II. 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. But none have argued on this topic so much at length, or with so much effort, 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 the occupying of much time in the discussion of it. 1 The writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews,' says Berger, 'calls it nóyov tagaxhńoews, a hortatory address, xiii. 22, which accords well with the contents of the piece.'

But Paul, one may reply, often employs the word wagaxañéw in his acknowledged epistles. May not then an epistle of his in which #agazanéw 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 magánλnois, Acts xv. 31. The words of Luke "When they had read [the epistle], they rejoiced izl tỹ tagazλýoes.” 2 • The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses λαλεῖν instead of γράφειν ; which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than of an epistle!'

are:

But an appeal to the Greek Concordance shows, that λɑλ...” 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 this 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 xiii. 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. To these four verses he supposes that the copyist refers, when he says, "I have written to you dia ßgaxśwv, 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 xiii. 24, 25, 30-37. Would it not be strange, that a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics of the very 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 dμý, in Heb. xiii. 21, shows that the original discourse ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made by the transcriber.'

The answer is, that dμ here stands after a doxology, where Paul always inserts it; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the midst of his letters; e. g. Rom. i. 25. ix. 5. xi. 36. xv. 33. xvi. 20. Gal. i. 5. Eph. iii. 21, etc. It follows of course, that the insertion of a cannot afford any

valid proof that our epistle ended with it; especially if written by Paul.

5 The whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected chain of discourse; it is like to an essay or a homily, and not written 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 show 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 this 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 the author first spoke the words which the letter contains, to some assembly, and afterwards reduced them to writing, or whether he did not, 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 is every where like that of an epistle, viz. in the second person plural; with the single exception, that the writer occasionally uses a xoivors, 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 correspondence, that it occasions no difficulty in the case under consideration.

It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the particular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. The epistle every

where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could he in a homily, ask them to "pray that he might be restored to them?" Heb. xiii. 19. How could he promise to "make them a visit in company with Timothy, if he should come speedily?" xiii. 23. The first of these cases, at least, belongs to that part of the epistle, which Berger acknowledges to be the original discourse of Paul.

I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, as Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured, that the hand of a commentator is

discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more warmly and fully from the heart? Here is no patch-work; no congeries of heterogeneous materials; no designed, exegetical commentary; no trace of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work; produced by the powerful im pulse of one and the same mind, which was fraught with a knowledge of the subject that it discussed, glowed with benevolent feelings towards those who were addressed, and was agitated with alarm at the danger to which they were exposed. Sooner should I think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, and assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the hand of a coypist or a mere commentator into the epistle to the Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, one mind performed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased,

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING THE PRESENT INSCRIPTION TO THE EPISTLE.

In what latitude is the word Hebrews, used in the inscription to this epistle to be understood?

Certainly not as designating all Hebrews of every country. To the unbelieving Jews most evidently it was not addressed. From beginning to end, the persons addressed are regarded as having made a profession of the Christian faith; for the great object of the epistle, as all agree, is to guard them against apostasy from this faith.

To the believing Jews of every country, it could not have been primarily and immediately addressed. It is altogether improbable that all such, in every country, were in special danger of apostasy, when this letter was written. We know from the epistles of Paul, that many churches planted by him, and made up in part of Jews, were, at the period when our epistle must have been written, in a very flourishing condition, and eminent for Christian faith and holiness of life. Other circumstances mentioned in the epistle, and pertaining to those whom he addressed, cannot be applied to all the believing Hebrews of that period. The writer speaks of the great fight of afflictions and the loss of property, to which those whom he addresses had been subjected for the sake of religion, x. 32-34; occurrences which surely had not taken place in every church where Jews were found.

A still more convincing argument in favour of the sentiment just advanced, is drawn from what the writer himself has stated at the close of his letter. He asks the prayers of those whom he addresses, that he may be speedily restored to them, xiii. 19; and promises, if Timothy return in a short time, that he will in his company pay them a visit, xiii. 23. But can he be understood as meaning, that he would, in company with Timothy, visit all the churches where Jews were to be found throughout the world? And could Timothy be known to them all? Or could the circumstances of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be so well known by them all, as the manner of address here necessarily supposes?

These considerations render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews were that are named by the present inscription, they must have been those of some particular church and country. And even if we pay no regard to the inscription, but suppose it, after some time had clapsed, to have been affixed

to the epistle by another hand, the fact that Jewish converts are addressed, and such too as belong to some particular church or region, is, from the internal evidence of the epistle just stated, too plain to admit of any reasonable doubt.

IV. TO WHAT CHURCH WAS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WRITTEN?

A QUESTION replete with difficulties, and which has been much agitated by late critics. We can easily satisfy ourselves, that the epistle was designed for Jewish converts; and exclusively, in a certain sense of this word, designed for them, i. e. originally adapted to them throughout, in its texture and mode of reasoning. But where did these converts live? No salutation, such as stands at the head of nearly all the apostolic epistles, gives us information on this point. The conclusion of the letter, moreover, contains nothing definite enough to settle this question. We are left, then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and from internal evidence, such information as is necessary to determine it. But the first of these has been regarded by many critics, particularly by recent ones, as too indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of an inquirer; and the second is so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence, but rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same passages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to support conclusions directly opposed to each other; and in other cases, definite conclusions have been drawn in support of particular opinions, from texts which appear to be capable of conveying only a general idea.

The task of examining the principal opinions, which have been advanced in respect to the original destination of the epistle to the Hebrews, is tedious and appalling; but it has become absolutely necessary to any one, who makes just pretensions to acquaintance with the literary history of this epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of the discussion, and justice to the arguments of others, will permit; and I shall examine those opinions which the authors of them have endeavoured to support by arguments, omitting a particular discussion of those which have been thrown out as mere conjecture. For a mere conjecture that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts at Rome, in Spain, or at Babylon, (such conjectures have been made by critics of no small note), is sufficiently answered by a conjecture that is was directed to Jewish converts at some other place. Where no weight is laid in one scale, it requires none to adjust the balance of the other.

In our investigations respecting the question under consideration, we meet with critics who have maintained, that the epistle was written to Jewish Christians in Galatia; in Thessalonica; in Corinth; or to dispersed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled from Palestine in order to avoid the persecutions to which they were there exposed. The majority of critics however have held, as nearly all the ancient churches did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. I proceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order here suggested.

V. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN TO THE CHURCH AT GALATIA?

THE opinion that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts in Galatia has been advanced and maintained, with no small degree of acuteness and learning, by Storr, late Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen. I shall present a summary of the arguments which he uses to establish it; and

in order to avoid repetition, and also to render the discussion as perspicuous as may be, I shall examine the validity of each argument, as it is adduced.

He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews could not be directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears from Heb. ii. 3, that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such as heard Christ speak in person; from xii. 4, and xiii. 7, that they had as yet suffered no bloody persecution; and from vi. 10, xiii. 3, 10, and x. 34, that so far from having received charity from other churches, they had themselves contributed to the support of others. Now as neither of these things can, in his view, be truly said respecting the church in Palestine, he concludes that our epistle must have been directed to some church abroad.

I shall not stop here to examine whether he gives a correct interpretation of the passages on which he relies for the support of his opinion; as this subject must be examined in another place. I must content myself at present with simply remarking, that if he has rightly construed the texts to which he refers, they only serve to show, at most, that the church in Palestine was not the one to which the epistle was directed; leaving the question still untouched, whether it was sent, as he maintains, to the church in Galatia. As I now propose to examine only the positive arguments in favour of his opinion, I leave this consideration without further remark.

Most if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies, are grounded on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general nature of them may be thus stated. 'Certain facts relative to the Galatians and the Hebrews, are known from history, and from the epistles which bear their names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on any other ground, than by the supposition that the epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians were cotemporaneously written and directed severally to the Jewish and Gentile parts of the same church. This being admitted, several things otherwise strange or inexplicable, may be easily accounted for; and consequently we may or must admit such a composition and direction of these epistles.'

Let us now examine the particulars, which go to make up the general argument that I have just stated.

1 As the epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the churches in Palestine, and as all the churches abroad consisted of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, it is a singularity very striking, and at first appearance inexplicable, how it should come to pass that the epistle to the Galatians is written exclusively to Gentile converts, and the epistle to the Hebrews exclusively to Jewish ones. But all appearance of difficulty vanishes, if we suppose that the two epistles were sent, at the same time, to the church in Galatia; each to the respective party for whom it was intended. A supposition which removes such difficulties, must be regarded as a probable one.'

This supposition is not wanting in ingenuity; and at first view, it may be regarded as not being destitute of probability. But then the critic must ask, How far can we be allowed to draw conclusions in respect to subjects of this nature, from mere conjectural probabilities? I may conjecture thousands of circumstances, in themselves probable, which would liberate me from difficulties presented by particular passages, or by whole books of the Old Testament and the New; on which conjectures, however, it would be very uncritical and unsafe for me to build conclusions, in respect to any matter of fact. Even if we allow the probability, then, of Storr's conjecture, it cannot add much real weight to the cause which he endeavours to support.

Such a probability, however, cannot well be allowed. There are circum