1. Knowledge of the penman of any part of Scripture not necessary—Some of them utterly concealed—The word of God gives authority unto them that deliver it, not the contrary—Prophets, in things wherein they are not actually inspired, subject to mistakes. 2. St Paul the writer of this Epistle —The hesitation of Origen—Heads of evidence. 3. Uncertainty of them who assign any other author. 4. St Luke not the writer of it; 5. Nor Barnabas.
The Epistle under his name counterfeit—His writing of this Epistle by sundry reasons disproved. 6. Not Apollos; 7. Nor Clemens; 8. Nor Tertullian. 9. Objections against St Paul's being the penman— Dissimilitude of style—Admitted by the ancients. 10. Answer of Origen rejected; of Clemens, Jerome, etc., rejected likewise. 11. St Paul, in what sense ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ. 12. His eloquence and skill. 13. Causes of the difference in style between this and his other epistles. 14. Coincidence of expressions in it and them. 15. The Epistle ἀνεπίγραφος. 16. Answer of Jerome rejected; 17. Of Theodoret; 18. Of Chrysostom—Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul not the cause of the forbearance [i.e., withholding] of his name. 19. The true reason thereof—The Hebrews' church-state not changed—Faith evangelical educed from Old Testament principles and testimonies—These pressed on the Hebrews; not mere apostolical authority. 20. Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle answered —Other exceptions from the Epistle itself removed. 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it—Testimony of St Peter, 2 Epist. 3:15, 16—Considerations upon that testimony—The second Epistle of St Peter written to the same persons with the first—The first written unto the Hebrews in their dispersion—Διασπορά, what. 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote—That, this Epistle; not that to the Galatians; not one lost. 23. The "long-suffering of God," how declared to be "salvation" in this Epistle. 24. The wisdom ascribed unto St Paul in the writing of this Epistle, wherein it appears—The δυσνόητα of it—Weight of this testimony. 25. The suitableness of this Epistle unto those of the same author—Who competent judges hereof— What required thereunto. 26. Testimony of the first churches, or catholic tradition. 27. Evidences from this Epistle itself—The general argument and scope—Method—Way of arguing—All the same with St Paul's other Epistles—Skill in Judaical learning, traditions, and customs, proper to St Paul—His bonds and sufferings—His companion Timothy—His sign and token subscribed.
1. THE divine authority of the Epistle being vindicated, it is of no great moment to inquire seriously after its penman. Writings that proceed from divine inspiration receive no addition of authority from the reputation or esteem of them by whom they were written; and this the Holy Ghost hath sufficiently manifested by shutting up the names of many of them from the knowledge of the church in all ages. The close of the Pentateuch hath an uncertain penman, unless we shall suppose, with some of the Jews, that it was written by Moses after his death! Divers of the psalms have their penmen concealed, as also have the whole books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth, Esther, Job; and the Chronicles are but guessed at. Had any prejudice unto their authority ensued, this had not been. [As] for those whose authors are known, they were not esteemed to be given by prophecy because they were prophets, but they were known to be prophets by the word which they delivered: for if the word delivered, or written, by any of the prophets, was to be esteemed sacred or divine because delivered or written by such persons as were known to be prophets; then it must be because they were some other way known so to be, and divinely inspired, as by working of miracles, or that they were in their days received and testified unto as such by the church. But neither of these can be asserted. For as it is not known that any one penman of the Old Testament, Moses only excepted, ever wrought any miracles, so it is certain that the most and chiefest of them (as the prophets) were rejected and condemned by the church of the days wherein they lived. The only way, therefore, whereby they were proved to be prophets was by the word itself which they delivered and wrote; and thereon depended the evidence and certainty of their being divinely inspired. See Amos 7:14–17; Jer. 23:25–31. And, setting aside that actual inspiration by the Holy Ghost which they had for the declaration and writing of that word of God which came unto them in particular, the prophets themselves were subject to mistakes. So was Samuel, when he thought Eliab should have been the Lord's anointed, 1 Sam. 16:6; and Nathan, when he approved the purpose of David to build the temple, 1 Chron. 17:2; and the great Elijah when he supposed none left in Israel that worshipped God aright but himself, 1 Kings 19:14, 18. It was, then, as we said, the word of prophecy that gave the writers of it the reputation and authority of prophets; and their being prophets gave not authority to the word they declared, or wrote as a word of prophecy. Hence an anxious inquiry after the penman of any part of the Scripture is not necessary.
But whereas there want not evidences sufficient to discover who was the writer of this Epistle, whereby also the exceptions made unto its divine original may be finally obviated, they also shall be taken into consideration. A subject this is wherein many learned men, of old and of late, have exercised themselves, until this single argument is grown up into entire and large treatises; and I shall only take care that the truth, which hath been already strenuously asserted and vindicated, may not again, by this review, be rendered dubious and questionable.
2. St Paul it is by whom we affirm this Epistle to be written. It is acknowledged that this was so highly questioned of old, that Origen, after the examination of it, concludes, Τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς Θεὸς οἶδε,—"What is the very truth in this matter God only knows." However, he acknowledged that οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, "the ancients," owned it to be written by Paul, and that, he says, not without good reason; whereas the ascription of it unto any other he assigns unto a bare report. It may not, then, be expected that now, after so long a season, the truth of our assertion should be so manifestly evinced as to give absolute satisfaction unto all (which is a vain thing for any man to aim at in a subject wherein men suppose that they have a liberty of thinking what they please); yet I doubt not, but that it will appear not only highly probable, but so full of evidence, in comparison of any other opinion that is or hath been promoted in competition with it, as that some kind of blamable pertinaciousness may be made to appear in its refusal. Now, the whole of what I shall offer in the proof of it may be reduced unto these six heads:—(1.) The manifest failure of all them who have endeavoured to assign it unto any other penman; (2.) The insufficiency of the arguments insisted on to disprove our assertion; (3.) Testimony given unto it in other scriptures; (4.) Considerations taken from the writing itself, compared with other acknowledged writings of the same author; (5.) The general suffrage of antiquity, or ecclesiastical tradition; (6.) Reasons taken from sundry circumstances relating unto the Epistle itself. Now, as all these evidences are not of the same nature, nor of equal force, so some of them will be found very cogent, and all of them together very sufficient to free our assertion from just question or exception.
3. First, The uncertainty of them who question whether Paul were the writer of this Epistle, and their want of probable grounds in assigning it unto any other, hath some inducement in it to leave it unto him whose of old it was esteemed to be; for when once men began to take to themselves a liberty of conjecture in this matter, they could neither make an end themselves, nor fix any bounds unto the imagination of others. Having once lost its true author, no other could be asserted with any such evidence, or indeed probability, but that instantly twenty more, with as good grounds and reasons, might be entitled unto it. Accordingly, sundry persons have been named, all upon the same account,—that some thought good to name them; and why should not one man's authority, in this matter, be as good as another's?
4. Origen, in Eusebius, affirms that some supposed LUKE to have been the author of this Epistle; but neither doth he approve their opinion, nor mention what reasons they pretend for it. He adds also, that some esteemed it to be written by Clemens of Rome. Clemens of Alexandria allows St Paul to be the author of it; but supposeth it might be translated by Luke, because, as he saith, the style of it is not unlike that of his in the Acts of the Apostles. Grotius of late contends for Luke to be the author of it on the same account; but the instances which he gives rather argue a coincidence of some words and phrases than a similitude of style, which things are very different. Jerome also tells us that "juxta quosdam videtur esse Lucae evangelistae,"—"by some it was thought to be written by Luke the evangelist;" which he took from Clemens, Origen, and Eusebius; only he mentions nothing of the similitude of style with that of St Luke, but afterwards informs us that, in his judgment, there is a great conformity in style between this Epistle and that of Clemens Romanus. None of them acquaint us who were the authors or approvers of this conjecture, nor do they give any credit themselves unto it; neither is there any reason of this opinion reported by them, but only that intimated by Clemens,5 of the agreement of the style with that of the Acts of the Apostles (which yet is not allowed by Jerome); whereon he doth not ascribe the writing, but only the translation of it, unto Luke. Grotius alone contends for him to be the author of it, and that with this only argument, that sundry words are used in the same sense by St Luke and the writer of this Epistle; but that this observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared.
This opinion, then, may be well rejected as a groundless guess, of an obscure, unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persuasion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St Paul's being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary, ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration, that will cast this opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probability. By general consent, this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive, and presided in the church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem; and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been. What was his authority as an apostle, what his reputation in that church, is both known in general from the nature of his office, and in particular is intimated in the Scripture, Acts 12:17, 15:13; Gal. 2:9. These were the Hebrews whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended; and by their means that of their brethren in the eastern dispersion of them. Now, is it reason to imagine that any one who was not an apostle, but only a scholar and follower of them, should be used to write unto that church, wherein so great an apostle, a "pillar" among them, had his especial residence, and did actually preside; and that, in an argument of such huge importance, with reasons against a practice wherein they were all engaged, yea, that apostle himself, as appears, Gal. 2:12? Were any one then alive of more esteem and reputation in the church than others, certainly he was the fittest to be used in this employment; and how well all things of this nature agree unto St Paul, we shall see afterwards.
5. Some have assigned the writing of this Epistle unto BARNABAS. Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, make no mention of him. Tertullian was the author of this opinion, and it is reported as his by Jerome.2 Philastrius also remembers the report of it. And it is of late defended by Cameron4 (as the former concerning Luke by Grotius); whose reasons for his conjecture are confuted with some sharpness by Spanheim, mindful, as it seems, of his father's controversy with some of his scholars. The authority of Tertullian is the sole foundation of this opinion; but as the book wherein he mentions it was written in his paroxysm, when he uttered not that only unadvisedly, so he seems not to lay much weight on the Epistle itself, only preferring it unto the apocryphal Hermes: "Receptior," saith he, "apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore Moechorum." And we have showed that the Latin church was, for a time, somewhat unacquainted with this Epistle, so that it is no marvel if one of them should mistake its author. Grotius would disprove this opinion from the dissimilitude of its style, and that which goes under the name of Barnabas, which is corrupt and barbarous. But there is little weight in that observation, that epistle being certainly spurious, no way savouring the wisdom or spirit of him on whom it hath been vulgarly imposed. But yet, that it was that epistle which is cited by some of the ancients under the name of Barnabas, and not this unto the Hebrews, is well proved by Baronius, from the names that Jerome2 mentions out of that epistle, which are nowhere to be found in this to the Hebrews. But that epistle of Barnabas is an open fruit of that vanity, which prevailed in many about the third and fourth ages of the church, of personating in their writings some apostolical persons; wherein they seldom or never kept any good decorum, as might easily be manifested in this particular instance. As to our present case, the reason before mentioned is of the same validity against this as [against] the other opinion concerning Luke; whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added. Barnabas was not an apostle, properly and strictly so called, nor had apostolical mission or authority; but rather seems to have been one of the seventy disciples, as Epiphanius affirms. And Eusebius, a person less credulous than he, acknowledging that a just and true catalogue of them could not be given, yet placeth Barnabas as the first of them concerning whom all agreed.4 Much weight, indeed, I shall not lay hereon, seeing it is evident that the catalogues, given us by the ancients of those disciples, are nothing but a rude collection of such names as they found in the books of the New Testament, applied without reason or testimony. But apostle he was none.
Many circumstances also concur to the removal of this conjecture. The Epistle was written in Italy, chap. 13:24, where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was. The fabulous author, I confess, of the rhapsody called "The Recognitions of Clemens," tells us that Barnabas went to Rome, taking Clemens along with him; and, returning into Judea, found St Peter at Caesarea. But St Luke in the Acts gives us another account, both where Barnabas was and how he was employed, at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things; for whilst St Peter was at Caesarea, Acts 10:1, etc., Barnabas was at Jerusalem, Acts 9:26, 27, being a little while after sent to Antioch by the apostles, chap. 11:22. Again, Timothy was the companion of the writer of this Epistle, Heb. 13:23; a person, as far as appears, unknown unto Barnabas, being taken into St Paul's society after their difference and separation, Acts 15:37–39, 16:1–3. He had also been in bonds or imprisonment, Heb. 10:34, whereof we cannot at that time learn any thing concerning Barnabas, those of St Paul being known unto all. And, lastly, not long before the writing of this Epistle, Barnabas was so far from that light into, and apprehension of the nature, use, and expiration of Judaical rites herein expressed, that he was easily misled into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them, Gal. 2:13; wherein although some (after Jerome's fancy, that the difference between St Peter and St Paul was only in pretence) have laboured to free St Peter and his companions on other grounds from any sinful failing,—as it should seem in a direct opposition unto the testimony of St Paul, affirming that κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, in that particular "he was to be blamed" or condemned, ver. 11, not unlike him who hath written a justification of Aaron in his making the golden calf,—yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical institutions is evident from the text. And shall we suppose that he who but a little before, upon the coming of some few brethren of the church of Jerusalem from St James, durst not avouch and abide by his own personal liberty, but deserted the use of it, not without some blamable dissimulation, ver. 13, should now, with so much authority, write an Epistle unto that church with St James, and all the Hebrews in the world, concurring with them in judgment and practice about that very thing wherein himself, out of respect unto them, had particularly miscarried? This certainly was rather the work of St Paul, whose light and constancy in the doctrine delivered in this Epistle, with his engagement in the defence of it above all the rest of the apostles, are known from the story of the Acts and his own other writings.
6. APOLLOS hath been thought by some to be the penman of this Epistle, and that because it answers the character given of him; for it is said that he was "an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures," fervent in spirit, and one that "mightily convinced the Jews" out of the Scripture itself, Acts 18:24, 28,—all which things appear throughout this whole discourse. But this conjecture hath no countenance from antiquity, no mention being made of any epistle written by Apollos, or of any thing else; so that he is not reckoned by Jerome amongst the ecclesiastical writers, nor by those who interpolated that work with some fragments out of Sophronius. Nor is he reported, by Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius, to have been by any esteemed the author of this Epistle. However, I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the observation mentioned, if the excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him; yea, had they not all of them been found in St Paul, and that in a manner and degree more eminent than in the other. But this being so, the ground of this conjecture is taken from under it.
7. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, in the places forecited, mention a report concerning some who ascribed this Epistle unto CLEMENS ROMANUS. None of them give any countenance unto it, or intimate any grounds of that supposition; only Jerome affirms that there is some similitude between the style of this Epistle and that of Clemens, which occasioned the suspicion of his translating it; whereof afterwards. Erasmus hath since taken up that report, and seems to give credit unto it; but hath not contributed any thing of reason or testimony unto its confirmation. A worthy, holy man was this Clemens, no doubt, and bishop of the church at Rome. But none of the ancients of any learning or judgment ever laid weight on this conjecture. For what had he, who was a convert from among the Gentiles, to do with the churches of the Hebrews? what authority had he to interpose himself in that which was their peculiar concernment? Whence may it appear that he had that skill in the nature, use, and end of Mosaical rites and institutions, which the writer of this Epistle discovers in himself? Neither doth that epistle of his to the church of Corinth, which is yet extant, though excellent in its kind, permit us to think that he wrote by divine inspiration. Besides, the author of this Epistle had a desire and purpose to go to the Hebrews; yea, he desires to be "restored" unto them, as one that had been with them before, chap. 13:19, 23. But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine, so what reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can imagine. And to end this needless debate, in that epistle which was truly his own, he makes use of the words and authority of this, as Eusebius long since observed.
8. Sixtus Senensis affirms that the work whose author we inquire after was by some assigned unto TERTULLIAN. A fond and impious imagination, and such as no man of judgment or sobriety could ever fall into! This Epistle was famous in the churches before Tertullian was born; is ascribed by himself unto Barnabas; and some passages in it are said by him to be corrupted by one Theodotus long before his time.3
From the uncertainty of these conjectures, with the evidence of reason and circumstances whereby they are disproved, two things we seem to have obtained;—first, That no objection on their account can arise against our assertion; and, secondly, That if St Paul be not acknowledged to be the writer of this Epistle, the whole church of God is, and ever was, at a total loss whom to ascribe it unto. And it may reasonably be expected that the weakness of these conjectures should, if not add unto, yet set off the credibility of the reasons and testimonies which shall be produced in the assignment of it unto him.
9. The objections that are laid by some against our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul, according unto the order proposed, are nextly to be considered. These I shall pass through with what briefness I can, so as not to be wanting unto the defensative designed.
First, Dissimilitude of style, and manner of writing, from that used by St Paul in his other epistles, is pressed in the first place, and principally insisted on; and indeed it is the whole of what, with any colour of reason, is made use of in this cause. This the ancients admitted. The elegance, propriety of speech, and sometimes loftiness, that occur in this Epistle, difference it, as they say, from those of St Paul's writing. Δοκεῖ μὲν οὐκ εἶναι Παύλου διὰ τὸν χαρακτῆρα, saith Oecumenius;—"It seems not to be St Paul's, because of the style or character of speech." For this cause Clemens of Alexandria supposed it to be written in Hebrew, and to be translated into Greek by St Luke the evangelist; the style of it, as he says, being like unto that which is used in the Acts of the Apostles;2 and yet that is acknowledged by all to be purely Greek, whereas this is accused to be full of Hebraisms! So little weight is to be laid on these critical censures, wherein learned men perpetually contradict one another.
Origen also confesseth that it hath not in its character τὸ ἰδιωτικὸν ἐν λόγῳ, the "idiotism," or propriety of the language of St Paul, who acknowledgeth himself to be ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, 2 Cor. 11:6, "rude in speech:" and this Epistle is, saith he, ἐν συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἑλληνικοτέρα, "in the composition of its speech elegantly Greek," in comparison of his; which, if we may believe him, any one will discern who can judge between the difference of styles. And Jerome: "Scripserat autem ad Hebraeos Hebraice, id est suo eloquio dissertissime; ut ea quae eloquenter scripta fuerant in Hebraeo eloquentius verterentur in Graecum; et hanc causam esse quod a caeteris Pauli epistolis discrepare videatur;"—"It seems to differ from the rest of St Paul's epistles because of its translation out of Hebrew;" wherein he speaks not with his wonted confidence. And elsewhere he says that the style of this Epistle seems to be like that of Clemens. Erasmus presseth this objection. "Restat," saith he, "jam argumentum illud quo non aliud certius, stylus ipse et orationis character, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum phrasi Paulina;"—"The style and character of speech have no affinity with the phrase of St Paul." This consideration also drew Calvin into the same opinion; and it is insisted on by Cameron and Grotius to the same purpose. The sum of this objection is, that St Paul was "rude in speech," which is manifest in his other epistles; but the style of this is pure, elegant, florid, such as hath no affinity with his: so that he cannot be esteemed the penman of it.
10. As this objection was taken notice of by them of old, and the matter of it admitted as true, so because they constantly adhered to the assignation of it unto St Paul, they gave sundry answers unto it. Origen gives us his judgment, that the sense and subject-matter of this Epistle were from St Paul, which are excellent, and no way inferior to those of the same apostle in any other epistles, as every one exercised in the reading of his epistles will grant; but the structure and phrase of it he supposeth to have been the work of some other, who, taking the dictates of his master, from thence composed this Epistle. But this answer can by no means be admitted of, nor accommodated unto any writing given by divine inspiration: for not only the matter but the very words of their writings were suggested unto his penmen by the Holy Ghost (that the whole might have no influence from human frailty or fallibility); which alone renders the authority of their writings sacred and divine. But this intimation would resolve the truth in this Epistle into the care and diligence of him that took the sense of St Paul, and thence composed it; wherein he was liable to mistakes, unless we shall vainly suppose that he also was inspired. Wherefore they who admitted of this objection generally gave the answer unto it before intimated, namely, that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew by St Paul, and translated by some other into the Greek language. So Oecumenius: Τοῦ μὲν οὖν ἠλλάχθαι τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς φανερὰ ἡ αἰτία· πρὸς γὰρ Ἑβραίους τῇ σφῶν διαλέκτῳ γραφεῖσα ὕστερον μεθερμηνευθῆναι λέγεται·—"The cause of the alteration or difference of style in this Epistle is manifest; for it is said to be written unto the Hebrews in their own language, and to be afterwards translated." Jerome and Clemens also incline to this opinion and answer: and Theophylact, though, following Theodoret, he egregiously confutes them who deny St Paul to be the author of this Epistle, from the excellency, efficacy, and irrefragable power and authority wherewith it is accompanied, yet admits of this objection, and answers, with others, that it was translated by St Luke or Clemens. Only Chrysostom,2 who indeed is πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων, without taking notice of the pretended dissimilitude of style, ascribes it directly to St Paul. But to this answer incline generally the divines of the Roman church, as Catharinus, Bellarminus,4 Baronius, Cornelius a Lapide,6 Canus, Mattheus Galenus,8 Ludovicus Tena, and others without number; though it be rejected by Estius,10 and some others among themselves. What is to be thought of it, we shall afterwards consider in a dissertation designed unto that purpose. For the present, we affirm that it is no way needful as an answer unto the objection insisted on, as we shall now further particularly manifest.
11. The foundation of this objection lies in St Paul's acknowledgment that he was ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ,—"rude in speech," 2 Cor. 11:6. This Origen presseth, and Jerome takes occasion hence to censure his skill in his mother tongue; for so was the Greek unto them that were born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and this was the place of St Paul's nativity: though the same Jerome, from I know not what tradition, affirms that he was born at Giscalis, a town of Galilee, from whence he wept afterwards with his parents to Tarsus; contrary to his own express testimony, Acts 22:3, "I verily was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia."
But this seems an infirm foundation for the objection insisted on. Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians about the false teachers who seduced them from the simplicity of the gospel. The course which they took to ensnare them was vain, affected eloquence, and strains of rhetoric unbecoming the work they pretended to be engaged in. Puffed up with this singularity, they contemned St Paul as a rude, unskilful person, no way able to match them in their fine declamations. In answer hereunto, he first tells them that it became not him to use σοφίαν λόγου, 1 Cor. 1:17, —that "wisdom of words," or speech, which orators flourished withal; or διδάκτους ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγους, chap. 2:13,—"the words that man's wisdom teacheth," or an artificial composition of words, to entice thereby, which he calls ὑπεροχὴν λόγου, chap. 2:1. And many reasons he gives why it became him not to make use of those things, so as to make them his design, as the seducers and false apostles did. Again, he answers by concession in this place, Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ,—"Suppose I be (or were) rude or unskilful in speech, doth this matter depend thereon? Is it not manifest unto you that I am not so in the knowledge of the mystery of the gospel?" "He doth not confess that he is so," saith Austin, "but grants it for their conviction." And in this sense concur Oecumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Catharinus, Clarius, and Cappellus, with many others on the place. If, then, by λόγος here, that seducing, enticing rhetoric wherewith the false teachers entangled the affections of their unskilful hearers be intended, as we grant that St Paul, it may be, was unskilful in it, and are sure that he would make no use of it, so it is denied that any footsteps of it appear in this Epistle; and if any thing of solid, convincing, unpainted eloquence be intended in it, it is evident that St Paul neither did nor justly could confess himself unacquainted with it; only he made a concession of the objection made against him by the false teachers, to manifest how they could obtain no manner of advantage thereby.
12. Neither are the other epistles of St Paul written in so low and homely a style as is pretended. Chrysostom, speaking of him, tells us, Ὑπὲρ τὸν ἥλιον ἔλαμψεν ἡ τούτου γλώττα, and that for his eloquence he was esteemed Mercury by the Gentiles. Somewhat hath been spoken hereunto before, whereunto I shall now only add the words of a person who was no incompetent judge in things of this nature. "Quum," saith he, "orationis ipsius totam indolem et χαρακτῆρα propius considero, nullam ego in ipso Platone similem grandiloquentiam, quoties illi libuit Dei mysteria detonare; nullam in Demosthene parem δεινότητα comperisse me fateor, quoties animos vel metu divini judicii perterrefacere, vel commonefacere, vel ad contemplandam Dei bonitatem attrahere, vel ad pietatis ac misericordiae officia constituit adhortari: nullam denique vel in ipso Aristotele et Galeno, praestantissimis alioquin artificibus, magis exactam docendi methodum invenio;"—"When I well consider the genius and character of the speech and style of this apostle, I confess I never found that grandeur in Plato himself as in him, when he thundereth out the mysteries of God; nor that gravity and vehemency in Demosthenes as in him, when he intends to terrify the minds of men with a dread of the judgments of God, or would warn them or draw them to the contemplation of his goodness, or the performance of the duties of piety and mercy; nor do I find a more exact method of teaching in those great and excellent masters, Aristotle and Galen, than in him." So it is plainly; so the Greek fathers almost with one consent do testify; so do most of the Latins also; so the best learned of the later critics; and so may it be defended against any opposition. And Jerome himself, who takes most liberty to censure his style, doth so far in other places forget his own temerity therein as to cry out against those who "dreamed," as he speaks, that St Paul was not thoroughly acquainted with all propriety of speech. And he who was the first that ever spake a word about any defect of this kind, though as able to judge as any one whatever who hath since passed his censure unto the same purpose, was in an evident mistake in the very instance which he pitched on to confirm his observation. This was Irenaeus, one of the first and most learned of the Greek fathers: for, affirming that there are many hyperbata in the style of this apostle, which render it uneven and difficult, he confirms his assertion with an instance in 2 Cor. 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not;" for saith he, "The words should naturally have been thus placed, 'In whom God hath blinded the minds of them that in this world believe not.' " So, to obviate a foolish sophism in the Valentinians, a hyperbaton must be supposed in the apostle's style, when indeed there is not the least colour of it. Upon the whole matter, then, I shall confidently assert, that there is no manner of defect in any of his writings, and that every thing (considering the matter and nature of it, the Person in whose name he spake, and those to whom he wrote) is expressed as it ought to be for the end proposed, and not otherwise. And hence it is that, because of the variety of the subject-matter treated of, and difference among the persons to whom he wrote, there is also variety in his way and manner of expressing himself in sundry of his epistles; and in many of them there is such a discovery and manifestation of solid eloquence and pure elegancy of speech, that the observation of them in any writing is far from having any weight to prove it none of his.
13. It may, then, be granted, though it be not proved, that there is some dissimilitude of style between this and the rest of the epistles of St Paul; and the reasons of it are sufficiently manifest. The argument treated of in this Epistle is diverse from that of most of the others; many circumstances in those to whom he wrote singular; the spring of his reasonings and way of his arguings peculiarly suited unto his subjectmatter and the condition of those unto whom he wrote. Besides, in the writing of this Epistle there was in him an especial frame and incitation of spirit, occasioned by many occurrences relating unto it. His intense love and near relation in the flesh unto them to whom he wrote, affectionately remembered by himself, and expressed in a manner inimitable, Rom. 9:1–3, did doubtless exert itself in his treating about their greatest and nearest concernment. The prejudices and enmity of some of them against him, recorded in several places of the Acts, and remembered by himself in some other of his epistles, lay also under his consideration. Much of the subject that he treated about was matter of controversy, which was to be debated from the Scripture, and wherein those with whom he dealt thought they might dissent from him without any prejudice to their faith or obedience. Their condition also must needs greatly affect him. They were now not only under present troubles, dangers, and fears, but "positi inter sacrum et saxum," at the very door of ruin, if not delivered from the snare of obstinate adherence unto Mosaical institutions. Now, they who know not what alterations in style and manner of writing these things will produce, in those who have an ability to express the conceptions of their minds and the affections wherewith they are attended, know nothing of this matter. And other differences from the rest of Paul's epistles, but what may evidently be seen to arise from these and the like causes, none have yet discovered, nor can so do. And notwithstanding the elegancy of the style pretended, that it is as full of Hebraisms as any other epistle of the same author, we shall discover in our passage through it; which certainly a person of that ability in the Greek tongue as the writer of this Epistle discovers himself to be might have avoided, if he had thought meet so to do.
14. Neither is it to be omitted that there is such a coincidence in many phrases, use of words and expressions, between this Epistle and the rest of St Paul's, as will not allow us to grant such a discrepancy in style as some imagine. They have many of them been gathered by others, and therefore I shall only point unto the places from whence they are taken. See chap. 1:1, 2, compared with 2 Cor. 13:3. Chap. 2:14, with Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12. Chap. 2:11, with Eph. 5:26. Chap. 3:1, with Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 1:9. Chap. 3:6, with Rom. 5:2. Chap. 5:14, with 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Eph. 4:13. Chap. 5:13, with 1 Cor. 3:2. Chap. 6:11, with Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5. Chap. 7:18, with Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:9. Chap. 8:6, 7, with Gal. 3:19, 20; 1 Tim. 2:5. Chap. 10:1, with Col. 2:17. Chap. 10:22, with 2 Cor. 7:1. Chap. 10:23, a phrase peculiar to St Paul, and common with him. Chap. 10:33, with 1 Cor. 4:9. Chap. 10:36, with Gal. 3:22. Chap. 10:39, with 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13. Chap. 12:1, with 1 Cor. 9:24. Chap. 13:10, with 1 Cor. 9:13, 10:18. Chap. 13:15, 16, with Rom. 12:1; Phil. 4:18. Chap. 13:20, with Rom. 15:33, 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23. Many of which places having before been observed by others, they are all of them collected in this order by Spanheim; and many more of the like nature might be added unto them, but that these are sufficient to outbalance the contrary instances of some words and expressions nowhere else used by St Paul, which perhaps may be observed of every other epistle in like manner. And upon all these considerations it appears how little force there is in this objection.
15. Secondly, It is excepted that the Epistle is ἀνεπίγραφος, the name of Paul being not prefixed unto it, as it is, say some, unto all the epistles written by him. And this, indeed, is the womb wherein all other objections have been conceived; for this being once taken notice of, and admitted as an objection, the rest were but fruits of men's needless diligence to give countenance unto it. And this exception is ancient, and that which alone some of old took any notice of; for it is considered by Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and generally by all that have spoken any thing about the writer of this Epistle. Nor doth the strength that it hath lie merely in this, that it is without inscription, for so is the Epistle of St John, concerning which it was never doubted but that he was the author of it, but in the constant usage of Paul, prefixing his name unto all his other epistles; so that unless a just reason can be given why he should divert from that custom in the writing of this, it may be well supposed to be none of his.
Now, by the title which is wanting, either the mere titular superscription, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews," is intended, or the inscription of his name, with an apostolical salutation conjoined, in the Epistle itself. For the first, it is uncertain of what antiquity the titular superscriptions of any of the epistles are, but most certain that they did not originally belong unto them, and are therefore destitute of all authority. They are things the transcribers, it may be, have at pleasure made bold withal, as with the subscription also of some of them, as to the place from whence they were sent, and the persons by whom. Though this, therefore, should be wanting unto this Epistle, as there is some variety both in ancient copies of the original and translations about it, the most owning and retaining it, yet it would be of no moment, seeing we know not whence or from whom any of them are. The objection, then, is taken from the want of the wonted apostolical salutation, which should be in and a part of the Epistle. And this is the substance of what on this account is excepted against our assertion.
16. Various answers have been given to this objection, some of them of no more validity than itself. Jerome replies, "It hath no man's name prefixed; therefore we may by as good reason say, it was written by no man, as not by Paul;"—which instance, though it be approved by Beza, with other learned men, and not sufficiently answered by Erasmus with a contrary instance, yet indeed it is of no value; for being written, it must be written by somebody, though not perhaps by St Paul. Some have thought that it may be the inscription inquired after was at first prefixed, but by some means or other hath been lost. But as there are very many arguments and evidences to evince the weakness of this imagination, so the beginning and entrance of the Epistle is such as is incapable of any contexture with such a salutation as that used in other Epistles, as is also that of St John; so that this conjecture can here have no place.
17. Some of the ancients, and principally Theodoret, insist upon the peculiar allotment of his work unto him among the Gentiles. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles in an especial manner; and if, in writing unto the Hebrews, he had prefixed his name unto his Epistle, he might have seemed to transgress the line of his allotment. And if it be not certain that the apostles, by common consent, cast their work into distinct portions, which they peculiarly attended unto, as the ancients generally concur that they did (and there was not reason wanting why they should do so), yet it is [certain] that there was a special convention and agreement between James, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, that they should attend the ministry of the Circumcision, and these of the Gentiles. Hence Paul, finding it necessary for him to write unto the Hebrews, would not prefix his name with an apostolical salutation unto his Epistle, that he might not seem to have invaded the province of others, or transgressed the line of his allotment. But I must acknowledge, that, notwithstanding the weight laid upon it by Theodoret and some others, this reason seems not unto me cogent unto the end for which it is produced: for,—(1.) The commission given by the Lord Christ unto his apostles was catholic, and had no bounds but that of the whole creation of God capable of instruction, Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; and that commission which was given unto them all in general was given unto every one in particular, and made him in solidum possessor of all the right and authority conveyed by it. Neither could any following arbitrary agreement, pitched on for convenience and the facilitating of their work, abridge any of them from exerting their authority and exercising their duty towards any of the sons of men, as occasion did require. And hence it is, that notwithstanding the agreement mentioned, we find St Peter teaching the Gentiles, and St Paul labouring for the conversion of the Jews. (2.) In writing this Epistle, on this supposition, St Paul did indeed that which is pretended was not meet for him to do,—namely, he entered on that which was the charge of another man; only he conceals his name, that he might not appear in doing of a thing unwarrantable and unjustifiable! And whether it be meet to ascribe this unto the apostle is easy to determine. As, then, it is certain that St Paul, in the writing of this Epistle, did nothing but what in duty he ought to do, and what the authority given him by Christ extended itself unto; so the concealing of his name, lest he should be thought to have done any thing irregularly, is a thing that, without much temerity, may not be imputed unto him.
18. There is another answer to this objection, which seemeth to be solid and satisfactory, which most of the ancients rest in; and it is, that St Paul had weighty reasons not to declare his name at the entrance of this Epistle to the Hebrews, taken from the prejudices that many of them had against him. This is insisted on by Clemens in Eusebius. "He did wisely," saith he, "conceal his name, because of the prejudicate opinion that they had against him." And this is at large insisted on by Chrysostom,2 who is followed therein by Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others without number. The persecuting party of the nation looked on him as an apostate, a deserter of the cause wherein he was once engaged, and one that taught apostasy from the law of Moses; yea, as they thought, that set the whole world against them and all that they gloried in, Acts 21:28; and what enmity is usually stirred up on such occasions all men know, and his example is a sufficient instance of it. And there was added thereunto (which Chrysostom, and that justly, lays great weight upon), that he was no ordinary person, but a man of great and extraordinary abilities; which mightily increased the provocation. Those among them who, with the profession of the gospel, had a mind to continue themselves in, and to impose upon others the observance of, Mosaical institutions, looked on him as the only person that had frustrated their design, Acts 15:1, 2. And this also is usually no small cause of wrath and hatred. The spirit of these men afterwards possessing the Ebionites, they despised St Paul as a Grecian and deserter of the law, as Epiphanius testifies. And even the best among them, who, either in the use of their liberty or upon an indulgence given them, continued in the temple worship, had a jealous eye over him, lest he had not that esteem for Moses which they imagined became them to retain, Acts 21:20, 21. How great a prejudice against his doctrine and reasonings these thoughts and jealousies might have created, had he, at the entrance of his dealing with them, prefixed his name and usual salutation, is not hard to conjecture. This being the state and condition of things in reference unto St Paul, and not any other known penman of the Holy Ghost, or eminent disciple of Christ in those days, this defect of inscription, as Beza well observes, proves the Epistle rather to be his than any other person's whatever. And though I know that there may be some reply made unto this answer, both from the discovery which he makes of himself in the end of the Epistle, and from the high probability there is that the Hebrews, upon the first receipt of it, would diligently examine by whom it was written, yet I judge it very sufficient to frustrate the exception insisted on, though perhaps not containing the true, at least the whole, cause of the omission of an apostolical salutation in the entrance of it.
19. If, then, we would know the true and just cause of the omission of the author's name and mention of his apostolical authority in the entrance of this Epistle, we must consider what were the just reasons of prefixing them unto his other epistles. Chrysostom, in his proem unto the Epistle to the Romans, gives this as the only reason of the mentioning the name of the writer of any epistle in the frontispiece of it otherwise than was done by Moses and the evangelists in their writings, namely, because they wrote unto them that were present, and so had no cause to make mention of their own names, which were well enough known without the premising of them in their writings; whereas those who wrote epistles, dealing with them that were absent, were necessitated to prefix their names unto them, that they might know from whom they came. But yet this reason is not absolutely satisfactory: for as they who prefixed not their names to their writings wrote, not only for the use and benefit of those that were present and knew them, but of all succeeding ages, who knew them not; so many of them who yet prefixed their names unto their writings, did preach and write the word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them, as did the prophets of old; and some who did write epistles to them who were absent omitted so to do, as St John and the author of this Epistle. The real cause, then, of prefixing the names of any of the apostles unto their writings, was merely the introduction thereby of their titles as apostles of Jesus Christ, and therein an intimation of that authority by and with which they wrote. This, then, was the true and only reason why the apostle St Paul prefixed his name unto his epistles. Sometimes, indeed, this is omitted, when he wrote unto some churches where he was well known, and his apostolical power was sufficiently owned, because he joined others with himself in his salutation who were not apostles; as the Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 1, and the second of the Thessalonians. Unto all others he still prefixeth this title; declaring himself thereby to be one so authorized to reveal the mysteries of the gospel, that they to whom he wrote were to acquiesce in his authority, and to resolve their faith into the revelation of the will of God made unto him and by him, the church being to be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." And hence it was, that when something he had taught was called in question and opposed, writing in the vindication of it, and for their establishment in the truth whom before he had instructed, he doth in the entrance of his writing singularly and emphatically mention this his authority: Gal. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, that raised him from the dead;" so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the doctrine by him revealed. By this title, I say, he directs them to whom he wrote to resolve their assent into the authority of Christ speaking in him, which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the mysteries wherein they were instructed.
In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise. They who believed, amongst them, never changed the old foundation, or churchstate grounded on the Scriptures, though they had a new addition of privileges by their faith in Christ Jesus, as the Messiah now exhibited. And therefore he deals not with them as with those whose faith was built absolutely on apostolical authority and revelation, but upon the common principles of the Old Testament, on which they still stood, and out of which evangelical faith was educed. Hence the beginning of the Epistle, wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation that he intended to build upon, and the authority which he would press them withal, supplies the room of that intimation of his apostolical authority which in other places he maketh use of. And it serves to the very same purpose. For, as in those epistles he proposeth his apostolical authority as the immediate reason of their assent and obedience; so in this he doth the scriptures of the Old Testament. And this is the true and proper cause that renders the prefixing of his apostolical authority, which must necessarily accompany his name, needless, because useless, it being that which he intended not to engage in this business. And for himself, he sufficiently declares in the close of his Epistle who he was; for though some may imagine that he is not so certainly known unto us, from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond as doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote. So that neither hath this objection in it any thing of real weight or moment.
20. Thirdly, We have spoken before unto the hesitation of the Latin church, which by some is objected, especially by Erasmus; and given the reasons of it, manifesting that it is of no force to weaken our assertion: unto which I shall now only add, that after it was received amongst them as canonical, it was never questioned by any learned man or synod of old whether St Paul was the author of it or no, but they all with one consent ascribed it unto him, as hath been at large by others declared. The remaining exceptions which by some are insisted on are taken from some passages in the Epistle itself; that principally of chap. 2:3, where the writer of it seems to reckon himself among the number, not of the apostles, but of their auditors [and survivors]. But whereas it is certain and evident that the Epistle was written before the destruction of the temple, yea, [before] the beginning of those wars that ended therein, or the death of James, whilst sundry of the apostles were yet alive, it cannot be that the penman of it should really place himself amongst the generation that succeeded them; so that the words must of necessity admit of another interpretation, as shall be manifested in its proper place: for whereas both this and other things of the same nature must be considered and spoken unto in the places where they occur, I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due season, especially considering of how small importance the objections taken from them are.
And this is the sum of what hath, as yet, by any been objected unto our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul; by the consideration whereof the reader will be directed into the judgment he is to make on the arguments and testimonies that we shall produce in the confirmation of our assertion; and these we now proceed unto, under the several heads proposed in the entrance of our discourse.
21. (1.) Amongst the arguments usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been written by St Paul, the testimony given unto it by St Peter deserves consideration in the first place, and is indeed of itself sufficient to determine the inquiry about it. His words to this purpose, 2 Epist. 3:15, 16, are: "And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according unto the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." To clear this testimony, some few things must be observed in it and concerning it; as,—(1.) That St Peter wrote this second epistle unto the same persons, that is, the same churches and people, to whom he wrote his first. This, to omit other evidences of it, himself testifies, chap. 3:1: "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you." It was not only absolutely his second epistle, but the second which he wrote to the same persons, handling in both the same general argument, as himself in the next words affirms. (2.) That his first epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian dispersion: Ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, etc.;—"To the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," chap. 1:1; that is, "The δώδεκα φυλὰς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ," as St James styles the same persons, chap. 1:1,—"The twelve tribes," or Hebrews of the twelve tribes of Israel, "in their dispersion." These παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς or ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, are those whom the Jews of Jerusalem called "The διασπορὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων," John 7:35, "The dispersion," or those of their nation that were "dispersed among the Gentiles." Those especially they intend in the Greek empire. These they called תְּפוּצָת־ שְׂרָאֵל, "The dispersion," or "scattering of Israel," when they were sifted amongst all nations, like the "sifting of a sieve," Amos 9:9. Ps. 147:2, they are called שְׂרָאֵל נִדְחֵי; which the LXX., according to the phrase in their days, render Τὰς διασπορὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, "The dispersions," or those scattered abroad of Israel; as Isaiah calls them, בְּאֶרֶץ הָאֹבְדִים אַשּׁוּר and מִצְרָ ם בְּאֶרֶץ הַנִּדָּחִים, chap. 27:13. So that there is no question but that these were they whom St Peter calls "The διασπορά of Pontus, Galatia," etc.; as St James, extending his salutation to the same people in all places, "The διασπορά of the twelve tribes." Besides, many things insisted on by St Peter in these epistles were peculiar to the Hebrews, who also were his especial care. See 1 Epist. 1:10–12, 2:9, 21, 3:5, 6, 4:7, 17; 2 Epist. 1:19–21, 2:1, etc., 3:10–14; and many other particular places of the same nature may be observed in them.
To sum up our evidence in this particular: Peter, being in an especial manner the apostle of the Circumcision, or Hebrews, Gal. 2:7, having by his first sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Acts 2:9–11, 41; ascribing that title unto them to whom he wrote which was the usual and proper appellation of them in all the world, Ἡ διασπορὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, James 1:1, John 7:35; treating with them for the most part about things peculiar to them in a special manner, and that with arguments and from principles peculiarly known unto them, as the places above quoted well manifest; there remains no ground of question but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote. Nor are the exceptions that are made to this evidence of any such importance as once to deserve a remembrance by them who design not a protracting of their discourses by insisting on things unnecessary.
22. Now, it is plainly in this testimony asserted, that St Paul wrote a peculiar epistle unto them unto whom St Peter wrote his; that is, to the Hebrews: "He hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles;" that is, in all his other epistles;"—'Besides his other epistles to other churches and persons, he hath also written one unto you.' So that, if St Peter's testimony may be received, St Paul undoubtedly wrote an epistle unto the Hebrews. "But this may be," say some, "another epistle, and not this we treat of; particularly that to the Galatians, which treateth about Judaical customs and worship." But this epistle mentioned by St Peter was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles; this to the Galatians was written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews: so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have been fixed upon. Besides, he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St Peter; which are indeed the main subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews. "But," say others, "Paul indeed might write an epistle to the Hebrews, which may be lost, and this that we have might be written by some other." But whence this answer should proceed, but from a resolution θέσιν διαφυλάττειν, against light and conviction, I know not. May we give place to such rash and presumptuous conjectures, we shall quickly have nothing left entire or stable; for why may not another as well say, 'It is true Moses wrote five books; but they are lost, and those that we have under his name were written by another'? It is not, surely, one jot less intolerable for any one, without ground, proof, or testimony, to affirm that the church hath lost an epistle written to the Hebrews by St Paul, and taken up one in the room thereof, written by, no man knoweth whom. This is not to deal with that holy reverence in the things of God which becomes us.
23. (2.) St Peter declares that St Paul, in that epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews, had declared the "long-suffering of God," whereof he had minded them, to be "salvation." We must see what was this "longsuffering of God," how it was "salvation," and how Paul had manifested it so to be.
[1.] The long-sufferance, patience, or forbearance of God, is either absolute, toward man in general; or special, in reference unto some sort of men, or some kind of sins or provocations that are amongst them. The first of these is not that which is here intended; nor was there any reason why St Peter should direct the Jews to the epistles of St Paul in particular to learn the long-suffering of God in general, which is so plentifully revealed in the whole scripture both of the Old and New Testament, and only occasionally at any time mentioned by St Paul. There was, therefore, an especial "long-suffering of God," which at that time he exercised towards the Jews, waiting for the conversion and the gathering of his elect unto him, before that total and final destruction which they had deserved should come upon that church and state. This he compares to the "long-suffering of God in the days of Noah," whilst he preached repentance unto the world, 1 Epist. 3:20: for as those that were obedient unto his preaching (which was only his own family) were saved in the ark from the general destruction that came upon the world by water; so also they that became obedient upon the preaching of the gospel during this new season of God's special long-suffering were to be saved by baptism, or separation from the unbelieving Jews by the profession of the faith, from that destruction that was to come upon them by fire. This "longsuffering of God" the unbelieving Jews not understanding to be particular, scoffed at, and at them who threatened them with such an issue or event of it, 2 Epist. 3:4; which causeth the apostle to declare the nature and end of this long-suffering, which they were ignorant of, verse 9.
[2.] And thus was this particular "long-suffering of God" towards the Jews, whilst the gospel was preached unto them before their final desolation, "salvation," in that God "spared" them, and allowed them to abide for a while in the observation of their old worship and ceremonies, granting them in the meantime blessed means of light and instruction, to bring them to salvation.
[3.] And this is declared by St Paul in this Epistle. Not that this is formally and in terms the main doctrine of the Epistle, but that really and effectually he acquaints them with the intention of the Lord in his longsuffering towards them; and peculiarly serves that long-suffering of Christ in his instruction of them. And therefore, after he hath taught them the true nature, use, and end of all Mosaical institutions, which they were as yet permitted to use, in the special patience of God intimated by St Peter, and convinced them of the necessity of faith in Christ and the profession of his gospel, he winds up all his reasonings in minding them of the end which shortly was to be put unto that "long-suffering of God" which was then exercised towards them, chap. 12:25–29. So that this note also is eminently characteristical of this Epistle.
24. (3.) In the writing of the epistle mentioned by Peter, he seems to ascribe unto Paul an eminency of wisdom; it was written "according to the wisdom given unto him." As Paul in all other of his epistles did exercise the grace of wisdom, so also in that which he wrote unto the Hebrews. There is no doubt but he exerted and put forth his other graces of knowledge, zeal, and love also; but yet Peter here, in a way of eminency, marketh his wisdom in that epistle. It is not Paul's spiritual wisdom in general, in the knowledge of the will of God and mysteries of the gospel, which Peter here refers unto, but that special holy prudence which he exercised in the composure of this epistle, and in maintaining the truth which he dealt with the Hebrews about. And what an eminent character this also is of this Epistle we shall endeavour, God assisting, to evince in our Exposition of it. His special understanding in all the mysteries of the Old Testament, that wrapped up the truth in great darkness and obscurity, unfolding things hidden from the foundation of the world; his application of them, with various testimonies and arguments, unto the mystery of "God manifested in the flesh;" his various intertextures of reasonings and exhortations throughout his Epistle; his condescension to the capacity, prejudices, and affections, of them to whom he wrote, urging them constantly with their own principles and concessions,—do, among many other things, manifest the singular wisdom which Peter signifies to have been used in this work.
(4.) It may also be observed, that whereas Peter affirms that among the things about which Paul wrote there were τινὰ δυσνόητα, "some things hard to be understood," Paul in a special manner confesseth that some of the things which he was to treat of in that Epistle were δυσερμήνευτα, "hard to be declared," uttered, or unfolded, and therefore certainly "hard to be understood," chap. 5:11; which in our progress we shall manifest to be spoken not without great and urgent cause, and that in many instances, especially that directed unto by himself concerning Melchizedek. So that this also gives another characteristical note of the epistle testified unto by Peter.
I have insisted the longer upon this testimony, because, in my judgment, it is sufficient of itself to determine this controversy; nothing of any importance being by any that I can meet withal excepted unto it. But because we want not other confirmations of our assertion, and those also every one of them singly outbalancing the conjectures that are advanced against it, we shall subjoin them also in their order.
25. The comparing of this Epistle with the others of the same apostle gives further evidence unto our assertion. I suppose it will be confessed, that they only are competent judges of this argument who are well exercised and conversant in his writings. Unto their judgment, therefore, alone in it do we appeal. Now, the similitude between this and other epistles of Paul is threefold:—(1.) In words, phrases, and manner of expression. Of this sort many instances may be given, and such a coincidence of phrase manifested in them as is not usually to be observed between the writings that have various or diverse authors. But this I shall not particularly insist upon, partly because it hath already been done by others at large, and partly because they will all of them be observed in our Exposition itself; nor doth it suit our present design to enter into a debate about particular words and expressions. Nor do I assign any more force unto this observation, but only that it is sufficient to manifest the weakness of the exceptions urged by some to prove it none of his, from the use of some few words not elsewhere used by him, or not in that sense which here they are applied unto; for their instances are not in number comparable with the other. And to evidence the vanity of that part of their objection which concerns the peculiar use of some words in this Epistle, it is enough to observe that one word, ὑπόστασις, being three times used in this one Epistle, it hath in each place a peculiar and diverse signification. (2.) There is also a coincidence of matter or doctrines delivered in this and the other epistles of Paul. Neither shall I much press this consideration: for neither was he in any epistle restrained unto what he had elsewhere delivered, nor bound to avoid the mentioning of it if occasion did require; nor were other penmen of the Holy Ghost limited not to treat of what he had taught, no more than the evangelists were from writing the same story. But yet neither is this observation destitute of all efficacy to contribute strength unto our assertion, considering that there were some doctrines which Paul did in a peculiar manner insist upon; a vein whereof a diligent observer may find running through this and all his other epistles. But, (3.) That which under this head I would press, is the consideration of the spirit, genius, πάθος, and manner of writing proceeding from them, peculiar to this apostle in all his epistles. Many things are required to enable any one to judge aright of this intimation. He must, as Bernard speaks, drink of Paul's spirit, or be made partaker of the same Spirit with him, in his measure, who would understand his writings. Without this Spirit and his saving light, they are all obscure, intricate, sapless, unsavoury; while unto them in whom he is, they are all sweet, gracious, in some measure open, plain, and powerful. A great and constant exercise unto an acquaintance with his frame of spirit in writing is also necessary hereunto. Unless a man have contracted as it were a familiarity, by a constant conversation with him, no critical skill in words or phrases will render him a competent judge in this matter. This enabled Caesar to determine aright concerning any writings of Cicero. And he that is so acquainted with this apostle will be able to discern his spirit, as Austin says his mother Monica did divine revelations, "nescio quo sapore,"—by an inexpressible spiritual savour. Experience also of the power and efficacy of his writings is hereunto required. He whose heart is cast into the mould of the doctrine by him delivered will receive quick impressions, from his spirit exerting itself, in any of his writings. He that is thus prepared will find that heavenliness and perspicuity in unfolding the deepest evangelical mysteries; that peculiar exaltation of Jesus Christ, in his person, office, and work; that spiritual persuasiveness; that transcendent manner of arguing and reasoning; that wise insinuation and pathetical pressing of well-grounded exhortations; that love, tenderness, and affection to the souls of men; that zeal for God and authority in teaching, which enliven and adorn all his other epistles,—to shine in this in an eminent manner, from the beginning to the end of it. And this consideration, whatever may be the apprehensions of others concerning it, is that which gives me satisfaction, above all that are pleaded in this cause, in ascribing this Epistle to Paul.
26. The testimony of the first churches, of whose testimony any record is yet remaining, with a successive suffrage of the most knowing persons of following ages, may also be pleaded in this cause. Setting aside that limitation of this testimony, as to some in the Latin church, which, with the grounds and occasions of it, we have already granted and declared, this witness will be acknowledged to be catholic as to all other churches in the world. A learned man of late hath reckoned up and reported the words of above thirty of the Greek fathers and fifty of the Latin reporting this primitive tradition. I shall not trouble the reader with a catalogue of their names, nor the repetition of their words; and that because the whole of what in general we assert as to the eastern church is acknowledged. Amongst them was this Epistle first made public, as they had far more advantages of discovering the truth in this matter of fact than any in the Roman church, or that elsewhere followed them in after ages, could have. Neither had they any thing but the conviction and evidence of truth itself to induce them to embrace this persuasion. And he that shall consider the condition of the first churches under persecution, and what difficulties they met withal in communicating those apostolical writings which were delivered unto any of them, with that special obstruction unto the spreading of this unto the Hebrews of which we have already discoursed, cannot rationally otherwise conceive of it but as an eminent fruit of the good providence of God, that it should so soon receive so public an attestation from the first churches as it evidently appears to have done.
27. The Epistle itself several ways discovers its author. Some of them we shall briefly recount:—
(1.) The general argument and scope of it declares it to be Paul's. Hereof there are two parts:—[1.] The exaltation of the person, office, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the excellency of the gospel and the worship therein commanded, revealed by him. [2.] A discovery of the nature, use, and expiration of Mosaical institutions, their present unprofitableness, and ceasing of their obligation unto obedience. The former part we may grant to have been equally the design of all the apostles, though we find it in a peculiar way insisted on in the writings of Paul; the latter was his special work and business. This, partly ex instituto, partly occasionally, from the opposition of the Jews, was he engaged in the promotion of, all the world over. The apostles of the Circumcision, according to the wisdom given them, and suitably to the nature of their work, did more accommodate themselves to the prejudicate opinion of the Jewish professors; and the rest of the apostles had little occasion to deal with them or others on this subject. Paul in an eminent manner in this work bare the burden of that day. Having well settled all other churches which were troubled in this controversy by some of the Jews, he at last treats with themselves directly in this Epistle, giving an account of what he had elsewhere preached and taught to this purpose, and the grounds that he proceeded upon; and this not without great success, as the burying of the Judaical controversy not long after doth manifest.
(2.) The method of his procedure is the same with that of his other epistles, which also was peculiar unto him. Now, this in most of them, yea, in all of them not regulated by some particular occasions, is first to lay down the doctrinal mysteries of the gospel, vindicating them from oppositions and exceptions, and then to descend to exhortations unto obedience deduced from them, with an enumeration of such special moral duties as those unto whom he wrote stood in need to be minded of. This is the general method of his Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and the most of the rest. And this also is observed in this Epistle. Only, whereas he had a special respect unto the apostasy of some of the Hebrews, occasioned by the persecution which then began to grow high against them, whatever argument or testimony in his passage gave him advantage to press an exhortation unto constancy, and to deter them from backsliding, he lays hold upon it, and diverts into practical inferences unto that purpose, before he comes to his general exhortations towards the end of the Epistle. Excepting this occasional difference, the method of this is the same with that used in the other epistles of Paul, and which was peculiarly his own.
(3.) His way of argument in this and his other epistles is the same. Now this, as we shall see, is sublime and mystical, accommodated rather to the spiritual reason of believers than the artificial rules of philosophers. That he should more abound with testimonies and quotations out of the scriptures of the Old Testament in this than other epistles, as he doth, the matter whereof he treats and the persons to whom he wrote did necessarily require.
(4.) Many things in this Epistle evidently manifest that he who wrote it was not only "mighty in the Scriptures," but also exceedingly well versed and skilful in the customs, practices, opinions, traditions, expositions and applications of Scripture, then received in the Judaical church, as we shall fully manifest in our progress. Now, who in those days, among the disciples of Christ, could this be but Paul? for as he was brought up under one of the best and most famous of their masters in those days, and "profited in the knowledge" of their then present religion "above his equals," so for want of this kind of learning, the Jews esteemed the chief of the other apostles, Peter and John, to be idiots and unlearned.
(5.) Sundry particulars towards and in the close of the Epistle openly proclaim Paul to have been the writer of it; as,—[1.] The mention that he makes of his "bonds," and the "compassion" that the Hebrews showed towards him in his sufferings and whilst he was a prisoner, chap. 10:34. Now, as the "bonds" of Paul were afterwards famous at Rome, Phil. 1:13, so there was not any thing of greater notoriety, in reference to the church of God in those days, than those that he suffered in Judea, which he minds them of in this expression. With what earnest endeavours, what rage and tumult, the rulers and body of the people sought his destruction, how publicly and with what solemnity his cause was sundry times heard and debated, with the time of his imprisonment that ensued, are all declared in the Acts at large. Now, no man can imagine but that, whilst this great champion of their profession was so publicly pleading their cause, and exposed to so much danger and hazard thereby, all the believers of those parts were exceedingly solicitous about his condition (as they had been about Peter's in the like case), and gave him all the assistance and encouragement that they were able. This "compassion" of theirs, and his own "bonds," as an evidence of his faith and their mutual love in the gospel, he now minds them of. Of no other person but Paul have we any ground to conjecture that this might be spoken. And yet the suffering and compassion here mentioned seem not to have been "things done in a corner." So that this one circumstance is able, of itself, to enervate all the exceptions that are made use of against his being esteemed the author of this Epistle. [2.] The mention of Paul's dear and constant companion Timothy is of the same importance, chap. 13:23. That Timothy was at Rome with Paul in his bonds is expressly asserted, Phil. 1:13, 14, 2:19–24. That he himself was also cast into prison with Paul is here intimated, his release being expressed. Now, surely it is scarcely credible that any other should, in Italy, where Paul then was, and newly released out of prison, write unto the churches of the Hebrews, and therein make mention of his own bonds and the bonds of Timothy, a man unknown unto them but by the means of Paul, and not once intimate any thing about his condition. The exceptions of some, as that Paul used to call Timothy his "son," whereas the writer of this Epistle calls him "brother" (when, indeed, he never terms him "son" when he speaks of him, but only when he wrote unto him), or that there might be another Timothy (when he speaks expressly of him who was so generally known to the churches of God as one of the chiefest evangelists), deserve not to be insisted on. And surely it is altogether incredible that this Timothy, the "son" of Paul, as to his begetting of him in the faith and continued paternal affection; his known, constant associate in doing and suffering for the gospel; his minister in attending of him, and constantly employed by him in the service of Christ and the churches; known unto them by his means; honoured by him with two epistles written unto him, and the association of his name with his own in the inscription of sundry others, —should now be so absent from him as to be adjoined unto another in his travail and ministry. [3.] The constant sign and token of Paul's epistles, which himself had publicly signified to be so, 2 Thess. 3:17, is subjoined unto this, "Grace be with you all." That originally this was written with Paul's own hand there is no ground to question; and it appears to be so, because it was written, and he affirms that it was his custom to subjoin that salutation with his own hand. Now, this writing of it with his own hand was an evidence unto them unto whom the original of the Epistle first came; unto those who had only transcribed copies of it, it could not be so. The salutation itself was their token, being peculiar to Paul, and among the rest annexed to this Epistle. And all these circumstances will yet receive some further enforcement from the consideration of the time wherein this Epistle was written, whereof in the next place we shall treat.
——————
THE progress of discussion on the interesting question in Biblical literature with which the preceding Exercitation is occupied, would form matter of a very long historical excursion. It must suffice for our purpose to indicate its principal outlines; referring, for our authorities and sources of information, to the introductory dissertations of Hallet, Tholuck, and Stuart, together with Davidson's "Introduction to the New Testament," and Forster's work on "The Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the
There are three leading opinions entertained in regard to the authorship of the Epistle:—I. Some ascribe it to other authors than Paul; II. Some ascribe it directly and exclusively to Paul; III. Some ascribe it to Paul in concert or conjunction with another author, and this other author is held to be,—1. according to some, Apollos; and 2. according to others, Luke.
I. In the first class six different names are mentioned as the authors of the Epistle:—1. CLEMENT of Rome, in the judgment of Erasmus and Patrick Young; 2. TERTULLIAN, according to Sixtus Senensis; 3. BARNABAS, according to Tertullian, Schmidt, Cameron, Twesten, Ullman, Wieseler; 4. LUKE, according to Origen, S. Crell, Grotius, and Koehler; 5. SILAS, according to Mynster and Boehme; and, 6. APOLLOS, according to Luther, Le Clerc, L. Müller, Heumann, Semler, Ziegler, Dindorf, Schott, Bleek, Feilmoser, De Wette, Credner, Röth, Reuss, Olshausen, and Tholuck.
In regard to all these views, it may be observed in general,—first, That none of them, if we exclude the opinions of Tertullian and Origen, rests on a respectable historical basis; secondly, That even in the case of Origen, his assertion cannot be taken as directly and absolutely ascribing the authorship of the Epistle to any but Paul; thirdly, That their very contrariety and multitude imply the uncertainty of the evidence adduced in their favour; fourthly, That they are mostly dependent on internal evidence, and that, with the exception of one or two of them, this evidence is vague and slender; and fifthly, The opinion that Apollos was the author, which, of all the six, has the greatest weight and number of suffrages, is supported chiefly by the argument, that the Epistle, from its typical explanation of the Jewish ritual, has an Alexandrine hue and colouring, and that it resembles the writings of Philo. In reply, first, it has been proved that typical interpretation prevailed in Palestine as well as Alexandria; secondly, Paul, in an epistle undoubtedly his,—the Epistle to the Galatians,—deals with the principle of allegory, upon which the idea of alleged resemblance to Philo is founded; and thirdly, on the same inconclusive grounds, part of the Gospel of John has been ascribed to a Philonian origin.
II. The evidence that PAUL was the author is both external and internal. The external evidence is as follows:—
1. In the Western church, from the fourth century, this view was held by Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, Chromatius, Innocent of Rome, Paulinus, Cassian, Prosper, Eucherius, Salvian, and Gelasius.
2. In the Alexandrine church, by Pantaenus, Origen, Dionysius, Theognostus, Peter, Alexander, Hierax, Athanasius, Theophilus, Serapion, Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria.
3. In the Greek church, the synod at Antioch A.D. 264, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the council of Nice A.D. 315, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil the Great, the council of Laodicea A.D. 360, Gregory of Nyssa, Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, assign it to the same author.
4. In the Syrian church the same opinion generally prevailed, as appears from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jacob of Nisibis, Ephraim Syrus.
5. In the African church, the council of Hippo A.D. 393, the third council of Carthage A.D. 397, and the sixth council of Carthage A.D. 419, decide in favour of the same view.
The internal evidence has reference to,—
1. Particular facts mentioned in the Epistle:—(1.) chap. 13:23; (2.) chap. 13:18, 19; (3.) chap. 10:34 (but the true reading, τοῖς δεσμίοις, not τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, destroys the inference founded on this expression); (4.) chap. 13:24. These facts, the first as indicating friendly relations to Timothy, the second as accordant with Paul's mode of giving such promises elsewhere, and the last as marking a locality where Paul was for a time under restraint, have a Pauline complexion.
2. The general plan of the Epistle, as doctrinal and practical, and concluded with requests for an interest in the prayers of those to whom it was written.
3. Doctrinal contents:—(1.) On Christ's person. Compare chap. 1:3, with 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6. (2.) On Christ's work as mediator:—the office of mediator, chap. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24; 1 Tim. 2:5;—his humiliation, chap. 2:9, 12:2, 3; Phil. 2:8;—his death, chap. 9:26, 28, 10:12; Rom. 6:9, 10;— results of his death, chap. 2:14; 1 Cor. 15:54, 55; 2 Tim. 1:10;—his resurrection and exaltation, chap. 9:26, 28, 7:26, 4:14; Rom. 6:9, 10; Eph. 4:10;—his intercession, chap. 7:25; Rom. 8:34;—his session and reign at the right hand of God, chap. 1:3, 10:12, 2:8, 9:28; 1 Cor. 15:25; Tit. 2:13; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8. (3.) Blessings and privileges of believers;—access to the Father, chap. 10:19, 20; Eph. 2:18; Rom. 5:2;—Pauline triad of faith, hope, and love, chap. 10:22–24; 1 Cor. 13:13;—importance of faith, chap. 2:1–4, 10:38, 11:39; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6–14. (4.) These truths, as entering into the essence of the gospel, may not so clearly establish the identity of the writer as certain special topics, which Moses Stuart sums up thus:— superior light under the gospel, chap. 1:1, 2, 2:1–4, 8:8–11, 10:1, 11:39, 40; Gal. 4:1–9; 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:11–13;—superior motives to virtue and religion, chap. 2:9, 9:14, 12:18–24, 28, 8:6–12; Gal. 3:23, 4:1–3; Rom. 8:15, 17; 1 Cor. 7:19;—superior efficacy of the gospel in promoting the happiness of mankind, chap. 12:18–24, 9:9, 10:4, 11, 9:11–14, 5:9, 6:18, 2:14, 15, 7:25, 9:24; Gal. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:7–9; Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:20, 4:24, 25; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:1, 2;—the Jewish dispensation was a type of the Christian, chap. 9:9–14, 10:1; Col. 2:16, 17; 1 Cor. 10:1–6, 11; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45–47; 2 Cor. 3:13–18; Gal. 4:22–31;—while the Christian dispensation is to be perpetual, the Jewish institutes are abolished, chap. 8:6–8, 10:1–14; 2 Cor. 3:11, 13; Rom. 4:14–16; Gal. 3:21–25, 4:1–7.
4. The tenor of the practical exhortations at the close of the Epistle, as harmonizing with what appears at the end of other epistles, chap. 12:3; Gal. 6:9; 2 Thess. 3:13; Eph. 3:13;—chap. 12:14; Rom. 12:18;—chap. 13:1– 4; Eph. 5:2–5;—chap. 13:16; Phil. 4:18.
5. The mode of quotation from the Old Testament scriptures:—(1.) Without notice of quotation, chap. 3:2, 5, 10:37, 11:21; Rom. 9:7, 21, 10:6–8, 11:34. (2.) In the way of argumentum ad hominem, or ex concessis, chap. 7, 8:1–5, 9:1–9; Gal. 4:24; 1 Cor. 9:9, 10:2; Eph. 5:31, 32. (3.) In reference to the abolition of the Jewish economy, the writer of the Epistle speaks in the same way as Paul generally does.
6. Similarity of phrase and style; such as,—(1.) Identical and synonymous expressions, chap. 1:3; Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:17, etc. (2.) Words in the Septuagint or Apocrypha occurring only in Paul's epistles, and that to the Hebrews; such as, ἀγών, ἀδόκιμος, αἱρέομαι, ἄκακος, εὐάρεστος, ὑπόστασις, φράττω, etc. (3.) Word's occurring only in Paul's epistles, and that to the Hebrews: αἰδώς ὀρέγομαι, παρακοή, πηλίκος, etc. (4.) Words, in the manner or frequency of their occurrence, peculiar to Paul's epistles, and that to the Hebrews: ἁγιασμός, βεβαιόω, γυμνάζω, μέμφομαι, σκιά, etc. (5.) Peculiarities of grammatical construction, chap. 7: ὁ λαὸς ἐπʼ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο, Rom. 3:2, 6:17, 1 Tim. 1:11, the nominative being made the subject, instead of νενομοθέτητο λαῷ. (6.) An adjective used to express a generic quality, instead of a noun, chap. 6:17, 12:13, 21; Rom. 1:19, 2:4, 3:1, 7:3, 9:22. (7.) The use of paronomasia, so common with Paul, chap. 7:12, 13, 9:16, 8:13. (8.) The habit of sudden digression: chap. 3:2, going off at the word house; chap. 12:18–29, at the words voice, speaketh, shook; chap. 12:5, at the word chastening; 2 Cor. 2:14, 3:1; Eph. 4:8–10.
In evidence against the Pauline origin of the Epistle, it is customary to refer to,—
1. Patristic authority: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Caius, Marcion, Cyprian, and the fathers of the Western church, to the middle of the fourth century.
2. The ignorance of Jewish rites betrayed by the writer of the Epistle, Heb. 9:1–5; an objection which, if true, impeaches the inspiration of the Epistle; but not to be admitted as true, and capable of satisfactory refutation.
3. The difference from the other epistolary productions of the apostle, in the want of a title and inscription.
4. The language employed in Heb. 2:3; which is alleged to imply that the writer, along with the Hebrews to whom he wrote, had received the gospel from the apostles, and not, as Paul affirms of himself elsewhere, directly from Christ: an argument sufficiently met by the consideration, that to a certain extent the fact holds true of Paul, and that it is not uncommon for a writer to use language as if he were in the same position and circumstances with those whom he addresses, when there is substantial identity between them in privilege and responsibility. And,—
5. The sustained elevation of thought and superior purity of the Greek, for which the Epistle is remarkable. Considering, however, that it is mostly a calm exegesis of the meaning of typical institutions, designed to illustrate the transcendent dignity of the Founder of the Christian dispensation, the calmness of its tone and the elevation of the sentiments expressed in it are sufficiently explained; while, both in regard to this feature of the composition and the purity of the diction, it does not excel passages eminent for rhetorical power and skill in the acknowledged writings of the apostle: Rom. 8; 1 Cor. 13.
On a review of all the evidence, it seems established,—that the authorship of the Epistle, on no valid grounds, external or internal, can be traced to any but Paul; that nearly all the direct external evidence is in favour of the same conclusion; and that while there are one or two difficulties in regard to the internal evidence, the preponderance of it leads to the belief that Paul was the author, while even these difficulties are not absolutely incompatible with this belief.
III. The only remaining theory is, that Paul wrote the Epistle in concert with some other disciple as his assistant; so that while the sentiments are Paul's, the modification of the language may be due to the assistance of which he availed himself in the composition of it.
1. Some take this assistant to have been APOLLOS. "If it be considered," says Olshausen, "that there was always a certain distance of demeanour between the apostle Paul and the Jewish Christians, even the best of them, it will be very easy to understand why Paul did not write to them himself; and still it must have been his heart's desire to exhibit clearly and in suitable detail his views in regard to the law, and its relation to Christianity. What more obvious mode of presenting these to the Hebrews than through the medium of a disciple or faithful friend, who, like Apollos, had a correct apprehension of this relation between the old and new covenant?"
2. Others regard LUKE as the assistant whose services were employed. That the composition is not Paul's Dr Davidson argues, because "the tone is elevated, rhetorical, calm, unlike the fiery force of Paul's manner. There is polish, care, elegance.—No trace of the apostle's characteristic manner appears. Besides, would it not be anomalous, that the apostle himself should adopt a purer Greek and higher style of writing in an Epistle addressed to the Jewish Christians in Palestine?—We are thus brought to the position that it did not receive its present form from Paul. It is better Greek than his.—The style and diction of the Epistle resemble Luke's in the Acts more nearly than any other part of the New Testament. The likeness between the style of our Epistle and that of Luke's writings is by no means such as to show identity of authorship. The reasons are strong for maintaining that Paul was the author, and that Luke did not translate it from one language to another. Yet this does not militate against the notion that Luke had a part in putting the thoughts and words of Paul into their present form. What was the nature of the service he rendered, it is impossible to discover."
This theory was proposed by Origen, on the ground, to use his own words, that "the Epistle is purer Greek in the texture of its style." "I would say," he adds, "that the sentiments are the apostle's, but the language and the composition belong to some one who committed to writing what the apostle said, and as it were reduced to commentaries the things spoken by his master."
Serious objections impede the reception of this theory:—1. It leaves altogether undefined the relation between Paul and his supposed assistant, the functions neither of amanuensis, nor reporter, nor translator, nor editor, serving to account for the peculiarity of diction which has led to the suggestion of the theory. 2. It proves too much; for the qualities specified as indicating the difference between this Epistle and the known writings of Paul relate to idiosyncrasies of character in thought and feeling, which foreign aid in the mere composition of the Epistle cannot explain. If Luke so little interfered with the tenor of the thinking that his services did not even involve translation, what he did for it could not account for the sustained calmness of the discussion, and the absence of that fiery vividness of conception and appeal which are conceived to be the "nodus" rendering Luke necessary as the only "vindex" capable of resolving it. If Luke did for the Epistle what is esteemed a service adequate to explain its special phenomena, he is entitled to the full honours of its literary parentage. 3. This view supposes the possibility of separating thought from language, ascribing the former to one author and the latter to another, in a way which creates a difficulty greater than that to meet which the theory is invented. 4. There is no greater anomaly in supposing that Paul himself polished his own sentences more carefully in writing to the Hebrew Christians, than in the supposition that he employed another to do it. And, lastly, is difference of style, the only real and valid ground on which adventitious help is claimed for the apostle in the preparation of this inspired document, a sufficient reason to be very anxious in pressing such a theory? In common literature, very remarkable differences in the style of the same author in different works might be mentioned. Paul wrote the Epistle, it is believed, at an advanced period of his course, and after he had mingled for years with multitudes who spoke the language in the utmost purity of that age; and with the advantage of leisure for the composition of the Epistle, his mind rising to a kindred and congenial elevation with the theme of which he treats,—the surpassing glories of his Lord and Saviour, —and borrowing a hue of peculiar solemnity from his own anticipated doom as a martyr for the truth, he might infuse a tone of dignity into his very language enough to vindicate the Epistle as implicitly and entirely his own.
