One of which is the testimony of St. Peter: 2 epist. ch. iii. 15, 16. This I have omitted, because I am not satisfied that he and the author of this epistle write to the same persons. Nor does it appear certain to me, that St. Peter there takes any particular notice of this epistle as one of Paul's. However as many learned men look upon that passage of St. Peter, as a full testimony to Paul's being the writer of this epistle, I shall refer to several, or transcribe below, a part at least of what they say: particularly Mill, Spanheim, and Basnage.

b

с

d

The other argument omitted by me is that taken from Heb. x. 34. "For ye had compassion of me in my bonds." On this insist Spanheim, 'Mill. and Basnage, to prove that this epistle was written by Paul. But Mr. James Pierce translates the words thus: "For ye sympathized with those who were in bonds." And in his notes says: Were it certain, that the common is the true reading of the place, there would be little room left to doubt of the epistle's being written by St. Paul. But the Alexandrian, and other manuscripts, of the best note, read here • δεσμίοις instead of δεσμοις με. And the same is confirmed by ancient versions.' And that this is the truer reading, may be seen in Bengelius, Wetstein, and Mill himself: though in his argument concerning the author of the epistle, he has been pleased to argue from the common reading. If Paul here referred to his bonds, I should think he intended his imprisonment in Judea, as Mill thought, not at Rome, as Basnage does, in the place just cited. I make no doubt but that the Hebrew believers in Judea afforded St. Paul relief and comfort, whilst he lay prisoner at Cæsarea. But as I do not here discern any plain reference to that, I do not form any argument com this text, in behalf of the writer of the epistle.

I say no more by way of argument. But there are objections, which ought to be considered. 1. Obj. Heb. ii. 3, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first egan to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?

Hence it has been argued, that the writer of this epistle placeth himself with those who had received the doctrine of the gospel from Christ's apostles. But Paul had it from Christ himself, as he says at large in the first chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. This has been thought by Grotius and Le Clerc, a good reason why Paul should not be esteemed the writer of this epistle.

h

To which I answer, that it is not uncommon for Paul to join himself with those to whom he is writing, and to say us, where he might say you: especially, when he says any thing that is humbling, and that might be thought disagreeable. So Col. i. 12, 13. “ Giving thanks to the Father, who has delivered us from the power of darkness.' This I take to be a plain instance. To which might be added, according to the judgment of some commentators, Eph. ii. 3. and Tit. iii. 3. The note of Grotius upon this last cited text may be observed. And now I

a Says Mr. Hallet, Introduction, p. 21. Some learned men have attempted to prove this point from what St. Peter says, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. If it could be proved, that he speaks of the epistle to the Hebrews, the testimony of this apostle would fully determine the dispute. But as I do not think, it can be certainly proved, that he speaks of this epistle, without proving that St. Paul was the author of it, I cannot argue from this passage. Those on the other side go upon the supposition, that St. Peter's epistles were written to the < Hebrews, or Jews. But it seems to me abundantly more < natural to suppose, that they were written to Gentile Christians, if we consider many passages of the epistles them'selves.'

Et quidem epistolam hanc eam ipsam fuisse, quam ad Hebræos Christianos miserat Apostolus noster, disertis verbis D. Petri constat. Ep. 2. cap. iii. 15, &c. Mil. Proleg. num. 86-91.

Vid. Spanhem. Diss. de Auct. ep. ad Hebr. Part. 1. cap. ii.——v.

d Hebræis Paulum scripsisse, planum est ex posteriore Petri; Paulus pro sibi datâ sapientiâ scripsit vobis.', Hebræos enim adibat scripto Petrus circumcisionis apostolus. Quænam autem Pauli ad Hebræos scripta epistola, si nostra non est ?

-Ipsa igitur est, quæ omnium in manibus versatur atque oculis. Basn. ann. 61. num. iv.

• Prima esto circumstantia vinculorum illa mentio. Capite x. ver. 34. -Constat enim, soli Paulo, et fere semper,

venisse hoc in usu. Et quas omnes ex Italià transmisit epistolas, vinculorum suorum mentione quasi distinxit. Spanh. ib. P. II. cap. 4.

f Auctorem habet hæc epistola,' si qua usquam alia, D. Paulum. Alloquitur Auctor Hebræos istos, velut ipsius in carcere memores, ejusque vinculis ovμrabyoartas. Ista Apostolo nostro congruere, nemo non videt. Hierosolyma ipse duos ante annos eleemosynas ecclesiarum detulerat, ubi ab universâ illic ecclesiâ benigne exceptus erat, toto tempore, quo Cæsarea mansit incarceratus. Mill. Prol. num. 85.

8 A manu catenatâ epistolam in Italiâ exaratam fuisse, cernimus et videmus: vinculis meis mecum affecti fuistis.' Barnabam vero aut Lucam compedibus in Italiâ fuisse detentos, veterum in monimentis ne minimâ quidem literâ invenimus. Basnag. Ann. 61. n. iv.

h Præterea Paulo hanc epistolam abjudicat, quod hujus scriptor se iis annumeret, qui non a Christo, sed ab ejus discipulis, notitiam evangelii acceperit. cap. ii. 3. Cum contra Paulus auctoritatem sibi addat inde, quod hanc notitiam a Christo ipso acceperit. Grot. Pr. in ep. ad Hebr.

i Videtur et scriptor epistolæ ad Hebræos cap. ii. 3. &c. eorum numero censeri velle, qui evangelium acceperant ab iis, a quibus auditus erat ipse Christus.Quod in Paulum non quadrat, qui evangelium ab ipso Jesu Christo et Deo accepisse se non falso gloriatur. Gal. i. Cleric. H. E. A. D. 69. p. 459.

transcribe below the answer of Mr. Wetstein to this objection: which is in the main agreeable to what I have just said.

I would also observe, that there is another instance in this epistle, much resembling the text, upon which the present objection is founded. Heb. xii. 1.-"Wherefore let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which does so easily beset us." -And this way of writing is suitable to Paul's style and method in his acknowledged epistles.

Secondly, I would farther add, if it might not be esteemed too prolix, that in divers other places we find Paul, when he asserts the resurrection of Jesus Christ, insisting also upon the testimony of the other apostles, and likewise of other disciples. Thus, preaching at Antioch in Pisidia, Acts xiii. 30, 31." But God raised him from the dead. And he was seen many days of them, which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people." And also 1 Cor. xv. at the beginning: which I shall recite largely, as full to the point. "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you. For I delivered unto you first of all, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me."

And this context, perhaps, will justify me in proceeding somewhat farther. When St. Paul says, 2 Tim, ii. 8, "Remember, that Jesus Christ- -was raised from the dead, according to my gospel" he intends, as I apprehend, to lead Timothy to recollect the gospel, that had been preached by him in such and such circumstances, confirmed by miracles wrought by him, and agreeable to the prophecies of the ancient scriptures, and the testimony of the other apostles, and disciples of Christ. As he also says, at ver. 2. of the same chapter," The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses :" literally, "by many witnesses:" that is, confirmed by many witnesses. And he may be supposed to intend not only the prophets, which is Grotius's interpretation, but likewise the testimony of all the apostles of Christ, and of many others, to which he had appealed in his preaching.

b

Upon the whole, it seems to me, that the expression of this text is highly becoming the apostle Paul, especially, supposing him to be here writing to the believers of Jerusalem and Judea. And indeed, as before shewn, the beginning of this second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews affords, in my opinion, an argument of no small force, that they are the Christians to whom it is

sent.

2. Obj. Another objection against this epistle being St. Paul's is, that it is supposed to have in it an elegance superior to that of his other writings. This has been judged by Grotius, and Le Clerc, who were formerly quoted, sufficient to shew, that it was not written by Paul.

In order to judge the better of this, it may be of use to recollect what we have already seen in divers ancient writers, relating to this point.

e

Eusebius has a passage of Clement of Alexandria, from his institutions, at large cited by us formerly where Clement says, That the epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke having carefully translated it, published it for the use of the Greeks. Which is the reason of that conformity of style, which ⚫ is found in this epistle, and the Acts of the apostles.'

f

The opinion of Origen in his homilies upon this epistle as cited by Eusebius, and by us from him, is, That the style of the epistle to the Hebrews has not the apostle's rudeness of

a Hebr. ii. 3. Paulus se iis annumerat, qui notitiam evangelii a discipulis Christi acceperunt; cum tamen ad Galatas non semel testetur, glorieturque, se non ab hominibus, sed ab ipso Christo fuisse institutum, Gal. i. 1, 12, 17. ch. ii. 6. Ratio discriminis ex modo dictis manifesta est. In epistola ad Galatas id agit, ut auctoritatem suam adstruat; hic autem, ubi de supplicio desertoribus impendente loquitur, ut minus ingrata esset comminatio atque admonitio, seipsum illis annumerat, comm. 1. Δεν ήμας προσέχειν τοις ακεσθείσιν, μη ποτε παραμένωμεν

TWS YμEIS EXCevoμela. Postquam igitur ita cœpisset, consequens erat, ut in eâdem figurâ pergeret, scriberetque στις σωτηρια εις ήμας επιβαιωθη. Ita Eph. ii. 3. Col. i. 12,

VOL. II.

'speech-but 'as to the texture of it, is elegant Greek, as every one will allow, who is able to 'judge of the differences of style.' Again, he says, 'The sentiments of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle. This will be assented to by every one who reads the writings of the apostle with attention.' Afterwards, he adds, If I was to speak my opinion, I should say, that the sentiments are the apostle's, but the language and composition another's, who committed to writing the apostle's sense, and as it were reduced into ⚫ commentaries the things spoken by his master.' And what follows.

Eusebius himself speaking of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, says, Paul having written to the Hebrews in their own language, some think that the evangelist Luke, others, that this very Clement, translated it into Greek. Which last is the most likely, there being a great resemblance between the style of the epistle of Clement, and the epistle to the Hebrews. Nor are the sentiments of those two writings very different.' This passage has been already twice quoted by us: once in the chapter of Clement' bishop of Rome, and again in that of Eusebius.

d

с

Philaster, bishop of Brescia, about 380, as formerly quoted, says, There are some, who do ⚫ not allow the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul's: but say, it is either an epistle of the apostle Barnabas, or of Clement bishop of Rome. But some say, it is an epistle of Luke the evangelist, Moreover, some reject it, as more eloquent than the apostle's other writings.' Jerom, about 392, in his article of St. Paul in the book of Illustrious Men, as before cited also, says, The epistle, called to the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, because of the difference of the argument and style: but either Barnabas's, as Tertullian thought, or the evangelist Luke's, according to some others; or Clement's, bishop of Rome: who, as some think, being • much with him, clothed and adorned Paul's sense in his own language.- -Moreover he wrote as a Hebrew to Hebrews in pure Hebrew, it being his own language. Whence it came to pass that being translated it has more elegance in the Greek, than his other epistles.'

I need not allege here any more testimonies relating to this matter. We sufficiently perceive by what has been said, that many ancient Christians supposed the Greek of this epistle to have a superior elegance to the received epistles of St. Paul. And to some of them the Greek was their native language. And others, as Jerom, though Latins, may be supposed to have been good judges in this matter.

f

Some learned men of late times, as Grotius and Le Clerc, have thought this to be an insuperable objection. Of this opinion likewise was Jacob Tollius: who in his notes upon Longinus, of the sublime, has celebrated the sublimity of this epistle, and particularly the elegance of the beginning of it. Which alone he thinks sufficient to show, that it is not Paul's. Others allow the fine contexture of the style of this epistle; but do not see that consequence. These are obliged to account for it: which they do several ways.

Mr. Wetstein, who allows, that the epistle is St. Paul's, and that it was written in Greek, thinks, that Paul having now lived two years at Rome, may have improved his Greek style. But in answer to that it may be said, that we have several epistles of Paul, written near the end of his imprisonment at Rome, in which we perceive his usual style.

h

Again, Mr. Wetstein adds, That this is a learned epistle, and may have been composed with more care and exactness than letters written to friends, or to churches, whose urgent ⚫ necessities obliged him to write in haste.' But neither will this, I believe, be sufficient to account for the difference of style in this, and the epistles received as Paul's. For no care and

attention will on a sudden enable a man to alter his usual style, in a remarkable manner. It remains therefore, as seems to me, that if the epistle be Paul's, and was originally written

syllabâ post singulas remanente, velut ad subsistendum, dum ita in cœlum ad Deum velut gradibus scriptor adscendit. J. Tollius ad Longin. de Sublim. sect. 39. not. 22.

f Potuit Paulus aliter scribere, cum esset in Græciâ, aliter postea, cum in Italiam translatus ex usu frequentiori linguæ Græcæ, et Hebraismos vitare, et facilius scribere didicisset. Wetst. N. T. tom. II. p. 385.

Potuit hanc epistolam, quæ erudita est, longiori meditatione elaborâsse, cum alias ad familiares amicos, vel ad ecclesias, ubi necessitas urgebat, festinantius effudisset. Ibid..

in Greek, as we suppose, the apostle must have had some assistance in composing it. So that we are led to the judgment of Origen, which appears to be as ingenious, and probable as any. The sentiments are the apostle's, but the language and composition of some one else: who com⚫mitted to writing the apostle's sense, and as it were reduced into commentaries the things ⚫ spoken by his master.' According to this account, the epistle is St. Paul's, as to the thoughts and matter, but the words are another's. Jerom, as may be remembered, said, ' He wrote as a Hebrew to Hebrews in pure Hebrew, it being his own language. Whence it came to pass, that being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek, than his other epistles.' My conjecture, which is not very different, if I may be allowed to mention it, is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the apostle's sentiments in his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the apostle was, is altogether unknown.

a

b

The ancients, beside Paul, have mentioned Barnabas, Luke, and Clement, as writers, or translators of this epistle. But I do not know that there is any remarkable agreement between the style of the epistle to the Hebrews and the style of the epistle commonly ascribed to Barnabas. The style of Clement, in his epistle to the Corinthians, is verbose and prolix. St. Luke may have some words, which are in the epistle to the Hebrews. But that does not make out the same style. This epistle, as Origen said, as to the texture of the style is elegant Greek.' But that kind of texture appears not in Luke, so far as I can perceive. There may be more art and labour in the writings of Luke, than in those of the other evangelists: but not much elegance, that I can discern. This epistle to the Hebrews is bright and elegant from the beginning to the end. And surpasseth as much the style of St. Luke, as it does the style of St. Paul in his acknowledged epistles. In short this is an admirable epistle, but singular in sentiments and language: somewhat different in both respects from all the other writings in the New Testament. And whose is the language, as seems to me, is altogether unknown: whether that of Zenas, or Apollos, or some other of the apostle Paul's assistants, and fellow-labourers.

3. Obj. There still remains one objection more against this epistle being written by St. Paul; which is the want of his name. For to all the thirteen epistles, received as his, he prefixeth his name, and generally calleth himself apostle.

This objection has been obvious in all ages. And the omission has been differently accounted for by the ancients, who received this epistle as a genuine writing of St. Paul.

d

Clement of Alexandria, in his institutions, as cited by us & formerly from Eusebius, speaks to this purpose, The epistle to the Hebrews, he says, is Paul's. But he did not make use of that inscription, "Paul the apostle." Of which he assigns this reason. Writing to the Hebrews, who had conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious of him, he wisely declined "setting his name at the beginning, lest he should offend them. He also mentions this tradition: forasmuch as the Lord was sent as the apostle of Almighty God to the Hebrews, Paul out of • modesty does not style himself the apostle of the Hebrews: both out of respect to the Lord, and that being preacher and apostle of the Gentiles, he over and above wrote to the Hebrews.' Jerom also speaks to this purpose, That Paul might decline putting his name in the inscription, on account of the Hebrews being offended with him.' So in the article of St. Paul, in his book of Illustrious Men. In his commentary upon the beginning of the epistle to the Galatians, he assigns another reason, that Paul declined to style himself apostle at the begin'ning of the epistle to the Hebrews, because he should afterwards call Christ "the high priest, ⚫ and apostle of our profession." See ch. iii. 1.

Theodoret says, that Paul was especially the apostle of the Gentiles. For which he allegeth, Gal. ii. 9, and Rom. xi. 13. Therefore writing to the Hebrews, who were not entrusted to his

Et in epistolâ ad Hebræos propterea Paulum solitâ consuetudine nec nomen suum, nec Apostoli vocabulum præposuisse, quia de Christo erat dicturus: Habentes ergo principem Sacerdotum, et Apostolum confessionis, Jesum;' nec fuisse congruum, ut, ubi Christus Apostolus dicendus erat, ibi etiam Paulus Apostolus poneretur. In ep. ad Gal. cap. i. T. IV. p. 225. in.

8 Εβραιοις δε γράφων, ὧν εκ ενεχειρίσθη την επιμελείαν, γυμνην των αξιωμάτων εικοτως την διδασκαλίαν προσηνεγκεν υπο γαρ την των άλλων αποςόλων προμηθειαν ετελών. Theod. in Hebr. T. III. p. 392.

care, he barely delivered the doctrine of the gospel, without assuming any character of authority. For they were the charge of the other apostles.'

a

I need not quote any others; which would be only a repetition of the same, or like reasons. All these reasons may not be reckoned equally good. And, perhaps, none of them are sufficient and adequate to the purpose. But though we should not be able to assign a good reason, why Paul omitted his name; the epistle, nevertheless, may be his. For there may have been a good reason for it, though we are not able to find it out. It is the work of a masterly hand, who for some reason omitted his name. Paul might have a reason for such silence, as well as another.

Lightfoot' says, Paul's not affixing his name to this, as he had done to his other epistles, ⚫ does no more deny it to be his, than the first epistle of John is denied to be John's upon that

' account.'

с

Tillemont says, Possibly Paul considered it as a book, rather than a letter: since he 'makes an excuse for its brevity, ch. xiii. 22. For indeed it is short for a book, but long for a 'letter.' The same thought is in Estius. This may induce us to recollect an observation of Chrysostom to the like purpose, formerly taken notice of.

d

с

It is, I think, observable, that there is not at the beginning of this epistle any salutation. As there is no name of the writer, so neither is there any description of the people, to whom it is sent. It appears from the conclusion, that it was sent to some people in a certain place. And, undoubtedly, they to whom it was sent, and by whom it was received, knew very well, from whom it came. Nevertheless there might be reasons for omitting an inscription, and a salutation at the beginning. This might arise from the circumstances of things. There might be danger of offence in sending at that time a long letter to Jews in Judea. And this omission might be in part owing to a regard for the bearer, who too is not named. The only person named throughout the epistle is Timothy. Nor was he at that time present with the writer.

Indeed I imagine, that the two great objections against this being a genuine epistle of the apostle the elegance of the style, and the want of a name and inscription, are both owing to some particular circumstances of the writer, and the people to whom it was sent. The people, to whom it was sent, are plainly Jews in Judea; and the writer, very probably, is Paul. Whose circumstances at the breaking up of his confinement at Rome, and his setting out upon a new journey, might be attended with some peculiar embarassments; which obliged him to act differently from his usual method.

f

h

IV. Thus we are brought to the fourth and last part of our inquiry concerning this epistle, the time and place of writing it. Mill was of opinion, that this epistle was written by Paul in the year 63, in some part of Italy, soon after he had been released from his imprisonment at Rome. Mr. Wetstein appears to have been of the same opinion. Tillemont likewise placeth this epistle in the year 63, immediately after the apostle's being set at liberty; who, as he says, was still at Rome, or at least in Italy. Basnage speaks of this epistle at the year 61, and supposeth it to be written during the apostle's imprisonment. For he afterwards speaks of the epistle to the Ephesians, and says, it was the last letter, which the apostle wrote during the time of his bonds. Lenfant and Beausobre, in their general preface to St. Paul's epistles, observe, that' in the subscription at the end of the epistle it is said to have been written from Italy. only ground of which, as they add, is what is said, ch. xiii. 24. "They of Italy salute you.' • This has made some think, that the apostle wrote to the Hebrews, after he had been set at liberty, and when he was got into that part of Italy, which borders upon Sicily, and in ancient

k

The