| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP 
EXERCITATION THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 1. The canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2. Notation of the word hn,q;, “kaneh;” a measuring reed; the beam of a balance. 3. Thence kanw>n, of the same signification. 4. Metaphorically a moral rule — “Rectum” and” canon,” how far the same — The Scripture a rule — Canonical. 5. The antiquity of that appellation. 6. The canon of the Scripture. 7. What required to render a book canonical — All books of the holy Scripture equal as to their divine original. 8. Jews’ distinction of the books of the Old Testament, as to the manner of their writing, disproved. 9. All equally canonical — No book canonical of a second sort or degree. 10. The Epistle to the Hebrews canonical. 11. Opposed by heretics of old. 12. Not received into the Latin church until the days of Jerome. 13. Proved against Baronius. 14. Not rejected by any of that church; 15. Only not publicly approved — The church of Rome not the sole proposer of books canonical. 16. Occasions of its non-admittance at Rome — Boldness of some in rejecting and corrupting the Scripture. 17. By whom this Epistle opposed of late. 18. The objection of the uncertainty of the penman answered. 19. Citations out of the Old Testament not found therein — Answer. 20. Citations not to his purpose — Answer. 21. Countenance to old heresies — Answer. 22. General heads of arguments to prove its canonical authority — Characters to discover between books of divine inspiration and others — Gnw>mh — Fra>sewv carakth>r — Proai>resiv. 23. The general argument of books truly canonical. 24. Subject-matter; 25. Design; 26. Style. 27. Of the style of the sacred writers. 28. Mistakes of many about it. 29. The nature of eloquence. 30. Excellency of Scripture style; 31. Energy; 32. Authority; and 33. Efficacy. 34. Tradition concerning the authority of this Epistle — Not justly liable to any exceptions — 35. From the author; 36. Circumstances; 37. Subject-matter; 38. Style. 39. Testimonies. 40. Conclusion. 1. THE canonical authority of the Epistle unto the Hebrews having been by some called into question, we must in our entrance declare both what it is which we intend thereby, as also the clear interest of this Epistle therein; for this is the foundation of all those ensuing discourses from it and of that exposition of it which we intend. 2. The Greek word kanw>n , which gives rise unto that term “canonical,” seems to be derived from the Hebrew hn,q; , “kaneh:” and this, as it sometimes denotes an aromatical cane that contained spices in it, used in the worship of God (as Isaiah 43:24, hn,q; t;yniq;Aalo , “Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with silver;” for this bwOFjæ hn,q; , “precious cane,” growing not in their own country, was brought from afar off, Jeremiah 6:20); so in general it signifies any reed whatever, 1 Kings 14:15, Isaiah 42:3: whence a multitude of fierce and wicked men, compared to the devouring crocodile, whose lurking-place is in the canes or reeds, are termed hn,q; tYæjæ , “The beasts of the reeds,” Psalm 68:30. Particularly, it signifies a reed made into an instrument wherewith they measured their buildings, containing six cubits in length, Ezekiel 40:7; Ezekiel 42:16; and hence indefinitely it is taken for a rule or a measure. Besides, it signifies the “jugum,” or “scapus,” or beam, with the tongue, of a balance, keeping the poise of the scales equal, and discovering the rectitude or declension thereof: Isaiah 46:6, Wlqov]yi hn,Q;bæ ãs,k, , “They weigh silver on the cane,” — that is, saith the Targum, aynzamb , “in the balance;” the supporter and director of the scales being put for the whole. The rabbins call it µynzam lç hnq , “The reed of the scales,” — that which tries, and weighs, and gives every thing its just moment. 3. And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word kanw>n , “canon.” So the scholiast on that of Aristophanes, Kai< kano>nav ejxoi>sousi , kai< ph>ceiv ejpw~n , f1 tells us that kanw>n is kuri>wv to< ejpa>nw th~v truta>nhv o[n kai< eijv ijso>that tau>thn a]gon , “properly that which is over the scales, bringing them” (and the things weighed in them) “to equality;” the very same with the Hebrew hn,q; , from which it is derived. So Varinus tells us that it is properly the “tongue in the balance,” and in use me>tron ajdia>yeuston . Thus Aristotle says, Tw~| eujqei kai< aujto< kai< ka>mpulon ginw>skomen , krith Without this no book or writing can by any means, any acceptation or approbation of the church, any usefulness, any similitude of style or manner of writing unto the books that are so, any conformity in matter or doctrine to them, have an interest in that authority that should lay a foundation for its reception into the canon. It is the impress of the authority of God himself on any writing, or its proceeding immediately from him, that is sufficient for this purpose. Neither yet will this alone suffice to render any revelation or writing absolutely canonical in the sense explained. There may be an especial revelation from God, or a writing by his inspiration, like that sent by Elijah unto Jehoram the king of Judah, 2 Chronicles 21:12, which being referred only unto some particular occasion, and having thence authority for some especial end and purpose, yet being not designed for a rule of faith and obedience unto the church, may not belong unto the canon of the Scripture. But when unto the original of divine inspiration this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the catholic, standing use and instruction of the church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and completely canonical. 8. The Jews of later ages assign some difference among the books of the Old Testament as to their spring and original, or manner of revelation, though they make none as to their being all canonical. The Book of the Law they assign unto a peculiar manner of revelation, which they call hp la hp or µynp la µynp , “mouth to mouth,” or “face to face,” which they gather from Numbers 12:8; whereof afterwards. Others of them they affirm to proceed from hawbn , or the “gift of prophecy:” whereof as they make many kinds or degrees, taken from the different means used by God in the application of himself unto them, belonging to the polutropi>a of divine revelation, mentioned by the apostle, Hebrews 1:1, so they divide those books into two parts, namely, the µynçar µyaybn , or “former Prophets,” containing most of the historical books after the end of the Law; and µyaybn µynwrja , the “latter Prophets,” wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called. The original of the remainder of them they ascribe unto çwdqh jwr or “inspiration by the Holy Ghost,” calling them peculiarly µybwtk , “written,” by that inspiration; as though the whole canon and system of the books were not hbwtk , the “scripture” or writing, and zeopneusti>a , or “divine inspiration,” the only means of their writing. But they do herein as in many other things.
The distribution of the books of the Old Testament into the Law, Psalms, and Prophets, was very ancient in their church. We have mention of it Luke 24:44: Ta< gegramme>na ejn tw~| No>mw| Mwse>wv , kai< Profh>taiv , kai< Yalmoi~v? — “That are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms;” that is, in the whole canonical Scripture.
And evident it is that this distribution is taken from the subject-matter of those principal parts of it. This reason of that distribution, which they have by tradition, they not knowing or neglecting, have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of revelation, and east the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased; as is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the µybwtk , “Kethubim,”or “Hagiographa,” which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that reigned distinction and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture, as to their spring and original. St Peter calls the whole, Profhtiko So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of in the communication of his mind and will unto any of the prophets or penmen of the Scripture, it was this qeopneusti>a , and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto the church. And thus the foundation of the canonical authority of the books of the Scripture is absolutely the same in and unto them all, without the least variety, either from any difference in kind or degree. 9. The same is their condition as to their being canonical; they are all equally so. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously; and therefore sometimes call books canonical that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church’s faith and obedience. Thus the Constantinopolitan council in Trulla confirms the canons both of the synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could not be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open con-tradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture. “Hoc etiam,” say they, “fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel allis earum partium episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum anniversarii dies celebrantur.” They speak dubiously concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same Epiphanius” testifies of the epistles of Clemens. But as the books which that synod added to the canon of Laodicea are rejected by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Hilarius, Gregorius Nazianzen, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregorius Magnus, and others; so their reading and citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners, and not for the confirmation of the faith: even as St Paul cited an iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Corinthians 15:33; an hemistichium out of Aratus, Acts 17:28; and a whole hexameter out of Epimenides, Titus 1:12. “Non sunt canonici, sed leguntur catechumenis,” saith Athanasius; — “They are not canonical, but are only read to the catechumeni.” And Jerome saith, the, church reads them “ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmaudam,” — “for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any points of faith.” But although some books truly canonical were of old amongst some ejn ajmfile>ktw| , as Epiphanius speaks, — doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certainly ajpo>krufa and rejectitious; yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice can give any countenance to an apprehension of a second or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accruing unto it, as hath been showed, merely from its divine inspiration, and being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto the church, whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have, yet if it have not the properties mentioned of divine inspiration and confirmation, it differs in the whole kind, and not in degrees only, from all those that have them; so that it can be no part regulae regulantis, but regulatae at the best, not having aujtopisti>an , or a “self-credibility” on its own account, or aujqentei>an , a “self-sufficing authority,” but is truth only materially, by virtue of its analogy unto that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly so. And this was well observed by Lindanus. “Impio,” saith he, “sacrilegio se contaminant qui in Scripturarum Christiana-rum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare; quod unam eandemque Spiritus Sancti vocem, impio humanae stultitiae discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, et disturbare auctoritatis classes;” — “They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege who endeavor to bring in, as it were, divers degrees into the body of the Scriptures; for by the impious discretion of human folly, they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal authority.” As, then, whatever difference there may be as to the subject-matter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books that, being written by divine inspiration, are given out for the church’s rule, they are all equal as to their canonical authority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so, whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writings may have, it can no way give them any interest in that whose formal reason they are not concerned in. 10. In the sense explained, we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be canonical, that is, properly and strictly so, and of the number of them which the ancients called gnh>sia , ejndia>qhka , kaqolika> , ajnamfi>lekta , and oJmologou>mena , every way genuine and catholic: in the confirmation whereof, we shall first declare by whom it hath been opposed or questioned, and then what reasons they pretend for their so doing; which being removed out of our way, the arguments whereby the truth of our assertion is evinced shall be insisted on. 11. We need not much insist on their madness who of old, with a sacrilegious licentiousness, rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased. The Ebionites not only rejected all the epistles of Paul, but also reviled his person as a Greek and an apostate, as Irenseus and Epiphanius inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helcesaitae in Eusebiua. Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy and Titus, as Epiphanius and Jerome assure us, who adds unto him Basilides. And Theodoret, as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews, joins unto them some of the Arians also. Now, though the folly of those sacrilegious persons be easy to be repelled, as it is done by Petrus Cluniensis, yet Jerome hath given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein. “Si quidem,” saith he, “redderent causas cur eas apostoli non putant, tentaremus aliquid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori; nuuc vero cum haeretica auctoritate pronunciant et dicunt, illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est, ea auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescant falsa simulare.” They did not so much as plead or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these epistles, but did it upon their own head and authority; so they deserve neither answer nor consideration. 12. It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time, though not rejected by, yet not received in the church of Rome. Eusebius informs us that Caius, a presbyter of that church, whom he much commends for his learning and piety, admitted but of thirteen epistles of St Paul, rejecting that unto the Hebrews; as Photius also affirms. And the same Photius acquaints us with the same judgment of Hippolytus, another eminent member of that church: Le>gei , saith he, de< a]lla ta> tina th~v ajcrizei>av leipo>mena , kai< o[ti hJ pro He himself evidently admits the Epistle to be canonical, and confirms it by the testimonies of Clemens, Origen, and others. What would it advantage him, or the cause which some pretend he favored, by reporting the opposition of others to a part of divine writ which himself accepted?
Besides, they were not the Arians of the first rank or edition (for an inclination unto whom Eusebius is suspected), but some of their offspring, which fell out into such sacrilegious opinions and practices as the first leaders of them owned not, that are accused in this matter. Much less can he be thought to design the reproach of the Roman church. Nay, these answers are inconsistent, as any one may perceive. He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in compliance with the Arians and the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected, and on whose authority his intention must be founded. But indeed his words plainly manifest that he gives us a naked account of matter of fact, without either prejudice or design. It is yet more incredible that Jerome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on by Eusebius. That he was the most eminently learned and knowing person of the Roman or Latin church in those days will, I suppose, not be greatly questioned. Now, to suppose that he knew not the customs, opinions, and practice, of that church, but Would suffer himself to be imposed on by a stranger, destitute of those advantages which he had to come unto an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides, he doth not anywhere speak as one that reported the words and judgment, of another, but in three or four places expressly affirms it as of his own knowledge; while, at the same time, in opposition thereunto, he contends that it was received by all other churches in the world, and all writers from the days of the apostles. 15. Neither yet doth it appear, from any thing delivered by Caius, Hippolytus, Eusebius, or Jerome, that the Latin church did ever reject this Epistle; yea, we shall find that many amongst them, even in those days, reckoned it unto the canon of the Scripture, and owned St Paul as the penman of it. Eusebius himself acknowledges that Clemens useth sundry testimonies out of it in his epistle “ ad Corinthios;” and others also there were concurring with his judgment therein. But these two things I allow, on the testimonies insisted on: — (1.) That sundry particular persons of note and esteem in the Roman church owned not the canonical authority of this Epistle, as not esteeming it written by St Paul. (2.) The church itself had not before the days of Jerome made any public judgment about the author or authority of this Epistle, nor given any testimony unto them; for it seems utterly impossible that, if any such judgment had passed or testimony been given, Jerome, living in the midst of that church, should know nothing of it, but so often affirm the contrary without hesitation. And this undeniably evinceth the injustice of some men’s pretensions, that the Roman church is the only proposer of canonical Scripture, and that upon the authority of her proposal alone it is to be received. Four hundred years were past before she herself publicly received this Epistle, or read it in her assemblies; so far was she from having proposed it unto others. And yet all this while it was admitted and received by all other churches in the world, as Jerome testifies, and that from the days of the apostles; whose judgment the Roman church itself at length submitted unto. 16. No impeachment, then, of the authority of this Epistle can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman church, it being evinced to be so by the concurrent suffrage and testimony of all ether churches in the world from the days of the apostles; as we shall afterwards more fully declare. Neither are the occasions of this hesitation of the western church obscure. The Epistle was written, it may be, in Rome; at least it was written in some part of Italy, chap. 13:24. There, no doubt, it was seen, and, it may be, copied out before its sending, by some who used to accompany the apostle, as Clemens; who, as we have showed, not long after mentioned divers things contained in it. The original was, without question, speedily sent into Judea unto the Hebrews, to whom it was written and directed; as were all others of the epistles of the same apostle unto those churches that were immediately intended and concerned in them. That copies of it were by them also communicated unto their brethren in the east, equally concerned in it with themselves, cannot be doubted; unless we will suppose them grossly negligent in their duty towards God and man, which we have no reason to do. But the churches of the Hebrews living at that time, and for some while after, if not in a separation, yet in a distinction, by reason of some peculiar observances, from the churches of the Gentiles, especially those of the west, they were not, it may be, very forward in communicating this Epistle unto them; being written, as they supposed, about an especial concernment of their own. By this means this Epistle seems to have been kept much within the compass of the churches of the Jews until after the destruction of the temple, when, by their dispersion and coalescency with other churches in the east, it came to be generally received amongst them; and “non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiis et Graeci sermonis scriptoribus,” as Jerome speaks. But the Latin church, having lost that advantage of receiving it upon its first writing, — it may be, also, upon the consideration of the removal of its peculiar argument upon the final destruction of the whole Judaical church and worship, — was somewhat slow in their inquiry after it. Those that succeeded in that church, it is not unlikely, had their scruples increased, because they found it not in common use amongst their predecessors, like to the rest of St Paul’s Epistles, not considering the occasion thereof. Add hereunto that by that time it had gradually made its progress in its return into the west, where it was first written, and, attended with the suffrage of all the eastern churches, begun to evince its own authority, sundry persons, who were wrangling about peculiar opinions and practices of their own, began to seek advantages from some expressions in it. So, in particular, did the Novatians and the Donatists. This might possibly increase the scruple amongst the orthodox, and make them wary in their admission of that authority which they found pleaded against them. And well was it for them that the opinions about which they disagreed with their adversaries were according unto truth, seeing it may justly be feared that some then would have made them their rule and standard in their reception or rejection of this Epistle; for it was no new thing for the orthodox themselves to make bold sometimes with the Scripture, if they supposed it to run cross unto their conceptions. So Epiphanius informs us in Ancorat.: jAlla< kai< e]klause , ka~|ta ejn tw~| kata< Louka~n eujaggeli>w| ejn toi~v ajdiorqw>toiv ajntigra>foiv , kai< ke>crhtai th~| marturi>a| oJ a[giov Eijrhnai~ov ejn tw~| kata< aiJre>sewn , pro The reasons they make use of to justify themselves in their conjectures are amassed together by Erasmus in his note on the 24th verse of the last chapter of it. But because he mixeth together the arguments that he insists on to prove St Paul not to have been the penman of it rind the exceptions he puts in unto its canonical authority, which are things of a diverse consideration, I shall separate them, and first take out those that seem absolutely to impeach its authority, leaving them that oppose its penman to our ensuing discourse on that question in particular. 18. The first thing generally pleaded is, the uncertainty of its author or penman. “Sola omniurn Pauli nomen non praefert,” saith Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretense is we shall afterwards fully manifest.
At present I shall only show that it is, in general, of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certainly known, may indeed give some light into the nature and authority of it. When it is confessed that the penman of any book was qeo>pneustov , or “divinely inspired,” and that by him it was written for the use of the church, there can be no question of its authority. But this last, of his design directed by the Holy Ghost, must be no less known than the former; for a man may write one book by inspiration, and others by a fallible, human judgment, as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again; when the penman of any writing pretending unto divine authority is not esteemed, nor doth manifest himself in any thing to have been, uJto< Pneu>matov aJgi>ou fero>menov , “immediately acted by the Holy Ghost,” the writing itself must needs be liable unto just exception. Wherefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation unto the canon of the Scripture may be thence received; but when this is doubtful, nothing satisfactory can thence on either side be concluded. And therefore it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to keep the names of the penmen of many parts of the Scripture in everlasting obscurity; for he borrows no countenance or authority, unto any thing that proceeds by inspiration from himself, from the names of men.
There is not, then, the least strength in this exception; for be it granted that we are altogether uncertain who was the penman of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of its authority can thence be taken, unless it can be proved that he was not divinely inspired. But yet, to show the insufficiency, every way, of this objection, we shall abundantly evince that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false, the penman of this Epistle being as well and certainly known as those of any portions of Scripture whatever that are ajnepi>grafa , some whereof were never doubted nor called into question. And at least we shall so far evince St Paul to have been the author of it, as, although we shall not from thence take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it hath itself been called into question, yet, to render an objection from the uncertainty of its author altogether unreasonable. 19. The remaining objections are more particular and direct to their purpose by whom they are pleaded; as, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related in the 11th chapter; and that, in particular, in chap. 12:21, where he affirms that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that appeared unto him, said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” This place Erasmus supposeth Jerome to have intended when he says that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty; for, first, he would refer the place to Moses’ sight of the Angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, “Dixit saltem facto;” though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all, “Vel forte apostolus alia utitur litera quam nos non habemus;” — “Or, it may be, the apostle used another text, that we have not.” But there is no need of any of these evasions. The author quotes no book nor testimony of the Old Testament, but only relates a matter of fact, and one circumstance of it, which doubtless he had by divine revelation, whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is originally recorded.
Thus in the beginning of the Chronicles, sundry particular stories (as that about the children of Ephraim, chap. 7:20-22), nowhere before written, are reported from the same infallible directions that others of the same time were written withal when they were omitted. And it is an uncouth way of proving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths that he could no otherwise be acquainted withal. Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by divine inspiration to mention things recorded in other stories whose truth is unquestionable; as those are related in chap. 11. 20. It seems to be of more importance that, if the objectors may be believed, the writer of this Epistle citeth testimonies out of the Old Testament that are no ways to his purpose, nor at all prove the matter that he produceth them for, discovering at least that he wrote with a fallible spirit, if not also that he dealt scarcely bond fide in handling the cause which he undertook. Cajetan insists on that of the first chapter, verse 5, “I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be unto me a Son,” taken from Samuel 7:14, or 1 Chronicles 17:13; which words, as he supposeth, no way belong unto that in whose confirmation they are produced by the author of this Epistle. Erasmus insists upon his testimony in chap. 2:6, produced out of Psalm 8:4,5; which, as he saith, is urged to the direct contrary of the intention of the psalmist and scope of the words.
Enjedinus insists on the same places and others.
Now, two things must be supposed, to give countenance unto this objection: — First, That those who make it do better understand the meaning and importance of the testimonies so produced out of the Old Testament than he did by whom they are here alleged. This is the foundation of this exception; which if once admitted, it may be easily imagined how able some men will quickly think themselves to question other allegations in the New Testament, and thereby render the authority of the whole dubious. They must, I say, take upon themselves to know the true meaning of them, and that in the uttermost extent of signification and intention, as given out by the Holy Ghost, before they can charge their misapplication on this author. How vain, unjust, arrogant, and presumptuous, this supposition is, needs little labor to demonstrate. The understandings of men are a very sorry measure of the truth, with the whole sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost in every place of Scripture. Nay, it may much more rationally be supposed, that though we all know enough of the mind and will of God in the whole Scripture to guide and regulate our faith and obedience, yet that we are rather ignorant of his utmost intention in any place than that we know it in all. There is a depth and breadth in every word of God, because his, which we are not able to fathom and compass to the utmost; it being enough for us that we may infallibly apprehend so much of his mind and will as is indispensably necessary for us to the obedience that he requires at our hands. An humble, reverential consideration of all, indeed almost any, of the testimonies alleged in the New Testament out of the Old, is sufficient to evince the truth of this consideration. “We know but in part, and we prophesy in part,” 1 Corinthians 8:9. “Quantum est quod nescimus!” — “How much is it that we know not!” Or, as Job speaks, rbæD; Åm,V,Ahmæ , — “How small is the word that we understand of God!” chap. 26:14. One says well, “Est sacra Scriptura veluti fons quidam, in bono terrae loco scaturiens, quem quo altius foderis, eo magis exuberantem invenies; ita quo diligentius sacram Scripturam interpretaris, eo abundantiores aquae vivae venas reperies,” Brent. Hom. 36, in 1 Samuel 11. That objection, then, must needs be very weak whose fundamental strength consists in so vain a presumption. Again, They must take it for granted that they are aforehand fully acquainted with the particular intention of the author in the assertions which he produceth these testimonies in the confirmation of; and with all the ways of arguing and pressing principles of faith, used by men writing by divine inspiration.
Neither is this supposition less rash or presumptuous than the former.
Men who bring their own hypotheses and preconceived senses unto the Scripture, with a desire to have them confirmed, are apt to make such conclusions. Those that come with humility and reverence of His majesty with whom they have to do, to learn from him his mind and will therein, whatever he shall thereby reveal so to be, will have other thoughts and apprehensions. Let men but suffer the testimonies and assertions, whose unsuitableness is pretended, to explain one another, and the agreement will quickly appear; and the worst that will ensue will be only the emergence of a sense from them which perhaps they understood not in either of them singly or separately considered. Thus infirm on all accounts is this objection.
For the instances themselves, some light will be given unto them from what we shall afterwards discourse of the author’s ways and principles, that he proceeds upon in his citations of testimonies out of the Old Testament; and, in particular, in our exposition of the places themselves, we shall manifest that his application of them is every way suitable to the very letter of the text and the manifest intention of the Holy Ghost. So false and unjust, as well as rash and presumptuous, is this objection. 21. Neither is there any more real weight in that which Erasmus in the next place objects, — namely, that some things in it seem to give countenance unto some exploded opinions of ancient heretics; whereof he gives us a double instance. First, “Quod velum separans sanctum sanctorum interpretatur coelum;” — “That he interprets the veil separating the most holy place to be heaven:” which indeed he neither doth (but only affirms that the most; holy place in the tabernacle was a type or figure of heaven itself), nor, if he should have so done, had he given the least countenance unto the fondness of the Manicbees, whom I suppose he intendeth; his whole discourse perfectly exploding their abominations. His other instance is in that vexed place, chap. 6:4-8, favoring, as he pretends, the Novatians, denying recovery by repentance unto them who had fallen into sin after baptism. But the incompetency of this objection, arising merely from their ignorance of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost that made it, as to the end for which it was used, hath been demonstrated by many of old and late. And, the Lord assisting, in our exposition of that place we shall show that it is so far from giving countenance unto any error or mistake which any man may fall into contrary to the gospel, that a more plain, familiar, and wholesome commination is hardly to be found in the whole book of God.
And this is the sum of what I can meet withal that is objected against the canonical authority of this Epistle; which how little it amounts unto, beyond an evidence of men’s willingness to lay hold on slight occasions to vent their curiosities and conceptions, the reader that is godly and wise will quickly perceive. 22. Having removed these objections out of our way, we shall now proceed to demonstrate the canonical authority of this Epistle, in the strict and proper sense at large before declared. Now, the sum of what we shall plead in this cause amounts to this, that, whereas there are many tekmh>ria , or infallible evidences, of any writings being given by divine inspiration, and sundry arguments whereby books or writings ungroundedly pretending to that original may be disproved, of the former, there is not one that is not applicable unto this Epistle, nor is it obnoxious unto any one of the latter sort. Of what nature in general that evidence is which is given unto the divine original of the Scripture by the characters thereof implanted in it, or other testimony given unto it, or what is the assurance of mind concerning it which thereupon we are furnished withal, belongs not unto our present inquiry. That which we undertake is only to manifest that the interest in them of this Epistle, and its immunity from rational exceptions, is equal unto, and no less conspicuous than, that of any other portion of holy writ whatever; so that it stands upon the same basis with the whole, which at present we suppose finn and unmovable.
Eusebius, who, after Melito, Caius, Clemens, and Origen, made a very accurate inquiry after the books unquestionably canonical, gives us three notes of distinction between them that are so and others, namely, (1.) Fra>sewv carakth>r , the character or manner of phrase or speech; (2.) Gnw>mh , the sentence or suhject-matter treated of; and, (3.) Proai>resiv , the purpose and design of the writer: and they are all of great importance, and to be considered by us in this matter.
But because others of like moment may be added unto them, and are used by others of the ancients to the same end, we shall insist upon them all in that order which seems most natural unto them, yet so as that they may be all referred unto those general heads by him proposed. 23. Two things there are that belong to the gnw>mh , or sentence of this Epistle, — first, its general argument; and, secondly, the particular subject-matter treated of in it. These seem to be designed thereby. Now, the general argument of this Epistle is the same with that of the whole Scripture besides; that is, a revelation of the will of God as to the faith and obedience of the church; and this holy, heavenly, and divine, — answering the wisdom, truth, and sovereignty, of him from whom it doth proceed.
Hence they are called Lo>gia tou~ Qeou~ , “The oracles of God,” Romans 3:2, or the infallible revelation of his will; and JRh>mata th~v zwh~v aijwni>ou , John 6:68, “The words of eternal life;” for that, in the name of God, they treat about. And St Paul tells us that the argument of the gospel is “wisdom,” but “not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of it,” who are destroyed, done away, and made useless by it, — that is, the chief leaders of human wisdom and science, — 1 Corinthians 2:6: but it is sofi>a Qeou~ ejn musthri>w| , hJ ajpokekrumme>nh , etc., — “the mysterious wisdom of God, that was hidden from them,” ver. 7; things of his own mere revelation from his sovereign will and pleasure, with a stamp and impress of his goodness and wisdom upon them, quite of another nature than any thing that the choicest wisdom of the princes of this world can reach or attain unto. And such is the argument of this Epistle: it treats of things which “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they,” by any natural means, ever “entered into the heart of man,” and that in absolute harmony with all other unquestionable revelations of the will of God.
Now, if the immediate original hereof be not from God, — that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, — then it must be either the invention of some man, spinning the whole web and frame of it out of his own imagination, or from his diligence in framing and composing of it from a system of principles collected out of other writings of divine revelation.
The first will not be pretended.
Two things absolutely free it from suffering under any such suspicion:
First, the nature of its argument, treating, as was said, of such things as “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man.” The deity, offices, sacrifice, mediation, and grace, of Jesus Christ, are not things that can have any foundation in the invention and imagination of man; yea, being revealed by God, they lie in a direct contradiction unto all that naturally is esteemed wise or perfect, Corinthians 1:18-23. They exceed the sphere of natural comprehension, and are destructive of the principles which it frameth unto itself for the compassing of those ends whereunto they are designed.
Nor is it liable to be esteemed of the other extract, or the diligence and wisdom of man in collecting it from other books of divine revelation; which alone with any color of reason can be pretended. Human diligence, regulated by what is elsewhere revealed of God, is human still; and can never free itself from those inseparable attendancies which will manifest itself so to be; for suppose a man may compose a writing wherein every proposition in itself shall be true, and the whole in its contexture materially every way answerable unto the truth (which yet must be accidental as to the principle of his wisdom, understanding, ability, and diligence, by whom it is composed, they being no way able to give that effect certainly and infallibly unto it), yet there will never be wanting that in it whereby it may be discerned from an immediate effect and product of divine wisdom and understanding. Take but the writings of any wise man, who, from his own ability and invention, hath declared any science in them, and allow his discovery of it to be the absolute, complete rule of that science, so that nothing beyond or beside what he hath written about it is true or certain, nor any thing else, but as it hath conformity to or coincidence with what he hath written, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for any man so to treat of that subject from his writings as not to leave sufficient characters upon his own to difference them from his original and pattern; for suppose him to have in all things attained the perfect sense of his guide, — which yet, it may be, until all words are freed from their ambiguity, will be impossible for any one to do, — yet still there will remain upon it such an impression of the genius and fancy wherein the rule was first framed as the follower cannot express. And how much more will there be so in that which, both for matter and words also, proceeds from the sovereign will and wisdom of God! Can it be supposed, that any man should collect, by his own industry and diligence, a writing out of that which is given by Him, and regulated thereby, that should absolutely express those infinite perfections of his nature which shine forth in that which is immediately from himself? For that any writing should be pretended to be undiscernible from them given by divine inspiration, it is not enough that the matter of it be universally true, and that truth no other but what is contained in other parts of Scripture, but it must also have those other tekmh>ria or characters of a divine original which we shall in our progress discover in this Epistle, as in other books of the holy Scripture; for it is not behind the very choicest of them.
And the truth of this consideration is demonstrated in the instances of every one of those writings which may probably be concluded to have the nearest affinity and similitude unto those of divine inspiration, from the greatness and urgency of their plea to be admitted into that series and order. These are the books commonly called Apocrypha. Not one of them is there wherein human diligence doth not discover itself to be its fountain and spring. Did this Epistle proceed from the same root and principle, whence comes it to pass that it nowhere puts itself forth unto a discovery and conviction? For that it doth not so we shall afterwards fully declare.
Besides, to close this consideration, the design of the writer of this Epistle manifests that he sought the glory of God in Christ, accord-ing unto his will. With this aim and purpose, an endeavor to impose that on the church, as an immediate revelation from God, which was the product of his own pains and diligence, is utterly inconsistent. For by no means could he more dishonor God, whose glory in sincerity he appears to have sought; nor wrong the church, whose good he desired to promote; than by this imposing on him that whereof he was not the author, so adding unto his words, and making himself subject to reproof as a liar, Proverbs 30:6, and proposing that unto the church as a firm and stable rule and object of faith which he knew not to be so, leading her thereby into error, uncertainty, and falsehood. For this whole Epistle is delivered as the will and word of God, as coming by revelation, from him, without the least intimation of the intervention of the will, wisdom, or diligence, of man, any other than is constantly ascribed unto those that declare the will of God by inspiration. And if it were not so, the evils mentioned cannot be avoided. And how groundless this imputation would be, our following discourses will manifest. And I doubt not but this whole consideration will be, and is, of weight and moment with them who have their senses exercised in the Scriptures, and are enabled, by the Spirit breathing in them, to discern between good and evil, wheat and chaff, Jeremiah 23:28. 24. Unto the general argument, we may add the particular subject-matter of this Epistle, as belonging unto the gnw>mh of it, further confirming its divine original. This, for the most part, consists in things of pure revelation, and which have no other foundation “in rerum natura.” Some books, even of the Scripture itself, are but the narrations of actions done amongst men; which, for the substance of them, might be also recorded by human diligence: but the things treated of in this Epistle are purely divine, spiritual, and no ways to be known but by revelation. And not only so, but amongst those that are so, there are four things eminent in the subjectmatter of this Epistle: (1.) That the principal things treated of in it are matters of the greatest importance in Christian religion, and such as concern the very foundation of faith. Such are the doctrines about the person, offices, and sacrifice of Christ; of the nature of gospel worship, our privilege therein, and communion with God thereby. In these things consist the very vitals of our profession; and they are all opened and declared in a most excellent and heavenly manner in this Epistle; and that, as we shall manifest, in an absolute consonancy unto what is taught concerning them in other places of Scripture. (2.) In that some things of great moment unto the faith, obedience, and consolation of the church, that are but obscurely or sparingly taught in any other places of holy writ, are here plainly, fully, and excellently taught and improved. Such, in particular, is the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, with the nature and excellency of his sacrifice, and the execution of the remaining parts and duty of that office in heaven, and how the whole of it was typically represented under the old testament. He that under-stands aright the importance of these things, — their use in the faith and consolation of the church, their influence into our whole course of obedience, the spiritual privilege that faith by them interests a believing soul in, the strength and supportment that they afford under temptations and trials, — will be ready to conclude that the world may as well want the sun in the firmament as the church this Epistle; and this persuasion we hope, through God’s assistance, to further in our exposition of it. (3.) God’s way in teaching the church of the old testament, with the use and end of all the operose pedagogy of Moses, manifesting it to be full of wisdom, grace, and love, is here fully revealed, and the whole Aaronical priesthood, with all the duties and offices of it, translated unto the use of believers under the gospel. How dark Mosaical institutions were in themselves is evident from the whole state of the church in the days of Christ and his apostles, when they could not see unto the end of the things that were to be done away. In their nature they were carnal; in their number, many; as to their reason, hidden; in their observation, heavy and burdensome; in their outward show, pompous and glorious: by all which they so possessed the minds of the church, that very few saw clearly into the use, intention, and end of them. But in this Epistle the “veil” is taken off from Moses, the mystery of his institutions laid open, — a perfect clue given unto believers to pass safely through all the turnings and windings of them unto rest and truth in Jesus Christ. Those hidden things of the old testament appear now unto us full of light and instruction; but we are beholden for all our insight into them, and benefit which we receive thereby, unto the exposition and application of them made by the Holy Ghost in this Epistle. And how great a portion of gospel wisdom and knowledge consists herein all men know who have any spiritual acquaintance with these things. (4.) The grounds, reasons, causes, and manner, of that great alteration which God wrought and caused in his worship, by taking down the ancient glorious fabric of it, which had been set up by his own appointment, are here laid open and manifested, and the greatest controversy that ever the church of God was exercised withal is here fully determined.
There was nothing, in the first propagation of the gospel and plan-tation of Christian churches, that did so divide and perplex the professors of the truth, and retard the work of promulgating the knowledge of Christ, and the worship of God in him, as the differ-ence that was about the continuation and observation of Mosaical rites and ceremonies. To such a height was this difference raised, so zealously were the parties at variance engaged in the pursuit of their various apprehensions of the mind of God in this matter, that the apostles themselves thought meet for a season rather to umpire and compose the controversy, by leaving the Jews free to their observation, and bringing the Gentiles unto a condescension in things of the greatest exasperation, than absolutely and precisely to determine the whole matter between them. And, indeed, this being a difference wherein the will, authority, and command of God were pleaded on the mistaken side, they being all of them clear and full as to the matter by them pleaded for, nothing but an immediate declaration of the mind of God himself, as to his removing and taking off the obligation of his own law, could put such an end unto it as that the spirits of men might acquiesce therein. Now, the will of God to this purpose before the writing of this Epistle could only be collected from the nature and state of things in the church upon the coming of the Messiah, and conclusions from thence, which the believing Jews were very slow in the admittance of. Add hereunto that many prophecies and promises of the Old Testament, setting forth the glory and beauty of gospel worship under the names and condition of the worship then in use, as of priests, Levites, sacrifices, offerings, feast of tabernacles, and the like, lay directly, in the letter, against that cessation of Mosaical rites which the Jews opposed.
Now, who was fit, who was able, to determine upon these different and various institutions of God, but God himself? To declare positively that all obligation from his former commands was now ceased, that his institutions were no more to be observed, that the time allotted unto the church’s obedience unto him in their observance was expired, — this was no otherwise to be effected but by an immediate revelation from himself. And this is done in this Epistle, and that in this only as to the Jews; whereby it became the main instrument and means of pulling up their old churchstate, and translating it anew into the appointments of our Lord Jesus Christ. Neither is this done by a bare declaration of God’s authoritative interposition, but, in a way of excellent and singular wisdom and condescension (with a manifestation of God’s love and care unto his church, in the institutions that were now to be removed, and the progress of his wisdom in their gradual instruction, as they were able to bear), the whole nature, design, and intendment of them are evidenced to be such, as that, having received their full end and accomplishment, they did of themselves naturally expire and disappear. And hereby, in that great alteration which God then wrought in the outward worship of his church, there is discovered such a oneness and unchangeableness in his love and care; such a suitableness, harmony, and consonancy, in the effects of his will; such an evidence of infinite wisdom in disposing of them into a subserviency one to another, that they should nowhere in any thing cross or interfere, and all of them to his own glory, in the promotion and furtherance of the light, faith, and obedience of his church; as sufficiently manifest the original and fountain whence it doth proceed. For my part, I can truly say that I know not any portion of holy writ that will more effectually raise tip the heart of an understanding reader to a holy admiration of the goodness, love, and wisdom of God, than this Epistle doth. Such, I say, is the subject-matter of this Epistle, — so divine, so excellent, so singular. And in the handling hereof have we not the least occasional mixture of any matter, words, sentences, stories, arguments, or doctrines, so unsuited to the whole as to argue the interposure of a fallible spirit. Thus we know it hath fallen out in all the writings of the Christians of the first ages after the sealing of the canon of the Scriptures. Many things in them appear to proceed from a holy and heavenly spirit breathing in their authors, and most of what they contain to be consonant unto the mind of God; yet have they all of them evident footsteps that the authors were subject unto errors and mistakes, even in and about the things written by them. And the continuance of their failings in their writings, capable of an easy conviction, is no small fruit of the holy, wise providence of God, and his care over his church, that it might not in after ages be imposed upon with the great and weighty pretense of antiquity, to admit them into a competition with those which himself gave out to be its infallible, and therefore only rule. That nothing of this nature, nothing humanitus, merely after the manner of men, befell the writer of this Epistle in his work, we hope, through the assistance of its principal Author, to manifest in our exposition of the several parts of it. And the subject-matter of this Epistle, thus handled, further secures us of its original 25. The design, aim, and end of the Epistle, with the purpose and intention of its writer, which belong to the proai>resiv , which the ancients made a characterism of writings given by divine inspiration, are consonant unto the general argument and peculiar subject-matter of it.
That the whole Scripture hath an especial end, which is peculiar unto it, and wherein no other writing hath any share, but only so far as it is taken from thence and composed in obedience thereunto, is evident unto all that do seriously consider it.
This end, supremely and absolutely, is the glory of that God who is the author of it. This is the center where all the lines of it do meet, the scope and mark towards which all things in it are directed. It is the revelation of himself that is intended, of his mind and will, that he may be glorified; wherein, also, because he is the principal fountain and last end of all, consist the order and perfection of all other things. Particularly, the demonstration of this glory of God in and by Jesus Christ is aimed at. The works of God’s power and providence do all of them declare his glory, the glory of his eternal perfections and excellencies, absolutely and in themselves. But the end of the Scripture is the glory of God in Christ, as he hath revealed himself and gathered all things to a head in him, unto the manifestation of his glory: for “this is life eternal, that we know him, the only true God; and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent,” The means whereby God is thus glorified in Christ, is by the salvation of them that do believe; which is therefore also an intermediate end of the Scripture: “These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name,” John 20:31; 1 Timothy 4:16.
Moreover, whereas this eternal life unto the glory of God cannot be obtained without faith and obedience according to his will, the Scripture is given for this purpose, also, that it may instruct us in the mind of God, and “make us wise unto salvation,” 2 Timothy 3:15,16; Romans 1:16; 2 Peter 1:3. These, in their mutual subserviency and dependence, complete the characteristical end of the Scripture. I confess Plato, in his Timaeus, makes it the end of philosophy, that we may thereby be “made like unto God.” But that philosophy of his, having its rise and spring in inbred notions of nature, and the contemplation of the works of God’s providence, could have no other end but conformity unto him as his perfections were revealed absolutely; whereunto the Scripture adds this revelation in Christ Jesus, John 1:18, which gives them, as I said, their special and peculiar end. It makes God known as all in all; and man to be nothing, as to goodness or blessedness, but what he is pleased to do for him and communicate unto him; and Jesus Christ to be the great and only way and means whereby he will communicate of himself, and bring us unto himself. The more clearly any portion of Scripture dis-covers and makes conspicuous this end, — the more parts of the series and order of things whereby the last and utmost end of the glory of God is produced, in their mutual connection, dependence, and subserviency, it manifesteth, — the more fully doth it express this general end of the whole, and thereby evince its own interest therein.
Now, herein doth this Epistle come behind no other portion of Scripture whatever; for as the exaltation of the glory of God, as he is the first cause and last end of all things, is expressly proposed in it, so the relation of the glory of God and of our obedience and blessedness, whereby and wherein it is declared, unto the person, offices, and mediation, of Jesus Christ, is in an eminent manner insisted on and unfolded in it. And whereas some parts of Scripture do exhibit unto us most clearly some one part of this general end of the whole, and other portions or books of it some other parts, this expresseth the whole and all the parts of it distinctly, from the very foundation of calling men to the knowledge of God and obedience, unto the utmost end of his glorifying himself in their salvation by Jesus Christ.
Neither is there herewithal the least alloy or mixture of any by, particular, or proper [personal], end of the writer, — nothing of his honor, reputation, advantage, self-pleasing, in any thing; but all runs evenly and smoothly to the general end before proposed. And this also hath deservedly a place among the tekmh>ria of writings by divine inspiration. 26. The style, also, of the sacred Scripture, or fra>sewv carakth>r , as it is termed by Eusebius in this argument, is of deserved consideration. By the style of any writing, we understand both the propriety of the words, with their grammatical construction, and that composition of the whole which renders it fit, decorous, elegant, and every way meet to be used in the matter about which it is used, and for the effecting of the end which is proposed in it. I know, some bold, atheistical spirits have despised the style of the holy writers, as simple and barbarous. Among these, Angelus Politianus is generally and deservedly censured by all learned men; who was imitated in his profane contempt of it by Domitius Calderinus. And of the like temper was Petrus Bembus, who would scarce touch the Scripture; while his own epistles are not one of them free from solecisms in grammar. Austin also confesseth that while he was yet a Manichee he had the same thoughts of it: “Visa est mihi indigna quam Tullianae dignitati compararem;” — “The Scripture seemed to me unworthy to be compared with the excellency of Cicero.” But it must be acknowledged that these spake of the common translations of it; though they used that pretense to reject the study of the books themselves.
I do confess that though some translations may and do render the words of the original more properly, and better represent and insinuate the native genius, beauty, life, and power, of the sacred style, than some others do, yet none of them can or do express the whole excellency, elegancy, and marvelous efficacy of it, for the conveyance of its sense to the understandings and minds of men. Neither is this any reflection upon the translators, their abilities, diligence, or faithfulness, but that which the nature of the thing itself produceth. There is in the sacred Scripture, in the words wherein by the Holy Ghost it was given out, a proper, peculiar virtue and secret efficacy, inflaming the minds of the readers and hearers, which no diligence or wisdom of man can fully and absolutely transfer into and impress upon any other language. And those who have designed to do it by substituting the wordy elegancies of another tongue, to express the quickening, affecting idiotisms of them (which was the design of Castalio), have, of all others, most failed in their intention.
Neither doth this defect in translations arise from hence, that the original tongues may be more copious and emphatical than those of the translations, — which possibly may be the condition of the Greek and Latin, as Jerome often complains, — but it is from the causes before named; and therefore it is most evident in the translations of the Old Testament, when yet no man can imagine the Hebrew to be more copious (though it be more comprehensive) than the languages whereinto it hath been translated. But it is of the originals themselves, and the style of the sacred penmen therein, concerning which we discourse. And herein the boldness of Jerome cannot be excused (though he be followed by some others of great name in later ages), who more than once chargeth St Paul with solecisms and barbarisms in expression, and often urgeth (upon a mistake, as we shall see) that he was “imperitus sermone,” — “unskilful in speech.” But as neither he nor any else are able to give any cogent instance to make good their charge, so it is certain that there is nothing expressed in the whole Scripture, but in the manner and way, and by the words wherewith, it ought to be expressed, unto the ends for which it is used and designed, as might easily be manifested both from the intent of the Holy Ghost himself in suggesting those words unto his penmen, and in the care of God over the very iotas and tittles of the words themselves. And wherever there appears unto us an irregularity from the arbitrary directions or usages of other men in those languages, it doth much more become us to suspect our own apprehensions and judgment, — yea, or to reject those directions and usages from the sovereignty of an absolute rule, — than to reflect the least failure or mistake on them who wrote nothing but by divine inspiration. The censure of Heinsius in this matter is severe but true, Prolegom. Aristarch. Sac.: “Vellicare allquid in illis, aut desiderare, non est eruditi sed blasphemi hominis, ac male feriati, qui nunquam intelligit quae humana sit conditio, aut quantn debeatur reverentia ac cultus cuncta dispensanti Deo, qui non judicem, sed supplicem deposcit.” 27. Neither hath their success been much better who have exercised their critical ability in judging of the style of the particular writers of the Scripture, preferring one before and above another; whereas the style of every one of them is best suited to the subject-matter whereof he treats, and the end aimed at, and the persons with whom he had to do. And herein Jerome hath led the way to others, and drawn many into a common mistake. The style of Isaiah, he says, is proper, urbane, high, and excellent; but that of Hosea, and especially of Amos, low, plain, improper, savoring of the country, and his profession, who was a shepherd. But those that understand their style and language will not easily give consent unto him, though the report be commonly admitted by the most. It is true, there appeareth in Isaiah art excellent ta>qov in his exhortations, expostulations, and comminations; attended with efficacious apostrophes, prosopopoeias, metaphors, and allusions; a compacted fullness in his prophecies and predictions, a sweet evangelical spiritualness in his expression of promises, with frequent paronomasias and ellipses, which have a special elegancy in that language; whence he is usually instanced in by learned men as an example of the eloquence of the divine writings, and his deino>thv preferred unto that of A Eschines, Demosthenes, or Cicero: but the reader must take heed that he look not for the peculiar excellencies of that prophet absolutely in the words used by him, but rather in the things that it pleased the Holy Ghost to use him as his instrument in the revelation of.
But the other part of Jerome’s censure is utterly devoid of any good foundation. The style of Amos, considering the subject-matter that he treateth of and the persons with whom he had to do, in suiting of words and speech, wherein all true, solid eloquence consisteth, is every way as proper, as elegant, as that of Isaiah. Neither will the knowing reader find him wanting in any of the celebrated styles of writing, where occasion unto them is administered. Thus some affirm that St Paul used sundry expressions (and they instance in 1 Corinthians 4:3, Colossians 2:18) that were proper to the Cilicians, his countrymen, and not so proper as to the purity of that language wherein he wrote; but as the first of the expressions they instance in is a Hobraisin, and the latter purely Greek, so indeed they will discover a Tarsian defect in St Paul, together with the Patavinity in Livy that Pollio noted in him. 28. Eloquence and propriety of speech, for the proper ends of them, are the gift of God, Exodus 4:10,11; and therefore, unless pregnant instances may be given to the contrary, it may well be thought and expected that they should not be wanting in hooks written by his own inspiration. Nor indeed are they; only we are not able to give a right measure of what doth truly and absolutely belong unto them. He that shall look for a flourish of painted words, artificial, meretricious ornaments of speech, discourse suited to entice, inveigle, and work upon, weak and carnal affections; or sophistical, captious ways of reasoning, to deceive; or that “suada,” or piqanologi>a , that smooth and harmonious structure of periods, wherein the great Roman orator gloried, the “lenocinia verborum,” the u[yov and “grandiloquentia,” of some of the heathens, in the Scripture, will be mistaken in his aim. Such things become not the authority, majesty, greatness, and holiness, of Him who speaks therein. An earthly monarch that should make use of them in his edicts, laws, or proclamations, would but prostitute his authority to con-tempt, and invite his subjects to disobedience by so doing. How much more would they unbecome the declaration of His mind and will, given unto poor worms, who is the great possessor of heaven and earth!
Besides, these things belong not indeed unto real eloquence and propriety of speech, but are arbitrarily invented crutches, for the relief of our lameness and infirmity. Men despairing to affect the minds of others with the things themselves which they had to pro-pose unto them, and acquainted with the baits that are meet to take hold of their brutish affections, with the ways of prepossessing their minds with prejudice, or casting a mist before their understandings, that they may not discern the nature, worth, and excellency, of truth, have invented such dispositions of words as might compass the ends they aimed at. And great effects by this means were produced; as by him whom men admired, — “Pleni moderantem frena theatri.” And therefore the apostle tells us, that the rejecting of this kind of oratory in his preaching and writing was of indispensable necessity; that it might appear that the effects of them were not any way influenced thereby, but were the genuine productions of the things themselves which he delivered, 1 Corinthians 2:4-7. This kind of eloquence, then, the Scripture maketh no use of, but rather condemneth its application unto the great and holy things whereof it treateth, as unbecoming their excellency and majesty. So Origen to this purpose: ]Iswv ga Fhsi< d j oJ qei~ov lo>gov , oujk au]tarkev ei+nai to< lego>menon (ka[n kat j aujto< ajlhqe Whatever hath been thus spoken concerning the style of the sacred Scripture in general, it is as applicable unto this Epistle unto the Hebrews as to any one portion of holy writ whatever. That simplicity, gravity, unaffectedness, suitableness to its author, matter, and end, which commend the whole unto us, are eminent in this part of it; that authority, efficacy, and energy, which are implanted on the whole by Him who supplied both sense and words unto the penmen of it, exert themselves in this Epistle also.
No defect in any of these can be charged on it that should argue it of any other extract than the whole. Nothing so far singular as to be inconsistent with that harmony which, in all their variety, there is among the books of the holy Scripture, as to the style and kind of speech, is anywhere to be found in it. If anywhere, as in the beginning of the first chapter, the style seems to swell in its current above the ordinary banks of the writings of the New Testament, it is from the greatness and sublimity of the matter treated on, which was not capable of any other kind of expression. Doth the penman of it anywhere use words or phrases not commonly, or rarely, or perhaps nowhere else, used in the sense and way wherein they are by him applied? — it is because his matter is peculiar, and not elsewhere handled, at least not on the same principles nor to the same purpose as by him. Doth he oftentimes speak in an old testament dialect, pressing words and expressions to the service and sense they were employed in under the tabernacle and temple, after they had been manumitted, as it were, and made free from their typical importance in the service and spiritual sense of the gospel? — it is from the consideration of their state and condition with whom in an especial manner he had to do; and this in perfect harmony with the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in other portions of Scripture. So that on this account also its station in the holy canon is secured. 32. Moreover, besides the peculiar excellency which is found in the style of the holy Scripture, either evidencing its divine original, or at least manifesting that there is nothing in it unworthy of such an extract, the authority of its principal Author exerts itself in the whole of it unto the consciences of men. And herein is this Epistle an especial sharer also.
Now, this authority, as it respects the minds of men, is in part an exsurgency of the holy matter contained in it and the heavenly manner wherein it is declared. They have in their conjunction a peculiar character, differencing this writing from all writings of a human original, and manifesting it to be of God. Neither can it otherwise be, but that things of divine revelation, expressed in words of divine suggestion and determination, will appear to be of a divine original. And partly it consists in an ineffable emanation of divine excellency, communicating unto his own word a distinguishing property, from its relation unto him. We speak not now of the work of the Holy Ghost in our hearts by his grace, enabling us to believe, but of his work in the word, rendering it credible and meet to be believed; not of the seal and testimony that he gives unto the hearts of individual persons of the truth of the Scripture, or rather of the things contained in it, but of the seal and testimony which in the Scripture he gives unto it and by it to be his own work and word. Such a character have the works of other agents, whereby they are known and discerned to be theirs. By such properties are the works of men discerned, and oftentimes of individuals amongst them. They bear the likeness of their authors, and are thereby known to be theirs. Neither is it possible that there should be any work of God proceeding so immediately from him as do writings by divine inspiration, but there will be such a communication of his Spirit and likeness unto it, such an impression of his greatness, holiness, goodness, truth, and majesty, upon it, as will manifest it to be from him. The false prophets of old pretended their dreams, visions, predictions, and revelations, to be from him. They prefixed µaun] , “He saith,” unto all the declarations of them, Jeremiah 23:31; and therefore doubtless framed them to as great a likeness unto those that were by inspiration from him as they were able: and yet the Lord declares that all their imaginations were as discernible from his word as chaff from wheat; and this by that authority and power wherewith his word is accompanied, whereof they were utterly destitute, verse 28, 29. And this authority do all they who have their senses exercised in it find and acknowledge in this Epistle, wherein their minds and consciences do acquiesce. They hear and understand the voice of God in it; and, by that Spirit which is promised unto them, discern it from the voice of a stranger . And when their minds are prepared and fortified against objections by the former considerations, this they ultimately resolve their persuasion of its divine authority into; for, — 33. From this authority they find a divine efficacy proceeding, a powerful operation upon their souls and consciences, unto all the ends of the Scripture. A reverence and awe of God, from his authority shining forth and exerting itself in it, being wrought in them, they find their minds effectually brought into captivity unto the obedience taught therein.
This efficacy and power is in the whole word of God: “Is not my word like as a fire? saith theLORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” Jeremiah 23:29; that is, “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,” Hebrew 4:12. As it hath an ejxousi>a , or “authority” over men, Matthew 7:29, so it hath a du>namiv , or “powerful efficacy” in and towards them, Acts 20:32, James 1:21: yea, it is the “power of God” himself for its proper end, Romans 1:16, and therefore said to be accompanied with the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” Corinthians 2:4; a demonstration uJpe A learned man said well, “Non monent, non persuadent sacrae literae, sed cogunt, agitant, vim inferunt; legis rudia verba et agrestia, sed viva, sed animata, flammea, aculeata, ad imum spiritum penetrantia, hominem totum potestate mirabili transformantia;” expressing the sum of what we discourse. From hence is all that supernatural light and knowledge, that conviction and restraint, that conversion, faith, consolation, and obedience, that are found amongst any of the sons of men.
Pa~sa Grafh< , saith Basil, qeo>pneustov kai< wjfe>limov , dia< tou~to suggrafei~sa para< tou~ pneu>matov i[n j w[sper ejn koinw~| tw~n yucw~n ijatrei>w| , pa>ntev a]nqrwpoi to< i]ama tou~ oijkei>ou pa>qouv e[kastov ejklegw>meqa — “The whole Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable, being written by the Holy Ghost for this purpose, that in it, as a common healing office for souls, all men may choose the medicine suited to cure their own distempers.” Such is the nature, power, and efficacy of this Epistle, towards them that do believe. It searches their hearts, discovers their thoughts, principles their consciences, judges their acts inward and outward, supports their, spirits, comforts their souls, enlightens their minds, guides them in their hope, confidence, and love to God, directs them in all their communion with him and obedience unto him, and leads them to an enjoyment of him. And this work of the Holy Ghost in it and by it seals its divine authority unto them; so that they find rest, spiritual satisfaction, and great assurance therein. When once they have obtained this experience of its divine power, it is in vain for men or devils to oppose its canonical authority with their frivolous cavils and objections.
Neither is this experience merely satisfactory to themselves alone, as is by some pretended. It is a thing pleadable, and that not only in their own defense, to strengthen their faith against temptations, but to others also; though not to atheistical scoffers, yet to humble inquirers, — which ought to be the frame of all men in the investigation of sacred truths. 34. Unto what hath been spoken we may add, that the canonical authority of this Epistle is confirmed unto us by catholic tradition. By this tradition I intend not the testimony only of the present church that is in the world, nor fancy a trust of a power to declare what is so in any church whatever; but a general, uninterrupted fame, conveyed and confirmed by particular instances, records, and testimonies, in all ages. In any other sense, how little weight there is to be laid upon traditions we have a pregnant instance in him who first began to magnify them. This was Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, in the very next age after the apostles. Tradition of what was done or said by Christ or the apostles, what expositions they gave, he professed himself to set a high value upon, — equal to, if not above the Scripture. And two things are considerable in his search after them: — (1.) That he did not think that there was any church appointed to be the preserver and declarer of apostolical traditions, but made his inquiry of all the individual ancient men that he could meet withal who had conversed with any of the apostles. (2.) That, by all his pains, he gathered together a rhapsody of incredible stories, fables, errors, and useless curiosities. Such issue will the endeavors of men have who forsake the stable word of prophecy to follow rumors and reports, under the specious name of traditions! But this catholic fame whereof we speak, confirmed by particular instances and records in all ages, testifying unto a matter of fact, is of great importance.
And how clearly this may be pleaded in our present case shall be manifested in our investigation of the penman of this Epistle.
And thus, I hope, we have made it evident that this Epistle is not destitute of any one of those tekmh>ria , or infallible proofs and arguments whereby any particular book of the Scripture evinceth itself unto the consciences of men to be written by inspiration from God. It remaineth now to show that it is not liable unto any of those exceptions or arguments whereby any book or writing pretending a claim to a divine original, and canonical authority thereupon, may be convicted and manifested to be of another extract; whereby its just privilege will be on both sides secured. 35. The first consideration of this nature is taken from the author or penman of any such writing. The books of the Old Testament were all of them written by prophets or holy men inspired of God. Hence St Peter calls the whole of it Profhtei>a , “Prophecy,” 2 Peter 1:21, — prophecy delivered by men, acted or moved therein by the Holy Ghost.
And though there be a distribution made of the several books of it, from the subject-matter, into the “Law, Prophets, and Psalms,” Luke 24:44, and often into the “Law and Prophets,” on the same account, as Acts 24:14, 26:22, Romans 3:21, yet their penmen being all equally prophets, the whole in general is ascribed unto them, and called “Prophecy,” Romans 1:2, 16:26; Luke 24:25; 2 Peter 1:19. So were the books of the New Testament written by apostles, or men endowed with an apostolical spirit; and in their work they were equally inspired by the Holy Ghost; whence the church is said to be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,” Ephesians 2:20.
If, then, the author of any writing acknowledgeth himself, or may otherwise be convinced, to have been neither prophet nor apostle, nor endued with the same infallible Spirit with them, his work, how excellent soever otherwise it may appear, must needs be esteemed a mere fruit of his own skill, diligence, and wisdom, and not any way to belong unto the canon of the Scripture. This is the condition, for instance, of the second book of Maccabees. In the close of it, the author, being doubtful what acceptance his endeavors and manner of writing would find amongst his readers, makes his excuse, and affirms that he did his utmost to please them in his style and composition of his words. So he tells us before, chapter 2:23, that he did but epitomize the history of Jason the Cyrenean, wherein he took great pains and labor. The truth is, he who had before commended Judas Maccabaeus for offering sacrifices for the dead (which indeed he did not, but for the living), nowhere appointed in the law, and affirmed that Jeremiah hid the holy fire, ark, tabernacle, and altar of incense, in a cave; [who says] that the same person, Antiochus, was killed at Nanea in Persia chapter 1:16, and died in the mountains of torments in his bowels, as he was coming to Judea, chapter 9, whom the first book affirms to have died of sorrow at Babylon, chapter 6:16; and who affirms Judas to have written letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year of the Seleucian empire, who was slain in the one hundred and fifty-second year of it, book 1 chapter 1:10, — that is, thirtysix years after his death! — with many other such mistakes and falsehoods; had no great need to inform us that he had no special divine assistance in his writing, but leaned unto his own understanding. But yet this he doth, and that openly, as we showed: for the Holy Ghost will not be an epitomizer of a profane writing, as he professeth himself to have been; nor make excuses for his weakness, nor declare his pains and sweat in his work, as he doth. And yet, to that pass are things brought in the world, by custom, prejudice, love of reputation, scorn to be esteemed mistaken in any thing, that many earnestly contend for this book to be written by divine inspiration, when the author of it himself openly professeth it to have been of another extract; for although this book be not only rejected out of the canon by the council of Laodicea, Jerome, f59 and others of the ancients, but by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, himself, yet the church of Rome would now by force thrust it thereinto.
But were the author himself alive again, I am so well persuaded of his ingenuity and honesty, from the conclusion of his story, that [I am sure] they would never be able to make him say that he wrote by divine inspiration; and little reason, then, have we to believe it. Now, this Epistle is free from this exception. The penman of it doth nowhere intimate, directly or indirectly, that he wrote in his own strength or by his own ability; which yet if he had done, in an argument of that nature which he insisted on, [it] had been incumbent on him to have declared, that he might not lead the church into a pernicious error, in embracing that as given by inspiration from God which was but a fruit of his diligence and fallible endeavors. But, on the contrary, he speaks as in the name of God, referring unto him all that he delivers; nor can he, in any minute instance, be convicted to have wanted his assistance. 36. Circumstances of the general argument of a book may also convince it of a human or fallible original. This they do, for instance, in the book of Judith; — for such a Nabuchodonosor as should reign in Nineve, chapter 1:1, and make war with Arphaxad, king of Ecbatane, verse 13; whose captains and officers should know nothing at all of the nation of the Jews, chapter 5:3, that waged war against them in the days of Joakim (or, as other copies, Eliakim) the high priest, chapter 4:6; after whose defeat the Jews should have peace for eighty years at the least, chapter 16:23,25; is an imagination of that which never had subsistence “in rerum natura:” or [the book may be] a representation of what tydiWhy] , a Jewish woman ought, as the author of it conceived, to undertake for the good of her country. Setting aside the consideration of all other discoveries of the fallibility of the whole discourse, this alone is sufficient to impeach its reputation. Our Epistle is no way obnoxious unto any exception of this nature. Yea, the state of things in the churches of God, and among the Hebrews in particular, did at that time administer so just and full occasion unto a writing of this kind, as gives countenance unto its ascription unto the wisdom and care of the Holy Ghost. For if the eruption of the poisonous brood of heretics, questioning the deity of the Son of God, in Cerinthus, gave occasion to the writing of the Gospel by St John; and if the dissensions in the church of Corinth deserved two epistles for their composition; and if the lesser differences between believers of the Jews and Gentiles, in and about the things treated of in this Epistle, had a remedy provided for them in the epistles of St Paul unto them; is it not at least probable that the same Spirit who moved the penmen of those books to write, and directed them in their so doing, did also provide for the removal of the prejudices and healing of the distempers of the Hebrews, which were so great, and of so great importance unto all the churches of God? And that there is weight in this consideration will evidently appear, when we come to declare the time when this Epistle was written. 37. The most manifest eviction of any writing pretending unto the privilege of divine inspiration may be taken from the subject-matter of it, or the things taught and declared therein. God himself being the first and only essential Truth, nothing can proceed from him but what is absolutely so; and truth being but one, every way uniform and consonant unto itself, there can be no discrepancy in the branches of it, nor contrariety in the streams that flow from that one fountain. God is also holy, “glorious in holiness,” and nothing proceeds immediately from him but it bears a stamp of his holiness, as also of his greatness and wisdom. If, then, any thing in the subject-matter of any writing be untrue, impious, light, or any way contradictory to the ascertained writings of divine inspiration, all pleas and pretences unto that privilege must cease for ever. We need no other proof, testimony, or argument, to evince its original, than what itself tenders unto us. And by this means, also, do the books commonly called apocryphal, unto which the Romanists ascribe canonical authority, destroy their own pretensions. They have all of them, on this account, long since been cast out of the limits of any tolerable defense. Now, that no one portion of Scripture is less obnoxious to any exception of this kind, from the subjectmatter treated of and doctrines delivered in it, than this Epistle, we shall, by God’s assistance, manifest in our exposition of the whole and each particular passage of it. Neither is it needful that we should here prolong our discourse, by anticipating any thing that must necessarily afterwards, in its proper place, be insisted on. The place startled at by some, chapter 6, about the impossibility of the recovery of apostates, was touched on before, and shall afterwards be fully cleared. Nor do I know any other use to be made of observing the scruple of some of old, about the countenance given to the Novatians by that place, but only to make a discovery how partially men in all ages have been addicted unto their own apprehensions in things wherein they differed from others; for whereas, if the opinion of the Novatians had been confirmed in the place, as it is not, it had been their duty to have relinquished their own hypothesis and gone over unto them, some of them discovered a mind rather to have broken in upon the authority of God himself, declared in his word, than so to have done. And it, is greatly to be feared that the same spirit still working in others, is as effectual in them to reject the plain sense of the Scripture in sundry places, as it was ready to have been in them to reject the words of it in this. 38. The style and method of a writing may be such as to lay a just prejudice against its claim to canonical authority: for although the subject-matter of a writing may be good and honest in the main of it, and generally suited unto the analogy of faith, yet there may be, in the manner of its composure and writing, such an ostentation of wit, fancy, learning, or eloquence; such an affectation of words, phrases, and expressions; such rhetorical painting of things small and inconsiderable; as may sufficiently demonstrate human ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Jerome observes, in particular concerning the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon; written, as it is supposed, by Philo, an eloquent and learned man: “Redolet Graecam eloquentiam.” This consideration is of deserved moment in the judgment we are to make of the spring or fountain from whence any book doth proceed; for whereas great variety of style, and in manner of writing, may be observed in the penmen of canonical Scripture, yet in no one of them do the least footsteps of the failings and sinful infirmities of corrupted nature before mentioned appear. When, therefore, they manifest themselves, they cast out the writings wherein they are from that harmony and consent which in general appears amongst all the books of divine inspiration. Of the style of this Epistle we have spoken before. Its gravity, simplicity, majesty, and absolute suitableness unto the high, holy, and heavenly mysteries treated of in it, are, as far as I can find, not only very evident, but also by all acknowledged, who are able to judge of them. 39. Want of catholic tradition in all ages of the church, from the first giving forth of any writing testifying unto its divine original, is another impeachment of its pretense unto canonical authority. And this argument ariseth fatally against the apocryphal books before mentioned. Some of them are expressly excluded from the canon by many of the ancient churches, nor are any of them competently testified unto.
The suffrage of this kind given unto our Epistle we have mentioned before.
The doubts and scruples of some about it have likewise been acknowledged. That they are of no weight, to be laid in the balance against the testimony given unto it, might easily be demonstrated. But because they were levied all of them principally against its author, and but by consequence against its authority, I shall consider them in a disquisition about him; wherein we shall give a further confirmation of the divine original of the Epistle, by proving it undeniably to be written by the apostle St Paul, that eminent penman of the Holy Ghost. 40. Thus clear stands the canonical authority of this Epistle. It is destitute of no evidence needful for the manifestation of it, nor is it obnoxious unto any just exception against its claim to that privilege. And hence it is come to pass, that, whatever have been the fears, doubts, and scruples of some; the rash, temerarious objections, conjectures, and censures of others; the care and providence of God over it, as a parcel of his most holy word, working with the prevailing evidence of its original implanted in it, and its spiritual efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture, hath obtained an absolute conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe, and settled it in a full possession of canonical authority in all the churches of Christ throughout the world.
SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION I. BY THE EDITOR. IT will be seen that Dr Owen, in his proof of the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, relies chiefly upon internal evidence. After a definition of canonicity, according to which it is represented as including two elements, — the origin of the document for which canonical authority is claimed, as a divine communication to man; and the design of it, as intended to be a permanent and universal rule to the church: and after a historical summary of the different parties by whom the Epistle has been positively rejected, or not expressly owned as canonical: he refutes four objections which have been urged against its authority, — the uncertainty respecting its author; quotations alleged in the Epistle to be taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, but not found in them; quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures which are not to the purpose of the author; and passages which appear to sanction exploded heresies. He then argues from three criteria of Eusebius in proof of its canonicity, — its subject-matter, its design, and its prevailing spirit or style. He supplements his argument by an appeal to catholic tradition.
His subsequent Exercitation, proving that Paul was the author of the Epistle, yields further evidence of its canonical authority, the canonicity of a book resting generally on the fact of its apostolic origin; and under a discussion of its Pauline authorship, the question of the right of the Epistle to a place in the canon has frequently been considered.
Independently, however, of the question of its authorship, there are external evidences of its canonical authority, on which, in modern times, considerable stress has been justly placed: — 1. The ANTIQUITY of the document, as it appears to have been written while the rites and worship of the temple were still in existence, Hebrews 9:9,25; Hebrews 8:5; and because the argument contained in it against temptations to apostasy supposes the continued performance of those rites in the Jewish temple by which the converts might be induced to relapse into their previous Judaism. 2. The quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews by CLEMENT of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the close of the first century, and most probably about A.D. 96. These quotations are numerous, and are arranged by Moses Stuart into four classes, according to the degree of their correspondence with the original Epistle from which they were taken. They prove more than the existence of the Epistle antecedently to A.D. 96. Clement, in the 36th chapter of his epistle, introduces a quotation from Scripture under the common formula that bespeaks an appeal to divine authority: Ge>graptai ga It must further be borne in mind, that those who discredit the Pauline authorship of the Epistle are not necessarily to be held as impugning its canonicity. Olshausen and Tholuck are decided in maintaining the latter, although both, with Luther, suppose Apollos to have been the author of the Epistle. Olshausen maintains its canonical authority, — 1. Because we cannot, except on the supposition that Paul had an essential share in the composition of it, explain the remarkable circumstance, that the entire oriental church attributed it to Paul; 2. Because, though the style is not that of Paul, the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, not to be mistaken, to the writings which are acknowledged to be his; and, 3. Because, on this supposition, all the circumstances in regard to the Epistle are explained, the western church knowing that Paul was not its author, and therefore not using it much, though not rejecting it, the eastern recognising the essential influence he exerted over its composition, though the truths contained in it were presented through the medium of a faithful disciple like Apollos.
EXERCITATION 2.
OF THE PENMAN OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1. Knowledge of the penman of any part of Scripture not necessary — Some of them utterly concealed — The word of God gives authority unto them that deliver it, not the contrary — Prophets, in things wherein they are not actually inspired, subject to mistakes. 2. St Paul the writer of this Epistle — The hesitation of Origen — Heads of evidence. 3. Uncertainty of them who assign any other author. 4. St Luke not the writer of it; 5. Nor Barnabas. The Epistle under his name counterfeit — His writing of this Epistle by sundry reasons disproved. 6. Not Apollos; 7. Nor Clemens; 8. Nor Tertullian. 9. Objections against St Paul’s being the penman — Dissimilitude of style — Admitted by the ancients. 10. Answer of Origen rejected; of Clemens, Jerome, etc., rejected likewise. 11. St Paul, in what sense ijdiw>thv tw~| lo>gw|. 12. His eloquence and skill. 13. Causes of the difference in style between this and his other epistles. 14. Coincidence of expressions in it and them. 15. The Epistle ajnepi>grafov. 16. Answer of Jerome rejected; 17. Of Theodoret; 18. Of Chrysostom — Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul not the cause of the forbearance [i.e., withholding] of his name. 19. The true reason thereof — The Hebrews’ church-state not changed — Faith evangelical educed from Old Testament principles and testimonies — These pressed on the Hebrews; not mere apostolical authority. 20. Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle answered — Other exceptions from the Epistle itself removed. 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it — Testimony of St Peter, 2 Peter 3:15,16 — Considerations upon that testimony — The second Epistle of St Peter written to the same persons with the first — The first written unto the Hebrews in their dispersion — Diaspora>, what. 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote — That, this Epistle; not that to the Galatians; not one lost. 23. The “long-suffering of God,” how declared to be “salvation” in this Epistle. 24. The wisdom ascribed unto St Paul in the writing of this Epistle, wherein it appears — The dusno>hta of it — Weight of this testimony. 25. The suitableness of this Epistle unto those of the same author — Who competent judges hereof — What required thereunto. 26. Testimony of the first churches, or catholic tradition. 27. Evidences from this Epistle itself — The general argument and scope – Method — Way of arguing — All the same with St Paul’s other Epistles — Skill in Judaical learning, traditions, and customs, proper to St Paul — His bonds and sufferings — His companion Timothy — His sign and token subscribed. 1. THE divine authority of the Epistle being vindicated, it is of no great moment to inquire seriously after its penman. Writings that proceed from divine inspiration receive no addition of authority from the reputation or esteem of them by whom they were written; and this the Holy Ghost hath sufficiently manifested by shutting up the names of many of them from the knowledge of the church in all ages. The close of the Pentateuch hath an uncertain penman, unless we shall suppose, with some of the Jews, that it was written by Moses after his death! Divers of the psalms have their penmen concealed, as also have the whole books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth, Esther, Job; and the Chronicles are but guessed at.
Had any prejudice unto their authority ensued, this had not been. [As] for those whose authors are known, they were not esteemed to be given by prophecy because they were prophets, but they were known to be prophets by the word which they delivered: for if the word delivered, or written, by any of the prophets, was to be esteemed sacred or divine because delivered or written by such persons as were known to be prophets; then it must be because they were some other way known so to be, and divinely inspired, as by working of miracles, or that they were in their days received and testified unto as such by the church. But neither of these can be asserted. For as it is not known that any one penman of the Old Testament, Moses only excepted, ever wrought any miracles, so it is certain that the most and chiefest of them (as the prophets) were rejected and condemned by the church of the days wherein they lived. The only way, therefore, whereby they were proved to be prophets was by the word itself which they delivered and wrote; and thereon depended the evidence and certainty of their being divinely inspired. See Amos 7:14-17; Jeremiah 23:25-31. And, setting aside that actual inspiration by the Holy Ghost which they had for the declaration and writing of that word of God which came unto them in particular, the prophets themselves were subject to mistakes. So was Samuel, when he thought Eliab should have been the Lord’s anointed, 1 Samuel 16:6; and Nathan, when he approved the purpose of David to build the temple, 1 Chronicles 17:2; and the great Elijah when he supposed none left in Israel that worshipped God aright but himself, 1 Kings 19:14,18. It was, then, as we said, the word of prophecy that gave the writers of it the reputation and authority of prophets; and their being prophets gave not authority to the word they declared, or wrote as a word of prophecy. Hence an anxious inquiry after the penman of any part of the Scripture is not necessary.
But whereas there want not evidences sufficient to discover who was the writer of this Epistle, whereby also the exceptions made unto its divine original may be finally obviated, they also shall be taken into consideration. A subject this is wherein many learned men, of old and of late, have exercised themselves, until this single argument is grown up into entire and large treatises; and I shall only take care that the truth, which hath been already strenuously asserted and vindicated, may not again, by this review, be rendered dubious and questionable. 2. St Paul it is by whom we affirm this Epistle to be written. It is acknowledged that this was so highly questioned of old, that Origen, after the examination of it, concludes, To< me None of them acquaint us who were the authors or approvers of this conjecture, nor do they give any credit themselves unto it; neither is there any reason of this opinion reported by them, but only that intimated by Clemens, of the agreement of the style with that of the Acts of the Apostles (which yet is not allowed by Jerome); whereon he doth not ascribe the writing, but only the translation of it, unto Luke. Grotius alone contends for him to be the author of it, and that with this only argument, that sundry words are used in the same sense by St Luke and the writer of this Epistle; but that this observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared.
This opinion, then, may be well rejected as a groundless guess, of an obscure, unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persuasion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St Paul’s being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary, ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration, that will cast this opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probability. By general consent, this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive, and presided in the church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem; and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been.
What was his authority as an apostle, what his reputation in that church, is both known in general from the nature of his office , and in particular is intimated in the Scripture, Acts 12:17, 15:13; Galatians 2:9. These were the Hebrews whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended; and by their means that of their brethren in the eastern dispersion of them. Now, is it reason to imagine that any one who was not an apostle, but only a scholar and follower of them, should be used to write unto that church, wherein so great an apostle, a “pillar” among them, had his especial residence, and did actually preside; and that, in an argument of such huge importance, with reasons against a practice wherein they were all engaged, yea, that apostle himself, as appears, Galatians 2:12? Were any one then alive of more esteem and reputation in the church than others, certainly he was the fittest to be used in this employment; and how well all things of this nature agree unto St Paul, we shall see afterwards. 5. Some have assigned the writing of this Epistle untoBARNABAS.
Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, make no mention of him. Tertullian was the author of this opinion, and it is reported as his by Jerome Philastrius f71 also remembers the report of it. And it is of late defended by Cameron f72 (as the former concerning Luke by Grotius); whose reasons for his conjecture are confuted with some sharpness by Spanheim, mindful, as it seems, of his father’s controversy with some of his scholars. The authority of Tertullian is the sole foundation of this opinion; but as the book wherein he mentions it was written in his paroxysm, when he uttered not that only unadvisedly, so he seems not to lay much weight on the Epistle itself, only preferring it unto the apocryphal Hermes: “Receptior,” saith he, “apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore Moechorum.” And we have showed that the Latin church was, for a time, somewhat unacquainted with this Epistle, so that it is no marvel if one of them should mistake its author. Grotius would disprove this opinion from the dissimilitude of its style, and that which goes under the name of Barnabas, which is corrupt and barbarous. But there is little weight in that observation, that epistle being certainly spurious, no way savoring the wisdom or spirit of him on whom it hath been vulgarly imposed. But yet, that it was that epistle which is cited by some of the ancients under the name of Barnabas, and not this unto the Hebrews, is well proved by Baronius, from the names that Jerome mentions out of that epistle, which are nowhere to be found in this to the Hebrews. But that epistle of Barnabas is an open fruit of that vanity, which prevailed in many about the third and fourth ages of the church, of personating in their writings some apostolical persons; wherein they seldom or never kept any good decorum, as might easily be manifested in this particular instance. As to our present case, the reason before mentioned is of the same validity against this as [against] the other opinion concerning Luke; whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added. Barnabas was not an apostle, properly and strictly so called, nor had apostolical mission or authority; but rather seems to have been one of the seventy disciples, as Epiphanius affirms. And Eusebius, a person less credulous than he, acknowledging that a just and true catalogue of them could not be given, yet placeth Barnabas as the first of them concerning whom all agreed. Much weight, indeed, I shall not lay hereon, seeing it is evident that the catalogues, given us by the ancients of those disciples, are nothing but a rude collection of such names as they found in the books of the New Testament, applied without reason or testimony. But apostle he was none.
Many circumstances also concur to the removal of this conjecture. The Epistle was written in Italy, chapter 13:24, where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was. The fabulous author, I confess, of the rhapsody called “The Recognitions of Clemens,” tells us that Barnabas went to Rome, taking Clemens along with him; and, returning into Judea, found St Peter at Caesarea. But St Luke in the Acts gives us another account, both where Barnabas was and how he was employed, at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things; for whilst St Peter was at Caesarea, Acts 10:1, etc., Barnabas was at Jerusalem, Acts 9:26,27, being a little while after sent to Antioch by the apostles, chapter 11:22. Again, Timothy was the companion of the writer of this Epistle, Hebrews 13:23; a person, as far as appears, unknown unto Barnabas, being taken into St Paul’s society after their difference and separation, Acts 15:37-39, Acts 16:1-3. He had also been in bonds or imprisonment, Hebrews 10:34, whereof we cannot at that time learn any thing concerning Barnabas, those of St Paul being known unto all. And, lastly, not long before the writing of this Epistle, Barnabas was so far from that light into, and apprehension of the nature, use, and expiration of Judaical rites herein expressed, that he was easily misled into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them, Galatians 2:13; wherein although some (after Jerome’s fancy, that the difference between St Peter and St Paul was only in pretence ) have labored to free St Peter and his companions on other grounds from any sinful failing, — as it should seem in a direct opposition unto the testimony of St Paul, affirming that kategnwsme>nov h+n , in that particular “he was to be blamed” or condemned, verse 11, not unlike him who hath written a justification of Aaron in his making the golden calf, — yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical institutions is evident from the text. And shall we suppose that he who but a little before, upon the coming of some few brethren of the church of Jerusalem from St James, durst not avouch and abide by his own personal liberty, but deserted the use of it, not without some blamable dissimulation, verse 13, should now, with so much authority, write an Epistle unto that church with St James, and all the Hebrews in the world, concurring with them in judgment and practice about that very thing wherein himself, out of respect unto them, had particularly miscarried? This certainly was rather the work of St Paul, whose light and constancy in the doctrine delivered in this Epistle, with his engagement in the defense of it above all the rest of the apostles, are known from the story of the Acts and his own other writings. 6. APOLLOS hath been thought by some to be the penman of this Epistle, and that because it answers the character given of him; for it is said that he was “an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures,” fervent in spirit, and one that “mightily convinced the Jews” out of the Scripture itself, Acts 18:24,28, — all which things appear throughout this whole discourse. But this conjecture hath no countenance from antiquity, no mention being made of any epistle written by Apollos, or of any thing else; so that he is not reckoned by Jerome amongst the ecclesiastical writers, nor by those who interpolated that work with some fragments out of Sophronius. Nor is he reported, by Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius, to have been by any esteemed the author of this Epistle. However, I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the observation mentioned, if the excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him; yea, had they not all of them been found in St Paul, and that in a manner and degree more eminent than in the other. But this being so, the ground of this conjecture is taken from under it. 7. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, in the places forecited, mention a report concerning some who ascribed this Epistle untoCLEMENS ROMANUS.
None of them give any countenance unto it, or intimate any grounds of that supposition; only Jerome affirms that there is some similitude between the style of this Epistle and that of Clemens, which occasioned the suspicion of his translating it; whereof afterwards. Erasmus hath since taken up that report, and seems to give credit unto it; but hath not contributed any thing of reason or testimony unto its confirmation. A worthy, holy man was this Clemens, no doubt, and bishop of the church at Rome. But none of the ancients of any learning or judgment ever laid weight on this conjecture. For what had he, who was a convert from among the Gentiles, to do with the churches of the Hebrews? what authority had he to interpose himself in that which was their peculiar concernment? Whence may it appear that he had that skill in the nature, use, and end of Mosaical rites and institutions, which the writer of this Epistle discovers in himself? Neither doth that epistle of his to the church of Corinth, which is yet extant, though excellent in its kind, permit us to think that he wrote by divine inspiration. Besides, the author of this Epistle had a desire and purpose to go to the Hebrews; yea, he desires to be “restored” unto them, as one that had been with them before, chapter 13:19, 23. But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine, so what reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can imagine. And to end this needless debate, in that epistle which was truly his own, he makes use of the words and authority of this, as Eusebius long since observed. 8. Sixtus Senensis affirms that the work whose author we inquire after was by some assigned untoTERTULLIAN. A fond and impious imagination, and such as no man of judgment or sobriety could ever fall into! This Epistle was famous in the churches before Tertullian was born; is ascribed by himself unto Barnabas; and some passages in it are said by him to be corrupted by one Theodotus long before his time. From the uncertainty of these conjectures, with the evidence of reason and circumstances whereby they are disproved, two things we seem to have obtained; — first, That no objection on their account can arise against our assertion; and, secondly, That if St Paul be not acknowledged to be the writer of this Epistle, the whole church of God is, and ever was, at a total loss whom to ascribe it unto. And it may reasonably be expected that the weakness of these conjectures should, if not add unto, yet set off the credibility of the reasons and testimonies which shall be produced in the assignment of it unto him. 9. The objections that are laid by some against our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul, according unto the order proposed, are nextly to be considered. These I shall pass through with what briefness I can, so as not to be wanting unto the defensative designed.
First, Dissimilitude of style, and manner of writing, from that used by St Paul in his other epistles, is pressed in the first place, and principally insisted on; and indeed it is the whole of what, with any color of reason, is made use of in this cause. This the ancients admitted. The elegance, propriety of speech, and sometimes loftiness, that occur in this Epistle, difference it, as they say, from those of St Paul’s writing. Dokei~ me Origen also confesseth that it hath not in its character to< ijdiwtiko Tou~ me This Origen presseth, and Jerome takes occasion hence to censure his skill in his mother tongue; for so was the Greek unto them that were born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and this was the place of St Paul’s nativity: though the same Jerome, from I know not what tradition, affirms that he was born at Giscalis, a town of Galilee, from whence he went afterwards with his parents to Tarsus; contrary to his own express testimony, Acts 22:3, “I verily was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.”
But this seems an infirm foundation for the objection insisted on. Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians about the false teachers who seduced them from the simplicity of the gospel. The course which they took to ensnare them was vain, affected eloquence, and strains of rhetoric unbecoming the work they pretended to be engaged in. Puffed up with this singularity, they contemned St Paul as a rude, unskillful person, no way able to match them in their fine declamations. In answer hereunto, he first tells them that it became not him to use sofi>an lo>gou , 1 Corinthians 1:17, — that “wisdom of words,” or speech, which orators flourished withal; or dida>ktouv ajnqrwpi>nhv sofi>av lo>gouv, chapter 2:13, — “the words that man’s wisdom teacheth,” or an artificial composition of words, to entice thereby, which he calls uJperoch And many reasons he gives why it became him not to make use of those things, so as to make them his design, as the seducers and false apostles did. Again, he answers by concession in this place, Eij de< kai< ijdiw>thv tw~| lo>gw| , — “ Suppose I be (or were) hide or unskillful in speech, doth this matter depend thereon? Is it not manifest unto you that I am not so in the knowledge of the mystery of the gospel?” “He doth not confess that he is so,” saith Austin, “but grants it for their conviction.” And in this sense concur OEcumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Catharinus, Clarius, and Cappellus, with many others on the place. If, then, by lo>gov here, that seducing, enticing rhetoric wherewith the false teachers entangled the affections of their unskillful hearers be intended, as we grant that St Paul, it may be, was unskillful in it, and are sure that he would make no use of it, so it is denied that any footsteps of it appear in this Epistle; and if any thing of solid, convincing, unpainted eloquence be intended in it, it is evident that St Paul neither did nor justly could confess himself unacquainted with it; only he made a concession of the objection made against him by the false teachers, to manifest how they could obtain no manner of advantage thereby. 12. Neither are the other epistles of St Patti written in so low and homely a style as is pretended. Chrysostom, speaking of him, tells us, Jype And other differences from the rest of Paul’s epistles, but what may evidently be seen to arise from these and the like causes, none have yet discovered, nor can so do. And notwithstanding the elegancy of the style pretended, that it is as full of Hebraisms as any other epistle of the same author, we shall discover in our passage through it; which certainly a person of that ability in the Greek tongue as the writer of this Epistle discovers himself to be might have avoided, if he had thought meet so to do. 14. Neither is it to be omitted that there is such a coincidence in many phrases, use of words and expressions, between this Epistle and the rest of St Paul’s, as will not allow us to grant such a discrepancy in style as some imagine. They have many of them been gathered by others, and therefore I shall only point unto the places from whence they are, taken.
See <580101> chapter 1:1, 2, compared with 2 Corinthians 13:3. Hebrews 2:14, with Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12. Hebrews 2:11, with Ephesians 5:26. Hebrews 3:1, with Philippians 3:14; 2 Timothy 1:9. Hebrews 3:6, with Romans 5:2. Hebrews 5:14, with Corinthians 2:6; Philippians 3:15; Ephesians 4:13. Hebrews 5:13, with 1 Corinthians 3:2. Hebrews 6:11, with Colossians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:5. Hebrews 7:18, with Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:9. Hebrews 8:6,7, with Galatians 3:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5. Hebrews 10:1, with Colossians 2:17. Hebrews 10:22, with <470701> Corinthians 7:1. Hebrews 10:23, a phrase peculiar to St Paul, and common with him. Hebrews 10:33, with 1 Corinthians 4:9. Hebrews 10:36, with Galatians 3:22. Hebrews 10:39, with 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Thessalonians 2:13. Hebrews 12:1, with 1 Corinthians 9:24. Hebrews 13:10, with 1 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 10:18. Hebrews 13:15,16, with Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18. Hebrews 13:20, with Romans 15:33, Romans 16:20; Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Many of which places having before been observed by others, they are all of them collected in this order by Spanheim; and many more of the like nature might be added unto them, but that these are sufficient to outbalance the contrary instances of some words and expressions nowhere else used by St Paul, which perhaps may be observed of every other epistle in like manner. And upon all these considerations it appears how little force there is in this objection. 15. Secondly, It is excepted that the Epistle is ajnepi>grafov , the name of Paul being not prefixed unto it, as it is, say some, unto all the epistles written by him. And this, indeed, is the womb wherein all other objections have been conceived; for this being once taken notice of, and admitted as an objection, the rest were but fruits of men’s needless diligence to give countenance unto it. And this exception is ancient, and that which alone some of old took any notice of; for it is considered by Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, OEcumenius, and generally by all that have spoken any thing about the writer of this Epistle. Nor doth the strength that it hath lie merely in this, that it is without inscription, for so is the Epistle of St John, concerning which it was never doubted but that he was the author of it, but in the constant usage of Paul, prefixing his name unto all his other epistles; so that unless a just reason can be given why he should divert from that custom in the writing of this, it may be well supposed to be none of his.
Now, by the title which is wanting, either the mere titular superscription, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,” is intended, or the inscription of his name, with an apostolical salutation conjoined, in the Epistle itself. For the first, it is uncertain of what antiquity the titular superscriptions of any of the epistles are, but most certain that they did not originally belong unto them, and are therefore destitute of all authority. They are things the transcribers, it may be, have at pleasure made bold withal, as with the subscription also of some of them, as to the place from whence they were sent, and the persons by whom. Though this, therefore, should be wanting unto this Epistle, as there is some variety both in ancient copies of the original and translations about it, the most owning and retaining it, yet it would be of no moment, seeing we know not whence or from whom any of them are. The objection, then, is taken from the want of the wonted apostolical salutation, which should be in and a part of the Epistle. And this is the substance of what on this account is excepted against our assertion. 16. Various answers have been given to this objection, some of them of no more validity than itself. Jerome replies, “It hath no man’s name prefixed; therefore we may by as good reason say, it was written by no man, as not by Paul;” — which instance, though it be approved by Beza, with other learned men, and not sufficiently answered by Erasmus with a contrary instance, yet indeed it is of no value; for being written, it must be written by somebody, though not perhaps by St Paul. Some have thought that it may be the inscription inquired after was at first prefixed, but by some means or other hath been lost. But as there are very many arguments and evidences to evince the weakness of this imagination, so the beginning and entrance of the Epistle is such as is incapable of any contexture with such a salutation as that used in other Epistles, as is also that of St John; so that this conjecture can here have no place. 17. Some of the ancients, and principally Theodoret, insist upon the peculiar allotment of his work unto him among the Gentiles. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles in an especial manner; and if, in writing unto the Hebrews, he had prefixed his name unto his Epistle, he might have seemed to transgress the line of his allotment. And if it be not certain that the apostles, by common consent, cast their work into distinct portions, which they peculiarly attended unto, as the ancients generally concur that they did (and there was not reason wanting why they should do so), yet it is [certain] that there was a special convention and agreement between James, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, that they should attend the ministry of the Circumcision, and these of the Gentiles. Hence Paul, finding it necessary for him to write unto the Hebrews, would not prefix his name with an apostolical salutation unto his Epistle, that he might not seem to have invaded the province of others, or transgressed the line of his allotment. But I must acknowledge, that, notwithstanding the weight laid upon it by Theodoret and some others, this reason seems not unto me cogent unto the end for which it is produced: for, — (1.) The commission given by the Lord Christ unto his apostles was catholic, and had no bounds but that of the whole creation of God capable of instruction, Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; and that commission which was given unto them all in general was given unto every one in particular, and made him in solidum possessor of all the right and authority conveyed by it. Neither could any following arbitrary agreement, pitched on for convenience and the facilitating of their work, abridge any of them from exerting their authority and exercising their duty towards any of the sons of men, as occasion did require. And hence it is, that notwithstanding the agreement mentioned, we find St Peter teaching the Gentiles, and St Paul laboring for the conversion of the Jews. (2.) In writing this Epistle, on this supposition, St Paul did indeed that which is pretended was not meet for him to do, — namely, he entered on that which was the charge of another man; only he conceals his name, that he might not appear in doing of a thing unwarrantable and unjustifiable!
And whether it be meet to ascribe this unto the apostle is easy to determine. As, then, it is certain that St Paul, in the writing of this Epistle, did nothing but what in duty he ought to do, and what the authority given him by Christ extended itself unto; so the concealing of his name, lest he should be thought to have done any thing irregularly, is a thing that, without much temerity, may not be imputed unto him. 18. There is another answer to this objection, which seemeth to be solid and satisfactory, which most of the ancients rest in; and it is, that St Paul had weighty reasons not to declare his name at the entrance of this Epistle to the Hebrews, taken from the prejudices that many of them had against him. This is insisted on by Clemens in Eusebiua “He did wisely,” saith he, “conceal his name, because of the prejudicate opinion that they had against him.” And this is at large insisted on by Chrysostom, who is followed therein by Theophylact, OEcumenius, and others without number. The persecuting party of the nation looked on him as an apostate, a deserter of the cause wherein he was once engaged, and one that taught apostasy from the law of Moses; yea, as they thought, that set the whole world against them and all that they gloried in, Acts 21:28; and what enmity is usually stirred up on such occasions all men know, and his example is a sufficient instance of it. And there was added thereunto (which Chrysostom, and that justly, lays great weight upon), that he was no ordinary person, but a man of great and extraordinary abilities; which mightily increased the provocation. Those among them who, with the profession of the gospel, had a mind to continue themselves in, and to impose upon others the observance of, Mosaical institutions, looked on him as the only person that had frustrated their design, Acts 15:1,2.
And this also is usually no small cause of wrath and hatred. The spirit of these men afterwards possessing the Ebionites, they despised St Paul as a Grecian and deserter of the law, as Epiphanius testifies. And even the best among them, who, either in the use of their liberty or upon an indulgence given them, continued in the temple worship, had a jealous eye over him, lest he had not that esteem for Moses which they imagined became them to retain, Acts 21:20,21. How great a prejudice against his doctrine and reasonings these thoughts and jealousies might have created, had he, at the entrance of his dealing with them, prefixed his name and usual salutation, is not hard to conjecture. This being the state and condition of things in reference unto St Paul, and not any other known penman of the Holy Ghost, or eminent disciple of Christ in those days, this defect of inscription , as Beza well observes, proves the Epistle rather to be his than any other person’s whatever. And though I know that there may be some reply made unto this answer, both from the discovery which he makes of himself in the end of the Epistle, and from the high probability there is that the Hebrews, upon the first receipt of it, would diligently examine by whom it was written, yet I judge it very sufficient to frustrate the exception insisted on, though perhaps not containing the true, at least the whole, cause of the omission of an apostolical salutation in the entrance of it. 19. If, then, we would know the true and just cause of the omission of the author’s name and mention of his apostolical authority in the entrance of this Epistle, we must consider what were the just reasons of prefixing them unto his other epistles. Chrysostom, in his proem unto the Epistle to the Romans, gives this as the only reason of the mentioning the name of the writer of any epistle in the frontispiece of it otherwise than was done by Moses and the evangelists in their writings, namely, because they wrote unto them that were present, and so had no cause to make mention of their own names, which were well enough known without the premising of them in their writings; whereas those who wrote epistles, dealing with them that were absent, were necessitated to prefix their names unto them, that they might know from whom they came. But yet this reason is not absolutely satisfactory: for as they who prefixed not their names to their writings wrote, not only for the use and benefit of those that were present and knew them, but of all succeeding ages, who knew them not; so many of them who yet prefixed their names unto their writings, did preach and write the word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them, as did the prophets of old; and some who did write epistles to them who were absent omitted so to do, as St John and the author of this Epistle. The real cause, then, of prefixing the names of any of the apostles unto their writing, was merely the introduction thereby of their titles as apostles of Jesus Christ, and therein an intimation of that authority by and with which they wrote. This, then, was the true and only reason why the apostle St Paul prefixed his name unto his epistles. Sometimes, indeed, this is omitted, when he wrote unto some churches where, he was well known, and his apostolical power was sufficiently owned, because he joined others with himself in his salutation who were not apostles; as the Epistle to the Philippians, Philippians 1, and the second of the Thessalonians. Unto all others he still prefixeth this title; declaring himself thereby to be one so authorized to reveal the mysteries of the gospel, that they to whom he wrote were to acquiesce in his authority, and to resolve their faith into the revelation of the will of God made unto him and by him, the church being to be “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” And hence it was, that when something he had taught was called in question and opposed, writing in the vindication of it, and for their establishment in the truth whom before he had instructed, he doth in the entrance of his writing singularly and emphatically mention this his authority: Galatians 1:1, “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, that raised him from the dead;” so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the doctrine by him revealed. By this title, I say, he directs them to whom he wrote to resolve their assent into the authority of Christ speaking in him, which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the mysteries wherein they were instructed.
In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise. They who believed, amongst them, never changed the old foundation, or church-state grounded on the Scriptures, though they bad a new addition of privileges by their faith in Christ Jesus, as the Messiah now exhibited. And therefore he deals not with them as with those whose faith was built absolutely on apostolical authority and revelation, but upon the common principles of the Old Testament, on which they still stood, and out of which evangelical faith was educed. Hence the beginning of the Epistle, wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation that he intended to build upon, and the authority which he would press them withal, supplies the room of that intimation of his apostolical authority which in other places he maketh use of. And it serves to the very same purpose. For, as in those epistles he proposeth his apostolical authority as the immediate reason of their assent and obedience; so in this he doth the scriptures of the Old Testament. And this is the true and proper cause that renders the prefixing of his apostolical authority, which must necessarily accompany his name, needless, because useless, it being that which he intended not to engage in this business And for himself, he sufficiently declares in the close of his Epistle who he was; for though some may imagine that he is not so certainly known unto us, from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond as doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote. So that neither hath this objection in it anything of real weight or moment. 20. Thirdly, We have spoken before unto the hesitation of the Latin church, which by some is objected, especially by Erasmus; and given the reasons of it, manifesting that it is of no force to weaken our assertion: unto which I shall now only add, that after it was received amongst them as canonical, it was never questioned by any learned man or synod of old whether St Paul was the author of it or no, but they all with one consent ascribed it unto him, as hath been at large by others declared. The remaining exceptions which by some are insisted on are taken from some passages in the Epistle itself; that principally of chapter 2:3, where the writer of it seems to reckon himself among the number, not of the apostles, but of their auditors [and survivors]. But whereas it is certain and evident that the Epistle was written before the destruction of the temple, yea, [before] the beginning of those wars that ended therein, or the death of James, whilst sundry of the apostles were yet alive, it cannot be that the penman of it should really place himself amongst the generation that succeeded them; so that the words must of necessity admit of another interpretation, as shall be manifested in its proper place: for whereas both this and other things of the same nature must be considered and spoken unto in the places where they occur, I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due season, especially considering of how small importance the objections taken from them are.
And this is the sum of what hath, as yet, by any been objected unto our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul; by the consideration whereof the reader will be directed into the judgment he is to make on the arguments and testimonies that we shall produce in the confirmation of our assertion; and these we now proceed unto, under the several heads proposed in the entrance of our discourse. 21. (1.) Amongst the arguments usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been written by St Paul, the testimony given unto it by St Peter deserves consideration in the first place, and is indeed of itself sufficient to determine the inquiry about it. His words to this purpose, 2 Peter 3:15,16, are: “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according unto the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
To clear this testimony, some few things must be observed in it and concerning it; as, — (1.) That St Peter wrote this second epistle unto the same persons, that is, the same churches and people, to whom he wrote his first. This, to omit other evidences of it, himself testifies, <600301> chapter 3:1: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.” It was not only absolutely his second epistle, but the second which he wrote to the same persons, handling in both the same general argument, as himself in the next words affirms. (2.) That his first epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian dispersion: J jEklektoi~v parepidh>moiv diafpora~v Po>ntou, etc.; — “To the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” chapter <580101> 1:1; that is, “The dw>deka fula To sum up our evidence in this particular: Peter, being in an especial manner the apostle of the Circumcision, or Hebrews, Galatians 2:7, having by his first sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Acts 2:9-11,41; ascribing that title unto them to whom he wrote which was the usual and proper appellation of them in all the world, J JH diaspora< tou~ jIsrah>l , James 1:1, John 7:35; treating with them for the most part about things peculiar to them in a special manner, and that with arguments and from principles peculiarly known unto them, as the places above quoted well manifest; there remains no ground of question but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote.
Nor are the exceptions that are made to this evidence of any such importance as once to deserve a remembrance by them who design not a protracting of their discourses by insisting on things unnecessary. 22. Now, it is plainly in this testimony asserted, that St Paul wrote a peculiar epistle unto them unto whom St Peter wrote his; that is, to the Hebrews: “He hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles;” that is, in all his other epistles; — “Besides his other epistles to other churches and persons, he hath also written one unto you.” So that, if St Peter’s testimony may be received, St Paul undoubtedly wrote an epistle unto the Hebrews. “But this may be,” say some, “another epistle, and not this we treat of; particularly that to the Galatians, which treateth about Judaical customs and worship.” But this epistle mentioned by St Peter was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles; this to the Galatians was written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews: so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have been fixed upon. Besides, he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St Peter; which are indeed the main subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews. “But,” say others, “Paul indeed might write an epistle to the Hebrews, which may be lost, and this that we have might be written by some other.” But whence this answer should proceed, but from a resolution ze>sin diafula>ttein, against light and conviction, I know not. May we give place to such rash and presumptuous conjectures, we shall quickly have nothing left entire or stable; for why may not another as well say, “It is true Moses wrote five books; but they are lost, and those that we have under his name were written by another”? It is not, surely, one jot less intolerable for any one, without ground, proof, or testimony, to affirm that the church hath lost an epistle written to the Hebrews by St Paul, and taken up one in the room thereof, written by, no man knoweth whom.
This is not to deal with that holy reverence in the things of God which becomes us. 23. (2.) St Peter declares that St Paul, in that epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews, had declared the “long-suffering of God,” whereof he had minded them, to be “salvation.” We must see what was this “longsuffering of God,” how it was “salvation,” and how Paul had manifested it so to be. [1.] The long-sufferance, patience, or forbearance of God, is either absolute, toward man in general; or special, in reference unto some sort of men, or some kind of sins or provocations that are amongst them. The first of these is not that which is here intended; nor was there any reason why St Peter should direct the Jews to the epistles of St Paul in particular to learn the long-suffering of God in general, which is so plentifully revealed in the whole scripture both of the Old and New Testament, and only occasionally at any time mentioned by St Paul. There was, therefore, an especial “long-suffering of God,” which at that time he exercised towards the Jews, waiting for the conversion and the gathering of his elect unto him, before that total and final destruction which they had deserved should come upon that church and state. This he compares to the “long-suffering of God in the days of Noah,” whilst he preached repentance unto the world, 1 Epist. 3:20: for as those that were obedient unto his preaching (which was only his own family) were saved in the ark from the general destruction that came upon the world by water; so also they that became obedient upon the preaching of the gospel during this new season of God’s special long-suffering were to be saved by baptism, or separation from the unbelieving Jews by the profession of the faith, from that destruction that was to come upon them by fire. This “long-suffering of God” the unbelieving Jews not understanding to be particular, scoffed at, and at them who threatened them with such an issue or event of it, 2 Epist 3:4; which causeth the apostle to declare the nature and end of this longsuffering, which they were ignorant of, verse 9. [2.] And thus was this particular “long-suffering of God” towards the Jews, whilst the gospel was preached unto them before their final desolation, “salvation,” in that God “spared” them, and allowed them to abide for a while in the observation of their old worship and ceremonies, granting them in the meantime blessed means of light and instruction, to bring them to salvation. [3.] And this is declared by St Paul in this Epistle. Not that this is formally and in terms the main doctrine of the Epistle, but that really and effectually he acquaints them with the intention of the Lord in his longsuffering towards them; and peculiarly serves that long-suffering of Christ in his instruction of them. And therefore, after he hath taught them the true nature, use, and end of all Mosaical institutions, which they were as yet permitted to use, in the special patience of God intimated by St Peter, and convinced them of the necessity of faith in Christ and the profession of his gospel, he winds up all his reasonings in minding them of the end which shortly was to be put unto that “long-suffering of God” which was then exercised towards them, chapter 12:25-29. So that this note also is eminently characteristical of this Epistle. 24. (3.) In the writing of the epistle mentioned by Peter, he seems to ascribe unto Paul an eminency of wisdom; it was written “according to the wisdom given unto him.” As Paul in all other of his epistles did exercise the grace of wisdom, so also in that which he wrote unto the Hebrews.
There is no doubt but he exerted and put forth his other graces of knowledge, zeal, and love also; but yet Peter here, in a way of eminency, marketh his wisdom in that epistle. It is not Paul’s spiritual wisdom in general, in the knowledge of the will of God and mysteries of the gospel, which Peter here refers unto, but that special holy prudence which he exercised in the composure of this epistle, and in maintaining the truth which he dealt with the Hebrews about. And what an eminent character this also is of this Epistle we shall endeavor, God assisting, to evince in our Exposition of it. His special understanding in all the mysteries of the Old Testament, that wrapped up the truth in great darkness and obscurity, unfolding things hidden from the foundation of the world; his application of them, with various testimonies and arguments, unto the mystery of “God manifested in the flesh;” his various intertextures of reasonings and exhortations throughout his Epistle; his condescension to the capacity, prejudices, and affections, of them to whom he wrote, urging them constantly with their own principles and concessions, — do, among many other things, manifest the singular wisdom which Peter signifies to have been used in this work. (4.) It may also be observed, that whereas Peter affirms that among the things about which Paul wrote there were tina< dusno>hta , “some things hard to be understood,” Paul in a special manner confesseth that some of the things which he was to treat of in that Epistle were dusermh>neuta, “hard to be declared,” uttered, or unfolded, and therefore certainly “hard to be understood,” chapter 5:11; which in our progress we shall manifest to be spoken not without great and urgent cause, and that in many instances, especially that directed unto by himself concerning Melchizedek. So that this also gives another characteristical note of the epistle testified unto by Peter.
I have insisted the longer upon this testimony, because, in my judgment, it is sufficient of itself to determine this controversy; nothing of any importance being by any that I can meet withal excepted unto it. But because we want not other confirmations of our assertion, and those also every one of them singly outbalancing the conjectures that are advanced against it, we shall subjoin them also in their order. 25. The comparing of this Epistle with the others of the same apostle gives further evidence unto our assertion. I suppose it will be confessed, that they only are competent judges of this argument who are well exercised and conversant in his writings. Unto their judgment, therefore, alone in it do we appeal. Now, the similitude between this and other epistles of Paul is threefold: — (1.) In words, phrases, and manner of expression. Of this sort many instances may be given, and such a coincidence of phrase manifested in them as is not usually to be observed between the writings that have various or diverse authors. But this I shall not particularly insist upon, partly because it hath already been done by others at large, and partly because they will all of them be observed in our Exposition itself; nor doth it suit our present design to enter into a debate about particular words and expressions. Nor do I assign any more force unto this observation, but only that it is sufficient to manifest the weakness of the exceptions urged by some to prove it none of his, from the use of some few words not elsewhere used by him, or not in that sense which here they are applied unto; for their instances are not in number comparable with the other. And to evidence the vanity of that part of their objection which concerns the peculiar use of some words in this Epistle, it is enough to observe that one word, uJpo>staisiv , being three times used in this one Epistle, it hath in each place a peculiar and diverse signification. (2.) There is also a coincidence of matter or doctrines delivered in this and the other epistles of Paul. Neither shall I much press this consideration: for neither was he in any epistle restrained unto what he had elsewhere delivered, nor bound to avoid the mentioning of it if occasion did require; nor were other penmen of the Holy Ghost limited not to treat of what he had taught, no more than the evangelists were from writing the same story.
But yet neither is this observation destitute of all efficacy to contribute strength unto our assertion, considering that there were some doctrines which Paul did in a peculiar manner insist upon; a vein whereof a diligent observer may find running through this and all his other epistles. But, (3.) That which under this head I would press, is the consideration of the spirit, genius, pa>qov, and manner of writing proceeding from them, peculiar to this apostle in all his epistles. Many things are required to enable any one to judge aright of this intimation. He must, as Bernard speaks, drink of Paul’s spirit, or be made partaker of the same Spirit with him, in his measure, who would understand his writings. Without this Spirit and his saving light, they are all obscure, intricate, sapless, unsavory; while unto them in whom he is, they are all sweet, gracious, in some measure open, plain, and powerful. A great and constant exercise unto an acquaintance with his frame of spirit in writing is also necessary hereunto. Unless a man have contracted as it were a familiarity, by a constant conversation with him, no critical skill in words or phrases will render him a competent judge in this matter. This enabled Caesar to determine aright concerning any writings of Cicero. And he that is so acquainted with this apostle will be able to discern his spirit, as Austin says his mother Monica did divine revelations, “nescio quo sapore,” — by an inexpressible spiritual savor. Experience also of the power and efficacy of his writings is hereunto required. He whose heart is cast into the mould of the doctrine by him delivered will receive quick impressions, from his spirit exerting itself, in any of his writings. He that is thus prepared will find that heavenliness and perspicuity in unfolding the deepest evangelical mysteries; that peculiar exaltation of Jesus Christ, in his person, office, and work; that spiritual persuasiveness; that transcendent manner of arguing and reasoning; that wise insinuation and pathetical pressing of well-grounded exhortations; that love, tenderness, and affection to the souls of men; that zeal for God and authority in teaching, which enliven and adorn all his other epistles, — to shine in this in an eminent manner, from the beginning to the end of it. And this consideration, whatever may be the apprehensions of others concerning it, is that which gives me satisfaction, above all that are pleaded in this cause, in ascribing this Epistle to Paul. 26. The testimony of the first churches, of whose testimony any record is yet remaining, with a successive suffrage of the most knowing persons of following ages, may also be pleaded in this cause. Setting aside that limitation of this testimony, as to some in the Latin church, which, with the grounds and occasions of it, we have already granted and declared, this witness will be acknowledged to be catholic as to all other churches in the world. A learned man of late hath reckoned up and reported the words of above thirty of the Greek fathers and fifty of the Latin reporting this primitive tradition. I shall not trouble the reader with a catalogue of their names, nor the repetition of their words; and that because the whole of what in general we assert as to the eastern church is acknowledged.
Amongst them was this Epistle first made public , as they had far more advantages of discovering the truth in this matter of fact than any in the Roman church, or that elsewhere followed them in after ages, could have.
Neither had they anything but the conviction and evidence of truth itself to induce them to embrace this persuasion. And he that shall consider the condition of the first churches under persecution, and what difficulties they met withal in communicating those apostolical writings which were delivered unto any of them, with that special obstruction unto the spreading of this unto the Hebrews of which we have already discoursed, cannot rationally otherwise conceive of it but as an eminent fruit of the good providence of God, that it should so soon receive so public an attestation from the first churches as it evidently appears to have done. 27. The Epistle itself several ways discovers its author. Some of them we shall briefly recount: — (1.) The general argument and scope of it declares it to be Paul’s Hereof there are two parts: — [1.] The exaltation of the person, office, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the excellency of the gospel and the worship therein commanded, revealed by him. [2.] A discovery of the nature, use, and expiration of Mosaical institutions, their present unprofitableness, and ceasing of their obligation unto obedience. The former part we may grant to have been equally the design of all the apostles, though we find it in a peculiar way insisted on in the writings of Paul; the latter was his special work and business This, partly ex instituto, partly occasionally, from the opposition of the Jews, was he engaged in the promotion of, all the world over. The apostles of the Circumcision, according to the wisdom given them, and suitably to the nature of their work, did more accommodate themselves to the prejudicate opinion of the Jewish professors; and the rest of the apostles had little occasion to deal with them or others on this subject. Paul in an eminent manner in this work bare the burden of that day. Having well settled all other churches which were troubled in this controversy by some of the Jews, he at last treats with themselves directly in this Epistle, giving an account of what he had elsewhere preached and taught to this purpose, and the grounds that he proceeded upon; and this not without great success, as the burying of the Judaical controversy not long after doth manifest. (2.) The method of his procedure is the same with that of his other epistles, which also was peculiar unto him. Now, this in most of them, yea, in all of them not regulated by some particular occasions, is first to lay down the doctrinal mysteries of the gospel, vindicating them from oppositions and exceptions, and then to descend to exhortations unto obedience deduced from them, with an enumeration of such special moral duties as those unto whom he wrote stood in need to be minded of. This is the general method of his Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and the most of the rest. And this also is observed in this Epistle. Only, whereas he had a special respect unto the apostasy of some of the Hebrews, occasioned by the persecution which then began to grow high against them, whatever argument or testimony in his passage gave him advantage to press an exhortation unto constancy, and to deter them from backsliding, he lays hold upon it, and diverts into practical inferences unto that purpose, before he comes to his general exhortations towards the end of the Epistle. Excepting this occasional difference, the method of this is the same with that used in the other epistles of Paul, and which was peculiarly his own. (3.) His way of argument in this and his other epistles is the same, Now this, as we shall see, is sublime and mystical, accommodated rather to the spiritual reason of believers than the artificial rules of philosophers. That he should more abound with testimonies and quotations out of the scriptures of the Old Testament in this than other epistles, as he doth, the matter whereof he treats and the persons to whom he wrote did necessarily require. (4.) Many things in this Epistle evidently manifest that he who wrote it was not only “mighty in the Scriptures,” but also exceedingly well versed and skillful in the customs, practices, opinions, traditions, expositions and applications of Scripture, then received in the Judaical church, as we shall fully manifest in our progress. Now, who in those days, among the disciples of Christ, could this be but Paul? for as he was brought up under one of the best and most famous of their masters in those days, and “profited in the knowledge” of their then present religion “above his equals,” so for want of this kind of learning, the Jews esteemed the chief of the other apostles, Peter and John, to be idiots and unlearned. (5.) Sundry particulars towards and in the close of the Epistle openly proclaim Paul to have been the writer of it; as, — [1.] The mention that he makes of his “bonds,” and the “compassion” that the Hebrews showed towards him in his sufferings and whilst he was a prisoner, chapter 10:34. Now, as the “bonds’ of Paul were afterwards famous at Rome, Philippians 1:13, so there was not any thing of greater notoriety, in reference to the church of God in those days, than those that he suffered in Judea, which he minds them of in this expression. With what earnest endeavors, what rage and tumult, the rulers and body of the people sought his destruction, how publicly and with what solemnity his cause was sundry times heard and debated, with the time of his imprisonment that ensued, are all declared in the Acts at large. Now, no man can imagine but that, whilst this great champion of their profession was so publicly pleading their cause, and exposed to so much danger and hazard thereby, all the believers of those parts were exceedingly solicitous about his condition (as they had been about Peter’s in the like case), and gave him all the assistance and encouragement that they were able. This “compassion” of theirs, and his own “bonds,” as an evidence of his faith and their mutual love in the gospel, he now minds them of. Of no other person but Paul have we any ground to conjecture that this might be spoken. And yet the suffering and compassion here mentioned seem not to have been “things done in a corner.” So that this one circumstance is able, of itself, to enervate all the exceptions that are made use of against his being esteemed the author of this Epistle. [2.] The mention of Paul’s dear and constant companion Timothy is of the same importance, chapter 13:23. That Timothy was at Rome with Paul in his bonds is expressly asserted, Philippians 1:13,14, 2:19-24. That he himself was also cast into prison with Paul is here intimated, his release being expressed. Now, surely it is scarcely credible that any other should, in Italy, where Paul then was, and newly released out of prison, write unto the churches of the Hebrews, and therein make mention of his own bonds and the bonds of Timothy, a man unknown unto them but by the means of Paul, and not once intimate any thing about his condition. The exceptions of some, as that Paul used to call Timothy his “son,” whereas the writer of this Epistle calls him “brother” (when, indeed, he never terms him “son” when he speaks of him, but only when he wrote unto him), or that there might be another Timothy (when he speaks expressly of him who was so generally known to the churches of God as one of the chiefest evangelists), deserve not to be insisted on. And surely it is altogether incredible that this Timothy, the “son” of Paul, as to his begetting of him in the faith and continued paternal affection; his known, constant associate in doing and suffering for the gospel; his minister in attending of him, and constantly employed by him in the service of Christ and the churches; known unto them by his means; honored by him with two epistles written unto him, and the association of his name with his own in the inscription of sundry others, — should now be so absent from him as to be adjoined unto another in his travail and ministry. [3.] The constant sign and token of Paul’s epistles, which himself had publicly signified to be so, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, is subjoined unto this, “Grace be with you all.” That originally this was written with Paul’s own hand there is no ground to question; and it appears to be so, because it was written, and he affirms that it was his custom to subjoin that salutation with his own hand. Now, this writing of it with his own hand was an evidence unto them unto whom the original of the Epistle first came; unto those who had only transcribed copies of it, it could not be so.
The salutation itself was their token, being peculiar to Paul, and among the rest annexed to this Epistle. And all these circumstances will yet receive some further enforcement from the consideration of the time wherein this Epistle was written, whereof in the next place we shall treat.
SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION 2.
BY THE EDITOR, THE progress of discussion on the interesting question in Biblical literature with which the preceding Exercitation is occupied, would form matter of a very long historical excursion. It must suffice for our purpose to indicate its principal outlines; referring, for our authorities and sources of information, to the introductory dissertations of Hallet, Tholuck, and Stuart, together with Davidson’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” and Forster’s work on “The Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews.”
There are three leading opinions entertained in regard to the authorship of the Epistle: — I. Some ascribe it to other authors than Paul; II. Some ascribe it directly and exclusively to Paul; III. Some ascribe it to Paul in concert or conjunction with another author, and this other author is held to be, — 1. according to some, Apollos; and 2. according to others, Luke.
I. In the first class six different names are mentioned as the authors of the Epistle: — 1. CLEMENT of Rome, in the judgment of Erasmus and Patrick Young; 2. TERTULLIAN, according to Sixtus Senensis; 3. BARNABAS, according to Tertullian, Schmidt, Cameron, Twesten, Ullman, Wieseler; 4. LUKE, according to Origen, S. Crell, Grotius, and Koehler; 5. SILAS, according to Mynster and Boehme; and, 6. APOLLOS, according to Luther, Le Clerc, L. Muller, Heumann, Semler, Ziegler, Dindorf, Schott, Bleek, Feilmoser, De Wette, Credner, Roth, Reuss, Olshausen, and Tholuck.
In regard to all these views, it may be observed in general, — first, That none of them, if we exclude the opinions of Tertullian and Origen, rests on a respectable historical basis; secondly, That even in the case of Origen, his assertion cannot be taken as directly and absolutely ascribing the authorship of the Epistle to any but Paul; thirdly, That their very contrariety and multitude imply the uncertainty of the evidence adduced in their favor; fourthly, That they are mostly dependent on internal evidence, and that, with the exception of one or two of them, this evidence is vague and slender; and fifthly, The opinion that Apollos was the author, which, of all the six, has the greatest weight and number of suffrages, is supported chiefly by the argument, that the Epistle, from its typical explanation of the Jewish ritual, has an Alexandrine hue and coloring, and that it resembles the writings of Philo. In reply, first, it has been proved that typical interpretation prevailed in Palestine as well as Alexandria; secondly, Paul, in an epistle undoubtedly his, the Epistle to the Galatians, — deals with the principle of allegory, upon which the idea of alleged resemblance to Philo is founded; and thirdly, on the same inconclusive grounds, part of the Gospel of John has been ascribed to a PhiIonian origin.
II. The evidence that PAUL was the author is both external and internal.
The external evidence is as follows : — 1. In the Western church, from the fourth century, this view was held by Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, Chromatius, Innocent of Rome, Paulinus, Cassian, Prosper, Eucherius, Salvian, and Gelasius. 2. In the Alezandrine church, by Pantaenus, Origen, Dionysius, Theognostus, Peter, Alexander, Hierax, Athanasius, Theophilus, Serapion, Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria. 3. In the Greek church, the synod at Antioch A.D. 264, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the council of Nice A.D. 315, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil the Great, the council of Laodicea A.D. 360, Gregory of Nyssa, Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, assign it to the same author. 4. In the Syrian church the same opinion generally prevailed, as appears from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jacob of Nisibis, Ephraim Syrus. 5. In the African church, the council of Hippo A.D. 393, the third council of Carthage A.D. 397, and the sixth council of Carthage A.D. 419, decide in favor of the same view.
The internal evidence has reference to,- 1. Particular facts mentioned in the Epistle: — (1.) chapter 13:23; (2.) chapter 13:18, 19; (3.) chapter 10:34 (but the true reading, toi~v desmi>oiv, not toi~v desmi>oiv mou, destroys the inference founded on this expression); (4.) chapter 13:24. These facts, the first as indicating friendly relations to Timothy, the second as accordant with Paul’s mode of giving such promises elsewhere, and the last as marking a locality where Paul was for a time under restraint, have a Pauline complexion. 2. The general plan of the Epistle, as doctrinal and practical, and concluded with requests for an interest in the prayers of those to whom it was written. 3. Doctrinal contents : — (1.) On Christ’s person. Compare chapter 1:3, with 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:6. (2.) On Christ’s work as mediator : — the office of mediator, chapter 8:6, 9:15, 12:24; 1 Timothy 2:5; — his humiliation, chapter 2:9, 12:2, 3; Philippians 2:8; — his death, chapter 9:26, 28, 10:12; Romans 6:9,10; — results of his death, chapter 2:14; Corinthians 15:54, 55; 2 Timothy 1:10; — his resurrection and exaltation, chapter 9:26, 28, 7:26, 4:14; Romans 6:9,10; Ephesians 4:10; — his intercession, chapter 7:25; Romans 8:34; — his session and reign at the right hand of God, chapter 1:3, 10:12, 2:8, 9:28; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Titus 2:13; 2 Timothy 4:1,8. (3.) Blessings and privileges of believers; — access to the Father, chapter 10:19, 20; Ephesians 2:18; Romans 5:2; — Pauline triad of faith, hope, and love, chapter 10:22-24; 1 Corinthians 13:13; — importance of faith, chapter 2:1-4, 10:38, 11:39; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6-14. (4.) These truths, as entering into the essence of the gospel, may not so clearly establish the identity of the writer as certain special topics, which Moses Stuart sums up thus: — superior light under the gospel, chapter 1:1, 2, <580201> 2:1-4, 8:8-11, <581001> 10:1, 11:39, 40; Galatians 4:1-9; Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:11-13; — superior motives to virtue and religion, chapter 2:9, 9:14, 12:18-24, 28, 8:6-12; Galatians 3:23, 4:1-3; Romans 8:15,17; 1 Corinthians 7:19; — superior efficacy of the gospel in promoting the happiness of mankind, chapter 12:18-24, 9:9, 10:4, 11, 9:11-14, 5:9, 6:18, 2:14, 15, 7:25, 9:24; Galatians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9; Galatians 3:11; Romans 3:20, 4:24, 25; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:1,2; — the Jewish dispensation was a type of the Christian, chapter 9:9-14, 10:1; Colossians 2:16,17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-6,11; Romans 5:14; Corinthians 15:45-47; 2 Corinthians 3:13-18; Galatians 4:22-31; — while the Christian dispensation is to be perpetual, the Jewish institutes are abolished, chapter 8:6-8, 10:1-14; 2 Corinthians 3:11,13; Romans 4:14-16; Galatians 3:21-25, <480401> 4:1-7. 4. The tenor of the practical exhortations at the close of the Epistle, as harmonizing with what appears at the end of other epistles, chapter 12:3; Galatians 6:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:13; Ephesians 3:13; — chapter 12:14; Romans 12:18; — chap. <581301> 13:1-4; Ephesians 5:2-5; — chap. 13:16; Philippians 4:18. 5. The mode of quotation from the Old Testament scriptures: — (1.) Without notice of quotation, chapter 3:2, 5, 10:37, 11:21; Romans 9:7,21, 10:6-8, 11:34. (2.) In the way of argumentum ad hominem, or ex concessis, chapter 7., <580801> 8:1-5, <580901> 9:1-9; Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10:2; Ephesians 5:31,32. (3.) In reference to the abolition of the Jewish economy, the writer of the Epistle speaks in the same way as Paul generally does. 6. Similarity of phrase and style; such as, — (1.) Identical and synonymous expressions, chapter 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:6; 2Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:17, etc. (2.) Words in the Septuagint or Apocrypha occurring only in Paul’s epistles, and that to the Hebrews; such as, ajgw>n , ajdo>kimov , aiJre>omai , a]kakov , euja>restov , uJpo>stasiv , fra>ttw , etc. (3.) Word’s occurring only in Paul’s epistles, and that to the Hebrews: aijdw>v oJre>gomai , parakoh> , phli>kov , etc. (4.) Words, in the manner or frequency of their occurrence, peculiar to Paul’s epistles, and that to the Hebrews: aJgiasmo>v , belzio>w , guna>zw , me>mfomai , skia> , etc. (5.) Peculiarities of grammatical construction, chapter 7.: oJ lao In evidence against the Pauline origin of the Epistle. it is customary to refer to, — 1. Patristic authority: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Caius, Marcion, Cyprian, and the fathers of the Western church, to the middle of the fourth century. 2. The ignorance of Jewish rites betrayed by the writer of the Epistle, Hebrews 9:1-5; an objection which, if true, impeaches the inspiration of the Epistle; but not to be admitted as true, and capable of satisfactory refutation. 3. The difference from the other epistolary productions of the apostle, in the want of a title and inscription. 4. The language employed in Hebrews 2:3; which is alleged to imply that the writer, along with the Hebrews to whom he wrote, had received the gospel from the apostles, and not, as Paul affirms of himself elsewhere, directly from Christ: an argument sufficiently met by the consideration, that to a certain extent the fact holds true of Paul, and that it is not uncommon for a writer to use language as if he were in the same position and circumstances with those whom he addresses, when there is substantial identity between them in privilege and responsibility. And, — 5. The sustained elevation of thought and superior purity of the Greek, for which the Epistle is remarkable. Considering, however, that it is mostly a calm exegesis of the meaning of typical institutions, designed to illustrate the transcendent dignity of the Founder of the Christian dispensation, the calmness of its tone and the elevation of the sentiments expressed in it are sufficiently explained; while, both in regard to this feature of the composition and the purity of the diction, it does not excel passages eminent for rhetorical power and skill in the acknowledged writings of the apostle: Romans 8.; 1 Corinthians 13.
On a review of all the evidence, it seems established, — that the authorship of the Epistle, on no valid grounds, external or internal, can be traced to any but Paul; that nearly all the direct external evidence is in favor of the same conclusion; and that while there are one or two difficulties in regard to the internal evidence, the preponderance of it leads to the belief that Paul was the author, while even these difficulties are not absolutely incompatible with this belief.
III. The only remaining theory is, that Paul wrote the Epistle in concert with some other disciple as his assistant; so that while the sentiments are Paul’s, the modification of the language may be due to the assistance of which he availed himself in the composition of it. 1. Some take this assistant to have beenAPOLLOS. “If it be considered,” says Olshausen, “that there was always a certain distance of demeanor between the apostle Paul and the Jewish Christians, even the best of them, it will be very easy to understand why Paul did not write to them himself; and still it must have been his heart’s desire to exhibit clearly and in suitable detail his views in regard to the law, and its relation to Christianity. What more obvious mode of presenting these to the Hebrews than through the medium of a disciple or faithful friend, who, like Apollos, had a correct apprehension of this relation between the old and new covenant?” 2. Others regardLUKE as the assistant whose services were employed.
That the composition is not Paul’s Dr Davidson argues, because “the tone is elevated, rhetorical, calm, unlike the fiery force of Paul’s manner. There is polish, care, elegance. — No trace of the apostle’s characteristic manner appears. Besides, would it not be anomalous, that the apostle himself should adopt a purer Greek and higher style of writing in an Epistle addressed to the Jewish Christians in Palestine? — We are thus brought to the position that it did not receive its present form from Paul. It is better Greek than his. — The style and diction of the Epistle resemble Luke’s in the Acts more nearly than any other part of the New Testament. The likeness between the style of our Epistle and that of Luke’s writings is by no means such as to show identity of authorship . The reasons are strong for maintaining that Paul was the author, and that Luke did not translate it from one language to another. Yet this does not militate against the notion that Luke had a part in putting the thoughts and words of Paul into their present form. What was the nature of the service he rendered, it is impossible to discover.”
This theory was proposed by Origen, on the ground, to use his own words, that “the Epistle is purer Greek in the texture of its style.” “I would say,” he adds, “that the sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and the composition belong to some one who committed to writing what the apostle said, and as it were reduced to commentaries the things spoken by his master.”
Serious objections impede the reception of this theory: — 1. It leaves altogether undefined the relation between Paul and his supposed assistant, the functions neither of amanuensis, nor reporter, nor translator, nor editor, serving to account for the peculiarity of diction which has led to the suggestion of the theory. 2. It proves too much; for the qualities specified as indicating the difference between this Epistle and the known writings of Paul relate to idiosyncrasies of character in thought and feeling, which foreign aid in the mere composition of the Epistle cannot explain. If Luke so little interfered with the tenor of the thinking that his services did not even involve translation, what he did for it could not account for the sustained calmness of the discussion, and the absence of that fiery vividness of conception and appeal which are conceived to be the “nodus” rendering Luke necessary as the only “vindex” capable of resolving it. If Luke did for the Epistle what is esteemed a service adequate to explain its special phenomena, he is entitled to the full honors of its literary parentage. 3. This view supposes the possibility of separating thought from language, ascribing the former to one author and the latter to another, in a way which creates a difficulty greater than that to meet which the theory is invented. 4. There is no greater anomaly in supposing that Paul himself polished his own sentences more carefully in writing to the Hebrew Christians, than in the supposition that he employed another to do it. And, lastly, is difference of style, the only real and valid ground on which adventitious help is claimed for the apostle in the preparation of this inspired document, a sufficient reason to be very anxious in pressing such a theory?
In common literature, very remarkable differences in the style of the same author in different works might be mentioned. Paul wrote the Epistle, it is believed, at an advanced period of his course, and after he had mingled for years with multitudes who spoke the language in the utmost purity of that age; and with the advantage of leisure for the composition of the Epistle, his mind rising to a kindred and congenial elevation with the theme of which he treats, — the surpassing glories of his Lord and Savior, — and borrowing a hue of peculiar solemnity from his own anticipated doom as a martyr for the truth, he might infuse a tone of dignity into his very language enough to vindicate the Epistle as implicitly and entirely his own.
EXERCITATION 3.
THE TIME [AND OCCASION] OF THE WRITING OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1. The time of the writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews — The use of the right stating thereof. 2. After his release out of prison — Before the death of James — Before the Second [Epistle] of Peter. 3. The time of Paul’s coming to Rome. 4. The condition of the affairs of the Jews at that time. 5. The martyrdom of James. 6. By whom reported. 7. State of the churches of the Hebrews. 8. Constant in the observation of Mosaical institutions. 9. Warned to leave Jerusalem. 10. That warning what, and how given — Causes of their unwillingness so to do. 11. The occasion and success of this Epistle. 1. THAT was not amiss observed of old by Chrysostom, Praefat. in Com. ad Epist. ad Romans, that a due observation of the time and season wherein the epistles of Paul were written doth give great light into the understanding of many passages in them. This Baronius, ad an. 55, n. 42, well confirms by an instance of their mistake who suppose the shipwreck of Paul at Melita, Acts 27, to have been that mentioned by him, Corinthians 11:25, when he was “a night and a day in the deep,” that epistle being written some years before his sailing towards Rome. And we may well apply this observation to this Epistle unto the Hebrews. A discovery of the time and season wherein it was written will both free us from sundry mistakes and also give us some light into the occasion and design of it. This, therefore, we shall now inquire into. 2. Some general intimations we have, in the Epistle itself, leading us towards this discovery, and somewhat may be gathered from some other places of Scripture; for antiquity will afford us little or no help herein.
After Paul’s being brought a prisoner to Rome, Acts 28, “two whole years” he continued in that condition, verse 30; at least so long he continued under restraint, though “in his own hired house.” This time was expired before the writing of this Epistle; for he was not only absent from Rome, in some other part of Italy, when he wrote it, Hebrews 13:24, but also so far at liberty, and sui juris, as that he had entertained a resolution of going into the east as soon as Timothy should come unto him, verse 23. And it seems likewise to be written before the martyrdom of James at Jerusalem, in that he affirms that the church of the Hebrews had “not yet resisted unto blood,” chapter 12:4; it being very probable that together with him many others were slain. Many great difficulties they had been exercised withal; but as yet the matter was not come to “blood,” which shortly after it arrived unto. That is certain, also, that it was not only written, but communicated unto, and well known by, all the believing Jews before the writing of the second Epistle of Peter; who therein makes mention of it, as we have declared. Much light, I confess, as to the precise time of its writing is not hence to be obtained, because of the uncertainty of the time wherein Peter wrote that epistle. Only it appears, from what he affirms concerning the approaching of the time of his suffering, chapter 1:13, 14, that it was not long before his death. This, as is generally agreed, happened in the thirteenth year of Nero, when a great progress was made in that war which ended in the fatal and final destruction of the city and temple. 3. From these observations it appears that the best guide we have to find out the certain time of the writing of this Epistle is Paul’s being sent prisoner unto Rome. Now, this was in the first year of the government of Festus, after he had been two years detained in prison at Caesarea by Felix, Acts 24:27, 25:26, 27. This Felix was the brother of Pallas, who ruled all things under Claudius, and fell into some disgrace in the very first year of Nero, as Tacitus informs us; but yet, by the countenance of Agrippina, the mother of Nero, he continued in some regard until the fifth or sixth year of his reign, when, together with his mother, he destroyed many of her friends and favorites. During this time of Pallas’ declension in power, it is most probable that his brother Felix was displaced from the rule of his province, and Festus sent in his room. That it was before his utter ruin, in the sixth year of Nero, is evident from hence, because he made [use of] means to keep his brother from punishment, when he was accused for extortion and oppression by the Jews. Most probably, then, Paul was sent unto Rome about the fourth or fifth year of Nero, which was the fifty-ninth year from the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There he abode, as we showed, at the least two years in custody, where the story of the Acts of the Apostles ends, in the seventh year of Nero, and sixty-first of our Lord, or the beginning of the year following. That year, it is presumed, he obtained his liberty. And this was about thirteen years after the determination of the controversy about Mosaical institutions, as to their obligation on the Gentiles, made by the synod at Jerusalem, Acts 15.
Presently upon his liberty, whilst he abode in some part of Italy expecting the coming of Timothy, before he entered upon the journey he had promised unto the Philippians, chapter 2:24, he wrote this Epistle. Here, then, we must stay a little, to consider what was the general state and condition of the Hebrews in those days, which might give occasion unto the writing thereof. 4. The time fixed on was about the death of Festus, who died in the province, and the beginning of the government of Albinus, who was sent to succeed him. What was the state of the people at that time, Josephus declares at large in his second book of their Wars, In brief, the governors themselves being great oppressors, and rather mighty robbers amongst them than rulers, the whole nation was filled with spoil and violence.
What. through the fury and outrage of the soldiers, in the pursuit of their insatiable avarice; what through the incursions of thieves and robbers in troops and companies, wherewith the whole land abounded; and what through the tumults of seditious persons, daily incited and provoked by the cruelty of the Romans, — there was no peace or safety for any sober, honest men, either in the city of Jerusalem or anywhere else throughout the whole province. That the church had a great share of suffering in the outrage and misery of those days (as in such dissolutions of government and licence for all wickedness it commonly falls out), no man can question.
And this is that which the apostle mentions, chapter 10:32-34, “Ye endured a great fight of afflictions; partly, whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used; .... and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods.”
This was the lot and portion of all honest and sober-minded men in those days, as their historian at large declares. For as, no doubt, the Christians had a principal share in all those sufferings, so some others of the Jews also were their companions in them; it being not a special persecution, but a general calamity that the apostle speaks of. 5. One Joseph, the son of Caebias, was in the beginning of those days high priest; put into that office by Agrippa, who not long before had put him out. On the death of Festus he thrust him out again, and placed Ananus, his son, in his stead. This man, a young rash fellow, by sect and opinion a Sadducee (who of all others were the most violent in their hatred of the Christians, being especially engaged therein by the peculiar opinion of their sect and party, which was the denial of the resurrection), first began a direct persecution of the church. Before his advancement to the priesthood, their afflictions and calamities were, for the most part, common unto them with other peaceable men. Only the rude and impious multitude, with other seditious persons, seem to have offered especial violences unto their assemblies and meetings; which some of the more unsteadfast and weak began to omit on that account, chapter 10:25. Judicial proceeding against them as to their lives, when this Epistle was written, there doth not appear to have been any; for the apostle tells them, as we before observed, that as yet they had “not resisted unto blood,” chapter 12:4. But this Ananus, the Sadducee, presently after being placed in power by Agrippa, taking advantage of the death of Festus, and the time that passed before Albinus, his successor, was settled in the province, convenes James before himself and his associates. There, to make short work, he is condemned, and immediately stoned. And it is not unlikely but that other private persons suffered together with him. 6. The story, by the way, of the martyrdom of this James is at large reported by Eusebius out of Hegesippus, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 2 cap. 23; in the relation whereof he is followed by Jerome and sundry others. I shall say no more of the whole story, but that the consideration of it is very sufficient to persuade any man to use the liberty of his own reason and judgment in the perusal of the writings of the ancients. For of the circumstances therein reported about this James and his death, many of them, — as his being of the line of the priests, his entering at his pleasure into the sanctum sanctorum, his being carried up and set by a great multitude of people on a pinnacle of the temple, — are so palpably false that no color of probability can be given unto them, and most of the rest seem altogether incredible. That, in general, this holy apostle of Jesus Christ, his kinsman according to the flesh, was stoned by Ananus, during the anarchy between the governments of Festus and Albinus, Josephus, who then lived, testifies, and all ecclesiastical historians agree. 7. The churches at this time in Jerusalem and Judea were very numerous.
The oppressors, robbers, and seditious of all sorts, being wholly intent upon the pursuit of their own ends, filling the government of the nation with tumults and disorders; the disciples of Christ, who knew that the time of their preaching the gospel unto their countrymen was but short, and even now expiring, followed their work with diligence and success, — being not greatly regarded in the dust of that confusion which was raised by the nation’s rushing into its fatal ruin. 8. All these churches, and the multitudes that belonged unto them, were altogether, with the profession of the gospel, addicted zealously unto the observation of the law of Moses. The synod, indeed, at Jerusalem had determined that the yoke of the law should not be put upon the necks of the Gentile converts, Acts 15: But eight or nine years after that, when Paul came up unto Jerusalem again, chapter 21:20-22, James informs him that the many thousands of the Jews who believed did all zealously observe the law of Moses; and, moreover, judged that all those who were Jews by birth ought to do so also; and on that account were like enough to assemble in a disorderly multitude, to inquire into the practice of Paul himself, who had been ill reported of amongst them. On this account they kept their assemblies distinct from those of the Gentiles all the world over; as, amongst others, Jerome informs us, in his notes on the first chapter of the Galatians, All those Hebrews, then, to whom Paul wrote this Epistle, continued in the use and practice of Mosaical worship, as celebrated in the temple and their synagogues, with all other legal institutions whatever.
Whether they did this out of an unacquaintedness with their liberty in Christ, or out of a pertinacious adherence unto their own prejudicate opinions, I shall not determine. 9. From this time forward the body of the people of the Jews saw not a day of peace or quietness: tumults, seditions, outrages, robberies, murders, increased all the nation over. And these things, by various degrees, made way for that fatal war, which, beginning about six or seven years after the death of James, ended in the utter desolation of the people, city, temple, and worship, foretold so long before by Daniel the prophet, and intimated by our Savior to lie at the door. This was that “day of the Lord” whose sudden approach the apostle declares unto them, chapter 10:36, 37, “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” Mikro Nay, as is likely from this Epistle, many of them who had made profession of the gospel, rather than they would now utterly forego their old way of worship, deserted the faith, and, cleaving to their unbelieving countrymen, perished in their apostasy; whom our apostle in an especial manner forewarns of their inevitable and sore destruction, by that fire of God’s indignation which was shortly to “devour the adversaries,” to whom they associated themselves, chapter 10:25-31. 11. This was the time wherein this Epistle was written; this the condition of the Hebrews unto whom it was written, both in respect of their political and ecclesiastical estate. Paul, who had an inexpressible zeal and overflowing affection for his countrymen, being now in Italy, considering the present condition of their affairs; — how pertinaciously they adhered to Mosaical institutions; how near the approach of their utter abolition was; how backward, during that frame of spirit, they would be to save themselves, by fleeing from the midst of that perishing generation; what danger they were in to forego the profession of the gospel, when it could not be retained without a relinquishment of their former divine service and ceremonies, — writes this Epistle unto them, wherein he strikes at the very root of all their dangers and distresses. For, whereas all the danger of their abode in Jerusalem and Judea, and so of falling in the destruction of the city and people; all the fears the apostle had of their apostasy into Judaism; all their own disconsolations in reference unto their flight and departure, — arose from their adherence unto and zeal for the law of Moses; by declaring unto them the nature, use, end, and expiration of his ordinances and institutions, he utterly removes and takes away the ground and occasion of all the evils mentioned. This was the season wherein this Epistle was written, and these some of the principal occasions (though it had other reasons also, as we shall see afterwards) of its writing; and I no way doubt (though particular events of those days are buried in oblivion) but that, through His grace who moved and directed the apostle unto, and in, the writing of it, it was made signally effectual towards the professing Hebrews, — both to free them from that yoke of bondage wherein they had been detained, and to prepare them with cheerfulness unto the observation of evangelical worship, leaving their countrymen to perish in their sin and unbelief.
NOTE ON EXERCITATION 3. BY THE EDITOR.
IT is generally agreed that the Epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Mill, Wetstein, Tillemont, Calmet, and Lardner, hold that it was written in the year 63. Bashage, like Owen, is in favor of an earlier date, and ascribes it to A.D. 61. The most recent authority, Dr Davidson, remarks, “If the letter was written by Paul, it could only have proceeded from him during the first two years of his imprisonment noticed at the close of the Acta It preceded the Second to Timothy, A.D. 62 or 63. It Was thus composed in Italy, according to chapter 13:24, and in accordance as well with the subscription of many MSS. ajpo< jItali>av , as that of others, ajpo< JRw>mhv . But there is a difficulty in supposing that oiJ ajpo< th~v jItali>av would have been employed by the author if he were at Rome, — a difficulty which we cannot satisfactorily solve.”
EXERCITATION 4.
THE LANGUAGE WHEREIN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. 1. Of the language wherein this Epistle was originally written — Supposed to be the Hebrew. 2. Grounds of that supposition disproved. 3. Not translated by Clemens. 4. Written in Greek — Arguments for the proof thereof. 5. Of citations out of the LXX. 1. BECAUSE this Epistle was written to the Hebrews, most of the ancients granted that it was written in Hebrew. Clemens Alexandrinus was the first who asserted it; after whom, Origen gave it countenance; from whom Eusebius received it; and from him Jerome: which is the most ordinary progression of old reports. The main reason which induced them to embrace this persuasion, was a desire to free the Epistle from an exception against its being written by Paul, taken from the dissimilitude of the style used in it unto that of his other epistles. This being once admitted, though causelessly, they could think of no better answer, than that this supposed difference of style arose from the translation of this Epistle, which by the apostle himself was first written in Hebrew. Clemens Romanus is the person generally fixed on as the author of this translation; though some do faintly intimate that Luke the evangelist might possibly be the man that did it. But this objection from the diversity of style, which alone begat this persuasion, hath been already removed out of the way, so that it cannot be allowed to be a foundation unto any other supposition. 2. That which alone is added, to give countenance unto this opinion, is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this discourse,-namely, that the apostle writing unto the Hebrews, he did it in their own native language; which being also his own, it is no wonder if he were more copious and elegant in it than he was in the Greek, whereunto originally he was a stranger, learning it, as Jerome supposeth, upon his conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, Oujde For, — (1.) If this Epistle was written originally in Hebrew, whence comes it to pass that no copy of it in that language was ever read, seen, or heard of, by the most diligent collectors of all fragments of antiquity in the primitive times? Had ever any such thing been extant, whence came it, in particular, that Origen, — that prodigy of industry and learning, — should be able to attain no knowledge or report of it? (2.) If it were incumbent on Paul, writing unto the Hebrews, to write in their own language, why did he not also write in Latin unto the Romans?
That he did so, indeed, Gratian affirms; but without pretense of proof or witness, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity, the evidence of the thing itself, and constant confession of the Roman church. And Erasmus says well on Romans 1:7, “Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulurn Romanis lingua Romana scripsisse;” — The error of them is to be reproved (or rather, laughed at), who suppose Paul to have written unto the Romans in the Latin tongue.” (3.) It is most unduly supposed that the Hebrew tongue was then the vulgar, common language of the Jews, when it was known only to the learned amongst them, and a corrupt Syriac was the common dialect of the people even at Jerusalem. (4.) It is as unduly averred that the Hebrew was the mother tongue of Paul himself, or that he was ignorant of the Greek; seeing he was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia, where that was the language that he was brought up in, and unto. (5.) The Epistle was written for the use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, especially that in the east, as Peter witnesseth, they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judea and Jerusalem. Now, unto those the Greek language, from the days of the Macedonian empire, had been in vulgar use, and continued so to be. (6.) The Greek tongue was so well known and so much used in Judea itself, that, as a learned man hath proved by sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar amongst them.
I know, among the rabbins there is mention of a prohibition of learning the Greek tongue; and in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, Tit. Peah. cap. 1, they add a reason of it, twrwsmh ynpm ; it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary unto what themselves teach about the knowledge of tongues required in those who were to be chosen into the sanhedrim, so it is sufficiently disproved by the instances of the translators of the Bible, Jesus Syrachides, Philo, Josephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirms, Antiq., lib. 20:cap. 11, that the study ofthe elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made, as they say, Mishn. Tit.
Sota., in the last wars of Titus: µda dmly alç wdzg µwfyf lç zyswmlwpb tynwy wnb ta ; — ”In the wars of Titus, they decreed that no man should teach his son the Greek language:” for it must be distinguished from the decree of the Asmoneans long before, prohibiting the study of the Grecian philosophy. So that this pretense is destitute of all color, being made up of many vain, and evidently false, suppositions. 3. Again, the Epistle is said to be translated by Clemens, but where, or when, we are not informed. Was this done in Italy, before it was sent unto the Hebrews? To what end, then, was it written in Hebrew, when it was not to be used but in Greek? Was it sent in Hebrew before the supposed translation? In what language was it communicated unto others by them who first received it? Clemens was never in the east to translate it. And if all the first copies of it were dispersed in Hebrew, how came they to be so utterly lost as that no report or tradition of them, or any one of them, did ever remain? Besides, if it were translated by Clemens in the west, and that translation alone preserved, how came it to pass that it was so well known and generally received in the east before the western churches admitted of it? This tradition, therefore, is also every way groundless and improbable. 4. Besides, there want not evidences in the Epistle itself, proving it to be originally written in the language wherein it is yet extant. I shall only point at the heads of them, for this matter deserves no long discourse: — (1.) The style of it throughout manifests it to be no translation; at least, it is impossible it should be one exact and proper, as its own copiousness, propriety of phrase and expression, with freedom from savoring of the Hebraisms of an original in that language, do manifest. (2.) It abounds with Greek elegancies and paronomasias, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that, for instance, chapter 5:8, ]Emaqen ajf j w=n e]paqen , — from the like expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56, JYpo< sci~non , sxi>sei se me>son, and ver. 59, Jypo pri>non , pri>sai se me>son, it is well proved that it was written originally in the Greek language. (3.) The rendering of tyriB] constantly by diaqh>kh (of which more afterwards) is of the same importance. (4.) The words concerning Melchisedec, king of Salem, chapter 7:2, prove the same: Prw~ton me SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION BY THE EDITOR.
On the point discussed in the previous Exercitation, a difference of an early date exists among critics. Clement of Alexandria held that “Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek,” Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiastes 6:14. Eusobius says, “Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and, according to report, either Luke or Clement” (i.e., of Rome) “translated it,” Euseb. 3. 38. Jerome remarks, “He had written as a Hebrew to Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue,” and “this Epistle was translated into Greek; so that the colouring of the style was made different in this way from that of Paul’s.”
The following fathers may be named as holding the same opinion, — Theodoret, Euthalius, Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, OEcumenius, and Theophylact.
The principal reasons for believing that the Epistle extant is merely the Greek translation of an Aramaean original are, first, the difference of style in it from the rest of Paul’s epistles, but this point has been considered already in the subsidiary note to the second Exercitation; and, secondly, that Hebrews are addressed, to whom their native tongue would be more acceptable. But the Greek tongue, by the time this Epistle was written, had obtained great currency in Palestine. Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed, the system of Judaism was verging on abolition, and the Jewish Christians were to be blended with their Gentile brethren of the faith. The employ-meat of the Greek tongue in the inspired writings tended to facilitate the happy amalgamation.
Some considerations, in addition to what are noticed by Owen, have been deemed of force in support of a Greek original.
Greek words occur which in Hebrew could be expressed only by a periphrasis: — Polumerw~v kai< polutro>pwv , ch. <580501> 5:1; ajpau>gasma , ch 1:3; eujperi>statov , ch. <581201> 12:1; metriopaqei~n , ch. 5:2; pa>nta uJpe>taxav uJpo< tw~n podw~n aujtou~ , ch. 2:8. “The verb in this clause,” to use the argument of Hug, which is thus well put by Dr Davidson, “is repeated in the context, Ouj ga But in Hebrew, the verb uJpota>ssw is expressed by a periphrasis, µyilæg]ræ tjæTæ tyvi , to place under the feet, and if the Epistle was written in Hebrew, the expressions derived from uJpota>ssw could not have been employed in that language, in consequence of the often repeated circumlocution.”
Moreover, since the time of Owen, there is greater evidence of the probability that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. The opinion of De Rossi that Syro-Chaldaic was almost exclusively used in that country has yielded before subsequent inquiries.
Hug shows that our Lord must have spoken Greek in various districts, Mark 7:24, and with the Hellenists mentioned John 7:35, 12:20; that the language of the Roman magistracy was probably Greek; that considerable cities in Palestine were inhabited by Greeks; that the Roman garrisons spoke Greek; that the foreign Jews at the feast of the passover, amounting to hundreds of thousands, used the same language; that the Jews who spoke Greek had their own synagogue in Jerusalem, Acts 6:9, 9:29; and that a great number of the Christian Jews spoke it freely, Acts 6:1,2. Tholuck adds that James, who had never left Palestine, to judge from his Epistle, wrote Greek with elegance; and that the Septuagint must have been in common use among the Jews of Palestine, when Matthew and John generally follow it. The best evidence on this point is a passage sometimes appealed to in order to obtain an opposite inference, Acts 21:40. Though Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, the multitude expected him to address them in Greek. Order and attention were secured when the sounds of their native language fell upon their ear. The fact shows, however, that they were able and prepared to understand him in Greek. In the Epistle to the Hebrews Paul was writing to Christians, and under no necessity to conciliate attention by such an expedient. It was natural, therefore, that he should write in the language in which he had been educated at Tarsus, and in which he wrote all his other epistles.
EXERCITATION 5.
TESTIMONIES CITED BY THE APOSTLE OUT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Testimonies cited by the apostle out of the Old Testament. 2-12. Compared with the original and translations. 13-23. Whence the agreement of some of them with that of the LXX. 1. THERE is not any thing in this Epistle that is attended with more difficulty than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament that are made use of in it. Hence some, from their unsuitableness, as they have supposed, unto the author’s purpose, have made bold to call in question, if not to reject, the authority of the whole. But for what concerns the matter of them, and the wisdom of the apostle in their application, it must be treated of in the respective places where they occur; when we shall manifest how vain and causeless are the exceptions which have been laid against them, and how singularly they are suited to the proof of those doctrines and assertions in the confirmation whereof they are produced.
But the words also wherein they are expressed, varying frequently from the original, yield some difficulty in their consideration. And this concernment of the apostle’s citations, to prevent a further trouble in the exposition itself of the several places, may be previously considered. Not that we shall here explain and vindicate them from the exceptions mentioned, which must of necessity be done afterwards, as occasion offers itself; but we shall only discover in general what respect the apostle’s expressions have unto the original and the old translations thereof, and remove some false inferences that have been made on the consideration of them. To this end I shall briefly pass through them all, and compare them with the places whence they are taken. 2. Chap. 1 ver. 5. UiJo>v mou ei+ su< , ejgw< sh>meoron gege>nnhka> se? — ” Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” From Psalm 2:7. The words exactly answer the original, with the supply of only the verb substantive, whereof in the Hebrew there is almost a perpetual ellipsis, aT;aæ yniB] . And the same are the words in the translation of the LXX. In the same verse, jEgw< e]ssmai aujtw~| eijv pate>ra , kai< aujto Ver. 6. Kai< proskunhsa>twsan aujtw~| pa>ntev a]ggeloi Qeou~? — ”And let all the angels of God worship him.” From Psalm 97:7, without change. Only µyhiloa’ , “ gods,” is rendered by the apostle a]ggeloi Qeou~, “the angels of God;” of the reason whereof afterwards. The LXX., Proskunh>sate aujtw~| pa>ntev a]ggeloi aujtou~, — ”Worship him all ye his angels ;” differing from the apostle both in form of speech and words.
Hence some, not understanding whence this testimony was cited by the apostle, have inserted his words into the Greek Bible, Deuteronomy 32:43, where there is no color for their introduction, nor any thing in the original to answer unto them, whereas the psalmist expressly treateth of the same subject with the apostle; to the reason of which insertion into the Greek version we shall speak afterwards.
Ver. 7. JO poiw~n tou Ver. 8, 9 . JO qro>nov sou , oJ Qeo Aquila somewhat otherwise, J JO qronov sou Qee< eijv aijw~nai kai< e]ti.
Symmachus, Aijw>noiv kai< e]ti. ( d[æ came to be translated e]ti , from likeness of sound.) In Qee<, “O God,” he expresseth the apostrophe, which is evident in the context. Skh~ptron eujqu>thtov , skh~ptron basilei>av sou. fb,çe he renders by skh~ptron, “sceptrum,” a scepter, properly, as we shall see afterwards on Genesis 49:10. jEmi>shsav ajse>qhma , “Thou hast hated ungodliness,” impiety, [vær,. jElai>w| cara~v , “With the oil of joy,” ˆwOcc; ˆm,ç, . Symmachus, jElai>w| ajglai`smou~, another word of the same signification with that used by the apostle. From Psalm 45:6,7.
Ver. 10-12. Su< kat j ajrca Ver. 13. Ka>qou ejk dexiw~n mou , e[wv a\n qw~ tou Ver 12 . jApaggelw~ to< o]noma> sou toi~v ajdelfoi~v mou , ejn me>sw| ejkklhsi>av uJmnh>sw se? — ” I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing praise unto thee.” From Psalm 22:22, Diagh>somai to< o]noma , hr;p]sæa\ .
Ver. 13. jEgw< e]somai pepoiqw The same verse: j jIdou< ejgw< kai< ta< paidi>a a[ moi e]dwken oJ Qeo>v? — ”Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” From Isaiah 8:18. 4. Chap. 3 ver. 7-11. Sh>meron eja Only, the apostle, clearly to express the reason of God’s judgments on that people in the wilderness, distinguisheth the words somewhat otherwise than they are in the Hebrew text. For whereas that saith, “When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works: forty years long was I grieved with that generation ;” the apostle adds that season of “forty years” to the mention of their sins, and interposing dio> , “wherefore,” refers his speech unto the words foregoing, as containing the cause of the ensuing wrath and judgment. And although our present copies of the Greek Bible distinguish the words according to the Hebrew text, yet Theodoret informs us that some copies made the distinction with the apostle, and added dio> before prosw>cqisa, which also is observed by Nobilius: and this could arise from no other cause but an attempt to insert the very words of the apostle in that text; as did the ei+pon also, reckoned amongst its various lections, though ei=pa remains in the vulgar editions. 5. Chap. 4. ver. 4. Kai< kate>pausen oJ Qeo From Genesis 22:17. The LXX., Plhqunw~ to< spe>rma sou , — ” I will multiply thy seed.” 8. Chap. 8. ver. 8-12 . jIdou< , hJme>rai e]rcontai , le>gei Ku>riov (LXX., fnhsi< Ku>riov ), kai< suntele>sw ejpi< to Of the reason of which difference and agreement we shall treat afterwards.
Ver. 6 . Jolokautw>mata kai< peri< aJmarti>av oujk eujdo>khsav? — ”In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.” Heb., T;l]a;v; alo , “Thou hast not required.” The apostle expresseth exactly the sense of the Holy Ghost, but observes not the first, exact signification of the word. The LXX., h[|thsav , and in some copies ejzh>thsav , “soughtest not.”
Ver. 7 . jIdou< h[kw (ejn kefali>di bibli>ou ge>graptai peri< ejmou~ ) tou~ poih~sai , oJ Qeo Symmachus, jEn tw~| teu>cei tou~ oJrismou~? — ” In the volume of thy determination.” Aquila, j jEn tw~| eijlh>mati? — ” In the roll.” j jEn to>mw|? — ” In the section.” LXX., Tou~ poih~sai to< qe>lhua> sou Qeo Ver 38. JO de< di>kaiov ejk pi>stewv (LXX., mou ) zh>setai? kai< eja Ver. 6 is from <19B806> Psalm 118:6, without any difficulty attending it. 13. And these are all the places that are cited, kata< rJhto>n, by the apostle in this Epistle out of the Old Testament. Very many others there are, which he either alludes unto or expounds, that are not of our present consideration. Neither are these here proposed to be unfolded as to the sense of them, or as to the removal of the difficulties that the application of them by him is attended withal. This is the proper work of the Exposition of the Epistle intended. All at present aimed at is, to present them in one view, with their agreement and differences from the original and translations, that we may the better judge of his manner of proceeding in the citing of them, and what rule he observed therein. And what in general may be concluded from that prospect we have taken of them, I shall offer in the ensuing observations: — 14. First, it is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX., as we intimated is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse.
The words he useth, in very few of them agree exactly with that Greek version of the Old Testament which is now extant, — though apparently, since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity unto the allegations as reported in the New; and in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. This the first prospect of the places and words compared will evince. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth. 15. It is also undeniably manifest, from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original or any translation whatever, — if any other translation, or targum, were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by whose inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave unto him, without the least prejudice unto truth or the faith of the church. 16. Whereas any one of these testimonies, or any part of any one of them, may appear at first view to be applied by him unsuitably unto their original importance and intention, we shall manifest not only the contrary to be true against those who have made such exceptions, but also that he makes use of those which were most proper, and cogent, with respect unto them with whom he had to do. For the apostle in this Epistle, as shall be fully evidenced, disputes upon the acknowledged principles and concessions of the Hebrews. It was then incumbent on him, to make use of such testimonies as were granted, in their church, to belong unto the ends and purposes for which by him they were produced. And that these are such, shall be evinced from their own ancient writings and traditions. 17. The principal difficulty about these citations, lies in those wherein the words of the apostle are the same with those now extant in the Greek Bible, both evidently departing ‘from the original. Three places of this kind are principally vexed by expositors and critics; the first is that of Psalm 40:7, where the words of the psalmist, in the Hebrew, yLi t;yriK; µyinæz]a; , “My ears hast thou bored” or “digged,” are rendered by the apostle, according to the translation of the LXX., Sw~ma de< kathrti>sw moi , “But a body hast thou prepared me.” That the apostle doth rightly interpret the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the psalm, and in his paraphrase apply the words unto that very end for which they were intended, shall be cleared afterwards. The present difficulty concerns the coincidence of his words with those of the LXX., where apparently they answer not the original. The next is that of the prophet Jeremiah, 31:32, µb; yTil][æB; ykinOa;w] , “And I was an husband unto them,” or “I was a lord unto them,” or “ruled over them,” as the Vulgar Latin renders the words; the apostle, with the LXX., Kai< ejgw< hJme>lhsa aujtw~n , “And I regarded them not,” or “despised them.” The third is that from Habakkuk 2:4, hl;P][u hNehi /B/p]næ hr;vy;Aalo , “Behold, it is lifted up, his soul is not right in him;” which words the apostle, with the LXX., render, Kai< eja But as ytil][æB; may well signify as the apostle expounds it, and in other places doth so, as we shall see afterwards, so this boldness in correcting the text, and fancying, without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. We must therefore look after another expedient for the removal of this difficulty. 19. I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be further confirmed; for, — 20. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text.
Neither various lections, nor ambiguity of signification in the words of the original, can in most of them be pleaded. For instance, the apostle, in applying those words of the psalmist, Psalm 40:7, yLi t;yriK; µyinæz]a; , unto the human nature and body of Christ, wherein he did the will of God, did certainly express the design and intention of the Holy Ghost in them; But who can imagine what should move the LXX. to render ˆz,ao , a word of a known signification and univocal, by sw~ma , when they had translated it a hundred and fifty times, that is constantly elsewhere, by ou=v and wjti>on , an “ear,” which alone it signifies? or what should move them to render hræK; by katarti>zw , to “prepare,” when the word signifies to “dig” or to “bore,” and is always so rendered elsewhere by themselves? Neither did any such thing come into their minds in the translation of those places whence this expression seems to be borrowed, Exodus 21:6, Deuteronomy 15:17. When any man, then, can give a tolerable conjecture why the LXX. should be inclined thus to translate these words, I shall consider it. In the meantime, I judge there is much more ground to suppose that the apostle’s expressions, which he had weighty cause to use, were by some person inserted into the Greek text of the Old Testament, than that a translation which those that made it had no cause so to do, evidently forsaking the proper meaning of very obvious words, and their sense, known to themselves, should be taken up and used by the apostle unto his purpose. 21. Secondly, It is certain that some words, used by the apostle, have been inserted into some copies of the Greek Bible, which, being single words, and of little importance, prevailed not in them all; as may be seen in sundry of the foregoing instances. And why may we not think that some whole sentences might, on the same account, be inserted in some of them, which, being of more importance, found a more general acceptance? And how by other means also that translation was variously changed and corrupted of old, and that before the days of Jerome, learned men do know and confess. 22. It is further evident that one place, at least, in this Epistle, which, it may be, some could not conjecture from whence it should be taken, yet finding it urged by the apostle as a testimony out of the Old Testament, is inserted in another place of the text than that from which the apostle took it, and that where there is not the least color for its insertion. This is the testimony out of Psalm 97:7, which the apostle cites, chapter 1:6, in words much differing from those wherewith the original is rendered by the LXX. This some of the transcribers of the Bible, not knowing well where to find, have inserted, in the very syllables of the apostle’s expression, into Deuteronomy 32:43; where it yet abides, though originally it had no place there, as we shall, in the exposition of the words, sufficiently manifest. The same and no other is the cause why hF;m] is rendered rja>zdov , Genesis 47:31. And may we not as well think, nay, is it not more likely, that they would insert his words into the places from whence they knew his testimonies were taken, with a very little alteration of the ancient reading, than that they would wholly intrude them into the places from whence they were not taken by him, which yet undeniably hath been done, and that with success? Nay, we find that many things out of the New Testament are translated into the apocryphal books themselves; as, for instance, Ecclus. 24:3, we have these words in the Latin copies, “Ex ore Altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem creaturam;” which are cited by Bellarmine and others in the confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereas they are taken from Colossians 1:15, and are in no Greek copies of that book, [Ecclesiasticus.] 23. Upon these reasons, then, — which may yet be rendered more cogent by many other instances, but that we confine ourselves to this Epistle, — I suppose I may conclude that it is more probable, at least, that the apostle’s interpretations of the testimonies used by him, all agreeably unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, were by some of old inserted into the vulgar copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and therein prevailed unto common acceptation, than that he himself followed, in the citation of them, a translation departing without reason from the original text, and diverting unto such senses as its authors knew not to be contained in them, which must needs give offense unto them with whom he had to do. It appears, then, that from hence no light can be given unto our inquiry after the language wherein this Epistle was originally written, though it be clear enough upon other considerations.
SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION 5. BY THE EDITOR. DR OWEN is anxious to make it appear that “very few” of the quotations from the Old Testament in this Epistle agree with the Septuagint, and that in those instances where an agreement obtains between them, the Greek renderings of Paul in the Epistle may have been subsequently inserted in copies of that version. In neither of these conclusions is he sustained by the voice of modern criticism. As the subject is of some importance, we submit the views of three modern writers, who have devoted special attention to it.
Stuart classifies the quotations of the Epistle under the following divisions : — “1. There are many exact coincidences between the Septuagint and Hebrew and the quotations in our Epistle; in almost every minute word.” Of this class he gives fourteen instances : — Hebrews 1:5; 1:10, seq .; 1:12; 2:6, seq .; 2:12; 2:13; in. 7, seq.; 3:15; 4:3; 4:7; 5:5; 5:6; 7:17, 21; 13:6. “2. In a considerable number of cases there is nearly an exact coincidence with the Septuagint and Hebrew, yet with some slight verbal differences.” Of this class he gives seven instances: — Hebrews 1:6; 4:4; 8:5; 8:8; 9:20; 10:16, 17; 10:37, 38. “3. There is a number of cases in which there is a little discrepancy in diction from the Septuagint, where it agrees with the Hebrew.” Of this class he gives six instances: — Heb, 1:7; 1:8, 9; 12:26; 6:14; 12:20; 12:21. “4. There is an accordance in several cases with the Septuagint, where it differs from the Hebrew,’ — e.g., Hebrews 10:5, seq .; 11:21; 12:6; 13:5.
Tholuck remarks of this Epistle, that “its citations are unequally close, and in the longer passages agree quite verbally with the Septuagint. The citation in Hebrews 10:30 is the only one that forms an exception. Our Epistle, also, in two important passages, Hebrews 10:5 and Hebrews 2:7, has followed the Greek version closely, although, according to our existing text, it is essentially defective; as similar errors of translation may be also adduced, Hebrews 11:21, ejpi< to< a]kron th~v rJa>zdou , and Hebrews 13:15, karpo Davidson thus expresses himself on the subject of these citations: — “In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Septuagint is everywhere quoted, irrespective of the fact whether the version gives the sense or not.
Departures from the Greek are trifling .... In short, the writer never consulted the Hebrew. There is but one exception to this, namely, ch. 10:30 It must be maintained that in ch. 10:30 the writer of the present Epistle goes to the Hebrew, departing from the Septuagint.”
The citation in ch. 10:30 really suggests the most decisive results. The passage is in harmony with the Hebrew; it varies completely from the Septuagint. Moreover, on comparison with Romans 12:19, where the same quotation from Deuteronomy 32:35,36, occurs, the same translation which is given in ch. 10:30 is found, with the important addition in both instances of le>gei Ku>riov . The epistles in which a translation so curiously identical occurs must have emanated from the same author. Moreover, he must have availed himself of the Greek version already in existence as freely as he could, since the Hebrew original was comparatively of limited circulation in his day, and only departed from it under the pressure of an absolute necessity. The inspiration that guided him to this course ratified the propriety of translating the Scriptures into all the vernacular tongues of the world.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE, ON THE QUESTION TO WHOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN.
No better place than the present occurs for reference to this point, on which there has been considerable discussion since the days of Owen. The various opinions respecting it may be reduced to four: — 1. That it was written to Gentile Christians; 2. To Jewish believers out of Palestine; 3. To Jewish believers in Palestine; and, 4. To Jewish believers in Palestine, but more especially in Jerusalem or Caesarea. 1. Roeth believes it to have been sent to the church at Ephesus; Baumgarten Crusius, to the joint church of the Ephesians and Colossians. 2. Under the second class, Jewish believers generally, or in Asia Minor, or Spain, or Rome, or Alexandria, or elsewhere, have been named as the parties to whom it was addressed. 3. The authorities in favor of the third view are numerous, consisting of the great majority both of the ancient fathers and modern critics. The reasons for this opinion are, — (1.) The weight of ancient authority ; for it is supported by the testimony of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and the great body of the fathers. (2.) The inscription which the Epistle bears, — Pro The main objection to this view rests on an alleged discrepancy between ch. 12:4, and Acts 8:1-3, and 12:1. It is said that those to whom the Epistle was sent had “not yet resisted unto blood,” while both Stephen and James had suffered martyrdom. The persecution in which these saints fell happened in A.D. 38, and A.D. 44. Before the Epistle was written, there was time for another generation to arise, to whom the language might apply with sufficient accuracy, “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” 4. Moses Stuart assigns reasons for supposing Caesarea to have been the place where the church of Jewish converts existed to whom the Epistle was sent. Paul was not its first teacher, and no such claim is urged in the Epistle. He had many opportunities for becoming acquainted with the Christians there, Acts 9:30, 18:22, 21:8-13, 24:23, 27. The city was inhabited by rich Jews, who, if converted, might have become liable to spoliation, Hebrews 10:34. Grecian games were celebrated in this city, and hence such allusions as occur in ch. 10:32, <581201> 12:1. Timothy is mentioned in the Epistle, and Timothy was with Paul at Caesarea.
Caesarea was but two days’ journey from Jerusalem, and the Jews residing in it could understand the temple-service as clearly as the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves.
Dr Davidson argues that the church in Caesarea would in all probability have a large proportion of Gentile converts, and it is certain that the first convert in Caesarea was Cornelius, a Gentile proselyte, Acts 10:He inclines to the opinion that Jerusalem was the church which first received the Epistle.
EXERCITATION 6.
ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 1. Oneness of the church — Mistake of the Jews about the nature of the promises. 2. Promise of the Messiah the foundation of the church; but as including the covenant. 3. The church confined unto the person and posterity of Abraham — His call and separation for a double end. 4. Who properly the seed of Abraham. 5. Mistake of the Jews about the covenant. 6. Abraham the father of the faithful and heir of the world, on what account. 7. The church still the same. 1. THE Jews at the time of writing this Epistle (and their posterity in all succeeding generations follow their example and tradition) were not a little confirmed in their obstinacy and unbelief by a misapprehension of the true sense and nature of the promises of the Old Testament; for whereas they found many glorious promises made unto the church in the days of the Messiah, especially concerning the great access of the Gentiles unto it, they looked upon themselves, the posterity of Abraham, on the account of their being his children according to the flesh, as the first, proper, and indeed only subject of them; unto whom, in their accomplishment, others were to be proselyted and joined, the substance and foundation of the church remaining still with them. But the event answered not their expectation. Instead of inheriting all the promises merely upon their carnal interest and privilege, — which they looked for, and continue so to do unto this day, — they found that themselves must come in on a new account, to be sharers in them in common with others, or be rejected whilst those others were admitted unto the inheritance. This filled them with wrath and envy; which greatly to the strengthening of their unbelief.
They could not bear with patience an intimation of letting out the vineyard to other husbandmen. With this principle and prejudice of theirs the apostle dealt directly in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. 9-11.
On the same grounds he proceedeth with them in this Epistle; and because his answer to their objection from the promises lies at the foundation of many of his reasonings with them, the nature of it must be here previously explained. Not that I shall here enter into a consideration of the Jews argument to prove the Messiah not yet to be come, because the promises in their sense of them are not yet accomplished, which shall be fully removed in the close of these discourses; but only, as I said, open the nature in general of that answer which our apostle returns unto them, and builds his reasonings with them upon. 2. We shall have occasion afterwards at large to show how, after the entrance of sin, God founded his church in the promise of the Messiah given unto Adam. Now, though that promise was the supportment and encouragement of mankind to seek the Lord, — a promise, absolutely considered, proceeding from mere grace and mercy, — yet, as it was the foundation of the church, it included in it the nature of a covenant, virtually requiring a restipulation unto obedience in them who by faith come to have an interest therein. And this the nature of the thing itself required; for the promise was given unto this end and purpose, that men might have a new bottom and foundation of obedience, that of the first covenant being disannulled. Hence, in the following explications of the promise, this condition of obedience is expressly added. So upon its renewal unto Abraham, God required that he should “walk before him, and be upright.” This promise, then, as it hath the nature of a covenant, including the grace that God would show unto sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience that he required from them, was, from the first giving of it, the foundation of the church, and the whole worship of God therein.
Unto this church, so founded and built on this covenant, and by the means thereof on the redeeming mediatory Seed promised therein, were all the following promises and the privileges exhibited in them given and annexed.
Neither hath, or ever had, any individual person any spiritual right unto, or interest in, any of those promises or privileges, whatever his outward condition were, but only by virtue of his membership in the church built on the covenant, whereunto, as we said, they do all appertain. On this account the church before the days of Abraham, though scattered up and down in the world, and subject unto many changes in its worship by the addition of new revelations, was still but one and the same, because founded in the same covenant, and interested thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had given or granted, or would do so at any time, unto his church. 3. In process of time, God was pleased to confine this church, as unto the ordinary visible dispensation of his grace, unto the person and posterity of Abraham. Upon this restriction of the church covenant and promise, the Jews of old managed a plea in their own justification against the doctrine of the Lord Christ and his apostles. “We are the children, the seed of Abraham,” was their continual cry; on the account whereof they presumed that all the promises belonged unto them, and upon the matter unto them alone. And this their persuasion hath cast them, as we shall see, upon a woful and fatal mistake. Two privileges did God grant unto Abraham, upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and covenant: — First, That according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed; who was the very life of the covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it. That this privilege was temporary, having a limited season, time, and end, appointed unto it, the very nature of the thing itself doth demonstrate; for upon this actual exhibition in the flesh, it was to cease. In pursuit hereof were his posterity sep |
