HEBREWS, EPISTI.E TO THE. In the received text this composition appears as part of the Canonical Scriptures of the N.T., and also as the production of the apostle PauL For neither of these assumptions is the evidence allowed on all hands to be conclusive ; and hence the greatest diversity of opinion prevails among critics as to the claims of this epistle, some contending for its canonical authority and Pauline origin, some deny ing both of these, and some admitting the former, whilst they repudiate the latter. We shall con sider— '. Its Canomaty. —In the Western Church this book underwent a somewhat singular fate. Re ceived and quoted by Clement of Rome, it seems after his time to have come under some doubt or suspicion in the West. It is not cited or referred to by any of the earlier Latin Fathers, except Ter tullian, W110 ascribes it to Barnabas, and says it was receptior spud ecclesias apocrypho pas tore moschorum,' that is, the Pastor of Hennas (De Pudica. c. 2o). IrenTus is said by Eusebius to have made quotations from it in a work now lost (Hirt. Eccl. v. 26); but he did not receive it as of Pauline authorship (Phot. fizblioth. Cod., 252, p. 904, cited by Lardner, 165), and as Eusebius connects the Wisdom of Solomon with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as cited by Irermus, it is probable the latter viewed the two as on the same footing. It is omitted by Caius, who only reckons thirteen Pauline epistles (Euseb. H. E. vi. 26 ; Hieron. De Vir. Must. c. 59); Hippolytus expressly de clared it not to be St. Paul's (Phot., p. 3or) ; it is omitted in the Muratori fragment ; and by the Roman Church generally it seems to have been suspected (Euscb. H. E. iii. 3 ; vi. 20). Victori nus has one or two passages which look like quo tations from it, but he does not mention it, and certainly did not receive it as the work of St. Paul (Lardner, 3o0). In the 4th century it began to be more generally received. Lactantius, in the be ginning of the century, apparently borrows from it ; Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Faus tinus, and Marcellinus (who cites it as divina Scrip tura) ; Victorinus of Rome, Ambrose, Philaster (though admitting that some rejected the epistle) ; Gaudentius, Jerome, and Augustine, in the latter half and the end of the century, attest its canonicity and, generally, its Pauline origin.
In the Eastern churches it was much more gene rally, and from an earlier date, received. It is doubtful whether any citation from it is made by Justin Martyr, though in one OY two passages of his writings he seems to have had it in his eye. Clement of Alexandria held it to be St. Paul's, originally written by him in Hebrew, and trans lated by St. Luke (Euseb. H. E. vi.14.). Origen wrote Homilies on this epistle ; he frequently refers to it as canonical, and as the work of St. Paul, and he tells us he had intended to write a treatise to prove this (Lardner, 472, ff.) Origen further attests that the ancients handed it down as St. Paul's (Euseb. H. E. vi. 25), by which, though he cannot be understood as intending to say that it had never been questioned by any of those who had lived before him, we must under stand him at least to affirm that in the church of Alexandria it had from the earliest period been received. Dionysius of Alexandria acknowledged it as part of sacred Scripture, and as written by St. Paul. By Basil, the Gregories, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and all the Greeks, as Jerome attests, it was received. Eusebius, though he ranks it in one place among the dvrAry6,(Lepa, in deference to the doubts entertained respecting it in the Roman Church, nevertheless asserts its apostolic authority, and includes it among the books generally received by the churches. In public documents of the Eastern Church also, such as the Epistle of the Synod at Antioch, the Apos tolical Constitutions, the Catalogue of the Council, its claims are recognised. In the Syrian churches it was received ; it is found in the Peshito version ; it is quoted by Ephrem as St. Paul's ; and it is included among the canonical Scriptures in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (Lardner, iv. 430, 440). To this uniform testimony there is nothing to oppose, unless we accept the somewhat dubious assertion of Jerome that it was rejected by the heretical teacher Basilides (Proem. in Ep. ad Tit., but comp. Lardner, ix. 3o5).