The suffrage of this kind given unto 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 balance against the testimony given unto it, might easily be demonstrated. But because they were levelled 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 undeniably to have been written by the apostle St Paul, that eminent penman of the Holy Ghost. $40. Thus the canonical authority of this Epistle stands clear. It is destitute of no evidence needful for the manifestation of it, nor is it obnoxious unto any just exception against its claim of that privilege. And hence it is come to pass, that whatever 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 part of his most holy word, working with the prevailing evidence of its original implanted in it, and its spiritual efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture; hath obtained an absolute conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe, and settled it in a full possession of canonical authority, in all the churches of Christ throughout the world. EXERCITATION II. Of the Penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1. Knowledge of the penman of any part of Scripture not necessary. Some of them utterly concealed. The word of God gives authority unto them that deliver it, not the contrary. Prophets in things wherein they are not actually inspired, subject to mistake. §2. St Paul the writer of this Epistle. The hesitation of Origen. Heads of evidence. § 3. Uncertainty of them who assign any other author. 4. St Luke not the writer of it, § 5. Nor Barnabas. The Epistle under his name counter. feit. His writing of this Epistle by sundry reasons disproved. § 6. Not Apollos, § 7. Nor Clemens, § 8. Nor Tertullian. § 9. Objections against St Paul's being the penman. Dissimilitude of style. Admitted by the arcients. 10. Answer of Origen, rejected. Of Clemens, Hierome, &c. rejected likewise. § 11. St Paul, in what sense diwing tw keyw. § 12. His eloquence and skill. 13. Causes of the difference in style between this and other epistles. 14. Coincidence of expressions in it and them. 15. The Epistle armygafos. 16. Answer of Hierome, rejected. 17. Of Theodoret. § 18. Of Chrysostome. Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul. Not the cause of the forbearance of his name. § 19. The true reason thereof. The Hebrews church-state not changed. Faith evangelical educed from Old Testament principles and testimonies. These pressed on the Hebrews, not mere apostolical authority. § 20. Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle, answered. Other exceptions from the Epistle itself, removed. § 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it. Testimony of St Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 15, 16, Considerations upon that testimony. The second Epistle of St Peter written to the same persons with the first. The first written unto the Hebrews in their dispersion. Axomega, what. § 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote. That, this Epistle. Not that to the Galatians. Not one lost. 23. The long-suffering of God, how declared to be salvation in this Epistle. 24. The wisdom ascribed unto St Paul in the writing of this Epistle wherein it appears. The duvon of it. Weight of this testimony. §25. The suitableness of this Epistle unto those of the same author. Who competent judges hereof. What required thereunto. § 26. Testimony of the first churches, or Catholic tradition. 27. Evidences from this Epistle itself. The general argument and scope. Method. Way of arguing. All the same with St Paul's other Epistles. Skill in Judaical learning, traditions, and customs. Proper to St Paul. His bonds and sufferings. His companion Timothy. His sign and token subscribed. § 1. THE divine authority of the Epistle being vindicated, it is of no great moment to inquire scrupulously after its penman. Writings that proceed from Divine inspiration, receive no addi tion of authority from the reputation or esteem of them by whom they were written. And this the Holy Ghost hath sufficiently manifested, by shutting up the names of many of them from the knowledge of the church in all ages. The close of the Pentateuch hath an uncertain penman, unless we shall suppose, with some of the Jews, that it was written by Moses after his death. Divers of the Psalms have their penmen concealed, as also have the whole books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth, Esther, Job, and the Chronicles are but guessed at. Had any prejudice unto their authority ensued, this had not been. For those books whose authors are known, were not esteemed to be given by prophecy, because they were prophets; but they were known to be prophets by the word which they delivered. For if the word delivered or written by any of the prophets, was to be esteemed sacred or divine, because delivered or written by such persons as were known to be prophets, then it must be because they were some other way known so to be, and divinely inspired, as by working of miracles, or that they were in their days received, and testified unto as such by the church. But neither of these can be asserted. For as it is not known that any one penman of the Old Testament, Moses only excepted, ever wrought any miracles, so it is certain that the most and chief of them (as the prophets) were rejected and condemned by the church of the days wherein they lived. The only way therefore whereby they were proved to be prophets, was by the word itself which they delivered and wrote; and thereon depended the evidence and certainty of their being divinely inspired. See Amos vii. 14-17. Jer. xxiii. 25-31. And setting aside that actual inspiration by the Holy Ghost, which they had for the declaration and writing of that word of God which came unto them in particular, even the prophets themselves were subject to mistakes. So was Samuel, when he thought Eliab should have been the Lord's anointed, 1 Sam. xvi. 6. and Nathan when he approved the purpose of David to build the temple, 1 Chron. xvii. 2. and the great Elijah, when he supposed none left in Israel that worshipped God aright but himself, 1 Kings xix. 14. 18. It was then, as we said, the word of prophecy that gave the writers of it the reputation and authority of prophets; and their being prophets gave not au thority to the word they declared or wrote as a word of prophecy. Hence an anxious inquiry after the penman of any part of the Scripture is not necessary. But whereas there want not evidences sufficient to discover who was the writer of this Epistle, whereby also the exceptions made unto its divine original may be finally obviated, they also shall be taken into consideration. A subject this is, wherein many learned men of old, and of late, have exercised themselves, until this single argument is grown up into entire and large treatises; and I shall only take care that the truth, which hath been already strenuously asserted and vindicated, may not again, by this review, be rendered dubious and questionable. § 2. St Paul it is by whom we affirm this Epistle to be written. It is acknowledged that this was so highly questioned of old, that Origen, after the examination of it, concludes, Top antes Otos olda1.- What is the very truth in this matter, God only knows. However, he acknowledgeth that agxo, the ancients, owned it to be written by Paul, and that he says not without good reason; whereas the ascription of it unto any other, he assigns unto a bare report. It may not then be expected, that now, after so long a season, the truth of our assertion should be so manifestly evinced, as to give absolute satisfaction unto all, which is a vain thing for any man to aim at in a subject wherein men suppose that they have a liberty of thinking what they please; yet I doubt not but that it will appear not only highly probable, but so full of evidence, in comparison of any other opinion that is, or hath been promoted in competition with it, as that some kind of blameable pertinaciousness may be made to appear in its refusal. Now the whole of what I shall offer in the proof of it may be reduced unto these six heads. 1. The manifest failure of all them who have endeavoured to assign it unto any other penman. 2. The insufficiency of the arguments insisted on to disprove our assertion. 3. Testimony given unto it in other Scriptures. 4 Considerations taken from the writing itself, compared with other acknowledged writings of the same author. 5. The general suffrage of antiquity, or ecclesiastical tradition. 6. Reasons taken from sundry circumstances relating unto the Epistle itself. Now as all these evidences are not of the same nature, nor of equal force, so some of them will be found very cogent, and all of them together very sufficient to free our assertion from just question or exception. §3. First, The uncertainty of those who question whether Paul were the writer of this Epistle, and their want of probable grounds in assigning it unto any other, hath some inducement in it to leave it unto him whose of old it was esteemed to be. For when once men began to take to themselves a liberty of conjecture in this matter, they could neither make an end themselves, nor fix any bounds unto the imagination of others. Having once lost its true author, no other could be asserted with any such evidence, or indeed probability, but that instantly h Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Hieronymus, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Cajetan, Erasmus, Camero, Grots, et omnes tere commentatores. Frider Span. Fil. de Au. Epist. ad Heb. i Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. c. 24. twenty more, with as good grounds and reasons, might be entitled unto it. Accordingly sundry persons have been named, all upon the same account that some thought good to name them; and why should not one man's authority in this matter be as good as another's? § 4. Origen in Eusebius affirms, that some supposed Luke to have been the author of this Epistle. But neither doth he approve their opinion, nor mention what reasons they pretend for it. He adds also, that some esteemed it to be written by Clemens of Rome. Clemens of Alexandria allows St Paul to be the author of it; but supposeth it might be translated by Luke, because, as he saith, the style of it is not unlike that of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Grotius of late contends for Luke to be the author of it on the same account'; but the instances which he gives, rather argue a coincidence of some words and phrases, than a similitude of style, which things are very different. Hieromem also tells us, that juxta quosdam videtur esse Luca Evangelista- by some it was thought to be written by Luke the evangelist, which he took from Clemens, Origen and Eusebius; only he mentions nothing of the similitude of style with that of St Luke, but afterwards informs us, that in his judgment there is a great conformity in style, between this Epistle and that of Clemens Romanus. None of them acquaint us who were the authors or approvers of this conjecture, nor do they give any credit themselves unto it. Neither is there any reason of this opinion reported by them, but only that intimated by Clemens", of the agreement of the style with that of the Acts of the Apostles, which yet is not allowed by Hierome. Accordingly he doth not ascribe the writing, but only the translation of it unto Luke. Grotius alone contends for him to be the author of it, and that with this only argument, that sundry words are used in the same sense by St Luke and the writer of this Epistle. But that this observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared. This opinion then may be well rejected as a groundless guess of an obscure unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persuasion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St Paul's being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration that will cast this opinion of j Histor. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 24. k Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 13. m Hieron, Scrip. Eccles. 1 Grot. Praefat. in annot. ad Epist. ad Heb. |