being vehemently opposed by some of the Jews, they went to Berea a neighbouring city, Acts 17: 10. Thither the persecuting Jews of Thessalonica followed them; in consequence of which, Paul, leaving Silas and Timothy there, withdrew to Athens. Here he resided a short time, and then went on his first visit to Corinth, Acts 17: 1-15. 18: 1. At this last place, he staid eighteen months, Acts 18: 11. Now Noesselt supposes, that before Paul left Athens, he sent Timothy (who was still at Berea Acts 17: 10, 14) back to Thessalonica, in order to make inquiries respecting the state of the church there; and that this is the meaning of that passage at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, Ye know, (as he would translate it), that our brother Timothy is sent away.

But as there is nothing of all this in the history which Luke has given of Paul and Timothy, Acts XVII. and as the whole must therefore be founded on conjecture, it might be sufficient, on the other hand, to conjecture that Paul did not send Timothy from Berea to Thessalonica, as Noesselt supposes.

However, respect for so excellent a critic as Noesselt, would rather demand some argument to shew that this conjecture cannot be well founded. I would observe, then, that in order to render his position probable, he assumes as a fact, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before the epistles to the Thessalonians; a supposition not capable of being rendered probable, much less of being proved.

It will be admitted, that there is not a word in our present first epistle to the Thessalonians, respecting any previous letter addressed to them; a circumstance not to be imagined, provided the apostle had written such a laboured epistle to them as that to the Hebrews is, and on such an important question. Besides, it appears altogether probable from Acts 18: 1-6, that Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth soon after Paul had gone there; so that the absence of Timothy, supposed by Noesselt to have taken place at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, cannot be rendered at all probable, from this part of Paul's history; for it cannot be thought probable, that such an epistle as that to the Hebrews would be written by Paul immediately after

his arrival at Corinth, amidst all the agitation and dispute and hazard occasioned by his first preaching there. But even conceding that this might have been done; is it probable that Paul, who (according to Noesselt) had just before, while at Athens, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, and who knew that he was now there, should gravely write to the Thessalonians, Ye know that our brother Timothy is sent away; when this same Timothy, in propria persona, was present with the very church to whom this was written?

(3.) In Heb. 10: 34, Paul says, Ye had compassion on my bonds; or, according to another reading of equal authority, Ye had compassion on those who were bound, i.e. the prisoners. This refers to Paul's imprisonment, as related in Acts 16: 23-40; and to the sympathy which the Thessalonians evinced for him in these circumstances.'

But this imprisonment was at Philippi, before Paul had visited Thessalonica, and before the Thessalonians could know that he was in their region, except by report. This imprisonment lasted but a few hours; it ended in a most triumphant deliverance by the interposition of divine power, and in the shame and mortification of the magistracy who had ordered it. The whole occurrence, instead of demanding compassionate sympathy, was a matter of triumph and congratulation. Or if otherwise, it was not an affliction in respect to which the Thessalonians could compassionate Paul, as they could not know of its having happened, until it was past.

(4.) The Hebrews are praised for their liberality; and so

are the Thessalonians.'

To which I reply, So are other churches. Does it follow, because they exhibited this trait of character which was common among Christians in the apostolic age, that the Thessalonian church must have been the same which is thus recommended in the epistle to the Hebrews?

(5.) The persons, to whom the epistle to the Hebrews was addressed, had suffered persecution, Heb. 10: 32. 12:4; which was also the case with the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 2: 14-16. 2 Thess. I. II.'

So had many other churches. But neither at Thessalonica, nor scarcely any where else, except in Palestine, do we know of a persecution, at this period, which involved the loss of property and the hazard of liberty and life. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of their being despoiled of their property, 10: 34; a circumstance not to be found in the account of the persecution at Thessalonica, and one which makes directly against the supposition of Noesselt.

(6.) 'The Thessalonians were in danger of defection from the faith, so that Paul was obliged to send Timothy to confirm them, 1 Thess. 3: 2, 3; and the same danger is every where adverted to, in the epistle to the Hebrews.'

This argument is built on an erroneous exegesis. That Timothy made a visit to confirm the Thessalonians, does not surely imply that they were in special danger of apostasy. When Paul is said to have gone through Asia Minor confirming the churches, Acts 15: 36-41. 16:4-6. 18: 23, are we to draw the inference that all the churches there were in the same danger of apostasy, as the persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews is addressed? If not, this argument of Noesselt has no force to establish the opinion which he advocates.

(7.) There is a great similarity between the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistle to the Thessalonians.'

So there is, also, between the epistle to the Hebrews and all the epistles of Paul. This argument, then, proves too much. It may serve to shew that Paul probably wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; but it can have no important influence on the question, To whom did he write this epistle?

Most of the similarities, moreover, which are produced by Noesselt, are similarities of a general nature in respect to sentiments of piety and morality. Must there not be a similarity, of course, in these respects, in all the epistles of Paul, provided he always taught the same doctrines of Christianity?

But the dissimilarities between the epistles to the Thessalonians and the Hebrews, Noesselt has not proceeded to develope. Yet there are some; and some so striking, as to render the supposition which he defends altogether improbable. The Hebrews

addressed in our epistle had been for a long time Christians; but if Noesselt's supposition be true, they had been so only a few months, at most, when Paul wrote his first epistle to them; for Paul had only made a rapid journey from Thessalonica, to Athens, and thence to Corinth; and soon after his arrival there, and (as Noesselt thinks) before Timothy had come to him, he wrote the epistle in question.

I may add, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews no where adverts to his having first planted Christianity among them. But Paul, in his epistle to the Thessalonians, very frequently adverts to this circumstance.

Further, the epistle to the Hebrews is directed to a church almost wholly (if not altogether) Jewish; while it is plain, from Acts 17: 4, 5. that only a few Jews had early joined the Thessalonian church; and plainer still, that this church was principally made up of Gentiles, from Paul's first epistle to them, 1:9. where he says, 'Ye have turned from idols to serve the living God.' Now circumstances so widely diverse and opposite, cannot be predicated of the same church, while they have respect ⚫ only to an interval of time, which, at the most, cannot exceed the eighteen months that Paul abode at Corinth.

Finally, Paul's two epistles to the Thessalonians, throughout, are filled with commendations of the Thessalonian church, for their firmness and stedfastness, in the faith of the gospel. Not a word of their Jewish prejudices. Not a reference to the imminent danger of apostasy, which is every where developed in the epistle to the Hebrews. Noesselt accounts for this, by the supposition that Paul's first epistle to them, viz. that to the Hebrews, (as he supposes), had produced a thorough reformation among them. But when Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians had effected a reformation, in respect to various particulars of far less importance than those treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, how does the apostle fill his second letter with commendations, which have a direct reference to his former admonitions? Could it be otherwise here, if the epistle to the Hebrews had been written before our present epistles to the Thessalonians, and produced such an effect as Noesselt supposes?

TO HEBREWS IN ASIA MINOR ?

31

On the whole, then, the supposition of Noesselt must be abandoned; not only because it is not well supported, but because it involves difficulties and improbabilities so great as to render it altogether incredible.

§ 7. Was it directed to Hebrews, who were sojourners in Asia Minor?

Bolten, (who has distinguished himself, in a peculiar manner, by a translation of the New Testament with constant reference to the Syriac or Syro-chaldaic language, in which he supposes many of the original documents must have been composed,) has advanced the opinion, that the Hebrews, addressed in our epistle, were those who had fled from Palestine, about A. D. 60, on account of the persecutions there, and were scattered abroad in Asia Minor. To this he thinks the oi xaraqvyóvres in 6: 18 refers; as also the passage in 13: 14, which speaks of their having no abiding city. He finds parallels of such a meaning, in 3 John vs. 5 and 7, where strangers are mentioned, and those who have gone abroad (¿§ñ¿ov) for his (Christ's) name's sake; in 1 Pet.1:1, where sojourners of the dispersion are mentioned; and in James 1: 1, where the oi iv ry diαoлоog are addressed.

I am unable, however, to find any history of a persecution in Palestine, at the period which he mentions, or any account of a dispersion of Jewish Christians abroad, at that period. As to the texts which he cites, in favour of his supposition, they will not bear the construction which he has put upon them. We who have fled, Hebrews 6: 18, is inseparably connected with the clause which follows, viz. to lay hold on the hope set before us, i. e. in the gospel. Besides, the writer does not say you who have fled, but we, i. e. Christians. So also in 13: 14, it is we (viz. Christians) who have no abiding city, i. e. no permanent place of happiness in the present world. The passage in 3 John vs. 5, 7, probably refers to Gentile Christians, who became exiles; and those in James and Peter, have respect merely to Jews who lived in foreign countries, in distinction from those who lived in Palestine.