reproved l. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 256. l. 31. large Discourses p. 260. l. 16. also r. after l. 10. à fine commission r. omission p. 275. l. 2. r. Judicial p. 276. l. 16. Sanction r. Section p. 290. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 308. l. 5. who thought l. 26. and other p. 311. l. 17. laying r. flaying p. 315. l. 4. serebrito r. seretrio There are sundry other mistakes in pointings changes and transpositions of letters in the Hebrew and English which a diligent and Candid Reader will easily observe and amend And it is not worth the while to collect them for those who are otherwise Exercitatio I. The Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kaneh a measuring reed The beam of a ballance Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same signification Metaphorically a moral rule Rectum and Canon how far the same The Scripture a rule Canonical The Antiquity of that Appellation The Canon of the Scripture What required to render a book Canonical All books of the holy Scripture equall as to their divine Original Jews distinction of the books of the old Testament as to the manner of their writing disproved All equally Canonical No book Canonical of a second sort or degree The Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical Opposed by Hereticks of old Not received into the Latin Church untill the dayes of Hierome Proved against Baronius Not rejected by any of that Church only not publiquely approved The Church of Rome not the sole proposer of books Canonical Occasion of its nâ—n-admittance at Rome Boldness of some in rejecting and corrupting the Scripture By whom this Epistle opposed of late The objection of the uncertainty of the Pen-man Answered Citations out of the old Testament not found therein Answer Citations not to his purpose Answer Countenance to old Heresies Answer General heads of Arguments to prove its Canonical Authority Characters to discover between books of divine inspiration and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The General Arguments of books truly Canonical Subject Matter Design Style Of the style of the Sacred writings Mistakes of many about it The nature of Eloquence Excellency of Scripture Style Energie Efficacy Tradition concerning the Authority of this Epistle not justly lyable to any exceptions from the Author Circumstances Subject Matter Style Testimonyes Conclusion THe Canonical Authority of the Epistle unto the Hebrews having § 1 been by some called into Question we must in our entrance declare both what it is which we intend thereby as also the clear interest of this Epistle therein for this is the foundation of all those ensuing discourses from it and that exposition of it which we intend The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gives rise unto that term Canonical § 2 seems to be derived from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kaneh and this as it sometimes denotes an Aromatical cane that contained spices in it used in the worship of God as Isai. 43. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast bought me no sweet Cane with silver for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precious Cane growing not in their own Countrey was bought from a far off Jer. 6.20 so in general it signifies any reed whatever 1 Kings 14.15 Isai. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beast of the reed Psal. 68.30 Particularly it signifies a reed made into an instrument wherewith they measured their buildings containing six Cubits in length Ezek. 40.7 Chap. 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 ballance keeping the poyse of the scales equal and discovering the rectitude or declensions thereof Isai. 46.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they weighed silver on the Cane that is saith the Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ballance the supporter and director of the scales being put for the whole The Rabbins call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reed of the scales that which tryes and weighs and gives every thing its just moment § 3 And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canon So the Scholiast on that of Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly that which is over the scales bringing them and the things weighed in them to equality The very same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which it is derived So Varinus tells us that it is properly the tongue in the ballance and in use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Aristotle sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that which is right we know its self 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 signifiâ—s a moral Rule or a measure for direction tryall and judgement Hence the Philosopher calls the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the administration or government of the Common-wealth that whereby all the parts of it arâ— disposed into their proper places whereby they are regulated and all things done in it are tryed and judged And in this sense it is applyed by St. Paul unto divine Revelation Gal. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as proceed orderly that is in a direct way for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes according to this rule or Canon And to the same purpose he useth again the samâ— expression Phil. 3.16 For as the words of the Scripture are in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words of Truth so the writing it self is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a right writing or as the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is written in uprightness to be a rule and Judge unto all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Genitivus adjuncti not materiae declaring the property of the writing not the subject matter that is it is Canonical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is right and a rule we have shewed to be the same And from hence it is that the Scripture or written Word of God being in it self every way absolutely right and perfect and appointed by him to be the Rule or Canon of the Churches faith and obedience requiring trying regulating judging wholly and absolutely of them is become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
by way of eminency to be called Canonical or regular as the Book wherein it is contained is called the Bible though in it self that be the Common name of all Books § 5 And this Appellation is of ancient use in the Church The Synod of Laodicea supposed to have praeceded the Council of Nice makes mention of it as a thing generally admitted for the Fathers of it decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no private Psalmes ought to be said or read in the Church nor any uncanonical Books but only the Canonical books of the new and old Testament whose names they subjoin in their order And some while before the Bishops who joyned with the Church of Antioch in the deposition of Paulus Samosatenus charge him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that in the introduction of his heresie departed from the Canon or rule of the Scripture Before them also it was called by Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Chrysostome calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sentence of the divine Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact ballance 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 sayes or thinks they should seek and require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all these things of or from the Scriptures which are the Canon of our faith and obedience And Austin demonstrent ecclesiam suam non in rumoribus Africorum sed in praescripto legis in Prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus hoc est in omnibus canonicis Sanctorum librorum authoritatibus Let them demonstrate their Church not by the rumors of the Africans but by the praescription of the Law the praedictions of the Prophets the Songs of the Psalms that is by the Canonical Authority of the holy books of the Scriptures And he pursues the Metaphor of a scale and a measure in many words elsewhere And thus Aquinas himself 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 Moreover as the Scripture upon the accounts mentioned is by way of eminency § 6 said to be Canonical so there is also a Canon or rule determining what books in particular do belong 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 comprehensus the books contained in the assured Canon of it And Ruffinus having reckoned up those books concludes hi sunt quos patres intra Canonem concluserum These are they which the Fathers have concluded to be in the Canon that is to belong 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 Apostolorum libri pertinerent not without good reason is the Ecclesiastical Canon determined by wholsome diligence unto which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles should belong About the Assignation of this Canon of the Scripture or what books belonged 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 haesitation of some few persons in reference unto one or two of them of the New Testament From this rise and use of the word it is evident what is intended by the Canonical § 7 Authority of the Scripture or of any particular book thereunto belonging Two things are included in that expression First the spring and Original of any book which gives it Authority and Secondly the design and end of it which renders it Canonical For the first it is required that it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given by immediate inspiration from God without this no book or writing can by any means any acceptation or approbation of the Church any usefulness any similitude of style manner of writing 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 Catholick standing use and instruction of the Church Then any writing or book becomes absolutely and compleatly Canonical The Jews of latter Ages assign some difference among the books of the old Testament § 8 as to their spring and Original or manner of Revelation though they make none as to their being all Canonicall The Book of the Law they assign unto a peculiar manner of Revelation which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mouth to mouth or face to face which they gather from Numbers 12.8 whereof afterwards Others of them they affirm to proceed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the gift of Prophesie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of divine Revelation mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 1.1 so they divide those books into two parts namely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or former Prophets containing most of the historical Books after the end of the Law and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the latter prophets wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called The Original of the remainder of them they ascribe unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inspiration by the holy Ghost calling them peculiarly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written by that inspiration as though the whole Canon and systeme of the books were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture or writing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 antient in their Church We have mention of it Luke 24.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cethubim or Hagiographa which are with them of least esteem But we have a more sure rule both overthrowing that feigned distinction and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture as to their spring and original St. Peter calls the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 the word of Prophesie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. Prophesie and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it to be given out by Prophesie which is an affection of the whole And St. Paul also terms the whole Scriptuâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 16.26 prophetical Scriptures or writings of the Prophets And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures he doth it in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 28.23 believest thou the prophets that is the Scriptures written by the spirit of Prophesie or by the inspiration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 1.12 of the spirit of Christ that was in them God of old spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.1 in his Revelation of himself unto them and in them and equally spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.70 unto them by the mouth of his holy Prophets from the beginning And thus not this or that part but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.16 all Scripture was given by inspiration And herein all the parts or books of it are absolutely equall And in the giving out of the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being acted by the holy Ghost both as to Things and Words that rendred 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 so equally Some of the Antients used that term ambiguously and therefore sometimes call books Canonical that absolutely are not so as not being written by divine inspiration nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the Rule of the Churches faith and obedience Thus the Constantinopolitan Council in Trulla confirms the Canons both of the Synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage which agree not in the Catalogues they give us of books Canonical which without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word could not be done unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction And the Council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their Appendiâ—e annexed to the one and fortieth Canon wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture Hoc etiam say they fratri consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio vel aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto Canone innotescat quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cùm Aniversarii dies celebrantur They speak dubiously concerning their own determination and intimate that they called the books they enumerated Canonical only as they might be read in the Church which priviledge they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the Martyrs which yet none thought to be properly canonical The same Epiphanius testifies of the Epistles of Clemens But as the books which that Synod added to the Canon of Laodicea are rejected by Melito Origen Athanasius Hilarius Gregorius Nazianzen Cyrillus Hierosolimitamus Epiphanius Ruffinus Hierome Gregorius magnus and others so their reading and Citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners and not for the confirmation of the faith even as St. Paul cited an Iambick out of Mâ—nandâ—r or rather Euripides 1 Cor. 15.33 an hemistichium out of Aratus Acts 17.28 and a whole Hexameter out of Epimenides Tit. 1.12 non sunt canonici sed leguntur Catechumenis saith Athanasius They are not Canonical but are only read to the Cateâ—humeni And Hierome the Church reads them ad aedificationem plebis non ad Authâ—ritatem Ecclesiasticarum dogmatum confirmandam for the edification of the people but not for the confirmation of any points of faith But although some books truly Canonical were of old amongst some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius speaks doubted of and some were commonly read that are certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rejectitious yet neither the mistake of the former nor later practice can give any countenance to an Apprehension of a second or various sort of books properly canonical For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accrewing unto it as hath been shewed meerly from its divine inspiration and giving 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 propertiâ—s 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a self-credibility on its own account or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a self-sufficing Authority but is truth only materially by vertue of its Analogie 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 disturbare Autoritatis classes They desile themselves with the impiety of Sacriledge who endeavour to bring in as it were divers degrees into the body of the Scriptures for by the impious discretion of humane folly they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal Authority As then whatever difference there may be as to the subject
matter manner of writing and present usefulness between any of the books that being written by divine inspiration are given out for the Churches rule they are all equall as to their canonical authority being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it so whatever usefulness or respect in the Church any other writing may have they can no way give them any interest in that whose formal reason they are not concerned in In the sense explained we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical that is § 10 properly and strictly so and of the number of them which the Antients called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every way genuine and Catholick 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 We need not much insist on their madness who of old with a sacrilegious licentiousness § 11 rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased The Ebionites not only rejected all the Epistles of Paul but also reviled his person as a Greâ—k and an Apostate as Irenaeus and Epiphanius inform us Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheitae in Eusebius Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews and those also to Timothy and Titus as Epiphanius and Hierome assure us who adds unto him Basilides And Theodoret as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews joyns unto them some of the Arians also Now though the folly of those Sacrilegious persons be easie to be repelled as it is done by Petrus Cluniacusis yet Hierome 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 sorsitan satisfaciere lectori nunc vero cum haeretica autoritate pronunciant dicunt illa Epistola Pauli est haec non est ea autoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant qua ipsi non crubescant falsa simulare They did not so much as plead or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these Epistles but did it upon their own head and Authority so they deserve neither answer nor consideration It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time though not rejected by § 12 yet not received in the Church of Rome Eusebius informs us that Cains 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 Photius also affirms And the same Photius acquaints us with the same Judgement of Hippolitus another eminent member of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other things not exactly answering the truth he saith also that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Pauls And Eusebius adds unto his information of the Judgement of Cains that it was not generally received in the Church of Rome in his time Neither is it any way acknowledged as St. Pauls by either Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius or Macrobius Yea the same Eusebius affirms that some excepted against it upon this account because it was opposed as none of St. Pauls in the Roman Church Hierome grants that Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter Canonicas Scripturas The custome of the Latines that is the Roman Church did not receive this Epistle among the Canonical Scriptures And speaking elsewhere of it he adds the same words Licet eam latina consuetudo inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipiat And elsewhere also he confirms the same Assertion It cannot then be denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the writing of this Epistle before it was publickly received and avowed as Canonical by the Româ—n Church Nor will the quotation of it by Hilary and Ambrose prove any general admission of it as such it being their custome not to restrain the Testimonies they made use of unto Books absolutely Canonical § 13 Baronius ad An. 160 labours to take of this failure of the Latine Church The testimony of Eusebius he rejects because as he sayes he was Arianorum gregalis of the Arian faction and willing to call the authority of this Epistle into Question in complyance with them who some of them as we observed before refused it n. 42. The Judgement of Caius he resolves into the Testimony of Eusebius which because of his partiality as he pleads is not to be admitted And lastly opposeth the witness of Hierome as a person who had suffered himself to be imposed on by Eusebius whose words in his reports of Caius he makes use of n. 50. Concluding upon the whole matter that it was a meer false calumny of Eusebius against the Church of Rome which Hierome by too much facillity 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 Exuperius which is justly suspected supposititious with the Council at Rome against Apollinaris under Damasus wherein no such thing appears Though I will not deny but that about that time it came to be publickly owned by that Church and was reckoned unto the Canon of the Scripture by Ruffinus § 14 But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the Judgement of Caius or the Roman Church in complyance 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 writt 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 off-spring which fell out into such Sacrilegious opinions and practices as the first leaders of them owned not that are accused in this matter much less can he be thought to design the reproach of the Roman Church Nay these answers are inconsistent as any one may perceive He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in complyance with the Arians and the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected and on whose Authority his intentions must be founded But indeed his words plainly manifest that he gives us a naked account of matter of fact without either prejudice or design It is yet more incredible that Hierome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on
to oppose its Canonical Authority with their frivolous Cavils and Objections Neither is this Experience meerly satisfactory to themselves alone as is by some pretended It is a thing pleadable and that not only in their own defence to strengthen their Faith against Temptations but to others also though not to Atheistical Scoffers yet to humble enquirers which ought to be the frame of all men in the Investigation of Sacred Truths § 34 Unto what hath been spoken we may add that the Canonical Authority of this Epistle is confirmed unto us by Catholick 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 generall 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 magnifie them This was Papias a contemporary of Policarpus in the very next Age after the Apostles Tradition of what was done or said by Christ or the Apostles what Expositions they gave he professed himself to set an high value upon equal to if not above the Scripture And two things are considerable in his search after them First That he did not think that there was any Church appointed to be the Preserver and Declarer of Apostolical Traditions but made his enquiry of all the individual ancient men that he could meet withall who had conversed with any of the Apostles Secondly That by all his pains he gathered together a Rhapsody of incredible Stories Fables Errors and useless Curiosities Such issue will the endeavours of men have who forsake the stable Word of Prophesie to follow rumors and reports under the specious name of Traditions But this Catholick Fame whereof we speak confirmed by particular Entrances 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or infallible proofs and Arguments whereby any particular Book of the Scripture evinceth its self unto the Consciences of men to be written by Inspiration from God It remaineth now to shew 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 priviledge 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophesie 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophesie delivered by men acted or moved therein by the Holy Ghost And though there be a distribution made of the several Books of it from the Subject Matter into the Law Prophets and Psalms Luke 24.44 and often into the Law and Prophets on the same account as Acts 26.2 Rom. 3.22 yet their Penmen being all equally Prophets the whole in general is ascribed unto them and called Prophesie Rom. 1.8 Chap. 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 equally inspired by the Holy Ghost whence the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephes. 2.20 If then the Author of any Writing acknowledgeth himself or may otherwise be convinced to have been neither Prophet nor Apostle nor endued with the same infallible Spirit with them his work how excellent soever other wayes it may appear must needs be esteemed a meer 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. v. 24. that he did but Epitomize the History of Jason the Cyrenean wherein he took great pains and labour The truth is he that had before commended Judas Machabaeus for offering Sacrifices for the dead which indeed he did not but for the living no where appointed in the Law and affirmed that Jeremiah hid the holy Fire Ark Tabernacle and Altar of Incense in a Cave that the same person Antiochus was killed at Nanea in Persia Chap. 1. v. 16. and dyed in the Mountains of torments in his Bowels as he was coming to Judea Chap. 9. whom the first Book affirms to have dyed of sorrow at Babylon Chap. 6. v. 16. who affirms Judas to have written Letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred eighty eighth year of the Seleucian Empire who was slain in the one hundred fifty second year of it Lib. 1. Chap. 1.3 that is thirty six years after his death with many other such mistakes and falshoods 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 as we shewed and that openly For the Holy Ghost will not be an Epitomator 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 Custome 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 Hierom and others of the Antients 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 perswaded of his Ingenuity and Honesty from the Conclusion of his Story that they would never be able to make him say that he wrote by Divine Inspiration and little reason then have we to believe it Now this Epistle is free from this Exception The Penman of it doth no where intimate directly or indirectly that he wrote in his own strength or by his own ability which yet if he had done in an Argument of that
evident but also by all acknowledged who are able to judge of them Want of Catholick Tradition in all Ages of the Church from the first giving forth of § 39 any Writing testifying unto its Divine Original is another impeachment of its pretence unto Canonical Authority And this Argument ariseth fatally against the Apochryphal Books before mentioned Some of them are expresly excluded from the Canon by many of the antient Churches nor are any of them competently testified 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 ballance 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 undenyably to be Written by the Apostle St. Paul that eminent Penman of the Holy Ghost Thus clear stands the Canonical Authority of this Epistle It is destitute of no evidence § 40 needful for the manifestation of it nor is it obnoxious unto any just exception against its claim of that priviledge And hence it is come to pass that what ever have been the fears doubts and scruples of some the rash temerarious Objections Conjectures and Censures of others the Care and Providence of God over it as a parcel of his most holy Word working with the prevailing evidence of its Original implanted in it and its Spiritual Efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture hath obtained an absolute Conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe and setled it in a full possession of Canonical Authority in all the Churches of Christ throughout the world Exercitatio II. Of the Penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews Knowledge of the Penman of any part of Scripture not necessary Some of them utterly concealed The Word of God gives Authority unto them that deliver it not the contrary Prophets in things wherein they are not actually inspired subject to mistake St. Paul the Writer of this Epistle The haesitation of Origen Heads of Evidence Vncertainty of them who assign any other Author St. Luke not the Writer of it Nor Barnabas The Epistle under his name Counterfeit His Writing of this Epistle by sundry Reasons disproved Not Apollos Nor Clemens Nor Tertullian Objections against St. Pauls being the Penman Dissimilitude of Style Admitted by the Antients Answer of Origen rejected Of Clemens Hierom c. rejected likewise St. Paul in what sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Eloquence and Skill Causes of the difference in Style between this and other Epistles Coincidence of Expressions in it and them The Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answer of Hierom Rejected Of Theodoret. Of Chrysostome Prejudice of the Jews against St. Paul Not the Cause of the Forbeâ—rance of his Name The true Reason thereof The Hebrews Church State not Changed Faith Evangelical educed from Old Testament Principles and Testimonies Thâ—se pressed on the Hebrews not meer Apostolical Authority Haesitation of the Latin Church about this Epistle answered Other Exceptions from the Epistle it self removed Arguments to prove St. Paul to be the Writer of it Testimony of St. Peter 2 Epist. 3. v. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what S. Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same Persons to whom St. Peter wrote That this Epistle Not that to the Galathians Not one lost The Long-suffering of God how declared to be salvation in this Epistle The Wisdom ascribed unto St. Paul in the Writing of this Epistle wherein it appears The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it Weight of this Testimony The suitableness of this Epistle unto those of the same Author Who competent Judges hereof What required thereunto Testimony of the first Churches or Catholick Tradition Evidences from this Epistle its self The general Argument and Scope Method Way of Arguing All the same with St. Pauls 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 SECOND DISSERTATION § 1 THE Divine Authority of the Epistle being vindicated it is of no great Moment to enquire scrupulously after its Penman Writings that proceed from Divine Inspiration receive no addition of Authority from the Reputation or Esteem of them by whom they were written And this the Holy Ghost hath sufficiently manifested by shutting up the Names of many of them from the knowledge of the Church in all Ages The Close of the Pentateuch hath an uncertain Pen-man 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 whose Authors are known they were not esteemed to be given by Prophesie 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 dayes 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 chiefest of them as the Prophets were rejected and condemned by the Church of the dayes wherein they lived The only way therefore whereby they were proved to be Prophets was by the Word it self which they delivered and wrote and thereon depended the Evidence and Certainty of their being Divinely inspired See Amos 7.14 15 16. Jer. 23.25 26 27 28 29 30 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 and the Prophets themselves were subject to mistakes So was Samuel when he thought Eliab should have been the Lords Annointed 1 Sam. 16.6 and Nathan when he approved the purpose of David to build the Temple 1 Chron. 17.2 and the great Elijah when he supposed none left in Israel that worshipped God aright but himself 1 Kings 19.14 18. It was then as we said the Word of Prophesie that gave the Writers of it the Reputation and
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 Bellarmin chargeth Luther Brentius Chemnitius and the Centuriators with the rejection of this Epistle But because I know that some of them are falsly accused by him I am apt to suspect the same of the rest which I have not the opportunity to consult And so I shall not reckon them 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. Pauls and questioning yea indeed rejecting its Canonicall Authority To them we may add Eniedinus proceeding upon the same principles and making use of their Arguments to the same purpose These are the chief if not absolutely all who have at any time made any scruple at the Authority of this Epistle The reasons they make use of to justifie themselves in their conjectures are amassed together by Erasmus in his Note on the 24. 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 Canonicall 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 shew that it is in generall of no importance in this cause The Author of a Writing being certainly known may indeed give some light unto the nature and Authority of it When it is confessed that the Penman of any Book was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divinely inspired and that by him it was written for the use of the Church there can be no question of its Authority But this last of his design directed by the Holy Ghost must be no less known than the former For a man may write one Book by inspiration and others by a fallible humane Judgement as Solomon seems to have done his Philosophicall 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately acted by the Holy Ghost the writing it self must needs be lyable 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 doubtfull nothing can thence satisfactory 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 shew the insufficiency every way of this Objection we shall abundantly evince that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false The Penman of this Epistle being as well and certainly known as those of any portion of Scripture whatever that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Canonicall Authority because it hath it self been called into question yet as to render an Objection from the uncertainty of its Author altogether unreasonable § 19 The remaining Objections are more particular and direct to their purpose by whom they are pleaded As First that the Author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained Such are many of the Stories related unto in the 11. Chapter and that in particular in Chap. 12. verse 21. where he affirms that Moses upon the Terror of the sight that appeared unto him said I exceedingly quake and tremble This place Erasmus supposeth Hierom to have intended when he sayes 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 Angell in the Bush and not the giving of the Law contrary to the express Discourse of the Context And then he adds dixit saltem facto though he said not so yet he did so And lastly worst of all vel fortè Apostolus aliâ utitur literâ quam nos non habemus or it may be the Apostle used another Text that we have not But there is no need of any of these evasions The Author quotes no Book nor Testimony of the Old Testament but only relates a matter of fact and one circumstance of it which doubtless he had by Divine Revelation whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is Originally recorded Thus in the beginning of the Chronicles sundry particular Stories as that about the Children of Ephraim Chap. 7.21 no wher 's before written are reported from the same infallible directions that others of the same time were written withall when they were omitted And it is uncouth way of proving an Author not to write by Divine inspiration because he writeth Truths that he could no otherwise be acquainted withall Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by Divine inspiration to mention things recorded in other Stories whose Truth is unquestionable as those are related unto Chap. 11. It seems to be of more importance that if the Objectors may be believed the § 20 Writer of this Epistle citeth Testimonies out of the Old Testament that are no wayes to his purpose nor at all prove the matter that he produceth them for discovering at least that he wrote with a fallible spirit if not also that he dealt scarcely bona fide in handling the cause which he undertook Cajetan insists on that of the first Chapter verse 5. I will be unto him a Father and he shall be unto me a Son taken from the 2 Sam. 7.14 or 1 Chron. 17. ◠which words as he supposeth no
nature which he insisted on had been incumbent on him to have declared that he might not lead the Church into a pernicious error in embracing that as given by Inspiration from God which was but a fruit of his Diligence and fallible Indeavours But on the contrary he speaks as in the name of God referring unto him all that he delivers nor can in any Minute Instance be convicted to have wanted his Assistance Circumstances of the general Argument of a Book may also convince it of an humane § 36 or fallible Original This they do for instance in the Book of Judith For such a Nebuchadonosor as should raign in Ninive Chap. 1. v. 1. and make War with Arphaxad King of Ecbatane ver 13. whose Captains and Officers should know nothing at all of the Nation of the Jews Chap. 5. v. 3. that waged War against them in the dayes of Joakim or as other Copies Eliakim the High Priest Ch. 4.5 after whose Defeat the Jews should have peace for eighty years at the least Ch. 16.28.30 is an imagination of that which never had subsistence in rerum natura or a representation of what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Jewish Woman ought as the Author of it conceived undertake for the good of her Country Setting aside the consideration of all other discoveries of the fallibility of the whole Discourse This alone is sufficient to impeach its reputation Our Epistle is no way obnoxious 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 poysonous brood of Hereticks 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 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 when we come to declare the Time when this Epistle was written will evidently appear The most manifest Eviction of any Writing pretending unto the priviledge 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 § 37 can proceed from him but what is absolutely so and Truth being but one every way Vniform and Consonant unto it self 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 Vntrue Impious Light or any way contradictory to the Ascertained Writings of Divine Inspiration all Pleas and pretences unto that priviledge must cease for ever We need no other Proof Testimony or Argument to evince its Original than what its self tenders unto us And by this means also do the Books commonly called Apochryphal unto which the Romanists ascribe Canonical Authority destroy their own pretentions They have all of them on this account long since been cast out of the limits of any tolerable defence Now that no one portion of Scripture is less obnoxious to any exception of this kind from the Subject Matter treated of and Doctrines delivered in it then this Epistle we shall by Gods 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 Opinions of the Novatians had been confirmed in the place as it is not it had been their duty to have relinquished their own Hypothesis and gone over 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 The Style and Method of a Writing may be such as to lay a just Prejudice against its claim of Canonical Authority For although the Subject Matter of a Writing may be good and honest in the main of it and generally suited unto the Analogie of faith § 38 yet there may be in the manner of its composure and Writing such an Ostentation of Wit Fancy Learning or Eloquence such an affectation of Words Phrases and Expressions such Rhetorical paintings of things small and inconsiderable as may sufficiently demonstrate humane Ambition Ignorance Pride or Desire of Applause to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it Much of this Hierom observes in particular concerning the Book entituled the Wisdom of Solomon Written as it is supposed by Philo an Eloquent and Learned man redolet Graecam Eloquentiam This consideration is of deserved moment in the Judgement we are to make of the spring or fountain from whence any Book doth proceed For whereas great variety of Style and in manner of Writings may be observed in the Penmen of Canonical Scripture yet in no one of them do the least footsteps of the failings and sinful infirmities of corrupted nature before mentioned appear When therefore they manifest themselves they cast out the Writings wherein they are from that Harmony and consent which in general appears amongst all the Books of Divine Inspiratâ—on 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
was the fittest to be used in this employment and how well all things of this nature agree unto St. Paul we shall see afterwards § 5 Some have assigned the Writing of this Epistle unto Barnabas Clemens Origen Eusebius make no mention of him Tertullian was the Author of this Opinion and it is reported as his by Hierom. Philastrius also remembers the report of it And it is of late defended by Camero as the former concerning Luke by Grotius whose Reasons for his conjecture are confuted with some sharpness by Spanhemius mindful as it seems of his Fathers Controversie with some of his Scholars The Authority of Tertullian is the sole foundation of this Opinion But as the Book wherein he mentions it was written in his Paroxysme when he uttered not that only unadvisedly so he seems not to lay much weight on the Epistle it self only preferring it unto the Apochryphal Hermes Receptior saith he apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabae illo Apocrypho pastore Maechorum And we have shewed that the Latin Church was for a time somewhat unacquainted with this Epistle so that it is no marvel if one of them should mistake its Author Grotius would disprove this Opinion from the dissimilitude of its style and that which goes under the name of Barnabas which is corrupt and barbarous But there is little weight in that Observation that Epistle being certainly spurious no way savouring the Wisdom or Spirit of him on whom it hath been vulgarly imposed But yet that it was that Epistle which is cited by some of the Antients under the name of Barnabas and not this unto the Hebrews is well proved by Baronius from the names that Hierom mentions out of that Epistle which are no where to be found in this to the Hebrews But that Epistle of Barnabas is an open fruit of that vanity which prevailed in many about the third and fourth Ages of the Church of personating in their Writings some Apostolical Persons wherein they seldom or never kept any good decorum as might easily be manifested in this particular instance As to our present Case the Reason before mentioned is of the same validity against this as the other Opinion concerning Luke whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added Barnabas was not an Apostle properly and strictly so called nor had Apostolical Mission or Authority but rather seems to have been one of the LXX Disciples as Epiphanius affirms And Eusebius a Person less credulous than he acknowledging that a just and true Catalogue of them could not be given yet placeth Barnabas as the first of them concerning whom all agreed Much weight indeed I shall not lay hereon seeing it is evident that the Catalogues given us by the Antients of those Disciples are nothing but a rude Collection of such names as they found in the Books of the New Testament applied without Reason or Testimony but Apostle he was none Many circumstances also concurr to the removal of this conjecture The Epistle was written in Italy Chap. 13.24 where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was The fabulous Author I confess of the Rhapsedy called the Recognitions of Clemens tells us that Barnabas went to Rome taking along Clemens with him and returning into Judaea found St. Peter at Caesarea But St. Luke in the Acts gives us another account both where Barnabas was and how he was employed at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things For whilst St. Peter was at Caesarea Acts 10.1 Barnabas was at Hierusalem Acts 9.27 being a little while after sent to Antioch by the Apostles chap. 11.22 Again Timothy was the Companion of the Writer of this Epistle chap. 13.23 a Person as far as appears unknown unto Barnabas being taken into St. Pauls Society after their difference and separation Acts 15.39 chap. 16.1 He had also been in bonds or imprisonment chap. 10.34 whereof we cannot at that time learn any thing concerning Barnabas those of St. Paul being known unto all And lastly not long before the Writing of this Epistle Barnabas was so far from that Light into and Apprehension of the nature use and expiration of Judaical Rites herein expressed that he was easily mislead into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them Gal. 2.13 wherein although some after Hieroms fancy that the difference between St. Peter and St. Paul was only in pretence have laboured to free St. Peter and his Companions on other grounds from any sinful failing as it should seem in a direct opposition unto the Testimony of St. Paul affirming that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that particular he was to be blamed or condemned vâ—r 11. not unlike him who hath written a justification of Aaron in his making the Golden Calf yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical Institutions is evident from the Text. And shall we suppose that He who but a little before upon the coming of some few Brethren of the Church of Jerusalem from St. James durst not avouch and abide by his own personal Liberty but deserted the use of it not without some blameable dissimulation Gal. 2.13 should now with so much Authority write an Epistle unto that Church with St. James and all the Hebrews in the world concurring with them in Judgement and Practice about that very thing wherein himself out of respect unto them had particularly miscarried This certainly was rather the work of St. Paul whose Light and Constancy in the Doctrine delivered in this Epistle with his engagements in the defence of it above all the rest of the Apostles is known from the story of the Acts and his own other Writings Apollos hath been thought by some to be the Penman of this Epistle and that because § 6 it answers the Character given of him For it is said that he was an Eloquent man mighty in the Scripture fervent in Spirit and one that mightily convinced the Jews out of the Scripture it self Acts 18.24 28. all which things appear throughout this whole Discourse But this Conjecture hath no Countenance from Antiquity no mention being made of any Epistle written by Apollos or of any thing else so that he is not reckoned by Hierom amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers nor by those who interpolated that work with some Fragments out of Sophronius Nor is he reported by Clemens Origen or Eusebius to have been by any esteemed the Author of this Epistle However I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the Observation mentioned if the Excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him yea had they not all of them been found in St. Paul and that in a manner and degree more eminent than in the other But this being so the ground of this Conjecture is taken from under it Origen Eusebius and Hierom in the places forecited mention a report concerning some § 7 who ascribed this Epistle unto Clemens Romanus
this Epistle to have been written by St. Paul the Testimony given unto it by St. Peter deserves Consideration in the first place and is indeed of it self sufficient to determine the Enquiry about it His Words to this purpose Epist. 2. Chap. 3. v. 15 16. are And account that the Long-suffering of our Lord is Salvation even as our beloved Brother Paul also according unto the Wisdom given unto him hath written unto you as also in all his Epistles speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures unto their own destruction To clear this Testimony some few things must be observed in it and concerning it As 1. That St. Peter wrote this Second Epistle unto the same Persons that is the same Churches and People to whom he wrote his First This to omit other Evidences of it himself testifies Chap. 3.1 This Second Epistle Beloved I now write unto you it was not only absolutely his Second Epistle but the Second which he wrote to the same Persons handling in both the same general Argument as himself in the next words affirms 2. That his First Epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian Dispersion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the Elect Strangers of the Dispersion of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Chap. 1.1 that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. James styles the same Persons Chap. 1.1 the twelve Tribes or Hebrews of the twelve Tribes of Israel in their Dispersion These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those whom the Jews of Jerusalem called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 7.35 the Dispersion or those of their Nation that were dispersed among the Gentiles Those especially they intend in the Greek Empire These they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dispersion or scattering of Israel when they were sifted amongst all Nations like the sifting of a Sieve Amos 9.9 Psal. 147.2 they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the LXX according to the Phrase in their dayes render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dispersions or those scattered abroad of Israel as Isaiah calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 27. v. 13. So that there is no question but that these were they whom St. Peter calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pontus Galatia c. As St. James extending his Salutation to the same people in all places the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Twelve Tribes Besides many things insisted on by St. Peter in these Epistles were peculiar to the Hebrews who also were his especial Care See 1 Epist. Chap. 1.10 11 12. Chap. 2.9 21. Chap. 3.5.6 Chap. 4.7 17. Eph. 2.19 20 21. Chap. 2.1 11 c. Chap. 3.10 11 12 13 14. and many other particular places of the same nature may be observed in them To summ up our Evidence in this particular Peter being in an especial manner the Apostle of the Circumcision or Hebrews Gal. 2.7 having by his first Sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia Pontus and Asia Acts 2.9 10 41. ascribing that Title unto them to whom he wrote which was the usual and proper Appellation of them in all the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 James 1.1 John 7.35 treating with them for the most part about things peculiar to them in a special manner and that with Arguments and from Principles peculiarly known unto them as the places above quoted will manifest there remains no ground of Question but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote Nor are the Exceptions that are made to this Evidence of any such importance as once to deserve a remembrance by them who design not a protracting of their Discourses by insisting on things unnecessary Now it is plain in this Testimony asserted That St. Paul wrote a peculiar Epistle unto § 22 them unto whom St. Peter wrote his that is to the Hebrews he hath written unto you as also in all his Epistles that is in all his other Epistles Besides his other Epistles to other Churches and Persons he hath also written one unto you So that if St. Peters Testimony may be received St. Paul undoubtedly wrote an Epistle unto the Hebrews But this may be say some another Epistle and not this we treat on particularly that to the Galatians which treateth about Judaical Customs and Worship But this Epistle mentioned by St. Peter was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles This to the Galatians is written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jewes so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have been fixed upon Besides he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St. Peter which are indeed the main Subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews But say others Paul indeed might write an Epistle to the Hebrews which may be lost and this that we have might be written by some other But whence this Answer should proceed but from a resolution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Light and Conviction I know not May we give place to such rash and presumptuous Conjectures we shall quickly have nothing left entire or stable For why may not another as well say it is true Moses wrote Five Books but they are lost and these that we have under his Name were written by another It is not surely one jot less intolerable for any one without ground proof or Testimony to affirm that the Church hath lost an Epistle written to the Hebrews by St. Paul and taken up one in the room thereof written by no man knoweth whom This is not to deal with that Holy Reverence in the things of God which becomes us St. Peter declares that St. Paul in that Epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews had § 23 declared the Long-suffering of God whereof he had minded them to be salvation We must see what was this Long-suffering of God how it was Salvation and how Paul had manifested it so to be The Long-sufferance Patience or Forbearance of God is either absolute toward man in general or special in reference unto some sort of Men or some kind of Sins or Provocations that are amongst them The first of these is not that which is here intended Nor was there any reason why St. Peter should direct the Jews to the Epistles of St. Paul in particular to learn the Long-suffering of God in General which is so plentifully revealed in the whole Scripture both of the Old and New Testament and only occasionly at any time mentioned by St. Paul There was therefore an Especial Long-suffering of God which at that time he exercised towards the Jews waiting for the Conversion and the gathering of his Elect unto him before that total and final destruction which they had deserved should come upon that Church and State This he compares to the Long-suffering of God
separation to bring forth the Messiah then failed and therewith their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham 2. The Ordinances of Worship suited unto that Priviledge expired and came to an end 3. New Ordinances of Worship were appointed suited unto the New Light and grace granted then unto the Church 4. The Gentiles came in to the faith of Abraham together with the Jews to be fellow-heirs with them in his blessing But none of these nor all of them together made any such Alteration in the Church but that it was still one and the same The Olive Tree was the same only some branches were broken of and others planted in the Jews fell and the Gentiles came in their room And this must and doth determine the difference between the Jews and Christians § 8 about the Promises of the Old Testament They are all made unto the Church No individual Person hath any interest in them but by vertue of his Membership therewith This Church is and alwayes was one and the same With whomsoever it remains the Promises are theirs and that not by Application or Analogie but directly and properly They belong as immediately at this day either to the Jews or Christians as they did of old to any The Question is with whom is this Church founded on the promised seed in the Covenant This is Sion Jerusalem Israel Jacob the Temple of God The Jews plead that it is with them because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh Christians tell them that their Priviledge on this account was of another nature and ended with the coming of the Messiah That the Church unto whom all the Promises belong are only those who are Heirs of Abrahams faith believing as he did and thereby interested in his Covenant Not as though the Promise made to Abraham were of none effect for as it was made good unto his carnal seed in the exhibition of the Messiah so the spiritual Priviledges of it belonged only unto those of the Jews and Gentiles in whom God had graciously purposed to effect the faith of Abraham Thus was and is the Church whereunto all the Promises belong still one and the same namely Abrahams children according to the faith and among those Promises this is one that God will be a God unto them and their seed for ever Exercitatio VII Of the Judaicall distribution of the Old Testament the Originall and Nature of their Orall Law and Traditions the whole disproved Agreement of the Jews and Papists about Traditions instanced in sundry particulars THE Apostle dealing with the Hebrews about the Revelation of the Will of § 1 God made unto their Fathers assigns it in generall unto his speaking unto them in the Prophets v. 1. This speaking unto them the present Jews affirm to consist of two Parts 1. That which Moses and the following Prophets was commanded to write for the publick use of the Church 2. What being delivered only by word of Mouth unto Moses and continued by Orall Tradition untill after the last destruction of the Temple was afterwards committed unto writing And because those who would read our Exposition of this Epistle or the Epistle it self with profit had need of some insight into the Opinions and Traditions of the Jews about these things I shall for the sake of them that want either Skill or Leisure to search after them elsewhere give a brief account of their faith concerning the two Heads of Revelation mentioned and therein discover both the Principle Means and Nature of their present Apostacy and Infidelity The Scripture of the Old Testament they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and divide it into three § 2 parts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Writings by Divine Inspiration which are usually called the Hagiographa or Holy Writings And this distribution of the Books of the Old Testament is in general intimated by our Saviour Luke 24.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things written in the Law the Prophets and the Psalms under which last head all the Poetical Books of the Scripture are contained Thus Rabbi Bechai in Cad Hackemach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law so sometimes they call the whole Volume is divided into three parts the Law the Prophets and the Holy Writings All comprized generally under the Name of the Law for so they say in Midrash Tehillim Psalm 78. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Psalms are the Law and the Prophets are the Law that is the whole Scripture This distribution so far as it is intimated in the words of our Saviour doth evidently arise from the Nature and Subject Matter of the Books themselves And this was the received division of the Books of the Old Testament whilest the Judaical Church stood and Continued But the Postalmudicall Doctors overlooking or neglecting the true Reason of this Distribution have fancied others taken from the different manners and degrees of Revelation by which they were given out unto the Church Amongst these they make the Revelation to Moses the most excellent and are very vain in coining the Priviledges and Preeminences it had above all others which are elsewhere examined In the next degree they place those which proceeded from the Spirit of Prophesie which they distinguish from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost Yea in the eleven degrees of Divine Revelation assigned by Maimonides Mor. Nebu par 2. That by Inspiration is cast into the last and lowest place But this distinction is groundless and meerly fancied out of the various wayes that God was pleased to use in representing things to the minds of the Prophets when it was in them all the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost alone that enabled them infallibly to declare the mind of God unto the Church 2 Pet. 1.21 Now the Books thus given by the Spirit of Prophesie they make of two sorts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former Prophets which are all the Historical Books of the Old Testament written before the Captivity as Joshua Judges Samuel Kings Ruth only excepted 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all the Prophetical Books peculiarly so called Daniel only excepted that is Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel and the twelve Minor Prophets Of the last sort or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cethubim Books written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost are the Poetical Books of the Scripture Psalms Job Proverbs Canticles Lamentations with Ecclesiastes whereunto they add Ruth Daniel and the Historical Books written after the Captivity as the Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah which make up the Canon of the Old Testament why sundry of these Books should be cast into the last sort as the Story of Ruth and the Prophesie of Daniel they can give no tolerable account The other Books also written after the Captivity are plainly of the same nature with those which they call the former Prophets And for that of Daniel it contains in it
almost all the eminent kinds of Revelation whereby themselves would distinguish the Spirit of Prophesie from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost Neither have they any Reason for this distribution but finding the general division before mentioned to have been received in the Church of old they have disposed of the particular Books into their orders at their pleasure casting Daniel as is probable into their last order because so many of his Visions and Prophesies relate unto other Nations besides their own The Law or the Books of Moses they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pentateuch from the number of the Books or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fives or the five parts of the Law whereunto Hierom in his Epistle to Paulinus wrests those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.19 I had rather speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 five words in the Church as if he had respect to the Law of Moses These five Books they divide into Paraschae or Sections whereof they read one each Sabbath day in their Synagogues Genesis into twelve Exodus into eleven Leviticus into ten Numbers into ten Deuteronomy into ten which all make fifty-three whereby reading one each day and two in one day they read through the whole in the course of a year beginning at the Feast of Tabernacles And this they did of old as James testifies Acts 15.21 For Moses of Old time hath in every City them that preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Some of them make fifty four of these Sections dividing the last of Genesis into two beginning the latter at Chap. 47. v. 18. constituting the following Chapter in a distinct Section though it have not the usual note of them prefixed unto it but only one single Samech to note as they say its being absolutely closed or shut up on the account of the Prophesie of the coming of the Messiah Chap. 49. whose season is unknown to them They also divide it into lesser Sections and those of two sorts open and close which § 3 have their distinct marks in their Bibles and many superstitious Observations they have about the beginning and ending of them Of the first sort there are in Gen. 43. of the latter 48. In Exodus of the first sort 69. of the latter 95. In Leviticus of the first sort 52. of the Latter 46. In Numbers of the first 92. of the latter 66. Deuteronomy of the first sort 34. of the latter 379. in all 669. Besides they observe the number of the Verses at the end of every Book as also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 11.42 is the middle letter of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10 16. the middle word Levit. 13.33 the middle Verse the number of all which through the Law is 23206. Moreover they divide the Law or five Books of Moses into 153. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedarim or Distinctions whereof Genesis contains 42. Exodus 29. Leviticus 23. Numbers 32. Deuteronomy 27. which kind of Distinctions they also observe throughout the Scripture assigning unto Joshuah 14. Judges 14. Samuel 34. Kings 35. Isaiah 26. Jeremiah 31. Ezekiel 29. the Lesser Prophets 21. Psalms 19. Job 8. Proverbs 8. Ecclesiastes 4. Canticles and Lamentations are not divided Daniel 7. Ester 7. Ezra and Nehemiah 10. Chronicles 25. Besides they distribute the Prophets into Sections called Haphters that answer the Sections which are read every Sabbath day in their Synagogues And this Division of the Prophets they affirm to have been made in the dayes of Antiochus Epiphanes whom they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one when the reading of the Law was prohibited unto them All which things are handled at large by others Having for a long season lost the Promise of the Spirit and therewith all saving § 4 spiritual Knowledge of the mind and will of God in the Scripture the best of their employment about it hath been in reference to the Words and Letters of it wherein their diligence hath been of use in the preservation of the Copies of it entire and free from corruption For after that the Canon of the Old Testament was compleated in the dayes of Ezra and Points or Vowels added to the Letters to preserve the Knowledge of the Tongue and facilitate the right Reading and Learning of it it is incredible what industry diligence and curiosity they have used in and about the Letter of the whole Scripture The collection of their pains and Observations to this purpose is called the Massora or Messara consisting in Criticall Observations upon the words and letters of the Scripture begun to be collected of old even it may be from the dayes of Ezra and continued untill the time of Composing the Talmud with some additional Observations since annexed unto it The Writers Composers and Gatherers of this work they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose principal Observations were gathered and published by Rabbi Jacob Chaiim and annexed to the Venetian Bibles whereas before the Massora was written in other Books innumerable In this their Critical Doctrine they give us the number of the Verses of the Scripture as also how often every Word is used in the whole and with what variety as to Letters and Vowels what is the whole number of all the Letters in the Bible and how often each Letter is severally used with innumerable other useful Observations the summ whereof is gathered by Buxtorfe in his excellent Treatise on that subject And herein is the knowledge of their Masters bounded they go not beyond the Letter but are more blind than Moles in the Spiritual sense of it And thus they continue an example of the righteous Judgement of God in giving them up to the Counsells of their own hearts and an evident instance how unable the Letter of the Scripture is to furnish men with the saving knowledge of the Will of God who enjoy not the Spirit promised in the same Covenant to the Church of the Elect Isa 59.21 § 5 Unto that ignorance of the mind of God in the Scripture which is spread over them they have added another prejudice against the Truth in a strange Figment of an Orall Law which they make equall unto yea in many things prefer before that which is written The Scripture becoming a lifeless Letter unto them the true understanding of the mind of God being utterly departed and hid from them it was impossible that they should rest therein or content themselves with what is revealed by it For as the word whilest it is enjoyed and used according to the mind of God and is accompanied with that Spirit which is promised to lead them that believe into all Truth is full of sweetness and life to the souls of men a perfect Rule of walking before God and that which satiates them with wisdom and knowledge so when it is enjoyed meerly on an outward account as such a writing without any dispensation of suitable Light
as occasion did require What the People knew of it is uncertain but what they did so was quickly lost The Consistory or great Sanhedrim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they call it the House of Judgement of Seventy and one was more faithfull in its charge Hence Rab. Moses in the same Book Tractat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Rebells or Transgressors teacheth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Consistory or House of Judgement at Jerusalem was the foundation of the Orall Law These are the Pillars of Doctrine from whom Statutes and Judgements went forth unto all all Israel And he afterwards affirms with what Truth may be easily judged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whilest this great Consâ—story continued there was no dissention in Israel For not only the famous differences between Hillel and Shammai with their Disciples which involved all the Schools Scribes and Lawyers among them arose and were propagated whilest that Consâ—story continued but also the Atheistical Sect of the Sadduces rose unto that height and interest as to obtain the Presidentship in the Sanhedrim its self But the High Priests are those whom they fix upon as the principal Conservators of this Orall Law To this End they give us Catalogues of them from first to last that by their uninterrupted Succession we we may be secured of the incorrupt preservation of their Original Traditions Only it may here be added by the way that they bind not themselves precisely in all their Religious Observances unto this Oral Law whereunto they assign a Divine Original but ascribe an Authority unto the Sanhedrim and the High Priest to constitute things of themselves in the Worship of God besides and beyond the word For whatever they pretend of their Orall Law when they come unto particular Instances they would fain educe the Constitutions of it from some Word or Letter or manner of Interpretation of the Scripture its self But those Constitutions of the Consistory and Wisemen they ascribe unto their own Authority Some of these are recounted by Maimonides in his Preface unto Jad Chazaka as the Reading of the Book or Roll of Esther with Fasting lights on the Feast of Dedication The Fast on the seventh of Ab. or July various Mixtures and Washings of hands things plainly of that nature which our Lord Jesus condemned amongst them And it is observable how he frees them from transgressing that Precept Deut. 12.32 Thou shalt not add unto this word by this Constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For saith he they say not that the holy blessed God hath commanded these things that there should be such Mixtures that the Book of Esther should be read with fasting for if they should say so they should add to the Law but thus we speak such and such a Prophet or the Consistory commanded and appointed that the Book of Esther should be read with fasting to celebrate the Glory of the Holy Blessed God in our Deliverance and so of the rest It seems then they may add what they will of their own so they entitle not the Name of God to their Inventions by which means they have set themselves at liberty to multiply superstitious Observations at their pleasure which they had actually done in the dayes of our Saviour and thereby made the Law of God of none effect In all these things are they followed and imitated by the Romanists In the same manner do they lay up the stock of their Traditions In general they make the Church the repository of them although they do not so distinctly explain the way and means whereby they were committed thereunto as the Jews do Unto the Sanhedrim Councils are succeeded in the same Office But their Nature Work Authority Assistance and Use are so variously disputed amongst them that nothing of certainty from them or by them singly considered is to be obtained It is the High Priest or Pope that is the Principal Conservator of this Sacred Treasury of Traditions Upon their Succession doth the certainty of them depend And whilest there is a Pope at Rome the knowledge of the new Orall Law will not fail as the Old one did not whilest the Jews had an High Priest though in the pursuit of it they Crucified the Messiah and continue to reject him unto this day Besides like the Jews they content not themselves with what they pretend to be of antient Tradition but assume a Power of making new Constitutions in the things of God whereby they would have us to think they do not violate the prohibitions of adding because they ascribe them not unto the Word of God but to the Authority of the present Church Thus far therefore they are fully agreed Thirdly The Jews in favour and unto the Honour of these Traditions affirm that the § 18 written Word without them is imperfect and not to be understood but as it is interpreted by them This they are constant unto and earnestly contend for Aben Ezra in his Preface to the Law discourseth at large of five several wayes of the Interpretation of it but concludes at last that the whole written Law of Moses is founded on the Orall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is a sign unto us that the Law of Moses is founded on the Orall Law which is the joy of our hearts so apt are they to rejoyce in a thing of nought To the same purpose are the words of another Famous Master amongst them Rabbi Bechai in Cad Hakkemach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Orall Law is the Foundation of the written nor can the Written Law be expounded but by the Oral By this being the Foundation of the Written Law they intend that the sense of it is so enwrapped and contained therein that without the Explications thereof it cannot be understood And to this End Manasse one of their late Masters expresly disputes that in many things it is defective and in some things redundant so that it is not able to give us a full and clear direction in the things of God without their Traditional Explications and in the confirmation of his opinion he instanceth in sundry Precepts and Prohibitions that he would prove so obscure as that no Obedience can be yielded unto them in a due manner without the help of the Cabala which because for the most part his Exceptions from them are Childish Cavils and have been answered by others shall be here passed over This they are arrived unto this is the common perswasion of them all and we shall yet hear what farther Progress they have made And herein are they imitated by their Successors Their Orall Law also is made by them the foundation of the Written As those Hereticks of old who having got some Sophistical Cavils about Evil where ever they met with any one not of their mind they presently fell upon him with their Vnde maluâ—n whence had evil its Original so thinking to bring them to the acknowledgement of two
him the Name of God and shall fulfill the whole Law is a blessed Truth This Fagius and Munster before him observed out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bundle of Myrrh a Cahalistical Comment on the Pentateuch by R. Abraham But they all contend against the Application of this Prediction unto our Lord Jesus Christ for when say they did he smite the Corners of Moab when did he destroy all the Children of Seth and how were those words v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they interpret and Israel shall gather wealth or substance fulfilled But we have sufficiently proved the Messiah to be a Spiritual Redeemer and therefore however his Kingdom may be expressed in words signifying literally outward and temporal things yet things spiritual and eternall are to be understood as figuratively set out by the other Neither can these words be absolutely understood according to the Letter For whereas Seth was the Son given unto Adam in the room of Abel and all the Posterity of Cain wa◠cut off at the Flood if the Messiah destroy literally all the children of Seth he must not leave any one man alive in the world which certainly is not the work he was promised for Besides the Lord Christ hath partly already and in due time will utterly destroy all the stubborn Enemies of his Kingdom Neither can the Jews press the instance of Moab literally seeing themselves by Edom do constantly understand Rome or the Roman Empire Deut. 18. v. 15 16 17 18 19. This place is an eminent Prophesie concerning the § 11 Messiah and his Prophetical Office not before any where mentioned But the Law being now given which was to continue inviolably unto his coming Mal. 4.4 when it was to be changed removed and taken away this part of his work that he was to make the last full perfect Declaration of the will of God is now declared The Targums are here silent of him for they principally attend unto those places which make mention of his Kingdom Rashi refers the words unto the series of Prophets which were afterwards raised up Aben Ezra to Joshua others to Jeremiah upon the rejection of whose warnings the people were carried into captivity which they collect from v. 19. Whatever now they pretend of old they looked for some one signal Prophet from this place which should immediately come before the Messiah himself Thence was that Question in their Examination of John Baptist Art thou that Prophet John 1.21 namely whom they looked for from this Prediction of Moses But it is the Messiah himself and none other that is intended For First None other ever arose like unto Moses This is twice repeated in the words of Moses unto the people v. 15. God will raise thee up a Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like unto me and in the words of God to Moses v. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like unto thee as thou art Lipman a blasphemous Jew in his Nizzachon contends that Jesus cannot be intended because he was not like Moses for Moses was a man only Jesus declared himself to be God Moses had Father and Mother Jesus had not as we say But the comparison intended doth not at all respect their Persons or their Natures but their Office It was in the Prophetical Office that the Prophet foretold was to be like unto Moses It is a Law-giver one that should institute New Ordinances of Worship by the Authority of God for the use and Observance of the whole Church as Moses did one that should reveal the whole will of God as Moses did as to that season wherein God employed him That this could not be Joshua nor any of the Prophets that ensued is evident from that Testimony of the Holy Ghost Deut. 34. v. 10. There arose not since a Prophet in Israel like unto Moses This must therefore be referred unto some singular Prophet who was then to come or there is an express contradiction in the Text. And this is none other but the Messiah concerning whom they acknowledge that he shall be a Prophet above Moses Secondly the extermination threatned unto the people upon their disobedience unto this Prophet here promised v. 19. never befell them untill they had rejected the Lord Jesus the true and only Messiah Wherefore this place is rightly applyed unto him in the New Testament Acts 3.22 23. Chap. 7.37 And we have hence a farther discovery of the Nature of the Deliverer and Deliverance promised of old and therein of the Faith of the Antient Church He was to be a blessed Prophet to reveal the mind and will of God which also he hath done unto the utmost And from this place it is that the Jews themselves in Midrash Coheleth cap. 1. say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The latter Redeemer is to be like the former Deut. 25. v. 19. Thou shalt blot out the Remembrance of Amaleck from under Heaven § 12 thou shalt not forget it Jonathan Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And also in the dayes of the Messiah the King thou shalt not forget it But as this savours too much of those revengefull thoughts which they frequently discover themselves to be filled withall so all these apprehensions proceed from the Old Tradition that by the Messiah we should be delivered from the hands of all our Enemies which they being carnal and earthly do wrest to give countenance unto their own desires and imaginations Deut. 30. v. 4. If any of thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven from thence § 13 will the Lord thy God gather thee and from thence will he fetch thee Jonath Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from thence will the word of the Lord gather thee by the hand of Elijah the great Priest and from thence will he bring thee by the hand of Messiah the King The place is not amiss applyed unto the Deliverance which they shall one day have by the Messiah for it is to happen after the whole Curse of the Law is come upon them for their disobedience and that they shall turn again unto the Lord by Repentance v. 1 2. And whereas the words are doubled they suppose them to intimate a-double work of Deliverance one whereof they have committed to Elias from Mal. 4. v. 5. who was to be and was the fore-runner of the Messiah And these are places in the Books of Moses wherein they acknowledge that mention is made of the Messiah For that way whereby the Church of old was principally instructed in his work and office namely in the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law they know nothing of it nor shall it here be insisted on seeing it must have so large a place in the Exposition of the Epistle its self § 14 1 Sam. 2.10 He shall give strength unto his King and exalt the horn of his annointed Targ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he shall exalt the Kingdom of his Messiah In Midrash Tillim also on
Psalm 75. they ascribe this place unto the Messiah and reckon his Horn as the tenth horn of strength granted unto Israel R. Levi Ben Gershom understands by the King in the first place He shall give strength unto his King Saul and by Messiah in the close of the words David who was to be annointed by Samuel the Son of Hanna whose words these are Kimchi applies the words to the Mâ—ssiah whom as he sayes she intended by the Spirit of Prophesie or spoke of from Tradition And indeed the words seem directly to intend him For by him alone doth the Lord judge the Ends of the Earth and he was the Annointed whose Power he would signally exalt And I mention this place only as an instance of the Faith of the Church of old who in all their mercies still had a regard unto the Great Promise of the Messiah which was the Fountain of them all And therefore Hanna here closeth her Prophetical Eulogie with her acknowledgement thereof and faith therein § 15 2 Sam. 23. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that Ruleth in man just Ruler in or of the fear of the Lord Targ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He said he would appoint unto me a King which is the Messiah who shall arise and Rule in the fear of the Lord. And it refers thâ—s whole last Prophesie of David or his last words that he spake by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost unto the dayes of the Messiah whence it gives this Preface unto them These are the words of the Prophesie of David which he prophâ—sied concerning the End of the world or for the end of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the dayes of Consolation that were to come Rab. Isaiah and Rashi interpret the words of David himself and Kimchi also but he mentions the application of it unto the Messiah who was to come of David whom God would raise up unto him which he approveth of Christian Expositors who follow the Jews interpret those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rock of Israel spake to me by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spake concerning me that is by Samuel who annointed me to be King Some he spake unto me by Nathan Our Translators keep to the Letter he spake unto me And that alone answers unto the words of the Verse foregoing The Spirit of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spake in me or to me so are the Revelations of God expressed See Zech. 4. v. 1 4. and it expresseth the Communication of the mind of God unto the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not his speaking by him unto others And from these very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit of the Lord spake in me do the Jews take occasion to cast the writings of David amongst those which they assign unto that kind of Revelation which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Books written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost The other words also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word was in my tongue manifest that it is David himself that is spoken unto and not of in the third Verse and therefore it is some other who is Prophesied of by him namely the Messiah And this the words whereby he is described do also manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruling in man that is saith Jarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over Israel who is called man as it is said and ye the flock of my pasture are men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are man Ezek. 34.1 But where the word Adam is used with this praefix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here it no where signifies Israel but is expresly used in a contradistinction from them as Jerem. 32.20 which hast set Signs and Wonders in the Land of Aegypt even unto this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Israel and in Adam that is as we render it amongst other men that are not Israel So that if any especial sort of men are intended in this Expression it is not Israel but other men And indeed this word is commonly used to denote mankind in general as Gen. 6. v. 3. Chap. 9. v. 6. Exod. 8.18 Chap. 9.10 Chap. 13.2 and universally where ever it is used it signifies either all mankind or humane nature So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he who is the Ruler over all mankind which is the Messiah alone Unless we shall inteâ—pret this Expression by that of Psal. 68. v. 19. Thou hast ascended on high thou hast lead captivity captive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepisti dona in homine and thou hast received gifts in man that is in the humane nature exalted whereof the Psalmist treats in that place For whereas the Apostle Ephâ—s 4. v. 8. renders these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gave gifts unto men it is manifest that he expresseth the End and Effect of that which is spoken in the Psalm for the Lord Christ received gifts in his own humane nature that he might give and bestow them on others as Peter declareth Acts 2. v. 33. The remainder also of the words contain a description of the Messiah He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the just and Righteous One Acts 3.14 And He alone is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that rules in the things that concern the fear and Worship of God Isa. 11. v. 2 3. So that this place doth indeed belong unto the faith of the Antient Church concerning the Messiah 1 Kings 4. v. 33. In stead of those words concerning Solomon He spake of Trees § 16 from the Cedar Tree that is in Lebanon unto the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall The Targum reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And be Prophecied of the Kings of the house of David in this world the duration of time and state of things under the Old Testament and of the Messiah in the world to câ—me so they call the dayes of the Messiah I know of none who have considered what occasion the Targumists could take from the words of the Text to mention this matter in this place I will not say that he doth not intend the Book of Canticles wherein under an Allegory of Trees Herbs and Spices Solomon Prophesieth of and sets forth the Grace and Love of Christ towards his Church and wherein many things are by the latter Targumist applied unto the Messiah also as we shall see There is mention likewise made of the Messiah in the Targum by an addition unto § 17 the Text Ruth 3. v. 15. It was said in the Prophesie that six Righteous Persons should come of Ruth David and Daniel with his Companions and the King Mâ—ssiah The general End of the writing of this Book of Ruth was to declare the Providence of God about the Genealogie of the Messiah And this seems to have been kept in Tradition amongst them And for this Cause doth Matthew expresly mention her name in his Rehearsal of the Genealogie of Christ Mâ—t.
Relation unto God in and through him they received by his means God gathering up all things to a consistency and permanency in him Ephes. 1.10 And hence also it became equal that the Rule and power over them should be committed unto him by whom although they were not like us recovered from ruine yet they were preserved from all danger of it So that in their subjection unto him consists their principal Honour and all their safety And as this act of God in appointing Christ Lord of Angels hath these equitable foundations so it hath also sundry glorious Ends. 1. It was as an addition unto that Glory that was set before him in his undertaking to redeem sinners A Kingdom was of old promised unto him and to render it exceedingly glorious the Rule and Scepter of it is extended not only to his Redeemed ones but to the holy Angels also and the sovereignty over them is granted him as a part of his Reward Phil. 2.8 9 10 11. Ephes. 1.20 21. 2. God hereby gathers up his whole family at first distinguished by the Law of their Creation into two especial kinds and then differenced and set at variance by Sin into one Body under one Head reducing them that originally were twain into one entire family Ephes. 1.10 In the fulness of time he gathered together in one all things in Christ both which are in heaven and which are in earth in him as was before declared Before this the Angels had no immediate created Head for themselves are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Psal. 97.7 1 Cor. 8.5 Who ever is the Head must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of Gods or Lord of Lords which Christ alone is and in him or under him as One Head is the whole Family of God united 3. The Church of Mankind militant on the earth whose conduct unto Eternal Glory is committed unto Christ stands in need of the ministery of Angels And therefore hath God granted Rule and Power over them unto him that nothing might be wanting to enable him to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by him So God hath given him to be head over all things to the Church Ephes. 1.22 that he should with an absolute sovereignty use and dispose of all things to the benefit and advantage of the Church This is the first branch of the Lordship and Dominion of Christ according to the distribution of the severals of it before laid down He is Lord of Angels and they are all of them his servants the fellow-servants of them that have the testimony of Jesus And as some men do wilfully cast themselves by their Religious adoration of Angels under the curse of Canaan to be servants unto servants Gen. 8.25 so it is the great honour and priviledge of true believers that in their worship of Christ they are admitted into the society of an innumerable company of Angels Heb. 12.22 Rev. 15.11 13. for they are not ashamed to esteem them their fellow-servants whom their Lord and King is not ashamed to call his Brethren And herein consists our communion with them that we have one common Head and Lord and any intercourse with them but only on this account or any worship performed towards them breaks the bond of that communion and causeth us not to hold the Head Col. 2.19 The priviledge the safety and advantage of the Church from this subjection of Angels to its Head and Saviour are by many spoken unto II. There is another sort of Angels who by sin left their primitive station and fell off from God of whom their Sin Fall Malice Wrath Business Craft in evil and Final judgment the Scripture treateth at large These belong not indeed to the possession of Christ as he is the Heir but they belong unto his Dominion as he is a Lord. Though he be not a King and Head unto them yet he is a Judge and Ruler over them All things being given into his hand they also are subjected unto his power Now as under the former head I shall consider 1. The Right or Equity and 2. The End of this Authority of Christ over this second sort of the first Race of Intellectual Creatures the Angels that have sinned 1. As before this Right is founded in his Divine Nature by vertue whereof he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit for this Dominion He made these Angels also and therefore as God hath an absolute Dominion over them The Creatures cannot cast off the Dominion of the Creator by rebellion though they may lose their moral Relation unto God as obedient creatures yet their natural as creatures cannot be dissolved God will be God still be his creatures never so wicked and if they obey not his Will they shall bear his Justice And this Dominion of Christ over faln Angels as God makes the grant of Rule over them to him as Mediator just and equal 2. The immediate and peculiar Foundation of his Right unto Rule over faln Angels rendring the special grant of it equal and righteous is Lawful Conquest This gives a special Right Gen. 48.22 Now that Christ should conquer faln Angels was promised from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 The seed of the woman the Messias was to break the Serpents head despoil him of his power and bring him into subjection which he performed accordingly Col. 2.15 He spoiled principalities and powers divested faln Angels of all that Title they had got to the world by the sin of man triumphing over them as Captives to be disposed of at his pleasure He stilled or made to cease as to his power this Enemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-avenger Psal. 8.2 leading captivity captive Psal. 6.18 breaking in pieces the Head over the large earth Psal. 110.6 binding the strong man armed and spoiling his goods And the Scripture of the New Testament is full of instances as to his executing his Power and Authority over Evil Angels They take up a good part of the Historical Books of it Man having sinned by the instigation of Satan he was by the just Judgement of God delivered up unto his power Heb. 2.14 The Lord Christ undertaking to recover lost man from under his power by destroying his works 1 Joh. 3.8 and to bring them again into favour with God Satan with all his might sets himself to oppose him in his Work and failing in his enterprise being utterly conquered he became absolutely subjected unto him trodden under his feet and the prey he had taken delivered from him This is the next Foundation of the Authority of Christ over the Evil Angels He had a great Contest and War with them and that about the Glory of God his own Kingdom and the Eternal Salvation of the Elect prevailing absolutely against them he made a Conquest over them and they are put in subjection unto him for ever They are subjected unto him as to their present actings and future condition He now rules them and will