« PreviousContinue »
which is sufficient, speaking it by way of * definition. And it is elsewhere * The manner most evident that every sin is something prohibited by some Law, and devi- of the Apostle's ating from the same. For the Apostle affirming, that the law worketh Speech is also wrath, that is, a punishment from God, giveth this as a reason or proof of ved, having his affirmation, for where no law is, there is no transgression. The Law of an Article
prefixed both God is the rule of the actions of men, and any aberration from that rule is
to the subject t sin: the Law of God is pure, and whatsoever is contrary to that Law is and the prediimpure. Whatsoever therefore is done by Man, or is in Man, haying any thereby the contrariety or opposition to the Law of God, is sin. Every action, every would make word, every thought against the Law is a sin of commission, as it is termina- the propofition ted to an object dissonant from, and contrary to the prohibition of the Law, all definitions or a negative Precept. Every omission of a duty required of us is a sin, as ought to be. being contrary to the commanding part of the Law, or an affirmative Pre “ ‘H árazlico
isiv si cronice. cept. Every evil habit contracted in the Soul of Man by the actions com-a Rom. 4. 15. mitted against the Law of God, is a, sin, constituting a Man truly a finner, et Quid eft ven then when he actually sinneth not. Any corruption and inclination in the
li prævaricaSoul, to do that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that which God com- tio legis dimandeth, howsoever such corruption and evil inclination came into that Soul, viniz; & cewhether by an act of his own will, or by an act of the will of another, is a bedientia præfin, as being something dissonant and repugnant to the Law of God. And ceptorum? this I conceive fufficient to declare the nature of sin.
S. Ambrof. de
Peccatum eit factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra æternam legem. S. Aug. cóntra Faustum, l. 22. c. 27. Quid veruin. est nisi & Dominum dare præcepta, & animas liberæ esse voluntatis, & malum naturam non esse, sed esse avcrsionem à Dei præceptis? Idem de Fide contra Manich. cap. 10. Neque negandum eft hoc Deum jubere, ita nos in facienda juftitia effe debere perfectos, ut nullum habeamus omnino peccatum : nam neque peccatum erit, fi quid erit, ti non divinitùs jubeatur ut non fit. Idem de Per. Meritis, Rem, lib. 2. cap. 16.
The second particular to be considered is the obligation of sin, which must be presupposed to the solution or remission of it. Now every sin doth cause a guilt, and every sinner, by being so, becomes a guilty Person; which guilt consisteth in a debt or obligation to suffer a punishment proportionable to the iniquity of the fin. It is the nature of Laws in general to be attended with these two, Punishments and Rewards; the one propounded for the observation of them, the other threaten'd upon the deviation from them. And although there were no threats or penal denunciations accompanying the Laws of God, yet the transgression of them would nevertheless make the Person transgressing worthy of, and liable unto, whatsoever punishment can in justice be inflicted for that sin committed. Sins of commission pass away in the acting or performing of them; so that he which actech against a negative
Precept, after the act is passed, cannot properly be said to lin. Sins of omission, when the time is passed in which the affirmative Preceps did oblige unto performance, pass away so that he which did then omit his duty when it was required, and in omitting sinned, after that time cannot be truly said to lin. Bur though the fin it self do pass away together with the time in which it was committed, yet the guilt thereof doth never pass which by committing was contracted. He which but once committeth Adultery, at that one time finneth, and at no time after can be said to commit that sin; but the guilt of that sin remaineth on him still, and he may be for ever said to be guilty of Adultery, because he is for ever fubject to the wrath of God, and * obli-* This obligda ged to suffer the punishment due unto Adultery,
tion unto puo nishment, ro
maining afret the act of Sin, is that peccati Reatus of which the Schools, and before them the Fathers spake. The nature of this Reatus is excellently declared by S. Austin, delivering the distinction between actual and original sinIn eis qui regenerantur in Chrifto, cùm remiffionem accipiunt prorsus omnium peccatorum, utique necesse est ut reatus etiam hujus licèt adhuc manentis Concupifcentiæ remittatur, ut in peccatum non imputetur. Nam ficut peccatorum quæ manere non possunt, quoniam cùm fiunt prætereunt, reatus tamen manet, & nifi remittatur, in æternum manebit ; fic illus concupiscentiæ, quando remittitur, reatus aufertur. Hoc eft enim non habere peccatum, reum non esse peccari.
Nam fi quisquain, verbi gratiâ, fecerit adulterium, etiam nunquam deinceps faciat, reus est adulterii, donec reatus ipsius indulgentiâ remittatur. Habet ergo peccatum, quamvis illud quod admifit jam non fit, quia cum tempore quo factum est præteriit. Nam fi à peccando defiftere hoc esset non habere peccatum, sufficeret ut hoe nos moneret Scriptura ; Fili peccafli non adjicias iterum : Non autem sufficit, sed addidit, o de pristinis deprecare, ut tibi remittantur. Manent ergo niti remittantur, Sed quomodo manent fi præterita sunt, nisi quia præterierunt acu, manent reatu. S. Aug.de Nupt. & Coninp. lit. C.q26. i Ego de Concupiscentia dixi quæ eft in membris repugnans legi mentis, quamvis reatus ejus in omniun peccatorum remiffione tranfierit, ficut è contrario sacrificium idolis factum, fi deinceps non fiat, præteriit acin, fed manet reätu, nifi per indulgentiam remittatur. Quiddam enim tale eft facrificare idolis ut opus ipfuin cùin fit prætercat, codeinque præterito reatus ejus maneat veniâ resolvendus. Idem cont. Julian. 1.6. 6.8.
zuhich is a
This debt or obligation to punishment is not only necessarily resulting from the nature of sin, as it is a breach of the Law, nor only generally delivered in the Scriptures revealing the wrath of God unto all uprighteousness, but it is yet more particularly represented in the Word, which teacheth us, if we do ill
, how fin lieth at the door. Our blessed Saviour thus taught his - Mat. 5. 22. Disciples, · Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be "Evoxa isa liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to the judgment ; and whosoever shall used herer, say to his brother, Racha, shall be liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to the zu hich is tran- council; but whosoever fall fay, Thou fool, Noall be liable (obnoxious, or flated, thall bound over) to hell fire. So faith our Saviour again, All fins Mall be for. But is of een given unto the fons of men, and blasphemies wherewithloever they shall fuller and
blaspheme. But be that mall blafpheme against the Holy Ghoft, hath never more preime forgiveness, but is liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to eternal damnation. , as one
Whence appeareth clearly the guilt of sin and obligation to eternal punishDebtor, sub- ment, if there be no remission or forgiveness of it; and the taking off that liged to endure liableness, obnoxiousness, or obligation unto death, if there be any such reit. Hcfych. mission or forgiveness : All which is evident by the opposition, much to be "Eroza, observed in our Saviour's expression, He hat b' never forgiveness, but is lia
, wroze ble to eternal death. refu @ Suid. Evox, TIG where by the way is to be observed a great mistake in the Lexicon of Favorinus, whose words are these ; " Evoza, woulupo, xgeusas. "Eropa, wahtel, Tiyana. The first taken out of Hesychius, the last out of Suidas, corruptly and absurdby; corruptly "Evapo for "Evoxe, absurdly Timanc is added either as an interpretation of "Evoxo, or as an Author which used it ; whereas Tipana in Suidas is only the first word of the Sentence, provided by Suidas for the use of noge in the fignification of waitic. Agreeable unto Hesychius is that in the Lexicon of s. Cy. ril, " Evoxos, Obnoxius, reus, obligatus. And so in the place of S. Matthew, the old Translation, Reus erit judicio. As in Virgil, Constituam ante aras voti reus, Servius, voti reus, Debitor. Unde vota solventes dicimus absolutos. Inde est, Damnabis tu quoque voti, quafi reos facies. So the Syriack, 1995 197 ann from an obligatum, debitorem, reum effe. . For indeed the word froza among the Greeks, as to this matter, hath a double signification; one in respect of the fin, another in respect of the punishment due unto fin. In respect of a fon, as that in Antiphon, Mez 17 gosion pinot ivo ou Trézyw, and that in Aristotle, Oecon, 2. évoxov ionos ir egourias fireas, and that in Suidas taken ont of Polybius, Τίμαιο και τα Εφόρο σεποίη3) καλοδρομίου αυτός ών επί δυσιν αμας ήμασιν ένοχG-· τω , ότι πικρώς κατηγόρα
sinas iri Tótols ois autos Frozós isiv. In respect of the punishment of a fir, he is voxe ágą, who is obnoxious to the course, and froza inilopios, obnoxious to the punishment. 'Euroivinos, eutroivias, társ511, voxos Toss, sier im oss ša uzele de's truwekas, saith Saidas. Thus évoxos Faváry iri. Matt. 26. 66. Noi 17 an is not in the intention of 'the Jews, he is in danger of death, but he deserved death, and he ought to die; he is schedixos, by their sentence, as far as in them lay, condemned to die. S. Chryfoftome, Ti šv incas; crezés iso Jeróty: *w's maledixov 2cc56o7est štast Πιλάτον λοιπόν λεφώα ωδασκόιάσωσιν ο δή κακείνοι ζωοδότες φασίν, "Ένοχος θανάτε εσίν, αυτοί καληθοράνες, αυτοί δικάζοντες, αυτοί ψηφιζόμοι, πάνα αυτοί γινό μόνοι τότε
6 Matth. 3. 28, 29. God who hath the sovereign power and absolute dominion over all men, hath made a Law to be a perpetual and universal rule of humane actions ; which Law whosoever doth violate, or transgress, and thereby fin, (for by fin we understand nothing else but the transgression of the Law) is thereby obliged in all equity to suffer the punishment due to that obliquity. And af ter the act of sin is committed and passed over, this guilt resulting from that act, remaineth ; that is, the Person who committed it continuerh still a debtor to the vindictive justice of God, and is obliged to endure the punishment due unto it: which was the second particular to be considered.
The third consideration now followeth, What is the forgiveness of fin, or in what remision doth consist : Which at first appeareth to be an act of God toward a sinner, because the sin was committed against the Law of God; and therefore the punishment must be due from him, because the injury was done unto him. But what is the true notion or nature of this act, or how God
doth forgive a sinner, is not easie to determine : nor can it be concluded out * The word of the words themselves which do exprcfs it, the nicetics of whose * origi-recidint denations will never be able to yield a just interpretation.
σις αμαρτιών, ,
and that generally likewije in use in the New Testament. But from thence we cannot be assured of the nature of this act of God, becanje s prévies and óperis are capable of several Interpretations. For sometimes cépiévas is emittere, and coscis emiflio. As Gen. 35. 18. 'E3f6670 Ï cu o cepiévous cushi I yoxlw, not cùm demitteret eam anima, as it is translated, but cùm emitteret ea animam, i.e. efflaret; as áprixe có Jyojua, emisit spiritum, Mat. 27. 50. So Gen.45.2. Koi doñas Own bi pet raawépeó, not dimifit, but emisit vocem cum fletu, as ápris parte percéales, emissâ voce magnâ. Mark 15. 37. In the like manner casche Idencéans are emissiones maris. 2 Sam. 22. 16. as a ichs udoétav. Joel 1. 20. to which sense may be referred that of Helych. "Aperiv, or any lue. And this interpretation of c@itis can have no relation to the remiffion of sins. Secondly, amiévau is often taken for permittere, as Gen. 2.6. or conxá CE atat wris Mat. 3. 15. ő es äten & róne adinou a ter, which the vulgar transated well, Sine modo, and then ill, Tunc dimifit eum. Mat. 7. 4. apes crbánna, fine ejiciam ; So Hefych. aperis, Curxaqnoss
. And this hath as little relation to the present subject. Thirdly, áprévees is sometimes relinquere and deserere, as Gen. 43.33; idea or evc ápenec oe ust' ľuč. Mat. 5.24.coes εκεί το δώρον (ε. 7. 4. και αφήκεν αυτω ο πυρετός. 19. 27. ιδε, εμείς αφήκαμδυ πάντα. 26. 56. τότε οι μαθηται πάντες αDévleg cu too couron. And in this acceptation it cannot explicate unto us what is the true notion of douév els imagiias. Fourthly, It is taken for omittere, as Mat. 23. 23. rý dipórce 76 te Bazótiege Tš vópex, and Luke 11. 42. taūta idd woma
, ou, xáxtive per colévices, and yet we have nothing to our present purpose
. But fifthly, it is often taken for remittere, and that particularly in relation to a Debt, as Mat. 18. 27. to dévetoy cipõnev outud
. and v. 32. würur m Dahli cxcvlw pörs Cor. Which_acceptation is most remarkable in the rear of Release
. Deut. 15.1.2. Ai izlaitāv novýcus aperi. Και όταν το πρόσαλμα αφίσεως· αφήσεις σαν χρέω- ίδιος ο εφάλα (οι ο πλησίον, και ταδελφόν (και έκ απαιτήσεις, επικίxan). 75 cpocis Kveiw oude Orw Co. Now this remission or release of debts hath a great affinity with remission of sins; for Christ himself hath conjoined these two together, and called our fins by the name of Debts, and promised remission of sins to us by God, upon our remission of debts to Man. And therefore he hath taught us thus to pray, "Aoss huiv za © pece? ce speño, w's xj rrezes cepimpele rois openýtaus nuão. Mat. 6. 13. Besides he hath not only made use of the notion of debt, but any injury done unto a Man, he calls a sin against Man, and exhorteth to forgive thoje fins committed against us, that God may forgive the fins committed by ns, ivhich are injuries done to him. Luke 17. 'Eæv duág?n eis CE • 'Αδελφός (ε, επιτίμησον αυτω, και εαν μετανοήση, άφες αυτω.
For although the word signifying remission have one sense among many other which may seem proper for this particular concernment, yet because the same word hath been often used to signifie the same action of God in, forgiving fins, where it could have no such particular notion, but several times hath * another fignification tending to the same effect, and as proper * We must nos to the remission of sins; therefore I conceive the nature of forgiveness of only lookinporn fins is rather to be understood by the confideration of all such ways and of the words means which were used by God in the working and performing of it, than used in the
New Testain this, or any other word which is made use of in expressing it.
ment, but we
must also refleet upon their use in the old, especially in such subjekts as did belong unto the Old Testament as well as the New. Now a prévau dipagrías is there used for the Verb 19), as Isa. 22. 14. pmian zy Oo3 .7777 niya 'ON Oůx spelýcry úpiv auta si cucerice ws dev dimdeévé78, sometimes for the Ver! Nu), as Gen. 50. 17. Onnuni The YVO NI NU coes autoūs i adozice se me mazlíay aw twv Píal
. 25. 18. minun 535 xapes antécas tas auagrics mo. And in that remarkable place which s. Paul made use of to declare the nature of remission of Sins, Pfal. 32. 1. yup w TVN reaxeesor av opéens av ai dvojices. Sometimes it is taken for mbo as Numb. 14. 19. Ja Jyojlys i no äoes to spice?hæv τω λαώ τέτω. Lev. 4. 20. ab που και αφεθήσε3 αυτοίς ή αμαρ7ία. Now being αφιέναι in relation to ins, is ued for o2 fgnifying Expiation and Reconciliation for w fignifying Elevation, Portation or Ablation; for no signifying Pardon and Indulgence; we cannot argue from the word alone, that God in forgiving sins doth only and barely release the debt. There is therefore no force to be laid upon the words aperis circz7wv, Remislio peccatorum, or, as the ancient Fathers, Remissa peccatorum. So Tertullian, Diximus de remissa peccatorum. adv. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 18. S. Cyprian, Epift. 14. Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum Sanctum non habet remiffam, sed reus eft æterni peccati. Id. de bono Patien. Dominus baptizatur à servo, & remissam peccatorum daturus, ipse non dedignatur lavacro regenerationis corpus abluere. Idem lib. 3. Epift. 8. of an Infant, Qui ad remiffam peccatorum recipiendam hoc ipfo faciliùs accedit quòd illi remittuntur non propria fed aliena peccata. Add the Interpreter of Irenæus concerning Christ, Remissam peccatorum exiftentem his qui credunt in eum.
Now that we may understand what was done toward the remission of sins, that from thence we may conclude what was done in it ; it is first to be observed, thar * almost all things by the law were purged by blood, and with. * Heb
. 9: 22. out shedding of blood there is no remission. And what was then legally done, rimeve ng was but a type of that which was to be performed by Christ, and therefore yine y óperis. the Blood of Christ must necessarily be involved in the remission of fins; for het once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the fa- † Heb. 9. 26. crifice of himself. It must then be acknowledged, and can be denied by be is nos only none, that Christ did fuffer a painful and shameful death, as we have for-Firaris dipingtherly described it; that the death which he endured, he did then suffer for tias,
A a a z
1 a. 53. 5.
Heb. 10. 12. sın; for this man, faith the Apostle, offered one sacrifice for fins; that the 1 Pet. 3. 18. fins which he suffered were not his own, for Christ bath once suffered for Heb. 7. 26. fins, the just for the unjust; he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate
from finners, and therefore had no sins to suffer for ; that the Sins which he
suffered for, were ours, for he was wounded for our transgresions, he was Ram: 4:25. bruised for our iniquities ; He was delivered for our offences, he gave him1 Cor. 15.3. self for our sins, he died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that the
dying for our sins was fuffering death as a punishment taken upon himself, 12. 53. 6. to free us from the punishment due unto our sins ; for God laid on him the 2 Cor. 5.21. iniquity of us all, and made him to be fin for us who knew no fin : he hath
born our griefs and carried our forrows, the chastisement of our peace was
punishment to free us from the punishment due unto our fins it cometh to. Mat. 26. 28., pass that our sins are forgiven, for, This is my blood, faith our Saviour, of
the New Testament, (or Covenant) which is shed for many for the remis Ephef . 1. 7. fion of sins. In Christ we have redemption through his blood, the forgive
ness of sins according to the riches of his grace.
In which deduction or series of Truths we may easily perceive that the forgiveness of sins which is promised unto us, which we upon that promise do believe, containeth in it a reconciliation of an offended God, and a fatiffaction unto a just God; it containeth a reconciliation, as without which God cannot be conceived to remit ; it comprchendeth a satisfaction, as without which God was resolved not to be reconciled.
For the first of these, We may be assured of forgiveness of sins, because Christ by his death, hath reconciled God unto us, who was offended by our fins; and that he hath done so, we are assured, because he which before was angry with us, upon the consideration of Christ's death, becomes propitious unto us, and did ordain Christ's death to be a propitiation for us. For we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. We have an advocate with the Father, and he is the propitiation for our sins. For God loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. It is evident therefore that Christ did render God propitious unto
his Blood, (that is, his fufferings unto death) who before was offended with us for our sins. And this propitiation amounted to a reconciliation, that is, a kindness after wrath. We mult conceive that God was angry with mankind before he determined to give our Saviour ; we cannot imagine that God who is essentially just, should not abominate iniquity. The first affection we can conceive in him upon the lapse of Man, is wrath and indignation. God therefore was most certainly offended before he gave a Redeemer ; and tho' it be most true, that he so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son; yet there is no incongruity in this, that a Father should be offended with that Son which he loveth, and at that time offended with him when he loveth him. Notwithstanding therefore that God loved men whom he created, yet he was offended with them when they finned, and gave his Son to suffer for them, that through that Son's obedience he might be reconciled to them.
This reconciliation is clearly delivered in the Scriptures as wrought by 2 Cor. 5. 18.. Chrift; For all are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself, by Jefús Rom. 5. 10. Chrift; and that by virtue of his death, for when we were enemies we were
reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, making peace through the blood
Col. I. 20.
bi Cor. 7. 11.
man, that is to cause him who before was angry and offended with him to ! Sam. 29.4. be gracious and propitious to him. As the Princes of the Philistines fpakekymru of David, Wherewith should be reconcile himself unto his Master ? mould ta xveva cuit not be with the heads of these men? Wherewith fhall he reconcile Saulīš, óxico rats who is so highly offended with him, wherewith shall he render him gracious andgão creiand favourable but by betraying these men unto him: As our Saviour advi-wav"; nyon leth, If thou bring thy gift before the Altar, and there remembrest that accepta mane thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the Altar, geret ut Saul arid go thy way, forft be reconciled to thy brother, that is, reconcile thy Bro- cum in gra
tiam recipere ther to thy felf, whom thou hast injured, render him by thy submisfion fa- velit. yourable unto thee, who hath something against thee, and is offended at thee, · Mat. 5.23, As the Apostle adviseth the wife that departeth from her husband, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband, that is, to appease and des tes ciget the favour of her husband. In the like manner we are said to be recon-diaco com ciled unto God, when God is reconciled, appeased, and become gracious and favourable unto us, and Christ is said to reconcile us unto God, when he hath moved, and obrained of God to be reconciled unto us, when he hath appcased him and restored us unto his favour. Thus when we were enemies Rom. 5. 10. we were reconciled to God, that is, notwithstanding he was offended with us for our sins, we were restored unto his favour by the death of his Son.
Whence appeareth the weakness of the Socinian exception, that in the Scriptures * we are said to be reconciled unto God; but God is never faid to * Ad hæc vebe reconciled unto us. For by that very expression, it is to be understood, Deo reconcithat he which is reconciled in the language of the Scriptures, is restored unto liàrit quid afthe favour of him who was formerly offended with that Person which is now
mùm, nur faid to be reconciled. As when David was to be reconciled unto Saul, it
quam Scripwas not that David should lay down his enmity against Saul, but that Saul turam affereshould become propitious and favourable unto David : and therefore where the language is that David should be reconciled unto Saul, the Sense is, that reconciliaSaul, who was exasperated and angry, should be appeased and so reconciled tum, verùm
id tantùm quod nos per
Christum aut mortem ejus fimus reconciliati, vel Deo reconciliati ; ut ex omnibus locis quæ de reconciliatione agunt videre est, Cat. Rat. c. 8. To this may be added the observation of Socinus, Ita communem ferre loquendi consuetudinem, ut scilicet is reconciliatus fuiffe dicatur per quein ftabat ne amicitia aut denuo existeret, aut conservaretur. de Christo Servatore, p. I. c. 8. Which observation is most false, as appeareth in the Case of Saul and David, and in the Person mentioned in the Gospel, who is commanded to be reconciled unto him whom he had offended, and who had something
re, Deum nobis à Chrifto
Nor is it any wonder God should be thus reconciled to sinners by the death a Mat. 20.28. of Christ, who while we were yet finners died for us, because the punish- Ašvce i to ment which Christ, who was our furety, endured, was a full satisfaction to xlww Tš dúthe will and Justice of God. The Son of man came not to be ministred unto, sav
. What is but to minister and to give his life a ranfome for many. Now a Ramfome is the true noa price given to redeem such as are any way in captivity; any thing laid down will easily apby way of compensation, to take off a bond or obligation, whereby he which pear, because
both the oribefore was bound becometh free. All sinners were obliged to undergo such
gination and punilhments as are proportionate to their fins, and were by that obligation use of the
Word is sufficiently known. The origination is from λύαν folvere to loft, λύτρων quafi λυτήριον. Εtym. Θρίπτρα τα θρεπτήρια, ώστες λύτρα τα λι'ήρια, Eu/tath. Λέ4 3 Θρέπleg (ita leg.) τα τροφία και τα θρεπτήρια και ζυίκοπίω· ως λυτήρια λύτρα, ζωήΈλα ζώσροι, liad. δ'. Λύτρων igitur quicquid datur ut quis Tolvatur. Επί αιχμαλώτων εξωνέσεως οικείον ο λύια: όθεν και dórego ta dwece nisorg ta eis rito dicóplace, Eustathius xpon that of Homer, I... Avoól a te 90fc7ege. it is properly Spoken of such things as are given to redeem a Caprive, or recover a Man into a free Condition, Hesych. wávice te ordón pulpa eis céváx?no19 ávgasts wv, (so I read it, not váxanoiv.) So that whatsoever is given for such a purpose is aórege, and what
foever is not given for such an end deferveth not the Name in Greek. As the City Antandrus was so called, because it was given in exchange for a man who was a Captive. "Ori'Arxava aixuándo yvilo wo nihoy v rj avto αυτά τ' πόλιν δέδοικε λύτρα, και απελύθη, Εtym. So that there can be nothing more proper in the Greek language than the Words of our Saviour, δέναι τ' ψυχω αυτά λύτρων αντί πολλών δέναι λύτρων for λύτρων και το διδόμεμον, 4nd αντί πολλών, for it is given, civli ávézórw, as that City was called, "Androq Qifov avli dodog's dedo pafír. And therefore i Tim. 2. 8. it is said, ó Qo's San Tov cvlinu?egi vahe autos,