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: NIDAN “IÐA, 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

בפולמום של טיטום 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 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 ar 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. quater ap' av exadev. From similar expressions in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56. vño xivov. Kr σει σε μέσον, and ver. 59. ὑπω πρινον, πρισαι σε μεσον, it is well proved, that it was written originally in the Greek language. 3. The rendering of n 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, gwτον μεν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλευς δικαιοσυνης επειτα δε και βασιλευς ειρηνης. Hal the Epistle been written in Hebrew, what need this gun.

is a strange kind of המלך 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 eaßouve, and adds of his own, xeyra didaonans, that is to say, Master, ch. xx. 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 argu ment of the author is founded in the interpretation of those

words which he gives us. It appears then that 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. And there are not wanting evidences in the Epistle itself, of its having been originally written in the language wherein it is still extant; and those such as few other books of the New Testament can afford, 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 from the translation of the LXX. and that sometimes the stress of the argument rests on somewhat peculiar to that version, which could not have been done, had the Epistle 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.

H

VOL. I

1. Testimonies cited by the apostle out of the Old Testament. § 2-13 Compared with the original and translations. § 14-24. Whence the agreement of some of them with that of the LXX.

§ 1. THERE is not any thing in this Epistle that is attended

with more difficulty, than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament that are made use of in it. Hence some, from their unsuitableness as they have supposed to the author's purpose, have made bold to call in question, if not to reject the authority of the whole. But the matter of them, and the wisdom of the apostle in their application, must be treated of in the respective places where they occur. We shall then 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 confirmation whereof they are produced. But the consideration of the words also in which they are expressed, as these vary frequently from the original, is attended with some difficulty. And this concernment of the apostles's citations, to prevent further trouble in the exposition of the several places, may be previously considered. Not that we shall here explain and vindicate them from the exceptions mentioned, which must of necessity be done afterwards as occasion offers; but we shall only discover in general, what respect the apostle's expressions have unto the original, and to the old translations thereof; and remove some false inferences that have been made on the consideration of them. To this end I shall briefly examine them all, and compare them with the places whence they are taken.

.בני אתה .petual ellipsis

§ 2. CHAP. i. 5. υιος μου ει συ, εγώ σήμερον γεγεννηκά σε Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, from Psal. ii. 7. The words exactly answer the original, with the addition only of the verb substantive, whereof in the Hebrew there is almost a perAnd the same are the words in the translation of the LXX. In the same verse, εγω εσομαι αυτώ εις πατέρα, και αυτος εσται μοι εις ύιον I will be unto him a father, and he shall be unto me a son, from 1 Chron. xxii. 10. The LXX. is different as to the order of the words: αυτος εσται μοι εἰς ὑσους και εγω εσομα αυτω εις πατέρα· which also is the order of the sentences in the original, the apostle using his own liberty, and varying from them both; so that this quotation is not directly from that translation.

Ver. 6. και προσκυνησάτωσαν αυτώ παντές αγγελοι Θεον And let all the angels of God worship him, from Psal. xcvii. 7. without change, only N, Gods, is rendered by the apostle, «[ysho Osov, the angels of God; of the reason whereof afterwards. The LΧΧ. προσκυνήσατε αυτω παντες αγγελοι αυτον· Worship him all ye his angels, differing from the apostle both in form of speech and words. Hence some not understanding whence this testimony was cited by the apostle, have inserted his words into the Greek Bible, Deut. xxxii. 43. where there is no colour for their introduction, nor any thing in the original to answer unto them; whereas the Psalmist expressly treateth of the same subject with the apostle; to the reason of which insertion into the Greek version, we shall speak afterwards.

Ver. 7. ὁ ποιων τους αγγέλους αυτου πνευματα, και τους λειτουργους αυτ του πυρος Φλογα. Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire, from Psal. civ. 4. The LXX. vg Qreyov, a flaming fire. Heb. h wx, fire of flame. Aquila, Tug λaßgov, α vehement fire. Symmachus, Tuginy proya, a fiery flame; much variety, with little or no difference, as it often falls out amongst good translators rendering peculiar Hebraisms, such as this is. The apostle's expression is his own, not borrowed from the LXX.

Ver. 8, 9. ὁ θρονος σου, ὁ Θεός, εις τον αιώνα του αιώνος (1) ράβδος ευθυτῆλος ή ράβδος της βασίλειας σου· ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην, και εμισής σας ανομίαν· δια τουτο έχρισε σε ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός σου, ελαιον αγαλλιασίως παρ θα τους μετόχους σου. Thy throne O God for ever and ever. (The verb substantive is left out by the apostle in answer unto the

rendered i etes, for אלהים and כסאך אלהים עולם ועד,original

O, which the apostrophe requires). A sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom: thou hast loved righteousness, and thou hast hated iniquity, wherefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. The words exactly answer the original, and they are the same in the translation of the LXX. and whence that coincidence was, we shall afterwards inquire. Aquila somewhat otherwise, gevos σov Oil ɛis diava nai er. Symmachus, diwvios xai sti ( came to be translated, from likeness of sound), in us, O God, he expresseth the apostrophe, which is evident in the context. Exalgov evbutntos, cunæ= Troy Bactrias Gov' aw he renders by exlgov, sceptrum, a sceptre, properly, as we shall see afterwards, on Gen. xlix. 10. suonoas arua, thou hast hated ungodliness, impiety, v-shαiw xagas, with the oil of joy, www. Symmachus, tλaw ayλaioμov, another word of the same signification with that used by the apostle, from Psal. xlv. 6, 7.

Ver. 10, 11, 12. συ κατ' αρχάς, κυριε, την γην εθεμελίωσας, και έργα των χείρων σου εισιν οι ουρανοι· αυτοί απολούνται, συ δε διαμένεις, και παντες ὡς ἱμάτιον, παλαιώθησαν τάση και όσες περιβολαίον ελίξεις αυτους, και αλλαγής