is plain that the writer expects his liberty, and means to send away Timothy to Philippi. In the former, he is assured of his liberty, and only waits for the return of Timothy, in order that he may set out to visit the Hebrews whom he had been addressing. In case Timothy did not return speedily (ráziov), it is plainly implied in Heb. 13: 23, that the writer meant to set out on his journey without him. There was, then, some uncertainty in his mind, respecting the time when Timothy would return. How well all this accords, with the journey of Timothy to a place so remote from Rome as Philippi, cannot fail to strike the mind of every considerate reader.

Now laying aside all favoritism for any previous opinions respecting our epistle, can it be reasonably doubted, that here is a concurrence of circumstances so striking, as to render it highly probable that Paul wrote it? More especially so, when we consider that the epistle must have been written, about the same period of time when these circumstances happened; for it proffers internal evidence of being written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and yet written so late, that the period when the Hebrews were first converted to Christianity is adverted to as being already a considerable time before, Heb. 5: 12, and is called ras πOÓτεQOV ημévαs, 10: 32. Now the imprisonment of Paul, at Rome, happened probably A. D. 62 or 63, which was some thirty years after the gospel had begun to be preached abroad, and about seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Taking all these circumstances together, it must be acknowledged that there is an extraordinary concurrence of them, which cannot but serve much to increase the probability that our epistle was written by Paul, near the close of his liberation at Rome.

The objections which Bertholdt makes against the arguments just presented, do not seem to be weighty. "Would Paul," he asks, "promise to revisit Palestine, when the people of that very country had sent him into captivity at Rome? A very improbable circumstance, indeed!"

But a nearer consideration of the circumstances attending Paul's case, will remove the appearance of so great improbability. For, first, Paul had been kept a prisoner, at Cesarea, two

years before his removal to Rome, Acts 24: 25-27; and at Rome he lived two years more, in a similar condition, Acts 28: 30. These, with the time occupied by his going to Rome, and returning from it, would make nearly a five years interval between his leaving Palestine and revisiting it. Might not some of his fiercest persecutors have died during this period? Or, might they not have laid aside their furious, persecuting zeal?

But, in the next place, supposing our epistle to have been sent to the church at Cesarea, where Paul had been treated with so much kindness during his imprisonment; could there have been any fear in his mind, with respect to paying them a visit? And even if we suppose that Cesarea was not the place to which the letter was directed, but that it was sent to, the Christians at Jerusalem; yet the objection brought forward by Bertholdt will not be of much validity. Paul was not to be deterred from going to Jerusalem, by the prospect of persecution. From the time when he first made his appearance there, after his conversion, the Jews had always showed a bitter enmity against him, and persecuted him. Yet this did not deter him from going, again and again, to that city. And why should it now deter him, any more than formerly?

Besides, he was now liberated from the accusations of the Jews, by the sentence of the emperor himself. Would they venture to do again, the very thing which the court of Rome had decided to be unlawful? Might not Paul well expect, with the decision of the emperor in his hand, to find his personal liberty for the future respected?

"But," says Bertholdt, "we have no account that Paul paid a visit to Palestine, after his liberation."

True. But what argument this can furnish, against the probability that he did pay such a visit, I do not perceive. Bertholdt himself, in the very paragraph which contains this objection, says, "Who does not know, that the accounts of what befel the apostles, and primitive teachers of Christianity, are very incomplete ?" Every one knows, that Luke breaks off the history of Paul, with the account of his imprisonment at Rome.. Has any writer given us a well authenticated supplement to this?

And can the want

of any history of Paul, after the period of his imprisonment at Rome, be a proof that he never travelled to any particular place, or that he did not live and preach there? Surely this cannot be urged with any shew of propriety.

I add only, that analogy would lead us to suppose that Paul, when liberated, would go to Palestine, and then to the other churches in Asia Minor. Such was the general course of his travels; see Acts 18: 22, seq. It is altogether consonant, then, with the usage of Paul, to supposse that he would visit the church at Palestine, after his imprisonment at Rome; and therefore natural to suppose that Heb. 13: 23, refers to such an event.

(3.) If the reading in Heb. 10: 34, "for ye had compassion on my bonds (rois dεouois μov)," be correct, it is another argument that Paul is the author of our epistle; for his bonds in Palestine, whither the letter was sent, are well known. That he obtained compassion there, particularly during his two years imprisonment at Cesarea, will not be questioned. But as the reading δεσμοῖς μου is controverted, and δεσμίοις (the prisoners) is preferred by some good critics, I do not think proper to urge this argument; although the evidence is about equally in favour of δεσμοῖς μου, δεσμοῖς, and δεσμίοις.

(4.) The salutation, in Heb. 13: 24, agrees with the supposition that Paul wrote this epistle ; ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς 'Italias. Paul, writing from Rome, which had communication of course with all parts of Italy, and with the Italian churches, may very naturally be supposed to have sent such a salutation. Indeed, the circumstances render this quite probable.

ble.

The objections made against this, do not strike me as forci

Eichhorn alleges, that οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας must mean, people who had come from Italy, i. e. who had left Italy, and were locally out of it, when the writer sent a salutation from them. Consequently, he concludes, the writer of the epistle could not have been Paul, during his imprisonment at Rome.

This interpretation, however, is not founded in the usus loquendi of the Greek language. From the many proofs of this, which might be offered, I select only a few cases. Matt. 21:11,

Ἰησοῦς . . . . ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, Jesus the Nazerene ; Acts 17: 13,

οἱ ἀπὸ Θεσσαλονίκης ̓Ιουδαῖοι, the Thessalonian Jews. In this last case, the Jews at Thessalonica, not out of it, are meant; as is plain from the last part of the verse, which speaks of them as going to Berea, after they had heard the report of Paul's preaching there. Το οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων γραμματείς, the Jerusalem scribes, Matt. 15: 1.

In the same manner, other prepositions, of the like signification with anó, are used with the article, e. g. oi in iorius, the contentious ; οἱ ἐκ νόμου, sticklers for the law; τὸ ἐξ οὐράνου, heav enly; oi ex ins Kuioagos oixias, Caesar's domestics.

So far is Eichhorn's remark from being well founded, in regard to the meaning of such a phrase as οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ̓Ιταλίας, that one may venture to say, it is incapable of such a meaning as he gives it. It is only when ano in such a connexion, is preceded by ἀφίστημι, ἀναβαίνω, ἐξέρχομαι, ἔρχομαι, καταβαίνω, etc. that it denotes, being out of a country. Oi ano denotes, belonging to. Consequently the salutation in Heb. 13: 24, means simply, The Italians [i. e. Italian Christians] salute you.

But here again, it is asked, How came Italians to salute a church in Palestine? If Paul wrote our epistle, at Rome, why did he not say, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ρώμης ! What acquaintance had the Romans with the church at Palestine?

This objection, however, will not bear examination. The Romans surely were Italians; and it is a matter of indifference, whether the writer at Rome said, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ρώμης, οι οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Italias, if he meant to send only the salutation of Christians who resided at Rome. But is it at all probable, that there were not Christians often at Rome, from various parts of Italy, who were acquainted with Paul, and who cherished a friendly interest for the church whom he was addressing? If these also, as well as the Romans, wished to send the expression of their friendly regards to the Hebrews; what other phraseology could Paul have adopted, that would be more appropriate than οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλιάς, which would embrace Christians in general, who lived in the country where the writer was?

Then, why should this be thought so strange, when an example of the very same nature may be produced from the acknowl

edged writings of Paul? This apostle, writing from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8), to the church at Corinth, says, The churches of Asia salute you, 16:19. May not the same questions be urged here, as objectors urge in the case above? May we not ask, How could the Asiatics be personally known to the Corinthians? And why should Paul speak of the churches of Asia, and not of that at Ephesus? Plainly, the reason of this was, that Christians from different parts of Asia minor, (which is here meant), were collected together in Ephesus its capital, where they had intercourse with Paul, and knew that he was addressing the Corinthians, and desired an expression of their brotherly affection toward them. What is more common, every day, than for single individuals, or societies of men, who have never had any personal intercourse together, to exchange friendly salutations? Could not Paul as well send the salututions of οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ̓Ιταλίας, as of οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ασίας

Such are the various circumstances adverted to in our epistle, which serve to render it probable that Paul was the author of it. From its nature, this evidence is indirect; but evidence of such a kind is, not unfrequently, as convincing as that which appears to be more direct. The prefixing or suffixing a writer's name to an epistle, is a more easy and obvious method of interpolation, than the insertion of minute circumstances, which imply a very intimate acquaintance with a writer's condition and circumstances.

Will any one undertake to show, that the circumstances, which are brought into view above, may be more probably attached to some other person than to Paul? If not, then the probability from them is in favour of Paul as the author of our epistle.

$20. Evidence that the epistle is Paul's, from a similarity of sentiment, and also from the form, method, style, and diction of the composition.

The preceding section treated of the facts or external circumstances, to which various passages of our epistle adverts; and what is gathered from these may be called, in a certain respect,