Notes on the Old and New Testaments

IT need not be said that this epistle has given rise to much dis cussion among writers on the New Testament. Indeed there is probably no part of the Bible in regard to which so many conflicting views have been entertained. The name of the author; the time and place where the epistle was written; the character of the book; its canonical authority; the language in which it was composed; and the persons to whom it was addressed: all have given rise to great difference of opinion. Among the causes of this are the following:— The name of the author is not mentioned. The church to which it was sent, if sent to any particular church, is not designated. There are no certain marks of time in the epistle, as there often are in the writings of Paul, by which we can determine the time when it was written.

It is not the design of these Notes to go into an extended exami nation of these questions. Those who are disposed to pursue these inquiries, and to examine the questions which have been started in regard to the epistle, can find ample means in the larger works that have treated of it; and especially in Lardner; in MichaeHY Intro duction; in the Prolegomena of Kuinoel; in Hug's Introduction; and PARTICULARLY in Prof. Stuart's invaluable Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. No other work on this portion of the New Testament is so complete as his, and in the Introduction he has left nothing to be desired in regard to the literature of the Epistle.

Controversies early arose in the church in regard to a great variety of questions pertaining to this epistle, which are not yet fully settled. Most of those questions, however, pertain to the literature of the epistle, and however they may be decided, are not such as to affect tha respect which a Christian ought to have for it as a part of the word c-f God. They pertain to the inquiries, to whom it was written; in •what language, avid at what time it was composed; questions which, in whatever way they may he settled, do not affect its canonical au thority, and should not shake the confidence of Christians in it as a part of divine revelation. The only inquiry on these points which it is proper to institute in these Notes is, whether the claims of the epistle to a place in the canon of Scripture are of such a kind as to allow Christians to read it as a part of the oracles of God? May we sit down to it feeling that we are perusing that which has been given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost as a part of revealed truth? Other questions are interesting in their places, and the solution of them is worth all which it has cost; but they need not embarrass us here, nor claim our attention as preliminary to the exposition of the epistle. All that will be attempted, therefore, in this Introduction, will be such a condensation of the evidence collected by others, as shall show that this epistle has of right a place in the volume of revealed truth, and is of authority to regulate the faith and practice of mankind,

§ 2. To whom was the Epistle written?

It purports to have been written to the " Hebrews." This is not found, indeed, in the body of the epistle, though it occurs in the sub scription at the end. It differs from all the other epistles of Paul in this respect, and from most of the others in the New Testament. In all of the other epistles of Paul, the church or person to whom the letter was sent is specified in the commencement. This, however, commences in the form of an essay or homily; nor is there anywhere 4n the epistle any direct intimation to what church it was sent. The subscription at the end is of no authority, as it cannot be supposed that the author himself would affix it to the epistle, and as it is known that many of those subscriptions are false. See the remarks at the close of the Notes on Romans, and 1 Corinthians. Several questions present themselves here which we may briefly investigate.

(I.) What is the evidence that it was 'written to the Hebrews? In xeply to this we may observe (1.) That the inscription at the com mencement, il The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,'* though not affixed by the author, may be allowed to express tne current sense of the church in ancient times in reference to a quesiun on which they had the best means of judging. These inscriptions at the commencement of the epistles have hitherto in general escaped the suspicion of spuriousness, to which the subscriptions at the close are justly exposed. — Michaelis. They should not in any case be called in question, unless there is good reason from the epistle itself, or from some other source. This inscription is found in all our pre sent Greek manuscripts, and in nearly all the ancient versions. It is found in the Peshito, the old Syriac version, which was made in the first or in the early part of the second century. It is the title given to the epistle by the Fathers of the second century, and on ward. — Stuart. (2.) The testimony of the Fathers. Their testimony is unbroken and uniform. With one accord they declare this, and this should be regarded as testimony of great value. Unless there is some good reason to depart from such evidence, it should be regarded as deci sive. In this case there is 110 good reason for calling it in question, but every reason to suppose it to be correct; nor so far as I have found is there any one who has doubted it. (3.) The internal evi dence is of the highest character that it was written to Hebrew converts. It treats of Hebrew institutions. It explains their nature. 'It makes no allusion to Gentile customs or laws. It all along supposes that those to whom it was sent were familiar with the Jewish history; \vith the nature of the temple service; with the functions of the priestly office; and with the whole structure of their religion. No other person than those who had been Jews are addressed throughout the epistle. There is no attempt to explain the nature or design of any customs except those with which they were familiar. At the same time it is equally clear that they were Jewish converts — converts from Judaism to Christianity — who are addressed. The wrriter ad dresses them as Christians, not as those who were to be converted to Christianity; he explains to them the Jewish customs as one would do to those who had been converted from Judaism"; he endeavours to guard them from apostaey, as if there were danger that they would relapse again into the system from which they were converted. These considerations seem to be decisive; and in the view of all who have written on the epistle, as well as of the Christian world at large$ they settle the question. It has never been held that the epistle was directed to Gentiles; and in all the opinions and questions which have been started on the subject, it has been admitted that, wherever they resided, the persons to whom the epistle was addressed were originally Hebrews who had never heen converted to the Christian religion.

(II.) To ichat particular church of the Hebrews ivas ittcritten? Very different opinions have heen held on this question. The cele brated Storr held that it was written to the Hebrew part of the churches in Galatia; and that the epistle to the Galatians was ad dressed to the Gentile part of those churches. Semler and Noessctt maintained that it was written to the churches in Macedonia, and particularly to the church of Thessalonica. Bolten maintains that it was addressed to the Jewish Christians who fled from Palestine in a rime of persecution about the year 60, and who were scattered through Asia Minor., Michael Weber supposed that it was addressed to the church at Corinth. Ludwig conjectured that it was addressed to a church in Spain. Wetstein supposes that it was written to the church at Rome. Most of these opinions are mere conjectures, and all of them depend on circumstances which furnish only slight evidence of probability. Those who are disposed to examine these and to see them confuted^ may consult Stuart's Commentary on the Hebrews, Intro. § 5 — 9. The common, and the almost universally received opinion is, that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in yalestine. The reasons for this opinion, briefly, are the following-. (1.) The testimony of the ancient church was uniform on this point — that the epistle was not only written to the Hebrew Christians, but to those who were in Palestine. Lardner affirms this to be the testimony of Clejient of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylactj and adds that this was the general opinion of the ancients. Works, vol. vi., pp. 80, 81, ed. Lond. 1829. (2.) The inscription at the commencement of the epistle leads to this supposition. That inscription, though not appended by the hand of the author, was early affixed to it. It is found not only in the Greek manuscripts, but in ell the early versions, as the Syriac and the Itala; and was doubtless Affixed at a very early period, and by whomsoever affixed, expressed the current sense at the time. It is hardly possible that a mistake would be made on this point; and unless there is good evidence to the contrary, this ought to be allowed to determine the question. That inscription is, " The 'Epistle of Paul, the Apostle to the He brews." But who are the Hebrews — the 'Eftpmot? Prof. Stuart has endeavoured to show that this was a term that was employed ex elusively to denote the Jews in 2'alestine, in contradistinction from foreign Jews, who were called Hellenists. Comp. my Notes on Acts vi. 1. Bertholdt declares that there is not a single example which can be found in early times of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews. See a Dissertation on the Greek language in Pales tine, and on the meaning of the word Hellenists, by Hug, in the Bib. Repository, vol. i. 547, 548. Comp. also Robinson's Lex. on the word <E/3paior. If this be so, and if the inscription be of any au thority, then it goes far to settle the question. The word Hebrews occurs but three times in the New Testament, (Acts vi. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5,) in the first of which it is certain that it is used in this sense, and in both the others of which it is probable. There can be no doubt, it seems to me, that an ancient writer, acquainted with the usual sense of the word Hebreic, would understand an inscription of this kind — " written to the Hebrews" — as designed for the inhabi tants of Palestine, and not for the Jews of other countries. (3.) There are some passages in the epistle itself which Lardner supposes indicate that this epistle was written to the Hebrews in Palestine, or to those there who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. As those passages are not conclusive, and as their force has been called in question, and with much propriety, by Prof. Stuart (pp. 32 — 34), I shall merely refer to them. They can be examined at leisure by those who are disposed, and though they do not prove that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, yet they can be best interpreted on that supposition, and a peculiar significancy would be attached to them on this supposition. They are the following: ch. i. 2;-iv. 2; ii. 1—4; v. 12; iv. 4—6; x. 26—29, 32—34; xiii. 13, 14. The argument of Lardner is, that these would be more applicable to their condition than to others; a position which I think cannot bo doubted. Some of them are of so general a character, indeed, as to be applicable to Christians elsewhere; and in regard to some of them it cannot be certainly demonstrated that the state of things referred to existed in Judea, but taken together they would be more applicable by far to them than to the circumstances of any others of which we have knowledge; and this may be allowed to have some weight at least in determining to whom the epistle was sent. (4.) The internal evidence of the epistle corresponds with the supposition that it, was written to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine. The passages referred to in the previous remarks (3) might be ad duced here as proof But there is other proof. It might have been otherwise. There might be such strong internal proof that an epistle was not addressed to a supposed people, as completely to neutralise all the evidence deprived from an inscription like that prefixed to this epistle, and all the evidence derived from tradition. But it is not so here. All the circumstances referred to in the epistle; the general strain of remark; the argument; the allusions are just such as would be likely to be found in an epistle addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, and such as would not be likely to occur in an epistle addressed to any other place or people. They are such as the fol lowing: (a) The familiar acquaintance with the Jewish institutions supposed by the writer to exist among those to whom it was sent — a familiarity hardly to be expected even of Jews who lived in other countries, (ft) The danger so frequently adverted to of their re lapsing into their former state; of apostatising from Christianity, and of embracing again the Jewish rites and ceremonies — a danger that would exist nowhere else in so great a degree as in Judea. Comp. ch. ii. 1—3; iii. 7—11. 15; iv. 1; vi. 1—8; x. 26—35. (c) The nature of the discussion in the epistle— not turning upon the obliga tion of circumcision, and the distinction of meats and drinks, which occupied so much of the attention of the apostles and early Christians in other places — but a discussion relating to the whole structure of the Mosaic economy, the pre-eminence of Moses or Christ, the meaning of the rites of the temple, &c. These great questions would be more likely to arise in Judea than elsewhere, and it was important to dis cuss them fully, as it is done in this epistle. In other places they would be of less interest, and would excite less difficulty, (d) The allusion to local places and events; to facts in their history; and to the circumstances of public worship, which would be better under stood there than elsewhere. There are no allusions — or if there are, they are very brief and infrequent — to heathen customs, games, races, and philosophical opinions, as there are often in the other epistles of the New Testament. Those to whom the epistle was sent, are pre sumed to have an intimate and minute knowledge of the Hebrew his tory and such a knowledge as could be hardly supposed elsewhere.

Comp. ch. xi., particularly vs. 32—39. Thus it is implied that they so well understood the subjects referred to relating to the Jewish rites, that it was not necessary that the writer should specify them particu larly. See ch. ix. 5. Of what other persons could this be so appro priately said as of the dwellers in Palestine? (e) The circumstances of trial and persecution so often referred to in the epistle, agree well with the known condition of the church in Palestine. That it was ubjected to great trials we know; and though this was extensively true of other churches, yet it is probable that there were more vexa tious and grievous exactions; that there was more spite, and malice,* that there were more of the trials arising from the separation of fami lies and the losses of property attending a profession of Christianity in Palestine than elsewhere in the early Christian church. These considerations — though not so conclusive as to furnish absolute demon stration — go far to settle the question. They seem tome so strong as to preclude any reasonable doubt, and are such as the mind can repose on with a great degree of confidence in regard to the original desti nation of the epistle.

(3.) Was it addressed to a particular church in Palestine, or to the Hebrew Christians there in general?

Whether it was addressed to the churches in general in Palestine, or to some particular church there, it is now impossible to determine. Prof. Stuart inclines to the opinion that it was addressed to the church in Cesarea. The ancients in general supposed it was ad dressed to the church in Jerusalem. There are some local references in the epistle which look as though it was directed to some particular church. But the means of determining this question are put beyond our reach, and it is of little importance to settle the question. From the allusions to the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the whole train of peculiar institutions there, it would seem probable that it was directed to the church in Jerusalem. As that was the capital of the nation, and the centre of religious influence; and as there was a large and flourishing church there, this opinion would seem to have great probability; but it is impossible now to determine it. If we suppose that the author sent the epistle, in the first instance, to some local church, near the central seat of the great influence which he intended to reach by it — addressing to that church the particular.

communications in the last verses — we shall make a supposition which, so far as can now be ascertained, will accord with the truth in

§ 3. The Autlior of the Epistle.

To those who are familiar with the investigations which have taken place in regard to this epistle, it need not be said that the question of its authorship has given rise to much discussion. The design of these Notes does not permit me to go at length into this inquiry. Those who are disposed to see the investigation pursued at length, and to see the objections to the Pauline origin examined in a most satisfactory manner, can find it done in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Prof. Stuart, pp. 77—260. All that iny purpose requires is to state, in a very brief manner, the evidence on which it is ascribed to the apostle Paul. That evidence is, briefly, the following:

(1.) That derived from the church at Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, and that this was the opinion of Paritaenus, who was at the head of the celebrated Christian school at Alexandria, and who flourished about A. D. 1 80. Pantaenus lived near Palestine. He must have been acquainted with the prevailing opinions on the subject, and his testimony must be regarded as proof that the epistle was regarded as Paul's by the churches in that region. Origen, also, of Alexandria, ascribes the epistle to Paul; though he says that the sentiments are those of Paul, but that the words and phrases belong to some one relating the apostle's sentiments, and as it were commenting on the words of his master. The testimony of the church at Alexandria was uniform after the time of Origen, that it was the production of Paul. Indeed, there seems never to have been any doubt in regard to it there, and from the commencement it was admitted as his production. The testimony of that clurch and school is particularly valuable, because (o) it was near to Palestine, where the epistle was probably sent; (b) Clement particularly had travelled much, and would be likely to understand the prevailing sentiments of the East; (c) Alexandria was the seat of the most celebrated theological school of the early Christian ages, and those who were at the head of this school would be likely to have' correct information on a point like this; and (d)

Origen is admitted to have been the most learned of the Greek Fathers, and his testimony that the " sentiments" were those of Paul, may be regarded as of peculiar value.

(2.) It was inserted in the translation into the Syriac, made very early in the second century, and in the old Italic version, and was hence believed to be of apostolic origin, and is by the inscription ascribed to Paul. This may be allowed to express the general sense of the churches at that time, as this would not have been done unless there had been a general impression that the epistle was written by him. The fact that it was early regarded as an inspired book is also conclusively shown, by the fact that the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John, are not found in tliat version. They came later into circulation than the other epistles, and were not possessed, or regarded as genuine, by the author of that version. The epistle to the Hebrews is found in these versions, and was, there fore, regarded as one of the inspired books. In those versions it bears the inscription, " To the Hebrews."

(3.) This epistle was received as the production of Paul by the Eastern churches. Justin Martyr, who w^as born at Samaria, quotes it, about the year 140. It was found, as has been already remarked, in the Peshito — the old Syriac version, made in the early part of the second century. Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, also (about A. D. 325) repeatedly quotes' it as the production of an apostle. Ephrem Syrus, or the Syrian, abundantly ascribes this epistle to Paul. He was the disciple of Jacob of Nisibis, and no man was better qualified to inform himself on this point than Ephrem. No man stands deservedly higher in the memory of the Eastern churches. After him, all the Syrian churches acknowledged the canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews. But the most important testimony of the Eastern church is that of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine. He is tlie wellknown historian of the church, and he took pains from all quarters to collect testimony in regard to the Books of Scripture. He says, " There are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and well known: but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging in behalf of their opinion, that it wras not received by the church of Rome as a writing of Paul." The testimony of Eusebius is particularly important. He had heard of the objection to its canonical authority. He had weighed that objection. Yet in view of the testimony in the case, he regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such it was received in the churches in the East; and the fact which he mentions that its genuineness had been disputed by the church of Rome, and that he specifies no other church, proves that it had not been called in question in the East. This seems to me to be sufficient testimony to settle this inquiry. The writers here referred to lived in the very country to which the epistle was evidently written, and their testimony is uniform. Justin Martyr was born in Samaria; Ephrem passed his life in Syria; Eusebius lived in Cesarea; and Origen passed the last twenty years of his life in Palestine. The churches there were unanimous in the opinion that this epistle was written by Paul, and their united testimony should settle the question. Indeed, when their testimony is considered, it seems remarkable that the subject should have been regarded as doubtful by critics, or that it should have given rise to so much protracted investigation. I might add to the testi monies above referred to, the fact that the epistle was declared to be Paul's by the following persons: Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, about A. D. 300; Adamantius, about 330; Cyril, of Jerusalem, about 348; the Council of Laodicea, about 363; Epiphanius, about 368; Basil, 370; Gregory Nazianzen, 370; Chrysostom, 398, &c. &c. Why should not the testimony of such men and churches be admitted? What more clear or decided evidence could we wish in regard to any fact of ancient history? Would not such testimony be ample in regard to an anonymous oration of Cicero, or poem of Virgil or Horace? Are we not constantly acting on far feebler evidence in regard to the authorship of many productions of celebrated English writers? (4.) In regard to the Western churches, it is to be admitted that, like the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John, the canonical authority was for some time doubted, or was even called in question. But this may be accounted for. The epistle had not the name of the author. All the other epistles of Paul had. As the epistle was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, it may not have been soon known to the Western churches. As there were spurious epistles and gospels at an early age, much caution would be used in admitting any anonymous production to a place in the sacred canon. Yet it was not long before all these doubts were removed, and the epistle to the Hebrews was allowed to take its place among the other acknowledged writings of Paul. It was received as the epistle of Paul by Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, about A. D. 354; by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, 354; by Victorinus, 360; by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 360; by Rufinus, 397, &c. & c. Jerome, the wellknown Latin Father, uses in regard to it the following language: "This is to be maintained, that this epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches at the East as the apostle Paul's, but has been in past times by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language; although most [Latins] think that Bar nabas or Clement was the author." Still, it was not rejected by all the Latins. Some received it in the time of Jerome as the production of Paul. — See Stuart, pp. 114. 115, for the full testimony of Jerome. Augustine admitted that the epistle was written by Paul. He mentions that Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and specifies particularly the epistle to the Hebrews. He often cites it as a part of Scripture, and quotes it as the production of an apostle. — Stuart, p. 115. From the time of Augustine it was undisputed. By the council of Hippo, A. D. 393, the third council of Carthage, 397, and the fifth council of Carthage, 419, it was declared to be the epistle of Paul, and was as such com mended to the churches.

(5.) As another proof that it is the writing of Paul, we may appeal, to the internal evidence, (a) The author of the epistle was the com panion and friend of Timothy. " Know ye that our brother Timo thy is set at liberty" — or is sent away — aTroXfXv/xeVoj/ — " with whom, if he come speedily, I will make you a visit." Ch. xiii. 23. Sent away, perhaps, on a journey to visit some of the churches, and ex pected soon to return. In Phil. ii. 19, Paul speaks of sending Timothy to them uso soon as he should see how it would go with him," at the same time expressing a hope that he should himself see them shortly. What is more natural than to suppose that he had now sent Timothy to Philippi; that during his absence he wrote this epistle: that he was waiting for his return; and that he proposed, if Timothy should return soon, to visit Palestine with him? And who would more naturally say this than the apostle Paul — the companion and friend of Timothy; by whom he had been accompanied in his travels; and by whom he was regarded with special interest as a minister of the gospel? (b) In ch. xiii. 18, 19, he asks their prayers that he might be restored to them; and in ver. 23, he expresses a confident expectation of being able soon to come and see them, from this it is evident that he was then imprisoned, but had hope of speedy release — a state of things in exact accordance with what existed at Rome. Phil. ii. 17. — 24. (c) He was in bonds when he wrote this epistle. Heb. x. 34. "Ye had compassion of me in my bonds;" an expression that will exactly apply to the case of Paul. He was in "bonds" in Palestine; he was two whole years in Cesarea a prisoner (Acts xxiv. 27); and what was more natural than that the Christians in Palestine should have had compassion on him, and ministered to his wants? To what other person would these circum stances so certainly be applicable? (d) The salutation (ch. xiii. 24.) "they of Italy salute you," agrees with the supposition that it was written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Paul writing from Rome, and acquainted with Christians from other parts of Italy, would be likely to send such a salutation. In regard to the objections which may be made to this use of the passage, the reader may consult Stu art's Intro, to the Hebrews, p. 127, seq. (e) The doctrines of the epistle are the stime as those which are taught by Paul in his undis puted writings. It is true that this consideration is not conclusive, but the want of it would be conclusive evidence against the position that Paul wrote it. But the resemblance is not general. It is not such as any man would exhibit who held to the same general system of truth. It relates to peculiarities of doctrine, and is such as would be manifested by a man who had been reared and trained as Paul had. (1.) No one can doubt that the author was formerly a Jew — and a Jew who had been familiar to an uncommon degre"e with the institutions of the Jewish religion. Every rite and ceremony; every form of opinion; every fact in their history, is perfectly familiar to him. And though the other apostles were Jews, yet we can hardly suppose that they had the familiarity with the minute rites and cere monies so accurately referred to in this epistle, and so fully illustrated. With Paul all this was perfectly natural. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and had spent the early part of his life at Jerusalem in the careful study of the Old Testament, in the examina tion of the prevalent opinions, and in the attentive observance of the xi. 5, 6. For similar views see Heb. i. 3; ii. 9; v. 8, 9; vii., viii., ix., x. The general method and arrangement of this epistle, and the acknowledged epistles of Paul arc the same. It resembles particu larly the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where we ha've first a doctrinal and then a practical part. The same is true also to some extent of the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. The epistle to the Hebrews is on the same plan. As far as ch. x. 19, it is principally doctrinal; the remainder is mainly practical. The manner of appealing to, and applying the Jewish Scriptures, is the same in this epistle as in those of Paul. The general structure of the epistle, and the slightest comparison between them, will show this with sufficient clearness. The general remark to be made in view of this comparison is, that the epistle to the Hebrews is just such an one as Paul might be expected to write; that it agrees with what we know to have been his early training, his views, his manner of life, his opinions, and his habit in writing; that it accords better with his views than with those of any other known writer of antiquity; and that it falls in with the circum stances in which he was known to be placed, and the general object which he had in view. So satisfactory are these views to my mind, that they seem to have all the force of demonstration which can be had in regard to any anonymous publication, and it is a matter of wonder that so much doubt has been experienced in reference to the question, who was the author?

It is difficult to account for the fact that the name of the authoi was omitted. It is found in every other epistle of Paul, and in gene ral it is appended to the epistles in the New Testament. It is omitted, however, in. the three epistles of John, for reasons which are now un known. And there may have been similar reasons also unknown for omitting it in this case. The simple fact is, that it is anonymous; and whoever was the author, the same difficulty will exist in account ing- for it. If this fact will prove that Paul was not the author, it would prove the same thing in regard to any other person, and would thus be ultimately conclusive evidence that it had no author. What were the reasons for omitting- the name can be only matter of conjec ture. The most probable opinion, as it seems to me, is this. The name of Paul was odious to the Jews. He was regarded by the na- tioii as fin apostate from tbcir religion, and everywhere tliey showed peculiar malignity against him. See the Acts of the Apostles. The fact that he was so regarded by them might indirectly influence even those who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. They lived in Palestine. They were near the temple, and were engaged in its ceremonies and sacrifices — for there is no evidence that they broke off from those observances on their conversion to Christianity. Paul was abroad. It might -have been reported that he was preaching against the temple and its sacrifices, and even the Jewish Christians in Palestine might have supposed that he was carrying matters too far. In these circumstances it might have been imprudent for him to have announced his name at the outset, for it might have aroused prejudices which a wise man would wish to allay. But if he could present an argument, somewhat in the form of an essay, showing that he be lieved that the Jewish institutions were appointed by God, and that he was not an apostate and an infidel; if he could conduct a demon stration that would accord in the main with the prevailing views of the Christians in Palestine, and that was adapted to strengthen them in the faith of the gospel, and explain to them the true nature of the Jewish rites, then the object could be gained without difficulty, and then they would be prepared to learn that Paul was the author, with out prejudice or alarm. Accordingly he thus conducts the argument; and at the close gives them such intimations that they would under stand who wrote it without much difficulty. If this was the motive, it was an instance of tact such as was certainly characteristic of Paul, and such as was not unworthy any man. I have no doubt that this was the true motive. It would be soon known who wrote it; and accordingly we have seen it was never disputed in the Eastern churches.

§ 4. The time when written.

In regard to the time when this epistle was written, and the place where, critics have been better agreed than on most of the questions which have been started in regard to it. Mill was of opinion that it was written by Paul in the year 63, in some part of Italy, soon after he had been released from imprisonment at Rome. Wetstein was of the same opinion. Tillemont also places this epistle in the year 63, and supposes that it was written while Paul was at Rome, or at least in Italy, and soon after he was released from imprisonment. Basnage supposes it was written about the year 61, and during the impri sonment of the apostle. Lardner supposes also that it was written in the beginning of the year 63, and soon after the apostle was re leased from his confinement. This is also the opinion of Colmet. The circumstances in the epistle which will enable us to form an opinion on the question about the time and the place are the follow ing:—

(I.) It was written while the temple was still standing, and before Jerusalem was destroyed. This is evident from the whole structure of the epistle. There is no allusion to the destruction of the temple or the city, which there certainly would have been if they had been destroyed. Such an event would have contributed much to the ob ject in viewr, and would have furnished an irrefragable argument that the institutions of the Jews were intended to be superseded by an other and a more perfect system. Moreover, there are allusions in the epistle which suppose that the temple service was then performed. See Heb. ix. 9.; viii. 4, 5. But the city and temple were destroyed in the year 70, and of course the epistle was written before tha.t year.

(2.) It was evidently written before the civil wars and commotions in Judea, which terminated in the destruction of the city arid nation. This is clear, because there are no allusions to any such disorders or troubles in Palestine, and there is 110 intimation that they were suf fering the evils incident to a state of war. Comp. ch. xii. 4. But those wars commenced A.D. 66, and evidently the epistle was written before that time.

(3.) They were not suffering the evils of violent persecution. They had indeed formerly suffered (comp. ch. x. 32. 34); James and Stephen had been put to death (Acts vii., xii.) but there was no vio lent and bloody persecution then raging in which they were called to defend their religion at the expense of blood and life. Ch. x. 32, 33. But the persecution under Nero began in the year 64, and though it began at Rome, and was confined to a considerable degree to Italy, yet it is not improbable that it extended to other places, and it is to be presumed that if such a persecution were raging at the time when the epistle was written, there would be some allusion to this fact. It may be set done, therefore, that it was written before the year 64.

(4.) It is equally true that the epistle was written during the latter part of the apostolic age. The author speaks of the " former days in which, after they were illuminated they had endured a great fight of afflictions, and when they were made a gazing stock, and were plundered by their oppressors" (ch. x. 32 — 34); and he speaks of them as havinobeen so long converted that they ought to have been qualified to teach others (ch. v. 12); and hence it is fairly to be inferred that they were not recent converts, but that the church there had been established for a considerable period. It may be added, that it was after the writer had been imprisoned — as I suppose in Cesarea (see § 3) — when they had ministered to him. Ch. x. 34. But this was as late as the year 60.

(5.) At the time when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, he had hopes of deliverance. Timothy was evidently with him. But now he was absent. Ch. xiii. 23. In the epistle to the Philippians (ch. ii. 19 — 23) he says, " But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I may be also of good comfort, when I know your state. He expected, therefore, that Timothy would come back to him at Rome. It is probable that Timothy was sent soon after this. The apostle had a fair pro spect of being set at liberty^ and sent him to them. During his abser^ at this time, it would seem probable, this epistle was written. Thus th -• writer says (ch. xiii. 23), " Know ye that our brother Timothy is set Gt liberty" — or rather, SENT AWAY, or SENT ABROAD (see note in that place); " with whom if he come shortly, I will see you." That is, if he returns soon, as I expect him, I will pay you a visit. It is probable that the epistle was written while Timothy was thus absent at Philippi, and when he returned, Paul and he went to Palestine and thence to Ephesus. If so it was written somewhere about the year 63, as this was the time when Paul was set at liberty.

(6.) The epistle was written evidently in Italy. Thus in ch. xiii. 24, the writer says, "They of Italy salute you." This would be the natural form of salutation on the supposition that it was written there. He mentions none by name, as he does in his other epistles, for it is pro bable that none of those who were at Rome would be known by name in Palestine. But there was a general salutation, showing1 the interest •which they had in the Christians in Judea, and expressive of regard for their welfare. This expression is, to my mind, conclusive evidence that the epistle was written in Italy; and in Italy there was no place where this would be so likely to occur as at Rome.

§ 5. The language in ivhicfi, it was ivritten.

This is a vexed and still unsettled question, and it does not seem to be possible to determine it with any considerable degree of certainty. Critics of the ablest name have been divided on it, and what is re markable, have appealed to the same arguments to prove exactly op posite opinions — one class arguing that the style of the epistle is such as to prove that it was written in Hebrew, and the other appealing to the same proofs to demonstrate that it was written in Greek. Among those who have supposed that it was written in Hebrew are the follow ing, viz.: — Some of the Fathers — as Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theophylact; and among the moderns, Michaelis has been the most strenuous defender of this opinion. This opinion was also held by the late Dr. James P. Wilson, who says, " It was pro bably written in the vulgar language of the Jews;" that is, in that mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee, which was usually spoken in the time of the Saviour, and which was known as the Syro-Chaldaic.

On the other hand, the great body of csitics have supposed it was written in the Greek language. This was the opinion of Fabricius, Lightfoot, Whitby, Beausobre, Capellus, Basnage, Mill, and others, and is also the opinion of Lardner, Hug, Stuart, and perhaps of most modern critics. These opinions may be seen examined at length in Michaelis* Introduction, Hug, Stuart, and Lardner.

The arguments in support of the opinion that it was written in Hebrew are, briefly the following: (1.) The testimony of the Fathers. Thus Clement of Alexandria says, " Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and Luke carefully translated it into Greek." Jerome says, " Paul as a Hebrew wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew — Scripserat ut Hebrreus Hebncis Hebraice;" and then he adds, "this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made di verse in this way from that of Paul's." (2.) The fact that it was written for the use of the Hebrews, who spoke the Hebrew, or the

Talmudic language, is alleged as a reason for supposing that it must have been written in that language. (3.) It is alleged by Mbhaelis, that the style of the Greek as we now have it, is far more pure and classical than Paul elsewhere employs, and that hence it is to be inferred that it was translated by some one who was master of the Greek lan guage. On this, however, the most eminent critics disagree. (4.) It is alleged by Michaelis, that the quotations in the epistle, as we have it, are made from the Septuagint, and that they are foreign to the pur pose which the writer had in view as they are now quoted, whereas they are exactly in point as they stand in the Hebrew. Hence he in fers that the original Hebrew was quoted by the author, and that the translator used the common version at hand instead of making an exact translation for himself. Of the fact alleged here, however, there may be good ground to raise a question; and if it were so, it would not prove that the writer might not have used the common and accredited translation, though less to his purpose than the original. Of the fact, moreover, to which Michaelis here refers, Prof. Stuart says, " He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls a wrong translation which wears the appearance of any considerable probability." The only instance urged by Michaelis \vhich seems to me to be plausible is Heb. i. 7. These are the principal arguments which have been urged in favour of the opinion that this epistle was written in the Hebrew language. They are evidently not conclusive. The only argu ment of any considerable weight is the testimony of some of the Fathers, and it may be doubted whether they gave this as a matter of historic fact, or only as a matter of opinion. See Hug's Introduction, § 144, It is morally certain that in one respect their statement cannot be true. They state that it was translated by Luke; but it is capable of the clearest proof that it was not translated by Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, since there is the most remark - ible dissimilarity in the style.

On the other hand, there are alleged in favour of the opinion that it was written in Greek, the following considerations, viz.: —

(1.) The fact that we have no Hebrew original. If it was written in Hebrew, the original was early lost. None of the Fathers say thai they had seen it; none quote it. All the copies that we have are in Greek. If it was written in Hebrew, and the original was destroyedi it must have been at a very early period, and it is remarkable that no one should have mentioned the fact or alluded to it. Besides, it is scarcely conceivable that the original should have so soon perished, and that the translation should have altogether taken its place. If it was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, the same reason which made it proper that it should have been ivritten in Hebrew, would have led them to retain it in that language, and we might have supposed that Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome, who lived there, or Ephrem the Syrian, would have adverted to the fact that there was there a Hebrew original. The Jews were remarkable for retaining their sacred books jn the language in which they were written, and if this were written in Hebrew it is difficult to account for the fact that it was so soon suffered to perish.

(2.) The presumption — a presumption amounting to almost a moral certainty — is, that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. This presumption is based on the following circumstances: («) The fact that all the other books of the New Tes tament were written in Greek, unless the gospel by Matthew be an ex ception, (b) This occurred in cases where it would seem to have been as improbable as it was that one writing to the Hebrews should use that language. For instance, Paul wrote to the church in Rome in the Greek language, though the Latin language was that which was in universal use there, (c) The Greek was a common language in the East. It seems to have been familiarly spoken, and to have been commonly understood, (d) Like the other books of the New Testament, this epistle does not appear to have been intended to be confined to the Hebrews only. The writings of the apostles were regarded as the property of the church at large. Those writings would be copied and spread abroad. The Greek was a far better language for such a purpose than the Hebrew. It was polished and elegant; was adapted to the purpose of discoursing on moral subjects; was fitted to express delicate shades of thought; and was the language which was best understood by the world at large, (e) It was the language which Paul would naturally use, unless there was a strong reason for his employing the Hebrew. Though he was able to speak in Hebrew (Acts xxi. 40), yet he had spent his early days in Tarsus, where the Greek was the vernacular tongue, and it was probably that which he had first learned. Besides this, when this epistle ivas written he had been absent from Palestine about twenty-five years, and in ail that time he had been there but a few days. He had been where the Greek language was universally spoken. He had been among Jews, who spoke that language. It was the language used in their syna gogues, and Paul had addressed them in it. After thus preaching, conversing, and writing in that language for twenty-five years, is it any wonder that he should prefer writing in it; that he should natu rally do it; and is it not to be presumed that he would do it in this case? These presumptions are so strong that they ought to be allowed to settle a question of this kind, unless there is positive proof to the contrary.

(3.) There is internal proof that it was written in the Greek lan guage. The evidence of this kind consists in the fact that the writer bases an argument on the meaning and force of Greek words, which could not have occurred had he written in Hebrew. Instances of thiskind are such as these. («) In ch. ii. he applies a passage from Ps. viii. to prove that the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation. The passage is, " Thou hast made him a little while inferior to the angels." Ch. ii. 7, margin. In the Hebrew, in Ps. viii. 5, the word rendered angels, is DTj^W. — Elohim — God; and the sense of angels attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the Hebrew. (b) In ch. vii. 1, the writer has explained the name Melchizcdek, and translated it king of Salem — telling what it is in Greek — a thing which would not have been done had he written in Hebrew, where the word was well understood. It is possible, indeed, that a translator might have done this, but the explanation seems to have been inter woven with the discourse itself, and to constitute a part of the argu ment, (c) Inch. ix. 16, 17, there is an argument on the meaning of the word covenant — SiatirjKT] — which could not have occurred had the epistle been in Hebrew. It is founded on the double meaning of that word — denoting both a covenant and a testament, or will. The He brew word — f^?? — Berith — has no such double signification. Itmeans covenant only, and is never used in the sense of the word will or testament. The proper translation of that word would be

— syntheke — but the translators of the Septuagiiit uniformly use the former — dia6f]<r} — diatheke — and on this word the argument ©f the apostle is based. This could not have been done by a translator; it must have been by the original author, for it is incorpo rated into the firgumeiit. (</) In ch.;x> 3 — 9, the author shows that Christ came to make an atonement for sin, and that in order to this it was necessary that he should have a human body. This he shows was not only necessary, but was predicted. In doing this, he appeals to Ps, xl. 6 — ll A body hast thou prepared for me." But the Hebrew here is, " Mine ears hast thou opened."^ This passage would have been much less pertinent than the other form — " a body hast thou prepared me;" — and indeed it is not easy to see how it would bear at all on the object in view. See v. 10. But in the Septuagint the phrase stands as he quotes it — " a body liast thou prepared for me;" a fact which demonstrates, whatever difficulties there may be about the principle on which he makes the quotation, that the epistle was written in Greek. It may be added, that it has nothing of the appearance of a translation. It is not stiff, forced, or constrained in style, as translations usually are. It is impassioned, free, flowing, full of animation, life, and colouring, and has all the appearance of being an original composition. So clear have these considerations appeared, that the great body of critics now concur in the opinion that the epistle was originally written in Greek.

§ 6. The design and general argument of the Epistle. The general purpose of this epistle is, to preserve those to whom it was sent from the danger of apostacy. Their danger on this subject did not arise so much from persecution, as from the circumstances that were fitted to attract them again to the Jewish religion. The temple, it is supposed, and indeed it is evident, was still standing. The morning' and evening sacrifice was still offered. The splendid rites of that imposing religion were still observed. The authority of the law was undisputed. Moses was a lawgiver sent from God, and no one doubted that the Jewish form of religion had been instituted by their fathers in conformity with the direction of God. Iheir re ligion had been founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the Deity — in flames, and smoke, and thunder; it had been cominuni- cated by the ministration of angels; it had on its side and in its favour all the venerableness and sanction of a remote antiquity; and it com mended itself by the pomp of its ritual, and by the.splendour of its ceremonies. On the other hand, the new form of religion had little or nothing- of this to commend it. It was of recent origin. It was founded by the Man of Nazareth, who had been trained up iu their own land, and who had been a carpenter, and who had had no extra ordinary advantages of education. Its rites were few and simple. It had no splendid temple service; none of the pomp and pageantry, the music and the magnificence of the ancient religion. It had no splendid array of priests in magnificent vestments, and it had not been imparted by the ministry of angels. Fishermen were its minis ters; and by the body of the nation it was regarded as a schism, or heresy, that enlisted in its favour only the most humble and lowly of the people.

In these circumstances, how natural was- it for the enemies of the gospel in Judea to contrast the two forms of religion, arid how keenly would Christians there feel it! All that was said of the antiquity and the divine origin of the Jewish religion they knew and admitted; all that was said of its splendour and magnificence they saw; and all that was said of the humble origin of their own religion they were constrained to admit also. Their danger was not that arising from persecution. It was that of being affected by considerations like these, and of relapsing again into the religion of their fathers, and of apostatising from the gospel; and it was a danger which beset no other part of the Christian world.

To meet and counteract this danger was the d* sign of this epistle. Accordingly the writer contrasts the two religioi 9 in all the great points on which the minds of Christians in Judea would be likely to be affected, and shows the superiority of the Christian religion over the Jewish in every respect, and especially in the points that had so much attracted their attention, and affected their hearts. He begins by showing that the Author of the Christian religion was superior m rank to any and all who had ever delivered the word of God to man. He was superior to the prophets, and even to the angels. He was over all things, and all things were subject to him. There was, there fore, a special reason why they should listen to him, and obey his commands. Ch. I., ii. He was superior to Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, whom they venerated so-much, and on whom they so much prided themselves. Ch. iii. ^ Having shown that the Great Founder of the Christian religion was superior to the prophets, to Moses, and to the angels, the writer proceeds to show that the Christian religion was characterised by having ' High Priest superior to that of the Jews, and of whom the Jewish high priest was but a type and emblem. He shows that all the rites of the ancient religion, splendid as they were, were also but types, and were to vanish away — for they had had their fulfilment in the realities of the Christian faith. He shows that the Christian's High Priest derived his origin and his rank from a more venerable antiquity than the Jewish high priest did — for he went back to Melchizedek, who lived long before Aaron, and that he had far superior dignity from the fact that he had entered in the Holy of Holies in heaven. The Jewish high priest entered once a year into the Most Holy place in the temple; the Great High Priest of the Christian faith had entered into the Most Holy place — of which that was but the type and emblem — into heaven. In short, whatever there was of dignity and honour in the Jewish faith had more than its counterpart in the Christian religion; and while the Christian religion was permanent, that was fading. The rites of the Jewish system, magnificent as they were, were designed to be temporary. They were mere types and shadows of things to come. They had their fulfilment in Christianity. That had an Author more exalted in rank by far than the author of the Jewish system; it had a High Priest more elevated and enduring; it had rites which brought men nearer to God; it was the substance of what in the temple service was type and shadow. By considerations such as these the author of this epistle •endeavours to preserve them from apostacy. Why should they go back? Why should they return to a less perfect system? Why go back from the substance to the shadow? Why turn away from the true sacrifice to the type and emblem? Why linger around the earthly tabernacle, and contemplate the high priest there, while they had a more perfect and glorious High Priest, who had entered into the heavens? And why should they turn away from the only perfect sacrifice— -the great offering made for transgression — and go back to, the bloody rites which were there renewed every day? And why forsake the perfect system — the system that was to endure for ever— for that which was soon to vanish away? The author of this epistle is very careful to assure them that if they thus apostatised, there could be no hope for them. If they now rejected the sacrifice of the Son of God, there was no other sacrifice for sin. That was the last great sacrifice for the sins of men. It was designed to close all bloody offerings. It was not to be repeated. If that was rejected, there was no other. The Jewish rites were soon to pass away; and even if they were not, they could not cleanse the conscience from sin. Per secuted then though they might be; reviled, ridiculed, opposed, yet they should not abandon their Christian hope, for it was their all; they should not neglect him who spake to them from heaven, for in. dignity, rank, and authority, he far surpassed all who in former times had made known the will of God to men.

This epistle, therefore, occupies a most important place in the book of revelation, and without it that book would be incomplete. It is the most full explanation which we have of the meaning of the Jewish institutions. In the epistle to the Romans we have a system of reli gious doctrine, and particularly a defence of the great doctrine of justification by faith. Important doctrines are discussed in the other epistles; but there was something wanted that would show the mean ing of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and their connexion with the Christian scheme; something which would show us how the one was preparatory to the other; and I may add, something that would re strain the imagination in endeavouring to show how the one was de signed to introduce the other. The one was a system of types and doivs. But on nothing is the human mind more prone to wander than on the subject of emblems and analogies. This has been shown abundantly in the experience of the Christian church, from the time of Origen to the present. Systems of divinity, commentaries, and sermons, have shown everywhere how prone men of ardent imagina tions have been to find types in every thing pertaining to the ancient economy; to discover hidden meanings in every ceremony; and to regard every pin and hook and instrument of the tabernacle as de signed to inculcate some truth, and to shadow forth some fact or doctrine of the Christian revelation. It was desirable to have one book that should tell how that is; to fetter down the imasrinatioE and bind it oy severe rules, and to restrain the vagaries- of honest but credulous devotion. Such a book we have in the Epistle to the He brews. The ancient system is there explained by one who had been brought up in the midst of it, and who understood it thoroughly; by one who had a clear insight into the relation which it bore to the Christian economy; by one who was under the influence of divine inspiration, and who could not err. The Bible would have been in complete without this book: and when I think of the relation be tween the Jewish and the Christian systems; when I look on the splendid rites of the ancient economy, and ask their meaning; when I wish a full guide to heaven, and ask for that which gives complete ness to the whole, I turn instinctively to the Epistle to the Hebrews. When I wish also that which shall give me the most elevated view of the Great Author of Christianity and of his work, and the most clear conceptions of the sacrifice which he made for sin; and when I look for considerations that shall be most effectual in restraining the soul from apostacy, and for considerations to enable it to bear trials with patience and with hope, my mind recurs to this book, and I feel that the book of revelation, and the hopes of man, would be incomplete without it.

The main object of the epistle is to commend the Christian religion to those who were addressed in it in such a way as to prevent defection from it. This is done, principally, by showing its superiority to the Mosaic system. The great danger of Chris tians in Palestine was of relapsing into the Jewish system. The imposing nature of its rites; the public senti ment in its favour; the fact of its antiquity, and its undisputed divine origin, would all tend to that. To counteract this, the writer of this epistle shows that the gospel had higher claims on their attention, and that if that was rejected ruin was in evitable. In doing this, he begins in this chapter, by showing the superi ority of the Author of Christianity to prophets, and to the angels; that is, that he had a rank that entitled him to the profoundest regard. The drift of this chapter therefore, is to show the dignity and exalted nature of the Author of the Christian system— the 6011 of God. The chapter comprises the following points: —

I. The announcement of the fact that God, who had formerly spoken by the prophets, had in this last dis pensation spoken by his Son. Vs. 1, 2.

II. The statement respecting his rank and dignity. He was (1) the heir of all things; (2) the creator of the worlds; (3) the brightness of the divine glory, and the proper expres sion of 'his nature; (4) he upheld all things. Vs. 2, 3.

III. The work and exaltation of the Author of the Christian system, (l)

He, by his own unassisted agency, purified us from our sins. (2) He is seated at the right hand of God. (3) He has a more exalted and valuable inheritance than the angels in propor tion as his name is more exalted than theirs. Vs. 3, 4.

IV. Proofs that what is here as cribed to him belongs to him, particu larly that he is declared to be superior to the angels. Vs. 5 — 14.

(1.) The angels have never been ad dressed with the title of Son. Ver. 5. (2.) He is declared to be the object of worship by the angels, while they are employed merely as the messen gers of God. Vs. 6, 7.

(3.) He is addressed as God, and his throne is said to be for ever and ever. Vs. 8, 9.

("4.) He is addressed as immutable. He is declared to have laid the foun dations of heaven and earth; and though they would perish, yet he would remain the same. Vs. 10 — 12. (5.) None of the angels had been addressed in this manner, but they were employed in the subordinate work of ministering to the heirs of salvation. Vs. 13, 14.

From this train of reasoning, the inference is drawn in ch. ii. 1 — 4, that we ought to give diligent heed to what had been spoken. The Great Author of the Christian scheme had peculiar claims to be heard, and there was peculiar danger in disregarding his message. The object of this chapter is, to impress those to whom the epis tle was addressed with the high claims of the Founder of Christianity, and to show that it was superior in this respect to any other system.

spake in time past unto the fa thers by the prophets,

1. God who at sundry times. The commencement of this epistle varies from all the others which Paul wrote. In every other instance lie at first an nounces his name, and the name of the church or of the individual to whom he wrote. In regard to the reason why he here varies from that custom, see the introduction, § 3. This com mences with the full acknowledgement of his belief that God had made impor tant revelations in past times, but that now he had communicated his will in a manner that more especially claimed their attention. This announcement was of particular importance here. He was Avriting to those who had been trained up in the full belief of the truths taught by the prophets. As tlie object of the apostle was to show the superior claims of the gospel, and to lead them from putting confidence in the rites instituted in accordance with the directions of the Old Testa ment, it was of essential importance that he should admit that their belief of the inspiration of the prophets was well founded. He was not an infidel. He was not disposed to call in ques tion the divine origin of the books which were regarded as given by in spiration. He fully admitted all that had been held by the Hebrews on that head, and yet showed that the new revelation had more important claims to their attention. The word ren dered " at sundry times" — iro\vp.fpa>s — means in many parts. It refers here to the fact that the former revelation had been given in various parts. It had not all been given at once. It had been communicated from time to time as the exigencies of the people required and as God chose to com municate it. At one timo it was by history, then by prophecy, by poetry, by proverbs, by some solemn and spe cial message, &c. The ancient revela tion was a collection of various writings on different subjects, and given at different times; but now God had addressed us by his Son — the one great Messenger who had come to finish the divine communications, and to give a uniform and connected revelation to mankind. The contrast here is be tween the numerous separate parts of the revelation given by the prophets, and the oneness of that given by his Son. The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. ^| And in di vers manners — TroAvrpoVrcos1. In many ways. It was not all in one mode. He had employed various methods in communicating his will. At onetime it was by direct communication, at another by dreams, at another by visions. &c« In regard to the various methods which God employed to com municate his will, see Introduction to Isaiah, § 7. In contradistinction from these, God had now spoken by his Son. He had addressed us in one uniform manner. It was not by dreams, or visions; it was a direct communica tion from him. The word used here, also, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. ^[ In times past. For merly; in ancient times the series of revelations began, as recorded by Moses, with Adam (Gen. iii), and terminated with Malachi — a period of more than three thousand five hundred years. From Malachi to the time of the Saviour there were no recorded divine communications, and the whole period of written revelation, or when the divine communications were re corded from Moses to Malachi, was about a thousand years. ^[ Unto the fathers. To our ancestors; to the peo ple of ancient times. ^[ By the pro phets. The word prophet in the Scrip tures is used in a wide signification. It means not only those who predict future events, but those who commu nicate the divine will on any subject. See Notes on Rom. xii. 6; I. Cor. xiv. 1. It is used here in that large sense — as denoting all those by whom God had made communications to the Jews in former times.

2 Hath in these last days j spokeua unto us by his Son,

2 Hath in these last days. In this the final dispensation; or in this dis pensation under which the affairs of the world will.be woundup. Phrases similar to this occur frequently in the Scriptures. They do not imply that the world was soon coming to an end, but that that was the last dispensa tion, the last period of the world. There had been the patriarchal pe riod, the period under the law, the prophets, &c., and this was the period during which God's last method of communication Avould be enjoyed, and under which the world would close. It might be a very long period, but it would be the last one; and so far as the meaning of the phrase is concerned, it might be the longest period, or longer than all the others put together, but still it would be the last one. See Notes on Acts ii. 17; Isa. ii. 2. ^[ Spoken unto us. The word "MS" here does not of necessity imply that the writer of the epistle had actually heard him, or that they had heard him to whom the epistle was written. It means that God had now commu nicated his will to man by his Son. It may be said with entire propriety that God has spoken to MS by his Son, though ice have not personally heard or seen him. We have what he spoke and caused to be recorded for our direction. ^ By his Son. The title commonly given to the Lord Jesus, as. denoting his peculiar relation to God. It was understood by the Jews to denote equality witli God (Notes, John v. 1 8; comp. John x. 33. 36), and is used with such a reference here. See Notes on Rom. i. 4, where the meaning of the phrase " Son of God" is fully considered. It is implied here that the fact that the son of God has spoken to us imposes the highest obli gations to attend to what he has said; that he has an authority superior to all those who have spoken in past times; and that there will be peculiar guilt in refusing to attend to what he has spoken. See ch. ii. 1—4; comp.

ch. xii. 25. The reasons for the supe rior respect Avhich should be shown to the revelations of the Son of God may be such as these: — (1.) His rank and dignity. He is the equal with God (John i. 1), and is himself called God in this chapter. Ver. 8. He has a right, therefore, to command, and when he speaks men should obey. (2.) The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man on a great variety of subjects that are of the highest moment to the world. Reve lation has been gradual — like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there is a little light; it increases and expands till objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the existence of some object — obscure and undefined; then we can trace its outline; then its colour, its size, its proportions, its drapery — till it stands before us fully revealed. So it has been witli revela tion. There is a great variety of subjects which we now see clearly* which were very imperfectly under stood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following: — (a) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful being, and to show how he could be merciful as well as just. The views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; com pared with those entertained by tbi ancient philosophers, they are like th sun compared with the darkest mid night. (l>) The way in which man may be reconciled to God. The New Testament — which may be consi dered as that which God " has spokeu to us by his Son"— has told us ho\» the great work of being reconciled t< God can be effected. The Lord Jesui told us that he came to " give hif life a ransom for many;" that he laid down his life for his frL-nds; that he was about to die for man; whom he hath appointed heira that he would draw all men to him. The prophets indeed — particularly Isaiah — threw much light on these points. But the mass of the people did not understand their revelations. They pertained to future events — always difficult to be understood. But Christ has told us the way of sal vation, and he has made it so plain that he who runs may read, (c) The moral precepts of the Redeemer are superior to those of any and all that had gone before him. They are ele vated, pure, expansive, benevolent — such as became the Son of God to proclaim. Indeed this is admitted on all hands. Infidels are constrained to acknowledge that all the moral precepts of the Saviour are eminently pure and benignant. If they were obeyed, the world would be filled with justice, truth, purity, and bene volence. Error, fraud, hypocrisy, ambition, wars, licentiousness, and intemperance, would cease; and the opposite virtues would diffuse happi ness over the face of the world. Pro phets had, indeed, delivered many moral precepts of great importance, but the purest and most extensive body of just principles of good morals on earth are to be found in the teach ings of the Saviour. (J) He has given to us the clearest view which man has had of the future state; and he has disclosed in regard to that future state a class of truths of the deepest interest to mankind, which were before wholly unknown or only partially revealed. 1. He has re vealed the certainty of a state of Suture existence — in opposition to the Sadducees of all ages. This was denied before he came by multitudes, and where it was not, the arguments."by which it was supported were often of the feeblest kind. The truth was held by some — like Plato and his fol lowers — but the arguments on which they relied were feeble, and such as •were unfitted to give rest to the soul. The truth they had obtained by TRA- of all things, by \vhomb also he made the worlds;

DITION; the arguments were THEIR OWN. — 2. He revealed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This before was doubted or denied by nearly all the world. It was held to be absurd and impossible. The Sa viour taught its certainty; he raised up more than one to show that it was possible; he was himself raised, to put the whole matter beyond debate. 3. He revealed the certainty of future judgment — the judgment of all man kind. 4. He disclosed great and momentous truths respecting the future state. Before he came, all was dark. The Greeks spoke of Elysian fields, but they were dreams of the imagination; the Hebrews had some faint notion of a future state where all was dark and gloomy, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the truth that there is a holy and blessed hear en;.but to the mass of mind all was obscure. Christ revealed a hea ven, and told us of a hell. He showed us that the one might be gained and the other avoided. He presented im portant motives for doing it; and had he done nothing more, his com munications were worthy the pro found attention of mankind. I may add, (3.) That the Son of God has claims on our attention from the MANNER in which he spoke. He spoke as one having "authority." Matt. vii. 29. He spoke as a witness of what he saw and knew. Johniii. 11. He spoke without doubt or ambiguity of God, and heaven, and hell. His is the language of one who is fami liar with all that he describes; who saw all, who kneAv all. There is no hesitancy or doubt in his mind of the truth of what he speaks; and he speaks as if his whole soul were im pressed with its unspeakable impor tance. Never were so momentous communications made to men of hell as fell from the lips of the Lord Je sus (see Notes on Matt, xxiii. 33); never were announcements made so fitted to awe and appal a sinful world.

^ Whom he hath appointed heir of all mays. See Ps. ii. 8; comp. Notes Rom. viii. 17. This is language taken from the fact that he is " the SON of God." If a son, then he is an heir — for so it is usually among men. This is not to be taken literally, as if he inherits any thing as a man does. An heir is one who inherits any thing after the death of its pos sessor — usually his father. But this cannot be applied in this sense to the Lord Jesus. The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such all things are his, as the property of a father de scends to his son at his death. The word rendered heir — ^povofjios — means property (1) one who acquires any thing by lot; and (2) an heir in the sense in which we visually under stand the word. It may also denote a possessor of any thing received as a portion, or of property of any kind. See Kom. iv. 13, 14. It is in every instance rendered heir in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it means that as the Son of God he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his. Comp. Acts ii. 36; x. 36; John xvii. 10; xvi. 15. " All things that the Father hath are mine." The sense is, that all things belong to the Son of God. Who is so rich then as Christ? Who so able to endow his friends with enduring and abundant wealth? ^ By whom? By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation? Grotius supposes that this means, "on account of Avhom;" and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed wjth reference to the Messiah, hi accordance with an ancient JeAvish raaxim. But the more common and classical usage of the word rendered by (5ta)> when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which any thing is done. See Matt. i. 22; ii. 5. 15. 23; Luke xviii. 31; John i. 17; Acts ii. 22. 43; iv. 16; xii. 9; Rom. ii. 16, v. 5. It may be true that the uni verse was formed with reference to the glory of the Son of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this. Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation — a truth that is elsewhere abundantly taught. See John i. 3. lp; Col. 1. 16; Eph. iii. 9; I. Cor. viii. 6. This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the apostle in this place. His object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the creator of all things, than that all things were made for him. ^f The worlds. The universe, or creation. So the wordhere— ato)!/— is undoubtedly used in ch. xi. 3. The word properly means age — an indefinitely long pe riod of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity — always being. For an ex tended investigation of the meaning of the word, the reader may consult an essay by I3rof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Filgrims, for 1829. pp. 406 — 455. From the sense of age, or du ration, the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world and the world to come; the present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the men of this world — a wicked generation, &c. Then it means the world — the mate rial universe — creation as it is. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in Heb. xi. 3, and there there can be no doubt. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."* The pas sage before us will bear the same in terpretation, and this is the most ob vious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the ages or dispensations were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word— Q^TO— lOlam— in the same sense. It properly means age, duration; and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world — made up of ages or generations; and then the world itself. This is the brio-lit- ness of his glory, and the ex press image of his person, and fair, and, as it seems to me, the only intelligible interpretation of this pas sage — an interpretation amply sus tained by texts referred to above as demonstrating that the universe was made by the agency of the Son of God. Comp. Notes on ver. 10, and on John i. 3.

3. Who being the brightness of his glory. This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly im portant with reference to a correct vie\v of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great im portance, and should be clearly un derstood in order to a correct appre hension of the passage. First, in what manner does it refer to the Re deemer? To his divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he ap peared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it refer red to his divine dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate Son of God. It refers to him as Me diator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine — thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity a* he has spoken to us (ver. 1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reve rence as sent from God — the last and greatest of the messengers which God has sent to man. But then it is a description of him as he actually is — the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh; and this leads the writer to dwell on his divine character, and to argue from that. Vs. 8. 10 — 12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his divine nature, but it is the di vine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. The word#/o/v/ — <$o£a— means properly a seeming, an appearance; and then (1) praise, applause, honour; (2) dig nity, splendour, glory; (3) brightness, dazzling light; and (4) excellence, perfection, such as belongs to God, and such as there is in heaven. It is probably used here, as the word— TO 2— Kabhddh— is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendour, bright ness, and refers to the divine perfec tions as resembling a bright light, or the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, I. Cor. xv. 40, 41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Acts. xxii. 11; to the shining of Moses' face, II. Cor. iii. 7; to the celestial light which surrounds the angels, Rev. xviii. 1; and glori fied saints, Luke ix. 31, 32; and to the dazzling splendour or majesty in which God is enthroned. II. Thess. i. 9; II. Pet. i. 17; Rev. xv. 3; xxi. 11. 23. Here there is a comparison of God with the sun; he is encom passed with splendour and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to all in God that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the brightness of it all. The word ren dered brightness— aTrauyao-^o — occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly reflected splendour, or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its "brightness," or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. - The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, as he is upholding all thh^g-s by the •word of his powei whena he had by himself purged our sins, sat down1' on the right hand the Majesty on high.

in the Scriptures (see Ps. lxxxiv.1 1; Mai. iv. 2), then Christ Is the ra diance of that light, the brightness of that luminary. — Stuart, lie is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections. Comp. John i. IS; xiv. 9. — It is by him only that the true character and glory of God is known to men. This is true in regard to the great system of revela tion; but it is especially true in re gard to the views which men have of God. Matt. xi. 27. "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The human soul is dark respecting the divine character until it is enlight ened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature — nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the af fections, until it is disclosed by the Eedeemer. Somehow it happens, ac count for it as men may, that there are no elevating practical views of God in the world; no views that en gage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. A man becomes a Christian, and at once he lias elevated, practical views of God. He is to him the most glorious of all beings. He finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the be lief excites no practical influence on him; he sees nothing to admire; nothing which leads him to worship him. Comp. Ivom. i. 21. ^[ And the express image. The word here used — likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word character is derived. It properly means a graving -tool; and theu something i engraved, or stamped — a character — I as a letter, mark, sign. The image stamped on coins, seals, wax, expresses the idea; and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that— as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is im pressed is exact; and so is the re semblance between the Redeemer and God. See Col. i. 1 5. " Who is the image of the invisible God." ^T Of his person. The word person with us denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consist ing of body and soul. We do not apply it to any thing dead— not using it with reference to the body when the spirit is gone. It is applied to man — with individual and separate consciousness and will; with body and soul; with an existence sepa rate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word; does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tindal renders it, more accurately, substance. The word in the original — woo-rams — whence our word hi/postasis, means, literally, a foundation, or substructure. Then it means a well-founded trust, firm expectation, confidence, firm ness, boldness; and then reality, sub stance, essential nature. In the New Testament, it is rendered confident, or confidence (II. Cor. ix. 4; xi. 17; Heb. iii. 14;; substance (Heb. xi. 1); and person in the passage before us. It is not elsewhere used. Here it proporly refers to the essential nature of God— that which distinguishes him from all other beings, and which, if I may so say, constitutes him God; and the idea is, that the Eedeemer is the exact resemblance of that. This resemblance consists, probably, in the following thinjs — though perhaps the enumeration does not include all — but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image. (1.) In his original mode of being, or be fore the incarnation. Of this we know little. But he had a "glory with the Fatlwr before the world was." John x v li. 5. He was " in the beginning -tfith God, and was God." John L L He was in inti mate union witi\ the Father, and was one with him, in certain respects; though in certam other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of " eternal generation," and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. The nattiral and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was in any sense a derived being— deriving his exist ence and his divinity from the Fa ther. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God as to his divine, as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as " begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made" — language implying derivation in his divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God; but it was in this manner. See Stuart, Excursus III. on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible, and impossible. A derived being cannot in any proper sense be God; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with peculiar clearness, it is that of proper eternity. liev. i. 11, 18; John i. 1. It may have been that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known before the incarnation to the angelic world, but on that point the Scrip tures are silent. (2.) On earth he was the brightness oi the' divine glory, and the express image of his person, (a.) It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to men— as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known, (b.) He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man. He was the embodied representation ot the Deity. He was pure — like God. He was benevolent — like God. He spake to the winds and storms— like God. He healed diseases — like God He raised the dead— like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a cha racter in all respects like that which we should suppose God would evince if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among men. And this is say ing much. It is in fact saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how he would speak and act if he came down to earth. Thus the Hindoos speak of the incarna tions of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how differ ent from the character of the Lord Jesus! They are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in bat tles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely men of great power and more gigantic pas sions; but Christ is GOD IN HUMAN NATURE. The form is that of man; the spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man — but the an gels adored him as God. As a man he ate, yet by a word he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like a man he slept on a pillow while the vessel was tossed by the waves; like God he rose, and rebuked the winds and they were still. As a man lie went with affectionate interest, to the House of Martha and Mary. Asa man he sympathised with them in their affliction, and wept at the grave of their brother; like God he spoke, and the dead came forth to the land of the living. As a man he travelled through the land of Judca. He was without a home. Yet every where the sick were laid at his feet, and health came from his touch, and strength from the words of his lips — as if he were God. As a man he prayed In the garden of Gethsemane; lie bore his cross to Cavalry; he was nailed to the tree: yet then the hea vens grew dark, and the earth shook, and the dead arose — as if he were God. As a man he slept in the cold tomb — like God he rose, and brought life and immortality to light. He lived on earth as a man — he ascended to heaven like God. And in all the life of the Redeemer, in all the variety of trying situations in which he was placed, there was not a word or ac tion which was inconsistent with the supposition that he was the incarnate God. There was no failure of any effort to heal the sick or to raise the dead; no look, no word, no deed that is not perfectly consistent with this supposition; but on the contrary, his life is full of events which can be ex plained on no other supposition than that he was the appropriate shining forth of the divine glory, and the exact resemblance of the essence of God. There are not two Gods — as theie are not two suns when the sun shines. It is the one God, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner shining into the world in the face of Jesus Christ. See Note on II. Cor. iv. 6. As the wax bears the perfect image of the seal — perfect not only in the outline, but in the filling up — in all the lines, and features, and letters, so it is with the Redeemer. There is not one of the divine per fections which has not the counter part in him, and if the glory of the

| divine character is seen at all by men, j it will be seen in and through him. ^[ And upholding all things by the word of his poicer. That is, by his powerful word, or command. The phrase ' word of his power' is a He braism, and means his efficient com mand. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things — i. e. the uni verse. It is not merely the earth; not only its rocks, mountains, seas, animals, and men, but it is the uni verse — all distant worlds. How can he do this who is not God? He does it by his word — his command. What a conception! That a simple com mand should do all this! So the world was made when God "spake and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast." Ps. xxxiii. 9. So the Lord Jesus commanded the waves and the winds and they were still (Mat. viii. 26, 27); so he spoke to diseases and they departed, and to the dead and they arose. Comp. Gen. i. 3. I know not how men can explain away this ascription of infi nite power to the Redeemer. There can be no higher idea of omnipotence than to say that he upholds all things by his word; and assuredly he who can hold up this vast universe so that it does not sink into anarchy or into nothing, must be God. The same power Jesus claimed for himself. See Matt, xxviii. 18. ^[ When he had by himself purged our sins. ' By him self— not by the blood of bulls and j lainbs, but by his own blood. This is designed to bring in the grand feature of the Christian scheme, that the purification made for sin was by his blood, instead of the blood which j was shed in the temple-service. The word here rendered " purged" means purified or expiated. See notes on John xv. 2. The literal rendering is, 'having made purification for our sins.' The purification or cleansing which he effected Avas by his blood. See I John i. 7. " The- blood of Je sus Christ cleanseth from all sin." This the apostle here states to have

4 Being made so much bet ter than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

been the great object for which he came, and having done this, he sat down on the right hand of God. See oil. vii. 27; ix. 12 — 14. It was not merely to teach that lie came; it was io purifv the hearts of men, to re move their sins, and to put an end of sacrifice by the sacrifice of him self. ^[ Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Of God. See Notes on 'Mark xvi. 19; Eph. i. 20—23.

4. Being made so much letter. Being exalted so much above the angels. The word "better" here does not refer to moral character, but to exaltation of rank. As Mediator; as the Son of God in our nature, he AS exalted far above the angels. ^ Than the angels. Than all angels of every rank. See notes on Eph. i. 21; comp. I Pet. iii. 22. "Angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." He is ex alted to his mediatorial throne, and All things are placed beneath his feet. «J As lie hatJt by inheritance. Or in virtue of his name — the Son of God;.&n exaltation such as is implied in that name. As a son has a rank in » family above servants; as he has a control over the property above that which servants have, so it is with the Mediator. lie is the Son of God; angels are the servants of iGod, and the servants of the church. They occupy a place in the universe compared with that which he occu pies, similar to the place which ser vants in a family occupy compared with that which a son has. To illus trate and prove this is the design of the remainder of this chapter. The argument which tbe apostle insists *m is, that the title " THE Son of God" is to be given to him alone. It has been conferred on no others. Though the angels, and though saints are called in general 'son* of God,' yet

5 For unto which of the an gels said he at any time, aThou art my Son, this day have I be-

the title ' THE Son of God' has been given to him only. As the apostle was writing to Hebrews, he makes his appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures alone for the confirmation of tins opi nion. ^[ A more excellent name. To wit the name Son. It is a more ho nourable and exalted name than has ever been bestowed on them. It in volves more exalted privileges, and entitles him on whom it is bestowed to higher respect and honour than any name ever bestoAved on them.

5. For unto which of ike angels, &c. Tbe object of this is, to prove that the Son of God, who has spoken to men in these last days, is superior to the angels. As the apostle was writing to those who had been trained in the Jewish religion, and who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, of course he made his appeal to that, and undoubtedly referred for proof to those places which were generally admitted to relate to the Messiah.:\barbanel says, that it was the comnon opinion of the Jewish doctors hat the Messiah -would be exalted ibove Abraham, Moses, and the an gels. — Stuftrt. There is a difficulty, as AVC shall see in applying the pas sages which follow to the Messiah — a difficulty which we may find it not easy to explain. Some remarks will be made on the particular passages as we go along. In general it may be observed here, (1.) That it is to be presumed that those passages were in tbe time of Paul applied to the Messiah. He seems to argue from them as though this was commonly understood, and is at no pains to prove it. (2.) It is to be presumed that those to -whom he wrote would at once admit this to be so. If thiswere not so, we cannot suppose that he would regard this mode of reason ing as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote.

(3.) He (lid not apprehend that the application Avhich he made of these texts would be called in question by •the countrymen of those to whom he wrote. It is to be presumed, there fore, that the application AVJ^S made in accordance with the received opi nions, and the common interpreta tion. (4.) Paul had been instructed in early life in the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and made fully ac quainted with all their principles of interpretation. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he made these quota tions in accordance with the preva lent belief, and with principles which were well understood and admitted. (5.) Every age and people have their own modes of reasoning. They may differ from others, and others may regard them as unsound, and yet to that age and people they are satis factory and conclusive. The ancient philosophers employed modes of rea soning which would not strike us as the most forcible, and which perhaps we should not regard as tenable. So it is with the Chinese, the Hindus, the Mahommedans now. So it was with the writers of the dark ages who lived under the influence of the scholastic philosophy. They argue from admitted principles in their country and time— just as we do in ours. Their reasoning was as satisfac tory to them as ours is to us. (G.) In a writer of any particular age we are to expect to find the prevailing mode of reasoning, and appeals to the usual arguments on any subject. AVe are not to look for methods of argument founded on the inductive philosophy in the writings of the schoolmen, or in the writings of the Chinese or the Hindus. It would be unreasonable to expect it. We are to expect that they will be found to reason in ac cordance with the customs of their time; to appeal to such arguments as were commonly alleged; and if they are reasoning with an adversary, to make use of the points which he will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son!

concedes, and to urge them as fitted to convince him. And this is not wrong. It may strike him with more force than it docs us; it may be that we can see that it is not the most solid mode of reasoning, but still it may not be in itself an improper method. That the Avriters of the New Testa ment should have used that mode of reasoning sometimes, is no more sur prising than that we find writers in China reasoning from acknowledged principles, and in the usual manner there, or than that men in our own land reason on the principles, of the inductive philosophy. These remarks may not explain all the difficulties in regard to the proof-texts adduced by Paul in this chapter, but they may remove some of them, and may so prepare the Avay that AVC may be able to dispose of them all as AVC advance. In the passage Avhich is quoted in this verse, there is not much diffi culty in regard to the propriety of its being thus used. The difficulty lies in the subsequent quotations in the chapter. ^[ Said he at any time. He never used language respecting the angels like that which he em ploys respecting his Son. He never applied to any one of them the name Son. ^[ Thou art my Son. The name ' sons of God,' is applied in the Scrip tures to saints, and may have been given to the angels. But the argu ment here is, that the name 'my Son' has never been given to any one of them particularly and by eminence. In a large, general sense, they arc the sons of God, or the children of God, but the name is given to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, in a pecu liar sense, implying a peculiar rela tion to him, and a peculiar dominion over all things. This passage is quoted from Psalm ii. — a Psalm that is usually believed to pertain particu larly to the Messiah, and one of the few Psalms that haAre undisputed re ference to him. See Notes on Acts iv. 25;xiii. 33. ^ This day. See Notes on Acts xiii. 33, where this passage is applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead; — proving that the Dhrase ' this day' does not refer to the doctrine of eternal generation, but to the resurrection of the Redeemer — " the FIRST-BEGOTTEN of the dead." Rev. i. 5. Thus Theodoret says of the phrase this day,' " it does not express his eternal generation, but that which is connected with time." The argument of the apostle here does not turn on the time when this was said, but on the fact that this was said to him and not to any one of the angels, and this argument will have equal force whether the phrase be understood as referring to the fact of his resurrection, or to his previous existence. The structure and scope of the second Psalm refers to his exaltation after the kings of the earth set themselves against him, and endeavoured to cast off his go vernment from them. In spite of that, and subsequent to that, he would set his king, which they had rejected, on his holy hill of Zion. See Ps. ii. 2 — 6. ^ Have I begotten thee. See this place explained in the Notes on Acts xiii. 33. It must, from the ne cessity of the case, be understood figuratively; and must mean, sub stantially, ' I have constituted, or ap pointed thec.' If it refers to his rerurrection, it means that that resur rection was a kind of begetting to life, or a beginning of life. See Rev. i. 5. And yet though Paul (Acts xiii. 33) has applied it to the resurrection of the Redeemer, and though the name ' Son of God ' is applied to him on account of his resurrection (see Notes on Rom. i. 4), yet I confess this does not seem to me to come up to ail that the writer here in tended. The phrase, 'THE Son of God,' I suppose, properly denotes that the Lord Jesus sustained a rela tion to God, designated by that name, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name ' the Son of man.' The one implied tbat he had a peculiar rela tion to God, as the other implied that he had a peculiar relation to man. This is indisputable. But on what particular account the name was given him, or how he was manifested to be the Son of God, has been the great question. Whether the name refers to the mode of his existence before the incarnation, and to his ' being begotten from eternity,' or to the incarnation and the resurrection, has long been a point on which men have been divided in opinion. The natural idea conveyed by the title ' THE Son of God' is, that he sustained a relation to God which implied more than was human or angelic; and this is certainly the drift of the argument of the apostle here. I do not see, however, that he refers to the doc trine of ' eternal generation,' or that he means to teach that. His point is, that God had declared and treated him as a Son — as superior to the an gels and to men, and that this was shown in what had been said of him in the Old Testament. This would be equally clear, whether there is reference to the doctrine of eternal generation or not. The sense is ' he is more than human. He is more than angelic. He has been addressed and treated as a Son — which none of the angels have. They are regarded simply as ministering spirits. They sustain subordinate stations, and are treated accordingly. He, on the con trary, is the brightness of the divine glory. He is treated and addressed as a Son. In his original existence this was so. In his incarnation this was so. When on earth this was soj and in his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God, he was treated in all respects as a Son — as superior to all servants, and to all ministering spirits.' The exact reference, then, of the phrase 'this day have I begotten thee,' in the Psalm, is to the act of constituting him in a public manner the Son of God — and refers to God's setting him as king on the " holy hill of Zion"— or making him king over the church and the world as Messiah; and this was done, eminently, as Paul shows