ments from an epistle rejected by his opponents, or quote it frequently, or in any other way than occasionally and incidentally, is itself the unreasonable expectation. Indeed, if he wholly omit it, this is just what is done at the present day, and what has always been done, by those who are desirous of convincing and reclaiming their opponents. We hope, then, we have dissipated every feeling which may have existed, that this assumed omission is an apparent objection.

Feelings, however, which have not been reasoned up, are with difficulty reasoned down. If there be a fragment of feeling yet existent against our epistle, from the asserted omission of Irenæus to quote it, perhaps even this may be removed by other considerations yet in reserve. We proceed then to inquire, whether Irenæus has really omitted to quote from, or allude to, our epistle? We have already mentioned that he does not quote from it, specifically naming the book or the writer. We have, however, seen that Grabe, a most distinguished scholar, in his edition of Irenæus, points out five quotations from, or allusions to, this epistle. We look upon Grabe, in this case, as a perfectly impartial witness. We presume he had no eye or thought upon the question now agitated. He put down these quotations as they struck him. Any one who will examine the passages for himself will, we think, admit that the allusions are very natural, and might have been taken from this epistle, as well as from any other portion of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed, some of them could have been taken only from the epistle to the Hebrews. We will adduce but one instance, and leave our readers to judge of it for themselves. We give the passage in its connexion, as it will, we doubt not, be interesting on other accounts, besides that for which it is primarily adduced.

"He alone is God, who made all things. He only is omnipotent, the only Father (of the universe) who created and made all things, whether they be visible or invisible, sensible or insensate, celestial or terrestrial, BY THE WORD OF HIS POW R, and adapted and disposed all things by his wisdom, and comprehending all things, is alone comprehended by none. He is the fabricator, the founder, the inventor, the maker, the Lord of all. Neither besides him, nor above him, is there another; neither a mother, as some feign; nor another god, as Marcion pretends; nor a pleroma of thirty aeons, which is a vain pretence; neither a Bythus, nor a Proarche; neither heavens, nor a virginal light, nor an ineffable aeon; nor, in short, any of those things which are madly dreamt of by these and all other heretics. But there is one only God, the creator, who is above all principality, and power, and dominion, and might. He is that Father, that God, that founder, that maker, that fabricator, who made all things by himself, that is, by his Word, and his Wisdom, heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things therein. He is just and good. He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who created the world, who brought a deluge, who saved Noah; he is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living, whom the law announced, whom prophets predicted, whom Christ revealed, whom the apostles preached, whom the church believes. This Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed and manifested to all to whom he is revealed, by his Word, who is his Son; for those know him, to whom the Son reveals him.

But the Son, always coexisting with the Father, formerly and ever from the beginning, has revealed the Father to angels and to archangels, to principalities and to powers, and to all to whom God wills to reveal himself."*

At the present day, whenever the expression "by the word of his power" is introduced, it is understood to be a quotation from the epistle to the Hebrews. Grabe so understood it in the above passage. The passage is before our readers who will judge of it for themselves. We will only add that it is introduced just as we might have expected it would be, incidentally; thus shewing that the writer was familiar with our epistle, and if he abstained from distinctly quoting it, he did so for other reasons than because he rejected it. Much the same might be said of the other passages referred to by Grabe.

That our epistle was known to Irenæus, Eusebius informs us, from whom we learn that "Irenæus wrote a book of various disputations, in which he mentions the epistle to the Hebrews, and the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting some expressions from them." The work here mentioned by Eusebius, as having been written by Irenæus, has perished. Eusebius does not say whether Irenæus quoted this epistle as Scripture or not. The fact

* We had intended to have introduced the Latin, but a reference to the passage will be sufficient. It may be found, 1. 3. c. 55. We cannot stop to comment on it at length. By the terms, Bythus and Proarche, the Valentinians meant an original aeon or first principle of things. Epiphanius long ago rightly observed, that their Bythus was the chaos of Hesiod, and, we may add, of his imitator, Ovid. In Irenæus, and also in Epiphanius, the names and the order of the thirty aeons may be seen. As a specimen of learned exegesis, we subjoin the reasons these early rational opposers of the Gospel advanced in defence of this number. In the first place, our Lord lived thirty years before he entered on his ministry, or performed a miracle. In the second place, the parable of the vineyard supports this number. Some of the laborers worked one hour, others three, others six, others nine, and others eleven, which united make thirty. These thirty were by the Valentinians apportioned out into three classes, an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. Whether these absurdities, or the following, be the greater, we will not decide. The Rationalists of Germany, in whose steps American Rationalists are fast treading, "deny that Jesus actually expired on the cross; he only fainted, was taken down apparently dead, and was resuscitated by the care and efforts of some skilful Essenes ;" they also assert that "he then spent about six weeks among his tried adherents in close concealment; but it becoming impossible for him to remain undiscovered in or near Jerusalem, he took a favorable opportunity of going, with a select body of his disciples, to a retired summit of Mount Olivet; that he there gave them his last instructions; that at this moment a thunder cloud rolled along the mountain, and cut him off from the sight of his companions; that, taking advantage of this circumstance, he descended into the opposite valley; that he lived for some years afterwards in the deepest seclusion, shewing himself only on very few occasions, and to very select persons, particularly to Saul, whom he accosted near Damascus, and prevailed upon to become a leader of the sect, which wanted a man of his character and talents; and that, in fine, where, how, and when this distinguished reformer and philanthropist ended his days, no historical document whatever has come to us, and probably care was taken that none should exist." These and other absurdities still more monstrous have been propounded as rational, rational par excellence, by men, who still call themselves Christian divines, and doctors in divinity. We do not say that any American is yet prepared for such divinity. But indications exist, too distinct and too numerous to be overlooked or forgotten, which point with perilous certainty to the same downward road. The waves of popular theological opinion, raised by the tempest and hurricane of liberal, rational discussion, already threaten to break from the channels, and overflow the barriers, within which some more serious minded Unitarians are vainly striving to confine them. They will yet rise and roar, and carry ruin; how far and how wide Heaven only knows. But there is One whose powerful word shall be heard and regarded, "Hitherto shalt thou come and no farther, and here shall thy proud waves he stayed."

that he quoted it is all that he asserts. We have, however, intimations from Irenæus himself that he was not only acquainted with this epistle, but considered it Scripture. If its only claim to be considered Scripture results from its having been written by Paul, as recent American objectors aver, then we have intimations from Irenæus that he considered it the production of that apostle. So much for the direct negative evidence afforded by this father, against the Pauline origin of our epistle.

We

We have yet to notice the assertion of Gobar, (a writer of the middle ages) which we have on the authority of Photius, that Irenæus rejected the epistle to the Hebrews. We have this naked assertion of Gobar without the grounds on which he made it. We are left to infer the truth from the probabilities of the case. know the character, intelligence, object, and impartiality of Eusebius. He first made out a regular canon, or rather enumerated the several books received into the canon, of the New Testament Scriptures. He is scrupulously careful to inform us in what estimate these several books were held in different districts, by different churches, and by individuals of prominent character and controlling influence. With respect to the epistle to the Hebrews, he appears to have made more minute inquiries, and to have reported with greater accuracy the different opinions held and expressed, than with reference to any other book of the New Testament, the Revelation, perhaps, excepted. He made it a special object, while collecting materials for his ecclesiastical history, to notice the manner in which preceding writers had quoted or spoken of the several portions of the New Testament, especially the Antilegomena. Of these, the epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation are the most important.* They of course arrested his particular attention. Irenæus was among the most voluminous and trustworthy of preceding writers. Eusebius held him in deservedly high respect. He devotes a whole chapter of considerable length to giving an account of the manner in which Irenæus had quoted books of the New Testament. But in this chapter, there is not a word of Irenæus quoted respecting the epistle to the Hebrews. Yet Eusebius is scrupulously exact in informing us of the estimate in which this epistle was held, and of the manner in which it had been quoted, by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Pantaenus, and Clement of Rome, on the one hand, and by Caius on the other. Had Irenæus, in any of his writings known to Eusebius, attributed this epistle to Paul, would not that historian have mentioned the fact, and have classed Irenæus with Pantaenus? Had Irenæus excluded this epistle from the number of Pauline books, would not Eusebius have mentioned this fact, and classed Irenæus with Caius ?

*It deserves to be stated that Eusebius, at times, places these among the Homologoumena, and at others, among the Antilegomena. They were received so generally, and with so little doubt, that he sometimes classed them with the universally received books.

We should answer these questions unhesitatingly in the affirmative, were it not that Eusebius, in the chapter of his work above referred to, makes mention of but part of the books most certainly quoted by Irenæus. He notices only the evangelists, the Revelation of John, first epistle of John, and first of Peter, as having been quoted by that father, whereas we have already seen that in his works yet extant, Irenæus makes abundant quotations from the Acts, and most of the epistles of Paul. But in the chapter of which we are speaking, Eusebius does not particularize a solitary epistle of Paul, as quoted by Irenæus. This consideration deserves to be stated, in order to a candid and correct appreciation of the subject before us. Were we playing the part of a special pleader, we should blink out of sight this fact. It ought to have been stated by Professor Stuart, but we presume it did not occur to him or we would have done it; as he is not a writer to present only one side of an argument, and mistate even that.

After all, considering that Eusebius takes another occasion to inform us that Irenæus did quote from the epistle to the Hebrews in a work not now extant, we cannot but look upon it as probable that had Irenæus distinctly received or rejected that epistle, as a production of Paul, Eusebius would have so stated the fact.

.'erome affirms that "all the Greek writers had received this epistle as Paul's." Was Irenæus a Greek writer in the estimation of Jerome? Perhaps Jerome only meant all the writers in the Greek or Oriental churches. If so, his assertion will not affect Irenæus. But if he intended all the writers in the Greek language. as his words indicate, his testimony will much more than balance that of Gobar. We must also add that the silence of Jerome, with reference to the rejection of the epistle to the Hebrews by Irenæus, is deserving of consideration. He has faithfully recorded the opinions of the cotemporaries of Irenæus; but no hint has escaped him, or Augustine, or any of the fathers of the first five centuries after Christ, that Irenæus rejected this epistle. Jerome distinctly testifies, not only that "this epistle was received as a production of Paul by the Oriental churches, but also by all preceding writers in the Greek language." We acknowledge that testimony so distinct, and derived from an author so intelligent as Jerome, goes far towards invalidating our conclusion from the silence of Eusebius upon the question, whether or not Irenæus received this epistle as from the great apostle of the Gentiles. Perhaps Jerome may have inferred that Irenæus received the epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's, from the fact that he quoted it as Scripture, without noticing the book or the writer from which he made his quotation. And we are by no means certain that he did not, either in the book alluded to by Eusebius, or in some other book seen by Jerome, but unknown to Eusebius, quote it as Pauline. We allow that this is a supposition.. We do not assert it as fact or evi

dence. But any one acquainted with the literary condition of those times, will see a propriety in the supposition, which those, who borrow their ideas from the present state of the republic of letters, will be hardly able to estimate. Eusebius, though an inquisitive scholar and extensive reader, resided at Cesarea. Books did not then pass from Lyons to Palestine, as now a days from London to Boston. Eusebius was evidently unacquainted with some books which have reached us. It may have been, then, that Jerome, connected as he was with the western church, may have had evidence with reference to Irenæus unknown to Eusebius, and which warranted his positive assertion, in its full extent, that all writers in the Greek language received the epistle to the Hebrews as written by Paul. We have at least as good ground for this conclusion, as those have for theirs, who first assume that Irenæus has not quoted this epistle, and then infer that he must have rejected it.

We will now present, in few words, what we suppose is the fact with reference to Irenæus. We think it not improbable, considering his situation and connexions, that he may have entertained doubts relative to the apostolic origin of this epistle, though there is no evidence that he did. If, however, (as we think was the fact, but cannot positively assert it,) Irenæus looked favorably upon the Montanistic views, his theological opinions or prejudices would have induced him also to look favorably upon our epistle. In this dubious unsettled state of mind himself, and surrounded by others of different views, nothing could be more natural than for him to refrain from expressing any positive opinion, (which, indeed, he probably did not entertain,) upon this disputed question, which would be seized on by one party with avidity, and looked upon by the other with regret. His remote situation, his probable ignorance of the state of opinion in the Alexandrine, Grecian, and Oriental churches, relative to this epistle; his ignorance of the Syriac language, into which it had already been translated; his probable ignorance of the existence of the Syriac version; the difficulty of holding intercourse with unknown persons in remote places; the small number of copies of the sacred books at that time existing; the want of the press, by which copies are now multiplied to any extent; the fact, that the canon of Scripture was not yet, nor for a considerable period afterwards, fixed; that no general council of the churches had been convened, by which this important topic had been settled, or even discussed; all this, together with what has been already said, respecting the Gnosticks, and the Montanistic controversy, must be taken into consideration, in order rightly to apprehend the situation of Irenæus, or correctly to appreciate the fact, that he refrains from distinctly ascribing this epistle to Paul, or from quoting it otherwise than occasionally and incidentally.