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. iii. 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.

SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION II.

BY THE EDITOR.

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 Hebrews."

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 Pantænus, 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 Cæsarea, 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. xiii. 23; (2.) chap. xiii. 18, 19; (3.) chap. x. 34 (but the true reading, rois deopios, not rois derμoïs mov, destroys the inference founded on this expression); (4.) chap. xiii. 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. i. 3, with 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15; Phil. ii. 6. (2.) On Christ's work as mediator: the office of mediator, chap. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 5;—his humiliation, chap. ii. 9, xii. 2, 3; Phil. ii. 8;—his death, chap. ix. 26, 28, x. 12; Rom. vi. 9, 10;-results of his death, chap. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55; 2 Tim. i. 10;-his resurrection and exaltation, chap. ix. 26, 28, vii. 26, iv. 14; Rom. vi. 9, 10; Eph. iv. 10;—his intercession, chap. vii. 25; Rom. viii. 34;--his session and reign at the right hand of God, chap. i. 3, x. 12, ii. 8, ix. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 25; Tit. ii. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. (3.) Blessings and privileges of believers;access to the Father, chap. x. 19, 20; Eph. ii. 18; Rom. v. 2;-Pauline triad of faith, hope, and love, chap. x. 22-24; 1 Cor. xiii. 13;—importance of faith, chap. ii. 1-4, x. 38, xi. 39; Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 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. i. 1, 2, ii. 1–4, viii. 8–11, x. 1, xi. 39, 40; Gal. iv. 1-9; 1 Cor. xiv. 20; Eph. iv. 11-13;superior motives to virtue and religion, chap. ii. 9, ix. 14, xii. 18-24, 28, viii. 6–12; Gal. iii. 23, iv. 1-3; Rom. viii. 15, 17; 1 Cor. vii. 19;-superior efficacy of the gospel in promoting the happiness of mankind, chap. xii. 18-24, ix. 9, x. 4, 11, ix. 11–14, v. 9, vi. 18, ii. 14, 15, vii. 25, ix. 24; Gal. iii. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 7–9; Gal. iii. 11; Rom. iii. 20, iv. 24, 25; Eph. i. 7; Rom. v. 1, 2;-the Jewish dispensation was a type

of the Christian, chap. ix. 9-14, x. 1; Col. ii. 16, 17; 1 Cor. x. 1-6, 11; Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 45-47; 2 Cor. iii. 13-18; Gal. iv. 22-31;—while the Christian dispensation is to be perpetual, the Jewish institutes are abolished, chap. viii. 6-8, x. 1-14; 2 Cor. iii. 11, 13; Rom. iv, 14-16; Gal. iii. 21-25, iv. 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. xii. 3; Gal. vi. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 13; Eph. iii. 13;-chap. xii. 14; Rom. xii. 18;-chap. xiii. 1-4; Eph. v. 2-5;-chap. xiii. 16; Phil. iv. 18.

5. The mode of quotation from the Old Testament scriptures:-(1.) Without notice of quotation, chap. iii. 2, 5, x. 37, xi. 21; Rom. ix. 7, 21, x. 6-8, xi. 34. (2.) In the way of argumentum ad hominem, or ex concessis, chap. vii., viii. 1-5, ix. 1-9; Gal. iv. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 9, x. 2; Eph. v. 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. i. 3; Col. i. 15; Phil. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 17, etc. (2.) Words in the Septuagint or Apocrypha occurring only in Paul's epistles, and that to the Hebrews; such as, εἰγών, αδόκιμος, 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. vii. : ὁ λαὸς ἐπ' αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο, Rom. iii. 2, vi. 17, 1 Tim. i. 11, the nominative being made the subject, instead of vevoμobiTnToday. (6.) An adjective used to express a generic quality, instead of a noun, chap. vi. 17, xii. 13, 21; Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, iii. 1, vii. 3, ix. 22. (7.) The use of paronomasia, so common with Paul, chap. vii. 12, 13, ix. 16, viii. 13. (8.) The habit of sudden digression: chap. iii. 2, going off at the word house; chap. xii. 18-29, at the words voice, speaketh, shook; chap. xii. 5, at the word chastening; 2 Cor. ii. 14, iii. 1; Eph. iv. 8-10.

In evidence against the Pauline origin of the Epistle, it is customary to refer to,1. Patristic authority: Irenæus, 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. ix. 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. ii. 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. viii.; 1 Cor. xiii.

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. 66 "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 dis

cover.

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.

EXERCITATION III.

THE TIME [AND OCCASION] OF THE WRITING OF THIS EPISTLE

TO THE HEBREWS.

1. The time of the writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews-The use of the right stating thereof. 2. After his release out of prison-Before the death of James -Before the Second [Epistle] of Peter. 3. The time of Paul's coming to Rome. 4. The condition of the affairs of the Jews at that time. 5. The martyrdom of James. 6. By whom reported. 7. State of the churches of the Hebrews. 8. Constant in the observation of Mosaical institutions. 9. Warned to leave Jerusalem. 10. That warning what, and how given-Causes of their unwillingness so to do. 11. The occasion and success of this Epistle.

1. THAT was not amiss observed of old by Chrysostom, Præfat. in Com. ad Epist. ad Rom., that a due observation of the time and season wherein the epistles of Paul were written doth give great light into the understanding of many passages in them. This Baronius, ad an. 55, n. 42, well confirms by an instance of their mistake who suppose the shipwreck of Paul at Melita, Acts xxvii., to have been that mentioned by him, 2 Cor. xi. 25, when he was "a night and a day in the deep," that epistle being written some years before his sailing towards Rome. And we may well apply this observation to this Epistle unto the Hebrews. A discovery of the time and season wherein it was written will both free us from sundry mistakes and also give us some light into the occasion and design of it. This, therefore, we shall now inquire into.

2. Some general intimations we have, in the Epistle itself, leading us towards this discovery, and somewhat may be gathered from some other places of Scripture; for antiquity will afford us little or no help herein. After Paul's being brought a prisoner to Rome, Acts xxviii., "two whole years" he continued in that condition, verse 30; at least so long he continued under restraint, though "in his own hired house." This time was expired before the writing of this Epistle; for he was not only absent from Rome, in some other part of Italy, when he wrote it, Heb. xiii. 24, but also so far at liberty, and sui juris, as that he had entertained a resolution of going into the east as soon as Timothy should come unto him, ver. 23. And it seems likewise to be written before the martyrdom of James at Jerusalem, in that he affirms that the church of the Hebrews had "not yet resisted unto blood,” chap. xii. 4; it being very probable that together with him many others were slain. Many great difficulties they had been exercised withal; but as yet the matter was not come to "blood," which shortly after it arrived unto. That is certain, also, that it was not only written, but communicated unto, and well known by, all the believing Jews before the writing of the second Epistle of Peter; who therein makes mention of it, as we have declared. Much light,