The Canonical Authority Of The Epistle To The Hebrews

1. THE canonical authority of the Epistle unto 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 of that exposition of it which we intend.

2. The Greek word κανών, which gives rise unto that term "canonical," seems to be derived from the Hebrew קָנֶה, "kaneh:" and this, as it sometimes denotes an aromatical cane that contained spices in it, used in the worship of God (as Isa. 43:24, קָנֶה לֹא־קָנִיתָ, "Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with silver;" for this הַטּוֹב קָנֶה, "precious cane," growing not in their own country, was brought from afar off, Jer. 6:20); so in general it signifies any reed whatever, 1 Kings 14:15, Isa. 42:3: whence a multitude of fierce and wicked men, compared to the devouring crocodile, whose lurking-place is in the canes or reeds, are termed קָנֶה חַיַּת, "The beasts of the reeds," Ps. 68:30. Particularly, it signifies a reed made into an instrument wherewith they measured their buildings, containing six cubits in length, Ezek. 40:7, 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 declension thereof: Isa. 46:6, בַקָּנֶה כֶסֶף שְׁקֹלוּ, "They weigh silver on the cane,"—that is, saith the Targum, במאזניא, "in the balance;" the supporter and director of the scales being pu the whole. The rabbins call it מאזנים של קנה, "The reed of the scales,"—that which tries, and weighs, and gives every thing its just moment.

3. And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word κανών, "canon." So the scholiast on that of Aristophanes,

Καὶ κανόνας ἐξοίσουσι, καὶ πήχεις ἐπῶν,

tells us that κανών is κυρίως τὸ ἐπάνω τῆς τρυτάνης ὂν καὶ εἰς ἰσότητα ταύτην ἄγον, "properly that which is over the scales, bringing them" (and the things weighed in them) "to equality;" the very same with the Hebrew קָנֶה, from which it is derived. So Varinus tells us that it is properly the "tongue in the balance," and in use μέτρον ἀδιάψευστον. Thus Aristotle says, τῷ εὐθει καὶ αὐτὸ καὶ κὰμπυλον γινώσκομεν, κριτὴς γὰρ ἀμφοῖν ὁ κανών·—"By that which is right we know itself, and that which is crooked, for the canon is judge of both;" where he useth the word for any kind of rule or measure, answering unto 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.

4. 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 judgment. Hence the philosopher calls the law Κανόνα τῆς πολιτείας, "The rule of the administration," or government of the commonwealth,—that whereby all the parts of it are disposed into their proper places, whereby they are regulated and all things done in it are tried and judged. And in this sense it is applied by St Paul unto divine revelation, Gal. 6:16, Ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν,—"As many as proceed orderly," that is, in a direct way (for so στοιχεῖν denotes), "according to this rule" or canon. And to the same purpose he useth again the same expression, Phil. 3:16; for as the words of the Scripture are in themselves אֱמֶת דִּבְרֵי, "words of truth," so the writing itself is יֹשֶׁר כָתוּב, "a right writing;" or, as the LXX., γεγραμμένον εὐθύτητος, "that which is written in uprightness," to be a rule and judge unto all. Εὐθύτητος is genitivus adjuncti, not materiae, declaring the property of the writing, not the subject-matter; that is, it is canonical: for τὸ εὐθές and κανών, 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 church's faith and obedience, requiring, trying, regulating, judging wholly and absolutely of them, is come κατʼ ἐξοχήν, 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 preceded the council of Nice, makes mention of it as a thing generally admitted; for the fathers of it decree, Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνικα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς Καινῆς καὶ Παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης,—"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 joined with the church of Antioch in the deposition of Paulus Samosatenus charged him as ὁ ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος,—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, Κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινής. And Chrysostom calls it, Τῶν θείων νόμων ἀπόφασιν, "The sentence of the divine laws;" Ἀκριβῆ ζυγόν ἁπάντων καὶ γνώμονα καὶ κανόνα, "The exact balance, square, or rule and canon, of all truths and duties;" wherein he hath evidently respect unto 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 ταῦτα ἅπαντα παρὰ τῶν Γραφῶν, "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 auctoritatibus;"—"Let them demonstrate their church, not by the rumours of the Africans, but by the prescription of the Law, the predictions of the Prophets, the songs of the Psalms; that is, by the canonical authority of the holy books of the Scriptures." And he pursues the metaphor of a scale and a measure in many words elsewhere.2 And thus Aquinas himself confesseth the Scripture is called canonical, because it is the rule of our understanding in the things of God; and such a rule it is as hath authority over the consciences of men, to bind them unto faith and obedience, because of its being given of God by inspiration for that purpose.

6. Moreover, as the Scripture, upon the accounts mentioned, is, by way of eminency, said to be canonical, so there is also a canon or rule determining what books in particular do belong unto the holy Scripture, and to be on that account canonical. So Athanasius tells us, that by the holy Scripture he intends "libros certo canone comprehensos,"—"the books contained in the assured canon of it." And Rufinus having reckoned up those books, concludes: "Hi sunt quos patres intra canonem concluserunt;"—"These are they which the fathers have concluded to be in the canon;"5 that is, to belong unto the canonical books of Scripture. And Austin to the same purpose: "Non sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertinerent;"—"Not without good reason is the ecclesiastical canon determined by wholesome diligence, unto which certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong." About the assignation of this canon of the Scripture, or what books belong unto the canonical Scripture, there have been some differences in the church since the time of the synod of Carthage, confirmed by that in Trulla at Constantinople; the first church having agreed well enough about them, excepting the hesitation of some few persons in reference unto one or two of them of the New Testament.

7. From this rise and use of the word, it is evident what is intended by the "canonical authority of the Scripture," or of any particular book thereunto belonging. Two things are included in that expression;—first, The spring and original of any book, which gives it authority; and, secondly, The design and end of it, which renders it canonical. For the first, it is required that it be θεόπνευστος,—given by immediate inspiration from God. Without this no book or writing can by any means, any acceptation or approbation of the church, any usefulness, any similitude of style or manner of writing unto 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 unto Jehoram the king of Judah, 2 Chron. 21:12, which being referred only unto some particular occasion, and having thence authority for some especial end and purpose, yet being not designed for a rule of faith and obedience unto the church, may not belong unto the canon of the Scripture. But when unto the original of divine inspiration this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the catholic, standing use and instruction of the church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and completely canonical.

8. The Jews of later ages assign some difference among the books of the Old Testament as to their spring and original, or manner of revelation, though they make none as to their being all canonical. The Book of the Law they assign unto a peculiar manner of revelation, which they call פה פה אל, or פנים אל פנים, "mouth to mouth," or "face to face," which they gather from Num. 12:8; whereof afterwards. Others of them they affirm to proceed from נבואה, or the "gift of prophecy:" whereof as they make many kinds or degrees, taken from the different means used by God in the application of himself unto them, belonging to the πολυτροπία of divine revelation, mentioned by the apostle, Heb. 1:1, so they divide those books into two parts, namely, the ראשנים נביאים, or "former Prophets," containing most of the historical books after the end of the Law; and אחרונים נביאים, the "latter Prophets," wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called. The original of the remainder of them they ascribe unto הקדוש רוה, or "inspiration by the Holy Ghost," calling them peculiarly כתובים, "written," by that inspiration; as though the whole canon and system of the books were not כתובה, the "scripture" or writing, and θεοπνευστία, 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: Τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ Νόμῳ Μωσέως, καὶ Προφήταις, καὶ Ψαλμοῖς·—"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 unto the כתובים, "Kethubim," or "Hagiographa," which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that feigned distinction and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture, as to their spring and original. St Peter calls the whole, Προφητικὸν λόγον, 2 Pet. 1:19, "The word of prophecy;" and Προφητείαν, ver. 20, "Prophecy:" and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it to be given out by prophecy, which is an affection [that is, a property] of the whole. And St Paul also terms the whole Scripture, Γραφαὶ προφητικαί, Rom. 16:26, "Prophetical scriptures," or writings of the prophets. And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures, he did it in the same manner: Πιστεύεις τοῖς Προφήταις; Acts 26:27;—"Believest thou the Prophets?" that is, the Scriptures written by the Spirit of prophecy, or by the inspiration τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς Πνεύματος Χριστοῦ, 1 Pet. 1:11, of "the Spirit of Christ which was in them." God of old spake ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, Heb. 1:1, in his revelation of himself unto them and in them, and equally spake, διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγιῶν τῶν ἀπʼ αἰῶνος προφητῶν, Luke 1:70, unto them "by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning." And thus not this or that part, but πᾶσα Γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, 2 Tim. 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, ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐλὰλησαν οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, 2 Pet. 1:21, "holy men of God spake 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 unto any of the prophets or penmen of the Scripture, it was this θεοπνευστία, and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto the church. And thus the foundation of the canonical authority of the books of the Scripture is absolutely the same in and unto 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 equally so. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously; and therefore sometimes call books canonical that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church's faith and obedience. Thus the Constantinopolitan council in Trulla confirms the canons both of the synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could not be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture. "Hoc etiam," say they, "fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum anniversarii dies celebrantur." They speak dubiously concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same Epiphanius2 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,4 Hilarius, Gregorius Nazianzen,6 Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Epiphanius,8 Rufinus, Jerome,10 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 St Paul cited an iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Cor. 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," saith Athanasius;—"They are not canonical, but are only read to the catechumeni." And Jerome saith, the church reads them "ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam,"—"for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any points of faith." But although some books truly canonical were of old amongst some ἐν ἀμφιλέκτῳ, as Epiphanius speaks,—doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certainly ἀπόκρυφα and rejectitious; yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice can give any countenance to an apprehension of a second or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accruing unto it, as hath been showed, merely from its divine inspiration, and being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto 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 αὐτοπιστίαν, or a "self-credibility" on its own account, or αὐθεντείαν, a "self-sufficing authority," but is truth only materially, by virtue of its analogy unto that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly so. And this was well observed by Lindanus. "Impio," saith he, "sacrilegio se contaminant qui in Scripturarum Christianarum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare; quod unam eandemque Spiritus Sancti vocem, impio humanae stultitiae discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, et disturbare auctoritatis 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 subjectmatter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books that, being written by divine inspiration, are given out for the church's rule, they are all equal as to their canonical authority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so, whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writings may have, it can no way give them any interest in that whose formal reason they are not concerned in.

10. In the sense explained, we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be canonical, that is, properly and strictly so, and of the number of them which the ancients called γνήσια, ἐνδιάθηκα, καθολικά, ἀναμφίλεκτα, and ὁμολογούμενα, every way genuine and catholic: in the confirmation whereof, we shall first declare by whom it hath 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.

11. We need not much insist on their madness who of old, with a sacrilegious licentiousness, rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased. The Ebionites not only rejected all the epistles of Paul, but also reviled his person as a Greek and an apostate, as Irenaeus and Epiphanius3 inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helcesaitae in Eusebius. Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy and Titus, as Epiphanius5 and Jerome assure us, who adds unto him Basilides. And Theodoret,7 as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews, joins unto them some of the Arians also. Now, though the folly of those sacrilegious persons be easy to be repelled, as it is done by Petrus Cluniensis, yet Jerome hath given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein. "Si quidem," saith he, "redderent causas cur eas apostoli non putant, tentaremus aliquid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori; nunc vero cum haeretica auctoritate pronunciant et dicunt, illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est, ea auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescant falsa simulare." They did not so much as plead or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these epistles, but did it upon their own head and authority; so they deserve neither answer nor consideration.

12. It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time, though not rejected by, yet not received in the church of Rome. Eusebius informs us that Caius, a presbyter of that church, whom he much commends for his learning and piety, admitted but of thirteen epistles of St Paul, rejecting that unto the Hebrews; as Photius3 also affirms. And the same Photius acquaints us with the same judgment of Hippolytus, another eminent member of that church: Λέγει, saith he, δὲ ἄλλα τά τινα τῆς ἀκριβείας λειπόμενα, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πρὸς Ἑζραίους Ἐπιστολὴ οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου·—"Among other things not exactly answering the truth, he saith also that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Paul's." And Eusebius adds unto his information of the judgment of Caius, that it was not generally received in the church of Rome in his time. Neither is it any way acknowledged as St Paul's by either Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, or Arnobius. Yea, the same Eusebius affirms that some excepted against it upon this account, because it was opposed as none of St Paul's in the Roman church. Jerome grants that "Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter canonicas Scripturas,—"the custom of the Latins" (that is, the Roman church) "did not receive this Epistle among the canonical Scriptures." And speaking elsewhere of it, he adds the same words, "Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas Scripturas non recipiat." And elsewhere also he confirms the same assertion. It cannot, then, be denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the writing of this Epistle before it was publicly received and avowed as canonical by the Roman church. Nor will the quotation of it by Hilary and Ambrose prove any general admission of it as such, it being their custom not to restrain the testimonies they made use of unto books absolutely canonical.

13. Baronius, ad an. 60, labours to take off this failure of the Latin church. The testimony of Eusebius he rejects, because, as he says, he was "Arianorum gregalis," "of the Arian faction," and willing to call the authority of this Epistle into question, in compliance with them who, some of them, as we observed before, refused it, n. 56; the judgment of Caius he resolves into the testimony of Eusebius, which, because of his partiality, as he pleads, is not to be admitted; and lastly, he opposeth the witness of Jerome, 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. 56; concluding upon the whole matter, that it was a mere false calumny of Eusebius against the church of Rome, which Jerome, by too much facility, gave credit unto. But I must acknowledge that these answers of his,— which indeed are nothing but a rejection of as good witnesses in matters of fact as any we have upon the roll of antiquity,—are not unto me satisfactory; no more than the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the Epistle of Innocentius to Exsuperius, 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 unto the canon of the Scripture by Rufinus.

14. But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the judgment of Caius or of 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 unto whom Eusebius is suspected), but some of their offspring, 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. Nay, these answers are inconsistent, as any one may perceive. He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in compliance with the Arians and the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected, and on whose authority his intention 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 Jerome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on by Eusebius. That he was the most eminently learned and knowing person of the Roman or Latin church in those days will, I suppose, not be greatly questioned. Now, to suppose that he knew not the customs, opinions, and practice, of that church, but would suffer himself to be imposed on by a stranger, destitute of those advantages which he had to come unto an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides, he doth not anywhere speak as one that reported the words and judgment of another, but in three or four places expressly affirms it as of his own knowledge; while, at the same time, in opposition thereunto, he contends that it was received by all other churches in the world, and all writers from the days of the apostles.

15. Neither yet doth it appear, from any thing delivered by Caius, Hippolytus, Eusebius, or Jerome, that the Latin church did ever reject this Epistle; yea, we shall find that many amongst them, even in those days, reckoned it unto the canon of the Scripture, and owned St Paul as the penman of it. Eusebius himself acknowledges that Clemens useth sundry testimonies out of it in his epistle "ad Corinthios;" and others also there were concurring with his judgment therein. But these two things I allow, on the testimonies insisted on:—(1.) That sundry particular persons of note and esteem in the Roman church owned not the canonical authority of this Epistle, as not esteeming it written by St Paul. (2.) The church itself had not before the days of Jerome made any public judgment about the author or authority of this Epistle, nor given any testimony unto them; for it seems utterly impossible that, if any such judgment had passed or testimony been given, Jerome, living in the midst of that church, should know nothing of it, but so often affirm the contrary without hesitation. And this undeniably evinceth the injustice of some men's pretensions, that the Roman church is the only proposer of canonical Scripture, and that upon the authority of her proposal alone it is to be received. Four hundred years were past before she herself publicly received this Epistle, or read it in her assemblies; so far was she from having proposed it unto others. And yet all this while it was admitted and received by all other churches in the world, as Jerome testifies, and that from the days of the apostles; whose judgment the Roman church itself at length submitted unto.

16. No impeachment, then, of the authority of this Epistle can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman church, it being evinced to be so by the concurrent suffrage and testimony of all other churches in the world from the days of the apostles; as we shall afterwards more fully declare. Neither are the occasions of this hesitation of the western church obscure. The Epistle was written, it may be, in Rome; at least it was written 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 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 Graeci 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.: Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔκλαυσε, κᾷτα ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις ἀντιγράφοις, καὶ κέχρηται τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὁ ἅγιος Εἰρηναῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ αἱρέσεων, πρὸς τοὺς δοκήσει τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας· ὀρθόδοξοι δὲ ἀφείλοντο τὸ ῥητὸν, φοζηθέντες, καὶ μὴ νοὴσαντες αὐτου 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 Irenaeus 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. Bellarmine 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 praefert," saith 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 θεόπνευστος, 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 ἀνεπίγραφα, 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. 12:21, 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. 7:20–22), 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. 11.

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 bonâ 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. 7:14, or 1 Chron. 17:13; 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. 2:6, produced out of Ps. 8:4, 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. 13:9. "Quantum est quod nescimus!"—"How much is it that we know not!" Or, as Job speaks, דָּבָר מַה־שֶּׁמֶץ,—"How small is the word that we understand of God!" chap. 26:14. 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. xxxvi. 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 hypotheses and preconceived senses unto the Scripture, with a desire to have them confirmed, are apt to make such conclusions. Those that come with humility and reverence of His majesty with whom they have to do, to learn from him his mind and will therein, whatever he shall thereby reveal so to be, will have other thoughts and apprehensions. Let men but suffer the testimonies and assertions, whose unsuitableness is pretended, to explain one another, and the agreement will quickly appear; and the worst that will ensue will be only the emergence of a sense from them which perhaps they understood not in either of them singly or separately considered. Thus infirm on all accounts is this objection. For the instances themselves, some light will be given unto them from what we shall afterwards discourse of the author's ways and principles, that he proceeds upon in his citations 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 the manifest intention of the Holy Ghost. So false and unjust, as well as rash and presumptuous, is this objection.

21. Neither is there any more real weight in that which Erasmus in the next place objects,—namely, that some things in it seem to give countenance unto some exploded opinions of ancient heretics; whereof he gives us a double instance. First, "Quod velum separans sanctum sanctorum interpretatur coelum;"—"That he interprets the veil separating the most holy place to be heaven:" which indeed he neither doth (but only affirms that the most holy place in the tabernacle was a type or figure of heaven itself), nor, if he should have so done, had he given the least countenance unto the fondness of the Manichees, whom I suppose he intendeth; his whole discourse perfectly exploding their abominations. His other instance is in that vexed place, chap. 6:4–8, favouring, as he pretends, the Novatians, denying recovery by repentance unto them who had fallen into sin after baptism. But the incompetency of this objection, arising merely from their ignorance of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost that made it, as to the end for which it was used, hath been demonstrated by many of old and late. And, the Lord assisting, in our exposition of that place we shall show that it is so far from giving countenance unto any error or mistake which any man 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 unto, beyond an evidence of men's willingness to lay hold on slight occasions to vent their curiosities and conceptions, the reader that is godly and wise will quickly perceive.

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

Eusebius, who, after Melito, Caius, Clemens, and Origen, made a very accurate inquiry after the books unquestionably canonical, gives us three notes of distinction between them that are so and others,—namely, (1.) Φράσεως χαρακτήρ, the character or manner of phrase or speech; (2.) Γνώμη, the sentence or subject-matter treated of; and, (3.) Προαίρεσις, the purpose and design of the writer: and they are all of great importance, and to be considered by us in this matter. But because others of like moment may be added unto them, and are used by others of the ancients to the same end, we shall insist upon them all in that order which seems most natural unto them, yet so as that they may be all referred unto those general heads by him proposed.

23. Two things there are that belong to the γνώμη, or sentence of this Epistle,—first, its general argument; and, secondly, the particular subjectmatter 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 Scripture 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 doth proceed. Hence they are called Λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, "The oracles of God," Rom. 3:2, or the infallible revelation of his will; and Ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου, John 6:68, "The words of eternal life;" for that, in the name of God, they treat about. And St Paul tells us that the argument of the gospel is "wisdom," but "not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of it," who are destroyed, done away, and made useless by it,—that is, the chief leaders of human wisdom and science,—1 Cor. 2:6: but it is σοφία Θεοῦ ἐν μυστηρίῳ, ἡ ἀποκεκρυμμένη, etc.,—"the mysterious wisdom of God, that was hidden from them," ver. 7; things of his own mere revelation from his sovereign will and pleasure, with a stamp and impress of his goodness and wisdom upon them, quite of another nature than any thing that the choicest wisdom of the princes of this world can reach or attain unto. And such is the argument of this Epistle: it treats of things which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they," by any natural means, ever "entered into the heart of man," and that in absolute harmony with all other unquestionable revelations of the will of God. Now, if the immediate original hereof be not from God,—that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,—then it must be either the invention of some man, spinning the whole web and frame of it out of his own imagination, or from his diligence in framing and composing of it from a system of principles collected out of other writings of divine revelation. The first will not be pretended.

Two things absolutely free it from suffering under any such suspicion: First, the nature of its argument, treating, as was said, of such things as "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man." The deity, offices, sacrifice, mediation, and grace, of Jesus Christ, are not things that can have any foundation in the invention and imagination of man; yea, being revealed by God, they lie in a direct contradiction unto all that naturally is esteemed wise or perfect, 1 Cor. 1:18–23. They exceed the sphere of natural comprehension, and are destructive of the principles which it frameth unto itself for the compassing of those ends whereunto they are designed.

Nor is it liable to be esteemed of the other extract, or the diligence and wisdom of man in collecting it from other books of divine revelation; which alone with any colour of reason can be pretended. Human diligence, regulated by what is elsewhere revealed of God, is human still; and can never free itself from those inseparable attendancies which will manifest itself 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 unto the truth (which yet must be accidental as to the principle of his wisdom, understanding, ability, and diligence, by whom it is composed, they being no way able to give that effect certainly and infallibly unto it), yet there will never be wanting that in it whereby it may be discerned from an immediate effect and product of divine wisdom and understanding. Take but the writings of any wise man, who, from his own ability and invention, hath declared any science in them, and allow his discovery of it to be the absolute, complete rule of that science, so that nothing beyond or beside what he hath written about it is true or certain, nor any thing else, but as it hath conformity to or coincidence with what he hath written, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for any man so to treat of that subject from his writings as not to leave sufficient characters upon his own to difference them from his original and pattern; 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 upon it such an impression of the genius and fancy wherein the rule was first framed as the follower cannot express. And how much more will there be so in that which, both for matter and words also, proceeds from the sovereign will and wisdom of God! Can it be supposed, that any man should 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 τεκμήρια or characters of a divine original which we shall in our progress discover in this Epistle, as in other books of the holy Scripture; for it is not behind the very choicest of them.

And the truth of this consideration is demonstrated in the instances of every one of those writings which may probably be concluded to have the nearest affinity and similitude unto those of divine inspiration, from the greatness and urgency of their plea to be admitted into that series and order. These are the books commonly called Apocrypha. Not one of them is there wherein human diligence doth not discover itself to be its fountain and spring. Did this Epistle proceed from the same root and principle, whence comes it to pass that it nowhere puts itself forth unto a discovery and conviction? For that it doth not so we shall afterwards fully declare. Besides, to close this consideration, the design of the writer of this Epistle manifests that he sought the glory of God in Christ, according unto his will. With this aim and purpose, an endeavour to impose that on the church, as an immediate revelation from God, which was the product of his own pains and diligence, is utterly inconsistent. For by no means could he more dishonour God, whose glory in sincerity he appears to have sought; nor wrong the church, whose good he desired to promote; than by this imposing on him that whereof he was not the author, so adding unto his words, and making himself subject to reproof as a liar, Prov. 30:6, and proposing that unto 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 unto 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, Jer. 23:28.

24. Unto the general argument, we may add the particular subject-matter of this Epistle, as belonging unto the γνώμη of it, further confirming its divine original. This, for the most part, consists in things of pure revelation, and which have no other foundation "in rerum natura." Some books, even of the Scripture itself, are but the narrations of actions done amongst men; which, for the substance of them, might be also recorded by human diligence: but the things treated of in this Epistle are purely divine, spiritual, and no ways to be known but by revelation. And not only so, but amongst those that are so, there are four things eminent in the subject-matter of this Epistle: (1.) That the principal things treated of in it are matters of the greatest importance in Christian religion, and such as concern the very foundation of faith. Such are the doctrines about the person, offices, and sacrifice of Christ; of the nature of gospel worship, our privilege therein, and communion with God thereby. In these things consist the very vitals of our profession; and they are all opened and declared in a most excellent and heavenly manner in this Epistle; and that, as we shall manifest, in an absolute consonancy unto what is taught concerning them in other places of Scripture. (2.) In that some things of great moment unto the faith, obedience, and consolation of the church, that are but obscurely or sparingly taught in any other places of holy writ, are here plainly, fully, and excellently taught and improved. Such, in particular, is the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, with the nature and excellency of his sacrifice, and the execution of the remaining parts and duty of that office in heaven, and how the whole of it was typically represented under the old testament. He that understands aright the importance of these things,—their use in the faith and consolation of the church, their influence 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. (3.) God's way in teaching the church of the old testament, with the use and end of all the operose pedagogy 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 unto 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 unto the end of the things that were to be done away. In their nature they were carnal; in their number, many; as to their reason, hidden; in their 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 clue given unto believers to pass safely through all the turnings and windings of them unto rest and truth in Jesus Christ. Those hidden things of the old testament appear now unto us full of light and instruction; but we are beholden for all our insight into them, and benefit which we receive thereby, unto the exposition and application of them made by the Holy Ghost in this Epistle. And how great a portion of gospel wisdom and knowledge consists herein all men know who have any spiritual acquaintance with these things. (4.) 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 unto a condescension in things of the greatest exasperation, than absolutely and precisely to determine the whole matter between them. And, indeed, this being a difference wherein the will, authority, and command of God were pleaded on the mistaken side, 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 unto it as that the spirits of men might acquiesce therein. Now, the will of God to this purpose before the writing of this Epistle could only be collected from the nature and state of things in the church upon the coming of the Messiah, and conclusions from thence, which the believing Jews were very slow in the admittance of. Add hereunto that many prophecies and promises of the Old Testament, setting forth the glory and beauty of gospel worship under the names and condition of the worship then in use, as of priests, 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 unto the church's obedience unto 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 unto 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 are 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 a 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 nowhere 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 manifest the original and fountain whence it doth 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 a holy admiration of the goodness, love, and wisdom of God, than this Epistle doth. 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 hath 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 a holy and heavenly spirit breathing in their authors, and most of what they contain to be consonant unto the mind of God; yet have they all of them evident footsteps that the authors were subject unto 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 humanitus, 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 the 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 belong to the προαίρεσις, which the ancients made a characterism of writings given by divine inspiration, are consonant unto the general argument and peculiar subject-matter of it. That the whole Scripture hath an especial end, which is peculiar unto it, and wherein no other writing hath any share, but only so far as it is taken from thence and composed in obedience thereunto, is evident unto 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 centre 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, consist 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 hath revealed himself and gathered all things to a head in him, unto the manifestation of his glory: for "this is life eternal, that we know him, the only true God; and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent." 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 ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name," John 20:31; 1 Tim. 4:16. Moreover, whereas this eternal life unto 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 unto salvation," 2 Tim. 3:15, 16; Rom. 1:16; 2 Pet. 1:3. These, in their mutual subserviency and dependence, complete 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 unto 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 unto him as his perfections were revealed absolutely; whereunto the Scripture adds this revelation in Christ Jesus, 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 unto him; and Jesus Christ to be the great and only way and means whereby he will communicate of himself, and bring us unto 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 connection, dependence, and subserviency, it manifesteth,—the more fully doth it express this general end of the whole, and thereby evince its own interest therein.

Now, herein doth 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 expressly proposed in it, so the relation of the glory of God and of our obedience and blessedness, whereby and wherein it is declared, unto 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 unto 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, unto the utmost end of his glorifying himself in their salvation by Jesus Christ. Neither is there herewithal the least alloy or mixture of any by, particular, or proper [personal], end of the writer,—nothing of his honour, reputation, advantage, self-pleasing, in any thing; but all runs evenly and smoothly to the general end before proposed. And this also hath deservedly a place among the τεκμήρια of writings by divine inspiration.

26. The style, also, of the sacred Scripture, or φράσεως χαρακτήρ, as it is termed by Eusebius 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 fit, decorous, 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 profane contempt of it by Domitius Calderinus. And of the like temper was Petrus Bembus, who would scarce touch the Scripture; while his own epistles are not one of them free from solecisms 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 me 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 sense 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 itself produceth. There is in the sacred Scripture, in the words wherein by the Holy Ghost it was given out, a proper, peculiar virtue and secret efficacy, inflaming the minds of the readers and hearers, which no diligence or wisdom of man can fully and absolutely transfer 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 quickening, affecting idiotisms of them (which was the design of Castalio), have, of all others, most failed in their intention.

Neither doth 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 Jerome often complains,—but it is from the causes before named; and therefore it 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 hath 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 Jerome cannot be excused (though he be followed by some others of great name in later ages), who more than once chargeth St Paul with solecisms and barbarisms in expression, and often urgeth (upon a mistake, as we shall see) that he was "imperitus sermone,"—"unskilful 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, unto 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 unto his penmen, and in the care of God over the very iotas and tittles of the words themselves. And wherever there appears unto us an irregularity from the arbitrary directions or usages of other men in those languages, it doth much more become us to suspect our own apprehensions and judgment,—yea, 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 Heinsius in this matter is severe but true, Prolegom. Aristarch. Sac.: "Vellicare aliquid in illis, aut desiderare, non est eruditi sed blasphemi hominis, ac male feriati, qui nunquam intelligit quae humana sit conditio, aut quanta debeatur reverentia ac cultus cuncta dispensanti Deo, qui non judicem, sed supplicem deposcit."

27. Neither hath 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 Jerome hath led 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, savouring of the country, and his profession, who was a shepherd. But those that understand their style and language will not easily give consent unto him, though the report be commonly admitted by the most. It is true, there appeareth in Isaiah an excellent πάθος in his exhortations, expostulations, and comminations; attended with efficacious apostrophes, prosopopoeias, metaphors, and allusions; a compacted fulness in his prophecies and predictions, a sweet evangelical spiritualness in his expression of promises, with frequent paronomasias and ellipses, which have a special elegancy in that language; whence he is usually instanced in by learned men as an example of the eloquence of the divine writings, and his δεινότης preferred unto 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 Jerome's 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 unto them is administered. Thus some affirm that St Paul used sundry expressions (and they instance in 1 Cor. 4:3, Col. 2:18) that were proper to the Cilicians, his countrymen, 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 a Hebraism, and the latter purely Greek, so indeed they will discover a Tarsian defect in St Paul, together with the Patavinity in Livy that Pollio noted in him.

28. Eloquence and propriety of speech, for the proper ends of them, are the gift of God, Exod. 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 doth truly and absolutely belong unto them. He that shall look for a flourish of painted words, artificial, meretricious ornaments of speech, discourse suited to entice, inveigle, and work upon, weak and carnal affections; or sophistical, captious ways of reasoning, to deceive; or that "suada," or πιθανολογία, that smooth and harmonious structure of periods, wherein the great Roman orator gloried, the "lenocinia verborum," the ὕψος 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 unto poor worms, who is the great possessor of heaven and earth!

Besides, these things belong not indeed unto 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 unto them, and acquainted with the baits that are meet to take hold of their brutish affections, with the ways 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 frena theatri."

And therefore the apostle tells us, that the rejecting of this kind of oratory in his preaching and writing was of indispensable 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 Cor. 2:4–7. This kind of eloquence, then, the Scripture maketh no use of, but rather condemneth its application unto the great and holy things whereof it treateth, as unbecoming their excellency and majesty. So Origen to this purpose: Ἴσως γὰρ εἰ κάλλος καὶ περιθολὴν φράσεως, ὡς τὰ παρʼ Ἕλλησι θαυμαζόμενα, εἶχεν ἡ γραφὴ, ὑπενόησεν ἄν τις οὐ τὴν ἀλήθειαν κεκρατηκέναι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐμφαινομένην ἀκολουθίαν καὶ τὸ τῆς φράσεως κάλλος ἐψυχαγωγηκέναι τοὺς ἀκροωμένους, καὶ εὐαπατήτους αὐτοὺς προσειληφέναι, tom. iv. 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 itself that conquered men, but that they had been circumvented and deceived by appearing or fallacious consequences, and the splendour or elegancy of speech."

29. That the proper excellency of speech or style consisteth in the τὸ πρέπον, or meet accommodation of words unto 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. Βούλεται ἡ φύσις τοῖς νοήμασιν ἕπεσθαι τὴν λέξιν, οὐ τῇ λέξει τὰ νοήματα, saith Dionysius of Halicarnassus;—"Nature requireth that words should follow, or be made to serve, sentences or things, and not things be subservient to words:" whence the too curious observation of words hath been censured as an argument of an infirm and abject mind.2 However, it may be pardoned in them who placed all their excellency in πιθανολογία, and disposing persuasive, alluring words; as Isocrates spent ten years in his Panegyrics, and Plato ceased not unto the eightieth year of his age to adorn his Discourses, as Dionysius testifies of them both.

30. The style of the holy Scripture is every way answerable unto what may rationally be expected from it; for,—

(1.) 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, plainness without alluring ornaments, it doth not so much entice, move, or persuade, as constrain, press, and pierce into the mind and affections, transforming them into a likeness of the things which it delivers unto us. And therefore, though St Paul says that he dealt not with the Corinthians καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας, in an excellency or sublimity of speech or wisdom, like that of the orators before described, yet he did ἐν ἀποδείξει Πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως, in such an evidence of spiritual power as was far more effectual and prevalent. The whole of the sacred style is θεοπρεπές, if truth, gravity, authority, and majesty, can render it so; nor can any instance be given to the contrary. And,—

(2.) It everywhere 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 everywhere keeps its own property,—to be, in gravity and authority, still like unto itself, and unlike to or distinct from all other writings whatsoever. Whence Austin rightly of the holy penmen: "Audeo dicere omnes qui recte intelligunt quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse;"—"I dare say that whosoever understands what they speak, will also understand that they ought not to have spoken otherwise." And Origen of the writings of St Paul in particular: "If any one," saith he, "give himself to the diligent reading of his epistles, εὖ οἶδʼ, ἢ θαυμάσεται τὸν νοῦν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐν ἰδιωτικῇ λέξει μεγάλα περινοοῦντος, ἢ μὴ θαυμάσας αὐτὸς καταγέλαστος φανεῖται, I know full well that either he will admire his great conceptions and sentences under a plain and vulgar style, or he will show 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 unto 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 unto the minds of men by words and expressions fitted unto 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.

(3.) The style of the holy penmen is, in a gracious condescension, suited unto 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 were 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 unto 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 contemperation of itself to the learning and wisdom of men; and this συγκατάζασις, or condescension unto the common reason, sense, usage, and experience, of mankind in general, is very admirable in the holy penmen, and absolutely peculiar unto them. In this universal suitableness unto 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 a 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 doth consist.

31. Besides all these excellencies of the style of holy writ, with others that may be added unto them, there is in it a secret energy and efficacy, for the subjecting of the minds of men unto its intention in all things. Whether this proceed and be imparted unto it only from the matters treated of, which are holy and heavenly, or whether it be communicated unto 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, amongst others, speaks excellently to this purpose: Φησὶ δʼ ὁ θεῖος λόγος, οὐκ αὔταρκες εἶναι τὸ λεγόμενον (κἂν κατʼ αὐτὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ πιστικώτατον) πρὸς τὸ καθικέσθαι ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ δύναμις τὶς θεόθεν δοθῇ τῷ λέγοντι, καὶ χάρις ἐπανθήσῃ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ αὓτη οὐκ ἀθεεὶ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀνυσίμως λέγουσι·—"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 influence that they speak with efficacy." Hence ariseth the spiritual, peculiar δεινότης of the divine writers, termed by St Paul ἀπόδειξις Πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως,—"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," Heb. 4:12; by which living energy and authority it evacuated and brought to nought all the wisdom in this world,—that is, all philosophical conceptions, with all the ornaments of eloquence and oratory. The excellent discourse of Austin on this subject, de Doctrina Christiana, lib. iv. cap. vi., is very well worthy consideration; whither I refer the reader, that I may not too far divert from my present particular design.

Whatever hath been thus spoken concerning the style of the sacred Scripture in general, it is as applicable unto this Epistle unto the Hebrews as to any one portion of holy writ whatever. That simplicity, gravity, unaffectedness, suitableness to its author, matter, and end, which commend the whole unto 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 unto 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 anywhere to be found in it. If anywhere, 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. Doth the penman of it anywhere use words or phrases not commonly, or rarely, or perhaps nowhere 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. Doth 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 unto 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 exsurgency of the holy matter contained in it and the heavenly manner wherein it is declared. They have in their conjunction a peculiar character, differencing this writing from all writings of a human 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 unto his own word a distinguishing property, from its relation unto 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 unto 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 unto 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 amongst 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 unto 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 נְאֻם, "He saith," unto all the declarations of them, Jer. 23:31; and therefore doubtless framed them to as great a likeness unto those that were by inspiration from him as they were able: and yet the Lord declares that all their imaginations were as discernible from his word as chaff from wheat; and this by that authority and power wherewith his word is accompanied, whereof they were utterly destitute, ver. 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 unto 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,—

33. From this authority they find a divine efficacy proceeding, a powerful operation upon their souls and consciences, unto 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 unto the obedience taught therein.

This efficacy and power is in the whole word of God: "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" Jer. 23:29; that is, "living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," Heb. 4:12. As it hath an ἐξουσία, or "authority" over men, Matt. 7:29, so it hath a δύναμις, or "powerful efficacy" in and towards them, Acts 20:32, James 1:21: yea, it is the "power of God" himself for its proper end, Rom. 1:16, and therefore said to be accompanied with the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power," 1 Cor. 2:4; a demonstration ὑπὲρ τὰς λογικὰς μεθόδους τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς συγκατάθασιν ἕλκουσα, 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 unto those ends (which is that which giveth energy unto all things, enabling them to produce their proper effects, and setting limits and bounds to their operation), as it is testified unto in innumerable places of the Scripture itself, so it hath and doth 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 hath wrought and doth yet carry on invisibly in the world, in despite of all the opposition that is made unto 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 et agrestia, sed viva, sed animata, flammea, aculeata, ad imum spiritum penetrantia, hominem totum potestate mirabili transformantia;" expressing the sum 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 amongst any of the sons of men. Πᾶσα Γραφὴ, saith Basil, θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, διὰ τοῦτο συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἵνʼ ὥσπερ ἐν κοινῷ τῶν ψυχῶν ἰατρείῳ, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τὸ ἴαμα τοῦ οἰκείου πάθους ἕκαστος ἐκλεγώμεθα·—"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 choose 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 unto him, and leads them to an enjoyment of him. And this work of the Holy Ghost in it and by it seals its divine authority unto 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 inquirers,—which ought to be the frame of all men in the investigation of sacred truths.

34. Unto what hath been spoken we may add, that the canonical authority of this Epistle is confirmed unto 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 Polycarp, 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 a high value upon,— equal to, if not above the Scripture. And two things are considerable in his search after them:—(1.) That he did not think that there was any church appointed to be the preserver and declarer of apostolical traditions, but made his inquiry of all the individual ancient men that he could meet withal who had conversed with any of the apostles. (2.) 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 prophecy to follow rumours and reports, under the specious name of traditions! But this catholic fame whereof we speak, confirmed by particular instances and records in all ages, testifying unto 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 τεκμήρια, or infallible proofs and arguments whereby any particular book of the Scripture evinceth itself unto the consciences of men to be written by inspiration from God. It remaineth now to show that it is not liable unto 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 St Peter calls the whole of it Προφητεία, "Prophecy," 2 Pet. 1:21,—prophecy 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 subjectmatter, into the "Law, Prophets, and Psalms," Luke 24:44, and often into the "Law and Prophets," on the same account, as Acts 24:14, 26:22, Rom. 3:21, yet their penmen being all equally prophets, the whole in general is ascribed unto them, and called "Prophecy," Rom. 1:2, 16:26; Luke 24:25; 2 Pet. 1:19. So were the books of the New Testament written by apostles, or men endowed with an apostolical spirit; and in their work they were equally inspired by the Holy Ghost; whence the church is said to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone," Eph. 2:20. If, then, the author of any writing acknowledged 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 otherwise it may appear, must needs be esteemed a mere fruit of his own skill, diligence, and wisdom, and not any way to belong unto 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 amongst 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, chap. 2:23, that he did but epitomize the history of Jason the Cyrenean, wherein he took great pains and labour. The truth is, he who had before commended Judas Maccabaeus for offering sacrifices for the dead (which indeed he did not, but for the living), nowhere appointed in the law, and affirmed that Jeremiah hid the holy fire, ark, tabernacle, and altar of incense, in a cave; [who says] that the same person, Antiochus, was killed at Nanea in Persia chap. 1:16, and died in the mountains of torments in his bowels, as he was coming to Judea, chap. 9, whom the first book affirms to have died of sorrow at Babylon, chap. 6:16; and who affirms Judas to have written letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year of the Seleucian empire, who was slain in the one hundred and fifty-second year of it, book i. chap. 1:10,—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 unto his own understanding. But yet this he doth, and that openly, as we showed: for the Holy Ghost will not be an epitomizer of a profane writing, as he professeth himself to have been; nor make excuses for his weakness, nor declare his pains and sweat in his work, as he doth. 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 professeth it to have been of another extract; for although this book be not only rejected out of the canon by the council of Laodicea, Jerome,2 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 [I am sure] 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 doth nowhere 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, [it] 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 unto him all that he delivers; nor can he, in any minute instance, be convicted to have wanted his assistance.

36. Circumstances of the general argument of a book may also convince it of a human or fallible original. This they do, for instance, in the book of Judith;—for such a Nabuchodonosor as should reign in Nineve, chap. 1:1, and make war with Arphaxad, king of Ecbatane, verse 13; whose captains and officers should know nothing at all of the nation of the Jews, chap. 5:3, that waged war against them in the days of Joakim (or, as other copies, Eliakim) the high priest, chap. 4:6; after whose defeat the Jews should have peace for eighty years at the least, chap. 16:23, 25; is an imagination of that which never had subsistence "in rerum natura:" or [the book may be] a representation of what יְהוּדִית, a Jewish woman ought, as the author of it conceived, to 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 unto any exception of this nature. Yea, 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 unto a writing of this kind, as gives countenance unto its ascription unto 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 St John; and if the dissensions in the church of Corinth deserved two epistles for their composition; and if 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 St Paul unto 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 unto all the churches of God? And that there is weight in this consideration will evidently appear, when we come to declare the time when this Epistle was written.

37. The most manifest eviction of any writing pretending unto 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 unto 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 unto that privilege must cease for ever. We need no other proof, testimony, or argument, to evince its original, than what itself tenders unto us. And by this means, also, do the books commonly called apocryphal, unto which the Romanists ascribe canonical authority, destroy their own pretensions. 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 unto their own apprehensions in things wherein they differed from others; for whereas, if the opinion 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 unto 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.

38. The style and method of a writing may be such as to lay a just prejudice against its claim to canonical authority: for although the subject-matter of a writing may be good and honest in the main of it, and generally suited unto 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 painting of things small and inconsiderable; as may sufficiently demonstrate human ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Jerome 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 judgment we are to make of the spring or fountain from whence any book doth proceed; for whereas great variety of style, and in manner of writing, 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 amongst all the books of divine inspiration. Of the style of this Epistle we have spoken before. Its gravity, simplicity, majesty, and absolute suitableness unto 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.

39. Want of catholic tradition in all ages of the church, from the first giving forth of any writing testifying unto its divine original, is another impeachment of its pretence unto canonical authority. And this argument ariseth fatally against the apocryphal books before mentioned. Some of them are expressly excluded from the canon by many of the ancient churches, nor are any of them competently testified unto.

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 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 undeniably to be written by the apostle St Paul, that eminent penman of the Holy Ghost.

40. 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 unto any just exception against its claim to 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 parcel 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.

——————

SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION I

BY THE EDITOR

IT will be seen that Dr Owen, in his proof of the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, relies chiefly upon internal evidence. After a definition of canonicity, according to which it is represented as including two elements,—the origin of the document for which canonical authority is claimed, as a divine communication to man; and the design of it, as intended to be a permanent and universal rule to the church: and after a historical summary of the different parties by whom the Epistle has been positively rejected, or not expressly owned as canonical: he refutes four objections which have been urged against its authority,—the uncertainty respecting its author; quotations alleged in the Epistle to be taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, but not found in them; quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures which are not to the purpose of the author; and passages which appear to sanction exploded heresies. He then argues from three criteria of Eusebius in proof of its canonicity,—its subjectmatter, its design, and its prevailing spirit or style. He supplements his argument by an appeal to catholic tradition.

His subsequent Exercitation, proving that Paul was the author of the Epistle, yields further evidence of its canonical authority, the canonicity of a book resting generally on the fact of its apostolic origin; and under a discussion of its Pauline authorship, the question of the right of the Epistle to a place in the canon has frequently been considered.

Independently, however, of the question of its authorship, there are external evidences of its canonical authority, on which, in modern times, considerable stress has been justly placed:—1. The ANTIQUITY of the document, as it appears to have been written while the rites and worship of the temple were still in existence, Heb. 9:9, 25, 8:5; and because the argument contained in it against temptations to apostasy supposes the continued performance of those rites in the Jewish temple by which the converts might be induced to relapse into their previous Judaism. 2. The quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews by CLEMENT of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the close of the first century, and most probably about A.D. 96. These quotations are numerous, and are arranged by Moses Stuart into four classes, according to the degree of their correspondence with the original Epistle from which they were taken. They prove more than the existence of the Epistle antecedently to A.D. 96. Clement, in the 36th chapter of his epistle, introduces a quotation from Scripture under the common formula that bespeaks an appeal to divine authority: Γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως· Ὁποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουγοὺς αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. Was this quotation taken by Clement from Ps. 104:4, or from Heb. 1:7? If from the latter, the formula with which it is introduced proves the canonical authority of the Epistle from which it is taken. Bleek and Tholuck contend that the quotation is taken directly from the psalm; Stuart and Davidson, that it is from the Epistle to the Hebrews, arguing that, from the context in the passage from Clement, his design in using the formula, Γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως, is to assign a reason for the authoritative application of the psalm to Christ, and authority for such an application can be found only in Heb. 1. 3. JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 140, has the following passage in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, καὶ αἰώνιος ἱερεὺς ὑψίστου ὑπάρχων. Elsewhere he calls Christ, αἰώνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερέα καὶ βασιλέα, καὶ Χριστὸν μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, and Apolog. i. p. 95, he says of Christ, Καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται καὶ ἀπόστολος. Nowhere but in the Epistle to the Hebrews do we find such epithets applied to Christ as a "priest after the order of Melchizedek," the "king of Salem," an "eternal priest," "angel and apostle." And, 4. The Epistle to the Hebrews is contained in the PESHITO, or old Syriac version, which is ascribed to the second century. "When we consider," says Davidson, "that the Peshito wanted several epistles which were not generally received as authentic so soon as the other books, the fact in question forms an important part of the early evidence favourable to our Epistle's canonical reputation."

It must further be borne in mind, that those who discredit the Pauline authorship of the Epistle are not necessarily to be held as impugning its canonicity. Olshausen and Tholuck are decided in maintaining the latter, although both, with Luther, suppose Apollos to have been the author of the Epistle. Olshausen maintains its canonical authority,—1. Because we cannot, except on the supposition that Paul had an essential share in the composition of it, explain the remarkable circumstance, that the entire oriental church attributed it to Paul; 2. Because, though the style is not that of Paul, the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, not to be mistaken, to the writings which are acknowledged to be his; and, 3. Because, on this supposition, all the circumstances in regard to the Epistle are explained, the western church knowing that Paul was not its author, and therefore not using it much, though not rejecting it, the eastern recognising the essential influence he exerted over its composition, though the truths contained in it were presented through the medium of a faithful disciple like Apollos.

———