duced ; the materials are arranged in the strictest order, and carefidly ^NToiight out according to this disposition, and conchision follows conclusion with the greatest reg- ularity; the language also is rotund and choice, and the representation unusually clear. All this is milike Paul" (Eichhorn, Einkit. iii, 450). This is a singular assertion to make respecting the author of the Epistle to the Eo- raans, a production characterized most enimently by these traits, excepting, perhaps, a less degree of calm- ness, which the special object of the present epistle may have more pecidiarly called for. (3.) " Whilst we occa- sionally meet Pauline termini, we find precisely in the leadiiir/ ideas of the epistle a terminology different from that of Paid" (Tholuck, i, 39, EngUsh transL). The in- stances specified by Tholuck are the use of itptvc, ttoi- fn)v, and ottootoXoc, as designations of Christ; of ofio- \oyia, which he says is confined to this epistle ; of ijyi- Z,tiv TijJ Btfp ; and of t(\hovv, with its derivatives in the sense in which it is used, Heb. vii, 19. Now, with regard to this objection, it may be obser%-ed, 1st, That supposing all the instances adduced by Tholuck to be imimpeachable, and supposing no reason could be as- signed why Paid should use such in writing to Hebrews, when he did not use them in writing to others, stiU the objection camiot have much weight with any person ac- customed to weigh evidence, because not only is the niunljer of Paidine termini found in this epistle far great- er than the number of termini which, according to Tho- luck, are '• foreign to the apostle to the Gentiles ;" but it is always less hkely that the pccuUar phrases of a writer should be borrowed by another, than that a y^-x'it- er noted for the use of peculiar words and phrases should, in a composition of a character somewhat different from his other productions, use terms not found elsewhere in his writings. But, 2dly, let us examine the instances adduced by Tholuck, and see whether they bear out his reasoning. '• Paul nowhere calls Qlwi^t priest.'' True; but tliough Paid, in wTiting to churches composed more or less of Gentile converts, whose previous ideas of priests and priestly rites were anything but favorable to their receiving under sacerdotal terms right notions of Christ and his work, never calls Christ a priest, is that any reason for our conclutling that in writmg to Jews, who had amongst them a priesthood of divine organiza- tion, and writing for the express purpose of showuig that that priesthood was typical of Christ, it is incon- ceivable that the apostle should have applied the term priest to Christ? To us the difficulty woidd rather seem to be to conceive how, in handling such a topic, he could avoid calling Christ a priest. " Paul nowhere calls Christ a shepherd and an apostle, as the writer of this epistle does." But the whole weight of this objection to the I'auline origin of this epistle must rest on the as- sumption that Paul never uses figurative appellations of Christ in his WTitings; for if he does, why not here as well as elsewhere? Now it could only be the grossest miaciiuaintedness with the apostle's writings that could lead any to affirm this. Tlie ver\' opposite tendency is characteristic of them. Thus we find Christ termed" ri- Xoc vojiov (I!om. x, 4), cic'ikovov ivipiTO^U]^ (xv, 8), to irnaxn iifiujv (1 Cor. v, 7), j) irirpa (,x, 4), dirapxt) (xv, 23), tic (hn'ip (2 Cor. xi, 2), aKpoyiuvialog (Eph. ii, 20), etc. Witli these instances before us, wliy should it be deemed so utteriy incredible that Paid could have called Christ dTToaroXoQ and ttoi/oji', that the occurrence of such terms in the epistle Ijefore us is to be held as a rea- son for adjudging it not to have been written by him? With regard to tlie use of o/toXoyin in the sense of re- liyious profession, the reailer may com])are the passages in wluch it occurs in this epistle with Horn, x, 9 ; 2 Cor. ix, 13 ; 1 Tim. vi, 12, and judge for himself how far such a usage is foreign to the apostle. The i)hrase iyyiZnv Tip Bii/j occiu-s once in this e])istle (vii. 19), and once in Jas. iv, 8; Paid also once uses the verb actively (Phil, ii, 30) ; and, on the other hand, the autlior of this epistle once uses it intransitively (x, 2o). As there is thus a perfect analogy in the usa;;e of the verb between the
two, why it should be supposed improbable that Paul shoidd use it in reference to God, or why a phrase used by James shoidd be deemed too Alexandrian to be used by Paid, we feel ourselves utterly at a loss to conceive. With regard to the use of TtXaoiiv, Tholuck himself contends (Appendix, ii, 297) that it everj'-where in this epistle retains the idea of completing ; but he cannot mi- derstand how Paid coidd have contemplated the work of redemption imder this term in this ejiistle, suice in no other of his epistles is it so used. This difficulty of the learned professor may, we think, be verj^ easily re- moved by remarking that it does not appear to have been Paul's design elsewhere, so fully at least as here, to represent the superiority of Christianity over Juda- ism, as that arises from the former being sufficient, whilst the latter was not sufficient to comjjlete men in a relig- ious point of view, i. e. to supply to them all they need, and advance them to all of which they are capable. That this is the theme of the wTiter, the passages in which the word in question occurs show ; and we see no reason why such an idea might not have occiured to Paul as well as to any other man. Arguments drawn from such special terms, moreover, must always be pre- carious when urged as objections, because they are not onl}^ indefinite, but are mostly negative in their charac- ter. A minute examination shows that they are not of much force in the present case ; for if the expressions re- ferred to do not occur in the same form in Paul's other epistles, yet similar pltrases imdoubtedly prevail, and the variation here is sufficiently accounted for by the different character and object of this epistle. See this and all the other questions connected with this epistle ani]ily re\"itwed by Dr. Davidson (fnirod. to the X. T. iii. lti:!-i".i."i), who, however, inclines to the opmion that these peculiarities indicate the co-operation of some oth- er hand with Paul in the composition of the epistle.