nies out of the Old Testament that are no ways to his purpose, nor at all prove the matter that he produceth them for; discovering at least that he wrote with a fallible spirit, if not also that he dealt scarcely bona fide, in handling the cause which he undertook. Cajetan insists on that of the first chapter, ver. 5. "I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be unto me a Son," taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14. or 1 Chron. xvii. 14. which words, as he supposeth no way belong unto that, in confirmation of which they are produced by the author of this Epistle. Erasmus insists upon his testimony in chap. ii. produced out of Psal. viii. 4, 5. which, as he saith, is urged directly contrary to the intention of the Psalmist, and scope of the words. Eniedinus insists on the same places and others.

Now two things must be supposed to give countenance unto this objection. First, That those who make it do better understand the meaning and the importance of the testimonies, so produced out of the Old Testament, than he did by whom they are here alleged. This is the foundation of this exception, which, if once admitted, it may be easily imagined how able some men will quickly think themselves to question other allegations in the New Testament, and thereby render the authority of the whole dubious. They must, I say, take upon themselves to know the true meaning of them, and that in the uttermost extent of signification and intention, as given out by the Holy Ghost, before they can charge their misapplication on this author. How vain, unjust, arrogant and presumptuous this supposition is, needs little labour to demonstrate. The understandings of men, are a very sorry measure of the truth, and of the whole sense and intention of the Holy Ghost in every place of Scripture. Nay, it may much more rationally be supposed, that though we all know enough of the mind and will of God in the whole Scripture, to guide and regulate our faith and obedience; yet that we are rather ignorant of his utmost intention in every place, than that we know it in all. There is a depth and breadth in every word of God, because his, which we are not able to fathom and compass to the utmost it being enough for us, that we may infallibly apprehend so much of his mind and will, as is indispensably necessary for us to the obedience that he requires at our hands. An humble reverential consideration of all, indeed almost any, of the testimonies alleged in the New Testament out of the Old, is sufficient to evince the truth of this consideration. We know but in part, and we Quantum est quod nescimus !not!' or as Job speaks, 27 that we understand of God!' Est Sacra Scriptura veluti fons

prophesy in part, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. How much is it that we know

- How small is the word chap. xxvi. 14. One says well, quidam, in bono terræ loco seatu

siens, quem quo altius foderis, eo magis exuberantem invenies; ita quo diligentius Sacram Scripturam interpretaris, eo abundantiores aquæ vivæ venas reperies. Brent. Hom. 36. in 1 Sam. xi. That objection then must needs be very weak, whose fundamental strength consists in so vain a presumption.

Again, they must take it for granted, that they are aforehand fully acquainted with the particular intention of the author, in the assertions which he produceth these testimonies in the confirmation of; and with all the ways of arguing and pressing principles of faith, used by men writing by divine inspiration. Neither is this supposition less rash or presumptuous than the former. Men, who bring their own hypotheses and preconceived senses unto the Scripture, with a desire to have them confirmed, are apt to make such conclusions. Those that come with humility and reverence of his Majesty with whom they have to do, to learn from him his mind and will therein, whatever he shall thereby reveal so to be, will have other thoughts and apprehensions. Let men but suffer the testimonies and assertions, whose unsuitableness is pretended to explain one another, and the agreement will quickly appear. And the worst that will ensue, will be only the emergence of a sense from them which perhaps they understood not in either of them singly, or separately considered. Thus infirm on all accounts is this objection. For the instances themselves, some light will be given unto them, from what we shall afterwards discourse of the author's ways and principles, that he proceeds upon in his citations of testimonies out of the Old Testament. And in particular in our exposition of the places themselves, we shall manifest, that his application of them is every way suitable to the very letter of the text, and manifest intention of the Holy Ghost. So false and unjust, as well as rash and presumptuous, is this objection.

§ 21. Neither is there any more real weight in that which Erasmus in the next place objects; namely, that some things in it seem to give countenance unto some exploded opinions of ancient heretics, whereof he gives us a double instance. First, Quod velum seperans sanctum sanctorum interpretatur cœlum :'— that he interprets the veil separating the most holy place to be heaven: which indeed he neither doth, (but only affirms that the most holy place in the tabernacle was a type or figure of heaven itself), nor if he should have so done, had he given the least countenance unto the fondness of the Manichees, whom I suppose he intendeth: his whole discourse perfectly exploding their abominations. His other instance is in that vexed place, chap. vi. 6. favouring as he pretends the Novatians, denying recovery by repentance unto them who had fallen into sin after baptism. But the incompetency of this objection, arising mere VOL. I.

D

ly from the objector's ignorance of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the end for which it was used, hath been demonstrated by many of old and late. And the Lord assisting in our exposition of that place, we shall shew, that it is so far from giving countenance unto any error or mistake which any man may fall into, contrary to the gospel, that a more plain, familiar and wholesome commination, is hardly to be found in the whole book of God. And this is the sum of what I can meet with, that is objected against the canonical authority of this Epistle; and how little this amounts unto, beyond an evidence of men's willingness to lay hold on slight occasions to vent their curiosities and conceptions, the reader that is godly and wise will quickly perceive.

$22. Having removed these objections out of our way, we shall now proceed to demonstrate the canonical authority of this Epistle, in the strict and proper sense, at large before declared. Now the sum of what we shall plead in this cause amounts to this, that whereas there are many renungia, or infallible evidences, of any writings being given by divine inspiration. and sundry arguments, whereby books or writings ungroundedly pretending to that original may be disproved; that of the former, there is no one that is not applicable unto this Epistle; nor is it obnoxious unto any one of the latter sort. Of what nature in general that evidence is, which is given unto the divine original of the Scripture by the characters thereof implanted in it, or other testimony given unto it; or what is the assurance of mind concerning it which thereupon we are furnished withal; belongs not unto our present inquiry. That which we undertake, is only to shew that the evidence of the inspiration of this Epistle, and its immunity from rational exceptions, is equal unto, and no less conspicuous, than that of any other portion of holy writ whatever; so that it stands upon the same basis with the whole, which at present we suppose firm and immoveable.

Eusebius, who after Melito, Caius, Clemens, and Origen, made a very accurate inquiry after the books unquestionably canonical, gives us three notes of distinction between them that are so, and others; namely. Qgarews zaganing, the character or manner of phrase or speech: 2. yun, the sentence or subject-matter treated of; and, 3. goalgiris, the purpose and design of the writer; and they are all of great importance, and to be considered by us in this matter. But because others of like moment may be added unto them, and are used by others of the ancients to the same end, we shall insist upon them all in that order which seems most natural unto them; yet so, as that they may be all referred unto those general heads by him proposed.

q Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 22.

$23. Two things there are that belong to the wụn or sentence of this epistle: first, its general argument; and, secondly, the particular subject-matter treated of in it. These seem to be designed by you. Now the general argument of this Epistle, is the same with that of the whole Scriptures besides. That is, a revelation of the will of God as to the faith and obedience of the church, and this holy, heavenly, and divine, answering the wisdom, truth, and sovereignty of him from whom it doth proceed. Hence they are called, Moya 709 909, the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2. or the infallible revelation of his will; and Eneala ons Cars clavi, John vi. 68. the words of eternal life: for that, in the name of God, they treat about. And St Paul tells us, that the argument of the gospel is wisdom; but not the wisdom of this world, nor the princes of it who are destroyed, done away, and made useless by it; that is, the chief leaders of human wisdom and science, I Cor. ii. 6. but it is se v v μυστηρίω, ή αποκεκρυμμένη, &c. the mysterious wisdom of God that was hidden from them, ver. 7. Things of his own mere revelation, from his sovereign will and pleasure, with a stamp and impress of his goodness and wisdom upon them, of a different nature from any thing that the choicest wisdom of the princes of this world can reach or attain unto. And such is the argument of this Epistle: it treats of things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor have they by any natural means ever entered into the heart of man; and that in absolute harmony with all other unquestionable revelations of the will of God. Now, if the immediate original hereof be not from God, that is by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; then it must be either the invention of some man spinning the whole web and frame of it out of his own imagination, or from his diligence in framing and composing of it from a system of principles collected out of other writings of divine revelation. The first will not be pretended.

Two things absolutely free it from suffering under any such suspicion. First, The nature of its argument, treating, as was said, of such things as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man. The deity, offices, sacrifice, mediation and grace of Jesus Christ, are not things that can have any foundation in the invention and imagination. of man. Yea, being revealed by God, they lie in a direct contradiction unto all that naturally is esteemed wise or perfect, 1 Cor. i. 18-23. They exceed the sphere of natural comprehension, and are destructive of the principles which it frameth unto itself for the compassing of those ends whereunto they are designed. Nor is it liable to be esteemed of the other extract, or the diligence and wisdom of mau in collecting it from other books of divine revelation, which alone with any colour

of reason can be pretended. Human diligence, regulated by what is elsewhere revealed of God, is human still; and can never free itself from those inseparable attendances which will manifest it so to be. For suppose a man may compose a writing, wherein every proposition in itself shall be true, and the whole in its contexture materially every way answerable unto the truth, (which yet must be accidental as to the principle of his wisdom, understanding, ability, and diligence, by whom it is composed, they being no way able to give that effect certainly and infallibly unto it), yet there will never be wanting that in it, whereby it may be discerned from an immediate eflect and product of divine wisdom and understanding. Take but the writings of any wise man, who from his own ability and invention hath declared any science in them, and allow his discovery of it to be the absolute complete rule of that science; so that nothing beyond, or besides what he hath written about it is true or certain, nor any thing else, but as it hath conformity to, or coincidence with what he hath written; and it will be very difficult, if not impossible for any man so to treat of that subject from his writings, as not to leave sufficient characters upon his own, to difference them from his original and pattern. For suppose him to have in all things attained the perfect sense of his guide, which yet, it may be, until all words are freed from their ambiguity, will be impossible for any one to do; yet still there will remain such an impression of the genius and fancy by which its rules were first framed, as the follower cannot express. And how much more will there be so in that which both for matter and words also, proceeds from the sovereign will and wisdom of God! Can it be supposed, that any man should be able to collect and arrange, by his own industry and diligence, a writing, out of that which is given by God, that should absolutely express those infinite perfections of his nature, which shine forth in that which is immediately from himself? For that any writing should be pretended to be undiscernible from them given by divine inspiration, it is not enough that the matter of it be universally true, and that truth no other but what is contained in other parts of Scripture; but it must also have those other Tungi and characters of a divine original, which we shall in our progress discover in this Epistle, as in other books of the Holy Scripture; for it is not behind the very choicest of them.

And the truth of this consideration is demonstrated, in the instances of every one of those writings, which may probably be concluded to have the nearest affinity and similitude unto those of divine inspiration, from the greatness and urgency of their plea to be admitted unto that series and order. These are the books commonly called Apocrypha. Not one of them is there