8 Canonical Authority of the 4. 17. Belarminchargeth Luther,Brentius, Chemnitiusand the Centuriators with the rejection De Verb. Dei of this Epitfle. But becaufe I knowthat fonte ofthem are falilyaccufed by him, lam' i. cep. u. apt to raped the Cameof the refl., which I have not the opportunity toconfult ; And fo I fhall not reckon them amongft the oppafers of this Epiftle. The matter is more certain concerningGajetan andErafmus : the former in his Preface unto, the other in his late Annotation on this Epi(tle, denying it to beS`. Pauls, and questioning, yea, in- deed rejecting its Canonical) Authority. To them we may add Eniedinus, proceeding upon the fame principles, and making ufe of their Arguments to the fame purpofè. There are the chief, if notabfolutely. all, who have at any time made anyfcmple at the Authority of this Epif}le. The reafonsthey make ufe of to jn(fifie thenifelves in their eonjedures,are amaffed together byErafmuss in his Noteon the zq.: Verf of the 1 t Chapter of it : But becaufe he mixeth together the Arguments that he ürüfts on to prove S'. Paul not tohave been the Penmanof it, and the exceptions he puts in unto its Canonical!Authority, whichare things ofa diverfe confideration, I !ball feparatethem, and firft take out thofe that feem abfolutely to impeach its Authority; leaving them that oppofe its Penman, to our enfùingDiCconrfe on that queftion in particular. ¢, ag. Thefirft thing generallypleaded, is the uncertainy of its Authik or Penman. Sola omniumPauli nomen non prefert;faith Erafmus. How unite& and groundlefs this pre- tence is, we (hall afterwards fully manifeft. At prefent J (hall only thew, that it is in generallof no importance in this caufe. TheAuthor ofaWritingbeing certainly known, may indeed give tome light unto the natureand Authority of it ; W hen it is contètfed, that the Penman ofany Book was et6,r use. or divinely infßiréd, and that by him it was written for the ufe of theChurch, there can be no queltion of its Authority. But thislaft ofhis defign directed by the Holy Ghoft, mull be no lets known than the former. Fora man may write one Book by infpiration,- and others by a fallible humane Judgement;as Solomon feems tohavedone his PhilofophicallDifcourfs that are loft. Again, when thePenman of anyWriting pretending unto Divine Authority is not eihm- . ed , nor doth mania himfelf in any thing to havebeen m9<uual@ ayh y pbµev immediately afted by the Holy Ghoft, the writing it felf tonfi needs be lyable unto jute Exception. Wherefore it is confeffed, that when the Author of any Writing. is cer- tainly known, much light into its Authority andRelation unto the Canon of the Seri- pture may be thencereceived. But when this is doubtfull, nothing can thence fatisfa- doryon either fide be concluded. And therefore-it hath pleated the Holy Ghoft to keep thenames of the Penmenof many partsof the Scripture, in everlaftingobfcurity foxhe borrows no Countenance or Authority unto any thing that proceeds by Infßira- tion from hirdfelf, from thenames ofmen. There is not then the leaf} ftrength in this exception; for be itgranted, that weare altogether uncertain who was the Peninan of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of itsAuthority can thence be taken, unlefs it can be proved,that he was not Divinely inftirerl But yet to thew the infutficiency every wayof this Objection, we (hall abundantlyevince, that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and fare; The Penman of this Epifile beingas well and cer- tainly known, as thofe of any portion of Scripture whatever that are eivevlygamm, force whereof were never doubted, nor called into queffion : And' at leaf}we (hall fo far evinceS`. Peal tohave been theAuthor of it ; asalthough we (hall not from thence take anyArgument to prove itsCanonical! Authority, becaufe it hath it Pelf been called into queffion; yet as to render an Objection from the uncertainty of itsAuthor altoge-' they upreafonable. ç.=a9. The remainingObjedions are more particular, and dire& to their purpofè, by whom they are pleaded. As Firff, that the Author of this EpifIle cites fundry things out of theOld Teament which arenot therein contained. Such are manyof the Sto- ries related untoin the r. Chapter, and that in particular inChap. t a. verfe as. where he affirms, that Mofeesupon the Terror of the fight that appeared unto him, laid, I exceedingly quake and tremble. This place Erafmusfuppofeth Hierom to have intended, when hefayesthat fomethings arementioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the OldTeftament. And Aquinas' perplexeth himfelf in feeking for a Solution unto this difficulty. For Firft, he would refer the place to Mies fight of the Angell in the Bulb, and not the giving of the Law, contrary to the exprefs Difcourfe of theCon- text. And then, he adds, dixit faltem fallio ; though he Paid not fo, yet he did fo. And lately, wont} of all oelforth Apoftolus aliá utitur litera quamnos non habemus: or it may be the Apoffleufed another Text that we havenot: But there is noneedof any ofthere evafions. The Author quotesno Book, norTeftimony of the Old Teftament, but relates
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=