of other commentators, and fecondly, as I entertain at prefent much stronger doubts, both as to the author of this Epiftle, and its canonical authority, than Lardner, to whom I referred the reader in the laft edition. I fhall have frequent occafion, in the courfe of this chapter, to quote my Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews prefixed to the Expofition of this Epiftle: and it muft be obferved, that I always mean the new and improved edition, published in 1780.

The queftions to be examined in the feveral fections of this chapter are the following.

1. Is that, which we call the Epiftle to the Hebrews, really an Epistle?

2. Is it quoted by St. Peter?

3. If it is an Epiftle, to what community was it fent? 4. What was the fituation of this community?

5. At what time was it written?

6. In what language was it written?

·7. If it was written in Hebrew, by whom was it tranflated into Greek?.....

8. What is the character of its Greek ftyle? 9. Who was the author of this Epistle?

10. Is it canonical ?

11. What are its contents?

23

SECT. II.

Is that, which we call the Epistle to the Hebrews, an Epifle, or a Diflertation? And, if it is an Epiftle, what is the reafon, that the initiatory formule is wanting?

A

S the initiatory formule, ufual in Greek Epiftles, wanting in that which we call the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the queftion occurs, notwithstanding the

fuperfcription

fuperfcriptioneos Elgais son, whether it was really an Epiftle fent to a particular community or communities, or only a Differtation intended for general readers, efpecially as many topics are difcuffed in it in the fame diffufive manner, as in a work which the author proposed to lay before the public. But there. are feveral arguments, which decide in favour of the former, and fhew that it was really an Epistle addressed to particular perfons. For not only the fecond perfon plural ye' inceffantly occurs in it, which alone indeed would be no proof, but likewife we find fpecial circumftances, to which the author alludes, ch. v. 11. 12. vi. 9. 1o. x. 32-34. and above all, ch. xiii. 23. 24. which contains the promise of a vifit, and falutations,

The next queftion therefore to be asked is: fince this is an Epiftle, what is the reason, that the initiatory formule is wanting. Several ancient writers, who have undertaken to answer this question, pre-fuppofe, what is far from being certain, that St. Paul was the author of it, and on this fuppofition they ground their anfwers. For inftance, Clement of Alexandria fays, that the name of Paul was odious to the Hebrews, and that for this reafon the Apoftle did not mention his name at the beginning of it, as in his other Epiftles, that the Hebrews might not be prejudiced against it. Jerom is of the fame opinion with Clement, for in his Treatife of illuftrious men, he fays propter invidiam fui nominis titulum amputavit:' and this affertion is related by commentators to this very day. But this explanation is fo very extraordinary, that it appears to me unaccountable, how it could occur to fuch men, as Clement and Jerom. For at the very fame time, that it afcribes to St. Paul the greateft caution, it afcribes to him the greateft fimplicity. The author of this Epiftle fays, ch. xiii. 18. 19. Pray for us, for we truft we have a good confcience, in all things willing to live honeftly. But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the fooner.' And ver. 23. Know ye that our brother Timothy

Eufebii Hiftor. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 16.

Timothy is fet at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will fee you.' Surely no man of common fense would close an Epiftle in this manner, if he intended that no one should know from whom it came.

In another place, namely, in his Expofition of the Epiftle to the Galatians, Jerom fuppofes, that St. Paul did not mention his name at the beginning of this Epif tle, because he was unwilling to name himfelf Apoftle in an Epistle, in which this title is given to Christ, through fear of placing himself on an equality with Chrift. On the other hand, Theodoret fays, that St. Paul did not commence the Epiftle to the Hebrews with the formule. Paul an Apostle, &c.' because he was the Apostle, not of the Hebrews, but of the Gentiles. But neither of these reasons is in the leaft fatisfactory: for they account merely for the omiffion of the word Apoftle,' and not of the name of the author. And if St. Paul was really its author, and was yet unwilling to affume in this Epiftle the title of Apostle, he might have mentioned his name without this title, fince he has actually done it in four other Epiftles.

The real reason, why the initiatory formule, ufual in ancient Epiftles, is wanting in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is at prefent therefore not eafy to be affigned, fince we are entirely deftitute of hiftorical information on this fubject. But as others have ventured to conjecture, the fame liberty may be granted likewife to me. As the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews is only a tranflation, an initiatory formule might have been used in the original, but omitted by the tranflator, either because he thought the name of the author of no great importance, or because he was apprehensive that the name of the author might prejudice Greek readers against the Epiftle, which, as being a very valuable and inftructive work, he wished to put into their hands. If either of these motives operated, St. Paul could not have been the author.

e Tom. IV. p. 225.

If this was the motive the translator certainly erred.

SECT.

SECT. III.

Is the Epiftle to the Hebrews quoted 2 Pet. iii.

STA

15. 16? T. PETER in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. 15. 16. fays, And account that the long fuffering of our and account our Lord is our falvation: even as our beloved brother Paul alfo, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as alfo in all his Epiftles, in which are fome things hard to be understood.' In this paffage it has been very generally fuppofed, efpecially in modern times, that St. Peter by the words, as our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you,' meant the Epistle to the Hebrews: and hence the inference has been drawn, not only that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was fent to the fame communities, as the fecond Epiftle of Peter, namely to thofe in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia, and Bithynia, but likewife that St. Paul was the author of it. Now they who argue in this manner manifeftly argue in a circle: for, as St. Peter fpeaks in exprefs terms of an Epiftle written by St. Paul, we cannot apply the paffage to the Epistle to the Hebrews, without previously affuming that St. Paul was the author of it. But this is the thing to be proved,

Further, if it could be proved even to a demonftration, that St. Paul was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, yet as he was the author of fo many other Epiftles, we cannot conclude, that St. Peter meant the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular, unless it can be fhewn, that the fubject, for which St. Peter quotes St. Paul, is difcuffed in this Epiftle. But this is fo far from being true, that of the matter, on which St. Peter difcourses in the place, where he makes the quotation, not a fyllable is to be found in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. For St. Peter does not fpeak in this place, as many imagine, of the juftification of a finner before God for the fake of Chrift, a subject which is certainly difcuffed

in

in the Epistle to the Hebrews: but on the contrary, he treats of a very different matter. The words, account that the long fuffering of our Lord is our falvation, (την το Κυριο ήμων μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεισθε), are ex plained by what St. Peter had faid, ver. 9. The Lord is not flack concerning his promife, as fome men count flacknefs, but is long fuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all fhould come to repentance. It is evident therefore that St. Peter fpeaks, not of juftification through Chrift, but of the prolongation of the day of judgement, on which many Chriftians in the firft century entertained very extraordinary notions. For they imagined, that, according to Chrift's prophecy, it would take place in the age, in which they lived: and finding that it did not take place, they began to doubt of the truth of the Chriftian religion. Hence St. Peter affures them that one day is with the Lord as a thoufand years, and a thousand years as one day :' that they ought neither to be impatient nor incredulous, because the day of judgement was poftponed, fince this very prolongation afforded them an opportunity of repenting, and might be regarded therefore as the means of their falvation. On this fubject not a fyllable is to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. On the contrary, we find in it affurances of the coming of the Lord, which they, to whom the Epiftle was written, would furvive : not indeed to judge the world, but to judge Jerufalem*.

Other commentators, who acknowledge that St. Peter in the paffage in queftion is fpeaking of the day of judgement, appeal to Heb. xii. 25-29. where the fubject likewife relates to the general judgement and the end of the world. But this argument is likewife infufficient; for though, in this paffage of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, as well as in 2 Pet. iii. 15. the fubject relates to the day of judgement, yet the modes of reafoning on it in the two paffages are very different. St. Peter fpeaks of the prolongation of the day of judgement, and argues from it to the mercy and long fuffering of God: but we

• Heb. x. 25. 35. 36. 37.

find