94 SUBSIDIARY NOTE.
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, 18-18 ; 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. jii, 11, 18; Rom. iv. 14-16; Gal. iii, 21-25, iv. 1-7.
4, The tenor of the practical exhortations at the close of the Bpistle, as harmonizing with what appears at the end of other epistles, chap. xii. 3; Gal. vi.9; 2 Thess.iii=43; Eph. iii. 18 ;—chap. xii, 14; Rom. xii. 18 ;—chap. xiii. 1-4; Eph. v. 25 ;—chap. xiii. = Phil. iv. 18.
The mode of quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures (1, ) Without notice of ae ution, chap. iii. 2, 5, x. 87, xi. 21; Rom, ix. 7, 21, x. 6-8, xi. 84. (2.) In the way of argumentum ad hominem, or Gaconenonik: chap. vii., viii. 1-5, ix. 1-9; Gal. iv. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 9, x. 2; Eph. v. 31, 82. (8.) In reference to the abolition of the Jewish eco- ” nomy, the writer of the Epistle speaks in the same way as Paul generally does.
6. Similar uly of phrase and style ; such as,—(1.) Identical and synonymous expres- sions, chap. i. 3; Col. i. 15; Phil. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 17, ete. (2.) Words in the Septuagint or Apocrypha occurring only in Paul’s epistles, and that to the Hebrews ; such ag, dydy, ddixieos, alpsouas, xaos, svapeores, drioramis, Pparra, ete. (8.) Word's oc- curring only in Paul's epistles, and that to the Hebrews: awidds dptyopeat, rapuxon, rnrixos, ete. (4.) Words, in the manner or frequency of their occurrence, peculiar to Paul’s epistles, and that to the Hebrews: dyimcuds, BeCasda, qoperdla, pbu@omect, oxide, ete. (5.) Peculiarities of grammatical construction, chap. vil: ¢ Awds tx’ adrh vevomobicnro, Rom. iii. 2, vi. 17, 1 ‘Tim. i. 11, the nominative being made the subject, instead of vvouobirnra rad. (6. ) 3 ci adjective used to express a generic quality, instead of a noun, chap. vi. 17, xii. 18, 21; Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, iii. 1, vii. 8, ix. 22. (7.) The use of paro- nomasia, so common with Paul, chap. vii. 12, 18, ix. 16, viii. 13. (8.) The habit of sud- den digression: chap. iii. 2, going off at the word house ; chaps 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: Trenseus, 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 objec tion which, if true, impeaches the inspiration of the Epistle; but not to be ad. mitted as true, and capi able of satisfactory refutation.
3. The difference from the other epistolary productions of the apostle, in the want of @ title and inscription.
4, The language employed in Heb. w%. 8; 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 suffi- ciently 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 mot excel pas- sages eminent for rhetorical power and skill in the acknowledged writings of the apostle: Rom. viii; 1 Cox, 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 fayour of the same conclusion; and that while there are one or two difficulties in regard to the internal evidence, the prepon- derance of it leads to the belief that Paul was the author, while even these difficulties are not absolutely incompatible with this belief.
UI. 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 ecompo- sition of it.
1. Some take this assistant to have been Arortos. “If it be considered,” says Olshausen, “ that there was always a certain distance of demeanour between the apostle
SUBSIDIARY NOTE. 95
Paul and the Jewish Christians, even the best of them, it will be very easy to under- stand 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 ?”’