mount Moriah, deserve the attention of those who would obtain a right understanding of what is said in the latter part of the vi. chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is there alluded to is prefaced at the 13th verse with a reference to the fore-mentioned transaction on mount Moriah, thus Τω γαρ Αβρααμ επαγγειλαμενΘ- ο Θεός, επει καθ' αδενος είχε μείζονος, ομοσαι ωμοσε καθ' εαυτε, λέγων· Η μεν ευλογων ευλογησω σει και πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε. We find here two evident tokens of a reference to the transaction on mount Moriah, we see the oath expressly mentioned, and we find an almost verbatim rehearsal of a part of the promise then made. But ought this to be understood as alluding only to the transaction which then took place between the Angel and Abraham, or, as having a retrospective view to the several repetitions of the promise, or promises, made previously to that extraordinary interview? To attend to this distinction may help a little to discover the true meaning of the next verse. But to discover the meaning of the sequel, another question should be asked here-Does this afford any just ground for making a distinction between God's promise and his oath ?-or (which will answer the same end)-Does this afford any just ground for supposing that his promise preceded his oath?

Moses, we perceive, said," By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed," &c. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, having occasion to advert to this solemn declaration of the incomprehensible Jehovah, in the chapter before-mentioned, introduces it to our attention, not as Moses had done by recounting the several most extraordinary transactions which preceded this solemn communication, but with this general preliminary reference to the time when it happened, ayyahaμens • Dos, &c. which our translation, it should be observed, neither renders when God swore, nor, when he swore and promised; but, when God promised, or rather, made promise; thereby attesting the apparent intimation of the original, that the promise and not the oath was considered by the sacred writer as the subject of his ensuing narration. After having thus referred us to the time, he proceeds to quote the declaration itself, thus, whose had caure, &c. placing the act of swearing before the recital of the promise, as Moses himself, we perceive, hath also done. If, then, any distinction was intended to be made between the promise and the

ώμοσε

καθ'

oath,

oath, we may venture to conclude, from the joint testimony of those two ministers of the two covenants, that the oath preceded the promise, unless a reference was intended to be made to previous repetitions of the same promise, which seems to be not very likely. And if no such reference was intended to be made, as the oath would have been of no more signification without the promise, than any adnoun without some noun, we seem to have very little reason to imagine, that a distinction between the oath and the promise was intended either by Moses, or by the writer of this epistle; but, on the contrary, some reason to surmise that they both considered the oath as deriving significancy from the promise, agreeably to the preliminary intimation of the writer of this epistle, which has been just before noticed, viz. "For when God made promise to Abraham," by which, it was then suggested, he seems to have apprized his reader that he considered the promise, and not the oath, as the. principal subject of which he was going to treat.

Και επαγγελίας.

Kaι TW, &c. жayyehias. "And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise." Of what nature was this patient enduring, and of what continuance? and what promise did he obtain after he had patiently endured? Whatever the nature of his patient enduring may have been, if he patiently endured at all, we shall find by attending to the strict meaning of the word Mangoluncas, that we have reason to think that he endured patiently a long while. Which, if true, seems not to be very consistent with what we read of him in Gen. xxiv. 1. "and Abraham was old, and well stricken in years: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things." Had, however, this not been said, it would not have been easy to reconcile his patiently enduring with his having actually obtained the possession of those two temporal blessings which had been promised him, viz. a son in his old age, and, the land of Canaan. That he was put into possession of the promised land, we are informed by the writer of this same epistle, chap. xi. 9. where he says, "By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country;" and that this was something more than an imaginary residence in that country, may be inferred from what follows-" dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise." That the promise of the land of Canaan was not any part of the promise alluded to by the words under consi

3 H2

deration,

mount Moriah, deserve the attention of those who would obtain a right understanding of what is said in the latter part of the vi. chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is there alluded to is prefaced at the 13th verse with a reference to the fore-mentioned transaction on mount Moriah, thus Τω γαρ Αβρααμ επαγγειλάμενΘ- ο Θεός, επει κατ' εδενος είχε μείζονος, ομοσαι ώμοσε καθ' εαυτε, λέγων· Η μεν ευλογων ευλογήσω σει και πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε. We find here two evident tokens of a reference to the transaction on mount Moriah, we see the oath expressly mentioned, and we find an almost verbatim rehearsal of a part of the promise then made. But ought this to be understood as alluding only to the transaction which then took place between the Angel and Abraham, or, as having a retrospective view to the several repetitions of the promise, or promises, made previously to that extraordinary interview? To attend to this distinction may help a little to discover the true meaning of the next verse. But to discover the meaning of the sequel, another question should be asked here-Does this afford any just ground for making a distinction between God's promise and his oath?-or (which will answer the same end)-Does this afford any just ground for supposing that his promise preceded his oath?

Moses, we perceive, said," By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed," &c. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, having occasion to advert to this solemn declaration of the incomprehensible Jehovah, in the chapter before-mentioned, introduces it to our attention, not as Móses had done by recounting the several most extraordinary transactions which preceded this solemn communication, but with this general preliminary reference to the time when it happened, Hayyaμs o Dos, &c. which our translation, it should be observed, neither renders when God swore, nor, when he swore and promised; but, when God promised, or rather, made promise; thereby attesting the apparent intimation of the original, that the promise and not the oath was considered by the sacred writer as the subject of his ensuing narration. After having thus referred us to the time, he proceeds to quote the declaration itself, thus, wμoos xad' caure, &c. placing the act of swearing before the recital of the promise, as Moses himself, we perceive, hath also done. If, then, any distinction was intended to be made between the promise and the

oath,

oath, we may venture to conclude, from the joint testimony of those two ministers of the two covenants, that the oath preceded the promise, unless a reference was intended to be made to previous repetitions of the same promise, which seems to be not very likely. And if no such reference was intended to be made, as the oath would have been of no more signification without the promise, than any adnoun without some noun, we seem to have very little reason to imagine, that a distinction between the oath and the promise was intended either by Moses, or by the writer of this epistle; but, on the contrary, some reason to surmise that they both considered the oath as deriving significancy from the promise, agreeably to the preliminary intimation of the writer of this epistle, which has been just before noticed, viz. "For when God made promise to Abraham," by which, it was then suggested, he seems to have apprized his reader that he considered the promise, and not the oath, as the. principal subject of which he was going to treat.

Και έτω, &c. επαγγελίας. "And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise." Of what nature was this patient enduring, and of what continuance? and what promise did he obtain after he had patiently endured? Whatever the nature of his patient enduring may have been, if he patiently endured at all, we shall find by attending to the strict meaning of the word μακροθύμησας, that we have reason to think that he endured patiently a long while. Which, if true, seems not to be very consistent with what we read of him in Gen. xxiv. 1. "and Abraham was old, and well stricken in years: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things." Had, however, this not been said, it would not have been easy to reconcile his patiently enduring with his having actually obtained the possession of those two temporal blessings which had been promised him, viz. a son in his old age, and, the land of Canaan. That he was put into possession of the promised land, we are informed by the writer of this same epistle, chap. xi. 9. where he says, "By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country;" and that this was something more than an imaginary residence in that country, may be inferred from what follows-" dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise." That the promise of the land of Canaan was not any part of the promise alluded to by the words under consi

3 H2

deration,

deration, may be proved by satisfactory arguments; for, after having informed us that Abraham did really inherit the land of promise, the writer of this epistle says"These all died in faith, not having received the promises (during their abode here after all) but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth. For they that say such things declare that they seek a country;" which Abraham himself, it seems, also did; for he "sojourned even in the land of promise as in a strange country; and, all the while he was there, looked for a city which hath foundations, whose maker and builder is God," without being at all inclined to return to his native land, which, the writer of this epistle observes, he or any of the heirs had it in their power to do. Of course, the promise of an earthly inheritance is not a part of the promise which Abraham is here said to have obtained, after having patiently endured.

But did Abraham live long enough to see the promise on the mount also realized in its universal sense? If he did not, how can he be said to have obtained the promise literally? If he did, in what sense was he so blessed? That he did not actually obtain the promise as long as he lived here, we are expressly assured in the sequel of this same epistle, where it is said, "These all (and Abraham, surely, as well as the rest) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and embraced them;" that is, by anticipating them. And if we attend to the strict meaning of the word pangobunoas, we shall find that we have no little reason to conclude that it means pretty nearly the same thing as "seeing them afar off," in the quotation just before made from the xi. chap. The component parts of this word evidently suggest the exercise of some long-sighted faculty; but neither of the parts appears to intimate any thing like suffering or enduring at any time, whether patiently or not; nor does the state of the verb necessarily imply the termination of a period. How is it, then, that this word happened to be here translated" after he had patiently endured?" Be that as it may, two instances may be produced, and from the New Testament only, to prove that it has not always that meaning; of which the first occurs xviii. Matth. 26. where the debtor is made to say to the ob

durate