nant "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded." In anwser to this objection, we need only say, that the author of the Hebrews naturally refers, not to Solomon's temple or to the temple as subsequently rebuilt, but to the tabernacle made by Moses, and patterned after that which he had seen upon the mount," and built with special divine aid and direction; and consequently considered by Jews as the most perfect material structure for divine worship. Now, we read in Ex. 16:32 sq. that the Lord commanded Moses to "fill an omer of manna to be kept for future generations;" "and Moses said to Aaron, Take a pot and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up."..." As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the testimony, to be kept." And in Num. 17: 10 (25) "the Lord said unto Moses, Bring Aaron's rod again before the testimony to be kept for a token against the rebels; "..." and Moses did so." It is plain from these passages that both the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were preserved either in the ark before the tables of stone, or in some depository affixed to the ark, and that the whole was placed for safe keeping in the holy of holies. In either case, the language in our passage is entirely appropriate.

But still more objection has been made to this passage from the fact that the Dupiarnpiov is included within the holy of holies, and is designated as xpuσoûv, golden. There is much doubt in reference to the import of the word Ivμiatńριον. It may with equal propriety, as far as derivation is concerned, designate the altar of incense and the censer. Usage, too, about equally favors both interpretations; for while in the Seventy this word is never used for the altar of incense, but always votaστýptov Ivμiáμaтos; yet in Josephus, Philo, Clemens Alex., and Origen, it is often so used.

1 Ebrard maintains, with very strong probability, that this was their position; but we will not take the room here to quote his argumentation, which may be seen in Comm. on Heb. 9:4.

2 This view is favored by Davidson (Introd. III. p. 223), but the only argument in favor of it seems to be that Josephus and Philo say that the ark in Moses's time contained only the two tables of stone.

As we should naturally suppose, in these circumstances, there has always been a difference of opinion in reference to the meaning. The Itala, Calvin, Gerhard, Mynster, Bleek, De Wette, Olshausen, Ebrard, and many others, translate by altar of incense; while the Syriac and Vulgate, Theophylact, Luther, Boehme, Kuinoel, Stier, Stuart, Tholuck, Davidson, etc., defend the meaning censer. As the only argument against the latter interpretation is an argumentum e silentio, i. e., from the fact that such a censer is omitted in the enumeration of the articles belonging to the tabernacle, it seems to us quite probable that this should be the translation in this place, for it was not incumbent on the writer to specify every particular. Davidson refers to a similar omission in Josephus, which is not supposed to invalidate his authority as a writer, or imply that he was not the author of the " Antiquities of the Jews."1 It need only be said in respect to the epithet golden, that there can be little question that, if there was a censer belonging to the holy of holies, it would be constructed of gold; still, if any prefer the other rendering it is very easily explained without an imputation of ignorance upon the writer of the epistle. "The altar of incense stood, indeed, in the holy place, but referred to the holy of holies." The smoke of the altar of incense was not intended to penetrate backwards into the holy place, but into the holy of holies as a symbol of worship near to the veil of which it stood, just before the ark of the covenant. So it is said in 1 Kings that the altar is at or before the holy of holies, where the preposition is used:

, for which the Greek participle exovoa is substituted. Thus, says Ebrard, in his commentary, we render the words: "the holy of holies to which the golden altar of incense belonged." The author had the less reason to shrink from this use of the exeu, as he might well take it for granted that the local position of those vessels was familiar to all his readers; and moreover, verse 7th showed that it was not

In Antiquities, XIV. 4.4, he says that Pompey, entering into the sanctuary, sees "the golden table and sucred candlestick, the cups, and the multitude of frankincense," but says nothing of the golden altar of incense.

unknown to himself. It need only be remarked, further, that the imputation of mistake, if it could be proved, has to do with Paul as the author of our epistle, rather than some other person, only on the supposition that he would be less liable to mistake on such a point than one dwelling at Alexandria for example, and that our epistle is unworthy of his high character for accuracy and consistency of statement. Hence it only incidentally comes into our argument for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

5. Hebrews 10: 34, καὶ γὰρ τοῖς δεσμοῖς μοῦ συνεπαθήσατε, has sometimes been claimed as a proof of Pauline authorship; but as deopoîs, upon which the argument depends, is a questionable reading, we will not stop here to discuss it. We will only say, in conclusion of this part of the argument, while there is nothing in itself decisive, yet there is nothing that is at all at variance with the condition of Paul at Rome in circumstances alluded to in this letter; but, taken with other arguments, the allusions are corroborative of the proof of Paul as its author.

Similarity of Sentiment or Doctrine in the Hebrews and acknowledged Epistles of Paul.

The argument from the similarity of sentiment and doctrine is perhaps the most valuable of the internal evidences for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and on this account we shall dwell at some length upon it. In order fully to appreciate this evidence, it should constantly be borne in mind that the object of the epistle is quite different from any of the acknowledged epistles of Paul, and addressed to an entirely different class of readers. The author of the Hebrews writes to converted Jews, those who had been educated in the Jewish ritual, and been all their lives conversant with all the imposing ceremonies connected with priestly offerings, sacrifices, and temple worship; with its holy of holies, its golden altars and censers, its courts, its embroidered hangings, and its cherubim, which appeal so strongly to the eye, and through that to the taste

and feelings. It is no wonder that the great apostle felt it incumbent upon him, who understood all of these matters so well, and felt the force of them so much, to prepare an argument for the superiority of the Christian worship, which, as it was so simple with its one sacrifice, one altar, and one mediator, was in danger of losing its influence over those so differently educated, so that defection and apostasy would be the result. So Neander justly says: "The author of this epistle directs his argumentation especially against those who were still captivated by the pomp of the temple worship, the priesthood and the sacrifices, and were in danger of being entirely seduced from Christianity by the impression these objects made upon them; this gave its peculiar direction to his reasoning, and it aimed at showing that by all this ritual their religious wants could not be satisfied, but that its only use was to direct them to the sole true means of satisfaction."

1

1. Our first argument under this head is its similarity to the acknowledged epistles of Paul, in expressions indicating the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. It would of course be unreasonable, on the one hand, to look for extended arguments of this kind in the other epistles; and on the other, not to expect that all the epistles of other writers would contain indications of their preference for Christianity over Judaism. Our argument only requires that it be shown that special emphasis is laid upon this thoughts in the epistles of Paul.

(1) First: the Jewish was only a type of the Christian dispensation, and, as such, temporary and comparatively imperfect. Compare Heb. 10:1, " For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things," etc., with Col. 2:17, "which [i. e., ceremonial observances enumerated in ver. 16] are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." The similarity of language as well as sentiment should be noticed in this connection: σκιὰν ... ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων κ. τ. λ., and ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων. This use of σκιά (shadow)

1 Planting and Training of the Ch. Church, B. VI. App. 2.

as opposed to eixóv (exact image) and owμa (substance), is found in no other New Testament writer; and not only so, but in the 5th verse of the same chapter we find oμa used with the same substantial significance as in the verse quoted from the Colossians: σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. In Heb. 8:5 we have a similar use of σkiá: "who [i. e., the priests under the Mosaic law] serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," etc.

The

(2) The Jewish rites and ordinances, the temple and its appurtenances, are only a symbol or type (πapaßoλń), a pattern or example (úróderyμa), of the blessings under the gospel, and, as such, are temporary and introductory, not eternal and perfect; not such as can satisfy the spiritual nature of man, to which they owe their origin. So in Heb. 7:15, 16, "there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of the carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life;" ver. 19, " for the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did," etc. preparatory and introductory office of the Mosaic rites. and ceremonies is more plainly indicated in ch. 9:9 sq., "which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience, .. but Christ having come an high priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, etc., entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," etc. See the whole passage to the end of the chapter, and also 8:1-9. Now, compare what the apostle Paul says in Gal. 3: 23 sq. :" But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster," etc.; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master. In Gal. 4:3 sq., where Paul calls Judaism τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, and especially in the expostulation in verse 9th, are we emphatically reminded of the same hand that penned the Epistle to the Hebrews: “But now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye to the weak and beggarly elements