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. X.

Vers. 4. Note b. I. Do not at all doubt, but that St. Paul here speaks, as Grotius before our Author had observed, of that Rod with which he had chastized Elymas, the incestuous Person, Hymenaeus and Philetus, and with which St. Peter had cha∣stized Ananias and Sapphira; but I confess I cannot digest what Dr. Hammond here and elsewhere does, viz. the confounding of that mi∣raculous Power of the Apostles with the ordinary Excommunication of Bishops. He ought to have proved first, that that delivering to Sa∣tan, or any other such Punishments inflicted by the Apostles, were the arms not only of the Apostles, but of all the Governors of the Chris∣tian Church; which he neither ever did before his Death, nor, I be∣lieve, would ever do if he were to live again. This was a Seal which God set to the Apostles Doctrin, to fix the Christian Church upon a lasting and immoveable Foundation; and all the rest of the Miracles wrought in the Apostles time were designed to the same end: But that being once settled, no Man had such a Power granted him, nor can any one be supposed to have had the like Authority.

II. However, it is well observed by the Doctor, that carnal here is all one with weak, which I shall confirm both by Reason and Examples. The Flesh is very often opposed to the Spirit, that is, the Body to the Soul, in which comparison the Flesh is the most infirm and feeble; and hence the word carnal came to signify weak, as it is used in Isa. xxxi.3. where the Prophet thus bespeaks the Jews, who put too much confidence in the Egyptians: The Egyptians are Men and not God, and their Horses Flesh and not Spirit; the Lord shall turn his Hand, and he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they shall all be consumed together. To this purpose also is that saying of Christ in Mat. xxvi.41. The Spirit indeed is willing, but the Flesh is weak.

III. Tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies sometimes Excommunication in the Wri∣tings of the Fathers, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may very aptly be applied to a Mind full of Pride and Obstinacy, and by those Vices fortified against the Truth; yet it in no wise follows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the Excommunication of an obdurate Sinner. What words do or may sepa∣rately signify, they do not always signify conjunctly, as every one knows, who is any thing of a Critick in this sort of Learning. The reason is, because one Phrase can have but one metaphorical sense be∣longing to it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being properly a strong Hold or Fence, and here translated to signify whatever Flesh and Blood puts in the way of

the Gospel, to hinder the success and efficacy of if; it is necessary that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred the de∣struction of the Fence, and to destroy the Fence, by a Metaphor taken from Military Affairs. So in vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to excom∣municate those that reason, but to overthrow reasonings. Nor let any one say that Fences are destroyed, and Reasonings overthrown by Excommuni∣cation; for granting that, yet it will not follow that the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in these Phrases signify to excommunicate and excommunication.

IV. It is a pleasant mistake also in our Author, which his too great desirousness to find Excommunication every where spoken of in the Writings of the Apostles led him into, when he says that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in vers. 8. signifies Excommunication, where St. Paul saith that he might boast of the Power which God had given him for edification, and not for destruction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For who does not see that the opposite here to the Edification of the House of God, is not ex∣communication but destruction? One may as well say an Edifice is ex∣communicated, meaning that it is destroyed, as that an excommuni∣cated Person is edified, to signify that his Sins are forgiven him. The same must be said of Chap. xiii.10. where the same Phrase occurs.

V. Even in Ecclesiastical Writers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not properly sig∣nify Excommunication, but only Abdication or degrading from Office, and is applied to Clergymen; nor is it always joined with Excommu∣nication. See Intt. on the Eleventh Apostolical Canon.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our Author intrudes again into this place the Censures of the Church without any distinction, whereas those Apostolical Arms, of which I before spake, are here intended. And indeed with whatever Arguments any Philosopher came armed, or what sublimity soever his Reasonings seemed to have in them; if he attempted to disturb the Church by Heretical Doctrins, and went to resist the Apostles, as if he had found them in an error; the Apostles could presently shew how much he was mistaken, by send∣ing a Disease upon him, such as Blindness, which St. Paul inflicted on Elymas, or delivering to Satan, to which others were subjected. For these were plain signs, by which it appeared that God approved of the Apostles Doctrin. But in ordinary Excommunication the case is otherwise: For all that can be concluded from that is, that when any one upon the springing up of some new Controversies, was excom∣municated for disagreeing with the Bishop of the Church to which he belonged, the Bishop and the rest perhaps of the Clergy were of another Opinion; which might as easily be the worse of the two as the

better. For Excommunication was a certain evidence of Mens differ∣ing among themselves, but not that the excommunicate Person was in an error; because one that had the Truth on his side, might be excom∣municated by ignorant and prejudiced Persons. But if any were chastised in the manner aforesaid by the Apostles, viz. by having a Disease inflicted on their Bodies, this was an infallible proof of their being Hereticks; because God would not have suffered any pious orthodox Person to undergo a Punishment which he had not at all deserved. Besides, that a Miracle wrought in confirmation of any Doctrin, such as this was, the present inflicting of a Distemper upon Mens Bodies, was of it self sufficient to shew the falsness of any thing advanced in contradiction to it, tho with some appearance of proba∣bility; but certainly the Excommunication of any Bishop, who might as easily abuse his Authority, as others fall into Error, was no sure evi∣dence of any Man's being an Heretick. These two things therefore must not be confounded, nor the ordinary Governors of the Church equal'd to the Apostles in their Censures, any more than in other Gifts and Endowments, as our Author occultly does, whether de∣signedly and knowingly I cannot tell, but I am sure without reason.

Notes

• Chapter X.
• Chapter XI.