16. No impeachment, then, of the authority of this Epistle can be taken from this defect and inadvertency of the Roman church, it being evinced to be so by the concurrent suffrage and testimony of all other churches in the world from the days of the apostles; as we shall afterwards more fully declare. Neither are the occasions of this hesitation of the western church obscure. The Epistle was writ- ten, it may be, in Rome; at least it was written in some part of Italy, chap. xiii. 24. There, no doubt, it was seen, and, it may be, copied out before its sending, by some who used to accompany the apostle, as Clemens; who, as we have showed, not long after mentioned divers things contained in it. The original was, without question, speedily
1 Hecles. Hist. lib, iii. cap. xxxvili.
36 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE {EXERC. I.
sent into Judea unto the Hebrews, to whom it was written and di- rected; 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 commu- nicating 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 coalescency 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 Greeci sermonis scriptoribus,” as Jerome speaks But the Latin church, having lost that advantage of receiving it upon its first writing,—it may be, also, upon 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 seruples 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 that time it had gra- dually made its progress in its return into the west, where it was first written, and, attended with the suffrage of all the eastern churches, begun to evince its own authority, sundry persons, who were wrang- ling about peculiar opinions and practices of their own, began to seek advantages from some expressions in it. So, in particular, did the Novatians and the Donatists. This might possibly increase the scruple amongst the orthodox, and make them wary in their admis- sion of that authority which they found pleaded against them. And well was it for them that the opinions about which they dis- agreed 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 some- times with the Scripture, if they supposed it to run cross unto their conceptions. So Epiphanius informs us in Ancorat.: "AAA& xa! exravee, xGre ev + nore Aovnty eluyyeriw ev rors cdspbwrois avriypagors, nal xixpnras TH aprupig. 6 céyiog Eipyvalos ev r@ nave aipeoemv, wpos rovg 1 Epist ad Dardan.
SECT. 17, 18.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 87
Oonjoss rov Xproriy weDnvevas Aéyovrase dpdcdokor b& aPelAovro rb pnroy, polnberres, xa! wu vonouvres adrov rd TéAog, xal +d ioyupérarov'—* And also ‘He wept;’ for so it is read in the uncorrected copies of the Gospel according to Luke. And St Irenzus useth this testimony in his book against heresies, for their confutation who affirmed that Christ took flesh only in appearance; but the orthodox” (or Catho- lies) “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 Senensis, 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;” —“TJ 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 occa~ sions 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.