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. III.

Vers. 4. Note a. OUR subtil Author sees here two Hebraisms, where o∣thers cannot see so much as one. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be said as well in Greek as in Hebrew; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so true a Greek Phrase, that it was used by Plato, as Henr. Stephanus in Schediasmatibus has long ago observed.

Ibid. Note b. I. If St. Peter had made mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, perhaps there would have been some place for what our Author here says, of the corruption of compounded things; but because he mentions no simplicity, it is nothing to the purpose. Instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he should have written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word used by Homer Iliad. 1. vers. 50. on which Verse the Scholiast makes that remark which Dr. Hammond sets down.

II. The incorruptibleness of a meek and quiet Spirit, wherewith St. Peter would have Women to be adorned, seems to be opposed to two things which are easily corrupted; viz. to the comeliness of the Body, whereof a part is the Hair, which the Apostle had mention'd in the foregoing Verse; and to Apparel, which is a thing much more liable to corruption than Gold, and which he likewise makes mention of. It's plain this Verse is oppos'd to all the foregoing.

Vers. 7. Note c. I. If the alledged place of Scripture were said to signify any thing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I should not doubt but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was taken for some secret Sense, which the Jewish Allegorists sought for in the Scripture. But it being said that Husbands ought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the Wife as the weaker Vessel; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to manage the dispositions of Women skil∣fully and prudently.

II. The examples, which our Author produces, are nothing to the purpose; for they do not contain any mystical interpretation of the places in Genesis, but consect••ries deduced from the nature of Matri∣mony it self, and the plain words of Moses. The place in Ephes. v.31.32. I have interpreted, contrary to Dr. Hammond, and I shall not repeat what I have there said.

III. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies to dwell together, or to live in the same House, whence it was applied to all the Duties belonging to married Persons; whether the Discourse be about Procreation, or any other conjugal Office. So that the place in Moses concerning multiplying, is no more to the purpose, than Plato's Fable about the Antient Herma∣phrodites. Other things here might be corrected, which I pass by, but shall afterwards touch upon.

Ibid. Note d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where the Discourse is about the Duty of a Husband towards his Wife, never signified, to afford her Maintenance; and tho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes comprehends rewarding, it does not signify that alone. It may much more naturally and truly be interpreted to honour her, as who, being the weaker Vessel, is ex∣treamly offended even with the bare appearance of Neglect.

Ibid. Note e. There is no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Benefit, but some of the places alledged by our Author might a little otherwise be explained, as of John i.14. I have shewed in a particular Disser∣tation, [inserted in this Volume.] In this place also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is vi∣vifying Grace, or the Gospel, of which the Wife is said to have been made partaker no less than the Man, as Grotius has observed. But I had rather read with the Vulgar Interpreter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for here the Apostle extols not the Man, but the Woman, which in this respect is made equal to the Man. This the series of the Discourse seems to require.

Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is, know that God is Holy, or a lover of Sanctity. For this is often the signification of the Hebrew Conjugation Hiphil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hikdisch, which is ordinarily rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See my Notes on Gen. ii.3. This sanctifying God in the Heart is the cause of our Sanctification before Men, spoken of in the following Verse, whereby we openly shew how Holy we esteem God. See Levit. x.3. and Num. xx.12. and my Notes on those places.

Vers. 19. Note f. I. On this place, our learned Author has collect∣ed a great many things, all which I have neither leisure to examin, nor is it worth my while, especially having interpreted the place here explained, in my Commentary on Genesis. And therefore in a few words I shall say, that the Apostle does not seem here to have

a respect to the place in Genesis, cited by our Author. It is truly in∣deed rendred my Spirit shall not abide in man, and the thing is to be under∣stood of the Soul of Man, as I have shewn on Genesis. But the Souls of those that lived before the Flood cannot therefore be called Spirits in prison, nor can 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jadon or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jadin, in Hiphil, be by any means deduced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neden, which signifies a sheath. It should be read jindon, to be deduced from the Root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Dr. Hammond does not seem to have observed.

II. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which Christ was raised, is truly understood of the Divinity which was afterwards in him, and was with God be∣fore Abraham was, and so in the beginning of all things, as St. John teaches us in the beginning of his Gospel. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies Spirits keeping guard, that is Angels who 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 keep men, as we are told in Psal. xci.11. The same are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hirim, watchers, in Dan. iv.13. which may properly be rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for watch∣ers and keepers are all one. So that the Divinity is said to have called the Men that lived before the Flood to Repentance, together with the Angels, who admonished Noah to exhort them to a better Life. I should render this place thus: and being quickned by the Spirit, by which he went with the Spirits that watch, and preached to the unbelieving, &c. When God is about to do any thing among men, he is represented as coming down from Heaven attended with a guard of Angels, of which I have spoken on Gen. i.27. and xi.7. and Exod. xx.1. For this reason coming down with the Angels, to admonish Noah and com∣mand him to call men to repentance, he is said to have gone with the Spirits that watch: and besides, to have done that which Noah did in his name and by his command. The Example out of St. Paul in Eph. ii.17. clearly shews, that St. Peter might speak in this manner.

Vers. 20. Note g. I. All that is here said by our Author are vain Conjectures, which have no foundation either in things themselves, or in the use of Scripture; tho he often repeats them, and that as very probable. (1) The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, not to believe, not to obey; which is a heinous sin, where the thing to be believed or done is of great importance; and a small one where it is a matter of lit∣tle moment. Here it signifies a great sin, because the men of the old world would not obey God, calling them by the Ministry of Noah to a better life. (2) Tho we can say nothing particularly of the sins of the men who lived before the Flood; yet we may deny that it can be gather'd from the words of Moses that they were corrupted with the sin of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sodomy, and other such like. Tho they are joined with the Sodomites for their wickedness and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it does

not therefore follow that they were both guilty of the same kind of Impieties, different sorts of wicked men being often joined together, and the same punishments suffered for divers crimes. (3) The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rahah, and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signify any sort of vice, and therefore it might be put by St. Luke for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intemperance, because it is a more general name which comprehends under it the par∣ticular, not that those words are ordinarily confounded. (4) It is true that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes have those significations, which Dr. Hammond attributes to them, as also the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 schibheth, used by Moses; but they likewise signify in general any kind of depra∣vation, or change for the worse, in which sense I shall take the word in Moses, till it be evidently proved that a general signification, in him, can have no place. (5) The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no more signifies Vio∣lence than any other sort of Injustice, as I have shewn on Gen. vi.13. So that what our Author builds upon that signification is vain, as all the rest of his Conjectures which rely upon this foundation. Our learned Author often forges an Interpretation, by heaping together a parcel of very slight Conjectures; afterwards he raises what Superstructure he pleases upon that interpretation; and then lastly speaks of the Consectaries he thence deduces as so many certain Truths. But we ought not only to set bounds to our Conjectures, but especially to the Consequences we deduce from them, if we would not be in perpetual danger of erring. That danger no body here will be in, who shall suppose that the men of the old World were very wicked men; there being in that no conjecture, because it is affirmed by Moses in plain words: but whoever shall attempt particularly to explain what Moses has said in general, and give way in this matter to Conjectures, will find himself in the dark. And this may suffice to have been said briefly against a way of interpreting Dr. Hammond too of∣ten takes.

II. It had been better to observe, that from the very Expression of St. Peter it may be gather'd that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to be joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for thus he speaks: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we must repeat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which, and by the spi∣rits that watch he preached; to whom? Namely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to them who were sometime disobedient, &c.

Vers. 21. Note h. I. I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the true reading, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and it might easily be, that some Transcribers not having another Copy to write after, but setting down the words from the mouth of a Promp∣ter might confound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used just in the same sense as if it were said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 like, as the Word is manifestly taken in

Heb. ix.24. on which place see my Note. A pattern is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the similitude which it has with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whence the vulgar Interpreter translates it similis formae. The other interpretations Dr. Hammond gives of this place are forced.

II. He says indeed truly, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifies contrary, which might be proved from several places in Xenophon, but not that which he alledges out of Hiero; where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not simply contrary, but dura, hard, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, severe, as it is rightly rendered by J. Leunclavius.

Notes

• Chapter IV.