cially to those who need an elementary introduction ; hence we know that it has been already in public use in our churches, and I have also understood, by tra- dition, that some of the most ancient writers have made use of it" (iii, 3). Origen speaks of The Shep- herd as " commonly used by the Church, but not re- ceived as divine by the unanimous consent of all." He therefore cites it, not as authority, but simply by way of illustration (lib. x, in Epist. ad Roman.). Eu- sebius further informs us that in his own time there were some in the Church of Rome who did not regard the Epistle to the Hebrews as the production of the Apostle Paul (vi, 25 ; iii, 3). Indeed, it was through the influence of Jerome that the Church of Rome, at a much later period, was with much difficulty brought to acknowledge it as canonical. "The most ancient Latin or Western Church did not rank it among the canonical writings, though the epistle was well known to them, for Clement of Rome has quoted from it manj- passages. It is true that some Latin writers in the fourth century received it, among whom was Jerome himself; yet even in the time of Jerome the Latin Church had not placed it among the canonical writings" (Marsh's Michaelis, iv, 2GC). "The re- puted Epistle to the Hebrews," says Jerome, " is sup- posed not to be Paul's on account of the difference of style, but it is believed to have been written by Bar- nabas, according to Tertullian, or by Luke the Evan- gelist; according to others, bj' Clement, afterward bishop of the Roman Church, who is said to have re- duced to order and embellished Paul's sentiments in his own language ; or at least that Paul, in writing to the Hebrews, had purposely omitted all mention of ! his name, in consequeuce of the odium attached to it, ' and wrote to them eloquently in Hebrew, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, arid that what he thus eloquently wrote in Hebrew was still more eloquently written in j Greek, and that this was the cause of the difference I in style" (Ex Catalog.). And again, in his epistle to Dardanus, " I must acquaint our people that the epistle which is inscribed ' To the Hebrews' is ac- knowledged as the Apostle Paul's, not only by the Churches of the East, but by all the Greek ecclesiastical writers, although most [of the Latins ?] conceive it to be either written by Barnabas or Clement, and that it matters nothing by whom it was written, as it proceeds from a churchman (ecclesiastici viri), and is celebrated by being daily read in the churches. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among canonical Scrip- tures, nor the Greek Churches the Apocalypse of St. John, /, notwithstanding, receive them both, not fol- lowing the custom of the present age, but the author- ity of ancient writers ; not referring to them as they are in the habit of doing with respect to apocryphal writings, and citations from classical and profane au- thors, but as canonical ::nd ecclesiastical." " Peter also," says Jerome, "wrote two epistles called Cath- olic ; the second of which is denied by most on ac- count of the difference of style (Ex Catalog.). Jude is rejected by most in consequence of the citation from the apocryphal book of Enoch. Notwithstand- ing, it has authoritjr by use and antiquity, and is ac- counted among the Holy Scriptures" (Ibid.) ; and in his Letter to Paulinvs : " Paul wrote to seven churches, but the Epistle to the Hebrews is by most excluded from the number ;" and in his commentary on Isaiah, he observes that "the Latin usage does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical books." Contemporary with Jerome was his antag- onist Ruffinus, who reckons fourteen epistles of Paul, two of Peter, one of James, three of John, and the Apocalypse.
It seems doubtful whether, antecedent to the times of Jerome and Ruffinus, any councils, even of single churches, had settled upon the canon of Scripture, and decided the. question respecting the antilegomena, for the removal of doubts among their respective commu-
ANTILEGOMENA
263
ANTILEGOMENA