Exercitation on Hebrews

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, Chap. 13.24. where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was. The fabulous Author, I confess, of the Rhapsedy called the Recognitions of Clemens, tells us that Barnabas went to Rome, taking along Clemens with him, and returning into Judea, found St. Peter at Cesarea. But St. Luke in the Acts gives us another account, both where Barnabas was, and how he was employed, at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things. For whilst St. Peter was at Cesarea, Acts 10.1. Barnabas was at Jerusalem, Acts 9.27. being a little while after sent to Antioch by the Apostles; chap. 11.22. Again Timothy was the Companion of the Writer of this Epistle. chap. 13.23. a Person as far as appears unknown unto Barnabas, being taken into St. Paul's Society after their difference and separation, Acts 15.39. chap. 16.1. He had also been in bonds or imprisonment, chap. 10.34. whereof we cannot at that time learn anything 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 mislead into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them, Gal. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that particular he was to be blamed or condemned, v • r. 11. (not unlike him who hath written a justification of Aaron in his making the Golden Calf ) yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical Institutions, is evident from the Text. And shall we suppose that He who but a little before upon the coming of some few Brethren of the Church of Jerusalem from St. James, durst not avouch and abide by his own personal Liberty, but deserted the use of it not without some blameable dissimulation, Gal. 2.13. should now with so much Authority write an Epistle unto that Church with St. James, and all the Hebrews in the world concurring with them in Judgment and Practice, about that very thing, wherein himself out of respect unto them had particularly miscarried? This certainly was rather the work of St. Paul, whose Light and Constancy in the Doctrine delivered in this Epistle, with his engagements in the defense of it, above all the rest of the Apostles, is known from the story of the Acts, and his own other Writings.

Apollos hath been thought by some to be the Penman of this Epistle; and that because [§ 6] it answers the Character given of him. For it is said, that he was an Eloquent man, mighty in the Scripture, 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 anything 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.

Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome in the places forecited, mention a report concerning some [§ 7] who ascribed this Epistle unto Clemens 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 of it, whereof afterwards. Erasmus hath since taken up that Report, and seems to give credit unto it, but hath not contributed anything 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, chap. 13.22. Yea, he desires to be restored unto them as one that had been with them before. But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine, so what Reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can imagine. And to end this needless Debate, in that Epistle which was truly his own, he makes use of the Words and Authority of this, as Eusebius long since observed.

[§ 8] Sixtus Sinensis affirms, that the Work whose Author we inquire after, was by some assigned unto Tertullian. A fond and impious imagination, and such as no man of Judgment or Sobriety could ever fall into. This Epistle was famous in the Churches before Tertullian was born; is ascribed 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 of the credibility of the Reasons and Testimonies, which shall be produced in the Assignement 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.

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 Elegancy, propriety of Speech, and sometimes Loftiness, that occur in this Epistle, difference it, as they say, from those of St. Paul's writings. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Oecumenius; it seems not to be St. Paul's, because of the Style or Character of Speech. For this cause Clemens of Alexandria supposed it to be written in Hebrew, and to be translated into Greek by St. Luke the Evangelist ; the Style of it, as he says, being like unto that which is used in the Acts of the Apostles ; and yet that is acknowledged by all to be purely Greek, whereas this is accused to be full of Hebraisms, so little weight is to be laid on these Critical Censures, wherein Learned men perpetually contradict one another.

Origen also confesseth, that it hath not in its Character, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Idiotism, or propriety of the Language of St. Paul, who acknowledgeth himself to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 2 Cor. 11.6. rude in Speech; and this Epistle is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the composition of its Speech Elegantly Greek, in comparison of his, which if we may believe him, any one will discern who can judge between the difference of Styles. And Jerome, Scripserat autem ad Hebraeos Hebraice, id est suo eloquio disertissime; ut eo quae eloquuntur scripta fuerant in Hebraeo aliquatenus verterentur in Graecum; & hanc causam esse quod a coeteris Pauli Epistolis discrepare videatur. It seems to differ from the rest of St. Paul's Epistles, because of its Translation out of Hebrew, wherein he speaks not with his wonted confidence. And elsewhere he says, that the Style of this Epistle seems to be like that of Clemens. Erasmus presseth this Objection; Restat, saith he, Jam argumentum illud quo non aliud certius; stylus ipse & orationis Character, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum Phrasi Paulina; The Style and Character of Speech have no affinity with the Phrase of St. Paul. This Consideration also drew Calvin into the same Opinion; and it is insisted on by Cameron and Grotius to the same purpose. The sum of this Objection is, that St. Paul was rude in Speech which is manifest in his other Epistles, but the Style of this is pure, elegant, florid, such as hath no affinity with his, so that he cannot be esteemed the Penman of it.

As this Objection was taken notice of by them of old, and the matter of it admitted [§ 10] as true, so because they constantly adhered to the Assignation of it unto St. Paul, they gave sundry Answers unto it. Origen gives us his Judgment, that the Sense or Subject Matter of this Epistle was from St. Paul, which are excellent, and no way inferior to those of the same Apostle in any other Epistles, as everyone exercised in the Reading of his Epistles will grant; but the Structure and Phrase of it, he supposeth to have been the Work of some other, who taking the Dictates of his Master, from thence composed this Epistle. But this Answer can by no means be admitted of, nor accommodated unto any Writing given by Divine Inspiration. For not only the Matter, but the very Words of their Writings were suggested unto his Penmen by the Holy Ghost, (that the whole might have no influence from human frailty or fallibility ) which alone renders the Authority of their Writings Sacred and Divine. But this intimation would resolve the Truth in this Epistle, into the Care and Diligence of him that took the sense of St. Paul, and thence composed it; wherein he was liable to mistakes, unless we shall vainly suppose, that he also was inspired. Wherefore generally they who admitted of this Objection, gave the Answer unto it before intimated; namely, that the Epistle was Originally written in Hebrew by St. Paul, and Translated by some other into the Greek Language. So Oecumenius ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The cause of the Alteration or difference of Style in this Epistle is manifest, for it is said to be written unto the Hebrews in their own Language, and to be afterwards Translated. Jerome and Clemens also incline to this Opinion and Answer. And Theophylact, though following Theodoret, he egregiously confutes them who deny St. Paul to be the Author of this Epistle, from the Excellency, Efficacy, and irrefragable Power and Authority wherewith it is accompanied, yet admits of this Objection, and answers with others, that it was Translated by St. Luke or Clemens. Only Chrysostom, who indeed is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without taking notice of the pretended dissimilitude of Style ascribes it directly to St. Paul. But to this Answer incline generally the Divines of the Roman Church; as Catharinus, Bellarminus, Baronius, Cornelius à Lapide, Cano, Math • us Galenus, Ludovicus Tena, and others without number; though it be rejected by Estius and some others among themselves. What is to be thought of it, we shall afterwards consider in a Dessertation designed unto that Purpose. For the present, we affirm, that it is no way needful as an Answer unto the Objection insisted on, as we shall now farther particularly manifest.

The Foundation of this Objection lies in St. Paul's acknowledgement that he was [§ 11] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rude in Speech, 2 Cor. 11.6. 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 Silicia ; 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 Ghiscalis, a Town of Galilee, from whence he went afterwards with his Parents to Tarsus, contrary to his own express testimony, Acts 22.23. I verily was born in Tarsus, a City of Silicia.

But this seems an infirm foundation of the Objection insisted on; Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians about the false Teachers, who seduced them from the Simplicity of the Gospel. The Course which they took to ensnare them, was vain affected Eloquence, and strains of Rhetoric unbecoming the Work they pretended to be engaged in. Puffed up with this singularity they contemned St. Paul as a 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 1.17. that Wisdom of Words or Speech which Orators flourished withal; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 2.13. the Words that Mans Wisdom teacheth, or an artificial composition of Words to entice thereby; which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. 2.1. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , suppose I be, or were, rude 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 Cappel, with many others on the place. If then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, that seducing en • icing 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 anything 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. Paul written in so low and homely a Style as is pretended. Chrysostom speaking of him tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and that for his Eloquence he was esteemed Mercury by the Gentiles. Somewhat hath been spoken hereunto before, whereunto I shall now only add the Words of a Person who was no incompetent Judge in things of this nature. Quum, saith he, orationis ipsius totam indolem & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proprius considero, nullam ego in ipso Platone similem grandiloquentiam, quoties illi libuit Dei Mysteria detonare, nullam in Demosthene parum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , comperisse me fateor, quoties animos velmetu Divini Judicii perterrefacere, vel commonefacere, vel ad contemplandam Dei bonitatem attrahere, vel ad pietatis & misericordiae officia constituit adhortari, nullam deni{que} vel in ipso Aristotele & Galeno praestantissimis alioquin artificibus, magis exactam docendi Methodum invenio. When I well consider the Genius and Character of the Speech and Style of this Apostle, I confess I never found that Grandeur in Plato himself, as in him, when he thundereth out the Mysteries of God; nor that Gravity and Vehemency in Demosthenes as in him, when he intends to terrify the minds of men, with a dread of the Judgments of God, or would warn them, or draw them to the contemplation of his Goodness, or the performance of the Duties of Piety and Mercy; Nor do I find a more exact Method of Teaching in those great and excellent Masters, Aristotle, and Galen, than in him. So it is plainly, so the Greek Fathers almost with one consent do testify, so do most of the Latins also, so the best Learned of the later Critics, and so may it be defended against any opposition. And Jerome himself, who takes most Liberty to censure his Style, doth so far in other places forget his own temerity therein, as to cry out against those, who dreamed as he speaks, that St. Paul was not thoroughly acquainted with all propriety of Speech. And he who was the first that ever spake word about any defect of this kind, though as able to judge as any one what ever who hath since passed his Censure unto the same purpose, was in an evident mistake in the very instance which he pitched on to confirm his Observation. This was Irenaeus, one of the first and most Learned of the Greek Fathers ; For affirming that there were many hyperbata in the Style of this Apostle, which render it uneven and difficult, he confirms his Assertion with an instance in 2 Cor. 4.4. In whom the God of this World, bath blinded the minds of them which believe not: For, saith he, the Words should naturally have been thus placed; In whom God hath blinded the minds of them that in this world believe not. So to obviate a Foolish Sophism in the Valentinians, an Hyperbaton must be supposed in the Apostles Style, when indeed there is not the least color of it. Upon the whole matter then, I shall confidently assert, that there is no manner of defect in any of his Writings; and that everything, (consider the matter and nature of it, the Person in whose name he spake, and those to whom he wrote) is expressed as it ought to be for the end proposed, and not otherwise. And hence it is, that because of the variety of the Subject Matter treated of, and difference among the persons to whom he wrote, that there is also variety in his way and manner of expressing himself in sundry of his Epistles: And in many of them, there is such a discovery and manifestation of solid Eloquence, and pure Elegancy of Speech, that the Observation of them in any Writing, is far from having any weight to prove it none of his.

[§ 13] It may then be granted, though it be not proved, that there is some dissimilitude of Style between this and the rest of the Epistles of St. Paul ; and the Reasons of it are sufficiently manifest. The Argument treated of in this Epistle, is divers from that of most of the other; many circumstances in those to whom he wrote singular, the spring of his reasonings, and way of his arguings, peculiarly suited unto his Subject Matter, and the condition of those unto whom he wrote. Besides in the Writing of this Epistle there was in him an especial Frame and incitation of Spirit, occasioned by many Occurrences relating unto it. His intense love, and near relation in the flesh, unto them to whom he wrote, affectionately remembered by himself, and expressed in a manner inimitable, Rom. 9.1, 2, 3. did doubtless exert itself, in his treating about their greatest and nearest concernment. The prejudices and enmity of some of them against him, recorded in several places of the Acts, and remembered by himself in some other of his Epistles, lay also under his consideration. Much of the Subject that he treated about, was matter of Controversy, which was to be debated from the Scripture, and wherein those with whom he dealt, thought they might dissent from him without any prejudice to their Faith or Obedience. Their condition also must needs greatly affect him. They were now not only under present troubles, dangers and fears, but Positi inter sacrum & saxum, at the very door of ruin, if not delivered from the snare of obstinate adherence unto Mosaical Institutions. Now they who know not what alterations in Style, and manner of Writing, these things will produce, in those who have an ability to express the Conceptions of their minds, and the Affections wherewith they are attended, know nothing of this matter. And other differences from the rest of Paul's Epistles, but 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.

Neither is it to be omitted, that there is such a Coincidence in many Phrases, use of [§ 14] 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 Chap. 1.1. compared with 2 Cor. 13.3. Chap. 2.14. with Gal. 1.16. Ephes. 6.12. Chap. 2.2. with Ephes. 5.26. Chap. 3.1. with Phil. 3.14. 2 Tim. 1.9. Chap. 3.6. with Rom. 5.2. Chap. 5.14. with 1 Cor. 11.6. Phil. 3.15. Ephes. 4.13. Chap. 5.13. with 1 Cor. 3.2. Chap. 6.2. with Col. 2.2. 1 Thes. 1.5. Chap. 7.18. with Rom. 8.3. Gal. 4.9. Chap. 8.6, 9. with Gal. 3.19, 20. 1 Tim. 2.5. Chap. 10.1. with Col. 2.17. Chap. 10.22. with 2 Cor. 7.1. Chap. 10.23. a phrase peculiar to St. Paul, and common with him, Chap. 10.33. with 1 Cor. 4.9. Chap. 10.36. with Gal. 3.22. Chap. 10.39. 1 Thes. 5.9. 2 Thes. 2.14. Chap. 12.1. with 1 Cor. 9.24. Chap. 13.10. with Ephes. 4.14. 1 Cor. 9.13. 1 Cor. 10.18. Chap. 13.15, 16. with Rom. 12.1. Phil. 4.18. Chap. 13.20. with Rom. 15.33. Rom. 16.20. 2 Cor. 13. •• Phil. 4.9. 1 Thes. 5.23. Many of which places, having before been observed by others, they are all of them, collected in this order by Spanhemius ; and many more of the like nature mig •• be added unto them, but that these are sufficient to out-balance 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.

Secondly, It is excepted, that the Epistle is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the name of Paul being not [§ 15] 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 Antient, 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 all that have spoken anything 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 of it; yet it would be of no moment, seeing we know not, whence, or from whom, any of them are. The Objection then is taken from the want of the wonted Apostolical Salutation ; which should be in, and a part of the Epistle. And this is the substance of what on this account is excepted against our Assertion.

[§ 16] Various Answers have been given to this Objection, some of them of no more validity, than its self. 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 uncapable 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, 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, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15. and that Commission which was given unto them all in general, was given unto everyone in particular : and made him in solidum possessor of all the Right and Authority conveyed by it. Neither could any following arbitrary agreement pitched on for convenience, and the facilitating of their Work, abridge any of them from exerting their Authority, and exercising their Duty towards any of the Sons of Men, as occasion did require.

And hence it is, that notwithstanding the agreement mentioned, we find St. Peter teaching of the Gentiles, and St. Paul laboring the Conversion of the Jews. Secondly, 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 its self unto, so the concealing of his Name, lest he should be thought to have done anything 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 Eusebius, He did Wisely, saith he, conceal his Name, because of the prejudicate Opinion that they had against him: and this is at large insisted on by Chrysostom, who is followed therein by Theophilact, Oecumenius and others without number. The persecuting Party of the Nation, looked on him as an Apostate, a Desertor 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 15.2. And this also is usually no small cause of wrath and hatred. The Spirit of these men afterwards possessing the Ebonites, they despised St. Paul as a Grecian and Desertor 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 21.21. 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 usi • all 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 Persons whatever. And though I know that there may be some Reply made unto this Answer, both from the Discovery which he makes of himself in the end of the Epistle, and from the high probability that there is, that the Hebrews upon the first receipt of it, would diligently examine by whom it was written, yet I judge it very sufficient to frustrate the Exception insisted on, though perhaps not containing the true, at least the whole Cause of the Omission of an Apostolical Salutation in the entrance of it.

If then we would know the True and Just Cause of the Omission of the Authors [§ 19] 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 did Preach and Write the Word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them, yet prefixed their Names unto their Writings, as did the Prophets of Old, and some who did write Epistles to them who were absent, omitted so to do, as St. John, and the Author of this Epistle. The real cause then of prefixing the Names of any of the Apostles unto their Writings, was merely the Introduction thereby of their Titles, as Apostles of Jesus Christ, and therein an Intimation of that Authority, by, and with which they wrote. This then was the true and only reason why the Apostle St. Paul prefixed his Name unto his Epistles; sometimes indeed this is omitted when he wrote unto some Churches where he was well known, and his Apostolical Power was sufficiently owned, because he joined others with himself in his Salutation who were not Apostles, as the Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 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 Prophets and Apostles. And hence it was, that when something he had taught, was called in question, and opposed, Writing in the Vindication of it, and for their establishment in the Truth, whom before he had instructed, he doth in the entrance of his Writings, singularly and Emphatically mention this his Authority, Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle, neither of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that raised him from the dead: so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the Doctrine by him revealed. By this Title, I say, he directs them to whom he wrote, to resolve their assent into the Authority of Christ speaking in him, which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the Mysteries wherein they were instructed.

In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise; They who believed amongst them, never changed the old foundation, or Church-State, grounded on the Scriptures, though they had a new addition of Privileges by their Faith in Christ Jesus, as the Messiah now exhibited. And therefore he deals not with them, as with those whose Faith was built absolutely on Apostolical Authority and Revelation, but upon the common Principles of the Old Testament, on which they still stood, and out of which Evangelical Faith was educed. Hence the beginning of the Epistle, wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation, that he intended to build upon, and the Authority which he would press them withal, supplies the Room of that intimation of his Apostolical Authority, which in other places he maketh use of. And it serves to the very same purpose. For as in those Epistles he proposeth his Apostolical Authority as the immediate reason of their Assent and Obedience; so in this he doth the Scriptures of the Old Testament. And this is the true and proper cause, that renders the prefixing of his Apostolical Authority, which his Name must necessarily accompany, needless, because useless, it being that which he intended not to engage in this business. And for himself, he sufficiently declares in the close of his Epistle who he was; for though some may imagine that he is not so certainly known unto us, from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond to doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote ; so that neither hath this Objection in it anything of real weight or moment.

[§ 20] We have spoken before unto the Haesitation 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 Chap. 2. and the Third, where the Writer of it seems to reckon himself, among the number, not of the Apostles, but of their Auditors. But whereas it is certain and evident, that the Epistle was written before the Destruction of the Temple, yea, 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] 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 Enquiry about it. His Words to this purpose, Epist. 2. Chap. 3. v. 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, Chap. 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. to the Elect Strangers of the Dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Chap. 1.1. that is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as St. James styles the same Persons, Chap. 1.1. the twelve Tribes, or Hebrews of the twelve Tribes of Israel in their Dispersion. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are those whom the Jews of Jerusalem called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , John 7.35. the Dispersion, or those of their Nation, that were dispersed among the Gentiles; Those especially they intend in the Greek Empire. These they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the dispersion or scattering of Israel, when they were sifted amongst all Nations, like the sifting of a Sieve, Amos 9.9. Psal. 147.2. they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the LXX. according to the Phrase in their days render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the dispersions, or those scattered abroad of Israel, as Isaiah calls them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. 27. v. 13. So that there is no question but that these were they whom St. Peter calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Pontus Galatia, &c. As St. James extending his Salutation to the same people in all places, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Twelve Tribes.

Besides many things insisted on by St. Peter in these Epistles, were peculiar to the Hebrews, who also were his especial Care: See 1 Epist. Chap. 1.10, 11, 12. Chap. 2.9, 21. Chap. 3.5.6. Chap. 4.7, 17. Eph. 2.19, 20, 21. Chap. 2.1, 11, &c. Chap. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. and many other particular places of the same nature may be observed in them. To sum up our Evidence in this particular; Peter being in an especial manner the Apostle of the Circumcision or Hebrews, Gal. 2.7. having by his first Sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Acts 2.9, 10, 41. ascribing that Title unto them to whom he wrote, which was the usual and proper Appellation of them in all the World, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 will manifest, there remains no ground of Question, but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote. Nor are the Exceptions that are made to this Evidence of any such importance, as once to deserve a remembrance by them, who design not a protracting of their Discourses by insisting on things unnecessary.

Now it is plain in this Testimony asserted, That St. Paul wrote a peculiar Epistle unto [§ 22] 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. Peters Testimony may be received, St. Paul undoubtedly wrote an Epistle unto the Hebrews. But this may be, say some, another Epistle, and not this we treat on; particularly that to the Galatians, which treateth about Judaical Customs and Worship. But this Epistle mentioned by St. Peter, was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles: This to the Galatians is written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews ; so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have been fixed upon. Besides he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St. Peter, which are indeed the main Subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But, say others, Paul indeed might write an Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be lost, and this that we have, might be written by some other: But whence this Answer should proceed, but from a resolution 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 these that we have under his Name, were written by another: It is not surely one jot less intolerable for any one, without ground, proof, or Testimony, to affirm that the Church hath lost an Epistle written to the Hebrews by St. Paul, and taken up one in the room thereof, written by no man knoweth whom. This is not to deal with that Holy Reverence in the things of God, which becomes us.

St. Peter declares that St. Paul in that Epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews, had [§ 23] declared the Long-suffering of God, whereof he had minded them, to be salvation. We must see what was this Long-suffering of God, how it was Salvation, and how Paul had manifested it so to be. The Long-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 occasionly 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 them who threatened them with such an issue or event of it, 2 Epist. Chap. 3. v. 4. which causeth the Apostle to declare the Nature and End of this Long-suffering which they were ignorant of, ver. 9.

And thus (Secondly,) was this particular Long-suffering of God towards the Jews, whilst the Gospel was Preached unto them before their final D • solation, Salvation ; in that God spared them, and allowed them to abide for a while in the Observation of their Old Worship and Ceremonies, granting them in the mean time blessed means of Light and Instruction to bring them to Salvation.

And (Thirdly,) This is declared by St. Paul in this Epistle; not that this is formally and in terms the main Doctrine of the Epistle, but that really and effectually he acquaints them with the intention of the Lord in his Long-suffering towards them, and peculiarly 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, Chap. 12. v. 25, 26, 27, 28. So that this Note also is eminently Characteristical of this Epistle.

[§ 24] 5. 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 that Grace of Wisdom, so also in that which he wrote unto the Hebrews, there is no doubt but he exerted and put forth his other Graces of Knowledge, Zeal, and Love also; but yet Peter here in 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 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, unfolding things hidden from the foundation of the world, his Application of them, with various Testimonies and Arguments that wrapped up the Truth in great Darkness and Obscurity, unto the Mystery of God manifested in the Flesh, his various intertextures of Reasonings and Exhortations throughout his Epistle, his Condescention to the Capacity, Prejudices and Affections of them to whom he wrote, urging them constantly with their own Principles and Concessions, do among many other things manifest the singular Wisdom which Peter signifies to have been used in this Work.

6. It may also be observed, that whereas Peter affirms that among the things about which Paul wrote, there were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some things hard to be understood ; That Paul in a special manner confesseth that some of the things which he was to treat of in that Epistle were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hard to be declared, uttered or unfolded; and therefore certainly hard to be understood, Chap. 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 its self 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 out-balancing the Conjectures that are advanced against it, we shall subjoin them also in their Order.

[§ 25] The Comparing of this Epistle with the others of the same Apostle gives farther Evidence unto our Assertion. I suppose it will be confessed, that they only are competent Judges of this Argument, who are well exercised and conversant in his Writings. Unto their Judgment therefore alone in it do we appeal. Now the similitude between this and other Epistles of Paul is threefold. (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 divers Authors.

But this I shall not particularly insist upon: partly because it hath already been done by others at large; and partly because they will all of them be observed in our Exposition its self; nor doth it suit our present design to enter into a Debate about particular Words and Expressions. Nor do I assign anymore 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being three times used in this one Epistle, it hath in each place a peculiar and divers signification. (2.) There is also a coincidence of Matter, or Doctrines delivered in this and 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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; when unto them in whom it is, they are all sweet, gracious, in some measure open, plain and powerful. A great and constant exercise unto an acquaintance with his frame of Spirit in Writing, is also necessary hereunto. Unless a man have contracted as it were a familiarity, by a constant conversation with him, no Critical skill in Words or Phrases will render him a competent Judge in this matter. This enabled 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 inexpressable 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 its self 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 what ever 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.

The Testimony of the first Churches, of whose Testimony any record is yet remaining, [§ 26] 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, which with the grounds and occasions of it as to some in the Latin Church, we have already granted and declared, and 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 its self to induce them to embrace this Perswasion. 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 first part, we may grant to have been equally the design of all the Apostles, though we find it in a peculiar way insisted on in the Writings of Paul. The latter was his special work and business. This partly 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 suitable 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, who were troubled in this Controversy by some of the Jews, he at last treats with themselves directly in this Epistle, giving an account of what he had elsewhere Preached and taught to this purpose, and the grounds that he proceeded upon; and this not without great success, as the burying of the Judaical Controversy not long after doth manifest.

(2.) The Method of his proceedure 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, what ever 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 Scripture 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 Scripture, 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 shown towards him in his sufferings, and whilst he was a Prisoner, Chap. 10.34. Now as the Bonds of Paul were afterwards famous at Rome, Phil. 1.13. So there was not anything 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, but that all the Believers of those parts were exceedingly solicitous about his condition, (as they had been about Peters 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 its self, 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, Chap. 13.23. That Timothy was at Rome with Paul in his Bonds is expressly asserted, Phil. 1.13, 14. 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 anything 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, hon • ured 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 Thess. 3.13.) 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 its self 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.

Exercitatio III.

[§ 1] THAT was not amiss observed of Old by Chrysostom Praesat. in Com. ad Epist. ad Rom. that a due Observation of the Time and Season wherein the Epistles of Paul were written, doth give great light unto the understanding of many passages in them. This Baronius ad A.C. 55. N. 42. well confirms by an instance of their mistake, who suppose the Shipwrack of Paul at Mileta, Acts 27. to have been that mentioned by him, 2. Cor. 11. 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 full years, he continued in that condition, v. 30. at least so long he continued under restraint, though in his own hired H • use. This time was expired before the writing of this Epistle. For he was not only absent from •• me in some other part of Italy when he wrote it, Chap. 13.24. but also so far at liberty and sui juris, as that he had entertained a Resolution of going into the East so soon as Timothy should come unto him, Chap. 13.23. 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, Chap. 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 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, Chap. 1.13. that it was not long before his death. This as is generally agreed, happened in the thirteenth year of Nero, when a great progress was made in that War, which ended in the fatal and final destruction of the City and Temple.

[§ 3] From these Observations it appears, that the best guide we have to find out the certain time o • 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 Cesarea by Felix, Acts 24.27. Chap. 25. v. 26, 27. This Felix was the Brother of Pallas who ruled all things under Claudius, and fell into some disgrace in the very first ye •• 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 Raign, when together with his Mother he destroyed many of her Friends and Favorites. During this time of Pallas his 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 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 shown 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 Syn • d at Jerusalem, Acts 13. 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, Chap. 2. v. 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.

The time fixed on, was about the death of Festus, who died in the Province, and the [§ 4] 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, Chap. 10.31, 32, 33, 34. Ye endured a great sight of a • flictions, partly whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and a • flictions, 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.

One Joseph the Son of Caehias was in the beginning of those days High Priest, put into [§ 5] 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 Sadduce, (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, Chap. 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, Chap. 12. v. 4. But this Ananus the Sadduce presently after being placed in power by Agrippa, taking advantage at the death of Festus, and the time that passed before Albinus his Successor was settled in the Province, convents 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.

The Story (by the way) of the Martyrdom of this James is at large reported by [§ 6] Eusebius out of H • gesippus, Histor. Eccles. l. 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 in to 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, Chap. 21. v. 20, 21, 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 as 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 adh • rence 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, Chap. 10.36, 37. For ye have need of Patience that after ye have done the Will of God, ye may receive the Promise; For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A very little while, less than you think of, or imagine; the manner whereof he declares Chap. 12.26, 27, 28. And by this means he effectually diverted th • m from a pertinacious adherence unto those things whose dissolution from God himself, was so nigh at hand; which Argument was also afterwards pressed by Peter, 2 Epist. Chap. 3.

[§ 10] Our blessed Savior had long before warned his Disciples of all these things; particularly of the desolation that was to come upon the whole people of the Jews, with the Tumults, Distresses, Persecutions and Wars which should precede it, directing them to the exercise of patience in the discharge of their duty, until the approach of the final Calamity, out of which he advised them to free themselves by flight, or a timely departure out of Jerusalem and all Judea, Matth. chap. 24. v. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. This, and no other was the Oracle mentioned by Eusebius, whereby the Christians were warned to depart out of Jerusalem. It was given as he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to approved men amongst them. For although the Prophesy its self was written by the Evangelists, yet the especial meaning of it, was not known and divulged amongst all. The Leaders of them kept this secret for a season, least an exasperation of the people being occasioned thereby, they should have been obstructed in the work which they had to do before its accomplishment. And this was the Way of the Apostles also as to other future events, which being foretold by them, might provoke either Jews or Gentiles, if publicly divulged. 2 Thess. 2.5, 6. But now when the Work of the Church among the Jews for that season was come to its close, the Elect being gathered out of them, and the final Desolation of the City and People appearing to be at hand, by a concurrence of all the signs foretold by our Savior, those entrusted with the sense of that Oracle warned their Brethren to provide for that flight whereunto they were directed. That this flight and departure, probably with the loss of all their Possessions was grievous unto them may easily be conceived.

But that which seems most especially to have perplexed them, was their relinquishment of that Worship of God whereunto they had been so zealously addicted. That this would prove grievous unto them our Savior had before intimated, Matth. 24. v. 20. Hence were they so slow in their Obedience unto that Heavenly Oracle, although excited with the remembrance of what befell Lots Wife in the like Tergiversation. Nay, as it 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, Chap. 10. v. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.

This was the Time wherein this Epistle was written; This the Condition of the Hebrews [§ 11] unto whom it was wrote, 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 flying from the midst of that perishing Generation, what danger they were in to forego the profession of the Gospel, when it could not be retained without a relinquishment of their former Divine Service and Ceremonies, writes this Epistle unto them, wherein he strikes at the very root of all their dangers and distresses. For whereas all the danger of their abode in Jerusalem and Judea, and so of falling in the destruction of the City and People, all the Fears the Apostle had of their Apostasy into Judaism ; all their own 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.

Exercitatio IV.

[§ 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, then 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Every thing in this pretended Reason, of that which indeed never was, is so far from Certainty, that indeed it is beneath all probability.

For (1.) If this Epistle was written Originally in Hebrew, whence comes it pass, that no Copy of it in that Language, was ever read, seen, or heard of, by the most diligent Collectors of all Fragments of Antiquity in the Primitive times? Had ever any such thing been extant, whence came it in particular that Origen, that prodigy of Industry and Learning, should be able to attain no knowledge or report of it? (2.) If it were incumbent on Paul writing unto the Hebrews, to write in their own Language, why did he not also write in Latin unto the Romans? That he did so indeed Gratian affirms, but without pretence of proof or witness, contrary to the Testimony of all Antiquity, the evidence of the thing itself, and constant confession of the Roman Church : And Erasmus says well on Rom. 1.7. Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis linguâ Romanâ scripsisle. 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 Silicia, 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 its self, 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 its self, Tit. Peah. cap. 1. they add a reason of it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it was because of Traitors, least 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 affirm, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 9. that the Study of the Elegance of Tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended Decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made as they say, Mishn. tit. Sota ; in the last Wars of Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Hasmonaeans long before, prohibiting the Study of the Graecian Philosophy. So that this pretence 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 Transla ••• n 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 its self, 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 savouring of the Hebraisms of an Original in that Language, do manifest. (2.) It abounds with Greek Elegancies and Paranomosia's, that have no countenance given unto t •• m by anything in the Hebrew Tongue ; such as that for instance, Chap. 5. v. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; from the like Expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, v. 55, 56. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and v. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is well proved that it was w •• tten Originally in the Greek Language. (3.) The rendering of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 constantly by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; of which more afterwards, is of the same importance. (4.) The Words concerning Melchizedek King of Salem, Chap. 7.11. prove the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew what need this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is being interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a strange kind of Interpretation; and so also is it, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . When John reports the Words of Mary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and adds of his own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to say, Master, Chap. 20. v. 16. Doth any man doubt but that he wrote in Greek, and therefore so rendered her Syriac Expression? and is not the same evident concerning our Apostle from the interpretation that he gives of those Hebrew Words? And it is in vain to reply, that these words were added by the Translator, seeing the very Argument of the Author is founded in the Interpretation of those words which he gives us. It appears then, that as the Assertion, that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, is altogether groundless, and that it arose from many false suppositions, which render it more incredible, than if it made use of no pretence at all; so there want not Evidences from the Epistle its self of its being Originally written in the Language wherein it is still extant; and those such as few other Books of the New Testament can afford concerning themselves, should the same Question be made about them. [§ 5]

Moreover, in the Confirmation of our persuasion, it is by some added, that the Testimonies made use of in this Epistle out of the Old Testament, are taken out of the Translation of the LXX. and that sometimes the stress of the Argument taken from them, relies on somewhat peculiar in that Version, which was not possible to have been done, had it been written Originally in Hebrew. But because this Assertion contains other difficulties in it, and is built on a supposition which deserves a farther examination, we shall refer it unto its own place and season, which ensues.

Exercitatio V.

[§ 1] THere is not anything 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 Authors purpose, have made bold to call in question, if not to reject the Authority of the whole. But what concerns the matter of them, and the Wisdom of the Apostle in their Application, it must be treated on, 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 Apostles Citations to prevent a further trouble in the Exposition its self of the several places, may be previously considered. Not that we shall here explain and vindicate them from the Exceptions mentioned, which must on necessity be done afterwards as occasion offers its self; but only discover in general, what respect the Apostles 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.

Exercitatio VI.

[§ 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 added to the strengthening of their Unbelief. They could not bear with patience an intimation of letting out the Vineyard to other Husbandmen. With this Principle and Prejudice of theirs the Apostle dealt directly in his Epistle to the Romans, Chap. 9, 10, 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 re-stipulation unto obedience in them who by faith come to have an interest therein. And this the nature of the thing its self 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 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 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 entrusted thereby in all the Benefits or Privileges, that God had given or granted, or would do so at any time unto his Church.

In process of time, God was pleased to confine this Church, as unto the ordinary visible [§ 3] 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 woeful 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 separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fullness of time, and be of them according unto the flesh, Rom. 9.5.

Secondly, Together with this, he had also another Privilege granted unto him, namely that his faith whereby he was personally interested in the Covenant should be the Pattern of the faith of the Church in all generations, and that none should ever come to be a member of it, or a sharer in its Blessings, but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was in the Promise, to be brought forth from him in the world. On the account of this Privilege, he became the Father of all them that do believe; For they that are of the faith, the same are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3.7. Rom. 4.11. as also Heirs of the World ; Rom. 4.13. in that all that should believe throughout the world, bring thereby implanted into the Covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children.

Answerable unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double [§ 4] seed allotted unto him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according unto the flesh: and a seed according to the Promise, that is, such as by faith should have interest in the Promise, or all the Elect of God. Not that these two seeds were always subjectively divers; so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh, should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise ; or on the contrary, that the seed according to the promise, should none of it, be his seed after the flesh. Our Apostle declares the contrary in the instances of Isaac and Jacob, with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved, Romans Chap. 9, 10, 11. But sometimes the same seed came under divers considerations, being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and according to the Promise ; and sometimes the seed itself was divers, those according to the flesh being not of the Promise, and so on the contrary. Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh, separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh, because they were his carnal Posterity, and they were also of the seed of the Promise, because by their own personal faith they were interested in the Covenant of Abraham their Father. Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham, and of the number of the people separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh, and yet were not of the seed according to the Promise, nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the Covenant, because they did not personally believe, as our Apostle declares, Chap. 4. of this Epistle. And many afterwards, who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor interested in the privilege of bringing forth the Messiah in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spiritual seed by faith, that in them he might become heir of the world, and all Nations of the Earth be blessed in him. Now it is evident, that it is the second Privilege and spiritual seed, wherein the Church to whom the Promises are made, is founded, and whereof it doth consist; namely in them, who by Faith are interested in the Covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or no.

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

That this Separation and Privilege were to cease, when the end of it was accomplished, and the Messiah exhibited, the very nature of the thing declares. For to what purpose should it be continued, when that was fully effected whereunto it was designed? But they would extend this Privilege, and mix it with the other, contending that because they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh, the whole Blessing and Covenant of Abraham belonged unto them. But as our Savior proved that in the latter sense they were not the children of Abraham, because they did not the works of Abraham ; so as our Apostle plainly demonstrates, Rom. 4.9.10.11. Chapters. Gal. 3.4. Chap. that those of them who had not the faith of Abraham, had no interest in his Blessings and Covenant; Seeing therefore that their other Privilege was come to an end with all the carnal Ordinances that attended it, by the actual coming of the Messiah whereunto they were subservient, if they did not by faith in the promised seed attain an interest in this of the Spiritual Blessing, it is evident that they could on no account be considered as actual sharers in the Covenant of God.

[§ 6] We have seen then that Abraham on the account of his faith, and not of his separation according to the flesh, was the Father of all that believe, and Heir of the world. And in the Covenant made with him, as to that which concerns, not the bringing forth of the promised seed according to the flesh, but as unto faith therein; and in the work of Redemption to be performed thereby, lies the foundation of the Church in all Ages. Wheresoever this Covenant is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the Church, unto whom all the Promises and Privileges of the Church do belong. Hence it was, that at the coming of the Messiah there was not one Church taken away, and another set up in the room thereof, but the Church continued the same in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christian Church, is not another Church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same Covenant.

It is true, the former carnal Privilege of Abraham and his Posterity expiring on the grounds before mentioned, the Ordinances of Worship which were suited thereunto, did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them. For whereas both these, namely the carnal and spiritual Privileges of Abraham's Covenant, had been carried on together in a mixed way for many Generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made ( Mal. 3.) who of the Jews had interest in both, who in one only, those who had only the carnal Privilege of being Children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also, that is in all the Promises annexed unto the Covenant. But the foundation of their Plea was taken away, and the Church unto which the Promises belong remained with them, that were heirs of Abraham's faith only.

[§ 7] It remains then, that the Church founded in the Covenant, and unto which all the Promises did and do belong, abode at the coming of Christ, and doth abide ever since in and among those who are the children of Abraham by Faith. The Old Church was not taken away, and a new one set up, but the same Church was continued, only in those who by Faith inherited the Promises. Great alterations indeed were then made in the outward state and condition of the Church. As (1:) The carnal Privilege of the Jews in their separation to bring forth the Messiah then failed, and therewith their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. (2.) The Ordinances of Worship suited unto that Privilege, expired, and came to an end. (3.) New Ordinances of Worship were appointed, suited unto the New Light and grace granted then unto the Church. (4.) The Gentiles came in to the faith of Abraham together with the Jews to be fellow-heirs with them in his blessing. But none of these, nor all of them together made any such Alteration in the Church, but that it was still one and the same. The Olive Tree was the same, only some branches were broken of, and others planted in; the Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room.

And this must and doth determine the difference between the Jews and Christians [§ 8] about the Promises of the Old Testament. They are all made unto the Church. No individual Person hath any interest in them, but by virtue of his Membership therewith. This Church is and always was one and the same. With whomsoever it remains, the Promises are theirs: and that not by Application or Analogy, but directly and properly. They belong as immediately at this day either to the Jews or Christians as they did of old to any. The Question is, with whom is this Church founded on the promised seed in the Covenant. This is Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the Temple of God. The Jews plead that it is with them, because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh. Christians tell them that their Privilege on this account was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the Messiah. That the Church unto whom all the Promises belong, are only those who are Heirs of Abraham's faith; believing as he did, and thereby interested in his Covenant. Not as though the Promise made to Abraham were of none effect; for as it was made good unto his carnal seed in the exhibition of the Messiah, so the spiritual Privileges of it belonged only unto those of the Jews and Gentiles, in whom God had graciously purposed to effect the faith of Abraham. Thus was, and is the Church, whereunto all the Promises belong, still one and the same, namely Abraham's children according to the faith; and among those Promises this is one, that God will be a God unto them and their seed forever.

Exercitatio VII.

THE Apostle dealing with the Hebrews about the Revelation of the Will of [§ 1] God made unto their Fathers; assigns it in general unto his speaking unto them in the Prophets, v. 1. This speaking unto them, the present Jews affirm to consist of two Parts; (1.) That which Moses and the following Prophets was commanded to write for the public use of the Church: (2.) What being delivered only by word of Mouth unto Moses, and continued by Oral Tradition until after the last destruction of the Temple, was afterwards committed unto writing. And because those who would read our Exposition of this Epistle, or the Epistle itself with profit, had need of some insight into the Opinions and Traditions of the Jews about these things, I shall for the sake of them that want either Skill or Leisure to search after them elsewhere, give a brief account of their faith, concerning the two Heads of Revelation mentioned; and therein discover, both the Principle, Means and Nature of their present Apostasy and Infidelity.

The Scripture of the Old Testament they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and divide it into three [§ 2] parts: (1.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Law: (2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Prophets : (3.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Writings, by Divine Inspiration, which are usually called the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings. And this distribution of the Books of the Old Testament is in general intimated by our Savior, Luke 24.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . All things written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms ; under which last head, all the Poetical Books of the Scripture are contained. Thus Rabbi Bechai in Cad Hackemach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the Law, (so sometimes they call the whole Volume) is divided into three parts,