Изображения страниц

scribe the words of the Text, S. Jam.3.5,6Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth. And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity : fo is the

tongue among our meman bers, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature, &c. I must acknowledge that I am not so clear-sighted as to see any useless repetition, or unnecessary interposition of words, which fignify the same thing, and have no coherence one with another; and I cannot bút admire that our Monsieur could have the confidence to mention the casting out those excellent words, The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity, especially not having the authority of any ancient MS or Version to warrant it. But let us hear what our Monsieur has co say for himself.

First (fays he) the word štws phew's that thence we must begin the Stédoors of the comparison, as in the foregoing Similitudes ; wherein the mefraois is begun

with the Particle 'idoù, and the stádoois with the Conjunetii on stws, as it is here; Thus our Monsieur.

But I answer, 1. The Alexandrian Manufcript, the Vulg. the Syriack and Æthiopick have not the Conjunction stas, or any word that answers to it. - 2. If we read Btws, it is not necessary that we begin the Stdoors of the comparison thence. As to that which our Monsieur says concerning



the foregoing Similitudes, we shall find (if we consult S. James) that they are only two, viz. one in v.3, and the other in v.4, and idoù is prefix'd to both of them; but there is not twice stws, as there is twice 'idoù, but stw v.5. answers to both, and begins the stródoors. So that our Monsieur's argument is this, stw begins the Stódbois V.5, and therefore stws begins it v.6; but I deny the confequence, for we must not deny S. James the liberty of varying the expression, if he thought fit to do it. And he do's it here, beginning the reddois not with otw as v.5, but with rei; and so the sense is plain, Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth, this is the megrocos; then follows the Stdoors, And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; it is so set among the members, that (tho' it be but a little one ) it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature.

3. However this Argument from stw v.5. can be of no validity if Dr. Hammond be in the right, for he will not allow that it is there a Note of the avlanódoors of the Similitude; and if think that it is so, he judges that it is a mistake. See his Annotation on V.5.

Secondly (fays he) this expreslion The tongue is a fire, signifies the same with the whole Similitude, and the words A world


and if any.

of iniquity plainly spoil the connection of the discourse; Thus our Monsieur. But I deny both these, 1. The expression The tongue is a fire, do's not signify the same with the whole Similitude; for the whole Similitude is this, As a great matter is kindled by a little Fire, so the tongue being a fire, tho' it be but a little member, fetteth on fire the whole Course of Nature. 2. The words a World of Iniquity, do not at all spoil the Connexion of the Discourse, for they are added to shew why the Tongue sets on fire the whole Course of Nature, and also defiles the whole Body, viz. because it is a World of iniquity: Thus we have seen what wonderful Reasons our Monsieur gives for correcting the Sacred Text, and casting out of it these excellent words, The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity.


Of Monsieur Le Clerc's misrepresenting

Dr. Hammond's Words or Sense.
UR Monsieur's Reflections upon

Dr. Hammond are so many, that the Reader can scarce open to any place in his Supplement, where they will not occur.


[ocr errors]

if he had refted here, it had been more par-
donable; but when not being satisfied here-
with, he also misrepresents Dr. Hammond's
words and sense, that he might make to
himself occafions of reflecting upon him
when he found none, I do not fee what can
be pleaded in excufe for him. And I shall
give so many instances of his injurious deal-
ing with Dr. Hammond in this respect, that
if he know not how to blush, his friends
(if he have any) will certainly blush for him.




| 00

[ocr errors]

P. 34. in S. Matth. 10.9.
Our Author denies the words Spoken by fie
Jacob of himself, Gen. 32. to be declarative
of his poverty. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.


Dr. Hammond do's not deny that Jacob's words are declarative of his poverty; he fays most truly, that Jacob do's not affirm that he beggi'd, but there is a manifeft difference between not affirming that he was poor, and not affirming that he begg’d. A man may be poor, and yet not beg, not be a Mendicant. Our Monfieur presently after acknowledges this. His words are, Tho' it would be but ill inferr'd from thence that he went thither in the habit of a beggar. If


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

therefore he had given us Dr. Hammond's words, it would have appear'd that the Doctor and he faid the fame thing. But Dr. Hammond must be mistaken, and our Monsieur could not have any colour for charging him with a mistake, but by subftituting other words instead of his. But let it be suppoš'd that Dr. Hammond had deny'd the words Spoken by Jacob of himself, Gen. 32. 2. to be declarative of his poverty, where is the mistake? For tho' Jacob was comparatively poor when he passed over Jordan, i. e. not so rich as he was at his return; yet our Monsieur must confess that he was not abfolutely poor, but had sufficient for his present condition.

[blocks in formation]

I do not think with Grotius and Dr.Har mond that there is any respect here had to a further second Accomplishment of a Prophecy of Isaiah. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.


Dr. Hammond hath not any Paraphrafe or Note


S. Matth. 15. v.7, nor yet upon v. 8; he hach a Paraphrafe upon v.9, but in it there is not a word of a further second Accomplishment of any Prophecy.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »