17. Bellarmine’ chargeth Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Centuriators, with the rejection of this Epistle. But because I know that some of them are falsely accused by him, I am apt to suspect the same of the rest, which I have not the opportunity to consult; and so I shall not reckon them amongst the opposers of this Epistle. The matter is more certain concerning Cajetan and Erasmus; the former in his preface unto, the other in his last anno- tation on, this Epistle, denying it to be St Paul’s, and questioning, yea, indeed rejecting, its canonical authority. To them we may add Enjedinus, proceeding upon the same principles, and making use of their arguments to the same purpose. These are the chief, if not absolutely all, who have at any time made any scruple at the autho- rity of this Epistle. The reasons they make use of to justify them- selves in their conjectures are amassed together by Erasmus in his
note on the 24th verse of the last chapter of it. But because he mixeth together the arguments that he insists on to prove St Paul not to have been the periman of it and the exceptions he puts in unto its canonical authority, which are things of a diverse conside- ration, I shall separate them, and first take out those that seem abso- lutely to impeach its authority, leaving them that oppose its penman to our ensuing discourse on that question in particular.
18. The first thing generally pleaded is, the uncertainty of tts author or penman. “Sola omnium Pauli nomen non preefert,” saith
1De Verb. Dei, lib. 1. cap. xi.
28 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [ EXERC. I.
Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretence is we shall afterwards fully manifest. At present I shall only show that it is, in general, of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certainly known, may indeed give some light into the nature and authority of it. When it is confessed that the penman of any book was S<éaveveros, or “divinely inspired,” and that by him it was written for the use of the church, there can be no question of its authority. But this last, of his design directed by the Holy Ghost, must be no less known than the former; for a man may write one book by inspiration, and others by a fallible, human judgment, as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again; when the penman of any writing pretending unto divine au- thority is not esteemed, nor doth manifest himself in any thing to have been, iv) Ivebuaros ayiou gepémevos, “immediately acted by the Holy Ghost,” the writing itself must needs be liable unto just excep- tion. Wherefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writ- ing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation unto the canon of the Scripture may be thence received ; but when this is doubtful, nothing satisfactory can thence on either side be concluded. And therefore it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to keep the names of the penmen of many parts of the Scripture in eyer- lasting obscurity; for he borrows no countenance or authority, unto. any thing that proceeds by inspiration from himself, from the names of men. There is not, then, the least strength in this exception; for be it granted that we are altogether uncertain who was the penman of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of its authority can thence be taken, unless it can be proved that he was not divinely wmspired. But yet, to show the insufficiency, every way, of this objection, we shall abundantly evince that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false, the penman of this Epistle being as well and certainly known as those of any portions of Scripture what- ever that are dveriypapga, some whereof were never doubted nor called into question. And at least we shall so far evince St Paul to have been the author of it, as, although we shall not from thence take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it hath itself been called into question, yet to render an objection from the uncertainty of its author altogether unreasonable.
19. The remaining objections are more particular and direct to their purpose by whom they are pleaded ; as, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related _ in the 11th chapter; and that, in particular, in chap. xii. 21,
where he affirms that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that ap- peared unto him, said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” This place Erasmus supposeth Jerome to have intended when he says
SECT. 19, 20.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 39
that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty; for, first, he would refer the place to Moses’ sight of the Angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, “ Dixit saltem facto;” though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all, “ Vel forte apostolus alia utitur litera quam nos non habemus;”—“ Or, it may be, the apostle used another text, that we have not.” But there is no need of any of these evasions. The author quotes no book nor testimony of the Old Testament, but only relates a matter of fact, and one circumstance of it, which doubtless he had by divine revelation, whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is originally recorded. Thus in the beginning of the Chronicles, sundry particular stories (as that about the children of Ephraim, chap. vii. 20-22), nowhere before written, are reported from the same infallible directions that others of the same time were written withal when they were omit- ted. And it is an uncouth way of proving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths that he could no otherwise be acquainted withal. Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by divine inspiration to mention things recorded in other stories whose truth is unquestionable; as those are related in chap. xi.