15. Secondly, It is excepted that the Epistle is dveriypapos, the name of Paul being not prefixed unto it, as it is, say some, unto all the epistles written by him. And this, indeed, is the womb wherein all other objections have been conceived; for this being once taken notice of, and admitted as an objection, the rest were but fruits of men’s needless diligence to give countenance unto it. And this exception is ancient, and that which alone some of old took any notice of; for it is considered by Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysos- tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Gicumenius, and generally by all that have spoken any thing about the writer of this Epistle. Nor doth the strength that it hath lie merely in this, that it is without inserip- tion, for so is the Epistle of St John, concerning which it was never doubted but that he was the author of it, but m the constant usage of Paul, prefixing his name unto all his other epistles; so that unless a just reason can be given why he should divert from that custom in the writing of this, it may be well supposed to be none of his.
Now, by the title which is wanting, either the mere tetular super- scription, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,” is in-
SECT. 14-17.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 79
tended, or the inscription of his name, with an apostolical saluta- tion conjoined, in the Epistle itself. For the first, it is uncertain of what antiquity the titular superscriptions of any of the epistles are, but most certain that they did not originally belong unto them, and are therefore destitute of all authority. They are things the transcribers, 11 may be, have at pleasure made bold withal, as with the subscription also of some of them, as to the place from whence they were sent, and the persons by whom. Though this, therefore, should be wanting unto this Epistle, as there is some variety both in ancient copies of the original and translations about it, the most owning and retaining it, yet it would be of no moment, seeing we know not whence or from whom any of them are. The objection, then, is taken from the want of the wonted apostolical salutation, which should be in and a part of the Epistle. And this is the substance of what on this account is excepted against our assertion.
16. Various answers have been given to this objection, some of them of no more validity than itself. Jerome replies, “It hath no man’s name prefixed; therefore we may by as good reason say, it was written by no man, as not by Paul;’”—which instance, though it be approved by Beza, with other learned men, and not sufficiently answered by Erasmus with a contrary instance, yet indeed it is of no value; for being written, it must be written by somebody, though not perhaps by St Paul. Some have thought that it may be the inscription inquired after was at first prefixed, but by some means or other hath been Jost. But as there are very many arguments and evidences to evince the weakness of this imagination, so the beginning and entrance of the Epistle is such as is incapable of any contexture with such a salutation as that used in other Hpistles, as is also that of St John; so that this conjecture can here have no place.
17. Some of the ancients, and principally Theodoret, insist upon. the peculiar allotment of his work unto him among the Gentiles. Paul was the apostle of the Gentilesin an especial manner; and if, in writing unto the Hebrews, he had prefixed his name unto his Epistle, he might have seemed to transgress the line of his allot- ment. And if it be not certain that the apostles, by common con- sent, cast their work into distinct portions, which they peculiarly at- tended unto, as the ancients generally concur that they did (and there was not reason wanting why they should do so), yet it is [certain] that there was a special convention and agreement between James, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, that they should attend the ministry of the Circumcision, and these of the Gentiles. Hence Paul, finding it necessary for him to write unto the Hebrews, would not prefix his name with an apostolical
80 AUTHOR OF THE | EXERC. II.
salutation unto his Epistle, that he might not seem to have invaded the province of others, or transgressed the line of his allotment. But I must acknowledge, that, notwithstanding the weight laid upon it by Theodoret and some others, this reason seems not unto me cogent unto the end for which it is produced: for,—(1.) The com- mission given by the Lord Christ unto his apostles was catholic, and had no bounds but that of the whole creation of God capable of instruction, Matt. xxvii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; and that commission which was given unto them all in general was given unto every one in particular, and made him in solidwm possessor of all the right and authority conveyed by it. Neither could any following arbz- trary agreement, pitched on for convenience and the facilitating of their work, abridge any of them from exerting their authority and exercising their duty towards any of the sons of men, as occasion did require. And hence it is, that notwithstanding the agreement men- tioned, we find St Peter teaching the Gentiles, and St Paul labour- ing for the conversion of the Jews. (2.) In writing this Epistle, on this supposition, St Paul did indeed that which is pretended was not meet for him to do,—namely, he entered on that which was the charge of another man; only he conceals his name, that he might not appear in doing of a thing unwarrantable and unjustifiable! And whether it be meet to ascribe this unto the apostle is easy to determine. As, then, it is certain that St Paul, in the writing of this Epistle, did nothing but what in duty he ought to do, and what the authority given him by Christ extended itself unto; so the con- cealing of his name, lest he should be thought to have done any thing irregularly, is a thing that, without much temerity, may not be imputed unto him.