SECT. 37-40. | EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 63
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 hwman ambition, ignorance, pride, or desire: of applause, to have been mixed in the forming and producing of it. Much of this Jerome’ observes, in par- ticular concerning the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon; written, as it is supposed, by Philo, an eloquent and learned man: “ Redolet Greecam 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 cano- nical Scripture, yet im 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, sim- plicity, 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 origi- nal, is another impeachment of its pretence unto canonical autho- rity. 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 men- tioned before, The doubts and scruples of some about it have like- wise been acknowledged. That they are of no weight, to be laid in the balance against the testimony given unto it, might easily be de- monstrated. 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 obnowious unto any just exception against its claim to that pri- vilege. And hence it is come to pass, that, whatever have been the
1 Hieron. Pref. in Proy. Solom.
64 SUBSIDIARY NOTE.
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 prevail- ing evidence of its original implanted in it, and its spiritual efficacy unto all the ends of holy Scripture, hath obtained an absolute con- quest 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 docu- ment 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 subject- matter, 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 Hpistle, yields further evidence of its canonical authority, the canonicity of a book resting gene- rally on the fact of its apostolic origin ; and under a discussion of its Pauline author- ship, 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 evi- dences of its canonical authority, on which, in modern times, considerable stress has been justly placed:—1. The anriquiry of the document, as it appears to haye 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 con- tinued performance of those rites in the Jewish temple by which the conyerts might be induced to relapse into their previous Judaism. 2. ‘I'he quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews by Crement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the close of the first century, and most probably about a.b. 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. ‘hey prove more than the existence of the Epistle antecedently to A.p. 96. Cle- ment, in the 36th chapter of his epistle, introduces a quotation from Scripture under the common formula that bespeaks an appeal to divine authority: Péypaaras yep orms- ‘O Toray ros ayyerous wdrod wrvetuara, xa) Tovs Atroupyods wUTod rupds OAoye. 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 di- rectly 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, Tiypurra: yep ofrws, 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 Marryr, a.p. 140, has the following passage in his dialogue with