HEBREWS. 
Greek, that the tranflator, whoever he was, executed his tafk 
with ability ; for, in general, his vrsagen as perfpicuous, his 
fentences are eel arranged, and the epiil}> is more eafy to 
be underftood than any of thofe which were written by St. 
Paul, ‘There are neverthelefs j inaccuracies ; ¢. g. the word 
msmyacy Che 1B le 1.5 opel See, 
ch. ii. 9.3 4 xdlaonsvas ns cuvioy for 43 in the original, which 
and obfeure ; ; 
ge 
every Other baok if we. except rm ipee hss . 
in which er cites it, it is evident that many 
ec to 
churches and writers, a were ancient with r hi 
common tradition, that St. Paul was or of the 
epiltle to 2 Ne s» Dr. Lardner enumerates the Greek 
ture. With r the Latin writers, shotigh it was not. 
exprefsly quoted as Packs by any of them in the thr 
firit centu t was received as his oy many = oe in the 
Moreo is 
nothing in the ‘epittle itfelf that wesdek it Gpatite or un- 
Rely ae i be his. 
fore t 
as has been ar fed “ 
writers ; and thie is agreeable to Fallages that 
occur in the epi! eitfelf, e.g. ch. viii. 4. ch. xiii. ro. an 
There are alfo 
feveral exhortations in this epitties that much denis fome 
Ly &e. ¢ compared wit ei! - 2) 3,4 —Heb. xiii. 16, 
compared with eer: iv. 18, Sce alto gst tana Rom. 
XVe 8 2 Cor. v; Feu ch, ix. 13. Befides, there are fome 
igh of a: st n the ftyle or ee of the cpille op 
to the. Hebrew, and the achaberiedged epiltles of St. Paul. 
Pheff. ii. 9.—Heb. il. 14. compared with 2 Tim. i, 10. 
or. mn 26 —Heb. iii. 1. compared with re ii. 14. 
imei. 9.—Heb. v. 12. compared with 1 Cor. iii. 2.— 
viii. 5. 
: Xs 33. 1 Cor. iv. o ~~ ther, St, Pant =. 
d 
ss. frequent in 
reece and in other parts. The 
alfo divers allufions in thin epifile, which joes alfo.; 
gance. Ch. vi. 18. xi. po 3 (2+ ch. x ii. 4. 
Ss 14.— Heb. xiii. 
i Bie. Sy 31: compared wah Rom, xv. 38 sti. Pip iv. Qe 
ee 
o have been written ey 
I = v.23. 2 Si Kili. YI. gtd rther,. the ere of 
this . arkable agreement with the conclusion 
pe St. Pauls eps = hide: refpects. Ch. xiii. 18. Rom. 
vi. ol. ive 3. 1 Theff. -v.. 25. 
2 Theft ili. I ak xi 18. 22. compared with se XXIV.’ 
16.—Ch. xii, 20, 21. compared with Rom. xv. 30—33. 
Eph. vi. 19—23. 1 Thefl. v. 23. 2 Theff. iii. “16h, 
xii. 24. compared with Rom, xvi. 1 Cor. 19—21. 
2 Cor. xiit. 13. Philip. ag 22.—Ch. xiii. 4. ‘compared 
with 2 kage il. 18. — iv. 18. 1 Tim. vi. 21, i, 24. 
2 Tim . Titus 15. Moreover, the Sg ee 
of the epiltle: lead: nite mi 4 Paul. . xiii. 
= with Acts, xxvilii—Ch. 
2.—Ch. xiii. 23. raven with Philip. ii..19. 1 Tims i. 2.’ 
2 im. 1. 2. 2 Cor.i. 1. se eff, iit. . | Baa 
2Cor, i. 13. All the ebibhdarations above recited, and Rated 
more at large by Dr. Lardner, make out an argument, 
which, added to the ‘teftimony of many ancient writers,: 
may warrant our itle. Ones that the apts Paul is the 
soca as writers or tranflators of this epiftle. But 
pte is an dacs a between the ftyle of this epiftle’ 
and that of thefe other w Another objeétion that ae 
been repeatedly urged again afcribing this epiftle to 
Paul is the omiffion of his name, which occurs in all his thir 
teen epiftles. The edastende of the ftyle, and the want of a 
name and infcription, which are the two great o 
againft this being a genuine epiftle of-the apoitle, fays Lard- 
ner, are both owing to fome ticular circumftances of the 
mess and of the people to whom it was fent. ‘The people 
whom it was fent are plainly Jews in Judea ; ; and the 
<i. very probably, is Paul, whofe Sreiumfunete: at the 
breaking u _ his confinement at Rome, and his page 
was not et 
mott probable that it was written at Kome or oor 
after Paul had bee rye — his pee lt a at Rome, 
in the beginning a the y 
_#xnother 
Paul a hc it 
t canonical ; 
is canonical ; 
for, Sar excellent-its contents ive ee 
is not 
24.°¢ 
19.compared with Philem. i 
* 
