* Theodor. Argu. in Epist.ad Heb. 2 Chrysost. Preef. in Epist. ad Heb. 5 Ca-
thar. de Auth. Epist. ad Heb. Diss. 4 Bellar. de Verb. Dei. lib. i. cap. xvii. * Baron, Ann. Kccles. an, 61, n. 55. 6 A Lapid. Preof. in Epist. 7 Can. loc, Com. lib. ii, cap. xi. 8 Galenus Preef. in Epist. ad Heb. 9 Ten. Preelud. iv.
0 Estius Prolegom
SECT. 10-12. ] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 75
answer unto the objection insisted on, as we shall now further parti- cularly manifest.
11. The foundation of this objection les in St Paul’s acknowledg- ment that he was idmrng r@ Adyw,—“ rude in speech,” 2 Cor. xi. 6. This Origen presseth, and Jerome takes occasion hence to censure his skill in his mother tongue; for so was the Greek unto them that were born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and this was the place of St Paul’s nativity: though the same Jerome, from I know not what tradition, affirms that he was born at Giscalis, a town of Galilee, from whence he went afterwards with his parents to Tarsus; contrary to his own express testimony, Acts xxi. 3, “I verily was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.”
But this seems an infirm foundation for the objection insisted on. Paul in that place is dealing with the Corinthians about the false teachers who seduced them from the simplicity of the gospel. The course which they took to ensnare them was vain, affected eloquence, and strains of rhetoric unbecoming the work they pretended to be engaged in. Puffed up with this singularity, they contemned St Paul as a rude, unskilful person, no way able to match them in their fine declamations. In answer hereunto, he first tells them that it became not him to use cogiay Adyou, 1 Cor. 1. 17,—that “ wisdom of words,” or speech, which orators flourished withal; or d:dcéxroug avdpumiins coping Aéyous, chap. il, 138,—“ the words that man’s wisdom teacheth,” or an artificial composition of words, to entice thereby, which he calls irzpoxjy Adyou, chap. i. 1. And many reasons he gives why it became him not to make use of those things, so as to make them his design, as the seducers and false apostles did. Again, he answers by concession in this place, E/ 6: xa) idmrns rH Abyw, —‘“ Suppose I be (or were) rude or unskilful in speech, doth this matter depend thereon? Is it not manifest unto you that I am not so in the knowledge of the mystery of the gospel?” ‘He doth not confess that he is so,” saith Austin, “ but grants it for their convic- tion.” And in this sense concur Cicumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Ca- tharinus, Clarius, and Cappellus, with many others on the place. If, then, by Adyos here, that seducing, enticing rhetoric wherewith the false teachers entangled the affections of their unskilful hearers be intended, as we grant that St Paul, it may be, was unskilful in it, and are sure that he would make no use of it, so it is denied that any footsteps of it appear in this Epistle; and if any thing of solid, convincing, unpainted eloquence be intended in it, it is evident that St Paul neither did nor justly could confess himself unacquainted with it; only he made a concession of the objection made against | him by the false teachers, to manifest how they could obtain no manner of advantage thereby.
12. Neither are the other epistles of St Paul written in so low
76 AUTHOR OF THE [EXERC. IL
and homely a style as is pretended. Chrysostom, speaking of him, tells us, ‘Yaip rbv Hrsov 2raurey 4 robrov yawrra, and that for his eloquence he was esteemed Mercury by the Gentiles* Somewhat hath been spoken hereunto before, whereunto I shall now only add the words of a person who was no incompetent judge in things of this nature. “Quum,” saith he, “ orationis ipsius totam indolem et ~upuxripa propius considero, nullam ego in ipso Platone similem grandiloquentiam, quoties illi libuit Dei mysteria detonare; nullam in Demosthene parem deivéryra comperisse me fateor, quoties ani- mos vel metu divini judicii perterrefacere, vel commonefacere, vel ad contemplandam Dei bonitatem attrahere, vel ad pietatis ac mise- ricordise officia constituit adhortari: nullam denique vel in ipso Aris- totele et Galeno, prestantissimis alioquin artificibus, magis exactam docendi methodum invenio;”—‘“ When I well consider the genius and character of the speech and style of this apostle, I confess I never found that grandeur in Plato himself as in him, when he thun- dereth out the mysteries of God; nor that gravity and vehemency in Demosthenes as in him, when he intends to terrify the minds of men with a dread of the judgments of God, or would warn them or draw them to the contemplation of his goodness, or the performance of the duties of piety and mercy; nor do I find a more exact me- thod of teaching in those great and excellent masters, Aristotle and Galen, than in him.”” So it is plainly; so the Greek fathers almost with one consent do testify; so do most of the Latins also; so the best learned of the later critics; and so may it be defended against any opposition. And Jerome himself, who takes most liberty to censure his style, doth so far in other places forget his own temerity therein as to cry out against those who “ dreamed,” as he speaks, that St Paul was not thoroughly acquainted with all propriety of speech. And he who was the first that ever spake a word about any defect of this kind, though as able to judge as any one whatever who hath since passed his censure unto the same purpose, was in an evident mistake in the very instance which he pitched on to confirm his ob- servation. This was Irenzeus, one of the first and most learned of the Greek fathers: for, affirming that there are many hyperbata in the style of this apostle, which render it uneven and difficult, he confirms his assertion with an instance in 2 Cor. iv. 4, “ In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe - not;” for saith he, “The words should naturally have been thus placed, ‘In whom God hath blinded the minds of them that in this world believe not.’” So, to obviate a foolish sophism in the Valen- tinians, a hyperbaton must be supposed in the apostle’s style, when indeed there is not the least colour of it. Upon the whole matter, then, I shall confidently assert, that there is no manner of defect in 1 Chrysost. Procem. in Epist. ad. Rom. 2 Beza Annot. in 2 Cor. xi. 6.