sent into Judea unto the Hebrews, to whom it was written and directed; as were all others of the epistles of the same apostle unto those churches that were immediately intended and concerned in them. That copies of it were by them also communicated unto their brethren in the east, equally concerned in it with themselves, cannot be doubted; unless we will suppose them grossly negligent in their duty towards God and man, which we have no reason to do. But the churches of the Hebrews living at that time, and for some while after, if not in a separation, yet in a distinction, by reason of some peculiar observances, from the churches of the Gentiles, especially those of the west, they were not, it may be, very forward in communicating this Epistle unto them; being written, as they supposed, about an especial concernment of their own. By this means this Epistle seems to have been kept much within the compass of the churches of the Jews until after the destruction of the temple, when, by their dispersion and coalescency with other churches in the east, it came to be generally received amongst them; and "non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiis et Græci sermonis scriptoribus," as Jerome 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 amongst their predecessors, like to the rest of St 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, begun 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, in particular, did the Novatians and the Donatists. This might possibly increase the scruple amongst 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 the opinions about which they disagreed with their adversaries were according unto 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 sometimes with the Scripture, if they supposed it to run cross unto their conceptions. So Epiphanius informs us in Ancorat.: 'Aλà xai ἔκλαυσε, κατα ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις ἀντιγράφοις, καὶ κέχρηται τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὁ ἅγιος Εἰρηναῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ αἱρέσεων, πρὸς τοὺς Epist ad Dardan.

1

δοκήσει τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας· ὀρθόδοξοι δὲ ἀφείλοντο τὸ ῥητὸν, φοβηθέντες, καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος, καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον—“ And also He wept;' for so it is read in the uncorrected copies of the Gospel according to Luke. And St Irenæus useth this testimony in his book against heresies, for their confutation who affirmed that Christ took flesh only in appearance; but the orthodox" (or Catholics) "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 Senensis, after he hath informed us, out of Hilary, that many orthodox persons denied the story of our Saviour's agony and bloody sweat, adds of his own, "Suspicor a Catholicis sublatam esse, pio sed simplici zelo, quod favere videbatur Arianis;" -“I suspect that the story was taken out of the copies by some Catholics, out of a godly but simple zeal, because it seemed to favour 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 colour was given unto 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. Bellarmine1 chargeth Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Centuriators, with the rejection of this Epistle. But because I know that some of them are falsely accused by him, I am apt to suspect the same of the rest, which I have not the opportunity to consult; and so I shall not reckon them amongst the opposers of this Epistle. The matter is more certain concerning Cajetan and Erasmus; the former in his preface unto, the other in his last annotation on, this Epistle, denying it to be St Paul's, and questioning, yea, indeed rejecting, its canonical authority. To them we may add Enjedinus, 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 justify themselves in their conjectures are amassed together by Erasmus in his note on the 24th verse of the last chapter of it. But because he mixeth together the arguments that he insists on to prove St Paul not to have been the penman of it and the exceptions he puts in unto its canonical authority, which are things of a diverse consideration, I shall separate them, and first take out those that seem absolutely to impeach its authority, leaving 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 præfert," saith 1 De Verb. Dei, lib. i. cap. xi.

Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretence is we shall afterwards fully manifest. At present I shall only show that it is, in general, of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certainly known, may indeed give some light into the nature and authority of it. When it is confessed that the penman of any book was Jeóvevoros, 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, human judgment, as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again; when the penman of any writing pretending unto divine authority is not esteemed, nor doth manifest himself in any thing to have been, ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενος, “ immediately acted by the Holy Ghost," the writing itself must needs be liable unto just exception. Wherefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation unto the canon of the Scripture may be thence received; but when this is doubtful, nothing satisfactory can thence on either side be concluded. And therefore it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to keep the names of the penmen of many parts of the Scripture in everlasting obscurity; for he borrows no countenance or authority, unto any thing that proceeds by inspiration from himself, from the names of men. There is not, then, the least strength in this exception; for be it granted that we are altogether uncertain who was the penman of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of its authority can thence be taken, unless it can be proved that he was not divinely inspired. But yet, to show the insufficiency, every way, of this objection, we shall abundantly evince that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false, the penman of this Epistle being as well and certainly known as those of any portions of Scripture whatever that are dveríypapa, some whereof were never doubted nor called into question. And at least we shall so far evince St Paul to have been the author of it, as, although we shall not from thence take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it hath itself been called into question, yet to render an objection from the uncertainty of its author altogether unreasonable.

19. The remaining objections are more particular and direct to their purpose by whom they are pleaded; as, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related in the 11th chapter; and that, in particular, in chap. xii. 21, where he affirms that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that appeared unto him, said, "I exceedingly fear and quake." This place Erasmus supposeth Jerome to have intended when he says.

that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty; for, first, he would refer the place to Moses' sight of the Angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, "Dixit saltem facto;" though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all, “ Vel forte apostolus 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, chap. vii. 20–22), nowhere before written, are reported from the same infallible directions that others of the same time were written withal when they were omitted. And it is an uncouth way of proving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths that he could no otherwise be acquainted withal. 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 in chap. xi.

20. It seems to be of more importance that, if the objectors may be believed, the writer of this Epistle citeth testimonies out of the Old Testament that are no ways to his purpose, nor at all prove the matter that he produceth them for, discovering at least that he wrote with a fallible spirit, if not also that he dealt scarcely boná fide in handling the cause which he undertook. Cajetan insists on that of the first chapter, verse 5, "I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be unto me a Son," taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14, or 1 Chron. xvii. 13; which words, as he supposeth, no way belong unto that in whose confirmation they are produced by the author of this Epistle. Erasmus insists upon his testimony in chap. ii. 6, produced out of Ps. viii. 4, 5; which, as he saith, is urged to the direct contrary of the intention of the psalmist and scope of the words. Enjedinus insists on the same places and others.

Now, two things must be supposed, to give countenance unto this objection:-First, That those who make it do better understand the meaning and importance of the testimonies so produced out of the Old Testament than he did by whom they are here alleged. This is the foundation of this exception; which if once admitted, it may be easily imagined how able some men will quickly think themselves to question other allegations in the New Testament, and thereby render the authority of the whole dubious. They must, I

say, take upon themselves to know the true meaning of them, and that in the uttermost extent of signification and intention, as given out by the Holy Ghost, before they can charge their misapplication on this author. How vain, unjust, arrogant, and presumptuous, this supposition is, needs little labour to demonstrate. The understandings of men are a very sorry measure of the truth, with the whole sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost in every place of Scripture. Nay, it may much more rationally be supposed, that though we all know enough of the mind and will of God in the whole Scripture to guide and regulate our faith and obedience, yet that we are rather ignorant of his utmost intention in any 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 alleged in the New Testament out of the Old, is sufficient to evince the truth of this consideration. "We know but in part, and we prophesy in part," 1 Cor. xiii. 9. "Quantum est quod nescimus!"—"How much is it that we know not!" Or, as Job speaks, -ne,—“ How small is the word that we understand of God!" chap. xxvi. 14. One says well," Est sacra Scriptura veluti fons quidam, in bono terræ loco scaturiens, quem quo altius foderis, eo magis exuberantem invenies; ita quo diligentius sacram Scripturam interpretaris, eo abundantiores aquæ vivæ venas reperies," Brent. Hom. xxxvi. in 1 Sam. xi. 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 hypotheses and preconceived senses unto the Scripture, with a desire to have them confirmed, are apt to make such conclusions. Those that come with humility and reverence of His majesty with whom they have to do, to learn from him his mind and will therein, whatever he shall thereby reveal so to be, will have other thoughts and apprehensions. Let men but suffer the testimonies and assertions, whose unsuitableness is pretended, to explain one another, and the agreement will quickly appear; and the worst that will ensue will be only the emergence of a sense from them which perhaps they understood not in either of them singly or separately considered. Thus infirm on all accounts is this objection.