The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews
by John Calvin


    Translator's Preface
    Cotton's  Epistle Dedicatory
    To the Reader
    Calvin's Epistle Dedicatory
    The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Argument
    Commentaries on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews
      Chapter 1
      Chapter 2
      Chapter 3
      Chapter 4
      Chapter 5
      Chapter 6
      Chapter 7
      Chapter 8
      Chapter 9
      Chapter 10
      Chapter 11
      Chapter 12
      Chapter 13


    Without contradiction, as the Epistle to the Hebrews itself reminds
us, the less is blessed of the better. Hence Calvin's exegetical work is
far from requiring commendation from the present writer. His commentaries
are classics which have stood the test of time and have come with new
freshness of appeal to generation after generation of readers.
Nevertheless, as we are also reminded, a great man and his work may
appropriately receive tribute from his spiritual debtors. Accordingly, it
is with a sense of privilege that I join with others in hailing this new
publication of Calvin's Commentaries and express my delight that new
generations of students will have ready access to them through the
enterprise of the present publisher 

    It is a happy coincidence that this volume on Hebrews is being
republished within a year of the four-hundredth anniversary of its origin
in 1549. For that fact serves to recall the rich spiritual significance
of the Protestant Reformation. Some forty years ago the four-hundredth
anniversary of Calvin's birth was duly celebrated. The whole course of
his life is, however, deserving of commemoration, and the period from
1540 to 1564 during which his monumental commentaries were prepared may
be recalled on this occasion with special gratification.

    Fortunately, present interest in Calvin is not merely that of the
antiquarian. Even many modern scholars who consider Calvin's theology
uncongenial, and regard his view of Scripture as outmoded, acknowledge
that he possesses a high degree of contemporaneity. Calvin is often
characterized as one who, though not entirely free from the shackles of
medievalism, at his best is a prophetic spirit who speaks forth to our
times and is capable of arousing men to an experience of vital religion.
However inadequate such evaluations of Calvin may be, they are
encouraging in so far as they involve a serious reckoning with what
Calvin had to say and offer hope that a more solid estimate of his
Christian position may yet emerge.

    The true genius of Calvin will never be grasped, in my judgment,
unless he is recognized as being first of all a Biblical theologian. This
implies, negatively, that Calvin was fundamentally neither speculative
nor traditionalistic in his approach, though he may not have been able to
emancipate himself completely from such influences. He combined in
distinguished fashion devout submission to the Word of God as basic to
piety and morality, as well as to the highest scholarship, and freedom
from human traditions which gave freshness and vigour to his entire life
and activity. That this evaluation of Calvin is a fair one is clear from
his incomparable Institutes. But it is also borne in upon one
irresistibly as one seriously reads the commentaries. Even the
comprehensiveness of his exegetical labours serves to bring to mind his
profound concern to understand and to expound the Holy Scriptures. One
needs, however, to employ Calvin in one's own study of the Bible,
preferably along with other commentaries as standards of comparison, to
discover how as one seriously reads the commentaries. Even the
comprehensiveness of his exegetical labours serves to bring to mind his
profound concern to understand and to expound the Holy Scriptures. One
needs, however, to employ Calvin in one's own study of the Bible,
preferably along with other commentaries as standards of comparison, to
discover how constantly and happily reverence for what stands written is
wedded to a rare objectivity of exegetical method.

    Among the evaluations from the past which agree basically with the
above judgment none is perhaps more carefully done than that prepared a
century ago by a distinguished German exegetes, Professor F. A. G.
Tholuck of Halle, an evaluation the more impressive because it came from
one who himself was not a Calvinist. Among the formal excellencies of
Calvin's commentaries Tholuck singled out their elegance of diction,
conciseness of expression, symmetry and freedom from immoderate
digressions. On the material side he sums up their qualities in terms of
doctrinal impartiality, exegetical tact ("which makes it even impossible
for him to adopt forced interpretations"), his considerable and
unobtrusive learning, and his deep Christian piety.

    All these qualities are conspicuous in this "Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews". At the time of its composition in 1549 Calvin
had not yet reached his fortieth birthday anniversary, but his several
previously published commentaries on the Epistles of Paul, not to speak
now of his Institutes, give ample proof of his ripe maturity at that
time. The work introduced here is a truly admirable example of his
exegetical skill and is at once a heartwarming book of devotion.

    Calvin, as distinguished from Luther, had no question as to the
canonical authority of this Epistle, and throughout the exposition this
regard is constantly in view. And Calvin is seen at his best in
discussing a passage like Hebrews 6:4-6, which proved a stumbling block
to Luther, for there the breadth of his Biblical perspective and the
absence of dogmatic rigidity come brilliantly to view. Calvin's freedom
from bondage to tradition is seen, moreover, in that he does not rest the
authority of the Epistle upon apostolic authorship. In fact, he rejects
forthrightly the tradition of Pauline authorship, primarily on the basis
of the testimony of the Epistle to its own origin. In his comments on
Hebrews 2:3 he does justice to the distinction drawn between the
apostolic circle who had heard the Lord and those to whom this witness
had been attested, and thus avoids the forced interpretations developed
by expositors who seem to feel under compulsion at all costs to maintain
Pauline authorship. And with sound scholarship he argues that Hebrews
cannot be regarded as a translation from an original Hebrew document. A
hypothesis advanced in the ancient church in the interest of maintaining
Pauline authorship, and yet accounting for the distinctive style and
language of Hebrews

    Another comment that illustrates Calvin's exegetical integrity is
found in connection with his treatment of Hebrews 11:21, where the author
follows the Septuagint in declaring that Jacob worshipped upon the top of
his staff rather than the Hebrew text which speaks instead of his bed.
This comment is indeed sometimes cited, along with a few other isolated
passages, as evidence that Calvin, in spite of his explicit testimony to
the contrary, betrays a rather free attitude towards the doctrine of
inspiration. But such argumentation is not impressive if evaluated with
due caution. Calvin in truth implies that there is a mistake in the
Septuagint, and that the author of Hebrews used that text without
correction. But he makes the point that, since the author's argument is
not affected by the use of the Greek text of the Old Testament in current
use among his readers, it was not necessary to quote the original text
precisely. It is highly significant for our evaluation of Calvin's
conception of inspiration to observe that Calvin insists in this very
connection that it is essential that "readers are ever brought back to
the pure and original text of Scripture," although by way of
accommodation to usage he allows that it was permissible to quote such a
translation as the Septuagint. But it is to Calvin's credit also that he
does not resort to strained or tortuous harmonistics to solve the problem
presented by the divergence of the passage quoted from the original.

    Calvin found the message of Hebrews most timely for the age which he
immediately addressed, principally because of its concentration upon the
theme of the priesthood of Christ and the virtue and dignity of that only
true sacrifice which he offered by his death. This theme, which,
according to Calvin's thought, stood at the very centre of Christianity,
had come to be largely obscured. The present day is likewise one in which
to a large degree the priestly and atoning work of our Lord is minimized
or repudiated. The present work possesses a new timeliness, therefore, as
it once again finds a company of readers today. It is timely, not first
of all because it may serve to deepen contemporaneous knowledge of
Calvin, but because through Calvin men may gain a profounder knowledge of
Christ, the great high priest through whose sacrifice the glorious
blessings of the new covenant have come to realization.

                                Ned B. Stonehouse,
                                Professor of New Testament,
                                Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadelphia, Penner,
January 24, 1948.

Translator's Preface

    No doubt the Epistle next in importance to that to the Romans is this
to the Hebrews. The truths explained in it might, indeed, have been
deduced from other portions of Scripture; but it is a vast advantage and
a great satisfaction to find them expressly set forth, and distinctly
stated by an inspired Apostle.
    In condescension to our ignorance, it has pleased God, not only to
give us what might have been deemed sufficient for our information, but
also to add "line upon line," so that there might be every help given to
those who have a desire to know the truth, and every reasonable accuse
taken away from such as resolve to oppose it, and to follow the guidance
of self-will, and the delusions of their own proud minds and depraved
hearts. It might then, seem strange to us that defect, insufficiency, and
obscurity have been ascribed to the Scriptures, did we not know that
these have been made by such as wish Revelation to be otherwise than it
is; they having imbibed errors and adopted superstitions to which it
yields no countenance, but which it condemns in terms so plain, that they
must be represented as defective or obscure in order to be evaded.

    There are especially two parties who find this Epistle in no way
favourable to them - the Papists and the Socinians. The Sole Priesthood
of Christ, and his Sole Sufficient Sacrifice, are here so distinctly
stated, that the former cannot resist the evidence except by the subtle
arts of the most consummate sophistry; and the latter find it a very
difficult task to neutralize the strong and clear testimony here given as
to the Divinity of our Saviour and his Atonement. Though these parties
are wholly opposed to one another, yet, like Herod and Pilate, they unite
in degrading the Saviour - the one indirectly, by substituting others in
his place; and the other in open manner, by denying his dignity and the
character and efficacy of his death. But by both the Saviour is equally

    There have been more disputes about this Epistle than any other
portion of Scripture; but many of the questions which have been raised
have been of a very trifling character, as though learned men were idle
and had nothing else to do; and this has been the case, especially with
the divines of the German school, not only with regard to this Epistle,
but with respect to many other subjects.

    Disquisitions called learned, have been written as to the character
of this Epistle, whether it be properly an Epistle, or something that
ought to be called by some other name! Then it has been a subject
learnedly discussed, to whom in particular the Epistle was sent, whether
to the dispersed Jews, or to those in Palestine - whether to a particular
Congregation, or to the Hebrews in general? Such questions are
comparatively of very little importance; and to spend time and talent in
discussing them, is a work frivolous and useless; and not only so, but
also mischievous, calculated to serve the purposes of Popery and
Infidelity; for to render thus apparently important what is not so, and
on which no degree of certainty can be obtained, is to involve men in a
mist which may lead them astray.

    Another subject has been much discussed, which is of no great
consequence, as the inspiration of the Epistle is not thereby endangered,
and that is the language in which the Epistle was originally written. An
opinion prevailed among some of the Early Fathers that it was written in
Hebrew, or rather in Syro-Chaldee language, and that it was translated
into Greek by Luke, Clement, or Barnabas. It was stated as all opinion,
confirmed by no authority, and founded mainly on two circumstances - that
it was written to Hebrews, and that its style is different from that of
Paul in his other Epistles. Almost all modern divines regard this opinion
as not well founded. The Greek language was in Paul's time well known
throughout Palestine; the "General Epistles," intended for the Jews as
well as the Gentiles, were written in Greek; and there is no record of
any copy of this Epistle in Hebrew. As to the style, it differs not more
from that of the other Epistles than what may be observed in writers in
all ages, or what might be expected in Paul when advanced in years,
compared with what he wrote in his younger days. It may be further added,
that the Epistle itself contains things which seem to show that it was
written in Greek: Hebrew words are interpreted, chap. 7:2; the passages
quoted are mostly from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and there
is the use of a word, rendered "Testament," in chap. 9:17, in the sense
of a Will, which the Hebrew word never means.

    There are only two questions of real importance - the canonicity of
the Epistle, and its Author.
    As to the first, it has never been doubted except by some of the
strange heretics in the first ages. There is quite as much external
testimony in its favour as most portions of the New Testament. It was
from the first received by the Churches, Eastern and Western, as a
portion of the Inspired Volume. It is found in the very first versions of
the New Testament, the Syriac and the Italic. These versions were made as
early as the end of the second century, about 140 years after the date of
this Epistle. The testimony of the Fathers from the earliest time is
uniformly the same in this respect. The Epistle is acknowledged by them
all as a portion of Holy Writ.
    But with regard to the Author there has been a diversity of opinion,
though, when all things are duly weighed, without reason. From the
earliest times, the Eastern Church acknowledge Paul as the Author. Some
in the Western Church, in the third and the fourth century, did not
regard Paul as the Author, but Luke, or Clement, or Barnabas. Jerome and
Augustine in the fifth century, a more enlightened age than the two
preceding centuries, ascribed to Paul the authorship; and since their
time the same opinion has prevailed in the Western, as it did from the
beginning in the Eastern Church. How to account for a different opinion
in the Western Church during the third and the fourth century, is
difficult. Some think it was owing to the Novalien Heresy, which some
parts of this Epistle were supposed to favour, though without any good
    As far then as the testimony of history goes, almost the whole weight
of evidence is in favour of Paul being the Author.

    With regard to modern times, the prevailing opinion has been that it
is the Epistle of Paul. Luther, indeed,  ascribed it to Apollos - a mere
conjecture. Calvin, as we  find, supposed that either Luke or Clement was
the author;  for which there are no satisfactory reasons. Beza differed
from his illustrious predecessor, and regarded Paul as the  writer; and
such has been the opinion entertained by most of the successors of the
Reformers, both in this country and on the Continent, as proved by their
confessions of Faith. 
    About the middle of the seventeenth century there seems to have been
a revival of the controversy; for in the year 1658 the younger Spanheim
wrote an elaborate treatise on the subject, in which he canvasses the
whole evidence, both historical and internal, and affords the strongest
ground for the conclusion that Paul was the writer of this Epistle. Since
that time, till late years, his arguments were regarded by most as
conclusive. But some of the German divines, who seem to have a taste for
exploded opinions, have again revived the question, produced afresh the
old arguments, and added some new ones to them. But a second Spanheim has
appeared in the person of Professor Stuart, of America, who has published
a learned Commentary on this Epistle, and prefixed to it a long
Introduction, in which he has fully entered into the subject, and more
fully than his predecessor. The labour and toil which this Introduction
must have cost its author, were no doubt very great; for every argument,
however frivolous, (and some of the arguments are very frivolous indeed,)
is noticed, and everything plausible is most clearly exposed.

    The evidence both external and internal is so satisfactory, that an
impression is left on the mind, that Paul was the author of this Epistle,
nearly equal to what his very name prefixed to it would have produced.
Indeed the writer can truly say, that he now entertains no more doubt on
the subject than if it had the Apostle's own superscription.

    As to the date of this Epistle, it is commonly supposed to have been
written late in 62 or early in 63, about the time that Paul was released
from his first imprisonment at Rome.
    There seem to be especially two reasons why Paul did not commence
this Epistle in his usual manner: first, because he was not specifically
an Apostle to the Jews, but to the Gentiles; and secondly, because the
contents of the Epistle are such that it was not necessary for him to
assume his Apostolic character; for the arguments are founded on
testimonies found in the Old Testament, and not on his authority as a
commissioned Apostle. His main object appears to have been to show and
prove that the Gospel is but a fulfilment of the ancient Scriptures,
which the Jews themselves received as divine. His arguments and his
examples are throughout borrowed from the Old Testament. This is a fact
that is too often overlooked, to which Macknight, in an especial manner,
very justly refers.

    The Epistle begins by indicating a connection between the Old and the
New Testament: both are revelations from the same God; He who spoke by
the Prophets in the Old speaks, speaks by His Son in the New. Then the
obvious and inevitable conclusion is, that the New is but the Old
completed. It is on this ground that the whole argument of the Epistle
    Having thus clearly intimated the connection between the two
Testaments, the Apostle immediately enters on his great subject - the
superiority of Him who introduced the perfected dispensation over all
connected with the previous incomplete, elementary, and, in a great
measure, symbolical dispensation, even over angels and Moses and the
Levitical high-priest. And this subject occupies the largest portion of
the Epistle, extending from the first chapter to the 19th verse of the
tenth chapter. From that verse to the end of the Epistle, we have
exhortations, warnings, examples of faith and patience, admonitions,
directions, and salutations.

    Then the Epistle divides itself into two main parts: - 1. The
didactic, including the ten first chapters, with the exception of the
latter part of the tenth. 2. The parainetic or hortative, from the 19th
verse of the tenth chapter to the end of the Epistle.

    The first part may be thus divided, -
        1.  Christ's superiority over angels - warnings -objections
            answered, ch. 1 and 2.
        2.  Christ's superiority over Moses - warnings as to faith and
            the promised rest, ch. 3 and 4:13.
        3.  Christ's superiority over the Levitical high-priest, as to
            his appointment, the perpetuity of his office, his covenant,
            and the efficacy of his atonement, ch. 4:14, to 10:19.

    The second part admits of these divisions, -
        1.  Exhortation to persevere, derived from the free access in a
            new way to God; from the awful fate of apostates; and from
            their own past example, ch. 10:19-37.
        2.  Exhortation to faith and patience, derived from the example
            of the ancient saints, ch. 10:38, to the end of ch. 11.
        3.  Exhortation to encounter trials and afflictions, derived from
            the example of Christ; and from the love of God, as
            manifested by afflictions, ch. 12:1-13.
        4.  Exhortation to peace and holiness, derived from our superior
            privileges, and the aggravated guilt of no electing Him who
            speaks to us from heaven, ch. 12:14-29.
        5.  Various directions and cautions, requests and salutations,
            ch. 13.

    The former part, the didactic, has many digressions, and hence the
difficulty sometimes of tracing the course of the Apostle's reasoning.
But it was his practice as appears from his other epistles, to apply, as
it were, the subject, as he proceeds. Having in the first chapter proved
the superiority of Christ over angels, he points out at the beginning of
the second the great danger of disregarding his doctrine, and of
neglecting his salvation, an inference drawn from what had been
previously proved. He then proceeds with the same subject, Christ's
superiority over angels, answers an objection derived from his human
nature, and shows the necessity there was that he should become man; as
he could not otherwise have sympathized with lost creatures, nor have
atoned for their Sins. Here he first refers to him in express terms as a
    Then in ch. 3 he proceeds to show Christ's superiority over Moses;
and having done so, he goes on in verse 7 to warn the Hebrews against
following the example of their forefathers, who, through unbelief, lost
the land of promise; and he pursues this subject to the end of the 13th
verse of ch. 4.

    The last section of the didactic part commences at ch. 4 and extends
to verse 19 of the tenth chapter; it occupies nearly six chapters, and
contains several episodes, so that it is sometimes no easy matter to
trace the connection.
    He begins this portion by calling attention to Christ as a
high-priest, whom he had before represented as such at the end of ch. 2;
where he mentions two things respecting him - that he became man, in
order that he might atone for sin, and in order that he might be capable
of sympathizing with his people. But here he refers mainly to the last,
to his sufferings; and in order to anticipate an objection from the fact
that he was a suffering Saviour, he mentions his appointment, which,
according to the testimony of David in the Book of Psalms, was to be
according to the order of Melchisedec. Without going on with this
subject, he makes a digression, and evidently for the purpose of making
them more attentive to the explanation he was going to give of
Melchisedec as a type of Christ in his priesthood.
    This digression contains several particulars. To arouse their
attention and stimulate them, he blames them for their ignorance,
mentions the danger of continuing satisfied with the knowledge of first
principles, and the impossibility of restoration in case of apostasy; he
gives an illustration of this from unproductive land after culture and
rain; reminds them of their past commendable conduct, and encourages them
to activity and zeal by an assurance respecting the certainty of Gods
promises, ch. 5:12, to the end of ch. 6.

    In chap. 7 he proceeds with Melchisedec as the type of Christ in his
priestly office. Christ is a priest according to his order, not according
to that of Aaron; then Aaron must have been superseded. According to the
testimony of David, Christ's priesthood excelled that of Aaron in two
things - it was established by an oath, and it was to he perpetuated
"forever," ch. 7 to the end of the 25th verse.
    He now goes on to the other part of this subject, to speak of Christ
as making an atonement for sin, ch. 7: 26, having before spoken of him as
a sympathizing priest from the circumstance of having been a sufferer.
While speaking of his expiation, he refers to the covenant of which he
was the Mediator, for expiations depended on the covenant. Respecting the
new covenant, he quotes the express words of Jeremiah; and it included
the remission of sins, and remission of sins necessarily implies an
expiation. Then in the ninth chapter he refers to the old covenant, the
tabernacle, and its services, and proves the insufficiency of these
services, they being only typical of what was to come. From the tenth
chapter to the 19th verse he pursues the same subject, and shows that the
sacrifices under the Law were insufficient for the remission of sins, and
that this could only be obtained through the Mediator of the new covenant
promised by God through his prophet Jeremiah, ch. 7: 26, to ch. 19.

    Here the Apostle completes the first part, having stated at large in
the last portion of it the claims of Christ as a high-priest, and these
claims are fully confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient Scriptures.
His arguments are such that it is impossible really to understand and
believe the Old Testament and to deny the New; the latter being most
evidently the fulfilment of the former. The Old Testament distinctly
speaks of another priesthood different from that of Aaron, and of another
covenant different from that made with the children of Israel, and of one
which would confer the remission of sins, which the other could not do.
Now these are the testimonies not of the New but of the Old Testament;
and the New exhibits a priest and a covenant exactly answerable to the
priest and the covenant which the Old Testament refers to and describes.
Nothing can be more plain and more conclusive than the Apostle's
arguments on this subject.

    The parainetic or hortative portion of the Epistle, extending from
chap. 10: 19 to the end, requires no further explanation.

    We especially learn from this Epistle that the distinctive character
of the old dispensation was symbolical, and of the new spiritual. The old
abounded in forms, rituals, and ceremonies; the new exhibits what these
things signified and typified. To have recourse again to symbols and
rituals, is to prefer darkness to light, to reverse the order of things,
and to disregard a favour which kings and prophets in ancient times
desired to enjoy. This is not only an evidence of fatuity, but it is also
ingratitude and sin, and it ought never to be deemed as innocent or
harmless. Having the glorious light of the Gospel, let us walk in the
light, and never regard "beggarly elements" as things to be perpetuated
and admired.

    This Commentary was translated into English by Clement Cotton, from
the French Version, and was published in 1605 under the following
title: - "A Commentarie on the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. By Iohn
Calvin. Translated out of French. The Lawe was given by Moses, but grace
and truth came by Iesus Christ. Iohn 1: 17. Imprinted at London by Felix
Kingston, for Arthur Johnson, and are to be sold at his shop neere the
great North doors of Pauls, at the signs of the white Horse. 1606." Like
his translation of Isaiah, that of the Commentary on the Hebrews, "though
not altogether suitable to modern taste, is faithful, vigorous,
idiomatic, and not inelegant."
    The "Epistle Dedicatorie" to Cotton's patron, Robert Cecil, Earl of
Salisbury, and his Address "to the Reader," have been reprinted as a
specimen of the style of such performances at that period.

                                                                   J. O.  
    Thrussington, August 1853

Cotton's  Epistle Dedicatory

                          To the Right Honorable
                    Robert Earle of Salisburie, Vicount
          Cranbourne, Baron of Essendon, Principall Secretarie to
             the Kings most excellent Maiestie, Master of the
                 Court of Wardes and Liueries, and one of
                       his Highnesse most Honorable
                              Priuie Counsel.

                       Grace and peace be multiplied

    Right Honorable, such has been the singular care and fatherly
providence of God over his church in these last times: that according to
his own most gratious promise (through the means of preaching and
writing) knowledge has overflowed in all places, as the waters that cover
the sea. Hence it is come to pass, that even this nation also, albeit
utterly unworthy to receive so much as the least sprincklings of this
knowledge, has not withstanding been replenished and filled therewith,
almost from corner to corner. Many chosen and worthy instruments has the
Lord raised up here and there for this purpose. But amongst the rest,
none for whom there is greater cause of thankfulness, than for that rare
and excellent light of this age, Mr. Calvin: whether in respect of the
large and many volumes, which with unwearable pains he has written, or
the exceeding fruits which the Churches have thereby gained. So that all
of sound judgement will acknowledge, that God had poured out upon him a
principal portion and measure of his spirit to profit with all, 1. Cor.
12. 7. Whereof, as his whole works give sufficient proofs, so his
Commentaries especially. For besides his sincerity and faithfulness in
delivering the true and naturals sense of the holy Scriptures; he has
this as peculiar to himself, that with his faithfulness and sincerity he
always matches an exceeding plainness and gravity: whereby his Reader may
obtain that he seeks, both with great ease, and
with very little loss of time.
    Divers of these his Commentaries, Right Honourable, have been already
translated to the great benefit of this nation: others yet remain
untranslated, which doubtless would be no less beneficial. The which, as
I have earnestly desired; so, had gifts and means been in any measure
answerable, it had been performed ere this. For the present, I have been
bold to give your Honour a small taste thereof in these my poor first
fruits: wherein although my pains are no way sufficient to commend the
same unto your Honour, yet I doubt not but the matter itself will be
found worthy of your H. patronage. For where are the natures and offices
of Christ so largely described; the doctrine of the free remission of
sins in Christ's blood better established, or faith with her effects more
highly commended, than in this Epistle to the Hebrews?
    Now as touching the reasons, Right Honorable, that have moved me
hereunto, they are briefly these; First, I was not ignorant what singular
love and affection your Honour bare to the author of this Commentary for
his work's sake, whereof many also are witnesses. Unto which, if your
Honour should be pleased to add a second favour in Patronizing these his
labours, I thought it would be a special means to revive his memory
again, now almost decayed amongst us.
    Secondly, I was persuaded that if your Lordship, whom it has pleased

(continued in part 2...)

file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-3/epl-01: calhb-01.txt