Epillle to the H E B R Evv s. 29 As thisObjectionwas taken noticeof by them of old, and the matter of it admitted 4. to. as true, fobecaufe they conftantly adhered to the Affignation of it unto St. Paul, they gave fund ryAnfwers unto it. Origengives us his Judgement, that theSenfe or Subject `Matter of this Epiftle was fromSt. Paul, whichare excellent, and no way inferiour to thofe of the fame Apeffie in anyother Epiftles, as every one exercifed in the Readingof his Epiffles will grant ; but the Structure and Phrafe of it, he fuppofeth to have been the Work of tome Other, who taking the Di Cates of his Mafter, from thence com- pofed this Epiftle. Butthis'Anfrver can by no means he admitted of, not accornmo- dated unto any Writinggiven by Divine Infßiration. For not only the Matter, but the very Wardsof their Writings were fuggefted untohis Penmen by the Holy Gholt, (that the whole might have no influence from humane frailty orfallibility) which' alone ren- ders the AuthorityoftheirWritings Sacred and Divine. But this intimation would refolve theTruth in this Epiftle, into the Care and Diligence of him that took the fenfe ofSt. Paul, and thence compofed its wherein he was liable to miftalçes, unleg we(hall vainly fuppofe, that healfo was infpired. Wherefore generally they who admitted of this Objetiion, gave the Anfwer unto it before intimateds namely, that the Epiftle was Original!), written in Hebrew by St.Paul, and Tranflated by forne other into the GreekTheodor.A,gu. Language.. So Oecumenius', sä P.b zp ñs idxeat %r xueaxrîipa árric.sib garsga »ink to Ep. adneb. atós a.S `E3p160 zñ ayw "v d'raráii7C xeeç ea ússpav psesennvdelfeut Aiytirar. The coup of cheyfafl. Prat. sn Ep. adHeb. the Alteration or difference of Style in this Epiftle is manifeff, for it is faid to be written Catbar. de unto theHebrews in their swn Language, and to be afterwards Tranflated. Hierom and Autb. Epift.ad Clemensalto incline to this Opinion and Anfwer. And TheopbylaCt , though following HO. duff. Theodoret, he egregioufly confutes them who deny St. Paul to be the Author of this Beltarderhrb. Dei,1.r. c.t7, Epiftle, from the Excellency, Efficacy, and irrefragable - Power and Authority where- Baron. An. with it is accompanied, yet admits of thisObjeétion, and anfwers with others, that Ecdef.A.. it was Tranfleted by St. Lukeor Clemens. OnlyChryfttome,who indeed is oaav äpe 5a t e. N. 55. ;Way, without taking notice of the pretended dif imilitude ofStyle afcribes it direûly La dt r.e'. toSt. Paul. But to this Anfwer incline. generally the :Diviner of the Roman Church ; tax. loe, cem; as Catharinus, Belarminu-r, Baroniui, Cornelius à Lapide; Canus, Mathews Galenus, Ludo- lib.z.cap.re. virusTena,. and others without number ; though it be rejeéted by Effiusand tome GalnasPdrof. others among themfelves. What is.to be thought ofit, we (hall afterwards confider Hebe fl in a Diifrtátion deigned unto that Purpofe. For the prefent , we affirm, that it is ren,pralud.4: noway needfùl as an Anfwer unto the Objee%on infiftedon, as we (hall now farther Eflius Psale- particularly manitìft. govt. TheFoundation of thisObje6hon lyes in St. Pauls acknowledgement that he' was sf. te. Wilms 4 .Tbye,, rude in Speech, a Cor. tt. 6.. ThisOrigen preffeth, and Hierom takes oc- cation henceto cenfure his skill inhis Mother Tongue; for fo was the Greek unto them that wereborn at Tarfus in Cilicia ; and this was the place of St.Paufs nativity, though the fame Hierom from I knownot what Tradition, affirms that he was born atGhif- calls, a Town of Caine, fromwhence he went afterwards with his Parents to Tarfus, contrary to his own exprefs teftimos1 , AO: 22. 23. Iverily was born inTarfus, a City of Cilicia. But this feems an infirm foundation ofthe Objetfion infrfted on ; Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians-about the falfe Teáthers-, who feduced them from the Simplicity ofthe Gofpel.The Courfewhich they took to enfnare them,wasvain affed`fed Eloquence, and ltrains ofRhetoriekunbeeoming the Work they pretended tobe ingaged in. Puffed up with thisfingularity theycontemnedSt. Paul as a rude unskilful Perfon noway able to match them in their fine Declamations. In anfwer hereunto , He firfi tells them, that it becamenot himto ufe acyfar a5ya, r Cor. r. a7. thatWifdom ofWords or Speech which,Orators flourifhedwithall ; or - t8akr.s eie.tuahnescpîas ní ue, t Cor. 13. theWords that MarisWifdom teacheth, or an artificial compofition of Words to entice thereby ; whichhe calls iaiee»iv ndy., Chap. 2. I. And- many Reafons he gives why it becamehim not tomake ufe ofthofe things, foas tomake themhis defign, al the Seducers and falfe Apoftles did. Again he anfwers by Concelfion in this Place,. lJ aí ns vtf abyra;'fuppofe I be, or were, rude or unskilful in Beech, doth this matter depend thereon ; is it notmanifeft untoyou thatI am not fo in theknowlèdge of the Myfterie ofthe Gofpel ? He doth not confefsthat he isfo, faith Auffin, but grants it for theirConviction. And in this fenfeconcurr, Oecumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Catha- rim s, Clarius, and Caprins,with many others on the place. If then by?aye- here, that feducing enticing Rhetorickwherewith the falfe Teachers entangled the Affections of their 'unskilful hearers be intended, aswe grant thatSt. Paul it may be was uioskifni in.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=