body; nothing about the denial of Paul's authority; which, with various matters relating to decorum, constitute the principal subjects discussed in our present epistles to the Corinthians. On the other hand, in the epistles to the Corinthians there is nothing about apostasy; nothing relative to persecution; nothing in commendation of their teachers; no apparent apprehension expressed respecting a Judaizing spirit in the church. If the epistles to the Corinthians have resemblances in expression and doctrine to the epistle to the Hebrews, (as all Paul's epistles certainly have a resemblance to it), are they not still so diverse as to the matters treated of, and as to the circumstances of the parties addressed, as to render hopeless all attempts to shew that our present epistles to the Hebrews and to the Corinthians were addressed to one and the same church?

9. Was the epistle sent to Spain, or to Rome?

Ludwig has conjectured, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to a church in Spain; and Wetstein, that it was written to the church at Rome. But these conjectures are altogether unsupported by the authors of them, and therefore need not delay our present investigation. We have the same liberty to conjecture, that it was written to some other place; and the argument (if it be one) would be equally good.

10. Was it written to the church in Palestine?

I have examined the most specious opinions which modern criticism has offered, in order to shew that the epistle to the Hebrews was not directed to the church in Palestine, but to some church abroad. In ancient times, so far as I have been able to discover, there was but one opinion on this subject; and this has been adopted and defended by a majority of distinguished critics, in modern and recent times. This opinion is, that THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE HEBREW CHURCH OF PALESTINE. We come now to examine whether there is satisfactory evidence, that this opinion is well founded.

Many arguments have been employed to establish this supposition, which appear to be incapable of bearing the test of examination. Lardner and Michaelis, who in many respects were able critics, have brought together a number of such arguments. Regard for the opinions of such men, seems to render it necessary to subject these arguments to a brief review.

(a) Lardner adduces Heb. 1: 2, God-hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son; which he thinks, must designate those whom Christ personally addressed, i. e. the Jews.

But although it may have such a meaning, it is equally plain that it may have a different one, viz. spoken unto Christians, or to men in general. Thus the word us is in other places employed; e. g. Luke 1: 1, The things fully credited by us, i. e. by Christians.

(b) 'Heb. 4: 2, Unto us is the gospel preached, as well as

unto them.'

To this passage the remarks just made will apply, with the same force as to Heb. 1: 2.

(c) 'Heb. 2: 1-4, How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders, etc. Now Palestine was the place where miracles were performed.'

But miracles were also performed out of Palestine, by those who had heard Christ, as well as in it. And how then can it be a proof, that those addressed in the passage under examination belonged exclusively to Palestine? The meaning is (or at least may be), that Christianity was confirmed to the men of that age, by the miracles which were wrought by the immediate disciples of Christ. This sentiment, of course, has nothing necessarily local attached to it.

(d) 'Those addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews were well acquainted with the sufferings of Christ; as the Christians of Judea must have been, 1:3. 2: 9, 18. 5: 7, 8. 9:14, 28. 10: 12. 12: 2, 3. 13: 12.'

And so were all to whom the apostles preached. Christ

crucified was the grand theme, the prominent subject, of apostolic preaching, 1 Cor. 2: 2. Gal. 6: 14.

(e) 'Heb. 5: 12, But when for the time ye ought to be teachers of others, ye have need to learn the first principles; which most suitably applies to Christians in Judea, to whom the gospel was first preached.'

But if the epistle to the Hebrews was written after A. D. 60, (as is altogether probable, and as Lardner himself supposes), then the same thing might be said to many other churches out of Palestine, who were among the early converts.

(f) What is said of apostates, in ch. 6: 4-6 and 10: 2629, is peculiarly applicable to apostates in Judea.'

But this may be very properly applied, also, to apostates elsewhere, in any other churches where the gospel had been fully preached.

(g) Heb. 13: 13, 14, Let us therefore go forth to him [viz. Jesus] without the camp, bearing his reproach; for here we have no permanent city, but we seek one which is to come. This, Lardner and Michaelis both suppose, was addressed to Christians in Jerusalem, warning them to flee from that city, because the destruction of it would speedily take place.

But it seems quite plain to me, that this passage is merely an exhortation to self denial, and to patient endurance of suffering on account of Christ, and after his example; couched in figurative language, and applicable to Christians in general of that or any other time or place.

(h) To these arguments Michaelis has added, Heb. 10: 25 -37; Exhorting one another; and this so much the more, as ye see the day drawing near.-Yet a very little time, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. This, Michaelis thinks, is a warning to Christians in Jerusalem, that the destruction of the city was near at hand.

The obvious reply is, that the same consideration is addressed by Paul to churches and persons abroad; e. g. to the Philippians, 4:5; to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 5: 2-6, also v. 23; to Timothy, 1 Tim. 6: 14, 15; and by the apostle James, 5: 8, when writing to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad. How can

such a warning, then, (admitting that the interpretation of it by Michaelis is correct), be considered as determining the locality of the epistle? The fall of Jerusalem surely would not endanger the personal safety of those who lived in Macedonia, and other places abroad.

(i) Heb. 13: 9, It is good that the heart should be confirmed by grace, not by meats; for those who are conversant with them are not profited. This, must apply specially to the Jews of Palestine.'

But were there not Christian Jews, in other places, superstitiously attached to doctrines concerning distinctions of meats and drinks? Were not such to be found at Rome, in Galatia, at Colosse? If so, how can this text apply exclusively to Jews in Palestine?

On such arguments, then, dependence cannot well be placed, in order to establish the opinion which Michaelis and Lardner defend. It cannot be denied, indeed, that a peculiar significancy would be attached to several of the passages that have now been examined, provided it could first be shewn that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to Jews in Palestine. But it must be conceded, that these passages (in themselves considered) are not sufficiently discriminating, to determine the question whether it was so directed. If no other than such arguments can be adduced, then must we abandon the idea of being able to offer such proof as will satisfy a critical inquirer, that the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine.

That such, however, was its first original direction, I am inclined to believe; and to this belief the following considerations have led me.

(1.) The inscription to this epistle most naturally leads to this supposition, and helps to strengthen it.

I am willing to concede the point, here, (for I think it may be shewn to the satisfaction of every one, who is well acquainted with the principles of critical inquiry), that this inscription is not a manu auctoris. Such is not the manner of the epistles. They contain within themselves the direction which the writer gave them. Thus Rom. 1: 1-7, "Paul an apostle-to the church at Rome;

1 Cor. 1: 1, 2, Paul an apostle-to the church of God at Corinth; Eph. 1: 1, Paul an apostle-to the saints at Ephesus; James 1:1, James a servant of God, to the twelve tribes in dispersion; 1 Pet. 1: 1, Peter an apostle, to the sojourners in dispersion; 2 John v. 1, The elder, to the elect lady; Jude v. 1, Jude a servant of Jesus Christ--to those who are sanctified;" and so of other epistles. Moreover, there are reasons why the titles of the sacred books in general, throughout the Old and New Testaments, should not be regarded as coming from the hand of those who originally composed the books. Some of these inscriptions or titles are incongruous with the contents of the book, or chapter, to which they are prefixed. But one fact, on which I do not remember to have seen any comments made, is very striking. None of the New Testament writers, when they quote the Scriptures, ever appeal to the names of the Old Testament books. Nothing could have been more to their purpose, than to employ these names for the sake of guiding their readers, had they been at that time affixed to the books. But they have no where employed them. Even when they quote the prophets, it is the name of the person who wrote, and not the name of a book as such, to which they appeal.

Such is the universal practice of the New Testament writers; and such is that of Clemens Romanus, who wrote during the first century. In writing to the Corinthians, he names, indeed, the epistle of Paul to them; but how could he do otherwise? But in all the numerous quotations which he makes of the other New Testament books, he does not once call any of them by name.

Such facts shew satisfactorily, that the present names of Scriptural books did not then exist; for had they existed, appeal had been made to them, for the same purposes, and from the same necessity, as we now make it every day.

Admitting now that the inscription, ή προς ̔Εβραίους ἐπιστολή, is not original, and that it was superadded by some later editor or transcriber of this epistle; it is a very natural and pertinent question, Why was such a title given to the epistle in question? The obvious answer must be, because the editor or transcriber, who gave it, supposed that the epistle was intended for the Hebrews.