2

up, once for all, to take away the sins of many; and when he shall make his second appearance, it will not be to atone for sin, but to bestow salvation on those who look for him, 9: 25-28." How can words make it more certain, that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews considered the propitiation or atonement as entirely completed, by the death of Christ?

It is true, indeed, that the same author also represents Christ as forever living, and exercising the duties of his office as an intercessor (or helper) for the saints, before God; "He, because he continueth forever, hath an unchangeable priesthood; whence he is able to save to the uttermost those who come unto God through him, since he ever lives to intercede for (vivyzάveev to help) them, 7: 24, 25." With which agrees another representation, in 9:24; "Christ has entered into heaven itself, henceforth to appear before God for us."

But are these sentiments foreign to Paul, as Bertholdt alleges ? "Who shall accuse the elect of God?—God acquits thein. Who shall pass sentence of condemnation upon them? Christ, who died for them? Rather, who is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, and who intercedes for (¿vzzávεi helps) them, Rom. 8: 33."

Here is not only the very same idea, as in the epistle to the Hebrews, but even the very same term (¿vrvypável) is used in both. Instead then of affording any evidence against the opinion, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, the point in question affords evidence in favour of it. Paul, and Paul ouly, of all the apostolic authors, has presented the idea of the intercession of Christ in the heavenly world. To say the least, the whole mode of representing this subject is Pauline. The only difference between the epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews, is, that in the latter case, the nature of the argument which the writer had employed, required him to represent Christ as performing the functions of a priest in the heavenly world, But it is palpably the intercessory function, which he is represented as continuing there to perform, in the passages which I have cited.

(3.) 'The doctrine respecting the Logos, in the epistle to the

1

Heorews, is of Alexandrine hue, and evidently resembles that of John, and not of Paul. E. g. the divine Logos (2óyos vrou) is quick and powerful, etc., 4: 12, 13; also, Christ is a priest, κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, 3: 16. So too, when Christ is represented as making an offering διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, 9: 14, this, as well as the other cases, coincides with the views and representations of John, and not of Paul.'

If now a critic will do such violence to the laws of exegesis, as to construe these passages so as to make them have respect to the doctrine of the Logos, the best way to answer him would be, to show that his principles of interpretation are without any good foundation. I cannot turn aside to do this here, as it more properly belongs to the exegetical part, which respects this epistle. I shall content myself with merely observing, that one of the last ideas, which can well be deduced from the passage respecting the Adyos 9εou just referred to, is that which Bertholdt has deduced from it; a deduction, which does equal violence to the context, and to the whole strain of reasoning, in our epistle. And where does John speak of Christ's eternal priesthood, or of his offering made in heaven διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου

At the conclusion of the arguments which I have now reviewed, Bertholdt adds, "With such real discrepancies between the epistle to the Hebrews and those of Paul, it is impossible that identity of authorship should exist, p. 2943."

If, indeed, the discrepancies were made out as clearly as Bertholdt supposes them to be, there might be some difficulty in supposing identity of authorship; at least we could not suppose this, without at the same time conceding, that the writer was at variance in some measure with himself. But the conclusion which Bertholdt here draws, of course depends entirely on the fact, that all his allegations in respect to discrepancies of style and sentiment are well supported. Whether this be so, must now be left to the reader to judge.

But there are other recent writers, who remain to be examined, that have gone into the subject under discussion much more thoroughly and copiously than Bertholdt. I refer in particular, to Dr. Schulz of Breslau, in the introduction to his Translation

of the epistle to the Hebrews, with brief notes, published A. D. 1818; and to Seyffarth, in his tract, De Epistolae ad Heb. indole maxime peculiari. This last work especially, has been spoken of with strong commendations by many critics; and Heinrichs, who in the first edition of his Commentary on the Hebrews, defended the Pauline origin of our epistle, has, in the second edition of the same, declared himself a convert to the side of those who disclaim Paul as the author; attributing his conviction principally to the essay of Seyffarth just mentioned. As these works are the latest critical attempts to discuss at length the question under examination, and as they have manifestly had no small degree of influence, upon the views of most of the continental critics of the present time, a particular examination of them becomes necessary.

$27. Objections of Schulz considered.

That Dr. Schulz is a man entitled to high respect for acuteness and strength of intellectual power, is sufficiently manifest, from his work on the Sacrament, entitled Die christl. Lehre vom heil. Abendmahle, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Testaments, A. D. 1824; a work, which, from the talent it developes, and the discussion that it has excited, bids fair perhaps to bring this long controverted subject to some close, in the Lutheran church. His acquisitions of a philological nature are such, also, that great expectations were excited among not a few in Germany, (if the Reviews are to be credited), when it was announced that Dr. Schulz's commentary on our epistle was about to appear. I make these remarks principally to show, that a particular attention to his work is not only allowable on the present occasion, but really necessary, if one would even seem to preserve the attitude of impartiality.

This work was published a year before Bertholdt's volume, which contains the views that I have just examined. But this writer informs us, that he had not seen the work of Schulz, when his own went to the press; consequently, this author, so far as we are now concerned, may be considered as posterior to Bertholdt.

Nearly the whole Introduction of Schulz, is devoted to the

consideration of the question, Who was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews? or rather, to showing that Paul was not the author, pp.1-158. Previously to writing this, the author had been engaged in controversy on the subject, with his colleague Scheibel. The whole work bears the appearance of a heated, if not an exasperated state of mind; and while it discloses some vivid thoughts, and pungent considerations, it also discloses some adventurous remarks, and extravagant criticisms; to which, the sequel of this examination will bear testimony.

The first fifty pages are devoted to the examination of Meyer's Essay, on the internal grounds for supposing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul.* In this are some remarks worthy of consideration, and which may serve to shew that Meyer, in some cases, has pushed his comparisons too far. It is not to my purpose, however, to review this; as the subject has already been presented above, in §21. My only object is, to select from Schulz such arguments against the Pauline origin of our epistle, as have not already been examined, in order that the reader may obtain a full view of our subject. These arguments I shall now subjoin, with such remarks upon each, as the nature of the case may seem to require.

(1.) It is incomprehensible, and indeed quite impossible, that, if Paul wrote this epistle, early Christian antiquity should have been so doubtful about it, and the epistle itself have been received by the church so late, and with so much difficulty; and after all, received only by some, and not at all by the generality of Christians. Such a fate did no other book of the New Testament meet with; not even the epistles which are addressed to individual persons, p. 58.'

This objection borrows all its importance, from assuming the fact, that our epistle was early and generally doubted in the churches, and at last but partially and doubtingly received. Whether Schulz had any good right to assume such a fact, must be left to the judgment of those, who have read and weigh

Printed in Ammon and Bertholdt's Kritisches Journal der neuesten theol. Literatur. II. 225 seq.

ed with impartiality, the historical evidence already laid before them. It is unnecessary to retrace the ground here, which has once been passed over. The state of facts is far enough from shewing, that all early Christians were doubtful about this epistle; nor can it be rendered probable, in any way, that doubts about it, at any period, had their origin in any ancient tradition that the epistle was not written by Paul. The doubts suggested are merely of a critical nature, or else they originated in doctrinal opinions, which seemed to be thwarted by our epistle.

Nor is it correct, that other parts of the New Testament were not early doubted, by some churches; nay some of it, was doubted by many. Witness the fact, that Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. III. 25, classes among the artikeyouɛvoc, James, Jude, 2 Pet., 2 John, and 3 John. Witness the fact, that the old Syriac version (Peshito) does not comprise either of these epistles, that of James excepted. Who, that is acquainted with the early state of criticism, and the history of our Canon, does not know that the ancient churches were not, for a long time, agreed in respect to all these epistles? Yet neither Schulz, nor any considerate critic, would decide that these books were spurious, because doubts had been raised respecting them. Are not the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John doubted, and called in question by some learned critics, even at the present time? Shall they be given up, because they are called in question?

(2.) The epistle to the Hebrews is altogether unique; so much so, that no other writer of the New Testament could have produced it. Every one who can comprehend peculiarities, and is able to distinguish them, must acknowledge this to be so. Nothing more than this fact needs to be considered, in order to decide the matter, p. 59.'

If the writer here means that the style is unique, then I must refer to the evidences of the contrary in the preceding pages. If he means, that the selection of particular words is unique, this is to be hereafter considered, when the selection, which Dr. Schulz has made, comes to be examined. If he means, that the matter is sui generis, I readily accede; but I demur to the allegation. Must Paul always write on one and