general, and ultimately catholic, acceptance and recognition of it in the Church as Canonical Scripture, are quite sufficient to determine its right to be received as a Divinely authoritative Book.
The last of these considerations, however, is intimately associated with the question as to the Pauline authorship of the Epistle. And on that interesting question, thus the matter stands: — Although for four hundred years after it was written it was not received by the Roman Church as the composition of St. Paul, yet, during that time, in the Churches for which it seems to have been more immediately intended, and, indeed, in all the Churches of the world except the Latin, it was acknowledged as the production of that apostle; its Pauline authorship ultimately became acknowledged by the Latin Church itself; as in respect of doctrine, so also in respect of phraseology and style — as is shown by Spanheim, and by Owen in his First Exercitation on the Epistle — there is a remarkably striking resemblance in this production to the usual composition of St. Paul; the references, in the Epistle, to Italy, to Timothy, and to the author's imprisonment, point in the same direction; and the frequent, and even pervading, peculiarity of style — which was early alleged as a reason for calling in question its Pauline authorship — may be accounted for by these three considerations — (1.) That, though called an Epistle, this production is obviously of the nature of a Treatise; (2.) That as it was probably to Hebrews residing in Palestine, that it was
