THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION.

(From the New York Correspondent.)

We learn by accounts from Cincinnati, that the theological discussion between Mr. Owen and Mr. Campbell, had terminated after nine days' debate, before an audience of from 1200 to 1500 persons, many of whom were strangers, attracted to the spot by the novelty and importance of the subject. No report of the proceedings appears in the Cincinnati papers; but it is stated that the whole had been taken down in short-hand, and would be published as early as possible. Meanwhile, we subjoin the following "Twelve Fundamental Laws of Human Nature," drawn up by Mr. Owen, and which formed the ground-work of the discussion:

1. That man at his birth is ignorant of every thing relative to his own organization, and that he has not been permitted to create the slightest part of any of his natural propensities, faculties, or qualities, physical or mental.

2. That no two infants at birth have yet been know to possess precisely the same organization; while the physical, mental, and moral differences between all infants, are formed without their knowledge or will.

3. That each individual is placed, at birth, without his knowledge or consent within circumstances, which acting upon its peculiar organization, impress the general character of those circumstances upon the infant, child, and man. Yet that the influence of those circumstances, is to a certain degree modified by the peculiar natural organization of each individual.

4. That no infant has the power of deciding at what period of time, or in what part of the world, he shall come into existence; of whom he shall be born, in what particular religion he shall be trained to believe, or by what other circumstances he shall be surrounded from birth to death.

5. That each individual is so created, that when young, he may be made to receive impressions, to produce either true ideas, or false notions, and beneficial or injurious habits, and to retain them with great tenacity.

6. That each individual is so created, that he must believe according to the strongest impressions that can be made on his feelings, and other faculties, while his belief in no case depends upon his will.

7. That each individual is so created, that he must like that which is pleasing to him, or that which produces agreeable sensations on his individual organization, and he must dislike that which creates in him unpleasant or disagreeable sensations; while

he cannot discover, previous to experience, what those sensations shall be.

8. That each is so created that the sensations made upon his organization, although pleasant and delightful at their commencement, and for some duration, generally become, when continued beyond a certain period without change, disagreeable and painful. While, on the contrary, when a too rapid change of sensations is made on his organization, it dissipates, weakens, and otherwise injures his physical, intellectual, and moral powers and enjoyments.

9. That the highest health, the greatest progressive improvements, and the most permanent happiness of each individual, depend in a great degree upon the proper cultivation of all physical, intellectual, and moral faculties and powers, from infancy to maturity, and upon all these parts of his nature being duly called into action, at their proper period, and temperately exercised according to the strength and capacity of the individual.

10. That the individual is made to possess, and to acquire the worst character, when his organization at birth had been compounded of the most inferior propensities, faculties, and qualities of our common nature; and when so organized, he has been placed from birth to death, amidst the most vicious or worst circumstances.

11. That the individual is made to possess and acquire a medium character, when his original organization has been created superior, and when the circumstances which surround him from birth to death produce continued vicious or unfavourable impressions. Or when his organization has been formed of inferior materials, and the circumstances in which he has been placed from birth to death, are of a character to produce superior impressions only. Or when there has been some mixture of good and bad qualities in the original organization, and it has also been placed, through life, in varied circumstances of good and evil. This last compound has been hitherto the common lot of mankind

12. That the individual is made the most superior of his species, when his original organization has been compounded of the best proportions, of the best ingredients of which human nature is formed, and when the circumstances which surround him from birth to death are of a character to produce only superior impressions; or in other words, when the circumstances, or laws, institutions, and customs in which he is placed, are all in unison with his nature.

Subscriptions at Huddersfield for the Rev. ROBERT TAYLOR while a Prisoner, Five Pounds of which were transmitted last Year.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
(From the New York Correspondent.)

Professor Stuart's arguments in favour of the Authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as ascribed to St. Paul. (From vol. 1, of a commentary on that Epistle, by Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover.)

PANTŒENUS, who flourished about A. D. 180, and was principal of the Christian school of Alexandria, is the first writer who speaks of this epistle as being Paul's.

Reply. Nothing of Pantonus remains, but a fragment in the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, lib. vi. ch. 14: what we have, is at second-hand only. Of the authority of Eusebius we shall treat by and by.

Secondly, Pantonus died 213, so that the time when he wrote or flourished, should be rather 200, than 180 of our era.

Hence, the very earliest testimony of St. Paul being the author of an anonymous letter or pamphlet, is a second-hand assertion of a man who lived at least 180 years after the pamphlet in question was written, even if it were written in the time of St. Paul. King Charles was beheaded exactly 180 years ago: suppose an

anonymous letter published at that time, should now for the first time, be ascribed by a modern author to Whitelock or any other person of that day, without any reason assigned or any further corroborating proof; would that be sufficient authority for believing Whitelock to be the author of it? Should we not ask for the reason why the modern writer ascribed it to Whitelock, that we also might judge of them?

Clemens of Alexandria, according to Eusebius, is of the same opinion with his predecessor, Pantonus.

Reply. How did either of them know the author, at the distance of 180 or 200 years; for they have not told us their reasons, nor has Eusebius for them.

Origen, who died aged 69, A. D. 254, inclines to think that it is written by St. Paul. Professor Stuart, who removes dates as far back as he dares, gives us A. D. 220 for Origen.

Reply. This passage is also preserved by Eusebius.

Secondly. In Origen's time, the authenticity of that epistle was doubted, as appears by Professor Stuart's citation of Origen's words. From its being in a style unlike to St. Paul's, and from its being commonly ascribed either to Luke, or to Clemens Romanus.

Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, alludes manifestly to this epistle as an authoritative book.

Reply. Justin Martyr does not assert directly or indirectly that St. Paul wrote this epistle. The epistle may have been authoritative in the Church: but this indirect and supposed allusion by a writer who died A. D. 163, is no authority whatever to prove the presumed authenticity of an anonymous letter. We want reasons and proofs. Besides, any man who has really perused the writings of Justin Martyr, will not give him credit for any thing like talent or judgment, and hardly for common sense.

Methodius of Olympus in Lycia, A. D. 298, ascribes this epistle to St. Paul.

Reply. What then? Does the evidence grow stronger in proportion as it is distant from the time in question?

So does Pamphilus of Cæsarea, A. D. 294.

Reply. What then? So does Professor Stuart in 1828. Is a naked authority 300 years after a fact, sufficient of itself to prove it?

Oh! but Eusebius, the great Eusebius, about A. D, 315, (Eusebius died 340) ascribes this epistle to St. Paul.

I will not burthen these brief remarks with the proofs of the shameful partiality of Eusebius as an historian, complained of by Baronius and Tillemont; nor of his infamous accusation of Athanasius, showing an utter disregard of all truth, honour, and honesty, when he wished to crush an adversary; nor of his conforming to Pagan ceremonies through fear; nor of his shameful, slavish exaltation of Constantine into a saint; nor of his false assertions as

to the number of martyrs, in direct contradiction to Origen; nor of the infamous subserviency of the whole of his history to the support of the orthodox opinions of his day-if Professor Stuart denies these accusations, he denies what he knows or ought to know to be true but he dare not deny them; any more than he dare deny the fraudulent Economia or Origen, or the careless mistranslations of Jerom, or the similar frauds of Chrysostem and others.

I say, that Eusebius is not worthy of the least credit as an historian. I say, that he not only practises, but unblushingly professes to forge, to falsify, to lie for the good of the holy cause: that he defends, and justifies these shameful practices; and that he is liable to the very probable suspicion of having forged the passages on which Professer Stuart so much relies, for the express purpose of establishing the authenticity of a previous forgery.

Will Professor Stuart have the goodness to look at the title of the thirty-first chapter of the twelvth book of the Evangelical Preparation, of Eusebius, and read these words:

"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." In this chapter, as Gibbon has already observed before me, he adduces a passage of Plato, which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds: nor is Eusebius ashamed of justifying the sentiments of the Athenian philosopher, by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament. Indeed, why not? Sing lanlarara, rogues all, &c.

I do not care one cent about the authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and therefore I do not dwell on the admission of Professor Stuart against that authenticity, from Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatus, and Jerom; all showing that the question rests only upon orthodox conjecture on one side, and tradition on the other, without one particle of proof on either. It is a question of no moment; de Lara caprina. But it is of moment to the public to see upon what infamous authorities modern orthodoxy is willing to rest its cause.-What dreadful rogues are converted into saints, to suit their pious purposes. No honest man can quote Eusebius as good authority, without forfeiting his own claim to common sense or veracity. I am sorry Professor Stuart's zeal has so blinded him.

One word more to the Professor. "I have not seen the third edition of your Hebrew Grammar, nor do I know whether my present objection be removed. But when you published two editions of what you are pleased to call your Hebrew Grammar, did you not shamefully appropriate to yourself, without reference or acknowledgment, the labours of another man?

"Is not your pretented Hebrew Grammar, in substance and in fact, page upon page, not your grammar, but the grammar of