Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

§ 14. And these are ail the places that are cited κατα ῥητον, by the apostle in this Epistle out of the Old Testament. Very many others there are which he either alludes unto or expounds, that are not of our present consideration. Neither are these here proposed to be unfolded as to the sense of them, or as to the removal of the difficulties with which the application of them by him is attended. This is the proper work of the exposition of the epistle. All at present aimed at, is to present them in one view, with their agreement and differences from the original and translations, that we may the better judge of his manner of proceeding in the citing of them, and what rule he observed therein. And what in general may be concluded from the view which we have taken of them, I shall offer in the ensuing observations.

§ 15. First, It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX. as we intimated that it is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth in very few of them agree exactly with that Greek version of the Old Testament which is now extant; though apparently since the writing of this epistle it hath grown in its verbal conformity to the citations in the New. And in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. This the first prospect of the places and words compared will evince. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account, whence he should so much differ from it, almost in every quotation, as it is plain that he doth.

§ 16. Itis also undeniably manifest from this view of his words, that ‘the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original, or any translation whatever, if any other translation or Targum were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost by whose inspira- tion he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave to him, without the least prejudice unto truth, or the faith of the church.

§ 17. Whereas some of these testimonies, or a part of some of them, may appear at first view to be applied by him unsuitably unto their original import and intention, we shall manifest, not only the contrary to be true, against those who have made such exceptions, but also that he makes use of those which were most proper and cogent, with respect unto them with whom he had to do. For the apostle in this Epistle, as shall be fully evidenced, disputes upon the acknowledged principles and concessions of the Hebrews. It was then incumbent on him to make use of such testimonies, as were granted in their church to belong unto the ends and purposes for which by him they were produced. And that these are such shall be evinced from their own ancient writings and traditions.

§ 18. The principal difficulty about these citations lies in those wherein the words of the apostle are the same with those now extant in the Greek Bibles, both evidently departing from the original. Three places of this kind are principally vexed by expositors and critics. The first is that of Ps. xl. 7, where the words of the Psalmist in the Hebrew, > nD DN, ‘my ears hast thou bored, or digged, are rendered by the apostle according to the translation of the LXX. copa δὲ κατηρτισω por, ‘but a body hast thou prepared me.’ That the apostle doth rightly interpret the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Psalm, and in his paraphrase apply the words unto that very end for which they were intended, shall be cleared afterwards. The present difficulty concerns the coincidence of his words with those of the LX X., where apparently they answer not the original. The next is that of the prophet, Jer. xxxi. 32. 02 sndya DN}, ‘and I was an husband unto them; or I was a Lord unto them, or ruled over them, as the vulgar Latin renders the words. ‘The apostle with the LXX. cayw ἡμελησα avrwr, ‘and I regarded them not, or despised them. The third is that from Habak. 11. 4. 12 (WD) "ΝΣ Dy mr, ‘ behold, it is lifted up, his soul is not right in him;’ which words the apostle with the LXX. renders καὶ éav ὑποστειληται οὐκ EvdoKEL ἡ ψυχὴ pov ev αὐτῳ, * But if any draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.’

§ 19. Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LX-X. Capellus with some others proceed farther, and assign the rise of this difference unto some other copies of the Hebrew text used by the LXX. varying from those which now remain. Thus in particular, in that place of Jeremiah before mentioned, he conjectures that for ὙΠ ΣΙ they read ‘n>y2, “1 despised them; as another doth that they read ‘nbn to the same purpose; for of such conjectures there is no end. But as ‘nya may well signify as the apostle expounds it, and in other places doth so, as we shall see afterwards, so this boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. We must therefore look after another expedient for the removal of this difficulty.

§ 20. I say then, it is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LX X., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be farther confirmed. For,

§ 21. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX. (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text. Neither various lections, nor ambiguity of signification in the words of the original, can in most of them be pleaded. For instance, the apostle in applying those words of the Psalmist, Ps. xl. > ΠῚ DN unto the human nature and body of Christ, wherein he did the will of God, did certainly express the design and intention of the Holy Ghost in them. But who can imagine what should move the LXX. to render ji8 a word’ of a known signification and univocal, by σώμα when they had translated it an hundred and fifty times, that is constantly elsewhere, by ove and ὠτίον, an ear, which alone it signifies; or what should move them to render 773 by καταρτιζω, to prepare, when the word signifies to dig, or to bore, and is always so elsewhere rendered by themselves? Neither did any such thing come into their minds in the translation of those places whence this expression seems to be borrowed, Exod. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17. When any man then can give a tolerable conjecture, why the LXX. should be inclined thus to translate these words, I shall consider it. In the meantime I judge there is much more ground to suppose, that the apostle’s expressions which he had weighty cause to use, were by some person inserted into the Greek text of the Old Testament, than that the apostle would adopt a translation, whose authors forsake, without cause, what they knew to be the proper meaning of some obvious words.

§22. Secondly, It is certain that some words used by the apostle have been inserted into some copies of the Greek Bibles, which being single words, and of little importance, prevailed not in them all, as may be seen in sundry of the foregoing instances. And why may we not think that some whole sentences might on the same account be inserted in some of them, which being of more importance found a more general acceptance? And how by other means also, that translation was variously changed and corrupted of old, even before the days of Hierome, learned men do know and confess.

§ 23. It is further evident that one place (at least) in this Epistle, which is urged by the apostle, as a testimony out of the Old Testament, is inserted in another place of the text, than that from which the apostle took it, and that where there is not the least colour for its insertion. This is the testimony out of Psalm xcy. 7, which the apostle cites chap. i. 6, in words much differing from those wherewith the original is rendered by the LXX. This some of the transcribers of the Bible not knowing well where to find haye inserted in the very syllables of the apostle’s expression into Deut.

xxxii. 43, where it yet abides, though originally it had no place there, as we shall in the exposition of the words sufficiently manifest. The same and no other is the cause why 77 is rendered ῥάβδος, Gen. xlix. And nay we not as well think, nay is it not more likely, that they would insert his words into the places from whence they knew his testimonies were taken, with a very little alteration of the ancient reading, than that they would wholly intrude them into the places from whence they were not taken by him, which yet undeniably hath been done, and that with success ¢ Nay, we find that many things out of the New Testament are translated into the Apocryphal Books themselves. As for instance, Ecclesiasticus, xxiy. 3, we have these words in the Latin copies, ‘ Ex ore altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem Creaturam;’ which are cited by Bellarmine and others in the confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereas they are taken from Col. i. 15, and are in no Greek copies of that book.

§ 24. Upon these reasons then, which may yet be rendered more cogent by many other instances, (but we confine ourselves to this Epistle,) I suppose I may conclude, that it is more probable at least, that the apostle’s interpretations of the testimonies used by him, all agreeably unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, were by some of old inserted into the vulgar copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and therein prevailed unto common acceptation; than that he himself followed in the citation of them a translation departing without reason from the original text, and diverting unto such senses, as its authors knew not to be contained in them, which must needs give offence unto them with whom he had to do. It appears, then, that from hence no light can be given unto our inquiry after the language wherein this Epistle was originally written, though it be clear enough from other considerations.

ὁ 1. Oneness of the church. Mistake of the Jews about the nature of the promises. § 2. Promise of the Messiah the foundation of the church. But as including the covenant. §3. The church confined unto the person and posterity of Abraham. His call and separation for a double end. § 4. Who properly the seed of Abraham. §5. Mistakes of the Jews about the covenant. §6. Abraham the father of the faithful and heir of the world, on what account. §7, 8. The church still the same,

§ 1. Tue Jews at the time of writing the Epistle, (and their posterity in all succeeding generations, follow their example and tradition,) were not a little confirmed in their obstinacy and unbelief, by a misapprehension of the true sense and nature of the promises of the Old Testament. For whereas they found many glorious promises made to the church in the days of the Messiah, especially concerning the great access of the Gentiles unto it; they looked upon themselves, the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, as the first, proper, and indeed only subject of these promises, unto whom in their accomplishment, others were to be proselyted and joined, the substance and foundation of the church remaining still with them. But the event answered not their expectation. Instead of inheriting, merely upon their carnal interest and privilege, all the promises, which they looked for then, and which they continue to look for unto this day, they found that they must come in themselves on a new account, to be sharers in them in common with others, or be rejected, whilst those others enjoyed the inheritance. This filled them with wrath and envy, which greatly added to the strengthening of their unbelief. They could not bear with patience an intimation of letting out the vineyard to other husbandmen. With this principle and prejudice of theirs the apostle dealt directly in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. ix. x. xi.!

On the same grounds he proceeds with them in this Epistle. And because his answer to their objection from the promises, lies at the foundation of many of his reasonings with them, the nature of it must be here previously explained. Not that I shall here enter into a consideration of the argument of the Jews to prove that the Messiah is not yet come, because the promises in their sense of them, are not yet accomplished; which shall be fully removed in the close of these discourses; but as I said, I shall only in general open the nature of that answer, which our apostle returns unto them, and on which he builds his reasonings with them.

§2. We shall have occasion afterwards at large to show, that after the entrance of sin, God founded his church in the promise of the Messiah given unto Adam. Now though that promise was the support and encouragement of mankind to seek the Lord, and although as a promise absolutely considered, it proceeded from mere grace and mercy; yet as it was the foundation of the church, it included in it the nature of a covenant, virtually requiring a re-stipulation unto obedience in them who by faith come to have an interest in it. And this the nature of the thing itself required; for the promise was given unto this end, that men might have a new bottom and foundation of obedience, that of the first covenant being disannulled. Hence in the following explications of the promise, this condition of obedience is expressly added. So upon its renewal unto Abraham, God required that he should walk before him and be upright. This promise then, as it hath the nature of a covenant, including the grace that God would show unto sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience that he required from them, was from the first giving of it, the foundation of the church, and of the whole worship of God therein.

Unto this church so founded and built on this covenant, and by the means thereof to the redeeming mediatory seed promised therein, were all the following promises, and the privileges exhibited in them, given and annexed. © Neither hath, or ever had any individual person, any spiritual right unto, or interest in any of those promises or privileges, whatever his outward condition was, but only by virtue of his membership in the church built on the covenant, whereunto as we said, they do all appertain. _ On this account the church before the days of Abraham, though scattered up and down the world, and subject unto many changes in its worship, by the addition of new revelations, was still but one and the same; because founded in the same covenant, and interested thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would at any time grant unto his church.

§ 3. In process of time, God was pleased to confine this church, as unto the ordinary visible dispensation of his grace, unto the person and posterity of Abraham. Upon this restriction of the church, covenant, and promise, the Jews of old founded a plea in their own justification against the doctrine of the Lord Christ and his apostles. We are the children, the seed of Abraham, was their continual cry; on which account, they presumed that all the promises belonged unto them, and indeed unto them alone And this their persuasion hath cast them, as we shall see, into a woeful and fatal mistake. God granted two privileges unto Abraham, upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and covenant.

First, That according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed, who was the very life of the covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained init. That this privilege was temporary, having a limited season, time, and end, appointed unto it, the very nature of the thing itself doth demonstrate. or upon this actual exhibition in the flesh, it was of course to cease. In consequence of this promise, the posterity of Abraham was separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulness of time, and be of them according unto the flesh, Rom. ix. 5.

Secondly, Together with this, he had also another privilege granted unto him, namely that his faith, whereby he was personally interested in the covenant, shculd be the pattern of the faith of the church in all generations; and that none should ever come to be a member of the church, or a sharer in its blessings, but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was promised, to be brought forth from him in the world. On account of this privilege, he became the father of all them that do believe. For they that are of the faith, the same are the children of Abraham, Gal. iii. 7; Rom. iv. 11. As also heirs of the world, Rom. iv. 13; in that all that should believe throughout the world, being thereby implanted into the covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children.

8.4, Answerably unto this two-fold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according unto the flesh: and a seed according to the promise, that is, such as by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the elect of God. Not that these two seeds were always subjectively different, so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh, should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise; or on the contrary, that the seed according to the promise should none of it be his seed after the flesh. Our apostle declares the contrary in the instances of Isaac and Jacob, with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved, Rom. ix. x. xi. But sometimes the same seed came under different considerations, being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh, and according to the promise; and sometimes the seed itself was different, those according to the flesh not being of the promise, and so on the contrary. Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh, separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh, because they were his carnal posterity; and they were also of the seed of the promise, because, by their own personal faith, they were interested in the covenant of Abraham their father. Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham, and of the number of the people separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh; and yet were not of the seed according to the promise, nor interested in the spiritual blesings of the covenant, because they did not personally believe, as our apostle declares, chap. iv. of this Epistle. And many afterwards, who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor interested in the privilege of bringing forth the Messiah in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spiritual seed by faith; that in them he might become heir of the world, and that all nations of the earth might be blessed in him. Now, it is evident that the church to whom the promises are made, doth consist of them who by faith are interested in the covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or not.

§ 5. And herein lay the great mistake of the Jews of old, in which they are followed by their posterity unto this day, They thought that no more was needful to interest them in the covenant of Abraham, but that they were his seed according to the flesh. And they constantly pleaded ‘the latter privilege, as the ground and reason of the former. It is true, they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh; but on that account, they can have no other privilege than Abraham himself had in the flesh. And this was, as we have showed, that he should be set apart as a special channel, through whose loins God would bring the promised seed into the world. In like manner were they separated to be a peculiar a as his posterity, from amongst whom he should be so brought orth.

That this separation and privilege was to cease, when the end of it was accomplished, and the Messiah exhibited, the very nature of the thing declares. For to what purpose should it be continued, when that was fully effected for which it was designed? But the Jews would extend this privilege, and mix it with the other; contending, that because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh, therefore the whole blessing and covenant of Abraham belongs unto them. But as our Saviour proved that, in the latter sense, they were not the children of Abraham, because they did not the works of Abraham, so, our apostle plainly demonstrates, Rom. iv. 1x. x. xi.; Gal. 111. iv., that those of them who had not the faith of Abraham, had no interest in his blessings and covenant. Seeing therefore that their other privilege had come to an end, with all the carnal ordinances that attended it, by the actual coming of the Messiah, to which they were subservient, if they did not by faith in the promised seed attain an interest in this of the spiritual blessing, it is evident that they could on no account be considered as actual sharers in the covenant of God.

§ 6. We have seen that Abraham, on the account of his faith, and not of his separation according to the flesh, was the father of all that believe, and heir of the world; that the church in all ages, is founded on the covenant made with Abraham, and on the work of redemption, to be performed according to that covenant: and that,in Abraham’s interest in this covenant, we are chiefly to regard his privilege as being a believer, and the privilege of being the father of the Messiah according to the flesh as subordinate to this. Now wheresover this covenant made with Abraham is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the church, unto whom all the promises and privileges of the church do belong. Hence it was, that at the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church taken away, and another set up in the room thereof; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant.

It is true, the former carnal privilege of Abraham and _ his posterity, expiring on the grounds before mentioned, the ordinances of worship which were suited thereto, did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them. For whereas both these, namely the carnal and spiritual privileges of Abraham’s covenant, had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, they were now to be separated, and a trial to be made (Mal. 11.) who of the Jews had interest in both, and who in one only. They who had only the carnal privilege of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also, that is, in all the promises annexed unto the covenant; but the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church unto which the promises belong, remained with them who were heirs of Abraham’s faith only.

§ 7. Itremains then that the church founded in the covenant, unto which all the promises did and do belong, abode at the coming of Christ, and doth abide ever since, in and among those who are the children of Abraham by faith. The old church was not taken away, and a new one set up, but the same church continued, only in those who by faith inherited the promises. Great alterations indeed were then made in the outward state and condition of the church. As, 1. The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation to bring forth the Messiah, then failed; and therewith their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. 2. The ordinances of worship suited unto that privilege expired, and came to an end. 3. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suited unto the new light and grace granted then unto the church. 4. The Gentiles came in to the faith of Abraham, together with the Jews, to befellow-heirs with them in his blessing. But none of these nor all of them together, made any such alteration in the church, but that it was still one andthe same. The olive tree was the same, only some branches were broken off, and others grafted into it; the Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room.

ὃ 8. And this doth and must determine the difference between the Jews and Christians, about the promises of the Old Testament. They are all made unto the church. No individual person hath any interest in them, but by virtue of his membership with the church. This church is, and always was, one and the same. With whomsoever it remains, the promises are,theirs; and that not by application or analogy, but directly and properly. They belong as immediately at this day, either to the Jews or Christians, as they did of old to any. The question is, with whom is this church founded on the promised seed in the covenant. This is Sion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple of God. The Jews plead that it is with them, because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh. Christians tell them, that their privilege on this account, is of another nature, and ended with the coming of the Messiah. That the church unto whom all the promises belong, are only those who are heirs of Abraham’s faith; believing as he did, and thereby interested in his covenant. Notas though the promise made to Abraham was of none effect; for as it was made good unto his carnal seed in the exhibition of the Messiah, so the spiritual privileges of it belonged only unto those of the Jews and Gentiles, in whom God had graciously purposed to effect the faith of Abraham. Thus was, and is the church, whereunto all the promises belong, still one and the same, namely, Abraham’s children according to the faith; and among those promises this is one, that God will be a God unto them and to their seed for ever.

§ 1—4. Of the Judaical distribution of the Old Testament. § 5—11. The original and nature of their oral law and traditions. § 12—14. The whole disproved. § 15—20. Agreement of the Jews and papists about traditions, instanced in sundry particulars.

1. The apostle in dealing with the Hebrews about the revelation of the will of God made unto their fathers, assigns it in general unto his speaking unto them in the prophets, ch.i.1. This speaking unto them, the present Jews affirm to consist of two parts. Ist, That which Moses and the following prophets was commanded to write for the public use of the church. 2dly, That which being delivered only by word of mouth unto Moses, and continued by oral tradition until after the last destruction of the temple, was afterwards committed unto writing. And because those who would read our exposition of this Epistle, or the epistle itself with profit, had need of some insight into the opinions and traditions of the Jews about these things, I shall, for the sake of them that want either skill or leisure to search after them elsewhere, give a brief account of their faith, concerning the two heads of revelation mentioned; and therein discover the principle, means, and nature of their present apostasy and infidelity.

§ 2. The Scripture of the Old Testament they call ΝΡ, ‘the reading, and divide it into three parts: Ist, TNT, ‘the law ἡ 2d, Ὁ ΝΔΞΣ, ‘the prophets; 3d, D’a1ND, ‘the writings, by divine inspiration, which are usually called the ‘ Hagiographa, or holy writings. And this distribution of the books of the Old Testament is in general intimated by our Saviour, Luke xxiv. 44, tavra ra yeypappeva ev τῳ νομῳ Μωσεως, καὶ προφηταις, καὶ ψαλμοις. “ΑἹ! things written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and the psalms;’ under which last head, all the poetical books of the Scripture are contained. Thus Rabbi Bechai in Cad Hackemach, mw>y ΤΠ Dan OND Mn opdn, the law,’ (so sometimes they call the whole volume), ‘is divided into three parts, the law, the prophets, and the holy writings. All comprised generally under the name of the law; for so they say in ‘ Midrash Tehillim,’ Ps. Ixxvii. 1. ΤΠ OSs AN OAT, ‘the psalms are the law, and the prophets are the law; that is, the whole Scripture.

This distribution, so far as itis intimated in the words of our Saviour, doth evidently arise from the nature and subject-matter of the books themselves. And this was the received division of the books of the Old Testament, whilst the Judaical church continued. But the post-talmudical doctors overlooking or neglecting the true reason of this distribution, have fancied others taken from the different manners and degrees of revelation, by which these books were given out to the church. Amongst these they make the revelation of Moses the most excellent, and are very vain in counting the privileges and preeminences which it had above all others; these are elsewhere examined. In the next degree they placed those which proceeded from the spirit of prophecy, which they distinguish from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Yea, in the eleven degrees of divine revelation assigned by Maimonides Mor. Nebu. par. 2, that by inspiration is cast into the last and lowest place. But their distinctions are groundless. In all the prophets it was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost alone, that enabled them infallibly to declare the mind of God unto the church, 2 Pet. i. 21; but because God was pleased to use various ways of representing things to the minds of the prophets, therefore the Jews have fancied different degrees of revelation.

Now the books thus given by the spirit of prophecy they make of two sorts, Ist, D°D}WN7 ὈΝΝΔΞΣ, ‘the former prophets,’ which are all the historical books of the Old Testament written before the captivity, as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; Ruth only excepted. 2d, D’ITMN DNva3, ‘the latter prophets, which are all the prophetical books peculiarly so called, Daniel only excepted; that is, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. Of the last sort, or ΘΔ ῚΠΞ Cethubim, books written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, are the poetical books of the Scripture; Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Lamentations, with Ecclesiastes, whereunto they add Ruth, Daniel, and the historical books written after the captivity, as the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which make up the canon of the Old Testament. Why sundry of these books should be cast into the last divison, as the story of Ruth, and the prophecy of Daniel, they can give no tolerable account. The other books also, written after the captivity, are plainly of the same nature with those which they call the former prophets. And for that of Daniel, it contains in it almost all the eminent kinds of revelation, whereby they themselves would distinguish the Spirit of prophecy from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Neither have they any reason for this distribution; but finding the general division before mentioned to have been received inthe church of old, they have at their pleasure disposed of the particular books into these orders, casting Daniel, as is probable, into their last order, because so many of his visions ° and prophecies relate unto other nations besides their own.

The law or the books of Moses they call wn, or the ‘Pentateuch,’ from the number of the books; or, ΤΠ ‘WANT ΓΤ, the ‘ fives, or the five parts of the law; whereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Paulinus, wrests those words of the apostle, 1 Cor. xiv. 9, ‘I had rather speak zevre Noyouc, ‘five words’ in the church; as if he had respect to the law of Moses.

These five books they divide into Paraschw, or sections, whereof they read one each Sabbath day in their synagogues. Genesis is divided into twelve sections, Exodus into eleven, Leviticus into ten, Numbers into ten, Deuteronomy into ten, which all make fifty three. By reading one each day, and two in one day, they read through the whole in the course of the of a year, beginning at the feast of tabernacles. And this they did of old, as James testifies, Acts xv. 21. ‘For Moses of old time, hath in every city, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. Some of them make fifty four of these sections, dividing the last section of Genesis into two, beginning the latter at chap. xlvi. 28, constituting the following chapter a distinct section, though it have not the usual note of a section prefixed unto it, but only one single Samech; to note, as they say, that it is absolutely closed or shut up, on account of the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, chap. xlix., whose season 1s unknown to them.

§ 3. They also divide the law into lesser sections; and those of two sorts, open and close, which have their distinct marks in their bibles, and many superstitious observations they have about the beginning and ending of them. Of the first sort there are in Genesis 43, of the latter 48. In Exodus, of the first sort 69, of the latter 95. In Leviticus, of the first sort 52, of the latter 46. In Numbers, of the first 92, of the latter 66. Deuteronomy, of the first sort 34, of the latter 379, in all 669. Besides they observe the number of the verses at the end of every book; as also that) in p72, Levit. xi. 42, is the middle letter of the law; 7, Ley. x. 16, the middle word; Levit. xiii. 33, the middle verse; and that the number of all the verses through the law is 23,206.

Moreover they divide the law, or five books of Moses, into 53, D°771D Sedarim, or distinctions: whereof Genesis contains 42. Exodus, 29. Leviticus 23, Numbers 32, Deuteronomy. 27; which kind of distinctions they also observe throughout the Scripture, assigning unto Joshua 14, Judges 14, Samuel 34, Kings 35, Isaiah 26, Jeremiah 31, Kzekiel 29; the lesser prophets 21, Psalms 19, Job 8, Proverbs 8, Keelesiastes 4, Canticles and Lamentations are not divided; Daniel 7, Ksther, 7, Ezra and Nehemiah 10, Chronicles 25.

Besides, they distribute the prophets into sections called Haphters, that answer the sections which are read every sabbath day in their synagogues. And this division of the prophets they affirm to have been made m the days of Antiochus Epiphanes,, whom they call ywrn, ‘that wicked one, when the reading of the law was prohibited unto them. All which things are handled at large by others.

§ 4. Having for a long season lost the promise of the Spirit, and therewith all saving spiritual knowledge of the mind and will of God in the Scripture, the best of their employment about it, hath been in reference to the words and letters of it, and in this their diligence hath been of use, in the preservation of the copies of it entire and free from corruption. For after that the canon of the Old Testament was completed in the days of Ezra, and points or vowels added to the letters, to preserve the knowledge of the tongue, and to facilitate the right reading and learning of it, the industry, diligence, and curiosity which they have used about the letter of the whole Scripture isincredible. The collection of their pains and observations to this purpose is called Massora, or Messara, consisting in critical observation upon the words and letters of the Scripture; begun to be collected of old, even it may be from the days of Ezra, and continued until the time of composing the Talmud, with some additional observations annexed unto it since that time.

The writers, composers, and gatherers of this work, they call ya T0777, whose principal observations were gathered and published by Rabbi Jacob Chaiim, and annexed to the Venetian Bibles; whereas before the Massora was written in other books innumerable. In this their critical doctrine, they give us the numbers of the verses of the Scripture, as also how often every word is used in the whole, and with what variety as to letters and yowels; what is the whole number of all the letters in the Bible, and how often each letter is severally used, with innumerable other observations which have their use; the sum whereof is gathered by Buxtorf, in his excellent treatise on that subject. And here is the knowledge of their masters bounded; they go not beyond the letter, but are more blind than moles in the spiritual sense of it. And thus they continue an example of the righteous judgment of God, in giving them up to the counsels of their own. hearts, and an evident instance that the letter of the Scripture is un-