being omitted that was likely to work upon an ingenuous mind.

22. Paul, though still a prisoner, had, as is evident, a certain prospect of his release at the time of his writing this epistle, which was in the close of the year 62 after Christ.

24. These are all the same persons who are mentioned at the close of the epistle to the Colossians, as sending salutations to the whole of that church, as they now do to Philemon in particular.

HEBREWS.

Ir is not absolutely certain who was the writer of this epistle, and it was some centuries before it was universally received as one of the canonical books of the New Testament, and on this account it is not considered as of the same authority with the rest.* That it was not written by Paul, some argue from its not bearing his name; from its not beginning as all his other epistles do; from the style in which it is written, being, as all the ancients acknowledge, considerably different from that of his other epistles; and from some of the arguments being manifestly weak and inconclusive. But notwithstanding this, I am, upon the whole, inclined to think that this epistle was written by Paul, after his release from his imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 63, and before he left Italy.‡

Why Paul should not prefix his name to this epistle, I own, I do not see. His name was certainly offensive to the Jewish Christians in general, but the whole tenor of it shews that it was not intended to be concealed, since the writer mentions his design of visiting the persons to whom it is addressed. Perhaps it was not originally intended to be an epistle, to be sent to any particular persons, but a kind of treatise for more general use, and on this account Paul might not begin it in his usual manner. The mention

See N. T. 1729, II. p. 860; Wakefield's Enquiry, p. 232; Impr. Vers. on Ch. xiii. 25.

t See N. T. 1729, II. pp. 838-840; Lardner, VI. pp. 391-413; Sykes's Paraph. and Notes, 1755, (Introd.) pp. i.-xxvi.; Disney's Mem. of Sykes, 1785, pp. 311-319.

Wakefield conjectures, "that Paul dictated, and Luke composed the epistle;or that Paul wrote in Hebrew, and Luke translated: but the former hypothesis the more probable." Enquiry, pp. 234, 243. See Doddridge's Introd. VI. pp. 3, 4; Michaelis's Introd. Lect. (Sect. cxlii.), p. 308.

See Lardner, VI. pp. 418-415; Doddridge's Introd. VI. p. 4; Sykes, p. xxvi.; Disney's Mem. of Sykes, pp. 320, 321.

that is made of Timothy in this epistle is such as might be expected from Paul, and from no other person, and the salutations in the close are exactly like those of Paul.

As to the reasoning in this epistle, it is much of a piece with that of the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, upon the same subjects; and we are not to expect perfect correctness in any thing of this nature. The Jews, having no other books, were always meditating on their scriptures, which led them to apply passages in them to all occasions, proper and improper, and to draw from them arguments which will not always bear a strict examination.* This was perfectly natural in their circumstances, and if we had found the case to be otherwise, we should have wanted a valuable argument of the genuineness of these writings, as not suiting the men or the times.

The great object of this epistle is so much the same with that of several others of Paul's, as almost proves him to have been the writer. It is to lessen the excessive regard which the Jewish Christians of that age entertained for the institutions of Moses, which led them to endeavour to impose the observance of them upon the Gentile converts. With this view the writer of this epistle endeavours to shew the superiority of Christ to Moses, and to those angels by whom God spake to the patriarchs and prophets, and the superiority of the Christian dispensation in a variety of respects to that of the Jews, shewing that whatever was found in the institutions of Moses, there was something of the same nature, and superior in kind, in the gospel.t More particularly as the Jews boasted much of their priesthood, their sacrifices, and their temple, the writer of this epistle finds an high-priest, a sacrifice, and a temple, in the Christian scheme. But in this it may be easily supposed there is room for much imagination, in faucying resemblances where the appearances are very slight, so that much stress is not to be laid on arguments of this kind. This mode of reasoning, however, was usual with the Jews in general, and was by no means peculiar to the apostle, or to Christians.

There are in this epistle a few allusions to the doctrine of the Gnostics, to which the Judaizing teachers of that age were much inclined.

* On "St. Paul's manner of citing passages from the Old Testament," see Sykes, pp. xxviii.-xxxvi.; Disney's Mem. of Sykes, pp. 321-324.

† See Sykes, p. xli.

CHAP. I. 1, 2.* It is evident from these verses only, that the notion which has so long prevailed among Christians that Christ was the person by whom God spake to the patriarchs, and who appeared to Moses in the bush, has no foundation in the Scriptures, for here the contrary is expressly declared. It is here said to have been by angels only that God spake to the fathers, and that he did not speak by his Son till the last days, meaning, evidently, the times of Christ.

With this has also been connected the opinion that it was by Christ that God made the world, or the whole system of creation. But this also is as destitute of foundation in the Scriptures as the other; for though it seemed to be asserted in this place, it must be observed that the word here rendered worlds, properly signifies periods or ages, and not the visible system of things, such as the earth, or the sun, moon and stars. It ought, therefore, to have been rendered, by whom he constituted the ages, || whatever be meant by that phrase. The meaning of it probably is, that the future state of things, or the state of things in future periods of time, will be regulated with a view to Christ, or Christianity; Christ being now, that is, since his resurrection, appointed heir, or Lord of all things, having all power committed unto him; so that the future state of all men will be, in some sense, at his disposal.

3. Christ being here said to bear the likeness of God,¶

See Mede, p. 655; Sykes; Grotius in Lardner (Logos), XI. pp. 120, 121; Theol. Repos. III. pp. 112-115, 144, 145, 288, 440, 441; Lindsey's Sequel, pp. 483—488; Impr. Vers.; Belsham's Inquiry, pp. 290–294.

+ "Ev Tois ArгEAOIZ. For the design of the writer here is to shew how much Christ is superior to the angels, not to Moses and Aaron, which he afterwards more fully illustrates. Compare ii. 2, 3. Crellius, Evang. S. Joan. Restit. P. i. C. xliii." Bowyer.

I "Such a contrast not only seems to imply that Jesus, our Mediator, had no sort of concern in the prophetical dispensation of religion, but that he began to exist in these last days, at the commencement of his ministration, as much as the prophets of old began their commissions and their lives together." Wakefield's Enquiry, p. 250.

§"If you understand the ages of the gospel, the sense is clear and natural; for I cannot believe, with the generality of interpreters, that the author here refers to the original creation of all things: this thought is foreign to his subject, and breaks unnecessarily the thread of the argument. It could hardly enter the mind of Jews, and if the author had formed a design of proposing it to them, he would insensibly have prepared them for it, instead of hazarding it in so abrupt a manner. I do not know whether it is altogether reasonable. He who was established heir, is, without doubt, the man Christ Jesus; but was it by the man Christ Jesus that God had created the universe?" Abauzit, pp. 175, 176.

Doddridge. See Com. and Ess. I. p. 432; Sykes; John viii. 58; Col. i. 17; Wakefield's Enquiry, p. 149.

¶ ". Every man, with respect to his intellect, is allied to the Divine reason, being the impressed image, or a draught, or a ray of that essentially happy Being,'

clearly implies there is no more than a likeness, and that he is not himself God. He is also said [Phil. ii. 6] to be in the form of God, but so also was Adam said to have been, and so may any man become in a still higher sense by a communication of divine powers, imparted or withheld at the pleasure of God. Such phrases, therefore, are far from implying that Christ was any thing more than what God was pleased to make him. When all things are here said to be upheld by the word of his power, it is meant of the power of God, and not of Christ. Besides, the phrase, all things, does not in this place mean the system of nature, or the whole creation, but rather the new creation, as the change brought about by Christianity is often called. The whole of this may be said to depend upon Christ, be being, under God, the founder of this new constitution.

With a view to a subject on which the writer of this epistle enlarges much afterwards, he here ascribes to the death of Christ, the purging or cleansing of sin, thus comparing it to a sacrifice of sin, Christianity being intended to put away sin by reforming the world. This, therefore, is only said by way of figure, and by no means implies that Christ in his death is to be considered as a proper sacrifice to appease the wrath of God. Nothing more is meant by the writer than what he elsewhere expresses, when he says, [Chap. ii. 9,] that, "for the suffering of death, he was crowned with glory and honour."

4. All the arguments that follow, which are intended to prove that Christ was no angel,† will also prove that he had no nature superior to that of man, but was only a man exalted above angels. All these arguments depend upon such applications of passages in Scripture to Christ as were originally applied to other purposes; and as they are capable of any other similar application, it is evident that, strictly speaking, nothing can be inferred from them concerning any other persons, than those to whom they originally related.

Philo, of the creation of the world.' See Wisd. vii. 25, 26." N. T. 1729. See Clem. Rom. (1 Ep. xxxvi.); Wake, p. 29; Grotius in Lardner (Logos), XI. p. 121; Sykes.

The brightness of his glory. "Le mot Grec se prend pour l'image d'un corps lumineux qui se forme dans l'eau, ou dans un corps transparent. Les miracles perpetuels, que Jésus-Christ faisoit, étoient comme un éclat de la gloire de son Père. Voyez Col. i. 15." Le Clerc. See Belsham's Inquiry, pp. 264-267.

"Of his (the Father's) power.-What follows (by himself) is in distinction to it." Peirce in Bowyer. See Doddridge; Brenius and Limborch in Lardner (Logos), XI. pp. 121, 122.

† See Cardale, pp. 116, 117.

5. In these two passages David or Solomon was certainly intended.*

6.

If this be a reference to Psalm xcvii. 7, it is spoken. of God only.

7. This should be rendered, who maketh the winds his angels, and flames of fire his messengers, implying that any thing may be called an angel which God employs to execute his purposes.§

8, 9. This, which is borrowed from Psalm xlv. 6, 7, is spoken of Solomon, and should have been rendered, God is thy throne, or the foundation of thy power. As the writer speaks of Christ being exalted above his fellows, he must mean his fellow-men, or fellow-prophets, and therefore he certainly never considered him, as being by nature above the rank of other men.** For he expressly distinguishes him from angels, and consequently from any being of an

* See Psalm ii. 7; 2 Sam. vii. 14; Acts xiii. 33; Le Clerc.

+

"When he bringeth (or shall bring) again the first-begotten into the world." Mede, p. 577. See Le Clerc; Lardner (Logus), XI. p. 101; Sykes; Lindsey on Robinson, pp. 71, 72; Impr. Vers.

Psalm civ. 4. The author of the epistle designed to shew by this quotation, that there was nothing extraordinary in the title of angels and ministers, since those names were applied to winds and fire. Grotius observes further, that as the winds and flame were denominated angels, so some of the angels were called seraphim, that is, flames, and cherubim, which signifies winds. See Psalm xviii. 11; liv. 3." N. T. 1729 See Sykes; Harwood, N. T. Gr.; Impr. Vers.

Wakefield translates, "Who maketh his messengers, winds; and his ministers, a flame of fire." See his Note. "Perhaps, 'Who makes a flame of fire to be his angels, spirits, and ministers.'' Heinsius in Bowyer.

"Même les créatures inanimées dont il se sert pour exécuter ses ordres." Le Cene, pp. 748, 749. See Le Clerc.

H "Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee." Bowyer.

See Clarke (S. D.), 542; N. T. 1729; Sykes; Com. and Ess. I. p. 433. "The original is, God shall be thy throne for ever and ever.'

No mode of language is more customary in Scripture than to call God our rock; and as the address here is to a king, it figuratively employs the idea of throne, to express that he shall never be deposed, that he shall subsist eternally." Abauzit, p. iss. See Wakefield's Enquiry, p. 274; Belsham's Inquiry, pp. 205-208, 230, 231. "Chrysostom says, Who are his fellows, unless it be men?' Homil. III. p. 117. See Ch. ii. 14." N. T. 1729. "Men, of whose nature he partook, (Heb.. ii. 14-16,) or prophets, who had the spirit in a due, but less measure, bestowed upon them." Lardner, XI. p. 102.

"I recollect a passage in Origen's books against Celsus, who informs us he had met with a Jew, a learned man, who said that those words, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre; are addressed to the God of the universe: but the following words, thou lovest righteousness, and hatest iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, are addressed to the Messiah.'—Origen did not approve of that interpretation; but to me it appears both very right and very valuable. Nor is it so difficult but that it might have been discerned by a Christian, were it not that we are strangely misled by a great variety of wrong notions which prevail amongst us." Lardner (Logos), XI. p. 123. See Origen contr. Cels. (L. i. p. 43, Cant. T. I. p. 371, Bened.) in ibid.; Doddridge on ver. 9.