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. XX.

Vers. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ &c.] This is the answer of the Sanhedrim, tho their name for brevity sake be here omitted; as appears from Mat. xxi.41. See on vers. 24.

Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] This must be rendered thus; And when they had understood (viz. that these things were spoken against them) they said (within themselves) God forbid; for they did not apply the Parable to themselves aloud: See Mat. xxi.45. and after∣wards ver. 19. of this Chapter. Thus the omission of a Circumstance often seems to alter a History; so that those who tell it large, seem to contradict those who relate it more briefly, when yet really they agree with one another.

Vers. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] It is well observed by learned Men, that this Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to wait for an opportunity of doing mis∣chief: See Chap. xiv.1. of this Gospel, and my Notes upon Gen. iii.15.

Vers. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] St. Luke omits here what St. Matthew expresses, and must necessarily be understood, viz. And they brought unto him a Penny, and he said unto them, Mat. xxii.19. Such another omission I have already taken notice of on vers. 16.

Vers. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Our learned Author interprets this word in his Paraphase, a future state after this life: And indeed the Sadduces did deny, not only the resurrection of the Body, but also the immor∣tality of the Soul. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 never signifies simply a future State, and the Argument of the Sadduces opposes nothing but the Resur∣rection. I have elsewhere confuted the Doctor's opinion about this word; see Note on Mat. xxii.31.

Vers. 46. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] It is very well known that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used as well for a man's as a woman's Garment, tho the Latin stola signifies only a woman's. This is more than once proved by Oct. Ferrarius Lib. de Re Vestiaria. And yet Epiphanius seems to have un∣derstood the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here of a woman's Garment, who Haeres. 16. says, that the Pharisees were like the Scribes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for their apparel and womanish Garments. But per∣haps he speaks in that manner, because amongst the Greeks the men wore short Garments, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Coats, and the women long Gowns, such as were usual among several of the Eastern Nations. In antient times also stola talaris, a gown reaching down to the Ancles, seems to have been a Garment worn by Women among the Assyrians; See Oct. Ferrarius in Analectis, cap. 23. But it is a good observation that Pope Celestine the first makes concerning Clergymen, in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienne and Narbonne; Discernendi, inquit, à plebe vel caeteris sumus doctrinâ, non veste; conversatione, non habitu; mentis puritate, non cultu. We ought, saith he, to distinguish our selves from the common people, or the rest of mankind, by our Doctrin, not by our Apparel; by our Conversation, not by our Habit; by the purity of our Minds, not by our Dress▪