« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
of Monsieur Le Clerc's Upbraiding
Dr. Hammond with many things, of which he himself is guilty.
I. HE reproves Dr. Hammond for consule
ing and alledging Heathen Writers for interpreting some places of the Holy Scripture, and yet he himself doth the
P.488. in 1 Thes. 5. 23. It is strange that wife Men, in order to know what is in man, i.e. in themselves , should go and consult Plato and Aristotle. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Is it not more strange that any man should go and consult Plato, and the Pythagoreans, and the Stoicks and Poets, in order to know what is meant by ó ráy, S.Joh. 1.1? How comes our Monsieur to have the privilege that he must be allow'd to alledge so many Heathens for the explaining ó rów, S. Joh. 1, &c. and Dr. Hammond cannot be allow'd to alledge an
Heathen or two for explaining what is meant by Soul, Body and Spirit as making up the whole Man, i Thes; 5. 23? And it is very observable concerning his Citations out of the Heathen Writers, that there are only two of them that have the expres. sion ó óy, all the rest have only oy@ without the Article prefix'd. Our Monfieur's business p.171, and 172, where we have thefe Citations, is to prove from them, that óróvá, S. Job. 1.1. is to be translated Reafon, noo The Word as werender it, and P.172. he alledges Tertullian Apol. c. 21, but that excellent Writer proves to be against him, for he renders rózos by Sermo as well as Ratio. His words are these, Apud vestros quoque sapientes rózsx i. e. Sermonem atque Rationem constat artificem videri-Universitatis. Our Monsieur therefore chastises him for it, telling him that there was no need of joyning the word Sermo to Ratio torender the Greek rózos, for what place could there be for Speech in the creafion and disposition of the Universe: Thus our Monsieur, forgetting that in the Creation of the World God spake the word and it was done, he commanded and it stood faft.
In the mean time we may see by this what we are to judge of our Monsieur's exposition of those words in Tertullian adu. Praxeam cap.5. Simplicitatem inter
pretationis, i.e. (says our Monsieur p. 156.) imperitiam interpretandi , and so in the Translation p. 157: an unskilfulness in in terpreting. Hanc (fcil. 'rationem ) Græci rózov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam fermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in ufu eft noftro„Tum per simplicitatem interpretationis, Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuiffe. Thus Tertullian. And our Monsieur, who can by no means endure that x6205 should be rendred Sermo, makes the Father to fay that it is through'unskilfulness in interpreting that some render it fo: whereas if he say this, 'he makes himself an unskilful Interpreter. For we have seen that Tera tullian in his Apologetick renders it by Sermo; and not only there, but also in this very
Book'adv. Praxeam he interprets it fo, viz. cap.7, as when he says Per Sermonem omnia facta effe do fine illo nihil factum, as S. Joh. 1. 3; and again Sermo erat apud Deum, Deus erat Sermo, as S. Joh. 1.1. This is sufficient to thew that
Tertullian did not by Simplicitas interprei tationis understand unskilfulness in inter
preting as our Monsieur to serve his Hypothesis absurdly expounds it. On the contrary Pamelius in his Note plainly tells us that Simplicitas here is taken in bonam partem.
II. If in Dr. Hammond's Annotations there be a mistake in any Quotation by the fault of the Printer, if the words of any Author are not exactly transcribed, or if it chance that we are not directed to the right place in any Author, but another is mention'd instead of it; our Monsieur presently cries out, that the Doctor never look'd into the Author (see p. 84. lin. I. p.400. lin.18,&c.) and yet many such mistakes occur in this very Supplement. I shall only take notice of a few which I have observed in those Citations which we have p.171, 172, and it will suffice only to name that which we have in the forementioned Citation out of Tertullian, where, by the fault of the Press, we read Constant instead of Conftat ; but the rest I shall consider more largely.
So Epicharmus the Comedian in his Commonwealth, as he is cited by Clemens Alexand. Strom. 5. "Egy ev. Jpára, &c. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Animadv. In the Verses which our Monsieur here transcribes out of Clemens Alex. there are
more mistakes, than one. In the first Verse
Plato in his Timæus calls the nozess dom γισμός regfoning, έπος δε πας όντως αεί λογισuds Org : All this true reasoning of God. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
The Stoicks who, as Diogenes Laertius tells us in Lib. 7. Sect. 135, 136, affirmed, έν τε είναι Θεόν, και ν&ν, και ειμαρμένην, και Δία, πολλαις τε έπρgς ονομασίαις ωeoσονομαζεοθαι, That it was the same thing which was called God, and the Mind and Fate, and Jupiter, and a great many other names, said also that