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 timony 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 a 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 castern churches, be o Epist. ad Dardan. 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. λa nai exλavõe, κειται εν τω κατα λουκαν ευαγγελίω εν τοις αδιόρθωτοις αντιγράφοις, και κεχρηται τη μαρτυρία ο άγιος Ειρηναίος εν τω κατα αιρέσεων, προς τους δοκήσει τον Χριστον πεφηνέναι λέγονίας, ορθόδοξοι δε αφείλοντο το ρητον, φοβηθέντες, και μη 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. Bellarmin P 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. the other in his last Annotation on this Epistle, denying it to be St Paul's, and questioning, yea indeed rejecting its canonical authority. To them we may add Eniedinus, proceeding upon the same principles, and making use of their arguments to the same purpose. These are the chief, if not absolutely all, who have at any time made any scruple about the authority of this Epistle. The reasons they make use of to justify themselves in their conjectures, are amassed together by Erasmus in his note on the 24th verse of the last chapter of it; but because he mixeth together the arguments that he insists on to prove St Paul not to have been the penman of it, and the exceptions he puts in unto its canonical authority, which are things of a diverse consideration, I shall separate them, and first take out those that seem absolutely to impeach its authority, leaving those that oppose its penman to our ensuing discourse on that question in particular. $18. The first thing generally pleaded, is the uncertainty of its author or penman. Sola omnium Pauli nomen non præfert, saith Erasmus. How unjust and groundless this pretence is, we shall afterwards fully manifest. At present I shall only shew, that it is in general of no importance in this cause. The author of a writing being certainly known, may indeed give some light unto the nature and authority of it. But when it is confessed, that the penman of any book was auctos, or divinely inspired, and that by him it was written for the use of the church, there can be no question of its authority. But this last, viz. that he, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, designed it for the use of the church, must be no less known than the former. For a man may write one book by inspiration, and others by a fallible human judgment, as Solomon seems to have done his philosophical discourses that are lost. Again, when the penman of any writing pretending unto Divine authority is not esteemed, nor doth manifest himself in any thing to have been, ύπο πνευματος ἁγιου φερομενος, immediately acted by the Holy Ghost, the writing itself must needs be liable unto just exception. Wherefore it is confessed, that when the author of any writing is certainly known, much light into its authority and relation unto the canon of the Scripture may be thence received. But when this is doubtful, nothing satisfactory on either side can thence be concluded. And therefore it hath pleased the Holy Ghost, to keep the names of the penmen of many parts of the Scripture in everlasting obscurity for he borrows no countenance or authority unto any thing that proceeds by inspiration from himself, from the names of men. There is not then the least strength in this exception; for be it granted that we are altogether uncertain who was the penman of this Epistle, yet no impeachment of its authority can thence be taken, unless it can be proved that he was not divinely inspired. But yet, to shew the insufficiency every way of this objection, we shall abundantly evince, that indeed the very ground and foundation of it is feeble and false: the penman of this epistle being as well and certainly known, as those of any portions of Scripture whatever that are aviyepa, some whereof were never doubted nor called into question. And at least we shall so far evince St Paul to have been the author of it, as, although we shall not from thence take any argument to prove its canonical authority, because it hath itself been called into question, yet as to render an objection from the uncertainty of its author altogether unreasonable. § 19. The remaining objections are more particular, and direct to their purpose, by whom they are pleaded. As, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related in the 11th chapter, and that in particular in chap. xii. ver. 21. where he affirms, that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that appeared unto him, said, I exceedingly quake and tremble. This place Erasmus supposeth Hierome to have intended, when he says that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty. For, first, he would refer the place to Moses' sight of the angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, dixit saltem facto: though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all, vel forte apostolus alia utitur litera quam nos non habemus:- or it may be the apostle used another text that we have not.' But there is no need of any of these evasions. The author quotes no book, nor testimony of the Old Testament, but only relates a matter of fact, and one circumstance of it, which doubtless he had by divine revelation, whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is originally recorded. Thus in the beginning of the Chronicles, sundry particular stories, (as that about the children of Ephraim, chap. vii. 21.) no where before written, are reported from the same infallible direction by which others of the same time were written, when they were omitted. And it is an uncouth way of proving an author not to write by divine inspiration, because he writeth truths with which he could no otherwise be acquainted. Neither is it unmeet for him that writes by divine inspiration, to mention things recorded in other stories, whose truth is unquestionable, as is the case with those which are related in chap. xi. § 20. It seems to be of more importance, that, if the objectors may be believed, the writer of this Epistle citeth testimo |