When therefore he expresses (as above) his utter uncertainty who wrote the Epistle, it is obvious that he does not mean merely as a scribe or amanuensis, but as an author, who, though not the Apostle himself, was thoroughly imbued with his sentiments. And to this extent, and this only, did Origen ascribe the Epistle to St. Paul and I know no evidence which can carry the matter nearer to the now almost universal opinion. Nothing which comes after Origen can, I think, justify it.

In the East, it appears to have been pretty generally received even in the time of Origen; but it was certainly rejected by some. Julius Africanus (A.D. 220), who

resided in Palæstine and was a man of eminence and learning, wrote a critical letter to Origen against the authenticity of the history of Susanna, to which Origen had appealed in his presence. In reply, Origen argues the matter at length; and refers, in a collateral proof, to the Epistle to the Hebrews. "But probably" he continues" some one, pressed by this argument, may avail himself of the opinion of those who reject this Epistle,

66

as not written by Paul: for whom we require a sepa"rate discussion to show that it is Paul's."*-It is obvious that the opinion of these persons is treated with great gentleness and one may reasonably imagine that Origen considered his correspondent as probably disposed to adopt it. At any rate, he must have regarded it as far from unknown in the East. Indeed Hippolytus an eminent ecclesiastical writer in the Greek language, who is said to have had Origen among his auditors, decidedly rejected it.

In the West, the general current of opinion long continued to be against the apostolical authority of the Epistle, Neither Novatus in Rome (A.D. 251), nor Cyprian of Carthage (248) who opposed him, received it as Paul's. This is the more extraordinary in respect to Novatus, since the Epistle affords some countenance to

* To what extent he regarded it as St. Paul's, may be ascertained from what Eusebius gives as his deliberate judgment, and which I have already cited.

his peculiar dogmas; and so far as A.D. 380, it was customary in some places to omit the public reading of the Epistle on account of the Novatians.-The Council of Carthage, near the close of the fourth century, makes such a distinction between this Epistle and the other Thirteen, as leads to suppose that it was, even then, less generally received.—Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, who flourished at the close of the fourth century and in the first part of the fifth, though in his earliest writings he appears to have received the Epistle without hesitation, yet afterwards writes with more indecision, and obviously impressed by the opinion of those who regard it as of doubtful authority; nevertheless he says he is more influenced by the authority of the eastern churches, who receive it in their canon.

The eminent ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (A.D. 315), himself received the Epistle, and obviously regarded it as generally received, except by the Roman church. And in like manner Jerome (A.D. 380), who had singular opportunities of becoming acquainted with the state of the Christian world, represents it as universally received by the Greeks, but even then not in general received by the Christians who used the Latin language. Jerome himself appears at times to have felt some uncertainty; but the latter part of his life he spent in the East; and he was finally decided by the opinion of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, and received it as St. Paul's. His opinion probably decided others; for after the fourth century, we hear no more of any doubt on the subject. But I am not aware that this at all affects the question. Lower than the time of Origen, testimony is of little moment; and of the internal evidence we have, (in possession of the opinions of the ancients,) even better means of judgment than those who follow him.

An

On the whole, the state of the case is as follows. Epistle of great value,-bearing the impress of a cultivated and polished intellect, great skill in composition, refined and glowing eloquence, and intimate acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures, united with earnest zeal for

the Gospel, enlarged and impressive views of Christian faith and obligations, elevated ideas respecting the character and dignity of Christ himself, and ennobling piety towards that Great Being who made him the Author of an eternal salvation to all who obey him,—and obviously written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and by a person of eminence and credit in the Christian church in Judæa, has, through the providence of God, been preserved to the present times, as a memorial of the sentiments of the Hebrew Christians in those days, and to cherish Christian principle, and faithful obedience to the divine will, in all succeeding times.

Though we possess it only in Greek, yet the reason of the thing, and the general tradition of the most ancient testimonies, render it almost certain that it was originally sent to the Hebrew Christians in the common language of Judæa.-The Author might himself have written it also in Greek, for the benefit of the Hellenists residing in Judæa; but there must have been a Hebrew original.

Not only is there an absence of the usual modes of address and salutation, but there is nothing in any part of the Epistle to fix it to any known individual: and the actual circumstances of those for whom it was intended, their subsequent dispersion, and the complete annihilation, for a time, of the Christian churches in Judæa, must have prevented that speedy multiplication of copies, which took place in reference to most of the other books of the New Testament, and which would have excited early attention to this among the Gentile Christians, and connected with the Epistle itself that conviction respecting the Author of it which would have prevented all future uncertainty.

In the present times, the very general belief is, that it was written by the Apostle Paul: but the early Christian Writers manifested great uncertainty and variety of opinion on the subject.

If the present Greek proceeded directly from the Author of the Epistle, then we are quite certain that this was not the Apostle Paul: it could not have been written or dictated by him in its present form.

ச

If the present Epistle be in any strict sense a transla tion, the diversity in style may be accounted for; but besides this, there is a very considerable difference in the modes of thought and even of reasoning, which, in my judgment, renders it almost impossible that it should have proceeded from the Apostle, at the age and in the cir cumstances to which, if he were the Author, we must refer it.

The almost uninterrupted conviction of the Latin churches, during the first two centuries after the period of the Epistle, appears to have been, that it was not written by the Apostle Paul: and as Rome was the resort of the world in those days, as many Jews resided there, and the Christians of that church must have had peculiar opportunities for information on the subject, the ascertained opinion of the church of Rome is very weighty.

The Christians of Alexandria, on the other hand, appear to have early formed the conviction that the Epistle was written by St. Paul, and translated into Greek by some other eminent person: and the influence of the Alexandrian church probably extended this opinion among the churches of Asia. Nevertheless Origen, who had perhaps beyond all others the means of knowing the truth, merely attributes the sentiments to the Apostle, as in some sense their source, (and this solely from internal evidence;) while he declares his utter ignorance who was the Author of the Epistle.

In the absence of adequate external evidence, conjecture is allowable. I infer from the character of the Epistle itself, that the Author of it was versed in the writings of Philo, as well as in the instructions of Paul; and among the eminent Christians of the first age, whose names are recorded in the New Testament, I am disposed (with Luther) to fix upon Apollos as the Author.* It certainly is not dishonourable to the Epistle, to attribute it to

* Beausobre (quoted by Lardner, Works iv. 270) entertained the same opinion. "The more I read Philo, the more I suspect that "Apollos might have written this Epistle. For certainly we find in "it many thoughts and sentiments taken from Philo, whose disciple "apparently Apollos had been, as he was a Jew of Alexandria.”

one who was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures.'

But whatever become of this conjecture, repeated and careful examination of the question fully satisfies me in the conclusion, that however much the sentiments of the Epistle may be traced to the Apostle Paul, he was in no strict sense the Author of it; and that, valuable and interesting as it is, it does not possess direct apostolical authority.

THE END.