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. II.

Vers. 1. Note a. THAT correction according to which instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, fourteen, we ought to read δ. four, is proposed by Lud. Cappellus in Hist. Apostol. Appendice, Character 4. which is worth consulting, because he starts a great many difficul∣ties there against our Author's Chronology. And that Conjecture was approved by Grotius, because of the connexion of the Discourse: Yet Dr. Pearson has excellently shewn in his Annales Paulinae, that St. Paul here reckons the years that had passed from the time of his Conver∣sion. But he refers the Jerusalem Synod to the year of Christ xlix, and makes St. Paul's Conversion to have happen'd two Years later than Dr. Hammond, and that with good reason. Consult himself, and compare him with Cappellus.

Vers. 6. Note d. I. It is very true what our Author here says about St. Paul's Solaecisms, which others using a softer term call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seeming solaecisms. But it matters not much by what name they are called, if we do but agree as to the thing. And it is universally acknowledg'd by those who understand Greek, that there are a great many expressions in the Writings of St. Paul, which cannot accord∣ing to the rules of Grammar be resolved into proper Construction. The examples alledged by Dr. Hammond, put this matter out of all doubt: yet some learned Men have made it their business to collect a certain number of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inconsequences and incoheren∣ces out of the best Authors both Greek and Latin, to shew that the Stile of St. Paul ought not therefore to be accounted the less elegant. But there are two things which may make it appear that those Authors are ill compared with St. Paul. The first is, that those forementi∣oned defects do seldom occur in them, whose whole Discourse is other∣wise agreable to the Rules of Grammar, and has all those orna∣ments which are requisite to make it proper and elegant. On the con∣trary, the stile of St. Paul is both destitute of all those things which are so much admired and commended in any Discourse, (I speak of words and not of Matter) and has abundance of seeming Solaecisms. Se∣condly, the most elegant Heathen Writers, tho they were at the same time very well skilled both in Grammar and Rhetorick, do designedly sometimes violate the Rules of Grammar for variety sake, lest their Stile should seem too studied and artificial; which therefore may be look'd upon as so many Figures, and a particular sort of elegancy. But St. Paul naturally falls, as it were, into these kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because regarding things and neglecting words, he thought it enough if he were understood by an attentive and diligent Reader, who loved the Truths he declared. So far is he from designedly di∣versifying his Discourse with that kind of Negligence, that he does not seem to have aimed at so much as the common ornaments of Stile. Let us hear about this matter Quintilian, in Lib. 9. cap. 3. Esset, saith he, omne schema vitium, si non peteretur, sed accideret. — Virtus est, si habet probabile aliquid, quod sequatur. Ʋna tamen in re maxime utilis, ut quotidiani & semper codem modo formati sermonis fastidium levet, & nos a vulgari dicendi genere defendat. Quo siquis parce, & cum res poscet utetur, velut adsperso quodam condimento jucundior erit. At qui ni∣mium affectaverit, ipsam illam gratiam varietatis amit••et, &c. Every figure would be an imperfection if it were not chosen, but casual.— It is an excellency if it have something probable following it. But there is one thing in which it is most useful, and that is to take away that nauseous∣ness which is bred, by forming our Discourse always after the same manner, and to keep us from a vulgar way of expression: Which if any one sparing∣ly use, and only when the thing requires it, it will give a grateful relish as it were to his Discourse. But if he unnecessarily affects it, he will lose all that agreableness which a Variety would otherwise cause, &c. Now I do not think there is any one will suppose that St. Paul purposely chose those harsh and frequent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make his Discourse less distastful to his Readers. And therefore it remains that they be looked on as De∣fects and Imperfections, which yet are no prejudice to his matter, because the Gospel is a very plain and easy thing, which does not need to be illustrated by any Light d••••••••ding upon Elegancy, or exactness of Expression. It is well said by St. Jerom on Chap. vi. of this Epistle to the Galatians, vers. 1. Qui putant Paulum juxta humilitatem & non vere dixisse, etsi imperitus Sermone, non tamen scientia, defendant hu∣jus loci consequentiam. Debuit quippe secundum ordinem dicere: vos qui spirituales estis, instruite hujusmodi, in spiritu lenitatis considerantes vosmet ipsos, & vos tentemini; & non plurali inferre numerum singu∣larem. Hebraeus igitur ex Hebraeis & qui esset in vernaculo sermone doctis∣simus, profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat; nec CURA∣BAT MAGNOPERE DE VERBIS, CUM SENSUM HA∣BERET IN TUTO. They who think that St. Paul spake only out of Modesty, and not the real truth, when he said, tho I am rude in Speech, yet not in Knowledg, let them defend the Connexion of this place. For according to good Syntax he ought to have said, Ye that are Spiritual re∣store such a one in the spirit of Meekness, considering your s••lves, lest you also be tempted, and not have brought a Singular number upon a

Plural. But being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and very skilful in his own Native Dialect, he could not express his profound sense in another Language; and AS LONG AS THE SENSE WAS SAFE, HE DID NOT MUCH CONCERN HIMSELF ABOUT WORDS.

II. The Passage referred to by our Author in the same St. Jerom, in Comment. ad Ephes. iii. I have set down a little more fully [in my Latin Translation] than the Doctor, who did not complete the sense, but ended at the word adnotamus; and it is thus: Quotiescunque solae∣cismos aut tale quid adnotamus; non Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli cri∣minantur, sed magis Apostoli adsertores sumus, &c. Whenever we take notice of any Solaecisms or the like, we do not injure the Apostle, as some ma∣licious Persons would lay to our charge, but we do him so much the more Justice, &c. Our Author adds, and so Epist. cap. 1. Quaest. 10. which I have omitted, because to produce the testimony of St. Jerom in that man∣ner is absurd, and I could not find the passage to which he referred. I don't think he look'd himself into St. Jerom when he sent us to that place: For otherwise he would certainly have cited him with more care, and instead of those Divines which he alledges, appealed to the Testimony of St. Jerom, whose Authority is much more considerable. And with St. Jerom he might have joined Origen who lays down this Rule, of which more at large in cap. 8. Philocaliae: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that we ought not to attempt the correcting of any seeming Solaecisms, or verbal incoherences in Scrip∣ture, where to discerning Persons the sense is well enough connected.

Vers. 11. Note g. I. I do not think that from an ill interpretation of one place in the Old Testament, we ought to deduce an unheard of sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if it therefore ordinarily signified the same with the Hebrew used in that place. One single place in the Septuagint where they arbitrarily fix a sense upon a word which they could not properly render, does not change the use of a Language, as I have already elsewhere suggested: For they used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not because they thought it signified just the same with the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but because it contained a sense not altogether disagreable to that place, as they imagined. So that I chuse here to follow the vul∣gar Interpretation, and especially seeing it best sutes with the context, viz. when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; that is, because he did what he ought not to have done, not because he was look'd upon by others as a Dissembler. For first he did really pretend to avoid the Society of the Gentiles, which he used not to do, nor ought to have done. And secondly, others did not

see him dissemble, because by his example and manner of Life, the Gentiles began to be perswaded that they were obliged by the Jewish Laws. So that it is rightly observed by Grotius, after a great many others, that the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is the same with the Ver∣bal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

II. The Passage in Ecclesiasticus makes nothing at all to the purpose, which is thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Shame is upon the Toief, and an evil Condemnation upon the double Tongue; that is, they are at length condemned, and suffer a shameful Punishment. I do not see any necessity of interpreting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here by detection.

Vers. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] They are said to compel not only who use Commands, Threatnings, or Violence; but those who when they say or do any thing, others dare not but follow their Example or Authority, or cannot neglect any thing which they would have them do, without great prejudice to their Interest or Reputation. So the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken in 2 Cor. xii.11. where St. Paul says that the Corinthians had so carried themselves towards him, that to keep up his Reputation he was compelled to speak somewhat more highly and honourably of himself than he would otherwise have done. And to the same sense the Latin cogere is used by Cicero in the beginning of his Book de Amicitia, where Laelius speaking to his Sons-in-law, who had earnestly entreated him to discourse concerning Friendship, says: Vim hoc quidem est afferre, quid enim refert qua me ratione cogatis? Co∣gitis enim certe, studiis enim generorum, praesertim in re bona, cum dif∣ficile est, tum ne aequum quidem obsistere. This is pure compulsion; for what does it signify what way you take to force me? For force me you cer∣tainly do; for not to comply with the desires of my Sons-in-law, especially in a good thing, as it is hard, so it is unreasonable.

Notes

• Chapter II.
• Chapter III.