Latin Church. It is not until the third or fourth century that both unite in attributing the Epistle to the great Apostle of the Gentiles. If it be his, we have here a proof-if with the Epistle to the Romans in our hands we needed it (see chap. xi. 1-3)—that, in his mission to the Gentiles, he had not forgotten his brethren according to the flesh. On the whole, the Greek Church favoured the Pauline authorship; while the Latin Church was against it. Clement of Rome, in his first letter to the Corinthians, quotes from it very largely (showing in how great honour he held it), though he nowhere calls it St. Paul's. Pantanus, the founder of the school of Alexandria, esteemed it as St. Paul's; but Origen, the chief father of that school, took another view. He was a very learned and acute critic, and the difference of style between this and St. Paul's acknowledged writings did not escape his eye. This difference is more apparent in the Greek than in the English. The thoughts, according to Origen, are worthy of St. Paul; but the language is not his. It is, he thinks, the work of some one who clothed St. Paul's ideas in his own language. Regarding it in this light, he does not hesitate to quote it as expressing St. Paul's opinion; "but," he adds, "the author is known to God alone." So much for the East. On turning to the Latin Church, we find St. Paul altogether unknown as the author. Tertullian," the father of Latin Church literature" (A. D. 181), does not recognise the canonicity of the Epistle. He quotes it once as the work of Barnabas. Cyprian, too (Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 250), did not receive it as St. Paul's. Novatian, a contemporary of Cyprian, who was condemned for holding that those who had apostatized under persecution could not be again received into the Church, does not quote Heb. vi. 4-6 in his own favour. He would certainly have done so, had the Church of his day regarded the passage as the work of St. Paul. In the 4th century, however, things changed: the Pauline authorship was forcing itself into universal acceptance. At the time of the Nicene Council (A. D. 325), it was received almost without reserve. The Holy Spirit had guided the Church to see clearly, though gradually, that the Book was not merely man's work, but God's. Not only Hilary and Ambrose, but Jerome and Augustine, the two greatest writers of the Latin Church, accepted it as the genuine work of the Great Apostle, though it is true that the latter does so with slight expressions of doubt. During the middle ages Biblical criticism hardly existed, and thus it became forgotten that there had ever been any doubts concerning the authorship. But with the revival of learning, the old questions were again raised: Erasmus was the first to give utterance to them. In his annotations on the New Testament (A. D. 1519), he states very distinctly his conclusion that the Book is not St. Paul's; though he does not in the least question its inspiration. Let it be always borne in mind that the question is not about the authenticity of the Book, but about the author (see Art. VI., "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church "). Erasmus. In the latter part The Reformer Luther followed the Romanist of his life he thought it was written by Apollos. could not bring himself to think it St. Paul's. Calvinistic Churches, however, have these doubts gained ground. Thus the matter remained, until about the middle of the last century, when the question was again revived, and has been more or less eagerly discussed by scholars ever since, and no decisive victory on either side has brought the controversy to an end. This is a slight sketch of the history of the controversy, the general sum of which is as follows:-the belief of the early Church in the Pauline authorship was confined to the Church of Alexandria, and even there the question was regarded as a doubtful one. I will now state, as shortly as possible, the arguments from internal evidence. The most obvious is that drawn from the omission of the usual introduction. The author enters at once into the middle of his subject. Surely," it is said, "St. Paul always felt a special necessity to assert his authority before his countrymen, yet this does not even contain his name." The answer has not been wanting :—“The Hebrews, being alienated from St. Paul, would not respect his salutation; he therefore writes anonymously." But this is hardly a sufficient answer; he writes as one perfectly well known to them. There is no attempt at secrecy, or stealing upon them unawares (see x. 34, xiii. 23). Another point is the difference in style and language. No one denies that there is a difference. There is a statelier, more rhetorical build in the sentences. How full-toned are the opening words; how carefully balanced the clauses of the sentences; how carefully the grammar is attended to. In the whole Epistle there is not a single break in the argument; they are most frequent in St. Paul. The maintainers of St. Paul's authorship urge that there is a good deal to account for this. "The style must rise or fall with the subject. Is it not natural that a subject so solemn and magnificent as the High Priesthood of Christ, should have lent some of its solemnity to the language in which it is set forth? St. Paul's style differs very much. How abrupt, obscure, impassioned, that of Second Corinthians; how calm that to the Ephesians. In general, St. Paul did not care for elaborate arrangement and rhetorical skill; but he was master of it when he chose. Witness some passages in his speech before Agrippa" (Acts xxvi). Another answer to this argument is not a legitimate one, namely, that the Holy Spirit was able to inspire the Apostle to write in an altogether different manner from his usual one. No one doubts it. But the question is not what God is able to do, but what He does. We know how St. John wrote under inspiration; how St. Mark wrote, and St. Paul. If, which is another question altogether, the style of the latter differs so thoroughly from this as to settle the question in ordinary cases, then we are bound, according to all Scriptural analogy, to ascribe it to some one else. But it is denied that it does so differ; and many words and phrases are brought forward, which characterise St. Paul's writings in a very marked manner. It is impossible to give a list of them; but the intelligent student of Scripture will find it a most interesting work to seek for them. The agreements and differences seem to be pretty evenly balanced.* Far more important is the statement of ch. ii. 3, that the Gospel was first proclaimed by the Lord, and was afterwards confirmed unto us by them that heard Him." It seems impossible to avoid the inference that the writer is not an Apostle, but that he learned Christ mediately, from Apostles. Now we know how strenuous St. Paul was in his assertion of his equality with the * One of the most remarkable differences is, that St. Paul never calls our Lord "a priest," which is the office especially ascribed to Him in this Epistle. rest of the Apostles. Again and again he declares that he learned Christ from Himself, and not from man (see Gal. i. 1, 12, ii. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 1-5). To explain that he only means in the passage before us to put himself in the place of the Hebrews is straining the meaning of the words. The passage remains a very strong argument against the Pauline authorship. On the other side it is contended that all the notices in the thirteenth chapter seem exactly to fit in with St. Paul's history, and with no other that we know of. The writer is a prisoner (x. 34); he hopes to be released (xiii. 23); he writes apparently from Italy (xiii. 24). All this would exactly suit the circumstances of St. Paul's first Roman imprisonment (Phil. i. 7, ii. 19, 24; Philem. 22). Yet this is not conclusive. We never read in St. Paul's acknowledged writings of Timothy having been a prisoner; and the words, "they of Italy," may be fairly translated, "they who are from Italy." The prisoner may have been Luke or Apollos, as probably as St. Paul. The whole case is stated in favour of the Pauline authorship by Dr. Wordsworth (Greek Test., vol. iii.), and against it by Dean Alford (Greek Test., vol. iv.). The latter proceeds to claim Apollos for the author, on the ground that the author must have been some one well known in the early Church; some one mighty in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and eloquent in speech; and that Apollos answers the description better than any one else that we know.* Let it suffice for us then to say with the profoundest of all the ancient Fathers, "the author is known to God alone;" and let us proceed to inquire, What is the subject of the Epistle itself? For whom, and with what object, was it written? It was addressed to the Hebrews-to the Church of Jerusalem; but it belongs to a much later date than the Epistle of St. James. We have seen him re-echoing the prophecy of the Lord on Mount Olivet, that He would come to judge the Jewish Church and nation. But now the time is close at hand; the Judge is standing before the door. The good Bishop, James the Just, is taken away,† and fear is on every side. The fierce conflicts of the sects, bloodshed calling itself work for God, the gathering together of the Roman eagles, all testified that the beauty of Zion was about to pass away amidst tribulation and anguish more awful than the world had ever seen. The Epistle is written to prepare the Christians for that day of "fiery trial which is to devour the adversaries." In what condition were the Christians? Paralysed, it might seem, with fear that the Temple being taken away, there would be nothing left to bind them to God. We, thank God, cannot realize to the full their despair, as they looked with the earnestness of a life-long love upon what all the world * The argument against him, that the Alexandrian Fathers do not know of his being the author, has no force, if we suppose that he wrote it after he had left Alexandria. They do not know any one as the author. The absence of any mention of him as a writer in the early Church (supposing him to be the author) is not more remarkable than is the absence of any mention of him at all in Church History, considering that he was so remarkable for divine gifts as to be placed almost on an equality with the apostles in Scripture. There seems every reason to believe that Heb. xiii. 7 is a reference to him. "Those who are over you" is literally "your rulers." These may possibly include SS. Stephen and James the Great (Acts xii. 2). See Alford and Wordsworth in loc. besides had abandoned; their lingering look of love at that which they know they shall see no more for ever. The Temple, toward which every holy thought gathered itself; the priesthood, which God had appointed with wonders and signs, and which still held its own as at the first; as long as these remained, there were pledges of God's favour and covenant; but when they were gone, whither could they turn? Again, the Christians were in danger of falling over what was ever the stumbling-block to the Jew-a belief in the perfect Godhead of Christ. We know that there appeared afterwards a Jewish sect, called Ebionites, who tampered with this vital doctrine, until at length they fell away from Christ altogether. Notices of the beginnings of this apostacy are to be seen in the earnest warnings of the Epistle. It begins Now let us see how the Epistle deals with these circumstances. with announcing that God had revealed Himself by "different stages [of revelation] and different portions "* unto the Jews of old; that long series of revelations was now at last brought to a close. "In these last days He hath spoken unto us by His Son." The law which was so dear to the Jew had been given by Angels (cf. Acts vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19); but He who had brought in the new dispensation was far above the highest angel: He was Very and Eternal God (ch. i. ii.). It was true that Moses was very great, yet Christ was counted worthy of more glory even than he. Moses was but a servant in the House of God; Christ was a Son (iii.). Joshua had indeed led their fathers into the rest which God had given them. Another deliverer, bearing the same name, was conducting them into a heavenly, eternal rest, which remaineth for the people of God (iv.). Aaron's priesthood was indeed great and glorious; yet from the beginning there were signs of a greater Priest to come, “made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life" (v.-vii.). Yes. It was true that Judaism was passing away-the Temple, with all its mysteries, altar, and shew-bread, and candlestick, and veil; the sacrifices, the blood of slain beasts, and ashes sprinkling the unclean—all were to be no longer. But the things of which these had been shadows were eternal. The shadows were to flee away, because Christ had brought the eternal realities to light. Every name which had been dear to the Jew, every institution in which he had found rest and life for his soul, was not to die, except in its outward garb. That, indeed, was to die; but only that the seed of life which was in it might bring forth fruit. There had been a Law written on tables of stone; the same Spirit which had so written it had now written it on the fleshly tables of the heart. There had been a sacrifice within the Temple veil; the Great Sacrifice is offered now, not in temples made with hands, but in heaven itself, by the Eternal High Priest (viii.-x. 18). Having thus shown how the Jewish covenant foreshadowed the Christian, and is now to be absorbed in it, the writer proceeds to exhort the Hebrews-by all the glory of their high calling, and all their hopes of the eternal Sabbath, and the glory to come-to draw near to God" through the new and living way, even Christ," ," "in full assurance of faith," with earnest love and good works. * The English version "at sundry times and in divers manners" is very inadequate. He recalls their former faithfulness and self-devotion under trial: let them not "cast away their confidence which hath great recompense of reward.” Drawing back is perdition-the loss of every hope; pressing on to perfection through Christ, is the salvation of the soul (x. 19–39). 66 Then we have the great "hymn of faith," the stirring recountal of the sure confidence in the unseen love and care of God, which their own annals recorded. Were not the first words of their Scriptures words of faith in the unseen? "Through faith we understand that the heavens were framed by the word of God." Whence sprang all the glorious deeds of Abel and Enoch, and Abraham, and Moses, of the prophets and the Maccabees, but from their "confidence in things which they yet hoped for," their sure faith "in things unseen"? Surely their children in the later days needed no better incitement not to be bound down to visible things, visions of earthly greatness, and trust in earthly ceremonies. "A great cloud of witnesses" watched them from Heaven; let them run on in the same course in which those witnesses had gained the victory, "looking unto the same Jesus, the leader and finisher of the Faith." He was indeed the leader, for He too had run in the course which He would have all men run; He bore all sufferings, that He might gain the joy set before Him. Trouble and anguish came upon Him, as upon every child of God; let them look to Him, therefore, and take heart (xi.-xii. 13). For there was verily a glorious future rising before them. Let them follow peace, and holiness, and love; let them watch against every root of bitterness which might trouble them; for they were come into a dispensation—not of Sinai, with its blackness and darkness, and tempest, but which was the City of the living God: a heavenly city never to pass away; its members the children of God; its corner-stone, Jesus. This Kingdom should never be moved; the awful convulsion which was at hand would but take away the transitory things, "that the things which cannot be shaken may remain' (xii. xiii.). The Epistles from this Book are→→ SIMON and his (probably elder) brother Andrew were natives of Bethsaida, a small fishing-town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Tradition says that their father Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17) died when his children were yet young. The Sea of Galilee then, as now, abounded with fish, and the two brothers, in partnership with the sons of Zebedee, were fishermen (Luke v. 10). One of the brothers at least, Andrew, had been a disciple of John the Baptist, before |