Stuart (pp. 32—34), I shall merely refer to them. They can be examined
at leisure by those who are disposed, and though they do not prove that the
epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, yet they can be
best interpreted on that supposition, and a peculiar significancy would be at
tached to them on this supposition. They are the following: ch. i. 2; iv.
2; ii. 1—4; v. 12; iv. 4—6; x. 26-29. 32-34; xiii. 13, 14.
The ar-
gument of Lardner is, that these would be more applicable to their condition
than to others; a position which I think cannot be doubted. Some of them
are of so general character, indeed, as to be applicable to Christians elsewhere
and in regard to some of them it cannot be certainly demonstrated that the
state of things referred to existed in Judea, but taken together they would be
more applicable by far to them than to the circumstances of any others of
which we have knowledge; and this may be allowed to have some weight at
least in determining to whom the epistle was sent. (4.) The internal evi
dence of the epistle corresponds with the supposition that it was written to
the Hebrew Christians in Palestine. The passages referred to in the pre-
vious remarks (3) might be adduced here as proof. But there is other proof.
It might have been otherwise. There might be such strong internal proof
that an epistle was not addressed to a supposed people, as completely to neu-
tralize all the evidence derived from an inscription like that prefixed to this
epistle, and all the evidence derived from tradition. But it is not so here.
All the circumstances referred to in the epistle; the general strain of remark;
the argument; the allusions, are just such as would be likely to be found in
an epistle addressed to the Hebrew Chrisrians in Palestine, and such as would
not be likely to occur in an epistle addressed to any other place or people.
They are such as the following: (a.) The familiar acquaintance with the
Jewish institutions supposed by the writer to exist among those to whom it
was sent a familiarity hardly to be expected even of Jews who lived in other
countries. (b.) The danger so frequently adverted to of their relapsing into
their former state; of apostatizing from Christianity, and of embracing again
the Jewish rights and ceremonies-a danger that would exist nowhere else in
so great a degree as in Judea. Comp. ch. ii. 1-3; iii. 7-11. 15; iv. 1;
vi. 1-8; x. 26-35. (c.) The nature of the discussion in the epistle-not
turning upon the obligation of circumcision, and the distinction of meats and
drinks, which occupied so much of the attention of the apostles and early Chris-
tians in other places-but a discussion relating to the whole structure of the
Mosaic economy, the pre-eminence of Moses or Christ, the meaning of the
rites of the temple, &c. These great questions would be more likely to arise
in Judea than elsewhere, and it was important to discuss them fully, as it is
done in this epistle. In other places they would be of less interest, and would
excite less difficulty. (d.) The allusion to local places and events; to facts
in their history; and to the circumstances of public worship, which would be
better understood there than elsewhere. There are no allusions-or if there
are they are very brief and infrequent-to heathen customs, games, races, and
philosophical opinions, as there are often in the other epistles of the New Tes-
tament. Those to whom the epistle was sent, are presumed to have an inti-
mate and minute knowledge of the Hebrew history, and such a knowledge
as could be hardly supposed elsewhere. Comp. ch. xi., particularly vs. 32--
39. Thus it is implied that they so well understood the subjects referred to
relating to the Jewish rites, that it was not necessary that the writer should
specify them particularly. See ch. ix. 5. Of what other persons could this
be so appropriately said as of the dwellers in Palestine? (e.) The circum-
stances of trial and persecution so often referred to in the epistle, agree well

with the known condition of the church in Palestine. That is was subjected to great trials we know; and though this was extensively true of other churches, yet it is probable that there were more vexatious and grievous exactions; that there was more spite, and malice; that there were more of the trials arising from the separation of families and the losses of property attending a profession of Christianity in Palestine than elsewhere in the early Christian church. These considerations-though not so conclusive as to furnish absolute demonstration—go far to settle the question. They seem to me so strong as to preclude any reasonable doubt, and are such as the mind can repose on with a great degree of confidence in regard to the original destination of the epistle.

(3.) Was it addressed to a particular church in Palestine, or to the Hebrew Christians there in general?

Whether it was addressed to the churches in general in Palestine, or to some particular church there, it is now impossible to determine. Prof. Stuart inclines to the opinion that it was addressed to the church in Cesarea. The ancients in general supposed it was addressed to the church in Jerusalem. There are some local references in the epistle which look as though it was directed to some particular church. But the means of determining this question are put beyond our reach, and it is of little importance to settle the question. From the allusions to the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the whole train of peculiar institutions there, it would seem probable that it was directed to the church in Jerusalem. As that was the capital of the nation, and the centre of religious influence; and as there was a large and flourishing church there, this opinion would seem to have great probability; but it is impossible now to determine it. If we suppose that the author sent the epistle, in the first instance, to some local church, near the central seat of the great influence which he intended to reach by it—addressing to that church the particular communications in the last verses-we shall make a supposition which, so far as can now be ascertained, will accord with the truth in the case.

§ 3. The Author of the Epistle.

To those who are familiar with the investigations which have taken place in regard to this epistle, it need not be said that the question of its authorship has given rise to much discussion. The design of these Notes does not permit me to go at length into this inquiry. Those who are disposed to see the investigation pursued at length, and to see the objections to the Pauline origin examined in a most satisfactory manner, can find it done in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Prof. Stuart, pp. 77-260. All that my purpose requires is to state, in a very brief manner, the evidence on which it is ascribed to the apostle Paul. That evidence is, briefly, the following:

He

(1.) That derived from the church at Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, and that this was the opinion of Pantaenus, who was at the head of the celebrated Christian school at Alexandria, and who flourished about A. D. 180. Pantaenus lived near Palestine. must have been acquainted with the prevailing opinions on the subject, and his testimony must be regarded as proof that the epistle was regarded as Paul's by the churches in that region. Origen, also, of Alexandria, ascribes the epistle to Paul; though he says that the sentiments are those of Paul, but that the words and phrases belong to some one relating the apostle's sentiments, and as it were commenting on the words of his master. The testimony of the church at Alexandria was uniform after the time of Origen, that

it was the production of Paul. Indeed there seems never to have been any doubt in regard to it there, and from the commencement it was admitted as his production. The testimony of that church and school is particularly valuable, because (a) it was near to Palestine, where the epistle was probably sent; (b) Clement particularly had travelled much, and would be likely to understand the prevailing sentiments of the East; (c) Alexandria was the seat of the most celebrated theological school of the early Christian ages, and those who were at the head of this school would be likely to have correct information on a point like this; and (d) Origen is admitted to have been the most learned of the Greek Fathers, and his testimony that the 'sentiments' were those of Paul may be regarded as of peculiar value.

(2.) It was inserted in the translation into the Syriac, made very early in the second century, and in the old Italic version, and was hence believed to be of apostolic origin, and is by the inscription ascribed to Paul. This may be allowed to express the general sense of the churches at that time, as this would not have been done unless there had been a general impression that the epistle was written by him. The fact that it was early regarded as an inspired book is also conclusively shown by the fact that the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John, are not found in that version. They came later into circulation than the other epistles, and were not possessed, or regarded as genuine, by the author of that version. The epistle to the Hebrews is found in these versions, and was, therefore, regarded as one of the inspired books. In those versions it bears the inscription, “To the Hebrews."

(3.) This epistle was received as the production of Paul by the Eastern churches. Justin Martyr, who was born at Samaria, quotes it, about the year 140. It was found, as has been already remarked, in the Peshito-the old Syriac version, made in the early part of the second century. Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, also (about A. D. 325) repeatedly quotes it as the production of an apostle. Ephrem Syrus, or the Syrian, abundantly ascribes this epistle to Paul. He was the disciple of Jacob of Nisibis, and no man was better qualified to inform himself on this point than Ephrem. No man stands deservedly higher in the memory of the Eastern churches. After him, all the Syrian churches acknowledged the canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews. But the most important testimony of the Eastern church is that of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine. He is the well-known historian of the church, and he took pains from all quarters to collect testimony in regard to the Books of Scripture. He says, "There are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and well known but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging in behalf of their opinion, that it was not received by the church of Rome as a writing of Paul." The testimony of Eusebius is particularly important. He had heard of the objection to its canonical authority. He had weighed that objection. Yet in view of the testimony in the case, he regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such it was received in the churches in the East; and the fact which he mentions that its genuineness had been disputed by the church of Rome, and that he specifies no other church, proves that it had not been called in question in the East. This seems to me to be sufficient testimony to settle this inquiry. The writers here referred to lived in the very country to which the epistle was evidently written, and their testimony is uniform. Justin Martyr was born in Samaria; Ephrem passed his life in Syria; Eusebius lived in Cesarea, and Origen passed the last twenty years of his life in Palestine. The churches there were unanimous in the opinion that this epistle was written

by Paul, and their united testimony should settle the question. Indeed when their testimony is considered, it seems remarkable that the subject should have been regarded as doubtful by critics, or that it should have given rise to so much protracted investigation. I might add to the testimonies above referred to, the fact that the epistle was declared to be Paul's by the following persons: Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, about A. D. 300; Adamantius, about 330; Cyril, of Jerusalem, about 348; the Council of Laodicea, about 363; Epiphanius, about 368; Basil, 370; Gregory Nazianzen, 370; Chrysostom, 398, &c. &c. Why should not the testimony of such men and churches be admitted? What more clear or decided evidence could we wish in regard to any fact of ancient history? Would not such testimony be ample in regard to an anonymous oration of Cicero, or poem of Virgil or Horace? Are we not constantly acting on far feebler evidence in regard to the authorship of many productions of celebrated English writers?

(4.) In regard to the Western churches, it is to be admitted that, like the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John, the canonical authority was for some time doubted, or was even called in question. But this may be accounted for. The epistle had not the name of the author. All the other epistles of Paul had. As the epistle was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, it may not have been soon known to the Western churches. As there were spurious epistles and gospels at an early age, much caution would be used in admitting any anonymous production to a place in the sacred canon. Yet it was not long before all these doubts were removed, and the epistle to the Hebrews was allowed to take its place among the other acknowledged writings of Paul. It was received as the epistle of Paul by Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, about A. D. 354; by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, 354; by Victorinus, 360; by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 360; by Rutinus, 397, &c. &c. Jerome, the well-known Latin Father, uses in regard to it the following language: «This is to be maintained, that this epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches at the East as the apostle Paul's, but has been in past times by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language; although most [Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was the author." Still, it was not rejected by all the Latins. Some received it in the time of Jerome as the production of Paul. See Stuart, pp. 114, 115, for the full testimony of Jerome. Augustine admitted that the epistle was written by Paul. He mentions that Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and specifies particularly the epistle to the Hebrews. He often cites it as a part of Scripture, and quotes it as the production of an apostle. Stuart, p. 115. From the time of Augustine it was undisputed. By the council of Hippo, A. D. 393, the third council of Carthage, 397, and the fifth council of Carthage, 419, it was declared to be the epistle of Paul, and was as such commended to the churches.

(5.) As another proof that it is the writing of Paul, we may appeal to the internal evidence. (a) The author of the epistle was the companion and friend of Timothy. "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty"o is sent away—åñoλeλvμévov—"with whom if he come speedily, I will inake you a visit." Ch. xiii. 23. Sent away, perhaps, on a journey to visit some of the churches, and expected soon to return. In Phil. ii. 19, Paul speaks of sending Timothy to them "so soon as he should see how would go with him," at the same time expressing a hope that he should himself see them shortly. What is more natural than to suppose that he had now sent Timothy to Philippi; that during his absence he wrote this epistle; that he was waiting for his return; and that he proposed, if Timothy should return

soon, to visit Palestine with him? And who would more naturally say this than the apostle Paul-the companion and friend of Timothy; by whom he had been accompanied in his travels; and by whom he was regarded with special interest as a minister of the gospel? (b) In ch. xiii. 18, 19, he asks their prayers that he might be restored to them; and in ver. 23, he expresses a confident expectation of being able soon to come and see them. From this it is evident that he was then imprisoned, but had hope of speedy release-a state of things in exact accordance with what existed at Rome. Phil. ii. 17— 24. (c) He was in bonds when he wrote this epistle. Heb. x. 34. «Ye had compassion of me in my bonds," an expression that will exactly apply to the case of Paul. He was in "bonds" in Palestine; he was two whole years in Cesarea a prisoner (Acts xxiv. 27); and what was more natural than that the Christians in Palestine should have had compassion on him, and ministered to his wants? To what other person would these circumstances so certainly be applicable? (d) The salutation (ch. xiii. 24) "they of Italy salute you," agrees with the supposition that it was written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Paul writing from Rome, and acquainted with Christians from other parts of Italy, would be likely to send such a salutation. In regard to the objections which may be made to this use of the passage, the reader may consult Stuart's Intro. to the Hebrews, p. 127, seq. (e) The doctrines of the epistle are the same as those which are taught by Paul in his undisputed writings. It is true that this consideration is not conclusive, but the want of it would be conclusive evidence against the position that Paul wrote it. But the resemblance is not general. It is not such as any man would exhibit who held to the same general system of truth. It relates to peculiarities of doctrine, and is such as would be manifested by a man who had been reared and trained as Paul had. (1.) No one can doubt that the author was formerly a Jew-and a Jew who had been familiar to an uncommon degree with the institutions of the Jewish religion. Every rite and ceremony; every form of opinion; every fact in their history, is perfectly familiar to him. And though the other apostles were Jews, yet we can hardly suppose that they had the familiarity with the minute rites and ceremonies so accurately referred to in this epistle, and so fully illustrated. With Paul all this was perfectly natural. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and had spent the early part of his life at Jerusalem in the careful study of the Old Testament, in the examination of the prevalent opinions, and in the attentive observance of the rites of religion. The other apostles had been born and trained, apparently, on the banks of Gennesareth, and certainly with few of the opportunities which Paul had had for becoming acquainted with the institutions of the temple service. This consideration is fatal, in my view, to the claim which has been set up for Clement as the author of the epistle. It is wholly incredible that a foreigner should be so familiar with the Jewish opinions, laws, institutions, and history, as the author of this epistle manifestly was. (2.) There is the same preference for Christianity over Judaism in this epistle which is shown by Paul in his other epistles, and exhibited in the same form. Among these points are the following-The gospel imparts superior light. Comp. Gal. iv. 3. ; I. Cor. xiv. 20 ; Eph. iv. 11-13; II. Cor. iii. 18; with Heb. i. 1, 2; ii. 2—4; viii. 9—11; x. 1; xi. 39, 40. The gospel holds out superior motives and encouragements to piety. Comp. Gal. iii. 23; iv. 2, 3; Rom. viii. 15-17; Gal. iv. 4; v. 13; I. Cor. vii. 19; Gal. vi. 15; with Heb. ix. 9. 14; xii. 18-24. 28; viii. 6-13. The gospel is superior in promoting the real and permanent happiness of mankind. Comp. Gal. iii 10; II. Cor. iii. 7. 9: Rom. iii. 20