sense, or with the different import that charity is a virtue so excellent that it will atone for, and, as it were, blot out, faults in its possessor.

IV. 18, V. 5.

If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Quotations from the Book of Proverbs (xi. 31, iii. 34, the former, however, not from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint) are here naturally introduced, after the manner common with all writers.

SECTION XII.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

III. 11, 12.

We should love one another; not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Am I asked, whether St. John, exhorting his disciples to mutual love, could refer to the story of Cain (Gen. iv. 8) unless he regarded it as true history? I ask in return, whether I am precluded from advising a young friend to adopt for himself the choice of Hercules, unless I am ready to maintain the truth of the story in the Memorabilia; or whether I may not enforce my exhortation to join effort to prayer, by referring to the tale of Hercules and the Wagoner, without making myself responsible for the existence of Hercules and the wagoner as real persons. (See above, pp. 80, 113, 297, 309; also, below, p. 341.)

PART III.

BOOKS OF DISPUTED AUTHENTICITY.

SECTION I.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

THE New Testament books on which I have remarked, with others which contain no reference to the Old Testament calling for comment (viz. the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, and the First Epistle to the Thessalonians), complete the list of those whose authenticity was unquestioned in the primitive Church (óμoλoyovμéva). The others found in the received collection were anciently called spurious or disputed (νόθα or ἀντιλεγομένα). These names are taken from Eusebius, who states the distinction in different places. ("Hist. Eccles.," Lib. II. Cap. 23, III. 3, 25, 31, VI. 20.)

In my remarks on the acknowledged books, it has been my aim to show, that in no case presented by them does Jesus, or any Apostle or Evangelist, attribute to the Old Testament, or to any passage in it, any sense different from that which in my work on the Old Testament I have set forth as the true one. The case

stands thus. Confining our attention to the Old Testament, and applying to it the established rules for interpreting language, we conclude that it, and its several parts, convey such and such a meaning. But the question arises, whether Jesus and his Apostles have ascribed to it any meaning different from this, on

any of the numerous occasions on which they have referred to it. I am persuaded that they have not; and this opinion I have endeavored to maintain in the comments contained in the previous pages of this volume.

But I cannot say the same of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That composition contains numerous allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament; interpretations, in my opinion, altogether incorrect, and proceeding on an exegetical theory indefensible, unsound, and delusive. (See "Lectures," &c., Vol. II. pp. 333-352.)

This fact would exceedingly perplex me, if I supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews to be the work of Paul, or of some other divinely authorized expounder of the Christian religion. But I do not so suppose. The common notion of its having been written by Paul, I take to be not only unsupported by evidence, but to be opposed by a convincing weight of evidence. To present an outline of the argument on this subject is all that is consistent with my limits or my plan.

The evidence in respect to the authorship of this book, as of others, is of two kinds; external and internal.

Under the head of the external evidence, champions of the Pauline origin of the work have found a topic of argument in another book of the New Testament collection. A recent writer says: "The first evidence to be adduced on this subject, though of a nature somewhat indirect and uncertain, is worthy of our close attention, on the ground of its antiquity and authority. It is the testimony of the Apostle Peter, who, in his Second Epistle (iii. 14-16), writes as follows: 'Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in

peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."" (Gurney's "Canonical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews." *) And he proceeds to argue, (1.) that this Epistle was addressed to the same persons to whom Paul had, on some occasion, written (iii. 15), and that it was addressed to Jewish Christians only (iii. 1; comp. 1 Pet. i. 1), as no letter of Paul was, unless he wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; (2.) that the reference in the context (2 Pet. iii. 10-13) must be to the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 27, 28, x. 19–37, xii. 1, 14, 15, 25-29).

No part of this argument is good.

1. The Second Epistle of Peter (so called) cannot be shown to contain "testimony of the Apostle Peter." It was probably not written by that Apostle. (See below, p. 334.) Still it appears to have been a composition of the first century, and as such would have weight in relation to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, provided it in fact referred to that work.

2. The Second Epistle of Peter purports to have been written (2 Pet. iii. 1; comp. 1 Pet. i. 1), if to any Jewish Christians, to those dispersed through Asia Minor, whereas even the author of the argument which I am refuting allows that the Epistle to the Hebrews "was probably addressed to the Jewish Christians of Palestine." The reasoning, therefore, as far as it is founded

* The copy of this tract which I use is in the second volume (p. 409 et seq.) of the Andover "Biblical Repository."

on the language, "even as our beloved brother Paul also..... hath written unto you," falls to the ground.

3. It is not necessary to suppose that the reference in the Second Epistle of Peter was to any epistle of Paul now extant. It is by no means probable that all the letters of Paul have survived the chances of time. But supposing otherwise, the reference in question does not so naturally point to any part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as to one or more of Paul's acknowledged Epistles; as that to the Romans (ii. 4-10), addressed mainly to Jewish Christians, or that to the Galatians (v. 13-26, vi. 9), or that to the Ephesians (v. 27), both addressed to Christians (the former to Jewish Christians) of Asia Minor; or (if the reference be thought to be from the whole passage which treats of a consummation of earthly things, 2 Pet. iii. 8 – 14) to the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 12-58), or the Epistles to the Thessalonians (1 Thes. iv. 13 – v. 3; 2 Thes. i. 6-10).

Such reasoning as this is easily dismissed. The most important testimony to be appealed to for the Pauline origin of the Epistle, is that of the eminent Greek Father, Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccles.," Lib. VI. Cap. 14), speaking of a work of Clement, extant in his day, but now lost, says: "The Epistle to the Hebrews he [Clement] asserts was written by Paul to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that Luke carefully translated it, and published it among the Greeks. Whence also one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the Epistle as in the Acts. But it is probable that the title Paul the Apostle was not prefixed to it; for, as he wrote to the Hebrews, who had conceived prejudices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards against diverting them from the perusal by giving his