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. IV.

Vers. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, we Jews; for the Gentiles were ne∣ver under the discipline of the Jewish Law, which they were ignorant of, and from which they were excluded by the very nature of the Law. For it was a Law given to one Nation living in one Country, the Land of Canaan. This deserved here to be noted, because if it be not observed, the whole Discourse of the Apostle in this place will be very obscure.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The same St. Paul calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in vers. 9. And there is no doubt but he means the Mosaical Law; whence it may be again inferred that St. Paul did not think, with the Jews, that that Law was a perfect rule of Sanctity: For if he had been of that mind, how could he have called it the Elements of the World, and weak and beggarly Elements? The elements are the rude beginnings of any Art or Science, and far from containing the whole art in its greatest Extent and utmost Perfection. Which being so, undoubtedly he thought those Elements might be observed by Men if they were consider'd in themselves, as they are in Moses; tho perfect Holiness, such as the Jews affirmed the Law to be a complete pattern of, was never by any Man, excepting the Saviour of all Men Christ Jesus, expressed in his Life.

But it will be said, it may be that St. Paul has a reference to the Ceremonial part of the Law, and not that which is Moral. To which I answer, by confessing indeed that he has a respect chiefly to the Ritual part of the Law, but so as not to exclude the Moral part of it, nor consequently the Moral Law it self; which if compared with the Commands of Christ, comprehends only the Elements of true Pie∣ty, as sufficiently appears from Mat. v. and the following Chapters. For many things were lawful under the Mosaical Law, relating to Manners, which are there forbidden by Christ. What the Moral Law given by Moses commands is indeed Good and Holy, and what it forbids Evil; but it is not a perfect rule of Holiness, that is, it does not command every thing that is Holy, nor forbid every thing that is evil. For instance, Husbands loving their Wives to such a degree as to bear with their Manners, and never to put them away but in case of

Adultery, is a vertue not enjoined in the Mosaical Law; as the contrary Inhumanity in putting them away at every turn, is not therein prohibited, nay is expresly permitted, if they did but give them a Bill of Divorce. See Mat. v.31, 32.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, the Jews, or their Pro∣selytes, as is rightly observed by Grotius, who upon embracing the New Covenant, were no longer oblig'd by the Laws of the old, to which they were before subject. See my Note on Chap. iii.13.

Vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The words Spirit of his Son, are capable of two senses, both which St. Paul seems to have comprehended under this Phrase. First, by the Spirit of Christ may be meant the Spirit which Christ had promised to the Apostles and the rest of the Christi∣ans, which he accordingly afterwards sent down upon them, and by whose power they were enabled to work Miracles. For on the effusion of that Spirit upon them, the Jews, and such as of Gen∣tiles had embraced the Jewish Religion, perceived that they were then much more bountifully dealt with than when they were under the Law, and called upon God afterwards with greater assurance, no longer now behaving himself as a hard Master, or requiring the obser∣vation of superfluous Rites upon the severest Penalties, but as a most gracious and compassionate Father. Whence that Spirit is said to cry Abba Father, that is, to make the Jews upon their Conversion to the Christian Religion, to look upon God as a Father and not as a se∣vere Master. Secondly, by the Spirit of his Son may be meant such an affection of Mind towards God as was in his Son; as the Spirit of Elias and the like. And that Affection was produced in the minds of the Jews, by the knowledg and participation of the Benefits of the Go∣spel. Both these Spirits jointly residing in the minds of Men, seem to be called by St. Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Spirit of Adoption, in Rom. viii.16.

Vers. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] St. Paul here speaks not to those who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by birth Jews, and had been brought up in the knowledg of the true God, but those who were made Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by assumption, that is, Proselytes to the Jewish Religion before their Conversion to Christianity. And it appears that what the Apostle here says, has a reference to such Persons, because he afterwards demands of them, how they could turn again (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to the weak and beggarly Elements; that is, to the Jewish Rites which they had before, in part at least, observed. If Dr. Hammond had not overlook'd this, which is ob∣scurely intimated by Grotius on vers. 5. he would have given a much more clear and exact Paraphrase of this and the following Verse.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, to Gods which Men had made and invented for themselves; for the opposite to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, things which depend upon the decrees and institutions of Men. That this place ought to be thus understood, I have shewn at large in my Ars Critica, Par. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. vii.

Vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I have already before said, that by weak and poor Elements is meant the Jewish Law, and that is clear from this and the following Verse. But there are two things which I shall here a little more particularly enquire into, first, why the Mosaical Precepts are called weak and poor; secondly, how the Galatians who had worshipped false Gods, are said to return to those weak Elements.

The Elements of any Discipline relating to good Manners and di∣vine Worship, such as is the discipline of Moses, cannot be stiled weak in any other sense, than as they are not effectual to reform Mens Man∣ners, or bring them to worship God in that manner as they ought to do. And indeed the Rewards and Punishments of the Jewish Law, which in a literal sense were only temporal, could not have such an influence upon the Minds of Men, as to bring them to any great de∣gree of Vertue. For tho they might restrain them from committing those Sins which would have render'd them infamous in the Eyes of others, or exposed them to civil Punishments; yet they could not keep them from doing a great many things contrary to true Vertue; of which see Mat. v. and what is said by Grotius and Dr. Hammond on that Chapter. In this sense therefore the Law was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 weak, that is, ineffectual and uncapable of making Men truly Pious and Ver∣tuous. See also Rom. viii.3. with the same learned Mens Notes.

Again, any Institution may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in a metaphorical sense, when it is imperfect in its kind, and a great many things are wanting in it which must be made up and supplied out of another: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Mon destitute of the necessary supports of Life, and who unless relieved by the liberality of others, are unable to subsist. And such an Institution is the Law, which unless it be perfected by the Gospel, cannot bring Men to such a degree of Piety as to make them acceptable to God, and worthy of eternal Life; as manifestly appears both from the nature of the thing it self, and a great deal said by Christ to that purpose in the fifth Chapter of St. Matthew. And this may possibly be the reason why St. Paul here uses the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imperfect, to intimate by a word of a special Empha∣sis, that the Law of Moses was not only in a few things but exceeding poor and defective. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not only signify poor, but poor to

a degree of Beggery. And therefore the Greeks distinguish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Poverty or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Aristophanes in Pluto, in an elegant disputation, wherein he endeavours to shew that Poverty is advantageous to Men, after Chremylus had described the inconveni∣ces of Beggery, is brought in speaking thus:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

You have not been speaking of my Life, but declaring that of Beggers. On which words the Scholiast makes this observation: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a middle sort of indigence, when a Man acquires necessaries by Labour; and comes from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, to labour, and by that to acquire Necessaries: but a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so called from his begging of every Bo∣dy. See also the following words of Chremylus and Poverty. But I dare not insist too much upon the significancy of this word in St. Paul, who does not use to be very critical in the choice of his words.

Further, the Galatians who when they knew not God, did service unto them which by nature are not Gods, are said here by St. Paul, upon their defection to Judaism, to have turned to the weak and beggarly Elements, whereunto they desired again to be in bondage; because, as I have already suggested, they had gone over from Heathenism to Judaism, before they became Christians. There is no doubt but many of those who first believed the Gospel among the Gentiles, were before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Proselytes of the Gate, as the Rabbins speak, or also of Righteousness. Of the former sort were Cornelius the Centurion, spoken of in Acts x. and Lydia in Acts xvi. And there is no reason to think but the great∣est part of the Galatian Christians were such Men, who certainly might much more easily relapse to Judaism, than embrace it if they had not before known it after their Conversion to the Christian Religion. I remark this, because Grotius, who on vers. 5. had observed that St. Paul spake of Proselytes, unmindful of what he had there affirmed, tells us that the Galatians are said here to return to the elements of Piety; non quod Judaizassent antea, sed quia multa usurpassent cum Judaeis communia, ut ciborum delectum, dierum discrimina, &c. Not because they had judaized before, but because (whilst they were Heathens) they had a great many Customs common to them with the Jews, as the distinction of Meats, and Days, &c. But that he is mistaken is evident, because it is the Jewish Law that was before called the Elements of the World, on which words he has an excellent Anno∣tation;

and because the following Verse here clearly shews that they are said to return to the Jewish Ceremonies; not to say how manifest that is from the whole series of St. Paul's disputation in this place. Besides, the Religion of the Heathens cannot be said to contain the elements of Piety, which taught the most consummate wickedness. So that St. Paul would rather have said that they returned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if what Grotius here says were true. And therefore we must understand him to speak of the Mosaical Rites, which the Galatians, who were once Jewish Proselytes, before they had embraced Christianity, had in part at least observed.

Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I don't know which to chuse, Dr. Hammond's interpretation of these words, or Grotius his, who makes them to be a Description of St. Paul's extraordinary affection to the Galatians. The place in Cicero, which Grotius refers to, is in Ep. ad Famil. Lib. 7. Ep. 5. to which add this Distich out of the Epi∣gram of Zeno, the founder of the Sect of the Stoicks, which Apuleius sets down in his Apology:

Hoc modò sim vobis unus sibi quisque quod ipse est. Hoc mihi vos eritis quod duo sunt oculi.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] I cannot see what reason moved our Author in his Paraphrase of this and the following Verses, to make mention of Persecution, whereof there is no footstep in St. Paul's words. He is as much out of the way too in seeking here for his Gnosticks, and the Authority of the Jews, out of their own Country.

Vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;] That is, do not ye understand the Law, or do ye not hearken to it attentively when it is read to you? It deserved here to be noted, that St. Paul argues from some received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 midrasch vulgarly known: For if that Allegory, whereof he here speaks, had not been before heard of, he would have had no reason to wonder that the Galatians had never collected any such thing from the Story which he refers to; it being not at all necessary that the words of Scripture should have any such allegorical signi∣fication as that is, supposed to belong to them. And therefore un∣doubtedly it was a known Allegory, tho perhaps somewhat otherwise expressed by the Jews.

Further; seeing this Interpretation could not be urged against those, who might deny that the Scripture ought to be so understood, and the Apostle does not make use of his Authority to confirm it, it is evident that he argues here from what was generally allowed. Which

kind of things it is not material should be true or well grounded, as long as they contain nothing in them prejudical to Piety, and are believed by those against whom we dispute. So that from St. Paul's using such an Allegory against the Judaizing Galatians, it does not follow that we in this Age are bound to admit it, as a secret re∣vealed from Heaven to the Apostle. For if we throughly consider it, we shall find that most which has ever been said by learned Men against this way of interpreting Scripture in general, may be objected against this particular Allegory.

Vers. 24. Note b. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not a Participle in the Middle voice, as every one knows, and as Dr. Hammond himself very well knew, tho he said otherwise before he was aware. It is to be taken in a Passive sense, and rendred thus: which things are allegorically ex∣plained, or use to be so explained, that is, by a mystical Interpretati∣on applied to signify other things besides those which that History li∣terally contains.

This kind of Allegories must be carefully distinguished from the Allegories of Homer and other Poets: For the Greek Grammarians, and especially their Philosophers, affirmed that a great many things which were said by their Poets about the Gods, were false in a proper sense, and never really happened; but in another obstruse and secret sense were true. Whereas the Jews did not deny but that their Histories were true, but from real events deduced Consectaries belonging to o∣ther matters, as if those events had been as so many representations of other things. Heraclides Ponticus in his little Treatise de Allegoriis Homericis, gives us this true definition of a Poetical Allegory; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: A Trope wherein one thing (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is said, and another thing different from that signified, is called an Allegory.

Vers. 25. Note c. Our learned Author has sufficiently indeed here shewn that the Arabians were circumcised, but not in conformity to the Mosaical Law, but a more antient Precept given to Abraham himself; and in imitation of Ismael, not of Isaac. Whether they had any other Custom which might be look'd upon as an imitation of the Law of Moses I cannot tell; but it is false that the Ismaelites ever bound themselves to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies, as was observed by Grotius, whom I wonder Dr. Hammond did not give ear to. I have often observed that learned Men supply out of their own Invention what is wanting in the Testimonies of the Antients; and afterwards thence draw Conclusions, as grounded upon the undoubt∣ed Authority of Antient Writers; which yet is certainly no good way of arguing.

The 24th and two following Verses, may be thus paraphrased: Ver. 24.

These things use to be allegorically explained by the Jews, and may be interpreted so as to signify what I a little before said. Sarah and Hagar are as it were the Symbols of two Covenants; the latter, viz. Hagar, of the Covenant given from Mount Sinai, the Laws of which impose nothing but Slavery upon those who seek to be justified by it. 25. (And Hagar is so much the more fitly said to be an emblem of the Covenant delivered from Mount Sinai, because her name signifies a Rock.) And to that Covenant, of which the Servantmaid Hagar was an Image, belongs the earthly Jerusa∣lem, which is entirely taken up in the observation of servil Rites, and acted by a slavish Fear. 26. But Sarah the free Woman is a Symbol of the Evangelical Covenant, according to the Laws of which the Citizens of the Spiritual Jerusalem live, that is, all we Christians.

The Apostle undoubtedly alludes to the name of Hagar, which being written with an ח, according to the usual confusion of the gut∣tural Letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hhagar, signifies a Rock among the Arabians. It is probable that the Jews, who were no very great Friends to the Ara∣bians, said a great many things by way of Allegory out of the History of Moses, to extol their Nation, and on the contrary to depress the Hagarens; and that St. Paul here applies to those who were Israelites according to the Spirit, what the Jews used to say in honour of their Nation; as on the contrary to the carnal Jews, what they often assert∣ed to the disadvantage of the Hagarens.

I shall take the liberty here, which I do not otherwise use, to alle∣gorize a little after the Jewish manner, that we may the better see what might give the Apostle Paul an occasion to speak so as he does. And first I shall perform the part of a Jewish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 darschan, or Allego∣rical Preacher; and then represent a Christian retorting the like Alle∣gory upon the Jew.

THE JEWISH 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

That ye may be sensible, O Israelites, of the great benefits which God has conferred upon you, compare your Original with that of your Neigh∣bours the Hagarens. The founder of your Nation Isaac was born of a free Woman and Mistress of a Family, Sarah; on the contrary, Ismael the Father and Founder of the Hagarens, was born of a Servant. Isaac was conceived by a particular efficacy of the Divine Power, when Abraham was neither able to beget, nor Sarah to conceive, by reason

of old Age; on the other hand, Ismael was born of Abraham and Ha∣gar when younger, according to the ordinary course of Nature. Nor did the distinguishing Providence of God terminate only on Sarah and Hagar, and their Sons Isaac and Ismael; but drew as it were in them the figure of what has already come to pass in former Ages, and shall hereafter happen to both their Progenies. The Posterity of Isaac have been protected almost with perpetual Miracles, and often enjoyed the sweets of Liberty, and had dominion over their neighbour Nations, and shall again have, when that great King whom we so much expect and long for, and whose Reign our antient Prophecies foretel, comes to rule over us. But the Hagarens, like their Mother, cast out and disinherited, have already more than once been our Ser∣vants, and shall hereafter be so, being subdued by the Power and Authority of the Messias. Do not in the least doubt of the truth of what I say, for God has heretofore given you a pledg of future events, on one hand in Sarah and Isaac, and on the other in Hagar and Ismael, who, as I said before, represented the several Conditions of their posterity.

THE CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIST.

We take you at your word, O Jews, that antient Events did shadow out and represent things future. But as of old the Offspring of Abra∣ham was twofold, so it is now; and the same which was the conditi∣on of that twofold race of Abraham, is at present the lot of their Posterity. Hagar and Ismael were Images of the Carnal Israelites, who are the Seed of Abraham indeed according to the Flesh; but because they do not imitate his Faith and Piety, shall not inherit the Pro∣mises made to him upon believing. They shall be cast out of his spiritual Family, and be subject in a servil manner to the Covenant established on Mount Sinai in Arabia; of which Hagar may the more fitly be said to be an Emblem, because her name signifies a Rock, and her Posterity still inhabit that Country. So that the Bondwoman Ha∣gar, who was cast out together with her Son, represented the state of the earthly Jerusalem, which is subject to slavish Rites and Cere∣monies. But Sarah the Freewoman, of whom Isaac was heretofore born beside the course of Nature, in like manner as now Men are made Christians by an extraordinary efficacy of the Divine Power, was an Image of the Evangelical Covenant, and the Jerusalem which was to come, that is, the Christian Church. As Sarah and Isaac were Free, so also Christians freely obey God, and are not tied to any ser∣vil

Rites. As Isaac only was Abraham's Heir, so none but Christians shall obtain that heavenly Inheritance which Abraham by his Faith obtained.

If the Jews thought their reasoning against the Arabians to be cogent, there was no reason why they should reject the Christian Alle∣gory. And this I doubt not made St. Paul here use an allegorical way of reasoning, which he otherwise would not have done.

Notes

• Chapter V.