truth would have prompted. "I have written briefly", is an apology for the letter to the Hebrews which the writer was then concluding; and not for a former one to the church at Corinth. The incongruity of a supposition such as Weber makes, is manifest from the meaning of the very language which he quotes to support it. For how could the apostle say that he had written briefly, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, and imply that he had written copiously in the epistle to the Hebrews; when, even abridged as Weber makes the former, it would be almost as long as the latter?

We have seen the inconclusive nature of Weber's arguments, and their insufficiency to establish his opinion. It may now be observed, in addition, that the subjects treated of in the epistle to the Corinthians, and in that to the Hebrews, are widely different, in general, and quite dissimilar. Not a word in the epistle to the Hebrews of internal disorder, tumult, and parties in the church; no precepts about separation of husband and wife; none concerning meats offered to idols; none about the abuse of spiritual gifts; no discussion about the resurrection of the 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, to Rome, to Alexandria, or to Antioch?

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 argmuent (if it be one) would be equally good.

In regard to the supposition of J. E. C. Schmidt, (Einleit ins N. Test. Th. I. pp. 284. 293), that the epistle was directed to the church at Alexandria, much need not be said. This writer alleges,

(1) That an Alexandrine spirit pervades the epistle.'

But if this be true, it serves only to render it probable that the writer was of Alexandria, or at least that he possessed the spirit in question. It cannot serve at all to determine who his readers were.

(2) The church at Alexandria appears early to have been, in a peculiar manner, partial to this epistle.'

The answer to this is, that partial as they were, yet none of the dis

tinguished writers at Alexandria, now known to us, have once suggested the idea that the epistle was directed to their church. How could they have all been unanimous in the opinion, that it was directed to the churches in Palestine, if it had been originally addressed to their own church?

(3) The epistle to the Hebrews (now so named), was anciently called the epistle to the Alexandrians.'

This argument depends entirely on the testimony of an anonymous writer, (adduced by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. med. Aevi, Tom. III. p. 854), who, after naming thirteen of Paul's epistles, mentions one "nomine Pauli ficta," and circulated apud Alexandrinos. Of this testimony I shall take more particular notice in § 16. For the present, it is sufficient to ask, Where is the name of Paul, in our present epistle to the Hebrews? And was his epistle current only apud Alexandrinos? And what Christian fathers have once mentioned, that our epistle was current under the name of Paul? All have testified that it is anonymous. Besides all this, what testimony is there to show that the church at Alexandria was of a Judaizing spirit? All the knowledge we have of it leads us to believe directly the reverse of this. We cannot, therefore, build on the testimony of the anonymous writer in question, any argument that deserves serious regard.

Boehme, in his recent work on the epistle to the Hebrews, contends (Prolegom. p. XXXII. seq.) for Antioch as the place to which this epistle was directed. But the condition of the church there, which was made up of Gentiles as well Jews, and was in a state of contention with regard to the ceremonial rites of the Levitical law, renders this altogether improbable; comp. Acts 11: 20 seq. 15:1 seq. Gal. 2: 11 seq. How can it be reasonably supposed, that not a single reference should be made, in all the epistle to the Hebrews, to such a state of things as these passages disclose? The improbability is too great, one would think, to raise any serious doubt in the mind of any considerate and impartial critic.

§ 10. Was it written to the church in Palestine?

I have now examined the most specious opinions which modern criticism has offered, in order to show 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 ciritics, 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 established 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. A proper 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 vs 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. Comp. Rom. 5: 8. 6:6. 7:6. 8:18, 35. 13:4. 1 Cor. 8: 8. 9: 10. 2 Cor. 1: 5, 8, 10, 21, 22. 2: 14. 4: 14, and a multitude of passages in the Concordance, under quas, usis, etc. See § 27. 17.

(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, through 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; and so 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.

(ƒ) 'What is said of apostates, in ch. 6:4-6 and 10: 26-29, 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, dependance 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 proof, which 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

* Prof. Bleek, in his recent work on the epistle to the Hebrews (I. p. 34), supposes that the author of our epistle must of course have given some address to it; and that the present προς Εβραίους, if not an exact copy of the language of the original address, is for substance a copy of it. The same opinion he has also expressed, in a review of the first edition of my work, in the Halle Allgem. Litt. Zeitung, Ergänz. Blätter, Jan. 1830.

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 such names for the sake of guiding their readers, had they been at that time affixed to these books. But they have no where employed them. Even when they quote the prophets, it is evidently 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; for how could he do otherwise? But in all the numerous quotations which be makes of the other New Testament books, he does not once call any one of them by name.

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

Admitting now that the inscription, ἡ 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 this: Because the editor or transcriber who affixed this title to the epistle, supposed that it was intended for the Hebrews. And whoever the author of the title or inscription was, it is quite certain that he lived at an early period. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, that he gave such a title to our epistle as agreed with the general tradition and common opinion of the Christian church at that period. For we find this title, not only in all our present Greek manuscripts, (which would not indeed settle the question of its very remote antiquity), but in all the early versions, e. g. the Syriac, and others; and also in the manuscripts of the old Itala, and the ante-Hieronymean Latin versions, the Codex Claromontanus and San Germanensis only excepted. There is, indeed, a catalogue of canonical books from the fragments of an anonymous author, who lived near the close of the second century, (published by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. Tom. III. p. 854, and adverted to on p. 32 above), in which the epistle to the Hebrews is supposed to be called [epistola] apud Alexandrinos. But the whole passage of this writer is so obscure, and his ignorance respecting the contents of the epistle to the Hebrews so profound, (as will here