CANDIDATES FOR PRIEST'S ORDERS. MISCELLANEous. I. Name those Epistles which were not at first admitted into the Canon of Scripture. On what ground were they excluded? -What were the chief reasons for supposing that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul? was any doubt entertained of its antiquity?—What is meant by Catholic Epistles ?-Between two of these there is a very remarkable similarity: which are those two? The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, and that of St. Jude ;-also the Book of Revelation. And they were excluded from the Canon of Scripture only until the Churches situated at a distance from the places where these Books were originally published had an opportunity of examining into the evidence upon which they rested, and they were then as implicitly received as the rest of the Sacred Writings.* The chief reasons for supposing that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul were, the omission of the Apostle's Name, which is found in all the other Epistles acknowledged to have been written by him; and the elegance of the style, which is supposed to be superior to that of St. Paul's other Epistles: --but no doubt was ever entertained of its antiquity.+ Most probably general Epistles; as being addressed, not to individuals, or to particular churches, as were the other Epistles, but to Christians generally.‡ The second chapter of St. Peter's Second Epistle, and the Epistle of St. Jude:§-there is likewise a great similarity between the First and Second Epistles of St. John, but the latter of these is not a catholic, or general, Epistle.|| *Bishop Tomline's "Christian Theology," Vol. I. p 269, Canon of the New Testament. + Tomline, Vol. I. p. 452, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Horne's "Introduction," Vol. IV. pp. 409-422, sect. iii. p. 351, sect. iii. Tomline, Vol. 1. p, 463, The seven Catholic Epistles Horne, Vol. IV. Tomline, Vol. I. p. 503, sect. iii, Note. Horne, Vol. IV. p. 478, sect. vi. Horne, Vol. IV. p. 471, sect. i. || Tomline, Vol. I, p. 497, sects. iii, iv. II. State shortly Paley's argument with respect to the coinci dences between the Epistles of St. Paul and the History of the Acts of the Apostles.-How does he shew that those coincidences, which are the slightest and the least obvious, are the most important to his argument? quote any instances, which you may remember. He supposes the Epistles attributed to St. Paul, and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, to be taken from any Library, and without assuming either the genuineness of the Letters, to prove the truth of the History, or the truth of the History to prove the genuineness of the Letters, and discarding all external evidence whatever, he undertakes to shew, from the UNDESIGNED coincidences which exist between these two classes of Writings, that the Letters are genuine, and that the History is true. * He shews it upon the self-evident proposition that the less obvious any coincidence or agreement is, the greater is the probability that it did not arise intentionally, or from design; for he rests his argument upon the undesigned coincidences existing between the History of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul.+-As an instance of undesigned coincidence, Paley refers to the accounts of St. Paul's narrow escape from Damascus, which are given in the Book of Acts, and in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians;§ the narrative in each place agrees in the fact of his escape, and in the manner in which it was effected; but the attendant circumstances are so differently related as to make it reasonably evident that neither the Letter was written from the History, nor the History from the Letter; as in either case the accounts would, in all probability, have borne a nearer resemblance to each other. And again, "Now, ye Philippians," says St. Paul, "know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only;" ||—the Apostle's expression, “in the beginning of the gospel," intimates that, when those words were written, the gospel had been preached more than once among the Philippians; or he would probably not have said, "in the beginning of the gospel," but when the gospel was preached, or some similar expression: and upon referring to the Book of Acts ¶ we find that the Apostle really had been twice at Philippi before he wrote this Epistle. So that the Epistle and the History coincide in shewing that the Apostle was twice at Philippi, and they do so undesignedly; for had the History heen composed from the Letter, the Historian would not have ventured to give so minute an account of the Apostle's visits to Philippi, with merely the words "in the beginning of the gospel" upon which to ground his narrative; nor, had the Letter been written from the facts stated in the History, would the person writing it have been satisfied with giving so vague an account of St. Paul's journies to Philippi, as to say nothing more than "in the beginning of the gospel." + Paley's Acts ix. 23-25. "Horæ § 2 Cor. * Paley's "Hora Paulinæ," ch. i, Exposition of the argument. Paulinæ," ch. i, Exposition of the Argument; and Conclusion. III. Which is the earliest, and which the latest Epistle written by St. Paul? what internal evidence does the latter furnish of having been written towards the close of the Apostle's life? The First Epistle to the Thessalonians is generally considered the earliest (about 52);* and the Second Epistle to Timothy the latest (about 65)† of those written by St. Paul: and that the latter epistle was written towards the close of the Apostle's life appears very probable from the following passage in the last chapter:-"I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.”‡ *Tomline, Vol. I. p. 418.-Horne, Vol. IV. p. 392. Horne, Vol. IV. p. 382. Tomline, Vol. I. pp. 436–440. IV. What is the general design of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? and of that to the Hebrews? in the latter why is Christ called our High Priest?-Give the substance of the comparison drawn by the Apostle between the Priesthood of Christ and the Levitical Priesthood.-How does he explain the passage, "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec ?" St. Paul's design, in his Epistle to the Romans, is to establish the faith of the Gentile Converts; and to reconcile the Jewish converts to the receiving as brethren, without imposing upon them the Mosaic Rites, those Gentiles who had embraced Christianity :*—aud the Apostle's design, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, is to strengthen the Jewish Converts in the Christian Faith; and to guard them against relapsing into Judaism, either from the subtle reasonings or severe persecutions of the unbelieving Jews. In the latter Epistle, Christ is called our High Priest, because as the High Priest under the Jewish Dispensation offered Sacrifice, and made Intercession for the people, so our Lord Jesus Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice for our sins, and having entered into the presence of God in Heaven, He there "ever liveth to make Intercession for us.”‡ Under the Levitical Priesthood the Priests had to offer Sacrifices, as for the people, so also for themselves;—but Christ, our High Priest, did not for Himself require atonement to be made, for He was without sin. The former presented daily Sacrifices, and entered every year into the Holy of Holies to make propitiation for sin, with the sprinkling of the blood of beasts ;--the latter had not to offer daily Sacrifices, and to enter every year into the Sanctuary afresh, for having offered Himself as the Sacrifice, He entered through the Veil, that is to say, His * Tomline, Vol. I. p. 385. Horne, Vol. IV. p. 353. + Tomline, Vol. I. p. 452.Horne, Vol. IV. p. 403. Hebrews, the third and following chapters. flesh, into the Most Holy Place, and sat down for ever at the right hand of God. The Jewish Priests were temporary, not being " permitted to remain by reason of death;"--but Christ is not a temporary Priest, to be succeeded by others, for He "remaineth a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec."*—And St. Paul explains this passage, "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," by referring to the fact, that neither in Scripture, nor in the Genealogical Tables of the Hebrews, was there any record of the parents, family, birth, or death, of this Melchisedec, Priest of the Most High God; so that, although as a man "born of a woman," and "appointed to die," he must have had father, mother, birth, and death; yet, because there was no information concerning these, Melchisedec must be esteemed as having neither "beginning of days, nor end of life," but as abiding for ever: in this respect was Christ, our High Priest, "after the order, or in the similitude, of Melchisedec," who was "made like unto the Son of God, abiding a Priest continually;" for Christ Himself also being, as to His divine nature, “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life," is eternal in His existence.+ * Hebrews, the Seventh and following chapters. + Hebrews, chap. vii. ver. 1-3. V. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence "of things not seen." (Heb. XI. 1.)—Is this, properly speaking, a definition of Faith ?-What instances of Faith are given in this chapter from the histories of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Moses? Does the instance of Abel throw any light on the question respecting the Divine origin of Sacrifice? It is not, strictly speaking, a definition, but rather a description, of Faith. Just as the paper upon which I am now writing may be said to be "an extended surface of very thin white substance," and so it is; yet this is rather a description than a definition of paper;—but to say, "it is a composition of linen, woollen, &c.” is, properly speaking, a definition of the word. The instance of Abel presenting unto the Lord a sacrifice typical of the great sacrifice which was to take away the sin of the whole world, and which had been promised in the words, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head :"* —that of Noah building an Ark for the preservation of himself, his family, and some of every kind of living creatures, believing the declaration which God had made that He would destroy the earth by a flood :+—those of Abraham sojourning in a strange land, and offering up his son Isaac, trusting in God's promise that He would provide for him "a land for an inheritance," and that in "his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed :"+-and the instance of Moses being hid three months by his parents, who, although the king had ordered the destruction of all the male children of the Hebrews, yet trusted, most probably, in some divine promise made to them respecting the future office of their son; and also the + xi, 7. Hebrews xi. 4. xi. 8-10, 17-19. instance of Moses himself leaving the Court of Egypt, and leading the Israelites towards Canaan, confiding in the word of the Most High, that they should be made possessors of that country which He had promised to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.* The instance of Abel is very strong in favour of the supposition that Sacrifice is of Divine origin; for the Apostle says, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain; by which he obtained witness that he was righteous," or justified, “God testifying of his gifts;” and it is very improbable that Abel's own mind would have directed him to an act of apparent cruelty and death in order to appease an offended and merciful God; but would rather have led him to works of mercy, kindness, and gentleness, or especially would not have suggested to him a Rite of such a nature as exactly prefigured the Sacrifice of "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world:" and, moreover, the Scriptures declare that "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," so that Abel's faith must have rested upon some word, or command, of God, which himself, or his parents, had heard of the Lord; and this consideration makes it nearly evident that Abel offered his sacrifice, not only in accordance with the divine Will, but under divine direction or command. *Heb. xi. 23, 24-27. VI. "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one; "thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I "suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep." (II. Cor. XI. 24, 25.)-How far is this corroborated by the History of the Acts of the Apostles? 66 The History of the Acts of the Apostles affords very little corroboration indeed of these sufferings of the Apostle; for of all these circumstances, two of them only are there mentioned,-his having been once beaten with rods,* and once stoned. There is, however, one shipwreck of the Apostle, that which occurred at the island of Melita, noticed in the Book of Acts; but as that was during his voyage to Rome (about 61), and the Second Epistle to the Corinthians had been written (about 57) four years prior to that time, it could not, of course, have been any of the three St. Paul here mentions, but must have been an additional one.‡ Book of Acts, xvi. 19-24. + xiv. 19. t xxvii, xxviii.Tomline, Vol. I. p. 374, Note. VII. Translate and explain the following expressions:- “ Ἐσχάτες ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίες”- “ Ἐν ἀξύμοις εἰλικρινιίας”“ Τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τῷ Πνεύματος”—66 Οὕτω πυκτεύω, ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπωπιάζω |