XXII. FORM AND METHOD OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF PAUL'S ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES.

THESE topics may be considered, either in a general point of view, as it respects the arrangement of the epistle at large; or specially, as having reference to various particulars which it exhibits.

(1) The general method or arrangement of this epistle is like to that of Paul. Most of all does it resemble his two epistles to the Romans, and to the Galatians; which exhibit first a theoretical or doctrinal, then a practical part. The epistle to the Romans is principally occupied, to the end of the tenth chapter, with the doctrinal part; and the remainder with practical matter and salutations. In like manner the epistle to the Galatians, as far as the end of the fourth chapter, is principally doctrinal discussion; while the remainder is hortatory and practical. In some degree, the same thing may be said of the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Thessalonians. But that to the Romans is most distinctly marked of all.

Turning now to the epistle to the Hebrews, we find that it is composed on a similar plan. As far as chapter. x. 19, it is principally doctrinal. It has, however, like Paul's other epistles, occasional exhortation intermixed, which the strength of the writer's feelings plainly appears to have forced from him. Thence to the end, it is hortatory and practical.

In the epistle to the Romans, just before the salutatory part begins, the writer earnestly asks for a special interest in the prayers of those whom he addressed, in order that he may be delivered from the power of persecution; and he follows this request with a petition, that the God of peace might be with them, and concludes with an Amen, Rom. xv. 30-33. The very same order, petition, style, and conclusion appear at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, xiii. 18—21. The writer begs an interest in their prayers, that he may be restored to them the sooner; commends them to the God of peace, an expression used no where else but in Paul's writings and in the epistle to the Hebrews; and concludes with an Amen before the salutation.

Is all this arrangement, to which we have now adverted, merely accidental; or does it look as if it must have come from the hand of the same writer? I know, indeed, it has been said, that 'the order of nature and propriety would lead every man, writing an epistle which contained doctrinal discussion and practical exhortation, to arrange them in such a manner that the former should precede; and that this arrangement, therefore, cannot with probability be represented as exclusively Pauline.' With the views of rhetorical propriety, which are entertained by classical scholars of the present day, I readily acknowledge that such an order is almost spontaneous. But then, another question arises here. Why has not Paul adopted this in all his epistles? And why has neither John, nor James, nor Peter, nor Jude adopted it? All these apostles have commingled doctrine and practice, throughout their epistles. Regularly arranged discussion of doctrine, they do not exhibit. In this respect, the only similars to the epistle to the Hebrews, are to be found in the epistles of Paul. But if the general arrangement here adverted to, be not considered as of much weight in the matter before us, it must be admitted which he suggests that I have omitted. But I attribute this complaint more to want of care than lack of candour; for in general Prof. Bleek has shown a kind and candid spirit toward my work; although I might find reason to complain in some cases, that he has kept back things which should have been stated.

that there is a striking resemblance between the close of the practical part, just before the salutations or greetings, in the epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews. Here also we find the exclusively Pauline phrase, the God of peace, employed in the same way in both epistles.

(2) The manner of appealing to and employing the Jewish Scriptures, in Paul's acknowledged epistles and in the epistle to the Hebrews, is the same. I do not refer to the formulas of quotation, by which a passage from the Old Testament is introduced. I have compared, throughout, those formulas presented by the epistle to the Hebrews, with those in Paul's acknowledged epistles; but I do not find any thing peculiar enough in either, to mark Paul's writings with any good degree of certainty; as I shall endeavour to show, in its proper place. Every where in the New Testament, a variety of such formulas is found; as also in the epistles of Paul. My present object is to advert, in a particular manner, to the method in which, and the frequency with which the Jewish Scriptures are employed; and that in a similar way, both in the epistle to the Hebrews and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul. Paul often quotes passages of Scripture, without any notice of quotations; e. g. Rom. ix. 7, 21. x. 6—8, 13, 18. xi. 34. 1 Cor. ii. 16. x. 26. xv. 25, 27, 32. 2 Cor. ix. 7. xiii. 1. Gal. iii. 11, 12. Eph. v. 31. 2 Tim. ii. 19. In like manner, does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews proceed; e. g. he quotes without notice, in iii. 2, 5. x. 37. xi. 21. xii. 6. xiii. 6, and the historical references in chap. xi. throughout. Paul makes a very frequent and copious use of the Jewish Scriptures in his epistles which are argumentative; so does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Paul often appeals to the Jewish scriptures as prophetically declaring the abrogation of the Mosaic economy, and to Abraham as having received a covenant which the law could not annul; the same does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Paul employs the Old Testament in every way in which the Jews of that time were usually accustomed to reason from it. Sometimes he ap

peals to direct and prophetic assurances; sometimes to similarity of sentiment; sometimes he accommodates passages, which in the original have a local or temporary meaning, to designate something then extant or happening at the time in which he wrote; sometimes he appeals to the history of the Old Testament, for analogical cases to confirm or impress the docrine or truth which he inculcates; and sometimes he uses the Old Testament language as a vehicle of thought, in order to express his own ideas. The very same traits characterize, in a most visible manner, the method in which the Old Testament is employed throughout the epistle to the Hebrews'; as every attentive reader must plainly see, without my delaying to specify individual cases.*

In a particular manner does Paul employ passages of the Jewish Scripture and Scripture history, xar' vegov; in other words, he uses them by way of argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ex concessis. It is thus that he allegorizes on the two sons of Sarah and Hagar, in Gal. iv. 24 seq.; on the command of Moses not to muzzle the ox who treadeth out the corn, Deut. xxxv. 4, the spirit of which he applies to the maintenance of religious teachers, in 1 Cor. ix. 9; on the rock from which the Israelites obtained water, Ex. xvii. 6. which he considers as an emblem of Christ, in 1 Cor. x. 2 seq.; on the veil over Moses' face, Ex. xxxiv. 33, which he applies to the com

* Bleek has given a view of the quotations in our epistle, very different from the one here exhibited. But I reserve the examination of it for another occasion viz. that of examining Schulz's allegations relative to this subject. Sec objections by Schulz, sect. 27, No. 18.

parative obscurity that rested on the Jewish revelation, in 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14'; on the declaration that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that they twain should become one flesh, Gen. ii, 24, which he applies to the union of Christ and his church in Eph. v. 31, 32.

How conspicuous this method of reasoning is, in the epistle to the Hebrews, need not be insisted on for the sake of any attentive reader. The whole comparison between Christ and Melchizedek, Heb. vii., is of a nature similar to those already mentioned. The temple and all its apparatus, and the holy place which the high priest entered with the expiatory offerings of blood are types and shadows of the temple, of the offering, and of the great high priest presenting it, in the heavens, Heb. viii. 1-5, ix. 1-9. Indeed the strain of argumentation, throughout is often ad hominem or ex concessis. The argument that Christ is a more exalted personage than the angels, than Moses, than the high priest; that Christ's priesthood, the temple in which he officiates with all its apparatus, the offering of blood which he makes, and his official duties as a priest, are all spiritual, heavenly, elevated above all the corresponding things in the Jewish dispensation to which the Jew adhered with so strong an attachment, and by which he was tempted to make defection from his Christian profession, is peculiarly ad hominem. We who are not Jews, and who have never felt the power of their prejudices, need not, in order to produce in us a conviction of the importance of Christianity, to be addressed with comparisons drawn from ritual types and from the analogy of such objects. But these were all familiar to the Jew, and were not only attractive to him, but, in his view, of the highest importance. No one, indeed, can reasonably find fault that the writer addresses the Jews as such; reasons with them as such; and makes use of those arguments, whether ad hominem or ex concessis, which he knew would produce the most powerful effect in persuading them to hold fast the truths of Christianity. There is nothing in this, which is inconsistent with the maxim of that apostle who became "all things to all men;" with the Jews demeaning himself and reasoning as a Jew, and in like manner with the Gentiles, in order that he might win both to Christianity.

But it is not my object here to defend the manner of argumentation employed in Paul's acknowledged epistles, and in the epistle to the Hebrews, I design merely to show (what cannot be denied), that the same method of reasoning from sentiments and objects presented by the old Testament, is exhibited by both, and in a manner which cannot well escape the attention of the inquisitive reader.

I will only ask now, What other writers of the New Testament have exhibited the traits of composition which I have noted under this head, in the same degree or with the same frequency? Nay, I venture to affirm that there is scarcely an approximation in any of their writings, to those of Paul, either in regard to the frequency or the latitude of the usage in question.

But it may be said, 'This only shows that the other writers just named were not the authors of the epistle to the Hebrews, but not that Paul wrote this epistle.'

It seems to me, however, to go somewhat further. It proves that the characteristics peculiar to Paul's epistles and to the epistle to the Hebrews, were not the general characteristics of the sacred writers of that age; and of course that either Paul, or one who had drunk in deeply of his doctrine and manner, must have written the epistle in question.

(3) The manner of Paul's writing, in respect to separating premises from

conclusion, or protasis from apodosis, bears a striking resemblance to that which is found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

I refer now to the manner of employing suspended sentences, and a species of anacolutha or imperfect sentences; and also his custom of seizing hold of a word or phrase thrown out by the way and commenting on it, and then returning to his subject, and thus making frequent parentheses. Paul sometimes states the major and minor terms of a syllogism; or the first parts of a sentence or comparison; and then, leaving it in this unfinished state, he turns aside to illustrate or confirm some hint which was suggested to his mind by what he had stated; or some train of thought is introduced, to which the natural association of ideas would lead; and after descanting on this, he returns, and with, or without, repeating his proposition or sentence at first commenced, presents in full the conclusion or apodosis which is required to complete it.

A striking example of this occurs in Rom. v. 12-18. "Wherefore," says he, "as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned," 12. The premises being thus stated, he turns aside to descant on the universality of sin, its pernicious consequences, and the salutary effects of the blessing which is proffered by Christ; and it is not until he reaches the 18th verse of the chapter, that the proposition which he had commenced is repeated and the conclusion fully brought out, where it is thus stated; Therefore, as by one offence condemnation [came upon] all men, so by the righteousness of one, the blessing of justification unto life [comes upon] all men."

So in Rom. ii. 6, Paul says, "Who [God] will render to every man according to his works;" and after nine verses of explanatory matter, which was suggested by the mention of rendering to every man according to his works, he adds, at last, the remainder of the sentence which he had begun, viz. "in the day when God will judge the secret doings of men by Jesus Christ, according to the gospel which I preach," Rom. ii. 16.*

So in Eph. iii. 1, the apostle says, "For this cause, I Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles;" then leaving the sentence thus commenced, he proceeds on 12 verses, with thoughts suggested by the mention of his being a messenger to the Gentiles; and finally, in the 13th verse, he adds the conclusion of the sentence commenced in the first, viz. " I desire that ye faint not at my tribulation for you, which is your glory."

66

In the like way has the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews constructed some of his reasonings and sentences. In Heb. iv. 6, he says, Seeing then it remains that some should enter into [the rest], and they to whom the good tidings were formerly proclaimed, did not enter in through unbelief-;" the sentence is then suspended, until the writer introduces another quotation from the Psalms, and reasons upon it in order to prove that the rest in question could not have been such a rest as the land of Canaan proffered. After this, and in the 9th verse, we have the concluding part of the sentence or syllogism, viz., "there remaineth then a rest for the people of God." How entirely this coincides with the Pauline manner above exhibited, must strike the mind of every one who considers it.

*Bleek (Rev. p. 19) objects to this instance of suspended sense, that I have not rightly comprehended the connexion of the whole passage. But surely ver. 16 is not to be connected in sense with ver. 15, inasmuch as the testimony there alluded to, in respect to the divine law, is present testimony, i. e. such as the heathen then exhibited; not future testimony at the judgment day. This being evidently the case, to what can ver. 16 be attached in sense, except to ver. 6. It were easy to appeal to distinguished commentators in support of this exegesis; but it seems to be unnecessary.

* In iv. 2 also, καὶ γὰρ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι introduces a comparison, which, in point of form, is no where completed.

So in Heb. v. 6, the writer introduces the divine appointment of Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, with a design to show that this was an appointment of the most solemn nature, and of a higher order than that of the Jewish priests. He then suspends the consideration of this topic, and introduces another, in ver. 7-9; after which he resumes the former topic. But no sooner does he do this, than he turns aside once more, in order to descant upon the difficulties which present themselves in the way of an ample discussion of it. These result from the very imperfect state of religious knowledge among those whom he addresses, v. 11-14; the criminality and danger of which state he dwells upon at large in chap. vi., intermixing threats and encouragements. It is not until we come to chap. vii. 1, that the subject of Melchizedek's priesthood is resumed; where it is treated of at full length.

In Heb. vii. 1, a sentence is begun with "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God," which is then suspended through a long paragraph of intervening matter, and finally completed, at the end of ver. 3, by mével legeùs eis Tè dinvexés. And generally from ver. 8 to 18, there is a series of propositions, the connexion of which it is exceedingly difficult to discover.

In Heb. ix, 7, the writer says, that the Jewish high-priest entered into the holy place once in each year, with the blood of victims in order to make atonement.' This is designed as one member of a comparison; but the other member follows only in ix. 11, 12, after descanting on several matters suggested by what the writer had stated. There the antithesis is stated, viz. "Jesus the high-priest of future blessings, entered the sanctuary of the temple not made with hands, with his own blood, accomplishing eternal redemption."

Such is the suspended connexion here, even if we adopt that method of interpretation which will make it as close as possible. But an attentive consideration of the whole preceding context, will perhaps render it probable to the attentive reader, that Heb. ix. 11 may be the antithesis of the latter part of viii. 4, and the first part of viii. 5; where the úzód¤yμa and oxid TãV ŠTOVęανίων, are in contrast with the μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν and the μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου of ix. 11.

How much such suspensions resemble the manner of Paul, need not be again insisted on. Instances of this nature might easily be increased ; but no attentive critical reader can help observing them, as they abound in the epistle to the Hebrews. See more connected with this general subject, in

sect. 32.

The instances above produced may serve to show, that, as to form and method, in regard either to general arrangement, or the deducing of arguments from the Old Testament, or the exhibition of a peculiar manner in the statement of these arguments, or in the method of forming suspended and involved sentences, there is a striking similarity between the acknowledged writings of Paul and the epistle to the Hebrews.

Bleek (Vol. I. p. 329 seq. and Rev. p. 18 seq.) has given a brief and very different view of the subject now before us. He states, indeed, the peculiarities of Paul's style in much the same manner that I have done. But in regard to our epistle, he maintains (in his Review), that directly the opposite is true in regard to suspended and unfinished sentences and connexions of thought. This he does, however, by simple affirmation here; although in his Introduction (I. p. 327 seq.), he has stated that a regular finish of periods, an accurate position of words, and a fine rhythmus arising from this, are the characteristics