J-{.^ I l'^ i*! 
 
 =^r.^ ^ ^ ---- 
 
 Co-^t^fit^^O 
 
 'TT 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
PROOF /^ *^'Vd> 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Xp^ GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS 
 
 OF 
 
 ^ THE NEW TESTAMENT: 
 
 FOR INTELLIGENT READERS OF ALL CLASSES. 
 
 S^ranslatety from X\)z ^ermsu 
 DR. H.X)LSHAUSEN, 
 
 PROF. OF THEOL. IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN, ET€, 
 
 WITH NOTES, 
 
 BY DAVID FOSDICK, Jr. 
 
 ANDOVEK: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GOULD & NEWMAN. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 CORNER OF FULTON AND NASSAU STREETS. 
 
 1838. 
 
,t.s-> ^■ 
 
 ii..1^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 V^ N 
 
 •• 3^-v,*. 
 
 a;'H 
 
 %^ 
 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1838, by 
 
 GOULD AND NEWMAN, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
 3-^ tP 
 
 LC Control Number 
 
 tmp96 031658 
 
PREFACE 
 
 BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 The author of the following treatise is known to 
 those conversant with the theological literature of Ger- 
 many, as a writer of considerable celebrity. He was 
 born in 1796 at Oldeslohe in the Duchy of Holstein. 
 He received his university education partly at Kiel and 
 partly at Berlin. In 1822 he became theological pro- 
 fessor at Konigsberg, in the remotest north-eastern part 
 of the Prussian dominions, where he remained till, in 
 1835, he was called to occupy the same chair at Er- 
 langen in Bavaria. His fame has been derived mostly 
 from his Commentaries, as being his most extensive 
 productions. They are characterized by an almost ut- 
 ter absence of philological display, although they are 
 far from being deficient in learning and shrewdness. 
 The author prefers to exhibit results, rather than the 
 processes by which they were attained. His mode of 
 exposition is altogether more suited to common minds 
 than the erudite, cumbrous mode pursued by most 
 German commentators. To use the language of Pro- 
 
iv translator's preface. 
 
 fessor Stuart, " the course of thought, and things rath- 
 er than words, are his chief object.""^ 
 
 The little work herewith given to the public in an 
 English dress (published in German in 1832), is an at- 
 tempt to present concisely and simply the present state 
 of investigation concerning the genuineness of the New 
 Testament. I do not know of a book upon the subject, 
 in any language, which combines so popular a cast 
 with so much comprehensiveness and justness of rep- 
 resentation as are, in my opinion, manifested in this. 
 The unlearned but inquisitive Christian may here find 
 sources of reflection and conviction respecting the truth 
 of the record on which he relies, that are not common- 
 ly accessible without the toil of severe study. 
 
 There will, of course, be found in the work a tone 
 somewhat alien from our American views and feelings. 
 Reference is had to religious circumstances differing in 
 some important respects from our own. This pecu- 
 liarity of tone, however, does not, in my opinion, in- 
 volve any thing of a clearly mischievous tendency. 
 Its influence will, I think, be useful. It is well to en- 
 large our minds through an acquaintance with the sen- 
 timents entertained concerning religious things by men 
 as fully imbued with the spirit of piety as ourselves^ 
 
 * Biblical Repository, Vol. III. p. 151. See also p. 161. 
 
translator's preface. 
 
 who have been nurtured in circumstances quite differ- 
 ent from those by which we have been affected. Bj 
 comparison and inference, in such a case, we may be 
 much benefited. 
 
 I would not be understood as assenting, without re- 
 striction, to all the views which this little work presents. 
 They may be right, or they may be wTong. I feel con- 
 tent to launch them before the American public, know- 
 ing that if right they will swim, and if wrong they will 
 eventually sink. Of this, however, 1 am fully con- 
 vinced, (as may be judged from the present version,) 
 that the book is in the main a good one ; and I believe 
 the public will endorse my opinion. 
 
 In proceeding with the business of translation I have 
 been guided by the sense rather than the letter. The 
 grammatical construction of the original has been alter- 
 ed whenever it was thought advisable to alter it for the 
 sake of rendering the sense more perspicuous and natu- 
 ral in English. I have in one or two instances ventu- 
 red to qualify an expression which seemed to me too 
 strong, but never in any case where the change was of 
 much importance. For instance, I have altered incon- 
 ceivable to hardly conceivable^ etc. I have also, in a 
 few cases, given biblical references in addition to those 
 
 furnished by the author. Many of the figures in the 
 
 1# 
 
vi translator's piieface. 
 
 original references were (typographically or otherwise) 
 erroneous, and have been corrected. Biblical quota- 
 tions are presented in conformity with our received 
 English version, instead of being translated from the 
 German. 
 
 The notes which I have subjoined are all designa- 
 ted by the letters Tr. 
 
 D. F. Jr. 
 
 Boston, March 12, 1838. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 Seven years ago, when I published ray history of 
 the Gospels, it was my earnest desire to show the 
 genuineness of all the books of the New Testament, 
 in a small work, designed for intelligent readers gene- 
 rally. But, urgent as the necessity of such a w^ork 
 appeared to me even then, the execution of my plan 
 has been postponed to the present time ; partly because 
 I was hindered from entering upon it by multiplied 
 avocations, and partly because I hoped some one would 
 present himself who was more capable of such an under- 
 taking than I felt myself to be. For I knew, but too 
 well, how difficult it would be for me to write simply 
 and plainly, so as to become even intelligible to those 
 who are not conversant with investigations of such a 
 description as must be noticed in this work. As, how- 
 ever, no one has yet appeared, to present such a work 
 to the church of Christ, and the necessity of it has 
 meanwhile much increased, nothing remained for me 
 but to surmount my scruples, and execute the work 
 as well as the Lord might permit. 
 
 The necessity of such a work will have been evi- 
 dent to every one who has observed how certain posi- 
 
viii author's preface. 
 
 tions as to the pretended spuriousness, or at least sus- 
 picious character, of the writings of the New Testament, 
 (positions w^iich were formerly current only within the 
 circle of the clergy,) are now entertained among the 
 common laity. It is easy to imagine the injury which 
 is effected by such foolish opinions. To the audacious 
 opponents of divine truth they afford a fine occasion for 
 repelling every attempt to win their assent to it ; and 
 well-meaning persons often find in them occasion of 
 doubts and anxiety, which they might be spai'ed did 
 they only at least receive the antidote at the same 
 time with the poison. Such an antidote, to obviate, or 
 at least lessen, the destructive consequences of the 
 views of many theologians in regard to the biblical books, 
 (views which are diffused abroad sometimes indiscreetly 
 and sometimes w^ith a bad intention,) I wish this little 
 work to be considered. 
 
 It will, at the same time, be my endeavor to cor- 
 rect the views of many not very clear-sighted though 
 well-meaning persons, who appear to think that all criti- 
 cal investigations of the genuineness or spuriousness of 
 the books of the Bible are, as such, wTong, and take 
 their origin from unbelief. This idea is fundamentally 
 erroneous, and not seldom arises from a religious conceit, 
 to which there is a special liability on the part of per- 
 sons who, conscious of their own internal religious life, 
 dispense with all enlarged views of the connection of 
 theology with the whole church of God on earth, and 
 nevertheless are tempted to judge of things beyond the 
 
author's preface. ix 
 
 pale of their capacity. It would have been better, 
 therefore, had all such investigations been confined 
 within the circle of theologians ; but, as the doubts to 
 which we have referred have been promulgated among 
 the laity, their refutation must also find a place in gene- 
 ral literature. 
 
 I should very readily have extended my investiga- 
 tions to the writings of the Old Testament ; but have not, 
 in the first place, because the results of researches in re- 
 gard to the Old Testament are of a less stable character 
 than in regard to the New, and, moreover, because 
 those who are not theologians by profession have far 
 less need of such information in regard to the Old Tes- 
 tament as is here given concerning the New, inasmuch 
 as to Christians the testimony of Christ and his apostles 
 respecting the Old Testament, the canon of which was 
 then completed, affords a much more certain evidence 
 of its divine origin (and thus of its genuineness) than 
 any historical reasoning could exhibit, especially since 
 from the paucity of sources of information the latter could 
 not be so satisfactory as it is in relation to the New 
 Testament. As to unbelievers, it is of much greater 
 consequence to urge the claims of the New Testament 
 upon them than those of the Old, because, so long as 
 they are opposed to the former, they certainly will not 
 admit the latter. In my closing remarks, however, I 
 have endeavored to designate briefly the right point of 
 view in the determination of critical questions concern- 
 ing the Old Testament. 
 
X AUTHOR S PREFACE. 
 
 To conclude,! pray that the Lord maybe pleased 
 graciously to accompany this my book with his blessing, 
 and cause it to serve as an admonition to many a scof- 
 fer, and to console and set at ease the minds of such as 
 have been perplexed with doubts. 
 
 Olshausen. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page. 
 Introduction, . . . 13 
 
 CHAF. 1. 
 
 Of the New Testament in general, 23 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 Of the collection of the Gospels, ..... 39 
 
 CHAP. m. 
 
 Of the Gospels individually and the Acts of the Apostles, . 51 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 Of the Pauline Epistles, .71 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Continuation. Of the Pauline Epistles composed during and 
 after Paul's imprisonment at Rome, . , . . 97 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 117 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 Of the Catholic Epistles, 133 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 Of the Second Epistle of Peter, . . . . . .147 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 Of the Epistles of James and Jude, ... . 165 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 Of the Revelation of John, 181 
 
 Conclusion, . , . 199 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 For fifteen hundred years, the New Testament, as 
 we now possess it, has been generally current in the 
 Christian church, and constantly used, as well publicly 
 in the churches, as likewise in the domestic circles of 
 believers. This fact is admitted by the scholars of 
 modern times unanimously, since it can be shown by 
 the most certain historical proofs. Hence all investi- 
 gations concerning the genuineness of the writings of 
 the New Testament and the manner of its formation 
 relate only to the first few centuries after the ascension 
 of our Saviour and the death of the Apostles. Indeed, 
 it is easily seen that in reality every thing must depend 
 on this primitive period ; for after the New Testament 
 was once made up and generally admitted in the church, 
 it could not be lost. Even before the invention of 
 printing, it was spread abroad in all parts of the chris- 
 tian world by a multitude of copies, it being more fre- 
 quently transcribed than all other books together. 
 Hence, even supposing that the New Testament, say 
 by war or devastation, had utterly perished in any 
 country, it would immediately have been introduced 
 again from surrounding ones. Of this, however, there 
 is no example. Even such churches as entirely lost 
 connection with the great Catholic church, and on that 
 2 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 account sank to a very low point, yet faithfully pre- 
 served the sacred Scriptures, as is proved by the in- 
 stance of the Ethiopian church, in which, on its discov- 
 ery after the lapse of centuries, the Bible was found 
 still in use. 
 
 From the great importance of the New Testament 
 to the church and the ^ whole civilized world, it was a 
 very natural desire on the part of scholars to know ex- 
 actly how this momentous book was formed. On en- 
 tering upon this inquiry, however, in the perusal of the 
 earliest writers of the church, accounts were met with 
 which were somewhat difficult of adjustment. It was 
 found that even before the compilation of all the wri- 
 tings of the New Testament into one collection, many 
 Fathers of the church, perfectly well disposed towards 
 Christianity, had doubted the genuineness of particular 
 books of the New Testament. This circumstance natu- 
 rally arrested attention, and the next inquiry was, what 
 grounds such early Fathers might have had for scruples 
 respecting these writings. In considering this question, 
 one thought he had discovered this reason and another 
 that ; and it often happened that these reasons were 
 considered weighty enough to justify the ancient doubts 
 as to the genuineness of the books. It was at the Re- 
 formation, particularly, that this free investigation of the 
 Bible began to extend widely ; and among the Re- 
 formers Luther himself was specially remarkable for it. 
 From these inquiries he became fully convinced of the 
 genuineness of most of the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment ; but he supposed it necessary to regard some of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 them, e. g. the Epistle of James, and John's Revela- 
 tion, as spurious. In this opinion he certainly erred, 
 particularly, as is now acknowledged by nearly all 
 scholars, in his rejection of the Epistle of James ; but 
 great as was, and still is, his authority in the eyes of 
 many millions of Christians, his belief of the spurious- 
 ness of these two books has done no essential harm ; 
 they have maintained their place in the New Testa- 
 ment since as before, and the circumstance of his re- 
 jecting them has only shown the church the truth of 
 the old remark that even God's saints may err. 
 
 From this example may be clearly seen, however, 
 the total groundlessness of the fear of those who ima- 
 gine that such scrutinizing inquiries must be, in and of 
 themselves, prejudicial to the church. Such examina- 
 tions of the origin of Holy Writ and its individual books 
 are not only allowable, but absolutely indispensable ; 
 and they will injure the church, no more than gold 
 is injured by being carefully tried in the fire. The 
 church, like the gold, will but become purer for the 
 test. In the Scriptures, both of the Old and New 
 Testament, the eternal revelation of God reposes in 
 quiet security and brightness, A wonderful divine or- 
 dination has preserved it to us without any essential in- 
 jury through a succession of dark ages. It exerts at the 
 present day, upon all minds receptive of its spirit, the 
 same blessed, sanctifying influence which the apostles 
 claimed for it eighteen centuries ago. How, then, carl 
 these sacred books suffer from careful historical inquiry 
 respecting their origin ? Investigation must rather serve 
 
16 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to confirm and fully establish belief in their purity and 
 genuineness. That this is actually the effect of really 
 learned investigations is apparent^ likewise, from the 
 following instance. When the very erudite and truly 
 pious Professor Bengel, of Tubingen, published his 
 New Testament with all the various readings which he 
 bad been able to discover, many minds were filled with 
 anxiety, thinking that an entirely new Testament would 
 be the result in the end, if all the various readings were 
 hunted up. They thought it would be better to leave 
 things as they were. But mark — although 40,000 va- 
 rious readings were discovered in the ancient Mss., the 
 New Testament was hardly at all altered thereby ; for 
 very few^ readings were of a nature to have any essen- 
 tial bearing upon a doctrine. Most of them consisted 
 of unimportant transpositions, or permutations of synon- 
 ymous words (such as in English also for and, etc.) ; 
 and though some readings were more considerable (as 
 e. g. the celebrated passage, 1 John 5: 7 : " For there 
 are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,^' 
 which must certainly be regarded as spurious), still 
 they are really of no more consequence. For such 
 is the nature of the Holy Scriptures, that there are al- 
 ways many proof-passages for any important doctrine, 
 and hence although these words are withdrawn from 
 the Bible, their purport is still eternally true, and the 
 doctrine of the Holy Trinity remains at the present 
 time, as before, the doctrine of the church. Now that 
 all the Mss. have been read and accurately collated. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 there is no further occasion for fear that somewhere or 
 other something new may be discovered, which will 
 thrust the old loved Bible aside. Moreover, the prin- 
 ciples on which scholars determine the right one among 
 different readings of the same passage are so skilfully 
 devised that it is almost impossible for a false reading 
 to creep in ; and, should one individual err in this re- 
 spect, another immediately steps in and corrects the 
 error. 
 
 It certainly is not to be denied that pious persons, 
 who valued God's word, might well for some time be 
 anxious at heart ; for one biblical book after another 
 was stricken from the list of those which were genuine, 
 and at last we seemed to have none but spurious books 
 in the Bible ; though on the other hand it remained 
 inexplicable who could have taken pains either to forge 
 so many spurious writings himself, or to make a collec- 
 tion of them after they were forged. And then, what 
 could have been the character of the deceitful author 
 or authors (for at all events the books must have been 
 written by somebody) who could compose such writings, 
 — writings which for many centuries have consoled 
 millions in calamity and death. It is now seen, how- 
 ever, that the reason why things were so for a time, 
 was not that men inquired and investigated (for no in- 
 jury can ever accrue on that account), but that they 
 did not prosecute the investigation with a right spirit 
 and disposition. Every one can see that it is not a 
 matter of indifference with what feelings we engage in 
 investigations of this kind in regard to the sacred books. 
 
 2* 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Suppose a man so see in the books of the New Testa- 
 ment only monuments of antiquity, of just as httle or 
 as much value as other ancient writings, to have felt 
 nothing of the saving influence of God's word upon 
 his heart, and on that account to be devoid of love for 
 it, yea, even to feel vexed that others should hold it so 
 dear, and enviously and maliciously study how he might 
 destroy their delight in this treasure — such a man, with 
 his perverse disposition, would rake up any thing and 
 every thing in order to undermine the foundation of 
 the church. Whether such corrupt motives have real- 
 ly operated in the heart of any inquirer, no man can 
 determine. It is always presumption to take it upon 
 ourselves to judge respecting the internal position or 
 intention of any heart. We may even suppose one 
 who rejects the whole New Testament to possess hon- 
 esty and sincerity, which want only the necessary light 
 of conviction. But the possibility that such motives 
 may affect these investigations, certainly cannot be de- 
 nied ; and that is fully enough for our purpose. If, 
 moreover, we look at the manner in which a Voltaire 
 among the French, and a Bahrdt among the Germans, 
 have treated the sacred books, we find cogent reason to 
 fear that the]/ did not keep themselves free from such 
 corrupt motives, however heartily we wish that God's 
 judgment may pronounce them pure. This considera- 
 tion is of importance, however, because we may see 
 from it how all depends on this interior state of mind 
 with w^hich a man commences his undertakings ; so that 
 even the noblest enterprise may by an unholy inten- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 9 
 
 tion lead to pernicious results. But, setting entirely 
 aside the possibility that a man may undertake investi- 
 gations respecting the Scriptures in a positively corrupt 
 state of mind, he may also do much injury therein from 
 levity and frivolity. If he is not sufficiently penetra- 
 ted with a conviction of the great importance of inves- 
 tigations concerning the genuineness of the sacred Scrip- 
 tui^es, if he does not treat the weaknesses of the church 
 with sufficient tenderness, (for she may feel herself 
 wounded in her most sacred interests by the inconsid- 
 erate expression of doubts), it may easily happen that, 
 at the first impulse, upon some supposed discovery, 
 this discovery will immediately be blazoned before the 
 world, without having been previously tested with so- 
 berness and care by all the means within reach. There 
 is little reason to doubt that vanity is commonly at the 
 bottom of this superficial haste ; for it is always delight- 
 ful to what Paul calls the old man to be the author of 
 any new and striking opinion. Had all inquirers been 
 able properly to restrain this vain desire to shine, much 
 offence would without doubt have been avoided, and 
 many a heart would have escaped considerable suf- 
 fering. 
 
 Still, in what department of life or knowledge have 
 we not many errors to lament ? He who knows his 
 own heart aright will therefore forgive learned men if 
 they have now and then been governed by vanity or 
 other wrong motives. The misuse of a good thing 
 should not abolish its use ; and it is still true that all 
 investigations respecting the sacred books, their histo- 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ry, and compilation, are in themselves very useful and 
 necessary, as without them we must be entirely in the 
 dark in regard to their true character. We will only 
 wish that henceforth the God of truth and love may 
 infuse truth and love into the hearts of all inquirers, and 
 then it will not be of any consequence that many 
 books have been pronounced spurious ; for fortunately 
 they do not become spurious from the assertions of this 
 or that man, and it is always allowable for another 
 scholar to point out the errors of his predecessor. 
 From this freedom of investigation the truth will cer- 
 tainly come to light by degrees. 
 
 If the thoughts here presented be duly considered, 
 it will be readily seen that he v/ho has deep love for 
 the word of God need not take it much to heart that 
 this or that scholar has rejected a particular book. Af- 
 ter long investigation, and frequent assertions that most 
 of the books of the New Testament are spurious, it is 
 nevertheless now agreed among scholars generally, that 
 all the writings of the New Testament are genuine 
 productions of the apostles. As to several of them, it 
 is true, precise certainty has not been attained, but it 
 is to be hoped that uniformity will be exhibited soon 
 in regard to these likewise ; and moreover, the differ- 
 ence of opinion in this view concerning several of these 
 books is not so dangerous as it may appear. Concern- 
 ing the Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g., there is not uni- 
 formity of sentiment as yet. Many very estimable di- 
 vines, with whom I feel myself constrained to coincide 
 in opinion on this point, think that the Epistle was not 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 composed by the Apostle Paul, but by some other 
 very worthy member of the apostolic church. It is 
 clear, however, that even though Paul did not write 
 the Epistle, we cannot on this ground regard it as spu- 
 rious, inasmuch as its author is not mentioned in it. 
 Hence, the only question in relation to it is, who was 
 its author ? and on that point it is hard to decide, from 
 the obscurity of the accounts given by the ancient 
 Fathers of the church. All, however, regard this 
 Epistle as genuine, i. e. it is universally believed that 
 its author composed it without any intention to palm it 
 off as the production of somebody else, for instance the 
 apostle Paul. Had that been his purpose, he would 
 have taken care that the Epistle should at once be re- 
 cognized as Paul's production, by assigning his name 
 to it or in some other way. The case is certainly dif- 
 ferent as to the second Epistle of Peter, against the 
 genuineness of which many doubts are prevalent. In 
 relation to this Epistle, the first inquiry is not who was 
 its author, for the apostle Peter is most clearly desig- 
 nated as such, but whether Peter was really and truly 
 the author. If the conclusion be, that the Epistle can- 
 not be attributed to Peter, then it must be forged or 
 spurious. It has been attacked with more plausibility 
 than any other book of the New Testament ; and yet 
 much may be said even in behalf of this Epistle, as we 
 shall see hereafter. We may therefore assert that by 
 Divine Providence some good has already accrued from 
 the rigorous sifting to which the books of the New 
 Testament have been subjected in our day. True, it 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 did at first seem as if the whole New Testament would 
 in the course of time be declared spurious ; but, when 
 the first heat was over and sober perspicacity returned, 
 it was seen by inquirers, that far the greater part of its 
 books rested on a firmer historical foundation than most 
 works of profane antiquity which all the world regard 
 as genuine. Hence we may be of good courage in 
 entering on the consideration of the individual books of 
 the New Testament ; for the result of critical investi- 
 gation is by no means so much to be dreaded as is 
 sometimes thought. First, however, we desire to pre- 
 mise something further respecting the New Testament 
 generally. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. 
 
 The oldest traces of the existence of the whole 
 New Testament as a settled collection occur so late as 
 three centuries after the time of the apostles. The 
 particular reason why so long a period elapsed before 
 this body of writings became definitely determined was, 
 that its individual books, which of course existed be- 
 fore the whole collection, were at first circulated in 
 part singly and in part in smaller collections. For, so 
 long as the apostles were upon earth, and the power 
 of the Spirit from on high was in lively action in every 
 member of the church, so long there was no sensible 
 necessity of a book to serve as the norm or rule of faith 
 and practice. Whenever any uncertainty arose in re- 
 gard to either, application was made to one of the 
 apostles, and his advice was taken. The Epistles of 
 the apostle Paul owe their origin in part to such inqui- 
 ries. Now some of the apostles lived to a very great 
 age. Peter and Paul, it is true, died under the empe- 
 ror Nero (67 A. D.), suffering martyrdom at Rome ; 
 but the Evangelist John, who outlived all the rest, was 
 upwards of ninety years of age at his death, which did 
 not happen till the time of the emperor Domitian, at 
 the close of the first century. Hence, in the lifetime 
 
24 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 of the apostles, though their writings were highly val- 
 ued, they were naturally not regarded as sacred wri- 
 tings, which were to be the rule of faith ; because 
 there was a more innmediate guarantee of truth in the 
 living discourse of the apostles and their first compan- 
 ions, as also in the Holy Spirit, which was so power- 
 fully exerting its influence upon the church. The 
 apostolic writings, therefore, were indeed read in the 
 public assemblies, but not alone, and not regularly. 
 The book for regular public reading was still the Old 
 Testament ; and this is always to be understood in the 
 New Testament when the Holy Scriptures are men- 
 tioned. Besides the apostoHc writings, however, other 
 profitable books were used for the edification of the 
 church. In particular, we have still some remains of 
 the writings of immediate disciples of the apostles, com- 
 monly called apostolic Fathers^ which were publicly 
 read in the ancient churches. These men all lived in 
 the first century and some time in the second. Among 
 them are Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop 
 of Antioch, Polycarjp, bishop of Smyrna, Ilermas, who 
 was probably presbyter at Rome, and the well-known 
 Barnabas, The Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, 
 as well as the Book of Hermas, were read with spe- 
 cial assiduity in the ancient churches. On account of 
 the great antiquity of these writings, the books of the 
 New Testament are very seldom quoted in them, and 
 much of what coincides with the contents of the New 
 Testament, e. g. Christ's sayings, may have been 
 drawn by these apostolic Fathers from oral tradition as 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 25 
 
 well as from perusal of the gospels* Indeed, the for- 
 mer source is perhaps most probable, since Christians 
 certainly did not then read the Gospels so assiduously 
 as they were read in later times, when they could no 
 longer listen to the living discourse of the apostles and 
 their immediate companions. The reason why so few 
 written remains of the immediate disciples of our Lord 
 are now extant, is in part the long lapse of time, which 
 has destroyed many books once current, but in part, 
 also, that the ancient Christians labored more than they 
 wrote. The preaching of the gospel and the regula- 
 tion of infant churches consumed so much of their time, 
 that little remained to be employed in composition. 
 Moreover, in the first century it was always as when 
 Paul wrote the following declaration (1 Cor. 1: 26) : 
 ** Not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble 
 were called." For the most part only people of infe- 
 rior standing joined the church of Christ ; and these 
 had neither the capacity nor the inclination to labor with 
 the pen. In these circumstances it is undoubtedly true 
 that we find little information concerning the books of the 
 New Testament in the first centuries. That they did 
 nevertheless exist in the church, we shall prove hereaf- 
 ter. But it might be expected, then, that although the 
 most ancient Christians do not speak of their sacred 
 writings, still the heathen writers of Greece and Rome 
 must have done so, considering the multiplicity of their 
 works on all subjects. The heathen writers, however, 
 who were contemporary with the apostles and the 
 apostolic church make no mention of the apostolic wri- 
 3 
 
26 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 tings, because they cared nothing at all about the Chris- 
 tian church. They considered the Christians as only 
 a sect of the Jews, and despised them as much as they 
 did the latter. They therefore credited the malicious 
 reports which w^ere circulated respecting the Christians, 
 and treated them accordingly as the off-scouring of hu- 
 manity. Such is the procedure of Tacitus, a noble 
 Roman, who relates the persecution of the Christians 
 under Nero. Thus, of course, nothing could induce 
 the Greeks and Romans to cultivate acquaintance with 
 the writings of the Christians ; particularly as they 
 were distasteful on another account, from their not be- 
 ing clothed in the same elegant language as their pro- 
 ductions. It was only when the number of the Chris- 
 tians became so great as to excite apprehension, that 
 they began to pay attention to every thing of impor- 
 tance concerning this new sect, and so at last to their 
 sacred books. But it is not till after the middle of the 
 second century that we find examples like that of CeU 
 sus, who, in order to confute the Christians, made him- 
 self acquainted with their sacred books. 
 
 The original condition of the primitive church, in 
 which less stress was laid on the Scriptures than on 
 the word of the apostles, was not indeed of long con- 
 tinuance. For the mighty outpouring of the Spirit, 
 which on the day of Pentecost, filled the disciples of 
 our Saviour, had hardly been communicated to a con- 
 siderable number of other minds and lost its first pow- 
 er, ere erroneous schisms began to prevail in the church- 
 es. The germs of these may even be discovered in 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 27 
 
 the writings of the apostles. The first of these party 
 divisions of the ancient church was that of the Jewish 
 Christians. As early as in the Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians, Paul speaks expressly of persons who desired to 
 bring the Galatian Christians again under the yoke of 
 the law. They wished faith in Christ and his redemp- 
 tion to be regarded as insufficient for salvation, unless 
 circumcision and the observance of the law were add- 
 ed. The great preacher of the Gentiles, however, 
 zealously opposes this restricted idea of Christianity, 
 and shows that the soul must lose Christ, if it seeks to 
 use any other means of salvation. It was the object 
 of the law of Moses to lead by its injunctions to convic- 
 tion of sin, and thus to a desire for salvation ; by its 
 prophecies and types of Christ it was a school-master 
 to guide us to him ; but salvation itself could come only 
 from Christ. Still, Paul was by no means of opinion 
 that those who were Jews by birth must not observe 
 the law when they became Christians ; he rather fa- 
 vored their doing so, if the pious customs of their fath- 
 ers had become dear to them, or if their own weakness 
 or that of the Jews around them would be offended by 
 the contrary course. Hence, the apostles who remain- 
 ed in Jerusalem till its destruction, as did Matthew and 
 James, observed the law invariably, and so did Paul 
 likewise, when he was in Jerusalem. But the apos- 
 tles, as well as their true disciples, were far from being 
 desirous to impose this observance of the law upon the 
 Gentiles also. The milder and really christian view 
 of the observance of the law w^as constantly entertained 
 
28 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 by many Jewish Christians in Palestine, who in later 
 times were called Nazarenes. Many, on the contrary, 
 took the wrong course, which the apostle Paul reprov- 
 ed in certain individuals in Galatia, and these obtained 
 the name of Ebionites. They however fell into other 
 heresies besides their idea of the necessity of circum- 
 cision and observance of the law in order to salvation ; 
 particularly in regard to the person of Christ. They 
 denied the real divinity of our Lord and regarded him 
 as a son of Joseph, thus seceding wholly from the true 
 church of Christ. 
 
 In precise contrariety to this Judaizing division of 
 the church, others entirely discarded Judaism. The 
 instructions of the apostle Paul had taken deep hold of 
 their minds, and given them a strong conviction that 
 the gospel went far beyond the formalities of Jewish 
 practice, and would bring all nations under its sway. 
 But from this perfectly correct idea they wandered 
 into an opposition to the Old Testament, which was 
 never felt in the slightest degree by the apostle PauL 
 They remarked rightly, that in the Old Testament the 
 divine justice was most prominently exhibited, in the 
 revelation of a rigorous law ; while the New most fully 
 displayed the divine mercy in the revelation of forgiving 
 love. But this fact, which was necessary for the edu- 
 cation of mankind, since the need of salvation will 
 never be felt until the claims of justice are perceived, 
 was employed by them for the purpose of wholly dis- 
 uniting the Old Testament from the New, and referring 
 it to a distinct author. This sect are termed MarcioTh 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 29 
 
 ites, from Marcion^ the man who urged this view to 
 the greatest extreme. In connection with their oppo- 
 sition to Judaism they also held Gnostic opinions 
 (whence they are commonly ranked with the Gnostics), 
 arid these gave a hue to their absurd notion, that the 
 God of the Old Testament was different from that of 
 the New. The Old Testament, they thought, pre- 
 sented to view^ a God of justice without love ; the New- 
 Testament one of love without justice ; while in re- 
 ality the only true God possesses both attributes in 
 perfection. It is easy to see that in these notions Pa- 
 ganism is mingled with Christianity. The sublime 
 nature of the latter was admitted by the Marcionites ;: 
 but, they could not look upon the other true form of 
 religion, Judaism, as reconcilable with it. Hence, al- 
 though they no longer revered the numberless gods of 
 the heathen, they imagined the two attributes of God, 
 justice and love, to centre in two distinct divine beings. 
 Besides this ungrounded violence against Judaism, the 
 Marcionites maintained a silly error in regard to Christ's 
 nature, which was the precise opposite of the opinion 
 of the Jewish Christians. The latter denied his divin- 
 ity, and the Marcionites asserted that he had no true 
 humanity. The humanity of Christ, said they, was 
 only apparent. In their opinion, a purely heavenly 
 vision was presented in the person of Jesus Christ ; his 
 life and all his acts in life were merely in appearance, 
 designed to exhibit him to men in a human manner. 
 
 This idea the Marcionites entertained in common 
 with the Gnostics, properly so called, who did indeed 
 3^ 
 
30 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 judge more correctly than the former in regard to the 
 mutual relation of Judaism and Christianity, but on 
 other points maintained the most grievous errors. The 
 seeds of their doctrine are referred to by the apostle 
 Paul, e. g. in 2 Tim. 2: 17, 18, where he warns 
 against the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who 
 maintained that the resurrection of the dead had already 
 taken place. For, as they denied the true humanity of 
 Christ, they could not, of course, admit the corporeal 
 resurrection of all men ; and therefore understood it 
 spiritually of the interior vivification of the heart by the 
 spirit of Christ. Undoubtedly this perversion of doc- 
 trine on the part of the Gnostics is to be referred to 
 their belief in another being besides God. While they 
 regarded God as a pure spirit, the fulness of all good 
 and all beauty, they looked upon matter as another 
 being, the source of every thing corporeal and visible, 
 as also of all evil. It was from a mixture of the spirit- 
 ual and the material that this world originated, and 
 particularly man, who at one time displays so much 
 that is lovely and elevated, at another so much that 
 is low and base. Thus, the only way to purify and 
 sanctify man was that he should be gradually freed 
 from every thing material and by the divine germs of 
 life within him be brought back to God. It is easy to 
 imagine what a distorted view of all the doctrines of 
 salvation must be produced by such an idea, since Holy 
 Writ nowhere countenances the opinion that evil resides 
 in matter, but rather expressly refers it to the will of 
 the creature, who, by disobedience to the holy will of 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY, 31 
 
 the Creator, has destroyed in himself and about him 
 the harmony which originally prevailed in the whole 
 universe. 
 
 In this condition of things, then, when Jewish 
 Christians, Marcionites, and Gnostics, to say nothing 
 of other insignificant sects, were disturbing the unity of 
 the church, it was seen to be necessary that every 
 effort should be exerted to uphold the purity of the 
 apostolic doctrines. But as, at the time when these 
 sects became very powerful, the apostles were no 
 longer upon earth, no direct appeal could be made to 
 their authority. Whenever oral tradition was adduced 
 against them, these heretics appealed themselves to 
 pretended communications from the apostles. The 
 Gnostics, in particular, asserted that the deep wisdom 
 which they taught in their schools was communicated 
 by the apostles to only a few ; very simple Christian 
 truth alone, they supposed, was only for the multitude. 
 What remained, therefore, since appeal to oral tradi- 
 tion from the apostles was of no avail, but reference to 
 written authority ? This could not be altered and 
 falsified like oral language ; it was better suited to be a 
 fixed, unchangeable norm and rule of faith ; and could, 
 therefore, be employed with exceeding force and effi- 
 ciency against all heretics. Thus the time was now 
 come when a sifting and separation of the many pro- 
 fessedly christian writings scattered abroad in the church 
 was necessary. Moreover, the different sects of here- 
 tics had all sorts of forged writings among them, in which 
 their peculiar opinions were presented in the names of 
 
32 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 celebrated prophets and apostles. Against such wri- 
 tings explicit declaration must be made, in order to 
 preserve the true apostolic doctrine from mixture with 
 erroneous and confused notions. As, of course, how- 
 ever, individual Fathers of the church could have but 
 little influence against the established sects of heretics, 
 it was felt to be necessary that real Christians should 
 be more closely and intimately united, and from the 
 endeavor consequently made sprang the so-called 
 Catholic^ i. e. universal church. The teachers of the 
 church, as well as the laity, agreed together in the 
 avowal of certain doctrines, which afterwards formed 
 their creed, or the so-called apostolic symbol, because 
 in them the true apostolic doctrines v. ere stated in op- 
 position to heretics. Thus it became practicable to set 
 jSrm bounds to the tide of corruption ; and thus the va- 
 rious sects were gradually suppressed by the prepon- 
 derant influence of the universal church. Still some 
 of them lasted down to the fifth and sixth centuries. 
 
 This sifting of the various christian writings demands 
 a more careful consideration. It has been before re- 
 marked that certain edifying productions of estimable 
 Fathers, e. g. Clement of Rome, Hernias and others, 
 were publicly read along with those of the apostles. 
 Still, however profitable the perusal of these writings 
 might be, the bishops of the Catholic church correctly 
 felt that they could be of no service against heretics, as 
 these would not allow them any weight. Since, how- 
 ever, they commonly acknowledged the writings of the 
 apostles, these and these alone could be appealed to in 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 33 
 
 confutation of them. All such writings, therefore, as 
 were allowed to be the compositions of other author^ 
 were first separated from the rest. If this had not been 
 done, it would have remained uncertain in all subse- 
 quent time what books were properly to be regarded 
 as pure sources of apostolic doctrine ; and at the time 
 of the Reformation it would not have been so easy to 
 restore the true uncorrupted doctrine of Christ by 
 means of the Scriptures, as it actually was, on account 
 of the circumstance that the genuine Scriptures were 
 possessed in a separate, fixed collection. Now, in the 
 endeavor to gather the genuine apostolic writings to- 
 gether by themselves, some of them were very easily 
 distinguished from the rest as the apostolic productions. 
 These were called universally-admitted writings ; in 
 in Greek Homologoumena, Among these were reck- 
 oned the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
 John ; the Acts of the Apostles ; the Epistles of the 
 apostle Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, 
 Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 
 to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon ; and, lastly two 
 Epistles of John and Peter, viz., only the first and 
 largest of both apostles. Among these writings, it is 
 true, there appear two which were not composed by 
 apostles, i. e. by members of the first circle of twelve 
 men which our Lord Jesus gathered about him. [It is 
 to be observed that Paul ranked with these in authori- 
 ty, partly because of his immediate call by the Lord 
 (Acts ix.) and partly on account of his extended and 
 blessed labors in behalf of the church.] We mean the 
 
34 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 Gospel of Mark and the work of Luke. We say the 
 worT{: of Luke, for Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the 
 Apostles do but make two halves of the same work, as 
 is plain from the commencement of the Acts. There 
 was no scruple on the part of the Catholic church to 
 class these two works of assistants of the apostles with 
 those really apostolic, because both wrote under the 
 influence and approval of apostles. According to the 
 unanimous account of the most ancient Christian Fa- 
 thers, Mark wrote under the guidance of Peter, and 
 Luke under that of Paul, so that Mark's was regarded 
 as the Petrine and Luke's as the Pauline Gospel. 
 
 These universally-received writings of the apostles 
 were divided into two collections. First, the four 
 Gospels by themselves formed a collection called the 
 Gospel. For, although this collection contained four 
 narratives of our Lord's life, they were not regarded as 
 different writings, but only as different aspects or, so 
 to speak, sides of one and the same work. Hence an 
 ancient Father of the church, Lenaeus, bishop of Ly- 
 ons in France, terms the four Gospels, the one four- 
 formed or four-sided Gospel. The other writings con- 
 stituted a second collection, which was termed the 
 apostle, or the preaching of the apostle. Probably the 
 name took its rise from the fact, that at first the Epis- 
 tles of Paul alone were collected together, and he was 
 called the apostle, by way of eminence, especially in 
 Europe, on account of his active labors. To this col- 
 lection of Pauline Epistles the Acts of the Apostles 
 were added subsequently, because it formed, as it were^ 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 35 
 
 an introduction to the Epistles, containing an account 
 of Paul's travels and labors in the vineyard of our Lord. 
 Later still were also added the two larger Epistles of 
 John and Peter. 
 
 Besides these generally-admitted writings, there 
 were others, which were indeed regarded by many as 
 apostolic, but as to which some estimable persons en- 
 tertained doubts, viz., the second and third Epistles of 
 John, the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of 
 James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
 John's Apocalypse. Hence these were termed dispu- 
 ted writings, in Greek Antilegomena. About the close 
 of the second or the commencement of the third cen- 
 tury, most of the Fathers of the Catholic church be- 
 came united in believing the genuineness and apostolic 
 origin of all these writings excepting the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews and the Apocalypse. A third small collec- 
 tion was now formed of these Epistles, and into it were 
 transferred the two larger Epistles of John and Peter, 
 which were at first contained in the second? collection. 
 Consequently, the third comprised seven Epistles^ 
 which were called the seven Catholic i. e. universally- 
 admitted Epistles, in contra-distinction from the various 
 rejected writings. Out of these collections there now 
 remained, therefore, only the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 and the Revelation of John. In regard to the Epis- 
 tle, as has been already mentioned, no doubt was en- 
 tertained of its genuineness ; the only controversy was, 
 whether Paul was its author or not. At last, the opin- 
 ion that it was Pauline prevailed, and it was introdu- 
 
36 THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 
 
 ced into the collection of Pauline Epistles ; though, as 
 the collection was already made up, it was placed at 
 the end, after the small Epistle to Philemon. In the 
 Lutheran version of the Bible, however, the Epistle 
 obtained another place, viz. between the third Epistle 
 of John and the Epistle of James, for reasons which 
 will be stated hereafter. The whole question, there- 
 fore, in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews was of 
 little consequence ; for, if Paul did not write it, it is 
 certain that the author of it wrote under his guidance 
 (as will be shown more a length in the sequel), and 
 the case is the same with this Epistle as with the Gos- 
 pels of Mark and Luke. It is otherwise, however, 
 with the history of the Apocalypse^ which also will be 
 particularly related hereafter. Although it has the old^ 
 est and most trust-w^orthy witnesses in its behalf, in- 
 deed beyond most of the writings of antiquity, it still 
 early met with numerous assailants, on account of its 
 contents. True, many did not exactly regard it as 
 spurious ; they only maintained that it was written^ 
 not by John the Evangelist, but by another man of less 
 note, bearing the same name. Others, however, fell 
 such excessive dislike towards the book, that they de- 
 clared it must have been composed by the worst of 
 heretics. Yet here, too, truth fortunately obtained the 
 victory, and the genuine apostolic character of this ele- 
 vated production of prophetic inspiration was at last 
 acknowledged. As the three smaller collections were 
 already made up, nothing remained but to place it at 
 the end of them all. This was precisely the position 
 
THE NEW TEST. GENERALLY. 37 
 
 to which the Apocalypse belonged ; for, considering the 
 Gospels to be, as it were, the root of the tree of Hfe 
 exhibited in the whole New Testament, and the Epis- 
 tles as the branches and blossoms, the Apocalypse may 
 be regarded as the fully ripened fruit. It contains a 
 picture of the development of God's church down to 
 the end of time, and therefore forms the conclusion of 
 the Bible as properly as Genesis forms its commence- 
 ment. 
 
 In order that the various writings and small collec- 
 tions might be permanently united, the smaller divisions 
 were entirely given up in the fourth century, and hence- 
 forward there was but one great collection, containing 
 all the New Testament writings. A decisive decree 
 on this point was issued by a council held in the year 
 393 at Hippo, now Bona, in Africa. In itself consid- 
 ered, this union of the smaller collections into a single 
 large one is of no consequence, and hence, too, it is of 
 none that it took place at so late a period ; for, as ear- 
 ly as during the third century and the commencement 
 of the fourth, there was entire unanimity in regard to 
 all essential questions concerning the books of the New 
 Testament, as the following particular history of them 
 will evince. Still there was this advantage arising from 
 the union of the apostolic writings into one body, viz. 
 that they were in a more safe and determinate form, 
 and might now be placed with the Old Testament as 
 a complete second part of Holy Writ. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Of the three smaller collections of the writings 
 of the New Testament, which, as we have before 
 stated, were in use in the ancient church, none can be 
 traced further back than that of the Gospels. We find 
 so many and so weighty testimonies in its behalf, that 
 it would seem as though Providence designed that this 
 palladium of the church should be in a special manner 
 secure against all attacks. Not only is it the case that 
 some of the most ancient Fathers testify to its existence ^ 
 as, e. g., TertuUian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus^ 
 Justin Martyr (all of whom lived in the second centu- 
 ry after Christ, and were preceded only by the so-call- 
 ed apostohc Fathers) ; but, moreover, the witnesses in 
 its behalf belonged to all parts of the ancient church. 
 TertuUian lived in Carthage ; Clement in Egypt ; Ire- 
 naeus was born in Asia Minor, and became bishop of 
 Lyons in France ; Justin Martyr was born in Palestine 
 (in Flavia Neapolis, otherwise called Sichem), but 
 taught in Rome. Thus the testimonies in favor of the 
 collection of the Gospels come from all the chief sta- 
 tions in the ancient church ; and this circumstance, of 
 course, supposes its very general diffusion. The great- 
 est number of testimonies, all proceeding from one pro- 
 
40 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 vince, would not be of so much weight as these coinci- 
 dent declarations from the most various parts of the 
 world, as to the currency of the Gospels. A circum- 
 stance, however, still more important than these testi- 
 monies from different parts of the ancient church is, 
 that not only the members of the Catholic orthodox 
 church, but the heretics also, were familiar with our 
 Gospels. If it be considered, what violent mutual ani- 
 mosity there was between the Fathers of the Catholic 
 church and the heretics ; that one party would not 
 adopt or receive anything at all from the other, but 
 was rather disposed to reject it, for the very reason 
 that it came from so detested a quarter ; no one can 
 help seeing in the circumstance that both the Catholic 
 church and the heretics were familiar with the collec- 
 tion of our Gospels an uncommonly cogent proof of its 
 genuineness and great antiquity. For, had it been 
 formed after the rise of these sects, either within the 
 pale of the Catholic church, or in the midst of this or 
 that party of heretics, it w^ould be wholly inexplicable, 
 how it could have been introduced into these sects from 
 the church, or, vice versa, into the church from these 
 sects. Thus the collection of our Gospels must at all 
 events have taken place before such sects arose ; for 
 on no other ground can it be explained how these books, 
 which were generally known and used before open rup- 
 ture in the church, should have been admitted as gen- 
 uine by both parties alike. Now the sects of the 
 Gnostics and Marcionites originated as early as the be- 
 ginning of the second century ; and from this circum- 
 
COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 41 
 
 Stance we are entitled to regard the collection of the 
 Gospels as in existence at a period very near the times 
 of the apostles. Besides the heretics, moreover, we 
 find Pagans acquainted with the collection of the Gos- 
 pels. We refer particularly to Celsus, a violent oppo- 
 nent of Christianity, against whose attacks it w^as de- 
 fended by Origen, It is true this man did not live 
 till about two hundred years after the birth of Christ 
 (we do not know the precise period) ; but it is, not- 
 withstanding, a decisive evidence of the general diffu- 
 sion and acknowledgment of the Gospels throughout 
 the church, that they are cited and assailed by pagan 
 opponents as official sources of the christian doctrines. 
 For, had Celsus been aware that Christians themselves 
 did not acknowledge these writings, it would have been 
 an absurd undertaking to refute the Christians from the 
 contents of the books. 
 
 Further ; it is a wholly peculiar circumstance in the 
 history of the Gospels, and one which goes a great way 
 to sustain their genuineness, that we nowhere find, in 
 any writer of any part of the ancient world, any indi- 
 cation that only a single one of the four Gospels was 
 in use, or even known to exist separately. All pos- 
 sessed the entire collection of the Gospels, It is true, 
 there is one writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in 
 Phrygia, concerning whom there is no express state- 
 ment, that he had all the four Gospels. Bat the man- 
 ner in which Eusebius speaks respecting him in his 
 Church-history is such, that there is nothing question- 
 able in this silence. Eusebius adduces from a work of 
 4# 
 
42 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Papias, now not extant, some notices of Matthew and 
 Mark. It is certainly true that nothing is said of Luke 
 and John ; but this is undoubtedly because the ancient 
 bishop had not made any particular observations on 
 these two Gospels. His silence respecting them is the 
 less an evidence that he was not acquainted with them, 
 as the theatre of the labors of Papias was in the vicini- 
 ty of Ephesus, where John lived so long and moreover 
 wrote his Gospel. On this account Papias must ne- 
 cessarily have been acquainted with it. Eusebius, 
 moreover, remarks in the same place, that Papias was 
 acquainted with the first Epistle of John. How much 
 rather, then, with his Gospel ? Thus, Eusebius says 
 nothing concerning Luke and John, only because it 
 was a matter of course that Papias was familiar with 
 them, and the latter had not said any thing special in 
 regard to their origin. There were moreover, some 
 heretics who made use of but one Gospel, e. g. Mar- 
 cion used Luke, and the Ebionites Matthew ; but they 
 had special reasons for doing so, in their doctrinal opin- 
 ions. They did not, by any means, deny the three 
 other Gospels to be genuine ; they only asserted that 
 their authors were not true disciples of our Lord. 
 Marcion held the erroneous notion, that all the disci- 
 ples, with the exception of Paul, still continued half- 
 Jews. The Jewish Christians maintained that all the 
 disciples except Matthew had strayed away too far 
 from Judaism, and on that account did not receive 
 their writings. In this state of the case, there is clear 
 evidence from their opinions also that the Gospels are 
 
COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 43 
 
 genuine^ and were in that day generally diffused in the 
 church. Now, as the collection of our four Gospels 
 existed so very early and so universally, the inquiry 
 occurs, how it could have originated ? Shall we say 
 that a particular individual or church may have formed 
 it and it may then have spread itself every where 
 abroad? This supposition seems to be countenanced 
 by the circumstance of the general uniformity as to the 
 order of the four Gospels. A very few Mss. place 
 John next to Matthew, in order that the writings of 
 the apostles may be by themselves. Clearly, how- 
 ever, this transposition arose from the fancy of some 
 copyist and has no historical foundation. There is still 
 therefore positive authority for the universally received 
 arrangement. The most weighty circumstance against 
 the opinion that the first collection of the Gospels was 
 made in a particular place, and diffused itself abroad 
 from thence, is, that we have no account respecting 
 such a process ; though we should expect one, from 
 the fact that John hved, and moreover wrote his Gospel, 
 at so late a period. For this reason, had the Evangelist 
 John himself, as some suppose, or any other man of 
 high authority in the church, formed the collection of 
 the Gospels, we should, one would think, have had an 
 account of its formation, as it could not have taken 
 place before the end of the first or commencement 
 of the second century, which period borders very close- 
 ly on that from which we derive so many accounts con- 
 cerning the Gospels. But this same circumstance, 
 that we read nothing at all respecting a collector of the 
 
44 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Gospels^ that writers have been left to conjecture in 
 regard to the manner in which the collection of them 
 was made, leads to another view of its formation, which 
 casts the clearest light on the genuineness of the books. 
 It is in the highest degree probable that our Gospels 
 all originated in capital cities of the Roman empire. 
 Matthew probably wrote his in Jerusalem, the centre 
 of Judaism, where, also, as appears from the Acts of 
 the Apostles, a large Christian church was early gath- 
 ered. Mark and LuJce undoubtedly wrote in Rome, 
 the political centre of the empire, to which innumer- 
 able multitudes of men thronged from all quarters of 
 the world for the transaction of business. In this city, 
 too, a flourishing Christian church was early formed, 
 as is seen from the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 
 which was written before Peter, or Paul, or any apos- 
 tle, had visited Rome. Lastly, John wrote at Ephe- 
 sus, a large and thriving city of Asia Minor. It was 
 the residence of many learned and ingenious heathen. 
 The large church at Ephesus was, according to the 
 Acts, founded by Paul. It was fostered by the labors 
 of John. Now let it be considered, how many thou- 
 sands must, consequently, have been most exactly 
 aware who wrote the Gospels, and it will be perceived 
 that these circumstances afford weighty evidence of 
 their genuineness, particularly, as there is not to he 
 found in a single ancient writer the faintest trace of 
 any doubt in regard to it ; for the heretics, who, as 
 we have remarked, disputed the Gospels in part, did 
 not deny their genuineness (they rather fully admitted 
 
COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 45 
 
 it), but only their obligatory authority. Now, as very 
 active intercourse was maintained among the Christians 
 of the ancient church, partly by constant epistolary 
 communications and partly by frequent personal visits, 
 nothing is more natural than the supposition, that the 
 Christians of Jerusalem very soon transmitted the 
 Gospel of Matthew which was composed in the midst 
 of them, to Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, and other 
 places, and that, on the other hand, those of Rome and 
 Ephesus also transmitted the writings composed among 
 them to the other churches. In every church there 
 were archives, in which were deposited important 
 documents. Into these archives of the church the 
 Gospels were put, and as only these four Gospels were 
 composed or vouched for by apostles, the collection of 
 Gospels took its rise, not in this or that place, but in 
 every quarter simultaneously. This statement of the 
 matter is, in the first place, strictly in accordance with 
 the circumstances known to us in regard to the ancient 
 church, and also the only one capable of explaining 
 satisfactorily the existence of the collection in every 
 body's hands while no one knew how and whence it 
 originated. As, further, we find no other Gospel but 
 these in general use, it is clearly evident that only these 
 four were of apostolic origin. It is true we find in 
 circulation in individual churches Gospels which appear 
 to have differed from our own ; e. g. the church at 
 Rhossus in Cilicia, a province of Asia Minor, made 
 use of a Gospel of Peter, and in Alexandria one called 
 the Gospel of the Egyptians was current. It is possi" 
 
46 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 ble, however, that these two writings were either the 
 same or at least were very nearly allied, and also bore 
 close affinity to our Mark ; and in that case their use 
 is as easily accounted for as the use of Matthew and 
 Luke by the Ebionite and Marcionite sects in Recen- 
 sions somewhat altered from the original. 
 
 From this cursory view of the evidence in favor of 
 the genuineness of the Gospels, it cannot but be admit- 
 ted that no work can be adduced out of the whole 
 range of ancient literature, which has so many and so 
 decisive ancient testimonies in its behalf, as they. It 
 is therefore, in reality, a mere labored effort to try to 
 maintain and demonstrate the spuriousness of the Gos- 
 pels. Since, however this attempt is made, it may 
 reasonably be inquired : Whence is derived any occa- 
 sion for doubt] Is not every thing without exception 
 in favor of their genuineness ? We cannot but say, 
 that no thorough, serious-minded scholar would ever 
 have denied the genuineness of the Gospels, had not 
 the question in regard to their genuineness been con- 
 joined with another investigation of extreme difficulty 
 and intricacy. In the ardent endeavor to get rid of 
 this difficulty, scholars have been seduced into the in- 
 vention of hypotheses irreconcilable with the genuine- 
 ness of the Gospels. They should, on the contrary, 
 have set out invariably with the admission of their gen- 
 uineness, as an irrefragable fact, and then have employ- 
 ed only such modes of solving the difficulty above al- 
 luded to as were based on the supposition of their gen- 
 uineness. The difficulty is this. On a close compar- 
 
COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 47 
 
 ison of the first three Gospels we discover a very stri- 
 king coincidence between them. This is exhibited, 
 not merely in the facts and the style, but also in the 
 order of narration, in the transitions from one narrative 
 to another, and in the use of uncommon expressions, 
 and other things of the same character. Further ; the 
 coincidence is interrupted by just as striking a dissimi- 
 larity, in such a manner that it is in the highest degree 
 difficult to explain how this coincidence and this dis- 
 similarity, as it is exhibited in the Gospels, can have 
 originated. This is a purely learned investigation, 
 which writers should have quietly prosecuted as such, 
 without allowing it to influence the question respecting 
 the genuineness of the Gospels. Such has been its in- 
 fluence, however, that some scholars suppose a so-call- 
 ed Protevangelion, or original Gospel, which the apos- 
 tles, before they left Jerusalem and scattered them- 
 selves abroad over the whole earth, prepared in order 
 to serve as a guide to them in their discourses. This 
 writing is supposed to have contained the principal 
 events of the life of our Lord. It was carried into all 
 lands by the apostles. Now in these different coun- 
 tries, it is said by the defenders of this hypothesis, ad- 
 ditions were gradually made to this original Gospel. 
 These were at first short, and thus arose the Gospels 
 of the Jewish Christians, the Marcionites, and others ; 
 afterwards they became longer, and in this way, at last, 
 our Gospels were produced. Now as it cannot be 
 stated by whom these additions were made, this view 
 is really equivalent to making our Gospels spurious, 
 
48 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 for, according to it, only the little portion of them which 
 existed in the brief original Gospel is of apostolic au- 
 thority. But, setting aside the fact that the hypothe- 
 sis must be false, for this very reason, because it oppo- 
 ses the genuineness of the Gospels, which can be de- 
 monstrated by historical proof; this theory has been, 
 moreover, of late utterly discarded by learned men on 
 other grounds. In the first place, no ancient Christian 
 writer exhibits any acquaintance with such an original 
 Gospel ; and is it conceivable that the knowledge of so 
 remarkable a work should have been totally lost ? 
 Then, too, the idea that a guide was composed by the 
 apostles for themselves, in order to preserve unity in 
 doctrine, is not at all suited to the apostolic period. 
 At this period the Holy Spirit operated with its prime- 
 val freshness and power. This Spirit, which guided 
 into all truth, was the means of preserving unity among 
 the apostles. Not an individual of those witnesses to 
 the truth needed any external written guide. Besides, 
 this supposition solves the difficulty in question respect- 
 ing the coincidence of the Gospels only in a very mea- 
 gre and forced manner, while there is a much simpler 
 way of reaching the same result far more satisfactorily. 
 We must suppose more than one source of this char- 
 acteristic of the first three Gospels. Sometimes one 
 Evangelist was certainly made use of by another. 
 This remark is applicable particularly to Mark, who 
 undoubtedly was acquainted with and made use of 
 both Matthew and Luke. Moreover, there existed 
 short accounts of particular parts of the Gospel history, 
 
COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 49 
 
 such as narratives of particular cases of healing, rela- 
 tions of journeys, and the like. Now when two Evan- 
 gelists made use of the same brief account, there nat- 
 urally resulted a resemblance in their history. Still, 
 as each was independent in his use of these accounts, 
 some variations also occured. Finally ; much of the 
 similarity between them arose from oral narrations. It 
 is easy to believe that certain portions of the evangeli- 
 cal history, e. g. particular cures, parables, and dis- 
 courses of our Lord, were repeated constantly in the 
 very same way, because the form of the narrative im- 
 printed itself with very great exactness on every one's 
 memory. In this manner the songs of Homer and Os- 
 sian were long transmitted from mouth to mouth. Uni- 
 formity in an oral mode of narration is not sufficient of 
 itself alone to explain the relation between the Gospels, 
 because in prose it is impossible (in poetry it is much 
 easier) to imprint on the memory minute traits and im- 
 portant forms of expression with so much exactness as 
 would be necessary to account for the mutual affinity 
 of the Gospels ; and, moreover, could their similarity 
 be thus explained, the variations between them would 
 only stand out in more troublesome relief. But that 
 which cannot be effected by a single hypothesis can be 
 by that in conjunction with others. And here, perhaps, 
 we may see the true solution of a problem which has 
 so long occupied the attention of theologians. But, 
 whatever opinion be entertained on this point, the in- 
 vestigation of it must always be kept aloof from the 
 5 
 
50 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 question of the genuineness of the Gospels, which 
 should first be estabhshed or denied on historical grounds. 
 Thus will the collection of the Gospels be secure from 
 all danger. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND THE ACTS OF THE 
 
 APOSTLES. 
 
 Or the four Gospels, that of Matthew holds the first 
 place in the canon. The author of this first Gospel, 
 bore, besides the name of Matthew^ that of Levi also 
 (Matth. 9: 9. Mark 2: 14), and was the son of a 
 certain Alpheus, of whom we have no further informa- 
 tion. Of the history of Matthew very little is known 
 in addition to the accounts in the New Testament. 
 After our Saviour called him from his station as receiv- 
 er of the customs, he followed him with fidelity, and 
 was one of the twelve whom Jesus sent forth to preach. 
 His labors as an apostle, however, seem to have been 
 wholly confined to Palestine ; for, what is related of 
 Matthew's travels in foreign countries is very doubtful, 
 resting only on the authority of rather late ecclesiasti- 
 cal writings. But the information respecting him which 
 is of most importance to our purpose is given with per- 
 fect unanimity by the oldest ecclesiastical writers, who 
 declare that Matthew wrote a Gospel. It is true that 
 they likewise subjoin, equally without exception, that 
 Matthew wrote in Hebrew^ at Jerusalem, and for be- 
 lieving Jews ; and that this account must be correct, 
 we know from the fact that the Jewish Christians in 
 
52 
 
 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 Palestine, who spoke Hebrew, all made use of a Gos- 
 pel which they referred to Matthew. This Hebrew 
 Gospel did, indeed, differ from our Greek Gospel of 
 Matthew, for it contained many things wanting in our 
 Gospel ; but still it was in general so exactly like the 
 latter, that a Father of the fourth century, the celebra- 
 ted Jerome, felt himself entitled to treat the Hebrew 
 Gospel expressly as Matthew's. It is a singular cir- 
 cumstance, however, that, while all the Fathers of the 
 church declare Matthew to have written in Hebrew, 
 they all, notwithstanding, make use of the Greek text 
 as of genuine apostolic origin, without remarking what 
 relation the Hebrew Matthew bore to our Greek Gos- 
 pel ; for that the oldest Fathers of the church did not 
 possess Matthew's Gospel in any other form than that 
 in which we now have it, is fully settled. That we 
 have no definite information on this point is undoubted- 
 ly owing to accidental causes ; but, since it is so, that 
 we have not any certain account, we can only resort 
 to conjecture in regard to the mutual relation of the 
 Greek and Hebrew Matthew. Existing statements 
 and indications, however, enable us to form conjectures 
 which, it is in the highest degree probable, are essen- 
 tially correct. The idea that some unknown individ- 
 ual translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and that 
 this translation is our canonical Gospel, is, in the first 
 place, contradicted by the circumstance of the univer- 
 sal diffusion of this same Greek Gospel of Matthew, 
 which makes it absolutely necessary to suppose that 
 the translation was executed by some one of acknow- 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 53 
 
 ledged influence in the church, indeed of apostolic au- 
 thority. In any other case, would not objections to 
 this Gospel have been urged in some quarter or other, 
 particularly in the country where Matthew himself la- 
 bored, and where his writings were familiarly known ? 
 There is not, however, the sHghtest trace of any such 
 opposition to it. Besides ; our Greek Gospel of Mat- 
 thew is of such a peculiar character that it is impossi- 
 ble for us to regard it as a mere version. Does a man, 
 who is translating an important work from one lan- 
 guage into another allow himself to make alterations in 
 the book which he is translatino^, to change the ideas it 
 presents ? Something of the kind must be supposed to 
 have been done in the Greek Gospel of Matthew with 
 regard to the Hebrew. This is beyond denial, if it be 
 considered merely, how the quotations from the Old 
 Testament are treated. These do not coincide either 
 with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, or with 
 the version in common use at the time of the apostles, 
 viz. the Septuagint (which was executed by some learn- 
 ed Jews at Alexandria several centuries before th(a 
 birth of Christ; but rather exhibit an independent text 
 of their own. Now, as sometimes the argument is 
 wholly based on this independent character of the text 
 in the citations from the books of the Old Testament, 
 and could not have accorded at all with the Hebrew 
 Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that our Greek Gospel 
 must be something else than a mere version. It is 
 rather an independent work, though closely allied to 
 
 the Hebrew Gospel of the apostle. Now, since this 
 
 5# 
 
54 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 same work is universally regarded as an apostolic pro- 
 duction, and as having been written by Matthew, there 
 is no more simple and effectual mode of solving all the 
 characteristics of the Gospel of Matthew, than to sup- 
 pose that Matthew himself^ when he had composed the 
 Hebrew Gospel, executed likewise a free translation 
 or new composition of it in the Greek language. It 
 makes no essential difference, if we suppose that a 
 friend of Matthew wrote the Greek work under his 
 direction and authority ; but Matthew's authority must 
 necessarily be supposed to have been the means of the 
 diffusion of the Gospel, as otherwise it is inexplicable 
 that there does not appear the faintest trace of any op- 
 position to it. 
 
 No definite objections can be made against our sup- 
 position that Matthew wrote a Greek Gospel besides 
 his Hebrew one. A single circumstance, however, 
 may appear strange ; viz. that Papias, the ancient 
 bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, whom we have before 
 mentioned, a man who was conversant with persons 
 that had themselves seen and heard our Lord, informs 
 us that every one endeavored to translate the Hebrew 
 Gospel of Matthew as w^ell as he was able. Thus, ac- 
 cording to this passage, our universally-received Greek 
 transformation of the Hebrew Gospel was not common- 
 ly known in Phrygia ; so that persons who did not 
 very well understand Hebrew made use, as well as they 
 could, of the Hebrew Gospel. But, the circumstance 
 that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was not yet current 
 in the immediate vicinity of Papias is no proof at all 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 55 
 
 that it was not yet in existence. For^ as Matthew's 
 work was already diffused throughout the church in the 
 Hebrew language, and the Greek Gospel of Matthew 
 corresponded with the Hebrew in every essential point, 
 it was very natural that the Greek Gospel should be 
 circulated in a more dilatory manner ; and by some ac- 
 cident, it is probable, it was particularly tardy in reach- 
 ing Phrygia. As, however, in the West generally, 
 very few understood Hebrew, when the Greek Gospel 
 of Matthew was once procured that only was circula- 
 ted there, and thus the Hebrew Gospel was complete- 
 ly lost in Europe. In Palestine alone, as the Hebrew 
 was better understood, the Gospel in that language 
 continued in use ; though it was encumbered with di- 
 vers foreign additions by the Jewish Christians. 
 
 Thus, the genuineness of the Gospel of Matthew is 
 fully confirmed on historical grounds, aside from its po- 
 sition in the collection of the Gospels. Recent inves- 
 tigators have raised doubts in regard to its genuineness 
 from internal considerations. They say, in particular, 
 that if the statements of Matthew in the character of 
 eye-witness (for he was one of the twelve apostles) be 
 compared with the descriptions of Mark who does not 
 write as an eye-witness, it will be evident that the ad- 
 vantage is on the side of the latter. Every thing which 
 Mark narrates is represented in so graphic a manner that 
 it is plain he derived his accounts from eye-witnesses ; 
 while the narrative of Matthew whom we are to regard 
 as himself an eye-witness in respect to most of his re- 
 lations, is dry and without the least vivacity. This 
 
56 
 
 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 remark is perfectly correct. Comparison of a few pas- 
 sages will at once show how much more minute and 
 graphic are Mark's descriptions than those of Luke. 
 This is particularly the case as to the accounts of cures. 
 In these Mark frequently describes the circumstances 
 of the sick person before and after the cure in so lively 
 a manner as to make us imagine the scene really before 
 us ; while Matthew, on the contrary, describes the oc- 
 currence only in very general terms. Let a compari- 
 son be made in this view between the followino- ac- 
 counts which Matthew and Mark give of the same 
 occurrences. 
 
 Matth. 8: 28—34. 
 
 " And when he was come to 
 the other side into the country 
 of the Gergesenes, there met 
 him two possessed with devils, 
 coming out of the tombs, ex- 
 ceeding fierce, so that no man 
 might pass by that way. And, 
 behold, they cried out saying," 
 etc. 
 
 Respecting their cure Mat- 
 thew merely says (v. 32.) : — 
 <* And he said unto them, Go. 
 
 Mark 5: 1—19. 
 
 '' And they came over unto 
 the other side of the sea, into 
 the country of the Gadarenes. 
 (This is another reading for 
 Gergesenes). And, when he 
 was come out of the ship, im- 
 mediately there met him out of 
 the tombs a man with an un- 
 clean spirit, who had his dwell- 
 ing among the tombs ', and no 
 man could hind him, no, not with 
 chains : because that he had been 
 often bound, icith fetters and 
 chains, and the chains had been 
 plucked asunder by him, and the 
 fetters broken in 'pieces : neither 
 could any man tame him. And 
 always, night and day, he was 
 in the mountains, and in the 
 tombs, crying, and cutting him- 
 self loith stones. But when he 
 saw Jesus afar off, he ran and 
 worshipped him, and cried with 
 a loud voice and said,'' etc. 
 
 Respecting his cure Matthew 
 says (v. 13 and onward) : <' And 
 forthwith Jesus gave them 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 57 
 
 And when they were come out 
 they went into the herd of swine, 
 and behold, the whole herd of 
 
 swme, 
 
 etc. 
 
 9: 18-26. 
 
 20. 
 
 " And, behold, a woman 
 which was diseased with an is- 
 sue of blood twelve years, came 
 behind him, and plucked the 
 hem of his garment." 
 
 14: 1—12. 
 
 Account of the execution of 
 John the Baptist by Herod. 
 
 leave. And the unclean spirits 
 went out and entered into the 
 swine," etc. ^' And they (that 
 were in the city and in the 
 country) went out to see what 
 it was that was done. And they 
 come to Jesus, and see him that 
 was possessed with the devil, 
 and had the legion, sitting, and 
 clothed y and in his right mind : 
 and they were afraid." 
 
 5: 21—43. 
 
 25. " And a certain woman, 
 which had an issue of blood 
 twelve years, and had suffered 
 many things of many physicians j 
 and had spent all that she had, 
 and was nothing bettered, but 
 rather greio worse, when she had 
 heard of Jesus, came in the 
 press behind, and touched his 
 garment." 
 
 Moreover, the whole account 
 
 contained in verses 29- 
 Mark only. 
 
 -33 is in 
 
 6: 14—29. 
 The whole narrative is given 
 in Mark with much more mi- 
 nuteness and vivacity. 
 
 Such a difference in the style of narration runs 
 throughout Matthew and Mark ; and it cannot well be 
 denied that at first view there is something surprising 
 in it. But careful examination of the object of the two 
 Gospels plainly shows whence this different manner of 
 narration in Matthew and Mark takes its rise, and thus 
 does away with all the inferences which have been de- 
 duced therefrom in opposition to the apostolic origin of 
 Matthew. The reason why Mark describes the out- 
 ward relations of our Lord's life in so vivid and graph- 
 
58 
 
 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 ic a manner is, that it was his special design to portray 
 Chrisfs performance of the outward functions of his 
 office. Hence, all which related to that, he details 
 very carefully ; while whatever did not pertain thereto 
 he either entirely omits, as, e. g., the history of the 
 childhood of Jesus, or communicates very briefly, as, 
 e. g., many of our Lord's larger discourses. Matthew, 
 on the contrary, makes it his chief object to communi- 
 cate our Lord^s discourses. He commonly makes use 
 of events only as points of support for the discourses ; 
 to which he, like John, directs special attention. If it 
 be considered, moreover, that the graphic nature of 
 style is, in great part, owing to peculiar talent, such as 
 is not bestowed alike on all men, and such as was by 
 no means requisite in every one of the apostles, there 
 remains not a shadow of reason why the want of viva- 
 city which is certainly exhibited in Matthew's Gospel 
 should become a motive for denying its genuineness. 
 In truth, moreover, there is no period at which a for- 
 gery of the Gospel in Matthew's name is even con- 
 ceivable. For it is demonstrable from the book itself 
 that it must have been composed a few years before 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence about sixty-six 
 years after the birth of Christ. Now we find Matthew 
 in use in the church before the close of the same cen- 
 tury, at a time when John the Evangelist had but just 
 died, and many disciples of the apostles were living and 
 laboring in all parts of the world. How was it possi- 
 ble, in such circumstances, to introduce a work forged 
 in the name of Matthew into so general currency that 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 59 
 
 not the very slightest opposition should ever have been 
 raised against it ? 
 
 From what has been said it will have been inferred 
 that the genuineness of Mark is not at all disputed. 
 His graphic, lively manner has even been made to af- 
 ford occasion for assailing the genuineness of Matthew. 
 Nor, in truth, was there in ancient times the least op- 
 position to Mark's Gospel. It was known to Fapias 
 of Hierapolis, i. e. as early as the close of the first cen- 
 tury, and there is an unbroken chain of evidence in its 
 favor since that time. It is true, Mark's work was, in 
 all probability, written at Rome, at that time the capi- 
 tal of the known world, and therefore a fixed and sure 
 tradition as to the author of the work might be formed 
 at once, and would easily diffuse itself everywhere 
 abroad. Still, however, there is one thing which ap- 
 pears very remarkable in regard to the rapid diffusion 
 and reception of Mark, viz., that it was a production 
 whose author was not an apostle. John Mark, fre- 
 quently called Mark only, was the son of a certain 
 Mary who had a house in Jerusalem (Acts 12: 12). 
 Mark himself, as we are told in the Acts (12: 25. 13: 
 5. 15: 36 seq.), at first accompanied the apostle Paul 
 in his travels for the dissemination of Christianity. He 
 afterwards attached himself to his kinsman Barnabas. 
 At a later period, however, we find him again in Paul's 
 company (2 Tim. 4: 11). According to the Fathers, 
 he was also, for a considerable time, closely connected 
 with Peter, and was interpreter to the latter when he 
 preached among the Greeks. He invariably, however, 
 
60 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 occupied a dependent situation, and on this account it 
 is impossible that his name alone should have procured 
 his Gospel an introduction into the church. But, as 
 has been already mentioned, Mark did not write with- 
 out apostolic authority. On the contrary, he was un^ 
 der the direction of the apostle Peter. This is stated 
 by the entire series of church-fathers during the second 
 and third centuries, with perfect unanimity in the main ; 
 and the statement is corroborated by the case of Luke, 
 which was exactly similar. On this account, the Gos- 
 pel of Mark w^as considered as originating with Peter, 
 and such individuals as were particularly attached to 
 this apostle used Mark in preference to all others. Un- 
 fortunately, however, we have no minute accounts as 
 to this matter, and hence do not know whether these 
 individuals corrupted the Gospel of Mark, as the Jew- 
 ish Christians did that of Matthew, or not. It is pos- 
 sible, however, that the so-called Gospel of the Egyp- 
 tians was a corruption of Mark ; though the fragments 
 w^e have of it are not sujfficient to enable us to form a 
 certain opinion on this point. 
 
 As to Luke, w^e have more clear and certain evi- 
 dence in this respect. We know that that sect which 
 carried the sentiments of Paul to an erroneous extreme, 
 the Marcionites, used only the Gospel of Luke, al- 
 though Marcion was very well acquainted with the 
 other Gospels and regarded them as genuine. They 
 had, however, altered Luke in conformity with their 
 opinions, and thus formed, as it w^ere, a new Gospel 
 out of it, which, notwithstanding, still retained much 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 61 
 
 resemblance to the original. The reason why the Mar- 
 cionites selected Luke was, that this Gospel was writ- 
 ten under the direction of the apostle Paul, who alone, 
 in their opinion, was a genuine apostle of our Lord. 
 Luke, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, had 
 travelled about with the apostle Paul for a long time, 
 and, in particular, had also accompanied him to Rome. 
 This is clear from the final chapters of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. Connecting this fact with the conclusion of 
 the work, it is perfectly evident when the Evangelist 
 finished it. According to the last chapter, Paul was 
 two years in confinement at Rome. Here Luke breaks 
 off, without mentioning the issue of his trial. Had this 
 been concluded, should we not of course have had an 
 account of the emperor's decision respecting the great 
 apostle of the Gentiles ? It can be made very probable 
 by circumstances deduced from another quarter, that 
 Paul was liberated from his first imprisonment at Rome, 
 and did not suffer as a martyr till he had been a second 
 time placed in bonds. Luke, however, abruptly breaks 
 off in the midst of his narrative. Now, as the Acts of 
 the Apostles are only the second part of Luke's work, 
 the Gospel being the first (compare Luke L* 1 with 
 Acts L* 1), the latter cannot have been written subse- 
 quently ; and probably when Paul's death was appre- 
 hended, Luke wrote down the accounts he had receiv- 
 ed from him or through him, in order to secure them 
 to posterity. Then the apostle, who was still living, 
 attested the purity and accuracy of the work, and from 
 Rome, the great central point of the religious as well 
 6 
 
62 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 as the political world, it speedily made its way into the 
 churches in every province of the vast Roman empire. 
 Thus, it was not Luke's name which procured for this 
 Gospel its currency in the church, hut the authority of 
 the apostle Paul. Without this, the work of Luke, 
 with its two divisions, the Gospel and the Acts, w^ould 
 have been the less likely to obtain general credit, be- 
 cause it purports to be a mere private production, ad- 
 dressed to a certain Theophilus. It is, indeed, very 
 probable that this Theophilus was a man of note, who 
 was either already a member of the church or at least 
 well-disposed towards it ; but still he was only a pri- 
 vate man, whose name could have no weight with the 
 whole church. He had, probably, already perused di- 
 vers accounts concerning Christ and the formation of 
 the primitive churches, which, however, were not duly 
 authentic and certain ; and for this reason, Luke deter- 
 mined to compose for his use an authoritative history 
 of the important events in our Lord's life and of the 
 foundation of the churches. (Com p. Luke 1: 1 — 4.) 
 Under these circumstances it is not astonishing that in 
 the primitive church there was no opposition either to 
 Luke's Gospel or his Acts of the Apostles.^ The 
 many and close relations of the writer, together w^th 
 the apostolic authority in his behalf, were such evi- 
 
 * So far as the Acts of the Apostles speaks of the circum- 
 stances of Paul it has a perfect correspondence with Paul's 
 Epistles, as the latter have with the former. See this fact 
 more fully developed in the fourth Chapter of this treatise. 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 63 
 
 dence in favor of the work, that not a single valid sus- 
 picion could arise respecting its genuineness. 
 
 Lastly ; the circumstances in regard to the Gospel 
 of John are particularly calculated to place its genuine- 
 ness beyond dispute. For John the Evangehst lived 
 much longer than any of the other apostles. So far as 
 we know, none of the others were alive after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Roman emperor, 
 in the year 70 A. D. John, however, survived it near- 
 ly thirty years, dying about the close of the first centu- 
 ry, under the reign of the emperor Domitian. Hence 
 many Christians who had heard of our Lord's farewell 
 words to him (John 21: 22, 23) believed that John 
 would not die ; an idea which the Evangelist himself 
 declares erroneous. This beloved disciple of our Lord 
 during the latter part of his life, as we know from tes- 
 timonies on which perfect reliance may be placed, lived 
 at Ephesus in Asia Minor, where the apostle Paul had 
 founded a flourishing church. The importance of this 
 church about the year 64 or 75 A. D. is evinced by 
 Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians ; and subsequently it 
 was very much enlarged. It was in this subsequent 
 period that John wrote his Gospel. This is clear, j^n^, 
 from a comparison of the Gospel with the Revelation. 
 This last work was written by John at an earlier peri- 
 od, before the destruction of Jerusalem. John's style 
 in this prophetic composition is not so thoroughly easy 
 as we find it at a later period in the Gospel, which he 
 must have written after longer intercourse with native 
 
64 
 
 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 Greeks. Again, John plainly had the three other 
 Gospels before him when he wrote. For he omits all 
 which they had described with sufficient minuteness, 
 e. g. the institution of the holy supper, and only re- 
 lates that which was new respecting the life of his 
 Lord and Master. Hence, these must have been al- 
 ready composed, and also so generally diffused that John 
 could presume them universally known in the church. 
 Moreover, the persons to whom John's work has spe- 
 cial reference, viz. certain Gnostics, did not attain im- 
 portance till Jerusalem was destroyed and most of the 
 apostles had left this world. Now, if we duly consider 
 all these circumstances, it will be even more incredible 
 in regard to John's Gospel than any other that it should 
 have been forged in his name. From his being the 
 sole surviving apostle, innumerable eyes were upon 
 him and his movements. He lived and labored in one 
 of the chief cities of the known world, in which was a 
 large church and the vicinity of which was wholly peo- 
 pled with Christians. We have an epistle of Pliny a 
 distinguished Roman officer of that region, written on- 
 ly a few years after the death of John the Evangelist, 
 in which he describes the vast increase of the Chris- 
 tians in Asia Minor and lays before the emperor Tra- 
 jan (the successor of the emperor in whose reign John's 
 death took place,) measures for preventing the further 
 extension of their tenets. Now, how was it possible 
 that in this state of things a work could be forged in 
 John's name ? or, supposing even that one might have 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 65 
 
 been, (though history says nothing of any such imposi- 
 tion under the name of John,)^ how is it conceivable 
 that no opposition should have been made thereto, 
 when many thousands were acquainted with John and 
 must have known exactly what he wrote and what he 
 did not ? Of such opposition, however, there is no- 
 where the slightest trace. Not merely all teachers of 
 the orthodox church in all parts of the wide Roman 
 empire, but also all heretics of the most various sects, 
 make use of the work as a sacred valuable legacy be- 
 queathed to the church by the beloved disciple ; and 
 the few heretics who make no use of it, as e. g. Mar- 
 cion, still evince acquaintance with it, and regard it as 
 a genuine work of John's, but are impudent enough to 
 deny that John himself had a correct knowledge of the 
 Gospel, because he was too much of a Jew. Whether, 
 as was the case with the other Gospels, John's also 
 was corrupted by the heretics, who felt that they were 
 specially aimed at in it, is uncertain. The Gnostics, 
 with the exception of Marcion (who, however, as has 
 been already mentioned, is only improperly reckoned 
 among the Gnostics), made most frequent use of John, 
 as in their opinion specially favoring their spiritual 
 ideas. We do not learn, however, that there existed 
 in ancient times any Gospel of John corrupted by the 
 
 * There does exist in Ms., it is true, a second apocalypse 
 under John's name ; but this production appears to belong 
 to a much later period. There is also an apostolic history of 
 older date, in which, however, John is only mentioned along 
 with others ; it is not ascribed to him. 
 6# 
 
66 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 Gnostics, as Luke's Gospel was mutilated by Marcion. 
 In modern times, it is true, a Gospel of John thus dis- 
 figured has come to public knowledge ; but the altera- 
 tions in it originated at a late period in the middle ages. 
 The doubts respecting the genuineness of John's 
 Gospel which have, nevertheless, been proposed in re- 
 cent times, took their rise, like those in regard to Mat- 
 thew, solely from its internal character. When once 
 doubts were thus occasioned, endeavors were made to 
 sustain them on historical grounds likewise. These, 
 however, are of little weight,* from the firmness of the 
 foundation on w^hich the Gospel rests. It was with 
 John much as with Matthew in regard to those charac- 
 teristics which excited doubt of the genuineness of the 
 book. It was correctly remarked that John gives a 
 difierent representation of our Lord from that present- 
 ed by the first three Evangelists. In his Gospel Christ's 
 actions and discourses appear, as it were, transfigured 
 and spiritualized, while in the other Evangelists they 
 appear in a costume more or less Jewish and national. 
 Now, as it is not conceivable, it is said, that the same 
 person should be so differently represented, and John, 
 the beloved disciple of our Lord, would certainly not 
 have portrayed his Master as other than he really was, 
 while the description of the actions of Jesus, (who ap- 
 
 *The most weighty opponent of the genuineness of John 
 has given the excellent example of publicly acknowledging 
 that he has become convinced of the genuineness of this 
 jewel of the church, and retracts his doubts. May this ex- 
 ample find numerous imitators ! 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 67 
 
 peared as a Jew, among Jews, and in behalf of Jews,) 
 given in the accounts of the first three Evangehsts is 
 much more conformable to probability, the Gospel 
 which bears John's name must be of later origin. But 
 here, as in regard to Matthew, it may be observed, that 
 from a perfectly correct remark false conclusions have 
 been deduced. It is indeed true that John exhibits 
 the Saviour in a far more spiritual and glorified charac- 
 ter than the first three Evangelists. But this proves 
 nothing except that John was the most spiritual of the 
 Evangelists. The same individual may be regarded 
 and described very differently by different persons. 
 Of this truth we have a remarkable example in a great 
 character of Grecian antiquity. Socrates is presented 
 to our view in his actions and discourses by two of his 
 confidential pupils, Xenophon and Plato. And how 
 entirely different is the description given of him by 
 these two writers ! In fact, these biographers may be 
 said to sustain very much such a mutual relation as that 
 ofJohnandthe first Evangelists. While Xenophon 
 paid attention principally to the external acts of Socra- 
 tes, Plato describes his spiritual characteristics. Now, 
 if it was possible to represent a common human being 
 of eminence in two very different lights, without doing 
 violence to truth, how much rather might it be so in 
 regard to one who was greater than Solomon, or than 
 Socrates and his biographers. He who lived a purely 
 heavenly life on earth and spake words of eternal truth 
 could not but be very variously described, according to 
 the characteristics of the human soul which received the 
 
68 INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS 
 
 rays of light proceeding from him. Each soul reflect- 
 ed his image according to its own profundity and com- 
 pass, and yet each might be right. It was for this 
 reason that more than one Gospel was included in the 
 collection of the sacred writings, since only the presen- 
 tation of different portraitures together could prevent a 
 partial view of our Saviour's character. As it is only 
 from connection of the accounts of Xenophon and Plato 
 that we can obtain a complete picture of Socrates, so 
 we cannot comprehend the life of our Lord, which 
 affords so many different aspects, without uniting the 
 peculiar traits scattered in all the four Gospels into one 
 general portraiture. With all the difference of repre- 
 sentation observable in the Evangelists, there are still 
 resemblances and affinities enough to make it evident 
 that they all had the same great personage in view. 
 As John relates narratives of cures exactly like those 
 in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so the Gospels of the 
 latter contain passages, which in elevation, depth and. 
 richness of thought are not inferior to our Lord's dis- 
 courses in John, and indeed resemble them in phrase- 
 ology. Among these is the lofty and astonishingly 
 beautiful passage, Matth. 11 : 25 — 30 : '^ I thank thee, 
 O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou 
 hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and 
 hast revealed them unto babes. Even so. Father, for 
 so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are deliver- 
 ed unto me of my Father : and no man knovveth the 
 Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the 
 Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
 
 [ 
 
AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 69 
 
 will reveal him. Come unto me^ all ye that labor and 
 are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my 
 yoke upon you and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
 lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 
 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." He, 
 from whose mouth such language proceeded might cer- 
 tainly be represented in such an aspect as John has 
 given to Jesus, if the description were undertaken by 
 one in some measure capable of appreciating a charac- 
 ter of this nature ; and that John was thus capable is 
 sufficiently clear from his Epistles. 
 
 If, therefore, we look at the Gospels as a collection, 
 or consider each separately, w^e cannot but say that 
 they are more strongly accredited and sustained by ex- 
 ternal and internal proofs than any other work of an- 
 tiquity. Few writings have such ancient testimonies in 
 their favor, reaching back to the time of the authors ; 
 none have so many of them, so totally distinct, so cor- 
 roborative of each other. While, then, the chief argu- 
 ment in behalf of the Scriptures generally, and the 
 Gospels in particular, is the witness of the Holy Spirit, 
 perceived in his heart by every believer as he peruses 
 the Scriptures (a point on which we shall enlarge at 
 the close of our treatise), still the possibility of proving 
 on historical grounds the genuineness and primitive 
 character of the Gospels is a great additional cause of 
 gratitude, inasmuch as it removes occasions of distrust, 
 particularly from weak and doubting minds, and affords 
 motives for the confirmation of their faith. 
 
1 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PAULINE EPISTLES, 
 
 Along with the collection of the Gospels there ex- 
 isted at an early period of the church, as was related 
 above,^ a collection of Paul's Epistles called the Apos- 
 tle. In the lives of Irenaeus, Tertullian and C/em- 
 ent of Alexandria, who were all acquainted with and 
 used it, this collection contained thirteen Epistles, viz., 
 the Epistle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, 
 those to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Co- 
 lossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, 
 and those to Titus and Philemon. The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews was not inserted in this collection, because 
 opinions were not united as to its origin. (See Chap. 
 VI. below.) Half a century before the time of the 
 Fathers just mentioned we find a collection of Pauline 
 Epistles in the hands of Marcion, that extravagant re- 
 verer of the apostle Paul. He was born in Asia Mi- 
 nor, where, as is well known, the apostle Paul had 
 long lived and labored and was highly reverenced. 
 Thence Marcion went to Rome, carrying with him the 
 collection of Pauline Epistles which he had made use 
 of in Asia. This, however, contained but ten Epis- 
 tles ; there were wanting the three commonly termed 
 
 ♦ Comp. Chap. I. 
 
72 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 pastoral letters, viz., the two to Timothy, and that to 
 Titus ; called pastoral letters because in them Paul 
 gives directions to spiritual pastors in regard to the suit- 
 able performance of their official duties. The small 
 Epistle to Philemon was known to him, because it 
 stood in close connexion with the Epistle to the Co- 
 lossians ; but the three pastoral letters seem to have 
 been diffused but slowly, as independent private pro- 
 ductions, and hence, also, not to have been inserted in 
 the original collection. How the collection of the 
 Pauline Epistles, in the form in which we now^ have 
 it, originated, is unknown, and has not yet been satis- 
 factorily accounted for by any conjecture.^ For the 
 supposition that, like the collection of the Gospels, it 
 originated in different places at once, merely by the 
 gradual transmission thither of the Epistles of Paul as 
 fast as they were composed, is forbidden by the cir- 
 cumstance that, as can be proved, they are not arranged 
 in the order of their composition. The collection can- 
 not, however, have been accidentally formed ; for it is 
 clear that a certain plan has been followed. At the 
 beginning are placed the Epistles to the Romans and 
 Corinthians, distinguished for their length and internal 
 importance ; then follows a letter to several churches 
 
 * We find very few traces of a different arrangement of 
 the Episdes of Paul ; a different one, however, is followed 
 in an old catalogue of the books of the New Testament, prob- 
 ably pertaining to the church at Rome. It is called Mura- 
 iorVs Catalogue, from an Italian abbot of that name who dis- 
 covered the Mss. which contained it. 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 73 
 
 in a whole province, the Epistle to the Galatians ; then 
 the smaller Epistles to churches in particular cities, to 
 the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalo- 
 nians ; lastly come the Epistles to private persons. 
 Moreover, had the collection of them been left to acci- 
 dent, sometimes one arrangement would have been 
 adopted and sometimes another, which is not the case, 
 the order having been the same that we now observe, 
 as far back as the second century. As, therefore, the 
 order of the Epistles was evidently the work of design, 
 and its general reception throughout the church indi- 
 cates that it proceeded from some authoritative source, 
 the most reasonable supposition is, that the apostle 
 Paul himself made the collection. During the second 
 imprisonment at Rome to which, as we shall see here- 
 after, it is highly probable that the apostle was sub- 
 jected, he may have collected together the ten Epistles, 
 as being the principal ones of a doctrinal nature which 
 he had as yet written, in order to bequeath them as a 
 legacy to the church. It was in this original form that 
 Marcion possessed the collection.* After the collection 
 was made up, near the close of his life, Paul wrote the 
 three pastoral letters, which were afterwards added to 
 the original collection and naturally placed last. By 
 
 * According to the account of Epiphamus, it is true, the 
 order of the ten Epistles in Marcion's Canon was different 
 from that in ours ; viz. Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, 
 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philip- 
 pians. If this statement be credited, it must be allowed that 
 Marcion's collection originated independently of ours. 
 7 
 
74 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 accident Marcion had not become ac quainted with these 
 letters, and therefore retained the most ancient form 
 of the collection of Paul's Epistles. A very weighty 
 testimony in favor of this view is presented in the sec- 
 ond Epistle of the apostle Peter, who, at near the con- 
 clusion of his letter, says : '^ 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 ivritten unto you ; as also in all (his) Epis- 
 ties, speaJcing in them of these things; in which are 
 some things hard to be understood, which they that 
 are unlearned and unstable wrest," etc. (2 Pet. 3: 15, 
 16.) According to the first Epistle of Peter (1: 1. 
 Comp. 2 Pet. 3: 1.), Peter wrote to the Christians in 
 Pontus, Galatia, and other provinces of Asia Minor, to 
 which also Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, 
 and Colossians are directed. Peter, therefore, might 
 presume that his readers were acquainted with these. 
 The expression, all (his) i^z*5^/e5, however, clearly indi- 
 cates a collection of Epistles. Otherwise, there is some- 
 thing of indefiniteness in it. Paul no doubt wrote 
 more Epistles during his life than we now possess. 
 But most of his Epistles were not exactly adapted for 
 general diffusion. The expression all (his) Epistles^ 
 must therefore have reference to a collection of the 
 apostle's letters, which could be read through. If it 
 be also considered that Peter was in Paul's company 
 at Rome, and that consequently he would naturally 
 have had acquaintance with the collection of his Epis- 
 tles, it will be plain that this passage is hardly intelligi- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 75 
 
 ble except on the supposition that a collection of Paul's 
 Epistles was already in existence."^ It is true the 
 genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter is now dis- 
 putedj and certainly much that is of an imposing na- 
 ture can be alleged against it. Still, however, all that 
 can be said does not, I am convinced, demonstrate its 
 spuriousness, while there is certainly much evidence of 
 its genuineness. At any rate, this mention of a collec- 
 tion of Paul's Epistles should not be urged against the 
 genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as all ac- 
 knowledge that nothing certain is known in regard to 
 the formation of this collection. But on these points 
 we will speak more at large hereafter. 
 
 If it be admitted, however, that Paul himself made 
 
 * Some may think that too much is inferred by the author 
 from Peter's expression ; and indeed it must be admitted that 
 to say that Peter's language is hardly intelligible except on 
 the supposition of an existing collection of Paul's Epistles is 
 somewhat extravagant. Our English translation, by insert- 
 ing the word his in the phraseology of Peter, has some- 
 what modified the sense of the original and weakened the 
 force of Olshausen's remarks. The Greek expression is : 
 iv ndaaig Tolg eTtLdToXalg; i. e., perhaps, in all the Epistles. 
 Now, though it would give an intelligible sense to these 
 words to su[)pose that Peter meant to make his observation 
 concerning Paul's Epistles generally, of which he presumed, 
 some might, and some might not, have come to the know- 
 ledge of those to whom he w^'ote ; still it can hardly be dis- 
 puted that his phraseology becomes much more natural if 
 we suppose a current collection of the Epistles. Tr. 
 
76 
 
 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 the collection of his Epistles, or at least, caused it to 
 be made at Rome under his direction, we have then an 
 explanation of the fact, that in regard to the genuineness 
 of this collection, as in regard to that of the Gospels, 
 not the slightest doubt was ever expressed. Members 
 of the Catholic church in all parts of the world, as 
 also of the various sects, make use of the collection and 
 of the individual Epistles without allowing themselves 
 to intimate the smallest doubt in regard to them. Now 
 this undeniable fact is w'holly irreconcilable with the 
 supposition that all or any Epistles in the collection are 
 spurious. Indeed, the first supposition, that ail the 
 Epistles of Paul are spurious, has never been main- 
 tained, and never can be, except in despite of all his- 
 tory. But even the idea that one or two spurious, 
 forged Epistles may have obtained a place in the col- 
 lection, is hardly to be reconciled with the universal 
 acknowledgement of all the Epistles in the church of 
 ancient times. Consider only, how universally Paul 
 was known in the early church ! From Spain (which 
 in all probabihty he visited,) he had travelled about 
 through Italy and all Greece to the remotest countries 
 of Asia Minor, Syria, and Arabia ; he had resided for 
 years in some of the large cities of the then known 
 world, in Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, An- 
 tioch, Csesarea, Jerusalem ; he had everywhere found- 
 ed numerous churches and maintained the most active 
 intercourse with them. How, then, when he was so 
 well known, could a work be forged in his name with 
 any prospect of its being generally acknowledged. 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 77 
 
 The impossibility of this occurrence is the more evident 
 from the fact that all Paul's Epistles are addressed to 
 important churches or to persons living in well-known 
 places. If those who received the Epistles were not 
 always designated, then it might be supposed that some 
 spurious ones obtained general circulation. No one, 
 perhaps, could then say with certainty, whether Paul 
 wrote such a particular Epistle or not ; for it is not 
 conceivable that Paul should at once have told every 
 body he knew how many Epistles he had written ; and 
 thus one might be personally acquainted with Paul and 
 still be deceived by an artfully-contrived Epistle. But 
 take the case as it is. Were the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, against which, as we shall see, objections have 
 been raised, really spurious, forged in Paul's name, we 
 readily admit that it might have been received as gen- 
 uine in the whole church beside, for it is as like Paul's 
 Epistles as one egg is like another ; but could it have 
 been acknowledged as genuine in Ephesus itself and the 
 Asiatic churches connected with the Ephesians ? Can 
 we suppose that the Ephesians had so httle regard for 
 the great founder of their church, that they did not 
 even know whether their beloved preacher had or had 
 not written them a letter while in bonds ? And can 
 they have been so totally wanting in sensibility to friend- 
 ship and love as not to preserve the apostle's communi- 
 cation when every man at all susceptible of emotions 
 of friendship is anxious to preserve what has been 
 traced by a beloved hand ? It is hence plain that a 
 
 spurious Epistle to the Ephesians must have been 
 7# 
 
78 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 known in Ephesus as what it really was, a forged pro* 
 duction ; and it is impossible to suppose that if the 
 Epistle had been disputed by any considerable church, 
 and particularly by the very one to which it purported 
 to have been sent, the opposition should have been so 
 completely suppressed. The declaration of the Ephe- 
 sian church that they had received no such Epistle, 
 that they had not the original in their archives, would 
 have been sufficient to destroy its credit. 
 
 To this it is to be added, that all the Epistles of Paul 
 go beyond general expressions, such as may be easily 
 invented ; that they exhibit a definite concrete^ purport, 
 which has reference to the particular wants of each 
 church and its manifestations as to christian life. Such 
 representations of actual facts in regard to the ancient 
 churches can have proceeded only from immediate 
 contact with them, and consequently certify us of the 
 genuineness of the Pauline Epistles. With all that is 
 of a special nature, however, in each particular Epis- 
 tle of Paul, there is observable in all together a uni- 
 formity of style and a unity in doctrinal ideas which 
 wholly prevents suspicion respecting the genuineness 
 of the epistolary collection. For the usual reason of 
 forging writings in the name of another is, that the 
 
 * This term, in the sense in which it is here used, is bor- 
 rowed from logic. In that science, it is known, abstract and 
 concrete terms are contra-distinguished. An abstract term 
 is one signifying some attribute without reference to any 
 particular subject ; a concrete term designates both the at- 
 tribute and the subject to which it belongs. Tr. 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 79 
 
 forger wishes to give currency to a favorite idea under 
 some celebrated name. In no Epistle, however, is 
 there any prominent idea which is remote from the 
 circle of Pauline doctrine, and seems to be a foreign 
 idea clothed with the costume of Paul's style. We 
 rather find every where the same main thoughts, which 
 actuated the life of Paul, running through the entire 
 collection and giving their stamp to the whole. 
 
 The principal evidence, however, of the genuineness 
 of the Pauline Epistles, regarded in a historical light, is 
 the circumstance that we can assign to the Epistles 
 their exact places in the life of the apostle Paul by 
 following the Acts of the Apostles. Thus are they 
 most fully and firmly bound one to another, and all to 
 the Acts of the Apostles. This arrangement of the 
 individual Epistles in accordance with the thread of 
 Paul's life is effected in such a manner as to show in 
 chronological order the occasions of their composition 
 and their strict relations to his known movements. 
 
 Paulj the great apostle to the Gentiles, w^ho, as is 
 well known, was at first named Saul, was a native Jew 
 of the tribe of Benjamin and was born in Tarsus in Ci- 
 licia. In order to perfect himself in the knowledge of 
 the law of his native country, he early betook himself 
 to Jerusalem, where he was taught by the celebrated 
 Gamaliel. His zeal for the hereditary observances of 
 his countrymen caused him to persecute the Christians, 
 as soon as he obtained knowledge of them, with all the 
 vehemence of his fiery nature. At the death of Ste- 
 
80 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 pheUj the first Christian martyr, he was busy keeping 
 the clothes of his murderers while they stoned him. 
 (Acts 7: 57 seq.) From Jerusalem Paul betook him- 
 self to Damascus, to stir up the Jews there also against 
 the Christians ; but the Lord Jesus appeared to him 
 before the city in his divine glory, and showed him who 
 it was that he persecuted. (Acts 9: 22, 26.) As Paul 
 had not persecuted the Christians from intentional 
 wickedness, or from carnal selfishness, contrary to his 
 interior conviction, but rather with the honest idea that 
 he was thereby doing God service, the divine light 
 which enlightened his dark mind by this vision at once 
 produced an entire change in his feelings. With the 
 same ardent zeal for truth and right which he had man- 
 ifested in persecuting the Gospel he now defended it ; 
 though his zeal was indeed purified and made hoher by 
 the Spirit of the Lord. After a season of quiet reflec- 
 tion and repose such as he needed to perceive the great- 
 ness of that internal change which he had undergone 
 and the depth of the new principle of life within him, 
 Paul began to make known the conviction he had just 
 obtained. It was in Antioch (about 44 A. D.) that 
 Paul began formally to preach ; and he taught in this 
 city, along with Barnabas, a whole year. After a jour- 
 ney to Jerusalem, whither he carried money that had 
 been collected for the poor in that city, the elders of 
 the church at Antioch designated him as a messenger 
 to the Gentiles ; and he with Barnabas set out on the 
 first missionary expedition, about 45 A. D. It ex- 
 tended no further than the neighboring countries of 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 81 
 
 Asia Minor. Paul travelled through Cyprus to Perga 
 in Pamphylia and Antloch in Pisidia, and returned 
 through Lystra, Derbe, and Attalia by sea to Antioch. 
 Consequently, on this first missionary enterprise the 
 apostle did not visit any of the cities or provinces to 
 which he wrote Epistles. On his return to Antioch 
 he found that some strict Jewish Christians had come 
 thither from Jerusalem and excited dissensions. Paul 
 had begun to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and 
 in such a way as to dispense with the observance of 
 the Mosaic law as a necessary duty. Many Jewish 
 Christians could not rise to the level of this evangelical 
 freedom in regard to the external law. Even Peter at 
 first adhered so strenuously to the forms of Jewish prac- 
 tice that nothing but a vision could bring him to see 
 that under the New Testament the Mosaic law in re- 
 gard to meats had lost its external importance. (Acts 
 10: 11 seq.) In order to come to a fixed decision on 
 this important point, the church at Antioch determined 
 that Paul and Barnabas, with several companions should 
 proceed to Jerusalem to present this question before 
 the Apostles. They there declared what God had 
 wrought by them among the Gentiles ; Peter testified 
 the same in regard to his labors ; and James, the broth- 
 er of our Lord, showed that it was foretold in the pro- 
 phecies of Scripture that the Gentiles likewise should 
 be called into the church of God. On these grounds 
 the apostles, with the elders and all the church at Je- 
 rusalem determined to send deputies to Antioch with 
 Paul and Barnabas, and communicated their judgment 
 
82 
 
 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 in a letter carried by them to the church at Antioch. 
 This important transaction at Jerusalem, which publicly 
 announced the character of Christianity as an universal 
 religion, is called the council of the Apostles, It was 
 held about the year 52 A. D. The decision of this 
 apostolic body was of the utmost consequence to the 
 apostle Paul, as in his subsequent labors he had to con- 
 tend constantly with narrow-minded Jewish Christians, 
 who wished to impose the Mosaic law upon the Gen- 
 tiles also as essential to salvation. Against these Paul 
 now advanced not only his own personal infiuence but 
 the authority of all the apostles. This at least, was ef- 
 fected thereby — that the supporters of the ceremonial 
 law and its perpetual validity were compelled to secede 
 from the universal apostolic church and form them- 
 selves into a distinct sect. It is true, however, that 
 their opposition to the apostle Paul was continued with 
 extreme obstinacy ; and we find in his Epistles num- 
 berless allusions to the persecutions which he encoun- 
 tered at their hand. 
 
 Soon after the apostolic council (53 A. D.) Paul un- 
 dertook his second great journey. He separated from 
 BarnabaSj who united with his kinsman Mark in preach- 
 ing the Gospel. Paul took Silas as his companion in- 
 stead of Barnabas. He directed his course first to the 
 churches founded on his previous journey ; and thence 
 onward to GaJatia, and to Troas on the western coast 
 of Asia Minor. Thence the Lord conducted him by 
 a vision in a dream into Macedonia, where he founded 
 the church of Philippi ; and then went to Thessalon- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 83 
 
 ica. (Acts 10 : 10 seq. 17: 1 seq.) Unfortunately, 
 Paul could remain only about three weeks in the latter 
 city, for, as he met with much success among the pros- 
 elytes that had connected themselves with the Jewish 
 synagogues, there arose an uproar against him among 
 the Jews, who actually compelled him to leave the 
 city and flee to Beraea. (Acts 17: 10.) As, however, 
 the Jews in this place likewise vented their rage against 
 the apostle of our Lord, Paul betook himself to Athens, 
 where also some hearts were warmed by the fire of his 
 preaching. He next proceeded onward to Corinth. 
 Here, in one of the great cities of antiquity, where lux- 
 ury and debauchery had reached their highest pitch, but 
 where on that very account a strong desire for salvation 
 was readily excited, Paul labored with remarkable suc- 
 cess for more than a year and a half. He found there 
 a Jewish family from Rome, Aquila and his wife Pm- 
 cilla, celebrated in the history of the ancient church. 
 As Aquila pursued the same craft with Paul, the latter 
 lived and wrought with him, and besides discoursed in 
 the house of a certain Justus. From hence Paul wrote 
 the first Epistles among those still preserved to us, viz. 
 the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. Now, if we 
 compare the tenor of the Epistles with the situation of 
 the apostle and their relation to the church at Thessa- 
 lonica, we shall find them throughout conformable to 
 the circumstances. As Paul was unable to preach in 
 Thessalonica more than three weeks, he must natural- 
 ly have been very anxious respecting the fate of those 
 who believed in that city ; he feared that they might 
 
84 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 again fall away on account of the persecutions which 
 threatened them. Hence his apprehensions had already- 
 induced him, as soon as he arrived at Athens, to send 
 Timothy from thence to Thessalonica, in order to learn 
 what was really the condition of the church. Timo- 
 thy rejoined him at Corinth ; and, his mind being set 
 at rest by the information which Timothy communica- 
 ted, he wrote the first Epistle, for the purpose of con- 
 firmino; and establishino^ the Thessalonians in the faith 
 to which they had so faithfully adhered. (Acts 17: 15. 
 18: 5. 1 Thess. 3: 2, 5, 6.) It is a circumstance en- 
 tirely consonant with what we must suppose to have 
 been the situation of the Christians in Thessalonica, 
 that they did not rightly comprehend the doctrine of 
 our Lord's resurrection. This would naturally be the 
 case, from the shortness of the period during which 
 they enjoyed the apostle's instructions. (1 Thess. 4: 
 13 seq.) They feared that those behevers who might 
 die before the coming of our Lord, w^ould be shut out 
 from the joys attendant on the Messiah's reign upon 
 earth. The apostle, how^ever, sets them right in re- 
 gard to their fear, showing them that there would be a 
 two-fold resurrection. Those who had fallen asleep in 
 faith respecting the Saviour would not rest till the gen- 
 eral resurrection, but would be raised up at the com- 
 ing of Christ and would behold the Lord with those 
 who were alive. This same subject also soon after- 
 ward caused the apostle Paul to write the second Epis- 
 tie to the Christians at Thessalonica, also from Corinth. 
 The explanation of Paul had indeed quieted the ap- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 85 
 
 prehension of the behevers of that city in regard to 
 those of their number who met with an early death ; 
 but some expressions used by Paul in his first Epistle 
 (particularly 1 Thess. 4 : 17), together with false ru- 
 mors respecting his view of the proximity of our Lord's 
 coming, had led some susceptible minds to the idea 
 that this important event not only might, but must, 
 take place very soon. Thus they openly designated 
 the period of our Lord's return, in total contrariety to 
 Paul's meaning, who did indeed, with them, hope and 
 ardently desire that our Lord might come in their time, 
 and by no means stated expressly that he would not do 
 so, since that would have been a negative determina- 
 tion of the point ; but maintained the possibility that 
 he would, and founded thereon, after the example of 
 Christ himself, an exhortation to constant watchfulness. 
 In order, therefore, to moderate the excessive disposi- 
 tion of the Christians at Thessaionica to look upon this 
 great event as necessarily about to take place in their 
 own time, Paul presented to view certain things which 
 must all take place before it. From the consideration 
 of these points it could not but be evident totheThes- 
 salonians that this event could not take place so sud- 
 denly as they anticipated, and thus their excited minds 
 would probably be quieted. In these respects, as re- 
 gards the state of things at that time, the two Epistles 
 possess entire and undeniable historical keeping ; and 
 we shall not err widely from the truth if we assign 
 their composition to the years 54 and 55 of t!ie Chris- 
 tian era. 
 
 8 
 
86 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 From Corinth the apostle Paul now returned to An- 
 tioch, whence he had been sent. (Acts 18: 22.) With- 
 out, however, remaining long at rest, he in the follow- 
 ing year (57 A. D.) entered upon his third missionary 
 tour, going first to Galatia again, where he had preach- 
 ed on his second tour, and then to the wealthy and 
 celebrated city of Ephesus, where he abode more than 
 two years. From this city Paul wrote first to the Ga- 
 latians, and subsequently to the Corinthians. The 
 Epistle to the Galatians was occasioned by those same 
 Jewish Christians, of whom we have before remarked, 
 that they constantly strove to cast hindrances in the 
 way of Paul's operations. The Galatian churches, 
 which Paul, on his second visit to Galatia (Gal. 4 : 
 13), had found walking in the true faith, had been 
 misled by these men in regard to the requirements of 
 rehgion. Through the idea that the observance of the 
 Jewish ceremonial law was essential to salvation, the 
 Galatian Christians were led to regard circumcision, 
 the solemnization of the Sabbath and of the Jewish 
 feasts, and other ordinances of the Old Testament, 
 which the New Testament valued only from their spir- 
 itual signification, as of worth in an external view, and 
 in this way sufiered themselves to lose sight of the in- 
 terior life of faith. The object of the apostle, there- 
 fore, in his Epistle, was to develope thoroughly to the 
 Galatians the relation between the law and the gospel, 
 and to show that, in the spiritual freedom conferred by 
 the latter, the external rites of the former might, in- 
 deed, be observed, but that they must be observed in 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 87 
 
 a higher manner, i. e. spiritually. Previously, howev- 
 er, he makes some remarks respecting himself person- 
 ally. For, as the Jewish Christians presumed to dis- 
 pute Paul's apostolic authority, he found himself com- 
 pelled to vindicate it by a historical account of himself. 
 He states (1:12 seq.) that he did not receive his Gos- 
 pel from man, but immediately from God ; that at first 
 he had persecuted the church of God, but that God, 
 who had called him from his mother's womb, had been 
 pleased to reveal his Son in him, that he might preach 
 him to the heathen, through the Gospel. This evi- 
 dently refers to the event of our Lord's appearance to 
 Paul near Damascus, on which occasion the Lord said 
 to him : " I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. But 
 rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have appeared un- 
 to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a 
 witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and 
 of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ; 
 delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, 
 unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and 
 to turn them from darkness to light, and from the pow- 
 er of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgive- 
 ness of sins, and inheritance among them which are 
 sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 15 — 18.) 
 This reference to so peculiar occurrences in Paul's life 
 exhibits a sufficient security for the genuineness of this 
 Epistle, and, in connection with its entire contents, as 
 also with its style, has sufficed to place it forever be- 
 yond suspicion. 
 
 An occasion equally sad in respect to the apostle 
 
88 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 gave rise to the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which 
 was hkewise written from Ephesus. Before the first 
 of the Epistles w^hich are in our possession, Paul had 
 written another to Corinth (1 Cor. 5: 9), which, how- 
 ever, has perished. We have indeed a pretended 
 Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which claims to be 
 this lost Epistle, but a slight examination is sufficient 
 to manifest its spuriousness. Moreover this Epistle of 
 Paul was regarded as lost by all Christian antiquity. 
 This first Epistle, as is show^n by 1 Cor. 5: 1 — 9, was 
 occasioned by the circumstance that an individual in 
 the Corinthian church had matrimonial intercourse with 
 his mother-in-law, the wife of his deceased father. 
 Paul pointed out to the church the necessity of exclud- 
 ing from among them him who sustained this incestu- 
 ous relation, that he might be awakened to penitence. 
 To this Epistle of Paul the Corinthian Christians re- 
 plied in such a way, as to show plainly that they mis- 
 understood some parts of it, particularly what Paul had 
 said respecting the avoidance of lasciviousness. These 
 misapprehensions are corrected by Paul in the Jirst of 
 the tw^o Epistles which have been preserved to us. 
 He likewise speaks in this same letter of another im- 
 portant circumstance in regard to the Corinthian church, 
 which presents considerable coincidence with the situ- 
 ation of the Christians in Galatia. It is that some of 
 the Jewish Christians, w^ho had excited dissensions 
 among the believers there, had come to Corinth also. 
 True, some had remained faithful to Paul ; but others 
 appealed, in contradiction of his authority, to Peter 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 89 
 
 (Cephas), although he agreed perfectly with Paul in 
 his viev/s respecting the law. They probably objected 
 to the apostle Paul, as did the Jewish Christians in 
 Galatia, that he had not, hke Peter, known our Lord 
 personally. Besides these two parties Paul mentions 
 two others (I Cor. 1: 12), the distinctive characteris- 
 tics of which, however, are uncertain. There were, 
 therefore, divisions in the Corinthian church, and from 
 these had proceeded manifold disorders. Paul's first 
 Epistle is occupied with the reconciliation of the form- 
 er and the removal of the latter. 
 
 Our first Epistle to the Corinthians comprises sucii 
 an abundance of peculiar circumstances entirely con- 
 formable with the situation of the church in its earliest 
 days, that we cannot for a moment suppose it possible 
 that it is a forgery. Moreover, particular facts men- 
 tioned in it coincide most exactly with the events of 
 Paul's life as known from the Acts of the Apostles. 
 Thus, according to Acts 19: 22, he sent away his two 
 companions Timothy and Erastus from Ephesus a sliort 
 time before he himself left the city ; and, according to 
 1 Cor. 4: 17, likewise, he had despatched Timothy to 
 the Corinthians. According to the same passage in 
 the Acts, Paul purposed soon to leave Ephesus and 
 travel through Achaia (this was the Greek province in 
 which Corinth was situated), to Jerusalem, and the 
 same thing is indicated by 1 Cor. 16: 5. Thus all 
 circumstances unite to give a sure historical basis to 
 the Epistle. As its composition must be placed a lit- 
 tle before Paul's departure from Ephesus, it was Prob- 
 st 
 
90 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 ably written about 59 A. D., while the Epistle to the 
 Galatians may have been written about the year 58 
 A. D. 
 
 Before the apostle Paul left Ephesus, then, he sent 
 Titus with a special commission to Corinth. He hoped 
 to be able to wait for him in Ephesus, in order to re- 
 ceive an account of the troubled state of affairs in the 
 Corinthian church, and of the reception which his 
 Epistle encountered. But a sudden uproar created by 
 Demetrius the silver-smith (Acts 19: 24 seq.), who 
 saw himself injured in respect to the gains which he 
 derived from the sale of small silver models of the cel- 
 ebrated tem.ple of Diana at Ephesus, compelled him to 
 leave the city earlier than he wished. In Macedonia, 
 however, whither Paul immediately betook himself, he 
 again met with Titus, who then informed him particu- 
 larly of the condition of the church at Corinth and the 
 impression which his Epistle had produced. This ac- 
 count induced the apostle to write the second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians^ from Macedonia. The contents of 
 this other Epistle, which was written a few months af- 
 ter the first, bear so close a relation to the contents of 
 the first, that the identity of the author is, thereby alone, 
 made sufficiently evident. In the second chapter, e. g., 
 we find mention again of the incestuous person, whom 
 Paul had enjoined it upon the church to exclude from 
 communion with them. As he had now been excom- 
 municated, Paul speaks in his behalf, that he might not 
 sink into utter despondency (2 Cor. 2: 7). Of most 
 importance, however, are the particular expressions in 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 91 
 
 regard to those Jewish Christians who desolated the 
 Corinthian church as well as others. Titus had inform- 
 ed the apostle with what an arrogant disposition they 
 had received his letter. Against these, therefore, he 
 expresses himself with the utmost severity, while he 
 treats those who remained faithful to the truth with 
 suavity and great kindness. In rebuking the perversi- 
 ty of these Judaizers, he feels it necessary to speak of 
 himself; for these proud sectaries not only rejected the 
 apostolic authority of Paul, but also sought by their 
 calumnies to deprive him of the honor of being the 
 most successful laborer in our Lord's vineyard. With 
 noble plainness, therefore, Paul boasts of all that the 
 Lord had done for him and through him ; and the fur- 
 ther removed this plainness was from false humility, 
 and the less he avoided giving ground for the imputa- 
 tion of appearing arrogant and self-conceited, the more 
 likely was his account of himself to make an impression 
 upon all his opponents. We do not know definitely 
 what effect this Epistle produced upon the state of 
 things at Corinth ; but, from the subsequent flourish- 
 ing condition of the Corinthian church, we may with 
 great probability infer that Paul's Epistle contributed 
 essentially to the annihilation of divisions. At all events, 
 the Epistle is so completely Pauline, and harmonizes 
 so exactly with all known historical circumstances, 
 that its genuineness has never been contested either in 
 ancient or modern times. 
 
 What was not effected by the Epistle of Paul to the 
 church of Corinth, was undoubtedly accomplished by 
 
92 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 the apostle's personal presence in this metropolis. For, 
 from Macedonia Paul went to Achaia (Acts 20: 3), and 
 abode there three months. The greater part of this 
 time he certainly spent in Corinth, and from hence he 
 wrote the Epistle to the Romans, shortly before his 
 departure from Corinth for Jerusalem in order to carry 
 a collection of alms for the poor of that city (Acts 24: 
 17 seq. Rom. 15: G5, 26). This important Epistle 
 (viz. that to the Romans), bears the stamp of a genu- 
 ine apostolic letter so completely in both thought and 
 language, that neither ancient nor modern times have 
 advanced a single doubt as to its origin. The particu- 
 lar doctrine which Paul presented to view more fre- 
 quently and more prominently than any other apostle, 
 viz. that man is saved by faith in him who v/as crucifi- 
 ed and rose again, and not by the works of the law, 
 either ceremonial or moral, forms the central topic of 
 the Epistle to the Romans ; and, moreover, all the 
 historical allusions Vv^hich occur in it are entirely suita- 
 ble to the circumstances under which it was written. 
 Paul, e. g., according to this Epistle (Rom. 1: 12. 15: 
 23 seq.) had not yet been in Rome when he wrote it ; 
 and this agrees exactly with the statement of the apos- 
 tle in Acts 19: 21. The many persons whom he sa- 
 lutes at the end of the Epistle, he became acquainted 
 with from his numerous travels in Asia Minor and 
 Greece ; for, as there was a general conflux to Rome 
 from all quarters, and also a general dispersion thence, 
 it being the centre of the world, there was no city in 
 which Romans did not reside, or of whose inhabitants 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 93 
 
 many were not constrained by circumstances to jour- 
 ney to Rome or to establish themselves there as resi- 
 dents. On account of this importance of the city of 
 Rome, which must necessarily have been communica- 
 ted to the church in that place, there is sufficient proof 
 of the genuineness of this Epistle in the single circum- 
 stance that this church, in which Paul afterwards abode 
 some years, never contradicted the universal opinion 
 that Paul wrote this Epistle to them, but rather re- 
 joiced in being honored with such an apostolic commu- 
 nication. 
 
 Hitherto we have seep, the celebrated apostle of the 
 Gentiles constantly laboring with freedom and bold- 
 ness ; but his departure from Corinth brought upon 
 him a long and cruel imprisonment. For Paul imme- 
 diately returned from Corinth to Macedonia, embarked 
 there at Phihppi (Acts 20 : 3 seq.), and sailed along 
 the coast of Asia Minor. At Miletus he called to him 
 the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts 20: 17 seq.) 
 and took pathetic leave of them ; for he was persua- 
 ded that he should never again see these beloved breth- 
 ren (20: 38). About the year 60 A. D. the apostle 
 arrived at Jerusalem, having passed through Csesarea ; 
 but was there immediately arrested (Acts xxii.) and 
 carried back to Ca^sarea (Acts 23: 31 seq.) Here he 
 was indeed examined by the pro-consul Felix ; but, as 
 he could not pronounce sentence against him and hesi- 
 tated to release him, Paul remained two years in cap- 
 tivity. At the end of that time there came another 
 
94 
 
 PAULINE EnSTLES. 
 
 pro-consul, Porcius Festus, to Csesarea. He commen- 
 ced the examination anew, but when the apostle, as a 
 Roman citizen, appealed to Caesar, he sent him to 
 Rome. This was about 62 A. D. On the voyage 
 thither, Paul, together with the Roman soldiers who 
 accompanied him, suffered shipwreck and they were 
 compelled to pass the winter on the island of Malta. 
 Paul did not, therefore, arrive at Rome before the com- 
 mencement of the following year, and was there again 
 kept as a prisoner for two years, i. e. till 65 A. D., 
 before his case was decided. Still his confinement at 
 Rome was not so strict as that at Caesarea. He was 
 permitted to hire a dwelling in the city, to go about, 
 speak, and write as he pleased ; only he was always 
 accompanied by a soldier. Luke alone details all these 
 events in the last chapters of the Acts, with very great 
 minuteness. From Paul's Epistles we learn nothing 
 respecting this period ; for Paul seems not to have 
 written at all from Caesarea. Probably the strict du- 
 rance in which he was held did not permit any com- 
 munication by writing. In the providence of God, 
 this long confinement may have served to acquaint 
 Paul with himself, with the depths of his own interior 
 beino;. For, the manner of life which Paul led and 
 was obliged to lead, the perpetual bustle of travel, his 
 constant efforts in regard to others, might have injured 
 him by dissipation of his thoughts, and might, so to 
 speak, have exhausted the fulness of his spirit, had he 
 not possessed some quiet seasons in which, while his 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 95 
 
 attention was turned wholly upon himself, he might 
 be spiritually replenished and invigorated for future 
 seasons of intense outward exertion. 
 
 But from the other of the two places where Paul was 
 compelled to remain a prisoner for a long period, i. e. 
 Rome, he certainly wrote several Epistles, viz. the 
 Epistles to the Ephesians, PhiJippians, ColossianSy 
 and Fhilemon. Still, although in these Epistles men- 
 tion is made of some historical particulars, he supposea 
 the occurrences in regard to himself to be generally 
 known among the Christians of the churches in Mace- 
 donia and Asia Minor, and therefore does not enter into 
 details respecting them. Unfortunately Luke closed 
 his book of Acts at the point when Paul had lived two 
 years as a prisoner at Rome ; and therefore in further 
 designating the historical connection of Paul's Epistles 
 we are not able to state the circumstances of time and 
 place with so much precision and certainty as hitherto. 
 This circumstance, likewise, explains how, in such a 
 state of things the remaining Epistles of Paul afford 
 more room to doubt of their genuineness than was the 
 case in regard to those which, we see, well and easily 
 fall into the history of Paul as related in the Acts, 
 We shall therefore devote separate consideration to 
 these Epistles. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 Continuation. Of the pauline epistles com- 
 posed DURING AND AFTER PAULAS IMPRISONMENT 
 AT ROME. 
 
 Of the Epistles composed by Paul during his im- 
 prisonment at Rome, the Epistles to the Philippians, 
 Colossians and Philemon can be easily shown with 
 sufficient certainty to be genuine writings of the Apos- 
 tle. First, as to the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul 
 clearly represents himself therein, not only as a prison- 
 er, but also as a prisoner at Rome ; for he speaks of 
 the barracks occupied by the imperial guards (the 
 Praetorium : Luther translates the word by Richt-haus, 
 or hall of justice, Phil. 1: 13), into which the fame of 
 his imprisonment had extended itself. Probably Paul 
 had won over to the Gospel the soldiers set to guard 
 him, to whom he was wont to preach, and, through 
 these, others in the camp may have been converted. 
 Even the imperial palace itself is mentioned by Paul 
 (Phil. 4: 22) as having been already penetrated by the 
 seeds of the word of God. These clear allusions leave 
 not the slightest doubt that the Epistle was written from 
 Rome. Nor can any doubt remain as to the question 
 whether it was really written to the inhabitants of the 
 Macedonian city Philippi. For, according to Acts 
 9 
 
98 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 16: 12 seq., the apostle's labors in this city had been 
 particularly blest. The Lord at once opened the heart 
 of Lydia, so that she believed the preaching of Paul. 
 An unfortunate occurrence respecting a damsel pos- 
 sessed with a spirit of divination, which the apostle ex- 
 pelled, constrained him to leave the city. The church 
 at Philippi, however, always preserved a particular at- 
 tachment to the apostle Paul, and his acknowledgment 
 of this fact runs through the whole of his letter to them. 
 The apostle calls them his brethren dearly beloved 
 and longed for, his joy and crown (Phil. 4: 1), and 
 thanks the Philippian Christians that they so faith- 
 fully had respect to his bodily necessities (Phil. 4: 15, 
 16). These characteristics are decisive in favor of the 
 genuineness of the Epistle, which, moreover, has not 
 been contested either in ancient or modern times. 
 
 The case is the same in regard to the Epistle to the 
 Colossians, This church was not founded by Paul in 
 person ; as he himself indicates in Col. 2: 1. He had 
 indeed been in Phrygia, but had not visited the city of 
 Colosse on his journey through this province of Asia 
 Minor. Paul nevertheless wrote to them, as also to 
 the Romans, in part from universal christian love, 
 which called upon him to acknowledge the members 
 of every church of Christ as brethren, and in part from 
 the special reason, that the Gospel had been carried to 
 Colosse by disciples of his, particularly Epaphras. 
 The immediate occasion of his Epistle, however, was, 
 that heretics threatened to draw away the church from 
 the true faith. These individuals were not of the or- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 99 
 
 dinary Judaizing class ; along with much that was Jew- 
 ish they had some Gnostic characteristics. Now Phry- 
 gia is the precise spot where, from the earliest times 
 downward, we find a prevalent tendency to a fantastic 
 apprehension of religion. Thus the circumstance, that 
 according to Paul's representation men of this stamp 
 had gained influence in Colosse, suits perfectly well 
 with what we know of that city. Nor is it otherwise 
 than very natural, that few particular allusions occur in 
 the Epistle, as he was not personally known to the 
 church. He however mentions his imprisonment, and 
 sends salutations also from some persons of their ac- 
 quaintance who were in his vicinity, among others from 
 Aristarchus (Col. 4: 10), who, as we learn from the 
 Acts, had come to Rome with Paul and Luke (27: 1). 
 The latter companion of Paul likewise salutes the be- 
 lievers in Phrygia (4: 14). Of individuals themselves 
 resident in Colosse he saluted especially Archippus 
 (4: 17) who occupied some ministry in the church. 
 Concerning this man, as also concerning Onesimus, 
 whom Paul mentions (Col. 4 : 9), we gain more par- 
 ticular information from the Epistle to Philemon. In 
 this Epistle to the Colossians, likewise, every thing har- 
 monizes so exactly with Paul's circumstances in gene- 
 ral and his relation to the church which he addressed 
 in particular, that no one has ever been led to question 
 its genuineness, either in ancient or modern days. 
 
 With the same entire unanimity has the genuineness 
 of Paul's Epistle to Philemon, likewise, been always 
 admitted. This delightful little Epistle so clearly ex- 
 
100 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 hibits all the characteristics of the great apostle, and is 
 so utterly free from every thing which would make it 
 probable that any person could have a motive in forg- 
 ing it, that no one would ever entertain the idea of de- 
 nying that Paul was its author. Philemon, to whom 
 the Epistle is addressed, probably lived in Colosse, for 
 that Archippus, who held an ofSce in the church at 
 Colosse, appears here as his son, and Appia as his wife 
 (Phil. V. 2). Probably Philemon was an opulent man ; 
 for he had so spacious a house that it accommodated 
 the assemblies of believers. Paul wrote this Epistle, 
 likewise, in confinement (v. 13), and sends salutations 
 from all those w^ho, according to the Acts and the Epis- 
 tle to the Colossians, were in his vicinity (v. 23, 24). 
 Onesimus, who had fled from the relation of bondage 
 which he had sustained towards Philemon in Colosse, 
 Paul sends back to his master, whom he informs that 
 his slave had been led by him to obey the Gospel ; so 
 that Philemon is to receive back again as a brother him 
 whom he had lost as a slave. The whole of this small 
 Epistle comprises, indeed, no important doctrinal con- 
 tents ; but it is an exhibition of interior, deep feeling, 
 and delicate regard to circumstances on the part of the 
 apostle, and as such has always been very dear and 
 valuable to the church. 
 
 In regard to the Epistle to the Ephesians, however, 
 the case is totally different from what it is in regard to 
 the three other Epistles sent from Rome. There are 
 so many remarkable circumstances in relation to this 
 Epistle, that we can easily comprehend how its genu- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 101 
 
 ineness has been often brought in question. Still, all 
 the doubts which may have been excited are complete- 
 ly removed on a closer examination, so that it can by 
 no means be denied that the Epistle was written by 
 the apostle, even if its actual destination to Ephesus 
 cannot be established. 
 
 If it be considered that Paul, as we saw above in the 
 historical account of the apostle's life, was twice in 
 Ephesus, and that once he even resided there for about 
 three years, it must certainly appear very strange that, 
 in an Epistle to this church, of the elders of which Paul 
 had taken leave in so pathetic a manner (Acts 20: 17), 
 there should be found no salutations. In writing to the 
 Romans, Paul, though he had never been at Rome, 
 sent salutations to so many persons, that their names 
 fill an entire chapter ; while in this Epistle not a single 
 person is greeted. Moreover, there are no personal 
 and confidential allusions in any part of the Epistle. 
 Paul appears only in the general relation of a christian 
 teacher and a friend to his readers. There is certainly 
 something extremely strange in this character of the 
 Epistle, particularly, moreover, as that which we should 
 especially expect to find in the Epistle, viz. allusion to 
 heretics, against which Paul had so expressly warned 
 the Ephesian Elders, is entirely wanting (Acts 20 : 29 
 seq.) 
 
 The difficulties are increased, when we know what 
 
 was the case originally concerning the address to the 
 
 readers of the Epistle (Eph. 1: 1). Instead of ^^ Paul, 
 
 an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to the 
 
 9* 
 
102 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 saints which are at Ephesus,^^ as it stands in most cop- 
 ies, Marcion, in his Ms., read : '^ to the saints at Lao- 
 dicea,^^ In other Mss. there was no name at all, nei- 
 ther Ephesus, nor Laodicea ; and in these the inscrip- 
 tion of the Epistle ran thus : ^' Paul, an apostle of Je- 
 sus Christ, by the will of God, to the saints which 
 
 dwell at ." Instead of the name was a vacant 
 
 space, w^hich however was often neglected by the cop- 
 yists, who thus perplexed the matter still further. 
 
 In addition to all this, if the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians be compared with that to the Colossians, we shall 
 find the same fundamental thought, and often even the 
 same train of ideas ; only the first is more minute and 
 expanded, while in the Epistle to the Colossians the 
 thoughts are more concisely and briefly presented. On 
 account of this relative character it has been declared, 
 that the Epistle to the Ephesians is probably only an 
 enlargement of the Epistle to the Colossians, made 
 with a special design by some other hand. But, though 
 for a moment such a supposition might not appear alto- 
 gether unfounded, its plausibility is completely dissipa- 
 ted, when the peculiar character of the Epistle is made 
 apparent by a right and thorough notion of its origin. 
 The Epistle to the Ephesians is undoubtedly what is 
 termed a circular letter, directed not to a single church 
 but to many at once. In such a letter, therefore, 
 there could be no personal allusions, because what 
 might interest one circle of readers might be unintelli- 
 gible to another. In this Epistle, therefore, Paul ad- 
 heres exclusively to generalities, and touches only on 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 103 
 
 such topics as would be of interest to all members of 
 the churches for whom the Epistle was intended. Now, 
 on the supposition that Ephesus and Laodicea were of 
 the number of those churches for which the Epistle 
 was intended, nothing is more easy of explanation than 
 the fact, that the name of the former was in the inscrip- 
 tion of some Mss. and the name of the latter in that of 
 others. The messenger who carried the apostolic 
 letter may have taken several copies with him in which 
 the space for the name of the place was not filled out 
 and remained thus until they were dehvered, when the 
 name of the church which received any particular one 
 was added to it. The diffusion of the Epistle abroad 
 was mainly from the capital city Ephesus ; and hence 
 the name Ephesus got into the inscription of most of 
 the Mss. Marcion, however, came into possession of 
 a transcript from the copy which was delivered at La- 
 odicea, and for this reason he read Laodicea instead of 
 Ephesus in the inscription. In some copies there may 
 have been a total neglect to fill up the spaces left va- 
 cant for the names ; and in this way some Mss. got in- 
 to circulation in which no city was designated. 
 
 It is seen how satisfactorily and completely, on this 
 single supposition, that the Epistle to the Ephesians 
 was a circular letter, our difficulties disappear at once. 
 It is true the striking resemblance of the Epistle to that 
 to the Colossians still remains ; and in recent times the 
 greatest stress has been laid on this very point. Both 
 Epistles have essentially the same contents ; only the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians is more full and minute, as 
 
104 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 has been already remarked. But let it be considered 
 that the two Epistles were written not only about the 
 same time, but under entirely similar circumstances. 
 Is it then to be wondered at, that there is a strikino: 
 similarity in contents and arrangement ? What pur- 
 pose could there have been in forging or counterfeiting 
 an Epistle, in which the fraudulent author said the same 
 things which were contained in a genuine Epistle of 
 the man to whom he wished that his production should 
 be ascribed ? It is therefore clear that there is nothing 
 in this resemblance of the Epistle to the Ephesians to 
 that to the Colossians, which can justify us in inferring 
 the spuriousness of either. For, whether we suppose 
 that the longest (that to the Ephesians), was written 
 first, and that Paul afterwards repeated the same 
 thoughts in the shortest (that to the Colossians), or, 
 vice versa, that he wrote the shortest first, and after- 
 wards felt himself called upon to state the same ideas 
 more at length in the other, there is not the least harm 
 done by their similarity to each other, particularly as 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians contains many ideas whol- 
 ly peculiar to the apostle Paul, which are wanting in the 
 Epistle to the Colossians, and this, too, in his own phra- 
 seology and style. 
 
 It is to be observed further, that Paul in his Epistle 
 to the Colossians mentions a letter to the church at 
 Laodicea, and charges the former to communicate their 
 Epistle to the believers in Laodicea, and in return tore- 
 quest the Epistle addressed to them. Now because, 
 as we have seen, Marcion regarded the Epistle to the 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 105 
 
 Ephesians as having been directed to the Laodiceans, 
 it has been supposed that our Epistle to the Ephesians 
 was the one meant by Paul. But, plausible as this 
 may appear at first sight, it is still improbable, on a 
 closer examination, that it is correct; for, first, the great 
 similarity between the two Epistles makes against it^ as 
 this must evidently have rendered their mutual transfer 
 of less consequence. Then, too, it is not common to 
 direct special salutations to be given to those to whom 
 we write ourselves at the same time, which is done by 
 Paul in relation to the Laodiceans in his letter to the 
 Colossians (passim). Moreover, our Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, as a circular letter, could not well be desig- 
 nated by the name : Epistle to the Laodiceans. Thus 
 it is far more probable that this letter was a separate 
 one, which has been lost to us. 
 
 As early as the time of Jerome, there existed a sep- 
 arate Epistle to the Laodiceans, different from that to 
 the Ephesians. But the Father just mentioned re- 
 marks, that all without exception reject it. It is prob- 
 able, therefore, that, on account of the passage Col. 4: 
 15, 16, some one had forged an Epistle to the Laodi- 
 ceans, just as was the case, as we have before stated, 
 with the first Epistle to the Corinthians which was 
 lost. 
 
 There remain therefore only the three Epistles of 
 the Apostle which are usually comprehended under 
 the title of Pastoral letters, viz. the two to Timothy, 
 and that to Titus. They are all three occupied with 
 a consideration of the duties of a pastor of the church 
 
106 
 
 PAULINE EPISTLES, 
 
 of Christj and on account of this common purport are 
 classed under the general designation which we have 
 mentioned. In a close investigation of the contents 
 and the historical allusions of these Epistles there arise 
 very many difficulties, on which account they have 
 become subject to doubt beyond all the other Pauline 
 Epistles. Ancient tradition is certainly wholly in favor 
 of their genuineness, as in relation to the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. For the circumstance that Marcion did 
 not have them in his canon is not regarded as important 
 even by opponents of the Epistles, who are at all im- 
 partial. It was undoubtedly only through accident 
 that these Epistles remained unknown to him, and to 
 his native city Sinope, upon the Black Sea. For had 
 he possessed historical reasons against its reception, 
 they could not have been so completely lost at a later 
 period. We may here see, in fact, a very important 
 evidence in behalf of the genuineness of these Epistles. 
 For Timothy lived, when Paul wrote to him, not in a 
 distant, unknown place, but in Ephesus, one of the 
 chief cities frequented by the Christians of the ancient 
 church. The scene of the labors of Titus, was the 
 isle of Crete, which also, on account of its vicinity to 
 Corinth and toother important churches, maintained live- 
 ly intercourse with the churches generally. Now, how 
 Epistles directed to persons laboring in places of so 
 much note, and holding so high a rank, as being assis- 
 tants of the apostle, could gain the reputation of being 
 genuine throughout the whole ancient church, when 
 they were really forged in the name of the apostle, is 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 107 
 
 indeed difficult of comprehension, as so many must 
 have been able to expose the deception. Supposing, 
 therefore, that on a close investigation of the contents 
 of the Epistle there should appear much that is strange, 
 it must be considered as losing a great deal of its in- 
 fluence in relation to the question of the genuineness 
 of the Epistles, from the fact that this is so firmly es- 
 tablished by the tradition of the church. 
 
 Another circumstance to be premised, which is very 
 much in favor of their genuineness, is that in all the 
 three Epistles there occurs a multitude of personal and 
 particular allusions. Now it is clear that an impostor, 
 who was palming off his own Epistles as another's (for 
 such is the language which we must use concerning 
 the author of these three compositions, if they are not 
 the work of Paul himself, since he expressly names 
 himself as the author, besides indicating the fact in a 
 manner not to be mistaken), would avoid as much as 
 possible all special circumstances, because he would be 
 too likely to betray himself in touching upon them, 
 since particulars cannot be very minutely known to a 
 stranger. Moreover, a forgery generally wants that 
 graphic exactness which is exhibited so manifestly in 
 writings that spring out of actually existing circumstan- 
 ces. Hence every unprejudiced person would in the 
 outset think it very unlikely that a writing was forged, 
 in which there occurred such special allusions as we 
 find in 1 Tim. 5: 23, where Paul says to Timothy : 
 ^^ Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy 
 stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." Of the 
 
108 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 same nature, also, is a passage in the second Epistle to 
 Timothy (2 Tim. 4: 13), in which the Apostle com- 
 plains that he had, through forgetfulness, left his cloak, 
 some books, and parchments with a friend, and desires 
 Timothy to take care of them. Plainly, such things 
 are not forged ; for to what end should any one give 
 himself the useless trouble to invent such insignificant 
 matters, if they did not actually happen, since they 
 could not do either any harm or any good. In the same 
 Epistle (2 Tim. 4: 20, 21), Paul sends salutations 
 from many individuals, and gives various information 
 respecting persons of their mutual acquaintance. '^ Eras- 
 tus abode at Corinth," says Paul, '' but Trophimus 
 have I left at Miletus sick ;" and he invites Timothy 
 himself to come to him before winter. If any person 
 invented all this, we must at least call him extremely 
 inconsiderate ; for he ought not certainly to have men- 
 tioned such noted cities ; since the Christians who 
 dwelt in them could learn without any great difficulty 
 w^hether any one of the name of Trophimus was ever 
 at Miletus with the apostle, and was left there by him 
 sick, and whether Erasmus abode at Corinth. The 
 same is true of the Epistle to Titus, as one may be con- 
 vinced by examining Titus 3: 12. 
 
 Still, let us look at the reasons which are advanced 
 against the genuineness of these Epistles. Certain 
 investigators have thought that there was in all three 
 of them something, not only in the phraseology, but in 
 the style altogether, which cannot but be regarded as 
 unlike Paul. The weakness of such statements, how- 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 109 
 
 ever, may be clearly inferred from the fact, that another 
 investigator, of no less acuteness, supposes the second 
 Epistle to Timothy and the one to Titus to be really 
 genuine Epistles of Paul, while the first to Timothy is 
 spurious and imitated from the other two. This sec- 
 ond investigator, therefore, founds his argument for the 
 spuriousness of the first of the three Epistles on the 
 genuineness of the two others, thus overthrowing, by 
 his own reasoning, the position of the former investiga- 
 tors in regard to the necessity of supposing them all 
 spurious. The historical difficulties, however, which 
 are discerned on close examination of the Epistles, are 
 of more consequence. It is from these, properly, that 
 all attacks upon these pastoral letters have originated, 
 and in these they find their excuse ; only winters ought 
 not to have so manifestly confounded difficulties with 
 positive arguments against the genuineness of a writ- 
 ing. 
 
 As to the first Epistle to Timothy, the principal 
 difficulty is, to point out a period in Paul's life exactly 
 coinciding with the statement which the apostle makes 
 at the outset (1: 3). He says that when he went to 
 Macedonia he left Timothy at Ephesus, to protect the 
 true faith and thwart heretics in that city. Now we 
 know, indeed, that when Demetrius, the silver-smith, 
 drove Paul from Ephesus, he went to Macedonia ; but 
 it is impossible that he should then have left Timothy 
 behind at Ephesus, since he sent him before himself to 
 Macedonia with Erastus. Thus, when Paul wrote hi;* 
 second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia, 
 10 
 
110 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 Timothy was with him. (Comp. Acts 19: 22. 2 Cor. 
 1: 1.) Moreover, we are informed of no other journey 
 of Paul from Ephesus to Macedonia, when he left Tim- 
 othy behind in the city to watch over the church ; and 
 hence arises a difficulty in assigning this Epistle its 
 proper place in Paul's life. 
 
 ' There are similar circumstances respecting the second 
 Epistle. This Epistle, too, is directed to Timothy at 
 Ephesus. Paul clearly writes from Rome. (Comp. 2 
 Tim. 4: 16, 17 with 2 Tim. 1: 16, 18. 4 : 19.) He 
 was in bonds (1: 16), and was expecting a new exami- 
 nation of his cause, Now^ he invites Timothy to come 
 to him, and requests him to make haste and come be- 
 fore winter (4: 13, 21). But, according to Col. 1: 1, 
 Philemon v. 1, and Phil. 1: 1, Timothy, at the time 
 of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, as related by Luke in 
 the Acts, was in Paul's company ; and hence it seems 
 impossible that Paul could have written to him at 
 Ephesus. It is true Paul's imprisonment at Rome 
 lasted two years, and it might be supposed that Timo- 
 thy was for some time with him, and for some time 
 away during his imprisonment ; but there are other 
 circumstances which make it very improbable that the 
 second Epistle to Timothy was written during the same 
 imprisonment in which the Epistles to the Ephesians, 
 Colossians, and Philippians were composed. Accord- 
 ing to 2 Tim. 4: 18, Paul had left at Troas, a cloak, 
 books, and parchments, which Timothy was to bring 
 w^ith him when he came to Paul (v. 21). Now, be- 
 fore Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which lasted two 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. Ill 
 
 years, he was also two years in prison at Caesarea* 
 We should therefore, be compelled to suppose that he 
 had left these things behind at Troas, four years be- 
 fore. But certainly it is probable that Paul would 
 have made some other disposition of them in the mean 
 time, if they were of any consequence to him. But 
 even if we may suppose that Paul would send for 
 clothing and books which had laid at Troas for years, 
 it is out of the question that he should say in relation 
 to a journey made four years before : ^' Erastus abode 
 at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick." 
 (2 Tim. 4: 20.) Miletus was in the vicinity of Ephe- 
 sus, at a distance from Rome where Paul was writing. 
 Now if Paul had not been in Miletus for four years, 
 it is wholly impossible that he should have mentioned 
 the illness of one whom he left behind at Miletus so 
 long a time before, because his case must long since 
 have been decided. Similar difficulties present them- 
 selves, likewise, on a close examination of the Epistle 
 to Titus » For Paul writes in this Epistle (1: 4, 5. 
 3: 12), that he himself had been in the island of Crete, 
 and had left Titus there behind him for the same pur- 
 pose which caused him to leave Timothy in Ephesus ; 
 and states that he intended to spend the winter in Ni- 
 copolis, whither he directs Titus to come and meet him. 
 Now, it is true, Paul, according to the Acts (27: 8) 
 was once in Crete, but it was as a prisoner and on a 
 voyage. In these circumstances, therefore, he could 
 not accomplish much ; nor could he leave Titus be- 
 hind, as on his voyage Titus was nowhere in his neigh- 
 
112 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 borhood. Nothing is told us in any part of the New 
 Testament history as to Paul's residence in Nicopolis, 
 and it is the more difficult to come to any assurance re- 
 specting it from the fact, that there were so many cities 
 of that name. Thus this Epistle, likewise, cannot be as- 
 signed to its place in Paul's history, and therefore it is 
 perfectly true, that there are difficulties incident to an 
 examination of these pastoral letters ; but, as we have 
 before observed, difficulties are not equivalent to posi- 
 tive arguments against their genuineness. It is true 
 they would be, were we so exactly and minutely ac- 
 quainted with the history of the apostle Paul, that such 
 a difficulty in assigning an Epistle its place among the 
 circumstances of his hfe would be the same as an im- 
 possibility. If, for example, we knew with certainty 
 that the apostle Paul never resided in any city by the 
 name of Nicopolis, we should be obhged to consider 
 the Epistle to Titus, which purports to have been 
 written from some place called Nicopolis, as spurious 
 and forged. 
 
 But this is so far from being the case, that in those 
 Epistles of Paul which are admitted to be genuine, 
 very many occurrences are noticed, of which we have 
 no further information. A remarkable instance of this 
 kind is the well known passage, 2 Cor. 11: 23 seq,, 
 in which Paul states, that he had five times received 
 of the Jews forty stripes save one, thrice been beaten 
 with rods, once stoned, thrice suffered shipwreck, etc. 
 etc. Of very few of these sufferings of Paul do we 
 know the particulars. How much, therefore, of what 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 113 
 
 took place in his life, may remain unknown to us. It 
 is to be remembered, too, that the brief general state- 
 ments given by Luke in the Acts extend over long pe- 
 riods in the apostle's life. At Corinth, Ephesus, Caesa- 
 rea, and Rome, Paul abode for years. Now, as slight 
 journeys abroad are, it is well known, commonly com- 
 prehended by historians in a residence at any particu- 
 lar place for a long period, may not this have been fre- 
 quently the case in Luke's history ? Many have 
 thought this probable, and have therefore supposed 
 short journeys from this or that place, and in this way 
 have attempted to find some situation in Paul's life, 
 which should appear suitable for the composition of 
 one or another of the pastoral letters. We will not 
 trouble our readers, however, with an enumeration of 
 these different views, which, nevertheless, show that it 
 is not impossible to designate some situation in which 
 Paul might have written these Epistles. We choose 
 rather to confine ourselves to the development of an 
 important supposition by which a suitable period of 
 time is obtained for all the three Epistles together, and 
 their relation to each other is determined. This sup- 
 position is, that Paul was set at liberty from the first 
 imprisonment at Rome related by Luke, (which had 
 lasted two years when Luke finished his book of Acts,) 
 performed important missionary tours afterward, and 
 was at last imprisoned a second time at Rome, and at 
 this time died there a martyr's death. It is very evi- 
 dent that if we can in this way gain space of time 
 for another journey to Asia and Crete, it will be easy 
 
 10* 
 
114 PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 to imagine the situations which gave ris€ to the first 
 Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus. The second 
 Epistle to Timothy must then have been written in 
 Rome itself during the second imprisonment, and any 
 remarkable expressions which it contains are then per- 
 fectly intelligible, if it be supposed that Paul wrote the 
 Epistle after his arrival at Rome from Asia Minor. 
 The only question is, whether this supposition, that 
 Paul was a second time imprisoned at Rome, is a mere 
 hypothesis, or can be sustained by any historical evi- 
 dence. Were it a mere conjecture, it must be admit- 
 ted, it would be of little importance. There are not 
 wanting, however, some historical facts of such a na- 
 ture as to confirm the supposition. First, we find it 
 current among the Fathers of the fourth century. It 
 is true, they do not expressly present historical grounds 
 for their opinion ; they seem rather to have inferred a 
 second imprisonment at Rome from the second Epis- 
 tle to Timothy. But, that ihey at once assumed a 
 second imprisonment, when they might have hit upon 
 other modes of explanation, seems to indicate a tradi- 
 tion, however obscure, in regard to the fact of its hav- 
 ing occurred. Moreover, we are told by a very an- 
 cient writer of the Roman church, the apostolic Father 
 Clemens Romanus, that Paul went to the farthest west. 
 This must mean Spain. In the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans (chap. XV.) Paul expresses a strong desire to 
 visit that country. This he cannot have done before 
 his first imprisonment ; it is not at all improbable, 
 therefore, that he may afterwards have journeyed to 
 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 115 
 
 this country, the most western region of the then known 
 world. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of this supposition, so 
 much is clear — the difficulties with which the atten- 
 tive reader meets in the Epistles, are no arguments 
 against their genuineness. Indeed every thing essen- 
 tial is in their favor. The internal similarity of the 
 Epistles, however, makes it probable that they were 
 composed about the same time, and the idea that they 
 were written during the second imprisonment, of which 
 we have spoken, accords very well with this supposi- 
 tion. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Of the investigations of learned men respecting the 
 genuineness of the writings of the New Testament, we 
 have hitherto been able to give a very favorable ac- 
 count ; but the case seems now to be different, in con- 
 sidering the investigations respecting the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. For, he who has been accustomed to 
 reckon this Epistle among those of Pauline origin (the 
 Lutheran version, such as it now is, expressly attribu- 
 ting it to this apostle, although Luther himself, as will 
 be shown presently, held a different opinion), may be 
 surprised at hearing that the latest, extremely thorough 
 and generally impartial, investigations respecting this 
 important Epistle, determine that Paul was not its au- 
 thor.* We have before remarked, that the genuine- 
 ness of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not at all in ques- 
 tion : the only inquiry is, who was its author. For 
 
 ♦ But see Professor Stuart's discussion of this point in his 
 masterly Commentary upon the Epistle. See also an able 
 discussion of it in a work published at London in 1830, en- 
 titled '^ Biblical Notes and Dissertations, etc." written by Jo- 
 seph John Gurney, an Englishman, member of the Society 
 of Friends. Mr. Gurney's dissertation was republished in 
 the Biblical Repository for July 1832 (Vol. II. p. 409).— Th. 
 
118 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 he has neither named nor designated himself through- 
 out the Epistle. Thus, even though Paul should not 
 be considered the author, it does not follow that the 
 Epistle is a forged, spurious one. 
 
 Now, that the case of this Epistle must be peculiar, 
 is clear from the fact, that it was not admitted into the 
 midst of the other Pauline Epistles. In the Greek 
 Testament it does indeed come directly after the Epis- 
 tle to Philemon, and thus by the side of the collection 
 of Paul's Epistles (though Luther has placed it after 
 the Epistles of Peter and John) ; but it is clear that 
 this large and important Epistle would have been pla- 
 ced among the other large Epistles of the same apos- 
 tle to whole churches, perhaps after the Epistles to the 
 Corinthians, had it been originally regarded as a pro- 
 duction of the apostle to the Gentiles.* Consequent- 
 ly, its position after the Epistle to Philemon, the small- 
 est and most inconsiderable of Paul's private letters, 
 shows plainly, that it was not generally reckoned as 
 one of the Pauline Epistles, until after the collection of 
 them was completed. However, all this is, of course, 
 of an incidental nature ; there are far more important 
 reasons, which make it improbable that Paul was the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and to the con- 
 sideration of these we will now direct our attention. 
 
 * According to Epiphamus, a church-father of the fourth 
 century, some Mss. placed the Epistle to the Hebrews before 
 the Epistles to Timothy ; probably only because it seemed to 
 some copyists improper that an Epistle to a whole church 
 should stand after Epistles to private individuals. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 119 
 
 The form of the Epistle is, it is seen, entirely dif- 
 ferent from that of Paul's letters. He opens each of 
 his Epistles, not only with his name and the title of his 
 sacred office, but also with an apostolic salutation : 
 " Grace be with you and peace from God our Father, 
 and our Lord Jesus Christ." Nothing of this kind is 
 to be seen at the commencement of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. It begins like a treatise (which indeed 
 many have been inclined to suppose it to be), without 
 any reference to its readers : ^^ God, who at sundry 
 times and in divers manners spake in time past unto 
 the fathers by the prophets, etc." The conclusion 
 bears more resemblance to Paul's Epistles ; for it con- 
 tains a salutation, such as those of the apostle, and 
 announces a visit to the readers of the Epistle on the 
 part of the author in company with Timothy. The 
 writer sends a salutation on the part of the brethren 
 from Italy ; from whence it has been erroneously in- 
 ferred that the Epistle was written in Italy, whereas 
 the phraseology indicates exactly the contrary. ^ For 
 
 * The original Greek reads, ol otno rriq ^IiaUagj which is 
 translated in our English version " they of Italy." Olshausen 
 considers it necessary to translate otnofrom, making the whole 
 expression to mean, those who had come from Italy to some 
 place where Paul was writing. Consultation of a good Greek 
 lexicon will cause any one to doubt whether there is any 
 such necessity as Olshausen supposes. See, for example, 
 in Passow, under the word ano, such expressions as, ai/^ia 
 dno TgojoiVj the blood of the Trojans, ol ano Tlldtayvog, thej 
 of Plato's party, etc. — Tr. 
 
120 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the author would not have employed such an expres- 
 sion unless he was writing out of Italy in a place whith- 
 er brethren had arrived from that country. The Epis- 
 tle contains no particular salutations from one individual 
 to another ; but this is not strange, as it is addressed to 
 so many. For the Hebrews^ to whom the Epistle was 
 written, were the Jewish Christians who lived in Pal- 
 estine. Their benefit was intended by the entire con- 
 tents of this profound Epistle. It analyzes thoroughly 
 the relation of the Old Testament to the New. 
 
 Nevertheless, it may be said, no very great stress 
 ought to be laid upon the external form of the Epistle ; 
 Paul might for once have deviated from his usual cus- 
 tom. But the historical evidence is very decisive in 
 regard to this Epistle. For, in the western church, 
 and particularly in the Roman, the Epistle to the He- 
 brews was not at all acknowledged as Paul's production 
 until sometime in the fourth century. It was through 
 Augustine^s means, who died so late as 430 A. D., 
 that it first became common to ascribe it to Paul ; and 
 even this Father of the church sometimes speaks doubt- 
 fully of the Epistle, as do other Fathers after his time. 
 Plainly this is very remarkable. For, if it be consid- 
 ered how well known Paul was, and how deeply loved 
 at Rome, and that he was twice imprisoned there for 
 years, it will be evident that it must have been known 
 in that city whether Paul was its author or not. Thus 
 the testimony of this Roman church is of the highest 
 importance in the question under examination. Now, 
 it is observable, that Clement of Rome, an immediate 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 121 
 
 disciple of Paul, makes very ample use of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, and even introduces long passages of 
 it into his own Epistle to the Corinthians. This is 
 indeed a very decisive proof of the high antiquity of 
 the Epistle ; but Clement does not mention the au- 
 thor of the writing from which he quoted, and there- 
 fore the use he has made of it has no further influence 
 in regard to the question, who was its author. Still, 
 he must certainly have liked the Epistle and esteemed 
 it very highly ; otherwise he would not have been in- 
 duced to embellish his own Epistle with large passa- 
 ges from it, which are interwoven with his train of 
 thought as though they were original. 
 
 That in the West there was general uncertainty in 
 regard to the author of the Epistle, is shown by the 
 circumstance, that an African Father of the church, 
 TertuUian, names Barnabas as its author. Others, 
 especially some orientals, ascribed it to Luke, and some 
 to the before-mentioned Clement, though unfortunately 
 without good reason. There was no uniform tradition 
 in the West in regard to its authorship ; it was, from 
 conjecture alone, ascribed to various individuals. 
 
 The case was totally different with the Greek church 
 in the East. The predominant opinion with this was 
 that Paul was the author. It was the celebrated Fa- 
 thers of the Alexandrian church especially, together 
 with the Syrians, who made great use of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews and referred it to the apostle Paul. The 
 old Syriac version contains it in its canon. This cir- 
 cumstance is not to be overlooked, particularly as the 
 11 
 
122 EPISTLE TO THE HEBHEWS, 
 
 Epistle is directed to the Christians in Palestine, from 
 whom of course it might very easily come into the 
 bands of the neighboring Syrians and Egyptians. His- 
 torical testimony, however, in favor of any Epistle 
 must be sought for mainly in the place where it was 
 composed and that to which it was addressed. One 
 of these furnishes evidence against the Pauline origin 
 of the Epistle and the other in its favor ; a circum- 
 stance which, as we shall see hereafter, is of no slight 
 consequence in an inquiry respecting the canonical 
 authority of the Epistle. 
 
 Although the Greek, and especially the Alexandri- 
 an, Fathers were favorably disposed towards the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, the learned among them admitted 
 the great difference between it and the other Epistles 
 of Paul. They explained this difference by suppos- 
 ing that Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew and Luke 
 translated it into Greek. This Evangelist was fixed 
 upon as the translator, because, as was thought, a re- 
 semblance was discovered between his style and that 
 of the Epistle. The supposition^ however, is not at 
 all probable ; for the style of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews is so peculiarly Greek, that it cannot have been 
 translated from the Hebrew. We may see, merely, 
 from the conjecture thus presented, that inquiring minds, 
 in perusing the Epistle, came to doubt whether it was 
 really Pauline in its character, even where it was com- 
 monly considered as a Pauline production. 
 
 Hence it was, that our Luther^ when he studied the 
 Scriptures in a critical manner, renewed the doubts 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREVv^S. 123 
 
 respecting the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, after it had been regarded throughout the mid- 
 dle ages as the apostle Paul's production. He writes 
 on this point as follows : " As yet, we have mentioned 
 only the principal, indubitably genuine books of the New^ 
 Testament. The four following books, however, "^ 
 have in times past held a different rank. And first, 
 that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul's, nor 
 any apostle's, is proved by the tenor of v. 3. of Chap, 
 ii : ' How shall we escape if we neglect so great sal- 
 vation, which at the first began to be spoken by the 
 Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard 
 him.' It is clear that he speaks of the apostles as 
 though he were a disciple, to whom this salvation had 
 come from the apostles, perhaps long after." (See 
 Walch's Ed. Luther's Works, Th. XIV. p. 146.) 
 The passage to which Luther refers is indeed remark- 
 able, and has been employed by scholars of a more 
 recent day to prove that Paul cannot have been the 
 author of the Epistle. For we know that he always 
 maintained strongly (particularly in the outset of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians), in opposition to his Jewish 
 adversaries, who presumed to dispute his apostolic au- 
 thority, that he was not a disciple of the apostles, but 
 had received everything from the immediate revelation 
 of God. How then is it conceivable, that in Heb. 2: 
 3, he should have represented himself as a disciple of 
 
 * He means, besides the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epis- 
 tles of James and Jiide and the Revelation of John. 
 
124 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the apostle's ; and this in an Epistle to Jewish Chris- 
 tians, before whom it was specially important for him 
 to appear as a real apostle of our Lord ? This circum- 
 stance, moreover, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
 written to Jewish Christians, deprives of all probability 
 that interpretation of the passage according to which 
 Paul speaks merely out of courtesy, as though he him- 
 self was a disciple of the apostles, which in reality was 
 the case only with his readers. For then Paul would 
 have expressed himself in a manner very liable to be 
 misapprehended, and that this should have happened 
 when his relation to the Jew^ish Christians was so pe- 
 culiar, is extremely improbable. Luther, with his 
 free, bold disposition, which did indeed sometimes car- 
 ry him beyond the limits of truth in his critical investi- 
 gations, did not content himself with merely disputing 
 the Pauline origin of the Epistle ; he even ventured 
 to institute conjectures respecting its author. He re- 
 garded the celebrated Ajpollos as its author; the same 
 of whom mention is made in the Acts. In truth this 
 supposition possesses extreme probability, and has there- 
 fore, of all the hypotheses respecting the author of the 
 Epistle, recommended itself most even to recent investi- 
 gators. The book of Acts describes this man as having 
 precisely that character of mind w^hich the author of 
 this Epistle must have had, to judge from its contents. 
 He is stated (Acts 18: 24) to have been by birth an 
 Alexandrian, an eloquent man, and mighty in the 
 Scriptures. Now, the author of the Epistle to the He- 
 brew's shows himself to have been thoroughly acquainted 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 125 
 
 with the Old Testament, and eloquently maintains the 
 deep and sublime ideas which it presents. According 
 to the same passage, he constantly overcame the Jews 
 in conversation with them, and proved publicly, by 
 means of the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ. 
 Undoubtedly, in these disputes he made use of just such 
 forcible expositions of the Old Testament as those of 
 which we find so many in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and vv hich were very commonly employed by the Alex- 
 andrians in particular. The idea that Titus, or Luke. 
 or Clement, might have been the author of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews is untenable, for this reason, if there 
 were no other, that these men were Gentiles by birth, 
 and the author declares himself a native Jev/, There 
 would be more reason for fixing upon Silas or Silvanus, 
 who were, as we know, Paul's companions, or, likewise. 
 upon Barnabas. For the last we have even one his- 
 torical evidence, as we have already remarked. A 
 Father of the church, Ter^t^/Zian, expressly ascribes the 
 Epistle to Barnabas. But, as we have an Epistle written 
 by this assistant of the apostles, we are able to see from 
 it with perfect certainty that he cannot be the author 
 (jf the Epistle to the Hebrews. His wdiole manner of 
 writing and thinking is different from the course of ideas 
 in this production. It is true there is nothing so de- 
 cisive against Silas ; but, too, there is nothing definite 
 in his favor. His peculiar character of mind is no 
 where described, as the character of Apollos is in the 
 Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The idea, therefore, that Silas was the author of the 
 11# 
 
126 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Epistle is a wholly unsupported conjecture. It is true, 
 too^ it is merely a conjecture, that Apollos wrote it ; 
 but it is a conjecture more probable than could be re- 
 quired or w^ished in respect to opinions of any other 
 nature than those in question. 
 
 But, though we could assign the name of the author, 
 it would be of little consequence in our investigation. 
 It is sufficient that we cannot suppose Paul to have 
 been the author. 
 
 Here, however, arises the very difficult question, 
 what we are to think of the canonical authority of the 
 .Epistle, if its author was not an apostle; for the 
 primitive church would not receive the writings of any 
 but these into the collection of sacred books, and those 
 who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g. the 
 Roman church, did it for the very reason, that they 
 could not admit Paul to have been its author. Must 
 we then reject the Epistle to the Hebreivs, or at least 
 esteem it less highly than the other writings of the 
 New Testament, because it was not ivritten by Paul 1 
 This inquiry merits the more careful consideration, be- 
 cause the contents of the Epistle are of a very pro- 
 found and important nature to the church generally, 
 and the evangelical church in particular. For the sa- 
 cred doctrine of the high-priesthood of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ is, in this very Epistle to the He- 
 brews, treated of more at length and more thoroughly 
 than in any other book of the New Testamjcnt. Hence 
 the circumstance that the Epistle is not from the pen 
 of the apostle Paul might give rise to inferences against 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 127 
 
 the validity of the doctrine which this Epistle in par- 
 ticular inculcates. 
 
 It must certainly be admitted that the ruling idea in 
 the formation of the canon was to admit only apostolic 
 productions. For although Mark and Luke, whose 
 writings were acknowledged by the whole church, 
 were not apostles, they were in intimate connection 
 with Peter and Paul, and their works were therefore 
 regarded as properly the productions of those apostles. 
 And this principle was perfectly correct. Though it 
 must be allowed that the Holy Spirit might exert its 
 power on others besides the apostles, and might enable 
 them to compose excellent productions, still it was 
 wise in the ancient church to restrict the canon of the 
 Holy Scriptures, which were to serve as the norm or 
 rule of faith and practice, for the complete develop- 
 ment of the kingdom of God, exclusively to apostolic 
 writings. For the Apostles, as most immediately con- 
 nected with our Saviour, had received into their souls 
 in the greatest abundance and purity the spirit of truth 
 which flowed forth from him. The more distant the 
 relation which individuals sustained to our Lord, the 
 feebler the influence of the Spirit from above upon 
 them, and the more easily might their acts be affected 
 by other influences. It was therefore necessary that 
 the church sliould admit as the norm of faith only such 
 writings as sprang from the most lively and purest op- 
 eration of the Holy Spirit, as it was manifested in the 
 apostles. Otiierwise there would have been ground 
 for fear lest errors, perhaps indeed of a slight character, 
 
128 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 might have crept in, and then been continued from 
 generation to generation in the Holy Scriptures, and 
 propagated as of sacred authority. It was such 
 thoughts undoubtedly which induced some learned 
 men to distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews and 
 certain other books of the New Testament, which 
 were not adopted with perfect unanimity by the prim- 
 itive church, from those which were properly canoni- 
 cal and universally acknowledged, denominating the 
 former deutero-canonicaL They probably regarded it 
 as possible that some error had crept into these books, 
 notwithstanding the excellence of their contents gen- 
 erally, and in order to obviate the influence of such er- 
 rors they were desirous of introducing an external sep- 
 aration of these v/ritings from those which were deci- 
 dedly apostolical. But, with regard to the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, we must say, that this separation appears 
 totally unfounded. Probable as it certainly is, that 
 Paul did not compose the Epistle, il is still certain that 
 its author WTote it under the influence of Paul, and an 
 influence indeed which exhibits itself still more definite- 
 ly than that of the same apostle over the writings of 
 Luke, or of Peter over the Gospel of Mark. This 
 position is sustained by history, as well as by the con- 
 tents of the Epistle, in the most decisive manner. 
 
 On the score of history, in the first place, we cannot, 
 except on the supposition that Paul had an essential 
 share in the composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 explain the remarkable circumstance that the entire 
 oriental church attributed it to the apostle. This view 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 129 
 
 continued to prevail in the East, even after it was very 
 well known that the western churches, particularly that 
 of Rome, held a different opinion. The tradition, that 
 Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 cannot have rested on mere conjecture, since there was 
 in fact much in the Epistle itself which constrained 
 learned men, who in the main shared the prevalent 
 opinion respecting the author of the Epistle, to resort 
 to expedients for the purpose of upholding the general 
 idea that Paul wrote the Epistle, and at the same time 
 of solving the difficulties which this supposition involv- 
 ed. Such an expedient, for example, was the idea, of 
 which we have before spoken, that Paul might have 
 written the Epistle in Hebrew, so that we have only a 
 translation of it. Let it be considered, too, that this 
 opinion of the Pauline origin of the Epistle prevailed 
 in the very countries to which its original readers be- 
 longed ; and then no one will doubt that the only mode 
 of explaining it is, to suppose Paul to have cooperated 
 in the composition of the Epistle, and the first readers 
 of it to have been aware of the fact, and on this ac- 
 count to have referred the Epistle to Paul himself. 
 
 To this is to be added, the character of the Epistle 
 itself For, although the ancient observation, that the 
 style of the Epistle is not Pauline, is perfectly well- 
 founded, still the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, 
 which is not to be mistaken, to the writings of the 
 great apostle of the Gentiles. If we merely keep in 
 mind, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to 
 Jewish Christians, while the other Pauline Epistles 
 
130 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 were all of them^ written to churches the majority of 
 whose members were Gentiles, we shall not discover 
 the least thing in the Epistle which could not have 
 proceeded from the mind of Paul. Indeed, the main 
 doctrine of the great apostle, that in the death of Jesus 
 an offering of reconcihation was made for the whole 
 world, that with and through it all the ceremonial ob- 
 servances of the Old Testament first obtained their ful- 
 filment as types of what was to come, forms the cen- 
 tral point of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If it be fur- 
 ther considered, that there was always a certain dis- 
 tance of demeanor between the apostle Paul and the 
 Jewish Christians, even the best of them, it w^ill be 
 very easy to understand why Paul did not write to 
 them himself; and still, it must have been his heart's 
 desire to exhibit clearly and in suitable detail his views 
 in regard t6 the law and its relation to Christianity, 
 which were of a profound nature and drawn directly 
 from the genuine spirit of the Gospel. What more 
 obvious mode of presenting these to the Hebrews, than 
 through the medium of a disciple or faithful friend, who, 
 like Apollos, had a correct apprehension of this rela« 
 ti©n between the old and new covenant. 
 
 Supposing this to have been the state of the case, 
 all the circumstances in regard to the Epistle are ex- 
 
 * Though the expression is thus general in the original, 
 of course only those Epistles which are directed to church- 
 es can be here referred to. The phraseology is exception^ 
 able, as some of Paul's letters are not directed to churches 
 at a]l, but to individuals. — Tr. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 131 
 
 plained. In the West it was know^n that Paul did not 
 write the Epistle. On this account the western church 
 denied that he was the author, without being able, how- 
 ever, to designate any other individual as the author. 
 In the East, on the other hand, it was known that he 
 had an influence in the coniposition of the Epistle ; 
 and moreover his spirit and his ideas were recognized 
 in it. In the East, therefore, it was much used ; 
 in the West less. In our days we may impartially 
 admit that Paul was not the writer of the Epistle, and 
 still maintain its perfect canonical authority, since the 
 apostle certainly exerted an essential influence over 
 its composition. 
 
 Thus, though this Epistle belongs to the class of 
 those which have not the unanimous voice of christian 
 antiquity in favor of their apostolic origin, still it can be 
 shown that this want of agreement did not arise from 
 any really suspicious state of things, but was occasion- 
 ed merely by the peculiar circumstances under which 
 it was composed. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 It has already been observed, in the first chapter, 
 that m early times the third collection of the writings 
 of the New Testament was termed that of the seven 
 Catholic Ejjistles, The Greek word Catholic means 
 general, in opposition to particular. Now as the church 
 general, in opposition to individual heretical parties, 
 was termed Catholic, so the same expression was used 
 to denote those writings which, as universally acknow- 
 ledged and used, it was designed to distinguish from 
 those which were current only in particular circles. 
 
 The fact that those writings, which, in addition to the 
 collections called the Gospel and the Apostle, were 
 acknowledged to be genuine and apostolical, were thus 
 united into one separate collection, produced this ad- 
 vantage, that it became thus more difficult ever to con- 
 found them with the many apocryphal writings which 
 were spread abroad in the ancient church. In regard 
 to the origin of this third collection, however, there is 
 an obscurity which can never be entirely dissipated. 
 At the end of the third and commencement of the fourth 
 century, the collection of the seven Catholic Epistles 
 first appears in history ; but who formed it, and where 
 it originated, we do not know. It is impossible, how- 
 ever, that it should have been accidentally formed, as 
 12 
 
134 CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 the position of the Epistles is too peculiar for us to sup- 
 pose this. The Epistle of James, which was by no 
 means unanimously regarded as apostolic, holds the 
 first place in the collection, while the first Epistle of 
 Peter and the first of John, which have always been 
 regarded as of apostolic authority, come afterward. 
 This very order of the seven Epistles, however, sug- 
 gests to us, by the way, a probable supposition as to 
 the place where the collection of these Catholic Epis- 
 tles must have originated. James, the author of the 
 Epistle of James in the canon, nowhere possessed a 
 higher reputation than in Palestine and Syria. For he 
 was a brother, i. e. according to the Hebrew mode of 
 speaking, a cousin of our Lord, and at the same time 
 bishop of the church at Jerusalem and head of the Jew- 
 ish Christians, as we shall presently show more at 
 length. In the same countries Peter was held in high 
 estimation as the one among our Lord's apostles to 
 whom, in particular, was committed the preaching of 
 the gospel among the Jews. It is probable, therefore, 
 that the collection of the Catholic Epistles originated 
 in Palestine or Syria, and, out of veneration for the 
 brother of our Lord and the first bishop of Jerusalem, 
 the author of the collection gave to the Epistle of James 
 the first place, and put those of Peter next. The 
 Epistles of John had less interest for him, on account 
 of his Judaizing sentiments, and the Epistle of Jude he 
 placed at the very end. The supposition we have 
 made finds confirmation in the fact, that a Father of the 
 Palestinian church, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, gives 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 135 
 
 US the first certain account of the existence of a collec- 
 tion of the seven Catholic Epistles. 
 
 From the various character of the writings classed 
 together in the collection, we may see clearly its late 
 origin. For it has already been mentioned above 
 (Chap. I.), that the first Epistles of John and that of 
 Peter were originally, as being very ancient and uni- 
 versally-admitted writings, connected with the Apostle^ 
 so called, i. e. the collection of the Pauline Epistles. 
 At a later period, in order to leave these latter by 
 themselves, the two Epistles were taken from the col- 
 lection of Pauline writings and classed with the five 
 other apostolic Epistles. These last, however, belong- 
 ed to the number of those which were universally ad- 
 mitted in primitive times, and thus Antilegomena and 
 Homologoumena were introduced into one and the same 
 collection. Still there arose from this procedure one 
 advantage, viz. that the Epistles of the same author 
 were, as was proper, brought together. Luther^ with 
 his excellent tact, correctly felt that the collection of 
 the Catholic Epistles unsuitably confounded writings 
 which were universally admitted with those which 
 were not, and therefore placed the Epistles of Peter 
 and John immediately after those of Paul, and then at 
 the end, after the Epistle to the Hebrews, the letters 
 of James and Jude and the Revelation of John. Still, 
 this did not wholly do away with the impropriety, as 
 the second Epistle of Peter also had been disputed 
 with special zeal. Had he, however, placed this Epis- 
 tle likewise at the end of the New Testament, along 
 
136 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 with the other Antilegomena, he must have disturbed 
 too much the old accustomed arrangement. He left 
 it, therefore, and also the two smaller Epistles of John, 
 in connection with the first and main Epistle of the 
 two apostles. It is to be considered, too, that the bear- 
 ing of the arrangement of the New Testament books 
 upon our critical inquiries is of but secondary consider- 
 ation ; the main point is their internal character, and 
 in reference to this no fault can be found with the ori- 
 ginal arrangement. 
 
 In regard, therefore, to the Catholic Epistles gener- 
 ally, little further can be said. Of the Epistles indi- 
 vidually we will consider first the three Epistles of 
 John. As to the first, and main Epistle, it, like the 
 Gospel of John, was always regarded by the ancient 
 church as the production of the Evangelist of that name. 
 In modern times, it is true, doubts have been started 
 in relation to the Gospel. But the principal writer by 
 whom they have been suggested has himself since re- 
 tracted them. Indeed, it was nothing but the very 
 striking similarity in style and ideas between the Gos- 
 pel and the first Epistle of John, which made it neces- 
 sary, almost, whether one would or no, to extend the 
 opposition against the Gospel to the Epistle likewise ; 
 for one cannot but suppose them both to have had the 
 same author, from their resemblance in every peculiar 
 characteristic. If therefore the Epistle were admitted 
 to have been written by the Evangehst John, the Gos- 
 pel also could not but be attributed to him. But though 
 there may have been a somewhat plausible reason for 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 137 
 
 disputing the Gospel in the idea that the Saviour is 
 represented by John very differently from the exhibi* 
 lion of hinci in the other Gospels, in regard to the Epis- 
 tle there is no reason which possesses the slightest plau- 
 sibility for disputing it. On the supposition that it is 
 spurious, the error of the whole ancient church in re- 
 ferring it, without contradiction, to the Evangelist John, 
 would be completely inexplicable ; especially, if we 
 carefully compare the history of the Epistle with that 
 of the Evangelist. John, as we have before remarked, 
 lived the longest of all the apostles, viz. till some time 
 in the reign of Domitian, and he resided at Ephesus in 
 Asia Minor. From no country within the limits of the 
 church, therefore, could we expect to receive more ac- 
 curate accounts in regard to the writings of the beloved 
 disciple of our Lord than from those of Asia Minor. 
 Now it is from these very countries that we receive 
 the most ancient testimonies in behalf of the existence 
 and genuineness of the Epistle. Instead of mention- 
 ing all, I w^ill name but two of these testimonies, which, 
 however, are so decisive that we can perfectly well 
 dispense with all the rest. The first is presented by 
 Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, whom we 
 have already mentioned. This man lived, as has been 
 before said, at the end of the first century and begin- 
 ning of the second, in the immediate vicinity of Ephe- 
 sus, where the Evangelist John labored so long and so 
 successfully. He knew not only the Evangelist John, 
 but other immediate disciples of our Lord, who were 
 probably of the number of the Seventy, particularly a 
 12^ 
 
138 CATHOLIC EPISTLES* 
 
 certain Aristion, and another John surnamed the Pres- 
 byter. Now, is it to be supposed that such a man, 
 who had at his command so many means of arriving at 
 certainty respecting John's writings, could possibly be 
 deceived in regard to them ? We must, indeed, re- 
 nounce all historical testimony, if we deny this witness 
 the capacity to speak in behalf of the genuineness of 
 this Epistle of John, 
 
 The second testimony, however, is of equal impor- 
 tance. One of the apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, bishop 
 of Smyrna in Asia Minor, makes use of the first Epistle 
 of John, in the same way as Papias, as though it was 
 admitted to be a genuine production of the Evangelist. 
 Now Poly carp lived till after the middle of the second 
 century, and at the age of eighty-six died a martyr's 
 death in the flames. He had not merely become ac- 
 quainted with John in the neighboring city of Ephesus, 
 but had even heard him preach the way of salvation, 
 and was his faithful disciple. The testimony of such 
 a man, therefore, is likewise above all cavil, and is 
 especially confirmed by the fact, that there never has 
 been in later times any general opinion against its gen- 
 uineness, either in the catholic church or among the 
 adherents to any particular sect. Against this weight 
 of historical evidence, therefore, nothing can be effect- 
 ed by the mere conjectures of modern times ; and at 
 present all theologians are perfectly agreed in the ac- 
 knowledgment of this precious relic of the beloved dis- 
 ciple of Jesus, his first Epistle. 
 
 If, in regard to the second and third Epistles of 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLE&> 139 
 
 John, such perfect agreement of the ancient church in 
 recognizing their genuineness cannot be asserted, the 
 reason of this lies entirely in a circumstance, which also 
 occasioned the tardy insertion of the pastoral letters to 
 Timothy and Titus in the collection of Pauline Epis- 
 tles, viz. that they are directed to private persons, and 
 moreover are of no very great extent or very important 
 contents, and thus awakened less interest in their dif- 
 fusion. 
 
 The second Epistle of John is addressed to a Chris- 
 tian lady and her family ; the third to a Christian 
 friend, named Caius. Of the private circumstances of 
 these two persons we know nothing but what is indi- 
 cated in the letters. Now, although certainly these 
 two smaller Epistles afford no important information 
 respecting the Gospel or the history of the ancient 
 church, still, as estimable legacies of the disciple who 
 lay in Jesus's bosom, they deserve a place in the canon 
 as much as Paul's Epistle to Philemon. The oldest 
 Fathers of the church express no doubt in regard to 
 the two Epistles. Only at a later period do we find 
 certain individuals entertaining doubts whether these 
 two Epistles were written by John the Evangelist. 
 No one regarded them as forged in the name of the 
 Evangelist; for we can by no means perceive for what 
 purpose these Epistles could, in such a case, have been 
 written. They aim at no particular object, but are 
 merely expressive of the tenderest christian love. Many 
 however, believed that another John, viz. John the 
 Presbyter^ before mentioned, with whom Papias was 
 
140 CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 acquainted, was the author of the Epistles. This view 
 appeared confirmed by the fact, that in the salutations 
 of both Epistles, John expressly terms himself Presiy- 
 ter ; and as, moreover, the other John likewise lived 
 in Ephesus, it is possible they might have been con- 
 founded. But in modern times these doubts in regard 
 to the apostolic character of the two small Epistles 
 have been disregarded, because the style and the sen- 
 timents of both Epistles are so entirely similar to the 
 style and course of thought in the Gospels and the first 
 Epistle, that the idea of a different author is totally un- 
 tenable. Moreover, we are able to show how John 
 the Apostle and Evangelist might also call himself 
 Presbyter. This expression is nearly equivalent to 
 the Latin Senior, or the German litest e, ^ In the 
 Jewish synagogues, and also among the primitive Chris- 
 tians, it was applied to the principal persons in the 
 church (Comp. Acts 20: 17), and was at first used in 
 this sense as exactly synonymous with E^iscopos, i. e. 
 bishop. In Asia Minor, as we know from the writings 
 of Papias, there prevailed a peculiar custom of speak- 
 ing, by which the apostles were called, as it were by 
 way of distinction. Elders, Whether the intention 
 was thereby to denote the great age of the apostles, or 
 whether all the churches were regarded as forming one 
 general church and the apostles as their presbyters, is 
 doubtful. It is sufficient that the apostles were thus 
 
 * Or the English Elder, as it is translated in our ver- 
 sion. — Tr. 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 141 
 
 termed,* by way of eminence; for in this fact is ex- 
 hibited a sufficient explanation of the inscriptions to 
 the second and third Epistles of John. Thus the case 
 is the same with these two Epistles as with that to the 
 Hebrews. The primitive church adopted them, but not 
 without opposition, and therefore we must reckon them 
 among the Antilegomena ; but still the reasons which 
 were addressed against their apostolic origin may be so 
 thoroughly refuted, that not a shadow of uncertainty 
 can reasonably remain in regard to them. 
 
 The fourth of the seven Catholic Epistles is the first 
 Epistle of the apostle Peter. As we have now come 
 to the consideration of the Petrine writings in the ca- 
 non, the question forces itself upon us, how it is to be 
 explained that we have so few productions of Peter, 
 and so many of Paul, who was called latest to be an 
 apostle. When w^e consider what our Lord said to 
 Peter : '' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 
 build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it" (Matt. 16: 18), and afterwards : ^' Feed my 
 lambs" (John 21: 15 seq.), it must seem strange that 
 the powers of this rock of the church should have been 
 exerted so little in writings for posterity. It is true, 
 the Gospel of Mark is properly Peter's Gospel, as we 
 have seen ; but even this falls into the back-ground by the 
 side of Luke (the Pauline Gospel), and the other Gos- 
 pels, so that Peter, according to the representation of 
 
 * Peter calls himself in his first Epistle a fellow-elder (1 
 Pet. 5: J). 
 
142 CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 himself in his writings, constantly appears insignificant 
 compared with Paul. 
 
 This fact finds a satisfactory explanation only in the 
 relation of the two apostles, Peter and Paul, to the 
 propagation of the Gospel in general. In reference to 
 this, they had different destinations. Peter, with the 
 twelve, was called particularly to the dissemination of 
 the Gospel among the Jews. Had the Jewish nation 
 acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, Peter would then 
 have exhibited himself in all his dignity and conse- 
 quence. But that unhappy nation hardened itself 
 against all the operations of the Spirit, and the Gospel 
 was carried to the Gentiles, because Israel rejected the 
 grace to which it w^as called. Paul was set apart for 
 the express purpose of preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 
 26: 17), and, as Christianity first displayed itself in a 
 flourishing condition among them, all the other apostles, 
 with the exception of John alone, fell into the back- 
 ground in comparison with Paul, both in oral discourse, 
 as appears from the Acts, and in these written efforts, 
 as is shown by the New Testament canon. It is, con- 
 sequently, not at all strange that Peter should be repre« 
 sented by two Epistles of so small a size, and that the 
 second of these is, moreover, the most disputed book in 
 the whole New Testament canon. His being thrown 
 into the shade by Paul is rather in accordance w^ith the 
 facts respecting the extension of the church of Christ 
 on earth in the times of the apostles. 
 
 As to the first Epistle of Peter ^ we have before 
 seen that it belongs among the Homologoumena^ along 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 143 
 
 with the first Epistle of John. In all Christian anti- 
 quity tliere was no one who doubted the genuineness 
 of the Epistle^ or had heard of doubts respecting it. 
 And yet the Epistle (1 Pet. 1: 1/) is addressed to 
 Christian churches in Asia Minor, where Christian- 
 ity early gained great success and where a lively in- 
 tercourse was maintained between the individual church- 
 es. Here, of necessity, must have arisen soon an oppo- 
 sition to this Epistle, if it had not been known that 
 Peter had sent a circular letter to the churches. Now, 
 the oldest Fathers of the church in Asia Minor, Papias 
 and Polycarp, both make use of the Epistle of Peter, 
 as w^ell as that of John, as a genuine apostolic produc- 
 tion. This Epistle of Peter does not seem to have 
 made its way to Italy till a late period. At least it is 
 wanting in the very ancient catalogue cited by Mura- 
 tori, which probably exhibits the canon of the early 
 Roman church. We can infer nothing, however, from 
 this absence against the genuineness of the first Epistle 
 of Peter, since there is not the slightest trace of its 
 having been disputed in the first three centuries. Yet, 
 in modern times this decided declaration of Christian 
 antiquity has been thought insufficient. An objection 
 has been founded on the circumstance that Peter writes 
 from Babylon (I Pet. 5: 13), while history does not 
 relate that he ever was in Babylon ; as also upon the 
 fact that he directs the attention of his readers to suf- 
 ferings and persecutions which they should endure, 
 (1 Pet. 1: 6. 3: 16. 4: 12 seq. 5: 10), referring, as is 
 supposed, to Nero's persecution, while he himself, it 
 
144 CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
 
 is said, died at Rome during this persecution, and 
 therefore could not have addressed an Epistle from 
 Babylon to those who suffered under it. Both these 
 remarks, however, are easily obviated. As to the 
 first, respecting the city of Babylon, we know too little 
 of the history of Peter to be able to determine in what 
 places he may have been, and in what not ; particular- 
 ly as there were several cities of this name in the an- 
 cient world and it is not specified which is meant in 
 the Epistle. It is to be observed, too, that many of 
 the Fathers of the church understood the name Baby- 
 lon to mean mystically the city of Rome, which show- 
 ed itself the enemy of our Lord in the persecution of 
 the faithful, (Comp. Rev. 18: 2.) If this expo- 
 sition be adopted, the second remark also is at once 
 obviated ; for, in that case, the Epistle was written by 
 Peter in Rome itself during the persecution, and he 
 gave the believers in Asia Minor christian exhortations 
 in reference to such a grievous period among them. 
 Yet, as this explanation cannot be proved to be cor- 
 rect, we set it aside, and merely observe, that in what- 
 ever Babylon Peter may have written his Epistle, his 
 residence there can be easily reconciled with the ex- 
 hortations which the Epistle contains. For, though 
 these may be referred to the persecution of Nero, they 
 may be understood v/ith equal propriety as referring to 
 any other persecution, since all individual characteris- 
 tics, which could suit only this first cruel persecution 
 of the church, are entirely wanting. Such general 
 sufferings as these which Peter mentions must be sup- 
 
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 145 
 
 posed to have been endured by the church everywhere 
 and at all times, as it is always comprehended in the 
 very idea of a believer that he should excite opposi- 
 tion in those who are of a worldly inclination, and thus 
 cause a combat. A more important objection than 
 these two remarks is, that the style and ideas of the 
 first Epistle of Peter exhibit a strong resemblance to 
 the style and ideas of Paul. This cannot be denied, 
 for it is too evident not to be observed ; but it does not 
 serve its intended, purpose, viz. to deprive Peter of the 
 authorship of the Epistle. Notwithstanding all its 
 similarity to Paul's manner, it still maintains enough of 
 independence and peculiarity to stamp it as the pro- 
 duction of a man who thought for himself. As more- 
 over, when Peter wrote this Epistle, he was connect- 
 ed (i Pet. 5: 12), with the old friend and companion 
 of Paul^ Syhanus (or, as abbreviated, Silas), nothing 
 is more easy than to suppose that Peter dictated to the 
 latter, and in all probability in the Hebrew language, 
 which alone seems to have been perfectly familiar to 
 him. In translating into Greek, Sylvanus, who, from 
 long intimacy with Paul, had become very much ha- 
 bituated to his diction, may have adopted many of its 
 characteristics, and thus have been the occasion of the 
 somewhat Pauline coloring which the Epistle possesses. 
 
 13 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 In regard to the second Epistle of Peter, its case is 
 very different from that of the first. The former has 
 always been so violently attacked, and suspected on 
 such plausible grounds of not having been written by 
 the apostle Peter, that criticism is encompassed with 
 as much difficulty in relation to it as in relation to any 
 other book of the New Testament. And, moreover, 
 such is the state of the matter, that the critical investi- 
 gation of this Epistle is of particular importance. For, 
 as we remarked in chapter first, while, in regard to 
 many writings of the New Testament, (e. g. the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, the second and third Epistles of 
 John,) the question is, not so much whether they are 
 genuine or spurious, as who was their author, in regard 
 to the second Epistle of Peter, the question is, in truth, 
 whether the apostle Peter composed it, or some other 
 Peter, or somebody of another name, who meant no 
 harm, but still purposely endeavored to deceive his rea- 
 ders into the belief that it was written by Simon Peter, 
 the apostle of our Lord. In the first place, the author 
 of the Epistle not only expressly appropriates Peter's 
 name and title : " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle 
 pf Jesqs Christ," (2 Pet. \\ \)^hui he also states par- 
 
148 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER* 
 
 ticulars respecting his own life which can have been 
 true only of Peter. He says, for instance : '' For w^e 
 have not followed cunningly-devised fables, when we 
 made known unto you the power and coming of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majes- 
 ty. For he received from God the Father honor and 
 glory, when there came such a voice to him from the 
 excellent glory. This is my beloved son, in whom I am 
 w^ell pleased. And this voice, which came from hea- 
 ven, we heard, when we were with him in the holy 
 mount.^^ (2 Pet. 1: 16 — 18.) These words, it is clear^ 
 refer to the transfiguration on the mount. (Matt. 17: 
 1 seq.) But, besides James and John, the two sons 
 of Zebedee, no one was a spectator of this transfigura- 
 tion except the apostle Peter. If, therefore, the apos- 
 tle Peter w^as not the author of this letter, the man 
 who not only presumed to take upon himself the name 
 of an apostle, but designedly endeavored to make his 
 readers think that he was the apostle Peter, must have 
 been a downright shameless impostor ; and his produc- 
 tion should by no means retain its place in the canon, 
 but it is necessary that it should be at onee thrust out 
 of it. 
 
 It is for this very reason, viz. because the necessity 
 of which we have spoken has been sensibly felt, that 
 the friends of the work have so zealously prosecuted 
 the investigation respecting it ; though certainly not 
 always with due impartiality and coolness. It has been 
 forgotten that in truth very important objections may 
 be urged against the Petrine origin of this second Epis- 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 149 
 
 tie, and it has been attempted to establish its genuine- 
 ness as firmly and incontrovertibly as it is possible to 
 establish that of other writings. The best weapon, 
 however, which can be used in defence of God's word, 
 is always truth ; and this compels us to admit that it 
 is impossible to attain so firm and certain proof of the 
 genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as of that 
 of other books of the P^ew Testament. But certainly 
 the opponents of the Epistle err greatly when they as- 
 sert that the spuriousness of the Epistle can be fully 
 established. Such an assertion cannot but be denied 
 with all earnestness, even though, as is often the 
 case, it be connected with the opinion, that the Epis- 
 tle may notwithstanding retain its place in the canon 
 as hitherto and be cited by preachers of the Gospel in 
 their pulpit instructions. Such lax notions must be 
 resisted with the utmost moral sternness. Foj", would 
 it not be participating in the fraud of the autlior of the 
 Epistle, were we to treat it as the genuine production 
 of the apostle Peter, while we considered it as spuri- 
 ous ? If it be really spurious, and can be proved to 
 have gained its place in the canon only through mis- 
 take, then let it be removed from the collection of the 
 sacred writings, which from its nature excludes every 
 fraudulent production. Christian truth would not all 
 sufi^er by the removal of a single work of so slight ex- 
 tent. 
 
 We are convinced, however, that no such step is 
 necessary. The most prominent error in the critical 
 investigation of this Epistle has been that writers have 
 
 13^ 
 
150 SfiCOND EPISTLE OF PETES. 
 
 always striven to prove beyond objection either the 
 genuineness or the spurionsness of the production. It 
 has been forgotten that between these two positions 
 there was a medium, viz. an impossibility of satisfac- 
 torily proving either. It cannot seem at all strange 
 that this impossibility should exist in investigations 
 respecting writings of the New Testament, if it be con- 
 sidered for a moment how difficult it often is to de- 
 termine respecting the genuineness of a production 
 even shortly after, or at the very time of, its composi- 
 tion, if from any circumstance the decisive points in 
 the investigation have remained concealed. As in re- 
 gard to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is 
 entirely impossible to come to any decided result, so it 
 seems to me probable, that the deficiency of historical 
 evidence makes it impossible to come to a fixed con- 
 clusion in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. It 
 is certain there are several circumstances which give 
 rise to reasonable doubts respecting the apostolic origin 
 of the Epistle ; still, so much may be adduced, not only 
 in refutation of them, but in the way of positive argu-* 
 ment for the Epistle, that these doubts are neutraliz- 
 ed. Only, the favorable points do not amount to a 
 complete, objectively valid proof, and therefore a criti- 
 cal investigation of the Epistle does not result exclu- 
 sively to its advantage. Now, this is certainly a very 
 unpleasant result, and one satisfactory to neither party, 
 for men commonly wish every thing to be decided in 
 an absolute manner, and therefore would have the 
 Epistle declared positively either genuine or spurious. 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 151 
 
 But the main object should be the truth, and not an agree- 
 able result ; and faithful, impartial examination leads 
 us to the conclusion that in fact no perfect proof is to 
 be obtained in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. 
 This conclusion affords us the advantage, that we may 
 with a good conscience leave the Epistle in its place 
 among the canonical books, since it cannot rightfully 
 be deprived of it until its spuriousness is decisively 
 proved. Now, whether it shall or shall not be used 
 in doctrinal argument, must be left to the judgment of 
 each individual ; but at any rate no one can prohibit 
 its use so long as its spuriousness remains unproved. 
 
 It is time, however, to consider more closely all that 
 can be urged against the genuineness of the Epistle, 
 and to present therewith the counter considerations 
 which either invalidate the former or argue the apos- 
 tolic composition of the Epistle. Now the most im- 
 portant circumstance which presents itself against the 
 genuineness of the book is, that it was to such a de- 
 gree unknown in christian antiquity. Not one of the 
 Fathers of the first two centuries mentions the second 
 Epistle of Peter ; they all speak of but one Epistle 
 from the hand of this apostle. Nor are there any pas- 
 sages in their writings which must of necessity be cita- 
 tions from it. Those passages which seem like parts 
 of it may be explained either on the score of accidental 
 coincidence or of mutual reference to the Old Testa- 
 ment. It was not till after Origen^s time, in the third 
 century, that the Epistle came into use, and even then 
 doubts were always current in regard to its apostolic 
 
152 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEH. 
 
 origin, and the learned Father Jerome expressly re- 
 marks that most denied it such an origin. It is true, 
 this statement cannot refer to all members of the church, 
 but only to such as were capable of critical investiga- 
 tions ; for the same Father of the church says further, 
 that the reason why most denied it to be Peter's was, 
 the difference in style which was observable on compari- 
 son with the first ; and clearly uneducated persons were 
 incapable of judging as to such difference in style. But 
 still, it is extremely remarkable that even in the time of 
 Jerome, i. e. in the fifth century, there should be found 
 in the church so many opponents of the Epistle. 
 
 It is, however, to be considered, in estimating the 
 importance of this fact in j-elation to the genuineness 
 of the Epistle, that no definite historical arguments are 
 adduced against the Epistle from any quarter. Re- 
 course is had, not to the testimony of individuals, nor 
 to the declaration of entire churches, w^hich denied the 
 Epistle to be Peter's, but merely to internal reasons, 
 deduced by the aid of criticism. This is the more 
 strange, as it would appear that this second Epistle 
 of Peter w^as addressed to the very same readers for 
 whom the first was designed (Comp. 2 Pet. 3: 1), i. e. 
 to the Christians in several churches of Asia Minor. 
 From these, one w^ould think, there must have proceed- 
 ed a testimony which could not be misunderstood 
 against the Epistle, if Peter had not written to them a 
 second time. Nor do the Fathers say, that the Epis- 
 tle contains heresies or anything else totally unworthy 
 of the apostle ; indeed they do not make the slightest 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 153 
 
 objection of this kind to the character of its contents. 
 Ifj on the other hand, we look at their objections to 
 other evidently fictitious writings, we find them assert- 
 ing that they had an impious, detestable character, or 
 that historical evidence was against their pretended 
 apostolic origin. From the manner in which history 
 represents the testimony of the Fathers of the church, 
 we may suppose that their opinion respecting the gen- 
 uineness of the Epistle was founded in a great measure 
 upon the fact that its diffusion was very much delayed. 
 Since so many writings had been forged in Peter's 
 name, the Fathers of the church probably at once re- 
 garded an Epistle which came so late into circulation 
 with some considerable suspicion, and then made use 
 of the difference in language or something of the kind 
 to confirm this suspicion. We must therefore say, that 
 no decisive argument against the genuineness of the 
 Epistle is to be drawn from historical considerations. 
 Although it was but little known in the ancient church, 
 this want of acquaintance with it may have been found- 
 ed on reasons not at all connected with its spuriousness 
 or genuineness. How many Epistles of Peter and 
 other apostles may never have been much known ? 
 And still the circumstance that they have not been dif- 
 fused abroad does not disprove their apostolic origin. 
 
 Thus, as the Fathers of the church themselves had 
 recourse to the internal character of the Epistle, it re- 
 mains for us likewise to examine this, and as particu- 
 lar historical traditions respecting the Epistle were as 
 inaccessible to these Fathers as to us, and the art of 
 
154 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 criticism has not been carried to a high point of culti- 
 vation till recently, we may lay claim to greater proba- 
 bility, as to the result of our investigation, than they 
 could. 
 
 Among the striking circumstances to which we are 
 led by a careful investigation concerning the second 
 Epistle of Peter, the first which presents itself is the 
 very ancient observation, that the style of this Epistle 
 is quite different from that of the first. According to 
 the most recent examinations the case is really so. 
 The style of the second Epistle is so different from 
 that of the first, as to make it hardly conceivable 
 that the same author should have written thus various- 
 ly ; particularly as the two Epistles must have been 
 written at no great distance of time from each other, 
 it being necessary to refer them both to the latter part 
 of the apostle's life. But we have seen above, that 
 Peter probably employed another person to write for 
 him when he composed his first Epistle ; now, how nat* 
 ural to suppose, as Jerome has already suggested, that 
 in writing the second Epistle Peter only made use of 
 a different assistant from the one employed in writing 
 the first, which supposition satisfactorily explains the 
 difference in style. If it be insisted, however, that 
 this supposition is a very violent one, we may then ad« 
 mit that the Epistles are in reality not apostolic, but 
 are from Sylvanus, or some other writer. It is cer- 
 tainly true that by this hypothesis we surrender the 
 common opinion, that Peter either guided the pen him- 
 self, or at least dictated to the amanuensis word for 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 155 
 
 word what he should write. But is it at all essential 
 to admit that the writings of the apostles originated 
 precisely in this way ? Is a prince's letter of less value, 
 because his secretary wrote it and the prince himself 
 only signed it ? Do we esteem the writings of Mark 
 and Luke any the less because they were not apostles ? 
 These last writings show best how the case is to be 
 considered. Say that these two Epistles were written 
 by Sylvanus or Mark ; is their importance to us in 
 the least diminished, when Peter has given them the 
 confirmation of his apostolic authority, as presenting 
 his ideas, his mode of thinking ? 
 
 This hypothesis of Peter's having employed a writ- 
 er in the composition of the second Epistle, explains, 
 moreover, another remark which it has been usual to 
 urge against its apostolic origin. If the Epistle of 
 Jude be compared with the second chapter of this 
 Epistle, there will appear a very striking similarity be- 
 tween them. This, as in the case of the Gospels, is 
 so great that it is impossible it should have arisen acci- 
 dentally. An impartial comparison of the two makes 
 it extremely probable that Jude is the original, and 
 was employed in the Epistle of Peter. Now this hard- 
 ly seems suitable for the apostle Peter, considering him 
 as the author of the Epistle. He, the pillar of the 
 church, should have been the original writer, though 
 it would not have been strange that Jude, who held a 
 far lower rank, should make use of his production. 
 On the supposition, however, that Peter employed an 
 individual to write for him, the latter might have made 
 
156 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 use of Jude's Epistle, and what would be totally un- 
 suitable for an apostle would not be at all strange in 
 his assistant. If it be said that, as Peter must have 
 known the use which was made of Jude, the circum- 
 stance still remains very strange, we may suppose that 
 both, Peter (with his assistant) and Jude, conferred to- 
 gether in regard to combating the heretics, and agreed 
 together in certain fundamental thoughts, and that thus 
 coincidence in details was occasioned by their common 
 written ground-work. Still, it may not be concealed, 
 that, after all attempts to explain these appearances, 
 there nevertheless remains in the mind something like 
 suspicion ; and for this reason, although there are cer- 
 tainly not sufficient grounds for rejecting the Epistle. 
 we cannot regard its genuineness as susceptible of proof. 
 There are other points of less moment, Vv^hich are 
 usually brought forward by the opponents of the Epis- 
 tle. Among these is the passage 2 Pet. 3: 2, in which 
 the writer, it is said, is distinguished from the apostles, 
 just as in Heb. 2: 3. But, in the first place, the read- 
 ing in the former passage is not perfectly certain, since 
 several ancient versions give it the same sense as Lu- 
 tAer, who translates : ^' that ye may be mindful of the 
 words which were spoken before by the holy prophets 
 and of the commandment of us the apostles of our 
 Lord and Saviour. ^^ ^ But, even though we admit 
 
 * So, too, in the English version. The question alluded 
 to in the text is, whether we should translate, of us the apos- 
 tles, or, of the apostles sent to us (or to you, according to 
 another reading). See the original Greek. — Tr. 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 157 
 
 ^ that to be the correct reading, is one by which the au- 
 thor is distinguished from the apostles, we may explain 
 the passage by supposing that the writer who was em- 
 ployed, instead of speaking in the name of the apos- 
 tle, spoke in his own person. This was certainly an 
 oversight, but not a very great one ; like that, e. g., 
 which occasioned the Evangelists to differ from each 
 other in respect to the number of the blind men whom 
 our Lord healed and other points of the kind. The 
 admission of such trifling oversights belongs properly 
 to God's plan in regard to the Scriptures, since literal 
 coincidence would, on the one hand, give rise to strong 
 suspicion in regard to the veracity of the wi'iters (as it 
 would suggest the inference that there had been pre- 
 vious concert betw^een them), and, on the other hand, 
 there would be danger of confounding the letter with 
 the spirit, to the disadvantage of the latter. 
 
 Of us little consequence is the reference made to 2 
 Pet. 3: 15, 16, where Peter says of his beloved broth- 
 er Paul, v.diose wisdom he extols : ''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 wiest, as they do also the 
 other Scripturtjs, unto their own destruction." These 
 words, it is said, clearly suppose a collection of Pauline 
 Epistles to have been current in the church ; but one 
 cannot have been made earlier than the commence- 
 ment of the second century, and consequently the Epis- 
 tle must be regarded as a work of later origin. But 
 this assumption, that the collection of the Pauline Epistles 
 14 
 
158 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 was first made at so late a period, is by no means sus- 
 ceptible of proof. Indeed, in the fourth chapter we at- 
 tempted to prove it not improbable that even Paul him- 
 self made a collection of his Epistles. At all events, 
 no historical fact can be adduced against this hypothe- 
 sis, and we must therefore consider thus much as cer- 
 tain, that the mention of a collection of Pauline Epistles 
 ought not to induce us to conclude against the apostohc 
 origin of the Epistle whose history we are investigating. 
 Thus is confirmed the position which we laid down 
 above, that not one of the reasons usually adduced 
 against the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter 
 is a decisive one. Notwithstanding, as has been already 
 mentioned, impartiality enjoins it upon us to allow that, 
 after considering these reasons, there remains a feeling 
 in the mind which does not permit us to place this Epis- 
 tle in the rank of those universally-admitted. We find 
 ourselves constrained to resort first to one expedient, 
 then to another, in order to invalidate the arguments 
 which make against the genuineness of the Epistle. 
 Let us, however, cast a glance at the other side, and 
 consider the arguments which may be adduced in favor 
 of the authenticity, of the Epistle. The impression 
 made by the genuine apostolic manner, in the first and 
 third chapters in particular, is so heart-stirring, the se- 
 vere moral tone which prevails throughout them is so 
 forcible, that very estimable scholars have found them- 
 selves induced to regard these two chapters, or at least 
 the first, as truly Petrine, and the second or the last 
 two as, perhaps, merely subsequent additions to the 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 159 
 
 genuine Epistle. This hypothesis has indeed, at first 
 view, this reconnmendation, that we can give proper 
 weight to the reasons for doubt, without being obHged 
 to regard the express statennents respecting Peter per- 
 sonally as having been forged. But the close connec- 
 tion of all the chapters with each other, and the uni- 
 formity of the language and ideas throughout the Epis- 
 tle is too much at variance with the supposition of an 
 interpolation of the Epistle, to make it right that it 
 should be admitted. 
 
 Still, we cannot but allow the great weight of the 
 reason from which the hypothesis took its rise, viz., 
 that it was an almost inconceivable piece of impudence 
 for an impostor to assume the person of the apostle 
 Peter, so as even to speak of his presence at the trans- 
 figuration on Mount Tabor, and venture to invent 
 prophecies of our Lord to him respecting his end. 
 (Comp. 2 Pet. 1: 14.) It is true, appeal is made, on 
 this point, to the practice of the ancients, according to 
 which it was not so strange and censurable, it is said, 
 to write under another's name, as it appears to us at the 
 present day. And it is undoubtedly true, that in the 
 primitive times of the church writings were much more 
 frequently forged in the name of others than at the 
 present time. But it is a question whether this is to 
 be referred to the custom of the times, or does not 
 rather arise from the fact, that in the less methodical 
 book-transactions of the ancient world it was much 
 easier to get fictitious writings into circulation than it 
 is at present, on account of the great publicity which 
 
160 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 now attends such transactions. At any rate, we must 
 say, that it was a very culpable practice, if it ever was 
 common, to procure currency for one's literary produc- 
 tions by affixing a great name to them ; and every hon- 
 orable man would have avoided it and written only in 
 his own name. Suppose, however, it was less offen- 
 sive than now to publish any thing under an assumed 
 name, we must notwithstanding protest in the most 
 earnest manner against the idea, that a man could per- 
 mit him.self fraudulently to appropriate such points from 
 the life of him whose name he used as could be true 
 only of the latter ; which must be the case in regard 
 to this Epistle, if it was not written by Peter. Were 
 this to be done in any case, the use of another's name 
 would no longer be a mere form in writing, it would 
 rather be a coarse piece of imposture, such as could 
 not occur without a decidedly wrong intention ; and 
 this leads us to a new and important point in the inves- 
 tigation of the origin of the second Epistle of Peter. 
 
 The alternative in which we are thus placed is as 
 harsh as it could possibly be. Either the Epistle is 
 genuine and apostolical, or it is not only spurious and 
 forged, but w^as forged by a bold, shameless impostor, 
 and such a person must have bad an evil design in ex- 
 ecuting a forgery of the kind supposed. Now in the 
 whole Epistle we do not find the slightest thing which 
 can be regarded as erroneous or as morally bad. Its 
 contents are entirely biblical, and truly evangelical. 
 An elevated rel'gious spirit animates theEpisde through- 
 out. Is it conceivable, that a man actuated by this 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 161 
 
 spirit can be chargeable with such a deception ? Or is 
 it supposed that this spirit is itself feigned? But this 
 idea plainly contradicts itself, for he who is bad enough 
 to forge writings cannot entertain the design of extend- 
 ing a good influence by his forgery. No forgery 
 would be necessary for such a purpose. The design 
 must have been to defend what was unholy in principle 
 or practice under cover of a sacred name. The only 
 probable purpose of the forgery of the Epistle is this ; 
 that the unknown author of the production wished to 
 combat the heretics described in the second chapter, 
 and in order that he might do this with some effect, he 
 wrote in the name of the apostle Peter and made use 
 of the Epistle of Jude in doing so. But if a man who 
 was honest (in other respects) could have been induced 
 to enter upon such a crooked path, would he not have 
 contented himself with placing the apostle's name in 
 front of his Epistle ? Would his conscience have per- 
 mitted him to appropriate falsely from the life of the 
 apostle such particulars as are narrated in the Epistle } 
 This is really hard to believe, and the efforts made to 
 preserve the genuineness of the first chapter at least, 
 which contains these very particulars, sufficiently prove 
 how universal is the feeling that the statements it con- 
 tains cannot have been forged. 
 
 It is true the case would stand otherwise, if it were 
 a well-founded position, that the Epistle really contains 
 erroneous tenets. But how truly impossible it is to 
 establish this, is very evident from the nature of the 
 
 points adduced as errors. In the first place, one is 
 
 14# 
 
162 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 supposed to be contained in the passage, 2 Pet. 3: 5, 
 in which it is said, that the earth was formed out of 
 water and in water by the word of God.* It is true, 
 there are parallels to this view of the creation of the 
 earth in several mythical cosmogonies ; but is this cir- 
 cumstance a proof that the doctrine of the creation of 
 the world out of water is false ? Does the Mosaic ac- 
 count of the creation, or any other passage in the Bi- 
 ble, contain any thing which in the slightest degree 
 impugns it ? Or does the condition of the physical or 
 geological sciences in our day prove that the earth cer- 
 tainly came into existence in a different manner ? It 
 will sufBce, in regard to this point, to remind our read- 
 ers that the formation of the earth out of water was 
 taught by the celebrated De Luc, not to mention ma- 
 ny men of less note. At the most, then, it can only 
 be said that in the passage referred to, there is some- 
 thing openly and definitely stated which is not found 
 thus stated in any other book of the Bible ; though it 
 is impossible to deny that the Mosaic account of the 
 creation [^' The spirit of God moved upon the face of 
 the waters'*) is susceptible of such an interpretation, as 
 to convey the idea which is more plainly declared in 
 2 Pet. 3 : 5. Thus there is no ground for talking 
 about an error in this passage of the Epistle. The 
 same remarks may be made respecting another position, 
 
 * Our English version give? a somewhat different sense 
 to this passage ; but probably the translation above conveys 
 nearly, if not exactly^ its true signification. — Tr. 
 
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 163 
 
 that the doctrine (also presented in the third chapter 
 of the second Epistle of Peter) concerning the destruc- 
 tion of the world by fire is erroneous. For it can by 
 no means be shown in regard to this second idea, that 
 it contradicts the common statement of the Bible, or 
 contains anything incorrect. Indeed, there are other 
 passages likewise, that contain an intimation, at least, 
 of the same thing which is here openly stated. (Comp. 
 Isa. 51: 6. Zeph. 3: 8.) And so far are the similar 
 mythical accounts in other religions from arguing any- 
 thing wrong in this idea, that we should rather consider 
 the coincidence of the mythical accounts with the bib- 
 lical doctrine as a confirmation of the real verity of the 
 former. 
 
 If, therefore, we put together all which has been said 
 of the second Epistle of Peter, thus much is certainly 
 clear, that the circumstances which are calculated to 
 excite suspicion respecting the Epistle, are by no 
 means sufficient to constitute a formal proof of their 
 spuriousness. True, the suspicious points cannot be 
 so perfectly obviated, that every doubt will disappear; 
 Some uncertainty will remain in the mind. Still the 
 positive arguments in behalf of its genuineness so far 
 allay these doubts that it is possible to obtain a satisfac- 
 tory subjective conviction of the genuineness of theEpis- 
 tle. But a proof of its genuineness which shall be of 
 perfect validity and be generally acknowledged can no 
 more be attained than such a proof of its spuriousness ; 
 and therefore there will always be something dubious 
 in the position of this Epistle. The ancient Fathers 
 
164 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 of the church endeavored to express this uncertainty 
 by the term Antilegoynena, and later teachers in the 
 evangelical church by the designation DeuterO'Canoni- 
 cal writings^ among which this Epistle is reckoned. 
 Attempts to remove all the obscurity which envelopes 
 the facts in regard to this Epistle will probably always 
 prove vain, from the want of historical accounts re- 
 specting the use and diffusion of it in primitive times. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OF THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 In investigating the Episiles of James and Jude, the 
 question is, as in the case of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, not so much whether they are genuine or spu- 
 rious, as who was their author. This may seem strange, 
 inasmuch as the authors of both of them mention them- 
 selves in the salutations, which is not the case as to the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, Jude, for the pur- 
 pose of designating himself still more definitely, adds 
 the circumstance that he was the brother of James. 
 But, as both these names were very common among 
 the Jews and the relations between the persons of this 
 name mentioned in the New Testament are quite in- 
 volved, it is a very difficult inquiry, what James and 
 what Jude were the authors of the Epistles which we 
 are considering. Now, if it should be probable on in- 
 vestigation, that the authors of the two Epistles were 
 not apostles (i. e. among the number of the twelve dis- 
 ciples), then will arise a second inquiry, what we are 
 to think of the canonical authority of the Epistles ? 
 
 The first question is, how many persons of the name 
 oi James and Jude are mentioned in the Scriptures or 
 by ancient christian writers ? From the catalogues of 
 the twelve apostles (Matt. 10: 2 seq. ; Mark 3: 13 seq. ; 
 
166 
 
 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE, 
 
 Lnke 6: 12 seq. ; Acts 1: 13 seq.) we perceive that 
 two individuals among them were named James. The 
 first was a brother of the Evangelist John, a son of 
 Zebedee and Salome ; this James is often mentioned 
 in the evangelical history. His brother, Peter, and 
 himself were of all the apostles the most intimate with 
 our Lord. He was present at the transfiguration and 
 at our Lord's agony in the garden of Gethsemane. 
 According to Acts 12: 2, Herod killed him with the 
 sword a few years after our Lord's ascension. As, 
 therefore, this James disappeared from the scene of 
 events very early, he does not cause much difficulty 
 in the investigation. The second James is termed the 
 son of Alphaeus, and of this apostle we have so uncer- 
 tain accounts, that it is difficult to determine much re- 
 specting him. 
 
 As there w^ere two individuals of the name of James 
 among the twelve, so there were two Judes. One, 
 the betrayer of our Lord, of course is not concerned 
 in this investigation. He cannot be confounded with 
 any one else ; especially as he had the surname Iscar- 
 iot from his birth-place Carioth. The second Jude, it 
 would seem, bore many names ; for while Luke (in 
 the Gospel as well as in the Acts), calls him Jude the 
 son of James, Matthew and Mark call him sometimes 
 Thaddeus and sometimes Lebbeus. It was not at 
 all uncommon among the Jews for one man to bear 
 several names; and therefore we may admit the validi- 
 ty of the prevalent opinion that Lebbeus or Thaddeus 
 and Jude the son of James are the same individuals. 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 167 
 
 in John 14: 22, a second Jude among the twelve is ex- 
 pressly distinguished from Jude (Judas) the traitor, who 
 is termed Iscariot; and hence the name Jude may 
 have been the one by which the former was most com- 
 monly designated. 
 
 Now did we know with perfect certainty that the 
 authors of the Epistles under consideration were of the 
 number of the twelve, it would be easy to fix upon the 
 individuals ; James, the son of Alpheus, must have 
 written the Epistle of James, and Jude, the son of 
 James, that of Jude. But as Jude (v. 1) calls him- 
 self the brother of James, he must either mean another 
 man of this nanie known to his readers, or we must 
 suppose the term brother to signify step-brother or 
 cousin, as indeed the word is often used in Hebrew. 
 For the opinion of some, that in the catalogues of the 
 apostles) see Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the Apos- 
 tles) Jude is not called, the son but the brother of James, 
 must be totally rejected, because, though it is true that 
 sometimes the word brother is to be supplied for the 
 Genitive following a proper name, this is only the case 
 when it is clear from the connection what is to be sup- 
 plied. In the apostolic catalogue, however, son is ev- 
 ery where else to be supplied for the Genitive; and 
 hence it is incredible that in the case of Jude alone 
 brother must be added. 
 
 But that the authors of these two Epistles of James 
 and Jude were among the number of the twelve is very 
 uncertain (indeed, as we shall show hereafter, improb- 
 able), and on that account we have still to determine 
 
168 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 the difficult question, what persons of these names 
 wrote the Epistles ? The following reasons show the 
 uncertainty of the idea that the authors of the Epistles 
 were apostles. In the first place the Fathers of the 
 church speak of another James, the brother of our 
 Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem, and another Jude, 
 likewise the brother of our Lord, as the authors of the 
 Epistles ; and moreover, these were disputed by many 
 and reckoned among the Antilegomena, clearly for this 
 reason alone, that it was supposed perfectly correct to 
 regard them as not apostolical. Thus, in the opinion 
 of the Fathers there were beside the two James's and 
 Judes among the twelve, two other persons of these 
 names, called brothers of our Lord, These are men- 
 tioned in the passage Matt. 13:55, with two other 
 brothers of our Lord, Simon and Joses, and with sis- 
 ters of -his whose names are not given. They are also 
 mentioned in the later history of the apostolic age 
 (Acts 15: 13 seq. .Galat. 1: 19. 2: 19), particularly 
 James, who is designated with Peter and John as a 
 pillar of the church. According to the Fathers of the 
 church he was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the 
 description which the New Testament gives of his po- 
 sition and operations perfectly accords with this state- 
 ment. According to the account of the Jewish writer, 
 Josephus, and a very ancient christian historian named 
 Hegesippus, this James, the brother of our Lord, died 
 a martyr's death at Jerusalem shortly before its destruc- 
 tion. He possessed such authority and such reputa- 
 tion for piety among the Jews, that, according to Jose- 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 169 
 
 phus, the destruction of the city was a punishment from 
 heaven for the execution of this just man. James was 
 succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by another 
 brother of our Lord, viz. Simon (Matth. 13: 55), who, 
 as well as the third brother Jude, lived till the reign 
 of the Emperor Trajan, i. e. to the end of the first 
 century after Christ. According to the account of 
 Hegesippus, Simon also died a martyr's death, like his 
 brother ; of the manner of Jude's end nothing definite 
 is known. Although, however, we find these brethren 
 of our Lord laboring with ardent christian zeal after 
 the resurrection of the Saviour, still in the life-time of 
 our Lord they did not believe on him. This w^e are 
 told by John expressly (7: 5), and therefore we do 
 not observe these brethren of Jesus among the disciples 
 until after his resurrection from the dead. (Acts 1: 13.) 
 Probably the vision with which (according to 1 Cor. 
 15: 7,) James was favored, was the means of convincing 
 them all of the divine dignity of our Lord, which hith- 
 erto, perhaps on the very account of their close rela- 
 tionship to him by blood, they had been unable to 
 credit. It is true, the expression, brothers of our Lord, 
 is not to be understood as meaning what the words 
 strictly signify ; for Mary, the mother of our Lord, ap- 
 pears not to have had any other children. The pas- 
 sages Matth. 1: 25. Luke 2: 7, in which, Jesus is 
 called the first-born son of Mary, prove nothing to the 
 contrary, since, if no more children follow, the only son 
 is also the first-born. If the statements of Scripture 
 respecting these brethren of our Lord be put together, 
 15 
 
170 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 it cannot be doubted, that the children of the sister of 
 Mary, the mother of Jesus, are intended by the expres- 
 sion. This sister of Mary was likewise named Mary, 
 and was the wife of a certain Cleophas. She stood 
 with the mother of Jesus beneath the cross of our 
 Lord, as did also Mary Magdalene. (John 19: 25.) 
 This same Mary is called in the parallel passage of 
 Mark (15: 40) the mother of James the Less and of 
 Joses. Here, then, are named two of the persons who 
 in Matth. 13: 55, are termed brothers of our Lord. 
 Nothing, therefore, is more natural, as it nowhere ap- 
 pears that Mary had any other children, than to sup- 
 pose that these so-called brethren of our Lord were 
 his cousins, the sons of his mother's sister. As it is 
 probable that Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, died 
 at an early period, (for he is not mentioned after the 
 journey to Jerusalem in the twelfth year of Jesus' age,) 
 Mary perhaps went to live with her sister, and thus 
 Jesus grew up with the sons of the latter, which may 
 have been the reason why it was so difficult for them 
 to give credit to his divine authority. It was very com- 
 mon in the Hebrew idiom to term cousins brothers. 
 Hence, in Gen. 13: 8, Abraham and Lot, who were 
 cousins, are termed brothers. If we v/ere to take the 
 word brother in its literal sense, and regard the four 
 brothers of our Lord mentioned in Matth. 13: 55 as 
 own children of Mary the mother of Jesus, we should 
 have to suppose the extraordinary circumstance that 
 the two mothers of the same name had also children 
 named alike. Now, as we nowhere find mention, first 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 171 
 
 of our Lord's brethren, and then of his cousins, but 
 the same relations are always referred to, this supposi- 
 tion cannot be admitted. The same may be said of 
 another supposition, according to which two of these 
 so-called brethren of our Lord, viz. Jude and James, 
 were of the number of the twelve. For it is said that 
 the Hebrew name which lies at the basis of the Greek 
 one, Cleophas, (abbreviated Klopas,) viz. Chalpai, may 
 also in Greek become Alpheus. Thus James the son 
 of Alpheus would be equivalent to James the son of 
 Cleophas. Now, it is true, that on the score of phi- 
 lology nothing can be reasonably objected against this 
 supposition ; but, its validity is overthrown by the fact 
 that one and the same writer (viz. Luke), presents 
 both forms. Although the name could be differently 
 expressed in Greek, at least the same writer would 
 always have followed the same mode. Moreover, as 
 we have already remarked, it is inadmissible to supply 
 the word brother, instead of son, after the name Jude. 
 Lastly, it is a decisive circumstance, that in John 7: 5 
 it is most expressly stated that the brethren of Jesus 
 did not believe on him. It is therefore impossible that 
 they should have been of the number of the twelve. 
 Consequently, the New Testament mentions, besides 
 the James, son of Zebedee, who was early executed, 
 two other persons of this name, first the apostle, who 
 was a son of Alpheus, and next the brother of our 
 Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Thus, too, the 
 New Testament mentions, besides the apostle Jude, 
 who was the son of a certain James of whom we know 
 
172 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE, 
 
 nothing, another Jude who, likewise, was a brother of 
 our Lord and lived to a late period (till the time of 
 Trajan), in Palestine, That these two brothers of our 
 Lord, and not the apostles, were the authors of our 
 Epistles, has been already intimated and will now be 
 more fully shown. 
 
 Of great importance, and indeed almost decisive by 
 itself, is the circumstance, that the Fathers of the 
 church refer the Epistle oi James to the brother of our 
 Lord of that name; and, too, the Fathers who lived 
 in that very region which was the scene of the labors 
 of this celebrated bishop of Jerusalem, viz. the East. 
 Here thev misht and must have had the most exact 
 accounts respecting this distinguished man, and infor- 
 mation as to his writings must have spread itself very 
 readily from Jerusalem to the neighboring countries of 
 Syria and Egypt. This historical testimony is confirm* 
 ed very strongly by the great agreement which exists 
 between the contents of the Epistle and the communi- 
 cations which are made by ancient Fathers of the 
 church, and particularly Hegesippus, in regard to the 
 peculiar habits of James. According to the account 
 of this writer James distinguished himself by forms of 
 piety which were very like those inculcated in the Old 
 Testament. He fasted and prayed a great deal, so 
 that, as Hegesippus relates, probably with some exag- 
 geration, his knees had become callous According to 
 the New Testament, too, (Comp. Acts xv. with Gal. 
 1: 2,) James, the brother of our Lord, appears to have 
 been the head of the Jewish Christians. He, there- 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 173 
 
 fore, undoubtedly observed the Mosaic law even after 
 he became a Christiaoj and endeavored to obtain the 
 sanctity enjoined in the Old Testament, That, how- 
 ever, this endeavor* was not a narrow-minded one, a? 
 among the Ebionites, but a liberal one, as among tfie 
 Nazarenes, is plainly shown by the narrative in the 
 Acts, according to which he did not, along with the 
 obstinate Judaizers, desire to impose the observance of 
 the law upon the Gentiles, but only adhered to it him- 
 self, as a pious practice of his fathers. Still his whole 
 disposition leaned somewhat to th^ side of the law% and 
 this is clearly exhibited in the Epistle. 
 
 The same is true of Jude likewise. His very de- 
 signation of himself as hrotlier of James can leave no 
 doubt that he desired to represent himself as the brother 
 of that James who was so celebrated, the first bishof) 
 of Jerusalem. He does not call himself an apostle, 
 any more than James. Both term themselves merely 
 servants of Jesus Christ, neglecting from modest hu- 
 mility to make any mention of their relationship by 
 biood to our Lord. We have no statements on the 
 part of the early Fathers of the church in regard to 
 the author of the Epistle of Jude. The later Fathers, 
 e. g. Jerome^ call him an apostle, but they did not for 
 that reason mean a different Jude ; only, as might veiv 
 easily happen considering the confused accounts we 
 have of these men, they sometimes placed Jude the 
 
 * The original reads Schreiben, which I take to be clearly 
 a mistake for »S7re6en, and translate accordingly.— Tu. 
 
174 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 brother of our Lord among the number of the twelve, 
 contrary to John 7: 5. 
 
 Another as important reason for believing that James 
 the brother of our Lord, and not the apostle James, was 
 regarded as the author of the Epistle is, the circum- 
 stance that it was reckoned among the Antilegomena. 
 Doubts did indeed arise, but not till a pretty late day. 
 Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Irenaeus make use of 
 the Epistle without scruple. Origen first, then Euse- 
 bius, mention doubts. Now as before the time of Je- 
 rome there is no trace of the Epistle's having been re- 
 garded as forged in James' name, the ground of doubt 
 can have been no other than that it was questionable 
 whether an Epistle of any one not an apostle could 
 claim admission into the canon. Jerome observes, 
 that certain individuals believed the Epistle of James 
 to have been forged by some one in his name. This 
 opinion, however, is entirely devoid of probability, be- 
 cause in such case the author would not have neglect- 
 ed to ascribe the dignity of apostle to the James whom 
 he wished to be regarded as the writer of the Epistle, 
 that it might be more sure of admission into the canon. 
 Those persons, therefore, of whom Jerome speaks, and 
 who undoubtedly resided in the West, probably enter- 
 tained doctrinal scruples respecting the Epistle. In 
 the West, and particularly, in Rome, the centre of the 
 Western churches, special regard was felt for Paul and 
 his doctrines. Now the second chapter of the Epistle 
 of James was supposed to contain erroneous notions in 
 contrariety to Paul, because, as was thought, it incul- 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 175 
 
 cated justification by works instead of by faith. This 
 passage even mishJ! Luther into a rejection of the 
 Epistle of James. In his preface to it he says : '' This 
 James does nothing but urge his readers to the law and 
 to works, and his manner is so confused that I imagine 
 he was some pious man who had gathered a few say- 
 ings from the disciples of the apostles, and put them 
 down upon paper. . . . Hence the Epistle of James is 
 but a strawy Epistle ; it has by no means an evangeli- 
 cal tone." 
 
 In more recent times, however, it has been proved, 
 by very thorough and impartial investigations, that this 
 harsh judgment of Luther is certainly unfounded, to- 
 gether with the apprehensions of the ancient Fathers 
 mentioned by Jerome. 
 
 James only opposed misconstructions and perver- 
 sions of Paul's real doctrine, not the great apostle of 
 the Gentiles himself. The two great teachers of the 
 church are essentially one in sentiment ; only they had 
 reference to different heresies, and thus their language 
 wears a different aspect. In the Epistles to the Ro- 
 mans and Galatians, Paul presents the doctrine of faith, 
 and justification thereby, in opposition to the reliance 
 which the Jews placed on works. James, on the other 
 hand, opposes a dead, imaginary faith, which, without 
 any renovating influence-over the heart and mind, lulls 
 a man into the sleep of sin, instead of making him ac- 
 tive in works of love. If we thus consider the lan- 
 guage of the two apostles with reference to the posi- 
 tions which they respectively opposed, we shall per- 
 
176 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 ceive the most perfect unity between these two teach- 
 ers of the church, notwithstanding all their freedom 
 and peculiarity of manner. Though they taught the 
 same doctrines, their point of view was different. Paul 
 had a predominant leaning towards faith, not meaning 
 by any means, however, to deny that it must bear good 
 works as its fruit ; James directed bis attention more 
 to the fruit, without, however, disparaging the root of 
 faith from which alone they could spring.^ 
 
 Thus, leaving wholly out of view the influence of 
 doctrinal ideas, the discrepancy between the ancient 
 Fathers of the church Vv^as only whether the Epistle, 
 as proceeding from the brother of our Lord, who was 
 not an apostle, should or should not be admitted into 
 the canon. The East, in general, maintained that it 
 should, because James had exerted so much influence 
 in that region ; the Christians of the West were less 
 favorable to it. In reality, then, the question was not 
 in regard to the genuineness of the Epistle, but in re- 
 gard to the rank of James, v^hether or not he should 
 be placed on a level with the apostles in respect to the 
 abundance and power of the Spirit poured out upon 
 him, so that a writing of his might be received into the 
 canon as a norm of faith and practice for all future^ 
 generations of Christians ; a question which we will 
 soon consider further. 
 
 * See more complete discussions of the supposed discrep- 
 ancy between Paul and James on the subject of faith and 
 works, in the Biblical Repository, Vol. III. p. 189, and Vol. 
 IV. p. 683.— Tr. 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 177 
 
 In regard to this second point, likewise, the case is 
 the same with the Epistle of Jude as with that of 
 James ; except that in the accounts concerning this 
 Epistle given by ancient Fathers we do not find the 
 slightest evidence that the Epistle was ever regarded 
 as the production of an impostor who forged it in Jude's 
 name. Such a supposition respecting this Epistle is 
 extremely improbable. In such case, w^ould an im- 
 postor have contented himself with designating Jude 
 as the " brother of James ?" Would he not at least 
 have expressly called him an apostle of our Lord, in 
 order to gain a place for the Epistle in the canon ? 
 When we are told, therefore., of opposition to the Epis- 
 tle, which caused it to be placed among the Antilego- 
 mena, we must refer it all to a refusal to accord to the 
 author of the Epistle, who was not an apostle, sufficient 
 consideration to procure its admission into the canon. 
 Thus in regard to the Epistle of Jude, likewise, the 
 point in question is, not the genuineness of the Epistle, 
 but only the personal standing of the author, which by 
 some of the Fathers of the church was considered 
 equal to that of an apostle, and by others inferior. The 
 investigation of this question, then, what we are to 
 think of the admission of two productions of writers 
 who were not apostles into the canon of the New Tes- 
 tament, remains for the conclusion of this chapter. 
 
 Now, whether it be said, that the church has forsa- 
 ken its principle of admitting no writing into the canon 
 which was not either written by an apostle or composed 
 under his supervision and authority, in admitting the 
 
178 
 
 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 Epistles of James and Jude ; or that they indeed ad- 
 hered to their principle, but erred in regarding James 
 and Jude, the brethren of our Lord, to whom they 
 correctly ascribed the Epistles, as apostles, and there- 
 fore admitting their Epistles into (he canon — either 
 way, it would seem as though we of the present day 
 were entitled to charge antiquity whh mistake respect- 
 ing these Epistles. As to the Epistle of Jude the case 
 certainly seems to be as we have here stated it. It 
 was written by one who was not an apostle, by a man 
 of whose acts and character we know nothing further; 
 a fi^ct which appears to sustain the scruples of many 
 of the ancients in regard to its being canonical. More- 
 over, it contains nothing which is not also found in the 
 second Epistle of Peter, so that the church could dis- 
 pense with it without suffering the slightest loss. We 
 might therefore be disposed to consider this Epistle as 
 a deutero-canonical production, which was received 
 into the canon only at a late period on the ground that 
 it was more advisable to preserve every writing of the 
 days of the apostles than to reject any thing which 
 might be of apostolic origin. It is not to be forgotten, 
 however, that the use of Jude's Epistle in the second 
 Epistle of Peter must be considered as apostolic con- 
 firmation of the former, if the latter be acknowledged 
 genuine. Both productions, therefore, stand or fall 
 together. The impossibility, however, of proving be- 
 yond doubt the genuineness of the second Epistle of 
 Peter, will not permit the friends of these Epistles to 
 entertain any thing more than a subjective convictioq 
 in regard to the authority of Jude. 
 
EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 179 
 
 The case is different, however, with the Epistle of 
 James. For this remarkable man appears, both ac- 
 cording to the New Testament and according to the 
 Fathers of the church, to have occupied a very influ- 
 ential position. It is true he was not of the number 
 of the twelve ; but the fact that our Lord appeared to 
 him separately as he did to Peter (1 Cor. 15: 7), indi- 
 cates his consequence ; as does also the circumstance 
 that he was elected bishop of Jerusalem, and especial- 
 ly his relation to the Jewish Christians, of whom James 
 seems to have been the real head. Hence in Gal. 2: 
 9, this man, with Peter and John, is called a pillar of 
 the church, and Josephus represents the consideration 
 in which he was held among the Jews to have been so 
 great, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 
 was looked upon as a judgment for his death. Al- 
 though, therefore, James was no apostle, and moreo- 
 ver, no one of the twelve, so far as we know, afforded 
 his confirmation to the Epistle, still the church might 
 well have considered itself entitled to insert the pro- 
 duction of so influential a man in the canon. It may 
 be said, indeed, that James was in a precisely parallel 
 situation to that of Paul (who too was not of the num- 
 ber of the twelve, and still enjoyed apostolic dignity) ; 
 except that in regard to the appearance of our Lord 
 which was vouchsafed to .lames and the commissions 
 which were entrusted to him we have not such particu- 
 lar information as is furnished us by the Acts respecting 
 his appearance to Paul. Yet, passing by this, we can- 
 not but declare, that an apostolic confirmation of a par- 
 
180 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 
 
 ticular book, such as we suppose in the case of Mark 
 and Luke, according to the testimony of history, is 
 nothing compared with the testimony which we have 
 from Paul's own mouth respecting James. He is de- 
 signated, along with Peter and John, as a pillar of the 
 whole church of God upon earth, and thus, though not 
 one of the twelve, still placed entirely on a level with 
 the proper apostles; and hence no objection at all can 
 be made to the reception of the Epistle by the church. 
 She has not, in receiving it, deviated at all from her 
 principles ; indeed, she has thereby rather applied 
 them in their real spirit, not rigorously restricting the 
 idea of apostolical estimation to the number of the 
 twelve, but referring it to the fulness and power of the 
 spirit exhibited in the life. This, however, as appears 
 from the Epistle itself, and from history, was possessed 
 in its utmost potency by James, as well as Paul, on 
 which account the Epistle of the former richly merits 
 a place among the canonical books. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF THE REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 The sublime book which concludes the New Testa- 
 ment, the Revelation of St. John, (o deoXoyog^) with 
 its wonderful images and visions, has met with a more 
 extraordinary fate than any other writing of the New 
 Testament. The impressive and absorbing nature of 
 the contents of the book has seldom permitted any one 
 to examine it with cool impartiality, and while some 
 have become the enthusiastic advocates of the book, 
 others have appeared as its most violent opponents, 
 not only rejecting the work as not apostolical, or as 
 forged, but even reviling it as the production of an 
 heretical spirit. Thus it lias happened, that, while no 
 production of the New Testament can exhibit more 
 and stronger historical evidence of its genuineness and 
 apostolic authority than the Revelation, none has met 
 with more antagonists ; and, indeed, many of its antago- 
 nists are men who have merited much gratitude from 
 the church for their struggles in behalf of the truth. 
 Among these is Luther, who shows himself a deter- 
 mined opponent of John's Revelation. He says, in his 
 preface to it : 
 
 '' There are various and abundant reasons why I 
 regard this book as neither apostolical nor prophetic. 
 
 16 
 
182 REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 First and foremost ; the apostles do not make use of 
 visions, but prophesy in clear and plain language (as 
 do Peter, Paul, and Christ also, in the Gospel) ; for it 
 is becoming the apostolic office to speak plainly and 
 without figure or vision, respecting Christ and his acts. 
 — Moreover, it seems to me far too arrogant for him 
 lo enjoin it upon his readers to regard this his own 
 work as of more importance than any other sacred 
 book, and to threaten that if any one shall take aught 
 away from it, God will take away from him his part in 
 the book of life (Rev. 22: 19). Besides, even were 
 it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no 
 man knows what that is. The book is believed in 
 (and is really just the same to us) as though we had it 
 not ; and many more valuable books exist for us to be- 
 lieve in. But let every man think of it as his spirit 
 prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the 
 production, and this is reason enough for me why I 
 should not esteem it very highly." 
 
 From this strong language of the great reformer it is 
 sufficiently evident how repulsive the contents of the 
 Revelation were to him. As he termed the Epistle of 
 James a strawy Epistle, because it seemed to him to 
 contradict Paul's doctrine in regard to faith, so he re- 
 jected the Revelation, because the imagery of the book 
 was unintelligible to him. This was obscure to him 
 from the fact that he could not thoroughly apprehend 
 the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth, which is 
 exhibited in the Revelation, and forms the proper cen- 
 tre of every thing contained in it. 
 
REVELATION OF JOHN. 183 
 
 The same point has at all times in the church ope- 
 rated very powerfully upon the judgments of learned 
 men in regard to the Revelation ; and therefore v^e 
 must, before any particular examination of this produc- 
 tion, make some general observations on the propriety 
 of permitting doctrinal views generally, and the doc- 
 trine of God's kingdom upon earth particularly, to 
 have an influence on criticism. 
 
 In recent times, critical investigations of the sacred 
 books have pretty generally proceeded on the principle, 
 that doctrinal views ought not to exert any influence 
 upon inquiries respecting the genuineness of the Scrip- 
 tures, It has been easy to lay down this principle, be- 
 cause generally* the binding authority of Sacred Writ 
 has been denied, and writers have not felt it incumbent 
 on them to admit as an object of faith every thing that 
 was stated in genuine apostolic writings. Indeed, to 
 many an investigator it has been very gratifying, that 
 in genuine writings of the apostles things should occur 
 which to him seemed evident errors ; since in such 
 case it became more easy to prove that the apostles, 
 even, had stated many things erroneously, and that 
 therefore what was true in their productions should be 
 separated from what was false. With Luther, howev- 
 er, and all the other old theologians the case was dif- 
 ferent. They acknowledged the Scriptures as binding 
 on their faith, and therefore could by no means wholly 
 exclude doctrinal considerations. For, were a book 
 proved to be apostolical by all possible historical and 
 
 * That is, in Germany. — Tr, 
 
184 ^ REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 internal arguments, and yet it plainly subverted the Gos- 
 pel and preached a different Christ from the true historical 
 Son of God and man, no faithful teacher of the church 
 of Christ should receive and use any such production, 
 notwithstanding all the evidence in its favor, any more 
 than listen to an angel from heaven, who should bring 
 another Gospel (Gal. 1:8). Such was Luther's posi- 
 tion ; and in this view we may respect and honor his 
 opposition to the Epistle of James and the Revelation 
 of John. His only error in this, in itself commenda- 
 ble, endeavor boldly to distinguish what was anti-chris- 
 tian was, that he decided too rashly and hastily, and 
 thus did not investigate with sufficient thoroughness, 
 and, on the ground of appearances merely, pronounced 
 that to be not biblical which in reality was so. That 
 this was the case in regard to his judgment concerning 
 the discrepancy between James and Paul, is at the pre- 
 sent day universally admitted. In regard to the Rev- 
 elation, however, many still think that he judged cor- 
 rectly, although, in my opinion, he erred here as much 
 as in relation to the Epistle of James. 
 
 We cannot say, therefore, that doctrinal considera- 
 tions are not of the least consequence in critical inves- 
 tigations ; though certainly we must not permJt them 
 to have an improper influence, so as to disturb the his- 
 torical investigation, nor too hastily make an objective 
 rule of our present subjective views, but endeavor to 
 investigate more thoroughly what is at the moment ob- 
 scure and inexplicable. Such an endeavor will often 
 educe a modification of our views, and we may find 
 
I 
 
 REVELATION OF JOHN. 185 
 
 that what seemed erroneous contains profound and sub- 
 linne truth. 
 
 In particular, this would undoubtedly be the case 
 with many, if they could determine to consider more 
 closely the doctrine respecting God's kingdom upon 
 earth, which has always been the greatest cause of of- 
 fence in the Revelation. True, it is not to be denied, 
 that the history of the fortune of this doctrine is by no 
 means calculated to favor it ; for every thing which hu- 
 man ignorance and human malice have been able to 
 devise appeals to have concentrated itself in the mis- 
 apprehensions of this doctrine. If, however, pains be 
 taken to separate these misapprehensions and perver- 
 sions from the doctrine itself, and we are impartial 
 enough to consider, that often very profound truths, 
 which take a mighty hold of the human mind, are most 
 exposed to abuse, and may become most dangerous, 
 and that hardly any other religion has been misused to 
 such abominable purposes as the Christian religion itself, 
 and yet that it is not on that account the less true or 
 the less divine, he will easily attain the proper funda- 
 mental idea of the doctrine of God's kingdom upon 
 earth ; which is so simple, that we cannot understand 
 how its truth could ever be doubted, until we remem- 
 ber the farragos of nonsense which have been pro- 
 pounded under its sanction. This simple radical idea 
 is merely, that as, in regard to an individual man, God, 
 by the Saviour, redeems not merely a particular part of 
 him, his spirit alone, his soul alone, or his body alone, 
 but the whole man, his body, soul, and spirit, so the re- 
 
 16* 
 
186 KEVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 deeming power of Christ has for its object the deliver- 
 ance of the entire hunnan race, and of the creation in 
 ^ general from the yoke of sin. As, therefore, the end 
 of salvation for the individual is the glorification of his 
 nature, the end of all things in the universe on the same 
 principle is the glorification of the universe. Proceed- 
 ing from this fundamental idea, the Revelation teaches 
 in sublime imagery, agreeing perfectly with the state- 
 ments of our Lord and the apostles, (which are less for- 
 mal and rather take the doctrine for granted, and thus 
 are more incidental,) that a period will come in which 
 not only, as had already been the case, the spirit of 
 Jesus Christ should prevail in secret and guide men's 
 mindsj but should also gain the victory externally and 
 found a kingdom of peace and righteousness upon earth. 
 Now, that with the arrival of this reign of peace there 
 will be connected, on the one hand, the appearance of 
 Jesus Christ and a resurrection of many saints and pi- 
 ous men, and, on the other, a previous mighty strug- 
 gle on the part of evil, — does indeed follow very natu- 
 rally from the fundamental idea, and the supposed de- 
 velopment of good and evil ; but these points are only 
 incidental. The principal idea is the perfect return of 
 the supremacy of good, the restoration of the lost para- 
 dise to an earth which has been laid waste by sin. 
 Millions desire this most earnestly, hope and pray for 
 • it even, without ever imagining that it is the very doc- 
 trine which they think themselves bound to oppose, or 
 at least unable to admit without deviating from correct 
 belief. Even the excellent reformers had but an im- 
 
REVELATION OF JOHN. 187 
 
 perfect notion of this doctrine, though it is as simple 
 as it is sublinme ; and for this reason, in a great meas- 
 ure, that they saw around them senseless fanatics who 
 dishonored the Gospel and caused unspeakable injury 
 by the grossest misconstructions and perversions of this 
 doctrine. 
 
 It would not have been worth while, with our pres- 
 ent purpose, to say even the little we have said on this 
 subject, were there not so many well-meaning men, of 
 real piety, who, notwithstanding the most striking his- 
 torical proof, can never prevail upon themselves to ad- 
 mit the Revelation to be a genuine apostolic production, 
 and therefore entitled to a place in the canon, and thus 
 to become a rule of faith ; because they feel that then 
 they must, in consequence, admit the reign of God 
 upon earth into their circle of belief, which they sup- 
 pose they neither can nor ought to do. May such be 
 led to a thorough investigation of this idea and of all 
 the passages of Scripture which relate thereto, that 
 the acknowledgment of evangelical truth in this respect 
 may be promoted and its fulfilment be rendered nearer 
 at hand ! 
 
 In passing now to the consideration of the historical 
 evidence in favor of the genuineness of the Revelation, 
 we must again call to mind the latter days of the life 
 of John the Evangelist. He lived, as we know with 
 certainty, longer than any one of the other apostles, 
 that is, as late as to the end of the first century. The 
 scene of his successful labors at the close of his life was 
 the city of Ephesus, in the vicinity of which were situ- 
 
188 REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 ated all those cities to which were directed the seven 
 Epistles contained in the first chapters of the Revela- 
 tion. EphesLis, moreover, was one of the great cen- 
 tres of business in the Roman empire, and was much 
 frequented by Christians from all countries. 
 
 It must, therefore, be admitted, that it was easy for 
 the Ephesian church particularly, and indeed for the 
 whole ancient church, to arrive at the highest degree 
 of certainty in regard to the writings of John. In par- 
 ticular, there could be no uncertainty whether Jokn 
 had composed so peculiar, so very remarkable, a pro- 
 duction as the Revelation. We must therefore admit, 
 that if among the Fathers of the church in that region 
 we met with even uncertainty in regard to its author, 
 it would be a very suspicious circumstance; and, on 
 the other hand, unanimity in their conviction of the 
 genuineness of the book must be a very decisive 
 testimony in its favor. Now we meet with this last to 
 a surprising degree. First, we have the testimony of 
 Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in behalf of 
 the book. This man was personally acquainted with 
 several of the apostles, and among them with the 
 Evangelist John. His testimony is therefore of the 
 greatest consequence. It is true an attempt has been 
 made to invalidate it, on the ground that only a late 
 writer named Andreas^ attributes to Papias any know^- 
 ledge of the Revelation ; but careful consideration of 
 the principal passage respecting Papias in Eusebius 
 (Hist. EccL III. 39.), which certainly ought to be thits 
 examined, will show that Eusebius has given a wrong 
 
REVELATION OP JOHN. 189 
 
 representation concerning Papias in naore than one re- 
 spect, and everything is in favor of the supposition, 
 that Papias was acquainted w^ith all John's writings. 
 Eusebius is one of those Fathers of the church who 
 were very nauch prejudiced against the doctrine con- 
 cerning the millenium, and it is on this account that he 
 so strongly opposes Papias. Since this ancient bishop 
 was a principal supporter of that doctrine, his testimo- 
 ny may on that account appear partial ; and yet his 
 close relation to John cannot have permitted him, not- 
 withstanding all his predilection for this doctrine, to at- 
 tribute to that^ writer a production which was not his, 
 Justin Martyr, too, along with Papias, testifies in favor 
 of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. He was, 
 indeed, born in Palestine, but he taught in Ephesus, 
 and there had opportunity to learn how things really 
 were. Now, this Father expressly declares the Reve- 
 lation to have been written by the Evangelist John, one 
 of the twelve. So, too, Mellto^ bishop of Sardis, one 
 of the cities to which the Epistles in the Revelation are 
 addressed. We cannot but presume that such a man 
 would know who was the author of a production which 
 contained an Epistle to the church over which he pre- 
 sided. 
 
 The same is true of PolycarVj the celebrated bishop 
 of Smyrna, to which church, likewise, an apocalyptic 
 Epistle is addressed. This man was an immediate dis- 
 ciple of the Evangelist John. Polycarp's pupil, /rewtc- 
 W5, who removed from Asia Minor to the South of 
 France, and, as has been already observed, became 
 
190 
 
 REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 bishop of Lyons, gives us an account of Polycarp's re- 
 lation to John, and makes use of the Revelation through- 
 out his writings, without mentioning even the slightest 
 opposition to it. It is also employed as really apos- 
 tolical by the Western Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
 Hippolytus, etc., without any mention of a doubt as to 
 its canonical authority. Still, it may be said, none of 
 these were either learned or critical ; they found in 
 the Revelation their favorite doctrine in regard to the 
 kingdom of God upon earth, and therefore they readily 
 received the book as a production of John's. In deci- 
 ded opposition to such remarks, we adduce the Alex- 
 andrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, These were 
 not only the most learned men of the day and the best 
 skilled in criticism, but, in particular, were opponents 
 of the doctrine of the Millenium ; yet neither had any 
 idea that the Revelation of John was not composed by 
 the Evangelist of that name. They chose to get rid 
 of the odious contents of the book by a forced inter- 
 pretation, rather than by opposing the tradition of the 
 whole church. A stronger combination of historical evi- 
 dence in favor of the apostolic origin of the book is, in 
 fact, hardly conceivable ! The weight of this evidence 
 is augmented by what we know respecting those who 
 doubted the genuineness of the book. Of this number 
 was a presbyter of the Roman church, whose name 
 was Gains. This man made it a set purpose to 
 oppose the doctrine of the millenium ; and because, the 
 defenders of it naturally appealed first of all to the 
 Revelation^ he declared it spurious, without^ however. 
 
ilEVELATION OF JOHN. 191 
 
 presenting any historical or critical reasons for doing so. 
 In order to degrade the Revelation, it was even referred 
 by him to a heretic, Cerinihus, who was said to have 
 written it in John's name. But in this he clearly 
 evinced that he was carried away by his feelings, for 
 no one can by any means attribute the Revelation to 
 an intentional deceiver, for this reason, that it would 
 have been one object with such a man to denote with 
 precision the person of the Evangelist, so as to cause 
 the work to be regarded as his. This, however, has 
 not been done, and thus we are not permitted to take 
 any view in opposition to it, except it be that another 
 John, and not the Evangelist, composed it. This opinion 
 was first stated and defended in a formal manner by 
 the learned Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a disciple 
 of Origen. But, as this man lived at so late a period 
 that authentic oral tradition was no longer within his 
 reach, no more stress is to be laid upon his doubts 
 than upon the learned objections of more modern days. 
 We come therefore to this result : Ml historical tra- 
 dition is unanimous in behalf of John'' s composition of 
 the Revelation. 
 
 Now, in order to invalidate this decided testimony 
 of antiquity, very striking arguments ought to be addu- 
 ced ; but observe what are the reasons which prevail 
 upon modern investigators to deny that the Evangelist 
 John was the author of the Revelation, and then judge 
 whether they are strong enough to countervail such 
 testimony. In enumerating these reasons, I follow a 
 distinguished scholar of the present day, whom I very 
 
192 REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 much esteem and love as my former instructor, although 
 I differ entirely from his views. I do indeed believe 
 him to be in general very impartial and unprejudiced ; 
 but nevertheless I think him to be influenced in his 
 judgment of the Revelation by the force of prejudices 
 which were largely imbibed by the church and have 
 been widely diffused.*^ 
 
 In the first place, it is urged by this learned man 
 that John never mentions himself in the Gospel and 
 Epistles as the author of these writings ; would he act 
 differently then in the Apocalypse ? It is true, he says 
 only that this circumstance is worthy of attention ; but 
 as it stands as one of his arguments, it seems to have 
 been regarded as of considerable importance. Of 
 what consequence, however, is such a difference in 
 practice, since all we can say is, simply, that the au- 
 thor chose in this case to employ a different form from 
 his usual one ? What writer is there who does not act 
 as he pleases in regard to such points ? 
 
 In ike second place, the variation from his other 
 writings in point of language is adduced as an argu- 
 ment. The fact is indisputable. The language of the 
 Gospel is pure Greek, smooth, and accurate ; that of 
 the Revelation, on the contrary, is harsh, rugged, full 
 of inaccuracies of expression, and real grammatical 
 mistakes. But it is not true that all difference in 
 phraseology indicates different writers. Compare, e. g., 
 the earliest writings of Gothe, Schiller, Herder, with 
 
 * I mean Prof. De Wette, in his " Einleit. ins neue Testa- 
 ment" (Introd. to the N. Testament). 
 
REVELATION OF JOHN. 193 
 
 the latest productions of the same authors. Especially, 
 take an author who attempts to write in a foreign lan- 
 guage ; must not his first essays be of a totally different 
 character from his later ones ? He has not complete 
 mastery of the language 5 he struggles not only with 
 the sense, but with the form ; and this must neces- 
 sarily make the phraseology even of the most practised 
 intellect somewhat cumbrous. This is exactly the 
 case with John's Revelation. It was his earliest pro- 
 duction in the Greek language, occasioned by the fear- 
 ful occurrences during Nero's persecution. These 
 cast the sympathizing mind of the beloved disciple of 
 Jesus into deep meditation, during which the spirit of 
 prophecy showed him the future fortunes of the church 
 and its final conquest over Judaism and heathenism. 
 It was, therefore, composed some twenty years earlier 
 than the Gospel and Epistles seem to have been writ- 
 ten, and in a language which to John, a native of 
 Palestine, must have been a foreign one. Now, the 
 Revelation appears exactly like the production of a 
 man, who had not yet acquired the requisite skill in 
 the Greek language, and as its internal characteristics, 
 likewise, show that it was written in the early part 
 of John's life, before Jerusalem was destroyed, it is in 
 fact impossible to see, how one can ascribe importance 
 to this circumstance of the difference of style, in op- 
 position to the tradition that the Evangelist John was 
 the author of the production ; the rather as there is 
 undeniably very much in the language whicli bears 
 17 
 
194 REVELATION OF JOHN. 
 
 close affinity to those writings that are admitted to be 
 John's. 
 
 The same may be said of the third observation, 
 that the style of the Revelation is in the following 
 respect very unlike that which we find in the Gospel 
 and Epistles, viz. that the former exhibits a lively 
 creative fancy, while, in the latter, quiet, deep feeling 
 predominates. In regard to this remark, which like- 
 wise is correct, we are to consider, first, that the same 
 individual in different stages of mental development 
 will make use of different styles of expression. The 
 earlier works of the same writer are accordingly more 
 ardent, more imaginative than his later. Moreover, 
 the imagery in the Revelation is not by any means to 
 be regarded as the arbitrary production of a rich fancy, 
 but rather as actual appearances to John's mind from 
 the operation of the divine Spirit within him. I admit 
 that John would not have been selected as the medium 
 of these communications of the Spirit, had there not 
 been in his whole organization a special adaptation for 
 such impressions ; but still, susceptibility to them is not 
 the same as positive productive fancy. Finally, it 
 is not to be forgotten in this view, that John's other 
 writings are of a more historical or else purely didac- 
 tic nature ; while, on the other hand, the Revelation is 
 a prophetic production. It would therefore be totally 
 unnatural that the same style should be observable in 
 the Apocalypse as in John's other writings. 
 
 The only remaining point alleged in confirmation 
 of the difference between the Revelation and other 
 
REVELATION OF JOHN. 195 
 
 writings of John is, that they exhibit a totally different 
 doctrinal aspect, \\\ particular, stress is laid on this 
 circumstance, that in the Gospel nothing at all is found 
 of what forms the main topic of the Apocalypse, viz : 
 the expectation of a visible coming of our Lord and 
 the establishment of his kingdom upon earth. More- 
 over, all that is said in the Revelation respecting good 
 and bad angels is of a more Jewish cast, we are told, 
 than we should expect John's views to have been, 
 from examining his other writings. It would appear, 
 that, if this be really so, it is a reason of some weight 
 against the genuineness of the book ; for we cannot 
 suppose the apostles to have altered their doctrinal 
 views, and, plainly, difference in the character of the 
 writings could not affect the doctrine, as both in his- 
 torical and prophetical productions there must exist 
 the same fundamental views on the part of the writer. 
 Now, the remark is indisputably correct, but the true- 
 reason of the fact has been misapprehended. For, 
 first, the same difference which is exhibited between 
 the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, also appears, 
 on comparison, between the Gospel of John and the 
 first three Gospels. These latter, like the Revelation, 
 present many doctrines and views agreeable to the 
 Jews, particularly the visible coming of our Lord to 
 assume his kingdom upon earth ; while nothing of all 
 this is touched upon by the Gospel of John, notwith- 
 standing there was ample occasion for doing so. It 
 does not thence follow, however, that either John or 
 the others err in representing the discourses of Jesus 
 
196 
 
 REVELATION OF JOHN, 
 
 Christ, since the same person may have spoken sonie- 
 times spiritually, as in John's discourses, and some- 
 times in a Judaizing manner, as according to the other 
 Evangelists. The correct solution of this difficulty is 
 to be sought solely in the special purpose of the 
 Gospel of John, with which the first Epistle stands in 
 such intimate connection that it is not strange it should 
 partake of the same character. The two other Epis- 
 tles are too short to be here taken into consideration. 
 For above (in the third chapter in speaking of the 
 Gospel of John,) it was observed, that this Evangelist 
 had a particular class of persons in view in his work, 
 viz. men similar to the later Gnostics, and who in 
 certain views coincided with them perfectly. In par- 
 ticular, they, like the Gnostics, speculated on divine 
 things in a peculiar manner, and sought to idealize the 
 real facts in the history of Jesus, more than the true 
 apostolic doctrine permitted. These men, among whom 
 were many very sensible and well-meaning persons, 
 were those whom John had particularly in view in the 
 composition of his Gospel. With apostolic wisdom he 
 avoided in this work every thing which could offend 
 the prejudices of these persons. Many Jewish ideas, 
 which had a very good and genuine foundation, and, 
 according to the first Gospels, were expressed by the 
 Saviour himself, he kept back, becoming in a manner 
 a Gnostic to the Gnostics, without doing the least injury, 
 however, to the cause of truth. He depicted Chris- 
 tianity, therefore, to their minds, just as they could 
 most easily comprehend it, convinced that when once 
 
JlEVELATION OF JOHN. 197 
 
 they had seized this idea they would gradually learn to 
 understand it thoroughly. 
 
 If, now, we adhere steadfastly to this point of view, 
 it will appear perfectly intelligible, how the same John 
 who wrote thus in the Gospel, should appear to express 
 himself so differently in the Revelation, in the compo- 
 sition of which no such reference existed ; though still 
 he was always governed by the same doctrinal views 
 at every period of his life. And thus we must declare, 
 that no one of these reasons is calculated to disturb us 
 in regard to the correctness and truth of the tradition 
 of the first centuries after Christ. If the repugnance 
 which is felt towards the contents of the Apocalypse be 
 only conquered, men will soon cease to rate so highly 
 the reasons which are adduced against its apostolic 
 origin, and to think so little of the importance of the 
 unanimous tradition of antiquity. And that this may 
 soon happen is the more to be wished, as the progres- 
 sive development of the Church makes the Revelation 
 more and more important in testing what is now occur- 
 ring among Christians, and what awaits them in the 
 immediate future ! 
 
 17^ 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 Having thus passed through the entire series of 
 the writings of the N. Test., taking notice of the critical 
 questions in regard to them, we will now, for the sake 
 of convenience, present a compendious view of the 
 results at which we have arrived. 
 
 We find then most, and the most important, of 
 the writings in the Canon of the N. T. so unanimously 
 acknowledged in ancient times, and so universally 
 made use of as apostolical in later days, that there 
 cannot be the least doubt in regard to them. They 
 are on this account denominated Homologoumena, 
 universally acknowledged writings, and form the main 
 sources of the doctrine and the history of the Christian 
 church. Among these Homologoumena, as is stated 
 by Eusebius so early as the commencement of the 
 fourth century, were the four Gospels, the Acts of the 
 Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, the first Epistle 
 of Peter, and the first of John. If we attend only to 
 the voice of Christian antiquity, as Eusebius correctly 
 observes, the Apocalypse also does in reality belong 
 among the Homologoumena, But the fortune of this 
 book has been so peculiar, that some have not even been 
 willing to class it among the Antilegomena, but have 
 ranked it with the writings which are of a profane 
 
200 CONCLUSION. 
 
 character and are to be utterly rejected. Eusebius was 
 therefore in great perplexity to what class he could 
 properly assign the Revelation. As to the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, its author is unknown, merely ; its gen- 
 uineness is not disputed. It belongs therefore to the 
 class of the Antilegomena only so far as this, that its 
 position in the canon was disputed, the relation of the 
 author to the apostle Paul not being unaninaously ac- 
 knowledged in the church. 
 
 Properly, the class of the Antilegomena anaongthe 
 N. T. writings comprehends the two smaller Episdes 
 of John, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the sec- 
 ond Episde of Peter. These five books were never 
 universally acknowledged and used in the ancient 
 church. More recent investigation has decided in 
 favor of the first three. The two smaller Epistles of 
 John are certainly apostolical, and from the author of 
 the Gospel of John ; that of James was not, indeed 
 written by one of the twelve, but by a brother of our 
 Lord, who held such a prominent rank in the ancient 
 church as placed him, like Paul, fully on a level with 
 the Apostles. As to the two writings last in the list, 
 however, it appears justly somewhat doubtful whether 
 they are productions of the days of the aposdes. The 
 Epistle of Jude is, indeed, certainly genuine, but as 
 certainly not apostolical, and, as history attributes to 
 this brother of our Lord no very prominent station or 
 agency, the Epistle seems not properly to belong to the 
 canon. It can be supported only by the second Epistle 
 of Peter, which is not itself certainly of apostolical 
 
CONCLUSION. 201 
 
 origin. For, in regard to the latter, a consideration of 
 the circumstances makes it impossible to establish its 
 genuineness objectively on valid grounds, although it 
 may be made subjectively probable. 
 
 These results of the most careful critical investiga- 
 tion of the New Testament are very satisfactory. For, 
 if we could wish that the genuineness and canonical 
 character of the Antilegomena might be established by 
 as valid arguments as we can adduce in behalf of the 
 Homologoumena, still it must be admitted that those 
 books upon which some suspicion rests are the very 
 books, of all the New Testament writings, with which 
 we can most easily dispense. The chief and best of 
 these writings are the very ones whose genuineness and 
 apostolic authority are certified as strongly as possible. 
 
 If, now, we inquire into the relation between the 
 ea:^ernaZ historical genuineness of the books of the New 
 Testament and their internal efficacy and determinate 
 power over the faith and life of the individual and of the 
 whole community of Christians, it is certainly undenia- 
 ble, that the former by itself decides nothing in favor of 
 the latter ; but still, on account of the circumstances of 
 the church, demonstration of such genuineness is by no 
 means unimportant or indifferent. It is clear that we 
 may regard the writings of another religious system, 
 the Zend-Avesta of the Parsees, or the Koran of the 
 Mahometans, as genuine, and as having proceeded 
 from the immediate circle of adherents which the foun- 
 der of that system of religion possessed, without thereby 
 attributing to it any internal efficacy and determining 
 
202 CONCLUSION. 
 
 power over the heart and life. But it cannot be said 
 that a conviction of the genuineness of the apostolic ori- 
 gin of the writings of the New Testament, likewise, is a 
 matter of indifference. It is rather of great consequence 
 in its connection with the church, i. e. the great commu- 
 nity founded by our Saviour and actuated and sustained 
 by his Spirit. You may prove the genuineness of the 
 writings of the New Testament to him who is not within 
 the pale of the church or under its spiritual influence, 
 and he may even acknowledge it upon incontestible his- 
 torical grounds; but, as Christ and his apostles themselves 
 are of no consequence in relation to his internal life, 
 this proof has no more effect upon his faith or his life, 
 than is produced upon those of the scholar who de- 
 clares the Zend-Avesta to be a genuine work of Zoro- 
 aster. Far otherwise is it with him who lives in the 
 bosom of the Christian church. Here he cannot com- 
 pletely withdraw himself from the influence of the 
 Spirit of Christ, which operates upon his heart from 
 his earliest youth ; he feels himself spiritually affected 
 and in a manner constrained by it. It is true that sin- 
 ful man very often strives against the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, it being troublesome to him, because it 
 does not permit him to continue sinning so freely and 
 peaceably as he could wish. In such case he seeks to 
 obtain plausible grounds on which he may evade the 
 force of the Spirit's influence. One such plausible 
 ground is often presented by the supposition that the 
 writings of the New Test, arespurious, whereby the ex- 
 traordinary character of our Saviour, with the sublime 
 
CONCLUSION. 203 
 
 impression he made on the hearts of men, is encompas- 
 sed with doubt, and thus its effect is diminished. To 
 members of the church of Christ, therefore, a firm 
 conviction that the Scriptures are genuine is of the 
 highest consequence ; the opposite opinion, yea uncer- 
 tainty merely, in regard to the character of the sacred 
 writings, is ordinarily the natural concomitant of sin. 
 Such a sentiment hinders the efficacy of the Holy 
 Spirit, which manifests itself, in a manner not to be 
 mistaken, to every simple, plain mind, on perusal of 
 the Holy Scriptures, but exhibits its full strength only 
 when the heart feels a quiet faith, undisturbed by any 
 doubt. Hence the conversion of many has taken rise 
 from their acknowledgement of the genuineness of the 
 N. T. writings ; and moreover the apostasy of many 
 from the truth has arisen out of the circumstance that 
 they denied the authenticity of these books. We 
 may therefore say, that the knowledge of the genu- 
 ineness of the writings of the N. T. is of essential 
 efficacy where the influence of the Spirit of God and a 
 susceptibility to its operations exist in any degree. 
 To him who has already turned aside entirely from 
 the truth, and who resists it with an unfriendly 
 mind, a conviction of the genuineness of these books 
 will be of little use, unless his opposition be first broken 
 by the power of grace. To him who is converted, 
 born again, the sure conviction of their genuineness will 
 always be a pleasing concomitant of grace, and will 
 excite his gratitude ; but, as he has experienced in his 
 heart the divine power which dwells in the Scriptures, 
 
204 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the testimony of the Holy Spirit will always be the 
 proper foundation of his faith, which would support 
 him even though he had no historical proofs in behalf 
 of the sacred books. Persons, however, who have 
 neither experienced a perfect change of heart and 
 mind, nor are actuated by a positively hostile spirit, 
 but ardently desire the former, though they are often 
 assailed by doubts and uncertainties, will find in the 
 firm historical foundation of Scripture something on 
 which they may lean at first, and from which they may 
 then be gradually led to the full knowledge of salvation. 
 For, if it be only admitted that such a life as that 
 which the Scriptures represent our Saviour's to have 
 been was really spent, that such words as they com- 
 municate to us from him were really spoken, the obvi- 
 ous question is, Whence came such a phenomenon ? 
 What is its import to the world ? to me ? 
 
 But, it may here be asked, if the case is thus, how 
 happens it that God has permitted many plausible ob- 
 jections to exist against the writings of the N. T., and 
 that some cannot even be freed wholly from suspicion ? 
 Would it not have been more consistent with the pur- 
 pose of the Scriptures, had all the books been support- 
 ed by so numerous and so completely incontestible 
 testimonies, that not even a doubt concerning them 
 could ever have entered any one's mind ? It may in- 
 deed seem so to short-sighted man. But his desires 
 would not stop here, they would reach still further. 
 He would wish to have a Bible without various read- 
 ings, a biblical history free from the slightest variations, 
 
CONGLUSION. 205 
 
 in short, Jehovah himself embodied in the letter of the 
 word. Theliving God, who is eternal wisdom and 
 love, has not thought any thing of this kind suitable for 
 mankind ; otherwise he would undoubtedly have 
 effected it for their benefit ; and the reasons why he 
 has not we may at least conjecture, even with our 
 weak powers. On the one hand, it would have become 
 easier for man to confound the word and the Spirit 
 dwelling in it with the letter ; for, even as the case now 
 is, this mistake has not been entirely avoided, from the 
 want of spirituality in many men. On the other hand, 
 the guilt of many persons would have been augmented, 
 since they now have at least plausible reasons for their 
 opposition to the truth, but in the other case would 
 have had no such extenuation, and still would have 
 retained their hostility to God's word. We may 
 therefore declare, that the character of Scripture, in 
 this respect hkewise, corresponds most perfectly with 
 the necessities of human nature, as well as with the 
 designs of God, notwithstanding all its apparent im- 
 perfections and deficiencies. 
 
 The observations we have here made in conclusion 
 are, moreover, such as are best suited to present the 
 correct view concerning the peculiar character of the 
 Old Testament in the light of criticism. For this por- 
 tion of God's word has so few historical evidences in 
 its favor, excepting those comprehended within its own 
 compass, that it is impossible to frame such an argu- 
 ment for the genuineness of its books as we are able to 
 exhibit in behalf of the New Testament. This want of 
 18 
 
206 CONCLUSION. 
 
 evidence proceeds in part from the very great antiquity 
 of the writings of the Old Testament, which were almost 
 all composed before there existed any literature among 
 the Greeks, and before the Romans were so much as 
 known by name ; and in part, also, from the state of se- 
 clusion which the nations of the old world generally, and 
 particularly the Jews, always maintained. The Persians, 
 Syrians, Egyptians, knew scarce any thing of the litera- 
 ture of the Hebrews ; and, had they even been acquainted 
 with it, the circumstance would have been of little ad- 
 vantage to us, as we have but few writings of a date 
 anterior to the time of Christ which originated with these 
 nations. In these few, moreover, we find hardly any 
 mention of the Jews and their productions. Hence, 
 in investigating the earliest writings oftheOldTestament, 
 the critic has no other resource than a careful examination 
 of the contents of the books themselves, and a com- 
 parison of them with each other. Were this examina- 
 tion and comparison invariably conducted with a be- 
 lieving and humble disposition, not the slightest objec- 
 tion could be made, and we might quietly await the 
 results of such a procedure ; but, when the minds of 
 investigators deviate from the proper spirit and dis- 
 position, it is very evident how easily such an inquiry, 
 which is in its nature somewhat uncertain and precari- 
 ous, may lead to pernicious results. Every one will, 
 in such a case, determine the matter according to his 
 subjective ideas and views, without obtaining any ob- 
 lective grounds of judgment from investigation. If we 
 only look at the actual state of the matter entirely aside 
 
CONCLUSION. 207 
 
 from the holy character of the book, we shall be con- 
 vinced that such a course of investigation could hardly 
 afford any useful result, even with the best intentions. 
 A book is presented to us, which contains the relics of 
 a nation's literature during a period of 1200 years. 
 We derive all that we can know of the history, the 
 manners, the special circumstances of this people, ex- 
 cepting a few points, from this book alone. Thus it is 
 at once the ohject and the norm of investigation. 
 Since, moreover, in regard to many of the writings in 
 it we have no statement as to their author and the time 
 of their composition, the investigation of these writings 
 cannot but have always a character of uncertainty. If 
 we were only familiarly acquainted with the history of 
 a single nation in close vicinity to the Jews, and found 
 in its literature constant reference to the Jewish wri- 
 tings, we might then, by drawing a parallel, communi- 
 cate more stability to the criticism of the Old Testament, 
 but we have no such advantage, and must content our- 
 selves with individual notices, which have come down 
 to us from the most ancient times of the nations with 
 which the Jews came in contact. It was not till the 
 time of Alexander the Great, about 300 years B. C, 
 that the Jews, with their literature, became known to 
 the Greeks, through whom we have received much 
 important information in regard to the Old Testament. 
 For, as the Jews, after that period, when they fell under 
 Greek dominion, made themselves acquainted with the 
 Greek literature, and to some extent themselves wrote 
 in Greek, as e. g. the celebrated Jewish writers, 
 
208 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Josephus and Philo, so, on the other hand, the Greeks 
 began to take an interest mthe Jews and their religious 
 institutions. From this mixture of Hebrew and Greek 
 life proceeded the celebrated Greelc Version of the 
 Seventy. This, according to the account of the an- 
 cients, was executed under the Egyptian monarch 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the instance of the learned 
 Demetrius Phalereus, about the year 270 B. C. It 
 is true, the Old Testament was not probably translated 
 all at once, but, at any rate, even according to the most 
 recent opinion, the Old Testament was entirely translat- 
 ed into Greek when Jesus Sirach was composed, i. e. 
 about the year 130 B. C. Consequently, it is placed 
 beyond a doubt that the w^hole Old Testament, as we 
 have it, existed in Palestine in the Hebrew language 
 long before the time of Christ and his Apostles, and in a 
 Greek version in the other countries of the Roman 
 Empire, particularly in Egypt, where there resided so 
 large a number of Jews and they possessed so great 
 privileges, that they had even built a Temple in the city 
 of Leontopolis in close imitation of that at Jerusalem. 
 In Egypt, the collection of the Apocryphal books like- 
 wise, which were confessedly written in Greek, was in- 
 serted in the canon of the Old Testament, which was 
 spread abroad by the version of the seventy interpre- 
 ters, and from this version they were introduced intp 
 the Latin church-version, (the so called Vulgate,) thus 
 obtaining the same authority as the writings of the Old 
 Testament, which authority they possess at the present 
 day in the Catholic church. As, however, they are 
 
CONCLUSION. 209 
 
 not expressly cited in the New Testament,^ and are 
 wholly wanting in the Hebrew Canon of the Old 
 Testament, Luther rightly separated them from the 
 rest, but appended them to the books of the Old 
 Testament, as ^' Writings not to he equally es- 
 teemed icith Holy Writ, but still profitable and 
 excellent for perusal.^ ^ The Reformed church, how- 
 ever, has gone still further, and dissevered them entirely 
 from the collection of sacred books, in order to prevent 
 them from being confounded with the inspired word. 
 Hence arose this great evil, that the historical connec- 
 tion between the Old and New Testament, which is 
 so well exhibited in the narrative writings of the Apoc- 
 rypha, was totally sundered ; and this connection is by 
 no means a matter of indifference to believers, because 
 it is only through it that God's providence towards 
 his people can be regarded in the light of an united 
 whole. Hence it would seem best to retain the apocry- 
 phal vvritings along with the Sacred Scriptures, desig- 
 nating, indeed, the distinction between them and the 
 canonical books. 
 
 Thus much, then, according to these statements, we 
 know certainly from historical testimony, that the Old 
 Testament, as we now have it, existed more than a cen- 
 tury before Christ. It is true the learned would be 
 gratified to know a great deal more respecting the for- 
 
 * Allusions to them are pointed out by Slier in his 
 " Andeutungen fiir Glaubwiirdige SchrifterkUirung," (or 
 Hints towards the proper interpretation of the Scriptures,) p. 
 486, seq. 
 
 18* 
 
210 CONCLUSION. 
 
 mation of the canon of the Old Testament, respecting 
 the authors of the individual writings, etc. But, in 
 view merely of the relation of the Old Testament to 
 the faith of the present day, the knowledge that the 
 Old Testament was in a complete collected form be- 
 fore the time of Christ is sufficient to afford us a firm 
 conviction of the genuineness and importance of its 
 books. Now, that the existing Old Testament was 
 generally diffused and in use among the Jews, is 
 attested by the Jewish writers of the apostolic times, 
 who employed the Greek language in their writings. 
 Philo, in Egypt, and Josej)hus, in Palestine, make use 
 of the Old Testament throughout their works, thereby 
 confirming the custom of the New Testament, which 
 also every where refers to the Old Testament. The 
 manner in which the Old Testament is cited by the 
 New, and the definite declarations in regard to the for- 
 mer which are contained in the latter, are decisive as to 
 the faith of Christians of the present day. These afford 
 us more than the mere assurance that the books of the 
 Old Testament are authentic ; this might be ad- 
 mitted, without the slightest acknowledgment of the 
 value of the writings, since the most wretched and even 
 hurtful productions may be perfectly genuine. They 
 declare in the most precise manner the divine charac- 
 ter of these books, which of course presupposes their 
 genuineness, for it is very evident that no writings 
 could be divine which originated in deceit and imposture. 
 In the first place, we find in the New Testament 
 citations from almost all the writings of the Old Testa- 
 
CONCLUSION. 211 
 
 ment.^ The principal books, as, e. g., the Pentateuch, 
 the Psalms, the Prophet Isaiah, are cited very often, 
 and even those less important are referred to here and 
 there in the New Testament. A very few are entirely 
 neglected ;f of this number, in particular, is Solomon's 
 Song, which is nowhere cited in all the New Testa- 
 ment. This circumstance is certainly not accidental. 
 Perhaps it is not too much to conclude, that the books 
 of the Old Testament which are not at all mentioned in 
 the New should be regarded very much as the so-cal- 
 led deutero-canonical books of the New Testament ; 
 though the circumstance that they are not cited in the 
 New Testament can be nowise objected against their 
 genuineness, any more than the position of a New 
 Testament book among the Antilegomena can be con- 
 sidered as a proof of its spuriousness. These non-cited 
 books of the Old Testament, with the exception of the 
 three minor Prophets, probably present something 
 like a transition to the apocryphal books. At all 
 events, the fact that these books are nowhere mention- 
 ed in the New Testament should inculcate upon us 
 caution in making use of them, 
 
 * The O. T. is expressly cited in the New more than four 
 hundred times, and in a much larger number of places there 
 are allusions to the O. T. 
 
 f The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, 
 and Solomon's Song, as also the minor Prophets, Obadiah, 
 Nahum and Zej)haniah. It is most proper, however, to 
 consider the twelve Prophets as one work; and then the 
 fact that these three are not cited loses its force. 13ut in 
 regard to other books of the O. T. the circumstance that they 
 are not cited is not unimportant. 
 
212 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Of more importance than the citations, are such 
 passages of the New Testament as contain decisive 
 declarations respecting the Old Testament as a whole. 
 These occur particularly in the discourses of our Lord 
 himself. Jesus calls the law (Matt. 5: 17 seq.) eternal, 
 imperishable. Heaven and earth, he says, shall pass 
 away, but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass 
 away, till all be fulfilled. In a similar manner, in 
 Luke 24: 44, prophecy concerning Christ is repre- 
 sented as something running through the law of Moses, 
 the Prophets, and the Psalms, and as necessary to be 
 fulfilled. In Luke 16: 17, also, all created things, 
 (heaven and earth,) it is said, will sooner and more 
 easily pass away than the Law and the Prophets. 
 Thus a lofty divine character is clearly claimed in be- 
 half of the Old Testament. It may, indeed, be ob- 
 served on the contrary, that, in the passages referred 
 to, allusion is made, not to the whole Old Testament, 
 but only to particular books, the Mosaic law, the 
 Prophets, and the Psalms. But, first, it is to be 
 noticed, that the expression, Law, or Law and 
 Prophets, stands frequently for the whole Old Testa- 
 ment, just as Gospel stands for the whole New Testa- 
 ment. Moreover, the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 Psalms, was the usual division of the books of the 
 Old Testament among the Jews. The first part of 
 the Hebrew Old Testament comprehends the five 
 books of Moses, the second part falls into two sub- 
 divisions, first the historical writings, the books of 
 Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and, secondly, the three 
 
CONCLUSION. 213 
 
 larger and 12 minor Prophets. In the third part, 
 (which in Luke 24: 44 is termed Psahns, from the 
 principal book which it contains,) belong moreover, 
 besides the Psahns, the book of Job, the writings of 
 Solomon, the book of Daniel, and some later historical 
 books, and, lastly, the book of Chronicles. But, en- 
 tirely aside from this Jewish division of the Old Testa- 
 ment, the connection of these passages with the cita- 
 tions clearly shows, that they are intended to refer to 
 the whole Old Testament. The citations in the New 
 Testament from the Old are not adduced as mere con- 
 firmation, drawn from human productions of great value, 
 but as irrefragable proofs from sacred books. This 
 power of proof could have belonged to them only from 
 the fact that they were not bare compositions of human 
 wisdom, but those of men who were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost. (Compare 2 Pet. 1: 20, 21.) Now, as 
 citations from all the principal writings of the Old 
 Testament occur in the New, the general declarations 
 we have mentioned must of course refer to all the 
 writings of the Old Testament, so as to attribute to 
 them a common character, viz. that of a divine origin. 
 
 To this it is to be added, that throughout scripture 
 there runs the doctrine of a deep, essential connection 
 between the Old and New Testaments. As the Old 
 Testament is always pointing onward to the New, so 
 the latter is always pointing backward to the Old, as its 
 necessary precedent. Consequently, both alike bear 
 the character of a divine Revelation ; only, this Reve- 
 lation manifests itself in a gradual development. In 
 the Old Testament it appears in its commencementj as 
 
214 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the seed of the subsequent plant ; in the New Testa- 
 ment the living plant itself is exhibited. On account 
 of this relation, there cannot be any thing in the Old 
 Testament specifically different from what is to be 
 found in the New Testament ; only, the form of present- 
 ing the same thing is at one time more or less plain 
 and direct than at another. 
 
 These declarations of the New Testament in regard 
 to the Old are, to Christians, not mere private assertions 
 of wise, good, and pious men, such as many in our day 
 are in the habit of supposing Jesus and his apostles to 
 have been ; they exhibit, rather, authentic information 
 respecting the real character of the Holy Scriptures of 
 the Old Testament. Christ, as the Son of the living God, 
 as absolute truth itself, who alone knew the Father^ and 
 as the source of all real revelation from him, can have 
 made such declarations concerning the writings of the 
 Old Testament only with the strictest sincerity, (as is 
 the case with every thing he did or said,) and must have 
 designed that they should be a rule to his church, since 
 his whole life on earth had but one single aim, that of 
 developing the heavenly and eternal to the created world. 
 Thus, had Jesus attributed the character of eternity 
 to a production to which it by no means belonged, he 
 would have counteracted his own sole purpose. The 
 same is true of the apostles, who, in that respect to 
 which our attention is now directed, are to be consider- 
 ed as upon a level with Christ himself, they being pure 
 organs of the mind of Christ ; though, in themselves 
 considered, they were but sinful men, and desired to 
 be so regarded. Under the influence of the Holy 
 
CONCLUSION. 215 
 
 Spirit they acknowledged the eternal character of the 
 Old Testament ; and their declarations on this point are 
 not (any more than those of our Lord himself,) mere sub- 
 jective, private statements, they are rather authentic 
 accounts respecting the character of this part of Holy 
 Writ. In considering the force of the apostolic dec- 
 larations concerning the authority of the sacred Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, we are to regard, not merely the 
 citations of individual passages from it, or general state- 
 ments respecting its authors, such as their being at one 
 time represented as moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 
 1:21), and at another Holy Scripture being called in- 
 struction unto salvation (2 Tim. 3: 15.), which, as the 
 New Testament was not then collected, can refer only 
 to the Old ; but we are especially to observe the 
 manner in which the citations are adduced from the 
 Old Testament. This is most remarkable in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, although similar passages also 
 occur in the Gospels and other books of the New 
 Testament. In this remarkable Epistle, God or the 
 Holy Ghost is constantly named as the speak- 
 er, in the passages which are adduced from the Old 
 Testament ; and this not only in regard to those which 
 are accompanied in the Old Testament by the expres- 
 sion, '' God said," but also to those in which some man 
 speaks, — for instance, David, as author of a Psalm. 
 Herein is clearly exhibited the view of the author in 
 relation to the Old Testament and the writers of it. 
 He considered that God was, by his Holy Spirit, the 
 living agent and speaker in them all, so that, conse- 
 quently, the Holy Scriptures were iolum purely a work 
 of God, although brought forward by men. That the 
 
216 CONCLUSION. 
 
 genuineness of these writings was equally certain to 
 him, follows of course, because that which is divine, as 
 has been before remarked, can never appear in the 
 form of a forgery. 
 
 It is true, however, that such a proof in behalf of 
 the Old Testament is valid only for him who has become 
 convinced, by living experience, of the truth of God in 
 Christ and the infallibility of the Spirit which actuated 
 his disciples. Where this truth and infallibility are either 
 flatly denied, or even merely doubted, the observa- 
 tions we have made may be of no weight. For such 
 persons we cannot frame an argument in behalf of the 
 Old Testament which shall be valid against all objec- 
 tions. As to us who live according to Christ, and to 
 whom the power of his Spirit is accessible, every 
 thing must radiate from the centre of the New Testa- 
 ment scenes, viz. the Saviour himself. The conviction 
 of his eternal power and Godhead establishes the 
 Old Testament retrospectively, and also establishes 
 the New Testament prospectively, by the promise of 
 his Spirit, which should bring all those things which he 
 had said to his disciples to their remembrance. On 
 this conviction the assurance of the genuineness and di- 
 vinity of Scripture forever rests, and much more se- 
 curely, than upon any external historical proofs; for it 
 wholly takes away the possibility of an attack in any 
 quarter on the part of human sophistry, and leaves 
 assurance safe in the unassailable sanctuary of our in- 
 terior life. 
 
 END. 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: June 2005 
 
 PreservatioiiTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 {724)779-2111 
 
•y