The sense of the ambiguous phrase tiv" oJ gravya" th;n ejpistolhvn (Rom. 16:22) is fixed by the context beyond all reasonable doubt. The writing included all that is described under expression ( fravsi" ) and composition ( suvnqesi" ). In this sense, on the ground that the Epistle shewed correspondences of style with their acknowledged compositions, some held that Clement and some that St Luke wrote it.
The Homily from which this passage was taken was written after A.D. 245. The Epistle to Africanus was written A.D. 240. We may therefore rightly conclude that we have in the quotation Origen's mature and final judgment from a critical point of sight. Practically he might still use it as St Paul's in the sense which he explains.
Looking back over the records of the first three centuries Eusebius expressed the judgment to which the facts pointed plainly with all their apparent discrepancies. In different places he ranks the Epistle among the acknowledged (3.25), and the controverted Books (6.13). He held himself that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that Clement of Rome (rather than St Luke) had translated it, on the ground of its likeness to Clement's own Letter both in style and subject-matter (3.38). He used the Greek text as St Paul's habitually; and reckoned his Epistles as fourteen (
H. E.
3.3), though he noticed that some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground that it was controverted (
ajntilevgesqai
) by the Roman Church as not being Paul's. At the same time he justified his own decision by the plea that it was reasonable on the ground of its antiquity that it should be reckoned with the other writings of the Apostle (
H. E.
3.38). Such a statement would be inconsistent with the idea that he held it to be St Paul's in the same sense as the other Epistles. He held it to be canonical Scripture and Pauline, so to speak, for ecclesiastical use. Eusebius in other words, like Origen, was chiefly concerned to maintain the canonicity of the Epistle, and he upheld its ultimate Pauline authorship as connected with its apostolic authority.
The following are the passages in which Eusebius states the facts as to the Epistle in his own words.
H. E. 3.3 tou' de; Pauvlou provdhloi kai; safei'" aiJ dekatevssare" ejpistolaiv . o{ti ge mhvn tine" hjqethvkasi th;n pro;" JEbraivou", pro;" th'" JRwmaivwn ejkklhsiva" wJ" mh; Pauvlou ou\san aujth;n ajntilevgesqai fhvsante", ouj divkaion ajgnoei'n . kai; ta; peri; tauvth" de; toi'" pro; hJmw'n eijmhmevna kata; kairo;n paraqhvsomai .
H. E. 3.37 [ Klhvmh" ] safevstata parivsthsin o{ti mh; nevon uJpavrcei to; suvggramma . e[nqen eijkovtw" e[doxen aujto; toi'" loipoi'" ejgkatalecqh'nai gravmmasi tou' ajpostovlou : JEbraivoi" ga;r dia; th'" patrivou glwvtth" ejggravfw" wJmilhkovto" tou' Pauvlou, oiJ me;n to;n eujaggelisth;n Louka'n oiJ de; to;n Klhvmenta tou'ton aujto;n eJrmhneu'sai levgousi th;n grafhvn . o} kai; ma'llon ei[h a]n ajlhqev", tw'/ to;n o{moion th'" fravsew" carakth'ra thvn te tou' Klhvmento" ejpistolh;n kai; th;n pro;" JEbraivou" ajposwvzein, kai; tw'/ mh; povrrw ta; ejn eJkatevroi" toi'" suggravmmasi nohvmata kaqestavnai .