$28. Objections of Seyffarth examined.

I shall first examine the objections drawn from the alleged peculiarity of the matters treated of," in our epistle.

(1.) Paul concerns himself only with those churches which he himself established. He was not the founder of any church purely Hebrew. The person who, in our epistle, addresses the Hebrews, must have sustained a relation to them very different from that which Paul sustained, § 47.’

Is any thing plainer, however, through the whole epistle, than the fact, that the writer of it was not a founder or bishop of the church whom he addresses? Not a hint of either of these relations is discoverable. The circumstances, then, agree altogether with the condition of Paul, who did not found or preside over the Hebrew churches.

But the assumption, that Paul never concerned himself with any churches of which he was not himself the founder, is manifestly erroneous. Did not this apostle write his epistle to the Romans, before he ever saw Rome? See Rom. 1:13. 15: 24. Are not the expressions, in this epistle, as affectionate and as authoritative, to say the least, as in the epistle to the Hebrews? Paul, surely, had a very deep sympathy and tender concern for his Jewish brethren. See Rom. 9: 1 seq. 10: 1 seq. 11: 1 seq. Compare, for expressions of kindness, Heb. 6: 10 seq. 10: 32 seq., in particular v. 34, if the reading droμois pov be adopted; and Titmann, in his recent edition of the New Testament, has adopted it.

(2.) Paul no where treats formally of the dignity of Jesus; nor does be any where employ such arguments as our epistle exhibits, against defection from Christianity, p. 104.'

Paul no where else treats of the resurrection, in such a manner as the 1 Cor. xv. does; nor of many other subjects, discussed in that epistle; does it follow, that Paul did not write the first epistle to the Corinthians, because it has these peculiarities? Besides, the fact is not correctly stated by Seyffarth. Surely Rom. 9: 5. Eph. 1: 20-23. Phil. 2: 6-11. Col. 1: 13-19,

contain something about the dignity of Christ; not to mention many other passages. That the apostle has no where, except in our epistle, entered into a formal comparison of Christ with others, is true; but it is enough to say, that no where else did the occasion demand it.

(3.) Paul every where inveighs against Jewish opinions; urges justification χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, and ἐκ πίστεως; dwells on the glorious advent of the Messiah; and urges the equal right of the Gentiles to the blessings of the Christian religion. Not a word of all this, in the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 105.'

And where is there any thing of all this, in the first epistle to the Corinthians? Must a writer always speak of the very same subjects, and in the same way? And if he does not, but speaks pro re nata, is it any just ground of suspicion, that such of his letters as are not exactly like certain other ones, cannot be genuine?

(4.) It is wonderful, that our epistle should represent the devil as the cause of death, 2: 14; Paul knows nothing of such a cause, see 2 Tim. 1: 10. 1 Cor. 15: 55, p. 106.'

This objection is built on an exegesis of Heb. 2: 14, which cannot be supported; see the Commentary on this passage. But if the exegesis were correct, it would not follow, that the apostle might not, in one passage, express a sentiment which he has no where else expressed. See, for example, 1 Cor. 15: 22-28. After all, it is not true, that Paul does not recognise Satan as the author of the condemning sentence which Adam incurred; see 1 Tim. 2:13, 14. 2 Cor. 11: 3, comp. with Rom. 5: 12 seq.

(5.) Paul, when he writes to any church, enters into a particular consideration of all their wants, and woes, and dangers; e. g. in his epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, p. 107. seq.'

And does Paul any where shew a deeper sympathy for those whom he addresses, than the writer of our epistle exhibits? Must every epistle which a man writes, be de omni scibili, or de omni re possibili? As Paul was not bishop of the church whom he addresses in our epistle, it was not to be expected that he would use the same degree of freedom, in all respects, which he

uses in some others of his epistles. Particularly, may we well suppose, that he would be sparing in localities and personalities, if his epistle was designed to be encyclical; as we have good reason to believe it was.

(6.) Our epistle every where urges to redecorηra; not so Paul. With our author, too, the sonship of Christ is the great Tεhecóτns of religion; not so in Paul. See 1 Cor. 3: 11, where it is reckoned as the foundation. Where too has Paul compared Christ to the angels? p. 110.'

That Paul does not urge forward those whom he addresses, to a higher degree of Christian knowledge and virtue, is an allegation which I believe to be novel, and which needs to be met only when something is brought forward to substantiate it. As to the doctrine of Christ's Sonship being reckoned as the foundation of Christianity, I find nothing of it in 1 Cor. 3: 11, where Christ, in his mediatorial person or character simply, is presented. That Paul's acknowledged epistles have not run a parallel between Christ and the angels, is true enough; but how are we to shew that Paul never could do this in one epistle, because he has not done it in another?

(7.) There is more pure and continuous argument, in our epistle, than in those of Paul.'

There is more pure and continuous argument in the epistle to the Romans, than there is in the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians; but is this any proof, that Paul did not write the latter epistles? And must the tenor of all the epistles which any man writes, however diverse the occasion and the subject may be, always be one and the same? (8.) Paul cites the Old Testament with great freedom, at one time following the Septuagint, and at another, the Hebrew. Our author keeps close to the Septuagint.'

The case is too strongly stated. It is not exactly correct, in either respect. But if it were, it does not follow, that in writing to those who had the Greek Scriptures in their own hands, and were habitually conversant with them, Paul would not keep closer than usual to the words of the ancient oracles. It is altogether natural that he should do so.

I. Objections drawn from peculiar phrases.

(9.) The following phrases are sui generis, and maxime peculiares, in our epistle ; viz. διαφορώτερον ὄνομα κληρονομεῖν, εἶναι εἰς πατέρα, δόξη στεφανοῦν, πεποιθύτα εἶναι, ἀρχὴν λαμβάνειν λαλήσαι, ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας, μαρτύριον τῶν λελαλημένων, παρρησία τῆς ἐλπίδος, στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λόγων τοῦ θεοῦ, διικνεῖσθαι ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς τε καὶ πνεύματος, προσέρχεσα θαι θρόνῳ χάριτος, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνεσθαι, περικεῖσθαι άμαρτίαν, ἀφιέναι τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φέρεσα θαι, γεύσασθαι δωρεᾶς ἐπουρανίου, μιμηταὶ τῶν διὰ πίστεως κληρονομούντων, ἄγκυρα ἐλπίδος, προκειμένη ἐλπίς, ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διη νεκές, ἐντολὴ ἀποδεκατοῦν, μετατιθεμένη ἱερωσύνη, ζωὴ ἀκατάλυ τος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, δικαιώματα λατρείας, περικεκαλυμμένος χρυσίῳ, στάσιν ἔχειν, παύεσθαι προσφερομένην, διδαχαὶ ξέναι, and θυσία αἰνέσεως, p. 83.

Admitting, now, that the same phraseology cannot be found in Paul's epistles; is not the Greek of these phrases classic or Hellenistic? Is it not such as a writer might choose, without any uncommon peculiarities? But without insisting on this, I have only to remark, at present, that the same kind of argument which Seyffarth adduces, if it be valid, will prove any one of Paul's epistles to be spurious, with equal force. I must refer the reader, for the illustration and proof of this, to § 29 in the sequel.

II. Objections from the peculiar forms and juncture of words, in our epistle.

(10.) ‘Our author makes a peculiarly frequent use of composite words. His epistle contains five hundred and thirty four words of this sort; while Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, uses only four hundred and seventy eight, p. 91.'

Without following on, in the steps of Seyffarth, to examine whether his enumeration is correct, I take it as he has presented it. I open my New Testament at the epistle to the Colossians accidentally, and proceed to count the composite words; which amount, if I have made no mistakes, to one hundred and seventy eight; the number of pages is three. The epistle, then, averages fifty nine composite words to a page. The epistle to the Hebrews, occupies ten pages, and has, according to Seyffarth, five hundred

and thirty four composite words, i. e. on an average, fifty three to a page. If it is spurious for this reason, a fortiori the epistle to the Colossians must be counted spurious also.

(11.) Our author is partial to the use of participles, and of the genitive absolute. He employs eighty four active participles, and one hundred and seven passive and middle ones, and seven cases of the genitive absolute; while in the epistle to the Romans, there are only ninety active participles, and forty two passive, and no cases of the genitive absolute, p. 81.'

Allowing the enumeration of Seyffarth to be correct, the average number of participles, on each page, will be for Hebrews, nineteen; for Romans, ten. Put now this principle to the test, in some other epistles. If I have rightly counted, the epistle to the Colossians has active participles thirty four, passive forty, pages three, average number of participles to a page, twenty four. Ephesians has active participles sixty, passive twenty four, pages four and a half, average to a page, twenty three. Of course, if our epistle is spurious, because it employs so many as nineteen participles to each page, then these epistles must be spurious, which employ twenty three or twenty four to a page.

And as to the genitive absolute, the second Corinthians, (which has active participles ninety seven, passive seventy seven, pages nine, average to a page, nineteen, the same as in our epistle), has the genitive absolute three times. Can any thing be more inconclusive, now, than such a species of reasoning?

(12.) Our author has peculiar junctures of words; e. g. ἔσχατον ἡμέρων, τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς, κοινωνέω with the genitive, διαφορώτερος παρά, ῥῆσαι πρός τινα, ἀνάστασις το τῶν νεο κρῶν, παθήματα θανάτου, ἀγαγεῖν εἰς δόξαν, κρατῆσαι with the accusative, εν γγελίζω with the accusative, αδύνατον with the infnitive after it, αἱ πρότερον ἡμέραι, καταβάλλειν θεμέλιον, p. 81. Some of these phrases are Pauline ; e. g. ανάστασις νεκρῶν, Rom. 1:4. 15: 12, 21, 24. Phil. 3: 11. So εvayyeλ with the accusative, Rom. 10: 5 bis, 2 Cor. 11: 7. Gal. 1:9. In regard to the others, if they prove any thing, they will prove too much; for the same kind of argument would show, (as we shall hereafter see), that the first epistle to the Corinthians is spurious. The phrases in question are all either classic or Alexandrine Greek ;