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. VIII.

Vers. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] See my note on Mark xvi.19.

Vers. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] That is of Heaven, in which Christ exercised the chief part of his Priesthood, when he car∣ried into it his blood, as into the most holy place. Our Author mis∣understood this of the Church, in which Christ did not execute his Priestly Office, but in Heaven. In the words of the Apostle, after the true Tabernacle we must supply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of God, which is called true be∣cause God there shews himself in a peculiar manner present, by an inaccessible light, with which his inhabitation of the Mosaical Taberna∣cle can no more be compared, than the malignant and as it were false light of the reflex rays of a Torch, with the true light of the Sun. See what I have said about this phrase on John vi.55. and about the Taber∣nacle of God, on Rev. xxi.13.

Vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] I don't think we ought to supply here only, after the words on earth, with Grotius and Dr. Ham∣mond; for the reasoning of the Apostle is not at all cleared by that Supplement. But to be a Priest on earth, is to be understood so as if he had said, by the Mosaical Law, which appointed only the race of Aaron to be Priests, and that to offer up brute Sacrifices in the Tem∣ple, whose blood they alone, according to the Law of God, might pour out at the Altar, and carry into the Sanctuary. For Christ was of the Tribe of Judah, as the Apostolical Writer of this Epistle elsewhere observes.

Vers. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here can by no means signify a prefiguration of something future; for Heaven was a great while before the Tabernacle and Temple; but some faint and obscure Image of a thing extraordinary beautiful and glorious. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, as painted Images are, an imitation, as it is used in this very Epistle, Chap. iv.11. Let us labour to enter into that rest, lest any man perish in the same imitation of unbelief; that is, in the imitation of the same unbelief; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It comes from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Phav••rinus interprets thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: he re∣presents

for he paints;* 1.1 I will shew a thing by discourse, as by some picture. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, to delineate, or to draw the first and rude lineaments of things; from whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a rude draught or delineation. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a dull or rough Picture, like the representation of a body by its shadow. Then the Phrase to serve to the delineation and shadowing of heavenly things signifies to minister to the Sanctuary, which was a delineation, &c. as was done by the Jewish Priests. What our Author says here in his Paraphrase, is besides the scope of this place.

Vers. 9. Note a. I. What Dr. Hammond here says about the mis∣takes of Transcribers, is very true; as Lud. Cappellus in his Critica Sacra has shewn: in which Mr. Pocock has confuted indeed a few ces, but left the foundations untouch'd; tho he ever now and then has a stroke at them, both in his Notes ad Portam Mosis, and else∣where. Yet they cannot be overturned, because they are undeniably true. But it is true also, before any place be thought to have been differently read by the Septuagint, the neighbouring Languages ought to be consulted, which was not always done by Cappellus. In this place our Author might have added, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are one and the same root, but differently written; the Letters of the same Organ in the Eastern Languages, and especially the Guttural, being very often confounded.

II. I wonder our learned Author thought the Septuagint pointed otherwise the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for melammedah is of the Feminine Gender, and cannot be joined with what goes before. The words may be literally render'd thus: Fuit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 timere eorum me praeceptum hominum edoctum, their fearing me was a precept taught by men. If any thing else were to be changed by the Version of the Septuagint, we should read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 melammedim, teaching. But that is needless, the sense being the same in the Hebrew words as they are now, as it is in the Greek.

III. Our Author mistranslates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by I have given or sent. He confounds this Verb with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he hath sent, in his Explication of Za∣char. xi.13.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chapter IX.