diligently examine by whom it was written, yet I judge it very sufficient to frustrate the exception insisted on, though, perhaps not containing the true, at least the whole cause of the omission of an apostolical salutation in the entrance of it.

$19. If then we would know the true and just cause of the omission of the author's name, and mention of his apostolical authority in the entrance of this Epistle, we must consider what were the just reasons of prefixing them unto his other Epistles. Chrysostome in his Proem unto the Epistle to the Romans gives this as the only reason of the mentioning the name of the writer of any Epistle, in the frontispiece of it, otherwise than was done by Moses and the Evangelists in their writings; namely, because these wrote unto them that were present, and so had no cause to make mention of their own names, which were well enough known without the premising of them in their writings: whereas those who wrote Epistles, dealing with them that were absent, were necessitated to prefix their names unto them, that they might know from whom they came. But yet this reason is not absolutely satisfactory: for they who prefixed not their names to their writings, wrote, not only for the use and benefit of those that were present and knew them, but of all succeeding ages, who knew them not. And many of them who did preach and write the word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them, yet prefixed their names unto their writings, as did the prophets of old, and some who did write Epistles to them who were absent, omitted so to do, as St John, and the author of this Epistle. The real cause then of prefixing the names of any of the apostles unto their writings, was merely the introduction thereby of their titles, as apostles of Jesus Christ, and therein an intimation of that authority, by, and with which they wrote. This then was the true and only reason why the apostle St Paul prefixed his name unto his Epistles; sometimes indeed this is omitted when he wrote unto some churches where he was well known, and his apostolical power was sufficiently owned, because he joined others with himself in his salutation who were not apostles, as the Epistle to the Philippians, chap i. and the second of the Thessalonians. Unto all others, he still prefixeth this title, declaring himself thereby to be one, so authorized to reveal the mysteries of the gospel, that they to whom he wrote, were to acquiesce in his authority, and to resolve their faith into the revelation of the will of God, made unto him, and by him, the church being to be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles. And hence it was, that when something he had taught, was called in question, and opposed, writing in the vindication of it, and for their establishment in the truth, whom before he had instructed, he doth in the entrance of his writings, singularly and

emphatically mention this his authority, Gal. i. 1. “Paul an apostle, neither of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that raised him from the dead:" so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the doctrine by him revealed. By this title, I say, he directs them to whom he wrote, to resolve their assent into the authority of Christ speaking in him, which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the mysteries wherein they were instructed.

;

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 Messiah 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. 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 his name must necessarily accompany, needless, because useless, 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 certainly known unto us, from what he there says of himself, yet none can be so fond to 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 mc

ment.

$20. 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 assertion. Unto this 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. and iii. where the writer of it seems to reckon himself among the number, not of the apostles, but of their

auditors. 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 another interpretation, as shall be manifested in its proper place. For as both this and other things of the same nature, must be considered and spoken unto, in the places where they occur, I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due season; 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 ascribing of this Epistle unto St Paul; by the consideration 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 discourse.

$21. Amongst the arguments usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been written by St Paul, the testimony given unto it by St Peter, deserves consideration in the first place, and is indeed of itself sufficient to determine the enquiry about it. His words to this purpose, Epist. 2. Chap. 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 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 few things must be observed in it, and concerning it. As 1st, 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. iii. 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 persons; handling in both the same general argument, as himself in the next words affirms. 2d, That his first epistle was written unto the Jews or Hebrews in the Asian dispersion, εκλεκτοις παρεπίδημοις διασπορας Πολον, &c. to ' the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Chap. i. 1. that is the dadena Qudais ev en diaoroga, 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 παρεπίδημοι διασπορας, οι εν τη διασπορα, are those whom the Jews of Jerusalem called the διασπορά των Ἑλλήνων, 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 on the dispersion or scattering of Israel, when they were sifted amongst all nations, like the sifting of a sieve, Amos ix. 9. Psal. cxlvii. 2. they are called

, which the LXX. according to the phrase in their days render τας διασπορας του Ισραήλ, the dispersions, or those scattered

האבדים בארץ אשור,abroad of Israel, as Isaiah calls them

and 7, Chap. xxvii. 13. So that there is no question but that these were they whom St Peter calls the Saga of Pontus, Galatia, &c. As St James, extending his salutation to the same people in all places, the diacroga of the twelve tribes.

Besides, many things insisted on by St Peter in these epistles, were peculiar to the Hebrews, who also were his especial care: See 1 Epist. i. 10—12. ii. 9. 21. iii. 5, 6. iv. 7. 17. Eph. ii. 19, -21. ii. 1. 11, &c. iii. 10-14. and many other particular places of the same nature may be observed in them. To sum up

our evidence in this particular: Peter being in an especial manner the apostle of the circumcision or Hebrews, Gal. ii. 7. having by his first sermon converted many of these strangers of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Acts ii. 9, 10. 41. ascribing that title unto them to whom he wrote, which was the usual and proper appellation of them in all the world, ή διασπορά του Ίσραηλ, James i. 1. John vii. 35. treating with them for the most part about things peculiar to them in a special manner, and that with arguments and from principles peculiarly known unto them, as the places above quoted will manifest, there remains no ground of question, but it was those Hebrews unto whom he wrote. Nor are the exceptions that are made to this evidence of any such importance, as once to deserve a remembrance by them, who design not a protracting of their discourses by insisting on things unnecessary.

§ 22. Now it is plain in this testimony asserted, that St Paul wrote a peculiar epistle unto them, unto whom St Peter wrote his, that is to the Hebrews; he hath written unto you, as also in all his Epistles: that is, in all his other Epistles. Besides his other Epistles to other churches and persons, he hath also written one unto you. So that, if St Peter's testimony may be received, St Paul undoubtedly wrote an Epistle unto the Hebrews. But this may be, say some, another Epistle, and not this we treat on; particularly that to the Galatians, which treateth about Judaical customs and worship. But this Epis tle mentioned by St Peter was written particularly unto the Hebrews in distinction from the Gentiles. This to the Galatians is written peculiarly to the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews; so that a more unhappy instance could not possibly have

been fixed upon. Besides he treats not in it of the things here mentioned by St Peter, which are indeed the main subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But, say others, Paul indeed might write an Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be lost, and this that we have, might be written by some other: But whence this answer should proceed, but from a resolution by dieQuλerly, against light and conviction, I know not. If we give place to such rash and presumptuous conjectures, we shall quickly have nothing left entire or stable. For why may not another as well say, it is true Moses wrote five books, but they are lost, and these that we have under his name were written by another. It is not surely one jot less intolerable for any one, without ground, proof or testimony, to affirm that the church hath lost an Epistle written to the Hebrews by St Paul, and taken up one in the room thereof, written by no man knoweth whom. This is not to deal with that holy reverence in the things of God, which be

comes us.

§ 23. St Peter declares that St Paul in that Epistle which he wrote unto the Hebrews, had declared the long-suffering of God, whereof he had minded them, to be salvation. We must see what was this long-suffering of God, how it was salvation, and how Paul had manifested it so to be. The long-suffering, patience or forbearance of God, is either absolute toward man in general, or special in reference unto some sort of men; or some kind of sins or provocations that are amongst them. The first of these is not that which is here intended; nor was there any reason why St Peter should direct the Jews to the Epistles of St Paul in particular, to learn the long-suffering of God in general, which is so plentifully revealed in the whole Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, and only occasionally at any time mentioned by St Paul.

There was therefore an especial long-suffering of God which at that time he exercised towards the Jews, waiting for the conversion, and the gathering of his elect unto him, before that total and final destruction which they had deserved, should come upon that church and state. This he compares to the long-suffering of God in the days of Noah, whilst he preached repentance unto the world, 1 Epist. iii. 20. For as those that were obedient unto his preaching, which was only his own family, were saved in the Ark, from the general destruction that came upon the world by water; so also they that became obedient upon the preaching of the gospel, during this new season of God's special long-suffering, were to be saved by baptism, or separation from the unbelieving Jews by the profession of the faith, from the destruction that was to come upon them by fire. This long-suffering of God the unbelieving Jews,