Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

other acknowledged writings of the same author. 5. The general suffrage of antiquity, or ecclesiastical tradition. 6. Reasons taken from sundry circumstances relating unto the Epistle itself. Now, as all these evidences are not of the same nature, nor of equal force, so some of them will be found very cogent, and all of them together very sufficient to free our assertion from just question or exception.

§ 3. First, The uncertainty of those who question whether Paul were the writer of this Epistle, and their want of probable grounds in assigning it unto any other, hath some inducement in it to leave it unto him whose of old it was esteemed to be. For when once men began to take to themselves a liberty of conjecture in this matter, they could neither make an end themselves, nor fix any bounds unto the imagination of others. Having once lost its true author, no other could be asserted with any such evidence, or indeed probability, but that instantly twenty more, with as good grounds and reasons, might be entitled unto it. Accordingly sundry persons have been named, all upon the same account that some thought good to name them; and why should not one man’s authority in this matter be as good as another's?

§ 4. Origen in Eusebiusi affirms, that some supposed Luke to have been the author of this Epistle. But neither doth he approve their opinion, nor mention what reasons they pretend for it. He adds also,* that some esteemed it to be written by Clemens of Rome. Clemens of Alexandria allows St. Paul to be the author of it; but supposeth it might be translated by Luke, because, as he saith, the style of it is not unlike that of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Grotius of late contends for Luke to be the author of it on the same account; but the instances which he gives, rather argue a coincidence of some words and phrases, than a similitude of style, which things are very different. Hierome™ also tells us, that juxta quosdam videtur esse Luce Evangeliste—‘ by some it was thought to be written by Luke the evangelist, which he took from Clemens, Origen, and Eusebius: only he mentions nothing of the similitude of style with that of St. Luke, but afterwards informs us, that in his judgment there is a great conformity in style, between this Epistle and that of Clemens Romanus. None of them acquaint us who were the authors or approvers of this conjecture, nor do they give any credit themselves unto it. Neither is there any reason of this opinion reported by them, but only that intimated by Clemens," of the agreement of the style with that of the Acts of the Apostles, which yet is not allowed by Hierome. Accordingly he doth not ascribe the writing, but only the translation of it unto Luke. Grotius alone contends for him to be the author of it, and that with this only argument, that sundry words are used in the same sense by St. Luke and the writer of this Epistle. But that this observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared.

This opinion, then, may be well rejected as a groundless guess of an obscure unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persuasion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St. Paul’s being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration that will cast this opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probability. By general consent, this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive, and presided in the church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem; and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been. What was his authority as an apostle, what his reputation in that church, is both known in general from the nature of his office, and in particular is intimated in the Scripture, Acts xv. 13; Gal. ii. 9. These were the Hebrews, whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended, and by their means that of their brethren in the eastern dispersion of them. Now, is it reasonable to imagine, that any one who was not an apostle, but only a scholar and follower of them, should be used to write unto that church, wherein so great an apostle, a pillar among them, had his especial residence, and did actually preside; and that in an argument of such huge importance, with reasons against a practice wherein they were all engaged, yea, that apostle himself, as appears, Gal. 11. 12. Were any one then alive, of more esteem and reputation in the church than others, certainly he was the fittest to be used in this employment; and saat ia all things of this nature agree unto St. Paul, we shall see afterwards.

§ 5. Some have assigned the writing of this Epistle unto Barnabas. Clemens, Origen, Eusebits, make no mention of him. Tertullian? was the author of this opinion; and it is reported as his by Hierome.? Philastrius’ also remembers the report of it. And it is of late defended by Camero," as the former concerning Luke by Grotius, whose reasons for his conjecture are confuted with some sharpness by Spanhemius,’ mindful as it seems of his father’s controversy with some of his scholars. The authority of Tertullian is the sole foundation of this opinion; but as the book wherein he mentions it was written in his paroxysm, when he uttered not that only unadvisedly, so he seems not to lay much weight on the Epistle itself, only preferring it unto the apocryphal Hermes: Receptior, saith he, apud Ecelesias Epistola Barnabee illo Apocrypho pastore Machorum. And we have showed that the Latin church was for a time somewhat unacquainted with this Epistle, so that it is no marvel if one of them should mistake its author. Grotiust would disprove this opinion from the dissimilitude of its style, and that which goes under the name of Barnabas, which is corrupt and barbarous. But there is little weight in that observation, that epistle being certainly spurious, no way favouring the wisdom or spirit of him, on whom it hath been vulgarly imposed. But yet that it was that Epistle which is cited by some of the ancients under the name of Barnabas, and not this unto the Hebrews, is well proved by Baronius" from the names that Hierome’ mentions out of that epistle, which are no where to be found in this to the Hebrews. But that epistle of Barnabas is an open fruit of that vanity which prevailed in many about the third and fourth ages of the church, of personating in their writings some apostolical persons, wherein they seldom or never kept any good decorum, as might easily be manifested in this particular instance. As to our present case, the reason before mentioned, 1s of the same validity against this, as the other opinion concerning Luke, whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added. Barnabas was not an apostle, properly and strictly so called, nor had apostolical mission or authority, but rather seems to have been one of the seventy disciples, as

Epiphanius” affirms. And Eusebius,* a person less credulous than he, acknowledging that a just and true catalogue of them could not be given, yet placeth Barnabas as the first of them concerning whom all agreed. Much weight, indeed, I shall not lay hereon, seeing it is evident that the catalogues given us by the ancients of those disciples, are nothing but a rude collection of such names as they found in the books of the New Testament, applied without reason or testimony; but apostle he was none.

Many circumstances also concur to the removal of this conjecture. The epistle was written in Italy, ch. xiii, 24, where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was. The fabulous author, [’confess, of the rhapsody called the Recognitions of Clemens, tells us that Barnabas went to Rome, taking along Clemens with him, and returning to Judea, found St. Peter at Cesarea. But St. Luke in the Acts gives us another account, both where Barnabas was, and how he was employed, at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things. For while St. Peter was at Cesarea, Acts x. 1, Barnabas was at Hierusalem, Acts ix. 27, being a little while after sent to Antioch by the apostles, ch. xi. 22. Again, Timothy was the companion of the writer of this Epistle, ch. xiii. 23, a person, as far as appears, unknown unto Barnabas, being taking into St. Paul’s society after their difference and separation, Acts xv. 39, ch. xvi. 1. He had also been in bonds or imprisonment, ch. x. 34, whereof we cannot at that time learn any thing concerning Barnabas, those of St. Paul being known unto all. And lastly, not long before the writing of this Epistle, Barnabas was so far from that light into, and apprehension of the nature, use and expiration of judaical rites herein expressed, that he was easily misled into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them, Gal. ii. 13. And although some ¥ (after Hierome’s fancy, that the difference between St. Peter and St. Paul was only in pretence) have laboured to free St. Peter and his companions on other grounds from any sinful failing, as it should seem ina direct opposition unto the testimony of St. Paul, affirming that κατεγνωσμενος nv in that particular he was to be blamed or condemned, ver. 11, not unlike him? who hath written a justification of Aaron in his making the golden calf; yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical institutions, is evident from the text. And shall we suppose that he, who but a little before, upon the coming of some few brethren of the church of Jerusalem from St. James, durst not avouch and abide by his own personal liberty, but deserted the use of it not without some blameable dissimulation, Gal. ii. 13, should now, with so much authority, write an epistle unto that church with St. James, and all the Hebrews in the world concurring with them in judgment and practice, about that very thing, wherein himself, out of respect unto them, had particularly miscarried? This certainly was rather the work of St. Paul, whose light and constancy in the doctrine delivered in this Epistle, with his engagements in the defence of it above all the rest of the apostles, is known from the story of the Acts and his own other writings.

§ 6. Apollos hath been thought by some ὃ to be the penman of this Kpistle; and that because it answers the character given of him. For it is said, that he was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, and one that mightily convinced the Jews out of the Scripture itself, Acts xviii. 24, 28, all which things appear throughout this whole discourse. But this conjecture hath no countenance from antiquity, no mention being made of any epistle written by Apollos, or any thing else, so that he is not reckoned by Hierome amongst the ecclesiastical writers, nor by those who interpolated that work with some fragments out of Sophronius. Nor is he reported by Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius, to have been by any esteemed the author of this Epistle. However, I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the observation mentioned, if the excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him; yea, had they not all of them been found in St. Paul, and that in a manner and degree more eminent than the other. But this being so, the ground of this conjecture is taken from under it.

§ 7. Origen, Eusebius, and Hierome, in the places forecited, mention a report concerning some who ascribed this Epistle unto Clemens Romanus. None of them give any countenance unto it, or intimate any grounds of that supposition; only Hierome affirms that there is some similitude between the style of this Epistle and that of Clemens, which occasioned the suspicion of his translating of it, whereof afterwards. Erasmus” hath since taken up that report, and seems to give credit unto it, but hath not contributed any thing of reason or testimony unto its confirmation. This Clemens was a worthy holy man, no doubt, and bishop of the church at Rome. But none of the ancients of any learning or judgment, ever laid weight on this conjecture. For what had he, who was a convert from among the Gentiles, to do with the churches of the Hebrews, what authority had he to interpose himself in that which was their peculiar concernment? Whence may it appear, that he had that skill in the nature, use, and end of Mosaical rites and institutions, which the writer of this Epistle discovers in himself? Neither doth that epistle of his to the church of Corinth, which is yet extant, though excellent in its kind, permit us to think that he wrote by divine inspiration. Besides, the author of this Epistle had a desire and purpose to go to the Hebrews, ch. xiii. 22. Yea, he desires to be restored unto them as one that had been with them before. But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine, so what reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can imagine. And to end this needless debate, in that Epistle which was truly his own, he makes use of the words and authority of this, as Eusebius long since observed.

ὃ 8. Sixtus Sinensis affirms,* that the work whose author we inquire after, was by some assigned unto Tertullian. A fond and impious imagination, and such as no man of judgment or sobriety could ever fall into. This Epistle was famous in the churches before Tertullian was born; is ascribed 4 by himself unto Barnabas, and some passages in it are said by him to be corrupted by one Theodotus long before his time.

From the uncertainty of these conjectures, with the evidence of reason and circumstances whereby they are disproved, two things we seem to have obtained. First, That no objection on their account can rise against our assertion. And, secondly, that if St. Paul be not acknowledged to be the writer of this Epistle, the whole church of God is, and ever was, at a total loss whom to ascribe it unto. And it may reasonably be expected, that the weakness of these conjectures, should, if not add unto, yet set off the credibility of the reasons and testimonies which shall be produced in the assignment of it unto him. |

§ 9. The objections that are laid by some against the ascribing of this Epistle unto St. Paul, according unto the order proposed, are next to be considered. These I shall consider with what briefness I can, so as not to be wanting in the defence designed.

Dissimilitude of style, and manner of writing from that used by St. Paul in his other epistles, is pressed in the first place, and principally sisted on. And indeed it is the whole of what, with any colour of reason, is made use of in this cause. This the ancients admitted. The elegance, propriety of speech, and sometimes loftiness, that occur in this Epistle, distinguish it, as they say, from those of St. Paul's writing. δΔοκει μὲν οὐκ είναι Παυλου δια τὸν χαρακτῆρα, says CEcumenius*:—‘ It seems not to be St. Paul’s, because of the style or character of speech.’ For this cause, Clemens‘ of Alexandria supposed that it was written in Hebrew, and translated into Greek by St. Luke the evangelist; the style of it, as he says, being like unto that which is used in the Acts of the Apostles; and yet that is acknowledged by all to be purely Greek, whereas this is accused of being full of Hebraisms: so little weight is to be laid on these critical censures, wherein learned men perpetually contradict one another.

Origen also confesseth ὃ that it hath not in its character, To ἐδιωτίκον ev Aoyy, the idiotism or peculiarity of the language of St. Paul, who acknowledgeth himself to be ἰδιωτης τῳ Aoyy, 2 Cor. xi. 6, rude in speech; and this Epistle is, saith he, ἐν συνϑέσει της λεξεως ἑλληνικωτερα, fin the composition of its speech elegant Greek, in comparison of St. Paul's, which, if we may believe him, any one will discern who can judge between the differences of style. And Hierome, Scripserat autem ad Hebreos Hebraice, id est suo eloquio disertissime; ut ea quee eloquenter scripta fuerant in Hebreo aliquatenus verterentur in Greecum; et hanc causam esse quod a ceteris Pauli Epistolis discrepare videatur."—‘ It seems to differ from the rest of St. Paul's epistles, because of its translation out of Hebrew, wherein he speaks not with his wonted confidence.’ And elsewhere he says, that the style of this epistle seeems to be like that of Clemens. Erasmus presseth this objection: Restat, saith he, jam argumentum illud quo non aliud certius: stylus ipse et orationis character, qui nihil habet afhinitatis cum phrasi Paulina: —‘ The style and character of speech have no affinity with the phrase of St. Paul.’ This consideration also drew Calvin into the same opinion; and it is insisted on by Camero and Grotius to the same purpose. The sum of this objection is, that St. Paul was rude‘in speech, which is manifest in his other epistles, but the style of this is pure, elegant, florid, such as hath no affinity with his, so that he cannot be esteemed the penman of it.

§ 10. As this objection was taken notice of by them of old, and the matter of it admitted as true, so because they constantly ascribed the epistle to Paul, they gave sundry answers unto it.’ Origen gives us his judgment, that the sense or subject-matter of this Epistle was from St. Paul, which are excellent, and no way inferior to those of the same apostle in any other epistle, as every one exercised in the reading of his epistles will grant; but the structure and phrase of it he supposeth to have been the work of some other, who, taking the dictates of his master, from thence composed this Epistle. But this answer can by no means be admitted, nor used with respect to any writing given by divine inspiration. For not only the matter, but the very words of their writings, were suggested unto his penmen by the Holy Ghost, that the whole might have no influence from human frailty or fallibility, which alone renders the authority of their writings sacred and divine. But this intimation would resolve the truth in this Epistle into the care and diligence of him that took the sense of St. Paul, and thence composed it; wherein he was liable unto mistakes, unless we shall vainly suppose that he also was inspired. Wherefore generally they who admitted of this objection, gave the answer unto it before intimated; namely, that the epistle was originally written in Hebrew by St. Paul, and translated by some other into the Greek language. So CEcumenius: Tov μὲν ovy ἡλλαχϑαι τὸν xapakrnoa τῆς ἐπιστολῆς φανερα ἡ atria: προς yao Ἕβραιους Ty σφων διαλεκτῳ γραφεισα ὕστερον μεϑερμηνευθηναι AEyET aL, I— ‘ The cause of the alteration or difference of style in this Epistle is manifest; for it is said to be written unto the Hebrews in their own language, and to be afterwards translated.’ Hierome and Clemens also incline to this opinion and answer. And Theophylact, though following Theodoret, he egregiously confutes them who deny St. Paul to be the author of this Epistle, from the excellency, efficacy, and irrefragable power and authority wherewith it is accompanied, yet admits of this objection, and answers with others, that it was translated by St. Luke or Clemens. Only Chrysostome, * who indeed is πολλων ἀνταξιος addwy, without taking notice of the pretended dissimilitude of style, ascribes it directly to St. Paul. But to this answer incline generally the divines of the Roman church, as Catharinus,! Bellarminus,™ Baronius," Cornelius a Lapide,° Canus,? Matheus Galenus, 1 Ludovicus Tena, ἢ and others without number; though it be rejected by Estius, " and some others among themselves. What is to be thought of it, we shall afterwards consider in a dissertation designed unto that purpose. For the present we affirm that is no way needful as an answer unto the objection insisted on, as we shall now farther particularly manifest.

§ 11. The foundation of this objection lies in St. Paul’s acknowledgment that he was ‘wrn¢ τῷ Aoyy, ‘rude in speech, 2 Cor. xi. 6. This Origen presseth, and Hierome takes occasion hence to censure his skill in his mother tongue; for so was the Greek unto them that were born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; and this the place of St. Paul’s nativity. Though the same Hierome, from I know not what tradition, affirms that he was born at Ghiscalis, a town of Galilee, from whence he went afterwards with his parents to Tarsus, contrary to his own express testimony, Acts xxii. 23, ‘I verily was born in Tarsus, acity of Cilicia.’

But this seems an infirm foundation of the objection insisted on. Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians about the false teachers, who seduced them from the simplicity of the gospel. The course which they took to ensnare them, was vain affected eloquence, and strains of rhetoric unbecoming the work they pretended to be engaged in. Puffed up with this singularity, they contemned St. Paul as a ude unskilful person, no way able to to match them in their fine declamations. In answer hereunto, he first tells them that it became not him to use σοφιαν λογου, 1 Cor, i. 17, ‘that wisdom of words or speech, with which orators flourished; or διδακτους ανϑρωπινὴης σοφιας Aoyouc, 1 Cor. 11. 13, ‘the words that man’s wisdom teacheth, or an artificial composition of words to entice thereby, which he calls, ὑπεροχην Aoyov, ch. ii. 1. And many reasons he gives why it became him not to makeuse of those things, soasto makethem his design, as seducers and false apostles did. Again, he answers by concession in this place, εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιωτης Ty λόγῳ, “suppose I be, or were rude or unskilful in speech, doth this matter depend thereon? Is it not manifest unto you that 1am not so in the knowledge of the mystery of the gospel? He doth not confess that he is so, saith Austin, but grants it for their conviction. And in this sense concur CXcumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Catharinus, Clarius, and Capellus, with many others on the place. If then by λογος here, that seducing enticing rhetoric, wherewith the false teachers entangled the affections of their unskilful hearers, be intended, as we grant that St. Paul, it may be, was unskilful in it, and are sure that he would make no use of it, so it is denied that any footsteps of it appear in this Epistle. But if any thing solid, convincing, unpainted eloquence, be intended in it, it is evident that St. Paul neither did, nor justly could confess himself unacquainted with it. Only he made a concession of the objection raised against him by the false teachers, to manifest how they could obtain no manner of advantage thereby.

§ 12. Neither are the other epistles of St. Paul written in so low and homely a style as is pretended. Chrysostome, speaking of him, tells us, ὑπερ Tov ἡλιον ἐλαμψεν ἡ τουτου γλωττα -" and that for his eloquence he was esteemed a Mercury by the Gentiles. Somewhat hath been spoken hereunto before, to which I shall only add the words of a person who was no incompetent judge in things of this nature. Quum, saith he, orationis ipsius, totam indolem et χαρακτῆρα propius considero, nullam ego in ipso Platone similem grandiloquentiam, quoties illi libuit Dei mysteria detonare, nullam,in Demosthene parem δεινοτητα, comperisse me fateor, quoties animos vel metu Divini judicii perterrefacere, vel commonefacere, vel ad contemplandam Dei bonitatem attrahere, vel ad pietatis et misericordiz officia constituit adhortari, nullam deniq, vel in ipso Aristotele et. Galeno prestantissimis alioquin artificibus, magis exactam docendi methodum invenio. “—‘ When I well consider the genius and character of the speech and style of this apostle, I confess I never found that grandeur in Plato himself, as in him, when he thundereth out the mysteries of God; nor that gravity and vehemency in Demosthenes as in him, when he intends to terrify the minds of men with a dread of the judgments of God, or would warn them, or draw them to the contemplation of his goodness, or the performance of the duties of piety and mercy; nor do I find a more exact method of teaching in those great and excellent masters, Aristotle and Galen, than in him.’ So it is plainly, so the Greek fathers almost with one consent do testify, so domost of the Latins also, so the best learned of the later critics, and this may be defended against any opposition. And Hierome himself, who takes most liberty to censure his style, doth sometimes so far forget his own temerity therein, as to cry out against those who dreamed, as he speaks, that St. Paul was not thoroughly acquainted with all propriety of speech. And he who was the first who ever spake a word about any defect of this kind, though as able to judge as any one whatever who hath since passed his censure unto the same purpose, was in an evident mistake in the very instance which he pitched on to confirm his observation. ‘This was Irenzeus, one of the first and most learned of the Greek fathers; for affirming that there were many hyperbata in the style of this apostle, which render it uneven and difficult, he confirms his assertion with an instance in 2 Cor. iv. 4. ‘In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe ποῦ τ for, saith he, the words should naturally have been thus placed, ‘In whom God hath blinded the minds of them that in this world believe not.’ So to obviate a foolish sophism in the Valentinians, an hyperbaton must be supposed in the apostle’s style, when indeed there is not the least colour of it. Upon the whole then, I shall confidently assert, that there is no manner of defect in any of his writings; and that every thing (considering the matter and nature of it, the person in whose name he spake, and those to whom he wrote) is expressed as it ought to be for the end proposed, and not otherwise. And hence it is, that because of the variety of the subject-matter treated of, and difference among the persons to whom he wrote, that there is also variety in his way and manner of expressing himself in sundry of his epistles; and in many of these, there is such a discovery and manifestation of solid eloquence, and pure elegance of speech, that the observation of these in any writing, is far from having any weight to prove it none of his.

§ 13. It may then be granted, though it be not proved, that there is some dissimilitude of style between this and the rest of the epistles of St. Paul: and the reasons of it are sufficiently manifest. The argument treated of in this Epistle, is diverse from that of most of the other; many circumstances in those to whom he wrote singular, the spring of his reasonings, and way of his arguings, peculiarly suited unto his subject-matter, and the condition of those unto whom he wrote. Besides, in the writing of this Epistle, there was in him an especial frame and incitation of spirit, occasioned by many occurrences relating unto it. His intense love, and near relation in the flesh unto them to whom he wrote, affectionately remembered by himself, and expressed in a manner inimitable, Rom. ix. 1—3, did doubtless exert itself in his treating about their greatest and nearest concerns. The prejudices and enmity of some of them against him, recorded in several places of the Acts, and remembered by himself in some other of his epistles, lay also under his consideration. Much of the subject that he treated about was matter of controversy, which was to be debated from the Scripture, and wherein those with whom he dealt, thought they might dissent from him, without any prejudice to their faith or obedience. Their condition also must have greatly affected him. They were now not only under present troubles, dangers, and fears, but posite inter sacrum et saxum, at the very door of ruin, if not delivered from the snare of obstinate adherence unto Mosaical institutions. Now, they who know not what alterations in style and manner of writing these things will produce, in those who have an ability to express the conceptions of their minds, and the affections wherewith they are attended, know nothing of this matter. And other differences from the rest of Paul's epistles, but such as may evidently be seen to arise from these andthe like causes, none have yetdiscovered, nor can discover. And notwithstanding the elegance of the style pretended, that it is as full of Hebraisms as any other epistle of the same author, we shall show in our passage through it, which certainly a person of that ability in the Greek tongue as the writer of this epistle discovers himself to be, might have avoided, if he had thought meet so to do.

§ 15. Secondly, it is excepted, that the epistle is avemtypagoc, the name of Paul being not prefixed unto it, as it is, say some, unto all the Epistles written by him. And this indeed is the womb wherein all other objections have been conceived. For this being once taken notice of, and admitted as an objection, the rest were but fruits of men’s needless diligence to give countenance unto it. And this exception is ancient, and that which alone some of old took any notice of; for it is considered by Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Gicumenius, and generally all that have spoken any thing about the writer of this Epistle. Nor doth the strength that it hath lie merely in this, that it is without inscription; for so is the epistle of St. John, concerning which, it was never doubted but that he was the author of it. But in the constant usage of Paul, prefixing his name unto all his other epistles; so that, unless a just reason can be given why he should depart from that custom in the writing of this, it may be well supposed to be none of his.

Now, by the title which is wanting, either the mere titular superscription, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, is intended; or the inscription of his name, with an apostolical salutation conjoined in the epistle itself. For the first, it is uncertain of what antiquity the titular superscriptions of any of the epistles are; but most certain, that they did not originally belong unto them, and are therefore destitute of all authority. They are things with which the transcribers, it may be, have at pleasure made bold, as with the subscription also of some of them, as to the place from whence they were sent, and the persons by whom. Though this therefore should be wanting unto this Epistle, as there is some variety both in ancient copies of the original, and translations about it, the most owning and retaining of it; yet it would be of no moment, seeing we know not whence or from whom any of them are. The objection, then, is taken from the want of the wonted apostolical salutation, which should be in, and a part of the epistle. And this is the substance of what on this account is excepted against our assertion.

§ 10. Various answers have been given to this objection, some of them of no more validity than itself. Hierome replies, It hath no man’s name prefixed: therefore we may by as good reason say, it was written by no man, as not by Paul; which instance, though it be approved by Beza, with other learned men, and not sufficiently answered by Erasmus with a contrary instance, yet indeed it is of no value; for being written, it must be written by somebody, though not perhaps by St. Paul. Some have thought that it may be the inscription inquired after was at first prefixed, but by some means or other hath been lost. But as there are very many arguments and evidences to evince the weakness of this imagination, so the beginning and entrance of the epistle is such, as is incapable of any contexture with such a salutation, as that used in other epistles, as is also that of St. John, so that this conjecture can here have no place.

§ 17. Some of the ancients, and principally Theodoret, insist upon the peculiar allotment of his work unto him among the Gentiles. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles in an especial manner; and if in writing unto the Hebrews he had prefixed his name unto his epistle, he might have seemed to transgress the line of his allotment. And if it be not certain that the apostles, by common consent, cast their work into distinct portions, which they peculiarly attended unto, as the ancients generally concur that they did, (and there was not reason wanting why they should do so,) yet it is certain that there was a special convention and agreement between James, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, that those should attend the ministry of the circumcision, and these of the Gentiles. Hence Paul finding it necessary for him to write unto the Hebrews, would not prefix his name with an apostolical salutation unto his epistle, that he might not seem to have invaded the province of others, or transgressed the line of his allotment. But I must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the weight laid upon it by Theodoret and some others, this reason seems not unto me cogent unto the end for which it is produced. For, Ist, The commission given by the Lord Christ unto his apostles, was catholic, and had no bounds but that of the whole creation of God capable of instruction, Matt. xxvii. 19; Mark xvi. 15, and that commission which was given unto them all in general, was given unto every one in particular: and made him in solidum possessor of all the right and authority conveyed by it. Neither could any following arbitrary agreement pitched on for convenience, and the facilitating of their work, abridge any of them from exerting their authority, and exercising their duty towards any of the sons of men, as occasion did require.

And hence it is, that notwithstanding the agreement mentioned, we find St. Peter teaching of the Gentiles, and St. Paul labouring for the conversion of the Jews. 2ndly, In writing this Epistle, on this supposition, St. Paul did indeed that which is pretended was not meet for him to do; namely, he entered on that which was the charge of another man, only he conceals his name, that he might not appear to do a thing unwarrantable and unjustifiable. And whether it be meet to ascribe this unto the apostle, is easy to determine. As then it is certain that St. Paul, im the writing of this Epistle, did nothing but what in duty he ought to do, and what the authority given him by Christ extended itself unto; so the conceal- ing of his name, lest he should be thought to have done any thing irregularly, is a thing that without much temerity may not be imputed unto him.

δ 18. There is another answer to this objection, which seemeth to be solid and satisfactory, which most of the ancients rest in. And it is, that St. Paul had weighty reasons not to declare his name at the entrance of this Epistle to the Hebrews, taken from the prejudices that many of them had against him. This is insisted on by Clemens in Eusebius;” ‘ He did wisely,” saith he, ‘conceal his name, because of the prejudicate opinion that they had against him: and this is at large insisted on by Chrysostome,” who is followed therein by Theophylact, Cicumenius, and others without number. The persecuting party of the nation looked on him as an apostate, a deserter of the cause wherein he was once engaged, and one that taught apostasy from the law of Moses; yea, as they thought, one that set the whole world against them, and all that they gloried in, Acts xxi. 28, and what enmity is usually stirred up on such occasions, all men know, and his example is a sufficient instance of it. And there was added thereunto, which Chrysostome, and that justly, lays great weight upon, that he was no ordinary person, but a man of great and extraordinary abilities, which mightily increased the provocation. Those among them, who with the profession of the gospel had a mind to continue themselves in, and to impose upon others the observance of Mosaical institutions, looked on him as the only person that had frustrated their design, Acts xv. 2. And this also is usually no small cause of wrath and hatred. The spirit of these men afterwards possessing the Ebonites, they despised St. Paul as a Grecian and deserter of the law, as Epiphanius testifies. And even the best among them, who either in the use of their liberty, or upon an indulgence given them, continued in the temple-worship, had a jealous eye over him, lest he had not that esteem for Moses which they imagined became them to retain, Acts xxi. 21. How great a prejudice against his doctrine and reasonings these thoughts and jealousies might have created, had he at the entrance of his dealing with them prefixed his name and usual salutation, is not hard to conjecture. This being the state and condition of things in reference unto St. Paul, and not any other known penman of the Holy Ghost, or eminent disciple of Christ in those days, this defect of inscription, as Beza well observes, proves the epistle rather to be his than any other person’s whatever. And though I know that there may be some reply made unto this answer, both from the discovery which he makes of himself in the end of the epistle, and from the high probability that there is that the Hebrews, upon the first receipt of it, would diligently examine by whom it was written, yet I judge it very sufficient to frustrate the exception insisted on, though perhaps not containing the true, at ‘least the whole cause of the omission of an apostolical salutation in the entrance of it.

§ 19. Ifthen we would know the true and just cause of the omission of the author’s name, and mention of his apostolical authority in the entrance of this Epistle, we must consider what were the just reasons of prefixing them unto his other epistles. Chrysostome in his Proem unto the epistle to the Romans gives this as the only reason of the mentioning the name of the writer of any epistle, in the frontispiece of it, otherwise than was done by Moses and the Evangelists in their writings; namely, because these wrote unto them that were present, and so had no cause to make mention of their own names, which were well enough known without the premising of them in their writings: whereas those who wrote epistles, dealing with them that were absent, were necessitated to prefix their names unto them, that they might know from whom they came. But yet this reason. is not absolutely satisfactory: for they who prefixed not their names to their writings, wrote, not only for the use and benefit of those that were present and knew them, but of all succeeding ages, who knew them not. And many of them who did preach and write the word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them, yet prefixed their names unto their writings, as did the prophets of old, and some who did write epistles to them who were absent, omitted so to do, as St. John, and the author of this Epistle. The real cause, then, of prefixing the names of any of the apostles unto their writings, was merely the introduction thereby of their titles, as apostles of Jesus Christ, and therein an intimation of that authority, by and with which they wrote. This, then, was the true and only reason why the apostle St. Paul prefixed his name unto his epistles; sometimes, indeed, this is omitted when he wrote unto some churches where he was well known, and his apostolical power was sufficiently owned, because he joined others with himself in his salutation who were not apostles, as the epistle to the Philippians, chap. i., and the second of the Thessalonians. Unto all others, he still prefixeth this title, declaring himself thereby to be one, so authorized to reveal the mysteries of the gospel, that they to whom he wrote, were to acquiesce in his authority, and to resolve their faith into the revelation of the will of God, made unto him, and by him, the church being to be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles. And hence it was, that when something he had taught, was called in question, and opposed, writing in the vindication of it, and for their establishment in the truth, whom before he had instrifcted, he doth in the entrance of his writings, singularly and emphatically mention this his authority, Gal. i. 1, ‘ Paul an apostle, neither of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that raised him from the dead:’ so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the doctrine by him revealed. By this title, I say, he directs them to whom he wrote, to resolve their assent into the authority of Christ speaking in him, which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the mysteries wherein they were instructed.

In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise: they who believed amongst them never changed the old foundation, or church-state, grounded on the Scriptures, though they had a new addition of privileges by their faith in Christ Jesus, as the Messiah now exhibited. And therefore he deals not with them as with those whose faith was built absolutely on apostolical authority and revelation, but upon the common principles of the Old Testament, on which they still stood, and out of which evangelical faith was educed. Hence the beginning of the epistle, wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation that he intended to build upon, and the authority which he would press them withal, supplies the room of that intimation of his apostolical authority which in other places he maketh use of. And it serves to the very same purpose. For, as in those epistles he proposeth his apostolical authority as the immediate reason of their assent and obedience, so in this he doth the Scriptures of the Old Testament. And this is the true and proper cause, that renders the prefixing of his apostolical authority, which his name must necessarily accompany, needless, because useless, it being that which he intended not to engage in this business. And for himself, he sufficiently declares in the close of his epistle who he was; for though some may imagine that he is not so certainly known unto us from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond to doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote; so that neither hath this objection in it any real weight or moment.

§ 20. We have spoken before unto the hesitation of the Latin church, which by some is objected, especially by Erasmus, and given the reasons of it, manifesting that it is of no force to weaken our assertion. Unto this I shall now only add, that after it was received amongst them as canonical, it was never questioned by any learned man or synod of old, whether St. Paul was the author of it or no, but they all with one consent ascribed it unto him, as hath been at large by others declared. The remaining exceptions, which by some are insisted on, are taken from some passages in the epistle itself; that principally of chap. ii. and iii., where the writer of it seems to reckon himself among the number, not of the apostles, but of their auditors. But whereas it is certain and evident, that the epistle was written before the destruction of the temple, yea, before the beginning of those wars that ended therein, or the death of James, whilst sundry of the apostles were yet alive, it cannot be that the penman of it should really place himself amongst the generation that succeeded them; so that the words must of necessity admit of another interpretation, as shall be manifested in its proper place. For as both this and other things of the same nature must be considered and spoken unto, in the places where they occur, I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due season; especially considering of how small importance the objections taken from them are. And this is the sum of what hath as yet by any been objected unto our ascribing of this epistle unto St. Paul; by the consideration whereof the reader will be directed into the judgment he is to make on the arguments and testimonies that we shall produce, in the confirmation of our assertion, and these we now proceed unto under the several heads proposed in the entrance of our discourse.

§ 21. Amongst the arguments usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been written by St. Paul, the testimony given unto it by St. Peter, deserves consideration in the first place, and is indeed of itself sufficient to determine the inquiry about it. His words to this purpose, Epist. 2. Chap. iii. 15, 16, are; ‘ And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according unto the wisdom given him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they doalso the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.’ To clear this testimony, some few things must be observed in it, and concerning it. As Ist, That St. Peter wrote this second epistle unto the same persons, that is, the same churches and people to whom he wrote his first. This (to omit other evidences of it) himself testifies, chap. ii. 1, ‘ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; it was not only absolutely his second epistle, but the second which he wrote to the same persons: handling in both the same general arguments as himself in the next words affirms. 2d. That his first epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian dispersion, ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδημοις διασπορας Ilovrov, &c. to ‘ the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chap. i. 1, that is the δωδεκα φυλαῖς ev Ty διασπορᾳ, as St. James styles the same persons, chap. 1. 1, the twelve tribes, or Hebrews of the twelve tribes of Israel in their dispersion These παρεπιδημοι διασπορας, or ὲν Ty διασπορᾷ, are those whom

Besides, many things insisted on by St. Peter in these epistles, were peculiar to the Hebrews, who also were his especial care. See 1 EHpist. 1. 10—12, ii. 9, 21, iii. 5, 6, iv. 7, 17; Eph. ii. 19—21, ii. 1, 11, &c. iii. 10—14, and many other particular places of the same nature may be observed in them. ΤῸ sum up our evidence in this particular: Peter being in an especial manner the apostle of the circumcision or Hebrews, Gal. 11. 7, having by his first sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Acts ii. 9, 10, 41, ascribing that title unto them to whom he wrote, which was the usual and proper appellation of them in all the world, ἡ διασπορα του Ἰσραὴλ, James 1. 1; John vii. 35, treating with them for the most part about things peculiar to them in a special manner, and that with arguments and from principles peculiarly known unto them, as the places above quoted will manifest, there remains no ground of question, but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote. Nor are the exceptions that are made to this evidence of any such importance as once to deserve a remembrance by them, who design not a protracting of their discourses by insisting on things unnecessary..

§ 22. Now it is plain in this testimony asserted, that St. Paul wrote a peculiar epistle unto them, unto whom St. Peter wrote his, that is to the Hebrews; ‘he hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles; that is, in all his other Epistles. Besides his other epistles to other churches and persons, he hath also written one unto you. So that, if St. Peter's testimony may be received, St. Paul undoubtedly wrote an Epistle unto the Hebrews. But this may be, say some, another epistle, and not this we treat on; particularly that to the Galatians, which treateth about Judaical customs and worship. But this Epistle mentioned by St. Peter was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles. This to the Galatians is written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews: so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have been fixed upon. Besides he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St. Peter, which are indeed the main subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But, say others, Paul indeed might write an Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be lost, and this that we have might be written by some other: But whence this answer should proceed but from a resolution Seow διαφυ- Aarrew, against light and conviction, I know not. If we give place to such rash and presumptuous conjectures, we shall quickly have nothing left entire or stable. For, why may not another as well say, it is true Moses wrote five books, but they are lost, and these that we have under his name were written by another. It is not surely one jot less intolerable for any one, without ground, proof, or testimony, to affirm that the church hath lost an epistle written to the Hebrews by St. Paul, and taken up one in the room thereof, written by no man knoweth whom. This is not to deal with that holy reverence in the things of God which becomes us.

§ 23. St. Peter declares that St. Paul in that epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews, had declared the long-suffering of God, whereof he had minded them, to be salvation. We must see what was this long-suffering of God, how it was salvation, and how Paul had manifested it so to be. The long-suffering, patience, or forbearance of God, is either absolute toward man in general, or special in reference unto some sort of men; or some kind of sins or provocations that are amongst them.. The first of these is not that which is here intended; nor was there any reason why St. Peter should direct the Jews to the epistles of St. Paul in particular, to learn the long-suffering of God in general, which is so plentifully revealed in the whole Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, and only occasionally, at any time mentioned by St. Paul.

There was therefore an especial long-suffering of God which at that time he exercised towards the Jews, waiting for the conversion, and the gathering of his elect unto him, before that total and final destruction which they had deserved, should come upon that church and state. This he compares to the long-suffering of God in the days of Noah, whilst he preached repentance unto the world, 1 Kpist. iii. 20. For as those that were obedient unto his preaching, which was only his own family, were saved in the Ark, from the general destruction that came upon the world by water; so also they that became obedient upon the preaching of the gospel, during this new season of God’s special long-suffering, were to be saved by baptism, or separation from the unbelieving Jews by the profession of the faith, from the destruction that was to come upon them by fire. This long-suffering of God the unbelieving Jews, not understanding to be particular, scoffed at, and them who threatened them with such an issue or event of it, 2 Epist. 111. 4, which causeth the apostle to declare the nature and end of this longsuffering which they were ignorant of, ver. 9.

And thus, Secondly, was this particular long-suffering of God towards the Jews, whilst the gospel was preached to them before their final desolation, salvation; in that God spared them and allowed them to abide for a while in the observation of their old worship and ceremonies, granting them in the mean time blessed means of light and instruction to bring them to salvation.

And Thirdly, This is declared by St. Paul in this Epistle; not that this is formally and in terms the main doctrine of the epistle, but that really and effectually he acquaints them with the intention of the Lord in his long-suffering towards them, and peculiarly subserves that long-suffering of Christ in his instruction of them. And therefore after he hath taught them the true nature, use, and end of all Mosaical institutions, which they were as yet permitted to use in the special patience of God intimated by St. Peter; and convinced them of the necessity of faith in Christ, and the profession of his gospel, he winds up all his reasonings, in minding them of the end which shortly was to be put unto that long-suffering of God which was then exercised towards them, chap. xii. 15—28. So that this note also is eminently characteristical of this Epistle.

§ 24. 5. In the writing of the epistle mentioned by St. Peter, he seems to ascribe unto Paul an eminency of wisdom; it was written according to the wisdom yiven unto him. As Paul in all other of his epistles did exercise that grace of wisdom, so also in that which he wrote unto the Hebrews. There is no doubt but he exerted and put forth his other graces of knowledge, zeal, and love also; but yet Peter here in ἃ way of eminency marketh his wisdom in that epistle. It is not Paul's spiritual wisdom in general in the knowledge of the will of God, and mysteries of the gospel, which Peter here refers unto; but that special holy prudence which he exercised in the composure of this Epistle, and maintaining the truth which he dealt with the Hebrews about. And what an eminent character this also is of this Epistle, we shall endeavour, God assisting, to evince in our exposition of it. The writer of it displays a special understanding in all the mysteries of the Old Testament, in unfolding things hidden from the foundation of the world, and in his application of them, with various testimonies and arguments, that wrapped up the truth in great darkness and obscurity, until the mystery of God was manifested in the flesh. And his various intertextures of reasonings and exhortations throughout this Epistle, his condescension to the capacity, prejudices, and affections of them to whom he wrote, urging them constantly with their own principles and concessions, do among many other things manifest the singular wisdom which Peter signifies to have been used in this work.

6. It may also be observed, that Peter affirms that among the things about which Paul wrote, there were τινα évovonra, ‘some things hard to be understood.’ And that Paul in a special manner confesseth that some of the things which he was to treat of in that epistle were δυσερμηνευτα, ἡ hard to be declared, uttered, or unfolded; and therefore certainly hard to be understood, chap. y. 11, which in our progress we shall manifest to be spoken not without great and urgent cause, and that in many instances, especially: in that referred to by himself concerning Melchisedec. So that this also gives another characteristical note of the epistle testified unto by Peter.

I have insisted the longer upon this testimony, because in my judgment it is sufficient of itself to determine this controversy; nothing of any importance being by any that I can meet with excepted unto it. But because we want not other confirmations of our assertion, and those also every one of them singly out-balancing the conjectures that are advanced against it, we shall subjoin them also in their order.

§ 25. The comparing of this Epistle with the others of the same apostle gives farther evidence unto our assertion. I suppose it will be confessed, that they only are competent judges of this argument who are well exercised and conversant in his writings. Unto their judgment therefore alone in it do we appeal. Now the similitude between this and other epistles of Paul is'threefold. 1st, In words, phrases, and manner of expression. Of this sort many instances may be given, and such a coincidence of phrase manifested in them, as is not usually to be observed between writings that have various or divers authors.;

But this I shall not particularly insist upon: partly because it hath already been done by others at large; and partly because they will all of them be observed in our exposition itself, nor doth it suit our present design to enter into a debate about particular words and expressions. Nor do I assign any more force unto this observation, but only that it 1s sufhicient to manifest the weakness of the exceptions urged by some to prove 1t none of his, from the use of some few words not elsewhere used by him, or not in that sense in which here they are applied. For such instances are not in number comparable with the other; and to. evidence the vanity of that part of their objection which concerns the peculiar use of some words in this Epistle, it is enough to observe, that one word, ὑπόστασις, being three times used in this one Epistle, it hath in each place a peculiar and diverse signification. 2d, There is also a coincidence of matter, or doctrines delivered in this and other epistles of Paul. Neither shall 1 much press this consideration. For neither was he in any epistle restrained unto what he had elsewhere delivered, nor bound to avoid the mentioning of it, if occasion did require; nor were other penmen of the Holy Ghost limited not to treat of what he had taught, any more than the evangelists were from writing the same story. But yet neither is this observation destitute of all efficacy to contribute strength unto our assertion, considering that there were some doctrines which Paul did in a peculiar manner insist upon; a vein whereof a diligent observer may find running through this, and all his other epistles. But, 3dly, That which under this head I would press, is the consideration of the spirit, genius, πάθος, and manner of writing proceeding from them, peculiar to this apostle in all his epistles. Many things are required to enable any one to judge aright of this intimation. He must, as Bernard speaks, drink of St. Paul's spirit, or be made partaker of the same spirit with him, in his measure, who would understand his writings. Without this spirit, and his saving light, they are all obscure, intricate, sap- Jess, unsavoury; when unto them in whom it is, they are all sweet, gracious, in some measure open, plain, and powerful. A great and constant exercise unto an acquaintance with his frame of spirit in writing, is also necessary hereunto. Unless a man have contracted as it were a familiarity, by a constant conversation with him, no critical skill in words or phrases will render him a competent judge in this matter. This enabled Cesar to determine aright concerning any writings of Cicero. And he that is so acquainted with this apostle, will be able to discern his spirit, as Austin says his mother Monica did divine revelations, ‘nescio quo sapore, by an inexpressible spiritual savour. Experience also of the power and efficacy of his writings is hereunto required. He whose heart is cast into the mould of the doctrine by him, delivered, will receive quick impressions from his spirit exerting itself in any of his writings. He that is thus prepared, will find that heavenliness and perspicuity in unfolding the deepest evangelical mysteries; that peculiar exaltation of Jesus Christ in his person, office, and work; that spiritual persuasiveness; that transcendent manner of arguing and reasoning; that wise insinuation and pathetical pressing of well grounded exhortations; that love, tenderness, and affection to the souls of men; that zeal for God, and authority in teaching, which enliven and adorn all his other epistles, to shine in this in an eminent manner, from the beginning to the end of it. And this consideration, (whatever may be the apprehensions of others concerning it,) is that which gives me satisfaction, above all that are pleaded in this cause, in ascribing this Epistle to Paul.

§ 26. The testimony of the first churches, of whose testimony any record is yet remaining, with a successive suffrage of the most knowing persons of following ages, may also be pleaded in this cause. If we set aside that limitation of this testimony, which, with the grounds and occasions of it, as to some in the Latin church, we have already granted and declared, this witness will be acknowledged to be catholic as to all other churches in the world. <A learned man of late hath reckoned up.and reported the words of above thirty of the Greek fathers, and fifty of the Latin, reporting this primitive tradition. I shall not trouble the reader with a catalogue of their names, nor the repetition of their words, and that, because the whole of what im general we assert as to the eastern church is acknowledged. Amongst them was this Hpistle first made public, as they had far more advantages of discovering the truth in this matter of fact, than any in the Roman church, or than any who followed them in after ages could have. Neither had they any thing, but the conviction and evidence of truth itself, to induce them to embrace this persuasion. And he that shall consider the condition of the first churches under persecution, and what difficulties they met with in communicating those apostolical writings which were delivered unto any of them, with that special obstruction unto the spreading of this unto the Hebrews, of which we have already discoursed, cannot rationally otherwise - conceive of it, but as an eminent fruit of the good providence of God, that it should so soon receive so public an attestation from the first churches, as it evidently appears to have done.

§ 27. The Epistle itself in several ways discovers its author. Some of them we shall briefly recount.

1. The general argument and scope of it declares it to be Paul’s. Hereof there are two parts; Ist, The exaltation of the person, office, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the excellency of the gospel and the worship therein commanded, revealed by him. 2dly, A discovery of the nature, use, and expiration of Mosaigal institutions, their present unprofitableness, and the ceasing of their obligation unto obedience. The first part we may grant to have been equally the design of all the apostles, though we find it in a peculiar way insisted on in the writings of Paul. The latter was his special work and business. This partly e instituto, partly occasionally from the opposition of the Jews, was he engaged in the promotion of, all the world over. The apostles of the circumcision according to the wisdom given them, and suitably to the nature of their ‘work, did more accomodate themselves to the prejudicate opinion of the Jewish professors; and the rest of the apostles had little occasion to deal with them, or others on this subject. Paul, in an eminent manner, in this work bare the burden of that day. Having weil settled all other churches, who were troubled in this controversy by some of the Jews, he at last treats with themselves directly in this Epistle, giving an account of what he had elsewhere preached and taught to this purpose, and the grounds that he proceeded upon; and this not without great success, as the burying of the Judaical controversy not long after doth manifest.

2. The method of his procedure here is the same with that of his other epistles, which also was peculiar to him. Now this in most of them, yea in all of them not regulated by some particular occasions, is first, to lay down the doctrinal mysteries of the gospel, vindicating them from oppositions and exceptions, and then to descend to exhortations unto obedience deduced from them, with an enumeration of such special moral duties, as those unto whom he wrote, stood in need to be minded of. This is the general method of his epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and the most of the rest. And this also is observed in this Epistle. Only whereas he had a special respect unto the apostasy of some of the Hebrews, occasioned by the persecution which then began to grow high against them, whatever argument or testimony in his passage gave him advantage to press an exhortation unto constancy, and to deter them from backsliding, he lays hold upon it, and diverts into practical inferences unto that purpose, before he comes to his general exhortations towards the end of the epistle. Excepting this occasional difference, the method of this is the same with that used in the other epistles of Paul, and which was peculiarly his own.

3. His way of argument in this and his other epistles wali same.

Now this, as we shall see, is sublime and mystical, accommodated rather to the spiritual reason of believers, than the artificial rules of philosophers. That he should more abound with testimonies and quotations out of the Scriptures of the Old Testament in this, than in other epistles, as he doth, the matter whereof he treats, and the persons to whom he wrote, did necessarily require. (

4, Many things in this Epistle evidently manifest that he who wrote it, was not only mighty in the Scripture, but also exceedingly well versed and skilful in the customs, practices, opinions, traditions, expositions, and applications of Scripture then received in the Judaical church, as we shall fully manifest in our progress. Now, who in those days, among the disciples of Christ, could this be but Paul? For as he was brought up under one of the best and most famous of their masters in those days, and profited in the knowledge of their then present religion above his equals; so for want of this kind of learning, the Jews esteemed the chief of the other apostles, Peter and John, to be idiots and unlearned.

5. Sundry particulars towards the close of the epistle, openly proclaim Paul to have been the writer of it. As, Ist, The mention that he makes of his bonds, and the compassion that the Hebrews showed towards him in his sufferings, and whilst he was a prisoner, chap. x. 34. Now, as the bonds of Paul were afterwards famous at Rome, Phil. 1. 15, so there was not any thing of greater notoriety in reference to the church of God in those days, than those that he suffered in Judea; which he minds them of in this expression. With what earnest endeavours, what rage and tumult, the rulers and body of the people sought his destruction, how publicly and with what solemnity his cause was sundry times heard and debated, with the time of his imprisonment that ensued, are all declared in the Acts at large. Now, no man can imagine, but that whilst this great champion of their profession was so publicly pleading their cause, and exposed to so much danger and hazard thereby, but that all the believers of those parts were exceedingly solicitous about his condition, (as they had been about Peter's in the like case,) and gave him all the assistance and encouragement that they were able. This compassion of theirs, and his own bonds, as an evidence of his faith and their mutual love in the gospel, he now minds them of. ΟΥ̓ no other person but Paul have we any ground to conjecture that this might be spoken; and the suffering and compassion here mentioned, © seem not to have been things done in a corner: so that this one circumstance is able of itself to enervate all the exceptions that are made use of against his being esteemed the author of this Epistle. 2dly, The mention of Paul’s dear and constant companion Timothy is of the same importance, chap. xiii. 23. That Timothy. was at Rome with Paul in his bonds, is expressly asserted, Phil. 1. 13, 14; and that he was also cast into prison with Paul is here intimated, his release being expressed. Now, surely it is scarcely credible, that any other should in Italy, where Paul then was, and newly released out of prison, write unto the churches of the Hebrews, and therein make mention of his own bonds, and the bonds of Timothy, a man unknown to them but by the means of Paul, and not once intimate any thing about his condition. ‘The exceptions of some, as that Paul used to call Timothy his son, whereas, the writer of this Epistle calls him brother, (when indeed, he never terms him son, when he speaks of him, but only when he wrote unto him,) or that there might be another Timothy, (when he speaks expressly of him, who was so generally known to the churches of God, as one of the chiefest evangelists) deserve not to be insisted on.

And surely, it is altogether incredible that this Timothy, the son of Paul, as to his begetting of him in the faith, and continued paternal affection; his known constant associate in doing and suffering for the gospel; his minister in attending of him, and constantly employed by him in the service of Christ and the churches; known unto them by his means, honoured by him with two epistles written unto him, and the association of his name with his own in the inscription of sundry others, should now be so absent from him as to be joined unto another in his travail and ministry. 3dly, The constant sign and token of Paul’s epistles which himself had publicly signified to be so, 2 Thess. iii. 17, is subjoined unto this, “ Grace be with you all.” That originally this was written with Paul’s own hand, there is no ground to question, and it appears to be so, because it was written; and he affirms that it was his custom to subjoin that salutation with his own hand. Now, this writing of it with his own hand, was evidence unto them, unto whom the original of the epistle first came, unto those who had only transcribed copies of it, it could not be so; the salutation itself was their token, being peculiar to Paul, and amongst the rest, annexed to this Epistle. And all these circumstances will yet receive some further enforcement from the consideration of the time wherein this Epistle was written, whereof in the next place we shall treat.

6.1. The time of the writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews. The use of the right stating thereof. § 2. After his release out of prison. Before the death of James. Before the second of Peter. § 3. The time of Paul’s coming to Rome. § 4. The condition of the affairs of the Jews at that time. § 5,6. The martyrdom of James. § 7. State of the churches of the Hebrews. § 8. Constant in the observation of Mosaical institutions. § 9. Warned to leave Jerusalem. § 10. That warning, what, and how given, Causes of their unwillingness so to do. § 11. The occasion and success of this Epistle.

§ 1. Taar was not amiss observed of old by Chrysostome, Pra. in Com. ad Epist. ad Rom. that a due observation of the time and season wherein the epistles of Paul were written, doth give great light unto the understanding of many passages in them. This, Baronius, ad A. C. 55. N. 42. well confirms, by an instance of their mistake, who suppose the shipwreck of Paul at Melita, Acts xxvii. to have been that mentioned by him, 2 Cor. xi, when he was a night and a day in the deep; that epistle being written some years before his sailing towards Rome. And we may apply this obseryation to this Epistle unto the Hebrews. A discovery of the time and season wherein it was written, will both free us from sundry mistakes, and also give us some light into the occasion and design of it. This, therefore, we shall now inquire into.

§ 2. Some general intimations we have in the epistle itself, leading us towards the discovery of this, and somewhat may be gathered from other places of Scripture, for antiquity will afford us little or no help herein.

After Paul’s being brought a prisoner to Rome, Acts xxviil., two full years he continued in that condition, ver. 30, at least, solong he continued under restraint, though in his own hired house. This time was expired before the writing of this epistle; for he was not only absent from Rome, in some other part of Italy, when he wrote it, ch. xii. 24, but also so far at liberty, and szwi juris, as that he had entertained a resolution of going into the east, so soon as Timothy should come unto him, ch. xii. 23, And it seems, likewise, to be written before the martyrdom of James at Jerusalem, in that he affirms that the church of the Hebrews had not yet resisted unto blood, ch. xii. 4, it being very probable that, together with him, many others were slain. Many great difficulties they had been exercised with, but as yet the matter was not come to blood, which shortly after it arrived unto. That is certain also, that it was not only written, but communicated unto, and well known by all the believing Jews, before the writing of the second epistle of Peter, who therein makes mention it, as we have declared. Much light, I confess, as to the precise time of its writing, is not hence to be obtained, because of the uncertainty of the time wherein Peter wrote that epistle; only, it appears from what he affirms concerning the approaching of the time of his suffering, ch. i. 13, that it was not long before his death. This, as is generally agreed, happened in the thirteenth year of Nero, when a great progress was made in that war, which ended in the fatal and final destruction of the city and temple.

§ 3. From these observations it appears that the best guide we have to find out the certain time of the writing of this Epistle, is Paul's being sent prisoner unto Rome. Now this was in the first year of the government of Festus, after he had been two years detained in prison at Caesarea by Felix, Acts xxiv. 27; xxv. 26, 27. This Felix was the brother of Pallas, who ruled all things under Claudius, and fell into some disgrace in the very first year of Nero, as Tacitus informs us; but yet, by the countenance of Agrippina, the mother of Nero, he continued in some regard, until the fifth or sixth year of bis reign, when, together with his mother, he destroyed many of her friends and favourites. During this time of Pallas’ declension in power, it is most probable that his brother Felix was displaced from the rule of his province, and Festus sent in his room. That it was before his utter ruin in the sixth year of Nero, is evident from hence, because he found means to keep his brother from punishment, when he was accused for extortion and oppression by the Jews. Most probably then Paul was sent unto Rome, about the fourth or fifth year of Nero, which was the fifty-ninth year from the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There he abode, as we showed, at the least two years in custody, where the story of the Acts of the Apostles ends, in the seventh year of Nero, and sixty-first of our Lord, or the beginning of the year following. It is presumed that he obtained his liberty in that year. And this was about thirteen years after the synod at Jerusalem had determined the controversy respecting the obligation of the Gentiles to observe Mosaic institutions, Acts xv. Presently, upon his liberty, whilst he abode in some part of Italy, expecting the coming of Timothy, before he entered upon the journey he had promised unto the Philippians, ch. ii. 24, he wrote this Epistle. Here then, we must stay a little, to consider what was the general state and condition of the Hebrews in those days, which might give occasion to the writing of it.

§ 4. The time fixed on was about the death of Festus, who died in the province, and the beginning of the government of Albinus, who was sent to succeed him. What the state of the people at that time was, Josephus declares at large in his second book of their wars. In brief, the governors themselves being great oppressors, and rather mighty robbers amongst them than rulers, the whole nation was filled with spoil and violence. What through the fury and outrage of the soldiers, in the pursuit of their insatiable avarice; what through the incursions of thieves and robbers in troops and companies, wherewith the whole land abounded; and what through the tumults of seditious persons, daily incited and provoked by the cruelty of the Romans; there was no peace or safety for any sober, honest men, either in the city of Jerusalem, or any where else throughout the whole province. ‘That the church had a great share of suffering in the outrage and misery of those days, (as, in such dissolutions of government, and license for all wickedness, it commonly falls out,) no man can question. And this is that which the apostle mentions, ch. x. 31—34: ‘ Ye endured a great fight of afflictions, partly whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afilictions, and partly whilst ye became companions of them that were so used, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods.’ This was the lot and portion of all honest and sober-minded men in those days, as their historian at large declares. or as no doubt the Christians had a principal share in all those sufferings, so some others of the Jews also were their companions in them; it being not a special persecution, but a general calamity that the apostle speaks of.

§ 5. One Joseph, the son of Ceebias, was in the beginning of those days high priest. He had been put into that office by Agrippa, who not long before had put him out. On the death of Festus, he thrust him out again, and placed Ananus, or Ananias, his son, in his stead. This man, a young rash fellow, first began a direct persecution of the church. He was by sect and opinion a Sadducee, who of all others were the most violent in their hatred of the Christians, being especially engaged therein by the peculiar opinion of his sect and party, which was the denial of the resurrection. Before his advancement to the priesthood, their afflictions and calamities were for the most part common unto them, with other peaceable men. Only the rude and impious multitude, with other seditious persons, seem to have offered especial violence unto their assemblies and’ meetings, which some of the more unsteadfast and weak began to omit on that account, ch. x. 25. Judicial proceeding against them as to their lives, when this Epistle was written, there doth not appear to have been any; for the apostle tells them, as we before observed, that as yet they had not resisted unto blood, ch. xii. 4. But this Ananus, the Sadducee, presently after he had been placed in power by Agrippa, taking advantage of the death of Festus, and of the time that passed before Albinus, his successor, was settled in the province, summons James before himself and his associates. There, to make short work, he is condemned, and immediately stoned. And it is not unlikely but that other private persons suffered together with him.

§ 6. The story, by the way, of the martyrdom of this James, is at large reported by Eusebius out of Hegesippus, Hist. Eccles. lib. 2, cap. 23, in the relation whereof, he is followed by Hierome and sundry others. I shall say no more of the whole story, but that the consideration of it is very sufficient to persuade any man to use the liberty of his own reason and judgment, in the perusal of the writings of the ancients. For of the circumstances therein reported about this James, and his death, many of them (as his being of the line of the priests, his entering at his pleasure into the Sanctum Sanctorum, his being carried up and set by a great multi- tude of people on a pinnacle of the temple) are so palpably false, that no colour of probability can be given unto them, and most of the rest seem altogether incredible. That in general this holy apostle of Jesus Christ, his kinsman according to the flesh, was stoned by Ananus, during the anarchy between the governments of Festus and Albinus, Josephus, who then lived, testifies, and all ecclesiastical historians agree.

§ 7. The churches at this time in Jerusalem and Judea were very numerous. The oppressors, robbers, and seditious of all sorts, beg wholly intent upon the pursuit of their own ends, filled the government of the nation with tumults and disorders. The disciples of Christ, who knew that the time of their preaching the gospel unto their countrymen was but short, and even now expiring, followed their work with diligence and success, being not greatly regarded in the confusion which was raised, while the nation was rushing on to its fatal end.

§ 8. All these churches, and the multitudes that belonged unto them, together with the profession of the gospel, were addicted zealously unto the observation of the law of Moses. The synod indeed at Jerusalem had determined, that the yoke of the law should not be put upon the necks of the Gentile converts, Acts xv. But eight or nine years after, when Paul came up to Jerusalem again, ch. xxi. 20—22, James informs him, that the many thousands of the Jews who believed did all zealously observe the law of Moses; and moreover judged that all those who were Jews by birth ought to do so, and on that account were like enough to assemble in a disorderly multitude, to inquire into the practice of Paul himself, who had been ill reported of amongst them. On this account, they kept their assemblies distinct from those of the Gentiles all the world over; as amongst others Hierome informs us, in his notes on the first chapter of the Galatians. All those Hebrews then to whom Paul-wrote this Epistle, continued in the use of Mosaical worship, as celebrated in the temple, and in their synagogues, and in the practice of all other legal institutions whatever. Whether they did this out of an unacquaintedness with their liberty in Christ, or out of a pertinacious adherence unto their own prejudicate opinions, | shall not determine.

§ 9. From this time forward, the body of the people of the Jews saw not a day of peace or quietness: tumults, seditions, outrages, robberies, murders, increased all over the nation. And these things, by various degrees, made way for that fatal war, which, beginning about six or seven years after the death of James, ended in the utter desolation of the people, city, temple, and worship, foretold so long before by Daniel the prophet, and intimated by our Saviour to lie at the door. This was that day of the Lord, whose sudden approach the apostle declares unto them, ch. x. 36, 37: ‘ For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.’ Μικρὸν ὁσον ὅσον. a very little while, less than you think of or imagine, the manner whereof he declares, ch. xii. 26 —28. And by this means he effectually diverted them from a pertinacious adherence unto those things whose dissolution, from God himself, was so nigh at hand; which argument was also afterwards pressed by Peter, 2 Kpist. 11.

§ 10. Our blessed Saviour had long before warned his disciples of all these things; particularly of the desolation that was to come upon the whole people of the Jews, with the tumults, distresses, persecutions, and wars which should precede it, directing them to the exercise of patience in the discharge of their duty, until the approach of the final calamity, out of which he advised them to free themselves by a timely flight from Jerusalem and all Judea, Matt. xxiv. 15—21. This, and no other, was the oracle mentioned by Eusebius, whereby the Christians were warned to depart out of Jerusalem. It was given, as he says, τοῖς δοκιμοις, to approved men amongst them. For though the prophecy itself was written by the evangelists, yet the special meaning of it was not known and divulged amongst all. Their leaders kept this secret for a season, lest the people should have been exasperated, and the servants of Christ obstructed in the work which they had to do before its accomplishment. And this was the way of the apostles also as to other future events, which, bein foretold by them, might provoke either Jews or Gentiles, if publicly divulged, 2 Thess. 11. 5,6. But now when the work of the church among the Jews for that season was come to its close, the elect being gathered out of them, and the final desolation of the city and people appearing to be at hand, by a concurrence of all the signs foretold by our Saviour,. those entrusted with the sense of that oracle warned their brethren to provide for that flight whereunto they were directed. That this flight and departure, probably with the loss of all their possessions, was grievous unto them, may easily be conceived.

But that which seems most especially to have perplexed them, was their relinquishment of that worship of God whereunto they had been so zealously addicted. That this would prove grievous unto them, our Saviour had before intimated, Matt. xxiv. 20. Hence were they so slow in their obedience unto that heavenly oracle, although excited with the remembrance of what befel Lot’s wife in the like tergiversation. Nay, it is likely from this Epistle, that many of them who had made profession of the gospel, rather than they would now utterly forego their old way of worship, deserted the faith; and, cleaying to their unbelieving countrymen, perished in their apostasy. These our apostle, in an especial manner, forewarns of their mevitable and sore destruction, by that fire of God’s indignation, which was shortly to devour the adversaries to whom they associated themselves, ch. x. 25—31].

§ 11. This was the time wherein this Epistle was written—this the condition of the Hebrews unto whom it was addressed, both in respect of their political and ecclesiastical estate.’ Paul, who had inexpressible zeal, and overflowing affection for his countrymen, being now in Italy, considering the present condition of their affairs; how pertinaciously they adhered to Mosaical institutions; how near the approach of their utter abolition was; how backward, during that frame of spirit, they would be to save themselves, by flying from the midst of that perishing generation; what danger they were in to forego the profession of the gospel, when it could not be retained without a relinquishment of their former divine service and ceremonies; writes this Epistle unto them, wherein he strikes at the very root of all their dangers and distresses. For whereas all the danger of their abode in Jerusalem and Judea, and so of falling in the destruction of the city and people, all the fears the apostle had of their apostasy. into Judaism, all their own distresses in reference unto their flight _ and departure, arose from their adherence unto and zeal for the law of Moses: by declaring unto them the nature, use, end, and expiration of these ordinances and institutions, he utterly removes the ground and occasion of all the evils mentioned. This was the season wherein this Epistle was written, and these some of the principal occasions (though it had other reasons also, as we shall see afterwards) of its being written. And though particular events of those days are buried in oblivion, yet I no way doubt but that through His grace who moved the apostle to write, and who directed him in writing it, it was made signally effectual towards the professing Hebrews, both to free them from that yoke of bondage wherein they had been detained, and to prepare them with cheerfulness unto the observation of evangelical worship, leaving their countrymen to perish in their sim and unbelief.

§ Of the language wherein this Epistle was originally written. Supposed to be the Hebrew. ὁ 2. Grounds of that supposition disproved. §3. Not translated by Clemens. § 4. Written in Greek. Arguments for the proof thereof. § 5. Of citations out of the LXX.

δ 1. Brcausr this Epistle was written to the Hebrews, most of the ancients granted that it was written in Hebrew. Clemens Alexandrinus was the first who asserted it: after whom, Origen gave it countenance, from whom Eusebius received it, and from him Hierome, which is the most ordinary progression of old reports. ‘The main reason which induced them to embrace this persuasion, was a desire to free the epistle from an argument against its being written by Paul, taken from the dissimilitude of the style used in it unto that of his other epistles. This being once admitted, though causelessly, they could think of no better answer, than that this supposed difference of style arose from the translation of this Epistle, which by the apostle himself was first written in Hebrew. Clemens Romanus is the person generally fixed on as the author of this translation; though some do faintly intimate that it must have been done by Luke the evangelist. But this objection from the diversity of style, which alone begat this persuasion, hath been already removed out of the way, so that it cannot be allowed to be a foundation of any other supposition.

§ 2. That which alone is added to give countenance unto this opinion is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this discourse; namely, that the apostle, writing unto the Hebrews, wrote in their native language, which being also his own, it is no wonder if he were more copious and elegant in it than he was in the Greek, with which he was originally unacquainted, learning it, as Hierome supposeth, upon his conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, οὐδὲν ὑγιες, Every thing in this pretended reason for that which indeed never was, is so far from certainty, that indeed it is beneath all probability.

For, 1. If this Epistle was written originally in Hebrew, whence comes it to pass that no copy of it in that language was ever read, seen, or heard of by the most diligent collectors of all fragments of antiquity in the primitive times? Had ever any such thing been extant, whence came it in particular, that Origen, that prodigy of industry and learning, should be able to attain no knowledge or report of it? 2. If it were incumbent on

Paul, writing unto the Hebrews, to write in their own language, why did he not also write in Latin unto the Romans? That he did so indeed Gratian affirms, but without pretence of proof or witness, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity, the evidence of the thing itself, and the constant confession of the Roman church. And Erasmus says well on Rom. i. 7, ‘Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis lingua Romana scripsisse.—‘ The error of them is to be reproved, or rather laughed at, who suppose Paul to have written unto the Romans in the Latin tongue. 3. The supposition, that the Hebrew tongue was then the vulgar language of the Jews, is most unfounded. The Hebrew was then known only to the learned amongst them, and a corrupt Syriac was the common dialect of the people even at Jerusalem. 4. It is averred with as little truth, that the Hebrew was the mother tongue of Paul himself, or that he was ignorant of the Greek, seeing he was born at Tarsus, im Cilicia, where he must have been brought up in the use of the Greek language. 5. The epistle was written for the use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, (especially for those in the east, as Peter witnesseth,) they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judea and Jerusalem. Now to those the Greek language, from the days of the Macedonian empire, had been in vulgar use, and continued so to be. 6. The Greek tongue was so well known, and so much used in Judea itself, that, as a learned man hath proved b sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar amongst them.

I know among the Rabbins there isfhention of a prohibition of learning the Greek tongue; and in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, Tit. Peah. ο, 1. they add a reason to it: M07 ΒΘ, it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary unto what they teach about the knowledge of tongues, required in those who were to be chosen into the sanhedrim; so it is sufficiently disproved by the instances of the translators of the Bible, Jesus Syrachides, Philo, Josephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirms, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 9, that the study of the elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made, as they say, Mishn. tit. Sota; in the last wars of Titus, MY WOON ON Wd Ndw MD Dwv dw oad wa, ‘In the wars of Titus they decreed that no man should teach his son the Greek language.’ For it must be distinguished from the decree of the Hasmo- -neans long before, prohibiting the study of the Grecian philosophy; so that this pretence is destitute of all colour, being made up of many vain and evidently false suppositions.

§ 3. Again, the epistle is said to be translated by Clemens, but where, or when, we are not informed. Was this done in Italy before it was sent unto the Hebrews? To what end, then, was it written in Hebrew, when it was not to be used but in Greek? Was it sent in Hebrew before the supposed translation? In what language was it communicated unto others by them who first received it? Clemens was never in the east to translate it. And if all the first copies of it were dispersed'in Hebrew, how came they to be so utterly lost, as that no report or tradition of them, or any one of them, did ever remain? Besides, if it were translated by Clemens in the west, and that translation alone preserved, how came it to pass that it was so well known and generally received in the east, before the western churches admitted of it? This tradition, therefore, is also every way groundless and improbable.

§ 5. Moreover, in confirmation of our persuasion, it is by some added, that the testimonies made use of in this Epistle, out of the Old Testament, are taken from the translation of the LX X., and that sometimes the stress of the argument rests on somewhat peculiar to that version, which could not have been done, had the epistle been written originally in Hebrew. But because this assertion contains other difficulties in it, and is built on a supposition which deserves a farther examination, weshall refer it unto its own place and season, which ensues.

§ 1. Testimonies cited by the apostle out of the Old Testament. ὁ 2—13. Compared with the original and translations. § 14—24. Whence the agreement of some of them with that of the LXX.

§ THERE is not any thing in this Epistle that is attended with more difficulty than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament, that are made use of in it. Hence, some from their unsuitableness as they have supposed, to the author’s purpose, have made bold to call in question, if not to reject the authority of the whole. But the matter of them, and the wisdom of the apostle in their application, must be treated of in the respective places Where they occur. We shall then manifest how vain and causeless are the exceptions which have been laid against them, and how singularly they are suited to the proof of those doctrines and assertions in confirmation whereof they are produced. But the consideration of the words also in which they are expressed, as these vary frequently from the original, is attended with some difficulty. And this concernment of the apostle’s citations, to prevent further trouble in the exposition of the several places, may be previously considered. Not that we shall here explain and vindicate them from the exceptions mentioned, which must of necessity be done afterwards, as occasion offers; but we shall only discover in general, what respect the apostle’s expressions have unto the original, and to the old translations thereof; and remove some false inferences that have been made on the consideration of them. To this end I shall briefly examine them all, and compare them with the places whence they are taken. | pressly treateth of the same subject with the apostle; to the reason of which insertion into the Greek version, we shall speak afterwards.

σου. ‘Sit thou at my right hand, until I place thine enemies the footstool of thy feet; from Psal. ex. 1; ὩΣ ‘at my right hand,’ ἐκ defwy, in the plural number, of the reason of which change and manner of expression, we shall treat in its proper place. And here there remains nothing of difference in any old translation.

Ver. 13, eyo ἔσομαι πεποιθως ex’ avr: “Τ will put my trust in him: from Psal. xvii. 3. LXX. ελπίω ex’ avrov, “1 will hope in him; but)2-7omN is rightly rendered by the apostle, ‘I will trust in him.’ The LXX. have these words of the apostle, Isa. viii. 17, where the words of the original are 2 ὙΣΡῚ, Sand I will wait for him;’ so that their words seem to be taken from this place of the apostle, as apprehending his testimony to be cited from the prophet; which, that it is not, we shall prove evidently afterwards.

their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my coyenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more. From Jer.xxxi. 32—35. Instead of τὸν πλη- σιον, ‘his neighbour, ver. 11. the LXX. read τὸν πολίτην, his fellow citizen. But some copies of the LXX. read πλησίον, and some of this text πολίτην, which makes it evident that there hath been tampering to bring them to uniformity. But the greatest difficulty of this quotation ariseth from the agreement of the apostle’s words, and the translation of the LXX. where both of them seem to depart from the original. For those words in the Hebrew text, ver. 33. 02 ΟΞ *a2N) “M2 ΓΝ ET TT WN, which my covenant they made void, and I was an husband unto them, or ruled over them, are rendered by them, οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ev ry διαθηκῃ pov, Kayw ἡμελησα avrwy, and they ‘ continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not.’ The reason of the apostle’s translation of those words we shall manifest and vindicate in our exposition of the context. At present I only observe the coincidence of theapostle’s words with those of the LXX. and that in a passage in which they both seem to differ from the original, and from all translations except the Syriac and the Arabic, which are made out of the LXX., though the Syriac follow it not in the confused transpositions that are made of Jeremiah’s prophecies, from chap. 25. to chap. 40. as the Arabic doth. This coincidence shall be explained when we have recounted the remaining testimonies, whereof some are attended with the same difficulty.

ove εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ pov ev avry, * But if any draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him, from Habak. ii. 4. The words of the prophet are transposed, and the beginning of the last clause much altered. Nd T>Dy my ἽΞ ww. ‘Behold it is lifted up, his soul is not right in him: but the sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost is preserved, as shall be manifested.