divine attributes by the wealth of contrivance which they display. They impress us as the work of a being who can afford to be lavish of his skill. We cannot but feel that one whose knowledge was less than infinite would husband his resources, would prudently economize his stores.

They indicate this infinity also by the number of the relations to which they are adjusted. For instance, the boilingpoint of water sustains relations to every species of plant and animal on the globe, to the structure of every soil and every rock on its surface, to the elevation of its mountains, to the slope of its continents, to the conducting power and temperature of its interior, to the temperature and distance of the sun, and to the shape of the earth's orbit. In every one of these countless relations, all is harmony. Yet this one is but a minute fraction of the sum of those adjustments by which water is suited to its place in nature, and among them all there is no clash, no discord, nothing but harmony. We cannot resist the conviction that he who can form a plan so intricate and so vast in its details, and can execute a plan so vast in its proportions and so comprehensive in its results, can make and can carry out any plan whatever. We are forced, by a necessity which no sane mind which is aware of the facts can evade, to believe that in those attributes displayed in this part of his works, God is infinite.

ARTICLE IV.

AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY OF THE EPISTLE TO

THE HEBREWS.

BY REV. J. HENRY THAYER, PROFESSOR AT Andover.

[The following Article consists of extracts from lectures, introductory to the study of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were delivered to the Junior Class in Andover Theological Seminary during the past term. They are published by request, and without material alteration. In them the author has attempted little more than to collect the scattered evidence in the case, and to present it fairly].

IN investigating the authorship of this Epistle, we must remember that as the writer has not told us his name, nor afforded us any means of ascertaining it beyond a doubt, and as there is no uniform and unbroken tradition on the subject, we must content ourselves with the balance of probabilities. Our conclusion must of necessity be built up of indirect and incidental evidence.

A. Among the general and admitted characteristics of the author are the following:

1. He does not study to conceal his name; he assumes that he is known to his readers: cf xiii. 18, " Pray for us," etc. 19, "That I may the sooner be restored to you." 22, sq. "Timothy has been set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you," etc.

2. He was one of the distinguished teachers of apostolic times. This is proved by the fact that he writes to an entire church (apparently) indeed by the general tone of the

Epistle.

3. He was a born Jew; - the whole tenor of the Epistle puts this past question.

4. He was not one of those who heard the Lord in person; but, in common with his readers, received the gospel mediately, from those who were ear-witnesses; cf. ii. 3.

5. He was intimate with Timothy, the faithful friend and companion of Paul (xiii. 23).

B. The last-mentioned characteristic of the author (namely, intimacy with Timothy), is one of the signs which the Epistle is thought to afford that it was written by Paul. This opinion let us examine, considering first the internal and then the external arguments in reference to it.

Internal arguments in favor of Paul as its author: These may be comprised under three heads :

1. Facts or allusions contained in the Epistle:

a. In x. 34 the text. recept. runs rois deopoîs pov ovveñaOnoare, "ye sympathized with" (Eng. vers. "had compassion on me in") "my bonds." This is naturally taken as an allusion to "Paul the prisoner." But the reading of the text. recept. is hardly sustained. A (B ends with ix. 14, and the passage is wanting also in C)-D, 47, etc.; Syr., Arab. Erp., Copt., Arm., Vulg.; Chrys., etc., support the reading Tois Seoμious-"ye sympathized with those in bonds"-which has been adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Reiche, Tischendorf, Bleek, Delitzsch, Lünemann, Alford, etc.

iva

b. In xiii. 19 the writer says: "I beseech you to pray for me ..... that I may be restored to you the sooner: TáxιOV ȧTTоKATAσTabâ iuîv. This language, it is said, implies τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ that the writer is a prisoner, and so favors the theory that he is Paul.

But we reply:

(1) It is true that the solicitation of their prayers for his restoration implies hinderances which those prayers might have some effect in removing (Táxiov); but

(2) ἀποκατασταθῶ does not of itself mean restored from imprisonment, while the subjoined uîv shows that here it does mean restored" to you," i.e. merely from absence; and

(3) v. 23 ("with whom [Timothy], if he come shortly, I will see you") shows that the writer was personally at liberty. c. In xiii. 23 we read "Know ye that our brother Timothy has been set at liberty" (aroλeλuμévov). Timothy was the (ἀπολελυμένον). companion of Paul; was with him during his confinement

at Rome; and if we render åтoλeλvμévov “sent away on business, we may find a probable coincidence with Phil. ii. 19, "I trust ..... to send Timotheus shortly unto you." 23, "Him therefore I hope to send presently." Our Epis tle was written (it is said) by Paul during this absence of Timothy.

But the more natural and obvious meaning of ἀπολελυμέ vov is not "sent away," but "liberated"; see the lexicons.

d. In xiii. 24, the writer sends salutations from "those of Italy,” oi ảπò TŶs 'Iraλías. This, it is alleged, corroborates the above indications, by showing that the Epistle was written from Rome, and therefore probably by Paul.

This argument turns upon the meaning of the debated phrase οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας. The possible interpretations may be classified under the two generic senses of årò; namely, local separation and origin.

Taken in its primary sense of local separation, it may have reference,

Either (a) to the persons; in which case it denotes that the persons referred to are (together with the writer) "away from" Italy, although belonging to it. This, as it is the more obvious, seems also in the New Test. to be the more usual meaning of the phrase; cf. Matt. xv. 1 with Mark vii. 1; see also Acts vi. 9; (x. 23?); xxi. 27. Contrast, too, 2 Tim. i. 15, oi ev tŷ 'Aoíą.

If we adopt this interpretation in the present instance, we are met by the question: How comes the writer to send a salutation from the Italians alone, and not also from the native Christians of the place where he is writing? To this question it is hard to find a satisfactory answer.1

Or (b) it may refer to the salutation; as if two local prepositions had been blended into one, so that the full expression would run οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς. For other instances of this attraction, or rather pregnant con

1 Bleek, Lünemann, et al. regard the party as fugitives from the Neronian persecution, and as temporarily sojourning where there are no native Christians.

struction, cf. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi. 13; Col. iv. 16. See Win. § 66. 6; Jelf, § 647; Kühn. ii. § 623, p. 318.

This interpretation is favored in the present case by the usage of the Greek epistolary style, which, as is well known, often employs those forms of expression (tenses, etc.), which are correct in reference to the reader of the letter, rather than to the writer. Buttmann, however (Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, pp. 323, 324, cf. p. 83), adopts the construction which follows.

If ȧró be taken to denote origin, the phrase is very like "the men of Italy," i.e. " the Italians." Cf. Matt. xxi. 11; Mark xv. 43, etc. (Cf. the use of Art. with ảnó to denote a genus in such phrases as oi àπò σopías, i.e. docti, Lob. Phryn. p. 164.)

In this case the present locality of the persons in question is, strictly speaking, left undecided. It must be determined, if at all, upon other grounds. If in the present instance we suppose (a) that the persons referred to were (with the writer) in some place out of Italy, we encounter again the same difficulty which lay in the way of interpretation (a) of the former class, namely, Why is no mention made of native Christians?

If, then, we allow the circumstances of the case to decide that the phrase here means (b) Italians in Italy, we are still pursued by the question of locality, and asked, Italians outside of Rome? or, including the Christians of Rome?

Many have thought themselves compelled to reply "the former, viz. Italians outside of Rome." Otherwise it is supposed the Roman Christians would have been mentioned also; hence they say the Epistle was probably written outside of Rome. But this conclusion is as doubtful as the assumption upon which it rests. Even supposing the author to be writing from Rome, why need he in the greeting make separate mention of the Roman Christians? The generic term includes the specific - the Romans were also Italians. And just because it is the more comprehensive term, it is the more weighty and eligible. So in Acts xviii. 2 Aquila is spoken