That this epistle was wx.^g^ ^^^ ^^^ apostle Paul, admits of no rea- sonable doubt. 1. It in the h..^ place purports to be his. It bears his signature, and speaks througho. -^ j^-g ^ame. 2. It has uniformly been recognised as his. From tL apostolic age to the present time it has been referred to and quoted ,^ ^ regular series of authors, and
10 INTRODUCTION. i
recognised as of divine authoTity in all the churches. It would b<re» quisite, in order to disprove its authenticity, to account satisfactciily for these facts, on the supposition of the epistle being spurious. ;he passages in the early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cisd, are very numerous, and may be seen in Lardner's Cnxdihility, Volll 3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its favour, (a) Inthe first place, it is evidently the production of a Jew, familiar with the 'le- brew text and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, becausethe language and style are such as no one, not thus circumstanced, culd adopt; and because the whole letter evinces such an intimate acqumt- ance with Jewish opinions and prejudices, (h) It agrees perfecti in style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle, (c) It is, irtho truth and importance of its doctrines, and in the elevation and puritof its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any uninspired productiolof the age in which it appeared. A comparison of the genuine aposlic writings with the spurious productions of the first and second centu^s, affords one of the strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity lid inspiration of the former, (c?) The incidental or undesigned co$i dences, as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of^e New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of its ha'^g proceeded from the pen of the apostle. Compare Rom. 15 : 25 — 31 \^h Acts 20 : 2, 3. 24 : 17. 1 Cor. 16 : 1—4. 2 Cor. 8 : 1—4. 9 : 2. R(ii. 16 : 21—23 with Acts 20 : 4. Rom. 16 : 3, et seqq. with Acts 18 : 2j8 —26. 1 Cor. 16 : 19, &c. (see Paley's Horse Paulinae.) 4. Besils these positive proofs, there is the important negative consideration, lit there are no grounds for questioning its authenticity. There are no ^- crepancies between this and other sacred writings ; no counter testimcy among the early fathers ; no historical or critical difficulties which mit be solved before it can be recognised as the work of Paul. There i, therefore, no book in the Bible, and there is no ancient book in the won, of which the authenticity is more certain than that of this epistle. 1