66

66

the above phrase occurs, Mr. Veysie remarks, "These are homogeneous, being persons: they are also to one "another in the relation of son and father; and had acted together in concert against the Athenians; and were known to the Athenians as having so acted, and "therefore the Orator might justly couple their names, "and make them subject to the power of the same "articles. Since Philip is combined with Alexander, it serves to show that the Orator is now speaking of the same Alexander and Philip whom he had before men❝tioned together, and whose coalition and in some sense "unity, was well known and acknowledged."

66

66

I need scarcely say how completely these remarks are applicable to the passages from the Scriptures to which Mr. Veysie refers. Indeed I find the general principle itself so broadly stated in the preceding page, that I cannot but feel surprised that any man of sound learning and correct judgment, as Mr. Veysie obviously was, could hesitate in applying it to the cases with which Mr. Sharp's Canon embarrasses the critic. The form in question, he observes, (viz. when two words connected by the copulative conjunction have the article prefixed only to the former,)" can then only take place, "when the things denoted by the words are homogeneous, or in some way related, or at least so far compatible as to admit their being brought together, and "as it were consolidated:" and conversely we may add, the construction shows no more than that the things or qualities denoted are so far related or compatible.

66

After again pursuing this investigation, I conclude, with the fullest conviction, that the construction simply marks unity of RELATION, or, joint connexion; and that it in no way implies identity of PERSON, which, if real, is a matter of inference, derived from other considerations.

No. IV.

On the Epistle to the Hebrews.

I THINK it desirable to add here a statement of my views respecting this Epistle; and in particular of the reasons why I cannot regard it as written by the Apostle Paul.

It is to my mind certain that the Epistle was written to the Hebrew Christians of Palæstine, and not long before the commencement of the final Jewish war,- -when the state of the country was exciting all the wild passions of the unbelieving Jews, and when the storm of their bitter hatred was ready to pour down, with unrestrained violence, upon those who, as they thought, deserted the religion of their forefathers. Nothing can be more clear from the internal evidence, that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it cannot with probability be placed much before the final war. The representations of the Author as to the spread of apostacy among the Hebrews, imply a state of things which could scarcely have come on within two years after Paul's pleading before Agrippa. Following merely internal evidence, I should place it after the year 64, when, probably, St. Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome;-perhaps even so late as A.D. 66. On this, however, I would not be understood to lay any great stress.

If written to the Hebrew Christians of Palæstine, nothing but clear and decisive evidence to the contrary, should lead one from the opinion that it was written in the then language of Palæstine-the Syro-Chaldaic. It must have been written by a Hebrew; and when writing to Hebrews, it is inconceivable that he should write in a language which would be unintelligible to a large proportion of those to whom it was addressed. Paul wrote, indeed, to the Roman Christians in Greek; but Greek was his own native language, and was familiarly known by the Jews out of Judæa, who employed it in their synagogues, and, from their commercial habits, would

be peculiarly likely to be acquainted with it. The early converts to Christianity were, every where, principally from the Jews; and to these the language of the Septuagint must be known from childhood. The Jews of Palæstine did not use the Septuagint. The Hebrews always kept distinct from the Hellenists.

So far from there being any decisive evidence to the contrary, the whole current of ancient evidence favours the belief that this Epistle was written in the Hebrew of that age. And whoever receives it as St. Paul's, can with no consistency maintain it to have been first written in Greek.-Paul was truly eloquent; but his glowing energetic eloquence is as dissimilar to the more beautiful, but more artificial eloquence of the Writer to the Hebrews, as that of Demosthenes is to Cicero's. This indeed rather respects the modes of thought; but the choice of words and mode of expression also widely differ, and the Epistle to the Hebrews possesses an elegance and polish, which the ardent mind of the Apostle could not have stopped to produce. This fact was strongly felt by those who, from their vernacular language, were most competent to judge; and few modern critics of cultivated taste have been without the perception of it, even though they still supposed the Epistle to have been written by St. Paul in Greek. The arguments adduced in support of their supposition, have been sufficiently considered by Michaelis; and though I cannot accord with all his reasonings, I am satisfied that there is no internal evidence which is at all adequate to overturn the undoubting opinion of the best ancient authorities, that the Epistle in its present state is a translation.

But who was the Author? There can be no doubt that he was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures;' and that he was well skilled in the Jewish modes of arguing from them. There can be no doubt, further, that he was one to whom the Hebrew Christians were accustomed to look with respect: he writes as one wellknown, and having authority.-If we were unacquainted with the opinions of the ancients on the subject, and were left to judge solely by internal evidence, I should say that

the Author of the Epistle was well acquainted with the writings of St. Paul, and not improbably was versed in those of Philo also. That he had much of the spirit of the Apostle, derived from the same common fountain, I should readily admit; and also that his work is one of great interest and value, and in various parts fitted to bind the Gospel to the heart, and to make it influence the life: but I could go no further. His style of argument is powerfully persuasive, his eloquence sometimes brilliant and even noble, and his practical representations well fitted to stimulate and to encourage: but we never see him carried away by that ardent energy of mind which, in the Apostle's case, seems to set at defiance all the usual trammels of composition; we do not perceive "the thoughts that breathe and the words that burn," nor the great conceptions labouring for utterance, which so often bear up even the sluggish imagination on the wings of faith, towards the light inaccessible and full of glory.' Take the most eloquent part of the Epistle, the chapter on faith, where the Author was least fettered by his peculiar object, notwithstanding the occasional sublimity of his composition, its general beauty is so methodical and regularly sustained, that I can find no corresponding portion throughout the thirteen epistles of Paul, though there are many which are made to surpass it by the great thoughts which habitually filled the Apostle's mind. The Epistle to the Hebrews throughout bears the character of a studied composition.

But one thing strikes me more forcibly still; and it is less dependent on taste and criticism than the foregoing. The imagination of the unknown Author was, obviously, very strongly impressed with the ritual and ceremonial of the Jews. He writes like one labouring to convince himself as well as others, that the simplicity that is in Christ is far better, and that it was time these things should come to an end. He did indeed perceive the insufficiency of the Mosaic ritual in itself considered; but all his habits and associations had been formed under it, and had been always fostered by it; and he could not himself rest without something to fill up the void which

his imagination experienced, when it contemplated all that once struck and captivated it as soon to be for ever annihilated. He felt as one who had continued within the impressions of the imposing splendour of the Jewish rites and ceremonies; and he wrote to those who felt the same,- all zealous for the Law.'-The Apostle, on the other hand, had long been free from such influences; and his mind continually dwelling on the grand all-comprehensive principles of the gospel dispensation, even in his earlier writings, could only look upon those things which had now done all their service as "weak and beggarly elements." The unknown Author, a Hebrew writing to Hebrews, and personally knowing their feelings and difficulties, seems to think of nothing but his countrymen : the Apostle knew in Christ neither Jew nor Greek, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision. He earnestly desired for his kinsmen according to the flesh, that they might be saved; and he would have given his life to effect this but if I understand the character of his mind, had he seen fit to write to the Hebrew Christians, he would have given the whole argument of the first ten chapters in a few authoritative declarations; and he certainly would have impressed on their minds that CHRIST died for ALL, that HIS system embraced all mankind, and that all were now brethren under one head. In enabling them to discern the conclusion to which the unknown Author conducts them, the Apostle would have raised them high enough to see all the world, and to perceive at once the infinite superiority of the Christian dispensation. Considering the style and substance of the recently written Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, I do not think the Apostle of the Gentiles could have pursued in detail the systematic argument of the Writer to the Hebrews; still less that he could have left out of view those great principles for which he had been an ambassador in bonds.

In a case where there is so great a deficiency of external evidence, I might lay much stress on the complete difference between the commencement of the Epistle, and that of the acknowledged writings of Paul; to account