In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise. They who believed, amongst them, never changed the old foundation, or church-state grounded on the Scriptures, though they had a new addition of privileges by their faith in Christ Jesus, as the Mes- siah now exhibited. And therefore he deals not with them as with those whose faith was built absolutely on apostolical authority and revelation, but upon the common principles of the Old Testament, on which they still stood, and out of which evangelical faith was educed. Hence the beginning of the Epistle, wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation that he intended to build upon, and the authority which he would press them withal, supplies the room of that intimation of his apostolical authority which in other places he maketh use of. And it serves to the very same purpose.
SECT. 20, 21. | EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 83
For, as in those epistles he proposeth his apostolical authority as the immediate reason of their assent and obedience; so in this he doth the scriptures of the Old Testament. And this is the true and proper cause that renders the prefixing of his apostolical authority, which must necessarily accompany his name, needless, because use- less, it being that which he intended not to engage in this business. And for himself, he sufficiently declares in the close of his Epistle who he was; for though some may imagine that he is not so cer- tainly known unto us, from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond as doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote. So that neither hath this objection in it any thing of real weight or moment.
20. Thirdly, We have spoken before unto the hesitation of the Latin church, which by some is objected, especially by Erasmus; and given the reasons of it, manifesting that it is of no force to weaken our as- sertion: unto which I shall now only add, that after it was received amongst them as canonical, it was never questioned by any learned man or synod of old whether St Paul was the author of it or no, but they all with one consent ascribed it unto him, as hath been at large by others declared. The remaining exceptions which by some are insisted on are taken from some passages in the Epistle itself; that principally of chap. ii. 3, where the writer of it seems to reckon him- self among the number, not of the apostles, but of their auditors [and survivors|. But whereas it is certain and evident that the Epistle was written before the destruction of the temple, yea, [before] the beginning of those wars that ended therein, or the death of James, whilst sundry of the apostles were yet alive, it cannot be that the penman of it should really place himself amongst the generation that succeeded them; so that the words must of necessity admit of an- other interpretation, as shall be manifested in its proper place: for whereas both this and other things of the same nature must be con- sidered and spoken unto in the places where they occur, I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due sea- son, especially considering of how small importance the objections taken from them are.
And this is the sum of what hath, as yet, by any been objected unto our assignation of this Epistle unto St Paul; by the considera- tion whereof the reader will be directed into the judgment he is to make on the arguments and testimonies that we shall produce in the confirmation of our assertion; and these we now proceed unto, under the several heads proposed in the entrance of our dis- course.
21. (1.) Amongst the arguments usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been written by St Paul, the testumony given unto it by St Peter deserves consideration in the first place, and is indeed
S4 AUTHOR OF THE [EXERC. 11.
of itself sufficient to determine the inquiry about it. His words to this purpose, 2 Hpist. iii, 15, 16, are: “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according unto the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” To clear this testimony, some féw things must be observed in it and concerning it; as,—(1.) That St Peter wrote this second epistle unto the same persons, that is, the same churches and people, to whom he wrote his first. This, to omit other evidences of it, himself testifies, chap. i. 1: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.” It was not only absolutely his second epistle, but the second which he wrote to the same per- sons, handling in both the same general argument, as himself in the next words affirms. (2.) That his first epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian dispersion: ’ExAexroig roapert- djwoig Oraoropuig Idvrov, etce.;—“To the elect strangers of the dis- persion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” chap. i. 1; that is, “The dddexa guards ev +7 diaomopad,” as St James styles the same persons, chap. i. 1,—‘ The twelve tribes,” or Hebrews of the twelve tribes of Israel, “in their dispersion.” These raperfdnuor dsa- oropis or evry dsxomopg, are those whom the Jews of Jerusalem called “The dsaorope ray ‘EAAjvav,” John vii. 35, “ The dispersion,” or those of their nation that were “dispersed among the Gentiles.” Those especially they intend in the Greek empire. These they called