From the uncertainty of these conjectures, with the evidence of reason and circumstances whereby they are disproved, two things we seem to have obtained ;—first, That no objection on their ac- count can arise against our assertion; and, secondly, That if St Paul be not acknowledged to be the writer of this Epistle, the whole church of God is, and ever was, at a total loss whom to ascribe it unto. And it may reasonably be expected that the weakness of these conjectures should, if not add unto, yet set off the credibility of the reasons and testimonies which shall be produced in the assignment of it unto him.
1 Eras. Annot. in cap. xiji- 2? Sixtus Senen. Biblioth. lib. vii. cap, viii. © Tertul. Proof. ad Heer.
SECT. 8, 9.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 73
9. The objections that are laid by some against our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul, according unto the order proposed, are nextly to be considered. These I shall pass through with what brief- ness I can, so as not to be wanting unto the defensative designed.
First, Dissimiliiude of style, and manner of writing, from that used by St Paul in his other epistles, is pressed in the first place, and principally insisted on; and indeed it is the whole of what, with any colour of reason, is made use of in this cause. This the ancients ad- mitted. The elegance, propriety of speech, and sometimes loftiness, that occur in this Epistle, difference it, as they say, from those of St Paul's writing. Aoxe? wiv odx chivas Tladaov dice roy yapanriipa, saith C&icumenius ;—“ It seems not to be St Paul’s, because of the style or character of speech.” For this cause Clemens of Alexandria sup- posed it to be written in Hebrew, and to be translated into Greek by St Luke the evangelist; the style of it, as he says, being like unto that which is used in the Acts of the Apostles;” and yet that is ac- knowledged by all to be purely Greek, whereas this is accused to be full of Hebraisms! So little weight is to be laid on these critical cen- sures, wherein learned men perpetually contradict one another.
Origen also confesseth that it hath not in its character rd jd:mwrimiv év A6yw, the “idiotism,” or propriety of the language of St Paul, who acknowledgeth himself to be id:mrns r@ Adyw, 2 Cor. xi. 6, “rude in speech:” and this Epistle is, saith he, év cuvdéoer rig AéZews ‘EAAN- vixorepa, “in the composition of its speech elegantly Greek,’ in comparison of his; which, if we may believe him, any one will discern who can judge between the difference of styles.’ And Jerome: “Seripserat autem ad Hebreeos Hebraice, id est suo eloquio disser- tissime; ut ea que eloquenter scripta fuerant in Hebreo eloquentius verterentur in Greecum; et hanc causam esse quod a ceteris Pauli epistolis discrepare videatur ;’—“It seems to differ from the rest of St Paul’s epistles because of its translation out of Hebrew ;”* wherein he speaks not with his wonted confidence. And elsewhere he says that the style of this Epistle seems to be like that of Clemens. Erasmus presseth this objection. “ Restat,” saith he, “jam argumentum illud quo non aliud certius, stylus ipse et orationis character, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum phrasi Paulina;”—-“ The style and character of speech have no affinity with the bite aae of St Paul.”® This considera- | tion also drew Calvin into the same opinion; and it is insisted on by” Cameron and Grotius to the same purpose. The sum of this objection is, that St Paul was “rude in speech, ” which is manifest in his other epistles; but the style of this is pure, elegant, florid, such as hath no affinity with his: so that he cannot be esteemed the penman of it.
- 1 Gcumen. Pref. in Epist. ad Heb. ® Clemens in Iypotyp. 3 Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap. xxv. 4 Hieron. Cat. Scrip. in Paul. 5 Eras. Annot. in cap.
xiii. 24,
74 AUTHOR OF THE [EXERC. IL
10. As this objection was taken notice of by them of old, and the matter of it admitted as true, so because they constantly adhered to the assignation of it unto St Paul, they gave sundry answers unto it. Origen gives us his judgment, that the sense and subject-matter of this Epistle were from St Paul, which are excellent, and no way inferior to those of the same apostle in any other epistles, as every one exer- cised in the reading of his epistles will grant; but the structure and phrase of it he supposeth to have been the work of some other, who, taking the dictates of his master, from thence composed this Epistle. But this answer can by no means be admitted of, nor accommodated unto any writing given by divine inspiration: for not only the mat- ter but the very words of they writings were suggested unto his penmen by the Holy Ghost (that the whole might have no influence from human frailty or fallibility) ; which alone renders the authority of their writings sacred and divine. But this intimation would re- solve the truth in this Epistle into the care and diligence of him that took the sense of St Paul, and thence composed it; wherein he was
_liable to mistakes, unless we shall vainly suppose that he also was inspired. Wherefore they who admitted of this objection generally gave the answer unto it before intimated, namely, that the Hpistle was originally written in Hebrew by St Paul, and translated by some other into the Greek language. So Cicumenius; Tod wey ovy AKA Oa Tov yYupunThpa THs EmioToAIs Pavepd 4 airias mpos yap ‘EG pasoug rh Opa Oiarexrw ypapelow Vorepov wedepunvevdjvenr Aeyeross—* The cause of the alteration or difference of style in this Epistle is manifest; for it is said to be written unto the Hebrews in their own language, and to be afterwards translated.” Jerome and Clemens also incline to this opinion and answer: and Theophylact, though, followimg Theo- doret,' he egregiously confutes them who deny St Paul to be the author of this Epistle, from the excellency, efficacy, and irrefragable power and authority wherewith it is accompanied, yet admits of this objection, and answers, with others, that it was translated by St Luke or Clemens. Only Chrysostom,’ who indeed is rorrdv dcvrd&s¢ érhAwy, Without taking notice of the pretended dissimilitude of style, ascribes it directly to St Paul. But to this answer incline generally the divines of the Roman church, as Catharinus,® Bellarminus,* Ba- ronius,’ Cornelius a Lapide,’ Canus,’ Mattheus Galenus,* Ludovicus Tena,’ and others without number; though it be rejected by Estius,” and some others among themselves. What is to be thought of it, we shall afterwards consider in a dissertation designed unto that purpose. Tor the present, we affirm that it is no way needful as an