The assertion of Gobar, opposed as it is to the state of the case, as appears from the works of Irenæus, from the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, and from the omission, on the part of all the writers of the first five centuries of the Christian era, to notice this rejection by Irenæus of the epistle to the Hebrews, we cannot think of any weight. We are ignorant of the character and object of Gobar; we know not with what ability he examined, or with what accuracy he reported facts; we know that it has been common for modern and more enlightened critics to draw more uncritical conclusions than Gobar would have done, if he inferred negative evidence from the want of distinct positive evidence; laying all this together, we abide by the fact, as it appears from both Irenæus and Eusebius, that he did not distinctly attribute this epistle to Paul, nor did he deny it to be his, and dismiss the assertion of Gobar as unworthy of confidence.*

We cannot, with Professor Stuart, call this "hypothetical reasoning." To us it is reasoning founded on ascertained facts, and balanced probabilities. It is not often we see occasion to dissent from Professor Stuart, or to demur at his conclusions. In the present instance, however, we think Storr and Cramer have the advantage of him. We must also add, in critical justice, that we deem that portion of his first volume, in which he examines the negative evidence against our epistle, the least complete of his whole work. We do not mean that he has omitted any of that evidence; on the contrary, we think he has attributed to it more weight than it can justly claim. This is an instance of critical generosity, we apprehend, from present appearances, not likely soon to be reciprocated. If we may judge of the disposition of liberal critics, with reference to this point, from the Review or Notice of Prof. Stuart's first volume in the Christian Examiner, we should suppose they had taken for their motto, "Keep all you've got, and get all At least we did think, till we read this Review, that something might, by a constrained and urgent possibility, be suggested in defence of the apostolical and canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews. If, however, this reviewer is to be trusted, our impression is wholly erroneous. The point is so clear; the evidence so convincing, so overwhelming; the case is made

you can."

Dr. Lardner was not only an intelligent, but, in a great degree, a candid writer. His opinion, with reference to Irenæus, is essentially that of ours. Had the circumstances in the situation of Irenæus, adduced by Ernesti and Hug, and to which we have adverted above, been fully before the mind of Lardner, we doubt not that he would have agreed with us in every, the minutest particular. We quote his conclusion for the special benefit of those to whom the name of Lardner is as a charm, and an oracle; and to afford an opportunity of comparison, not to say contrast, with the conclusion of the Christian Examiner. Upon the whole, then, Irenæus affords proof that the epistle to the Hebrews was in being in his time; but he was not fully satisfied it was Paul's; and having some doubts about that matter, he was cautious in making much use of it as a book of Scripture." Lardner does not seem to have sufficiently considered that the Valentinians and Gnosticks generally rejected this epistle, and that, of course, whether Irenæus received or rejected it, "he would be cautious in making much use of it."

out with such undoubted and indubitable certainty, that it is superfluous even to hint at arguments in support of the inspiration or authority of this epistle. It is no longer a question of fact, but a mathematical certainty. The doctrine of chances has fairly distanced and dissipated all the probabilities of historical testimony. This first distinct outbreaking of American skeptical criticism has at once overshadowed and eclipsed all the efforts of that distrustful intelligence and ingenuity, not over scrupulous, which have for more than half a century darkened and deceived, while professing to enlighten, the eastern continent. The parhelion, the mock sun, with which the magical Semler and Eckermann so long deluded European eyes, disappearing in the East, has now risen, a prodigy and a portent, in the West, to startle for a moment by its novelty, and then to vanish in its own illusive emptiness. The American atmosphere, we do believe, is too clear, and American eyes too keen and too piercing, to be long deluded by the ignis. fatuus of skeptical exhalations. This semblance of light, this "glare of false science," we do hope, is here too well known,

"To lead to bewilder, or dazzle to blind"

We do trust in the good providence of God, that, while Germany itself is awakening and returning to the doctrines and principles of the Reformation, New England will not be found emulous of the character of apostate Germany.

Before we close this view of the negative external evidence against the epistle to the Hebrews, it may be well to present a summary of the arguments, by which the American rejecters of this epistle support their conclusion. This will be done with most fairness in their own language,

"The three writers, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, are those on whom we principally rely for the earliest direct evidence, concerning the reception and authority of the books of the New Testament among Christians. In regard to the gospels, the Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, the first of Peter, and the first of John, their evidence is joined by that of preceding, cotemporary, and subsequent writers, till the proof becomes decisive, that those books were universally received by catholic Christians during the first two centuries, as the works of the authors to whom they are ascribed. This is the main external evidence on which we rest for their genuineness. They had accompanied the religion as it spread itself over the world, had been received with it, and were acknowledged by the great body of Christians as its authentic records. When we attend to the full force of this argument, we shall find that the proof of the genuineness of the more important books of the New Testament, differs not only in degree, but in kind, from the proof of the genuineness of any other writings. It is the testimony of a whole widely spread coinmunity, to their belief, that certain works of the highest interest to them were the productions of the individuals to whom they are ascribed, it being understood that these works would be of comparatively little, or even of no value, if they were not the productions of those individuals. It is the proof which the early fathers afford of the general reception of certain books as sacred books, throughout the Christian community, which is the point to be regarded in our investigations respecting the genuineness of those books. Where this proof is wanting, the individual opinions of the fathers are comparatively of little value. In common with other ancient writers, they were liable to mistakes concerning

VOL. II.

6

the authors and history of books, to a degree, which, with our incomparably greater facilities for obtaining information on all subjects, it is difficult for us to estimate justly. Accordingly they fell into many errors.

Proceeding upon these principles, we find that the evidence is wanting, which is required to prove, or to render it probable, that St. Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. It clearly was not generally received as his work, during the last half of the second century. It had not been handed down as such to the cotemporaries of Irenæus and Tertullian; and we have nothing in favor of the supposition that it was written by St. Paul, except the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, a writer particularly incautious on subjects of this sort, and who, in consequence, has repeatedly fallen into mistakes respecting the authors of different works.

But this deficiency of evidence not only leaves us without satisfactory ground for believing the epistle to be the composition of St. Paul; it assumes the character of a strong objection to this hypothesis. It is highly improbable, that an epistle really written by St. Paul, so elaborate, and so pregnant, as its admirers have believed, with the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, should not have been universally received as his work. No satisfactory answer can be given to the question, why, if written by him, it did not obtain equal reception with his other epistles. If it were not his work, we can easily explain how it came to be considered so; as those by whom it was valued would be ready to ascribe it, even upon slight grounds, to an individual so distinguished. If it were his work, we do not perceive that any probable account can be given of its not being generally received as such.

No show of subsequent evidence, if such existed, could in any degree supply the deficiency which has been pointed out. The value of passages in the later fathers, respecting the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, great as it sometimes is, consists solely in the light which they throw upon the state of opinion concerning those books during the first two centuries. At a subsequent time, no facts could be known or rendered probable, by testimony, which were not known during that period. But as regards the epistle to the Hebrews, in proceeding to the later fathers, we only find confirmation of the conclusion to which we have arrived." Christian Examiner, vol. iv. p. 499.

Our limits will not allow us to examine this passage in detail. In view of the facts already suggested, and of some others yet to be offered, we shall leave our readers to form their own judgement of its accuracy and fairness.

We shall at once test the main principle involved in the passage. We assume that it contains a fair statement of the mode of reasoning required to prove the genuineness of any book contained in the New Testament, and proceed to apply the principle to one of the "more important books of the New Testament," to one of the "thirteen epistles of Paul," viz. the epistle to Philemon. This epistle was not quoted by Irenæus, nor Tertullian, uor Clement of Alexandria, nor Hermias, nor Tatian, nor Theophilus, nor Athenagoras, nor Justin Martyr, nor Polycarp, nor Papias, nor Clement of Rome. We say nothing of the omission to quote this epistle by Barnabas and Hermas. According to Lardner, there is a possible quotation in Ignatius, though without naming the book or the writer. But the value of a quotation somewhat uncertain, in an epistle rejected by the ablest critics, and, at best, of but doubtful authority, we leave for our liberal critics to estimate. In Tertullian is a passage which has been thought to refer to this epistle, though it is not named, nor is any quotation made from it. The epistle to Philemon is the only epistle, now received and attributed to

Paul, which is not frequently quoted, either as sacred Scripture, or as the production of that apostle, by some of the writers named in the preceding list. This epistle is never so quoted "by any of the catholic Christians during the first two centuries," whose works have reached us. "It is the proof," says the Examiner, "which the early fathers afford of the general reception of certain books, throughout the Christian community, which is the point to be regarded in our investigations respecting the genuineness of those books. Where this proof is wanting, the individual opinions of the fathers are comparatively of little value." Still stronger then must the objection be, when none of "the early fathers," when no "individual opinions of the fathers" can be adduced in favor of the genuineness of an epistle.

"Proceeding upon these principles, we find, that the evidence is wanting, which is required to prove, or to render probable, that St. Paul was the author of the epistle to" Philemon. We have no evidence that it was received as his work, during the first or the last half of the second century, nor is there any evidence that it had been handed down as such, to the cotemporaries of Irenæus, Tertullian, or Clement of Alexandria. "No show of subsequent evidence, if such existed, could in any degree supply the deficiency which has been pointed out.* The value of passages in the later fathers, respecting the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, great as it sometimes is, consists solely in the light which they throw upon the state of opinion concerning those books during the first two centuries. At a subsequent period, no facts could be known or rendered probable by testimony, which were not known during that period." "But this deficiency of evidence not only leaves us without satisfactory ground for believing the epistle to be the composition of St. Paul; it assumes the character of a strong objection to this hypothesis. It is highly improbable that an epistle really written by St. Paul," exhibiting such refinement of feeling and courteousness of character, as Buckminster and other scholars have discovered in this epistle, "should not have been received as his work. No satisfactory answer can be given to the question, why, if written by him, it did not obtain equal reception with his other epistles. If it were not his work, we can easily explain how it came to be considered so; as those by whom it was valued, would be ready to ascribe it, even upon slight grounds, to an individual so distinguished. If it were his work, we do not perceive that any probable account can be given. of its not being generally received as such."

"It is not improbable that before the close of the third century," the epistle to Philemon "was translated into the Syriac."

Each of the other epistles of St. Paul is specifically quoted and ascribed to him by one or more of the fourteen writers above named. If the epistle to Philemon was received by the early church as Paul's, the probability that it would have been so quoted by some one of those writers, is to be found, (to adopt the Unitarian style of deciding such questions,) by multiplying the several numbers, from one to fourteen into each other. The result is 87,178,291,200 to 1, against Paul as the writer of the epistle to Philemon.

This being the state of the case, the evidence being wholly wanting, which proves the genuineness of the other epistles of Paul, we are constrained, reasoning on the Unitarian hypothesis, to reject the epistle to Philemon. Assuming the truth of the positions and assertions quoted from the Christian Examiner, and applying them to an epistle acknowledged and received, universally and most justly as a production of Paul, we find ourselves necessitated to reject that epistle. And we now respectfully ask those, who reject the epistle to the Hebrews, and yet receive the epistle to Philemon as a production of Paul, to state to us and the public the arguments which satisfy them, and ought to satisfy us, that Paul wrote this latter epistle. We wish to know, what cotemporary writers of Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, and especially, what preceding writers received it as Paul's.* Our Unitarian critics will remember, that they have, by their own statement of the question, limited their class of witnesses to the "catholic Christians of the two first centuries." They cannot complain that we hold them to the witnesses of their own selection, especially as the "thirteen epistles of Paul were universally received by those catholic Christians," if we are to trust their statement. We now call for the evidence of such reception of the epistle to Philemon. It appears by the extracts from the Examiner, that "we have nothing in favor of the supposition that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, except the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, a writer particularly incautious, on subjects of this sort, and who, in consequence, has repeatedly fallen into mistakes respecting the authors of different works." Before we give up the little which the parsimonious retentiveness of skeptical criticism allows us, let us examine with some care this particularly incautious writer." "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned ?" Let us at least hear what Clement can say in self justification. In the first book of his Stromata, he gives the reasons which induced him to write. He very justly observes, that if Theopompus and Timæus were at liberty to compose their Heathen fables, nonsense, and blasphemy, there could be no objection, but rather great propriety, for Christians to leave behind them writings that might profit posterity. He adds, "it is esteemed praiseworthy to leave good children to those that come after us. But children are sons of the body; books the offspring of the mind." A few pages farther on, he says,

66

"I do not compose these pieces for the purposes of ostentation, but to lay them up for old age, a remedy against forgetfulness; a sort of shadow and image

*If Caius of Rome is adduced in evidence, that he received thirteen epistles of Paul, we wish to know if that to Philemon is specifically named among them? Did not Caius receive one of the epistles of Paul now lost? Might he not have received that to the Laodiceans, rejected as spurious by Jerome? In short, what the evidence that Caius received thirteen epistles of Paul? Is Eusebius to be trusted?

The edition of Clement to which we have access is that of Morell, Paris, 1629. p. 274, et seq.