pose of persuading the unbelieving Jews every where to renounce Judaism and embrace the gospel; as well as for establishing the believing Jews in the profession of Christianity. Being therefore a letter to the whole Jewish nation, the writer intended that the believing Hebrews in Judea, to whom it was sent, should communicate it to their unbelieving brethren every where, who choosed to read it.

That a writing designed for the conversion of the Jewish nation, should have been calculated in an especial manner to convince the learned doctors and scribes, who still adhere to the religion of their forefathers; and that it should have been sent to the Jews living in Judea, was highly proper. They were the principal part of the circumcision, from whom this letter could be circulated among the Jews of the dispersion. Besides, the nation in general, it is reasonable to think, would be much guided in their judgment concerning the doctrine taught in this epistle, by the reception which it might meet with from their brethren in Judea; but especially from the scribes and elders at Jerusalem.

III. As to the language in which the epistle to the Hebrews was originally composed, many of the ancients speak of it as having been written by the apostle Paul in the Hebrew.-This was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, and of Jerome, as is plain from the passages quoted above, Sect. 1. paragr. 3.— Eusebius too was of the same opinion. For in his Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 38. speaking of the epistle which Clement wrote in the name of the church of the Romans to the church of the Corinthians, he saith, "In it he hath inserted many thoughts "from the epistle to the Hebrews, sometimes using the very "same words; plainly shewing that it is not a new writing. "Wherefore, it is justly ranked with the other writings of the "apostle. Now Paul, who was conversant with the Hebrews, "having wrote to them in their native language, some say Luke "the Evangelist, others, this very Clement translated that writing; which seems the more true, as the epistle of Clement "and the epistle to the Hebrews, exhibit the same kind of "style; and that the thoughts in both, are not much different." Here it is proper to remark, that notwithstanding the fathers usually appealed to tradition in support of the ancient facts which they have reported, when they had it in their power to make such an appeal, neither Clement of Alexandria, nor Origen, nor Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor any Christian writer of the second and

following centuries, who have told us that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul in the Hebrew language, have said or so much as insinuated, that they learned that important fact from tradition. They delivered it merely as an opinion of their own, formed on the circumstance of the epistle's being written to the Hebrews. This Eusebius acknowledges, in the pȧssage last quoted from his history as Jerome likewise doth, in the passage quoted from him, Sect. 1. where, speaking of Paul, he saith, Moreover he wrote as an Hebrew to the Hebrews, in pure Hebrew.

But although the fathers who thought the epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the Hebrew language, have professedly founded their opinion on its being composed for the instruction of the Hebrews, I am inclined to believe they were led into that opinion by the style also of the Greek epistle. For having been informed by tradition, that it was an epistle of Paul, and fancying its style to be more elegant than that of Paul's other epistles, to account for its supposed superior elegance, and at the same time to maintain the tradition which had handed down Paul as its author, they invented the strange hypothesis, that it was written by Paul in Hebrew, and translated by some other person, they could not tell who, into elegant Greek.

The opinion of the ancients concerning the language in which St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Hebrews, being wholly founded on the supposed propriety of writing to the Hebrews in their own language, it will be necessary to inquire a little into that propriety. And First, If it was proper for the apostle to write his letter to the Hebrews in their own language, it must have been equally proper for him to write his letter to the Romans in their language. Yet we know that Paul's epistle to the Romans, was not written in Latin, the language of Rome, but in Greek. Nay, that all Paul's epistles, and the epistles of the other apostles, were written in Greek, and not in the languages of the churches and persons to whom they were sent.-Secondly, The apostolical epistles being intended for the use of the whole Christian world in every age, as well as for the use of the persons to whom they were sent, it was more proper that they should be written in Greek than in any provincial dialect; because the Greek language was then universally understood, especially in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire. So Cicero informs us in his oration Pro Arch. Poet. Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus; Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, conti

nentur. It may perhaps be objected, that in many countries the common people, of whom the Christian churches were chiefly composed, did not understand the Greek language, True; but in every church there were numbers of persons endowed with the gifts of tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn the apostle's Greek epistles into the language of the church to which they were sent. In particular, the president, or the spiritual man, who read the apostle's Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public assemblies, could without any hesitation, read it in the Hebrew language for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And, with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in the Hebrew, which few of them understood.-Thirdly, It was proper, that all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language; because the principal doctrines of the gospel being delivered and explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more advantage be compared so as to be bet ter understood, being expressed in one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to write the Christian revelation but the Greek, which was then generally understood; and in which there were many books extant, which treated of all kinds of literature, and which, on that account, were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which Christians in after ages would be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial dia. lects, used in the apostle's days, could pretend to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused: and few if any books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the meaning of such of the apostle's letters as were composed in these provincial languages, could not easily have been ascertained. Upon the whole the arguments taken from the propriety of St. Paul's writing to the Hebrews in their own language, is not well founded,

In addition to what hath been said to shew that the epistle to the Hebrews was written originally, not in the Hebrew, but in the Greek language, the reader, because this is a matter of great importance, is desired to attend to two particulars. The first is, in our Greek copy of the epistle, there are no internal marks of its being a translation from an Hebrew original. We find few

of the Hebraisms which abound in the Greek versions of the Jewish scriptures: And such citations as are made from these scriptures, are made, not from the Hebrew original, but for the most part from the LXX. Greek version; as most of the citations from the Old Testament, in Paul's other epistles, likewise are. Would this have happened, if the epistle to the Hebrews had been originally written in Hebrew ?Of this the following are examples.-Heb. viii. 9. And I regarded them not. In the Hebrew text, Jerem. xxxi. 32. it is, Although I was an husband to them.-Heb. x. 5. Thou hast prepared me a body. In the Hebrew; Mine ears thou hast opened.-chap. x. 38. If he draw back. In the Hebrew; If he faint.-chap. xi. 21. Wor shipped leaning on the top of his staff. In the Hebrew; Israel 'bowed himself on the bed's head. In the Greek epistle, the writer hath interpreted the Hebrew names which he mentions. This he had no occasion to do, if he wrote his epistle in pure Hebrew. And even if he had written it in the Syro-chaldaic, called in the apostle's days the Hebrew tongue, the names in the two languages are so little different, that there was no need to interpret them to those who understood the Syro-chaldaic. -Lastly, there are in the Greek epistle to the Hebrews several paronomasias, or Greek words of like sound, placed near each other, which, in the opinion of Spanheim and Wetstein shew that this epistle is an original writing, and not a translation.-In like manner, Matthew's gospel is shewed to have been originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew as some of the fathers thought, by two elegant paronomasias, observed by Wetstein. The one is found, chap. v. 47, 48. Οι τελωναι έτω ποιόσιν, έσεσθε εν τελειοι ; that is, as Jerome saith, be ye not reλava bút Teλ. On this Wetstein remarks; Videtur Mattheus vocem, Texel, hic studio adhibuisse, ut reλwvals opponeret.-The other paronomasia we have chap. vi. 16. Αφανίζεσι τα προσωπα όπως φανωσι : on which Wetstein remarks: Eleganter dicitur, Tegunt faciem, ut appareant, &c. It is elegantly said, They cover their face that they may appear.

The second circumstance which sheweth that the epistle to the Hebrews was not originally written in the Hebrew language, is this. No one of the ancient Christian writers, who have told us that this epistle was written by the apostle Paul in Hebrew, have said that he ever saw an ancient Hebrew copy of it. Yet many such there must have been in Judea, and in the neighbouring countries, if it had been originally written in He

brew. That being the case, is it to be supposed that Origen and Jerome, who were at great pains to procure and publish correct copies of the LXX. and Vulgate versions of the Jewish scriptures, did not search these countries for a genuine copy of the Hebrew epistle to the Hebrews, which they considered as the original, that they might therewith compare the Greek copy which was in every one's hands? and which being thought by them a translation, it was necessary to know if it was a just one. But, notwithstanding the fathers had such strong inducements to search for a genuine copy of the Hebrew epistle, I repeat what I affirmed above, that neither Clement of Alexandria, nor Origen, nor Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor any of the ancients, who thought Paul wrote his epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew, say they ever saw so much as one copy of that original. I therefore. agree with Fabricius, Lightfoot, Beausobre, Wetstein, Spanheim, Mill, Whitby, Lardner, and other learned critics, in their opinion that Paul wrote his epistle to the Hebrews in Greek: And am persuaded that our Greek copy of the epistle to the Hebrews, is itself the apostle's original letter; consequently that the same regard is due to it, which is paid to all the other epistles of the apostle Paul.

SECTION III.

Of the Matters handled, and of the Reasonings and Proofs advanced, in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

As the Jews had been honoured with the keeping of all the former revelations of God to mankind, it might have been expected, that the gospel, which was the explication and completion of the whole of these revelations, would have been received by them with joy. But it happened otherwise. Most of the Jews adhered to the law of Moses with the greatest obstinacy, because God had spoken it at Sinai by the ministry of angels, in the hearing of their fathers, accompanied with great thunderings, and lightnings, and tempest, and darkness. But the gospel they despised and opposed, because it was spoken in a private manner, by Jesus of Nazareth, a man, whom the rulers at Jerusalem had put to death publicly as a deceiver.-Farther, in their attachment to the law, and their opposition to the gospel, the Jews were confirmed by observing, that in the law a variety of atonements for sin were prescribed by God himself, which they daily performed in the temple at Jerusalem, as a worship highly ac