this Epiftle, though there are fome paffages, for inftance, ch. vi. 4, 5, 6. x. 26. which have been thought inconfiftent with the benevolence of the Supreme Being. If they doubted of the truth of any of its doctrines, it was because they previously doubted whether the Epiftle was canonical: and they did not argue, in an inverted order, from any fuppofed exceptionable paffages to a want of canonical authority. Nor did Tertullian, though he highly approved of thofe very paffages, which others have thought exceptionable, pronounce therefore in favour of its canonical authority. We fee therefore that in the examination of the prefent queftion the doctrines contained in the Epiftle did not influence the judgement of the fathers, either on the one fide or on the other.

Jerom however has laid down a criterion of canonical authority, which is very different from that affumed by the fathers of the fecond and third centuries. For in his Letter to Dardanus, after having faid that the Greek church received the Epiftle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's, though most perfons (namely in the Latin church) fuppofed it to have been the work either of Barnabas, or of Clement, adds: immediately after the words, which I have quoted in the preceding section, et nihil intereffe cujus fit, cum ecclefiaftici viri fit, et quotidie ecclefiarum lectione celebretur.' But if nothing further can be faid in favour of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, than that it was written by a vir ecclefiafticus,' according to Jerom's expreffion, and read daily in the churches, we have a very unfatisfactory proof of its canonical authority, efpecially when Jerom himtelf leaves it in doubt, who this ecclesiastical author was. Is every ecclefiaftical author, it may be asked, infpired and are all writings infpired, which are read in the churches? The latter queftion Jerom himfelf has virtually anfwered in the negative; for according to his own account the Latin church denied, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was infpired, though it was read in the public fervice. If it could be determined, who this ecclefiaftical author was, the question would be much more capable of a determinate answer. Now they, who have denied that St. Paul was the author, have afcribed it

either to St. Luke, or to Barnabas, or to Clement of Rome. Were St. Luke the author, which however is wholly impoffible on account of the difference of ftyle, the Epistle to the Hebrews would be on a level with St. Luke's Gofpel and the Acts of the Apostles, on the inspiration of which I have expreffed some doubts in the first volume of this Introduction". Were it written by Barnabas, who was St. Paul's oldeft colleague, it might have on this account a better claim to infpiration, than the writings of St. Luke. But on the other hand, if the Epiftle of Barnabas, commonly fo called, be genuine, the two Epiftles, as proceeding from the fame author, will be reduced, in point of authority, to a level, and no man can poffibly confider the Epiftle of Barnabas, as an infallible rule of faith. Laftly, were Clement the author, it would be no more canonical, than the other writings of Clement. Such are the answers, which might be given, if St. Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement were fixed on as the author of this Epiftle. But when the author is left undetermined, and it is faid only in general terms to have been written by an ecclefiaftical author, how are we to prove that the Epistle was infpired?

If we appeal to the teftimony of the ancient church, in order to determine the divine authority of this Epistle, we shall be again left in a ftate of uncertainty, for on this head the church was at variance with itself. The moft ancient Latin or Western church did not rank it among the canonical writings, though the Epiftle was well known to them, for Clement of Rome has quoted from it many paffages. It is true, that fome Latin writers in the fourth century received it, among whom was Jerom himself: yet even in the time of Jerom the Latin church had not placed it among the canonical writings, as appears from various paffages in the works of Jerom. In his Letter to Dardanus, immediately after the words quoted in the preceding paragraph, he adds: quod fi cam Latinorum confuetudo non recipit inter fcripturas

Ch. iii. Sect. 3.

fcripturas canonicas, nec Græcorum quidem ecclefiæ Apocalypfin Johannis eadem libertate recipiunt nos1 tamen utramque fufcipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis confuetudinem, fed veterum fcriptorem auctoritatem fequentes, qui plerumque utriufque abutuntur teftimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere folent, quippe qui et gentilium literarum raro utuntur exemplis, fed quafi canonicis et ecclefiafticis. Here is a clear confeffion of the fact, that the Latin church did not receive the Epiftle as canonical, though the argument, which Jerom ufes in favour of its canonical authority is a falfe one. Again in his Commentary on the eighth chapter of Ifaiah, he fays, Cæterum beatus Apoftolus in Epiftola ad Hebræos (licet eam Latina confuetudo inter canonicas fcripturas non recipiat) docet, &c. And in his Note1 to Zechar. xviii. 14, he fays, De hoc monte, et de hac civitate et Apoftolus Paulus (fi tamen in fufcipienda epiftola Græcorum auctoritatem Latina lingua non refpuit) facrata oratione difputans, ait. After Jerom's time, the number of thofe, who received the Epiftle as canonical, gradually increafed, and at length its canonical authority ceased, in the Latin church, to be a matter of doubt.

In the Syrian church the Epiftle to the Hebrews is received (and, as far as we know, without exception) as canonical. But I have fhewn in the fecond volume of this Introduction, ch. vii. Sect. 2. that the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Syriac verfion was not tranflated by the perfon, who tranflated the other books of the New Teftament. In the oldeft Syrian canon therefore the Epiftle to the Hebrews was not admitted: but it was afterwards admitted into the canon, and as it appears, in a very short time.

We fee then that in the early ages of Chriftianity the Epiftle to the Hebrews was received as canonical by fome churches, while other churches did not reckon it among the canonical writings. Whether we ought to receive it as fuch, depends, according to the criterion laid down in the beginning of this fection, on the previ

'Namely, I Jerom. * Tom. III. p. 80.

1 Ib. p. 1744.

ous

ous question, whether it was written by an Apostle. But we have already feen that this previous question cannot, at least not with certainty, be answered in the affirmative: confequently, the canonical authority of the Epiftle is uncertain. The fevere doctrines, which are contained in ch. vi. 4, 5, 6, x. 26, 28. have by many been thought exceptionable: but, for my own part, I think them capable of a fatisfactory explanation. However, if in ch. ii. 6-9. a paffage from the eighth Palm is applied to Chrift, and in ch. xii. 26, 27. a paffage from the prophet Haggai is applied to the end of the world, and any man is perfuaded that thefe paffages have really no fuch reference, he need not afk any further questions about the infpiration of the Epiftle. In my Commentary, I have endeavoured, as far as lay in my power, to rescue the paffages, to which objections have been made. I will not affert, that I have every where met with fuccefs: and it is therefore poffible, that in the Notes, which I intend to publifh to my tranflation of the New Teftament, I fhall give up points, which I formerly defended, and acknowledge perhaps, that the author was fometimes inaccurate,

SECT. XIX.

Of the contents of the Epifile to the Hebrews.

HE contents of this Epiftle I have represented at large in my Commentary on it; at present therefore I fhall only give a short fketch of them.

In the first place, the author endeavours to answer objections, which the Jews had made to the Chriftian religion, and which had occafioned the Jewith profelytes to waver in the faith. He then points out the impending abolition of the Levitical law, and its inefficacy even to

the Jews: which fubject is treated in a more clear and comprehenfive manner, than in any other book of the New Teftament. The chief arguments are taken from Plalm cx. which relates to the Prieft after the order of Melchifedek, and from the prophecy of Jeremiah relative to a New Covenant. Thefe arguments are produced in the feventh and eighth chapters, but the subject is ftill continued in the following chapters.

Here it may be remarked, that St. Paul, though he never permitted the Levitical law to be impofed on the heathen converts to Christianity, and undoubtedly confidered it as unneceffary, ftill permitted the Jews to continue the exercife of it: he likewife obferved it himfelf, and in order to convince the Jews that he did not preach apoftacy from the law, he made a Nazarite vow, and accompanied it with the neceffary offerings at Jerufalem". The open declaration therefore made in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, relative to the abolition of the Levitical law, is to be afcribed, perhaps to the circumftance, that it was written not long before the deftruction of the temple, when the Jewish facrifices ceafed.

CHAP. XXV.

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

HE Epiftle of St. James, the two Epiftles of St.

TH

Peter, the firft Epiftle of St. John, and the Epiftle of St. Jude, were not addreffed to any one perfon, or to any one community in particular: hence they acquired the title of catholic, or general Epiftles. The fecond

Or, of the fanctuary of Melchifedek.

Acts xviii. 18. 21, 22. XX. 20-26, xxiv. 17, 18.

and