during his last residence there, and who was ruler of the Roman Church immediately or soon after his martyrdom. 8till more if he were the same Clement as is mentioned by St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3). Further, the occurrence in Clement's undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians of both ideas and language taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, appears to have confirmed the supposition. This last circumstance led Eusebius ( a Hebrew original being'supposed) to think him more likely than St. Luke to have been the translator. "Some say that Luke the evangelist, and others that this same Clement, translated the writing; which may be rather true, from the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserving the same style of diction, and from the thoughts in the two compositions not being far apart" (' Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 36). So also Eutbelius ( circ. 460), purporting to give the favourite view: "For (the Epistle) having been written to the Hebrews in their own language is said to have been afterwards translated, according to some by Luke, but according to the majority by Clement; for it preserves his style" (oh. ii.). But the theory of the Greek Epistle being a mere translation being abandoned, the style of Clement cert.a.inly does not really suggest him as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. All that appears is that he was acquainted with it, and cited it, and introduced some of its thoughts and language; but his own writing exhibits nothing of that powerful grasp, close reasoning, systematic arrangement, and eloquence of expression, which mark the Epistle. Further, if he had been the writer, some tradition to that effect might have been expected to linger in the Roman Church. But that Church seems hardly to have known anything about the Epistle in the age after him, and, as we have seen, long hesitated about even receiving it at all. (3) BARNABAS. As a Levite, and hence likely to be well versed in Jewish ritual; as St. Paul's original associate, and with him from the first opposed to the exclusive Judaists; as" a good man, full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith,'' and with an effectual power of exhortation (Acts vi. 23, 24) ;-ho may, for aught we know, have been a fit and capable person to be inspired for the writing of such an Epistle as this is. Nor does the breach at one time between him and St. Paul (Acts xv.), or his temporary vacillation at Antioch (Gal. ii. 13), preclude his having become again the associate of the great apostle and the exponent of his teaching. We have, howe"er, no knowledge of this, or of St. Barnabas's style and natural powers as a writer, none of his genuine utterances, written or spoken, being on record. Thus the only real ground for the supposition of Barnabas is the assertion of Tertullian, which is certainly remarkable as being made positively and not as e. conjecture only. It would carry more weight than it does, did we know that he had any real ground for it except his own opinion or that of others in his day, or if writers after him had seemed to attach impor- tance to it. ( 4) AroLLOS: first suggested by Luther, and since taken up with con- siderable confidence by many. This is certainly a very tempting hypothesis; xiv INTRODUC'l'ION TO
the main, and this very serious, objection to it being that none of the ancients seem to have thought of him at all. Apollos is described (Acts xviii. 24) as "a Jew, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man [.>..oyto~, which may mean either• eloquent' or 'learned '--either meaning suits tho writer of the Epistle], and mighty in the Scriptures," and one who " mightily convinced the Jews, ... showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." Every word here is applicable to such a man as the writer seems to have been. Further, the relation of Apollos and his teaching to St. Paul and his teaching, as alluded to by St. Paul himself, corresponds to the relation of this Epistle to St. Paul's undoubted ones. It appears, from the first three chapters of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that the party at Corinth which called itself that of Apollos depreciated St. Paul's preaching in comparison with his, as being too simple and rude, and deficient in "the wisdom of this world;" and yet it is evident from what St. Paul says that the teaching of Apollos, though different in form, was essentially the same as his: "I planted; Apollos watered." What is thus said of the preaching of Apollos in relation to the preaching of St. Paul is just what might be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews in relation t.o the Epistles which we know to have been written by St. Paul. Such are the very plausible reasons for assigning the Epistle to Apollos. But, on the other hand, the fact that none of the ancients, who may be supposed to have known more of the probabilities than we do, seem even to have named him, remains a serious objection to the supposition.
m. THE CA..NomCITY oF TlIE EP1STi.:. Its claim to be included in the canon as inspired and authoritative is, as has been already observed, independent of its authorship. It is enough that it should have heen written by one of the gifted ones, during the period of the special activity of the inspiring Spirit; else were the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke to be accounted uncanonical, none of these claiming apostolic authorship. Now, that its date was in the apostolic age, when the inspiring Spirit was in full activity, has been shown above. We therefore require only to be further satisfied of its early acceptance as canonical, and of its having in itself no internal evidence of being otherwise. AB to early acceptance, there is, as has been seen. no doubt of it .as far as the whole of the East was concerned: the slowness of the West to receive it without reserve has alone to be accounted for. On this point we observe- I. That the earliest Roman Father, St. Clement, was certainly acquainted with it, and quoted it in the same way as he did other books included in the canon. It is trne, his quotations or references are anonymous ; but so are they also in other cases; and so are those of the apostolic Fathers generally. It was not their way to quote explicitly and exactly, but rather to interweave language that had become current in the Church as authori- THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xv