God," meaning "the invisible God," "the Lord of Glory ?"

66

P. 50. "The epistle to the Hebrews. From the deficiency of evidence of its having been written by an apostle, it cannot be regarded as by itself authoritative." You conjecture that "it was written in the Syro-Chaldaic. But Greek was his (Paul's) native language," p. 422. This idea, Doctor, is quite unfounded; Greek was so far from being his native language, that when he first began to preach in it, "he made," according to Jerome, very many bulls and blunders in his words. He scarcely knew how to construe a hyperbatic phrase, nor how to close a sentence." This father affirms farther, that St. Paul at first "did not know how to express his own profound conceptions in the Greek language; that his elocution was defective, and that he laboured under difficulties in communicating his ideas.' Iste qui Solecismos in verbis facit, qui non potest hyperbaton reddere, sententiamque concludere, audacter sibi vindicat sapientiam, &c.—Hieron. Comm. in epis. ad Eph. tom. vi. p. 384.

Illud, &c. etsi imperitus sermone, &c. nequaquam Paulum de humilitate dixisse; profundos enim, et reconditos sensus lingua non explicat, et cum ipse: sentiat, quid loquatur, in alienas aures puro non potest transferre Sermone. Epis. 15. ad Algas. Q. 10.

With regard to the deficiency of evidence that the epistle was writen by an apostle, allow me to translate the statement of different fathers, that the reader may judge for himself. St. Clement

He

of Alexandria assures us in his Hypotyposes, that St. Paul wrote this epistle in Hebrew, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, which accounts for the similarity of style in this epistle, and in the Acts of the Apostles." adds, "The Apostle had a reason for withholding his name from the inscription, because writing to the Hebrews who had long been prejudiced against him; and might suspect him, [as hostile to the ceremonial law, Acts xxi. 21,] he had acted prudently in not placing his name at the head of the letter." This passage being cited by Eusebius, as also the following opinion of Origen in his homilies, indicates that Eusebius concurred with them in opinion. "The style of this epistle is more polished than that of St. Paul, who admits, that he was simple and rude in speech. The Greek of this epistle has a superior elegance, as those conversant with its style will readily allow. Be that as it may, the ideas are very admirable, and must command the assent of those who examine it, as not unworthy of this Apostle. My opinion is, that the thoughts are St. Paul's; and that the style and composition are those of another person, who has collected and gathered the words of the Apostle, and composed a book of what he had heard his master say. For this reason, if some churches, have received it as St. Paul's, we have reason to approve of its sentiment, as it is not without reason that our ancestors have handed it down to us by tradition, as the production of St. Paul, though God alone knows with certainty

H

whose it is. Some, according to history, attribute it to St. Luke, while others think, it was written by Clement, Bishop of Rome."

Not only all the churches of the east, but the whole of the ancient Greek writings have acknowledged it to be Saint Paul's, though the most part attribute it, [that is, the translation of it] to Barnabas, or to Clement. Non solum ab Ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli suscipitur, licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ, vel Clementis arbitrentur.Hier. ad Dardan.

The internal evidences, that the epistle was dictated by St. Paul, have been collected by Du Pin, author of the ecclesiastical history in twenty-three volumes quarto. "It was written from Italy by a person then in bonds, but who expected liberation; a person who had Timothy for a colleague." Heb. x. 34, xiii. 23. These circumstances agree

"

with no one but Paul. Saint Peter says in his second epistle," our beloved Brother Paul has written to us.' Now there is no epistle but this addressed to the Hebrews. Neither Clement nor Barnabas could speak with so much authority to the Hebrews as this author. St. Paul laboured in this epistle above all the others, which may account for the superiority of its style. Having learned his gospel by revelation, he could say, "it was confirmed to us by them that heard him." Chap. ii. 3. St. Luke" had perfect understanding of all things from the very first."

This learned professor adds, that this epistle

was written just after Timothy was set at liberty, x. 34; he thanks the Hebrews, a name which agrees to the Jews of Palestine, being called Jews in other provinces, because they had had compassion on him in bonds [before he left Asia]. In a word, he represents how much the Son of God was superior to Angels, and to Moses; how much his priesthood and sacrifice were superior to the priest and sacrifices of the law; he proves that they were all figures of Christ, and fully accomplished in his person, &c.

Under these indisputable facts, I am fully of opinion, Doctor, that you will not be able to get rid of the epistle to the Hebrews as an uninspired book. It was fully received by the council of Laodicea, the first ever called; we cannot now allow it to be touched with polluted hands.

P. 54. You are astonished that "James should content himself with calling him, The Lord Jesus Christ,' or even the Lord of Glory,' if he really believed that he was the very and eternal God." Being quite sure that the apostles were all Unitarians, you are also at a loss to know "when the Apostles got rid of their Jewish prejudices." Doctor, the belief that the Messiah was "God over all, blessed for ever," was not merely a Jewish prejudice, but the prejudice, I would rather say, the hope and expectation of the whole primitive world. The Apostle being fixed and grounded in this faith, is proud to call himself "a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Here are his full titles; and he charges the elders not to "have the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, the

Lord of Glory with respect of persons." He joins Stephen in the ascription of the proper title to the Redeemer. "The God [and Lord] of Glory that appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia."--Acts vii. 2. This is the Shekinah or Glory which formed the first word of Stephen's defence. He had not as yet, Doctor, gotten rid of his Jewish prejudices. You add, "the last word dons, glory may refer either to πισον or to κυριου ; Wakefield refers it to glorious faith." But, Doctor, how does dong in the feminine, form a syntax with zugiou in the masκυριου culine? Aware that your friend has cut his fingers, you kindly tie them up by reading, "the faith of our glorious Lord." Is then the noun glory, to be reduced to an adjective? What, Doctor, would the ancients have thought of these criticisms?—the old Arians would have been utterly ashamed of all such quibbles.

P. 55. "The evidence for the genuineness of the epistle ascribed to Jude is very incomplete." Jerome, it is true, says that because the apochryphal book of Enoch was there cited, many had rejected it; but it had acquired authority by its antiquity, and by the use which the church had made of it, in putting it among the canonical books. Clement has written a comment on it, and cited it in his Stromata, and in his Pædagogue. Tertullian cites it as genuine; Origen has written an eulogy on it as the genuine work of St. Jude; and no council ever rejected it. Say the truth, Doctor. Is it not the following phrases in this short record of antiquity which chokes the Unitarian? "Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord