tative into the texture of their own writings (see Westcott, •On the Canon of the New 1'estament,' pt. i. p. 47). And so Clement uses the language of this Epistle in the same way as he does that of undoubted Epistles of St. Paul and of other New Testament Scripture. It does not hence follow that the canon of the New Testament had at that time become definitely fixed; but it does follow that many at least of the documents now included in the canon were already well known and regarded as authoritative, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews was among them.1 To this testimony of Clement may be added that of Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, who, though a native of Palestine, went to reside in Rome, probably wrote there, and certainly suffered there. In his •Apology' he four times ,calls Christ "the Son and Apostle of God" ( eh. 14; 82; and 83). Now, the title Apostle being found applied to Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews only·(ch. iii. 1), while that of Son pervades it, it seems likely that he is quoting from it: and, identifying Christ with the Angel who spoke to Moses, he speaks of the two titles, Angel and Apostle, as though equally sanctioned by Divine authority. "And the Word of God is his Son, as we have before said. He is also called the Angel (who declares) and the: Apostle (who is sent)." Again, "Now these words have been spoken to show that the Son of God and Apostle is Jesus Christ, who before was the Word, rand appeared sometimes in the form of fire," etc. Again, " The Jews, therefore, who al ways thought that it was the Father of all things that spoke to Moses, whereas he who spoke to him was the Son of God, who is also called the Angel and the Apostle, are justly upbraided," eto. Such language affords at any rate a presumption that Justin Martyr regarded the Epistle to the Hebrews as on a par in authority with the Old Testament Scriptures. Other apparent references to the Epistle by Justin: Martyr are found in 'Dial. ad Tryph.,' oh. 13 (cf. Heb. iv. 13, eto.), and oh. 34 (of. Heb. viii., eto.). There being such evidence (notably and positively that of Clement) of a recognition of the Epistle at Roma in the second century, the doubt about it which prevailed afterwards is remarkable, and oalls for explanation. It may have been that, though Clement was familiar with it (having, perhaps, been privy to its original composition), no copy of it had been preserved in the Roman Churoh, nor any distinct tradition about it, possibly because, being addressed to Hebrews (presumably in the East), it was not felt to concern the Roman Christians. Consequently, when it ofter- wards reached Rome from the East as one of St. Paul's, its anonymousness 1 The following are the;principal references to the Epistle to the Ho brews by St. Clement:
In oh. l[l[l[Vi., dor &11 a.1rcuryao-,ua 'l'ijr p.~-ya-,.,.o,av1111r alrrou 'TOUO{,,,.q, ,UEl(wv lo--rlv 4n{-,.,.wv ifcrq, liia,Pop,l,.,..pov 811oµa 1w,-,.,.11po11&,u,11CE11 (of. Heb. i. 8, 4). Further references in the remainder of oh. xxxvi. are no less obvious. In oh. xvii., Mo,uo-,ir ,rumls Iv 1/11.q, .,.,; of,c'f' i,cM1811 (cf. Heb. iii. 2): also of.,.u,u iv '6/p,uaa-111 alv,lo,r ,cal ,u11-,.,.""'ais 11'Ep1E,rd.-r11cra11, etc. (of. Heb. :z:i. 87). In oh. xliii., 'O ,ua,cd.p,or 1r,a-.,.br IJ1pd.1ro,11 iv 11-,.,.,,. ,,-,; o1,up Mw11cr,ir -ra '6,a-rna-yp.lva av-rcp wd.11-ra itr11,u<1wa-a-ro iv Tais lEpair {J,{J-,.,.lo,r, eto. Other distinct resemblances of thought anu expression will be found iu oh. i. ; :it.; xii.; Iviii. INTRODUCTION TO
and its unlikeness to the apostle's known writings might naturally induce suspicion that it was not what it was said to be ; and suoh suspicion would be confirmed when it came to be known that even in the East its authorship was questioned. The Westerns,not having, as the Easterns had, any tradition of their own in its favour, might not unreasonably hesitate on suoh grounds about receiving it at all into their canon. For be it observed-and this is an important consideration-that- 2. It was apparently only bec.ause its authorship was questioned that its claim to canonicity was in the first instance questioned too. And then, as time we!lt on, the reluctance thus arising seems to have been strengthened by heretical misinterpretations of some passages contained in it. The phrase, -r.;; ,ro,~a-a.vn a.wov, in oh. iii. 2 had been taken in a sense favourable t.o Arianism; and eh. vi. 4, etc., had been used in support of Novatianism. "Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; et quia et factum Christum dicit in ea. (eh. iii. 2) inde non legitur; de prenitentia. antem propter Novatianos reque" (Philastrius, 'De Hreres.,' 89). Ambrose also, in his 'De Prenitentia,' defends oh. vi. 4, etc., from the Novatian misapplication of it. The long hesitation of the Western Church being thus accounted for, the Epistle's claim to full canonicity is not really affected by it; especially as this claim came at length to be fully recognized in the West as well as in the East in spite of former prejudices. As to the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, it is not only not against, but strongly in favour of, its claim to canonicity. The marked distinction between the writings of the New Testament and the few that have come down to us from the sub-apostolic age has often been observed and com- mented on. The difference consists, not only in the tone of authority that pervades the former, but also in their entire complexion as compositions of a higher order. We feel ourselves, as we read them, as if walking in a. purer and more heavenly atmosphere, peculiar to the apostolic age. Without attempting to define this difference further, which none can fail to recognize, we may say, without hesitation, that the Epistle to the Hebrews takes rank in this regard with the other writings of the New Testament canon. This Origen felt when he spoke of the thoughts of the Epistle being "wonderful, and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings." Its peculiar inspi- ration is further the more apparent from there being other writings of some- what similar character, not far distant from it in point of time, with which we may compare it. For it is, among the Epistles, peculiarly tinged with the mode of thought of the religious philosophy of the Alexandrian school, and may therefore be put in contrast with other writings, whether Jewish or Christian, belonging to that school. With them purporUng to discover in the records and ritual of the Old Testament a meaning beyond the letter, 11,nd to find in Judaism the germ and prophecy of a religion for all humanity, it avoids all far-fetched and fanciful interpretations such as are found elsewhere, and, while adopting many of the ideas of the Alexandrine THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xvii