« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
i Se Ć T. VIII.
Of Dr. Hammond's borrowing from Gro
tius and others.
'Hat Dr.Hammond hath borrow'd some
times from Grotius and others will be granted, and
yet I believe that upon Examination it will be found that our Monfieur injures him as to this, making him to have borrow'd from them when he doth not. I shall give a few instances of this.
P. 206. in S. Joh. 19.14.
, from Grotius, who says the same in his Notes on Mat. 27.45. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc
1. Animadv. When our Monsicur says, What our Author has here is borrow'd from Grotius, if his meaning be that what Dr. Hammond hath 'here is all of it borrow'd from that learned Person, it is certainly false. That which the Doctor fays, 1. Of the Greek and Latin Manuscript; 2. Of the Alexandrjan ; 3. Of the whole rox. I upepoy being
divided into eight parts; 4. Of Petrus
P 278. in Rom. 8. 26. The rest our Author had from Grotius, and nothing is his own but his translating the Greek word móvos by labour. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
The rest comprehends all this, That a Teréw is oft used concerning Sin the disease of the Soul, and that à Jévelas here signifies all the sad particulars mention'd v.35, and which if the Context be obferved will appear to belong to this place, and will be agreeable to the notion of asy, which fignifying, TróVOS enim labour, Sorrow, is frequently used for disease, distress, and rendred by the word
used «JÉvely weaknesses; so is the word used i Cor. 2. 3. referring to the persecutions and dangers that Paul at Corinth had met
withiri his preaching: Thus Dr. Hammond. Now all that Grotius has to this purpose is that & Jéreia fignifies dolores ex rebus adversis, and that 334 is rendred móvos, ótrúng
Let any one now judge whether Dr. Hammond had all that which I have here transcribed from Grotius, as our Monsieur says he had.
P. 606. in 2 Pet. 2. 13. Seeing our Author had begun to borrow of Grotius what he here says, he ought with bim to have added that it was read so by the Vulgar Latin Interpreter. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Animadv. It seems very plain to me that Dr. Hammond did not borrow from Grotius that which he says in his Annotation upon
the place. If there was nothing else, this alone which our Monsieur mentions, that he do's not take notice that the Vulgar Latin Interpreter read αγαπαις (not απάταις) fatisfies me, that he did not as much as look into Grotius upon the place; for it being his business to make it probable that and was is the truer Reading, he would not have omitted this, if he had taken notice of it.
Also if he had look'd into Grotius, he would not have writézd mais aurwr, for Grotius is of opinion that if we read a zámous, autav is to be omitted. I therefore incline to think, that Dr. Hammond finding agd mais in. S. Jude v. 12. judg'd his authority fufficient, and look'd no further. And this is the only reason that I can give, why he did not confult the Alexandrian Manuscript, which here (viz. 2 Pet.2.13.) hath αγαπαις inftead of απάτας.
P. 143. in S. Luk. 16. 19. This Translation which the Doctor gives us of the Parable set down in the Gemara Babyl. is partly according to the words in the Hebrew, and partly according to the Latin Version of R. Sheringamus, and taken from thence. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Here I must tell our Monsieur that he mistakes very much, when he fays that part of Dr. Hammond's Translation of the Parable is according to the Latin Version of Mr. Sheringham, and taken from thence. This he might have prevented by looking further into Mr. Sheringham's Preface to his Joma, where he acknowledges that
the Translation was not his, but he had transcrib’d both it and the Hebrew from Cunradus Otto in his Gali Rezia. But our Monsieur hath obliged us to forgive him this mistake; because he (being here in a bet. ter mood than he usually is) is for forgiving others their mistakes; yea he 'warns the Reader, that he ought not to be too severe a Judge of thofe mistakes which the Learned Sometimes fall into through want of care, since we err Sometimes when we are most careful. Is it not strange that he who could give such excellent advife, should set himself to practise the contrary, so that a severer Judge of the (supposed, not real) mistakes of others perhaps never appeared in the world? But to return to Dr.Hammond, it may be faid that tho' our Monsieur be mistaken in saying that his Translation is partly, according to the Latin Version of Mr. Sheringham (because that Version is not Mr. Sheringham's; but Cunr. Otto's) yet it is true still, that part of his Translation is taken from that Version. In anfwer to which, Igrant that some small part of his Translation is according to Otto's Verfio, but say, that it doth not follow thence that it is taken from it. It is scarce possible that two persons should translate the same sentence, and not agree in some thing. He that compares the two Versions will be fa