Page images
PDF
EPUB

be reckoned, as they shew, that the matter of it was familiar to them, though it is not their custom to quote formally. The force of this argument is best seen by looking into Lardner's Credibility, &c. There, in the account of each Father, it is easily found what Scriptures he quotes, or alludes to. And in his Supplement, the opinions of the Fathers with regard to each Epistle may be found collected. The Epistle to the Hebrews is quoted by Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem; and with particular attention by Origen. We may add the authority of the Councils of Laodicea (in 364, or about that time,) and Carthage (in 397, the third.)-These authorities do not go lower than the fourth century:-but such as are later are useful in shewing, that all disputes were at an end. However, I will only mention Theodoret, who told the Arians, that they ought to respect this Epistle, as one which had been read as early as the Apostolic writings.These witnesses seem sufficient. A student, who chose to attend particularly to this subject, might read that part of Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, which is about this Epistle in particular.

22. As the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous, we cannot perhaps be properly said to provė its genuineness; but we may prove, that it is written by an Apostle; which is all we have in view, in proving

deed at the same time call Christ a Son, but still the opposition strikes me nor does any thing come near obviating it but the supposition, that Barnabas might originally have the same ideas with St. Paul. See Lard. Works, vol. II, p. 20.

• Theodoret begins his Preface to Hebr. with saying, that the Arians endeavoured to lessen its authority; but I have omitted making an exact reference to the passage, from which this was taken. I may find it hereafter.

Lardner's Works, vol. VI, p. 381-415.

proving any Epistle to be genuine.
We will now
therefore offer some reasons for concluding, that
it is written by St. Paul. Grotius and Le Clerc
are of a different opinion; but, though they are
learned men, we find ourselves obliged to differ
from them sometimes.

Compare Heb. v. 12. with 1 Cor. iii. 2.-Heb.

xii. 3. with Gal. vi. 9.-Heb. xiii. 16. with Phil.

iv. 18. And compare conclusions.-Christ is called

Mediator in the Epistle to the Hebrews three times,

and twice in the Epistles always ascribed to St.

Paul, and no where else in Scripture.-St. Paul

makes use of allusions to the public Games; and

such allusions are found in the Epistle to the He-

brewsb

2 Pet. iii. 15, 16, is often used to prove, that

Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. The argu-

ment takes for granted the authority of the second

Epistle of Peter, but that is proved independently.

The reasoning I take to be this: Peter writes to

the same persons, that Paul had addressed in some

Epistle of a singular nature: so strictly singular, that

it might be contradistinguished to the rest of St.

Paul's Epistles: or, what seems still stronger, to

"all his Epistles," (ver. 16); now, how can this

be solved so well, as by making the Epistle to the

Hebrews to be one class, and the rest of his Epis-

tles another?-Lardner will not use this passage,

because he supposes Paul to write to Jewish con-

verts in Judea, and Peter to converts in general.

But, on this supposition, Peter and Paul would ad-

dress some of the same converts:-and it seems

quite clear, from ver. 15, that they did write to

some of the same persons, whoever they were.—

The

The "things hard to be understood," seem to be in the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians particularly; and the "as also" does seem to me to make one class of what went before, and another of what follows: and I cannot divide the writings of Paul so well into two classes, as by supposing the Epistle to the Hebrews singly to make one of them.

In Heb. xiii. 23. Timothy is spoken of in a manner like that of St. Paul;-and one can scarce conceive any person besides St. Paul to speak of him. in such a manner.-Such is the internal evidence, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul's: we may add as much external almost as we please.

This Epistle is ascribed to St. Paul by many of the ancients; whose names may be seen in Lardnerd and in Bishop Gibson's third Pastoral Letter. All those, who reckon fourteen Epistles of Paul, ascribe that to the Hebrews to him. Origen intended a proof, that Paul wrote it; whether he executed his intention or not, it shews his opinion: but Lardner thinks he did execute it;-in his Homilies.

23. Here we may rest our direct proof, though other arguments are to be found-The indirect proof, in the present question, is very considerable: that is to say, answering objections opens the subject farther, and confirms our reasoning.

Obj. 1. If this Epistle had such good evidence for it as is here said, why was it not at first better received in the Christian world? In answer, we might first apply what has been said about the controverted pieces in general. And we may add, it was the less readily received on account of its being

d Lard vol. VI, p. 391, &c.

• See Lard. Works, vol. II, p. 472.

f Lard. Works, vol. II, p. 478.

Richardson's Canon, p. 40, and p. 41; note.

being anonymous. If you ask, why then was it anonymous? you swerve from the present business.It seems to have been received wherever it was known, till writings grew too numerous. In the Eastern Church, that is, in its own country, or near it, there does not seem to have been any doubt about it. At one time, it had not reached the Western Church, or not all parts of it; but afterwards it did reach them all. The high things it contains concerning the Son of God, have made many depreciate it.-The Latins would probably think it too Rabbinical for them.-And certain severe passages relating to Apostacy, would deter some men, and make them wish to avoid it and keep clear of it, whether the Novatians had any concern in the affair, or not.

Obj. 2. If Paul was the author, why did he not put his name?-He might have good reasons unknown to us; and it would have been absurd for him to assign reasons why he did not own himself to be the author; that would have been owning himself to be so, in other words.-Then he was the Apostle of the Gentiles; and the Jews were much prejudiced against him: perhaps as an Apostate. He wrote indeed to converts; but Christian converts could retain Jewish prejudices; -his reasoning with them shews, that he was obliged to turn their own arms against them, which is a sort of hostile treatment.-In this Epistle, he lowers the value of Judaism, making it only introductory and temporary; whereas many, even Christians, wanted to make it perpetual.

Obj. 3. If this Epistle was so well attested, how could some early Fathers be ignorant of St. Paul's being the Author? we reply ;-Irenæus might not know

a See Gibson; 3d Past. Letter.

Acts xxi. 21, 28. Gibson, as before.

know the author, but he knew of the Epistle, and has quoted it. He was Bishop of Lyons; perhaps the Epistle might be less perfectly known in France than in Judea, so soon as the time of Irenæus.Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas; but he also was a Latin Father: it was no bad compliment, however, to the composition to ascribe an Epistle of Paul, to his companion and fellow-preacher; to give it to one, who, if he was not an Apostle in the highest sense, was as near to one as possible.

с

But any one, who happened to look at the end of this Epistle, might say, no one must conclude that Irenæus, &c. did not know it because they were Latin Fathers; for the Epistle was written from Italy. Εγράφη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου. Suppose it was, when it once got into Judea, it might be as if it had been written in Judea.-But this subscription is of very doubtful authority". It might be occasioned by "they of Italy salute you, just before; but οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας might mean persons in Judea, or elsewhere, come hither from Italy. Then, it is not likely, that this Epistle was sent by Timothy; for the author says, he would come with Timothy, (Heb. xiii. 23.) if he came soon; sending implies separation; and, if Timothy

In the Alex. MS. it is, from Rome.

d Notwithstanding the little credit of this subscription, Lardner is of opinion, that the Epistle was written from Rome; and there is a great weight of learning on the side of its coming from Italy. See Lard. vol. VI, p. 413. I am not clear enough in the order of the incidents at present, to contend about the matter. I may however adhere to what I say first, that it might be unknown at Rome, though written from a prison there.Eusebius says, it was controverted, because not received by the Church at Rome.

* In Viger, 9. 1. 13. we have not only oi drò Tñs σToâs, for Stoics, but οἱ ἀπό τῆς Κελτικῆς for Gauls Galli.The word adeλpol, added in MS. Veles. is not well supported, else it would take off the force of this phrase.

« PreviousContinue »