ferent persons as authors?" No doubt we may, in some cases. But not unless the difference be greater, than in the case. before us. It has been shown above, how many striking traits of resemblance to the other letters of Paul, there are in our epistle. While these remain, the discrepancy can never be made out to be great enough to build a sound argument upon it. If the question were to be asked, Whether the author of the epistle to the Romans could have written the first epistle of John? the answer would be easy, nay almost absolutely certain, from internal evidence. But after all the striking resemblances which can be shewn between our epistle and Paul's letters; after proving from actual examination, that the list of peculiarities, in one of his most conspicuous and acknowledged epistles, is much greater than in our epistle; after making all the reasonable abatements which must be made, from the peculiarity of the subjects which are discussed in our epistle, and of the condition of those to whom it was addressed; after reflection upon the acknowledged fact, that every writer's style is more or less altered by advancing age; by the circumstances of haste or leisure in which he writes; by the topics themselves which he discusses; by the degree of excitement which he feels at the time; above all, taking into consideration the fact, that every writer who travels to many different countries, resides in many different places, and is conversant with a great variety of men and of dialects, is much more liable to change his style somewhat, than he who always resides in the same place, and is conversant with the same men and books; after taking, I say, all these things into consideration, can any man have reasonable grounds to be satisfied, that the peculiarity of style and diction in our epistle is such, that its Pauline origin is to be rejected on account of them? I will not undertake to answer for others; but for myself, I can say with a clear and an abiding conviction, I do not feel that such an argument can stand before the impartial tribunal of criticism.

$30. Objections by De Wette.

While the preceding sheet was under the press, the Historical and Critical Introduction to the New Testament, by W. M. L. De Wette, came to hand. It was published at Berlin, during the last year; and exhibits the views of its celebrated author, in regard to the origin of our epistle.

De Wette is the well known author of a commentary on the Psalms, of a translation of about one half of the Old and New Testaments, of a Hebrew Archaeology, of a historical and critical Introduction to the Old Testament, and of some other works in the departments of sacred criticism and moral science; all of which have attracted great attention on the continent of Europe, on account of the distinguished genius and extensive erudition of the author. He is now a Professor, in the University of Bâle, in Switzerland.

De Wette takes side, (as from his habits of thinking and reasoning he might be expected to do), with those who deny the Pauline origin of our epistle. His arguments are very brief, (as the nature of his book required them to be); and I am not a little surprised to find, that among them all, there is not a single one, which is not drawn from the works that have been already examined above.

In regard to the external evidence, he has given many of the principal citations, which are adduced in the preceding part of this discussion, pp. 92-129. But some important ones he has omitted, which speak most unequivocally against the views he gives of the opinion of the fathers. For example, he merely refers to Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25, in respect to the very important testimony of Origen, which the reader will find on p. 104 seq. above; simply remarking that "Origen gives up the writing down of the epistle by Paul, and only attributes the matter of it to him, p. 285." In a note, he subjoins, "When he [Origen] speaks of the tradition of the churches, it is probable, that he means only the Alexandrine church." In regard to such a probability, I must refer the reader to what is said above, p. 111.

no. 7.

The probability is very strong, that all of Origen's homilies must have been published in Palestine, for he was licensed to preach but a few months before he was driven from Alexandria; see Lardner's Credib. III. 194. Whether Origen would, under such circumstances, be likely to retain any superstitious veneration for the church at Alexandria, every reader will be able to judge, so as to satisfy his own mind. It will be remembered, that the testimony in question of Origen, is from one of his Homilies on the epistle to the Hebrews.

In the same manner, he has merely made a simple reference to the important testimony of Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, cited above, p. 127; while he has inserted at full length, all the passages which might serve to shew that Jerome had doubts in his own mind, in regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. This he avers to have been the fact. But whether there is any just foundation for such an assertion, has already been examined above, p. 127 seq. Jerome, no doubt, felt himself obliged to use great caution, in regard to the manner in which he spoke of the epistle to the Hebrews, because the prevailing sentiment of the western churches, in his time, was against the Pauline origin of it. More than this can never be fairly deduced, from any of the language which he employs. The passages in his epistle to Dardanus, in his commentary on Matt. xxvI., and in his book De Viris Illustribus c. V, (supra, pp. 127, 128, 44), can never be made to speak less than a decided, definite opinion, on the part of Jerome himself, in respect to the Pauline origin of our epistle. How should he have been the occasion of revolutionizing the whole of the western churches, in regard to the sentiment under consideration, if this were not the case?

Other testimonies, too, De Wette has omitted, which are in favour of the Pauline origin of our epistle. In stating the opposition of the Latin churches to this sentiment, he has brought forward the doubts of Jerome, and of his contemporaries. He has followed these on, down to the seventh century, by quoting from Primasius, and Isidore Hispaliensis. But he has not once hinted, that in this same western church, all those distinguished bishops who are mentioned above (p. 126), admitted our epistle to

be Paul's; excepting that he has adduced some of the testimony of Jerome and Augustine.

Besides, he has advanced the broad position, that "the western churches originally (anfänglich) denied this epistle to be Paul's." The passages adduced, in proof of this, are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 20, (cited above, p. 114); V. 26, (supra p. 119); the passages from Photius, Gobar, and Hippolytus, (supra pp. 119, 120); Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 20, (supra p. 123 seq.); Cyprian, de Martyr. c. XI., (supra p. 125); Jerome, Epist. ad Paulinum, (supra p. 127); and Philastrius, de Haeres. c. 89, who speaks only of the opinion of others, himself believing the epistle to be Paul's. But De Wette has not said a word, in this connexion, of all the evidence adduced in § 12 above, which has relation to this subject; nor of the division of opinion, that existed in the Latin churches of later times, and before the days of Jerome, in respect to the subject in question.

Again, in stating the testimony of the eastern churches, De Wette has merely brought forward Eusebius, as testifying to the opinions of his own times; see Eusebius' testimony above, p. 113 seq. At the same time, he intimates that there were doubts, in that part of the church, in regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. He has not, however, produced a single author from the East who has expressed any such doubts, (and this for a very imperious reason); while, at the same time, he has sedulously omitted all those, cited on p. 118 above, who undoubtedly ascribed our epistle to Paul.

Is this, now, an impartial examination and statement of evidence, on this great question? And has an author, who writes in this hasty manner, without extended examination, and without deliberation, any right to find fault with others, when they refuse to receive his allegations with implicit credit, and betake themselves to such an examination, as may detect imperfect representation and statements evidently dictated by partiality?

Next, as to the internal grounds of proof, that our epistle does not belong to Paul.

These are, without exception, the same as had been before advanced by Eichhorn, Ziegler, Bertholdt, Schulz, and Seyf

farth; all of which have been examined in the preceding pages. De Wette states, very categorically, that the language of our epistle is very different from that of Paul; and he appeals to Schulz as having most fully shewn this, in the work which has been already examined. How far the case is as Schulz has represented it, must now be left to the reader, to judge for himself.

What most of all surprises me, is, that De Wette should produce, as special proof of the alleged discrepancy of style, the formulas of quotation, examined p. 204 seq. no. 18 above; and also the appellations given to the Saviour by the writer of our epistle, examined in p. 211 seq. no. 19 above; two of the most unlucky of all the arguments, which Schulz and Seyffarth have adduced. It requires, indeed, a great deal of patience and labour, to examine this matter to the bottom; more, I am quite inclined from bitter experience to believe, than De Wette consumed in writing the whole of the article in his Introduction, which has respect to our epistle.

Besides these two cases of diversity of style, De Wette bas proceeded to cite a large list of words; all of which are taken from Schulz and Seyffarth, and have already been the subject of particular examination. With an adventurous step, and without even opening his Greek Concordance for investigation, he has followed his leaders in this hazardous path, and even selected the words examined above, on p. 228 no. 34, p. 229 no. 37, not omitting the most unfortunate of all Dr. Schulz's guesses, viz. the phrases on p. 230 no. 40, above. The word nioris, too, has come in for its usual share of discrepancy, (see above, p. 184. e.), and also βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ and τελείωσις.

He avers, moreover, after Schulz, that the comparison and symbolical use of Old Testament passages and ordinances, is foreign to the manner of Paul, and like to that of Philo. (See on this subject, p. 153 seq. no. 2, above). He asserts, too, that Paul could not have represented Christianity so correspondent with Judaism, nor Christ as high priest; nor would he have been silent about his office of apostle to the heathen, nor concealed the fact, that the Christian religion was designed as well for Gentiles as Jews.