ligious sentiment or doctrine. Men of very different views and feelings, in other respects, have often been found united in the same ranks, when questions respecting the epistle to the Hebrews have been disputed. Such too is the case, even at the present time. All the learning and ability, which have as yet been summoned to the contest, have failed to achieve a victory so complete, as to bring about a general acknowledgment that all ground for further dispute is fairly removed.

The student, who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has merely read the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which he has entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul, finds himself thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he begins to make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in question, as are usually made respecting any ancient writing. He finds philologists and critics of great reputation in the church strangely divided and opposed to each other, in respect to every topic to be examined. What he reads in one author, which perhaps for a time satisfies his mind, he finds controverted, shaken, or overthrown by another; who again, in his turn, receives castigation from a third; while a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, differ each from all his predecessors. The curiosity of the inquirer thus becomes roused, and he begins to pursue some train of thought or investigation, with the hope, or perhaps with confidence, that it will lead him to an important and satisfactory result. He presses forward with eagerness, peruses and reperuses modern critics, dives into the recesses of the ancient ones, and finds, perhaps, after all his toil, that he has been pursuing a phantom, which recedes as fast as he advances. Perplexed with doubt, and wearied at last with the pursuit, he becomes exposed to the danger of entirely abandoning his object, or of settling down in the cold and comfortless conclusion, that nothing satisfactory can be known in regard to it.

Such, or not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of nearly every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions of early education, and determined seriously and thoroughly to investigate and weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in respect to the topics suggested by

the literary history of the epistle to the Hebrews. He who begins such an investigation, with his mind already made up that Paul wrote this epistle and directed it to the Hebrews of Palestine, may indeed spare himself most of the perplexity, in which an inquirer of the class just named will be involved. But then if his mind is already made up, what need is there of further investigation? And why not spare himself the time and trouble which it must cost?

Minds of a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine for themselves; to "prove all things," and then "to hold fast that which is good," if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this character. It is for such, that the following investigations are intended; and it is only to persons of this class, that they can be particularly useful, even supposing that they are conducted in such a manner as the subject demands. The writer commenced them, in the discharge of his duty as a lecturer upon the epistle in question. He found many unforeseen and unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been accustomed, with those around him, to regard Paul as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; and he did not well know, until he came to examine, how long, and how extensively this had been doubted. Men of high reputation in the church, and who admitted the canonical authority of the epistle, he found to have been doubtful in regard to the question, Who was the author of it. Neither Luther, nor Calvin admitted it to be from the hand of Paul; and so early, at least, as the latter part of the second century, more or less of the Western churches, seem to have disputed or rejected its authority.

With such facts before him, he became deeply interested in the subject, and resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind. For this purpose, he directed his attention principally toward the original sources of evidence, although he has not neglected any writer of importance among modern critics. The results of his investigation he now gives to the public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the minds of others, they will, at least, excite some to engage in the discussion of the topics presented, until sooner or later light enough is poured in, to scatter the remaining darkness which rests upon them.

§ 2. Is the epistle to the Hebrews appropriately called an epistle, or is it a homily or essay?

Berger, a late critic of some eminence and considerable acuteness, has advanced and endeavoured to support the opinion, that this epistle (so called) was originally a homily or address to some assembly of Christians, which was afterwards reduced to writing by some of the preacher's friends or hearers. Others also have doubted, whether it is properly named an epistle. argued on this topic so much at length, or with as Berger. On this account, it may be proper briefly to consider the principal arguments which he has advanced; briefly, because the topic seems not to be of sufficient importance to justify one for occupying much time in the discussion of it.

But none have so much effort,

(1.) 'The writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews,' says Berger, calls it λóуov naдaxλýбews, a hortatory address 13: 22, which accords well with the contents of the piece.'

But Paul, one may reply, often uses the word лaçaxaλé in his epistles. May not, then, an epistle of his in which лagazɑléш is used, be appropriately enough styled a λόγος παρακλήσεως ? May not any epistle, containing precept and exhortation, be so denominated? An instance exactly in point, is the circular letter respecting the question about circumcision, sent by the apostolic council at Jerusalem to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; which is called a naoάxλnois, Acts 15:31. The words of Luke are, "When they had read [the epistle,] they rejoiced ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει.”

(2.) The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses ladɛiv instead of yoάqew; which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than of an epistle.'

But an appeal to the Greek Concordance shews that dativ is used every where in the epistles contained in the New Testament; and a corresponding word of the same import, is in fact used in the epistolary style of all nations and languages. No evidence therefore in favour of Berger's opinion, can be deduced from such an usage in the epistle to the Hebrews.

(3.) Berger supposes the basis of our present epistle to the

Hebrews to have been the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia, as recorded in Acts 13: 14-41. Some disciple and friend of his, he conjectures, reduced this discourse to writing, commenting or enlarging upon various parts of it; and finally adding of himself, to the original discourse, the four last verses of our present epistle. It is to these four verses be supposes the copyist to refer, when he says, "I have written to you dia δια Poazion, briefly," viz. by adding only the four last verses of the epistle, as properly his own.

To these considerations we may reply, first, that the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia exhibits two very important topics, as prominent parts of the discourse, which are not at all commented on (one of them is not even adverted to) in the epistle to the Hebrews; I mean the subject of John the Baptist's testimony concerning Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus, Acts 13: 24, 25, 30-37. Would it not be strange, that a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics of the discourse, which he designed to explain or to enforce ?

Secondly, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν does not admit of the reference which Berger supposes; for it is necessarily connected with the preceding part of the epistle to the Hebrews, and not (as he asserts) with the succeeding part; to which it can be attached only by doing violence to the ordinary laws of language.

(4.) The word άunv, in Heb. 13: 21, shows that the original discourse ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made by the transcriber.'

The answer is, that dun here stands after a doxology, where Paul always inserts it; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the very middle of his letters. E. g. Rom. 1:25. 9:5. 11: 36. 15: 33. 16: 20. Gal. 1. 5. Eph. 3: 21. etc. It follows, that in this case, ty insertion of duv cannot afford any valid proof that our epistle ended with it.

15:33.

(5.) The whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected chain of discourse; like to an essay or a homily, and not after the manner of a familiar letter.'

But, it may well be asked in reply to this, may not and do not men reason, and regularly discuss subjects, in familiar letters or

epistles? Has not Paul discussed and reasoned in the epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, and in others? Is there any more regularity of structure in the epistle to the Hebrews, than there is in that to the Romans? Surely the regularity and orderly discussion, exhibited by any composition, can never prove that this composition was not an epistle. At most,

it can only serve to shew that it was not an ordinary epistle on topics of little moment. Nor because a great part, or even the whole, of an epistle is of such a tenor, that it might have been spoken as an address or a homily, will it prove that it was not originally, or was not designed to be, an epistle. For every species of composition in use among men, is employed in epistolary writing.

The reasons of Berger, then, for the opinion which he has advanced, will not bear the test of examination. I may add, that the whole question is but little if any thing better than logomachy. Of what consequence can it be, whether the so called epistle to the Hebrews, was, in its first conception, designed to be an epistle or a homily? But whatever the original design was, I cannot believe, with Berger, that our epistle is a kind of commentary on an original discourse of Paul. That the author (the original author) of the epistle wrote down his own conceptions, or at least dictated them to an amanuensis, appears to me. so deeply enstamped on every part of the composition, that it seems hardly possible for a discerning and unprejudiced reader not to perceive it. But whether or not the author first spoke the words which the letter contains to some assembly, and afterwards reduced them to writing, can make no difference as to the tenor and general character of the epistle; so that dispute about this would be only dispute about the name to be given to the writing; and how would this differ from logomachy?

However, if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves respecting it. The address every where is like that of an epistle, viz. in the second person plural; with the single exception, that the writer occasionally uses a xoivwois, that is, he includes himself with those whom he addresses, and so employs the first person plural. But this is a practice so common in epistolary