Exercitation 1

The Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Notation of the word. [illegible] Kaneh, a measuring reed: The beam of a balance. From there [illegible] of the same signification. Metaphorically a moral rule. Rectum and Canon, how far the same. The Scripture a rule. Canonical. The antiquity of that appellation. The Canon of the Scripture. What required to render a book Canonical. All books of the holy Scripture equal as to their divine original. Jews distinction of the books of the Old Testament, as to the manner of their writing, disproved. All equally Canonical. No book Canonical of a second sort, or degree. The Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical. Opposed by heretics of old. Not received into the Latin Church until the days of Hierome. Proved against Baronius. Not rejected by any of that Church: only not publicly approved. 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. By whom this Epistle opposed of late. The objection of the uncertainty of the Penman answered. Citations out of the Old Testament not found therein. Answer. Citations not to his purpose. Answer. Countenance to old heresies. Answer. General heads of arguments to prove its Canonical authority. Characters to discover between books of divine inspiration and others. [illegible]. The general arguments of books truly Canonical. Subject, matter, design, style. Of the style of the Sacred writings. Mistakes of many about it. The nature of eloquence. Excellency of Scripture style, energy, efficacy. Tradition concerning the authority of this Epistle; not justly liable to any exceptions, from the author, circumstances, subject, matter, style. Testimonies. Conclusion.

The Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews having been by some called into question, we must in our entrance declare both what it is which we intend thereby, as also the clear interest of this Epistle therein; for this is the foundation of all those ensuing discourses from it, and that exposition of it, which we intend.

The Greek word [illegible], which gives rise to that term Canonical, seems to be derived from the Hebrew [illegible] Kaneh; and this as it sometimes denotes an aromatical cane that contained spices in it, used in the worship of God, as (Isaiah 43:24) [illegible] you have bought me no sweet cane with silver (for this [illegible] precious cane, growing not in their own country, was bought from a far off, Jeremiah 6:20) so in general it signifies any reed whatever (1 Kings 14:15; Isaiah 42:3) from where a multitude of fierce and wicked men compared to the devouring Crocodile whose lurking place is in the canes or reeds, are termed [illegible] the beast of the reed (Psalm 68:30). Particularly it signifies a reed made into an instrument, wherewith they measured their buildings, containing six cubits in length (Ezekiel 40:7; Chapter 42:16). And hence indefinitely it is taken for a rule or a 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 (Isaiah 46:6) [illegible] they weighed silver on the cane; that is, says the Targum [illegible] in the balance; the supporter and director of the scales, being put for the whole. The Rabbins call it, [illegible] the reed of the scales; that which tries and weighs and gives every thing its just moment.

And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word [illegible], Canon. So the Scholiast on that of Aristophanes, [illegible], tells us, that [illegible] is [illegible]: properly that which is over the scales bringing them (and the things weighed in them) to equality. The very same with the Hebrew [illegible] from which it is derived. So Varinus tells us that it is properly the tongue in the balance, and in use [illegible]. Thus Aristotle says, [illegible], by that which is right, we know its self, and that which is crooked, for the Canon is judge of both: where he uses the word for any kind of rule or measure answering to the other signification of Kaneh in the Hebrew. Rectum and Canon, that which is right, and the rule, are one and the same; the one expression denoting the nature of any thing, the other its use and application.

From this original proper importance 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 judgement. Hence the Philosopher calls the Law [illegible], 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 Saint Paul to divine revelation (Galatians 6:16) [illegible], as many as proceed orderly, that is, in a direct way, (for so [illegible] denotes) according to this rule or Canon. And to the same purpose he uses again the same expression (Philippians 3:16). For as the words of the Scripture are in themselves [illegible] words of truth, so the writing itself is [illegible] a right writing; or as the LXX. [illegible]; that which is written in uprightness, to be a rule, and judge to all. [illegible] is Genitivus adjuncti, not materiae, declaring the property of the writing not the subject matter, that is, it is Canonical; for [illegible] and [illegible] that which is right, and a rule, we have showed 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 Churches faith and obedience, requiring, trying, regulating, judging wholly and absolutely of them, is become [illegible] by way of eminency to be called Canonical, or regular; as the book wherein it is contained is called the Bible, though in itself that be the common name of all books.

§ 5 And this Appellation is of ancient use in the Church. The Synod of Laodicea, supposed to have praeceded the Council of Nice, makes mention of it, as a thing generally admitted; for the Fathers of it decree, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. That no private Psalms ought to be said or read in the Church, nor any uncanonical Books, but only the Canonical books of the new and old Testament, whose names they subjoin in their order. And some while before, the Bishops who joyned with the Church of Antioch in the deposition of Paulus Samosatenus charge him as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] one that in the introduction of his heresy departed from the Canon or rule of the Scripture. Before them also, it was called by Irenaeus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. And Chrysostome calls it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the sentence of the divine Laws, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the exact balance square or rule and Canon of all truths and duties; wherein he has evidently respect to the original use and importance of the word before explained; and thereupon calls on his hearers, that omitting the consideration of what this or that man says or thinks, they should seek and require [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] all these things of or from the Scriptures, which are the Canon of our faith and obedience. And Austin, demonstrent ecclesiam suam non in rumoribus Africorum, sed in praescripto legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, hoc est in omnibus canonicis Sanctorum librorum authoritatibus. Let them demonstrate their Church, not by the rumors of the Africans, but by the praescription of the Law, the praedictions 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 confesses the Scripture is called Canonical, because it is the Rule of our understanding in the things of God; and such a Rule it is, as has Authority over the consciences of men, to bind them to faith and obedience, because of its being given of God by inspiration for that purpose.

Moreover as the Scripture upon the accounts mentioned, is by way of eminency § 6 said to be Canonical, so there is also a Canon or rule determining what books in particular do belong to the Holy Scripture, and to be on that account Canonical. So Athanasius tells us that by the Holy Scripture he intends, Libros certo canone comprehensus, the books contained in the assured Canon of it. And Ruffinus having reckoned up those books, concludes, hi sunt quos patres intra Canonem concluserum, These are they which the Fathers have concluded to be in the Canon; that is, to belong to 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 & Apostolorum libri pertinerent; not without good reason is the Ecclesiastical Canon determined by wholsome diligence, to which, certain books of the Prophets and Apostles should belong. About the Assignation of this Canon of the Scripture, or what books belonged to 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, excepting the haesitation of some few persons in reference to one or two of them of the New Testament.

From this rise and use of the word, it is evident, what is intended by the Canonical § 7 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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, 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. It 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 to Jehoram the King of Judah (2 Chronicles 21:12), which being referred only to some particular occasion, and having from there Authority for some especial end and purpose, yet being not designed for a Rule of faith and obedience to the Church, may not belong to the Canon of the Scripture. But when to the original of divine inspiration, this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the Catholick standing use and instruction of the Church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and compleatly Canonical.

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 to a peculiar manner of revelation which they call ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ mouth to mouth, or face to face, which they gather from Numbers 12:8, whereof afterwards. Others of them they affirm to proceed from ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or the gift of prophesy, whereof as they make many kinds or degrees, taken from the different means used by God in the application of himself to them, belonging to the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ of divine revelation mentioned by the Apostle (Hebrews 1:1), so they divide those books into two parts, namely the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or former Prophets containing most of the historical books after the end of the Law; and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ the latter prophets, wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called. The original of the remainder of them they ascribe to ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or inspiration by the Holy Ghost, calling them peculiarly ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ written, by that inspiration; as though the whole canon and system of the books were not ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ the Scripture, or writing, and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, 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 24:44): ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, that are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, that is, in the whole canonical Scripture. And evident it is that this distribution is taken from the subject matter of those principal parts of it. This reason of that distribution which they have by tradition, they not knowing or neglecting, have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of revelation, and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased; as is evident from sundry of them which they reckon to the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ 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. Saint Peter calls the whole ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (2 Peter 1:19) the word of prophesy; and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (v. 20) prophesy, and therefore it belongs not to any peculiar part of it, to be given out by prophesy; which is an affection of the whole. And Saint Paul also, terms the whole Scripture ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (Romans 16:26) prophetical Scriptures, or writings of the Prophets. And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures, he does it in the same manner, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (Acts 28:23): believest you the prophets? that is, the Scriptures, written by the spirit of prophesy, or by the inspiration ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (1 Peter 1:12) of the spirit of Christ that was in them. God of old spoke, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (Hebrews 1:1) in his revelation of himself to them and in them, and equally spoke ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (Luke 1:70) to them, by the mouth of his holy Prophets from the beginning. And thus, not this, or that part, but ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (2 Timothy 3:16) all Scripture was given by inspiration. And herein all the parts, or books of it are absolutely equal. And in the giving out of the whole, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (2 Peter 1:21) holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of in the communication of his mind and will to any of the Prophets or penmen of the Scripture, it was this ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him to the Church. And thus the foundation of the canonical authority of the books of the Scripture, is absolutely the same in and to them all, without the least variety, either from any difference in kind or degree.

§ 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 Churches 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 to a plain and open contradiction. And the Council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their Appendice annexed to the one and fortieth Canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture. Hoc etiam (say they) fratri & consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto Canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cùm Aniversarii 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, Origen, Athanasius, Hilarius, Gregorius Nazianzen, Cyrillus Hierosolimitamus, 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; even as Saint Paul cited an Iambick out of Menander, or rather Euripides (1 Corinthians 15:33), an hemistichium out of Aratus (Acts 17:28), and a whole Hexameter out of Epimenides (Titus 1:12). non sunt canonici sed leguntur Catechumenis (says Athanasius) They are not canonical, but are only read to the Catechumeni. And Hierome, the Church reads them ad aedificationem plebis, non ad Authoritatem Ecclesiasticarum 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 among some ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ as Epiphanius speaks, doubted of; and some were commonly read, that are certainly ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ and rejectitious, yet neither the mistake of the former, nor later 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 the Scripture accrewing to it, as has been showed, merely from its divine inspiration, and giving by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience to the Church, 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; so that it can be no part regulae regulantis, but regulatae at the best, not having ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or a self-credibility on its own account, or ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ a self-sufficing authority; but is truth only materially by virtue of its analogy to that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly, so. And this was well observed by Lindanus, Impio (says he) sacrilegio se contaminant, qui in scripturarum christianarum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare, quod unam eandemque spiritus sancti vocem, impio humanae stultitiae discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, & disturbare Autoritatis classes: They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege, who endeavour to bring in as it were divers degrees into the 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 that being written by divine inspiration are given out for the Churches 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, they can no way give them any interest in that, whose formal reason they are not concerned in.

In the sense explained we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be canonical, that is § 10 properly and strictly so, and of the number of them which the Ancients called, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, every way genuine and catholic. In the confirmation whereof, we shall first declare, by whom it has been opposed or questioned; and then what reasons they pretend for their so doing; which being removed out of our way, the arguments whereby the truth of our assertion is evinced, shall be insisted on.

We need not much insist on their madness who of old with a sacrilegious licentiousness § 11 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 Irenaeus and Epiphanius inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheitae in Eusebius. Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy and Titus, as Epiphanius, and Hierome assure us, who adds to him Basilides. And Theodoret as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, joins to 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 Cluniacusis, yet Hierome has given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein. Si quidem (says he) redderent causas cur eas Apostoli non putant, tentaremus aliquid respondere, & sorsitan satisfaciere lectori; nunc vero cum haeretica autoritate pronunciant & dicunt, illa Epistola Pauli est, haec non est, ea autoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non crubescant 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.

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 Saint Paul, rejecting that to the Hebrews; as Photius also affirms. And the same Photius acquaints us with the same judgement of Hippolitus another eminent member of that Church: [in non-Latin alphabet] (says he) [in non-Latin alphabet]. Among other things not exactly answering the truth, he says also, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Paul's. And Eusebius adds to his information of the judgement of Caius, that it was not generally received in the Church of Rome in his time. Neither is it any way acknowledged as Saint Paul's by either Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, or Macrobius. Yes, the same Eusebius affirms that some excepted against it upon this account, because it was opposed, as none of Saint Paul's in the Roman Church. Hierome grants that, Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter Canonicas Scripturas. The custom of the Latines, (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 to books absolutely Canonical.

Baronius ad An. 160, labours to take off this failure of the Latine 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: n. 42. The judgement 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: n. 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 to. 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 to me satisfactory, no more than the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the Epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius, which is justly suspected supposititious with the Council at Rome against Apollinaris, 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 to the Canon of the Scripture by Ruffinus.

But wherein does it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the judgement of Caius, or the Roman Church, in compliance with the Arians? 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, by reporting 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 to whom Eusebius is suspected, but some of their off-spring which fell out 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. No, 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 Latine 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 to an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides he does not any where speak as one that reported the words and judgement 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 does it appear from any thing delivered by Caius, Hippolitus, Eusebius or Hierome, that the Latin Church did ever reject this Epistle. Yes, we shall find that many among them, even in those days, reckoned it to the Canon of the Scripture, and owned Saint Paul as the Penman of it. Eusebius himself acknowledges that Clemens uses sundry testimonies out of it, in his Epistle ad Corinthios. And others also there were concurring with his judgement 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 Saint Paul: (2.) The Church itself had not before the days of Hierome made any public judgement about the Author or Authority of this Epistle, nor given any testimony to them. For it seems utterly impossible, that if any such judgement 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 haesitation. 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 having proposed it to others. And yet all this while was it admitted and received by all other Churches in the world, as Hierom testifies, and that from the days of the Apostles, whose judgement the Roman Church itself at length submitted to.

No impeachment then of the authority of this Epistle, can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman Church, it being convinced to be so 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 haesitation of the Western Church obscure; the Epistle was written it may be in Rome, at least it was in some part of Italy (Chap. 13:24). There no doubt it was seen, and it may be copied out before its sending, 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, to the Hebrews to whom it was written and directed, as were all others of the Epistles of the same Apostle to those Churches that were immediately intended and concerned in them. That copies of it were by them also communicated to 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 to 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 coalescency with other Churches in the East, it came to be generally received among them; and non solum ab Ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro Ecclesiis & Graeci sermonis Scriptoribus, as Hierom speaks. But the Latin Church having lost that advantage of receiving it upon its first writing, it may be also upon 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 among their predecessors, like to the rest of Saint Paul's Epistles; not considering the occasion thereof. Add hereunto that by that 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 did in particular the Novatians and the Donatists. This might possibly increase the scruple among the Orthodox, and make them wary in their admission of that authority which they found pleaded against them. And well was it for them, that their opinions about which they disagreed with their Adversaries, were according to truth, seeing it may justly be feared, that some then would have made them their rule and standard in their reception or rejection of this Epistle: for it was no new thing for the Orthodox themselves to make bold sometime with the Scripture, if they supposed it to run cross to their conceptions. So Epiphanius informs us, in Ancorat. [illegible]. And also he wept; for so it is read in the uncorrected copies of the Gospel according to Luke: and Saint Irenaeus uses this testimony in his Book against Heresies, for their confutation, who affirmed that Christ took flesh only in appearance; but the Orthodox, (or Catholicks) being afraid (of the importance of that expression) took away that word out of the copies, not understanding its use and sense. So also Sixtus Sinensis after he has informed us, out of Hilary, that many Orthodox persons denied the story of our Savior's Agony, and bloody Sweat, adds of his own, Suspicor à Catholicis sublatam esse, pio sed simplici zelo, quod favere videbatur Arianis. I suspect that the story was taken out of the copies, by some Catholicks, out of a godly, but simple zeal, because it seemed to favor the Arians. So great is the power of prejudice, and so little occasions have men taken, whom others have esteemed Orthodox and pious, to make bold with that word, whereby both we and all our opinions must be judged. But it being manifest at length, that no color was given to the unjust severities of the Novatians by any thing in this Epistle, it was generally embraced; and by the conquest of this opposition established its authority for the future.

§ 17 Bellarmin chargeth Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius and the Centuriators with the rejection of this Epistle. But because I know that some of them are falsly accused by him, I am apt to suspect the same of the rest, which I have not the opportunity to consult; and so I shall not reckon them among the opposers of this Epistle. The matter is more certain concerning Cajetan and Erasmus: the former in his Preface to, the other in his last Annotation on this Epistle, denying it to be Saint Paul's, and questioning, yes, 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 at the authority of this Epistle. The reasons they make use of to justifie 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 Saint Paul not to have been the penman of it, and the exceptions he puts in to 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 them 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 praefert, says Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretence is, we shall afterwards fully manifest. At present I shall only shew, that it is in generall of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certainly known, may indeed give some light to the nature and authority of it; when it is confessed, that the penman of any book was [in non-Latin alphabet] 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 of his design directed by the Holy Ghost, must be no less known than the former. For a man may write one book by inspiration, and others by a fallible humane judgement; as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again, when the penman of any writing pretending to divine authority is not esteemed, nor does manifest himself in any thing to have been [in non-Latin alphabet] immediately acted by the Holy Ghost, the writing it self must needs be lyable to just exception. Therefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation to the Canon of the Scripture may be from there received. But when this is doubtfull, nothing can from there satisfactory on either side be concluded. And therefore it has 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 to 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 from there be taken, unless it can be proved, that he was not divinely inspired. But yet to shew 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 portion of Scripture whatever that are [in non-Latin alphabet], some whereof were never doubted, nor called into question: and at least we shall so far evince Saint Paul to have been the author of it; as although we shall not from there take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it has it self 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 to in the 11th chapter, and that in particular in chapter 12, verse 21, where he affirms, that Moses upon the terror of the sight that appeared to him, said, I exceedingly quake and tremble. This place Erasmus supposeth Hierom 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 to this difficulty. For first, he would refer the place to Moses' sight of the Angel in the Bush, and not 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 fortè Apostolus aliâ utitur literâ 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, chapter 7:21) no where before written, are reported from the same infallible directions that others of the same time were written withall, when they were omitted. And it is uncouth way of proving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths that he could no otherwise be acquainted withall. Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by divine inspiration, to mention things recorded in other stories, whose truth is unquestionable, as those are related to in chapter 11.

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, verse 5. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, taken from (2 Samuel 7:14) or (1 Chronicles 17), which words, as he supposeth no way belong to that, in whose confirmation they are produced by the Author of this Epistle. Erasmus, upon his testimony in Chapter 2. produced out of (Psalm 8:4, 5), which as he says, is urged to the direct contrary of 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 to 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 alledged. 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 labor to demonstrate. The understandings of men, are a very sorry measure of the truth, with the whole sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost in every place of Scripture. No, 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 place, 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 alledged in the New Testament out of the old, is sufficient to evince the truth of this consideration, We know but in part, and we prophesie in part (1 Corinthians 13:9). Quantum est quod nescimus? how much is it, that we know not? Or as Job speaks, [illegible] how small is the word that we understand of God? (Chapter 26:24). One says well; est Sacra Scriptura veluti fons quidam, in bono terrae loco scaturiens, quem quo altius foderis, eo magis exuberantem invenies; ita quo diligentius Sacram Scripturam interpretaris, eo abundantiores aquae vivae venas reperies. Brent. Hom. 36. in 1 Sam. 11. That Objection then, must needs be very weak, whose fundamental strength consists in so vain a presumption. Again, they must take it for granted, that they are aforehand fully acquainted with the particular intention of the Author in the assertions 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 hypothesis, and preconceived senses to 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 to them from what we shall afterwards discourse of the Author's ways and principles, that he proceeds upon in his citations of 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.

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 to some exploded opinions of ancient heretics; whereof he gives us a double instance. First, Quod velum seperans sanctum sanctorum interpretatur coelum: that he interprets the vail separating the Most Holy Place to be Heaven: which indeed he neither does, 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 to the fondness of the Manichees, whom I suppose he intendeth; his whole discourse perfectly exploding their abominations. His other instance is in that vexed place, Chapter 6:6, favouring as he pretends the Novatians, denying recovery by repentance to them who had fallen into sin after Baptism. But the incompetency of this Objection, rising merely from their ignorance of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost that made it, as for the end for which it was used, has been demonstrated by many of old and late. And the Lord assisting in our exposition of that place, we shall shew, that it is so far from giving countenance to any error or mistake which any man may 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 withal, that is objected against the canonical authority of this Epistle; which how little it amounts to, 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 to this Epistle; nor is it obnoxious to any one of the latter sort. Of what nature in general that evidence is, which is given to the divine original of the Scripture by the characters thereof implanted in it, or other testimony given to it, or what is the assurance of mind concerning it which thereupon we are furnished withal, belongs not to our present enquiry. That which we undertake, is only to manifest that the interest in them of this Epistle, and its immunity from rational exceptions, is equal to, 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 at present we suppose firm and unmoveable.

Eusebius, who after Melito, Caius, Clemens, and Origen, made a very accurate enquiry after the books unquestionably canonical, gives us three notes of distinction between them that are so and others; namely, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the character or manner of phrase or speech, (2.) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the sentence or subject matter treated of; and (3.) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 to 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 to them; yet so, as that they may be all referred to those general heads by him proposed.

§ 23 Two things there are that belong to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or sentence of this Epistle; first, its general argument; and secondly, the particular subject matter treated of in it. These seem to be designed thereby. Now the general argument of this Epistle, is the same with that of the whole Scriptures besides. That is, a revelation 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 does proceed. Hence they are called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the oracles of God (Romans 3:2), or the infallible revelation of his will; and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (John 6:68), the words of eternal life; for that, in the name of God they treat about. And Saint 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 Corinthians 2:6); but it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], &c. the mysterious wisdom of God that was hidden from them, v. 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; quite of another nature, than any thing that the choicest wisdom of the princes of this world can reach or attain to. And such is the argument of this Epistle; it treats of things which eye has 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 has 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; yes, being revealed by God, they lie in a direct contradiction to all that naturally is esteemed wise or perfect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). They exceed the sphere of natural comprehension, and are destructive of the principles which it frames to 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 color of reason can be pretended. Humane diligence regulated by what is elsewhere revealed of God, is humane 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 in its contexture materially every way answerable to 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 to 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 has declared any science in them, and allow his discovery of it to be the absolute complete rule of that science, so that nothing beyond, or besides what he has written about it is true or certain, nor any thing else, but as it has conformity to, or coincidence with what he has 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; for 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 fancy wherein the rule was first framed upon it, 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 collect by his own industry and diligence a writing out of that which is given by him, and regulated thereby, that 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 but what is contained in other parts of Scripture, but it must also have those other [illegible] 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 to those of Divine inspiration, from the greatness and urgency of their plea to be admitted to that series and order. These are the books commonly called Apocrypha; not one of them is there, wherein humane diligence does not discover itself to be its fountain and spring. Did this Epistle proceed from the same root and principle, from where comes it to pass, that it nowhere puts itself forth to a discovery and conviction? For that it does 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 to 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 this imposing on him, that whereof he was not the Author, so adding to his words, and making himself subject to reproof as a liar (Proverbs 30:6), and proposing that to the Church as a firm and stable rule and object of faith, which he knew not to be so, leading her 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 diligence of man, any other, than is constantly ascribed to those that declare the will of God by inspiration. And if it were not so, the evils mentioned cannot be avoided. And how groundless this imputation would be, our following discourses will manifest. And I doubt not but this whole consideration will be, and is 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 (Jeremiah 23:28).

§ 24 To the General Argument, we may add the Particular Subject Matter of this Epistle as belonging to the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] 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 among men, which for the substance of them, might be also recorded by humane 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 among those that are so, there are four things 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 to what is taught concerning them in other places of Scripture. Secondly, in that some things of great moment to 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 into our whole course of obedience, the spiritual privilege 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 operous paedagogy of Moses, manifesting it to be full of Wisdom, Grace and Love, is here fully revealed, and the whole Aaronical Priesthood with all the duties and Offices of it translated to the use of 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 to 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 observation, 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 clew given to Believers to pass safely through all the turnings and windings of them, to Rest and Truth in Jesus Christ. Those hidden things of the Old Testament appear now to us full of light, and instruction; but we are beholding for all our insight into them, and benefit which we receive thereby, to 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 spiritual 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 withal, 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 him, as the difference that was about the continuation and observation of Mosaical Rites and Ceremonies. To such a 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 their observation, and bringing the Gentiles to 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, they being all of them clear and full as to the matter by them 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 to 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 there, which the believing Jews were very slow in the admittance of. Add hereunto that many Prophesies 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, Levites, Sacrifices, Offerings, Feast of Tabernacles, and the like, lay directly in the letter against that cessation of Mosaical Rites, which the Jews opposed.

Now who was fit, who was able to determine upon these different and various institutions of God, but God himself? To declare positively, that all obligation from his former commands was now ceased, that his institutions were no more to be observed, that the time allotted to the churches obedience to him in their observance was expired, this was no otherwise to be effected but by an immediate revelation from himself. And this is done in this Epistle, and that in this only as to the Jews, whereby it became the main instrument and means, of pulling up their old church-state, and translating it anew into the appointments of our Lord Jesus Christ. Neither is this done by a bare declaration of God's authoritative interposition, but in a way of excellent and singular wisdom and condescension, (with a manifestation of God's love and care to his Church, in the institutions that were now to be removed; and the progress of his wisdom in their gradual instruction as they were able to bear,) the whole nature, design and intendment of them is evidenced to be such, as that having received their full end and accomplishment, they did of themselves naturally expire and disappear. And hereby in that great alteration which God then wrought in the outward worship of his Church, there is discovered such an oneness and unchangeableness in his love and care, such a suitableness, harmony and consonancy in the effects of his will, such an evidence of infinite wisdom in disposing of them into a subserviency one to another, that they should no where in any thing cross or interfere, and all of them to his own glory in the promotion and furtherance of the light, faith, and obedience of his Church, as sufficiently manifests the original and fountain from where it does proceed. For my part, I can truly say, that I know not any portion of Holy Writ, that will more effectually raise up the heart of an understanding reader, to an holy admiration of the goodness, love, and wisdom of God, than this Epistle does. Such, I say, is the subject matter of this Epistle, so divine, so excellent, so singular. And in the handling hereof, have we not the least occasional mixture, of any matter, words, sentences, stories, arguments or doctrines so unsuited to the whole, as to argue the interposure of a fallible spirit. Thus we know it has fallen out in all the writings of the Christians of the first ages after the sealing of the Canon of the Scriptures. Many things in them appear to proceed from an holy and heavenly spirit breathing in their authors, and most of what they contain to be consonant to the mind of God; yet have they all of them, evident footsteps that the authors were subject to errors and mistakes, even in and about the things written by them. And the continuance of their failings in their writings capable of an easy conviction, is no small fruit of the holy wise providence of God, and his care over his Church, that it might not in after ages be imposed upon with the great and weighty pretence of antiquity, to admit them into a competition with those which himself gave out to be its infallible, and therefore only rule. That nothing of this nature, nothing humanitùs, merely after the manner of men, befell the writer of this Epistle in his work, we hope through the assistance of its principal Author to manifest in our exposition of the several parts of it. And this subject matter of this Epistle, thus handled, further secures us of its original.

§ 25 The design, aim and end of the Epistle, with the purpose and intention of its writer, which belongs to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which the ancients made a characterism of writings given by divine inspiration, are consonant to the general argument, and peculiar subject matter of it. That the whole Scripture has an especial end, which is peculiar to it, and wherein no other writing has any share, but only so far as it is taken from there, and composed in obedience thereunto, is evident to all that do seriously consider it.

This end supremely and absolutely is the glory of that God who is the Author of it. This is the center where all the lines of it do meet, the scope and mark towards which all things in it are directed. It is the Revelation of himself that is intended, of his mind and will, that he may be glorified; wherein also, because he is the principal fountain, and last end of all, consists the order and perfection of all other things. Particularly the demonstration of this glory of God, in and by Jesus Christ is aimed at. The works of God's power and providence do all of them declare his glory; the glory of his eternal perfections and excellencies, absolutely and in themselves. But the end of the Scripture, is the glory of God in Christ, as he has revealed himself and gathered all things to an head in him, to the manifestation of his glory. For this is life eternal that we know him the only true God, and whom he has sent, Jesus Christ. The means whereby God is thus glorified in Christ, is by the salvation of them that do believe, which is therefore also an intermediate end of the Scripture: These things are written, that we may believe, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing, we may have life through his name (John 20:31; 1 Timothy 4:16). Moreover whereas this eternal life to the glory of God cannot be obtained without faith and obedience according to his will, the Scripture is given for this purpose also, that it may instruct us in the mind of God, and make us wise to salvation (2 Timothy 3:15, 16; Romans 1:16; 2 Peter 1:3). These in their mutual subserviency and dependance, compleat the characteristical end of the Scripture. I confess Plato in his Timaeus, makes it the end of philosophy, that we may thereby be made like to God. But that philosophy of his, having its rise and spring in inbred notions of nature, and the contemplation of the works of God's providence, could have no other end but conformity to him, as his perfections were revealed absolutely; whereunto the Scripture adds this revelation in Christ Jesus (1 John 1:18), which gives them, as I said, their special and peculiar end. It makes God known, as all in all, and man to be nothing as to goodness or blessedness, but what he is pleased to do for him, and communicate to him; and Jesus Christ to be the great and only way and means, whereby he will communicate of himself, and bring us to himself. The more clearly any portion of Scripture discovers and makes conspicuous this end, the more parts of the series and order of things whereby the last and utmost end of the glory of God is produced, in their mutual connexion dependance and subserviency it manifesteth, the more fully does it express this general end of the whole, and thereby evince its own interest therein.

Now herein does this Epistle come behind no other portion of Scripture whatever. For as the exaltation of the glory of God, as he is the first cause, and last end of all things, is expresly proposed in it, so the relation of the glory of God, and of our obedience and blessedness whereby and wherein it is declared, to the Person, Offices, and Mediation of Jesus Christ is in an eminent manner insisted on and unfolded in it. And whereas some parts of Scripture do exhibit to us, most clearly some one part of this general end of the whole, and other portions or Books of it, some other parts, this expresseth the whole, and all the parts of it distinctly, from the very foundation of calling men to the knowledge of God and obedience, to the utmost end of his glorifying himself in their salvation by Jesus Christ. Neither is there herewithall the least alloy or mixture of any by, particular, or proper end of the Writer; nothing of his honor, reputation, advantage, self-pleasing in any thing; but all runs evenly and smoothly to the general end before proposed. And this also has deservedly a place among the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of writings by divine inspiration.

The style also of the Sacred Scripture, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], as it is termed by Eusebius § 26 in this argument, is of deserved consideration. By the style of any writing, we understand both the propriety of the words, with their grammatical construction, and that composition of the whole which renders it sit, d[illegible]c[illegible]rous, elegant, and every way meet to be used in the matter about which it is used, and for the effecting of the end, which is proposed in it. I know some bold atheistical spirits have despised the style of the Holy Writers, as simple and barbarous. Among these Angelus Politianus, is generally and deservedly censured by all learned men, who was imitated in his prophane contempt of it by Domitius Calderinus. And of the like temper was Petrus Bembus who would scarce touch the Scripture; when his own Epistles are not one of them free from Solaecisms in grammar. Austin also confesseth that while he was yet a Manichee, he had the same thoughts of it; Visa est mihi indigna quam Tullianae dignitati compararem. The Scripture seemed to be unworthy to be compared with the excellency of Cicero. But it must be acknowledged that these spake of the common translations of it; though they used that pretence to reject the study of the books themselves.

I do confess that though some translations may, and do render the words of the Original more properly, and better represent and insinuate the native genius, beauty, life, and power of the Sacred style than some others do, yet none of them can, or do express the whole excellency, elegancy, and marvellous efficacy of it for the conveyance of its senses to the understandings and minds of men. Neither is this any reflection upon the translators, their abilities, diligence, or faithfulness, but that which the nature of the thing it self produceth. There is in the Sacred Scripture, in the words wherein by the Holy Ghost it was given out, a proper peculiar vertue, and secret efficacy inflaming the minds of the readers and hearers, which no diligence or wisdom of man can fully and absolutely transferr into, and impress upon any other language. And those who have designed to do it, by substituting the wordy elegancies of another tongue, to express the quickning affecting Idiotisms of them, (which was the design of Castali[illegible]) have of all others most failed in their intentions.

Neither does this defect in Translations arise from hence, that the Original Tongues may be more copious and emphatical than those of the Translations, which possibly may be the condition of the Greek and Latin, as Hierom often complains, but it is from the causes before named, and therefore is most evident in the Translations of the Old Testament, when yet no man can imagine the Hebrew to be more copious, (though it be more comprehensive) than the Languages whereinto it has been translated. But it is of the Originals themselves, and the Style of the Sacred Penmen therein, concerning which we discourse. And herein the boldness of Hierom cannot be excused, (though he be followed by some others of great name in latter Ages) who more than once charges Saint Paul with Solaecisms, and Barbarisms in Expression, and often urges, (upon a mistake as we shall see) that he was imperitus Sermone, unskilfull in speech. But as neither he, nor any else, are able to give any cogent instance to make good their charge, so it is certain that there is nothing expressed in the whole Scripture, but in the manner and way, and by the words wherewith it ought to be expressed, to the ends for which it is used and designed, as might easily be manifested both from the intent of the Holy Ghost himself in suggesting those words to his Penmen, and in the care of God over the very Iota's and Titles of the words themselves. And wherever there appears to us an irregularity from the Arbitrary Directions, or Usages of other men in those Languages, it does much more become us, to suspect our own apprehensions and judgement; yes, or to reject those Directions and Usages from the sovereignty of an absolute Rule; than to reflect the least failure or mistake on them who wrote nothing but by Divine Inspiration. The censure of Hensius in this matter is severe, but true. Prolegom. Aristarch. Sac. Vellicare aliquid in iliis, aut desiderare, non est eruditi sed blasphemi hominis, ac malè feriati, qui nunquam intelligit quae humana sit conditio, aut quanta debeatur reverentia ac cultus cuncta dispensanti Deo, qui non Judicem, sed supplicem deposcit.

Neither has their success been much better, who have exercised their Critical Ability, in judging of the Style of the particular Writers of the Scripture, preferring one before, and above another; whereas the Style of every one of them is best suited to the Subject Matter whereof he treats, and the End aimed at, and the Persons with whom he had to do. And herein Hierom has lead the way to others, and drawn many into a common mistake. The Style of Isaiah he says is proper, Urbane, high and excellent; but that of Hosea, and especially of Amos, low, plain, improper, favouring of the Country, and his Profession, who was a Shepherd. But those that understand their Style and Language, will not easily give consent to him, though the report be commonly admitted by the most. It is true, there appeareth in Isaiah an excellent [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in his Exhortations, Expostulations and Comminations; attended with Efficacious Apostrophe's, Prosopopaeias, Metaphors, and Allusions; a compacted fulness in his Prophesies and Predictions, a sweet Evangelical spiritualness in his Expression of Promises, with frequent Paronomasia's, and Elleipses which have a special Elegancy in that Language, from where he is usually instanced in by Learned Men, as an example of the Eloquence of the Divine Writings, and his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] preferred to that of Aeschines, Demosthenes, or Cicero. But the Reader must take heed that he look not for the peculiar Excellencies of that Prophet absolutely in the words used by him, but rather in the things that it pleased the Holy Ghost, to use him as his Instrument in the Revelation of. But the other part of Hieroms censure is utterly devoid of any good foundation. The Style of Amos considering the Subject Matter that he treateth of, and the persons with whom he had to do, in suiting of Words and Speech, wherein all true solid Eloquence consisteth, is every way as proper, as Elegant, as that of Isaiah. Neither will the knowing Reader find him wanting in any of the celebrated Styles of Writing, where occasion to them is administred. Thus some affirm that Saint Paul used sundry Expressions, (and they instance in 1 Corinthians 4:3, Colossians 2:18) that were proper to the Cilicians his Country-men, and not so proper as to the purity of that Language wherein he wrote; but as the first of the Expressions they instance in, is an Hebraism, and the latter, purely Greek; so indeed they will discover a Tarsian defect in Saint Paul, together with the Patavinity in Livy that Pollio noted in him.

Eloquence and Propriety of Speech for the proper ends of them, are the gift of God (Exodus 4:10, 11). And therefore unless Pregnant Instances may be given to the contrary, it may well be thought and expected that they should not be wanting in Books written by his own Inspiration: Nor indeed are they; only we are not able to give a right measure of what does truly and absolutely belong to them. He that shall look for a flourish of painted words, artificiall Meretricious Ornaments of Speech, Discourse suited to entice, inveigle, and work upon weak and carnal affections; or Sophistical captious wayes of reasoning to deceive; or that Suada, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that smooth and harmonious structure of periods wherein the great Roman Orator gloried, the lenocinia verborum, the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and grandiloquentia of some of the Heathens, in the Scripture, will be mistaken in his aim. Such things become not the Authority, Majesty, Greatness and Holiness of him who speaks therein. An Earthly Monarch that should make use of them in his Edicts, Laws, or Proclamations, would but prostitute his Authority to contempt, and invite his Subjects to disobedience by so doing. How much more would they unbecome the Declaration of his Mind and Will given to poor worms, who is the great Possessor of Heaven and Earth.

Besides, these things belong not indeed to real Eloquence and Propriety of Speech, but are arbitrarily invented crutches, for the relief of our lameness and infirmity. Men despairing to affect the minds of others, with the things themselves which they had to propose to them, and acquainted with the baits that are meet to take hold of their bruitish affections, with the wayes of prepossessing their minds with prejudice, or casting a mist before their understandings, that they may not discern the nature, worth, and excellency of Truth, have invented such dispositions of words as might compass the ends they aimed at. And great effects by this means were produced; as by him, whom men admired, —pleni moderantem froena Theatri.

And therefore the Apostle tells us, that the rejecting of this kind of Oratory in his Preaching and Writing, was of indispensible necessity, that it might appear that the effects of them were not any way influenced thereby, but were the genuine productions of the things themselves which he delivered (1 Corinthians 2:5, 6, 7). This kind of Eloquence then the Scripture maketh no use of, but rather condemneth its Application to the great and holy things whereof it treateth, as unbecoming their Excellency and Majesty. So Origen to this purpose, [in non-Latin alphabet], Tom. 4. in Johan. If the Holy Scripture had used that Elegancy and choice of Speech, which are admired among the Greeks, one might have suspected that it was not Truth it self that conquered men, but that they had been circumvented and deceived by appearing or fallacious consequences, and the Splendor or Elegancy of Speech.

That the proper Excellency of Speech, or Style, consisteth in the [in non-Latin alphabet], or meet accommodation of words to things, with consideration of the Person that useth them, and the End whereunto they are applied, all men that have any acquaintance with these things will confess. [in non-Latin alphabet], says Dionysius Halicarnasseus; Nature requireth that words should follow, or be made to serve sentences or things, and not things be subservient to words; from where the too curious Observation of Words, has been censured as an Argument of an infirm and abject mind; however it may be pardoned in them who placed all their Excellency in [in non-Latin alphabet], and disposing perswasive alluring words; as Isocrates spent ten years in his Panegyricks; and Plato ceased not to the eightieth year of his Age to adorn his Discourses; as Dionysius testifies of them both. The Style of the Holy Scripture is every way answerable to what may rationally be expected from it.

First, It becometh the Majesty, Authority, and Holiness of Him, in whose name it speaketh. And hence it is, that by its Simplicity without Corruption, Gravity without Affectation, Plainess without alluring Ornaments, it does not so much entice, move, or perswade, as constrain, press, and pierce into the mind and affections, transforming them into a likeness of the things which it delivers to us. And therefore though Saint Paul says that he dealt not with the Corinthians, [in non-Latin alphabet], in an Excellency or sublimity of Speech, or Wisdom like that of the Orators before described; yet he did [in non-Latin alphabet], in such an evidence of Spiritual Power, as was far more effectual and prevalent. The whole of the Sacred Style is [in non-Latin alphabet], if Truth, Gravity, Authority and Majesty can render it so; nor can any instance be given to the contrary.

And Secondly it every where becometh the Subject Matter it treateth of, which because it is various, it is impossible that the Style wherein it is expressed should be Uniform; when yet notwithstanding all its variety, it every where keeps its own property, to be in Gravity and Authority still like to its self, and unlike to, or distinct from all other Writings whatever. From where Austin rightly of the Holy Penmen; Audeo dicere omnes qui rectè intelligunt quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse. I dare say, that whoever understands what they speak, will also understand that they ought not to have spoken otherwise. And Origen of the Writings of Saint Paul in particular; If any one says he, give himself to the diligent Reading of his Epistles, [in non-Latin alphabet], I know full well, that either he will admire his great Conceptions and Sentences under a plain and vulgar Style, or he will shew himself very ridiculous. The things treated of in the Scripture, are for the most part Heavenly, Spiritual, Supernatural, Divine; and nothing can be more fond than to look for such things to be expressed in a Flourish of Words, and with various Ornaments of Speech, fit to lead away the minds of men from that which they are designed wholly to be gathered to the Admiration and Contemplation of. Bodies that have a native Beauty and Harmony in the Composition of their parts, are advantaged more by being clothed with fit Garments, than by the Ornaments of gay Attire. And the Spiritual Native Beauty of Heavenly Truths, is better conveyed to the minds of men, by Words and Expressions fitted to it, plainly, and simply, than by any Ornaments of enticing Speech whatever; and therefore we say with Austin, that there is not any thing delivered in the Scripture, but just as it ought to be, and as the Matter requires.

Thirdly, The Style of the holy Penmen is in a gracious condescension suited to them and their capacity, whereof far the greatest part of them with whom they had to do, consisted. This Origen at large insists upon in the beginning of his Fifth Book against Celsus. The Philosophy and Oratory of the Heathen, was suited principally, if not solely to their capacity that were learned; this the Authors, and Professors of it aimed at; namely, that they might approve their skill and ability to those who were able to judge of them. The Scripture was written for the good of mankind in general, and without the least design of any contemporation of it self, to the Learning and Wisdom of men. And this [in non-Latin alphabet], or Condescension to the common Reason, Sense, Usage, and Experience of mankind in general, is very admirable in the holy Penmen, and absolutely peculiar to them. In this universal suitableness to all the concernments of it, consists that excellent simplicity of the Scripture Style, whereby it plainly and openly without fraudulent Ornaments, in common and usual Speech, declares things Divine, Spiritual and Heavenly, with an holy accommodation of them to the understanding and capacities of men, in such occasional variety as yet never diverts from those properties and characters wherein the Uniformity of the whole does consist.

§ 30 Besides all these excellencies of the style of Holy Writ, with others that may be added to them, there is in it a secret energy, and efficacy for the subjecting of the minds of men to its intention in all things. Whether this proceed only, and be imparted to it, from the matters treated of, which are holy and heavenly; or whether it be communicated to it immediately, by an impression of his authority upon it, by whom it is given out, or whether it arise from both of them, all that are conversant in it with faith and reverence do find the truth of our assertion by experience. And Origen among others, speaks excellently to this purpose, [in non-Latin alphabet]. The Holy Scripture teacheth us, that what is spoken, though in itself it be true and fit to persuade, is not able to conquer the minds of men, unless power from God be communicated to the Speaker, and grace (from him) do flourish in the things spoken themselves, and it is not without divine influency, that they speak with efficacy. Hence arises the spiritual peculiar [in non-Latin alphabet] of the divine writers, termed by Saint Paul [in non-Latin alphabet], the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. And herein, as on other accounts, the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), by which living energy and authority it evacuated and brought to nought all the wisdom of this world; that is, all philosophical conceptions with all the ornaments of eloquence and oratory. The excellent discourse of Austin on this subject, de Doctri. Christiana, lib. 4. cap. 6. is very well worthy consideration; where I refer the Reader, that I may not too far divert from my present particular design.

§ 31 Whatever has been thus spoken concerning the style of the Sacred Scripture in general, it is as applicable to this Epistle to the Hebrews, as to any one portion of Holy Writ whatever. That simplicity, gravity, unaffectedness, suitableness to its author, matter, and end, which commends the whole to us, are eminent in this part of it; that authority, efficacy and energy which are implanted on the whole by him who supplied both sense and words to the penmen of it, exert themselves in this Epistle also.

No defect in any of these can be charged on it, that should argue it of any other extract than the whole. Nothing so far singular, as to be inconsistent with that harmony, which in all their variety there is among the books of the Holy Scripture, as to the style and kind of speech, is any where to be found in it. If any where, as in the beginning of the first chapter, the style seems to swell in its current above the ordinary banks of the writings of the New Testament, it is from the greatness and sublimity of the matter treated on, which was not capable of any other kind of expression. Does the penman of it, any where use words or phrases, not commonly, or rarely, or perhaps no where else used in the sense and way wherein they are by him applied? It is because his matter is peculiar, and not elsewhere handled; at least, not on the same principles, nor to the same purpose as by him. Does he oftentimes speak in an Old Testament dialect, pressing words and expressions to the service and sense they were employed in under the Tabernacle and Temple, after they had been manumitted as it were, and made free from their typical importance in the service and spiritual sense of the Gospel? It is from the consideration of their state and condition, with whom in an especial manner he had to do; and this in perfect harmony with the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in other portions of Scripture. So that on this account also its station in the Holy Canon is secured.

§ 32 Moreover, besides the peculiar excellency which is found in the style of the holy Scripture, either evidencing its divine original, or at least manifesting that there is nothing in it unworthy of such an extract, the authority of its principal Author exerts itself in the whole of it to the consciences of men. And herein, is this Epistle an especial sharer also. Now this authority as it respects the minds of men, is in part an exurgency of the holy matter contained in it, and the heavenly manner wherein it is declared. They have in their conjunction, a peculiar character differencing their writings from all writing of a humane original, and manifesting it to be of God. Neither can it otherwise be, but that things of divine revelation, expressed in words of divine suggestion and determination, will appear to be of a divine original. And partly it consists in an ineffable emanation of divine excellency, communicating to his own Word a distinguishing property from its relation to him. We speak not now of the work of the Holy Ghost in our hearts by his grace, enabling us to believe, but of his work in the Word, rendering it credible and meet to be believed; not of the seal and testimony that he gives to the hearts of individual persons of the truth of the Scripture, or rather of the things contained in it, but of the seal and testimony which in the Scripture he gives to it, and by it, to be his own work and Word. Such a character have the works of other agents, whereby they are known and discerned to be theirs. By such properties are the works of men discerned, and oftentimes of individuals among them. They bear the likeness of their authors, and are thereby known to be theirs. Neither is it possible that there should be any work of God, proceeding so immediately from him, as do writings by divine inspiration, but there will be such a communication of his Spirit and likeness to it, such an impression of his greatness, holiness, goodness, truth and majesty upon it, as will manifest it to be from him. The false prophets of old pretended their dreams, visions, predictions and revelations to be from him. They prefixed ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, he says, to all the declarations of them (Jeremiah 23:31), and therefore doubtless framed them to as great a likeness to those that were by inspiration from him as they were able; and yet the Lord declares that all their imaginations were as discernable from his Word, as chaff from wheat; and this by that authority and power wherewith his Word is accompanied, whereof they were utterly destitute (vers. 28, 29). And this authority do all they who have their senses exercised in it, find and acknowledge in this Epistle, wherein their minds and consciences do acquiesce. They hear and understand the voice of God in it, and by that Spirit which is promised to them, discern it from the voice of a stranger. And when their minds are prepared and fortified against objections by the former considerations, this they ultimately resolve their persuasion of its divine authority into. For,

From this authority, they find a divine efficacy proceeding; a powerful operation § 33 upon their souls and consciences to all the ends of the Scripture. A reverence and awe of God from his authority shining forth and exerting itself in it being wrought in them, they find their minds effectually brought into captivity to the obedience taught therein.

This efficacy and power is in the whole Word of God. Is not my Word as a fire, says the Lord, and like an hammer that breaks the rocks in pieces (Jeremiah 23:29), that is, living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). As it has an ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, or authority over men (Matthew 7:29), so it has a ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, or powerful efficacy in and towards them (Acts 20:32; James 1:21); yes, it is the power of God himself, for its proper end (Romans 1:16), and therefore said to be accompanied with the demonstration of the Spirit and power (1 Corinthians 1:4), a demonstration ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, as Basil, drawing the soul to consent beyond the efficacy of rational or logical arguments, or geometrical demonstrations, as he adds in the same place. And this divine power and efficacy of the Word, as to all the ends of it, proceeding from the authority of God in it, with his designation of it to those ends, (which is that which gives energy to all things, enabling them to produce their proper effects, and setting limits and bounds to their operation) as it is testified to in innumerable places of the Scripture itself, so it has and does sufficiently manifest and evidence itself, both in the fruits and effects of it on the souls of particular persons, and in that work which it has wrought, and does yet carry on invisibly in the world, in despite of all the opposition that is made to it by the power of Hell, in conjunction with the unbelief, darkness and lusts of the minds of men, as may elsewhere be more at large declared.

A Learned Man said well; Non monent, non persuadent Sacrae literae, sed cogunt,agitant, vim inferunt; Legis rudia verba & agrestia, Sed viva, sed animata, flammea, aculeata, ad imum spiritum penetrantia, hominem totum potestate mirabili transformantia: expressing the summ of what we discourse. From hence is all that supernatural light and knowledge, that conviction and restraint, that conversion, faith, consolation and obedience, that are found among any of the Sons of men. [illegible] says Basil, [illegible]. The whole Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable; being written by the Holy Ghost for this purpose, that in it, as a common healing office for souls, all men may chuse the medicine suited to cure their own distempers. Such is the nature, power, and efficacy of this Epistle towards them that do believe; it searches their hearts, discovers their thoughts, principles their consciences, judges their acts inward and outward, supports their spirits, comforts their souls, enlightens their minds, guides them in their hope, confidence, and love to God, directs them in all their communion with him, and obedience to him, and leads them to an enjoyment of him. And this work of the Holy Ghost in it, and by it, seals up its divine authority to them, so that they find rest, spiritual satisfaction, and great assurance therein. When once they have obtained this experience of its divine power, it is in vain for men or devils to oppose its canonical authority with their frivolous cavils and objections. Neither is this experience merely satisfactory to themselves alone, as is by some pretended: it is a thing pleadable, and that not only in their own defence to strengthen their faith against temptations, but to others also; though not to atheistical scoffers, yet to humble enquirers, which ought to be the frame of all men in the investigation of sacred truths.

§ 34 To what has been spoken, we may add, that the canonical authority of this Epistle is confirmed to us by Catholic tradition; by this tradition I intend not the testimony only of the present Church that is in the world, nor fancy a trust of a power to declare what is so in any Church whatever; but a general uninterrupted fame conveyed and confirmed by particular instances, records, and testimonies in all ages. In any other sense how little weight there is to be laid upon traditions, we have a pregnant instance in him who first began to magnify them. This was Papias, a contemporary of Policarpus in the very next age after the Apostles. Tradition of what was done, or said by Christ, or the Apostles, what expositions they gave, he professed himself to set an high value upon, equal to, if not above the Scripture. And two things are considerable in his search after them.

First, that he did not think that there was any Church appointed to be the preserver and declarer of apostolical traditions, but made his enquiry of all the individual ancient men that he could meet withal, who had conversed with any of the Apostles.

Secondly, that by all his pains, he gathered together a rhapsody of incredible stories, fables, errors and useless curiosities; such issue will the endeavours of men have, who forsake the stable word of prophesy, to follow rumors and reports, under the specious name of traditions. But this Catholic fame whereof we speak, confirmed by particular entrances and records in all ages, testifying to a matter of fact, is of great importance. And how clearly this may be pleaded in our present case, shall be manifested in our investigation of the penman of this Epistle.

And thus I hope, we have made it evident, that this Epistle is not destitute of any one of those [illegible], or infallible proofs and arguments whereby any particular book of the Scripture evinceth its self to the consciences of men to be written by inspiration from God. It remaineth now to shew, that it is not liable to any of those exceptions, or arguments, whereby any book, or writing pretending a claim to a divine original, and canonical authority thereupon, may be convicted, and manifested to be of another extract; whereby its just privilege will be on both sides secured.

§ 35 The first consideration of this nature is taken from the Author or Penman of any such Writing. The Books of the Old Testament were all of them written by Prophets or holy men inspired of God. Hence Saint Peter calls the whole of it, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] Prophesie (2 Peter 1:21). Prophesie delivered by men, acted or moved therein by the Holy Ghost. And though there be a distribution made of the several Books of it from the Subject Matter, into the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44), and often into the Law and Prophets on the same account, as (Acts 26:2; Romans 3:22), yet their Penmen being all equally Prophets, the whole in general is ascribed to them and called Prophesie (Romans 1:8; chapter 16:26; Luke 24:25; 2 Peter 1:19). So were the Books of the New Testament written by Apostles, or men endowed with an Apostolical Spirit, and in their work equally inspired by the Holy Ghost; from where the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20). If then the Author of any Writing acknowledges himself, or may otherwise be convinced, to have been neither Prophet nor Apostle, nor endued with the same infallible Spirit with them, his work how excellent soever other ways it may appear, must needs be esteemed a mere fruit of his own skill, diligence and wisdom, and not any way to belong to the Canon of the Scripture. This is the condition, for instance, of the second Book of Maccabees. In the close of it, the Author being doubtful what acceptance his endeavours and manner of Writing would find among his Readers, makes his excuse; and affirms, that he did his utmost to please them in his style and composition of his words. So he tells us before (chapter 2, verse 24) that he did but epitomize the History of Jason the Cyrenean, wherein he took great pains and labor. The truth is, he that had before commended Judas Machabaeus for offering sacrifices for the dead (which indeed he did not, but for the living) no where appointed in the Law; and affirmed, that Jeremiah hid the holy fire, Ark, Tabernacle and Altar of Incense in a cave; that the same person, Antiochus, was killed at Nanea in Persia (chapter 1, verse 16), and died in the mountains of torments in his bowels, as he was coming to Judea (chapter 9), whom the first Book affirms to have died of sorrow at Babylon (chapter 6, verse 16); who affirms Judas to have written letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred eighty eighth year of the Seleucian Empire, who was slain in the one hundred fifty second year of it (book 1, chapter 1:3) — that is thirty six years after his death — with many other such mistakes and falsehoods, had no great need to inform us, that he had no special Divine Assistance in his Writing, but leaned to his own understanding. But yet this he does, as we showed, and that openly; for the Holy Ghost will not be an epitomator of a profane Writing as he professes himself to have been; nor make excuses for his weakness, nor declare his pains and sweat in his work, as he does. And yet to that pass are things brought in the world by custom, prejudice, love of reputation, scorn to be esteemed mistaken in any thing, that many earnestly contend for this Book to be written by Divine Inspiration, when the Author of it himself openly professes it to have been of another extract. For although this Book be not only rejected out of the Canon, by the Council of Laodicea, Hierom and others of the Ancients, but by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome himself; yet the Church of Rome would now by force thrust it thereinto. But were the Author himself alive again, I am so well persuaded of his ingenuity and honesty, from the conclusion of his story, that they would never be able to make him say, that he wrote by Divine Inspiration; and little reason then have we to believe it. Now this Epistle is free from this exception. The Penman of it does no where intimate, directly or indirectly, that he wrote in his own strength, or by his own ability; which yet if he had done, in an argument of that nature which he insisted on, had been incumbent on him to have declared, that he might not lead the Church into a pernicious error, in embracing that as given by Inspiration from God, which was but a fruit of his diligence and fallible endeavours. But on the contrary, he speaks as in the name of God, referring to him all that he delivers; nor can in any minute instance, be convicted to have wanted his Assistance.

Circumstances of the general argument of a book may also convince it, of a humane or fallible original. This they do for instance, in the Book of Judith. For such a Nebuchadonosor, as should reign in Ninive (Chap. 1, v. 1) and make war with Arphaxad King of Ecbatane (ver. 13), whose captains and officers should know nothing at all of the nation of the Jews (Chap. 5, v. 3), that waged war against them in the days of Joakim, or as other copies Eliakim the High Priest (Ch. 4.5), after whose defeat, the Jews should have peace for eighty years at the least (Ch. 16.28.30), is an imagination of that which never had subsistence in rerum natura; or a representation of what [in non-Latin alphabet] a Jewish woman ought, as the author of it conceived, undertake for the good of her country. Setting aside the consideration of all other discoveries of the fallibility of the whole discourse: this alone is sufficient to impeach its reputation. Our Epistle is no way obnoxious to any exception of this nature. Yes, the state of things in the churches of God, and among the Hebrews in particular, did at that time administer so just and full occasion to a writing of this kind, as gives countenance to its ascription to the wisdom and care of the Holy Ghost. For if the eruption of the poisonous brood of heretics, questioning the deity of the Son of God in Cerinthus, gave occasion to the writing of the Gospel by Saint John, and if the dissentions in the Church of Corinth, deserved two Epistles for their composition, and the lesser differences between believers of the Jews and Gentiles, in and about the things treated of in this Epistle had a remedy provided for them in the Epistles of Saint Paul to them, is it not at least probable that the same Spirit who moved the penmen of those books to write, and directed them in their so doing, did also provide for the removal of the prejudices, and healing of the distempers of the Hebrews, which were so great, and of so great importance to all the churches of God. And that there is weight in this consideration, when we come to declare the time when this Epistle was written, will evidently appear.

The most manifest eviction of any writing pretending to the privilege of divine inspiration, may be taken from the subject matter of it, or the things taught and declared therein. God himself being the first and only essential truth, nothing can proceed from him, but what is absolutely so; and truth being but one, every way uniform and consonant to itself, there can be no discrepancy in the branches of it, nor contrariety in the streams that flow from that one fountain. God is also holy, glorious in holiness, and nothing proceeds immediately from him, but it bears a stamp of his holiness, as also of his greatness and wisdom. If then any thing in the subject matter of any writing, be untrue, impious, light, or any way contradictory to the ascertained writings of divine inspiration, all pleas and pretences to that privilege must cease for ever. We need no other proof, testimony or argument to evince its original, than what itself tenders to us. And by this means also do the books commonly called Apocryphal, to which the Romanists ascribe canonical authority, destroy their own pretentions. They have all of them, on this account, long since been cast out of the limits of any tolerable defence. Now, that no one portion of Scripture, is less obnoxious to any exception of this kind, from the subject matter treated of, and doctrines delivered in it, than this Epistle, we shall by God's assistance manifest in our exposition of the whole, and each particular passage of it. Neither is it needful, that we should here prolong our discourse by anticipating any thing that must necessarily afterwards in its proper place, be insisted on. The place startled at by some (Chap. 6) about the impossibility of the recovery of apostates, was touched on before, and shall afterwards be fully cleared. Nor do I know any other use to be made of observing the scruple of some of old, about the countenance given to the Novatians by that place, but only to make a discovery how partially men in all ages have been addicted to their own apprehensions in things wherein they differed from others; for whereas if the opinions of the Novatians had been confirmed in the place, as it is not, it had been their duty to have relinquished their own hypothesis, and gone over to them, some of them discovered a mind rather to have broken in upon the authority of God himself declared in his Word, than so to have done. And it is greatly to be feared that the same spirit still working in others, is as effectual in them to reject the plain sense of the Scripture in sundry places, as it was ready to have been in them, to reject the words of it in this.

The style and method of a writing may be such, as to lay a just prejudice against its claim of canonical authority. For although the subject matter of a writing, may be good and honest in the main of it, and generally suited to the analogy of faith, yet there may be in the manner of its composure and writing, such an ostentation of wit, fancy, learning, or eloquence, such an affectation of words, phrases, and expressions, such rhetorical paintings of things small and inconsiderable, as may sufficiently demonstrate humane ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Hierom observes in particular concerning the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon; written as it is supposed by Philo an eloquent and learned man; redolet Graecam Eloquentiam. This consideration is of deserved moment in the judgement we are to make of the spring or fountain from where any book does proceed. For whereas, great variety of style, and in manner of writings may be observed in the penmen of canonical Scripture, yet in no one of them do the least footsteps of the failings and sinful infirmities of corrupted nature before mentioned appear. When therefore they manifest themselves, they cast out the writings wherein they are from that harmony and consent which in general appears among all the books of divine inspiration. Of the style of this Epistle we have spoken before: its gravity, simplicity, majesty, and absolute suitableness to the high, holy, and heavenly mysteries treated of in it, are as far as I can find, not only very evident; but also by all acknowledged, who are able to judge of them.

Want of Catholick Tradition in all Ages of the Church, from the first giving forth of any Writing testifying to its Divine Original, is another impeachment of its pretence to Canonical Authority. And this Argument ariseth fatally against the Apochryphal Books before mentioned. Some of them are expresly excluded from the Canon by many of the antient Churches, nor are any of them competently testified to.

The Suffrage of this kind given to our Epistle, we have mentioned before. The doubts and scruples of some about it, have likewise been acknowledged. That they are of no weight to be laid in the ballance against the Testimony given to it, might easily be demonstrated. But because they were levied all of them, principally against its Author, and but by consequence against its Authority, I shall consider them in a Disquisition about him, wherein we shall give a further confirmation of the Divine Original of the Epistle, by proving it undenyably to be Written by the Apostle Saint Paul, that eminent Penman of the Holy Ghost.

Thus clear stands the Canonical Authority of this Epistle. It is destitute of no evidence needful for the manifestation of it; nor is it obnoxious to any just exception against its claim of that priviledge. And hence it is come to pass; that what ever have been the fears doubts and scruples of some, the rash, temerarious Objections, Conjectures and Censures of others, the Care and Providence of God over it, as a parcel of his most holy Word, working with the prevailing evidence of its Original implanted in it, and its Spiritual Efficacy to all the ends of holy Scripture, has obtained an absolute Conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe, and setled it in a full possession of Canonical Authority in all the Churches of Christ throughout the world.