conjectural one.' They have arisen more from taste and feeling, than from tradition or testimony.

On the whole, I must acquiesce in the opinion of Origen, which I repeat as the general voice of antiquity; IT IS NOT WITH

OUT REASON THE ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN TO US THAT

THIS EPISTLE IS PAUL'S. Nor should I differ materially from those, who, with Eusebius, can say, tou de Ilavλov п o óð ŋ λ o i καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες, fourteen epistles are CLEARLY and CERTAINLY Paul's. I consider, however, the form of the proposition, as stated by Origen, to be the most becoming, in regard to a point so controverted, and to contain, for substance, all which it is necessary or expedient for us to assert and to believe.

35. Was Barnabas the Author?

Whoever is satisfied with the arguments in favour of the Pauline origin of our epistle, may dispense with the examination, whether any other person than this apostle has a title to be considered as the author. But as past experience must lead one to believe, that unanimity in regard to this subject is not yet to be expected, but that some may still incline to adopt opinions about the authorship of our epistle, which were avowed or defended in ancient times; it seems to be necessary, briefly at least, to examine the claims of some others, as well as those of Paul.

The doubts raised in ancient times, whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, occasioned conjectures with regard to several other persons. Among the remains of ancient Christian writings, we find some hints that Barnabas was the author of our epistle. We first meet with these, in the essay of Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 201. "Extat," says he, "Extat," says he, "enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos," i. e. there is extant an epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews. This is simple assertion, without any reference to the reasons why Tertullian supposes Barnabas to be the author. He does not intimate whether he gathers it from tradition, or assumes it as a matter of mere opinion. He speaks of it as a thing which he believes; which seems to imply that others in that quarter of the church were probably of the same opin

ion. But we find no mention of this opinion again, until so late as the end of the 4th century, when Jerome adverting to it says, "Most [of the Latins] believe, that the epistle to the Hebrews belongs to Barnabas, or Clement ;" see Berth. p. 2953, and Jerome in his Epist. ad Dardanum. Again, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the word Paulus, he says, "The epistle to the Hebrews is thought not to be his, on account of the discrepancy of the style; but to belong to Barnabas, according to Tertullian; or to the evangelist Luke, according to some ; or to Clement of Rome." The same thing Philastrius (A. D. 380) repeats, Haeres. c. 89. And in modern times Cameron and Schmidt have undertaken to defend the hypothesis, that Barnabas was the author of this epistle; Bertholdt, ubi supra.

This is all the evidence which history gives us, in respect to this subject; and this surely is too slender to build any opinion upon, which can lay claim to critical confidence.

But all hope of defending this opinion, with any degree of plausibility, is removed by a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with an epistle of Barnabas, still extant and undoubtedly the same that was extant in the days of Tertullian, as the quotations from it by the ancient Christian fathers evince. I produce here a few short extracts from this epistle, to enable every one to judge for himself, whether the author of the one epistle can be rationally supposed to have written the other.

Chap. IX. Μάθετε οὖν, τέκνα, περὶ πάντων πλουσίως, ὅτι 4βραάμ, ὁ πρῶτος περιτομὴν δοὺς, ἐν πνεύματι προβλέψας εἰς τὸν υἱὸν περιέτεμε, λαβὼν τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα· λέγει γάρ Καὶ περιέτεμεν Αβραὰμ ἐκ τοῦ οικου αὐτοῦ ἄνδρας δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους. Τίς οὖν ἡ δοθεῖσα τούτῳ γνῶσις; Μάθετε τους δε καοκτώ πρώτους, εἶτα τοὺς τριακοσίους. Τὸ δὲ δέκα ὀκτω, ἰῶτα δέκα, ἦτα ὀκτώ· ἔχεις ̓Ιησοῦν. "Οτι δὲ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ Τ' ἔμελλεν ἔχειν τὴν χάριν, λέγει καὶ, Τριακοσίους. Δηλοῖ οὖν τὸν μὲν ̓Ιη σοῦν ἐν τοῖς δυσὶ γράμμασι· καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ τὸν σταυρόν. Οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν. Οὐδεὶς γνησιώτερον ἔμαθεν ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ λόγον· ἀλλὰ οἶδα ὅτι ἄξιοι ἐστὲ ὑμεῖς· i. e. Children, learn abundantly in regard to all things; for Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, practised this rite, looking forward in the Spirit to the Son, receiving the doctrine of the

three letters. For [the Scripture] says, And Abraham circumcised, of his household, three hundred and eighteen men. What instruction is imparted by this ?* Learn as to the first eighteen, then as to the three hundred. As to eighteen, ita signifies ten, and a eight; this means Jesus. And because the cross, signified by Z, would possess grace, it says, three hundred. It points out Jesus, therefore, by the two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has conferred upon us the engrafted gift of his doctrine. No one has learned more genuine doctrine of me; but I know that ye are worthy of it.” Cotelerius, Pat. Apostol.

Tom. I. p. 28.

So then, because Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen persons, (which by the way is not said in the Scriptures, see Gen. 17:23-27, comp. Gen. 14: 14, which gave occasion to the mistake), the system of gospel truth is disclosed in this mysterious number; and this because iara stands for ten, ta for eight, and rau for three hundred, i. e. here is Jesus, and he crucified. Where in all the New Testament, is any thing like such egregious trifling as this?

ers.

See now, how the same Barnabas can explain the ceremony of the red heifer, the ashes of which were sprinkled upon offendAfter stating the ceremony, and that the ashes were sprinkled by three children, he thus proceeds. Ο μόσχος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς· οἱ προσφερόντες, ἄνδρες ἁμαρτωλοὶ, οἱ προσενέγκαντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σφαγήν· εἶτα οὐκέτι ἄνδρες, οὐκέτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ἡ δόξα. Οἱ δὲ ῥαντίζοντες παῖδες, ευαγγελιζόμενοι ἡμῖν τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν, καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκε τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ἐξουσίαν, (οὖσι δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ ̓Ισραήλ), εἰς τὸ κηρύσσειν. Διὰ τὶ δὲ τρεῖς παῖδες οἱ ῥαντίζοντες; Εἰς μαρτύριον ̓Αβραὰμ καὶ ̓Ισαακ καὶ ̓Ιακώβ, ὅτι οὗτοι μεγάλοι τῷ θεῷ. ̔́Οτι δὲ τὸ ἔμιον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον; "Οτι ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ ξύλῳ· διότι οἱ ἐλπίζοντες εἰς αὐτὸν ζήσον ται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Διὰ τί δὲ τὸ ἔριον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον; "Οτι ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡμέραι ἔσονται πονηραὶ καὶ ῥυπαραὶ, ἐν αἷς ἡμεῖς σωθησόμεθα· ὅτι καὶ ἀλγῶν τὴν σάρκα διὰ τοῦ ῥύπου τοῦ ὑσσώπου ἰᾶται. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὕτω γενόμενα, ἡμῖν μὲν ἐστι φανερα, ἐκείνοις δὲ σκοτεινά· ὅτι οὐκ ἤκουαν φωνῆς τοῦ κυρίου.

But enough. If all were cited, which betrays a feeble and

puerile mind, the whole epistle must be transcribed. Let him who needs further argument on this subject, peruse the whole epistle to the Hebrews, and then read through the epistle of Barnabas. It is impossible that he should not feel the almost indescribable difference between the two writers.

Here then is a case, where the possibility of mistake in judging is very small. The difference between this writer, and him who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in respect to style, precision, clearness, energy, brevity-in a word, every thing which characterises any writing-is heaven-wide. The most obtuse perception cannot fail to discern it. It is a hopeless case, to plead the cause of a hypothesis like this.

$36. Was Luke the author?

The first suggestion among the ancient fathers, that Luke had any part in the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, is found in a fragment of Clement of Alexandria, preserved by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. VI. 14, in which Clement asserts, that "Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke carefully translated it into the Greek." See note p. 99. The same opinion or tradition, Origen mentions thus ; "If I may give my opinion, I should say, the thoughts are the apostle's; but the phraseology and composition belong to some one who relates what the apostle said, and as it were comments on the words of his master. But who wrote [i. e. wrote down] the epistle, God only knows. Report, which has come down to us, says, either that Clement of Rome wrote it, or that Luke the Evangelist did," p. 104, supra.

Both Bertholdt and Eichhorn have adduced Origen as asserting, that report attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Luke as the real author; which the context in Origen by no means allows. I cannot but understand him as saying merely, that 'the ancients had a report, that either Luke, or Clement wrote down the epistle;' which corresponds with the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Origen's teacher in early life. We have seen that afterwards, among the Latin churches, either Luke,

or Clement, was regarded as the real author of this epistle; for so the testimony of Jerome and Philastrius, cited in the preceding section, would seem to indicate.

We have no historical ground, then, on which we can build the opinion, that Luke was the author of this epistle. An uncertain tradition of the fourth century is surely insufficient. And even if Origen be understood as asserting, that tradition, in his day, assigned the composition of our epistle to Luke; he also asserts, at the same time, that traditionary testimony was at variance with itself, as one party assigned it to Clement of Rome. He evidently credits neither the one nor the other; at least, not in such a way as to be fully persuaded in his own mind; for he says, "Who wrote down the epistle, to μèv danois Deos vide."

The same uncertainty both Jerome and Philastrius exhibit, in the testimony to which allusion has just been made.

It is no doubt true, that the style of Luke approximates much nearer to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, than the style of Barnabas; so that a comparison, in this respect, does not lead to so clear and satisfactory a result in this case, as in that. But the situation of Luke, (born and educated abroad, as he was, and never having resided long in Palestine), hardly leads one to believe, that he was so deeply versed in Rabbinical lore, and in Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews must have been.

The main difficulty, however, is the want of any external evidence, that Luke was the author. And as there are, at least, no internal circumstances, or evidence from style, which speak much in favour of such an opinion, it must be abandoned as improbable, and altogether unsupported.

$37. Was Clement of Rome the author?

Origen is the first, who mentions Clement as the possible writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. In what sense he does this, has been already considered. Jerome and Philastrius, long afterwards, mention that some in the Latin churches attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Clement of Rome. The evidence of