Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy and Titus, as Epiphanius and Hierome assure us, who adds unto him Basilides. And Theodoret, as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews, joins unto them some of the Arians also. Now, though the folly of those sacrilegious persons be easy to be repelled, as it is done by Petrus Cluniensis, yet Hierome hath given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein. Si quidem (saith he) redderent causas cur eas apostoli non putant, tentaremus aliquid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori; nunc vero cum hæretica autoritate pronunciant et dicunt, illa Epistola Pauli est, hæc non est, ea autoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescant falsa simulare. They did not so much as plead, or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these Epistles, but did it upon their own head and authority, so they deserve neither answer nor consideration.

§ 12. It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time, though not rejected by, yet not received in the church of Rome. Eusebiush informs us, that Caius, a presbyter of that church, whom he much commends for his learning and piety, admitted but of thirteen epistles of St Paul, rejecting that unto the Hebrews, as Photius also affirms. And the same Photius acquaints us with the same judgment of Hippolitus, another eminent member of that church: Λέγει (saith he) δε άλλα τα τινα της ακριβείας λειπομενα, και ότι ἡ προς Εβραιους επιστολή ουκ εστι του αποστολου Παύλου. Among other things not exactly answering the truth, he saith also, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Paul's. And Eusebius adds unto his information of the judgment of Caius, that it was not generally received in the church of Rome in his time. Neither is it any way acknowledged as St Paul's, by either Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, or Arnobius. Yea, the same Eusebius affirms, that some excepted against it upon this account, because it was opposed, as none of St Paul's, in the Roman church. Hierome grants that, Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebræos inter canonicas ScripturasThe custom of the Latins (that is the Roman church) did not receive this Epistle among the canonical Scriptures.' And speaking elsewhere of it, he adds the same words, Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas Scripturas non recipiat. And elsewhere also he confirms the same assertion. It cannot then be

d Epiphan. Hær. 42. cap. 9. f Theodor. Præf. in Ep. ad Heb. brusia.

e Hierom. Præf, in Com. ad Titum. g Petrus Clunia. Epist. ad Petroi Photius k Epist. 129.

h Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Biblioth. Cod. 48. Cod. 120. j Lib. 3. cap. 3. ad Dardanum. Comment. in Isa. cap. 8. in Cap. 1. ad Eccles. de Scriptor. Bcclesiast. in Caio. in Matt. cap. 26. in Zechar. cap. 8. Lib. 4. de Trin. Lib. 2. de Cain.

denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the wri, ting of this Epistle, before it was publicly received and avowed as canonical by the Roman church. Nor will the quotation of it by Hilary and Ambrose prove any general admission of it as such, it being their custom not to restrain the testimonies they made use of, unto books absolutely canonical.

§ 13. Baronius1 ad An. 160, labours to take off this failure of the Latin church. The testimony of Eusebius he rejects, because as he says, he was Arianorum gregalis of the Arian faction, and willing to call the authority of this Epistle into question in compliance with them, who, some of them, as we observed before, refused it: n. 42. The judgment of Caius he resolves into the testimony of Eusebius, which because of his partiality, as he pleads, is not to be admitted. And lastly opposeth the witness of Hierome, as a person who had suffered himself to be imposed on by Eusebius, whose words in his reports of Caius, he makes use of. n. 50. Concluding upon the whole matter, that it was a mere false calumny of Eusebius, against the church of Rome, which Hierome by too much facility gave credit unto. But I must acknowledge, that these answers of his, which indeed are nothing but a rejection of as good witnesses in matters of fact, as any we have upon the roll of antiqui ty, are not unto me satisfactory. Neither am I satisfied with the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius, which is justly suspected to be supposititious; as is that of the council at Rome against Appolinaris, under Damasus, wherein no such thing appears. Though I will not deny, but that about that time it came to be publicly owned by that church, and was reckoned unto the canon of the Scripture by Ruffinus.

§14. But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the judgment of Caius, or the Roman church, in compliance with the Arians; he himself evidently admits the Epistle to be canonical, and confirms it by the testimonies of Clemens, Origen and others. What would it advantage him, or the cause which some pretend he favoured, to report the opposition of others to a part of divine writ which himself accepted? Besides they were not the Arians of the first rank or edition, (for an inclination unto whom Eusebius is suspected,) but some of their offspring who fell into such sacrilegious opinions and practices as the first leaders of them owned not, that are accused in this matter; much less can he be thought to design the reproach of the Roman church. Nay, these answers are inconsistent, as any one may perceive. He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in compliance with the Arians, and

1 Annal. Ecclesia, An. 61. nu. 43.

m Exposit Symb. Apostol.

the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected, and on whose authority his intentions must be founded. But indeed his words plainly manifest that he gives us a naked account of matter of fact, without either prejudice or design. It is yet more incredible, that Hierome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on by Eusebius. That he was the most eminently learned and knowing person of the Roman or Latin church in those days, will, I suppose, not be greatly questioned. Now to suppose that he knew not the customs, opinions, and practice of that church, but would suffer himself to be imposed on by a stranger, destitute of those advantages which he had to come unto an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides he doth not any where speak as one that reported the words and judgment of another, but in three or four places expressly affirms it as of his own knowledge; when at the same time in opposition thereunto, he contends that it was received by all other churches in the world, and all writers from the days of the apostles.

§ 15. Neither yet doth it appear from any thing delivered by Caius, Hippolitus, Eusebius or Hierome, that the Latin church did ever reject this Epistle. Yea, we shall find that many amongst them, even in those days, reckoned it unto the canon of the Scripture, and owned St Paul as the penman of it. Eusebius" himself acknowledges that Clemens useth sundry testimonies out of it, in his Epistle ad Corinthios. And others also there were concurring with his judgment therein. But these two things I allow, on the testimonies insisted on. (1.) That sundry particular persons of note and esteem in the Roman church owned not the canonical authority of this Epistle, as not esteeming it written by St Paul. (2.) The church itself had not before the days of Hierome made any public judgment about the author or authority of this epistle, nor given any testimony unto them. For it seems utterly impossible, that if any such judgment had passed, or testimony been given, that Hierome, living in the midst of that church, should know nothing of it, but so often affirm the contrary without hesitation. And this undeniably evinceth the injustice of some mens pretensions, that the Roman church is the only proposer of canonical Scripture, and that upon the authority of her proposal alone it is to be received. Four hundred years were passed, before she herself publicly received this Epistle, or read it in her assemblies; so far was she from having proposed it unto others. And yet all this while was it admitted and received by all other churches in the world, as Hierome testifies, and that from the days of the

n Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 32.

apostles, whose judgment the Roman church itself at length submitted unto.

§ 16. No impeachment then of the authority of this Epistle can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman church, it being proved to be a defect by the concurrent suffrage and testimony of all other churches in the world, from the days of the apostle, as we shall afterwards more fully declare. Neither are the occasions of this hesitation of the western church obscure the Epistle was written, it may be, in Rome, at least it was in some part of Italy, chap. xiii. 24. There no doubt it was seen, and, it may be, copied out before it was sent, by some who used to accompany the apostle, as Clemens, who, as we have shewed, not long after mentioned divers things contained in it. The original was, without question, speedily sent into Judea, unto the Hebrews, to whom it was written and directed, as were all others of the epistles of the same apostle unto those churches that were immediately intended and concerned in them. That copies of it were by them also communicated unto their brethren in the east, equally concerned in it with themselves, cannot be doubted, unless we will suppose them grossly negligent in their duty towards God and man, which we have no reason to do. But the churches of the Hebrews living at that time, and for some while after, if not in a separation, yet in a distinction, by reason of some peculiar observances, from the churches of the Gentiles, especially those of the west, they were not, it may be, very forward in communicating this epistle unto them, being written, as they supposed, about an especial concernment of their own. By this means, this epistle seems to have been kept much within the compass of the churches of the Jews, until after the destruction of the temple; when by their dispersion and coalescence with other churches in the east, it came to be generally received amongst them; and non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiis et Græci sermonis Scriptoribus, as Hierome speaks. But the Latin church having lost that advantage of receiving it when first written, it may be also from the consideration of the removal of its peculiar argument, upon the final destruction of the whole Judaical church and worship, was somewhat slow in their inquiry after it. Those that succeeded in that church, it is not unlikely, had their scruples increased, because they found it not in common use amongst their predecessors, like to the rest of St Paul's epistles, not considering the occasion thereof. Add hereunto, that by the time it had gradually made its progress in its return into the west, where it was first written, and attended with the suffrage of all the eastern churches, be

o Epist. ad Dardan.

4

gan to evince its own authority, sundry persons who were wrangling about peculiar opinions and practices of their own, began to seek advantages from some expressions in it. So did in particular the Novatians and the Donatists. This might possibly increase the scruple amongst the orthodox, and make them wary in their admission of that authority which they found pleaded against them. And well was it for them, that their opinions about which they disagreed with their adversaries, were according unto truth, seeing it may justly be feared, that some then would have made them their rule and standard in their reception or rejection of this epistle; for it was no new thing for the orthodox themselves to make bold sometimes with Scripture, if they supposed it to run cross unto their conceptions. So Epiphanius informs us in Ancorat. aλλ nai exhavte, κειται εν τω κατα λουκαν ευαγγελίω εν τοις αδιόρθωτοις αντιγράφοις, και κεχρη ται τη μαρτυρια ὁ ἅγιος Ειρηναίος εν τω κατα αιρέσεων, προς τους δοκήσει τον Χριστον πέφηνεναι λεγοντας, ορθόδοξοι δε αφείλοντο το ρητον, φοβηθεντες, και με νοησαντες αυτώ το τέλος, και το ισχυρότατον. And also he wept ; for so it is read in the uncorrected copies of the gospel according to Luke: and St Irenæus useth this testimony in his book against heresies, for their confutation who affirmed that Christ took flesh only in appearance; but the Orthodox (or Catholics) being afraid (of the importance of that expression), took away that word out of the copies, not understanding its use and sense. So also Sixtus Sinensis, after he hath informed us, out of Hilary, that many orthodox persons denied the story of our Saviour's agony and bloody sweat, adds of his own, Suspicor a Catholicis sublatam esse, pio sed simplici zelo, quod favere videbatur Arianis. I suspect that the story was taken out of the copies, by some Catholics, out of a godly but simple zeal, because it seemed to favour the Arians. So great is the power of prejudice, and so little occasions have men taken, whom others have esteemed orthodox. and pious, to make bold with that word, whereby both we and all our opinions must be judged. But it being manifest at length, that no colour was given unto the unjust severities of the Novatians by any thing in this Epistle, it was generally embraced; and by the conquest of this opposition, established its authority for the future.

§ 17. Bellarmine chargeth Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius and the Centuriators, with the rejection of this Epistle. But because I know that some of them are falsely accused by him, I am apt to suspect the same of the rest, whom I have not the opportunity to consult; and so I shall not reckon them amongst the opposers of this Epistle. The matter is more certain concerning Cajetan and Erasmus: the former in his Preface unto,

p De Verb. Dei, lib. 1. cap. 11.