as the application itself of the passages taken from the Old Testament,
shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Clement must have had the
first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews distinctly in his mind, when he
wrote the passage which is presented in the comparison.
That Clement, in his letter, has added more of the second psalm than
is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, forms no argument that he quoted
directly from the second psalm, rather than from Heb. i. In his view,
clearly, the whole of the second psalm applied to the Messiah. To the
quotation made from it by the writer of our epistle, Clement adds two
other verses, in order to amplify and confirm the view of the subject
which he has introduced.
To this statement we may the more readily accede, since it is often
the manner of Clement, in making his quotations of Scripture, to inter-
mingle passages taken from different parts of the Bible, without any
notice, or any sign of transition from the one to the other.*
No. 2. That Clement does not introduce this passage with the for-
mula of a quotation, is no proof that it is not one ; for he often extracts
passages both from the Old and the New Testament, without using any for-
mula of quotation, or without any intimation that he is about to quote.
The singularity of the expression itself, exhibited in No. 2, and the fact
that it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, are the grounds on
which I should rest the probability, that Clement had in his mind dis-
tinctly the manner of expression in our epistle, when he wrote the sen-
tence presented in the comparison.
No. 3. This is so plainly and exactly a quotation, of an expression
sui generis in the epistle to the Hebrews, that to doubt whether it be in
reality copied from this epistle, would be to doubt whether Clement has
quoted in any case, except where he has given express notice of it. But
* E. g. Clement, (Epist. c. 50,) after quoting from Isaiah xxvi. 20, adds another
quotation (from what book it is uncertain) without any note of transition. So in cap.
liii. after quoting Deut. ix. 12, seq., he goes on to quote other passages, from different
places, without any notice of transition. And so, frequently, in his epistle, where Iu
"" """"p* together various quotations.
70 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL
a doubt of this nature can never be cherished by any one who has read
Clement's epistle, and examined the method of his quotations.
No. 4 appears to me a case of quotation from Heb. x. 37, which has
the formula of appeal to the Scriptures prefixed, trvveTripaprvpovarnQ rfjQ
-ypafrJQ. The passage quoted is found, in the sense in which it is used
by Clement, in the epistle to the Hebrews. Another passage from which
we might suppose the quotation to be taken, viz. Mai. iii. 1, is quoted
at length, in immediate connexion with the one exhibited in the table,
plainly because Clement deemed it to be a parallel one ; so that we can-
not choose the passage in Malachi, as the source of his quotation. There
remains, then, besides Heb. x. 37, only Hab. ii. 3, which affords any
special resemblance to the quotation of Clement. But the passage in
Habakkuk relates wholly to a vision, or prophecy, and not to a person,
as in Heb. x. 37 ; and to a person, Clement evidently applies it. The
probability is then altogether in favour of the supposition, that the pas-
sage is quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews.
No. 5 is so alike in Clement and in our epistle, I can hardly persuade
myself that the expression in the latter was not in Clement's mind, when
he wrote the passages here extracted from him. Still, it does not appear
to be a case, I readily concede, on which a conclusion respecting actual
quotation or imitation can be built with entire certainty.
No. 6, although it does not exhibit an exact use of the language in
our epistle, contains, in my view, one of the most convincing proofs of
quotation. The arrangement of these examples together, as in the epistle
to the Hebrews; the manner of characterising their actions or their
rewards, viz. that they flowed from faith; and the almost exact simi-
larity of ideas, in cases where these are peculiar, to the writer of our
epistle, all combine to prove (I had almost said) the certainty that
Clement had Heb. xi. before his eyes, or at least before the eye of
his mind. In what other part of Scripture are these examples so
arranged together? And where else is found such a method of pre-
senting them to our view? In fact, imitation thus exact, of a passage
so peculiar in its style and manner, is better proof that the passage was
before the eye of Clement, or at least in his mind, than exact coincidence
of language in some cases would be. In a short passage, such coin-
cidence might be accidental, arising merely from similarity of views or of
idiom. But accidental coincidence as to the mode of reasoning and
representation here, seems to be fairly out of the question.
AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. .71"
No. 7 seems to be a kind of parody upon the corresponding passage in
the epistle to the Hebrews, or paraphrastic imitation of it. The extra-
neous matter which Clement inserts, has evident reference to the preced-
ing context in his own epistle.
No. 8. In Clement's epistle, the passage is in the sequel of the
sentence, extracted in No. 3. Now, as the writer of the epistle to the
Hebrews has exhibited the same order of thought, Heb. xi. 37, and xii.
1,2, is it not probable that Clement had the corresponding passages of
that epistle in his mind, when he wrote the one presented by the com-
parison ? The similarity of costume in the two passages can hardly fail
to strike the attentive reader.
No. 9 may be somewhat doubtful, because it may have arisen from
the passage in Prov. iii. 11. The whole strain of reasoning upon it,
however, inclines me to believe, that Clement had in his mind the corre-
sponding passage in the epistle to the Hebrews.
No. 10 exhibits an appellation of the Saviour, (apx te P /a ) which is
peculiar to our epistle. There is, moreover, an evident similarity between
Christ as ^vvofzevov trvfjiTradriaai TCUQ aardereiaic fyuwy, Hebrews iv. 15, and
Clement's Trpocrrar^v KCU fiorjdov rfjg acrOeveiag JifJL&v.
Nos. 11 and 12 cannot, of course, be much relied on in the present
case ; as no decisive reason can be offered, to prove that Clement must
have quoted from our epistle. From the tenor of the passages, and the
context, I am inclined to believe that he did ; but I cannot attach much
weight to this supposition.
In order now to make a fair estimate of the comparison which has
been made, and the weight of evidence to be adduced from it, it is
necessary that we should have correct views of the manner of Clement's
quotations in general, and the principles on which they are grounded.
I have examined the whole of this writer's quotations, both from the
Old and New Testament, with a view to ascertain, whether any thing
can be determined as to the authority which he attaches to them, from
the manner in which they are made ; and also to ascertain, by a view of
the whole, what his particular manner of quotation is. The result of this
examination I will now briefly state.
(1.) Clement names no book of either Testament. He appeals,
indeed, to the words of the prophets ; but their names he evidently uses
to indicate their persons, and not (as we do) the titles of their books.
The importance of this fact, considered in connexion with the same
usage by the writers of the New Testament, in respect to a critical
72 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL
examination of the genuineness of the titles prefixed to the books of
Scripture, has been already adverted to in the preceding part of this
introduction, ^ 10. p. 35.
(2.) Clement habitually appeals to 'the books of either Testament,
with or without a formula which gives notice of a citation. He often
prefixes ye'yjOctTrrcu, Xe'y, el-rev o 0eoc, ^oiv 6 Aoyoe ayioe, and the like
formulas, to his quotations. But nearly as often, particularly in the
New Testament, he cites without any notice or formula at all ; evidently
taking it for granted that his readers will at once recognise the quotation,
without any pains on his part to designate it.
(2.) I find no satisfactory evidence of quotation from the Apocrypha,
or any apocryphal writer now known. The instances of quotation from the
Wisdom of Solomon (chap. xn. xxvu.,) alleged by Wotton, are plainly
too far fetched to appear probable ; and the reference to the book of
Judith, (c. LV. of Clement,) is only a reference -to the story concerning
her, which Clement evidently believed. There are, it is true, a few
cases of apparent quotation, either from books not found in our present
Scriptures, or from traditionary accounts ; just as there are some quota-
tions of this nature in the New Testament, which are not found in the
Hebrew Scriptures. But there is no satisfactory evidence, that Clement
received any of the known apocryphal writings, either of the Old Testa-
ment or the New, as canonical.
With these facts in view, I cannot well account for it, that Eichhorn,
in his introduction to our epistle, should say, when speaking of the
weight of Clement's testimony in respect to its canonical authority;
" Clement indeed acknowledged the existence of the epistle, because he
has borrowed whole passages from it. But still, he no where cites it
formally; as is the case, when he makes use of the other canonical
writings of the New Testament. How much then can be educed from
him, in respect to the credit to be attached to this epistle ? Would he
not h&ve formally cited it, and named Paul as the author of it, if he had
regarded it as canonical, and as coming from Paul ?" (Einl. ^271.)
From this he concludes, that we can merely prove the existence of it
in Clement's day; but nothing in respect to the credit which he at-
tached to it.
But, as we have already seen, Clement is just as far from formally
citing the other books of Scripture, as he is from formally citing our
epistle. Often as he has quoted Paul's epistles, he never once appeals
to his name, except in connexion with the mention of the first epistle to
AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 73
the Corinthians, where he could not well avoid it. With this exception,
he has not even once named a single book of the New Testament, copi-
ously as he has every where drawn from it.
Allowing, then, that Clement has not formally cited the epistle to the
Hebrews, it amounts to no proof that he has not used it as Scripture.
But we are not obliged to allow so much. In No. 1. above cited, from
Heb. i. 7, it appears that Clement has prefaced his quotation with
yt'ypaTTT-ai yap ovrwg ; which is one of the highest appeals that he makes
to the volume of inspiration. This very passage, too, is produced by
Eichhorn as an example of Clement's quoting from our epistle ; but the
ytypaTrrat yap is wholly overlooked.
There is another instance also in Clement (c. xxiii.,) where the
quotation from Heb. x. 37 is quite probable, and which is prefaced by
ffvveiripapTvpovffrjs rife ypa^ife; supra No. 4. If No. 7 be regarded, also,
as a paraphrastic imitation by Clement of the corresponding passage
in the epistle to the Hebrews, then is this a third direct appeal to
the divine authority of our epistle; for he introduces the passage
by saying, " Search in the Scriptures the true sayings of the Holy
Spirit."
Thus much for the allegation of Eichhorn, that Clement has no where
cited our epistle formally, as he does the canonical Scriptures. But
further. The conclusion which this writer draws from the assumed facts
stated by him, is as erroneous as the facts themselves. One might
indeed have expected, in a matter so weighty as that of Clement's
testimony, and one in which the evidence is so a< cessible, that so mani-
fest an error in regard to Clement's mode ol quotation should not be
committed. Nothing can be more evident to a critical reader of Clement,
than that no conclusion can be drawn from the mode of his quotation,
against the supposition that he believed the book quoted to be canonical.
The fact that he appeals to our epistle more frequently than to any other
part of the New Testament ; that he no where appeals, so far as we can
discover, to any apocryphal writings of either Testament ; above all, that
he appeals to our epistle by quoting passages from it in order to confirm
and impress the truths which he is inculcating, and appeals to it in the
same way and for the purposes as he appeals to the most acknowledged
parts of Scripture ; the fact, too, that Clement was the companion and
fellow-labourer of Paul, and was also bishop of the church at Rome, the
metropolis of the world ; that he wrote in the name of the church there
74 | 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL
to the church at Corinth,* and that he addressed to them passages from
the epistle to the Hebrews, in such a way as to imply that this epistle
was already well known and familiar to them ; these facts, taken all
together, make on my own mind a strong impression, that the evidence
is as clear and convincing, that in the age of Clement our epistle was
considered a part of the sacred writings of the Scripture, as it is that any
other book of the New Testament was considered as a part of them.
Such was the impression which in ancient times Eusebius had, from
reading Clement's epistle. Speaking of monuments preserving apostolic
doctrines, he says, ['ETrioroXrj] KOL rov KX??juevroe tv ry avw/zoXoyovjutVr;
Trapa Trdfftv, fy K Trpoo-wTrov riyg 'Pw/icuW eiocXrjffmc; ry Koptv0tW Sierv-
* kv J\ rrjfe TTOOQ 'E/3pcuoi>e TroXXa rorjpara Trapadelc, ijdr] tie KOI
l prjroig rifflv l avTrjg xp^erd/zevoe, ffa^earara Trapiorjjcrtj/ ort pj
TO o-vyypaju^or o6ev ci/cdrwe edo&v, avro rote XOITTOIC iyr.a-
ypa^tao-t rov aTrooroXov, that is, " [We count also the epistle]
of Clement, acknowledged by all, which he wrote in behalf of the church
at Rome to the church at Corinth ; in which, exhibiting many of the
sentiments of the epistle to the Hebrews, he makes use of some expres-
sions taken from it in the very words of the epistle, by which he most
clearly shows that this epistle is no recent composition ; whence it seems
likely, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle
[Paul.]" Hist. Ecc. in. 38. I am not able to see how one who reads
critically the epistle of Clement, can avoid the conviction that he
has quoted it as Eusebius avers, and that he has appealed to it as
Scripture.
Of other writers, belonging to the first half century after the apostolic
age, we have but few remains ; and most of these are imperfect. Some
near resemblances to passages in our epistle to the Hebrews may be
found in them ; but after a careful examination of them, I have not
thought them sufficiently definite and important to become the subject
of discussion here ; I shall merely subjoin them, and leave them to the
consideration of the reader.
The following are the passages usually compared.
Heb. in. 5. Mwi/erf/e /uev mcr- Barnabas, Epist. c. xiv. Mwi;-
TOQ EV oXw r otfcw O.VTOV w 0epa- o%, 0epa7rw> wy, e'Xa/3fV [viz.
* C. i. 'H IfCKrXjjdi'a row Qtov / Trapotfcoytra 'Pwfirjv, ry (KK\rjffiq, K. r. X. is the
commencement of Clement's epistle*
AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE.
6. X/><T-O t we viuc Tag
avroD, ou ol/coe IffjJLtv //,u7j>
.] Auroe
, ttg XaoJ'
Heb. x. 25. Mi/ eyfcaraXtt- Barnabas, Epist. c. rv. Non
r>)> 7ri<7v>'aywy>)*' eavrwy separatim debetis seducere vos,
0oe rioriV.
Heb. xn. 17.
yap TOTTOV ov
Heb. iv. 12.
QvfJLl]ffli)V KCtl
.... OVK 0Tl
avTOv.
Heb. vi. 20. '
tanquam justificati.
[Old Latin version ; the original Greek
here being lost.]
Hermas, Simil. vni. 8. His
igitur non est locus penitentise.
Polycarp, Epist. c. iv Xf-
uv KapSiciQ Xrjdev avrov ov^ev, OVTE \oyiff fJL&v
a<bar}\q ivw- OVTE ivvoitiv, ovrf n ro)^
iv. 14.
ap- Polycarp, Martyr ....... 2ta
comp. vii. 3. 24. row CUOJM'OV c'tp^tepf'we 'l7<rov Xpr-
TOV ; (quoted in Euseb. Hist. Ecc.
p. 133. D. ; so, also, in the Latin
version of Polycarp, published by
Usher.) Add, from the same ver-
sion, c. xn ..... et ipse sempi-
ternus pontifex, Dei films, Christus
Jesus. Lardner, n. 830.
Ignatius, Epist. ad Magnesios,
Heb. xin. 9. Aix!e Trot/a-
$fvate
TrepKjitpeade c. viii. M/} 7rXaj'ao-0 TCUQ Irtpo-
iv OIQ ou/c d)(f>e\{iOr)ffciv ol
rolg ira-
XatoTg avitxpeXlffiv ovfftv.
Heb. x. 28, 29. 'A0 -//<rae rig Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. c. xvi.
v6fj.ov M<twcr&> X W P'S otKTipiJiwv ETTL Et ^e ol TOVQ avSpwivovQ OLKOVQ
Cv<rn> 11 rpial jj.aprvaiv hiroQvflffKiC ta^0a'poyrG> Qavury KCLTaliKa&v-
H6<r<i) SoKelre ^tiporoq u$t<i)6f]ffTai rat' TTOCTW piiXXov ol rriv Xptorou
TtfJLupiac, o Toy mov TOV Qtov K'ara- IroXifff/ay vodevetv tiri-^f-ipovvTEQ
sran/<raf, K. r. X. aluviav Ttaovfft ^C'K'T/J', vTrep fa orav-
pOV KCU QaVVLTOV V7T)U(Vy O KvplOG
'IlJOrOUC, K. T. X.
The passages may be found in Cotelerius; or in Lardner, Cred. i.
pp. 43, 44, 131, 217; ii. 830; i. 177; edit. 1734. See also Eich.
Einleit. 271, note 2. Several of them, (specially one from Polycarp,
naming Christ the eternal high priest,) look very much like a quotation
76 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY.
But in a matter so weighty, it is not best to place very much dependence
on them, as the similarity may be accidental.
Justin Martyr is the first considerable writer of the second century,
whose works are come down to us. He was born about A. D. 103, and
flourished about A. D. 140. In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, the
following passage occurs. " This is he, who, after the order of Melchi-
zedek, is king of Salem, and eternal priest of the Most High," p. 341.
He elsewhere calls Christ, alwvtov TOV Qeov iepea Kal j3afft\ea, KCU
XjOiorov jut'XXon-a yivtadai, p. 323. c. In another place, he says of
Christ, Kcu ayyeXoe e fcaXetrat Kal aTrooroXoe, Apolog. i. p. 96. D ;
which name (aTrooroXoe) is given him only in the epistle to the Hebrews.
In addition to the facts already stated, respecting the early existence
and credit of the epistle to the Hebrews, it should be noted, that the
PeshitOj or old Syriac version of the New Testament, made, in all pro-
bability, during the second century ; and the old Latin versions, made
during the same period, and probably within the first half of it ; both
contain the epistle to the Hebrews, Bertholdt Einleit, p. 637, seq., 717,
seq. This is a fact of very great importance ; for these versions were in
common use and authority among the churches of the East and West.
It is not pretended that either of these versions, at this period, comprised
any book which is now known to be apocryphal. Undoubtedly they did
not comprise any which were then deemed apocryphal. Here then is
palpable evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews was widely circulated
among Christians a short time after the apostolic age. In the west, the
Itala and old Latin versions comprised it; in Greece, or the middle
region, the church at Corinth are addressed by Clement as being familiar
with it ; and in the east, the Syrian church, wide spread as it was, com-
prised it in their canon.
From near the close of the second century onward, the history of the
canonical credit of our epistle intermingles itself with the controverted
question, whether Paul was the author of it. On this account, I shall
not separately pursue the history any farther at present, as it must
necessarily be investigated in the course of discussing that important
question which still remains for consideration.
The sum of what has been shown, under our present head of discus-
sion, is, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, probably but a short time before this event ; that in about
thirty years, at most, it had acquired such currency and credit, that the
church at Rome, the metropolis of the world, in a letter addressed by
13. WAS PAUL THE WRITER? 77
their bishop to the church at Corinth, made repeated appeals to it as a
book of divine authority, and in such a way as to imply a knowledge and
acknowledgment of it, by the Corinthian church, similar to their own ;
that Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, has evidently appealed to its con-
tents as sacred ; that about this time, or not long after, it was inserted
among the canonical books of the New Testament, by the churches of
the East and the West ; and that, consequently, it must have had, at a
period very little after the apostolic age, a currency and a credit not
at all, or at most very little, inferior to that of other acknowledged
books of the New Testament. Better evidence than this of early and
general reception by the churches, it would be difficult to find, in respect
to a considerable number of books in the New Testament ; with less than
this we are obliged to content ourselves, respecting several of them.
But admitting the early existence and general credit of this epistle,
there still remains the most difficult of all the questions which have been
raised respecting it, " Who was its author ? Was it Paul, or some other
person ?" This very important question deserves, and must receive, a
particular and thorough discussion.
13. Was Paul the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews ?
From whatever source the epistle to the Hebrews is derived, every
reader of it must perceive that it comes from a man of deep feeling, of a
benevolent heart, of extensive knowledge, and of views, in respect to the
spiritual nature of Christianity, as exalted as can be found any where in
the New Testament. Every attentive reader of the Mosaic law, more-
over, must feel, that the epistle to the Hebrews is the best key to unlock
the treasures which are secreted there ; and that it affords us a disclosure,
in respect to the general nature and object of the Jewish dispensation,
which Christians much need, and which can no where else be found in a
manner so full and satisfactory.
But this, however correct or important it may be, cannot establish the
fact that Paul wrote the epistle. We must not virtually assume this
position from reasons a priori, or because we may wish it to be so. It
is as uncritical to believe without any evidence, as it is to reject evidence
when it is offered. It is uncritical also to establish (or rather attempt
establishing) a position that concerns a simple matter of fact, by any
reasoning a priori. To investigate the present question in a becoming
and candid manner, we must lay aside prejudice either in respect to the
affirmative or negative of it ; and also our previous opinions, which have
78 13. WAS PAUL THE WRITER ?
been derived merely from education, and have not been established on
the basis of proper evidence.
The epistle to the Hebrews has no subscription. Consequently, we
are left either to conjecture who the author was, or to gather it from
evidence external or internal. Conjecture, in respect to an epistle, the
claims of which are supposed to be authoritative, can give no real satis-
faction to the thorough inquirer. Circumstantial evidence is that, then,
to which we must necessarily resort, since the signature of the author is
wanting.
I make these observations here, because it has seemed to me, that very
much more has been demanded by some critics, in order to prove that
Paul wrote this epistle, than the nature of the case admits, or even
requires. Their demands would amount to nothing less than the signa-
ture of the writer himself, or direct testimony that he wrote it, given by
witnesses then present.
In the investigation of the question, " Who was the author of an
anonymous letter that is almost 1800 years old, written in an age and
country where literary records (if they at all exist) are accidental and not
designed ?" how can it be justly required, that proof of a direct, unequi-
vocal, and positive nature should be produced ? Where is the anony-
mous letter of antiquity, that could ever be assigned to any particular
author, if demands such as these were made in respect to it ?
The question is not, whether the point in dispute can be rendered
certain by plain and indubitable testimony, (for then how should it ever
have been disputed ?) but, all things considered, whether there is not a
probability in favour of supposing Paul to be the author of it a pro-
bability deduced from evidence external and internal, which is sufficient
to quiet our reasonable doubts, and to command our prevailing belief.
It is not modern critics only, who have been divided on this question.