now by force thrust it thereinto. But were the author himself alive again, I am so well persuaded of his ingenuity and honesty, from the conclusion of his story, that [I am sure] they would never be able to make him say that he wrote by divine inspiration; and little reason, then, have we to believe it. Now, this Epistle is free from this exception. The penman of it doth nowhere intimate, directly or indirectly, that he wrote in his own strength or by his own ability; which yet if he had done, in an argument of that nature which he insisted on, [it] had been incumbent on him to have declared, that he might not lead the church into a pernicious error, in embracing that as given by inspiration from God which was but a fruit of his diligence and fallible endeavours. But, on the contrary, he speaks as in the name of God, referring unto him all that he delivers; nor can he, in any minute instance, be convicted to have wanted his assistance. 36. Circumstances of the general argument of a book may also convince it of a human or fallible original. This they do, for instance, in the book of Judith;-for such a Nabuchodonosor as should reign in Nineve, chap. i. 1, and make war with Arphaxad, king of Ecbatane, verse 13; whose captains and officers should know nothing at all of the nation of the Jews, chap. v. 3, that waged war against them in the days of Joakim (or, as other copies, Eliakim) the high priest, chap. iv. 6; after whose defeat the Jews should have peace for eighty years at the least, chap. xvi. 23, 25; is an imagination of that which never had subsistence "in rerum natura:" or [the book may be] a representation of what П, a Jewish woman ought, as the author of it conceived, to undertake for the good of her country. Setting aside the consideration of all other discoveries of the fallibility of the whole discourse, this alone is sufficient to impeach its reputation. Our Epistle is no way obnoxious unto any exception of this nature. Yea, the state of things in the churches of God, and among the Hebrews in particular, did at that time administer so just and full occasion unto a writing of this kind, as gives countenance unto its ascription unto the wisdom and care of the Holy Ghost. For if the eruption of the poisonous brood of heretics, questioning the deity of the Son of God, in Cerinthus, gave occasion to the writing of the Gospel by St John; and if the dissensions in the church of Corinth deserved two epistles for their composition; and if the lesser differences between believers of the Jews and Gentiles, in and about the things treated of in this Epistle, had a remedy provided for them in the epistles of St Paul unto them; is it not at least probable that the same Spirit who moved the penmen of those books to write, and directed them in their so doing, did also provide for the removal of the prejudices and healing of the distempers of the Hebrews, which were so great, and of so great importance unto all the churches of God? And that there is weight in this consideration will evidently appear, when we come to declare the time when this Epistle was written. We 37. The most manifest eviction of any writing pretending unto the privilege of divine inspiration may be taken from the subject-matter of it, or the things taught and declared therein. God himself being the first and only essential Truth, nothing can proceed from him but what is absolutely so; and truth being but one, every way uniform and consonant unto itself, there can be no discrepancy in the branches of it, nor contrariety in the streams that flow from that one fountain. God is also holy, "glorious in holiness," and nothing proceeds immediately from him but it bears a stamp of his holiness, as also of his greatness and wisdom. If, then, any thing in the subject-matter of any writing be untrue, impious, light, or any way contradictory to the ascertained writings of divine inspiration, all pleas and pretences unto that privilege must cease for ever. need no other proof, testimony, or argument, to evince its original, than what itself tenders unto us. And by this means, also, do the books commonly called apocryphal, unto which the Romanists ascribe canonical authority, destroy their own pretensions. They have all of them, on this account, long since been cast out of the limits of any tolerable defence. Now, that no one portion of Scripture is less obnoxious to any exception of this kind, from the subject-matter treated of and doctrines delivered in it, than this Epistle, we shall, by God's assistance, manifest in our exposition of the whole and each particular passage of it. Neither is it needful that we should here prolong our discourse, by anticipating any thing that must necessarily afterwards, in its proper place, be insisted on. The place startled at by some, chap. vi., about the impossibility of the recovery of apostates, was touched on before, and shall afterwards be fully cleared. Nor do I know any other use to be made of observing the scruple of some of old, about the countenance given to the Novatians by that place, but only to make a discovery how partially men in all ages have been addicted unto their own apprehensions in things wherein they differed from others; for whereas, if the opinion of the Novatians had been confirmed in the place, as it is not, it had been their duty to have relinquished their own hypothesis and gone over unto them, some of them discovered a mind rather to have broken in upon the authority of God himself, declared in his word, than so to have done. And it is greatly to be feared that the same spirit still working in others, is as effectual in them to reject the plain sense of the Scripture in sundry places, as it was ready to have been in them to reject the words of it in this. 38. The style and method of a writing may be such as to lay a just prejudice against its claim to canonical authority: for although the subject-matter of a writing may be good and honest in the main of it, and generally suited unto the analogy of faith, yet there may be, in the manner of its composure and writing, such an ostentation of wit, fancy, learning, or eloquence; such an affectation of words, phrases, and expressions; such rhetorical painting of things small and inconsiderable; as may sufficiently demonstrate human ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Jerome1 observes, in particular concerning the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon; written, as it is supposed, by Philo, an eloquent and learned man: "Redolet Græcam eloquentiam." This consideration is of deserved moment in the judgment we are to make of the spring or fountain from whence any book doth proceed; for whereas great variety of style, and in manner of writing, may be observed in the penmen of canonical Scripture, yet in no one of them do the least footsteps of the failings and sinful infirmities of corrupted nature before mentioned appear. When, therefore, they manifest themselves, they cast out the writings wherein they are from that harmony and consent which in general appears amongst all the books of divine inspiration. Of the style of this Epistle we have spoken before. Its gravity, simplicity, majesty, and absolute suitableness unto the high, holy, and heavenly mysteries treated of in it, are, as far as I can find, not only very evident, but also by all acknowledged, who are able to judge of them. 39. Want of catholic tradition in all ages of the church, from the first giving forth of any writing testifying unto its divine original, is another impeachment of its pretence unto canonical authority. And this argument ariseth fatally against the apocryphal books before mentioned. Some of them are expressly excluded from the canon by many of the ancient churches, nor are any of them competently testified unto. The suffrage of this kind given unto our Epistle we have mentioned before. The doubts and scruples of some about it have likewise been acknowledged. That they are of no weight, to be laid in the balance against the testimony given unto it, might easily be demonstrated. But because they were levied all of them principally against its author, and but by consequence against its authority, I shall consider them in a disquisition about him; wherein we shall give a further confirmation of the divine original of the Epistle, by proving it undeniably to be written by the apostle St Paul, that eminent penman of the Holy Ghost. 40. Thus clear stands the canonical authority of this Epistle. It is destitute of no evidence needful for the manifestation of it, nor is it obnoxious unto any just exception against its claim to that privilege. And hence it is come to pass, that, whatever have been the 1 Hieron. Præf. in Prov. Solom. fears, doubts, and scruples of some; the rash, temerarious objections, conjectures, and censures of others; the care and providence of God over it, as a parcel of his most holy word, working with the prevailing evidence of its original implanted in it, and its spiritual efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture, hath obtained an absolute conquest over the hearts and minds of all that believe, and settled it in a full possession of canonical authority in all the churches of Christ throughout the world. SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION I BY THE EDITOR. Ir will be seen that Dr Owen, in his proof of the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, relies chiefly upon internal evidence. After a definition of canonicity, according to which it is represented as including two elements, the origin of the document for which canonical authority is claimed, as a divine communication to man; and the design of it, as intended to be a permanent and universal rule to the church: and after a historical summary of the different parties by whom the Epistle has been positively rejected, or not expressly owned as canonical: he refutes four objections which have been urged against its authority,-the uncertainty respecting its author; quotations alleged in the Epistle to be taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, but not found in them; quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures which are not to the purpose of the author; and passages which appear to sanction exploded heresies. He then argues from three criteria of Eusebius in proof of its canonicity, its subjectmatter, its design, and its prevailing spirit or style. He supplements his argument by an appeal to catholic tradition. His subsequent Exercitation, proving that Paul was the author of the Epistle, yields further evidence of its canonical authority, the canonicity of a book resting generally on the fact of its apostolic origin; and under a discussion of its Pauline authorship, the question of the right of the Epistle to a place in the canon has frequently been considered. Independently, however, of the question of its authorship, there are external evidences of its canonical authority, on which, in modern times, considerable stress has been justly placed:-1. The ANTIQUITY of the document, as it appears to have been written while the rites and worship of the temple were still in existence, Heb. ix. 9, 25, viii. 5; and because the argument contained in it against temptations to apostasy supposes the continued performance of those rites in the Jewish temple by which the converts might be induced to relapse into their previous Judaism. 2. The quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews by CLEMENT of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the close of the first century, and most probably about A.D. 96. These quotations are numerous, and are arranged by Moses Stuart into four classes, according to the degree of their correspondence with the original Epistle from which they were taken. They prove more than the existence of the Epistle antecedently to A.D. 96. Clement, in the 36th chapter of his epistle, introduces a quotation from Scripture under the common formula that bespeaks an appeal to divine authority: Γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως. Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. Was this quotation taken by Clement from Ps civ. 4, or from Heb. i. 7? If from the latter, the formula with which it is introduced proves the canonical authority of the Epistle from which it is taken. Bleek and Tholuck contend that the quotation is taken directly from the psalm; Stuart and Davidson, that it is from the Epistle to the Hebrews, arguing that, from the context in the passage from Clement, his design in using the formula, Γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτω;, is to assign a reason for the authoritative application of the psalm to Christ, and authority for such an application can be found only in Heb. i. 3. JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 140, has the following passage in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, καὶ αἰώνιος ἱερεὺς ὑψίστου ὑπάρχων. Elsewhere he calls Christ, αἰώνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερέα καὶ βασιλέα, καὶ Χριστὸν μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, and Apolog. i. p. 95, he says of Christ, Καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται καὶ ἀπόστολος. Nowhere but in the Epistle to the Hebrews do we find such epithets applied to Christ as a "priest after the order of Melchizedek," the "king of Salem," an "eternal priest," "angel and apostle." And, 4. The Epistle to the Hebrews is contained in the PESHITO, or old Syriac version, which is ascribed to the second century. "When we consider," says Davidson, "that the Peshito wanted several epistles which were not generally received as authentic so soon as the other books, the fact in question forms an important part of the early evidence favourable to our Epistle's canonical reputation." It must further be borne in mind, that those who discredit the Pauline authorship of the Epistle are not necessarily to be held as impugning its canonicity. Olshausen and Tholuck are decided in maintaining the latter, although both, with Luther, suppose Apollos to have been the author of the Epistle. Olshausen maintains its canonical authority,-1. Because we cannot, except on the supposition that Paul had an essential share in the composition of it, explain the remarkable circumstance, that the entire oriental church attributed it to Paul; 2. Because, though the style is not that of Paul, the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, not to be mistaken, to the writings which are acknowledged to be his; and, 3. Because, on this supposition, all the circumstances in regard to the Epistle are explained, the western church knowing that Paul was not its author, and therefore not using it much, though not rejecting it, the eastern recognising the essential influence he exerted over its composition, though the truths contained in it were presented through the medium of a faithful disciple like Apollos. EXERCITATION II. OF THE PENMAN OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1. Knowledge of the penman of any part of Scripture not necessary-Some of them utterly concealed--The word of God gives authority unto them that deliver it, not the contrary-Prophets, in things wherein they are not actually inspired, subject to mistakes. 2. St Paul the writer of this EpistleThe hesitation of Origen-Heads of evidence. 3. Uncertainty of them who assign any other author. 4. St Luke not the writer of it; 5. Nor Barnabas. The Epistle under his name counterfeit-His writing of this Epistle by sundry reasons disproved. 6. Not Apollos; 7. Nor Clemens; 8. Nor Tertullian. 9. Objections against St Paul's being the penman-Dissimilitude of style-Admitted by the ancients. 10. Answer of Origen rejected; of Clemens, Jerome, etc., rejected likewise. 11. St Paul, in what sense oτNG TÝ KÓYW. 12. His eloquence and skill. 13. Causes of the difference in style between this and his other epistles. 14. Coincidence of expressions in it and them. 15. The Epistle veíypaços. 16. Answer of Jerome rejected; 17. Of Theodoret; 18. Of Chrysostom-Prejudice of the Jews against St Paul not the cause of the forbearance [i.e., withholding] of his name. 19. The true reason thereof The Hebrews' church-state not changed-Faith evangelical educed from Old Testament principles and testimonies-These pressed on the Hebrews; not mere apostolical authority. 20. Hesitation of the Latin church about this Epistle answered-Other exceptions from the Epistle itself removed. 21. Arguments to prove St Paul to be the writer of it-Testimony of St Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 15, 16-Considerations upon that testimony-The second Epistle of St Peter written to the same persons with the first-The first written unto the Hebrews in their dispersion-AraσTopά, what. 22. St Paul wrote an Epistle unto the same persons to whom Peter wrote-That, VOL. XVIII. 5 |