Page images
PDF
EPUB

ters.

date this subject further, and the priests, its prime minisgive you a more correct opinion of this book and its presumptive author, in the words, as far as it is possible, of the excellent Venema, who after Mill and Michaelis, has thrown further light upon this subject.

The letter was probably written to the Jewish Christians at Alexandria; unquestionably, to some of that denomination, united in a church; as appears from chap. xiii. 18, 19. This supposition is strengthened from the style, as well as from the use of Philo's phraseology, who too was an Alexandrian. Dr.Mill and J.D. Michaelis understood it from the Hierosolymitans. But the style of this epistle is an objection against this conjecture. It was probably written in Greek, as it bears more marks of an original composition, than of a translation. It was unquestionably written before the destruction of Jerusalem, of which more than one evidence will appear to the attentive reader of the epistle. The author's aim was to confirm the Jewish Christians, still staggering and inclining to the Mosaic rituals, in the Christian faith, and wean them from their attachment to the institutions of the Mosaic law.

He executed his design with great skill and address, maintaining throughout the epistle, and illustrating the position, that, under the gospel economy, unlimited obedience was due to Christ; deriving his arguments from the transcendent excellency of Christ above all angels who held a high place under the Sinai covenant, (chap. i. & ii.) above Moses its institutor; above the prophets, who were aiding it, (chap. iii. & iv.) and above all

Learned commentators pretty generally agree, that Paul is not its author. There are, however, mighty exceptions, Mill and Michaelis. But if not Paul, who then? Luther and Beza have given it to Apollos, and Venema has defended this opinion with his usual acuteness. Before copying his arguments, it may spread more light upon this subject, to say a few words about Apollos.

Apollo, Apollos, or Apollodorus, was a companion of Timothy and Titus. Titus iii. 13, Heb. xiii. 23. He was eloquent and deeply initiated in the knowledge of the divine mysteries and rites of the Mosaic law. This is evident, not only from the epistle to the Hebrews, which you might deem here a precarious assumption, but from his title is eloquent, Acts xviii. 24. and I Cor. iii. 6. Paul planted, Apollos watered. He was born a Jew, at Alexandria, Acts xviii. 24. deeply versed in the books of the Old Testament, mighty in the scriptures; of a fervent spirit, who at Ephesus, though only acquainted with the doctrine of John the Baptist, and knowing only the first elements of the kingdom of God, not even knowing the effusion of the Holy Ghost, Acts xix. patronized, fearless in the cause of Christ against the Jews, Acts xviii. 25. (Venema reads άφοβος μια ακριβως, as Philip i. 14) while he afterwards was more accurately instructed by Aquila, angßisigor ib. v. 26. Thus better learned, he went to Achaia, and tarried at Corinth, where he was of great use to the believers, helping them much, who had

believed, through grace. So the punctuation ought to be. Apollos remained awhile with Paul, when he was at Ephesus, but declined returning to Corinth, though Paul wished it. 1 Cor. xvi. 12. He was afterwards with Titus in Crete, Tit. iii. 13, from which he went to Italy, and wrote, as Venema supposes, this epistle to the Hebrews. At length, it seems, he returned to Alexandria, Heb. xiii. 19. In this city, if conjecture may be indulged, he instituted a catechetical school, by others attributed to Mark.

Give now a candid consideration to the arguments, with which Venema supports his opinion. If it is correct, we have gained another important point with regard to the history of our canonical books.

Besides the presumption, that Paul would not have withholden his name, which he did not in any of his other epistles; it has 1. Some weight, that there does not appear a shadow of evidence, that the writer was an apostle, or invested with any dignity or authority in the church whatsoever; yea, he distinguishes, himself from the leaders, and excuses himself, that he wrote admonitions and consolatory letters, ch. xiii. 17, 18, 22, which agrees with Apollos not being with Paul.

2. He joins himself to the Hebrews, who did receive the doc trine of Christ from other witnesses, as well as they; chap. ii. 3. and mentions no where any immediate revelation. The contrary way is usual with Paul, Gal. i.

3. It suits better the character of Apollos, than that of Paul, that he aims at a more sublime instruction, as it was natural for

Paul to plant, for Apollos to water. Of this there are specimens, chap. v. 11. vi. 1.

4. The style which he uses, is round, rhetorical, oratorical. To Apollos, called λoyros, an elegant and graceful elocution is ascribed, Acts xviii, 24, 27. This too is more applicable to Apollos, than to Paul, whose style is more concise and energetic. It would be further an easy task to bring forward words and phrases unusual to Paul.

5. It appears evident, that the author has a particular relation to the Hebrews, to whom he writes; so that he not only addressed them in a letter, but requested their prayers to God, that he might soon return to them, chap. xiii. 19. which does not agree with the character of Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, chiefly, not of the Jews.

6. It is more than doubtful whether Paul would have freely conversed in Italy where Timothy was imprisoned, which however this author asserts, ch. xiii. 23. I know it is commonly thought, that the writer declares himself bound, x. 34. but this is owing to an incorrect reading, as for us us must be read, depois, which is required by the verb, suμzalew, to have compassion, comp. ch. xiii. 3.

7. It does not agree with Paul, to call such an extensive letter, a short one, xiii. 22, as Paul in a much shorter letter to the Galatians, says, see how largely I have written with mine own hand," Gal. vi. 11. It suits better the style of an orator to call it a short letter.

8. The only objection is from 2 Pet. iii. 15, which, if taken

away, shall take the place of an argument. Paul is said to have written to the same, as Peter, who wrote to the dispersed Jews.

Here cannot be understood one, but various letters, as direct ly follows, and not particularly written to the Hebrews or Jews, but to believers in general, Greeks as well as Jews, in which letters he, as well Peter, spake of the same things, to wit. of the reasons of the delay of the last judgment, and God's long suffering, not willing, that men should perish, but that all should repent, and be saved, Jews as well as Gentiles.

If still any one pretends, that Paul's epistle to the dispersed Jews must be here understood, nothing hinders in that case indeed, from understanding Peter's saying as referring to St. Paul's lost epistles; as it is beyond doubt, that Paul wrote more letters, than those actually preserved; which is evident from 2 Thess. iii. 17. as no other now remains between the second and the first.

[blocks in formation]

SURVEY OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.

Continued from page 259.

THERE is no truth more clearly revealed in scripture, none confirmed by more various and substantial facts, or more certainly known and felt by Christians, than the native depravity of man. The evidence, which scripture furnishes of this truth, is very clear and multiform. It is contained in every part of the Bible. Whether we look into the Old Testament or the New; whether we attend to the rites of the Mosaic, or the Christian system; whether we examine the historic, the devotional, the prophetic, the doctrinal, or the preceptive parts of the sacred volume, we find irresistible proof of this sad and humbling truth. Without admitting it, the scriptures can never be understood according to the rules of a just and fair construction. Without admitting it, many parts of the Bible, which the inspired writers manifestly consider, as eminently important, will be destitute of meaning and use. In demonstrating this deplorable truth, the whole course of events, learned from observation and from history, conspires with the holy scriptures. How plain and certain is it to every wise observer, that mankind, whether considered in a social or individual state, are wholly corrupt, the children of disobedience, transgressors from the womb.

In the view of good men, this truth is attended with the highest evidence. A thousand arguments in confirmation of it are derived from their growing acquaintance with themselves.

Every day's experience adds to their conviction, that in them there is, naturally, no good thing, and that the apostle can be charged with no extravagance or harshness, when he describes the unrenewed heart as enmity with God. They have no more doubts of their moral corruption and vileness, than they have of their existence.

That the disease of sin is deeply wrought in the very nature of man, rests upon evidence of the same kind with any principle in natural philosophy. No philosophic truth is supported by more evident appearances or more numerous operations, than the doctrine of native depravity. The facts of a moral nature, which prove this doctrine, may be ranked with the facts of a physical nature, which prove the doctrine of gravitation. The fruits of human corruption appear so early; they are so various, so constant, and so copious, that we can with no more reason doubt its existence, than the existence of any natural appetite or passion.

But notwithstanding the various and abundant proofs, upon which this doctrine rests, it is often denied and opposed. At this day there is a general disposition manifested, especially among the learned, to change or conceal its awful scripture form, and to consider it as of small consequence, in what manner it is believed, or whether it is believed at all. Instead of the inspired sentiment, that mankind are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, or that depravity affects their moral nature from Vol. III. No. 8.

W w

their first existence; many consider it merely as the accidental effect of the temptations, to which they are early exposed, or of some unpropitious circumstances attending their education. Most people imagine, that depravity is very partial, by no means extending to the whole moral nature, or to all the moral actions of man. They consider it as their misfortune rather, than their sin, exculpating themselves, because their state is the conséquence of Adam's transgression. And some, who advocate the doctrine of total depravity, represent it in a light, which is plainly inconsistent with the free agency, the moral obligation and accountability of sinners.

But without enumerating all the errors respecting this doctrine, which are entertained and defended at the present day; it is my design to guard the churches of Christ against those errors, by pointing out the sour ces from which they proceed, and the various hurtful effects which they produce.

One perpetual source of error respecting the character and actions of lapsed man is, the prac- | tice of judging by a wrong standard. If men would keep their eye steadily fixed on the moral excellence of God, the perfect pattern of all goodness; or would duly consider the nature and extent of what his law requires ; they would be convinced of the entire moral depravation of man. In the light of divine holiness they would see, that the thought of the imagination of his heart is evil continually and from his youth. Judging by the perfect

fect. We must not set them up as infallible guides; nor suffer them to occupy the place of Je sus Christ. Our attachment to their virtues should not lead us to admire their weaknesses, or to justify or imitate their faults.

and unchangeable law, they fect.
they
would readily admit the exact
truth of the following description
of mankind, in Rom. iii. "There
is none righteous, no, not one.
There is none that understand-
eth, there is none that seeketh
after God. They are all gone
out of the way, they are togeth
er become unprofitable; there is
none that doeth good, no, not
one. Their throat is an open
sepulchre; with their tongues
they have used deceit, the poison
of asps is under their lips.
Whose mouth is full of cursing
and bitterness. Their feet are
swift to shed blood. Destruction
and misery are in their ways;
and the way of peace have they
not known. There is no fear of
God before their eyes." But on
this subject, men judge by a
wrong standard; a standard not
only different from the moral law,
but opposite to it. Instead of
the holy commands of God, they
set up, as a rule of judgment, the
corrupt opinions and maxims of
the world; maxims, which justi
fy what the law condemns, or, at
best, substitute a regular external
deportment for holiness of heart.
Another false standard of judg-
ment is the character of those
men, whom many writers and the
world in general treat with the
highest respect and honour.
Their spirit and conduct, differ-
ing widely from that rule of mor-
al excellence which the Bible au-
thorises, lead to very erroneous
conclusions respecting good and
evil. Even characters deserved-
ly esteemed for Christian piety
cannot, without danger, be con-
sidered as the standard of our
judgment. In this world, the
best Christians are very imper-

I have suggested two of the false standards of judgment on subjects of a moral nature; the corrupt opinions and maxims of the world, and the characters of men admired for their talents, their exploits, or their virtues. With such false standards of judgment before them, men are induced to "call evil good, and good evil; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness." Judging by these delusive rules, they form very inadequate and erroneous opinions of human corruption, greatly mistating or wholly rejecting a doctrine, which lies at the foundation of evangelical truth. Beware, then, Christians, of these, and indeed of all false rules of judgment. The word of God is your only infallible standard. When you would form a correct opinion of the character of mankind, in general, or of the nature of any particular dispositions or actions; ask not what are the maxims adopted by the fashionable, unthinking world; nor what is the opinion of people in general. Look not at those, who are admired for their splendid circumstances, accomplishments, or actions. Confide not implicitly even in those, who are held in high estimation for Christian wisdom and goodness. But look to God's holy law, and to the character and life of Jesus, where the excellence and the broad extent of that law appear with living beauty. With a con

« PreviousContinue »