qunsi co.uonicis et ecclesiasticis" (Ep. 129, 'Ad Dardanum '). The drift of this is that, notwithstanding the Latin use, the acceptance of the Epistle by the whole East, and its being quoted as canonical by the Greek Fathers, justifies its reception into the canon, ancl that it ought to be so received. He adduces as o. parallel case that of the Apocalypse, which had been regarded in the East as was the Epistle to the Hebrews in the West; but botb. had been alike quoted by ancient writers as canonical and authoritative ( not merely as they occasionally refer to apocryphal or even profane writings), and therefore he holds that both should be alike received. He expresses no opinion as to the author of the Epistle, considering the question of no importance as long as it was some one whose writings might claim a. place in the sacred canon. But his deciding distinctly for the Epistle's canonicity would deprive of its main interest the comparatively unimportant question of its authorship, and so it came to pass that the Eastern tradition was afterwards accepted generally. That other great and influential theologian of the same age, St. Augustine (ob. 430), took and expressed a similar view of the Epistle, apparently not caring to question the Pauline authorship. In one passage, after laying down a rule to guide the reader in his estimate of canonical books, to the effect that such as are received by all Catholic Churches are to be preferred to those which some do not receive, and that of the latter those which "plures gravioresque eciclesire " receive are to be ranked above the rest, he prnceeds to reckon in the canon fourteen Epistles of St. Paul (' De Doctrina Christiana,' ii. 8). Elsewhere he speaks of being especially moved by the authority of the Eastern Churches(" magisque me movet auctoritas eccle- siarum Orientalium ") to accept this Epistle, " quamquam nonnullis incerta sit"(' De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione,' i. 27). In his' De Civitate Dei' (xvi. 22) he also says of it, "qua teste usi sunt illustres catholicm regulm defensores ; " and in his works he often quotes it, though generally avoiding mention of St. Paul as the writer. The Epistle having thus come at last to be fully received into the Western canon along with the undoubted Epistles of St. Paul, it was afterwanls, in the uncritical ages that followed, regarded without question as one of his. But with the revival of inquiry and independent thought at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the old doubts, as was to be expected, revived also, being suggested by study of patristic literature, as well as by observa- tion of the style of the Epistle itself. A full account of the views expressed by the various leading theologians then and subsequently will be found in Alford's 'Prolegomena' to the Epistle. In the Roman obedience, Ludovicus Vives, a Spanish theologian, and Cardinal Cajetan, appear among the early doubters; and even after the Council of Trent had to a certain extent closed the question by requiring under anathema belief in ihe Pauline authorship, Bellarmine and Estius did not feel precluded from assigning the mattor only, and not the language, to St. Paul. Erasmus was decided against St. Paul's authorship, and gave his reasons at longth, founded both X INTRODUCTION TO
on ancient authority and on internal evidence. Like St. Jerome of old, ho regarded the question as of little moment, and would not, he says, havo written so much about it but for the outcry raised age.inst ovary doubt of the received view, as if doubt were heresy. "If," says he, "the Church certainly defines it to be Paul's, I willingly render my intellect captive to the obedience of faith; but, as far as my own judgment is concerned, it does not seem to me to be his." The more decided Reformers, Luther, Calvin, l\folancthon, the Magdeburg Centuriators, and at first Beza, were of the same opinion ; Luther being memorable, not only for his deoided view, but also for suggesting a new name, that of Apollos, as most likely, in his judg- ment, to have been the actual writer. Subsequently, among Protestants as well as Catholics, there was a growing tendency to acquiesce in the old traditional view, and even to make a point of it-notably so among our own divines, usually inclined to be conservative, and to shrink from disturbing accepted views. In comparatively recent times the question has been age.in opened among the German divines, the great majority of whom (Bengel, Stowe, and Hofmann being exceptions) have been, and are still, decidedly against St. Paul having been the writer. Among ourselves, however, his direct authorship has ever had, and still has, many defenders, the most recent being the commentator on the Epistle in the lately published 'Speaker's Commentary.' To sum up the several views that have been and may be held, with brief notice of the main reasons for or against each, we may state them thus- I. That St. Paul wrote the Epistle in Greek as it stands. This view rests really on the single ground of the old tradition in the East. But what does this amount to? AU we know accurately is that at Alexan- dria, in the aecond century, the Epistle, being itself anonymous, had been handed down, and was generally received, as one of St. Paul's; but that the learned there even then were not thereby convinced that he had actually written it: they were distinctly of opinion that, at any rate, the Greek was not his ; and the greatest of them, Origen, did not think he had been in any sense the actual writer. Why should we set :more store by the tradition than those competent persons who were in a better position for judging of its value? It may in any case without difficulty be accounted for. Received early, itself unnamed, with others bearing the apostle's name, representing and emanating from the same school of thought and teaching-actually written, if not by St. Paul, at any rate by one of his disciples or associates -the Epistle might easl'.ly come to be generally read and accepted, in the absence of any discriminative criticism, as, like the rest, St. Paul's. The tradition, then, is not valid evidence for more than this-but for this it is valid, con.firming the internal evidence, as Origen perceived-that the Epistle was in origin Pauline, though not of necessity St. Paul's. The internal evidence of some other actual writer than St. Paul does not rest solely or principally on the number of words and expressions in the Epi8tle which are not found in St. Paul's acknowledged writings. Differ• THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xl