SECT. XVI.

Of the internal marks or characters in the Epifle itself, from which an inference may be drawn, either in favour of or against the opinion, that St. Paul was the author.

appears, from the preceding Section, that our preevidence, because the accounts of ecclefiaftical writers on this fubject are very uncertain, and contradictory. Our only refource therefore is internal evidence: but this again leaves us in the fame ftate of uncertainty as the external. Lardner' has already ftated the arguments, which may be deduced from the contents of the Epiftle, either for or against the queftion, to which I refer the reader, that he may determine for himself. For my own part, I do not agree with Lardner in all the arguments, which he has produced: but as it would be tedious to enumerate and review them, I will confine myfelf at prefent to fuch remarks as have occurred to me in the ftudy of this Epistle.

In the first place I must repeat, what has been already afferted, that the Greek ftyle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews is fo very different from the ftyle of St. Paul, that he cannot poffibly have been the author of the Greek text. Whoever attempts, therefore, to fhew that St. Paul was the author, must first acknowledge that the Greek is only a tranflation, and that the original was Hebrew".

In Ch. xiii. 23. the author of this Epiftle fays, riverXETE του αδελφον Τιμόθεον απολελυμένον, μεθ' 8, εαν ταχια exnaι, ofquaι iμas. Here the name of Timothy, the ufual companion of St. Paul, with whom the author of

1 Supplement, Vol. II. p. 343.

this

On this head, my opinion is diametrically oppofite to that of Lardner.

this Epiftle proposes to vifit the Hebrews, immediately fuggefts the notion, that St. Paul was the author. Yet it affords no abfolute proof: for other perfons, befide St. Paul, may have formed the defign of travelling to Jerufalem in company with Timothy. Some commentators, indeed, tranflate aоλEAUμEVOV in this paffage by fent abroad on an errand'; and fay, that fcarcely any one can be thought of, befide St. Paul, who would have fent Timothy abroad upon any service of the Gofpel". But this mode of reafoning is fallacious. For aλUMEVOD fignifies merely gone away,' and by no means implies that Timothy was fent away by the author of this Epistle. This paffage, therefore, does not prove that it was written by St. Paul.

X.

If the common reading, ch. x. 34. xar yag тois decμois μs σvveralnoate, for ye had compaffion on my bonds,' συνεπαθησατε, be the genuine reading, it was well adapted to St. Paul as the author, who at Jerufalem fell into the captivity, which lafted fo many years: especially if we take into confideration ch. xiii. 18, 19. where the author defires the Hebrews to pray for him, that he may be the fooner restored to them. But the common reading at ch. 34. is fo very uncertain, that no argument can fafely be founded on it; for many good authorities, instead of τοις δεσμοις με, my bonds,' have rois deμios, the prifoners; which gives the paffage a very different fense; and I am wholly unable to determine, which of the two readings deferves the preference, till the queftion has been decided, who was the author of the Epiftle. It appears, indeed, from ch, xiii. 19. that the author had been forced away from the Hebrews, and that he wished to be restored to them. This is applicable to St. Paul, who had been taken prifoner at Jerufalem, and afterwards carried to Rome: but St, Paul is not the only perfon, to whom it is applicable, for other perfons might at the fame time have been in prifon for the fake of the Gospel. Befides, there is a real inconvenience attending the application of this paffage to St. Paul: for

See Lardner, p. 359.

the

1

the writer promises, ch. xiii. 23, a visit to the Hebrews, on the return of Timothy. This is a promife, which no one could make, who was ftill in prifon; and therefore I would tranflate ch. xiii. 19. ïve Taxtov aπonaτας αθω υμίν, that I may have a good and speedy journey to you.'

In fact, the two paffages, ch. xiii. 19. 23. in which the author expreffes an intention of vifiting the Hebrews, make it improbable that the author was St. Paul: for he would hardly have formed the refolution of going again to Jerufalem, immediately after he was released from his imprisonment in Rome. Not only, he had no vocation to Jerufalem, as Apoftle of the Gentiles, but it would have been contrary to his avowed principles, to preach the Gospel there, fince he exprefsly fays in Rom. xv. 20. that he ftrived to preach the Gospel, not where Chrift was named, left he fhould build on another man's foundation. It is true, that this is not the only motive, which might have induced him to go to Jerufalem, for he might have gone thither to carry alms for the poorer brethren in Judæa, as he had formerly done, when the Macedonians and Achæans con. tributed for that purpose. But this journey he could not well have undertaken immediately after his release, fince, before he could carry alms to Jerufalem, it was neceffary, that he fhould firft collect them. And it is a matter of doubt, whether this motive would really have induced him to expofe himfelf again in a place, where his life had been in danger; for he might furely have found a trufty perfon, by whom he might have fent the contributions, if any had been made. That St. Paul never fhrinked from danger, where the cause of Chriftianity was concerned, I readily grant: yet he had certainly too much good fenfe to expofe himself without neceffity, efpecially in a place, where the inhabitants were fo incenfed against him, that the commander of the Roman garrifon found it neceffary to give an escort of four hundred and feventy men, in

order

order to convey him fafely to Cæfarea. In fact, the cause of Chriftianity did not require, that he fhould go again to Jerufalem: and therefore the fufferings, which he might have endured in confequence of fuch a journey, could not have been called fufferings for the fake of Chrift. Befides, the journey would not only have been imprudent, but really improper: for St. Paul's prefence in Jerufalem would neceffarily have occafioned a tumult,, which every good citizen will avoid, out of regard to the ftate, of which he is a member. Lardner indeed afferts, that St. Paul, after his release in Rome, and the avowal of his innocence, might have fhewed himself without danger in Jerufalem. But this is certainly not true. For the band of defperate wretches, who had made a vow to murder him, would have paid no regard to the declaration, which the emperor had made of St. Paul's innocence: the Sicarii, of whom Jofephus fpeaks, were become extremely numerous in Jerufalem and the whole country of Palestine was already ripe for rebellion. Under these circumstances, I think, that a Roman court of justice, if intimation had been given at the time of St. Paul's acquital, that he intended to go again to Jerufalem, would have cautioned him against appearing in a place, where his prefence might excite fedition, and where the protection of his person would not only give trouble to the magiftrates, but might occafion the fhedding of blood.

Ch. vi. 3. και τότο ποιησομεν, εαύπερ επιτρεπη ο Θεός, implies, it is faid, that the author was under the peculiar guidance of God, and that he awaited God's immediate commands. Hence it is inferred, that the author was an Apoftle, which leads to the conclufion, that the author was St. Paul. But there is no neceffity for fuppofing, that the words, avreg Exirgery & eos, imply a fupernatural communication with the Deity, fince every man, infpired, or not infpired, may fay, This I will do, if God permit.' And, if they had really the

• Acts xxiii. 23-33.

fenfe,

fenfe, which has been ascribed to them, ftill they would not apply to St. Paul alone: for Barnabas, to whom Tertullian affigns the Epiftle, might have written in

this manner.

Ch. x. 33. Dearg CoμEVO is an expreffion perfectly agreeable to St. Paul's mode of writing, as appears from 1 Cor. iv. 9.: but fince other writers may likewife have used the fame metaphor, the application of it in the prefent inftance fhews only, that St. Paul might have written the Epiftle to the Hebrews, not that he really did write it.

Ch. x. 30. εμοι εκδικησις, εγω ανταποδώσω is a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35. which differs both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint: and this paffage is again quoted in the very fame words, in Rom. xii. 19. This agreement in a reading, which has hitherto been discovered in no other place, might form a prefumptive argument, that both quotations were made by the fame perfon, and confequently, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul. But the argument is not decifive: for it is very poffible, that in the first century there were manufcripts of the Septuagint with this reading in Deut. xxxii. 35. from which St. Paul might have copied in Rom. xii. 19. and the tranflator of this Epiftle, in Heb. x. 30.

Laftly, the Epiftle to the Hebrews is doctrinal in the former part, as far as ch. x. 19. and the remaining part is exhortatory. This is agreeable to St. Paul's manner. Likewife the doctrines themselves, and the literature displayed in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, are in every fenfe worthy of St. Paul. But on the other hand, in the mode of treating the fame fubject, there is a vifible difference between the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul's Epiftles. In the former the matter is dilated, in the latter compreffed in the one the arguments are drawn out at full length, and are eafier to be understood, in the other they are fo contracted,

See the New Orient. Bibl, Vol. V. p. 23236.