A89915:1434
An exposition upon the Epistle to the Colossians Wherein, not only the text is…An exposition vpon the Epistle to the Colossians Wherein, not onely the text is…
An exposition upon the Epistle to the Colossians Wherein, not only the text is methodically analysed, and the sense of the words, by the help of writers, both ancient and modern is explained: but also, by doctrine and use, the intent of the holy Ghost is in every place more fully unfolded and urged. ... Being, the substance of near seven years week-days sermons, of N. Byfield, late one of the preachers for the city of Chester.An exposition vpon the Epistle to the Colossians Wherein, not onely the text is methodically analysed, and the sence of the words, by the help of writers, both ancient and moderne is explayned: but also, by doctrine and vse, the intent of the holy Ghost is in euery place more fully vnfolded and vrged. ... Being, the substance of neare seuen yeeres weeke-dayes sermons, of N. Byfield, late one of the preachers for the citie of Chester.
London: printed by Edward for Nathaniel Butter, 1617
Commentary on colossians › THE ANALYSIS of the second Chapter.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
For the first they were for honour, ordinances of God, for use, hand-writings, for effect, they were against us.
For the first they were for honor, ordinances of God, for vse, hand-writings, for effect, they were against vs.
For the second, Christ on the cross cancelled them, fastened them, and took them out of the way: yea, he spoiled the Devils, and triumphed over them openly, who had the power to serve execution for forfeitures, v. 15.
For the second, Christ on the crosse cancelled them, fastned them, and tooke them out of the way: yea, he spoyled the Diuels, and triumphed ouer them openly, who had the power to serue execution for forfeitures, v. 15.
Thus of the reasons: the conclusion follows from v. 16, to the end. The conclusion hath three branches. For first he concludes against ceremonies, v. 16. 17. Secondly against philosophy, v. 18. 19. Thirdly, against traditions, v. 20. to the end.
Thus of the reasons: the conclusion followes from v. 16, to the end. The conclusion hath three branches. For first hee concludes against ceremonies, v. 16. 17. Secondly against philosophie, v. 18. 19. Thirdly, against traditions, v. 20. to the end.