But, if we follow the account of Luke in the Acts, it is difficult, nay, impossible, to defend the supposition of Storr, that the epistle to the Galatians was written after the second visit of Paul to Galatia. Acts xvi. 6, gives us the first intimation of a visit to Galatia by Paul; and his second visit is described in Acts xviii. 22, 23, which was after he had left Corinth, and travelled through Palestine and Asia Minor. I know, indeed, some critics have conjectured that Paul made a journey to Galatia previously to the one first mentioned by Luke in Acts xvi. 6. But of what avail are conjectures in such cases, when they are supported neither by the epistle to the Galatians, nor by the history of Paul?

Nothing, then, but supposition is offered by Storr, to show that either the epistle to the Hebrews, or that to the Galatians, was written at Corinth, or that both were written about the same time; and of course, these circumstances cannot be assumed as proved, or even as rendered probable, in order to build the conclusion on them, that the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistle to the Galatians, were written simultaneously to the same church.

(5.) Timothy originated from the neighbourhood of Galatia, and was no doubt in company with Paul during his journey there, as mentioned in Acts xvi. 6. It is a singular circumstance, that although the apostle so often joins his name with his own, in the salutations contained in his other letters, he has not joined him in his epistle to the Galatians church; specially singular, in as much as Timothy must have been so well known to the Galatians, and as he was with Paul at Corinth. But this apparent singularity is accounted for, when we suppose that Timothy was sent with both the letters in question to the Galatians; who, of course, would receive his salutation from his own mouth."

But is it not more singular still, I ask, that Paul should say, at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, Know ye that our brother Timothy is ázoλeλvμévov, i.e. either sent away on some errand, or set at liberty? Was it necessary to tell the Galatian church this, when Timothy was before their eyes in propria persona? I know indeed that Storr, in order to avoid this striking incongruity, has translated yɩvwσKETE TÒV ἀδελφὸν Τιμόθεον ἀπολελυμένον thus, Receive honourably our brother Timothy who is sent to you; but it is a violence done to the natural import of the language, which no other respectable critic that I know of has sanctioned, and to do which, I must think, nothing but the eagerness of supporting a favourite theory could have led this excellent writer.

(6.) "The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, both in matter and manner, has many striking coincidences with the epistle to the Hebrews."

No doubt this is true. But it is equally true also of other epistles of Paul with the exception, that the subject in the epistle to the Galatians particularly resembles, in some important respects, that of the epistle to the Hebrews, and is prosecuted more extensively in the latter epistle, than in any of the other acknowledged epistles of Paul. Noesselt has used the same argument, in order to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews must have been written to the church in Thessalonica; and Weber, to show that it was written to the Corinthians. Might it not be used, with similar effect, to show also that it was written to the Romans? Such an argument may be of some weight, in the question whether Paul, or some other person, wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; but it cannot be of much avail to show that this epistle was written to the church at Galatia, rather than to some other church.

(7.) But the argument on which Storr seems to place most reliance of all, and which, if well founded, is of a historical, and not of a conjectural nature, is that deduced from 2 Pet. iii. 14—16.

As this passage is not only adduced by Storr, for the purpose of showing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, but by him and many other critics of great reputation, for the purpose of proving that Paul must have been the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; in order to save repetition, I shall here examine it in reference to both of these topics, since I must of necessity institute an examination of it, with respect to the topic now under discussion.

The passage runs thus: "Wherefore, beloved, since ye are in expectation of these things [viz. the changes described in the preceding context], make strenuous efforts that ye may be found of him [Christ] in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider the delay of our Lord to come, as a matter of favour: as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you; as [he has done] likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood; which the ignorant and the unstable pervert, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

To understand the nature of the argument drawn from this, we must advert to some circumstances mentioned in the epistles of Peter. His first epistle is directed to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet. i. 1. His second is directed to the same

churches; for he says, "This second epistle, beloved, I write to you, in which I am to stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance," 2 Pet. iii. 1. To the above-named churches in Asia Minor, then, the second epistle of Peter was directed.

YOU.

The nature of Storr's argument may now be understood. It is this: "All the epistles of Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, have designated the churches to which they were sent; the epistle to the Hebrews does not. Peter says, that Paul had written a letter to the churches in Asia Minor, whom he addresses, as our beloved Paul hath writen TO Now this cannot advert to any of his letters which have inscriptions, as they are not directed to the afore-named churches in Asia Minor. Consequently, Peter must refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is the only one that has no inscription. It follows, therefore, not only that Paul wrote this letter, but that he wrote it to some of the churches addressed by Peter. Most probably, then, it was written to Galatia. Especially is this credible, since the epistle to the Hebrews contains those very warnings and sentiments to which Peter adverts, as being comprised in the letter of Paul to the churches in Asia Minor, whom he addresses."

One is tempted, at first view, to acquiesce in a statement seemingly so probable, and to conclude, that the inference drawn by Storr is substantially supported. A closer examination, however, suggests formidable difficulties, which must not be passed over in silence.

I omit, at present, any consideration respecting the genuineness of the second epistle of Peter, so much called in question, and disputed by many churches of ancient times. It is unnecessary here to take other ground in regard to it, than Storr himself has taken; which is, to admit its genuineness.

What then does the passage of Peter, now in question, teach us?

(1.) That Paul had written a letter to the churches whom Peter addressed, payev vμiv. (2.) That he had urged on them the same considerations which Peter himself had urged; even as our beloved brother Paul hath written to you. (3.) That in all his epistles (viz. all that had been read by them,) he had urged the same, or the like, considerations; as likewise in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things.

The question, on which the point under discussion mainly turns, is What are the things to which Peter refers, as treated of in common by him and by Paul?

C

To find an answer to this, we may make three suppositions. First, they are all the subjects treated of in the preceding part of Peter's epistle; or, secondly, they are those comprised in the preceding part of the third chapter; or thirdly, they are those things suggested by the immediate context, in connexion with the passage already cited.

Now, the first of these suppositions cannot be admitted; for Paul is so far from treating, in all his epistles, of every subject comprised in the whole of Peter's second epistle, that he has nowhere treated of some of them. If Peter, then, referred to the epistles of Paul which are now extant, it is clear he did not mean to say, that Paul had in every epistle of his discussed the same subjects, as he himself had done, throughout his second letter.

But Storr urges in a special manner the second supposition, viz. that the subjects presented to view in the third chapter of Peter's second epistle, are particularly treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews; and consequently, that Peter must have referred to these subjects, and to that epistle. The sum of the third chapter of Peter is, 'That the heavens and the earth are perishable; that they will be destroyed by fire; that the delay to destroy the ungodly must not be imputed to slackness on the part of the Lord, who puts off this catastrophe on account of his long-suffering towards men; and that the time when they shall be dissolved by fire, will come speedily, and unexpectedly, and then the heavens and the earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and a new earth created.' Such is the context. Then follows the exhortation; "Beloved, keep yourselves unspotted and blameless; and regard the delay of your Lord's coming as a favour; even as our beloved brother, Paul, has written to you," &c. Now where has Paul written any thing respecting the dissolution of the material elements of the universe by fire, and the creating of new heavens and a new earth instead of them? I do not find this subject treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews; nor is it touched upon in all the epistles of Paul; it is only adverted to in some of them.

It is then, thirdly, the exhortation in the immediate context, to keep themselves unspotted and blameless, in view of their Lord's coming, which Peter means to say had been urged by Paul on the persons whom he addressed, as well as by himself. This is the plain grammatical construction; and it is the only one which will bear examination, by comparing it with the contents of Paul's epistles.

But exhortation of such a nature is far from being contained only in

the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, the first to the Thessalonians, the first to Timothy, and that to Titus, contain direct exhortations of this sort, and the other epistles of Paul, repeated intimations of the same nature. If the argument is good, then, to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, because it contains such sentiments and exhortations; the same argument might prove that any of the other epistles of Paul were written to the same church, because they contain the like sentiments.

But there is one of the churches in Asia Minor to which Peter wrote, namely, that of Galatia, to which a letter of Paul now extant is addressed. May not this be the very epistle to which Peter adverts, and not the epistle to the Hebrews? In chapter vi. 7-9, is a passage of warning and exhortation, grounded on the doctrine of future retribution. This may be the very passage to which Peter adverts; or if any should think it too general to satisfy the reference which he makes, then the exhortation may have been in a letter now lost. That some of Paul's letters are lost, is pretty certain, from 1 Cor. v. 9-11. See also Phil. iii. 1. Evidently one of John's epistles is lost. "I wrote to the church," says he, in his second epistle, verse 9, "but Diotrephes, who loves pre-eminence, did not receive us." We have no remains of the epistle to which he here adverts. The letter of Paul, which Peter mentions, may have shared the same fate. At most, the epistle to the Hebrews, even supposing it to be proved that Paul wrote it, has no special claim to be considered as the one adverted to by Peter.

If then it cannot be shown (as I am fully persuaded it cannot) that Peter, in the passage under consideration, adverts to the epistle to the Hebrews, it cannot, of course, be shown from Peter's testimony, that Paul wrote this epistle. This argument has, indeed, been often and strongly urged, in order to establish this point, by modern and late critics; but it will not abide the test of examination. The ancient church, it is well known, never brought it forward to support the opinion that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Storr himself, who urges it very strongly, concedes that it was never employed by the Christian fathers. It does not follow, indeed, that it has no validity, because it was not employed by them. But it would seem, at least, that the proof to be derived from it is not so obvious, nor so conclusive, as some modern critics have deemed it.

(8.) Storr adduces "the special circumstances of the churches addressed in the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews, as a