stances in the epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews, relative to the condition of the persons respectively addressed, which serve to evince that the Galatian church could not, at the same time, have been addressed by both of these letters. This I shall have further occasion to show in the sequel. In the mean time, it may suffice to remark here, that it is far from being certain, as Storr assumes it to be, that the epistle to the Galatians is addressed exclusively to Gentile converts. When the apostle speaks of their being "shut up under the law, before the gospel was preached;" and of "the law having been their instructor to bring them to Christ," Gal. iii. 23, 24; can those whom he thus addresses have been only Gentiles? And when he speaks of their "having been in a state of minority before Christ came;" of their "having been vol, and in bondage to the elements of the world," i. e. the ritual ceremonies of the Mosaic law, Gal. iv. 1—3: it is far enough from being obvious, that only Gentile converts are addressed. Indeed, so plainly do these passages appear to respect Jews, that a critic of no less note than Noesselt considers it as certain, that Jewish converts only are addressed in the epistle to the Galatians; an opinion incapable no doubt of being defended, but still serving to show that Storr has, in the case before us, taken much more for granted than can be readily allowed.

Moreover, it is not so singular as Storr represents it to be, that Jewish converts should be exclusively addressed in one case, and Gentile ones in another. The church at Ephesus, for example, consisted, beyond all doubt, of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Yet, in the epistle which Paul wrote to them, he seems principally, if not solely, to address the Gentiles, (τ vn—ångoßvoría, Eph. ii. 11, also iii. 1). But who ever thought it necessary, in order to account for this, to suppose that Paul also wrote another letter at the same time, to the Jewish part of the church at Ephesus?

Besides, what object could be answered by writing two separate letters at the same time? Was it not a matter of course, that the whole church should be made acquainted with an apostolic letter to one part of it? Is there not abundant evidence, that the letters of the apostles were regarded and treated by the early churches as encyclical, or, as we call them, circulars? When Peter wrote his second epistle to various churches in Asia Minor, he adverts to Paul's epistles as being already known to them, 2 Pet. iii. 16. And when Clement of Rome, within the first century, wrote his epistle to the Corinthians, he made extracts from nearly all the epistles of Paul, without even naming them; which certainly implies, that he regarded the Corinthian church as being already well acquainted with them. Such being the state of knowledge respecting the apostolic epistles in the early churches, it is a very improbable supposition, that either the epistle to the Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, was designed to be kept secret from the Jewish or Gentile Christians at Galatia, if written to them. Indeed, an arrangement of this nature would have worn the appearance of a worldly policy, and of a kind of double dealing; which is far enough from being characteristic of Paul, and which would have served rather to alienate than to reconcile those who were ready to renounce his authority.

The possibility that the two letters should have been written at the same time, may for the sake of argument be conceded. But the necessity of such a supposition, on grounds alleged by Storr, is contradicted by the state of the epistle to the Ephesians, which is addressed to Gentiles only. If the probability of it has not already been shown to be little or nothing, in the sequel, I trust, this will be made satisfactorily apparent.

2 The epistle to the Hebrews,' says Storr, 'has no salutation, which all the other epistles of Paul have; it wants the usual greeting at the close; and it no where exhibits the name of the author. These facts now are easily accounted for, if we suppose that this epistle was sent at the same time with that to the Galatians, which Paul says he wrote with his own hand, Gal. vi. 11. It is probable that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by the aid of an amanuensis; and as it was sent along with an epistle written and subscribed by Paul in his own hand-writing, a salutation and subscription were unnecessary or superfluous.'

But why so? Why did not the longer epistle to the Hebrews need as many marks of authenticity, as the shorter one to the Galatians? Is the subject less important? are the persons addressed less regarded by the writer? And why should the fact, (if it be one, for this too is mere conjecture), that an amanuensis wrote one letter, supersede all effort to authenticate it, when Paul has been so careful to render the other letter authentic, which was written with his own hand? During such a contest between parties as existed at Galatia, is there any probability that either letter would be left deficient as to the evidences of genuineness, when the whole weight of the apostle's authority was needed to check the growing evil there? Would not the apostle at least intimate plainly in one letter, that he had written another? So far from salutation or subscription being superfluous, in such a case, the one or the other, or rather both of them, would seem to be peculiarly needed, in order that neither letter should fail of its proper destination, or have its genuineness disputed.

3 'In Gal. vi. 16, it is said, "As many as walk by this rule, peace be on them, and mercy be upon the Israel of God." Now the phrase Israel of God means the Jewish converts at Galatia, in distinction from the Gentile ones; and this conveys an intimation, that the apostle had written to these Jewish converts, as well as to the Gentile ones.'

This argument, however, is built upon an exegesis of the passage quoted which is inadmissible. The Israel of God is plainly a figurative name for true Christians. Paul had shown in the previous part of his epistle, that those "who are of the faith," whether Jews or Gentiles, are the children of Abraham, iii. 7, 29. At the close, he pronounces a blessing on such as adopt the principles and obey the injunctions which he had communicated; and he concludes it, very appositely to his purpose, by calling such the Israel of God, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ̓Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The xal which stands before this clause seems clearly to be explicative, and not merely conjunctive; amounting in effect to our English namely, even, to wit, or some word of the same import, and placing τὸν ̓Ισραήλ in apposition with the preceding ἐπ' αὐτούς.

But even supposing the apostle does advert here only to the Jewish converts, as such; where is the intimation to be found that he had written to them? Or, if he had, that the letter was the same with our present epistle to the Hebrews? 4 The epistle to the Hebrews and to the Galatians must have been written about the same time; and probably both were written at Corinth, during Paul's first abode there. Here Paul found Priscilla and Aquila, who had fled from Italy on account of Claudius' decree which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts xviii. 1, 2; and at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, the writer says, They of Italy (oi àñò tñs 'Iranías) salute you, which means 'Priscilla and Aquila from Italy salute you.' The coincidence of such circumstances renders it probable, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth. And as to the epistle to the Galatians, it was written between

the time of Paul's second and third visit to Galatia; and consequently must have been written during some of his journeys recorded in Acts xvi. xvii. and xviii., which are occupied with the history of the apostle in the interval of time between those visits. But if written during this interval, when can it with so much probability be considered to have been written, as within the eighteen months' abode of Paul at Corinth, during the same time? Consequently, it is probable, that both letters were written at the same place, and about the same time; and it may therefore be concluded, that the supposition of their having been sent to Galatia at the same time, is correct.'

Ingenious and specious as this may appear, at first view, it is far from being satisfactory, when we come to examine its parts in detail. In respect to those circumstances which Storr represents as showing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth, they are far from being decisive. Supposing, with him, that of άò Ts 'Iranías, in the greeting at the close, means Priscilla and Aquila; is it necessary that the salutation from them should have been sent from Corinth? Did they not afterwards travel with Paul to Ephesus? Acts xviii. 18, 19. And were they not probably at Rome, during his captivity there? In Rom. xxvi. 3, a salutation is sent to them as being at Rome; and of course they were there before Paul went thither as a prisoner, because his epistle to the Romans was written before that event, Rom. i. 9-12. How then can we assume that Corinth is the only place from which Paul sent, or could send, the salutation of these Italians to Galatia?

But another consideration must be brought into our account. Storr's exegesis of the expression οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ̓Ιταλίας is altogether improbable. How should two strangers, lately (gooάτws) come from Rome to Corinth, Acts xviii. 2, be so well acquainted with the church at Galatia, situated in the interior and very remotest part of Asia Minor, and having but little intercourse with the world, that it was not necessary even to name them to this church, but simply to advert to them by the periphrasis, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας ? How did the Galatians know that Priscilla and Aquila were at Corinth? Or how could they distinguish them from the many other Jews that fled from Rome, after the edict of Claudius proscribing the Jews was published? Besides, in all other cases where Paul sends greetings from these Italians, or to them, he calls them by name; e. g. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 2 Tim. iv. 19. Rom. xvi. 3. This view of the subject, therefore, renders highly improbable the very circumstance which Storr has assumed as a fact, in order to make out that the epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth.

Next, as to the epistle to the Galatians. It was written, he says, between Paul's second and third journey to Galatia; therefore most probably during his stay at Corinth, which happened in that interval of time.

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 Galatian 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 àwoλeñvμévov, 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 γινώσκετε τὸν 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.

Besides all this, how is it so strange that the name of Timothy is not joined with that of Paul, in the epistle to the Galatians, since neither the epistle to the Romans, the Corinthians, Ephesians, or to Titus, has this name in the salutation ? How easy too the supposition, that Timothy, the habitual äyyeños of Paul, might have been absent, on business pertaining to the concerns of the churches, when the epistle to the Galatians was written!

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 an 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 is also adduced by him, and by 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 as to his coming, a matter of favour: even as 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 aim 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.

The nature of Storr's argument may now be understood. It is this. In all the epistles of Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, the churches are designated to which they were sent; but not so in the epistle to the Hebrews. Peter says, that Paul had written a letter to the churches in Asia Minor whom he addresses; as our beloved brother Paul hath written TO YOU. 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 that which Storr himself has taken, i. e. 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, ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν. 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? 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