retics, questioning the deity of the Son of God in Cerinthus, gave occasion to the writing of the gospel by St John; and if the dissentions 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 Gentiles; 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, when we come to declare the time when this Epistle was written, will evidently appear.

$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 then 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 Apochryphal, unto which the Romanists ascribe canonical authority, destroy their own preten- · sions. 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. vi 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 that place, as it is not, it had been their duty to have relinquished their own hypothesis, and gone over unto them; but instead of this, 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 those of old, to reject the words of it in this.

§ 38. The style and method of a writing may be such, as to Jay a just prejudice against its claim of canonical authority. For although the subject-matter of a writing may be good and honest in the main of it, and generally suited unto the analogy of faith; yet there may be in the manner of its composition and writing, such an ostentation of wit, fancy, learning, or eloquence; such an affectation of words, phrases and expressions; such rhetorical paintings of things small and inconsiderable; as may sufficiently demonstrate human ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Hieromes observes, in particular, concerning the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon, writ ten, as it is supposed, by Philo, an eloquent and learned man : redolet Græcam 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 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.

*Hieron. Præ. in Prov. Solo.

The suffrage of this kind given unto our Epistle, we have mentioned before. The doubts and scruples of some about it, have likewise been acknowledged. That they are of no weight to be laid in the balance against the testimony given unto it, might easily be demonstrated. But because they were levelled all of them principally against its author, and but by consequence against its authority, I shall consider them in a disquisition about him, wherein we shall give a further confirmation of the divine original of the Epistle, by proving it undeniably to have been written by the apostle St Paul, that eminent penman of the Holy Ghost.

§ 40. Thus the canonical authority of this Epistle stands clear. It is destitute of no evidence needful for the manifestation of it, nor is it obnoxious unto any just exception against its claim of that privilege. And hence it is come to pass, that whatever have been the fears, doubts, and scruples of some; the rash temerarious objections, conjectures and censures of others; the care and providence of God over it, as a part of his most holy word, working with the prevailing evidence of its original implanted in it, and its spiritual efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture; hath obtained an absolute conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe, and settled it in a full possession of canonical authority, in all the churches of Christ throughout the world.

EXERCITATION II

Of the Penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

(1. Knowledge of the penman of any part of Scripture not necessary. Some of them utterly concealed. The word of God gives authority unte them that deliver it, not the contrary. Prophets in things wherein they are not actually inspired, subject to mistake. 2. St Paul the writer of this Epistle. The hesitation of Origen. Heads of evidence. § 3. Uncertainty of them who assign any other author. 4. St Luke not the writer of it, 5. Nor Barnabas. The Epistle under his name counter. feit. His writing of this Epistle by sundry reasons disproved. §6. Not Apollos, § 7. Nor Clemens, § 8. Nor Tertullian. 9. Objections against St Paul's being the penman. Dissimilitude of style. Admitted by the ancients. 10. Answer of Origen, rejected. Of Clemens, Hierome, &c. rejected likewise. § 11. St Paul, in what sense dwing tw doyw. § 12. His eloquence and skill. § 13. Causes of the difference in style between this and other epistles. §14. Coincidence of expressions in it and them. §15. The Epistle agapos. 16. Answer of Hierome, rejected. 17. Of Theodoret. § 18. Of Chrysostome. Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul. Not the cause of the forbearance of his name. § 19. The true reason thereof. The Hebrews church-state not changed. Faith evangelical educed from Old Testament principles and testimonies. These pressed on the Hebrews, not mere apostolical authority. § 20. Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle, answered. Other exceptions from the Epistle itself, removed. § 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it. Testimony of St Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 15, 16. Considerations upon that testimony. The second Epistle of St Peter written to the same persons with the first. The first written unto the Hebrews in their dispersion. Aarroga, what. § 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote. That, this Epistle. Not that to the Galatians. Not one lost. § 23. The long-suffering of God, how declared to be salvation in this Epistle. § 24. The wisdom ascribed unto St Paul in the writing of this Epistle wherein it appears. The ducvoTOE of it. Weight of this testimony. § 25. The suitableness of this Epistle unto those of the same author. Who competent judges hereof. What required thereunto. § 26. Testimony of the first churches, or Catholic tradition. § 27. Evidences from this Epistle itself. The general argument and scope. Method. Way of arguing. All the same with St Paul's other Epistles. Skill in Judaical learning, traditions, and customs. Proper to St Paul. His bonds and sufferings. His companion Timothy. His sign and token subscribed.

$1. THE divine authority of the Epistle being vindicated, it is of no great moment to inquire scrupulously after its penman. Writings that proceed from Divine inspiration, receive no addi

tion of authority from the reputation or esteem of them by whom they were written. And this the Holy Ghost hath suf ficiently manifested, by shutting up the names of many of them from the knowledge of the church in all ages. The close of the Pentateuch hath an uncertain penman, unless we shall suppose, with some of the Jews, that it was written by Moses after his death. Divers of the Psalms have their penmen concealed, as also have the whole books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth, Esther, Job, and the Chronicles are but guessed at. Had any prejudice unto their authority ensued, this had not been. For those books whose authors are known, were not esteemed to be given by prophecy, because they were prophets; but they were known to be prophets by the word which they delivered. For if the word delivered or written by any of the prophets, was to be esteemed sacred or divine, because delivered or written by such persons as were known to be prophets, then it must be because they were some other way known so to be, and divinely inspired, as by working of miracles, or that they were in their days received, and testified unto as such by the church. But neither of these can be asserted. For as it is not known that any one penman of the Old Testament, Moses only excepted, ever wrought any miracles, so it is certain that the most and chief of them (as the prophets) were rejected and condemned by the church of the days wherein they lived. The only way therefore whereby they were proved to be prophets, was by the word itself which they delivered and wrote; and thereon depended the evidence and certainty of their being divinely inspired. See Amos vii. 14-17. Jer. xxiii. 25-31. And setting aside that actual inspiration by the Holy Ghost, which they had for the declaration and writing of that word of God which came unto them in particular, even the prophets themselves were subject to mistakes. So was Samuel, when he thought Eliab should have been the Lord's anointed, 1 Sam. xvi. 6. and Nathan when he approved the purpose of David to build the temple, 1 Chron. xvii. 2. and the great Elijah, when he supposed none left in Israel that worshipped God aright but himself, 1 Kings xix. 14. 18. It was then, as we said, the word of prophecy that gave the writers of it the reputation and authority of prophets; and their being prophets gave not authority to the word they declared or wrote as a word of prophecy. Hence an anxious inquiry after the penman of any part of the Scripture is not necessary.

But whereas there want not evidences sufficient to discover who was the writer of this Epistle, whereby also the exceptions made unto its divine original may be finally obviated, they also shall be taken into consideration. A subject this is, wherein