row Kypiou. 33 Mfptiivyv TO. TOV Koapov .... Paul uses /upi/*vj/ rd ^rtpt. 34
'Ayta tlvai awftart icai Trvfu/iari. 35 Ilpog ro av[i<pipov,for the profit. 37 'Avay-
jcj^v ex ttv ' 40 AKm / Tevtvpa Qeov l-^tiv, truly unique, in the epistles.
VIII. 1 Tv&ffiv e%tiv. 4 OvStv fivai iv KofffjUftovSeiQ ertpof. 6 'H/uv tig 0f6f,
6 Trar^p, K. T. \. The whole verse is unique. 7 2vvtidnffi, conscientious scruples.
12 'Ap.apTciviv ifi to sm against rlimiv ffvvddtjatv. 13 Bp&ua OKav^aXl^u
...... Paul, diu jSpwjua \VTrtiaQai, Rom. xiv. 15.
IX. 1 To tpyov uov .... sv Kvpup. 2 'AXXotf .... /i!v .... a7ro<roXo ....
Paul uses the gen., Wv&v a7ro<TroXoc, Rom. xi. 13; aTocrroXoi eKK\ncriG>v, 2 Cor.
viii. 23 ; ir/iwv aTroaroXog, Phil. ii. 25 a<f>payi T%Q airoffTo\rj(;. 5 TvvciiKa TTfpia-
ystv 7, 13 'E(T0ttv EK, t o eat of .... Paul uses simply the accusative, e. g. Rom.
xi.v. 2. 2 Thess. iii. 12. 11 STrapav irvevuctTiKci Ofpi&iv oapKiKct, to have one's
temporal wants supplied. 12 'Eou(rta, property. 16 'Avayicr] .... 7rucirat /iot
.... Paul, IK avdyKne 2 Cor. ix. 7; icar' avayKnv, Philem. v. 14. 17 OiKovouiav
iriffTtvOiivai. 19 'EXfvfopoe IK .... Paul uses IXevQtpoQ curb Rom. vii. 3. 20
Kepdaivtiv, to win over .... in a different sense, Phil. iii. 8. 22 TlvtvBai rotg iraai
ra iravTa. 24 BjOa/3aov Xa/i/3dvtv. 25 QOapTog .... a<j>OapTO ffTsQavog. 2Q
Alpa ^spfiv. d
X. 1, 2 The whole of the description presented in these two verses is sui generis,
and found no where in Paul. 3 Bpuijua Trveu/iariKov Trojua irvtvuaTiicov. 4 Ilvtv-
Trlrpac and specially the idea of the whole phrase, irv(vuaTiKrj<; aicoXovOov-
So also 7rtvov ex: .... Paul uses Tritiv (2 aor.) with the accusative,
Rom. xiv. 21. 11 TVTTOI ffvp{3aiveiv .... Paul, TVTTOQ simply, Rom. v. 14; or
TVTTOS, 1 Thess. i. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 12 ra rsXij T&V atwvwv .... Paul,
jyjttlpat, 2 Tim. iii. 1. 13 ITftpatr/toc avQp&Tnvoq itXrifyt, singular both as to
212 29. NATURE OF DETECTIONS EXAMINED.
the verb and adjective, joined with Trapacrjuoe. 15 'Qg <j>povifici Xeyw. 16
ptov Trjg euXoyiag KOivwvia aiparog Koivwvia (rw/xaro. 17 Elg aproc,
4ivai, said of Christians communing at the Lord's table. 18 'IffparjX
ffdpxa KOivwvol Ovcriaffrrjpiov. 19 Ti ovv Qrjui. 20 Aaifiovioig Ovtiv KOIVUVOVQ
Saipoviuv yiveaQai. 21 Uorrjpiov dai^ovidtv Tpdire^a daifioviuiv. 27 KaXew, in
the sense of inviting to a meal. 32 'ATTPOCTKOTTOI, with the dative after it Trdvra
zraffiv dpeaKtiv.
XL 2 UapaSoattg Kar't-^uv. 3 0IXw Si v/taf tldevai iravroQ dvSpbg ice^aXj}
X/oi<rde K0aXr) XpiToiJ Gedf. 4 Kara Kt$a\iJ t%uv, to cover the head. 5 Karaitr-
Xvvttv, to dishonour, . ... Paul, to disappoint, Rom. v. 5; ix. 33; x. 11 TO avrb
Ty the same thing as, i. e. avrb with the dative after it. 7 'Av>)p .... I'IKWV Kal do%a
Qtov yvvfi lo^a avdpoQ. 9 Ou avrip IK yvvaiKog, K.T.\. 10 'Egoucrta, ve*7 or
token of power ayytXot, spies. 12 'O dvrjp Sid rfjs yvvaiKog. 14 QVITIQ dtSdcncei.
17 2wlpx(70at / ro Kpelrrov .... tig ro ^rrov. 20 Kvpiajcov Stiirvov. 23 Ila-
paXapeiv cnrb .... Paul uses TrapaXaj&Iv Trapa, Gal. i. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 6. 24
To Gtofia vTTtp vfjiuiv K\wfjivov. 25 Mtra ro dtnrvrjaai .... 'Paul no where uses fitrci
before the inf. mode preceded by ro. r] Kdivfi StaOfjKrj iv ry k^ ufytari. 27 "Evo-
%OQ e<TTM TOV ff(f)p,aroQ Kal TOV aifiaroQ row Kvpiov. 29 Kpi'/xa iaQitiv Kal itivtiv rivl
SiaKpiveiv r6 ffwfia TOV Kvpiov. 30 'A<r0vet, str/c(y kavoi, maw?/ .... Paul
uses it in the sense of able, sufficient, 2 Cor. ii. 6. 16 ; iii. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 2. 31 Aia-
Kpivttv, to examine. 34 Aiara<ro-o/tai, to set in order, arrange .... Paul uses it for
co nmand, Tit. i. 5.
XII. 3 'Ev TTvtvfiaTi OEOV XaXeu/ Xeytiv dva0/*a 'Iijffovv tlirtiv Kvpiov
'lr\aovv. 6 'Evepyecv rd Trdvra tv Tratri .... Paul, tvtpytiv rd Trdvra, Eph. i. 11.
7 Oavspfaxrig rou Trvfvjuarog. 10 Aiafcpifftig, powers of distinguishing .... Paul, in
a different sense, Rom. xiv. 1 ysvri, kinds .... Paul uses ytvog for descent, lineage,
Phil. iii. 5. 15 Et'g tv trtS/ia /3a7rre(T0/Jvat ei'e eV 7ri/wjna iroTiffOrjvat .... Paul
uses Trori&j no where except in a quotation from the Old Testament, Rom. xii. 20.
Vs. 15 17. Where is any representation like this, in all the Pauline epistles?
Paul introduces the same general image, in Rom. xii. 4, 5, as is founded in 1 Cor.
xii. 12 14; but he does not pursue it into detail. 23 Tt/*/}v irtpinOtvai. 24
Tifirjv .... Paul, a7roi6vai rifirjv, Rom. ii. 7 ro awro /itpt/iv^j/. 26
SoZ&Ztrai trvyxatpw used absolutely, without any dative following it ....
Paul employs the dative after it, Phil. ii. 17, 18. 27 'EK pipovs, Paul uses aTro
pepovc, Rom. xi. 25; xv. 15. 24. 2 Cor. i. 13; ii. 5. 28 Ti0vai iv ry tKK\rjffia, to
constitute officers in the church. 28 Where else are such officers in the church men-
tioned, as dvTiXrjtytiG, Ku/3fpvr/(7tff, dvvd[j.tiQl
XIII. 1 rX&ffffai dyylXwi/. 2 EiSf.lv fiwzrjpiov oprj fjitQi<zavuv. 3 ^w/it'^ftv rd
virapxovTa. 6 Srlyeiv, to cover over. 8 rXwtro-at iravaovrai, the idea of speaking
in a variety of languages, is not found attached to yXwao-a, in any of the Pauline
epistles. 12 BXeTmv Si iffoirrpov .... iv aiviypaTi .... 7rpo<rw7TOi/ Trpoc ir
29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 213
XIV. 2 Hvf.vfia.Ti \a\tiv fjiv^ripta. 3 AaXtiv oiKoSofi^v .... irapdicXqffiv
irapafjivQiav. 5 OiKodop,>jv \aj3tlv. 6 AaXeiv Iv dTTOKaXv^ti, K. r. X. 7
titdovai SictffToXriv Hidovcu. 9 Ei atpa XaXetj/. 10 Tvy^aVw, to happen, to be ;
.... Paul, in the sense of obtaining, 2 Tim. ii. 10. 11 Avva/iig, force of, in the
sense of meaning elvai /3dp/3apo TIVI. 14, 15 UpoaevxiaQai yXuvay . . . Trvsvpari
. . . vol \l/d\\eiv TrvevfJictTi ..vol. 16 EuXoyeiv r^J TrvevfiaTi. 19 AaXttv $td
voof. 20 Ilat^ia yivevOai ralf <(>ptai ralg <f>ptGi rsXeioi yivtaQai. 22 Eig ffnp.tiov
eivat .... Paul, anipvibv tffn, 2 Thess. iii. 1 7. 27 Kara; &;o, i) rpeTg. 32 tlvtv-
/*ara irpotyrjT&v Trpo^rjrais vTrorafffferat. 33 'AKaracrratrtag Otog.
XV. 1 Ai oi5 [tuayyeXi'ow] avZtaOe. 3 'Ev Trpwroic, ^/jrs^ .... Paul, 7rpoiro,
Rom. x. 19. 8 *E(T%arov Trai/rwv. 10 E/jui o //u. 14 KEVOV KJjpuy/xa, icevi)
15 yrtvBofJiaprvptG TOV 9sou. 17 Eu>at tv a^aprlaiq. 20 'ATrapx?) rt5i/
21 At avQpwTrov 6 QavaTOQ ...... Paul, ^td rffc d/iapriac 6 Gava-
rof, Rom. v. 12. - &' avOpu-jrov avaaraaiQ vacptiv. Vs. 24 28, a passage al-
together sui generis. 29 BaTrrt^o/icvoi vTrep T>V viicpwv. 38 2w/*a didovai. 40
Sw^a tTTtyfiov. 42 S7r'pe<r0ai v <j>0op$ tyiiptffQat iv atyQapaiq, ffireipeffOai tv
anjjiiy, tytipeaOat iv dor], K. r. X. 44 2ai/ta \!/VXIKOV <ru>fj,a irvtv^iariKov. 47
'O SevripoQ dvQpwTTOQ, 6 Kvptog t% ovpavov. 49 $opTv tiKova. 50 2dp Kai ai/.ia,
K. r. X. 51 Muorr/piov Xeytiv ...... Paul, fivarriptov XaXftv, Col. iv. 3. 52
'EtrxaTti aaXTriy^. 53 Atl yap ro QOaprbv, K. r. X. 56 Kivrpov 0avarov, 77 ap.ap-
rla SvvaniQ d/xaprtac, 6 voftog. 57 Aidovai i>uco.
XVI. 2 Mia <ra/3/3arwv TiOevai wap caury. 7 'Ev Trapofly i^aj/. 9 Gwpa
fieydXr] ical evfpyrjg. 22 *Hrw dvd9fp,a, papav add. 24 'H
K. r. X. The whole closing salutation is sui generis.
Such is the almost incredible mass of peculiar phraseology, in the
first epistle to the Corinthians. It is possible that there may be in-
stances, among so many, where I may, through the tedium of such an
examination, have overlooked some phrase of the same kind in Paul's
other epistles. If this be so, the student, who has in his hands a Greek
Concordance, will be able easily to detect it. In the mean time, 1
venture to affirm with entire confidence, (having repeated my investiga-
tions a second time,) that the number of such mistakes, at most, is not
sufficient to affect in any degree the nature of the argument, or the
force of the appeal. I remark only, that where I have appealed to
Paul, as riot having employed a particular word or phrase, or as not
using it in a like sense, I mean, of course, that Paul has not done this
in his other acknowledged epistles.
If any one is disposed to object to this array of phrases SMI generis,
in the first epistle to the Corinthians, and to aver, that many of them
are nearly like those used by Paul, and that others are occasioned by
the peculiarity of the subjects of which the writer treats, and that, in
214 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.
general, they are collected with an unsparing hand ; I have only to
reply, that, in all respects, they are as fairly and as sparingly collected
as those brought forward by Schulz and Seyffarth. For the correctness
of this, I make the appeal to every unprejudiced man, who has read
attentively and critically the essays of these authors, in which they
have brought forward their objections against the genuineness of our
epistle.
As a counterpart for the appalling list of one hundred and eighteen
a7ro \ey6fj.eva, in the epistle to the Hebrews, which Seyffarth has pre-
sented, I offer,
II. The dxaZ Xtyojufva, in the first epistle to the Corinthians.
ayi/axria, dyopdu>,
KoXou0w, d/cpaaia,
, djuTTfXwv, dvd, dvaicpivu), dvdfjivrjffiQ, dvdio, dva^iojg, dv$pio/zai,
\rj\fjtg, aTrdyw, d-jrtXtvOepoG, dirtptaTrdvTWG, d-Trodei^iQ, dtroXova), aTro^spa), djoyvpof,
dporpiwv, a'|07ra, dppdMTTOS, apxiriKTiov, doQtveffTepog, d<rrj)p, dorarlw, d
d<r^j;jitwv, art/AOf, dro/xo^, auXsw, avXbg, aupiov,
Bpoxoe, PIUTIKOG, ydXa, ycwpytov, yoyyv^w,
titlirvov, BtaiptGiQ, diSaKTOG, difpurjvevTdg, diepfirjveva), SioTTtp, ^ovXaywylw, ^pdd-
), tyKparfuo/jat, ddwXtlov, ddwXoQvTOv, elaciKovu), t/c/3afftg, tKyajui'w,
i, ZKvr}<po>, tKTTftpd^w, t/crpw/za, i\f.tivbg, tvspyijfjia, two/tog, IVO^OQ,
/pw, tZeart, l^ovaid^o), toprd^w, iTraivid), 7rt/3d\Xw, tiriQavd-
TIOQ, tTriOvfJujTtjQ, tTTKTTrdojwai, iTTiTOCLVTO, fpft^vtia, tcTOTrrpov, repoyXa(Tcrot, tyyevjjt;,
iKaipsw, tvTcpoatdpoQ, evarjp,og^ tva^rniorf-vvr)^ et/o^^/itov, 7XCi>, the form ^ra> from
ti'jitt, OaTTTit), Oearpov, 0^piojLta%w, $wa*, ta/ia, iV^fportpof, /cd0apjua, Kaia>, KaXd/iT/,
*rara/caiw, icaraKaXi'Trro/iai, KaraKtifiai, Karaorpwwv/ii, Kara%pdo/xat, Ktipd), K'BV-
rpov, KiOdpa, Ki0ajOia>, KivSwfvio, KXdw, K'Xd^w, KOKKO^, Kop,f], Ko/idw, Kopsvvv[jii,
, in the sense of the adverb better, vii. 38, Kptr^ptov, Krifvof, fcu/3e/o>J7<rt,
Xoyta
, fiapdv add, p,t
dZu), gwpdw, 6Xo0pur?}e, oXwg, ojwiXta, ocrdfctg, oa^p/jirtg, oyai, ov^e-
, ovdsTTto, ov9tv t OVTTO), o^tXof, Trat^tov, Trat'^w, Traira^oy, TrapayiVo/^at, Trapa-
evb), 7rapjitu0ia, Trapo^og, 7rapo^vvop,ai, Trdcr^a, TreiQbg, TTEpidyw, 7rept/36Xa to v, irspi-
TrepKrfforfpov, 7Tpirt0/jjWi, TTtptyijfia, TrepTrepevofiat, TrvtvfjiaTtK&g,
TTOjua, 7ropvva>, Tropvrj, TTorfipiov, irpoaedptvtij, TrporrKwiiiJ, 7rpo^>^ryw,
b)) 7ra>XO), pd(3SoG, piTfij) traXTri^w, aeXrjvtj, (TITOQ, arddiog,
ffvvr)9fia } GvariXXb), (T^oXd^d), rdyjtia, Triprjaig, roiVuv, TVTTTW,
V7ra>7rid^w, QiXovtiKoc, ^pj/v, Qvrevu), ^aXicbg t ^OIKOQ, xoprof, xpijartvofiat,
rvp, ^V%IKQQ, w<r7rOEt. In the whole, 230 words.
$ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.
In order now to estimate the comparative force of the argument,
from these a7ra Xcyo/zeva, we must take into the account the compa-
rative length of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and of our epistle.
In the Bible lying before me, the former occupies thirteen pages, the
latter ten ; i. e. the former, in respect to length, is to the latter, as
thirteen to ten. Now, in the epistle to the Hebrews are found one
hundred and eighteen a?ra Xeyoyueva, according to the reckoning of
Seyftarth in the epistle to the Corinthians, if I have reckoned rightly,
(I have repeated, a second time, the whole examination,) there are
two hundred and thirty. Consequently, in the epistle to the Hebrews,
the average number of &Tra Xeyo/zem is a little short of twelve to a
page ; while the average number in the first epistle to the Corinthians
is (within a small fraction) eighteen to a page.
Certain it is, then, that if the number of a7ra Xeyo/ieva in our
epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, it must be more
abundantly evident that Paul cannot have been the author of the first
epistle to the Corinthians, which has a proportion of one-half more
a7ra Xeyo/^j/a than our epistle.
Such is the basis of the arguments, so confidently adduced by Schulz
and SeyfTarth, and so much applauded and trusted in by many other
critics. It has been often said by logicians, that " what proves too
much, proves nothing." This is well said ; and applied to the case
before us, it will show, at once, that the very same means used to
overturn the opinion that Paul was the author of our epistle, would
overturn the opinion that he wrote any other particular epistle, which
is universally acknowledged as coming from his hand.
But what shall we say, when, in addition to all the aira Xeyojucm of
words, we reckon up the phrases of the same sort, which have been
adduced above ? Is not here a mass of evidence apparently overwhelm-
ing ? Surely, if the first epistle to the Corinthians had been anony-
mous, the whole body of modern writers, who have attacked the Pauline
origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, must have, with one unanimous
voice, disclaimed the first epistle to the Corinthians as belonging to
Paul. In all respects which have any reference to the number of
peculiar phrases and words that are cutaX, Xeyopeva, the first epistle
to the Corinthians presents far stronger evidence of not being Pauline
than our epistle does.
So unsafe is this argument, although often produced and much relied
upon, in respect to the important subject which we are examining !
216 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.
How much easier, too, is it to make assertions at hazard, on a subject
of this nature, than it is to go through with the excessive labour of
verifying such assertions, by means of that great rectifier of wandering
critics a Greek Concordance? Had this been done, long ago, the
world had been spared a great deal of useless labour, and literature
the record of many a hasty conclusion, from premises unexamined and
unestablished.
But further, the argument against the genuineness of the first epistle
to the Corinthians could be easily amplified, by appealing still farther
to the same kind of arguments as are adduced against our epistle.
For example, how easy to ask, " If the first epistle to the Corinthians
be Paul's, how is it possible, that in so long a letter there is no discussion
of Paul's favourite topics in which he was so deeply interested ? How
comes it about, that we have nothing about justification by faith,
without the deeds of the law ; nothing of the vanity and folly of Jewish
rites and ceremonies ; nothing which asserts the equal rights of Jews
and Gentiles, and blames the Judaizing teachers and zealots who
refused to acknowledge this ? Where has Paul ever descanted, as here,
on the subject of spiritual gifts ; on the marriage relation, conditions,
habits, and dress of women ; on the Lord's supper ; on the support of
preachers; on the comparative value of spiritual gifts, and of faith,
hope, and love ; and, above all, on the controverted and speculative
questions of his time, respecting the manner in which the bodies of
the saints would rise from their graves, when the last trumpet should
sound ? Where else has Paul, or any other sacred writer, intimated,
that the regal power of the Messiah would cease after the day of judg-
ment, and that he would be subjected to the Father ? Is there any
parallel to this epistle, either for matter or manner, in all the acknow-
ledged writings of Paul ?"
I might proceed still further, and collect a large number of favourite
expressions, often repeated, in this epistle, but which seldom or never
occur in the other Pauline epistles. Many such I have noticed, in the
course of my investigations ; many more than Dr. Schulz has been
able to collect from the epistle to the Hebrews. And if the two epistles
to the Corinthians were to be the subject of investigation, instead of
the first only, the list of iiira Xtyopeva and a7ra Xoyi^o/^^a, and of
favourite idioms and peculiar ideas, might be swelled to an enormous
catalogue. I have observed, as I feel quite well satisfied, more #?ra
a in the second epistle to the Corinthians in proportion to its
29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 217
length, than in the first ; and quite as many peculiar phrases. In a
word, after such an investigation as I have been through, I am bold to say,
that there is not a single epistle of Paul's which may not be wrested from
him, by arguments of the very same kind, as those by which the genu-
ineness of our epistle is assailed, and in all respects of equal validity.
Unfortunately for the cause of criticism, so just and obvious an
investigation has not hitherto been entered upon. Most of those who
have doubted the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews, have
seemed to consider it as quite proper to make out from it all the
specialities possible, and then to reason from them, without any fear
of mistake. I have examined their arguments in detail, because I
wished to show how many hasty and incorrect assertions have been
brought forward as arguments. I have now exhibited the application
of the principles, on which their whole argument stands, to one of Paul's
epistles, the genuineness of which no critic calls in question. The
result is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken.
" But," it will be asked, " can we never reason, in any case, from
dissimilarity of language in different compositions, to different 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 shown
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 con-
sideration the fact, that every writer who travels to many different
countries, resides in many different places, and is conversant with a
218 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE.
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 an 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 Uni-
versity of Basle, 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. 79 112. 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. 89 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, " Wheii he [Origen] speaks
30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 219
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. 95. (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. 108 ; while he has inserted at full length all the passages which might
serve to show 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. 108 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 com-
mentary on Matt, xxvi., and in his book De Viris Illustribus c. v.
(supra, pp. 108, 109,) 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 revolu-
tionizing 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. 108,) admitted our
epistle to be Paul's; excepting that he has adduced some of the testi-
mony of Jerome and Augustine.
Besides, he has advanced the broad portion, that " the western
220 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE.
churches originally (anfanglich) denied this epistle to be Paul's." The
passages adduced in proof of this, are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. vi. 20, cited
above, p. 97;) v. 26, (supra p. 102;) the passages from Photius,
Gobar, and Hippolytus, (supra p. 102;) Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 20,
(supra p. 106 seq.;) Cyprian, de Martyr, c. xi., (supra p. 106;) Jerome,
Epist. ad Paulinum, (supra p. 109;) and Philastrius, de Haeres, c. 89,