Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, that is, in the whole canonical Scripture. And it is evident that this distribution is taken from the subject-matter of those principal parts of it. This distribution they have by tradition, but not knowing, or neglecting the reason of it, they have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of revelation, and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased. This is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the Cethubim, or Hagiographa, which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that feigned distinction, and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture as to their spring and original. St Peter calls the whole Moyor gotov, 2 Pet. i. 19. the word of prophesy; and gobreixy, ver. 20. prophesy, and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it, to be given out by prophesy; which is a property of the whole. And St Paul also terms the whole Scripture gapai #gopnlixα Rom. xvi. 26. prophetical Scriptures, or writings of the prophets. And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures, he doth it in the same manner, IσTEVEIS TOIS #EOPATαis, Acts xxviii. 23. believest thou the prophets? that is, the Scriptures, written by the spirit of prophecy, or by the inspiration To s aulois Trevμalos Xgiorov, 1 Pet. i. το εν αυτοις πνευματος Χριστου, 11. of the Spirit of Christ that was in them. God of old spake, SY TOIS TROPHTαIS, Heb. i. 1. in his revelation of himself unto them and in them, and equally spake, δια στόματος των άγιων των απ' aivos Teopпtav, Luke i. 70. unto them, by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning. And thus, not this, or that part, but Tara vean DOVUTOS, 2 Tim. iii. 16. all Scripture was given by inspiration. And herein all the parts, or books of it are absolutely equal. And in the giving out of the whole, πνευμάλος άγιου ελαλησαν οι άγιοι Θεου ανθρωποι, 2 Pet. i. 21. holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of, in the communication of his mind and will unto any of the prophets or penmen of the Scripture, it was this dovevoriα, and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto the church. And thus the foundation of the canonical authority of the books of the Scripture, is absolutely the same in and unto them all, without the least variety, either from any difference in kind or degree. $9. The same is their condition as to their being canonical: they are all so equally. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously, and therefore sometimes call books canonical, that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church's faith and obedience. Thus the Constantinopolitan Council in Trulla confirms the canons both of the synod of Laodicea, and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could not be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their Appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the Holy Scripture. Hoc etiam (say they) fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii dies celebrantur. They speak dubiously concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical, only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same Epiphanius testifies of the epistles of Clemens. But as the books which that synod added to the canon of Laodicea, are rejected by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Hilarius, Gregorius Nazianzen', Cyrillus Hierosolimitanus", Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Hierome, Gregorius Magnus, and others; so their reading and citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners, and not for the confirmation of the faith. Thus St Paul cited an Iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Cor. xv. 33. an Hemistichium out of Aratus, Acts xvii. 28. and 2 whole Hexameter out of Epimenides, Titus i. 12. Non sunt fanonici, sed leguntur Catechumenis, saith Athanasius. They are not canonical, but are only read to the Catechumeni.' And Hierome, the church reads them ad ædificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandum:- for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any points of faith.' But although some books truly canonical were of old amongst some are, as Epiphanius' speaks, doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certainly año. goa, apocryphal, yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice, can give any countenance to an apprehension of a second, or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accrues unto it, as hath been shown, merely from its divine in o Concil. Cartha. 3. cap. 47. n Concil. Constan. in Trul. can. 2. Cod. can. 20. p Epiphan. Hær. 30. cap. 15. r Athanas. in Synops. cap. 26. lib. 6. cap. 25. in Psal. Hæ. 8. q Euseb. lib. 4. s Hilar. Præfat. v Epiphan. x Hieron. Præf. Galeat. ad t Nazian in Carmin. u Cyril Catech. 4. w Ruff. Exposit. Symb. Paulin. Hieron. Præf, in lib. Solom. y Epiphan. Hæ. 8. spiration, and from being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto the church. Therefore, whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have, yet, if it have not the properties mentioned of divine inspiration and confirmation, it differs in the whole kind, and not in degrees only, from all those that have them. It cannot then be any part regulæ regulantis, but regulate at the best, not having AUTOTIσrian, or a self-credibility on its own account, or avterleav, 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 christianarum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare, quod unam eandemque Spiritus Sancti vocem, impio humanæ stultitia discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, et disturbare autoritatis classes". They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege, who endeavour 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 subject matter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books, which being written by divine inspiration, are given out for the church's rule; they are all equal as to their canonical authority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writing may have, it can in no way receive an interest in that, whose formal reason it is 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 the books which the ancients called, ynia, sydiabnκαι καθολικά, αναμφίλεκτα, and ὁμολογουμενα, every way genuine and catholic. In 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 Irenæus and Epiphanius inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheite in Eusebius. Marcion rejected in particular this z Lindan. Panopl. Evang. lib. 3. cap. 4. b Epiphan. Hær, 30. cap. 25. a Irenæus, lib. 1. cap. 2. c Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 2. 1. 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, tentaTemus 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. 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 judgment of Hippolitus, another eminent member of that church: Ayu (saith he) de aλλa sa riva της ακρίβειας λειπομενα, και ότι ἡ προς Εβραίους επιστολή ουκ έστι του απο στόλου 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 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 d Epiphan. Hær. 42. cap. 9. f Theodor. Præf. in Ep. ad Heb. brusia. e Hierom. Præf. in Com. ad Titum. h Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Biblioth. Cod. 48. Cod. 120. Lib. 4. de Trin. 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 general admission of it as such, it being their custom not to restrain the testimonies they made use of, unto books absolutely canonical. § 13. Baronius 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 m. §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 m Exposit Symb. Apostol. 1 Annal. Ecclesia, An. 61. nu. 43. |