13. Baronius,® ad an. 60, labours to take off this failure of the Latin church. The testimony of Eusebius he rejects, because, as he
1 Petrus Clunia. Epist. ad Petrobrusia. 2 Huseb. lib. iii. cap. iii., lib. vi. cap. xx. 8 Photius Biblioth. cod. xlviii. cod. exx. 4 Lib. iii. cap. iii. 5 Hpist. cxxix. ad Dardan.; Comment. in Hsa. viii; in cap. i. ad Eccles. de Scriptor. Ecclesiast.; in Caio; in Matt. xxvi.; in Zach. viii.; lib. iv. de Trin.; lib. ii. de Cain. 8 Ann. Eccles. an. 60, n. 56. VOL. XVIU. 3
34 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [EXERC. I.
says, he was “ Arianorum gregalis,” “of the Arian faction,” and will- ing to call the authority of this Epistle into question, in compliance with them who, some of them, as we observed before, refused it, n. 56; 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, he opposeth the witness of Jerome, 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. 56; concluding upon the whole matter, that it was a mere false calumny of Eusebius against the church of Rome, which Jerome, 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 antiquity,—are not unto me satisfactory; no more than the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the Epistle of Innocentius to Exsuperius, which is justly suspected supposititious, with the council at Rome against Apollinaris, under Damasus, wherein no such thingappears,—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 Rufinus.*
14, But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the judgment of Caius or of 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, by reporting 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, which fell out into such sacri- legious opmions 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 the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected, and on whose authority his intention 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 Jerome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on by Eusebius. That he was the most eminently learned and know- ing person of the Roman or Latin church in those days will, I sup- pose, 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 advan-
1 Exposit. Symb. Apostol.
SECT. 14-16. ] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 35
tages which he had to come unto an unquestionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Besides, he doth not anywhere 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; while, 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, Hippolytus, Eusebius, or Jerome, 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 acknow- ledges 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 Jerome 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 judg- ment had passed or testimony been given, Jerome, 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 men’s 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 past 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 it was admitted and received by all other churches in the world, as Jerome testifies, and that from the days of the apostles; whose judgment the Roman church itself at length submitted unto.