primary fignification of it, and laqueus is call'd am only upon this account because it ftrangles.

Our Monfieur alfo fays, that the thing intended is a squeezing the Throat with a Rope. But how doth he prove this? He fays that it is evident, and fo no proof is neceffary; and yet his own Glofs upon Job 7.15. which presently follows, fhews that it is not evident. He makes holy Job to fpeak thus, My grief is so great, that I had rather die by ftrangling than live. According to him then Job did not chufe to die by a Rope or Halter, but by Strangling now a Man may be ftrangled other ways than by an Halter, as our Monfieur confeffes a little after, that Pn fignifies to choak or fuffocate by any means what foever.

P. 96. in S. Matth. 28. 19.

לשם בן חורין או לשם נירות To be baptiza

in the name of a Son of Free-men, or in the name of Profelytifm, is to receive Baptifm upon condition that the person baptized be called a Free-man or Profelyte. Confult Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. 1.2. c.3. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

Arredam voo Animadv.

Our Monfieur refers us to Mr. Selden, but I believe after all that he is fingular in his Explication of thefe Phrafes, To be baptized in the name of a Son of Free-men, and in the name of Profelytifm. The learned Mr. Selden never dreamt of receiving Baptifm upon any fuch condition, he explains it of any one's being baptiz'd ut libertatem vel integrum Profelyti jufti jus fibi adipifceretur, that he might obtain his liberty, or the full right of a Profelyte. And furely there is a great difference between thefe two, a perfon's being baptiz'd that he may obtain the Rights of a Free-man or Profelyte, and his being baptiz'd upon condition that he be call'da Free-man or Profelyte.

Our Monfieur here adds, That Grotius has committed a mistake in his Tranflation of the last words, but difcerned however the import of the Phrafe, tho' just as a Man fees the Moon through the Clouds. But let it be fuppofed that Grotius did difcern the import of the Phrafe only as we fee the Moon through a Cloud, our Monfieur ought not to have objected it to him, who did not difcern the import of it at all. And if Grotius committed a mistake in tranflating the

laft

laft words (viz. ) it is a par donable one. He alledgeth those words out of Maimonides, where he fpeaks of a Woman taken in War, and baptized, and fo made a Profelyte. This induced Grotius to think that was of the Plural number, and accordingly he tranflates it Profelytarum, whereas Mr. Selden (whom our Monfieur follows) took it to be the Singular number, and rendred it. Profely tism.

P. Ico. in S. Mar. 6. 2.

And fo the Hebrew, which is very frequently rendred by on, is fometimes ufed as Ifa. 29.16. How fhall the work fay of him that made it, he made me not? Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

Animadv.

Our Monfieur would perfuade us that fometimes fignifies How, alledging Isa, 29. 16. but I would know what neceffity there is that ' fhould be fo rendred in that place. Our Tranflators (not to mention any more) render it For, and, make the Senfe very clear, For fhall the work fay to him that made it &c? And I believe that our Monfieur cannot produce any Interpreter,

G 2

terpreter, either ancient or modern, that tranflates it How. I know that Noldius in concord. particul. p.402. will have' fometimes to fignify How, alledging fundry places of Scripture in which he interprets it fo; but Ifa. 29. 16. (the place which our Monfieur inftances in) is none of them: and I add, that there is no neceflity of interpreting it fo in the places which Noldius

mentions.

P. 104. in S. Mar. 7. 22.

Pfal. 14. 1. the word mad do's not fignify one that is mad through a bodily diftemper, or is imprudent through the error of his mind, but a wicked evilman. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

Animadv.

I know not why is by our Monfieur here render'd Mad, or why he troubles himself to tell us that it do's not fignifie one that is mad through a bodily diftemper, for I do not remember that any have interpreted it fo. But it is more ftrange that he should fay, that it do's not fignify one that is imprudent through an error in his mind, or (in fhort) a Fool, when the greatest part of Interpreters to

gether

gether with the Chaldee Paraphraft do here render it fo. It is moft true, that he of whom the Pfalmift here speaks is a wicked man, as well as a Fool; but it do's not follow thence that is not in this place rightly rendred The Fool. It is his folly in thinking that there is no God that makes him wicked; his wicked, corrupt and abominable practice proceeds from the error of his mind. Add hereto that our Monfieur gives no reason for that which he fays, that here do's not fignify one that is imprudent through an error in his mind or a Fool; but the very Text affords a good reafon for the contrary, for every one that fays in his heart that there is no God is a Fool. From the Hebrew word

נבל

our Monfieur paffeth to the Greek word pov, and will correct our mistakes in the Interpretation of that. And here Suidas and Phavorinus fall under his reprehenfion, those excellent Criticks cannot escape the lash of this great Critick. His words are thefe, And hence it came to pafs that Phavorinus and Suidas before him mifinterpreted the word ἄφρων by ὁ μὴ εἰδὼς τὸν ὄντως θεόν, ἀμύλο της σοφίας. Our Monfieur fays, Hence it came to pass. I ask whence? That which goes before is that 9 is by the LXX tranflated appoon and pay, fo that the mistake, of which

G 3