thority in matters of Christian faith. This claim has been extensively supposed, both in ancient and modern times, to be dependent upon the authorship of a writing in question. It has been assumed that only those New Testament writings are authoritative which are apostolic. This is the view of the matter which even Origen (†254) appears to accept in arguing from this very Epistle. He is speaking of the tradition concerning the death of the prophet Isaiah, "that he was sawn asunder," and says that "this is attested by the Epistle to the Hebrews, although recorded in none of the acknowledged (φανερῶν) books," and proceeds: "But perhaps some one, pressed by this demonstration, has recourse to the opinion of those who set aside the Epistle as not written by Paul ; with this man we need other and separate arguments to prove that the Epistle is Paul's" (Epist. ad Afric., see Kirchhofer, pp. 244, 245). For Tertullian, too (see below), and in fact the majority of the early Fathers (cf. Bleek, Com. i. p. 437 sq.), uncertainty respecting the Pauline origin of the Epistle is enough to impair, if not annul, its canonical authority. Το the Lutheran theologians, also, this has seemed a warrant for relegating the Epistle into the class of "deutero-canonical" books. In some printed editions of the New Testament (in lowGerman, Swedish, etc., Bleek, as above, p. 462 sq.; cf. Heppe, Dogm. des Deutsch. Prot. Bd. ii. 229 sq.) this book, together with the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Revelation, have not only been placed together at the end, but have even received the heading "Apocrypha 1 of the New Testament." But more correct and consistent views on this subject views of which isolated traces are to be discovered in the early Fathers, and which were explicitly advocated by the Reformed or Calvinistic theologians, as opposed to the Lutherans - are now very generally accepted. According to these views the canonicity of a book is not dependent solely upon its authorship, but upon its general reception as authoritative. Its "general reception" notice; for this view does not, like certain false theories of inspiration, make the canonicity of 1 " Quorum origo non claruit patribus." - Augustine. a book ultimately nothing but a matter of private judgment, so that every man is left free to accept what books he pleases, according to his private estimate of their contents; but the decision turns upon a question of historic fact. Have the great majority of early Christians recognized the book as belonging to the rule of faith? The testimonies of individuals are of value chiefly as aiding us in answering this question. We attach weight to what was said by Tertullian and Eusebius, Origen and Jerome, not because these men were either more learned or less fallible than biblical scholars at the present day, but because their language is a fair expression of current opinion on the subject. Only so far as it is a truthful exponent of the generally received views of the time, is it of much value to us. As the private judgment of individuals, it stands or falls on its intrinsic merits. And this view of the grounds of a book's canonicity is more consistent than that which makes it depend upon apostolic origin. For the Gospels of Mark and of Luke on the face of things were not written by apostles, and yet not even those scholars who make canonicity dependent upon authorship abate their deference to these books on that account (cf. Bleek, p. 476 sq.). Indeed, the authority of these Gospels would hardly have been diminished had the name of their authors remained uncertain. Who among those scholars that adhere to the uniform tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, withholds allegiance in the least from our Greek text, because utterly ignorant when, where, how, it was prepared and passed into currency? It is this fact of authoritative currency which is decisive; and this in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews can be pretty well established. Towards the end of the first century (under Domitian, i.e. before A.D. 96, cf. Uhlhorn in Herzog, Real-Encyk. ii. 726) Clement of Rome wrote an epistle in the name of "The church of God which sojourneth at Rome to the church of God which sojourneth at Corinth." This epistle is found appended to codex A, and is admitted to be genuine. Into it the author has incorporated numerous ideas and expressions manifestly derived from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Dressel, in his index, refers to as many as twenty-five such instances (Patr. Apostol. opera, 2d ed., p. 669). It is doubtful whether Clement has anywhere unequivocally quoted the Epistle (cf. Thol. p. 2; Euseb. iii. 38; Kirch. p. 248), but he has quietly appropriated its thoughts and language, and woven them into his composition. This circumstance does not warrant the inference (of Eichhorn et al.) that he held the Epistle to be inferior in worth to the other sacred books; for, amid the paucity of Christian books, he and other church Fathers often interweave biblical extracts into their writings without any formula of quotation (Thol. pp. 2, 3). It does show us that he had no occasion to mention its author's name, even if he knew it. His use of the Epistle, it has been said, (Bleek, Com. i. 93 sq.; Einl. in d. N. T. p. 509) does not prove anything more than that he was acquainted with the Epistle, esteemed it, and found it serviceable as he wrote, without making it indubitable that the Epistle was esteemed, or even known, either by the church at Rome or that at Corinth. But when we consider in general, that a writer by employing the words of another implies that he considers them, and that they will be considered by his readers, to be more impressive than his own; and that neither Clement nor the other early writers were in the habit of quoting writings whose authority was not recognized (cf. the language of Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 sub fin.); we must acknowledge that, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, the authoritative recepрtion of the Epistle to the Hebrews at the close of the first century is presumptively established. In judging of early testimony relative to the authority of the sacred books, we must take pains to conform our views to the facts of history. As a matter of fact, the distribution of Christian writings into two radically distinct classes, canonical and uncanonical, was a gradual process - a process which required centuries for its completion. The successors of the apostles had an indistinct sense, indeed, of a difference between themselves and their predecessors, which they showed by recognizing practically a distinction between apostolic compositions and their own, but it was only through the lapse of generations that the inspired authority of the sacred books attained to full and explicit recognition. Letting Clement of Rome, then, speak for the Western churches, we turn to the East. There unequivocal evidence of the authoritative reception of the book in the middle of the second century is afforded us by the fact that it forms part of the Peschito 2 version. The significance of this fact is strengthened by three considerations (cf. Westcott on the Canon, 1st ed. pp. 292, 267 sq.) : (1) This, like the other early versions, was made, not for private Christians, but for churches. It affords proof, therefore, of the wide-spread authority of the books it contains. This wide-spread authority it must have required time for any book to secure; consequently when possessed, it implies that the book is recognized as a heritage from an earlier period, which in this case cannot have been long after the days of the apostles. 1 The distinction is illustrated in such passages as the following: Clement, in the same Epistle to the Corinthians already referred to, says (§47): "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul, the apostle. What did he write you first in the beginning of his gospel? Of a truth under inspiration he wrote you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then there had been factions among you. But that faction brought less sin upon you, for ye were partisans of apostles of good report, and of a man approved by them," etc. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was condemned by Trajan sent to Rome and thrown to wild beasts (c. A.D. 107), in an epistle to the Romans written on his journey says (§ 4): "I do not give you injunctions, as did Peter and Paul. They are apostles; I am a condemned man. They are freemen; I am a slave until this present. But if I suffer I shall be the freedman of Jesus, and shall rise free in him," etc. Polycarp, the disciple of John, in a letter to the Philippians, written it is supposed c. A.D. 120, expresses himself as follows (§3): "I do not write to you thus, brethren, concerning righteousness in a spirit of self-confidence, but because ye have summoned me to write. For neither I nor another like me is able to approximate to the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul; who, when among you, taught accurately and surely before the men of that time the word of truth; who, even when absent, wrote you letters, into which if ye look closely ye will be able to be built up into the faith given you," etc. 2 Or "Peschittho," for according to Arnold, in Herzog, Real-Encyk. xv. 398, this latter spelling is more correct than the common, Peschito or Peschitho. (2) This version does not contain a single uncanonical book; but (3) According to the subsequent views of Christendom the list of books contained in it is incomplete; yet the Syrian churches in succeeding times scrupulously excluded (2 Pet., 2 and 3 Jno., Jude, and the Apocalypse) books which gained recognition in the West. Hence we may presume that the canon was originally selected with care.1 Equally unequivocal is the evidence for the canonical acceptance of our Epistle at the middle of the second century which is afforded by the writings of Justin Martyr († c. 1672). In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew he expresses himself as follows (Kirchhofer, p. 239): "This is he who after the order of Melchizedek is king of Salem and everlasting priest of the Most High" (evidently borrowed from Heb. v. 9, 10; vi. 20; vii. 12); and again: "About to become both everlasting priest of God and King and Christ"; once more in his First Apol. (C. A.D. 139, under Antoninus Pius), "And he is called both angel and apostle"; which latter term is applied to Christ only in Heb. iii. 1. In the canon of the North African churches the Epistle appears to have been originally wanting. The canon of the old Latin version seems to have coincided exactly with that of the Muratorian fragment (Westcott on the Canon, p. 282, 1st ed.). The Epistle to the Hebrews was added subsequently, 1 The version of our Epistle is thought to bear marks of proceeding from a separate translator (Wichelhaus de N. T. versione Syr. etc., Halis. 1850, p. 86 sq. as cited in Westcott, as above, p. 258); but that does not destroy the significance of its reception (yet cf. Thol. note pp. 9, 10). 2 So commonly; yet the date of his death is uncertain (cf. Semisch in Herzog, vii. 182), and has been fixed by some scholars a score of years earlier; see Mr. Abbot's note on p. 369 of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, American edition. 8 This relic, discovered by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, contains a list of the sacred books, and gives internal evidence of having been drawn up about A.D. 170. After enumerating the thirteen epistles of Paul, it makes mention of an epistle " to the Alexandrians," under which title some scholars (e.g. Köstlin, Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 366; Wieseler, Stud. und Krit. 1847 p. 841; Credner (ed. Volkmar) on the Canon, p. 161; Bunsen, Hippol. i. 365; Tischendorf, Proleg. to ed. vii. p. lxxiii, etc.) suppose our Epistle to the Hebrews is referred to. |