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. VII.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] See Grotius on these words, and add to the examples which he alledges these words of Horace, in Lib. 1. Sat. vi.

— Persuades hoc tibi vere Ante potestatem Tulli, atque ignobile regnum Multos saepe viros, NƲLLIS majoribus ortos Et vixisse probos, amplis & honoribus auctos.

Where nulli majores are such, whose Names and Exploits through length of time are forgotten. And such were the Parents of Mel∣chisedek, for which reason he is said to have been without Father and without Mother, &c. If we consider this attentively, we shall easily perceive that before the time of Christ no Man could, without a re∣velation, have imagin'd from the Story of Melchisedek, there would hereafter come an Eternal Priest, who was to be Successor to none, nor have any to succeed him. Nor could any Man after the Com∣ing of Christ, gather by mere reasoning, grounded upon critical Rules, that Melchisedeks Parents and Death were omitted in the Scrip∣ture with this design, that by such a silence he might be an Image of Christ. Whoever should have pretended this, might have been con∣futed by a bare Negation. Why therefore, you will say, did the Apostolical Writer insist so much upon that Story with the Jews? For it's plain he does not say here he had any revelation made to him of that matter, nor require credit to be given to his bare Affirma∣tion. I answer, the Allegorical Writers of the Jews at that time, accommodated innumerable places to the Messias, not relying upon any Grammatical Interpretation, but a certain old Custom of explain∣ing the Scripture in that manner. So because they interpreted Psalm cx. of the Messias, the Sacred Writer makes use of that Inter∣pretation to his purpose; and because they acknowledged the Messias ought to be like Melchisedek, he reasons against them from their own Concession; not against other Men who might have denied what he assumed. And he used this way of disputing with the Jews so much the more willingly, because nothing followed from such an Interpre∣tation contrary to those things which he knew were true concerning Christ; yea he might, according to the Jewish Custom, compare Christ to Melchisedek. Otherwise, if the thing be consider'd in it

self, no strong or Grammatical Argument could be drawn against o∣thers from that History; and therefore such things are not to be too much urged now, because that way of explaining the Scripture is grown out of use.

Vers. 4. Note a. I. The true original of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well ob∣served by our Author out of Phavorinus. It may be further added, that the Fruits gathered out of Fields, and the Spoils taken from Ene∣mies, were piled up in heaps, before the owners of the Fields made use of the Fruits, or those who had taken the Spoils divided them; and then from the tops of those heaps, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before they were disposed of, were taken the First-fruits which were offer'd to the Gods; whence any First-fruits came to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I do not deny but the best part was consecrated, but I do not think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies here the choice. It is plain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used to signify Fruits, not as if chosen from Trees, but because they are on the extremities of Boughs, or on the tops of Trees. However I wonder our Author should quote pag. 110. of Phavorinus, when what he alledges out of him is in Column 100. and no where else.

II. But I more wonder he should produce only in English the words of Philo, out of Lib. 11. Alleg. Legis, which are no where to be found in that Book. Philo has only this passage that can be∣long to this place, in pag. 57. Ed. Genev. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for he offer'd Bread and Wine, which the Ammonites and Mo∣abites would not give, for which reason they are kept out of the Assembly and Congregation of God. Then he enquires, why he gave Wine and not Water, and that he interprets Allegorically.

III. It is strange also that our Author, in this pious liberality of Abraham, should see a sufficient Example and Testimony of the Custom in Abraham's time, of paying Tithes to the Priest of ALL our increase, of what kind soever it is. For he himself has observed two things con∣trary to this Inference: First, that Abraham gave Tithes only of the spoils of the War, which is no Evidence that the Antients used to pay Tithes when ever their Possessions were encreased; for an univer∣sal Proposition, as Logicians speak, cannot be concluded from a particu∣lar. Secondly, that those Tithes were extraordinary, as being paid to a Priest, to whom that tract of Land, wherein Abraham dwelt, did not belong; which surely cannot be an example of a perpetual Custom of paying Tithes to Priests of the same Country.

Vers. 5. Note b. It is very barbarously, and without example, that Dr. Hammond here joins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so, as to think that is

a periphrasis of the Jews. The reason he alledges for this Interpreta∣tion is of no moment, because here is not a mere repetition. The sense is:

They have received a Commandment to require Tithes of their Countrymen, in that manner which is prescribed by the Law.

Ver. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This word our Author interprets in his Paraphrase, of a perfect expiation of Sin; but he ought to have produced examples of that Notion. Grotius thinks it signifies id quod in genere sacerdotii per∣fectissimum est, That which is most perfect in the kind of Priesthood; but that this might be said the thing should have been expressed thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if therefore there were perfection in the Levitical Priesthood, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Levitical Priest∣hood. I believe therefore that here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for Consecration, whereby not the Priests themselves, but private Persons who offer'd Sacrifice, were by the hands of the Priests so consecrated to God, as to become acceptable to him. So the Heathens thought themselves by their Priests 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be through Sacrifices initiated and consecrated to their Deities, so as to be upon that account the more pleasing to them, as is well known of the Mysteries of Ceres. Hence the Christians used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify a Consecration, whereby we are rendred more acceptable to God: See J. Casp. Suicerus his The∣saurus on this word. In the same manner I understand the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ver. 19. Of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Priests, see on Chap. ii.10.

Vers. 19. Note c. I am apt to think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has a reference to the mystical signification of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, to consecrate, to initi∣ate in certain Rites. For as those that were initiated drew nearer than others to the Images of the Gods, and entred into the secret places of their Temples: so the consecrated Priests among the Jews enter'd into the Sanctuary, which was nearest that place where God was thought in a special manner to reside; and among Christians any one whatsoever, as initiated by the most Holy Rites, betakes him∣self to God in Prayer without the intervention of any mortal Priest. See Note on vers. 11.

Vers. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This must be referred only to the last words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is not to be understood so as if Christ had offer'd not only for the sins of the People, but also for his own; as Grotius and Dr. Hammond understood it. For there is no such thing in any other place suggested by the Apostles, and what those learned Men here say is violent. These Writers are not to be examined so by the Rules of Rhetoricians, as always to be thought to intend what

a Rhetorician would have meant by the same words. It's true, accu∣rately speaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be referred to the whole verse, but the for∣mer part of it not agreeing to Christ, it must be supposed only to be∣long to the latter.

Notes

• Chapter VII.
• Chapter VIII.