z8 Author of the doubt, andBiJhopof the Church at Rome. But noneof the Ancients of any Learningor Judgement, ever laidweight on this Conjedure. Forwhat had'he who was a Convert from amongthe Gentiles to dowith the Churches of the Hebrews, what Authority had he to interpofe himfelf in that which was their peculiar concernment ? Whence may it appear, that he had that Skill in the Nature lifeandEnd ofMoJàical Rites a'nd lefh- tutions, which the Writer of this Epiftle difcovees in himfelf? Neither doth'that Epiflle of his to theChurch ofCorinthwhich is yet extant, though excellent in its kind, per- mit us to think that he wrote by Divine Infpiration. Befides the Author of this' EpJtle had a defier and purpofe to go to theHebrewo, chap. 13.2a. Yea, he delires to be re- floralunto them as one that hadbeenwith them before. But ai it. dothnot appearthat this Clemens was ever árPalefine, fo what Reafon he fhould have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can. imagine. And to end this needlefs Debate, in that Epiftle which was truly his own, hemakesufe of theWords andAuthority of this, as Eufehium long fnce obferved. sf. S. Sixtus Sinenfis affirms; that theWork wholeAuthor we enquire after, was by force Sixtu, Linen. afligned unto7erttd(ian.A fondand impious imagination,and fuels as no man ofJudgement Bihtioth.liG1. orSobriety could ever fall into. This Epiftlewas famous in the Churches before Ter- cap. $' tullian wasborn; is afcribed by himfelf unto Barnabar, and fbme pailages in it, are pref.. neref, fail by him to be corruptedby one Theodotus long before his time. From theVncertaintty of thefeConjeëtures, with the EvidenceofReafon and Circum- ftances whereby they are difproved, two things we feem to haveObtained. Firft, That no Objection on their Account can arife againft our Affection. And Secondly , that if St. Paul be not acknowledged to be the Writer of this Epiflle, the wholeChurch, of God is, and ever was at a total lofs whom to afcribe it unto. And it may reafonably be expelled that the weaknefs of thefc Conjeilure.r, fhould if not add unto, yet Pet of the credibilityof the Reafons and Tefiimonies , which fhall be produced in the Aflìguemetit of it unto him. 9. The Objeulions that are laid by force againfi our Affignation of this Epifkle unto St.Paul according unto theOrder propofed, are nextly to beconfidered. Thefe I (hall pats through with what briefnefs I can, fo as not to be wanting unto the Defemfrive de- figned. Difmilitude ofStyle, and manner of writing from that ufed by St. Paul in his other EpiJtles,is preffed in the first place,and principally inlfted on. And indeed it is the whole of what withany colour of Reafon is made ufe of in this Caufe. This the Antienrs . admitted. The Elegancy,proprietyofSpeech, and fometimes LoftineJi, that occurr in this eecnmen,p,af- Epistle, differençe it, as they fay, from thole ofSt. Paulo writings. dba citiv ,;t i rsdo ,, inPp. ad Het,: Jul ? xapax1ñpa, faith 0ecumenius; it firms not .to he St. Pauls, becaufi ofthe Style a Clemenrin Charatler of Speech. For this caufe Clemens ofAlexandria fuppofed it to be written in HYporYp Hebrew, and to be mandatedintoGreekby St. Lukethe Evangelijt; the Styleof it, as he fayes, being like unto that which. is ufed in the Alls of the Apoftles ; and yet that is acknowledged by all to be purely Greek, whereas this is accufed to be full of He- braifms, fo little weight is to be laid on thefe CriticalCenfures, wherein Learned men perpetually, contradif one another. Eufeb. Berle!. Origenalfo confeffeth, that it hath not in its 'Charatler, 7;416170Y is iíyus, the Hift.l.6. r.t}. Idiotifin, or proprietyof the Language of St. Paul, who acknowledgeth himfelf to be l tlar,c ú aíya, zCor. I a.6. rude in Speech; and this Epiftle is, faith he, is molar., fi >tiyaue iu.nvrxoa's,a, in the compofitioit of its Speech Elegantly Greek, in comparifon of his, which if we may believe him any one wile difetto who can judge between Hierc i m. the difference ofStyles. AndHierom, Scripferat autemad Hebrews Hebraice, ideft fitseloquio eatal.scri.in difertiffimé; ut es queeloquuntur fcripta fuerant -in Hebreoaliquatenus verterentur inGre- Pas. cum ; FÌ" bane caufam eJJì quod a catiris Pauli Epiftolir difciepare videatur. It teems to differ from the red of St. PaulsEpiftles, becaufe Of its Tranfation out of Hebrew, wherein he fpeaks not with his wontedcpnfidence. And elfewhere he Cayes, that the Erafm. An. in Style of thisEpiitle feems to be like that ofClemens. Erafmus preffeth this Objeâiot3; cap.rI -v,a}. Reftat, faith he, jam argumentum ilrud quo non aliad tertists, fiyltes ipfeti" orátionis Charaïter, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum Phraft Paulina ; The Style and CharaJer of Speech haveno affinity with thePlirafe of St. Paul. This Confideration alto drewCalvin intothe fameOpinion; and it ;s inffted on by Camero and Grotitts to the fame pur- pofe. The fumm of this Objection is, that St. Paul was rude in Speech which is mani- fed in his other Epiftler, but theStyle of this ispure, elegant, florid, fuch as hath no affinitywithhis, fo that hecannot beefì'eemed the Penman of it: As
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=