order to convey him fafely to Cæfarea. In fact, the caufe of Christianity did not require, that he fhould go again to Jerufalem: and therefore the fufferings, which he might have endured in confequence of fuch a journey, could not have been called fufferings for the fake of Chrift. Befides, the journey would not only have been imprudent, but really improper: for St. Paul's presence in Jerufalem would neceffarily have occafioned a tumult, which every good citizen will avoid, out of regard to the ftate, of which he is a member. Lardner indeed afferts, that St. Paul, after his release in Rome, and the avowal of his innocence, might have fhewed himfelf without danger in Jerufalem. But this is certainly not true. For the band of defperate wretches, who had made a vow to murder him, would have paid no regard to the declaration, which the emperor had made of St. Paul's innocence: the Sicarii, of whom Jofephus fpeaks, were become extremely numerous in Jerufalem: and the whole country of Palestine was already ripe for rebellion. Under thefe circumftances, I think, that a Roman court of justice, if intimation had been given at the time of St. Paul's acquital, that he intended to go again to Jerufalem, would have cautioned him against appearing in a place, where his prefence might excite fedition, and where the protection of his perfon would not only give trouble to the magiftrates, but might occafion the fhedding of blood.

Ch. vi. 3. και τετο ποιησομεν, εανπερ επιτρεπῇ ὁ Θεός, implies, it is faid, that the author was under the peculiar guidance of God, and that he awaited God's immediate commands. Hence it is inferred, that the author was an Apostle, which leads to the conclusion, that the author was St. Paul. But there is no neceffity for fuppofing, that the words, EaVTER ETITETNEOs, imply a fupernatural communication with the Deity, fince every man, inspired, or not infpired, may fay, This I will do, if God permit.' And, if they had really the

• Acts xxiii. 23-33.

6

fenfe,

fense, which has been afcribed to them, ftill they would not apply to St. Paul alone: for Barnabas, to whom Tertullian affigns the Epiftle, might have written in this

manner.

Ch. x. 33. Geargiouevo is an expreffion perfectly agreeable to St. Paul's mode of writing, as appears from 1 Cor. iv. 9.: but fince other writers may likewife have used the fame metaphor, the application of it in the present inftance fhews only, that St. Paul might have written the Epiftle to the Hebrews, not that he really did write it..

Ch. x. 30. εμοι εκδίκησις, εγω ανταποδώσω is a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35. which differs both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint: and this paffage is again quoted in the very fame words, in Rom. xii. 19. This agreement in a reading, which has hitherto been discovered in no other place, might form a prefumptive argument, that both quotations were made by the fame perfon, and confequently, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul. But the argument is not decifive for it is very poffible, that in the first century there were manufcripts of the Septuagint with this reading in Deut. xxxii. 35. from which St. Paul might have copied in Rom. xii. 19. and the tranflator of this Epistle, in Heb. x. 30.

Laftly, the Epiftle to the Hebrews is doctrinal in the former part, as far as ch. x. 19. and the remaining part is exhortatory. This is agreeable to St. Paul's manner. Likewife the doctrines themselves, and the literature difplayed in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, are in every sense worthy of St. Paul. But on the other hand, in the mode of treating the fame fubject, there is a vifible difference between the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul's Epiftles. In the former the matter is dilated, in the latter compreffed in the one the arguments are drawn out at full length, and are eafier to be understood, in the other they are fo contracted,

See the New Orient. Bibl. Vol. V. p. 231-236.

tracted, and so much is left to be fupplied by the reader, that it is fometimes difficult to difcover the Apostle's meaning. Five chapters efpecially of the Epiftle to the Hebrews difplay a copioufnefs of argument, which appears to be inconfiftent with the concife manner of St. Paul.

The arguments therefore on both fides of the queftion are nearly of equal weight: but if there is any preponderance, it is in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was not the author. For the defign of vifiting Jerufalem, which the author of this Epiftle expreffes, would hardly have been formed by St. Paul on his releafe from imprisonment. And if St. Paul was really the author, it is difficult to account for the omiffion of his name at the opening of the Epistle, fince the omiffion cannot well be afcribed to a tranflator, who would not have neglected to retain a name, which gave authority to the Epiftle'.

After all then, we must confefs, that we do not know, whether St. Paul wrote this Epiftle, or not. An abfolute decifion on this fubject is indeed to be wifhed, but, in my opinion, not to be obtained.

SECT. XVII.

Examination of the opinion entertained by fome of the ancients, that Barnabas was the author.

T

HAT Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews was formerly a not unusual opinion in the Latin church. Now this opinion in itself contains nothing improbable: for Barnabas was by birth a Levite, and well acquainted with the Jewish laws, and with the Jewith literature. Confequently a learned Epiftle, like that to the Hebrews, is fuch as might be expected from his hand. And, if that which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, is, as many critics believe, a forgery under his name, we have no writings of Barnabas now extant, which we can oppofe to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and thence argue against this opinion from a difference of style. On this ground therefore it would be difficult to confute the opinion, fince no one can prove that Barnabas was unable to write as good Greek, as that which is contained in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. But, if on the other hand the Epiftle afcribed to Barnabas be really genuine, as other critics affert, the ftate of the queftion will be materially altered.

The moft ancient writer, who has mentioned Barnabas, as author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is Tertullian: and this Latin father fpeaks, not in dubious terms, but agreeably to his ufual manner in a decifive tone. In his treatife entitled, De Pudicitia, c. 20. he quotes the Epiftle to the Hebrews in fupport of the Montanistic doctrine, that they who had fallen after baptifm could not again expect remiffion of their fins. He quotes it however not as fcripture, in the strictest fenfe of the word, but as a work of deutero-canonical authority, and as affording only collateral proof'. His words

Most of the Latin fathers confidered the Epistle to the Hebrews in the fame light.

words are as follow. Volo ex abundantia alicujus comitis apoftolorum teftimonium fuperinducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure difciplinam magiftrorum. Extat enim et Barnabæ titulus ad Hebræos', adeo fatis auctoritatis viri, ut quem Paulus juxta fe pofuerit in abftinentiæ tenore, aut ego folus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi poteftatem".' Et utique receptior apud ecclefias Epiftola Barnabæ illo apocrypho Paftore mæchorum. Monens igitur difcipulos, omiffis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nec rurfum fundamenta poenitentiæ jacere operibus mortuorum: impoffible enim eft, inquit, illos, qui femel inluminati funt, et donum cœlefte guftaverunt, et participarunt fpiritum fanctum, et verbum Dei dulce guftarunt, occidente jam avo, cum exciderint rurfus revocari in pœnitentiam, refigentes cruci in femetipfis filium Dei et dedecorantes. This opinion of Tertullian, that Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, muft have been entertained in the following centuries by many members of the Latin church, though it does appear to have been adopted by the Greek writers. For Jerom in his Epiftle to Dardanus fays: Noftris dicendum eft, hanc epiftolam quæ infcribitur ad Hebræos,' non folum ab ecclefiis Orientis, fed ab omnibus' retro ecclefiafticis Græci fermonis fcriptoribus quafi Pauli apoftoli fufcipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ vel Clementis arbitren

tur2.

X

That is, the Epiftle with the title, ad Hebræos.'

1 Cor. ix. 16.

But

Here Tertullian means the Epiftle of Barnabas, commonly fo called. We fee likewife from this paffage, that the Epistle afcribed to Barnabas was greatly preferred by the African churches to the Shepherd of Hermas.

* Tom. II. p. 608.

▾ Jerom should not have faid omnibus,' for Origen at least makes an exception. See Sect. 15. of this chapter.

* Plerique applies here to the members of the Latin church only, who are oppofed to thofe of the Greek church mentioned in the former part of the sentence.

• Lardner in his Credibility of the Gospel Hiftory, P. II. Vol. x. P. 123, 124. expreffes a doubt, whether they who afcribed the Epiftle