fest himself in the flesh, should appeal, in the course of his argument,
for the sake of silencing objectors, to the Shasters, which inculcate the
doctrine that Vishnu became incarnate. Would such an appeal be
morally wrong ? And if not, might not the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews make use of the views of those whom he addressed, respecting
a particular passage of Scripture, (although those views might not have
been exegetically well grounded), in order to confirm them in the belief
of a truth that was well grounded, and which he knew to be certain, by
revelation, or by other Scriptures which had a direct bearing upon it ?
However one might decide the case by reasoning a priori, most men
practically admit such methods of persuasion, and, in other things, are
very ready to justify them. Whether we are willing, however, or un-
willing to admit the fact presented before us, can surely never alter the
fact itself. Thus much we may truly say, viz. that those modes of
explanation, which, in order to get rid of a difficulty, set afloat all the
fixed principles and fundamental laws of interpretation, cannot be
admitted without the greatest possible danger to the Scriptures ; yet,
without the admission of such principles, the words of the passages in
question do not appear susceptible of being construed as originally and
primarily having had a direct reference to the Messiah.

After all, this view of the subject applies merely to the simple inter-
pretation of the original words of Isaiah, ch. viii. ; but not to the typical
design which may have been attached to the things or facts there related.
We know that in the preceding chapter, the birth of a child, to be called
Emmanuel, who was to spring from a virgin, is predicted, (ch. vii. 14;)
which birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that within some three years
(compare ver. 14 with 15, 16) the land of Judah should be delivered
from the confederated kings of Israel and Syria, who had invaded it.



574 EXCURSUS x.

Originally, and literally, this seems applicable only to the birth or ;t
child within that period of three years ; for how could the birth of Jesus,
which happened seven hundred and forty-two years afterwards, be a sign
(JliX) to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom was to be freed
from his enemies ? Such a child, it would seem, was born at that period ;
for, in ch. viii. 8. 10, he is twice referred to as if then present, or at least
then living. In ver. 10, our English version has translated the proper
name ^KUD^ and thus obscured the form of the original Hebrew.

Yet, in Matt. i. 23, the passage in Isa. vii. 14, appears to be cited, as
containing a prophecy relative to the Saviour's being conceived in the
womb of the virgin Mary. In what way, then, must we explain this?
How was it a TrX/jpwo-ie of Isa. vii. 14 ? To these questions, two answers
may be given. (1.) It may have been a TrX^pwo-ie, in the same sense as
Christ's being called out of Egypt (Matt. ii. 15,) was a TrX^pwo-/.? of
Hos. xi. 1 ; i.e. the event, which happened in later times, bore a strong
resemblance to the one which happened in earlier times ; the latter event,
too, was of such a nature, that the words of Scripture, applied to
characterize the early event, might be applied with a 7rX//pwo-ie, i. e. with
more completeness, with more force, more propriety, more energy, to the
latter event, than to the earlier one. Just so, the application of a
passage in the Old Testament is made to the slaughter of the infants at
Bethlehem, in Matt. ii. 17, 18; compare Jer. xxxi. 15. In the same
manner, many other passages of the New Testament are to be construed,
which refer in a similar way to the Old Testament.

But if this answer be unsatisfactory, it may be added, (2.) That some
of the extraordinary events themselves, related in Isa. vii. and viii., may
have been designed by God, and probably were designed by him, to be
typical or symbolical of a future spiritual salvation and Saviour. Why
is this any more impossible or improbable, than that there were other
types and symbols, under the ancient dispensation, of things which were
to exist under the new one ? The Immanuel then born, in an extra-
ordinary way, and then by his birth and name a pledge of temporal
deliverance to Judah from their enemies, might well be a symbol of Him
who was to save his people from all their spiritual enemies, to bring in
everlasting redemption ; whose name, also, was truly, in a much higher
sense, ^ODJ^ GOD WITH us. If so, then the prophet, with his sym
bolical children, (Isa. viii. 18,) giving assurance of temporal deliverance,
may have acted a part that was symbolical of a future prophet, who
would proclaim spiritual deliverance. In all this, there certainly fe



HEBREWS II. 13. 575

nothing impossible. The laws of exegesis are not infringed by such a
supposition. The words of the prophet have but one simple originaJ
meaning. They apply directly to the transactions with Ahaz. But the
whole of these transactions may have been (may I not add, seem actually
to have been ?) designed to prefigure a greater prophet, and a greater
deliverance. Unless we deny the possibility of prophetic symbol, we
must admit the possibility of this. Its probability is deducible from the
use which the New Testament writers make of these facts. They seem
to consider them as having a relation to Christ. I grant the possibility
of the exegesis which explains the whole as argumentum ad hominem.
It might be justified by numerous appeals to the New Testament ; and
he who wholly denies this principle, only shows that he decides upon the
subject by reasoning a priori ; for the examination of facts cannot fail
to convince any one who will patiently and thoroughly make it. But
still it does seem to me more probable, taking the appeal in Matt. i. 23,
to Isa. vii. 14, and the appeal in our text and context to Isa. viii. 17, 18,
that the prophet and Immanuel here act parts which may be regarded
in the light of symbols. The extraordinary birth of the child Immanuel,
at that time, is the symbol of the future birth of a spiritual Saviour ; and
the prophet with his children announcing deliverance from the con-
federated enemies of Israel, is a symbol of him who was to " preach
liberty to the captives," and whose spiritual children were to be the
pledge, that all his promises of good should be fulfilled. Is there any
thing unnatural or strange in all this ?

If now this be admitted, then the words of our text may not unaptly
be applied to Christ. For as the type put his confidence in God, so
did the antitype. As the type had children who were pledges for the
deliverance of Judah, so has the antitype " many sons and daughters,"
the pledges of his powerful grace, and sureties that his promises in
regard to future blessings will be accomplished. As the type confided
in God, because he possessed a nature that was dependent and humau,
so the antitype must have a like nature in order to use the same lan-
guage ; and as the type bore the relation of parent to children that
were pledges of future blessings, and therefore possessed a like nature
with them, so the antitype had a community of nature with those who
were his spiritual children, and who were pledges that all his promises
should be performed. Compare 2 Cor. i. 22 ; v. 5.

Thus understood, the whole quotation may be regarded not only as
justified, but as apposite. Still, if any refuse to consider it in this



576 EXCURSUS X.

light, because, as they aver, they are unable to see how the words of
Isaiah can be considered in the light of prediction ; this reason cannot
be regarded as in itself sufficiently valid. The words employed in
Isa. ch. vii. and viii., have, in themselves, I freely concede, no direct
reference to the Messiah, but to things and events connected with
the affairs of Ahaz and his people. Neither have the words a double
sense ; which can never be conceded, without destroying the very basis
of all stable interpretation. Yet the events themselves, events con-
nected with the temporal deliverance of God's people then, may be
symbols of a subsequent and spiritual deliverance and deliverer.

But it any one refuses to admit even thus much, it will be difficult
for him to show, that the writer of this epistle might not use argumen-
tum ex concessis here, (i. e. appeal to those views of scripture, which
they whom he addressed entertained,) in order to confirm in them a
belief of what he certainly knew to be true ; as well as the Saviour
could appeal to the Jewish belief, respecting the wandering of unclean
spirits, in desert places, and many of them taking possession of a man
at one and the same time, Matt. xii. 43, seq. ; or as well as the
Saviour could say to the Jews, " If I by Beelzebub cast out demons,
by whom do your sons cast them out?" Luke xi. 19. The difficulty
is, in fact, no greater with the quotation under examination, than with
many others in the New Testament. Understood in any of the ways
that have been proposed, it forms no important objection against the
sacred writings, or their divine authority ; although considered in the
light of accommodation simply, it would interfere with some of the
modern theories of inspiration. But, as has already been stated, the
ancient churches, high as their views were on the subject of inspiration,
had no hesitancy, in general, to admit the principle, that the New
Testament writers have, not unfrequently, applied the Old Testament
Scriptures merely by way of accommodation. While, then, for myself,
I must believe there is something more than accommodation in the
passage under consideration, yet I should not feel it to be a just cause
for want of charity towards another, who should adopt a different mode
of explanation, and regard the passages cited to be merely an argu-
mentum ex concessis.

It is a strong ground of confirmation, with respect to the symbolical
exegesis which has been above proposed, that the prophecy in Isaiah,
(which begins with the eighth chapter and ends with chap. ix. 7,)
contains, at the close of it, most indubitable proofs, that the birth



HEBREWS V. 7. 577

of the Messiah, and the " coming of his kingdom" was, on this occa-
sion, distinctly before the mind of the prophet ; see Isa. ix. 1 7.
The whole together, taken in connexion with what appears evidently to
be the views of the New Testament writers, seems to leave but little
doubt, that such as at all acknowledge the existence of prophecy and
symbol, in respect to a Messiah who was to come, may recognize them
both in the case before us.



EXCURSUS XI.



HEB. V. 7 *Oe tv TOIQ ^yupatc rJ/e aapKog avrov, Serjcreis re Kal i
TOV ()vi'afjivois ffw^eiv avrov iic cavarov, fJLf.ro.
ag tcai Scucpvwv Trpoaevcy/caf , Kal riffaKovarSeis airo r^



BUT what was that which Christ feared ? And how can it be said,
that he was delivered from it ? Questions which commentators, for
the most part, have passed by, even without any serious attempt to
answer them.

If, now, we turn to Luke xii. 50, we shall see, that a view of sufferings,
then future, produced in the mind of Jesus an oppressive anticipation,
a sensation of distress and dread. As the scene of crucifixion ap-
proached nearer, these sensations were evidently increased, until they
became almost overwhelming ; as we may see by consulting Matt.
xxvi. 36 39. Luke xxii. 4044. Mark xiv. 34 36. What the
agonies of the cross, which Jesus endured, actually were, we can never
fully know ; but we may draw the conclusion that they were very dread-
ful, if we read the account of the complaint which they forced from
him, as it is recorded in Matt, xxvii. 36. Mark xv. 34. It is, indeed,
unaccountable, that a character such as that of Jesus, pure, spotless,
firm, unmoved by opposition, and contumely, and persecution, and un
awed by threatenings and dangers, during the whole course of his public
ministry, should exhibit such a despondency, such an oppressive, over-
whelming sense of pain and distress : I mean, it is unaccountable by
any of the ordinary principles which apply to virtuous sufferers, who
possess fortitude of soul. That Jesus possessed this quality in a most
distinguished manner, we know certainly, from tho whole terror < f L.



578 EXCURSUS XI.

life, as portrayed by the evangelists. How, then, could he exhibit such
an oppressive, overwhelming sense of dread, at the prospect of cruci-
fixion ? Thousands of men, nay, thousands of the more delicate sex,
in prospect of like sufferings, or, apparently, greater ones, (such as the
rack, the wheel, or flames occasion,) have been perfectly calm, collected,
and even triumphant. The very thieves on the cross, at the same time
with Jesus, exhibit no such signs of despondency and oppression.
Thousands and millions of common men, without God and without hope
in the world, have undergone sufferings greater than those of simple
crucifixion, without even uttering a groan. Yet Jesus was not only
supported by a consciousness of spotless innocence, but had before him
the certain prospect of a speedy resurrection from the dead, of exalta-
tion to the right hand of God, and of being a King and High Priest
for ever, unto all his people. Still, he was in such an agony at the
prospect of the cross, as to sweat as it were drops of blood, Luke xxii.
44. And when actually enduring the suffering which he had antici-
pated, his exclamation, Matt, xxvii. 46, shows that he had not over-
estimated the dreadful hour.

If Jesus died as a common virtuous sufferer, and merely as a martyr
to the truth, without any vicarious suffering laid upon him, then is his
death a most unaccountable event, in respect to the manner of his beha-
viour while suffering it ; and it must be admitted, that multitudes of
humble, sinful, weak, and very imperfect disciples of Christianity, have
surpassed their Master, in the fortitude, and collected firmness, and calm
complacency, which are requisite to triumph over the pangs of a dying
hour. But who can well believe this ? Or who can regard Jesus as a
simple sufferer in the ordinary way, upon the cross, and explain the
mysteries of his dreadful horror, before, and during the hours of
crucifixion ?

Such, then, was the fv\a/3eta, N"V)D ? object of dread, to which our
text adverts. But how was Jesus t\ea.Kova$f.\Q, delivered from it?
Pierce, in his commentary, says, that he was delivered by being raised
from the dead, and advanced to glory. But this would make the object
of fear or dread to be, that he should remain in the state of the dead.
This fear we can hardly suppose Jesus to have entertained, inasmuch as
he had often foretold, to his disciples, not only his death, but his resur-
rection, and exaltation to glory. Nor could it be the sufferings of the
cross that he was delivered from, for he endured them to a dreadful
degree. What then was it, in respect to which he was elvaKowSels, heard



HEBRE\VS vi. 4, 5, 6. 579

or delivered ? The context necessarily limits the hearing, or deliverance
to something in his petitions which appertained to suffering, which was
an object of dread. What could it be, but the dread of sinking under
the agony of being deserted by his Father ? Matt, xxvii. 46. Great as
his agony was, he never refused to bear it ; nor did he shrink from
tasting the bitter cup, Luke xxii. 42. Matt. xxvi. 39. And does not
Luke xxii. 43, explain our cio-a/covo-Seie airo ei/Xa/Betac? " There appeared
unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him, kviayyuv avrov."
This was the only kind of deliverance he sought for, or, on the whole,
desired; Luke xxii. 42, TrXrjv pri TO &\i)/ia juov dXXa TO aov yevlffSw.
The dread in question was, like all his other sufferings, incident to his
human nature ; and fact shows, that he suffered under it to a high
degree; but he did not shrink from it, and so he was heard, or delivered,
in respect to the object of his petition in regard to it.

In the explanation of a passage so difficult, confidence would be unbe-
coming. I can only say, If this be not the right interpretation of it, I am
ignorant of its true meaning, and will most thankfully receive from any
one a more probable interpretation.



EXCURSUS XII.



HEB. VI. 4 6. 'Adumroy yap rove aVa fywriffSivTaz, ytvtrap.ivovQ re.
Trjg tJwpeae ETrovpaviov (cat J^ETO-^OVQ yEvqSivTag irvev*
ayiov, KO.I KaXbv yevaa^vovq Qeov pfjpd,

TE fJLE\\ovToe al(t)VOQ, KOI
TraXti/ avaKaivi^Eiv <e



BUT does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to those
who are such only by profession ? To the former, beyond all reasonable
doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn those who were
mere prof essors of Christianity, against defection and apostacy ? Defec-
tion from what ? From a graceless condition, and from a state of
hypocrisy. Such must be the answer, if mere professors, and not
possessors, of Christianity be addressed. But mere professors, instead
of being cautioned against defection from the state in which they
are every where denounced in language of the severest reprobation.
See Rev. Hi, 15, 16, and the denunciations of the Saviour against the
Pharisees.



680 EXCURSUS XII.

Moreover, the language employed to describe the condition of the
person in question, shows that the writer is addressing those whom he
takes to be real Christians. E. g. /uerox v c Tr^ev^aroQ cty/ou, KaXov
yevffafjLevovG Qeov prjfj.a. Above all, TraXiv ava.Kaivieiv EIQ fj.ravotav ; for
how could he speak of being AGAIN renewed by repentance, if he did
not address them as once having been renewed by it ?

The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with which
it is threatened, shows that something peculiar is attached to the case
which the writer is describing. Sinners, who have been taught the
doctrines of religion, and yet renounce their external respect for it, are
manifestly not without the pale of God's mercy ; at least, they are not
so considered in the Scriptures generally, and fact shows that they are
not. It is a peculiar and aggravated case, then, which is here stated ;
and what other case can it be, than that of apostacy from a state of
saving knowledge of Christ and his gospel ? Nor is such a case at all
without a parallel in the Scriptures. Manifestly such an one is stated
in Heb. x. 2632; alsp in 2 Pet. ii. 2022; in Ezek. xviii. 24;
xxxiii. 12, 13; in. 20, and in many other passages of the Bible. It is
implied in every warning, and in every commination addressed to the
righteous ; and surely the Bible is filled with both of these, from the
beginning to the end. What is implied, when our Saviour, in his ser-
mon on the mount, urges upon his disciples, i. e. the apostles as well as
other disciples, (see Luke vi. 12 20,) the duty of cutting off a right
hand, and of plucking out a right eye, that offends ; and this, on penalty
of being cast into hell ? Matt. xxv. 29, 30. Is this penalty really
threatened ; or is it only a pretence' of threatening, something spoken
merely in terrorem ? Can we hesitate, as to the answer which must be
given to this question ?

But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the impli-
cation is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Christians are
addressed as exposed to incur the penalty of the Divine law by sinning.
In our text, they are surely addressed as exposed to fall into a state, in
which there is no hope of a renewal by repentance. Whatever may be
true, in the Divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are
once truly regenerated, (and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit,)
yet nothing can be plainer, than that the sacred writers have every where
addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom
they considered as constantly exposed to fall away, and to perish for
ever. It cannot be denied, that all the warnings and awful commina-



HEBREWS VII. 3. 581

tions, (directed against cases of defection,) are addressed to Christians,
in the New Testament, which could be addressed to them, supposing
them to be liable, every hour, to sin beyond the hope of being renewed
by repentance. Whatever theory may be adopted, in explanation of
this subject, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that Christians
are to be solemnly and earnestly warned against the danger of apostacy
and consequent final perdition. What else is the object of the whole
epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apostacy ? In this all
agree. But this involves all the difficulties that can be raised by
metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the saints.
For why should the apostle warn true Christians (and such he surely
believed there were among the Hebrews, ch. vi. 9,) against defection
and perdition ? My answer would be, Because God treats Christians
as free agents, as rational beings ; because he guards them against
defection, not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to
their natures, as free and rational agents. Let every man speculate as
he pleases on this subject, when he addresses Christians by way of
warning, he will inevitably fall into the same modes of address. And
plainly he ought so to do ; for thus have all the sacred writers done, and
thus did the Saviour himself.



EXCURSUS XIII.
HEB. VII. 3. 'An-arwp, ap/ra>p, ayeveaXoy/jroe, pyre



r vy TOV
&pivg etg TO Sirjveices.

THE description of Melchisedek, in ver. 3, has been interpreted in a
variety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions respecting the
person introduced here by this name. I shall very briefly exhibit some
of them, without delaying to examine them.

(1.) The Hieracitae, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Hseres, LXVII.,)
held Melchisedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome undertakes to confute
them, Epist. ad Evagrium.

(2.) The Melchisedeciani, (the author of which sect was Theodotus,
or Thomas,) held Melchisedek to be one of the (Wa/ie of God, ema-
nated from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of which Christ
was formed.



582 EXCURSUS XIV.

(3.) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Hseres. LXVII. testifies,) that
Melchisedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos ; the same who appeared
to Abraham, and to the patriarchs, &c. This opinion was held by
Ambrose ; and it has been defended, in recent times, by Molinseus,
Cunseus, Gaillard, Outrein, Hottinger, Stark, Petersen, and others.

(4.) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchisedek to be an angel.

(5.) Others have held that Melchisedek was a man formed before the
creation, out of spiritual and not of earthly matter.

(6.) Melchisedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth, after the
flood. So Hen. Hulsius.

(7.) Melchisedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. and
Jerus. ; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Genebrard,
Torniello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church ; and among Protestants,
Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Rungius, and others.

(8.) Melchisedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis.

(9.) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, Crenius,
Buddseus, and others.

(10.) Melchisedek was a righteous and peaceful king, a worshipper
and priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan ; a friend of
Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him.

This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. xiv.,
and in Heb. vii. ; and it is the only one which can be defended on any
tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more improbable, than
all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception of this ! The most
popular opinion among them all, viz. that Melchisedek was Christ, would
of course force us to adopt this interpretation, viz. that " Christ is like
unto himself;" or, that a comparison is formally instituted by our author,
between Christ and himself; " cujus mentio est refutatio."



EXCURSUS XIV.



HEB. VII. 9, 10. Kat, wg eVoe eiTrelv, &a 'A/3/jaa/A feat AEVC, 6

Xaju/3ar6jy, cc/carwrar m yap kv ry oafyvi rov narpog
r)j', 6'rc o\)vi]vrr\of.v avT<j> 6



FOR a Hebrew, this assertion would less need an &{? ZTTUQ tlireiv, than
for us, whose modes of thinking and reasoning, in regard to genealogies,
descent, and rank, are so very different from those of the Oriental nations.



HEBREWS VII. 9, 10. 583

Since Abraham was deemed, by his posterity, to be the patriarch and
head of all his descendants, in such a sense as to hold a pre-eminence in
rank above them, a proof that he acknowledged his inferiority to Melchi-
sedek, by paying tithes to him, was a proof that his descendants must of
course be inferior to Melchisedek. The statement in ver. 9 and 10, is
built upon the Oriental modes of estimating descent and rank. Since