro mortuis, Else what shall they do who are Baptised for dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then Baptised for dead? Here is as it were a gemination of the question to make the matter of it the more observed. As if he should say What do men do or mean when they are Baptised? or why are men dipped under water as if dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Buried with Christ in Baptism, Rom. c. 6. v. 4. Col. c. 2. v. 12. if by rising out of the water, which is a type of the Resurrection after death, they be not ascertained, that Christ is risen from the dead, and that they also, if they rise from the death of sin to newness of life, shall likewise rise again with Christ after death to glory? In vain doth the Church use this sign of Baptism, if there be not a Resurrection. For Baptism is the lively type of the death and Resurrection of Christ, and consequently of all the faithful. And so hath it been received always by the Ancients, whereof you may see in note 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 23. And this doctrine Zonaras calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vim mysterii Religionis Christianae, The very life and virtue of Christian Religion, plainly affirming that they do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lose their labour, who are Baptised if they doubt of the Resurrection, in that that they demonstrate or set forth by their Baptism, that is, by their immersion into the water, and their emersion out of the same, their death, and Resurrection, but doubt or not believe it in their hearts. And who so do, what they do, they do in vain. From whence you may conclude it was the opinion of those times, that the act of immersion in the water, in which the body is buried for dead, or as if it were dead, and the emersion again out of the same did lively represent the real death and Resurrection of the body, both in Infants, that could not confess the same, as also in grown persons, though they confessed not with their mouths what they acted in their bodies. The sign was still the same. Though it be likewise true, that those who were grown to the years of discretion when they were Baptised, as St Chrysostom tells us, did publicly confess, that they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and were Baptised in that Faith, adding farther in the same place, that for the better explaining of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to be understood, that they were Baptised for dead bodies, adding yet for farther confirmation, Thou art therefore Baptised because thou believest the Resurrection of the body, that is, that it remains not for ever dead. And thou by word of mouth confessest the Resurrection of the dead, and the Priest as it were in a certain figure or representative doth manifest unto thee by the things themselves, what thou dost believe and hast confessed, etc. In like manner Tertullian, Pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui, mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, To be dipped for dead is to be dipped for dead bodies, for thereby we show our bodies to be dead. Then which I think there can be nothing spoken plainer. And to this opinion agrees Theodoret also upon this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He who is Baptised is buried with the Lord, that when he hath been partaker with him of death, he may with him be also partaker of the Resurrection. But if our body die and rise not again why is it then Baptised? And this I hold to be the proper exposition on this place and the scope of the Apostles meaning.  
C. 16. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And when I shall be with you, whomsoever ye shall approve, I will send by letter to carry your liberality to Jerusalem. In Translating of which words, I conceive under favour there are two mistakes in the Engglish Interpreter, First in saying, whom ye shall approve by your letters, when Paul was come unto them, and secondly, in Translating to bring your liberality to Jerusalem, whereas Paul was not at Jerusalem, but at Philippi, when he wrote this Epistle to the Corinthians. Beside that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signify, auferre, to carry away.   

ANNOTATIONS On the II. Ep. To The Corinthians.  
Ch. 1. v. 9  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Immo habuimus in nobis or in nos condemnationem mortis, Yea we had the sentence of death upon us. As if he should say, Yea we were so far in despair of life, as even the sentence of death was passed upon us, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in him who raiseth the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. Phavor. and Suid. And to this so great a death its reasonable to suppose he was adjudged by some sentence or conspiracy of the Jews.  
C. 2. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quum venissem autem Troadem, & ostium mihi apertum esset per Dominum ad Evangelium Christi, non habui requiem spiritui meo, But when I was come to Troas, and there was a door opened to me by the Lord to the Gospel of Christ, I had no rest to my spirit, not finding my brother Titus there, who if present would have eased me of a great part of my burden, which lay so heavily upon me being all alone, that I had no refreshment to my spirit, but taking leave of them I went into Macedonia. There is nothing more familiar than the trajection.  
C. 4. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. To make a fitting sense and a true construction, you must Translate, the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among (as commonly it is,) both in this and the preceding verse, and the words that follow by trajection. If our Gospel be hid, it is hid, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among those that are lost, among whom God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, should shine unto them, that is, so shine, as that they should see and understand. And that this is the proper rendering and meaning of the words, I am much induced to believe, because the Apostle seems to have a direct eye to that of Isaiah 6.10. Where the Lord bids them go and make the ears of this people heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and be converted. Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly an age, saeculum, and not the world. The unbelievers of this age are meant, especially the Jews. As for the trajection, besides that divers of the Ancients did use the same in the exposition of these words, it is so familiar in the New Testament, that I cannot but wonder that any should scruple at it. And yet for better confirmation I shall allege an Example or two, as Joh. 11.54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He went unto a city called Ephraim. Act. 13.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now there were certain Prophets and teachers in the Church that was in Antioch, and c. 25.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he said, to morrow thou shalt hear him. Whereas 'tis literally, And he to morrow said thou shalt hear him. And there were some in Antioch in the Church that was Prophets and teachers. And he went unto Ephraim which is called a City.  
C. 5. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Trajectio insignis, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If the earthly house of our Tabernacle were dissolved.  
C. 6. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Than which nothing more familiar. Now according to the same compensation, (I speak to you as my children) be ye also enlarged. As if he should have said, O ye Corinthians our mouth is open to you, our heart is enlarged, Ye are not straightened in us, but ye are straightened in your own bowels [towards us,] ye have not the like affection for us as we have for you, As my heart therefore is enlarged toward you, so be ye also in like manner mutually enlarged in your bowels towards us.  
C. 8. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moreover we do you to wit, or we would have you take notice of the great gift that hath been given by the Churches of Macedonia to the Saints. He stirreth up the Corinthians to the like liberal contribution by the example of the Macedonians. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a goodly gift, as we Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the goodly Cedars, Psal. 80. v. 10. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the high or great mountains, Psal. 36. v. 6. See note on, c. 10. v. 4. So Beza Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beneficentiam, v. 6. And so might he have done also, v. 7.  
V 18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And we have sent with him the brother (whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches, and not so only, but who was also appointed of the Churches our fellow traveller) with this charge which is administered by us for the glory of him who is our Lord, and your encouragement. In the first place I thought fit to make this large Parenthesis that the coherence might appear the better. For I thought it more rational to say, that this Brother was sent with this charge of Ministering to the Saints, then to say he was appointed or chosen with it. In the next place 'tis manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place can signify nothing but gratiam Ministerii in Sanctos, the charge or office of Ministry to the Saints, committed to Titus and this Brother, and to Paul himself. And so do Theophylact and the Greek Scholiast both interpret it. As concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may see note on Act. c. 14. v. 23. Lastly follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I have not doubted to render, and for your encouragement, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alacritatem injicere, is to encourage. That is, that ye may be more cheerful in giving, more forward in your beneficence, when you see they are honest and creditable persons, who are to collect and dispense your money, so that no man can blame us in this abundance which is administered by us, or conceive the least suspicion of us, as if we made any private use to our own gain of the moneys committed to us. Persons of integrity and fidelity, and that not only one, but two or three, that the honour of God may be preserved and not blasphemed among the Gentiles. For we provide for honest things not only in the sight of the Lord but in the sight of men.  
C. 9 v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Your bounty or liberal collection, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, colligo, to collect. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Phavorinus is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, An abundance of good things freely given.  
V 8, 9, 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Qui vero potens est Deus omnem gratiam faciat abundare in vobis, ut in omnibus semper omnem sufficientiam habentes abundetis in omne opus bonum (sicut scriptum est, dispersit, dedit pauperibus, misericordia ejus manet, in aeternum. Qui suppeditat semen seminanti & panem ad escam, suppeditet & multiplicet sementem vestram, & augeat fructus misericordiae vestrae) in omni divites facti ad omnem liberalitatem, (quae adoperatur per nos gratiarum actionem deo, quoniam ministerium oblationis hujus non solum est adsupplens inopias sanctorum, sed etiam redundans per multas gratiarum actiones deo) per probationem hujus ministerii glorificantes deum in vestra subjectione, etc. But God who is able make all grace to abound toward you, that ye always having all sufficiency in all things may abound to every good work, (as it is written, he hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor, his mercy endureth for ever. Let him that Ministereth seed to the sour and bread for his food, Minister and multiply your seed, and increase the fruits of your mercy) being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness (which worketh through us thanksgiving unto God, because the ministration of this service doth not only supply the want of the Saints, but doth also superabound by many thanksgivings unto God) by the experiment of this ministration glorifying God in your blessed subjection to the Gospel of Christ, and your liberal distribution, etc. I see no need of Hebraism or Atticism to salve the sense and construction in this place, for if the two Parentheses as they are here distinguished be duly observed, the sense and Syntax is so plain that he that runs may read and understand, the participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be governed of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 8. I have chose to render the words in the form of a prayer, because it is usual with St Paul, as the Fathers have observed, to conclude his exhortations with a prayer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I suppose is in this place properly Translated mercy, as also in the Psalm from whence the words are cited. So Theophylact interprets it on this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Misericors ab omnibus diligitur, The merciful man is beloved of all. And so the LXX do frequently render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you may see in note on Matth. c. 1 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in this place redundant.  
C. 10. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exceedingly powerful, just such another phrase, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exceeding fair, Act. c. 7. v. 20. It is Beza his animadversion, and that it is to be expounded by an Hebraism, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magna deo, magna civitas, Now Niniveh was an exceeding great City, Jon. c. 3. v. 3. So c. 11. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as the Greek Scholiast saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ardenter amo vos, for I love with an exceeding zeal. So Psal. 80. v. 10. you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cedros dei, The goodly Cedars, and Psal. 36. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sicut montes dei, As the great mountains. For the Scripture when it denotes any thing to be excellent, it adds one of the names of God. As Gen. c. 30. v. 8. Colluctationes dei colluctata sum cum sorore mea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. With great wrestle have I wrestled. And 1 Sam. c. 14. v. 16. Et factum est in trepidationem dei, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So it was a very great trembling. So Jud. c. 13. v. 6. The Angel of the Lord that appeared unto the wife of Manoah is by her termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the LXX. which I conceive by the context may be in the same manner best Translated, A goodly man, whose countenance was very terrible, cujus species erat augustior quam hominum communiter, who had a more noble aspect then commonly men have, as Drusius; or Qui mirum in modum erat facie veneranda, That had a wonderful venerable face, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies what ever excels in quantity or quality. And so perhaps those words Pro. c. 20. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. may be better Translated Spiritus hominis lumen valde excellens investigans omnia penetralia ventris, The spirit of a man is a most excellent light that searcheth the inward parts of the belly, that is, the secrets of the heart. Whereas the common Translation [the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord] is an odd expression, and somewhat difficult surely to make a good sense of.  
C. 11. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Seems to be spoken sarcasticè, or illusoriè, bitingly or tauntingly, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be understood here, as I conceive it ought to be Mar. c. 7. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye fairly reject the commandment of God, that ye may observe your own tradition. And so here, For if a man come, and preach unto you another Jesus, whom we have not preached, etc. Ye would fairly suffer him, For ye suffer a man to bring you into bondage, etc. v. 20. He reprehends their levity, and shows them how their minds were corrupted from the simplicity or sincerity which is in Christ, v. 3.  
C. 12. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ne rursus quando venero Deus meus me vilem reddat apud vos, Lest my God when I come again make me vile among you, or in your eyes, as before c. 10. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui coram vilis, Who in presence am base among you. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is base or vile, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vilem reddo, to make base or vile. As if he should say, I am afraid that as I was base and contemptible in your eyes when I was with you before, so also when I come again God will suffer me to be reputed vile in your eyes, and so I shall be forced to bewail many of you who have sinned and not yet repent. He was afraid they would slight him, and therefore take no care to repent.  
C. 13. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Examine yourselves whether ye be in the Faith, prove your own selves (or do ye not know your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you or among you?) whether ye be not void of this proof [which ye seek in me.] This verse and the next following verses do perfectly answer to the Apostles words in the beginning of v. 3. The sense following necessarily, Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me (who toward you is not weak, etc.) examine yourselves whether ye be in the Faith, prove your own selves whether ye be not without the proof [of Christ in you,] But I hope ye shall know that we are not without the proof of Christ speaking in us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is compounded of, α, privative, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Without proof. The Apostle plays upon the word through the whole discourse. The scope whereof to make more clear, I shall in a short Paraphrase run through the whole discourse of the Apostle upon this subject. He had heard that there were some among them who did not esteem him according to the dignity of his Apostleship, but held him for a man that walked after the flesh, c. 10. v. 2. and did not stick to say among themselves that though his letters were weighty and powerful, yet his bodily presence was but weak, and his speech contemptible, and from hence assumed unto themselves a liberty of sinning more freely, not believing that he would come at all, and therefore puffed up, 1 Cor. c. 4. v. 18, or if he did come, that he would not come with a rod and terror, yea that were not afraid to call his very Apostleship into question, who required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a proof of Christ speaking in him. To meet therefore with the boldness of these men, and yet not be compelled to use (which by all means he avoided) his power, with severity, which God had given him for edification, and not for destruction, he being absent writes thus unto them, This third time come I unto you, [in this Epistle] because every word may be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, that ye may be sure without all doubt that I will come, and that with a rod, for as I told you before when I was present with you, and as I being absent likewise told you in my former Epistle, so do I now write again unto you, and to those that have sinned, and to all others, that when I come again I will not spare. But, as I hear, ye do not believe that God hath committed this power unto me, but ye account me as some contemptible person, and therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, whom ye shall find when I come not weak, but powerful enough, for though he was crucified because of his weakness by being man, he liveth yet by the power of his Godhead; and though we also be infirm and weak, as he was, ye yet shall feel, that we also live by the same power of his Godhead, when we come unto you. But since you require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proof of Christ speaking in me, I pray first prove your own selves, whether ye be not yourselves without this proof, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or is it possible when I have preached and written to you so many times that ye should not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in or among you?) but I hope ye shall know however, that we are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the proof of Christ in us. But I am loath to use it, and therefore pray that ye may do no evil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] I do not pray that we may appear with this proof of Christ speaking in us with power, but that ye may do that which is good, and that we ourselves may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as without this proof, not having need to use our power with severity, which God hath given for edification and not for destruction, etc. And thus I suppose I have sufficiently explained the proper meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place. In the explication whereof under favour in my weak opinion Interpreters have very much laboured besides the meaning of the Apostle.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To the Galatians.  
Ch. 2. v. 2, 3, 4. etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Interpreters generally would have this place understood, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. because of the false brethren who were brought in unawares and came in privily, etc. Titus were not compelled to be circumcised, and as if these false brethren were they, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to whom he writes he would not give place no not for an hour. Neither of which do I conceive to be the meaning of the Apostle. But rather, that he communicated his Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles privately to those of reputation, that is, to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were reputed pillars, because of the false brethren, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who used to creep in privily, (for so may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a tense indefinite be lawfully interpreted) that they might spy out the liberty they took upon them in Christ Jesus, And that for maintenance of the truth of his Gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles that the Mosaical Law was abrogated, lest he might seem to preach or to have preached and laboured in vain, and for no other cause was Titus not compelled to be circumcised. And therefore doth Estius rightly conclude in the voice of Paul. Quod si Apostoli, etc. If the Apostles to whom I communicated my Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles had thought the Mosaical Law, whereof Circumcision is a principal part had been necessary for the Christians, they would certainly have caused Titus whom I brought with me to be circumcised, atqui id factum non est, but that was not done, etc. Whereby he clearly intimates his opinion, that the reason why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised was, that the truth of Paul's Gospel might remain. And as this reason suits best with the coherence of the Text, so doth it likewise best agree, That the Apostle did communicate his Gospel to those who were reputed pillars in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, privately apart from the rest, of purpose, because the false brethren who used to creep in privily into their assemblies, might not be present to spy their debates and actions, and consequently it is to be presumed they were not present, for whose sake the meeting was purposely appointed private. And then how can it properly be with reason said, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised for their sakes, who were not at all present, their company being purposely declined. And if this be so, then must we without farther dispute conclude, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the persons to whom, v. 5. the Apostle thought not fit to give place no not for an hour, must be those of reputation, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 2. that is, to the chief Apostles, Peter, James and John. Between whom and Paul, we may gather from the discourse of the place, there was no small contention, probably about the circumcision of Titus, Paul producing that to the Galatians in the first place, as it were by way of triumph, to let them know he had the better of it. I communicated my Gospel to them which I preach among the Gentiles. But, they were so far from having any thing to find fault with in my preaching, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theophylact hath it, that neither was Titus who was with me being a Gentile compelled to be circumcised. And surely there was some heat between Paul and them, concerning the observation of Moses Law, and its possible they might be too much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, servants to the time, they might possibly connive at some things, lest the faithful among the Jews, (who being Zelots of the Law. Act. c. 21. v. 20. thought they were bound to hold it fast) might chance to be offended, and so fly back from the Christian Faith. For which their prudence Paul, as the Greek Scholiast hath observed in his praise, hath not stuck to call them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, persons of reputation, or of great esteem, worthy of reprehension, and dissemblers who walked not aright, so that he may establish the Gospel of Christ. Now to these chief Apostles who were reputed Pillars, it was, that Paul thought not fit to yield, as he after saith, that he resisted Peter to the face, v. 11. Neither ought we to think so meanly of our Apostle, as if he would on any terms have yielded to the false brethren, though possibly he might have done it to the chief Apostles, whom he knew to be at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of equal honour, and Ministers of the same Spirit and Gospel with him. In sum, Transpose but (for your present understanding) those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and I conceive the sense runs most perfectly clear. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain, Yea neither was Titus who was with me being a Gentile compelled to be circumcised, but privately to them of reputation, and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus that they might bring us into bondage. To whom we gave place by subjection no not for an hour, that the truth of the [or my] Gospel might continue with you. To whom, relating, to them of reputation, and not, to the proximum antecedens, which is not at all times necessary. If any demand what means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by, or according to revelation. For my part I think there's no necessity to run to any vision by day or night, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth here signify some Revelation or Manifestation which had been made unto him either by fame or word or Letter, that there was a rumour at Jerusalem that he taught a doctrine differing from the Apostles, of which James gave him notice in express words, Act. c. 21. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. They have heard of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to Circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs of their Fathers. For which rumours sake perhaps it is said, Act. c. 20. v. 22. Behold I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obstrictus animo, resolved in my mind to go to Jerusalem, what ever becometh of me to testify (as follows) the grace of God, but whether that journey and this were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at one and the same time I cannot determine, but 'tis certain he went for one and the same cause to testify and vindicate his Gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles. In the last place come to be considered the words that follow; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the explication of which words there is no need of any figure or other supplement than is common in the Testament. Understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the like whereto you have Joh. c. 16. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dixerunt discipuli, as the vulgar Latin, Then said some of the disciples, And Act. c. 21. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Then came with us some of the disciples. The same construction Beza and Grotius both allow, Matth. c. 27. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Filii Israel. The phrase itself is frequent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Platonics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Plebeians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Those that are of the Faith, Gal. c. 3. v. 7. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Certain of the sect of the Pharisees, etc. So as you may very lawfully Translate, Qui vero videbantur esse aliquid, qualescunque tandem illi fuerint, nihil meâ interest, But what ever they were, who seemed to be something, it is no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person. Or it may be Translated thus with regularity and sense enough, distinguishing only after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nihil vero ab iis, qui videbantur esse aliquid, qualescunque illi fuerint, meâ interest, But nothing from those who seemed to be something, what ever they were, concerneth me at all. That is, nothing that they either said or did concerns me, for as it follow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They that seemed to be something added nothing to me.  
V 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For I through the Law am dead to the Law, that is, by the knowledge of the Law do know that by the Law there is no life, and therefore to the Law acknowledge myself dead, that I may live unto God.  
C. 3. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The best Expositor of these words without comparison is the  Interpreter. Deus tamen unus est duorum, But God is one of the two. Wherefore then is the Law that was ordained by the Angels by the hand of a Mediator? But a Mediator is not a Mediator of one party alone, it being necessary that there be two parties between whom there is a Mediator. Now one of these two parties (between whom there was a Mediator to convey the Law) is God. Neither can there be any other intelligible sense rendered of the words. What is the unity or simplicity of the essence of God to the scope of the place, or the Apostles purpose? But if he say that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of the two between whom Moses was a Mediator, the sense is obvious, do not the promises of that very God which he gave to Abraham, fight with the Law, he gave by the hand of Moses? God forbidden, etc. How Moses was this Mediator between God and the children of Israel you may find punctually recorded, Levit. c. 26. v. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Haec sunt lex quam dedit Dominus inter se & filios Israel in monte Sina per manum Mosis, These are the Law which the Lord gave between him and the children of Israel in mount Sina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the hand of Moses, the very phrase used in this place.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To the Ephesians.  
Ch. 1. v. 7, 8.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secundum divitias gratiae ipsius quam abundare fecit in nobis, According to the riches of his grace which he hath made to abound in us in all wisdom and prudence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood here in the Hebrews Hiphil, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 2 Cor. c. 9 v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a common phrase with the Greeks, who according to the Atticks do put the Relative in the same case with the Antecedent, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coram Deo cui credidit, Before God whom he believed, Rom. c. 4. v. 17.  
C. 2. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of what word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you, should be governed, I conceive, there hath been a long mistake by reason of the incommodious distinction of the Chapters. Most Interpreters after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vos, you, add of their own the verb, vivificavit, hath he quickened to supply the sense. One affirms that this Accusative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you, is governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath he quickened, v. 5. by a chain of figures. For he saith, there is in this place an Hyperbaton, and a Synchysis, an Apocope, or cutting short of the Period, which is a kind of an Anantopodoton, the cause of which anomaly or irregularity, is the interjection of some long sentence. But to what end serves all this pomp of figures? What need is there of them in a matter which if duly observed, is not at all obscure? For look but back to the Nineteenth verse of the foregoing Chapter, and you shall find, sense, coherence and construction extremely plain and safe without supplement or figure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe () and toward you who were dead in trespasses and sins. The intervenient words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. According to the working of his mighty power, etc. to the end of that Chapter being all properly included in a Parenthesis. To this I cannot imagine any thing to be objected but the length of the Parenthesis, it being of itself not only plain but extremely fit and proper, not to say, necessary. But I beseech you is not the Parenthesis altogether as long, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you, be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath he quickened, v. 5. and the construction much more harsh? see also, Rom. c. 1. v. 1. etc. unto the 7, and c. 2. where, v. 13, 14, 15, are all included in one Parenthesis, not much shorter than this. Besides many other places in which you may find Parentheses well near as long, but much more perplexed and intricate. Nay no less than a whole Chapter hath been allowed to a Parenthesis by no mean Judgement. In the mean while you may observe, what obscurity this importune division of the Chapters causeth to the Text. And where it bringeth not obscurity, it is yet an unhansom fraction dividing matter that is coherent. As you may see in Colos. c. 4. v. 1. which in all reason should have been joined to the foregoing Chapter. Coherent cum superioribus neque scindenda fuere, Grot.  
C. 3. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That now may be known to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God in heavenly things throughout the Church. Things that pertain to the leading of an eternal life in heaven, Joh. c. 3. v. 12. Eph. c. 1. v. 3. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heavenly things though done on earth, as Chrysostom observes in another place. Whereas some interpret the Principalities and Powers to be the Angels, methinks is far from the scope of the place. For to what intent or advantage were it, if perhaps by the preaching of the Gospel many mysteries of Christianity might be made known unto the Angels, which to them were hid before? This grace v. 8. was given to Paul to make known these things. But Paul had no Commission to preach unto the Angels, neither did he but to the Princes of the Gentiles. Others object that the Gospel was not known to the Princes of the Gentiles, or to earthly Powers till the days of Constantine, and that therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now Principalities and Powers must be meant the Angels. But if it were not known, surely it might have been. I beseech you who were Herod, Faelix, Festus and Agrippa, the Magistrates at Philippi, Thessalonica and Athens? were they not all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Principalities and Powers? of whom speaketh Paul when he admonisheth Titus to be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Principalities and Powers? were not these earthly Magistrates? Can not then the Gospel be known to all? Nay was it not preached to all, and was it not known to all though some rejected it?  
C. 4. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be angry and sin not. There is no doubt but the Apostle borrowed these words of the Psalmist, from the Greek Interpreters, Psal. 4. v. 4. though Beza and our English Interpreter have made no reference thereto in the margin. The reason whereof I suppose is, because they did otherwise interpret the Hebrew, as have many others, reading, Contremiscite & nolite peccare, Stand in awe and sin not. But I rather assent to Musculus who retains the vulgar reading in the Psalm, Irascimini & nolite peccare, Be ye angry and sin not, ductus Autoritate Pauli, being thereunto led by the Authority of St Paul. Besides that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies not only to stand in awe but also to be angry, a man's passion is as well moved for anger as for fear, for even anger makes a man to tremble. Neither have we Paul's Authority alone for the reading but his exposition of the sense. For the words following of St Paul are mere Paraphrase on the words following in the Psalmist, both agreeing in one and the same sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let not the Sun go down upon your wrath, neither give place to the Devil, saith the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dicite in cordibus vestris super cubilia vestra, quieto estote animo, Commune with your hearts upon your beds, and be still, saith the Psalmist. As if the meaning of both were this, If perhaps it happen that ye are angry, neither is any passion quicker, take heed ye sin not by being angry longer than is fit, let not your anger abide till the going down of the Sun, neither make ye that Devil a nightly guest, suffering him to lodge with you, but chase him away, let him vanish before ye go to bed, that on your beds ye may be still and quiet, in a posture to commune with yourselves, to say your prayers in your hearts, as the Chaldee hath it, plainly showing how comfortable, how necessary a thing it is for our thoughts to be free for our pious meditation, when we are newly laid in our beds, to which nothing is a greater enemy then to have any exacerbation rest upon our spirits. The vulgar and Greek Translation render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compungimini in this place. For the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Pagnin and others Translate, Et tacete, And hold your peace, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies to be quiet, as well as to hold one's peace, and so reads Aquila, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quieti estote, and be still, as we render it. So with Hesychius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
C. 6. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pro quo legatione fungor in vinculis, For which I am an Ambassador in bonds. But why may it not be more properly translated, Pro quo senesco in vinculis, For which I wax old in bonds. So Paul styles himself Philem. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paulus senex & vinctus, Paul the aged and a prisoner of Jesus Christ. According to the most proper signification of the word.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To The Philippians.  
Ch. 2. v. 16.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Verbum vitae firmiter tenentes, Holding fast the word of life, that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, nor laboured in vain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. See 1 Cor. c. 3. v. 14, 15. Joh. Ep. 2. v. 8.  
C. 3. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I never yet met with Interpreter, that made a Grammatical construction of these words, when 'tis not easier to set an egg on the end, then to construe them according to rule, without force or figure, only understanding, what is frequent in every Page, the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Circumcisio erat octiduana, My circumcision was the eight day, ut pateat, as Chrysostom saith, Non fuisse Proselytum, That it may appear he was no Proselyte, Ex gente fui Israelis, I was of the stock of Israel, Ut pateat neque à parentibus quidem natum Proselytis, That it may appear that he was neither born of Prosylite parents, etc. So that if any had cause to have confidence in the flesh, Paul had.  
V 15, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quotquot ergo perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus, & si quid aliter sentitis, & hoc quoque revelabit vel revelet vobis Deus (praeter ad quod pervasimus) eâdem incedere regulâ, idem sentire, As many therefore as be perfect, let us be thus minded, and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God will reveal, or God reveal this also to you (besides what ye have already attained unto) to walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing. The Future Indicative for the Imperative is a frequent Hebraism. But whereas Interpreters do generally Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Imperative in the first person plural, Eâdem incedamus regulâ, idem sentiamus, Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, alleging it to be an Atticism, truly when I cannot find such another Atticism in all the New Testament, and when I see no necessity at all for pretending such a figure in this place nor advantage to the mending of the sense thereby, I thought it better to Translate them in the Infinitive according to the usual manner of speech, it being as I conceive, not only more Grammatical, but more agreeable also to the Apostles purpose. For as I have heretofore more than once observed out of the Fathers, that it is the Apostles custom, to conclude his exhortations with a wish or prayer, so when he had exhorted them here to be so minded as he himself was, he presently prays or wishes that God would reveal this also to them, besides the knowledge they had already attained to, to walk all by the same rule that he himself walked, and to be of the same mind that he was, that they might be followers of him, and observe those who took him for their example, whose conversation was already in heaven, etc.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To the Colossians.  
Ch. 1. v. 23.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which was preached in or through the whole creation under heaven.  
C. 2. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Expungens quod adversum nos erat chirographum, in traditionibus nobis contrarium, Wipeing out the hand writing that was against us, which was contrary to us in Traditions.  
V 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man deceive you with subtle arguments who pleaseth himself in humility and the worshipping of Angels, curiously prying into or venturing on those things which he hath not seen. That is, venturing to determine or judge of things whereof he hath no knowledge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mar. c. 12. v. 38. Psal. 147. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. But properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ingredior or pedem pono, to put or set ones foot.  
V 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so frequent as I have often observed. Which things truly have a show of wisdom, in superstition and humility, and afflicting of the body which is in no esteem for the pampering of the flesh.  
C. 3. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When ye lived among them, that is, the children of disobedience.  
V 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is not so fitly Translated in the English in the Present tense, in the Indicative mood: it's better as it is in the Old Latin Deponite, in the Imperative, But now also put ye off all these, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lie not one to another, as it follows in the next verse.  
C. 4. v 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In sapientia ambulate erga eos qui foris sunt lucrantes tempus, Walk in wisdom toward them that are without gaining time. As if he should say, Offend not the Gentiles by any unseasonable deportment, but as far as in religion you may in all things submit unto them, gaining as much time as you can to do good in. To that end let your speech, as it follows, be seasoned with salt. Undertake not unseasonable contentions, but give to every one the reverence which to him is due, so as you injure not your own souls. Hear Paul himself speaking to Agrippa: I think myself happy because I shall answer for myself before thee this day. And truly you may generally observe Paul not doing any thing rashly whereby he might lose the opportunity to draw any to the Faith. You meet the same phrase in Daniel c. 2. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  novi quod tempus lucramini, that is, diem diffinditis ut consumatur tempus & vobis detur effugiendi occasio, as Junius, I know of a certain that ye would gain time, ye spin it out, that ye may get an opportunity to escape.  
V 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is no need with Grotius to vary the reading by leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the testimony of all copies, when as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dictum rightly said as it is in the Old Latin, Et eam quae est Laodicensium vos legatis, And read ye that of Laodicea, not that which was written from Laodicea to them, but which was written from the Apostle to the Laodiceans, which why or how it is lost as is that other to the Corinthians, and another to the Ephesians, as also other books of Scripture, is known to God alone. For the phrase is frequent, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some of the Synagogue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Faithful, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Stoics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the night winds are grievous.   

ANNOTATIONS On the I. Ep. To the Thessalonians.  
Ch. 2. v. 16.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But the wrath of God is come upon them in the end. They have killed Jesus and their own Prophets, and they have persecuted us, neither care they for God, but are contrary to all, forbidding us to preach unto you that ye might be saved, but the vengeance of God is come upon them in the end. Their measure was full, and the Destruction of Jerusalem was at hand.   

ANNOTATIONS On the II. Ep. to The Thessalonians.  
Ch. 2. v. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is in all copies distinguished after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth so confound the Grammatical construction, that no true interpretation can be given of the words, which is easily reconciled by this distinction after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, plainly thus, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that the day of Christ is at hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a common repetition. Let no man deceive you by any means, that it is at hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. 'tis true Interpreters make a shift to make out the sense, but they take no thought of the Syntax. For what can be the meaning of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I must confess is beyond my Fathom.  
V 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jam enim mysterium operatur iniquitatis; tantum est qui ad praesens obstat, vel impedit, donec è medio fiat, For the mystery of iniquity worketh already, only there is one who hindereth, [that is, the working of it,] till he be taken out of the way. Tantum est qui nunc obstat, Only there is one who hindereth. Quis nisi Romanus status? Who but the Roman state? Tertullian. Non absurdè de Romano imperio creditur dictum, 'tis not unfitly thought to be spoken of the Roman Empire, August. Hunc locum exponunt de Imperio Romano, quo soluto fit venturus Antichristus, Erasm. and many others.   

ANNOTATIONS On the I. Ep. To Timothy.  
Ch. 1. v. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being accented with a Circumflex in the middle syllable, the Imperative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood, for by a familiar Elleipsis the Infinitive is frequently put for the Imperative, as you may see, Act. c. 1. v. 4. and elsewhere. But if it be accented with an Acute in the third from the end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as perhaps it ought, for the accents are not the Authors, then is it the Imperative Aorist of the middle voice, which is frequently used in the Old Testament, so that either of these two ways the Anantapodosis is taken away, neither is any supplement necessary of our own, such as is that vide ut denunties, or so do, in the English. The Syntax being plain, As I besought, or advised thee, abide thou a while at Ephesus as thou goest into Macedonia, that thou mayst charge some that they teach no other doctrine, etc.  
C. 2. v. 6, 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is a wonder to consider, how the unhappy pointing of the words, and the unseasonable division of the verses hath made Interpreters destroy the sense and meaning of this place, and yet make no good construction neither, whenas pointed and distinguished as they ought, the sense is excellently good and the construction plain and easy, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The sense running entirely thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 5. etc. Unus enim est Deus, unus etiam mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus Jesus, qui dedit semetipsum redemptionis precium pro omnibus, ipsum testimonium, cujus ego proprio tempore constitutus sum praedicator & Apostolus, etc. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the very Gospel, unto which in due time I was ordained a Preacher and an Apostle, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is doubtless here Appositive, taken as they call it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or materialiter. As if he should say, the sum or whole matter of the Gospel, [for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used by our Apostle, as 1 Cor. c. 1. v. 6. c. 2. v. 1. 2 Tim. c. 1. v. 8, 10, 11. and elsewhere] whereof I am ordained a Preacher, consisteth in the knowledge of one God, and one Mediator Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied in the very same sense, Tit. c. 1. v. 3. As for the trajection of the words there is nothing more familiar.  
V 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Parenthesis is best pretermitted as in Stephanus, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood. Sed quemadmodum decet mulieres quae pietatem spondent per bona opera, But as it becometh women who promise or profess piety by their good works. It is neither proper sense or Greek to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should have been rather written with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Dative case, as in the foregoing words, with which according to that interpretation it ought to agree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The whole context running thus, I will therefore that men pray, etc. In like manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefaceness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls or costly array, but as it becometh women professing Godliness by their good works.  
V 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Interpreters for the most part render it, Salvabitur vero per liberorum generationem, But she shall be saved by the Generation of children, our own Translation saith, by child bearing. But what thereby they mean I comprehend not, unless they understand the Generation of the Son, the seed of the woman that shall bruise the serpent's head, by which both Adam and Eve and all their offspring shall be saved, if they continue in Faith and Charity. He gins in the Singular number, and concludes in the Plural, the like changes of number being very frequent. You may see in particular, 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 12.  
C. 4. v. 1, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Attendentes spiritibus erroris & doctrinis daemoniorum in hypochrysi loquentium mendacium, etc. Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron. But the Syntax of the words cannot bear these Translations. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in casu recto as Mr Mede hath excellently observed, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. in the Genitive, so that they cannot be governed one of another and so construed without breach of Grammar unsampled in Paul's Epistles as that Author saith. Though learned Beza faintly salves it by conniving at it as a Solaecism, with a, Major est habita sententiae quam constructionis ratio, The Apostle had more regard to the sense then to the construction, whenas in truth there is no sense without the true construction. For if you shall say they must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, daemoniorum, devils, what a strange sense is that to say that devils should speak lies in hypocrisy, and have their conscience seared? And therefore to salve these irregularities and absurdities, he undeniably concludes, that the Genitives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here doth signify causam or modum actionis, the cause or manner of the action, so that the proper and genuine Translation must be thus, Attendentes Spiritibus erroris & doctrinis daemoniorum, per hypochrysim falsiloquorum, etc. Giving heed to seducing Spirits and doctrines of devils through or by the hypocrisy of such as tell lies, that have their conscience seared with a hot iron, and forbidden to marry, etc. The  reads, Doctrinae Satanicae, Devilish doctrines, as we Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Injustus Oeconomus, The unjust Steward and the like, or it may be in the sense of Mr Mede, doctrines concerning daemons, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The doctrine of baptisms, that is, concerning baptisms, Heb. c. 6. v. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Faith of the Son of God, that is, concerning the Son of God, Gal. c. 2. v. 20. Or if you will, Concerning Idols, For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for Idola, Idols, Psal. 96. v. 5. in the LXX. And so perhaps it might be well interpreted, 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 20. and elsewhere. The meaning being this, that through the hypocrisy of lying teachers, that have seared consciences, etc. Many shall departed from the Faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and devilish doctrines, or doctrines concerning daemons or Idols, such as are worshipping of Saints, etc. Castalio had probably the same observation concerning the inconvenience of the construction, as the words are commonly Translated, and therefore renders them in the same manner as Mr Mede, Per simulationem hominum falsiloquorum, Through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, and have their conscience seared. His note upon this place being this, Hominum, addidi, ne falsiloquorum & sequentia referrentur ad daemonia, I have added, men, least speaking lies and that which follows, might be referred to devils.  
V 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I marvel that our late Interpreters take no heed at all to what the Greek Scholiast hath observed on these words. To wit, that there is in them no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fault in the copy as some would have it, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, slip or oversight of the Apostle, as others, but that they were spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly according to a genuine Atticism, such as is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prohibuit furari, He forbade to steal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vetuit actum nefandorum, He forbade the doing of what was unfit to speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place being to be repeated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Forbidding marriage, forbidding meats, For to words which are in themselves negative Atticks add a negation, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Quis est mendax nisi qui negat Jesum esse Christum? Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? 1 Joh. c. 2. v. 12. Whereas the literal interpretation is, Who is a liar but he who denieth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Jesus is not the Christ? So that we may with modesty say, that though the word [commanding] as it is supplied, doth express the meaning of the place sufficiently, yet is it not according to rules of Grammar.  
C. 5. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But if any widow hath children or nephews, let them first learn to be pious to their own house, and to requite their parents. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with, parents revereri, to reverence their parents, for as Stephanus tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signify pietatis officio fungi erga parents, to perform the duties of piety to ones parents. For there is a piety towards parents, as well as toward God. And in that sense, 'tis said in Virgil, Sum pius Aeneas, he was called pious Aeneas, for his piety to his Father Anchises, in that he carried him away being aged on his back at the firing and destruction of Troy. And so you have in Cicero 3. Offic. Ipsi patriae conducit pios habere cives in parents, It is behoveful for the common wealth to have citizens pious to their parents. And in Quintil. Praestanda pietas parentibus, Piety is to be performed to parents.  
V 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Old Latin Traslates it right, Simul autem & otiosae discunt circumire domos, And withal being idle they learn to wander about from house to house. Though Beza is pleased to blame this version, saying it was an harsh Enallage, forgetting himself I suppose that with the Greeks the participle is frequently put for the Infinitive with words that signify any affection of the mind, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Memini vidisse, I remember that I saw it. And I hope it cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to learn, doth signify an affection of the mind as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to remember.  
V 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Drink no longer water, etc. This verse seems to have crept into this place besides the meaning of the Apostle, by some accident. Perhaps it was added in the margin, and by the inadvertency of the Transcriber inserted in its wrong place. For the 22 and 24 v. cohere punctually together. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sin, keep thyself clear, that is, be not guilty of their sin, for some men's sins are manifest before hand, preceding to Judgement, that is which go before the laying on of hands, of which he may possibly judge who layeth on his hands, wherefore he cannot be excused from the guilt of those sins if he layeth on his hands: and some they follow after, that is, their sins are not manifest till after Judgement or laying on of hands, and of these there can be no certain Judgement, and therefore he shall not be guilty or partaker of them, who layeth on his hands, and this is the sense of Chrysostom. So as the 23. v. seems to have been inserted by some mistake, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor, Purus, inscius, Pure, or ignorant of.  
C. 6. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They who are to partake of their well doing, or honest labour. The sense running thus, They that have believing Masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but let them rather serve them, because they who are to partake, or have the benefit, of their work, are believers and beloved. Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken in the common acception of the word, that is, beneficii, who are to partake of the benefit, to wit, of their service.  
V 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Existimantium pietatem esse quaestum or mercaturam, as the Arabic Translater renders it. Supposing that Godliness is a trade to get by, or a way or means to get a living. He speaks of those that profess Religion that they may thereby grow rich or get a living. Yet Godliness with contentment is mercatura magna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great or sure way to get by. Whereas they who make haste to be rich, by the pretence of Religion, fall into temptations and a snare, for the love of money is the root of all evils, v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ipsa actio comparandi & acquirendi. Modus victus quaerendi seu quaestus faciendi, Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dicunt enim duobus tantum uti modis faciendi quaestum, agriculturâ & parsimoniâ, Plut. They used but two ways of getting, tillage and patrimony or thrift. So quaestus is a craft or trade to get by, Vall. Cicer. Plaut. etc.   

ANNOTATIONS On the II. Ep. To Timothy.  
Ch. 2. v. 25.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Cum modestia eos corripientem qui resistunt, forte dabit eye paenitentiam, In meekness instructing or rebuking those who oppose themselves, perhaps God may give them repentance. So Theophylact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fortasse, inquit, erit aliqua emendatio, Perhaps, he saith, there may be some amendment, fortasse dederit Dominus paenitentiam, perhaps the Lord may give them repentance. So the Greek Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the Chaldee, Samaritan and English render fort, perhaps, Gen. c. 24. v. 5. and 29. c. 43. v. 12. c. 50. v. 15. And Gen. c. 32. v. 20. They Translate the same word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which elsewhere they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
C. 3. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui sese immergunt in familias, Emphatically with us, Who dive into Families, more properly than, Who creep into Families.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To Titus.  
Ch. 1. v. 2, 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised before the world began, but hath made manifest in due time by or according to his word in or by preaching, wherewith I have been instructed, etc. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so in Aristophanes you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  to my meaning. Whereof there are numerous examples in the New Testament. See likewise, 2 Tim. c. 1. v. 9, 10, 11. where is the same sense and expression in effect, Only instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

ANNOTATIONS On the Ep. To The Hebrews.  
Ch. 1. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is somewhat more than single 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is commonly Translated, Splendour ejus gloriae, The brightness of his glory. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A brightness shining from the glory of God, relucentia or refulgentia, quod ex alio resplendet, as Erasmus and Vatablus; so with Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fulgor vel splendor emicans, A brightness springing or darting from another body, radius gloriae dei, as the Syriack Interpreter hath it. A beam of the glory of God, the very character of his person, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, light of light, as the Greek Scholiast observes upon the place. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Refulgentia aeternae lucis, speculum sine macula virtutis dei, & Imago bonitatis ejus, The refulgence of the eternal light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the Image of his goodness, as wisdom is styled, Wisd. of Sol. c. 7. v. 26. or as it is there immediately before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Emanatio gloriae omnipotentis, A pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty, as we read it in the English.  
V 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tanto superior factus Angelis, Being made so much superior than the Angels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Minus seu inferius à superiore benedicitur, The lesser or the inferior is blessed of the superior, c. 7. v. 7. So we read in Philemon 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bonam uxorem decet non superiorem esse viro, sed obedientem, A good wife must not be superior but obedient to her husband.  
V 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who makes his Angels, his spirits and his ministers, a flame of fire. The scope of these words is to show how much Christ was superior to the Angels, in setting forth the inferiority of their office, in that they were but the Spirits and Messengers of God. Whereas Christ his Throne was from everlasting for ever and ever, God was to him a Father, and he to God a Son. But as concerning the Angels he saith, Qui facit Angelos suos, Spiritus & Ministros suos, flammam ignis, Who makes his Angels, his Spirits and his Messengers, a flame of fire. That the words should be thus Translated, I gather from this, In that the Apostle calls them, v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ministering Spirits jointly, whom he here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Spirits and his Ministers dividedly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a flame of fire, I conceive to be Appositive to the foregoing words. As if he should say, That he made his Angels his Ministers sometimes in the shape of a flame of fire, as Exod. c. 3. v. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire. It being frequent in the Scripture for the Angels to put on divers shapes and forms according to the nature of the employment which God commands them.  
C. 2. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For unto the Angels hath he not put in subjection the [or rather this] world to come, whereof we now speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The world to come whereof he now speaketh cannot be meant to be other, than the age of the world wherein the dispensation of Salvation v. 3. began by Christ and his Apostles, which was not now subject or committed to the Ministration of Angels, as was the Law in former time, which was ordained by Angels, Act. c. 7. v. 53. Gal. 3. v. 19 For before Faith came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which was to come [in this world whereof he now speaks] too be revealed. But now the administration thereof is subject to the Kingdom of Christ by the preaching of the Gospel, in the latter times with signs and wonders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and divers powers, which he calleth, c. 6. v. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the powers of the world or age to come, which as I said before, can be no other than, Saeculum salutis, and mundus Evangelii, The age of Salvation, and the world of the Gospel.  
C. 5. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et exauditus est à metu suo, i. e. servatus à metu suo, And was saved from his fear. So heard that he was freed from the same. So Psal. 55. v. 16. Where the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Greek Interpreters have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will call upon God and the Lord shall save me. And so the Arabic, and  both Translate it, Et dominus exaudivit me. As also, 2 Chron. c. 18. v. 31. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies in Hebrew opitulatus est, he hath helped me, the LXX Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is in Wechelus his edition. And Jehosaphat cried unto the Lord, and the Lord helped him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Lord heard him so that he saved him. So the Roman edition reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And the Lord saved him. The phrase is not unlike in our own Translation, Psal. 22. v. 21. For thou hast heard me from the horns of the Unicorn, that is, thou hast or wilt save me from the horns of the Unicorn.  
C. 6. v. 1, 2. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quapropter linquentes prima elementa Christi provehamur ad perfectionem, non rursum jacientes fundamentum resipiscentiae ab operibus mortuis & fidei in Deum, etc. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us be carried on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of Faith in God, of the doctrine of baptism, and laying on of hands, and of the Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. And this will we do, or let us do if God permit, for it is impossible to renew again unto Repentance those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and been partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and shall fall away, crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, as much as in them lies, and putting him to open shame. He reprehends them in the former Chapter, v. 12, 13. For that when for the time they ought to have been teachers, they had need that one should teach them again which were the first principles of the Oracles of God, that they were become babes again and had need of milk. In these words therefore he exhorts them, that they should not return again to learn the fundamentals of Religion, such as were the doctrines of Repentance, of Faith in God, and of baptism, etc. But that they should strive forward to perfection, perfection which consisted in perseverance. For this he saith he urgeth to no other end, v. 11, 12. but that they should show their diligence ad pleniorem spei certiorationem, to the fuller assurance of their hope unto the end, and that they be not slothful, but followers of them who through Faith and patience inherit the promises, he would not have them Apostatise from the Faith, and fall away crucifying againg the Son of God, etc. For then how hard it will be to restore such again, the following words sufficiently declare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For it is impossible to renew them again unto Repentance, etc. In which place impossible is put for extremely difficult, as Christ saith in the Gospel, It is impossible, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the opinion of men, or with men it may seem impossible. And from this impossibility or difficulty of restoring such a one, it is worth the observing, that Apostates were always the most implacable and deadly enemies of the Christian Religion. But he adds a reason of this impossibility, Nam terra quae generat herbam, etc. For the earth which brings forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed receiveth blessing from God, but that which beareth thorns and briers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inutilis, unprofitable, without any show of its fructification, and therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Hesychius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Fig tree, Luk. c. 13. v. 9 nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. But from this similitude one may gather, that it is not plainly impossible to renew such persons to repentance, but it notes a labour or difficulty in doing of it, for if the husbandman shall with care and diligence throughly weed these thorns and briars out of his ground, it is not to be despaired but that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unprofitable ground, may yet in due time bring forth herbs meet for the use of man. It denotes a difficulty scarce to be conquered, yet conquerable, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extremo sensu, to be rejected in the utmost sense, it is only vicina ad interitum, nigh unto destruction, if the grace of God intervene, it is of power to deliver it from the fire, it can extirpate the sinful corruptions of the flesh, it can change the hardness and barrenness of the heart, and make it fruitful to good works, it can give place for Repentance, and give the thing itself. And that this is the proper meaning of this place, the scope of the Epistle argues, which principally intends or makes it its whole business to establish the Hebrews firm and persevering in the Faith, and to keep them from Apostasy, to which they were too prone, not only because of persecution, but also for that they had been so long accustomed to the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law, which they saw God suffered still to remain in his holy Temple, that they could not totally without reluctance free themselves from observance of them, and rely on Christ alone. And for this cause he so often exhorts them in this Epistle, that they hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end, c. 3. v. 14. that they hold fast their profession, c. 4. v. 14. that they hold fast the profession of their Faith without wavering, c. 10. v. 23. And this exhortation he strengthens with arguments from the excellency of the promise, and the credit of the promiser. Whatever he enlargeth in this Epistle of the Law, of its types and ceremonies, of their invalidity and abrogation, of the excellency of Christ, and Faith in him, so frequently and so sublimely, tends all unto this one end, that he may fix their Faith steadfastly in Christ, that they might run with perseverance the race which was set before them, c. 12. v. 1. that they might not be wearied and faint in their minds, v. 3. etc. Here is one thing more observable, and that is, an eminent trajection in the words, as we have before Translated them, neither can they be regularly Translated any other way. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For it is impossible to renew them again to repentance who have been once enlightened, etc. and shall fall away, crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, etc. The division of the verses having made the Translation not so proper and Grammatical, though yet it hath generally expressed the sense.  
C. 7. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Whilst I was long sticking in the interpretation of this place, I by chance happened at length upon Cunaeus, who treats purposely of Melchizedec, lib. 3. c. 3. de Rep. Heb. from whom (being a person of so eminent a name) I expected to be satisfied in all my doubts; But when I had attentively read him over, I became more incertain than before, or at least not at all edified in my judgement: For he confidently determines contrary to the general opinion of the Fathers, and of all later Interpreters, that Jesus the Son of God was the very same Melchizedec who met Abraham, etc. Gen. c. 14. being clothed in a humane shape, with a habit of a high Priest and King. His opinion being fixed in this foundation, Melchisedeci Sacerdotium à D. Paulo perpetuum atque infinitum constitui, That the Priesthood of Melchizedec was by St Paul determined to be infinite and perpetual, because it's said, v. 3. that he remains a Priest for ever, and v. 8. that it is witnessed of him that he liveth. From whence he necessarily concludes, Si Messiam atque Melchisedecum non esse unum eundemque sed duos credimus, etc. If we believe that the Messiah and Melchizedec were not one and the same, but two persons, then must there be two Priests, whose function, circumscribed with no space of years, endures for ever. Which certainly none of the Ancient nor later Interpreters yet ever so much as dreamt of. And if this be not the true and genuine meaning of the words of St Paul, there's an end of interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews, Thus Cunaeus. But when this opinion hath been exploded from all Antiquity unto Cunaeus his time, so that learned Beza stuck not to pronounce them that held it, apertè Fanaticos, notorious fanatics, I shall use no other argument to refute it, but what Epiphanius used of old, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Neque enim sibi ipsi similis appellari quisquam potest, For no man can be said to be like himself. For to say, that the Son of God was made like unto the Son of God, as it is said, v. 3. or that the Son of God ariseth an high Priest after the likeness of the Son of God, as it is, v. 15. or that God should swear Thou (my Son) art a Priest for ever according to the order or similitude of my Son, as v. 21. Which necessarily follows, if we make Jesus and Melchizedec one and the same person, is to me so altogether unconceivable, that I cannot but admire the confidence of the person, when I consider his reputation. And therefore I cannot but descent from his opinion though never so highly prized, Confessing myself prone toward the sense of them, who make Melchizedec a Type of Christ, although I must ingenuously profess I do not understand, however they salve the matter, how it can be said of Melchizedec, who as they confess, was a mortal man, in one place, that he remains a Priest for ever, and in another, that it is witnessed of him (by the Scripture for so I understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles phrase) that he liveth. I may perhaps apprehend their meaning who refer these words by way of Allegory unto the Son of God, and it may be consonant to my Faith, that it should be so, but it is not so to my sense and reason how it can be so, which it is not just should be led captive without show of demonstration, how the thing is done which they say is done, except it be in matters of extreme necessity. For it is a safe rule and perpetually good, Proprie semper sumenda sunt vocabula, nisi quid aliter accipere cogat, alioqui nihil firmum erit in Scriptura, Words are always to be taken in their proper sense, unless something necessitate to take them otherwise, else nothing will be firm in Scripture. Riber. in Heb. But here is no such necessity in this place. For if I be not extremely mistaken, there is yet an interpretation left, which doth reconcile these apparent difficulties in the Text fairly enough, and also overthrow Cunaeus his opinion, by rendering and distinguishing the words in another manner, than ever yet they have been, and that without any force to Grammar or use of speech among the holy Penmen. To demonstrate this, I must in the first place tell you, that these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Hic enim Melchisedec, etc. unto the end of v. 8. cannot be rightly construed and expounded but jointly with the words foregoing, beginning, c. 6. v. 19, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Et ingredientem usque in interiora velaminis, etc. And which entereth into the inner part of the vail, where the forerunner for us is entered Jesus, or, where Jesus the forerunner for us is entered, being made an high Priest for ever after the order or similitude of Melchizedec, etc. In the farther explaining whereof you are to observe, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor to be construed with it, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preceding immediately before, as also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Appositive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and aught to be construed separately in a Parenthesis with the words following, unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hic enim (ipse Melchisedec rex Salem, etc.) manet Sacerdos in perpetuum, For this Jesus (the Melchizedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave the tenth part of all, first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that King of Salem, which is King of peace, without Father, without Mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God) abideth a Priest continually. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word for word, is This, that is, This man, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jesus may be repeated, or understood. Either lawfully. In sum the meaning of the words is this, For this Jesus, who is entered into the inner part of the vail, etc. c. 6. v. 19, 20. being the Melchizedec (as it is elsewhere said, I am the true vine, and that rock was Christ) that is, prefigured in Melchizedec, who was made like unto him, in that he is called the Priest of the most high God, King of righteousness and peace, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, attributes congruous only to the Son of God, I say, this Jesus, according to the true and genuine interpretation of the words, abideth a Priest continually, but not Melchizedec. But because Melchizedec is by Moses styled the Priest of the most high God, and the King of righteousness and peace, and because neither his Genealogy, nor Birth, nor Death are recorded in Scripture, therefore was he a most fit and proper type and figure of the eternal Priesthood and Royalty of Christ, and for that cause said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made like unto the Son of God. My arguments for this interpretation are these, First, its lawful according to the rules of Syntax. Secondly, because it accommodates the sense, and renders that place interpretable, which the Apostle was pleased to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sermonem difficilem explicatu, A speech hard to be interpreted, c. 5. v. 11. Thirdly, because the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be as well demonstrative, as expletive, and in this place rather, for if it were to be rendered, For this Melchizedec, the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been more significantly omitted, reading, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but because the Article is added, it seems to intimate, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be construed with Melchizedec, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Melchizedec. As our learned Abbot upon Psal. 110. v. 4. For Jesus Christ indeed is the true Melchizedec. In which place he also reads, Thou art the Priest for ever, as if it were read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which reading in itself is lawful, and doth more eminently set forth his singular right to the eternal Priesthood, with exclusion to any other competitor whatsoever. Fourthly and Lastly, this interpretation avoids two egregious contradictions, the one in nature, that a mortal man should live for ever, the other in Faith, that there should be two high Priests that should remain for ever. And now follows the other difficulty which ariseth from, v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et hic quidem decimas accipiunt morientes homines, ibi vero (accipit) de quo testatum est quod vivit, And here men that die receive tithes, but there he that receiveth them, lives for ever. From whence it is concluded without contradiction, that Melchizedec is there said to live, because he who receiveth tithes is said to live, but no body in the foregoing words is said to have received tithes but Melchizedec who received them from Abraham, and therefore it must be Melchizedec, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Whereto it is briefly answered, First, that the word [accipit, receiveth] is not in the Greek Text. Secondly, that the Scripture doth no where say that Melchizedec liveth. What then? is the sense deficient? by no means. It perfectly and formally agrees with the whole order of the Apostles discourse both in this Chapter, and the foregoing Chapter and the following, but especially with v. 23, 24, 25. of this instant Chapter, Where we have the self same sense as to the matter, the words only varied. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered by death for to continue, But this man because he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting Priesthood, by reason whereof he is also able evermore to save them that come unto God by him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, always living to make intercession for them. So that they who receive tithes and die, v. 8. cannot be other than the many Priests who were not suffered by death to remain, v. 23. And he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, v. 8. cannot be other than the very Jesus who is said, v. 24. to remain for ever, and v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, always living, to make intercession for them. And truly Heinsius as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certainty of the thing, did positively affirm, that necessarily those in v. 8. and those in v. 23, 24, 25. were all one and the same persons, and for confirmation citys St Ambrose upon v. 8. Quis est qui vivit? ille etiam qui secundum ordinem Melchisedec factus est Sacerdos in perpetuum, Who is he that liveth? Even he who according to the order of Melchizedec is made a Priest for ever. But he shows not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manner how the thing is so according to the ordinary way of speech, so that the objection still remains, that howsoever, we may strongly guests that the words, v. 8. are properly meant of Christ, yet are they so literally [in common acception] spoken of Melchizedec, that they cannot regularly be construed with any other. But to this objection, to clear the matter, I answer, that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the common way of Syntax properly without any Allegory, aught to relate to Jesus the Son of God, the Analogy and order of the whole discourse unanimously consenting thereunto. As for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Here, i. e. that is, in this world, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Men that die receive tithes, that is, are Priests, for none but Priests received tithes, so as the terms are clearly Synonymous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but there, that is, in heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the inner part of the vail, where Jesus is for us entered, c. 6. v. 19, 20. is, [understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, to wit, Jesus, of whom it is witnessed according as it is there cited out of Psal. 110. v. 4. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec, or as the Syriack and Arabic read, and the Apostle in this very Chapter, v. 15. according to the similitude of Melchizedec. The arguments to confirm this interpretation are these. First, there is nothing in the New Testament more frequent then to understand the verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, you may observe it by the change of the character of the letter in our English books almost in every Page, and therefore it is lawfully expounded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But there is he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Secondly, it is not always necessary that a word or sentence relate to the next antecedent, but often by reason of some digression or intervenient Parentheses to some remoter antecedent. Whereof you may see examples many, as Matth. c. 3. v. 16. the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him, doth not answer to the next antecedent, that is, to Jesus, in the same verse, but to John, v. 14. And Gal. c. 2. the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to whom, v. 5. is not a Relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the false brethren, next preceding, v. 4. (as is commonly conceived) but to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those of reputation, v. 2. whereof you may see Animad. upon that place. So Rom. c. 1. the seventh verse answereth to the first, whilst in the interim betwixt, there are three Parentheses. And 1 Cor. c. 11. the words v. 33. do perfectly answer to v. 22. the rest of the discourse between being a kind of digression. And such a digression we have in this very Epistle, nay, in this very place and matter, for when he had began his discourse concerning Melchizedec, c. 5. v. 10. he suddenly diverts into another, which when he had continued unto, c. 6. v. 20. he returns again to that of Melchizedec, Non abrupte [as Estius] sed molli & artificioso nexu orationis, Not abruptly but with a smooth and artificial closing of his speech. The which very thing he seems to have done in this very place whereof we now speak, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not unlawfully answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Chapter, the discourse between intervening by digression or Parenthesis, which would appear much more plain, did not the troublesome division of the Chapters hinder. Thirdly the Adverb of Place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth most fitly answer to its Correlative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, Matth, c. 6. v. 21. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For where the carcase is there will the Eagles be gathered together, Matth. c. 24. v. 28. So here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where Jesus is entered, there is he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Fourthly, as we must acknowledge, that it is most certainly true of the word of God, what John saith of himself c. 19 v. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, His Testimony is true, so may we no less confidently affirm, whatsoever is not to be found in it, neither can by consequence deduced from it, can in no sense be said to have its Testimony from it; from whence it necessarily follows, that it cannot in this place be understood that the Scripture beareth witness of Melchizedec, that he liveth, when no such thing is to be found in Scripture, or to be deduced from it by lawful consequence. And to speak the truth, the common argument which they use to maintain their exposition, to wit, Silentium de morte pro vitae Testimonio accipit, The silence of his death he takes for a Testimony of his life, I say the argument wherewith they endeavour to defend this exposition, and that is, Non valeret hoc quidem in aliis, sed in Melchisedeco quatenus est imago Christi, valere debet, This were not of validity in any else, but in Melchizedec it must be so, because he is the type of Christ, hath more presumption in it then reason or Authority; And certainly the concession of this interpretation as rational and lawful, induced Cunaeus into that vain (in my judgement) opinion, that Jesus and Melchizedec were one and the same person, and that, as he thought, out of a necessary consequence, that there might not be said to be two high Priests, who would remain for ever. Fiftly, because this very Chapter doth so often testify that the meaning of the words is so, as you may see, v. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken was evidently Jesus, our Lord of the tribe of Juda, v. 14. But what are the things are spoken of him? to wit, that he is entered into the inner vail, that he remains a Priest for ever, and that of him it is witnessed that he liveth, which is also farther testified, v. 16. v. 23 24 25. and v. 28. So that it is more manifest than the Noon day, that, [of whom it is witnessed that he liveth] cannot possibly be understood of any other then of Jesus. Sixthly and lastly, our interpretation so perfectly accommodates the sense, and reconciles all the difficulties which rise out of the common exposition, that I see no reason why it should not be accepted, especially having nothing in it contrary to Syntax, reason or Scripture, but agreeing to them all, and there being no other way whatever, that can accord the construction and the sense, as far as yet appears.  
V 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here is likewise an observable trajection, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Unto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the Tenth of the spoils.  
C. 9 v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And a worldly sanctuary. It being so here called in Antithesis to the heavenly, as it is an antitype of the true one into which Christ is entered. And that was heaven itself, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Sanctuary made with hands the figure of the true one, v. 24. The Antithesis standing thus, The first Tabernacle had its ordinances of divine service, and a worldly Sanctuary, etc. But Christ is become an high Priest of the good things to come, through a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not made with hands, that is to say, of this creation, v. 11. not a worldly Sanctuary made with hands, or of an earthly building, but an eternal Sanctuary in the heavens, into which he is entered by his own blood once for all. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worldly, made with hands, and of this building or creation, signify all one and the same. Whereas some interpret a Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, of this creation, to be meant of the body or humane nature of Christ, because a body is sometime metaphorically called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Tabernacle, I conceive is not suitable to the scope of the place, nor to the doctrine of our Faith. For first, the Tabernacle here mentioned seems rather to be the heavens into or through which Christ is said to be entered to appear in the presence of God for us, v. 24. as also he is called our high Priest which is passed into the heavens, c. 4. v. 14. And Secondly, as it is improper to say, that any humane body, was or was not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made with hands, so neither can it be truly said, that Christ his body or humane nature was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of this creation or world: For to say that Christ his body was not of this world, because it was conceived in a supernatural manner, is absurd and frivolous, For Christ had his whole humane nature body and soul from his Mother, and she from Adam, that is, of his creation. Else what becomes of Athanasius his Creed? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Man of the substance of his Mother. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Perfect man of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting. Nay if Christ's humane nature were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of this world, then are we still in our sins, neither doth his passion at all avail us. We are still more miserable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For what was not [by Christ] assumed, was by him never healed, as Nazianzen most rightly tells us. But to return, a worldly Sanctuary is a Sanctuary made by the work of man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which man pitched, and not the true Sanctuary which God pitched in the heavens, c. 8. v. 2. He distinguisheth between the heavenly Sanctuary which God made and not man, of which Christ is the Minister or high Priest, and the Sanctuary that Solomon built by the hand of man, of which those were high Priests that were after the order of Aaron. Neither was Atrium Gentium, The court of the Gentiles, ever called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sanctuary or the holy place, which some would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify in this place. Nay the persons to whom the court of the Gentiles was permitted, were expressly forbidden by a public writing in Greek and Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To come within the Sanctuary or holy place, Josep. de bell. Jud. l. 6. c. 6.  
C. 11. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Est autem fides firma expectatio rerum sperandarum, But Faith is the assured expectation of things to be hoped for. In which sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in holy Scripture. As in this Epistle, c. 3. v. 14. 2 Cor. c. 9 v. 4. Ruth c. 1. v. 12. Ezek. c. 19 v. 5. Lam. c. 3. v. 18. Psal. 39 v. 7. So Schindler, Fides est sperandorum substantia, h. e. expectatio, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, that is, the expectation, Or, Faith is the ground or foundation of things hoped for. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, quo quid fulcitur, wherewith any thing is supported. And so hope is truly supported by Faith. For what we do not confidently believe shall ever be, we can never hope to enjoy, and therefore Faith is farther called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The evidence or certain proof of things not seen, yea so certain as if they were already seen. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Glossary, is, indicium or probatio, a demonstration or argument so sure as cannot be refuted.  
V 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an Elleipsis frequent in every Page, as I have often observed. Et propter eam adhuc dicitur esse mortuus, And for it, that is, for his Faith is he still said to be dead, or, to have died. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praedicatur, Seal. Is yet spoken of, in our Margin. For we to this hour say, that Cain killed his brother Abel for his Faith, for which Abel obtained witness that he was righteous, v. 4. So 1 Joh. c. 3. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Wherefore did Cain kill his brother but because his works were righteous? But how were they righteous, but by his Faith in Christ to come, in assurance whereof he offered of the firstlings of his flock? For his Faith therefore is Abel still said to have died.  
V 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Virtutem accepit ad fundationem seminis, Through Faith even Sarah also received strength for the foundation of a Seed, etc. which was to be as it follows in the next verse, As the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable, in which all the families of the earth were to be blessed, for of that Seed wherewith she became then with Child, came Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Foundation of the world, Revel. c. 13. v. 8. and c. 17. v. 8. and elsewhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dicitur, cum res aliqua sumit exordium, etc. Hieron. it is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when any thing takes its beginning. But by what Philosophy, Logic, Grammar or Dictionary, it can be possibly Translated, that she received strength to conceive a Seed, I confess is beyond my learning or capacity. Why it should be therefore so universally accepted, I cannot but wonder, whenas the sense as now Translated, is so proper, and the use of the word so fit and common.  
V 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tentati sunt, Were tempted. As Job, Scholar Graec. as Abraham and Isaac, Theodoret. But our late Writers, as also some of the Ancient are of another opinion, and therefore say, that the word is crept into the Text imperitia amanuensis, by the unskilfulness of the Transcriber, or that it is not written as it should be, either by the oversight of the Apostle, or the Scribe. For because it would be a Tautology to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were tempted, when immediately before 'tis said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they had trials or temptations of cruel mockings and scourge, etc. and because there are words of each hand denoting some kind of death, they think it probable, either that the word should not be read at all, as it is omitted by Chrysostom, the Syriack and Aethiopick Interpreters, and others; or that, if it be read, it ought to be understood in some notion whereof there was no mention made before, and which signifies some kind of death. And from hence some have been moved to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were burned. But if there be any leave for conjecture, perhaps it should have been rather written, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were pierced through, a kind of death so known in those days, either by Spear or Stake, that it is scarce to be believed that the Apostle in this place could possibly escape it, when he reckons up so many several kinds of death, which the Christians in those times, and the Prophets of old suffered for the Faith; among which Nicephorus and Eusebius out of the Writings of Dionysius of the Martyrs of Alexandria, mention the transverberation or piercing through of the bowels with stakes, which with Phavorinus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For anciently they thrust or pierced through malefactors, striking a sharp stake through the back bone, as they do fishes which are roasted on a spit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesyc. and Suid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut transfigam turdos, Aristoph. and so verubus transfixa exta, Ovid. and perhaps so meant Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, transfixit verubus.  
C. 12 v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And to the blood of sprinkling which speaketh better things, than Abel, as some, or then that of Abel, as others, meaning the sprinkling; or as some copies read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then is meant the blood of Abel, or as the Interlineary in our Polyglot Bible, Sanguine aspersionis, in the Ablative. And then the meaning's thus, And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and who by his blood of sprinkling speaketh better things than Abel. But read you which way you please, the sense is still the same. And that is this, That the Sacrifice or Oblation which Christ offered on the Cross by the sprinkling or effusion of his blood, did speak better things to the pacifying or atonement of the wrath of God, then did the Sacrifice or Offering of Abel, or then the blood spoke, which Abel offered unto God for a Sacrifice, which was a true type, and of all the first, of that Sacrifice which in the fullness of time Christ offered on the Cross by the effusion of his blood, and for this very thing, because Abel the first of all men living offered an offering to the Lord of the firstlings of his flock, whereby he testified his Faith in Christ to come and offer himself an oblation for the sins of the whole world, doth God altogether seem to have respect to Abel and to his offering. For by Faith is Abel said to have offered unto God a better Sacrifice than Cain, c 11. v. 4. and for this Faith's sake did he obtain a Testimony that he was righteous. When therefore that Sacrifice of Abel was but a type or shadow of that great sprinkling of blood which taketh away the sins of the world, it is no more to be compared with it which is the substance of the shadow, then is a picture to be compared with the living person whom it represents. Concerning which disproportion you may observe more, c. 9 v. 13, 14. and 23. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place denotes nothing else but the rites and offerings of the Old Testament, one example being put for all. As if he should say, The blood of Christ speaks better things, that is, more available to the appeasing of the wrath of God for our sins, then either Abel, or Moses, or all the Sacrifices and Oblations of all the Patriarches. That Christ his blood was praefigured in the Sacrifice of Abel, to be shed for the sins of all mankind, and that the Patriarches before the Law was given, when they Sacrificed the blood of beasts, had a respect to the Saviour of the world, I think, there's no Divine but doth assent to, Modern or Ancient. Instead of all, I shall use but one Testimony thereto out of Eusebius, Demonst. lib 1. c. 10. where speaking of Noah and the rest of the Patriarches before Moses, he hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Anciently beloved of God foreseeing by a divine spirit that some extraordinary Sacrifice precious in the sight of God would one day come to men, that should expiate the sins of the whole world, did in the mean while perform or act its signs and figures, as Prophets typically expressing that which was to come, But to say that the blood of Christ speaks better things than the blood of Abel which cries to heaven for vengeance, to speak modestly, agrees not with the scope of the place, it having been the Apostles great labour to demonstrate how invalid the Ceremonies of the old Law were to acquire eternal life, and how much in that respect the covenant of the New Testament was beyond that of the Old, as is evidently apparent by the whole series of his discourse, c. 9, and 10. But to speak the very truth, with reverence to Antiquity, that exposition is contrary to the very rules of Logic. For Comparata oportet esse secundum majus & ejusdem speciei & naturae, Things compared ought to be according to more or less, of the same species and nature. So as in a comparison of betterness, the one may be said in some measure to be good for that end for which the other is said to be better. So Chrysostom, although he hit not the meaning in this place so luckily, upon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, better Sacrifices than these. c. 9 v. 23. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That which is better, is better than that which is good, therefore the types of those things which are in heaven are good, for if the types were evil, then would those things whereof they are a type be evil also. But to cry for vengeance, and to cry for grace, are the whole heavens different and contrary natures. Neither can the blood of Christ be said to be better than the proper blood of Abel, which was not at all good, no not typically to that intent and purpose to which Christ his blood was, to wit, for the redemption of mankind, and the expiation of the sins of the whole world. That therefore this comparison may agree with itself, it is unavoidably necessary, that here be meant the Sacrifice of Abel, which through Faith he offered unto God, which with the Sacrifice of Christ is not to be compared.   

ANNOTATIONS On the General Ep. Of S. James.  
Ch. 3. v. 1.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nolite multi fieri doctores, Do not many of you become teachers. That is, do not many of you affect the gift of preaching, knowing that we, [who are so] shall receive the greater judgement. A familiar trajection, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
V 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here is another trajection likewise, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fraena immittimus in ora equorum, We put bits into the mouths of horses, as if it were purposely affected for the elegance. You have also the like observable trajection, c. 2. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Have not the Faith of Jesus Christ our Lord of Glory with respect of persons.  
C. 4. v. 5, 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From the consideration of the construction of these words it seems to me necessarily to follow, that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next following, can agree with no other word than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that they must be therefore rendered thus, Or do you think the Scripture saith in vain, That the spirit which dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But it giveth a greater grace, for that it saith, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. The sense and coherence being thus, He adviseth them against strife and envying, against wars and fightings, which he tells them proceed from their lusts, for confirmation whereof he produceth a Testimony of Scripture. Do you think the Scripture saith in vain, the Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? as if it had said, these bitter envyings come from the lusts of the spirit that is within us. Surely no. The Scripture saith it not in vain. The spirit of man is carried on with passion unto envy, and from thence it comes, because he cannot enjoy what the lust of his eye desires, he endeavours to satisfy his lust by obtaining his desires by force. But the Scripture tendereth a more gracious comfort, when it saith that God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace, that is, sheweth favour to the humble. Intimating thereby, that though we be naturally prone to strife and envy, yet if we humble ourselves before God, to which he exhorts us in the following words, he will show favour to us. Where this Scripture is in express words, I cannot tell, but among the Writings of the Prophets which are lost. As elsewhere the Apostle Paul citeth words of our Saviour's, which we no where read that he ever spoke, It is more blessed to give then to receive, Act. c. 20. v. 35.  
C. 5. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nolite ingemiscere in alterutrum, as the Old Latin, Ne lugete invicem, Bemoan not one another. He bids them in the former verses to be patiented and to establish their hearts, because the coming of the Lord was at hand. And here he again exhorts them, not to lose their courage, and to bemoan one another, least for their impatience they might be blamed. For behold the Judge is before the doors, the Lord is at hand. Take ye therefore the Prophets for examples of suffering affliction and patience. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is cum gemitu deploro, to bewail with lamentation. As, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I bewail my own Soul, Basil. in which sense you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Euripides. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one as if he had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive, signifieth supper, over. Bewail or lament not one over another. As for the common reading, Grudge not one against another, methinks, it agrees not at all with the scope of the place.   

ANNOTATIONS On the I. Ep. General Of S. Peter.  
Ch. 3. v. 20, 21.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As the words are thus commonly pointed and distinguished, it is very hard to give them a commodious sense and a Grammatical construction. For which cause Beza would have this place amended out of the Complutense Edition, affirming that in other copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is corruptly read for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in that. And him for a great part our late Expositors do follow, though there be an old copy also in Oxford that readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Learned Dr Hammond is pleased to follow. The Syriack, to salve the doubt, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to which, perhaps lawfully enough. But there may be no less question in another phrase of this period, for according to the common use of words, it is not properly said, Octo animas servatas esse per aquam, That eight Souls were saved by water, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was constantly understood by the Greeks. Though Beza to remedy this difficulty also, will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signify, In, that is, in his Country language, parmi le'au, in or amidst the water. And to confirm his Judgement he citys a precedent, Rom. c. 4. v. 11. where he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, in praeputio, in uncircumcision, whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is three times used by the Apostle in the same and the foregoing verse, but truly I see no such urgency in that place to alter the proper signification of the Preposition, it being as good if not much better sense to Translate it, as the Old Latin doth, Per praeputium, By his uncircumsion, according to the common acception of the word. The meaning of the place being this, That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of Faith in uncircumcision, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his uncircumcision he might be the Father of all believers, righteousness also being imputed unto them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being to be Transposed thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as commonly it is, to the obscuring of the Emphasis of the sense. Which is surely this, His circumcision was the seal of his Faith when he was yet uncircumcised, for a sign, that by his uncircumcision, that is, by his Faith when he was yet not circumcised, he might become the Father of all believers throughout the world that are not circumcised. However, this interpretation of Beza's is not only rare, but likewise not much suitable to this place. Let us therefore with leave inquire, whether these very words without altering at all the common reading (for neither, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being all of the Masculine or Neuter gender do or can agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is of the Feminine, as in their sense who would so read they ought to do) only varying the points, and understanding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so frequent, and taking away the latter Parenthesis, may not yield a truer and better sense than they did before. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In diebus Noae, cum fabricaretur Arca in qua paucae (id est Octo) animae servatae sunt. Per aquam etiam quod est antitypum nos nunc servat Baptisma, non depositio sordium carnis sed bonae conscientiae stipulatio in Deum per Resurrectionem Jesu Christi, In the days of Noah when the Ark was preparing, wherein few (that is Eight) Souls were saved. By water also Baptism which is the Antitype doth now save us. Not the doing away the filth of the flesh, but the covenant of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And thus by this Translation the unwonted use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former sense is avoided, and the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fitly answer to the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither is the trajection harsh at all, as some perhaps may object, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By water also Baptism which is the Antitype [to the Ark of Noah wherein Eight Souls were saved] doth now save us. Is there not the same trejection, if you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Nay it is so far from being insolent, as it rather seemeth elegant and pleasing, for as Stephanus affirms, Demosthenes the great Orator was wont to use such trajections ad venustatem sermoni conciliandam, to gain a grace unto his speech. That others also of the Greeks, and the Latins also for the same cause did the like, as you may see, Animad. on Act. c. 13. v. 17. And perhaps the very Apostles themselves, is not strange at all. You have one in this very place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and another in the same Apostle, 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if you would see more perplexed and involved trajections, you may consult as I said before, Act. c. 13. v. 17. In sum the sense is this, Baptism which doth now save us by water, and is an Antitype to the Ark of Noah, is not the doing away of the filth of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By water, but the covenant or promise of a good conscience toward God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so as there is a clear Analogy between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a due proportion between, By water, and By the Resurrection. As if he should have said, That the Ark of Noah (not the flood) was a type of Baptism, and Baptism an antitype to the Ark, but not because that Baptism was a cleansing of the filth of the flesh by water, in which respect it had no resemblance with the Ark, but in that it was the stipulation of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Faith whereof and a life proportionable toward God, we are now saved, as they of old time were in the Ark of Noah. For the Ark of Noah and Baptism are both types and figures of the Resurrection. So that the proper end of Baptism is not to be understood as if it were a washing away of our sins, which is signified by the doing away the filth of the flesh, (although it necessarily follows and is so often Metonymically taken by the Fathers) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly it is the sign of Resurrection from death in sin to newness of life by a true and lively Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, whereof Baptism was a most Emphatic figure, as was also the Ark of Noah, out of which he returned as it were from the Sepulchre of death to a new life, and therefore is of Philo not unfitly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Captain or Leader of regeneration, and so was the Whale's belly out of which Ionas risen after a three days burial, and the Cloud, and the Red Sea in which the people of Israel were all Baptised, 1 Cor c. 10. v. 2. All which were types and figures of the same thing with Baptism, to wit, of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it being reputed an Apostolic constitution, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Demersio in aquâ denotat mortem, emersio ex aquâ Resurrectionem Christi simul & nostram, The demersion in the water signifies the death, the emersion out of it the Resurrection of Christ and also of us. So as by the leave of Interpreters who are of another Judgement, I for my part think, that in these words is more Emphatically and expressly set forth what Baptism meaneth, both negatively and affirmatively, then in any other place of Scripture, as if our Apostle did it of purpose to rectify our Judgements concerning the true notion of Baptism. I say negatively and affirmatively. Negatively, that it is not doing away the filth of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the efficacy of water, the outward sign of the inward thing, to wit, the mystical washing away of sin, into which sense very obvious for the near affinity of the use of water we are so prone to run into. For it is a cold exposition of them who say, that the doing away the filth of the flesh doth signify the outward act of washing only, as if any man could be saved by the outward act, unless the inward thing be applied by Faith, to wit, the remission or doing away of sin. Affirmatively and positively, that it is the stipulation or promise of a good conscience toward God by the virtue of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And I conceive this sense concerning Baptism to be most consonant and agreeable to the Judgement of the Fathers, who if they notwithstanding did apply Baptism to that other notion of washing, they did it accidently, and by the by, because of the Allegorical allusion of the element of water to the blood of Christ, which is said to cleanse us from our sins, 1 Joh. c. 1. v. 7. But more surely there is in this word of Baptism according to Athanasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a deeper mystery then that of washing, a mystery known and common to the very Heathen, as their frequent lustrations do sufficiently witness. But as concerning the Resurrection of the body, it was a thing to them unknown and incredible, if not altogether imperceptible, [nay some of the Jews themselves did not believe it.] It was the speech of one of their great Philosophers, Seneca by name, Hora illa decretoria non est animo suprema sed corpori, The determinate hour, of death, is not the last to the soul, but to the body. It was no small matter to reach the immortality of the Soul, the top of their knowledge, but of the Resurrection of the body Philosophers scarce ever dreamt of. Mornaeus tells us of Zoroastres, who is of some reported to have held this opinion, Quod animae immortales sunt, & quod corporum Resurrectio universalis futura, That Souls are immortal, and that there shall be a universal Resurrection of bodies. But this, but, à plerisque profertur, many say so, but no certainty thereof. And Lactantius tells us of Chrysippus who had an imperfect notion of it, the sum whereof was this. That after death within some period of time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we should be restored into the same form wherein we now are. But who knows whether he meant the same Numerical body, or whether by this same form he mean not the Soul, as the rest of the Philosophers did, or whether he meant not rather the Pythagorean Metempsychosis? But this I say was a greater mystery than that Allegorical washing of the Soul by which it's said to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. The notion of Resurrection was far higher, the very life and mystery of Christian Religion, as Zonaras calls it. It is indeed the stupendious mystery of mysteries, wherein to believe consists the foundation of eternal happiness. That Christ the Mediator should become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God and man, to be declared man in that he died, and to be declared God in that he risen again from the dead, Rom. c. 1. v. 4. This I say again was a mystery beyond all Philosophical Speculation, and therefore there was need of some significant type or figure, which might make so impenetrable a notion familiar and perceptable to the sense of man, to which purpose nothing seemed more fit and easy in the wisdom of God, than the burying of our bodies in water by Baptism, from whence they receive an immediate Resurrection. So that in conclusion we may positively affirm that Baptism is properly and solely a type of the Resurrection. And to this truth do give their suffrage, The Apostles, Fathers, Schoolmen, almost all Interpreters, Ancient and Modern, and even our English Church itself, its Judgement being manifest in the Rubric of the Common Prayer, which enjoins the dipping of Infants in Baptism, allowing only in some cases the liberty of sprinkling, or perfusion. The thing of itself is so manifest, that there is no need of Testimonies to confirm it; but because there be not few who teach otherwise, led thereunto by example and vulgar error, it will not be amiss, if but to free myself from the imputation of too much confidence, out of innumerable Testimonies, to cite some few, And we first begin from the Apostle Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Know ye not that so many as were Baptised into Jesus Christ, were Baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father of Glory, even so we also should walk in newness of life, etc. Rom. c. 6. v. 3, 4. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Being buried with him in Baptism, wherein you are also risen with him through Faith of the working of God who hath raised him from the dead, Col. c. 2. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Else what shall they do who are Baptised for dead [body] if the dead rise not? 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 29. As much as if he had said, In vain doth the Church use the sign of Baptism if there be no Resurrection. You have it abundantly proved also in the Primitive and later Writers. For example, That believing on his death, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By his Baptism ye may be made partakers of his Resurrection, Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptism was given to set forth the death of the Lord, Ep. ad Philadel. in the name of Ignatius. The death of Christ, Const. Apost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In Baptism we perform the signs of his Passion and Resurrection, Just. Mar. We know one saving Baptism, since there is but one death for the world and one Resurrection, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof Baptism is the type, etc. Basil. Mag. Hear what St Paul saith, They were all Baptised in the cloud and in the sea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He calleth their passage through the sea, Baptism, for it was an escape from death, etc. Basil. Seleuc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When we go about to Baptise, we bid to say, I believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and in this Faith are we Baptised, Chrysost. Baptismus Resurrectionis pignus, & imago, Baptism is a pledge and figure of the Resurrection, Ambr. Baptismus arrhabo Resurrectionis, Baptism is an earnest of the Resurrection, Lactant. Aquarum elemento sepelimur, We are buried in the element of water, Anselm. Mersio mortis & sepulturae formam gerit, Immersion bears the form of death and burial, Bernard. Laudabilius, & tutius, & communius, etc. Baptism is performed more laudably, more safely and more commonly by dipping, for by dipping the figure of Christ his burial is represented, Tho. Aquin. Ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat, etc. The word Baptism doth signify dipping under the water, and it is evident the Ancient Church used the Ceremony of dipping, Calv. Baptismus Graeca vox est, etc. Baptism is a Greek word and signifies properly, immersion into the water, and this signification doth properly agree with our Baptism, and hath Analogy to the thing signified, for by Baptism we are buried together and as it were drowned with Christ being dead to sin, etc. Zanch. I could add to these an innumerable heap of Testimonies, but these I think are enough to prove two irrefragable doctrines, First, that Baptism is properly and solely, the type of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by Faith wherein we are assured of the humanity and Godhead of our Saviour, the very foundation of our Christian Faith. And Secondly, of the Resurrection of all true Christians, who are Baptised in, and live according to that Faith, knowing that if they shall rise from the death of sin to newness of life, they shall also after death with Christ arise to glory. I shall only add the Judgement of an ingenuous and learned man, whose Testimony in this matter is not to be suspected or refused. His words are these, Porro quamvis immersionis Caeremonia & olim fuit communior, etc. Though the Ceremony of immersion was anciently more common, as appears by the unanimous discourse of the Fathers when they speak of this matter, and doth more lively represent the death, burial, and Resurrection of the Lord and us, which are mystically done in Baptism. The which signification of immersion the Fathers do often urge, etc. From whence St Thomas affirms that the Ceremony or rite of dipping is the most commendable, Yet there have been many reasons for which sometimes it was convenient to change this custom of dipping into some other kind of Ceremony near unto it, etc. From hence therefore the Ceremony of perfusion or pouring on of water as middle between sprinkling and dipping was much in use, which custom Bonaventure saith was in his time much observed in the French Churches and some others, though he confess the Ceremony of dipping was the more common, the more fit, and the more secure, as St Thomas teacheth. However where the custom of perfusion, or aspersion, sprinkling of, or pouring on of the water is now in use, it ought not to be altered by private Authority. Nay since now it is so generally in practice throughout the Church, it ought by no means to be called in question. Thus far Estius. In whose words we have a manifest and ingenious concession, that dipping was the Ancient Ceremony, which constantly the Fathers taught, as more lively representing the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ and us, that the Schoolmen held the same for the most secure and commendable custom, that the custom of perfusion crept in unawares into the Church, for what causes he mentions not. But because the custom hath been long in use, he doth not think it fit it should be called into question whether it be lawful or no. And to this Judgement I willingly subscribe, so as the Ministers of Baptism would teach the true and genuine reason of its institution, which by the change of the Ceremony is almost lost, so that they for the most part teach now a days that Allegorical one of washing, occasioned by the now constant custom of perfusion, which I will not yet deny may be piously and profitably taught sometimes, for the Fathers and the Apostles themselves did sometimes do it. Though, with leave be it spoken, I am still of opinion, that it would be more for the honour of the Church, and for the peace and security of Religion, if the old custom could conveniently be restored, which surely it might safely enough in respect of endangering the health of the Infants, if Baptism were only to be administered at set times in the year, as it was Anciently in the Church. Which custom what should hinder to be revived I do not see, but the opinion of those, who hold Baptism so necessary to Salvation, as that without it there's none to be hoped for, and yet in danger of death, there might be a liberty allowed for it at other times. The case then being thus, I beseech you what so visible affinity is there between burial and washing, that Christian Baptism should be thought to draw its Original from the lotions or washings of the Jews? If it were true that our Baptism did signify washing or ablution, or were it true that the Jews did Anciently admit into their Church either their Own or Proselytes by collation of Baptism, which hath been so much urged by Learned men, they might be probable arguments, that the institution of our Baptism was fetched from the Baptisms or washings of the Jews. But when the contrary is made so evident concerning the first, and there appears no certainty for the second, I conceive there is little reason to adhere to this new and uncertain doctrine which the Fathers never heard or dreamt of. For that our Baptism is truly a type of burial, and Resurrection, literal and mystical, and not of washing, hath been already sufficiently declared. And as for the other argument, as it is far off from any cogency in it to force the assent, so is it liable to very much question, it having so little help of the Authority of Scripture to defend it, that I can scarce find any footsteps of it in the Old Testament. They would derive its Original from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lavit or purgavit, to wash or cleanse, Exod. c. 19 v. 10. But as I take it the Rabbins use for Baptism the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies dipping or immersion, thereby notably showing that they own the notion of the word to the Greeks, or rather to the Christians. For what affinity is there so near between purgation, and immersion, cleansing and dipping? But the thing of itself was so uncertain that the Masters themselves did disagree about it. For in the very Text they urge which is cited out of the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer doth expressly contradict Rabbi Joshua, who was the first as far as I can learn that ever did assert this kind of Baptism among the Jews. For Rabbi Eliezer who was at least coetaneous if not elder to Rabbi Joshua, expressly saith, Proselytum circumcisum & non Baptizatum verum esse Proselytum, nam sic legimus de patribus, Abrahamo, Isaaco, & Jacobo, qui circumcisi erant & non Baptizati, That a Proselyte circumcised and not Baptised was a true Proselyte, for so we read of our Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were Circumcised and not Baptised. On the other side Rabbi Joshua affirms, Eum qui Baptizatus est & non circumcisus esse Proselytum, That he was a Proselyte who was Baptised and not circumcised, But to which of these shall I yield my belief? To Eliezer who affirms that which the Scripture affirms, or to Joshua who affirms that which the Scripture no where mentions? 'tis true the Masters stood all for Rabbi Joshua, it was their interest so to do, it was for the honour of their Religion, that the Christians might be said to borrow their Ceremonies from them. But when I see learned and judicious persons in these times fetch the foundations of truth from the Rabbins, and that to establish a new opinion, I cannot but wonder at it. Unde nobis missus est Talmudus, etc. They are the words of Buxtorfius in his Synag. Jud. From whence was the Talmud sent us, that we should give it so much credit, as to believe that the Law of Moses could or ought to be understood by it? And if not the Law of Moses, much less the Law of the Gospel to which they were professed enemies. The Talmud is called by the same Author, Errorum Labyrinthus, & fabularum Judaicarum fundamentum, The Labyrinth of errors, and the foundation of Jewish Fables, and it was first perfected and acknowledged to be Authentic Five Hundred years after Christ, and out of it Maimonides and all the rest did suck their learning. Surely therefore there's little reason to acquiesce in its Authority, or Testimony. But what was the matter that this old Rabbin should so constantly deny that which was like to advance the honour of his Religion, but that his conscience was throughly convinced of his assertion? I cannot but admire the ingenuity of the man who maintained the light of this truth so firmly against and amidst so many Impostors of his Nation, who perhaps thought it a Glorious Triumph to obtrude a counterfeit opinion upon the innocent world not yet solicitous of their machinations. And that which moves me more, Josephus himself [not to speak of all the Fathers before the Talmud] who was likewise a Jew and of the same age with Rabbi Eliezer, who writ also purposely of the customs and Ceremonies of his Nation, is totally silent in this matter, so that it is an argument to me next to demonstration, that two persons of such eminency, both Jews, and coeval, the one should expressly deny, the other in all his History make no mention of this Baptism. Besides if Baptism in the sense of our days had been in use among the Jews in former times, wherefore did the Pharisees say to John the Baptist, Joh. c. 1. v. 25. Why then Baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Do they not plainly intimate thereby, that there was no use nor practise of Baptism before, and that it was a received opinion among them, that there was none to be used till Elias, or that Prophet came? Such a solemn and public mersation was altogether unusual with the Jews till that time, as Grotius saith upon the words aforementioned. How then there can be any such affinity between our Baptism and the washings of the Jews, that the one should therefore by any pretext or right be said to succeed the other, I confess I understand not, it is beyond my Faith. But they say that Arrian calls the Jew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, one that's dipped, but I rather think with his Commentator, Ipsum confuse loqui, & velle potius Christianum Judaeum, That he [being a Heathen] spoke confusedly or promiscuously, and that he rather meant a Christian Jew, as Lubin also upon that of Juvenal, 
Nunc sacri fontis nemus & delubra locantur Judaeis,  will have the Jews there to be meant the Christians, Qui edicto Domitiani urbe pulsi sylvas illas habitare cogebantur, Who being by Domitian's Edict expelled the City, were forced to inhabit those woods which were sacred to the Heathenish devotions. But to put an end to this discourse, I do affirm with Alexander de Halys, Tinctio est formalis causa Baptismi, That dipping is the formal cause of Baptism. There remaineth only to resolve what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is. Concerning which word I conceive with Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, that in this place it properly signifies, stipulatio, a covenant or promise. As it is interpreted by the Glossaries, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stipulatio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Promitto spondeo, stipulor. In which sense I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be taken, Sirac. c. 33. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Homo sensatus credet legi, & lex ei fidelis, sicut sponsio vel stipulatio justorum, A man of understanding will trust the Law, and the Law will be Faithful unto him, as the promise or covenant of the Just. 'tis true, It properly signifies, rogatio, but as rogatio legis among the Latins was used for legis latio, and for the Law itself, and rogare legem, for legem far or statuere, because it was the custom that the Magistrate when at any time a Law was to be enacted, did ask the people, Rogaret populum, Velitis, jubeatis ne Quirites hoc fieri? Do you desire or will, that this be a Law? upon whose answer that they did, the Law was published, and this was called rogatio legis, or the enacting of a Law, so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Greeks, though properly it signifies rogatio, for the same reasons taken for stipulatio, or a covenant, nay we have in our Holy-okes Etymological Dictionary, rogare, stipulari, and surely the Law itself is nothing but a covenant. I say for the same reasons; for as Pomponius tells us, Stipulatio, was, Verborum conceptio quibus is qui interrogatur dicturum facturumve se quod interrogatus est, responderit, A conception of words wherewith he that was asked, did answer that he would say or do the thing which he was asked; and that it took its name from the Interrogator, as the worthier person, was the opinion of Accursius and other Interpreters of the Law. All which doth suit very well in our present case. For in Ancient times, when the Catechumeni, who were to be Baptised, were interrogated by the Priest, whether they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and the life to come, upon their answer that they did, the covenant was accepted, and they were by him immediately Baptised in that Faith, as you may see in Chrysostom and others, the like custom whereunto is still retained in our Church when in time of Baptism, to the question of the Minister, Wilt thou be Baptised in this Faith? the Sponsors or Sureties forthwith answer, it is our desire. And this I take to be the Apostles meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place. I have insisted the longer on these words, that I might more evidently show, that the proper end of Baptism is to represent the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and our Faith in it, and not properly a sign of washing from the filth of sin, which the Apostle seems expressly in these words to deny, though many think or at least speak otherwise.  
C. 4. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By a familiar trajection, In quo hospitantur blaspemantes, non concurrentibus vobis in eandem luxuriae confusionem, Wherein they abide continue or rest or lodge themselves blaspheming, you not running together with them into the same excess of riot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hospitatur, Act. c. 10. v. 6.  
V 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I suppose in this place, to make the construction and the sense agree, you must understand the article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thing very frequent; or resume the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse, altering only the case. And then render it, For to this end was the Gospel preached to them that are dead, that they may be condemned who were according to men in the flesh, but that those who were according to God in the spirit may live. Or thus, that they may be condemned who walked after men in the flesh, and they live who walked after God in the spirit.   

ANNOTATIONS On the II. Ep. General Of S. Peter.  
Ch. 1. v. 5. etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ubique locus est accusativo si intelligas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a common rule, Et hoc ipsum cum omni diligentia introducentes, i. e. promoventes, jungite invicem cum fide virtutem, cum virtute scientiam, etc. And promoting this very thing [to wit that ye may be partakers of the divine nature, v. 4.] with all diligence, join hand in hand with your Faith virtue, with your virtue knowledge, with your knowledge temperance, with your temperance patience, with your patience godliness, with your godliness brotherly kindness, and with your brotherly kindness charity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot but think that the Apostle in this place had some reflection on the Ancient customs of the Heathen, when they lead their Chorus. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signify, Chorum ducere, or in Choro ducere, To lead a Chorus, or in a Chorus, Now in their Chorus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were complicated together, Steph. or as in Homer, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  They danced holding one another's hands by the palm, waiting each on other, or Ministering each to other, from whence this word seemeth to have obtained these several significations. But behold here a goodly Chorus of Graces, where Faith leads the Chorus, and the rest of the Graces wait all upon her, as it were mutually joined by the hands, and sustaining each the other. And this sense I suppose may well fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. c. 2. v. 19 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. c. 4. v. 16.  
V 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod omnis Prophetia Scripturae propria interpretatione non fit. Thus the Interlineary and the Old Latin Interpreter. That every Prophecy of Scripture is not fulfilled in the proper interpretation, or that every Prophecy is not fulfilled in the proper interpretation of the writing, or of what is written, taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Scriptio, or Scriptum, as it often is in humane Authors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phavor. Though others think it more Grammatical to Translate it thus, Quod omnis Prophetia Scripture propriae interpretationis non est, That every Prophecy of Scripture is not of its proper interpretation. But Translate it which way you will the sense is still the same, all one as if he had said, That every Prophecy was not accomplished according to the literal, that is the proper meaning of the Scripture. For Prophecies have for the most part a typical, mystical, or analogical sense, though some time, some Prophecy hath a literal one, as that concerning Josiah, 1 King, c. 13. v. 2. and some time a literal and mystical, Isai. c. 7. v. 14. and that of the Son of the Prophetess, Isai. c. 8. v. 3, 4. As many of the Fathers do expound it. And this sense doth fitly agree with the context, v. 19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. What I beseech you is this light that shineth in a dark place, but the Prophecies of Christ, in the proper interpretation of the Scripture, that is in the letter obscure and wrapped up in darkeness, until the day star of the Gospel do manifest and declare the type and mystery in their hearts, and therefore he tells them, that they ought to know this chief, and to take heed that they stuck not too much in the naked letter, but that they should rather turn their minds to the meaning of the Prophecy, to the mystery which was covered in the letter, or written word. For, as it follows, v. 21. Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man, that is, they did not Prophesy in old time of their own head according to their own will, but holy men of God spoke as they were inspired, and acted by the holy spirit, in figures, riddles, types and mysteries, that those who saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the letter of the Scripture, or the written word, might not see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the solution, or interpretation of it, unless to whom the day star of the Gospel was risen in their hearts.   

ANNOTATIONS On the I. Ep. General Of S. John.  
Ch. 2. v. 22.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To words that are in themselves negative the Atticks add a negation, whereof you may see Animad. on 1 Tim. c. 4. v. 3. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? he is Antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son, Whosoever denieth the Son hath not the Father. It is unseasonable and needless to add those words which follow in the English, and are restored by them and Beza out of the Syriack and Latin copies, they being wanting in the Greek. To wit. He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, Which words are indeed altogether superfluous, and serve to no use, but rather destroy the sense. For those words, Who ever denieth the Son, hath not the Father, are a mere proof of the antecedent proposition, That he is Antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son, by an answer to a tacit objection. As if, if any should object, I am not Antichrist, for I do not Deny the Father and the Son, for I acknowledge the Father, it should be immediately replied, Yea, but thou art Antichrist, whoever thou art and sayest so, and deniest the Son, for he who denieth the Son, hath not the Father. For every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him that is begotten of him, c. 5. v. 1. And he who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him, Joh. c. 5. v. 23.   

ANNOTATIONS ON The Revelation.  
Ch. 2. v. 22.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Behold I will cast her and those that commit fornication with her on the bed into great affliction. This trajection is so familiar, that I cannot but wonder that any should scruple at it. Especially the common version being so insignificant. The Alexandrian copy reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And I will cast her into prison, but because its single, I think we are not to acquiesce in it, neither is the reading altogether so pleasing that I am much delighted with it.  
C. 13. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If these words be understood of the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world, as many think, then are they to be understood of Christ exhibited in the type of the Lamb which from the beginning of the world was slain by Abel for a Sacrifice, whereby he testified his Faith in Christ to come, and offered himself a Sacrifice for the sins of the world. But perhaps we may better say with the Greek Scholiast, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is an Hyperbaton, as if we were to read, Whose names are not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. As were theirs which did not worship the Dragon, such as were in the Greek Scholiast, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All those that were Martyrs for their piety in the Old Testament, as also Luke saith in his Gospel, c. 10. v. 20. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven. And for confirmation of this Hyperbaton, we read c. 17. v. 8. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, Where no mention at all is made of the Lamb that was slain. Which is a kind of demonstration, that the words are to be understood as they are before rendered according to the Scholiast.  
FINIS.