correspondence, that it occasions no difficulty in the case under consideration.

It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the particular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. The epistle every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could he, in a homily, ask them to " pray that he might be restored to them ?" How could he promise to make them a visit, in Timothy, if he should come speedily?' 13: 23. these cases, at least, belongs to that part of the epistle, which Berger acknowledges to be the original discourse of Paul.

Heb. 13: 19. company with The first of

I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured), that the hand of a commentator is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more warmly and fully from the heart? Here is no patchwork; no congeries of heterogeneous materials; no designed, exegetical commentary; no trace of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work; produced by the mighty impulse of one and the same mind, fraught with knowledge of the subject which it discusses, glowing with benevolent feelings toward those who are addressed, and agitated with alarm at the danger to which they are exposed. Sooner should I think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, and assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the hand of a copyist, or a mere commentator, into the epistle to the Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, one mind performed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased.

3. General considerations respecting the present inscription to the Epistle.

In what latitude is the word Hebrews, used in the inscription to this epistle, to be understood?

Certainly not as designating all Hebrews of every country. To the unbelieving Jews most evidently it was not addressed. From beginning to end, the persons addressed are regarded as having made a profession of the Christian faith; for the great object of the epistle, as all agree, is to guard them against apostasy from this faith.

To the believing Jews of every country, it could not have been primarily and immediately addressed. It is altogether improbable that all such, in every country, were in special danger of apostasy, when this letter was written. We know from the epistles of Paul, that many churches planted by him, and made up in part of Jews, were, at the period when our epistle must have been written, in a very flourishing condition, and eminent for Christian faith and holiness of life. Other circumstances mentioned in the epistle, and pertaining to those whom he addressed, cannot be applied to all the believing Hebrews of that period. The writer speaks of the great fight of afflictions and the loss of property, to which those had been subjected for the sake of religion whom he addresses, 10: 32-34; occurrences which surely had not taken place, in every church where Jews were found.

A still more convincing argument, in favour of the sentiment just advanced, is drawn from what the writer himself has stated, at the close of his letter. He asks the prayers of those whom he addresses, that he may be speedily restored to them, 13: 19; and promises, if Timothy return in a short time, that he will in his company pay them a visit, 13: 23. He could not mean that he would, in company with Timothy, visit all the churches where Jews were to be found throughout the world. And could Timothy be known to them all? Or could the circumstances of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be so well known by them all, as the manner of address here necessarily supposes?

These considerations render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews were that are named by the present inscription, they must have been those of some particular church and country. And even if we pay no regard to the inscription, (but suppose it, after some time had elapsed, to have been affixed to the epistle by another hand, as it probably was), the fact that Jewish converts are addressed, and such too as belonged to some particular church or region, is, from the internal evidence of the epistle just stated, too plain to admit of any considerable doubt.

4. To what Church was the Epistle to the Hebrews written?

A question replete with difficulties, and which has been much agitated by late critics. We can easily satisfy ourselves, that the epistle was designed for Jewish converts; and exclusively (in a certain sense of this word) designed for them, i. e. originally adapted to them throughout, in its texture and mode of reasoning. But where did these converts live? No salutation, such as stands at the head of nearly all the apostolic epistles, gives us information on this point. The conclusion of the letter, moreover, contains nothing definite enough to settle this question. We are left, then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and from internal evidence, such information as is necessary to determine it. But the first of these has been regarded by many critics, particularly by recent ones, as too indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of an inquirer; and the second is so indeterminate, at least it has been often considered so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence, but rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same passages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to support conclusions directly opposed to each other; and in other cases, definite conclusions have been drawn in support of particular opinions, from texts which appear to be capable of conveying only a general idea.

The task of examining the principal opinions which have been advanced in respect to the original destination of the epistle to the Hebrews, is tedious and appalling; but it has become absolutely

necessary to every one, who makes any just pretensions to acquaintance with the literary history of this epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of the discussion, and justice to the arguments of others, will permit; and I shall examine only those opinions which the authors of them have endeavoured to support by arguments, omitting a particular discussion of those which have been thrown out as mere conjecture. For a mere conjecture that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts at Rome, in Spain, or at Babylon, (such conjectures have been made by critics of no small note), is sufficiently answered by a conjecture that it was directed to Jewish converts at some other place. If no weight be laid in the scales, it requires none to adjust the bal

ance.

In our investigations respecting the question under consideration, we meet with critics who have maintained, that the epistle was written to Jewish Christians in Galatia; in Thessalonica; in Corinth; or to dispersed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled from Palestine in order to avoid the persecutions to which they were there exposed. The majority of critics however have held, as nearly all the ancient churches did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. I proceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order here suggested.

5. Was the Epistle written to the Church at Galatia?

The opinion, that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts in Galatia, has been advanced and maintained with no small degree of acuteness and learning by Storr, late Professor of Theology at the University of Tübingen. I shall present a summary of the arguments which he uses to establish it; and in order to avoid repetition, and also to render the discussion as perspicuous as may be, I shall examine the validity of each argument, as it is adduced.

He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews could not be directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears from Heb. 2: 3, that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such as heard Christ speak in person; from 12: 4, and 13: 7,

that they had as yet suffered no bloody persecution; and from 6: 10. 13:3, 10, and 10: 34, that so far from having received charity from other churches, they had themselves contributed to the support of others. Now as neither of these things can, in his view, be truly said respecting the church in Palestine, he concludes that our epistle must have been directed to some church abroad. I shall not stop here to examine, whether a proper interpretation of the passages on which he relies to support his opinion, will in fact support it, as this subject must be examined in another place. I must content myself, at present, with simply remarking, that if he has rightly construed the texts to which he refers, they only serve to shew, at most, that the church in Palestine was not the one to which the epistle was directed; leaving the question still untouched, whether it was sent, as he maintains, to the church in Galatia. As my present intention is to examine only positive arguments in favour of his opinion, I pass this consideration without further remark.

Most if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies, are grounded on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general nature of them may be thus stated. Certain facts relative to the Galatians and the Hebrews, are known from history, and from the epistles which bear their names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on any other ground, than by the supposition that the epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians were cotemporaneously written, and directed severally to the Jewish and Gentile parts of the same church. This being admitted, several things, otherwise strange or inexplicable, may be easily accounted for; and consequently we may or must admit such a composition and direction of these epistles.'

Let us examine the particulars, which go to make up the general argument that I have just stated.

(1.) As the epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the churches in Palestine, and as all the churches abroad consisted of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, it is a singularity very striking, and at first appearance inexplicable, how it should come to pass that the epistle to the Galatians is written exclusively to Gentile converts, and the Epistle to the Hebrews exclusively to