also. Iremeus might be supposed likely, from his original training in Asia Minor, to have held to the Eastern tradition and opinion; but it does not follow that this would be so after hie connection with the W estem Church in Gaul; and it is observable that in hie extant works (with the exception cf "verbo virtutie sum" in hie 'Hreree.,' ii. 30, 9) there appears to be no obvious allusion to the Epistle, though, on the other hand, Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' v. 26) says that he spoke of it and quoted it in one of his now lost works; which still proves only that he was acquainted with it. The mere negative evidence of a work not being quoted may, however, easily be pressed too far, and might often lead, if relied on, to erroneous conclusions. Hence also the silence of Novatian in his extant writings is not in itself conclusive, though the Epistle contain passages which might have served hie controversial purposes. But we have, in this case, plenty of positive evidence, besides that already adduced, of the general opinion of the Western Church. Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' vi. 20), speaking of a dialogue by Caius, " a. very eloquent man," delivered at Rome, under Zephyrinus against Proolue (a. Montanist), says of this Caius that he "mentions only thirteen Epistles of the holy apostle, not classing that to the Hebrews with the rest, ae even yet some of the Romans do not allow it to be a work of the apostle." Jerome(' De Vir Illustr.,' c. 56) confirms this testimony, and gives the date of Zephyrinus, under whom Caius wrote viz. the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211-217). To the same period belongs the testimony of Tertullia.n, who is singular in distinctly assigning the Epistle to another author than St. Paul, viz. Barnabas : " Extat enim et Barnabll'l titulus ad Hebrreos, a. Deo satis auctorati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentim tenore [l Cor. ix. 6] . . . . Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabre illo apocrypho Pastore miechorum." And that he refers to our Epistle appears from his going on to quote it thus: "Monens itaque discipulos omissis omnibus initiis ad perfectionem magis tendere, lmpossibile est enim, inquit, eos qui semel illuminati aunt," etc. (Tertullian, 'De Pudicit.,' c. xx.)."! He thus distinctly assigns it, not to Paul, but to Barnabas, and also implies that, though he himself accepted it as sufficiently authoritative, it was not so accepted by all Churches : it was only "more received" than the apocryphal 'Shepherd,' attributed also to Barna.bas. Cyprian also (ob. A.D. 258) speaks only of Epistles by St. Paul, "ad septem ecclesias;" Victorinus ( ob. circ. 303) does the same ; and, lastly, Jerome (ob. 420) distinctly says, "Eam La.tinorum consuetudo non recipit inter scriptura.s canonicas" (Ep. :129, • Ad Da.rdanuID '). Its non-acceptance as canonical, which Jerome thus alleges, and which is other- wise confirmed, was doubtless due mainly, if not entirely, to the fact that it was not recognized as having the authority of St. Paul; it was because its authorship had been questioned, as appears from the testimonies adduced above, that it was not included in the accepted canon. But before the end of the fourth century, during the latter part of which Jerome thus wrote, the Epistle came to be accepted as Pauline in the West as viii INTRODUCTION 'l'O
well as in tbe East. Athanasius (ob. 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (ob. 403), Gre- gory Nazianzen (ob. 389-90), the canon of the Council of Laodicea (364), and the eighty-fifth of the Apostolio Canons, reckon fourteen Epistles of St. Paul. So also the Council of Carthage ( 419), of Hippo Regius (393), of Carthage (397); Innocent I. in his • Ep. ad Exsuperium' ( 405), and Gelasius (494). Ambrose also (ob. 397), Rufinus (ob. ciro. 411), Gaudentius and Faustinus, refer to the Epistle as St. Paul's. Thenceforth the Epistle retained its place in the canon as one of St. Paul's without dispute, till the question was again raised in the sixteenth century. Jerome himself doubtless contributed to this result by drawing attention to the tradition and opinion of the East, and by giving expression to his own conclusions. He thus sums up the views that had been held on the subject: "Epistola autem qure fertnr ad Hebrreos non ejus creditur propter styli sermonisque dissonantiam, sad vel Barnabre juxta. Tertullianum, vel Lucre evangelis~ juxta quosdam, vel Clementis Romanre postea ecolesiie episcopi, quem aiunt sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone. Vel certe quia Paulus scribebat ad Ilebrreos et, propter invidiam su.i apud eos nominis, titulum in principio salutationis amputaverit. Scripserat ut Hebrreus Hebraice, id est sno eloquio dissertissime, ut ea quie eloquenter scripta fuerant in Hebrmo eloqnentius verterentur in Grrecam, et hano causam esse quod a creteris Pauli epistolis discrepare videatur" (' De Vir Illustr.,' c. 5 ). He evidently had before him in this summary what Clement of Alexandria and Origen, as well as others, had said ; and it is to be observed that in the end he gives, as held by some, a view intermediate between that of Clement, who took the Greek Epistle to be a mere translation from St. Paul's Hebrew, and that of Origen, who seems to have regarded it as an original composition founded only on notes or recollections of the apostle's teaching. For the view here given is that an actual Hebrew letter by St. Paul had been, not simply translated, but rewritten in Greek in a more eloquent style ; &.n.d apparently that St. Paul had written his original with an intention that this should be done by some other hand. Thus the form and style of the Epistle is reconciled more fully than it is by Origen with the tradition of the Pauline authorship. Further, Jerome thus expresses his own conclusions with regard to the Epistle's claim to acceptance in the West: "llnd nostris dicendnm est, bane epistolam qure inscribitur ad Hebrieos non solum ab eoclesiis Orientis sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Grreci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli 1mscipi, licet pleriqua eam vel Barnabm vel Clementis arbitrentur, et nihil fateresse cujus sit, qnum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectionum celebretur, Quod si earn Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas. nee Graicorum quidem ecclesire Apocalypsim Johannis eadem libertate suscipiunt, et tamen nos utrumque suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consueiudinem sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerum- que utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent ( quippe qui et gentilitium literarum raro utantur exemplis), aod THE EPISTLE ·ro 'l'HE HEBREWS. ix