Epí /Ile to the H E s R Èvv sa Controverte, whichwas to be debated from the Scripture, and wherein thofe' with whom he dealt, thought theymight dufftetfromhim without anyprejudice to their Faith or Obedience. Their condition altomull needs greatly affeû him: They were now not onlyunder prefant troubles, dangers and feares, but Pofiti inter facrum faxum, atthe verydoorofruin, if notdelivered from the time ofobtlinate adherence untoMofaicallnjtitutions. Now theywho know not what alterationsinStyle, andman- ner of Writing, theft things will produce, inthole who have an abilityto exprefs the Conceptions of their minds, and theAffections wherewith they are attended , know nothing of this matter. Andother differences from the reftof Paul's Epifles, but what may evidently be feento arife from thefe and the like Caufes, none haveyet di fcovered, nor can to do. And notwithflanding the Elegancyof the Style pretended, that it is as full ofHebraifms, as any other Epifileof the fame Author, we fhall difcover in our paffage through it ; which certainlya Perfonofthat Ability in the GreekTongue, as the Writer of this Epittle difcovers himfelf tobe,might have avoided, ifhe hadthought meet fo todo. Neither is it tobe omitted, that there is fuch a Coincidence in manyPlorafes, ufe of Words andExpreflionsbetween this Epiftle, and the reft of St. Paul:, as will not allow us to grantfuch aDifcrepancy in Style, asfome imagine. They have many ofthem been gathered by others ; and thereforeI thall only point unto the places from whencethey are taken : See Chap. i. a . comparedwith 2 Car .t3.3. Chap. 2. 14. withGal. a. e6. Eph f 6.12. Chap. 2.2. with Ephef. 5.26. Chap. 3. r. with Phil. 3. 14. 2 Tim. 1.9. Chap. 3.6. withRom. 5.2. Chap. 5. r4. with aCor. r1.6. Phil. 3.15. Ephef.4. F3. Chap. 5.13. with s Cor. 3.2. Chap. 6.2. withCol. 2.2. t Thy; 1.5. Chap. 7. IS. with Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 4.9. Chap. 8. 6, 9. withGal. 3. 19, 20. slim. 2.5. Chap. 10. I. with Col. 2.19. Chap. 10. 22. with2 Cor. 7. 1. Chap. 10. 23. a phrafe peculiar to St. Paul, and common withhim, Chap. 10. 33. with 1 Cor. 4.9. Chap. to. 36. with Gal. 3. 12. Chap. W. 39. a Thefi 5.9. 2 Thef. 2. 14. Chap. 12. a. with 1 Cor. 9.24. Chap. 23. so. with Ephef:4. 14. 1 Car. 9. 13. 1 Cor. 29. IS. Chap. 3..15, 16. withRom. 12. 1. Phil. 4. 18. Chap. 13. 20. with Rom. 15.33.Rom. 16.20. zCar. 23. 2. Phil. 4.9. s net.*5.23. Manyof whichplaces, having beforebeen obfervedbyothers, they are all of them, col- leered inthis order bySpanhemius ; and manymore of the like nature might be added unto them , but that theft are fufficient to out-ballante the contrary Inftances of pinWords andExprefisw, no where elfe ufed by St. Paul, which perhaps may be obfer. ved of every other Epiftle in likemanner. And upon all theft Coufiderations it ap- pears how little force there is in this'Objedion. Secondly, It is excepted, that theEpiffle is ¿vsaíxa -, the name of Paul being not prefixed unto it, as it is fay fome, unto all the Epiittler written by him. Andthis indeed is the Womb, wherein all other Objeêtionshavebeen conceived. For this beingonce taken notice of; and admitted asan Objection, the reft were but fruitsofmens needlefs dili- gence, to give,countenanceunto it. And this exception is Ancient, and that which alone Come ofold took any noticeof; for it is confidered byClemens, Origen, Eufebius, Cbryfftom,Theodorer, Theoyhylail, Oecumenius, and generally all that have fpoken any thing about the Writer of this Epiftle. Nordoththe ftrength that it hath, lye meerly in this, that it is without Infcription , for fo is the Epiffle of St. John, concerning which, it wasnever doubted but that hewas theAuthor ofit ; but hi the confiant ufage of Paul, prefixing his name unto all his otherEpithet; fo that unlefs a juffReafon can be given, why he fhould divert from thatcuflome in the Writing ofthis, it maybewell fuppofed tobe none ofhis. Now by the7krkwhich is wanting, either the meerTitularfuperfiription, the Wideof Paul the Apolile to the Hebrews, is intended ; or the Infcription of his'name , with an Apofolical Salutation conjoyned, in the Epiftle it felt. For the Fírft, it is uncertain of whatAntiquity the Titular Superfcriptionsofany ofthe Epifiles are: butmoil certain,that theydid not Originally belongunto them, and are therefore defìitute of all Authority. Theyare things, theTranfribera it may be have at pleafure made bold withal, as with theSúbfcription allo of fome of them, as to theplace from whence they were feet, and the perfonsby whom. Though this therefore fhouldbe wanting unto this Epiffk, as there is fame varietyboth in antient Copies ofthe Original, and Tranflationr about it, themoll owning and retaining of it; yet it would be ofnomoment, feting we know not, whence, or fromwhom, anyofthem are. TheObjeétion then is taken from the want of the wontedApoffolical Salutation; which fhould be in,and apart of the Epiftle. And this is the fubliance of what on this account is excepted ágatntt our Affertion. Various 3* 4; 14: 5. 19.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=