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

CHAP. I.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] This passage S. Au∣stin, de Praedest. Sanct. c. 15. says, may be so almost un∣derstood as the Unitarians commonly understand it. Praedestinatus est ergo, saith he, Jesus, ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem filius David, esset tamen in virtute filius Dei, secundum Spiritum sanctifica∣tionis; quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto, ex Virgine Maria. Jesus therefore was predestinated, as one who was to be according to the flesh the Son of David, and yet should be in Power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Sancti∣fication; because he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost. But the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must have a different sense put upon them, which I take to be this; viz. that the Holy Ghost, which Jesus had received, was as it were a Voice whereby it was miraculously [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signified or declared that he should be the Son of God, after his resurrection from the dead, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He was the

Son of God it's true, not only in decree as the Schoolmen speak, but actually before his Resurrection; but he was again called the Son of God in a peculiar manner after his Resurrection, as appears from Acts xiii.32▪ 33. And therefore in this respect he might be said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be ordained by the Holy Ghost [to be] the Son of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after his Resurrection. This same Verb is used by St. Peter in Acts x.42. in a like matter, where having said that he and the rest of the Apostles had eaten and drank with Jesus after he was risen from the dead, he adds: And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ordained by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. As by the Holy Ghost which des∣cended upon him, he was ordained or marked out by God to perform the Office of the Messias, and so to rise again, and upon that account to be called the Son of God, besides other reasons, for which he has that title, by a special Right and Privilege given to him; so also by his being raised from the dead, he was ordained or marked out by God to be the Judg of the living and dead. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here are the same, is truly observed by Grotius, who yet interprets the sense of this passage somewhat confusedly. Add to the Examples and Au∣thors by him alledged, the Authority of the Old Glosses, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered statuta dies, an appointed day; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praestituto, foreordained or appointed. And that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies sometimes after, appears from John xiii.4. and 2 Pet. ii.8.

Vers. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] He does not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the great∣est part of those who professed the Christian Religion in Rome at that time, were not Roman Citizens, but Jews, and people of other Nati∣ons who lived at Rome upon the account of Commerce. This has been imitated by Clemens Romanus, and Polycarpus Smyrnensis, in the inscriptions of their Epistles; on which see the Notes of learned Men.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, as a Christian I thank my God. So Ephes. v. 20. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, i. e. as Chri∣stians: See Note on John xiv.14. and xv.16.

Vers. 17. Note b. It is a harsh transposition which our Author and others before him suppose to be in the Apostles words; nor is there any need of it, the sense being commodious if we understand them thus:

That from the Faith whereby the Jews believed the Prophets, and the Gentiles their Ancestors, they might proceed to another Faith.

The opposition here which is between, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, con∣firms this Interpretation. Clemens Alexandrinus uses the same phrase

in his Book intitled, Quis dives salvetur? Sect. 8. p. 24. Edit. Ox∣on. where he speaks of a Jew that was converted to the Christian Faith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He is carried from Faith to Faith, as being unsafely tossed in the Law, [like a Sea] and having a dangerous station in it, he betakes himself to our Saviour as to a Ha∣ven.

Vers. 20. Note d. I shall set down in this place an Animadversion of the learned Doctor Pearson, formerly Bishop of Chester, which is in his Exposition of the Apostle's Creed, Art. 1. p. 19. Ed. 5. wherein he reprehends Dr. Hammond, and sharply confutes Socinus; from whom our Commentator seems to have borrowed this Interpretation:

This place, saith he, must be vindicated from the false gloss of Socinus, who contends that it cannot be proved from the Creature that there is a God; and therefore to this place of St. Paul answers thus: Sciendum est verba à creatione mundi debere conjungi cum verbo Invisi∣bilia — Ait igitur eo in loco Apostolus, aeternam divinitatem Dei, id est, id quod nos Deus perpetuo facere vult, (Divinitas enim hoc sensu alibi quoque apud ipsum enuntiatur, ut Coloss. ii.9.) aeternamque potentiam, id est, promissiones quae nunquam intercident, (quo sensu paulo superius dixerat Evangelium esse potentiam Dei) haec, inquam, quae nunquam postquam mundus creatus est ab hominibus visa fuerant, id est, non fuerant eis cognita, per opera, hoc est, per mirabiles ipsius Dei & divinorum hominum, praesertim verò Christi & Apostolorum ejus, operationes, conspecta fuisse. In which Interpretation there is no∣thing that is not forced and distorted: for tho his first observation seem plausible, yet there is no validity in it. He bringeth only for proof Mat. xiii.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which proves not at all that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has the same sense: and it is more than proba∣ble that it hath not, because that is usually expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark x.6. and xiii.19. 2 Pet. iii.4. never by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Besides, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in St. Matthew bears not that analogy with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Socinus pretends, signifying not things unseen or un∣known till then, but only obscure Sayings or Parables; for which purpose those words were produced out of the Psalms by the Evan∣list, to prove that the Messias was to speak in Parables, in the Ori∣ginal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. wise, antient Sayings, which were not unseen and unknown, for it imme∣diately follows, which we have heard and known, and our Fathers have told us, Psal. lxxviii.3. And tho he would make out this Interpre∣tation, by accusing other Interpreters of unfaithfulness, Plerique

interpretes ex praepositione â fecerunt ex, contra ipsorum Graecorum co∣dicum fidem, qui non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 habent: yet there is no ground for such a Calumny, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be, and is often rendered è or ex as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Matth. iii.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, è pi∣lis camelinis, and vii.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex oculo tuo. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex spinis; and even in the same sense which Socinus contends for, Mat. xvii.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vulg. ex illa hora, as Tully, ex eo die, and Virgil, ex illo Corydon, Corydon est tempore nobis, and, Tempore jam ex illo casus mihi cognitus urbis Trojanae. So the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Latins render ex parte, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex aequo: of which Examples are innumerable. There is no unfaithfulness then im∣putable to the Interpreters: nor can such pitiful Criticisms give any advantage to the first part of Socinus's Exposition.

However, the Catholick Interpretation depends not on those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but on the consideration of the Persons, that is, the Gentiles, and the other words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he farther perverts, rendring them the miraculous Operations of Christ and his Apostles, or, as one of our Learned Men [Dr. Hammond] their Doings, mistaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is from the Passive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Active 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly the thing made or created, not the operation or doing of it; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes taken for the Creature, sometimes for the Creation, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Creature only. As therefore we read 1 Tim. iv.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: So Eph. ii.10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this sense spake Thales properly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Laertius.

The other Interpretations which he was forced to, are yet more extravagant; as when he renders the eternal Godhead, that which God would always have us to do, or his everlasting Will, and proves that rendring of it by another place of St. Paul, Col. ii.9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; that is, says he, all the Will of God: (whereas it is most certain, that where the Godhead is, especially where the fulness, even all the fulness of the Godhead is, there must be all the Attributes as well as the Will of God:) and when he interprets the eternal Power to be the Promises which shall never fail, and thinks he has sufficiently prov'd it, because the same Apostle calls the Gospel the Power of God. For by this way of Interpretation no Sentence of Scripture can have any certain sense.

Thus he with a great deal of reason refutes Faust. Socinus, who in this matter shewed himself neither a Philosopher nor a Grammarian:

But he is too sharp upon him, and at the same time upon Dr. Hammond for understanding the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same manner as Beza did, who renders it jam inde a Creatione mundi, ever since the Creation of the World. They went according to the proper significa∣tion of the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which follows, being understood in the sense that Dr. Pearson would have it to be, proves it: the invisible things of God, from or ever since the Creation of the World, being understood by the things which he has made, are seen. For if it had been St. Paul's design to say what the learned Bishop would have him, he should have expressed it thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Creation and [his] Works, and not by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Creation by [his] Works. The Examples he brings to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are nothing to the purpose, because the Phrases are different. He should have given us an Example in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to know any one from any thing was put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Greeks say; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But they say also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (see Matth. vii.16, 20.) tho the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more commonly used in this Phrase. I could confirm this by the Authority of many Interpreters who are far enough from Socinianism; but this way Dr. Pearson himself does not take.

Further, tho it be very true that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not signify an Action, but the Work it self, or thing done; yet because there is no Work with∣out an Action, nor any Action of God without a Work, Dr. Hammond might well enough in his Paraphrase make use of a word which signi∣fied an Action, being it included also in it the Work it self. In fine, Dr. Hammond thought that what is here said respected chiefly the Gnosticks, in which I think he was mistaken; but being of this opinion he was obliged to understand by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not so much the Works of Creation as of Providence, both ordinary, and principally such as were extraordinary, and made a mighty impression upon the Minds of Men in Christ's time. As for Socinus's Interpretation of the words Power and Divinity, as it is manifestly forced; so it is rejected by his Brethren of the Polish Society, Crellius and Slichtingius, in their Commentaries on this Epistle.

Vers. 23. Note f.] There are some things with relation to what our Author here says about the Gnosticks, that deserve to be considered, and I shall briefly set them down in this place, not designing after∣wards to repeat them.

I. It cannot be deny'd, that there were even from the Apostles time pernicious Hereticks, to whom there is often a respect had in

these Epistles, as our Author has shewn: Of which number were the followers of Simon, if what the Antients say concerning them be true. And it is possible likewise that these Men might even at that time boast of their extraordinary Knowledg, and call themselves Gnosticks, tho that Name came to be more famous afterwards. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Christians of that Age did not signify only Knowledg or Learning in general, but also some peculiar knowledg of the abstruse Points of Religion, and the mystical sense of Scripture; in which sense we more than once meet with it in an Epistle of St. Barnabas. See in the Greek, Chap. 6. not. 35. and Chap. 10. not. 60. and in the Latin, c. 1. not. 15. of the Amsterdam Edition, and the learned Dr. Pearson's Vindic. Ignat. Part 2. c. 6. But yet that the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 21st Verse has a reference to these Hereticks, I do not think, nor is it necessary.

II. The Doctor is rash in following Justin Martyr, who erroneously thought that Simon Magus was deified by the Romans, because there was a Statue at Rome consecrated to SEMON SANCƲS, which was an antient Roman Deity. Caesar Baronius indeed had gone before Dr. Hammond in this, but he had been corrected by Des. Heraldus in Comment. ad cap. 13. Apolog. Tertul. And his Opinion was after∣wards confirmed by Henr. Valesius on Euseb. H. E. lib. 2. c. 13. and Ant. Pagus in Epicr. Baroniana, ad An. 142. I do not think there is any more truth in what is related concerning the Contest between St. Peter and him; but if it were true, the Romans had undoubted∣ly pulled down his Statue: for how could they have thought him to be a God who was overcome by a Man? but Heraldus justly calls this a Fable in his Notes on the second Book of Arnobius.

III. I do not doubt but the Gnosticks, or followers of Simon, imitated the Heathens; but I am of opinion, with most other Inter∣preters, that the Apostle had a respect here to the Heathens them∣selves, and particularly to their Philosophers, not those who imitated them. See Grotius. All that the Apostle here says very fitly agrees to the Heathens, but there are some things which cannot commodiously be applied to the Gnosticks.

IV. I wonder our learned Author should think the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to refer to Exod. xxiv. and signify that Splendor which appeared on the top of Mount Sinai, when the Law was given to the Jews; and afterwards say that the Phrase to change the Glory, is borrowed from Psalm cvi.20. For it had been sufficient to mention that Passage in the Psalmist, to which this here manifestly refers, and not to that Splendor or glorious Appearance. The Glory of God is God himself, or his

eternally glorious Nature. If by the glory of God in this place, were to be understood that glorious appearance before spoken of, the crime charged upon the Gentiles would be, not that they had represented God by a visible shape, but that they had made use of another than that. They ought to have expressed that splendor by Fire, as the Persians use to do; not by figures of living Creatures, as the Greeks and Romans. In the Psalm it is said they changed their Glory 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chbodam. But St. Paul could not call God the glory of the Heathens, who knew very little of him; and perhaps in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Psalms, which was used at that time by the Synagogues, the words were read as they are now in ours 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the glory of their Lord.

V. To shew how aptly what St. Paul here says, may be applied to the Heathens, and particularly their Philosophers, I shall express the sense of his Discourse from Vers. 17 to the 26th, in a short Para∣phrase.

17. For in the Gospel there is a way shewn, whereby those that believe it may obtain the pardon of their Sins from God, to the end that from the Faith which they had in their former Religion, they might be induced to believe the Gospel; for to such only we may apply that passage of the Prophet Habakkuk, The just shall live by Faith. 18. Those who refuse to believe it, shall be punished by the Divine Justice for their former Sins, which cannot be expiated any otherwise than by Faith in the Gospel; and whereof the greatest by far is that whereby the Heathens, and even their Philosophers do dissemble the knowledg which they have of the true God, and do not conform their Divine Worship to it. 19. For many of them understood what God would have them know concerning himself, and hath manifested to them, 20. From the beginning of the World, by his Works, wherein his infinite Power and tran∣scendent Nature do illustriously shew themselves, and are as it were visible; so that they have no excuse to make for the absurd Religi∣on which they profess. 21. Tho they knew how wise and power∣ful a Being God was, and had great experiences of his Goodness and Bounty, yet they neither gave that honour to him openly, which the perfection of his Nature challenged from them, nor thanked him for his Benefits. And therefore God in just Indigna∣tion suffered them to fall into so many errors, which he would o∣therwise have delivered them from, that they even rendered the most certain things doubtful. 22. And whilst they professed the study of Wisdom, they lost their Understandings. 23. Being

blinded through their own fault, as one error produces another, they represented God whom they might, as I said, have under∣stood to be an infinitely more perfect Being than a Man, not only like a Man, but even like a Beast.

24. Nor did their depravation stop here, in the errors of their Minds, or in Divine Worship, but they became also most impure and abominable in their Lives, God not restraining them. 25. For the same Persons who had formed such vile Images of the Godhead, and so extremely unworthy of the Divine Majesty, and worshipped those Images, neglecting God himself; 26. As they had as much as in them lay, disgraced the Divine Nature; so forgetting also, as it were, themselves, they confounded the Offices of both Sexes, which Nature has distinguished, by Lusts not to be named, &c.

All these things the Heathens fell into, even their Philosophers not excepted, as might be easily proved out of Aristophanes, Laertius, Lucian, the Satyrick Latin Poets, Seneca, and in a word all Anti∣quity.

Vers. 29. Note i. Lin. 7. After the words, giving over all labour] This is an absurd Translation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which never had any such sense, but signifies having lost all sense of Pain or Grief. See on Ephes. iv.19.

Ibid. At the end of that Note] Tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be truly deduced 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is used both in a good and bad sense, of Riches, or Power, or Victory, or endowments of Mind, and other things in which some exceed and go beyond others; yet I do not think it any where signifies a desire of Pleasure; nor does any of all those places which our Author has here heaped together, prove what he intends, as I shall shew by a brief examination of them. For it is not ground enough, that such or such a sense of a word is not foreign to the design of any place, nay that it is very agreeable to it, to infer that that is sometimes the signification of that word; seeing the series of the discourse will often permit it to be taken in other senses altogether as commodious; and less proper words likewise are many times made use of instead of more proper. And therefore before we make use of reasoning to find out the signification of any word, the certain use of it must be otherwise known; for else it is very easy to mistake. Now to review the Passages alledged by our Author: (1.) The words of St. Paul in Ephes. iv.19. will very well bear to be understood of Cove∣tousness, as Grotius has observed, because there were a great many of the Male Sex, that prostituted themselves for the sake of Gain. (2.) The words of Photius, St. Chrysostom and Antiochus, do not ne∣cessarily

require the sense of Lusts, but may easily be understood like∣wise of Covetousness. (3.) The example of Asterius proves nothing at all, because his words may be very well understood of a desire of Riches and Power, yea ought to be so. I have not indeed Alexander Aphrodisiensis, nor can I conveniently get him; but I dare lay any wager, we ought to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more than he should; for that is the definition of an unjust Man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor does that word among the Greeks ever signify a voluptuary. (4.) Tho the Septuagint render the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does not follow that these Greek words ought to be used promiscuously. It is not to be thought that the Greek words made use of in the barbarous stile of those Interpreters, are always of the same latitude with the He∣brew; and besides, there was no necessary reason for the Septuagints translating the Hebrew word in that place of Ezekiel by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Interpreters on the place. (5.) In the Prayer of Ephraim, there is nothing that should oblige us to understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any otherwise than it commonly is; for why may not we suppose him to ask pardon for his Covetousness, as well as his Lusts or Uncleanness? Do not those Vices sometimes go together? (6.) Tho Plato uses the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the mention of Pleasures, it does not follow that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there signifies Lust, for that Phrase may be very well rendered a great∣er abundance of these things, major horum copia, as Mars. Ficinus has translated it. See Plato himself, pag. 508. Ed. Genev. of Ficinus. (7.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Epist. of Barnabas, does not signify to be lustful, but multiplicare anum. See Cap. 10. Not. 51. Edit. Amstel. (8.) It is without cause that the Doctor interprets avaritia, in Poly∣carpus and Bede, by Sensuality or the love of Pleasures. Could not Valens be at the same time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or covetous, and lustful too? And do not sensual or lustful Persons use to be covetous, and to seize upon other peoples Possessions when they have opportunity, that they may spend them upon their Lusts? Bede does not seem neither to have con∣founded the word avaritia with the love of Pleasure, tho he joins to∣gether things that are in effect often conjoined. The same may be said of other Authors who have any like Passages; for what is more common than to speak of several Vices together? (9.) Tho the Sodo∣mites be upbraided for their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does not follow that these words properly signify villanous Lusts; they are general terms, by which their wickedness may be described, whatsoever it consisted in, as the constant signification of those words shew. (10.) Of the Passages cited by the Doctor out of St. Paul, I shall speak when I come to them, as also of the other places of the New Testament. (11.) The word

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Gen. vi.5. is a general name likewise, signifying any sort of Vice or Wickedness, and not particularly Lust. Our Author made it his business to enquire not what was the constant and usual significati∣on of a word, but what he would have it to signify, that he might the better apply some passages in St. Paul to his Gnosticks.

Notes

• Chapter II.