3. Certain marked characteristics of Paul's style are found in this epistle. This department of the internal evidence has more perhaps than any other been canvassed by recent critics, and in some cases opposite conclusions have been drawn from the same phenomena. Thus the occurrence of Itira, Xe76/.4evct in this epistle has been adduced by the German scholars ag,ainst the Pauline origin of it, whilst Stuart and Forster have both rested on this fact as strongly in favour of that conclusion ; and as it appears to us with justice, for if it be made out from Paul's acknowledged writings that the use of unusual words is a characteristic of his style (and this has been placed by these writers beyond all question), it is obvious that the occurrence of the same characteristic in this epistle, so far from being an argument against, is, as far as it goes, an argu ment for our ascribing it to Paul. On arguments, however, based on such minute phenomena, we arc not disposed to rest much weight on either side. Every person must be aware that an author's use ol words is greatly modified by the circumstances un der which he writes, or the design he has in writ ing ; and the literature of every country presents us with numerous cases of authors, whose works, written at different periods, and with different de signs, present far greater diversities of expression than any which have been pointed out between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the acknowledged Epistles of Paul. Hence cautious critics have de clined to rest much in questions of literary paren tage upon what Bentley calls (Dirsert. on Phalaris, p. 19, Lond. 1699) censures that arc made from stile and language alone,' and which, he adds, 'are commonly nice and uncertain, and depend upon slender notices.' Apart, however, from such minute niceties, there are certain marked peculiarities of style which attach to particular writers, and flow so directly from the character of their genius or edu cation, that they can hardly express themselves in discourse without introducing them. Now such peculiarities the writings of Paul present, and the occurrence of them has always been felt to afford no small evidence of the authenticity of any production claiming to be his in which they are found. Paley, in enumerating these (flora Paztlintr, ch. vi., No.2, 3), has laid stress chiefly on the following, : A disposi tion to the frequent use of a word, which cleaves as it were to the memory of the writer, so as to become a sort of cant word in his writings ; a propensity to go off at a word,' and enter upon a parenthetic series of remarks suggested by that word ; and a fondness for the paronomasia, or play upon words. In the Epistle to the Hebrews these peculiarities of Paul's style are richly exemplified ; an evidence in favout of its Pauline origin, which can never be enfeebled by adducing words, phrases, or features of style peculiar to this epistle, unless it can be first shewn that it was impossible for Paul to have used such.
4. There is a striking analog-y between Paul's use of the O. T. and that made by the writer of this epistle. Both made frequent appeals to the O. T. ; both are in the habit of accumulating passages from different parts of the O. T., and making them bear on the point under discussion (comp. Rom. iii. 10-18 ; ix. 7-33, etc. ; Heb. 5-14 ; ; x, 5-17); both are fond of linking quotations together by means of the expression Kai GEM:, (comp. Rom. xv. 9-12; Cor. iii. 19, 20; Heb. 5 ; ii. 12, 13 ; iv, 4 ; x- 30); both make use of the same passages, and that occasionally in a sense not naturally sug gested by the context whence they are quoted (1 Cor. xv. 27 ; Eph. i. 22 ; Heb. ii. 8 ; Rom.
17 ; Gal. iii. ; IIeb. x. 33); and both, in one instance, quote the same passage in the same way, but in a form in which it does not agree with the Sept., and with an addition of the words XI-yet Ktiptor, not found in the Hebrew ; thereby indicat ing that the passage is given in both instances as it was present to the memory of one and the same writer (comp. Rom. xii. 19 ; Heb. x. 30). On the other hand, great stress has been laid by the op ponents of the Pauline origin of this epistle on the fact, that whilst Paul in his acknowledged writings quotes from the Hebrew original in preference to the Sept. where the latter differs from the former, the author of this epistle quotes exclusively from the Sept. even when it departs very widely from the Hebrew. To this it may be replied : 1st, That both Paul and the author of this epistle quote generally from the Sept. ; ally, That where the Sept. differs from the Hebrew, Paul does not al ways follow the Hebrew in preference to the Sept. (comp. Rom. ii. 24 ; x. 11-18 ; xi. 27 ; xv. 12 ; Cor. i. 19, etc.); and, 3dly, That the writer of this epistle does not always follow the Sept. where it differs from the Hebrew, but occasionally deserts the former for the latter (ex. gr. x. 3o ; xiii. 5); (comp. Davidson, Introd. 230. There is no ground, therefore, for this objection to the Pauline origin of this epistle. In fine: The Epistle to the Hebrews contains some personal allusions on the part of the writer which strongly favour the sup position that he was Paul. These are the mention of his intention to pay those to whom he was writ ing a visit speedily, in company with Timothy, whom he affectionately styles ` our brother,' and whom he describes as having been set at liberty, and expected soon to join the writer (Heb. xiii. 23); the allusion to his being in a statc of imprisonment at the time of writing, as well as of his having par taken of their sympathy while formerly in a state of bondage among them (Heb. xiii. ; x. 34) ; and the transmissicrn to them of a salutation from the believers in Italy (Heb. xiii. 24) ; all of which agree well with the supposition that Paul wrote this epistle while a prisoner at Rome.
Such is an outline of the internal evidence fur nished by this epistle of its Pauline origin. Let us now glance at the main objections which from vari ous sources have been urged against it.
. It is unaccountable that Paul, had he written this epistle, should have withheld hig' name. But is it less unaccountable that Clement, or A pollos,or Luke, had any of them been the author, should have withheld his name ? Might not Paul write anonymously as well as any other man ? Why he should have done so in this case we admit our inability to say satis factorily; the only apparent reason, as far as we have been able to see, being the more rhetorical character of the production, which might induce the author to waive the usual form of epistolary ad dress. But our inability to assign the reason why this work should have been issued anonymously cannot surely be held to be an argument against its authenticity, else it would be impossible to esta blish the authenticity of any anonymous production unless we could satisfactorily shew what were the author's reasons for withholding his name—a thing which in five cases out of six it is impossible to do.