6 AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 65
Trypho the Jew, Odris torw 6 xark chy chk Meayicedix Bucireds Baru, nal aidvios iepeds dxpiorov dxdépywy». Wlsewhere he calls Christ, aidvoy rod @eod fepta xa) Bucirtn, zah Xporoy wtrrovra yiverbas, and Apolog. i. p. 95, he says of Christ, Ka) dyyeros 33 narsiras xa) axbororos. Nowhere but in the Epistle to the Hebrews do we find such epithets applied to Christ as a “priest after the order of Melchizedek,” the “ king of Salem,” an “ eternal priest,” ‘angel and apostle.” And, 4. The Epistle to the Hebrews is contained in the Pusuiro, or old Syriac version, which is ascribed to the second century. ‘“ When we consider,” says Davidson, “that the Peshito wanted séveral epistles which were not generally received as authentic so soon as the other books, the fact in question forms an important part of the early evidence favourable to our Kpistle’s canonical reputation.”
It must further be borne in mind, that those who discredit the Pauline authorship of the Epistle are not necessarily to be held as impugning its canonicity. Olshausen and Tholuck are decided in maintaining the latter, although both, with Luther, suppose Apollos to have been the author of the Epistle. Olshausen maintains its canonical authority,—1. Because we cannot, except on the supposition that Paul had an essen- tial share in the composition of it, explain the remarkable circumstance, that the entire oriental church attributed it to Paul; 2. Because, though the style is not that of Paul, the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, not to be mistaken, to the writings which are acknowledged to be his; and, 8. Because, on this supposition, all the circumstances in regard to the Epistle are explained, the western church knowing that Paul was not its author, and therefore not using it much, though not rejecting it, the eastern recognising the essential influence he exerted over its composition, though the truths contained in it were presented through the medium of a faithful disciple like Apollos,
/ EXERCITATION II. OF THE PENMAN OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
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 ac- tually 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 Ter- tullian. 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 idsarns +o Acyo. 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 zveriypagos. 16. Answer of Jerome rejected; 17. Of Theo- doret; 18. Of Chrysostom—Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul not the cause of the forbearance [t.¢., 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 He- brews; not mere apostolical authority. 20, Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle answered—Other exceptions from the Epistle itself re- moved. 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it—Testimony of St Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 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— Asaozopeé, what. 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote—That,
VOL. XVIII. 5
66 AUTHOR OF THE [ EXERC. IL
this Epistle; not that to the Galatians; not one lost. 23. The “ long-suffering of God,” how deélared to be “ salvation” in this Epistle. 24. The wisdom ascribed unto St Paul in the writing of this Epistle, wherein it appears— The dvovenre 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 itsel{—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. TuE 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, un- Jess we shall suppose, with some of the Jews, that it was written by Moses after his death! Divers of the psalms have their penmen con- cealed, 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 isnot 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 con- demned 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 vil, 14-17; Jer. xxii. 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 par- ticular, the prophets themselves were subject to mistakes. So was Samuel, when he thought Eliab should have been the Lord’s anointed, 1 Sam. xvi. 6; and Nathan, when he approved the purpose of David to build the temple, 1 Chron. xvii. 2; and the great Elijah