Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

§ 1. The Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. § 2. Notation of the word. mp Kaneh, a measuring reed. The beam of a balance. § 3. Thence Κανων of the same signification. § 4, Metaphorically a moral rule. Rectum and Canon, how far the same. The Scripture a rule. Canonical. § 5. The antiquity of that appellation. § 6.

_ The Canon of the Scripture. § 7. What required to render a book Canonical. All books of the holy Scripture equal as to their divine original. § 8. Jews’ distinction of the books of the Old Testament, as to the manner of their writing, disproved. § 9. All equally Canonical. No book Canonical of a second sort or degree. § 10. The Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical. ᾧ 11. Opposed by Heretics of old. ὁ 12. Not received into the Latin Church until the days of Hierome. § 13. Proved against Baronius. § 14. Not rejected by any of that Church. §15. Only not publicly approved. §16. The Church of Rome not the sole proposer of books Canonical. Occasion of its non-admittance at Rome. Boldness of some in rejecting and corrupting the Scripture. § 17. By whom this Epistle opposed of late, § 18. The objection of the uncertainty of the penman answered, § 19. Citations out of the Old Testament not found therein. Answer. § 20. Citations not to hispurpose. Answer. § 21. Countenance to old Heresies. Answer. § 22. General heads of Arguments to prove its Canonical Authority. Characters to discover between books of divine inspiration and others. youn, φράσεως xeeaxtnp, προαίρεσις. § 23. The general arguments of books truly Canonical. § 24. Subject Matter. § 25. Design. § 26. Style. § 27. Of the style of the sacred writings. § 28. Mistakes of many about it. § 29. The natureof Eloquence. Excellency of. ᾧ 90. Scripture Style. § 31. Energies. § 32 ἃ 33. Efficacy. § 34, Tradition concerning the Authority of this Epistle; not justly lable to any exceptions. § 35. From the Author. § 36. Circumstances. § 37. Subject Matter. § 38. Style. § 99, Testimonies. § 40. Conclusion.;

§ 1. Tue canonical authority of the Epistle unto the Hebrews having been called in question, we must in our entrance declare what it is which we intend by canonical authority, and also prove the clear interest of this Epistle therein. or this is the foundation of all those ensuing discourses from it, and of that exposition of it, which we intend.

§ 2. The Greek word κανων, which gives rise unto the term Canonical, seems to be derived from the Hebrew 723) Kaneh; which sometimes denotes, an aromatical cane that contained spices in it, used in the worship of God, as Isa. xiii. 24. 7p mp xd, ‘thou hast bought me no sweet cane with silver, (for this 21M Mp, ‘ precious cane,’ growing not in their own country, was brought from afar off, Jer. vi. 20.) But in general it signifies any reed whatever, 1 Kings xiv. 15; Isa. xl. 3, whence a multitude of fierce and wicked men, compared to the devouring crocodile, whose lurking place is in the canes or reeds, are termed 2p MN, ‘the beast of the reed, Psal. Ixviil. 30. ΤῈ is used to signify a reed made into an instrument, wherewith they measured their buildings, containing six cubits in length, Ezek. xl. 7, chap. xlii. 16. And hence indefinitely it is taken for a rule or measure. Besides it signifies the jugum, or scapus, or beam with the tongue of a balance, keeping the poise of the scales equal, and discovering the rectitude or declensions thereof, Isa. xlvi. 6. pW Mp2 HDD, ‘ they weighed silver on the cane;’ that is, saith the Targum, 8*21N792, ‘ in the balance;’ the supporter and director of the scales, being put for the whole. The Rabbins call it, Dina dy mp, the ‘reed of the scales ν᾿ that which tries, and weighs, and gives every thing its just moment.

§ 3. And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word, κανων, canon. So the Scholiast on these words of Aristophanes,

§ 4. From this original and proper import of the word, is its metaphorical use deduced, which is most common; and therein it signifies a moral rule, or a measure, for direction, trial, and judgment. Hence the philosopher calls the law κανονα rng πολιτειας,5 ‘the rule of the administration, or government of the commonwealth; that whereby all the parts of it are disposed into their proper places, whereby they are regulated, and all things done in it are tried and judged. And in this sense it is applied by St. Paul unto divine revelation, Gal. vi. 16. 6008 τῳ κανονι τουτῳ στοιχησοῦυσιν, Sas many as proceed orderly,’ that is, in a direct way, (for so στοιχεῖν denotes,) ‘according to this rule or canon.’ And to the same purpose he useth again the same expression, Phil. iii. 16. For as the words of the Scripture are in themselves Nas “737, ‘words of truth, so the writing itself is WW* 21Nd, a F right writing; or as the LXX. yeypappevoy evSuryroc, ‘that which is written in uprightness,’ to be a rule and judgment unto all. Ευϑύυτητος is genitivus adjuncti, not materiz, declaring the property of the writing, not the subject matter, that is, it is canonical; for ro evSv and κανων, that which is right, and a rule, we have shown to be the same. And from hence it is, that the Scripture, or written word of God, being in itself every way absolutely right and perfect, and appointed by him to be the rule or canon of the church’s faith and obedience, requiring, trying, regulating, judging wholly and absolutely of these, hath obtained car’ εἕοχην by way of eminence the name of canonical, or regular; as the book wherein it is conwag is called the Bible, though in itself that be the common name of all

‘ Let them demonstrate their church, not by the rumours of the Africans, but by the prescription of the law, the predictions of the prophets, the songs of the Psalms, that is by the canonical authority of the holy books of the Scriptures.’ And he pursues the metaphor of a scale and a measure in many words elsewhere. And thus Aquinas’ himself confesseth the Scripture is called canonical, because it is the rule of our understanding in the things of God. And such arule it is, as hath authority over the consciences of men, to bind them unto faith and obedience, because of its being given of God by inspiration for that purpose.

§ 6. Moreover, as the Scripture upon the accounts mentioned, is by way of eminence said to be canonical, so there is also a canon or rule determining what books in particular do belong to the holy Scripture, and are on that account canonical, So Athanasius tells us that by the holy Scripture he intends, ‘ Libros certo canone comprehensos,i—the ‘ books contained in the assured canon of it, And Ruffinus having reckoned up those books, concludes, ‘hi sunt quos patres intra canonem concluserunt,*—‘ These are they which the fathers have concluded to be in the canon;’ that is, to belong unto the canonical books of Scripture. And Austin to the same purpose: ‘Non sine causa, tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertinerent?!— “ποῦ without good reason is the ecclesiastical canon determined by wholesome diligence, unto which, certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong. About the assignation of this canon of the Scripture, or what books belonged unto the canonical Scripture, there have been some differences in the church, since the time of the synod of Carthage, confirmed by that in Trulla at Constantinople; the first church having agreed well enough about them, except some few persons, who hesitated_in reference unto one or two of the books of the New Testament.

§ 7. From this rise and use of the word, it is evident what is intended by the canonical authority of the Scripture, or of any particular book thereunto belonging. Two things are included in that expression. First, the spring and original of any book, which gives it authority; and secondly, the design and end of it, which renders it canonical. For the first, it is required that it be Seorvevaroc, “ given by immediate inspiration from God; without this, no book or writing can by any means, any acceptation, or approbation of the church, any usefulness, any similitude of style, or manner of writing to the books that are so, any conformity in matter or doctrine to them, have an interest in that authority that should lay a foundation for its reception into the canon. ΤῈ is the impress of the authority of God himself on any writing, or its proceeding immediately from him, that is sufficient for this purpose. Neither yet will this alone suffice to render any revelation or writing absolutely canonical in the sense explained. There may be an especial revelation from God, or a writing by his inspiration, like that sent by Elijah unto Jehoram, the king of Judah, 2 Chron. xxi. 12, which being referred only unto some particular occasion, and having thence authority for some especial end and purpose, yet being not designed for a rule of faith and obedience unto the church, may not belong unto the canon of the Scripture. But when unto the original of divine inspiration, this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the catholic standing use and instruction of the church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and completely canonical.

§ 8. The Jews of latter ages, assign some difference among the books of the Old Testament, as to their spring and original, or manner of revelation, though they make none as to their being all canonical. The book of the law, they assign unto a peculiar manner of revelation, which they call mp 5x ΤΡ or DD DN DMD, ‘mouth to mouth, or ‘face to face, which they gather from Num. xii. 8, whereof afterwards. Others of them they affirm to proceed from ΤΙΝῚ), or the ‘ gift of prophecy. Of this gift of prophecy they make many kinds or degrees, taken from the different means used by God in the application of himself unto them, belonging to the πολυτροπια of divine revelation mentioned by the apostle, Heb. i. 1. And they divide those books into two parts, namely the D‘287 D‘N*33, or ‘former prophets,’ containing most of the historical books after the end of the law; and ΣΝ OND, the ‘latter prophets,’ wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called. The original of the remainder of them they ascribe unto WIP Mm, or ‘inspiration by the Holy Ghost,’ calling them peculiarly D°a n>, written, by that inspiration; as though the whole canon and system of the books were not 721N2, the Scripture or writing, and Seorvevoria or divine inspiration, the only means of their writing. But they do herein as in many other things. |

The distribution of the books of the Old Testament, into the law, psalms, and prophets, was very ancient in their church. We have mention of it, Luke xxiv. 44, ra yeypappeva ev τῷ νομῳ Μωσεως, και προφηταις, Kat Ψψαλμοις, ‘that are written ἐν, in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,’ that is, in the whole canonical Scripture. And it is evident that this distribution is taken from the subject-matter of those principal parts of it. This distribution they have by tradition, but not knowing, or neglecting the reason of it, they have feigned the rise of it ma different manner of revelation, and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased. This is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the Dvain>, Cethubim, or Hagiographa, which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that feigned distinction, and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture as to their spring and original. St. Peter calls the whole λόγον προφητικον, 2 Pet. i. 19, ‘the word of prophecy; and προφητεια, ver. 20, ‘ prophecy, and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it, to be given out by prophecy; which is a property of the whole. And St. Paul also terms the whole Scripture γραφαι προφητικαι, Rom. xvi. 26, ‘ prophetical Scriptures, or writings of the pro-

§ 9. The same is their condition as to their being canonical: they are all so equally. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously, and therefore sometimes call books canonical, that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church’s faith and obedience. Thus the Constantinopolitan Council in Trulla" confirms the canons both of the synod of Laodicea, and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could not be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the Holy Scripture. ‘Hoc etiam,’ say they, ‘ fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii dies celebrantur.° They speak dubiously: concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical, only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same Epiphanius? testifies of the epistles of Clemens. But as the books which that synod added to the canon of Laodicea, are rejected by Melito,4 Origen, Athanasius," Hilarius,s’ Gregorius Nazianzen,* Cyrillus Hierosolimitanus," Epiphanius,’ Ruffinus,¥ Hierome,* Gregorius Magnus, and others; so their reading and citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners, and not for the confirmation of the faith. Thus St. Paul cited an Iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Cor. xv. 33, an Hemistichium out of Aratus, Acts xvil. 28, and a whole Hexameter out of Epimenides, Titus i. 12. ‘Non sunt canonici, sed leguntur Catechumenis,’ saith Athanasius.—‘ They are not canonical, but are only read to the Catechumeni. And Hierome, the church reads them ‘ad <edificationem plebis, non ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam:’'—‘ for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any points of faith. But although some books truly canonical were of old amongst some ἐν ἀμφιλεκτῳ, as Epiphanius’ speaks, doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certamly a7o- κρυφα, apocryphal, yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice, can give any countenance to an apprehension of a second, or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of Scripture accrues unto it, as hath been shown, merely from its divine inspiration, and from being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto the church. Therefore, whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have, yet, if it have not the properties mentioned of divine inspiration and confirmation, it differs in the whole kind, and not in degrees only, from all those that have them. It cannot then be any part regule regulantis, but regulate at the best, not having avromtortay, or a self-credibility on its own account, or avSevrevay, a self-sufficivg authority, but is truth only materially by virtue of its analogy unto that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly so. And this was well observed by Lindanus, ‘ Impio, saith he, ‘ sacrilegio se contaminant, qui in Scripturarum christianarum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare, quod unam eandemque Spiritus Sancti voeem, impio humane stultitie discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere et disturbare autoritatis classes.’—‘ They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege, who endeavour to bring in, as it were, divers degrees into the whole body of the Scriptures; for by the impious discretion of human folly, they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal authority.” As then whatever difference there may be as to the subject matter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books, which being written by divine inspiration, are given out for the church’s rule; they are all equal as to their canonical authority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writing may have, it can im no way receive an interest in that, whose formal reason it is not concerned in.

$11. We need not much insist on their madness, who of old, with a sacrilegious licentiousness, rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased. The Ebionites not only rejected all the epistles of Paul, but also reviled his person as a Greek and an apostate, as Irenzeus* and Epiphanius? inform us. ‘Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheiteein Eusebius. Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy ἀπά Titus, as Epiphanius* and Hierome? assure us, who adds unto him Basilides. And Theodoret‘, as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews, joins unto them some of the Arians also. Now, though the folly of those sacrilegious persons be easy to be repelled, as it is done by Petrus Cluniensis, yet Hierome hath given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein.. ‘Si quidem,’ saith he, ‘ redderent causas cur eas apostoli non putant, tentaremus aliquid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori; nunc vero cum heeetica autoritate pronunciant et dicunt, illa Epistola Pauli est, hee non est, ea autoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescant falsa simulare.’ They did not so much as plead, or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these Epistles, but did it upon their own head and authority, so they deserve neither answer nor consideration.

§ 12. It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time, though not rejected by, yet not received in the church of Rome. Eusebius" informs us, that Caius, a presbyter of that church, whom he much commends for his learning and piety, admitted but of thirteen epistles of St. Paul, rejecting that unto the Hebrews, as Photius' also affirms. And the same Photius acquaints us with the same judgment of Hippolitus, another eminent member of that church: Λέγει (saith he) δὲ adda τα τινα της ἀκριβείας λειπομενα, καὶ OTe ἡ προς EBpatove extoroAn οὐκ εστι TOV αποστολου Ilavdov, Among other things not exactlu answering the truth, he saith also, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Paul's. And Kusebius adds unto his information of the judgment of Caius, that it was not generally received in the church of Rome in his time. Neither is it any way acknowledged as St. Paul’s, by either Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, or Armobius. Yea, the same Eusebius’ affirms, that some excepted against it upon this account, because it was opposed, as none of St. Paul’s, in the Roman church. Hierome grants that, ‘Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebreeos inter canonicas Scripturas.‘—‘ The custom of the Latins (that is the Roman church) did not receive this Epistle among the canonical Scriptures.’ And speaking elsewhere of it, he adds the same words, ‘ Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas Scripturas non recipiat.’ And elsewhere also he confirms the same assertion. It cannot then be denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the writing of this Epistle, before it was publicly received and avowed as canonical by the Roman church. Nor will the quotation of it by Hilary and Ambrose prove any general admission of it as such, it being their custom not to restrain the testimonies they made use of, unto books absolutely canonical.

δ 13. Baronius' ad An. 160, labours to take off this failure of the Latin church. The testimony of Eusebius he rejects, because, as he says, he was ‘Arianorum gregalis’ of the Arian faction, and willing to call the authority of this Epistle into question in compliance with them, who, some of them, as we observed before, refused it: ἡ. 42. The judgment of Caius he resolves into the testimony of Eusebius, which because of his partiality, as he pleads, is not to be admitted. And lastly opposeth the witness of Hierome, as a person who had suffered himself to be imposed on by Eusebius, whose words in his reports of Caius, he makes use of. ». 50. Concluding upon the whole matter, that it was a mere false calumny of Eusebius, against the church of Rome, which Hierome by too much facility gave credit unto. But I must acknowledge, that these answers of his, which indeed are nothing but a rejection of as good witnesses in matters of fact, as any we have upon the roll of antiquity, are not unto me satisfactory. Neither am I satisfied with the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius, which is justly suspected to be supposititious; as is that of the council at Rome against Appolinaris, under Damasus, wherein no such thing appears. Though I will not deny, but that about that time it came to be publicly owned by that church, and was reckoned unto the canon of the Scripture by Ruffinus.™

§ 14. But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the judgment of Caius, or the Roman church, in compliance with the Amans; he himself evidently admits the Epistle to be canonical, and confirms it by the testimonies of Clemens, Origen, and others. What would it advantage him, or the cause which some pretend he favoured, to report the opposition of others to a part of divine writ which himself accepted? Besides they were not the Arians of the first rank or edition, (for an inclination unto whom Eusebius is suspected,) but some of their offspring who fell into such sacrilegious opinions and practices as the first leaders of them owned not, that are accused in this matter; much less can he be thought to design the reproach of the Roman church. Nay, these answers are inconsistent, as any one may perceive. He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in compliance with the Arians, and the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected, and on whose authority his intentions must be founded. But, indeed, his words plainly manifest that he gives us a naked account of matter of fact, without either prejudice or design. It is yet more incredible, that Hierome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on by Eusebius. That he was the most eminently learned and knowing person of the Roman or Latin church in those days, will, I suppose, not be greatly questioned. Now to suppose that he knew not the customs, opinions, and practice of that church, but would suffer himself to be imposed on by a stranger, destitute of those advantages which he had to come unto an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides he doth not any where speak as one that reported the words and judgment of another, but in three or four places expressly affirms it as of his own knowledge; when at the same time in opposition thereunto, he contends that it was received by all other churches in the world, and all writers from the days of the apostles..

§ 15. Neither yet doth it appear from any thing delivered by Caius, TLippolitus, Eusebius, or Hierome, that the Latin church did ever reject this Hpistle. Yea, we shall find that many amongst them, even in those days, reckoned it unto the canon of the Scripture, and owned St. Paul as the penman of it. Eusebius" himself acknowledges that Clemens useth sundry testimonies out of it, in his Epistle ad Corinthios. And others also there were concurring with his judgment therein. But these two things I allow, on the testimonies insisted on. (1.) That sundry particular persons of note and esteem in the Roman church owned not the canonical authority of this Epistle, as not esteeming it written by St. Paul. (2.) The church itself had not before the days of Hierome made any public judgment about the author or authority of this Epistle, nor given any testimony unto them. For it seems utterly impossible, that if any such judgment had passed, or testimony been given, that Hierome, living in the midst of that church, should know nothing of it, but so often affirm the contrary without hesitation. And this undeniably evinceth the injustice of some men’s pretensions, that the Roman church is the only proposer of canonical Scripture, and that upon the authority of her proposal alone it is to be received. Four hundred years were passed, before she herself publicly received this Epistle, or read it in her assemblies; so far was she from haying proposed it unto others. And yet all this while was it admitted and received by all other churches in the world, as Hierome testifies, and that from the days of the apostles, whose judgment the Roman church itself at length submitted unto. § 16. No impeachment, then, of the authority of this Epistle can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman church, it being proved to be a defect by the concurrent suffrage and testimony of all other churches in the world, from the days of the apostle, as we shall afterwards more fully declare. Neither are the occasions of this hesitation of the western church obscure: the Epistle was written, it may be, in Rome, at least it was in some part of Italy, chap. xii. 24. There is no doubt it was seen, and, it may be, copied out before it was sent, by some who used to accompany the apostle, as Clemens, who, as we have showed, not long after mentioned divers things contained in it. The original was, without question, speedily sent into Judea, unto the Hebrews, to whom it was written and directed, as were all others of the Epistles of the same apostle unto those churches that were immediately intended and concerned in them. That copies of it were by them also communicated unto their brethren in the east, equally concerned in it with themselves, cannot be doubted, unless we will suppose them grossly negligent in their duty towards God and man, which we have no reason to do. But the churches of the Hebrews living at that time, and, for some while after, if not in a separation, yet in a distinction, by reason of some peculiar observances, from the churches of the Gentiles, especially those of the west, they were not, it may be, very forward in communicating this Epistle unto them, being written, as they supposed, about an especial concernment of their own. By this ‘means, this Epistle seems to have been kept much within the compass of the churches of the Jews, until after the destruction of the temple; when by their dispersion and coalescence with other churches in the east, it came to be generally received amongst them; and ‘non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiis et Greci sermonis Scriptoribus,”? as Hierome speaks. But the Latin church having lost that advantage of receiving it when first written, it may be also from the consideration of the removal of its peculiar argument, upon the final destruction of the whole Judaical church and worship, was somewhat slow in their inquiry after it. Those that succeeded in that church, it is not unlikely, had their scruples increased, because they found it not in common use amongst their predecessors, like to the rest of St. Paul’s epistles, not considering the occasion thereof. Add hereunto, that by the time it had gradually made its progress in its return into the west, where it was first written, and attended with the suffrage of all the eastern churches, began to evince its own’ authority, sundry persons who were wrangling about peculiar opinions and practices of their own, began to seek advantages from some expressions in it. So

§ 17. Bellarmin? chargeth Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Centuriators, with the rejection of this Epistle. But because I know that some of them are falsely accused by him, I am apt to suspect the same of the rest, whom I have not the opportunity to consult; and so 1 shall not reckon them amongst the opposers of this Epistle. The matter is more certain concerning Cajetan and Erasmus: the former in his Preface unto, the other in his last Annotation on this Epistle, denying it to be St. Paul’s, and questioning, yea indeed rejecting its canonical authority. To them we may add Eniedinus, proceeding upon the same principles, and making use of their arguments to the same purpose. These are the chief, if not absolutely all, who have at any time made any scruple about the authority of this Epistle. The reasons they make use of to justify themselves in their conjectures, are amassed together by Erasmus in his note on the 24th verse of the last chapter of it; but because he mixeth together the arguments that he insists on to prove St. Paul not to have been the penman of it, and the exceptions he puts in unto its canonical authority, which are things of a diverse consideration, I shall separate them, and first take out those that seem absolutely to impeach its authority, leaving those that oppose its penman to our ensuing discourse on that question in particular.

§ 18. The first thing generally pleaded, is the uncertainty of its author

or penman. ‘Sola omnium Pauli nomen non prefert, saith Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretence is, we shall afterwards fully manifest. At present I shall only show, that it is m general of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certamly known, may indeed. give some light unto the nature and authority of it. But when it is confessed, that the penman of any book was θεοπνεύυστος, or ‘ divinely inspired, and that by him it was written for the use of the church, there can be no question of its authority. But this last, viz. that he, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, designed it for the use of the church, must be no less known than the former. For a man may write one book by inspiration, and others by a fallible human judgment, as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again, when the penman of any writing pretending unto Divine authority is not esteemed, nor doth manifest himself in any thing to have been, ὑπο πνευματος ἁγιου φερομενος; ‘immediately acted upon by the Holy Ghost, the writing itself must needs be liable unto just exception. Wherefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation unto the canon of the Scripture may be thence received. But when this is doubtful, nothing satisfactory on either side can thence be concluded. And therefore it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to keep the names of the penmen of many parts of the Scripture in everlasting obscurity; for he borrows no countenance or authority unto any thing that proceeds by inspiration from himself, from the names of men. There is not then the least strength in this exception; for be it granted that we are altogether uncertain who was the penman of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of its authority can thence be taken, unless it can be proved that he was not divinely inspired. But yet, to show the insufficiency every way of this objection, we shall abundantly evince, that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false: the penman of this Epistle being as well and certainly known, as those of any portions of Scripture whatever that are avemtypapa, some whereof were never doubted nor called into question. And at least we shall so far evince St. Paul to have been the author of it, as, although we shall not from thence take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it hath itself, been called into question, yet as to render an objection from the uncertainty of its author altogether unreasonable.

§ 19. The remaining objections are more particular, and direct to their purpose, by whom they are pleaded. As, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related in the 11th chapter, and that in particular in chap. xu. ver. 21, where he affirms, that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that appeared unto him, said, ‘I exceedingly quake and tremble.’ This place Erasmus supposeth Hierome to have intended, when he says that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty. or, first, he would refer the place to Moses’ sight of the angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, ‘ dixit saltem facto: though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all ‘vel forte apostolus alia utitur litera quam nos non habemus:—‘ or it may be the apostle used another text that we have not.’ But there is no need of any of these evasions. The author quotes no book, nor testimony of the Old Testament, but only relates a matter of fact, and one circumstance of it, which doubtless he had by divine revelation, whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is originally recorded. Thus in the beginning of the Chronicles, sundry particular stories, (as that about the children of Ephraim, chap. Vil. 21.) no where before written, are reported from the same infallible direction by which others of the same time were written, when they were omitted. And it is an uncouth way of roving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths with which he could no otherwise be acquainted. Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by divine inspiration, to mention things recorded in other stories, whose truth is unquestionable, as is the case with those which are related in chap. xi.

§ 20. It seems to be of more importance, that, if the objectors may be believed, the writer of this Epistle citeth testimonies out of the Old Testament that are no ways to his purpose, nor at all prove the matter that he produceth them for; discovering, at least, that he wrote with a fallible spirit, if not also that he dealt scarcely bona fide, in handling the cause which he undertook. Cajetan insists on that of the first chapter, ver. 5, ‘I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be unto me a Son,’ taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14, or 1 Chron xvi. 14, which words, as he supposeth, no way belong unto that, in confirmation of which they are produced by the author of this Epistle. Erasmus insists upon his testimony in chap. 11. produced out of Psa. viii. 4, 5, which, as he saith, is urged directly contrary to the intention of the Psalmist, and scope of the words. Eniedinus insists on the same places and others.

Now two things must be supposed to give countenance unto this objection. First, That those who make it do better understand the meaning and the importance of the testimonies, so produced out of the Old Testament, than he did by whom they are here alleged. This is the foundation of this exception, which, if once admitted, it may be easily imagined how able some men will quickly think themselves to question other allegations in the New Testament, and thereby render the authority of the whole dubious. They must, I say, take upon themselves to know the true meaning of them, and that in the uttermost extent of signification and intention, as given out by the Holy Ghost, before they can charge their misapplication on this author. How vain, unjust, arrogant, and presumptuous this supposition is, needs little labour to demonstrate. The understandings of men are a very sorry measure of the truth, and of the whole sense and intention of the Holy Ghost in every place of Scripture. Nay, it may much more rationally be supposed, that though we all know enough of the mind and will of God in the whole Scripture, to guide and regulate our faith and obedience; yet that we are rather ignorant of his utmost intention in every lace, than that we know it in all. There is a depth and breadth in every word of God, because his, which we are not able to fathom and compass to the utmost: it being enough for us, that we may infallibly apprehend so much of his mind and will, as is indispensably necessary for us to the obedience that he requires at our hands. An humble reverential consideration of all, indeed almost any, of the testimonies alleged in the New Testament out of the Old, is sufficient to evince the truth of this consideration. We know but in part, and we prophesy in part, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. ‘Quantum est quod nescimus!—‘How much is it that we know not!’ or as Job speaks, 127 yw m73—‘ How small is the word that we understand of God! chap. xxvi. 14. One says well, ‘Est Sacra Scriptura veluti fons quidam, in bono terre loco scaturiens, quem quo altius foderis, eo magis exuberantem invenies; ita quo diligentius Sacram Scripturam interpretaris, eo abundantiores aque vive venas reperies.’ Brent. Hom. 36, in 1 Sam. xi. That objection then must needs be very weak, whose fundamental strength consists in so yain a presumption.

Again, they must take it for granted, that they are aforehand fully acquainted with the particular intention of the author, in the assertion which he produceth these testimonies in the confirmation of; and with all the ways of arguing and pressing principles of faith, used by men writing by divine inspiration. Neither is this supposition less rash or presumptuous than the former. Men, who bring their own hypotheses and preconceived senses unto the Scripture, with a desire to have them confirmed, are apt to make such conclusions. Those that come with humility and reverence of his Majesty with whom they have to do, to learn from him his mind and will therein, whatever he shall thereby reveal so to be, will have other thoughts and apprehensions. Let men but suffer the testimonies and assertions, whose unsuitableness is pretended to explain one another, and the agreement will quickly appear. And the worst that will ensue, will be only the emergence of a sense from them which perhaps they understood not in either of them singly, or separately considered. Thus infirm on all accounts is this objection. For the instances themselves, some light will be given unto them, from what we shall afterwards discourse of the author's ways and principles, that he proceeds upon in his citations and testimonies out of the Old Testament. And in particular in our exposition of the places themselves, we shall manifest, that his application of them is every way suitable to the very letter of the text, and manifest intention of the Holy Ghost.—So false and unjust, as well as rash and presumptuous, is this objection.

§ 21. Neither is there any more real weight in that which Erasmus in the next place objects; namely, that some things in it seem to give countenance unto some exploded opinions of ancient heretics, whereof he gives us a double instance. First, ‘Quod velum separans sanctum sanctorum interpretatur ccelum:—‘ that he interprets the veil separating the most holy place to be heaven’: which he neither doth, (but only affirms that the most holy place in the tabernacle was a type or figure of heaven itself,) nor if he should have so done, had he given the least countenance unto the fondness of the Manichees, whom I suppose he intendeth: his whole dis- | course perfectly exploding their abominations. His other instance is in that vexed place, chap. vi. 6, favouring as he pretends the Novatians, denying recovery by repentance unto them who had fallen into sin after baptism. But the incompetency of this objection, arising merely from the objectors ignorance of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the end for which it was used, hath been demonstrated by many of old and late. And the Lord assisting in our exposition of that place, we shall show, that it is so far from giving countenance unto any error or mistake which any man might fall into, contrary to the gospel, that a more plain, familiar and wholesome commination, is hardly to be found in the whole book of God. And this is the sum of what I can meet with, that is objected to the canonical authority of this Epistle; and how little this amounts unto, beyond an evidence of men’s willingness to lay hold on slight occasions to vent their curiosities and conceptions, the reader that is godly and wise will quickly perceive.

§ 22. Having removed these objections out of our way, we shall now proceed to demonstrate the canonical authority of this Epistle, in the strict and proper sense, at large before declared. Now the sum of what we shall plead in this cause amounts to this, that whereas there are many τεκμήρια, or infallible evidences, of any writings being given by divine inspiration, and sundry arguments, whereby books or writings ungroundedly pretending to that original may be disproved; that of the former, there is no one that is not applicable unto this Epistle; nor is it obnoxious unto any one of the latter sort. Of what nature in general that evidence is, which is given unto the divine original of the Scripture by the characters thereof implanted in it, or other testimony given unto it; or what is the assurance of mind concerning it which thereupon we are furnished withal; belongs not to our present inquiry. That which we undertake, is only to show that the evidence of the inspiration of this Epistle, and its immunity from rational exceptions, is equal unto, and no less conspicuous, than that of any other portion of holy writ whatever; so that it stands upon the same basis with the whole, which we suppose firm and immovable.

Eusebius!, who after Melito, Caius, Clemens, and Origen, made a very accurate inquiry after the books unquestionably canonical, gives us three notes of distinction between them that are so, and others; namely. φρασεως χαρακτηρ, the character or manner of phrase or speech: 2. γνωμη, the sentence or subject-matter treated of; and 3, προαιρεσις, the purpose and design of the writer; and they are all of great importance, and to be considered by us in this matter. But because others of like moment may be added unto them, and are used by others of the ancients to the same end, we shall insist upon them all in that order which seems most natural unto them; yet so, as that they may be all referred unto those general heads by him proposed.

§ 23. Two things there are that belong to the yvwpy or sentence of this epistle: first, its general argument; and, secondly, the particular subjectmatter treated of in it. These seem to be designed by γγωμη. Now the general argument of this epistle, is the same with that of the whole Scriptures besides. That is, arevelation of the will of God as to the faith and obedience of the church, and this holy, heavenly, and divine, answering the wisdom, truth, and sovereignty of him from whom it doth proceed. Hence they are called, λογια του Θεου, ‘ the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2. or the infallible revelation of his will; and ῥηματα τῆς Zone αιωνιου, John vi. 68, ‘the words of eternal life τ for that, in the name of God, they treat about. And St. Paul tells us, that the argument of the gospel is wisdom; but not the wisdom of this world, nor the princes of it who are destroyed, done away, and made useless by it; that is, the chief leaders of human wisdom and science, 1 Cor. ii. 6, but it 15΄σοφια Θεοῦ ev μυστηριῳ, ἡ αποκεκρυμμένη; &c. ‘ the mysterious wisdom of God that was hidden from them,’ ver. 7. Things of his own mere revelation, from his sovereign will and pleasure, with a stamp and impress of his goodness and wisdom upon them, of a different nature from any thing that the choicest wisdom of the princes of this world can reach or attain unto. And such is the argument of this epistle: it treats of things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor have they by any natural means ever entered into the heart of man; and that in absolute harmony with all other unquestionable revelations of the will of God. Now, if the immediate original hereof be not from God, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; then it must be either the invention of some man spinning the whole web and frame of it out of his own imagination, or from his diligence in framing and composing of it from a system of principles collected out of other writings of divine revelation. The first will not be pretended.

Two things absolutely free it from suffering under any such suspicion. First, The nature of its argument, treating, as was said of such things as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man. The deity, offices, sacrifice, mediation, and grace of Jesus Christ, are not things that can have any foundation in the invention and imagination of man. Yea, being revealed by God, they lie in a direct contradiction unto all that naturally is esteemed wise or perfect, 1 Cor. 1. 18—23. They exceed the sphere of natural comprehension, and are destructive of the principles which it frameth unto itself for the compassing of those ends whereunto they are designed. Nor is it liable to be esteemed of the other extract, or the diligence and wisdom of man in collecting it from other books of divine revelation, which alone with any colour of reason can be pretended. Human diligence, regulated by what is elsewhere revealed of God, is human still; and can never free itself from those inseparable attendances which will manifest it so to be. For suppose a man may compose a writing, wherein every proposition in itself shall be true, and the whole of its contexture “materially every way answerable unto the truth, (which yet must be accidental as to the principle of his wisdom, understanding, ability, and diligence, by whom it is composed, they being no way able to give that effect certainly and infallibly unto it,) yet there will never be wanting that in it, whereby it may be discerned from an immediate effect and product of divine wisdom and understanding. Take but the writings of any wise man, who from his own ability and invention hath declared any science in them, and allow his discovery to be the absolute complete rule of that science; so that nothing beyond, or besides what he hath written about it is true or certain, nor any thing else, but as it hath conformity to, or coincidence with what he hath written; and it will be very difficult, if not impossible for any man so to treat of that subject from his writings, as not to leave sufficient characters upon his own, to difference them from his [original and pattern. or suppose him to have in all things attained the perfect sense of his guide, which yet, it may be, until all words are freed from their ambiguity, will be impossible for any one to do; yet still there will remain such an impression of the genius and faney by which its rules were first framed, as the follower cannot express. And how much more will there be so in that which both for ᾿ matter ‘and words also, proceeds from the sovereign will and wisdom of God! Can it be supposed, that any man should be able to collect and arrange, by his own industry and diligence, a writing out of that which is given by God, that it should absolutely express those infinite perfections of his nature, which shine forth in that which is immediately from himself? For that any writing should be pretended to be undiscernible from them given by divine inspiration, it is not enough that the matter of it be universally true, and that truth no other than what is contained in other parts of Scripture: but it must also have those other τεκμηρια, and characters of a divine original, which we shall in our progress discover in this Epistle, as in other books of the Holy Scripture; for it is not behind the very choicest of them.

And the truth of this consideration is demonstrated, in the instances of every one of those writings, which may probably be concluded to have the nearest affinity and similitude unto those of divine inspiration, from the greatness and urgency of the plea to be admitted unto that series and order. These are the books commonly called Apocrypha. Not one of them is there wherein human diligence doth not discover itself to be its fountain and spring. Did this Epistle proceed from the same root and principle, whence comes it to pass, that it no where puts itself forth unto a discovery and conviction? for that it doth not so, we shall afterwards fully declare. Besides, to close this consideration, the design of the writer of this Epistle manifests that he sought the glory of God in Christ, according unto his will. With this aim and purpose, an endeavour to impose that on the church, as an immediate revelation from God, which was the product of his own pains and diligence, is utterly inconsistent. For by no means could he more dishonour God, whose glory in sincerity he appears to have sought; nor wrong the church whose good he desired to promote; than by thus ascribing to God, that whereof he was not the author, so adding unto his words, and making himself subject to reproof as a liar, Prov. xxx. 6, and proposing that unto the church asa firm and stable rule and object of faith, which he knew not to be so, leading thereby into error, uncertainty, and falsehood. For this whole Epistle is delivered as the will and word of God, as coming by revelation from him, without the least intimation of the intervention of the will, wisdom or dilligence of man, any other than is constantly ascribed to those that declare the will of God by imspiration. And if it were not so, the evils mentioned cannot be avoided. But how oundless this imputation would be, our following discourses will manifest. And I doubt not but this whole consideration is, and will be, of weight and moment with them, who have their senses exercised in the Scriptures, and are enabled by the Spirit breathing in them, to discern between good and evil, wheat and chaff, Jer. xxiii. 28.

§ 24. Unto the general argument, we may add the particular subjectmatter of this Epistle, as belonging unto the γνωμη of it, further confirming its divine original. This, for the most part, consists in things of pure revelation, and which have no other foundation in rerum natura. Some books, even of the Scripture itself, are but the narrations of actions done amongst men, which for the substance of them might be also recorded by human diligence. But the things treated of in this Epistle, are purely divine, spiritual, and no ways to be known but by revelation. And not only so, but amongst those things, there are these four most eminent in the subject-matter of this Epistle. First, that the principal things treated of in it, are matters of the greatest importance in Christian religion, and such as concern, the very foundation of faith. Such are the doctrines about the person, offices, and sacrifice of Christ, of the nature of gospel worship, our privilege therein, and communion with God thereby. In these things consist the very vitals of our profession; and they are all opened and declared in a most excellent and heavenly manner in this Epistle; and that, as we shall manifest, in an absolute consonancy unto what is taught concerning them in other places of Scripture. Secondly, in that some things of great moment unto the faith, obedience, and consolation of the church, that are but obscurely or sparingly taught in any other places of holy writ, are here plainly, fully, and excellently taught and improved. Such in particular is the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, with the nature and excellency of his sacrifice, and the execution of the remaining parts and duty of that office in heaven: and how the whole of it was typically represented under the Old Testament. He that understands aright the importance of these things, their use in the faith and consolation of the church, their influence upon our whole course of obedience, the spiritual privileges that faith by them interests a believing soul in, the strength and supportment that they afford under temptations and trials, will be ready to conclude, that the world may as well want the sun in the firmament, as the church this Epistle. And this persuasion we hope through God's assistance, to further in our exposition of it. Thirdly, God’s way in teaching the church of the Old Testament with the use and end of all the laborious discipline of Moses, manifesting it to be fuli of wisdom, grace, and love, is here fully revealed; and the whole Aaronical priesthood, with all the duties and offices of it, is made instructive to believers under the gospel. How dark Mosaical institutions were in themselves, is evident from the whole state of the church in the days of Christ and his apostles, when they could not see unto the end of the things that were to be done away. In their nature they were carnal; in their number, many; as to their reason, hidden; in their observance, heavy and burdensome; in their outward show, pompous and glorious; by all which, they so possessed the minds of the church, that very few saw clearly into the use, intention, and end of them. But in this Epistle, the veil is taken off from Moses, the mystery of his institutions laid open, a perfect guide given unto believers to pass safely through all the turnings and windings of them, unto rest and truth in Jesus Christ. Those hidden things of the Old Testament appear now unto us full of light and instruction; but we are beholden for all our insight into them, and benefit we receive thereby, unto the exposition and application of them made by the Holy Ghost in this Epistle. And how great a portion of gospel wisdom and knowledge consists herein all men know, who have any acquaintance with these things. Fourthly, The grounds, reasons, causes, and manner of that great alteration which God wrought and caused in his worship, by taking down the ancient glorious fabric of it, which had been set up by his own appointment, are here laid open and manifested, and the greatest.controversy that ever the church of God was exercised with, is here fully determined.

There was nothing in the first propagation of the gospel and plantation of Christian churches, that did so divide and perplex the professors of the truth, and retard the work of promulgating the knowledge of Christ, and the worship of God in hin, as the difference that was about the continuation and observation of Mosaical rites and ceremonies. ‘To such an height was this difference raised, so zealously were the parties at variance engaged in the pursuit of their various apprehensions of the mind of God in this matter, that the apostles themselves thought meet for a season, rather to umpire and compose the controversy, by leaving the Jews free to observe these rites, and bringing the Gentiles unto a condescension in things of the greatest exasperation, than absolutely and precisely to determine the whole matter between them. And, indeed, this being a difference, wherein the will, authority, and command of God were pleaded on the mistaken ‘side; these being all clear and full in support of what the Jews pleaded for: nothing but an immediate declaration of the mind of God himself, as to his removing and taking off the obligation of his own law, could put such an end unto it, as that the spirits of men might acquiesce therein. Now the will of God to this purpose before the writing of this Epistle, could only be collected from the nature and state of things in the church, upon the coming of the Messiah, and conclusions from thence, which the believing Jews were very slow to admit. Add hereunto, that many prophecies and promises of the Old Testament, setting forth the glory and beauty of gospel-worship, under the names and condition of the worship then in use, as of priests,