greatly enhanced, by the fact that in his epistle he wrote officially; and, as its accredited organ, expressed the general sentiment of the existing Roman church. This is no new thought. It is at least fifteen hundred years old. Eusebius is careful to inform us that this epistle was written by Clement, “in behalf of the church at Rome to the church at Corinth." Clement is himself also careful to inform us of this fact. His very first sentence points out this communication as an official and general epistle, and not as a private personal letter of the bishop himself. He begins thus: "The church of God, dwelling at Rome, to the church at Corinth," &c. For ourselves we want no other, we need no better witness than this. We rest with perfect confidence on testimony thus early given, thus explicit in its import, thus authoritative in its character. What the fellow laborer and bosom friend of Paul, what the intelligent, cautious and pious primitive bishop of Rome, what those who received their instructions from the apostles, and from Luke and Timothy and other companions of the apostles, accounted as the word of God, will survive all the assaults of open enemies and professed friends; will reprove the wicked, instruct the ignorant and the inquiring, console the afflicted, and animate the desponding, when the learning and the ingenuity of its assailants shall have perished in the lapse of time.

The genuine remains of the writers generally known as "apostolical fathers," who flourished in the age immediately succeeding the apostles, are few and meagre. Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, and Ignatius afford passages that much resemble passages in this epistle. Professor Stuart, however, does not place much reliance upon them, thinking that these resemblances may be accidental. Multitudes of theory-mongers have constructed theories, and spent years in their defence, relying for support on passages less numerous and far more irrelevant and uncertain, than those which the Professor almost entirely disregards. Lardner, judicious as he is, allows them more weight. It should, however, be stated, that the searching examination of modern criticism has rejected, as spurious, some passages on which he relied. We think Professor Stuart has not made so much of the testimony of the apostolical fathers as he might have done, consistently with the soundest critical canons. But he shows the strength of his cause, by not relying at all on a questionable witness or an uncertain testimony. In the construction of his argument, he judged both as a logician and a critic.

The first considerable writer, after Clement of Rome, whose works have reached us, is Justin Martyr. He flourished in Samaria, about A. D. 140. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, this passage occurs; "This is he, who after the order of Melchizedek, is king of Salem, and eternal priest of the Most High." In another place, he says of Christ, "he is called both angel and apostle;" the latter of which terms, (apostle) is given him only in

the epistle to the Hebrews. From these two passages, without referring to any other, it is evident that Justin was familiar with our epistle, and accounted it Scripture. The works of Justin, which have reached us, were addressed to the enemies of our religion. Of course, they did not admit of so full or frequent an appeal to the Scriptures, as those which were addressed to friends, as the epistle of Clement, for instance, or as his own work, De monarchia Dei, which unhappily, is not extant. Still his testimony is explicit to the canonical authority of our epistle.

The Peshito,* or old Syriac version, made, according to the opinion of the most judicious and intelligent critics, in the second century, contains this epistle. The Itala, and old Latin versions, made during the same period, and, most probably, in the first half of the second century, also contain it. These versions were in common use and of great authority among the churches of the East and the West. It is not pretended that either of them, at this period, comprised any book, which is now known to be apocryphal. Undoubtedly they did not contain any that were then deemed apocryphal. Here then is palpable evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews was widely circulated among Christians, and received by them as a part of the inspired Word of God, a short time after the apostolic age. We use the expression “inspired word of God" as synonymous with canonical. This we shall assume, till our rationalists deny it.

Professor Stuart sums up his argument thus: which is also the amount of what we have said.

"The sum of what has been shown, under the present head of discussion, is, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, probably but a short time before this event; that in about thirty years, at most, it had acquired such currency and credit, that the church at Rome, the metropolis of the world, in a letter addressed by their bishop to the church at Corinth, made repeated appeals to it as a book of divine authority, and in such a way as to imply a knowledge and acknowledgment of it by the Corinthian church, similar to their own ;-that Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, has evidently appealed to its contents as sacred; that about this time, or not long after, it was inserted among the canonical books of the New Testament, by the churches of the East and the West; and that, consequently, it must have had, at a period very little after the apostolic age, a currency and a credit not at all, or at most very little, inferior to that of other acknowledged

*The Peshito means exact version. Michaelis, a very competent judge, calls it the best translation he was acquainted with. It comprises the four Gospels, the Acts, all the epistles of Paul, including that to the Hebrews, the first epistle of John, the first epistle of Peter, and the epistle of James. It would seem that this version was made before the other parts of the New Testament were universally known and received. The translators were evidently cautious in the works they admitted. Nothing of a doubtful or questionable character was circulated in the Peshito for the early Syrian Christians. It should be remembered that the epis le to the Hebrews was directed to the Eastern Christians. This version testifies to its early reception by them.

books of the New Testament. Better evidence than this of early and general reception by the churches, it would be difficult to find, in respect to a considerable number of books in the New Testament; with less than this we are obliged to content ourselves, respecting several of them."

If Clement of Rome, together with the church over which he presided, and the Corinthian church, received this epistle as canonical and of sacred authority, before the close of the first century, while many were living in both those cities, who had been converted from Paganism to Christianity under the preaching of Paul, it surely is not uncritical to argue that the churches of Palestine, 'to which this epistle was sent, received it as such much earlier. But what stronger evidence can we have or desire for the sacred authority of any portion of the New Testament than that the first Christians in Palestine, in Greece, and in Rome, universally and unanimously received it as canonical? Was there any apocryphal book ever thus received? NEVER.- Here then we might rest. We are under no necessity of starting or of heeding the question, who wrote this epistle? Still we do not shrink from such an inquiry. We believe, and we hold ourselves responsible to show, not only that the epistle to the Hebrews is canonical, but that it is apostolical, of Pauline origin and authority. This brings us to our third general inquiry.

After having argued the main and most important position at such length, viz. the canonical authority of this epistle, we are not disposed to go very fully into the question of its authorship. Our principal object, with reference to this epistle, has been to give a condensed view of the evidence on which our belief in its canonical, sacred, divine authority rests. We have only stated those pos tions which are fundamental, and adduced or referred to that evidence which is most pertinent and conclusive. It will be seen by the arguments already advanced, that, even if it could be proved that Paul did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, it would not follow that it is not of sacred authority. Yet those among us, who impugn the authority of this epistle, set out with the assumption, that if Paul did not write it, it can have no claim to be considered Scripture. This, in logical language, is a complete non sequitur. The conclusion is vastly broader than the premises. Suppose we admit that Luke wrote it. Is it to be rejected, at once? Do the biblical critics in this vicinity reject the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke? If so, we have not been informed of it. If they do not reject those books, but allow that they are inspired and of divine authority, why can they not allow that an epistle written by "the beloved physician" is also inspired and of divine authority, especially since this was so admitted by the primitive Syrian, Roman, Corinthian, and Egyptian Christians, and has been admitted by the church universal for seventeen centuries?-We submit it to the

judgement of intelligent, reasoning minds, whether the arguments which prove the canonical authority and Divine inspiration of the Acts will not prove the same thing with reference to the epistle to the Hebrews, on the supposition that Luke wrote that epistle. At all events, we are not aware of any flaw in this argument. If there be any, we would thank any man to point it out.

We make these remarks not because we are apprehensive of any deficiency of necessary evidence to establish the fact, that Paul wrote our epistle, but to expose the hollowness of the assumption by which the attempt has recently been made, for the first time on the American continent by men calling themselves Christians, to wrest this epistle from its sacred connexions, and divest it of Divine authority.

may

We proceed now to give a succinct view of the evidence on which we found the claim of Paul to the authorship of this epistle. This evidence be divided into external and internal. The external evidence may be summed up in this proposition: the most intelligent, impartial and competent judges in the early Christian agree in ascribing this epistle to Paul.

They agree in thus attributing it to that apostle, in view of all the objections and difficulties that had been raised upon the subject. -The three most learned and most distinguished of the ecclesiastical writers were, unquestionably, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. These men were separated from each other widely in space, in time, and in creeds; were independen tthinkers, indefatigable students, and of acknowledged, unimpeachable integrity. An opinion, as to an important matter of fact, in which they unhesitatingly agree, after a full examination of the evidence of that fact, we may rest assured, is an opinion well supported.

Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, thus writes: "It should be remarked that this epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is received, not only by the churches of the East, but by all preceding ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language, as the apostle Paul's; although most (i. e. of the Latins) think it a production of Barnabas or Clement." And farther on, "We, (i. e. Jerome himself) receive it, by no means following the custom of the present time, but the authority of the ancient writers."* We have aimed to give as literal a version of Jerome's words as the idiom of the languages will admit. It will be seen from his testimony, that in his time the Oriental churches received this epistle as from the pen of Paul, that all ecclesiastical Greek writers had so received it, that Jerome himself so received it, uninfluenced by an opinion, which

"Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebræos, non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ, vel Clementis arbitrantur." "Nos eam suscipimus nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes."

had sprung up in the Roman church that it was the production of Barnabas or Clement. Jerome does not content himself by say ing non sequentes; but uses a stronger expression, nequaquam, by no means. In this negative, we have an indication of the feeling of Jerome in regard to the practice of his cotemporaries. He felt assured, after a thorough examination, that those, who denied Paul to be the author of this epistle, were by no means to be imitated. Why? Evidently because they did not imitate those, who knew best; to wit, the ancient writers, the churches of the East to which this epistle was written, and all the Greek ecclesiastical writers of preceding times. An examination of these sources of evidence convinced Jerome that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul. In addition to the passages already adduced from Jerome, we will quote one other, for the purpose of showing the general opinion of his times. In his epistle to Evagrius, speaking of our epistle he says, "Quam epistolam ad Hebræos, omnes Græci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum;" i. e. "which epistle to the Hebrews all the Greeks receive, and some of the Latins." Jerome flourished near the close of the fourth century.

At the commencement of this century lived the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius of Cesarea. * He is the first writer, at least of those whose works have reached us, who has made out a full and regular catalogue of the books of the New Testament. His intelligence, his fidelity to truth, his impartiality, and his opportunities of acquiring information, were such as eminently qualified him for his important office, as historian of the primitive Christian church. His opinion is not that of the individual only, but of his most judicious and trustworthy cotemporaries and predecessors; formed, not hastily, but after the most extensive inquiry, after the most mature deliberation. Eusebius says, Book II. c. 3. "Fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul's; although it is proper to be known, that some have rejected that which is written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the church at Rome, that it is spoken against, as not belonging to Paul." He elsewhere says that "it is not without reason that the epistle to the Hebrews is ascribed to Paul.”

"These declarations Eusebius makes with a full view of the objections urged against this epistle by some. It is clear, then, that he did not consider those objections as respectable enough, or sufficiently extensive, or well grounded, to raise any serious doubts in his own mind about this matter, or to weigh at all against the current and general opinion of the church on this subject. Consequently, nothing can be more directly to the purpose, for demon

* Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, from his friend, the martyr of that name, was born at Cesarea in Palestine about A. D. 270.

He flourished during the reigns of Constantius and Constantine. Jerome describes bim thus: "He was a man most studious in the divine Scriptures, was very diligent in making a large collection of the writings of Christian authors, and published innumerable volumes." He was made bishop of Cesarea about A. D. 315, and died in 339 or 340.