unfavourable to it. At the fame time it must be obferved, that this argument operates only against those, who affert, that St. Paul wrote it in Rome, not againft thofe, who contend, that he wrote it elsewhere. Jerom, the moft learned of all the fathers of the fourth or fifth centuries, has, in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers, under the article Paulus, given the following account of this Epiftle. Epiftola, quæ ad Hebræos fertur, non eius efle creditur, propter ftyli fermonifque diffonantiam, fed vel Barnabæ, juxta Tertullianum, vel Lucæ evangelifta, juxta quofdam, vel Clementis, Romanæ pofteà ecclefiæ epifcopi, quem aiunt ipfi adjunctum fententias Pauli proprio crdinafle et ornaffe fermone. Vel certe, quia Paulus fcribebat ad Hebræos, et propter invidiam fui apud eos nominis titulum in principio falutationis amputaverat. Scripferat, ut Hebræus Hebræis, Hebraice, id eft, fuo eloquio, difertiffime, ut ea, quæ eloquenter fcripta fuerant in Hebræo, eloquentius verterentur in Græcum: et hanc caufam effe, quod a cæteris Pauli epiftolis difcrepare videatur.' It appears then, that Jerom at the end of the fourth century had not been able to obtain more certain hiftorical information, than Clement and Origen in the fecond and third centuries. How then can we, at the end of the eighteenth century, pretend to determine the question? Further, it must be remarked, that among the opinions reported by Jerom, relative to the author of the Epiftle, the name of Barnabas occurs, in addition to thofe of St. Luke and Clement of Rome, who have been already mentioned as seputed authors of it. This again is mere conjecture, and wholly unfupported by hiftorical evidence. It is however lefs liable to objection, than the two other opinions, for no writings, at leaft no genuine writings of Barnabas are now extant: and therefore we cannot oppofe to this opinion a difference of ftyle, as may be juflly done to the opinion, which afcribes the Epiftle * Tom. III. P. ii. 103, 104. ed. Benedict. to to St. Luke, and ftill more fo to that, which afcribes it to Clement of Rome. Further, it is evident, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written not only by a native Jew, but by one, who was well verfed in Jewish literature. Laftly, it deferves to be noticed in the prefent inquiry, that in fome manufcripts the Epiftle to the Hebrews is placed between the fecond Epiftle to the Theffalonians, and the first Epistle to Timothy for inftance, in the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, and in the Codex Upfalenfis collated by Aurivillius. Epiphanius likewife, in his 42d Herefy, obferves, that feveral Greek MSS. in his time. had the fame arrangement, for he fays, p. 373. arλa ds αντίγραφα έχει την προς Εβραίας δεκατην, προ των δυο προς Τιμόθεον, και Τίτον, και Φιλήμονα. Now this arrangement, according to which the Epiftle to the Hebrews is placed among St. Paul's Epiftles, implies, that they, who formed it, were of opinion, that it was written by St. Paul: whereas its common pofition after the Epiftle to Philemon may be conftrued as denoting, either that it is the fourteenth (in order) of St. Paul's Epiftles, or that it is an Epiffle annexed to thofe of St. Paul. If the thought had fooner occurred to me, I would have inquired, what other manufcripts contain the Epiftle to the Hebrews in the fame place as the two juft mentioned, because they might form a kind of edition of St. Paul's Epiftles, in which that to the Hebrews was afcribed to him as the author. Perhaps however fome future critic will inftitute this inquiry. SECT. XVI. Of the internal marks or characters in the Epifle itself, from which an inference may be drawn, either in favour of or against the opinion, that St. Paul was the auther. Tappears, from the preceding Section, that our prefent queftion is not to be determined by external evidence, becaule the accounts of ecclefiaftical writers on this fubject are very uncertain, and contradictory. Our only resource therefore is internal evidence: but this again leaves us in the fame ftate of uncertainty as the external. Lardner' has already ftated the arguments, which may be deduced from the contents of the Epiftle, either for or against the queftion, to which I refer the reader, that he may determine for himself. For my own part, I do not agree with Lardner in all the arguments, which he has produced: but as it would be tedious to enumerate and review them, I will confine myfelf at prefent to fuch remarks as have occurred to me in the study of this Epiftle. In the firft place I muft repcat, what has been already afferted, that the Greek ftyle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews is fo very different from the ftyle of St. Paul, that he cannot poffibly have been the author of the Greek text. Whoever attempts, therefore, to fhew that St. Paul was the author, muft first acknowledge that the Greek is only a tranflation, and that the original was Hebrew. In Ch. xiii. 23. the author of this Epiftle fays, rivwoτον αδελφον Τιμοθεον απολελυμένον, μεθ' ε, εαν ταχιον έρχεται, οψομαι ύμας. Here the name of Timothy, the ulual companion of St. Paul, with whom the author of 1 Supplement, Vol. II. p. 343. this On this head, my opinion is diametrically oppofite to that of Lardner. Yet this Epiftle propofes to vifit the Hebrews, immediately fuggefts the notion, that St. Paul was the author. it affords no abfolute proof: for other perfons, befide St. Paul, may have formed the defign of travelling to Jerufalem in company with Timothy. Some commentators, indeed, tranflate amoλλuμevov in this paffage by fent abroad on an errand'; and fay, that fcarcely any one can be thought of, befide St. Paul, who would have fent Timothy abroad upon any fervice of the Gofpel". But. this mode of reafoning is fallacious. For amoλÙμεvоν απολελυμένον fignifies merely gone away,' and by no means implies that Timothy was fent away by the author of this Epiftle. This paffage, therefore, does not prove that it was written by St. Paul. If the common reading, ch. x. 34. xxi yap Tois SeoμOIS μ8 CUVEпabnoate, for ye had compaffion on my bonds,' με συνεπαθήσατε, “ be the genuine reading, it was well adapted to St. Paul as the author, who at Jerufalem fell into the captivity, which lafted fo many years: efpecially if we take into confideration ch. xiii. 18, 19. where the author defires the Hebrews to pray for him, that he may be the fooner reftored to them. But the common reading at ch. x. 34. is fo very uncertain, that no argument can fafely be founded on it; for many good authorities, inftead of τοις δεσμοις με, 6 my bonds, have τοις δεσμίοις, • the prifoners; which gives the paffage a very different fenfe; and I am wholly unable to determine, which of the two readings deferves the preference, till the queftion has been decided, who was the author of the Epiftle. It appears, indeed, from ch. xiii. 19. that the author had been forced away from the Hebrews, and that he wished to be restored to them. This is applicable to St. Paul, who had been taken prifoner at Jerufalem, and afterwards carried to Rome: but St. Paul is not the only perfon, to whom it is applicable, for other perfons might at the fame time have been in prifon for the fake of the Gospel. Befides, there is a real inconvenience attending the application of this paffage to St. Paul: for See Lardner, p. 359. the the writer promises, ch. xiii. 23. a vifit to the Hebrews, on the return of Timothy. This is a promife, which no one could make, who was ftill in ptifon; and therefore I would tranflate ch. xiii. 19. " Taxio añоxxἵνα ταχίου αποκα ταςαθω υμιν, - that I may have a good and fpeedy journey to you.'. In fact, the two paffages, ch. xiii. 19. 23. in which the author expreffes an intention of vifiting the Hebrews, make it improbable that the author was St. Paul: for he would hardly have formed the refolution of going again to Jerufalem, immediately after he was releafed from his imprifonment in Rome. Not only, he had no vocation to Jerufalem, as Apoftle of the Gentiles, but it would have been contrary to his avowed principles, to preach the Gofpel there, fince he exprefsly fays in Rom. xv. 20. that he firived to preach the Gospel, not where Chrift was named, left he fhould build on another man's foundation. It is true, that this is not the only motive, which might have induced him to go to Jerufalem, for he might have gone thither to carry alms for the poorer brethren in Judæa, as he had formerly done, when the Macedonians and Achæans contributed for that purpofe. But this journey he could not well have undertaken immediately after his release, fince, before he could carry alms to Jerufalem, it was neceflary, that he fhould first collect them. And it is a matter of doubt, whether this motive would really have induced him to expofe himfelf again in a place, where his life had been in danger; for he might furely have found a trufty perfon, by whom he might have fent the contributions, if any had been made. That St. Paul never fhrinked from danger, where the cause of Chriftianity was concerned, I readily grant yet he had certainly too much good fenfe to expofe himself without neceflity, efpecially in a place, where the inhabitants were fo incenfed against him, that the commander of the Roman garrifon found it neceflary to give an efcort of four hundred and feventy men, in order |