the work of the church among the Jews for that season was come to its close, the elect being gathered out of them, and the final desolation of the city and people appearing to be at hand, by a concurrence of all the signs foretold by our Saviour, those entrusted with the sense of that oracle, warned their brethren to provide for that flight whereunto they were directed. That this flight and departure, probably with the loss of all their possessions, was grievous unto them, may easily be conceived.

But that which seems most especially to have perplexed them, was their relinquishment of that worship of God whereunto they had been so zealously addicted. That this would prove grievous unto them, our Saviour had before intimated, Matt. xxiv. 20. Hence were they so slow in their obedience unto that heavenly oracle, although excited with the remembrance of what befel Lot's wife in the like tergiversation. Nav, it is likely from this Epistle, that many of them who had made profession of the gospel, rather than they would now utterly forego their old way of worship, deserted the faith; and, cicaving to their unbelieving countrymen, perished in their apostasy. These 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, ch. x. 25-31.

11. This was the time wherein this Epistle was writtenthis the condition of the Hebrews unto whom it was addressed, both in respect of their political and ecclesiastical estate. Paul, who had inexpressible zeal, and overflowing affection for his countrymen, being now in Italy, considering the present condition of their affairs, how pertinaciously they adhered to Mosaical institutions; how near the approach of their utter abolition was; how backward, during that frame of spirit, they would be to save themselves, by flying from the midst of that perishing generation; what danger they were in to forego the profession of the gospel, when it could not be retained without a relinquishment of their former divine service and ceremonies; writes this Epistle unto them, wherein he strikes at the very root of all their dangers and distresses. For whereas all the danger of their abode in Jerusalem and Judea, and so of falling in the destruction of the city and people, all the fears the apostle had of their apostasy into Judaism, all their own distresses in reference unto their flight and departure, arose from their adherence unto and zeal for the law of Moses: by declaring unto them the nature, use, end and expiration of these ordipances and institutions, he utterly removes the ground and occasion of all the evils mentioned. This was the season wherein this Epistle was written, and these some of the principal oc

casions (though it had other reasons also, as we shall see afterwards) of its being written. And though particular events of those days are buried in oblivion, yet I no way doubt but that through His grace who moved the apostle to write, and who directed him in writing it, it was made signally effectual towards the professing Hebrews, both to free them from that yoke of bondage wherein they had been detained, and to prepare them with cheerfulness unto the observation of evangelical worship, leaving their countrymen to perish in their si and unbelief

EXERCITATION IV.

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

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

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

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

to attain no knowledge or report of it? 2. If it were incumbent on Paul writing unto the Hebrews, to write in their own language, why did he not also write in Latin unto the Romans? That he did so indeed, Gratian affirms, but without pretence of proof or witness, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity; the evidence of the thing itself, and the constant confession of the Roman church. And Erasmus says well on Rom. i. 7. Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis lingua Romana scripsisse. The error of them is to be reproved, or rather laughed at, who suppose Paul to have written unto the Romans in the Latin tongue.' 3. The supposition, that the Hebrew tongue was then the vulgar language of the Jews, is most unfounded. The Hebrew was then known only to the learned amongst them, and a corrupt Syriac was the common dialect of the people even at Jerusalem. 4. It is averred with as little truth, that the Hebrew was the mother tongue of Paul himself, or that he was ignorant of the Greek, seeing he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, where he must have been brought up in the use of the Greek language. 5. The Epistle was written for the use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, (especially for those in the east as Peter witnesseth), they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judea and Jerusalem. Now to those the Greek language, from the days of the Macedonian empire, had been in vulgar use, and continued so to be. 6. The Greek tongue was so well known and so much used in Judea itself, that, as a learned man hath proved by sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar amongst them.

I know among the Rabbins there is mention of a prohibition of learning the Greek tongue; and in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, Tit. Peah. c. 1. they add a reason of it: 110 1152, it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary unto what they teach about the knowledge of tongues, required in those who were to be chosen into the sanhedrim; so it is sufficiently disproved by the instances of the translators of the Bible, Jesus Syrachides, Philo, Josephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirms, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 9. that the study of the elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made, as they say, Mishn. tit. Sota; in the

בפולמוס של טיטוס גזרו שלא ילמר אדם את,last wars of Titus

♫, 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 Hasmoneans long before, prohibiting the

study of the Grecian philosophy. So that this pretence is des titute of all colour, being made up of many vain and evidently talse suppositions.

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

§4. Besides, there want not evidences in the Epistle itself, proving it to be originally written in the language wherein it is yet extant. I shall only point at the heads of these, 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 favouring of the Hebraisms of an original in that language, do manifest. 2. It abounds with Greek elegancies and paranomasias, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that for instance, ch. v. 8. epaber awr exa. From similar expressions in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56. b xivor, xiσει σε μεσον, and ver. 59. ὑπω πρίνο», πεισαι σε μεσον, it is well proved, that it was written originally in the Greek language. 3. The rendering of a constantly by dianen, of which more afterwards, is of the same importance. 4. The words concerning Melchisedec, king of Salem, ch. vii. 11. prove the same, wewn τον μεν ερμηνευομενος βασιλευς δικαιοσύνης έπειτα δε και βασιλεύς ειρηνης. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew, what need this inva.

is a strange kind of מלך צדך being interpreted is מלכי צדך That מלך שלום is מלך שלם interpretation; and so also is it, that

When John reports the words of Mary gasovi, and adds of his own, Asystai didaoxaxe, that is to say, Master, ch. xx. 16. doth any man doubt but that he wrote in Greek, and therefore to 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