Ep/le to the H E B R.Evv s; :5 dayes received, and teftified unto as fuck by the Church. But neither of thefe can be afferted. For as it is not known that any onePenmanof the OldTelament, Mo./Jr only excepted, ever wrought anymiracles, fo it iscertain that themolt and chiefeft of them ( as theProphets ) wererejeéted and condemned by the Church ofthe dayes wherein they lived. Theonly way therefore whereby they were proved tobe Prophets was by the Wordit felt which they delivered and wrote ; and thereon depended the Evidence and-Certaintyof their being Divinely infpired. See Amos 7. 14,15, r6. Jer.23.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. And letting afide that allualInfjiration by the Holy-GI-loll, which they had for theDeclaration and Writing of that Word ofGod which came unto them inparticular, and the Prophets themfelves were fubjedk tomiffakes. So was Samuel when he thought Eliab fhould have been the Lords Annointed, I Sam. 16.6. and Nathan when clement he approvedthe purppfe of Davidtobuild the Temple, 1 Cbrori. 17.2. andthe great Elijah; origen. when he fuppofed none leftin Ifraelthat worfhip'ped Godmight but himfelf , 1 Kings Egfebias. 19. 14, x8. It was then , aswe Paid, theWord 9fProphefre, thatgave the Writers of it Hrerssym. the Reputation and Authority ofProphets and their being Prophets gave not Authority m to the Word they declaredor wrote asaWord ofProphefie. Hence an anxious enquiry Caletan, after thePenman ofany part of the Scripture isnotneceffary. Era¡mils: But whereas there want not Evidences fufficient to dit"cover who was the Writer of camero. thisEpiflle, whereby alto the exceptionsmade unto its DivineOriginal may be finally ®mnect obviated, they alto (hall be taken intoConfideration. ASubje5t this is, wherein many commentate., Learned Men ofOld, andofLate, have exercifed themfelves, untilthis fingkArgument res. is grown up into entire and large Treatifes, and I (hall only take care that theTruth Frider. Sear: which hath beenalreadyftrenuoufly afferted and vindicated, may not again by this re-' Fil. de u. viewbe rendred dubious and queftionable. Epi, ald Heb. St. Paul it is by whom weaffirm this Epiftletobe written. It isacknowledged that sf. a. this was fo highlyreftionedofOld, that Origen after the examination ofit concludes, Eafeb. &clef: zó piir Alois oats órd'et What is thevery Troth in this matter God only knows. However KO. lib:6. he acknowledgeth that ói ' excrot, the Ancients , owned it tobe written by Paul, and cap' 24' that he(ayes notwithout good Reafon, whereas the afcription ofit unto anyother, he alignsunto a bare report. It maynotthen beexpeéted, that now after fo long a feafon, the Truth of our Affertion fhould befo manifeftly evinced, -as togive abfolutefatisfailion unto all ; ( which is a vain thing for anyman to aim at in a Subjea wherein men fug- pofè that they have a liberty of thinking what theypleafe) yet Idoubt not but that it will appear not only highlyprobable, but fo full of Evidence in compariIon of any other Opinion that is, or bath been promoted in competition with it, as that Tomekind of blameable pertinaeioufitefl may be made to appear in its refufal. Now the-whole of what I (hall offer in the proof of it may be reduced unto thefefix Heads. (i.)The manifeftfailure of all them whohave endeavoured to affign it unto any other Penman. ( 2.) The injuficiency of the Arguments infiftedon todifpróveour Affertion. (3. )Te- flimony givenunto it in, other Scriptures. (4.)Confelerationstaken from the Writing it felf, comparedwith other acknowledged Writings of the fame Author. (5.) The general fuffrageofAntiquity, or Ecclefraftical Tradition. ( 6.) Reafons taken from fundry Circumfiances relating unto theEpiftle its felf. Now asall thefe Evidences are not of the fame nature, nor of equal force, fo tome of them willbefound very cogent, and all of . them together very fufficient to free our Affertion from juft Q`eftion or Exception. Firft, The Vncertainty of themwho queftionwhether Paul were the Writer of this 1.3. Epifile, and their want ofprobable grounds in affigning it unto any other, hath force inducement in it to leave it untohim whole of Old it was efteemed tobe. For when oncemen began to take to themfelvesa liberty of ConjeEtnre in this matter, they could neither make an end themfelves, nor fix any bounds unto the imagination of others. Havingonce loft its true Author no other couldbe afferted with any filch evidence, or indeed probability, but that inftantly twenty more with as good Groundsand Rea- Ionsmight be entitledunto it. Accordingly fe ndry Perfont have been named, all upon the fame account that Tome thought good to name them } and why fhould not one mansAuthority in thismatter be asgood asanothersè Origen in Eufibius affirms that Tome fuppofed Luke tohave been the Author òf sf. 4. this Epiile. But neitherBothhe approvetheir Opinion, nor mention what Realms they Bihar. Eseckf. pretendfor it. He 'adds alto thatTome efteemed it to be written byClemens ofRave. Ck- ftb 6, eap.a4. mens ofAlexandria allows St. Paul tobe the Author of it ; but fuppofeth it might be Tranflated by Luke, becaufe as he faith, the Style of it is not unlike that of his in Ecakf. p, i. the Aíis ofthe Apoftks..Grat*ut of late contends for Lnkg tóbe the Author of it on the lá'6' tap, :g; E fame
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=