of Innocent I to Exsuperius, and became part of the Law of the Roman Church.
The language of the decrees of the African Councils preserves a significant trace of the transition from the earlier view in the West to that which finally prevailed. In the Council of Hippo and the first Council of Carthage the enumeration runs:
Pauli Ap. Epistolae xiii.: eiusdem ad Hebraeos una.
In the second Council of Carthage the two clauses are combined:
Epist. Pauli Ap. numero xiv.
The Epistle is used as St Paul's among others by Hilary (
De Trin.
4.11), Lucifer (
De non conv. c. haer.
, Migne,
P. L.
13.782), Victorinus Afer (
c. Ar.
2.3), Pacianus (
Ep.
3.13), Faustinus (
De Trin.
2.13), Ambrose (
De Sp. S.
3.8,
51), Pelagius (
Comm. in Rom.
1.17), Rufinus (
Comm. in Symb. Apost.
36, Pauli apostoli epistolae quatuordecim).
On the other hand it is not used by Phaebadius, Optatus, Zeno, Vincent of Lerins, Orosius. Philastrius notices that it was not read in Churches ( Haer. 88), or, at least, only sometimes ( Haer. 89, interdum).
The language of Jerome is full of interest, and in several places it is easy to see the influence of the Greek or Latin work which he has before him. He repeats the familiar Western saying that St Paul wrote to seven Churches, adding that very many rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, which would have given an eighth ( Ep. ad Paul. 53 (103) § 8; de virr. ill. 5). He notices the Western custom and tradition which questioned its authority and denied its Pauline authorship ( Ep. ad Evang. 73 (126) § 4; ad Dard. 129 § 3; Comm. in Matt. 26:8, 9; in Isa. 6:2; 8:16 f.). He discusses the common objections to the Pauline authorship ( de virr. ill. c. 5; Comm. in Gal. 1:1), and notices one which he probably owed to Origen ( Ep. ad Afri. 9), that the Epistle contained references to Apocryphal Books ( Comm. in Isa. 6:9 ff.). In many places he uses the Epistle as St Paul's without any reserve ( Comm. in Isa. 5:24; 7:14); and again he speaks of the writer of the Epistle whoever he was, the Apostle Paul or whoever wrote the Epistle ( Comm. in Amos 8:7, 8; in Jer. 31:31 f.).
The language of Augustine is equally uncertain. At one time he leaves the question of the canonicity of the Epistle uncertain
(
Inchoat. Expos. Ep. ad Rom.
§ 11). At another time he inclines to accept it on the authority of the Eastern Churches (
de pecc. mer. et remiss.
1.27, 50). And in common use he quotes it in the same way as the other Epistles of St Paul, though less frequently (
Serm.
55.5 & c.).
It is needless to follow in detail the statements of later writers. A few interesting traces of old doubts survive. The Epistle was wanting in the archetype of D
2 and probably in the archetype of F
2 and G
3 (see pp. xvi.,
xxvii.). Some Commentators deal only with thirteen Epistles of St Paul (Hilary
of Rome, Migne P. L. xvii. pp. 45 ff.; Pelagius, P. L. xxx. pp. 645 ff.; comp. Cassiod. de inst. div. litt. 4.8), though Hilary and Pelagius speak of the Epistle to the Hebrews elsewhere as a book of the Apostle. But the notices as to the