And thus, I hope, we have made it evident that this Epistle is not destitute of any one of those rexwjpe, or infallible proofs and argu- ments whereby any particular book of the Scripture evinceth itself unto the consciences of men to be written by inspiration from God. It remaineth now to show that 2¢ is not luable unto any of those ex- ceptions or arguments’ whereby any book or writing pretending a claim to a divine original, and canonical authority thereupon, may
be convicted and manifested to be of another extract; whereby its just privilege will be on both sides secured.
35. The first consideration of this nature is taken from the author or penman of any such writing. The books of the Old Testament were all of them written by prophets or holy men inspired of God. Hence St Peter calls the whole of it Mpogrreiu, “ Prophecy,” 2 Pet. i. 21,—prophecy delivered by men, acted or moved therein by the Holy Ghost. And though there be a distribution made of the several books of it, from the subject-matter, into the “ Law, Prophets, and Psalms,” Luke xxiv. 44, and often into the “Law and Prophets,” on the same account, as Acts xxiv. 14, xxvi.22, Rom. ili. 21, yet their penmen being all equally prophets, the whole in general is ascribed unto them,
1 Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. cap. ult.
60 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [EXERC. I.
and called “ Prophecy,” Rom. i. 2, xvi. 26; Luke xxiv. 25; 2 Pet.i. 19. So were the books of the New Testament written by apostles, or men endowed with an apostolical spirit; and in their work they were equally inspired by the Holy Ghost; whence the church is said to be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,’ Eph. 11.20. If, then, the author of any writing acknowledgeth himself, or may otherwise be convinced, to have been neither prophet nor apostle, nor endued with the same infallible Spirit with them, his work, how excellent soever otherwise it may appear, must needs be esteemed a mere fruit of his own skill, diligence, and wisdom, and not any way to belong unto the canon of the Scripture. This is the condition, for instance, of the second book of Maccabees. In the close of it, the author, being doubtful what acceptance his endeavours and manner of writing would find amongst his readers, makes his excuse, and affirms that he did his utmost to please them in his style and composition of his words. So he tells us before, chap. ii. 28, that he did but epitomize the his- tory of Jason the Cyrenean, wherein he took great pains and labour. The truth is, he who had before commended Judas Maccabzeus for offering sacrifices for the dead (which indeed he did not, but for the living), nowhere appointed in the law, and affirmed that Jeremiah hid the holy fire, ark, tabernacle, and altar of incense, in a cave; [who says] that the same person, Antiochus, was killed at Nanea in Persia chap. i. 16, and died in the mountains of torments in his bowels, as he was coming to Judea, chap. ix., whom the first book affirms to have died of sorrow at Babylon, chap. vi.16; and who affirms Judas to have written letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year of the Seleucian empire, who was slain in the one hundred and fifty-second year of it, book i. chap. 1. 10,—that is, thirty-six years after his death !—with many other such mistakes and falsehoods; had no great need to inform us that he had no special divine assistance in his writing, but leaned unto his own understanding. But yet this he doth, and that openly, as we showed: for the Holy Ghost will not be an epitomizer of a profane writing, as he professeth himself to have been; nor make excuses for his weakness, nor declare his pains and sweat in his work, as he doth. And yet, to that pass are things brought in the world, by custom, prejudice, love of reputation, scorn to be esteemed mistaken in any thing, that many earnestly contend for this book to be written by divine inspiration, when the author of it himself openly professeth it to have been of another extract; for although this book be not only rejected out of the canon by the council of Laodicea,* Jerome,” and others of the ancients, but by Gre- gory the Great,’ bishop of Rome, himself, yet the church of Rome would
1 Synod. Laod. cap. lix. 2 Hieron. Cat. Viror. Iilust. in Joseph. 3 Gregor. Mor. lib. xix. cap. xvi.
SECT. 36.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 61
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 diwine inspiration; and little rea- son, 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 in- sisted 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.