A very strong confirmation of the opinion of Augustine, if' any were needed, is found in the decrees of several councils at which Augustine was present and exerted a somewhat controlling influence. In that at Hippo, A. D. 393 (can. 36), and in the third at Carthage, A. D. 397 (can. 47), it is mentioned separately1 from Paul's other epistles, as his; and in the fifth at Carthage, A. D. 419 (can. 29), his epistles are reckoned as fourteen."

Neither is it any valid objection to his confidence in this epistle that he frequently refers to it, without naming the author, as "the epistle which is written to the Hebrews," "the epistle to the Hebrews," "the epistle inscribed to the Hebrews." Nothing would be more natural than to refer to it in that way, as we now often do; but he was doubtless influenced by the feeling that some for whom he wrote did. not receive it as Paul's. Hence he sometimes adds, after naming it, "which the majority say is the writing of the apostle Paul, but some deny to be his."

After the time of Augustine, almost every writer of importance received the Hebrews as the apostle's, though some few still abstained from quoting it." "Thus," says Davidson, "from the beginning of the fifth century the Pauline authorship was generally acknowledged and believed in the Latin church." Innocent I., near the beginning of the century, writing to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, and giving a catalogue of canonical books, mentions among the others fourteen epistles of Paul. Near the end of this century, pope

quod ad corum salutem scripserat. Unde nonnulli eam in canonem scripturarum recipere timuerunt, etc.

1 Pauli apostoli epistolae tredecim; ejusdem ad Hebraeos una. Epistolarum Pauli apostoli numero quatuordecem.

3 "Epistola quae scribitur ad Hebraeos," "Epistola ad Hebraeos," "Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, etc.

4 Quam plures apostoli Pauli esse dicunt, quidum vero negant. De Civitate Dei. XVI. 22.

5 No reference is found to it, according to Davidson, in Leo the Great, or Orosius of Spain. And Isidore of Seville, speaking doubtless in reference to earlier ages, says: Ad Hebraeos autem epistola plurisque Latinis ejus (Pauli) esse incerta est, propter dissonantiam sermonis eandemque alii Barnabam conscripsisse, alii a Clemente scriptam fuisse suspicuntur.

Galasius, at Rome, with a council of seventy bishops, included in a catalogue of canonical books which they made, fourteen epistles of Paul, to whom epistola una ad Hebraeos is attributed. Even the most sceptical must, with Bleek (p. 234), acknowledge that this is sufficient testimony to show that the churches of the West, at this time, received the Hebrews as the apostle's.

Recapitulation.

1. In the apostolic age the Epistle to the Hebrews stands in the same category with nearly all of Paul's other epistles, as far as authorship is concerned, and has as good a claim, at least, to a Pauline origin as most of the books of the New Testament have, of being the productions of their respective authors.

2. In the Western church there is no directly reliable testimony, either for or against the Pauline authorship of the Hebrews, until about the close of the second century. Still the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who had travelled extensively both in the East and the West, would decidedly imply that no considerable opposition had been made to it there, previously to the time of his writing.

3. It is acknowledged that the testimony of the Latin church Fathers, from the end of the second or beginning of the third, until some time in the first half of the fourth century, was generally against the Pauline origin of our epistle, although but little positive testimony to that effect can be adduced. During the middle and latter part of the fourth century the testimony is not uniform, but gradually increasing, in favor of Paul as the author. From the time of Jerome and Augustine, who both favored the Pauline authorship, there were few dissentient voices even in the Latin church. Popes and councils almost uniformly, until a late period, when doctrinal questions exerted an influence, attribute fourteen epistles to Paul.

4. In the Eastern church, including Greece, Egypt, Syria,

and Palestine, the testimony is continuous and decided in favor of Paul as the author of the Hebrews. This is not a mere unquestioned assent, such as might be handed down. from one to another without inquiry, but it is a positive testimony, given with the full consciousness that its authorship had been disputed, and in some cases, as that of Origen, with a persuasion, from the internal characteristics, that it must have been a translation or transcription by another hand.

5. It is scarcely necessary to add a word further, since the preponderance of testimony is so decidedly in favor of the Pauline origin of the epistle. Yet two or three additional considerations seem to place the matter almost beyond question in a historical point of view. It is not merely to the number of witnesses that we are able to appeal. Davidson well says: "The value of the evidence furnished by the early Latin church cannot be put into comparison with the early Alexandrian. The former church was uncritical in comparison with the latter. It cannot be placed on an equal footing with the Alexandrian, either in learning or critical skill." Besides, the authority of Jerome, who, although later in point of time, yet was "learned" and "extensively read,” and one “who made use of the library of Caesarea, and therewith of the entire Christian literature of the first centuries," would go far to annul the negative testimony of his predecessors, were they far more numerous and learned than they can be claimed to be. Another consideration has still more weight in favor of the Eastern belief. It is natural to suppose that there would be more, and more accurate knowledge among those to whom the epistle was sent, than among those with whom the author was temporarily residing. Ebrard says: "In Jerusalem [and Palestine], whither the epistle had been sent, it must have been known and learned who the author was; for although he does not name himself in the inscription, the bearer of the epistle would certainly not deliver it with the words: 'Here I bring you an epistle out of Italy from somebody; who that some2 Ebrard's Comm. App. p. 399.

2

1 Vol. III. p. 196.

1

body is, you must not know,'—for then had the authority of the epistle been but ill cared for."" In some way it was doubtless indicated who the author was; and as this "divinely authenticated document for the loosing of the bond between Christianity and Judaism gradually came to have a high significance for the whole of oriental Christendom, the knowledge of its author, too, must have spread first and most surely to Lesser Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Greece."" In Italy the knowledge of the existence of such an epistle was doubtless but slowly spread abroad, and slowly received; and hence some negative testimony against it was almost unavoidable. The entire change in the West as soon as the communication with the East became more frequent and intimate, shows that the arguments in favor of Paul as the author were such as could not well be resisted. It may be added, in conclusion, that those who questioned the Pauline authorship of the epistle, in the Latin church, are not at all agreed who the author is, so that we have the testimony of all early ecclesiastical writers of any value in favor of Paul's, except a few in the Latin church, for two or three centuries, who would almost necessarily have little knowledge of the epistle, and little comparative interest in it, against one or two who have attributed it respectively to Barnabas, or Luke, or Clement of Rome, or Apollos, as author.

Internal Evidence that the Apostle Paul is the Author of the Hebrews.

The arguments from the characteristic peculiarities of style, and subjects treated of in the epistle have been many and various, and some of them claimed, with about equal right, by both the defenders and impugners of the Pauline authorship. The uncertainty of arguments from the different degree of finish of particular pieces of writing, the casual use of particular words or even phrases, the omission of a particular formal manner of commencing or closing

or even conducting a course of reasoning or sentiment or feeling, might be easily and clearly shown by a reference to different productions of any of our English authors. But it is unnecessary to take time to show a thing that is patent to every careful observer. Who can doubt that the peculiarities of a subject, the different circumstances of the writer, mental or physical moods, the real or supposed character and position of the persons to be influenced, and various other causes, will operate to produce a very different style in different writings of the same individual?

Who can say what causes operated upon the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews? We may naturally suppose that this letter, although sent to a particular church, was intended to exert an influence upon the Jews generally in Palestine. Now, although Paul was specifically the apostle to the Gentiles, yet the deep interest that he felt in his own. brethren is often shown in his writings. "I could wish," he says, "that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved." With this strong feeling for those of his own nation, whom he had forsaken for the far-off Gentiles at Rome, while not improbably discouraging accounts were reaching him of the defection or little progress in Christian knowledge of those who had given hopes of better things, what improbability that the apostle was impelled to an effort of a higher literary character than ordinary? The very theme itself the superiority of our Lord Jesus Christ — would also have genially stirred the apostle as he could hardly have been, in writing any of his other epistles. It seems to me that the surprise would be more natural if, in these circumstances, he had not risen to an unusual rhetorical effort.

Even those who consider the style of the epistle as being at variance with its Pauline origin, when they speak of the style of the apostle without any reference to the Hebrews, recognize the difficulty of bringing all of the acknowledged epistles into one category in respect to characteristics. Thus Davidson says: "The style and diction usually VOL. XVIII. No. 71.

42