1 Concil. Carth. 3, cap. xlvii. cod. can. xx. 2 Epiphan. Heer, xxx. cap. XY. 3 Buseb. lib. iv.cap. xxvi.; lib. vi. cap. xxv. be Athanas. in Synops. 5 Hilar, Preefat. in Ps, 6 Nazian. in Carmin. 7 Cyril. Catech. iv. § Epiphan. Heer. viii. 9 Ruf. Exposit. Symb. 10 Hieron. Preef. Galeat, ad Paulin. » Hieron. Preef. in lib. Solom. 2 Epiphan. Heer. viii.
is .
32 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [EXERC. 1.
ties mentioned of divine inspiration and confirmation, it differs in the whole kind, and not in degrees only, from all those that have them; so that it can be no part regule regulantis, but regulate at the best, not having airomoriay, or a “ self-credibility” on its own account, or abéevre‘ay, a “self-sufficing authority,” but is truth only materially, by virtue of its analogy unto that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly so. And this was well observed by Lindanus. “Impio,” saith he, “sacrilegio se contaminant qui in Scripturarum Christiana- rum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare; quod unam ean- demque Spiritus Sancti vocem, impio humane stultitize discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, et disturbare auctoritatis classes ;” —‘“They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege who en- deavour to bring in, as it were, divers degrees into the body of the Scriptures; for by the impious discretion of human folly, they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal authority.”* As, then, whatever difference there may be as to the sub- ject-matter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books that, being written by divine inspiration, are given out . for the church’s rule, they are all equal as to their canonical au- thority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so, whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writings may have, it can no way give them any interest in that whose formal reason they are not concerned in.
10. In the sense explained, we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be canonical, that is, properly and strictly so, and of the number of them which the ancients called yujoim, evdiddnna, xaborind, dvampihenrce, and éuorovobmevra,, every way genuine and catholic: in the confirmation whereof, we shall first declare by whom it hath been opposed or questioned, and then what reasons they pretend for their so doing; which being removed out of our way, the arguments whereby the truth of our assertion is evinced shall be insisted on.
11. We need not much insist on their madness who of old, with a sacrilegious licentiousness, rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased. The Ebionites not only rejected all the epistles of Paul, but also reviled his person as a Greek and an apostate, as Irenzeus” and Epiphanius*® inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helcesaitze in Eusebius.* Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews, and those also to Timothy and Titus, as Epiphanius’ and Jerome® 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
? Lindan. Panopl. Evang. lib. iii. cap. iv. 2 Tren. lib. i. cap. ii. 3 Epiphan.
Heer. xxx. cap. xxv. ¢ Euseb. lib. vi. cap. xxxyiii. 5 Epiphan. Heer. xlii.- cap. ix. 6 Hieron. Preef. in Com. ad Titum. 7 Theodor. Preef. in Ep. ad Heb.
SECT. 10-13. | EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 33
done by Petrus Cluniensis,‘ yet Jerome 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 ali- quid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori; nunc vero cum heer- etica auctoritate pronunciant et dicunt, illa epistola Pauli est, hac non est, ea auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescant falsa simulare.” They did not so much as plead or pre- tend 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. Eusebius? 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 judg- ment of Hippolytus, another eminent member of that church: Aéyzi, saith he, 0: dAra rd rive rig dxpiCeliag Aei@bweva, nal Orr 4 pds ‘ECpasous "Essorory 0% tori rod droorédov IlatAov-—“ 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. Jerome grants that “ Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebrzos inter canonicas Scripturas,—‘ the 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 denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the writing 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 gene- ral admission of it as such, it being their custom not to restrain the testimonies they made use of unto books absolutely canonical.