after be shewn, § 16), that nothing is to be abated on his account from the statement which has just been exhibited. The fathers of the second century give the same title to our epistle which it now has; for it is by this name, that Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen, (with the whole series of fathers after them), make their appeal to it. This shews beyond reasonable doubt, that from whatever source the title arose, it arose early, and early became general or rather universal in the church, wherever the epistle was received.

But although the fact is certain in respect to the early origin and currency of this title, one question remains, about which there has been no small dispute among critics. What is the meaning of the word Hebrews? Does this name apply only to the Jews of Palestine, who spoke the Hebrew language? Or is it equally applicable to all the descendants of the Hebrews, who lived in foreign countries and adhered to the Jewish religion? On this question turns the whole evidence to be derived from the title, in respect to the main subject under consideration. If the first be true, then does it show, that soon after the epistle was written, the church in general believed it to have been directed to the Jews in Palestine; if the second, then it does not at all help to shew, whether the early church held it to be written to the Christian community of Hebrews in Palestine or out of it. Viewed in this light, the question as to the meaning of the word Hebrews becomes a matter of no inconsiderable importance, and should therefore be radically investigated.

The writers of the New Testament may be fairly presumed to have used the word Hebrew, according to the prevailing usus loquendi of the times when they wrote; and in all probability, too, of the time when the title was given to our epistle, which could not be long afterwards. But they have uniformly employed it to designate the Palestine Jews, or those who had imbibed their opinions and spoke their language. In Acts 6:1, the Palestine Christians are expressly called 'Eßoaio, in contradistinction from the foreign Jews who are called Enviotai; there arose a murmuring of the HELLENISTS against the HEBREWS, because their widows were neglected in the daily administration. In conformity with this passage, (which is fundamental in the question now under consideration), the dialect of Palestine is repeatedly called Eßoais or Eßoaïxós in the New Testament; e. g. Acts 21: 40. 22: 2. Luke 23: 38. John 5: 2. 19: 13, 17. Agreeably to this, Espace means, to speak or write Hebrew; as Josephus says, τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος διήγγειλε Εβραΐζων, Bell. Jud. vi. 2, i. e, he narrated Caesar's history in the Hebrew tongue. To have a knowledge of the Hebrew language and to speak it, was deemed among the Jews a matter of great importance or a very valuable acquisition, Acts 21:40. 22:2. Hence Paul, when speaking of the ground of precedence which he might claim above the false teachers at Philippi, says, that he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. 3: 5, i. e. one of full Hebrew descent, and acquainted with the Hebrew language. Although he was born at Tarsus, he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, Acts 22: 3. To this same fact he seems to appeal again in a similar case, 2 Cor. 11: 22, Are they Hebrews? So am I.*

*

Bleek, in his Review (ut supra), has expressed the opinion, that the word He

With this usus loquendi of the New Testament agree other facts, which seem to place the question beyond reasonable doubt, as to what the usage of the apostolic age was, in respect to the meaning of the word in question. The Hebrew Christians of Palestine early possessed a spurious gospel, which long continued to have currency among them. Universal consent gave to this gospel, written in the Syro-Chaldaic or Palestine dialect of the time, the name Εὐαγγέλιον καθ' Εβραίους; evidently because it was used or approved by people of Palestine, who spoke the so called Hebrew language. The early fathers, it is well known, drew the conclusion from the title to our epistle, that it was originally written in the Hebrew language. Thus Irenaeus asserts, that "Matthew wrote his gospel tev tois Esgaiois tỷ idig avrov diahsztą,” advers. Haeret. III. 1; Clemens Alexandrinus asserts, that it was written Espalois Eßgain porn, and interpreted by others; in Euseb. H. Ecc. VI. 14. In the same way Eusebius declares, that it was addressed Eßgaiois dià τns raτgiov yhárτns, to the Hebrews in their native tongue, Hist. Ecc. III. 28; and again, "Matthew, having first preached Εβραίος... delivered to them his gospel πατρίῳ ziótty,” III. 24 ; and Jerome says, that Paul wrote ut Hebraeus Hebraeis Hebraice, i. e. as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language; Catal. Scriptt. verb. Paulus.

Now how could these fathers reason thus, unless they had understood the word Hebrews as necessarily meaning, according to the usus loquendi of that age, those who spoke the Hebrew language?

Bertholdt declares boldly, that not a single example can be found, in early times, of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews, Einleit. p. 2875. I would express my own conviction in a more guarded manner, and say, I have not been able to find any instance where this is the case.

Yet Eichhorn has ventured to assert, that the name Hebrew never has any reference to language, but always to religion or origin. His proof is, first, a passage from Eusebius' Hist. Ecc. III. 4, in which the historian asserts, that Peter addressed his epistle πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ Εβραίων ὄντας ἐν διασπορά Hortov. But this implies simply, that those whom Peter addressed were descended from the Hebrews, or belonged to those of the circumcision. Another passage to which he appeals, is in Philo (de Abrahamo, p. 388 D. edit. Par.), where he says, that Sarah advised Abraham to take as a concubine [Hagar], who was by descent an Egyptian, tv тε лоαignow Espaiav, but by choice a Hebrew; which he construes as meaning, who had embraced the religion of the Hebrews. But the antithesis here does not admit of this sense. By descent she was of the Egyptian nation, but by choice she attached herself to the Hebrew nation, is plainly the meaning of the passage; so that it fails altogether of affording ground for the conclusion which Eichhorn adduces from it.

Carpzoff, to whom Eichhorn is indebted for this quotation, has adduc

brew, in these two last named texts, can mean only a Jacobite, i. e. a descendant of Abraham through Jacob. But if we compare Acts 21: 40. 22: 22, it seems to me that we shall find some reason to believe, that Paul meant not only to say that he was a Jacobite, but a genuine Hebrew man in every important respect. Would not this include the power of speaking the Hebrew language?

ed several others, to shew that the word Hebrew is used to characterize the religion of the Jews, rather than their language or nation, Exercitt. in Heb. Prolog. c. 1. But so far are they from affording satisfaction to my mind, that I do not think them worthy the labour of an examination in this place.

The result of this inquiry is, then, that Eßgator, in the inscription to our epistle, means, and according to the usus loquendi of the age must mean, the Hebrews of Palestine, i. e. Hebrews in a country where the Hebrew language was vernacular. But even if examples may be found, in which the word Hebrew designates merely an Israelite, still, it is clear that such cannot be the meaning of the word in the title to our epistle; for how can this epistle be supposed to be addressed to all the Israelites of every country?

If I have offered sufficient evidence to establish this, then does the title to our epistle go far towards shewing what the original destination of the epistle was. If an ancient epistle has no direction within itself, and contains no unequivocal passages indicative of locality, in what way can we ascertain the original direction of it better than by tradition? Do we not appeal in all similar cases to tradition, in order to shew when and where authors were born, lived, and wrote? Where and when books were written? And seldom, indeed, can we trace back tradition, in a manner so satisfactory and definite, as in the case just considered.

Thus much for the external testimony, in regard to the opinion that Palestine was the place to which our epistle was directed; the voice of antiquity, and the title of the letter, constituting strong presumptive evidence that such was the case. But does the internal condition of the epistle itself agree with this? And does this furnish no objections, which will overbalance the weight of tradition? Something must be said relative to these questions, before we can make our ultimate conclusion. proceed then,

I

(2) To examine whether the internal condition of the epistle agrees with and confirms the supposition, which I am now endeavouring to defend.

The most superficial reader cannot help being impressed, on a slight reading of this epistle, with the idea that it is addressed to Jewish converts. In respect to this, indeed, all critics, ancient and modern, are of one opinion. But a close examination discloses a peculiarity of appeal, in this epistle, to the Mosaic ritual, which can be found no where else in the New Testament.

In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, we find, indeed, numerous traces of dispute and difficulty with Jews, who lived in countries remote from Palestine. But the disputed questions turn upon points of circumcision, of meats clean and unclean, points which respected the sabbaths, and the holidays that the Jews had been accustomed to observe. Concerning the priesthood, the temple, and the ritual of sacrifices, we find no questions of difficulty agitated.

The obvious reason of this seems to be, that but very few of the foreign Jews, regularly, or even at all attended the services of the temple. The great body of those who lived in the countries more distant from

Palestine, plainly could not attend the feast at Jerusalem three times in each year, according to the prescription of Moses. The time and expenses necessary to do this, could not be spared.

This is not a matter of mere conjecture. We know that the most numerous colony of Jews, any where to be found at that period, as well as the most learned and rich, was that at Alexandria in Egypt. Hither they had been transplanted, about 284 years A. C. by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had over-run Palestine with his army. They were allowed great privileges, under the reign of this prince; so that many were allured to Egpyt in his time, and the number of Jews in that country became quite large. Under Ptolemy Philometer, not far from 175 A. C., Onias, son of the high priest Onias at Jerusalem, who had fled to Egypt for safety, asked leave of Ptolemy and his queen Cleopatra, to build a temple at Leontopolis in that country, which was a town in the Nome or Prefecturate of Heliopolis. This leave he obtained; and there he built a temple, and constituted priests and Levites as ministers for its service. In his petition for obtaining this liberty he states, that while on his military expeditions in the service of the king, he had seen temples used by the Jews for their religious services in Coelosyria, Phenicia, Leontopolis and other places, Joseph. Antiq. Jud. x111. 6 edit. Colon. Allowing this statement to be true it would appear, that at least many of these foreign Jews had then already lost their zeal for attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. That the Jews in Egypt did not, in general, attend the feasts at Jerusalem, is well known. They only sent an occasional deputy there, by way of testifying their respect and fraternal sympathy.

If the Jews in Egypt did thus, we may well suppose that the Jews at a greater distance from Palestine, imitated them in their remissness with respect to attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. The nature of the case shews, that as a body they could not have been habitually present at the holy feasts; and that most of them, indeed, never frequented Jerusalem at all. In fact, this city could not have accommodated the one fourth part of the worshippers from abroad, had all the foreign Jews gone up to the feasts held there.

The natural consequence of not being familiar with the temple rites and priesthood, was a diminution of zeal in the foreign Jews with respect to things of this nature; until, in the end, they became to them matters of

Such was the situation of Leontopolis, if the statement of Josephus (Antiqq. XIII. 6) is to be trusted; and he repeats the same in Bell. Jud. VII. 30, edit. Colon. But suspicion has arisen of error in his statement, inasmuch as no Latin or Greek writer mentions a Leontopolis in the Nome of Heliopolis, i. e. east of the Delta. The Leontopolis of the Greeks and Romans was within the Delta, between the Mendesian and Phatnitic branches of the Nile, and not far from Busiris. Cellarius (p. 782) places it below, i. e. north of Busiris. But inasmuch as Josephus expressly states the distance from Memphis to be over 180 stadia (22} Roman miles), which, if Leontopolis were near Heliopolis, would correspond well with fact; and inasmuch as Leontopolis (Onion) was so well known among the Jews in the time of Josephus, because of the temple there, his testimony cannot well be rejected. We must admit, therefore, that there were once two places of this name in Egypt; the one of which, after the building of the temple by Onias, took the name of Onion occasionally, and finally was known altogether by this name.

minor importance, or even of comparative indifference. Hence Paul had no disputes with the foreign Jews about these things. At least, no marks of such disputes appear in the history of this apostle by Luke, nor in the letters of Paul himself.

But here is a point, respecting which the epistle to the Hebrews differs widely from all the other epistles of the New Testament. It is not with the question whether circumcision is to be retained or rejected, not with the dispute about meats offered to idols, not with prescriptions about new moons and sabbaths, that the writer is concerned. The whole epistle turns on different subjects. It is the favorite idea of preeminence, so tenaciously attached by zealous Jews to all parts of the Mosaic ritual, which the writer discusses. The dignity or rank of those, through whose mediation the law was given; the temple-apartments, furniture, rites, and sacrifices; the order and honour of the priesthood; in a word, the whole apparatus of the Levitical service, both daily and annual, are the subjects of which he treats; and the things which he compares with the corresponding parts of the Christian dispensation, in order to shew the superiority of the latter. Were angels employed in order to introduce the law? Christ, who has obtained a name and place far more exalted than they, himself introduced the new dispensation. Was Moses the beloved and honoured leader of God's chosen people, placed at the head of the Jewish dispensation? He was placed there as a servant; but Christ, at the head of the new dispensation, as a Son. Was the high priest of the Jews a mediator between God and the people, who offered up their annual propitiatory sacrifice, and went into the holy of holies, into the immediate presence of the Divinity, on their account? The office of this high priest, from its very nature and from the brevity of human life, was short and limited; but Christ is high priest forever, he has entered the holy of holies in the highest heavens, and has once for all offered a propitiatory sacrifice of everlasting efficacy. Was the temple a magnificent structure, the sacred character of which inspired awe? Magnificent and sacred as it was, it was merely a copy of the temple in which Jesus officiates, reared by God himself, and eternal in the heavens. Was the blood of goats and bullocks annually presented before the shrine of Jehovah, by the Jewish high priest, on the great day of atonement? Jesus, by his own blood, entered the sanctuary of the eternal temple, and made an atonement which needs not to be repeated. In a word, were all the implements of templeservice, all which pertained to the order and persons of the priesthood, venerable and holy? All these things were merely similitudes of the more perfect temple and priesthood of him, who is the great high-priest of the Christian dispensation.

Who now entertained the particular views in respect to the Mosaic ritual, which the writer thus brings into comparison? To whom could the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (as he constantly does) appeal, as being familiarly acquainted with every thing that pertained even to the minutest parts of the Jewish ritual, and priesthood, and sacred places, and utensils, and the very location of these utensils? To whom I ask, but to the Palestine Jews? It must be to those, who from childhood were familiar with all these objects, and who had been inspired by education