6 Canonical Authority of the 3, Baronin adAn. x6o, laboursto take of this tailored- the Latins Church. The teÌti mony of Eùfebiur he rejeás, becaulè as he fayes, he was Arianorum gregalis ofthe Annal Eccle- Arian fattinn, and willing to call the authority of this.Epiftleinto nueftion in coin- plyance with them, who, fome ;f them as we.obferved betete, refufed it : n. 42. The nu.43. Judgement of Caitts he refolves into theTeftimony of Eufebiur, which becaui of hia partiality, as he pleads, is not to be admitted. -And !only oppofeth the wands of Hierome, as a perton who had Coffered himfelf to be impoled on by Eufebiur, whofe words in his reports of Cain:, he makes ufe of. n. go. Concluding upon the whole matter, that it was a meer falfecalumny of Eufebiur againft theChurch ofRome,which Hierome, by too muchfacillity gave credit unto. But I saute acknowledge, that thefe Anfwers of his, which indeed are nothing but a rejection of as good witneltes in matters of fad,as any, we have upon the Roll of Antiquity, are not unto me fatif- fadory, no more than the teftimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the Epiftle of Innocentiur to Emsperiur, which is junly'fufpt&d fuppoiititious with the Council at Rome againtt Apollinaris, under Damafur, wherein no filch thing appears. Expofrt. ¡ym . Though I will not denybut that about that time it came to be 'publickly owned by Bpeftel. that Church; and was reckoned unto the Canon of the Scripture byWino. f.'14. But whereindoth it in the leatf appear that Eufebiur reports theJudgement ofCaiser,4 or the RomanChurch, in complyance with the Arians; He himfelf evidently admits the Epiftie to be Canonical, and confirms it by the teftimonies ofClemens, Origen, and others. What would it advantage him or the caufe which fome pretend hefavoured, by reporting the oppofitionof others to a part of divine wrist which himfelf ac- cepted ! Betides they were not the Arians of the firft lank or edition, for an incli- nation unto whom Eufebiur is fufpe led, but fòmc of their off-fpring which fell out into filch Sacrilegious opinions and praetices as the firft leaders of them owned not that are accufed in this matter ; much lefs can he be thought to defign the reproach of the Roman Church. Nay thefe anfwers are incontinent, as any one may perceive. Hecould not at the fame timedefign the rejecting of theEpiftle in complyance with the Arians, and the calumniating of them by whom it was reje&ed, and on whofeAu- thority his intentions mull be founded. But indeed his words plainly, manifeft that he gives us á naked account of matter of fadl, without either prejudice or defign : It is yet more incredible, that Hierome in this matter thould fuller himfelf to be im- poled on by Eufebiur. That he was the moil eminently learned and knowing per- fon of the Roman or Lariat Church in thofe dayes, will, I fuppofe, not be greatly queftioned. Now to fuppofe that he knew not the cuflomes, opinions, and praâice of that Church, but would fuller himfelf to be impofed on by a ffranger, deftitute of thofe advantages which he had to come untoan unqueftionable certainty in it, is a very fond thing. Betdes he doth no( any where fpeak as one that reported the wordsandJudgement of another, but in three or four :places exprefly affirms it as of his own knowledge; when at the fain time in oppofition thereunto,.he contends that it was received by all other Churches in the world, and allWriters from the dayes of the Apoftles. . 15. Neither.yet doth it appear from any thing deliveredby Coins, Hippolitus, Eufebiur Bettef:ojl.ieJh or Hierome, that the Latine Church did ever rejetï this Epiftle. Yea, we (hall find lib - 3* cap. 3' that many amongfl them; even in thofe dayes, reckoned it unto the Canon of the Scripture, and owned S'. Paul as the Penmanof it. Eufebiur himfelf acknowledges that Clemens ufeth fundry Teftimonies-out of ir, in his Epiftlead Corinthior. And othersalto there wereconcurring with his judgement therein. But thefe twothings I allow, on the teftimonies infifted on. (r.) That fundry particular perfons of note and efteem in the Roman Church owned not the Canonical authority of this Epiftle, as not efteeming it written by S'. Paul: (2.) The Church it fell had not be- fore the dayes of 1Jierome made any publick Judgementabout the Author or Authori- ty of this Epiftle, nor given any Teftimony unto them. For it feems utterly im- poffrble, that ifany fuch Judgement had pafled , or teftimony been given, that Hiermne living in the midft of that Church, Ihould know nothing of it, but fooften affirm the contrary without hafrtation. And this undenyably evinceth the injuftice of fome mens pretenfions, that the Roman Church is the only propofer of Canonical Scripture, and that upon the Authority of her propofal alone it is to be received.- Four hundred years were patted before fhe her fell publickly received this Epiftle, or read it in her Aflemblies ; fo far was the from havingpropofed it unto others. And yet all this while was it admitted and received by all other Churches in the world, as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=