LIBRARY OF THE University of California. Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. Received October, i8g4, ^Accessions No,S[jf^l^ . Class No. \ . fj.iP: lloi/UvDV^^ 5w^« ' f 'M # :*? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/commentaryonepisOOstuarich ^',/3, frOyU^^^ ie COMMENTARY OK THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. BY MOSES STUART, Late Frof. of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andover. THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. ANDOVER: PUBLISHED BY WARREN F. DRAPER 1854. '^^ Of thbT^^ UiriVERSITT] lingto Actof Cor Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1833, by MOSES STUABT, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. ADVERTISEMENT. Whatever fears may have been entertained respecting the appli- cation of the principles of criticism to the Sacred Text, and whatever doubts may have led some to decry the cultivation of that species of knowledge which has for its object the grammatical and philological interpretation of that text, it is now almost universally admitted, that such operations are indispensable to the attainment of a solid and satisfactory acquaintance with its contents. The peculiar exigencies of the times call for a more than ordinary attention to such subjects, and a richer stock of materials specially adapted to facili- tate their study. For, with all the progress which has been made in matters of general Biblical research, and all the diligence which has been applied to the exposition of the Scriptures, the want of strictly philological and exegetical commentary has been severely felt, both by divines and theological students, and by a very con- siderable portion of intelligent and well-educated Christians, whose habits of reading bring them into constant contact with difficulties which only such commentary can remove. To engage in labours of this description, few were better qualified than Professor Stuart. Intimately acquainted with the minutias of Hebrew and Greek Grammar ; familiar with the diversities which characterize the style of the Sacred Writers ; trained by long study of the laws of Biblical exegesis to a matured and refined tact in seizing the point, the bearing, the various shades and ramifications of meaning which are couched under the sacred phraseology ; versed in the theological learning of Germany ; imbued with a sin- cere lov§ of Divine truth, and a profound reverence for its dictates ; ADVERTISEMENT. and, withal, endowed with a manly and richly cultivated intellect — his talents and acquirements peculiarly fitted him for translating and commenting upon the Epistle to the Hebrews : — a task replete with difficulties, but which he has here performed with so much credit to himself, and so much advantage to the church of God. The ordeal to which this important portion of Scripture has been subjected by the wild and extravagant hypotheses of some of the master-spirits of Germany, rendered it a matter of imperious neces- sity that it should be submitted to a fresh and full investigation. This, the perusal of the introductory part of the volume will prove that the author has successfully done. Questions respecting style, authorship, and interpretation, which men of such celebrity as Eich- horn, Bertholdt, De Wette, and others, were considered to have completely set at rest, have received the most patient and rigid consideration ; and, in most instances triumphantly, in all more or less satisfactorily, the very reverse of their conclusions has been shewn to be in accordance with the real facts of the case. The very favourable reception which the former edition of the work has met with in this country, and the continued and increasing demand which there has been for copies since it was exhausted, have induced the present publishers to bring out a new and correct impression. May the Divine blessing accompany its more extended circulation, that a more general taste for the close and accurate study of the Sacred Oracles may be created, and a more intimate acquaintance with this important Epistle promoted ! E. HENDERSON. London, September 24, 1833. [TJFI7EEJ5IT7] PREFACE. The origin of the following work must be ascribed to the duties which my present occupation calls upon me to perform. As the time spent in the study of the Scriptures, at this seminary, has not allowed me to lecture upon all the Epistles of Paul, it has been my custom to select those which appeared to be the most difficult, and, in some respects, the most instructive and important. These are, the epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews. In respect to the latter epistle, many serious exegetical difficulties occur, to remove which much time and extensive study are necessary. But the greatest difficulty of all arises from the fact, that this epistle is anonymous, and that the Pauline origin of it has been more or less doubted or disputed, ever since the latter part of the second century, if not still earlier. This subject I have deemed to be very interesting and important; and I have endeavoured, while discharging my duty of lecturing upon the epistle, to throw what light I could upon the dark places of its literature. Experience, however, has taught me, that lectures could com- municate to students but a very limited and incompetent view of the disputed ground, in regard to the origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. The exceedingly numerous quotations, and appeals to b VI PREFACE. writers ancient and modern, which it was necessary to make, and the almost endless references to the Scriptures, which apposite illustration and argument required, rendered it impossible that a mere lecturer should communicate, or his hearer acquire and retain, any thing like an adequate view of the whole subject. What was true of the literary introduction to the epistle, was also found to be true in respect to many of the most important exegetical difficulties connected with the interpretation of it. The young student, by the mere repetition or delivery of any lecture upon them, (however particular or plain it might be in the view of an experienced interpreter,) was not able to acquire such a knowledge as would avail thoroughly to free him from his embarrassments, or to render him capable of explaining such matters to others. The knowledge of these facts, resulting from repeated experience, first led me to the design of publishing, in extenso, on the epistle to the Hebrews. The repeated solicitations which have been made, that I would engage in this undertaking, might, perhaps, constitute some apology for embarking in it, if such an apology were necessary. But the time has come, when, in our country, no apology is neces- sary for an effort to promote the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, or to cast any light upon them. There is an apprehension, at pre- sent, somewhat extensive and continually increasing, that no age, nor any body of men pertaining to it, have done all which the human faculties, with the blessing of God, are capable of accomplishing. Christians, in this country, are coming more and more to believe, that as the church advances nearer to that state, in wTiich " the knowledge of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the seas," a better understanding of the Scriptures may be confidently hoped for and expected. It cannot be rationally supposed, that this will be communicated by a miraculous interposition. It must result from candid, patient, long-continued, and radical investigation of the language and idiom of the sacred writers. Interpretations a priori have long enough had their sway in the church ; and it is very manifest, that a more judicious and truly Protestant mode of thinking and reasoning, in respect to the interpretation of the Scrip- tures, has commenced, and bids fair to be extensively adopted. Whether the following sheets will contribute to aid this great object, must be left to the readers of them to decide. I can only PREFACE. Vii say, that I have aimed at the accomplishment of this end, and that, if I have failed in respect to it, one great design of my undertaking and labours is defeated. Probably some of my readers may think, that the introductory dissertations are more extended than was necessary, and that they are too minute and circumstantial. My only reply to this is, that an acquaintance with what has of late years been done, and with what is now doing, to shake the credit of our epistle, and to eject it from the canon of sacred writings to which appeal can be made in proof of Scripture doctrine, would of itself be an ample apology for all the pains I have taken, and all the minuteness of examination into which I have gone. Should it be said, that the German writers, whom I have opposed, are as yet unknown in this country, and that it was inexpedient to make them known ; the allegation would only show how little acquainted the person who makes it is, with the actual state of our present knowledge, and with the relations iu which we stand to the German authors. Our youth are every day resorting to Germany for education ; our colleges are filling up with professors who have been educated there ; the language of Germany is becoming an object of classical study in our public seminaries of learning; and in a multitude of ways, through the medium of trans- lations as v/ell as by the knowledge of the German language, is the literature of Germany producing an influence upon our own. In this state of things, the attacks made upon the Pauline origin, or upon the canonical credit, of the epistle to the Hebrews, cannot be kept back from the knowledge of our intelligent and industrious students. It is better, therefore, to meet the whole matter with an open face, fairly to examine it, and either to yield to the force of arguments suggested by the critics of the old world, or to combat them in such a way as efl*ectually to defend the positions ^hich we take. Christian candour and impartiality demand this. The day of auihority in the church is passed by; it is to be hoped, that the day oi sound reason and of argument is to follow. It is better to convince men by an api>8al to their understandings and their hearts, than it is to terrify them by holding the rod of authority over them, or to deter them from speaking out their convictions by arguments ad invidiam. These are the never-failing resource of minds, which /#^^^^ ffUIIVl VIH PREFACE. are conscious of possessing no better means than such, of convincing others, and which naturally resort to those which are most within their reach. Our religion seeks no concealment ; it fears no assault-s. If it will not stand the test of sober reason and of argument, it will not long have place in the world among enlightened men. Those who shrink from such tests, and declaim against the use of our reason, show their want of confidence in the cause which they profess to espouse. If they did but know it, they are already half won over to the ranks of doubters or of unbelievers. On the subjects of interpretation, one may well say, '* Drink deep, or taste not." A half-illuminated interpreter doubts every thing, and sees nothing clearly. Would God, the rising generation of those who are devoted to the study of the Divine word, might feel deeply penetrated with the truth of this ! It would be an event highly auspicious to the cause of truth in the world. In the new translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews which is here furnished, it has been my object to give a more exact view of the features of the original Greek, than is presented by our common English version. Of all the tasks which an interpreter performs, this is the most difficult. To make some kind of translation, is indeed a very easy thing ; to follow on in the tracks of some other interpreter, is equally easy. But to translate, so as to make an author, who has composed in another language, altogether intel- ligible, and yet preserve all the shades, and colouring, and nice transitions, and (so far as may be) even the idioms themselves of the original, is the very highest and most difficult work which an interpreter is ever called to perform. A translation, faithfully pre- senting the original, is in itself a commentary. It is the sum of all an interpreter's labours, exhibited in the briefest manner possible. Hence the little success that has attended most of the versions which have been made of the Scriptures. Their authors have either abridged or paraphrased the original ; more commonly the latter. Neither is admissible, in a translation truly faithful. Whether I have shunned the one and the other, must be left to the judgment of the reader. I much prefer the Saxon English for a version of the Bible. I have accordingly chosen it whenever I could, and have purposely PREFACE. IX avoided substituting Latinizing English in its room, unless a regard to the meaning of the original compelled me to do it. It is proper to advertise the reader, that in the translation I have purposely avoided the usual division into chapters and verses, which is exhibited in our common editions of the Scriptures. I have done this, because the sense is sometimes disturbed by it, and the reader is unwarily led to associate things together in a manner which the writer of the epistle never intended. The words or phrases which are supplied in the translation, and which are not expressed in the original Greek, I have uniformly included in brackets, so that the reader may at once see the extent of the liberty that has been taken in order to render the version more explicit. For the sake of accommodation, the designation of the chapters and verses is made upon the margin ; and the larger pauses mark the end of a verse, when they occur in a line that is opposite to any number designating a verse. 1 have, in most cases, repeated the greater part of the translation, in printing the commentary or notes upon the original. This has been done merely to save the reader the trouble of turning con- tinually back to the version, which is often tedious, and always inconvenient. But I have not been careful always to repeat verbatim^ in the notes, the words of the translation, as they stand at the commencement of the volume. In fact, the reader may regard the version at the head of the volume, and that contained among the notes, as two different versions. They were, for the most part, made at different times, and in a measure independently of each other. The former is that on which I have bestowed most pains as to diction. The latter is merely designed to facilitate the labours of the student. The translation is followed by a continuous commentary upon the whole epistle. When difficulties demanded special and extended investigation, I have thrown the result of such investigation into Excursus at the end. There, subjects of difficulty can be treated, and studied, with more convenience and more fully, than if inter- mixed with the usual series of exegetical notes. I have consulted commentaries both ancient and modern, while composing the exegetical part of the work. Chrysostom, Theodoret, X PREFACE. and Theophylact, are the ancient interpreters, who may be read with much interest, and with some profit. I owe to them not a few hints, which I regard as valuable. From more recent critics 1 have derived very considerable aid, which I would gratefully acknow- ledge. After all, I have examined other writers, rather for the sake of correcting or enlarging my own impressions, than for the sake of abridging or condensing their works. My uniform method of study has been, to exhaust the resources of my own mind before I applied to others for help. But 1 have neither despised nor neg- lected this help ; nor have I, in any case, followed the opinion of any critic, unless I was satisfied with the reasons which he gives for it. Critics of very different sentiments and views, I have consulted. Impartial investigation demanded this ; and I should be but ill satisfied, in respect to the discharge of my own duty, if I had not done it. The interpretations which I have adopted and defended, are the result of long-continued and often-repeated labour and study. This, however, does not of itself enhance their value to the reader. They must stand by their own internal value, if they do stand, and not by the length of time during which they have been coming into existence. I have not made it an object to transcribe other commentators, and continually to refer to them. It is a mode of commentary to which I have a dislike ; particularly so, when it is carried to the excess to which many interpreters have carried it. I have there- fore retreated as far from it as my views of usefulness and propriety would permit me to do. The reader will have, at least, one advantage from this. He will not be compelled, merely agere actum, to read over what he had read before. To say, that critical commentaries on the Scriptures, of the higher kind, are wanting in the English language, would be only to repeat what every biblical student has long felt and confessed. The time has come, when this evil ought, if possible, to be redressed. Whether the attempt to assist in this great work, which I have made in the following sheets, can be justly regarded as a successful one, is not for the writer to judge. It will be understood, of course, that the work is designed for students in theology, and for those who engage in a truly critical PREFACE. XI study of the Scriptures. With commentaries designed for the edifi- cation of Christian readers at large, I believe the English world is better supplied than any other part of Christendom. Henry, Patrick, Guise, Orton, Doddridge, Brown, Clark, Scott, and others, have published works of this nature. It is not my design to occupy the ground which they have already occupied. The reader of my work must not expect sermonizing commentary, but an attempt at philological and critical interpretation. Cvique suum. I bless God for raising up such commentators as those just men- tioned, for Christians at large; but the professed interpreters of his word need other aid, and that very different from what their works afford, in order to attain a fundamentally critical knowledge of the original Scriptures. In regard to the Excursus, different opinions will not improbably be entertained respecting them. The expediency of them, their length, and the correctness of some of the positions which they advance, may all be called in question. In matters so difficult and delicate, and which have so long been the theme of controversy, it cannot be expected that there will be, at once, an entire and uni- versal agreement of opinion. The writer of these sheets does not venture to flatter himself with the expectation, that all will adopt his views. Of one thing, however, he is very confident ; and this is, that he claims no authority of any kind over the opinions of others. But he thinks it proper to express his sincere desire, that those who may differ from him as to some of the opinions advanced in the Excursus, or in the body of the work, would thoroughly examine the subjects in respect to which they may think him erro- neous, before they pass sentence of condemnation. It is not too much, moreover, to request, that they would assign their reasons why they differ from him. In this way, differences of opinion may ultimately aid in the discovery of truth, with respect to dark and difficult subjects, and so prove to be of real utility to the church. Subjects of high and awful interest in religion should not be treated with obtrusive confidence, nor with presumption. I shall most thankfully accept any better light than I now have, let it come from what quarter it may. Being a Protestant, and nullius addictus jurare in verba magistrif I deem it not unreasonable to expect, that where I may be in the wrong, I may be convinced by argument, not XII PREFACE. silenced by authority. Appeals should ever be made, by Pro- testants, to the understanding, not ad invidiam, nor to current or popular prejudice. With these explanations of my views and feelings, I submit the work to the friends of exegetical study, not without much solicitude as to the opinion which the wise and the good may entertain respecting it; but still, with some expectation, that it may serve to aid such as are aiming to attain a critical knowledge of the Scrip- tures, or, at least, excite some to efforts which shall end in the pro- duction of better Commentaries on the Scriptures than are yet before the public. The responsibility of publishing a work like the present, is very great. It is one from which I should shrink, if, on the whole, I could come to the conclusion, that duty permitted me to decline it. As my conviction now is, I must venture to commit it to God, and to the Christian public, hoping that it may contribute, in some mea- sure, to advance the knowledge of a very interesting portion of his Holy Word. M. STUART. Theological Seminary, Andover, March 25th, 1828. COMMENTARY, INTRODUCTION. ^ 1. Preliminary Remarks. rio part of the New Testament has occasioned so much difference of opinion, and given rise to so much literary discussion among critics, as the Epistle to the Hebrews. The principal reason of this seems to be, that this epistle does not exhibit, either in the beginning of it or else- where, any express evidence of having been addressed to any particular church, nor any designation of the author's name. If it had been expressly inscribed to a particular church, and if the author had origi- nally affixed his name to it, there would of course have been as little occasion for dispute, respecting the persons to whom it was addressed, or in regard to the author of it, as there has been in the case of the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, or Galatians. At an early period of the Christian era, the eastern and the western churches were divided in opinion respecting the author and canonical authority of this epistle. In modern times, and especially of late, every topic which its literary history could suggest, has been the subject of animated discussion. It has been disputed whether it is an epistle, an essay, or a homily ; whether it was written by Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, or by some other person ; and whether it was origi- nally written in Hebrew or in Greek. There has also been a difference of opinion as to the place where, and the time when, it was written. On every one of these topics, critics have been and still are divided. Nor has this division been occasioned merely by a difference in theological opinions. The subjects of dispute have, in this case, been generally re- garded rather as topics of literaturcy than of religious sentiment or doc- trine. Men of very different views and feelings, in other respects, have often been found united in the same ranks, when questions respecting the 2 ^1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. epistle to the Hebrews have been disputed. Such too is the case, even at the present time. All the learning and ability, which have as yet been summoned to the contest, have failed to achieve a victory so com- plete, as to bring about a general acknowledgment that all ground for further dispute is fairly removed. The student who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has merely read the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which he has entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul, finds himself thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he begins to make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in question, as are usually made respecting any ancient writing. He finds philolo- gists and critics, of great reputation in the church, strangely divided and opposed to each other, in respect to every topic to be examined. What he reads in one author, which perhaps for a time satisfies his mind, he finds controverted, shaken, or overthrown by another ; who again, in his turn, receives castigation from a third ; while a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, differ each from all his predecessors. The curiosity of the inquirer thus becomes roused, and he begins to pursue some train of thought or investigation, with the hope, or perhaps with confidence, that it will lead him to an important and satisfactory result. He presses for- ward with eagerness, peruses and re-peruses modern critics, dives into the recesses of the ancient ones, and finds, perhaps, after all his toil, that he has been pursuing a phantom, which recedes as fast as he advances. Perplexed with doubt, and wearied at last with the pursuit, he becomes exposed to the danger of entirely abandoning his object, or of settling down in the cold and comfortless conclusion, that nothing satis- factory can be known in regard to it. Such, or not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of nearly every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions of early education, and determined seriously and thoroughly to investi- gate and weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in respect to the topics suggested by the literary history of the epistle to the Hebrews. He who begins such an investigation, with his mind already made up that Paul wrote this epistle, and directed it to the Hebrews of Palestine, may indeed spare himself most of the perplexity, in which an inquirer of the class just named, will be involved. But then, if his mind is already made up, what need is there of further investigation ? And why not spare himself the time and trouble which it must cost ? § 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 3 Minds of a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine for themselves ; to " prove all things," and then " to hold fast that which is good," if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this character. It is for such that the following investigations are intended ; and it is only to persons of this class, that they can be particularly use- ful, even supposing that they are conducted in such a manner as the subject demands. The writer commenced them in the discharge of his duty, as a lecturer upon the epistle in question. He found many unforeseen and unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been accus- tomed, with those around him, to regard Paul as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ; and he did not well know, until he came to examine, how long, and how extensively, this had been doubted. Men of high reputation in the church, and who admitted the canonical authority of the epistle, he found to have been doubtful in regard to the question. Who was the author of it ? Neither Luther nor Calvin admitted it to be from the hand of Paul ; and so early, at least, as the latter part of the second century, more or less of the Western churches seem to have disputed or rejected its authority. With such facts before him, he became deeply interested in the sub- ject, and resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind. For this pur- pose, he directed his attention principally toward the original sources of evidence, although he has not neglected any writer of importance among modern critics. The results of his investigation he now gives to the public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the minds of others, they will, at least, excite some to engage in the discussion of the topics presented, until, sooner or later, light enough is poured in, to scatter the remaining darkness which rests upon them. ^ 2. /s the epistle to the Hebrews appropriately called an epistle, or is it a homily or essay ? Berger, a late critic of some eminence and considerable acuteness, has advanced and endeavoured to support the opinion, that this epistle (so called) was originally a homily or address to some assembly of Christians, which was afterwards reduced to writing by some of the preacher's friends or hearers. Others also have doubted, whether it is properly named an epistle. But none have argued on this topic so much at length, or with so much effort, as Berger. On this account, it may be proper briefly to consider the principal arguments which he has B 2 4 ^ 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? advanced ; briefly, because the topic seems not to be of sufficient importance to justify one for occupying much time in the discussion of it. (1.) ' The writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews/ says Berger, * calls it \6yoQ TrapaKXrjffeojg, a hortatory address, xiii. 22, which accords well with the contents of the piece.' But Paul, one may reply, often uses the word irapaKoXia) . in his epistles. May not, then, an epistle of his in which TrapaKuXeoj is used, be appropriately enough styled a Xoyog Trapa/cXr/trtwe ? May not any epistle, containing precept and exhortation, be so denominated ? An instance exactly in point, is the circular letter respecting the question about circumcision, sent by the apostolic council at Jerusalem to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ; which is called a TrapaKXrjffie, Acts XV. 31. The words of Luke are, " When they had read, [the epistle,] they rejoiced twl rp ■jrapafcXZ/o-ei." (2.) * The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses XaXtIv instead of ypaeLv ; which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than an epistle.* But an appeal to the Greek Concordance shews that XaXelv is used every where in the epistles contained in the New Testament ; and a cor- responding word of the same import, is in fact used in the epistolary style of all nations and languages. No evidence, therefore, in favour of Berger's opinion, can be deduced from such an usage in the epistle to the Hebrews. (3.) Berger supposes the basis of our present epistle to the Hebrews to have been the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia, as recorded in Acts xiii. 14 — 41. Some disciple and friend of his, he con- jectures, reduced this discourse to writing, commenting or enlarging upon various parts of it ; and finally adding of himself, to the original discourse, the four last verses of our present epistle. It is to these four verses he supposes the copyist to refer, when he says, " I have written to you ^la ppaxiiovj briefly, ^^ viz. by adding only the four last verses of the epistle, as properly his own. To these considerations we may reply, first, that the address of Paul to the church of Antioch, in Pisidia, exhibits two very important topics, as prominent parts of the discourse, which are not at all commented on (one of them is not even adverted to) in the epistle to the Hebrews; I mean the subject of John the Baptist's testimony concerning Christ, and the ^ 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE? 5 resurrection of Jesus, Acts xiii. 24, 25, 30—37. Would it not be strange, that a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics of the discourse which he designed to explain or enforce ? Secondly, ^m ppaxiov EirlareiXa vfxly does not admit of the reference which Berger supposes ; for it is necessarily connected with the preceding part of the epistle to the Hebrews, and not (as he asserts) with the suc- ceeding part ; to which it can be attached only by doing violence to the ordinary laws of language. (4.) 'The word afirjvy in Hebrews xiii. 21, shews that the on^riwa^ discourse ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made by the transcriber.' The answer is, that afiriy here stands after a doxology, where Paul always inserts it ; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the very middle of his letters. E. g. Rom. i. 25. ix. 5. xi. 36. xv. 33. xvi. 20. Gal. i. 5. Eph. iii. 21. etc. It follows, that in this case, the insertion of d/xjjv cannot afford any valid proof that our epistle ended with it. (5.) * The whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected chain of discourse ; like to an essay or.a homily, and not after the man- ner of a familiar letter.* But, it may well be asked in reply to this. May not and do not men reason, and regularly discuss subjects, in familiar letters or epistles ? Has not Paul discussed and reasoned in his epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, and in others ? Is there any more regularity of structure in the epistle to the Hebrews, than there is in that to the Romans ? Surely the regularity and orderly discussion,- exhibited by any composition, can never prove that this composition was not an epistle. At most, it can only serve to show that it was not an ordinary epistle on topics of little moment. Nor because a great part, or even the whole, of an epistle is of such a tenor, that it might have been spoken as an address or a homily, will it prove that it was not originally, or was not designed to be, an epistle. For every species of composi- " tion in use among men, is employed in epistolary writing. The reasons of Berger, then, for the opinion which he has advanced, will not bear the test of examination. I may add, that the whole ques- tion is but little if anything better than logomachy. Of what conse- quence can it be, whether the so-called epistle to the Hebrews, was, in its first conception, designed to be an epistle or a homily ? But what- ever the original design was, I cannot believe, with Berger, that our epistle is a kind of commentary on an original discourse of Paul. That Q ^ 2. IS IT AN EPISTLE f the author (the original anthor) of the epistle wrote down his own con- ceptions, or at least dictated them to an amanuensis, appears to me so deeply stamped on every part of the composition, that it seems hardly possible for a discerning and unprejudiced reader not to perceive it. But whether or not the author first spoke the words which the letter contains, to some assembly, and afterwards reduced them to writing, can make no difference as to the tenor and general character of the epistle; so that dispute about this would be only dispute about the name to be given to the writing ; and how would this differ from logo- machy ? However, if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves respecting it. The address every where is like that of an epistle, viz. in the second person plural ; with the single exception, that the writer occasionally uses a KoivwtnQ, that is, he includes himself with those whom he addresses, and so employs the ^rs^ person plural. But this is a practice so common in epistolary correspondence, that it occasions no difficulty in the case under consideration. It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the particular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. The epistle every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could he, in a homily, ask them to *' pray that ^he might be restored to them?'* Heb. xiii. 19. How could he promise to *' make them a visit, in company with Timothy, if he should come speedily V* xiii. 23. The first of these cases, at least, belongs to that part of the epistle, which Berger acknowledges to be the original discourse of Paul. I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured,) that the hand of a commentator is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more warmly and fully from the heart ? Here is no patchwork ; no congeries of heterogeneous materials ; no designed, exegetical commentary ; no trace of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work ; produced by the mighty impulse of one and the same mind, fraught with knowledge of the subject which it discusses, glowing with benevolent feelings toward those who are addressed, and agitated with alarm at the danger to which they are exposed. Sooner should I think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, and ^ 3, INSCRIPTION TO THE EPISTLE. 7 assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the hand of a copyist, or a mere commentator, into the epistle to the Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, one mind performed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased \ 3. General considerations respecting the present inscription to the epistle. In what latitude is the word HehrewSy used in the inscription to this epistle, to be understood ? Certainly not as designating all Hebrews of every country. To the unbelieving Jews most evidently it was not addressed . From beginning to end, the persons addressed are regarded as having made a profession of the Christian faith ; for the great object of the epistle, as all agree, is to guard them against apostacy from this faith. To the believing Jews of every country, it could not have been pri- marily and immediately addressed. It is altogether improbable that all such, in every country, were in special danger of apostacy, when this letter was written. We know from the epistles of Paul, that many churches planted by him, and made up in part of Jews, were, at the period when our epistle must have been written, in a very flourishing condition, and eminent for Christian faith and holiness of life. Other circumstances mentioned in the epistle, and pertaining to those whom he addressed, cannot be applied to all the believing Hebrews of that period. The writer speaks of the great fight of afflictions and the loss of property, to which those had been subjected for the sake of religion whom he addresses, x. 32 — 34 ; occurrences which surely had not taken place, in every church where Jews were found. A still more convincing argument, in favour of the sentiment just advanced, is drawn from what the writer himself has stated, at the close of his letter. He asks the prayers of those whom he addresses, that he may be speedily restored to them, xiii. 19 ; and promises, if Timothy return in a short time, that he will in his company pay them a visit, xiii. 23. He could not mean that he would, in company with Timothy, visit all the churches where Jews were to be found throughout the world. And could Timothy be known to them all ? Or could the circumstances of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be so well known by them all^ as the manner of address here necessarily supposes ? These considerations render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews 8 § 4. TO WHAT CHURCH WAS IT WRITTEN ? were that are named by the present inscription, they must have been those of some particular church and country. And even if we pay no regard to the inscription ^ (but suppose it, after some time had elapsed, to have been affixed to the epistle by another hand, as it probably was,) the fact that Jewish converts are addressed, and such too as belonged to some particular church or region, is, from the internal evidence of the epistle just stated, too plain to admit of any considerable doubt. § 4. To what church was the epistle to the Hebrews written ? A question replete with difficulties, and which has been much agitated by late critics. We can easily satisfy ourselves, that the epistle was designed for Jewish converts ; and exclusively (in a certain sense of this word) designed for them, i., e. originally adapted to them throughout, in its texture and mode of reasoning. But where did these converts live ? No salutation, such as stands at the head of nearly all the apostolic epistles, gives us information on this point. The conclusion of the letter, moreover, contains nothing definite enough to settle this question. We are left, then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and from internal evidence, such information as is necessary to determine it. But the first of these has been regarded by many critics, particularly by recent ones, as too indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of an inquirer ; and the second is so indeterminate, at least it has been often considered so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence, but rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same passages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to support conclusions directly opposed to each other ; and in other cases, definite conclusions have been drawn in support of particular opinions, from texts which appear to be capable of conveying only a general idea. The task of examining the principal opinions which have been advanced in respect to the original destination of the epistle to the Hebrews, is tedious and appalling ; but it has become absolutely neces- sary to every one, who makes any just pretensions to acquaintance with the literary history of this epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of the discussion, and justice to the arguments of others, will permit ; and I shall examine only those opinions which the authors of them have endeavoured to support by arguments, omitting a particular discussion of those which have been thrown out as mere conjecture. For a mere TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 9 conjecture that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts at Rome, in Spain, or at Babylon, (such conjectures have been made by critics of no small note,) is sufficiently answered by a conjecture that it was directed to Jewish converts at some other place. If no weight be laid in the scales, it requires none to adjust the balance. In our investigation respecting the question under consideration, we meet with critics who have maintained, that the epistle was written to Jewish Christians in Galatia ; at Thessalonica ; at Corinth ; or to dis- persed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled from Palestine in order to avoid the persecutions to which they were there exposed. The majority of critics, however, have held, as nearly all the ancient churches did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. I proceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order here suggested. § .5. Was the Epistle written to the^ Church in Galatia ? The opinion, that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts in Gala- tia, has been advanced and maintained with no small degree of acute- ness and learning by Storr, late Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen. I shall present a summary of the arguments which he uses to establish it ; and in order to avoid repetition, and also to render the discussion as perspicuous as may be, I shall examine the validity of each argument, as it is adduced. He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews could not be directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears from Heb. ii. 3, that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such as heard Christ speak in person ; from xii. 4, and xiii. 7, that they had as yet suffered no bloody persecution ; and from vi. 10, xiii. 3, 10, and x. 34, that so far from having received charity from other churches, they had themselves contributed to the support of others. Now, as neither of these things can, in his view, be truly said respecting the church in Palestine, he concludes, that our epistle must have been directed to some church abroad. I shall not stop here to examine, whether a proper interpretation of the passages on which he relies to support his opinion, will in fact sup- port it, as this subject must be examined in another place. I must content myself, at present, with simply remarking, that if he has rightly construed the texts to which he refers, they only serve to show, at most, that the church in Palestine was not the one to which the epistle was directed ; leaving the question still untouched, whether it was sent, as 10 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN he maintains, to the church in Galatia. As my present intention is to examine only positive arguments in favour of his opinion, I pass this consideration without further remark. Most, if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies, are grounded on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general nature of them may be thus stated. " Certain facts relative to the Galatians and the Hebrews, are known from history, and from the epistles which bear their names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on any other ground, than by the supposition, that the epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians were cotemporaneously written, and directed severally to the Jewish and Gentile parts of the same church. This being admitted, several things, otherwise strange or inexplicable, may be easily accounted for ; and consequently, we may or must admit such a composition and direction of these epistles." Let us examine the particulars, which go to make up the general argument that I have just stated. (1.) " As the epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the churches in Palestine, and as all the churches abroad consisted of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, it is a singularity very striking, and at first appearance inexplicable, how it should come to pass that the epistle to the Gala- tians is written exclusively to Gentile converts, and the epistle to the Hebrews exclusively to Jewish ones. But all appearance of difficulty vanishes, if we suppose that the two epistles were sent, at the same time, to the church in Galatia; each to the respective party for whom it was intended. A supposition which removes such difficulties, must be regarded as a probable one." This supposition is not wanting in ingenuity ; and at first view, it may be regarded as not being destitute of probability. But then, the critic must ask, How far can we be allowed to draw conclusions, in respect to subjects of this nature, from mere conjectural probabilities ? I may conjecture thousands of circumstances, in themselves probable, which would liberate me from difficulties presented by particular passages, or by whole books of the Old Testament and the New ; on which conjec- tures, however, it would be very uncritical and unsafe for me to build conclusions, in respect to any matter of fact. Even if we allow the probability y then, of Storr's conjecture, it cannot add much real weight to the cause which he endeavours to support. Such a probability, however, cannot well be allowed. There are circumstances, in the epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews, relative TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 11 to the condition of the persons respectively addressed, which serve to evince, that the Galatian church could not, at the same time, have been addressed by both of these letters. This I shall have farther occasion to show, in the sequel. In the mean time, it may suffice to remark here, that it is far from being certain, as Storr assumes it to be, that the epistle to the Galatians is addressed exclusively to Gentile converts. When the apostle speaks of their being " shut up under the law, before the gospel was preached;" and of " the law having been their instructer to bring them to Christ," Gal. iii. 23, 24 ; can those whom he thus addresses have been only Gentiles? And when he speaks of their " having been in a state of minority before Christ came ;" of their " having been vnirLoi, and in bondage to the elements of the world," i. e. the ritual ceremonies of the Mosaic law. Gal. iv. 1 — 3 ; it seems to be very far from being obvious that only Gentile converts are addressed. Indeed, so plainly do these passages appear to respect Jews, that a critic of no less note than Noesselt, considers it as certain, that Jewish converts only are addressed in the epistle to the Galatians ; an opinion incapable, no doubt, of being defended, but still serving to show that Storr has, in the case before us, taken much more for granted than can be readily allowed. Moreover, it is not so singular as Storr represents it to be, that Jewish converts should be exclusively addressed in one case, and Gentile ones in another. The church at Ephesus, for example, consisted, beyond all doubt, of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Yet, in the epistle which Paul wrote to them, he has addressed only the Gentiles, (ja edrri — aKpoPvffTia, Eph. ii. 11, also iii. 1.) But who ever thought it necessary, in order to account for this, to suppose that Paul also wrote another letter, at the same time, to the Jewish part of the church at Ephesus ? Besides, what object could be answered by writing two separate let- ters at the same time ? Was it not a matter of course, that the whole church should be made acquainted with an apostolic letter to one part of it ? Is there not abundant evidence, that the letters of the apostles were regarded and treated by the early churches as encyclical, or (as we call them) circulars ? When Peter wrote his second epistle to various churches in Asia Minor, he adverts to PauFs epistles as being already known to them, 2 Pet. iii. 16. And when Clement of Rome, within the first century, wrote his epistle to the Corinthians, he made extracts from nearly all the epistles of Paul, without even naming them; which certainly implies, that he regarded the Corinthian church as being 12 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN already well acquainted with them. Such being the state of knowledge respecting the apostolic epistles, in the early churches, it is a very improbable supposition, that either the epistle to the Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, was designed to be kept secret from the Jewish or Gentile Christians in Galatia, if written to them. Indeed, an arrange- ment of this nature would have worn the appearance of a worldly policy, and of a kind of double-dealing ; which is far from being cha- racteristic of Paul, and which would have served rather to alienate than to reconcile those who were ready to renounce his authority. The possibility J that the two letters should have been written at the same time, may, for the sake of argument, be conceded. But the necessity of such a supposition, on grounds alleged by Storr, is contra- dicted by the state of the epistle to the Ephesians, which is addressed to Gentiles only. If the probability of it has not already been shown to be little or nothing ; in the sequel, I trust, this will be made satisfactorily apparent. (2.) " The epistle to the Hebrews," says Storr, " has no salutation, (which all the other epistles of Paul have ;) it wants the usual greeting at the close ; and it nowhere exhibits the name of the author. These facts, now, are easily accounted for, if we suppose that this epistle was sent at the same time with that to the Galatians, which Paul says he wrote with his own hand, Gal. vi. 11. It is probable, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by the aid of an amanuensis ; and as it was sent along with an epistle written and subscribed by Paul in his own hand-writing, a salutation and subscription were unnecessary or super- fluous." But why so ? Why did not the longer epistle to the Hebrews need as many marks of authenticity as the shorter one to the Galatians ? Is the subject less important? Are the persons addressed less regarded by the writer ? And why should the fact, (if it be one, for this too is mere con- jecture,) that an amanuensis wrote one letter, supersede all effort to authenticate it, when Paul has been so careful to render the other letter authentic, which was written with his own hand ? During such a contest between parties as existed in Galatia, is there any probability that either letter would be left deficient as to evidences of genuineness, when the whole weight of the apostle's authority was needed to check the growing evil there 1 Would not the apostle at least intimate plainly in one letter, that he had written another ? So far from salutation or subscrip- tion being superfluous, in such a case, the one or the other, or rather TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 13 both of them, would seem to be peculiarly needed, in order that neither letter should fail of its proper destination, or have its genuine- ness disputed. (3.) " In Gal. vi. 16. it is said, * As many as walk by this rule, peace be on them, and mercy be upon the Israel of God.' Now the phrase, Israel of God, means the Jewish converts in Galatia, in distinction from the Gentile ones ; and this conveys an intimation, that the apostle had written to these Jewish converts, as well as to them, the Gentile ones." This argument, however, is built upon an exegesis of the passage quoted, which is inadmissible. The Israel of God is plainly a figura- tive name for true Christians. Paul had shown in the previous part of his epistle, that those " who are of the faith," whether Jews or Gentiles, are the children of Abraham, iii. 7, 29. At the close, he pronounces a blessing on such as adopt the principles, and obey the injunctions, which he had communicated ; and concludes it, very appositely to his purpose, by calling such the Israel of God, koI kirl tov lapariX rov Qtov. The KoX which stands before this clause, seems clearly to be explicative, and not conjunctive ; amounting merely to our English namely, even, to wit, or to some word of the same import, and placing tov 'lapmjX in apposition with the preceding ctt' av-ovg. But even supposing the apostle does advert here only to the Jewish converts, as such ; where is the intimation to be found that he had written to them ? Or, if he had, that the letter was the same with our present epistle to the Hebrews ? (4.) " The epistles to the Hebrews and to the Galatians must have been written about the same time ; and probably both were written at Corinth, during Paul's first abode there. Here Paul found Priscilla and Aquila, who had fled from Italy, on account of Claudius' decree which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts xviii. 1,2; and at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, the writer says, They of Italy (ot ttTTo rrjc 'iTuXiao) salute you, which means, " Priscilla and Aquila from Italy salute you." The coincidence of such circumstances renders it probable that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth. — And as to the epistle to the Galatians, it was written between the time of Paul's second and third visit to Galatia ; and consequently must have been written during some of his journeys recorded in Acts xvi, xvii. and xviii., which are occupied with the history of the apostle in the interval of time between those visits. But if written during this interval, when can it with so much probability be considered to have 14 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN been written, as within the eighteen months' abode of Paul at Corinth, during the same time ? Consequently, it is probable that both letters were written at the same place, and about the same time ; and it may therefore be concluded, that the supposition of their having been sent to Galatia at the same time, is correct." Ingenious and specious as this may appear at first view, it is far from being satisfactory, when we come to examine its parts in detail. In respect to those circumstances, which Storr represents as showing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth, they are far from being decisive. Supposing (with him) that ol airo Tf]Q 'IraXiaQ, in the greeting at the close, means Priscilla and Aquila ; is it necessary that the salutation from them should have been sent from Corinth ? Did they not afterwards travel with Paul to Ephesus ? Acts xviii. 18, 19. And were they not probably at Rome during his captivity there ? In Rom. xxvi. 3, a salutation is sent to them as being at Rome ; and of course they were there before Paul went thither as a prisoner, because his epistle to the Romans was written before that event, Rom. i. 9 — 12. How then can we assume that Corinth is the only place from which Paul sent, or could send, the salutation of these Italians to Galatia ? But another consideration must be brought into our account. Storr*s exegesis of the expression ol airb rrjg 'IraXlae is altogether improbable. How should two strangers, lately (Trpotr^arwc) come from Rome to Corinth, Acts xviii. 2, be so well acquainted with the church in Galatia, (situated in the interior and very remotest part of Asia Minor, and having but little intercourse with the world,) that it was not necessary even to name them to this church, but simply to advert to them by the periphrasis, ol anb rrjg 'IraXtac ? How did the Galatians know that Priscilla and Aquila were at Corinth ? Or how could they distinguish them from any other Jews that fled from Rome, after the edict of Claudius proscribing the Jews was published ? Besides, in all other cases where Paul sends greetings from these Italians, or to them, he calls them by name ; e. g. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 2 Tim. iv. 19. Rom. xvi. 3. This view of the subject, therefore, renders highly improbable the very circumstance which Storr has assumed as a fact, in order to make out that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth. Next, as to the epistle to the Galati ins. It was written, he says, between Paul's second and third journey to Galatia ; therefore, most probably, during his stay at Corinth, which happened in that interval of time. TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 15 But, if we follow the account of Luke in the Acts, it is difficult, nay, impossible, to defend the supposition of Storr, that the epistle to the Galatians was written after the second visit of Paul to Galatia. Acts xvi. 6, gives us the first intimation of a visit to Galatia by Paul ; and his second visit is described in Acts xviii. 22, 23, which was after he had left Corinthf and travelled through Palestine and Asia Minor. I know, indeed, some critics have conjectured that Paul made a journey to Galatia previously to the one first mentioned by Luke in Acts xvi. 6. But of what avail are conjectures in such cases, when they are supported neither by the epistle to the Galatians, nor by the history of Paul ? Nothing, then, but supposition is offered by Storr, to show that either the epistle to the Hebrews, or that to the Galatians, was written at Corinth, or that both were written about the same time ; and of course, these circumstances cannot be assumed as proved, or even as rendered probable, in order to build the conclusion on them, that the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistle to the Galatians, were written simul- taneously to the same church. (5.) " Timothy originated from the neighbourhood of Galatia, and was no doubt in company with Paul during his journey there, as men- tioned in Acts xvi. 6. It is a singular circumstance, that although the apostle so often joins his name with his own, in the salutations contained in his other letters, he has not joined him in his epistle to the Galatians church ; specially singular, in as much as Timothy must have been so well known to the Galatians, and as he was with Paul at Corinth. But this apparent singularity is accounted for, when we suppose that Timothy was sent with both the letters in question to the Galatians ; who, of course, would receive his salutation from his own mouth." But is it not more singular still, I ask, that Paul should say, at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, Know ye that our brother Timothy is aTToXeXv/xeVov, i.e. either sent away on some errand, or set at liberty ? Was it necessary to tell the Galatian church this, when Timothy was before their eyes in propria persona ? I know indeed that Storr, in order to avoid this striking incongruity, has translated yivuxrKere tov 6.h\6y TijjLodeoy aTroXtXvfiivov thus, Receive honourably our brother Timothy who is sent to you ; but it is a violence done to the natural import of the language, which no other respectable critic that I know of has sanctioned, and to do which, I must think, nothing but the eagerness of supporting a favourite theory could have led this excellent writer. 16 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN (6.) ** The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, both in matter and man- ner, has many striking coincidences with the epistle to the Hebrews." No doubt this is true. But it is equally true also of other epistles of Paul : with the exception, that the subject in the epistle to the Gala- tians particularly resembles, in some important respects, that of the epistle to the Hebrews, and is prosecuted more extensively in the latter epistle, than in any of the other acknowledged epistles of Paul. Noesselt has used the same argument, in order to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews must have been written to the church in Thes- salonica ; and Weber, to show that it was written to the Corinthians. Might it not be used, with similar effect, to show also that it was written to the Romans ? Such an argument may be of some weight, in the question whether Paul, or some other person, wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; but it cannot be of much avail to show that this epistle was written to the church at Galatia, rather than to some other church. (7.) But the argument on which Storr seems to place most reliance of all, and which, if well founded, is of a historical, and not of a conjec- tural nature, is that deduced from 2 Pet. iii. 14 — 16. As this passage is not only adduced by Storr, for the purpose of showing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, but by him and many other critics of great reputation, for the pur- pose of proving that Paul must have been the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ; in order to save repetition, I shall here examine it in reference to both of these topics, since I must of necessity institute an examination of it, with respect to the topic now under discussion. The passage runs thus : " Wherefore, beloved, since ye are in expec- tation of these things [viz. the changes described in the preceding con- text], make strenuous efforts that ye may be found of him [Christ] in peace, without spot and blameless ; and consider the delay of our Lord to come, as a matter of favour : as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you ; as [he has done] likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things : in which are some things hard to be understood ; which the ignorant and the unstable pervert, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." To understand the nature of the argument drawn from this, we must advert to some circumstances mentioned in the epistles of Peter. His first epistle is directed to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet. i. 1. His second is directed to the same rO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 17 churches ; for he says, " This second epistle, beloved, I write to you in which I am to stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance," 2 Pet. iii. 1. To the above-named churches in Asia Minor, then, the second epistle of Peter was directed. The nature of Storr's argument may now be understood. It is this : *' All the epistles of Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, have desig- nated the churches to which they were sent ; the epistle to the Hebrews does not. Peter says, that Paul had written a letter to the churches in Asia Minor, whom he addresses, as our beloved Paul hath writen to YOU. Now this cannot advert to any of his letters which have inscrip- tions, as they are not directed to the afore-named churches in Asia Minor. Consequently, Peter must refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is the only one that has no inscription. It follows, therefore, not only that Paul wrote this letter, but that he wTote it ,to some of the churches addressed by Peter. Most probably, then, it was written to Galatia. Especially is this credible, since the epistle to the Hebrews contains those very warnings and sentiments to which Peter adverts, as being comprised in the letter of Paul to the churches in Asia Minor, whom he addresses." One is tempted, at first view, to acquiesce in a statement seemingly so probable, and to conclude, that the inference drawn by Storr is substantially supported. A closer examination, however, suggests formi- dable difficulties, which must not be passed over in silence. I omit, at present, any consideration respecting the genuineness of the second epistle of Peter, so much called in question, and disputed by many churches of ancient times. It is unnecessary here to take other ground in regard to it, than Storr himself has taken ; which is, to admit its genuineness. What then does the passage of Peter, now in question, teach us ? (1.) That Paul had written a letter to the churches whom Peter addressed, eypaxpev vfuv. (2.) That he had urged on them the same considerations which Peter himself had urged ; even as our beloved brother Paul hath written to you, (3.) That in all his epistles (viz. all that had been read by them,) he had urged the same, or the like, considerations ; as likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them con- cerning these things. The question, on which the point under discussion mainly turns, is What are the things to which Peter refers, as treated of in common by him and by Paul ? 18 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN To find an answer to this, we may make three suppositions. First, they are all the subjects treated of in the preceding part of Peter's epistle ; or, secondly, they are those comprised in the preceding part of the third chapter ; or thirdly, they are those things suggested by the immediate context, in connexion with the passage already cited. Now, the Jirst of these suppositions cannot be admitted ; for Paul is so far from treating, in all his epistles, of every subject comprised in the whole of Peter's second epistle, that he has nowhere treated of some of them. If Peter, then, referred to the epistles of Paul which are now extant, it is clear he did not mean to say, that Paul had in every epistle of his discussed the same subjects, as he himself had done, throughout his second letter. But Storr urges in a special manner the second supposition, viz. that the subjects presented to view in the third chapter of Peter's second epistle, are particularly treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews ; and consequently, that Peter must have referred to these subjects, and to that epistle. The sum of the third chapter of Peter is, * That the heavens and the earth are perishable ; that they will be destroyed by fire ; that the delay to destroy the ungodly must not be imputed to slackness on the part of the Lord, who puts off this catastrophe on account of his long-suffering towards men ; and that the time when they shall be dissolved by fire, will come speedily, and unexpectedly, and then the heavens and the earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and a new earth created.' Such is the context. Then follows the exhortation ; " Beloved, keep yourselves unspotted and blameless ; and regard the delay of your Lord's coming as a favour ; even as our beloved brother, Paul, has written to you," &c. Now where has Paul written any thing respecting the dissolution of the material elements of the universe by fire, and the creating of new heavens and a new earth instead of them ? I do not find this subject treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews ; nor is it touched upon in all the epistles of Paul ; it is only adverted to in some of them. It is then, thirdly, the exhortation in the immediate context, to keep themselves unspotted and blameless, in view of their Lord's coming, which Peter means to say had been urged by Paul on the persons whom he addressed, as well as by himself. This is the plain grammatical construction ; and it is the only one which will bear examination, by comparing it with the contents of Paul's epistles. But exhortation of such a nature is far from being contained only in TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 19 the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, the first to the Thessalonians, the first to Timothy, and that to Titus, contain direct exhortations of this sort, and the other epistles of Paul, repeated intimations of the same nature. If the argument is good, then, to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, because it contains such sentiments and exhortations ; the same argu- ment might prove that any of the other epistles of Paul were written to the same church, because they contain the like sentiments. But there is one of the churches in Asia Minor to which Peter wrote, namely, that of Galatia, to which a letter of Paul now extant is ad- dressed. May not this be the very epistle to which Peter adverts, and not the epistle to the Hebrews ? In chapter vi. 7 — 9, is a passage of warning and exhortation, grounded on the doctrine of future retribution. This may be the very passage to which Peter adverts ; or if any should think it too general to satisfy the reference which he makes, then the exhortation may have been in a letter now lost. That some of Paul's letters are lost, is pretty certain, from 1 Cor. v. 9 — 11. See also Phil, iii. 1. Evidently one of John's epistles is lost. " I wrote to the church," says he, in his second epistle, verse 9, " but Diotrephes, who loves pre-eminence, did not receive us." We have no remains of the epistle to which he here adverts. The letter of Paul, which Peter mentions, may have shared the same fate. At most, the epistle to the Hebrews, even supposing it to be proved that Paul wrote it, has no special claim to be considered as the one adverted to by Peter. If then it cannot be shown (as I am fully persuaded it cannot) that Peter, in the passage under consideration, adverts to the epistle to the Hebrews, it cannot, of course, be shown from Peter's testimony, that Paul wrote this epistle. This argument has, indeed, been often and strongly urged, in order to establish this point, by modern and late critics ; but it will not abide the test of examination. The ancient church, it is well known, never brouglft it forward to support the opinion that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Storr him- self, who urges it very strongly, concedes that it was never employed by the Christian fathers. It does not follow, indeed, that it has no validity, because it was not employed by them. But it would seem, at least, that the proof to be derived from it is not so obvious y nor so conclusive, as some modern critics have deemed it, (8.) Storr adduces " the special circumstances of the churches addressed in the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews, as a c2 20 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN ground for the opinion, that both epistles were directed to the church in Galatia. The Galatians," says he, " had for a long time been Chris- tians ; so had the Hebrews. The Galatians were persecuted and misled by false teachers, and were in danger of defection from Christianity ; so were the Hebrews." Now, so far from finding evidence of sameness, in the representations of the two epistles, respecting these circumstances, I find proof of dis- similarity so great as to exclude all hope of supporting the opinion of Storr, and to show that the admission of it would do great violence to the laws of probability. To the Galatians Paul says, " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him who called you to the grace of Christ, unto another gospel," Gal. i. 6. To the Hebrews he says, " When for the time [i. e. plainly the long time since they professed Christianity] ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again to be taught the first elements of religion," Heb. v. 12. And again, *' Call to mind the former days in which, when ye were enlightened, ye endured a great fight of aflflictions," x. 32. And again, the writer calls on them to " remember the example of their former teachers, who were deceased," xiii. 7. Then as to persecution, the Hebrews had suffered the loss of their property by it, x. 34 ; but there is no intimation of this in respect to the Galatians. Indeed, there is no proof, that out of Palestine persecution was such, in the apostolic age, (one or two instances only excepted,) as to deprive men of either property or life. The Roman magistracy did not permit this, either out of Palestine or in it, so long as they were in authority. This is evident from several passages of history in the Acts ; e. g. Acts xviii. 12. 17, xix. 35 — 40. Acts xvi. xxvi. Then there is a great difference between the kind of persecution animadverted upon in the epistle to the Galatians, and in that to the Hebrews. In the farmery Christians are addressed as in danger, from their pressure, of incorporating Judaism with Christianity, and making the continued profession of it essential to salvation ; in the latter, they are every where addressed, as in danger of a final and total renunciation of the Christian religion. In the one, they are dehorted from superadding the Jewish ceremonies to Christianity ; in the other, from utterly abandoning the Christian religion. But further ; Paul says, in Gal. vi. 11, " Ye see how large a letter I have written to you with my own hand." Yet this epistle consists of only six chapters of a moderate length. How then could Paul say to TO THE CHURCH IN GALATIA ? 21 a part of the same church, in a letter accompanying this, " I beseech you, brethren, to bear with a word of exhortation from me, for I have written unto you lih (3paxeioy IN A FEW WORDS," or briefly , Heb.xiii.22. Yet this brief epistle is more than twice as long as the large letter which accompanied it. Could Paul so forget himself, on such an occa- sion as this ? Again, Paul often adverts, in his epistle to the Galatians, to the fact that he was the first who taught them the doctrines of Christianity. Yet in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is not a word of this ; but, plainly, the whole manner of the letter, and specially the manner in which he speaks of the teachers of those whom he addresses, implies that he had not himself planted the church to which his letter was directed. But what determines the question beyond all hope of supporting the views of Storr, is, that in the epistle to the Galatians, their teachers are animadverted upon with great severity, on account of their improper conduct and erroneous doctrines. They are represented as perverting the gospel of Christ ; as having an erroneous zeal for selfish purposes, iv. 17, V. 13 ; and the apostle even proceeds so far as to express a wish that they might be cut off* from the church, v. 12. But how totally different is the character given of teachers, in the epistle to the Hebrews ! " Obey your teachers, and be subject to them ; for they watch over your souls, as they who must give an account ;" i. e. they are altogether worthy of your confidence and obedience, xiii. 17. And at the close of the letter, he sends his affectionate salutations to them, xiii. 24. These considerations seem to remove all probability, and even possi- bility, that the epistle to the Hebrews was, as Storr maintains, written at the same time and place as the epistle to the Galatians, and that it was also directed to the same church. The excellent character and distinguished acuteness of Storr, entitle almost any opinion which he has seriously defended, to examination ; but 1 cannot resist the impression, that he has utterly failed in defending the sentiment which has now been examined. I have, throughout this investigation, proceeded on the supposition that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; which Storr fully believed, and the belief of which is necessary, in order that one may adopt the sentiment which he has maintained in respect to its destination. Whe- ther there is sufficient reason to believe that Paul was the author of the epistle, will be a subject of discussion in a subsequent part of this 22 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED Introduction. In the mean time, I shall concede this point, (while examining the question relative to its destination,) to all the writers who have assumed it, in supporting their respective opinions. Such is the case with all those, whose various opinions relative to the destination of our epistle, still remain to be examined. § 6. Was the epistle directed to the church at Thessalonica ? The character which has just been given of Storr, will also apply, in respect to some of its prominent traits, to Noesselt, late professor of Thelogy at Halle, who has maintained, in an essay devoted to this pur- pose,* that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the churches in Macedonia, or rather to the church at Thessalonica. Semler had done this before him ; but on somewhat different grounds, and with less plausible reasons. On this account, I shall now, without particularly adverting to the efforts of Semler, proceed to examine the more ably supported opinion of Noesselt. The general principle, to which Noesselt makes an appeal in his argu- ment, is, in itself, considered correct. He endeavours to show, that " there are circumstances mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, in Paul's epistles to the Thessalonian church, and in the life of this apostle, which afford a very striking agreement ; so striking as to render it alto- gether probable, that Paul must have directed to this church, the epistle which is now inscribed. To the Hebrews ; and that he must have written it during his abode of eighteen months at Corinth, as recorded in Acts xviii." Let us examine these circumstances. (I.) " When Paul visited Corinth for the first time, he found Priscilla and Aquila there, who had recently fled from Italy, on account of the decree of Claudius, which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts xviii. 1, 2. At the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, he says, * They of Italy salute you ;' meaning Priscilla and Aquila. Here then is a cir- cumstance in the epistle to the Hebrews, which accords with the circum- stances of Paul, during his first visit to Corinth." But, as I have before remarked, (p. 11,) Paul was in company with these Italians at other places besides Corinth. From some of these other places, then, he might have written this salutation. Besides, is there any probability, (as I have before asked,) that two strangers, who had recently (Trpotr^arwe) come from a city so distant as Rome, should ♦ Contained in his Opuscula. TO THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA ? 23 be so well known to the Thessalonians in the extreme north-eastern part of Greece, that they need not even be named, but simply called ol ttTTo TrJQ IraXmc, in a greeting or salutation ? And particularly so, as neither of them were officers m the church, or public teachers. In all othei cases, as has been already shown, Paul expressly names these persons, when he adverts to them. Why should he depart here from his usual custom ? (2.) " Paul says, at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, that Timothy was airokiX.vfxivov, sent away ; and Paul had sent Timothy from Berea to Thessalonica, while Paul himself was at Athens, a little before he came to Corinth : comp. Acts xvii. 13 — 16. Here then is a concur- rence of circumstances, which favours the opinion that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul at Corinth, and directed to the Thessalonians." To understand the nature of this argument, and the reply which I have to make, it is necessary to advert, for a moment, to the history of Paul's journeys at the time now under consideration. Paul, in company with Silas and Timothy, first preached the gospel at Thessalonica, where a church was formed ; but, being vehemently opposed by some of the Jews, they went to Berea, a neighbouring city. Acts xvii. 10. Thither the persecuting Jews of Thessalonica followed them ; in consequence of which, Paul, leaving Silas and Timothy there, withdrew to Athens. Here he resided a short time, and then went on his first visit to Corinth, Acts xvii. 1 — 15, xviii. 1. At this last place, he staid eighteen months. Acts xviii. 11. Now Noesselt supposes, that before Paul left Athens, he sent Timothy (who was still at Berea, Acts xvii. 10. 14) back to Thes- salonica, in order to make inquiries respecting the state of the church there ; and that this is the meaning of that passage at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, Ye know, (as he would translate it,) that our brother Timothy is sent away. But as there is nothing of all this in the history which Luke has given of Paul and Timothy, Acts xvii, and as the whole must therefore be founded on conjecture, it might be sufficient, on the other hand, to conjecture that Paul did not send Timothy from Berea to Thessalonica, as Noesselt supposes. However, respect for so excellent a critic as Noesselt, would rather demand some argument, to show that this conjecture cannot be well founded. I would observe, then, that in order to render his position probable, he assumes as a fact, that the epistle to the Hebrews was writ- 24 ^ G. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED ten before the epistles to the Thessalonians ; a supposition not capable of being rendered probable, much less of being proved. It will be admitted, that there is not a word in our present first epistle to the Thessalonians, respecting any previous letter addressed to them ; a circumstance not to be imagined, provided the apostle had written such a laboured epistle to them as that to the Hebrews is, and on such an important question. Besides, it appears altogether probable from Acts xviii. 1 — 6, that Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth soon after Paul had gone there ; so that the absence of Timothy, supposed by Noesselt to have taken place at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, cannot be rendered at all probable, from this part of Paul's history ; for it cannot be thought probable, that such an epistle as that to the Hebrews would be written by Paul immediately after his arrival at Corinth, amidst all the agitation and dispute and hazard occasioned by his first preaching there. But even conceding that this might have been done, is it probable that Paul, who (according to Noesselt) had just before, while at Athens, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, and who knew that he was now there, should gravely write to the Thessalonians, Ye know that our brother Timothy is sent away; when this same Timothy, in propria persona, was present with the very church to whom this was written? (3.) " In Heb. X. 34. Paul says. Ye had compassion on my bonds ; or, according to another reading, of equal authority. Ye had compassion on those who were bound, i.e. the prisoners. This refers to Paul's imprisonment, as related in Acts xvi. 23 — 40 ; and to the sympathy which the Thessalonians evinced for him in these circumstances." But this imprisonment was at Philippi, before Paul had visited Thes- salonica, and before the Thessalonians could know that he was in their region, except by report. This imprisonment lasted but a. few hours; it ended in a most triumphant deliverance, by the interposition of Divine power, and in the shame and mortification of the magistracy who had ordered it. The whole occurrence, instead of demanding compassionate sympathy, was a matter of triumph and congratulation. Or, if other- wise, it was not an affliction in respect to which the Thessalonians could compassionate Paul as they could not know of its having happened, until it was past. (4.) " The Hebrews are praised for their liberality ; and so are the Thessalonians." To which I reply, So are other churches. Does it follow, because TO THE CTIUKCH AT THESSALONICA ? 25 they exhibited this trait of character which was common among Christians in the apostolic age, that the Thessalonian church must have been the same which is thus recommended in the epistle to the Hebrews ? (5.) " The persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews was addressed, had suffered persecution, Heb. x. 32, xii. 4 ; which was also the case with the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii. 14 — 16, 2 Thess. i. 11." So had many other churches. But neither at Thessalonica, nor scarcely any where else, except in Palestine, do we know of a persecu- tion, at this period, which involved the loss of property and the hazard of liberty and life. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of their being despoiled of their property, x. 34 ; a circumstance not to be found in the account of the persecution at Thessalonica, and one which makes directly against the supposition of Noesselt. (6.) " The Thessalonians were in danger of defection from the faith, so that Paul was obliged to send Timothy to confirm them, 1 Thess. iii. 2, 3 ; and the same danger is every where adverted to, in the epistle to the Hebrews." This argument is built on an erroneous exegesis. That Timothy made a visit to confirm the Thessalonians, does not surely imply that they were in special danger of apostacy. When Paul is said to have gone through Asia Minor confirming the churches. Acts xv. 36 — 41, xvi. 4 — 6, xviii. 23, are we to draw the inference that all the churches there were in the same danger of apostacy as the persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews is addressed ? If not, this argument of Noesselt has no force to establish the opinion which he advocates. (7.) " There is a great similarity between the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle to the Thessalonians." So there is, also, between the epistle to the Hebrews and all the epistles of Paul. This argument, then, proves too much. It may serve to show that Paul probably wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; but it can have no important influence on the question. To whom did he write this epistle ? Most of the similarities, moreover, which are produced by Noesselt, are similarities of a general nature in respect to sentiments of piety and morality. Must there not be a similarity, of course, in these respects, in all the epistles of Paul, provided he always taught the same doctrines of Christianity ? But the dissimilarities between the epistles to the Thessalonians and the Hebrews, Noesselt has not proceeded to develop. Yet there are 26 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED some ; and some so striking, as to render the supposition which he defends, altogether improbable. The Hebrews addressed in our epistle, had been for a long time Christians ; but if Noesselt's supposition be true, they had been so only a/ew months, at most, when Paul wrote his first epistle to them ; for Paul had only made a rapid journey from Thessalonica to Athens, and thence to Corinth ; and soon after his arrival there, and (as Noesselt thinks) before Timothy had come to him, he wrote the epistle in question. I may add, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews nowhere adverts to his having ^rs? planted Christianity among them. But Paul, in his epistle to the Thessalonians, very frequently adverts to this circumstance. Further, the epistle to the Hebrews is directed to a church almost wholly (if not altogether) Jewish ; while it is plain, from Acts xvii. 4, 5, that only a few Jews had early joined the Thessalonian church ; and plainer still, that this church was principally made up of Gentiles, from Paul's first epistle to them, i. 9, where he says, " Ye have turned from idols, to serve the living God." Now, circumstances so widely diverse and opposite, cannot be predicated of the same church, while they have respect only to an interval of time, which, at the most, cannot exceed the eighteen months that Paul abode at Corinth. Finally, Paul's two epistles to the Thessalonians, throughout, are filled with commendations of the Thessalonian church, for their firmness and stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. Not a word of their Jewish prejudices. Not a reference to the imminent danger of apostacy, which is every where developed in the epistle to the Hebrews. Noesselt accounts for this, by the supposition, that Paul's first epistle to them, viz. that to the Hebrews, (as he supposes,) had produced a thorough reforma- tion among them. But when Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians had effected a reformation, in respect to various particulars of far less importance than those treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, how does the apostle fill his second letter with commendations, which have a direct reference to his former admonitions? Could it be otherwise here, if the epistle to the Hebrews had been written before our present epistles to the Thessalonians, and produced such an effect as Noesselt supposes ? On the whole, then, the supposition of Noesselt must be abandoned ; not only because it is not well supported, but because it involves dif- ficulties and improbabilities so great as to render it altogether incre- dible. TO HEBREWS IN ASIA MINOR? 27 § 7. Was it directed to Hebrews, who were sojourners in Asia Minor? Bolten (who has distinguished himself, in a peculiar manner, by a translation of the New Testament, with constant reference to the Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic language, in which he supposes many of the original documents must have been composed,) has advanced the opinion, that the Hebrews, addressed in our epistle, were those who had fled from Palestine, about A.D. 60, on account of the persecutions there, and were scattered abroad Asia Minor. To this he thinks the ol Kara^vyoyreQ in vi. 18, refers; as also the passage in xiii. 14, which speaks of their having no abiding city. He finds parallels of such a meaning, in 3 John verses 5 and 7, where strangers are mentioned, and those luho have gone abroad (et,fjXdot') for his (Christ's) name's sake; in 1 Pet. i. 1, where sojourners of the dispersion are mentioned; and in James i. 1, where the 01 kv TYf liaaizop^ are addressed. I am unable, however, to find any history of a persecution in Pales- tine, at the period which he mentions, or any account of a dispersion of Jewish Christians abroad, at that period. As to the texts which he cites, in favour of his supposition, they will not bear the construction which he has put upon them. We who have fled, Hebrews vi. 18, is inseparably connected with the clause which follows, viz. to lay hold on the hope set before us, i. e. in the gospel. Besides, the writer does not say ^OM who have fled, but we, i.e. Christians. So also in xiii. 14, it is we (viz. Christians) who have no abiding city, i.e. no permanent place of happiness in the present world. The passage in 3 John verses 5, 7, pro- bably refers to Gentile Christians, who became exiles ; and those in James and Peter have respect merely to Jews who lived in foreign countries, in distinction from those who lived in Palestine. Besides, how could the apostle address wandering fugitives, scattered over Asia Minor, and destitute of a home, as in a condition to bestow cha- rity? xiii. 1,2. 16. How could he speak of them as having stated teachers ? xiii. 17, 24. How could he expect his letter to reach them ; or promise them a visit with Timothy, xiii. 23, in case he should speedily return ? Respectable as the critic is who has advanced this opinion, it seems to be quite destitute of probability, and entitled to but little consideration. § 8. Was the epistle addressed to the church at Corinth? Michael Weber, who has distinguished himself in some respects as a critical writer on the canon of the New Testament, has advanced, and 28 § 8. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED endeavoured to support the opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the church at Corinth. He labours, in the first place, to show that Paul wrote no less than five letters to the Corinthians. The first was one which has been lost, and which Paul mentions in our present 1 Cor. V. 9 — 13. The second and third were our first to the Corinthians, and so much of the second as includes chapters i. — ix., with the two last verses of the epistle ; the fourth, our present epistle to the Hebrews ; and the fifth, the remainder of the second epistle to the Corinthians ; all which, he thinks, were written in the order now suggested. Proceeding on the ground of such an arrangement of Paul's letters, he endeavours to support his opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Corinthians, by arguments which I shall now examine. (8.) *^ The Hebrews became Christians at an early period, and so did the Corinthians ; the Hebrews were Judaizing Christians, and so were the Corinthians. An agreement in these respects renders it probable, that the epistle to the Hebrews was sent to the church at Corinth." But Paul did not visit Corinth until A.D. 51 or 52, after he had repeatedly traversed the various countries of Asia Minor, and founded several churches in Macedonia. It cannot, therefore, be called an early period, at which the Corinthians were converted. Paul established few, if any, new churches, after the establishment of this at Corinth ; at least, history does not give us any account of them. In respect to the Corinthians being Judaizing Christians, the proof is altogether wanting. The apostle has taken no notice of any contest or question of this nature among them. He has indeed, in 2 Cor. iii. 6 — 18, drawn a parallel between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations; but it is of a general nature, and touches none of the points usually con- tested by Judaizing Christians. In 2 Cor. xii. 13 — 23, to which Weber appeals for proof of his assertion, it is plain, that some Judaizing teacher (or teachers) is adverted to by Paul ; whose conduct he describes in terms which convey very strong disapprobation. But this, instead of aiding to establish the position of Weber, seems absolutely to overthrow it ; for in the epistle to the Hebrews, the teachers (as we have already had occasion to remark, p. 21,) are commended, as being altogether worthy of confidence and obedience, Heb. xiii. 17. 24. We have already seen, moreover, that the church at Corinth consisted, at first, of but few Jews ; as is plain from the history of Paul's planting it. Acts xviii. (2.) " There is a most striking resemblance between the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle to the Corinthians." TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH ? 29 This, Weber labours to establish, by a comparison of the methods in which each quotes the Old Testament ; of the aira^ Xeyofxtva ; and of the similitudes employed. That there is a similarity, I should readily concede. But resemblance, and even striking resemblance, is not confined merely to the epistles addressed to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews. Storr finds it between the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews ; Noesselt, between the epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Hebrews ; and it may be easily shown, (as it will be hereafter,) that the epistle to the Hebrews has a striking resemblance to all the epistles of Paul, in a variety of respects. Why should we, or how can we, limit this to the epistles addressed to the Corinthians ? But in various respects, in which Weber has undertaken to make out a likeness between the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle to the Corinthians, it seems to me that he has entirely failed. In the epistle to the Hebrews, repeated reference is made to personal sufferings and loss of property, through persecution, Heb. x. 33, 34, xii. 4 ; but in the epistle to the Corinthians, we discover no traces of such persecution ; nor does the history of the church at Corinth give us any knowledge of persecution having early prevailed there. At all events, when our present first epistle to the Corinthians was written, it is clear that no such event had taken place at Corinth ; for Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 13, no trial hath befallen you but such as is common to men. Now, as the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the great Jight of afflictions, x. 33, 34, which they endured, when they were first enlightened, here is an absolute con- tradiction of Weber's supposition, instead of a confirmation of it. (3.) " The warnings, exhortations, and commendations for charity bestowed, are alike in the epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews." But the same resemblances which Weber finds between these epistles, Noesselt finds between the epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Hebrews. Such resemblances may be found, also, in other epistles. But they are of a nature too general to afford any evidence of weight in such a question as the one before us. Does not every Christian church need warning, reproof, consolation ? And is not every one that is charitable, entitled to comynendation ? It is not, therefore, from a comparison of general expressions of this nature, that the sameness of churches addressed can be proved. There must be something particular, local, and sui generis, to make such proof valid. 30 § 8. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED (4.) The greeting at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, 'Ao-Tra- ^ovrai vfidg ol cltto rT/t,- 'IraXm^, Weber understands (like the critics whom I have already examined) as referring to Priscilla and Aquila ; and compares it with the greeting from the same persons, in 1 Cor. xvi. 19. But in the latter place they are expressly named, so that there is a striking dissimilitude, instead of resemblance, in the manner of the salutation, (5.) He further compares several ideas in the epistle to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews ; such as warnings taken from the example of ancient Israel, 1 Cor. x. 1 — 12, and Heb. iii. 16—18 ; the doctrine that God chastises his children for their good, 1 Cor. xi. 32, and Heb. xii. 5 — 11 ; and some other things, about which similar views in both epistles are expressed. The words, however, which are employed in these two cases, are, for tlie most part, quite diverse. And even if they were not, could Paul write on such subjects to no more than one church ? And must that church be 07ily at Corinth ? (6.) " But, the epistle to the Hebrews is called Xoyov TrapaKXriaeug ; and also in 2 Cor. vi. 1 , Paul says, Trapa/caXow/zev." True ; but the same Paul repeatedly says TrapaKoXiu) in his epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and elsewhere. Was the epistle to the Hebrews written to these churches, because Trapa- KoXiio is a word common to it and to the epistles directed to them ? (7.) " In 1 Cor. iv. 18, 19, xvi. 2 — 7, the apostle has expressed his desire or determination to pay the Corinthians a visit ; and at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, the same determination is expressed, Heb. xiii. 23." But were there no other churches which the apostle desired or deter- mined to visit, besides that at Corinth ? And could he express the desire or determination to visit no other ? Even if all this should be admitted, the determination to pay a visit, as expressed in our first epistle to the Corinthians, was abandoned when he wrote the second, i. 15 seq ; which, according to Weber's own arrangement, was written before our epistle to the Hebrews. (8.) " From 1 Cor. xvi. 10, it appears, that Timothy, when this letter was written, was absent from Paul ; and in the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 23, \ie is said to be sent away (aTroXfXvjueVoi/.) Here again is a similarity of circumstances." TO THE CHLRCll AT CORINTH ? 31 Granted ; but was not Timothy constantly employed in this manner, on errands of Paul to the churches ? Was he absent only once ? And could Paul tell no other church of his absence, but that of Corinth ? Besides, our second epistle to the Corinthians, (written, according to Weber himself, before our epistle to the Hebrews,) makes it clear that Timothy had returned ; for he is joined with Paul in the salutation at the beginning of the epistle, 2 Cor. i. 1. (9.) " Since the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, xiii. 22, I have written to you Zih /3pa)^£w»/, briefly ^ this refers to our second epistle to the Corinthians, [which, according to Weber, consisted of the first nine chapters ;] and the meaning of this phrase is, ' My last epistle to you (viz. the second epistle to the Corinthians) was short;' implying, at the same time, that the present one is longer or more copious." But such an explanation the text will not bear. " I beseech you, brethren," says the writer, " bear with my address to you, because (or, since) I have written briefly ;" he evidently means, briefly in comparison with the importance of the subject and the occasion ; briefly in comparison with the copiousness which his interested feelings for them and the cause of truth would have prompted. " I have written briefly," is an apology for the letter to the Hebrews which the writer was then concluding ; and, not for a former one to the church at Corinth. The incongruity of a supposition, such as Weber makes, is manifest from the meaning of the very language which he quotes to support it. For how could the apostle say that he had written briefly ^ in the second epistle to the Corinthians, and imply that he had written copiously in the epistle to the Hebrews ; when, even abridged as Weber makes the former, it would be almost as long as the latter 1 We have seen the inconclusive nature of Weber's arguments, and their insufficiency to establish his opinion. It may now be observed, in addition, that the subjects treated of in the epistle to the Corinthians, and in that to the Hebrews, are widely different, in general, and quite dissimilar. Not a word in the epistle to the Hebrews of internal disor- der, tumult, and parties in the church ; no precepts about separation of husband and wife ; none concerning meats offered to idols ; none about the abuse of spiritual gifts ; no discussion about the resurrection of the body ; nothing about the denial of Paul's authority ; which, with various matters relating to decorum, constitute the principal subjects dis- cussed in our present epistles to the Corinthians. On the other hand, in the epistles to the Corinthians there is nothing about apostacy ; 32 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN nothing relative to persecution ; nothing in commendation of their teachers ; no apparent apprehension expressed respecting a Judaizing spirit in the church. If the epistles to the Corinthians have resemblances in expression and doctrine to the epistle to the Hebrews, (as all Paul's epistles certainly have a resemblance to it,) are they not still so diverse as to the matters treated of, and as to the circumstances of the parties addressed, as to render hopeless all attempts to show that our present epistles to the Hebrews and to the Corinthians were addressed to one and the same church ? § 9. Was the Epistle sent to Spain or to Rome ? Ludwig has conjectured, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to a church in Spain ; and Wetstein, that it was written to the church at Rome. But these conjectures are altogether unsupported by the authors of them, and therefore need not delay our present investigation. We have the same liberty to conjecture, that it was written to some other place ; and the argument (if it be one) would be equally good. § 10. Was it written to the church in Palestine ? I have examined the most specious opinions which modern criticism has oiFered, in order to show that the epistle to the Hebrews was not directed to the church in Palestine, but to some church abroad. In ancient times, so far as I have been able to discover, there was but one opinion on this subject ; and this has been adopted and defended by a majority of distinguished critics, in modern and recent times. This opinion is, that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew church OF Palestine. We come now to examine whether there is satisfactory evidence, that this opinion is well founded. Many arguments have been employed to establish this supposition, which appear to be incapable of bearing the test of examination. Lard- ner and Michaelis, who in many respects were able critics, have brought together a number of such arguments. Regard for the opinions of such men, seems to render it necessary to subject these arguments to a brief review. (a) Lardner adduces Heb. i. 2. God — hofh in these last days spoken unto us by his Son ; which, he thinks, must designate those whom Christ ,^rsonally addressed, i. e. the Jews. Bnt although it may have such a meaning, it is equally plain that it may have a different one, viz. spoken unto Christians^ or to men in TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 33 general. Thus the word us is in other places employed ; e. g. Luke i. 1. The things fully credited by us, i. e. by Christians. (b) " Heb. iv. 2. Unto us is the gospel preached, as well as unto them:' To this passage the remarks just made will apply, with the same force as to Heb. i. 2. (c) " Heb. ii. 1 — 4. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation^ which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them wit- ness by signs and wonders, &c. Now Palestine was the place where miracles were performed." But miracles were also performed out of Palestine, by those who had heard Christ, as well as in it. And how then can it be a proof, that those addressed in the passage under examination belonged exclusively to Palestine? The meaning is, (or at least may be,) that Christianity was confirmed to the men of that age, by the miracles which were wrought by the immediate disciples of Christ. This sentiment, of course has nothing necessarily local attached to it. (d) ** Those addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews were weh acquainted with the sufferings of Christ; as the Christians of Judea must have been, i. 3. ii. 9. 18. v. 7, 8. ix. 14. 28. x. 12. xii. 2, 3 xiii. 12." And so were all to whom the apostles preached. Christ crucified was the grand theme, the prominent subject, of apostolic preaching, 1 Cor. ii. 2. Gal. vi. 14. (e) " Heb. v. 12. But when for the time ye ought to be teachers of others, ye have need to learn the first principles ; which most suitably applies to Christians in Judea, to whom the gospel was first preached." But if the epistle to the Hebrews was written after A. D. 60, (as is altogether probable, and as Lardner himself supposes,) then the same thing might be said to many other churches out of Palestine, who were among the early converts. (f) " What is said of apostates, in ch. vi. 4 — 6, and x. 26 — 29, is peculiarly applicable to apostates in Judea." But this may be very properly applied, also, to apostates elsewhere, in any other churches where the gospel had been fully preached. (g) Heb. xiii. 13, 14. Let us therefore go forth to him [viz. Jesus] without the camp, bearing his reproach ; for here we have no per- manent city, but we seek one which is to come. This, Lardner and D 34 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN Michaelis both suppose, was addressed to Christians in Jerusalem^ warning them to flee from that city, because the destruction of it would speedily take place. But it seems quite plain to me, that this passage is merely an exhorta- tion to self-denial, and to patient endurance of suffering on account of Christ, and after his example, couched in figurative language, and appli- cable to Christians in general of that or any other time or place. (h)*To these arguments, Michaelis has added, Heb. x. 25 — 37. Ex- horting one another ; and this so much the more, as ye see the day draw- ing near. — Yet a very little time, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. This, Michaelis thinks, is a warning to Christians in Jerusalem, that the destruction of the city was near at hand. The obvious reply is, that the same consideration is addressed by Paul to churches and persons abroad ; e, g. to the Philippians, iv. 5 ; to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. v. 2—6, also v. 23 ; to Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15; and by the apostle James, v. 8, when writing to the twelve tribes dis- persed abroad. How can such a warning, then, (admitting that the interpretation of it by Michaelis is correct,) be considered as determinmg the locality of the epistle ? The fall of Jerusalem surely would not endanger the personal safety of those who lived in Macedonia, and other places abroad. (i) " Heb. xiii. 9. It is good that the heart should be confirmed by grace, not by meats ; for those who are conversant with them are not profited. This must apply specially to the Jews of Palestine." But were there not Christian Jews, in other places, superstitious! y attached to doctrines concerning distinctions of meats and drinks ? Were not such to be found at Rome, in Galatia, at Colosse? If so, how can this text apply exclusively to Jews in Palestine ? On such arguments, then, dependence cannot well be placed, in order to establish the opinion which Michaelis and Lardner defend. It can- not be denied, indeed, that a peculiar significancy would be attached to several of the passages that have now been examined, provided it could first be shown that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to Jews in Palestine. But it must be conceded, that these passages (in themselves considered) are not sufficiently discriminating, to determine the question whether it was so directed. If no other than such argu- ments can be adduced, then must we abandon the idea of being able to offer such proof as will satisfy a critical inquirer, that the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 35 That such, however, was the first original direction, I am inclined to believe ; and to this belief the following considerations have led me. (1.) The inscription to this epistle most naturally leads to this sup- position, and helps to strengthen it. I am willing to concede the point here, (for I think it may be shown to the satisfaction of every one who is well acquainted with the principles of critical inquiry,) that this inscription is not a manu auctoris. Such is not the manner of the epistles. They contain within themselves the direction which the writer gave them. Thus, Rom. i 1 — 7, ** Paul an apostle— to the church at Rome : 1 Cor. i. 1, 2. Paul an apostle — to the church of God at Corinth : Eph. i. 1, Paul an apostle— to the saints at Ephesus : James i. 1, James a servant of God, to the twelve tribes in dispersion : 1 Pet. i. 1, Peter an apostle, to the sojourners in dispersion ; 2 John V. 1 , The elder, to the elect lady : Jude ver. 1 , Jude a servant of Jesus Christ — to those who are sanctified :" and so of other epistles. Moreover, there are reasons why the titles of the sacred books in general, throughout the Old and New Testaments, should not be regarded as coming from the hand of those who originally composed the books. Some of these inscriptions or titles are incongruous with the contents of the book, or chapter, to which they are prefixed. But one fact, on which I do not remember to have seen any comments made, is very striking. None of the New Testament writers, when they quote the Scriptures, ever appeal to the names of the Old Testament books. Nothing could have been more to their purpose, than to employ these names for the sake of guiding their readers, had they been at that time affixed to the books. But they have no where employed them. Even when they quote the prophets, it is the name of the person who wrote, and not the name of a hook as such, to which they appeal. Such is the universal practice of the New Testament writers ; and such is that of Clemens Romanus, who wrote during the first century. In writing to the Corinthians, he names, indeed, the epistle of Paul to them; but how could he do otherwise? But in all the numerous quotations which he makes of the other New Testament books, he does not once call any of them by name. Such facts show satisfactorily, that the present names of Scripture books did not then exist ; for had they existed, appeal had been made to them, for the same purposes, and from the same necessity, as we now make it every ^vlj. Admitting now, that the inscription, ^/ trpoQ 'Eppalovc tTrco-wXr), is not D 2 36 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN original, and that it was superadded by some later editor or transcriber of this epistle ; it is a very natural and pertinent question, Why was such a title given to the epistle in question ? The obvious answer must be, Because the editor or transcriber, who gave it, supposed that the epistle was intended for the Hebrews. And whoever the author of the title or inscription was, it is quite certain that he lived at an early period. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, that he gave such a title to our epistle, as agreed with the general tradition and common opinion of the Christian church at that period. For we find this title, not only in all our present Greek manuscripts, (which would not indeed settle the question of its very remote antiquity,) but in all the early ver- sions, the Syriac, and others ; also in the manuscripts of the old Itala, and the ante-Hieronymean Latin versions, the Codex Regius and San Germanensis only excepted. There is, indeed, a catalogue of canonical books from the fragments of an anonymous author, who lived near the close of the second century, (published by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. tom. iii. p. 854,) in which the epistle to the Hebrews is supposed to be called [epistola] apud Alexandrinos. But the whole passage of this writer is so obscure, and his ignorance respecting the contents of the epistle to the Hebrews so profound, (as will hereafter be shown,) that nothing is to be abated, on his account, from the statement which has just been exhibited. The fathers of the second century give the same title to our epistle which it now has ; for it is by this name that Pan- tenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, TertuUian, and Origen, (with the whole series of fathers after them,) make their appeal to it. This shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that from whatever source the title arose, it arose early, and early became general, or rather universal, in the church, wherever the epistle was received. But although the fact is certain, in respect to the early origin and currency of this title, one question remains, about which there has been no small dispute among critics. What is the meaning of the word Hebrews'? Does this name apply only to the Jews of Palestine who spoke the Hebrew language ? Or is it equally applicable to all the descendants of the Hebrews, who lived in foreign countries, and adhered to the Jewish religion? On this question turns the whole evidence to be derived from the title, in respect to the main subject under considera- tion. If the first be true, then does it show, that soon after the epistle was written, the church in general believed it to have been directed to the Jews in Palestine, if the second, then it does not at all help to show, TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 37 whether the early church held it to be written to the Christian community of Hebrews in Palestine, or out of it. Viewed in this light, the question as to the meaning of the word Hebrews becomes a matter of no inconsi- derable importance, and should therefore be radically investigated. The writers of the New Testament may be fairly presumed to have used the word Hebrew, according to the prevailing usus loquendi of the times when they wrote ; and in all probability, too, of the time when the title was given to our epistle, which could not be long afterwards. But they have uniformly employed it to designate the Palestine Jews, or those who had imbibed their opinions and spoke their language. In Acts vi. 1, the Palestine Christians are expressly called *E/3|oa7oi, in con- tradistinction from the foreign Jews, who are called *EX\?/vt<7rai : there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily administration. In conformity with this passage, (which is fundamental in the question now under con- Rideration,) the dialect of Palestine is repeatedly called ^^ppaiq or EppaiKog, in the New Testament ; e. g. Actsxxi. 40, xxii. 2, Lukexxiii. 38. John V. 2, xix. 13, 17. Agreeably to this, *E/3|uat^£tv means, to speak or write Hebrew ; as Josephus says, ra tov Kaiaapos BitjyyuXe 'E/3|oat<^wy, Bell. Jud. vi. 2, i. e. he narrated Cesar's history in the Hebrew tongue. To have a knowledge of the Hebrew language, and to speak it, was deemed among the Jews a matter of great importance, or a very valuable acquisition. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2. Hence Paul, when speaking of the ground of precedence which he might claim above the false teachers at Philippi, says, that he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews, i. e. ^ one of full Hebrew descent, and acquainted with the Hebrew language. Although he was born at Tarsus, he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, Phil. iii. 5. To this same fact he seems to appeal again, in a similar case, 2 Cor. xi. 22. Are they Hebrews ? So am I. With this usus loquendi of the New Testament agree other facts, which seem to place the question beyond reasonable doubt, as to what the usage of the apostolic age was, in respect to the meaning of the word in question. The Hebrew Christians of Palestine early possessed a spurious Gospel, which long continued to have currency among them. Universal consent gave to this Gospel, written in the SyrorChaldaic or Palestine dialect of the time, the name Ei/ayytXtov fca9' *Ej3paiovQ ; evidently because it was used or approved by people of Palestine who spoke the so-called Hebrew language. The early fathers, it is well known, drew the con- 38 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN elusion from the title to our epistle, that it was originally written in the Hebrew language. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus asserts that itwas written, *E(3paloiQ ^Ej3paiKy (jxovy^ and interpreted by others, Euseb. H. Ecc. vi. 14. In the same way, Eusebius declares that it was addressed, *Ej3paioiQ 2ta TTJg Trarpiov yXojrrrjQy to the Hebrews in their native tongue^ Hist. Ecc. iii. 28 ; and Jerome says that Paul wrote, ut Hehrceus, HehrcBis, Hebraic^, i. e.. as a Hebrew, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language ; Catal. Scriptt. verb. Paulus. Now, how could these fathers reason thus, unless they had understood the word Hebrews as necessarily meaning, according to the usus loquendi of that age, those who spoke the Hebrew language ? Bertholdt declares boldly, that not a single example can be found, in early times, of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews, Einleit. p. 2875. I would express my own conviction in a more guarded manner, and say, I have not been able to find any instance where this is the case. Yet Eichhorn has ventured to assert, that the name Hebrew never has any reference to language, but always to religion or origin. His proof is, first, a passage from Eusebius' Hist. Ecc. iii. 4, in which the historian asserts, that Peter addressed his epistle, npoQ tovq e^ ^Eppaiivy ovrag kv ZiatTirop^ JlovTov. But this implies simply, that those whom Peter addressed were descended from the Hebrews, or belonged to those of the circumcision. Another passage to which he appeals, is in Philo, (de Abrahamo, p. 338 d. edit. Par.) where he says, that Sarah advised Abraham to take as a concubine [Hagar], who by descent was an Egyptian, tw te Trpoaipi)aiv 'Efipalav, but by choice a Hebrew; which he construes as meaning, who had embraced the religion of the Hebrews. But the antithesis here does not admit of this sense. By descent she was of the Egyptian nation, but by voluntary choice she attached herself to the Hebrew nation, is plainly the meaning of the passage ; so that it fails altogetlier in affording ground for the conclusion which Eichhorn adduces from it. Carpzoff, to whom Eichhorn is indebted for this quotation, has adduced several others, to show that the word Hebrew is used to character'ze the religion of the Jews, rather than their language or nation. Exercitt. in Heb. Prolog, c. 1. But so far are they from affording satisfaction to my mind, that I do not think them worthy the labour of an examination in this place. The result of this inquiry is, then, that 'Eppntoi, in the inscription to TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 39 our epistle, means, and, according to the usus loquendi of the age, must mean, the Hebrews of Palestine, i. e. Hebrews in a country where the Hebrew language was vernacular. If I have offered sufficient evidence to establish this, then does the title to our epistle go far towards showing what the original destination of the epistle was. If an ancient epistle has no direction within itself, and contains no unequivocal passages indicative of locality, in what way can we ascertain the original direction of it better than by tradition ? Do we not appeal in all similar cases to tradition, in order to show when and where authors were born, lived, and wrote ? where and when books were written ? And seldom, indeed, can we trace back tradition, in a manner so satisfactory and definite as in the case just considered. Thus much for the external testimony, in regard to the opinion that Palestine was the place to which our epistle was directed ; the voice of antiquity, and the title of the letter, constituting strong presumptive evidence that such was the case. But does the internal condition of the epistle itself agree with this ? And does it furnish no objections, which will overbalance the weight of tradition ? Something must be said relative to these questions, before we can make our ultimate conclusion. I proceed then, (2.) To examine whether the internal condition of the epistle agrees with and confirms the supposition which I am now endeavouring to defend. The most superficial reader cannot help being impressed, on a slight reading of this epistle, with the idea that it is addressed to Jewish con- verts. In respect to this, indeed, all critics, ancient and modern, are of one opinion. But a close examination discloses a peculiarity of appeal, in this epistle, to the Mosaic ritual, which can be found no where else in the New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, we find, indeed, numerous traces of dispute and difficulty with Jews who lived in countries remote from Palestine. But the disputed ques- tions turn upon points of circumcision, of meats clean and unclean, points which respected the sabbaths, and the holidays that the Jews had been accustomed to observe. Concerning the priesthood, the temple, and the ritual of sacrifices, we find no questions of difficulty agitated. The obvious reason of this seems to be, that but very few of the foreign Jews, regularly, or even at all, attended the services of the temple. The great body of those who lived in the countries more distant from 40 I 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN Palestine, plainly could not attend the feast at Jerusalem three times in each year, according to the prescription of Moses. The time and expenses necessary to do this, could not be spared. This is not matter of mere conjecture. We know that the most numer- ous colony of Jews, any where to be found at that period, as well as the most learned and rich, was that at Alexandria in Egypt. Hither they had been transplanted, about 284 years A. C. by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had overrun Palestine with his army. They were allowed great privileges under the reign of this prince ; so that many were allured to Egypt, in his time, and the number of Jews in that country became quite large. Under Ptolemy Philometor, not far from 175 A. C, Onias, son of the high-priest Onias at Jerusalem, who had fled to Egypt for safety, asked leave of Ptolemy and his queen Cleopatra, to build a temple at Leontopolis in that country, which was a town in the prefecturate of Heliopolis. This leave he obtained ; and there he built a temple, and constituted priests and Levites as ministers for its services. In his peti- tion for obtaining this liberty, he states, that while on his military expe- ditions in the service of the king, he had seen temples used by the Jews for their religious services, in Celosyria, Phenicia, and Leontopolis. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. xiii. 6, edit. Colon. Allowing this statement to be true, it would appear, that at least many of these foreign Jews had then already lost their zeal for attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. That the Jews in Egypt did not, in general, attend the feasts at Jerusa- lem, is well known. They only sent an occasional deputy there, by way of testifying their respect and fraternal sympathy. If the Jews in Egypt did thus, we may well suppose that the Jews at a greater distance from Palestine imitated them in their remissness, with respect to attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. The nature of the case shows, that as a body they could not have been habitually present at the holy feasts ; and that most of them, indeed, never fre- quented Jerusalem at all. In fact, this city could not have accommo- dated the one-fourth part of the worshippers from abroad, had all the foreign Jews gone up to the feasts held there. The natural consequence of not being familiar with the temple rites and priesthood, was a diminution of zeal in the foreign Jews with respect to things of this nature ; until, in the end, they became to them matters of minor importance, or even of comparative indifference. Hence, Paul had no disputes with the foreign Jews about these things. At least, no marks of such disputes appear in the history of this apostle by Luke, nor in the letters of Paul himself. TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 41 But here is a point, respecting which the epistle to the Hebrews differs widely from all the other epistles of the New Testament. It is not with the question whether circumcision is to be retained or rejected ; not with the dispute about meats offered to idols ; not with prescriptions about new- moons and sabbaths, that the writer is concerned. The whole epistle turns on different subjects. It is the favourite idea of pre-eminence, so tenaciously attached by zealous Jews to all parts of the Mosaic ritual, which the writer discusses. The dignity or rank of those, through whose mediation the law was given ; the temple-apartments, furniture, rites, and sacrifices ; the order and honour of the priesthood ; in a word, the whole apparatus of the Levitical service, both daily and annual, are the subjects of which he treats, and the things which he compares with the corresponding parts of the Christian dispensation, in order to show the superiority of the latter. Were angels employed in order to intro- duce the law ? Christ, who has obtained a name and place far more exalted than they, himself introduced the new dispensation. Was Moses the beloved and honoured leader of God's chosen people, placed at the head of the Jewish dispensation ? He was placed there as a servant ; but Christ, at the head of the new dispensation, as a Son. Was the high- priest of the Jews a mediator between God and the people, who offered up their annual propitiatory sacrifice, and went into the holy of holies, into the immediate presence of the Divinity, on their account ? The office of this high priest, from its very nature, and from the brevity of human life, was short and limited : but Christ is high priest for ever ; he has entered the holy of holies in the highest heavens, and has once for all offered a propitiatory sacrifice of everlasting efficacy. Was the temple a magni- 6cent structure, the sacred character of which inspired awe ? Magni- ficent and sacred as it was, it was merely a copy of the temple in which Jesus officiates, reared by God himself, and eternal in the heavens. Was the blood of goats and bullocks annually presented before the shrine of Jehovah by the Jewish high-priest, on the great day of atone- ment ? Jesus, by his own blood, entered the sanctuary of the eternal temple, and made an atonement which needs not to be repeated. In a word, were all the implements of temple-service, all which pertained to the order and persons of the priesthood, venerable and holy ? All these things were merely similitudes of the more perfect temple and priesthood of him, who is the great high priest of the Christian dispensation. Who, now, were possessed of these specific views in respect to the Mosaic ritual, which the writer thus brings into comparison ? To whom 42 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN could the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (as he constantly does) appeal, as being familiarly acquainted with every thing that pertained even to the minutest parts of the Jewish ritual, and priesthood, and sacred places, and utensils, and the very location of these utensils ? To whom, I ask, but to the Palestine Jews ? To those who from childhood were familiar with all these objects, and who had been inspired by edu- cation with the most profound reverence for them, and with zeal to main- tain their importance. Why are not these subjects brought into view, in Paul's letters to other churches ? Disputes he had with the Jews, as the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians and Thessalonians, in a word, as all his epistles, testify. But not about the temple ritual, and priesthood, and holy places, and utensils. The disputes concerned other rites of Judaism, which could be generally practised by Hebrews living in foreign countries ; and not those, in which only a few devotees would feel a particular interest. I cannot resist the impression, when I read the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews, that the appeal is made to those who have an intimate knowledge, and strong jealousy for the honour of the whole Mosaic ritual there brought to view. I am fully aware, that pilgrims (so to speak) annually resorted from all parts of the world, where the Jews were settled, to Jerusalem. So they do still. But how few must these have been, from countries more remote ! The supposition that the great body of the church, or the whole church, addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews, (if these Hebrews belonged to foreign countries,) possessed the intimate personal knowledge of the Jewish ritual, holy places, and utensils, which the writer evidently supposes those to possess whom he addresses, does, in itself considered, seem to be very improbable. It is rendered still more so, by some additional facts, which ought to be here stated. In the latter part of Paul's ministry, his disputes abroad about Judaism appear to have generally subsided, and he was every where received by the foreign churches with great cordiality and affection. It was only at the first planting of the churches abroad, at the period when the transition was to be made from Judaism to Christianity, (which was indeed a great transition in respect to externals,^ that disputes arose, and passions were awakened, which occasioned much trouble and anxiety to the apostle. More light, and a better understanding of the nature of Christianity, appeased these disputes, wherever Judaism had not the strong grasp which the constant practice of the ritual gave it. TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 43 Not so in Palestine. The very last visit which the apostle made there, before he was sent a prisoner to Rome, occasioned a tumult among the zealots for the law; who even jomed in persecuting him. " Thou seest, brother," said the other apostles to him, *' how many thousand Jews are become believers, and they are all ^rjXutral rov vofiovf" zealots for the observance of the law, Acts xxi. 20 ; the correctness of which sentiment was abundantly confirmed by the sequel. That the zealots for the law here means particularly the Jews of Palestine, is evident from ver. 21, which follows. That the Palestine Christians adhered with far greater tenacity to the Jewish ritual than the Jews abroad, is clearly shown moreover by the fact that, while the foreign Jews soon abandoned altogether the rites of Judaism, the zealots for the Mosaic ritual in Palestine even separated, at last, from the community of other Christians, rejected all the epistles of Paul from the canon of the New Testament, and retained in all their strictness the ceremonies of the law. I refer to the sects of the Nazarencs and Ebionites, the first heresies that rent asunder the church of Christ ; and which would not bear at all with the catholic spirit of Paul's preach- mg and epistles. All these circumstances united, have strongly impressed me with the idea, that the whole texture and manner of the epistle to the Hebrews almost of necessity implies, that those to whom it was originally addressed were habitually attendants on the services of the temple, and intimately and personally acquainted with all its rites and ceremonies. Of course, I must regard them as belonging to Palestine, or its near neighbourhood. In addition to these considerations, which apply generally to the epistle in question, there appear to be some particular references made to cir- cumstances, which would seem to presuppose a personal and familiar knowledge, on the part of those addressed, with objects in and about Jerusalem and the temple. E. g. when the writer says, xiii. 12, " Where- fore Jesus, that he might purify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate," viz. the gate through which criminals were led to exe- cution. This implies, that the readers were supposed to be acquainted with the locality of Jerusalem. And in ix. 5, after recounting the apart- ments and various sacred utensils of the temple, the writer says. Concern- ing which things, ovk earn, it is not my ptiiyose [or it is unnecesary] to speak particularly ; by which there is an appeal made to the knowledge of his hearers, that seems to imply a local and personal acquaintance with the circle of objects which are designated. 44 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN I freely acknowledge these circumstances are not so peculiar and exclusive, that it is not possible to apply them to Jews who resided abroad, and habitually visited Jerusalem. But where was the community abroad, who as a body did this ? And then^ probability, and not demonstration ^ is what we seek for, in an argument of this nature. If demonstration, or what is equivalent to it, had been found in the epistle itself, there had not been such endless dispute about it. It is a striking fact also, that only Jews are addressed throughout the epistle. Where were the churches abroad that consisted only of Jews ? I am aware, this argument may be met by asking the question, Could not the writer address the Jewish part of a church abroad, and not the Gentile ? The possibility of this cannot be denied. The probability that it was so, does not, in this case, seem to be very great. For is it not natural to suppose, that the Gentile part of the church would have been more or less infected with the feelings of the Jewish part ; and that some of them, at least, would have also been in danger of apostacy ? Could the writer, who shows such deep solicitude to prevent this awful catastrophe, fail to have warned his Gentile brethren against their danger ; and to have exhorted and encouraged them to persevere ? If this be possible, we must still grant, when we consider the characteristics of the writer, that it is at least highly improbable. Nor can it be alleged, as an adequate reply to this, that the epistles to the Ephesians and Galatians are exclusively addressed to Gentile converts. For, in regard to the first, no such urgent and fundamental question, as that treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, comes under discussion. It is probable, moreover, that by far the greater part of this church were gentiles. And with respect to the epistle to the Galatians, although Storr has as- sumed it as a point which admits of no question, that it is directed to Gen- tile converts only, yet Noesselt (as we have seen) is of opinion, that it is addressed altogether to Jewish converts, and says, that no one except Beausobre denies this. Opusc. Fascic. i. p. 293. Neither he nor Storr can establish their respective opinions, from the contents of the epistle. Most apparent is it, that, in general, converts from the heathen are addressed. But when the apostle says. Gal. iv. 9, " Why should ye turn again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, to which ye desire again to be in bondage," viz. to the Jewish ritual, can he address only converts from the heathen ? And when he says, too, ver. 1, " Be not again entangled in the yoke of bondage," can he address only those who were formerly heathens ? An appeal, then, to the epistles addressed TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 45 to the Ephesians and Galatians, as being exclusively addressed to only one part of churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is not satisfac- tory in the case before us ; for the Galatian church is plainly addressed as a mixed body ; and the church at Ephesus appears to have been prin- cipally made up of Gentiles. It is not comparing par cum pari. The peculiar circumstances of which the epistle to the Hebrews treats, show that a warning to the Gentile part of that church to whom it was sent, if such church were among the Gentiles, and consisted in part of them, was a thing, to all appearance, of indispensable necessity. Here then is another circumstance, which contributes to render it probable that some church in Palestine was addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews. It is possibhy that there may have been some churches abroad wholly made up of Jews ; but history has given no account of any such ; and not only the possibility but the probability of it must be shown, before the argument now adduced is deprived of its force. Again, the persons addressed are requested to " call to mind their suf- ferings in former days, when they were first enlightened, and when they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and suffered other evils from per- secution," X. 32. 34. This, indeed, mB.y possibly have been true of other churches abroad ; but we have no historical information of persecutions abroad, in the earliest age of Christianity, which were permitted by the civil government to proceed so far as to destroy or confiscate property, and to imprison persons for any length of time. Palestine was the place for such occurrences, from the very first. I am aware that Paul went with a commission to Damascus, that he might cast Christians into prison. But the very terms of that commission directed him to bring those whom he should apprehend " bound to Jerusalem," Acts ix. 2. Indeed, it is plainly the case, that at this period the Roman magistracy every where abroad opposed persecution ; for it was contrary to the established max- ims of the Roman government, to intermeddle with the religion of their provinces. Often did this magistracy interfere, to protect Christians whom the violence of the Jews had assailed; Acts xviii. 12 — 17. xix. 35 — 40. Acts xxi. etc. Still, I have admitted that it is possible such early persecution, as the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of, may have taken place abroad; but this has not been rendered probable, by producing any historical records which testify to it. The solitary instance of Antipas at Pergamos, Rev. ii. 13, is the only one I have been able to find. In all probability, he, like Stephen, was destroyed by the rage of a lawless mob. Of course, until more evidence on this subject can be produced^ 46 ^10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN the argument from the passage in our epistle, which has been just cited, adds no inconsiderable weight to the evidence in favour of the supposition which I am endeavouring to defend. (3.) If it can be rendered probable that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, I should think it almost certain that it must have been written to Jews in Palestine ; for throughout the whole epistle, there is not one word which shows the writer to have been the instrument of their conver- sion, or even to have been their religious teacher. What church abroad could be thus addressed by Paul ? For what one had not been either planted or nurtured by him ? I do not deny the possibility of there hav- ing been some one ; but the evidence that there actually was, at the time when our epistle was written I have not been able to find. And besides this, it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, that not one word is said, which implies that their teachers were lacking in any thing pertaining either to their knowledge, or the duties demanded by their office. All is commendation. How natural is this, and easy to be ac- counted for, if these teachers were apostles or immediate disciples of Christ himself; and such were the teachers of the churches in Palestine. On the whole, this is a circumstance which increases the probability of the opinion that I am assaying to defend. Internal evidence, then, is not wanting, which accords with the testi- mony given by the inscription of the epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, the concurrence of both kinds of evidence is such, as to afford grounds of probability as strong as could be expected in regard to a question of this nature, which respects a matter so ancient and so difficult. Direct and positive proof, incapable of being in any way questioned or contradicted, can neither be required nor justly expected. But there is evidence enough, as it appears to me, to render the opinion of the ancient church, that the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Christians in Palestine altogether probable. Objections, however, drawn from the epistle itself, against this opinion, have been often and strongly urged by critics of late ; and these cannot, with due respect to the authors of them, be passed over in silence. Objection 1. " Heb. ii. 3. * How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ?' From this passage it appears that Christ had not personally taught those to who.n this epistle is addressed ; they had only been instructed by those who heard him, viz. the apostles and immediate disciples of Christ. TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? 47 It is remarkable that this same verse is adduced and relied on, by Lardner, to support the opinion that the Hebrews of Palestine only could have been addressed by it ; and by Storr, to prove that those could not have been the persons addressed. The argument is equally valid in both cases, i. e. it amounts to nothing in either. For the simple sentiment of the text is, " How can we escape punishment, if we neglect the gospel first published by the Lord of glory in person, and then abundantly con- firmed by miracles which were wrought by the apostles and immediate disciples of Christ ?" Now, this might be said to any church of that period, in any country ; and to any church on earth, from that period dowp to the present hour. Of course, it determines nothing relative to the question, whether our epistle was directed to a church in, or out of Palestine. Objection 2. " Heb. xii. 4. * Ye have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin ;' i. e. against injurious and unjust opposition. How could this be said to the church at Jerusalem, which had been called to witness the martyrdom of Stephen and others, and the bloody death of James ; and who had lived in the fire of persecution ever since its first establishment ?" This argument has appeared so conclusive to many critics, that they have abandoned the idea of supporting the ancient opinion, that our epistle was directed to the church in Palestine. Its first appearance inclined me to the same conclusion. A more particular examination of it, however, has led me to doubt altogether of its validity. " Call to mind," says the writer, " your severe aflflictions in former days, when ye were first enlightened," x. 32 — 34. That is, your former persecutions, which were severe, ye bore with patience and cheerfulness, although ye suffered imprisonment and loss of property. Now, indeed, ye are tried, continues the writer, but not in the highest degree. " Ye have not yet resisted unto blood." How then do^ the history of the church in Palestine comport with this sentiment ? A question which must necessarily be investigated here. The first persecution was that which arose at the time of Stephen's martyrdom. Acts vi. vii. This happened probably in A. D. 37 or 38. During this persecution many were imprisoned, severely beaten, and subjected to various insults and outrages ; but there is no satisfactory evidence, that any blood was shed except that of Stephen. Paul, in giving an account of his former conduct, says, that he persecuted Chris- tianity unto death, Acts xxii. 4, which was in fact the case with respect to 48 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN Stephen ; and no doubt he designed to do so, in respect to many others. But in telling us what he actually effected, he says that he arrested Christians, beat them in the synagogues. Acts xxii. 4, 19, compelled them to blaspheme, and shut them up in prison. Acts xxvi. 10, 11. But the voice of Jesus arrested him, on his way to Damascus ; and in con- fessing his crime, he avows that he imprisoned believers and beat them in the synagogues. But he does not state that he was guilty of blood, except in the case of Stephen, Acts xxii. 19, 20. As this passage contains, we have reason to believe, a full confession of his guilt, it may serve to explain the doubtful passage in Acts xxvi. 10, where he says, when they were slain, {Siyaipovfiivwy avT&v) I gave my vote against them. The plural number here {avaipov^iv(av) has led many to suppose that Paul was concerned in frequent murders. But any one versed in the narra- tions of the New Testament, cannot but know how frequently the plural number is used to designate the occurrence of facts, in which only one person is concerned, i. e. where the sense of the passage requires it to be understood only as in the singular. It is thus that the thieves on the cross are said to have reviled the Saviour, although only one of them did so, Matt, xxvii. 44, Mark xv. 32, comp. Luke xxiii. 39 ; thus, that the demoniacs at Gadara are said to have been exceedingly fierce, when only one of them was so, Matt. viii. 28 — 34, comp. Mark v. 1 — 18, Luke viii- 26 — 38 ; and thus, in other cases, presented by the Scriptures,* and (I may add) by other writings also, too numerous to be here recounted. Nothing is said, in the history of the first persecution, of any Christians suffering martyrdom besides Stephen. Nothing in Paul's confession to the Saviour, which specifies the blood that he had shed. The conclusion seems to be, then, that only the blood of Stephen was shed on this occa- sion, although doubtless Paul then meant to add to the number of mar- tyrs ; he gave his vote for this purpose, Acts xxvi. 10, and abused Chris- tians in various ways, such as the spite and malice of Jews suggested. But they were not destroyed. It must be remembered, in regard to this persecution, that it was limited to Jerusalem ; with the exception only that Paul designed to extend it to Damascus, Acts viii. 12, xxvi. 10. Saul's conversion, however, appears to have put an end to this perse- cution ; for we read, after his first visit to Jerusalem, that the churches in • See Matt. xx. 30—34, and comp. Mark x. 46—52, xviii. 35—43. See also Matt, xxviii. 1, Mark xvi. 1, 2, with which comp, Luke xxiv. 1, 9, 10, and John xx. 1, 11, 18. TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 49 Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, were in a state of peace and prosperity and were multiplied. Acts ix. 31. Persecution again broke out under Herod Agrippa, (about A. D. 44,) who, to gain favour with the Jews, pretended great zeal for the law ; and, to do them a pleasure, undertook to harass Christians. How widely he extended his eiForts to vex them, the sacred historian has not told us ; It is simply said that he undertook KaKUKral nvae tCjv airo Tijg £KK\r}(riag, and that he put to death James the brother of John, and cast Peter into prison, Acts xii. 1,3. It is very probable, since Herod lived a part of his time at Cesarea, that he may have extended his vexations to the churches there, in order to increase his popularity in that city, which was the capital of his kingdom. Be this as it may, we read of only one death on this occasion ; James he destroyed^ aveTXe ; but others, eKaKioae. This persecution happened so early as A. D. 44. Herod died a short time after this, at Cesarea, smitten by a divine hand on account of his having impiously received praise as a God. With his death the persecution ceased ; for the Roman procurators who fol- lowed, allowed of no open persecution. It was not until the departure of Festus, and before the arrival of his successor Albinus, (nineteen or twenty years after the persecution of Herod,) that the Jews were again engaged in any open or violent outrages against Christians. James the younger, and some others with him, were then destroyed by Ananus the high-priest. But this act of violence was disapproved by the considerate and sober part of the Jews, and Ananus himself was thrust out of office, by the interference of the succeeding Roman governor, on account of this act of cruelty, Josephus Antiq. xx. These are all the persecutions unto blood, in Palestine and before the destruction of Jerusalem, of which we have any historical information. The last of these probably occurred, after the epistle to the Hebrews was written. Vexation, pro- ceeding from personal insult, contumely, excommunications, malice, and bhnd fiery zeal, on the part of the unbelieving Jews, no doubt, the Christians in Palestine suffered very frequently, during the period before the destruction of Jerusalem. But restraint of personal liberty, and destruction of property or of life, were not permitted by the Roman govern- ment, while the civil administration of Judea was actually in their hands. Compare now these facts, (which I have not seen fully developed by any of the critics who have written on our epistle,) with the passage which is at present under consideration. Our epistle is directed to Christians as a body, and not to the teachers or officers of the churches ; for these £ 50 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN are separately spoken of, Heb. xiii. 7, 17. and a salutation is sent to them, Heb. xiii. 24, as not being a party to the epistle, but a separate class of persons. The investigation which we have instituted shows that only teachers J and not private Christians, had suffered martyrdom in Judea An epistle to private Christians in Palestine, then, and not addressed to their teachers, might say, and might truly say, " Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin ;" although some of their teachers had suffered martyrdom. Eichhorn, denying that our epistle was written to a church in Palestine, asks, as though it were incapable of contradiction, " Did not blood often flow at Jerusalem, and (since this was the metropolis of the country) in Palestine at large V* And then he concludes it to be impossible, that our epistle should say to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, " Ye have not resisted unto blood." But had he minutely investigated the history of these persecutions, he might have spared his conclusion, and refrained from the assurance with which it is stated. If, however, we should admit all that is contended for, viz. that in the persecution of -the time of Stephen, and under Herod Agrippa, many private Christians were destroyed ; even then, the passage of the epistle, which we are considering, offers no for- midable difficulty. Plainly the principles of interpretation demand no more, than that what is said, in the verse under consideration, should have respect to the generation of Christians then living y and the persecu- tion then pending, when the epistle was written. One generation of Christians, who were adults, or in advanced life, when they were con- verted, (which might have been on or near the day of Pentecost,) must have necessarily passed off the stage, in a period of almost thirty years. But many of the generation now addressed may have been Christians, and probably were so, at the time when Herod persecuted the church ; which accords well with what our epistle says, " Remember the former days, when, soon after your conversion, ye endured a great fight of afflictions," X. 32 — 34. But after that, when Herod was dead, there was a remission of severities. Now again, the violence of the Jews had begun to show itself; but the Roman government overawed it, so as to restrain it from shedding blood. Such a state of things agrees well with the language of our epistle. Ye have not, i. e. in your present struggle, resisted unto y blood. This expression has not necessarily any respect to preceding times of persecution, but only to that which was then pending. In this way the laws of exegesis are satisfied. But if not, if the expression must be referred to past times, it is, as we have already seen, capable of histo- TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? 51 rical vindication, when applied to the Hebrews. Private persons had not resisted unto blood. My apology for dwelling so long on this subject is, the interesting facts in the history of the church with which it is connected ; and the hasty conclusions, or imperfect investigations respecting it, which I have found in all the writers whom I have had opportunity to consult. Even Schroeckh, in his great work on Ecclesiastical History, has omitted any detailed account of the primitive persecutions, and has given us nothing which is adapted to satisfy a particular inquirer. Ojection 3. " Heb. xiii. 24. They of Italy salute you. What did the church in Italy know of the church in Palestine, that they should send salutations to them ? Or if, as most critics have averred, they of Italy means Priscilla and Aquila, how should the church of Palestine know any thing of these private Jews, who had only travelled from Rome to Corinth, from Corinth to Ephesus, and thence back again to Rome ?" In regard to the first part of this objection, it is sufficient to ask. How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, 1 Peter v. 13, to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ? I Peter i. 1 . How could Paul, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, say, " The churches of Asia salute you ?" 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Was then the church at Babylon personally acquainted with all those churches in Asia, to whom their salutation is sent by Peter ? Or were the churches of Asia personally acquainted with the Corinthians ? Neither the one, nor the other. Neither was necessary ; for what is more common than salutations, sent by a mutual friend, from some persons, to others whom they have never seen ? But farther : had they of Italy never heard of the church in Palestine ? And might they not sympathize with them in their trials and dangers, and send them an affectionate expression of their regard in a salutation ? Such objections cannot surely help to support the cause, in aid of which they are adduced. As to Aquila and Priscilla (if the ol airo rrjg 'IraXtag means them, which is very improbable,) a sympathy in them, as Jews, for their Chris- tian brethren in Palestine, is surely not a matter of wonder. And an expression of this in a salutation, is as little so. Objection 4. " The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, has in various places eulogized them for the charity which they had so cheer- fully manifested, and continued to manifest, on various occasions, Heb. vi. 10; in particular, for their compassion towards those who were in e2 52 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN bonds, i. e. imprisoned, x. 32 seq. He exhorts them also to continue • their benefactions of this nature, by a liberal hospitality, Heb. xiii. 1, 2, and 16. How could such things be addressed to the church in Palestine? and how could that church be praised for contributions to others when its members were so poor, from the first, that they had even been assisted by the contributions of churches from abroad ?" But this argument fails of producing conviction, because it is built on an interpretation of the epistle which is not admissible, and on an as- sumption of facts altogether improbable and unsupported. The writer tells them, that God will not forget their labour of love, in that they have ministered to the saints, and do still minister, vi. 10 ; that they have had compassion on those who were in bonds, x. 34 ; that they must not forget to entertain strangers, xiii. 2 ; and that God is well pleased with their sacrifices of hospitality (Koivuviat;,) xiii. 16. Here is nothing said, or even intimated, of making contributions for churches abroad. They are commended for being liberal to the saints, who were in need or in prison ; and exhorted to continue their hospitality to strangers, i. e. to receive with liberality and kindness brethren that were strangers from abroad (probably, preachers,) who visited them. Who can doubt that a charac- teristic, so peculiarly exhibited by Christians in general of the primitive age, was manifested by the churches in Palestine ? a country which so many strangers visited. But when it is said, that the church in Palestine was supported by contributions from abroad, why should this be predicated, as it is by many critics, of all the Christian churches in Palestine ? There is no support for this opinion to be derived trom history. When the famine occurred in the time of Claudius, Acts xi. 27 — 30, a collection was made at Antioch, and sent to Judea ; which appears, however, to have been distributed at Jerusalem, Acts xii. 25. In respect to all the other collections mentioned in Paul's epistles, Jerusalem is evidently the place for which they were destined. See Rom. xv. 25 — 31. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 — 3. 2 Cor. viii. ix. etc dytovg; comp, 1 Cor. xvi. 1 — 3. Gal. ii. 1 — 10. If now we consider the circumstances of the church at Jerusalem, this will not excite any surprise. For, first, in this metropolis Jewish zeal was more displayed than elsewhere; and Christians here were, of course, peculiarly exposed to persecution and want. Secondly, the multitude of Christian Jews, who still resorted to the temple in order to pay their services there, and who would naturally consort with the Christians at Jerusalem, rendered necessary the charity of the churches abroad, in TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? 63 order that the Christians of the Jewish metropolis might support their hospitality. But as to other churches in Palestine, we know nothing of their poverty. We know that many Christians in that country had possessions, and sold them in order to put the avails into the public treasury of the church, soon after the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 44, 45. Indeed, it is beyond all the bounds of probability, to suppose that of the many thousand Jews in Palestine, who had become Christians, all were poor, and in need of foreign charity. Poverty of this nature was not very common among the Jews, who were always an active and industrious nation. Above all, the supposition that the Hebrew Christians were unable to perform the common rites of hospitality, and to aid in any way such as were thrown into prison, or to furnish them with aliment, is destitute of every degree of probability; and therefore it can form no solid objection to the idea, that the epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to some church or churches in Palestine. Why is it necessary to suppose that the church at Jerusalem, and that exclusively , was addressed ? Moreover, the very objection itself affords an argument for the position which it is designed to oppose. In what country were the prisoners to whom compassion had been shown ? Prisoners they were, evidently, on account of their Christian faith. We have seen that neither liberty nor life were, at this period, in jeopardy abroad, on account of religion, because of the restraint over the Jews exercised by the Roman govern- ment. We have no history that proves such jeopardy to have beeu matter of fact. The mere temporary imprisonment of Paul and Silas, on a charge of sedition, and as preparatory to trial, (Acts xvi.) proves nothing to the purpose. Accounts of other imprisonments besides this, out of Palestine, cannot be shown in the history of the primitive church, at least within the Roman provinces abroad. Palestine was the only place where Christians were imprisoned. Even when Paul went to Damascus, he expected to bring his prisoners to Jerusalem, Acts ix. 2. Palestine then was the place where compassion to Christian prisoners was needed, and where it was to be shown ; and there, as it seems to me, it was exhibited by those whom the epistle to the Hebrews addresses. Objection 5. " Heb. xiii. 23. ' Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty y cnzoXeKvfxivov, with whom, if he come soon, I will pay you a visit.' How could the church in Palestine know any thing of Timothy, who was never there ? and what particular concern can they be supposed to have had with a visit of Timothy to them ?" But, first, it is altogether probable that Timothy was with Paul at 54 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN Jerusalem, during his last visit there, before his imprisonment. It is certain from Acts xx. 4, that Timothy set out with him and several others, from Troas, to go to Jerusalem; and equally certain, that although the history of Paul's voyage to Palestine, at that time, is traced with a minuteness that is unusual, not a word is mentioned of Timothy's being left behind, or being separated for any time from him ; although it is the custom of Luke to mention such a fact, whenever it occurs ; e. g. Acts xix. 22, xvii. 14, xx. 5. 13, 14. Indeed, it is altogether against probability, that Timothy would have separated from Paul, on this occasion ; as it was announced to Paul, on his way, that bonds and imprisonment awaited him at Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 4, xx. 23 ; not to mention the desire which Timothy, who had been educated as a Jewish proselyte, must have had, to see Jerusalem, and the interesting objects which it presented. The sequel of this journey was, that Paul was kept two years as a prisoner at Cesarea; with full liberty of access, however, to all his friends and acquaintance. Is there any probability that Timothy, who was so ardently attached to Paul, as to have followed him every where, from the very first of his acquaintance with him, would have now immediately deserted him ; or, even if he was then abroad, that he would not have come to aid his necessities ? So far then as the objection is built on Timothy's ignorance of the Jews in Palestine, or theirs of him, it appears altogether improbable. Besides, even supposing Timothy had not been personally there, did not the churches there know that he was the favourite companion and helper of Paul ? And was he not commended to the Jews, by the fact that, after he became a Christian, he had submitted to the rite of circum- cision on their account ? If Paul wrote the epistle in question, or any other person intimately connected with Timothy, he might very naturally give the churches in Palestine, and specially the church at Cesarea, information that he was sent away {aTroXeXvjjLevov,) or set at liberty, and that when he should return, he would pay them a visit in his company. Objection 6. " But how could Paul pray to be restored to the churches in Palestine? Hebrews xiii. 19. He had just been sent to Rome as a prisoner, by the persecuting spirit of the Jews of Palestine ; how could he expect or wish to return thither again ?" This objection is built on the assumption, that Paul was the author of our epistle. Conceding this point then, for the sake of argument, it may be asked, in reply, If Paul had been at Rome, and was dismissed there TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 55 by the emperor himself, on an appeal to him personally as a judge in respect to the Jews, might not the apostle well expect that the Jews would in future be overawed, and not venture to attack him again on account of his religion ? Besides, it was only at Jerusalem that he was exposed to dangerous persecution. At Cesarea, he remained a kind of prisoner at large, without any tumult or excitement, for two whole years. Might he not desire to be restored to the brethren there, who had treated him in a friendly manner, and administered to his necessities while he was among them as a prisoner ? Besides, Paul was not a man to be deterred from a desire to go, or from actually going, to any place where he thought it his duty to go, by any prospect of persecution or of suf- ferings ; as his history abundantly testifies. Objection 7. "■ The Ebionites, a sect made up of Palestine Jews, appear to have known nothing of the epistle to the Hebrews.* How could this be, if it had been directed to any of the churches in Palestine ?" If Paul was the author of this epistle, then it is very easy to answer this objection ; for the Ebionites rejected all. the epistles of Paul from their canon, (as Eusebius expressly testifies,) because Paul fevery where appears in them, wherever occasion demands it, in opposition to a Juda- izing spirit. They, on the other hand, separated from other Christians out of zeal for the rites of the Jewish law. Nay, the manner in which Eusebius mentions this fact, seems to imply that the Ebionites were acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and rejected it, together with Paul's acknowledged epistles ; for Eusebius reckoned this epistle to be certainly one of Paul's ; and he mentions the rejection of Paul's epistles by these sectarians, in a manner which seems to imply, that the whole of these epistles, as reckoned by himself, were rejected by them.* To the same purpose Irenseus testifies, Advers. Hseres. i. 26. " Apos- tolum Paulum [Ebionitse] recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentis." Moreover, if some other person, and not Paul, had been the author of ♦ Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. iii. 27,) says, that the Ebionites rejected all PauVs epistles, because they believed him to be an apostate from the law, oiroi dk rov p.lv arroarokov Trdffag T&g sTTiffToXag apvrjTeag riyovvTO elvai deiv, aTToaTdrtjv dTroKoXovvreg avrbv Tov vofiov. Now, as in L. iii. 25, of the same author, the epistle to the Hebrews is impUcitly reckoned as one of Paul's epistles, and clearly as one of the books of Scrip, ure which are bfioXoyovfisvot, (comp. Lib. iii. 25, and iii. 3,) it appears that Eusebius means to say, that the Ebionites rejected the epistle to the Hebrews ; for he undoubt- edly held this to be one of Paul's. Of course, he supposes the Ebionites to have been acquainted with it, or to have had opportunity of being acquainted with it. 56 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN the epistle to the Hebrews, the sentiments which it contains respecting the Jewish ritual, would have occasioned its rejection from the canon of the Ebionites. That they did not retain it, then, as part of their New Tes- tament Scriptures, is no argument against its having been directed to the church in Palestine. Objection 8. "But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed U the church in Palestine, why was it not written in the dialect of tha country, instead of the Greek language ? Is it not improbable, that any writer would address, in Greek, Jews who spoke the Hebrew language?" There are critics, both of ancient and modern times, who maintain that the original epistle was in Hebrew ; believing, as Jerome says, that the author, ut Hebrceus, Hehrceis Hehraice scripsit. But as I am not persuaded of the correctness of this opinion, I will not advance it here, as a reply t# the objection which we are now considering. It is well known, and abundantly evident from the writings of the New Testament, that the Greek language was generally understood over all Hither Asia. The conquests of Alexander, and the governments estab- lished by him, had made Greek the language of courts, of literature, and of all well-informed people. In the larger and more commercial towns, this knowledge extended in some measure to the common people, as well as to those of a more elevated rank.* The Greek votaries, who went up to Jerusalem every year to perform their religious services there, must have rendered the Greek language somewhat current in this metropolis. It was the language by which all the inhabitants of western Asia, when they met as strangers, held inter- ' course with one another. If the epistle to the Hebrews, then, was written in Greek, and directed to the church at Jerusalem, it might have been understood by them. But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Cesarea, there is still more reason to suppose it would have been easily understood there. In that city there were a great multitude of Greeks, even a majority of its inhabitants, Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 14, p. 854, edit. Colon., ttXeop v(f 'E\\//vwv iTroiKov[xevr]r. The Jews who lived there, were, in general, men devoted to commerce, or to concerns of a public nature, and must have well understood the Greek language. No serious difficulty, then, lies in the way of supposing this epistle to have been sent to some part * See this subject illustrated, in a very able and satisfactory manner, bv Hug, in his Einleit. in Das. N. Test. Theil ii. § 10 TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? 57 of Palestine, and that it was intelligible there, although written in the Greek language. On the other hand, is it not apparent, that the author of our epistle designed it should be encyclical, so that Jews far and near might ulti- mately peruse it, in order that they might become weaned from their attachment to the Levitical rites, and substitute Christianity in the place of the Mosaic religion ? Such a design would have been in some mea- sure defeated, by writing it in Hebrew ; for Greek was by far the most general language. Taking all these facts into view, that it was written in Greek, does not appear to constitute any solid objection to its having been directed to some part of Palestine. Objection 9. *' How could this epistle have been directed to Pales- tine, when the ground of argument in it, in several places, is furnished by the Septuagint version, and not by the Hebrew Scriptures ? How could Jews in Palestine be convinced, by an appeal of this nature ?" But who does not know, that the Palestine Jews of that day regarded the Septuagint version as being of divine authority ? Josephus gives full credit to the account of Aristeas, respecting the miraculous manner in which this version was made ; as may be seen in his Antiq. xii. 2, edit. Colon. There could be no danger, that the Jews of Palestine would object to such an appeal, or to such a mode of argument. Result. I have now examined all the objections against the opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, with which I have met, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve attention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty ; and surely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the positive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and falls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the epistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together ; considering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong attachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from Christianity in conse- quence of it, which the whole texture of the epistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other circumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the universal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom our epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early tradition and the contents of the 58 § 11. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE epistle ; and that the doubts and difficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews. Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that has now been examined. There remains but one question more, relative to the original destina- tion of this epistle, concerning which inquiry is now to be made. § 11. Was it directed to ALL the churches in Palestine, or only to ONE ? And if only to one, was this the church at Jerusalem, or at some other place ? This question cannot be answered, as is sufficiently evident from what has been already said, by adducing any direct testimony concerning it. Probability, made out from circumstantial evidence, is all, at the most, which criticism can achieve. Perhaps it may fail, even in respect to this. While engaged in the investigations necessary to complete the views above presented, it often occurred to me as not improbable, that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to the church at Cesarea. The reasons of this I will now briefly state. Cesarea, Kaiffapeia TrapaXiog, Cesarea by the sea, was built by Herod the Great, in a most splendid manner, and named by him in honour of the Roman emperor Augustus. Previously to this, it was an insignificant village, called Itrparojvog Trvpyog, the tower of Strato. Although it lay out of the district of Judea, (as anciently defined by the Jews,) and within the borders of Phenicia, yet it was within the Roman procurator- ship of Judea, and was the capital of the Roman prefects or procurators. Josephus calls it " the greatest city of Judea,'' and says, (as has been already mentioned,) that the majority of the inhabitants were Greeks, Bell. Jud. iii. 14, p. 854, edit. Colon. Here Cornelius, the first convert to the Christian faith from the Gen- tiles, was stationed. On occasion of his conversion, a church was gathered here, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit imparted to it. Acts X. 44 — 48. This was the earliest church that was gathered, out of the ancient limits of Judea. Paul had repeated opportunities for acquaintance with Christians here. After his first journey to Jerusalem, he returned to Tarsus, through Cesarea, Acts ix. 30. After preaching at Corinth, and on going to revisit the churches in Asia, Paul landed here, Acts xviii. 22. On his CHURCHES OF PALESTINE IN GENERAL? ,59 fourth visit to Palestine, he lodged here at the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven deacons named in Acts vi. Here he abode many days, rifiipag TrXeiovg, Acts xxi. 8 — 10. Here, at the time just mentioned, when Agabus had predicted, that in case Paul went to Jeru- salem, he would be bound as a culprit there, and delivered up to the heathen tribunals, the men of the place {ol iyroTrioi,) as well as his own travelling companions, besought him with tears and strong entreaties to refrain from going thither. Acts xxi. 12, 13. When, after this, he had been up to Jerusalem, and was sent away under a guard of Roman soldiers, he was brought again to Cesarea ; where he remained two whole years a kind of prisoner at large, none of his friends being forbidden to approach or assist him, Acts xxiv. 23, 27. At Cesarea dwelt a rich and powerful body of Jews. In the time of Felix, these Cesarean Jews, boasting of their riches and of Herod as the founder of the city, treated with contempt the Syrian part of the popu- lation. This raised a tumult, and at last occasioned mutual assaults, in which the Syrians were worsted. Felix was obliged to check the overbear- ing power of the Jewish party, by commissioning the Roman soldiery to kill and plunder them, Antiq. Jud. xx. 6, p. 695, edit. Colon. The Jews here, it appears also, were strong zealots for the temple worship. Herod Agrippa, while king of Judea, very probably in order to ingratiate himself with the rich men of this his capital, as well as with those of Jerusalem, pretended a very strong zeal for Judaism. This he exhibited, by causing James the brother of John to be slain with the sword, by imprisoning Peter, and vexing others of the church. Acts xii. 1, seq. Now, considering that Cesarea was his capital, and that to ingratiate himself with the Jews there, who were rich and powerful, would be a great object for a prince so wholly devoted as he was to the interests of ambition ; is it probable that his vexations of the church were limited to Jerusalem ? Let us now put all these facts together, and compare them with the contents of our epistle, on the supposition that Paul wrote it. From the epistle to the Hebrews it no where appears, that the writer was the^rs^ teacher of the church whom he addresses, but the contrary is plainly implied. Now, history tells us that Peter planted the church at Cesarea, and not Paul, Acts x. The teachers of the church addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews, are applauded without any exception as to their doctrine or behaviour ; and so this might well be, for the first teachev at Cesarea were apostles and primitive evangelists. Philip the evangelic 60 ^5. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE was stationed there, when Paul made his last visit to Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 8, seq. ; and this Philip had four daughters, who were prophetesses, i. e. teachers of the Christian religion. Does not this show a flourishing state of the church there ? The persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, had often bestowed charity to relieve the neces- sities of Christians, and particularly of those who were imprisoned Heb. X. 34, vi. 10. How aptly this fits the circumstances of Paul among the Cesareans, it is easy to perceive. He was a prisoner among them for the space of two years. Well might he say, " Ye had compassion Toig defffioig fxov, on my bonds,'' as the common text reads ; or (which comes after all to the same thing) roig dea/jiioiQ, on the imprisoned. Paul's gratitude for this, probably led him to speak of it repeatedly ; and so it stands in the epistle to the Hebrews. The eulogy, which the writer of that epistle bestows on those whom he addresses, certainly becomes very significant, on supposition that it was written by Paul under such circumstances. The Hebrews addressed in our epistle had been early made converts to Christianity, v. 12, x. 32. The church at Cesarea was the first gathered out of the ancient limits of Judea. Its first converts, indeed, were Gentile proselytes, Acts x. ; but it cannot with any probability be supposed, that, flourishing as it was when Paul paid his last visit to it, before his imprisonment. Acts xxi. 8, seq., there were no Jews who belonged to it ; for Cesarea contained (as we have seen) a large number of Hebrew residents. Herod Agrippa persecuted the church in A. D. 44, which was some twenty years before the epistle to the Hebrews was written ; and Cesarea was Herod's capital. May not the Christians in it have suffered at that time ? The Hebrews, in our epistle, had lost their property in some early persecution, and had been imprisoned, x, 32, seq. ; and the persecuting Herod, who had the power of life and death, had also the power of confiscation and imprisonment ; for he was made a sovereign by the Roman emperor. Under him the church at Cesarea may have experienced, and very probably did experience, such vexations. Certainly the church at Jerusalem experienced them at this time. Acts xii. 1, seq. The epistle to the Hebrews presents images drawn from the Grecian games and public shows, x. 32, xii. 1, seq. At Cesarea, Herod the .Great had instituted all the Grecian games, and built a splendid theatre ; yo that such allusions would be very forcible and pertinent, if addressed to those who lived there. The writer of our epistle mentions Timothy, to CHURCHES OF PALESTINE IN GENERAL? 61 the church whom he addresses, as his special friend, and one in whom they would feel a deep interest ; and as Timothy, it cannot well be doubted, was at Cesarea with Paul more or less of the time that he was a prisoner there for two years, the church at that place must have been well acquainted with him. Paul requests their prayers, that he himself may be restored to them, xiii. 19 ; and the frequent visits which he had made the Cesareans, the strong attachment they had manifested to him, and the long residence he had made among them, correspond well with a request so plainly founded in their affectionate regard for him, and in his for them. Again, Cesarea was only two days' journey from Jerusalem, and the Jews there were zealots for the traditions of their fathers. Resistance to the Roman power, which finally brought on the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, first began here, from the wounded spirit of Jewish pride and national feeling. These facts render it probable, that the Jews there had a full and intimate acquaintance with all the Mosaic ritual ; and that the Christian Jews must, from the power, wealth, and overbearing spirit of the others, have been hard pressed, (by persecution on the one hand, and the imposing pomp of the temple service on the other,) to make defection from the Christian religion. Finally, as the majority of the inhabitants here were Greeks, and of course the current language in this splendid capital was Greek, this may account for it, that our epistle was written in Greek instead of the Palestine dialect. From this place, it could not fail to be circulated abroad, as»there must have been comers and goers to and from this place, from all parts of Palestine. For Paul to subscribe his name to this epistle was not necessary, in case he sent it by a friend, as doubtless he must have done ; and besides this, the cir^ cumstances mentioned in it, of being restored to them, and of coming to them with Timothy, would be sufficient of themselves to disclose the author to the Cesarean Christians. And designed, as the letter in all probability was, to be a circular among the Jews, they who were abroad, reading it without the name of the author, would not so readily have those prejudices awakened, which had lately shown themselves to be very violent among the Jews who were zealous for the honour of the Mosaic law, whenever Paul had made his appearance among them. 1 grant, at once, that all this is supposition. But in the absence of all positive testimony, if a supposition can be presented, which contains nothing improbable in itself, and explains a variety of characteristic pas- sages in our epistle, and accords well with the facts which history has i 62 § n • WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE recorded, may it not be received, at least, as a probability , until the fal- lacy of it be exposed, or a more probable one is advanced ? The points of coincidence just recited, forced themselves upon me, unsought and unexpected, in the course of my investigation. They are not offered from the love of novelty, nor with any overweening confidence as to the approbation which others may give them. One objection to the view here given seems to be, that the church at Cesarea, in the time of Origen and Eusebius, (both of whom lived there,) do not appear to have retained a tradition that our epistle was directed to them. At least, neither of these fathers, so far as I know, make mention of such a tradition ; which they probably might have done, had it existed in their times. Still, if our epistle was designed to be a circular y and, for that* reason, a direction to any particular church was omitted in it, the Cesarean church, if they were the f.rst who received it, might not have considered it appropriately theirs, in the same manner as the Corin- thians, Galatians, and others, did the letters addressed to them. Another objection to the idea, that our epistle was directed to the church at Cesarea, may be drawn from the probability, that the church there must have consisted, in fact, of Gentiles ; especially as Greeks constituted a majority of the population of that city. What was really fact, however, in regard to this, at the time when the epistle was written, we have no historical means of ascertaining. It is certainly a very pos- sible case, that, at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, the church at Cesarea might have been principally made up of Jews; or at least have contained a majority of members, who were Hebrews. Or, there may have been more than one church at Cesarea, (a thing alto- gether probable ;) and the Jews there, who were such uncommon zealots for the law, might have established a religious community of their own, separate from that of the Gentile Christians, whom the former would regard with an eye of jealousy, if not of distrust. If the author of our epistle designed it for the good of the Hebrews in general, he would have written just in the manner which he has adopted, whether the church whom he addressed contained some Gentiles or not. Upon the whole, it is a plain case, that confident and positive asser- tions in regard to any one particular church, cannot be made with pro- priety. The most which I would say here is, that more reasons seem to ofter themselves in favour of the supposition, that our epistle was origi- nally sent to the church at Cesarea, than in favour of any other place. I cannot, therefore, but regard it as a probable event. ANTIQUITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 63 § 12. Antiquity and canonical authority of the epistle. Its antiquity may be established by evidence internal and external. The allusions made to the temple service, in the epistle itself, necessarily imply that this service was then performed, when the letter was written, Heb. ix. 9. " Which [former tabernacle with its services] was a signi- ficant emblem in respect to the present time ; in which gifts and- sacri- fices are offered, that cannot render tranquil the conscience of him who performs this service.'* Again, in chap. viii. 4, 5. the writer says, " For if he [Jesus] had performed his service on earth, then he could not be a priest; seeing there are priests who, according to the prescription of the law, perform their service in a tabernacle which is merely a copy of the heavenly one." Both of these passages clearly imply, that the temple rites were then performed, at the time when the writer composed our epistle. Now, as the whole temple service ceased, of course, with the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, in A. D. 70, it is clear that our epistle must have been written before that period; and consequently it belongs to the apostolic age. Another argument also in proof of this is, that the particular views which the epistle throughout gives of temptation to apostacy, are evidently grounded on the then existing rites of the Jewish temple- worship. The state of feeling among the Jews at large, (which resulted from strong attachment to these rites, and the zeal with which their views of these things were maintained,) and their extreme jealousy of every thing which had a tendency to diminish the supposed importance of their ritual, together with the imposing splendour and magnificence of the Levitical ceremonies, as then practised, all concurred to tempt those Hebrews who had embraced Christianity, and renounced the com- mon views of their countrymen, to relapse into their former views and habits. The shape in which this whole subject presents itself, in the epistle to the Hebrews, manifestly implies that the Levitical institutions were then in full vigour. Of course, the age in which this was the case, must have been the apostolic. It is equally plain, that our epistle was written in the latter part of the apostolic age. Those whom it addresses are represented as having been Christians long enough to be qualified, hftd they been properly 64 §12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL attentive to their duty in learning the principles of Christianity, to become teachers of it, v. 12. The former days, when they were first enlightened, are spoken of by the writer, x. 32, in distinction from the time then current. They are addressed also as having witnessed the death of their first teachers, xiii. 7 ; and their then present teachers are com- mended to their affectionate regard, xiii. 17. All these circumstances imply that some time must have passed away since the gospel was first preached among them, and they had been converted to Christianity. In other words, the epistle must have been written in the latter part of the apostolic age. The specific year I shall not here endeavour to ascertain, as it will hereafter be a subject of inquiry. With the internal marks of antiquity, exhibited by the epistle itself, corresponds the external testimony that can be gathered respecting it. Clement of Rome is the most important witness that can be adduced, in regard to the point before us. His epistle to the Corinthians, (commonly named \m first epistle,*) is the most considerable, certainly the most important and best authenticated, relic of ecclesiastical antiquity, which belongs to the first century of the Christian era. According to the general voice of the ancients, the author of this espistle is the Clement whom Paul mentions as one of his fellow-labourers, and as having his name written in the book of life, Philip, iv. 3. He was the third bishop of Rome, according to Irenaeus (contra Hseres. iii. 3,) Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 13. 15. 21. 34. 38,) and Jerome (Viri Illus. v. Clemens.) In the name of the church at Rome, and as their bishop, he addressed an epistle to the church at Corinth. This epistle, as all agree, must have been written within the first century; probably about A. D. 96. * It is called ^rs^, because there is a second, which bears his name, and which has usually been printed in connexion with the first. The first was so greatly esteemed by the churches in the early ages, that it was read publicly to Christian assemblies, in like manner as the books of the New Testament. It is very often cited, with great enco- miums, by nearly all the Christian fathers ! It has been assailed, indeed, by a few critics, in modern times ; and what relic of antiquity has not ? It, doubtless, like most ancient books, has suffered somewhat in regard to the purity of its text, by fre- quent transcription, and by negligence. But, on the whole, it is a venerable and a precious relic of the primitive age of Christianity ; and it is very generally admitted to be such.— The second epistle is quoted by none of the early fathers; and it differs in style and method so much from the first, that there can scarcely be a doubt of its spuriousness. Vide Clem. Rom. edit. Wotton p. ccvi. AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE, 65 Several critics of high reputation are disposed to assign to it a much earlier date. For example, Pearson, Pagi, Dodwell, Wake, and Le Clerc date it at a period antecedent to the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e before A. D. 70. If their opinion be correct, the testimony of Clement's epistle will be still stronger in proof of the antiquity and authority of our epistle to the Hebrews ; for this testimony, in such a case, must have been given within some eight or ten years after our epistle was written, and during the apostolic age. But be this as it may, I am willing to assume the latest date, which can with any show of pro- bability be assigned to Clement's epistle, viz. A. D. 96 ; for this will be only about thirty years after the epistle to the Hebrews was most pro- bably written. It will be seen, in the sequel, that the testimony of Clement will serve to cast light upon the two points of inquiry which constitute the ob- ject of the present section, viz. the antiquity and the authority of our epistle. I shall first exhibit the evidence that Clement has quoted this epistle, and then subjoin some remarks on his testimony. I enter into the examination of this matter the more formally and fully, because of the important bearing which the testimony of a writer so early and respect- able as Clement must evidently have upon the authority of our epistle, and indirectly upon its origin ; and also because the subject has been, (at least, so it seems to me,) imperfectly treated, and passed over with a slight examination, by nearly all the critics whom I have had an oppor- tunity to consult. It is a singular circumstance, that no book of the New Testament should have been so frequently quoted by Clement, as the epistle to the Hebrews. That such is the fact, any one may satisfy himself, who will take the pains to examine his quotations as referred to in Wotton's edition of this author, or the detail of them as exhibited by Lardner, Credibil. of Gosp. Hist. i. p. 49. seq. The quotations made by Clement from the epistle to the Hebrews may be arranged under four different classes ; viz. 66 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL I. Passages in which the exact words, or nearly so, of the epistle are quoted. Hebrews. Clement. No. 1. No. 1. I. 3. *0e u)V aTravyaoTfia rfJQ ^o^rfg 4. ToffOVTU) KpElTThiV yevofxevog riov dyytXwv ocw dia^o- pu)Tepoy Trap* avTOvg KeKXrjpovofiriKev ovofia. 7. AiytL' 'O TTOtwv rove ayyiXovQ avrov Trrevfxara, /cat rovg Xetrovpyovg avTov TTvpog (f)\6ya. 5. Tivi yap elrre ttote tQv ayyi- Xwv* Ylog fxov tl (TV, kyu) arifxepov yeyivyrjKo. ore ; 13. Upbg riva de t&v ayyiXiov elprjKe ttote' KaOov ek Se^iwv fiov, eiog ay du) rovg k'^Qpovg aov vnoTrodtoy TU)v TTodiiy ffov ; Cap. 36. *0e wy UTravyafffia rijg fxeyaXoavyrjg avTOv, roaovTM fxeii^uy effTiy hyyiXuyy ooru)^ dia^opu)repoy ovo- jjia KEKXripoyo^rjKe. TiypaTTTai yap ovrwg' 'O Troiwy Tovg ayyeXovg avrov Trvevjuara, KOI Tovg Xetrovpyovg avrov Tvvpog ipXoya. 'ETTt ^£ TM utaJ avrov, ovrojg elTrEV 6 ^EaTrorrjg' viog /jlov eI av, kyu) crj- fjEpoy yEyiyyrjKa ae. .... fcat TraXtv XiyEi rrpog avrov' Ka0ov £fc ^e^toJv /lov, ewg av 0oJ rove eyQpovg aov VTroirodioy rwy Trodojy aov. No 2. No. 2. Heb. vi. 18 ky olg ahvyarov Cap. xxvii ov^ev yap adv- xpevaracrdai QEoy varoy irapa r^ 0£^, et ixri to \pev- aaaQai. No. 3. Cap. xvii. o'iriyeg ky hipfiaariy alyEiotg Kal fjir)X(i)Ta7g TTEpiETranjtray. No. 4. Cap. xxiii ffvv£7nfj,aprvpovi]aLv 6 Aoyog ctyioc, and the like formulas, to his quotations. But nearly as often, particularly in the New Testament, he cites without any notice or formula at all ; evidently taking it for granted that his readers will at once recognise the quotation, without any pains on his part to designate it. (2.) I find no satisfactory evidence of quotation from the Apocrypha, or any apocryphal writer now known. The instances of quotation from the Wisdom of Solomon (chap. xil. xxvii.,) alleged by Wotton, are plainly too far fetched to appear probable ; and the reference to the book of Judith, (c. LV. of Clement,) is only a reference -to the story concerning her, which Clement evidently believed. There are, it is true, a few cases of apparent quotation, either from books not found in our present Scriptures, or from traditionary accounts ; just as there are some quota- tions of this nature in the New Testament, which are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. But there is no satisfactory evidence, that Clement received any of the known apocryphal writings, either of the Old Testa- ment or the New, as canonical. With these facts in view, I cannot well account for it, that Eichhorn, in his introduction to our epistle, should say, when speaking of the weight of Clement's testimony in respect to its canonical authority; " Clement indeed acknowledged the existence of the epistle, because he has borrowed whole passages from it. But still, he no where cites it formally; as is the case, when he makes use of the other canonical writings of the New Testament. How much then can be educed from him, in respect to the credit to be attached to this epistle ? Would he not Icidive formally cited it, and named Paul as the author of it, if he had regarded it as canonical, and as coming from Paul ?" (Einl. ^271.) From this he concludes, that we can merely prove the existence of it in Clement's day; but nothing in respect to the credit which he at- tached to it. But, as we have already seen, Clement is just as far from formally citing the other books of Scripture, as he is from formally citing our epistle. Often as he has quoted Paul's epistles, he never once appeals to his name, except in connexion with the mention of the first epistle to AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 73 the Corinthians, where he could not well avoid it. With this exception, he has not even once named a single book of the New Testament, copi- ously as he has every where drawn from it. Allowing, then, that Clement has not formally cited the epistle to the Hebrews, it amounts to no proof that he has not used it as Scripture. But we are not obliged to allow so much. In No. 1. above cited, from Heb. i. 7, it appears that Clement has prefaced his quotation with yiyfiaTTTai yap ovTwg ; which is one of the highest appeals that he makes to the volume of inspiration. This very passage, too, is produced by Eichhorn as an example of Clement's quoting from our epistle ; but the yeypaTTTai yap is wholly overlooked. There is another instance also in Clement (c. xxiii.,) where the quotation from Heb. x. 37 is quite probable, and which is prefaced by avve-KLfxapTvpovariQ ttjq ypa^ijg; supra No. 4. If No. 7 be regarded, also, as a paraphrastic imitation by Clement of the corresponding passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, then is this a third direct appeal to the divine authority of our epistle; for he introduces the passage by saying, ** Search in the Scriptures the true sayings of the Holy Spirit." Thus much for the allegation of Eichhorn, that Clement has no where cited our epistle formally, as he does the canonical Scriptures. But further. The conclusion which this writer draws from the assumed facts stated by him, is as erroneous as the facts themselves. One might indeed have expected, in a matter so weighty as that of Clement's testimony, and one in which the evidence is so a( cessible, that so mani- fest an error in regard to Clement's mode ol quotation should not be committed. Nothing can be more evident to a critical reader of Clement, than that no conclusion can be drawn from the mode of his quotation, against the supposition that he believed the book quoted to be canonical. The fact that he appeals to our epistle more frequently than to any other part of the New Testament ; that he no where appeals, so far as we can discover, to any apocryphal writings of either Testament ; above all, that he appeals to our epistle by quoting passages from it in order to confirm and impress the truths which he is inculcating, and appeals to it in the same way and for the purposes as he appeals to the most acknowledged parts of Scripture ; the fact, too, that Clement was the companion and fellow-labourer of Paul, and was also bishop of the church at Rome, the metropolis of the world ; that he wrote in the name of the church there 74 ^ 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL to the cliurch at Corinth,* and that he addressed to them passages from the epistle to the Hebrews, in such a way as to imply that this epistle was already well known and familiar to them ; these facts, taken all together, make on my own mind a strong impression, that the evidence is as clear and convincing, that in the age of Clement our epistle was considered a part of the sacred writings of the Scripture, as it is that any other book of the New Testament was considered as a part of them. Such was the impression which in ancient times Eusebius had, from reading Clement's epistle. Speaking of monuments preserving apostolic doctrines, he says, ['ETrtcroXJ] koL tov KXrjfievroQ h ry ap(ofxo\oyovjxivrj Trapct Trafftv, fjv ek TrpoawTrov TrJQ 'FiofJiaitov EKKXrjffiaQ ry Kopivdlwv dierv TrwffUTO' ey ^ Trjg TrpoQ 'E/3paiove TroXXa voYijxaTa Trapadeic, rj^rj ^e KOt avToXe^el prirolg riffiv e^ avTrjg ^r/cra/ievoc, (ra^Eorara TrapiaTr](nv on fiij VEOV vTvap-^EL TO ffvy/pafJiixa' oQev eIkotwq e^o^ev, avro toIq XoittoIq iyica- toXexOw"^'- ypafxf.iaffi tov cnroaToKov, that is, " [We count also the epistle] of Clement, acknowledged by all, which he wrote in behalf of the church at Rome to the church at Corinth ; in which, exhibiting many of the sentiments of the epistle to the Hebrews, he makes use of some expres- sions taken from it in the very words of the epistle, by which he most clearly shows that this epistle is no recent composition ; whence it seems likely, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle [Paul.]" Hist. Ecc. iii. 38. I am not able to see how one who reads critically the epistle of Clement, can avoid the conviction that he has quoted it as Eusebius avers, and that he has appealed to it as Scripture. Of other writers, belonging to the first half century after the apostolic age, we have but few remains ; and most of these are imperfect. Some near resemblances to passages in our epistle to the Hebrews may be found in them ; but after a careful examination of them, I have not thought them sufficiently definite and important to become the subject of discussion here ; I shall merely subjoin them, and leave them to the consideration of the reader. The following are the passages usually compared. Heb. III. 5. Mwvffi/c /Liev ina- Barnabas, Epist. c. xiv. Mwii- rOQ Ev oXw TftJ oiKW avTOv wg 0epa- a^g, dipaTTioy wv, eXuPev [viz. * C. i. 'H kKK\r}(Tia tov Qtov t) irapoiKovffa 'Ptjfirjv, ry iKKkriaiq, k. r. X. is the commencement of Clement*s epistle. AUTHORITY OF THE EFISTLE. TlOl' 6. y.f)l(T-()(: H UJ(J VIOC ETTl TOV OIKQV (IVTOU, OV OIKOQ ifffXiV Heb. X. 25. M// eyKcirdkei- rag 7rX«)vf. Lard. iv. p. 235. * Trepi rrjs Trpbg *E/3paioi;c sTrtoroXr/c Iv raXg eiQ adrrjv ofiiKiaig ravra ^laXafi^avn' on 6 xapaKriip t/Iq Xs^sojq ri/g Trpog 'E^paiovg iTriyc/pafifisvijg Itti- (rroXrjr ovK £X£t TO kv Xoyq) idiMTiKovTov ccTroffToXov, 6ixoXoyfj(TavTog kavTov Idtwrriv tivai T(iJ Xoyt^, TOVTScrn ry ^pacrti. 'AWd 1v 6fioXoyovfiev(i)v ypafifidTOJV' Kal tovto dv (rvfitprjcrai eivat dXrjQeg irdg b xpo dk utto- paivonevog tiiroifi dv, '6n rd plv vorj/xaTa tov aTTOOroXov srrTtv' t) St (ppamg t:ai 90 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE This passage has been appealed to for different purposes, by writers of different sentiments ; by some, in order to show that Origen doubted, by others to show that he did not doubt, about Paul's being the author of the epistle in question. Omitting an account of what others have said, let us endeavour to elicit the sentiments of Origen, by consider- ing this passage in connexion with other passages to be found in his writings. (1.) It is plain that Origen felt the force of the objection against the authorship of Paul, drawn from the style and manner of the epistle, in the same way as his preceptor Clement had before done ; and to meet this objection, he suggests a reason similar to that which Clement had suggested. Clement says, that the epistle was first written in Hebrew, and then translated by Luke into Greek ; and thus he endeavours to account for the supposed diversity of style between this epistle and those of Paul. But Origen does not appear to have at all supposed that it was written, at first, in Hebrew. He supposes it to have been for substance delivered, dictated, or spoken by the apostle, and penned down by some one who used his own diction, commenting, as it were, on the words of his master. In this way, the sentiments are regarded as apostolic and authoritative, while the diction is considered as arising from one not an apostle ; and thus the full credit of the epistle is maintained, while the objection to this credit, drawn from the diversity of style, is apparently removed. (2.) It should be noted, that Origen does not say, whether the objec- tions against the epistle to the Hebrews being the production of Paul, arose from his own mind, or from the allegations of others. Most pro- bably from both sources. He appears to have had a full conviction, that there was a diversity of style in it ; and to remove the difficulty about the credit of the epistle, which arose in his mind from this circum- stance, he resorted to the supposition just mentioned. We can have no reasonable doubt, that at this time there were some, who alleged that this epistle did not come from the hand of Paul ; as Pantsenus j) (TvvBecng, cnronvrjuovtvaavTos tivoq to. aTroyoXiKOL, Kal ejcnrepei axoKioypaVf rdv rov Upov diroroXov SiKarpiZv fiovajv IttitoXoJv p,vr)p.ovEvii, Trjv Trpbg 'Ej3paiovg fii) (TvvapiOfirjffag raXg XonraTg. 'Eird Kai elg Sevpo irapd 'PufJiaicov riffiv, oh vofiiZerai rov diroTdXov rvyxdvtiv. Lib. vi. 20. 98 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE designedly made out a full and regular catalogue of the canon of the New Testament ; and who made extensive investigation, in regard to the opinions of the church respecting this subject. From a view of his testimony, collected and compared together, it is clear — (1.) That there were, in the East, some who doubted whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; and that they appealed, in support of this opinion, to the church at Rome. It is clear, too, that in the time of Zephyrinus, (about 212,) there were persons in the Western church, and probably at Rome, who denied that this epistle was written by Paul ; for Caius reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul, probably omit- ting that to the Hebrews. And that this denial continued down to the time of Eusebius, in the church at Rome, (his words are, TTttjoa ^Viofiaiwv riatv, by some of the Romans,) is clearly signified by this historian. (2.) His assertion of the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, is as unequivocal and strong as language can well make it. " Fourteen epistles of Paul," (of course, the epistle to the Hebrews included, there being but thirteen without it,) " are clearly and certainly Paul's, 7rp6dr]Xoi KOL ffa(l>£iQ. And again, he reckons this epistle among the books which are vfjLoXoyovnevoiy i. e. generally recognized, admitted. These declarations Eusebius makes, with a full view of the objections urged against this epistle by some. It is clear, then, that he did not consider those objections as respectable enough, or sufficiently extensive, or well grounded, to raise any serious doubts in his own mind about this matter, or to weigh at all against the current and general opinion of the church on this subject. Consequently, nothing can be more directly to the purpose, for demonstrating the strength and generality of the opinion in the church, at the time of Eusebius, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, than this testimony. For as Eusebius has been careful, even when asserting that the epistle is clearly and certainly Paul's, to note that there are some who dissent from this opinion, and also to collect, in various instances, accounts of disagreement in respect to it, it may be regarded as quite certain, that he viewed opposition to it as neither well founded, nor extensive enough to raise any serious doubts about the correctness of the common opinion of the churches. (3.) It is pretty evident, that Eusebius had heard of the objections drawn from the style of the epistle, which Clement of Alexandria and Origen had before endeavoured to answer. Eusebius thinks that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and says that some attributed the translation of it to EASTERN CHURCHES : EUSEBIUS. 99 Luke, and some to Clement. His own opinion is, that the translation is to be ascribed to the latter. It will be recollected, now, that Origen, residing at the same place, (Cesarea,) had, nearly a century before, mentioned the very same report or tradition. The passage in Eusebius shows, therefore, the uniformity of the tradition ; it serves also to show, that when Origen adverts to it, he means to say, (as I have above supposed him to say,) that God only knows v/ho penned or wrote doivn the epistle ; not, who was the author of the sentiments, for these he directly attributes to Paul ; just as Euse- bius attributes the authorship to Paul, and the diction to Clement. (4.) One thing more is evident, from the testimony of Eusebius. While he records, with fidelity, the fact that there were some in that quarter of the church who doubted the Pauline origin of this epistle, he tells us, at the same time, that those who did deny it, alleged the example of the church at Rome, in order to justify themselves in so doing. _ The necessary implication of course is, that they could not support themselves by any creditable example in the Oriental churches. Would they have made an appeal for support, to a church abroad at so great a distance, if they could have found it at home, and in their own quarter ? Most surely not; for at that period, the church of Rome was inferior in credit to a number of other churches in the East. The very nature of this appeal shows, that respectable support for the denial of the Pauline origin of our epistle, could not be found in the East. Eichhorn has, indeed, cited the above testimony of Eusebius ; but he has passed it without comment, excepting the single remark, that " the reason of Eusebius, for supposing Paul to have written the epistle to the Hebrews, was, that it was very old, and was cited so far back as the time of Clement of Rome;" a reason which, if it were well founded, would of course make Paul the author of all very old ecclesiastical writings, which had been often cited, and were anonymous. Bertholdt has exhibited more sensibility to the testimony of Eusebius. He confesses that Eusebius fo!ind* his judgment, respecting the books of the New Testament, on the tradition of the Oriental church. The repeated asseverations of Eusebius as to this point, did not permit him to conclude otherwise ; although Eichhorn has left out of sight every circumstance of this nature. But then, says Bertholdt, " did this tradi- tion go back to the apostolic age ? Undoubtedly not," he answers ; " it went back only to Pantsenus and Clement of Alexandria, who grounded it only upon supposition, or on their own personal views and feelings." h2 100 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE And then he goes on to assert, that " the epistle to the Hebrews was first favourably received at Alexandria, because it was so congenial to the allegorizing spirit of that place ; thence the credit of it diffused itself to Antioch in Syria ; and what Antioch and Alexandria believed concerning it, would, in process of time, be believed by all the other churches in Egypt, and in the East. Thus it came about, that in Eusebius* time there was such a general consent among the churches of his neigh- bourhood, in the belief that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews." It is not necessary to answer this, except by saying, that from begin- ning to end, it is a series of suppositions^ wholly unsupported by a single historical facty and wholly incapable of being supported by any known facts. The examination through which we have already passed, has, I trust, afforded sufficient evidence, that the suppositions in question are contrary to facts, and destitute therefore of any actual support, as well of any tolerable degree of probability. What connexion had Antioch with Alexandria? And how should a single Egyptian church and school, planted and instituted late in the apostolic age, if not after it, influence all the churches of the East, planted by Paul and the other apostles, and nurtured by their personal hearers and disciples, so as to make them receive a supposititious book into their canon ? And why should not a multitude of other allegorical books, (like the Shepherd of Hermas,) written in or near the apostolic age, have been advanced to a place in the canon by the Alexandrine church, and thence have diffused their credit among all the Eastern churches ? But it is unnecessary to proceed with such questions. If principles of argument, and methods of weighing testimony respecting ancient writings, may be adopted, like those which Eichhorn and Bertholdt have adopted here, in order to maintain the theory which they had espoused, any ancient writing what- ever may be proved to be either spurious or genuine, as shall best suit the notion of any individual. He has only to make out a series of bold and confident suppositions, and his work is done. 1 deem it unnecessary to detail the testimony of writers in the Oriental churches, subsequent to the time of Eusebius. I shall merely advert to them, because it is not denied by any respectable critics, that, subsequent to this period, the epistle to the Hebrews was generally regarded in the East as Paul's. Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, received the epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's, about A. D. 300; as did the author of the Synopsis of Scrip- WESTERN CHURCHES, 10 1 ture ascribed to Athanasius, and written about 320; Adamantius, about 330; Cyril of Jerusalem, about 348 ; the council of Laodicea, about 363; Epiphanius, about 368 ; Basil, about 370 ; Gregory Nazianzen, about 370; Gregory Nyssen, about 371 ; Ephrem Syrus, about 370; Diodore of Tarsus, about 378; and Chrysostom, about 398. Others might be named, which are mentioned in Lardner's collection of testimonies, but it is superfluous. The object on account of which these have been adduced, is merely to show the unity and universality of the opinion, in the Oriental churches, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews subse- quently to the time of Eusebius, on whose testimony I have already dwelt. In fact, not a single writer of any respectability in the catholic church, in all the East, has been produced, who rejected this epistle; an extra- ordinary circumstance, indeed, if the belief of its apostolic origin was not altogether a predominant one in Egypt, and throughout all the eastern world. That there were individuals in this part of church, who doubted oi denied the authenticity of it, will certainly be admitted by every unprejudiced inquirer. But that there was any thing like a respectable or widely diffused party, who denied it, can be supported by no competent evidence whatever. § 16. Testimony of the Western Churches, In the Western churches, the case was certainly different. We come now to take a view of their opinion. We have already seen, that Clement of Rome, at the close of the apostolic age, has frequently quoted this epistle, and in the same way, and for the same purposes, that he does other parts of the Scripture; and, consequently, we cannot entertain reasonable doubts, that he regarded it as a part of the sacred records. Eusebius long ago drew the same conclusion. " Clement," says he, " in his epistle acknow- ledged by all, which he wrote to the Corinthians in behalf of the church at Rome, exhibits many sentiments that are contained in the epistle to the Hebrews, making use of the very words of the epistle in several sen- tences, by which he shows most clearly, that this writing is not recent ; whence it seems probable, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle," Ecc. Hist. iii. 38. (See the original Greek, on p. 74, above.) That it had such credit, in this quarter of the church, for some time after this, is sufficiently manifest from the fact, that the old 102 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE Latin version comprises it ; which was probably made before A. D. 15), or (as almost all acknowledge) before A. D. 200. The first negative evidence to be found among the Western churches, respecting the question before us, is that of Ireneeus, bishop of Lyons in France, during the latter part of the second century. Neither the country from which he sprung, nor the time of his birth or death, are known with any certainty. Eichhorn has placed him at A. D. 150, evidently in order to throw his testimony as far back toward the apostolic age as possible. Lardner places him at A. D. 178, a much more pro- bable era. He was a disciple of Polycarp, when very young ; for he states himself, that when a child, he was a hearer of Polycarp, in Hither Asia, V. 20. Photius (fl. A. D. 858) tells us in his Bibliotheca, that Stephen Gobar, a writer of the middle ages, says, thiit Irenseus and Hippolytus declare ** the epistle to the Hebrews not to be Paul's," Cod. 152, Eich. p. 519. AVhence Gobar drew his conclusion, Photius does not inform us ; nor does it any where appear. In all the writings of Irenseus, now extant, no such assertion is contained ; but then several of his writings are lost. That Irenseus was acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and that he has cited it, is directly testified by Eusebius, who says, that " he wrote a book of various disputations, in which he mentions the epistle to the Hebrews, and the book called the "Wisdom of Solomon, quoting some expressions from them,"* v. 26. But Eusebius does not say whether he quotes them as Scripture, or not ; and as the book of Irenseus, to which he adverts, has perished, we have now no certain means of judging. Storr, Cramer, and some other critics, have called in question this asser- tion of Gobar, and have supposed that it is only a conclusion which he drew from the fact, that Irenseus had not quoted the epistle to the Hebrews in his works. But this reasoning must, of course, be merely hypothetical. We have the bare assertion of Gobar, without the grounds; and as Irenseus has made no use of the epistle to the Hebrews, in his works still extant, the probability seems to be, that Gobar has given a correct statement. The passages produced by Lardner, as possible quotations, have indeed a close affinity with some passages in the epistle to the Hebrews ; but still they may have been taken from the Old Testa- ment, instead of this epistle. (Lard. i. 368 — 370.) Neither can the * Kai fti^Xlov Ti [sc. typa^pt JLlpijvaiog] diaXiKtojv diaij^opuiv, iv t^ TrJQ irpbi 'Eftpaiovc tiTKTToXijQ, Kai riig Xfynn'avrjQ So^i'ag ^oXofiuii'Tog, fivr]fiQvtvH pr]T^ ^-tra (( avrCjv TrapaOkfin'OSy k. r. X, Hist. Ecc. v. 26. WESTERN CHURCHES : IREN^US. 103 /act, that Ireneeus has quoted the epistle to the Hebrews, (which is suf- ficiently vouched for by Eusebius,) determine the question in respect to the nature of his testimony ; for surely he may have quoted books, which he did not regard as Scriptural. On the whole, in the present state of evidence, it would seem, that we ought to admit it as probable, that Ireneeus did not include the epistle to the Hebrews in his canon ; but on what ground, is uncertain. It may, indeed, have been the case, that this epistle, originally addressed to Hebrews in Palestine, had not yet ob- tained circulation and credit among that part of the church in Asia Minor, where Irenseus lived when he was a youth. It is not improbable, too, that he went in early life, with Polycarp his teacher, to Rome; and that he remained there until he was sent to Lyons in France, where he became the successor of Photinus, in the bishopric of that city. In this way it may be accounted for, that Irenaeus came to cherish doubts respecting the epistle to the Hebrews ; which, we shall see, began to be somewhat extensively cherished in the Roman churches during the latter half of the second century. At the same time, one cannot but remark, that it appears quite sin- gular, when Eusebius expressly mentions Irenaeus as having quoted the epistle to the Hebrews, that he should not, on this occasion or some other, have at all adverted to the fact of his having denied the Pauline origin of this epistle, if such were the fact. This is the more singular, because Eusebius has devoted a chapter of considerable length, in his .work, entirely to giving an account of the manner which Irenoeus had mentioned the sacred books ; and in this chapter there is not a word of Irenseus quoted, respecting the epistle to the Hebrews. Ecc. Hist. v. 8. Moreover, Eusebius has evidently been careful and particular, on all occasions where the epistle to the Hebrews was treated of, to mention objections to it ; or where persons of consideration in the church were named who rejected it, to state this fact. Eusebius also must have had the writings of Irenseus, in a more perfect state and much more complete, than Gobar who lived so long afterwards. And as Ireneeus was a writer for whom Eusebius evidently cherished a high respect, it is really very difficult to account for it, that he should not have once adverted to the opinion which Gobar affirms was held by Irenseus. Difficult, however, as this would seem to be, the supposition that Irenseus did not acknowledge our epistle, is somewhat strengthened by the united asseveration of Gobar and Photius himself, (Eichhorn, p. 519,) that Hippolytus, (whom Photius calls a disciple of Irenseus, and who 104 h 16. TESTIMONY OF THE probably flourished about A. D. 220,) asserts of the epistle to the Hebrews, that it is not Paul's, Eichhorn, p. 520. This Hippolytus IS called, by Eusebius, a bishop of some place ; but neither he, nor Jerome, knew its name. The probable opinion is, that it was Portus Romanus. Lard. iii. 89, seq. The assertion in question was made, as Photius states, in a book of Hippolytus against heresies, which he com- piled from a work of Ir^naeus. But as the work is lost, all that remains is the statement of Gobar and Photius ; which seems, however, to be entitled to credit. In accordance with this denial of the Pauline origin of our epistle, is the testimony of Eusebius in respect to Caius. Caius is called, by Photius, a presbyter of the church of Rome ; which is quite probable, although Eusebius and Jerome simply state that he was a presbyter, without naming the place of his residence. He flourished, it is most probable, about A. D. 210. The statement of Eusebius is as follows. ^' There hath come to us a dialogue of Caius, a most eloquent man, held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, a patron of the Montanist heresy ; in which, reproving the rashness and audacity of his opponents in forging new writings, he makes mention of only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not numbering that to the Hebrews with the others ; and even to the present time, some of the P^omans do not reckon it to be Paul's." Lard. iii. 24. Eus. vi. 20. See the original, on p. 97, above. The new writings or scriptures here mentioned, were the prophecies which the enthusiastic Montanists feigned to have delivered by inspira- tion ; Montanus having declared himself to be the Paraclete. See Eus. V. 14. 18. Jerome states, that Caius denied the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul's ; De Vir. lUus. voc. Caius. But Eusebius and Photius simply say, that he omitted it in his account of the canonical books ; which, however, virtually implies, under such circumstances, what Jerome declares. In what circumstances this dialogue was composed ; whether it was first actually held, for substance, with Proclus, and afterwards written down ; or whether it was only written (like the dialogues of Plato, Cicero, and others,) in order to represent the sentiments of Proclus, and confute them ; whether it was held publicly, with the approbation of Zephyrinus and his presbyters, or not, we are not informed, and have no certain means of discovering. But I think it must be regarded as proba- ble, that Caius would not venture upon the publication of such a dialogue at Rome, without the concurrence or approbation of the church there. WESTERN CHURCHES : IREN^US. 105 Other evidence also is adduced, that doubts whether the epistle to the Hebrews was Paul's had already begun at Rome, and in the West, toward the close of the second century. Muratorius (Antiq. Ital. Medii. ^vi. torn. iii. p. 854,) has published a fragment of an anonymous author, who probably lived near the close of the second century, that contains a catalogue of books which he deemed canonical, and which lacks the epistle to the Hebrews, those of James, Peter, and 3d John ; while it contains some apocryphal books. Speaking of Paul's epistles, this anonymous writer says, " Fertur [epistola] etiam ad Laodicenses. Alia apud Alexandrinos Paulli nomine ficta ad haeresia Marcionis, et alia plura; quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest, fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit.'* That is, " An epistle is in circulation, addressed to the Laodiceans. Another is current with the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, for the sake of promoting the heresy of Marcion, and many other things , which the catholic church cannot receive, for it is not proper to mingle gall with honey." Critics have supposed, that by the alia apiid Alexandrinos, this writer means the epistle to the Hebrews^ which was received by the Greeks or Alexandrians. But surely it must be very doubtful, whether our epistle to the Hebrews is meant, as this anonymous writer admits several books not canonical into his catalogue, and excludes several others which are so. Besides, he mentions another fictitious epistle, viz. that to the Laodiceans. Why may not this epistle among the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, in favour of the Marcion heresy, be wholly dif- ferent from our epistle to the Hebrews ; which has not, and never had, the name of Paul affixed to it ? And then how could this writer say, forged in favour of the Marcionite heresy ? a heresy which denied the divine origin of the Jewish religion, and rejected the God of the Old Testament; two fundamental articles on which our epistle to the Hebrews is built. Nothing could be more directly opposed to Marcion, than this epistle. The probability, therefore, is, that our epistle to the Hebrews is not designated by the anonymous writer in question. But if it really be the fact, that he did mean to designate it, his consummate ignorance of the nature of its contents forbids us to attach any weight of importance to his testimony. But more definite and satisfactory evidence, that, about the close of the second century, there were doubts among the western churches whether our epistle was of apostolic origin, may be adduced from the works of TertuUian. This father, who flourished about A. D. 200, says 106 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE in his book De Pudicitia (c. 20,) ** TTiere is an epistle of Barnabas inscribed to the Hebrews ; therefore by a man of such authority, that Paul placed him next to himself in respect to abstinence ; " Am I and Barnabas only without power to do this ?" And, certainly, this epistle of Barnabas is more received among the churches, than the apocryphal Pastor of adulterers," [he means the Shepherd of Hermas.] *' Warning therefore the disciples, that leaving the first principles/' &c. [quoting Heb. vi. 1, &c.* That TertuUian also alludes to the epistle to the Hebrews in other passages, seems to me quite probable, from the instances of this nature produced by Lardner, ii. 608 — 612. But it no where appears, what credit he attached to this epistle. It is plain from the passage quoted, that he ascribed it to Barnabas ; and not improbable, that the churches in his neighbourhood, and perhaps at Rome, did the same, at this period. It is also plain, that he does not ascribe full canonical credit to it, because he does not consider it as the work of an apostle ; otherwise he would have vehemently urged its authority upon his opponents, as the passage which he quotes seems extremely apposite to his purpose, which was, to prove that lapsed Christians could not again be received into the bosom of the church. That there was a division of opinion among the churches of his day, in the region where he lived, at least, seems to be plainly indicated, by his saying that this epistle was more correct, and of more authority in the churches, than the Shepherd of Hermas ; which latter, however, we know to have been early admitted as part of the sacred records, by a number of churches in the West. On the whole, it is plain that TertuUian did not admit our epistle to be Paul's ; and\hat there were churches in that region, who doubted or denied that it was his. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, comes next as a witness for the negative of our question. He flourished about A. D. 248, i. e. the next gene- ration after TertuUian, who died about A. D. 220. From Cyprian, how- ever, no direct testimony can be adduced. It is agreed, that he no * Volo, tamen, ex redundantia alicujus etiatn comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducero, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritalis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abslinentise tenore ; " Aut ego solus et Barnabas non haberaus hoc operandi potestatem ?" Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae, illo apocrypho paste re mcEchorum. Monens itaque discipulos, " Omissis omnibus initiis," &c. De Pudiciliuj c. 20. WESTERN CHURCHES : CYPRIAN. 107 where quotes the epistle to the Hebrews in his works ; which we cannot well account for, if he admitted its authority. There is but one passage hitherto produced from him, which seems to have a bearing on our ques- tion. It is as follows ; " The apostle Paul, who was mindful of this authorized and well-known number, [he is speaking of the number seven,] writes to seven churches."* This would of course exclude the epistle to the Hebrews, as there are seven churches addressed besides this. But still, I cannot consider this testimony so decisive as Lardner tnd Eichhorn do, in respect to Cyprian's canon. For, as the epistle to the Hebrews has no address, Cyprian may have had reference only to such of Paul's epistles as have an address to churches prefixed, which are seven in number. I do not, therefore, regard this passage as amount- ing to much. The fact that Cyprian has nowhere quoted the epistle to the Hebrews, considering how many writings he has left behind him, and how many occasions he had to quote the sentiments contained in it, renders it probable, either that he was unacquainted with the epistle, or that he did not admit its canonical authority. Novatus, a presbyter of Rome, (A. D. 251,) the founder of the Nova- tian sect, is supposed by some critics not to have received the epistle to the Hebrews. This inference is drawn from the fact, that he does not appeal to it, in behalf of the sentiments which he maintained, respect- ing the exclusion of the lapsed heretics from re-admission to the church. There are passages in his writings, however, in which he seems to refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, e. g. " It is asserted of Christ, by prophets and apostles, that he sitteth at the right-hand of the Fadher ;"t comp. Heb. i. 3. Again, " Christ is found to be greater and better, not than one angel only, but than all the angels. "t The last of these passages, in particular, looks very much like a quotation from Heb. i. 4. Be tlie case as it may, respecting Novatus himself, his followers, about thirty years afterwards, admitted the epistle in question ; as is clear from the testimony of Philaster (about A. D. 380) on this subject, who states, that they received the usual canon of the Old and New Testament. Philast. Haeres. 82. * Et apostolus Paulus, qui hujus numeri legitimi et certi merainit, ad septen\ eccle- sias scribit. De Exhort. Mart. cap. xi. f Aut eum sedere ad dextram Patiis, et a prophetis et ab apostolis .approbutiir. De Reg. Fid. c. xxvi. X Qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et major et melior invenitur. De Roij Fid. c. XX. 108 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE This is all the negative testimony that I have been able to find, in the churches of the west, previously to A. D. 400 ; excepting what is implied in the statements of some of the Latin writers, to whom I shall now advert. We have already seen, in the passage cited from Tertullian, an inti- mation of a difference of opinion among the Western churches, in respect to the epistle to the Hebrews, as if some received and some rejected it. Lactantius, about 306, who does not often quote Scripture, at least with any good degree of accuracy, seems to me to have some indubitable references to the epistle to the Hebrews, which Lardner has drawn out at length (vii. 185 — 188;) but as they only seem to recognize the authority of the epistle, but do not ascribe it to Paul, I shall not adduce them here. The epistle to the Hebrews was clearly received as Paul's by Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, about A. D. 354 ; by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, about 354 ; by Victorinus, a famous rhetorician at Rome, about 360 ; by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about 374 ; by Philaster, bishop of Bres- cia, in Italy, about 380 ; who states, however, that there were some who did not admit it to be Paul's ; by Gaudentius, his successor, about 387 ; by the celebrated Jerome, about 392 ; by Ruffinus about 397 ; and by Augustine, about 400. But the testimony of Augustine and Jerome whose influence appears to have been effectual in re-establishing the credit of the epistle to the Hebrews among the Western churches, deserves to be adduced here, as it serves to show, that the Latin churches had not been united in respect to the point in question. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, has the following passage. " This is to be maintained, that this epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches of the East, as the apostle Paul's, but has been, in past times, by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language ; although most [Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was the author. And it matters not whose it is, since it belongs to some ecclesiastical man, and is daily commended by the reading of it in the churches. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical writings,"* &c. Again ; " Among the Romans, it is not • lUud nostris dicendum est, banc epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebrwos, non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graece sermonis scrip- toribus quasi apostoli Pauli suscipi ; licet plerique earn vel Barnabse, vel Clementis WESTERN CHURCHES : JEROME. 109 received down to the present time as an epistle of Paul."* This general assertion means only that " such is, or has been, the predominant cus- tom among the Romans ;" as is plain from a passage in his epistle to Evagrius, where he says, " which epistle to the Hebrews all the Greeks receive, and some of the Latins. "f In his epistle to Paulinus, he says, ** Paul the apostle writes to seven churches ; for his eighth epistle to the Hebrews is placed by most out of the number of his."| And again, in his Comm. on Matt. xxvi. he says, *' Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews, although many of the Latins doubt concerning it, says,"|| &c. On a comparison of all these different passages together, the following appears to be the result of Jerome's testimony. (1.) The majority of the Roman churches in his time did not receive the epistle as Paul's ; " it is placed by most out of the number of Paul's epistles." (2.) But some of the Latin churches did receive it still, in accordance with the custom of the Greek, i. e. Oriental churches ; omnes Grceci recipiunt, et nomiulli Latinortim. (3.) The reception or rejection of this epistle, as described by Jerome, refers (one passage only excepted) to receiving it as PauVs, or refusing to admit Paul as the author. Jerome does not say, that the Roman churches condemned it as spurious. Nay, that he does not mean to say this, is very plain from his own express words ; for after averring that " most persons [Romans] regard it as written either by Barnabas or by Clement," he goes on to say, nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. That is, it matters not about the person of the author, since he was an ecclesiastical man, and the churches every day read his epistle. But how much this means exactly, it is difficult to say ; for the writer adds. Quod si Latinorum arbitrenter. Et nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum ectione celebretur. Quodsi autem Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas, etc. — Epist. ad Dardanum. • Apud Romanes, usque hodie, quasi Pauli epistola non habetur. 0pp. tom, iii. p. 46. f Quam epistolam ad Hebraeos, omnes Graeci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum. — Epist. ad Evagrium. X Paulus Apostolus ad septem ecclesias scribit ; octava enim ad Hebraeos a plens" que extra numerum ponitur. — Epist. ad Paulinum. II Paulus, in epistola sua quae scribitur ad Hebraeos, licet de ea multi Latinorum dubitent, etc. loc. cit. 110 ^17. RESULT. consuetudo non recipit inter canonicas scripturaSy &c. By cano7tical, Jerome seems to understand apostolical, or having that authority which the writings of an apostle has. So much is plain, then, viz. that in the day of this writer, the churches made a distinction between writings apos- tolic and not apostolic ; and if so, it must have been by giving to the former a rank higher, and more authoritative, than the latter. On the whole, we must understand Jerome as meaning to aver, that while some of the Latin churches admitted Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, and regarded this epistle as canonical in the highest sense, most of these churches doubted whether Paul was the author, and conse- quently gave the epistle but a secondary place in their canon ; or rather, they read it, with the other books of Scripture, for edification, but (probably) did not appeal to it as authoritative. The testimony of Augustine corresponds well with this, *' Many say, that [the epistle to the Hebrews] is Paul's ; but some deny it.* And again ; " In the epistle to the Hebrews, which the illustrious defenders of the catholic faith use as a witness, faith is called, &c."t The council at Carthage, held A. D. 397, reckon this epistle among the divine and canonical writings, and attribute it to Paul. J I have now traced the history of this epistle down to the fourth century, in the Egyptian, the Eastern, and the Western churches. Lower down, it is altogether unnecessary to trace it ; as all admit that it has had a general currency in the Christian churches every where, since that period. ' § 17. Result. We now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian and Eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a pretty early period, some who had doubts whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts ; and it is manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write * Plures apostoli Pauli dicunt, [sc. epistolam ad Hebraeos ;] quidam vero negant. De Civitate Dei, xvi. 22. f In epistola quippe ad Hebraeos, qua teste usi sunt illustres catholicae reguloe defensores, fides esse dicta est, etc. De Fide, Spe, et Caritate, c. viii. ' I Sunt autem canonic^ Scripturae Pauli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Ilebraeos una. Can. 47. § 17. RESULT. Ill it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of thi question which we are considering. What Jerome avers, appears to be strictly true, viz. ab ecclesiis Orientis et ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis GrcBci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi aposfoli Pauli suscipi. In the Western churches, a diversity of opinion prevailed ; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerome and Augustine leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the Western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the West, we are left to conjecture'. The scanty critical and literary records of those times, afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from bemg a singular case. Many othes changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolu- tion, when he came from the East to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in which the epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excom- municated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have, with more probability, attri- buted it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montariist party, whom the epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the church, those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages, in Heb. vi. 4 — 8, and x. 26 — 31, at least seem strongly to favour the views which they main- tained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high; and Ernesti, and many other critics, have been led to believe, that the epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the epistle to the Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Romish church. Many such instances might be produced, from the history of the church. The 112 § 18. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many of the Oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther himself rejected the epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwartino- his favourite notions oi justification ; yea, that he went so far as to give it the appellation of epistola straminea ? It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church, exceedingly embittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of our epistle ; because it was, to their adversaries, a favourite source of appeal, and because (unlike Paul's other epistles) it was anonymous. That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. TertuUian, who took a very active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of such an origin ; or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the West, the fad, that it was so, cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as Paul's ; although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as uniform, for the first century after the apostolic age, as in respect to many other books of the New Testament ; and more so, than in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of EVIDENCE FROM TRADITION, IS ALTOGETHER PREPONDERANT IN FAVOUR OF THE OPINION, THAT PAUL WAS THE AUTHOR OF OUR EPISTLE. § 18. Internal evidence that the epistle is PauVs. We come, then, next to inquire, whether the internal condition of the epistle corresponds with and confirms this tradition. The evidence drawn from this, may be divided into two kinds : first, that which arises from circumstances mentioned or adverted to in the epistle ; and, secondly that which arises from the style and manner of it. 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 113 § 19. Evidence that it was PauVsyfrom circumstances mentioned or adverted to in the epistle. As our epistle no where exhibits the author's name, we can appeal, for internal testimony respecting the author of it, only to accidental circum- stances which are developed in it. (1.) The most striking one is that contained in xiii. 23, " Know ye, that our brother Timothy is dTroXfXv/xeVov, with whom, if he come speedily, I will pay you a visit." From the first acquaintance of Timothy with Paul, he had been his intimate friend and constant companion. That he was with Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment, we know for certainty ; because Paul has united him in the salutation prefixed to the epistles written to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, during his captivity in that city. Timothy was greatly beloved and confided in by Paul, as the manner in which he speaks of him, in several of his epistles, abundantly shows ; and Paul often calls him (as here) his brother. But the meaning of the word cnroXeXvfxevov, as applied to Timothy, has been much contested ; some rendering it, set at liberty j i. e. from prison ; others, sent away, i. e. on some errand of Paul's. Giving to aTroXeXvfii- vov the first meaning assigned it, viz. liberated, objectors have said that " we have no account of Timothy's having been imprisoned during the life of Paul, and therefore, the occurrence of his imprisonment must have taken place after Paul's death ; consequently the epistle must have been written by some other friend of Timothy, who calls him brother^ in accordance with the usual style of the primitive Christians." Nothing, however, can be more unsafe or uncritical, than the suppo- sition that the Acts of the Apostles, or Paul's epistles, give us a/wZZ and complete account of all which happened to the various persons who are named in them. E. g. Aristarchus is called by Paul, in Col. iv. 10, his fellow-prisoner ; as is Epaphras, in Philem. v. 23 ; but where is the history of their imprisonment? The supposition by Bertholdt, that another Timothy, different from him who is so often mentioned in the sacred records, may be meant here, is doubtless a possible one ; but is it a probable one ? Have we any kind of ecclesiastical voucher, that there was another Timothy, who distinguished himself in the apostolic age ? It is possible that one Virgil wrote the Eneid, and another the Georgics ; yet who thinks it to he probable ? But if this be insufficient, Bertholdt alleges that, a different person from Paul may have been the intimate I 114 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. friend and travelling companion of Timothy, while Paul was imprisoned at Rome; and that the passage we are considering, may have come from him. Eichhorn thinks it must have been written by such a friend of Timothy, after the death of Paul ; as, during his life, Timothy closely adhered to this apostle. All this, no doubt, is possible ; and a great many other hypotheses, which could be easily made, present no impos- sibility. But are they probable ? And is net the language, which we are considering, more appropriate to the known relation of Paul and Timothy, than to the relation of any other person of that period with Timothy, concerning whom we have any knowledge ? The spontaneous feeling of Christian readers, in all ages, has fully answered this question. But what was the imprisonment which is adverted to by the word {airokekvp.ivovl To suppose with Schmidt, (Hist. Antiq. Canon,) and many others, that it was an imprisonment at Rome with Paul, is evidently preposterous ; for how, if Timothy were already at Rome, could Paul, or any one else there, say, if he come, or return, speedily ? Must not Timothy have been absent, when this was said ? If Timothy had been imprisoned abroad, and was then liberated (dTroXeXvjueVov,) would he not have been the immediate bearer of the news himself to the apostle ? I do not allege this as a certain fact, for possibly there may have been cir- cumstances to prevent it. But then, it is not in itself very probable, that Paul in confinement at Rome would obtain information about Timothy, (who, if absent, was doubtless among some of the churches where Paul had been,) any sooner than those to whom he wrote our epistle ; and who, as it appears from the manner in which Paul speaks of him to them, had a special regard for him. Why, moreover, raise up all these difficulties in order to maintain an interpretation of aTroXiKvfxivov which accords no better with the usus loquendi of the sacred or classical writers, than the rendering, dismissed or sent away ? a sense so exactly consentaneous with the relation between Paul and Timothy. See Schleus. in voc. otTroXvw, No. 3. In Philip, ii. 19, (this epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at Rome,) the apostle speaks of sending Timothy to them shortly, so soon as he should see how it would go with him, in respect to being liberated from prison, ii. 23 ; at the same time expressing a hope, that he should himself come to them shortly, v. 24. What then is more natural than the supposition, that he did send Timothy to them ; and that, during his absence, Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in which he tells them, that Timothy was sent away, that he is now assured that he himself would be speedily §19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 115 set at liberty, and that he intends to pay them a visit in company with Timothy, if he should shortly return, viz. from Philippi ? Many facts ai? believed by Bertholdt, and all other critics, which have less of verisimili- tude to support them than this. Indeed, one cannot well see, how mere circumstantial evidence could be better adapted to make the impression of probability than this. I do not feel the weight of the objection, made by alleging that Timo- thy was unknown to the church in Palestine, and that they could have no special interest with respect to the information in question. For, first, Timothy was the well-known and beloved companion of Paul, in all his journey ings during his later years ; and must have been known as such, wherever Paul was known. Next, there can be no reasonable question, that he was with Paul during his last visit to Jerusalem, pre- viously to the apostle's captivity for two years at Cesarea. Is there any probability, even if he were not with Paul during his journey to Jeru- salem, that he did not frequently visit him in his afflictions ? And would not the church at Cesarea, therefore, be well acquainted with him ? Specially so, as Timothy would be the more acceptable to the Palestine Jewish Christians, on account of his having received the rite of circum- cision, after he became a convert to Christianity. Now, as all these circumstances do plainly accord with Paul's situation while a prisoner at Rome ; with his relation to Timothy ; and with the manner in which he employed him ; and as we have not a syllable of testimony that they are applicable to any other person ; I do not see how we can be justified, in denying that the evidence deducible from them is sufficient to render it quite probable, that Paul was the author of our epistle. (2.) In Heb. xiii. 18, 19, the writer asks the prayers of those whom; he addressed, that he might speedily be restored to them ; and in Heb. xiii. 23, he expresses a confident expectation of " speedily paying them a visit." From these passages it is clear, that the writer was then in a state of imprisonment ; and, also, that he was assured of a speedy libe- ration, which would enable him to pay the visit that he had encourageq. then to hope for. Compare this, now, with the situation of Paul at Rome, during the latter part of his imprisonment there. In his epistle to the Philippians, (written during that period,) he expresses his entire confidence tjiat his life will be prolonged, so that he shall yet promote their religious profit and joy ; rovTo 7rciroi6(i>c o't^a, on fierio fcat ffv/XTrapa/xcvw iracriv vpv, etg r^y vfAdy I2 116 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. •rrpoKoirnv Koi xapav rvg TrtVrewc, Phil. i. 25. Again, in Phil. ii. 24, he says, TriTToida ^e ev KvjOt'w, on koX avroq rax'^ioi: eXevffOjxai, I trust in the Lord, that I myself shall speedily come {to you.] In the epistle to Philemon, (also written during the same imprisonment, (he says, kX-rri^ta yap, OTL ^Lci Twv Trpoctvxwv v^wi/ x^P'-^^^I^^F^'- V^''' f^^ ^ hope, that by your prayers I shall be restored to you, ver. 22. So confident was Paul of this, that he bids Philemon prepare lodgings for him, Irot'/ia^e ^oi ^Eviav, ver. 22. It appears very plainly, then, from these passages, that the writer had a satisfactory assurance in his mind of being speedily set at liberty ; although, it is probable, 2i formal declaration of his acquittal had not yet been made by the Roman emperor. This last conclusion I gather from Phil. ii. 23, where Paul declares to the church whom he is addressing, " that he shall send Timothy to them immediately, wc av ot/^w ra Trepi i}XE, whenever I shall know how my affairs issue.'' By this it appears, that he was in daily expectation of receiving official notice of the deter- mination of the emperor in respect to his case, but that he had not yet received it. That he had private information, however, of the way in which his case was likely to terminate, and information which pretty fully satisfied his mind, is evident from the manner in which he speaks in the passages quoted above, of his intended visit to the Philippians, and to Philemon. Supposing, now, as soon as an intimation was made by the Roman emperor, that Paul would be set at liberty, that intelligence respecting it was immediately communicated to the apostle, by those of Cesar's household (Phil. iv. 22,) who were his Christian friends ; and supposing that, agreeably to his promise made to the Philippians ii. 23, he then immediately sent away Timothy to them ; and supposing still further, (which surely cannot be regarded as improbable,) that there was some little delay informally making out his sentence of acquittal, and carry- ing it into execution by actually liberating him from prison ; then how obviously easy and natural is the expression in Heb. xiii. 23, " Know that our brother Timothy is sent away; with whom, if he speedily return, I shall pay you a visit?" On the supposition that the close of the epistle to the Hebrews was written at this juncture of time, nothing can be more probable than that the promised mission of Timothy, adverted to in Phil. ii. 23, is referred to in Heb. xiii. 23; and conse- quently that aTToXtXv/iEvov here means sent away, dismissed, (as all must acknowledge it may mean,) and not, liberated, or, set at liberty. ^19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 117 The circumstances adverted to, or implied, in Heb. xiii. 23, Phil, ii. 23, and Philem. ver. 22, Uave other correspondencies which deserve particular notice. In the two latter passages, it is plain that the writer expects his liberty, and means to send away Timothy to Philippi. In the former, he is assured of his liberty, and only waits for the return of Timothy, in order that he may set out to visit the Hebrews whom he had been addressing. In case Timothy did not return speedily ira^Lovy) it is plainly implied in Heb. xiii. 23, that the writer meant to set out on his journey without him. There was, then, some uncertainty in his mind, respecting the time when Timothy would return. How well all this accords with the journey of Timothy to a place so remote from Rome as Philippi, cannot fail to strike the mind of every considerate reader. Now, laying aside all favouritism for any previous opinions respecting our epistle, can it be reasonably doubted, that here is a concurrence of circumstances so striking, as to render it highly probable that Paul wrote it ? More especially so, when we consider that the epistle must have been written, about the same period of time when these circumstances happened i for it proffers internal evidence of being written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and yet written so late, that the period when the Hebrews were first converted to Christianity is adverted to as being already a considerable time before, Heb. v. 12, and is called tclq -Kportpov »/ju£pac, X. 32. Now, the imprisonment of Paul, at Rome, happened pro- bably A.D. 62 or 63, which was some thirty years after the gospel had begun to be preached abroad, and about seven years before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. Taking all these circumstances together, it must be acknowledged that there is an extraordinary concurrence of them, which cannot but serve much to increase the probability that our epistle was written by Paul, near the close of his liberation at Rome. The objections which Bertholdt makes against the arguments just presented, do not seem to be weighty. " Would Paw/," he asks, " pro- mise to revisit Palestine, when the people of that very country had sent him into captivity at Rome? A very improbable circumstance, indeed !" But a nearer consideration of the circumstances attending Paul's case, will remove the appearance of so great improbability. For, first, Paul had been kept a prisoner, at Cesarea, two years before his removal to Rome, Acts xxiv. 25 — 27 ; and at Rome he lived two years more, in a similar condition, Acts xxviii. 30. These, with the time occupied by his going 118 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. to Rome, and returning from it, would make nearly a five years' interval between his leaving Palestine and revisiting it. Might not some of his fiercest persecutors have died during this period ? Or, might they not have laid aside their furious, persecuting zeal ? But, in the next place, supposing our epistle to have been sent to the church at Cesarea, where Paul had been treated with so much kindness during his imprisonment ; could there have been any fear in his mind, with respect to paying them a visit? And even if we suppose that Cesarea was not the place to which the letter was directed, but that it was sent to the Christians at Jerusalem ; yet the objection brought for- ward by Bertholdt will not be of much validity. Paul was not to be deterred from going to Jerusalem, by the prospect of persecution. From the time when he first made his appearance there, after his conversion, the Jews had always showed a bitter enmity against him, and persecuted him. Yet this did not deter him from going, again and again, to that city. And why should it now deter him, any more than formerly ? Besides, he was now liberated from the accusations of the Jews, by the sentence of the emperor himself. Would they venture to do again, the very thing which the court of Rome had decided to be unlawful ? Might not Paul well expect, with the decision of the emperor in his hand, to find his personal liberty for the future respected ? " But," says Bertholdt, " we have no account that Paul paid a visit to Palestine, after his liberation." True. But what argument this can furnish, against the probability that he did pay such a visit, I do not perceive. Bertholdt himself, in the very paragraph which contains this objection, says, " Who does not know, that the accounts of what befell the apostles, and primitive teachers of Christianity, are very incomplete ?" Every one knows, that Luke breaks off the history of Paul, with the account of his imprison- ment at Rome. Has any writer given us a well-authenticated supplement to this ? And can the want of any history of Paul, after the period of his imprisonment at Rome, be a proof that he never travelled to any particular place, or that he did not live and preach there ? Surely this cannot be urged with any show of propriety. I add only, that analogy would lead us to suppose that Paul, when liberated, would go to Palestine, and then to the other churches in Asia Minor. Such was the general course of his travels ; see Acts xviii. ^2, seq. It is altogether consonant, then, with the usage of Paul, tq suppose that he would visit the church at Palestine, after his impiison § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 119 ment at Rome ; and therefore natural to suppose that (leb. xiii. 23, refers to such an event. (3.) If the reading in Heb. x. 34, " for ye had compassion on mp hondSj" (ro*e Betrfiolg ^ov,) be correct, it is another argument that Paul is the author of our epistle ; for his bonds in Palestine, whither the letter was sent, are well known. That he obtained compassion there, parti- cularly during his two years* imprisonment at Cesarea, will not be questioned. But as the reading Iey tov Qeov tov aoparov. Phil. ii. 6. *0e h fJLopfy Oeov vTrap')(it)v. 2 Cor. iv. 4. *0e ivTiv tUhv tov Gcov. Heb. i. 3. ^ipiav re to. iravra r^ piijiuTi r^c Svva/ieac qItov. Col i. 17, Td irayra ly avr^ avyiarriKe. Heb. i. 5, Ytoc fiov el (rv, iyut (riifiepoy yeyiyyriKa ere. Acts xiii. 33. Yiog fwv el trv, eyu) ai)^epoy yeyeyyrjKa ae ; used here by Paul, and applied in both passages (but nowhere else in the New Testament) to Christ. Heb. i. 4. Toaovrip KpeiTTuv yevofieyoQ tUv AyycXwy, oao ^lafoputrepov Ttap avToiig KEK\ripov6y,riKty oyofia, Eph. i. 21. 'Yirepdvu) irayrbs oyofxaTOQ ovofia^ofiivov oh fiovoy iy T^ aXioyL tovt(Dj dXXd teat iv t^ jjiiXKoyTi. Phil. ii. 9. 'O QeoQ l^apiffaro avr^ ovofia to vrep Tray ovova "tya iy t^ oyofiaTi ^Irjaov irdv yoyv Kdjj.\py cTrovpavtwr, k. t. \ Heb. i. 6. Tov irpuTOTOKoy Rom. vii. 29. Etc to elyai avroy Toy irptoTdroKoy, Col. i. 15. TlpiaTOTOKOQ irdariQ Kriffeiog. V. 18. UpcjTOTOKog. This appellation is applied to Christ nowhere else, excepting in Rev. i. 5. Heb. ii. 2. 'O St ayyiXojy XaXrjdelQ \6yos. Gal. iii. 19. 'O vo^oq, . ..dtaTayelg ^i ayyeXojy. Comp. Acts vii. 53. Here is the same sentiment, Xoyog and voixog being synonymes ; as, for substance, XaXr)deig and ^laTayelg are. However, Stephen once uses a similar expression. Acts vii. 53. Heb. ii. 4. ^rifxeioig re Koi Tspatri, i:ai TroiKiXaig ^vy&fxeaij koI TryevftaTog ayiov fxepicrfiolg. 1 Cor. xii. 4. J^iaipiaeig Sc ^apLVfidTiay elaXy to Ze avTO Tryevfia. 1 Cor. xii. 11. ndvra ^e raOra iyipyei to ly koi to avrb TryevfiUy Ziaipovy idig, CKuory Kadojg j3ovX£Ta.i. Rom. xii. 6. ^E^ovrec Se \apiff^aTa kuto. t^v x«P**' ^V^ ZoOeXaay Tjjxiy Ziaipopa all spoken of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 139 and characterized by the same shade of thought, viz. the various or different gifts of this nature distributed by him. Heb. ii. 8. Hayra vireTa^ag viroKarit) tCjv irooiov avrov. 1 Cor. XV. 27. Havra yap VTrsTa^ev vwo tovq iro^ag avTOv. £pb, i. 22. Kai irdvra virira^ep vtto tovq iroBag avTov, Phil. iii. 21. 'Yirora^ai lavrw ra Travra phraseology applied to designate the sovereignty conferred upon Christ, and found only in Paul and in our epistle. Heb. ii. 10. At ov ra Trdyra, koi dl ov to. Travra. Rom. xi. 36. *E^ avrov, cat ^t avrou, Kai eig avrov ra travra. Col. i. 16. Tct iravra hi avrov koX etc avrov. 1 Cor, viii. 6. Elg BfOf. . . .e^ ov ra Travra' Ka\ ag Kvptog, . , ,tl ov ra Travra . . . , a method of expression, employed to designate God as the author of all things, and also the lord and possessor of them, which is appropriate to Paul, and to our epistle. Heb. ii. 14. "Iva .... Karapyfjarj rov ro Kparog t-^ovra rov davaroVf rovr 'iffri rov ^ta/3o\ov. 2 Tim. i. 10. Karnpyijaravrog jxev rov Oavarov. Karapyew, employed in the sense of abolishing, rendering null, is exclusively Pauline. No other writer of the New Testament employs it at all, except Luke ; and he but once, and then in a quite different sense from that attached to it by Paul, Luke xiii. 7. Heb. ii. 16. ^Trepfxarog 'A/5paa/i, to designate Christians. Gal. iii. 29. Et ^e vjuetc Xpiarov, apa rov 'A/3joaa/i Gitepjxa ecrre. Gal. iii. 7. Ot sk Triaretag, ovroX elaiv viol 'A/3paa/t. Rom. iv. 16. ^Afipaafx, og kari Trarrjp Travriov fjfxwv. The appellation, seed or sons of Abraham, applied to designate Christians, is found only in Paul and in our epistle. Heb. iii. 1. KXfjaEiog eirovpaviov. Phil. iii. 14. T^c avio Kkt^ffetogrov Qeov. Rom. xi. 29. *H KXrjarLg rov Qeov. The phrase heavenly or divine call- ing, applied to designate the proffered mercies of the gospel, is limited to Paul and to our epistle. Heb. iv. 12 Zwv yap b \6yog rov Otov .... koi rofiwrepog, vrrep Traerny fia\aipav ^larojJiov. 140 h 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Eph. vi. 17. Ti)p ixdj(aipav rov TrvevfiaTog, 6 tan pfjixa Qeov. The comparison of the word of God to a sword, is found only in Paul and in our epistle. Heb. V. 8. KaiTrep wv u/oc, e/zaOfV d^* wv eTraOe Tr)v VTraKorjv. Phil. ii. 8. 'EraTTCiVwo-fV eavTOv, yevofievog VTrrjKOog, f^ixpt davarov. The idea of obedience in the humiliation and sufferings of Christ, constitutes the speciality and the similitude of these two passages. Heb. V. 13. NryTTtoc yap etrri, i. e. a child in religion^ comparatively ignorant f uninformed.. 1 Cor. iii. 1. 'ilg vti-klolq tv Xpiorr^f in the same sense. Eph. iv. 14. "Iva ixrjKiri Syp-Ev vr]inoi, in the same. Rom. ii. 20. Ai^do-fcaXov vj/tt/wv, in the same. Gal. iv. 3. *Ore ^ifXEv vi'iTrioi, in the same. This phraseology is limited to Paul and to our epistle. Heb. V. 14. TeXe/wv de kcmv rj ffrepEa Tpo^. 1 Cor. xiv. 20. TaT^ o£ peffi teXeioi yivEffOs. The word teKeioi is here the antithesis of vriinoi, and means well instructed, mature. In this sense, it is employed only in Paul and in our epistle. Heb. vi. 1. TeXtiorj^ra, an advanced, mature state, i. e. of Christian knowledge. Col. iii. 14. '^vvlEffp.oQ TfJQ TEXEWTrjTog, the bond or cement of a matured Christian state. The word TEXEiorric, in such a sense, is limited to Paul and to our epistle. Heb. vi. 3. 'EarTrcp ETrirpETry 6 Geoc. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. 'Eap 6 Kvpwg ETnTpiirrf a phrase no where else employed. Heb. vi. 10. Trig ctyaTrrig ^g EVE^l^aade tig rb ovofia avrov, ^laKOvrjaav- TEg Tolg ayioig Kai ^laKOvovvTEg. 2 Cor. viii. 24.^ Trjv ovv ivZEd,iv Tfjg ayaTri/c vfiodv . . . < etc avrovg ev^ei- ^a avTOKoZitafa. Rom. xii. 19. 'Eyuot iKdiKijcng, eyo) avraTro^ijjaio. The similarity consists in quoting the same passage, and applying it to show that punishment is the awful prerogative of the Deity, and that he will inflict it. Heb. x. 32. "AOXrjffiv . • . « rwv Tradrjfjiarwv, Phil. i. 30. Toy avruv ayCJva t^ovregj olov eiders ev IfxoX. Col. ii. 1. 'HXtKov aywya ty(^u) Trepi vjxwv, 1 Thess. ii. 2. AaXrjaat .... to evayyiXiov .... iv ttoXX^ aydvi. The phrase contest, in respect to afflictions, is peculiar to Paul and to our epistle. Heb. x. 33. ^Oyeiditrfiolg re Koi d\i\pe(Tt OeaTpL^ofiej'Oi. 1. Cor. iv. 9. Oearpoy eyeyijO-qiiev rut KOtTjJiM, k. t. \ .,,.., language peculiar to Paul and to our epistle. Heb. x. 33. Kotvwvoi roiv ovtojq avaarpe^o^iiydiv yev-qOtyregy partici- pating, i. e. sympathising with the afflicted. Phil. iv. 14. XvyKoiyojviiaayTeg f^iov rrj dXlxpei, sympathising in my affliction. The same figurative expression stands in both passages. Heb. X. 38. 'O de diKaiog EK TTiffrsiog ^ijaerai. Rom. i. 17. 'O ^£ diKUiog Ik iriaTecjg ^I'lcreTai. Gal. ii. 11. *Ori 6 BiKaiog ek 7ri(TTe(t)g C,Yi(TeTat, Tlie passage is a quotation. But the application, and use of it, appear to be exclusively Pauline. Heb. xii. 1. Tpix^fxev Toy TrpoKsipeyov fjfuy &yu}va. 1 Cor. ix. 24. Ovrw Tpi'yeTe Iva icaTaXafirjTE. Phil. iii. 14. Tci pey otticw iTviXavOavopevog, toIq Ze E^TcpcaQep ensKTEt- vopevog, KaTO. (tkotzov dLU)K(o. The resemblance here is, that Christian efforts are, in each passage. h 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, 143 compared to a race ; a comparison found only in Paul and in our epistle. Heb. xiii. 18. UeTro/Qa/icv yap, ore icaX^v avveidriaiv typiiev. Acts xxiii. 1. Paul says, 'Eyui iratn^ (ruvuSrjaei dyafl^ ■KtiroXirev^ai, . . • a manner of speaking found nowhere else. Heb. xiii. 20. 'O he Qioq rijc elpijyrjc, Rom. XV. 33. 'O he Qeoc; ttjq elpijvrjQ. Also in Rom. xvi. 20. 1 Cor. xiv. 33. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. 1 Thess. v. 23. An expression used by no other writer of the New Testament. Heb. xiii. 18. Ilpoffev')(e(rOe irepl ijfiuiv. 1 Thess. v. 25. Jlpoaev^eaQe irepX yfxojv. Natural as this may appear at the close of a letter, it is peculiar to Paul and to our epistle. To the instances of phraseology thus collected, may be added the greeting and benediction at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, which is altogether Pauline. II. Words which are found, among the New Testament writers, only in Paul and in our epistle ; or, if found elsewhere, are used in a sense different from that in which they are here employed. 'AyioVf in the sense of Christian effort^ either in performing duties, or bearing trials, Heb. xii. 1. 1 Tim. vi. 12. 2 Tim. iv. 7. 'A^eX^ot, brethren of Christ, considered in respect to his human nature, Heb. ii. 12, 17. Rom. viii. 29. 'Aaktjuoc, inept f unfit, Heb. vi. 8. Tit. i. 16, 'Ailu)Qy reverence, modesty, Heb. xii. 28. 1 Tim. ii. 9. Alpiofxai, to choose, Heb. xi. 25. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Phil. i. 22. "AicaKog, innocent, Heb. vii. 26. Rom. xvi. 18. 'Acrdeyeia, sin, sinful infirmity, Heb. v. 2. Rom. v. 6. AiadljKr], will, testament, Heb. ix. 16. Gal. iii. 15. It is doubtful, however, whether hiadijKr) has the sense of testament, in the latter passage. *E\7ric irpoKeKeijxevr], proffered Christian happiness, Heb. vi. 18. Col. i. 5. TjkXvo), to be despondent, Heb. xii. 3. Gal. vi. 9. 'Evhvvapou), to give strength ; (passively) to receive strength, Heb. xi. 34. 2 Tim. iv. 17. 1 Tim. i. 12. 44 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. KarapyeiVf to annul, abolish, abrogate, Heb. ii. 14. Rom. iii. 3, 31 vi. 6. 1 Cor. i. 28. Gal. v. 11, and elsewhere often in Paul/ epistles. Kavxvi^a, glorifying, rejoicing, Heb. iii. 6. Rom. iv. 2. 1 Cor. ix. 15. KXrjpovufioc, lord, possessor, applied to Christ, Heb. i. 2. Rom. viii. 17. AarpevtLy, {SovXeveiv, a synonyme,) Gf^ i^ufVTt, Heb. ix. 14. 1 Thess. i. 9. M^ (ov) pXeironeva, the invisible objects of the future world, Heb. xi. I. 2 Cor. iv. 18. 'OfioXoyta, religion, religious, or Christian profession, Heb. iii. 1. iv. 14. X. 23. 2 Cor. ix. 13. "Ovofxa, majesty, or dignity, Heb. i. 4. ^ Phil. ii. 9, 10. Eph. i. 21. But although this sense of o^ofxa in Heb. i. 4, is adopted by some eminent critics, still it is more probable that it has the sense of appel- lation ; see Heb. i. 5, seq. Ov KTiffLQ, nothing, Heb. iv. 13. Rom. viii. 39. TiXtiob), to consummate in happitiess, to bestow the reward consequent on finishing a victorious course, Heb. ii. 10. vii. 28. x. 14. Phil, iii. 12. 'YTTOffrao-tg, confidence, Heb. iii. 14. ii. 1. 2 Cor. ix. 4. xi. 17. ^lepovcraXiifx t-KovpavioQ, the abode of the blessed, Heb. xii. 22 ; comp. 'lepovffaXrifi- «J^w, Gal. iv. 26, in the like sense. III. Peculiarity oi grammatical construction, in regard to the use of the passive verb, instead of the active. Thus in Heb. vii. 11, we find the phrase, 6 Xaug yap In aWy vem- fjioOerriTo, for the people under it [the Levitical priesthood] received the law ; where the nominative case of the person who is the object (not the subject) in the sentence, is joined with the passive of the verb ; and this mode of construction is employed, instead of the active voice of the same verb, followed by the dative of the person who is the object ; t. g. vtvofioQiTriTO Xaw. The like construction is found in Paul's acknowledged writings. E. g. Rom. iii. 2, otl [auroi] tTricrTevdrjcrap tci Xoyin rev Qeov, they were intrusted mth the oracles of God, instead of saying, the oracles of God were ntrusted to them. Rom. vi. 17 — etc op Trapsdodrire tvttov ItlayjiQ, into jvhich model of doctrine ye have been delivered, instead of which form fir model of doctrine was dehve^ to you. 1 Tim. i. 11, o firLcertvQrw § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 145 fyu>, With which I was entrusted, instead of which was intrusted to rne, 6 eiriffrtvdr} fioi. This is a minuteness of grammatical construction, which a copyist of Paul would not be likely either to notice or to imitate. It affords, therefore, the more striking evidence, that all proceeded from the same hand. Finally, Paul frequently employs an adjective of the neuter gender, in order to designate generic quality , instead of using a synonymous noun : e. g. to yvuiarov, Rom. i, 19 ; to "xpriffTov, Rom. ii. 4 ; to hwaTov, Rom. ix. 22 ; to aZvvaTov, Rom. vii. 3 ; to aadeveg, 1 Cor. i. 25. Com- pare TO aixETadeToy, Heb. vi. 17 ; to (pavTa^o^Evov, Heb. xii. 21 ; ro \it)\ov, xii. 13. § 24. Remarks on the Comparisons made in the preceding sections. In the first place, without any hesitation, I concede thus much to those critics, who make light of the evidence drawn from such a com- parison as has now been made, viz. that no evidence of this nature can ever afford what is equivalent to a demonstration of the fact, for the support of which it is adduced. But, then, demonstration is what such a case neither admits nor demands. If the writer's' name were afKxed to the epistle, it would not amount to proof of this kind ; for, might it not have been put there by another person, in order to answer some designs of his own ? Nay, unless witnesses have given us testimony, who themselves saw Paul write the epistle, the proof is not of the highest kind that is possible ; nor even then would their testimony establish the fact, unless we could be well assured of their credibility. By such a criterion, however, the genuineness of no writing, ancient or modern, can be examined. It is generally enough for us, that an author's name is affixed to a writing. Prima facie, it is evidence that it belongs to him ; and it must be regarded as sufficient evidence, until it is contradicted either expressly, or by implication. Let us suppose now, that, after an author has published many pieces, and his style and sentiments have become well known, he publishes a composition of any kind, without affixing his name to it ; can there be no adequate, no satisfactory evidence, that it belongs to him ? This is the very question before us. I grant that similarity, or even sameness of sentiment, in different pieces, does not certainly prove iden- tity of authorship ; for the friends, or imitators, or disciples of any distinguished man, may imbibe the same sentiments which he inculcates, J- 146 § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. and exhibit them in similar words and phrases. I grant that the primi- tive teachers of Christianity were agreed, and must have been agreed, (supposing that they were under divine guidance,) as to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. But in respect to the mode of representing them ; in regard to the style, and diction, and urgency with which particular views of doctrine are insisted on ; what can be more various and diverse than the epistles of Paul, and James, and Peter, and John ? The reply to this, by critics who entertain sentiments different from those which I have espoused, is, that " the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was an intimate friend, or a studious imitator, of Paul ; a man of talents, who, with unqualified admiration of the apostle's sentiments, mode of reasoning, and even choice of words, closely imitated him in all these particulars. Hence the similarity between the writings of Paul and the epistle to the Hebrews." The possibility of this cannot be denied. Designed imitation has, in a few instances, been so successful as to deceive, at least for a while, the most sharp-sighted critics. Witness the imitation of Shakspeare which a, few years ago was palmed upon the English public, as the work of that distinguished poet himself. Witness also the well-known and long con- troverted fact, in respect to the pieces ascribed to Ossian, which are now known to be a forgery. But, after all, such attempts have very seldom been successful, even where the most strenuous efforts have been made at close imitation ; and these, with all the advantages which a modern education could afford. How few, for example, of the multitudes, who have aimed at copying the style of Addison or Johnson with the greatest degree of exactness, have succeeded even in any tolerable measure ; and none in such a way, that they are not easily distinguished from the models which they designed to imitate. Just so it was, in the primitive age of the church. The Christian world was filled with gospels and epistles, ascribed to Paul, and Peter, und other apostles and disciples. Yet no one of these succeeded in gaining any considerable credit among the churches ; and what little was ever gained by any of them, proved to be temporary, and of very small influence. This was not owing to want of exertion ; for strenuous efforts were made by writers to imitate the apostolic manner of writing, so as to gain credit for their supposititious pieces. But all of them failed. Indeed, nothing can be more egregious, or striking, than the failure. A comparison of any of the apocryphal writings of the New Testament, with the genuine writings of the same, shows a difference § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 147 heaven-wide between them, which the most undistinguishing intellect can hardly fail to discern. If, then, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was an imitator, a designed and close imitator, of the apostle Paul, he has succeeded, in such a way as no other writer of those times, or any succeeding ones, ever did. He has produced a composition, the sentiments of which, in their shade, and colouring, and proportion, (so far as his subjects are common with those in the acknowledged epistles of Paul,) are altogether Pauline. Nay, he has preserved not only the order of writing which Paul adopts ; but his mode of reasoning, his phraseology, and even his choice of peculiar words, or words used in a sense peculiar to the apostle. The imitation goes so far, it extends to so many particulars, important and unimportant, that, if our epistle was not written by Paul, it must have been an imitation of him which was the effect of settled design, and was accomplished only by the most strenuous effort. But here, while I acknowledge the possibility of such an imitation, I must, from thorough conviction, say, that the. probability of it does seem to be very small. With Origen, I must, after often -repeated study of this epistle, say. The sentiments are wonderful, and in no way behind those of the acknowledged writings of the apostles : ra vofjpara rj/c iTTi'ToXiiQ Qavfiaffia e^t, kol ov ^evrepa rutp aTro^oXiKwu o^o\oyovp.iv(iov ypnpjjiaTloy, Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 25. 1 cannot find any higher intensity of mind ; any more exalted conceptions of the true nature of Christianity, as a spiritual religion ; any higher views of God and Christ, or of the Christian's privileges and his obligations to believe in, love, and obey the Saviour ; any more noble excitements to pursue the Christian course, unawed by the threats and unallured by the temptations of the world ; or any so awful representations of the fearful consequences of unbelief, and of defection from Christianity. The man who wrote this epistle, has no marks of a plagiarist, or of an imitator, about him. Nothing can be more free and original than his thoughts, reasonings, and mode of expressing them. It is most evident, that they flow directly and warm from the heart. They are " thoughts that breathe, and words that jurn." Where, in all the ancient world, did ever a plagiarist, or an fcnitator, write in this manner ? A man who could form such conceptions m his mind, who could reason, and exhort, in such an impressive and awful manner ; has he any need of imitating — even Paul himself? No ; it may be said of him, (what Paul, on anothfer occasion, said of himself 148 § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. in comparison with his brethren,) that ** he was not a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles." Then, how could such a man be concealed, in the first ages of the church, when the memory of those who were very distinguished has been preserved so distinct, and with so much care and reverence, by ecclesi- astical tradition ? Men, who can write in this manner, cannot remain concealed any where. And the writer of such an epistle, it would seem, must have acted a part not less conspicuous than that of the great apostle of the Gentiles himself. But antiquity, we are told, has attributed this epistle to distinguished men in the early church; to Clement of Rome, to Luke, or to Barnabas; each of whom is known to have been the warm friend and admirer of Paul. I know this has been often alleged. But, fortunately, there are extant writings of each of these persons, with which our epistle may be compared ; and which serve to show how little foundation there is for such an opinion. But of this, more hereafter. I merely say, at present, that the great body of critics, for some time past, have agreed in reject- ing the opinion, which ascribes our epistle to either of the authors just mentioned. Who, then, did write it, if Paul did not ? And what is to be gained, by endeavouring to show the possibility that some other person wrote it, when so many circumstances unite in favour of the general voice of the primitive ages, that this apostle was the author? That the church, during the first century after the apostolic age, ascribed it to some one of the apostles, is clear from the fact, that it was inserted among the canonical books of the churches in the East and the West ; that it was comprised in the Peshito ; in the old Latin version ; and was certainly admitted by the Alexandrine and Palestine churches. Now, what apostle did write it, if Paul did not ? Surely neither John, nor Peter, nor James, nor Jude. The difference of style is too striking, between their letters and this, to admit of such a supposition. But what other apostle, except Paul, was ever distinguished in the ancient church as a writer ? None ; and the conclusion, therefore; seems to be altogether a probable one, that he was the writer. Why should all the circumstances which speak for him, be construed as relating to some unknown writer ? Are the sentiments unworthy of him ? Are they opposed to what he has inculcated ? Do they differ from what he has taught ? Neither. Why not, then, admit the probability that he was § 25. OBJECTIONS. 149 the author ? Nay, why not admit that the probability is as great as the nature of the case (the epistle being anonymous) could be expected to afford ? Why should there be any more objection to Paul as the author of this epistle, than to any other man ? My own conviction, if I may be permitted to express it, is as clear in respect to this point, as from its nature I could expect it to be. I began the examination of the subject unbiassed, if I was ever unbiassed in the examination of any question ; and the evidence before me has led me to such a result. But the arguments, which are urged against the opinion that I have now endeavoured to defend remain to be examined. They must not be passed over in silence, nor any of them be kept out of sight, to which importance can reasonably be attached. § 25. Objections. The objections made to the opinion, that Paul was the author of our epistle, are numerous. All the hints which ancient writers have given, by way of objection, have been brought forward, of late, and urged with great zeal and ability. Arguments internal and external, of every kind, have been insisted on. Indeed, the attack upon the Pauline origin of our epistle has been so warmly and powerfully made, by the last and present generation of critics on the continent of Europe, that most who are engaged in the study of sacred literature, seem inclined to think that the contest is over, and that victory has been won. So much, at least, must be conceded, viz. that those who admit the Pauline origin of this epistle, must make more strenuous efforts than they have yet made, in order to defend their opinion, and to satisfy objectors. To do this, is indeed a most laborious, and in many cases exceedingly repulsive task ; for of such a nature are many of the objections, thrown out at random, and asserted with confidence, that an attack which cost but a few moments' effort on the part of the assailant, costs days and weeks of labour, on the part of him who makes the defence. The question, however, is too important to be slightly treated, * Nor will it suffice for those who defend the Pauline origin of our epistle^ merely to select a few specimens of argument on the part of their oppo- nents, and, showing the insufficiency or inaccuracy of these, malte their appeal to the reader's sympathies, assuring him, that the rest of the arguments employed by their opponents are of a similar nature. There are readers, (and such are the men whose opinion on subjects of this 153 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. nature is most to be valued,) who will not be satisfied with cursory, hasty, half-performed examination ; and who, when you show them that one or more of an opponent's arguments is unsound, will not believe it to follow, of course, that all of them must be so. Above all, one must expect, that many doubters of the genuineness of our epistle, will not be satisfied with having only one side of the question presented. It is reasonable that they should not ; and if the objections, which have weight in their minds, cannot be as satisfactorily answered, as from the nature of the case might be justly expected, then let them have so much weight as is properly due to them. It is but fair to warn the reader, that in entering on this part of our subject, his patience will be tried, by the length and minuteness of the examination. Perhaps those only, who fully know the present state of critical effort and opinion with respect to the literature of our epistle, will be able to find an adequate apology for such particularity as the sequel exhibits. But such probably will feel, that the time has come, when objections must either be fully and fairly met, or those who defend the Pauline origin of our epistle must consent to give up their opinion, if they would preserve the character of candour. The present leaning of criticism is strongly against this origin ; and it is high time that the subject should receive an ample discussion. Whether the question at issue has been deeply, fundamentally, and patiently examined, by the principal writers who have given a tone to the present voice of critics, I will not venture either to affirm or to deny. I shall leave it to the reader, when he shall have gone through with an examination of these writers, to speak his own feelings. § 26. Objections by Bertholdt considered. • Bertholdt has collected and embodied all the objections made by pre- vious writers, which are worthy of particular consideration, in his Intro- duction to the books of the Old and New Testament. To these he has added some, which apparently were originated by himself. I shall briefly state his objections; subjoining to each, as I proceed, such remarks as the nature of the case may seem to demand. (1.) " It is a suspicious circumstance, and against the opinion that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, that he has not subscribed his name; since he says, in 2 Thess. iii. 17, that it was his practice to do this in order to show that letters, purportmg to be his, might thus be certainly known as being genuine." § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 151 The reply to this is obvious. After Paul had written his first epistle to the Thessalonian church, in which he had mentioned the second coming of Christ, it appears that some one had written another letter, counter- feiting his name, in which the day of the Lord had been represented as very near. On this account, Paul says, in his second letter to the same church, " Be not agitated by any message, or by any epistle as from me, in respect to the day of the Lord, as being already at hand," ii. 2. And then, to avoid the effects of any misrepresentation of this nature, for the future, he says, at the close of the letter, iii. 17, " This salutation from me, Paul, by my own hand. This is the proof [viz. of the genuineness of my letter] in every epistle [i. e. to your church;] so I write.** Let it now be noted, that the epistles to the Thessalonians were the first, in regard to time, which Paul wrote to any church; at least, the first that are now extant. Under circumstances like these, when letters to the Thessalonians had been forged in his name, can the assurance that he subscribes all his letters to them with his own hand, be taken as a proof, that, in all his future life, he should never address an anonymous letter to any church, in any circumstances ? (2.) "No good reason can be given why Paul should conceal his name. Does he not intimate, at the close of the letter, that he is yet in prison, but expects soon to be set at liberty ? Does he not ask their prayers that he may be speedily restored ? And does he not promise them a visit, in company with Timothy, if his return be speedy ? Why should Paul attempt to conceal himself, when he has developed circum- stances which evidently imply that he was not concealed, and that he did not desire to be so ?" But if this objection be of any validity, it is just as valid in respect to any other person, as to the writer of this letter. Why should any other writer attempt to conceal himself, when most clearly the tenor of the letter implies, that he must be known to those whom he immediately addresses ? If there be any incongruity here, it applies just as much to any other writer, as to Paul. But is there no good reason imaginable, why Paul should have with- held his name ? If he designed the epistle to be a circular among the Jews generally, (which from the nature of the discussion, comprising topics so interesting to them all, I am altogether inclined to believe was the case,) then might he not, as a measure of prudence, omit prefixing or subscribing his name directly, lest the prejudices of those Christians wh^ were zealots for the law might be excited, on the ^rs^ inspection of hi& 152 ^ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. epistle ? Ultimately, he might be, and must be known, if the letter was traced back to the church to whom it was first sent, and the inquiries jhade respecting it, which the circumstances mentioned at the close of it would naturally suggest. To this the writer would probably feel no objection; trusting that the arguments suggested in it might disarm pre- judiced readers, before they came to the certain knowledge of the author. Is it an unknown, unheard-of case, that men should write letters, anony- mously at first, but afterwards avow them ? Or that they should write letters, anonymous, but so circumstanced, and designedly so circum- stanced, that inquiry might ultimately lead to a knowledge of the author ? Granting, however, that neither the reason of Clement of Alexandria, nor of Eusebius, nor of Jerome, nor the reason now given, for the apostle's withholding his name, is satisfactory ; still is there no possibility that adequate reason may have existed for the letter being sent without the subscription of the writer*s name, of which reason we are ignorant ? Let it be whoever it may, that wrote the letter, does not the same difficulty, in every case, attend the explanation of its being anonymous 'i I can see no difierence ; unless we assume the position, that the writer meant it should be attributed to an apostle, and therefore concealed his own name. Such a writer, we cannot with any probability suppose the author of our epistle to have been. All — all is sincerity, fervent bene- volence, ingenuous and open-hearted dealing, throughout the whole. Besides, is the case in hand one that has no parallel ? Certainly not. The first epistle of John is altogether destitute of the author's name, or ot any internal marks that will lead us to know him, except what are con- tained in the style itself. Why should it be more wonderful, that Paul should write an anonymous letter, than that John should do it ? (3.) ** The Jews of Palestine had a great antipathy to Paul, and always persecuted him, when he came among them. How can it be supposed, that he should have addressed to them a letter, with the expectation that it would be read and regarded by them ?" That some of the zealots for the law, in Judea, were strongly opposed to Paul, is sufficiently evident from the history of his visits to Jerusalem. But, that the apostles and teachers there were his warm and decided friends, is equally evident from the same source. Moreover, that there were private Christians there, who cherished a very friendly feeling toward him, is evident from Acts xxi. 17, where, on his last visit there, the brethren {p\ iihXfoi) are said to have received him gladly. The perse- § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 153 eution, which ensued at this time, was first excited, as the historian expressly states, by Jews from Asia Minor, xxi. 27, But it is unneces- sary to dwell on this. At Ptolemais, xxi. 7, and at Cesarea, xxi. 8 seq., he had warm friends ; and at the latter place, he abode two whole years as a prisoner, before his removal to Rome. Were there no friends of his, then, in Palestine, among whom he could hope to find a listening ear ? no Christians, on whom he could hope that his arguments would make an impression ? And after all, did he ever cease to speak to the Jews, to admonish them, to dispute with them, in order to vindicate the religion which he had embraced, because they were prejudiced against him ? How unlike himself, then, does the objection which we are considering represent Paul to be ! He did not confer with flesh and blood ; he believed that the armour in which he was clad, was " mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong holds.'* (4.) " But there is internal evidence, from the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, and from circumstances mentioned in it, which render it impossible to believe that Paul was the author of it." This objection is a very ancient one. It was felt, as we have seen, by Clement of Alexandria ; deeper still, by Origen ; and adverted to by Eusebius, and other fathers of the church. It would seem, that there must be some real foundation for an objection, so long, so often, and confidently urged. Late critics have attributed an irresistible power to it. Eichhorn and Bertholdt maintain, that it lies so upon the very face of the whole epistle, that every reader must be impressed with it. So strong, indeed, are their impressions with respect to it, that they seem to require no other argument, in order to satisfy them that Paul could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews. That there are cases, where the general character of the style of one piece, is so plainly different from another, as to leave no doubt on the mind of a discerning reader that both did not, nay even could not, come from the same pen, certainly cannot be called in question. Who could ever attribute the epistles of John, to Paul, or to Peter, or to James ? But, that there are other cases, where the characteristic marks are not so discernible, and about which there may be a great difference of. feeling in respect to the style, is well known. For example ; the book oi Deuteronomy is ascribed by one set of critics, of high acquisitions and refined taste, of great acuteness and discriminating judgment, to Moses as the author, because it betrays every where, as they think, the most «»dubitable marks of his style and spirit. Another class of critics, 154 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. equally eminent for literary acquisition and discrimination, confidently draw the conclusion, that Moses could not have been the author, from the feelmg which they have, on reading it, that it is composed in a manner totally diverse from the style and spirit of Moses. Just such is the case, in regard to the speech of Elihu, in the book of Job. One party reject it as spurious, because their critical taste leads them to do so; and another holds it to be genuine, for the like reason. Isaiah, too, has met with the same fate. The last 26 chapters are now familiarly called Pseudo-Isaiah, by one party of critics ; while another strive to vindicate the whole book as genuine. Each party is equally confident, and equally satisfied of the validity of their arguments. But what is the humble inquirer to do, in the midst of all these contests of taste and of opinion ? How can he trust his feelings to decide, with confidence, in a case where the most acute and distinguishing critics differ in respect to the judgment that a critical tact should give ? He cannot do it with safety. In what way, then, shall one who examines for himself, be able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion? My answer, in all such cases, would be, make the ACTUAL COMPARISON ; collate sentiment with sentiment, phrase with phrase, words with words. This is the kind of proof that is palpable, and is not left to the uncertain tenor of feeling, excited by mere insulated perusal; a feeling which, in cases where the composition read is in 3. foreign language, must be a very uncertain guide ; and which, even in our own vernacular language, not unfrequently misleads us. Origen, as he avers, found, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the thoughts of Paul ; but the 2vords, he thinks, are better Greek {eWrfViKojrepa) than the apostle wrote. He, therefore, resorts to the supposition, that a translator had given to it its present Greek costume, who had received the sentiments from the mouth of Paul. But Eichhorn does not limit the difference, between the style of this epistle and those of Paul, to the quality of the Greek. " The manner of it," says he, " is more tranquil and logical than that in which Paul with his strong feelings could write. Every thing is arranged in the most exact order. The expression is well rounded, choice, and very clear in the representation which it makes. Paul is altogether different; he is unperiodical, involved, obscure, writes poor Greek, is given to rhapsody and aphorism," Einl. § 260. Bertholdt has repeated the same sentiment, in almost the same words, in his Introduction to this epistle, § 646. § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 155 If I might be allowed to express my own feelings, after having, for many years, annually devoted myself to the explanation of this epistle, translated it with all the care which I could bestow upon it, and minutely weighed every expression and word in it, I should say, that nothing could be more unfortunately chosen, than the epithet, " ruhig," equablcy tran- quily void of excitement yVi\\\c\i these distinguished critics have applied to its style. I appeal to every man's feelings who reads it, and ask, Are there, in the whole book of God, any warnings so awful as here, and expressed with such mighty energy ? Are there any threats of punish- ment for unbelief, so tremendous and impassioned as those in this epistle ? Then, as to " every thing being arranged in such exact order,*' as they aver, " conclusion following conclusion, all in the manner of a good rhetorician ;" the instances above produced, and which might easily be increased, of enthymemes, and suspended construction, exactly in the manner of Paul, may help to judge of this. Moreover, let any one make the attempt to translate this epistle into his own vernacular language, and he will then see whether all is so well rounded and perspicuous, as these critics represent it to be. I find ellipsis as frequent here, as in Paul's acknowledged writings. Any good translation, that exhibits the supply of these ellipses, and marks them by the common mode in which they are printed, demonstrates this to the eye. Hebraism I find here, as well and as often as in Paul. In short, I cannot but feel, in reading the epistle to the Hebrews, that the writer has reached the very summit of eloquence, and energy, and vivid representation, in many passages of his composition ; and I am constrained to make a similar acknowledgment, in respect to many passages of the known epistles of Paul. I cannot per- ceive any striking diversity in regard to these characteristics. To what cause, now, can it be attributed, that feelings so very differ- ent, in respect to the character of the style, should arise in the minds of men, when they read the epistle in question ? Two reasons for this, I apprehend, may be given. The first and principal one is, that the main topics of this epistle are so diverse from those generally treated of in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, that they required, of course and from necessity, a variety of words, phrases, and ideas, that either are not common, or are not at all to be found in his other epistles. This I regard as chiefly the ground of the judgment which has so often been passed in respect to dissimilarity of style. The other is, that one comes to the reading of this epistle, with his feelings impressed by the circumstance. l56 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. that there is a want of direct evidence about the author ; and conse- quently so tuned, as to be strongly agitated by any thing, which may seem to increase or diminish the probability that Paul was the author of it. That the doctrinal views, contained in this epistle, have made many willing to get rid of its canonical authority, if it could be done, is not by any means improbable. After all, however, in a question where there is such a difference of sentiment in regard to style, among those who are capable of judging, the appeal must be made, and can be made, only to actual comparison. Such an appeal I have endeavoured to make. To array mere feeling or apprehe7ision, arising from the perusal of the epistle, against actual comparisony can never be to judge by making use of the best means of judging. Origen's authority, in this case, cannot go far with any one who chooses to examine and decide for himself. Origen, with all his talents and learning, was far enough from being a Cicero or a Quintilian, in respect to taste and nice discernment of differ- ences of style. He makes assertions equally confident, in other cases, that will not bear the test of examination ; and assertions, too, that have respect to the Greek language, his mother tongue. For example, he says that the want of the article before Oeoc, in John i. 1, proves that the writer cannot have meant to designate the supreme God by this word. Now, whether the supreme God be meant, or not, can never be determined by such a rule ; for it is usual, in the Greek language, that the predicate of a proposition should be without the article, while the subject com- monly has it. Moreover, in the very same chapter, Qeoq stands without the article, in more than one instance, incontrovertibly, for the supreme God; e. g. in verses 6. 12, 13. 18. Whether Origen's opinion, then, about the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, is well founded or not, is a proper subject o^ examination. The result of comparison has shown, that in respect to sentiment, phraseology, and diction, the epistle is filled with the peculiarities of Paul. I doubt whether any one of Paul's acknowledged epistles, compared with the others, will supply more, or more exact resemblances. I know, indeed, that no critic can be argued out of feelings of this sort in respect to style. But he may reasonably be called upon to state the ground of those feelings ; specially so, when he asserts, with a con- fidence which is intended to influence others, that the style of the epistle to the Hebrews cannot be Paul's. (5.) But Bertholdt has made the appeal to fact. He has produced words and expressions which, he says, *' are not Pauline, and which § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 157 serve satisfactorily to show, that Paul could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews." 1 proceed to examine them. (a) In Hebrews xiii. 7. 17. 24, the word riyovfieroi is used for teachers ; Paul every where employs the word ZtZaaKaXoL for this pur- pose," p. 2937. The allegation, that Paul every where uses the word ZiZaffKoKoi to designate teachers, is far from being correct. He uses, besides this, the words TTpeapuTspog, 1 Tim. v. 1. 17. 19 ; Tit. i. 5 ; kiricrKOTroQ, Acts xx. 28 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7 ; ironxriv, Eph. iv. 11. Very natural for Paul it must have been, to apply a variety of appellations to Christian ministers, which would correspond with those applied to religious teachers in the Jewish synagogues. These were D^"!?, pastor, leader, guide, •prefect ; -^TJ^D, leader, guide ; Tj)^, ruler, prefect ; and ^')7>^, guide, director. What could be more natural, then, than for Paul, when writing to Hebrews, to call the teachers in their churches ^yov/xevot, which corresponds quite well with all of the above appellations, that they had been accustomed to give to their religious teachers ? Besides, the argu- ment of Bertholdt, if admitted, would prove too much. The same mode of reasoning must lead us to conclude, that those epistles, in which Christian teachers are called eTricrKorrot, cannot be reckoned as Paul's, because ZidaffKakot is not used instead of iTriaKOTroi. The same may be said, in respect to the use of the words Troi^eVcc and TrpsafivTepoi. The consequence would be, that several of Paul's now acknowledged epistles could not be ascribed to him. But who, that knows the variety of appellations employed to designate teachers in the Jewish synagogues, can attribute any critical weight to the fact, that such a variety of Greek terms is used, corresponding with the Hebrew appellations that were familiar to those whom our author addressed ? And of all these Greek names of pastors, certainly, none better corresponds with the Hebrew ones, than the word fjyovfxevoi, employed in our epistle. It may be added, too, that Paul employed a term here, not at all unique ; for the same appellation is given to teachers, in Luke xxii. 26 ; Acts xiv. 12 ; XV. 22, (b) *' In the epistle to the Hebrews, Karix^iv pe^aiav is used for holding fast, Heb. iii. 6. 14 ; and Karix^iv aKkiyfj, in Heb. x. 23 ; while Paul uses only Karix^iv simply, 1 Cor. xi. 2 ; xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 21." On examination, I find the verb Karixoi, in the sense of holding fast, carefully retaining, to be exclusively Pauline. This word, then, affords an argument, to establish a conclusion, the reverse of that for which it is 158 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. adduced by Bertholdt. The addition of (3e(3aiay or uKXiyr} is evidently for the purpose merely of intensity ; just as we may join an adverb to a verb for this purpose, or we may refrain from the use of it^and still employ the same verb simply in the same sense. What could be more natural, now, than for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to employ words of intensity, while in the state of strongly excited feeling in which he wrote ? (c) " In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find elq to ^irjreKec, vii. 3, and eiQ TO iravTeXeg, vii. 25, used to designate the idea of for ever ; while Paul always uses iIq tovi: alQraQ." Our author also employs alwy, in the epistle to the Hebrews, no less than nine times in the like way ; viz. i. 8 ; v. 6 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 17. 21. 24. 28; xiii. 8. 21. Is it a matter of wonder, then, that he should sometimes employ other words for the same purpose, which were syno- nymous ; specially, if those words belonged both to common and to Hebrew Greek ? Such is the fact, in respect to both the words in ques- tion. AiijvEKE£ is used by iElian, Var. Hist. i. 19 ; by Appian, Bell. Civ. i. p. 682 ; Heliod. Ethiop. i. p. 25. Lucian, V. H. i. 19; by Symmachus, translator of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, Ps. xlviii. 15. UavTeXsQ is used by iElian, vii. 2 ; xii. 20 ; by Josephus, Antiq. vi. 2, 3 ; and by Luke, xiii. 1 1 . But whether the sense of the word TravTeXeg, in Heb. vii. 25, is for ever, may be doubted. Its etymology would lead to the sense of pror- suSy omninOy i. e. entirely, altogether, thoroughly ; and so, many critics have construed it. Such is clearly the meaning of TrarreXwc, e. g. Jos. Antiq. iv. 6, 5 ; 2 Mace. iii. 12. 31; vii. 40; and so Bretschneider construes elc to TravrcXec, in Heb. vii. 25, in his recent Lexicon. But supposing it does mean for ever, in the case before us, can the argument, derived from the employment of such synonymes with elg rovs aliovag, as belong to common and to Hebrew Greek, be of any validity to show that Paul could not have written our epistle ? (d) " AlwrtQ, in the sense of universe, is used only in the epistle to the Hebrews, i. 2 ; xi. 3. Paul employs other terms to designate the same idea, such as to. Travra, &c." Paul, in the phrase rw PaaiXeH tCjv aiwvwv, 1 Tim. i. 17, has employed the word in the same sense as it is used in the epistle to the Hebrews ; and, as the use of the w^ord aiwv, in such a sense is limited to Paul and to our epistle, so far as the New Testament is concerned, it would seem to prove the reverse of what Bertholdt has adduced it to establish. § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOI.DT. 159 (e) ** The word iriariQ is always used by Paul, in the restricted sense of tt'kttlq eh 'Irjaovv XpiaTov ; in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is employed in a much wider latitude." So Bertholdt, p. 2939 ; and to the same purpose Eichhorn Einlet. p. 462. This objection has been repeated, greatly magnified, and dwelt upon, by Schulz, Brief an die Hebrder, p. 112, seq. ; and by SeyfFarth, de JSpist. ad Heb. indole, % 33. These latter writers represent -niaTiQ, when used by Paul, as always having reference to Christ or the Chris- tian religion, as such ; whereas iriariQ, in our epistle, relates, they aver, only to God or to things future, and means a firm confidence in the de- clarations of God respecting them ; a sense in which, as they think, Paul never employs the word. I have united the objections and views of these writers under one head, in order to save the repetition of this subject. It deserves an attentive consideration. There can be no doubt that Paul, in a multitude of cases, employs TTtoTtc to designate belief in Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer. He often employs it to designate that state of mind, which trusts in his propitiatory sacrifice or blood as the means of salvation, in opposition to any trust or confidence in our own merit as the ground of acceptance. But to aver, that the author of our epistle does not disclose similar views in regard to the nature and importance of faith or belief in Christ, seems to be quite contrary to the whole tenor of the epistle. What is the object of the whole ? Plainly, to prevent apostacy, i. e. renunciation of belief in Christ. But why is such a renunciation criminal and dan- gerous? Because Christ is of infinite dignity, and because, when belief in his blood is renounced, " there remaineth no further sacrifice for sin." To what purpose is the awful example of the effects of unbe- lief, proposed in chapter iii., except to warn the Hebrews against renouncing belief in Christ ? To what purpose are the parallels drawn, in chapter iii. — x., between Christ and Moses; Christ and Melchise- dek ; and also between the great High Priest of the Christian religion, and the Jewish priests ; between the sacrifice offered by the former, and the sacrifices made by the latter — but for the sake of warning the Hebrews against renouncing \hQ\x faith in Christ ? Plainly for no other purpose. All the warnings, reproofs, and tremendous denunciations in the epistle, converge to the same point ; they all have a bearing upon the same spe- cific object. 160 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. In respect to the allegation, that faith, in our epistle, is employed to denote belief or confidence in the declarations of God, specially with regard to the objects of a future world ; this is true. But it is true, also, that Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, employs it in a similar manner. E. g. in Rom. iv. 17—23, Paul represents Abraham, under the most unpromising circumstances, as believing that God would raise up from him, already vevEKptofiivoyf a numerous progeny. This belief he represents as an act of faith, eTritrrevffe — firj aadrivrjaaQ ttj iritTTEi — oh SieKpidtj TTJ aTriariif. — wkqpo^op-qQtXg — iXoylffdrj j^ 'A/3paa/x [fi iricrrig] elc BiKnioavt'Tjy. On the other hand, our epistle, xi. 8, seq., represents Abraham as going out from his country, and sojourning in a strange land, TTi'ffTEi. By faith, also he obtained a son, even when he was vepEKpoifii- vof, xi. 12, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring. Both these accounts characterise this whole transaction in the same way. Both describe the same acts as being faith, on the part of Abraham. Both describe his physical state, by calling him vEviKpio^kvov. Both treat the whole transaction as a rare instance of the power of faith, and appeal to it as an example most worthy of imitation. Surely here is something different from discrepancy of views in these writers. Is there not a coincidence, which is altogether striking, both in the manner and lan- guage of the epistles ? But there are other circumstances in the account of Abraham, whicK deserve distinct notice. Paul, in Rom, iv. 17, seq., represents Abraham as believing the divine assurance, that he should become the father of many nations ; the assurance of that God, " who restoreth the dead to life, and calleth things that are not, into being." In this expression, the apostle evidently refers to the belief which Abraham entertained, that, in case he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, God could and would raise him from the dead, or call another son into being, from whom a numerous progeny should descend. So in Heb. xi. 17, seq., the writer represents Abraham as offering up Isaac, ill faith that God was able to raise him from the dead, from whence, as it were, he did obtain him, i. e. Isaac sprung from one apparently vEVEKpufiiyoe, ver. 12. In both cases the writers have charac- terised the state of Abraham's mind, on this occasion, by representing it as faith, imaTEvffE, iriffTEi. In both, they disclose the same specific views of the point on which the faith of Abraham rested, and they cha* racterise it in the same way. I 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTH OLDT. 161 Is not here a minute coincidence of thought, expression, and manner of representing faith, which creates strong presumption in favour of the opinion, that the writer in both cases was the same person. Again, in Heb. xi., Noah is represented as being divinely admonished respecting future occurrences, and as preparing an ark for his safety, in consequence of his faith in the admonition which he had received. The writer, then, proceeds to say, that by this act, he became an heir, r^c Kara ttL^iv hKaioarvyrjSj of that jtistification which is by faith ; the very expression, and the very idea, which Paul so often repeats in his acknowledged epistles, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. What other writer of the New Testament, except Paul, has employed such an expression ? It is true, indeed, that the author of our epistle does represent faith, in Heb. xi., as confidence in the declarations of God respecting future things. But it is equally true, that this was the view of it which he was naturally led to present, from the circumstances of the case before him. His appeal was to the worthies of former days, as examples of belief Belief in what ? Not in Christianity surely, which had not then been revealed. Could the writer, when characterizing the actual nature of their faith, represent it as a belief in that which was not yet disclosed to them ? Surely not ; but he must represent, and does represent it, as a belief in what God had disclosed to them. The nature of the case rendered it impossible that their faith should be represented in any other light than this. Just so Paul, in Rom. iv., represents the faith of Abraham q.s justify- ing faith, and appeals to it in proof of the fact, that faith is a means of justification. Yet not a word is said there of Abraham's belief in Christ. In what respect does this case differ from that of all the examples cited in Heb. xi. ? Rather, is there not a sameness of principle in the two instances of faith ? Both respect y^^wre things depending on the promise of God ; neither have any special reference to Christ. The truth is, th^d faith, in its generic nature, is belief, or confidence in the promises or revelations of God. Now, whether these respect things future, things of another world, or things past, or the nature, character, offices, and work of the Messiah, faith receives them all. Faith, therefore, in the ancients, who gave entire credit to what was revealed to them, was the same principle as faith in him who believes in Christ, because Christ is proposed to him. Circumstances only make any apparent difference in the case. The disposition is always the same. M 162 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. That Paul thought thus of this subject, is clear enough from tlie example of Abraham, which he cites as a signal instance of justifying faith, in Rom. iv. But, besides this, we have other proof that Paul has not always represented faith as having reference only to Christ, but also represented it, as it commonly appears in our epistle. So 2 Cor. v. 7, We walk by fait hi and not by sight, i. e. we live as those who confide or believe in the realities of a future world, not like those who regard only visible objects. So too, in 1 Cor. xiii. 13. In 1 Thess. i. 8, we have ri TTi^iQ vfxiov fj irpoQ roy Qeov ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, rrhig kv t^ avrc^ Trvevfjiari. So in 1 Cor. xiii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iv, 13 ; Eph. vi. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, and in many other passages, faith has a variety of meanings, and is not limited to belief in Christ only, I am unable to see, therefore, why this argument should be so strenu- ously urged, as it is by Schulz and others, and relied upon as so decisive. I can see no other difference between the faith of our epistle, and that which the writings of Paul present, than what the nature of the examples to which our author appealed necessarily requires. When Paul makes a like appeal, he treats the subject in the same way, Rom. iv. And nothing can be farther from correctness, than to aver that Paul always employs ttUiq in the sense of Christianity , believing on Christ. Merely opening a Greek lexicon or concordance, on the word TrtVtG, is ample refutation of this assertion. Paul employs the word, in all the latitude which is elsewhere given it in the New Testament ; and that embraces a great variety of specific significations, nearly all of which range themselves under the general idea of confidence in the divine decla- rations. That it is the great object of our epistle to inculcate belief in Christ, and to warn the Hebrews against unbelief, I suppose will not be denied. What foundation, then, can Schulz have for saying, that *' the Pauline idea of belief is altogether foreign to this writer?" Above all, how could he add, " A sentence, like the Pauline one, o ovk iic ni'^Kog, afiapria I'^i, would sound strange enough in the epistle to the Hebrews." Yet, strange as it may seem, in Heb. ix. 6, we have, x^P'^s ^^ TrUewQ a^vvarov ehape'^rjffaL [Ge^.] On the whole, the representation of faith, in our epistle, as it respects the case of Abraham and Noah, is not only exactly the same as that of Paul's, but, in the mode of representation, are found such strong resem- olances, as to afford no inconsiderable ground for supposing that the writer of both must have been the same person. § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 163 (f) " SapKiKot;, in the sense of transient , temporary, is used only in the epistle to the Hebrews." But, first, this is a disputed reading. Not to rely on this, however, aapiciKog in the sense of weak, imperfect, is common in Paul ; a sense substantially the same with the one demanded here. Bretschneider renders it, in Heb. vii. 16, ad naturam animalem spec tans ; which is a usual sense, but not admissible here, on account of the antithesis, i^wijc aKaToXvTov. Let it be, then, an aira^ Xeyofievov as to sense here ; are there not such in nearly all of Paul's epistles ? E. g, tlovaia, 1 Cor. xi. 10, in the sense of veil ; in 1 Cor. ix. 12, in the sense of property ; and so of many other words. (g) " The phrase oiKovfiivri fieWovffa, Heb. ii. 5, for the Christian dispensation, is no where found in Paul's acknowledged epistles, in which he always employs alu)v /zcAAwv.'* But are not olKovfiivri and alibv employed as synonymes in the New Testament ? Both correspond to the Heb. D?*!^. Besides, in Heb. vi. 5, this very phrase, atwv fjiiWojv, is employed by the writer in the sense of Christian dispensation. Must the same writer always employ the very same phraseology, when he has a choise of synomymous words ? Besides, it is not true that Paul uses the phrase alw*/ fxeXXojy for the Christian dispensation. Once only does he employ it, Eph. i. 21, and then simply in the sense of future world. (h) " But where is Christ called a High Priest and an Apostle, except in Heb. iii. 1.? It cannot be imagined, that the reverence which the apostles bore to their Master, would permit them to call him an apostle.'* As to the appellation apxi^Epevg, nothing could be more natural, than for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to apply this to Christ. He labours to prove, that Christianity has a preference over Judaism in all respects ; that, consequently, it has a High-priest exalted above the Jewish one. How could the writer avoid calling Christ a High Priest ? If Paul has no where done this in his acknowledged epistles, it may be for the obvious reason, that he has no where drawn such a comparison in them. In respect to aTrooroXoc, Wetstein has shown, on John ix. 7, that one of the names which the Jews applied to their expected Messiah, was Tlwp , i. e. sent, apostle. Besides, a common name of a prefect of the Jewish synagogue, was "I'lBl^Il rT/t^^, aTrooroXoc ttjq iKKXrifiac ; in the. Apocalypse, ayyeXor rfJQ eKKXrjaiag. Now, the object of the writer, M 2 164 ^26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. HI Heb. iii, 1, seq. is, to compare Christ as appointed over the household of God, with Moses in a similar office. Since then H'b^ meant curator itdis sacrcBy adituus, and such an office was the very object of compa- rison, nothing can be more natural, than that our author should have named Christ TXhy) i. e. cnzoaTokoQ. See Comm. on Heb. iii. 1. And why should it be considered as incompatible with that reverence which Paul had for Christ, that he should call him aTroaroXog ? The same Paul, in Rom. xv. 8, calls Jesus Christ Iiclkovov ttjq TrepironfJQ. ^^ ^laKoyog, a more honorable appellation than airoffToXog ? Or because Paul calls Christ SicLKovoQ in this case, are we to draw the inference, that he did not write the epistle to the Romans, since this word is nowhere else applied by him in this manner ? Such a conclusion would be of the same nature, and of the same validity, as that which Bertholdt has drawn from the use of airoffToXog and apx^^P^^c ^^ *^G epistle to the Hebrews. Thus much for words an^ phrases, Bertholdt next brings forward sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews, which are diverse, he says, from Paul's, if not in opposition to them. (1.) " In Heb. x. 25, seq., the speedy coming of Christ is mentioned ; and so it is often by Paul. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is evidently a moral coming, a moral change ; whereas Paul every where speaks of it as an actual visible coming of Christ." This difficulty depends entirely upon the writer's exegesis. Whatever the nature of the coming of Christ may be, I venture to say, it is pal- pably represented in the same manner, in the epistle to the Hebrews and in the epistles of Paul. Indeed, so far has the representation, in the epistle to the Hebrews, appeared to be from being plainly a moral one, that some of the most distinguished commentators have understood it, as having respect to the natural changes that are to take place, when Christ shall come at the end of the world. So Storr ; and others, also, before and after him. Paul surely has little or nothing, which more cer- tainly designates the actual^ visible coming of Christ, than this epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5, 6. Phil. i. 10. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iii. 13. v. 1—6; ver. 23. 1 Tim. vi. 13—16. Tit. ii. 11—13. Compare, also, with these representations, 2 Thess. ii. 1 — 10, where Paul explains his views in respect to the coming of Christ. Indeed, so much alike is the represen- tation of this subject, in the epistle to the Hebrews and in Paul's epistles, that many critics have used this very circumstance as a proof, that the xiuthor of both /nust have been the same person ; an argument not valid § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 165 however, because the same representation is common to* other writers ol the New Testament. Still, the mention of this serves to show, that the exegesis of Bertholdt, in this case, is not to be relied on with such con- fidence as he places in it. (2.) " According to the epistle to the Hebrews, the propitiatory office of Christ continues ybr ever m the heavenly world, vii. 24, seq.; whereas Paul, on the contrary, considers the atonement for men as already com- joleted by the death and resurrection of Jesus, Rom. iv. 25." This argument is surely not well chosen. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews says, in so many words, that the High Priest of Christianity had no daily necessity, like the Jewish priests, to make offerings first for his own transgressions and then for those of the people; " for this he did once for all, when he made an offering of himself, vii. 27.'* And again : ^* Nor had he need often to repeat the sacrifice of himself, (as the high priest yearly enters into the holy place with blood not his own;) for then he must have suffered often since the foundation of th€ world ; but now, in this last age, he has appeared, once for all, to put away sin by the' sacrifice of himself. And as all men die, once for all, and then go to the judgment ; so Christ was offered up, once for all, to take away tlie sins of many ; and when he shall make his second appearance, it will not be to atone for sin, but to bestow salvation on those who look for him," ix. 25 — 28. How can words make it more certain, that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews considered the propitiation or atone- ment as entirely completed^ by the death of Christ ? It is true, indeed, that the same author also represents Christ as for ever living, and exercising the duties of his office as an intercessor (or helper) for the saints, before God : " He, because he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood ; whence he is able to save to the uttermost those who come unto God through him, since he ever lives to intercede for {evrvyxaveiyj to help) them," vii. 24, 25. With which agrees another representation, in ix. 24 ; ** Christ has entered into heaven itself, henceforth to appear before God for us.'* But are these sentiments foreign to Paul, as Bertholdt alleges ; '* Who shall accuse the elect of God ? — God acquits them. Who shall pass sentence of condemnation upon them ? Christ, who died for them ? Rather, who is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, and who intercedes for (ivrvyx"''^*) helps) them," Rom. viii. 33. Here is not only the very same idea as in the epistle to the Hebrews, but even the very same term {errvyxrweii') is used in both. Instead then 166 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. of affording any evidence against the opinion, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, the point in question affords evidence in favour of it. Paul, and Paul only, of all the apostolic authors, has presented the idea of the zn^ercesseow of Christ in the heavenly world. To say the least, the whole mode of representing this subject is Pauline. The only dif- ference between the epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews is, that in the latter case, the nature of the argument which the writer had employed, required him to represent Christ as performing the func- tions of a priest in the heavenly world. But it is palpably the interces- sory function, which he is represented as continuing there to perform, in the passages which I have cited. (3.) " The doctrine respecting the LogoSj in the epistle to the Hebrews, is of Alexandrine hue, and evidently resembles that of John, and not of Paul. E. g. the divine Logos (Aoyoe O^ov) is quick and powerful, &c., iv. 12, 13 ; also, Christ is a priest, Kara Ivvajxiv ^ojfjc aKaToXvTov, vii. 16. So, too, when Christ is represented as making an offering lia TrveviiaroQ alioviov, ix. 14, this, as well as the other cases, coincides with the views and representations of John, and not of Paul.'* If now a critic will do such violence to the laws of exegesis, as to con- strue these passages so as to make them have respect to the doctrine of the Logos, the best way to answer him would be, to show that his prin- ciples of interpretation are without any good foundation. I cannot turn aside to do this here, as it more properly belongs to the exegetical part of the work. I shall content myself with merely observing, that one of the last ideas, which can well be deduced from the passage respecting the \6yoQ Oeov just referred to, is that which Bertholdt has deduced from it ; a deduction, which does equal violence to the context, and to the whole strain of reasoning, in our epistle. And where does John speak of Christ's eternal priesthood, or of his offering made in heaven ha TTVEVfxaroQ alijjviov'l At the conclusion of the arguments which I have now reviewed, Bertholdt adds, " With such real discrepancies between the epistle to the Hebrews and those of Paul, it is impossible that identity of author- ship should exist," p. 2943. If, indeed, the discrepancies were made out as clearly as Bertholdt supposes them to be, there might be some difficulty in supposing identity of authorship ; at least we could not suppose this, without at the same time conceding, that the writer was at variance in some measure with himself. But the conclusion which Bertholdt here draws, of course § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 167 depends entirely on the fact, that all his allegations in respect to discre- "ancies of style and sentiment are well supported. Whether this be so, tiust now be left to the reader to judge. But there are other recent writers, who remain to be examined, that nave gone into the subject under discussion much more thoroughly and copiously than Bertholdt. I refer in particular to Dr. Schulz of Breslau, in the introduction to his Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews^ with brief notes, published A. D. 1818; and to Seyffarth, in his tract, De EpistolcB ad Heb. indole maxime peculiari. This last work especially has been spoken of with strong commendations by many critics ; and Heinrichs, who in the first edition of his Commentary on the Hebrews defended the Pauline origin of our epistle, has, in the second edition of the same, declared himself a convert to the side of those who disclaim Paul as the author; attributing his conviction principally to the essay of Seyffarth just mentioned. As these works are the latest critical attempts to discuss at length the question under examination, and as they have manifestly had no small degree of influence upon the views of most of the continental critics of the present time, a particular examinar tion of them becomes necessary. §27. Objections of Schulz considered. That Dr. Schulz is a man entitled to high respect for acuteness and strength of intellectual power, is sufficiently manifest from his work on the Sacrament, entitled Die Christl. Lehre vom heiL Abendmahlej nach dem Grundtexte des N. Testaments, A. D. 1824 ; a work which, from the talent it developes, and the discussion that it has excited, bids fair per- haps to bring this long-controverted subject to some close in the Lutheran church. His acquisitions of a philological nature are such, also, that great expectations were excited among not a few in Germany (if the Reviews are to be credited,) when it was announced that Dr. Schulz's commentary on our epistle was about to appear. I make these remarks principally to show, that a particular attention to his work is not only allowable on the present occasion, but really necessary, if one would even seem to preserve the attitude of impartiality. This work was published a year before Bertholdt's volume, which con- tains the views that I have just examined. But this writer informs us, that he had not seen the work of Schulz when his own went to the press ; consequently, this author, as far as we are now concerned, may be con- sidered as posterior to Bertholdt. 168 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. Nearly the whole Introduction of Schulz is devoted to the considera- tion of the question, Who was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ? or rather, to showing that Paul was not the author, pp. 1 — 158. Previously to writing this, the author had been engaged in controversy on the sub- ject with his colleague Scheibel. The whole work bears the appearance of a heated, if not an exasperated state of mind ; and while it discloses some vivid thoughts and pungent considerations, it also discloses some adventurous remarks and extravagant criticisms ; to which the sequel of this examination will bear testimony. The first fifty pages are devoted to the examination of Meyer's Essat^ on the internal grounds for supposing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul.* In this are some remarks worthy of consider- ation, and which may serve to show that Meyer, in some cases, has pushed his comparisons too far. It is not to my purpose, however, to review this; as the subject has already been presented above, in §21. My only object is, to select from Schulz such arguments against the Pauline origin of our epistle, as have not already been examined, in order that the reader may obtain a full view of our subject. These argu- ments I shall now subjoin, with such remarks upon each, as the nature of the case may seem to require. (1.) " It is incomprehensible, and indeed quite impossible, that, if Paul wrote this epistle, early Christian antiquity should have been so doubtful about it, and the epistle itself have been received by the church so late, and with so much difficulty ; and, after all, received only by some, and not at all by the generality of Christians. Such a fate did no other book of the New Testament meet with ; not even the epistles which are addressed to individual persons," p. 58. This objection borrows all its importance from assuming the fact, that our epistle was early and generally doubted in the churches, and at last but partially and doubtingly received. Whether Schulz had any good right to assume such a fact, must be left to the judgment of those who have read and weighed with impartiality the historical evidence already laid before them. It is unnecessary to retrace the ground here, which has once been passed over. The state of facts is far enough from show- ing, that all early Christians were doubtful about this epistle ; nor can it be rendered probable, in any way, that doubts about it, at any period, * Printed in Ammon and Bertholdl's Kiitisches Journal der neueslen Theol. Literatur. ii. 225, seq. § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 162 had their origin in any ancient tradition that the epistle was not written by Paul. The doubts suggested are merely of a critical nature, or else they originated in doctrinal opinions, which seemed to be thwarted by our epistle. Nor is it correct, that other parts of the New Testament were not early doubted by some churches ; nay, some of it was doubted by many. Witness the fact, that Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 25, classes among the avTiKeyofxtvoi, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Witness the fact, that the old Syriac version (Peshito) does not comprise either of these epistles, that of James excepted. Who, that is acquainted with the early state of criticism, and the history of our Canon, does not know that the ancient churches were not, for a long time, agreed in respect to all these epistles ? Yet neither Schulz, nor any considerate critic, would decide that these books were spurious, because doubts had been raised respecting them. Are not the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John doubted, and called in question, by some learned critics, even at the pre- sent time ? Shall they be given up, because they are called in question? (2.) " The epistle to the Hebrews is altogether unique; so much so, that no other writer of the New Testament could have produced it. Every one who can comprehend peculiarities, and is able to distinguish them, must acknowledge this to be so. Nothing more than this fact needs to be considered, in order to decide the matter," p. 59. If the writer here means that the style is unique j then I must refer to the evidences of the contrary in the preceding pages. If he means that the selection of particular words is unique^ this is to be hereafter con- sidered, when the selection, which Dr. Schulz has made, comes to be examined. If he means, that the matter is sui generis, I readily accede; but I demur to the allegation. Must Paul always write on one and the same subject to all the churches ? Were their circumstances and wants all just the same? E. g. Is the first epistle to the Corinthians just like that to the Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, &c.; or is it a kind of aira^ Xeyofjierov, or uttu^ Xoyi^ofievov, compared with all the other epistles of Paul ? Surely none of the others has much resemblance to it, in respect to the matters treated of. Does it then follow, that this epistle is spurious, because the subjects of it are sui generis ? And is it any better evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to Paul, because the subjects of which it treats are peculiar? When we can prove that the wants of all churches are one and the same ; and that an apostle who addresses them can write, or ought to write, only upon 170 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. one subject, and in one way; then, and not till then, can this argument, of Schulz have any weight in deciding the question before us. (3.) " The Hebrews addressed in this epistle are of a peculiar class. They seem to have regarded themselves as a species of illuminati, elect, and favourites of heaven ; as animated by the Holy Spirit dwelling in them ; they are represented as despising the world, as inclined to mys- tical and allegorical views, as aiming at the acquisition of unearthly objects, &c. The epistle wins much for its exegesis, by such a suppo- sition," p. 67, seq. But supposing, now, all this to be correct, (which it would be difficult enough satisfactorily to prove,) how would it show that Paul did not write our epistle to them ? And, surely, if the Hebrews had such views of themselves, what the apostle says, in chapter v. vi., and in some other places, was well adapted. to humble them, and bring them to sober consideration. The proof, on which Dr. Schulz relies for the establishment of his assertion, is drawn from the use, by the writer of our epistle, of such terms as ay tot, ^wrtcSei/ree, riXeioi, otyia^o^cvot, Xaog rov Qtov, &c. But these are terms applied to Christians, everywhere in the New Testament, and to the use of which nothing peculiar in our epistle can be justly attributed. (4.) ^' The author of this epistle was a Judaizing Christian, who grants that Judaism is still to continue, yea, to have a perpetual duration. Not a trace of any thing is to be found, which intimates an equal parti- cipation in the privileges of the gospel by Jews and Gentiles," pp. 74. 80. The Jirst of these allegations is, so far as I know, altogether neiv. Nothing more need be said in respect to it, than to refer the reader to chapters viii. — x. for most ample and satisfactory confutation. I had ever thought, before reading Dr. Schulz, that the writer of our epistle was the last of men who could be justly accused of Judaizing. If his views do not agree with those of Paul in respect to this matter, I am unable to see how language could express them. In regard to the second allegation ; it is sufficient to say, that the object of the writer did not lead him to treat of the subject to which it relates. Are there not other epistles of Paul which do not bring this subject to view? And must a writer always repeat the same topics ? In what part of the first epistle to the Corinthians does Paul treat of the equal participation of Jews and Gentiles in the privileges of the gospel, and maintain the equal right of the latter ; as he does in the epistles td § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 171 the Romans and Galatians ? And is it not enough to say, that he did not do this, because the occasion did not demand it ? (5.) " But Christ, in our epistle, appears every where as the Son of God, as Apostle, and High Priest. Where is he so represented by Paul?" p. 81, seq. In regard to the appellation, Son of God, it is often enough given to Christ by Paul. In respect to dTrdoroXoe and apj^^Lspevg, he is not so called, indeed, by the apostle in his acknowledged epistles. The only reason why the writer of our epistle calls him so, is obviously one drawn from the nature of the comparison instituted between him and Moses, and between him and the Jewish high-priest. The nature of the com- position, and the object of the writer, rendered this unavoidable. In the acknowledged epistles of Paul, no such occasion is presented of using the appellations in question. See above, p. 163. (6.) ** The design of the writer is hortatory/. The motives which he urges to continue stedfast in the Christian belief, and in the practice of Christian virtue, are drawn, (1.) From the great dignity of the Messiah ; (2.) From the danger to which apostacy would expose them. This danger is augmented by the consideration, that the end of the world is near at hand, p. 86, seq. Storr, and others, who differ iu their exegesis of passages which declare this, scarcely deserve contra- diction," p. 91. The whole force of this rests, of course, upon the correctness of Dr. Schulz's exegesis. From his views, in regard to such passages as X. 36, seq. and xii. 26, seq., I feel myself compelled entirely to dissent. But even if they are allowed, I see not how they can establish the fact, that Paul did not write our epistle, provided we stand upon the same ground with Dr. Schulz. He will not deny that Paul had exalted views of the dignity of the Saviour, and of the obligation of Christians to con- tinue stedfast in their acknowledgment of him. He believes that Paul, too, expected the end of the world to be actually near at hand. What is there, then, in the sentiments of our epistle, inconsistent with these views of Paul, as understood by him ? (7.) " Our author says nothing of Christ as judge of the world, but uniformly attributes judgment to God. Nor does he say a word of Hades, Gehenna, Satan, (excepting in ii. 14, 15,) the resurrection of the dead, and generally of the closing scene of all things; of which matters Paul treats so copiously," p. 95, seq. But surely the final close or destruction of all material things is 172 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCIIULZ. sufficiently intimated^ in i. 10, seq. ; future punishment, in iv. 11, seq., vi. 4, seq., x. 26, seq., xii. 29. That the names Hades and Gehenna do not occur in our epistle, would be a singular argument to prove that Paul did not write it. Where, in all the acknowledged epistles of Paul, is either of these words to be found, excepting in one solitary quotation, in 1 Cor. xv. 55, which exhibits ^IriQ 1 As to Satan, this appellation does not indeed occur; but its equivalent hapoXog occurs, in ii. 14. The word Satan does not occur in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon : are these epistles, therefore, spurious ? In regard to the resurrection of the dead, it is sufficient to refer to vi. 2, xi. 35, and what is implied in xii. 22, seq. That the writer of our epistle did not make frequent mention of these topics is easily accounted for, on the ground that he was more imme- diately occupied with other subjects. Are there not several of Paul's acknowledged epistles which omit the same topics ? But who under- takes to prove from this, that they are spurious ? (8.) *' But not a word of Christ's resurrection ; a theme on which Paul everywhere descants," p. 97. What, then, does Heb. xiii. 20, mean ? And what is implied in viii. 1 ; i. 3 ; X. 12 ; xii. 2 ; ii. 9 ; v. 7 — 9 ? And will Dr. Schulz point out the places, where Paul discusses this subject in his epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, in the second to the Thessalonians, in the first to Timothy, and some others ? (9.) ** If Paul did not become wholly unlike himself, and change his very nature, he could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews ; which not only contains ideas foreign to his, but opposed to his," p. 101. This is assertion, not argument. The only way to convince those who differ in opinion from us, is to offer arguments for what we avouch ; not merely to assume or assert it to be true. (10.) " The grand point of Paul's doctrines is, that Christ is the Saviour of all; that he died, or made atonement, for all. There is nothing of this in our epistle. Paul everywhere makes belief in Christ essential to salvation, and looks with contempt upon Jewish rites and ceremonies. But our author evidently handles Judaism with a sparing hand, and treats with honour the shell, from which he endeavours to extract the nut," p. 102, seq. In regard to the first of these allegations, the reader is referred to Heb. ii. 9—11 ; v. 9 ; ix. 15. 28 ; xiii. 10 ; which aftbrd hmts suffi- ^27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 173 ciently plain, that the writer did not regard the Messiah as the Saviour of the Jews only. But to treat, in our epistle, of the extent of his salvation among the Gentiles, plainly was not apposite to the particular design he had in view ; and he might abstain from this topic, out of regard to the prejudices which those whom he addressed probably enter- tained (in common with most Jews) respecting it. Are there none of the acknowledged Pauline epistles, which do not treat of this subject ? And must Paul always bring it into view, whether to do so would be timely or untimely, apposite or inapposite to the object of his epistle ? In respect to the Judaizing spirit of the writer, I must refer once more to chap. viii. — x. ; and what has already been said above, in examining the fourth objection. And with regard to belief in Christ as essential to salvation, the great object of all the epistle to the Hebrews is to urge it. Dispute with one who denies this, would surely be in vain. (11.) " Paul no where represents Christ as a priest, nor his inter- cession as procuring favours for them," p. 109, seq. In respect to this objection, I refer the reader to what has already been said, pp. 163 (h) and 165 (2.) (12.) " Paul has no where drawn a parallel between Christ and Moses," p. 111. But he did something very much like it, when he represented Moses and Christ as mediators, Gal. iii. 19, seq. And if he has not formally done it in any of his acknowledged epistles, it is enough to say, it was because the occasion did not call for it. (13.) " Our author says nothing of the kingdom of God, or the king- do7n of Satan, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; ideas predominant in Paul's epistles," p. 115. But is not a kingdom ascribed to Christ, in Heb. i. 8, 9; i. 10, seq., ii. 7, seq.; x. 13 ; xii. 2 ? And are not Christians represented as belonging to it, in xii. 28 ? And are the second epistle to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Philippians not genuine, because the first of these phrases is not in them ? Is not the power or reign of Satan •secognized, in Heb. ii. 14, 15 ? And as to evayyiXiov, see iv. 2 ; iv. 6. Apply, too, the same method of reasoning to Paul's acknowledged tpistles. 'EvayyeXi^o) is a favourite word with this apostle ; yet Philip- oians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, do not exhibit it. The word ehayyiXiov, too, is not found in the epistle to Titus. But is not the thing, which it indicates, 174 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. found there ? It is ; and so it is in Hebrews, as frequently as th« nature of the case required : e. g. i. 1 ; ii. 1. 3; iv. 1, 2; v. 12; vi. 1, seq., X. 25 ; xiii. 8, 9. 17. (14.) " How such expressions respecting the resurrection, as occur in 1 Cor. XV. 5, seq. Rom. vi. 4; xi. 15. Phil. iii. 20, seq. Col. ii. 13 1 Thess. iv. 15, seq. 2 Thess. ii. 2 Tim. ii. 18, with Acts xxiv. 15 ; xxvi. 6, seq., are to be reconciled with the views of the resurrection presented in our epistle, those who defend the genuineness of the epistle may be called on to account for," p. 116. In some of these citations, I can find no reference at all to the resur- rection. In others, (e. g. Col. ii. 13,) there is simply a. Jiyurative or moral use of the term. As to the remainder, I can perceive no discre- pancy between them and Heb. vi. 2 ; xi. 35, and what is implied in xii. 22, seq. As Schulz has not pointed out in what the discrepancy consists, I am unable to apprehend it. (15.) " But 1 Cor. XV. 24, seq. is at variance with Heb. i. 2. 8, seq. 12, 13. vii. 24 seq. comp. v. 16 ; ix. 14, p. 116." Just as much as it is with Luke i. 33. Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14 ; Mic. iv. 7. John xii. 34. Isa. ix. 6. Ps. Ixxxix. 36. 2 Sam. vii. 16; and no more. What interpreter, who has carefully studied the idiom of the Scriptures, does not know that D/iy?, '^^il^' ^^^ ^'^ ''<"^£ alwvaQ ribv alojvuy, are applied to things to which a time of continuance is assigned, that is not liable to interruption by any adventitious circumstances, and which are to endure to the full period for which they were designed ? So it is with the world, the mountains, the hills ; they are D/*)^?, eIq tovq alwvag. So also, the mediatorial reign is not to be interrupted, but to continue until all the designs of God in the redemption of men are completed. Then, of course, it must cease ; as no more mediatorial offices are to be per- formed. And why, too, should Dr. Schulz suggest such a consideration, as a proof that Paul did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, when he makes no difficulty at all in suggesting, that the sacred writers are not unfre- quently at variance with themselves ? To allege the fact of variance, then, either with each other or with themselves, is no valid argument, on the ground upon which he stands. He is not, here, consistent with him- self. And, besides, has not Paul himself recognised the perpetuity of Christ's dominion, in his acknowledged epistles ? See Rom. ix. 5. (16.) " The writer of our epistle, entangled with types and allegories, Knows not how to say any thinff respecting Christianity, except whaV § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 175 he finds an analogy for in Judaism ; so that his work is made up d parallels between the old and new dispensation, spun out to an excessive length The limited circle in which this writer moves, his evideH deficiency in activity of mind, and in unfolding his own views, are alto- gether unlike the active, creative mind of Paul, that master-spirit, who moves with such perfect freedom, and controls at pleasure all his own views, without any subjection to the influence of others, or even being at all affected by any thing of Jewish origin ; all of which was entirely at his command Whoever should attribute this singular production to Paul, would show that he was little acquainted with him," p. 1 19. Yet, in p. 124, Dr. Schulz says, " One finds in the unknown author [of our epistle,] more orderly deduction, more learned accuracy, and, for the most part, a well-arranged, gradual ascent, from the point where he starts, which he usually establishes by quotations from the Old Testa- ment, to the sublime region, to which, as true, eternal, and heavenly, he directs every thing, and where he ends every thing ; finally, more luxu- rious, oratorical qualities, than in Paul." How this consists with the preceding representation, the writer of both may well be required to show. The reader, I am sure, must find diffi- culty enough to make them harmonize. But, at any rate, the accusa- tion that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is not master of his own subject and own thoughts, is, so far as I know, new; and one which (as I shall confidently believe, until I see more evidence to the contrary,) it is unnecessary to answer. (17.) " Heb. ii. 1, 2, proves that Paul could not have been the writer of our epistle ; for he did ' not receive his gospel from others, but was immediately taught it by Christ himself. Gal. i. 11, 12; v. 15—19;*' p. 125, seq. • On the subject of this objection, the reader is referred to p. 33 (c). I add here only, that if the use oi the first person plural by the writer, necessarily makes him one, in all respects, with those whom he is address- ing, then the author of our epistle did himself need the admonitions which he has so powerfully and feelingly addressed to others ; see ii. 1. 3; iii. 6; iv. 1, 2. 11. 13. 16: vi. 1—3. 18.19; x. 22— 25, 26. 39; xi. 40 ; xii. 1. 9, 10. 28 ; xiii. 10. 13. 15. Nay, he must have included himself among those who were shaken in their Christian belief, and who were in imminent hazard of final apostacy. On the other hand; nothing can be plainer, than that he uses we or ye indifferently, for the persons whom he addresses; e. g. we, in xii. 1, 2 ; 176 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHTTLZ. ye, in xii. 3 — 8 ; we, in xii. 9, 10 ; ye, in xii. 14 — 25 ; we, in xiii. 25 — 28 ; and often in the same manner elsewhere, the address being still most manifestly made to the very same persons. He often employs, also, the first person plural (r///£tc,) to designate merely himself; e. g. in Heb. ii. 5 ; vi. 9. 11 ; xiii. 18. This, in like manner, he interchanges with the first person singular: e. g. xiii. 18 ; comp, xiii. 19. 22, 23. How can it be, now, that Dr. Schulz should so strenuously urge the argument drawn from the use of the ^rs^ person plural, to show that the writer of our epistle received his knowledge of the gospel from apostles and disciples, and of course that he could not be Paul ? Yet he not only urges it at length, pp. 125 — 130, but declares, that " it affords a decisive proof, that the apostle Paul could not have written the epistle in question," p. 126. Especially, how could he urge such an argument, when the same use of the first person plural runs through all the Pauline epistles: e. g. ^ficlc and eyio for the writer himself. Gal. i. 8 ; comp. i. 9 — 24; Gal. ii. 5; comp. ii. 1 — 4, and ii. 6, 7. So yfielg and vfXEig for the persons addressed. Gal. iii. 1—12 ; iii. 13—25; iii. 26—29; iv. 6—20; iv. 26 — 31, et alibi. Is it possible, then, to attribute any weight to such an argument as that in question ? (18.) " The manner of citing or appealing to the Old Testament, by Paul and by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, is very different. Paul appeals to it as a written record; but the writer of our epistle every where cites it as the immediate word of God, or of the Holy Ghost. Paul's formulas of citation are, yeypa^rrai, KaOijg ytypaTrrat, rj ypacpi) \iyei, eypa(f)r]j Kara to ysypajjifiivov, 6 Xoyog yeypanfievoc, McjvafJQ ypafei — 'Kiyei, 6 vofjiog Xeyei, Iv MwvVewe vofio) yiypatTTai, Aa/3t3 Xeyet, *Hr)alf with a nominative never expressed, except in three instances, viz. Heb. iii. 7 ; vi. 14, by implication, and x. 15. In /owr^ee» of these cases, we may gather from the context, that Geoc,-, or Kvpiog, is the probable nominative, i. e. the one which the writer meant his readers should supply. Four of the cases have Xpi'^oQ, or 'Iriffovg, for a nominative, viz. ii. 13 ; x. 5 ; x. 8 ; x. 9, which is implied ; two of them have to Trvevfjia to cL-yiov expressed, viz. iii. 7 ; x. 15 ; and one only has Qeoq expressed, and that because it was unavoidable, vi. 14. In Jive cases more, which are introduced merely with TraXtv, »cat, or de, viz. i. 5; i. 8 ; i. 10; ii. 13; x. 30, but stand connected with a pre- ceding quotation, the grammatical connexion requires us to supply elTre, XiyojVf Xiyei, &c., i. e. Kvpwc or Qeoq Xiyei, etTre, &c. In two cases of the like nature, viz. ii. 13; ii. 14, 'Ii/o-oue or Xpi^oc is the implied nominative. In the whole, there are twenty-Jive instances of quotation in which the nominative is not expressed, in nineteen cases of which it probably is Qeoq, and Xpt^oe in the other six. There are two cases only, in which the nominative to TrpEvjua to ayiov is expressed ; and one only where Qeoq is actually inserted. If one might trust to the representations of Dr. Schulz and SeyfFarth, he must, of course, be led to believe, that these are all the kinds of quotation which our epistle presents. This, however, is* not the case. In ii. 6, we have ^lE^apTvparo te. ttov tIq, viz. Aaj3to ; in iii. 15, Lp rf XiyEffdai, when it is said, (like ")Dh^Iltif in the Mishna;) in iv. 4, eipr^Ke yap TTOV, sc. r] ypa(()rj plainly, which formula is repeated by naXip in iv. 6 ; in iv. 7, we find Ip Aa/3tS Xiywp, saying by David; in ix. 20, Mcjvarjg — 178 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. Xiyiop; in xi. 18, EXa\t]dr}, (like "1?3K5 ;) in xii. 5, 7rapai:\r]ff£ioc ; in xii. 20, TO ^ittTeXXo/Ltevov ; in xii. 21, MojvarJQ eiTre ; in xii. 27, 7-0 ^e ; in xiii. 6, (Stc ^/xde \eyeiv, so that we may say. Besides this, we have, in iii. 5 ; x. 37 ; and xi. 21, quotations without any direct sign or notice of appeal ; not to mention several references or partial quotations which might easily be subjoined. In the whole, there are fifteen instances of quotation, (i. e. about three-eighths of all the quotations,) where the appeal is different from that which Schulz and Seyffarth attribute to our author, and on which they have built their argument against the Pauline origin of our epistle. (b) There is a similar variety of appeal in the acknowledged Pauline epistles. E. g. kuBmq yiypaitraiy yiypaTrrai yap, or ev vofx^ yiypairraif are used in Romans sixteen times: viz. i. 17; ii. 24; iii. 4; iii. 10; iv. 17 ; viii. 36 ; ix. 13 ; ix. 33 ; x. 15 ; xi. 8 ; xi. 26 ; xii. 19 ; xiv. 11 ; XV. 3 ; XV. 9 ; xv. 21 . In 1 Corinthians, nine times: viz. i. 19 ; i. 31 ; ii. 9 ; iii. 19 ; ix. 9 ; x. 7 ; xiv. 21 ; xv. 45 ; xv. 54. In 2 Corinthians, three times : viz. iv. 13 ; viii. 15 ; ix. 9. In Galatians, four times : viz. iii. 10; iii. 13; iv. 22; iv. 27. In all, thirty-two. 'H ypa^^ Xiyei is used eight times: viz. Rom. iv. 3 ; ix. 17; x. 11; xix. 2 ; probably Rom. XV. 10; XV. 11. 1 Cor. vi. 16. Gal. iv. 30. 'Hcramc Xiyei, four times : viz. Rom. x. 16 ; x. 20 ; x. 21 ; xv. 12. 'Uffatag Kpa^ei, Rom. ix. 27 ; 'HffotaQ TTpoeipriKe, ix. 29 ; Mojvarjg Xiyei, x. 19; Mojvfffje ypacpei, x. 5 ; AajStS Xiyei, iv. 16 ; xi. 9 ; 6 vofiog eXeye, vii. 7 ; rj Ik Tri'^ewg ZiKaioavvq Xiyei, X. 6 ; tL Xiyei, [sc. vj U nUtug diKaiO(TvvT],'\ X. 9 ; yjprifiaTia^iog Xiyei, xi. 4. There are ten cases of quotation without any formula of appeal ; viz. Rom. ix. 7; x. 13 ; x. 18; xi. 34 ; xii. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 26; xv. 27; Gal. iii. 11; iii. 12; not to mention many cases where partial reference is made, in both the phraseology and thought of the apostle, to passages in the Old Testament. Where an appeal is expressly made to the Old Testament by Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, there is, then, a small majority of cases in which »ca0a»e yiypa-rtrai, OX its equivalents, are used, if we take the whole together. But, in the epistle to the Romans, the other methods of quotation predominate. The ground of such appeals as AafilB, 'Haaiag, Mb)vpr]drj aur^, viz. to Rebecca. But by whom was it said By Jehovah, Gen. xxv. 23. It is the \6yog Kvpiov or Qeov, then, to which appeal is necessarily made here. Rom. ix. 15, tw Miovarj Xiyet, [sc. 6 KvpioQ vel o 9£oe.] Rom. ix. 25, h rw 'Qcrrje Xiyeij [sc. 6 Qeag,] just the same as in Heb. iv. 7, h Aa/3t3 Xc'ywv; i. e. saying by Hosea, saying by David. In 2 Cor. vi. 2, Xiyet yap [sc. 6 KvpwQ ;] vi. 16, elTrei^ 6 Qeog ; vi. 17^ XeyEi Kvptog; vi. 18, Xiyet Kvpiog iravroicpaTiop ; Gal. iii. 16, oh Xiyei, [sc. 6 Oeog.] So much for the assertion, that Paul has never used the formula of appeal, 6 Qeog Xiyet, or Xiyet Kvptog. Dr. Schulz will surely not object, that the nominative Kvptog or Qeog is not expressed in all these cases ; for it never is so, in the epistle to the Hebrews, with the exception of only one instance, viz. Heb. vi. 14. But other resemblances remain to be pointed out. In Rom. xiii. 9, ro yap is prefixed to a quotation ; and again, ev r^, Rom. xiii. 9. In the same way is to U used, Heb. xii. 27. In Rom. iv. 18, we find the perfect participle used, Kara ro elpr^fxivop ; in Heb. xii. 20, TO dtaffreXXofxevov. In Rom. ix. 12, eppr]drj ; Heb. xi. 18, eXaXiidrj, and (equivalent to this) h rw XiyeaQai, iii. 15. In regard to the assertion of Schulz and SeyfFarth, " that Qeog, XpiaTog, or Trvevjxa aytov, is always the nominative to Xiyet, el-re, &c., in the epistle to the Hebrews," the following formulas may be consulted ; viz. Heb. ii. 6, dte/xaprvpaTO di ttov rtg, [sc. Aa/3t^] ; iv. 4, e\pr]Ke yap [sc. >/ ypa(j)ri] ; which is repeated by necessary implication, in iv. 5 ; ix. 20, Mwvcrrjg Xe'ywv xii. 21, Mtovcrrjg eJire, (either a quotation of a sacred traditional saying, or a reference to the Scriptures ad sensum:) all cases of the same nature as those which occur in Paul's acknowledged epistles. Besides these, we have, in xii. 5, a quotation referred to by calling it vapaKXr}ffig, (comp. Rom. xi. 4, xp^p-f^rtcrfiog Xiyet ;) and in xiii. 6, we are pointed to a text of Scripture by the expression, tiJore fjjjiag Xiyetv. There are several instances, also, of quotation without any formula o appeal ; just as in Paul's acknowledged epistles. (d) There is as great a difference between Paul's acknowledged epistles, in regard to the formulas and the frequency of quotation from n2 180 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. the Old Testament, as there is between the epistle to the Hebrews and some of Paul's acknowledged epistles ; nay, even a greater difference. E. g. in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the only formula of quotation is the verb yiypaTrraif viz. 1 Cor. i. 19; i. 31; ii. 9; iii. 19; iii. 20; ix. 9; X. 7; xiv. 21; xv. 24; one case only excepted, vi. 16. Four times, quo- tation is made without any formula, viz. 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 26; xv. 27; XV. 32. Now, in the epistle to the Romans, out of forty-eight quotations, only sixteen are introduced with the same formula ; the others exhibiting all the variety above described. On the other hand, the second epistle to the Corinthians is equally divided between the formulas, Cjq ytypaTrrat, and Xc'yfi, eiire [sc. 6 Qeog or Kvpiog] ; there being three of each kind, viz. a>c yeypaTTTaiy 2 Cor. iv 13; viii. 15; ix. 9; \iyet, ein-e [6 Geog], vi. 2; vi. 16; vi. 17. It has also two quotations without any formula, ix. 7; xiii. 1 . The epistle to the Galatians has four formulas with yiypairTat, Gal. iii. 10; iii. 13; iv. 22; iv. 27; one with QeoQ implied, iii. 16; and two without any formula, iii. 11 ; iii. 12. In all the other Pauline epistles, to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- sians, Thessalonians, to Timothy and Titus, there are not more than four or five quotations of Scripture to be found. Suppose now, that we take the epistle to the Romans, (one of the most undoubted of all Paul's epistles,) as the model of this writer's quotations. Then the argument is conclusive, (on the ground which Schulz and Sey- ffarth have taken against the genuineness of all his other acknowledged epistles, unless it be the second to the Corinthians, and that to the Gala- tians. Above all, what shall we say of the great majority of his epistles, "which never quote the Old Testament at all ? Can it be, that the same man wrote these, who has directly appealed no less than forty-eight times to the Old Testament, in the epistle to the Romans, not to mention many other implicit references ? And can it be, when his formulas of reference are so diverse, as they are between this epistle and the first to the Corinthians, that the same person was the author of both ? It is easy now to perceive, that if arguments can be built on such circumstances as these, then the genuineness of the greater portion of the Pauline epistles must of course be denied. Is Dr. Schulz prepared for such a con- clusion ? (e) A word as to the greater frequency of quotations, in the epistle to the Hebrews. Let us compare it with that to the Romans, which it most of all resembles, in respect to discussion and method of argument. In the epistle to the Romans, there are, at leai&t, forty -eight quotations; § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 181 in that to the Hebrews, thirty-four. More may be made \a each, if we reckon all the cases of like phraseology or resemblances to the Old Testa- ment, in the turn of thought, which may be found in both. Now, the proportion of the epistle to the Romans to that of the Hebrews, in regard to length, is as fourteen to ten ; the number of quotations as forty-eight to thirty-four ; which would average nearly three and a half to a page, in each epistle ; the proportion being nearly the same in both, but the excess on the side of the epistle to the Romans. So much for the assertion, that i\\e frequency of quotation in our epistle proves that Paul was not the author of it. If there be any weight in such an argument, it lies equally against the genuinenees of the epistle to the Romans, compared with Paul's other epistles, which have no quotations at all. (f) On the whole, then, the objection, drawn either from the method or the frequency of quotation, (singularis ratio prce ceteris omnibus of our epistle, as SeyfFarth calls it,) vanishes away upon close examination; or if adhered to, must disprove the genuineness of a major part of the acknowledged epistles of Paul. That Paul, in our epistle, should have more frequently than elsewhere used Xiyei, eiTrev, eipriKt, is altogether consonant with what we may suppose him to have done, when addressing the Hebrews. The usual and almost the only mode of quoting, prevalent among the Jews, in ancient times, appears to have been such : at least if we may judge of it as it appears in the Mishna, where "IDJ^^ "IQi^ijt^, it is said, as it is said, which is said, is almost the only formula in use. There is an obvious reason for this. Every Jew, being conversant with the Old Testament Scriptures, would of course know what was the kind and weight of the appeal, made by \iyei, eItte, ODNt^) ; i. e. he would at once refer it to divine testimony. Hence, this abridged and natural mode of quotation prevails in our epistle. But in writing to churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles, the latter of whom were of course less familiar with the Old Testament, and knew less where to look for passages quoted, it was more natural for the apostle, (as he has done in the epistle to the Romans,) to say MwiJafjg Xejei, 'Eo-amc XiyEi, &c., so that the reference might be more definite. This is a sufficient reason to account for any differences in the formula of quotation, between our epistle and the other epistles of Paul. The difference itself has, however, as w-e have seen, been greatly over-rated. Nothing important, most plainly, can be made of it by higher criticism, in performing its office upon our epistle. What can be more improbable, too, than that such a master-spirit as Paul should cast all his letters in the same mould; 182 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. always use the same round of expression ; mechanically apply the same ormulas of quotation ; and for ever repeat the same sentiments in the same language ? And because he has not done so, in the epistle to the Hebrews, must it be wrested from him, by criticism which exacts such uniformity in a writer? Where is the writer of epistles, ancient or modern, who possessed any talents and free command of language, whose letters can be judged of by such a critical test as this ? (19.) " The appellations given to the Saviour, in Paul's acknowledged epistles and in the epistle to the Hebrews, are so diverse, as to afford strong evidence that both did not originate from the same person. E. g. in the Pauline epistles, these appellations are either, 6 KvpioQ i^jxiov 'IrjffovQXptcrrde, *Ir)crove XpiffTog 6 Kvpiog rifiwVj Xpiarbg ^Iriffovg 6 Kvpiog yfxwy, or 6 Kvpiog 'hiffovg XpiffTog. In innumerable passages is Christ referred to by these appellations ; which are so characteristic of Paul's writings, that they are to be regarded as nearly the constant established formulas, by which he adverts to the Saviour. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the writer uses most commonly vlog rev Qeov or 6 vldg ; he also employs, at times, 6 Kvpiog or 6 'iriffovg simply. Twice only has he connected *lr](Tovg Xpiarog. This must appear striking to every unprejudiced person, and of importance," p. 139, seq. Striking, indeed, the argument may appear, in the form stated by Schulz ; but an investigation, through the medium of a Concordance, will present a very different result from that which he has presented. (a) In regard to vlog rov Qeov or 6 vlog being the most frequent appellation given to Christ by the writer of our epistle, the facts stand thus. Omitting dubious references, and all the names of Christ that are appellatives suggested merely by the occasion, (such as aTrooroXoc, apxi^- pevg, apx^yog (TOJTrjpiag — ri/e iricrTeug, fxeairijg, aiortip, and KXrfpoi^ojJog,) the writer refers to the Messiah, by some one of his usual titles, in thirty- two places ; in four of which only he calls him vlog tov Qeovy viz. Heb. iv. 14; vi, 6; vii. 3; x. 29. In eight other places he calls him vlog; viz. i. 1, 5 bis, 8; iii. 6; v. 5. 8; vii. 28. In the Pauline epistles, these desig- nations are used seventeen times: viz. Rom. i. 3, 4. 9; v. 10; viii. 3. 29. 32. 1 Cor. i. 9; xv. 28. 2 Cor. i. 19. Gal. i, 16; ii. 20; iv. 4. 6. Eph. iv. 13. Col. i. 13. 1 Thess. i. 10. (b) Kvpiog is so far from being limited to the epistle to the Hebrews, in its application to Christ, that, if I have counted rightly, it is found in the acknowledged Pauline epistles, applied in the same way, one hundred and forty-seven times, and is the most frequent appellation of any except § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 183 XpitfTOQ. The cases where Kvpwg stands united with 'Irjcrovs, 'Itjctovq Xptorbg, &c. are exempted from this enumeration. On the other hand, the writer of our epistle is so far from making a frequent use of this designation, that he has employed it singly in two places only, or at most three, viz. ii. 3 ; vii. 14 ; probably xii. 14. That Schulz should make a representation so singularly incorrect, respecting the appellation Kvpiog, can be accounted for in no other way, than by supposing that he never examined his Concordance, for the sake of investigating the question respectirlg the use of it. But further ; in the epistle to the Romans, Kvpiog is applied to Christ not more than seventeen times ; some may think still less, in as much as the exegesis, in a few of the cases, may be doubtful. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, however, (which is about the same length,) the same appellation is given to Christ forty-five times ; while, in the epistle to Titus it does not occur at all. Further, 'Irjaovg XpiaTog, or Xpiarrog *lr]ffovgj is used, in the epistle to the Romans, as connected with Kvpiog only fourteen times; in 1 Corinthians, only eleven. 'lr}ffovg Kvpiog is used in Romans twice ; in 1 Corinthians, thrice. Kvpiog Xpiarbg only in Rom. xvi. 18. Such a variety of usage in these different epistles, must, if Schulz's method of arguing is correct, prove that Paul could not have written them all. (c) 'Irjffovg, without being connected with the other usual appellations of Christ, is employed in our epistle seven times: viz. ii. 9; vi. 20; vii. 22; x. 19 ; xii. 2. 24; xiii. 12. In the Pauline epistles, sixteen times; viz. Rom. iii. 26; viii. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 5; iv. 10 bis; iv. 11 bis. iv. 14. xi. 4. Eph. iv. 21. Phil. ii. 10. 1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 15; iv. 14 bis. In the epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, it is not found at all. (d) XpiffTog is used, in like manner, by our author, six times, viz. ii. 6. 14; V. 5; vi. 1 ; ix. 11. 14. 24. 28; xi. 26; in the Pauline epistles one hundred and ninety-eight, if I have rightly counted. (e) 'lr](Tovg XpiffTog, instead of being used only twice, as Schulz avers, is used three times ; Heb. x. 10 ; xiii. 8. 21, omitting iii. 1, where it stands also in the textus receptus. (f) In xiii. 20, Kvpiov '/. Xpiffroy is used by the writer, just as Paul employs it. (g) Those designations of Christ in the Pauline epistles, which Schulz has mentioned as the usual and only appellations of him by Paul, do not collectively amount to more than sixty-eiyht, if we take the number as 184 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. Stated by himself (who, however, as is usual with him, has in haste over looked some instances ;) while, in the same epistles, other appellations which he does not acknowledge, are used with far greater frequency ; e. g. KvpioQ is used owe hundred and forty -seven times y and Xpiffrog, one hun- dred and ninety -eight ; the former being an appellation which this writer holds out as characteristic of our epistle to the Hebrews, and neglectec- by Paul. Truly this matter is striking (if I may use Dr. Schulz's owr language ;) and if the epistle to the Hebrews can be wrested from Paul only by arguments such as this, those who ascribe it to this apostle have not much reason for apprehension, in regard to the safety of their cause. Even if the facts stated by Schulz were correct, it would not follow that Paul could not be the author of our epistle. The predominant appellation of the Saviour in the Pauline epistles is simply Xptarog ; as we have just seen. Yet, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, this appellation, simply used, occurs but once, (iii. .5.) and in both the epis- tles to Timothy, and in that to Titus, it does not once occur. Does it follow from this, then, that Paul did not write these epistles? If not, then, supposing the facts alleged by Schulz to be correct, no critical argument could be safely built upon them. But they are so far from being correct, that one finds it difficult to account for it, how any man, who expected others to examine for themselves, and not to receive what he says as authoritative, should have thrown out before the public such affirmations as every tyro, with a Greek Concordance in his hand, would be able to disprove. Truly Professor Schulz must not blame his readers, if they are slow and cautious about admitting his allegations, on subjects where accuracy, and diligence, and patience are necessary, in order to produce correct results. Seyffarth has brought forward the same argument, but with a some- what difterent statement of facts ; yet full of inaccuracies and errors. He concludes, as the sum of the whole, " that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has given to the Saviour appellations, which are indicative of less reverence than those which Paul bestows upon him," and that " there is a great difference between the usage of Paul, in this respect, and that of our epistle," p. 90. On the whole, nothing can be plainer, than that the usage in our epistle, with respect to the appellations in question, differs no more from the usual Pauline one, than the usage of several of his acknowledged epistles differs from that of others belonging to him. Consequently, no weight can be attached to this objection. § 27 OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 185 (20.) " Tlie writer of our epistle has made use of a great many words and phrases, in order to express ideas which Paul expresses, (either always or usually,) by aifFerent words or phrases," p. 138, seq. This objection is drawn out at great length, and requires a minuteness of consideration and philological exhibition which is truly appalling. But having commenced the work, it must not be left unfinished. The importance of the subject under discussion, is the apology on which I must rely for justification, as to the length and minuteness of the exa- mination. General assertions may satisfy those who think in generals, and reason in generals ; but the true critic demands /hc^s, and of course detail, in an investigation dependent on facts. It will shorten our work, however, and be of no small importance with respect to the satisfaction which the reader's mind is to experience, if some acknowledged, or at least just, principles of reasoning in regard to such a topic, can be premised, before we enter upon particulars. The following principles seem to be such, as, it may reasonably be expected, will be assented to by all sober and judicious critics; in par- ticular, by all who have not a special end to accomplish by the denial of them. (a) The same writer, if a man of knowledge and talents, (both of which will be conceded to Paul,) does not, in an extensive corre- spondence either on matters of business or sentiment, always express the same ideas by the same words or phrases ; much less, always repeat the same ideas, whatever may be the nature of the subject which the occasion demands. I appeal to all the volumes of letters extant, in proof of this. (b) The same writer, at different periods of life, in different circum- stances and states of mind and feeling, exhibits a variety of style in his epistles ; especially where the subjects themselves are very diverse. The appeal in proof of this, I make to well-known facts, and to every one's own experience, who has been long accustomed to write letters on a variety of grave and important topics. In particular will the case be as now represented, if a writer's lot, at one period of his life, be cast among men and authors, who differ in style and modes of thinking and expres- sion, from those with whom he has, at another time, been associated. (c) It follows, then, that differences in the choice of expression, in two epistles, in order to convey the same idea, (above all, when this stands in connexion with diverse subjects,) is no good proof that the same person did not, or could not, write both. Indeed, no man who is 186 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. not a writer of the most sterile genius, and of a mind the most mecha- nical, nay, absolutely insusceptible of excitement or of improvement, will always limit himself to the same round of expression. While there wilJ be occasional words and expressions, which will mark some charac- teristics appropriate to a writer of knowledge and talents, yet in the great body of them, there will not be a mechanical sameness either of thought or of expression ; but every letter will take its colouring, more or less, from the occasion and the state of mind which prompted it. (d) If any person refuses to accede to principles so plain and rea- sonable as these, it would be easy to show him, (as will be seen here- after,) that any one of Paul's acknowledged epistles may be proved to be spurious, on a different ground, just as easily as the epistle to the Hebrews. Schulz and SeyfFarth have undertaken to prove, that Paul did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, because it contains many words, either not employed by Paul, or not employed by him in the same sense ; and also some favourite expressions, not found in his acknowledged epistles. At first view, the number of such words or expressions, as exhibited by them, seems very great ; nay, quite appal- ling, before examination. Most critics of the present day seem to have been influenced principally by this consideration, in giving up the Pauline origin of our epistle. But a widely-extended examination of this subject has ended in producing different impressions upon my own mind. In am fully persuaded, now, that there is scarcely any one of Paul's acknowledged epistles, which cannot be proved to be spurious, if the grounds of argument assumed by the above-named writers is tenable. I will pledge myself (I do not say it at a venture) to produce as many peculiarities, as many ixTcal Xeyofieva or 6.Tra^ Xoyi^ojxeva, for example, in the epistle to the Romans, in the first to the Corinthians, or in the second to the Corinthians, (in proportion to the length of these epistles, and compared with the other acknowledged epistles of Paul,) as there are in the epistle to the Hebrews. If this can be done, then is the argu- ment equally good against either of these epistles, which are among the most undoubted of all the writings of Paul. The proof of this 1 shall by and by produce, by laying before the reader the result of the prin- ciples which I have ventured to call in question, by applying them to the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. (e) Dr. Schulz himself, who has laboured with so much zeal and con- fidence to fix upon our epistle the charge of peculiarities in style, expres* sion, and favourite phrases, has, in another part of his work, and before § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 187 his mind became heated with this subject, made the following remarks, which are well worthy of attention. a We give up words, and phrases, and thoughts, [in the epistle to the Hebrews,] which occur but seldom in the books of the New Testament, or in Paul's epistles.* We shall not insist upon the aTra^ Xtyofxtva or the ^Tra^ Xoyii^o^tva'y for why must a writer of numerous works necessarily repeat, oftentimes, his ideas in general, or his favourite phrases ? Why must he often do this in all his works, and not use some of them merely in particular passages ? Every writer will do the latter, and must do it, when, either by accident or by design, he falls only once upon some particular idea. But in regard to a writer, whose whole works we do not possess, (perhaps only a small part of them,) how can we pronounce sentence upon many phrases and thoughts, or deduce any argument at all from them ? And such is the case before us. What now appears. In the letters of Paul still extant, to be airal elprifxivoy, he may have said and written numberless times, in works now lost." p. 52. He then proceeds very justly to ask, " whether it is the design of any New Testament writer, in any one particular book, to represent the whole scheme of Christian doctrine complete in all its parts ? And if not, whether that, which in one book differs from the contents of another, is to be considered as departure or contradiction, in respect to that other ?" And then he adds, ** It is quite surprising, and deserving of reprobation, that any one should call in question expressions against which no objections can be made, when they are consonant with the usus loquendi, and are genuine Greek ; and also, that any one should produce them as grounds of suspicion against a book, because they do not occur in other compositions of a similar nature. In the epistle to the Hebrews, there are many of this kind." p. 53. These remarks are no less just than striking. I freely give to them my entire and hearty approbation ; and I am willing, with such prin- ciples in view, to join issue with the author, as to his list of words and phrases which he brings forward, in his attack upon our epistle. Nine parts in ten of all that he has advanced, of this nature, would be excluded from the argument by his own sentence. To reduce the view, which I must now give of the words and phrases adduced by Schulz, to as short a compass as will be consistent with my design, I shall first remark on those words which require to be separately discussed ; and then I shall class together those to which some general principle will apply in common, I follow mostly the order of Schulz, 188 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. Step by step, merely because this is more convenient for those who may wish to compare what is here written with the remarks of this author. I. Words and phrases, instead of which Paul employs other and different ones. (1.) " Ev\a/3«ta, Heb. V. 7, xii. 28, is used in the sense oi piety, devotedness to God ; it is equivalent to evaifieia as employed by Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 2. iii. 16, &c. Neither of these writers employs the word used by the other." p. 141. The sense of ehXafieia, in Heb. v. 7, it is altogether probable, is fear, which is the classical sense of the word ; and this is probably the sense, too, in Heb. xii. 28, as its adjunct al^ovg seems to indicate. Schulz's objection is founded on an exegesis far from being certain, and indeed quite improbable. But if we allow his interpretation to be true, the objection amounts only to this, that Paul, at one time, has employed EvaijSeia (the proper Greek word) in order to express the idea of piety ; and at another time, in writing to the Hebrews, he has used thXapEia, (corresponding to the Heb. TMk'y^ reverence, piety,) to express the same idea. What could be more natural for a Hebrew, than to do this ? (2.) " Our author uses diairavrog; Paul, Travrore, and very frequently repeats it." p. 141. AiaTravTOQ is common among the Evangelists, and in the Septuagint. Paul uses it, in the citation from the Old Testament, in Rom. xi. 10. Paul, then, was familiar with the word. In our epistle, it is found only twice ; viz. ix. 6; xiii. 15. In this same epistle we find the Pauline ttclvtote also ; viz. in vii. 25. Now, as to the epistle to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 2 Timothy, each has the word ttclvtote but once ; the first epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus, not at all. . If the fact that Travrorc is used no more than once, is proof that our epistle is not Pauline, then surely these other epistles must be ranked in the same class. The same fact must surely afford the same argument in both cases. But as this proves more than Schulz is willing to allow, we may suppose he will not insist on such an argument. (3.) " Our epistle uses avanaivl^eiv and ly/caivi'sctv : for which Paul employs avaKaivovv and avaveovcrdai.** p. 143. *AvaKaivi^eiy occurs only once, Heb. vi. 6. 'EyKaivi^eiv but twice, Heb. ix. 18; x. 20. On the other hand, apuKaivovy is found in Paul only "■wice, 2 Cor. iv. 16. Col. iii. 10 ; and avaveoiiffdai but once, Eph. iv. 23. Now as avaKaivi^b), avciKair6io,di.nd avavtoit), are all either of classic or Sep- tuagint usage, and are of the same signification, the use of one or the ^ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 189 Other, so few times as they are employed in the Pauline epistles and in ours, can afibrd no argument in favour of a different writer. As to iyKaivi^ELVy to consecrate, to initiate, it is a verb of a different meaning* from the others, and is not used in the sense in which Paul employs either araicaivou) or avaveoio, (4.) " There is, in our epistle, an abundance of verbs ending in -/^'w, such as can be no where else found in the New Testament ; above all, in Paul's epistles." p. 142. (a) The greater part of the verbs in -i^u), produced by Schulz as appropriate to our epistle, are found often in the New Testament, and in Paul ; viz. Xoyi^eadai, in other writers of the New Testament 6 times, in Paul 34, in the epistle to the Hebrews but once ; i//0av/^eiv in New Tes- tament 8, in Hebrews only twice; KarapTi^eiy, New Testament 5, Paul 5, Hebrews 3; KaOapi^eir, New Testament 24, Paul 3, Hebrews 3; Kofxli^eii', New Testament 5, Paul 3, Hebrews 3 ; fxepi^uVf New Testament 7, Paul 5, Hebrews 1 ; opl^eivj New Testament 6, Paul 1, Hebrews J ; eyyi^eiv, New Testament 38, Paul 2, Hebrews 2 ; ■^wpi^eiv. New Testa- ment 5. Paul 6, Hebrews 1 ; ^mtL^elv, New Testament 5, Paul 4, Hebrews 2 ; Kadi^eiv, New Testament 40, Paul 4, Hebrews, 4 ; xp/^^aW- ^£o-0at. New Testament 5, Paul 1 , Hebrews 3. All these verbs, more- over, are common to the Septuagint and to classic Greek. (b) Other verbs of this class, adduced by Schulz, are used in our epistle only once ; viz. avaXoyiiieffdai, xii. 3 ; avrayojviiieardai, xii. 4 ; Karayojvi^effdai, xi. 33 ; dearpl^eiy, X. 33 ; Trpt^civ, xi. 37 ; and Tvixiravi- ^etrdai, xi. 35. The three last are denominatives, for which the Greek language offered no other forms ; so that no choice, in this case, was left to the writer. All of them are of classic or Septuagint usage. (c) TlpoaoxQi^sLv, Heb. iii. 10, is a quotation from the Septuagint; of which the use of the same word, in iii. 17, is a simple repetition. It turns out, then, that of the great multitude of words in -i^(o, pecu- liar to our epistle, only six are employed, exclusively by it ; and of these six, three are denominatives, and necessarily employed, as there was no choice of other forms ; while the other three occur but once each, and are all compound verbs, common to the Septuagint and to the classics. But Schulz has not ventured to present us with a view of the numerous verbs in -i^o), employed by the New Testament writers and by Paul, which are not used at all in our epistle. Selecting only under a single letter, (as a specimen of what might be gathered from the whole,) we find the fol- 190 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. owing, KaOoirXl^ofiaL, »cara/3i/3a<^o/iat, Kara^Ka^u), KaTaKXyi^ofjiatf KaraKprjii^ ^^(x)y Kar aXtd 6.^(1) f Karatrnde/xaTi^io, KarairovTli^oiiai, Kare^ovcrLa^w, Karepya- h/jLUL, KaroTrrpi^ofxait Kavnan^to, Kavr?;pia^O)uai, /cXa^w, Kidapi^u), KXv^ujvii^O' fiai, KoXa^Ofiaii KoXaipi^u), fCOTra^w, Kov(j)i^(i)j Kpa^u), Kpavya^w, KpvaraXXi^Wj Kri^u) ; twenty-four under only one letter ; which our author, with all his alleged partialities for -t^w, never uses. Surely this is an argument unfortunately chosen, and very incorrectly stated. (5.) " 'EvriXXeadai is used in our epistle ; Paul uses TrapayyiXXio, ZiaTaffffu), or £7riraa>y is also employed once, in Heb. v. 13. Besides, in all Paul's acknowledged epistles, fierix^ occurs only five times, and all of 1C2 § -27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. these are in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Is this the only epistle which is genuine ? As to jcaracxw/ifv, it is found in our epistle only twice, iii. 6 ; iii. 14 ; while the alleged Pauline Kare^eiy is also used in x. 43. Besides, are not both of these one and the same verb, in different tenses ? And may not the writer of different epistles employ even a different tense of the same verb, when the case demands it, without hazarding the reputation of his letters in respect to genuineness ? (14.) " Verbal nouns feminine, particularly such as end in -etc, are unusually frequent in our epistle ; and, when put in the accusative by elgy they are employed instead of the infinitive mode with elg ro before it ; which latter is the construction that Paul employs, even to excess, and in a manner not consentaneous with Greek idiom." p. 146. Paul is no stranger to tlie employment of nouns in -aig with elg before them in the accusative, in the sense of the infinitive mode with elg to ; e. g. Rom. i. 17 ; iii. 25 ; v. 18 ; xiv. 1 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. In regard to other feminine nouns, put in the accusative with fie, and used as the infinitive with elg ro, see Rom. i. 5. 16; iii. 7; v. 16; vi. 19. 22; ix. 21bis, 22, 23; x. 1. 10; xi. 9 ; xv. 18; xvi. 26. 1 Cor. i. 9; ii. 7; V. 5; X. 31 ; xvi. 15. All these cases have respect to nouns feminine only ; very many cases might be added of nouns of the masculine form, employed in the same way. The above instances of the feminine forms are selected from only two epistles of Paul. I have found more than forty cases, of the same kind, in his remaining acknowledged epistles. On the other hand ; as to the excessive and unclassical use of the infinitive with elg roj by Paul, I do not find it to be as Schulz has stated it. In Romans, I find fifteen cases of infinitives with elg to; in 1 Cor. there are five cases ; in 2 Cor. there are four ; in Gal. one ; in Eph. three; in Phil, four; in Col. not one; in 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus, and Philemon, not one. But in our epistle, we have the infinitive with elg to, in ii. 17; vii. 25; viii. 3; ix. 14. 28; x. 2, (^tct to;) x. 15, (/ifra to;) xii. 10; xiii. 21 ; i. e. seven cases, just the same as the Pauline ones, and two more (x. 2. 15) of the same nature. If the want of frequency with respect to this construction proves the spuriousness of our epistle ; what does the same thing prove, in respect to the longer epistle, called the first to the Corinthians, which exhibits it only^ve times ? And what is to be said of the five epistles named above, which do not at all exhibit this favourite construction of Paul ? In regard to the frequency of nouns ending in -ctg, the proportion is § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 193 not greater than in several of the Pauline epistles ; as any one may determine by consulting a Greek concordance. (15.) " Our epistle uses Trapo^vafxor ; Paul (fjXog.*' p. 148. Uapo^varnoQ is used only once, Heb. x. 24, and there not in the sense of ^T]\og. (16.) <* Our epistle uses TrptajivTepoi iov ancients? Paul uses iraTepeg.'* p. 149. Paul uses TraripsQ, in this way, only in Rom. ix. 5 ; xi 28 ; xv 8. As to 7rpfo-/3yrfpot, it is a common word for D"'^jp^ ancients. Matt. xv. 2. Mark vii. 3. 5. also Sept. What should hinder Paul from selecting either of these synonymes at his pleasure ? (17.) ** Our author uses Trpo/BXeVo/iat ; Paul uses Trpoerotjua^w, Trpo- opi^o), TTpouOnfxi. Our author uses avriKadiaTnf^t'* Paul avQi(TTr)^L,''^. 149. UpopXiTrofiaL occurs only in xi. 40, and is synonymous, in some of its meanings, with the other verbs named. Besides, is there not as much departure from uniformity j in employing the several words, TrpoeToifid^ujf irpoopii^ojf TrpoTiQr]fXLy as there is in using irpofjKi'KOjxai ? And is not clvtl- KaQiarrifiL a classic and Septuagint word, and synonymous with ayOicrrrifJiL ? Must a writer never employ but one and the same word ? U. Words employed in the epistle to the Hebrews in a sense different from thatia which Paul uses them. Some of the objections, drawn from words of this class, have already been noticed above. (18.) " MaKpodvfiia, fiatcpodvjieiv me2Lns patient waiting or expectation, in our epistle ; in Paul, it means lenity towards others." p. 150. Paul employs it in other senses than that of lenity. E. g. Col. i. 11, patient endurance of evil ; so 2 Tim. iii. 10 prob. iv. 2, see Wahl's Lex, In the same sense it is probably used in Heb. vi. 12. 15. But if this be not allowed ; it is enough to say that ixaKpodvu'ia, in the sense of patient expectation, is agreeable to Hellenistic usage. See Job vii. 16, Sept., and James v. 7, 8. (19.) " KaTaXeiTTEadat and airoXEiTretrdai are used, by our author, in the sense of restare, reliquum esse ; they are not so used by Paul." p. 150. KaTaXeiTrecrdat is used, -actively in the like sense, in Rom. xi. 4 ; and this sense is classic and Hellenistic. 'AiroXeiTreadai is used in the active voice by Paul, in 2 Tim. iv. 13. 20, in a sense as kindred to the use of it in our epistle (where it is passive,) as one of these voices can be to thd other, in regard to a verb of this nature. o 194 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. (20.) " 'YiroffTaaiQf in our epistle, has a different sense from that in Paul's epistles." p. 150. I am not able to perceive the difference between vTroffTaaig in 2 Cor. ix. 4 ; xi. 17 ; and in Heb. iii. 14 ; xi. 1. These are all the instances in which this word is employed by Paul or in our epistle, excepting Heb. i. 3, where the word is used in the classical sense of the later Greek writers. See Wahl's Lex. on vTroorao-tc. (21.) " Aoyoc, in Hebrews, means word given, assurance, decla- ration ; in Paul, doctrine, command, word in opposition to deed.'' p. 150. So in Heb. xiii. 7, \6yoQ means doctrine, as also in v. 13 ; vi. 1. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xv. 54, it means assurance or declaration ; as also in Rom. ix. 6. 9. 1 Cor. iv. 19. 2 Cor. i. 18. 1 Tim. i. 15; iii. 1 ; iv. 9. Surely there is no ground for distinction here. In the sense of account, too, Paul and our epistle agree ; e. g. Rom. xiv. 12^ Heb. iv. 13; xiii. 17. (22.) " Ta^tc, in Hebrews, means series, succession ; Paul uses it for good order, arrangement," p. 150. Ta^ig, in the Septuagint, answers to TI'ISD prescribed order or arrange- ment, Prov. xxix. 24 [xxxi. 26] ; to "j'ly, Job xxviii. 13, Aquila's transla- tion. In the Sept. Job xxiv. 5 ; xxxvi." 28, it has the sense of pre- scribed arrangement. This sense fits, equally well, 1 Cor. xiv. 40. Col. ii. 5, and all the cases where it is used in our epistle; viz. v. 6, 10; vi. 20 ; vii. 11. 17. 21. all of which are merely the same instance of ra^ig repeated. But, even if this exegesis be not admitted, still, it is enough to say, that ra^tg is employed in both the senses named by Schulz, in the Septuagint Greek, and also in classic authors. May not Paul, like any other writer, employ the word, in different parts of his writings, (as he does a multitude of other words,) with different shades of meaning ? (23.) *' nXetwv is used by our author in the sense of prcBstantior ; by Paul, only for more.'* p. 151. In Heb. iii. 3 ; vii. 23, irXttwv is used in the sense of more; certainly in the last instance. On the other hand, in the sense of prcestantior, it occurs only once, xi. 4. And this sense is supported both by classic and Septuagint usage. III. Favourite expressions, and peculiar phraseology. Of these, Schulz has collected together a great number; so great, that if they are truly what he names them, they must render the genuineness of our epistle suspected, to every critical reader. But whether he has § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ 195 rightly attributed to these words and expressions the characteristics which he gives them, remains to be examined. (24.) " The use of yap, in our epistle, is excessive ; so much so, that a translator, if he means to avoid misleading his readers, must often pass it over unnoticed. Paul is less frequent in the use of this particle ; and employs it only in cases where it has a meaning." p. 152. In the New Testament before me, the epistle of Paul to the Romans occupies fourteen pages ; that to the Hebrews, ten. In Romans, I find yap one hundred and forty-five times, i. e. on an average, more than ten to a page ; in our epistle, I find it ninety-one times, i. e. on an average, a little more than nine to a page. So much for t\i\s favourite particle of the author of our epistle. (25.) " The words irpocriftepeLy and Trpotr^opa, are used times almost *\'!thout number, in our epistle, in respect to Christ's offering up himself before God, by means of his death ; Paul does not use the verb at all, nor the noun but once, Eph. v. 2, in this sense." p. 153. These words are employed in respect to the offering by Christ, in Heb. ix. 14. 25. 28; x. 10. 12. 14. six instances; which, considering the nature of the comparison between Christ's death and the Jewish offerings, is rather to be wondered at for unfrequent, than for frequent occurrence. But is it not truly surprising, that Schulz should produce, as examples which have respect to the offering made by the death of Christ, irpocr- (jiipEiy and Trpoarcpopa. in Heb. v. 1. 3. 7 ; viii. 3, 4 ; ix. 7. 9 ; x. 1, 2. 5. 8. 11. 18; xi. 4. 17; xii. 7? all of which refer to Jewish offerings, excepting xii. 7, which has wholly another sense. Nor is the language of our epistle limited to Trpoo-^epctv and Trpocr^opa. The writer uses ava^epw, in vii. 27 bis ; ix. 28 ; xiii. 15 ; which is also used by other New Testament writers, e.g. James ii. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 24. As to the frequency with which Trpo(T(f>opa is used, it is found only in five instances ; two of these (x. 5. 8,) are quotations from the Old Testament ; and the other three, (x. 10. 14. 18,) are all plainly occasioned by the quotations just named, as they are employed in reasoning upon it. No where else, in our epistle, does the writer use this word ; but he employs dvaia no less than fifteen times, which word Paul has also employed five times. Consider- ing the nature of the discussion in our epistle, is there any ground for the objection made by Schulz? • (26.) ** 'Eyyi^Eij/ r^ 9e^, and irpoffipx^aOaL rw 0£w are frequent forms in our epistle ; but not so in Paul." p. 153. The first of these phrases occurs only once, vii. 19. T\\e frequency o2 196 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. of it, therefore, should not have been alleged. But the same verb as applied to time, is used in Heb. x. 25, and in Rom. xiii. 12. That eyyi^eiy rw 0£w was a usual form of Hebrew Greek, is evident from James iv. 8. In respect to Trpoo-ep^eo-Oat, it is nearly a synonyme with eyyi^eiv, and is used a great number of times in the New Testament, and by Paul in 1 Tim. vi. 3, but in the figurative sense of attending to, giving heed to. The use of it in our epistle, (it is employed seven times,) is occasioned by its correspondence with the Hebrew inpH, which describes the action of approaching God with an offering ; an idea which, from the nature of the comparisons instituted, must of necessity frequently occur. (27.) *' Such forms as \afij3uveiv Trelpav — jxiaQairo^offiav — ap^tjp — Tijdfjv — vEKpovQ — tTrayyeXtav — sTrayyeXias, are frequent, and peculiar lo our epistle." p. 153. In Paul, too, we have Xafxpaveiv x«ptv — cnroffToXijv — ar^jieiov — KaraX- Xayriv — Trepiffatlav — a^opjuj^v — irvtvfxa ^ovXelag — 7rvevfj.a vlodecriag — Kplfia — TTvevfia tov Koafiov — fiiadoy — Ppaf^elov — aTi({>avov ^aprov — olico^o- firjv — 6-^u)vioy — vfiaQ — xpocrwTrov — eirayyeXiav — noptpviv — kvToXiiv — vttojj^- vriaiv. Is not this equally peculiar ? (28.) " ALadt]Krj, and the compounds and derivatives of TiQivai are unusually frequent in our epistle." p. 154. Aiadi'iKT) is employed by Paul nine times ; but in our epistle, where the nature of the comparison lies between the old covenant and the new, the more frequent use of this word was altogether to be expected. Out of the seventeen instances, however, in which our author uses it, six are quoted from the Old Testament, viz. viii. 8, 9 bis, 10; ix. 20 ; x. 13 ; and three more are in phrases transferred from the Old Testament, viz. ix. 4 bis, X. 29 ; so that eight instances only belong properly to our author's style. Could a less number than this be rationally expected, considering the nature of the discussion ? As to the uncommonly frequent use of the compounds and derivatives of rlOrjiu, in our epistle, the following is the result of comparison. Aia- riOr)fxi, four times in Hebrews, two of which are in quotations, viz. viii. 10; X. 16. In the other two cases, the word is employed in a sense different from the one usual in the New Testament, viz. ix. 16, 17. '^ETadsffiQ is one of the aira^ Xeyofxeva of our epistle ; (see on these § 29.) Mfrart0>//it is used three times ; also in Gal. i. 6 ; aQtrtiv, Hebrews once, Paul six times ; dOeriyo-tc, Hebrews twice; vofxoOerely, Hebrews twice, {vo^io^etrla in Rom. ix. 4 ;) ETri'^eaig, Hebrews once, Paul twice ; Trpo^etrig, ^ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 197 Hebrews once, Paul six times ; aTrort^nut, Hebrews once, Paul four times. Can the position of Schulz be supported, when the result of investigation turns out thus ? (29.) " TeXsiovy, to bring to perfection, to advance to the highest marfi, is 2i favourite expression of our epistle." p. 154. It is employed in ii. 10; v. 9 ; vii. 28; xii. 23; but in a different acceptation in vii. 19 ; ix. 9 ; x. 1. 14 ; xi. 40 ; perhaps the last instance belongs to the other category. To the former alleged peculiar sense of raXeiou), Paul is no stranger, Phil. iii. 12 ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. Other Hellenists, also, employ it in the same manner ; Luke xiii. 32. The derivate forms, TEkelioaig and TeXeiorrjg, vii. 11, xii. 2, occur once only in this epistle. TeXeiojaig, also, in Luke i. 45. (30.) " KpetVrwv is employed frequently, by our author, in a sense altogether peculiar, viz. in the sense of more excellent.'* p. 154. In the same sense Paul uses it, 1 Cor. xii. 31 ; a sense, moreover, which is common to classic and Hellenistic usage. (31.) " AlujyioQ is unusually frequent ; e. g. alwyiog joined with ffutrrj- pia — KpiiJLa — TrvEvjjia — XvrpMffiQ — KXr)povop.ia — diaS'riKtj, &C." p. 154. But Paul uses cImvioq ^lo^ — ■^(^poyog — Qedg — j3cipog — aloji'ta (^XtTvoixeva — cdujyiog oXe^pog — TrapciKXrjffig — Kparog — co^rf. Paul uses the word twenty- four times ; our epistle only six. (32.) " Zwrj and ^rjv are used very frequently by our author, to denote perpetuiti/, lasting continuance.'' p. 155. So they are by Paul; e.g. Rom. ix. 26. 2 Cor. iii. 3; vi. 16. 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 15; iv. 10; and this sense is frequent in the New Testament. (33.) "The frequent use of -rrag in the singular, in our epistle, is striking." p. 155. Our epistle makes ten pages in the edition of the New Testament lying before me ; and I find Trae, in the singular, sixteen times in it, i.e. on an average, about once and a half to each page. The epistle to the Ephesians makes four and a half pages, and I find the same Trag in it twenty-three times, i. e. on an average more than five times to each page. So much for the strikingly frequent use of uac in our epistle ! (34.) *' The words o^ey, x^^P'^' tavirEp, and dlvvaTov, are unusually frequent in our epistle." p. 155. "O^ey is not used in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, (see, in respect to aTra^ Xfyo/x£ja, § 29 ;) but in the New Testament it is common. XiopXg Paul uses fifteen times. 'EavTrep is peculiar to Hebrews, and occurs 198 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. thrice. *AlvyaTov is employed four times in our epistle, twice by Paul, and four times by the other writers of the New Testament. (35.) " Compounds of words with ev, are favourite forms with our author." p. 155. The following results will show how far this is well founded. EvS-eroc occurs in Hebrews once ; EvB^vrrjQ, once; evups'^ov, Hebrews 1, Paul 8 ; evaps'^eoj, Hebrews 3 ; evapcTwe, Hebrews 1 ; cvXa/Seta, Hebrews 2 ; evXa- (Hofxaiy Hebrews 1 ; eviroua, Hebrews 1 ; tvirEpi^uTOQ, Hebrews 1 ; ehXoyla, Hebrews 2, Paul 9 ; tvKoyeiv, Hebrews 6, Paul 8 ; evKaipoQ, Hebrews 1 ; evloKtlv, Hebrews 3, Paul 11. On the other hand, compare the compounds of this sort in Paul, which do not occur in our epistle ; viz. tvyevriQ, ehayyeXiov, evayyeXiTj/c, ev^oKiay evepyecria, evBiioQj evKaipsojy tvKaipwg, ev\oyr)r6c, Evjom, evfxeTu^orog, evo- Sovfiaij evTrpoadeKTogj evTrpoffedpog, evTrpoffiOTriiOj tvaif^eia, tvcrt^Eiv, eucrt/jwc, evvrifiog, EiKnrKayx^oc, tvayjqfxoviiiQ, evay^rffxoyrj, ev(TXVfJ^(*>v, curpaTreXm, cv^iy- juia, Exx^rinog, tv^patVw, EvyapL'sih), e{;)(api«rm, EV'^api'^OQ, Evyp-q'^og, Evxl^v^iwy Evoj^ia. Can there be any foundation, now, for the assertion of Schulz ? (36.) " Compounds with dm are unusually frequent, in our author." p. 156. The fact stands thus. Once only are avaUxoixai, dvaOcwpew, avaKai- vilbt, dvdyw, avaKafiTrrutf avaXoyi^ofjiaiy dva^avpow, avaTiXKu), used in our epistle. 'Avn is employed four times. In Paul, on the other hand, we find, avaj3aiv(o 7, dvayyeXXw 2, avayLVWffKw 8, arayywffLg 2, di'dxw 1, aya^a(o2j dva^WTrvptw 1, dvaGdXXw 1, dvd6f)ua 5, avaKaivioaig 2, avaKai- v6(0 1, dva<:aXv7rr(U 2, avaKE^aXaiofxat 2, avaKOTTTw 2, avaKplvio 10, ava- Xa/i/3dv 4, cLvaXvffLC 1, avaXvio 1, avaXiffKio 1, dvaXoym 1, avap.Evio 1, dvaveow 1, avavi] I ; ava^iog 1, aval'ioyg 2, d^-aTravw 4, dvaTrcjUTTW 1, apaTroXoytjTog 2, avaTrXrjpoio 5, avw^aroio 1, avariBrifiL 1, avarpETrio 2, ava^pvxt^ 1 ; all of which are wanting in the epistle to the Hebrews. Is there any want of frequency, in compounds of this sort, in the writings of Paul ? Rather, is there not even a want of frequency, with respect to words of this class, in our epistle ? (37.) " Good periods, with comparisons by oaov — Toaouro, with el yap — TTwc U, with KaQiog, &c. are not so frequent in Paul's writings as here." p. 156. In what other epistle has Paul had so frequent occasion for com- farisons ? (38.) " liwrrjpia, in the sense of Christian happiness, is peculiar to our epistle. 'AvnXoym is also peculiar." p. 156. § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 199 (a) Our epistle does not limit the word (Tiorr^pia to sucl\ a sense. It is employed in its usual acceptation, in ii. 10 ; xi. 7 ; aixi probably in v. 9 • vi. 9; ix. 28. On the other hand, Paul uses fft^r^p/a fbr Christian happiness, Rom. x. 1. 10; xi. 11. Eph. i. 13; 1 Thess. v. 8, 9. 2Thess. ii. 13. 2 Tim. iii. 15. (b) As to avTiXoyia, it is not found, it is true, in Paul's acknow- ledged epistles ; but it is in Jude, ver. 1 1 ; and the verb, dpTiXiyut, is inRom. X. 21. Tit. i. 9; ii. 9. (39.) " MapTvpEiy and fiapTvpeladai, in the sense of bearing honorary testimony, are peculiar to our epistle." p. 156. They are not. See Rom. x. 2 ; 1 Tim. v. 10 ; and often in the Gospels, as may be seen in any of the New Testament lexicons. (40.) " The following habitual expressions, so often employed by Paiil, are wanting in our epistle : viz. oh diXo) vfiag ayvoeiv — diXu) vfids elSevti' — TOVTO Be rifxt — yvwpi^it) (yra)jOi^o/x£v) ^£ vfuy — oi^a yap — diZap.iv ^, ike. — yLvijffKUV Ze vpae (3ovXopai — rt ovv epovpev — dW Ipei riQ — epetf O^ poi — fj ayvoeiTe — pri yivoiro — rl ovv — t\ yap — apa ovy — pevovyye," p. 157, seq. If the want of these forms of expression in our epistle proves it to be spurious, then the same argument must prove a great part of PauFs epistles to be so. E. g. ov ^iX(o vpdQ ayvoeiv is not in Galatians, Phi- lippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Favourite as Schulz represents this phrase to be, it is found only in Romans twice, 1 Corinthians twice; and in 2 Corinthians, ov yap OeXopev vpoLQ ayvoeiv once. Ge'Xw Ze vpds elZevai is once in 1 Cor. xi. 3, and wanting in all the other Pauline epistles; an expression, therefore, singularly favourite. TovTo Ze (f>rjpi is in 1 Corinthians twice, and wanting in all the rest of Paul's works. Tviopi^it) {yv(opi^opev) Ze vplv, Paul uses four times. The verb is em- ployed some twenty times, in all his epistles, but not in the formula mentioned by Schulz. OlZa, diZapev, &c. is used often by Paul, indeed unusually so ; in our epistle less frequently. In x. 30 we have diZapev, and five other cases of derivatives from ei^w or elZio) occur. TivwffKeiv Ze vpdg jiovXopai, occurs only in Phil. i. 12. Tt ovv kpovpev, in Romans six times, and no where else. Which then is spurious, the epistle to the Romans, or all the others ? 'E^€tc ovv poi, only twice, Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19. 200 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 'Ejoet Tie, only once, 1 Cor. xv. 37. *^U. ay voeIt 6, only twice, Rom. vi. 3. vii. 1. Mr/ yivoLTo, only in Galatians and Romans. Ti yap, not in Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, first Thessalonians second Thessalonians, first Timothy, second Timothy, Titus. Ti ovy, not in any of Paul's epistles, except Romans, first Corinthians and Galatians. "Apa ovy, only in the epistle to the Romans, Galatians once, Ephesians once, first Thessalonians once, second Tessalonians once. "Apa is used by our author too, iv. 9; xii. 8. Mevovyye, in Romans, Philippians ; but no where else in Paul's epistles. Certain Is it, then, that the same argument which would prove the spuriousness of our epistle, would also prove the spuriousness of more or less of Paul's acknowledged epistles ; for therTJij.i, yivuxTKEiy Be vfid(; joovXajiiat, tI ovy epovixey, epelg ovy fjoi, epsi TLQ, and r) ayyoeire. It is difficult to conceive how a man of Schulz's intelligence could willingly risk the hazard of such arguments as these. I have omitted no argument of a philological nature, which Dr. Schulz has brought forward, excepting a few iixa^ Xeyofxeya, of which I shall hereafter take notice. If the reader hesitates in regard to the sufficiency of some parts of the answers to Schulz, which I have laid before him, I request him to suspend his decision, until he shall have read through the sequel ; in which the general method of argument used by Schulz and SeyfTarth, will be the subject of further observation. Before I proceed to this, however, the allegations of SeyfTarth, (in cases wherein they differ from those of Schulz, and from those made by Bertholdt and others, which have already been examined,) must be considered. I do not aim at writing a regular review of SeyfFarth's whole book ; but merely to pass in review such arguments of his, as have not already been examined, omitting only those, on which it cannot well be supposed that be placed any important reliance. § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 201 § 28. Objections of Seyffarth examined. I shall first examine the objections drawn from the alleged " pecu- liarity of the matters treated of" in our epistle. (1.) '' Paul concerns himself only with those churches he himself established. He was not the founder of any church purely Hebrew. The person who, in our epistle, addresses the Hebrews, must have sus- tained a relation to them very different from that which Paul sustained." § 47. Is any thing plainer, however, through the whole epistle, than the fact, that the writer of it was not a founder or bishop of the church whom he addresses ? Not a hint of either of these relations is discoverable. The circumstances, then, agree altogether with the condition of Paul, who did not found, or preside over, the Hebrew churches. But the assumption, that Paul never concerned himself with any churches of which he was not himself the founder, is manifestly errone- ous. Did not this apostle write his epistle to the Romans, before he ever saw Rome ? See Rom. i. 13. xv. 24. Are not the expressions, in this epistle, as affectionate and as authoritative, to say the least, as in the epistle to the Hebrews ? Paul, surely, had a very deep sympathy and tender concern for his Jewish brethren. See Rom. ix. 1, seq. x. 1, seq. xi. 1, seq. Compare, for expressions of kindness, Heb. vi. 10, seq. x. 32 seq., in particular v. 34, if the reading hcTfJolg fxov be adopted ; and Titmann, in his recent edition of the New Testament, has adopted it. (2,) " Paul no where treats formally of the dignity of Jesus; nor does he any where employ such arguments as our epistle exhibits, against defection from Christianity." p. 104. Paul no where else treats of the resurrection, in such a manner as the 1 Cor. XV. does ; nor of many other subjects, discussed in that epistle ; does it follow, that Paul did not write the first epistle to the Corinthians, because it has these peculiarities ? Besides, the fact is not correctly stated by Seyffarth. Surely Rom. ix. 5. Eph. i. 20—23. Phil. ii. 6— 11- Col. i. 13 — 19, contain something about the dignity of Christ; not to mention many other passages. That the apostle has no where, except in our epistle, entered into a formal comparison of Christ with others, is true ; but it is enough to say, that no where else did the occasion demand it. (3.) ' Paul every where inveighs against Jewish opinions; urges justification xioplg epyiov vofjiov, and U Trt-rewg ; dwells on the glorious 202 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. advent of the Messiah ; and urges the equal right of the Gentiles to the blessings of the Christian religion. Not a word of all this, in the epistle to the Hebrews." p. 105. And where is there any thing of all this, in the first epistle to the Corinthians? Must a writer always speak of the very same subjects, and in the same way ? And if he does not, but speaks pro re nata, is it any just ground of suspicion, that such of his letters as are not exactly like certain other ones, cannot be genuine ? (4.) " It is wonderful, that our epistle should represent the devil as the cause of death, ii. 14 ; Paul knows nothing of such a cause, see 2 Tim. i. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 55." p. 106. This objection is built on an exegesis of Heb. ii. 14, which cannot be supported ; see the Commentary on this passage. But if the exegesis were correct, it would not follow, that the apostle might not, in one passage, express a sentiment which he has no where else expressed. See, for example, 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 28. After all, it is not true, that Paul does not recognise Satan as the author of the condemning sentence which Adam incurred; see 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3, comp. with Rom. v. 12, seq. (5.) " Paul, when he writes to any church, enters into a particular consideration of all their wants, and woes, and dangers ; e. g. in his epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians." p. 107, seq. And does Paul any where show a deeper sympathy for those whom he addresses, than the writer of our epistle exhibits ? Must every epistle which a man writes, be de omni scibilij or de omni re possibili ? As Paul was not bishop of the church whom he addresses in our epistle, it was not to be expected that he would use the same degree of freedom, in all respects, which he uses in some others of his epistles. Particularly, may we well suppose, that he would be sparing in localities and person- alities, if his epistle was designed to be encyclical ; as we have good reason to believe it was. (6.) " Our epistle every where urges to TEXeioTrjra ; not so Paul. With our author, too, the sonship of Christ is the great reXeiornQ of religion ; not so in Paul. See 1 Cor. iii. 1 1 , where it is reckoned as the foundation. Where too has Paul compared Christ to the angels ?" p. 110. That Paul does not urge forward those whom he addresses, to a higher degree of Christian knowledge and virtue, is an allegation which I believe to be novel, and which needs to be met only when something is § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 203 brought forward to substantiate it. As to the doctrine of Christ's Son- skip being reckoned as the foundation of Christianity, I find nothing of it in 1 Cor. iii. 11, where Christ, in his mediatorial person or character simply, is represented. That Paul's acknowledged epistles have not run a parallel between Christ and the angels, is true enough ; but how are we to show that Paul never could do this in one epistle, because he has not done it in another ? (7.) " There is more pure and continuous argument in our epistle, than in those of Paul." There is more pure and continuous argument in the epistle to the Romans, than there is in the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Co- lossians, and Thessalonians ; but is this any proof, that Paul did not write the latter epistles ? And must the tenor of all the epistles which any man writes, however diverse the occasion and the subject may be, always be one and the same ? (8.) " Paul cites the Old Testament with great freedom, at one time following the Septuagint, and at another the Hebrew. Our authoi keeps close to the Septuagint." The case is too strongly stated. It is not exactly correct, in either respect. But if it were, it does not follow, that in writing to those who had the Greek Scriptures in their own hands, and were habitually con- versant with them, Paul would not keep closer than usual to the words of the ancient oracles. It is altogether natural that he should do so. I. Objections drawn from peculiar phrases. (9.) " The following phrases are sui generis, and maxime peculiares, in our epistle; viz. diatf^opuirepov ovona Kkripovojxiiv, iLvai dg Ttarkpa, So^y (TTe)Q, IXdff" KtffOai. III. MsToxoQ, OepdTTbJV, TrapaTriKftacrfibg* 7rpo(Tox6i^(t)* IV. 'Yiro^ety/ia, d(pavTjg, TpaxrjXLKio, (3o7]9eia, svKaipog. V. MerpioTraOetv, iKsrrjpiai, aiTiog, irpoaa- yopevOelg, viijOpbg, aicrOrjTrjpia, t^tf. VI. Ila^^fiy/iari^w, (BoTOLvrj, k-KiTvyxo-VUi governing the genitive, dvTiXoyia, dneTaOsTog. VII. Kott^, aTrdrwjO, afiriTwp, dysvea- XSyrjTog, d^w/iotw^sj/og, ciijveKkg, aKpoOivia, TraTptdpxijSj iepaTeia, avvavrdta, 008 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. a.6sTr}(TiQ, cnrapaftarog, rravTsXeg, ufxiavTog. VIII. 'Eirrj^e, dwpa, dvaipepo), xP'HH'^' ri2^w, vofioQereiv, diaTiOkvai, 'iXeug tlvai* iraXaiovv, av aiihviov. X. 'AvtlJTtpov, 7rp6a(j>aTog^ dK\ivj)c, Trapo^ixTfibg, tKovoivjg, fo^epog. evv[3pi^eiv, dOXrjmg, QtaTpl^tiVf ovudifTfibg, XpoviKttv. XI 'EvapeffTeTv , darpa, dvapi9f.ir]Tog, TrapeiriSrjfiog, rpifirivov. dartiog, harayna, ffvyKUKOVxtiVf KardcKoirog. TrapfuftuXr], TV^TravlluVj jcaraywx't^e(T0at, fieXujTrr], Sipfia, irpo^Xkironai. XII. Toiyapovv, v^og, dfopCovrig, dvaXayiZofiai, Kapviiv, dvTiKaQiardvai, UXavQavuv, oXiybjptiv, v69og, ^apdvai, rpoxid* opQog^* ivoxXtiv, TrpoJTOTOKia, fieTtireiTa, ypijXatpdv, yvStpog. diaareXXofiai, ipavraffla (vrpofiog, iKpoveXv in such a case, Rom. xii. 3, and employs ^poveXv VTrkp in the sense of having a regard for, Phil. i. 7; iv. \0.—Bv(novv vTchp .... jcard. 7 duaKplveiv rivd, to make one to differ. 8 'KeKopenji^voi eTvai — (3a(Ti- Xeveiv, to be in a happy or prosperous state. 9 'Ecrxdrovg aTToSelKai — Qkarpov yk- veaQai. 10 Mwpot 5td Hipiurbv — ^povifioi Iv Xpwrt^ —iaxvpol applied to persons — ivSo^oi in the same manner. 1 3 UlepiKaOdpfiaTa rov Kofffiov — Trdvrtjv •7repi\pT)[jia — Hwg dpTi. 14 'Ej/rplTTwv, act. voice, putting to shame ; no where else, except with a passive meaning. 15 JlaiSayiayoi iv Xpiart^ — iraTipig \tv Xpitrry] — tj/ Xptcrrip .... yevvdv. 17 'OSovg rag ev Xptor^, Christian doctrines. 19 'Edv b Kvpiog OtX-^ffy. 20 BaaiXeia rov Qeov .... ov ev Xoyift .... Iv dvvdfiet. 21 ^Ev pd(3dtft iXOelv. V. 1 "OXiag &Kovercu—yvvaXKa ^xftv, to cohabit with a woman. 2 UevBeXv, to be sorrowful; Paul, to make sorrowful^ 2 Cor. xii. 21. 3 'Arnliv kv (twiiuti, (Paul, aireXvai kv ffapKi, Col. ii. 5.) — vapdiv ry TrvevfiaTi. 4 "SvvaxOkvTiov vpCiv, Kal rov kfiov irvevfiarog, is altogether unique, in the shade of idea. 5 Eig bXeOpov rrjg aapKbg, 'Iva rb irveviia auOy, is altogether peculiar. 7 'EKKuOaipetv .... i^vfirjv — TO Trdaxct ^fiiHv (Xpiffrbg) krvOtj. 8 'Eoprd^eiv kv ^w/ty TraXaiq, — ^vpi] KUKiag Kal TTOVtjpiag — d^vfioig eCXiKpivdag Kal dXt]9eiag. 10 Uopvoi tov Koff/jiov tovtov — kx tov Koafiov k^eXOeXv, to withdraw entirely from converse with men. 12 Toiig e, in a sense sui generis— cLKaQaQTOQy in a sense peculiar ; so also ayioe, which follows. 19 'H Trepe- ro/tj) ov^kv .... Paul says, ourt Treptro/tj) n Iffxysi, GdX. v. 6 ; vi. 15. — jj aKpo^va- ria ovdkv £<=ri — Trjprimq ivrokStv .... Paul says, vTraKO^ irirnoQ, Rom. i. 5; xvi. 26 ; or vTraKori simply, Rom. v. 19; vi. 16 ; xv. 18; xvi. 19; or he uses vTraKovta, Rom. vi. 12 ; vi. 17 ; x. 16, et ssepe. 20 KXriaig, condition in li/Cf rank; no where so em- ployed by Paul. 21 M?) croi jueXIrw, be not solicitous— iiaWov xpijo-at, pre/er. 25 'E7rtray>)v tx^iv — rjXtifiiikvoQ vtto Kvpiov .... Paul uses rfKii]Qriv simply, Rom* xi. 30. 2 Cor. iv. 1. 1 Tim. i. 13. 16. 26 KaXbv dv^pwrry Paul uses KaXhv simply, in the same sense, e.g. Rom. xiv. 24. Gal. iv. 18. 29 To Xonrbvj hereafter ^ for the future. 31 Xpa(T9ai r^ Koani^ — to (rxtifia. tov k6, in the sense of inviting to a meal. 32 'ATrpoaicoTrot, with the dative after it — Trdvra iraaiv dpkffKtiv. XI. 2 Uapadoatig kutex^iv. 3 QeXu) de viiag tidevai — Travrbg avdpbg K£v viKpwv. 38 Soi/xa SiSovai. 40 Sw/ia £7rty£iov. 42 "LnHptaQai iv fOop^ — iyeipscrOai iv d^pQaprriq, — o-jreipeffdai iv aTini^ — iydpecrOai iv So^t], k. t. X. 44 2ai/ta \l/vxiKbv — (Toifia TrvtvfiaTiKov. 47 'O SevTtpog dvOpoJTTog, 6 Kvpiog iK ovpavov. 49 QfoptXv eiKova. 50 Sdp? Kal aifia, K. r. X. 51 MvffTTipiov Xkyuv Paul, (ivaTiiptov XaXtXv, Col. iv. 3. 52 'Effxarq (ToXTny^. 53 Ael ydp to ^Qaprov, k. t. X. 56 Ksvrpov Oavdrov, r/ dfiap- Tia — Svvapig dfiapriag, 6 vojiog. 57 AiSovai vXKog. XVI. 2 Mia (ral3(SdTu>v — TiOsvai -Trap iavrip. 7 'Ev Trapo^y iSeXv. 9 0ypa dveyye fieydXT) Kal ivspyrjg. 22 'Hrw dvd9f[ia, fiapdu add. 24 'H ayan-ij jtiow fierd, K. r. \. The whole closing salutation is sui generis. Such is the almost incredible mass of peculiar phraseology, in the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is possible that there may be in- stances, among so many, where I may, through the tedium of such an examination, have overlooked some phrase of the same kind in Paul's other epistles. If this be so, the student, who has in his hands a Greek Concordance, will be able easily to detect it. In the mean time, 1 venture to affirm with entire confidence, (having repeated my investiga- tions a second time,) that the number of such mistakes, at most, is not sufficient to affect m any degree the nature of the argument, or the force of the appeal. I remark only, that where I have appealed to Paul, as not having employed a particular word or phrase, or as not using it in a like sense, I mean, of course, that Paul has not done this in his other acknowledged epistles. If any one is disposed to object to this array of phrases sui generis, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, and to aver, that many of them are nearly like those used by Paul, and that others are occasioned by the peculiarity of the subjects of which the writer treats, and that, in 214 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. general, they are collected with an unsparing hand ; I have only to reply, that, in all respects, they are as fairly and as sparingly collected as those brought forward by Schulz and SeyfFarth. For the correctness of this, I make the appeal to every unprejudiced man, who has read attentively and critically the essays of these authors, in which they have brought forward their objections against the genuineness of our epistle. As a counterpart for the appalling list of one hundred and eighteen fiTTol Xeyofieya, in the epistle to the Hebrews, which SeyfFarth has pre- sented, I offer, II. Tlie awaS Xcy<5/i£va, in the first epistle to the Corinthians. 'Ayafiogy aysvyg, dyvojaia, dyopa^w, adaTravog, ddrjXog, aSriXiogf 4^riQ, dZvuog^ alviyfia, dKaraKdKvrrrogy ctKoXovOkbjy ccKpaaia, uKiov, a.Xa\dZ,u), dfikpinvog, afieraKi- vrjTog, afXTTtXioVf dvd, dvuKpiviOy dvdixvrjcng, dvd^iog, dva^iiog, dvSpi^ofiai^ dvri- Xrj\liig, ttTrayw, dTreXevOepogj dTctpiaTtdaTOjg, aTro^ct^if, aTToXoi'w, dTro^spw, dpyupof, dporpiu)V, a'jOTra?, dppbXTTog, dpxiTBKTCJV, dadtvkoTtpog, d, dioTTsp, dovXayojykui, dpda- aofiaiy lyKOTTt^y lyKpaTevojxai, ddivXtiov, eldojXoOvTOV, tlaaKovu), tK^aaig, iKya/xt^oj^ kKdkxofiaiy lKvf}(pia, t/cTrttpd^w, tfcrpw/Lta, iXesivbg, kvepyij/Jta, ei/vofiog, ivoxog, IvrpoTTt], t^aipu), t^eytip(o, i^eari, l^ovaid'Cu), foprd^w, iiraiv'nti, i7rt/3d\Xw, kTciQavd- Tiogy i7n9vfir]T7)g, iTnarrdofiai, tTriToavrb, tpfxijveiay taoTTTpoVy tTspoyXuxrcroiy tvyevrjgy ivKaip'nOy tvTrpocredpog, evaijfiog, lixyxT^lioirvvr), £iJ(Txr]fJi.(^v, vx'^^> ^^^ ^'^'"'^ V'''*^ fronfi duly OdTTTiOy Qkarpovy Gjjpiojxax^^^, Ovcj, "lafia, iaxvporspog, KaOapfiUy Kaiu), KaXdfirj, KaraKaiu), KaraKaXvTrrofiai, KaraKtiiiai, KaTaarpdJvvvfii, Karaxpdofiai, Ktipui, kev rpovy KiBapUy KiOapii^u), Kiv^wfww, KXda>, K-Xd$a>, kokkoc, KOfiij, Ko/idcj, Kopsvvvfiiy Kpeitraovy in the sense of the adverb bettevy vii. 38, Kptr^ptov, Krrjvogy KvjSepvijmgf Kin^aXoVf KvpiaKog. Ai9dZf Xoyia, XoiSopeoj, XoiSopog, Xvatf, fxaivofiaiy fiaKtXXov, fiaKapitorepogy fiaXaKog, fiapdv dOdy niOoaog, fiiXu, jLtfr£%w, fiijvvujy fioixbgy jxoXvviOy fivptoiy fKopiuy vfiy vlKogy v^TTid^w, ^vpdb), oXoGpevrijgy oXojg, 6/iiXia, oadKigy oa^prjffigy ovaiy ovds- iroTBy ovdeTTOjy ovOev, outtw, o^tXog, Traidiov, Trat'^w, Travraxov, Trapayivo/Jiaiy Trapa- fievu), irapaiivQia^ Trdpodog, Trapo^vvofiai, 7rdcr;(a, TreiObg, Trepidyw, Trept/SoXatov, Trepi- KaOapfiUy ■Kf.piaaoTtpoVy TrepiTiOrjfiiy Trspiip^jfia, TrepTrepevofiat, TrvevfiaTiKoig, Troifialvuiy TToi/JLvr], TTO/xa, TTopvevujy TTopvrjy TroTtjpiov, Trpocedpevojy TrpouKVPsoj, Trpo^j^rtuw, Trrrj- vbvy irvKTEViOy TTioXtcj, pd(3dogy (Oitt/), aaXiri^oj, (reXrivr), (HTog, crrddiog, avyyviofiij, cvyictpdvvvfiiy (Tv^tjTrjrijgy avfifjKpi^ofjLaiy avficpiovog, cvvepxoficUy avvdy(Oy avvtidkoiy avvrjOtia, ffwerrtXXw, ax'^^^^^) Tayfxa, Tfjprjaigy rolvvVy ruTrrw, vnepaK/iogy virrjpkrtjgy VTTWTrtd^w, ^iXoveiKog, ^pj}v, ^vTevvjy xoX/cog, x^^i^ogy xoprof, xp^f^TEvofiai, rpevdofidp' Tvp, ^vxtKogy ttxrTTfpec, In the whole, 230 words. § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 21.5^ In order now to estimate the comparative force of the argument, from these awa^ Xgyo/xeva, we must take into the account the compa- rative length of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and of our epistle. In the Bible lying before me, the former occupies thirteen pages, the latter ten ; i. e. the former, in respect to length, is to the latter, as thirteen to ten. Now, in the epistle to the Hebrews are found one hundred and eighteen ctTra^ Xeyo/uc^a, according to the reckoning of Seyftarth ; in the epistle to the Corinthians, if I have reckoned rightly, (I have repeated, a second time, the whole examination,) there are two hundred and thirty. Consequently, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the average number of axa^ Xeyo/zeva is a little short of twelve to a page ; while the average number in the first epistle to the Corinthians is (within a small fraction) eighteen to a page. Certain it is, then, that if the number of airal Xeyofxeva in our epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, it must be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot have been the author of the first epistle to the Corinthians, which has a proportion of one-half more &7ra^ Xeyoneya than our epistle. Such is the basis of the arguments, so confidently adduced by Schulz and SeyfFarth, and so much applauded and trusted in by many other critics. It has been often said by logicians, that " what proves too much, proves nothing." This is well said ; and applied to the case before us, it will show, at once, that the very same means used to overturn the opinion that Paul was the author of our epistle, would overturn the opinion that he wrote any other particular epistle, which is universally acknowledged as coming from his hand. But what shall we say, when, in addition to all the aira^ Xtyofxeva of words, we reckon up the phrases of the same sort, which have been adduced above ? Is not here a mass of evidence apparently overwhelm- ing ? Surely, if the first epistle to the Corinthians had been anony- mous, the whole body of modern writers, who have attacked the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, must have, with one unanimous voice, disclaimed the first epistle to the Corinthians as belonging to Paul. In all respects which have any reference to the number of peculiar phrases and words that are &ira^ Xeyofjievaf the first epistle to the Corinthians presents far stronger evidence of not being Pauline than our epistle does. So unsafe is this argument, although often produced and much relied u\x)n, in respect to the important subject which we are examining ! 216 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. How much easier, too, is it to make assertions at hazard, on a subject of this nature, than it is to go through with the excessive labour of verifying such assertions, by means of that great rectifier of wandering critics— a Greek Concordance? Had this been done, long ago, the world had been spared a great deal of useless labour, and literature the record of many a hasty conclusion, from premises unexamined and unestablished. But further, the argument against the genuineness of the first epistle to the Corinthians could be easily amplified, by appealing still farther to the same kind of arguments as are adduced against our epistle. For example, how easy to ask, *' If the first epistle to the Corinthians be Paul's, how is it possible, that in so long a letter there is no discussion of Paul's favourite topics in which he was so deeply interested ? How comes it about, that we have nothing about justification by faith, without the deeds of the law ; nothing of the vanity and folly of Jewish rites and ceremonies ; nothing which asserts the equal rights of Jews and Gentiles, and blames the Judaizing teachers and zealots who refused to acknowledge this ? Where has Paul ever descanted, as here, on the subject of spiritual gifts ; on the marriage relation, conditions, habits, and dress of women ; on the Lord's supper ; on the support of preachers ; on the comparative value of spiritual gifts, and of faith, hope, and love ; and, above all, on the controverted and speculative questions of his time, respecting the manner in which the bodies of the saints would rise from their graves, when the last trumpet should sound ? Where else has Paul, or any other sacred writer, intimated, that the regal power of the Messiah would cease after the day of judg- ment, and that he would be subjected to the Father ? Is there any parallel to this epistle, either for matter or manner, in all the acknow- ledged writings of Paul ?" I might proceed still further, and collect a large number of favourite expressions, often repeated, in this epistle, but which seldom or never occur in the other Pauline epistles. Many such I have noticed, in the course of my investigations ; many more than Dr. Schulz has been able to collect from the epistle to the Hebrews. And if the two epistles to the Corinthians were to be the subject of investigation, instead of the first only, the list of aTrai, Xtyo/jeva and arra^ Xoyi^ofjievaj and of favourite idioms and peculiar ideas, might be swelled to an enormous catalogue. I have observed, as I feel quite well satisfied, more ^Tra^ Xeyofxtva m the second epistle to the Corinthians in proportion to its § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 217 length, than in the first ; and quite as many peculiar phrases. In a word, after such an investigation as I have been through, I am bold to say, that there is not a single epistle of Paul's which may not be wrested from him, by arguments of the very same kind, as those by which the genu- ineness of our epistle is assailed, and in all respects of equal validity. Unfortunately for the cause of criticism, so just and obvious an investigation has not hitherto been entered upon. Most of those who have doubted the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews, have seemed to consider it as quite proper to make out from it all the specialities possible, and then to reason from them, without any fear of mistake. I have examined their arguments in detail, because I wished to show how many hasty and incorrect assertions have been brought forward as arguments. I have now exhibited the application of the principles, on which their whole argument stands, to one of Paul's epistles, the genuineness of which no critic calls in question. The result is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken. *' But," it will be asked, " can we never reason, in any case, from dissimilarity of language in different compositions, to different persons as authors ?" No doubt we may, in some cases. But not unless the difference be greater than in the case before us. It has been shown above, how many striking traits of resemblance to the other letters of Paul there are in our epistle. While these remain, the discrepancy can never be made out to be great enough to build a sound argument upon it. If the question were to be asked, Whether the author of the epistle to the Romans could have written the first epistle of John ? the answer would be easy, nay, almost absolutely certain, from internal evidence. But, after all the striking resemblances which can be shown between our epistle and Paul's letters ; after proving from actual examination, that the list of peculiarities, in one of his most conspicuous and acknowledged epistles, is much greater than in our epistle ; after making all the reasonable abatements which must be made, from the peculiarity of the subjects which are discussed in our epistle, and of the condition of those to whom it was addressed ; after reflection upon the acknowledged fact, that every writer's style is more or less altered by advancing age ; by the circumstances of haste or leisure in which he writes ; by the topics themselves which he discusses ; by the degree of excitement which he feels at the time ; above all, taking into con- sideration the fact, that every writer who travels to many different countries, resides in many different places, and is conversant with a 218 § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. great variety of men and of dialects, is much more liable to change his style somewhat, than he who always resides in the same place, and is conversant with the same men and books ; after taking, I say, all these things into consideration, can any man have reasonable grounds to be satisfied, that the peculiarity of style and diction in our epistle js such, that its Pauline origin is to be rejected on account of them ? I will not undertake to answer for others ; but for myself, I can say with a clear and an abiding conviction, I do not feel that such an argument can stand before the impartial tribunal of criticism. § 30. Objections by De Wette. While the preceding sheet was under the press, the Historical and Critical Introduction to the New Testament, by W. M. L. De Wette, came to hand. It was published at Berlin, during the last year ; and exhibits the views of its celebrated author, in regard to the origin of our epistle. De Wette is the well-known author of a commentary on the Psalms, of a translation of about one-half of the Old and New Testaments, of a Hebrew Archaeology, of an historical and critical Introduction to the Old Testament, and of some other works in the departments of sacred criticism and moral science ; all of which have attracted great attention on the continent of Europe, on account of the distinguished genius and extensive erudition of the author. He is now a Professor, in the Uni- versity of Basle, in Switzerland. De Wette takes side, as from his habits of thinking and reasoning he might be expected to do, with those who deny the Pauline origin of our epistle. His arguments are very brief, (as the nature of his book required them to be ;) and I am not a little surprised to find, that, among them all, there is not a single one which is not drawn from the "works that have been already examined above. In regard to the external evidence, he has given many of the principal citations, which are adduced in the preceding part of this discussion, pp. 79 — 112. But some important ones he has omitted, which speak most unequivocally against the views he gives of the opinion of the fathers. For example, he merely refers to Euseb. Ecc. Hist. vi. 25, in respect to the very important testimony of Origen, which the reader will find on p. 89 seq. above ; simply remarking that " Origen gives up the writing down of the epistle by Paul, and only attributes the matter of it to him," (p. 285.) In a note, he subjoins, " Wheii he [Origen] speaks » ^ 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 219 of the tradition of the churches, it is probable that he means only the Alexandrine church." In regard to such a probability, I must refer the reader to what is said above, p. 95. (7.) The probability is very strong-, that all of Origen's homilies must have been published in Palestine ; for he was licensed to presich but a few months before he was driven from Alexandria; see Lardner's Credib. iii. 194. Whether Origen would, under such circumstances, be likely to retain any superstitious veneration for the church at Alexandria, every reader will be able to judge, so as to satisfy his own mind. It will be remembered, that the testimony in question of Origen, is from one of his Homilies on the epistle to the Hebrews. In the same manner, he has merely made a simple reference to the important testimony of Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, cited above, p. 108 ; while he has inserted at full length all the passages which might serve to show that Jerome had doubts in his own mind, in regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. This he avers to have been the fact. But whether there is any just foundation for such an assertion, has already been examined above, p. 108 seq. Jerome, no doubt, felt himself obliged to use great caution, in regard to the manner in which he spoke of the epistle to the Hebrews, because the prevailing sentiment of the western churches, in his time, was against the Pauline origin of it. More than this can never be fairly deduced, from any of the language which he employs. The passages in his epistle to Dardanus, in his com- mentary on Matt, xxvi., and in his book De Viris Illustrihus c. v. (supra, pp. 108, 109,) can never be made to speak less than a decided, definite opinion, on the part of Jerome himself, in respect to the Pauline origin of our epistle. How should he have been the occasion of revolu- tionizing the whole of the western churches, in regard to the sentiment under consideration, if this were not the case ? Other testimonies, too, De Wette has omitted, which are in favour of the Pauline origin of our epistle. In stating the opposition of the Latin churches to this sentiment, he has brought forward the doubts of Jerome, and of his contemporaries. He has followed these on, down to the seventh century, by quoting from Primasius and Isidore Hispaliensis. But he has not once hinted, that in this same western church, all those distinguished bishops who are mentioned above (p. 108,) admitted our epistle to be Paul's; excepting that he has adduced some of the testi- mony of Jerome and Augustine. Besides, he has advanced the broad position, that ** the western 220 § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. churches originally (anfanglich) denied this epistle to be Paul's." The passages adduced in proof of this, are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. vi. 20, cited above, p. 97;) v. 26, (supra p. 102;) the passages from Photius, Gobar, and Hippolytus, (supra p. 102;) Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 20, (supra p. 106 seq. ;) Cyprian, de Martyr, c. xi., (supra p. 106;) Jerome, Epist. ad Paulinum, (supra p. 109;) and Philastrius, de Haeres, c. 89, who speaks only of the opinion of others, himself believing the epistle to be Paul's. But De Wette has not said a word, in this connexion, of all the evidence adduced in § 12 above, which has relation to this subject ; nor of the division of opinion that existed in the Latin churches of later times, and before the days of Jerome, in respect to the subject in question. Again, in stating the testimony of the eastern churches, De Wette has merely brought forward Eusebius, as testifying to the opinions of his own times ; see Eusebius' testimony above, p. 96 seq. At the same time, he intimates that there were doubts, in that part of the church, in regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. He has not, however, produced a single author from the East who has expressed any such doubts, (and this for a very imperious reason ;) while, at the same time, he has sedu- lously omitted all those, cited on p. 101 above, who undoubtedly ascribed our epistle to Paul. Is this, now, an impartial examination and statement of evidence, on this great question? And has an author, who writes in this hasty manner, without extended examination, and without deliberation, any right to find fault with others, when they refuse to receive his allegations with implicit credit, and betake themselves to such an examination as may detect imperfect representation and statements evidently dictated by partiality ? Next, as to the internal grounds of proof that our epistle does not belong to Paul. These are, without exception, the same as had been before advanced by Eichhorn, Ziegler, Bertholdt, Schulz, and SeyfFarth ; all of which have been examined in the preceding pages. De Wette states, very categorically, that the language of our epistle is very different from that of Paul ; and he appeals to Schulz as having most fully shown this, in the work which has been already examined. How far the case is as Schulz has represented it, must now be left to the reader to judge for himself. What most of all surprises me, is, that De Wette should produce, as special proof of the alleged discrepancy of style, the formulas of quo- § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 221 tation, examined p. 176 seq. (18.) above; and also the appellations given to the Saviour by the writer of our epistle, examined in p. 182 seq. (19.) above; two of the most unlucky of all the arguments which Schulz and SeyfFarth have adduced. It requires, indeed, a great deal of patience and labour to examine this matter to the bottom ; more, I am quite inclined from bitter experience to believe, than De Wette consumed in writing the whole of the article in his Introduction, which has respect to our epistle. Besides these two cases of diversity of style, De Wette has proceeded to cite a large list of words ; all of which are taken from Schulz and Seyffarth, and have already been the subject of particular examination. With an adventurous step, and without even opening his Greek Concor- dance for investigation, he has followed his leaders in this hazardous path, and even selected the words examined above, on p. 197 (34.,) p. 198 (37.,) not omitting the most unfortunate of all Dr. Schulz's guesses, viz. the phrases on p. 199 (40.,) above. The word iriariq, too, has come in for its usual share of discrepancy, (see above, p. 159, e,) and also (iaaCKtla tov Qeov and TekEiitxiiQ. He avers, moreover, after Schulz, that the comparison and symbolical use of the Old Testament passages and ordinances, is foreign to the manner of Paul, and like to that of Philo. (See on this subject p. 131 seq. (3.) above.) He asserts, too, that Paul could not have represented Christianity so correspondent with Judaism, nor Christ as high priest; nor would he have been silent about his office of apostle to the heathen, nor concealed the fact, that the Christian religion was designed as well for Gentiles as Jews. Yet, how many of Paul's epistles there are, in which these topics are not insisted on, and which De Wette himself does not suppose to be spurious, he does not seem once to have thought of. How is it possible that such a writer as Paul should be limited to one circle of objects, and reasoning, and expression ? De Wette would not like to have the genuineness of his own works tried by such a rule of scrutiny. On the question, To whom was our epistle directed ? De Wette has exhibited a singular method of treating the subject. He endeavours to present difficulties that lie in the way of supposing that it was directed to any church ; and then comes to the conclusion, that probably it was not originally an epistle, but the composition of some companion of Paul, who added the personal allusions toward the close of the letter, for the sake of giving credit to it as a composition of the apostle ; so that all 222 § 31. OBJECTIONS BY DE BOEHME. investigation about either the author of the epistle, or the persons to whom it is directed, is in vain and useless, pp. 292 — 294. It seetis after all, then, that the author of our epistle is a dissembler and dis- honest man ; aiming to stand upon the credit of Paul, because he fears that his own credit is insufficient. But can any candid reader of our epistle refuse to see the unequivocal marks of sincerity, candour, high- raised benevolent feeling, and spiritual comprehensive views, every where exhibited ? I repeat it, had the writer of such a piece any need of prop- ping up himself, by the aid of even Paul's name and authority ? Then how futile, nay foolish, the attempt to do so, if his style, diction, manner, reasoning, quotations, circle of thought — in a word, every thing — is so toto coelo diverse from that of Paul, as Schulz, SeyfFarth, and De Wette represent it ! Where were the eyes and understandings of the readers ? Could they not detect the imposture ? And then what would become of the epistle, and of the reputation of the man who wrote it ? One ought to have better reasons than these, to abandon the convictions which a thorough investigation will force upon him. § 31. Objections by Boehme. The work of De Wette, noticed in the preceding section, was accom- panied by a recent work of C. F. Boehme, comprised in a volume of about 800 pages ; which contains an introduction to our epistle, and a translation of the same, followed by a copious commentary. Of the author little is known in this country, and, if I may judge by such reviews of books in Germany as I have perused, little is said in his own country respecting him. The work was printed at Leipsic in 1825. Like the critics whose works have been examined in the preceding sections, Boehme sets out with the most unqualified assertions respecting the discrepancies of style and manner, between the author of our epistle, and all the other writers of the New Testament. He asserts, that " as to the form and method of his work, the rhetorical construction of it, and the constant and accurate observance of order, our author far excels the other contemporary sacred writers." He extols the art which the writer of our epistle uses, in order to persuade those whom he addressed to follow his advice ; in particular, he gives as examples of this, Heb. iii. 7 — iv. 13, where the writer very dexterously, as he says, turns the promise of rest in the land of Canaan, into a promise of rest in the heavenly world ; to which he adds Heb. xi. 8 — 16, where, he avers, that " the author by the aid of his rhetorical art, and contra Jidem histori /"l^ ; not found in the classics. 'Ev v\pi^\oTQ, in heaven, in the world above, DllQIl, Sept. h vxptjXo'lg. 4 KeKXrjpovo- prjKEv, obtained, li)'!'^ ; Greek, to acquire by lot, to inherit. Same word in i. 14. I omit purposely all the quotations which follow here, and all through- out the epistle, which are made from the ancient Scriptures ; because, as they were doubtless made, in general, from the Septuagint version^ they cannot be justly considered as properly belonging to the style of ft 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLK. 225 aur author. If the Hebraisms in all these quotations were to be added to the list of those in the rest of the epistle, it would make it to appear somethmg very different from 'EXkrjviKiorepa. Whether Origen did, or did not, mean to exclude them, no one, so far as I know, has yet attempted to show. II. 2 Aoyoe, commination, commandy or revelation, "l^T ; not so in the classics. 3 Swr/;pme, the Christian religion with its threats and pro- mises ; certainly not a classical sense of the word. 4 Awajjiecn, mira- culous powers, miracles, rTI^^I)* tV* JllK/pX all of which the Septuagint translate by dvvafjLiQ ; in the classics, not so. QiXriffiv, a word unknown to „he Attics. 5 OlKovfxivrjv ^iWovaar, the gospel dispensation, K3,rT ub^)^; purely Jewish. 10 Ao^ar, future happiness, a glorious condi- tion in another world ; peculiar to Helenistic Greek. 1 1 'Ayta<^w>/ and ay La ^6 fiEvoi, making atonement for, and, those for whom atone- ment is made, or, who are expiated, ti/'^jp and ^33 are both rendered by ayia<^w in the Septuagint ; in the classics, aym^w means to consecrate, to make or declare sacred. 'A^eX^ovc, socios, amicos, ejusdem naturce participes, 0*"!!^^ ; classics, either children of the same parents, or near relatives, kindred by descent. 12 'EKKkriffia, public religious assembly, bnp, n"lii^, i^^lpD ; classics, public civil assembly. 14 I^apKog Ka\ a'lp.a- TOQ, human nature, corporeal state or condition, *1ii^3,> D'^==^^SJJ, see Gen. ix. 4, and in the New Testament, 1 Cor. xv. 50. Matt. xvi. 17. Gal. i. 16. al. ; not so used in the classics. KarapynaYi, to destroy, to render null or inefficacious ; classics, to be idle, to remain sluggish or inactive. Ata/3o\ov, Satan, "{tOli^j the devil ; classics, a slanderer, an accuser. 16 'AyyeXwv, angels, heavenly messengers, D''I3K7D ; in the classics, ayytkoQ means messenger, or message. STrcp/xaroe, progeny, offspring, ^^t, frequent in the New Testament, and three times in our epistle ; rarely, if ever, has it this sense among the classics. The fre- quency of it is Hellenistic. III. 1 'A^eX0oi aytoi, D''t£^i'lip, Ps. xvi. 3 et ssepe, professed people of God, worshippers of God ; in a sense different from the aytoc of the classics. KXryo-ewe kirovpaviov, invitations or privileges of the gospel ; no parallel in common Greek. ^AizoaToXov KaX apyi^pia Trjg ofioXoylaq ; such a combination is utterly foreign to the classics. 2 Oi/cw in the sense of worshippers of God, the assembly of the faithful, Jl^B, D^H^K JI^B ; peculiar to Hellenistic Greek. So 13 Ka& eKaffrrjy hfxipap, DVn ^3i continually, constantly. '2,K\r}pvvu), ptrf- Hti^p, applied to the heart or mind; literally used only in the classics. 16 IIajO£7r/fC|oa>'av, H'^O* Q 226 HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. *11D, not of classic usage. 17 Ilpo(Tu)xQiii^, Q'^p ; not a classic woid. Afj,apri] without a parallel in the classics. V. 3 Ilpo(T(j>€peiv, to offer gifts and sacrifices to God, ^"•'^pll, D^'lllj K^^n ; in Greek, not appropriate to this sacred rite. 7 YAffaKovaBelg, delivered, saved, Sept. for ^"'ti^irT* H^^. 12 Ta aToixeia rfjc apxnQ rwv \oylu)v ; such an expression is wanting in the classics. TaXaKrog .... rpo({>Tig, not a classical metaphor. 13 Aoyov ItKaioavvrig, Christian or religious doctrine ; without an example in the classics. VI. 1 Ncffpw*/ tpywv deadly, destructive works, W^yiSn^ yi'H occidere, Septuagint, vsKpog. 2 BaTrrtc/xaij/ ^i^a^^c, STridiaeivg re '^tipCJv, foreign to the classics ; as is Kpifxarog alioviov. 4 UysvfxaTog ayinv, ^SlpT] H^IH ; an expression and an idea foreign to all the classics. 5 KaXov. . . .pma, promise of good, so iitO IHT often in Hebrew ; classics, declaration, any thing uttered. Avvafieig fieWovrog aliuvog, miraculous powers under the gospel dispensation ; an utter stranger to the classic authors. ' Bordvriy, any kind of fruit which the earth produces, 2ti|^y ; in Greek, simply herbage, vegetation. 10 Elg to ovofxa ahrov, toward him, toward his cause, for his sake, {St2V)7f) ovopa being pleonastic, as in Hebrew. 12 MuKpodviJiag, patient waiting, T^3'li^, prolongatio, Sept. ; which I cannot find in the classics. T^c eTrayyeXiag, the promised blessing ; classic sense, promise. VII. 1 Gfov vxj/lffTov, ]Sw^^ ; the words are classic Greek, but the ^ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. ^^T combination is Hebrew. KoTri/c, slaughter, HSD ; Greek, hewing, cut- ting out. 3 'ATrarwp, afir]ru)p, wiihout any genealogy of parents ; the classic writers apply these words to their gods, and to orphan children, in quite a different sense. 4 'Aicpodiviiov, spoils in general, (see Gen. xiv. 20 ;) classics, first fruits, part of the spoils of war presented to the gods. JlarpiapxnQy JlillJIl tt^KI ; I cannot find any trace of this word in the classics. 5 'ATrodenaToa), to tithe, to take a tenth part, "W^; peculiar to Hebrew Greek. E^eXrjXvdoraQ ek Tfjg otrfpvog, 'A/3joaa//, D"'2i7n5 D^Jjti^^ ; the Greeks said, yeyvdadai vtto rtrog, in such a case, so that the above expression is purely Hebrew. 6 AsKarou), as cnrohKa' Tou) in V. 5. 10 'Ev rfi oafvL tov Trarpog, see above on v. 5. 11 TeXdwaie, in a sense sui generis. 16 ZapKiK^g, perishable, short-lived^ 1l£T^; not found in the classics in such a sense. 20 'OpKiojxoGiag, peculiar to our epistle ; the classic opKiofioaia (with antepenult accent) is an adjective, tepa being understood after it. 22 Am^r/zc?;?, in the sense of the Hebrew Jl^^l^-- VIII. 2 'Ayiiov, plur., D''^^'TjJ ttHp ; classics, iiyiov. XKJivijg, the divine bilk) HSD ; classics, a common tent or dwelling. 6 Mearirrjg, in a different sense from what is usual in the classics. The long quotation from the Septuagint that follows, is not more Hebraistic than the sur- rounding context. IX. 1 Atmiwjuara, ordinances, arrangements, D''l03t^D ; classics, sentence of justice, decision, just action or requisition. 5 'iXaffrripiovj /T1B3, Septuagint word ; classics, iXaffrrjpwg -ia, -ay, adjective. 9 Ua- paj^oXri, symbol ; classics, comparison, similitude in speech or writing. 11 'Apx^^p^^Q fieXXovTiov ayadiov, unlike any thing in the classics. 12 Tavrrjg rfjg Kriffsiog, of the present world; Kriaig in the classics, means, the act of creating. Evpafxevog, form sui generis. 13 KeKot- vojfxeyovg, the unclean, Dvr7> D"'7/n ; Greek kolvoco to communicate, to share, to render common. 'Ayid^ei, purifies, ti^"!)? ; Greek, to conse- crate, to devote. 16 ^epeaOai accidere, to happen; it is sui generis. 18 'EyKsKaiyiffTai, was ratified; classics, to renew. 22 AlfxareK'^vcriag, sui generis. 26 KaTapoXfjg Koafiov, a combination unknown to the classics. ^vvreXeta twv ald>v(ov, the end of the former dispensation ; no where in common Greek. 28 'AfiapTiag, sin-offering, sacrifice for sin, JIJ^DH W^t^ ; not in the classics. T - T T X. 1 ElKova, complete image, perfect delineation, (in distinction from cKia, an imperfect sketch,) iT'^Il'D * tbe Greek eiKo)v is simply, image. TeXetwo-ae, in a more pregnant sense than any classic usage gives to it, q2 228 HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLES. 13 TedHaiy ol e-^Qpol avrov vTroiroliov tCjv tto^wi' civtov, a phrase purely Hebraistic in its hue ; see Ps. ex. 1. [2.] 20 Zwo-av, qualifying such a word as 6cdv, is a combination unknown to the classics. 22 'Eppavna- fiivoi rag Kcip^lagj altogether Hebrew in its hue. 25 'E.jjiipa, the day oj the Lord, the day of terror, D^^ T\ST\] DV, altogether in a Hebrew sense. 27 Tlvpog Irikog, ^'^ l')"in, exactly Hebrew. 29 Kolvov, an unclean thing; see under ix. 13. 32 "AdXrjaiv . . . 7radr}fxaT0}v, a method of expres- sion foreign to the classics. 35 Uappriaiav, confidence, Christian trust ; clas- sics, boldness or freedom of speech. MiffQaTroZoaiav, reward; sui generis. XI. 3 AlCjvug, worlds, U^u?Sy, entirely Jewish. 'Vij^an, command, '^^"J» '^^^ '> Greek, saying, thing said. 5 'Ihlv Qavarov, lyp HK"), nn'^ nKl. Ovx evpiaKero, ^3y>|5 ; foreign to the classics. 6 M(o-0a7ro^or?7c I cannot find in classic Greek. 7 Ko'« fxaxaipag, with the murderous sword, a Hebrew combination. XH. 6 Uaihvei, chastises, ID], and ver. 7 naihlay, chastisement, ID^D : the meanings here given to these two words are seldom, if ever, given in the classics. 9 Tijg aapKog ii^m' Tcaripag, a Hebrew, not a classic combination of ideas ; (rapKog meaning the physical man, in distinction from the mental one. Tw Trarpi tCjv irvevfiaTwv : Hebrew, ■)'^:i ^Db ninnn ^n'?^^, Num. xvl. 22, xxvii. I6 ; foreign to all the T T t; t •• v: classics. 10 ' Ay wTYiTog, can hardly be found, I believe, in the classics. It is a Hellenistic term, corresponding to ^"Ip. 11 ^aorcov elprjyiKop, peaceful fruit, i. e. happy fruit, HS) Uwli) ; elprjviKuv here manifestly bearing the Hebrew-Greek, and not the classic sense. 14 Ohhlg o\percu rip Kvp,op, so HK")'' ikb n^n'' '':)^"n^^ ^^<-l"• ^b mn*' ; the whole form of expression is manifestly Hebraistic. 16 Bpojcrewg fiidg, one meal; classics, the act of eating, or food. The certainty that meal is the idea here, arises from the adjunct jiidg. Hpioroukia, Heb. ni03 ; not used in the classics. 19 M/) TrpoffTediivai avroig \6yor, *li^ ^Dl^ '^^P.^ '^tTP.' a Hebrew and not a Greek mode of expression. 22 Mvpmo-t, ^3^), Jl'lJl"), the usual Hebrew expression for a large indefinite number ; the Latins said, sexcenti. 23 'ATroytypaju/ueVwv iv ohparoig, W^^VO 11^3)1 73, Is. iv. 3. Comp. Ex. xxxii. 32. Ps. Ixix. 28. Dan. xii. 1.. Luke x. 20, &c. An expression altogether Hebraistic, HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 229 XIII. 3"0vTec kv ffw/xari, in a frail dying state ; not so expressed in the classics. The mode of expression comes from the Hebrew, 1^^. 7 'liyovixivu)v, teacherSf spiritual guides, ^l^^N -^^'H^^ ; classic sense never that of teachers. 8 Xdeg Koi aiifiepoy, Di^^") 7iD/1N^ ; where, in all the classics, is the like of this, in order to designate all past and present time? 15 Qvaiav alvifrewg .... Kapirov x^'^^'^*' » the idea of sacrijice of praise, is Hebrew, Lev. vii. 12, niii^n TOT, comp. Ps. 1. 14. 23. As to KapTTov x^'-^^^^f there is nothing in the classics like it. Plainly it has its original in the Hebrew, ^J^/^B^ DHS ilQ^t^!!, Hos. xiv. 3, we will render to thee the calves [i. e. the offering, the fruit] of our lips, or rather, we will render to thee calves with our lips. 16 Qvaiaig, as applied to evTrodag kol tcotvioviag, is purely a Hebrew application. 17 "Xirkp Twv ^vxiov vpu)v, for you, DZ)^lt^H)^7 ; the Greeks, virep hjxibv. In this selection, I have aimed at taking only the more obvious words and phrases. It might be much enlarged, by more strenuously urging the prin- ciple, in all respects, of dissimilarity to the Greek classic writers. That an idea is peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and unknown to the classic authors, has not been the basis of my selection in any case, unless at the same time there is a phraseology, which is as foreign to the Greeks as the idea itself. If all the ideas which are not classical, were to be the guiding principle in our selection, there would be no end of examples. But this would not be a fair and proper method of proceeding. It is the diction, and phraseology , and the sense which is given to the words em- ployed, that are asserted to be ^EXXrjvini^Tepa. In this shape have I endeavoured to meet the thing; and the reader has the result before him. With such a result in view, what matters it, whether De Wette, Schulz, Seyffarth, or even Origen himself, tells us that our epistle is almost classical Greek, and that all runs smoothly and oratorically on? As to this last assertion, I have only to ask, that those who make it would translate and explain Heb. ii. 9, 10. ; iii. 3, 4. 15 ; iv. 3 — 9 ; v. 5. 7—9 ; vi. 1, 2 ; vii. 1—3. 8, 9. 15, 16 ; ix. 9, 10. 15—17. 27, 28 ; X. 5—9. 20 ; xi. 3. 39, 40 ; xii. 18—24. 27, 28 ; xiii. 7—9. 1 1—13 ; to which I might easily add many other passages. If they will find Greek more elliptical, more involved, more intricate and dark, in all the epistles of Paul, I will thank them for the discovery. — I must add, also, that the list of Hebraisms and unclassical usage, in our epistle, would have been much more swelled, if I had not omitted to repeat the same words, so often as I found them repeated and used in a Hebraistic or ^30 § 33. ALEXANDRIN]^ HUE OF THE EPISTLE. in a Hebraistic or unclassical manner. Such words are adtkfog, fiytoc ayia(^a>, ^fiapTta, aaQiveia, BiKaifOfiaj cyicatv/^w, cTrayyeXta, /caQ' iip.(pavy KXripoyofxoQ, KXrjpovojjLeiOf /caraTrauciC, XoyoQ a.p-)(fjcj ^laduTroduaria, yueyaXw- avvrj, neffirrfQf rsKpog, o'ikoq, aapkj reXetoojf and others. I make the appeal now with boldness, and call upon those who assert the almost classic style and manner of our epistle, to produce more true Hebraisms, and more idioms foreign to the Greek classics, in any of Paul's acknowledged epistles. I will even venture to make another offer; which is, that I will show that some at least of his acknowledged epistles exhibit less Hebrew colouring, when they shall have shown that some of them exhibit more. It does not signify to beat the air, in this contest. Assertions are one thing; facts are another. If Origen and all the Greek fathers were to assert, that our epistle is EXXrjviKvjrepa than Paul's, it could not make it so. *' To the work of examination,^' would be my reply. Let every critic go to this work, for himself, if he knows enough of Hebrew idiom to do it : and the result will be an abiding conviction, that Origen had as little reason for the assertion in question, as he had for the adventurous remark which he has made, on the use of the Greek article by the sacred writers. Origen's assertion, and every other man's, on this subject, can be brought to the test ; and he who subjects them to this process, I am persuaded, will find himself brought, at last, if he will examine impartially and fully, to a firm conviction that they are mere assertions, and nothing more. § 33. Alexandrine hue of the Epistle. Eichhorn, who has so strenuously insisted that Paul is not the author of our epistle, has endeavoured to show, that it is probably of Alexandrine origin. But the arguments which he adduces for this purpose, seem to me incapable of standing the test of a critical exami- nation. (1.) "The author of the epistle to the Hebrews treats the ancient Jewish Scriptures as containing a mysterious and secret sense, concealed under the words. He also regards the various ritual observances of the ancient law, only as types and shadows of things under the Chris- tian dispensation, Heb. x. 1 ; ix. 8. Philo of Alexandria expresses the same views, De confus. Ling. p. 348." Eichh. Einleit. p. 442. That the general views of the author of our epistle in regard to the § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE, 231 meaning and object of Jewish rites coincided with those of Philo, I should not be at all disposed to deny. But who is going to show us, that these were not founded in truth? If, as I believe, the Jewish dispensation had its origin in divine communications and directions, there can be no rational doubt that it had some important end in view. Surely, now, the sacrifices and various rites of external purification could never, in and of themselves, be deemed an object worthy of special divine interposition and command. Their connexion with some higher and more spiritual object and end, was what stamped their highest real value upon them. In any other point of view, they could scarcely be thought worthy of the character of Him who requires men to worship him in spirit and in truth. That a man of such enlarged views as Philo, should have seen and felt this, and that Paul should have done the same, is not a matter of wonder to any one, who considers the tendency of an enlightened mind to look on the spiritual design of religion as infinitely the most important and interesting part of it. What can be more diverse, however, than the particular form which Philo gives to his speculations on this subject, and that in which the ideas of our author are developed ? Philo allegorizes on every thing, and every where, almost without distinction. The historical facts in the book of Genesis, the connexion of Abraham with Sarah and Hagar, and all other occurrences related in the Pentateuch, are, if occasion presents an opportunity, converted into allegory, and made the theme of exube- rant speculative mysticism. Neither is there one word in all, which has any relation to the Messiah, or to his atoning sacrifice. How very different the types and shadows presented by our epistle are, the intelligent and critical reader need not be informed. All is brought to beEir on one single point — the death of Christ, the propi- tiatory sacrifice for sin made by it, and the eflfectual reconciliation to God accomplished in this manner. To reason, then, as Eichhorn has done, is just the same, as to bring forward the allegation, that Philo believed in the existence of one supreme God : that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews did the same, and then draw the inference, that the writer of this epistle must therefore have lived, or at least been nurtured, at Alexandria. I ven- ture to say, that there never has been so rational an account of the object of the Jewish ritual, as the author of our epistle gives : nor one so worthy of the great Author of the old and the new dispensations, 232 § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. nor so consonant with the fundamental maxim, that " God is a spirit, and requires men to worship him in a spiritual manner.** (2.) " Philo intimates, that the higher mysteries of the Jewish religion are only for the initiated, /xvVToy d/ ^d^a. Ol he. pavn^ovTig Tralhg, EvayyE\i(l,6fXEvoi. jjimv rhv &(f)EffLV tGjv afxapTLibVy koX tov ayvLC^ov rfjg KaphiaQj olt; e^oji^e tov EvayyEXtov rrjy E^ovffiaVj {oven ^EKahvo tig fxaprvpiOy rwr (pvXioy, on ^EKadvo at (bvXal tov *Iffpa^X,) EiQ TO KripvfforEiy. Ata tI ^e TpElg Tral^Eg ol pavrii^oyTEg ', l^lg fxap- Tvpioy 'AjSpaafi koI 'leractfc kul 'la»cw/3, on ovtoi fJEyaXoi rw GeoJ. "Ort ^e to epioy ETTc TO ^vXoy ; "Ort »/ fiaaiXeia tov 'Irjffov ettI t^ ^vXu)' ^ioti ol iXTri^oyTEg sig avToy ^r](ToyTai Elg Toy alwya. Ata rt hk to tpioy kol rby vacrioTzoy', "Ort iy TTi patTiXeiqi avTOv fifiEpai Effoyrai Troyrjpat Kai pvTrapat, Ey alg y/xE^g aioBrj- crojXEQa' on koX aXyojy Tr/y trapKa hia tov pvirov tov vaaujirov laTai. Kai ^ta TOVTO ovTCJ yEyofXEya, fjjjuy fxsy i'^i (^ayEpa, EKEiyoig ce aKOTEiya' otl ovk r]K0vaav ^(oyijg TOV Kvpiov, But enough. If all were cited, which betrays a feeble and puerile mind, the whole epistle must be transcribed. Let him who needs further argument on this subject, peruse the whole epistle to the Hebrews, and then read through the epistle of Barnabas. It is impossible that he should not feel the almost indescribable difference between the two writers. Here, then, is a case, where the possibility of mistake in judging is very small. The difference between this writer, and him who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in respect to style, precision, clearness, energy, brevity — in a word, every thing which characterizes any writing — is heaven-wide. The most obtuse perception cannot fail to discern it. It is a hopeless case, to plead the cause of an hypothesis like this. § 36. Was Luke the Author ? The first suggestion among the ancient fathers, that Luke had any part in the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, is found in a fragment of Clement of Alexandria, preserved by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. vi. 14, in which Clement asserts, that " Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke carefully translated it into the Greek." See note, p. 85. The same opinion, or tradition, Origen mentions thus : " If I may give my opinion, I should say, the thoughts are the apostle's ; but the phraseology and composition belong to some one who relates what the apostle said, and as it were comments on the words of his master. But who wrote [i. e. wrote down] the epistle, God 238 ^ 36. WAS LUKE THE AUTHOR ? only knows. Report, which has come down to us, says, either that Clement of Rome wrote it, or that Luke the Evangelist did." p. 89^ supra. Both Bertholdt and Eichhorn have adduced Origen as asserting, that report attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Luke as the real author ; which the context in Origen by no means allows, I cannot but under- stand him as saying merely, that " the ancients had a report, that either Luke or Clement wrote down the epistle;" which corresponds with the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Origen's teacher in early life. We have seen that afterwards, among the Latin churches, either Luke, or Clement, was regarded as the real author of this epistle ; for so the testimony of Jerome and Philastrius, cited in the preceding section, would seem to indicate. We have no historical ground, then, on which we can build the opinion, that Luke was the author of this epistle. An uncertain tradition of the fourth century is surely insufficient. And even if Origen be under- stood as asserting, that tradition, in his day, assigned the composition of our epistle to Luke ; he also asserts, at the same time, that traditionary testimony was at variance with itself, as one party assigned it to Clement of Rome. He evidently credits neither the one nor the other; at least, not in such a way as to be fully persuaded in his own mind ; for he says " Who wrote down the epistle, to fxh aXrjBsQ Geoj," olh." The same uncertainty both Jerome and Philastrius exhibit, in the testimony to which allusion has just been made. It is no doubt true, that the style of Luke approximates much nearer to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, than the style of Barnabas ; so that a comparison, in this respect, does not lead to so clear and satis- factory a result in this case, as in that. But the situation of Luke, (born and educated abroad, as he was, and never having resided long m Palestine,) hardly leads one to believe that he was so deeply versed in rabbinical lore, and in Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews must have been. The main difficulty, however, is the want of any external evidence that Luke was the author. And as there are, at least, no internd circumstances, or evidence from style, which speak much in favour of such an opinion, it must be abandoned as improbable, and altogether unsupported. § 37. WAS OLKMENT OF ROMS THE AUTHOR? 23P § 37. Was Clement of Rome the author? Origen is the first, who mentions Clement as the possible writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. In what sense he does this, has been already considered. Jerome and Philastrius, long afterwards, mention that some in the Latin churches attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Clement of Rome. The evidence of this from testimony, then, is not entitled to any degree of credit, sufficient to create serious doubts whether Clement may not have been the author. The internal evidence, drawn from a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians, by no means fa\ours the supposition in question. Clement has often cited the epistle to the Hebrews. But this seems to me abundant proof, that he did not write that epistle himself; for, as we have already seen, he appeals to it as Scripture, in order to establish and confirm sentiments which he is inculcating, and in the same manner as he does elsewhere to the other Scriptures. Is this to be supposed, in case he himself wrote that epistle ? Did Clement attribute scriptural authority to his own epistle ? Or did the church, whom he addressed, attribute scriptural authority to any epistles, but to those of an apostle ? Does he any where in his letter appeal to other epistles than such ? The obvious answer to these inquiries determines the question, whether Clement wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in the negative. But further. The difficulty of style is so great, between the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews, as to make it sufficiently evident that both did not proceed from the same pen. I refer not merely to the choice of words, (although this might be easily shown to be con- siderable,) but to the general spirit and manner of the execution. There is an energy, originality, vividness of conception, and intensity of feeling, displayed every where in the epistle to the Hebrews, which is wholly wanting in Clement's epistle. It is plain, kind, faithful ; but it is moderate, comparatively tame, made up of many extracts from the Old Testament and from Paul, and of imitations, as close as might be, of the latter. But what a wide difference there is, after all, between the original writer and the imitator, every one must feel who reads both. The one is a feeble rivulet, gliding gently along, which, but for the occasional contributions it receives from other streams, would become absorbed by the earth over which it passes, and cease to flow ; the other a mighty stream, overflowing all its banks, supplying with water, 240 ^ 38. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS THE and fertilizing all the country through which it passes. It really seems to me, that a man might as well mistake a canal on the banks of the Nile for the noble river itself, as mistake Clement for the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. § 38. Was Apollos the Author ? A supposition never made by any of the ancient churches, and first ventured upon, I believe, by Luther, Com. in Gen. xlviii. 20. Postil. Ecc. Test. S. Johann. Evang. p. 44. But this opinion has since been applauded or defended by Le Clerc, Heumann, Miiller, Ziegler, and Bertholdt, p. 2974. The difficulties attending the supposition are, (1.) We have no external evidence in favour of it; no voice of antiquity being raised to testify, that Apollos has left one single line of any written com- position behind him, much less such an epistle as that to the He- brews. (2.) We have no internal evidence of such a fact ; for there is no testimony of this nature in the epistle itself; and there can be no evidence drawn from the style of it compared with the style and diction of Apollos, inasmuch as we have no writing of Apollos, with which the comparison can be made. It follows, therefore, that those who believe Apollos to be the author, must believe so without any evidence external or internal. It is not worth our time to refute such a belief. § 39. In what language was the Epistle originalh/ written ? On this question, there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that "Paul wrote the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek," Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 14. Eusebius in the same manner says, that " Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement translated it," Euseb. iii. 28. So Jerome also; " Scripserat ut Hebraeus Hebrseis Hebraice," (Catal. Vir. Illust. voc. Paulus ;) and then he adds, " that this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of Paul's." Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was Clement of Alexandria: and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contained in the epistle were Paul's, while the diction or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the sentiments of the apostle. ] 39. EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ? 241 By the Hebrew language ^ no one can reasonably doubt, these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect^ which was spoken in the days of the apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long ceased lo be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these fathers were led to the conclusion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief (so universal in ancient times) of its having been addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a conclusion ; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews, in all probability, be more acceptable if written in their own vernacular language ? Moreover, Paul was well ac- quainted with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem, and ** at the feet of Gamaliel ;" and when he had visited there, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who were excited against him, in their native tongue. Acts xxii. 1, 2. Why should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, our epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that country. So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned ; although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have coincided in opinion with those to which I have just referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same opinion ; and particularly Michaelis, who has discussed the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, -if admitted, would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mis- took his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations wholly a priori ; as if these were admissible in a question of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls wrong translation^ which wears the appearance of any considerable probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted with the Aramean language, (who has gone through with the New Testa- ment, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation from Aramean documents,) confesses, that, in respect to this epistle, he R M2 § 39. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS THE finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramean origi- nal, and no marks that there ever was such an original. This testimony- is of considerable importance in respect to the question before us : as it comes from a critic, who spent many years on the study of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, viz. the detection of the Aramean originals of the various parts of the New Testament. Berth, p. 2976. The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original, are deduced from two sources. First, that Hebrews are addressed in our epistle ; to whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intel- ligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, cer- tainly could not read it. Secondly, that the diversity of style in the epistle to the Hebrews is so great, when compared with that of Paul's epistles, that, unless we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be led to the conclusion, that Paul did not write it. Both of these topics have been already discussed above. I merely add here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Besides, if Paul did address it to the church at Cesarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew ; for in every considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last posi- tion established beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug's Intro- duction to the N. Test. vol. \l. pp. 32 — 50. When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin ; yet there was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common at Rome. If Paul understood the Latin lan- guage, (which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided, when he wrote our epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used,) still he understood Greek so much better, that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable, that he would write the epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty- five years at least, in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every KPISTLE OHIGINALLY WRITTEN ? 243 where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and con^ versed. Is it any wonder, then, that after twenty-five years incessant labour of preaching, conversing, and writing in this language, he should have preferred writing in it ? Indeed, can it be probable, that under circumstances like these, he still possessed an e1STLE TO THE HEBREWS, 265 Thus much for the comparison of Christ with Moses. Next, the writer proceeds to compare Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish priesthood, and particularly with the high priest, the most dignified of all who were invested with the sacerdotal office. He first introduces Christ as a compassionate high priest, and exalted to the highest dignity in the heavens, ch. iv. 14 — 16. Next, he states the various things which are attached to the priesthood, as existing among the sons of Levi. (1.) A high priest must present oblations and sacrifices, ch. v. 1. (2.) He must be compassionate and sympathetic towards others, and especially so, as he is himself frail and erring, ch. V. 2, 3. (3.) He must be appointed of God to this office, ch. v. 4. In all these respects, he now goes on to make a comparison of Jesus, the high priest of Christianity, and to shew his superiority. He shews, — First, that Christ was divinely appointed a priest, and that of the highest order, ch. v. 5, 6. Next, he shews that Christ our great high priest was compassed with human infirmity, like other priests, so that, like them, he was fitted to exercise compassionate sympathy, ch. v. 7, 8. But after he had suffered, he was raised to glory and became a high priest of the most exalted order, i. e. of the order of Melchisedek, ch. v. 9, 10. The difficulty of the subject now suggested, affords an occasion for the writer to advert to the state of religious ignorance, in which those were whom he addressed, ch. v. 11 — 14; to exhort them to come out of it, and to warn them against the fearful danger that would result from not doing so, ch. vi. 1 — 8. To this he subjoins commendation as to some things, and powerful motives of encouragement, ch. vi. 9 — 20. He now resumes the subject of Melchisedek ; shews the superiority of his priesthood over that of the sons of Levi, ch. vii. 1 — 10 ; and then argues that Christ, who was a perpetual priest of the like order with Melchisedek, must of course be superior to the Jewish priests, ch. vii. 11—25. Christ too, as high priest, differed in one important respect from other priests, viz. in that he needed no sacrifice for himself, as an erring, sinful man, like the sons of Levi, but was sinless and perfect, yea, even exalted to a state of supreme glory, ch. vii. 26 — 28. The great object, however, at which the writer is going to aim in the sequel of his epistle, is, to shew that the high priest of Christianity offi- ciates in heaven for his followers, ch viii 1, 2. The Jewish priests per- 270 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS form their functions in a temple, which is merely an image of the hea- venly one, ch. viii. 3 — 6. The new covenant, of which Jesus is mediator, is altogether superior, also, to the old, ch. viii. 6 — 13. The ordinances and apparatus of ser- vice attached to this, were all mere types of heavenly things, ch. ix. 1 — 10. The services themselves were imperfect, as to the end attained by them, since they accomplished nothing more than external purification ; but the blood of Christ sanctifies internally, and procures eternal redemption and an everlasting inheritance, for all the chosen of God in every age of the world, ch. ix. 11 — 15, The new testament, which gives an inheritance to the people of God, was sanctioned by the death of Jesus, ch. ix. 15. Such is the custom in regard to testaments, ch. ix. 16, 17. As a symbol of this, even the first covenant, (^laS'jyKrr/,) with all the apparatus attached to it, was sanc- tioned by blood, i. e. the emblem of death, ch. ix. 18 — 22. If the earthly sanctuary was thus consecrated, then the heavenly one must be so, by a sacrifice of a still higher nature, ch. ix. 23, 24. Sacrifices in the earthly temple must be often repeated ; but the sacrifice of Christ did, once for all, accomplish the great purposes for which it was offered, ch. ix. 24—28. Indeed, no legal sacrifices could make any real atonement for sin, ch. X. 1 — 4. Therefore Christ voluntarily proffered himself as a sin offering, entirely and for ever to effect this, ch. x. 5 — 18. Thus is completed the comparison of Christ, and of his functions as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, with the Jewish priests and their func- tions in the earthly tabernacle. In all respects, Jesus, the high priest of the Christian religion, appears greatly superior. The writer now proceeds to various bold and powerful exhortations, mixed with awful warnings against defection from the Christian religion, ch. X. 19 — 31. He sets before them the effects of persevering faith, in the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished worthies, ch. xi. I — 40. This he follows up with continued exhortations, and encouragements, and warnings, ch. xii. 1 — 29; and then closes his epistle with divers practical directions, cautions, and salutations, ch. xiii. 1 — 25. Such is the brief view of the course of thought and reasoning in our epistle. It is plain that there are three great points of comparison in it, which constitute the main object at which the writer aims, in order that he may show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 271 I. The superiority of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, over angels who were employed as mediators, when the old covenant was established, — chap. i. ii, II. The superiority of Christ, the head of the new dispensation, over DToses, the head of the old, — chap. iii. iv. III. The superiority of Christ as high priest of the new dispensation, md of the services which he performs, over the priesthood of the Mosaic mstitution, and all the services which were appropriate to their office, — ch. V. 1 ; X. 18. Exhortations, warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, are intermixed in some manner with the main discussions : e. g. ch. ii. 1 — 4 ; iii. 1 ; iii. 7 — iv. 16; iv. 11 — vi. 20; but from ch. x. 19 to the end of the epistle, nearly all is of the nature just described ; so that about one half of the epistle is of a parenetical or hortatory nature. In judging of the relevancy and importance of the subjects discussed in our epistle, it is very plain, that we are not to make up an opinion, deduced merely from viewing the present necessities and condition of Christians. We were not born Jews, nor educated as such. We have none of their prejudices, peculiar sympathies, temptations, and trials. What was adapted to them, in the days of Paul, and under the circum- stances above described ; nay, what was absolutely indispensable for their instruction, reproof, and confirmation, may, in many respects, be scarcely appropriate to us, in our condition and circumstances. Such is indeed the fact, in regard to many of the things introduced into the epistle to the Hebrews ; as I shall have occasion hereafter repeatedly to notice. But who, that judges with any good degree of candour and fairness, would ever think of bringing it as an accusation against our author, that he has inserted in his epistle, that which was altogether appropriate to those whom he addressed, although it may not, and does not, have an equal bearing upon all times and nations ? Surely, the last ground of just accusation which can be advanced against any writer, is, that ** he has written in a manner peculiarly adapted to accomplish the end for which he wrote." In what a different plight would the world of authors be, if all of them were justly liable to such an imputation ! Of necessity, now, many things addressed to the Jews of Paul's day, are comparatively inapplicable to us. So far, however, as our circum- stances agree with theirs in any respect, just so far the spirit of what was said to them will apply to us. So far as what was said to them was 272 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS, &C, founded in general Christian truths and principles, just so far we may be instructed and guided by it. Consequently, as it must follow from these positions, the epistle, while it contains many things appropriate to the Hebrews of early times, also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God, while Christianity exists in the world. These general views may serve to aid the critical student, in com- mencing the exegetical study of our epistle. The more particular detail of what is here hinted, is reserved for the introductions to various parts of the epistle, which are inserted, pro re natdy in the body of the com- mentary which follows. 273 COMMENTARY. CONTENTS OF CHAPTERS 1. 1 — II. 4. Tiie object of the writer being to commend Christianity to those whom he addressed, in such a manner as to prevent defection from this religion ; he begins by setting forth Christ as the author of the new revelation which God had made to men, ch. i. 1. He then touches upon the dignity of his office ; he is Lord of the universe ; which, indeed, he also created, ver. 2. He is the true image of God, and the representative of his glory and perfections to men; he is endowed with sovereign power; and having made atonement for the sins of men, he is exalted to the highest majesty in the heavens, ver. 3. This mediator of the new dispensation is exalted above angels, who were the mediators of the ancient one. His name, SON, is more exalted than theirs ; for they have not been addressed, like him, with such an appellation, ver. 4, 5. He is the object of worship by the angels ; while they are employed only as the swift and ready messengers of God, ver. 6, 7. The King Messiah has an eternal and righteous dominion ; and is elevated, on account of his love of righteousness, to honour and happiness above all other kings, ver. 8, 9. Him, too, the sacred writer addresses, as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and as immutable and imperishable, ver. 10 — 12. But no exaltation to such dominion is conferred upon angels, ver. 13; they are only ministerial agents, employed for the good of those who are to be heirs of the salvation which Christ bestows, yer. 14. If such be the dignity and elevation of the Messiah, then, surely he may justly demand the attentive consideration of all which he addresses to his followers. Obedi- ence to the ancient revelation was enforced by just and unavoidable penalties ; how can the neglect of the new and more perfect one go unpunished ? ch. ii. 1, 2. Especially must this be the case, since it was promulgated by Christ himself in person, and was confirmed, on the part of God, by a great variety of wondrous miracles, ver. 3, 4. CHAP. I 'H TTpbg 'E/3patove emffToXri. See, on this title, § 10. p. 35, seq. 1 . UoXvfjLEpwQ Koi TroXvrpoTTojQf literally in various parts and in various ways. Of the Greek commentators, some give a different sense to each of the words ; e. g. Theodoret, TroXvfxepwg — rac iravTo^airac oiKovofxias crrifxalvEi, to U TroXvrpoTroJc, riov 0£twv OTrrao-ituv to ^la^opov, i. e. TroXvfxepiog signifies the various dispensations , and TroXvrpoTrwc the diversity of divine visions. Theophylact interprets the words in question, by diaf opias 274 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1. 1. jcat TToXvet^ioQ, diversely, and in various ways. But Chrysostom expresses (he sense of both words, by diaipopiog simply. Modern commentators are divided in the same manner. The Greek idiom allows either mode ol interpretation ; and precedents may be found for each. See Schleusner on the words ; and compare Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 4. p. 331; V.p. 667, ed. Potter. If the two words be construed separately, then iroXviiepuig should be interpreted as referring to the matter of ancient revelation, given in different parts and at different times, thus conveying the idea of the gradual development of truth in different ages and by different persons ; and TroXvrpoTrwe must be understood as indicating the various ways in which these revelations were communicated, i. e. by dreams, visions, symbols, Urim and Thummim, prophetic ecstacy, &c. But if both words are regarded, as being used only to designate with intensity the variety of ancient revelations, (and such a mode of phraseology is very common both in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures,) then the whole may be paraphrased thus : " God, who in ancient times made communi- cations, in many different ways, by the prophets to the fathers, hath," &c. The word 7roXvfxtp(Zg does not, of itself, signify sundry times; but still, the idea of various parts or portions, which it does properly signify, may very naturally be understood as implying diverse times at which, or occasions on which, the different parts of revelation were communi- cated ; or the idea of TroXv/iepwc may be simply that of repetition, so that often would well communicate the sense of it. In this way I have ventured to translate it. Of the two modes of interpreting these words, I rather prefer that which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each. The writer evidently designs to present an antithesis between the manner of the ancient and the Christian dispensation. This antithesis is rendered more striking, if we understand the first clause in the verse thus : " God, who in ancient times made communications to the fathers by the prophets, in sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revelation to us by his Son ;" i. e. he has completed the whole revelation, which he intends to make under the new dispensation, by his Son^ by his Son only, and not by a long continued series of prophets, as of old. The apostles, and other inspired writers of the New Testament, received their com- munications from the Son, who gave them the Holy Spirit, Matt. xi. 27, comp. John xiv. 26; xvi. 13 ; and facts shew, that the Christian revela- tion was completed, during that generation who were contemporary with the Saviour, when he dwelt on earth. COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 1. 275 ndXat, in ancient times ; for communications by prophets to the Jews had ceased, from the time of Malachi and his contemporaries, i. e. for the space of about four hundred years. Hence, the writer avoids using an expression which would imply, that revelations had been continued down to the time then present. By iraXai, he evidently means to designate the whole time, during which communications of the Divine will were continued under the former dispensation. AaXZ/cac most commonly designatef* oral communication. But since the writer here affirms, that God had spoken (XaX^orac) TroXvrpoTrwc, it must of course be understood (as indeed it is often used) to designate the more general idea of communication made in any manner ^ by visions, symbols, &c. as well as by voices. Tole Trarpao-tv, ancestors; see Wahl's Lex. We might naturally expect that i^^dv would be subjoined ; but Paul commonly uses the word TaripEQ in the sense just noted, without the pronoun annexed. See Rom. ix. 5; xi. 28 ; xv. 8. 'Ev rote Trpo^^atg, hy the prophets. The use of kv with the dative, instead of ^th with the genitive, is frequent in the New Testament ; as any one may see in Wahl's Lexicon, h no. 3. a. The frequent use of it, in this way, is a Hebraism; for kv corresponds to the Hebrew 2, which is employed with great latitude of signification, and in cases of the same nature as that in question ; e. g. Hosea i. 2, the word of the Lord by Hosea, ^^inB. But an occasional use of kv in a similar way, by native Greek writers, may also be found; e. g. Thucyd. VH. II, what has been done before, ye know^ kv aXKaig TroXXalg ETrtToXalc, by many other letters. npo0//7atg, in the language of the New Testament, means, not only those who predict future events, but all who were employed by God, as the medium of making religious communications of any kind to his people. 'Ett' kcr^ciTov roJv fi/jiepiov, in many copies Itt' co-xarwv rwv fjfXEpwv. The LXX. use both forms of expression, as a translation of the Hebrew D'^QN'l iT''ini< ; thus showing that they were regarded by them as synonymes. It is a matter of indifference, as to the sense of the text, which reading is adopted. The meaning of the phrase is best understood, from a comparison of the corresponding expressions in Hebrew. In the Old Testament, D''DV3 Jin™, rinnj^, ]D-n™, and fn™ D^ are often employed synonymously ; and all of them to designate the general idea of hers- T 2 276 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 1. after, at a future tirncj in the sequel. Whether this future time be more or less remote, depends entirely on the context, and scope of the passage. See Gen. xlix. 1. Numb. xxiv. 14. Deut. iv. 30. Prov. xxxi. 25. But D''Q''I1 r^nrTK, in particular, is used to denote the future period in which the Messiah (6 kg^ojievoo) was to appear ; Isa. ii. 2. Hos. iii. 5. Micah iv. 1. Joel iii. 1, [Eng. ii. 28,] pf'^lO^- This phrase (as it would seem from the usage in these places) early passed into a kind of technical designation of the time of the Messiah, or rather of the new dispensation under him. Thus Rabbi Nachmanides, on Gen. xlix. 1, says, ** All our doctors agree, that D^^p^H /T'"}rT^^ means, the times of the Messiah.'' That such a use of the phrase in question, was already an established one, in the time of our Saviour, is abundantly evident, from the frequency with which al 'Iffxarai yfxepai is employed in the New Testament, to designate the period of the Christian dispensation. Like other appellations, acquired in a similar way, (comp. Luke vii. 20,) it continued to be employed, after the " last days," i. e. the Christian dispensation, had commenced ; and it is employed to designate any part of the time which this dispensation comprises : being limited only by the context, in the same manner, as the Hebrew D'p''n Jl^Hi;^ &c. as exhibited above. In John vi. 39, 40. 44. 54, and xi. 24, tarxarr] rjfjiipa is indeed used to denote the end of time, when the resurrection of the dead will take place. But, in each of these cases, avarr/ffw or avw^affig accom- panies it, so as to save all doubt in respect to its meaning. In all other cases, it designates the period of the new dispensation. Many synonymous expressions are also employed, to designate the same idea : e. g. 6 tcryaTOQ Kaipog, ol 'iffxaroL Katpol, r/ Effx^rr] wpa, and v^epoi Kutpoi. The Jews, it is said, divided the periods of the world into ntH D/U^Jlt the present age or world, i. e. the period of the Mosaic dispensation, and K3n D^i^n, the age or world to come, i. e. the time of the Messiah's reign. The former is called, in the New Testament, 6 atwv ovtoq, 6 vvv alwv Tov KOffpov TOVTOv, 6 alojv 6 kvE, by whom. It is contended here Ith is not limited to signify the instrumental cause (so called), but that it often designates the principal cause. This is true ; see Wahl on ^ta, 1. c. where both the classical and New Testament usage of lib., in this sense^, is shewn. But there is still a poosihility of the sense which Grotius gives it here, viz. on account of whom; see Wahl, no. 2., and to the instances there adduced of Zlcl used with the genitive, and signifying on account of, add Rom. v. 19, bis. viii. 3 ; and perhaps 2 Cor. ix. 13 ; and 2 Pet. i. 3, ^ih d6!,r)g. In all these cases, however, lia does not properly denote the final cause or end for which a thing is done ; but only a motive for doing it, an instrument, as it were, in bringing it about. To say, that the worlds were made on account of the Son, as the final end or object of them, would imply something more, or something different from say- ing, that they were made by him. The sense which Grotius puts upon Zia cannot be defended by any examples sufficiently plain, and cogent enough to justify the admission of it. Tovg aiioraQ k7roir](xe, he, [i. e. ^tog] made the worlds, or the universe. So, beyond any reasonable doubt, alCJvEQ is to be understood in xi. 3, and in 1 Tim. i. 17. The singular {aliov) is not employed to designate world. The classical use of aliov is (1.) Age, period of time. (2.) Age of man, time of life. Atwvac, then, is used here, (like UTS^ , U^ufs"^ , in the Chaldee and the later Hebrew), for world, worlds, universe. Theodoret explains it as meaning ages ; and so others have since done. But what is the sense of the assertion, that God made the ages by his Son ? If we understand this of the common periods of the life of man ; or (with Theodoret) of the ages of the world ; or of the Jewish and Christian dispensations, with others ; what is it to the writer's purpose to assert this, in a passage which is evidently designed to shew the exalted pre-eminence of the Son of God. As to the sentiment conveyed by the interpretation which I have adopted, viz. he made the worlds, it is confirmed by Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 15 — 19. John i. 3, 10. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Heb. i. 10. See Excursus I. II. 3. "Oq u)v aTzavya 2 Sam. vii. 14, whence the quotation is taken. The term Son seems here to designate one who should be entitled to all the rights and pri- vileges of a Son ; and in particular, one who should be an heir to the throne of his Father. This same figurative expression, heirship, being heir, the writer has applied to the Son in the context, ver. 2. 4. Now, as the angels are not entitled to such privileges, the appellation Son, (which implies a right to them in this case,) shows that he to whom it is applied, is elevated above the angels. And this is the position, which the argument in Heb. i. is designed to establish. If we may credit Abarbanel, the ancient Jewish doctors held that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. However this may be, the apostle, in applying this and the following quotations to the Messiah, must have supposed himself addressing those, who would readily concede that they ought to be thus applied. Otherwise, we cannot suppose that he could have regarded this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote. Ver. 6. "Otciv U ttciXiv .... Xiyei, again also, when he hringeth his Jirst-begotten into the world, he saith ; a passage replete with difficulties. Does ttoKlv qualify eio-ayayr/ ? Or is it to be transposed thus, 7ra\t»' U, o-av, K. T. \.? Many contend for this transposition ; and Abresch cites what he calls similar instances of a metathesis, in Acts xiii. 27. 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 6. These, however, come short of establishing his position. Admitting the transposition in question, we must translate TTttXiv, K. T. X. by again, i. e. in another passage of scripture, when he introduces, &c. But this transposition is unnecessary, even if the sense here given to TraXtvbe retained ; for we may translate equally well, but when, in another place, he introduces, &c. One might translate irakLv here, (with Storr, Wahl, and others,) on the other hand, on the contrary, i. e. God speaks in quite a different way to the angels, when he intro- duces his first begotten into the world, viz. instead of calling them sons, he commands them to worship his Son. See Wahl's Lex. on TraXo'. So Schneider, ttoXlv, ijn Gegentheile, (ex adverso,) specially in com- posites, as Tra\ip.^i. Compare also T](Tif in 1 Cor. vi. 16. The quotation, in our verse, is from Ps. civ. 4. Ver. 8, 9. Jlpog U tov vlov .... aluivtoQ, but respecting the Son, [he saith]. Thy throne, O God, is eternal. Qpovog is plainly the emblem of dominion ; because kings, when acting in their capacity as rulers, were accustomed to sit on thrones. 'O ^eoq is not the nominative case, as some have maintained, but the vocative. It is the usual vocative, and nearly the only form of it, throughout the Septuagint ; e. g. Ps. iii. 7; iv. 1 ; v. 10; vii. 1, et passim. The Attics, moreover, fre- quently retain the form of the nominative, in the vocative of the second declension. Buttman's Gram. sect. 33, n. 2. To translate the phrase by God is thy throne, would be to introduce a mode of expression foreign to the usus loquendi of the Scriptures ; for where is God ever said to be the throne of his creatures ? And what could be the sense of such an expression ? Throne is the emblem of dominion, not of support. So Theoph. S-povog yap .... 6 (^acrtXeiag (TVfji(Do\ov. Figuratively used, as here, it is of the same import as sceptre, pafj^og. Gesenius renders the phrase, thy God's throne is eternal, i. e. the throne which God gives thee. But this is doing violence to D^nbl^ ^^P?' which, to support his rendering, should be f "'li^K i^P^, the pronoun following the second of two uouns in regimen, according to the usual custom, Heb. Gram, sect. 185, 1. 288 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 8, 9. Pa/3^oe ev^vTrjTOQ .... cov, a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom, or, thy reign is just. The former clause designates the perpetuity of the Son's reign ; the present one, its equitable nature. It is quite plain, too, that the two clauses are a poetic parallelism, as they belong to Ps. xlv. 7 ; and also that the subject of both clauses is the ame, viz. the dominion or reign of the Son or Messiah. 'Hydwrjffag . . . avoyum, thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, i. e. thou hast administered the affairs of thy government in a manner altogether just ; or, thine equity is highly conspicuous. Such a negative form of expression (/cat epiar^aac avoixiav,) following an affir- mative one, is very common in the Scriptures, and is designed to give intensity to the affirmative assertion which precedes it. Comp. John i. 3, 20. et al. ssepe. Ata TovTo .... dyaWtacfwc, because of this, God, thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness. But the phrase is equally sus- ceptible of the rendering, God, thy God, has anointed thee, &c. ; and this without any alteration of the general sense of the passage. Theo- phylact, however, thought otherwise ; for he says " 6 ^eog, am rov Z ^ee k(TTi, as our enemy Symmachus (here a credible witness) affirms, who renders the Hebrew thus, ^ee, 6 ^e6q (tov." "EXaiov aya\\ia(TE(M)£, i. e. kut EXaiov. Kings were anointed with oil, in order to consecrate them to their office ; see Ps. ii. 6. 1 Sam. x. 1 . xvi. 13. But perfumed oil, or precious ointment, was often employed also on festive occasions ; and honoured guests at an entertainment were often bedewed with it. That EXaioy ayaXXiacrewe here does not mean the oil of consecration to ojfice, is plain, from the consideration, that the administration of the kingly office is described, in the preceding context, as having already existed. The meaning then must be, " God has exalted his Son, with honor greater than that bestowed on kings," or, *' bestowed a higher joy on him than on other kings."" Ilapa roue pEToypvq aov, lit. in comparison with thine associates, i. e. in office, viz. kings. God has bestowed a higher reward, a greater honor, on the king Messiah, than on any other kings. Thus much for the words. The general sentiment remains to be stated. The words are quoted from Ps. xlv. 6, 7. That this whole psalm relates to the Messiah, has been generally believed by Jewish and Christian commentators ; and it is at last acknowledged by Rosenmiiller, in the Becond edition of his Comm. in Psalmos. All other explanations seem COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 8, 9, 10. 289 iiable to insuperable difficulties ; and this, one may hope, will soon be universally felt and acknowledged. That the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, however, as mediatorial king, can scarcely be doubted by any one who compares together all its different parts. The king is called D^Il'^Nt, S^soq. Does the word ^eoc here denote the divine ^ or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah ? Most interpreters, who admit the doctrine of the Saviour's divine nature, contend for the first of these senses ; as I have myself once done, in a former publication. But further examination has led me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application of the word ^eog, in this passage. The king, here called ^edg, has for himself a ^eog ; ** thy God hath anointed thee.'* The same king has associates (jiEToxovg,) i. e. others who, in some respects, are in a similar condition or office. As divine, who are neroxoi with the Saviour? Besides, his equity, his government, his state, as described in Ps. xlv. are all such as belong to the King Messiah. Now, as Elohim is a title sometimes given to kings or magistrates, as one may see in Ps. Ixxxii. 1,6; comp. John x. 35, (in Ex. vii. 1 ; and iv. 16, it is a different case,) although no one individual king or magistrate is ever called simply Elohim, may not this title be applied, in a sense altogether peculiar and pre-eminent, to the Messiah as king ; designating his great superiority over all other kings, and distin- guishing him as avv^povog with God, as '* King of kings, and Lord of lords?" Rev. xvii. 14; Comp. Heb. i. 3, and the note on EKa^icTev iv hU^, K. r. X. Such an explanation, to say the least, removes some of the difficulties which attend the usual one ; while the following verses leave no just room to doubt what was the opinion of the writer of our epistle, in regard to the divine nature of the Messiah. The perpetuity of the kingdom mentioned here, may be the same as that in Luke i. 33; with which is to be compared 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. Indeed, it must be such, allowing the kingdom of the Messiah to be the one which is here meant. Ver. 10. Kat, crv Kar ap^ag .... e^efieXitoffag, also, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth. This verse is, by construction, necessarily connected with the preceding ones ; ver. 7, Kal TTpbg jJLEV rovg ayyeXovg \iyei — ver. 8, Trpog ^e tov vlov [Xeyet] ver. 10. Koi [i. e. irpog tov vlov XiyEi.] An address to Jehovah here, considered simply as creator, is utterly irrelevant to the scope of the writer, and to the object which he evidently has in view. Both the grammatical con- struction, and the plain design of the passage, unite in declaring this. 290 COMMENTARY ON HEB. i. 8, 9. KaT'dpx«c, in the Hebrew, Ps. cii. 25, it is CD^-iD^, of old, formerly, equivalent to /l^!i^>^'13. i'^ ^®"- i- ^' Kvpte in the New Testament and Septuagint, corresponds both to TVSXV and 7K or D^n'?^^, in the Hebrew. Here it corresponds to 7N, in Ps. cii. 24. 'E^e/ifXiwo-ae, if Aom hast laid the foundation \ ^efiaXidb), applied to a building, has this sense. But here it is, of course, applied in a figurative manner, to designate the original and primary act of creation (so to speak) ; viz. that act which may be compared to what a workman does, when he lays the foundation of a building. The Son, therefore, did not merely arrange or set in order the materials of creation already brought into being, but laid the foundation of the universe, i. e. performed the original act or first work, that of bringing it into being. "Epya reiy x^^P^^ ^^^ Tl'' •^W.^j l^^ work of thy hands, i. q. thy work. The phrase is borrowed from the fact, that hands are the instru- ments by which men usually perform any operation ; and this is, like other human operations and affections, figuratively transferred to God. 0* ovpayol means, all parts of the creation except the earth ; see Gen. *. 1. The Hebrews designated the sun, moon, and stars, i. e. all the visible creation besides the earth, by the word D^Dti^, heavens. Ver. 11. AvToi, they, i. e. the heavens and the earth. Zv de lia^ivtig^ (Hebrew ID^Jl,) thou shalt continue, he permanent, stand fast. It i* the opposite of dTroXovvrai. JlaXano^riaovTai, shall wax old, a word which, applied to a garment (the image here used,) means, to go into a state of decay, or desuetude, to become unfit for use. Hence the meta- phorical language that follows. Ver. 12. Kat iiffu .... ahrovg, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up. *EXi^€ie, means, to fold up, to roll together. The heavens are often represented as an expanse (3^''p"J) and rolling them up, is, of course, to remove them. The language, however, in the case before us, is borrowed from the custom of folding up and laying aside garments which have become unfit for use. The Hebrew word (for which kXi^etc is put) is ^vJli^, thou shalt change, remove. ' AWayr) (jovrai, they shall decay, they shall be changed, i. e. removed, taken away, or shall pass away, Hebrew ^sbrP Ps. cii. 26, Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 10; Is. li. 6; also xxxiv. 4, where the image is fully presented. 2v ^e 6 avrog tl, (Hebrew U)r\ HDi^"),) thou art he, viz, who liveth for ever, thou art always the same. So the sequel leads us to interpret this. Td erri aov ovk ekXeU \pov(ri, thy years shall never cease or fail, i. e. shall never come to an end. COMMENTARY ON HEB. I. 13, 14. 291 This would be true, if it was spoken merely with reference to the future, and should be construed as having respect only to eternity a parte post, as it is technically called, i. e. eternity to come. But as it stands here, in connexion with having created the heavens and the earth, Kar apX'^Qj it can hardly be understood to mean less than absolute eter- nity, or eternity a parte ante et a parte post. See Excursus VII. Ver. 13. Upog riva Ee Twy ayyiXojp .... Se^tiov jjlov, unto which oj' the angels, also, has he ever said, sit at my right hand. That is, where is any example of his addressing any one of the angels, and asking him to sit at his right hand, i. e. to be crvv^povos with him? See on ^e^i^ fxeyaXoffvyrjQ, under ver. 3, above. "Etogav ^(o .... iro^wy crov, until I shall make thine enemies thy foot- stool, i. e. reduce them to the most entire subjection. These words are quoted from Ps. ex. 1, (Sept. cix. 1,) and are applied to the Messiah. To make enemies a footstool, is an expression borrowed from the custom, in ancient times, of treading upon the necks of captives and captive kings, on the occasion of celebrating a triumph over them, and in token of their complete prostration and subjection ; see Joshua x. 24, and so often in Homer. Enemies signify all such as are opposed to the doc- trines or duties of the Christian religion. In Ps. ex. 1, the Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of God, (i. e. at his right hand on his throne, comp. Rev. iii. 21,) until (*Tj|/, ewg av) his enemies should he utterly subdued. But what follows this period, when they shall have been thus subdued? The apostle has told us. It is the mediatorial throne to which the Messiah is exalted ; it is to him as constituted king, that his enemies are to be brought in subjection ; and when this is accomplished, the mediatorial throne and reign, as such, are to cease. So 1 Cor. XV. 24 — 28, seems to assure us. Ver. 14. How different the station and employment of angels from that of the Messiah ! He is avv^povoQ with God, and commands the uni- verse ; they are spirits employed merely as ministers to execute his will. Are they not all XeiTovpyLKo. TryEvixarat Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 19; Zech. iii. 5 — 7. Dan. vii. 10. Is. vi. 1. Luke i. 19. By the Rabbins, the angels are frequently named >^D IH^Ii/'T ^Di^D, angeli ministerii. Etc Biaicoviay,for ministering, in order to serve, i. e. assist. AiaKovia means any kind of service or assistance whatever. It is here said to be per- formed, ^ict rovQ fiiXkovraQ KXripoyofieiv ffbjrripiay, on account of those who are to obtain salvation, i. e. on account of Christians who are the heirs of future glory or happiness, or, who will obtain it. U2 292 COMMENTAARY ON HEB. II, 1. Whatever may be the opinion of some modern critics, in regard to the /eal existence of angels as intelhgent beings, it appears quite clear that the writer of our epistle regarded them as such. To have instituted a comparison between the Son of God, on the one hand, and mere abstract qualities or imaginary beings, on the other, would not seem to be very apposite, at least not apposite to any serious purpose. And if the writer looked upon angels as only imaginary beings, or personifications of qualities, with what propriety or consistency could he represent them as worshipping the Son of God, or as ministering to the saints ? But Ps. cii. 3, is first erroneously translated, He maketh the wind his angels, and flaming Jire his servants, Xeirovpyovg avTov, and it is then used as a proof that the elements themselves are called angels. Hence it is concluded, that it is unnecessary to suppose angels to be an order of real, intelligent beings. But as this translation is not well grounded, (see on ver. 7,) any such conclusion built upon it cannot be stable. That the sacred writers every where regard angels, and speak of them, as intelligent beings, having a real existence, appears so plain, that it would seem as if no one who is not strongly wedded to his own a priori and philo- sophical reasoning, could venture to deny it. CHAP. n. Ver. 1. Aia Tovro on this account, therefore, i. e. since Christ who is at the head of the new dispensation, is so much exalted above the angels who were the mediators of the old (see ver. 2,) it becomes us, &c. Hfxdg, us by Koivioaig, i. e. a method of speaking in which the writer includes himself with those whom he addresses. See Heb. i. 1 ; ii. 3 ; iii. 1, 14; iv. 2, &c. See also similar cases in 1 Cor. x. 8, 9. 2 Cor. vii. 1. Acts vi. 17, et alibi. npoo-t'xetJ' is elliptical, {Trpoai^tiv rov vovv is the full expression,) and means, attendere, to give heed to. Abresch thinks it is here equivalent to avTixievy£iv ai^aroQ dtKrjy. Tr]\iKavTrig ffMTrjpiaQf i. e. the Christian religion ; for so the v^^ord o-wrj/pmt.- sometimes signifies. Comp. Jude ver. 3, perhaps Rom. xi. 11, and Heb. vi. 9. The full phrase would seem to be 6 \6yog tjjq awTrjpiag, which is found in Acts xiii. 26. It is, however, the Christian religion, with all its promised blessings and tremendous threats, which is here designated by aojTrjpia. How can we escape with impunity, if we neglect (ajjiekljaavTEg) them ? ' A fizX^rravrtg here means more than simple neg- lect ; it is plainly emphatic in this connexion, and means, to treat with utter disregard or contempty such, namely, as would be implied in apostacy. 'line apxn^ \aj3ovaa XaXelaS^ai, equivalent to ev ^.p^h XaXri^eiaa, which was at first declared or published. The Greeks often use the phrase apxriv Xajiibv, for, at firsts or taking its rise, commencing its origin. Tov Kvpiov, viz. Christ. 'Ytto tu)v aKovaavTidv tig f}pdg c/3e/5atw^7;, was confirmed unto us by those who heard [him,] i. e. the Lord, or, by those who heard [it,] i.e. the gospel, a(OTr)piav. 'E/3£/3atw3?7 here means delivered or declared with confirmation to us, i. e. Christians. So Theophylact, SieTropBfievBrj £?g VfxCig fte(iai(i)g kox Triffriog, was propagated to us surely and faithfully . Because the writer here says etc Vf^ag, some critics draw the conclusion that Paul could not have been the author of this epistle, since he received the gospel immediately from Christ himself. Gal. i. 12, and not from those who heard the Saviour declare it. But who that reads his writings with care, can fail to observe how often he employs Koivuxng, when addressing Christians ? Cicero says, in one of his orations, nos perdimus rempublicam. Shall we conclude that he did not write the oration, because he did not himself destroy the republic ? See on i)pdg, under ver. 1, and also Introduction, § 27, No. 17. Ver. 4. ^wETTLfxapTvpovvTog rov ^eov ffqfiELotg te KaX ripaariy God attest- ing, being co-witness, viz. to the truth of what was preached, by various wonderful events, ItrjpElov, as used often in the New Testa- ment and in the Septuagint, means, any extraordinary sign, or mira- culous event, designed to show the certainty that something which had been promised or predicted should take place, or that a prophet COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 4. 297 was what he professed to be. Tepag, portentum, prodigtum, miracle, has nearly the same meaning, and is very commonly joined with arifxeiov, in the New Testament. Both connected, mean, various extraordinary events or prodigies, designed to confirm, establish, or render credible, any prediction or declaration of Christ, or of his messengers. Heathen writers sometimes employ both words in connexion ; e. g. iElian, Var. Hist. XII. 57. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is, D'^JlS'lD') Di/1>^» i^igns and wonders, i. e. wonderful signs or proofs of any thing. Such the people of God often required, and such were often given. See Gen. XV. 8—18; xxiv. 12—27. Judges vi. 17. 21. 36—40. 2 Kings, xlx. 29. Isa. xxxviii. 7, 8 ; vii. 14—16, et alibi. Comp. Matt. xii. 38. xvi. 1—3. KaX TToiKiXatQ Bvyajxem, and various miraculous powers. Sometimes ^ovofxiQ is put for miracle, as Matt. vii. 22 ; xi. 20, 21. 23, et alibi. But as arjfieiuiQ kui repacri denote miraculous events, in our verse, I under- stand Evvafxefft as referring here to the miraculous powers which were i;n parted to the primitive teachers of the Christian religion. In such a sense the word is employed, in Mark vi. 14. Acts vi. 8 ; x. 38. The S?ptuagint do not employ this word to translate either JTii^ or D''ilDiD, but always use atifislov and repara. What follows, is connected with the phrase just explained ; viz. mt TryEviiaroQ ayiov p.epKTfjio'lQ, literally, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the imparting of divine influence ; which refers particularly to the species of this influence, which consisted in the power of working miracles. See 1 Cor. xii. 6 — 11. Comp. also John vii. 39. Acts i. 5. 8 ; ii. 4. 17, 18. 33 ; v. 32 ; viii. 15—19 ; x. 44—47; xix. 1—6. TloiKiXaiQ dwafjieai .... koi fxtpLa^olg, if considered as a Hen- dyadis {tv dia ^volv,) may be thus rendered, various miraculous powers, imparted by divine injiuence. But I rather prefer the rendering which I have given it in the version, as ixepiafiolQ probably designates the addi- tional gifts of the Spirit, other than miraculous power. Kara rriv avrov ^iXrjffiv, as it seemed good in his [God's] sight, as he pleased ; or, as the Holy Spirit pleased, which last is favoured by 1 Cor. xii. 6— 11. The sum of the whole warning (ver. 1 — 4) is, " Beware that ye do not slight the gospel, whose threatenings are more to be dreaded than those of the law ; inasmuch as the gospel is a revelation of a higher nature, and has been confirmed by more striking and more abundant miracles, wrought by divine power." 298 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 4. The writer, after having thus stopped for a moment to warn his readers against the consequences of defection from Christianity, returns to his subject, viz. the comparison of Christ with the angels. Having established, by appeals to the Old Testament (i. 5 — 14,) the superiority of the former over the latter, in several points of view; he now proceeds to show, that the new or Christian dispensation was not ordered or arranged (like the Mosaic one) by angels, but that the Son of Man, the Messiah, was, in his human nature, placed at the head of it. Now, as the Jews, one and all, con- ceded that the dispensation of the Messiah would be of a higher order than that of Moses, proof that Jesus was the sole mediator or head of the new dispensation, and that angels were not employed as mediators or internuntii in it, would satisfy them that Jesus was superior to the angels; since the place which he holds in the new economy, is higher than that which they had under the oldy because the new economy itself is of a higher nature than the old. At the same time, an objection which a Jew, weak in Christian faith and strong in his attachment to the Mosaic institutions, would very naturally feel, is met, and tacitly answered by the apostle, in what follows. Tlie unbelieving Jews, doubtless, urged upon those who professed an attachment to Chris- tianity, the seeming absurdity of renouncing their subjection to a dispensation of which angels were the mediators, and of acknowledging a subjection to one of which the professed head and mediator appeared in our nature. The history of the objections made by the unbelieving Jews, to the claims of Jesus as being the Son of God (John x. 30 — 39, et alibi,) shows how very repulsive it was to their feelings, that one to all appearance like a man, and made up of flesh and blood in the same manner eis themselves, should advance a claim to the exalted honours of a superior and divine nature. The sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which arose even in the apostolic age, from professed Jewish Christians in Palestine, show how prone the Jewish Christians were, to feel doubts and difficulties about the claims of Jesus to a nature higher than the human, and to which divine honours were due. No wonder, then, that the apostle found it necessary to meet, in our epistle, those doubts and difficulties with regard to the superior nature of the Christian dispensation, wiiich were urged upon the minds of Jewish converts by the unbelieving Jews, who regarded Christ as a mere man. We shall see, however, that our author disposes of this difficulty, so as to further the great purpose of his general argument. He concedes the fact entirely, that Jesus had a nature truly and properly human, ver. 6 18. But instead of granting that this proves tlie new dispensation to be inferior to that of Moses, he proceeds to adduce evidence from the Old Testament Scriptures, to show that man, or the human nature in the person of the Messiah, should be made Lord of the universe. Consequently, in this nature, Jesus the Messiah is superior to the angels. Of course, the possession by Jesus of a nature truly and pro- perly human, does not at all prove either his inferiority, or the inferiority of the dispen- sation of which he is tlie head (ver. 6—9 ;) which meets an objection strongly urged upon the Hebrew Christians by their unbelieving brethren. . Nay, more ; it was becoming that God should exalt Jesus, in consequence of his obedience unto death ; a death necessary for the salvation of Jew and Gentile, ver. 9, 10. To suffer this death, he must needs take on him a nature like ours ; and, as his object COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 5, 6. 299 was the salvation of vien (and not of angelic beings,) so he participated in the nature of men, in order that by experience he might know their sufferings, temptations, and trials, and thus be prepared, in a peculiar manner and in their own nature, to be com- passionate, faithful, and ready to succour them, ver. 11 — 18. The sum of the whole is : " The possession of a human nature by Jesus, is far from being a reason, why the ancient dispensation (of which angels were the internuntii) is preferable to the new one; for (1.) This very nature is exalted far above the angels. (2.) Without participating in this nature, Jesus could not have made expiation for sin by his death. And (3.) The possession of such a nature did contribute, in a peculiar and endearing manner, to constitute him such a Saviour as men could approach with the greatest boldness and confidence, in all their wants and all their woes." Such appears to be the course of reasoning and thought, in Heb. ii. The words and phrases remain to be explained. Ver. 5. T))i/ olKov/jiiprjv rrjv niWovaav, equivalent to 6 alu)v 6 /icXXwv, i. e. the Christian dispensation, the world as it will be in future, 6 fiiWojv, I. e. the world under the reign of Christ. See Wahl, on the word alijy. The addition of the writer, Trepi rjg XaXovfxep, shows that such is the sense of the phrase; for it is Christianity, to which he had just been urging the Hebrew^s to pay the strictest regard. Ver. 6. AufxapTvpaTo Be xov nc, one in a certain place, i. e. passage of Scripture, bears this testimony. The writer speaks to those who were supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and who needed only a reference to them, by quoting some of the words which any passage contained, in order that they might be found. For a Hebrew to acknow- ledge the authority of his own Scriptures, might be expected as a matter of course. The passage quoted here in Ps. viii. 4 — 6, exactly according to the version of the LXX. Tt tcrrtv avB'poJTroQ, oti fii^viicrKri ovrov ; what is man, that thou shouldest kindly remember him ? The secondary sense of iiifAvrtrrKd) is, to remember with affection, to treat with kindness. So the Heb. ^DT; and so jiifjivijcrKecr^e, in Heb xiii. 3. *H vlbg av^pojirov, oti iTnaKSTrrrj avror, or the son of man that thou shouldest regard him ! The phrase vloc di/S-pwTrov, is equivalent to av-'^pioTTog : just as in Hebrew, Uli^ ]3, is equivalent to D*TK. The sub- ject is evidently the same as in the preceding clause, and vl6g aj .&pw7roi/ is employed merely for the sake of giving variety to the mode of expres- sion. 'ETriffKeVrojuat, to visit, is usually, to inspect, or look upon favour- ably, to luatch over one for his good, to succour him, to assist him. See Matt. xxv. 36. Luke i. 68. James i. 27. In the New Testament, it is used only in a sense which designates inspecting with an eye of favour. 300' COMMENTARY ON HEB. II, 7. But in the Septuagint it is also used for, visiting in order to punish ; as -S the Hebrew "TpS, e. g. Ex. xxxii. 34 ; xxxiv7, et alibi. Our English word regard (taken in a good sense,) answers well to ETnadTrrofxat. The classical use of the word sometimes, though rarely, accords with the sense in which it is here employed. Ver. 7. 'HXaTTUxrag avrov (^^cl^v ti irap ayyiXovg, thou hast made him but little inferior to the angels. Hapa here means, in comparison with ; as in ch. i. 4, nap avTovg. Bpaxv tl may signify either a little time, or a little in respect to degree or rank : in which last case, it would be equi- valent here to our English word somewhat. In the Septuagint it is employed in both these senses ; as is also the Hebrew word tO^D which, is here rendered by Ppaxv ti. In Ps. viii. 6, D^D seems pretty plainly to refer to inferiority of rank or station, and not to time. But in our text, most recent commentators have maintained that it refers to time ; and consequently, that the apostle has merely accommodated the passage in Ps. viii. to an expression of his own views. But such a mode of inter- pretation is, at least, unnecessary here. The object which the writer of our epistle has in view, is not to prove how little time Christ appeared in our nature ; but that, although he did possess a nature truly human, still, in this nature he was exalted above the angels. "HXarrwo-ae aWov fipax^ Tl Trap ayyiXovQ, then, simply designates the condition of man, as being in itself but little inferior to that of the angels. Man is made in the image of God, Gen. i. 26, 27 ; ix. 6. It is plainly the dignity of man which the Psalmist intends to describe, when he says, DN'ibi^D D^p ^IPD-O^ To such a view of his design, the context of this passage in Ps. viii. leads us. The Psalmist looks abroad, and surveys the heavens in all their splendour and glory, and then, with deep sensations of his own comparative insignificance, he exclaims, " What is man! that thou shouldest be mindful of him ! or the son of man, that thou shouldest regard him ! Yet, [ 1 but, yet] thou hast made him but little inferior (Wp ^TVyD'nrS'^) to the angels, thou hast crowned him," &c. The nature of the case, and the nature of poetic parallelism, here require such an interpretation of the passage in the original Psalm. But the very same interpretation of it is altogether apposite to the purpose of the writer, in Heb. ii. 1. What is his design? To prove .that Christ, in his human nature, is exalted above the angels. How does he undertake to prove this ? First, by showing that this nature itself is made but little inferior to that of the angels, ^XaTTuxrag avroy /^pa^u ti Trotp ayyiXovQ ; and next, that it has been exalted to the empire of the world COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 8. 301 *' Thou hast crov/ned him with glory and honour, and set him over the work of thy hands." But suppose, now, that we should render ftpaxv n, for a little while ; what object, which the writer designs to accomplish, is accomplished by such an assertion ? It would not contain any proof of the dignity of Christ in his human nature, but merely of temporary inferiority, i. e. inferiority during the time of his incarnation. Clearly it is not the present object of the writer to prove this. Much more to the purpose does he appear to reason, when we understand him as using ppaxv n, in the same sense as tOjJ^D is used by the Psalmist. The passage thus understood, renders the vindications (attempted by many) of the liberties^ which the writer is alleged to have taken with Ps. viii. 6, quite unnecessary. nap ayyiXovg, in the Hebrew DTT^/StD. On the subject of rendering DN*!/!^, ayyiXoij see on ch. i. 6. If we insist that the usual meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim should be retained, the argument would be still stronger, to prove the dignity of the Messiah in his human nature. Thou hast made him but little inferior to Elohim, would represent him at least, as laayyeXog, if not above, the angels. See Gen. i. 26, 27, from which the language here, and in the sequel, appears to be borrowed. But how could the apostle use Trap ayy eXovg, as conveying the sense of DTt^i^Q? In answer to this, we may say, (1.) It conveys no mean- ing that is untrue. If man is but little below Elohim, surely he is not much inferior to the angels. (2.) As angels are here compared by the writer with man, or rather, the angelic with the human nature in the person of the Saviour, the passage, as it stands in the Septuagint, and as the apostle has quoted it, is apposite to his purpose ; although it claims, in fact, less for the argument, than would be claimed, by insisting that the word DTl^l^ should be interpreted as usual. As the writer was addressing those who used the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, nothing could be more natural than to quote that version as it should, unless it conveyed an idea that was essentially erroneous. This is just what we do, every day, with our English version of the Scriptures, without suspecting that we are violating any rule of pro- priety. Besides the LXX. the Chaldee has rendered DNi^j^D by iJ'^DK^DD, i. e. Trap ayyiXovQ. With this rendering Aben Ezra agrees ; as do Mendelsohn, Michaelis, Dathe, and others. But, as the writer seems to refer, in Ps, viii. 6 — 9, to Gen. i. 26—28, the probability that 302 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 8. DN^/i^ in Ps. viii. 6, means, God, i. e. that the author of the Psalm originally meant to convey this idea when he used it, is pretty strong. Still the apostle, by using the version of the LXX, irap ayyiXovQ, has, as I have already said, assumed less in the argument, than the original would have given him ; and at the same time, he has taken a version, which in its present shape is exactly apposite to his purpose, i. e. to show, that if a comparison of Christ with the angels be made, it will be seen, that during his humiliation he was but little inferior to them, while in his exaltation in the human nature, he is far above them. Ao^r; fcai rtjuj kaTE^avioaaq aWov, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, or, with exalted honour. Ab^rj koI rifxri are nearly equiva- lent or synonymous ; and two synonymous nouns, thus constructed, are expressive of intensity, agreeably to the well-known usage of the Hebrew language, from which this idiom is borrowed. In the original, •lITlZO^r) ^IH) "T'I^^'I, which is very literally rendered in the Greek. But what is the exalted honour conferred upon the human nature of Jesus ? Kal KaricrTTjcrag avrov iirl rci 'ipya tCjv '^tipiov aov, thou hast set him over the works of thy hands, i. e. thou hast given him dominion over the creation. "Epya tG)v xeipwp aov means simply, the works which thou hast made, i. e. thy works. The form of expression is borrowed from the mode of human operations, in which hands are the most con- spicuous instrument. Ka^ioTiyjut, sisto, coUoco, statuo. It should be noted, however, that this clause is omitted in some Codices of good authority; such as B. D. and several others. Ver. 8. Jlavra v7riTac,aQ vTroKaroj tQu tto^Cjv avrov, thou hast sub- jected all things to him, i. e. given him universal dominion. The phrase, to put under one's feet, denotes, to put in a state of complete, entire subjection. See Excursus IX. The writer proceeds to comment on the quotation just made, 'Ev yap r^ UTrorasai avrw ra Travra, ovdev a(^r}Kev avro) avvir oraKTOv, i. e. the expression is one of universality, it makes no exception, but only God himself; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27. NDv Ze oviru) optofXEv avru ra Travra viroTtTayfieva, at present, indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected to him. "Ynorerayfxiva, sub- ject to his ordering, arrangement or disposal. In other words, * This prophecy of the Psalmist is not, as yet, wholly fulfilled; but so much of it has been accomplished, that we may regard it as a pledge, that a fulfilment of the rest will certainly follow.' So the sequel. COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 9. 303 Ver. 9. Top Se I3paj(y ri . . » yivarrirat -^avarovj but we see Jesus, who was made but little inferior to the angels, crowned with glory and honour on account of the suffering of death, after that he had, by the grace of God, tasted of death for all, i. e. for Jew and Gentile. So I understand this much controverted and somewhat difficult pas- sage. Two objections against the superiority of Christ over angels, were very naturally urged by the unbelieving Jews upon the believing ones, (i.) Christ was a man. (2.) He suffered an ignominious death. To the first, the apostle replied in the quotation which precedes, and on which he is commenting. But in doing this, he also suggests the con- sideration, that the death of Jesus, so far from proving his condition to be inferior to that of the angels, was immediately connected with his exaltation to glory, and with the salvation of the world. It would be tedious to recount all the various interpretations which have been given to particular parts of the ninth verse. I limit myself merely to stating the reasons of the interpretation which I have given. ^olr] KoX TLjxi] e'e(j)av(OfXEPOV, crowned with the highest honour, ^la to 7ra^/?jua tov Oavarov, on account of his suffering death. See the same sentiment in Phil. ii. 8—11 ; Heb. xii. 2. Compare John xvii. 4, 5; Heb. V. 7—9 ; Eph. i. 20—23 ; Rev. iii. 21. "Ottwc, the great mass of commentators have translated, ut, eum in finem ut, unde sequitur ut, &c. But how was Christ crowned with glory and honour, that he might taste death ? To avoid this difficulty, most of them transpose the clause, oVwc x^P*'''» '^* ''• ^* ^^ ^^ ^^ connect it with the first clause of the verse, and translate thus, Jesus, made for a little time lower than the angels, in order that [ut, ut sic] he might taste of death, &c. But the apostle's object here, is not to show simply that Jesus possessed a nature in which he might taste of death ; but that the suffering of death in it, (a fact conceded by all,) is no reason why he should be deemed inferior to the angels. Consequently the turn given to the passage, by the above transposition and explanation, is inapposite to the purpose of the writer. That OTTwc generally means, that, so that, in order that, &c. ; parti- cularly, that it has this meaning in most instances where it occurs in the New Testament, there can be no reasonable doubt. But oVwc also means, cum, quando, postquam, when, after, after that. So it means, plainly, in Acts iii. 19, although Wahl has overlooked the passage. So also in Herod, i. 17. Aristoph. Nub. 61. Soph. GEdip. Col. 1638. Homer. II. xii. 208. Odys. iii. 373 ; xxii. 22. Eurip. Phoenis. 1155. 334 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11. 9. 1464. liiis sense also Hoogeveen, Zeunius, Ernesti, Schleusner, and Schneider, assign to it. "Ottwc is construed, more usually, with the future indicative, or with the subjunctive first or second aorist, in case these tenses are found in any verb. In the instances before us, it is followed by ysvcrriTai, in the subjunctive first aorist, middle voice. It may then be rendered by the past time, (as I have translated it ;) just as in the cases where the formula ottidq x\r]p(o^^ occurs, it is often rendered, or should be rendered, so that there was an accomplishment. The only difference in the latter case is, that the voice is passive ; which, how- ever, does not affect the question about the mode of rendering the tense. This method of interpreting the verse frees us from the very great embarrassments, which are presented by most of the others ; and the sentiment becomes plain and apposite. " Jesus did indeed take on him our nature, and suffer in it; but his sufferings were the means of advancing him to supreme dignity, after he had by them procured solvation for the human race, vTrep -KavTog. So long, then, as the highest glory was consequent upon the sufferings of Jesus, and the salvation of Jew and Gentile was accomplished by it, surely the death of Christ can never prove that he is inferior to the angels." In this way, all the reasoning of the writer seems to be apposite to his purpose. y^apLTi Qtov means, hy the goodness, kindness, mercy of God. 'Y-n-ep iravTOQ means, all men without distinction, i. e. both Jew and Gentile. The same view is often given of the death of Christ. See John iii. 14—17; iv. 42; xii. 32. 1 John ii. 2 ; iv. 14. 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4. Tit. ii. 11. 2 Pet. iii. 7. Compare Rom. iii. 29, 30; x. 11—13. In all these and the like cases, the words all, and all men, evidently mean, Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to the Jewish idea, that the Messiah was connected appropriately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the blessings of the kingdom were appropriately, if not exclusively, theirs. The sacred writers mean to declare, by such expressions, that Christ died really and truly as well, and as much, for the Gentiles as for the Jews ; that there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one who may belong to his kingdom ; and that all men, without exception, have equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who understands . the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every individual of the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the usvs loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly against the views of those COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 10. 305 who advocate what is called a particular redemption. The question, in all these phrases, evidently respects the offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through a Redeemer ; not the actual application of pro- mises, the fulfilment of which is connected only with repentance and faith. But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to those who are reprobates, (and whom the Saviour knows are and will be such,) consistently with the grounds which the advocates for particular redemp- tion maintain, is a question for the theologian, rather than the com- mentator, to discuss. Vev v^ith which expiation was made, Sept. kv oiq ijyiaa-^riorav kv avrolQ ; Exod. xxix. 36, and thou shalt purify the altar, V?^ T^BDIl, when thou makest an expiatory sacrifice upon it, Sept. kv TM ayia^eiv as k-K avrw. From the usus loquendi of the Hebrew and the Sept. it is plain, then, that ayid^o) may mean to make expiation, to atone. Our epistle presents some plain instances of the use of ayid^b) in this sense. Eg. ch. x. 10, according to which will tiyiafffiivoi kajiev, we are atoned for, i. e. expiation is made for us. How ? The writer immediately subjoins, 3ia rfig Trpoo-^opag rov ffutparoe 'Irjaov Xpiffrov kipcLTTa^ ; which necessarily refers riytaanivoi to the propitiatory offering of Christ ; and consequently it has the sense which I have given to it. So ch. xiii. 11, 12, " For the bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary by the high priest, as a sin-offering, were burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus, tva dyiday the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate ;" where ayiacnj plainly means, to make expiation for, to atone for. Both of these passages compare well with that under consideration ; and all three predicate ayiafffioe of the sufferings and death of Christ ; for in our context, in the very next preceding clause, the writer has spoken of Christ as T£Te\ei(op.ivov Bid ira^rffjLciTOJv ; and he had just declared, that " Jesus, by the grace of God, had tasted of death for all men.** We may then render o,re dyid^o)v mt ol dyia^ofiEVoi, both he who makes exmation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made, UTw 133 ^'^^: The usus loquendi of the epistle seems not merely to justify, but to demand, this interpretation. x2 308 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II 12. *E$ hog iravreg, i. e. have God for their common father. So most commentators. Some say, " Have Adam for their father ;" others, ** Abraham." The context leads me to doubt whether any of these interpretations is correct. Ver. 14, et seq. very plainly refers to a com- munity of nature, and states the grounds or reason why such a commu- nity existed. 'E^ hog then means, that Christ, and those for whom he atoned by his sufferings, were tl evdg yevovg^ i. e. possessed in common of the same nature, see ver. 14. The reasoning of the writer, when the words are thus understood, is altogether apposite. It seems to be this : " That Christ had a nature truly human, is no objection to regarding him as a Saviour exalted above the angels, and altogether adapted to the wants and woes of the human race. In the human nature he suffered, and was advanced to glory ; in it he made atonement for men ; in it lie sustains a most endearing relation to those for whom he made expia- tion, he sympathizes with them, ver. 17, 18, and they are united to him as brethren having one common nature, 14 ^v6g navTeg, k. r. X. ver. 11—13. At T^y alriav .... KoXeiy, on account of which, i. e. because he pos- sesses the same nature in common with them, he disdains not to call them his brethren. Ovk ETraiax^veralj Chrysostom says, is used with regard to a person of higher rank, who condescends to associate with those of a lower standing. But if Christ were merely a man, and no- thing more, where (we may ask with Abresch) would be either the great condescension, or particular kindness, manifested in calling men his brethren ? If, however, he possessed a higher nature, if eKivoxre kavrov, fxop(priv ZovKov 'SajSiov, Phil. ii. 7 ; if eraTretVwo-e kavroy, Phil. ii. 8 ; then was it an act of peculiar kindness and condescension in him, to call men his brethren. It is this high privilege, to which men have attained, that the apostle is endeavouring to establish and illustrate; and all this affords additional reason not to think diminutively of Jesus, as pos- sessing a human nature. Having introduced the proposition, that " Christ, possessing a nature truly human, regards men as his brethren ;" the writer appeals, as is usual with him, to the Old Testament, in confirmation of this sentiment, and to show the Hebrews, that it is no new doctrine respecting the Mes- siah which he inculcates. Ver. 12. Aeywv, saying, i. e. since he (Christ) says : a-Kayytku), k. t. \. The passage is quoted from Ps. xxii. 22 [xxi. 22,] where, for the Hebrew niSDb*, the LXX. have htiyrjaofxai ; instead of which, our text employs COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 13. 309 its equivalent or synonyme, axayytku). Such departures from the Sep- tuag'int are very common, in the New Testament quotations. That the twenty-second Psalm relates to the Messiah, the Jews them- selves confess, (see Dindorf in loc. ;) and the history of his death seems, indeed, to be a kind of practical commentary upon it. I can find no- thing in the Psalm which forbids the application of it to the Messiah ; although I can find enough to satisfy me that it is quite inapplicable to David. The general conversion of the nations to God (ver. 27 — 32) accords well with the gospel dispensation, but not with the Jewish; which from its very nature could not be a ^miversal religion ; for how could all nations, from the extremities of the earth, ever go up three times in a year to Jerusalem, to worship and to offer sacrifice there ? And can it be rationally supposed, that David uttered such words as those to which I have just adverted, in reference merely to Judaism ? The whole object of the present quotation is merely to show, that Christ is exhibited in the Jewish Scriptures, as having recognized men as his brethren, ahXfovc;. 'Ev fj-ecro) eKKXriffiag vfiyriaio tre, among the assembly will I praise thee, i. e. in or among the assembly of my brethren, of men, will I celebrate thy praise. In the Hebrew, the words ^HNt? and 7np "^I/IB correspond to each other, and are equivalent, as to the subjects com- prised in them. The first part only of the apostle's quotation, is directly to the point which he is labouring to illustrate and confirm ; the second part, (as in many like cases,) is cited principally because of the intimate connexion which exists between it and the preceding parallelism, and because the memory of those whom he addressed would be assisted, by a quotation at large of the whole verse. Ver. 13. Kat TrctXtv, again the Scripture says, tyw ecro/uLai TrsTroi^ioQ err* avrio, I confide in him, or, / will confide in him. But whence is this quoted ? In Ps. xviii. 3., the Hebrew has S2. HDrTN^ which the LXX^ render, kX-mio avT(^ ; in 2 Sam. xxii. 3, the same Hebrew words occur, which they render according to the phraseology of our text, TrcTroiS-o^c iVojuai kir avrf. Some critics have defended the opinion, that the quotation of the apostle is from one of these passages. But as it is plain, not only that the Messiah is not described or alluded to in these passages, but also that the Jews have never been accustomed to interpret them as referring to him ; so there is surely no need of de- fending this position, if another passage as apposite as these can be found, which is less exceptionable in regard to its application. Critics 310 COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 14. are pretty generally agireed, therefore, that Isa. viii. 17, is quoted, the Hebrew of which is Sb '*rf\p\ the Septuagint version of which is the same as our quotation. This, considered in connexion with the quo- tation immediately following, (which is taken from Isa. viii. 18,) ren- ders it altogether probable, that the writer had this place of scripture, rather than either of the others, in his mind, when he made the two quotations in question. The Hebrew 1? "'J^!!!?!' ^^^ ^® rendered, / will wait for Am, or, / will trust in him. The latter is adopted by the Septuagint, and by the apostlo. Kai fraXly i^ov, k. t. X. has been adduced as an argument that the passage quoted here must be from a different part of scripture, and not from the same with that of the quotation immediately preceding. But this does not follow ; for in this same epistle, ch. x. 30, a quotation is made from Deut. xxxii. 35, and another from Deut.'xxxii. 36, with KoX TtoKiv between them as here. In such a case, koI ttoKiv is to be rendered, and further, or, and moreover. The argument in this case appears to be this. * Men exercise trust or confidence in God. This is predicated of them as dependent, and possessing a feeble nature. The same thing is predicated of the Mes- siah ; and consequently he possesses a nature like theirs, and there- fore they are his brethren ; kl evuq Travreg/ See Excursus X. Ver. 14. K€Kotvu}yT]Ke trapKoc koI oi/jiaTog, participated in flesh and blood J i. e. possessed a human nature, a body made up of flesh and blood. See 1 Cor. xv. 50. Eph. vi. 12 ; and comp. Matt, xvi. 17. Gal. i. 16. Sirach xiv. 18. The children^ yrai^la, here mentioned, are the same that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the disciples, the spiritual children of the Messiah. Kai avTog TrapairXrjaiojg fxeriax^ "^^^ avTiov. Here fieriff^s is a Syn- onyme of KeKoivojvrjKs, participated in. HapuTrXrjffiiog is equivalent to ojioiiog, in the same manner as, as ivell as. The Docetee exchanged Trapa- TrXrjalijjg here for bfxoioyg, and then construed ofioiwg as indicating only an appearance similar to flesh and blood ; in opposition to whom the Christian fathers maintained that irapairXriaiiag signified oh SoKriroig aW aXrj^ivibg, ov o/3^ Sravarov, I understand as referring to the fear of that condem- nation or punishment, to which sin exposes men ; not to the fear of natural death ; an evil from which no precaution can deliver us, and which Christians as well as others must suffer, notwithstanding the death of Christ. But the death of Christ has freed them from suffer- ing that condemnation or punishment which they feared, in a future life. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the writer; although it has been generally overlooked. Am navTog rov ^fiv, i. q. ^ict Traffrjg Trjg ^wi}c> the infinitive mode be'ug here used, as it often is in the Greek classics, as a mere noun. But it is not the usage of the older Greek writers, to put the infinitive nominascens after an adjective, as here. We may, therefore, understand -^ovov as implied after iravTog The later Greek, however, affords examples like ours ; e. g. to adtaKpiroy i^fjyy to aXrj^ivop i^fjVf Ik tov TrpoKeifiivov ^rjyy Ignat. Ep. ad. Trail. "Eyoxot- ^i€V£, that he might be a compassionate and faithful high priest. 'E\ei]fxioy, merciful, sympa- thizing with those who are in distress. As those are best adapted to do this, who have themselves been sufferers : so Jesus took on him our nature, in order that he might suffer in it. IIitoc is either faithful, or, worthy of trust or confidence. In the former sense I take it here. Jesus assumed our nature, that he might qualify himself in a peculiar manner to exercise compassion toward us ; and that he might discharge with fidelity the duty laid upon him as our high-priest. A priest to offer sacrifice for us, must be homogeneous with us. Such a priest was Jesus, faithful in discharging the duties of his office. What were those duties .'' They were ra irpog tov Qeoy, things which had respect to God, i. e. services of a religious nature. The phrase ttitoc ra Trpbc tov Qeoy, is elliptical. In full, it would be thus : Kara ra Trpay/iara. ra Trpog ruy Qeoy, faithful as to things, &c. But what things were these ? 'IXaarKecr^ai rag afiaprlag tov Xaov. The common expression is, i^iXaaaa^ai Trepl Tiyog ; as in Lev. iv. 20. 26. 31. S5; or, eliXaaaa^i Trepl Ttjg afxapTiag Tivog, Lev. v. 13; iv. 35. But i^iXaaaa^at ajjiapTiag also occurs, Dan. ix. 24. 1 Sam. iii. 14. Sirach xxviii. 5. 'IXaffKOfxai means, to render propitious, to appease. But this sense it can have directly only when the person appeased is expressed, or understood, after the verb. Hence IXdffKearS^ai afxaprlug must mean the same as ilKZOH "^33« to make appeasement for sin, to cover sin, to make atonement for it. The Septuagint sometimes translate "133 by iXatTKonai. Christ, then, as high-priest, was faithful to perform the peculiar duty of that office, which was, on the great day of atone- ment, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. How he did this, is shewn in the sequel of the epistle. Here, only so much fs asserted, as was requisite to enforce the considerations which the writer had immediately in view. COMMENTARY ON HEB. II. 18. 315 Ver. 18. 'Ey f yap, for since, i. q. oVt yap, Hebrew *1t!^J^2>, because that, inasmuch as. UeTrov^ev avrog ireipaff^Eig, he himself suffered when exercised with trials. Ueipd^(t) means to try, to put to the proof, in order to ascertain the disposition purpose, capacity, &c. of any one. This trial may be, (1.) For a good purpose ; by subjecting one to any evils or dangers, as God tried (HD^) Abraham, Gen. xxii. 1 ; or, by placing him in circumstances either prosperous or adverse, that are of a peculiar nature, as God did Israel, Exod. xvi. 4. Judg. ii. 22. Trial may be, (2.) For an evil purpose ; as the Pharisees kirdpaaav 'Irjffovy, by proposing to him ensnaring and subtile questions, Matt. xix. 3, seq. ; xxii. 18, 35, et ssepe ; or, by laying before any one inducements to sin, as Satan does before the minds of men, 1 Cor. vii. 5. 1 Thess. iii. 5 ; comp. James i. 13, 14. In both of these senses, Christ was tried. " It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief," Isa. liii. 10 ; and, " It became him, for whom and by whom are all things, to advance to glory our Prince and Saviour," dia 'Ka^r]ixaTiov, Heb. ii. 10. The same Saviour was solicited by Satan to sin. Matt. iv. 1, 3. Mark i. 13. Luke iv. 2. Understood in either way, then, the Saviour was tempted in like manner as we are, (fcara Travra, /ca^' dfiotorrfTa, Heb. iv. 15,) though without sin. That he did not yield to any excitement to sin, was owing to the strength of his virtue and holiness, not to the weakness of the temptation in itself considered. Temptation, in the second sense, is that which is presented to the mind as an inducement to sin, and does not relate to the actual state of the mind or person to which it is pre- sented. Men tempt God ; they tempt Christ ; and so did Satan ; but there never was any disposition in Christ to yield to it. There are two or three cases, however, in which the word Tnipai^io seems to denote yielding to sin, i. e. having the effect of ireipaatxbg pro- duced upon one ; e. g. Gal. vi. 1, perhaps James i. 14; comp. anei- paaroQ, not induced to sin, in James i. 13. But this is an unusual sense of the word -rrEipa^h) and altogether inapplicable to the Saviour, who was " separate from sinners," Heb. vii. 26. Christ then, Trtipaa^tlQt being proved, both by sufferings and by solicitations to sin, Ivvarai to'iq Treipai^ofxeroig jjori^fjcrai, is fitted in a peculiar manner to succour those who undergo either kind of trial. He is not only possessed of a mer- ciful regard for them, (ver. 17,) but he has direct and immediate sym- pathy with them, the result of his own personal feeling and experience. Wonderful condescension of redeeming love ! Here lies the great mys- iery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh. And while Jesus 316 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 1. Sits on the throne of the universe, Lord over all, the Christian is reminded, that he does this in his nature, as his brother, ver. 11. In the person of Jesus, man is exalted above the angels ; yea, he himself is to attain a rank superior to theirs ; for while Jesus passed them by, (ver. 16,) he laid down his life for us, in order to exalt us above them, 1 Cor. vi. 3. Deeper and deeper still becomes the mystery. The debt of gratitude appears boundless, when viewed in this light ; the baseness of our ingra- titude and disobedience as boundless too ; and all that we can do is to lie down in the dust, overwhelmed with a sense of them, exclaiming at the same time with the prophet, " Who is like unto thee ? A God for- giving iniquity, and passing by the offences of thine heritage !'* Next to the consideration, that the " law was ^laraytlg h' dyysXwv," the grounds of its pre-eminence in the estimation of the Jews were, the exaUed character of Moses, and the dignity and offices of the high-priest, who was the instrument of reconciling the people to God, when they had lost his favour by sinning. In respect to both these points, the apostle undertakes to show that the gospel has a preference, because that Jesus is superior. If he be compared with Moses as n-bir, «7r6(rroXog, curator adis sacra, (o'Ikov, ver. 2, 3 ;) he will be found to excel him. If he be compared with the high priest, his superiority, in every respect, is equally visible. The first compa- rison is made in ch. iii. 2 — 6, and the warning against defection from the gospel that immediately follows it, is continued through ch. iii. 7 — 19, to iv. 13. The writer then proceeds with the comparison of Christ as high priest, and extends it through the remainder of the doctrinal part of the epistle. CHAPTER III. Ver. 1. "O^ev, whence, i. q. Tjia rovro, by which Chrysostom expresses the sense of it. It refers to place, in common usage ; but it is also illative, particularly in our epistle. The manner in which the writer makes his transition here, from one topic to another, is deserving of notice. He had just been showing how and why Christ was a " merciful and faithful high priest, and able to succour all who are tempted." He now adds, oS'ey, i. e. allowing these things to be true, it follows, that we are under peculiar obli- gation to contemplate and well examine the Saviour's character, before we venture to reject him. But in making this suggestion, the writer at the same moment introduces new topics for discussion, viz. COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 1. 317 the comparison of Christ with Moses, and with the high-priest under the Jewish dispensation. The transition is almost insensible, as it is actually introduced under the form of a deduction from the preceding discussion. 'AhXipol, as applied by Christians to each other, means, one of the same faith or profession ^ with the adjunct idea of possessing a friendly, brotherly feeling. Acts ix. 30; xi. 29. 1 Cor. v. 11, al. "Aytot, con- secrated, devoted, i. e. to Christ, set apart as Christians. So I under- stand this appellation. Holy, in the sense of possessing internal purity, the apostle did not mean to affirm that all were, whom he ad- dressed ; for surely, when the ancient prophets called the whole Jewish nation D''ti^1)P {ayioC), or ti^njj D^ iXahq ayiog), they did not mean to assert that every individual among them was spiritually sanc- tified. But to remind his brethren, (brethren in a double sense here, as they were also the writer's kindred according to the flesh), that they had been consecrated to Christ, and set apart as his disciples, was altogether adapted to prepare them for the exhortation to fidelity which ensues. In a like sense, the ancient prophets called the whole body of the Jewish nation holy, ti^ilp. K\f](TE(og eTTovpaviov fxeroxoii lit. partakers of the heavenly invitation, KXfjaig is the invitation given on the part of God and Christ to men to come and partake of the blessings proffered by the Christian religion. It does not appear, however, to designate the oflfers of the gospel, generally considered, and in reference to all men without dis- crimination ; for it is applied in the New Testament only to those who by profession are Christians. KXrjffig, then, is the proffer of bless- ings to such ; the invitation given to all the professed friends of the Christian religion, to accept the favours which the Redeemer is ready to bestow, in case of their obedience. The epithet eirovpaviov may mean, in this case, that the blessings proffered are of a celestial nature. So Wahl and others, who compare the phrase with rfjg avw /c\//o-£&>c, Phil. iii. 14. Thus interpreted, the implication of the passage would be, that the proffered blessings of the gospel were eirovpavia, in dis- tinction from those offered under the law, i. e. they are of a higher, more spiritual, more sublime nature. But lirovpaviov may also mean, that the KkijaLg was given from heaven, i. e. by one from heaven, viz. Christ; comp. ch. xii. 25, and ii. 3. Understood in either way, it is apposite to the purpose of the writer, and well adapted to urge upon his readers their obligation to adhere to the Christian religion. 318 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. I. KuTavoriffare, observe well, consider attentively, perpendite, oA animum revocate ; and this, in order that they might not be tempted to swerve from their fidelity to Christ, out of excessive regard to the Mosaic institutes ; for Christ, as the writer proceeds to show, was in aF respects superior to Moses. Tov ttTTOffT-oXov . . . vpuv, the apostle and high priest of our reli- gion. The appellation airoaToXov, (which is a clttu^ Xeyopevou as applied to Christ,) has given rise to much philological and critical dis- cussion. The word itself may convey two ideas, nearly related, but not identical. (1.) 'AttootoXoc is equivalent to 6 aTreraXiJiivog ; as Thomas Magister explains it, quoting Demosthenes as employing it in this manner. It means, then, any messenger, any person commis- sioned or sent to perform duties of any kind for another, and par- ticularly to make known his will, desire, or command ; in which sense it is commonly employed by the New Testament writers. (2.) The Jews applied the term TVbp, (from Twp mittere), to the minister of the synagogue, i. e. the person who presided over it, and directed all its officers and affairs, the curator of all its concerns, cBdituus, negotii^ cedis sacrce curator. See Buxtorf Lex. Chald. verbum TV/p, and Vitringa de Vet. Synag. Lib. IIL p. ii. c. 2. In either of these senses it may be understood, in the passage under consideration. Inter- preted agreeably to the first sense of aTroToXof, the meaning would be, that Christ is the messenger of God to men, in order to communicate his will, and to accomplish the business to be done for the establish- ment of the new dispensation. But the particular reason why he is called dTTOToXoc here, lies, probably, in the comparison which the writer is about to make of Jesus, the head of the new dispensation, with Moses the head of the old. When Moses received a divine commission to become the leader and head of the Israelites, God says to him, T-^Hi^' / have sent thee : which idea is frequently repeated, Exod. iii. 10. 12. 14, 15. Moses then was TVwp, aito^oXoQ, in respect to this important business. Jesus, in like manner, was sent on an errand of the like kind, but of still greater importance. He was sent by the Father for this purpose, John iii. 34 ; v. 36, 37 ; vi. 29 ; x. 36, al. Now, as the writer was just about to make a comparison between Christ and Moses, it was very natural that he should call Christ aTroToXov, i. e. one sent or commissioned of God, because Moses was thus sent ; as the passages above cited prove. We might acquiesce in this explanation, as most interpreters have done^ COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 1 3i9 were it not that one still better may be found, in the supposition that airoffroXog is here employed in the second or Jewish sense, explained above. The apostle proceeds immediately to speak of Moses and of Christ as presiding over, and administering the affairs of, the oikoq, com- mitted respectively to them (ver. 2 — 4 ;) i. e. each was a "TlIlitrT Hvli^* &yye\og iKKXrjaiag, curator, cedis sacrcB, aTroaroXog in the Jewish sense. This certainly gives a meaning more apposite to the context, and, indeed, a sense which, in connexion with it, seems to be a necessary one. The general idea of being sent of God, or divinely commissioned, is retained ; inasmuch as Moses was thus sent and commissioned, and with him the comparison is made. The meaning then is, that if the curator (Bdis sacrce et tiovce be compared with the curator cedis sacrce et antiqucB, the result will be such as the sequel discloses. Kal apxiepia, high priest. Two reasons may be given for this appel- lation : the one, that in Ps. ex. 4, the Messiah is so named ; the other, that the writer means to compare him, in the sequel, as making atone- ment for men by the propitiatory sacrifice which he offered, with the high priest of the Jews who made expiation for the people. The latter I regard as the principal reason of the appellation here. T^c ojjioXoyiag fifiwyj of our profession, or confession ; i. e. the apostle and high priest whom we have confessed or acknowledged as ours. This they had done, when they became Christians. 'O/JoXoylag is used here as an adjective or participle ; and the phrase is equivalent to dTrooroXov T]IJ.uJv Kal ap-^iepea oiioXoyovfjievop, i. e. the apostle and high priest rfjc Triaretog rifiiov (as Chrysostom paraphrases it,) in whom we have believed, or whom we have acknowledged as ours. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 13, rri vTroTayt] ryg bfxoXoyiag vfiwy, your professed subjection ; Heb. x. 23 ; v. 14. Others take bfioXoyiag in the sense of covenant^ JT'*1II, which the word sometimes has in profane writers ; see Schleus. Lex. in verbum. This sense of the word would not be inapposite here, inasmuch as it would convey the idea of an engagement or covenant made with Christ, by those whom the apostle is addressing. But as this use of the word is not found in the New Testament, it would hardly be proper to admit it here. The writer now proceeds to show the reason why the Hebrews ought attentively to regard Jesus, in respect to the two great points of com- parison which he had hinted at, by applying to him the epithets dW those who have obtained the grace of the Spirit, Chrysostom, I. p. 730. Tj/c,- eTnyvojcreojQ rev ovrog fxrj Kara^iov- fjLtvog, not having obtained a knowledge of what is real, Basil I. p. 515. In a similar way, it is also used in the classics ; as tmp /xeyiarojv a^iov- pevoc, having obtained the greatest honours, Lys. Orat. p. 101. ed. Taylor. But still, this is not the usual sense of the w^ord ; nor does it so well fit the passage under consideration, as the other and usual mean- ing, although many commentators have preferred it. Ao^rj Trapa Mwv'o-^*/, COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 3. 321 glory in comparison with Moses, as in Hebrew Hti^DD 1123. See on ch. i. 4, 9, where Trapa is employed in the same way. Ka^' offoy may signify, in proportion as, as much as, and may have relation here to nXeiovog in the first member of the verse. The usual Greek method of expression in such cases is Toau),, . .oVw, &c. But I prefer the sense given in the version, because the nature of the proposi- tion seems to require it. So Schulz, Eng. Version, alii. HXeiova tiia^v, k. t, \. he who builds a house, has more honour than the house ; i. e. the difference between the honour due to Moses and that due to Christ, is as great as between the honour due to the founder of a house [family] and that which should be paid to the family which he founds ; or, between the honour due to the architect that framed a building, and that due to the building itself. It is difficult to say in which of these senses the writer meant that the words should be taken. Either fits his purpose. Either is designed to show that Christ, at the same time that he is the head of the new spiritual house, is also the founder of it ; while Moses, who was at the head of the ancient spiritual house, was himself only one of the household. As a steward or overseer of a house, while he is curator of all in the house, is still but a servant ; so Moses, as is asserted in ver. 5, was but a servant ; while Christ, who was curator, was also son, and therefore " heir and lord of all." The point of com- parison between Moses and Christ, in which the latter appears to have a decided preference, is not the being at the head of God's house or family, (for such an office Moses sustained ;) but it consists in this, viz. that while Moses was curator, he was also B-epcnnov ; but while Christ was curator, he was at the same time vloc, and KaraaKevaarrjc olkov. KaraaKEva^io means, to furnish, to Jit up, to make ready, i. e. for use ; also, to construct, prepare, build, condere, exstruere. In some cases it seems to combine the idea of constructing 2ind furnishing , both of which indeed are included under the general idea of preparing or making ready for use; e. g. Heb. ix. 2 — 6. The LXX. sometimes used this word, in order to translate e. g. H^^, in Prov. xxiii. 5. 2 Chron. xxxii. 5 ; some- times they employed it as corresponding to K'li^, as in Isa xl. 28 ; xliii. 7. So the book of Wisdom ix. 2, " By thy wisdom /carac/ceyacae rov av^pu)- -Kov, thou hast created [formed] man," In our text, KaTaanevaaaQ avrov, scil. oiKov, is equivalent to the Latin, condere domum. But as oikoq here me2iv a, family , household, so KaraaKevatTaQ must be taken in a sense that will correspond to this, viz. that of establishing, instituting, founding ; which is evidently the meaning of the phrase. Y 322 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 4. Others render the last clause of the verse thus : inas^nuch as he who founded the household hath greater honour from the hoiise, under- standing rifxriv oLKov to be the honour which the house renders, and thus making- o'ikov dependent on rifxr)v instead of TrXelova. Storr translates the whole verse thus : For Christ hath a preference above Moses, the greater, in proportion as this house is more highly estimated by its founder. But these methods of rendering, (to say nothing of the impro- bable and forced construction which they give to the language of the verse,) would constrain us to lose sight of the apodosis, which the latter part of the verse evidently contains. ** Christ," says the apostle, " has more glory than Moses." How? or, how much more? The answer is : " As much more as is due to the founder of a family, [or, to the architect of a building,] above that which is to be paid to the family itself, [or, to the' edifice which is reared."] In other words, Christ is to be honoured as the head and founder of the oi/cog which has been erected ; Moses, only as the head; for he himself was still a part of the diKoq itself, we ^tpatrm', ver. 5. Interpreted in any other way, the whole force of the comparison seems to vanish. In this way it is (to say the least) intel- ligible, if not quite simple. If the reader wishes to see the endless dis- crepancies among critics about this and the following verse, he may con- sult Wolfii Curse Philol., or Dindorf's edition of Ernesti in Ep. ad HebrcBOS. Ver. 4. This verse has been a kind of offendiculum criticorum in past ages, and has never yet, in any commentary which I have seen, been satisfactorily illustrated. The difficulty lies, not in the simple sentiment of the verse by itself considered, (for there is none in this respect ;) nor in the words, which in themselves are not obscure ; but in discovering and explaining the connexion in which this verse stands with the context, and how it modifies or affects it. If the verse be entirely omitted, and the third verse be immediately connected with the fifth, there seems to be nothing wanting, nothing omitted that is at all requisite to finish the comparison which the writer is making. Nay, on account of the dif- ficulty which adheres to the fourth verse, the mind is greatly relieved by the omission of it ; and little is then presented, which raises doubts or scruples about the object of the writer. There is no evidence, however, that the verse in question is a mere gloss ; at least, none from manu- scripts or versions that is of any value. We must receive it, then, as a part of the text, the integrity of which (however difficult the passage may be) cannot be made to depend on our ability to explain it COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 4. 323 Tide yap ot/coc .... ^£oe, I translate thus : every house must have some builder y or, is built by some one ; and he who formed all things is God, But what are the all things (ra Trarra) which are formed or built ? The universe ? Or all oikol, all dispensations y viz. both the Jewish and Christian ? The context seems to demand the latter mean- ing. The former has common usage in its favour. Is it appropriate to construe it agreeably to this usage ? It is directly to the writer's pur- pose, if he can show, that every dispensation must of necessity have some founder, and that this founder was Christ. But how is this shown ? To say that God, simply considered, was the author of all things^ would not be to show that Christ was the founder of the Jewish and Christian o'Ikol, Indeed, I can see no possible connexion of this proposition with the object which the writer has in view. Nor can I see how Christ is shown by him to be di founder at all, unless I understand him to assert this to be the fact, because Christ is divine, or is Qeoq. The argument would then stand thus : " God is the author of all things, (and, by con- sequence, of the Jewish and Christian dUoi ) Christ is God ; of course he must be regarded as the original author or founder of these dispensa- tions." The fact itself that Christ is Qeog, the writer surely could not hesitate to assert, after what he has said, ch. i. 8 — 12. John i. I, asserts the same thing; as Paul also does, in Rom. ix. 5, and in other places. I must regard the expression here, as predicated on what the * writer had said in ch. i. respecting the Son. The amount, then, of the reasoning seems to be : " Consider that Christ, as Qehq and the former of all things, must be the author too of the Jewish and Christian dis- pensations ; which shows that a glory belongs to him, not only in his mediatorial office, and as being at the head of the new dispensation, but also as the founder both of this and the Jewish dispensation, in his divine character ; while Moses is to be honoured only as the head of the Jewish dispensation, in the quality of a commissioned superintendent, but not as author and founder." All other methods of constructing this passage fail of making it con- tribute to the writer's purpose ; and this is, with me, an insuperable objection against them. To make Qtog, in ver. 4, refer simply to God the Father, is, at least, making the apostle say something very different from what contributes to his purpose, if it be not at variance with it. I propose this exegesis, however, only as being that which, after repeated investigations, I have felt myself constrained to adopt by the reasoning in the context, and the design of the writer ; not as one so indubitably y 2 3^4 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 5. clear as to admit of no specious objection. The whole passage is so obscure, that no one can reasonably expect, as yet, a very convincing interpretation of it. If probability can be attained, it is as much as can be fairly demanded, at present. Ver. 5. 'Ep oX^r^ oiK^avTov, in all his house ; not cttI tov oKkov avTov, over his house, as it is expressed in the following verse, where the writer speaks of Christ. I think the writer means here to make a distinction, by these different nwdes of expression, between the relation of Moses to the house in which he was -^epaTrwi^, and that of Christ to the house over which he was as vlog. The former was Iv rw oIko), in the house, i. e. he himself belonged to the family of God, was simply a member of it in the capacity of ^tpaTrwv; while the latter was £7rt tov oUov, over the house, i. e. lord of the house, founder and proprietor of it. AvTov, HIS, i. e. God's house, both in ver. 2, and here. God's household means, those who profess to be his worshippers, to belong to him. In both cases, avTov might refer to Christ, were it not that in Numb. xii. 7, (from which the passage is quoted) the language is, my house, W2L ; and it is God who says this. The sense, however, would not be materially changed, by referring avrov to Christ. Tlie scope of the sentence does not depend on this ; for whether you say oiKrof avrov is the family of God, or of Christ, the same persons are designated by the word o'ikoq, in both cases. Oipatrtav, according to general usage, differs from ^ovXog and olKinjQ, being a more honourable appellation. E. g. the correlate of BovXoq and okirTje is de(T7r6ri]g ; but ^epaTriov is related to Trarr^p, Kvpiog, or (iaaiXevQ. In English, we should call the former a servant, or a slave ; the latter, an assistant, an usher, a helper, &c. The Heb. T^^* however, means servants of every, or any rank. But IIVT) lll^^^, ser- vant of Jehovah, is always an appellation of honour. In the East, courtiers of the highest rank pride themselves in the appellation of king's servants. The word ^epdiriov is very happily applied by the LXX., and after them in the present case by our author, to Moses ; who was a servant of Jehovah, in a highly honourable sense. Comp. Josh. i. 1, 2. After all, the ^epawuv is inferior to the Trarijp or Kvpiog of a family. Moses, therefore, was inferior to Christ, who was Kvpwg o'lKov ^eov. Etc fxaprvpiov tCjv XaXri^rjffoixiviov, for testimony to those things which were to be declared, i. e. to make disclosures to the Israelites of those things which were to be revealed, under the ancient dispen- COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 6. 325 sation, or during the Mosaic period. The meaning is, that Moses was a ^epcLTTOJv of God, for delivering to the people the ancient oracles. 'MaprvpLov may signify either instruction, or declaration, publication ; just as fiapTvpiu) signifies, in the New Testament, both docere, instituere, and declarare, notum facere ; as may be seen in the lexicons. AaX»/- ^riaofjLEvwi' may also mean, either things to be announced, published, or, things to be inculcated, taught. The sense will not be materially altered by either method of translation. The meaning will still be, simply, that Moses was to be the instrument of delivering to the people divine communications, or, he was to teach them in matters of religion. Ver. 6. XpiffTog ^e . . . eafJiey fifx^iQ, but Christ as a Son, over his house, whose house we are, i, e. to whose family we belong, we who have made a Christian profession ; meaning himself, and those whom he addressed. This is as much as to say, " We now belong not to the house over which Moses was placed ; but to that which Christ governs or administers." AvroD, his, i. e. God's, our English translators have rendered as if written avrov, sc. eavrov, his own ; so Beza, Vogel, Erasmus, Heinrichs, and others. But Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Knapp, and Tittmann read avrov, as I have translated. The writer adds, however, that we really belong to the house which Christ governs, iavTcep rrjv Trapprjaiav . . . KaTa(TXU)ixEv, provided we hold fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope, Uappriaia means originally, the liberty of speaking boldly, without fear or re- straint, and comes etymologically from Trapa and prjaLQ. The secondary sense is boldness, confidence. Kavxm^o. primarily means, gloriatio, the act of glorying, or, that in which we glory or joy ; secondarily, it medins, joy, glory, &c. I take the phrase as a Hendiadys, 'EXTrlSog is the subject, and Kav^rifxa qualifies it ; as is often the case with similar constructions, in many parts of the sacred writings ; e. g. 1 Tim. vi. 17. Philem. 6. Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 5. 2 Cor. iv. 7. Gal. ii. 14; where the genitive (as in the instance before us,) is the prin- cipal noun, and the other noun joined with it (whatever case it may be in,) serves only in the office of an adjective. More usually, indeed, the noun in the genitive serves the office of an adjective, both in Hebrew and in Hebrew Greek. But the above cases show, that the noun which precedes the genitive, not unfrequently serves the same end ; and such too is the case in Hebrew, as may be seen in Heb. Gram. § 161. b. 326 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 7, 8. The confidence and joyful hope here mentioned, is that which the Christian rehgion inspires. This must be held I3e(3aiav,firm, steadfast. BePaiav here agrees, in respect to grammatical construction, with irappriaiav, the remoter noun in the preceding phrase, (as is frequei tly the fact in such cases,) but it is related to the whole phrase, in regard to its meaning. Eic riXovc, to the end, i. e. of life ; in other words, '• We must persevere, to the last, in maintaining our Christian profession ; we must never abandon the confident and joyful hope which it inspires, if we mean to be considered as belonging to the family of Christ." Ver. 7. ^10, wherefore, i. e. because Christ is superior to Moses, and has higher claims upon us, hearken. Christian brethren, to the admo- nitions which I give you, in the words with which the Israelites of old were warned. Ka^jijc \iyEi TO TTVEVfxa to &ytov, i. e. as the divine word, given by the influence of the Holy Spirit, saith : compare Acts i. 16 ; xxviii. 25. This is one of the various ways of appealing to the scripture, which was usual in the time of the apostles ; and which is still practised by our churches. It involves the idea, that the Holy Scriptures are given by divine inspira- tion — are SrtoTryevarTOt, \ Utrjjjiepov, to-day, now, at present, like the Hebrew 0^*^11, to which it corresponds. 'Eav Trjg (fxopfjg avrov aKovarjTe, when or whilst ye hear his voice. 'Eav, when, like the Hebrew D^^, to which it corresponds : com- pare John vi. 62 ; xii. 32 ; xiii. 20 ; xiv. 3. So Sept. for Dl^, Prov. iii. 24. Isa. xxiv. 13, et alibi. Tfjg (i)vfiQ avTov, i. e. his warning voice, his admonition. Ver. 8. Ml) aKKr)pvvr]T£ rag KapBiag vfiwv. To harden the heart, is to make it insensible. In this case, to harden the heart, is to remain insen- sible to divine admonition, to neglect it, to act in a contumacious manner. The form (TKXrjpvvoj is of the later Greek. The classical writers used ffKXiipovv, and this in a physical sense only, not in a moral one. UapaTriKpafffi^ corresponds here to the Hebrew n^HD, strife, con- tention. It is not a classic word ; but it is employed by the Septuagint. The meaning of it is exacerbation, provocation, embittering, from TciKpaivio, to be bitter, to embitter. It is here applied to designate the act of the Israelites, who provoked the displeasure of God ; in particular, to their unbelief and murmuring at Massah or Meribah, Exod. xvii. 7, and after- wards at other places. Kara rfiv rifiipav rov Trtipaffjxov kv Trj eptifitp, when they tempted [God] in the desert. Kara r>)v ri^ipav, Hebrew D')''3 (for 01^23) as in the day COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 9, 10. 327 that, when. Titipafffiov, of temptation, i. e. their unbelief and murmur- ing put the patience of God to a trial, (speaking after the manner of men.) n£tpa<^w means, to solicit to do evil, but also, to prove, to assay. When the scriptures speak of men as tempting God, the meaning is, that men do that which puts the divine patience, forbearance, goodness, &c. to a trial, i. e. make it difficult, as it were, to preserve a strict regard to these. Dindorf is mistaken, when he asserts, on this passage, that TTEipa^u) is never used by the Greek writers in the sense of enticing to sin; for Treipdv (i. q. Treipa^eiv) yvvdiKa is a very common phrase, in the best Greek writers. Ver. 9. Ov, when, adverb, i. q. ottov, as CEcumenius remarks. Ot xartpee vp.(ov, i. e. the ancient Israelites. 'ETre/pacav p-e . , . kZoKipaaav pe, tried and proved me, i. e. put me to a thorough trial ; the repetition of a synonymous word merely denoting intensity. Kat tlcov, although they saw. So Kal in John iii. 32 ; xiv. 32 ; xvii. 25. Rev. iii. 1, et al. In the same manner the Hebrew 1, Gen. xviii. 27. Mai. ii. 14, et al. Teo-capaKovra err} is joined (in the Hebrew) with the following verse, forty years was I grieved, &c. But this depends on the punctuation system of the Masorites, which the apostle has not followed. In regard to the sense, it matters not with which verb it is joined. If thoy tempted God forty years, he was grieved by their conduct during the same time ; and if he was grieved by them for that time, it was because they tempted him. Ver. 10. Aid, wherefore, i. e. because they tempted me, &c. This word is not in the Hebrew nor Septuagint. The writer has added it to the quotation, in order to render the sense of it more impressive or explicit. n|0oo-wx;''5'to'a, / was indignant, offended at. The word is Hellen- istic. The Greeks use ox^it^ and ox^iCoj' According to etymology, it consists of Trpoc, to, against, upon, and ox^Vf hank, shore. It is applied primarily to a ship infringing upon the shore, or, as we say, running aground. It answers to the Hebrew lO'lp? D^«tQ pp? &c. Tp yeveq. eKelprj, the men of that age, or, as we say in English, the generation then upon the stage. 'Ael TrKavwvTaL rjj Kaplia, the corresponding Heb. is, DH 2.1x) "f^-^ ^A? a people of erring heart are they, the word aei having nothing in the original which corresponds to it. Still, the sense of the Hebrew is tantamount to what the apostle (with the Septuagint) has expressed in the Greek. To err in heart may mean, either to err in judgment, 328 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 11. or in disposition, intention ; for the Hebrew 2l7, 27, and after it the Greek Kaphia, means, either, animus^ judiciunij or, rnenSj cogitatioy desiderium. I understand KapUa here, as used according to the Hebrew idiom (in which it is often pleonastic, at least it seems so to us,) so that the phrase imports simply, They always err, i. e. they are continually departing from the right way. Avrot Zt ovK 'iyvioaay rac odovc fjtoVf neither (Se ovk means, neither have they approved my doings. TivuxrKta (like the Hebrew yi'^t Ps. i. 6; xxxvi. 11,) means, to approve, to like, to be pleased with, Matt. vii. 23. John x. 14, 15. 27. 2 Tim. ii. 19. 'OBog corresponds to the Hebrew ^1'T[, which means, counsel, design, purpose, also operation, manner of conducting or acting towards any one. In this last sense I take the word to be employed here. The meaning is, the IsraeHtes had been discontented with the manner in which God had dealt with them in the wilderness ; they disapproved of his manner of treating them. See, for an illustration of this, Deut. viii. 2—5 ; iv. 32 — 37 ; and particularly xxix. 2 — 4. Ver. 11. 'Q>g, so that, a conjunction; see Wahl on wc, H- 2. 'Ey rp opyy jxov, in my indignation, viz. that which their unbelief and con- tumacy had excited. Compare 'irapa-KLKoa''u^ in ver. 8, which means the provocation given by the Israelites. Et elaeXevffovTai, they shall not enter. El oorrows its negative mean- ing from the Hebrew Di^, to which it corresponds. The Hebrews used D5^, in the latter clause of an oath which ran thus : God do so to me, IF (D>^^) / do thus, &c. See the full form in 1 Sam. iii. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 35. 2 Kings vi. 31. The former part of this oath was sometimes omitted, and Di^ had then the force of a strong negative ; see 2 Sam. xi. 11. 1 Sam. xiv. 45, alibi ; vide Ges. Heb. Lex. under D^^, No. 6. So in Ps xcv. 1 1 , lf)ikyi DJ^ contains a strong negative ; which the Sep- tuagint (and our author after them) have rendered el elffeXevaovrai. The passage exhibits God as speaking after the manner of men, and as affected, like them, with feelings of indignation. The idea conveyed by such expressions plainly is, that God, as a measure of justice to the Israelites for their wickedness, gave solemn assurance that they should not enter into his rest. Elg rrjv KaTairavalv fiov, Hebrew, ^JirD^^, my rest, means, such rest as I enjoy, or such as I have prepared or provided. See more on the subject of this rest in the commentary on Chap. IV. Ver. 12. MZ/TTore cVrai .... ainariaQ, lest there be in any of you an COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 13, 14. 329 evtl and unbelieving heart. 'A7rt«rrmc, of unbeliefs is here used as an adjective to qualify jcap^m, according to an idiom very common both in the Old and New Testament. *Ey T^ cLTToaTyvai airu Qeov ^iovToc, in apostatizing from the living God ; or rather, so that he may apostatize^ ^c. 'ATroor^vai is to revolt j to apos- tatize ^ to make defection from. Qeov ^wvroc, living God, either in oppo- sition to idols, which had no life, as in Acts xiv. 15. 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 10; or, living may mean immortal, eternal, as probably it does in Heb. ix. 14; x. 31 ; xii. 22. 1 Pet. i. 23, and often in the Old Testa- ment. Thus perennial water is called ^wv, John iv. 11 ; vii. 38. So the commentators and lexicographers. Perhaps, after all, ^wv in such cases may mean, the author, or giver of life : compare John vi. 51, 57 ; eh. vii. 38. The sense of the passage taken together is, " Beware, brethren, of an unbe-lieving and evil heart, such as the Israelites possessed, lest, like them, you apostatize from the living God," i. e. lest you apostatize from the religion of Christ, which he has required you to receive and to main- tain, and thus perish like ancient Israel who revolted from God. Ver. 13. 'AXXa TrapaKaXelre eavTovQ, but admonish one another, 'Eavroi, in the New Testament and in the classics, is often used as the equivalent of aXXrjXoL ; and so I understand it here. Ka-S' EKciffTrjv r]fxipav, every day, i. e. constantly, habitually, "A^ptc ov TO a{]iJiEpov KaXeirai, either [Kaipov] ov, k. r. X., or ov may be the adverb of time, as in ver. 9. KaXeTrat, like the Heb. ikip J^'^F?^' is. See Wahl's Lexicon, and Gesenius. The meaning is, daily,- while you have oppor- tunity, admonish one another. In to afjiiepov, the article is joined, (as it often is,) with an adverb which expresses the sense of a noun ; con- structio ad sensum. "Iva jdi] cTKXripvr^y tiq . . » . aixapriag, SO that no one may be hard- ened by sinful delusion. 'Avrarp tTiq a^apriaQ means, the sinful delu- sion which false teachers or Judaizing zealots might occasion ; or, that delusion into which they might be led, by their oppressive condition arising from persecution, or by any allurements of a worldly nature ; so that they would become insensible to the warnings which they had received, and might abandon their Christian profession. This would be a delusion indeed, and be highly sinful. Mutual daily admonition, the apostle intimates, would tend to prevent this evil. Ver. 14. MfVo^ot yap rov Xpiff-ou yeyoyufieu, we are, or we shall be, partakers of the blessings which Christ bestows. That Xptcroc is some- 330 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 15, 16. times put for the Christian religion, and sometimes for the blessings which are proffered by it, may be seen in the lexicons. 'Eai/7r£(t> Trjv apxvv .... KaTaaxwixev, if we hold fast, unto the end, our former confidence. Trjv apyjiv TfJQ vTrocrraaeiog, i. q. rrjv Trpujrrjv Triariv, 1 Tim. V. 12. The sentiment is, Continue, to the end of life, to exercise confidence in Christ, and you shall obtain the reward which he has pro- mised ; see ^lixpi reXovg, in ver, 6, above. Ver. 15. 'E»/ rw XiyvE^ai in respect to what is said, or, in regard to the declaration, viz. the declaration which follows, or the quotation of what had before been cited. 'Ev rd> XiyEa^aL is equivalent to iu t^ Xiyur, ch. viii. 13, or to fcara to Xeyofisvop. The design of this expression is, merely to re^nind the reader of what had just been cited from the Old Testament, a part only of which is now repeated, and the rest is left to be supplied by the reader's recollection. Sj^jtiepov iav, k. t. X. now, while (see tay, ver. 7,) you hear his voice, &c. Ver. 16. TlvEQ yap aKovaavTSQ TrapeTr'iKpaivav ; so, with Greisbach, Knapp, Tittmann, and others, I prefer to accent and punctuate this clause. The common editions have nveg, (accented on the ultimate,) and meaning some, instead of riveg, the interrogative, meaning who ? They also omit the interrogation point after •KapntiKpaivav. According to this last mode of exhibiting the text, it must be rendered, (as in our English version,) For some, when they had heard, did provoke : howbeit, not all that came out of Egypt by Moses ; which is altogether inappo- site to the design of the apostle. The true rendering I take to be, Who now were they, that when they heard did provoke [the Lord ?] Or, Who, let me ask, (see on yap, Wahl, no. 1, b. /3.) were they, &c. The design of this and the following questions is, to lead the minds of the readers to consider the specific sin, viz. unbelief, which occasioned the ruin of the ancient Israelites, and which would involve their posterity in the like condemnation. 'AW oh TzavTEQ. , . ,Mit)vaiu)Q, rather, were they not all who came out of Egypt by Moses ? 'AXXa, rather, or, nay. The same form occurs in Luke xvii. 8 : '' Who of you, having a servant ploughing, or tending sheep, will say to him when he returns from the field. Come and sit down immediately at the table ? Will he not rather say, or, nay, will he not say, to him, (dW ovj(l epel avru,) prepare my supper ?" &c. The force of dXXa, in our text, it is not difficult to perceive. The writer first asks, " Who now were those, that when they had heard divine warnings still COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 17. 331 provoked the Lord ?" He then, as though the question in this form were almost superfluous, immediately adds, " Might I not rather ask, or, nay, might I not ask, Did not all who came out of Egypt do this ?" He means to intimate by this, that the number who embrace error cannot sanction it ; nor can unanimity in unbelief render it any more excusable. Consequently, that the great body of the Jews rejected the Messiah at the time then present, and urged the Christian converts to do the same, would be no excuse for apostasy. TiavrtQ is not to be taken in the strict metaphysical or mathematical sense here, any more than in multitudes of other places ; e. g. " All Judea went out to John to be baptized, con- fessing their sins," Matt. iii. 5,6', " all men came to Jesus to be baptized of him," John iii. 26 ; and so often. Of the adults, only Caleb and Joshua among the Israelites are excepted, as not having taken part in the murmurings against the Lord, Numb. xiv. 30. Of course, there could be no scruples in the apostle's mind about applying the word TrdrTSQ in this case, just as it is applied in a multitude of others, viz. to designate great multitudes, or the great majority. Aia Mu)vff£(i)g, by Moses, means under his guidance, by his instru- mentality. Ver. 17. T/o-t^e. . . .tVr/, and with whom was he indignant for forty years ? Above, in the quotation, ver. 10, forty years is connected with elSov TO. epya ixov. But the Sense of the whole passage is not materially changed, by the manner of expression in ver. 17. It is true, that the Israelites saw the works of the Lord for forty years, and that he expressed his indignation against them during that time, until the generation who had rebelled were destroyed. Ovy\ toIq ujiapriiffaaL ; was it not with those who had sinned ? Ernesti and Dindorf labour to show, that a/jLaprdyoj means the same here as aTrei^iu). Doubtless, it includes the sin of unbelief; but it is of itself more generic than aTrti^ew, and includes various sins of the Israelites, such as rebellion, murmurings, &c. the consequence of unbelief. Ta K(o\a, lit. members, such as arms, legs. It is here put, however, by synecdoche, for the whole body, and corresponds to the Hebrew D''")2I3» corpses, in Numb. xiv. 29, 32 ; to which passages the apostle here refers. "ETTErre in Greek, and the corresponding Hebrew 7pi» are both used to designate the prostrate condition of dead bodies, or the falling down dead. The whole phrase may be thus paraphrased, " Who perished in the desert." 332 COMMENTARY ON HEB. III. 18, 19. Ver. 18. Ticri ^€ u)ij.offe, , . .KaTcnravffip avTov; to whom did he swear ^ (see Numb. xiv. 23. 28 — 30. Deut. i. 34, 35,) that they should not enter into his rest, except to those who disbelieved ? In Numb. iv. 23. 28 — 30, is an account of an oath, on the part of Jehovah, that the rebellious Israelites should not enter into the land, which he had sworn to their fathers should be given to them, i. e. in case they were obedient. In Deut. i. 34, 35, there is another mention of a like oath, viz. that they should not enter into the goodly land, pledged by oath to their fathers. But in neither case is the word rest employed. The reasoning of the apostle, however, in the chapter before us, would lead us to suppose, that the manner in which the unbelieving Jews were declared, in the above passages, to be excluded from the goodly land, and the reasons stated for that exclusion, necessarily implied exclusion from the heavenly Canaan also, or, from the rest of God. Ver. 19. Kal (3Xi7rofjitv,, ,,U cnri'^Lav, we see, then, that they could not enter in, because of unbelief. Kai, then, in the apodosis of a sen- tence, or in a connected series of reasoning, as here. See Wahl on Koi, II. 2 ; and compare Gesen. Heb. Lex. on 1, No. 5. Tlie writer having thus appealed, for the sake of warning, to the example and con- sequences of unbelief among the Israelites of old in the wilderness, proceeds now further to confirm the application of what he had been saying to those whom he addressed, and to remove objections which might be raised against this application. Two objections, he seems to apprehend, might probably be raised against the use which he had made of the citation from the Old Testament : the one, that the rest there spoken of meant only, a rest in the land of Canaan, or, the quiet possession of the promised earthly inheritance ; the other, that the ancient Israelites were excluded from the promised rest, on account of murmuring and rebellion, crimes not charged upon those whom the apostle addressed. The writer has deemed it expedient, and it was proper, that both of these objections to the use which he had made of the Old Testa- ment Scriptures should be removed, before he proceeded further with his main design. In chap. iv. 1, he brings forward the assertion, that the promise of entering into the rest of God still remains, addressed to the Hebrew Christians, as it was to the Israelites of old. In ver. 2, he proceeds to repeat the idea, (for the sake of deeply impressing it,) that blessings are announced to us (to Christians) in like manner as to the ancient Hebrews ; and he now adds, that they failed to obtain the proflfered blessings through unbelief. These declarations involve two propositions ; the first, that the blessings in question must be of a spiritual nature ; the second, that unbelief is the great cause of that sin which excludes from the enjoyment of them. The last of these propositions he does not formally labour to establish, as he does the other: because the evidence COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 333 of it is involved in the quotation which he had made in ch. ii. 7 — 11 ; for it is there affirmed, that after all which the Israelites had seen of the works of God for forty years in the desert, they still tempted and provoked him, i. e. they gave no credit to ail the testimonies which he had set before them of his fidelity toward his promises, and of his love and pity for them ; nor did they believe his commina- tions against the disobedient. Consequently, they were excluded, by this unbeliefs from his rest. But what is the rest in question ? Is it quiet possession of the land of Canaan ? No, says the apostle. Believers now enter into the rest (ver. 3,) i. e. the same kind of rest as was anciently proffered. Moreover, God calls it Karairavoiv /xov, MY resty i. e. (adds he) such rest as God enjoyed, after he had completed the cre- ation of the world ; consequently spiritual^ heavenly rest. This is plain, (as he goes on to show in ver. 4,) from what the Scripture says. Gen. ii. 2, concerning the rest of God. Again, it is involved in the very form of expression, in Ps. xcv. 11, viz. MY rest J ver. 5. *' Now," continues he, (ver. 6,) " as some must enter into the rest in question," (for surely God would not provide and proffer a rest altogether in vain ; " and sincg they, to whom it was offered, lost it through unbelief— \\\. follows that believers only can attain to it."] But this last idea, the author has not expressed. He has left the reader to supply it ; as he may do without any difficulty, from what the writer had already said in ver. 2, 3. The illustration and confirmation of this truth, is plainly one of the objects which the writer has in view (as was stated above :) and while ver. 3 — 5 show that the rest spoken of is of a heavenly nature ; the object of ver. 6. is, to intimate that unbelief was the sin which excluded from it. But lest there might be some doubt about the nature of the rest to which the ancient Scriptures refer, the writer resumes the argument respecting the nature of it, and adduces other considerations, to show that it must be spiritual and heavenly, " Moreover," says he, (ver. 7,) " David himself, (who lived nearly five centuries after the land of promise had been occupied by the Israelites) — David speaks of a definite time, then present, in which he warns his cotemporaries against losing the rest which God had promised to the believing and obedient ; (a rest of the same nature as that from which the Israelites of old had been excluded, as may be seen in Ps. xcv.)" " Now," (adds he,) ** If Joshua, who gave Israel possession of the land of Canaan, had given them the rest to which the scripture refers when it speaks of God's rest, then the Psalmist could not have spoken, so many centuries afterwards, of a rest that was still proffered to Israel, and from which the unbelieving would be excluded, ver. 9." " Hence," he concludes, " it is evident, since the rest which is spoken of is not of a temporal nature, but of a spiritual enduring nature, that there remains a rest for the people of God, i. e. believers.*' That the main object of the writer, in chap. iv. 1—9, is to prove the spiritual and abiding nature of the proffered rest, is stated so explicitly in ver. 10, that there can be no reasonable doubt left in respect to his intention ; " For," says he, " he who enters into his [God's] rest, rests from his own labours, as God did from his,*' 334 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. That is, he who attains to the rest proffered to Israel in the time of David, and to the more ancient Israelites in the wilderness, attains to a rest like that of God (described in Gen. ii. 2 ;) i. e. he will rest from the toils, and trials, and sorrows of a probationary state, and enjoy a happiness heavenly and divine in a better world above. The writer then proceeds, in his usual manner, to close the topic by adding exhortations diligently to seek the rest in question, and awful warnings against incur- ring, by unbelief, the righteous indignation of that holy and omnipotent Judge, unto whom their account must be rendered, ver. 1 1 — 13. In regard to the views of our author, relative to the subject of the rest which is proffered in the Old Testament to all who are believing and obedient, they, doubtless, differ very much from many commentators and critics of the present day, who are distinguished for their literary attainments. But it will not follow from this, that they are erroneous. Certain it is, that all the writers of the New Testament had similar views, respecting the spiritual nature of some of the promises contained in the Jewish Scriptures. I cannot, therefore, regard the passage which we have just considered, as a mere accommodation (a somewhat forced one too) of promises and threatenings addressed to Israel of old, that had respect only to the land of Canaan ; nor as a mere fanciful application of things ancient, to the Hebrews whom our author is addressing. I cannot help believing, at all events, that he regarded the rest spoken of in Ps. xcv. 11, and Gen. ii. 2, as spiritual and heavenly rest. Consequently, an appeal to the examples contained in tfie Old Testament, is more to the point, and more forcible, when thus understood, than it would be in any other mode of explaining the views and design of the writer. As to the mode of reasonings in order to establish the positions which the writer has in view, it is quite different, indeed, from that to which we now resort, who have the whole of the New Testament in our hands, in which " life and immortality are brought [so fully] to light." We need to take but very little pains, in order to prove that promises of rest in z. future world, promises respecting a spiritual and heavenly country, are made to Cliristians. But we must remember, while we are labouring to understand the reasoning of Paul in the chapter before us, that the Hebrews whom he addressed had no New Testament ; for some of it was not yet written, and none of it had acquired a general circulation among the Christian churches. This is the reason why Paul, in all his epistles, whenever he has occasion to quote scripture, uniformly quotes the Old Testament only. How could he appeal to the New Tes- tament, which was, when he wrote our epistle, only in a forming state, and was not completed until after his death ? Indeed, it was not embodied in its present form, and generally circulated among the Christian churches, until nearly a century after the death of Paul. This may suffice to show why Paul appeals to the Old Testament, and not to the New, when he designs to establish any thing from the sacred oracles. Every one, moreover, who believes with Paul that the "gospel has brought life and immortality to light," will of course suppose it to be more difficult, to establish promises of rest COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV, 335 VI a future world from tlie Old Testament than from the New. Hence, he may b* le«>s forcibly struck with the argument of Paul, in Heb. iv. to prove a promise of future happiness to believers, than he will with many an argument which his own mind will supply from the New Testament. And with good reason. The New Tes- tament does afford arguments far more explicit and convincing than the Old ; and of course more powerful arguments than those which Paul deduces, in our chapter, from the Old. But this is no fault in the writer of our epistle. It is merely a result of the circumstances in which he, and those whom he addressed, were placed. He had asserted, in writing to them, that a promise of the same nature was proffered to Chris- tians, as was proffered to the ancient Israelites, ch. iv. 1, 2. Tiie consequence he deduces from this is, that as unbelief with respect to this promise occasioned their ruin, so the like unbelief would now produce the like consequences. Nothing could be better adapted to his purpose, when writing to the Hebrews, than to produce aii example of the consequences of unbelief, that was taken from their own progenitors, and recorded in their own Scriptures, which they acknowledged as the word of God. To the New Testament he could not appeal, for it was not then in their hands. To the Old Testament Scriptures, then, he chooses (and for the best of reasons) to make the appeal, in establishing the assertion he had made, that a promise of entering into the rest of God was still left; that the proffered blessing was announced to Christians in the same manner as to God's ancient people, ch. iv. 1, 2; and that it would be con- ferred only on those who remained firm in their belief. The whole argument is, indeed, in some sense, argumentum ad hominem. It is appropriate to the time, to the circumstances in which the apostle wrote, and to the people whom he addressed. But who can, with any propriety, make it a matter of accusation against the writer, that he consulted the good of those whom he addressed, by arguing with them in a manner that was most appropriate to their condition,' Did not their Saviour constantly do the same? And ought we not to follow his example? It is indeed true, that the views of the apostle, in respect to what is revealed in the Old Testament with regard to a future state, were plainly very different from those of many commentators and critics, who represent the Jews, God's chosen people, and favoured with the light of revelation, as more profoundly ignorant of the doctrine of immortality, and of future rewards and punishments, than any of their heathen neigh- bours ; a thing as improbable in itself, as it is contrary to the reasoning of the apostle, on which I have been commenting. Nor is it at all necessary to maintain, with most of the recent commentators, that Paul allegorizes the rest of Canaan here, in. such a way as to accommodate himself to the spirit of the age in which he lived, and the taste of the Jews who were his cotemporaries. So far am I from embracing this view of the subject, that I am quite persuaded, he has designedly undertaken to show, that the interpretation his cotemporaries put upon the passage which respects exclusion from the rest of God, was an erroneous one. Plainly he labours to show, that rest in the land of Canaan could NOT possibly have been meant by the Psalmist. Wiiere then is the allegorizing of the apostle here, of which so much has been said ? Who can 336 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 1. say confidently, against the reasoning and the decision of Paul, that the rest of which David spake, was not spiritual? I content myself, whatever others may do, with the exegesis of the apostle ; and do fully believe that he is in the right. If he is correct in his views, then it follows, that the future punishment of the un- believing Israelites is clearly intimated, by the exclusion from spiritual, or heavenly rest which is threatened. This is a necessary inference from the reasoning and con- clusions of the apostle. CHAPTER IV. Ver. 1. f^wprj^ibiJLevy let us beware, lit. let us be afraid of. As fear, however, in its literal sense, is not applicable in this case, the exact shade of meaning is, caveamus, let us beware. KaraXfiTTO/ievr/c tTrayyeXtag, a promise being still left. KaraXe/rrw, according to both sacred and classic usage, may mean, to forsake, desert, neglect ; e. g. in Acts vi. 2. 2 Pet. ii. 15, et al. In this sense many critics have understood it, in the passage now in question. The sense then would be, " Let us beware, lest by neglect of the promise made to us," &c. But I much prefer the other sense of the word, i. e. to leave behind, and (passively) to be left behind, to remain, to be still extant ; e. g. in Acts xxiv. 27. Luke xx. 31. Mark xii. 19, al. and espe- cially comp. ver. 9, below. The meaning then is, that the promise, which was implicitly made to believers among the ancient people of God, is still in being, and is made to us, i. e. to Christians. This the next verse so directly asserts, as to render the interpretation just given nearly certain. 'ETrayyeXtac declaration, annunciation, promise, i. e. annunciation of the reward offered to the believing, or faithful. Mrj-TTOTE .... ^oKy TiQ tl vfiwv v(rT£pr]Kivai, lest .... any one of you may fail of obtaining it. By sacred and classical usage, ZokIu) is frequently joined with other verbs, without making any essential addition to the sense of them ; i. e. it is said to be used pleonastically ; by which, however, can be meant only, that it is incapable of being precisely ren- dered into our own language, and apparently adds nothing to the sense of a phrase. But this is not exactly true of loKth). In many cases, it is plainly designed to soften the expression to which it is attached ; e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 40, Paul says, lotcib Ik K^yu) Trvevjxa Qeov t'x^n', / seem to myself to possess the Spirit of God ; a modest way of asserting tlie fact, instead of speaking categorically. In a similar way hKea> is employed, in 1 COdr. xiv. 37 ; x. 12, 6 ^okuiv l^raj'at, he who seems to himself to COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 2. 337 Stand; ch. iii. 18; iv. 9. In a few cases, it is difficult to distinguish what addition is made to the phrase, by the use of ^okeu) : e. g. Luke xxii. 24, Tie avTwv SoksI eivai net^iavf i. q. tiq e'ir}. So Luke viii. 18, 6 ^okeI ex^ty is expressed, in Luke xix. 25, by 6 c'xet. 1 Cor. xi. 16, ei ^£ TIQ SoKel (()i\6y£iKog eivat. There can scarcely be a doubt, however, that in all cases, the Greeks designed to give some colouring to a sen- tence, by employing it. It would often seem to be something near to our may, might, can, could, &c. when used to soften forms of expres- sion that might have been categorical. So Theophylact understood it, in our phrase. The words hoKEl tic v'^eprjKiiatf he thus explains : tov- Ti-^i, iJ.rf7rojQ vrepr](Tri, lest he may come short — and fail to enter into the promised rest. The writer uses a mild and gentle address, not say- ing fxt) vr£p{](TTj, but fir} SoKij v'TeprficiyaL. Theophylact in loc." This, I apprehend, is hitting the exact force of the phrase here ; an imper- fect view of which is given in the lexicons. 'E^ vfiwv, in some manuscripts and fathers, rffjiwy ; which would better accord with the usual Koivoaig of the writer; e. g. ch. i. 1 ; ii. 1. 3 ; iii. 1. 6. 19. al. But it is not an unusual thing for Paul to change or intermingle different persons, in the same passage ; e. g. Rom. xiv. 13. Heb. X. 24, 25. 'Yffrepib) lit. means, to come afterwards, to come late. In the secondary sense it means, to fail, to come short of ; as he must fail of obtaining a thing, who comes too late for it. If the exhortation here be regarded as having a special reference to the time {aijiiEpov) when the offers of rest are made, jiriTroTe . . . varepriKevat may be rendered happily, as in Wahl, lesi . . . ye come too late, i. e. after trrjfiepoy. But I prefer the more simple method ; lest . . . ye fail of obtaining the promised blessing. Ver. 2. Kat yap ka^ey evayyeXKTfiiyoi, for to US also are blessings announced, or, we are evangelized, i. e. the promise of blessings is declared or made known to us, as luell as to them. EhayyeXii^u} is used classically in the same sense, i. e. to announce joyful tidings, to proclaim proffered good. The proffered blessing, implied in the text, is the rest of which the writer had been speaking, and of which he con- tinues to speak. *A\\' ovK o){piXri(rey oXoyoQrfJQ aKorjg, the promise or declaration which they heard, [or which was proclaimed,'] was of no benefit to them. 'O \6yoQ rfjg uicoijg may be equivalent to 6 uKovcr^elg Xoyoc? i. e, the word heard by them ; or it may be like the Hebrew H^'^D^ ")37 358 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 3. word of annunciation or report, i. e. word announced or reported. The sense is not materially changed, whichever of these interpretations is adopted. ^vyKEKpaiiivog . . . anovcrafft, not being joined with faith in them that heard it, or, not being united to faith, i. e. faith not accom- panying it, or associating with it. ^vyKeKpafievog is explained, by many commentators, as being tropically employed here ; and the metaphor, they allege, is taken from food, which, when digested, unites with the corporeal system, and becomes aliment to it. So here, the word, if duly received, would have incorporated itself, so to speak, with the internal, spiritual man ; but as it was not received, it did not so in- corporate itself. But this is not so simple and easy a mode of explana- tion, as that given in the above translation. Many manuscripts and editions read avyKeKpafiiyovg and some crvy- KEKepafffjLivovQ ; which some critics and interpreters prefer. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to make any tolerable sense of these read- ings. The common one is much preferable. Tote cLKovaaffi — equivalent here to the genitive rioy aKovaavTiov. The meaning is, that the Xoyog was not associated with the faith of those who heard it. The Hebrews usually designate possession, by the dative with 7 ; e. g. the Song of songs, rtD'7t^7 ^P^, f^hich is Solo- mons. So, frequently, in Greek ; e. g. ol Trarrip his father, Find. Olymp. i. 91. Neither do thy children [croi tekvo] see the light, Eurip. Phoeniss. 1563. Men are one KT-qjxaTiav toIq QeoIq, of the pos- sessions of the gods, Plato, Phsed. See Matt. Gr. Gram. § 392. g. 1. Bt seq. In all such cases, there is an ellipsis of a pronoun relating to the object possessed, and of the verb of existence, which governs the dative when it signifies possession or property ; e. g. KrqfjLaTOJv [a £«rt] rolg deoig. The sense of the whole verse is simply this ; ** a promise of rest is made to Christians now, as well as to God's ancient people. But they received no advantage from it, because of unbelief;" the implica- tion is ({)ol3ridu)fi£v, (as he had just said,) //>) ng ^ot^fj, k. t. X, that is, guard well, then, against unbelief. Ver. 3. Eto'£px,d/x£0a yap . . . Trf^evaavrtg, but we who believe do €nter into the rest, viz. God's rest. Tap, but ; for plainly elaepxofi&Oa yap is put in distinction from the preceding dW ovk uxpiXrirre, to which the writer subjoins, but {yap) we who do believe, are profited by •.i, &c. It may also be rendered, nearly to the same purpose, still, or; COMMENTARY ON HED. IV. 3. J 39 yet (yap,) we who do believe, ^-c. provided the preceding aXV be trawa- lated, although. The sentiment of the two clauses is either this ; " Be it that the unbelievers reaped no advantage from the rest proffered to them, yet we who are believers do enter into that rest ;" which the writer then proceeds to prove : or it may be stated in another form, thus, *' An offer of rest is made to us, as well as to them; but (aXX) unbelief excluded them from that rest; we, the?i (yap,) who believe shall be admitted to it." That is, if our character be the opposite of theirs, then will our lot be the opposite also. EtfffjoxojueOa in the present tense, appears to have created difficulty in the minds of some critics, who have changed it into elcreXevaofieda (future tense.) But how needless this change is, every one conversant with the idiom of the bible may easily judge ; in which the present tense is very often used as a universal tense, embracing time past, present, and future. In Hebrew, it is very common to use the present participle, for the same purposes as the Latins use their future in rus. Kadu)Q eiprjKEV, k. r. X. that is, a solemn asseveration that unbelievers should not enter into his rest, implies, of course, that believers should enter into it. See on ch. iii. 1 1 . KmVor ru)V tpyiov .... ytvri^ivTbiv , namely [rest from] the works that were done after the world was founded. Ka/rot is a particle, the meaning of which has been much controverted here. There is no doubt, that it sometimes has the meaning of although, which our English version has here given to it. But I am unable to make any sense of the pas- sage, under consideration, if Kairoi be thus translated. Nor does Kairoi seem originally to mean, although. Its principal signification is, et quidem, et sane. So Xenophon (Cyrop. III.,) m/rot, e'lti EKeirovg fiey (poijepojTepovg Trouia-o/xey, k. t. \. and truly, if we shall make them some- what more timid, S^c. Thucyd. IV. 60, Kairoi, yvS>vai xpn, i^- r. X. and truly, we ought to know. Aristoph. Plut. 1179, Kairoi tote, on eT^o*' ov^Ev, and indeed then, when they possessed nothing. *' Adhibetur," says Hoogeveen, " cum sequitur aliquid nova attentione dignum;" and again, " Quartus usus est, si dictum exemplo confirmatur,'' (Hoogev. Doctrina Part. Graec. ed Schiitz. vocab. Kairoi ;) which is the very case in question. For here the writer gives the example of God's rest after the creation, in order to explain what is the meaning of my rest. I have given the sense, by rendering Kairoi, namely, which is equivalent in many cases to et quidem et sane. So Devarius (de Partic. Ling. Grgec.) explains Kairoi ; and after him Carpzoff, (Comm. in loc. nostrum.) Thq z2 340 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 4. latter says, *' Devarius evicit, earn (Kairoi) simpliciter ad exponendam aliquam seiitentiam poiii." The sense will be substantially the same, if KaiToi be rendered, and truly y and indeed ; but the other mode of trans- lating is more explicit, and makes the connexion more facile. Twv epyiau [rest from] the works. That KuTaTravtriv is to be under- stood, before epx^^v is clear from ver. 4 and 10, where the same sentiment is repeated. The ellipsis may be either [fcaraTravo-tv] riov epyiovy or, [icarcnravaiy aTro] ruty tpyiov ; more probably the latter, for citto is sup- plied after the verb KaTtiravae, both in ver. 4 and 10. 'Atto, however, is not absolutely necessary here, as nothing is more common than the geni- tive case, without any preposition, to mean in respect to, in regard to ; e. g. Eyyvrara avrf eljit yevovg, I am very nearly allied to him, IN REGARD TO descent ; uTraiQ apphdiv Traidcoy, childless IN REGARD TO males; see Buttman's Gram. § 119. 6. 1. Matthise, § 315. 'Atto KarajooXfjg Kocrixov yevr]6ivTioy, done, i. e. completed or performed, when the world was founded. 'Atto KaTajSoXfjg, at or after the founda- tion, i. e. beginning ; in a sense, like utto ap^m^ o,t f-^^i-) in Matt. xix. 4 ; and in Luke xii'. 25, a^' ov means when. Josephus uses icara/BoXi) for beginning ; e. g. Lib. ii. 17, Bell. Jud. he says, "This was fcam/SoX?) TToXiixov, the beginning of the war,''' viz. with the Romans. By rendering otto, after, I follow the more usual sense of the word. The nature of the image I take to be this. The foundation (Karaf^oXtj) of a building is merely its commencement, a state or condition prepara- tory to the completion of the superstructure. So here, the KarapoXri founding of the earth, was the act described in Gen. i. 1. The comple- tion of the building (so to speak) followed, during the work of the six days which succeeded. These were the epyojv yeve^ivriov which our author mentions here, and these were the works from which God rested, after they were completed. That airo, joined with nouns designating time, may mean after, since, every lexicon will show. Ver. 4. The writer now proceeds to cite a passage of scripture, in order to show that God did enjoy such a rest as he had spoken of. Etp»?fC€ yap, for [the scripture] says, or, [the Holy Ghost] says ; the usual mode of appealing to the Old Testament. " IIov in a certain place or passage. Chapter and verse are no where cited in the New Testament ; and very rarely is any particular book named, unless, indeed, it bears the same name as its author. An appeal to Scripture, by merely saying ttov, shows that the writer must have sup- COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 5, 6. 341 posed his feaders to be familiar with the contents of the Jewish Scrip- tures. The passage cited may be found in Gen. ii. 2. KaTETravcrey 6 Qeog. The rest here spoken of, is of course to be con- sidered as described avSrpMwoira^Cigj i. e. in accommodation to the capa- cities of men. It surely does not imply, that God was wearied by his work of creation : but that he simply ceased from it, and enjoyed a holy and delightful quiet, in the pleasing contemplation of the works which had been accomplished. Compare Gen. i. 4. 10. 18. 25. 31. Ver. 5. Such, then, was the rest of God, of which the scripture speaks. To such rest, the apostle says, the writer of the ninety-fifth Psalm refers. Kai iv tovtm ttclKlv, again in this passage also, viz. in the passage which he had already quoted from Ps. xcv. 11 , i. e. the passage which he is now going to mention, the Scripture represents God as say- ing, MY restj i. e. such rest as I have, or, such as I enjoy. In other words, both Gen. ii. 2, and Ps. xev. 11, speak of a Ao/y, spiritual rest, since they speak of a rest which God himself enjoys. Ver. 6. 'ETTft ovv aTroXeiirtTUL .... hi aTre/^etav, since then it remains, that some must enter into that [rest], ajid [since] they to whom the pro- mise was formerly announced, did not enter in, because of unbelief; [it foUow^s that believers only can enter in], compare ver. 3 ; or, [it follows, that a rest remains for believers], compare ver. 9. This seems to be a continuation of the subject in ver. 3. There the writer says, '^ Believers enter into the rest of God." How- is this proved ? " Because he has sworn, that unbelievers shall not enter into it ;" which necessarily implies that believers shall enter into it. Then, after delaying a moment, in order to show what the nature of the rest in question is, viz. that it is God's rest, i. e. such rest as God enjoyed after the work of creation was completed, (ver. 3 — 5,) the author resumes the consideration of the proposition advanced in the first part of ver. 3, and avers, that, as some must enter God's rest, (for God could not be sup- posed to have provided one in vain ;) and as unbelievers cannot enter in ; so it is necessarily implied, that believers, and they only, will enjoy the rest in question. See the illustration of the reasoning prefixed to ch. iv. in the preceding pages. Others construe the verse in this manner : " Since, then, some must enter into his rest, and unbelievers of former days did not enter in ; therefore he defines again (TraXtj^) a particular day,'' &c. constructing ver. 6 and 7 as one connected sentence. But this makes the sentence 342 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 7, 8. very much involved, and obscures the design of the writer. His object certainly is, to show that the rest proffered in ancient times, in the ninety-fifth Psalm, still remains for the people of God ; see ver. 9, 10. But how can this be proved by merely showing that David speaks of a definite time, when he wrote the ninety-fifth Psalm, in which the offer of rest was then made ? On the other hand, I understand it to be the par- ticular object of the writer, in ver. 7, seq. to exhibit further proof, that the proffered rest is of a spiritual nature, and therefore not to be limited by assigning to it a merely temporal sense. See the preceding illustra- tion, referred to above. Ver. 7. TloKiv tlvo. opi^ei Jijxipav .... Kapliag i»/xwr, again he specijles a particular day, to-day, wheii speaking by David, so long a time afterwards ; as it is said, " To-day, whilst ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.'' See above, on ch. iii. 7, 8, particularly ver. 18. The reasoning stands thus : " In David's time, nearly five hundred years after unbelievers in the "Vilderness were threatened with exclusion from the promised inheritance, the Psalmist makes use of the commination which has been quoted, in order .to deter those whom he addressed, from hardening their hearts as the ancient Israelites did, and so losing the rest as they did, which God had proffered to the obedient and believing." This rest, then, could not be merely the land of Canaan, (as the Jews of Paul's time understood it to be,) for this both believers and unbe- lievers, living in the time of the Psalmist, already enjoyed. Consequently, the rest spoken of by the Psalmist was of a spiritual nature, pertaining only to believers. All this is plainly implied in — Ver. 8. Et yap avrovg *lrj(TOV£ .... rjfxipag, now, if Joshua had given them rest, i. e. the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks, then he [David] vjould not have spoken of another time, viz. when rest was to be given, or to be obtained. That is, " If the rest of God be only the rest of Israel in Canaan, or the quiet possession of the promised land, then the Psalmist could not have spoken of it as still proffered, in his time, after it had been in fact given to Israel by Joshua, nearly five cen- turies before. The other time, here spoken of, is the same which is designated by the word aiipEpov in the quotation ; which implies a time different from that, and subsequent to that, in which the Israelites obtained the rest of Canaan. That ^IriaovQ means Joshua here, there can be no doubt ; for the object of the writer is to prove, that Jesus does bestow the rest spoken of, \'n. that which the '\riaovQ here named did not bestow. Kariitavct, COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 9, 10. 343 caused to resty exactly as the Hiphil conj. in Hebrew is used ; e. g. rf^fl (from n^J)in Deut xii. 10, in the same sense as KariTravae here. Ver. 9. "Apa dTroXtiVerat . . . tov Oeovy consequently, there re^nain- eth a rest for the people of God, i. e. for believers see ver. 3. Here the object of the preceding argument is plainly developed ; so plainly, that we are not left at liberty to doubt concerning it. Here is fully expressed, what is plainly implied in ver. 6, although in an elliptical manner, as has been already noticed. Such a manner is not unfre- quent with Paul. Compare Rom. v. 12 with v. 18, 19. See Intr ^ 22. 3. 2a^/3arto'juoc, (Heb. 712^, ^^^3,^ rest, sabhatism,) holy, religious, spiritual rest. ^aj3(3art(riJidQ is a mere Hebrew word with a Greek ending ; and it is here employed as equivalent to KaraTravortc, but with special reference to the Hebrew expression T^2,'\l}] (from Jl^^) "^ ^^"' ii. 2, which there describes the rest of God. The Hebrew ]iD2t/^' is a kind of intensive noun, formed from D^,"^, and means, sabbath by way of eminence. Itapf^ariafuoc, which stands for ^ijl^t!^, seems to be a word coined by the writer purposely for the occasion, and is very ap- propriate to his design. That believers do enter into the rest of God, i. e. a rest like his, is further shewn by — Ver. 10. 'O yap eiffeXdwv . . . oQeog, he who enters into his [God's] rest, he will also cease from his own labours, as God did from his. As God cease^ from his work on the seventh day, and enjoyed holy delight in the contemplation of what he had done, (see on ver. 4. above,) so the believer, in a future world ,^ will cease from all his toils and sufferings here, and look back with holy delight on the struggles through which he has past and the labours which he has performed, for the sake of the Christian cause. Or, as God enjoys a most pure and perfect rest or happiness in heaven ; so the believer will enjoy a similar happiness there. There surely is no more difficulty in calling that rest, which is pro- mised to believers, the rest of Goc?, than there is in saying, that man *•• was formed in his image ;" that Christians *' are made partakers of the divine nature;" or that "we shall be like him, when we shall see him as he is." The rest of God, is rest like that which God enjoys. And it deserves to be noticed, that the writer, in order to illustrate the nature of this rest, has chosen the description of it, as following the work of creation, in 'order to make a comparison between 344 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 11, 12 it and that rest which believers will have, when all their toils and sufferings are ended. This was well adapted to take hold of the minds of those to whom he was writing, and who were exposed to many hard- ships and trials. Having now shown that there is a promise of spiritual rest to be- lievers, implied in what the Jewish Scriptures say, the apostle repeats the caution, which lay so near his heart, against unbelief in the Saviour, and the consequences of it. Ver. 11. 2>7rovcaff(t)fx£v ovv . . . otTrei^fiae, let us earnestly endea- vour then, to enter into that rest, [the rest of God,] lest any one should perish, in like manner, through unbelief. 'Ej/ t-^ dvr^ v-Koldy fiari, after the same example, after the like manner, viz. as they (the Israelites) perished. Uiarj is often used in this way, in an intran- sitive sense. 'ATrei-^emc I take to be the genitive (as grammarians say) oi means, instrument, &c. The awful nature of the commination, that unbelievers should not enter into the rest of God, the writer now describes, in order to leave a deep impression on the minds of his readers, and to guard them more effectually against unbelief and apostacy. Ver. 12. ZCjv yap . . . evepyrjc, for the declaration of God has an active and mighty power, or, is enduring and powerful, i. e. has an efficiency that never ceases. The meaning according to the latter inter- pretation is, that the commination, uttered in ancient days, against unbelievers, (and which had been repeated above by the writer) has abated nothing from its force or efficacy, down to the present time ; it still lives ; unbelievers are still subject to its power. In defence of this interpretation, it migl.t be said that ^w*/ is applied here to the divine word, i. e. commination, in a manner like that in which it is applied to God in the phrase ^H /K, Qedg i^Stv, often used in the Scrip- tures, which designates him as eternal, immortal, never dying, endowed with unfailing life, in opposition to idols destitute of a living principle, and made of perishable materials. It is evident, too, that the sense of perpetual of perennial, may be considered as appropriate to the passage before us. But others interpret l^Hyv as meaning active, a sense which is common to this word, and to the Hebrew ^11. I understand both terms as con- veying the idea of active and mighty energy ; which is altogether appro- priate to the writer's purpose, whose object it is to persuade his hearers, that the commination uttered against the unbelievers of former days, and COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 12. 345 which is still in force, has a dreadful power, at which they, ought to shudder. Kal TOjxwTepoQ .... iKrrofxov, and sharper than any two-edged sword^ i. e. it has a more effective power to inflict wounds, than a sword with two edges. The efficacy of divine commination is often compared to a sharp sword. E. gv the Son of man is represented by John, as having, «7hen he appeared to him in vision, a sharp two-edged sword issuing from Ais mouth, i. e. his words cut as it were like a sharp sword, or his reproof, commination, wcunded deeply. Rev. i. 16; ii. 12, 16; xix. 15, 21. Compare also Isa. xhx. 2; xi. 4, in which last passage the expression is, with the rod of his mouth, and in the parallel ffrixog, with the breath of his lips, [with his words] shall he slay the wicked. Lan- guage then of reproof, of severe threats or commination, or of condem- nation, is by the sacred writers called the sword or rod of the mouth. So in our verse, the divine commination is represented as terribly effica- cious, by resorting to the same species of imagery in order to make a comparison. Kat ^uKvovixevoQ .... irvevpaTOQ. The writer continues the descrip- tion of the efficacy of the divine threatening, by carrying on still further the description of the effects produced by a sharp sword upon the natural body. Piercing even so as to separate life and spirit. "H^vx^i when used as here, in distinction from Trvtvjja, means the animal soul or principle of animal life in man ; as irvevp.a in such a case means, the rational or intellectual soul, the immaterial jfi"inciple within man. See 1 Thess. V. 23, where orw/xa is added, in order to designate the merely physical or corporeal part of the human system. In the phrase under consideration, piercing so as to divide [or separate] life and spirit y plainly means inflicting a wound so deep as shall prove deadly ; for that which separates the soul from the system endowed with animal life, is of course deadly. We may paraphrase both expressions thus; a sharp sword that inflicts deadly wounds. *Appwy re Kal pveXioPf [piercing so as to divide] joints and marrow, i. e. so as to divide the joints or limbs from the body, (which was often done in the severer kinds of punishment ;) and so as to pierce through the very bone to the marrow, or to separate the marrow from the bone, by perforating it ; a tremendous image of the sharpness of the sword and the effects it produces. The sense is, that the divine commination is of most deadly punitive efficacy. Kat KpiriKog . . . Kapdiac, he also judges [takes cognizance of] the 346 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 13. desires and purposes of the heart, i. e. Qtog KpiTitcdg effrt. That KpiriKoCf aptus ad judicandum, here applies to God, and not to \(r/o^, seems evi- dent. That there is a transition to Qeoq is quite evident from ver. 13, where kvui-mov avrov, 6(p^a\^o1(; avTOVy and irpbg oV, one cannot well doubt, are to be applied to God. There is, then, a transition somewhere to Qeoq ; and the nature of the case shows, that the appropriate place for it is at kuX kpitlkuq. In the preceding part of the verse, Xoyoe GcoD, divine commination, is represented (very forcibly and properly) as puni- tive. This idea is consummated by the phrase which ends with pvekStv ; and as Geoc comes in as the subject of discourse, in the sequel, (at least in ver. 13,) I see no place so apposite for its introduction, as at koX Kpi- TtKos, Indeed, there can be no other ; for, unless it comes in here, we must carry Xoyoc Gcou, as the subject, through the whole paragraph ; which does not seem to me to be the design of the writer. God is here represented as one who scans the whole of man's internal character, and sits in judgment upon it. Consequently, as the writer intimates, no secret act or purposes of unbelief, or defection from the Christian cause, will remain unnoticed or unpunished. 'Ev-^ujur/cnc and 'evvoia are nearly allied in meaning. They are both employed here, merely for the purpose of designating universality , i. e. the whole of men's internal thoughts and purposes. Ver. 1 3. Kat ovk core . . . • avrov ^ yea, nothing is concealed from the view of him [i. e. of God.] Krto-tc means any created thing ; literally, act of creation, but it follows the Hebrew HJ^nil. Ov Kricrig means, no thing, b'D ikb = ohSey, or nXm ^b- Ilavra .... rfrpaxi^Xicy-teVa, but all things are naked and exposed to the view of him, to whom we are accountable. Tpaxn^i^(d is best ex- plained here, in the sense which the Greek classical writers attach to it. It means, (1.) To lay bare and bend back the neck, so as to expose the throat, in order to its being cut open or dissevered. Hence, (2.) To expose, to lay open ; which is the idea of the word in the phrase before us ; as it is given in the translation above. 'O^'&aX/toTc, eyes, i. e. sight, view, cognizance ; for it is often used in this way. npog ov ripiv 6 \6yog, literally, with whom, [before whom, in whose power, or, at whose disposal,] is our account. The sense of account, Xoyoc often has. The common way of rendering Xoyoe here, is, concern, dealing, business. This sense the word will bear; but it is less in con- formity with the usus loquendi, and less apposite to the design of the writer. Chrysostom understands it as I have translated it. And so the VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. IV. 14. — X. 18. 347 preceding clause requires it to be rendered ; for this speaks of God, (or Xoyog, if you please) as fcptrifcoe, i. e. aptus ad judicandum ; the clause, now under consideration, represents men as actually accountable to him who is the omniscient Judge. View of the Contents of Heb. iv. 14. — x. 18. Tlie writer now proceeds to the consideration of a subject, at which he had merely hinted in ch. iii. 1. ; where he calls Christ the apxt-^p'^a of the Christian religion. As airoaToXoQ (iinvn n*"7tt',) prafectus domo Dei, he had already compared him with Moses, ch. iii. 2 — 6 ; and then built upon the result of this comparison, the very solemn and affectionate warning against unbelief which follows, ch. iii. 7 — 19. For the encouragement of the Hebrew Christians, he had also taken occasion, (after having spoken of unbelievers as excluded from the resl of God,) to represent the promises still held out to believers, of enjoying that rest. Such was the case, under the ancient dispensation, and such, he argues, is still the case; "there remains a Q v/jIvj Origen. This surely does not imply, that temptations had, in all respects, the same influence upon him as upon us ; but only, that he was exposed to be attacked by them, in like manner as we are. He possessed a nature truly human, ch. ii. 14. 17 ; he was, therefore, susceptible of being excited by the power of tempta- tions, although he never yielded to them. So the writer : Xwptc afiapTiaQj without sin ; i. e. although assailed by temptations of every kind, he never yielded, in any case, to their influence. He remained sinless. But why is this* here asserted ? Principally, I appre- hend, to guard against any mistake, in respect to what the writer had just said. To show the Hebrews, that they might depend on the sym- pathy and compassion of their high priest, (compare ch. ii. 17, 18,) to help them, in all the trials and difficulties to which an unshaken adhe- rence to Christianity would subject them, he declares that Jesus was himself subject to the like trials, in all respects. But when he had so said, as if fearing they might draw the conclusion, that in in some cas'^s, at least, he was (like others) overcome by them, the author immediately adds, xiopLQ afiapTias. It may be, that the expression implies an exhorta- tion thus, viz. " Jesus when tried did not sin ; Christian brethren, follow his example." I prefer, however, the former explanation. Ver. 16. Let us, then, approach the throne of grace, ^era Trappijalug, with freedom of speech ; i.e. since we have such a sympathizing, com- passionate high priest, to offer our supplication to God, and to help us, let us go to God with confidence that we shall receive the aid that we need. " Ask, and ye shall receive." T^ S-pdv^ Tfjg xaptrot,- has reference to the mercy-seat, in the temple, on which God is represented as sitting enthroned. There he heard the supplications of his people, presented by the high priest ; there he accepted their oblations ; and from thence he dispensed to them the blessings which they needed. Christians may now approach the mercy-seat in heaven, by their high priest, and may come, fieraTrappriffiug, with confidence. "lv« Xdl3(i)pev 'iXeov, that we may obtain mercy, i. e. that compassion may be exercised towards Christians, in their afflictions and trials. Kot x«P*^ evpwiuiev .... ftofi^eutv, and find favour in respect to timely assistance. Xapiv does not differ much here, from iXeov, except that it 358 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 1. is a word of a more generic nature. The sentiment is, he helped oppor- tunely ; i. e. now, when we are persecuted and sorely pressed by trials, we may obtain that aid which such seasons require. This is exactly the idea conveyed, by evKaipov (ioii^iiav, auxilium opportunum. Literally the Greek runs thus. And find grace^ with respect to opportune assistance. CHAPTER V. Ver. 1. *E^ av^pojTTtJv Xaju/3avo/i£voc, selected, taken from men. So XaQeiv, in Acts xv. 14. In a similar sense, Hp? is often used in Hebrew ; and Xa/i/3di/w, not unfrequently, in the classics. The meanmg is, that priests, appointed according to the usages of the Levitical law, are appointed to have the oversight of the religious concerns of the people, specially to make their oblations and sacrifices. 'Yttcp av-&pa>7rwv Ka^harai ra irpog rbv 0£ov, is constituted for the benefit of mien, in relation to their concerns with God. Ka^L'saTai is often employed to designate an appointment to office of any kind; e. g. Matt. xxiv. 45. Luke xii. 14, et al. So, also, it is used by heathen writers. *Y7r£p, for the benefit of for the sake of, on account of; a frequent use of the word. Ta Tpog top Qeov, for kutcl ra, k. t. \. there being an ellipsis of the preposition, which is very common in such cases. The idea is, " In respect to their religious concerns ; in regard to business which they have to transact with God ;" particularly, "Iva 7rpo(T(l>epri .... apapTiuJy, that he may offer [to God] both oblations and sacrifices for sin. Awpa I take here to mean, the various kinds of thank-offerings, &c. that were to be presented to God, agreeably to the ritual established by Moses ; and ^vaiag, the Various sin and tres- pass offerings, that were made with slain beasts. To the act of slaying S'vffiag refers, as it is derived from 5vw, to kill. In all these, and the like concerns, the high priest was to act the part of an internuntius, a mediator, between God and men ; i. e. he was to aid men in regard to their spiritual or religious concerns. It should be remarked, however, that ^(opa sometimes includes the idea of sacrifices, e. g. ch. viii. 4, com- pare ch. viii. 3. Yet, where both ICJpa and ^vo-m are employed, they are not to be regarded as synonymes. Both are employed to designate the universality of the idea intended, i. e. (in this case) offerings of every kind. COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 2. 359 Ver. 2. MeTpiotra^eiv Bwajxevogi one who can exercise gentleness or mo- deration. This classic or philosophic use of the word furpioTra^eiv may be briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a man should be aTra^r/e, i. e. not subject to passions, such as anger, fear, hope, joy, &c. The Platonists, on the other hand, averred, that a wise man should be fiETpiOTra^^Qy moderate in his affections, and not aTra^^g. The leading sense, then, of the word fierpioTraB^tXy, is to be moderate in our feelings or passions. In our text, the connexion shows us, that this moderation or gentleness was to be exercised by the high priest, ro7g ayvoovtn koX irXavojjjievoiQ, toward those who were ignorant and erring. In other words, he was to be lenient towards offenders, to treat them with gentle- ness and moderation, with kindness, and not with severity. The com- parison of Christ as a priest, in respect to this point, is presented in ch. V. 7—9, and ch. vii. 26—28. *Ayvoov(Ti Kal TrXavto^evoiQ some have construed as a Hendiadys, and rendered the phrase thus : those who ignorantly offend, or, who offend through ignorance. But surely the indulgence of the high priest on earth was not limited merely to this class of offenders, much less is the clemency of our great high priest in the heavens so limited. 'Ay^oew is repeatedly used by the LXX. as a translation of the Hebrew H-Dvi^, ^yp, U^^, which signify, to err, to commit sin, to render one's self guilty . So Sirac. ch. V. 18, in a great or little thing, fxr/ kyvoti, sin not. So Polyb. V. 11.5, TroXefiEiv ToiQ ayvov]ffa ]n3. In the Septuagint, Ps. cix. 4, [ex. 4,] and above, in ver. 6, it is lepevg. But the Hebrew ]n3 means either apxtspevg, or hpevg ; see Lev. iv. 16, et al. ; so that the apostle might render the original, in Ps. ex. 4, by either Greek word, as he has done. Having thus introduced the subject of Christ's exaltation as priest, the nature of the comparison introduced, viz. the comparison of Christ's priesthood with that of Melchisedek, occasions the writer to stop short, in order to comment on this, and also to give utterance, in the first place, to his emotions of concern for those whom he addressed. The difficulty and obscurity of the subject which he is about to discuss, arc, in his view, occasioned principally by the low state of religious knowledge in those whom he addresses. This he tells them very plainly, in order to reprove them for the little progress they had made in Cliristian know- ledge, as well as to guard them against objecting to what he is about to advance. Ver. 11. Hepi ov TroXvg fj/Xlv u \6yog .... Xeyeiv, respecting whom we have much to say. So Lysias in Panoc. Tcdkvg av sir) fioi Xoyog ^irjyeia^ai. pionys. Harlicar. I. 23. Trepl iZy TroXvg av sir] Xoyog. liai ^vaepfxijrevTog, and difficult of explanation, from dvg and epprjievu) COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 12. 365 Critics frequently couple the word Xeyeiv, which follows, with hvat^i^ii- vtvTOQ-y but the example above, from Lysias, shows that it should be associated with the former clause of the verse. The grammatical con- struction, or arrangement, I take to be this : Trept ov \to] Xiyetv^ ttoXvq {jfjuy, [e'lr]] 6 Xoyog ; the infinitive Xeyeiv being used as a noun in the nominative, or as the subject of the sentence, according to a common usage. 'ETTti vto^poi yeyovare toTiq uKoalgy since ye are dull of apprehension, or, slow in understanding. ToIq aKoaig, lit. in hearing. But ukovg), to hear, means often to perceive, to understand, like the Hebrew ^Dt^. The reason why they are so dull in respect to understanding religious subjects, is next suggested by the writer ; doubtless with the design of reproving those whom he addresses, for their neglect to make a suitable progress in Christian knowledge. Ver. 12. Kat yap 6(l>eiXovTeQ .... y^6vov,for when ye ought to he even capable of teaching, as it respects the length of time, viz. since ye made a profession of the Christian religion. The writer, doubtless, does not mean to say, that the whole church whom he addressed should actually be teachers ; but that thejr ought to have made advances enough in the knowledge of spiritual subjects, to be able to teach in them; or, in other words, ought to have made very considerable acquisitions in religious knowledge, considering the length of time that had elapsed since they professed to be Christians. Am, after, so before words signifying time ; e. g. Matt. xxvi. 61. Mark xiv. 58 ; ii. 1. Acts xxiv. 17. Gal. ii. 1. TlaXiv xpeiap e^ere .... tov Qeov, ye have need that one should again teach you the very rudiments of divine doctrine, ^roix^la, ele- ments or rudiments of any science. Sroixem 7-?7c apxm, the rudiments of the beginning, is the same as Horace's elementa prima, Serm. I. The idea is expressed by the phrase, very rudiments or first elements, ele- menta prima. Twv Xoy/wr rov Qeov, I should refer particularly to those parts of the Old Testament, which have a respect to the Christian religion, and especially to the Messiah, were it not that in ch. vi. 1 — 3, the writer has shown that he means the rudiments of Christian doctrine in its appropriate sense. Aoytwv Qeov then must mean here, doctrines or communications of God, viz. which God has revealed under the gospel, i. e. divine doctrine, or doctrines of divine original. This feeble, imperfect, spiritual condition, the writer now describes by a very appropriate figure, taken from the aliment and condition of young children. 366 COMMENTARY ON HEB. V. 13, 14. Kai ytyovart ^peiav .... rpofpfiQj and ye have become [like] those who need milk, and not solid nourishment; literally, ye have become those who need, &c. But the particle of similitude is, in such cases, very often omitted in the Old Testament and in the New. The meaning is, " Ye have in spiritual things become as children are in regard to food, i. e. unable to bear or to digest any thing but the most light and simple nourishment ; ye cannot understand or bear the higher and more difficult doctrines, ye cannot properly apprehend them when they are proposed to you." Tpoffjj nourishment, any kind of food, not meat only. Ver. 13. Tide yap 6 fierlx<^^ .... vrjirioQ yap kari, now, every one who partakes of milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of salvation, for he is a child, "ATTEipoQ, inexpers, ineptus ad aliquam rem, that is, one who has not that skill or experience in regard to any thing, which is requisite to a due apprehension and consideration of it. The sentiment is, " As he, who must be fed with milk, is yet a child ; so ye, who can bear only the lighter kinds of spiritual nourishment, are yet vriTnoi in religion." Aoyov ^uaioavvriQ, doctrine of salvation, i. e. the gospel, or the Christian religcion. The Hebrew p12{ and Hpl^ are often equivalent to ZOBti^D statute, ordinance, rule of life. It is evident, here, that BiKaiotrvvrjg means, what the Christian religion sanctions or ordains. See Schleusner on SiKaioffvvr}, No. 9. Or, iLKaiotrvvr] may be here rendered, grace, favour, i. e. the gospel which reveals grace, favour, pardon. Ver. 14. TtXftwv U kanv ij arepEa. rpocpfj, but solid food is for those of mature age. TtXelojy, adult, grown up, having attained completion in a physical respect. See on ch. ii. 10 ; v. 9. Taiv ha t^p i^iv .... KaKov, who possess organs of sense, exercised by practice, for distinguishiug between good and evil. The metaphor here, as in the preceding verse, is of a mixed nature ; the latter clause being appropriate to moral riXuoi. The meaning is, that solid food, which is an image of the more difficult part of gospel doctrines, is appro- priate to full-grown men, i. e. to Christians who have come to a maturer state, and who by experience in matters of religion, and frequent reflec- tion upon them, have made advances so as to be able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong respecting them. 'Ato-^jyrr/pia here means the internal senses of Christians, their moral powers or faculties of distinguishing and judging; although the term itself, in its literal acceptation, designates the external organs of sense. AiaKpicriv kuXov . jcat KUKov is borrowed from the Hebrew ^"T) 2iD VI**, See Gen. ii. 17; ) XT ^ -T* ' COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 1. 367 iJeut. t 39 ; and compare Isa. vii. 15, 16 ; Jonah iv. 11. It is applied, by the Hebrews, to designate a more mature and advanced state of knowledge in respect to any thing, and not simply to the mere perceiv- ing of a difference between the moral nature of good and evil. So in the verse before us ; we cannot suppose the writei; to mean, that the Hebrews were not yet riXeioi in such a sense as to be able to discern the difference between good and evil, simply considered. He evidently means, that they were in such a state, as not readily to discern what was true or false, in respect to the more difficult doctrines of the Chris- tian religion ; they were not as yet capable of rightly understanding and estimating them. From this state, it was their duty speedily to extricate themselves ; as the writer proceeds to exhort them to do. CHAPTER VI. Ver. 1. Ato a^ivTEQ .... ^epw/icS'a, wherefore, leaving the first rudi' merits of Christian doctrine, let us proceed to a more advanced state, [of knowledge.] ^lo I interpret here in the usual sense. I understand the reasoning of the apostle thus : *' Wherefore, i. e. since teKelol only are capable of aTepea rpo(pr), solid food, viz. of receiving, digesting, and duly appropriating the higher and more difficult doctrines of Christi- anity, and since ye are yet but i^j/ttioi, although ye ought to be advanced in Christian knowledge, if regard be had to the long time that ye have professed the Christian religion, ch. v. 12 — 14 ; ho, therefore, it becomes you to quit this state of immaturity, this vrjmorrjTa, and advance to a maturer state, to a reXetdrr/ra." The reasoning is plain, when thus understood, and the connexion palpable. The word cKbivTeq is capable of the signification given to it by this method of interpreta- tion. 'A(()ir}fxi signifies, among other things, relinquo, aheo, discedo, relinquo post me, 8fc. and is frequentl.y applied to quitting a thing, for the sake of going to some different place, or of engaging in a different employment ; e. g. Matt. iv. 20, 22 ; v. 24 ; xviii. 12 ; xix. 27 ; John X. 12. The meaning here, I take to be this, " Quitting the mere initial stage of pupillage, advance forward to a maturer state of instruction and knowledge ;" or, " Make such advances, that it shall be unneces- sary to repeat elementary instruction in the principles of Christianity," ver. 2, 3 368 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 1. Others (and most commentators) understand cKplvTeQ here in the sense of omitting, and apply it to the apostle in the following way : " Omit- ting now to insist on the first elements of Christian doctrine, let me proceed to the consideration of the more difficult principles of religion, not discussing, at, present, the subject of repentance, baptism, &c. ; which I will do, (i. e. I will discuss the higher principles,) if God per- mit ;" or, (as some interpret this last clause.) " Which [first rudiments] I shall discuss by and by, Deo volente ;" referring koX tovto Troinffojiev to the discussion of the doctrines just mentioned. But a difficulty in admitting this interpretation, lies in the context which follows. According to the method of interpretation just proposed, the reasoning would be thus : " Omitting now all discussion respecting the first rudiments of Christian doctrine, I will proceed to disclose the more abstruse principles of the same ; for it is impossible {ahvvaTov yap) that apostates should be again renewed to repentance." Is there any coherence in such reasoning ? If there be, it is, at least, very dif- ficult to see it. But does the other method proposed, relieve the diffi- culty ? Let us see. It stands thus : " Christian brethren, who ought by this time to be qualified, by your knowledge of religion, to become teachers of it, quit the state of ignorance in which you are. Let it not be necessary any more to teach you the first rudiments of Christian doc- trine. Such progress we must make, Deo volente. Stationary we can- not remain; we must either advance or recede. But guard well, I beseech you, against receding ; alvvarov yap, &c. ver. 4 — 8." Two things, at least, must be admitted. The one, that the apostle taxes them with negligence in regard to an enlarged acquaintance with religious doctrine ; the other, that he cautions them against the awful consequences of apostacy. Now, does it not follow, that he considers the state of comparative ignorance in which they were, as exposing them in a peculiar manner to apostatize ; and consequently, that he connects the danger of apostacy with reproof in regard to religious ignorance, so as to rouse them to more effort, in order to acquire a better acquaintance with the grounds and principles of Christianity ? And is not all this founded in the nature of things, as they have always existed ? Are not the ignorant most easily led away by impostors and heretical teachers ? The men who have prohibited the use of the Scriptures by the people at large, and who labour to suppress the diffusion of general knowledge, in order that the mass of the people may be kept in ignorance, and so COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 2. 369 be moulded by them at their will, have well understood the principle to wnich I have alluded. The caution of the apostle, then, I consider as amounting to this : " Guard well against ignorance of Christian doctrines, for lapse is easy to the Ignorant, and recovery exceedingly difficult, or impossible." I cannot, therefore, follow the usual method of expounding either the verse before us, or the subsequent context. ^£pil)^e^ay the middle voice of ^e'jow, of signifies to go, to come, to travel, to move in any manner, or in any direction. Here ^epw^e^a means, to advance, to go forward. Mj) TToXiv S'ejjiiXiov K:ara/3a\Xo/z£voi fierauoiag, not again laying the foundation with respect to repentance ; not again commencing, (as we once have done,) with the first elements of Christian doctrine, e. g. the subject of repentance, &c. Meravomg here means the subject or doc- trine of ixerdvoia, see ver. 2. The genitive /3a7rrtflr/ia5v Bi^a^ije, desig- nates, in this case, the relation signified by in respect to ; which is a very common use of the genitive ; see Buttmann's Grammar, § 119. 6. 1. It is plain, that the writer does not here speak of repentance as an act, but as a doctrine or subject of consideration ; and so of the other sub- jects mentioned in the sequel. That repentance was inculcated as an initial doctrine and duty of Christianity, may be seen by consulting the following passages. Matt. iv. 17. Mark i. 15. Acts ii. 38. xvii. 30, and others of the same kind. 'Atto vEKpioy epywv, from deadly works, i. e. in respect to works which cause death, misery, or condemnation. Compare ch. ix. 14, and rod ^avarov in ch. ii. 14. , Or vtKpog may be interpreted as meaning sitiful, vicious : as in Eph. v. 14. Rom. vi. 13 ; ch. xi. 15. Rev. iii. 1. It is not important which of these senses is adopted. The one implies the other. Kai 7ri(TT£u)g IttI Qebv, faith in God, or, in respect to him. That this IS an elementary principle of Christianity, is evident from the nature of the thing, as well as from Mark xi. 22. John xiv. 1. Heb. xi. 6, and many other passages of the New Testament. Here, however, by faith in God, is to be understood, faith in the declarations which God has made to men respecting his Son, the Saviour of the world. Compare Acts xvi. 31. Ver. 2. BaTTT-tcjUfaiv ^i^ax>7e? the doctrine of baptisms. Here the word ^i^axns is supplied by the writer ; and I regard it as implied before the preceding fierayoias and Trtorcwc. Some interpreters, however, point the 2 B 370 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 2. text thus, (iairTKrjJiCJv, ^i^ax^le, i- e. of baptisms, of [elementary] instruc- tion ; which is too improbable to need discussion. The only difficulty lies in the plural word /BaTrrtc/xwt/ ; since we know of only one Christian baptism. Hence, Schleusner, and many other critics, refer /3a7rrt, in whatever way, and whenever / can.** Kar ovhvoQ. The genitive, with K-ara before it, usually follows the verb ojuLwiJi, when the object is designated by which a person swears. So iEsop. Fab. 68, fj plv avg wfiwe Kara Tfjg 'A(ppo^iTriQ, SWOre by Venus. The accusative with kutu, or the dative with ev, may also be used. COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 14, 15. 383 "^fjocre Kaff eavTov, Hebrew ^/}^4^^ ^?' ^^"" ^^^^- ^^' '^^^^ formula of an oath of this kind, is found in Num. xiv. 21, '>Ji^ Tl. So in Num. xiv. 28, nin'' D^^Jl ''^i^ TT; and in Deut. xxxii. 40, o'^i;;^ ^D^K^ PT, / live for ever. Ver. 14. Aiyojy ^ fx^v . . . irXridvvcj ae, saying, I will greatly bless theCy and exceedingly multiply thee^ i. e. I will give thee a numerous offspring. In Gen. xxii. 17, which is quoted here, instead of simply 7rXr;0v»/w ce, the Hebrew runs thus, n^'in) ^^.1?"^^ t^^Hik^ I will greatly multiply thy seed ; but in Gen. xvii. 2, it is "Tto ItolL ''Ji^^< '^'^^^ I will multiply thee. The apostle appears to unite both expressions, in the quotation before us. The obvious idea of both passages is, " I will give thee a very numerous posterity." M?7v, certo, profecto, i. q. ovriaq. EuXoywv evKoyiiffta , . . xXr^^vrwv irXridvvM. Such a re-duplication is very common in Hebrew, where, for the most part, it denotes intensity ^ Heb. Gram . § 199. 2. The fre- quency of it, in the Hellenistic writers, is Hebraism ; but the formula itself is not without many examples in the Greek writers. E. g. Lucian. Dial. Menel. sub fine, idHv eUov. Xen. Cyrop. V. Treidiov 'i-Treiae. VIII. viraKoviiiv virriKOvcra. Polyb. eh'yp^if.voQ ^v^aro role deolg. Herod. IV. 23, Kara^Evytag Kara^tvyri. Diod. Sic. tom. I. p. 717, KaTaire^t^aQ ETrefi^pe. That intensity is designed in our text, is clear from consulting the con- text in Gen. xxii. and xvii. U\r)dvv(ij is found in what is usually called the second future cir- cumflex. But verbs in X, p., v, p, have no other future ; see Buttmann, Gram. § 86. 8. Ver. 15. Kat ovtoj paKpaQvpiiaaq .... eTrayycXtac, and so having 'patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Kat oi/rw, may be construed as equivalent to K-ai tote, vel koX kVeira, and then, and after- wards. So ovtw in Acts vii. 8; xx. 11. Rom. xi. 26. Thess. iv. 17. Rev. xi. 5. Schneider (Lex.,) ovrit), folglich, sonach. Schleusner (Lex.,) ovTit), sic tayidem turn demum, deinceps etiam. But I rather pre- fer the sense of so here, which means, in accordance with the promises just recited. 'Ettetvx^ rrJQ eirayyEXiag, the noun being in the genitive ; for ETTiTvyxavio governs either the genitive or accusative ; see Matt. Gr. Gram. § 363. 5. But what was the promised blessing which he obtained ? The same, I reply, which the preceding context designates, viz. the blessing of a posterity, which should become numerous. When Abraham was called by God out of Haran, and the promise of a numerous posterity made to 384 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VI. 16. 17. him, he was seventy-five years old, Gen. xii. 1 — 4. Twenty-four years elapsed after this, while he was a sojurner in a strange land without any fixed place of abode, before the manner in which this promise would be fulfilled was revealed to him, Gen. xvii. 1 — 16. It was only when he was an hundred years old, that the promised blessing of a son, from whom should spring a great nation, was obtained. Gen. xxi. 1 — 5. The preternatural birth of such a son, was deemed by Abraham a suflficient pledge, on the part of God, that all which he had promised respecting him would be fulfilled. Gen. xxii. 15—18. Heb. xi. 8—12, 17—19. Rom. iv. 17 — 22. Other blessings, besides that of a numerous posterity, were connected with the birth of Isaac and the faith of Abraham, Gen. xxii. latter part of ver. 17, with ver. 18. These blessings Abraham did not obtain, indeed, by actual possession ; but by anticipation, confi- dent hope, and unwavering faith in the promises of God ; compare John viii. 56. In our text, however, the apostle refers to the promised blessing of a son, which, after long waiting, Araham obtained. Ver. 16. "AvS'pwTroi /uev yap . . . oiivvovni, now men swear by 07ie who is superior, i. e. men appeal to God, when taking an oath, as a wit- ness of their sincerity, and as an avenger of falsehood and perjury. Kai Trao-r/e avrolQ ... 6 opKog, and the oath for confirmation makes an end of all dispute among them ; i. e. an oath, that contesting parties will abide by terms of amity and concord agreed upon, puts an end to the disputes which had existed, the parties relying upon an engagement of a nature so solemn. An oath, then, is the highest pledge of fidelity which men can give. AvtoIq is the dative after avrCKoyiaQ, viz. drnXoytas [^' ioTi] avTo\Q. Such is the custom of men, when avrCKoyla, contradiction, question, calling in question, dispute, is to be quieted. God has condescended to act in a similar way, for our encouragement, and to confirm our belief in his promises. Ver. 17. 'Er vy6vTtQ, we, who seek a refuge. KaTaq eitoq elireiv is very common, in the best Greek writers. It is a peiXiyfia, softening down, of an expression, which a writer supposes his readers may deem to be too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology, for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase. It is very happily introduced here ; as the subject itself is one which the writer did not intend to urge as capable of being scanned with metaphysical exactness, but only as bearing a popular mode of expla- nation. Km, verily truly, imo, vero, profecto ; See Wahl, Lex. kui, 2. b. (j. Brettschneider, Lex. koL. 5, 6. Ver. 10. "Eti yap iv rp 6(T(pvi . . . MtXxiaEltK, for he was then in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. "En etiam, nunc, even now, Thready, or, etiam tunc, even then, then. The meaning of the writer is, that at the time then present, viz. when Melchisedek met Abraham, Levi was h rj da^vi Trarpoc. Our English version, " He was yet in the loins of his father, gives a sense quite different from that of the writer ; for the meaning of this must be, " he was yet to be begotten," i. e. he was not yet born. But the apostle designs to say, and it is appropriate to his object to say, that even then, when Melchi- sedek met Abraham, Levi already (in a certain sense) existed, and, through Abraham, paid tithes to the king of Salem, i. e. acknowledged inferiority compared with him. This is the very point which the writer IS labouring to illustrate. See Excursus XIV. Ver. 11. El pev ovy reXeiojaiQ iiv, further, if perfection were [attainable] by the Levitical priesthood Mer oZv, or, pevoiiv, moreover^ further. Mh ovv are often used as a continuative particle, merely indi- cating that the writer is advancing to another topic or paragraph. Ovv is illative, in a general way ; but when joined with pev, it should not, COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 11. 397 usually, be separately translated. That a new topic is begun here, will be plain to every considerate reader. TeXeiiOffiQ, a word very variously understood and translated. Some render it, accomplishment j viz. of the design of the priesthood ; others, sanctification ; others, consummate happiness ; others, moral rectitude or perfection. It is best explained by a reference to corresponding pas- sages in the sequel. In ch. ix. 9, it is said, that " the Levitical sacrifices could not reXeiwoai the person who offered them ;" which (if we compare ch. ix. 14) appears plainly to mean, " to take away the burden of guilt, and to render pure or holy the minds of the worshippers." Again, in ch. x. 1, it is affirmed of the sacrifices, that *' they could not TeXeiuxrai. those who approached the altar," i. e. those who offered them ; and by com- paring ch. x. 2—4 with this, it is plain the writer means to say, that " the sacrifices could not bestow peace of conscience — could not take away the burden of sin from the mind of the worshipper ; but they left him filled with apprehensions, that the penalty of the divine law might still be executed upon him." Here, then, is plainly the reXelioaigf which the Levitical priesthood could not effect. It could neither purify the mind or soul of the worshipper, nor free him from the burden of his sins, or from the apprehension that they might be punished. Christ did both ; and this is the TeXeiMaig here spoken of, which he accomplished, and which the law could not accomplish. Chap. x. 3. 14. is very direct to this purpose. The writer, then, has explained reXc/wo-tc, by the sequel of his epistle ; and in a manner altogether accordant with the object of his reasoning here. 'O XaoQ yap eir* alJrp vevopo^ETTjTO, (for the people received the law in connexion with this.) This circumstance is evidently to be placed in a parenthesis. Nei/o/Jo-S'irr/ro, were subjected to the law, were put under the law. Such a construction in the passive voice is peculiar ; compare Rom. iii. 4. Ett' ai/rj/, on this condition, connected with this, or, under these circumstances ; compare Wahl on kitX II. 4, b. The meaning is, that the Levitical priesthood and the IVlosaic law are closely and insepa- rably linked together, so that if one is changed, the other must of neces- sity be ; as the writer proceeds to show in the sequel. Ttc eVi XP^'" ...... XiyEff^aiy what need was there, any more, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not he called after the order of Aaron ? That is, " if the Levitical priesthood, and the law connected with it, accomplished all, in respect to purification from sin, and the giving of quiet to the conscience, which was needed 398 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 12, 13, 14. then why should the Psalmist speak of a priest, who was of an or l*»r different from that of Aaron, and who was yet to arise V This would be unnecessary, if the priesthood of Aaron were adequate to the great purposes of salvation. "Eti any more, any longer. Ver. 12. MeTari^eiiivrjQ yap ..*. yiverai, but in case the priesthood ts changed, there must needs be also a change of the law. MeTari^tjfxi means, to transfer, to translate. This sense corresponds sufficiently well with the intention of the writer, whose design is to show, that the priesthood of the ancient dispensation had been transferred to Christ, although on conditions very different from those formerly attached to it ; and that Christ not only was a priest in fact, but that his priesthood, coming in the place of the other ancient priesthood, superseded it. No/iov here means, the Jewish dispensation, the Mosaic law. The change spoken of in respect to this, has reference to the fact, that all its ritual observances and its priesthood, (which were inseparably con- nected,) must be laid aside together, under the new dispensation. As Christ's priesthood differed from that of the Levites, so must the law, by which it is regulated, differ from that which regulated the Aaronical priesthood. This conclusion is in itself so obvious, that the writer does not deem it necessary to produce any formal arguments here to establish it. He proceeds to show, that the priesthood itself is changed, by adducing facts and declarations recorded in the Old Testament. (I.) Christ sprang from the tribe of Judah, ver. 13, 14. (2.) He was to be a priest of the order of Melchisedek, ver. 15 — 17. Consequently, the law, which was necessarily connected with the Levitical priesthood, must also be changed. Ver. 13. 'E(j) ov yap ^vaLacrrrip'np, now he, concerning whom these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom served at the altar. Tap here connects the illustration or proof with the pro- position in ver. 12. It may, however, be translated but, with nearly the same effect. The reasoning, then, would stand thus : *' If the priest- hood be changed, the law must also be changed ; but the priesthood is changed, [i. e. Christ, who is appointed to the priesthood, sprung from the tiibe of Judah ;] therefore, the law is laid aside :" compare ver. 18. and seq. Upoai&XV^^' npoo-exw means, to give heed, to apply the mind to, tov vovv being understood ; also, to give one's care to, to serve. Ver, 14. Jlpo^rfKov yap iXaXrjffe, for it is quite manifest that COMMENTARY ON HEB. VII. 1.^, 16. 399 our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe y Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood, i. e. he gave the priest's office to the sons of Levi, Numb, xviii. 6, and not to the tribe of Judah. The reader is left to supply, at the end of the verse, the conclusion of the syllogism, (which Paul very frequently omits,) viz. jj-erari^ETai olv rj Upioavvri, con- sequently the priesthood is changed; i. e. since Christ is high-priest, who was of the tribe of Judah, it follows, of course, that there must be a change in the priesthood ; for none but Levites, under the ancient dispensation, could be priests. Ver. 15. Kal Trepiffaorepov en erEpoSf and still more evident is it. [viz. that the priesthood must be changed] if another priest has arisen, like to Melchisedek. Between BfjXoVj Trp6^r]\ov, and tcaraBrjXoVy there is no important difference of signification. The two latter seem naturally to render the word somewhat more intensive. 'Avtorarat, is risen up, viz. ^^e high-priest in question, has already arisen or made his appearance, is already extant. KaS^' ofioiorrjTa, according to the likeness, in the similitude, i. e. like, resembling : in a sense like that of fcara ra^iv, in ch. v. 6. 10 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 11, Hebrew, ''/1"12t'7 7?, Ps. ex. 4. Compare aijxopoiojpivog in ch. vii. 3. Ver. 16. "Oq ov Kara vo/jqv aKaTokvTOv, who was not made [a priest] by an ordinance of temporary obligation, but by an authority of endless duration ; i. e. he was not made a priest under the Mosaic law, which was to be set aside, ver. 12. 18, seq. ; but by the oath of God, which is immutable ; compare ver. 20 — 24, and 28. ^apKiKna, fleshly ; hence, secondarily, frail, infirm, short-lived, temporary, quicquid caducum. So the Hebrew 1)D3,, Gen. vi. 3. Ps. Ivi. 5 ; Ixxviii. 39. Job x. 4. Isa. xxxi. 3 ; compare also acr^eveg and ayoj(()e\eQ, in ver. 18. 'EvroXrjg means here, the precept or command respecting the appointment of priests, contained in the vofxog, i. e. Mosaic law. 'ExtoXt/c orapKiKtJQ is, then, preceptum caducum, a tempo- rary command, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature. So ver. 12 and 18 require us to interpret the passage. Avyafxiy, authority, authoritative appointment. So Acts iv. 7, ey 7ro/g Ivya-nei ; by what authority ? see also 1 Cor. v. 4. Ziorjg, perennitas, perpetuity ; see on ver. 8, above. 'A/caraXwrov, quod destrui nequit, indissoluble, hence immutable, imperishable, perpetual. As it is the antithesis of aapKLKm, the meaning of ffapKiKtJQ must be that which is given above. 400 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 17, 18. That this interpretation of the whole verse is well grounded, follows plainly from the succeeding verse, (ver. 17,) which is adduced simply to prove the perpetuity of Christ's priesthood. Ver. 17. MapTvpei yap, viz. fj ypap), or to Trvev/Jia to &yiov. The nominative, in such cases, would of course be supplied by the readers of the epistle. In the writings of the Mishnical doctors, the usual mode of appeal to the Scriptures is, IDi^^ilti^, i. e. quod dicitur, or, Xeyerai yao, fiapTvpeirai. The writer makes the appeal to Scripture, in this case, to confirm and enforce what he had just asserted. The conclusion is now left for the reader to supply. In ver. 1 1 , the writer had said, that the Levitical priesthood, and the system of law under which the people of Israel had been placed, were connected together. In ver. 12, he intimates that the connexion was so intimate, that whatever affected one would affect the other ; and, consequently, that if the priesthood be changed, the law itself must4)e. " But the priesthood is changed," is the next proposition which he establishes, ^ ver. 13 — 17. It follows, therefore, (and this is the conclusion which the | reader is now to supply,) that the law is also changed. The writer proceeds to give another reason why the ancient law must be repealed, or rather be superseded. One reason just given above is, that the priesthood is changed, which demands a corresponding change of the law. Another reason now to be given, is the inefficacy of the whole legal institution, in respect to spiritual pardon and sanctifi- cation. Ver. 18. 'A^sTTiffiQ fxev yap .... avaxpeXeg. There is, moreover, a set- ting aside of the preceding law, because it was inefficient and unavailing. Mepyap, continuative, (as often,) further, also, moreover, besides ; the transition being made to another argument, and psi^ yap showing that the subject is continued, and something more added to it. 'A^^irritng, rejection, setting aside, abrogation ; a stronger word than ai/uXXay^. npoayouo-r/c, literally, preceding, i. e. going before the Christian dis- pensation, i. q. the ancient law. Wrr^evEq teal avuxpeXeg are words of nearly the same import here. Aa^tveg is said of that which has not power to accomplish any particular end proposed ; and aywtpeXeg is said of that which proves to be neither useful nor availing, for the purpose to which it has been applied. The meaning here is, that the ancient law, with all its ritual, had proved to be altogether incompetent to effect the rcXe/wo-tv mentioned in ver. 11, i.e. the purification of the sinner, and that peace of conscience which is inspired by the well-grounded COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 19, '20. 401 hope of pardon for sin: compare ver. 19; and ch. ix. 9, 14; ch. x. 1 — 4. The two words aa^iyes and dvw^eXeg increase the intensity of the affirmation. The epithet aapKiKfjg, in ver. 16, is of a similar nature. Ver. 19. Ov^ev yap eTeXeiojffey 6 vojxo^y for the law perfected nothing, OvUv, neuter gender, is used here for ovllva, masculine, i. e. no one ; just as TO tXarrovy in ver. 2, means the superior person^ i. e. Mel- chisedek. To irhv and TravTa are repeatedly used, by John, for ttclq and Trdvrfe, and so of other adjectives. 'ErfXe/wo-c means, did not effect a TeXelcjcrigy did not purify and pacify the consciences and minds of sinners. We have no one English word, which corresponds at all with the force of the Greek original; and we must therefore con- tent ourselves, either with a kind of literal rendering of it, or with a periphrasis, leaving the explanation for notes. *E7r£to-aywy)7 ^£ .... r^ Gew, hut the introduction of a better hope [does]. 'EreXeiioae is implied after eXTridog, by the laws of grammar. The introduction of a better hope does perfect men, i. e. it inspires them with well-grounded hope of pardon, and '* purifies their con- sciences from dead works, so that they may serve the living God." ch. ix. 14. 'E7r£to-aywy»), super induction, is said of one thing which is introduced in the place of another ; e. g. in this case, of the gospel, which was superinduced upon the Mosaic law. 'EXTrte Kpe'iTTwy means a better source or ground of hope, viz, the gospel was a better ground of hope to the sinner than the law. At' rig, by which, by means of which, through which, i. e. in the way disclosed by the gospel, eyyi^ofxey rw 06^, we draw nigh to God, we have access to God. Under the ancient law, the high priest only entered the holy of holies, to procure pardon for the people. Under the gospel, the way is opened by Jesus, for all penitent sinners to " come boldly to the throne of grace," ch. iv. 16, in order to obtain the blessings which they need. 'Eyy/i^w is frequently construed with the dative, in Hellenistic Greek; see Winer's Gram. § 24. 4. Septuagint, Gen. xxvii. 21 ; Exod. xix. 22. Ver. 20. Kal /ca^' oaov ov x^^p'^c opictofiofflag, further, since not with- out an oath, supply lepevg yeyovtv 'Iriaovg from the latter part of the following phrase, which is the antithesis of this. KaS"' oaov, in this case refers to Kara roffovrov in ver. 22 ; and the intervening phrases are added by the writer, only by way of explanation and comparison. It is diffiqult, if not impossible, to give the exaot features of the original here, in any copy. The argument of the \=frip{i\oTepoe rStv ovpav^v yivoptvoQ, exalted above the heavens, i. e. seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, ch. i. 3. Compare Phil, ii. 9. Colos. i. 18. Heb. ii. 9; viii. 1. Rev. v. 12. Matt. xxv. 31. 406 COMMENTARY ON H£B. VII. 27, 28. By these assertions, the writer designs to show his Hebrew readers, that Christ was, in all personal respects, exalted above the Jewish high priests. They were " compassed with infirmities," but he was spotless ; if they were ceremonially undefiled, he was morally so ; if they were placed in an exalted station, he was infinitely above them, being like Melchisedek, king as well as priest, inasmuch as he was raised to the throne of God above the heavens, ch. i. 3. To finish the comparison, he goes on to say, that, in consequence of his perfect purity, he needed no expiatory offering for himself, as the Jewish high priest did. Ver. 27. "Oc ovk t^^ei .... \aov, who has not, like the high priests, any daily necessity of offering sacrifices, Jirst for his own sins, and then for those of the people. Many doubts have been raised by critics, about the meaning of Ka^' rifxipav here, because they have supposed that the high priest officiated in person, only on the great day of atonement. But that these doubs are without any good ground, may be seen by consult- ing Lev. vi. 19 — 22, Numb, xxviii. 3, 4. Philo, who was contemporary with the apostles, says, ap-^iEpivc, Kara tovq vojxovq, kvyaq le. Koi ^variag TtXoJv fca-&' l/cttTT/r yfxipav, the high priest, agreeably to the laws, makes daily supplications and sacrifices, see on ver. 25. It happens m this case, as in all others of a like nature which occur in our epistle, that the deep and accurate knowledge of the writer, in respect to every thing which concerned the Jewish dispensation, becomes apparent, just in proportion to our knowledge of the usages which really existed under that dispensation. TovTO yap .... avtviytca^, for this he did, once for all, when he offered up himself. 'Araa.Xaiov Tuiv avdpwv tHov iroXEfXLffTCjv, the head of the warriors. So the classic authors also, as may be seen in Schneider, and in any good Greek Lexicon ; to which may be added, many of the most dis- tinguished among late critics on our epistle, such as Zacharise, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Storr, Dindorf, Schulz, laspis, and others. The context, also, renders it quite plain, that such must be the meaning, and that Ke/c hn^rfKrtg, the [stone] tablets containing the ten commandments. The general idea of law, precept, statute, is very commonly annexed to nn^l in Hebrew, where the Septuagint renders it by ^m^i/ci; ; e. g. Exod. xix. 5, et al. saepe. Both in classic authors, and in the New Testament, it has also the meaning of last will, testament; e. g. Gal. iii. 15. Heb. ix. 16, 17. 414 COMMENTARY ON HEE. VIII. 9. Most frequently of all, is J^HIl in the Old Testament, and ^m^^*?) in the New, employed to designate a promise, compact, or agreement on the part of God with his people, that, on condition of doing thus and so, blessings of such and such a nature shall be bestowed upon them. It comes, in this way, very commonly to designate the whole Jewish economy, (as we call it,) with its conditions and promises ; and by the writers of the New Testament it is employed, in a similar way, to designate the new economy or dispensation of Christ, with all its con- ditions and promised blessings. Thus, rj TraXaia or Trpwrr/ ^ia^i]Krj means, the Jewish dispensation ; and rj icaivri hah'jKr) means, the Chris- tian dispensation. The idea often annexed by readers to the word cove- nant, viz. mutual compact, and a quid pro quo in respect to each of the parties, is not the scriptural one. The meaning altogether predominant is an arrangement on the part of God in respect to men, in consequence of which certain blessings are secured' to them by his promise, on con- dition that they comply with the demands which he makes, i. e. obey his precepts. ^ia%Kri, then, embraces both precept ^nd promise ; and may be used for either, or for both at the same time, pro re natd ; and it often is so used in the Old Testament, and also in the New. In our text, Sia^{]Kriv /catvii/r means, a new arrangement or disposition made by Christ, i. e. one which has, in some respects, new conditions and new promises. Ver. 9. Ov Kara rrjv ^la^nKriv, k. t. X. This clause is explanatory of the word Kaivrjp in the preceding verse. The meaning is, ** The covenant which I will make, at a future period, with the Jewish nation, (i. e. the dispensation under which I will place them,) shall be different from that which I made, when I brought them out of Egypt." 'Er >/^ep^ kirCkuf^oixEvov fiov Trjg '^etpog uhruji', Heb. DT*^ ^lP^^'7'7. Q'^^. Xeipoc, in the genitive, is governed by the force of ivrl in composition with Xaf^ofiepov ; so e7rtXa/i/3av£iv Trjg ')(eip6g, to take by the hand, to lead, Sfc. 'EEayayely, to bring or lead out, elg rb being understood before the infinitive here. Both words together mean, assisted or helped to come out. This clause is added by the writer, in order to show plainly, that he means the Eui^iikt^v, which was made when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, through the wilderness, toward Canaan. "On avTol ovK evifxetvav kv rri ^la^^riKrj jxov, because they did not keep my covenant. The Hebrew is, W"]^"nK ^*1?rT TlBTl 1tif>>^ because they violated my covenant, i. e. failed to perform the conditions on which I promised to bestow blessings upon them. The Greek ovk eviixirciv i» COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 10. 415 a version ad sensum, but not ad literam. McVcu or epifxiyu) means, among other things, to persevere , to be constant ^ to continue firm, or stedfast in any thing. The Greek expression, ovk tvi^tivav is softer than !)1S)(1 ; and as ovtc k^uvav conveys, for substance, the same idea as ^IIDn we may well suppose it was preferred to a stronger expression by the writer of our epistle, while he was addressing himself to his Jew- ish brethren. "On ovk hifxeivav assigns a reason why a new covenant was to be made, viz. because the old one is broken, and because it has not been kept on the part of the Jews, and will not be kept, therefore a new one, on different conditions and with better promises, shall be made. K^yw ijixiXqcra avrwj/, Hebrew Dl ''I^?^^ '^^.^^X i^^S^^^^ Version) although I was an husband to them ; Gesenius, although I was their Lord ; both according to a sense of 7j^2l, which is a usual one. But that the Septuagint have given a correct version here, and the apostle / / / properly adopted it in our text, is very probable. The Arabic V *-STf (2. yVJ^\ means, to loath, to reject with loathing ; see Castell Lex. on ' / / J^. In this sense, it is probable, 3, tJ?^, is used in Jer. xxxi. 32, and, as some think, in Jer. iii. 14. So Abul Walid, Joseph Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchum, understood the word in ch. xxxi. 32 ; and in like manner many modern critics. The Greek rifxiXr}ffa means, to neglect, to disregard, to treat with neglect, and is, (like ohic hineivav) a softer expression than the corresponding Hebrew one, while it conveys for substance the same idea. The Septuagint, in their rendering of -? '^^f.V^ appear to have preserved an ancient meaning of the word b^3,, the correctness of which the Arabic is a pledge for, at the present time. The disregarding, or treating with neglect (rz/ieXeca,) here spoken of, has reference to the various punishments inflicted upon Israel for their wickedness, instead of the blessings which they would have re- ceived, had they been obedient. Ver. 10. "On avrr) fj ^la^ijKri . . . Kvpiog, but this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord. "Ort but, so the Hebrew "'S, Ps. xliv. 23 ; cxxx. 4. Job xiv. 16, al. The Lexicons are imperfect in regard to this word, Otfcw 'IffparjX, house of Israel in this verse means, the Jews in general, the Israelitish nation, for so the whole nation is often named, in the Old Testament and in the New. ^i^ovQ vofxovQ fiov eiQ Ti]v didvoiav ctvrwv, / will put my laws upon their 416 COMMENTARY ON HEB. VIII. 11. mindy Hebrew D2l"jp^. For ^i^ovq, the Septuagint has Si^ovq ^wawt meaning-, I suppose, deeply infix. This sense of ^i^Mfii comes from the Hebrew ]r]^ ; see Wahl on ^i^iofxt , No. 8. Ai^ovg, like the present participle in Hebrew, is used for the future ^waio. To place or put laws upon their minds, of course means to inscribe or engrave them, as it were, i. e. deeply to infix them. Kai knl Kapliaq avT^v eirLypaylMi) avTovg, and I will engrave them upon their hearts, or, inscribe them upon their hearts ; an expression parallel to the preceding, and of the same import. The meaning of both is, I will give them a lasting spirit of obedience to my laws, so that they will no more violate them as they have done ; i. e. the new covenant shall be distinguished from the old, by a higher and more permanent spirit of obedience in those who live under it. Kai iffofiai dvTo'tc ■ . . \abvy and I will be their God, and they shall be my people ; i. e. I will grant them peculiar protection and blessings, and they shall be peculiarly obedient and devoted to me. Compare Rev. xxi. 3, 4. 7. Zech. viii. 8. For the meaning of the Hebrew idiom, eIq Qeov and cieXaov, see on Heb. i. 5. Ver. 11. Kai ov /xj) lilai,ov(nv .... Kvpioy, no one shall teach his own fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord. For Tov TToXlrriv, various manuscripts and editions have tov TrXrjaiov. The original Hebrew is, ]l}'i^ ni;r r}^b\ i6^ Vn^^'Di^^^ t^^^S") ^HfJ/n'riN; which, interpreted agreeably to a well-known Hebrew idiom, means simply, one shall 7iot teach another ; for t^^>^ and yi as well as t^''2^ and VHl^ - •• • . ^ simply denote each other, or one another, when thus coupled together. Toy ToXirrjy, in our text, corresponds to the Hebrew ^JIVI ; and this word the Septuagint almost always render by TrXrjaiov. This is the ground, probably, why the reading TrXryo-tov has been preferred by Ben- gel, CarpzofF, and some other critics. But 7ro\trr;v is in the best manu- scripts ; and Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthias, Rosenmiiller, Knapp, Hein- richs, Tittmann, and others, prefer it. The Septuagint, moreover, ren- der ^^ by TToXtVr/g, in Prov. xi. 9 ; xxiv. 28. Whether, however ttXc- aiov or TroXiTrjv be adopted, the sense is not changed. The meaning of the whole phrase, is simply what the Hebrew idiom allows it to signify, viz. " One shall have no aeed to teach another." The repe- tition of the sentiment, by tuv TToXirriv avrov and top ahX1\ n^^l, in Exod. xxvi. 1, 2. seq.,) which Dindorf says was a third veil ; but' which, manifestly, Paul does not reckon to be such ; nor Moses, in the passages above cited. '^KTjvri // XeyojjLEyr) ayia uyidjy, the apartment which is called the holy of holies, i. e. the most holy place, i. q. D"'t2^^j5n ti^"7p^ a common form of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote intensity. In regaixi to }) Xeyn/jeprf, after orKT/v^Vithout the article, see on fi Trpwrjy above. Kareartcevnar^rj is understood after ffKrivn '* see in ver. 2, where it is expressed. The inner sanctuary was called most holy, because there was the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, &c. ; and there the pre- sence of Jehovah, (which the Jews in later times called n^Otil.) was peculiarly manifested, so that this was regarded as his particular dwelling place, H^^^D, Ver. 4. Xpvffovp e^ovta ^fiLaTtipiop, containing the golden censer. See Excursus XVI. Kat r/)v Kif^ufTov .... j^^pvato), and the ark of the covenant, covered on every part with gold. Ki/3wror was a coffer or chest, made of wood, and covered with laminae of gold ; a description of which is given in Exod. xxv. 10 — 16; xxxvii. 1 — 5. It is called the ark of (he covenant, because in "it were deposited the two tables of the cove- nant, (nnn^ see on ^La%Kr]v in ch. viii. 8. and compare Deut. iv. 13 ; ix. 9. 11 ;) which tables are also called the two tables of testimony i. e. of statutes, /l^jl^rr, irb ^^i^, Exod. xxxi. 18. Both the terms jT'I^ and r\T\yi plainly mean, laws, statutes, or precepts, in this case, and both refer principally to the ten commandments ; see 1 Kings viii. 9, and Deut. x. 1 — 5. 2 Chron. v. 10 ; vi. 11. 'Ej' ^ ara^voQ xpvari e^ovffa to fxavra, in which [ark] was a golden pot containing the manna. The fact to which this alludes, is described in Exod. xvi. 32 — 34 ; where the ara^voQ is called simply Jl^^i^ that is, pot, urn, vessel for safe keeping. Nothing is said, in- deed, of its being golden in the Hebrew; but the Septuagint render i^5^i!i by arafivov xpveroi/j/. Of the fact that it was so, no one will be disposed to doubt, who reads a description of the furniture of the most holy place, and finds that almost every thing Avithin it was either 422 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 5. pure gold, or was overlaid with gold : e. g. the ark, Exod. xxv. 1 1 ; the mercy-seat, ch. xxv. 17; the cherubim, ch. xxv. 18; the pillars and hooks for the veil that separated the inner sanctuary from the other, ch. xxxvi. 31, 32. Who now can rationally suppose, that the urn containing manna, and the censer used on the great day of atone- ment, were not also golden ? See Excursus XVII. Mdvva ; see on this word, Rosenmiiller, on Exod. xvi. 15 ; where the various derivations of the word are considered ; the various species of manna described ; and the fact shown, that the supply of this food for the Israelites in the wilderness, was understood, by the writer of the narration in Exodus, to be miraculous. Kat y pa.(3^o£ 'Aapioy rj /SXaor^aaca, and the rod of Aaron which budded. See Numb. xvii. I — 10, and what is said respecting this rod and the pot of manna, in Excursus XVII. Kat at TrXaKEQ rfjg ^la^rjKtiQy the tables of the covenant, means the stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, and which were deposited in the ark, Exod. xxxi. 88 ; xxxii. 16 ; xxxiv. 28, where the words of the covenant are expressly said to be the ten commandments ; Deut. x. 1, 2. 1 Kings viii. 9. 2 Chron. v. 10. The writer asserts, therefore, that the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, and the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, were all laid up originally in the Kijjojvoe. Ver. 5. 'YTrepaj^w ^e avrfjg ytpovftXfi .... to iXaffrfjpiov, and over it [the ark] were splendid cherubim, which overshadowed the covering of the ark. See the description of the cherubfm in Exod. xxv. 18 — 20. 1 Kings viii. 6, 7. 1 Chron. xxviii. 18. That cherubim were symbo- lical images or representations, is quite plain from comparing the various descriptions given of them in different passages of scripture ; 6. g. Exod. xxv. 18—20; xxvi. 31. 1 Kings vi. 23—39. 32; and Ezek. i. and x. particularly ch. x. 20—22. I understand the word ^olriq as referring to the splendour of these symbolical figures, which were covered with gold throughout, Exod. xxv. 18—20. 1 Kings vi. 28. Some understand ^o^»?e of the glory which was displayed under and around them ; to which they suppose a reference to be made in Ps. Ixxx. 1, [2.] KaTaaKia^ovra refers to the outstretched wings of the cherubim over the i\a(TTr]piovy as described in the passages above quoted. 'IXaarnpwv here means, the lid or covering of the KiPiorog, which was pure gold, Exod. xxv. 17, 21. In Hebrew it Is called i1")33, which the LXX. COMMENTARY ON IIKB. IX. 6, /. 423 liave rendered Waari^piov in Exod. xxv. 17, 21. As "1D3 means, U over sin, i. e. to make atonement for it, so JTIBS may very naturally be rendered iKaffrfipiov, since it was by sprinkling blood upon this iXaor- rj/ptor, by the high priest, that atonement was made, Lev. xvi. 14. 'IXaffTijpioyt understood in reference to this, might be translated, the place or instrument of propitiation, or (with our English translators) mercy-seat. It was over this that the divine glory was seen, i. e. a supernatural, excessive brightness ; and hence God was supposed to be seated on it, as his throne, and from it to dispense his mercy, when atonement was made for the sins of the people, by sprinkling it with blood. Hence our appellation, mercy-seat. Tlepl (5r .... fiipoQ, respecting which things, it is not my present » design to speak with particularity. "^Qiy here refers to the various articles of sacred furniture, which he had just been mentioning. He means to say, that a particular description of these, and of all the various utensils of the sanctuary, is not what he intends to give ; i. e. he shall content himself with merely having suggested those which were already named. Ver. 6. Tovt(a)v he ovru) KaTUffKevafffiivwy, now these things being thus prepared. Karao-/c£ua<^a> is also, to build or construct. But in our phrase it means more. It designates not only the fabricatioyi of the various utensils above named, but the adaptation of them to their respect- ive purposes, and the arrangement of them in the order which the rites of the sanctuary required. Etc p^^v rriv Trpwrrjv . . . eTnTeXouvreg, the priests, performing the services, entered continually into the outer tabernacle, Upwrrjy, that which is frst approached, i. e. outer, as in ver. 2 above. Aarpeiag, pubiic religious services; see on ver. 1, above. AiairavTug, every day, without intermission, constantly and often. This the priest did, to make the morning and evening oblations and sacrifices ; and also to present the private offerings of individuals. Mev is the usual sign of the protasis of a sentence here ; to which U, in the apodosis, ver. 7, corresponds. Me^', in such a case, is incapable of a translation that corresponds with its use in the original. It is easy to see, that there is not only a correspondence between the two parts of the sentence above mentioned, but also an antithesis between them. Ver. 7. Etc ^£ rrjp lEvripav .... 6 ap'xiEpivg, but into the second [viz (TKi]vriv, tabernacle, apartment,] the high priest only [entered,] once in a yean compare Lev. xvi. 2. Aevrepar implies (TKrjtrir. "Aira^ means 424 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 8. either simply once, as uttu^ /cat ^Iq, once and again ; or it means ip£L .... ayvorjfiariot^, which he presented for his own sitis, and for thoae of the -people. See Lev. xvi. 6. 11. 14 — 16. Upoaipipei designates the act of presenting the blood before the Lord, as indi- cated in Lev. xvi. 14 — 16. That the priest was to make atonement for himself, as well as for the people, is expressly declared in the verses above referred to. ^Ayvoriparuyv Wahl renders, sins of ignorance. But plainly it is not necessarily limited to this confined sense. It means, fault, error, sin, generally considered. So in Judith v. 20. Sirach xxiii. 2 ; li. 19. Tobit iii. 3. 1 Mace. xiii. 39. The LXX. have some- times used it to express the Hebrew nil^Q^ from n.1^j to err. In Lev. iv. 2. 13. 22. 27, sins n^^ti^2, through precipitancy, are men- tioned, and atonement is directed to be made for them, by sprinkling blood before the mercy-seat. Lev. iv. 6. 17. But this mode of making atonement, and this limitation of the kind of offences for which it was to be made in this peculiar way, seem to have been afterwards changed, and limited in a diflPerent way, on the occasion of the death of the sons of Aaron, Lev. x. 1,2; xvi. 1,2. It would seem, from Lev. iv., as if the sins n!l2ll£^2 had a special atonement made for them, in the inner sanctuary, without limitation as to the number of times that the high priest might go there. But Lev. xvi. 2, restricted this custom ; so that atonement for sin of any kind was made, before the mercy-seat, only once in a year, agreeably to Exod. xxx. 10. Ver. 8. Tovro (^rjXovvTog . . . odor, the Holy Spirit signifying by this, that the way to the most holy place was not yet laid open. The COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 9. 425 Holy spirit here mentioned, is that Spirit which guided the ancient prophets ; which taught Moses what arrangements to make for the service of God ; and which signified, by these arrangements, what the apostle here affirms. Tovro I construe with Sia understood, viz. bi/ this ; so Ernesti and Dindorf, his rebus ; Storr, wodurch, luherehy. Tip' tS)v ayUov o^ov means, the way to the heavenly or upper sanctu ary. Through Jesus only, Jews and Gentiles have free access, at all times, to the mercy-seat of heaven : compare Eph. ii. 18. Heb. iv. 16 This way was before obstructed by numerous ceremonial rites, and limited as to times and persons. Of necessity such was the case. "Ert TfJQ TTpcorr.c (XKr]v~]q £')(ov(tt]q araaiy, while the Jirst tabernacle had a standing; i. e. so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted. Ilpwriyc aKr]rr\Q is here used, in the general or unlimited sense, for the tabernacle or temple, with its services. Ver. 9. "Wtic TrapajjoXrj .... top ereaTrjKoraf which [has been] a type down to the present time. UapafjoXri means, symbol, similitude , image, i. e. symbolical representation of any thing ; which is also the meaning of tvttoq. But in the English language, type is used not for similitude merely, but for something, under the ancient covenant, which was specially designed, on the part of God, to be a symbol of some person or event that was to exist or take place under the new one. Here, the preceding verse shows that the ancient tabernacle or temple was designed by the Holy Spirit to be a symbol, expressive of some important truths that had relation to the New Testament dispensation. Of course, the rendering of 7rapa/3oXj/ by type, is appropriate to ex- press the idea intended to be conveyed by the writer. Ete tov hearrjKOTa doiun to the present time ; dg, ad, usque ad ; see Wahl on elg, 2. a. Ka-^' ou ^(jjpa .... Xarpevoyra, i?i which both oblations and sacri- fices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed for the worshipper, in respect to his conscience. Ka^' or, in which, during which, viz. time ; see Wahl on jcara, No. 2. Awpa re koX %aiai means, offerings of every kind, which were presented to God. For TtXeiSxiai, see on reXeiioffic, ch. vii. 11. The meaning is, "To render the mind of the worshipper secure of pardon for sin, and to produce that quiet which was connected with a well-grounded persuasion of this, and that moral purification which must accompany it." We have no one word to express all this in English. I have come as near to it as I am able to do, in the version which I have given. The whole verse shows very plainly, that our epistle was written while 426 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 10. the temple rites were still practised ; consequently, before A. D. 70. But by the phrase, top Kaipov tov eyearrjKora, the writer particularly alludes to the age then present, in which the new or Christian dispen- sation had begun. The whole sentence is as much as to say, " The Jewish ritual, from the commencement of it down to the present moment, has never been, and still is not, any thing more than a type of the Christian dispensation, which has already commenced. All its oblations and sacrifices were ineffectual, as to removing the penalty due to sin in the sight of heaven, or procuring real peace of conscience. Ver. 10. Movov eirl ^p^^iaai . . . tTriKeifXEta, the ordinances of an external nature had respect only to meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. A passage very difficult in respect to its grammatical construction. Many writers have referred hKaiuJiiara tothe^wpa kol %aiai, mentioned in the preceding verse ; and then have found difficulty enough, (as well they might,) in accounting for it, how oblations and sacrifices could consist in meats, and drinks, and various ablutions. To me it seems quite evident, that ver. 10 is designed to signify something additional to that which is mentioned in ver. 9 ; although the construction is asyndic, i. e. koX is omitted before jxovov. 'Etti fipi^fxaai .... /3a7rr£o-/io7t,-, I understand as a clause qualifying ^t/caiwjuara, i. e, it stands in the place of an adjective designating wherein the ^tmtw/^ara consisted ; while aapKog supplies the place of another adjective, denoting to what the ^ticatw/xara had relation, viz. to the flesh or external part of man. Meats and drinks have respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dispensation ; and not (as some critics interpret the words) to the meats and drinks offered to the Lord. Most evidently, (^aTrrifffjidlg refers to the ceremonial ablutions of the Jews, which had respect to external purification ; and ppiofjcaai kuI Trofiaat seem plainly to respect the same kind of purity. Besides, all this agrees perfectly with the scope of the writer. He had denied that the penalty, due to sin in the sight of God, could be removed by any of the temple offerings, ver. 9 ; and in this verse he denies that the moral expiation required could be effected by any or all of the rites pertaining to external purification. Consequently, there was, according to him, nothing in the Jewish ritual, which could effect an atonement such as the sinner needed. M€)(pt Kaipov ^top^CjuEw^ trciKdiiEia, sc. ^'irray. This clause, many interpreters have placed first in order in the verse, in the translations COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 10. 427 which they have made ; but this is unnecessary. It must be admitted, that the construction in this case is very difficult, and far from being clear. The intention of the v^'riter seems to be the best guide ; for, interpret as you please, the grammatical difficulties are about the same. I regard the whole in this simple light. Ver. 8 and 9 mention the tabernacle, (which of course includes the temple, for the latter was only a substitute of the former,) and declare that the same, with all its apparatus and rites connected with it, was only a irupaftoXi}, i. e. a symbol of something real and ultimate, under the new dispensation. Two particulars, or rather, two classes of things, belonging to the ancient ritual, now seem to strike the writer's mind. First, the ^oi/ liop^h)aEh}Q plainly means, the time of the gospel dispensation^ called xpo'^wj^- a7ro^arav epyi'v, ihall purify our conscience from deadly works. Ka^aptel is the Attic future for Ka^a.- piffEL. ^vvdlriaLv does not mean simply the conscience as a faculty of the soul, bnt the mind or conscious power of men, i. e, the internal or moral man. 'NeKpaiu in such cases usually means deadly , i.e. having a deadly, destructive, condemning power. Tliis may be the meaning here; and so it is more usually taken, and so 1 have translated it. But as in ver. 13, the writer has made mention of the ashes of a heifer, as one of the means of effecting external purification ; and since, in Numb. xix. 11 — 19, these ashes are described as particularly intended to cleanse those who had been polluted by the touch of dead bodies ; may it not be supposed, that there is an allusion in the term vEKpiov here to that fact ? Dead works, in this sense, would be such as pollute the soul, as dead bodies did the persons of the Jews. Dead works, then, may mean sinful works ; for it is from the pollution of sin that the blood of Jesus cleanses. Eig TO Xarpeveiv Gew ^HJvri, SO that we may serve the living God ; another allusion to the Jewish ritual. Before persons, under the ancient dispensation, could present themselves in the presence of the Lord acceptably, they must have been subjected to ceremonial purifi- cation. What this prefigured, the blood of Jesus effects. It takes away the sinner's moral pollution, i. e. Christ removes the penalty to which he was obnoxious, and sanctifies, by the Spirit, the soul of the penitent sinner ; and thus he may draw near to God, and offer him an acceptable service. He is clean, in a sense as much higher than the Israelite was who had purified himself only externally, as the efficacy of Jesus' blood is greater than that of goats and bullocks. Ver. 15. Kai ^ict tovto Zia^riKriQ caty^c. • • •KKtipovoyi'taQ, on this account also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that, his death having taken place for the sins [committed] under the former covenant, they who have been called might receive the promised blessing of the eternal inheritance. A passage about which much difiiculty has arisen, and a variety of interpretations been proposed. Ata tovto, I understand as referring to the sentiment in ver. 14. The sentiment stands thus : " As Jewish sacrifices rendered the offerer externally clean ; so the blood of Christ purifies the moral or internal man, and removes the con- sequences of sin. On this account, {^la tovto,) i. e. because the sacri- fice of Christ produces an effect such as the Jewish sacrifices did not, he 2f 434 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 15. may be justly called the mediator of a new covenant, differing greatly , from the old." Compare Heb. viii. 6 — 8. 13; vii. 15 — 19. Aia^rjKrjg Kaivfjg fieffiTrjg, means, the author of a new covenant, or the internuntius, "^I^^/^, who (so to speak) negociated such a covenant between God and man. See Gal. iii. 19, where Moses is called the fiEairriQ of the former covenant. " But of what avail," the Hebrews would very naturally inquire here, " can this new covenant be, to all those who have lived in former ages, under the Mosaic dispensation ? You affirm that the ritual of the Mosaic law had no power to remove the spiritual penalty of guilt ; do, then, the patriarchs, and prophets, and just men of past ages, still lie under the imputation of the sins which they committed ?" By no means, answers the apostle. A new and better covenant than the Mosaic one has been instituted, under which real spiritual pardon for offences is obtained, which avails to them as well as to us at the present time. "OirtoQ, K, T. \. so that the death of Christ having taken place, for redemption from the punishment due to transgressions committed under the ancient covenant, those who have been called might be made par- takers of promised eternal blessings. ' Qavarov means, the death of Christ. Twv Trapa^aanov is governed in the genitive by the force of dxo in composition with Xirpioaiv ; and it means here, the effects of trans- gression, i. e. punishment, penalty ; just as the Hebrew JlKtSH and |ii^ mean, not only sin, but the penalty due to it. Ot fctfcXrj^tvot (like €K\tKTo).) means, those who are called, invited, viz. to an actual partici- pation of the heavenly inheritance. It is, of course, understood, that only those who are pious have such an inheritance promised to them. Compare KXrjffecjg ktrovpaviov ixiroxoif in Heb. iii. 1. 01 KeK\r)uivoi here refers to just men, of the times which preceded the gospel dispensation, or new covenant; as the antecedent member of the* verse clearly shows. T^C ai(i)viov KK-qpovo^xiag, as a genitive, depends on eTzayyikiav, not on KeKkrjfjLivoi, although such a separation is somewhat unusual ; see on ver 16, ^avarov, . . .^la^efxivov. 'ETrayycXtav is best translated here, as in ch. vi. 12. 15. 17 ; ch. x. 36 ; ch. xi. 13, &c. promised blessings, or proffered good. The inheritance is called eternal, (alioplov,) because the blessings procured by a Saviour's blood, for those who lived under the ancient dispensation, are of a spiritual eternal nature, see ver. 12. Such blessings could not be obtained by any of the rites of the old COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. If^. 433 covenant ; it is only by virtue of what is done under the new, by Jesus, •that the ancient worthies came to the possession of them. The sentiment which this verse contains, respecting the efficacy of atoning blood in regard to the sins of preceding ages, has an .exact parallel in Rom. iii. 25, where the blood of Christ is declared, by Paul, to have procured r>/v irapeaLv rdv TrgoyeyovoTwv afxapTrjfxarMv, the remission of sins committed in preceding times ; as is plain from the antithesis, ry vvv Kaip^, in the following verse. Both passages compared, form a striking coincidence of a peculiar sentiment, which is no where else so clearly and directly asserted. Ver. 16. "Ottov yap ha%Kri .... dia^efievov, for where there is a testament, (i. e. where a testament becomes fully so, Iffxveif is vcMd,) the death of the testator must take place. The occasion of here intro- ducing Sia^tiKtiy in the new sense of testament, is stated in the summary prefixed to ch. iv. 14, and need not be again repeated. The whole com- parison of testaments (^mS-^tcai) among men, which confer a valid title to an inheritance, ver. 16, 17, most evidently springs from the mention of Christ's death, in the preceding verse, and of the confirmation thereby of the believer's title to a heavenly inheritance. It is as much as to say, ** Brethren, regard it not as strange, that the death of Christ should have given assurance of promised blessings to believers — should have ratified the new ^ia^i)Kr}, of which he is the author ; other Sta^ijicat are ratified by the death of their respective testators, and only in this way.'* And then he goes on to show, that even the ancient covenant, though it could not be called a ha^r^Kri in all respects, so well as the new one, still was ratified in a manner not unlike the new one, viz. by blood, the emblem otf" death, ver. 18 — 22. As the mode of illustration or comparison, in ver. 16, 17, depends entirely on the sense of the Greek word ha^fiKr), and is not at all sup- . ported by any meaning of the Hebrew H^'IH it must be plain, that our epistle was originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, as some of the ancient, and a few of the modern, critics have supposed. ^ipecrdai, in the sense of intervening , happening, taking place, (which must necessarily be attached to it here.) has no exact parallel, that I can find, either in classic or sacred usage. It is, as to such a meaning, a true ttTra^ Xeyofievov. If the reader finds any difficulty in admitting, in ver. 15, the wide separation of iTrayyeXtav and KXrjpovofjLiag, he will now perceive a separation of the same nature, in respect to davarov and ha^efxivav, 2r2 436 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 17, 18. about the relation of which no possible doubt can be rationally enter- tained. Ver. 17. AiaOrjKTj yap sttI veKpolg /3f/3ata, for a testament is validy in respect to those who are dead, 'EttI is not unfrequently employed to denote after ^ viz. in respect to time; e. g. Acts xi. 19, kirX 2r£0avw, after the time of Stephen, as Wahl renders it ; and so Mark vi. .52, cTTt To~iQ &pToig, after the loaves, i. e. the miraculous feeding of several thousands with them. So in Phil. iii. 12, ecf m, i. e. ex quo tempore, as Brettschneider renders it. But these cases are not altogether clear. In classic authors, however, Itti tovtoIq, means, postea ; so iirX rvifki^ r^ Aav^dfjiidi, after Dandamis became blind, Lucian in Tox. See Vigerus, p. 620. MatthitE, § 584. In accordance with this usage, many critics have translated the phrase under consideration thus : a testament is valid after men are dead, or, after death. This, no doubt, gives the general sentiment of the passage ; but, after all, the explanation of iTTi v£Kpo1g in this way, is somewhat forced ; and I prefer that given in the translation, which conveys the same sense, and is not exposed to any doubts with regard to usage. 'EttcI dia^ifjLevoef since it is of no avail, while the testator is living. Mrjirore is stronger than the simple negative fxri ; and one might well translate, since it is of no avail at all. 'lo-j^uet, here first expressed, seems to be implied after Bia^iiKij, in ver. 16. The amount of the comparison in ver. 16, 17, is as before stated, that as ^laBrjKai among men are ratified by death, so did the death of Christ, (which the writer had just mentioned, ver. 15,) ratify the new ^ladnnj which he had made, and gave a valid title to the heirs who were to receive the inheritance. Ver. 18. "Odev ovB* eyKEKaiviffraif whence, neither the first [hadriKr!] was ratifed without blood. "OQev, whence, i. e. seeing that a hadliKij must be ratified by the death of the testator, and that the new BiaOnKr] has been ratified by the death of Christ, so as to make sure the inheritance to believers, verse 15 ; therefore ^ Trputrr), ^c. The meaning is, that since the new testament {Kaiyri dia^T]Kri) was, like Other testaments, to be rendered valid by the death of the testator, therefore the iraXcua ^laOriKrif I'll^i*") /l^?, which was the prototype and emblem of the new testament, was itself con- firmed, and all the apparatus attached to it consecrated, by blood, the emblem of death. The writer does not mean to say, that hadfjKvi, in the sense of testament, can be appropriately used to designate the COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 19. 437 ancient covenant ; but he means to aver, that as the Kaivrf diaOriKri could be appropriately enough called so, and as the death of Christ was to sanction it, therefore the ancient ZtadriKtj prefigured this, by the use ot consecrating blood. In other words, as almost every thing attached to the TraXata BiadijKr] was consecrated to God, and rendered acceptable to him by being sprinkled with blood, and the diadrjKr} itself was ratified in the same way ; so under the Kaivr^ ^taS^Kry, the blood of Christ only consecrates all things and renders them acceptable to God, and his death has fully ratified the diaOijKrj which he made. The resemblance between the ancient BiadtjKi] and the new one, is plainly not entire. Moses, the neairriQ of the ancient one, did not ratify it by his death ; for his death is never represented by the Scriptures in such a light. But as the new ^ladfjKri was, in respect to the death of its peaiTrjc, to differ from the old one ; so, (our author means to say,) the old ^la^rjKri, which was in its nature typical or emblematical, did prefi- gure this very thing, by the use of blood ; i. e. the old covenant resem- bled the new testament^ as much as the nature of the case permitted. TIpu)rri agrees with ^laS^yKr] understood. 'EyKEKaiviarai, to initiate, to consecrate^ to dedicate, i. e. by appropriate rites, to declare a thing which is already completed to be now ready for its uses, and to devote or dedicate it to those uses. The sprinkling of blood upon the book of the law, and upon the people, was the rite performed by Moses, when he consecrated the book of the law as their statute book, and them as publicly and solemnly bound to observe its precepts. Ver. 19. AaXriB^eiffrjQ yap iraffrj^ r^ Xaio^for when all the com- mandmenty according to the law, had been recited by Moses to all the people. The TraffrjQ evroXijg, to which reference is here made, are the statutes contained in Exod. xx. — xxiii. These Moses first recited memo- riter to the people, after they had been communicated to him by the Lord at Sinai, Exod. xxiv. 3. He then wrote them down, Exod. xxiv. 4, and afterwards, on occasion of solemnly renewing the covenant on the part of the people to obedience, he again recited them from the book of the law, CJT»"]2n ISD ^ Exod. xxiv. 7. Kara voixov most probably means here, according to the written law, i. e. just as they were in the book of the law. But voixov may refer to a command which Moses received to communicate to the people the laws given to him, although this command is only implied, but not expressed in the Scripture ; in which case the meaning would be, that agreeably to the divine command, Moses read all the law to the assembled nation. 438 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 19. Aajiujy to al/xa . . . t^pavTiae, taking the blood of bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book and all the people. This passage has occasioned no small per- plexity to commentators ; inasmuch as Moses, in his history of renew- ing the covenant of the people, in Exod. xxiv., has said nothing of the blood of goats ; nothing of the water and scarlet wool and hyssop ; nothing of sprinkling the book of the law with blood. Whence then did the writer obtain these circumstances ? That they were not mat- ters of new revelation to him, seems pretty evident ; for he plainly makes an appeal to circumstances, which he takes for granted are well known to the Hebrews whom he addresses, and about which, if he were to commit an error of statement, all his readers would be revolted. 1. The blood of goats. In Exod. xxiv. 5, it is said that Moses sent young men, who offered burnt offerings (rw^\ and sacrificed sacri- fices, peace offerings (U^U7^ U^TV^\ to Jehovah,even bullocks, tU'^B), Now, although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is quite probable that the PP^ on this occasion were goats ; for Twj^ is a holocaust, i. e. an offering entirely consumed by fire, while D^Q/I!^ were mostly eaten by the offerers. That goats were used for all kinds of sacrifices, as well as bullocks, is quite evident from mere inspection of the Levi- tical law. E. g. goats are named as an H/i?, Lev. i. 10 ; iv. 24. 28, et alibi. It is altogether probable, then, that the holocausts or JTOy men- tioned in Exod. xxiv. 5, as offered on the occasion of renewing the covenant, were goats ; and were of course understood by a Jewish reader to be such, inasmuch as the D''D7t^ only are affirmed to have been bullocks. 2. The water, scarlet wool, and hyssop. That water was used as well as blood, in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly implied in Lev. xiv. 4 — 7, compared with Lev. xiv. 49 — 52. Numb. xix. 18. Ps. li. 7. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. The scarlet wool, (nj^^i/l W scarlet,) was connected with a branch of hyssop [-litij^O in order to make a convenient instrument for receiving and sprinkling the blood and water. It is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in Exod. xxiv. ; but it is doubt- less implied; for this was the common instrument by which the rite of sprinkling was performed. So in Exod. xii. 7, direction is simply given to sprinkle the door-posts of the Israelites with blood ; and afterwards, in ver. 22, it is mentioned, that this was to be done with a bunch of hyssop. COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 19. 439 So in Lev. xiv. 4 — 7, the D^T\r\ ''Jlti^, i. e. epiop kokkivov, and the hyssop, are mentioned as employed in the office of sprinkling ; and again, in Lev. xiv. 49 — 52. The hyssop is also mentioned in Numb, xix. 18. Ps. li. 7. It may well be presumed, that the reason why the writer of our epistle, and the Hebrews of his time, supposed that Moses made use of the water and hyssop and scarlet wool, in the lustration of the people, when the covenant was renewed, was because these were employed in the lustrations where sprinkling was performed, on other occasions. The convenience of the instrument in question, and the nature of the case, would very naturally lead to such an opinion ; and who can doubt that it is well grounded ? 3. The book of the law. Because nothing is said, in Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8, respecting the sprinkling of the book, many commentators, e. g. Grotius, Bengel, Kopp, Storr, and others, construe avro re to (iifiXiov with Xa/3wv TO alyua, i. e. taking the blood .... and also the book of the law. So far as such a construction of the particle te itself is con- cerned, this might perhaps be allowed ; for re is sometimes employed, when it is not preceded by Kal or 3e, in the clause immediately ante- cedent; as in Acts ii. 33. To justify the method of interpretation now in question, Storr appeals to Heb. ix. 1, and xii. 2. But in the former case, re is preceeded by koI ; and the latter is a case where two verbs are connected. But in ou,r verse koI follows (iipXiov, and seems necessarily to connect it with iraPTa t6v Xaoy. But to say of Moses, Xa/3wj/ .... Travra tov Xaov, will not be contended for. Michaelis, Heinrichs, Dindorf,. Ernesti, and others, agree with the interpretation which I have given. Indeed, Kal and re seem to be as necessarily related here as et and que are in Latin ; and, in fact, they commonly sustain the same relation to each other. As to manuscripts, only one omits Kal after (ii(3\iov ; and we are obliged, therefore, by the laws of criticism, to retain it, whatever difficulties it may occasion to the interpreter. In regard to the fact itself, viz. that Moses did sprinkle the book with blood, no intimation of it is given in Exod. xxiv. 3—8. Yet nothing can be more probable, than that such was the fact. Aaron, and his sons, and their garments, were sprinkled with blood, when consecrated to the priest's office, Exod. xxix. 19 — 21. The blood of sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar, Exod. xxix. 16. Lev. i. 5. 11 ; iii. 2. 13; also before the veil of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6. 17 ; com- pare Lev. vi. 27 ; vii. 14; viii. 15. 19. 24. 30; ix. 12. 18. et alibi. Philo, (de Vita Mosis B. p. 675,) has a passage which speaks of all 440 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 19. the various apparatus of the tabernacle being anointed with holy oil, and the vestments of the priests being sprinkled with blood. So Jose- phus, also, speaks of sprinkling the garments of Aaron and his sons with oifLaTos TU)v TE^vixiviov, the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water, and holy chrism. Lib. V. 6. 6. p. 334. edit. Havercamp. All this serves to show how common this rite of sprinkling with blood was in the Jewish ritual ; so common, that the writer of our epistle seems, with those whom be addressed, to have considered it a matter of course, that when the people were sprinkled with blood, at the time of renewing their covenant to keep the precepts contained in the book of the law, Exod. xxiv. 8, the book itself, like all the sacred apparatus of the temple, was also sprinkled in like manner. Nothing could be more natural. The people were consecrated to observe the statutes of the book ; and the book was consecrated, as containing that sacred code of laws which they were bound to obey. If, however, after all, one is not satisfied that Paul drew his con- clusions from the analogies and probabilities just stated, he may easily suppose that tradition among the Jews had preserved the remem- brance of the particulars described in our verse, on account of the very solemn and important nature of the transaction with which they are connected. It would be easy to suppose, with some commentators, that these particulars were suggested in a miraculous way, by the Holy Spirit, to the mind of the writer. But this solution of the diffi- culty is not a probable one ; because the writer evidently touches upon circumstances here, which he takes it for granted his readers will at once recognize and admit. If so, then these things must have already been matters of common opinion among the Hebrews ; and conse- quently were not now first suggested to the writer of our epistle in a miraculous way. At all events, there can be no serious difficulty in the case. The fact that Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8 does not mention the par- ticulars in question, can be no more proof that they did not take place, than the fact that the evangelists have not recorded the words of Christ, ** It is more blessed to give than to receive," would prove that he did not utter them. Whether Paul and the Hebrews knew these things by tradition, or believed from analogical reasoning, cannot be important. Enough that they were facts, and were appealed to as such by the writer, with full confidence that they would be recognized by his readers. To illustrate the principle, de minimis non curat lex, it may be COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 20. 44v remarked, that Paul says simply, \a/3«iiv to al/ia ; Moses, that " he took half of the blood," Exod. xxiv. 6. But, surely, ^if he did the latter, he did the former. Such expressions, no where either in sacred or profane writers, are to be tortured, in order to extract from them a metaphysical exactness : verba — ne resecanda ad vivum. In the like manner, I interpret iravTa tov \aov. How, it has beea asked, could he sprinkle three millions of people, with the blood of a iQw goats and bullocks ? In such a way, I would answer, as *' all Judea and Jerusalem went out to John, to be baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins," Matt. iii. 5, seq. Must we now under- stand by this, that all the infants, the non compotes mentis, mutes, the sick, infirm, the aged, all females, or literally all males, repaired to John, to be baptized, and did all (infants and mutes with the rest) confess their sins to him ? If not, then there is no difficulty in con- struing Travra tov Xaov, in the case now under consideration. Moses sprinkled blood on the multitude of the people, I take to be the simple meaning of the writer ; not that all and every individual was actually and personally sprinkled. Some were actually sprinkled ; and these, being of the multitude, were representatives of the whole. Nothing is more common than to attribute to a body of men collectively, what belongs, strictly considered, only to certain individuals of that body. Thus, what the government of this country do, the Americans are said to do. Ver. 20. Aiyojv' tovto to alyua .... 6 Oeog, saying. This is the blood of the covenant, which God has enjoined upon you. Another instance, in which the letter of the Old Testament is forsaken, and the sense merely retained. The original in Exodus xxiv. 8, is, DDD;r nin** rii3 ^^i^ n'^^2'n-ni n-in, behold, the biood of the cove- riant which God has made with you. But Hiin means, see here, or see this, and is equivalent to tovto used as a demonstrative. The verb /T)3 is rendered by the LXX. IuQeto ; by our author, tveTeiXdTo. The reason of this probably is, that JT'l^l, in Exod. xxiv. 8, means statutes, laws, as it evidently refers to the preceding statutes, in Exod. xx. — xxiii. God cojnmanded that the people should observe these ; and with refer- ence to this injunction, our author says, eveTeiXaTo. To al^a T^Q ^La^i]Krjg means the blood by which the covenant, or, assent on the part of the people to the laws proposed, or rather, their promise to observe them, Exod. xxiv. 7, was ratified. So comrhon was it, among the Hebrews, to ratify engagements by the blood of animals slain, that 442 COMMENTARY ON HEB, IX. 21. the usual idiom of the language is, n^"}4 ^"^3, ^^ ^^^ ^ covenant, i. e. to sanction one by cutting an animal into two pieces, and passing between them. See Gen. XV. 10; xxxi. 54. Jer. xxiv. 18. Ephrem Syrus testi- fies, that the Chaldeans had the same usage, 0pp. I. p. 161 ; as also Hacourt does, in respect to the Arabians, Histoire de Madagascar, p. 98. 360. The meaning of such a transaction seems evidently to be, that the persons who make the engagements, by passing between the dissevered parts of the slain animal, virtually say, " If we preserve not our engagement faithfully, and without violation, then let us be cut in pieces, like the animal between whose dissevered parts we now pass." The sprinkling of blood on the people, Exod. xxiv. 8, was a solemnity of a similar nature. By it they were alsa ceremonially purified, and consecrated to God. Ver. 21. Kal rnv ffKr)viiv . , , . eppavricre, the tabernacle , also, and all the vessels for service, he sprinkled in like manner with blood. Kal, although a kind of copulative here, still indicates another transaction different from that related in ver. 19; for when the people were sprinkled with blood, the tabernacle was not built, neither were the (TKtvr] Xeirovpylag yet made. The setting up and consecration of the tabernacle, with its vessels, is related in Exod. xl. ; yet nothing is there related of sprinkling them with blood, but only of anointing them with holy oil, Exod. xl. 9 — 11. In the like manner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons is there spoken of as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of their office in the tabernacle, Exod. xl. 12 — 15 ; while nothing is said at all of their being sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Exod. xxix. 20, 21, and Lev. viii. 24. 30, we shall see that it is certain that Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, as well as anointed with oil. In like manner, it is probable, that the tabernacle and its furniture were sprinkled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in Exod. ch. xl. Josephus says, " Both the tabernacle and the vessels pertaining to it, [Moses sprinkled and purified] with oil, prepared as I have described, and with the blood of bulls and rams that were slain, one of each kind alternately, every day," Antiq. III. 8. § 6. This seems to indicate, that Josephus had the same view as Paul, in regard to purifying the tabernacle. The verbs in brackets, in the above trans- lation, are drawn from tlie preceding clause, where we find 'ippaivep cKpnyviaac, purifying he sprinkled. They belong to the sentence here translated, by implication. In regard to the fact itself, we may observe, that it is rendered quite COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 22. 443 probable from analogy. Then, as to a knowledge of it by our author, nothing more is necessary, than the supposition that tradition had con- veyed the knowledge of this, as well as of many other facts, down to the time of Paul. The writer evidently appeals to facts, which were believed by the Hebrews in general whom he was addressing ; and facts which, although not stated in the Old Testament, are by no means improbable, and which no one surely has it in his power to contradict. Ver. 22. Kal (rxe^ov iv ai^art . . . vufxov, indeed, evert/ thing is, according to the law, purijied by blood, Kal, imo, vero, yea, indeed. S)^£^ov TTCLVTa, and not iravra absolutely and simply; for some things were purified by water. Lev. xvi. 26. 28. Numb. xxxi. 24. some by fire and water. Numb. xxxi. 22, 23. But the exceptions were few, in which shedding of blood, or sprinkling of blood, was not required, in order to effect ceremonial purity. See on ver. 19. Kat xwptc aliiaTEKyytTlaQ oh yiverai afemg, and without shedding of blood there is no remission [of sins.] See Lev. iv. 2 — 6. 13 — 17. 22—25. 27—30, and 31. 35. Under the Mosaic law, not every trans- gression could be atoned for; consequently, remission of the penalty which the law inflicted could not, in some cases, be obtained. See Numb. XV. 30, 31. It was only he that sinned through a degree of ignorance or inadvertency, who could bring his sin and trespass offering. Numb. XV. 27. 29 ; for cases of a different nature, compare Lev. iv. 2. 13. 22. 27. The nKL^PT and Ul^i^ sin and trespass, were atoned for, in a civil and ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices, which bore the like names. But in this case, the remission was only from a temporal penalty or calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone for sin, as viewed by the righteous Governor of the world. Such the nature of the case seems plainly to be ; and so the writer of our epistle has expressly declared, in ch. x. 4. God, as the king and head of the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty which the Jewish law inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect merely to the present world, and not to the accountability of trans- gressors, before the tribunal of the universe, in the world above. Even temporal forgiveness, however, could not be obtained x'^P^c alfiaTeKxv(TiaQ. It was thus, that these v-rrohlynara shadowed forth, to the ancient church, the necessity of atoning blood, which possessed a higher virtue than that of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened in respect to a future world. So the writer proceeds to tell us in the next verse. 444 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 23. Ver. 23. *\rayKr} oZv . . . ravTag, since, then, the images of heavenly things must needs be purified by such [rites,] the heavenly things them' selves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. Mfv is here the mere sign of protasis. 'YTro^ty^ara, copies, effigies, images, resem- lances, likenesses ; meaning the tabernacle and temple, with all their sacred utensils, &c. See on ch. viii. 5. Tuiv kv toIq ovpapolg means, the spiritual objects of the heavenly world, of which the tabernacle, with all its apparatus and services, was only a symbol. See on ch. viii. 5. TovToiQ designates such things, i. e. such rites and means of purification, as had been described in the preceding context. Ka^apli^eaS^ai refers to the ceremonial purification of the temple and its sacred utensils ; e. g. of the most holy place. Lev. xvi. 15, 16. of the altar, Lev. xvi. 18. Exod. xxix. 36, 37; of the tabernacle, Lev. xvi. 20. 33. This was to be done, because the Israelites, sinful and impure, profaned these sacred things by their approach. Lev. xvi. 19 ; xv. 31. Numb. xix. 19, 20. And this being done, God vouchsafed his presence in the tabernacle, and promised to dwell among the Israelites, Exod. xxix. 43 — 46. All this was symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary and sacrifice. God permits sinners to hope for pardon and approach to him, only when they are sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus ; and what was done on earth as a symbol, has been done in the heavenly world in reality, i. e. so as actually to procure spiritual pardon, and restoration to the Divine favour. Avra ^£ ra eTrovpavia .... ravrag. Ae is the sign of apodosis merely. It may be translated, therefore, then ; but there is no need of rendering it, as our language does not demand like signs of protasis and apodosis with the Greek. 'ETrov/jarta means the ffKrjvr) aXrj^ivr], yv exrj^v 6 Kvpiog, ch. viii. 2, i. q. r} oKrivri oh x^ipoTToiriTog, ch. ix. 11. But how could the heavenly tabernacle, Ka^apil,E(T^ai, be purified? The grammatical con- struction of ver. 23, certainly requires us to supply this verb in the latter clause, since it is expressed in the former. But the word, of course, can be here used only in a figurative manner ; for the ETrovpavia are not impure. But as God was accessible to oflTenders, in his sanctuary on earth, only when atoning blood had been offered ; so God, in his hea- venly sanctuary, is accessible to sinners, only through the blood of Jesus there offered, and there consecrating a new and living way of access to the throne of mercy. It is in this sense, that the writer means to apply <:a^ajo/^£- viov KoXaaeug, (Matt. xxv. 46,) in the world to come. Ver. 27. Kal jca^' oaov Kpicrig, for since it is appointed unto men to die once only, and after this [cometh] the judgment. KaS' otrov is sometimes equivalent to Ka^iog, since, as, in this epistle ; e. g. ch. vii. 20, compare ver. 22 ; and here it is plainly the same as wg or Ka^ijg. 'ATTo/cetrat, repositum est, it is laid up for, i. e. by Divine appointment, it is reserved for, or it awaits men once to die. The translation gives the meaning, but not with literal exactness. "Attc^ is here, once for all, only once ; for the object of this comparison is to show that as men die hut once, so Christ, who had a nature truly human, and was in all 448 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 28. things made like unto his brethren, (ch. ii. 17,) could die but once, (and not oftentimes,) in order to atone for sin. Mcra U TovTo Kpiffig, i. e. men, having once died, go after that to a state of reward or punishment, to a final state, in which no more such changes as death makes can be suffered. The clause in question is added to the former part of the verse, in order to show that dying more than once is impossible, inasmuch as judgment immediately follows, with which is connected the immutable state of men. The implication con- tained in this verse, viz. that a state of trial in a future world, like to that which is allowed to men in the present world, is not to be expected, seems to be plain. Ver. 28. Ovru) kuI 6 Xpiarbg ^ixapriag, so Christ, also, after having once for all offered up himself, in order to bear the sins of many. The writer had been labouring, in the preceding context, to show that the offering of Christ needed not, like that of the high priest, to be often repeated. Ver. 27 and 28, are designed to show that a repetition of the death of Jesus (who suffered in our nature) would have been inconsistent with the nature which he sustained, and contrary to all analogy. So the author ; " Since men die but once, so Christ died or was offered up, Trgoaeve-^^^uQ, but once. UpoaevtxQtLQ (from irpofffepio) is a participle of the first aor. passive, and may be rendered offered up himself, or, made an offering of him- self inasmuch as the first aor. passive, frequently has a middle or reflexive sense, particularly when any verb lacks the first aor. of the middle voice, Buttmann Gram. § 123. ITpoo-^epw is a very general word in respect to offerings, and designates the action of the person who brings the sacrifice, or of the priest who presents it. As the sacrifice offered to God was first slain, and then presented ; so the idea of an offering here necessarily involves the idea of the death of the victim offered. It is this implied idea of the death of the victim, that stands in comparison with the ^7ra^ airodavHv of all men ; i.e. as they die but once, so Christ died but once. IToXXwv, many, i. e. all nations without distinction, Jews and Gentiles, for ages past, and ages to come, ver. 15. 26. and Rom. iii. 25, 26. See the like representation, respecting the universality of the benefits offered through the death of Christ, in Matt. xx. 28 ; ch. xxvi. 28. Rom. V. 15. 19, compare ch. v. 18. John vi. 51 ; ch. iii. 16. 1 John ii. 2, &c. COMMENTARY ON HEB. IX. 28. 449 *Av€yeyKilv ay.apriaQj to bear the sms, means, to bear the pumshmentf i. e. to suffer the penalty, due to sin. See Excursus XIX. 'Ek ^evT'ifov .... EtQ ffwrrjpiayj shall make his appearance^ a second time, without a sin-offering , for the salvation of those who wait for him. 'Ek hvTepov has reference to ctTra^ in the preceding clause. Christ appeared, and died once for sin ; but when he appears again, U hvTepoVf it will not be to repeat his sufferings, i. e. to make again an expiatory sacrifice, but for the purposes of bestowing rewards on those who trust in him, and wait for his coming. Xb)piQ ajtrnprmc has been variously explained. But it is evident, that the expression has a direct reference to the preceding clause, i. e. either to TzpocTEVExQelQ, Or to cLVEveyKelv afiapTiac. In the former case, afjiapriagy in our clause, would mean sin-offering, like JIKZiDrTj D^^^, because irpoffepEx'd^h means, he made himself an offering. The meaning would then be, '' but when Christ again appears, he will not make himself a sin-offering," i. e. his appearance will be x^P^^^ afiapTiac. So I under- stand the phrase. But if we construe x^P'-^ afxapriaQ, as referring to apEVEyKElv afxapriag, then the supplement to the phrase will be x*^P^c [tov avEVEyKElp] afiapriag. The meaning of this is, " Without again suffering the penalty due to sin." In either way, the sense amounts to about the same ; for either method of interpretation makes the writer say, that Christ would no more suffer on account of the sins of men, but that, by dying once, he has perfectly accomplished the redemption of those who trust in him. TdTg avTov aTTEK^exoixiyoiQ means, those who, renouncing the world, and resisting all the motives to swerve from Christian hope and faith, which the times presented, patiently wait for the rewards which the Saviour will finally bestow upon his followers. There is a tacit admo- nition to the Hebrews in this ; for it is as much as to say, " Those only who do thus persevere, will be rewarded." Et? cnoTrjpiav has reference to the future salvation or blessedness, which Christ will bestow upon his followers at his second coming. The insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices \o procure spiritual pardon for sin, and the sufficiency of the sacrifice which Christ had offered, was one of the most important and interesting of all the points which the writer of our epistle had to discuss. The Hebrews in general placed full confidence in the efficacy of the Levi- tical sacrifices to purify them from sin— at least, to remove the penalty of it. Every 2g 450 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 1. person, who is conscious of sin, and knows that it subjects him to the penalty of tJje Divine law, must naturally feel a deeper interest in the question, Whether, and how, sin can be pardoned ? than in any other. It was very natural for Jews who had been educated in the full belief of the efficacy of the sacrifices instituted by Moses, to cling to them as the foundation of their dearest and highest hopes, viz. the means of pardon, and restoration to Divine favour. It was an attachment to the Jewish ritual, built upon hopes of such a nature, which rendered the Mosaic religion so attractive to the Hebrews, and endangered their adherence to a Christian pro- fession. There was much, too, in the pomp and solemnity of their rites, which served to interest the feelings, and delight the fancy, of the worshippers. It is on account of the strong attachment which they cherished for their system of sacrifices and purifications, that our author is so urgent in showing that real pardon with God could not be procured by any or all of these means. The blood of Christ only cleanses from sin, and procures acceptance for sinners with God, as their spiritual judge. Accordingly, in ch. ix. he declares that the tabernacle, with all its sacred utensils and services, was only an image or symbol (TrapajSoX?)) of what is real and spiritual in the heavenly world, a copt/ merely of the aKrjvr/ ov x£tpo7roi»/rog, ch. ix. 9 — 11, or a mere vTroSeiyfia twv Iv oipavoig, ch. ix. 23. The Jewish sacrifices availed for nothing more than external purification, ch. x. 10. 13; while the blood of Christ purified the soul or mind (ipeaBai, rendering the phrase thus, *' They (i. e. the sacrifices) had ceased to be offered." The sense of the phrase, thus explained, is the same that I 452 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 3. have given to it. But Trpoa^epojJipai [%aiai] kirahaavro seems to rne more facile than the other construction. Aia TO jjirjhuiav .... Ketca^apfjsj'ovgy because the worshippers, once for all made clean, would have no longer been conscious of sins, AarpevovTat^ designates those who brought the offerings or sacrifices, and on whose account they were presented to God, i. e. the worshippers. "Attu^ denotes here, as in the preceding chapter, once for all ; the nature of the argument demanding this sense. For if a worshipper at one time obtained pardon, or was made clean only in respect to past offences, (and surely expiatory sacrifices were offered only with respect to the past,) this would not prevent the dread of punishment at a future period, when new offences would have been committed. To be purified once for all, then, was necessary, in order to quiet the apprehensions of such a wor- shipper. KeKa^app-ivovc, purified, atoned for. As Ka^api^io means, in Hebrew Greek, to make expiation for, to purify by expiatory offering, to pro- nounce or declare one to be pure ; so KSKa^ap^ivovg of course means, those atoned for, those for whom expiation is made, those declared to be pure, or rendered pure, and consequently restored to favour. ^vvEtlrifTiv means not merely, conscience, but consciousness, opinion judgment, sentiment, apprehension. Itvvei^rjffiv dpnpTiCov is an appre- hension of the consequences of sin, or, a consciousness that one has sub- jected himself to them, a consciousness of guilt. 'Apapnwv may mean here, (as often before,) punishment of sin, consequences of sin, like the corresponding Hebrew JlKDH, l*!^, ^t^£) ; or it may mean sin, guilt, transgression. The writer, however, does not mean to say, that the pardon of sin takes away from him, who obtains it, the consciousness that he has once been the subject of moral turpitude. This the blood of Christ itself does not effect ; and in heaven, the consciousness of this will for ever raise high the notes of gratitude for redeeming mercy. But pardon may and does remove the apprehension of penalty for sin ; or if by ajuttpriwv we understand sin, guilt, simply, then, to be made clean {KEKaSfappivovg) from this, so as to have no consciousness of it, is so to be purified, as not to contract the stain of it. Ver. 3. 'AX\' ev avra7Q . . . kviavrov, nay rather, by these [sacrifees] yearly remembrance of sins is made. 'AWa, but rather, nay rather, qnin, quinimo ; or, (as I have rendered it in the version,) on the contrary, but. AvtoIq agrees with ^vaiaiQ implied; see in ver. 1. On the day of COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 4, 5. 453 animal atonement, the sacrifices that were offered being of an expiatory nature, and being designed as propitiatory offerings, they were of course adapted to remind the Hebrews of the desert of sin, i. e. of the punish- ment or penalty due to it. As they continued to be offered yearly, so those who brought them must be reminded, through their whole lives, of new desert of punishment. The writer means, however, that a yearly remembrance of sin in a spiritual respect, not merely in a civil or eccle- siastical one, was made ; for in this sense, the yearly atonement pro- cured pardon. In the other, it did not; as he now proceeds to assert, Ver. 4. 'AdvvaTov yap afxapTiaQ, it is, indeed, impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should remove the penalty due to sin. 'Aipaipeiy ctfiapriag means, to take away sin, in the sense of removing the penalty or consequences of sin ; for this is the subject of which the writer is now treating. That the author has reference to the conse- quences of sin in a future world, or to the punishment of it which God inflicts as the spiritual judge of men, is evident from the whole tenor of his discussion. One so profoundly versed as he was in all the Jewish ritual law, surely was not ignorant of the fact, that civil and ecclesiastical par- don for offences of various kinds, was every day procured by the blood of bulls and goats, and this, too, agreeably to Divine appointment. Ver. 5. Nothing could be more directly in opposition to Jewish pre- judices, respecting the importance and value of the Levitical sacrifices, than the assertion just made. Hence the writer deems it prudent to make his appeal to the Scriptures, for confirmation of what he had advanced. This he does by quoting a passage from Ps. xl., which he applies to the Messiah, and to the efficacy of the sin-offering made by him. Aio tiaepyoixEvoQ eIq tov KOfffxov, Xiyei, wherefore, entering into the world, he [Christ] says ; i e. because the blood of goats and bullocks is not efficacious in procuring pardon for sin, Christ, when entering into the world, is represented by the Psalmist as saying, viz* in Psalm xl. 7, seq. Qvaiav koX Trpoa^opav uvk e^iXrjoraQ, in sacrifice and oblation thou hast no pleasure. Qvaia means, a sacrifice of some slain beast, from Bvit), to kill. So the corresponding Hebrew n^?, from H^T, mactare. Upoffipoph is any thing offered or presented ; and here it means, other oblations than those of sacrifices, such as thank-offerings, libations, &c. The corresponding Hebrew nn!)D, gift, present, comes from the obso- lete root ro^, to present, Arabic ^i^ the same. Ovu ediXrifrac, Hebrew DI^^H t^b, is capabk of being translated, thou hast not 454 COMMENTARY ON HCB. X. 6. required, oi, thou hast not desired, thou hast no pleasure t«, or desire for. The latter is, doubtless, the shade of meaning here. The sentiment is not, that God had not at all required sacrifices and oblations, for this he had done : but that they were, in a comparative sense, of little value; they were insufficient in themselves to accomplish the higher purposes of his spiritual law, and therefore he had no pleasure in them. 2aiyLta he KarrfpTtau) fiot, but a body hast thou prepared for me. A very difficult and much agitated expression. If we recur, in the first place, to the original Hebrew, we find the corresponding words there to be, v'JinS D''^ti^. mine ears hast thou opened. The verb J^HS (from ni^) means, primarily, to dig, to hollow out, e. g. a well, Gen. xxvi. 25 ; a pit, Ps. vii. 16 ; or pit-fall, Ps. Ivii. 7 ; a sepulchre or grave, Gen. 1. 5 ; 2 Chron. xvi. 14. The verb n"l3 has also the meaning of pur- chasing, OT procuring, e. g. water, Deut. ii. 6 ; particularly of procuring a supply of food and drink, 2 Kings, vi. 23 ; also of other things, e. g. a wife, Hosea iii. 2, where n*1!DJ<«^ has a Daghesh euphonic in the D, These are all the meanings of this word, which the Hebrew Scriptures present. In translating v JlHS DJ^J^^, then, we may render it either mine ears hast thou opened, which is only a small deflexion from the literal sense, (for to dig out a pit or well, is to open one ;) or we may render it, ears hast thou provided for me, in which sense the LXX. seem plainly to have understood il''13 when they rendered it by Karri^riau). The former sense seems to be more analogical with the nature of the subject, and with the Hebrew idiom. The Hebrews speak of opening the ears, and uncovering them, in order to designate the idea of prompt obedience, of attentive listening to the commands of any one. E. g. Isa. 1. 4, we have ^Styih ]TJ«^ "h '^V^ he excited my ear to hear ; and in ver. 5 is an equivalent expression, '|T^^ v HriS), he opened mine ear, which is explained in the corresponding parallelism, by "^-TinQ ^^/ ''?^^') and I was not refractory , i. e. I was obedient. So y^'lA jI?!) to uncover, to disclose the ear, means, to communicate any thing, or reveal it to another-, e. g. 1 Sam. xx. 2. 12, 13; ch. xxii. 17. From such forms of expression, in Hebrew, with such a meaning, we may very naturally con- clude that Y 'TT'^l^ D''^t^> (in Ps. xl. 7,) means, thou hast opened mine ears, i. e. thou hast made me obedient, or, I am entirely devoted to thj service. And Ps. xl. 8, 9, which exhibits the consequence of having the ears opened, leads us almost unavoidably to make such a conclusion, respectmg the meaning of the phrase in miestion. COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 6, 7. 455 If this view of the meaning be correct, then another interpretation, put upon the phrase by many critics, is not well founded. They render it, mine ears hast thou bored through. They suppose the expression to be figurative, and to be borrowed from the Hebrew usage of boring through, with an awl, the ear of a person who became the voluntary servant of another, as described in Exod. xxi. 6. Deut. xv. 17. Mine ears hast thou bored through would then mean, *' I am, through life, thy voluntary servant," or, *' I will be perpetually obedient to thee." This sense, it will be seen, agrees in general with that put upon the phrase by the other mode of explanation. But the source of explanation, here adopted, does not seem to be admissible. In Exod. xxi. 6, the verb bore through is ^^"1^ (not n")3, as in Ps. xl. 7 ;) and the instru- ment by which it is done, is named ^2{1D an awl, a derivative of the verb ^^1. So in Deut. xv. 17, the instrument named is the same Ji^^,"1?3, and the action of boring through is expressed by ^^t^^3- H/nJl^, thou shalt put it through his ear, (not -TinS.) That^^l and ni3 indicate very distinct actions, is sufficiently plain ; for to bore through any thing, and to dig or hollow out a pit, grave, or well, are surely very different actions, indicated in Hebrew by verbs as different as the English dig and bore through. Moreover, in Exod. xxi. 6, and Deut. xv. 17, the singular ]'Ji^ is used, and not as here D"'^tK, both ears. The orierinal, then, in Ps. xl. 7. v JlHS D^JlTi*^ means, mine ears hast thou opened, i. e. me hast thou made readily or attentively obedient ; at least, this seems to be the meaning, if we make Isa. 1. 4, 5, our exegeti- cal guide. See Excursus XX. Ver. 6. 'OXoKavT^Df-iara icai ev^oKijaaQ, in whole burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin, thou hast no delight. *0\oicaura»/iara means, such offerings as were entirely consumed upon the altar ; so the corre- sponding Hebrew n?*)^ signifies. Utpl afxapriag is an elliptical expres- sion, answering to the Hebrew original ni^CSPT, and which, completed, would be Qva'iai Trepl afiapriaQ, sin-offerings. Ovk evdoKrjaag, Hebrew I^bM ikb requirest not, desirest not, demandest not, hast no pleasure in. Ver. 7. Tore cTttov, therefore I said, or, then I said. The first of these versions is approved by eminent critics. They suggest, that if TOTE (Hebrew TK) be referred to time merely, it seems very difficult to ascertain what is the precise meaning ; for at what particular time was it, that God did not delight in whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin ? It may, however, be said, that the speaker here refers to the time 456 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 7. when he s disclasing these views respecthig sacrifices. Supposing this to be the case, tote would mean then^ i. e. immediately after this senti- ment was declared ; which would be very congruous with the context. If rdre be rendered therefore^ the meaning will be, *' because thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifices, therefore I said," &c. Strictly speaking, nowever, tote is not illative. I prefer the other rendering. *ldov ^K(o .... BeXrjiJia trov, Lo! I come, God, to do thy will. (In the volume of the hook it is written respecting me.) 'llov iJKio expresses the readiness of him who speaks, to obey the will of God. *Ey K€aX\g /3i/3\tov ("lOD /ly|lp) was the Pentateuch. But what is there written, and how, respecting the personage who speaks in the fortieth Psalm ? Rosenmiiller (on Ps. xl. 7.) translates the Hebrew v^ 3^n3 (yeypaTrrat irepl ijjov) by prescriptum est mihi, and appeals to 2 Kings, xxii. 13, for confirmation of this version. He compares, also, Gen. ii. 16. Ezra i. 2 ; where 7^ is used after 'H'^ and TpD, verbs of commanding or enjoining. Gesenius approves this version, but produces no other instances to confirm it, which are of the same kind. He appeals, indeed, to Esth. ix. 23, where ^Nt is used after 1/13 ; and to Hos. viii. 12. 2 Kings, xvii. 37, and Prov. xxii. 20, where V is used after the same verb, in order to confirm this interpretation. But the three last cases plainly denote nothing more, than that the matter COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 7. 457 referred to was written for the use of another , or addressed to him. Such, too, is the case with the other example in Esth. it.. 23, as may be clearly seen by comparing Esth. ix. 20. With deference to the opinion of these very distinguished critics, I must still doubt, therefore, whether 7^ 2J13 means prcescrihere alicui. At most, there is only 2 Kings xxii. 13, which is apposite to establish this signification ; and even here the meaning in question is not necessary ; for ^^ v^ ^^-H^n may be ren- dered, with about equal significancy, which was written in respect to us, or concerning us, i. e. for our sake, or to regulate our duties. The LXX. then, who translated v^ 2^/13 by yiypa-KTai irtpX kfxov, translated it agreeably to the usual idiom of the Hebrew. The apostle, in our text, has evidently recognized the correctness of this version. The difference in meaning, between prescribed to me, and written concerning me, is a considerable one in this case. The first version v^ould represent the speaker as saying, " I come, O God, to do thy will, [i. e. my duty,] as I am commanded in the Scriptures to do." The second, " I come to offer my body, or myself, in place of the legal sacrifices; for, in the Scriptures, [i. e. in the law of Moses,] this is written concerning me." Now, as to a choice of versions here, it will not be doubted, that the latter version accords with the reasoning and design of the apostle, or rather, that it is important to his purpose. The first version would not, indeed, contradict the desiga of the apostle ; for he might say, it is pre- scribed in the Scriptures, that the Messiah should do the will of God, i. e. make himself an offering for sin. Compare Luke xxiv. 25 — 27. 46. Acts xvii. 2, 3. 1 Pet. i. 11, 12. But I apprehend the meaning of the writer to be, that the book of the law, which prescribes sacrifices that were merely aKial or 7rapa(3oXai of the great atoning sacrifice by £)hrist, did itself teach, by the use of these, that something of a higher and better nature was to be looked for than Levitical rites. In a word, it pointed to the Messiah ; or, some of the contents of the written law had respect to him. So Michaelis, Storr, and others. Still, yeypawTai Trepl ifjLov may have respect to declarations in the Pentateuch, of a different and more direct nature. That there are such, Jesus himself affirms, John V. 46. So Paul, Acts xxvi. 22, 23. Gal. iii. 16, seq. Construed in either way, the amount of the phrase under consideration is, " In the law of Moses I am described as coming to do thy will," i. e. to offer my body as a sacrifice : compare ver. 10. That the Hebrews, to whom the apostle addressed himself, would recognize such an affirmation, and feel the force of it, seems to be 458 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 8, 9. nearly certain, from the fact, that the writer without any hesitation addresses it to them, in order to produce conviction in their minds with respect to the point which he is labouring to establish. Certain it is, then, that both he and the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote be- lieved that the Jewish ritual had respect to the sacrifice of the Mes- siah, and that he was virtually revealed, in the law of Moses, as a suffering Saviour, making atonement for the sins of his people. Were this not so, then the argument in Heb. x. 5 — 10, would be destitute of any real foundation, and consequently of any force, as a proof of what the writer is labouring to establish. 'O Geoc, Heb. '*rpi^^ my God. If the Messiah be considered as uttering this before his incarnation, and as Logos, then would it be an embarrassing circumstance to explain it, how in his simple Divine nature he could speak of " my God." But if considered as a prophetic anticipation of what he would say, during his incarnation, (and so it clearly seems to me the writer intends it should be considered) then 6 QeoQy or 6 Qeog fiov, accords with the usage of the Saviour in addressing the Father, as disclosed in the Gospel ; Matt, xxvii. 46, al. To ^iXrffxa aov. What this will is, see in ver. 10. Ver. 8. 'Avwrepov Xiyujv .... eh^oKrjaagj Jirst, he says, ^^ Sacrijice, and oblation, and whole burn t -offer in g , and [offering] for sin, thou desirest not, nor hast pleasure in them.*' 'Avojrepov, literally above, which is equivalent here, to first, or in the first place. "AiTLVEQ Kara rov vofxov TTjOoc^tpovrat which are presented according to the law. This is a parenthetic explanation, added by the writer, in order to show that the same legal sacrifices, in which the Hebrews were in danger of placing their confidence, were those which must be super- seded by the death of Christ. Ver. 9. Tore eiprjKep .... to SriXrifjLa aov, and then says, *' Lo, I come to do thy will.*' We might expect t'lTrwv here, instead of eipqKEy, for the regular construction of the sentence would seem to require it. But here is a sentence constructed in the Hebrew manner, which not unfrequently begins with a participle in the first clause, and then uses a verb in the second, when both stand in the same relation to the sequel of the sentence, see Heb. Gram. § 212. 2. It is evident here, thatapajTe- pov Xiytov and tote eiprjKe both bear the same relation to avaipel, k. t. \. the sense of which, I may add, is rendered quite obscure by the period which most editors of the Greek Testament have put before it. 'Ayaipei . . . (Trrjarj, he abolishes the first, viz. the sacrifices, &c. COMMENTARY" ON HEB. X. 10. 459 that he may establish the second, viz. the doing of the will of God, or the offering of himself as a sacrifice for sin, ver. 10. That is, " doing the will of God," or obedience to him even unto death, or the offering up of his body, is represented by the Psalmist as a substitute for legal sacrifices, and as an arrangement which would supersede them. It is quite plain, that dvatptT, k. t. \. is an inference drawn from the two declarations recited in the context immediately preceding ; for TTpwTov certainly refers to the legal sacrifices, and Zivte^ov to the obe- dience of the Messiah. But the construction of the sentence (for clearly it is in fact but one sentence) is Hebraistic, as noted above, and not according to the rules of classical Greek ; and it affords a notable example, how far the style of our author is from the easy, rhetorical, flowing method, of which so much has been said by late critics ; and from that eXXrjriKOTrjc, which even Origen ascribes to him. Ver. 10. The writer proceeds to explain what is meant, in this case, by doing the will of God, and what is the efficacy of that obedience. 'Ei^ ^ BeXijiJiart . . . e^ctTra^, by which will expiation is made for us, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. *Ep w deXri- fxari means, by doing which will, i. e. by whose obedience. 'HytaaTra^ in ch. x. 10. I connect it with dvaiav, and not (as Carpzoff) with ka^iae. A sacrifice for perpetuity, is a sacrifice once for all, e^aira^, or, it is a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, one that needs not to be repeated. COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 13, 14, 15, 16. 461 V 'Em3-tavepu)^rf kv aapKt, supposing the reading to be correct, (and the evi- dence seems to me quite in its favour, and so Dr. Knapp has judged.) In Rom. i. 4, a broad distinction is made between the nature of Christ icara trapKa and his nature Kara Trvevfxa dyiwffvvrjg ; and in Rom. ix. 5, Christ is said to have descended from the Jewish fathers fcara opia means, a full measure. UXripo^opiif Tr/orewc means, unwavering, undoubting faith, B. fulness of faith, -which, leaves no room for apostacy or seep- COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. ^3. 467 ticism. How exactly this exhortatiou was adapted to the state of tlie Hebrews, it is easy to perceive. ^EppavTLffjxivot. .... TzovripaQy being purified as to our hearts from a consciousness of evil, literally, being sprinkled as to our hearts, &c. The expression is borrowed from thfe rites of the law, agreeably to which very many ceremonial purifications, as we have seen, were made by the sprinkling of blood either upon persons or utensils. This was external. But when the writer says here, eppavrifffxivoi. tciq Kap^iag, he designates spiritual, internal purification, and shows that he is not speaking of any external rites. This internal purification is effected by the blood of Jesus, with which Christians are figuratively said to be sprinkled. But the construction, ippavrtffnivoi . . . utto . . . shows that the participle eppavrifffiipoL is to be taken in the secondary or metaphorical sense, i. e. purified from, cleansed from. ^vvei^flcrsijQ Trovqpaq, a consciousness of evil, or, a conscience op- pressed with evil or sin. Perhaps both senses are included ; for both are characteristic of Christian sincerity and full faith, which is incom- patible with a consciousness of evil designs, and which frees men from an oppressive sense of past evil, by inspiring them with the hopes of pardon. Ver. 23. Kat XtXovpevoi . . . Ka^ap^, having also our bodies washed with pure water ; another expression, borrowed from the frequent washings prescribed by the Levitical law, for the sake of external puri- fication. See Exod. xxix. 4; xl. 31, 32. Lev. xvi. 4; also ch. vi. xiv. XV. et alibi. It seems to me, that here is a plain allusion to the use of water in the initiatory rite of Christian baptism. This is alto- gether consonant with the method of our author, who is every where comparing Christian institutions with Jewish ones. So, in the case before us, he says, ** The Jews were sprinkled with blood, in order that they might be purified so as to have access to God ; Christians are internally sprinkled, i. e. purified by the blood of Jesus. The Jews were washed with water, in order to be ceremonially purified so as to come before God ; Christians have been washed by the purifying water of baptism." So Ananias exhorts Saul to be baptized, and wash away his sins, Acts xxii. 16. In this latter case, and in that before us, the phrase is borrowed from the legal rite of washing for purification. In Heb. X. 23, no particular stress is to be laid on the mere external rite of washing the body ; for the connexion shows, that the whole is designed to point out the spiritual qualifications of sincere Christians 2n2 468 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 24, 25. for access to God. But the manner of expression turns wholly upon a comparison with the Jewish rites. Kari'Viofjiey rrjy bjxoKoyiav .... kTrayyEiKa^ivoq, let us hold fast the hope which we profess ; for faithful is he who has promised. 'OfioXoyiay means, profession or confession of the Christian religion, which is here called iXTTi^oQ, in reference to the hopes which it occasions or inspires. The idea is, " Let us firmly retain our profession of that religion which fills us with hope respecting future rewards and happiness." niarog yap 6 tTrayyEiXafjevo^f i. e. let us firmly adhere to our religion, because God, the author of those promises which it holds forth, will certainly perform them; he is faithful, i. e. true to his word, and alto gether worthy of confidence in respect to his promises. Ver. 24. Kal KaravodiiEv .... epywv, let us also bear in mind one another, so as to excite to love and good works. Karavow/xej/, consider attentively, have a regard to, think upon, or bear in mind. The writer means, that it is the duty of the Hebrews to cherish a mutual spirit of interest or concern for each other ; and this, in such a way as would be the means of mutually exciting each other to more distinguished benevo- lence and good works. The perils to which they were exposed, rendered such advice very timely. Ver. 25. Mj) eyKaraXctVoyrcc .... rrapaKaXovvTEg, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom ofsome is,) but admonish' ing [one another.] 'EyKaTaXeiTroyreQ is in the same construction with KaTavoCjfiev in ver. 24, and consequently agrees with r/juelc understood. 'Eavrw»/ relates to the first person plural here ; as it does elsewhere, e. g. Rom. viii. 23. 1 Cor. xi. 31. 2 Cor, i. 9 ; x. 12. 14. In like manner, TrapaKoKovvreQ requires aKkvikovQ to be mentally supplied after it ; which is expressed after KaravouifJiev. That Trapa/caXew means to admonish, any common lexicon will show. The whole sentence is in the usual manner of the writer, who very frequently employs KohujffiQ in warnings and admonitions. Kai Toaovro) fxaXXov . . . rifxipav, and this [do] so much ike more, aS ye see the day approaching. That is, be more earnest and constant, in mutual admonition and efforts to excite each other to Christian diligence and perseverance, in proportion as the time draws near, when the judg- ments denounced against the Jewish nation, by the Saviour, will be executed, 'llfjiipav, day, is doubtless an elliptical expression for iifiioav Kvpiov, n^in^ DV; a very common expression of the Hebrew writers, for a time of distress, of chastisement ; a time in which God executes the COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 26. 469 threats which have been uttered by his prophets. Compare Paalm xxxvii. 13. 1 Sam. xxvi. 10. Ezek. xxi. 25; xiii. 5. Job xviii. 20; xxiv. 1. Amos V. 18. Jer. xxx. 7. Joel i. 15. Isa. ft. 12. Rev. xvi. 14, et alibi. Now, as Christ had foretold the destruction of the Jewish temple and nation, (which could not be unknown to the Hebrew Chris- tians,) what could be more natural than for the apostle to say — " Bre- thren, do-- every thing in your power to guard against apostacy. And this the more, because a return to Judaism would now be very ill-timed ; the season is near, when the Jewish temple and state are to be des- troyed." All this is surely very apposite to the case in hand. But if we should suppose (with not a few of the recent commentators) that the writer here alludes to the day when Christ should reappear, and commence a visible reign on earth, (which they suppose the apostles to have believed in common with many individual Christians of early times,) then I could not perceive so much force in the apostle's argument. It would run thus : " Be very strenuous in using all means to guard against defection from Christianity to Judaism; and this so much the more, because, in a little time, Christ will commence his visible reign on earth." I will not deny, that the hope of reward for perseverance in Christian virtue, to be bestowed under this new order of things, might be used as an argument to dissuade from apostacy ; but plainly, the argument as above stated is more cogent, and more to the writer's purpose. How it can be proved to any one, after he has read and well considered Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, that this apostle believed in the immediate and visible advent of Christ, is more than I am able to see. For these reasons, I hesitate not to apply the phrase, fjfiipav kyyiCovaavy to the time in which the Jewish state and temple were to be brought to an end. Ver. 26. *E>cov his servants will he take vengeance. Probably the expression in Psalm cxxxv. 14, is a mere quotation of Deut. xxxii. 36. Ver. 31. Well may the writer add, 0o/3epoi/ .... i^uJvTog, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 'EfXTrecrelv elg rag X^'P^C* T3 7D3j means, to be at the disposal of his vindictive power, i. e. of COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 32, 33, 34. 473 his punitive justice. It is a Hebraistic mode of expression, for the classic writers say, Trsativ viro rag x^'P"^ LCjvtoq probably here means, ever-living^ as it commonly does elsewhere, when applied to God. This idea, moreover, augments the dreadful nature of the punishment ; which is altogether apposite to the writer's design. Ver. 32. The writer now proceeds to enforce his admonition against apostacy, by holding up to the Hebrews encouragement to persevere from the experience of former days, when they remained steadfast amid many trials and sufferings. 'AvaixifiviiaKEff^e de rag Trporepov . . . ira^j^^arwv, call to mind, now, former days^ in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great contest with sufferings. That is, " Faint not, be not discouraged, at the prospect of trials. Look back to the time when ye patiently endured severer trials than ye now suffer, and still persevered. Continue to da as you have already done." 'Ufxipag, like the Hebrew D^D** is often used for time, season, indefi- nitely. ^(OTKT^evTEQ rcfcrs to the illumination which they received, when the knowledge of the Christian religion was first imparted to them. What the aBXtjaig rra^rjfjaTijy was, is explained in the verses which follow. Ver. 33 Tovto nev . . . ^earpi^ofieyoi, partly because ye were made a public spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions. Tovto fiev .... TOVTO de correspond, and when thus related, bear the sense which is here given to them. 'OyeiSifffiotg refers to the reproachful appellations and language, addressed to Christians by their persecutors ; S^Xi\pe(n, to the various sufferings inflicted upon them by the same. In this way, they were exposed to public view, ^eaTpi^ofievoi, i. e. held up to the world as persons worthy of reproach and ill-treatment, or made a spectacle to the world as sufferers of these things, and thus loaded with disgrace. TovTo ^£ . . , yevvYj^ivTag, and partly because ye were associated with those who were thus treated. That is, a part of their aS^Xrjcrig con- sisted in the sympathy which they were called to exercise towards others who were reproached and persecuted. * AvaoTpi^onai I have rendered as having a passive sense here, viz. who were thus treated ; and so many critics render it. Still it would be difficult to find a classical example of giving to this verb a passive sense, inasmuch as it is commonly used in the middle voice, and employed as a verb neuter deponent. I have translated ad sensum. Ver. 34. Kai yap . . . crvrtTra^ffare, for ye did truly sympathize with those who were prisoners. Instead of Beapioig, prisoners, some 474 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 35, 36. manuscripts and editions, with several of the fathers, have Beafioig fiov ; which is the reading of the received text, and is preferred by Matthise, Michaelis, CarpzofF, Noesselt, and others. But ^ea^ioiq has the weight of authority in its favour ; it is sufficiently consonant with the con- text ; and it is, perhaps, on the whole, more natural to suppose the writer to have spoken of " sympathizing with prisoners,** than " with bonds." There is no important objection, however, to the latter expres- sion ; and if Paul be the writer of our epistle, harfio^g fiov gives a very emphatic meaning. Kat r;)j/ apirayriv . . . TTpoaeM^aaB^e, and cheerfully endured the plundering of your own property. This was a part of the ^Xt\//fic which they had suffered in former times. TipwcTKOPTig EX^tv . . . fxivovaav, knowing that ye have for your- selveSf in heaven, a possession of a better and more lasting nature. 'Eavrolc, dativus commodi. "YTrap^iv, any thing possessed, estate, pro- perty. KpeirTova, better than earthly possessions, i. e. spiritual, hea- venly, not material and earthly. Mivovaav, enduring, permanent, not perishable, fleeting, temporary, like all earthly possessions. Ver. 35. Mr) aTrojjaXrjre . . . peyaXrjv, cast not away then your con- Jidence, which will obtain a great reward. That is, act as you formerly did, and thus gain possession of the KpeiTTova Koi pivovtrnv vTcap^iv. Ver. 36. 'Ytto/xov^c yap . . . t-Kayyikiav , ye have need, no doubt, of patience, in order that when ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promised blessing. Patience they needed, because of the many trials and temptations to which they were still exposed. Tap, surely, truly, and, (which is equivalent,) it is true, no doubt. The writer means as much as to say, " I readily concede, that patience is requisite, in your present circumstances, in order that you should persevere." To do the will of God, here, is to obey the requirement, to believe and trust in Christ. 'ETrayycXmv thing promised, reward proffered ; for the promise itself they had already received. 'Erray- yeXiav here, and ina^aTro^ocriav in ver. 35, both refer to the vTvap^iv KpEiTTova Kal f.iivovffay mentioned in ver. 34, and which is there repre- sented as promised to them in case of obedience. Ver. 37. "En yap fxiKpov .... 'xpovie^, however, yet a very little while, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. That is, the Messiah (o Ipx^fJievog) will speedily come, and, by destroying the Jewish power, put an end to the sufferings which your persecutors infirct upon you. Compare Matt. xxiv. "Oo-ov oaov is an intensive form COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 38. 475 of expression, which is applied either to things great or small, like "7to- "7to. It is employed in the like way, however, by the classic Greek authors. The whole phrase resembles that in Hab. ii. 3, in^tl K? J^^** KH O for it, (viz. the vision) will surely come to pass^ it will not delay. If, however, it be an actual quotation, the appli- cation of the words is different from that of the original, and the writer designed merely to use the language to express his own ideas. In fact, the Septuagint version of the passage in Habakkuk, differs slightly from the words used by the apostle. It runs thus, on ipx^- fitvoQ rj^Eif Kal ov /x/) xpopicrj}. It seems quite probable, (considering the quotation from Hab. ii. 4, which follows.) that the apostle had the Hebrew expression above quoted in his mind. But it seems equally plain also, that he has made use of it only as the medium of express- ing his own particular idea, and not as a designed quotation used according to the exact idea of the original. I have marked it as a quotation, however, in my version, because the words appear to be quoted. Ver. 38. 'O ^e ^iicawg ek Triareiog i^riffeTat, the J2ist, too, shall live by faith. In Hab. ii. 4, it is :T]^r}^ '>™D^^2 p^ri, which (if rendered according to the accents) will be. The just by faith shall live, i. e. the just man who has faith shall be preserved. The expression in our verse is capable of the same translation, and Dr. Knapp has pointed it so as to be construed this way. But I apprehend, after all, that this is not the meaning of either the Hebrew or Greek phrase. Faith is put here as the means of preservation, in opposition to apostacy or defection, in the other part of the verse, which is the means of destruc- tion or disapprobation. *' A persevering confidence or belief in Christ," (the writer means to say,) '* will be the means of preservation, when the Lord shall come to execute his judgments upon the Jewish nation." So the LXX. understood the phrase, which they have rendered 6 U ^t/caioc eic TriffTEWQ fiov ^rjffETai; as if they read ^/l^'IDS^il instead of IDi'jQhiZl, The meaning of U TriarTeioQ fxov, must of course be, by faith, or confidence in me, which expresses the condition of being saved, rather than the peculiar character of the person who is saved. I understand the expression, in Hebrew and in our epistle, in a similar way. If the apostle meant to quote here, it is evident that he has not adhered to the text of the Septuagint. Kai lav virocrreiXnrai . . . iv ahrio, but if any one draw back, my 'otil hath no pleasure in him. I hesitate whether to translate Kai here 476 COMMENTARY ON HEB. X. 39. as the disjunctive but, or to consider it as an elliptical expression for Kttt Xiyei, i. e. K-at Xiyei 6 Qeoq vel >/ ypa^j). The latter resembles the usage of this epistle; see oh. i. 10 : ch. x. 17. The former sense, (/cat, butf) is quite common in the New Testament writers. Either method of interpretation is consistent with idiom, and with the scope of the writer. I have, on the whole, preferred the antithetic form of the sentence, and rendered Kal, hut, 'Eav vTTOffTeiXnTai, k. t. X. seems plainly to be a quotation from Hab. ii. 4. The apostle, however, has changed the order of the verse, quot- ing the latter part of it first, and the former part last. The original Hebrew runs thus, U it^^H): H'^)i}'> ikb nbB); H-JH, behold, the scornful, his mind shall not be happy ; or (as Gcsenius translates) See I he whose soul is unbelieving shall, on account of this, be unhappy. The IJCX. who have rendered the Hebrew in exact accordance with the words of our epistle, must have read "'^3^ here, as they did '♦/I^^Di^Il in the clause preceding. This is the more probable reading, but it cannot now be critically defended. We can only say, therefore, that the quotation of the apostle is, on general grounds, ad sensum, but not ad literam. The sentiment of the Hebrew is, that the scorner or un- believer of that day should be unhappy ; the sentiment of the apostle, that the unbeliever, i. e. the apostate Christian who renounces his reli- gion, shall incur Divine disapprobation. The same sentiment lies at the foundation, in both cases. Such disapprobation the last clause ex- presses, ovK thloKei Yi ^pvx^l f^ov kv avrf, where the negative form of expres- sion is employed (as often in sacred and also classical writings) instead of the affirmative, i. e. ** he shall be an object of my displeasure." Ver. 39. 'Kfieig ^e ovk . . . otTrwAeiav, but we are not of those who draw back to destruction. 'YttootoX^c is the abstract noun, shrinking back, timidity, withdrawing ; and (as is common) the abstract is here put for the concrete, i. e. for persons who withdraw or shrink back, viz. from their Christian profession. The consequence of such with- drawing is dTTwXeta ; see ver. 26, 27. *AXXa TTiarewg, eIq TrEpnroiriffLV ^^v^rig, but of those who believe to the salvation of the soul. IlEpnroirjaiu means literally, obtaining, acquiring, possessing. But as it is here placed in antithesis to hTrojXeiay, it plainly means, saving or salvation. Xl/orcwc, faith, belief, is an ab- stract noun used instead of a concrete, in the same manner as viroa" roXijs above. COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 1. 477 Having mentioned faithy or belief , confidence, as a peculiar and most important characteristic of those who persevere in the Christian religion, so as to secure their sal- vation ; the writer now proceeds, with great force and propriety, to make his appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures, in order to show that faith, or confidence in the Divine promises has, in all ages, been the means of perseverance in true religion, and conse- quently of salvation. In ch. x. 34—39, the apostle had exhorted his readers to per- severe in waiting for the rewards of a future world, virag^iv iv oipavoig KpsiTrova Kai fuvovaav . . . fii(T3tairo5o out of nothing ? That the assertion in the negative form, is of the same import as if it were of the positive form, might be easily shown by appeal to a multitude of the like cases of XtroTTjc, in the Scriptures. " John confessed, and denied not, but confessed," John i. 20 ; where ovk -fipvyjaaTo plainly conveys the same idea as u>fio\6yri(Te. As to classical usage, the commentary on the next clause may be consulted. In what sense, too, could seculum or cBvum be called /3\£7ro/xf va ? This word means, objects visible to the sight, ox palpable to the senses, i. e. material objects, f^aivofitva means the same thing ; there being no more difference between the two words, in Greek, as characterising objects, than there is between seen and apparent in English. The assertion of the writer then is, that " visible objects, i. e. the visible creation, did not spring from objects that were apparent," i. e. that the visible creation was not made out of matter before existing; which is the same as to say, that the world was created, brought into existence by the word of God simply, and was not a mere reducing to order materials that before existed ; see on the succeeding clause of the verse, in the sequel. At all events, the idea of a seculum or cevum ** being framed (KarripTiff^ai) by the word of God," presents an incon- gruity of which no example can be found in the sacred writers. Equally incongruous would kiroiritTe rovg aiwrag, in ch. i. 2, be, if alojv were to be rendered sec7ilum. 'Fiifxari Qeov, the command of God ; compare Gen. i. 3. 6. 9. 11. 14. 20. 24. 26. Ps. xxxiii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 5. E/'e TO fiy} EK ^aivofXEViov ra (iXtxofXEva yeyovevai, a controverted, and somewhat difficult expression. If we construe it as the text now stands, the fifj must naturally be joined with yeyovevai, and it must be rendered, so that things visible were not made of things which do appear. Accord- ingly, Pierce insists on this construction, and maintains that the sense is, " So that things visible might appear not to have been made of things apparent, i. e. out of pre-existing matter." Those who adopt a different construction of the passage maintain, that eIq to fxri EK ^aivoixEvuiv may be translated, as if it were written eIq to Ik firj (paLvofiEvwv. That such a metathesis of the negative prj, or its equi- valent ov OVK, is allowable, or at least that it is not uncommon, they endeavour to show by appealing to examples ; e. g. 2 Mace. vii. 28, on OVK kk ovTiov Ez-oiriaev avra 6 Qeoq, which plainly means, " God made them [heaven and earth] frqm things that do not exist, i. e. out of nothing. So Arrian, exp. de Alex. VII. 23, " These things I do not blame, unless that ovk im fxeyciXoig yueyriXwc hEairov da^ero, he was too much 480 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 3. occupied with small matters; where ovk seems to qualify ueyaXoig. Plutarch, Peedagog, IX. 15, " I should say that promptitude of speak- ing on any matter is not to be altogether disapproved ; nor, on the other hand, ravrrjv ovk ctti alioig aaKeiv, is it to be practised in respect to trifling subjects.** So the Greek ovk er) XP^^^*- ^^ ^6y(^ Ti^ea^ai Avrapmrac he said that the Autariatae were not to be put into the account. Polyb. p. 1331, TOVQ fx^ tpaaKOvraQ aizoXveLVy saying that they were not to be absolved. If the examples where 0r;/x4 is used be abstracted from the others, there are still a sufficient number, they aver, to show that a metathesis of the negative particle //?) is not without parallels. Chrysostom also transposed ^ri here, and found no difficulty in it. He paraphrases it thus, ki, ovk ovtwv to. ovra tTzoiqaev v 9f oe* Ik tCjv /.ifi ijtaivofiivcJVt to. aLvofiiv(t)v, may be admissible, there can, indeed, be but little doubt. Yet it is, after all, unnecessary ; for the phrase plainly has the same meaning, when translated agreeably to its present arrange- ment, if the nature of such a Xitottiq be well understood. There is no need of understanding the examples cited from the classics in a dif- ferent way. And, indeed, take them which way we will, (either by way of metathesis in respect to the ovk or fit), or of joining the negative with the verb or participle that follows,) the sense, all must admits is plain, and is substantially one and the same. These examples, it must also be admitted, cast sufficient light upon the sense of the pas- sage, Heb. xi. 3, so as to require no .hesitation about admitting a mean- ing so well supported by parallel examples, and which, indeed, the context seems to demand. We may also compare phraseology of a like nature, to be found in other parts of Paul's writings. In Rom. iv. 17, he says, ** God restores the dead to life, and calls ra firj orra a»c ovra," i. e. summons [to fulfil his own purposes] things that do not exist, as though they did exist. In like manner, Philo, in Lib. de creat. mundi, p. 728, says, ra yap fir^ ovTtt eKaXyjcrev 6 Oeoq elg ro elvat, things which existed not, God called into existence. That /xr) faivofiEvwv is equivalent to jm) ovtiov, needs not to be formally proved. So in Hebrew, ^^ikp]l quod invenitur, is a customary expression for ens, or existens ; and i^^^.J, i^7, for res non existcTiSf nihilum. COMMENTARY ON UEll. XI. 4. 4S1 On the vvhulx • . • • « Gtoc, by faith Enoch was translated, that he might not see death ; and he was no more found, because God had translated him. Tou firi llelv is equivalent here to tig to firj Ihlp, or Bia TO fzy) lh~iy. The Hebrew has DN"]?]^ Sjl'i^ ^Id^, ^^^ ^^^^ '"^> where our author uses ixeTe^rjKe. The original, in Gen. v. 24, says nothing respecting the point, whether Enoch was translated alive, or after death. Kat ov^ evp'ktketo is the Septuagint version of the Hebrew ^tlTi^ he was not, sc. he was no more among men. The idea, in the COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 6. 483 Hebrew and Greek, is for substance the same ; for ovx evpiaKero means, he was no more to he met withy he was no longer extant (KliJD^ ikb) among men. But all the Targumists, viz. Onkelos, Jonathan, and the author of the Jerusalem Targum, understand Enoch to have been trans- lated without dying. So the Comment. Bereschith Rabba, parasch. 25. f. 28. So, probably, the son of Sirach, ch. xlix. 14. I may add, that this is a very natural deduction from the brief notice of Enoch's translation in Gen. v. 24. Early death is commonly represented in the Old Testament as the punishment of sin ; and that the wicked should not " live out half their days," was the persuasion of most good men in ancient times. If, then, Enoch died before translation, how could his removal to another world have been regarded as an evidence of his extraordinary piety ? The texts to which Dindorf has appealed, in his notes added to the commentary of Ernesti, are very far from sup- porting the position, that the ancient Jews regarded premature death as a testimony of Heaven in favour of him who was the subject of it. Nor is there any need of Rosenmiiller's concession here, viz. that the apostle, in his account of Enoch's removal, has accommodated himself to the Jewish traditionary opinions. It may indeed be, that a tradition existed among the Jews, that Enoch ** did not see death." But that this was founded in fact, seems to be plainly deducible from the manner of the narration in Hebrew, and the state of opinion in ancient times respecting early death. IIpo yap rfjQ .... rw Gew, he is commended, also, as having pleased God before his translation. The Hebrew says, D^'i/K^~J^^< '=1''^^' ^^'1^'!} and Enoch walked with God, which denotes a state of communion and friendship with God, and implies, of course, a complacency in the Divine mind with respect to him. The apostle, therefore, appeals to the sense of the Scriptures in this case, and not to the words. Nor does he mean to say, that the testimony respecting Enoch's pleasing God was given before his translation ; but that testimony given, viz. in the Divine word, respects his having pleased God before his translation. ^vapeariut governs the dative. Ver. 6. The writer now suggests the grounds on which he builds the conclusion, that Enoch was translated on account of his faith ; viz. Ywplff Se TriatEWQ tvaptcvTjffai, hut without faith it is impossible to please [him.] The truth of this he rests upon his own declaration, and the common opinion on this subject, which he trusted that all his readers entertained. 2i2 484 COiMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 7. TIiffTEvffai yap Bet yiyerai, for he who cometh to God must believe that he exists, and that he will reward those who seek him. UpoffEpxofievov rw 0e^ designates him who worships God, Dei cultorem ; see ch. vii. 15. The phraseology is probably derived from going up to the temple to worship, in the sanctuary of which God dwelt by his peculiar presence. Some have understood the phrase as referring to an approach to God in the invisible world, in heaven ; but the idea here is like that expressed by the Hebrew phrase, goi7ig to God, returning to him, 8fc. which usually denote, '' approach, in the present world, to hia spiritual presence/* ToTc Ui^riToxxTiv avrov, compare the Hebrew, D^^7^^ t^l53,; ^"TT which • v: '•• • T are employed to designate the worship and prayers of those who are piously devoted to the service of God. The two fundamental truths of all that can properly be called religion, are here adverted to. The first is, a belief that God exists ; the second, that he is the moral governor of the universe, i. e. that he rewards those who are pious, and, consequently, punishes those who are not so. He who denies this, denies all that sanctions religion, and makes it binding upon the consciences of men. Ver. 7. n/oT£t o'ikov avrov, by faith Noah, being divinely admonished respecting the future, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety of his household. XprjixaTiaSreiQ, compare ch. viii. 5, and Gen. vi. 13, 14 ; ch. vii. 1 — 5. Mi^^eVw PXeTrofiiviov, i. e. the future flood, no signs of which were as yet visible. Y.v\aj3r)^e\Q may be taken either in the sense of fearing, viz. the destruction which was coming; or it may be understood of the reverence which he paid to the Divine admonition. I have translated it as bearing the latter sense, since this makes most directly for the apostle's object, which is to exhibit the faith which Noah exercised with regard to the Divine warning. Ea, Sarah herself also. Kat avTr), in this case, refers particularly to the fact that Sarah was barren, Gen. xvi. 1, and that she was far advanced in old age. Gen. xviii. 11. The meaning is, COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 12, 13. 487 that faith gave even to Sarah, unpromising as her condition was in respect to offspring, the power of conception, i. e. by faith she obtained this blessing. Elg KaTa(3oXf}v (nrip/iarogj words tortured to the disgust of every delicate reader, by some of the critics. Even Wahl says, " she received strength sIq to ^e'x^o-^ai ffTripfia KaTaf^ePXrjjuiyoy (i. e. by Abraham,) elg Tr]v fxfjrpav." Did this need any supernatural strength? I construe the phrase very differently. Kara/3o\}) means, foundation, commencement t beginning. Now, what is the foundation, or commence- ment, awepfxaTOQ, of offspring or progeny ? Conception. The true idea of the phrase, then, appears to be fully given by the version above. In this view of the phrase, I observe. Dr. Schulz concurs, rendering dvvajiLv eiQ KarapoXrji/ airipfxaTOQ, by das Vermogen zur Empfangniss, the power of conception, Kai Trapa Kaipov . . . €7rayy£tXaju£Vov, and this beyond the usual time of l{fe i inasmuch as she regarded Him as faithful, who had thus pro- mised. Kal Trapa Kaipbv, see Gen. xviii. 11. 'ETrei ttkttov, k. t. \. which shews that the apostle considered it as quite certain that Sarah, like her husband, did come to full confidence in the Divine promise. Ver. 12. Ato koI a.v ov (i\fKonivb)v . Those things which are invisible to the corporeal eye, they saw with the eye of faith, and seeing, hailed them with joy, {atTTtaaaptvoi,) welcomed them, greeted them, or anticipated them with gladness, as y^e joyfully greet or anticipate the approach of a beloved friend, or of some distinguished favour. And, looking forward to them as their chief source of happiness, they openly declared themselves to be only strangers and sojourners in the present world. That yrJQ, by itself, might refer to the land of Canaan, is plain enough ; but that it does so refer here, is rendered quite improbable by the sequel. The idea is plainly more general. Hapeirl^ripoQ means, a temporary resi- dent among any people, i. e. a sojourner. Ver. 14. Ot yap roiavra emi^rjTovffi, now they , who thus pro- fess, show that they are yet seeking for a country. Tavra Xiyovres, viz. saying or professing that they were strangers and sojourners in the earth. UarpiSa, a fixed or permanent place of residence, i. q. ttoXiv pivovffav, ch. xiii. 14, or iroXiy ^epeXiovg e')(pvffav in ver. 10, above. That this irarplg was not of an earthly nature, the writer proceeds to show. Ver. 15. Kat el psv UiivriQ ayaKap\pai, for had they cherished the memory of that [country] from which they came, they had oppor- tunity of returning [thither.] That is, if their native country on earth (Trarptc) had been an object of affectionate desire, they might have easily returned thither, and dwelt there. But this they did not ; for, Ver. 16. Nuv ^e opiyovrai lirovpaviov, but now, they were desirous of a better, [country,] that is, of a heavenly one. Nvi^, i. e. while- they were strangers and sojourners, during the time then present COMxMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 17, 18. 489 The explanation of the writer, in respect to the country which the patriarchs sought, is so plain, that nothing can add to its perspicuity. Aid ovK ETtaLa-^^yvETai irokiv, wherefore God is not ashamed of them, [nor] to be called their God ; for he hath prepared a city for them. Aw, because, viz. because of the faith which they reposed in the promises of God respecting future happiness, or in regard to a TroXtv eTTovpaviov or fxevovaav. To be their God means, to be their protector, rcwarder, benefactor; compare Rom. iii. 29. Rev. xxi. 3. 7. Exod. iii. 6. Zech. viii. 8. Gen. xv. 1. 'Hroifxaae yap avTolg ttoXiv, i. e. he will reward them, for he has in fact prepared a ttoXiv, sc. ETrovpaviou, for them. By ellipsis ovk kxaia-^fyveTat is omitted before Qeog emKaXela^ai avrtHv, Ver. 17. TLicrrei TrpoffevfjvoxEP , . . ireipa^Sfxevog, by faith, Abraham when tried, made an offering of Isaac, Tlpocevr]vo)(t, made an offering of; for the act, on the part of Abraham, was essentially done when he had fully resolved to do it, and was proceeding to the complete execution of it, Gen, xxii. 1 — 10. lieipai^ofxtvoQ (like the Hebrew HD^) means, either to put to trial, or to tempt, i. e. solicit to sin. Which of these senses the word must bear, in any particular passage, must depend on the character of the agent who occasions the trial or temptation, and the objects which he has in view. Beyond all question, HD^ in Gen. xxii. 1, and TTEipaiioiJievog in our verse, are to be understood in the sense of trial ; for God is the agent, and " he tempts no man," i. e. solicits none to sin, James i. 13. Kat Tuv fiovoyivrj .... avah^ajievog, yea, he who had received the promises made an offering of his only Son. Gen. xxii. 2. This clause is designed to augment the force of the description of Abraham's case. It was not simply that Abraham, in circumstances common to others, i. e. surrounded by several children, and without any special promises, made the offering in question; but it was Abraham, to whom God had reptatedly made promises of a numerous progeny; and it was Abraham's only son, i. e. only son of promise, who was the offering which he stood ready to make. Ver. 18. npog ov . , . iio->?c •••• avrov, by faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three months by his parents. See Exod. ii. 2. What is attributed by our author to the parents of Moses, is there said to have been done by his mother. But doubtless it was with her husband's knowledge and concurrence ; and even if it were not, there are many cases in Scripture, where what is done by one of any class or company of men, is attributed generally to the class or company ; e. g. one evangelist says, that the thieves on the cross reviled Jesus ; but another informs us that one of them did this. That TraripaQ applies to both father and mother is well known, it being equivalent to our word parents. ^lon eT^ov . . . /3a, to tympanize, means to stretch upon an instrument called rvpTravov, (the shape of which is not certainly known at present,) for the sake of giving the body an attitude of peculiar exposure to the pow*r of cudgels or rods. It involves the idea of scourging or beating in this peculiar way ; i. e. torture by stretching upon the rvp-Travoy and beating, were con- joined at the same time. COMMENTARY ON HEB. XI. 36. 37. 499 Ov irpoffBe^dfjisyoi . . . Tv^i^ffiv, not accepting liberation, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection. That is, they declined accept- ing liberalion from their torments on condition of renouncing their reli- gion. They looked to a resurrection of the body, which was of a higher nature than merely the redeeming it for a while from temporal death ; and in view of this, they refused to accept of liberation from their tor- ments on the condition prescribed. They persevered, because their faith enabled them to regard as a certainty the future and glorious resur- rection of the just. KpeiTTovoQ avaorao-cwe, better resurrection. Better than what? Plainly, better than that which had just been mentioned, viz. resurrection to life in the present world merely ; as in the examples of the children men- tioned in 1 Kings xvii. and 2 Kings iv. It was not the hope of such a resurrection — the hope of merely regaining the present life, and being again subject to death as before — which led the martyrs suffering upon the TVfXTravoVj to refuse liberation. It was the hope of resurrection to a life of immortal happiness and glory, that led them to refuse liberation. Ver. 36. "Erepot ^c . . . cXa/3ov, others were tried by mockings and scourges; literally, others were put to the trial of mockings and scourges. 'E/i7raty/ia>v refers to scorn, derision, and buffeting, which the victims of persecution experienced. Maor/ywv designates a method of scourging differing from that practised by the use of the rvixiravoy. See 2 Mace, vii. 1. 2 Kings, ii. 23. 1 Kings, xxii. 24. "En ^£ hafxojv Kai ogf where the Scholiast explains ve^oc by irXfj^og. Aristoph. Avib. arpov^tCJv v£(^oq. Horn. II. ?//. 133, vi^og -TTE^wv. Diod. Sic. III. 28, ve^iXri [i. q. v£(f>OQ] uKpl^ijJv. The writer proceeds to exhort the combatants to prepare for the contest before them. "OyKov airo^ifieyoi -Travra, laying aside every incumbrance. "OyKog means swelling, tumour, pride ; also, weight, weightiness. The reference here is to those who ran in stadium, and who laid aside all superfluous clothing, and disencumbered themselves COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 1. 503 of every thing which could impede their progress. The simple word, weighty would not be of sufficient latitude to convey all which oyKog means, in the passage before us. Every impediment or hinderance is to be laid aside, or, every incumbravce is to be avoided. Kat T)]v tvirepiararov afxapTLav, especially the sin which easily besets us. Kat I understand, here, as a particle of connexion before the r//v evTrepiaraTov ajjiapTiap, and that it signifies even, truly, and is ade- quate, in such a connexion, to the English word specially , or in par- ticular. ExnrepiaraTov is a awa^ XEyofievovy the meaning of which has been variously explained. It is, in its composition, analogical with evirepiypac^OQ, EvirepiTrdTOQ, £V7repi-)(yT0Q, &C. TTgjottoTJ/jui means, to stand round, surround. Hence Chrysostom explains evTrepiffrarov by fj evicoXojg TcepuaTafiivri Ijfxdgj which easily comes, or stands around us. So many modern interpreters understand the word ; which, on the whole, seems to me most apposite. The anaprla which most easily beset the He- brews, was undoubtedly apostasy, or defection from their Christian profession ; against which the whole epistle is directed. They were under peculiar temptations to this sin, in consequence of the perse- cutions which they endured, and their former prejudices in favour of Judaism. But other critics, ancient and modern, explain evTEpiaTarov in a somewhat different manner. UEpiffraatg, among other things, denotes, as Hesychius affirms, B^Xi-^tg, ayayKrj, jxipifxra. Hence Theodoret explains EVirepiaraTOV, by 3t yv evKoXwg rig €ig Trepiaraaeig epTriTrrei, by which any one easily falls into troubles or afflictions. That is, " Lay aside the sin which will easily bring you into a state of punishment or distress." So some of the modern critics, also, explain the word; especially as the Greek awtpifrraTov means, not dangerous, free from vexation. Hence, they conclude, evTreptorarov must mean the opposite of this, viz. full of danger or trouble ; ev being intensive, as in EVfxe- yi^rjg, evfxrjKrjg, &c. This is a very good sense, and well supported by analogy. It may therefore be safely admitted. Others, Ernesti, Doederlin, et. al. prefer to render evTrepij^3, or else ^i^3 in Piel. But no example of a transitive sense of iK3 in Kal, is to be found ; it means only, to be afflicted, to feel pain. Of the Piel form of this verb, no instance is found in the Hebrew Scrip- tures. Still the LXX. may have read ^i^^'l, and pain, viz. Jllp^ %hall overtake the son, &c. which gives the same sense (for substance) as paariyol vlov. In whatever way they read the Hebrew, in order to make their version as the version now is, and as the apostle has quoted, it preserves the spirit, though not thejetter, of the original Hebrew. COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 7, 8, 9. 507 That quotations are often made by the New Testament writers from the Old Testament, in a general way, ad sensurriy and not ad literam, I have had frequent occasion to remark before, in commenting on our epistle. No one who attentively studies the New Testament can doubt this. Ver. 7. Ei Traihiav .... 6 0€oe, if ye endure chastisement j God dealeth with you as children. 'Yizohevete has the sense here of enduring, vjidergoing , suffering ; and not that of supporting, bearing up under, persevering. Upocr^ipeTai (mid. voice) means tractare ali- quem. So the classical writers also employ it. See Schneider and Schleusner on the word. T\q yap earriv .... Trartjp ; Jbr what son is there, whom his father does not chasten ? That is, how can ye expect, although ye are children, not to receive any chastisement ? Ver. 8. El 3e x^P^g tore .... viol, but if ye are without chastisement, (of which all children are made partakers,) then are ye spurious and not [legitimate] children. No;oi means, illegitimate children. Yun which is here the antithesis, of course means legitirnate offspring. The meaning is, "If ye are not dealt with as all legitimate children are, it would follow, that ye are considered as not belonging to them." That is, if ye receive no chastening, then God does not acknowledge you as his spiritual children. The design of the writer, in thus applying this text of scripture, is plain. He means to tell the Hebrews, that so far from being dis- heartened by their trials and afflictions, on account of their Christian profession, they ought to regard it as matter of encouragement, and as an evidence that God is acknowledging, by these, their filial relation to him. Ver. 9. Elra tovq pey . . . everpETrope^a, furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, who have chastised us, and we have yielded them reverence. Ttjg aapicdg ripdv traripaQ fathers of our flesh, i. e. of our natural bodies. The idea is, ** the fathers of our physical nature, in distinction from our spiritual one." Ov TToXXw paWov . . . 0\(ropEv ; shall we not much rather yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, that we may live ? That is, when God chastens us for our good, in order that he may promote our final happiness, when he has so important an end in view ; shall we not bow to his will, with cheerful subjection ? UaTpl tUv iryEvparov, an antithesis of rrjQ (rapKog rfpwv Traripag, and therefore, plainly, tipuv is 508 COMMENTARY ON HKB, XII. 10, U, 12. implied after -KPEVfxaTuiv. Numb. xvi. 22, -)^3 b'^b nimiH ^"f?^^, tlie God of the spirits of all fleshy is a parallel expression. Ztifronei' has the sense here, as often elsewhere, of being happy ; like the Latin vivere, in dum vivimus vivamus. Ver. 10. Ot fxev yap . . . InailEvoVf they^ indeed , chastened us for a little while y according to their own pleasure. Updg oXiyag yjuiipagf i. e. during our childhood, our minority ; which seems to me a much more natural sense than to say, with Heinrichs and Dindorf, " the fruit of their chastisement was only temporary." Kara to ^ofcovy avung, according to their own pleasure, intimates that they sometimes erred in their chastisement, or that it was sometimes arbitrary ; but it is not so with that which God inflicts. *0 Ze. kirl TO ^ ]3, lest there be among you any root springing xip^ [which is] poison and wormwood, Deut. xxix. 18. The expression there used to describe an idolater, viz. root of poison and wormwood, is here applied to any person of an unholy life and deleterious example, who is called pi^a TTiKpiae. The consequence is next described. Kal ha ravrijc piav^Sxn ttoWoi, and by this many be polluted. That is, the bad example of some will have a pernicious, polluting influence on many. Guard well against it '^ for eTTiffKOTTovyTeg is implied before pij tlq pii^a, k. t. X. Ver. 16. M>) ti£ Tropvog .... avrov, let there be no fornicator nor profane person, like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth- right. Uopvog is explained as meaning apostate, one making defection from the true religion to a false one, by those who construe the whole of our context as relating only to apostacy. God often taxes his ancient people with adultery and fornication, in consequence of their having turned to the worship of idols. The meaning thus given to iropvoQ may, no doubt, be philologically supported ; i. e. the word is capable of such an explanation. But, as I interpret the context in a different way, it appears to be more consonant with it, to take rropvoQ as designating any person who indulges in gross and sensual pleasures, or, who is of an abandoned character. So our Saviour often speaks of the Jews as a wicked and adulterous generation ; not literally adulterous, (although doubtless this was true of some,) but adulterous in the figurative sense of the word, viz. sensual, vicious, abandoned, profligate. BijoriKoQ is one who scoffs at religion or sacred things, who dis- regards what is sacred in the view of Heaven. The appellations TTopvoQ and /3£/3r/\oe may both be applied to Esau here, and probably are so. As to the application of Tropvog, see Gen. xxvi. 34, 35 ; and Gen. xxxvi. 2. In regard to Pif3r}\ug, see Gen. xxv. 29 — 34. His birthright was not, indeed, a thing of religion ; but it was, in those days, a matter of great personal importance and advantage. The argument is from analogy : " Let no one give up himself to the gratifications of his lusts, as did Esau, to the great grief of his father. Gen. xxvi. 35 ; let no one despise the distinguished privileges which Christianity confers upon him, like Esau, who despised the privileges of his birthright, and parted with them for a mere morsel of food." In the case of Esau, folly and 512 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 17, 18. unbelief were very conspicuous ; for the land of Canaan, as he well knew, had been promised to his ancestors for a possession ; and, as the first-born son, he must, according to the custom of those days, have a peculiar title to it. So, those who reject the proffer of the heavenly inheritance, and renounce their duty as Christians, may, with more propriety still, be called ftiftriXoi. Ver. 17. Those, who conduct themselves in such a manner, will here- after weep with bitter lamentations, when it is beyond their power to recover what has been lost. Thus was it with Esau, "lare yap aTre^oKifxaa^rjf for ye knoWj that when he was afterwards desirous to obtam the blessing, it was refused. See Gen. xxvii. 34 — 40. Ev\o- yiavy viz. the blessing of his father Isaac. Meravoiae yap .... avrz/v, yea, he found no place for a change of mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. See Gen. xxvii. 35, 38, 40. MfT-avome here refers to a change of mind in Isaac, who had given the blessing (appropriate to primogeniture) to Jacob. The writer evidently does not mean to say, that Esau found no place for repentance in himself. Ai/r»)v, sc. /^eraromv. The sentiment of the whole is, *' Guard well against indulging any fleshly appetites; above all, against slighting the blessings and privileges which Christianity proffers ; lest, having done this, you come at last, when it is for ever too late, bitterly to mourn over your folly and wicked- ness." Such watchfulness the Hebrews had the more reason to observe, since under the new dispensation every thing was of a milder aspect, and of a more inviting, encouraging nature, than under the old. Tlie comparison between the two dispensa- tions is continued through ver. 18—24. The writer begins with . describing the nature of the ancient one. The whole passage has respect to Exod. ch. xx. and xxi. &c. ; and Deut. eh. iv. and v. Ver. 18. Ov yhp TrpocrtXi^v^aTE .... opei, moreover, ye are not come to the mount which could be touched. He means mount Sinai, which was an object palpable to the senses, "^rikaipwixivto, contrectabile, quod tangendum sit, i. q. aiaS^rjTov, quicquid sensu percipitur. So Tacitus, Ann. III. 12, oculis contrectare ; and Cicero, Tusc. III. 15, 7nente con- trectare. The idea of de coelo tactus, thunder-struck, is here assigned by some respectable expositors to v/z/^Xa^w/xtVo) ; but without any good philological support. The Greeks use ^t'yet*' and ^lyyareiv, to den(;te COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 19. 513 the striking of thunder. The Hebrews employ ^yi^ which the LXX. transl re by airTea^ai. But \}/r)\a((>ai») answers to the Hebrew ti^U and ti^(3. Particularly in Talmudic and Rabbinic Hebrew, is Kti^tt^D and U^DD used to designate, quod contrectabile est, quidquid sensu cognosci- tur. But, philology apart, the object of the writer in the antithesis between Sinai and Sion, plainly shews, that he means to designate the former as corporeal, material; the latter as spiritual, invisible, the object of faith, but not of the senses. Chrysostom has well drawn the comparison, when he says of Sinai, Travra tote dto-^jyra, koI o\peiQ, /cat tpwyai ; of Sion, 7ra»/ra vor}ra Kal aopara vvv. If the reader has any diffi- culty about the above explanation of ^//ijXa^w/if vw, a comparison of Exod. xix. 12, 13, with it, will hardly leave any doubt as to the meaning of our author, who seems plainly to have had in his mind the strict injunction then made, not to touch the mountain. Kai KeKavfxivu) Trvpi .... S^viWr}, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and darkness, and tempest. As to the particulars of the appearance at Sinai here mentioned, see Exod. xix. 16 — 18; ch. xx. 18. Deut. v. 21—26. Ketcavjjievu} Trvpl means not, simply, fire, but the burning of it, i. e. flame; see Deut. v. 23. 25. It may also be translated in connexion with opei, sc. the mount that burned with fire. But probably it was not the design of the writer that it should be so taken ; for, as he has arranged i/r/Xa^w/itV^ before opei, while it qualifies it, in like manner he has arranged fctxav/icVw before irvpl, which it also qualifies. Tv6({>, Hebrew "^^H, or 7S)1^, the darkness or gloom itself, occa- sioned by the cloud upon Sinai, and around it. QveXXy is designed, perhaps, to correspond to the Hebrew, ^S'l^IJ. If not, it is descriptive of the tempest that accompanied the dark cloud, the thunder and light- ning of Sinai, Exod. xix. 16. 18; ch. xx. 18. Ver. 19. Kat (TaXinyyoQ iixv^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ sound of the trumpet. See Exod. xix. 16. 19. Probably the meaning is, a voice like that of a trumpet, i. e. very loud. In Deut. v. 22, it is called a great voice ; in ch. iv. 12, it is called, the voice of words, i. e. articulate sounds; and in 2 L .514 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XII. 20, 21. ver. 33, the voice of God. From comparing all these passages together, it seems evident that the meaning is, ** an articulate voice, loud like that of a trumpet." Kat 0it)VTq prifjiar(ji)y .... Xdyov, and the voice of commands, the hearers of which refused that another word should he added to them. Compare Exod. xix. 16. 19; and ch. xx. 18, 19. 'Pjj^tarwv, things uttered or said. But it applies to any sort of speech ; and, among other specific significations, it has that of command; see Luke iii. 2. Acts x. 2 ; ch. xi. 14. Heb, i. 3; ch. xi. 3. So 11 "7 T T in Hebrew, e. g. Esth. i. 19. Josh. i. 13. 1 Sam. xvii. 29. Isa. viii. 10. Exod. xxxiv. 28. So also, ")Di>i, to command, Esth. i. 17 ; ch. iv. 13; ch. ix. 14. 1 Chron. xxi. 7. See Wahl, on prifxa. 'He ol aKovcravTEQ, k. t. X. The exact shade of the writer's meaning is, " The hearers of which [voice] refused that a word should be added to them, viz. avrolg prjfiaai, to those commands." In other words, the exceedingly loud sound of the voice inspired them with such terror, that they declined having any more commands addressed to them in this manner. Ver. 20. Ovk i^epov yap . . . \i^ij3o\o^ri(T£rai, for they could not endure the admonition, " Even if a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned.'* See Exod. xix. 13. The Vulgate edition of the New Tes- tament adds to this clause, */ (doXLIi KaraTo^tvBtjffeTai. But no manu- script of any authority exhibits this phrase ; nor any ancient version ; nor any of the ecclesiastical Greek writers, CEcumenius excepted. It is, beyond all doubt, an addition of later times, taken from the Septuagint of Exod. xix. 13. Ovk t '^' '■• ^' 5 ^^^ tovto TroiwffL necessarily refers to something already mentioned, which the teachers must do; and what is this but Xoyov anol^ffELvl I have been constrained, therefore to supply the ellipse in the Greek here from the preceding context, and to translate, So obey, 8fc. Mri arEva'CovTEQ, literally, not groaning, i. e. not grieving ; the effect being put for the cause. It is only a negative form of expression here, COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 18, 19, 20. 529 designed to repeat the same idea as is conveyed by fiera xapac» and to render it more intense. 'AXvo-ireXee yap, another negative expression, which means as much as to say, " This would be very hurtful or noxious to you ;" i. e. should their Christian teachers be compelled to give an account of unbelief and want of subjection in them, the consequences would be distressing. Ver. 18. Upoaevx'^ff^^ tcjoi yfiiiy . . . ava(TTpi<^En^aiy pray for us ; for we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all things to conduct ourselves uprightly. The request of the writer, that he may have an interest in their prayers, shows the friendly feelings and con- fidence which he entertained respecting them. He appeals to the sin- cerity and uprightness of his Christian deportment, as an evidence that he might claim a Christian sympathy for himself. 'Ev Trdtrt, k. t, X. aug- ments, or renders intensive, the idea contained in the preceding clause. Ver. 19. UepKTaoTEpujQ ^e . . . vfily, and I request this the more ear- nestly , in order that I may speedily be restored to you. This seems plainly to imply, that the writer was detained from paying those a visit whom he addressed, by some adverse circumstances, viz. either by imprisonment, sickness, or some like cause. It also implies, that he is known to them, and they to him; for it indicates that he had formerly been among them. Ver. 20. 'O U Qeoq . . . 'Iqorovp, now, may the God of peace, that raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, who by the blood of an everlasting covenant, has become the great Shepherd of the sheep. 'O Qedg rfjc elpr]vr]g, God who bestows happiness, auctor salutis. The Greek elpiivr), in the New Testament, like the Hebrew Di /t^^means, every kind of bless- ing c*r happiness. 'O dvayaywi/, who brought up, raised up, restored. Tov iroLfXEpa . . . tov piyav, compare John x. 11, 14 — 18. '£v aiixari ^La^Krjg alutviov, some join with arayayiov. But what can be the sense of raising Christ from the dead by the blood of the ever- lasting covenant ? Almighty power raised him from the dead ; not the blood of the covenant. Beyond all reasonable doubt, then, ev alpan, K. r. X. characterises the great Shepherd, who ** laid down his life for the sheep," John x .15 ; and who sanctioned a new testament or covenant by his blood, Heb. ix. 15—23. Matt. xxvi. 28. The meaning is, that " the great Shepherd is provided with, or (so to speak) carries along with him, blood sanctioning a covenant which is of perpetual force. So, in Heb. ix. 25, the high priest is said to have entered yearly into the most noly place, ev aXKorpiu) alpan, i. e. carrying with him the blood of bul- 2 M .530 COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII. 21, 22. locks and goats. See also Wahl's Lexicon, h, No. 2. The phrase is plainly an allusion to the preceding discussion, in ch. ix. I have ren- dered it so as to prevent a mistake in regard to its true meaning. Ver. 21. Karapriaai v/xae tv Travri tpyw aya^(o,Jit you for every good work, i. e. prepare you in all respects to act worthily of the Christian name, enable you in all respects as Christians to discharge your duties. Eie TO TroLfjffai to ^i\r}yLa avrov, so that you may do his will, i. e. perform all which he requires. This is of the same import as the dative with h, in the preceding clause. Uoiutv iv vfxiv .... XptoToO, working in you that which is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ. That is, enabling you to perform all your Christian duties, which will be acceptable, tvaptarov hwTnov avrov, pleasing in his sight, V^B/ H'IDj pleasing to him. Aia 'Irjcrov Xptoroi), i. e. may he do this, for Christ's sake, through Christ, or, perhaps, by the influence of the Christian religion. 'ill r; ^o^a .... ^Afxrjv, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen. The nearest antecedent to ^, is I. Xpicrrov ; and to him, it seems to me, the doxology plainly belongs. Other examples, of a similar nature, may be easily shown; e. g. Rev. i. 6. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 2 Pet. iii. 18. Doxologies introduced into the midst of a letter, in this way, are characteristic of the writings of Paul. Ver. 22. UapaKuXoi Se vfidg .... TrapaKkfiffewg, moreover, I beseech you, brethren, to bear with this word of exhortation ; for I have written briefly to you. 'Avc'j^w means, to bear patiently with, to receive or per- mit with kind feelings, to put jup with. Aoyov 7rapaK\r](TEii)Q is simply exhortation. Some refer this only to the last part of the epistle ; but the whole is intermixed with hortatory admonitions. The writer, after speaking so plainly, and giving warnings so awful, endeavours to win those whom he addresses, to a patient toleration of his plain dealing. Am (ipa'xiwv , an usual Greek expression for briefly, within a short compass. " But how," it is asked, " could Paul say this, when this epistle is longer than any one of his — that to the Romans, and the first to the Corinthians, excepted?" But is it to be supposed, that those whom the apostle now addressed were acquainted with all of his other epistles ; and that they would estimate the force of Bia /3paxewv, by a comparison of our epistle with them ? It is much more reasonable to suppose, that the writer means to say, that he had written briefly, con- sidering the importance and difficulty of the subjects of which he had treated. And who will deny this ? COMMENTARY ON HEB. XIII 23, 24, 25. 53 Ver. 23. VivutaKsre .... dTroX^Xv^ueVov, know ye that [our] brother Timothy is sent away. See, on the meaning of this, Introduction, pp. 92, seq. Med* OX) ... . vfidg, with whom, if he speedily return, I shall visit you. M£0' ov, in company with whom. 'Edv tclx^ov tpj^r/rae implies, that Timothy was then absent. Of course, aTroXeXvixivov cannot well mean set at liberty. But if the meaning be as I have rendered it, then is the reason plain why Paul should say, eav epxnrai. If Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and set at liberty there, why should the writer (at Rome) speak of his coming to him ? If in some other place, how should he know of his liberation, sooner than those whom he addressed ? Ver. 24. 'AffTrdo-ao-Oe Trdvrae .... ayiovQ, Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. ' AcrTraeraffOe means, Present them with my kind wishes, and my regard for their welfare. *AyiovQ, those who are consecrated to Christ, professing Christians, saints. ^Aaira^ovTai *IraXtac, they of Italy salute you ; viz. the Italians, see Introduction, pp. 98, seq. This shows that the writer was in Italy; from which country he sends the kind greeting of Christians there. Ver, 25. 'H x«ptc fttrd Trdvrwv vfiujv, 'A/z})v, grace be with you all. Amen; a frequent form of benediction in the apostolic epistles. Xapig means. Divine favour or blessing. The subscription to this epistle runs thus : Jlpog 'EfSpaiovg eypa(j>ri Sltto Ttje 'IraXlag dia TifxoBiov. Like most of the other subscriptions to the epistles, it is of no authority. It is demonstrably erroneous here ; for how could Timothy write this epistle, when the author says, at its very close, that Timothy was then absent ? The author of this subscription, one is tempted to think, had either read the epistle with very little care, or with very little understanding of its contents. END OF COMMENTARY 2m2 633 EXCURSUS, EXCURSUS I. Heb. i. 2. — At^ ov koI tovq alwvaQ evoiijife. There still remains a difficulty in this passage, (in common with Eph. iii. 9,) as to the form ofexpressiorif or, rather, as to the object of the assertion. In John i. 3, it is said, Trayra ^t' avTOv [Xdyov] kyivETO \ in 1 Cor. viii. 6, hC ov ['Iijerov ^^larovl rk irdvral in Col. i. 15, iy avr« [Xptorw] iKTiaB^T] TO, TTCLvra; in Col. i. 16, ret Travra St' avrov [Xpiorov] eKTiffrai; and in Heb. i. 10 — 12, ] ra nArTa KTlanm ^la Iritrov XpKTTov, HEBREWS I. 2. 635 God created all things by Jesus Christ. The latter clause, ^la I. Xpttrrov, is indeed wanting in some Codices of good estimation, and is rejected by Griesbach from the text. But Knapp and Tittmann have inserted it, and the weight of authority seems to favour the admission of it. That the sentiment is not without a parallel, is clear from Heb. i. 2. In these two cases, then, the assertion of the apostle is, that God made all things BY his Son, or, BY Jesus Christ. Are these expressions, now, to be interpreted in such a way, as to qualify all the first class of expressions ascribing creatorship to Christ, so that they must be understood as asserting nothing more, than that he performed an instrumental or ministerial work only, and did not act as original author in bringing the universe into being ? This is the simple question before us, divested of all extraneous constructions put upon either class of texts by opinions previously formed, or views adopted in consequence of reasoning a priori. Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is evident that nothing of importance can depend, either in respect to Heb. i. 2, or Eph. iii. 9, on the word ^ih. It has often been asserted, that this pre- position is employed, before the genitive case, only to designate a secondary or instrumental cause. But this is altogether incorrect, both in respect to sacred and classical usage ; as even the common Lexicons of the New Testament will shew. The cause, whether principal or in- strumental, may be, and often is, designated by ^m before the genitive. At' ov, then, might designate (by itself considered) the principal cause or original author of the worlds. This expression, however, does not involve the nodus of the difificulty, in the case before us. The assertion is not here, that all things were made by the Son, but that GOD made all things BY him. In what manner, now, ought we to interpret this ? How the most noted commentators of the Greek church understood this difficult passage, is worth a serious inquiry. Chrysostom, in ex- plaining it, says, '' As the Father judgeth no one, but is said to judge by his Son, because he hath begotten him who is judge; so also he is said drjfxiovpyeiv h' avrov on ^rjjjuovpyov avrov eyevvrjae, to create by him, because he hath begotten him who is the Creator.'* He then proceeds, ^* Ee ylip avrov airioQ 6 irarrip, ttoXXw fidWov tCjv ^i avrov yeyevvrifiivdiv, for if the Father is the cause of him, much more of the things made by him.'' Horn. I. in Epist. ad Heb. p. 15. Vol. XII. Ed. Montfaucon. To the same purpose, Theophylact : ** eyreide ^e a'tTiog o Trarfjp rov viov 536 EXCURSUS I. ttKOTijjQ KOI tQv vtt' civTov yeyofihojPf seeing the Father is the cause of the SoHf he must surely be of the things made by him,'" Comm. in Heb. Tom. II. p. 650. edit. Venet. 1755. Here, also, the generation of the Divine substance of the Son is asserted, and the appeal is made to this doctrine as solving the difficulty of our text. But as the idea of self- existence, existence uncaused, and independence, enters essentially into all our conceptions respecting a nature truly Divine^ and is a sine qua non in all our apprehensions of a Creator, it is difficult for us to concede that the Father can be the cause {ciItioq) of the Son in his Divine nature, without, of course, admitting, that the Son, as Divine, must be a de- pendent being, a Bevrepog Qeoq only, as many have called him. The explanation of these fathers, (who accord with most of the ancient ecclesiastical writers,) seems, then, only to remove one difficulty, by bringing forward another still greater. This explanation also is ^rced upon the text. The writer of our epistle does not say, nor intimate, that " God created all things by his Son, inasmuch as he is the cause {airioQ apxm as Chrysostom calls him) of the Son." Can it be proper to force on the sacred writer a mode of metaphysical explanation, drawn from the philosophy of later ages, and foreign to the simplicity of the Scriptures ? In modern times, the mode of explaining our text is founded on what the systems of theology denominate ** subordination in respect to the persons of the Godhead." Thus Owen, on Heb. i. 2, says, *' The joint- working of the Father and Son doth not infer any other subordination but that of subsistence and order ;" he means the hypostatical subordi- nation of persons, or order of their existence in the Godhead. The amount of the explanation adopted by him and many others is, if I rightly understand it, that God the Father, in the order of subsistence (not of time) preceding the Son, did by the Son create the worlds. But whether this explanation renders the text any more intelligible, may perhaps be well doubted. Especially so, as Owen, on the same passage says, " The same individual creating act, is the work of the Father and the Son ; whose power and wisdom being one and the same undivided, so also are the works which proceed outwardly from them." But if the power and wisdom of the Father and Son are not only one, but the SAME undivided; on what, it may be asked, is founded the evidence, that a subordination of subsistence and order exists in the Godhead ? If the attributes of the Godhead are one and the same undivided, bow can we come at the evidence of a physical or metaphy- HEBREWS I. 2. 537 sical SUBORDINATION of subsisteuce or hypothesis ? Can such a subordination of subsistence be in any way known to us, except through the medium of the Divine attributes? But these are affirmed to be one and the same undivided. Are we able then to show what the distinction in divine essence is ; or to define the mode in which the metaphysical essence of the uncreated Being exists ! Where is the passage of Scripture which does this ? I am aware that an appeal is here made to those texts which mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in connexion ; and particularly to the order in which they are men- tioned. But of these texts there are only three. The first is in Matt, xxviii. 19, where the order just presented is observed. The second is in 2 Cor. xiii. 13, where the Lord Jesus Christ is placed Jirst. The third is in John v. 7 ; a text, ^hich if not proved to be spurious, is at least thrown into a state so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would at present think of appealing to it as authority. Is then, we may well ask, the order of subsistence or hypostasis, (which is so much insisted on, and so often appealed to by the schoolmen,) a doctrine taught by the sacred writers ? Or, rather, is it not one of the inventions of metaphysical philosophy, in order to remove apparent difficulties in the sacred text ? Can any one point out the text of Scripture, in which God is presented in a physical or metaphysical manner, so that his essence or mode of subsistence, in itself considered, is offered to our consideration ? If not — and if God, only in his rela- tions to us, and the creation around us, God as developed by his attri- butesy and not as he is in himself, or considered in respect to his inter- nal essence, be revealed to us in the Bible — why not contented with what the Scriptures have taught, without forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers which have been excogitated only by metaphysicians of later days ? Owen himself, after going through a protracted consideration of our text, with that good sense and humility for which he was so con- spicuous, adds, " It is not for us to inquire much into or after the reason of this economy and dispensation. We cannot by searching find out God, we cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection." He means, ** We cannot find out the economy of God's creating the worlds by his Son, and the doctrine of subordination which is implicated in this." Happy would it have been for the interest of humble and candid inquirers, had this sentiment produced its proper influence over 538 EXCURSUS I. all the writings of Owen himself, and of many other eminent and excel- lent men ! Will not most sober and intelligent inquirers, of the present day, agree in saying, that the nature and modus of the distinction in the Godhead is not an object of revelation, and that it is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge ? Let those, now, who write or teach respecting this momentous and awful subject, act consistently with such an avowal, and very much of the perplexity, which is still occasioned by incautious assertions in regard to it, will be saved. The ground which Owen and so many others have taken, to explain the phrase in Heb. i. 2, is not satisfactory, because it is built on the assumption, that we know that which is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, and which, after much exasiination, I am compelled to believe is not revealed in the Scriptures. The difficulty of our text, then, still remains. It would be presump- tion in me to promise a solution of it that will be satisfactory. But as the subject is so deeply interesting to all sincere and humble inquirers after the simple meaning of the sacred writers, I will venture to suggest a few considerations for reflection. Words are the signs of ideas. Words are human, i. e. they belong to men ; they are employed by them ; and employed to designate, of course, the ideas which men have in their own minds. All these ideas are derived from sensation, reflection, or consciousness. The percep- tible objects without us, and the menteil phenomena within us, are all the objects from which we can derive ideas through the medium of observation. Reflection, or reasoning upon the knowledge derived from these, may lead us to many new ideas ; all of which, however, have their basis in the perceptions of objects external or internal. As words are merely arbitrary signs of ideas, so, when employed in their original sense, they can never signify more than the things for which they stand. But words may be employed figuratively . When we come, by reasoning or reflection, to the knowledge and belief that there exists a Being who created the world ; who is himself uncreated, eternal, and immutable ; who is not the object of perception by any of our senses ; and for the description of whom, none of the words of our language were originally formed ; we are then obliged to apply to the description of this Being, words already in existence. But these words, it is plain, must in such a case be used nearly always in a sense HEBREWS I. 2. 539 more or less qualified, and differing from their original and literal sense. Even in expressing our ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, where there is a particular resemblance between him and man formed in his image, we do not apply to the Divinity the most common words, in exactly the same sense as we do to men. When we say, he is wise, we do not mean that he acquired his wisdom, or possesses it, or exercises it, just in the manner that men do. We mean that there is, in his wisdom, something analogous to wisdom in men ; something which selects the best ends, and chooses the best means of accomplish- ing them. But we do not mean to imply that the acts of selecting and choosing in the Divinity are, in all respects, analogous to our own. We say, God is omnipresent. But we do not mean that he is present every where, in the same manner as human beings are present at any particular place. We do not mean that actual physical presence of body, or of substance, is necessary to his being present ; in other words, we do not mean, that he is physically diffused through the universe. We mean, that at the same instant, he can act, and does act, any where, or every where. Here is some analogy between him and us. We must be physically present in order to act ; and we say, therefore, that where he acts, he is present. This is true in some sense ; but as to manner, how exceedingly different is his being present from our own ! We say, God is mighty. But when we speak of might in him, we do not associate with it the idea of firm sinew, of vigorous muscle, of robust body, of mature age, of perfect health; all of which enter into our apprehensions of consummate strength in man. We content ourselves with one simple point of analogy. God has power to do whatever he desires to do ; or, he is almighty. In this respect his might or strength is like that in men; it is power to accomplish the objects which strength or might is adapted to accomplish. But the might of the Deity infinitely excels that of men in degree. Here is one point of dissimilarity. It depends, too, on very different causes for its exercise. Here is another. But still, we speak of power in God, as frequently as we do of power in men. The imperfection of language obliges us to make use of words in this way. But who that has any reflection will say, that the words which we apply to God are used entirely in the same sense, which belongs tr them when they are applied to men ? In the same manner we might proceed in the consideration of every one of the Divine attributes, whether natural or moral. In regard to them all, we should find that there is only some one point of 540 EXCURSUS I. analogy on whvsh. our assertion rests, when we apply human language to the description of God ; and that the manner in which he possesses or exercises any of his attributes, physically considered, is utterly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge: and, indeed, that it was never mean*' to be an object of assertion, by any intelligent man who makes assertions in regard to the Supreme Being. If all this is well understood, we are now prepared to advance a step farther, and see our way clear. Nothing can be more evident, (I might say, self-evident,) than that the eternal, uncreated, uncaused, inde- pendent, infinite, and self-existent God, must, as to his mode of essence and existence, be unlike to temporary, created, caused, dependent, finite beings, with a derived existence. The very fact that God is as he has been just described, and man as he has been represented, necessarily forces this conviction upon us. Nothing can be plainer, then, than that all human language, formed at first merely to express human conceptions of finite and created objects, must in itself be altogether incompetent fully to describe the Divinity. Nor could any language formed by created beings be adequate to this purpose ; for the plain reason, that no finite being could ever have a full conception of the infinite and uncreated Being. All our language, then, when used to describe God, must be con- sidered rather as analogical only, than as capable of being simply applied to him in its usual sense. Any description made by it, is only an approximation towards a full description of what is divine. This has been shown above. And could this be remembered and rightly applied, in all our discussions respecting the nature of the Supreme Being, it would save much of the difficulty and darkness which now embarrass this great subject. No assertion, indeed, can be made respecting God, which, if its lan- guage be understood and applied altogether in the same sense in which it is understood and applied when made of man, will not lead to contra- diction or absurdity. This is evident from such plain cases as those already presented ; viz. God is wise ; God is omnipresent ; God is mighty. If there is still any doubt here, take another case. God has knoivledge. This is certainly true. But with us, knowledge can be possessed only through the medium of corporeal organs of sensation ; it is acquired successively ; in time ; within a limited space ; by the aid of memory, of comparison, of reasoning, of imagination ; and when needed for use, it is summoned by recollection. When we say, " A man HEBREWS I. 2. 541 has knowledge," we imply all these things by the use of these words. But if we say, " God has knowledge," do we mean to assert that he nas corporeal organs of sense ; that he gradually acquires ideas ; that, limited by time and space, he does this ; that he makes the effort of charging the memory with it ; the effort of comparing, of reasonmg of imagination, of recollection, in any manner like ours ? Whoever says this is an anthropomorphite indeed ; such an one, too, as is not to be often met with (I would fondly hope) in these days of better illumination respecting the exalted and spiritual nature of the Divinity. From these obvious considerations, we may now proceed to examine the language of the sacred writers, in regard to the difficult point which suggested the subject of this Excursus. Two things seem to be equally the object of assertion in the holy Scriptures. The first, that there is but one God ; the second, that the Lo^os, or higher nature which dwelt in Christ, is truly divine, or is truly God. Of the first, it would be superfluous to produce proofs here. The Old Testament is full of them ; and the New as distinctly recognizes the same doctrine; see John xvii. 3. 1 Cor. viii. 4. 6. 1 John v. 20. Luke xviii. 19. Matt. xix. 17. A formal proof of the second point would be out of place in an exegesis designed only for the explanation of a particular phrase. It must suffice merely to advert to John i. 1. Rom. ix. 5. Tit. ii. 13. 1 John v. 20 : the two former instances of which are so express, that no critical inge- nuity can avoid the application of the term God to Christ; the third, when examined by the princijJles of grammar and of the usus loquendi of the New Testament, is scarcely less certain ; and the fourth has never yet been satisfactorily explained away. But how can the Logos be truly God, and yet he with God, and be the agent by which God made the worlds ? Here lies, it must be con- fessed, the very essence of all the difficulty which embarrasses so many minds; and on this point we must now venture to dwell with some particularity. In the first place, our minds are embarrassed with the difficulty which such a statement respecting the Logos makesj in regard to the Divine unity. Let us see if the source of this embarrassment cannot be di ?tinctly pointed out. Trinitarians have been accustomed, for many centuries, to characterize the dis+incUon in the Godhead by the word person. Whether this word i^as well c ill chosen, it is not my present object to inquire. Thus much is certain : many, perhaps even the greater part of men in Chris- 542 EXCURSUS I. tian lands, have incautiously attached to this word, when used in respect to the Godhead, a sense nearly (if not quite) the same, as they attach to it in common usage. Not a few theologians and critics have, indeed, protested against such an application of the word ; and some of those, who have been most eminent for their stedfast adherence to the belief that the Saviour possesses a nature truly Divine, have raised their voice high against such an application of it ; but, unfortunately for the cause of truth, this voice has been listened to only by some of those who were friendly to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Others, with different views, have commonly thought proper to pay no attention to such a protest, but to take advantage, in their efforts to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, of the arguments which might be put into their possession, by taking the word person in its usual acceptation. If now we speak of the Logos as a person ; and of God the Father as a person ; and attach to the word person the sense that is usual in common parlance ; then it is certain, indeed, that the difficulty which lies in the way of supposing the Logos to be truly God, and yet consist- ently maintaining the Divine unity, is altogether insurmountable. " Person is an intelligent substance," (if I may use the language of philosophy for the sake of definition.) " Substance,*' as defined by Baumgarten, a divine of the old school, of high orthodoxy, and of great metaphysical acuteness, *' is that which can exist by itself, or unas- sociated with another thing;" Substantia est id, quod potest existere ita, ut ponatur extra alterum, Metapkys. 191. 36. 231 — 233. As defined by another logician and philosopher, famous for nice distinctions of definition, " Substance is that which exists, or may be supposed to exist, although it is connected with nothing else ;" Substantia est id quod est, aut esse posse putatur, etiamsi nulli alii sit junctum, Ulrich's Inst. Log. et Metaphys. § 316. To apply the word person, then, in the sense which such definitions necessarily afford, to the distinctions in the Godhead, inevitably leads to Tritheism, and, of course, to a virtual rejection of the Divine unity. We may say, in words, that we believe God is one, although we assert that there are three persons in the God- head, as just defined ; but nothing is plainer, than that in such a case we believe merely in a specific unity, not in a numerical one. Specific unity, however, might admit three thousand or three million divine beings, and yet consistently maintain that there is but one God ; that is, it might do so, provided we allow the advocates of it that there is a yivoQ Oeiov, genus divinum, or genus of divinities. Human nature, for HEBREWS 1.2. i43 example, is one ; there is but one nature of man ; yet the individuals of this genus are without number. That such is not the unity which the Scriptures assert of the Godhead, I need not stop to prove. He who consistently holds the numerical unity of the Godhead, must, beyond all doubt, protest against the application of the word -person to designate the distinctions of the Divine nature, if that word is to be taken in its logical or metaphysical sense. For, however one may hold to words diXif\ forms of expression, it is plain, that while he makes s^ich an application of the word person to the Godhead, he in fact admits Tritheism, although he may be far from any design or any consciousness of doing so. The views which have now been presented, may serve to explain the reason why many find it so difficult, or (as they think it) impossible, to admit the true divinity of the Logos. *' How can he," say they, " be the second person in the Godhead, and yet be one with the first ? How can he be with God, and yet be God himself V And truly, it must be confessed, that this cannot be, provided the words in question are to be construed altogether more humano, i. e. in their logical, common, usual acceptation. But is it analogous, is it proper, to construe them thus ? Does it develop a spirit of candid and fair inquiry, to insist that these terms shall be construed altogether according to their common acceptation, when there is not, as we have seen above, a single term significant of a Divine attribute, which we ever construe in such a manner ? If this be correct, (and I may venture to say it cannot be reasonably disputed,) then I see no very urgent reason why the use of the word person, in order to designate a distinction in the Godhead, should be rejected. It is true, it is not a word which is applied by the Scriptures to the Godhead, (for viroaTaaiq, in Heb. i. 3, does not mean person;) it is also true, that many well-meaning individuals have been misled by it in regard to their conceptions respecting the Deity, and that those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity have made great use of this word in order to render the sentiments of Trinitarians obnoxious ; so that one might almost wish the word had never been introduced into ecclesiastical usage. But when the matter is examined to the bottom, it will be found that objections of a similar nature might be urged against the application of any anthropopathic expressions to God. The simple and the untaught may be easily misled by them, and often are so. How many, for example, believe that God is really angry, repents, &c., more humano^ 544 EXCURSUS I. because such expressions are found in the Scriptures ? Shall all such expressions be laid aside, because they are misunderstood or perverted ? And if so, where shall we stop? for we have seen, that all language which is used in order to describe God, must be taken, of course and by necessity, in a qualified sense. The abuse of a thing is no valid argu- ment against the use of it. Those, then, who believe in the existence of a real distinction in the Godhead, in case they are careful to protest against the literal application of the word person to designate this, may still continue to employ the word, if they think best ; for it is exceedingly difficult (as all will confess who have thoroughly studied this subject) to exchange it for a better one, or for one that will so well correspond with the representations of the Bible in regard to such a distinction. Cer- tainly no term can be substituted for it, which will not, in like manner, be obnoxious to more or less objections. If those who reject all distinction in the Godhead will persevere still in maintaining, that to say there are three persons in the Godhead neces- sarily involves the doctrine of Tritheism ; and if they will thus continue, at all events, to explain the word person according to its literal and common meaning, and to charge upon those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity the absurd consequences derivable from this ; then they may, indeed, display their strength of attachment to their own views, and perhaps their skill in logomachy ; but where is that candour and fairness toward those who differ from them, which becomes all who are seeking in earnest to know the simple doctrines of the Scriptures ? Suppose now, when one says, God possesses knowledge, he should be asked in the tone of reproof, *' What ! Do you mean to assert that God has physical organs of perception ; that he studies ; that he charges his memory with ideas ; that he compares ; that he deduces conclusions ; that he summons them up by the effort of recollection when he needs them ? Men do all this, who have knowledge ; but can all this be pre- dicated of God?" Would any considerate man think these questions very reasonable ones ; or feel himself compelled by them to abandon his assertion, ** that God has knowledge?'* Apply, now, the principle concerned in this case, to the idiom in question. The apostle John says, that the Logos was with God ; was with him hi the beginning ; and repeats this asseveration, .John i. 1,2. Christ says of himself, that he was with the Father ^ and partook of his glory, before the world had an existence, John xvii. 5. In another place, John asserts, that the Son was with the Father, 1 John i, 2; and the HEBREWS I. 2. 545 Saviour speaks of the Father, as loving him before the foundation of the world, John xvii. 24. He declares, that he came out from the Father, when he came into the world, John xvi. 28. In accordance with this idiom, Paul says, that God created all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. iii. 9 ; and that he made the worlds by his Son, Heb. i. 2. Now, if such texts are to be considered as altogether insulated, and the principles of analogy in other cases are not to be applied to the language which they exhibit, then the conclusion, that Christ, or the Logos, is a being wholly distinct from God the Father, is clear and inevitable. But are these texts to be construed in an absolute, isolated sense, and without any reference at all to others, which relate to the same connexion between Father and Son ? Certainly not, if we follow the analogy of exegesis in all other cases. When John says, that the Logos was with God, he tells us, at the very same time, as if to guard us against erroneously concluding that he is a distinct, and separate, and different substance, that he was God. When the Saviour spake of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, he had just been addressing the Father as the only true God, John xvii. 5. 3 : so that no one could rationally suppose him to assert the existence of more than one true God. If Paul tells us that God created all things by Jesus Christ, and that he made the worlds by his Son, he also tells us, that Christ is God over all, and blessed for ever, Rom. ix. 5 ; and that he is the eternal and immutable Creator of the heavens and the earth, Heb. i. 10 — 12. Christ tells us, that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9 ; that he is in the Father, and the Father in him, ver. 10 ; and that all which the Father hath is his, ch. xvi. 15. Now, whatever diversity between the Father and Son the first class of texts above quoted may seem to imply, it is plain that it is not of such a nature as to destroy the unity of the God- head. Whatever the distinction in the Godhead may be, it is 7iot that which makes plurality ; it is not that which makes personality, in a logical^ or merely human sense. But can we say what it is ? Plainly not. A positive description is nowhere given in Scripture ; and surely it would ill become us to pretend that we understand, without revelation, the uncreated substance, and modus existendi of the Godhead. All that we can understand by such expressions as the Logos being with God, becoming flesh and dwelling among us, and God's making the worlds by him, is, that there is a distinction in the Godhead, of some kind, which amounts to more than merely the different modes or ways in which the Divinity discloses himself to us. It is something which is 2n 546 EXCURSUS I. not merely nominal or logical ; which is not to be predicated merely of the external relations of the Godhead. It is something which renders it possible to affirm, in some sense or other, analogous to the usual mean- ing of the words, that the Son was with God, that God created the world by him, that he became incarnate, Sfc; all which cannot be predicated, in the same sense, of the Father. Yet all this must be true, in such a modified sense as does not infringe on the real unity of God. Who, now, will undertake to decide what metaphysical distinctions or relations there may be, in the uncreated substance of the eternal God ; and what are consistent, and what not consistent, with his unity ? None, we may believe, but those who are either presumptuous, or destitute of cool and sober reflection. But although the nature of the distinction in the Godhead be truly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, (as plainly it is,) yet ih^fact, that there is a distinction of some kind or other, may be revealed. Indeed, that it is revealed, seems to be a neces- sary consequence of allowing the two classes of texts above quoted to be true, and to modify each other. On the one hand, distinction is not to be so held or asserted, as to infringe upon unity ; and on the other, unity is not to be so held or asserted as to preclude the possibility of any distinction. Who has found out the Almighty unto perfection ? Are not all analogies from created, finite, temporal objects, utterly incom- petent to convey adequate ideas of the infinite and uncreated God ? Must they not from their very nature be so ? Yet men will insist on applying ail the analogy, which language imports, to God, in the same way as to themselves. We always conceive, for example, of different beings having a finite nature, as separated by space, as existing in time, and as having their own peculiar properties. When, therefore, we read of the Logos being with God, we very easily associate with this expression the analogy of one human being in company with another, or of some created thing associated with another that is a separate one. Then we are ready to ask. How can the Logos be God ? One cannot, indeed, show that he is so, if we will insist that all language is to be applied to him, simply according to the common application of it to human objects. But is such an application to be made ? Can it be ? John says, he is God ; and Paul says, he is God over all Then human language, of course, can on\j approximate to a description of him; the literal and full application of it, in designating his relations to the Godhead, is out of all question. Only very inadequate views of this subject, or the HEBREWS I. 2. 047 spirit of party, or that of disputation, can maintain the propriety of such an application. We may come then to the conclusion, that when the apostle Paul asserts that God made the worlds hy his Son, there is nothing in reality more difficult in this expression, than there is in those expressions which are found in the Gospel and first Epistle of John. Whatever may be the economy of the Godhead to which Paul refers, it is not one which denies, or virtually takes away, either the unity of the same, or the supreme creatorship (so to speak) of the Son ; for this he most fully asserts in Heb. i. 10 — 12. We have seen, by the passages above cited, that the apostles, John and Paul, accord in their views both with respect to the distinction and the unity of the Godhead, and to the divinity of the Saviour, As they held these truths in such a manner that they harmonized with each other, so ought we to do ; and consequently we should not give such an explanation to the one, as to destroy the other. In a particular manner, we ought to be guarded against making any assertions or definitions which are built on the assumption, that we know in what the distinctions of the Godhead consist. Some of the efforts of t^e school-divines, on this awful subject, are not only contradictory to each other, but their views are inconsistent with the true nature of a Divine and self-existent Creator, as well as repulsive to the feelings of a cautious, impartial inquirer, who seeks after ideas of things, and not after mere words. The suggestions now made, respecting the necessity of feeling that all our language when applied to describe the Deity must be restricted to a modified sense, are strengthened, by an examination of the descriptions in general of God, as given in the Bible by the sacred writers. They represent him, for example, as angry ; as repenting ; as being grieved at the heart ; as laughing at the efforts of the wicked ; as mocking at their calamities; as rejoicing; as weeping; as avenging himself; as possessing eyes, hands, feet, and all the parts of the human body ; as descending and conversing with men ; as appearing to Abraham, Moses, and many others ; as ascending ; as riding in the whirlwind and the storm ; as walking on the sea ; as shooting with a bow and arrows ; as whetting his glittering sword, and bathing it in blood ; as clothed with the habili- ments of a warrior, or in those of royal magnificence ; in a word, as possessed of all the sympathies, and exhibiting all the phenomena, of a man. The most unpractised reader of the Bible knows this is true, and that, more or less of it, is to be found on nearly every page of it. Yet 2 N 2 548 EXCURSUS I. who, that has any rational views of the true spiritual nature of God, ever supposes that any part of all this language is to be applied merely in its primary and literal sense to God ? Yet, in every case of this nature, there is some real meaning in the language employed by the sacred writers. There is some point of analogy, between the literal meaning of the language as applied to men, and the qualified meaning of it as applied to God. When God is said to repent, the meaning is, that he acts in a manner analogous to that in which men act when they repent, i. e. he changes the course which he was pursuing. When God is said to whet the glittering sword, to bend his bow, and to take hold on vengeance, then he does that which is like what men do to their enemies, i. e. he punishes, he inflicts distress, he makes retribution for crimes. In all these and such like cases, the manner in which the Divine Being acts is not intended to be described ; but the fact that he does act, is what is asserted by the use of such language as has just been mentioned. No one can justly say, then, that there is no real meaning in such language when applied to God, unless it is taken in its 'primary and literal sense. Such an affirmation would betray profound ignorance of the nature of language, as used in a qualified sense, and also of the true character of God. For if all such language respecting him is indeed to be literally construed, then have the Scriptures cast no additional light on the spiritual nature of God, and he is still to be regarded, as the heathen represented him, viz. as one altogether like ourselves. If it should be thought, that the class of expressions which are men- tioned in the two preceding paragraphs, are essentially different from those before considered, viz. such as God knows, God is mighty, &c. ; an examination of the whole matter will convince any one of his mistake. It is true, that the former class of expressions are more obviously figu- rative. We at once perceive, that, as God is not flesh and blood, they cannot be literally applied to him ; i. e. we abstract from these expres- sions whatever pertains to modus, whatever is borrowed from our earthly material structure. But is it not equally true, that whatever pertains to modus is, in the other case, to be in the same manner abstracted ? For example, when God is said to know, does it any more imply the human modus of knowing, than it implies the human modus of acting, when he is said to lift up his arm in order to smite an offender ? Most clearly not. The truth is, that, when sifted to the bottom, it will be found there is no essential difference as to the qualified nature of the language in HEBREWS I. 2. 649 both cases. In both, you abstract the modus, before you apply it to God. In the one case, indeed, the metaphor is taken from our corporeal parts ; in the other, from our mental powers ; but this makes no differ- ence in respect to the thing itself, except that in the former case the language is more obviously and strikingly to be qualified, than in the latter. If, then, such expressions as those which have been considered, and all others which designate the natural or moral attributes of God, are, and must be, understood in a modified sense ; then why is not the asser- tion that the Logos was with God to be understood in a similar way ? The manner in which one created substance, as contemplated by us, is with another can surely afford no perfect analogy to explain the man- ner, in which the self -existent, the uncreated Logos is with God. And yet the most specious of all the objections to the true divinity of the Logos, are grounded on the full and literal application to him of such language. One word, with respect to the U7iity itself of the Godhead. Is not this term, as well as all the others applied to the Divinity, to be taken in a modified sense ? If any one will, for a moment, put aside the veil of words, and come to the simple contemplation of things, he will pro- bably find himself much less able to tell what unity in the Godhead is, than he suspected. In the substances around us, proximity of parts united by some common influence, or subserviency to some common purpose, is essential to our idea of unity. A tree is one, because its several parts are intimately connected, are under an influence common to all, and are subservient to a common purpose, i. e. of producing fruit, or foliage. Other trees, indeed, of the like kind, are under the like influence, and subserve the like purpose ; but the want of an intimate proximity of parts to the tree in question, is the ground why they are not one with it. One man, in distinction from many, consists of a cor- poreal frame thus intimately connected, and animated by an intelligent spirit. Every thing that has material parts is numerically one, only by an intimate conjunction of those parts. But when we apply the term unity to spirit, and ask, What is that in which the unity of spirit consists ? it will be found more easy to ask, than to answer the question. A spirit we do not suppose to have parts ; certainly not, in s^ch a sense as matter has, i. e. it is not divisible. God has no parts ; he is a spirit. Proximity of parts, then, does not constitute his unity. Nor have we, nor can we have, any proof that .550 EXCURSUS I. homogeneousness, or simplicity of essence or substance, constitutes his unity. For, in the first place, we have no distinct idea of what the essence or substance (if I may be allowed the expression) of the Godhead consists ; and, of course, we cannot predicate physical homogeneousness or simplicity of that, respecting which we have no distinct idea. In the second place, as the most insignificant portion of matter has never yet, so far as we know, received an ultimate analysis from the highest efforts of chemical philosophy, so that any one can venture to affirm what its simple substance is, and confidently declare that it is homogeneous, and one only, in regard to its component elements ; will any one venture to say, that he has analyzed the Divine substance, (I speak it with rever- ence,) so as to be able, with certainty, to predicate physical homogeneous simplicity and unity, of the elements which compose it ? How is it possible for us to make affirmations about the nature of that substance, of which, by our own confession, we are altogether ignorant? A man who at the present day should do thus, in any other science than that of theology, would be regarded as a mere visionary, or as a bigoted enthusiast for the party to which he belonged. The qualities, then, of the substance or essence of the Godhead, or (to speak in other terms) the physical or metaphysical nature of the Deity, is that of which we are profoundly ignorant. We know there is one Omnipotence, one Omniscience, one Creator and Governor of the universe ; but do we know the internal relations and modifications of his substance ? Confessedly not. How, then, can we with propriety reject the testimony of revelation, that the Logos is God, because of objections which our philosophy deduced from a priori reasoning may raise, in respect to the unity of the Divine substance ; all of which objections, too, are deduced from analogies that are taken merely from material and corporeal things ? Truly, if the nature of these objections be examined, and the whole matter sifted to the bottom, by putting mere words aside for a while, and looking at things, it will be found, that we have less reason to confide in such objections, than some are ready to imagine. The Christian, who holds that the Logos is truly divine, (and of course that he is self -existent, eternal, and independent,) holds to what Paul and John seem very plainly to assert ; and he, who admits that there is a distinction in the Godhead, (the nature of which is not developed, but which is implied in such expressions as those in Heb. i. 2. John i. 1, 2,) stands on scriptural ground, and on that too HEBREWS I. 2. 551 which is proof against all assault. For how can it be proved, that there is not a distinction in the Godhead, the nature of which we confessedly do not understand ? If it be asked. How can it be proved there is one ? The answer is, by a revelation. If such a revelation has been made, (and the texts cited above, not to mention others, seem plainly to imply it,) then we are either bound to receive it, or to reject the authority of the sacred writers. Consistency must oblige us directly and fully to do the one or the other. As for all the illustrations attempted by divines, ancient and modern, of the physical nature of the distinctions in the Godhead, drawn from finite, material, created objects, the bare mention of them is enough to show, that they must be imminently exposed to error. Who can draw any perfect analogies between created and uncreated beings, in regard to their physical nature and properties ? And all the terms, and names, and dogmas, which have resulted merely from such comparisons, may be rejected in a mass — salvd fide^ et salvd ecclesid : and they ought to be rejected, if we would not expose the awful mystery of the doctrine in question to doubts, if not to rejection, by men who are not influenced in their opinions by tradition, nor by the authority of the schools. When the simple biblical view of this subject is embraced, and the simple position of the sacred writers maintained, without adding to it any explanations or definitions merely of our own invention then may more unity of opinion on this subject be expected among professed Christians ; and then will truth be less exposed to assault, from those who reject it. We come, then, at the close of this protracted discussion, to the conclusion — that language, like that in Heb. i. 2, is subject to such modifications as other parts of the Scriptures and the nature of the case demand. In other words, we can rationally apply it to God and to Christ, only in a qualijied sense, just as all other language must be applied to them, most obviously, in a qualified sense. Whatever depends on modus, must be abstracted. Facts are aimed at by the sacred writers, not the modus of them. The expression in our text, therefore, according to every just law of exegesis, must be so taken, as to accord with other assertions of the apostle and other inspired writers. But these do not permit us to attribute the act of creating to any but God himself, i. e. the supreme God. To this act the ultimate appeal is made by the sacred authors, in order to distinguish the supreme God from all that is called God 552 EXCURSUS I. in heaven or on earth : see Rom. i. 20. Ps. xix. 1. Acts xiv. 15. Isa. xl. 25, 26; ch. xlii. 5— -8 ; xHii. 15; xliv. 23; xlv. 18; xlvi. 9; xlviii. 12, 13, &c. Now, is it possible for the human mind to appeal to any decisive evidence of supreme Divinity, unless the act of creation be such ? The Deity can be known at all, only by the development of his attributes ; and no development ever made, or (so far as we can see) none which can be made, is so highly and decisively charac- teristic of " eternal power and godhead," as the act of creation. So thought Paul, Rom. i. 20 ; and so, until the whole structure of my mind is changed, must I think. The being then who created the world, is God to me ; and from the nature of my moral and mental constitution, he must be so. This is a point that admits of no explaining away. If, therefore, Christ cre- ated the world, he must be, what John asserts him to be, GOD ; and what Paul asserts him to be, GOD OVER ALL. But in what sense God can be said to have created the world by Christ, i. e. what is the exact meaning of a phrase, which refers to an internal distinction, (as it would seem,) in the Divine nature, is beyond the reach of our con- ception, as to modus. Enough, that it has matter of fact for its ground, viz. that the Logos was truly Creator. Enough that creatorship is so spoken of in the Bible, that we are not at liberty to predicate it of any dependent being. This point fixed, (and if it be not, we have no decisive evidence on which we can rely, that Jehovah is God,) the sense of Heb. i. 2, and of other like passages, is to be understood in a qualified way, so as not to gainsay what is plain and certain. This is as much as can be said with safety ; for the subject, to which such passages refer, is plainly one that, in most respects, is beyond the bound- aries of human knowledge. That the subject is not without difficulties, even in its scriptural position, is what every candid and unprejudiced man will be very ready to confess. But it is a noble remark of Garve, (on Cicero de Offic. Lib. L p. 70,) " The better part of men do not, because they may discover a few difficulties which they cannot solve, regard the whole system of acknowledged truth as uncertain. They can be aware that there is some darkness mingled with light in their knowledge, without being terrified by the one, or blinded by the other." The effort to explain every thing, to define every thing, has led to the unhappy consequence of introducing scholastic phraseology and definitions, in respect to every thing about the doctrine of the Trinity, HEBREWS 1.2. 553 This not only bewilders many, but makes others believe that they have a knowledge of things because they can use abundance of technical words ; while the opposition of another class, who can detect the inconsistency and emptiness of these terms, is excited against the whole doctrine. The day, however, is coming, if not already arrived, when mere names will be regarded by the church as of little worth, provided they do not convey intelligible ideas. For the good of the church, also, it may be hoped, that the time is very near, when men will learn to stop, in making their inquiries, within the boundaries of human knowledge, and neither to assert nor deny that, about which they know nothing J and can know nothing. Well was it said by a very sensible writer, " He who will not undertake to explain what is incomprehen- sible, but will seek to know where the boundaries of this begin, and simply acknowledge them when and where he finds them ; — he does most to promote the genuine knowledge of truth by man."* EXCURSUS II. Heb. i. 2. — Ai' ov Kal TOVQ aliovaQ siroiriffE. It has been argued, that the expression, God made the worlds by his Son, necessarily contains an implication of eternal sonship, or eternal generation ; in other words, that Christ is the Son of God in his divine nature, and not simply considered as mediator. " How," it is asked, " could God make the worlds by his Son, if he had no son until four thousand years after the world was created ?" The answer, however, is easy. How could " God create all things by Jesus Christ ?" And yet the apostle asserts that he did, in Eph. iii. 9. Is not Jesus Christ the appropriate name of the incarnate Logos ? Of the Saviour as possess- ing our nature ? How then could the world have been created by him ? The answer is, that in both cases, and in all similar cases, the words which describe the person are used as proper names, and thus designate the whole person, in whatever relation he is considered. The Logos, who created the world, was united with the human nature of Jesus — with the human nature of the Son of God, i. e. the Messiah. And as .he names Jesus Christ and Son of God, are evidently terms used to * Jacobi, Getting. Recens. St. 197, anno 1764. 554 , EXCURSUS in. describe the complex person of the Saviour ; so it is altogether accord- ant with the usages of language to say, that " God created the world by Jesus Christ," or, " by his Son ;" meaning, in either case, the Logos or higher nature united to Christ, or the Son. So we say, Abraham is dead, meaning, that part of him which is mortal is dead ; Abraham is alive, meaning, that part which is immortal lives. We say, too, Abra- ham was born in Ur, of Chaldea ; yet he did not receive this name until ninety-nine years after his birth there, for before this last period he was called Ahram, not Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1. 5. This is analogical with saying, God made the worlds by his So7i ; although the Logos did not receive the name Son (except by prophetic anticipation) until he appeared in the flesh. Nothing is more common than to employ proper names, when once acquired, in order to designate the whole person, in all its different stages or modes of existence, without any reference to the time or manner of acquiring the proper name. At all events, if to say, that God made the worlds by his Son, necessarily proves that the Logos was then a Son when he made the worlds ; the same reasoning will of course prove, that he was then Jesus and Christ also, i. e. a complex person having a human nature, because it is said, God created all things by Jesus Christ, In the same manner, the expression of our Saviour, What if ye should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ? John vi. 62, would prove, if the reasoning on which we are animadverting be correct, that the Son of Man existed in heaven before he dwelt among men, i. e. •that the Word made flesh did not assume this incarnate condition at the birth of Jesus, but possessed such a nature before, viz. while in the hea- venly world. Now, as neither fact justifies such a supposition, nor the usages of language demand it, so the doctrine of eternal Sonship can never be built upon a principle of reasoning which stands upon such a very insufficient basis. EXCURSUS in. Heb. i. 3. — -"^Oe Stv dTravyac/xa ttiq l6i,r]Q koX ')(apaKTrip rfjg viroaraffEWQ avrov. What can be plainer, than that the description, in Heb. i. 3, neces- sarily applies to the incarnate Logos, to the Son of God as disclosing in our nature the Father to the world of mankind ? A multitude of ana- HEBREWS 1. 3. 555 logous texts might easily be appealed to ; but those quoted in the Com- mentary are sufficient. It is plainly the manifestation of Gj3d which the Son makes, that occasions the Son's being described as aTravyaerfjta and ■)(^apaKTrip; both of which imply, of course, what is visible and perceptible. But the Logos before the incarnation, while simply divine, was neither visible nor perceptible. Nor can we, with any propriety of language, speak of him in that state, in which he was simply the invisible God, as being only the image of God, or only the radiance of his splendour, or merely the likeness of his substance. 'YTrocrraris ahrov, his substance, I regard as equivalent to him, himself as he really is ; for this would seem to be the meaning of substance, in the case before us, and not the desig- nation of the physical or metaphysical nature of the Divine substance, which neither Christ nor any of the sacred writers have represented to us, and of which the Logos is not an image, since he is ONE with the Father. Others understand cnravyafffia in the sense of image, exact resem- blance, and do^a as meaning. Divine majesty ; thus making cnravyafffxa ^o^rjQ and -^apaKTYip ttjq vTroffraffeiog avrov synonymous. They appeal, by way of supporting this, to an expression in Philo, who calls the sanctuary of the temple o'iov airavyafffia tCjv ayiuv Kal fiifx-qfia rov ap\ETV7rov, an image (as they translate it) of the [heavenly] sanctuary, and a resem- blance of the archetype. But here otTravyao-yua may well be rendered radiance i. e. light emanated from the heavenly sanctuary, in reference to the heavenly splendour which appeared in the most holy place. Philo de Plantat.Noe,L. ILp. 221.edit. Francofurt. The book of Wisdom calls wis- dom aTravyaajjLa fwrog aihlov, koX eiKova ttjq aya^OTTjTog avTOv, the radiance of eternal light, and the image of [God's] goodness ; which, although cited by them, is still less to the purpose of defending their opinion. Ancient and modern commentators, who have construed these phrases as having respect to the divine nature and condition of the Son, have understood them as asserting an exact likeness between the Father and the Son, first in regard to attributes (^o^a,) and then in regard to sub- stance or essence {yTroaraaiQ.) I must, however, regard the phrase in question, as of the same nature, in respect to meaning, with the texts to which they have been compared in the Commentary ; and we may surely find, in the analogy of the scripture and in the nature of the imagery, reason to justify this view of them. But as the explanation referred to has been so long insisted on, and so often repeated, it deserves at least some particular attention. 56t) EXCURSUS III. Theodoret has best exhibited the mode of argument, which is used to defend the sentiment in question. " Splendour (oiTravyao'/ia,)" says he, " comes from fire. It has fire as its cause, but is inseparable from the fire ; for fire and splendour proceed from the same source. If now it is possible, in respect to objects of sense, that one thing should be derived from another, and yet co-exist with that from which it is derived, you cannot doubt that God, the Logos, the only begotten Son of God, is begotten as a Son, and yet that he co-exists with him who begat him as Logos, which [Logos] is aTravyaff/xa ^u^rig. For the glory and the splen- dour have one common source. But the glory always existed ; conse- quently the splendour. Fire and splendour are of the same nature; then the Son is of the same nature with the Father. Moreover, since the image of splendour abundantly shows the co-eternal and co-essential nature [of the Son with the Father,] it has afforded occasion for the blas- phemies of those who labour under the disease of Sabellius and Photinus. By another image, therefore, he [the apostle] refutes this blasphemy, since splendour does not exist in and of itself; for he adds, x«p«'f'"')p TrJQ vTTOorao-fwe avrov, k. r. \." Theod. Comm. on Heb. i. 3. In a similar manner, Chrysostom and Theophylact argue, calling the Son 0WC €f (pioTOQ. So the Nicene Fathers say, " the Son is 0we ik ijxoTogj Kdl OeoQ Ik Qeov. All these plainly borrow their phraseology from the expression, cnravyaajxa Tfjg ^6^r}Q auroi/, which is referred by them to the Divine nature of Christ. But how incompetent any material objects are, to afford just ana- logies of the modus existendi of a Divine and uncreated nature, need not be again insisted on in this place. We might well ask. Is not the sun the cause of light ? And does not the cause exist before the effect ? Again ; Is light in all respects homoousian with the source of light, the luminary from which it springs ? Is the radiance of the sun, the same thing as the sun itself? Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Nyssen, moreover, assert, that the expression, j^apaKrnp riJQ VTroaraatioQ avrou, necessarily implies an entire resemblance, in all respects j of the Son to the Father, with the exception of separate hypostasis ; and this they maintain must be so, because the impression made by a stamp or die is exactly like the stamp or die itself. But it may be asked first, Whether the writer himself of our epistle makes, as these commentators do, the exception of hypostasis from the completeness of the resemblance asserted ? Next, whether an impression is indeed, in all respects, like the die which made it ? For HEBREWS 1. 3. 557 example; is the impression solid, or of the same material with the stamp ; or does it possess the same physical attributes ; or is it coeval with it? Such assertions, therefore, though they may be oratorical enough, and please the fancy of hearers or readers, vanish away before the tribunal of examination, and serve only to show the incompetence of any earthly analogies to give a true representation of the modus exis- tendiy or of the physical substance, of the Godhead. They also show the imprudence, nay, the danger^ of employing such figures, in regard to a subject of so awful a nature. There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully examines, that the Nicene fathers and the Greek commentators, one and all, held that Christ as to his Divine nature was derived from the Father. So the Nicene creed, Gtoe Ik GeoD, 0we U 0wroc. So Chrysos- tom, commenting on the phrase in Heb. i. 13, *ca-%v Ik ct^iCjy fxuVf affirms, that " the apostle says this for no other reason, than that you may not suppose the Son to be avapxov Kal avaireov," i. e. sine principio et sine causd ; most evidently in the very spirit,, of the Nicene creed. Yet we may ask the question — we cannot help asking it, Is then the Son, who is God over all and blessed for ever — is he, in his divine nature, derived and dependent ? Has he, as very Godj an aWia and an apxn ? And is it possible for us, to make the idea of true and proper divinity harmonize with that of derivation^ and consequent dependence ? No ; it is not. The spiritual views of the nature of God, which are now generally entertained by enlightened men, forbid this; in fact, they render it absolutely impossible. But not so in the days of the Nicene council, and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in the Divine nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain ; but that their views of what is necessary to constitute a rational and defensible idea of a nature truly Divine, were correct, is what no one, I think, who has read their writings and judged for himself, will now venture to maintain. Their views of the Divine nature were built on the metaphysical philo- sophy of their day ; but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as correct ; nor is it indeed possible, now, for our minds to admit it. EXCURSUS IV. Heb. i. 3. — ^"Efcd^itrev h h^i^ rffg ptyoKoovvtiQ. To sit at the right hand of one on a throne, appears to have two meanings, both in profane and sacred usage. •558 EXCURSUS IV. 1. It denotes honour, friendshipy 'peculiar approbation^ a reward bestowed on any one. Thus feolomon, when on his throne, directed Bathsheba his mother to sit at his right hand, 1 Kings ii. 19. Thus, in Ps. xlv. 9, the queen is represented as taking her place at the right hand of the king her husband. The mother of James and John requests of Jesus, that her two sons may sit, one on his right hand and the other on his left, during his reign, {iv rp (iaaiKuq. aov. Matt. xx. 20 — 23 ; compare Mark x. 36 — 40,) i. e. that they may occupy the highest places of honour under him as king. In other passages, Christ promises his disciples that they shall have thrones, in the world of glory. Matt. xix. 28 ; nay, that they shall sit down with him on his throne, even as he sits down with his Father on his throne. Rev. iii. 21, So Christians are said to have kingdom given to them. Rev. i. 6 ; they are a kingly priesthood, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; they reign with Christ, or in life, 2 Tim. ii. 12. Rom. v. 17. James ii. 5. Matt. xxv. 34. Rev. v. 10. In all these and the like cases, honour, reward, an exalted state of happiness or glory, is represented by such expressions ; but not actual participation in the supreme government of the universe. 2. To sit at the right hand of one enthroned, or to sit on a throne with one, also denotes participation of command, authority, or dignity. So the heathen often employed the phrase : e. g. Pindar represents Minerva as h^iav Kara X^*P^ '"''^ irarpog KaSs^ofxeyijy, sitting at the right hand of her father [Jove] ; which Horace explains by her occupying proxmos Jovi honores. Find. Fragm. p. 50. ed. Schneider, Hor. Od. I. 12, 19. So Callimachus says of Apollo, that ** he will honour the quoir who shall sing what is pleasant to him ; since he is able to do this, ettel Ati Ze^loq ^arai, because he sits at the right hand of Jove." Hymn, in Apoll. v. 28, 29. The Greeks called him, who par- ticipated with another in his kingly authority, avvt^pog, irape^pog, avv ^povog ; although they also applied these terms to any member of a council, or of a deliberative judicial assembly. In the New Testament, when Christ is represented as sittmg at the right hand of Divine Majesty, Heb. i. 3 ; or at the right hand of God, Heb. x. 12 ; or at the right of the throne of God, Heb. xii. 2, participation in supreme dominion is most clearly meant. Compare Acts ii. 32 — 36. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Rom. viii. 34. Mark xvi. 19. Phil. ii. 6—11. Eph. i. 20—23. At the same time, the comparison of these passages will show most clearly, that Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God, means, his being seated on the mediatorial throne, as the result and reward of his suffer- HEBREWS 1.5. 559 ings, (see particularly Phil. ii. 6 — 11, and compare Heb. xii. 2;) and that the phrase in question never means, the original dominion which Christ as Logos or God possesses. The sacred writers never speak respecting the Logos, considered simply in his Divine nature, as being seated at the right hand of God ; but only of the Logos incarnate, or the Mediator, as being there. So in our text, it is after the expia- tion made by the Son of God, that he is represented as seating himself at the right hand of the Divine Majesty. And that this mediatorial dominion is not to be considered simply as the dominion of the Divine nature of Christ as such, is plain from the fact, that when the media- torial office is fulfilled, the kingdom of the mediator as such is to cease, 1 Cor. XV. 23 — 28. Moreover, that the phrase, to sit at the right hand of God, or of the throne of God, does not of itself mean, origi-, nal divine dominion, is clear, from the fact, that Christ assures his faithful disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even ag he has sat down with his Father on his throne. Rev. iii. 21. It is exaltation, then, in consequence of obedience and sufferings, which is designated by the phrase in question. See an excellent dissertation De Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei sedente, by the venerable Dr. Knapp of Halle, (vvy kv ayioig,) in Knappii Scripta varii Argument!. Hal. 1824. EXCURSUS V. Heb. I. 5. — 'Eyw taofiai avrw eIq Traripa, koi avrog 'iaTai fioi eIq vlbv. A DIFFICULTY ^11 remains, in regard to the application of 2 Sam. vii. 14, to Christ. In the very same verse, which contains the quotation made by the apostle, is contained the following expression : ** If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men ;" i. e. I will inflict such punishment as men receive on account of transgression. Can it well be said respecting the Son of God, ** If he commit iniquity ?" &c. Where can any ana- logy in Scripture be found, of such language applied to him ? The answer must be. Nowhere. But by a nearer inspection of the whole prophecy, g,nd by comparing it with other predictions of a similar nature, perhaps the difficulty presented may be diminished, if not removed. What hinders, that God should promise both temporal and spiritual 660 EXCURSUS V. blessings to David, in consideration of his piety ? See 2 Sam. vii. 1 — 13. Why could he not promise him, that he should have successors on the throne, veho should, like other men, fall into sin, and be chastened for it ? And yet, that among those kings who should descend from him, there should be one, who was the Son of God in a peculiar sense, who was destined to a dignity — to a throne — of a most exalted nature ? Such at least seems to be the exposition by the author of the eighty-ninth Psalm, ver. 29 — 37. Compare this now with the promises made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 1 — 3; ch. XV. 1 — 6 ; xvii. 1 — 8. These passages certainly contain assurances, that Abraham should have a literal, numerous offspring, and that they should inherit the land of Canaan ; see Gen. xv. 7 — 18. Yet they also contain assurances of a seed, in whom all nations should be blessed, Gal. iii. 14 — 17 ; and of a seed who should be the heirs of Abraham's faith, i. e. resemble him in regard to faith or belief. Gal. iii. 6 — 8. It may be difficult for us to ascertain, in some cases, where the temporal promise ends, and the spiritual one begins ; and so vice versd ; because both are couched, as usual, in similar language. But this does not show that there is any absurdity, or any improbability, in the supposition that God may have promised, and that he has promised, blessings both spiri- tual and temporal at the same time. Did he not engage that David should have successors on his earthly throne ; and also that he should have a Son who would sit on a spiritual throne ; and have a kingdom, of which David's own was but a mere type ! Luke i. 32, 33. Rom. i. 3, 4 Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished, if not removed. The *' ini- quity committed " is predicated of that part of David's seed who might commit it, i. e. his successors on the national throne ; while the more exalted condition, predicated of his successor, belongs to him to whom was given a kingdom over all. If you say, " Thus interpreted, the prophecy seems to be in a great measure general, and difficult to be definitely interpreted ;" the answer is. So it was designed to be. The general idea only was intended to be communicated, of some future most distinguished progeny of David, Very much of our difficulty in interpreting most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, arises from aiming to make them more specific and defi- nite^ than they were originally intended to be. When we shall have thoroughly learned, that " the law made nothing perfect," we shall find less difficulty in the interpretation both of the Old and New Testament. 561 EXCURSUS VI. Heb. I. 6. — Kat 7rpO(rKvvr}(raT<*)pav^r]re ovpavol afxa avT<^ koI TrpoaKvvrjaarioaav avr^ TravTeg ayyeXoL Qeov, This, in the place where it stands, must needs mean, " Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the enemies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him." But the Messiah does not seem to be at all alluded to, any where in the context ; much less described as being introduced info the world. I should therefore think it very improbable, if the apostle meant to quote Scripture, that he meant to quote this Scripture, on the present occasion ; for we have no knowledge, (unless it be implied in our text), that the Jews of his time were wont to apply this passage to the Messiah. Still, it is a pos- sible case that he quoted the words of Deut. xxxii. 43, merely as fitted to express the idea which he intended to convey ; just as we now borrow scripture language, every day, to convey our own ideas, without feeling it to be at all necessary to prove, in every case, that the same meaning was originally conveyed by the words which we employ, as we attach to them in our discourse. Such a use, it is well known, is not unfre- quently made of passages from the Old Testament by the writers of the 2 o 562 EXCURSUS vr. New ; and such an one, Storr maintains, is here made by the apostle, of the words of the Septuagint, in Deut. xxxii. 43. The probability, liowever, all things considered, is in favour of a quotation, (if it be necessary to suppose a quotation,) from Ps. xcvii. 7, (Sept. Ps. xcvi. 7 ;) where the Septuagint has TrpotrKwrjarare ai/rw ttclvteq ayyekoi avrov, as a translation of the Hebrew, DN'i^i'^'/S i^'^linj^t^^H worship him, all ye Elohim. Here avrov, in the Septuagint, stands after ayyfXot, but in Heb. i. 6, it is Qeov ; and koL in our quotation, is wanting in the Septuagint. But any one who has compared the quota- tions of the New Testament from the Old, either with the Hebrew or Septuagint, must have seen that very few of them are verbatim. The variation here of the quotation from the original, is so small, and so entirely unconcerned with the sense of the passage, that the discrepancy will not be any hinderance at all to the supposition that Ps. xcvii. 7, may have been quoted. • Yet the subject of this psalm does not, at first view, seem to be the Messiah. The universal reign of Jehovah, his victory over his enemies, the manifestation of his glory to all nations, and the confusion of idolaters, are celebrated in the context. The verse from which our quotation is made runs thus : ** Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of their idols, Trpoanvvi]- aare avruj Travrcc ayyeXoi Gtov, DTi/i^ 73 •" i. e. ^' let all created things, which are the objects of worship, instead of receiving adoration, pay it to Jehovah. Jehovah alone is the proper object of religious homage." Yet it is certainly a possible case, that this very psalm celebrates the coming and empire of Christ, who was, as Simeon says, Luke ii. 32, v xtLpSiv aov elaiv ol ovpavoi. Avroi aTroXovvrai, Be ^m/jevele* icai TravrtQ wq ifxdnoy TraXai(o^r]ffovTaif Koi wail 7rtpi(36\aLov kXi^eig ahrovg, koi aWayi] aovrai' cv Be 6 avTOQ el, Kat ra erri aov ovk EK\ei\pov(ri. In regard to the body of the psalm, (Ps. cii.,) from which this whole quotation is taken, the majority of late critics agree in the opinion, that it does not primarily relate to the Messiah, but to Jehovah, absolutely considered. It is, no doubt, one of those psalms, the internal evidence of which does not so clearly and definitely determine the application of the whole composition, as does that of many others. Thus much, also, seems to be clear; there is nothing in the psalm, which forbids the application of it to the Messiah. Nay, there are several passages in it, which apply to him in a more apposite way than to any other personage. If we suppose the complaint (ver. 1 — 11) to be that of the church, previously to the appearance of its Redeemer, then does the sequel well agree with the promised redemption. In particular, ver. 15. 18 20. 22, HEBREWS I. 11, 12. 565 describe the propagation and prosperity of true religion among the heathen. But when was such a diffusion of the true knowledge and worship of God to take place ? Under the Jewish dispensation, or under the Christian ? Surely, under the latter only. Compare, too, ver. 20, with Isa. Ixi. 1, which the Saviour applies to himself, Luke iv. 17 — 21. Ver. 23, 24, of Ps. cii. renew the complaint of the church ; and ver. 25 — 28, contain the answer, viz. that the Redeemer is the Creator, and immutable, and that the church shall be continued, and a godly seed be permanent. So I am inclined to explain the whole psalm ; and so, at any rate, the writer of our epistle seems to have understood it. Certainly there is nothing that forbids such an explanation, when it is once admitted that the Messiah was at all the subject of prediction in ancient times, and that some of the psalms do actually contain such predictions. But if any one prefers construing Ps. cii. as applicable merely to Jehovah, absolutely considered, then there is no serious difficulty with respect to our quotation. The application of the same words to the Son of God, which were originally spoken respecting Jehovah, is equi- valent to saying, " What was affirmed by the psalmist of Jehovah, may be as truly affirmed of the Son." As the writer applies the words in this manner, it shows that he considered those whom he addressed as being accustomed to make such an application of them, and that they were willing to admit it ; otherwise he could not have expected the argument to be acknowledged by them as a forcible one. Admitting, now, that the ajf&stle has correctly applied this passage to t^ie Son, it follows that the Son possesses a nature truly divine. The act of creation is the highest evidence of such a nature, that is offered, or can be offered, to our minds ; and the sacred writers appeal to it as such. See Rom. i. 20. Ps. xix. 1. Acts xiv. 15. Isa. xl. 25, 26 ; ch. xlii. 5—8 ; xliii. 15 ; xliv. 24 ; xlv. 18 ; xlvi. 9 ; xlviii. 12, 13. The force of the proof in question is not altered, whether you suppose the hundred-and-second psalm originally to relate to the Messiah, or not. If it originally related to him, then the application is clear and unem- barrassed. If it originally related to Jehovah, simply considered, then the apostle asserts here, that what was said of Jehovah may also be applied, in the same manner, to the Son. Of course, the weight of the argument is the same in either case, as it respects the divine nature of Christ. Either would show the opinion of the writer to be, that the Son is eternal, and the creator of the universe ; of course, that he is exalted 666 EXCURSUS VIII. beyond all measure above the angels, and is truly divine. For, as the same writer says, He who made all things is God, Heb. iii. 4. We may observe, too, that this last argument is the climax of the whole, and completes the proof which the apostle adduces, to show the exalted dignity of the Son. He had intimated the same sentiment at the commencement of his epistle, ver. 2 ; but here he brings out into full light, the nature of his views respecting this subject. Whatever, then, may be the economy, according to which God made all things by his Son, it is not of such a nature as to exclude supreme Creatorship, and eternal existence, as belonging to the Son ; both of which are asserted to belong to him by the passage before us. EXCURSUS VIII. Heb. II. 2. — Et yap 6 U ayyiXwv XaXri^elg \6yoQ. There are two methods of explaining this. (1.) the apostle here speaks merely in the way of accommodation to the Jewish mode of representing this subject. The Jews attributed the giving of the law to angels, as mediators or internuncii between Jehovah and them ; and they were accustomed to make high claims, in respect to the dignity and superior excellency of their law, on this account. The apostle here adverts to their views of this subjecP; and what he says amounts to this, " If every transgression of the law, which you regard as given by the mediation of angels, was punished," &c. In like manner, the same apostle says to the Galatians, " Who hath bewitched you ?" without intending to teach us that he believed in the power of witch- craft. And so our Saviour speaks to the Jews, of " the unclean spirit that goes out of a man, and walks through dry [desert] places, seeking rest and finding none, but afterwards it returns with seven other spirits, and repossesses the same man," Matt. xii. 43. Now, as this is not intended to teach us, that impure spirits actually wander about in deserts, &c., so we are not obliged to understand the apostle as mean- ing anything more by the expression in question, than a reference to the Jewish mode of speaking and thinking relative to the subject of angels. But, (2.) Anothei- mode of explanation is, that the phrase contains a HEBREWS II. 2. 567 concession, on the part of the writer, of what was viewed by him to be matter of fact. This view I feel constrained to adopt, by a com- parison of similar passages. In Acts vii. 53, Stephen says to the Jews, " Ye have received the law, elg diarayag ayyikiov, by the disposition [order, arrangement] of angels ;" and Paul, speaking of the law, in Gal. iii. 19, says, that it was ^larayttt; U ayyiXwy, arranged, [disposed proposed,] by angels. But here a difficulty is urged. God himself proclaimed the law to the Israelites, Exod. xx. 1. 19. 22. Deut. v. 4. How then can the law be said to be Xa\?;^£/rp, ay eveaXoyrjTog, fifire &px^y r/fxiptop fxriTt ^w^e TiXcQ t)(0)yf a(l>(i>[xoi(oiiiyoQ Sk ry vl^ rov Qtov, fxivsi l&pevQ eIq to ^irjv€K(:g. The description of Melchisedek, in ver. 3, has been interpreted in a variety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions respecting the person introduced here by this name. I shall very briefly exhibit some of them, without delaying to examine them. (1.) The Hieracitae, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Hseres, LXVH.,) held Melchisedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome undertakes to confute them, Epist. ad Evagrium. (2.) The Melchisedeciani, (the author of which sect was Tlieodotus, or Thomas,) held Melchisedek to be one of the dwa/jiets of God, ema- nated from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of which Chri&t was formed. 582 EXCURSUS XIV. (3.) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Hseres. LXVII. testifies,) that Melchisedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos ; the same who appeared to Abraham, and to the patriarchs, &c. This opinion was held by Ambrose ; and it has been defended, in recent times, by Molinseus, Cunaeus, Gaillard, Outrein, Hottinger, Stark, Petersen, and others. (4.) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchisedek to be an angel. (5.) Others have held that Melchisedek was a man formed before the creation, out of spiritual and not of earthly matter. (6.) Melchisedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth, after the flood. So Hen. Hulsius. (7.) Melchisedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. and Jerus. ; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Genebrard, Torniello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church ; and among Protestants, Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Rungius, and others. (8.) Melchisedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis. (9.) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, Crenius, Buddseus, and others. (10.) Melchisedek was a righteous and peaceful king, a worshipper and priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan ; a friend of Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him. This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. xiv., and in Heb. vii. ; and it is the only one which can be defended on any tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more improbable, than all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception of this ! The most popular opinion among them all, viz, that Melchisedek was Christ, would of course force us to adopt this interpretation, viz. that " Christ is like unto himself;" or, that a comparison is formally instituted by our author, between Christ and himself; — " cujus mentio est refutatio." EXCURSUS XIV. Heb. VII. 9, 10. — Kat, wg eVoc €i7r£t»', hia 'AjSpaafi Koi Aevt, 6 SeKciTag XajAftavioVf ^e^eKaroJTai' 'in yap iv t^ ocrcftvi tov narpog ^Uy OTE avvr]vrri^p^p. Besides, the writer of our epistle, so intimately acquainted with every thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and, indeed, to the whole Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed to have mistaken the fact, relative to the materials of which the censer used on the great day of expiation was made, or to the place where it was deposited. How easily would those whom he addressed have detected his error, and been led, of course, to think lightly of his accuracy, when matters so obvious escaped his notice ! In short, all the objection against the account of our author is, that the Old Testament is silent in regard to the two particulars about the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was j(pv(Tovy, and that it was deposited in the ayia dy/wv. But surely silence f in such a case, is no contradiction; and the nature of the whole case is such, there can be no rational doubt that our author has made a correct statement. The want of correctness here, would have argued an ignorance on his part, which would have destroyed all his credit with those whom he addressed. If any apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, any one may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning the difficulties which have been made about it, and the charges of inac- curacy, or failure of memory, which have been made against the writer of our epistle, on account of the clause xp^f^ovv txovcra ^vjuiarripioy. 590 EXCURSUS XVII EXCURSUS XVII. Heb. IX. 4. — *Ev y (TTafxyoQ X9^^^ txovcra ro fiavruy koX y pnjj^oc Aaputy il fiXaarrjffciaaj koI at TrXaKeg rrjg Sia^r/Kijg But there is another difficulty, in regard to the phrase under consider- ation. It is said, 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Chron. v. 10, that " there was nothing in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb." This, no doubt, is true ; but our author is speaking, in Heb. ix. 4, of the tabernacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, and not of the temple built some five hundred years afterwards ; still less, of the second temple, which, after the burning of the first by Nebuchadnezzar, must have lacked even the tables of the testimony or law. These were probably destroyed at the time when the first temple was consumed ; since we have no authentic intelligence respecting them afterwards. It is probable, too, that the first temple lacked both the pot of manna, "and the rod of Aaron ; at least, we have no account of their being deposited in it. The probability is, that the ark, during its many removals by the Israelites after it was constructed, and in particular during its captivity by the Philistines, 1 Sam. iv. 11 ; v. 1 ; vi. 1. 21, was deprived of these sacred deposits ; for we hear no more concerning them. Be this as it may, our author is fully justified, when, in describing the tabernacle, he attributes to it what the Pentateuch does ; and that the pot of manna and Aaron s rod were laid up in the most holy place, and in the ark of the covencnt, mdiy be seen in Exod. xvi. 32 — 34. Num. xvii. 10; (xvii. 25.) In both these passages, the Hebrew runs thus : Laid up rD1)^\l *'iE)7, before the testimony ^ i. e. either before the ark containing the testimony; or (which is altogether more probable,) before the testimony itself i. e. the two tables which were in the ark. Consequently, fhey were laid up with the testimony, i. e. the two tables ; and the account given by our author is strictly correct. It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Moses that he is describing throughout. As this was patterned after that which Moses " had seen upon the mount," and was built by workmen who had particular Divine assistance, Exod. xxxvi. 1 , it was, of course, regarded by the Jews as the most perfect structure of all that had been erected for the worship of God. Perfect as it was, however, the apostle labours to show, that it was a mere shadow or image of the heavenly tabernacle, in which Jesus ministers. HEBREWS IX. 14. 591 EXCURSUS XVIII. Heb. IX. 14. — *Oc ^la TTvevixaTOQ alcjviov eavrov irpoaf/vsyKev &in»)ixov Aict wevfiaTog alwyiov is a difficult phrase, about the meaning of which a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some understand it of the Holy Spirit ; and some manuscripts and versions read ayiov instead of alwviov. But in what respect the Holy Spirit rendered the offering of Christ perfect, (a^w/xov,) it would be difficult to show from other parts of the Scriptures ; which contain, so far as I have been able to discover, no assertions of a doctrine analogous to this. Others, as Ernesti, Capell, Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, CarpzofF, &c. understand it of the Divine nature of Christ. But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the highest value, on account of the dignity of his person, in consequence of the higher nature which dwelt in him ; yet the sacred writers represent him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in his Divine, Heb. ii. 14. 17, 18. Col. i. 21, 22. Phil. ii. 6—8. Heb. x. 5. 10. 1 Pet. ii. 24. But, independently of this consideration, instances are" wanting satisfactorily to prove, that Trvevfia aytov, or alu)viovy when applied to Christ, designates simply his Divine nature as such. Others consider TrvEVfxa alu)piov as designating the idea of a victim, the sacrifice of which had perpetual efficacy to procure the pardon of sin ; which is the ground of the epithet, alwvioy. Thus Noesselt, in his essay on this passage, contained in his Opuscula. But in this case, no usus loquendi can be alleged, to justify such an interpretation. Others, as Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Jaspis, &c. consider irvevjia alu>viov as endless or immortal life, comparing it with ch. vii. 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable nature of the beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are mentioned in the pre- ceding verse. The antithesis would then be thus : "If mere perishable brutes., slain in sacrifice, effected external sanctification ; how much more shall the offering of Christ, endowed with eternal life, or, with an immortal spirit, purify the conscience," &c. To this view of the subject I was myself inclined, before I made special investigation of the word TTvevfia, as applied to Christ. In doing this, I found, beside the present instance, two other cases, in which it is pretty evidently applied to desig- nate his glorijied state, in the world of spirits, in distinction from his 592 EXCU11.SLS xvm. state of incarnation and humiliation. Thus, Rom. i. 3, 4, Kara irvtviia ayioxrvvriQ designates a state of distinction from Kara aa^iKa, the human nature of Christ, that was descended from David ; U aTripfxarog Aa/3t3, K'ara acipKa vlov Oeov ev Svyafiei, Kara irvtv^a. Kara Trvev^xa ajLujavvriQ here designates the condition, in which Christ was the exalted and powerful Son of God, vlov Qeov kv ^vvafuif compare Phil. ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9, 10 ; i. e. it is descriptive of that spiritual majesty, aynocrvvrjy *f)nj U^j or exaltation, which belongs to the Saviour in the heavenly world. So 1 Pet. iii. 18, ^avario^tiQ [Xjoiarog] fxev aapKi, i^woTronj^eiQ ^e TTvevpaTi, i. e. in his incarnate nature, subjected to sufferings and death ; in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or condition, enjoying happiness and glory. So in 1 Cor. xv. 45, the last Adam, i. e. Christ, is called iryevpa ^(jjoTToiovv, in distinction from the \pvx^ ^utaa attributed to the first Adam. This could not be because Christ had an immortal soul, and Adam had only a living animal soul ; for Adam too was immortal. It would seem, here, that irvevpa and ^'^'X'^ ho\h designate a spiritual or immortal nature ; but irvevpa here designates such a nature of a higher order ; and the antithesis is more fully made by J^iooiroiovv and iiwaay, life-giving and living. With these texts I am now inclined to believe the one in our verse is to be classed ; and that the sense is to be given to it, which I have just expressed, viz. in his eternal state or condition, i. e. his heavenly one, Christ presented his offering, &c. As to ^m, there is no difficulty in making such a translation of it. It is frequently used with the genitive in order to denote the quality, condition, circumstances, or means, that have relation to any thing or person; e. g. 2 Cor. iii. 11, Bia Bo^»/e, i. q. iy ^o^rj in the other clause of the verse, and in ver. 8, 9, and equivalent plainly to evdo^og. So Rom. ii. 27, ^ta ypafXfjLaTog, with the Scripture, i. e. harving the Scripture, ^la TrepLrofJirjg, with circum- cision, i. e. circumcised ; Rom. iv. 11, Bi' aKpoj3v(TTiag, uncircumcised ; Phil. i. 20, sire Bia (^u)rJQ sire dia Bavarov, whether living or dying. Compare also ^ta in Rom. xiv. 20 ; ch. viii. 25. Heb. xii. 1. See Wahl on am, No. 3, a. b. Matthise, § 580. e. In confirmation of this exegesis, it may be added, that in ver. 11, 12, the blood of Christ is expressly aliirmed to be offered by him in the heavenly sanctuary. If ver. 14 contains substantially a recognition oi the same or the like sentiment, (which it seems to do,) then ^la irvev- parog altoviov may well refer to the eternal spiritual nature or condition of the Saviour in glory, who presented himself, in the heavenly temple, HEBREWS IX. 28. 593 with such a nature, as a spotless offering to God, and procured that pardon and purification which the sinner needs. With this interpreta- tion Storr substantially accords, who renders ha TrvivixaroQ almdov by »* in dem Zustande der ewigen Herrlichkeit,'' or " kraft seines herr- lichen Zustandes," in the state of eternal glory, or by virtue of his glorious state. That Christ was himself both the offering and the priest who presented it, is plain from Heb. ix. 11 — 14, and Eph. v. 2. Heb. X. 10. Respecting a phrase so difficult as the above, much confidence would not be becoming. I have laid before the reader different interpretations ; and if he is dissatisfied with that which I have preferred, he can choose another that will give him more satisfaction. EXCURSUS XIX. Heb. IX. 28. — Oiiru) Kal 6 Xpiffrbg arra^ Trpoorfrtj^S^eJc, th to TroWiai/ avtyeyKslv ajuojorme. Vhe importance of the phrase, and the many constructions put upon it that are inconsistent with the usus loquendi of the sacred writers, render it desirable accurately to determine its meaning. To hear sin, then, is to suffer the punishment due to it, i. e. to take upon one's self the con- sequences of sin, or to subject one's self to its consequences. The phrase is sometimes used for exposure to the consequences of sin ; e. g. Lev. v. 17. 1, compare ver. 3 — 5 ; ch. vii. 18. To bear iniquity, ('^'ly Nt^3) means also, to be cut off from the congregation of God's people, Lev. XX. 17. Numb. ix. 13; it means, to die or perish, Numb, xviii. 22. 32. Exod. xxviii. 43. Lev. xxiv. 15, 16. So it is sometimes employed as a general expression, to designate any kind of sufferings borne or inflicted in consequence of sin ; as in Numb. xiv. 33, 34, where, in the thirty- third verse, Ye shall bear your whoredoms, means, Ye shall bear the consequences of them ; just as in ver. 34, Ye shall bear your iniquities, means, Ye shall bear or endure the consequences of them. Thus is the phrase employed where the subject in question is one's own sins. But, 2. To bear the sins of others, is to bear or endure the suffering or penalty due to them. So in Heb. ix. 26, ajuajormc means the conse- 2q 594 EXCURSUS XIX. quences of sin, or penalty due to it. In Lam. v. 7, Jeremiah represents the afflicted people of Israel as saying, " Our fathers have sinned, and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities," •')J^2D Dn^Jlji^. So in Ezek. xviii. 19, 20, to bear the iniquity of another, means, to die or perish on his account, ver. 20, compare ver. 17. Isa. liii. 4, he bore our distresses, i^]D2 ^^ vn, he carried for bore] our sorrows, ^T2i^^f2 ^2D T T "tt:' ■- -• •• : - - T is explained in ver. 5, by he was wounded for our transgressions, ^i^yti^SD v/TTDj he was smitten on account of ottr transgressions, !)yj]V\rO K3ip. So «if^9 means, to suffer, Prov. xix. 19. Micah vii. 9; as does the corresponding Greek word /3a<7ra^w, in Gal. v. 10, and 0£pw, in Heb. xiii. 13. 'Ava^e'pw has the same sense as 0£pw and (iaardCb), when used in such a connexion, and corresponds to the Hebrew K\^i and blD, So Peter says of Jesus, avrjveyKs — tuq afxapriag rifiuv, in his own body, on the cross, 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; to explain which he adds, by whose stripes ye are healed ; i. e. Jesus suffered the penalty due to our sins, in his own body, on the cross ; and, by hie sufferings, our obligation to the penalty ceases. The passage is quoted from Isa. liii. 4, 5, which has the same meaning as ch. liii. 11, 12 ; and here we have. He bore their sins, P2p] DJli^TJJ he bore [or carried] the sins of many, V^l D'>2'1~KlOn. A comparison of all these instances, (more might be adduced,) will serve to show how plain and uniform the scripture idiom is, in respect to the sense attached to the phrase bearing the sin either of one's self or of others. It always means, either " actual suffering of the consequences due to sin," or, " exposure to suffer them, obligation to suffer them." That ufxapriac, Heb. ix. 28, may mean, and does mean, the conse- quences of sin, or penalty of it, is plain, (1.) From the impossibility, that the passage here can have any other sense. The moral turpitude of our sins, Jesus did not take upon himself; nor remove it, (as it is in itself considered ;) but the consequences of them he prevented, by his own sufferings. (2.) The corresponding Hebrew words, n>^Z3n, ]'iy, and ^^ all mean, punishment or penalty of sin, as well as sin, or iniquity itself. The sentiment of the clause, then, clearly is, that Jesus, by his death, (which could take place but once,) endured the penalty that our sins deserved, or bore the sorrows due to us. But this general expression is not to be understood, as if the writer meant to say, with philosophical precision, that the sufferings of Jesus were in all respects, and considered in every point of view, an exact and specific quid pro quo, as it regards Hebrews x. 5. 595 the penalty threatened against sin. A guilty conscience ^ the Saviour had not ; eternal punishment, he did not suffer ; despair of deliverance, he did not entertain. It is altogether unnecessary to suppose that the writer meant to be understood here with metaphysical exactness. But, that vicarious suffering is here designated, seems to be an unavoidable conclusion, as well from the usus loquendi of the Scriptures, as from the nature of the argument through the whole of ch. ix. and x. EXCURSUS XX. Heb. X. 5,-—'LCj^a U KarnpTiau) fxoi. Ps. xl. 7. *h /^'•"IS DJlt^*, i- e. mine ears hast thou opened. But how could the LXX. render the Hebrew expression here, by (rwjjia Karrjpriaio i~ioi ? And how could the apostle follow them in this rendering ; and even build an argument on such a translation, in order to establish the proposition, that the blood of goats and bullocks could not avail to take away sin ? Questions, which have exceedingly per- plexed commentators, and over which most of them have chosen to pass in silence. It is, indeed, much better to be silent, than to speak that which is erroneous, or will mislead the unwary. Still the ingenious inquirer, who wishes to see every difficulty fairly met, is offended with silence on a subject of such a nature, and cannot well resist a secret inclination to attribute it. more to want of knowledge, or to want of candour, than to real prudence and discretion. At least, we ought freely to confess our ignorance where we feel it, and not affect to be profoundly wise about things of which we may not venture to speak, or are not able to speak, either to our own satisfaction, or to thai of others. Cappell, Ernesti, and some other critics, strive to maintain the pro- bability, that the Septuagint reading in Ps. xl. 7, was formerly wriov Karrjpriffd) p.oiy which by some accident has been changed, and the text of the apostle, in the New Testament, adapted to it. But of this there is no proof. Indeed, there is manifest proof that the apostle originally wrote awfxa in ver. 5, by a comparison with it of his expres- sion in ver. 10. 2q 2 596 EXCURSUS XX. The difficulty cannot be met, then, by a change of the text ; much less by such a change, when it is not authorised by any of the laws of sound criticism, and is against the context. Were it not that the Septuagint contains the expression crwua Karrjp- Tiau) }iot, I should be inclined to believe that it was merely a paren- thetic circumstance, thrown in by our author, in order to explain the object of his quotation. In sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight, says the personage who is speaking. But what is to take their place ? is the natural inquiry. What shall be substituted for them ? Uw^a KaTrjpriaio fioi, is the answer, i. e. my body, which I am to offer as a sacrifice, is to come in their place ; this will be a sacrifice acceptable, efficacious. In short, if the Septuagint did not contain the expression, we might conclude that the writer of the epistle added it in order to convey the sentiment of the whole passage in some such manner as the following: "In sacrifice and oblation I have no pleasure;" rny body hast thou adapted, viz. for oblation, i. e. as if the writer had said, " The speaker means, that his own body was to take the place 0/ sacri- fice and oblation." But as the Septuagint text now is, we are compelled to believe that the apostle has quoted it, and applied it to his purpose. Has he then made any substantial part of his argument to depend on the clause in question ? An important inquiry, which may go some way towards removing the difficulties that the clause presents. In ver. 8, 9, the writer presents the argument deduced from his quotation, in the following manner. " First, he says, sacrifice, and offering, and holocausts, and sin-offerings, thou hast no delight in, neither dost thou desire ; (which are offered agreeably to the require- ments of the law ;) next, he says, Lo, I come to do thy will ! He abolishes the first, then, in order to establish the second." That is, he sets aside the efficacy of ritual sacrifices and offerings, and establishes the efficacy of a Saviour's obedience unto death ; compare Phil. ii. 8. Now, jn this conclusion, there is nothing dependent on the clause o'w/'o KcirripTiffu) fxoL. The antithesis of legal offerings, is doing the ivill of God, ver. 9, viz. the obedience of the Saviour in offering up his body, ver. 20. This last verse describes, indeed, the manner in which the obedience in question was rendered. But the argument, as expressed in the eighth and ninth verses, is not made to depend on the manner of the obedience ; for the object of the writer here, is to show the HEBREWS X. 5. 597 nullity of the Levitical sacrifices for spiritual purposes, and the fact that the Old Testament discloses this, and intimates their abolition. I must regard, then, the use of awfua Karripnau) fioi by the apostle, as rather an incidental circumstanS, than as an essential one. He found it in the text of the Septuagint which he used. It was well adapted for the particular purpose he had in view ; as it turned the mind of the reader to Christ, as the true expiatory victim, rather than to the sacri- fices prescribed by the law. It was altogether accordant with the general tenor of the passage which he was citing, and the conclusion which he was to adduce from it. But he does not make (as we have seen) the force of his argument to depend upon it. Were this the fact, and were we to suppose (and we have no critical evidence for believing the contrary) that the Hebrew text stood, in his day, as it now stands ; it would be a case in point, to prove the extent to which the sacred writers have deemed it proper to employ the argumentum ad hominem, and adapt their reasonings to the modes of explaining the Scriptures practised by their readers. As it now is, I do not feel that much dependence can be placed on it, to establish a proposition of this nature ; for, on the whole, I must view the employment of the phrase, as found in the Septuagint, rather incidental^ than essential to the writer's pur- pose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the case before us, viz. that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all respects to adhere to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum rather than ad literam. Even o-wjua KarrjpTiau) fxoi may be brought within the general limits of an ad sensum quotation, as Storr has remarked ; for preparing a body, in this case, is preparmg it for an offering — to be devoted to the service of God. Now, this is a species of obedience of the highest nature. If a body were given to the Saviour, which he voluntarily devoted to death, Phil. ii. 8, then were his ears mdeed apened, or, he was truly obedient. The implication of the phrase o-wjua KarrjpTiffoj p.oi, in the connexion where it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim, instead of the legal sacrifices ; of course, a devotedness of the highest nature is implied. Ad sensum, then, in a general point of view, the text may be regarded as cited ; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the New Testament writers aim. One more difficulty, however, remains. It is alleged, that Ps. xl, cannot well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to David himself. How then could the writer of oir epistle appeal to it, for a proof that the obedience unto death, of the Messiah, was to accomplish 698 EXCURSUS XX. what the Jewish sacrifices could not, viz. a removal of the penalty due to sin ? That there are difficulties in the way of interpreting this psalm, as originally having had direct respect TO the Messiah, every inte^igent and candid reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1.) What was the deliverance from impending destruction, which Ps. xl. 2 — 3, [1, 2,] describes ? On what occasion was the song of gratitude for deliverance uttered ? ver. 4 — 6, [3 — 5.] (2.) How could the iniquities of him, " who knew no sin," take hold of him ? ver. 13. [12.] (3.) How could the Messiah anticipate such troubles, as are alluded to in ver. 12 — 14. [11 — 13;] and particularly, how can he, who, when suspended on the cross, prayed that his enemies might be forgiven, be supposed to have uttered such imprecations as are contained in ver. 15, 16. [14, 15] ? To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some have supposed, that the first and last parts of the psalm in question relate to David, while ver. 7 — 9. [6 — 8,] contain a prediction respecting the Messiah ; at least, that they are spoken concerning him. But it is not easy to conceive how more than one person can be spoken of throughout the psalm, it being all of the same tenor, and throughout appearing to be made up of words spoken by a suffering person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils, but was still exposed to many more. Others have maintained, that the whole psalm relates only to David ; and that consequently the writer of our epistle accommodates his argument to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, probably current at the time when he wrote. Among these are some, whose general views of theology are far from coinciding with those of the neological class of critics. But there is a difficulty in regard to this, which must be felt by every reflect- ing and sober-minded man. How could the apostle employ as sound and scriptural argument, adapted to prove the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical, but with- out any solid foundation ? And how could he appeal to it, as exhibiting the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only person whom it concerned ? If the Old Testament has no other relation to the Messiah, than what is built upon interpretations that are the offspring of fancy and ingenious allegory; then how can we show, that the proof of a Messiah deduced from it is any thing more than fanciful or allegorical ? And was it consistent with sound integrity, with sincere and upright regard to truth, to press the Hebrews with an argument, which the writer himself knew to have no solid basis ? Or if he did not know this, HEBREWS X. 5. 599 then in what light are we to regard bim, as an interpreter of Scripture, and a teacher of Christian principles ? Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it difficult to admit the opinion under examination, without abandoning some of the fundamental principles, on which our confidence in the real verity of the word of God rests. Nor does that scheme of interpretation, which admits a double sense of Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains so much of the psalm, as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal application to him ; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great saving of labour in investi- gation, and of perplexity and difficulty, might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient ! But the consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas ? And even this has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say, Aio te, Pyrrhej Romanos posse vincere ; but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God ? And if a literal sense, and an occult sense can, at one and the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed ; who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is ? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged ? By none that belong to human language ; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense attached to them. For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the funda- mental principles of interpretation, by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless ocean of ima- ginration and conjecture, without rudder or compass. If it be said, that the author of our epistle was inspired, and therefore he was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. xl. 7 — 9, [6 — 8 ;] the answer is obvious. The writer, in deducing his argument from these verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of them which his readers would recognize, and to which, he took it for granted, they would pro- bably consent. Otherwise, the argument could have contained nothing in it of a convincing nature to them ; as the whole of it must have rested, in their minds, upon the bare assertion and imagination of the writer. May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of accommo- dating the language of the Old Testament, in order to express the ""-'ter's own views ? Such cases are indeed frequent in the New Testa- 600 EXCURSUS XX. ment. God says by the prophet Hosea, " When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt," ch. xi. 1. Now, this is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, " This took place, so that this passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, Iva TrXj/pw^jj, k. t. \." Now, here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of events ; so that what is said of Israel, God's son in ancient times, might be affirmed of his Son Jesus, in later times, in a still higher sense, and in a similar manner. May not the writer of our epistle have accommodated the language of Ps. xl., in a similar v/ay ? May he not have merely expressed his own views in language borrowed from the Old Testament, without intending to aver, that (as it stands in the original Scriptures) it has the same meaning which he now gives to it? This would indeed relieve, in a great measure, the difficulties under which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the nature of the writer's argument seems to forl)id the admission of it. He had asserted (which was entirely opposed to the feelings and belief of most Jewish readers) that " the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin." What was the proof of this ? His own authority ; or that of the Jewish Scriptures ? Clearly he makes an appeal to the latter ; and argues, that, by plain implication, they teach the inefficacy of Jewish sacrifices, and the future rejection of them. Consequently, we cannot admit here a mere expression of the writer's own sentiments in language borrowed from the Old Testament. Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in regard to the subject under consideration ; which is, that Ps. xl. relates throughout to the Messiah. This is certainly a possible case. I mean that there is no part of this psalm which may not be interpreted so as to render its relation to the Messiah possible, without doing violence to the laws of language and interpretation. To advert to the objections suggested on page 398 : it may be replied to the first, that the enemies of the Saviour very often plotted against his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and that he, as often, escaped out of their hands until he voluntarily gave up himself to death. The thanksgivings, in the first part of Ps. xl., may relate to some or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of our epistle represents the psalm as spoken when the Messiah was elafpx^H^^"^ ^*^ '"^'^ '^offfxoy, coming, [i. e. about to come,] into the world, and therefore before his birth ; the answer is, that the phrase by no means implies, of necessity, that the Messiah uttered the sentiments here HEBREWS X. 5. 601 ascribed to him, before his incarnation, but during it. Eio-epx^A'^*'^?* entering, being entered, or when fie had entered into the world, he said, Qvaia, K. T. X. That the Saviour prayed to God, gave thanks, made sup- plications and deprecations, as men do, need not be proved to any reader of the evangelists. On what particular occasion in the Messiah's life, the words in Ps. xl. 7 — 9, were uttered, it is needless to inquire. Indeed, that they were ewer formally and ad literam uttered, it is quite needless to show; inasmuch as all which the psalmist intends by the expression of them is, that they should be descriptive of his true cha- racter ; which would be such, that we might well suppose him to utter them, or, that they would be appropriate to him. In a word, the psalmist represents the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to exhibit the true nature of the Messiah's character. The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. ' How could the sinless Messiah be represented as suffering for his own iniquities. Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of others might be laid upon him ; as the Scriptures plainly testify that they were, (1 Pet. ii. 24. Heb. ix. 28. Isa. liii. 4, 5. 12;) i. e. he might suffer on account of the sins of others, or in their stead ; but as to sins of his own, he had none to answer for. The whole strength of the objection, however, lies in the version of the word '^I^Ti^^ (Ps. xl. 13,) which the objector trans- lates my iniquities f sins, transgressions. But who that is well acquainted with the Hebrew idiom, does not know, that ]')^ means, punishment, calamity, misfortune, as well as iniquity j &c.? David, when he was chased away from Jerusalem by his rebel son, calls his calamity his ]S^, Perhaps the Lord, says he, will look fovourahly ''-?i^4, ^^ '"^V calamity t 2 Sam. xvi. 12 ; for his sin it was not, in this case. Compare Psalm xxxi. 11. Isa. v. 18. A Concordance will supply other cases, parti- cularly cases where the meaning is penalty, punishment. Analogous to the case of f)^ we have seen to be that of /li^tiSrT and ^^3* see on ch. ix. 28, Excursus xix. In Ps. xl. 13, then, '^ni^V, may, agreeably to the usus loquendi, be translated, calamities, distresses ; and that these came upon the Messiah /^^^^I'^li^rT,^ will not be doubted. So, in 2 Cor. v. 21, apapriav eTroiqire, i. e. God made Christ a sin offering, or, subjected him to calamity; and in Heb. ix. 26, aBirrimv ctp-apriac means, a removing of the calamitous consequences of sin. The third obj action may be very briefly answered. Nothing can be easier than to suppose the Messiah might, at any period of his public life, have anticipated severe trials, and have deprecated them ; as we 602 EXCURSUS XX. know full well, how strongly he deprecated his final suiferings when he was in the garden of Gethsemane. That he should formally and lite- rally use the identical words of the fortieth psalm, was not necessary ; but that he should have been in a condition, such as the language there describes, is all that is necessary to justify the application of the psalm to him. In regard to the last objection, which has respect to the imprecations contained in the latter part of Ps. xL, they may be, and probably are, viewed in a different light by different persons. Considered as simple maledictions, they would be unworthy of the psalmist, or of the Messiah. But as denunciations against the impenitent and persevering enemies of God and of David, or of Christ, they present themselves to the mind in a very different light. David did frequently utter denunciations against his enemies. So did Christ against his ; e. g. against the Scribes and Pharisees, against Jerusalem, and against the Jewish nation. Yet who will say, that this was for want of tenderness in him, or of benevolent feelings towards those who were his enemies ? No one can say this, who considers the whole of his character, as represented by the evangelists. If then he might, and did in fact, utter denunciations against his enemies and persecutors, he might be represented as doing this by 'the psalmist, without any error committed in so doing. The objections, then, do not appear to be of a conclusive nature, which are made to the application of the fortieth psalm to the Messiah. Still, I freely acknowledge, that had not the New Testament referred to this psalm, as descriptive of the work of the Messiah, I should have been satisfied, in general, with the application of it to David himself, or even to the people of Israel collectively considered. Yet a minute consider- ation of ver. 7, 8, [6, 7,] certainly might serve to suggest some difficulty, in respect to such an application. Obedience is there represented as the substitute for sacrifices. So the writer of our epistle understood it. And it is said to be written in the sacred volume, that this would be the case respecting the individual whose obedience is there described. Is this anywhere written respecting the obedience of David ? Is the obe- dience of the Jewish nation anywhere represented as a substitute for sacrifices ? Rather, did not a part of their obedience consist in offering them ? After all, however, the whole passage might, perhaps, be construed as merely affirming, that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice, and that this is so declared in other Scriptures. Compare 1 Sam. xv. 2 HEBREWS X. 5. 603 Ps. 1. 9, seq.; Isa. i. 11. seq. At least, this mode of interpretation must be admitted to be a possible one. Let us grant, then, what cannot fairly be denied, that the fortieth psalm, according to general laws of interpretation, might be applied to David. Is it not equally plain, that there is nothing in it which may not, without doing any violence to the laws of language, be applied to David's SoHf in a still higher and nobler sense ? After what has been suggested, in respect to this application, I shall venture to consider the application itself as possible. Here then is represented a case of the following kind. A psalm com- posed by an inspired writer, is (in itself considered, i. e. the words or diction being simply regarded,) capable of an application to David, or to the Son of David, the Messiah. To whom shall it be applied by us ? If there be nothing but simply the psalm itself to direct our interpre- tation, the answer must be, " To David ;*' for the natural application of the words of Scripture, (which in themselves are not necessarily predic- tions,) is to the persons in being when they were written. But if we have a good reason for making the application of them in a prophetic sense, to some future personage, then ought we to make such an appli- cation. Consequently, the question in respect to the application of the fortieth psalm depends on the fact, whether we have sufficient reason to construe it as prediction, i. e. as descriptive of a personage who was to appear at a future period, viz. of David's Son. In itself it is capable of such an explanation. Paul has actually made such an application of it. The nature of the case shows, too, that the Hebrews of that time were accustomed so to explain it ; for otherwise, the argument of the apostle would not have been admitted as of any force by his readers. Whence did the Hebrews derive such an interpretation ? Or, (which is of higher moment,) how could the apostle appeal to Ps. xl. 7, 8, for proof of the efficacy of Christ's obedience unto death, as well as of the in efficacy of ritual sacrifices ' This appeal, then, under such circumstances as show that the stress of his argument lies upon the meaning he gives to the passage of Scripture which he quotes, settles the question how the fortieth psalm is to be interpreted, with all those who admit the authority of the writer of our epistle, either as a teacher of Christian doctrine, or an expositor of the word of God. At all events, it cannot be shjown, that the fortieth psalm has no original relation to the Messiah. To show that it is capable of another interpretation, is effecting nothing. The second psalm, and all other psalms relating to Christ, borrow their 604 HEBREWS X. 5. imagery — their costume, from the times when they were written, and the persons, manners, and customs then existing ; and of course, in a greater or less degree, appear at first view to relate only to them. In describ- ing the future King of the Jews, the writers of ancient times would natu- rally borrow their imagery from the kings of that day. But to affirm, that because they did this, they had reference, and could have reference, only to the kings of their times, would be a position as little consistent with the principles of language and interpretation, as it is with the numerous declarations of the writers of the New Testament. It will be easily perceived, that in admitting the possibility of applying the 40th Psalm to David, I have admitted that verses 7 and 8 may be interpreted, as expressing merely the general principle, that obedience is better than sacrijices. But if we suppose, with the writer of our epistle, that David, when he composed this psalm, meant to intimate, that this obedience was to be " obedience unto death, even the death of the cross," then must it follow, of course, that the psalm is altogether inap- plicable to David ; for neither his obedience nor death, nor that of any other person, (the Messiah excepted,) could supersede the ritual of the Mosaic law, and prepare the way for its abolition. Supposing, then, the apostle to have rightly interpreted the words of Ps. xl., (and who shall correct his exegesis ?) the impropriety of applying the psalm to David is plain ; and the propriety of referring it to the Messiah needs no farther vindication. J. BILLINn, IINTEK ANO STKItKOTTTPKB, -WOKING, SUErtlY. UNIVEESITY OF CALIFOENIA LIBRAEY, BERKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in demand may be renewed if application is made before expiration of loan period. AUG 9 mi 1 20KG'58V^J ^^^cuny mtsm 8%'Stjji^ REC'D LD APR 2 8 1962 75m-8,'31 YC 4G958 S? UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY