his confidence in it as the real production of the great apostle.1

2

After the time of Origen, for two centuries at least, the testimony of the church and school at Alexandria is unhesitating and unvaried. Dyonisius, his disciple, who flourished about A. D. 247, says in an epistle to Fabius of Antioch: "Paul also says, They also, like those to whom Paul bore testimony (Hebrews 10:34), took with joy the spoiling of their goods." Theophrastus (about A. D. 282) is equally explicit: "Paul also says, For it is impossible for those who have been once enlightened," etc. (Heb. 6:4—6.) So Hierax, Peter, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Serapion, Cyril of Alexandria, down to Euthalius (A. D. 460), who, although he recognizes the fact that objections have been made to it, yet sets them aside and declares it to be Paul's.* Other persons in Egypt, though not Alexandrians, might also be quoted, but it is deemed unnecessary."

We should not neglect to notice that its position in the canon was different in these early ages from the one it now occupies. Ebrard says its Pauline origin "is confirmed by the remarkable circumstance that the Epistle to the Hebrews, as is still evident from the numbering of the Kephalaia in the Cod. B., originally stood between the Ep.

Thus Forster says: 66 Origen, at the commencement of the third century, following out, apparen ly, an obscure hint of his master, Clement of Alexandria, first started a doubt as to the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews being the composition of Saint Paul; the style, in his opinion, being éλλŋvikwтépa, purer Greek than that of St. Paul in his other writings. This doubt, however, regarded not in the least degree the question of authorship. For both Origen and Clement, agreeably to the tradition of the church in their time, constantly held the epistle to be the production of St. Paul The opinion, therefore, pronounced by the former, amounts only to this, the private judgment of a very eminent, but very fanciful scholar, on the character of St. Paul's Greek style." Apostol. Auth. of Hebr. Introd. p. 5.

* Καὶ τὴν ἁρπαλὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις οἷς καὶ Παῦλος ἐμαρτύρησε (Heb. 10:34). Meтà xaрâs πроσedéğavтo. Herod. Hist. Eccl. VI. 41.

8 Apud Athan. Opp. Ep. ad Serap., quoted by Davidson; kal & Пavλos dé φησιν· ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοῖς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας, κ. τ. λ.

See for the references in these authors, Stuart's Com. Introd. § 7, and Davi ison, III. p. 191.

5 See Stuart, as above.

to the Galatians and that to the Ephesians, and was not till a later period in the fourth century placed after the Epistle to the Thessalonians (as in Cod. A and C), and still later after the pastoral epistles."1

In Syria, Palestine, and Greece, the tradition was uniformly in favor of the Pauline authorship, until the time of the Arian controversy. About the middle of the third century the council at Antioch, in its official capacity, definitely designates it as Paul's, and ranks it with the epistles to the Corinthians: now the Lord is that Spirit, according to the apostle (2 Cor. 3:17). And, according to the same, For they drank of the spiritual rock, etc. (1 Cor. 10:4). And of Moses the apostle writes: Esteeming the reproaches of Christ greater riches, etc. (Heb. 11:26). Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Syria and of Tyre, probably refers to 10:1 and 12 of this epistle of Paul, though it is not absolutely certain. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Jacob of Nisibis (A. D. 325), and Ephrem Syrus, in numerous passages, ascribe this epistle to Paul.

2

But still more important confirmation of the Pauline origin of the epistle is found in the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Cesarea, who was the first who made the enumeration of the books of the canon of scripture the object of his special attention. In his commentary on the Psalms, he refers to and quotes the epistle very frequently, attributing it to the apostle Paul without the least hint of any doubt about its authorship." Thus, in his Commentary on the Second Psalm, he writes: "The Hebrew said that the right reading was eTEKOV, which also Aquila had; but the apostle, being acquainted with the law, in the Epistle

to the Hebrews made use of the word in the LXX. (Heb.

1 App. to Comm. Ch. IV. (A).

* Ο δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμα, κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον· κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτόν. ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς πέτρας, κ. τ. λ. .... . . . Καὶ περὶ Μωϋσέως· μείζονα πλοῦτον ἡγησάμενος, K. T. λ. Mansi Collect. Concil. Tom. I. p. 1036.

8 See Stuart, Davidson, and Bleek.

* See Davidson, III. p. 192, where he quotes as follows: 8 μév Torye 'Eßpaîos ἐλέγετο κύριον εἶναι τῆς λέξεως ἔτεκον, ὅπερ καὶ ̓Ακύλας πεποίηκεν· ὁ δὲ ἀπόστο λος, νομομαθὴς ὑπάρχων, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους τῇ τῶν ὁ ἐχρήσατο, κ. τ. λ.

1:5)." So in his History he says: "Fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul's, but yet it is proper to say that some, with the church at Rome, reject that to the Hebrews, alleging that it is denied to be Paul's." And in another passage (Eccl. Hist. ii. 25) he plainly reckons the Hebrews among the acknowledged (ópoλoyoúμevo) epistles, while James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John are among those which are disputed (åvτiλeyóμevo). In one passage, while he maintains the Pauline authorship of the epistle, he has been supposed to give his sanction to the theory of Origen, of a Hebrew original. After saying that Clement often quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, he adds: "Wherefore not without reason this epistle is reckoned among the writings of Paul. For when Paul had written to the Hebrews, in their vernacular language, some say that Luke the evangelist, and others that this same Clement, translated the letter, which latter appears more like the truth, since there is a resemblance between the style and sentiments of Clement's Epistle and the Epistle to the Hebrews." This passage, standing as it does by itself, affords no very decided proof that Eusebius meant anything more than to defend the epistle upon the ground of those who stumbled at the supposed dissimilarity of style between the Hebrews and the other epistles of Paul. This is the more probable, not to say almost certain, when we compare this passage with that quoted above from his Commentary on Ps. II., where the phrase: The apostle, . . . . . in the Epistle to the Hebrews, made use of the word in the LXX., plainly implies a Greek original.

It is true that one passage is found which seems, at first,

1 Τοῦ δὲ Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσερες· ὅτι γε μήν τινες, ἠθετήκασι τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους, πρὸς τῆς Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησίας, ὡς μὴ Παύλου οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἀντιλέγεσθαι φήσαντες οὐ δίκαιον ἀγνοεῖν. Hist. Εccl. III. 3.

2 Οθεν εἰκότως ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγκαταλεχθῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ ἀποστό λου. Ἑβραίοις γὰρ διὰ τῆς πατρίου γλώττης ἐγγράψας ὁμιληκότος τοῦ Παύλου οἱ μὲν τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Λουκᾶν, οἱ δὲ τὸν Κλήμεντα τοῦτον αὐτὸν ἑρμενεῦσαι λέγουσι τὴν γραφήν· ὁ καὶ μᾶλλον εἴη ἂν ἀληθὲς τῷ· τὸν ὅμοιον τῆς φράσεως χαρακτῆρα τήν τε τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἀποσώζειν, καὶ τῷ μὴ πόῤῥω τὰ ἐν ἑκατέροις τοῖς συγγράμμασι νοήματα καθεστάναι. Hist. Eccl. III. 33.

contradictory to the above representation, where Eusebius appears to rank the Epistle to the Hebrews among the avTIλεγόμεναι γραφαί in the time of Clement of Alexandria; since he speaks of Clement as making use, in his Stromata, of testimonies from the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude.' But, taken in connection with his abundant and unqualified testimony' to the authorship of our epistle, it cannot so much as intimate a passing doubt in his own mind, but merely a declaration that Clement quoted from writings that all did not receive without question.

The extent to which the denial of the Pauline authorship of the Hebrews went in the time of Eusebius, is plainly indicated by another passage of the Eccl. Hist. vi. 20, where he says that Caius, in a dispute against Proclus, held "at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, blames the temerity and audacity of his opponents in composing new writings, and mentions only thirteen epistles of Paul, not numbering that which is inscribed to the Hebrews. Moreover, even to the present time this epistle is reckoned by some of the Romans as not belonging to Paul." 3 The natural inference would be, that all the opposition to the epistle which the historian deemed of any account was by some of the Romans.

1 Hist. Eccl. VI. 13.

Stuart refers to the following passages in addition to those already referred to: In Comm. or Ps. II. Montfauc. Nov. Coll. Tom. I. p. 15, he says, wel ov pnow & Пavλos, quoting Heb. 12: 22, and Gal. 4:26. The same passages are also referred to as the language of Paul on pp. 191, 201, 313, 360, 388, 431.481, 539, and several other parts of his works. Heb. 12: 22, is also often referred to by itself. E. g., pp. 49, 50, etc. In p. 57, Heb. 11: 1, and 1 Cor. 13: 13, are cited as words of the same apostle; so p. 175, Heb. 8: 1, 2; p. 248, Heb. 11:38; p. 175, Heb. 6:18; p. 615, Heb. 2: 14. Vol. II. (Montf.) p. 437, Heb. 11:37 ; De Eccl. Theol. 1: 19 § 10, Heb. 11:24; ibid. § 12, Heb. 4:14. In Praep. Evang. (Paris, 1628), p. 171, Heb. 7:7; 6: 17, 18; 7: 20-25. In Ilist Eccl. Π. 17, he says : ὁποίας ἥ τε πρὸς Ἑβραίους, καὶ ἄλλαι πλείους τοῦ Παύλου παρέχου σw ¿tiotoλal, i. e., such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, and several other of the epistles of Paul contain. See Stuart's Comm. Introd. § 7.

3 Τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους μὴ σὺν ἀριθμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς. Ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τίσιν, οὐ μομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυνχάνειν. Lib. VI. 20.

That Eusebius was understood to give his sanction to the Pauline authority of the epistle, would seem to be evident from the uniformity of that belief in the Eastern church after his time. Among others, Cyril of Jerusalem (about A. D. 348), the council of Laodicea (363), in its sixtieth canon, Epiphanius (368), Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen (370), Gregory of Nyssa (371), Titus, bishop of Bostra (371), Theodore of Mopsuesta (392), and Chrysostom (398), all give testimony in favor of the Pauline origin of the Hebrews.2 Jerome also remarks, in an epistle to Evagrius, that all the Greeks receive this epistle.3 We might proceed to quote authorities in the fifth century also, but it is needless, as no one denies that, at this time, it was received in all the Eastern churches.4

The Testimony of the Western Church.

In the Western church there is no direct evidence either for or against the Pauline origin of the Hebrews, until near the end of the second century; and that adduced as belonging to that time is very doubtful. It is found in Photius, a writer of the ninth century, who says that Stephen Gobar (a writer of the sixth century) says that Irenaeus (of the close of the second century) and Hippolytus declare the Epistle to the Hebrews not to be Paul's.5 In the writings of Irenaeus extant, no such testimony can be found, nor indeed any entirely certain evidences of quotation from

1 Archelaus bishop of Mesopotamia, as well as the author of the Synopsis of Scripture (Athanasius), who were nearly contemporary with Eusebius, unhesitatingly received the epistle as Paul's.

2 See Stuart's Comm. Introd. § 7.

8 Omnes Graeci recipiunt.

4 Sec references in Davidson, III. p. 194.

ὁ Ὅτι Ιππόλυτος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου, οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναί φασιν.

Ebrard says: "That he knew the epistle is certainly confirmed in some measure by allusions in the writing Adv. Haereses." After speaking of apparent allusions to Heb. 1:3, and 11: 5, he says: "On the other hand, in a third passage (IV. 11, 4), Quae (mundities exteriores), in figuram futurorum traditae