A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament : during the first four centuries

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the

public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual
personal, non-commercial purposes.

and we request that you use these files for

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
ai[http: //books . google. com/|

MAHAN

600086468$

A

300006468§

A GENERAL SURVEY

OF TUB

HISTORY OF THE CANON.

Cambridge :
Printed at the Anibersitp Press.
Fork MACMILLAN ἃ Co.

Genter: BELL AND DALDY.

@rford: J. H. AND JAMES PARKER.
@tinburg): EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS.
Bublin: HODGES AND SMITH.

Glasgow: JAMES MACLEHOSE.

[The Author reserves the right of translation. |

ἿΣ

A GENERAL SURVEY
OF THE HISTORY

OF THE

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

DURING

THE FIRST FOUR CENTORIES.

BY

BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, M.A.

LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

Cambridge :
MACMILLAN & CO.
18565.

“5. ἀν. 295.

Εὐλόγως ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν ἔλεγεν"

rINECOE TPATIEZITAI ΔΟΚΙ͂ΜΟΙ.

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND

JAMES PRINCE LEE, DD,
LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER,
AND LATE

HEAD MASTER OF KING EDWARD'S SCHOOL,
BIRMINGHAM,

Gms Essay is imscribed,
WITH SINCERE AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE,
BY

HIS FORMER PUPIL.

PREFACE.

My object in the present Essay has been to deal
with the New Testament as a whole, and that on
purely historical grounds. The separate books of
which it is composed are considered not individually,
but as claiming to be parts of the Apostolic heritage
of Christians. And thus reserving for another occa-
sion the inquiry into their mutual relations and essen-
tial unity, I have endeavoured to connect the history
of the New Testament Canon with the growth and
consolidation of the Catholic Church, and to point
out the relation existing between the amount of evi-
dence for the authenticity of its component parts, and
the whole mass of Christian literature. However
imperfectly this design has been carried out, I cannot
but hope that such a method of inquiry will convey
both the truest notion of the connexion of the written
Word with the living Body of Christ, and the surest
conviction of its divine authority. Hitherto the co-
existence of several types of apostolic doctrine in the
first age and of various parties in Christendom for
several generations afterwards, has been quoted to
prove that our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere
compromise. But while I acknowledge most will-
ingly the great merit of the Tiibingen School in

Vill PREFACE.

pointing out with marked distinctness the character-
istics of the different books of the New Testament,
and their connexion with special sides of Christian
doctrine and with various eras in the Christian
Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they
should not have found in those writings the expla-
nation instead of the result of those divisions which
are traceable up to the Apostolic times.

To lay claim to candour is only to profess in
other words that I have sought to fulfil the part of an
historian and not of a controversialist. No one will
be more grieved than myself if I have misrepresented
or omitted any point of real importance; and those
who know the extent and intricacy of the ground to
be travelled over will readily pardon less serious
errors. But candour will not, I trust, be mistaken
for indifference; for I have no sympathy with those
who are prepared to sacrifice with apparent satisfac-
tion each debated position at the first assault. Truth
is indeed dearer than early faith, but he can love
truth little who knows no other love. If then I have
ever spoken coldly of Holy Scripture, it is because I
have wished to limit my present statements to the
just consequences of the evidence brought forward.
But history is not our only guide; for while internal
criticism cannot usurp the place of history, it has its
proper field; and as feeling cannot decide on facts,
so neither can testimony convey that sense of the
manifold wisdom of the Apostolic words which is, I

PREFACE. ix

believe, the sure blessing of those who seek nightly
to penetrate into their meaning.

Whatever obligations I owe to previous writers
are, I hope, in all cases duly acknowledged. That
they are fewer than might have been expected, is a
necessary result of the change which was required in
the treatment of the subject, from the form of modern
controversy ; and the same change will free me from
the necessity of discharging the unwelcome office of
a critic. Yet it would be ungrateful not to bear wit-
ness to the accuracy and fulness of Lardner’s ‘ Credi-
bility ;’ for, however imperfect it may be in the view
which it gives of the earliest period of Christian
literature, it is, unless I am mistaken, more complete
and trustworthy than any work which has been
written since on the same subject.

There is, however, one great drawback to the
study of Christian antiquity, so serious that I cannot
but allude to it. The present state of the text, at
least of the early Greek fathers, is altogether un-
worthy of an age which has done so much to restore
to classic writers their ancient beauty; and yet even
in intellect Ongen has few rivals. But it is perhaps
as unreasonable as it is easy to complain ; and I have
done nothing more than follow MS. authority as far
as I could in giving the different catalogues of the New
Testament. I can only regret that I have not done
so throughout; for—to take one example—the text
of the canons given in Labbé, as far as my experience

x PREFACE.

goes, is utterly untrustworthy, while the materials for
determining a good one are abundant and easily
accessible.

During the slow progress of the Essay through
the press, several works have appeared of which I
have been able to make little or no use. All that I
wished to say on the Roman and African Churches
was printed before I saw Milman’s ‘ Latin Chniati-
anity ;’ and of the second edition of Bunsen’s ‘ Hip-
polytus and his Age,’ I have only been able to use
partially the ‘Analecta Ante-Nicena.’ It is, how-
ever, a great satisfaction to me to find that Dr Mil-
man maintains that the early Roman Church was
essentially Greek; a view, which I believe to be as
true as it is important, notwithstanding the remarks
of his Dublin reviewer.

It only remains for me to acknowledge how much
I owe to the kind help of friends in consulting books
which were not within my reach. And I have fur-
ther to offer my sincere thanks to the Rev. W.
Cureton, Canon of Westminster, to the Rev. Dr
Burgess of Blackburn, to Dr Tregelles of Plymouth,
and to Mr T. Ellis of the British Museum, for valu-
able information relative to Syriac MSS.; and like-
wise to the Rev. H. O. Coxe of the Bodleian Library
for consulting several Greek MSS. of the Canons
contained in that collection.

Harrow,
July, 1855.

CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

p. 9, 1. 3 from bottom, for (8) read 3.

p. 84, 1.3 & for 10 read 11.

Ῥ. 236,13 ,, Sor patre read fratre.

p. 288, 1.11 4, Sor vobis read nobis.

Ῥ. 243,n. The reference to Cassiodorus is, I fear, an error of
memory; for except when he refers to Clement, I cannot now find that
he speaks of only two epistles.

p. 174. Cf. [Hipp.] adv. her. p. 111.

Ῥ. 179, n. On the Lectiones Velesian@ see Dr Tregelles’ valuable
account of the Printed Text of the Greek Test. pp. 38 f. The edition
of Stephens, 1539-40, reads nisi quis renatus fuerit.

p- 191. Add Cyril, Catech. ii. 1.

p- 201. In one Fragment of Justin (xi. Ed. Otto), as it was pub-
lished by Grabe, there is a remarkable coincidence of thought with
i. John i. δύ. Cf. Ebrard, Krit. d. Ev. Gesch. 890.

p. 235. Cf. App. Ὁ. for the collations of Wieseler and Bunsen.

p. 240,n. The word principalis, however, is used to translate ἡγη-
povexds in Iren. iii. 11. 8.

Ῥ. 248. Since this was printed, an Apology attributed to Melito,
which contains several allusions to the Epistles, but no quotations from
them, has been published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, from
a Syriac translation. In this respect it agrees very well with other
apologetic writings; and on other grounds I see no reason to doubt its
authenticity. The Clavis, which exists (in Latin) at Oxford, in a
transcript from a Parisian MS., is of no authority. Cf. Routh, Rellig.
x. 141 ff.

p. 266. The evidence of Ephrem Syrus is examined more at length,
p- 514, His habitual use of the seven Catholic Epistles is confined to
works in a Greek translation.

p. 285. Cf. p. 418, n. 1.

p. 307. Add Euseb. H. E. vii. 25.

p. 317. Eusebius, in noticing the different translators of Scripture,
(H. E. vi. 16, 17) mentions that Symmacuus was an Ebionite. He
then adds (c. 17): ‘ And moreover notes (ὑπομνήματα) of Symmachus
are still extant (φέρεται), in which he appears (δοκεῖ) to support the
heresy which 1 have mentioned, directing his efforts to the Gospel
according to Matthew.’ The last phrase is obscure (πρὸς τὸ κατὰ
Ματθαῖον aworeivopevos); but if its meaning be that Symmachus

Xl CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

exerted himself to show the superior authority of the Ebionitic text
of the Gospel [of St Matthew], it still offers a singular proof of the
general reception of the Canonical Gospel of St Matthew, though
Symmachus assailed it. But Rufinus, Jerome, and, at a much later
time, Nicephorus, supposed that Symmachus wrote commentaries on
St Matthew, and the Greek will bear this meaning. Hieron. de Virr.
Ill. Liv. p. 894.

The quotations in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, are on
several accounts worthy of notice. One passage occurs (c. 2) prefaced
with the words ὁτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει, which coincides verbally with
Matt. ix. 13, οὐ γάρ---ἀμαρτωλούς (Cf. Just. Ap. i. 15: de resurr. 8).
A second quotation is introduced with the phrase λέγει ὁ Κύριος ἐν τῷ
εὐαγγελίῳ (ς. 8), but this only agrees in sense with Luc. xvi. 10 (Matt.
xxv. 21); though it is repeated by Irenaeus (ii. 34, ὃ 3). The other
quotations are anonymous, marked only by λέγει or φησί, whether they
agree with the Canonical Gospels (cc. 6, 9) or differ from them (cc. 3, 4, δ).
In no case do they agree with the quotations in the Clementines or Justin
when they differ from the Gospels; and on the contrary, they differ
from the Clementines: c. 5. Cf. Matt. x. 28. Clem. Hom. xvii. δ. Just.
Ap. i. 19: c. 6. Cf. Matt. vi. 24. Clem. Recogn. v. 9. Just. Ap. i. 15.
The passages found in this fragment, which occur also in the Gospel
of the Egyptians (Clem. Alex. Str. iii. 9, § 63), are quoted anony-
mously (c. 12). In one place (c. 9) there appears to be a reference to
St John’s Gospel (capt ἐγένετο, John i. 14); and in another remark-
able quotation prefaced by λέγει ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος (c. 11), there
is a striking coincidence with the Second Epistle of St Peter (iii. 4).

p- 400. There is, however, no variety of reading in the MSS.
which I have consulted (Cf. p. 583, n.)

Ρ. 412. Dionysius himself quoted the Apocalypse. Euseb. vii. 10.

p. 415. I have now found a clear allusion to the Epistle of St
James, in a fragment of Dionysius. Comm. in Lue. xxii. (Gallandi,
Bibl. Pp. xiv. App. p. 117. Cf. Proleg. V.) ὁ yap θεός, φησίν, ἀπεί-
pacros ἐστι κακῶν. James i. 16.

p. 435, η. 2. Cf. p. 525, n. 2.

p. 501. To these MSS. may be added Cod. Arund. (Mus. Brit.)
533 (sec. xiv), containing the commentaries of Balsamon, which gives
the Catalogue as a new Canon, but all rubricated. Bandini (Bibl.
Laur. i. pp. 72, 397, 477) notices several other MSS. which contain the
Catalogue.

p. 528, 1.5. The text of Cassiodorus is given in Appendix Ὁ, on
the authority of several MSS., which all include the Epistle to Ephe-
sians, and omit that of δὲ Jude, in both cases differing from the com-
mon text.

CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION... . »« 119
A general view of the difficulties which affected the
formation and proof of the Canon . . 1—4
i. The Formation of the Canon was impeded by:
1. Defective means of communication . 5

2. The existence of a traditional Rule of doctrine 6
’ But the Canon was generally recognized at
the close of the second century . Ὁ - 8
ii. The Proof of the Canon is affected by :
1. The uncritical character of the early Fathers 10

2. The casual nature of theirevidence . . . 18

3. The fragmentary state of early Christian
literature. . 14

The Canon rests on the combined Judgment of the
Churches . .. ~ « 16

FIRST PERIOD. A.D. 70—170
Cnaprer I.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
(A. Ὁ. 70—120.)

The general character of the Sab Apostolic Age ὁ con-
servative and yet transitional

Its relation to the history of the Canon
Section i. The relation of the Apostolic Fathers to the

teaching of the Apostles.
§ 1. CLEMENT of Rome.

ἣν 8

His legendary history and office. . 27
His first Epistle in relation to Sr Pavt, ‘Sr
James, and Sr Joun . . 30

The view which it gives of the position of the
Christian Church - 8 .Ξ-Ξ-Ξ . 32

XIV CONTENTS.

§2. IGNATIUS.

The general characteristics of the Ignatian Epi-
stles common to all the shorter Epistles, and
consistent with the position of Ignatius .

‘Their connexion with the teaching of Sr Paur
as to Judaism (p.40), and tothe Church (p. 41) ;
and with Sr ΘΟῊΝ . oe

§ 3. POLYCARP.

His Epistle eminently Scriptural (p. 44). Its
connexion with Sr Perer, and with the Pas-
toral Epistles . .

The special value of Polycarp’ 8 : testimony .

84, BARNABAS.

The Epistle of Barnabas authentic, but not Apo-
stolic .

Its relation to ‘the Epistle to the “Hebrews, in i
regard to the mystical interpretation of Scrip-
ture (p. 51), and to the Mosaic Dispensation

Section ii. The relation of the Apostolic Fathers to

the Canon of the New Testament.
How far their testimony was limited by their position
Their testimony to
(a) The Books of the New Testament, (1) ex-
plicit (p. 56), and (2) incidental .
They do not witness so much to written

Gospels (p. 59), as to the great facts of

Christ’s Life . .
(8) The authority of the Apostolic Writings .

Modified by (1) their position (p. 63), and (2)

by the gradual recognition of the Doctrine of
Inspiration

Still they agree to pce themselves below the

Apostles .
Cuapter II.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

(A.D. 120—170.)

The wide range of Christian literature during this period

Justin Martyr i is its true representative

PAGE

CONTENTS.

The work of the Apologists twofold, to determine the
relation of Christianity (1) to Heathendom, and (2)
to Judaism .

This latter work to be compared with the conflicts of
the Apostolic age ‘

Christian literature still wholly Greek ; the effects of this

§ 1. PAPIAS.

His date (p. 76), and character (p. 77). The true
purpose of his Enarrations (p. 78); and his
testimony to the Gospels of Sr Marruew (p.79),
Sr Mark (p. 80), Sr Jonn; to the Catholic
Epistles, and to the Apocalypse.

How it is that he does not allude to the Pauline —

[The Martyrdom of Ignatius, p. 86, η.]
8 2. The Elders quoted by Ζγεπα δ. . . .
§ 8. The Evangelists in the time of Trajan -

§ 4. The Athenian Apologists.
QUADRATUS (p. 91) and ARISTIDES

§ 5. The Letter to Diognetus.
Its authorship (p. 96), compound character (p.97),
and date.
Its testimony to the ‘teaching of Sr ‘Pavt and Sr
Joun (p. 100), to the Synoptic Gospels (p. 101),
and to other parts of the New Testament
The Gnostic element in the second part ° 6
§ 6. The Jewish Apologiste.
The Dialogue of Jason and Ῥαρίνσαν (ARISTO
of Pella) “ .
AGRIPPA CAS TOR - 8
§ 7. JUSTIN MARTYR.
Some account of the studies, labours, and writings
of Justin .
A preliminary statement of ‘the relation of his
books to the Gospels .
i. The general coincidence of J ostin’ 8 evangelic
quotations with our Gospels, in (1) Facts
(p. 115): 6. 9.. (a) The Infancy (ἰὁ.), (8)

2 88 8 &

XV

PAGE

15

XVI

CONTENTS.

the Mission of John Baptist (p. 118), (7) the

Passion (p. 119); and (2) in the account of

our Lord's teaching (p. 121), both (a) in lan-

guage (p. 122), and (8) in substance

ii. Justin's special quotations from the Apostolic

Memoirs

The quotations in the Apology ( p. 127 )» and in

the Dialogue

Coincidences with Sr Martuew, Sr Manx, and

Sr Luxe .

Justin’s description of ‘the Memoirs ‘compared
with Tertullian’s description of the Gospels
(p. 131); the substance of what he quotes from

(p. 133), and says of them

Objections to the identification of the Memoirs

with the Gospels :

1. No mention of their writers’ names .
Yet Evangelic quotations are generally anony-—

mous (p. 136), as also quotations from the pro-

phets . °

2. The quotations differ from the Canonical

text

Yet not more than J ustin’s ola Testament quote-
tions (p. 142) ; in which he both (a) combines

(p. 144), and (8) adapts texts

The identification justified by an examination :
(2) Of the express quotations from the Me-

moirs

(8) Of the repetitions of the | same Poca

reading

These various readings ‘may ‘he classed 88
synonymous phrases (p. 163),

(p. 170), and combinations, whether of

gloeses

words (p. 172), or of forms (p. 173); and
admit of illustration from MSS., e. 9,

Cod. D.

(y) Of the coincidences with heretical Gospels
The differences from these are far more nu-

merous and striking

PAGE

123
125
129

130

134

135

139

141

147

154

161

176
178

187

8 9.

§ 10.

§ 11.

CONTENTS.

3. The coincidences of Justin’s narrative with
Apocryphal traditions . .
The voice (p. 189), and fire at the Baptism

(p. 191); and other facts (p. 192), and
words (p. 193), which are to be explained

as exaggerations (#b.), or glosses .

Summary of Justin’s testimony (p. 197), in con-
nexion with the Muratorian Canon (p. 200).
How far he witnesses to the Gospel of St John
(p. 201), and to the Apocalypse (ib.); and to
the writings of St Paul (p. 202), especially in

PAGB

188

195

quotations from the Old Testament . . . 204

The testimony of the doubtful works attributed
to Justin . .

DIONYSIUS, of Corinth, and PINY TUS.

What Dionysius says of the preservation of
Christian writings (p. 207); and how it bears
on the New Testament

His direct reference to the New Testament Scrip-
tures (p. 210), and coincidences of language
with different parts . .

Pinytus refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews .

HERMAS.

The condition of the Church of Rome at the
middle of the third century . .

How far the Shepherd represents its character .

The history of the book (p. 217), its character
(p. 220), in relation to Sr James (p. 221); and
its connexion with other books of Scripture

The Christology of Hermas in connexion with
that of Sr Joun (p. 225). He is falsely accused
of Ebionism 7 «© © . ὃ

HEGESIPPUS.

The supposed Ebionism of Hegesippus (p. 228),
opposed to the testimony of Eusebius

The character of his Memoirs in connexion with
the Gospels (p. 232), and with Apocryphal
books .

The Muratorian F ragment—MELI το--

=

229

XVill CONTENTS.

PAGE

CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS.

The- date of the Muratorian Canon (p. 236), its
character (p. 237), and its testimony to (a) the
Gospels (p. 238), (8) the Acts (p. 241), (7) the
Epistles of St Paul (éb.), and the disputed
Catholic Epistles (p.242). Its omissions (p.243)
admit of an explanation. . 244

Melito implies the existence of a New Testament,
and illustrates the extent of Christian literature 247

Claudius Apollinaris shows that the Gospels were
generally recognized - . . 248

Summary . .« . «© «© «© « «+ 2651

Cuaprer ITI.

THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

How far they help to determine the Canon. - « 253
$1. The Peshito.
Its language (p.254), and probable origin (p.256).
Syrian traditiona on the subject » «© « 269
The difficulty of deciding these questions from
the want of an early Syriac literature (p. 260).
Other Syriac Versions (p. 262, n. ) The Syrian
Canon . . Ὁ © eo 265
§ 2. The Old Latin Version.
The Roman Church originally Greek (p. 269),
while Africa was the home of Latin Christian
literature (p. 270), of which the Vetus Latina
is the oldest specimen . 272
The existence of such a version proved by Ter-
tullian (p. 273). Augustine’s testimony on the
subject (p 276), supported hy existing MSS. . 278
The quotations in the Latin Version of Ireneus
(p. 280), and MSS, in which the Vetus Latina
is now found .
How far its influence can be traced i in the present
Vulgate 2. 6 eel

.

CONTENTS. ΧΙΧ

PAGE

Application of this argument to the language of
ii, Peter (p. 288), St James (p. 390), the Epi-

stle to the Hebrews . 290
The importance of these early versions Ὁ. 292),
incombination . . . ee

Cuarrer IV.

THE TESTIMONY OF EARLY HERETICS TO
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The early heretics made no attack on the New
Testament (p. 296), as their adversaries re-
marked (p. 298), though their testimony is
partial and progressive . - - « 299

§ 1. The Heretical Teachers of the Apostolic age.

SIMON MAGUS (p. 301), and the Great An-
nouncement. . 301

MENANDER (p. 304), and CERINTHUS
(p. 305). The latter acquainted with the
writings of the New Testament (ἰδ.). How the
Apocalypse came to be ascribed to him (p. 306),
and thence the other writings of St John . . 308

The importance of early heretical teaching in
relation to the New Testament (p. 309), as a
link between it and later speculations - . 810

§ 2. The Ophites and Ebionites.

The contrast between these sects (p. 315). The
Ophites (p. 313), Peratici and Sethiani (p. 314),
of Hippolytus. What writings the Ebionites
received (p. 316). The testimony of the Cle-
mentines . . . . 317

§ 3. BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS.

The position (p. 319), and date of Basilides (p.

320). What books he used (μ᾿ ); what he is

said to have rejected . . . . 324
§ 4. CARPOCRATES Πρ tt 8
§ δ. VALENTINUS.

He received the same books as Catholic Christians
(p. 327) ; but is said to have introduced into

§ 9.

§ 10.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

them verbal alterations (p. 829), and to have

used another Gospel . Ὁ . + © . 9890
Other Gnostic Gospels . Ὁ . Ceti « .« 3892
HERACLEON.

His commentaries ρ' ΩΣ What hooks they

recognize . . 395-997
PTOLEM US.. . . «6 . «. + 388
The Marcosians.

They used apocryphal writings (p. 340), but also
the Gospels (p. 341), and the writings of St

Paul. . ὁ . . . 944
MARCION.
The Canon of Marcion the earliest known. 345
His position (p. 346), and date (p. 347). What
books he received . 348
The text of his edition (p. 349), and the principles
by which he was guided . . . . 353
TATIAN.
The relation of Tatian to Marcion (p. 354). His
importance (p. 355). What Scriptures he re-
cognizes . . 3856
An account of his Diatessaron ~ «6 « . 858
General Summary.
i. The evidence fragmentary; but wide, unaf-
fected, uniform, and comprehensive
ii, The authenticity of the Canon a key to the
history of early Christianity . . .
Still (1.) partial doubts remained as to certain
books (p. 367), and (ii. ) the idea of a Canon was
not expressed . . . . 9868

SECOND PERIOD. A.D. 170--908.
Cuapter I.

THE CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS.

Three stages in the progress of Christianity (p.
373). How these are connected (p. 374), and the
bearing of this on the history ofthe Canon . . 375

CONTENTS. ΧΧῚ

On what grounds the Canon of acknowledged
books rests. 376
The testimony of (i) the Gallican ‘Church (p.
377), The Epistle of the Church of Vienne (p.

378), IRENHUS . . . 879
ii, The Alexandrine Church, — PANTENUS
(p.381), CLEMENT . . . 882

iii. The African Church, —TERTULLIAN . 384
All these writers appeal to antiquity (p. 386),
and recognize a collection of sacred books . . 989

Cuaprer II.

HE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE
DISPUTED BOOKS.

The problem of the disputed books at first histo-
rical (p. 392). A summary of the evidence up
to this point. 305
The Alexandrine Church —CLEMEN T (p. 806).
ORIGEN (p. 401): his catalogues (p. 402), and
isolated testimonies in Greek (p. 407), and Latin
texts (p. 408). DIONYSIUS (P. 410} Later
Alexandrine writers . . - . 418
The Egyptian Versions. . . .« « «© 416
2. The Latin Churches of Africa.
As to the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 418), the

and

Catholic Epistles (p. 420), the Apocalypse . 422
The Latin Canon defective, δ free from Apo.
cryphal additions . . . . 423

3. The Church of Rome.
i. Latin writers,— MINUCIUS FELIX—

NOVATUS . . 426
ii, Greek writers,—DION YSI U, S—CA I US ( Ρ.
428), HIPPOLYTUS . . . . . 4980

4. The Churches of Asia Minor.
1. Ephesus. POLYCRATES (p. 482). APOL-
LONIUS . . . oe . 438
2. Smyrna. IRENEUS . . 494
3. Pontus. GREGORY of Neo—Cesarea (p. £97),

ΧΧῚ CONTENTS.

FIRMILIAN -.
METHODIUS .
The Asiatic Canon Defective
§ δ. The Churches of Syria.

1. Antioch. THEOPHILUS (p. 443), SERA-
PION (p.444), PAUL of Samosata (p. 446),

DOROTHEUS and LUCIAN .

2. Caesarea. PAMPHILUS

Cnrapter ITI.

e

. 447
. 453

THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND

APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS.
General connexion of the forms of heresy with the New

Testament .

1. Controversies on nthe person of Christ

2. Montaniem .

3. Manichaism (p. 458). Use of Apocryphal

Books by the Manichees.

The testimony of Apocryphal Writings. The Sibylline
Oracles (p. 462), and the Testament of the Twelve

Patriarchs .

. 463

The testimony of heathen writers. Cezeve, Ponrayry . 464

Summary ofsecond part. . .

THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 303—397.

Cuaprer I.

. 465

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON IN THE

AGE OF DIOCLETIAN.
The persecution of Diocletian directed against the

Christian books (p. 471), its results
1. In Africa. The Donatiste
2. In Syria. EUSEBIUS

. 472
. 474
476

CONTENTS. XX

PAGE
Cuaprer IJ.
THE HISTORY OF THE CANON DURING
THE AGE OF COUNCILS.

CONSTANTINE’S zeal for Holy Scripture (p. 491), as
a rule of controversy (p. 492), accepted on all sides . 493
The use of Scripture at the Council of Nice. » . 494
i. The Council of Laodicea . 496
The last Laodicean Canon (p. 498). “Evidence
as to its authenticity from (1) Greek MSS.
(p. 500), (2) Versions—Latin (p. 502), and
Syriac (p. 503), (8) Systematic Arrange-
ments of the Canons (#b.) Result . . 504
ii. The third Council of Carthage.
The Canon of the New Testament ratified there . 508
How this Canon is supported by the testimony
of Churches.
i. The Churches of Syria.
1. Antioch. Curysostom (p. 511). THxopore of

Mopsuestia (ἐδ.). THEopoRET. . . 613
2. Nisibis. Junuavus (p. 518), Exsen Jesu. . 614
3. Edessa. ἘΡΗΒΕΜ Syrvs. . . . . ἐν.
JouaNnNEs DaMASCENUS. . . . . . . 515

ii. The Churches of Asia Minor.
Grecory of Naz. (p. 516). Ampximocuius (éb.)
Grecory of Nyssa . . . . © . 517
Bast (ib.) ANpREew and ArRETHas, . . - 518
iii. The Church of JerusaLem.
Cyr (p. 519). Epipsanivus. - «+ « . 619
iv. The Church of Alexandria.
Arnanasius (p. 520). Cyrm. Ismore. Dipyuus
(2.) Evrnauius. . . . « « « δὶ
v. The Church of Constantinople.
Cassian (p.522). Leontius (ib.) NicepHorus(ib.)
Puortivs (p. 523), GEcumenius. Turopnytact 6523
vi. The Churches of the West.
Doubts as to the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 524).
The Canon of Jerome (p. 525). AMBROsE.
Rurinus. Parastrivs (p. 528). Avousrine. 529

XX1V CONTENTS,

Various views on the Canon at the era of the Re-

formation.

The Council of Trent (p. 531).

Luruer (532).

Reformers.
Conclusion .

App. A. On the history of the word Kavév, .

Erasmus (ἰδ.)
Canistapr (ib.) Caxvin.
The XXXIX. Articles (p. 534). The Engiuh

App. B. On the use of Apocryphal δορί ἐπ the early

Church . .

App. C. The Muratorian Fragment ὁ on the Canon
App. D. A collection of early catalogues of the books

of the New Testament

PAGE

oT
eee

The truth of our Religion, like the truth of common matters, INTRODUC.
is to be judged by all the evidence taken together.

Br Butter.

A GENERAL survey of the History of the Canon A general ας
forms a necessary part of an Introduction to the Canon as dis
writings of the New Testament. A full exa- cular history
mination of the objections which have been raised ἡ
against particular Books, a detailed account of
the external evidence by which they are seve-
rally supported, an accurate estimate of the in-
ternal proofs of their authenticity, are, indeed,
most needful; but, besides all this, it seems
no less important to gain a wide and connected
prospect of the history of the whole collection
of the New Testament Scriptures, to trace the
gradual recognition of a written rule as authori-
tative and divine, to watch the predominance of
partial, though not exclusive, views in different
Churches, till they were all harmonized in a
universal Creed, and witnessed by a completed
Canon'. For this purpose we must frequently
assume results which we have obtained else-
where; but what is lost in fulness will be gained

1 By ‘the Canon’ I understand the collection of books
which constitute the original written Rule of the Christian
Faith. For the history of the word see Appendix A.

΄

Β

2 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intRonuc in clearness, A continuous though rapid survey
of the field on which we are engaged will bring
out more prominently some of its great features,
whose true effect is lost in the details of a minute
investigation.
necessary A mere series of quotations can convey only
an inadequate notion of the real extent and im-
portance of the early testimonies to the genuine-
ness and authority of the New Testament. Some-
thing must be known of the nature and object of
the first Christian literature—of the possible
frequency of Scriptural references in such frag-
ments of it as survive—of the circumstances and
relations of the primitive Churches, before it
is fair to assign any negative value to the silence
or ignorance of individual witnesses, or to decide
on the positive worth of the evidence which can
be brought forward.
ne aly tn The question of the Canon of Holy Scrip-
von ture has assumed at the present day a new posi-
tion in Theology. The Bible can be no longer
regarded merely as a common storehouse of con-
troversial weapons, or an acknowledged excep-
tion to the rules of literary criticism. Modern
scholars, from various motives, have distinguished
its constituent parts, and shewn in what way
each was related to the peculiar circumstances
of its origin. Christianity has gained by the
issue; for it is an unspeakable advantage that

r
- Ἐπ “- .

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 3

the Books of the New Testament are now felt tntropvc-
to be organically united with the lives of the
Apostles—that they are recognized as living
monuments, reared in the midst of struggles
within and without by men who had seen Christ,
stamped with the character of their age, and
inscribed with the dialect which they spoke. It
cannot be too often repeated, that the history of
the formation of the whole Canon involves little
less than the history of the building of the
Catholic Church.

The common difficulties which beset any tishard to
inquiry into remote and intricate events are in ὥρα σοῦ
this case unusually great, since they are strength-
ened by the most familiar influences of our daily
life. It is always a hard matter to lay aside the
habits of thought and observation which are
suggested by present circumstances; and yet this
is as essential to a just idea of any period as a
full view of its external characteristics. It is not
enough to have the facts before us without we
regard them from the right point of sight; other-
wise the prospect, however wide, must at least
be confused. Our powers are, indecd, admi-
rably suited to criticise whatever falls within
their immediate range; but they will need a
careful adjustment when they are directed to a
more distant field. Moreover, remote objects
are often surrounded by an atmosphere different

B2

4 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intxopUC- from our own, and it is possible that they may
be grouped together according to peculiar laws
fromthe pe- and subject to special influences, This is cer- |
ofancient tainly true of the primitive Church; and the
differences which separate modern Christendom
from ancient Rome, morally and materially, are
only the more important, because they are fre-
quently concealed by the transference of old
words to new ideas.
in relation A little reflection will shew how seriously these
andtothe difficulties have influenced our notions of early
Christendom; for the negative conclusions of some
modern schools of criticism have found acceptance
chiefly through a general forgetfulness of the con-
ditions of its history. These must be determined
by the characteristics of the age, which necessa-
rily modify the form of our inquiry, and limit the
extent of our resources. The results which are
obtained from an examination of the records of
the ante-Nicene Church, as long as they are
compared with what might be expected at pre-
sent, appear meagre and inadequate; but in rela-
tion to their proper sources they are singularly
fertile. This will appear clearer by the examina-
tion of one or two particulars, which bear directly
upon the formation and proof of the Canon.
1. The For I. It cannot be denied that the Canon was
ἔπους τ, axed gradually. The condition of society and
the internal relations of the Church presented

. i

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 5

‘ obstacles to the immediate and absolute deter- mruonuc.
mination of the question which are disregarded
now, only because they have ceased to exist.
The tradition which represents St John as fixing
the contents of the New Testament betrays the
spirit of a later age.

1, It is almost impossible for any one whose (1 defective
ideas of communication are suggested by the rail- f2""*
way and the printing-press to understand how far
mere material hinderances must have prevented
a speedy and unanimous settlement of the Canon.

The means of intercourse were slow and preca-
rious. The multiplication of manuscripts was
tedious and costly'!. The common meeting-point
of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jeru-
salem, and from that time national Churches
grew up around their separate centres, enjoying
in a great measure the freedom of individual
development, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated which tended
forms, peculiar tendencies of doctrine or ritual, "*™.
As a natural consequence, the circulation of
different parts of the New Testament for a
while depended, more or less, on their sup-
1 This fact, however, has been frequently exaggerated.
The circulation of the New Testament Scriptures was pro-
bably far greater than is commonly supposed. Mr Norton
has made some very interesting calculations, which seem to
shew that as many as 60,000 copies of the Gospels were
circulated among Christians at the end of the second cen-

tury.—‘Genuineness of the Gospels,’ 1. pp. 28—34. (Ed. 2.
1847.)

6 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON,

INTRODUC- i i i i
rropuc- posed connexion with specific forms of Chris-

tianity.
though not This fact, which has been frequently neg-
them ; lected in Church histories, has given some colour

to the pictures which have been drawn of the
early divisions of Christians. Yet the separation
was not the result of fundamental differences in
doctrine, but rather of temporary influences. It
was not widened by time, but gradually disap-
peared. It did not cut off mutual intercourse,
but vanished as intercourse grew more easy and
frequent. ‘The common Creed is not a compro-
mise of principles, but a combination of the
essential types of Christian truth which were
preserved in different Churches'. The New Tes-
tament is not an incongruous collection of writ-
ings of the Apostolic age, but the sum of the
treasures of Apostolic teaching stored up in
various places. ‘The same circumstances at first
retarded the formation, and then confirmed the
claims of the Catholic Church and of the Canon
of Scripture.

and also (2) 2. The formal declaration of the Canon was

enceofaire not by any means an immediate and necessary

of Doetrin® consequence of its practical settlement. As long
as the traditional Rule of Apostolic doctrine was

1 A faint sense of this is shewn in the late tradition
which assigned the different clauses in the Creed to sepa-
rate Apostles.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 7

generally held in the Church, there was no need TONS
to confirm it by the written Rule. The dogmatic
and constant use of the New Testament was not
made necessary by the terms of controversy or
the wants of the congregation. Most of the first
heretics impugned the authority of Apostles, and
for them their writings had no weight. Most
of the first Christians felt so practically the depth
and fulness of the Old Testament Scriptures, that
they continued to seek and find in them that
comfort and instruction of which popular rules
of interpretation have deprived us.

But in the course of time a change came which, how-
over the condition of the Church. As soon as the way ὦ τα ας
immediate disciples of the Apostles had passed
away, it was felt that their traditional teaching
had lost its direct authority. Heretics arose
who claimed to be possessed of other traditionary
rules derived in succession from St Peter or
St Paul', and it was only possible to try their
authenticity by documents beyond the reach of
change or corruption. Dissensions arose within
the Church itself, and the appeal to the written

1 Clem. Alex. Str. vi. 17, ὁ 106: κάτω δὲ περὶ τοὺς Ἀδρια-
you τοῦ βασιλέως χρόνους οἱ ras αἱρέσεις ἐπινοήσαντες γεγόνασι
καὶ μέχρι γε τῆς Ἀντωνίνον τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου διέτειναν ἡλικίας
καθάπερ ὁ Βασιλείδης, κἂν Τλαυκίαν ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον,
ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοὶ, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Οὐαλεν-
τῖνον Θεοδάδι ἀκηκοέναι φέρουσιν, γνώριμος δ᾽ οὗτος γεγόνει
HavAov.—Cf. [Hipp.] adv. Heereses, vi. 20, where we must
read Ματθίου (Clem. Al. Str. vu. 17, ὃ 108.)

8 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intropuc. word of the Apostles became natural and deci-

at to-
wards the
close of the

Cen-
tury.

sive. And thus the practical belief of the primi-
tive age was first definitely expressed when the
Church had gained a permanent position, and a
fixed literature.

From the close of the second century the
history of the Canon is simple, and its proof
clear. It is allowed even by those who have
reduced the genuine Apostolic works to the nar-
rowest limits, that from the time of Irenseus the
New Testament was composed essentially of the
same books as we receive at present, and that
they were regarded with the same reverence as
is now shewn to them'. Before that time there

1 It will be well once for all to give a general view of
the opinion of the most advanced critics of Tibingen on the
canonical books of the New Testament, and their relation
to early Christian literature. According to Schwegler they
may be arranged as follows:

i, Genuine and Apostolic.
1. Ebionitic:
The APOCALYPSE.
2. Pauline:
Epp. to the Cormnrarans (i. ii.)
Ep. to Romans (capp. i.—xiv.)
Ep. to GALATIANS.
ii. Original sources of the Gospels:
1. Ebionitic. Zhe Gospel according to the He-
brews.
St MatrHew, a revision of this (a.c. 130—
134. Baur, Kan. Evv. 5. 609, anm.)
2. Pauline. The Gospel adopted by Marcion.
(Probably : Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit. 1. 284.)
St Luxe.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 9

is more or less difficulty in making out the irxopuc.
details of the question, and the critic’s chief
endeavour must be to shew how much can be
determined from. the first, and how exactly that

iii. Supposititious writings forged for party purposes.
1. Ebionitic:
(a) Conciliatory:
Ep. of St James (c. 150 a. c. Schwegler, 1.
8. 443.)
The Clementine Homilies.
The Apostolical Constitutions.
Clement. Ep. tt.
(8) Neutral:
St Mark (late; after St Matthow: Baur,
561.)
ii. Ep. St ῬΕΤΕΒ (c. 200 a. c. Schwegler, 1.
495.)
Ep. St June (late, id. 521.)
Clementine Recognitions.
2. Pauline:
(a) Apologetic :
i. Ep. Peter (c. 115. Schwegler, 11. 3.)
Κήρυγμα Πέτρον.
(8) Conciliatory:
St Luxe (c. 100 a. c. Schwegler, 1. 72.)
The Acts (same date, id. s. 115.)
Ep. to Romans, capp. xv., xvi. (same date,
id. 8. 123.)
Ep. to ῬΗΠΙΡΡΙΑΧΝΒ (6. 130? id. 8. 133.)
Clement. Ep. i.
(y) Constructive (Katholisirend) :
The PasroraL Epistles (130—150 a.c.
Schwegler, 11. 138.)
Ep. of Polycarp.
Epp. of Ignatius.
(3) A peculiar Asiatic development:
Ep. to Hesrews (c. 100 4.c. Schwegler,
π. 309 )

ΜΝΞ
.

10 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

inTRopve. coincides with the clearer view which is after-
wards gained.

i, the Prog II. Here however we are again beset with

lsrendered ας peculiar difficulties. The proof of the Canon is
embarrassed both by the general characteristics
of the age in which it was fixed, and by the par-
ticular form of the evidence on which it first
depends,

(by the wo- 1. The spirit of the ancient world was essen-

racer ofthe tially uncritical. It is unfair to speak as if

tures, —_ Christian writers were in any way specially dis-
tinguished by a want of sagacity or research.
The science of history is altogether of modern
date ; and the Fathers do not seem to have been
more or less credulous or uninformed than their
pagan contemporaries'. Their testimony must
be tried according to the standard of their age.
We must be content to ground our conclusions

Ep. to Coosstans (a little later, id. 8. 289.)

Ep. to Epnestans (a little later, id. 8. 291.)

Gospel and Epistles (?) of St Joun (c. 150.
Schwegler, id. s. 369; Baur, 350 ff.)

It will be at once evident how much critical sagacity
lies at the base of this arrangement, apart from its historic
impossibility,

The Epistles to the THESSALONIANS and to PHILEMON are
rejected, but Schwegler does not give any explanation of
their origin.

1 E.g. Clement’s name is invariably coupled with the
legend of the Phonnix, (c. 25), but it does not appear that
Tacitus’ credit is weakened by the fact that he introduces the
same story among the most tragic incidents (An. vi. 28.)

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 11

on such evidence as the case admits, and to inter- INTRODUC-
pret it according to its proper laws.
One important example will illustrate our shewn inthe
meaning. As soon as the Christian Church had eryuhal
gained a firm footing in the Roman Empire it
required what might be called an educational
literature; and an attempt was made at an early
period to supply the want by books which received,
in a certain degree, the sanction of the Church.
When this sanction was once granted it became
necessarily difficult to define its extent and du-
ration. The ecclesiastical writings of the Old
Testament furnished a precedent and an excuse
for a similar appendix to the Christian Scrip-
tures. Both classes seem to have been formed
from the same motive: both found their readiest
acceptance at Alexandria. ‘Apocryphal’ writings
were added to manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment, and read in churches; and the practice
thus begun continued for a long time. The
Epistle of Barnabas was still read among the
‘ Apocryphal Scriptures’ in the time of Jerome;
and an important catalogue of the Apocrypha of
‘the New Testament is added to the Canon of
Scripture subjoined to the Chronographia of Ni-
cephorus, published in the ninth century.
At first sight this mixture of different classes mith restric
of books appears startling; but the Church of Chureh, but
England follows the same principle with regard

12 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

inTRODUC- to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. They
are allowed to have an ecclesiastical use, but not
a canonical authority. They are profitable for
instruction—for elementary teaching (στοιχείω-
σις εἰσαγωγική) as is said' of the Shepherd of
Hermas—but not for the proof of doctrine.
‘They ought to be read, though they cannot be
regarded as apostolic or prophetic®.’ And evi-
dence is not wanting to shew that the ancient
Church exercised a jealous watch lest they should
usurp undue influence. The presbyter who sought
to recommend the story of Thecla by the name
of St Paul was degraded from his office’,

carclesaly by But the first Christian writers—and here

writers, il again the parallel with our own divines still
holds—did not always show individually the cau-
tion and judgment of the Church. They quote
ecclesiastical books from time to time as if they
were canonical: the analogy of the faith was to
them a sufficient warrant for their immediate use.

the question Ag soon, however, as a practical interest attached

Forance: (0 the question of the Canon their judgment was
clear and unanimous. When it became necessary
to determine what ‘superfluous’ books might be
yielded to the Roman inquisitor‘ without the
charge of apostasy, the Apocryphal writings sunk

1 Euseb. H. E. mr. 3, p. 90.

2 Fragm. Inc. de Canone, s. f., speaking of Hermas.
8 Tertull. de Bapt. c. 15.

4 In the persecution of Diocletian. See below.

THE DISTORY OF THE CANON. 13

at once into their proper place. There was no INTRODUC-
change of opinion here; but that definite enun-
ciation of it which was not called forth by any
critical feeling within, was yielded at last to a
necessity from without. The true meaning of
the earliest witnesses is brought out by the later
comment).

2. This fact suggests a second difficulty by 2) by the
which the subject is affected: the earliest testi- ofourev'
monies to the Canon are simply incidental. Now
even if the ante-Nicene Fathers had been gifted
with an active spirit of criticism— if their works
had been left to us entire—if the custom of
formal reference had prevailed from the first—it
would still be impossible to determine the con-
tents of the New Testament absolutely on merely
casual evidence. Antecedently there is no reason
to suppose that we shall be able to obtain a
perfect view of the judgment of the Church on
the Canon from the scriptural references con-
tained in the current theological literature of
any particular period. ‘The experience of our
own day teaches us that books of Holy Scrip-
ture, if not whole classes of books, may be suf-
fered to fall into disuse from having little con-
nexion with the popular views of religion. As a
general rule, quotations have a value positively,

1 See Appendix B. ‘On the use of Apocryphal writings in
the early Church.’

1:1 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intropuc- but not negatively : they may show that a writing
was received as authoritative, but it cannot
fairly be argued in the first instance that another
which is not quoted was unknown or rejected as
Apocryphal.
which must Still, though the use of Scripture is, in a
mirister great degree, dependent on the character of
the controversies of the day, the argument from |
quotations obtains a new weight in connexion
with formal catalogues of the New Testament.
It is impossible not to admit that a general
coincidence of the range of patristic references
with the limits elsewhere assigned to the Canon,
confirms and settles them. And in this way the
history of the Canon can be carried up to times
when catalogues could not have been published,
but existed only implicitly in the practice of the
Churches. |
and (8) by ts 3. The track, however, which we have to
᾿ ᾿ς follow is often obscure and broken. The evi-
dence of the earliest Christian writers is not
only uncritical and casual, but it is also fragmen-
tary. <A few letters of consolation and warning,
two or three Apologies addressed to Heathen, a
controversy with a Jew, a Vision, and a scanty
gleaning of fragments of lost works, comprise all
Christian literature! to the middle of the second

<<

1 To these may perhaps be added tho original elements
of the Clementines and the Apostolical Canons and Consti-
tutions,

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 15

century. And the Fathers of the next age were INTRODUC.
little fitted by their work to collect the records
of their times. Christianity had not yet become
a history, but was still a life. In such a case it
is obviously unreasonable to expect that multipli-
city of evidence and circumstantial detail which
may be brought to bear upon questions of modern
date, With our present resources there must be
many unoccupied spots in the history of the
Church, which give room for the erection of
hypotheses, plausible though false. But this fol-
lows from the nature of the ground; and they
are tenable only so long as they are viewed with-
out relation to the great lines of our defence.
The strength of negative criticism lies in ignor-
ing the existence of a Christian society from the
Apostolic age, strong in discipline, clear in faith,
and jealous of innovation.

It is then to the Church, as ‘a witness and Butthe fr.
kecper of holy writ,’ that we must look both for Es Smo must
the formation and the proof of the Canon. The the Joa igment
written Rule of Christendom must rest finally on fay"
the general confession of the Church, and not on
the independent opinions of its members. Private
testimony in itself 1s only of secondary import-
ance: its chief value lies in the fact that it is a
natural expression of the current opinion of the
time.

It is impossible to insist on this too often or

16 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intropuc- too earnestly. Isolated quotations may be in
themselves unsatisfactory, but as embodying the
tradition of the Church, generally known and
acknowledged, they are of inestimable worth.
cnemmayer ΤῸ make use of a book as authoritative, to as-
mais sume that it is Apostolic, to quote it as inspired,
without preface or comment, is not to hazard a
new or independent opinion, but to follow an un-
questioned judgment. It is unreasonable to treat
our authorities as mere pieces or weights, which
may be skilfully maneuvred or combined, and to
forget that they are Christian men speaking to
fellow Christians, as members of one body, and
believers in one Creed!. The extent of the Canon,
like the order of the Sacraments, was settled
by common usage, and thus the testimony of
Christians becomes the testimony of the Church.
and popular There is, however, still another way in
and rites; which we may discern from the earliest time
the general belief of Christians on the Canon.
The practical convictions of great masses find
their peculiar expression in popular language
and customs. Words and rites thus possess a
weight and authority quite distinct from the
casual references or deliberate judgments of

1 This is very well argued by Thiersch in his ‘ Versuch
zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts fir die Kritik
der N. T. Schriften,’ ss. 305, ff. ; and in his answer to Baur,
‘Einige Worte tiber die Aechtheit der N.T. Schriften.’
Erlangen, 1846.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 17

individuals, so far as they convey the judgment mrropvc-
of the many. If, then, it can be shewn that the
earliest forms of Christian doctrine and phraseo-
logy exactly correspond with the different ele-
ments preserved in the Canonical Epistles, it
will be reasonable to conclude that the coin-
cidence implies a common source; and in pro-
portion as the correspondences are more subtle
and intricate, this proof of the authenticity of
our books will be more convincing!.
Such appear to be the characteristics and Recspituls-
conditions of the evidence by which the Canon
must be determined. When these are clearly
seen and impartially taken into account, it will
be possible, and then only possible, to arrive at
a fair conclusion upon it. It is equally un-
reasonable to prejudge the question either way,
for it ought to be submitted to a just and
searching criticism. But if it can be shewn that
the Epistles were first recognized exactly in those
districts in which they would naturally be first
known :—that from the earliest mention of them
they are assumed to be received by churches,
1 This will explain how much truth there is in the com-
mon statement that Doctrine was the test of Canonicity. It is
equally as incorrect to say that the doctrine of the Church
was originally drawn from Scripture, as that Scripture was
limited by Apostolic tradition. The Canon of Scripture and
the ‘Canon of Truth’ were alike independent, but necessarily

coincided in their contents as long as they both retained
their original purity.

18 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON.

intropuc-and not recommended only by private autho-

rity :—that the Canon as we receive it now was
fixed in a period of strife and controversy :—
that it was generally received on all sides :—
that even those who separated from the Church,
and cast aside the authority of the New Testa-
ment Scriptures, did not deny their authenticity :
if it can be shewn that the first references are
perfectly accordant with the express decision of
a later period; and that there is no trace of the
general reception of any other books: if it can
be shewn that the earliest forms of Christian
doctrine and phraseology exactly correspond
with the different elements preserved in the
Canonical Epistles; it will surely follow that a
belief so widely spread throughout the Christian
body, so deeply rooted in the inmost conscious-
ness of the Christian Church, so perfectly ac-
cordant with all the facts which we do know,
can only be explained by admitting that the
books of the New Testament are genuine and
Apostolic—a written Rule of Christian Faith
and Life. |

The whole history of the formation of the
Canon of the New Testament may be divided
into three periods. Of these the first will ex-
tend to the time of Hegesippus ; the second, to
the persecution of Diocletian ; and the last, to the
third Council of Carthage. Later speculations on

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON. 19

the question in part belong more properly to INTRODUC-

special introductions to the different books, and
in part are merely the perpetuation of old doubts.
But each of these periods marks some real step
in the progress of the work. The first includes
the era of the separate circulation and gradual
collection of the Sacred Writings: the second
completes the history of their separation from
the mass of ecclesiastical literature: the third
comprises the formal ratification of the current
-belief by the authority of councils.

Something has been already said of the
various difficulties which beset the inquiry, es-
pecially during the first period. An examination
of the testimony of Fathers, Heretics, and Biblical
Versions, will next show how far it can be brought
to a satisfactory issue.

C2

FIRST PERIOD.

HISTORY OF THE CANON TO THE TIME OF
HEGESIPPUS.

A.D. 70-—170.

Φόβος νόμον Gderat καὶ προφητῶν χάρις γινώσκεται
καὶ εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται καὶ ἀποστόλων παράδοσις
φυλασσεται καὶ ἐκκλησίας χάρις σκιρτᾷ.

Er. aD DIOGNETUM.

CHAPTER 1.
THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

A-D. ]O—1 20.

Heaven lies about us in our infancy. CHAP. I.
WoRDSWORTH.

THE condition of the Church immediately after te suv.
the Apostolic age was not such as to create or conservative,
require a literature of its own. Men were full of

that anxious expectation which always betokens
some critical change in the world; but the ele-
ments of the new life were not yet combined

and brought into vigorous operation’. ‘There

was nothing either within or without to call into
premature activity the powers and resources
which were still latent in the depths of Christian
truth, The authoritative teaching of Apostles

was fresh in the memories of their hearers.
That first era of controversy had not yet passed

in which words are fitted to the ideas for which

they are afterwards substituted. The struggle
between Christianity and Paganism had not yet

1 The well-known passages of Virgil (Ecl. 1v.), Tacitus
(Hist. v. 13), and Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4), express this feeling
in memorable words. Percrebwerat Oriente toto, says the
last writer, vetus et constans opinio esse tn fatis ut co tempore
Juded profecti rerum potirentur. The year of which he
speaks is A.D. 67—the most probable date of the martyrdom
of St Paul.

24 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHAP.I. assumed the form of an internecine war'. The
| times were conservative, and not creative.

and transi- But in virtue of this conservatism the sub-
apostolic age, though distinguished, was not
divided from that which preceded it. It was
natural that a break should intervene between
the inspired Scriptures and the spontaneous
literature of Christianity—between the teaching
of Apostles and of philosophers; but it was no
less natural that the interval should not be one
of total silence. Some echoes of the last age
still lived: some voices of the next already found
expression. In this way the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers are at once a tradition and
a prophecy. By tone and manner they are
united to the Scriptures; for their authors seem
to instruct, and not to argue; and, at the same
time, they prepare us by frequent exaggerations
for the one-sided systems of the following age.

Τὰ literature The form of the earliest Christian literature. .
explains its origin and object. The writings of
the first Fathers are not essays, or histories, or
apologies, but letters*. They were not impelled
to write by any literary motive, nor even by the
pious desire of shielding their faith from the
attacks of its enemies. An intense feeling of a

1 Christianity as yet appeared to strangers only as a form
of Judaism, even where St Paul preached, and consequently
was a religio licita. Cf. Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i. 106,

and his reff.
2 Cf. ΜΌΝΟΥ, s. 50.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 920

new fellowship in Christ overpowered all other cHap..
claims. As members of a great household—as
fathers or brethren—they spoke to one another

words of counsel and warning, and so found a
natural utterance for the faith, and hope, and

love, which seemed to them the sum of Christian

life.

With regard to the History of the Canon the The evidence
Apostolic Fathers occupy an important place— *lic Fathers
undesignedly, it may be, but not therefore the Canon,
less surely. Their evidence, indeed, is stamped
with the characteristics of their position, and
implies more than it expresses; but even directly direct ana
they say much; within the compass of a few
brief letters they show that the writings of the
Apostles were regarded at once as invested
with singular authority—as the true expression,
if not the first source, of Christian doctrine and
Christian practice. And more than this: they inairet,
prove that it is unnecessary to have recourse to
later influences to explain the existence of pecu-
liar forms of Christianity which were known
from the first. In a word, they establish the
permanence of the elements of the Catholic
faith, and mark the beginnings of a written
Canon.

The first point must be examined with care ;
for it is very needful to notice the proofs of the by thelr rre-
continuity of the representative forms of Chris- tela
tian doctrine at a time when it has been sup-

CHAP. IL.

though often
exageerated.

26 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

posed to have undergone strange changes. Many
have rightly perceived that the reception of the
Canon implies the existence of one Catholic
Church; and, conversely, if we can show that
the distinct constituents of Catholicity were
found in Christendom from the first age, we con-
firm the authenticity of those books which seve-
rally suggest and sanction them. It is true that
these different types of teaching are arbitrarily
expanded in the uncanonical writings, without
any regard to their relative importance, but still
they are essentially unchanged ; and by the help
of patristic deductions we may see in what way
the natural tendencies which give rise to op-
posing heresies are always intrinsically recog-
nized in the teaching of the universal Church.
The elements of Holy Scripture are so tem-
pered, that, though truly distinct, they combine
harmoniously ; elsewhere the same elements are
disproportionately developed, and in the end
mutually exclude each other’.

1 In studying the writings of the early Fathers much
help may be gained from the following works (in addition
to the Church histories), by which I have sought in every
case to try and correct my own views:
Moauer (J. A.) Patrologie, Regensburg, 1840.
ScuLieMAnn (A.) Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 1844.
Dorner (J. A.) Die Lehre von der Person Christi, Stutt-
gart, 1845-53.

ScHWEGLER (A.) Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, Tibin-
gen, 1846.

LEcHLER (G. V.) Das apostolische und nachapostolische
Zeitalter, Haarlem, 1851.

Sect. 1—TwHe RELATION OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
TO THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES.

§ 1. Olement of Rome.

Tue history of Clement of Rome is invested cunap.1.

with a mythic dignity, which is without ex- The legend:
ample in the ante-Nicene Church!. The events “em

of his life have been so strangely involved in
consequence of the religious romances which
bear his name, that they must remain in inextri-
cable confusion; and even apart from this, there
can be little doubt that traditions which belong
to very different men were soon united to con-
firm the dignity of the successor of St Peter?.
It is uncertain whether he was of Jewish or
heathen descent’: he is called at one time the
disciple of St Paul, and again of St Peter‘: the
order of his episcopate at Rome is disputed;
and yet, notwithstanding these ambiguities, it is

1 Cf. Schliemann, 118 ff.

2 For instance, he was identified with Flavius Clemens, a
cousin of Domitian, who was martyred at Rome. Schlie-
mann, 109.

8 The former alternative seems to be supported by his
Epistle in which he speaks of the Patriarchs as ‘ our Fathers’
(cc. 4, 31, 55): the latter is adopted in the Clementines,
and maintained by Hefele, Patrr. App. xix. ff.

4 The former opinion is grounded on Phil. iv. 3 (cf.
Jacobson, ad Clem. vit. not. b.); the latter is found in the
Clementines, and, from them, in Origen, Philoc. ᾿ς. 23, and
later writers. Schliemann, 120.

δ Tho chief authorities are quoted by Hefele, 1. c.

28 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHaP.1. evident that he exercised a powerful and lasting

influence. In fact, he lost his individuality
through the general acknowledgment of his repre-
sentative character in the history of the Church.

Writings which were assigned to the author-
ship of Clement gained a wide circulation in the
East and West. Two Syriac Epistles were pub-
lished under his name by Wetstein'. The Cle-
mentines, in spite of their tendency, remain
entire to represent the unorthodox literature
of the first ages*. The Canons and Constitutions
which claim his authority became part of the
law-book of Christians’. Two Greek epistles,
assuming to be his, are appended to one of the
earliest MSS. of the Bible in existence‘,

The historical position of Clement is illus-
trated by the early traditions which fixed upon
him as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews‘,
and of the Acts of the Apostles®. Subsequently

1 Cf. Jacobson, ad Clem. R. vit. not.n. Mohler, es. 67
sqq. who defends their authenticity, which Neander thinks
possible (Ch. H. ii. 441.)

2 Schliemann gives a very full account of them: 50 ff.
(the Homilies); 265 ff. (the Recognitions).

3 Cf. Bunsen’s Hippolytus, iii. 145 sqq. (the Canons) ; ii.
220 sqq.; and App. (the Constitutions).

4 In addition to the letters of Clement, the Cod. Alez.
contains also three beautiful Christian hymns. Cf. Bunsen,
Hippolytus, iii. 138 sqq. Their existence in the MS. proves
no more than their ecclesiastical use,

5 On the authority of Origen ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25.

6 Photius (quoted by Credner, Einleit, 271) mentions this
tradition.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 29

he is charged with a two-fold office: he appears cwaP.t.
as the mediator between the followers of St

Paul and St Peter, and as the lawgiver of the
Church. Thus his testimony becomes of singular

value, as that of a man to whom the first Chris-

tian society assigned its organization and its
catholicity.

The relation of the first Greek Epistle, which Te retstion
alone can be confidently pronounced authentic’, @e%3'"
to our Canonical Books is full of interest. In 18
style, in its doctrine, and in its theory of Church
government, it confirms the authenticity of dis-
puted books of the New Testament’.

The language of the Epistle of St Peter has tn syie.
been supposed to be inconsistent with the dis-
tinctive characteristics of the Apostle. Now,
according to the most probable accounts, Cle-
ment was a follower of St Peter; and the tone
of his Epistle agrees with that of his master in
exhibiting the influence of St Paul. This in-

1 Schwegler—following some earlier writers—has called
in question the genuineness of the letter without any good
ground (Nachap. Zeit. ii. 125 sqq.). He has been answered
by Bunsen, Ritschl, and others. Cf. Lechler, Apost. Zeit. 309 n.

Its integrity appears to be as unquestionable as its au-
thenticity.

The second ‘Epistle’ is probably part of a homily, but
this mast be examined afterwards.

2 The date of Clement’s letter is disputed, for it depends
on the order of his Episcopate. Hefele (p. xxxv.) places it

at the close of the persecution of Nero (a.p. 68—70). The
later date (circ. 95) seems more probable.

30 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHaP.1. fluence extends to peculiarities of language.
Sometimes Clement uses words found only in St
Peter’s Epistles: more frequently those common
to St Paul and St Peter; while his verbal coin-
cidences with St Paul are both numerous and
striking’.

In doctrine. Again, the Epistle of Clement takes up a
catholic position in the statement of doctrine,
which shows that the supplementary views con-
tained in the New Testament had, in his time,
been placed in contrast, and now required to be
combined. The theory of justification is stated in
its antithetical fulness. The same examples are
used as in the Canonical Epistles, and the
teaching of St Paul and St James is coincidently

1 The following examples, which are taken from many
others that I have noticed, will illustrate the extent and cha-
racter of this connexion :

(a) Coincidence with St Peter in words not elsewhere
found in the Epp. or PP. App.:
ἀγαθοποιΐα----ἀδελφότη.-----ποίμνιον. (Perhaps no more.)

(8) With St Peter and St Paul:
ἀγάθη συνείδησις ---- ἁγιασμός---εἷλικρινής---εὐσέβεια---
εὐπρόσδεκτο----ταπεινοφροσύνη----ὑπακοή---ὑποφέρειν---
φιλαδελφία---φιλοξενία, φιλόξενος.

(y) With St Paul:
ἀμεταμέλητο- ---ἐγκρατεύεσθαι---- λειτουργός, λειτουργία,
λειτουργεῖν ---- μακαρισμός ---- οἰκτιρμοί ---- πολιτεία, πολι-
τεύειν (ΡΟ]γ6.) ---- σεμνός, σεμνότης --- χρηστεύομαι.

(8) Peculiar to Clement :
aixia— ἀλλοιοῦν --- ἀπόνοια---- βούλησις----ἰκετεύειν.---καλ-
λονή----μιαρός —pucapds —rappeyeOns—mavdytos—mavd-
peros.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 31

affirmed. ‘Through faith and hospitality (διὰ cuap.t.
πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν) a son was given to Abraham afuence of

in old age, and by obedience (δ ὑπακοῆς) he
offered him a sacrifice to God.’ ‘ Through faith
and hospitality Rahab was saved (ἐσώθη). ‘We
are not justified by ourselves (δι eavrwy)......nor
by works which we have wrought in holiness of
heart, but by our faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως), by
which Almighty God justified all from the be-
ginning of the world?” Shortly afterwards Cle-

ment adds, in the spirit of St James, ‘ Let us ssanzs,

then work from our whole heart the work of
righteousness’.’ And the same tenor of thought
reappears in the continual reference to the fear
of God as instrumental in the accomplishment
of these good works‘.

In other passages it is possible to trace the stJozs,

influence of St John. ‘The blood of Christ hath
gained for the whole world the offer of the grace
of repentance®” ‘Through Him we look stead-
fastly on the heights of heaven; through Him
we view as in a glass (ἐνοπτριζόμεθα) His spot-
less and most excellent visage; through Him the

1 ce. x., xii.

2c. xxxii. The distinction suggested between the final
cause and the instrument by the double use of διὰ is very
interesting.

δ 6. xxxiii.

4 ce. iii., xix., xxi., &c. Cf. Schliemann, 8. 414. Herm.
Past. Mand. vii. (p. 363.)

5 c. vii, ὑπήνεγκεν᾽ the use of the word is remarkable.

32 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHAP.I. eyes of our heart were opened ; through Him our
dull and darkened understanding is quickened
with new vigour on turning to His marvellous

Episteto he light'.’ The allusions to the Epistle to the He-
brews are so numerous that it is not too much
to say that it was wholly transfused into Cle-
ment’s mind.

In discipline, And yet more than this: the Epistle of
Clement proves the existence of a definite consti-
tution and a fixed service in the Church. And
this will explain why he was selected as the
representative of that principle of organization
which seems to have been naturally developed in
every Roman society. A systematic constitution,
as well as a Catholic Creed, had a necessary con-
nexion with that form of mind whose whole life

government, WAS law. Thus Clement refers to ‘episcopal’
jurisdiction as an institution of the Apostles, who
are said to have appointed those ‘who were the
firstfruits of their labours in each state as officers
(ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους) for the ordering of the
future Church*” At the same time earnest warn-
ings are given against ‘division and_parties’,’
which, aswe see from the pastoral epistles, arose as
soon as the rules of ecclesiastical discipline were

1 6. xxxvi. Nothing but the original, perhaps, can con-
vey the exquisite beauty of the last words: ἡ ἀσύνετος καὶ
ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαύμαστον αὐτοῦ φώς.
Our ‘understanding is like a flower in a suniess cavern till
the light of God falls on it.

8 ο. xxii. ὃ 9. XLiv.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 33

drawn closer. But this is not all; for the times c#ap.1.
of the ‘offerings and services’ of Christians are ritua.
referred to the authority of the Lord Himself,
who ‘commanded that they should not be made

at random, or in a disorderly manner, but at
fixed seasons and hours!.’ It is possible that
this is only a transference of the laws of the
Jewish synagogue, which were sanctioned by the
‘observance of our Saviour, to the Christian
Church ; as is, indeed, made probable by the
parallel which Clement institutes between the
Levitical and Christian priesthood?; but all that
needs to be particularly remarked is, that such
phraseology is clearly of a date subsequent to
the pastoral epistles. The polity recognized by

St Paul had advanced to a further stage of de-
velopment at the time when Clement wrote.

The kind of testimony to the New Testa- Te peuiisr
ment which is thus obtained, is beyond all sus- προ πα
picion of design; and, admitting the authen-
ticity of the record, above all contradiction. The
Christian Church, as Clement describes it, ex-
hibits a fusion of elements which must have
existed separately at no distant period. Tra-
dition ascribes to him expressly the task of defi-
nitely combining what was left still disunited by
the Apostles; and we find that the very ele-
ments which he recognized are exactly those,

λα, ΧΙ. 3 Id.
D

304 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATUERS.

cHAP.I. without any omission or increase, which are pre-
served to us in the New Testament as stamped
by Apostolic authority!. The other Fathers of
the first age, as will be seen, represent more or
less clearly, perhaps, some special form of Chris-
tian teaching; but Clement places them all side
by side. They witness to the independent
weight of parts of the Canon, he ratifies gene-
rally the claims of the whole.

§ 2. Ignatius.

The pecullar The letters which bear the name of Ignatius

ignstian' are distinguished among the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers by a character of which no
exact type can be found in the New Testament.
They bear the stamp of a mind fully imbued
with the doctrine of St Paul, but, at the same
time, exhibit a spirit of order and organization
foreign to the first stage of Christian society.
In them ‘the Catholic Church®’ is recognized in

1 The Apostles were charged with the enunciation of
principles, and not with their combination. They had to
do with essence, and not with form. But after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem an outward framework was required for
Christian truth; and the arrangement of this according to
Apostolic rules was left to their successors.

2 The term first occurs Ep. ad Smyr. viii.: ὅπου av φανῇ 6
ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω" ὥσπερ ὅπου ay 7 Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς,
ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. The comparison is between the
individual church of which the Bishop is the centre, and the

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 35

its constituent members as an outward body cuar.1.
of Christ. The image which St Paul had explicable by
sketched is there realized and filled up with phichst,
startling boldness. The Church polity of the @mvw.
Pastoral Epistles seems dim and uncertain when
compared with the rigid definitions of these later
writings. But in this lies their force as witnesses
to our Canon. They presuppose those Epistles
of St Paul which have seemed most liable to
attack ; and, on the other hand, they exhibit
exactly that form of doctrine into which the
principles of St Paul would naturally be reduced and suitable
by ἃ vigorous and logical teacher presiding over ton 5 of igna-
the central Church of Gentile Christendom,
‘the anti-pole of Jerusalem,’ and there brought
into contact with the two rival parties within the
Church, as well as with the different heresies
which had been detected and condemned by
St John’.

It is unnecessary to enter here into the con- thesame
troversy which has been raised about the Ignatian "ct marks |
Epistles*. If any part of them be accepted as spe

wniversal church of which Christ is the head. Cf. Mohler,
86. 138 ff.

Cf. Martyr. Polyc. Inscr. cc. viii., xvi., xix., where the
phrase occurs again, and, as it seems, certainly with marks of
a later time. This, however, was a letter from Smyrna.

1 Cf. Dorner, i. 144 8qq.

2 Hefele gives a fair summary of the controversy. It
is but right to confess that the more carefully I have studied

D2

ee

386 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHAP.L genuine, our argument holds good; for it is

drawn from their general character. After they
have been reduced within the narrowest limits
which are justified by historical criticism, they
still show a clear and vivid individuality, a por-
trait which, however different from the popular
idea of a disciple of St John, appears to be not
unsuited to the early Bishop of Antioch. Its very
distinctness has suggested doubts of its authen-
ticity ; but even at the first view it seems to be
one far more likely to have been imitated than
invented. The exaggerations of the copy bring
out more clearly the traits of the original. It
- would have been difficult, if not impossible, for a
later writer to have imagined an Ignatius, as he
appears in the letters, zealous against Docetic
heresies, Jewish traditions, and individual schism
—keenly alive to the very dangers, and those only,
with which he must have contended at Antioch.
But when the character was once portrayed it
offered a tempting model for imitation. The
style and opinions of Ignatius are clear and
trenchant. He was at an early time looked upon

the shorter recension the more firmly I am convinced that
they proceed entirely from one mind and one pen. A
careful and minute examination of the language would, I
believe, bring the question of their unity, at least, to a satin-
factory close. But this would carry us far beyond the limits
of our Essay. In the following pages I shall refer to the
seven Epistles, marking the passages found also in the 8y-
riac Vérsion.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 3/7

as the representative of ecclesiastical order and cuap.1.

doctrine in its technical details, differing in this
from Clement, whose name, as we have seen,
symbolized the union of the different elements
in the Apostolic teaching. The one appears in
tradition as systematizing the Catholic Church
which the other had constructed’.

The traditional aspect of these two great This charac.
teachers harmonizes with their real historical suite a thet ἣν

position. The letter of Clement falls within the
Apostolic age; and Ignatius was martyred in the

reign of Trajan’. So that his letters probably «». 107.

come next in date among the remains of the
earliest Christian literature. A comparison of
the writings themselves would lead to the same
conclusion. The letters of Ignatius could not
naturally have preceded that of Clement, while
they follow it in a legitimate sequence, and form
a new stage, so to speak, in the building of the
Christian Church. This may be clearly seen in
the different modes by which they enforce the
necessity of an organized ministry. Clement

1 Popular traditions frequently embody a character with
singular beauty in some one trait. Thus Ignatius is said to
have instituted the custom of singing hymns antiphonally
‘from a vision of angels whom he saw thus singing to the
Holy Trinity’ (Socr. H.E. vi. 8). Cf. Bingham, Orig. Eccles.
iv. 434.

2 Pearson, followed by many later writers, fixed Ignatius’
martyrdom in 116. Hefele and Mohler prefer the earlier
date.

38 TIIE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

CHAP.1. appeals to the analogy of the Levitical priest-

his letters,

ough

temporal
influences,

hood; Ignatius insists on the idea of a Christian
body.

The circumstances under which Ignatius
wrote necessarily impressed his letters with 4
peculiar character. It has been argued that
they are unlike the last words of a Christian
martyr: it should be said that they are unlike
the words of any other martyr than Ignatius.
They are, indeed, the parting charge of one
who was conscious that he was called away at a
crisis in the history of the Church. As long as
an Apostle lived old things had not yet passed
away; but on the death of St John it seemed
that the ‘last times'’ were at hand, though, in
one sense, according to His promise, Christ had
then come, and a new age of the world had
begun. The perils which beset this transition
from Apostolic to Episcopal government, in the
midst of heresies within and persecutions with-
out, might well explain warmer language than
that of Ignatius. He wrote with earnest vehe-
mence because he believed that episcopacy was
the bond of unity, and unity the safety of the
Church’,

1 Ad Eph. xi.

3 This feeling is expressed with touching simplicity in
the Epistle to the Romans, which, as is well known, is most
free from hierarchical views. Μνημονεύετε ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 39

In this way the letters of Ignatius complete -cnap.1.

the history of one feature of Christianity. The
Epistles of St Paul to the Ephesians, his pastoral
epistles, and the Epistles of Clement and Igna- form a last
tius, when taken together, mark a harmonious “y¢lopmett
progression in the development of the idea of a zine te
Church. The first are creative, and the last
constructive. In the Epistle to the Ephesians
that great mystery is set forth which must form
the basis of all reasoning on the ‘Body of Christ.’
In the Pastoral Epistles it is realized in the
outlines of a visible society. In the later
writings the great principles of Scripture are
reduced to a system, and expanded with logical
ingenuity. But when this connexion is traced by
the help of a traditional commentary in writings
fragmentary, occasional, and inartificial, it surely
follows that a series of books so intimately
united must indeed have been the original ex-
pressions of the successive forms of Christian
thought which they exhibit.

Though the Ignatian letters witness to three te cn CO he
chief types of Apostolic teaching, one stands! ten er with the
forth in them with peculiar prominence. The me ment and ας
image of St Paul is stamped alike upon their

ὑμῶν τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίας, ἥτις ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ ποιμένι τῷ Θεῷ
χρῆται. Μόνος αὐτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐπισκοπήσει καὶ ἡ ὑμῶν
ἀγάπη (c. ix.). The passago is omitted in the Syriac Ver-
sion.

40 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHaP.tL language and their doctrine. The references to

the New Testament are almost exclusively con-

fined to his writings. Familiar words and phrases

show that he was a model continually before the

writer's eyes; and in one place this is expressly
affirmed!.

& Pavy in The controversy against Jewish practices is

Judaism, conducted as sternly as in the Epistle to the

Galatians, though its form shows that it belongs

to a later epoch. Christianity is distinguished

by a new name (Χριστιανισμὸς 88 a system

contrasted with Judaism. Judaism (Ἰουδαῖσμός)

is ‘an evil leaven that has grown old and sour°.’

‘To use the name of Jesus Christ and observe

Jewish customs is unnatural (arorov‘).’ ‘To live

according to Judaism, is to confess that we have

1 The only coincidences which I have noticed between
the language of St John and Ignatius, consist in the frequent
use of ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾷν, and ὁ οὐρανός, while St Paul and Cle-
ment generally use οἱ οὐρανοί.

The words common to St Paul and Ignatius only are
very numerous, 0.g. ἀδόκιμος----ἀναψύχειν---ἀπερίσπαστοε----
éxrpopa—evdrns— Onpiopayeiy— Ἰουδαῖσμός ---- dvaipny—— olxo-
νομία (met.)—dvarory.

Those peculiar to Ignatius are still more: 6.g. ἁγιοφόρος
—dpéptoros—arriyyvyov—compounds of ἄξιος, as ἀξιόθεος,
ἀξιομακάριστο: ---- ἀποδιυλίζεσθαι ----δροσίζεσθαι --- ἐνοῦν, ἕνωσις
—compounds of θεός, as θεοδρύμος, θεοφόρο-----κακοτεχνία---
φάρμακον. (The references are made to the shorter Epistles
without distinction).

3 Ad Rom. c. iii. &c. This new name likewise comes
from Antioch. Cf. Acts xi. 26.

8 Ad Magn. x. 4 Ibid.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 41

not received grace'.. At the same time, like cHapP.1.

St Paul, Ignatius regards Christianity as the
completion, and not the negation, of the Old
Testament. The prophets ‘lived according to
Jesus Christ, ...... being inspired by His grace,
to the end that those who disbelieve should be
convinced that it is one God who manifested
Himself [both in times past and now] through
Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Eternal (αΐδιος)
Word, not having proceeded from Silence [from
which some have held that Thought and Word
were evolved as successive forms of the Divine
Being, and] who in all things well-pleased Him
that sent Him.’

The Ignatian doctrine of the unity of the te church.

Church, which in its construction exhibits a
Petrine type, is really based upon the cardinal
passage of St Paul®. Christians individually are
members of Christ, who is their great Spiritual

1 Ad Magn. viii.

2 Ad Magn. viii. The reference to Silence (Σιγή), which
forms an important element in Valentinianiem, was a serious
objection to the authenticity of the Ignatian letters till the
discovery of the ‘ Treatise against Heresies.’ Now it appears
that the same phraseology was used in the ‘Great An-
nouncement,’ an authoritative exposition of the doctrines of
the Simonians, and consequently it must have been current in
Ignatius’ time (Hipp. adv. Her. vi. 18.) Cf. Bunsen, Hip-
polytus, i. 57 ff., whose opinion on the subject, however,
seems improbable.

3 Eph. v. 23-sqq.

42 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHaP.. Head. And conversely, the Church universal,
and each Church in particular, represents the
body of Christ, and its history must so far
set forth an image of the life of Christ in its
spirit and its form. Asa consequence of this
view the Bishop in the earthly and typical
Church is not only a representation of Christ,
whom ‘we must regard as Christ Himself?,’
and ‘a partaker of the judgment of Christ, even
as Christ was of the judgment of the Father‘*,’
while the Church is united to Christ as He is
united to the Father*: but also—and in this lies
the most remarkable peculiarity of his system—
the relation of the Church as a living whole to
its’ different officers corresponds in some sense
to that of Christ Himself, of whom it is an-
image, to the Father on the one hand, and on
the other to the Apostles. On earth the Bishop
is the centre of unity in each society, as the
Father is the ‘Bishop of 4114. Believers are
subject to the Bishop as to God’s grace, and
to the presbytery as to Christ’s law5; since the
Bishop, as he ventures to say in another place,
‘presides as representative of God, and the
presbyters as representatives of the Apostolic

Council ®.’
1 Ad Eph. vi. 2 Ad Eph. iii.
3 Ad Eph. v. 4 Ad Magn. iii.

δ Ad Magn. ii. 6 Ad Magn. vi.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 43

The Ignatian writings, as might be expected, cHap.t.
are not without traces of the influence of St Connexion
John. The circumstances in which he was placed?”
required a special enunciation of Pauline doc-
trine ; but this is not so expressed as to exclude
the parallel lines of Christian thought. Love is
‘the stamp of the Christian'.’ ‘Faith is the
beginning, and love the end of life®.’ ‘Faith is
our guide upward (avaywryevs), but love is the
road that leads to God3. The Eternal (ἀΐδιος)
Word is the manifestation of God‘, ‘the door by
which we come to the Father’, ‘and without
Him we have not the principle of true 1165
The true meat of the Christian is the ‘bread of
God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which
is the flesh of Jesus Christ,’ and his drink is
‘Christ’s blood, which is love incorruptible’.’

He has no love of this life; ‘his love has been
crucified, and there is in him no burning passion
for the world, but living water, [as the spring of
a new 116,7] speaking within him, and bidding
him come to his Father®.’ Meanwhile his enemy

1 Ad Magn. v. 3 Ad Eph. xiv.

8. Ad Eph, ix. (Syr.)

4 Ad Magn. c. viii. (quoted above.)

δ Ad Philad, ix. Cf. John x. 7.

8 Ad Trall. ix.: οὗ χωρὶς rd ἀληθινὸν ζῇν οὐκ ἔχομεν. Cf.
ad Eph. iii.: ἼΧ. τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῇν...

7 Ad Rom. vii. The Syriac text, which is shorter, gives
the same sense. Cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53.

8 Ad Rom.l.c. The last clause is wanting in the Syriac,

44 THR AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

ΟΗΑΡ. 1. is the enemy of his Master, even ‘the ruler of
this age’,’
ὃ 3. Polycarp.

The scrip- The short epistle of Polycarp contains far
Poiyearps more references to the writings of the New
ep

Testament than any other work of the first age ;
and still, with one exception, all the phrases
which he borrows are inwoven into the texture
of his letter without any sign of quotation. In
other cases it is possible to assign verbal coin-
cidences to accident; but Polycarp’s use of
scriptural language is so frequent that it is wholly
unreasonable to doubt that he was acquainted
ustrates With the chief parts of our Canon; and the mode
thod of quay in which this familiarity is shown serves to jus-
tify the conclusion that the scriptural language
of other books, in which it occurs more scan-
tily, implies a like knowledge of the Apostolic
writings’.
yet the boldness of tho metaphor seems in Ignatius’ manner.
Lip φιλόῦλον, ‘ fiery passion for the material world,’ which
forms a good contrast with ὕδωρ ζῶν, ‘living water,’ is cer-
tainly, I think, the true reading. Cf. John iv. 13; vii. 38.

1 Ad Rom. ]. ς. : ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. Cf. John
xii. 81; xvi. 11: ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτον. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8.

2 The authenticity of Polycarp’s Epistle stands quite un-
shaken. Cf. Schliemann, 8. 418 anm. Jacobson, ad vit. Polyc.
n.q. Schwegler, ii. 164 sqq., has added no fresh force to
the old objections.

The fragments of ‘Polycarp’s Responsions’ given by
Fevardeutius in his notes on Irensus (iii. 3) cannot, I

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 45

A scriptural tone naturally involves a catho- CHAP. 1.

licity of spirit. Polycarp, next to Clement among

the early Fathers, embraces in his epistle the mae and ape.

widest range of Apostolic teaching!. The in-
fluence of St Peter, St John, and St Paul, may
be traced in his doctrine. In one sentence he has
naturally united* the watchwords, so to say, of the
three Apostles, where he speaks of Christians
being ‘built up into the faith given to them,
which is the mother of us all (cf. Gal. iv. 26),
hope following after, love towards God and Christ,
and towards our neighbour, preceding.’ But
the peculiar similarity of this epistle to that of

St Peter was a matter of remark even in early SPtt==,

times®. It would be curious to enquire how
this happens; for though the disciple of St
John reflects from time to time the burning
zeal of his master‘; though in writing to the
beloved Church of St Paul, he recals the fea-
tures of their ‘glorious’ founder; still he exhi-

think, be genuine. Is anything known of the MS. Catena
from which they were taken ?

1 The similarity between parts of the Epistles of Cle-
ment and Polycarp is very striking. The passages are printed
at length by Hefele, Proleg. xxvii. sqq. In single words the
likeness is not less remarkable.

2 Schwegler, ii. 157.—Polyc. ad Phil. c. iii. Cf. Jacob.
son’s note.

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 14.

4 The famous passage, c. vii. tnt. in connexion with
Iren. iii. 3 (Euseb. iv. 14), will occur to every one.

46 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

capt. bits more frequently the tone of St Peter,
when he spoke at last as the expounder of the
Christian law. Whatever may be the explanation

of this, the fact is in itself important ; for it con-

firms and defines what has been already remarked

as to the mutual influences which appear to have
ultimately modified the writings of St Peter and

St Paul. The style of St Peter, it is well known,

is most akin to that of the later Pauline epistles;

and in full harmony with this the letter of Poly-

carp, while it echoes so many familiar phrases of

the First Epistle of St Peter, shows scarcely less
Bebetom! likeness to the Pastoral Epistles of St Paul. It
can scarcely be an accident that it is so; and,

at any rate, it follows that a peculiar represen-

tation of Christian doctrine, which has been

held in our own time to belong to the middle

1 ‘Tho following passages from δὲ Peter may be noticed:

1 Pet. i. 8 (c.i.)3 i, 13 (c. ); ii, 9 (ὁ. iL);
ii, 11 (6. τι}; iv. 7(€. 7) 5 22, 24(e."

‘We may perhaps compare also the references to St Paul:
2 Pet. iii. 15; Polyc. 6.
1 Tim. vi. 10; vi. 7); ©. τ.

.)
The inscriptions of the ‘istic of the Apostolic Fathers
are not without special significance. Polyearp writes “ἔλεος
ὑμῖν καὶ elpjvn;’ in the New Testament ἔλεος occurs in the
salutations of the Pastoral Epistles of 2 John and Jude.
Ignatius, with one exception (ad Philad.), says ' πλεῖστα yale
pew” Cf. James i. 1. Clement, in the name of the Church
of Rome, uses the common Pauline salutation ἢ καὶ
εἰρήνη."

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 47

of the second century, was familiarly recognized cnar.t
in its double form, without one mark of doubt,
almost within the verge of the Apostolic age’. 6. .». 108.
Unless we admit the authenticity of the Pastoral
Epistles, and of the First Epistle of St Peter,

the language of the Epistle of Polycarp is wholly
inexplicable’.

The dangers which impressed their peculiar Relation to
character on the Ignatian letters have given πο
some traits to that of Polycarp. He, too, insists
on the necessity ‘of turning away from false
teaching to the word handed down from the
first.’ Christians, he says elsewhere, ‘are to be
subject to the priests and deacons, as to God
and Christ*’ Fasting had already become a
part of the discipline of the Church‘,

In one respect the testimony of Polycarp is The medal
more important than that of any other of the imusoy.

1 The epistle of Polycarp was written shortly after the
Martyrdom of Ignatius, and its date consequently depends
on that. Cf. co. ἔχ.» xifi., and Jacobson’s note on the last
pasage, which removes Lilcke’s objection.

2 Among the peculiarities of Polycarp’s language are
the following: he has in common with St Paul only ἀπο-
πλανᾶν --- ἀῤῥαβών ---- dpadpyvpos— τὸ καλὸν.-- ματαιολογία----
προνοεῖν. Of his coincidences with St Peter, which consist
in whole phrases and not in single words, we have already
spoken. The following words are not found olsewhere in
the Patrr. App. or in the New Testament, μίμημα---ἀνακό-
Ἔτεσθαι--- ψευδάδελφο»-- ψευδοδιδασκαλία--- μεθοδεύειν (μεθοδεία,
Paul) —dréroyos (ἀποτομία, St Pa

vii. v, 49.

CHAP. L

The letter.of
authentic.

48 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

Apostolic Fathers. Like his Master, he lived
to unite two ages’. He had listened to St John,
and became himself the teacher of Irenseus. In
an age of convulsion and change he stands at
Smyrna and Rome as a type of the changeless
truths of Christianity. In his extreme age he
still taught ‘that which he had learned from
the Apostles, and which continued to be the
tradition of the Church’. And in the next
generation his teaching was confirmed by all
the Churches in Asia*, Thus the zeal of Poly-
carp watches over the whole of the most critical
period of the history of Christianity. His words
are the witness of the second age.

ὃ 4, Barnabas.

The arguments which have been urged
against the claims of the Epistle of Barnabas to
be considered as a work of the first age, cannot
overbalance the direct historical testimony by
which it is supported. It is quoted frequently,
and with respect, by Clement and Origen. Euse-
bius speaks of it as a book well known, and com-
monly circulated (φερομένη), though he classes it
with the books whose Canonicity was questioned
or denied‘. In Jerome’s time it was still read

1 His death is variously placed from 147—-178. Perhaps
167 is the most probable date.

2 Tren. iv. 3, 4. 3 Tren. ]. 6.

4H. ΕἸ. iii. 255 vi. 14.

-

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 49

among the Apocryphal Scriptures. In the Sticho- cHap.r.
metria of Nicephorus it is classed with the Anti- ὅΖΘΌΘϑὃΘΡΘ
legomena.

But while the antiquity of the Epistle is but not Apo-
firmly established, its apostolicity is very ques-
tionable. A writing bearing the name of Barnabas,
and known to be of the Apostolic age, might very
naturally be attributed to the ‘Apostle’ in default
of any other tradition; and the supposed con-
nexion of Barnabas of Cyprus with Alexandria!,
where the letter first gained credit, would render
the hypothesis more natural. Clement and Je-
rome identify the author with the fellow-labourer
of St Paul; but, on the other hand, Origen and
Eusebius are silent on this point. From its
contents it seems unlikely that it was written
by a companion of Apostles, and a Levite*®. In
addition to this, it is probable that Barnabas
died before a.p. 62%; and the letter contains not
only an allusion to the destruction of the Jewish
Temple‘, but also affirms the abrogation of the
Sabbath, and the general celebration of the

1 Clem. Hom. i. 9,13: ii. 4.

2 Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas, ss.
166 ff.

8 Hefele, ss. 37, 159.

4c. xvi.: διὰ yap τὸ πολεμεῖν αὐτοὺς καθηρέθη [ὁ ναὸς ὑπὸ
τῶν ἐχθρῶν νῦν, καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑπηρέται ἀνοικοδομή-
σουσιν αὐτόν. Hefele’s punctuation (ἐχθρῶν νῦν κ.τ.λ.)
cannot, I think, stand. The writer calls attention to the

present desolation of the temple.
E

CHAP.TI.

50 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

Lord’s Day', which seems to show that it could
not have been written before the beginning of
the second century. From these and similar
reasons Hefele rightly, as it seems, decides that
the Epistle is not to be attributed to Barnabas
the Apostle; but, at the same time, he attaches
undue importance to the conclusion as it affects

or Canonical. the integrity of the Canon. Jerome evidently

Its relation

looked upon the Epistle as an authentic writing
of ‘him who was ordained with St Paul, and yet
he classed it with the Apocrypha. It is an arbi-
trary assumption that a work of this Barnabas
would necessarily be Canonical. There is na.
reason to believe that he received his appoint-
ment to the Apostolate directly from our Lord,
as the Twelve did, and afterwards St Paul; and
those who regard the Canon merely as a col-
lection of works stamped with Apostolic autho-
rity, can scarcely find any other limit to its con-
tents than that which is fixed by the strictest use~
of the Apostolic title 3,

As a monument of the first Christian age the
Kpistle is full of interest. Among the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers it holds the same place
as the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testa-

1c. xv. f.: διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην els ev-
φροσύνην κιτιλ. Cf. Ign. ad Magn. ix.

4 Mohler, I find with the greatcst satisfaction, uses
exactly the same argument as to the Canonicity of an
authentic letter of the Apostolic Barnabas (Patrol. 88).

ee pov eaapamrtapgmantaemmnanaragrees Pes

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. δ]

ment. There is, at least, so much similarity cHap.1.

between them as to render a contrast possible,
and thus to illustrate and confirm the true
theory of Scriptural Inspiration. Both Epistles
are constructed, so to speak, out of Old Testa-
ment materials; and yet the mode of selection
and arrangement is widely different. Both exhi-
bit the characteristic principles of the Alexan-
drine school; but in the one case they are
modified, as it were, by an instinctive sense of
their due relation to the whole system of Chris-
tianity; in the other, they are subjected to no
restraint, and usurp an independent and absolute
authority.

The mystical interpretations of the Old Tes- in regard to
tament found in the Epistle to the Hebrews interpreta,
are marked by a kind of reserve. The author tre, and

shows an evident consciousness that this kind of
teaching is not suited to all, but requires mature
powers alike in the instructor, and in his
hearers!. Those types which are pursued in
detail are taken from the salient points of the
Jewish ritual, and serve to awaken attention
without creating any difficulties in the way of
those who are naturally disinclined to what are
called mystical speculations. It is otherwise
in the Epistle of Barnabas. In that the sub-
tlest interpretations are addressed to promis-

1 Hebr. νυ. 11 sqq.
E2

CHAP. I.

the Mocaical
Dispensation.

52 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cuous readers—to his ‘sons and daughters’—
and the highest value is definitely affixed to
them'. In parts there is an evident straining
after novelty wholly alien from the calm and
conscious strength of the Apostle; and the de-
tails of his explanations are full of the rudest
errors?, In the one Epistle we have to do with
a method of interpretation clear and broad; in
the other we have an application of the method,
at times ingenious and beautiful, and then again
arbitrary and incongruous. The single point of
direct connexion between the two Epistles illus-
trates their respective characters. Both speak of
the rest of God on the seventh day; but in the
Epistle to the Hebrews this rest yet to come is
made a motive for earnest and watchful efforts,
and nothing more is defined as to the time of its
approach. Barnabas, on the contrary, having
spoken of the promise, determines the date of
its fulfilment. The six days of the creation
furnish a measure, and so he accepts the old
tradition, current even in Etruria, which fixed
the consummation of all things at the end of
six thousand years from the creation’,

But yet more than this: the general spirit of
the Epistle of Barnabas is different from that of

1 ¢. ix. f.

2c.x. Yet the passages are quoted by Clement of
Alexandria. Cf. Hefele, Das Sendschreiben u. 8. w., 8.86. anm.

8 Hebr. iv., Barn. xv.

ee

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 53

the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the latter it is cHap.1.

shown that there lies a deep meaning for us
under the history and the law of Israel. The
old Covenant was real, though not ‘ faultless,’ and
its ordinances were ‘patterns of the things in
heaven,’ though not the heavenly things them-
selves!. But in the former it is assumed through-
out that the Law was, from its institution, mis-
understood by the Jews. The first covenant was
broken by reason of their idolatry, and the
second became a stumblingblock to them in
spite of the teaching of the Prophets*. Fasts,
feasts, and sacrifices, were required by God only
in a spiritual sense*, Even circumcision, as they
practised it, was not the seal of God’s covenant,
but rather the work of an evil spirit, who induced
them to substitute that for the circumcision of
the heart‘. The Jewish Sabbath was not ac-
cording to God’s will: their temple was a de-
lusion®’. Judaism is made a mere riddle, of
which Christianity is the answer. It had in itself
no value, even as the slave (παιδαγωγός) which
guards us in infancy from outward dangers, till
we are placed under the true teacher's care.
Each symbolic act is emptied of its real meaning,
because it is deprived of the sacramental cha-
racter with which God had invested it. The

1 Hebr. viii. 7; x. 23. 2 Barn. 6. xiv.

3 ce. ili., ii. 4 ¢. ix. 5 cc. xv., xVi.

CHAP. I.

54 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

worth of the Law, as one great instrument in the
education of the world, is disregarded: the true
idea of revelation, as a gradual manifestation of
God’s glory, is violated: the harmonious subor-
dination of the parts of the divine scheme of
redemption is destroyed. On such principles it
is not enough that the sum of all future growth
should be implicitly contained in the seeds: that
the vital principle which inspires the first and
the last should be the same: that the identity of
essence should be indicated by the identity of
life: but all must be perfect according to some
arbitrary and stereotyped standard. Against this
doctrine, which is the germ of all heresy, the
Holy Scriptures ever equally protest. Their
eatholicity is the constant mark of their divine
origin; and the undesigned harmony which re-
sults from every possible combination of their
different parts is the surest pledge of their abso-
lute truth’.

1 The language of Barnabas is more remarkable for
peculiar words than for coincidences with any parts of the
New Testament. He has ἀνακαινίζειν----ἐνέργημα--- ζωοποιεῖσ-
θαι, in common with St Paul; and among his peculiarities
may be noticed ἀκεραιοσύνη ---- δίγνωμος ---- δίγλωσσος --- δὲ-
Ἰτλοκαρδία---- θρασύτης----παναμάρτητο-----πλάσμα, ἀναπλάσσεσθαι
-“ προφανεροῦσθαι----συλλήπτωρ--- ὑπεραγαπᾶν.

Sect. IJ.—Tuse ReEvation oF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
TO THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Tue testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is cuap.1.
not, however, confined to the recognition of the me ΜΝ
several types of Christianity which are preserved frail,
in the Canonical Scriptures: they confirm the famene,
genuineness and authority of the books them-
selves. That they do not appeal to the Apo-
stolic writings more frequently and more dis-
tinctly, springs from the very nature of their
position. Those who had heard the living voice How: far mo-
of Apostles were unlikely to appeal to their ,Apoeltc
written words. It is an instinct which always
makes us prefer any personal connexion to the
more remote relationship of books. Thus Papias
tells us that he sought to learn from every
quarter the traditions of those who had con-
versed with the elders, thinking that he should
not profit so much by the narratives of books
as by the living and abiding voice of the Lord’s
disciples. And still Papias affirmed the exact
accuracy of the Gospel of St Mark, and quoted
testimonies (μαρτυρίαις) from the Catholic Epistles
of St Peter and St John. So, again, Irenzus in
earnest language tells with what joy he listened
to the words of Polycarp, when he told of his
intercourse with those who had seen the Lord;
and how those who had been with Christ spoke

56 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

cHar.1. of His mighty works and teaching. And still all
was according to the Scriptures (πάντα σύμφωνα
ταῖς γραφαῖς); 80 that the charm lay not in the
novelty of the narrative, but in its vital union

with the fact.
(a) Thetr (a) In three instances! in which it was
the Rooks of natural to expect a direct allusion to the Pau-
(yexpict, line Epistles, the references are as complete as
possible. ‘Take up the Epistle of the blessed
Paul the Apostle,’ is the charge of Clement to

the Corinthians, ‘...... in truth he spiritually
charged you concerning himself, and Cephas,
and Apollos?....... ’ ‘©Those who are borne by

martyrdom to God,’ Ignatius writes to the Ephe-
sians, ‘pass through your city; ye are initiated
into mysteries (συμμύσται) with St Paul, the
sanctified, the martyred, worthy of all blessing
se.ee-Who in every part of his letter (ἐν πάσῃ
ἐπιστόλη) makes mention of you in Christ
Jesus?,” ‘The blessed and glorious Paul,’ says
Polycarp to the Philippians, ‘wrote letters to

1 The subject of Ignatius’ letter to the Romana explains
the absence of any direct allusion to St Paul’s Epistle.
The mention of St Peter and St Paul (c. iv.) is, however,
worthy of notice.

2 Clem. ὁ. xtvii.

8 The reference in ovppvora to Eph. vy. 32 seems clear
when we remember the whole tenor of Ignatius’ letter. Ἔν
πάσῃ ἐπ. is not necessarily, I think, ‘in every letter, but,
‘in every part of his letter;’ compare Eph. ii. 21, πᾶσα
οἰκοδομή (not πᾶσα ἡ olx.), ‘Every part of the building.’

-

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 57

you, into which, if ye look diligently, ye will be cuar.1
able to be built up to [the fulness of] the faith (2 incidental.

given to you!.’

Elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers there
are clear traces of a knowledge of the Epistles
of St Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (i. ii.),
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and to Ti-
mothy (i. ii), of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
of the Epistle of St James, the first Epistle of
St Peter, and the first Epistle of St John. The
allusions to the Epistles of St Paul to the Thes-
salonians, Colossians, to Titus, and Philemon, are
very uncertain; and there are, I believe, no
coincidences of language with the Epistles of

The instances quoted by Hefele sre otherwise explained by
Winer, N. T. Grammatik, 8. 132 (ed. v.) The passage is
not found in the Syriac.

1 Polyc. 6. iii.

3 The following table will be found useful and interesting
as showing how far each writer makes use of the books of
the New Testament :

CLEMENT. Romans (c. xxxv.); 1 Corinthians (c. xtvii.);
Ephesians (c. xtvi.); 1 Timothy? (c. vii.);
Titus ? (c. ii.); Hebrews (cc. xvii., xxxvi.,
&c.); James (6. x. &c.)
Ienativs. 1 Corinthians (ad Ephes. xviii.); Ephesians
(ad Ephes. xii); Philippians? (ad Philad.
viii.) ; 1 Thessalonians? (ad Ephes. x.);
Philemon? (ad Ephes. 6. ii., &c.)
PotycarP. Romans (c. vi.); 1 Corinthians (6. xi.); 2
Corinthians (ce. ii., iv.); Galatians (cc. iii.,
xii.); Ephesians (c. xii.?); Philippians (ce.

58 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

CHAP. I. These incidental references, it is true, are
The peculiar anonymous. ‘The words of Scripture are in-
evidence, © Wrought into the texture of the books, and not
parcelled out into formal quotations. They are
not arranged with argumentative effect, but
used as the natural expression of Christian
truths. Now this use of the Holy Scriptures
shows at least that they were even then widely
known, and so guarded by a host of witnesses—
that their language was transferred into the
common dialect —that it was as familiar to
chose first Christians as to us, who use it as
unconsciously as they did in writing or in con-
Iiustrated by versation. If the quotations from the Old Tes-
tions from =tament in the Apostolic Fathers were uniformly
amet explicit and exact, this mode of argument would
lose much of its force. With the exception of
Barnabas it does not appear that they have
made a single reference by name to any one of
the books of the Old Testament!. Clement uses

‘

iii., xi.); 1 Thessalonians (Ὁ) (c. ii., iv.) ;
1 Timothy (c. iv.); 2 Timothy (c. v.); 1
Peter (cc. i., ii., &c.); 1 John (c. vii.).
BarnaBas. Matthew (c. iv.); 1 Timothy? (c. xii.); 2
Timothy ? (6. vii.). Cf. Hefele, ss. 380---240.
1 Barn. Ep. c. x.: A€yes αὐτοῖς Μωσῆς ἐν τῷ Aevrepovople.
The last words may be an interpolation. Elsewhere Bar-
nabas mentions the writer’s name: 6. iv. Daniel; c. xii.
David, Esaias; o. vi., x., xii. Moses. Perhaps the peculiar
usage of the writer will confirm the reading of the Latin
Version (c. 4), sicut scriptum est, applied to a passage of

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 5659

the general formula, ‘It is written,’ or even ΟΗ͂ΑΡ.Ι.
more frequently, ‘God saith, or, simply, ‘One
saith!’ The two quotations from the Old Tes-
tament in Ignatius are simply preceded by ‘It

is written.’ In the Greek text of Polycarp there

is no mark of quotation at all?; and Clement
sometimes introduces the language of the Old
Testament into his argument without any mark

of distinction®, Exactness of quotation was
foreign to the spirit of their writing.

Nothing has been said hitherto of the coin- How far it
cidences between the Apostolic Fathers and δἰ δὰ τ ἴδε
the Canonical Gospels. From the nature of the
case casual coincidences of language cannot be
brought forward in the same manner to prove
the use of a history as of a letter. The same
facts and words, especially if they be recent and
striking, may be preserved in several narratives.
References in the sub-apostolic age to the

St Matthew. Otherwise Credner’s doubts do not seem un-
reasonable (Bettriige, i. 28.)

In the second ‘ Epistle’ of Clement there is the same
explicitness of reference as in Barnabas, c. iii. Esaias; c. vi.
Ezechiel. So likewise St Matthew's Gospel is called γραφή
(c. ii.) The fact is worth notice.

1 ¢. xxvi. (Job), &c., xxxii. (David), cannot be considered
exceptions to the rule.

32 The reading of the Latin Version, c. xi. sicut Paulus
docet, seems to be less open to suspicion than that in c. xii.
ut his scripturis dictum est (Ps, iv. 5; Eph. iv. 26), which is
at least quite alien from Polycarp’s manner.

3 E. g. cc. xxvii., Liv. So also Ignatius ad Trail. viii.

CHAP. I.

The great fea-

60 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

discourses or actions of our Lord as we find
them recorded in the Gospels, show that what
they relate was then so far held to be true; but
it does not necessarily follow that they were
already in use, and the precise source of the
passages in question. On the contrary, the
mode in which Clement! refers to our Lord's
teaching, ‘the Lord said,’ not, ‘saith,’ seems to
imply that he referred to tradition, and not
to any written accounts, for words most closely
resembling those which are still found in our
Gospels. The testimony of the Apostolic Fathers
is to the substance, and not to the authenticity
of the Gospels. And in this respect they have
an important work to do. They witness that the
great outlines of the life and teaching of our
Lord were familiarly known to all from the first:
they prove that Christianity rests truly on a
historic basis.

The ‘Gospel’ which the Fathers announce

of
Christ ie includes all the articles of the ancient Creeds’,

known,

Christ, we read, our God, the eternal Word, the

1 ce. xiii., xLvi. (εἶπεν), compared with Acts xx. 35. The
past tense in Ignat. ad Smyr. iii. appears to be of a different
kind.

Barnubas, on the other hand, uses a present tense (66. iv.
vii.) when quoting words not found in the Canonical Gospels,

2 On the use of oral and written Gospels in the first
age, compare Gieseler, tiber die Enstehung wu. 8. w., 88. 149

Βαῆ.-

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 61

Lord and Creator of the world, who was with cuHapP.1.

the Father before time began’, at the end hum-
bled Himself, and came down from heaven, and
was manifested in the flesh, and was born of the
Virgin Mary, of the race of David according to
the flesh; and a star of exceeding brightness
appeared at His birth*. Afterwards He was bap-
tized by John, to fulfil all righteousness; and
then, speaking His Father’s message, he invited
not the righteous, but sinners, to come to Him’.
At length, under Herod and Pontius Pilate He
was crucified, and vinegar and gall were offered
Him to drink‘. But on the first day of the week
He rose from the dead, the first-fruits of the
grave; and many prophets were raised by Him
for whom they had waited. After His resur-
rection He ate with His disciples, and showed
them that He was not an incorporeal spirit’.
And He ascended into heaven, and sat down
on the right hand of the Father, and thence

1 Ign. ad Rom. inscr.; 6. iii.; ad Ephes. inscr.; Ign.
ad Magnes. viii.: Barn. v.: Ign. ad Magnes. vi.

3 Clem. xvi.: Ign. ad Magnes. vii.: Barn. xii.: Ign. ad
Smyr. i., ad Trall. ix., ad Ephes. xix.: Ign. ad Ephes. xx.;
Ign. ad Ephes. xix.

3 Ign. ad Smyr. i.; Ign. ad Rom. viii.: Barn. ix.

4 Ign. ad Dfugnes. xi., ad Trall. ix., ad Smyr. i.: Barn.
vii. Ignatius alludes also to anointing the head of Christ
(Jobn xii. 3), ad Ephes. xvii.

δ᾽ Barn. xv.: Ign. ad Magnes. ix.: Clem. xxiv.: Polye. ii. :
Ign. ad Magnes. ix.: Ign. ad Smyr. iii.

CHAP. I.

(8) to their
authority,

~~

62 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

He shall come to judge the quick and the
dead’.

Such, in their own words, is the testimony
of the earliest Fathers to the life of the Saviour.
Round these facts their doctrines are grouped;
on the truth of the Incarnation, and the Passion,
and the Resurrection of Christ, their hopes were
grounded*.

(8) If the extent of the evidence of the
Apostolic Fathers to the books of the New Tes-
tament is exactly what might be expected from

1 Barn. xv.: Polyc. ii.: Barn. vii.: Polye. ii.
There are also numerous references to discourses of
our Lord which are recorded in tho gospels :

Clement, c. xiii. (Luc. vi. 36—38, &c.): c. xlvi.
(Matt. xxvi. 24.)

Ignatius, ad Ephes. vi. (Matt. x. 40): ad Trall. xi.
(Matt. xv. 13): ad Ephes. v. (Matt. xviii. 19):
ad Philad. vii.

Polycarp, 6. ii. (Matt. vii. 1 sqq., x. 16): ὦ. v. (Matt.
xx, 28): 6. vi. (Matt. vi. 12): c. vii. (Matt. vi.
13, xxvi. 41.)

Barnabas, c. iv. (Matt. xx. 16, xxv. 5 8qq.): 6. Vv.
(Matt. ix. 13): oc. xix. (Luc. vi. 80): 6. Vv.
(Matt. xxvi. 31): cf. Hefelo, s. 233.

Barnabas refers to two sayings of our Lord not found
in our Gospels: 6. iv., vii.: and so perhaps Ign. ad Smyr.
iii. (yet cf. Luke xxiv. 39.) This is no proof of the use of
Apocryphal Gospels: cf. Gieseler, iiber die Enstehung der
schrift. Evv. es. 147 ff.

2 Cf. Ign. ad Philad. viii. It is very worthy of notice
that there are no references to the miracles of our Lord in
the Apostolic Fathers. All miracles are implicitly included
in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 63

men who had seen the Apostles, who had heard crar. 1.

them, and who had treasured up their writings
as the genuine records of their teaching, the
character of their evidence is equally in accord-

ance with their peculiar position. It will be modifedby

readily seen that we cannot expect to find the
New Testament quoted in the first age as autho-
ritative in the same manner as the Old Testa-
ment. There could not, indeed, be any occasion
for an appeal to the testimony of the Gospels
when the history of the faith was still within the
memory of many; and most of the Epistles were
of little use in controversy, for the earliest here-
tics denied the Apostleship of St Paul. The
Old Testament, on the contrary, was common
ground ; and the ancient system of biblical inter-
pretation furnished the Christian with ready
arms. When these failed it was enough for him
to appeal to the Death and Resurrection of
Christ, which were at once the sum and the
proof of his faith. ‘I have heard some say,’
Ignatius writes, ‘that “unless I find it in the
ancients, [the writers of the Old Testament, ]
I believe not in the Gospel,” and when I said to
them, “ It is written [in the Prophets that Christ
should suffer and rise again],” they replied,
“ (That must be proved ;] the question lies before
us.” But to me,’ he adds, ‘Jesus Christ is [in
place of all] records; my inviolable records are

CHAP. I.

percep-
tion of the
doctrine of
Inspiration,

which fol-
lo wed from
the relation

of the A
atles to their
first suc-
cessors.

64 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

His Cross, and Death, and Resurrection, and the
Faith through Him!.’

Jt cannot, however, be denied, that the idea
of the Inspiration of the New Testament, in the
sense in which it is maintained now, was the
growth of time. Distance is a necessary con-
dition if we are to estimate rightly any object of
vast proportions. The history of any period
will furnish illustrations of this truth; and the
teaching of God through man always appears to
be subject to the common laws of human life
and thought. If it be true that a prophet is not
received in his own country, it is equally true
that he is not received in his own age. The
sense of his power is vague even when it is
deepest. Years must elapse before we can feel
that the words of one who talked with men were
indeed the words of God.

The successors of the Apostles did not, we
admit, recognize that the written histories of the
Lord, and the scattered epistles of His first dis-

1 Ad Philad. viii. The passage is beset with many dif-
ficulties, but tho translation which I havo ventured to
give seems to remove many of them. πΠροκεῖσθαι is con-
tinually used of a question in debate: Plat. Euthyd.
279 Ὁ. καταγέλαστον δήπου ὃ πάλαι πρόκειται τοῦτο πάλιν
προτιθέναι. Resp. viii. 533 E. etc. In place of ἐν τοῖς ἀρ"
xaiots we may read ἐν τοῖς apxeios, according to Voss’
conjecture. The sense would be unchanged. The sud-
den burst of focling (ἐμοὶ δέ κ. τ. A.) is characteristic of
Ignatius.

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 65

“

ciples, would form a sure and sufficient source ΟΗΑᾺΑΡ. 1.

and test of doctrine, when the current tradition
had grown indistinct or corrupt. Conscious of
a life in the Christian body, and realizing the
power of its Head, as later ages cannot do, they
did not feel that the Apostles were providen-
tially charged to express once for all in their
writings the essential forms of Christianity, even
as the Prophets had foreshadowed them. The
position which they held did not command that
comprehensive view of the nature and fortunes
of the Christian Church by which the idea is
suggested and confirmed. But they had certainly
an indistinct sense that their work was essen-
tially different from that of their predecessors.
They declined to perpetuate their title, though
they may have retained their office. They attri-
buted to them power and wisdom to which they
themselves made no claim. Without any exact
sense of the completeness of the Christian Scrip.
tures, they still drew a distinct line between
them and their own writings. ΑΒ if by some
providential instinct, each one of those teachers
who stood nearest to the writers of the New
Testament plainly contrasted his writings with
theirs, and definitely placed himself on a lower
level. The fact is most significant; for it shows
in what way the formation of the Canon was an
act of the intuition of the Church, derived from
F

68 THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS,

CHAP. 1, basis and moulded the expression of the com-
Itsgreatlocal mon creed. ‘They recognize the fitness of a
importance. Canon, and indicate the limits within which it

must be fixed. And their evidence is the more
important when it is remembered that they speak
to us from four great centres of the ancient
Church—from Antioch and Alexandria, from
Ephesus and Rome. One Church alone is silent.
The Christians of Jerusalem contribute nothing
to this written portraiture of the age. The
peculiarities of their belief were borrowed from
ἃ conventional system destined to pass away,
and did not embody the permanent charac-
teristics of any particular type of Apostolic
doctrine. The Jewish Church at Pella was an
accommodation, if we may use the word, and
not a form of Christianity. How far its prin-
ciples influenced the Church of the next age
will be seen in the following Chapter},

1 Papias might, perhaps, have been noticed in this Chap-
ter, but I believe that he belongs properly to the next
generation. The testimony to the Gospel of St Mark, which
he quotes from the Presbyter John, must, however, be con-
sidered as drawn from the Apostolic age. It will be con-
venient to notice this when speaking of Papias (c. ii. § 1.)

CHAPTER II,
THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.
A.D. 120-170.

Οὐ σιωπῆς μόνον τὸ ἔργον, ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστιν ὁ CHAP. II.
Xpiorcanopds.— IGNATIUS.

Tue writings of the Apostolic age were all rie wiae
moulded in the same form, and derived from Christian of
the same relation of Christian life. As they ™*°"™
represented the mutual intercourse of believers,
so they rested on the foundation of a common
rule and showed the peculiarities of a common
dialect. The literature of the next age was
widely different both in scope and character!. It
included almost every form of prose composition
—letters, chronicles, essays, apologies, visions,
tales—and answered to the manifold bearings of
Christianity in the world*. The Church had occasioned by
then to maintain its ground amid systematic ton of the
persecution, organized heresies and philosophic
controversy. The name of the Christian had the zmpir,
already become a by-word?; and it was evident

1 Cf. Mohler, ss. 179 ff.

3 It is probable that some of the Christian parts of the
Sibylline Oracles (Libb. vi., vii.) also fall within this period.

Cf. Friedlieb, Oracula Sibyllina, Einleit. ss. uxxi., ii.

Very little is known of the prophecies of Hystaspes.

Cf. Licke, Comm, ii. ἃ. Schriften des Ev. Johannes, iv. 1.

ss. 45 f.
8 Just. Mart. Ap. i. 4. (p. 10, n. 4. Otto.)

70 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1 that they were free alike from Jewish super-
stition and Gentile polytheism!: they were no
longer sheltered by the old title of Jews, and it
became needful that they should give an ac-
| count of the faith for which they sought pro-
Heredes, tection. The Apostolic tradition was insufficient
to silence or condemn false teachers who had
been trained in the schools of Athens or Alex-
andria; but now that truth was left to men it
Philosophy. was upheld by wisdom. New champions were
raised up to meet the emergency; and some of
these did not scruple to maintain the doctrines
of Christianity in the garb of philosophers.
The remains, But although the entire literature of the age
ever, scanty. was thus varied, the fragments of it which are
left scarcely do more than witness to its extent.
The letter to Diognetus, and some of the writ-
ings of Justin, alone survive in their original
form. In addition to these there is the Latin
translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, and a
series of precious quotations from lost books,
due mainly to the industry of Eusebius%. The
1 Ep. ad Diogn.i.: dpa... . ὑπερσπονδακότα σε τὴν θεοσέ-
βειαν τῶν Χριστιανῶν pabeiv.... rime re Θεῷ πεποιθότες, καὶ
πῶς Opnoxevovres.... οὔτε τοὺς νομιζομένους ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
θεοὺς λογίζονται, οὔτε τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων δεισιδαιμονίαν φυλάσσουσι.
-... The whole passage is very interesting as showing how
the object and form of Christian worship, and the character
of the Christian life, would strike a thoughtful man at the
time.
2 Collected by Routh, Relliquie Sacre, (Ed. 2. Oxon.
1846).

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 71

‘Enarrations’ of Papias, the Treatises of Justin cHar.1.

and Agrippa Castor against Heresies, the nu-
merous works of Melito, the Chronicles of Hege-
sippus, have perished, and with them the most
natural and direct sources of information on the
history of this period of the Church.

It does not, however, seem to have been a Yet Justin re
mere accident which preserved the writings of M3c."

e . Apologist,
Justin. As the Apolagists were the truest re- and s0 of

presentatives of the age, so was he in many
respects the best type of the natural character
of the Greek Apologist. For him philosophy
was truth, reason a spiritual power, Christianity
the fulness of both. The Apostolic Fathers
exhibit their faith in its inherent energy; their
successors show in what way it was the satis-
faction of the deepest wants of humanity—the
sum of all ‘knowledge;’ it was reserved for the
Latin Apologists to apprehend its independent
claims, and establish its right to supplant, as well
as to fulfil what was partial and vague in earlier
systems. The time was not ripe for this when
Justin wrote, for there is a natural order in the
development of truth. As Christianity was shown
to be the true completion of Judaism before the
Church was divided from the synagogue; so it
was well that it should be clearly set forth as
the centre to which old philosophies converged
before it was declared to supersede them. In

72 ‘THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHAP.11. each case the fulfilment and interpretation of the
old was the groundwork and beginning of the
new. The pledge of the future lay in the satis-
faction of the past.

The first This, then, was one great work of the time,

Pine ot that Apologists should proclaim Christianity to

of Chat be the Divine answer to the questionings of

thendom. ~heathendom, as well as the antitype to the Law
and the hope of the Prophets. To a great
extent the task was independent of the direct
use of Scripture. Those who discharged it had
to deal with the thoughts, and not with the
words of the Apostles—with the facts, and not
with the records of Christ’s life. Even the later
Apologists abstained from quoting Scripture in
their addresses to heathen; and the practice was
still more alien from the object and position of
the earliest!. The arguments of philosophy and
history were brought forward first, that men
might be gradually familiarized to the light;
the use of Scripture was for a while deferred
(dilate paulisper divine lectiones), that they
might not be blinded by the sudden sight of its
unclouded glory 3.

sara The recognition of Christianity as a reve-

of lation which had not only a general, but also, in

1 Justin’s use of the prophecies of the Old Testament is
no exception to the rule; but of this we shall speak in § 7.
3 Lactant. Instit. v. 4.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 73

some sense, a special message for the heathen, cHaP. 1.
was co-ordinate with its final separation from the
Mosaic ritual', This separation was the second
great work of the period. It is difficult to trace
the progress of its consummation, though the
result was the firm establishment of the Catholic
Church. But by the immediate reaction which Its resction.
accompanied it one type of Apostolic Chris-
tianity was brought out with great clearness,
without which the circle of its secondary deve-
lopments would have been incomplete. Yet the the crisis py
conflict which was then carried on was not the yes trust
repetition, but the sequel of that of the Apo-
stolic age*. The great crisis out of which it

1 Just. Mart. Ap. i. 46 : Οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί
εἶσι, κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ
Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραάμ....
Cf. Ap. ii. 18.

2 Some modern writers have confounded together the
different steps by which the distinction of Jew and Gentile
were removed in the Christian Church. Since it is of great
importance to a right understanding of the early history of
Christianity that they should be clearly distinguished, it may
not be amiss to mention them here :—

1. The admission of Gentiles (εὐσεβεῖς) to the Chris-
tian Church. Acts x., xi.

2. The freedom of Gentile converts from the Cere-
monial Law. Acts xv.

8. The indifference of the Ceremonial Law for Jewish
converts. Gal. ii. 14-16; Acts xxi. 20-26.

4. The incompatibility of Judaism with Christianity.

The first three—that is the essential—principles are
recognized in Scripture; the last, which introduces no new

CHAP. 11.

How it was
distinguished

from the con-
ficts of the

. age.

74 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS:

sprung impressed it with a peculiar character.
The Christians of Jerusalem had clung to their
ancient law, till their national hopes seemed to
be crushed for ever by the building of Alia, and
the establishment of a Gentile Chureh within
the Holy City. Then, at length, men saw that
they were already in the new age—‘ the world to
come:’ they saw that the kingdom of heaven,
as distinguished from God’s typical kingdom,
was now set up; and it seemed that the gospel
of St Paul was to be the common law of its
citizens. Under the pressure of these circum-
stances the Judaizing party naturally made a
last effort to regain their original power, It was
possible to maintain what had ceased to be
national only by asserting that it was universal.

The discussions of the first age were thus repro-

Its influence
Literature.

duced in form, but they had a wider bearing.
The Gentile Christians no longer claimed toler-
ance, but supremacy. ‘They had been estab-
lished on an equality with the Jewish Church ;
but now, when they were on the point of be-
coming paramount, the spirit which had opposed
St Paul was roused to its greatest activity.
Apart from heretical writings the effect of
this movement may be traced under various
forms in the contemporary literature. And as
element, is evolved in the history of the Church. This is

an instance of the true ‘Development,’ which organizes, but
does not create.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 75

the Apologists represent the Greek element in cuHapP. 11.
the Church, so the Jewish may be characterized

by the chroniclers, Papias and Hegesippus. The
tendency to that which is purely rational and

ideal is thus contrasted with that towards the
sensuous and the material.

In one respect, however, Christian literature The literature
still preserved the same form as in the Apo- 9c"
stolic age. It was wholly Greek: the work of
the Latin churches was as yet to be wrought in
silence'. It is the more important to notice
this, because the permanent characteristics of
the national literatures of Greece and Rome
reappear with powerful effect in patristic writings.

On the one side there is universality, freedom, The οὔδει of
large sympathy, deep feeling: on the other
there is individuality, system, order, logic. The
tendency of the one mind is towards truth,
of the other towards law?. In the end, when
the object is the highest truth and the deepest
law, they will achieve the same results, but the
process will be different. This difference is not
without its bearing on the history of the New
Testament. From their very constitution Greek

1 Of the Greek literature of the Italian Churches we shall
speak hereafter.

2 As a familiar instance of these characteristic differences
we may refer to the marked distinction in form and tone
between the Nicene (Greek) and the Athanasian (Latin)
Creeds.

76 ‘THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP. writers would be inclined, in the first instance,
to witness, not to the Canon of Scripture, but to
the substance of its teaching.

ᾧ 1. Papias.

The date of The first and last names of this period—
Papias and Hegesippus—belong to the early
Christian chroniclers, whom we have taken to
represent the Judaizing party of the time. Pa-
pias, a friend of Polycarp, was Bishop of Hie-
rapolis in Phrygia’ in the early part of the
second century. According to some accounts
he was a disciple of the Apostle St John*; but
Eusebius, who was acquainted with his writings,
affirms that his teacher was the Presbyter, and
not the Apostle; and the same conclusion ap-
pears to follow from his own language‘,

1 This follows from Hieron. de virr. ill. xviii.; Papias—
Hierapolitanus Episcopus in Asia; and also from a com-
parison of Euseb. H. E. iii. 36, 39, 31.

2 This is maintained by Routh, i. p. 22, sqq. On the
other hand, cf. Davidson, Introd. i. 425, sqq.

δ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. ‘I used to inquire,’ he says,
‘when I met any who had been acquainted with the Elders,
of the teaching of the Elders—what Andrew or Peter said
(εἶπεν). ... or John or Matthew....or any other of the
Lord’s disciples ; as what Aristion and the Elder (Presbyter)
John, the Lord’s disciples, say (λέγουσιν). The natural
interpretation of these words can only be that the Apostles
—Elders in the highest sense, 1 Pet. v. 1—were already
dead when Papias began his investigations, and that he dis-
tinguished two of the name of John, one an apostle, and

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 77

A church was formed at Hierapolis in very cuar. un.
early times'; and it afterwards became the resi-
dence of ‘the Apostle Philip and his daughters®,’ The charac
whose tomb was shown there in the third cen-
tury’. This fact seems to point to some close
connexion with the churches of Judxa; but the
city was also remarkable in another respect.
The Epistle of St Paul to the neighbouring
church of Colosss# proves, that even in the Apo-
stolic age the characteristic extravagance of
the province—the home of the Galli and Cory-
bantes— was already manifested in the cor-
ruption of Christianity; and it is not unreason-
able to attribute the extreme Chiliasm of Papias
to the same influence‘.

another the presbyter, who was alive at that time. Cf.
Davidson, I. ὁ.

1 It is said that he suffered martyrdom (Steph. Gobar.
ap. Cave, i. 29) at Pergamus in the time of Aurelius (a.p. 164),
under whom Polycarp and Justin Martyr also suffered
(Chron. Alex. 1. c¢.).

His work was probably written at a late period of his
life (c. 140-150), since he speaks of those who had been dis-
ciples of the Apostles as now dead. His inquiries were made
some time before he wrote (ἀνέκρινον), and he had treasured
up the tradition in his memory (καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα). The
necessity for such a work as his would not, indeed, be felt,
as Rettig has well observed, till the first generation after
the Apostles had passed away. Cf. Thiersch, Versuch τι. 8. w.
8. 438.

2 Coloss. iv. 13; Euseb. H.E. iii. 31. Cf. Routh, ii. 25.

3 Euseb. H. E. iii. 31, on the authority of Caius.

4 Cf. Iren. v. 33.

78 ‘THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP. Il. Since he stood on the verge of the first age

Ansccount Papias naturally set a high value on the Evan-

gelic traditions still current in the Church.

These he preserved, as he tells us, with zeal and

accuracy; and afterwards embodied them in

five books, entitled ‘An Exposition of the

Oracles of the Lord’ (Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις ἢ).

There is, however, no reason to suppose that he

intended to compose a Gospel; and the very

name of his treatise seems to imply the contrary.

The traditions which he collected do not appear

to have formed the staple of his book; but they

were introduced as illustrative of his exposition.

seripon of ‘Moreover,’ he says, ‘I must tell you that I shall

᾿ not scruple to place side by side with my inter-

pretations all that I have rightly learnt from the

elders and rightly remembered, solemnly affirm-

ing that it is true*.. The apologetic tone of the

sentence, its construction (de), the mention of

his interpretations (ai epunveta), convey the

It was expo- idea that his reference to tradition might seem

sitory, an

not narrative,

1 Pap. 1. c.: οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσ-

βυτέρων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα, συγκατατάξαι

ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις, διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν, κ. τ. Ἃ.

3 In accordance with this view of Papias’ book we find

᾿ς him mentioned with Clement, Pantsenus, and Ammonius, as

‘one of the ancient Interpreters (ἐξηγητῶν) who agreed to

understand the Hexaemeron as referring to Christ and the

Church.’ (fr. ix.,x.) The passage quoted by Irenmus from

‘the Elders’ (v. ad f.) may probably be taken as a specimen
of his style of interpretation.

~

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 79

unnecessary to some, and that it was, in fact, only
a, secondary object :—in other words, they imply
that there were already recognized records of
the teaching of Christ which he sought to ex-
pound. For this purpose he might well go back
to the Apostles themselves, and ‘make it his
business to inquire what they said, believing
‘that the information which he could draw from
books was not so profitable as that which was
preserved in a living tradition'.’

CHAP. IT.

This conclusion, which we have drawn from Papias’ teat
the apparent aim of Papias’ work, is strongly Gospels

confirmed by the direct testimony which he
bears to our Gospels. It has been inferred already
that some Gospel was current in his time; he
tells us that the Gospels of St Matthew and
St Mark were so. Of the former he says:

‘Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew; and St Mar-

each one interpreted them as he was able*.” The
form of the sentence (μὲν οὖν) would seem to

1 Eusebius, 1, c. gives some account of the traditional
stories which he collected; among others he mentions that
of ‘a woman accused before our Lord of many sins,’ gene-
rally identified with the disputed pericope, John vii. 53-viii. 11.
To these must be added the account of Judas (fr. iii. Routh.)

‘The books’ of which Papias speaks may have been some
of the strange mystical commentaries current at very early
times among the Simonians and Valentinians.

3 Euseb. 1 c.: Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ‘ESpaids διαλέκτῳ τὰ
λόγια συεγράψατο᾽ ἡρμήνευσε 8 αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
It is difficult to give the full meaning of τὰ λόγια, τὰ κυριακὰ

80 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP.U. introduce this statement as the result of some

St Mana.

inquiry, and it may, perhaps, be referred to the
presbyter John; but all that needs to be par-
ticularly remarked is, that when Papias wrote,
the Aramaic Gospel of St Matthew was already
accessible to Greek readers: the time was then
past when each one was his own interpreter.
The account which he gives of the Gospel of
St Mark is full of interest: ‘ This also,’ he writes,
‘the Elder [John] used to say. Mark, having
become Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all
that he remembered ; though he did not [record]
in order that which was either said or done by
Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor
followed Him; but subsequently, as I said,
[attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame
his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants
[of his hearers]; and not as making a connected
narrative of the Lord’s discourses. So Mark
committed no error, as he wrote down some
particulars just as he recalled them to mind.

Adyca—the Gospel—the sum of the words and works of the
Lord.

The sense, I believe, would be best expressed in this
passage by the translation: ‘Matthew composed his Gospel
in Hebrew,’ giving to the word its necessary notion of scrip-
tural authority. Cf. Acts vii. 38; Rom. ili. 2; Heb. v. 12;
1 Pet. iv. 11. Polyc. ad Phil. c. vii.; Clem. ad Cor, i.
19, 53.

Davidson (Introd. i. 65, sqq.) has reviewed the other
interpretations of the word.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTsS. 8]

For he took heed to one thing—to omit none cHapP. 1.
of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing
falsely in [his narrative of] them’.’

It has, however, been argued that the Gospel Objection
here described cannot be the Canonical Gospel Saks Gow
of St Mark, since that shows at least as clear an ™
order as the other Gospels. On this hypothesis
we must seek for the original record of which
John spoke in ‘the Preaching of Peter’ (κήρυγμα
Πέτρου), or some similar work’. In short, we Τὰ cou
must suppose that two different books were
current under the same name in the times of
Papias and Irenzeus—that in the interval, which
was less than fifty years, the older document
had passed entirely into oblivion, or, at least,
wholly lost its first title—that this substitution
of the one book for the other was so secret that

1 Euseb. 1. 6. : καὶ τοῦδ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε Μάρκος μὲν
ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσε ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν,
οὗ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα" οὔτε
γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ Κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ᾽ ὕστερον δὲ,
ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ, ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν Κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων"
ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μάρκος οὕτως ema γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημό-
vevoer’ ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσε παρα-
λιπεῖν ἣ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.

Burton and Heinichen rightly read λόγων, for which
Routh has λογίων. I do not think that λογίων could stand in
such a sense. As the word occurs again directly, and was
used in the title of Papias’ book, the error was natural,

2 Schwegler, i. 458 ff.; Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen,
538 f.

G

82 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHAP.1. there is not the slightest trace of the time, the
motive, the mode of its accomplishment, and so
complete that Irenseus, Clement, Origen, and
Eusebius, applied to the later Gospel what was
really only true of that which it had replaced‘.
And all this must be believed, because it is
assumed that John could not have spoken of
our present Gospel as not arranged ‘in order.’
But it would surely be far more reasonable to
conclude that he was mistaken in his criticism
than to admit an explanation burdened with
Howwe such a series of improbabilities*. There is, how-
vor ever, another solution of the difficulty which
seems preferable. The Gospel of St Mark is not
a complete Life of Christ, but simply a memoir
of ‘some events’ in it. It is not a chronological
biography, but simply a collection of facts which
seemed suited to the wants of a particular
audience. St Mark had no personal acquaintance
with the events which he recorded to enable him
to place them in their natural order, but was
wholly dependent on St Peter; and the special
object of the Apostle excluded the idea of a
complete narrative. The sequence of his'teaching
was moral, and not historical. That the arrange-

1 Tren. adv. Heer. iii. 1. 1; Clem. Alex. fr. ap. Euseb.
vi. 14; Orig. fr. ap. Euseb. vi. 25; Euseb. H. ΕἸ. ii. 15.

2 Cf. Davidson, Introd. i. 158 sq., who supposes that
John was ‘ mistaken in his opinion.’

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 83

ment of the other Synoptic Evangelists very
nearly coincides with that of St Mark is nothing
to the point: John does not say that it was
otherwise. He merely shows, from the circum-
stances under which St Mark wrote, that his
Gospel was necessarily neither chronological nor
complete; and under similar conditions—as in
the case of St Matthew'—it is reasonable to
look for a like result.

CHAP. IL.

In addition to the Gospels of St Matthew His testi
and St Mark, Papias appears to have been jp"

acquainted with the Gospel of St John*. Euse-
bius also says explicitly that he quoted ‘the

former Epistle of John, and that of Peter like- 1 Jos.

wise®, He maintained, moreover, ‘the divine

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 24: Ματθαῖος μὲν yap πρότερον
Ἕβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλεν καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἱέναι, πατρίῳ
γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ
αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, τούτοις dd’ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς
ἀπεπλήρου. The written Gospel was the sum of the oral
Gospel. The oral Gospel was not, as far as we can see, ἃ
Life of Christ, but a selection of representative events from
it, suited in its great outlines to the general wants of the
Church, and adapted by the several Apostles to the peculiar
requirements of their special audiences—éna, ov τάξει, πρὸς
τὰς χρείας [τῶν ἀκονόντων.)

3 The Gospel of St John is quoted in the Latin fragment
(fr. xi. Routh) first published by Grabe from a MS. of the
14th century. Routh is inclined to believe that it is genuine.
There is also an allusion to it in the quotation from the
‘Elders’ found in Irenscus (Lib. v. ad f.), which probably
was taken from Papias (fr. v. Routh, et nott.)

8 Euseb. 1. 6. : κέχρηται μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας

G2

84 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHAP.1I. inspiration’ of the Apocalypse, and probably
Arocatrrss. commented upon part of 1}.
But he makes There is, however, one great chasm in his
βὰς αν testimony. Though he was the friend of Poly-
UKE. carp, he nowhere alludes to any of the Pauline
writings. It cannot be an accident that he omits
all these—the Epistles of St Paul, the Gospel of
St Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles—and
these only, of the acknowledged books. of the
New Testament. The cause of the omission
must be sought for deeper than this; and it will
then be seen that the limited range of his evi-
dence gives it an additional reality.
Thedistine § As we gain a clearer and fuller view of the
snd Genle Apostolic age it becomes evident that the fusion
the Apostolic between the Gentile and Judaizing Christians
was far less perfect than we are at first inclined
to suppose. Both classes, indeed, were essen-
tially united by sharing in a common spiritual
life, but the outward barriers which separated
them had not yet been removed. The elder
Apostles gave to Barnabas and Paul the right
hand of fellowship, but, at the same time, they

ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως, The language of Euse-
bius is remarkable ἡ ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρα, and ἡ Πέτρου----;ΟΣ
ἡ ᾿Ιωάννου πρώτη and ἡ Πέτρου προτέρα, as in H. E. v. 8. Can
he be quoting the titles which Papias gave to them? In the
fragment on the Canon (see below, § 10) two Epistles only of
St Johu are mentioned.

1 Andreas, Proleg. in Apoc. (fr. viii. Routh.)

ee

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 85

defined the limits of their teaching’. This di- cxap.1.
vision of missionary labour was no compromise,
but a gracious accommodation to the needs of
the time. As Christianity was apprehended
more thoroughly the causes which necessitated
the distinction lost their force; but the change
was neither sudden nor abrupt. It would have
been contrary to reason and analogy, if differ-
ences recognized by the Apostles, and based on
national characteristics, had wholly disappeared

at their death, or had been at once magnified
into schisms. If this were implied in the few, tobe lookea
but precious memorials of the first age, then it δε
might well be suspected that they give an un-
faithful picture of the time; but, on the con-
trary, just in proportion as we can traee in them
each separate principle which existed from the
first, must it be felt that there is a truth and
reality in the progress of the Church by which

all the conditions of its development, suggested

by reason or experience, are satisfied.

It is in this way that the partial testimony of Papias was |
Papias furnishes a characteristic link in the his- 24760!
tory of Christianity. As far as can be conjec-"
tured from the scanty notices of his life he was
probably of Jewish descent, and constitutionally
inclined to Judaizing views*. In such a man

1 Gal. ii. 7—9.
3 Euseb. H. E. iii. 36: ἀνὴρ ra πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώ-

CHAP. If.

The value of
his evidence
on this
ground.

86 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

any positive reference to the teaching of St
Paul would have been unnatural. He could not
condemn him, for he had been welcomed by the
other Apostles as their fellow-labourer, and
Polycarp had early rejoiced to recognise his
claims: he could not feel bound to witness to
his authority, for his sympathies were with ‘the
circumcision,’ to whom St Paul was not sent}.
He stands as the representative of ‘the Twelve,’
and witnesses to every book which the next
generation generally received in their name.
His testimony is partial; but its very imper-
fection is not only capable of an exact expla-
nation, but is also in itself a proof that the Chris-
tianity of the second age was a faithful reflexion
of the teaching of the Apostles’,

τατος (in all respects of the greatest erudition) καὶ τῆς γραφῆς
εἰδήμων. This disputed clause is quite consistent with what
Eusebius says elsewhere (iii. 39): σφόδρα yap τοι σμικρὸς ὧν
τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμῃράμενον εἰπεῖν, [ὁ
Παπίας) φαίνεται. The preponderance of external evidence
is in its favour; and the omission of it by Rufinus is quite
consistent with his rules of translation.

1 Gal. ii. 9.

2 In speaking of Papias as the first Chronicler of the
Church, it would, perhaps, have been right to except the
authors of the ‘Martyrdom of Ignatius.’ The substance,
at least, of the narrative seems an authentic memorial of the
time. The mention of ‘the Apostle Paul’ (c. 2) by Ignatius
admirably accords with his character; and the whole scene
before Trajan could scarcely have been invented at a later
time. The history contains coincidences of language with
the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans (c. 3), Cosinthians

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 87

CHAP. Il.

2. The Elders ted by Irencus.
quo

e e The
Papias is not, however, the only represen- The evidence

tative of those who had been taught by the smegbe
immediate disciples of the Apostles. Irenzeus conned 1
has preserved some anonymous fragments of
the teaching of others who occupied the same
position as the Bishop of Hierapolis; and the
few sentences thus quoted contain numerous
testimonies to books of the New Testament,
and fill up that which is left wanting by his
evidence’, Thus, ‘the elders, disciples of the His teu
mony is com-
(i., ii), Galatians (c. 2), and 1 Timothy (c. 4). At the close «Riders.
of the first chapter there is also a remarkable similarity of
metaphor with 2 Pet. i. 19. But the parallelism between
many parts of the narrative with the Acts is still more
worthy of notice, because, from the nature of the case,
references to that book are comparatively rare in early
writings. See especially chapp. 4, 5.
1 They have been collected by Routh, Relliquie Sacra,
i. 47 sqq. Eusebius notices the quotations, but did not know
their source (H. E. v. 8). It is clear that Irensus appeals
to several authorities; and it appears also that he quoted
traditions as well as writings: 6. g. iv. 27 (45). ‘ Audivi a
quodam Presbytero,’ &c. ; iv. 31 (49). ‘Talia queedam enar-
raus de antiquis Presbyter, reficiebat nos et dicebat,’ &c.
The other forms of quotation are: ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ἡμῶν
εἴρηται (i. Pref. 2)—é κρείσσων (sic) ἡμῶν ἔφη (i. 13, 3)—
quidam dixit superior nobis (iii. 17, 4)—ex veteribus quidam
ait (iii. 23, 3)—senior Apostolorum discipulus disputabat
(iv. 32, 1)—Aéyovow οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν Ἀποστόλων μαθηταί
(v. ὅ, 1.--- ἔφη τις τῶν προβεβηκότων (Υ. 17, 4)—quidam ante
nos dixit (iv. 41, 2)—é θεῖος πρεσβύτης.... ἐπιβεβόηκε..
εἰπών (i. 15,6). The last precedes some Iambic lines egainet
Marcus: cf, Grabe, ]. c.

88 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. .

ΟΗΑΡ. ΤΙ, Apostles,’ as he tells us, speak of ‘ Paradise, to

which the Apostle Paul was carried, and there
heard words unutterable to us in our present
state’ (2 Cor. xii. 4). In another place he
records the substance of that which he had heard
‘from an Elder who had heard those who had
seen the Apostles, and had learnt from them,’
to the effect that ‘the correction drawn from
the Scriptures was sufficient for the ancients
in those matters which they did without the
counsel of the Spirit.” In the course of the
argument, after instances from the Old Testa-
ment, the Elder alludes to ‘the Queen of the
South’ (Matt. xii. 42), the Parable of the Ta-
lents (Matt. xxv. 27), the fate of the traitor
(Matt. xxvi. 24), the judgment of disbelievers
(Matt. x.15); and also makes use of the Epistles
to the Romans (as St Paul's), to the Corinthians
(the first, by name), and to the Ephesians, and
probably to the First Epistle of St Peter’. In
another place an Elder appears to allude to the
Gospels of St Matthew and St John’*.

1 Tren. v. 5,1; Fr. vii. (Routh.)

2 Iren. iv. 27 (45); Fr. v. (Routh). The oblique con-
struction of the whole paragraph proves that Irenseus is
giving accurately at least the general tenor of the Elder’s
statement; and the quotations form a necessary part of it,
and cannot have been added for illustration. E.g. Non
debemus ergo, inquit ille Senior, superbi esse... .sed ipsi
timere....et ideo Paulum dixisse: Si enim naturalibus

ramis, δο. (Rom. xi. 21, 17.)
8 Iren. iv. 81 (49); Fr. vi. (Routh). The reference to St

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 89

Thus each great division of the New Testa- cHap. 1.
ment is again found to be recognized in the Tusthis ration a
simultaneous teaching of the Church. We have a each ach great di
already traced in the disciples of the Apostles Nev New ἴδια.
the existence of the characteristic peculiarities
by which they were themselves marked; and we
can now see that their writings still remained
in the next generation to witness at once to the
different forms and essential harmony of their
teaching. Polycarp, who united by his life two
great ages of the Church, reconciles in his own
person the followers of St James and St Paul:
he was the friend of Papias as well as the
teacher of Irenseus,

§3. The Evangelists in the reign of Trajan.

Hitherto Christianity has been viewed in its The change
inward construction: now it will be regarded in #8"
its outward conflicts. It is no longer ‘a work
for silence, but for might.’ Truth is not only
strengthened, consolidated, developed to its full
proportions: it is charged to conquer the world.

In what way this charge was accomplished must
now be seen.

It is, then, at the outset, very worthy of The carly
notice that Eusebius introduces the mention εἰς δὲ have

Gospels

Matthew (xi. 19) is remarkable from being introduced by
‘Inquit ;’ that to St John (viii. 56) is more uncertain.

90 ‘THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHaP.1 of New Testament Scriptures into the striking
description which he gives of the zeal of the
first Christian missionaries. ‘They discharged
the work of Evangelists,’ he says, speaking of
the time of Trajan, ‘zealously striving to preach
Christ to those who were still wholly ignorant
of Christianity (ὁ τῆς πίστεως λόγος), and to de-
liver to them the Scripture of the divine Gospels
(τὴν τῶν θείων εὐαγγελίων παραδιδόναι γραφήν)"
The statement may not be in itself convincing
as an argument; but it falls in with other tra-
ditions which affirm that the preaching of Chris-
tianity was, even in the earliest times, accom-
panied by the circulation of written Gospels;
for these were at once the sum of the Apostolic
message—the oral Gospel—and its represen-
tative?, Thus, in the other glimpse which Euse-
bius gives of the labours of Evangelists—‘ men
inspired with godly zeal to copy the pattern of
the Apostles "—the written Word again appears.
Thus Panto Panteenus, towards the end of the second cen-
Soret of Ἢ tury, penetrated ‘even to the Indians; and there
mnie it is said that he found that the Gospel according
180. to Matthew had prevented his arrival, among

some there who were acquainted with Christ,

A.D.
98—117.

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 37.
2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 24: Ματθαῖος ... . Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας
.. τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, τούτοις ad’ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ
τῆς γραφῆς arenAnpov. The traditions of the origin of the
Gospels of St Mark and St Luke point to the same fact, _—

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 91

to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had cuap. u.
preached, and given on his departure (κατα-
λεῖψαι) the writing of Matthew in Hebrew
letters’.’... The whole picture may not be
original ; but the several parts harmonize exactly
together, and the general effect is that of reality

and truth.

§ 4. The Athenian Apologists.

At the same time at which the first Evan- thepiace
gelists were extending the knowledge of Chris- 9ftte art
tianity, the first Apologists were busy in con-
firming its authority? While Asia and Rome
had each their proper task to do in the building
of the Church, it was reserved for the country-
men of Socrates to undertake the formal defence
of its claims before the rulers of the world.

The occasion of this new work arose out of the
celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries—those
immemorial rites which seem to have contained
all that was deepest and truest in the old re-
ligion, During his first stay at Athens, Hadrian rose ng
suffered himself to be initiated; and probably
because the Emperor was thus pledged to the

I Euseb. H. E. v. 10. Cf. Heinichen, l.c. e¢ add. Pan-
teenus was at the head of the Catechetical School of Alexan-
dria in the time of Commodus (Euseb. v. 9); and his journey
to India probably preceded his appointment to that office.

3 Euseb. H. E. iii. 37.

92 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHAP.1II. support of the national faith, the enemies of the
Christians set on foot a persecution against
them. On this, or perhaps not until his second

c.a.v.180. visit to the city, Quadratus, ‘a disciple of the
Apostles', offered to him his Apology, which is
said to have procured the well-known rescript to
Minucius in favour of the Christians 3,

Thecharncter ‘This Apology of Quadratus was generally

tory of Gusd- current in the time of Eusebius, who himself
possessed a copy of it; ‘and one may see in it,’
he says, ‘clear proofs both of the intellect of the
man and of his apostolic orthodoxy%,’ The single
passage which he has preserved shows that

1 Hieron. de Virr. Ill. xix. It is disputed whether the
Apologist was identical with the Bishop of the same name,
who is said to have ‘brought the Christians of Athens again
together who had been scattered by persecution, and to have
rekindled their faith’ (Euseb. H. E. iv. 23). The narrative
of Eusebius leaves the matter in uncertainty. (Cf. iii. 37;
iv. 3, with iv. 23). Jerome identifies them (1. c.; Ep. ad
Magn. 84), and Cave supports his view (Hist. Litt. i. an.
123). Cf. Routh, Rell. Sacre, i. 72 8q.

2 Cf. Routh, l.c. The details of the history are very
obscure. If Jerome speaks with strict accuracy when he
says, ‘ Quadratus.... Adriano principi Eleusine sacra invi-
senti librum pro nostra religione tradidit, the Apology must
be placed at the time of Hadrian’s first visit; otherwise it
seems more likely that it should be referred to the second.
Pearson (ap. Routh, p. 78) fixes the date on the authority of
Eusebius (?) at 127. The rescript to Minucius is found in
Just. Mart. Ap. i. ad f.

8H. E. iv. 3: ἐξ οὗ [συγγράμματος] κατιδεῖν ἐστὶ λαμπρὰ
τεκμήρια τῆς τε τοῦ ἀνδρὸς διανοίας καὶ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ὀρθο-
τομίας.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 93

Quadratus insisted rightly on the historic worth cua. π.
of Christianity. ‘The works of our Saviour,’ he
argues, ‘were ever present; for they were
real :—those who were healed :—those who were
raised from the dead :—who were not only seen
at the moment when the miracles were wrought,
but also [were seen continually, like other men]
being ever present; and that not only while the
Saviour sojourned on earth, but also after his
departure for a considerable time, so that some
of them survived even to our times’.’

A second ‘Apology for the Faith,’—‘a ra- The Apology
tionale of Christian doctrine °—was addressed to
Hadrian by Aristides, ‘a man of the greatest
eloquence,’ who likewise was an Athenian, and
probably wrote on the same occasion as Quad-
ratus*. Eusebius and Jerome speak of the book

1 The original cannot be quoted too often: Tod δὲ
Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν τὰ ἔργα ἀεὶ παρῆν᾽ ἀληθῆ γὰρ ἦν᾽ οἱ θεραπεν-
Oévres’ οἱ ἀναστάντες ἐκ νεκρῶν᾽ οἱ οὐκ ὥφθησαν μόνον θερα-
πενόμενοι καὶ ἀνιστάμενοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ πάροντες᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιδη-
μοῦντος μόνον τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντος ἦσαν ἐπὶ
χρόνον ἱκανὸν, wore καὶ els τοὺς ἡμετέρους χρόνους τινὲς αὐτῶν
ἀφίκοντο (Euseb. Η. E. iv. 3). The repetition of ὁ Σωτὴρ
absolutely is remarkable; in the New Testament, and in the
Apostolic Fathers, it occurs only as a title. The usage of
Quadratus clearly belongs to a later date. It appears again
in the Letter to Diognetus (c. 9), and very frequently in the
fragment on the Resurrection appended to Justin’s works
(co. 2, 4, 6, 7, &c.)

2 Hieron. de Virr. Jil. xx. Volumen nostri dogmatis
rationem continens. Fragm. Martyrol., ap. Routh, p. 76,

94 ‘THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

caaP.it as still current in their time, but they do not
: appear to have read it. Jerome, however, adds
that ‘in the opinion of scholars it was a proof of
the writer's ability ;’? and this falls in with what
he elsewhere says of its character, that it was
constructed out of philosophic elements!, Aris-
tides, in fact, like Justin, was a philosopher; and
did not lay aside his former dress when he be-

came a Christian 5,
Both witness Nothing, it will be seen, can be drawn di-
Hedoctrine rectly from these scanty notices in support of
the Canon; but the position of the men gives
importance even to the most general views of
their doctrine. They represent the teaching of
Gentile? Christendom in their generation, and
witness to its soundness. Quadratus is said to
have been eminently conspicuous for the gift of

Aristides philosophus, vir eloquentissimus .... If there were
sufficient reason for the supposition that Quadratus himself
suffered martyrdom in the time of Hadrian, the Apology of
Aristides might be supposed to have been called forth at
that time.

1 Hieron. 1. 6. apud philologos ingenii ejus indicium est;
ad Magn. Ep. 84 (Routh, p. 76). Apologeticum pro Chris-
tianis obtulit contextum philosophorum sententiis, quem
imitatus postea Justinus, et ipse philosophus.

2 Hieron. l.c. Dorner (i. 180) says the same of Quad-
ratus, but I cannot tell on what authority. Probably the
names were interchanged.

δ Yet Grabe’s conjecture with regard to the rule attri.
buted to Quadratus in a Martyrology ‘ ut nulla csca a Chris.
tianis repudiaretur, que rationalis et humana est,’ seems very
plausible. Routh, p. 79.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 95

prophecy'; and yet he appealed with marked cnar. 1.
emphasis, not to any subjective evidence, but to

the reality of Christ’s works. Aristides investi-

gated Christianity in the spirit of a philosopher ;

and yet he was as conspicuous for faith as for
wisdom’. Their works were not only able, but

in the opinion of competent judges they were
orthodox.

ὃ 5. The Letter to Diognetus.

In addition to the meagre fragments just te tetter to
Diognetus.
reviewed, one short work—the so-called Letter
to Diognetus—has been preserved entire, or
nearly so, to witness to the character of the
earliest apologetic literature’, It differs, how-
ever, from the Apologies in this, that it was
written in the first instance to satisfy an inquirer,
and not to conciliate an enemy. It is anonymous,
resembling in form a speech much more than a
letter, and there are no adequate means of
determining its authorship. For a long time it
was attributed to Justin Martyr ; but it is equally Rot witten
Justin,
1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 37; v. 17. bus
2 Hieron. ad Magn. l|.c.: fide vir sapientiaque admira-
bilis. Another very remarkable testimony to the character
of his teaching is found in the Martyrolog. Rom. (ap. Routh,
p- 80). Quod Christus Jesus solus esset Deus preesente ipso
Imperatore luculentissime peroravit.
3 Like the Epistles of Clement it is at present found

only in one ancient MS. Cf. Otto, Just. Bart. ii., proleg.
xiv. xx. sqq. Stephens may have had access to another.

CHAP. IL

purely Greek.

96 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

alien in thought and style from his acknowledged
writings; and the mainstay of such a hypothesis
seems to be the pardonable desire not to leave
ἃ gem so precious without an owner', Other
names have been suggested; but in the absence
of external evidence they serve only to express
the character of the Essay. It is eloquent, but
that is no sure sign that it was written by Apollos.
It is opposed to Judaism, but that is no proof
that it proceeded from Marcion®. It may be
the work of Quadratus® or Aristides; but it is

1 The evidence on which we conclude that it cannot be
Justin’s is briefly this: (1) It is contained in no catalogue of
his writings. (2) Justin’s style is cumbrous, involved, and
careless; while that of the Letter to Diognetus is simple,
vigorous, and classical. (3) Justin regards idolatry, Judaism,
even Christianity itself, from a different point of view.
Idols, according to him, were really tenanted by spiritual
powers (Apol. i. 12), and were not mere stocks or stones
(ad Diogn. 2): the Mosaic Law was a fitting preparation for
the Gospel (Dial. 6. Tr. xziii.), and not an arbitrary system
(ad Diogn. 4): Christianity was the completion of that
which was begun in men’s hearts by the seminal word (Ap.
ii. 13), so that they were not, even in appearance, left
uncared for by God before Christ came (ad Diogn. c. 8).
The second ground is in itself decisive; the doctrinal dif-
ferences can be more or less smoothed down by the com-
parison of other passages of Justin: 6g. Ap. i. 9; Dial. ὁ.
Tr. 46 f.

2 Lumper (ap. Mohler, 165) and Gallandi (ap. Hefele,
Lxxix.) suggest Apollos. Bunsen (Hipp. i. 187) ‘believes
that he has proved {in an unpublished work) that [the first
part] is the lost early letter of Marcion.’

8 Cf. Dorner, i. 178 anm.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 97

enough that we can regard it as the natural out- cHaP. 11.
pouring of a Greek heart holding converse with

a Greek mind in the language of old _ philoso-

phers.

The question of the authorship of the Letter te Letter
being thus left in uncertainty, that of its in-‘vo™™
tegrity still remains. As it stands at present it
consists of two parts (cc. 1.—x.; xi., xii.) con-
nected by no close coherence; and at the end of
the first the manuscript marks the occurrence of
a ‘chasm!.’. The separation thus pointed out is
fully established by internal evidence. The first Their charac.
part—the true Letter to Diognetus—is every-
where marked by the characteristics of Greece;
the second by those of Alexandria. The one, so
to speak, sets forth truth ‘rationally,’ and the
other ‘ mystically.” The centre of the one is
faith: of the other, knowledge. The different
manner in which they treat the ancient Covenant
illustrates their relation. The Mosaic institu-
tions—sabbaths, and circumcision, and fasts—
are at once set aside in the Letter to Diognetus
as palpably ridiculous and worthless. In the
concluding fragment, on the contrary, ‘the fear
of the Law and the grace of the Prophets’ are
united with ‘the faith of the Gospels and the

1 Cf. Otto, ii, p. 201, n. The words are: καὶ ὧδε ἐγκοπὴν
εἶχε τὸ ἀντίγραφον.
H

98 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuar.m. tradition of the Apostles’ as contributing to the
wealth of the Church’.

The date of | Indications of the date of the writings are

Diognetus. “not wholly wanting. The address to Diognetus
was composed after the faith of Christians had
been tried by wide-spread persecution, which had
not even at that time passed over?; and, on the
other hand, a lively faith in Christ’s speedy

1 It is always impossible to convey by words any notion
of the variations in tone, and language, and manner, which
are instinctively felt in comparing two cognate, but separate
books; and yet the distinction between the two parts of the
‘Letter to Diognetus’ seems to me to be shown clearly by
these subtle, but most real differences. In addition to this
the argument is completed at the end ofc. x. according to
the plan laid down in c. i.; and the close of 6. xi. seems to
imply a different motive for writing. On the other hand, it
is quite wrong to insist on the fact that ‘the second frag-
ment addresses not one, but many,’ for the singular is used
as often as the plural (c. xi: ἣν χάριν μὴ λυπῶν ἐπιγνώσῃ.
6. xii: fro σοὶ καρδία γνῶσις.)

There may have been a formal conclusion after 6. x.,
but even now tho termination is not more abrupt than that
to Justin’s first Apology, and it expresses the same motive—
a regard to future judgment (c. x. f.; Just. Ap. i. 68)
In c. vii. there is a lacuna. Cf. n. (2.)

2 6, vii.: [οὐχ ὁρᾷς] παραβαλλομένους θηρίοις ... It is impos-
sible to read the words without thinking of the martyrdom
of Ignatius, which may, indeed, have suggested them.

Just before παραβαλλομένους there is a lacuna; οὐχ ὁρᾷς is
introduced from the next sentence. The MS. has the note:
οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ εὗρον ἐγκοπήν, παλαιοτάτον ὄντος
(Otto, ii. p. 184, n.) It is quite unnecessary to alter the
last words as Otto wishes. Cf. Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 710 0.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 99

Presence (παρουσία) still lingered in the Church!, omar. u.

The first condition can hardly be satisfied before

the reign of Trajan ; and the second forbids us to ©. 117 a.v.

bring the letter down to a much later time. In
full accordance with this Christianity is spoken
of as something ‘recent ;’ Christians are a ‘new
class ;’ the Saviour has been only ‘now’ set forth*.

The concluding fragment is more recent, but
still, I believe, not later than the first half of the

second century. The greater maturity of style, The date of
and the definite reference to St Paul, can be somewhat

explained by the well-known activity of religious το
thought, and the early advancement of Chris-
tian literature at Alexandria’. And everything
else in the writing betokens an early date. The

1 6, vil.: ταῦτα τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ S8eiypara. The word
does not occur in this sense in the Apostolic Fathers. Justin
speaks of the second παρουσία without alluding to its ap-
proach: Dial. ὁ. Tr. cc. xxxi., xxxii.

2 cc. i. ii. This argument is of weight when connected
with the others, though not so independently. Our view of
the date of the Letter is not inconsistent with the belief that
it was addressed to Diognetus, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius.
That prince openly adopted the dress and doctrines of the
Stoics when twelve years old (133 a.p.); and if we place
the Epistle at the close of the reign of Trajan (c. 117 a.p.)
there is no difficulty in reconciling the dates.

8. ¢. xii.: ὁ ἀπόστολος. The antagonism between the Ser-
pent (7δονή) and Eve (αΐσθησις) was commented on by Philo,
Leg. Alleg. ii. §§ 18 sqq. Τὴν ὀφιομάχον οὖν γνώμην avrirarre
καὶ κάλλιστον ἀγῶνα τοῦτον diaOAnoov .... κατὰ τῆς τοὺς ἄλλους
ἅπαντας νικώσης ἡδονῆς... (δ 26.) Cf. Just. M. Dial. 6. 100
and Otto, J. ¢.

H2

CHAP. IL

and St John.

100 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

author speaks of bimself as ‘a disciple of Apo-
stles and a teacher of Gentiles'... The Church,
as he describes it, was still in its first stage’.
The sense of personal intercourse with the Word
was fresh and deep. Revelation was not then
wholly a thing of the Past’.

In one respect the two parts of the book are
united, so far as they exhibit a combination of
the teaching of St Paul and St John. The love
of God, it is said in the Letter to Diognetus, is
the source of love in the Christian; who must
needs ‘love God who thus first loved him (zpoa-
γαπήσαντα), and find an expression for this love
by loving his neighbour, whereby he will be ‘an
imitator of God.’ ‘For God loved men, for
whose sakes he made the world, to whom He

1 ¢. xi. init.

2 ¢, xii. δι: ...carnptoy δείκνυται καὶ ἀπόστολοι συνετίζον-
ται, καὶ τὸ κυρίου πάσχα προέρχεται, καὶ κληροὶ συνάγονται, καὶ
μετὰ κόσμου ἁρμόζονται, καὶ διδάσκων ἁγίους ὁ Λόγος εὐφραίνεται,
δ᾽ οὗ Πατὴρ δοξάζεται. I have adopted the admirable emen-
dation κληροὶ (1 Pet. v. 3) for κηροὶ, printed by Bunsen
(Hipp. i. p. 192), though in p. 188 he seems to read καιροί.
It does not appear on what authority Otto says ‘ Designantur
cerei, quibus Christiani potissimum tempore paschali uteban-
tur;’ if it were 80, κηροὶ συνάγονται would still be a marvellous
expression. Cf. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. ii. 461 sq. The
phrase παράδοσις ἀποστόλων φυλάσσεται is of no weight
against this opinion. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 2.

δ The phrase already quoted, (note (2)) ‘the Lord’s
passover advances,’ seems to point to the early Paschal con-
troversy. Ifa special date must be fixed, I should be inclined
to suggest some time betweon 140—150. |

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 101
subjected all things that are in the earth,...unto oHaP.u.

whom (πρός) He sent His only-begotten Son, to
whom He promised the kingdom in heaven (τὴν
ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλείαν), and will give it to those who
love Him',’ God’s will is mercy: ‘ He sent His
Son as wishing to save (ws σώζων) ... and not
to condemn ;’ and as witnesses of this, ‘ Chris-
tians dwell in the world, though they are not of
the world.’ So in the Conclusion we read that
‘the Word Who was from the beginning,’ ‘at
His appearance, speaking boldly, manifested...
the mysteries of the Father to those who were
judged faithful by Him.’ And those again to
whom the Word speaks ‘from love of that which
is revealed to them’ share their knowledge with
others. And this is the true knowledge which
is inseparable from life; and not that false know-
ledge of which the Apostle says, ‘knowledge
puffeth up, but love edifieth?.’

The presence of the teaching of St John is Hor tar the

here placed beyond all doubt. There are, how-

ever, no direct references to the Gospels through- Dioseus.

out the Letter, nor, indeed, any allusions to our

lex. Cf. 1 John iv. 19, 11; Eph. v. 1; John iii. 16;
(James i. 12.) I cannot call to mind a parallel to the phrase
ἢ ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλεία.

8 cc. xi., xii. Cf. John i. 1, 18; 1 Cor. viii. 1. The
phrase παῤῥησίᾳ λαλεῖν is peculiar to St John among the New
Testament writers with the exception of Mark viii. 82. "E¢
ἀγάπης τῶν ἀποκαλνφθέντων is a very note-worthy expression.

102 THE AGE OF THF GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuaP.¥ Lord’s discourses; and with regard to the Syn-

a optic Evangelists, it is more difficult to trace

the marks of their use. From time to time the

writer to Diognetus appears to show familiarity
with their language; but this is all!.

fer- The influence of the other parts of the New

meat ἴα the Testament on the Letter is clearer. In the first

ognetus; and nart the presence of St Paul is even more dis-

cernible than that of St John. In addition to

Pauline words and phrases*, whole sections are

constructed with manifest regard to passages in

the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and

Galatians; and there are other coincidences of

language more or less evident with the Acts, and

with the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians,

the First Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to

Titus, and.with the First Epistle of Peter?, In

1 Compare Matt. vi. 25-31; xix. 17, with ce. ix., viii. ;
and also Matt. v. 44; xix. 26, with cc. vi., ix.

2 The following phrases may be noticed: ἀποδέχομαί
τινά rivos—rd ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεω----τὸ τῆς θεοσε-
βείας μυστήριον----οἰκονομίαν πιστεύεσθαι----τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουρ-
γός (ΗΘ Ὀγ.)---μιμητὴς Θεοῦ----κατὰ σάρκα ζὴῆν----καινὸς ἄνθρωποε.

Among the Pauline words are: παρεδρεύειν (1 Cor. ix. 13)
--θεοσέβεια---- δεισιδαιμονία ---- χορηγεῖν ---- ovwjbera—npooded-
μενος----παραιτοῦμαι----πολιτεύομαι---ἀφθαρσία----ἐκλογή--- ὁμολο-
γουμένως---ὑπόστασις (Hebr.)

The peculiarities in the language of the Letter may be
judged from these examples : ὑπερσπουδάζειν ---προκατέχειν»----
ἐξομοιοῦσθαι ---- ἐγκαταστηρίζειν — ἀπερινόητος ---- παντοκτίστης 5
γεραίρειν----ψοφοδεής.--- μνησικακεῖν.

3 Compare c. ix. with Rom. iii. 21-26, and Gal. iv. 4;

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 103

the second fragment there i is, in addition to the 654». 1.
~4—__-

references to St John, to the Gospels generally, in the secmna
and to the Epistle to the Corinthians already το
mentioned, an apparent reminiscence of a passage
in the First Epistle to Timothy’.

The conclusion of the Letter has, however, The‘Gnostig
a further importance as marking the presence of Seu."
a new element in the development of Christian smgment
philosophy. Knowledge (γνῶσις) is vindicated
from its connexion with heresy, and welcomed
as the highest expression of revealed truth. Be-
lievers are God's Paradise, bringing forth mani-
fold fruits; and in them, as in Paradise of old,
the tree of knowledge is planted hard by the
tree of Life; for it is not knowledge that
killeth, but disobedience. Life cannot exist
without knowledge; nor sure knowledge without
true Life. Knowledge without the witness of
Life is only the old deception of the serpent.
The Christian’s heart must be knowledge; and
his Life must be true Reason. In other words,
Christian wisdom must be the spring of action,
and Christian life the realization of truth*. The
groundwork of this teaching lies in the relation
of the Word to man. The Incarnation of the
and c. v. with 2 Cor. vi. 9,10. The following references
also are worthy of remark: Acts xvii. 24, 25—c. iii.:
Eph. iv. 21-24—c. ii.; Phil. iii. 18 sqq.—c. v.: 1 Tim. iii.
16—c. iv.: Tit. iii, 4—c. ix.: 1 Pet. iii. 18——c. ix.

1 Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16 with c. xi. 2 6. xii.

104 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cuar.it. Eternal Word is connected intimately with His

Birth from time to time in the heart of the

believer'. The same Word which manifested

the mysteries of the Father when He was shown
to the world, is said still to converse with whom

He will*: The Word is still the teacher of the

saints?,

How cor- In this doctrine it is possible to trace the
germs of later mysticism, but each false dedue-
tion is excluded by the plain recognition of the
correlative objective truth. The test of know-
ledge is the presence of Life‘; and the influence
of the Word on the Christian is made to flow
from His historical revelation to mankind§,

1 Οὗτος ὁ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὁ καινὸς φανεὶς καὶ [παλαιὸς] εὑρεθεὶς
καὶ πάντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις γεννώμενος (6. xi.)

2 6. xi: ... ἐπιγνώσῃ ἃ Λόγος ὁμιλεῖ δὲ ὧν βούλεται ὅτε
θέλει.

ὃ 6, xii: διδάσκων ἁγίους ὁ Λόγος εὐφραίνεται.

It is to be remarked that the Word appears in both
parts of the Letter rather as the correlative to Reason
in man, (ζωὴ δὲ λόγος ἀληθής, Cc. xii.—d Oeds.... τὴν ἀλήθειαν
καὶ τὸν Λόγον τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀνθρώποις ἐνίδρυσε....
6. vii.), than as the expression of the creative Will of God.
Cf. Dorner, i. p. 411.

4 Ὁ γὰρ νομίζων εἰδέναι τι ἄνευ γνώσεως ἀληθοῦς καὶ papru-
ρουμένης ὑπὸ τῆς ζωῆς, οὐκ ἔγνω... .. 0. χὶΐ.

δ Εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἴδρνται.... 6. xi,

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 105

86, The Jewish Apologists.

The conclusion of the Letter to Diognetus ρα το ‘to
offers a natural transition to the few relics of the Judeo-"
Apologetic writings derived apparently from Jew- "=

ish authorship. It bears, as has been said, the
impress of Alexandria, and was probably the
work of a Jewish convert'. Coming from such
ἃ source it may be taken to show the Catholic
spirit of one division of Jewish Christendom ; but,
since it may seem that the freedom of thought
which distinguished Alexandria was unlikely to
foster Judaizing views, it becomes a matter of
importance to inquire whether there be any early
records of the Palestinian Church, their acknow-
ledged source and centre. A notice of one such

book,—the ‘Dialogue between Jason and Pa- re piaiogue
° 9 2 of Jason and
piscus,’ has been preserved’. It appears to have Papiscus

had a wide popularity, and was translated into
Latin in the third century’, Celsus, it is true,

1 This follows, I think, from the manner in which the
Book of Genesis is allegorized. In later writers such
interpretations became generally current. The contrast
which the fragment offers to the Epistle of Barnabas is very
instructive, as showing the opposite extremes deducible from
the same principles.

2 Routh, i. 95—109.

8 This is the date given by Cave. Others have placed it
as late as the end of the fifth century. The translation was
made by Celsus, and dedicated to Bishop Vigilius; but
nothing can be determined as to their identity. The preface

CHAP. II.

Its character.

106 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

thought that it was fitter for pity than for ridi-
cule; but Origen speaks highly of its dramatic
skill’. It is uncertain whether it has been
attributed rightly to Aristo of Pella; for that
late belief may have arisen from its known con-
nexion with the Church to which he belonged’.
The general plan of the writer, however, is
exactly characteristic of the position which a
teacher at Pella may be supposed to have occu-
pied. It was his object to represent a Hebrew
Christian convincing an Alexandrine Jew ‘from

to the translation is appended to many editions of Cyprian.
Cf. Routh, p. 109.

1 Orig. c. Cels. iv. 52.: Παπίσκον τινὸς καὶ Ἰάσονος ἀντι-
Aoyiay ἔγνων (in the words of Celsus) οὐ γέλωτος ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον
ἐλέους καὶ μίσους ἀξίαν. The book, as Origen allows, was
more adapted in some parts for the simpler sort of men
than for the educated: δυνάμενον μέν τι πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς
καὶ ἁπλουστέρους πίστεως χάριν συμβαλέσθαι, οὐ μὴν οἷόν τε
καὶ συνετωτέρους κινῆσαι (l.c.). Afterwards he adds: καίτυιγε
οὐκ ἀγεννῶς οὐδ' ἀπρεπῶς τῷ ᾿ἸΙουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ ἑτέρον
ἱσταμένου πρὸς τὸν λόγον.

2 Origen and Jerome quote the Dialogue without men-
tioning the author’s name; and it is not given in the Pre-
face of Celsus. The fragment quoted from Aristo by Euse-
bius (H. E. iv. 6) appears to belong to an entirely different
work. Maximus (7th cent.) is the earliest writer who attri-
butes the Dialogue to Aristo, adding: ἣν [διάλεξιν] Κλήμης
ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ἕκτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων τὸν ἅγιον
Λουκᾶν φησὶν ἀναγράψαι. This tradition is probably due to
the identification of Jason with the Jason mentioned in the
Acts (xvii. 5). ~

Of the Apology which Aristo is said to have offered to
Hadrian (Chron. Pasch. 477, ap. Routh, p. 104, if the reading
be correct,) nothing is known.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 107

the Old Testament Scriptures, (ex τῶν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν CHAP. τι.
γραφῶν), showing that the Messianic prophecies
were applicable to Jesus!’ To this end he
apparently made frequent use of allegorical in-
terpretations of Scripture; but it is more im-
portant to notice that he speaks of Jesus as
the Son of God, the Creator of the World’.
The words, though few, are key-words of Christi-
-anity, and, as the single expression of the early
doctrine of the Church of Palestine, they go far
to expose the unreality of the hypothesis which
exhibits it as Ebionitic. They do not prove any-
thing as to the existence of a New Testament
Canon; but, as far as they have any meaning,
they tend to show that no such divisions had
place in the Church as have been supposed to
render it impossible,

Agrippa Castor introduces a new form of the the writings

igen

1 Pref. Cels. ap. Routh, p. 97: Orig. 1. ο.

3 Orig. 1. c.:—Cels. Pref. Lc. :——Hieron. Quest. Hebr.
ii. 507 (ap. Routh, p. 95). In the last instance he reads
Gen. i. 1, In filio fecit Deus coolum et terram. Cf. Routh,

. 100.

8 The Dialogue was in circulation in the time of Celsus,
and consequently its composition cannot be placed long
after the death of Hadrian.

It may be concluded from Origen’s notice (1. c.) that the
doctrine of the Resurrection of the body suggested some of
Celsus’ objections, probably in connexion with the Second
Advent. The reference to ‘a strange and memorable
narrative’ contained in one of the Christian books probably

refers to the dialogue (compare ὁ. 53, p. 200, init. with c. 52,
init.)

108 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cxaP.i. Apology. Hitherto we have noticed in succes-
sion defences of Christianity addressed to perse-
cutors, philosophers, and Jews; he maintained
the truth against heretics. Nothing appears to
be known of his history. He is said to have
been a ‘very learned man,’ and was probably of
Jewish descent’. Eusebius speaks of him as a
contemporary of Saturninus and Basilides, and
adds, that he was the most famous among the-
many writers of the time ‘who defended the
doctrine of the Apostles and the Church chiefly
on philosophic principles (λογικώτερον)". In par-—
ticular, he composed ‘a most satisfactory (ixavw-
τατος) refutation of Basilides, in which he noticed
his commentaries on the Gospel, and exposed
the claims of certain supposititious (ανύπαρκτοι)
prophets, whom he had used to support his doc-

show signs of trines. This slight fact shows that historic

Uc. criticism was not wholly wanting in the Church
as soon as it was required. It would not, as far
as we can see, have been an easy matter to
secure a reception for forgeries, claiming to be
authoritative, even at the beginning of the second

century.

1 Vir valde doctus. Hieron. de Vir. 111. xxi. His Jewish
descent appears to follow from the fact that he charged
Basilides with teaching ‘ indifference in eating meats offered
to idols’ (Euseb. H. E. iv. 7); yet see Just. M. Dial. 6. 35.
His controversy with Basilides probably indicates some con-
nexion with Alexandria,

2 Euseb. lc.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGIsTS. 109

§ 7. Justin Martyr.

The writings and character of Justin Martyr
stand out in clear relief from the fragments and

CHAP. II.

The com
rative fulness
of our know-
ledge of

names which we have hitherto reviewed. In-°

stead of interpreting isolated phrases we can
now examine complete and continuous works:
nstead of painfully collecting a few dry details
from tradition we can contemplate the image
which a Christian himself has drawn of his own
life and experience. Justin was of Greek de-
scent, but his family had been settled for two
generations in the Roman colony of Flavia
Neapolis, which was founded in the time of
Vespasian near the site of the ancient Sichem!.
The date of his birth is uncertain, but it was
probably at the close of the first century. He
tells us that his countrymen generally were
addicted to the errors of Simon Magus®, but
it appears that he himself escaped that de-
lusion, and began his search for truth among
the teachers of the old philosophic schools.

1 Ap. i. 1.

2 Ap. i. 26: Σχεδὸν πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεῖς, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ
ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν ἐκεῖνον (Simon) dpodo-
γοῦντες [ἐκεῖνον] καὶ προσκυνοῦσι. Cf. Dial. c. 120. It is an
instructive fact that Sadduczism also prevailed in Samaria.
(Hipp.] Adv. Heer. ix. 29.

110 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ.1. First he applied to a Stoic'; but after some
Huownse- time he found that he learned nothing of God
Mae from him, and his master affirmed that such

knowledge was unnecessary. Next he betook
himself to a Peripatetic, ‘a shrewd man,’ he
adds, ‘in his own opinion.’ But before many
days were over, the Philosopher was anxious
to settle with his pupil the price of his lessons,
that their intercourse might prove profitable te.
them both. So Justin thought that he was no
philosopher at all; and still yearning for know-
ledge (τῆς ψυχῆς ἔτι crapywons) he applied to
a Pythagorean, who enjoyed a great reputation,
and prided himself on his wisdom. But a know-
ledge of Music, Astronomy, and Geometry, was
the necessary passport to his lectures; and, since
he was not possessed of it, Justin, as he seemed
near to the fulfilment of his hopes, was once
again doomed to disappointment. He fared
better, however, with a Platonist, his next teacher,
and in his company he seemed to grow wiser
every day. It was at that time—when ‘in his
folly,’ as he says, ‘he hoped soon to attain to a
clear vision of God,’—that, seeking calm and
retirement by the sea-shore, he met an aged
man, meek and venerable, who led him at length

1 The following account is given chiefly in a translation
from his own striking narrative. Dial. ce. ii. sqq.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGIsTsS. 111

from Plato to the Prophets, from metaphysics cuar.n.
to faith. ‘Pray before all things,’ were the last

words of this new master, ‘that the gates of

light be opened to you; for [the truths of reve-

lation] are not comprehensible by the eye or

mind of man, unless God and His Christ give

him understanding".’

‘Immediately a fire was kindled in my soul,’ Christianity

qgustin adds, ‘and I was possessed with a love for ‘Pty.
‘the prophets and those men who are Christ’s
friends*. And as I discussed his arguments with
myself I found Christianity to be the only philo-
sophy that is sure and suited to man’s wants.
(ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ σύμφορον). Thus then, and for
this cause, am I a philosopher.’

In the strength of his new conviction he tra- Te wideex-
yelled far and wide to spread the truth which he ™*#>"™
had found. In the public walk (cystus) at
Ephesus he held a discussion with the Jew
Trypho, proving from the Old Testament that
Jesus was the Christ. At Rome he is said to
have established a school where he endeavoured
to satisfy the doubts of Greeks. Everywhere he

1 Dial. c. vii. f.

2 This phrase, in connexion with the phrase immediately
below, βουλοίμην av... πάντας... μὴ ἀφίστασθαι τῶν τοῦ Σωτῆ-
ρος λόγων, seems to point to Christian Scriptures co-ordi-
nate with the Old Testament. The nature of tho first inter-
view with Trypho precluded any more immediate mention
of them at the time,

112 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ. 1. appeared ‘as an ambassador of the Divine Word
in the guise of a philosopher'’.’

His nume- His activity found frequent expression in
writing. Eusebius has given a list of such books
of his ‘as had come to his own knowledge,’
adding that there were besides ‘ very many other
works which were widely circulated*’ Of the
writings which bear his name now, two Apologies
and the Dialogue with Trypho are genuine be-,
yond all doubt; the rest are either undoubtedly:
spurious or reasonably suspected®. But those
three books are invaluable so far as they com-
bine to give a wide view of the relation of Chris-
tianity, not indeed to the Christian Church, but
to heathendom and Judaism.

ageeni sc: ‘The evidence of Justin is thus invested with

Bis books fo peculiar importance; and the difficulties by

narrative, which it is perplexed, though they have been
frequently exaggerated, are proportionately great.
Since a general view of its chief features will

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. ii. Cf. Dial. c. i. If the Cohortatio
ad Gentiles be Justin’s, we must add Alexandria to the cities
which he visited (c. xiii). Compare Semisch, Denkwiird.
Just. ss, 2 ff.

Credner (Beitr. i. 99) suggests Corinth as the place
where the Dialogue took place, if it be historical.

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 18.

There is, I believe, a difference of style and tone
which distinguishes the two Apologies and the Dialogue
from all the other works attributed to Justin. The question
is of little importance for our present inquiry, since the
Gospel-references are chiefly confined to the former.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGIsSTs. 113

render our inquiry into its extent and character cuap. 1.
easier and more intelligible, we may state by
anticipation that his writings exhibit a mass

of references to the Gospel-narrative—that they
embrace the chief facts of our Lord’s life, and

many details of His teaching—that they were
derived, at least frequently, from written records,

which he affirmed to rest upon Apostolic autho-

rity, and to be used in the public assemblies

of Christians, though he does not mention the
names of their authors. It is to be noticed
further that these references generally coincide,

both in facts and words, with what has been
related by the four Evangelists—that they imply
peculiarities of each of the Gospels—that, never-
theless, they show additions to the received
narrative, and remarkable variations from its

text, which are sometimes repeated by Justin,

and found also in other writings’.

Such are the various phenomena which must Various solu-
be explained and harmonized. At first the dif- problem.
ficulties of the problem were hardly felt, and the
testimony of Justin was quoted in support of
our Gospels without doubt or justification. But
when the whole question was fairly stated there
came a reaction, and various new hypotheses

1 Compare Semisch, Denkwiirdigkeiten Justin's (Ham-
burg, 1848); Credner, Beitrdge, i. 92—267 (Halle, 1832);
Schwegler, Nachapostolische Zeitalter, i. 217—231.

I

114 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP.IL were proposed as offering a better solution of it
- than the traditional belief. Some fancied that
Justin made use of one or more of the original
sources from which the Canonical Gospels were
derived. Others, with greater precision, iden-
tified his Memoirs of the Apostles with the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Others,
again, suggested that he made use of a Harmony
or combined narrative constructed out of Catholic
materials'. Further investigations showed that
these notions were untenable, and the old opinion
had again gained currency, when Credner main-
tained, with great sagacity and research, that we
must look for the peculiarities of his quotations
in a Gospel according to St Peter—one of the
oldest writings of the Church, which under
various forms retained its influence among Jewish
Christians even after the doctrine of St Paul
had obtained general reception’.
Their com: In one respect all these theories are alike.
tobeexa’ ‘They presuppose that Justin’s quotations cannot,
be naturally reconciled with a belief in his use
of our Gospels*. This is their common basis;

1 These various hypotheses are examined clearly and
satisfactorily by Semisch, 88. 16—33.

2 Beitriige, i. 266, &c.

3 Credner himself allows that Justin was acquainted with
the Canonical Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St
Luke, though he used in preference (p. 267) the Gospel of
St Peter. His acquaintance with the Gospel of St John he

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 115

and instéad of examining in detail the various cuaP.u.
schemes which have been built upon it, we may
inquire whether it be itself sound.

The first thing that must strike any one who 1. The

neral coinci-

examines a complete collection of the passages {i s{cou”
tions with
- in question, is the general coincidence in range ovr Gospels:

and contents with our Gospels. Nothing, for {2% donee
instance, furnished wider scope for Apocryphal
narratives than the history of the Infancy of our
Blessed Lord: nothing, on the other hand, could

be more fatal to Ebionism—the prevailing heresy

of the age, as we are told—than the early chap-

ters of St Matthew and St Luke. Yet Justin’s
account of the Infancy is as free from legendary
admixture as it is full of incidents recorded by

the Evangelists. He does not appear to have
known anything more than they knew; and he
tells, without doubt, what they have related.

He tells us that Christ was descended from a) Hissc

count of
considers more doubtful. Credner’s words are well worthy 7
of notice: ‘Justin kannte in der That, wie es auch kaum
anders denkbar ist, unsere Evangelien....Nur allein tiber
die Bekanntschaft Justin’s mit dem Ey. des Johannes lasst
sich, ausser der allgemeinem Analogie, nichts Bestimmtes
nachweisen’ (Beitriige, i. 258). It was, however, unlikely
that his conclusions should be allowed to remain so incom-
plete. Schwegler, for instance, says (i. 232):‘...80 hat er
(Justin) ohne Zweifel die εὐαγγέλια κατὰ Ματθαῖον, Μάρκον,
Ὁ. 8. f., bei denen es itiberdiess eine Frage ist, ob sie damals
schon existirten, nicht gekannt, sondern ausschliesslich das
sogenannte Evangelium Petri... .oder das mit demselben
identische Hebriier-evangelium beniitzt....’

12

CHAP. II.

116 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse,
and David'—that the Angel Gabriel was sent to
announce His Birth to the Virgin Mary?——that
this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah
(vii. 14)3—that Joseph was forbidden in a vision
to put away his espoused wife, when he was
so minded*—that our Saviour’s Birth at Beth-
lehem had been foretold by Micah'—that His
parents went thither from Nazareth, where they
dwelt, in consequence of the enrolment under
Cyrenius*—that as they could not find a lodging
in the village, they lodged in a cave close by it,
where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a
manger ’—that while there wise men from Arabia,

1 Dial. c. Tr. cc. 100, 120: ἐξ ὧν κατάγει ἡ Μαρία τὸ γένος.
Cf. c. 43. This interpretation of the genealogies was pro-
bably adopted early.

2 Dial. c. 100. Luke i. 35, 38.

3 Apol. i. 33. Matt. i. 22.

4 Dial. c. 78, Matt. i. 18 sqq.

5 Apol. i. 34; Dial. c. 78. Matt. ii. 5,6. The quotation
(Mic. v. 2) in Justin agrees verbally with that in St Matthew,
and differs very widely from the LXX., with the exception
that Justin omits τὸν Ἰσραήλ. Cf. Credner, Beitr. ii. 148 ἢ

6 Apol. i. 34: ἐπὶ Kupnviou τοῦ ὑμετέρον ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ πρώτον
γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου. Dial. c. 78. Cf. Credner, Beitr. i. 232 f.

7 Dial. c. 78:... Ἐπειδὴ Ἰωσὴφ οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ
ἐκείνῃ που καταλῦσαι, ἐν δὲ σπηλαίῳ τινε σύνεγγυς τῆς
κώμης κατέλυσε, καὶ τότε αὐτῶν ὄντων ἐκεῖ ἐτετόκει ἡ Μαρία
τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ἐν φάτνῃ αὐτὸν ἐτεθείκει... Luke ii. 6...
ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ (sic) διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ
καταλύματι. The two accounts seem to be simply supple-
mentary. Later Fathers (6. 5. Orig. ο. Cels. i. 51) speak

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 117

guided by a star, worshipped Him, and offered οβαρ. πὶ

Him gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, and by
revelation were commanded not to return to
Herod, to whom they had first come’—that He
was called Jesus‘as the Saviour of His people?—
that by the command of God His parents fled
with Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, and re-
mained there till Archelaus succeeded Him3—
that Herod, being deceived by the wise men,
commanded the children of Bethlehem to be put
to death, so that the prophecy of Jeremiah was
fulfilled who spoke of Rachel weeping for her
children*—that Jesus grew after the common
manner of men, and so waited thirty years,
more or less, till the coming of John the Bap-

of the Cave without any misgiving that they contradict St
Luke. Thilo has collected the authorities on the question:
Cod. Apocr. i. 381 sqq.

1 Dial. c. 78. Matt. ii. 11, 12.

3 Ap. i. 33. Matt. i. 21.

8 Dial. cc. 78, 103. Matt. ii. 19—23.

4 Dial. c. 78. Matt. xvi. 18. There is a natural exag-
geration in Justin’s language which forms a remarkable con-
trast to St Matthew. ‘Herod ordered,’ he says, ‘all the
children in Bethlehem without exception (ἁπλῶς) to be put to
death.’ Cf.c. 103. So, again, it is not insignificant that he ap-
peals to the prophecy (Jerem. xxxi. 15) in a different manner.
St Matthew says simply, τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθέν" but Justin
more definitely, τοῦτο ἐπροφητεύετο μέλλειν γίνεσθαι. He
transforms a typical event into a special prediction. In the
Gospel they are markedly distinguished.

The quotation is verbally the same in Justin and St
Matthew, differing widely from the LXX.

em

118 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ. τι. tist!. He tells us, moreover, that this John the son

(6) Hise of Elizabeth, came preaching by the Jordan the

John the baptism of repentance, wearing a leathern girdle

° and a raiment of camel’s hair, and eating only
locusts and wild honey*—that men supposed
that he was the Christ, to whom he answered,
‘I am not the Christ, but a voiee of one crying;
for He that is mightier than I will soon come
(ἥξει), whose sandals I am not worthy to bear?’—
that when Jesus descended into the Jordan, to
be baptized by him, a fire was kindled in the
river, and when He came up out of the water
the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon Him, and
@ voice came from heaven, saying, ‘Thou art
my Son; this day have I begotten Thee*’—that
immediately after His Baptism the devil came to
Jesus and tempted him, bidding Him at last to
worship him‘, He further adds, that Christ

1 Dial. c. 88. Luke ii. 40; iii. 23. The explanation of
the ὡσεὶ of St Luke is to be noticed.

2 Dial. c. 88, (cf. c. 49); Matt. iii. 1,4; Luke i. 13;
John i. 19 sqq. The phrase Ἰωάννου καθεζομένον ἐπὶ τοῦ
᾿Ιορδάνου, repeated by Justin (Dial. 88. 51) is changed into
καθεζομένου ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην in c. 49. There can be no reason
to think with Credner (p. 218) that Justin found the words
in his Gospel.

8 Dial. cc. 88, 103. Compare ii., (2), (y), below, for an
explanation of the Apocryphal additions to the text of the
Evangelists.

4 Dial. cc. 103, 125. The order of the Temptations
followed by Justin is therefore apparently that of St Matthew.
Semisch, s. 99 anm.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 119

Himself recognized John as the Elias who should cHar.11.
precede Him, ‘to whom men had done whatso- ΜΝΞ
ever they listed ;’ and thus he relates how Herod

put John into prison, and how the daughter of
Herodias danced before the king on his birthday

and pleased him; so that he promised to grant

her anything she wished, and that she, by her
mother’s desire, asked for the head of John to

be given her on a charger, and that so John was

put to death!,

Henceforth, after speaking in general terms () Hisse-
of the miracles of Christ—how ‘he healed all ===
manner of sickness and disease*’—Justin says
little of the details of His Life till the last great
events. Then he narrates the triumphal entry
into Jerusalem from Bethphage as a fulfilment
of prophecy’®, the cleansing of the Temple‘, the .
conspiracy of the Jews‘, the institution of the
Eucharist ‘for a remembrance of Christ®,’ the
singing of the Psalm afterwards’, the Agony at
night on the Mount of Olives, at which three of

1 Dial. c. 49. Matt. xvii. 11—13.

2 Ap. i. 6. 48; Dial. ο. 69. Matt. iv. 23.

3 Ap. i. 35; Dial. c. 53, The version of the prophecy
is different in the two passages. The first part, however, in
both agrees with the LXX. and differs from St Matthew;
the last words, on the contrary, agree better with St Matthew
than with the LXX. Cf. Semisch, ss. 117—119.

4 Dial. c. 17. 5 Dial. c. 104.

6 Ap. i. 66. Cf. Dial. 41; 70,

7 Dial. c. 106,

120 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHap.1. His disciples were present!, the prayer’, the

General

character o
this coinci-
dence.

bloody sweat’, the arrest*, the flight of the
Apostles®, the silence before Pilate’, the remand
to Herod’, the Crucifixion, the division of
Christ’s raiment by lot®, the signs and words of
mockery of the bystanders’, the Cry of Sorrow’®,
the Last Words of Resignation", the Burial in
the evening of Friday”, the Resurrection on Sun-
day'5, the Appearance to the Apostles and dis-
ciples, how Christ opened to them the Scrip-
tures"*, the calumnies of the Jews", the com-
mission to the Apostles!*, the Ascension”,

The same particularity, the same intertexture
of the narratives of St Matthew and St Luke—
for St Mark has few peculiar materials to contri-
bute—the same occasional introduction of a
minute trait, or of higher colouring, characterize
the great mass of Justin’s references to the
Gospel-history. These features are as distinctly
marked in his account of the Passion as of the
Nativity. There are some slight differences in
detail, which will be noticed afterwards, but the

1 Dial. c. 99. 3 Ibid.

8 Dial. c. 103. Cf. Ap. 50; Dial. 53. 4 Thbid.

S]bid. ¢ Dial.c.102. 7 Dial.c. 103. Luke xxiii, 7.
8 Dial. c. 97. Cf. Ap. i. 35.

9 Ap. i. 38; Dial. 101. 10 Dial. ὁ. 99.
11 Dial. c. 105. Luke xxiii. 46. 12 Dial. c. 97.
18 Ap. i. 67. 14 Dial. cc. 53, 106. Ap. i, 50.

15 Dial. 108. Matt. xxviii. 13. See ii. (2), (7), below.
16 Ap. i. 61. 17 Dial. 132. Ap. i. 46

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 121

broad resemblance remains unchanged. The cHar.1.
incidents of the Gospel-narrative to which Justin

refers, appear to be exactly such as he might

have derived from the four Evangelists.

The greater part of Justin’s references are, 9. coinc-
however, to the teaching of the Saviour, and not quotations of
to His works. He spoke of Christianity as a power ““""*
mighty in its enduring and godlike character.

He spoke of Christ as Him of whom the pro-

phets witnessed. But miracles—those transient

signs of a Divine Presence—are almost unno-

ticed in comparison with the words which bear

for ever the living stamp of their original source.

This form of argument was in some degree
imposed upon him by the position which he
occupied; but to such a mind as his it was no

less congenial than necessary, Whether he
addressed Heathen or Jews the fulfilment of
prophecy furnished him with a striking outward

proof of the claims of Christianity ; and the moral
teaching of Christ completed the impression by
introducing an inward proof. It was enough if cr ae
he could bring men to listen to the teaching of fone
the Church. It was not his task to anticipate?"
its office, or to do away with the discipline and
duties of the catechumen. To forget this is to

forget the very business of an Apologist. And Relation to
yet the entire consistency of his writings, with Gore.
their proposed end, has furnished an objection

122 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHaP.1L against the authenticity of St John’s Gospel.
For unless we put out of sight the purpose for
which Justin wrote, can it be a matter of wonder
that he makes few allusions to the ‘spiritual
Gospel’—that he exhibits few traces of those
deep and mysterious revelations which our Lord
vouchsafed under peculiar circumstances for the
conviction of his enemies, or for the confirmation
of believing hearts. ‘They were of no weight as
John v. 47. evidence, even as our Lord himself said ; and the
time was not yet come when Justin could natu-
rally unfold them to his hearers. The same
cause which retarded the publication of St
John’s Gospel deferred the use of it. It was a
spiritual supplement to the others—a light from
heaven to kindle them into life; but it was
necessary that the substance should exist before
the supplement could be added ; it was necessary
that the body should be fully formed before
the spirit—the highest life, could be infused
into it. — ° |
Colneldenees It has been already shown that the incidents
in the Life of Christ which Justin mentions
strikingly coincide with those narrated in the
Gospels; the style and language of the quota-
tions which he makes from Christ’s teaching
agree no less exactly with those of the Evan-
gelists. He quotes frequently from memory!; he

1 This follows from the fact that his quotations of the

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 123

interweaves the words which we find at present cHar.u.
separately given by St Matthew, St Mark, and
8t Luke'; he condenses, combines, transposes,
the language of our Lord as they have recorded
it?; he makes use of phrases characteristic of
different Gospels*; yet, with very few exceptions,
he preserves through all these changes the
marked peculiarities of the New Testament
phraseology, without the admixture of any foreign
element’.

And more than this: with the omission of Coincidences

same passage differ. Compare Ap. i. 15, Dial. c. 96; Ap. i. 16,
Dial. c. 101; Ap. i. 16, Ap. i. 62; Ap. i. 16, Dial. 76.
1 (a) Matthew and Luke: Dial. c. 17; 6. 51; 6. 76;
Ap. i. 193

(8) Matthew and Mark: Ap. i. 15.

3 E.g. Ap. i. 15, 43; Dial. cc. 49; 77, 78, &c.

8 (a) Words characteristic of St Matthew: 6. g. βασιλεία

τῶν οὐρανῶν----μαλακία---ἰἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν, de
Resurr. ο. iv.J—é πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς---
ἐῤῥέθη----βρέχειν---ἀνατελλειν (act.)

(8) Words characteristic of St Luke: 6. 9. xdpis—
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι----υἱὸς ὑψίστου.

(γ) Words characteristic of St John: 6. 9. τέκνα Θεοῦ
-“--προσκυνοῦμεν λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες----τὸ
ὕδωρ τῆς ζωῆς---πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος----φῶς.

4 The differences of language which I have noticed are
the following: καινὸν ποιεῖτε (Ap. i. 15, bis)—2&éppara mpo-
βάτων (Ap. i. 16; Dial. c. 35. Cf. Hebr. xi. 37)—oxodo-
πενδρῶν (Dial. ο. 76)--- ψευδαπόστολοι (Dial. ὁ. 35)—2d:xat0-
σύνην καὶ εὐσέβειαν πληροῦσθαι (Dial. ο. 93)—7 κλεῖς (Dial.
6. 17)--,ὀιμα (freq.) Credner (p. 260) quotes ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι
αὐτοῦ as a peculiarity, but surely without reason. Cf,
Matt. xviii. 5; xxiv. 5. Mark ix. 89. Luke ix. 48, 49; xxi. 8,

CHAP. II.

124 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

the Parables', which are rather lessons of wis-
dom than laws of authority, he refers to parts of
the whole series of our Lord’s discourses given
in the Synoptic Gospels; and attributes only two
sayings to Him which are not substantially found
there*. The first call to repentance’, the Sermon
on the Mount‘, the gathering from the East
and West5, the invitation to sinners*, the de-
scription of the true fear’, the charge to the
Apostles’, the charge to the Seventy®, the
mission of John”, the revelation of the Father",
the promise of the sign of Jonah!’’, the prophecy
of the Passion", the acknowledgement of Son-
ship", the teaching on the price of a soul’, on
marriage δ, on the goodness of God only ™, on the
tribute due to Cesar'®, on the two command-

1 The only references to the Parables are, I believe, to
that of the Sower, and of the Talents (Dial. ο. 125).

2 Dial. c. 47: Διὸ καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
elev’ Ἔν οἷς ἂν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ (κρίνω,
Credner). Dial c. 35. See below, ii. (2), (y).

8 Dial. ο. 51. Matt. iv. 17.

4 Ap. i. 15, 16. Dial. cc. 96, 105, 115, 133.

δ Dial. c. 76. 6 Ap. i, 15. 7 Ap. i. 19.

8 Dial. c. 82. Matt. x. 22.

9 Ap. i. 16. Luke x. 16. Dial. c. 76. Luke x. 19.

10 Dial. c. 51. Matt. xi. 12—15.

11 Ap. i. 63; Dial. c. 100. Matt. xi. 27.

12 Dial. c. 107. 18 Dial. cc. 76, 100.

14 Dial. ο. 76. 18 Ap. i. 18,

16 Ap. i. 15. Matt. xix. 12. Dial. 6. 81. Luke xx. 35, 36.

Δ Ap. i. 16; Dial. ο. 101. 18 Ap. i. 17.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS, 125

ments!, the woes against the Scribes and Phari- car. u.
sees’, the prophecy of false teachers‘, the de-
nouncement of the future punishment of the
wicked‘, the teaching after the Resurrection'—
are all clearly recognized, and quoted, if not
always in the language of any one Evangelist, at
least in the dialect of the New Testament. At
present we do not offer any explanation of the
peculiar form which Justin’s quotations wear. It
is sufficient to remark, that both in range and
tone, in substance and expression, they bear a
general and striking likeness to the contents of
our Gospels.

Up to this time it has been noticed that the ‘1. Justin's
quotations from the Gospel-history in the early ἔραν Tl
Fathers are almost uniformly anonymous. The ste. sles
words of Christ were as a living voice in the
Church, apart from any written record; and the
great events of His Life were symbolized in its
services. In Justin the old and new meet. He
habitually represents Christ as speaking, and not
the Evangelist as relating His discourses; but
he also distinctly refers to histories, the famous
‘Memoirs of the Apostles®,’ in which he found

1 Ap. i. 16; Dial. c. 93.

2 Dial. cc. 17, 112, 122.

8 Ap. i. 16; Dial. cc. 35, 82,

4 Ap. i.16; Dial. c. 76. Cf. Ap. i. 17; Luke xii. 48.

6 Ap. i. 61. Dial. c. 53.

© Ἀπομγημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων. Cf. p. 127, note 2.

126 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ. ΤΠ. written ‘all things concerning Jesus Christ.’
The nature of The peculiar objects which he had in view in his
called forno extant writings did not suggest, even if they
septs *f did not exclude, any minute description of these

records. It would have added nothing to the
vivid picture of Christianity which he drew for
the heathen to have quoted with exact precision
the testimony of this or that Apostle, even if
such a mode of quotation had been usual. One
thing they might require to know, and that he
tells them, that the words of Christ were still
the text of Christian instruction, that the ‘ Me-
moirs of the Apostles’ were still read, together
with the writings of the Prophets, in their
weekly services'. So, on the other hand, the
great difficulty in a controversy with a Jew was
to show that the humiliation and death of Christ
were reconcileable with the Messianic prophecies.
The chief facts were here confessed; and in
other points it was enough for the Apologist to
assert generally that the Memoirs which he
quoted rested upon Apostolic authority*.

The different The manner in which Justin alludes to these
whichhe Memoirs of the Apostles in his first Apology,

his Dialogue. The word was probably borrowed from Xenophon’s well-
known book. In various forms it appears frequently in
ecclesiastical Greek. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 (p. 81, note 1);
Ve 8 ‘wi. 25.
_ 3 Ap. i. 67.
2 Dial. c. 103. Sce p. 131, note 8.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 127

and in his Dialogue with Trypho, confirms what CHAP. I.
has been just said. If his mode of reference ὁ
were not modified by the nature of his subject,
it would surely have been the same in both.
As it is, there is a marked difference, and exactly
such, as might have been expected. In the
Apology, which contains nearly fifty allusions to
the Gospel-history, he speaks only twice of the
Apostolic authorship of his Memoirs, and in one
other place mentions them generally'. In the
Dialogue, which contains about seventy allusions,
he quotes them ten times as ‘the Memoirs of
the Apostles, and in five other places as ‘the
Memoirs?.’

This difference is still more striking if ex- me The quote
amined closely. Every quotation of our Lord’s 4Pcbsy-
words in the Apology is simply introduced by the

1 Ap. i. 66; 67; 33. Cf. c. 61.

2 It will be useful to give a classification of all the pas-
sages in which Justin quotes the ‘Memoirs, with the forms
of quotation. The following will suffice:

(a) Generally: τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστό-
λων. Dial. c. 100, γεγραμμένον ἐν τ. ἀπομν. τ. ἀπ.; cc. 101,
103, 104, 106, ἐν τ. dropy. τ. ἀπ. γέγραπται; c. 102, ἐν 7.
ἄπομν. τ. ἀπ. δεδήλωται: ©. 106, ἐν τ. ἀπομν. τ. ἀπ. δηλοῦται :
c. 88, ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι.

(8) Specially: Dial. c. 106: γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημο-
γεύμασιν αὐτοῦ (i.e. Πέτρου); c. 103 [ἀπομνημονεύματα) d
φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάν-
τῶν συντετάχθαι.

(y) τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα: Dial. c. 105, ἀπὸ τ. ἀπομν.
ἐμάθομεν : c. 105, ἐκ τ. ἀπομν. ἔμαθον : cc. 105, 106, 107, ἐν
ἀπομν. γέγραπται.

128 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP. 1. phrases, ‘thus Christ said, or ‘taught,’ or ‘ex-
horted ;? His words were their Own witness. For
the public events of His Life Justin refers to the
Enrolment of Quirinus and the Acts of Pilate!,
He quotes the ‘Gospels’ only when he must
speak of things beyond the range of common
history. Standing before a Roman emperor as
the apologist of the Christians, he confines him-
self as far as possible to common ground; and if
he is compelled for illustration to quote the
books of the Christians he takes care to show
that they were recognized by the Church, and
no private documents of his own. Thus, in
speaking of the Annunciation, he says: ‘And
the Angel of God sent to the Virgin at that
season, announced to her glad tidings, saying,
‘Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Spirit,
and bear a Son, and he shall be called the Son
of the Highest; and thou shalt call His name
Jesus; for He shall save His people from their
sins,’ as those who have written memoirs of
all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ
taught us, whom we believed, since also the

Δ Ap. 1. 84: ὡς καὶ μαθεῖν δύνασθε ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν
γενομένων ἐπὶ Κυρηνίον. Cap. 35: καὶ ταῦτα ὅτι γέγονε δύνασθε
μαθεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ἄκτων. Whether
Juatin referred to the apocryphal ‘Acts of Pilate’ which
Wo now havo, or not, is of no importance: it is only neces-

sary to romark the kind of ovidence which he thought best
sulted to his dosign.

- a ῳ.- --

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 190

prophetic Spirit said that this would come to cHap.1.
pass!.’ So again, when explaining the celebration
of the Eucharist, he adds: ‘The Apostles in the
Memoirs made by them, which are called Gos-
pels, have handed down that it was thus enjoined
on them’,..? And once more, when describing
the Christian Service he notices that ‘the Me-
moirs of the Apostles or the writings of the
Prophets are read, as long as the time admits*.’

There is no further mention of the Memoirs me quota-
in the Apology. In the Dialogue the case Dialogue."
was somewhat different. Trypho was himself
acquainted with the Gospel‘, and Justin’s lan-
guage becomes proportionately more exact.

The words of our Lord are still quoted very
often simply as His words, without any acknow-

1 Ap. i. 33: ὡς of ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν. Credner (p. 129)
raises 8 difficulty about this description. Where, he asks,
is the written Gospel which could contain all?—The quota-
tion points to St Luke; and St Luke himself tells us that
his Gospel contained an account ‘ of all things (περὶ πάντων)
that Jesus began to do and to teach’ (Acts i. 1). The co-
incidence is at least very worthy of notice. It removes the
difficulty, even if it do not also point to the very source of
Justin’s language.

2 Ap. i. 66. The conjecture that ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια
is a gloss is very unfortunate. It could not be intended for
the information of Christian readers; and a copyist would
scarcely be likely to supply for the use of heathen what
Justin had not thought fit to add.

3 Ap. i. 67.

4 Dial. 9. 10: ra ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίφ.

180 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHAP.1L Jedgment of a written record; but from time to
time, when reference is made to words of more
special moment, so to speak, it is added that
Coincidences they are so ‘written in the Gospel'.’ In one
passage the contrast between the substance of
Christ’s teaching and the record of it is brought
out very clearly. After speaking of the death of
John the Baptist, Justin adds: ‘ Wherefore also
our Christ when on earth told those who said
that Elias must come before Christ: ‘“ Elias in-
deed will come, and will restore all things; but
I say to you that Elias came already, and they
knew him not, but did to him whatsoever they
St Marra, listed.” And it is written, “Then understood the
disciples that he spake to them concerning John
the Baptist®.’” In another place it appears that
Justin refers particularly to one out of the
Memoirs. ‘The mention of the fact,’ he says,
‘that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of
the Apostles, and that the event has been written
in his (Peter’s) Memoirs, together with His having
changed the name of two other brethren, who
&Masx, were sons Of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges,
tended to signify that He was the same through
whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob,
and Joshua to Oshea*.’ Now the surname given

1 Cf. below, ii. (2), (a).
2 Dial. c. 49; Matt. xvii. 13; cf. below, 1. σ.
8 Dial..o. 106; Mark iii. 16, 17.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 131

to James and John is only found at present in cHaP.1.
one of our Gospels, and there it is mentioned in
immediate connexion with the change of Peter’s
name. That Gospel is the Gospel of St Mark,
which by the universal voice of antiquity was
referred to the authority of St Peter'. That
Justin found in his Memoirs facts at present
peculiar to St Luke’s narrative, is equally clear.
‘And Jesus, as He gave up His Spirit upon the st Luxe.
cross, he writes, ‘said, “ Father, into Thy hands

I commend my spirit:” as I learned from the
Memoirs’.’

But this is not all: in his Apology Justin sere decry
speaks of the Memoirs generally as written by authorship of
the Apostles. In the Dialogue his words are
more precise: ‘In the Memoirs, which I say were
composed by the Apostles and those who followed
them, [it is written] that sweat as drops [of blood]
streamed down [from Jesus], as He was praying
and saying, “ Let this cup, if it be possible, pass
away from τη" The description, it will be

1 Cf. p. 81, note (1).

2 Dial. c. 105; Luke xxiii. 46.

3 Dial. c. 103: ἐν rots ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, & φημι ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (Luke i. 3)
συντετάχθαι, [γέγραπται), ὅτι ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο,
αὐτοῦ εὐχομένον καὶ λέγοντος᾽ Παρελθέτω, εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ποτή-
ριον τοῦτο. Luke xxii. 44; (Matt. xxvi. 39). The omission
of the word αἵματος was probably suggested by the passage
in the Psalm (xxi. 14) which Justin is explaining, (Semisch,
Ῥ. 147). It cannot have arisen from any Docetic tendency,

K 2

182 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.IL geen, precedes the quotation of a passage found
in St Luke, the follower of an Apostle, and not
an Apostle himself. Some such fact as this is
needed to explain why Justin distinguishes at
this particular time the authorship of the records
which he used. And no short account would
apply more exactly to our present Gospels than
that which he gives. Two of them were written
by Apostles, two by their followers. There were
many apocryphal Gospels, but it is not known
that any one of them bore the name of a fol-
lower of the Apostles. The application of Jus-
tin’s words to our Gospels seems indeed abso-
lutely necessary when they are compared with
those of Tertullian, who says’: ‘we lay down as
Tertullian. g principle first that the Evangelic Instrument

has Apostles for its authors, on whom this charge

of publishing the Gospel was imposed by the

as the whole context shows. The whole pericope (vv. 43,
44) is omitted by very important authorities, but I cannot
find that αἵματος alone is omitted elsewhere than in Justin.
Cf. Griesbach, with Schulz’s additions, ad 1.

Epiphanius, (adv. Her. ii. 2. 59, quoted by Semisch)
insists on the sweat only, though he quotes the verse at
length.

1 Tertull. Adv. Mare. iv. 2: Constituimus imprimis evan-
gelicum instrumentum apostolos autores hubere, quibus hoc
munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum;
si ot apostolicos, non tamen solos sed cum apostolis et post
apostolos....Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes

et Matthseus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus in-
staurant.... ᾿

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 133

Lord Himself; that if [it includes the writings cHaP. τι.
of } Apostolic men also, still they were not alone,
but [wrote] with [the help of] Apostles and
after [the teaching of ] Apostles... In fine, John
and Matthew out of the number of the Apostles
implant faith in us, Luke and Mark out of the
number of their followers refresh it ...’

In addition to these cardinal quotations The sub-
from the Memoirs, Justin refers to them else- ustn'save:
where in his Dialogue for facts and words from men
the Evangelic history. As the exact form of all
these quotations will be examined afterwards, as
far as may be necessary, it will be sufficient now
to show only by a general enumeration the extent
of their coincidence with our Gospels'. They
include an account of the Birth of our Lord from
a Virgin®, of the appearance of a Dove at His
Baptism’, of His Temptation‘, of the conspiracy
of the Jews against Him‘, of the hymn which He
sang with His disciples before His betrayal®, of
His silence before Pilate’, of His Crucifixion at
the Passover’, of the mockery of his enemies®, So

1 It is interesting to compare this summary of special
references with the list of all Justin’s Evangelic references
given already, pp. 1165 ff.

2 Dial. o. 106. 8 Dial. c. 88.
4 Dial. c. 103. 5 Dial. c. 104.
6 Dial. c. 106; Matt. xxvi. 30.

7 Dial. o. 102; Luke xxiii. 9. 8 Dial. ο. 111.

® Dial. c. 101; Matt. xxvii. 39—43.

1384 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP. 11. likewise Justin quotes from them His reproof of
7 the righteousness of the Pharisees', and how He
gave them only the sign of Jonah’, and pro-
claimed that He alone could reveal the Father
to men’,
A summary This then is the sum of what Justin says of
the Memoirs of the Apostles. They were many,
and yet one‘: they were called Gospels: they
contained a record of all things concerning Jesus
Christ: they were admitted by Christians gene-
rally: they were read in their public services :
they were of Apostolic authority, though not
exclusively of apostolic authorship: they were
composed in part by Apostles and in part by
their followers. And further than this, we gather
that they related facts only mentioned at present
by one or other of the Evangelists: that thus
they were intimately connected with each one
of the synoptic Gospels: that they contained
nothing, as far as Justin expressly quotes them,
which our Gospels do not now substantially con-
tain. And if we go still further, and take in

1 Dial. c. 105; Matt. v. 20.

2 Dial. c. 107; Matt. xii. 38—41.

8 Dial. c. 100; Matt. xi. 27.

4 Ap. i. 66: ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια. Dial. ο. 100: ἐν τῷ
εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. This view of the essential oneness of
the Gospels explains very naturally the freedom with which
different narratives were combined in quotation. Irenseus

was the first apparently to recognize, however, imperfectly,
variety in this unity.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 135

the whole mass of Justin’s anonymous references cHAP.1I.
to the life and teaching of Christ, the general
effect is the same. The resemblance between
the narratives is in the one case more exact,
but in the other it is more extensive. Up to
this point of our inquiry, and without any con-
sideration for the moment of Justin's historical
relation to the anonymous Roman Canon and
to Irenseus, the identification of his Memoirs
with our Gospels seems to be as reasonable as
it is natural, But on the other hand, it is said Objections to
that there are fatal objections to this identifica- SiGospe:.
tion; that Justin nowhere mentions the Evan-

gelists by name: that the text of his quotations

differs materially from that of the Gospels: that

he introduces apocryphal additions into his nar-

rative. And each of these statements must be
examined before the right weight can be assigned

to these general coincidences between the books

in subject, language, and character of which we

have hitherto spoken.

It has been already shown that there were () The
peculiar circumstances in Justin’s case which 2s
rendered any definite quotation of the Evange- ““~
lists unlikely and unsuitable, even if such a mode
of quotation had been common at the time.

But in fact when he referred to written records rhe :
of Christ’s life and words he made an advance referred to
beyond which the later Apologists rarely pro-"™”

136 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1. ceeded'. Zatian, his scholar, has several allusions

to passages contained in the Gospels of St Mat-
thew and St John, but they are all anonymous’.
Athenagoras quotes the words of our Lord as
they stand in St Matthew four times, and appears
to allude to passages in St Mark and St John,
but he nowhere mentions the name of an Evan-
gelist®. Theophilus, in his Books to Autolycus,
cites five or six precepts from ‘the Gospel’ or
‘the Evangelic voice,’ and once only mentions
John as ‘a man moved by the Holy Spirit,’
quoting the prologue to his Gospel; though he
elsewhere classes the Evangelists with the pro-
phets as all inspired by the same Spirit‘. In
Hermias and Minucius Felix there appears to be
no reference at all to the Gospels. The usage

1 Cf. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 137; Se-
misch, 83 ff.

2 Orat. c. Gr. 30; Matt, xiii. 44. Cf. Fragg. i, ii; Matt.
vi. 24,19; xxii. 30. Orat. c. 5; John i. 1: c. 4; John iv.
24: c. 18; John i. 5: c. 19; Johni. 3.

8 Apol. p.2; Matt. v. 39, 40: p. 11; Matt. v. 44, 45: p.
12; Matt. v. 46, 47: p. 36; Matt. v. 28: Apol. p. 37; Mark
x. 6, 11: Apol. p. 12; John xvii. 3.

4 Ad Autolycum, iii. § 12, ἢ. 124: ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ δικαι-
οσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόμος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προ-
φητών καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τοὺς πάντας πνευματο-
φόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι. If the Commentaries
attributed to him were genuine he wrote on the four Evan-
gelists.

Cf. ad Autol. iii. p. 126; Matt. v. 28, 32, 44, 46; vi. 8:
Lib. ii. p. 92; Luke xviii. 17: Lib. ii, § 22. p. 100; John i,
1, 8.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 137

of Vertullian is very remarkable. In his other cuHap.u.

books he quotes the Gospels continually, and,
though rarely, mentions every Evangelist by
name; but in his Apology, while he gives a
general view of Christ’s life and teaching, and
speaks of the Scriptures as the food and the
comfort of the Christian), he nowhere cites the
Gospels, and scarcely exhibits any coincidence
of language with them*®. Clement of Alexandria,
as is well known, investigated the relation of
the Synoptic Gospels to St John, and his use of
the words of Scripture is constant and exten-
sive; and yet in his ‘ Exhortation to Gentiles,’
while he quotes every Gospel, and all except
St Mark repeatedly, he only mentions St John
by name, and that but once®. Cyprian, in his
address to Demetrian, quotes words of our Lord
as given by St Matthew and St John, but says
nothing of the source from which he derived
them‘, The books of Origen against Celsus
turned in a great measure on the criticism of
the Gospels, for Celsus had diligently examined
them to find objections to Christianity ; and yet
even there the common custom prevails. In

1 Apol. cc. xxi (pp. 57, 8qq.); xxxix. (p. 93.)

3 The only passage I have noticed is c. xxxi. (Matt. νυ.
44.) The same is true of the imperfect book ‘ad Nationes.’

8 Protrep. § 59.

4 Ad Demetr. c. i; Matt. vii. 6: c. xxiv; John xvii. 8.

CHAP. Il.

1388 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

the first book, for instance, Origen quotes our
Lord’s words from the text of our Gospels more
than a dozen times anonymously, and only once,
as far as I have observed, with the mention of
the Gospel in which they were to be found},
At a still later time Lactantius blamed Cyprian
for quoting Scripture in-a controversy with a
heathen*; and though he shows in his Institu-
tions an intimate acquaintance with the writings
of the Evangelists he mentions John only by
name, quoting the beginning of his Gospel’.
Arnobius, again, makes no allusion to the Go-
spels; and Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most
of what is known of the history of the New
Testament, though he quotes the Gospels eighteen
times in his ‘ Introduction to Christian Evidences,’
(Preeparatio Evangelica), yet always does 80
without referring to the Evangelist of whose
writings he made use.

It would be easy to extend what has been

- gaid :—to show that the words of ‘the Apostle’

are quoted scarcely less frequently than those
of the Lord, without any more exact citation :—
that this custom of indefinite reference is not
confined to Apologetic writings of which it is

1 ¢. Lxiii; Luke v. 8. He also quotes the Gospels of St
Luke and St Mark by name for facts, cc. Lx, Lxii; and St
Matthew three times as used by Celsus, cc. xxxiv, xxxviil,

XL.
8 Instit. v. 4, 8 Instit. iv. 8 .

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 139

peculiarly characteristic, but likewise traceable cHaP.11
in many other cases :—that a habit which arose
almost necessarily in an age of MS. literature
has not ceased even when the printing-press has
left no material hinderances to occasion or excuse
it; but this would lead us away from our sub-
ject, and it must be sufficiently clear that if
Justin differs in any way from other similar
writers as to the mode in which he introduces
his Evangelic quotations, it is because he has
described with unusual care the sources from
which he drew them.

Justin’s method of quotation from the Old The case of
Testament may seem at first sight to create a fom! from the Pro
difficulty. It has been calculated that he makes
197 citations, with exact references to their
source, and 117 indefinitely. But under any
circumstances this fact would affect the pecu-
liar estimation, and not the historical reception,
of the New Testament books’. And since the
same phenomenon occurs in writers like Clement
of Alexandria and Cyprian, whose views on the
inspiration and authority of the New Testament
were most definite and full, its explanation must
be sought for on other principles, As far as
Justin is concerned, the search leads to a satis-
factory conclusion. His quotations are, I believe,

Δ In the Apostolic Fathers scriptural quotations are
almost universally anonymous. Cf. p. ὅδ.

140 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1. exclusively prophecies; and the purpose for
which he introduces them required particularity
of reference’. The proof of Christianity, even
for the heathen, was to be derived, as he tells
us, from the fulfilment of prophecy*. The gift
of foretelling the future—for already in his
time this was the common view of a prophet’s
work—was a certain mark of a divine power;
and the antiquity of the Prophets invested them
with a venerable dignity beyond all other poets
or seers. To quote prophecy habitually without
mentioning the prophet’s name would be to de-
prive it of half its value; and if it seem strange
that Justin does not quote Evangelists like Pro-
phets, it is no less worthy of notice that he
does quote by name the single prophetic book
Justin τ of the New Testament. ‘Moreover also among
supe ots us a man named John, one of the Apostles of
Christ, prophesied in a revelation made to him,
that those who have believed on our Christ
shall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem’...’

1.9. g. Ap. i, 32: Μωυσῆς πρῶτος τῶν προφητῶν...
Ἦσαΐας ἄλλος προφήτης. ....

2 Ap. i. 14, 30: τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἤδη ποιησόμεθα οὐ τοῖς λέ-
γουσι πιστεύοντες ἀλλὰ τοῖς προφητεύουσι πρὶν ἣ γενέσθαι κατ᾽
ἀνάγκην πειθόμενοι. ...

8 Dial. c. 81: ἔπειτα καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάν-
ms, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ
αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν ἹἱἹερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ
πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσε... The constrained manner of this

> per

ee ees οὖ - es
ΚΦ ΥΥ “δα. ἂν w= αὖ πος »

ILOGISTS. 140

ferent parts of car. 11.

trom. different
ν the presence
Baptist, against
20s 10 not seem
’ was made in
told to Moses!
“mb. xxvil. 18),

3

oO

. 48, 66. Cf. ¢. 77.

14

: are found almost
ne Dialogue, being
‘it unreasonable to
ore perhaps exelu-
al history of the
ations are almost
‘ist of prophecies
: of sense.

the general prin-
tent note (note 2,
- which he quotes
amount of verbal

L

142 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1L Fathers, may be expected to relate the events
of Christ’s life often in his own words, com-
bining, arranging, modifying, as the occasion
may require: like them, he may be expected to
change but rarely the language of the Gospels
in citing Christ’s teaching, though he transpose
words and clauses: like them, too, we may be
allowed to believe that he would have quoted
the language of the New Testament with scru-
pulous care in his polemical writings if they had
been preserved for us. If this be a mere suppo-
sition, it must be remembered that we have
no longer those books of his in which we might
have expected to find critical accuracy.

The general But, at the same time, it is to be noticed

Justin'squo that Justin appears to be remarkable for free-

tment. dom, not only in his use of classical authors’,
but also in his treatment of the Old Testament,
even in the Dialogue, where it forms the real
basis of his argument. In these cases his quo-
tations are confessedly taken from books, whether
by memory or reference; and the original text
can be compared with his version of it. Here,
at least, we can determine the limits of accuracy
within which he confined himself; and when

1 Semisch has examined them in detail, pp. 232 ff. An
example will be given below, p. 14, note 2. Others may
be found, Ap. ii. 11 (Xen. Mem. ii. 1); Ap. i. 5 (Plat
Resp. v. p. 473); Ap. ii. 10 (Trin. p. 28 c.)

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 143

they have been once fixed they will serve as a cHaP.1.

standard. No greater accuracy is to be expected
anywhere than in the use of the prophecies; and
a few characteristic examples of his mode of
dealing with them, as well as with the other
writings of the Old Testament, will show what
kind of variations we must be prepared to find in
any references which he may make to the
Gospel-narrative'.

1 Norton has brought forward some good passages from
the first Apology (Note E. § 2); and Semisch has carried
out the investigation with considerable skill (pp. 239 ff.).
Credner has collected Justin’s quotations, and compared
them elaborately with the MSS. of the LXX. It is super-
fluous to praise the care and ability by which his critical
labours are always marked.

The following Table of the more remarkable instances
of the freedom of Justin’s quotations from the Old Testa-
ment, where the variations cannot be explained on the
supposition of differences in MSS., will be useful for those
who wish to examine the question for themselves.

(a) Free quotations, giving the sense of the original text:

Gen. i. 1—3 Apol. i. 59
— iii. 16 Dial. c. 102
— vii. 16 — c. 127
— xi. 5 -- —
— xvii. 14 — c. 10

Exod. iii. 16, 17 Apol. i. 63
— xvii. 16 Dial. c. 49
— xx.4 — Cc. 94
— xxxil. 6 — c. 20

2 Sam. vii. 14 sqq. Dial. c. 118

1 Kings xix. 14 sqq. — c. 39

Job i. 6 — co 79

Ezra vi. 21 (?) — ¢c 72

144 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. ©

CHAP, II. The first and most striking phenomenon in
nig} comb- his quotations is the combination of detached
different
texte Isai. i. 7 Apol. i. 47
—— 9 37
23 Dial. c. 82
— iii. 16 — ¢c. 27
— v. 25 — c. 133
— ix. 6 Apol. i. 35
—— xxxv. 5 sqq. —-—— 48.
— χα. 16 Dial. c. 122
— Liv. 9 — c. 138
— Lxvi. 1 — 6. 22
Jerem. vii. 21, 22 —_——
— xxxi. 27 — c. 123
Ezech. iii. 17—19 — c. 82
— xiv. 20 — 6. 45
— xxxvii. 7 Apol. i. 32
Hos. i. 1 Dial. c. 19
Joel ii. 28 — c. 87
Zech. ii. 6 Apol. i. 52
— xii. 10 sqq. --- --
(8) Adaptations of the text:
Gen. xxrv. 1 Dial. c. 60
Exod. iii. 5 Apol. i. 62
Numb. xxi. 8, 9 — 61
— — Dial. 6. 94
Deut. xi. 16 844. — c. 49
— xxi. 23 — c. 96.
— xxvii. 26 — c. 95
— xxx. 15,19 Apol. i. 44
(y) Combinations of different passages :
Isai. xi. 1, 10 ς
Numb. xxiv. αὶ Apol. i. 82
Psalm xxi. 17—19 38
-- m.6
Isai. viii. 12
— Lil. 13—Liii. af 50

Cf. Matt. xi. 5.

Cf. Gal. iii. 10.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK @POLOGISTS. 145

texts, sometimes taken from different parts of cua. 11.

the same book, and sometimes from different
books. Thus, when he is explaining the presence
of the spirit of Elias in John the Baptist, against
Trypho’s objection, he says: ‘ Does it not seem
to you that the same transference was made in

the case of Joshua,..when it was told to Moses athe Dis-

to place his hands on Joshua (Numb. xxvii. 18),

Zech. ii. 6
Zech. xii. 11 sqq.
Joel ii. 13
Isai. Lxiii. 13

— Lxiv. 11
Ezech. xxxvii. Ἴ 58
Isai. xiv. 23
Exod. iii. 2, 14, 15 ——— 63
Isai. vii. .}

Apol. i, 52

— viii. 4 Dial. cc. 43, 66. Cf. c. 77.
— vii. 16, 17
Jerem. ii. 13
Isai. xvi. 1 — 4114

Jerem. iii. 8

It will be seen that the free quotations are found almost
equally distributed in the Apology and the Dialogue, being
chiefly short passages, for which it was not unreasonable to
trust to memory: that the adaptations are perhaps exclu-
sively from the Pentateuch—the typical history of the
establishment of Israel: that the combinations are almost
confined to the first Apology, and consist of prophecies
fitted together according to the connexion of seuse.

These passages will serve to illustrate the general prin-
ciples of Justin’s quotations. In a subsequent note (note 2,
Ῥ. 150) we shall give a table of those texts which he quotes
differently, in order to show with what amount of verbal
accuracy he contented himself.

L

ee

146 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.. when God said to him: And I will impart to
him of the Spirit that is in thee!?’ (c. xi. 17).

So, again, when showing that the Word is the
Messenger (ἄγγελος καὶ ἀπόστολος) of God, he

. adds: ‘And moreover this will be made clear
from the writings of Moses. Now it is said in

them thus: The Angel of the Lord spake to

Moses in a flame of fire out of the bush, and

said: I am That I Am (ὁ wy), the God of Abra-

ham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the

God of thy fathers. Go down to Egypt, and lead

forth thy people*.’ Passages of different writers

are combined even when the citation is by name.

‘For Jeremiah cries thus,’ we read, “ Woe to you,
because ye have forsaken a living fountain, and
digged for yourselves broken cisterns, which will

not be able to hold water (Jerem. ii. 13). Shall

it be a wilderness [without water] where is the

Mount Sion (Isai. xvi. 1. LXX.), because I have

given to Jerusalem a bill of divorce before you’ ?”

1 Dial. c. 49. The passage Numb. xi. 17 refers to the
LXX. elders. Credner appears to have omitted this quo-
tation.

2 Apol. i. 63. Exod. iii. 2,14,6,10. ‘These free quota-
tions are adapted to the wants of heathen readers’ (Credner,
ii. 58). By a reasonable adaptation these words become:
‘These free quotations (from the Gospel] are adapted to the
wants of Jewish [or heathen] readers.’

8 Dial. c. 114. Credner (ii. 246) remarks that Barnabas
(c. xi.) connects the two former passages together; yet bis
text is wholly different from that of Justin. Cf. Semisch,
262 anm.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 147

(Jerem. iii. 8). In the Apology the intertexture cHap.1.
of various passages is still more complicated. tathe apo-

‘What then the people of the Jews will say and
do when they see Christ’s advent in glory, has
been thus told in prophecy by Zacharias: I will
charge the four winds to gather together my
children who have been scattered. I will charge
the north wind to bear them, and the south
wind not to hinder them (cf. Zech. ii. 6; Isai:
ΧΙ, δ). And then shall there be in Jerusalem a
great lamentation, not a lamentation of mouths
and lips, but a lamentation of heart (Zech. xii. 11),
and they shall not rend their garments, but their
minds (Joel ii. 13). They shall lament tribe by
tribe (Zech. xii. 12); and then shall they look on
Him whom they pierced (Zech. xii. 10), and say:
Why, O Lord, didst thou make us to err from
thy way? (Isai. Lxiii. 13). The glory, which our
fathers blessed, is turned to our reproach!.’ (Isai.
Lxiv. 11).

The same cause which led Justin to combine εἷἱδὸ Adapee-

various texts in other places led him to com-
press, to individualize, to adapt, the exact words

1 Ap. i. 52. The last clause ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν
is quoted in the Dialogue (c. 14) as from Hosea, ὄψεται ὁ
λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ γνωριεῖ els ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. The reading in the
LXX. is ἐπιβλέψονται πρός pe ἀνθ' ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, which
arose from a confusion of the Hebrew letters Ἵ, Ἴ. The
rendering which Justin gives occurs John xix. 37; Apoc. i. 7.
Cf. Credner, pp. 293 ff.

L2

CHAP. II.

In the Dia-
logue.

In the Apo-
logy.

148 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

of Scripture for the better expression of his
meaning; and at times he may appear to mis-
use the passages which he quotes. The extent
to which this licence is carried will appear from
the following examples.

In speaking of the duty of proclaiming the
truth which we know, and of the judgment which
will fall on those who know and say not, he
quotes the declaration of God by Ezechiel: ‘I
have placed thee as a watchman unto the house
of Judah. Should the sinner sin, and thou not
testify to him, he indeed shall perish in his sin,
but from thee will I require his blood; but if
thou testify to him, thou shalt be blameless.
(Ezech. iii. 17—19). In this quotation only two
phrases of the original text remain; but the
remainder expresses the sense of the Prophet
with conciseness and force'. Again, when re-
ferring to Plato's idea of the cruciform distribu-
tion of the principle of life through the universe’,
he says, ‘ This likewise he borrowed from Moses;
for in the writings of Moses it is recorded that
at that time when the Israelites came out of
Egypt, and were in the wilderness, venomous

1 Dial. c. 82.

2 Pl. Tim. p. 86. ταύτην οὖν τὴν ξύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν
κατὰ μῆκος σχίσας, μέσην πρὸς μέσην ἑκατέραν ἀλλήλαις οἷον χῖ
(x) προσβαλὼν κατέκαμψεν εἰς κύκλον... Justin’s quotation of
the passage is characteristic: ᾿Ἐχίασεν αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
θεοῦ) ἐν τῷ παντί.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 149

beasts encountered them, vipers, and asps, and
serpents of all kinds, which killed the people;
and that by inspiration and impulse of God Moses
took brass and made an image of a cross, and
set this on (ἐπὶ) the holy tabernacle, and said
to the people: Should you look on this image
and believe in it, you shall be saved. And he
has recorded that when this was done the ser-
pents died, and so the people escaped death!.’
(Numb, xxi. 8, 9,sqq.) The details of the fabri-
cation of a cross rather than of a serpent, of the
erection of the life-giving symbol on the taber-
nacle—that type of the outward world, of the
address of Moses to the people, are due entirely
to Justin’s interpretation of the narrative. He
gave what seemed to him the spirit and meaning
of the passage, and in so doing has not preserved
one significant word of the original text.

In many cases it is possible to explain these
peculiarities of Justin’s quotations by supposing τρο
that he intentionally deviated from the common
text in order to bring out its meaning more

1 Apol. i. 60. From the comparison of John iii. 15, I
prefer to put the stop after ἐν airp. Credner (p. 28) omits
ἐν apparently by mistake. It will be observed that in the
quotation each chief word is changed: προσβλέπειν is substi-
tuted for εἰσβλέπειν; σώζεσθαι for ζῆν; and πιστεύειν is
introduced as the condition of healing. These changes are
also preserved in the second allusion to the passage, Dial.
c. 94, which otherwise approaches more nearly to the LXX.

CHAP. I.

These μα
tionsin m

cases must be

Sennen.

CHAP. II.

150 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

clearly: in others he may have followed a tradi-
tional rendering or accommodation of scriptural
language, such as are current at all times; but
after every allowance has been made, a large
residue of passages remains from which it is
evident that the variations often spring from
errors of memory. He quotes, for instance, the
same passage in various forms; and that not only
in different books, but even in the same book,
and at short intervals. He ascribes texts to
wrong authors; and that in the Dialogue as well
as in the Apology, even when he shows in other
places that he is not ignorant of their true source’.
And once more: the variations are most re-
markable and frequent in short passages: that is
exactly in those for which it would seem super-
fluous to unroll the MS. and refer to the original
text?,

1 In the Apology: Zephaniah for Zechariah (c. 35);
Jeremiah for Daniel (c. 51); Isaiah for Jeremiah (c. 53).
In the Dialogue: Jeremiah for Isaiah (c. 12); Hosea for
Zechariah (c. 14); Zechariah for Malachi (c. 49). The first
passage (Zech. ix. 9) is rightly quoted, Dial. c. 53; the next
(Dan. vii. 13) in Dial. c. 76. Cf. Semisch, 240 anm.

2 A general view of the passages which Justin quotes
more than once will give a better idea of the value of this
argument than anything else. The following list is, I believe,
fairly complete. The sign |] indicates agreement; %€ dif-
ference; 36 , &c., difference from both, &c., the forms
before given; v.1., vv. ll. marks the existence of various
readings which seem of less importance: —

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 151
If then it be sufficiently made out that Justin cur. π᾿

©
LI EET tids

-- — 1
Numb. xxiv. 17
Prov. viii. 21—25
Pz. i. 3
— ii. 7,8
— iii. δ
— xix. 2—5
— xxii. 7, 18, 16
— xxiv. 7

— Lxxii. 1-5, 17-19

— xcvi. 1—4
— xcix. 1—7

dealt in this manner with the Old Testament,

Ap. i. 59 f Ap. i. 64; v. 1.

Dial. 62 ἢ Dial. 159
— 92. Of. Dial. 119

56 || Dial. 126 vv. IL.

56 [] — 126 wv. ll.

56 3 — 127. Cf. ο. 129

δ8 ἢ — 120 v.1.

— 58. Cf. Dial. c. 126

Dial. 52 | Dial. 120 3€ Ap. i. 32

(αὐτολεξεῦ) 36 H€ Ap. i. 54. Cf.
Credner, ii. pp. 51 sqq.

Dial. 54. Cf. 6. 76

Ap. i. 32 γε Dial. 106

Dial. 61 ἢ Dial. 129 vv. 1].

Ap. i. 40 {| Dial. 86
— — | —122

88 % —96

40 | Dial. 64; 42 (v. 4)

35 € c. 38 Ἐξ Dial. 98
— 651] Dial. 127 3€ 6.86 36 "Σὲ

6. 85
Dial. 38 j Dial. 63 v.1.; 56 (vv.
6, 7); 86 (v. 7)

Dial.34 3€ Dial. 64 3ὲ oc. 121
— 73. Cf. Ap. i. 41 (1 Chro.xvi.)
— 37 j Dial. 64 vv. ll.

— 82 |] Ap. i. 45

Ap. i. 37 ] Ap. i. 63 v.1.

— 53 %€ Dial. 140. Cf. Dial.
c. 55
—— 44} Ap. i. 61 (=v. 19)

Dial. 82. Cf. c. 27
— 135. Cf. ὁ. 24
— 17 | Dial. 133 v.1.; c. 136 v.1.
----᾿ — —v.L; Ap. i.

49 (v. 20)

Application |
to Justin's

152 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1 which was sanctioned in each ‘jot and tittle’
Rvangeiic by the authority of Christ Himself, which was
already inwrought into the Christian dialect by
long and habitual use, which was familiarized to
the Christian disputant by continual and minute
controversy :—can it be expected that he should
use the text of the Gospels with more scrupu-
lous care? that he should in every case refer to

Isai. vi. 10
— vii. 10—17
— viii. 4

— xi. 1

— xxix. 13

— —14

— xxxv. 4—6

— xLii. 1—4

— Lii. 15—niii. 1 sqq.
— Lv. 3—5

— Lvii. 1, 2

— Lxiv. 10—12

-— Lx. 1-3
— Lxvi. 1
Ezech. xiv. 20
Dan. vii. 13
Micah v. 1, 2
Zech. ii. 11
Mal. i. 10—12

Dial. 12 % Dial. 33
— 43 | Dial. 66 vv. Il.

Apol. i. 32 % Dial. 87
Dial. 78 % Dial. 27 4 3ὲ o. 140
(διαρρήδην.)
Dial. 32 3€ Dial. 78 36 3 c. 38
% HK Xo. 123
Apol. i. 48 € Dial. 69
Dial. 123 3€ Dial. 135
Ap. i. 50 |] Dial. 13 vy. 11.
Dial. 12 3 — 14
Ap. i. 48 |] Dial. 16 wv. IL.
— 41} —25 δὲ Ἀ Ap.i.52
(νυ. 11)
Ap. i. 49 3 Dial. 24
— 37. Cf. Dial. 22
Dial. 45 ¥ Dial. 44 € 3€ ο. 140
Ap. i. 51 % Dial. 31
— 834 Dial. 78
Dial. 115 %€ Dial. 119
Dial. 28 | Dial. 41 vv. Il.

The only passage of any considerable length whicl: caul-
bits continuous and important variations is Isai. xiii. 1—4.

Of. Credner, ii. 210 sqq.

It will be noticed that the number of texts repeated
with verbal accuracy is very small.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 153

his manuscript to ascertain the exact words of CHAP. 1.

the record? that he should preserve them free
from traditional details? that he should keep
distinctly separate cognate accounts of the same
event, complementary narratives of the same
discourse ? If he combined the words of Pro-
phets to convey to the heathen a fuller notion
of their divine wisdom, and often contented
himself with the sense of Scripture even when
he argued witha Jew; can it be a matter of
surprise, that to heathen and to Jews alike he
sets forth rather the substance than the letter of
those Christian writings, which had for them no
individual authority? In proportion as the idea
of a New Testament Canon was less clear in
his time, or at least less familiarly realized by
ancient usage, than that of the Old Testament
—as the Apostolic writings were invested with
less objective worth for those whom he ad-
dressed—we may expect to find his quotations
from the Evangelists more vague, and imperfect,
and inaccurate, than those from the Prophets.
So far as it is not so, the fact implies that per-
sonal study had supplied the place of traditional
knowledge, that what was wanting to the Chris-
tian Scriptures in the clearness of defined
authority was made up by the sense of their
individual value.

To examine in detail the whole of Justin's How far ο.

154 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1 quotations would be tedious and unnecessary.
thesomel it will be enough to examine, (1)those wh ch are
tober” alleged by him as quotations, and (2) those also

which, though anonymous, are yet found re-
peated with the same variations, either in Jus-
tin’s own writings, or (3) in heretical books. It is
evidently on these quotations that the decision
hangs. If they be naturally reconcilable with
Justin’s use of the Canonical Gospels, the partial
inaccuracy of the remainder can be of little
moment. But if they be clearly derived from
uncanonical sources, the general coincidence of
the mass with our Gospels only shows that
there was a wide uniformity in the Evangelic
tradition.

() Expren © Seven passages only, as far as I can discover I
are alleged by Justin as giving words recorded in.
the Memoirs ; and in these, if there be no reason
to the contrary, it is natural to expect that he
will preserve the exact language of the Gospels
which he used, just as in anonymous quotations
we may conclude that he is trusting to memory.
The result of a first view of these passages is
Their agree striking. Of the seven five agree verbally with

the text of St Matthew, or St Luke, exhibiting,

1 Ap. i. 66 (Luke xx. 19, 20), and Dial. c. 103 (Luke
xxii. 42—44) are not merely quotations of words, but con-
cise narratives.

Differences in detail supposed to be derived from Justin’s
Memoirs will be examined in the next division (3).

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 155

indeed, three slight various readings, not else- cHap.1.

where found, but such as are easily explicable’ :

1 The passages are these:

1. Dial. c. 103: οὗτος ὁ διάβολος.... ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνη-
μονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων γέγραπται προσελθὼν αὐτῷ καὶ
πειράζων μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ" Προσκύνησόν pos’ καὶ ἀποκρί-
γασθαι αὐτῷ τὸν Χριστόν' Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ"
κύριον τὸν θεόν σον προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ
λατρεύσεις = Matt. iv. [9],10. The addition ὀπίσω pov is
supported by good authority. The form of the quotation
explains the omission of γέγραπται yap, which Justin, indeed,
elsewhere recognizes, c. 125: ἀποκρίνεται yap αὐτῷ: Τέγραπ-
ται" κύριον τὸν θεόν, x. τ. λ.

In the Clementine Homilies the answer assumes an
entirely different complexion (Hom. viii. 21): ἀποκρινάμενος
οὖν ἔφη᾽ Γέγραπται" Κύριον τὸν Θεόν cov φοβηθήσῃ καὶ
αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις μόνον.

2. 6. 105: ταῦτα εἰρηκέναι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι γέγραπ-
ras’ "Edy μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν 9 δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν
γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε els τὴν
βασίλειαν τῶν οὐρανῶν - Matt. v. 20. The transposition
ὑμῶν ἡ dx. is probably correct. For Clement's variations
in quoting this verse see Griesbach, Symbd. Crit. ii. 251.

8. 6. 107: γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ὅτι οἱ ἀπὸ
τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν συζητοῦντες αὐτῷ ἔλεγον, ὅτι Δεῖξον ἡμῖν
σημεῖον. Kal ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς Teved πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς
σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτοῖς el
μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ" Matt. xii. [38], 39. The first part,
as its form shows, is quoted freely; our Lord’s answer
differs from the text of St Matthew only in reading αὐτοῖς
for αὐτῇ, Such a confusion of relatives with an antecedent
like γενεὰ is very common. Cf. Luke x. 13 (καθήμενοι -as);
Acts ii. 3 (ἐκάθισεν -ay). Winer, N. 7. Gramm., § 47.

4. c. 49: ὁ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς εἰρήκει.... Ἠλίας μὲν
ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα᾽ λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, ὅτι
Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθε, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐποίη-
σαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν. καὶ γέγραπται ὅτι τότε συνῆκαν
οἱ μαθηταὶ, ὅτι περὶ ᾿Ιωάννον τοῦ βαπτίστον εἶπεν

156 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHap.u. the sixth is a compressed summary of words re-

7 lated by St Matthew: the seventh alone presents
an important variation in the text of a verse,
which is, however, otherwise very uncertain.
Our inquiry is thus confined to the two last in-
stances; and it must be seen whether their dis-
agreement from the Synoptic Gospels is such
as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining
five.

Their dis. The first passage occurs in the account which

(lst xvi Justin gives of the Crucifixion, as illustrating

3] the prophecy in Psalm xxi.: ‘Those who saw
Christ crucified shook their heads, and distorted
their lips, and sneering said in mockery these
things which are also written in the Memoirs of
His Apostles: ‘“ He called Himself the Son of
God; let Him come down and walk,” “Let God

αὐτοῖς = Matt. xvii. 11—13. The express quotation (v. 13)
agrees exactly with the text of St Matthew, and Credner
admits that it must have been taken from his Gospel
(p. 237). In the other part the text of St Matthew has
ἔρχεται (πρῶτον is, at least, very suspicious), and ἐν αὐτῷ,
but the preposition is omitted by Ὁ, F, it. cop., &o. Cred-
ner insists (p. 219) on the variation ἐλεύσεσθαι (repeated
again in the same chapter); with how much justice the
various readings in Luke xxiii. 29 may show. See also Gen.
xviii. 17. ἀναστρέφω (Dial. 56); ἀποστρέψω (Dial. 126);
ἀναστρέψω (LXX.) Cf. p. 170, and the next note.

5. ς. 105: καὶ ἀποδιδοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ elie’
Πάτερ, els χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά pov’ os
καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων καὶ τοῦτο ἔμαθον = Luke xxiii. 46.
The quotation is verbally correct: παρατίθεμαι, and not
παραθήσομαι, is certainly the right reading.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 157

save Him'.”’ These exact words do not occur cuapP. 1.
in our Gospels, but others so closely connected

with them, that few, perhaps, would feel the dif-
ference. In St Matthew the taunts are: ‘If thou

art the Son of God come down from the cross.’

‘He trusted on God: let Him now deliver Him

if He will have Him.” No Manuscript or Father

has preserved any reading of the passage more

closely resembling Justin’s quotation; and if it
appear not to be deducible from our Gospels,
considering the object which he had in view, its

source must remain concealed.

The remaining passage is more remarkable. [Ms αὶ, %;

While interpreting the same Psalm (xxi.) Justin

speaks of Christ as ‘ dwelling in the holy place,

and the praise of Israel’—to whom the myste-

rious blessings pronounced in old times to the
patriarchs belonged—and then he adds: ‘ And

it is written in the Gospel that he said: All

things have been delivered to me by the Father;

1 Dial. c. 101: Οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν ἐσταυρωμένον καὶ
κεφαλὰς ἕκαστος ἐκίνουν καὶ τὰ χείλη διέστρεφον καὶ τοῖς
μνξωτῆρσιν ἐν ἀλλήλοις Ff διερινοῦντες ἦᾧ ἔλεγον εἰρωνενόμενοι
ταῦτα ἃ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ
γέγραπται. Ὑἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαντὸν ἔλεγε, καταβὰς περιπατείτω᾽ σωσάτω
αὐτὸν ὁ Θεός. The account in the Apology (i. 38) appears to
prove that Justin gives only the substance of the Evangelic
account: Σταυρωθέντος yap αὐτοῦ ἐξέστρεφον τὰ χείλη καὶ
ἐκίνον τὰς κεφαλὰς λέγοντες᾽ Ὃ νεκροὺς ἀναγείρας ῥυσάσθω
ἕαντόν. It is strange that in the quotation from the Psalm
(Dial. 1. c.) the words σωσάτω αὐτὸν are omitted, though
they are given in ὁ. 98.

158 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.. and no man knoweth the Father except the Son,
nor the Son except the Father, and those to whom-
soever the Son reveal [the Father and Himself}!.’
The last clause occurs again twice in the Apo-
logy, with the single variation that the verb is
an aorist (éyvw) and not a present (γινώσκει),
There are here three various readings to be
noticed. ‘All things have been delivered to me
(wapasedora:)’ for ‘all things were (aor.) delivered
to me (wapedo6n)’—the transposition of the words
‘ Father’ and ‘Son’—the phrase, ‘ those to whom-
soever the Son reveal [Him],’ for ‘he to whom-
soever the Son will (βούληται) reveal [Him].’ Of
these the first is not found in any other authority,
but is a common variation®; and the last is sup-
ported by Clement, Origen, and other Fathers,

1 Dial. 6. 100: καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται εἰπὼν
[ὁ Χριστόν" 1 Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός᾽ καὶ οὐδεὶς
γιψώσκει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ vids’ οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ
καὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ. The last word ἀποκαλύψῃ having
no immediate subject, is, I believe, equivalent to ‘makes a
revelation,’ i.e. of His own nature and of the nature of the
Father. So, I find, Augustine takes the passage: Quest.
Evy. i. 1.

2 Ap. i. 81 (bis.) Credner (i. 248 ff.) insists on the
appearance of this reading ἔγνω, as if it were a mark of the
influence of Gnostic documents on Justin’s narrative. It is
a sufficient answer that the reading is not only found in
Marcion and the Clementines, but also repeatedly in Cle-
ment of Alexandria and Origen (Griesb. Symb. Crit. ii. 271).
Cf. Semisch, p. 367.

8 Cf. John vii. 39: δεδομένον, δοθέν.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 159

so that it cannot prove anything against Justin’s CHAP. 1.
use of the Canonical Gospels’.

The transposition of the words still remains ;
and how little weight can be attached to that will
appear upon an examination of the various forms
in which the text is quoted by Fathers like Ori-
gen, Irensus and Epiphanius, who admitted our
Gospels exclusively. It occurs in them, as will
be seen from the table of readings, with almost
every possible variation*. Irensus in the course
of one chapter quotes the verse first as it stands
in the Canonical text; then in the same order,
but with the last clause like Justin’s; and once
again altogether as he has given it’. Epiphanius

1 Cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. 1. o.
2 The extent of the varieties of reading, found in ortho-

dox authorities independent of Justin, may be shown by the
following scheme:

ἔγνω
" teenth ta

ἔγνω

wo {SS} (Tn a ας} 1]

ἐὰν (8%) ὁ υἱὸς eens meena
Credner (i- p. 249) quotes from Irenseus (iv. 6, 1) ‘et
cui revelare Pater voluerit,’ but I can find no authority for
such a reading. The mistake shows at Jeast how easy it is
to misquote such a text.
8 Iren. iv. 6, $$ 1, 7, 3: Nemo cognoscit {Fiiom nisi
. iv. Pat

CHAP. II,

160 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

likewise quotes the text seven times in the same
order as Justin, and four times as it stands in
the Gospels'. If, indeed, Justin’s quotations were
made from memory no transposition could be
more natural; and if we suppose that he copied
the passage directly from a manuscript, there
is no difficulty in believing that he may have
found it so written in a manuscript of the Ca-
nonical St Matthew, since the variation is ex-
cluded by no internal improbability, while it is
found elsewhere, and its origin is easily expli-
cable’.

{rier neque ag τῶς i {Pion} οι oui voluerit
Filiusf "°2"° ) Filium Pater t | guibuscunque}

». {revelare
Filius. revelaverit) ©

1 Semisch, p. 369. E.g. Adv. Heer. ii. 2, 43 (p. 766 0.)3
ii. 1, 4 (p. 466 B.)

2 Semisch has well remarked (p. 366) that the word
πατρὸς immediately preceding may have led to the transpo-
sition.

To avoid repetition it may be well to give the passage
as it stands in various heretical books, that Justin’s inde-
pendence of them may be at once evident.

(a) Marcion (Dial. ap. Orig. § 1, p. 283): οὐδεὶς ἔγνω
τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ vids, οὐδὲ τὸν νἱόν τις γινώσκει, εἰ μὴ ὁ
πατήρ. The reading of the Marcionite interlocutor is appa-
rently accepted in the argument. Directly afterwards, how-
ever, the words are given: οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ 6
πατήρ, and οὐδεὶς οἷδε τὸν υἱόν. These variations are found,
it is to be remembered, in an argument between Christians.

(8) Clementines. Hom. xvii. 4: οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ
ὁ υἱὸς, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τις οἶδεν [εἶδεν Οτοά. ἢ] εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ
καὶ οἷς ἂν βούληται [βούλεται Cred., Cotel.} ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψαι.

%

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 161

If the direct quotations which Justin makes cHaP.1.
from the Apostolic Memoirs supply no adequate (6) Reve.
proof that he used any books different from our tm! four
Canonical Gospels, it remains to be seen whether cal text.
there be anything in the character of his in-
definite references to the substance of the Gos-
pels which leads to such a conclusion: whether
there be any stereotyped variations in his nar.
rative which point to a written source; and any
crucial coincidences with other documents which
show in what direction we mist look for it.

It has been remarked already that a false Whenarepe-
quotation may become a tradition. Much more comes ime
is it likely to reappear by association in a writer pow
to whom it has once occurred by accident, or
been suggested by peculiar influences. It must
be shown that there is something in the variation
in the first instance, which excludes the belief
that it is merely a natural error, before any stress
can be laid upon the fact of its repetition, which
within certain limits is even to be expected.
Erroneous readings continually recur in the
works of Fathers who have preserved the true
text, when, perhaps, there was especial need for
accuracy!. Justin himself has reproduced pas-

The text is repeated in the same words, Hom. xviii. 4, 13, 20
(part). The difference of Justin’s reading from this is clear
and striking. Cf. Recogn. ii. 47.
1 See Semisch, pp. 330 sqq. Any critical commentary
M

"ΜΝ

162 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

(CHAP. IL sages of the LXX. with constant variations, of

The chief
classes of
various
readings in
MSS.

which no traces can be elsewhere found’. Unless
then it can be made out that the recurrent
readings in which he differs from the text of the
Evangelists, whom he did not profess to quote,
are more striking or more numerous than those
found in the other Fathers, and in his own quo-
tations from the Old Testament, the fact that
there are corresponding variations in both cases
serves only to show that he treated the Gospels
as they did, or as he himself treated the Pro-
phets, and not that he was either unacquainted
with their existence or ignorant of their peculiar
claims.

The real nature of the various readings of
Justin’s quotations will appear more clearly by a
comparison with those found at present in Manu-
scripts of the New Testament. Errors of quo-
tation are often paralleled by errors of copying ;
and even where they differ in extent they fre-
quently coincide in principle. If we exclude
mistakes in writing, differences in inflexion and
orthography, adaptations for ecclesiastical read-
ing, and intentional corrections, the remaining
various readings in the Gospels may be divided
to the New Testament will furnish a crowd of instances. I
intended to give a collection from Griesbach’s Symbole
Critice—only from Clement and Origen—but it proved too

bulky.
1 E. g. Isai. xuii. 6 sqq. Credner, ii. pp. 165, 213 sqq.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 163

generally into synonymous words and phrases, CHAP. IL

transpositions, marginal glosses, and combina-

tions of parallel passages', This classification susin's
examived ae

will serve exactly for the recurrent variations in

Justin; and as it was made for an independent cation.

purpose it cannot seem to have been suggested
by them, however closely it explains their origin.

In the first group of passages which Justin 1. syoy-
quotes in his Apology from the ‘precepts of phrases

Christ,’ he says: ‘ Now concerning our affection

(στέργειν) for all men He taught this: If ye love Fins in-

them which love you what strange thing doy
for the fornicators do this...And to the end that
we should communicate to those who need, he
said: Give to every one that asketh thee, and
from him that would borrow of thee turn ye not
away; for if ye lend to them of whom ye hope
to receive, what strange thing do ye? this even
the publicans 403.) The whole form of the quo-

1 This classification is given by Schulz in his third
edition of the first volume of Griesbach’s New Testament,
pp. xxxviii., sqq. He has illustrated each class by a series of
examples, which may be well compared with Justin’s quota-
tions.

2 Ap. i. 15: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ στέργειν ἅπαντας ταῦτα ἐδίδαξεν"
El ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; (Mt:
τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; Le.: ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστί;) Καὶ γὰρ of
πόρνοι (Mt.: οἱ τελῶναι. Le.: οἱ ἁμαρτωλοῖ) τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν
(Luke vi. 32; Matt. v. 46).... Els δὲ τὸ κοινωνεῖν τοῖς δεο-
μένοις καὶ μηδὲν πρὸς δόξαν ποιεῖν ταῦτα ἔφη᾽ Παντὶ τῷ
αἰτοῦντι δίδοτε (δίδου all. δός) καὶ τὸν βουλόμενον (θέλοντα
Mt.) δανείσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῆτε (-7s Mt.) El γὰρ δανείζετε

M2

CHAP. II.

164 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

tation, the context, the intertexture of the words
of St Matthew and St Luke, show that the quo-
tation is made from memory. How then are we
to regard the repetition of the phrase ‘ what
strange thing do ye’ The corresponding words
in St Luke in both cases are ‘ what thank have
ye?’ in St Matthew, who has only the first pas-
sage, ‘what reward have ye?’ This very diversity
might occasion the new turn which Justin gives
to the sentence ; and the last words point to its
source in the text of St Matthew: ‘If ye love
them which love you, what reward have ye? Do
not even the publicans the same ? And if ye salute
your brethren only, what remarkable thing do ye ?
Do not even the heathen so'!?’ The change of
the word (καινὸς for περισσός) which alone re-

παρ᾽ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; (Le. ut supra)
Τοῦτο καὶ of τελῶναςε ποιοῦσιν (Matt. v. 42; Luke vi. 30).
In all the quotations from Justin I have marked the varia-
tions from the text of the Gospels by italics in the trans-
lation, and in the original by spaced letters. If there appear
to be any fair MS. authority for a reading which Justin
gives I have not noticed it, unless it be of grave importance.
For instance, in the second passage, λαβεῖν is read for
ἀπολαβεῖν by ‘B, L;’ and in the first τοῦτο for τὸ αὐτὸ by
41 Cant. It.’

1 Matt. v. 47: τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; In this verse we
must read ἐθνικοὶ for τελῶναι ; but τελῶναι is undoubtedly the
right reading in the corresponding clause in v. 46; and
thus the connexion of the words is scarcely less striking
than before. At the same time Justin may have read
τελῶναι : the verse is not quoted by Clement, Origen, or
Irenzeus.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 165

mains to be explained—if it were not suggested
by the common idiom '—falls in with the pecu-
liar object of Justin’s argument, who wished to
show the reformation wrought in men by Christ's
teaching. The repetition of the phrase in two
passages closely connected was almost inevitable.

CHAP. II.

The recurrent readings in Justin offer another Second in-
instance of the substitution of a synonymous “*™-))

phrase for the true text. He quotes our Lord
as saying: ‘Many shall come in my name clothed
without in sheep-skins, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves*%.’ This quotation, again, is
evidently a combination of two passages of
St Matthew, and made from memory. The
longer expression in Justin reads like a para-
phrase of the words in the Gospel, and is illus-

1 The phrase καινὸν ποιεῖν occurs in Plato, Resp. iil.
$99 &. It is possible that περισσὸν ποιεῖν may be found
elsewhere, but I doubt whether it would be used in the
same sense; περισσὰ πράσσειν has a meaning altogether
different.

2 Dial. c. 35; (Apol. i. 16): Πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται (ἥξουσι
Ap.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί pou ἔξωθεν (Ἐμὲν Ap.) ἐνδεδυμένοι
δέρματα προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἶσι (ὄντες Ap.) λύκοι ἅρπαγες
(Matt. xxiv. 5; vii. 15). Immediately below Justin quotes:
Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἐλεύσονται (ἔρχον-
ται Mt.) πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔξωθεν, κι τ. λ. (Matt. vii. 15: ἐν ἐνδύμασι
προβάτων). The phrase ἐνδύματα προβάτων is very strange,
and though there is no variation apparently in the MSS.
δέρμασι has been conjectured. Cf. Schulz. in 7. Semisch has
remarked that ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα shows traces of the
text of St Matthew (p. 340).

166 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHaP. 0. trated by the single reference made to the verse

Another
instance.

by Clement, who speaks of the Prophetic Word
as describing some men under the image of
‘wolves arrayed in sheep’s fleeces'.’ If Clement
allowed himself this license in quoting the pas-
sages, surely it cannot be denied to Justin.

In close connexion with these various readings
is another passage in which Justin substitutes a
special for a general word, and replaces a longer
and more unusual enumeration of persons by a
short and common one. ‘Christ cried aloud
before He was crucified, The Son of Man must
suffer many things, and be rejected by (ὑπὸ) the
scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise
again on the third day*.’ In another place the
same words occur with the transposition of the
titles ‘...by the Pharisees and scribes. Once
again the text is given obliquely: ‘ Christ said
that He must suffer many things of (amo) the
scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified...’ In this
last instance the same preposition is used as in
St Luke, and the two variations only remain
constant—‘scribes and Pharisees’ for ‘ elders and

1 Clem. Al. Protr. ᾧ 4: λύκοι κωδίοις προβάτων ἠμφιεσ-

t.

2 Dial. c. 76: ᾿Εβόα yap πρὸ τοῦ σταυρωθῆναι" Act τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ (ἀπὸ
Lc.) τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων (πρεσβυτέρων καὶ
ἀρχιερέων καὶ γραμματέων Lo.) καὶ σταυρωθῆναι (ἀποκτανθῆναι
Le.) καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι. Cf. cc. 100; δ].

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 167

chief priests and scribes,’ and ‘ crucified’ for ‘ put cHaP.11.
to death!’ Though these readings are not sup-
ported by any manuscript authority, they are
sufficiently explained by other Patristic quota-
tions. The example of Origen shows the natural
difficulty of recalling the exact words of such a
passage. At one time he writes ‘The Son of
Man must be rejected of (απὸ) the chief priests
and elders... ;’ again ‘...of the chief priests and
Pharisees and scribes... ;’ again ‘...of the elders
and chief priests and scribes of the people®.’ In
corresponding texts a similar confusion occurs
both in manuscripts and quotations®. The second
variation is still less remarkable. Even in a later Luke xv.
passage of St Luke the word ‘crucified’ is sub-
stituted for ‘put to death,’ and Ireneus twice
repeats the same reading. ‘ From that time He
began to show unto his disciples that He must
go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things from
the chief priests, and be rejected, and crucified, and
rise again on the third day‘.” ‘The Son of Man

1 In Matt. xvi. 21 ὑπὸ is read by Cod. D; in Mark viii.
31 it is supported by B, C, Ὁ, &c., and must be received into
the text; in Luke ix. 22 ἀπὸ appears to be the reading of all
the MSS. From this note it will appear how little weight
could be rested on the reading ὑπὸ in Justin, even if it were
constant.

2 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. p. 291.

3 See the various readings to Matt. xxvi. 3, 59; xxvii. 41.

4 Tren. iii. 18,4: Ex eo enim, inquit, coepit demonstrare
discentibus (to his disciples), quoniam oportet illum Hieroso-

168 THE.AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHAP.1L must suffer many things, and be rejected, and
crucified, and rise again the third day'.’ It is
scarcely too much to say that both these pas-
sages differ more from the original text than
Justin’s quotations, and have more important
common variations ; and yet no one will maintain
that Irenseus was unacquainted with our Gospels,
or used any other records of Christ’s life.

A Vast ins Another quotation of Justin’s, which may be

inghow the classed under this same division, is more instruc-

mee tive, as showing the process by which these
various readings were stereotyped. Prayer for
enemies might well seem the most noble charac-
teristic of Christian morality. ‘Christ taught us
to pray even for our enemies, saying : Be ye kind
and merciful, even as your Heavenly Father®.’
‘We who used to hate one another...now pray
for our enemies?,.,’? The phrase as well as the
idea was fixed in Justin’s mind; and is it then
strange that he quotes our Lord’s teaching on
the love of enemies elsewhere in this form:
‘Pray for your enemies, and love them that hate
you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for

lymam ire et multa pati α sacerdotibus, et reprobari et cruci-
figi et tertia die resurgere (Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22). The
words et reprobart form no part of the text of St Matthew.

1 Id. iii. 16, 5: Oportet enim, inquit, Filium hominis
multa pati et reprobari et crucifigi et die tertio resurgere
(Luke ix. 22).

2 Dial. c. 96. | 8 Ap. i. 14.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 169

them that despitefully use you'?’ The repeti- caaP.m
tion of the key-word (pray) points to the origin
of the change; and the form and context of the
quotation shows that it was not made directly
from any written source. But, here again there
are considerable variations in the readings of the
passage. In St Matthew it should stand thus:
‘Love your enemies, and pray for them that per-
secute you.’ The remaining clauses appear to
have been interpolated from St Luke. Origen
quotes the text in this form five times; and in
the two remaining quotations he only substitutes
‘them that despitefully use you’ from St Luke,
for the last clause*. Irenseus gives the precept in
another shape : ‘ Love your enemies, and pray for
them that hate you’. Still more in accordance
with Justin, Tertullian says, ‘It is enjoined on
us to pray to God for our enemies, and to bless
our persecutors‘,’ It would be useless to extend
the inquiry further.

1 Ap. i. 15: Εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν καὶ
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς (ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν,
καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς Le.) καὶ (= Le.) εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς
καταρωμένους ὑμῖν καὶ εὔχεσθε (προσεύχεσθε Mt. Le.) ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς (Luke vi. 27, 28. Cf. Matt. v. 44).

2 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. pp. 253 sq.

8 Adv. Her. iii. 18, δ: Diligite inimicos vestros et orate
pro eis quit vos oderunt.

4 Ap. 31: Preeceptum est nobis ad redundantiam benig-
nitatis etiam pro inimicis Deum orare, et persecutoribus nos-
tris bona precari.

170 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

Transpositions are, perhaps, less likely to

2. Transpo- recur than new forms of expression; at least I
3. Gloss. have not noticed any repeated in Justin. One

or two examples, however, show the nature of a
large class of glosses. Every scholar is familiar

ene present with what may be called the prophetic use of the

present tense. In the intuition of the seer
the future is already realized, not completely but
inceptively : the action is already begun in the
working of the causes which lead to its accom-
plishment. This is the deepest view of futurity,
as the outgrowth of the present. But more fre-
quently we break the connexion: future things
are merely things separated by years or ages
from ourselves ; and this simple notion has a ten-
dency to destroy the truer one. It is not then
surprising that both in manuscripts and quota-
tions the clearly defined future is confounded
with the subtler present. Even in parallel pas-
sages of the Synoptic Gospels the change is
sometimes found, from a slight alteration of the

Instance of point of sight'. The most important instance in
injec. dustin occurs in his account of the testimony of

John the Baptist: ‘I indeed baptize you with
water unto repentance ; but he that is mightier
than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy

1 Matt. xxiv. 40; Luke xvii. 34 (where, however, mapa-
λαμβάνεται is read by ‘D, K,’ &c. See John xxi. 18, varr.
lectt.) Cf. Winer, N. T. Grammatik, ὃ 41, 42.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 171

to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy cap. 1.
Ghost and with fire!...... The whole quotation,
except the clause in question and the repetition
of a pronoun, agrees verbally with the text of
St Matthew. This is the more remarkable be-
cause Clement gives the passage in a form dif-
fering from all the Evangelists*, and Origen has
quoted it with repeated variations, even after
expressly comparing the words of the four Evan-
gelists®. The series of changes involved in the
reading of Justin can be traced exactly. In
place of the phrase of St Matthew, ‘ but he that
is coming is mightier than I,..,’ St Mark and
St Luke read, ‘ but he that is mightier than I is
coming..... Now elsewhere Justin has repre-
sented this very verb——‘is coming’—by two

1 Dial. c. 49. (Cf. c. 88): ᾿γὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι
eis peravoray’ ἥξει δὲ (γὰρ, c. 88) ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μον (ὁ de
ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μον ἐστί Mt. ἔρχεται δὲ ὁ
ἰσχυρότερος Le.) οὗ οὔκ εἶμι ἱκανός .... πυρί. Οὗ τὸ πτύον
αὐτοῦ (= Mt.) ἐν τῇ x. «20. doBeorp (Matt. iii. 11,12; Luke
iii. 16,17). For the insertion of αὐτοῦ see Mark vii. 25;
Apoc. vii. 2; and varr. lectt. Winer, § 22, 4.

2 Fragm. ὃ 25: ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς ὕδατι βαπτίζω, ἔρχεται δέ
μου ὀπίσω ὁ βαπτίζων ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ mupl.... τὸ
γὰρ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ διακαθᾶραι τὴν ἅλω καὶ
συνάξει τὸν σῖτον els τὴν ἀποθήκην (ἐπιθήκην, Griesb.) τὸ δέ...
ἀσβέστφῳ.

3 Comm. in Joan. vi. 16. Id. vi. 26: ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν
ὕδατι, ὁ δὲ ἐρχόμενος per ἐμὲ ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστὶ, αὐτὸς
ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματε ἁγίῳ. Cf. Griesb. Symb. Crit. ii.
244, who seems to have confounded the Evangelist and the
Baptist.

172 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1. futures in different quotations of the same verse!.
The fact that he uses two words shows that he
intended in each case to give the sense of the
original ; and since one of them is the same as
appears in the words of St John, its true rela-
tion to the text of the Gospels is established.

.4,comb- § The remaining instances of repeated varia-

Combination tions occur in the combination of parallel texts.
In the first the coincidence is only partial: the
differences of the two quotations from one —
another are at least as great as their common
difference from the text of the Gospels. ‘Many
shall say to me in that day,’—so Justin quotes
our Lord’s words,—‘ Lord, Lord, did we not in
Thy name eat, and drink, and prophesy, and cast
out devils? And I will say to them, Depart
from Me.’ In the Apology the passage runs
thus: ‘ Many shall say.to me, Lord, Lord, did
we not in Thy name eat, and drink, and do
mighty works? And then will I say to them,
Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity*’ It so

1 Cf. p. 165, n. 2.

2 Dial. c. 76; Ap. i. 16: πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί μοι τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
ἐκείνῃ" (= Ap. ἐν €, τῇ ἡ. Mt.) Κύριε, Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι
ἐφάγομεν καὶ ἐπίομεν καὶ (= Mt.) προεφητεύσαμεν (δυνάμεις
ἐποιήσαμεν Ap.) καὶ (Ἐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι Mt.) δαιμόνια ἐξεβά-
λομεν; (+ καὶ τῷ σῷ ov. δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν; Mt.)
Καὶ (Ἐ τότε Ap. Mt.) ἐρῶ (ὁμολογήσω Mt.) αὐτοῖς᾽ ἀποχω-
ρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ (proam. Mt. Ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶτ".... + οἱ
ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. + ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας Ap.) Matt. vii.
22, 23. Cf. Luke xiii. 16, 17, from which each new word in
Justin is borrowed.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTs. 173

happens that Origen has quoted the same pas- cHaP. 11

sage several times with considerable variations,
but four times he combines the words of St
Matthew and St Luke as Justin has done.
‘Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
did we not tn Thy name eat and drink, and in
Thy name cast out devils, and do mighty works?
And I will say to them, Depart from Me,
because ye are workers of unrighteousness'.’
The parallel is as complete as can be required,
and proves that Justin need not have had re-
course to any apocryphal book for the text
which he has preserved.

Sometimes the combination of texts consists Combins-
more in the intermixture of forms than of words, “™

Of this Justin offers one good example. He
twice quotes the woe pronounced against the
false sanctity of the scribes and Pharisees with
considerable variations, but in both cases pre-
serves one remarkable difference from St Mat-
thew, whose words he uses. When exclaiming
against the frivolous criticism of the Jewish
doctors he asks, ‘ Shall they not rightly be called
that which our Lord Jesus Christ said to them:

“Whited sepulchres, appearing beautiful without, Matt xxill

but within full of dead men’s bones, paying
tithe of mint, and swallowing the camel, blind

1 Griesb. Symb. Crit. ii. p. 262.

CHAP. IT.

174 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

guides! ?”’ ‘Christ seemed no friend to you...
when he cried, “ Woe to you, scribes and Phari-
sees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and rue,
but regard not the love of God and judgment;
whited sepulchres, appearing beautiful without,
but within full of dead men’s bones®.”’

False teachers are no longer ‘like unto whited
sepulchres;’? they are very sepulchres. The
change is striking. If this be explained the
participial form of the sentence creates no new
difficulty, but follows as a natural sequence. The
text of St Matthew, however, offers no trace
of its origin. Three words, indeed, occur in
different authorities to express the comparison,
but none omit it. Clement and Irenseus give the
passage with a very remarkable variation’, but
they agree with the MSS. in preserving the con-
nexion. The clue to the solution of the diffi-
culty must be sought for in St Luke. He has

1 Dial. cc. 112; 17. The common passage runs thus:
τάφοι κεκονιαμένοι, ἔξωθεν φαινόμενοι ὡραῖοι καὶ ἔσωθεν
(ἐσ. δὲ, c. 17) γέμοντες ὀστέων νεκρῶν. The corresponding
clause in St Matthew is (6. xxiii. 27): ὅτι παρομοιάζετε τάφοις
κεκονιαμένοις, οἵτινες ἔξωθεν μὲν φαίνονται ὡραῖοι ἔσωθεν δὲ
γέμουσιν ὀστέων νεκρῶν καὶ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας. For παρομοιάζετε
Lachmann reads ὁμοιάζετε with B. Clement (Griesb. Symb.
Crit. ii, 327) has ὅμοιοι ἐστέ (Peed. 111. 9, § 47).

2 Dial. c. 17.

8 Clem. l.c.: ἔξωθεν ὁ τάφος φαίνεται ὡραῖος, ἔσωθεν
δὲ γέμει... Iren. iv. 18,3: Foris enim sepulerum apparet
Jormosum ; intus autem plenum est.... Tho passage stands
so also in D and d.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 175

not, indeed, one word in common with Justin, cHap.n.
but he has expressed the thought—at least ac-
cording to very weighty evidence—in the same
manner!: ὁ Woe to you, for ye are unseen tombs, Luke xt. 4.
and men know not when they walk on them.

Justin has thus clothed the living image of St

Luke in the language of St Matthew.

These are all the quotations in Justin which General view
exhibit any constant variation from the text “™
of the Gospels’. In the few other cases of re-
current quotations the differences between the
several texts are at least as important as their
common divergence from the words of the Evan-
gelist®. This fact alone is sufficient to show that Supposing
Justin did not exactly reproduce the narrative fees"
which he read, but made his references ρθηθ Ὁ 5
rally by memory, and that inaccurately. Under
such circumstances the authority of the earliest
of the Fathers, who are admitted on all sides

1 Luke xi. 44: Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἔστε [= ὡς τὰ] μνημεῖα [= τὰ]
ἄδηλα καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι περιπατοῦντες ἐπάνω οὐκ οἴδασιν. So
D abe, Lucif.; Griesbach marks the reading as worthy of
notice.

2 J have not noticed the variation in the reference to
Luke x. 16: ὁ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων ἀκούει τοῦ ἀποστείλαντός pe (Ap.
i. 62. Cf. 16), because it is contained in several MSS. and
translations: Dd., Syrr., Arm., Zth., &c.

8 The following passages may be compared: Dial. c. 97:
Apol. i. 15 = Luke vi. 36; Matt. v. 45. For the repetition
of χρηστοὶ καὶ olxrippoves compare Clem. Strom. ii. 59. § 100:

ἐλεήμονες καὶ olerippoves. Dial. 6. 101; Apol. i. 16= Matt.
xix. 16, 17; Luke xviii. 18, 19.

CHAP. II.

example of
Codex’
Beza.

176 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

to have made constant and special use of the
Gospels, has been brought forward to justify
the existence and recurrence of variations from
the canonical text; and though it would have
been easy to have chosen more striking instances
of their various readings, still, by taking those
only which occur in the same places as Justin's,
the parallel gains in direct force as much at
least as it loses in point. But even if it were not
so: if it had seemed that recurrent variations
could be naturally explained only by supposing
that they were derived from an original written
source, that written source might still have been
a MS. of our Gospels. One very remarkable
type of a class of early MSS. has been pre-
served in the Codex Beze (D)—the gift of the
Reformer to the University of Cambridge—
which contains verbal differences from the com-
mon text, and apocryphal additions to it, no
less remarkable than those which we have to
explain’. The frequent coincidences of the

1 Though I am by no means inclined to assent without
reserve to the judgment of Bornemann on D, yet it seems
to me to represent in important features a text of the
Gospels, if not the most pure, yet the most widely current
in tho middle, or at least towards the close of the second
century. This is not the place to enter into a discussion of
the extent of its agreement with the earliest Versions and
Fathers. It is sufficient to have indicated the result which
seems to follow from it. The MS. was probably written
about a. c. 500—550, but it was copied from an older sticho-

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 177

readings of this MS. with those of Justin must
have been noticed already ; and if it had perished,
as well it might have done, in the civil wars
of France!, many texts in Clement and Irenzus
would have seemed as strange as his peculiarities?.

metrical MS., which in turn was based upon another still
older. (Cf. Credner, i. 465).

In Luke xv., to take a single chapter as an illustration
of the statement in the text, the following readings are found
only in D and d (the accompanying Latin Version),

v. 13. ἑαυτοῦ τὸν βίον for τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ.

21. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ (transp.)

28. ἐνέγκατε... [καὶ θύσατε) for ἐνέγκαντες... . θύσατε.

24, εὑρέθη - ἄρτι.

27. σιτευτὸν - αὐτῷ.

(28. ἤρξατο [Ὁ παρακαλεῖν] coepit rogare, Vulg.]

29. ἐξ αἰγῶν for ἔριφον (heedum de capris, d.)

30. τῷ δὲ vig cov τῷ καταφαγόντι πάντα μετὰ τῶν
πορνῶν καὶ ἐλθόντι, ἔθυσας σιτευτὸν μόσχον.

These readings, it is to be remembered, are found in a
MS. of the four Gospels. Is it then incredible that Justin’s
quotations were drawn directly from another, which need
not have differed more from the common text? For other
reasons it seems to me highly improbable that it was so,
but not from the character of the constant variations which
they exhibit.

The greater interpolations of D are well known. Ex-
amples may be found in Matt. xx. 28; Luke iii. 24; vi. 5;
xvi. 8; Acts v. 22; xv. 2; xviii. 27, &c. Credner has exa-
mined many of the readings of Ὁ (Beitriige, i. 452 ff.), but
he has by no means exhausted the subject.

1 Initio belli civilis apud Gallos, an. MDLXII, ex
cenobio 8. Irensei, Lugduni, postquam ibi diu in pulvere
jacuisset, nactus est Beza... Mill, Prolcg. N. T. 1268.

2 The following examples will serve to confirm the
statement :

N

CHAP. Il.

CHAP. II.

(y) Coinei-
dences with
heretical
gospels.

Matt. xi. 27.

John iii. 3,
ὃ.

178 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

We are arguing on false premises, but it is not
the less important to notice that up to this
point there is nothing in Justin’s quotations, sup-
posing them to have been drawn immediately
from a written source, which is inexplicable by
what we know of the history of the text of our
Gospels.

But it is said that some of Justin’s quota-
tions exhibit coincidences with fragments of
heretical Gospels, which prove that he must
have made use of them, if not exclusively, at
least in addition to the writings of the Evan-
gelists.

One such passage has been already con-
sidered incidentally', and it has been shewn that
the reading which Justin gives appears elsewhere
in Catholic writers; and that in fact it may
exhibit the original text. The remaining in-
stances are neither many nor of great weight.
The most important of them is the reference to
our Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus?*: ‘ For

Matt. xxiii. 26. €£w6ev...Clem. Peed. iii. 9, § 48; Iren.
iv. 18, 3.
Luke xii. 27. οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει. Clem. Peed. ii.
— xix. 26. προστίθεται. Clem. Strom. vii. 10. προστι-
θήσεται.
Luke xii. 11. φέρωσιν. Clem. Or. (Griesb. ii. 377).
— xii. 38. τῇ ἐσπερινῇ φυλακῇ. Iren. v. 34, 2.
Cf. Hug, Introduction, i. § 22. It is needless to multiply
instances.
1 Cf. p. 159, n. 2.
2 Cf. Semisch, § 26, pp. 189 ff.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APCLOGISTS. 179

Christ said, Except ye be born again (avaryevyy- CHAP. τι.

θῆτε) ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. But that it is impossible for those who
have been once born to enter into their mother’s
womb, is clear to 411}. In the Clementines the
passage reads: ‘Thus sware our Prophet to us,
saying: Verily I say unto you, except ye be born
again (ἀναγεννηθῆτε) with living water into the
name of the Father, Son, [and] Holy Spirit, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’.’
Both quotations differ from St John in the use
of the plural, in the word descriptive of the new
birth, and in the phrase, ‘ ye shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven,’ for ‘he cannot enter
‘into the kingdom of God’; but their mutual
variations are not less striking.

1 Ap. i. 61: καὶ yap ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν᾽ Ἂν μὴ dvayevyn-
θῆτε, ov μὴ εἰσέλθητε eis τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. “Ors
δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἷς rds μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ
f γενομένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν πᾶσίν ἐστι.

2 Hom. χὶ. 26: οὕτως γὰρ ἡμῖν ὥμοσεν ὁ προφήτης εἰπών.
Ἀμὴν (+ ἀμὴν Joh.) ὑμῖν λέγω (A. ὑ. Joh.) ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννη»
θῆτε (τις γεννηθῇ, Joh.) ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς,
υἱοῦ, ἁγίον πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε (οὐ δύναται elo.
Joh.) εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (τοῦ Θεοῦ, Joh.) Cf.
Matt. xviii. 3 (Schwegler, i. p. 218). Cf. Recog. vi. 9. Sic
enim nobis cum sacramento verus propheta testatus est,
dicens: Amen dico vobis, nisi quis denwo renatus fuerit
(ἀναγεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν) ex aqud=non introibit in regna calo~
rum.

8 Mill quotes the Lectiones Velesianas. (Cf. Prolegg. 1311,
1507) as giving the reading ἀναγεννηθῆναι: Vere. and Ver.
(ap. Lachm.) have renatus fuerit. He cites also two MSS.

N 2

CHAP. IL

180 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

If the familiar use of one phrase were in all
cases a sufficient explanation of its substitution
for another which is more strange, there would
be little difficulty here. The whole class of
words relative to the New Birth (ἀναγεννᾶσθαι,
ἀναγέννησις) formed a part of the common tech-
nical language of Christians, and occur repeatedly
both in Justin and in the Clementines’. The
phrase in the Gospel (γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν), on the
other hand, is not only peculiar, but ambiguous.
Nor is this all: the passage, as quoted in both
cases, is put in the form of a general address..
If then it were thus adapted from the Evangelist
this change might furnish occasion for the others.
And it is not to be overlooked that Ephraem
Syrus has given the words in a form which com-
bines, in equal proportions, the peculiarities of
St John and Justin®: ‘Except a man be born
again from above (αναγεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν) he shall not
see the kingdom of heaven.’ So also in the
Apostolical Constitutions the words are quoted
thus: ‘The Lord says, Except a man be born

as reading εἰσελθεῖν in v. 3. The later editors have not
marked the variation.

1 The earliest examples of this Christian use of the
words are 1 Pet. i. 3,23. Clem. Hom. vii. 8; xi. 26 (imme-
diately before the quotation); xi. 35. Justin, Ap. i. 61.
Cf. Credner, i. p. 301 f.

3 De Peenit. T. iii. p. 183 (Semisch, p. 196): ἐὰν μή τις
ἀναγεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, od μὴ ἴδῃ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 181

(γεννηθῆ) of water and Spirit, he shall not enter cHaP.1.
into the kingdom of heaven'.’ If these parallels

are insufficient to show that the quotation of

Justin is merely a reminiscence of St John, at Coincidences
least, they indicate that it was not derived from bo proo of

use.

any apocryphal Gospel, but rather from some

such tradition of our Lord’s words as has pre-

served peculiar types of other texts*. Apocry-

phal Gospels were, in fact, only unauthorized
collections of such traditionary materials; and it

should be no matter of surprise if that which was
recorded in them elsewhere survived as a current

story or saying. The marvel is that early writers

so constantly confined themselves within the

circle of the canonical narratives.

The next instance which is quoted, as show- mate v. x,
ing a coincidence between Justin and the Cle- Ἢ
mentine Gospel, illustrates yet more clearly the
existence of a traditional as well as of an

1 Const. Apost. vi. 15 (Semisch, J. 6.}: λέγει ὁ κύριος" ἐὰν
μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. For γεννηθῇ the common reading
is βαπτισθῇ, which is probably a gloss on γένν. ἐξ ὑ. καὶ wv.
No instance of βαπτίζω ἐκ τινὸς occurs to me.

2 Schwegler (i. 218) has pointed out a passage in the
Shepherd of Hermas which alludes to the same traditional
saying: Necesse est, inquit, ut per aquam habeant ascendere,
ut requiescant. Non poterant aliter in regnum Dei intrare,
quam ut deponerent mortalitatem prioris vite (iii. 9, 16).
The coincidence of the latter clause with St John, and not
with Justin, is to be remarked,

182 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.11. evangelic form of Christ’s words. ‘That we

should not swear at all, but speak the truth
always,’ Justin says, Christ thus exhorted us:
‘Swear not at all; but let (ἔστω) your yea be yea,
and your nay, nay ; but whatsoever is more than
these is of the evil one'.” In the text of St Mat-
thew the corresponding words are: ‘I say unto
you, Swear not at all...but let your communt-
cation be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay; but whatsoever
is more than these is of the evil one.’ It so
happens, however, that St James has referred to
the same precept: ‘ Before all things, my brethren,
swear not, neither by the heaven, neither by the
earth, neither by any other (ἄλλος) oath: but let
(ἤτω) your yea be yea, and your nay nay...’ Cle-
ment quotes the latter clause in this form as ‘a
maxim of the Lord?;’ and Epiphanius says that
the Lord in the Gospel bids us ‘not to swear,
neither by the heaven, neither by the earth,

1 Apol. i. 16 (Clem. Hom. xix. 2; Matt. νυ. 34, 37): περὶ
δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὀμνύναι ὅλως, τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν dei, οὕτως παρεκελεύ-
σατο: μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως: ἔστω δὲ (+6 λόγος, Mt.) ὑμῶν τὸ
(= Mt.) ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ (= Mt.) οὗ οὔ" τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ
τοῦ πονηροῦ (ἐστιν + Mt., Clem.)

In Clem. Hom. iii. 55 the passage stands: ἔστω ὑμῶν
τὸ val vai, τὸ οὗ of" τὸ yap, κ.τ.λ.

3 James v. 12: Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μον, μὴ ὀμνύετε,
μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον: ἥτω δὲ
ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε.

8 Strom. v. 14, ᾧ 100: τὸ κυρίου ῥητόν: ἔστω (not Fre)

ὑμῶν, κατιλ., Cf. Lib. vii. 11, § 67, where the sentence is
again quoted in the same form. |

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 183

neither by any other (ἕτερος) oath: but let (ἤτω) CHAP. τι.

your yea be yea, and your nay nay; for that which
is more (περισσότερον) than these is in tts origin
(ὑπάρχει) of the evil one’.’ In the Clementine
Homilies the words are: ‘[Our master] coun-
selling us said: Let (ἔστω) your yea be yea, and
your nay nay ; but that which is more than these
is of the evil one*.” The differences of Epipha-
nius from the text of St Matthew are thus greater
than those of Justin; and the coincidence of
Justin with the Clementines is confined to words
found in St James, and quoted expressly, by
some Fathers as Christ’s words.

The many various readings of the reply of Mate xix 17.

our Lord, when he limited the true application
of the word ‘good’ to God only, are well known.
It is recorded in different forms by the three
Evangelists. Justin himself has quoted the pas-
sage twice, varying almost every word. It is
brought forward repeatedly by other Fathers,
with constant variations from the text of the
Gospels. In the presence of these facts it would

1 Epiph. adv. Her. i. 20, 6; (i. p. 44): [rot κυρίου) ἐν
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ A€yorros’ μὴ ὀμνύναι μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν
γῆν μήτε ἕτερον τινὰ ὅρκον' ἀλλ᾽ ἥτω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ
τὸ οὗ of τὸ περισσότερον γὰρ τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ
ὑπάρχει.

2 Hom. xix. 2: συμβουλεύων [ὁ διδάσκαλος εἴρηκεν᾽ ἔστω

et

ὑμῶν τὸ vai ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὗ of τὸ δὲ πέρισσον τούτων ἐκ τοῦ
πονηροῦ ἐστίν.

--

CHAP. II.

184 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

be impossible, under any circumstances, to lay
great stress upon the coincidence of a few words
in one of Justin’s quotations with a reading
recognized by the Marcosians' and the Ebion-
ites. Yet the case is made still simpler when it
is shown that Catholic authority can be adduced
for each word in which he agrees with those
widely different sects. In the Apology the answer
is given: ‘No one is good save God alone, who
made all things*.’ In the Dialogue: ‘ Why callest
thou me good? One is good, my Father which
ts in heaven’. The Marcosians read in their
text: ‘Why callest thou me good? One is good,
my Father in heaven. In the Clementines the

1 We shall consider in another place (Ch. IV.) whether
the passages quoted by Irenseus were corrupted by the Mar-
cosians or simply misinterpreted.

3 Ap. i. 16 (Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19): οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς
εἰ μὴ μόνος (εἷς, Mk., Le.) ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ ποιήσας: τὰ πάντα
(= Me., Le.) In St Mark Dd combine the former words,
reading μόνος εἷς Θεός, Several other old Latin MSS.
give solus (Griesb. l.c.).

The concluding words occur just before, and are to be
considered as ‘an addition of Justiu’s suggested by the cir-
cumstances of the time, and his late controversy with
Marcion’ (Credner, i. 243). Such a concession takes away
much of the force of Credner’s other arguments. If Justin
might add a clause to guard against a heresy, surely he
might adapt the language of the Evangelists to meet best
the wants of his readers.

8 Dial. ὁ. 101; Marcos. ap. Iren. i. 20, 2: ri pe λέγεις
ἀγαθόν (Le. xviii. 19); εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός (Mt. xix. 17), 6
πατήρ pov, 6 (= Marcos.) ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 185

words are: ‘ Call me not good. The Good is One, CHAP. 11.
my Father which is in heaven’. As to these quo-
tations it is to be noticed, that Epiphanius has
connected the words of St Matthew and St

Luke exactly as they are found in the Marco-

sian Gospel and in Justin?, The last clause which

is common to the three is the only remaining
difference. Now, not only are there traces of

some addition to the text of St Matthew in several
versions: not only did Marcion and Clement

and Origen recognize the words ‘my Father®;’

but in one place Clement gives the whole sen-
tence, ‘no one is good except my Father which is

tn heaven‘. He has attached the last clause of
Justin to the words of St Luke, exactly as
Epiphanius has added the last words of St Luke

to the opening clauses of Justin.

The last instance which is quoted is not more Matt. x20.

1 Hom. xviii. 3: μή pe λέγε ἀγαθόν᾽ ὃ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς els
ἐστίν, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

3 Epiph. Adv. Her. trix. 19 (i. p. 742); 57 (p. 780)
as quoted by the Arians; and in Lxix. 57 (Ὁ. 781) he accepts
the reading as his own. Semisch, p. 373.

8 Marcion read (Epiph. Adv. Her. χιλὶ. p. 315): μή pe
λέγετε ἀγαθόν᾽ εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὃ πατήρ. In the τοῖα»
tation (p. 339) his text is given: μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν' εἷς
ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ. For the passages of Clement
(ὁ πατήρ) and Origen (6 Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ) see Griesb. Symbd.
Crit. pp. 305, 388.

4 Ped. i. 8, § 72: διαρρήδην λέγει᾽ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ
ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Semisch, p. 372. The
passage has been overlooked by Griesbach.

CHAP. II.

186 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

important than those which have been examined!.
After speaking of those ‘sons of the kingdom
who shall be cast into the outer darkness, Justin
quotes the condemnation of the wicked to be
pronounced by Christ in these words: ‘Go ye
tnto the outer darkness, which my Father prepared
for Satan and his angels*.’ It ocurs again in the
same form in the Clementine Homilies. There
are here two variations to be noticed—a change
in the verb (ὑπάγειν for πορεύεσθαι), and the sub-
stitution of the ‘ outer darkness’ for ‘ the eternal
fire.’ The first variation occurs elsewhere*: the
naturalness of the second is shown by the fact that
in one MS. the original reading was ‘the outer

1 The connexion of Dial. c. 97 with Hom. iii. 57 (Matt.
v. 45) has been noticed already: p. 175, note 3. The
reference to Luke xi. 52 in Dial. c. 17, where ras κλεῖς ἔχετε
stands for ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως, is very different
from that in Clem. Hom. iii. 18, where the phrase is κρατοῦσι
τὴν κλεῖν.

2 Dial. ο. 76; Clem. Hom. xix. 2; Matt. xxv. 41] : ὑπάγετε
(Mt. πορεύεσθε an’ ἐμοῦ) eis τὸ σκότος (Mt. wip) τὸ ἐξώ-
τερον (Mt. αἰώνιον) ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατὴρ (+ μου, Mt.) τῳ
σατανᾷ (διαβόλῳ, Mt., Clem.) καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.

The reading, ὁ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ pov, is supported by D,
and by many Fathers; so that we may suppose that it was
early current in the canonical Gospel. Irenseus, again,
once omits ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (iii. 23,3); in two other places it is
omitted by some MSS. (iv. 33, 11; 40, 2); in the remaining
place it appears to be read by all (iv. 28, 2).

8 The old Latin version of Irenzeus has in the two
first quotations abite, and in the two last discedite (Vulg.).
The variation is not noticed by Lachmann. The words are
confounded, Luke viii. 43.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 187

fire.’ And more than this: Clement of Alex- cHap.u.

andria has coupled the two images of the ‘fire’

and ‘the outer darkness’ in a distinct reference

to the passage of St Matthew!. Differences
It would be easy to show that the differences Justin quo.

of Justin's quotations from the Gospel-passages thw

in the Clementines are both numerous and

striking*. Their coincidences, however, are so

few, and of such a character as to lend no sup-

port to the belief that they belong to a common

type. A comparison of all the passages which

1 Quis Div. Salv. § 13 (Semisch, p. 377).

How easily such a passage might be altered may be seen
from Epiphanius’s quotation of the sentence of the just:
δεῦτε ἐκ δεξιῶν pov of εὐλογημένοι τ-- οἷς ὁ πατήρ pov ὁ
οὐράνιος ἔθετο τὴν βασιλείαν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμον" ἐπεί-
νασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν' ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ pe’ =
γυμνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ pe (Heer. Lxi. 4). The whole form of
the blessing is here changed.

Justin himself has introduced the idea of ‘the eternal
fire’ into his reference to Matt. xiii. 42, 43. Apol. i. 16.

2 An examination of the following passages common to
Justin and the Homilies will fully confirm this statement :

Matt. iv. 11 Hom. viii. 21 Dial. ce. 103; 125
— v. 39, 40 — xv. 5 Apol. 16
(Luke vi. 29)
Matt. vi. 8 — iii. 55 — 15
— vii. 15 — xi. 35 — 16; Dial. c. 35
— viii. 11 — viii. 4 Dial. c. 76
— x. 28 — xviii. 3 Ap. 19
— xi. 27 —_ — 4 — 63; Dial. c. 100
— xix. 16 -- — 3 — 16; — oc. 101
Luke vi. 36 — iii. 57 — 15; — c. 96
— xi. 52 — — 18 — 17.

188 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1L are found in both books places their independence
beyond a doubt; but it is enough that important
variations have been noticed in texts which
exhibit the strongest resemblances. That the
Apocryphal Gospels should exhibit points of par-
tial resemblance to quotations made by memory
from the written Gospels is most natural. They
were not mere creations of the imagination, but
narratives based on the original oral Gospel of
which the written Gospel was the authoritative
record. The same cause in both cases might
lead to the introduction of a common word, a
characteristic phrase, a supplementary trait. But
there was this difference: in the one case these
changes were limited only by the arbitrary rule
of each particular sect; in the other, they were
restrained by an instinctive sense of Catholic
truth, varying, indeed, in strength and suscepti-
bility, but related to the bare individualism of
heresy as the fulness of Scripture itself to the
partial reflections of it in the writings of a later
age.
3 Colne The relation of Justin to the Apocryphal
Justin'snar- Gospels introduces the last objection which we
have to notice. It is said that his quotations
differ not only in language but also in substance
from our Gospels: that he attributes sayings to
our Lord which they do not contain, and narrates
events which are either not mentioned by the

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 189

Evangelists, or recorded by them with serious CHAP. 11

variations from his account. It is enough to
answer that he never does so when he proposes
to quote the Apostolic Memoirs. Like other
early Fathers he was familiar by tradition with
words of our Lord which are not embodied in
the Gospel. Like them he may have been ac-
quainted with details of His Life treasured up
by such as the elder of Ephesus', who might
have heard St John. But whatever use he
makes of this knowledge, he never refers to the
Apostolic Memoirs for anything which is not
substantially found in our Gospels?®.-

Justin’s account of the Baptism, which might His secoune
seem an exception to this statement, really con- Te voice.

firms and explains it. It is well known that
there was a belief long current that the heavenly
voice addressed our Lord in the words of the
Psalm, which have been ever applied to Him:

‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten P« ". 7.

Thee.’ Augustine mentions the reading as
current in his time*; and the words are found

1 Dial. 6. 3: παλαιός τις πρεσβύτης.

2 All the passages are given above, pp. 155 f.

3 August. de Cons. Evv. ii. 14. Illud vero quod nonnulli
codices habent secundum Lucam (iii. 22), hoc illA voce sonu-
isse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, Filius meus es tu, ego
hodie genui te; quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus greecis
non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis ex-
emplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud... This, it will be
remembered, is in a critical work; elsewhere he quotes the

190 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1. at present in the Cambridge MS. (D), and in
the old Latin Version’. Justin might then have
found them in the MS. of St Luke which he
used; but the form of his reference is remark-
able. When speaking of the temptation he says:
‘For the devil, of whom I just now spoke, as
soon as [Christ] went up from the river Jordan
—when the voice had been addressed to Him:
“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
Thee,” —is described in the Memoirs of the
Apostles as having come to Him and tempted
Him, so far as to say to Him, Worship me’%.’
The definite quotation is of that which is con-
fessedly a part of the Evangelic text: it is
evident from the construction of the sentence,

words as uttered at the Baptism without remark: Enchiri-
dion, c. xLIx. (14). Cf. Lectt. Varr. (T. vi. p. xxiv. ed.
Paris).

1 Cf. Griesb. ad Luo. iii. 22. The quotation of the
words by Clement of Alexandria (Peed. i. § 25) is omitted in
his Symbole Critice (ii. 363).

2 Dial. c. 103: καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ὁ διάβολος ἅμα τῷ ἀναβῆναι
αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ,ἶοταμοῦ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῷ λεχθείσης"
Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe" ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύ-
μασι τῶν ἀποστόλων γέγραπται προσελθὼν αὐτῷ καὶ πειράζων
μεχρὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ᾽ Προσκύνησόν μοι. The same words are
quoted again (6. 88) without any reference to the Memoirs.

The words occurred in the Ebionite Gospel: Epiph. Har.
xxx. 13. It is evident, however, that the narrative of the
Baptism there given is made up from several traditions.
That which it has in common with Justin must have been
borrowed by both from some third source. Cf. Strauss,
Leben Jesu, i. 878, (Ed. 2, quoted by Semisch, p. 407, n.)

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTs. 191

that Justin gives no authority for the disputed σβαρ. τ.

clause.
This apparent mixture of two narratives is

still more remarkable in the mode in which “7.

Justin introduces the famous legend of the fire
kindled in Jordan when Christ descended into
the water. ‘When Jesus came to the Jordan,
where John was baptizing, when he descended to
the water, both a fire was kindled in the Jordan,
and the Apostles of Christ Himself recorded
that the Holy Spirit as a Dove lighted upon
Him'” Here the contrast is complete. The
witness of the Apostles is claimed for that which
our Gospels relate; but Justin affirms on his
own authority a fact which, however beautiful
and significant in the symbolism of the East, is
yet without any support from the Canonical
history 3.

1 Dial. 6. 88: καὶ τότε ἔλθόντος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἶορ-
δάνην ποταμόν, ἔνθα ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐβάπτιζε, κατελθόντος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ rip ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ καὶ ἀναδύντος αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ὡς περιστερὰν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπιπτῆναι ἐπ᾽
αὐτὸν ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν.

In the Ebionite Gospel (Epiph. 1. c.) the legend is given
differently: ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἠνοίγησαν οἱ οὐ-
ρανοί.. .. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα. Otto
(ad 1.) quotes a passage from ‘a Syriac liturgy’ which may
indicate the origin of the tradition: ‘Quo tempore adscendit
ab aquis, sol inclinavit radios suos.’ Justin appears to be the
only Catholic writer who alludes to the appearance: and I
can add no new reference to those given by Otto.

2 Tho details of the Transfiguration furnish an illus-

CHAP. II.
The remain-
ing ‘A

’ refe-
rences io
Justin.

Traditional
facts.

Matt. xii. 94;
xxvii. 63;
John vii. 12.

Mark vi. 3.

192 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

The remaining uncanonical details in Justin
are either such facts and words as are known to
have been current in tradition, or natural ex-
aggerations, or glosses on the received text
generally suggested by some prophecy of the
Old Testament.

He tells us that ‘those who saw Christ's
works said that they were a magic show; for
they dared to call Him a magician and a deceiver
of the people!’ The Gospels have preserved
the simplest form of this blasphemy; and it
survived even to the time of Augustine*. In
St Mark our Lord is called ‘the Carpenter.’
The reading, indeed, was obliterated in Origen’s
MSS., who denied that our Lord ‘was ever
Himself called a carpenter in the Gospels current
in the churches*;’ but it is supported by almost
all the authorities at present existing. The same
pride or mistaken reverence which removed the
word suppressed the tradition which it favoured;

tration of the passage. Light is the symbol of God’s dwell-
ing-place, (Exod. xiv. 20; 1 Kings viii. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 16).
Light is the outward mark of special converse with Him ;
Ex. xxxiv. 30.

1 Dial. 6. 69: of δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ὁρῶντες γινόμενα φαντασίαν
μαγικὴν γίνεσθαι ἔλεγον᾽ καὶ γὰρ μάγον εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐτόλμων λέγειν
καὶ λαοπλάνον. Cf. Apol. i. 30, and Otto’s notes.

2 August. de Cons. Evv. i. 9: Christum propterea sapi-
entissimum putant fuisse quia nescio que illicita noverat....

3 Ὁ. Cels. vi. 36: οὐδαμοῦ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις φερομένων
εὐαγγελίων τέκτων αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀναγέγραπται.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 193

but it is characteristic of the earliest age that cHap.n.

Justin speaks of the ‘Carpenter's works which
Christ wrought, when among men, ploughs and
yokes, by these both teaching the emblems of
righteousness, and [enforcing] an active 116}.

In addition to these details Justin has re- Traditional

corded two sayings of our Lord not found in
the Gospels. ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ said: In
whatsoever I may find you, in this will I also
judge you’*.” Clement of Alexandria has quoted
the same sentence with slight variations, but
without any distinct reference to its source®, In
later times it was attributed to Ezekiel, or some
prophet of the Old Testament‘; and though it
was widely current, there is no evidence to show
that it was contained in any apocryphal Gospel.
It may have been contained in the ‘ Gospel
according to the Hebrews5;’ but even if it were
so, the tradition must have existed before the

1 Dial. 6. 88: ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ τεκτονικὰ ἔργα εἰργάζετο ἐν
ἀνθρώποις ὦν, ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγά, διὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης
σύμβολα διδάσκων καὶ fivepy βίον. Otto refers to the
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (c. 38), and to the Gospel of
Thomas (c. 13), for similar traditions. The latter narrative
(ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγοὺς ἐποίει, said of Joseph,) shows a remark-
able coincidence of language with Justin.

2 Dial. c. 47: ὁ ἡμέτερος κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἶπεν" Ἔν
οἷς ἂν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ. Cf. Otto, ad ἃ.

8 Clem. De Div. Serv. § 40.

4 Semisch, p. 394.

δ Cf. Credner, i. 247.

194 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.IL record, and may have survived independently of
it. The same holds true of the other phrase,
‘Christ said: There shall be schisms and here-
5165), If it were not for the mode in which
Justin quotes them, the words might seem a
short summary of our Lord’s warnings against
the false teachers who should deceive many. In
the Clementines the two prophecies are inter-
mixed: ‘There shall be, as the Lord said, false
apostles, false prophets, heresies, lusts of rule?.’
Lactantius also affirms that ‘both Christ Himself
and His ambassadors foretold that many sects
and heresies would 8.186... 3.

Exaggers- Elsewhere Justin generalizes the statements
of the Gospels with what may seem natural
exaggerations. ‘Herod,’ he says, ‘commanded

1 Dial. c. 35: εἶπε γάρ.. ἔσονται σχίσματα καὶ alpéces.
Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. The passage is quoted by Justin be-
tween Matt. xxiv. 5 (vii. 15) and Matt. xxiv. 11, 24; and dis-
tinguished from them.

2 Hom. xvi. 21: ἔσονται γάρ, ὡς ὁ κύριος εἶπεν, ψευδα-
πόστολοι, ψευδεῖς προφῆται, αἱρέσεις, φιλαρχίαι. The word
ψευδαπόστολοι occurs likewise in St Paul (2 Cor. xi. 13), in
Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. rv. 22), in Justin (ἰ. ¢.), in Ter-
tullian (Prescr. heret. c. iv. quoted by Otto,) and in other
authors; so that it may point to some traditional version of
our Lord’s words. Cf. Semisch, p. 391, anm.

3 Inst. Div. iv. 30, (Semisch, p. 393): Ante omnia scire
nos convenit, et ipsum, et legatos ejus preedixisse, quod plu-
rimee secteo et hereses haberent existere, que concordiam
sancti corporis rumperent. Cf. Tertull. 1. 6. where the pas-
gage is apparently referred to the text of St Paul.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 195

all the children in Bethlehem to be slain without cHap. 15
exception';’ yet he states in another place with

more exactness that ‘Herod slew all the children

who were born in Bethlehem about the time of
Christ’s birth? Again, when speaking of the
calumnies of the Jews about the Resurrection,

Justin not only gives the origin of the story

like St Matthew, but adds ‘that they chose out

men whom they sent to the whole world to an-
nounce the rise of a godless and impious sect ;’

of which, indeed, it is said in the Acts ‘that it Ace xvii
is everywhere spoken against.’

More frequently he interprets the text; ag Closes:

when he says that Joseph ‘was of Bethlehem,’

as though that were his native village, while
Nazareth was his dwelling-place*; or when he
speaks of ‘the Magi from Arabia. And this

1 Dial. c. 78: πάντας ἁπλῶς τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν Βεθλεὲμ
ἐκέλευσεν ἀναιρεθῆναι.

3 Dial. c. 103: πάντας τοὺς ἐν Βεθλεὲμ ἐκείνου τοῦ καιροῦ
γεννηθέντας παῖδας. Origen quotes the passage with some
variations: πάντα ra παιδία ἀνεῖλε τὰ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ, καὶ ἐν
(Ξ πᾶσι) τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ διετοῦς κιτιλι. Comm. in
Matt. xvii. 11.

3 Dial. c. 108: ἄνδρας χειροτονήσαντες ἐκλεκτοὺς els πᾶσαν
τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐπέμψατε, κηρύσσοντες ὅτι aipecis τις ἄθεος
καὶ ἄνομος ἐγέγερται ἀπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ τινος Γαλιλαίου πλάνον. ...

4 Dial. c. 78: ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης
ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου ἀνεληθύθει ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ἔνθα geet, els Βεθλεέμ,
ὅθεν ἦν, ἀναγράψασθαι.

o2

196 THE AGE OF THE’ GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHaP.I. very commonly happens when the gloss is
tn connexion suggested by a prophecy. Thus he alludes to
“Ὑ the cave in which our Lord was born, because
deal xxxitl Isaiah had said that ‘He shall dwell in a high
cave of a strong rock!.’ He speaks of the Star
which rose in heaven, not in the East*—the day-
spring (ἀνατολή), because our Lord Himself is
Zech αἰ. 4. described as ‘the Day-spring,—‘the Star of
11. Jacob.’ He tells us that the foal of the ass on
which our Lord entered into Jerusalem was
bound to a vine, as it was said of Judah that
Gen xiz.1. ‘he bound his foal unto the vine*:"—that ‘ there
was no one, not even one, at hand to help Him
[when betrayed], though He was without sin,’
Paxxiiii. even as David had prophesied in the Psalm‘*:—
that the Jews when they mocked Him ‘placed
Him on a judgment-seat and said, “ Judge for us,”
Invi 2. a8 Isaiah had complained, “ they ask of me now
judgment! ;”’that ‘ His disciples who were with
Him were scattered till He arose °,’—that ‘all His
acquaintance forsook Him and denied Him’,

1 Cf. p. 116, note 7. It should have been added that
Epiphanius actually quotes St Luke for the statement.

2 Dial. c. 106; 78.

8 Apol. 32. Justin interprets the prophecy in the same
way in the Dialogue (c. 53), without affirming this parti-
cular.

4 Dial. ο. 103. δ᾽ Apol. 35.

© Dial. c. 53. 7 Apol. 50.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 197

referring to the prophecy of Zechariah quoted cuar.n.
by St Matthew, and the picture of Christ's j Zech, xi. 7. xii. 7.

sufferings and loneliness in Isaiah.

Such is the analysis of Justin’s quotations Recapitu-

from the Memoirs of the Apostles, of his various
readings in Evangelic phrases, of his apocryphal
additions to the Gospel history. The process is
long, but a full examination of all the passages
in question is the best answer to objections
which appear strong because isolated instances
are taken as types of general laws; and the
result to which it necessarily leads is full of
strength and satisfaction for those who feel that
the Catholic Church cannot have arisen from a
mere fusion of discordant elements at the end
of the second century, and who still look
anxiously and candidly into every document and
every fact which marks the characteristics of its

form and the stages of its growth. The details te intema
of Justin’s quotations show us something of the iin. a

manner in which the Scriptures, and especially
the Gospels, were used by the first Christian
teachers, something of the variations which
existed in different copies, of which other traces
still remain, something of the extent and
character of the oral records of Christ’s life;
but they afford no ground for the belief that the
Memoirs were anything but the Synoptic Gospels
which we have, and they exhibit no trace of the

| me ~ ‘

198 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuaP.. use of any other Evangelic records. Justin

See ional to « written Gospel, and his totimony i

wrtiien Apo- pel, and his testimony ig
ἐπ exactly fitted to the position which he held. He
refers to books, but more frequently he appears
to bring forward words which were currently
circulated rather than what he had privately
read. In both respects his witness to our Gos-
pels is most important. For it has been shown,
that his definite quotations from the Memoirs
are so exactly accordant with the text of the
Synoptists, as it stands now, or as it was read
at the close of the second century, that there
can be no doubt that he was familiar with their
writings, as well as with the contents of them.
And the wide and minute agreement of what
he says of the life and teaching of our Lord,
with what they record of it, proves that his
knowledge of the Gospel history was derived
from a tradition which they had moulded and
controlled, if not from the habitual and exclusive
use of the books themselves’.

1 The relation between Justin’s quotations and our Go-
spels is so intimate that they cannot have been indepen-
dent. The only alternative—that the Synoptic Gospels
embodied the oral Gospel as it was current in Justin’s
time—apart from historical considerations, is excluded by
the fact that the Evangelists exhibit the narrative in the
simplest form. At the same time it is evident that the
original oral Gospel could not have been so long preserved

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 199

His coincidences with heretical or apocryphal cHar. 1.
narratives have been proved to be not peculiar
to him, but fragments of a wide belief. His
simpler divergences from the received text have
been paralleled by examples of his quotations
from the LXX. and by recognized various
readings in other authorities.

On a comprehensive view, all leads to the same
conclusion. The lines which seemed to cross one
another at random give a result perfectly com-
plete and symmetrical, when drawn from every
point; and thus, from a mere critical analysis, it
seems beyond doubt that Justin used the three
first Gospels as we use them, as the canonical
and authentic memoirs of Christ’s life and
work. .

If we glance at his historical position we Justin's hie
seem to gain the same result with equal cer-"~
tainty. He states that the Memoirs of the
Apostles were read in the weekly services of the
Church on the same footing as the writings of
the Prophets; or, in other words, that they
enjoyed the rank of Scripture. And since he
speaks of their Ecclesiastical use without any
restriction, it is natural to believe that he alludes
to definite books, which were generally held in

to a very great extent in its first purity without the counter.
check of written Gospels. The tradition and the record
mutually illustrate and confirm one another.

200 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1I. such esteem, and had acquired a firm place in
In retationto the common life of Christians. He could not, at

any rate, have been ignorant of the custom of
the churches of Italy and Asia ; and if his descrip-
tion were true of any it must have been true of
those. Is it then possible to suppose, that
within twenty or thirty years after his death
these Gospels should have been replaced by
others similar and yet distinct!? that he should
speak of one set of books, as if they were per-
manently incorporated into the Christian ser-
vices, and that those who might have been his
scholars should speak exactly in the same terms
of another collection, as if they had had no rivals
within the orthodox pale? that the substitution
should have been effected in such a manner
that no record of it has been preserved, while
smaller analogous reforms have been duly chroni-
cled?? The complication of historical difficulties
is overwhelming; and the alternative is that
which has already been justified on critical
grounds, the belief that when Justin spoke of
Apostolic Memoirs or Gospels, he meant the

1 Cf. pp. 81, 82.

2 As, for example, when Serapion reproved certain in
the church at Rhossus for the use of ‘the Gospel of St
Peter, (Euseb. H. E. vi. 12); or when Theodoret substi-
tuted the canonical Gospels for the Harmony of Tatian,
of which he found ‘above two hundred in the churches.’

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 201]

Gospels which were enumerated in the early car. 1.

anonymous Canon, and whose mutual relations
were eloquently expounded by Ireneus.

This then appears to be established, both by How far Jus

external and internal evidence, that Justin’s
‘Gospels’ can be identified with those of St
Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke. His references
to St John are uncertain; but this, as has been
already remarked, follows from the character of
the fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he should
quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic writings
addressed to Jews and heathen ; and at the same
time he exhibits types of language and doctrine,
which, if not immediately drawn from St John,
yet mark the presence of his influence and the
recognition of his authority '.

In addition to the Gospels the Apocalypse and to the |
is the only book of the New Testament to which ofthe New
Justin alludes by name. Even that is not quoted, The Αἱ

1 Cf. pp. 121, 123 (note 3), and Credner, i. 253, ff. Justin’s
acquaintance with the Valentinians proves that the Gospel
could not have been unknown to him (Dial. c. 85). The
references to St John have been collected by Otto (Illgen’s
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, 1841, ii. pp. 77, ff; 1843, i. 34, ffs
cf. Liicke, Comm. @. ἃ. Ev. Joh. pp. 29, ff. Ed. 2.) The
chief passages are John iii. 3—5, (Ap. i. 61. cf. p. 178);
i, 13, (Dial. c. 63); i. 12, (Dial. c. 123); xii. 49, (Dial. ο.
56); vii. 12, (Dial. c. 69); Licke (pp. 34, ff.) has shown the
connexion between Justin’s doctrine of the Logos and the
Preface to St John’s Gospel. Otto (p. 81) also calls atten-
tion to his doctrine of the Eucharist as related to John vi.

CHAP. IL.

The writi
of St Pave

Colossians.

202 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

but appealed to generally as a proof of the
existence of prophetic power in the Christian
Church', But it cannot be concluded from his
silence that Justin was either unacquainted with
the Acts and the Epistles, or unwilling to make
use of them. His controversy against Marcion
is decisive as to his knowledge of the greater
part of the books, and various Pauline forms of
expression and teaching show that the Apostle
of the Gentiles had helped to mould his faith
and words’, Thus he says, ‘We were taught
that Christ is the first-born (πρωτότοκος) of God :’
‘we have recognized Him as the first-born of
God and before all creatures:’ ‘through Him
God arranged (κοσμῆσαι) all things*.” Elsewhere,
he uses the example of Abraham to show that
circumcision was for a sign and not for righteous-
ness, since he ‘ being in uncircumcision, for the
sake of the faith, in which he believed God, was

1 Cf. p. 140, Apol. i. 28: ὁ apynyérns τῶν κακῶν δαιμόνων
ὄφις καλεῖται καὶ σατανᾶς καὶ διάβολος coincides remark.
ably with Apoc, xx. 2. The other passage to which Otto
refers (a. a. O. 1843, i. 42) Dial. c. 45 || Apoc. xxi. 4, seems
more uncertain.

2 Otto, a. a. O. 1842, ii. pp. 41, ff. The absence of all
mention of the name of St Paul can create no difficulty
when it is remembered how Justin speaks of St Peter (ἕνα
τῶν ἀποστόλων) and of the sons of Zebedee (ἄλλους δύο ἀδελ-
gots. Dial. c. 106.)

δ Apol, i. 46; Dial. o. 100; Apol. ii. 6; cf. Col. i,
15—17.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 208

justified and blessed!.’ ‘ By faith (πίστει) we are CHAP. IL
cleansed through the blood of Christ and His

death, who died for this*;' ‘ through whom we

were called into the salvation prepared aforetime

by our Father’,.’ * Christ was the passover, who

was sacrificed afterwards‘ ;’ ‘ who shall come with cortsians.
glory from the heavens, when also the man of

the falling away (ὁ τῆς ἀποστασίας avOpwros)—

the man of lawlessness (c. 32)—who speaketh εἰ Thessai
strange things—blasphemous and daring (c. 32),

even against the Most High, shall exert his law-

less daring against us Christians’.’ Elsewhere

he speaks of Christ as ‘the Son and Apostle of pereus.
God °,’

1 Dial. 6. 28: καὶ yap αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ ὧν
διὰ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἐπίστευσε τῷ θεῷ, ἐδικαιώθη. The depar-
ture from the Pauline point of view is to be noticed; as
faith is here represented as the moving cause (διὰ acc.), and
not as the instrumental (διὰ gen.) cause, or as the spring
(ἐκ) of justification.

2 Dial. c. 13. 8 Dial. c. 181,

4 Dial. 6. 111; 1 Cor. v. 7; cf. Otto, a. a. O. 1843, i.
38, f. who refers to several other coincidences between the
Epistles to the Corinthians and Justin. Dial. c. 14 | 1 Cor.
v. 8; Apol. i. 60 1 Cor. ii. 4, f.

δ Dial. c. 110, (cf. c. 32.) 2 Thess. ii. 3, ff.

6 Apol. i. 12, 63; cf. Hebr. iii. 1. The title is used no-
where else in the New Testament than in the passage of the
Hebrews. Otto also quotes two other parallels to the lan-
guage of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Dial. c. 13 ἢ Hebr.
ix. 13, f; c. 34 ἢ Hebr. viii. 7, f.

The references to the Acts are uncertain. Cf. Ap. i. 49 |
Acts xiii. 27, 48. Otto, a. a. O. Still more so those to the
Pastoral and Catholic Epistles.

CHAP. II,

204 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

The most remarkable coincidences between

Coincidences Justin and St Paul are found in their common
Paul ia quo- quotations from the LXX. It is possible, indeed,
LXX.

that these may have been derived from some
third source, or grounded on a traditional ren-
dering of the words of the Old Testament; but
in the absence of all evidence of the fact, it is
more natural to believe that the arguments of
St Paul, with the readings which he adopted,
were at once incorporated into the mass of
Christian evidences, and reproduced by Justin
as far as they fell within the scope of his works.
One example will explain the nature of the
agreement. Speaking of the hatred which the
Jews showed to Christians, Justin says to them
that it is not strange; ‘for Elias also making
intercession about you to God speaks thus : Lord,
they killed thy prophets, and threw down thy
altars, and I was left alone, and they are seeking
my life. And God answers him: I have still
seven thousand men who have not bent their
knee to Baal!’ The passage agrees almost

1 Otto, a.a. O., 1843, i. pp. 36, ff. Dial. c. 39= Rom.
xi. 3. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, 18. In the LXX. the text stands:
ὥλῶν ἐζήλωκα τῷ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι, ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπόν σε
(v. 14. τὴν διαθήκην σον, v. 1. σε) of viol Ἰσραήλ" (v. 14 + καὶ)
τὰ θυσιαστήριά σον κατέσκαψαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σον ἀπέκτειναν
ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ, καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν
ψυχήν μου λαβεῖν αὐτήν.... ν. 18: καταλείψεις ἐν ᾿Ισραὴλ
ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ
Βάαλ....

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 205

verbally with the quotation of St Paul in the cHar.m

Epistle to the Romans, and differs widely from
the text of the LXX. Similar examples occur
in other quotations common to Justin and the
Epistles to the Galatians and the Ephesians’:
and thus with the exception of the pastoral
epistles, and that to the Philippians’, he appears
to show traces of the influence of all St Paul's
Epistles.

In the other writings besides the Apologies References to
and Dialogue, which are commonly attributed to 7mmiinim

ourrec. 3

Justin, the references to the New Testament
exhibit the same general range. In the frag-
ment on the Resurrection there are allusions to
words and actions of our Lord characteristic
of each of the four Gospels’, without any trace
of apocryphal traditions; and in addition to this

1 These passages are:
Apol. i. c. 52=Rom. xiv. 11. Isai. xiv. 23.
Dial. c. 27 = Rom. iii. 12—17. Ps. xiv. 3, 5,10; exxxix. 4.
— c. 95=Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxvii. 26.
— 0 965 — Hh 18. — xxi. 23.
c. 39= — Eph. iv. 8. Ps. uxviii. 18.
Isai. Lix, 7,8. This passage was omitted in the list given,
p. 144.
2 The reference of Dial. c. 12 to Phil. iii. 3 is very
uncertain.
3 (a) St Matthew, xxii. 29 (c. ix.) ; 30 (0. ii.); xxviii. 17
(c. ix.)
(8) St Mark, xvi. 14, 19 (c. ix.)
(y) St Luke, xxiv. 38, 39, 42 (c. ix.)
(δ) St John, xiv. 2, 3 (c. ix.); xx. 25, 27 (c. ix.); xi. 25
(cf. ο. i.)

€

206 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHaP.It. there are coincidences of language with St Paul's
Epistles to the Corinthians (i.), the Philippians,
the Orstio and to Timothy (i.)'. In the ‘ Address’ and ‘ Ex-

and Cohorta-
tio ad

tis, hortation to Gentiles, there are apparent remi-
niscences of the Gospel of St John, of the Acts
of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St Paul
to the Corinthians (i.), and the Colossians’.

General re- A combination of these different results will
give the general conclusion of the whole section.
And it will be found that the Catholic Epistles
and the Epistles to Titus and Philemon alone of
the writings of the New Testament have left no
impression on the genuine or doubtful works of
Justin Martyr.

§ 8. Dionysius of Corinth and Pinytus.

Connexion of In the last section it was shown that the
zits Justin reading of ‘the books of the Apostles, formed
part of the weekly services of Christians: two
fragments of Dionysius of Corinth throw light
upon this usage. Dionysius appears to have been
bishop of Corinth at the time of the martyr-
dom of Justin Martyr’; and the passages in ques-

1 1 Cor. xv. 53; ¢. 10. Philipp. iii. 20; c. 9 (7). 1 Tim.
ii, 4: ¢. 8. ᾽

2 John viii. 44; Cohort. c. 21. Acts vii. 22; Cohort.
6. 10. 1 Cor. iv. 20; Cohort. c. 35. 1 Cor. xii. 7—10;
Cohort. c. 32. Galat. iv. 12; v. 20, 21; Orat. c. 5. Coloss.
i, 16; Cohort. ο. 15.

8 Hieron. de Vir. Ill, xxvii. Claruit sub Impp. L. Anto-

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 207

tion are taken from a letter to Soter, a bishop of cHaP.1.
Rome. His testimony is thus connected both
chronologically and locally with that of Justin.

There is no room left for the accomplishment of

any such change in the organization of the
Church as should fix the application of their
language to different customs.

‘ To-day was the Lord’s-day, [and] kept holy,’ Hie neoount
Dionysius writes to Soter, ‘and we read your Gyan”
letter; from the reading of which from time to =e
time we shall be able to derive admonition, as we
do from the former one written to us by the hand
of Clement!.’ There are several points to be
noticed here: it is implied that the public read-
ing of Christian books was customary—that this
custom was observed even in the case of those
which laid no claim to canonical authority—
that it had been practised from the Apostolic
ages. ‘Tertullian, in a well-known passage’, ap-

nino Vero, et L. Aurelio Commodo. Routh (i. p. 177)
fixes his death about 176, when Commodus began to reign
jointly with his father.

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 (Routh, p. 180): Τὴν σήμερον οὖν
Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ἧ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν
ἐπιστολήν᾽ ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς
καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν. The plural
pronoun (ὑμῶν) is to be noticed. Cf. p. 66, n. 1.

The first clause is somewhat obscure. If Κυριακὴν be
not a gloss ἁγίαν ἡμέραν must be taken, I think, as a predi-
cate, as I have translated it.

2 De Preescr. Heeret. ὁ. xxxvi.

208 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.t. peals to the copies of the Epistles still preserved

by the Churches to which they were first written.
The incidental notice of Dionysius shows that he
is not using a mere rhetorical figure. If the
letter of the companion of Apostles was trea-
sured up by those whom it reproved, it is past
belief that the Churches of Ephesus, or Colosse,
or Philippi, should have received as Apostolic
letters addressed to themselves writings which
were not found in their own archives, and
which were not attested by the tradition of those
who had received them. The care which was
extended to the Epistle of Clement would not
have been refused to the Epistles of St Paul.
Dionysius, it is true, says nothing in this

New Teste passage directly bearing on the writings of the

New Testament ; but in referring to the ecclesi-
astical use of Clement’s Epistle he proves that the
Corinthian Church must have retained through-
out the doctrine of St Paul, to whose authority
it gives the clearest witness. And not only this,
but so far as the Epistle of Clement was found
to be marked by a peculiarly Catholic character’,
the reception of that document alone is a proof
of the perpetuity of the complete form of faith
which it exhibits. The Catholicity of the ὅο-
rinthian Church is, indeed, expressly affirmed in
another fragment. Just as Clement appealed

1 Cf. pp. 29, ff.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 209

to the labours of St Peter and St Paul, placing caar. τ.
them in clear and intimate connexion!, Diony-
sius describes the Churches of Rome agd Coriith

as their joint plantation. ‘For both,’ he says,
‘having come to our ity Corinth and planted

us, taught the like doctrine ; and in like manner

having also gone to Italy and taught together

there, they were martyred at the same time®.’

The intercourse of Dionysius with foreign His teeth
churches—his ‘inspired industry’ as it has been [μι ἄτα Μὲ

called’—gives an additional weight to his evi- cure.”
dence. Besides writing to Rome, he addressed
‘Catholic Letters’ to Lacedsemon and Athens
and Nicomedia, to Crete and to Pontus, for
instruction in sound doctrine, for correction .of
discipline, for repression of heresy’. The

1 Clem. ad Cor. i. c. 5.

2 Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 (Routh, 1. c.): Ταῦτα (al. ταύτῃ)
καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας, τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ
Παύλον φυτείαν γεννηθεῖσαν Ρωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνε-
κεράσατε. καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ eis τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύ- -
σαντες ἡμᾶς, ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν᾽ ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν
ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. It is
difficult to fix the exact sense οὗ ὁμοίως and ὁμόσε in tho
last clause. I believe that ὁμοίως is to be taken with the
whole sentence, and not with διδάξαντες : and that ὁμόσε
expresses simply ‘to the same place.’ Bishop Pearson’s
interpretation (Routh, p. 192) seems to rest on false ana-
logies.

8 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23: ἔνθεος φιλοπονία.

4 Euseb. ].c. The description which Eusebius gives of
the Letters accords with what might have been conjectured
of the characteristic faults of the churches, Ἢ μὲν πρὸς

P

210 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuar.t. glimpse thus given of the communication be-

tween the churches shows their general agree-

ment, and the character of Dionysius confirms

their orthodoxy. There is no trace of any wide

revolution in doctrine or government—nothing

to support the notion that the Catholic Creed

was the result of a convulsion in Christendom,

and not the traditional embodiment of apostolic
teaching.

His direct re- There were, indeed, heresies actively at work,

ference to the
Netter, but their progress was watched. Some of their

mee leaders ventured to corrupt orthodox writings,
but they were detected. ‘ When brethren urged
me to write letters, Dionysius says, ‘I wrote
them; and these the apostles of the devil have
filled with tares, taking away some things and
adding others, for whom the woe is appointed.
It is not then marvellous that some have at-
tempted to adulterate the Scriptures of the New

- Λακεδαιμονίους ὀρθοδοξίας κατηχητικὴ, εἰρήνης τε καὶ ἑνώσεως
ὑποθετική᾽ ἡ δὲ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους διεργετικὴ πίστεως καὶ τῆς κατὰ
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτείας... ἄλλη δὲ... πρὸς Νικομηδέας φέρε-
ται, ἐν 7) τὴν Μαρκίωνος αἵρεσιν πολεμῶν, τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας παρί-
σταται κανόνι... The Cretan churches he warns against ‘ the
perversion of heresy,’ and one of their Bishops against im-
posing continence. The churches of Pontus—the home of
Marcion—he urges to welcome those who came back to them
after falling into wrong conversation, or heretical deceit.
From these casual traits wo can form a picture of the early
Church, real and life-like, though differing as widely from
that which represents it without natural dofects as from that
which deprives it of all historical unity.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 211

‘Testament, (τών Κυριακῶν γραφῶν), when they cnar.u.
havé laid hands on those which make no claims -
to their character (ταῖς ov τοιαύταις). It is

thus evident that ‘ the Scriptures of the Lord’—

the writings of the New Testament—were at

this time collected, that they were distinguished

from other books, that they were jealously
guarded, that they had been corrupted for here-

tical purposes. The allusion in the last clause

will be clear when it is remembered that Dio-
nysius ‘warred against the heresy of Marcion,

and defended (παρίστασθαι) the Rule of Truth®.’

The Rule of Truth and the Rule of Scripture,

as has been said before, mutually imply and
support each other.

The language of Dionysius bears evident Colncldance:
traces of his familiarity with the New Testa- Mus. wich diver
ment.

The short fragment just quoted contains
two obvious allusions to the Gospel of St Mat- Matt. xi, x,

1 Euseb. l.c.: ᾿Επιστολὰς yap ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων pe
γράψαι, ἔγραψα" καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβύλου ἀπόστολοι ζιζανίων
γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες, οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ
κεῖται. οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα εἰ καὶ τῶν Κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί
τινες τινας, Routh] ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὅποτε καὶ ταῖς οὐ
τοιαύταις ἐπιβεβλήκασι. It is mentioned that Bacchylides and
Elpistus urged him to write to the churches of Pontus
(Euseb. ].c.); it is, then, possiblo that he alludes to the
corruption of this very letter by the Marcionites. The
parallel thus becomes complete.

§ Cf. note, p. 210.

p2

212 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuaP.1t thew and the Apocalypse; and in another pas-
a sage he adopts a phrase from St Paul's first
} hes. Epistle to the Thessalonians'.

One sentence only has been preserved of an
answer to his letters, but that is marked by the
same scriptural tone. The few words in which
Pinytus asks for further instruction, tend to
show that this was not a characteristic of the
Hebe. τ. 13-- Man but of the age. He urges Dionysius to

‘impart at some time more solid food, tenderly
supplying his people with the nourishment of a
more perfect letter, lest by continually dwelling
on milk-like instruction, they should gradually
grow old in their childish training*.’ The whole
passage is built out of the Epistle to the He-
brews; and throughout the letter, Eusebius adds,
the orthodoxy of the faith of Pinytus was most
accurately reflected.

Fragment of
Pinytvs.

The value of If our records be scanty, at least they have
ments. been found hitherto to be harmonious. It may

seem of little importance to note passing coin-
cidences with Scripture; and yet when it is
observed that all the fragments which have been

1 Euseb. l.c.:... τοὺς ἀνιόντας ἀδελφοὺς ὡς τέκνα πατὴρ
φιλόστοργος παρακαλῶν.

3 Euseb. l.c.:... ἀντιπαρακαλεῖ δὲ στεῤῥοτέρας ἤδη ποτὲ
μεταδιδόναι τροφῆς τελειοτέροις γράμμασιν ἐσαῦθις τὸν
παρ᾽ αὐτῷ λαὸν ὑποθρέψαντα, ὡς μὴ διατέλους τοῖς γαλακτώ-
Searcy ἐνδιατρίβοντες λόγοις τῇ νηπιώδει ἀγωγῇ λάθοιεν κατα-
γηράσαντες.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 213

examined in this section do not amount to more €Hap.1.
than thirty lines, they prove more clearly than “
anything else could do, how completely the
words of the Apostles were infused into the

minds of Christians, They offer an exact paral-

lel to modern usage, and so far justify us in
attributing our own views of the worth of the

New Testament Scriptures to the first Fathers,

as they treated them in the same manner as
ourselves.

§ 9. Hermas.

As we draw nearer to the close of this transi- 4 general |
tional period in the history of Christianity, it si

becomes of the utmost importance to notice rghteritt right ert
every sign of the intercourse and harmony of ritual
the different churches. In the absence of fuller
records it is necessary to realize the connexion
of isolated details by the help of such general
laws as are discoverable upon a comparison of
their relations. The task, however difficult, is
not hopeless ; and in proportion as the induction
is more accurate and complete, the result will
give a more trustworthy picture of the time.
Even when a flood has covered the ordinary land-
marks, an experienced eye can trace out the
great features of the country in the few cliffs or
currents which diversify the waters. This image
will give a fair notion of the problem which must

914 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cnaPp.. be solved by any real history of the Church of
the second century. There is a fact here, a
tendency there: and little is gained by describ-
ing the one, or following the other, without they
are referred to the solid foundation which under-
lies and explains them.

This is not the place to attempt to give any
Church of outline of the history of Christianity. But it is
the second not the less necessary to regard the different

elements which meet at each crisis in its course.
For the moment Rome is our centre. The
metropolis of the world becomes the natural
meeting-place of Christians. There, at the middle
of the second century', were to be found repre-
sentatives of distant churches and conflicting
sects. At Rome, Justin, the Christian philosopher,
opened his school, and consecrated his teaching
by his martyrdom. At Rome, Polycarp, the dis-
ciple of St John, conferred with Anicetus on
the celebration of Easter, and joined with him
in celebrating the Eucharist*. At Rome, Hege-
sippus, a Hebrew Christian of Palestine, com-
pleted, if he did not commence, the first history
of the Church. On the other side, it was at Rome
that Valentinus and Cerdo and Marcion sought

1 The space might be limited even more exactly to the
Episcopate of Anicctus (157—168). Hegesippus came to
Rome during that time, and Valentinus was then still alive

(Euseb. H. E. τν. 22; Irenseus, ap. Euseb. H. E. rv. 11.)
3 Iren. ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 215

to propagate their errors, and met the champions quapP. 1.
of orthodoxy. Nor was this all: while the at-
tractions of the Imperial City were powerful in
bringing together Christians from different lfnds,
the liberality of the Roman Church extended its
influence abroad. ‘It has been your custon,’
Dionysius of Corinth writes to Soter, ‘from the
first to confer manifold benefits on all the bre-
thren, and to send supplies to many churches
which are in every city...supporting moreover
the brethren who are in the mines;...in this
always preserving as Romans a custom handed
down to you by your Roman forefathers!.’ Every-
thing points to a constant intercourse between
Christians, which was both the source and the
fruit of union. Heresy was at once recognized
as such, and convicted by apostolic tradition.
The very differences of which we read are a
proof of the essential agreement between the
churches. The dissensions of the East and
West on the celebration of Easter have left a
distinct impression on the records of Christianity ;
and it is clear that if they had been divided by
any graver differences of doctrine, much more
if their faith had undergone a total revolution,
some other traccs of these momentous facts
would have survived than can be traced in the
subtle disquisitions of critics. Once invest Chris-

1 Dionys. ap. Euseb. H. E. tv. 23. Routh, 1. p. 179.

CHAP, II.

Different ele-
ments com-
bined in Ca-
tholicity.

The charac-
teristics of
the Roman
Church

216 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

tianfty with life—let the men, whose very per-
sonality seems to be lost in the fragments which
bear their name, be regarded as busy workers
in ohe great empire, speaking a common lan-
guage, and connected by a common work, and
the imaginary wars of Judaizing and Pauline
factions within the Church vanish away. In
each city the doctrine taught was ‘that pro-
claimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the
Lord!.’

These general remarks seem necessarily
called for before we examine the writings of
Hermas and Hegesippus, which are commonly
brought forward as unanswerable proofs of the
Ebionism of the Early Church; and if so, of the
impossibility of the existence of any Catholic
Canon of Holy Seripture. But even if it were
to be admitted that those Fathers lean towards
Ebionism, the general character of their age
must fix some limit to the interpretation of their
teaching. The real explanation of their pecu-
liarities, however, lies somewhat deeper. While we
maintain the true unity of the Early Churches,
we have no intention to represent them all as
moulded in one type, or advanced according to
one measure. The freedom of individual develop-
ment is never destroyed by catholicity. The
Roman Church, in which we have seen collected

1 Hogesippus ap. Euseb. H. E. 1v. 22. Cf. p. 214, note 1.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 217

an epitome of Christendém, ,had yet its own cuar.u.
characteristic tendency towards form and order.

Of this something has been said already in
speaking of Clement!; but it appears in a
simpler and yet maturer character in the ‘ Shep- represen
herd of Hermas,’ the next work which remains mas.

to witness of its progress.

This remarkable book—a threefold collection 7angoy
of Visions, Commandments, and Parables—is
commonly published among the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers, and-was for some time attri-
buted to the Hermas saluted by St Paul. Both in- 2. xv.
ternal and external evidence, however, is decisive
against a belief in its Apostolic date; and the
mode in which this belief gained currency is an
instructive example of the formation of a tradi-
tion. The earliest mention of the ‘Shepherd’ Raternal evi-
is found in the fragment on the Canon to which &*
we shall soon revert. The anonymous author
says: ‘Hermas composed the Shepherd very
lately, in our times, in the city of Rome, while
the Bishop Pius, his brother, occupied the chair
of the Roman Church?.’ This same statement is

1 Cf. pp. 32, &c.

2 Routh, 1. p. 396: Pastorem vero nuperrime tempori-
bus nostris in urbe Roma Herma [Hermas] conscripsit, se-
dente [in] cathedra urbis Rome ecclesise Pio episcopo fratre
ejus. Et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare [sed
publicari] vero in ecclesiA populo, neque inter prophetas
completum [completos] numero, neque inter Apostolos, in
finem temporum potest.

218 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP.II. repeated in an Early Latin poem against Marcion,
and in a letter ascribed to Pius himself’. It
comes from the place at which the book was
written, and dates from the age at which it ap-
peared. There is no interval of time or separa-
tion of country to render it uncertain, or suggest
that it was a conjecture. But the character of
the book, and its direct claims to inspiration,
gave it an importance which soon obscured its
origin. The protest of the anonymous author,
whom we have just quoted, shows that this was
the case even in his time. ‘It should therefore,
be read,’ he adds; ‘but it can never be publicly
used in the Church, either among the Prophets...
or the Apostles?” In the next generation Irensus
quotes with marked respect a passage which is
found in the first of the Commandments, but he
does not allude to Hermas by name, nor specify
the book from which he derived it’. Clement of
Alexandria mentions Hermas three times‘, but

1 Cf. Routh, p. 427; Hefele, p. uxxii, where the autho-
ritics are given at longth.

3 Cf, p. 217, note 2.

8 Iren. (iv. 20) ap. Euseb. II. E. v. 8: καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν
ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι els ἐστὶν 6
Θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (Mand.1). It may be
reasonably supposed that Hermas here uses words sanctioned
by common usage.

4 Str. 1. 17. § 85; 1. 29. § 29; 11.1. § 3. In three other
places he quotes the book simply by the title of the ‘Shep-
herd :’ Str. π. 12. § 55; 1v. 9. § 76; vi. 6. ᾧ 46.

The references which Tertullian makes to the book (de

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 219

he does not distinguish his name by any honorary cap. 11.
title, and is wholly silent as to his date and posi-
tion. The identification of the author of the or

iden ΒΥ its
‘Shepherd’ with his namesake in the Epistle to in the οι apowtolle

the Romans is due to Origen, and is in fact
nothing more than a conjecture of his in his
commentary on the passage in St Paul’. ‘I
fancy,’ he says, ‘that that Hermas is the author
of the tract which is called the ‘“ Shepherd,” a
writing which seems to me very useful, and is, as
I fancy, divinely inspired. If there had been
any historic evidence for the statement it could
scarcely have escaped Origen’s knowledge, and
had he known any he would not have spoken as
he does. When the conjecture was once made
it satisfied curiosity, and supplied the place of
more certain information. But though it found
acceptance, it acquired no new strength. Euse-

Pudicitid, cc. 10, 20) throw no direct light upon its date or
authorship. He-.simply affirms that it was ‘classed by every
council of the Churches among the false and apocryphal
books.’ The testimony is important on other grounds: it
proves that the Canonicity of books was a question debated
in Christian assemblics.

1 Orig. Comm. in Rom. Lib. x. § 31. Puto tamen quod
Hermas iste sit scriptor libelli ejus, qui Pastor appellatur,
quee scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et, ut puto, divinitus
inspirata. He then goes on to explain the omission of any
remark upon his name, showing that he is speaking from
conjecturo and not from knowledge. In § 24 he raises the
question whether Apelles be not identical with Apollos. Cf.
Hom. in Luc. xxv.

220 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΒΑΡ... bius and Jerome, the next writers who repeat
ΠῚ * the report,’ do not confirm it by any indepen-
dent authority'. It remained to the last a mere
hypothesis, and now it can be confronted by the

direct assertion of a contemporary.
The charac: Internal evidence alone is sufficient to prove
Book. that the ‘ Shepherd’ could not have been written
in the Apostolic age. The whole tone and
bearing shows that it is of the same date as
Montanism; and the view which it opens of
church-discipline, government, and ordinances,
τω theolng!. CD scarcely belong to an earlier period’. Theo-
ance, logically the book is of the highest value, as
showing in what way Christianity was endangered
by the influence of Jewish principles as distin-

1 Euseb. H. ΕἸ. m1. 8 (φασίν). Hieron. Catal. x. (asserunt.)

3 The following appear to be some of the weightiest
proofs of its late date:

(a) The teaching on penitence (Vis. iii. 7; Mand. it. 1;
Sim. vii.), fasting (Sim. v.). The allusions to stationes
(Sim. v. 1), subintroducte (Sim. ix. 11).

(8) The account of the orders inthe Church (Vis. iii. 5).

(y) The teaching on Baptism (Sim. ix. 16) as necessary
even for the patriarchs. The revival of this belief in Mor-
monism is one of many singular coincidences with early
errors which that system exhibits. The direct historical
data are few. The Church had endured much persecution
(Vis. iii. 2), which was not yet over (Vis. iii. 6; Vis. iv).
The Apostles were already dead (Sim. ix. 16). It is uncer-
tain whether the introduction of ‘Clemens’ and ‘ Grapte’
(Vis. ii. 4), is part of the fiction of the book, or spiritually
symbolic. Origon (Philoc. i. 11) interprets it in the latter
sense.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 221

guished from Jewish forms. The peril arose c#HaP.1.
not from the recollection of the old, but from

the organization of the new: its centre was not

at Jerusalem, but at Rome. At Jerusalem Chris-

tian doctrine was grafted on the Jewish ritual;

but at Rome a Judaizing spirit was busy in
moulding a substitute for the Mosaic system!.

The one error was necessarily of short continu- Legal intone,
ance ; the other must continue to try the Church

even to the end. This ‘legal’ view of Chris-

tianity is not without a Scriptural basis; but

here again the contrast between the harmonious
subordination of the elements of Scripture and

the partial exaggerations of early patristic writ-

ings is most apparent. The ‘Shepherd’ bears Relation to
the same relation to the Epistle of St James as st James
the Epistle of Barnabas to that to the Hebrews?.

The idea of a Christian Law lies at the bottom

of them both: but according to St James, it is

1 Hermas uses the number twelve to symbolize the
universality of the Church—the spiritual Israel. Hi duo-
decim montes, quos vides, duodecim sunt gentes, que totum
obtinent orbem (Lib. m1. Sim. ix. 17). This points to the
true interpretation of Apoc. c. vii.

2 Cf. p. 50. The Epistle of St James, as has been often
noticed, is remarkable for allusions to nature; and 80 also
Hermas: ‘Honorificabam creaturam Dei,’ he says at the
opening of his Visions, ‘cogitans quam magnifica et pulcra
sit.’ The beauty of language and conception in many parts
of the ‘Shepherd’ seems to be greatly underrated. Much
of it may be compared with the Pilgrim's Progress, and
higher praise than this cannot be given to such a book.

292 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cxar.t. a law of liberty, centering in man’s deliverance
from corruption within and ceremonial without ;
while Hermas rather looks for its essence in the
ordinances of the outward Church. Both St
James and Hermas insist on the necessity of
works; but the one regards them as the prac-
tical expression of a personal faith, while the
other finds in the man intrinsic value and the pos-
sibility of supererogatory virtue!. Still through-
out the ‘Shepherd’ the Lawgiver is found in
Christ, and not in Moses. It contains no allu-
sion to the institutions of Judaism, even while
insisting on ascetic observances. And so far
from exhibiting the predominance of Ebionism
in the Church, it is a protest against it; inas-
much as it is an attempt to satisfy the feelings,
to which that appealed, by a purely legal view
of the Gospel itself. It is, as it were, a sys-
tem of Christian ethics based on ecclesiastical
ideas.

Scriptural al- = ‘The ‘Shepherd’ contains no definite quota-

Hermes. tion from the Old or New Testament. The
single reference by name is to a phrase in an
obscure apocryphal book, ‘ Heldam and Modal,’
which is found in an ironical sentence apparently

1 Sim, v. 3: Si autem precter ea que mandavit Dominus
aliquid boni adjeceris, majorom dignitatem tibi conquires,
et honoratior apud Dominum eris, quam eras futurus. Cf.
Mand. Iv. 4, in connexion with 1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 223

directed against the misuse made of 10. The cuar.1.
scope of the writer gave noeopportunity for
the direct application of Scripture. He claims
to receive a divine message, and to record the
words of angels. His knoWledge of the New
Testament can then only be shown by passing
coincidences of language, which do in fact oecur
throughout the book. The allusions to the
Epistle of St James?, and to the Apocalypse’, Si Jame. |
are naturally most frequent, since the one 18
most closely connected with the ‘ Shepherd’ by te cospew.
its tone, and the other by its form, The nume-
rous paraphrases of our Lord’s words prove that
Hermas was familiar with some records of His

1 Vis. ii. 3: Si tibi videtur, iterum nega [sc. Dominum].
Prope est Dominus convertentibus, sicut scriptum est in
Heldam et Modal, qui vaticinati sunt in solitudine populo.
Tho sense of the passage seems to be: You may, if you
please, again deny Christ in persecution, vainly relying on
general promises of repentance. Cf. Numb. xi. 26, 27.

2 The coincidences of Hermas with St James are too
numerous to be enumerated at length. Whole sections of
the ‘Shepherd’ are framed with evident recollection of St
James’s Epistle: e. g. Vis. iii. 9; Mand. ii. ix. xi; Sim. v. 4.
Of the shorter passages one or two examples will suffico:
Mand. xii. 5, 6 = James iv. 7. 12; Sim. viii. 6 = James ii. 7.

8 The symbolism of the Apocalypse reappears in the
‘Shepherd.’ The Church is represented under the figuro
of a woman (Apoc. xii. 1; Vis. ii. 4), a bride (Apoc. xxii.
2; Vis. iv. 2): her enemy is a great beast (Apoc. xii. 4; Vis.
iv. 2), The account of the building of the tower (Vis. iii.
δ), and of the array of those who entered into it (Sim. viii.
2, 3) is to be compared with Apoc. xxi. 14; vi. 11; vii. 9, 14.

CHAP. II.

1 St Peter.

His relation
to St Paul.

Doctrine of
Faith.

924 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

teaching’. ‘That these were no other than our
Gospels, is at least rendered probable by the
fact, that he makes no reference to amy apocry-
phal narrative: and the opinion is confirmed by
a clear allusion to fhe Acts*. In several places
again St John’s teaching on ‘the Truth’ lies
at the ground of Hermas’ words’; and the
parallels with the First Epistle of St Peter are
very worthy of notice’. The relation of Hermas
to St Paul is interesting and important. His
peculiar object, as well perhaps as his turn of
mind, removed him from any close connexion
with the Apostle; but their separation has been
strangely exaggerated. In addition to marked
coincidences of language with the first Epistle to
the Corinthians, and with that to the Ephesians§,
Hermas distinctly recognizes the great truth
which is commonly regarded as the characteristic
centre of his teaching. ‘Faith,’ he safs, ‘is the
first of the seven virgins by which the Church
is supported. She keeps it together by her
power; and by her the elect of God shall be

1 The similitudes generally deserve an accurate compa-
rison with the Gospel-parables. Cf. Matt. xiii. 5, &c. with
Sim. ix. 20, 21: Matt. xiii. 31, 32, with Sim. vii. 8; Matt.
xviii. 3, with Sim. ix. 29.

2 Vis. iv. 2= Acts iv. 12.

3 Mand. iii. = 1 John ii. 27; iv. 6.

4 Vis. iv. 3=1 Pet. i. 7; Vis. iv. 2=1 Pet. v. 7.

δ Sim. v. 7= 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; Sim- ix. 13 = Eph. iv. 4;
Mand. iii. (cf. Mand. x. 1)=Eph. iv. 30.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 225

saved, Abstinence, the second virgin, is her
daughter, and so too are the rest. And when
the Christian has observed the works of their
mother, he will be able to keep the require.
ments of all’.’ Clement of Alexandria, para-
phrasing the passage, says: ‘Faith precedes:
Fear edifies: Love perfects? Whatever may be
Hermas’ teaching on works, this passage alone is
sufficient to prove that he assigned to Faith its
true position in the Christian Economy. The
Law, as he understands it, is implanted only in
the mind of those who have believed®.

The view which Hermas gives of Christ's
nature and work is no less harmonious with
Apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking analogies
to the Gospel of St John. Not only did the
Son ‘appoint angels to preserve each of those
whom the Father gave Him;’ but ‘ He himself
toiled very much, and suffered very much to do
away with their offences,..And so when their sins

1 Vis. iii.8: Prima quidem earum, que continet (turrim
i.¢. ecclesiam] manu, Fides vocatur; per hanc salvi fient
electi Dei. Alia vero, quse succincta est, et viriliter agit,
Abstinentia vocatur; hec filia est Fidei...Cetersee autem
quinque.. .filis invicem sunt...Quum ergo servaveris opera
matris earum, omnia poteris custodire.

2 Clem. Str. ii. 12: Προηγεῖται μὲν πίστις, φόβος δὲ olxo-
δομεῖ, τελειοῖ δὲ ἡ ἀγάπη.

3 Sim. viii. 3: In corde eorum qui crediderunt [Michael]
inserit legem. Visitat igitur eos, quibus dedit legem, si eam
custodierunt.

Q

CHAP. Il.

The Christ-
ology of Her-
mas in con-
nexion with
δὲ John.

a > we

226 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP. were blotted out, He shewed them the paths of
life, by giving them the Law which He had re-
ceived from His Father!’ He is ‘a rock higher
than the mountains, able to bear up the whole
world, ancient, and yet having a new gate,’ ‘ His
name is great and infinite, and the whole world
.is supported by Him’.” ‘He is older than all
creation, so that He was with the Father at the
foundation of the world*.’ ‘He is the sole way
of access to God; and no one shall enter in
unto God otherwise than by His Son*.’ To
Hermas, that is to the Christian of these later
times, He appears ‘by the Spirit in the form
of the Church®,’

1 Sim. v. 6.

2 Sim. ix. 2:... petra altior montibus illis erat, et quad-
rata erat, ita ut posset totum orbem sustinere. Vetus autem
mihi videbatur esse, sed habebat novam portum, que nuper
videbatur exsculpta. Et porta illa clariorem splendorem quam
sol habebat... Sim. ix. 12: Petra hee et porta Filius Dei
est... Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est, ita ut
in consilio Patri suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam.
Porta autem propterea nova est, quia in consummatione in
novissimis diebus apparuit [all. apparebit) ut qui assecuturi
sunt salutem, per eam intrent in regnum Dei.

3 Sim. ix. 14.

4 Sim. ix. 12. Cf. note (5).

5 Sim. ix. 12: Porta vero Filius Dei est, qui solus est
accessus ad Deum aliter ergo nemo intrabit ad Deum nisi por
Filium ejus.

6 Sim. ix. 1: ...Spiritus...in effigie Ecclesise locutus est
tecum. Ille...Spiritus Filius Dei est. The conception is
very worthy of notice. On the details of Hermas’ doctrine

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 227

It would be difficult to find a more complete CHAP."
contrast to Ebionism than these passages afford. Fats views
Hermas, indeed, could never have been charged ™"*
with favouring such a heresy unless the manifold-
ness of Christian character had been forgotten.
His tendency towards legalism—a tendency
proper to no time and no dispensation—was
first transformed into an adherence to Jewish
legalism. This was next identified with Ebion-
ism; and then it only remained to explain away
such phrases as were irreconcileable with the
doctrines which it was assumed that he must
have held. True criticism reverses the process,
and sets down every element of the problem
before it attempts a solution. Then it is seen
how the teaching of St Paul and St John is
truly recognized in the ‘Shepherd,’ though that
of St James gives the tone to the whole. The
personality of its author is clearly marked, but
it does not degenerate into heresy. It differs
from the writings of the Apostles by the undue
preponderance of one form of Christian truth
—from those of heretics, by the admission of
all.

of the Trinity—especially of the relation of the Son to the
Holy Spirit—this is not the place to enter. Cf. Dorner,
1. 195 ff.

228 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ὃ 10. Hegesippus. ‘

The name of Hegesippus has become a
watchword for those who find in early Church-
history a fatal chasm in the unity of Christian
truth, such as is implied in Holy Scripture. It
has been maintained that he is the representa-
tive and witness of the Ebionism of the Apo-
stolic teaching,—the resolute opponent of St
Paul'. Many circumstances lend plausibility to
the statement. Every influence of birth and edu-
cation likely to predispose to Ebionism is allowed
to have existed in his case. He was, as it ap-
pears, of Hebrew descent?, conversant with Jew-
ish history, and a zealous collector of the early
traditions of his Church. The well-known de-
scription which he gives of the martyrdom of
St James the Just, shows how highly he regarded
ritual observances in a Jew, and with what
simple reverence he dwelt on every detail which
marked the zeal of the ‘ Bishop of the Circum-
cision’, It is probable that he felt that same
devoted attachment to his nation which was cha-
racteristic of St Paul, no less than of the latest

1 In this as in many other instances later critics have
only revived an old controversy. Cf. Lumper, iii. 117 ff. ;
Bull maintained the true view in answer to Zwicker.

2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. Cf. p. 234, n.

5. Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. Routh, i. 208 ff. All the details,
however, are not drawn from Nazaritic asceticism.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 229

Hebrew convert of our own time!; but of Ebion- cHapP. 11.
ism as distinguished from the natural feelings of
a Jew, there is no trace in reference to his views
either of the Old Covenant or of the Person
of Christ. There is not one word in the frag-
ments of his own writings, or in what others
relate of him, which indicates that he looked
upon the Law as of universal obligation, or, in-
deed, as binding upon any after the destruction
of the Temple. There is not one word which
implies that he differed from the Catholic view
of ‘Christ,’ the ‘Saviour,’ and the ‘Door’ of
access to God. The general tone of his lan-
guage authorizes no such deductions; and what
we know of his life excludes them.

It is not necessary, however, to determine Eusbiu’
his opinions by mere negations. Eusebius, who ior
was acquainted with his writings, has given the
fullest testimony to his Catholic doctrine by
classing him, with Dionysius, Pinytus and Ire-
nseus, among those ‘champions of the truth’,’

1 It is strange that the conduct of St Paul is not more
frequently taken as a commentary on his teaching. Apart
from the testimonies in the Acts, St Paul himself says, in
an epistle admitted on all sides, that he ‘became as a Jew
to the Jews’ (1 Cor. ix. 20). The whole relation of the
Church to the Synagogue in the Apostolic age requires a
fresh investigation.

2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 7: παρῆγεν els μέσον ἡ ἀλήθεια πλείους
ἑαυτῆς ὑπερμάχους. .. δι ἐγγράφων ἀποδείξεων κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων
αἱρέσεων στρατενομένους" ἐν τούτοις ἐγνωρίζετο ᾿Ηγήσιππος...

230 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

whose ‘orthodoxy and sound faith, conformable
to the Apostolic tradition, was shown by their
writings'.’ Hegesippus in fact proves that the
faith which we have already recognized in its
essential features at Ephesus, Corinth and Rome,
was the faith of Christendom.

Not being content to examine only the records
of his native Church, Hegesippus undertook a

c. 155, a.D. journey to Rome?, and visiting many bishops on

his way, ‘he found everywhere the same doctrine’.’
Among other places he visited Corinth, where
he was refreshed by the right principles (ὀρθὸς
λόγος), in which the Church had continued up
to the time of his visit‘. What these ‘right

1 Euseb. H. Εἰ. iv. 21: ὧν καὶ els ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
παραδόσεως ἡ τοῦ ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔγγραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία.
On such a point the evidence of Eusebius is conclusive.

2 This journey took place during the bishopric of Ani-
cetus (151—160 a.p. Euseb. H. E. iv. 11), and Hegesippus
appears to have continued at Rome till the time of Eleu-
therius (169—184 a.p.). The Paschal Chronicle fixes his
death in the reign of Commodus (Lumper, iii. 108). Jerome
speaks of him (de Virr. Ill. xxii.) as vicinus Apostolicorum
temporum, so rendering, as it appears, the phrase of Eu-
sebius ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης τῶν ἀποστόλων γενομένος διαδοχῆς (H. E.
ii. 23). This would represent him as a younger contem-
porary of Polycarp.

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22: τὴν αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρείληφε
διδασκαλίαν.

4 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22: καὶ ἐπέμενεν ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ Κορινθίων
ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν Κορίνθῳ" οἷς
συνέμιξα πλέων els ᾿ΡῬώμην, καὶ συνδιέτριψα τοῖς Κορινθίοις
ἡμέρας ἱκανάς" ἐν αἷς συνανεπάημεν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγω.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 231

principles’ were, is evident from the fact that cuar. 1.
he found there the Epistle of Clement, which
was still read in the public services!. The wit-
ness of Hegesippus is thus invested with new
importance. He not only proves that there was
one rule of faith in his time, but also that it had
been preserved in unbroken succession from
the first age*. His inquiries confirmed the fact
which we have seen personified in the life of
Polycarp, that from the time of St John to that
of Irenzeus the Creed of the Church was essen-
tially unchanged.

Hegesippus embodied the results of his in- The character
vestigations in five books or memoirs. These, ™™
according to Jerome’, formed a complete his-
tory of the Church from the death of our Lord
to the time of their composition; but this state-
ment is probably made from a misunderstanding
of Eusebius, who says that Hegesippus ‘ wrote
memoirs in five books of the unerring tradition
of the Apostolic preaching: in a very simple
style‘,’ ‘leaving in these,’ as he adds in another

1 Euseb. l.c. Cf. H. E. iii. 16; and p. 207.

2 Euseb. 1. c: ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ (in each episcopal
succession) καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύττει
καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος.

8 De Virr. Ill. 1. c.: ... omne3 a passione Domini usque ad
suam setatem Ecclesiasticorum Actuum texens historias...

4 H.E.iv.8: ἐν πέντε δὴ οὖν συγγράμμασιν otros τὴν ἀπλανῆ
παράδοσιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος ἁπλουστάτῃ συντάξει
γραφῆς ὑπομνηματισάμενος...

232 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.u. place, ‘the fullest record of his own opinion’.’
It appears then that his object was theological
rather than historical. He sought to make out
the oneness and continuity of Apostolic doc-
trine; and to this end he recorded the succes-
sion of bishops in each Church, with such illus-
trative details as the subject required’.
The compilation of such a book of Chronicles
δος gave little opportunity for the quotation of Scrip-
ture; but in the absence of direct reference to
the historical books of the New Testament, it is
interesting to observe the influence of their lan-
guage in the fragments of Hegesippus which
remain. ‘There are forms of expression corre-
sponding to passages in the Gospels of St Mat-
thew and St Luke, and in the Acts, which can
scarcely be attributed to chance’; and when he
1H. E. iv. 22: ἐν πέντε τοῖς eis ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασι
τῆς ἰδίας γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέλοιπεν.

2 The arrangement of his memoirs cannot have been
purely chronological, for the account of the martyrdom of
St James the Just is taken from the fifth book. There is
no definite quotation from any earlier book.

8 The chief passages occur in the account of the mar-
tyrdom of St James (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23). [ὉὋ vlés τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου] κάθηται ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς μεγάλης δυνάμεως
καὶ μέλλει ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ ovpavov. Cf. Matt,
xxvi. 64. For the variation μέλλει ἔρχεσθαι (for ἐρχό-
μενον) cf. p. 170, ἢ. 1. Δίκαιος ef καὶ πρόσωπον οὐ Aap-
βάνεις. This phrase mp. λαμ. only occurs Luke xx. 21;
Gal. ii. 6. Μάρτυς οὗτος ἀληθὴς ᾿Ιουδαίοις re καὶ Ἕλλησι

γεγένηται ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ἐστι. Cf. Acts xx. 21.
It is to be noticed that he refers to Herod’s fear of

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 233

speaks of the ‘Door’ of Jesus in his account of cHap.11.
the death of St James, there can be little doubt
that he alludes to the language of our Lord
recorded by St John. |

It appears, however, that Hegesippus did not Hieusof |
exclusively use canonical writings. As a_his-***
torian he naturally sought for information from
every source; and the Apocryphal Gospels were
likely to contain many details suited to his pur-
pose. It is not strange then that Eusebius says
that ‘he sets forth certain things from the Gos-

Christ, recorded in Matt. ii., which was not found in the
Ebionite Gospel (Euseb. iii. 32).

1 Jt has been supposed that he alludes to a passage in
St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9), as ‘vainly said,’ and contrary to our
Lord’s words (Matt. xiii. 16). It is enough to answer that
the passage in question is quoted by St Paul from the Old
Testament (Isa. lxiv. 4, καθὼς γέγραπται"), and that it is im-
mediately followed by ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν κιτ. λ. Hegesippus
evidently refers to some sect (τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους) who claimed
for themselves the true and sole possession of spiritual mys-
teries. Cf. Routh, i. pp. 281, 282. The quotation is said to
have been found in the ‘ Ascensio Esaiw’ and the ‘ Apoca-
lypsis Elie.’ (Cf. Routh, l. c.; Dorner, i. 228).

4 It proves nothing that Eusebius does not state that
Hegesippus recognized the Pauline Epistles. Even when
giving an express account of the references to the books of
the New Testament in Irenseus, he omits all mention of
them, though they are quoted almost on every page (Euseb.
H. E. v. 7). Elsewhere (H. E. v. 26) he himself refers to
the Epistle to the Hebrews as used by him.

In one passage Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32) quoting Hege-

sippus freely, uses the phrase ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις (1 Tim.

- vi. 20), but it must be uncertain whether the words so stood
in the original text.

| " ἢ “- οἷν

234 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

ΟΗΔΡ. Π. pel according to the Hebrews, and the Syriac
[Gospel], and especially from the Hebrew lan-
guage, showing that he was a Christian of
Hebrew descent; and he mentions other facts
moreover, as it was likely that he should do,
from unwritten Jewish tradition!” He went
beyond the range of the Scriptures both of the
Old and of the New Testament. Tradition
helped him in one case, and unauthoritative
writings in the other. But he did not therefore
disallow the Canon, or cast aside all criticism;
for in immediate connexion with the last words
we read that ‘when determining about the so-
called Apocrypha, he records that some of them
were forged in his own time by certain heretics.’
There is, indeed, nothing to show that this re-
fers to the Apocryphal books of the New Testa-
ment, but there is nothing to limit his words to
the Old; and when he speaks of the teaching
of ‘the Lord’ in the same manner as ‘of the
Law and of the Prophets’,’ he clearly implies

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22: ἔκ re τοῦ καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου
καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ‘ESpaidos διαλέκτου τινὰ
τίθησιν, ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἕ βραίων ἑαντὸν πεπιστευκέναι" καὶ ἄλλα
δὲ ὡς ἂν ἐξ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῆς ἀγράφου παραδόσεως μνημονεύει. By τὸ
Συριακὸν we must, I think, understand the Aramaic recension
of the Gospel. according to St Matthew. Melito, as Routh
has observed, speaks of ὁ Σύρος καὶ ὁ ‘ESpaios in reference
to a reading in the LXX, where the natural meaning is the
Syrian translation (translator) and the Hebrew original.

2 Cf. p. 231, ἡ. 2.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 235

the existence of some written record of its sub- cHap. 11.
stance. No further direct evidence, however,
remains to identify this with the sum of our
canonical books, unless we accept the conjecture

of a distinguished scholar of our own -day, who

has gone so far as to assert that the anonymous
fragment, which will be the subject of the next
section, is in fact a translation from ‘the his-

torical work of Hegesippus'.’

§ 11. Zhe Muratorian Fragment on the Canon—
Melito—Claudius Apollinaris.

The Latin Fragment on the Canon, first pub- Genemise-

count of the
lished by Muratori, in his Antiquttates Italice?, Eingm. 4

affords a natural close to this part of our in-
quiry. This precious relic was discovered in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, in a MS. of
great antiquity, which purported to contain the
writings of Chrysostom’. It is mutilated both

1 Bunsen’s Hippolytus, i. p. 314.

2 Antiquit. Ital. Med. Aévi, iii. 851 sqq. (Milan, 1740).
The best edition of the fragment is in Routh, Rell. Sacre,
i. 394 sqq. (ed. 1846), who obtained a fresh collation of the
MS. Credner has also examined it in his Zur Geschichte
des Canons, 71 sqq. (1847), but he appears to have been un-
acquainted with the second edition of Routh. These editions
supersede the earlier.

8 Murat. I.c: Adservat Ambrosiana Mediolanensis Bib-
liotheca membranaceum codicem, 6 Bobiensi acceptum,
cujus antiquitas psene ad annos mille accedere mihi visa est.
Scriptus enim fuit litteris majusculis et quadratis. Titulus
preefixus omnia tribuit Joanni Chrysostomo, sed immerito.

236 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.I. at the beginning and at the end; and is dis-
figured throughout by gross inaccuracies and
barbarisms, due in part to the ignorance of the
transcriber, and in part to the translator of the
original text’; for there can be little doubt that
it is a version from the Greek. But notwith-
standing these defects it is of the greatest in-
terest and importance. Enough remains to
indicate the limits which its author assigned to
the Canon; and the general sense is sufficiently
clear to show the authority which he claimed
for it.

The date of The date of the composition of the fragment

ton. igs given by the allusion made in it to Hermas,
which has been already quoted. It claims to
have been written by a contemporary of Pius,
and cannot on that supposition be placed much
later than 170 a.c.! Internal evidence fully
confirms its claim to this high antiquity; and it
may be regarded on the whole as a summary of
the opinion of the Western Church on the Canon
shortly after the middle of the second century’®,

Mutilum in principio codicem deprehendi...Ex hoc ergo
codice ego decerpsi fragmentum antiquissimum ad Canonem
Divinarum Scripturarum spectans.

1 Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus vestris in urbe
Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Roms
ecclesie Pio episcopo patre ejus. The date of the episcopate
of Pius is variously given 127—142 and 142—157.

3 The omissions will be noticed below, p. 243.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 237

Though it adds but little to what has been cHaP.1.
already obtained in detail from separate sources,

yet, by combination and contrast, it gives a new

effect to the whole result. It serves to connect

the isolated facts in which we have recognized
different elements of the Canon; and by its
accurate coincidence with these justifies the

belief that it was fixed approximately within the

same limits from the first.

There is no sufficient evidence to determine Dit | |
the authorship of the fragment. Muratori sup- ap”
posed that it was written by Caius, the Roman
Presbyter, and his opinion for a time found
acceptance!, Another scholar confidently at-
tributed it to Papias, and, perhaps, with as good
reason?, Bunsen, again, affirms that it is a
translation from Hegesippus*. But such guesses
are barely ingenious; and the opinions of those
who assign it to the fourth century, or doubt
its authenticity altogether, scarcely deserve
mention‘,

The exact character of the work to which Probably a
the fragment belonged is scarcely more certain omeGrerk
than its authorship. The form of composition ""~
is apologetic rather than historical, and it is not

1 Cf. Routh, p. 398 ff.
2 Simon de Magistris, ap. Routh, p. 400.
8 Hippolytus and his Age, i. p. 314.

4 Such is also the decision of Credner, a most impartial
judge: p. 93.

238 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS,

cHAP.1L unlikely that it formed part of a Dialogue with
some heretic'. One point alone can be made
out with tolerable certainty. The recurrence
of Greek idioms appears conclusive as to the
fact that it is a translation’, and this agrees well
with its Roman origin; for Greek continued to
be, even at a later period, the common language
of the Roman Church.

The testi The Fragment commences with the last

ear (a words of a sentence which evidently referred to
the Gospel of St Mark*. The Gospel of St
Luke, it is then said, stands third in order [in
the Christian Canon,] having been written by
‘Luke the physician,’ the companion of St Paul,
who, not being himself an eye-witness, based his
narrative on such information as he could obtain,
beginning from the birth of John. The fourth
place is given to the Gospel of St John, a dis-
ciple of our Lord, and the occasion of its writing
is thus described: ‘At the entreaties of his

1 eg. ‘De quibus singulis necesse est a vobis dispu-
tari’— Recipimus’—‘ Quidam ex nostris,’

2 6. g. juris studiosum τε τοῦ δικαίον (niworn»—Dominum
tamen nec ipse vidit in carne, et idem prout assequi potuit
ita e¢ a nativitate &c.—Johannes ex discipulis—principia,
principalis = ἀρχαί, ἀρχαῖος (Iren, v. 21. 1)—~nihil differt
credentium fidei—et Johannes enin—fertur = φέρεται----
recipi non potest = ov δυνατόν ¢ors—ad heeresim Marcionis.

ὃ The fragment will be given at length in App. C, to
which reference must be made for tho original text of the
passages here quoted.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 239

fellow-disciples and bishops John said: “ Fast cHap.1.
with me for three days from this time, and what-
ever shall be revealed to each of us, whether it
be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate
it to one another.” On the same night it was
revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that
John should relate all things in his own name,
aided by the revision of all'’...‘ what wonder is
it then that John so constantly brings forward
Gospel-phrases, even in his Epistles, saying in
his own person, “what we have seen with our eyes, \ Jonni. 1.
and heard with our ears, and our hands have
handled, these things have we written"? For so he ~
professes that he was not only an eye-witness,
but also a hearer, and moreover a historian of
all the wonderful works of our Lord.’

Though there is no trace of any reference to Theimpor-
St Matthew, it is impossible not to believe that “"™™"”
it occupied the first place among the four Gospels
of the anonymous writer. Assuming this, it is
of importance to notice that he regards our
Canonical Gospels as essentially one in purpose,
contents, and inspiration. He draws no dis-
tinction between those which were written from
personal knowledge, and those which rested on
the teaching of others. He alludes to no doubt
as to their authority, no limit as to their reception,
no difference as to their usefulness. ‘ Though

1 Cf. Routh, pp. 409 εᾳ.

240 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

CHAP, 11. various points are taught in each of the Gospels,
it makes no difference to the faith of believers,
since in all of them all things are declared by
one informing spirit! concerning the Nativity,
the Passion, the Resurrection, the conversation
[οὗ our Lord] with His disciples, and His double
Advent, at first in humility and afterwards in
royal power as He will yet appear.’ This first
recognition of the distinctness and unity of the
Gospels, of their origin from human care and
Divine guidance, is as complete as any later
testimony. The Fragment lends no support to
the theory which supposes that they were gra-
dually separated from the mass of similar books.
Their peculiar position is clear and marked; and
there is not the slightest hint that it was gained
after a doubtful struggle or only at a late date.
Admit that our Gospels were regarded from the
first as authoritative records of Christ's Life, and
then this new testimony explains and confirms
the fragmentary notices which alone witness to
the earlier belief: deny it, and the language of
one who had probably conversed with Polycarp
at Rome becomes an unintelligible riddle. The
Gospels had gained exclusive currency during

1 Uno ac principali Spiritu. Routh, on the authority of
the glossary of Philoxenus, translates principalis by γε-
μονικός, but principium occurs twice in the fragment as the

representative of ἀρχή, and it seems to me that ἀρχαῖος in
u cognate sense suits the context here.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 241

his lifetime, and yet he speaks of them as if ocHap. u.
they had always possessed it.

Next to the Gospels the book of the Acts rere
is mentioned as containing a record by St Luke
of those acts of the Apostles which fell under
his own notice. ‘That this was the rule which
he prescribed to himself, is shown, it is added,
by ‘the omission of the martyrdom of Peter,
and the journey of Paul to Spain.’

Thirteen Epistles are attributed to St Paul; » τὸ the
of these nine were addressed to Churches, and & Paut
four to individual Christians. The first class
suggests an analogy with the Apocalypse. As
St John when writing for all Christendom wrote
specially to seven Churches, so St Paul also ‘wrote
by name only to seven Churches, showing thereby
the unity of the Catholic Church, though he
wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians
for their correction!.’ The order in which these
Epistles are enumerated is remarkable: Corinth-
ians (i. ii.), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Galatians, Thessalonians (i. ii.), Romans. In fact,
this may have been determined by a particular
view of their contents, since it appears that the
author attributed to St Paul a special purpose
in each Epistle ‘ writing first to the Corinthians
to check heretical schism; afterwards to the

1 Routh has a good note (i. pp. 416 sqq.) on the sym-

bolism of the number seven.
R

ee
— ap

942 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1 Galatians to forbid circumcision ; then at greater

length to the Romans, according to the rule of
the Old Testament Scriptures, showing at the
same time that Christ was their foundation.’ The
second class includes all that are received now:
‘an Epistle to Philemon, one to Titus, and two
to Timothy,’ which though written only ‘from
personal feeling and affection, are still hallowed
in the respect of the Catholic Church, [and] in
the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline.’

At this point the Fragment diverges to
- spurious or disputed books, and the exact words

certain are Of importance. ‘Moreover, it is said, ‘ there

is in circulation an Epistle to the Laodiceans,
[and| another to the Alexandrians, forged under
the name of Paul, to bear on the heresy of
Marcion'; and several others, which cannot be
received into the Catholic Church. For gall
ought not to be mixed with honey. The Epistle
of Jude however (sane), and two Epistles of John,
who has been mentioned above, are reckoned

1 Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Alezandrians.
The attempt to identify it with the Epistle to the Hebrews is
unsupported by the slightest evidence. The Epistle to the
Laodiceans is also involved in great obscurity. The Epistle
to the Ephesians bore that name in Marcion’s collection of
St Paul’s Epistles, and the text may contain an inaccurate
allusion to it. In Jerome’s time there was an ‘Epistle to
the Laodiceans rejected by all.’ Cf. Routh, pp. 420 sqq.
The cento of Pauline phrases published under the name by
Fabricius is evidently a late work.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 243

among the Catholic [Epistles]!. And the book °HA4P.1!.
of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon,

in his honour [is acknowledged]. We receive, if) and
moreover, the Apocalypses of John and Peter 'rr.
only, which [latter] some of our body will not
have read in the Church.’

After this mention is made of the Shepherd, Other
and of the writings of Valentinus, Basilides, and “r¢
others : and so the Fragment ends abruptly.

It will then be noticed that there is no tteomisions.
special enumeration of the acknowledged Catholic
Epistles—i. Peter and i. John?: that the Epistle
of St James, ii. Peter, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, are also omitted: that with these ex-
ceptions, every book in our New Testament
Canon is acknowledged, and one book only added
to it—the Apocalypse of ‘St Peter—which, it is
said, was not universally admitted.

The character of the omissions helps to ex- The true ex:

1 The MS. reading is in Catholica, and Routh (i. 425; these

iii, 44) has shown that Tertullian (de Preescr. heer. 30) and
later writers sometimes omit ecclesia. The whole context,
however, seems to require the correction, and I find that it
has been adopted by Bunsen (Hippolytus, ii. 136), who first
gave what is certainly the true connexion of the passage.
I do not know whether there is any earlier instance of
καθολικὴ ἐπιστολη than in a fragment of Apollonius (Euseb.
v. 18), who was a contemporary of Tertullian.

2 The context, I believe, shows that the two letters of
St John are the two disputed letters. Compare, however,
p- 83, ἢ. 3. Cassiodorus (6th cent.) again speaks of two
Epistles of St John.

men-

R2

244 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cuaP.. plain them. The first Epistle of St John is
quoted in an earlier part of the Fragment, though
it is not mentioned in its proper place, either
after the Acts of the Apostles, or after the Epistles
of St Paul: there is no evidence that the first
Epistle of St Peter was ever disputed, and it
has been shown that it was quoted by Polycarp
and Papias: the Epistle to the Hebrews and
that of St James were certainly known in the
Roman Church, and they could scarcely have
been altogether passed over in an enumeration
of books in which the Epistle of St Jude, and
even apocryphal writings of heretics, found a
place. The cause of the omissions cannot have
been ignorance or doubt. It must be sought
either in the character of the writing, or in the
present condition of the text.

The great corruption of the Fragment makes
the idea of a chasm in it very probable; and
more than this, the want of coherence between
several parts seems to show that it was not all
continuous originally, but that it has been made
up of three or four different passages from some
unknown author, collected on the same principle
as the quotations in Eusebius from Papias,
Irenzeus, Clement and Origen’. On either sup-

1 The connexion appears broken in at least two places ;
but as the general sense of the text is not affected by this
view, the details of it can be reserved for the Appendix,

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 245

position it is easy to explain the omissions; cHap.u.
and even as the Fragment stands now it is not
difficult to find traces of the books which it
does not notice. Thus the Epistle of St Jude,
and the two Epistles of St John, are evidently
alluded to as having been doubted and yet re-
ceived. They are indeed held, it is said, among
the Catholic Epistles; and some then there
must have been to form a centre of the group.
In like manner the allusion to the book of
Wisdom (Proverbs) is unintelligible without we
suppose that it was introduced as an illustration
of some similar case in the New Testament.
Bunsen has very ingeniously connected it with
the ancient belief that the Epistle to the Hebrews
was attributed to the pen of a companion of St
Paul, and not to the Apostle himself". Thus
that which was ‘ written by friends of Solomon’
would be parallel with that which was written
by the friend of St Paul. If the one was re-
ceived as canonical, it justified the claims of
the other.

A fragment of Melito, who was Bishop of Mauro wit
Sardis, in the time of Marcus Antoninus, adds a ore οἵα
trait which is wanting in the fragment on the
Canon’. In that the books of the New Testa-

1 Hippolytus and his Age, ii. p. 138.

2 Melito presented an Apology to Marcus Antoninus after
the death of Aurelius Verus (169 a.c.); and, as appears

246 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP. Il. ment are spoken of as having individual authority,

and being distinguished by ecclesiastical use;
but nothing is said of them in their collected |
form, or in relation to the Jewish Scriptures.
The words of Melito are simple and casual, and
yet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. He
writes to Onesimus, a fellow Christian who had
urged him ‘ to make selections for him from the
Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour,
and the Faith generally; and furthermore desired
to learn the accurate account of the Old (παλαιῶν)
Books; ‘having gone therefore to the East,’
Melito says, ‘and reached the spot where [each
thing] was preached and done, and having
learned accurately the Books of the Old Testa-
ment, I have sent a list of them.’ The mention
of ‘the Old Books’—‘the Books of the Old
Testament,’—naturally implies a definite New
Testament, a written antitype to the Old; and
the form of language implies a familiar recogni-
tion of its contents. But there is little evidence
in the fragment of Melito to show what writings
he included in the collection. He wrote a
treatise on the Apocalypse, and the title of
from a passage quoted by Eusebius (μετὰ τοῦ παιδός, iv. 26),
at a time when Commodus was admitted to share the im-
perial power (176 a.c.). His treatise on the Passover pro-
bably belongs to an earlier date. The persecution ‘in which

Sagaris was martyred’ (Euseb. 1. c.), was probably that in
which Polycarp also suffered (167 A.c.).

ee a

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 247

one of his essays is evidently borrowed from c#HaP.11.
St Paul—‘On the hearing of Faith'.’ The Roms;

mere titles of his other works are very instruc- Fis writion
tive, as showing how far Christian speculation aij chr
had extended even in the earliest times. Scarcely cure

any branch of theological inquiry was untouched.
He wrote on hospitality—on Easter, and on
the Lord’s day—on the Church, on [Christian]
citizenship and Prophets, on Prophecy, on Truth,
and on Baptism (περὶ Aovrpov)—on the Creation
(κτίσις) and Birth of Christ, on the Nature of Man,
and on the Soul and Body—on the Formation
of the World (περὶ πλάσεως), and on the Organs
of Sense—on the Interpretation of Scripture
(‘the Key’)—on the Devil, and on the Corporeity
of God*. Such a list of subjects gives a vivid
notion of the activity of thought and discussion
in the Church at a time when we are told to

1 Melito bears witness distinctly to the doctrine of St
John: [Χριστὸς] Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων (Routh, p.
122).---τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος Θεοῦ Adyou πρὸ αἰώνων ἐσμὲν
Opnoxevrai (Routh, p.118). One phrase in another fragment
—tyévero ζήτησις πολλή (Routh, p. 115)—may be a recol-
lection of his language (John iii. 25; yet cf. Acts xv. 2).
I have not noticed any other coincidences with Scripture-
language in the fragments of Melito. But he speaks of our
Lord as having spent thirty years in privacy (Luke iii. 28),
and three years in his ministry (St John): of his carrying
his cross (p. 122: John xix. 17): and he calls Him the Lamb
(p. 124: John i. 29).

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 26.

948 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.u. believe that its doctrine and constitution were
changed by a series οὗ forgeries.
CLavpius The testimony of Melito finds a natural

RIs also

shows that confirmation in a fragment of a contemporary
wereaded- writer!, Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hiera-
fomion st te polis?, When discussing the time for the cele-
~ bration of Easter, he writes: ‘Some say that
the Lord eat the lamb with his disciples on the
14th (of Nisan), and suffered himself on the
great day of unleavened bread; and they state
that Matthew’s narrative is in accordance with
their view ; while it follows that their view is at
variance with the Law, and, according to them,
the Gospels seem to disagree*.’ The Gospels

are evidently quoted as books certainly known

1 Claudius Apollinaris also presented an apology to
Marcus Antoninus, Hieron. de virr. il. xxvi. Cf. Euseb. H. E.
iv. 26.

2 There is not any sufficient ground for doubting the
genuineness of these fragments ‘ On Easter,’ in the fact that
Eusebius mentions no such book by Apollinaris. The words
of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 27) that there were many works of
Apollinaris in circulation, of which he enumerates only
those which had come into his own hands: τοῦ δ᾽ Ἀπολ-
λιναρίου πολλῶν παρὰ πολλοῖς σωζομένων τὰ els ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντα
ἐστὶ τάδε... The two fragments are preserved in the Pas-
chal or Alewandrine Chronicle (vii. Cent.). Cf. Routh, i. pp.
167 sq.

8 Claud. Apoll. fr. ap. Routh, i. p. 160: καὶ διηγοῦνται
Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν ὡς νενοήκασιν' ὅθεν ἀσύμφωνός τε τῷ
νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ στασιάζειν δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγ-
γέλια.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 249

and recognized; their authority is placed on CHAP. II.
the same footing as the Old Testament; and

it must be remembered that this testimony comes

from the same place as that of Papias, and that

no such interval had elapsed between the two
Bishops as to allow any organic change in the
Church!,

One section of our inquiry is now finished. summary or
We have examined all the evidence bearing on
the history of the New Testament Canon, which
can be adduced from those who are recognized
as Fathers of the Church during the period which
has been marked out*. Up to this point it has

1 A second fragment of Apollinaris is preserved, in which
he makes an evident allusion to St John’s Gospel (xix. 34),
and in such a way as to show that it had become the sub-
ject of careful interpretation. He speaks of Christ as ὁ τὴν
ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηθεὶς, ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο
πάλιν καθάρσια, ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα.

3 ATHENAGORAS and THEOoPHILUs might perhaps have
been included in this period, but I have preferred to place
them in the next. There is necessarily no abrupt break be-
tween the two periods. Irenszeus himself connects them as
intimately as his master Polycarp connects the age of the
Apostles with that which immediately followed it. Tartan
will be noticed in Chap. rv.

The beautiful letter of the Church of Smyrna giving an
account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, written shortly after
it (168 a.o. Cf. Mart. Polyc. c. 18), contains several allusions
to books of the New Testament: e.g. Matt. x. 23 =c. iv.;
Matt. xxvi. 55 =c. vi.; Acts ix. 7=c. ix.; Acts xxi. 14=¢. vi.;
1 Cor. ii. 9=Cc. ii.; Rom. xiii. 1, 7=c.x. And in addition

950 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS.

cHaP.1. been shown that one book alone of the New

Testament remains unnoticed: one apocryphal
book alone, and that doubtfully, placed within
the limits of the Canon. There is not, as far
as I am aware, in any Christian writer, during
the period which we have examined, either direct
mention or clear reference to the second Epistle
of St Peter; and the Apocalypse which bore
his name, if we accept the authority of a corrupt
text, partially usurped a place among the New
Testament Scriptures. Nor is this all: it has
been shown also that the form of Christian doc-
trine current throughout the Church, as repre-
sented by men most widely differing in national
and personal characteristics, in books of the
most varied aim and composition, is measured
exactly by the Apostolic Canon. It has been
shown that this exact coincidence between the
Scriptural rule and the traditional belief is more
perfect and striking in proportion as we appre-
hend more clearly the differences which coexist
in both. It has been shown that the New Testa-

to these several Pauline words: ἐξαγοράζεσθαι, βραβεῖον, ὁ
ἀψευδὴς Θεός. The Doxology in c. 14 is very noteworthy.
While speaking of this letter I cannot but quote the ad-
mirable emendation by which Dr Wordsworth (Hippolytus,
App.) has effectually explained the famous passage about
the Dove in c. 16. For περιστερὰ καὶ, by the change of
one letter, and the omission of I before a Π following, he
gives the true reading περὶ στύρακα.

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 251

ment, in its integrity, gives an adequate explana- cHaP. 1.
tion of the progress of Christianity in its distinct
types, and that there is no reason to believe that
at any subsequent time such a creative power
was active in the Church as could have called
forth writings like those which we receive as
Apostolic. They are the rule and not the fruit
of its development.

But at present the argument is incomplete. poms stilt
It is still necessary to inquire how far a Canon “5 πίοι.
was publicly recognized by national Churches as
well as by individuals—how far it was accepted
even by those who separated from the orthodox
communion, and on what grounds they rejected
any part of it. These points will form the
subject of the two next chapters, in which we
shall examine the most ancient versions of the
East and West, and the writings of the earliest
heretics.

CHAPTER IIL

THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAP. III. Jam totum Christi corpus loquitur omnium linguis :
et quibus nondum loquitur, loquetur.— Aveustines.

thedieu- Ir is not easy to overrate the difficulties which
aut ino the beset any inquiry into the early Versions of the
sions. New Testament. In addition to those which
impede all critical investigations into the original
Greek text, there are others in this case scarcely
less serious, which arise from comparatively
scanty materials, and vague or conflicting tradi-
tions. There is little illustrative literature; or,
if the case be otherwise, it is imperfectly known.
There is no long line of Fathers to witness to the
completion and the use of the translations. And
though it be true that these hinderances are
chiefly felt when the attempt is made to settle
or interpret their text, they are no less real and
perplexing when we seek only to investigate
their origin and first form. Versions of Scrip-
ture appear to be in the first instance almost
necessarily gradual. Ideas of translation fami-
liarized to us by long experience formed no part
of the primitive system. The history of the
LXX. is a memorable example of what might
be expected to be the history of Versions of

EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 253

the New Testament. And so far as there is CHaP.m. —
any proof of unity in each of these which is

wanting in that, we are led to conclude that

the Canon of the New Testament was more
definitely fixed, that the books of which it was
composed were more equally esteemed than was

the case with the Old Testament, at the time

when it was translated into Greek.

Two Versions only claim to be noticed in How tarthey
this first Period—the original Versions of the guing th
East and West—the Peshito and Old Latin,
which, though variously revised, remain, after
sixteen centuries, the authorized liturgical ver-
sions of the Syrian and Roman churches. At
present we have only to do with their extent:
the text which they show is to be considered
generally as one mark of their date. And here
some care must be taken lest our reasoning form
a circle. The Canon which the Peshito exhibits
has been used to fix the time at which it was
made; and yet we shall quote the Peshito to
help us in determining the Canon. The text
of the Old Latin depends in many cases on in-
dividual quotations; and yet we shall use it as
an independent authority. Nor is this without
reason; for the age of the Peshito is indicated
by numerous particulars, and if the exact form
in which the Canon appears in it accords with
what we learn from other fragmentary notices

254 EARLY VERSIONS

cHAP.111. of the same date, the two lines of evidence
mutually support and strengthen each other.
And so if there be any ground for believing that
the earliest Latin Fathers employed some par-
ticular Version of the books of the New Testa-
ment, then we may analyse their quotations, and
endeavour to determine how many books were
included in the translation, and how far the
whole translation bears the marks of one hand.
There is nothing of direct demonstrative force
in the conclusions thus obtained, but they form
part of a series, and give coherence and con-
sistency to it.

ἢ 1. The Peshito'.

The Peshito Almost universal opinion assigns the Peshito?

the verna συ. or ‘simple’ Syriac (Aramean) Version to the

Balestie in most remote Christian antiquity. The Syriac

“se Christians of Malabar even now claim for it the
right to be considered as an Eastern original of

1 The chief original authorities on the Peshito which I
have examined are: Ni. Ti. Versiones Syriace, Simplex, Phi-
loxeniana et Hierosolymitana, denuo examinate ἃ J. G. C.
ADLER. Hafnice, mocc~xxx1x. Hore Syriace, auctore N.
Wiseman 8.T.D. Tom. i. Roma, mpccooxxvimt. WICHEL-
Haus (T.), De N. T. versione Syriacd quam Peschitho vocant
Iabri iv. Halis, 1850.

2 This title seems to be best interpreted ‘simple,’ as
implying the absence of any allegorical interpretations. Hug,
Introd. § Lx.

ee a

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255

the New Testament’; and though their tradition cHap. 11.

is wholly unsupported by external evidence, it
is not, to a certain extent, without all plausibility.
There can be no doubt that the so-called Syro-
Chaldaic (Araman) was the vernacular language
of the Jews of Palestine in the time of our
Lord, however much it may have been super-
seded by Greek in the common business of 1163.
It was in this dialect, the ‘ Hebrew’ of the New
Testament’, that the Gospel of St Matthew was
originally written, if we believe the unanimous
testimony of the Fathers; and it is not unnatural
to look to the Peshito as likely to contain some
traces of its first form‘. Even in the absence

1 Etheridge’s Syrian Churches, pp. 166 ff.

2 Wiseman, Hore Syriace, pp. 69 sqq.

8 John v. 2; xix. 18, 17, 20. Acts xxi. 40; xxii. 2;
xxvi. 14. (Cf. Apoc. ix. 11; xvi. 16). The word ‘Hebrew’
is first applied to the language of the Old Testament in the
Apocrypha. In Josephus it is used both of the true Hebrew
and of the Aramman. Davidson, Biblical Criticism, i. 9;
Etheridge, Hors: Aramaice, p. 7. In the conclusion to the
Book of Job in the LXX. ‘Syriac’ appears to be used for
the true Hebrew.

4 An accurate examination of the Gospel of St Matthew
in the Peshito, with a view to the possibility that it may be
a recension of the original Hebrew Gospel, is still to be
desired. The copious admixture of Greek words in the
Syriac, which, I believe, is found also in later writers, seems
to have been one of the impurities of the Palestinian dialect
of which Bar Hebreeus speaks. (Cf. p. 256, note 1). Hug’s
proof of the derivation of the Syriac from the Greek is
very unsatisfactory: e.g. he supposes that the translator

256 EARLY VERSIONS

ΟΗΑΡ. πι. of all direct proof some critics have maintained
that the Epistle to the Hebrews must have been
written in the same Aramaic language; and
though little stress can be laid on such argu-
ments, they serve to show how intimately the
Peshito was connected with the wants of the
early Christians of Palestine.

The Peshito The dialect of the Peshito, even as it stands

| Mith the Fe now, represents in part at least, that form of
Aramaic which was current in Palestine’. In
this respect it is like the Latin Vulgate, which,
though revised, is marked by the provincialisms
of Africa. Both versions appear to have had
their origin in districts where their languages
were spoken in impure dialects, and afterwards
to have been corrected, and brought nearer to
the classical standard. In the absence of an
adequate supply of critical materials it is im-
possible to construct the history of these recen-
sions in the Syriac; the analogy of the Latin is

A conjecture at present our only guide. But if a conjecture

gin.
mistook τέκνων for τεχνῶν in Matt. xi. 19, when really the
reading ἔργων, given by the Peshito, is supported by con-
siderable authority. The occurrence of Latin words in the
Peshito may be illustrated by examples from Syrian writers.
Cf. Wiseman, p. 119, n.

1 Gregory Bar Hebreeus says that there were three dia-
lects of Syriac (Aramman): the most elegant was that of
Edessa: the most impure that current among the inhabitants
of Palestine and Libanus. The Peshito was written in the
latter. Wiseman, p. 106.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257.

be allowed, I think that the various facts of the cmap. 1n.
case are adequately explained by supposing that ᾿
Versions of separate books of the New Testa-

ment were first made and used in Palestine,
perhaps within the apostolic age, and that shortly
afterwards these were collected, revised, and
completed at Edessa!.

Many circumstances combine to give support How this
to this belief. The early condition of the Syrian “Prone.
Church, its wide extent and active vigour, lead
us to expect that a Version of the Holy Scrip-
tures into the common dialect could not have
been long deferred; and the existence of an
Aramaic Gospel was in itself likely to suggest
the work*. Differences of style, no less than
the very nature of the case, point to separate
translations of different books; and, at the
same time, a certain general uniformity of cha-
racter bespeaks some subsequent revision’, I

1 In the present section when speaking of the Peshito
I mean the translation of the New Testament, unless it be
otherwise expressed. At the same time it may be remarked
that the Old Testament Peshito is probably the work of a
Christian, and of the same date. Cf. Davidson, Biblical Cri-
ticism, 1. Ὁ. 247; Wichelhaus, p. 73.

2 The activity of thought in Western Syria at an early
period is most remarkable. It was not only the source of
ecclesiastical order, but also of apocryphal books. As a
compensation for the latter it produced the first Christian
commentaries (Theophilus, Serapion). Cf. Wichelhaus, p. 55.

5 Hug, Introduction, § 66; Etheridge, Horse Aramaice,

8

258 EARLY VERSIONS

cHaP.1u. have ventured to specify the place at which I
thehutor- believe that this revision was made’. Whatever

ance 0
Edessa.

may be thought of the alleged intercourse of
Abgarus with our blessed Lord, Edessa itself is
signalized in early church-history by many re-
markable facts. It was called the ‘ Holy’ and
the ‘ Blessed’ city*: its inhabitants were said
to have been brought over by Thaddeus in a
marvellous manner to the Christian faith; and
‘from that time forth, Eusebius adds°, ‘the
whole people of Edessa has continued to be
devoted to the name of Christ (τῇ τοῦ Χριστου
προσανάκειται πρυσηγορίᾳ), exhibiting no ordinary
instance of the goodness of the Saviour.’ In the
second century it became the centre of an im-
portant Christian school, and long afterwards

p. 52. It is but fair to say that the Syrians attributed the
work to one translator.

The Gospels are probably the earliest as they are the
closest translation.

The Acts are more loosely translated (Wichelhaus, p. 86);
but it is to be remembered that the text of the Acts is more
uncertain than that of any part of the New Testament.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably the work of a
separate translator. (Wichelhaus, pp. 86, ff.)

1 That it was made at some place out of the Roman
Empire is shown by the translation of στρατιῶται by ‘Ro-
mans’ in the Acts. (Cf. Acts xxviii. 15; Appius Forus.]}
But this is not the case in the Gospels, which, as we have
conjectured, were translated earlier and in Palestine. Cf.
Wichelhaus, pp. 78, ff.

3 Hore Syriace, p. 101. 3 Euseb. H. E. ii. 1.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259

retained its preeminence among the cities of its cHaP. m1.
province.
As might be expected tradition fixes on Syrian |

ditions

Edessa as the place whence the Peshito took in fine”
its rise. Gregory Bar Hebreus', one of the Gregory Bar
most learned and accurate of Syrian writers,
relates that the New Testament Peshito was

‘made in the time of Thaddeus, and Abgarus,

King of Edessa,’ when, according to the universal
opinion of ancient writers, the Apostle went to
proclaim Christianity in Mesopotamia. This
statement he repeats several times, and once on

the authority of Jacob, a deacon of Edessa in Jacob of
the fifth century. He tells us, moreover, that
‘messengers were sent from Edessa to Palestine

to translate the Sacred Books ;’ and though this

1 The following testimonies from Gregory—‘ inter suos
ferme xpirixwraros’—are given by Wiseman: Quod vero
spectat ad hanc Syriacam (Versionem V. Ti.) tres fuerunt
sententis ; prima quod tempore Salomonis et Hiram Regum
conversa fuerit; secunda quod Asa sacerdos, quum ab
AssyriA missus fuit Samariam, eum transtulerit; tertia tan-
dem quod, diebus Adai Apostoli et Abgari Regis Osrhoeni
versa fuerit, quando etiam Novum Testamentum, eadem
simplici forma traductum est. p. 90. Cf. Adler, p. 42.

Occidentales (Syri) duas habent versiones, Simplicem,
qus ex Hebraico in Syriacum translata est post adventum
Domini Christi, tempore Adai Apostoli, vel, ut alii dicunt,
tempore Salomonis filii Davidis et Hiram, et Figuratam....
p. 94.

Jacobus Edessenus dicit interpretes illos, qui missi sunt
ab Adai Apostolo, et Abgaro Rege Osrhoeno in Palsstinam,
quique verterunt Libros Sacros.... ἢ. 103.

82

260 EARLY VERSIONS

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ. ΠῚ. statement refers especially to the Old Testa-

7 ment, it confirms what has been said of the
Palestinian authorship of the Version. And it
is worthy of notice that Gregory assumes the
Apostolic origin of the New Testament Peshito
as certain; for, while he gives three hypotheses
as to the date of the Old Testament Version, he
speaks of this as a known and acknowledged
fact.

Wantor ΝῸ other direct historical evidence remains

Mterature- to determine the date of the Peshito; and it
is impossible to supply the deficiency by the
help of quotations occurring in early Syrian
writers. No Syrian works of a very early period
exist. The disputed letter of Abgarus and a

Bardesane. fragment of Bardesanes alone survive in Greek
translations, to represent the literature which
preceded the writings of Ephrem’. Still it is
known that books were soon translated from
Syriac into Greek, and while such an intercourse
existed it is scarcely possible that the Scriptures
remained untranslated. Again: the controversial
writings of Bardesanes necessarily imply the

1 The fragment of Bardesanes (Euseb. Prep. Evang.
vi. 10) in answer to the doctrine of Necessity is almost
entirely made up of illustrations from nature and history.
At the conclusion he speaks more freely, and there the
reference to St Paul is unmistakeable: Θεοῦ δ᾽ ἐπινεύσαντος
πάντα δυνατὰ καὶ ἀνεμπόδιστα᾽ τῇ yap ἐκείνον βουλήσει τίς
ἀνθέστηκεν ; (Rom. ix. 19).

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 261

existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible!. c#ap. m1.
Tertullian’s example may show that he could
hardly have refuted Marcion without the con-
stant use of Scripture. And more than this,
Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus ‘made quota- Hasstppus.
tions from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,

and the Syriac, and especially from [writings

in] the Hebrew language, showing thereby that

he was a Christian of Hebrew descent’. This
testimony is valuable as coming from the only
early Greek writer likely to have been familiar

with Syriac literature; and may we not see in

the two Gospels thus mentioned two recensions

of St Matthew—the one disfigured by apocry-
phal traditions, and the other written in the
dialect of Eastern Syria ?

Ephrem Syrus, himself a deacon of Edessa, Ephrem

treats the Version in such a manner as to prove

that it was already old in the fourth century.

He quotes it as a book of established authority,
calling it ‘Our Version: he speaks of the
‘Translator’ as one whose words were familiar;

1 Bardesanes—Valentinianm sects primum discipulus...
vir erat litterarum gnarus, qui etiam ad Antonioum episto-
lam scribere ausus est, multosque sermones contra Marcio-
nitas atque simulacrorum heereses tum composuit (Moses
Choron. ap. Wichelhaus, p. 57). Cf. Euseb. H. E. iv. 30.

2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. ἔκ re τοῦ καθ᾽ ‘EBpaiovs εὐαγγελίου καὶ
τοῦ Συριακοῦ, καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ‘ESpaides διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησῳ,
ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἑβραίων ἑαυτὸν πεπιστευκέναι (quoted by Hug).

8 Hore Syriac, pp. 116, 117.

OHAP. ΣΙ.

The Peshito
received by
all the Sy-
rian

3

262 EARLY VERSIONS

and, though the dialects of the East are pro-
verbially permanent, his explanations show that
its language even in his time had become par-
tially obsolete!.

Another circumstance serves to exhibit the
venerable age of this Version. It was universally
received by the different sects into which the
Syrian Church was divided in the fourth century,
and so has continued current even to the pre-
sent time. All the Syrian Christians*, whether
belonging to the Nestorian, Jacobite, or Roman
communion, conspire to hold the Peshito author-
itative, and to use it in their public services.
It must consequently have been established by
familiar use before the first heresies arose, or
it could not have remained without a rival.
Numerous versions or revisions of the New
Testament, indeed, were made afterwards, for
Syrian literature is peculiarly rich in this branch

1 It does not seem that the difference of the Edessene
and Palestinian dialects alone can account for the obscu-
rities which Ephrem seeks to remove. The instances quoted
by Dr Wiseman are, in accordance with his plan, taken
from the Old Testament; but, in the absence of all indica-
tions of the contrary, it seems fair to suppose that his
remarks apply equally to the New Testament. Cf. Wichel-
haus, p. 91.

In reference to the phraseology of the Peshito it is
worthy of remark that Episcopus is preserved in only one
place, Acts xx. 28. Elsewhere it is hashisho (presbyter).

The name of deacon is preserved. Wichelhaus, p. 89.
3 Horm Syriace, p. 108.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263

of theological criticism; but no one ever sup- cHaP. m.
planted the Peshito for ecclesiastical purposes’.

1 Dr Wiseman enumerates twelve Versions of the Old
Testament. The most important for the criticism of the
New Testament are the Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the
Palestinian.

The Philoxenian derives its name from a Bishop of
Mabug or Hierapolis, in Syria (4.p. 485—518), in whose
time it was made, by one Polycarp, for the use of the Mono-
physites. Of this version only fragments remain; and it is
uncertain whether it included all the books of the New Tes-
tament. Adler, p. 48. Wiseman, Ὁ. 178, n. Adler supposes
that an early Mediceo-Florentine MS. (a.p. 757) of the
Gospels exhibits this recension, but he adds that it differs
little from the Harclean. pp. 53—55.

Thomas Harclensis, poor Thomas, as he calls himself, a
monk of Alexandria in 616 a.p., revised the Philoxenian
translation by the help of some Greek MSS., and seems to
havo attempted for the Syrian Version what Origen did for
the Septuagivt. The Oxford MS. of this Translation con-
tains the seven catholic Epistles, but omits the Apocalypse.
Adler, pp. 49 sqq.

The Palestinian Version exists in an Evangelistarium of
proper lessons for the Sundays and Festivals of the year.
It is remarkable that the pericope, John vii. 53—viii. 11,
which is wanting in the other Syriac versions, is contained
in this in a form which agrees with the text of Cod. D.
The dialect in which it is written is very similar to that of
the Jerusalem Talmud: and thus Adler, who first accurately
examined it, gave it the name of the Jerusalem Version.
Adler, pp. 140—145; 190, 191; 198—-202.

In addition to these Versions there is the Karkaphensian
recension of the Peshito made by an uncertain Jacobitic
author (Wiseman, p. 212), chiefly remarkable for the singular
order in which the books are arranged. The New Testa-
ment Canon is the same as that of the original Peshito, but
the Acts and three Catholic epistles stand first as one book;
the fourteen Epistles of St Paul follow next; and the four

264 EARLY VERSIONS

cuar.mt, Like the Vulgate in the Western Church, the
Peshito became in the East the fixed and un-
alterable Rule of Scripture.

and used as The respect in which the Peshito was held

other trans- wag further shown by the fact that it was taken
as the basis of other Versions in the East. An
Arabic and a Persian Version were made from
it; but it is more important to notice that at
the commencement of the fifth century (before

The Arme- the Council of Ephesus, 431 a.c.), an Armenian
Version was made from the Syriac in the ab-
sence of Greek MSS.’

Cleneral re These indications of the antiquity of the
Peshito do not, indeed, possess any conclusive
authority, but they all tend in the same direc-
tion, and there is nothing on the other side to
reverse or modify them. It is not improbable
that fresh discoveries may throw a clearer light
on early Syriac literature ; and that more copious
critical resources may serve to determine the
date of the Peshito on philological grounds.
But, meanwhile, there is no sufficient reason to
desert the opinion which has obtained the sanc-
tion of the most competent scholars, that its
formation is to be fixed within the first half

Gospels in the usual order come last. (Wiseman, p. 217).
This recension has been accurately examined by Dr Wise-
man, ll. cc.

1 Etheridge, Hore Aramaice, pp. 44, f.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 265

of the second century. The text, even in its cHap. m1.
present corrupt state, exhibits remarkable agree- confirmed by
ment with the most ancient Greek MSS. and

the earliest quotations. The very obscurity

which hangs over its origin is a proof of its
venerable age, because it shows that it grew up
spontaneously among Christian congregations,

and was not the result of any public labour.

Had it been a work of late date, of the third or

fourth century, it is scarcely possible that its
history should have been so uncertain as it 15].

The Version exists at present in two distinct The present
classes of MSS.* Some are written in the ancient Ye*-
Syrian letters, and others of Indian origin in the
Nestorian character. The latter are compara-
tively of recent date, but remarkable for the
variations from the common text which they
exhibit. Still though these two families of MSS.
represent different recensions they coincide as
far as the Canon is concerned. Both omit the The Syrian
second and third Epistles of St John, the second
Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle of St Jude, and
the Apocalypse, but include all the other books
as commonly received without any addition.

This Canon seems to have been generally main-

1 J. B. Branca (1781), from a desire to raise the Vulgate
above all rivalry, endeavoured to prove that the Peshito
was made as late as the fourth century. Dr Wiseman has
fully refuted him, pp. 110 sqq.

3. Adler, p. 3.

266 EARLY VERSIONS

ΟΗ͂ΑΡ. πι. tained in the Syrian Churches, and in those

535 ap.

11318 a.p.

1509 Δ.».

which depended on their authority'. It is repro-
duced in the Arabic Version of Erpenius, which
was taken from the Peshito*. Cosmas’, an Egyp-
tian traveller of the sixth century, states that
only three Catholic Epistles were received by
the Syrians. Junilius mentions two Catholic
Epistles as undoubted—i. John, 1. Peter—while
the remaining five were received ‘ by very many‘*.”
Dionysius Bar Salibi5, in the twelfth century,
alludes to the absence of the second Epistle of
St Peter from the ancient Syrian Version. Ebed-
6885, in the fourteenth century, repeats the Canon
of the Peshito; and the mutilation of the New
Testament, by the omission of the disputed
books, was one of the charges brought against
the Christians of St Thomas at the Synod of
Diamper’.

1 Ephrem Syrus, however, admitted the seven Catholic
Epistles and the Apocalypse; but in this he represents the
Greek rather than the Syrian Church. There is no trace of
their reception by the Syrian Churches, or of their admission
into MSS. of the Peshito.

2 In eA (sc. Arabicé Erpenii) Actus App., Epp. Pauli,
Jac., i. Pet., i. Jo. e Syra Simplici fluxisse prohibentur,
Apocalypsis potius 6 Copté: Evangelia vero (item ii. Petr.
li. iii. Jo., Jud.?) Originem mixtam habere videntur. Tischf.
Prolegg. Lxxvii.

8 Credner, Zur Gesch. ἃ. Kanons, 8. 108, n.

4 Junilius ap. Reuss, § 312. Credner, Zur Gesch. d.
Kanons, a. a. O. 5 Hug, § 64.

6 Assemani, Bibl. Or. ap. Adler, p. 34. 7 Adler, p. 35.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267

Such then is the Canon of the Syrian
Churches’. Its general agreement with our
own is striking and important ; and its omissions
admit of easy explanation. The purely historic
evidence for the second Epistle of St Peter
must always appear inconclusive; for it does
not seem to have been generally known before
the end of the third century. The Apocalypse,
again, rests chiefly on the authority of the
Western Churches; and it is not surprising that
the two shorter and private letters of St John
should have been at first unknown in Meso-
potamia. The omission of the Epistle of St
Jude is, perhaps, more remarkable, when it is
remembered that it was written in Palestine,
and appears to be necessarily connected with
that of St James. But these points will come
under examination in another place. Meanwhile
it is necessary to insist on the absence of all
uncanonical books from this earliest Version.
Many writings we know were current in the
East under Apostolic titles, but no one received
the sanction of the Church; and this fact alone

1 The order of the Books is the same as that in the best
Greek MSS.: The four Gospels—the Actse—the Catholic
Epistlese—the Epistles of St Paul. In the Karkaphensian
recension, as we have seen, the order is in part inverted ;
and Jacob of Edessa follows the same arrangement, placing
« the Gospels last. Wichelhaus, p, 84.

CHAP. III.

The relation
of the Canon
to our own.

268 EARLY VERSIONS

CHAP.III. ig sufficient to show that the Canon was not
fixed without painful criticism.

Peshito There is still another aspect in which the
ofcathoiec Peshito claims our notice. Proceeding from a
’ Church which in character and language seems

to represent most truly the Palestinian element

of the Apostolic age, it witnesses to something

more than the authenticity of the New Testa-

ment Scriptures. It is in fact the first monu-

ment of Catholic Christianity. Here for the first

time we see the different forms of teaching,

which still served as the watchwords of heresy,

recognized by the East as constituent parts of

3 ῬῪεῖ. iit 18. a Common faith. The closing words of St Peter

had witnessed to the same truth; and though

the Syrian Churches refused to acknowledge the

testimony, they confirmed its substance in this

collection of their sacred books. The contest

between the Jewish and Gentile Churches had

passed away. The ‘enemy’ and ‘deceiver,’ as

St Paul was still called by the Ebionites, is

now acknowledged to have independent power

and authority as an Apostle of Christ. Hence-

forth the great Father of the Western Church

stands side by side with St James, St Peter, and

St John, the pillars of the Church of Jeru-
salem.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 269
ὃ 2. The Old Latin Version’. oa
At first it is natural to look to Italy as the Zier,

rature of

centre of the Latin literature of Christianity, Rome was
and the original source of that Latin Version of ®t (68.
the Holy Scriptures, which in a later form has
become identified with the Church of Rome.
Yet, however natural such a belief may be, it
finds no support in history. Rome itself under
the emperors was well described as a ‘ Greek
city ;’ and Greek was its second language*. As
far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer
population—everywhere the great bulk of the
early Christians—was Greek either in descent
or in speech. Among the names of the fifteen
bishops of Rome up to the close of the second
century, four only are Latin®; but in the next
century the proportion is nearly reversed. When
St Paul first wrote to the Roman Church he
wrote in Greek; and in the long list of saluta-

1 The best original investigation into the Old Latin
Version is Wiseman’s Remarks on some parts of the con-
troversy concerning 1 John v. 7, originally printed in the
1835.

Lachmann has reproduced his arguments, with some new
iNustrations: Nov. Test. v. i., pref. ix. ff.

2 Cf. Wiseman, iii. pp. 306—7. Bunsen’s Hippolytus,
li. 123, sqq.

δ Bunsen, Ϊ. 6. says ‘two, Clement and Victor.’ But I
cannot see on what ground Sixtus (Xystus, Euseb. H. E. iv.
Ἃ cf. vii. 5) and Pius are not included in the number.

CHAP. III.

Africa is the

true spring of

the Latin
literature of
Christianity.

270 EARLY VERSIONS

tions to its members, with which the epistle is
concluded, only four Latin names occur. Shortly
afterwards Clement wrote to the Corinthians in
Greek in the name of the Church of Rome; and
at a later date we find the Bishop of Corinth
writing in Greek to Soter the ninth in succes-
sion from Clement. Justin, Hermas, and Tatian
published their Greek treatises at Rome. The
Apologies to the Roman emperors were in Greek.
Modestus, Caius, and Asterius Urbanus bear
Latin names, and yet their writings were Greek.
Even further west Greek was the common Ian-
guage of Christians. ‘The churches of Vienne
and Lyons used it in the history of their per-
secutions; and Irenzeus, though he lived among
barbarians, and confessed that he had grown
unfamiliar with his native idiom, made it the
vehicle of his treatise against heresies. The
first sermons which were preached at Rome were
in Greek; and it has been conjectured with
good reason that Greek was at first the litur-
gical language of the Church of Rome.
Meanwhile, however, though Greek continued
to be the natural, if not the sole language of
the Roman Church!, the seeds of Latin Chris-
1 Jerome speaks of Tertullian as the first Latin writer
after Victor and Apollonius. Victor was an African by
birth; and he appears to have used Greek in the Paschal

controversy. Polycrates at least addressed him in Greek :
Euseb. H. E. v. 24. It is disputed whether Apollonius’

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271

tianity were rapidly developing in Africa. No- cmap. ul
thing is known in detail of the origin of the
African churches. The Donatists classed them
among ‘those last which should be first;’ and
Augustine in his reply merely affirms that ‘some
barbarian nations embraced Christianity after
Africa; so that it is certain that Africa was not
the last to believe’.’ The concession implies
that Africa was converted late, and after the
Apostolic times: Tertullian adds that it received
the Gospel from Rome. But the rapidity of the
spread of Christianity compensated for the late-
ness of its introduction. At the close of the
second century Christians were found in every
place and of every rank. They who were but
of yesterday, Tertullian says*, already fill the
palace, the senate, the forum, and the camp,
and leave their temples only to the heathen.
To persecute the Christians was even then to
decimate Carthage®. These fresh conquests of

defence was in Greek or in Latin. If it were in Latin, as
seems likely, the place of its delivery—the Senate—sufii-
ciently explains the fact. Cf. Lumper, iv. 3.

1 August. c. Donat. ep. [de Unit. Eccles.) c. 37. De
nobis, inquiunt [Donatiste], dictum est, Erunt primi qui
erant novissimi. Ad Africam enim Evangelium postmodum
venit; et ideo nusquam litterarum apostolicarum scriptum
est Africam credidisse... Augustine answers: ...nonnulls
barbare: nationes etiam post Africam crediderunt; unde
certum sit Africam in ordine credendi non esse novissimam.

3. Apol. i. 37. c. 200 a.p. 8 Ad. Scap. c. 5.

272 EARLY VERSIONS

car. 1. the Roman Church preserved their distinct na-.

tionality in their language. Carthage—the
second Rome—escaped the Grecism of the
first. In Africa Greek was no longer a current
dialect. A peculiar form of Latin, vigorous,
elastic and copious, however far removed from
the grace and elegance of a classical standard,
fitly expressed the spirit of Tertullian. But

The Vetus though we speak of Tertullian as the first Latin
‘ec Father, it must be noticed that he speaks of

Latin as the language of his Church, and that
his writings abound with Latin quotations of
Scripture. He inherited an ecclesiastical dia-
lect, if not an ecclesiastical literature. It is
then to Africa that we must look for the first
traces of the Latin ‘ Peshito,’ the ‘simple’ Ver-
sion of the West. And here a new difficulty
arises. The Syrian Peshito has been preserved
without material change in the keeping of the
churches for whose use it was made. But no
image of their former life, however faint, lingers
at Carthage or Hippo. No church of N. Africa,
however corrupt, remains to testify to its ancient
Bible. The Version was revised by a foreign
scholar, adopted by a foreign Church, and in
the end its independent existence has been
denied. Before any‘attempt is made to fix the
date of its formation and the extent of its Canon,
it will be necessary to show that we are dealing

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273

with a reality, and not with a mere ‘creation of cHaP. 1.

ἃ critic’s fancy.’

The language of Tertullian, if candidly ex- Tertullian af.
amined, is conclusive on the point. A few istence of a
quotations will prove that he distinctly recog- New eee
nized a current Latin Version, marked by a dime.

peculiar character, and in some cases unsatis-
factory to one conversant with the original text.

‘Reason,’ he says, ‘is called by the Greeks jonni.1.

Logos, a word equivalent to Sermo in Latin.
And so it is already customary for our country-
men to say, through a rude and literal trans-
lation (per simplicitatem interpretationis), that
the conversational Word (sermo) was in the begin-
ning with God, while it is more correct to regard
the rational Word (ratio) as antecedent to it,
because God in the beginning was not mani-
fested in intercourse with man (sermonalis), but
existed in self-contemplation (rationals)! From

1 Adv. Prax. c. 5: [Rationem] Greeci λόγον dicunt, quo
vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in usu
est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, sermonem
dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse, cum magis rationem
competat antiquiorem haberi: quia non sermonalis a prin-
cipio, sed rationalis Deus, etiam ante principium, et quia
ipse quoque sermo, ratione consistens, priorem eam ut sub-
stantiam suam ostendat: tamen et sic nihil interest. It will
be noticed that Tertullian uses the word principium (80
Vulg.) and not primordium. He quotes the passage with
that reading: adv. Hermog. 20; adv. Prax. 13,21. This is
another mark of the independence of the current translation

T

CHAP. 111.

1 Cor. viL 80.

274 EARLY VERSIONS

this it appears that the Latin translation of St
John’s Gospel was already so generally circu-
lated as to mould the popular dialect; and in-
vested with sufficient authority to support a
rendering capable of improvement. If there
had been many rival translations in use, it is
scarcely probable that they would have all ex-
hibited the same ‘rudeness of style;’ or that a
writer like Tertullian would have apologized
for an inaccuracy found in some one of them.
Again, when arguing to prove that a second
marriage is only allowed to a woman who had
lost her first husband before her conversion to
the Christian faith, inasmuch as this second
husband is indeed her first, he adds in reference
to the passage of St Paul, which he has quoted
before: ‘We must know that the phrase in the
original Greek is not exactly the same as that
which has gained currency [among us| through
a clever or rude perversion of two syllables:
Tf however her husband shall fall asleep, as if it
were said of the future..." The connexion of

The Latin authorities used by Lachmann all (e sil.) trans-
late λόγος by verbum.

1 De Monog. c. 11: Sciamus plane non sic esse in
Greeco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum sylla-
barum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem: δὲ autem
dormierit (?dormiet) vir ejus, quasi de futuro sonet....
The general meaning of Tertullian is clear, but I cannot
see the force ‘of his argument as applied to dormiorit: that

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275

this passage with the last is evident. An am- CHAP. ΠΙ.
biguous translation had passed into common

use, and must therefore have been supported by

some recognized claim. That this was grounded

on the general reception of the version in which

it was found is implied in the language of Ter-

tullian. The ‘ simple rendering,’ and the ‘ simple
perversion,’ naturally refer to some literal Latin
translation already circulated in Africa.

It is then beyond doubt that a Latin trans- This tam
lation of some of the books of the New Testa- frscasr”
ment was current in Africa in Tertullian’s time, tos
and sufficiently authorized by popular use to
form the theological dialect of the country. It
appears from another passage that this transla-
tion embraced a collection of the Christian
Scriptures. ‘We lay down,’ he says, ‘in the
first place that the evangelical instrument—([the
collection of the authoritative documents of the
Gospel]—rests on apostolic authority! The
very name by which the collection was called
witnessed to the ‘simplicity’ of the version.
tense is commonly used to translate ἐὰν with the aor. (yet
cf. Tert. ii. 393 (edamus) with Vulg. (manducaverimus)).

In an earlier part of the chapter he quotes: si autem mortuus
Juertt. For κοιμηθῇ A &c. read ἀποθάνῃ. Is it possible
that the reading of G is a confusion of κοιμηθῇ and xexol-
μηται (cf. 1 John v. 15, &c.), and that Tertullian read the
latter? If so, the ‘eversio duarum syllabarum’ would be

intelligible; otherwise we must, I think, read dormieé.
1 Adv. Mare. iv. 2.

T2

CHAP. III.

276 EARLY VERSIONS

‘Marcion,’ Tertullian writes just before, ‘ sup-
posed that different gods were the authors of
the two Instruments, or, as it is usual to speak,
of the two Testaments!.” The word Testament
(διαθήκη) would naturally find a place in a ‘simple’
version ; otherwise it is not easy to see how it
could have supplanted the commoner term’,
Thus far then the evidence of Tertullian

7 decidedly favours the belief that one Latin Ver-

sion of the Holy Scriptures was popularly used
in Africa. It has, however, been argued from
the language of Augustine about two centuries
later, in reference to the origin and multiplicity
of the Latin Versions in his time, that this view
of the unity and authority of the African Ver-
sion is untenable. ‘Every one,’ he says, ‘in the
first times of the faith who gained possession of
a Greek MS. and fancied that he had any little

1 Adv. Marc. iv. 1:...duos deos dividens, proinde di-
versos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est
dicere, testamenti. ..

2 The phrase Novum Testamentum was used both of the
Christian dispensation and of the records of it: adv. Marc.
iv. 22; adv. Prax. 31.

Instrumentum is used in late Latin of public or official
documents: e.g. Instrumenta litis—Instrumentum tmperts
(Suet. Vesp. 8)—Instrumenti publici auctoritas (Suet. Cal. 8).
It is a favourite word with Tertullian: Apol. i. 18, Instru-
mentum litterature; adv. Marc. v. 2, Instrumentum acto-
rum; de Resurrec. Carnis, 39, Apostolus per totum pene
tnstrumentum ; de Spectac. 5, Instrumenta ethnicarum litte-
rarum,

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 277

acquaintance with both Greek and Latin, ven- cuap. ur.
tured to translate it!.? But while we admit that nistre
this may be a true account of the manner in “me
which the first version was undertaken, yet the
analogy of later times is sufficient to prove that

the freedom of individual translation must have

been soon limited by ecclesiastical use. The
translations of separate books would be com-
bined into a volume. Some recension of the
popular text would be adopted in the public
services of each Church, and this would naturally
become the standard text of the district over
which its influence extended*. Even if it be
proved that new Latin Versions’, which agree

1 De Doetr. Christ. ii. 16 (11): Ut enim cuique primis
fidei temporibus in manus venit codex grecus, et aliquan-
tulum facultatis sibi utriusque lingus habere videbatur,
ausus est interpretari. This can only refer, I believe, to
translation, and not to the interpolation of a translation
already made. Lachmann’s explanation of the passage
(pref. xiv.) is quite arbitrary, if I understand him. The
Old Version arose out of private efforts, and was afterwards
corrupted by private interpolations; but the two facts are
to be kept distinct.

2 There is a clear trace of such an ecclesiastical re-
cension in Aug. de Con. Evwv. ii. 128 (66): Non autem ita
80 habet vel quod Joannes interponit, vel codices Ecclesiastici

is usitate. He is speaking of the quotation
(Zech. ix. 9) in Matt. xxi. 7, compared with John xii. 14, 15.

8 The history of the English Versions may offer a parallel.
The Version of Tyndale is related to those that followed it
in the same way, perhaps, as the Vetus Latina to such
recensions (or ‘new versions,’ as they may be called) as the
Itala.

278 EARLY VERSIONS

cHaP.1u. more or less exactly with the African Version,
were made in Italy, Spain and Gaul, as the con-
gregations of Latin Christians increased in num-
ber and importance; that fact proves nothing
against the existence of an African original.
For if we call these various versions ‘new,’ we
must limit the force of the word to a fresh
revision and not to an independent translation
of the whole. There is not the slightest trace
of the existence of independent Latin Versions ;
and the statements of Augustine are fully satis-
fied by supposing a series of ecclesiastical recen-
sions of one fundamental text, which were in
turn reproduced with variations and corrections
in private MSS. In this way there might well be
said to be an ‘infinite variety of Latin interpre-
ters',’ while a particular recension like the ‘ Itala’
could be selected for gencral commendation’.

untrmaiby Lhe outline which we have roughly drawn

douuments. is fully justified by the documents which exhibit

1 Aug. de Doctr. Christ. ii. 16 (11). This was no less
true of the Old than of the New Testament. Cf. Aug.
Epp. uxxr. 6 (4); Lxxxm. 35 (δ).

2 Aug. de Doctr. Christ. ii. 22 (15): In ipsis autem
interpretationibus, Itala ceteris preferatur; nam est verbo-
rum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententis. The last clause
probably points to the character by which the Jtala was
distinguished from the Africana. If, us I believe, Tertul-
lian’s quotations exhibit the earliest form of the latter,
‘clearness of expression’ was certainly not ono of its merits.

The connexion of Augustine with Ambrose naturally explains
his preference for the Jtala.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 279

the various forms of the Latin Version before cap. m.
the time of Jerome. They are all united by a
certain generic character, and again subdivided
by specific differences, capable, I believe, of clear
and accurate distinction as soon as the quota-
tions of the early Latin Fathers shall have been
carefully collated with existing MSS. The
writings of Tertullian offer the true starting
point in the history of the old Latin text'. His
manner of citation is often loose, and he fre-
quently exhibits various renderings of the same
text, but even in such cases it is not difficult to
determine the reading which he found in the

1 It will be evident, I think, that Tertullian has pre-
served the original text of the African version from a com-
parison of his readings in the following passages, taken
from two books only, with those of the other authorities :

Acts iii. 19—21; de Resurr. Carn. 23 (iv. p. 255).

— xiii. 46; de Fuga, 6 (iii. p. 183).

— xv. 28; de Pudic. 12 (iv. p. 394).

v. 3,43; c. Gnost. 13 (ii. p. 383).

vi. 1—13; de Pudic. 17 (iv. p. 414).

vi. 20—23; de Resurr. Carn. 47 (iii. p. 303).
vii. 2—6; de Monog. 13 (iii. p. 163).

viii. 85—39; c. Gnost. 13 (ii. p. 383).

xi. 33; adv. Flermog. 465 (ii. p. 141).

xii. 1; de Resurr. Carn. 47 (iii. p. 306).

xii. 10; adv. Marc. v. 14 (i. p. 439).

The list of remarkable readings in the other books is
equally striking. The Version which Tertullian used was
marked by the use of Greck words, as machera (adv. Marc.
iv. 29; c. Gnost. 13); sophia (adv. Hermog. 45); chowcus
(de Resurr. Carn. 49). Some peculiar words are of frequent
occurrence, 6. g. tingo (Bamri{w)—delinquentia (ἁμαρτία).

S
LPT tds

28) EARLY VERSIONS

CHAP. current Version from that which he was himself
inclined to substitute for 1}.

The history We have no means of tracing the history of

ρα ον the Version before the time of Tertullian; but
εν of Ter its existence then is attested by other contem-
porary evidence. The Latin translation of Ire-
neeus was known to Tertullian?; and the scrip-
tural quotations which occur in it were evidently
taken from some foreign source, and not made
by the translator’. That this source was no
other than a recension of the Vetus Latina ap-

1 As a specimen of the text which Tertullian’s quota-
tions exhibit I have given his various readings in two
chapters. The references are to the marginal pages of
Semler’s edition.

Matt. i. 1. genituree (iii. 392) generationis.

— — 16. generavit (genuit) Joseph, virum Maries, ex (de)
qua nascitur (natus est) Christus (iii. 387).

Matt. i. 20. nam quod (quod enim)... (I. 6.)

— — 23. ecce virgo concipiet (so a. b.c.) in utero et
pariet filium (iii. 381) cujus et vocabitur (Iren. i.
vocabunt) nomen Emmanuel... (iii. 257).

Rom. i. 8. gratias agit Deo per dominum nostrum (=)
Jesum Christum. (ii. 261).

Rom. i. 16, 17. non enim me pudet Evangelii (erubesco
Evangelium) ....Judeo (<primum c. BG, &c.) et
Greeco; quia justitia (justitia enim) ...(i. 431).

Rom. i. 18. =omnem, eorum. (I. 6.)

— — 20. invisibilia enim ejus (ipstus) a conditions (crea-
tura) mundi de factitamentis (per ea que facta sunt)
intellecta visuntur (conspiciuntur) (iv. 250). Cf. ii. 141.
Invisibilia ejus ab institutione mundi factis eus (80
Hil) conspiciuntur.

2 Cf. Grabe, Proleg. ad Iren. ii. $3 (ii. p. 36, ed. Stieren).

5 Cf. Lachmann, N. T. i., pref. x. f.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 281

pears from the coincidence of readings which it cHaP.uL

exhibits with the most trustworthy MSS. of the
Version’. In other words the Vetus Latina is
recognized in the first Latin literature of the
Church. It can be traced back as far as the
earliest records of Latin Christianity. Every
circumstance connected with it indicates the
most remote antiquity. But in the absence of
further evidence we cannot attempt to fix more
than the inferior limit of its date; and even that

1 The relation of the text of Tertullian’s quotations to
that of the Latin Translation of Irenseus is very interesting,
as may be seen from the following examples. The variations
from the Vulgate (V) (Lachmann) are given in Italics:

Matt. i. 1. generationis Iren. 471, 505 (ed. Stieren):

geniture Tert.

— --- 20. quod enim habet in utero (ventre) Iren. 508,
638: quod in ea natum est. Tert.

Matt. iii. 7, 8. Cf. Luke iii. 7: Progenies—fructum, Iren.
457: genimina—fructum (fructus, iv. 893). Tert. ii. 96.

Matt. iii. 11. Palam habens in manu ejus ad emundandam
aream suam, Iren. 569: Palam (all. ventilabrum) in
manu portat ad purgandam aream suam. Tert. ii. 4.
Cf. iii. 172.

Matt. iv. 3. Si tu es filius Dei. Iren. 576. Tort. ii. 189.
(As Vulg.) Iren. 774; Tert. ii. 199.

Matt. iv. 4. non in pane tantum (c. tr.) vivit. Iren. 774;
non in solo pane (so a; tr. V.) vivit Tert. ii. 313.

Matt. iv. 6. Iren. p. 775=V; Si tu es filius Dei, dejice te
hinc: Scriptum est enim, quod mandavit angelis suis
(tr.) super te, uf te manibus suis tollant, necubi ad
lapidem pedem tuum offendas (tr.) Tert. ii. 189.

Tertullian and the Translator of Irenseus represent re-
spectively, I believe, African and Gallic recensions of the
Vetus Latina.

CHAP. 11].

The inferior
limit of its
date.

t etus
Latina coin-
cided with
that of th

Muratorian

The Canon of
he

282 EARLY VERSIONS

cannot be done with certainty, owing to the
doubtful chronology of Tertullian’s life. Briefly,
however, the case may be stated thus. If the
Version was, as has been seen, generally in use
in Africa in his time, and had been in circulation
sufficiently long to stereotype the meaning of
particular phrases, we cannot allow less than
twenty years for its publication and spread: and
if we take into account its extension into Gaul
and its reception there, the period will seem too
short. Now the beginning of Tertullian’s literary
activity cannot be placed later than c. 190 a.c.,
and we shall thus find the date 170 a.c. as that
before which the Version must have been made.
How much more ancient it really is cannot yet
be discovered. Not only is the character of
the Version itself a proof of its extreme age;
but the mutual relations of different parts of it
show that it was made originally by different
hands; and if so, it is natural to conjecture that
it was coeval with the introduction of Chris-
tianity into Africa, and the result of the spon-
taneous efforts of African Christians.

The Canon of the Old Latin Version coin-
cided, I believe, exactly with that of the Mura-
torian fragment. It contained the four Gospels,
the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St Paul, the three
Catholic Epistles of St John, the first Epistle of
St Peter, the Epistle of St Jude and the Apo-

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 283

calypse. To these the Epistle to the Hebrews czar. ΠΙ.
was added subsequently, but before the time of
Tertullian, and without the author’s name. There

is no external evidence to show that the Epistle

of St James or the second Epistle of St Peter

was included in the Vetus Latina. The earliest

Latin testimonies to both of them, as far as I

am aware are those of Hilary, Jerome, and
Rufinus (in his Latin Version of Origen’).

The MSS. in which the Old Latin Version is On the ass.
found are few, but some of them are of great °°"
antiquity. In the Gospels Lachmann made use The Gospels,
of four, of which one belongs to the fourth, and
another to the fourth or fifth century*, To these
Tischendorf has since added the Palatine MS.
of the same date, but inclining to the Italian
rather than to the African text; and besides
these he enumcrates nine others, more or less
perfect, ranging from the fifth to the eleventh
century, of which two give African readings.

The version of the Acts is contained in two The Acts,
MSS. of the sixth century, which, however,
clearly represent an original of much earlier

1 It is impossible to lay any stress on the passage in
Firmilian, ap. Cypr. Epp. xxv. Even if Irenseus himself
was acquainted with the Epistle of St James (adv. Heer.
v. I. 1), n0 argument can be built on the reference to prove
the existence of the Epistle in a Latin Version.

2 Tho MSS. are described by Tischendorf, N. T. Proleg.
pp. Ixxxiv, sqq. Lachmann, N. T. 1, Prolog. xii, 84.

284 EARLY VERSIONS

cuap.im, date. The Pauline Epistles are represented by

The Hite two MSS. of the sixth and ninth centuries. But
there is no MS. which gives the.original form of

Thecuholic the text of the Catholic Epistles. The Codex
Beze has alone preserved a fragment of the
third Epistle of St John which is found imme-
diately before the Acts; and as it is expressly
stated that the Acts follows, it appears that the
Epistle of St Jude was either omitted or trans-
posed. Two other early MSS. which contain
respectively the Epistle of St James, and frag-
ments of the Epistles of St James and of St
Peter (i), give the text of the Italian recension
and not of the Vetus Latina. There is no ante-
Hieronymian MS. of the second Epistle of St
Peter, of the Epistle of St Jude, or of the Apo-
calypse.

eh sain The evidence of Tertullian as to the Old

Canonieity of Latin Canon may be taken to complete that

Stjue derived directly from MSS. His language leaves
little doubt as to the position which the Epistle
of St Jude, and that to the Hebrews occupied
in the African Church. The former he assigns
directly to the Apostle Jude; and if so, its
canonicity in the strictest sense was assured!,
And since the reference is made without any
limitation or expression of doubt—since it is,
indeed, made to prove the authority of the Book

1 Tertull. de Cult. Fam. c. mI.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 285

of Enoch, as if the quotation by St Jude were CHAP. 11.
decisive, it may be assumed that Tertullian
found the book in the ‘New Testament’ of his
Church.

On the other hand his single direct reference ™:2
to the Epistle to the Hebrews leads to the ™™
opposite conclusion. After appealing to the
testimony of the Apostles in support of his
Montanist views of Christian discipline, and
bringing forward passages from most of the
Epistles of St Paul, and from the Apocalypse
and first Epistle of St John, he says!, The disci-
pline of the Apostles is thus clear and decisive.

‘,.. [ wish, however, though it be superfluous, to
bring forward also the testimony of a companion
of the Apostles, well fitted to confirm the
discipline of his teachers on the point before us.
For there is extant an Epistle to the Hebrews
which bears the name of Barnabas. The writer
has consequently adequate authority, as being
one whom St Paul placed beside himself in the 1 Cor. ix.¢
point of continence; and certainly the Epistle
of Barnabas is more commonly received among
the Churches than the apocryphal Shepherd of
adulterers.’ He then quotes, with very remark-
able various readings’, Hebr. vi. 4—-8, and

1 Tertull. de Pudic. c. xx.
2 Tertull. 1. 6. : Impossibile cst enim eos qui semel illu-
minati sunt (Y. ἐγ.) εἰ donum ceeleste gustaverunt (V. ἐν.

286 EARLY VERSIONS

cHaP. 1. concludes by saying: ‘One who had learnt from

the Apostles, and had taught with the Apostles,
knew this, that a second repentance was never
promised by the Apostles to an adulterer or
fornicator.” If the Epistle had formed part of
the African Canon, it is impossible that Tertul-
lian should have spoken thus: for the passage
bore more directly on his argument than any
other, and yet he introduces it only as a secon-
dary testimony. The book was certainly received
with respect; but still it could be compared
with the Shepherd, which at least made no claim
to Apostolicity. And it is by this mark that
Tertullian distinguishes between the Epistle of
St Jude and the Epistle [of Barnabas] to the

gustav. etiam d.c.), et participaverunt spiritum sanctum (V.
participes sunt facti sp. 8.), et verbum dei dulce gustaverunt
(V. tr. gustav. nihilominus bonum ἃ. v.), occidente jam avo
cum exciderint (V. virtutesque seculi venturi et prolapsi sunt)
rursus revocari in poenitentiam (V. renovari r. ad pon.), re-
figentes cruci (V. rursum cruci figentes) tn semetipsos (V.
sibimet ipsis) filium dei et dedecorantes ΑΥ̓͂. ostentus habentes).
Terra enim que bibit sepius devenicntem in se humorem (V.
smepe ven. super se bibens imbrem) et peperit herbam aptam
his propter quos et colitur, (V. generans ἢ. opportunam tllis
a quibus c.), benedictionem dei consequitur (V. acctpit Ὁ. a
Deo); proferens autem spinas (V. + et tribulos) reproba (V.
+ est) et maledictiont (V. maledicto) proxima, cujus finis in
exustionem (V. c. consummatio in combustionem).

The number and character of the various readings per-
haps justify the beliof that the translation given was made
by Tertullian himself. It is certainly independent of that
preserved in the Vulgate and in the Claromontane MS.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287

Hebrews. The one was the mark of the Apostle: cHap. 11.

the other was not, nor yet stamped by direct
Apostolic sanction.

Tertullian quotes the Apocalypse very fre- The Apoca

quently, and ascribes it positively to St John,
though he notices the objections of Marcion.
The text of his quotations exhibits a general
agreement with that of the Vulgate; and it is
evident that the version of which he made use
was not essentially different from that current in
later times!. There is then every reason to
believe that when he wrote the book was gene-
rally circulated in Africa; and as the translation
then received retained its hold on the Church,
it is probable that it was supported by ecclesi-
astical use. In other words, everything tends to
show that the Apocalypse was admitted in Africa
from the earliest time as Canonical Scripture.

1 The following are come of the most important various

readings :—

Apoc. i. 6: Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes....de exh.
cast. 6. 7.

—-— ii. 20—23: Jezebel que se propheten dicit et
docet atque seducit servos meos ad fornicandum et
edendum de idolothytis. Et largitus sum illi δρα»
tium temporis ut poenitentiam iniref, nec vult cam
inire nomine fornicationis. Ecce dabo eam in
lectum, et machos ejus cum tpsa in maximam
pressuram, nisi penitentiam egerint operum ejus.

—— vii. 14: Hi sunt qui veniunt ex illa pressure
magna, et laverunt vestimentum suam et candida-
verunt ipsum in sanguine agni, c. Gnost. c. xii.

CHAP. III.

288 EARLY VERSIONS

Internal evidence is not wanting to confirm

The language the results drawn from other sources. The

fly

The language

of 2 Peter.

peculiarities of language in different parts of the
Vulgate offer a most interesting field for inquiry.
Jerome’s revision may have done much to assi-
milate the style of the whole, yet sufficient traces
of the original text remain to distinguish the
hand of various translators. But however tempt-
ing it might be to prosecute the inquiry at
length, it would be superfluous at present to
do more than point out how far it bears on
those books which we suppose not to have formed
part of the original African Canon)’.

The second Epistle of St Peter offers the
best opportunity for testing the worth of the
investigation. If we suppose that it was at once
received into the Canon, like the first Epistle,
it would in all probability have been translated
by the same person, as seems to have been the
case with the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts,
though their connexion is less obvious; and
while every allowance is made for the difference
in style in the original Epistles, we must look
for the same rendering of the same phrases.
But when, on the contrary, it appears that the

1 Dutripon’s (F. P.) Concordantie Bibliorum Sacrorum
Vulgate Editionis, Parisiis, MDCCCLIII, appear to be com-
plete and satisfactory as far as the Sixtine text is concerned,

but it is impossible not to regret the absence of all reference
to important various readings.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 289

Latin text of the Epistle not only exhibits con- cHarP. 1.
stant and remarkable differences from the text
of other parts of the Vulgate, but also differs
from the first Epistle in the renderings of words
common to both: when it further appears that
it differs no less clearly from the Epistle of St
Jude in those parts which are almost identical in
the Greek: then the supposition that it was re-
ceived into the Canon at the same time with
them at once becomes unnatural!. It is, indeed,

1 The following examples will confirm the statements in
the text :—

(a) Differences from the general renderings of the

Vulgate:

κοινωνός, foonsors (i. 4); ἐγκράτεια, fabstinentia (i. 6);
πλεονάζειν, superare (i. 8); ἀργός, vacuus (id.);
σπουδάζειν, satagere (i. 10; iii. 14; iii. 15, dare
operam); παρουσία, preesentia (of Christ) (i. 16);
ἐπίγνωσις, cognitio (i. 2, 3,8; ii. 20; cf. Rom. iii.
20 ὃ); ἀρχαῖος, $foriginalis (ii. 5).

(8) Differences from the renderings in 1 Peter:
πληθύνεσθαι, adimpleri (i. 2); multiplicari (1 Pet. i. 2).
ἐπιθυμία, concupiscentia (i. 4; ii. 10; iii. 3); desiderium

(1 Pet.i. 14; ii. 11; iv. 2, 3); so also 2 Pet. ii. 18.
τηρεῖν, reservare (ii. 4, 9, 17; iii. 7); conservare (1 Pet. iv. 3).

(y) Differences from the translation of St Jude:
ἄλογος, Ffirrationabilis (ii. 12); mutus (ver. 10).
φθείρεσθαι, perire (id.); corrumpi (id.)
συνενωχεῖσθαι, lururiare vobiscum (13); convivari (ver. 12).
δόξαι, δεοίω (10); majestates (9).

ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους, caligo tenebrarum (17); procella tene-
brarum (13).
Words marked f occur nowhere else in the New Testa-
ment Vulgate: those marked ¢f occur nowhere else in the
whole Vulgate.

U

290 EARLY VERSIONS

CHAP. UI. possible that the two Epistles may have been

-- veeeived at the same time, and yet have found
different translators. The Epistle of St Jude
and the second Epistle of St Peter may have
been translated independently, and yet both
have been admitted at once into the Canon. But
when the silence of Tertullian is viewed in con-
nexion with the character of the version of the
latter Epistle, the natural conclusion is, that in
his time it was as yet untranslated. The two
lines of evidence mutually support each other.

St James. The translation of St James’s Epistle has
several peculiar renderings ; but in this case it can
only be said with confidence that it was the work
of a special translator. One or two words, in-
deed, appear to me to indicate that it was made
later than the translations of the acknowledged
books, but they cannot be urged as conclusive!.

The Epistle to The Latin text of the Epistle to the Hebrews
exhibits the most remarkable phenomena. As it

1 The following peculiarities may be noticed in the ver-
sion of St James:

ἁπλῶς, Ptafluenter (i. δ); ἁπλότης, simplicitas (2 Cor. viii.
2; xx. 11, δα.)

οἴεσθαι, estimare (i. 7); existimare (Phil. i. 17).

ἀγαπητοί, dilecti, dilectissimi (i. 16, 19; ii. δ᾽; 80 Hebr. vi,
9; 1 Cor. xv. 58); elsewhere carissimi (twenty
times).

ἀτιμάζειν, terhonorare (ii. 6); elsowhere inhonorare, con-
tumelia affcere.

σώζειν, salvare (i. 21; v. 15, 20); generally saluum facere,
salvus esse and feri.

ee

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 291

stands in the Vulgate it is marked by numerous CHAP. It.

singularities of language, and inaccuracies of
translation; but the readings of the Claromontane
MS. are most interesting and important. Some-
times the translator, in his anxiety to preserve
the letter of the original, employs words of no
authority: sometimes he adapts the Latin to the
Greek form: sometimes he paraphrases a par-
ticipial sentence to avoid the ambiguity of a
literal rendering: and again, sometimes he entirely
perverts the meaning of the author by neglecting
the secondary meanings of Greek words!. The
translation was evidently made at a very early
period; but it was not made by any of those
whose work can be traced in other parts of the
New Testament, and apparently it was not sub-
mitted to that revision which necessarily attend-
ed the habitual use of Scripture in the services
of the Church. The Claromontane text of the
Epistle to the Hebrews represents, I believe,
πληροῦν, supplere (ii. 23); elsewhere implere, adimplere.
ἁγνός, pudicus (iii. 17); elsewhere sanctus, custus.
ἀποτίθεσθαι, abjicere (i. 21); elsewhere (five times) deponere.
μακαρίζω, theatifico (v. 11); πολεμεῖν, Fbelligero (iv. 2); olx-
τίρμων, Pmiserator (v. 11).

1 The Latin text of the MS. is almost incredibly cor-
rupt, from the ignorance of the transcriber, who accommo-
dated the terminations of the words, and often the words
themselves, to his elementary conceptions of grammar.
Still a reference to the readings in the following passages
will justify the statement I have made: i. 6,10, 14; ii. 1—3,
15, 18; iii. 1; iv.1, 3,133; v.11; vi, 8, 16; vii.18; x.33

U2

292 EARLY VERSIONS

cHAP.IIL more completely than any other MS. the simplest
form of the Vetus Latina; but from the very
fact that the text of this Epistle exhibits more
marked peculiarities than are found in any other
of the Pauline Epistles, it follows that it occupies
a peculiar position. In other words, internal
evidence, as far as it reaches, confirms the belief
that the Epistle to the Hebrews, though known —
in Africa as early perhaps as any other book of
the New Testament, was not admitted at first
into the African Canon. ‘The custom of the
Latins,’ as Jerome said even in his time, ‘received
it not.’

The import- Only a few words are needed to sum up the

evidence of ~testimony of these most ancient Versions to our

Veo Canon of the New Testament. Their voice is
one to which we cannot refuse to listen. They
give the testimony of Churches, and not of indi-
viduals. They are sanctioned by public use, and
not only supported by private criticism. Com-
bined with the original Greek they represent the
New Testament Scriptures as they were read
throughout the whole of Christendom towards
the close of the second century. Even to the
present day they have maintained their place in
the services of a vast majority of Christians,
though the languages in which they were
written only live now so far as they have supplied
the materials for the construction of later dia-

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2938

lects. They furnish a proof of the authority of cHap.iu.
the books which they contain, wide-spread, con- ;
tinuous, reaching to the utmost verge of our
historic records. Their real weight is even
greater than this; for when history first speaks

of them, it is of what was recognized as a heri-

tage from an earlier period, which cannot have

been long after the days of the Apostles.

Both Canons, however, are imperfect; but The results
their very imperfection is not without its lesson. fection of
The Western Church has, indeed, as we believe, can
under the guidance of Providence completed the
sum of her treasures; but the East has clung
hitherto to its earliest decision. Individual
writers have accepted the full Canon of the
West; but Ephrem Syrus failed to influence the
judgment of his Church. And can this element
of fixity be without its influence on our esti-
mate of the basis of the Syrian Canon? Can
that which was guarded so jealously have been
made without care? Can that which was received
without hesitation by Churches which differed
on grave doctrines have been formed originally
without the sanction of some power from which
it was felt that there was no appeal? The
Canon fails in completeness, but that is its
single error. Succeeding ages registered their
belief in the exclusive originative power of the
first age, when they refused to change what

294 EARLY VERSIONS

cnap.ui. that had determined. So far they witnessed to a

The eom-

bined testi-
mony of the
two Versions.

great truth; but in practice that truth can only
be realized by a perfect induction. And their
error arose not from the principle of conser-
vatism on which it rested, but from the imperfect
data by which the sum of Apostolic teaching was
determined.

To obtain a complete idea of the judgment
of the Church we must combine the two Canons;
and then it will be found that of the books
which we receive one only—the second Epistle
of St Peter—wants the earliest public sanction
of ecclesiastical use as an Apostolic work. In
other words, by enlarging our view so as to com-
prehend the whole of Christendom, and to unite
the different lines of Apostolic tradition, we
obtain, with one exception, a perfect New Tes-
tament, without the admixture of any foreign
element. The testimony of Churches confirms
and illustrates the testimony of Christians.
There is but one difference. Individual writers
vary in the degree of respect which they show
to Apocryphal writings, and the same is true
also in a less degree of single Churches ; but the
voice of the Catholic Church definitely and un-
hesitatingly excluded them from the Canon.
And in this decision, in the narrow limits which
they fixed to the Canon, it appears that they
were guided by local and direct knowledge. The

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 295

Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of St cuar. ur.

James were at once received in the Churches to A® explin-

which they were specially addressed; and ex- na?”

ternal circumstances help us to explain more
exactly the facts of their history. The Epistle
of St James was not only distinctly addressed
to Jews, but, as it seems, was also written in Pales-
tine. It cannot therefore be surprising that the
Latin Churches were for some time ignorant of
its existence. The Epistle to the Hebrews, on the
contrary, was written from Italy, though it was
destined especially for Hebrew converts. And
thus the letter was known in the Latin Churches,
though they hesitated to admit it into the Canon,
believing that it was not written by the hand of
St Paul. The Apocalypse, again, was acknow-
Jedged from the earliest time in the scene of
St John’s labours. And the very indefiniteness
of the address of the Epistle of St Jude and of
the second Epistle of St Peter may have tended
to retard and limit their spread.

These considerations, however, belong to
another place; but it is in this way, by combi-
nation with collateral evidence, internal and ex-
ternal, that the earliest Versions are proved to
occupy an important position in the history of
the Canon. A fuller investigation would, I be-
lieve, establish many interesting results, especi-
ally if pursued with a constant reference to the

296 EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAP. It. present state of the Greek text; but for our
immediate purpose the general outline which
has been given is sufficiently accurate and com-
prehensive. It is enough to show that the
Versions exhibit a Canon practically—that they
sanction no apocryphal book—that they speak
with the voice of early Christendom—that they
go back to a period so remote as to precede all
historic records of the Churches in which they
were used.

CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY HERETICS.

Non periclitor dicere, ipsas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex
Dei voluntate dispositas ut hereticis materias subminis-
trarent.—TERTULLIANUS.

Tre New Testament recognizes the exist- cuap. rv.
ence of parties and heresies in the Christian The impor.
society from its first origin; and conversely, the ere beimony ny of
earliest false teachers witness more or less Tee,
clearly to the existence and reception of our
Canonical Books. The authority of the collec-
tion of the Christian Scriptures rests necessarily
on other proof, but still the acknowledgment
of their authenticity in detail by conflicting
sects confirms with independent weight the re-
sults which we have already obtained. It cannot
be supposed that those who cast aside the
teaching of the Church on other points, would
have been willing to uphold its judgment on
Holy Scripture unless it had been supported by
competent evidence. Custom and reverence
might mould the belief of those within the Ca-
tholic communion, but separatists left themselves
no positive ground but history. wo attacks

Still further: even negatively the history of were made on
the Ante-Nicene heresies establishes our general fument on
conclusions. The first three centuries were [yy

298 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cnaP.iv. marked by long and resolute struggles within
and without the Church. Almost every point
in the Christian Creed was canvassed and denied
in turn. The power of Judaism, strong in wide-
spread influence and sensuous attractions, first
sought to confine Christianity within its own
sphere, and then to embody itself in the new
faith. The spirit of Gnosticism, keen, restless,
and self-confident, seems to have exhausted
every combination of Christianity and _philo-
sophy. Mani announced himself as divinely
commissioned to reform and reinstate the whole
fabric of ‘the faith once (ἅπαξ) delivered to the
saints.” And still it cannot be shown that the
Canon of ‘acknowledged’ books was ever assailed
on historic grounds up to the period of its final
recognition. Different books, or classes of
books, were rejected from time to time, but no
attempt was made to justify the measure by
outward testimony. A partial view of Christi-
anity was substituted for its complete form, and
the Scriptures were judged by an arbitrary
standard of doctrine. The new systems were
not based on any historical reconstruction of
the Canon, but the contents of the Canon were
limited by subjective systems of Christianity.

The Fathers This important fact did not escape the no-
tice of the champions of Catholic truth. Ire-
nus, Tertullian, Origen, and later writers, insist

THE EARLY HERETICS. 299

much and earnestly on the fact that heretics cHaP.1v.
sought to maintain their own doctrines from

the canonical books, fulfilling the very prophecy 1 Cc. xt. 19.
which they contained, that heresies must needs

be. ‘So great is the surety of the Gospels, that

the very heretics bear witness to them; so that

each one of them, taking the Gospels as his
starting-point, endeavours thereby to maintain
, his own teaching'.’ ‘They profess to appeal to

the Scriptures: they urge arguments from the
Scriptures :—as if they could draw arguments

about matters of faith from any other source

than the records of faith,’ Tertullian adds in-
dignantly 3,

It has, however, been already noticed that Th tet.
they did not all accept the whole Canon. How paris ana”
far they really used our Scriptures as authori-
tative will appear in the course of our inquiry;
at present we only call attention to the general
truth, that they recognized an authoritative
written word, which either wholly or in part
coincided with our own. And the very fact
that they did make choice of certain books
whereon to rest their teaching, shows that the
use of Scripture was not a mere concession to

1 Tren. Adv. Heer. iii. 12, 7.
2 De Preescr. Her. c.14. Sed ipsi de scripturis agunt, et
de scripturis suadent! Aliunde scilicet suadere [non] pos-

sent de rebus fidei, nisi ex litteris fidei. Cf Lardner’s
History of Heretics, Bk. i. § 10.

300 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHAP.IV. their opponents, but the expression of their own
belief.

progressive. The character of the testimony of heretical
writers to the books of the New Testament is
strictly analogous to that of the Fathers in its
progressive development. In the first age, an
oral Gospel, so to speak, was everywhere cur-
rent; and all who assumed the name of Christ
sought to establish their doctrine by His tradi-,
tional teaching. Controversies were conducted
by arguments from the Old Testament Scrip-
tures, or by appeals to general principles and
known facts. It has been seen how little can
be found in the scanty writings of the first age
to prove the peculiar authority of the Gospels
and the Epistles; and those who seceded from
the company of the Apostles necessarily refused
to be ruled by their opinions.

§ 1. The Heretical Teachers of the Apostolic Age.
Simon Magus, Menander, Cerinthus.

The funds- The first group of heretical teachers exhi-
a bits in striking contrast the two conflicting
principles of religious error. Mysticism on the
one hand, and Legalism on the other, appear in
clear antagonism. By both, the Work and
Person of Christ are disparaged and set aside.
In Simon Magus and Menander we may see the

4
te

THE EARLY HERETICS. 301

embodiment of the antichristian element of the cHaP. tv.
Gentile world!: in Cerinthus, the embodiment of

the antichristian element of Judaism. Catholic

truth seems to be the only explanation of their
simultaneous appearance.

It has been shown that among the Apostolic ston Magus
Fathers, one, Clement of Rome, was invested im”
by tradition with representative attributes, ana- “=
logous in a certain degree to his real character,
by which he was raised to heroic proportions.

In like manner, among the false teachers of the
age, Simon Magus, a Samaritan of Gitte, is
invested by the common consent of all early
writers with mysterious importance as the great
heeresiarch, the open enemy of the Apostles,
inspired, as it were, by the spirit of evil to
countermine the work of the Saviour, and to
found a school of error in opposition to the
Church of God. The story of his life has un-
doubtedly received many apocryphal embellish-
ments; but, as in the case of Clement, it cannot
but be that his acts and teaching offered some
salient points to which they could fitly be at-
tached. Till the recent discovery of the work
‘against Heresies’, the history and doctrine of

1 It would be interesting to inquire how far the magical
arts universally attributed to Simon and his followers admit
of a physical explanation. In his school, if anywhere, we
should look for an advanced knowledge of Nature.

2 (Origenis] Philosophumena, sive omnium hsresium

CHAP. IV.

302 THE EARLY HERETICS,

Simon Magus were commonly disregarded as
inextricably involved in fable; but there at
length some surer ground is gained. While
giving a general outline of his principles, Hip-
polytus has preserved several quotations from
‘the Great Announcement',’ which was published

tm under his name, and contained an account of

the revelation with which he professed to be
entrusted. The work itself cannot have been
written by him, but it was probably compiled
from his oral teaching by one of his immediate
followers?: at any rate the language of Hippo-
lytus shows that in his time it was acknowledged
as an authentic summary of the Simonian doc-
trine*. In the fragments which remain there
are coincidences with words recorded in the

refutatio, 6 Cod. Par. ed. E. Miller. Ozon. Μοῦσα. The
work cannot be Origen’s; and scholars generally agree to
assign it to Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome. I
shall therefore quote it under his name; for though I think
that the question of its authorship is not yet raised above
all doubt, internal evidence proves that it must have been
written by a contemporary of Hippolytus at Rome, if not by
Hippolytus himself. Déllinger has presented the arguments in
support of Hippolytus’ claims in the most satisfactory form.

1 ᾿Απόφασιε.---Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη. Hipp. adv. Her. vi. 9,
sqq. ‘Announcement’ hardly conveys the force of the ori-
ginal word, which implies an official or authoritative decla-
ration.

2 Bunsen suggests Menander (i. 54), apparently without
any authority.

8 He quotes it constantly with tho words λέγει δὲ ὁ Σίμων,

φησί.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 303

Gospel of St Matthew!, and probably with a cnap.iv.
passage in the Gospel of St John*. Reference 7
is also made to the first Epistle to the Corin-
thians, in terms which prove that it was placed
by the author on the same footing as the books
of the Old Testament®.

Not only did the Simonians make use of the te simon-

Canonical books, but they ascribed the forgeries nized the au

current among them to ‘Christ and his αἰβοὶ-
ples, in order to deceive those who loved Christ
and his servants‘.” They recognized not only
some of the elements of the New Testament,

1 Hipp. adv. Her. vi. 16 = Matt. iii. 10. The various
readings are singular: ἐγγὺς yap πον, φησίν, ἡ ἀξίνη παρὰ
τὰς ῥίζας τοῦ δένδρον x.t.r.

Simon’s description of Helen (Hipp. vi. 19), as ‘the
strayed sheep,’ (rd πρόβατον τὸ πεπλανημένον) is an evident
allusion to the parable (Luke xv.) The substitution of
πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλὸς is to be noticed. Cf. Matt. xviii.
12, 13, (ro πλανώμενον) ; Iren. i.8,4. Bunsen supposes that ho
combined the parable with the healing of the Syro-Pheni-
cian’s daughter. Cf. Uhlborn, Die Homilien, u. Β. w. 296.

2 Id. vi. 9. Οἰκητήριον δὲ λέγει εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον
τὸν ἐξ αἱμάτων γεγενημένον (John i. 13) καὶ κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ
τὴν ἀπέραντον δύναμιν, ἣν ῥίζαν εἶναι τῶν ὅλων φησίν.

Bunsen (i. pp. 49, 55) considers the statement that Simon
manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father (Hipp.
vi. 19), as a reference to John vi. 21—23

8 Adv. Her. vi. 13. τοῦτο ἐστί, φησί, τὸ εἰρημένον, “Iva
μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν (1 Cor. xi. 32).

4 Constit. Apost. vi. 16,1. Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι οἱ περὶ Σί-
μῶνα καὶ Κλεόβιον ἰώδη συντάξαντες βιβλία ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ
καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ περιφέρουσιν, εἰς ἀπάτην ὑμῶν τῶν πεφι-
ληκότων Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς αὐτοῦ δούλους.

304 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cnap.iv. but also the principle on which it was formed.
The writings of ‘the Apostles were acknowledged
to have a peculiar weight: Christians sought in
them the confirmation of the teaching which
they heard, and the seeming authority of their
sanction gained acceptance for that which was
otherwise rejected.

Menander. Menander, the scholar and fellow-country-
man of Simon Magus, is said to have repeated
and advanced his master’s teaching. His doc-
trine of the resurrection in which he taught
that those who ‘ were baptized into him died no
more, but continued to live in immortal youth!,’

2fim.iL18 reminds us of the error of ‘Hymenzus and
Philetus, who said that the resurrection was
passed already ;’ otherwise 1 am not aware that
anything which is known of his system points
directly to the Scriptures.

The relation While Simon Magus represents the intellec-

Magu «= tual and rationalistic element of Gnosticism,
Cerinthus represents it under a ceremonial and
partially Judaizing form. The one was a Sama-
ritan, the natural enemy of Judaism; the other
was ‘trained in the teaching of the Egyptians?,’
among whom the interpretation of the law had

1 Tren. i. 23, 5. Resurrectionem enim per id, quod est
in eum baptisma, accipere ejus discipulos, et ultra non posse
mori, sed perseverare non senescentes et immortales.

3 Hipp. adv. Heer. vii. 33.

- Ὁ".
-
©

THE EARLY HERETICS. 305

become a science. The traditional opponent of cHar.1v.
the one was St Peter; of the other, St John;

and this antagonism admirably expresses their
relative position. St John, however, was not
the only Apostle with whom Cerinthus came
into conflict. Epiphanius' makes him one of
those who headed the extreme Jewish party in
their attacks on St Peter for eating with Gen-
tiles, and on St Paul for polluting the temple.
The statement in itself is plausible; an ex-
cessive devotion to the law was a natural pre-
paration for mere material views of Christianity.

Cerinthus was evidently acquainted with the Hie scquaint
substance of the Gospel history. He must have hac”

known the orthodox accounts of the parentage
of our blessed Lord. He was familiar with the
details of His baptism, of His preaching, of His
miracles, of His death, and of His resurrection’.
‘The Cerinthians,’ Epiphanius says, ‘make use of
St Matthew’s Gospel’ (the Gospel according to

1 Epiph. i. 2, Heer. xxviii.

2 Hipp. adv. Her. 1. c. Epiph. 1. c. What Epiphanius
says (Heer. xxviii. 6) of Cerinthus’ teaching Χριστὸν πεπὸν-
θέναι καὶ ἐσταυρῶσθαι μήπω δὲ ἐγηγέρθαι, μέλλειν δὲ ἀνίστασθαι
ὅταν ἡ καθόλον γένηται νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις, is to be taken as
describing Epiphanius’ deductions from his teaching, and not
as giving Cerinthus’ dogmas.

8 Epiph. Heer. xxviii. 5. Xpévras γὰρ τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον
εὐαγγελίῳ, ἀπὸ μέρους καὶ οὐχὶ ὅλῳ, διὰ τὴν γενεαλογίαν τὴν
ἄνσαρκον. It is not known in what the mutilation of the
Gospel consisted. But that he did not remove the whole of

Χ

306 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHap.tv. the Hebrews) like the Ebionites, on account of

the human genealogy, though their copy is not
entire...The Apostle Paul they entirely reject,
on account of his opposition to circumcision.’
But the chief importance of Cerinthus is in re-
lation to St John. It has been said that he was
the author of the Apocalypse, and even of all
the books attributed to the Apostle. And on
the other hand, it is the popular belief that the
fourth Gospel was written to refute his errors.
The coincidence is singular, and it is necessary
to consider on what grounds these assertions
have been made.

The transition from Judaizing views to Chi-

him,” liasm is very simple, and Cerinthus appears to

have entertained Chiliastic opinions of the most
extreme form. In the account which Eusebius
gives of him this fact is dwelt upon as if it
were the characteristic of his system. In the
earliest ages of the Church the language of
Chiliasm at least was generally current; but
from the time of Origen it fell into discredit,
from the gross extravagances which it had oc-
casioned. The reaction itself became extreme;
and imagery in itself essentially scriptural and
the first two chapters, like the Ebionites, appears again from
what Epiphanius says, xxx. 14: ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κήρινθος καὶ Kap-
ποκρᾶς τῷ αὐτῷ χρώμενοι δῆθεν wap’ αὐτοῖς εὐαγγελίῳ ἀπὸ τῆς
ἀρχῆς τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου διὰ τῆς γενεαλογίας βούλονται
παριστᾶν ἐκ σπέρματος ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας εἶναι τὸν Χριστό».

THE EARLY HERETICS. 807

pure was confounded with the glosses by which cHaP.1v.

it had been interpreted. The Apocalypse,
though supported by the clearest early testi-
mony, was now viewed with distrust. ‘Some
said that it was unintelligible and unconnected :
that its title was false: that it was not the work
of John: that that was certainly not a revelation
which was enwrapped in a gross and thick veil
of ignorance!, The arguments are purely sub-
jective and internal. There is not a hint of any
historical evidence for the opinion. The doc-
trine of the book was false, and consequently it
could not be apostolic. It became then neces-
sary to assign it to a new author. Cerinthus, it
appears, had written Revelations, and assumed
the Apostolic style*: it is possible that he had
directly imitated St John: he was distinguished
for Chiliasm; and thus the conclusion was pre-
pared, that he was the writer of the Apocalypse;
and that he had ascribed it to St John from the
desire ‘to affix a name of credit to his forgery;
to continue the quotation, ‘for this was the prin-

1 Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. iii. 28.

2 Theodor. Fab. Heret. ii. 3 (ap. Routh, ii. 139). The
famous fragment of Caius is ambiguous: ap. Euseb. 1 oc.
I may express my decided belief that Caius is not speaking
of the Apocalypse of St John, but of books written by Oe-
rinthus in imitation of it. The theology of the Apocalypse
is wholly inconsistent with what we know of Cerinthus’
views on the Person of Christ.

x2

308 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cuaP.tv. ciple of his teaching, that the kingdom of Christ
would be earthly, and consist in those things
which he himself desired, being a man devoted
to sensual enjoyments, and wholly carnal.’ The
Chiliasm of Cerinthus is here distinctly brought
forward as the ground of what can only be con-
sidered as a conjecture; and Dionysius, who
gives it at length, was unwilling to embrace it.

The other That the ascription of the Apocalypse to

of Bt John Cerinthus was in fact a mere arbitrary hypo-

Ceintes. thesis resting on doctrinal grounds, is further
shown by the extension which was afterwards
given to it. A sect, whom Epiphanius calls the
Alogi, attributed not only the Apocalypse but
also the Gospel, and the writings of St John
generally, to Cerinthus!, and this purely on in-
ternal grounds. It was found difficult to recon-
cile the fourth Gospel with the Synoptists, and
forthwith it was pronounced an apocryphal book.
Some theory was necessary to account for its
origin, and as one of the Apostle’s writings had
been already assigned to Cerinthus, this was
placed in the same category, in spite of its doc-
trinal character. The Epistles could not be
separated from the Gospels; and so this early
essay of criticism was completed.

1 Epiph. Heer. li. 8. The history of the sect is very
obscure, but we have only to do with the fact, which is
sufficiently supported by Epiphanius’ authority.

ee

THE EARLY HERETICS. 809

Nothing indeed can be more truly opposite cmap. ιν.
to Cerinthianism than the theology of St John. & δὲ John truly
The character of his Gospel was evidently influ- (fini.
enced by prevailing errors; and though it is
unnecessary to degrade it into a mere contro-
versial work, it is impossible not to feel that it
was written to satisfy some pressing want of the
age, to meet some false philosophy, which had
already begun to fashion a peculiar dialect, and
to attempt to solve, by the help of Christian
ideas, some of the great problems of humanity.
Cerinthus upheld a ceremonial system, and
taught only a temporary union of God’s Spirit
with man. St John proclaimed that Judaism
had passed away, and set forth clearly the mani-
festation of the Eternal Word, in His historic
Incarnation no less than in His union with the
true believer. The teaching of St John is
doubtless far deeper and wider than was needed
to meet the errors of Cerinthus, but it has a
natural connexion with the period in which he
lived.

This relation of the first heretics to the m
Apostles is of the utmost importance. Like the fchizet
early Fathers, they witness to Catholic truth ators
rather than to the Catholic Scriptures: they So,
exhibit the correlative errors as the Fathers
embodied its constituent parts. The real per-
sonality of Simon Magus and Cerinthus is raised

CHAP. IV.

910 THE EARLY HERETICS.

beyond all reasonable doubt. The general
character of their doctrine can be determined
with certainty, And when we find the marks
of an activity of speculation, a depth of thought,
a variety of judgment in false teachers, can it
appear wonderful that in the writings of the
Apostles there are analogous differences? If
the books of the New Testament stood alone,
we might marvel at their fulness and diversity ;
but when it is found that their characteristic
differences are not only stereotyped in Catholic
doctrine, but implied in contemporary heresies,
they fall as it were into a natural historic posi-
tion. They are felt to belong to that Apostolic
age in which every power of man seems to have
been quickened with some spiritual energy. No
long interval of time is needed for the gradual
evolution of their various forms. Error sprung
up with a titanic growth: truth came down full-
formed from heaven to conquer it.

But when it is said that the perfect princi-
ples of Gnosticism may be detected in these
earliest heretics, I do not by any means ignore
the vast developments which they afterwards
received. In one respect the teaching of the
Simonians and Cerinthians furnishes an import-
ant link between Catholic doctrine and the later
Gnosticism of Valentinus or Marcion. In these
systems the phenomena of the world are ex-

THE EARLY HERETICS.. 911

plained by the assumption of a Dualism—more CHAP. Iv
or less complete—of a fundamental opposition
between powers of good and evil. The creation
was removed farther and farther from God, till
at last it was ascribed to His enemy. The cos-
mogony of Simon Magus' and of Cerinthus?
occupies a mean position. In this the world is
represented as the work of angels, themselves
the offspring of God, who were also the authors
of the Jewish law, and the inspirers of the
prophets. Against such a form of Gnosticism
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Introduc-
tion to St John’s Gospel, speak with divine
power; but of the later developments there is
not a trace in the New Testament. If however
we suppose that any parts of it, the Pastoral
Epistles, for instance, or the Epistle of St Jude,
had been written after the Apostolic age, is it
possible that no word should have betrayed a
knowledge of the existence of such theories,
1 There is some confusion in the account given by Hip-
polytus. In the first part, where he refers to the ‘ Great
Announcement,’ the cosmogony of Simon appears to be
expressed in a physical form. Fire is the fundamental
element of the universe. This I believe to be the original
form of his theory. Afterwards in a passage nearly iden-
tical with the account of Irenzus, we read of creating angels,
of an arbitrary Moral Law, of the secondary inspiration of
the prophets (adv. Her. vi. 19; Iren. i. 23). Uhlhorn,
wrongly I think, takes the opposite view of the relative

dates of the two systems (a. a. O. 293.)
2 Epiph. Heer. xxviii. 1, 2.

CHAP. ΤΥ.

The Ophites.

$12 THE EARLY HERETIOS.

when error was combated with an intense feeling
of its present danger? The books which claim
to be Apostolic are by their very character the
produce of the Apostolic age. Exactly in pro-
portion as we take into account the whole his-
tory of Christianity, in its developments within
and without the Church, we find more surely
that it implies a complete New Testament as its
foundation; that at no subsequent period was
there an opportunity for the forgery of writings
which appear as the sources, and not as the
results, of different systems of speculation.

§ 2. The Ophites and Ebionites.

While Simon Magus appeared in some mea-
sure as the author of an organised counterfeit
of Christianity, claiming himself to be an In-
carnation of the Deity, and opposing magical
powers to the Apostolic miracles, Christians
elsewhere came into contact with existing specu-
lative schools, and often survived the encounter
only to be ranged with their former enemies.
In this way sects arose which were not called by
the name of any special founder, but by some
general title. Probably one of the earliest results
of these was the sect of the Naasseni, Ophites,
or Serpent-worshippers. Hippolytus, professing
to follow the order of time, places them in the
first rank; and it is evident that their system

THE EARLY HERETICS. 918

was not a mere corruption of Christianity, but cHar. iv.
rather a more ancient creed into which some
Christian ideas were infused. Consistently with
this view Origen! speaks of Ophites who required
all who entered their society to blaspheme Christ ;
the bitterness of which law may be best explained
if we suppose that it was first framed against
some Christianizing members of their own body.

The Christian Ophites whom Hippolytus The Ophites
describes appear to have been the first who as- Hiprolytus
sumed the title of Gnostics*. They professed
to derive their doctrines through Mariamne from
James the Lord’s brother?; and thus the au-
thorities which he quotes may be supposed to
date from the age next succeeding that of the
Apostles. Their whole system shows an intimate
familiarity with the language of the New Testa- teirtest-
ment Scriptures. The passages given from their New Tester
books‘ contain clear references to the Gospels
of St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, and to
the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, the Corin-
thians (i. ii.), the Ephesians and the Galatians,
and probably to the Epistle to the Hebrews?.

1 ¢. Cels. vi. 28.

2 Adv. Her. v. 6. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς Τνωσ-
τικούς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10;
Apoc. ii. 24.

8 Adv. Heer. v. 7.

4 The description of their opinions is constantly prefaced

by the words φασὶν or φησί.
5 The following list of references, which might be

314 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cuar. IV. They made use also of thé Gospel according to
the Egyptians, and of the Gospel of St Thomas’.
The Peratict The Peratici and Sethiani are placed by
Hippolytus in close connexion with the Ophites.
The passages of the esoteric doctrine (ἀπόρρητα
μυστήρια) of the Peratici which he brings to
light, contain obvious references to the Gospel
of St John, and to the Epistles to the Corin-

increased, will show to what extent the Ophites made use of
the New Testament Scriptures :

St Matthew xiii. 33, 44, p. 108; xiii. 8 eqq., p. 113;
xxiii. 27, τάφοι ἐστὲ κεκονιάμενοι. Cf. supr., p. 174, where I
should have referred to this passage—p. 111; vii. 21, p. 112;
xxi. 31, p. 112; iii. 10, p. 113; vii. 6, p. 114; vii. 14, 13,
Ῥ. 116.

St Luke xvii. 21, p. 100; xvii. 4, p. 102 (°); xviii. 19
+ Matt. v. 45, p. 102; xi. 33, p. 103.

St John iv. 10, pp. 100, 121; x. 34+ Luke vi. 35, p. 106;
iii, 6, p. 106; i. 3, 4, as Tischf. p. 107; iii. 1—12, p. 108; vi.
53 + xiii. 33; Matt. xx. 22, ἢ. 109; v. 37, p.109; x. 9, p. 111;
iv. 21, 23, p. 117.

Romans i. 20—23, &c., p. 99 (as St Paul’s).

1 Cor. ii. 13, 14, p. 111.

2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, p. 112.

Gal. iii. 28, &c., p. 99.

Eph. iii. 16, p. 97; v. 14, p. 104.

Heb. v. 11, p. 97.

1 Their use of the ‘Gospel entitled according to the
Egyptians’ (p. 98), and that ‘ entitled according to Thomas,’
(p. 101), does not prove that they ascribed to those books
canonical authority. Generally indeed the references to the
Gospels are to our Lord’s words, and in every case, I believe,
anonymous. The passage quoted from the Gospel of St
Thomas is not found in any of the present recensions of it.
Cf. Tischendorf, Evv. Apocr. Pref. p. xxxix.

τς, π΄
. *

THE EARLY HERETICS. 815

thians (i.), and to the Colossians'. The writings cHaP. Iv.

a βου αμυπορανυ αν

of the Sethiani again allude to the Gospel of
St Matthew and to the Epistle to the *Philip-
pians?.

Apart from these special references the whole ‘me gene

testimony of

system of the Ophites bears clear witness to the the Ophitic

authenticity of St John’s Gospel. Everything Jom.” ™
tends to prove that in them we see one of the
earliest forms of heresy. A similar combination

of Gentile mysticism with Jewish and Christian

ideas troubled the Church of Colossse even in

St Paul’s time: Irenseus himself speaks of the
Ophites as the first source of the Valentinian
school, the original ‘hydra-head from which its
manifold progeny was derived;’ and yet even

they had far passed the limits which St John

had fixed for Christian speculation.

The Ophites, like Simon Magus, represent te Κίον:

1 St John iii. 17 (τὸ εἰρημένον) p. 125; iii, 14, p. 184;
i. 1—4, p. 134 (wrongly divided by the editor ?); viii. 44,
p. 136; x. 7, p. 137. 1 Cor. xi. 32 (ἡ γραφή) p. 125. Col.
li, 9 (rd λεγόμενον) p. 124.

2 Matt. x. 34, p. 146. Phil. ii. 6, 7, p. 818.

8 The account of the Ophites is concluded by a summary
of the opinions of Justin, a Gnostic. The use of Isaiah
Ixiv. 4 in his teaching fully justifies the conjecture which I
proposed above, p. 233; and I think it very likely that
Hegesippus had him in view when he wrote. In the quota-
tions made from his writings there are apparent references
to Luke xxiii. 46, p. 157; John iii. 10, p. 158; xix. 26, p. 157.
The use of Amen as an angelic name (p. 151) may point, as
Bunsen observes, to Apoc. iii. 14.

316 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHAP.IV. a system to which Gentile mysticism gave its
predominating character: on the opposite side

was ranged the famous sect of the Ebionites, by

whom Judaism was made an essential part of

what books Christian life. Like Cerinthus they received a

of yee oe

Tetament, mutilated recension of St Matthew's Gospel’.
Like him they wholly rejected the authority
and writings of St Paul; but nothing, I believe,
is known of their judgment on the Catholic
Epistles. They cannot, however, have received
St John’s Epistles; and his Gospel, though not
specially mentioned, must be included among
those of which ‘they made no account.’

The tet This exclusive use of St Matthew did not

Clamentines. always prevail. In the Clementines, which are
a product of the Ebionitic school, there are

1 Tren. adv. Heer. i. 26, 2. Solo eo quod est secundum
Matthsum evangelio utuntur et Apostolum Paulum recusant,
apostatam eum legis dicentes. Eusebius calls this Gospel
that ‘according to the Hebrews’ (H. E. iii. 27), and adds,
that the Ebionites ‘ made little account of the rest.’

This is not the proper place to enter on an accurate
inquiry into the perplexed question of the various forms of
St Matthew’s Gospel. I believe them to have been the
following:

(a) The original Aramcan text.

(1) A revision (?) of this included in the Peshito.
(2) An interpolated text used by the Nazarenes,
which contained the first two chapters, and is
described by Jerome.
(3) A mutilated and interpolated text used by the
Ebionites,
(8) An [apostolic] translation in Greek.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 817

clear references to the four Evangelists. ‘The cuap. tv.
allusions to St Matthew and St Luke in the
Homilies! have been generally admitted; and a
recent discovery has removed the doubts which
had been long raised about those to St Mark
and St John. Though St Mark has few pecu-
liar phrases, one of these is repeated verbally in
the concluding part of the xixth Homily, pub-
lished for the first time last year*; and in the
same place occurs a quotation from St John
which leaves no room for questioning the source
from which it was taken‘.

The evidence that has been collected from The true ας,

the documents of these primitive sects is neces- Qisenc.
sarily somewhat vague. It would be more satis-
factory to know the exact position of their

1 I quote the Homilies only, because the Latin trans-
lation of the Recognitions may have been modified by
Ruffinus.

3 Clementis R. que feruntur Homilie xx nuno primum
integre. Ed. A. R. M. Dressel. Gottingss, 1853.

Hom. xix. 20. Διὸ καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
ἐπέλυε τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας μυστήρια. Cf. Mark iv. 84:
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (Ὁ) ἐπέλνε πάντα. This is the
only place where ἐπιλύω occurs in the Gospels. Cf. Uhl-
horn, a. a. O. 122.

3 Hom. xix. 22. ὅθεν καὶ [6 διδάσκ]αλος ἡ μῶν περὶ τοῦ
ἐκ γενετῆς πηροῦ καὶ ἀναβλέψαντος rap αὐτοῦ ἐξετάζζουσι
τοῖς μαθηταῖς), εἰ οὗτος ἥμαρτεν ἣ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ iva
τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ, ἀπεκρίνατο᾽ οὔτε οὗτός τι ἥμαρτεν οὔτε
οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽’ ἵνα δὲ αὐτοῦ φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις
τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. Cf. John ix. 1,
sqq- Uhlhorn, 122 ff.

$18 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.1V. authors and the precise date of their composi-

tion. It is possible that Hippolytus made use
of writings which were current in his own time
without further examination, and transferred to
the Apostolic age forms of thought and expres-
sion which had been the growth of two or even
of three generations. However improbable this
notion may be, it lessens the direct argumenta-
tive value of the evidence, though it leave the
moral impression unimpaired. But it cannot be
denied that each fresh discovery of ancient
records confirms as far as it affects the authen-
ticity of the books of the New Testament. As far
as we can trace back, the first teachers of heresy
quote them generally as familiarly known to
Christians: they place them on the same level as
the Old Testament Scriptures, by the forms of
citation which they employ: they appeal to them
as having authority with those whom they ad-
dress; and since they used them in their private
books, it is evident that they recognized their
claims themselves.

§ 3. Basilides and Isidorus.

The case, however, does not turn wholly on

mony of Be anonymous evidence. The account of Basilides

given by Hippolytus is composed mainly of pas-
sages from his own writings which fully establish

THE EARLY HERETICS, 319

the inferences which have been hitherto drawn. cuHaP. tv.
In this instance also it fortunately happens that
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius
witness to the accuracy of our authority, for .
they preserve specimens of the teaching of Basi-
lides exactly accordant with the more important
quotations of Hippolytus. The mode in which
the books of the New Testament are treated
in these fragments shows that there is no ana-
chronism in supposing that the earliest heretics
sought to recommend their doctrines by forced
explanations of Apostolic language. And yet
more than this: they contain the earliest un-
doubted instances in which the Old and New
Testaments are placed on the same level: the
Epistles of St Paul are called ‘Scripture,’ and
quotations from them are introduced by the
well-known form, ‘It is written!’ If it seem
strange that the first direct proofs of a belief in
the inspiration of the New Testament are derived
from such a source, it may be remembered that
it is more likely that the apologist of a suspicious
system should support his argument by quo-
tations from an authority acknowledged by
his opponents, than that a Christian teacher
writing to fellow-believers should insist on those
1 Hipp. adv. Heer. vii. 26: ἡ γραφὴ λέγει: οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς
ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις GAN’ ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος (1 Cor.

ii. 13); vii. 25: γέγραπται, φησί" καὶ ἡ κτίσις αὐτὴ συστενάζει,
κι. Rom. viii. 22, &c.

990 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. testimonies with which he might suppose his
readers to be familiar.
Very little is known of the history of Basi-
lides!. He was, it seems, an Alexandrine, and
Hisdate. probably of Jewish descent. He is said to have
lived ‘not long after the times of the Apostles?,’
and to have been a younger contemporary of
Cerinthus, and a follower of Menander, who was
himself the successor of Simon Magus. Clement
of Alexandria and Jerome fix the period of his
activity in the time of Hadrian*; and he found a
formidable antagonist in Agrippa Castor‘. All
these circumstances combine to place him in the
generation next after the Apostolic age, and to
show that in point of antiquity he holds a rank
intermediate between that of Clement of Rome
and Polycarp.
He made use Since he lived on the verge of the Apostolic
of other
books besides times it is not surprising that Basilides made

Ganon oft mireuse of other sources of Christian doctrine

ment. 1 Saturninus, or Satornilus, of Antioch, is generally

placed in close connexion with Basilides. He was a scholar
of Menander, whose opinions he advanced. ll the accounts
of his doctrine appear to be derived from one source, and
they contain nothing which bears on the history of the
Canon. Hipp. adv. Her. vii. 28; Iren. adv. Her. i. 24;
Epiph. Heer. xxiii.

3 Archel. εἰ Man. Disp., Routh v. p. 197... Basilides
quidam...non longe post nostrorum Apostolorum tempors...
Cf. Routh, i. p. 258. Euseb. H. EK. iv. 7.

8 Cf. Pearson, Vind. Ign. ii. 7, ap. Lardner, viii. 350.

4 Cf. supra, p. 108.

THE EARLY HERETICS, 321

besides the Canonical books. The belief in divine otar. rv.

inspiration was still fresh and real; and Eusebius
relates that he set up imaginary prophets, Bar-
cabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)—‘ names to strike
terror into the superstitious’—by whose writings
he supported his peculiar views'. At the same
time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St Mark, was ‘an interpreter of
St Peter?;’ and he also made use of certain
‘Traditions of Matthias, which claimed to be
grounded on ‘private intercourse with the Sa-
viour’.’ It appears, moreover, that he himself
published a Gospel‘—a ‘Life of Christ,’ as it

1 Eusebius appears to consider the prophecies as for-
geries (H. E. iv. 7). They may, however, have been ‘ Ori-
ental books which he met with in his journey into the
East,’ as Lardner suggests (viii. 390). Isidorus wrote a
commentary on the prophecy of Parchor, which gives
authority to the conjecture: Clem. Alex. Str. vi. 6, § 53.

2 Clem. Alex. Str. vii. 17, § 106.

3 Hipp. adv. Heer. vii. 20: Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ ᾿Ισέδωρος
ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνήσιος καὶ μαθητής, φασὶν εἰρηκέναι Ματθίαν
αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποκρύφους, obs ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος κατ᾽
ἰδίαν διδαχθείς. Miller corrects the MS. reading Ματθίαν
into Ματθαῖον, wrongly, I believe. Cf. Clem. Alex. Str. vii.
17, § 108.

4 The few notices of Basilides’ Gospel or Commentaries
are perplexing. Origen is the first who mentions a Gospel
as written by him. Hom. i. in Luc.: Ausus fuit et Basilides
scribere evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare. This
statement is repeated by Ambrose and Jerome, who cannot
be considered as independent witnesses. In another passage
Origen has been supposed to allude to the Gospel of Ba-
silides as identical with that of Marcion and Valentinus:

Y

322 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. would, perhaps, be called in our days, or ‘the
Philosophy of Christianity’—-but he admitted the
historic truth of all the facts contained in the
Canonical Gospels', and used them as Scripture’.

ταῦτα δὲ εἴρηται πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ Ovadevrivov καὶ Βασιλίδου
καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος.----ἔχουσι γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰς λέξεις (the
quotations from the Old Testament in Luke x. 27) ἐν τῷ
καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς εὐαγγελίῳ (fr. 6. in Luc.) The last clause,
however, necd not refer to more than the Marcionites.

I am not aware that there are any more references to
the work of Basilides as a Gospel; but Agrippa Castor
mentioned ‘four and twenty books (τέσσαρα πρὸς τοῖς (?)
εἴκοσι) which he composed on the Gospel’ (Euseb. H. E.
iv. 7); and Clement of Alexandria quotes several passages
from the twenty-third book (Str. iv. 12, δῇ 83 #qq.), and
another quotation from the thirteenth book (tractatus)
occurs at the end of the ‘ discussion between Archelaus and
Manes’ (Routh, v. p. 197).

The character of these quotations show that these Com-
mentaries cannot have formed part of a Gospel in the
common sense of the word, but it appears that Basilides
attached a technical meaning to the term: Εὐαγγέλιον ἐστὶ
κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς (the followers of Basilides) ἡ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων
γνῶσις, ὡς δεδήλωται, ἣν ὁ μέγας ἄρχων οὐκ ἠπίστατο (Hipp.
adv. Her. vii. 27; cf. § 26). May we not then identify
the Commentaries with the Gospel in this sense, and sup-
pose that the ambiguity of the word led Origen into error?

Norton (ii. p. 310) assumes that the Homilies on Luke
are not Origen’s. In this I suppose that he follows the
rash conjecture of Erasmus. Huet, Orig. iii. 3, 13. Rede-
penning, Origenes, ii. 69.

1 Hipp. adv. Her. vii. 27: Γεγενημόνης δὲ τῆς γενέσεως τῆς
προδεδηλωμένης, γέγονε πάντα ὁμοίως κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ περὶ τοῦ
Σωτῆρος, ὡς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γέγραπται. He gave a mys-
tical explanation of the Incarnation, quoting Luke i. 35
(id. § 26).

2 See p. 323, note (1).

THE EARLY HERETICS, 323

For in spite of his peculiar opinions the testi- cxap.1v.
mony of Basilides to our ‘ acknowledged’ books what canon.

° ical books
is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages m=

of his writings which remain there are certain
references to the Gospels of St Matthew, St
Luke, and St John, and to the Epistles of St
Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians,
Colossians and Philippians, and possibly to the
first Epistle to Timothy'. In addition to this he
appears to have used the first Epistle of St Peter?;
and he must have admitted the Petrine type of
doctrine through Glaucias. And thus again,
apart from the consideration of particular books,
an Alexandrine heretic recognized simultaneously
the teaching of St Paul, St Peter, and St John,
while Polycarp was still at Smyrna, and Justin
Martyr only a disciple of Plato. And the fact
itself belongs to an earlier date; for this belief

1 The following examples will be sufficient :

St Matthew ii. 1 sqq. p. 243.

St Luke i. 35, p. 241 (rd εἰρημένον).

St John i. 9, p. 232 (rd λεγ. ἐν rots evayy.); ii. 4, p. 242,

Romans viii. 22, p. 238 (ὡς γέγραπται), p. 241; v. 18, 14,
(id.) Cf. Orig. Comm. in Rom. c. δ.

1 Corinthians ii. 13, p. 240 (ἡ γραφή); xv. 8 (p. 240).

2 Corinthians xii. 4, p. 241 (γέγραπται).

Ephesians iii. 3, p. 241.

Colossians i. 26, p. 238.

Philippians ii. 9, p. 230.

1 Tim. ii. 6, p. 232 (2) καιροὶ ἴδιοι.

2 Clem. Str. iv. 12, § 83 (1 Pet. iv. 14—16), quoted by
Kirchhofer, p. 416.

¥2

$24 THE EARLY HERETICS.

onaP.Iv. cannot have originated with him; and if we go
back but one generation we are within the age
of the Apostles.

He is said to On the other hand, Basilides is said to have

fom te anticipated Marcion in the rejection of the Pas-
non.

toral Epistles and of that to the Hebrews; but
Clement intimates that these books were com-
monly condemned by those who ‘fancied’ that
their opinions were characterized in them as
‘false-named wisdom ;’ and there is no reason to
suppose that this judgment was the result of any
historical inquiry'. Jerome speaks of it as a
piece of arbitrary dogmatism based on ‘their
heretical authority,’ and unsustained by any de-
finite arguments.

Ieidorus. Isidorus, the son of Basilides, maintained the
doctrine of his father; and there is no reason to
believe that he differed from him in his estima- _
tion of the Apostolic writings. Some fragments
of his works have been preserved by Clement of
Alexandria, but I have noticed nothing in them
which bears on the books of the New Testament.

1 Hieron. Pref. in Ep. ad Tit.: Nonnullas (epistolas]
integras repudiandas crediderunt: ad Timotheum videlicet
utramque, ad Hebreos, et ad Titum. Et si quidem redde-
rent causas cur eas apostoli non putarent, tentaremus aliquid
respondere et forsan satisfacere lectori. Nunc vero cum
heretica auctoritate pronuncient et dicant: Illa epistola
Pauli est, heec non est, ea auctoritate repelli se pro veritate
intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescuut falsa simulare.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 325

CHAP. IV.

§ 4. Carpocrates.

The accounts of Carpocrates are very meagre, Carpocrates
and all apparently come from one source. He #22f,
was an Alexandrine, and a contemporary of
Basilides'. Nothing is said directly of his views
of the A‘postolic writings; but it is mentioned
incidentally that he held the Apostles themselves
—‘Peter and Paul and the rest’—as nowise
inferior to Christ Himself*. This opinion fol-
lowed naturally from his views of the Person of
Christ; but the close juxtaposition of St Peter
and St Paul is worthy of notice.

From another passage in Ireneus it may be The Carpo-
concluded that the Carpocratians received our givejour
Canonical Gospels, adapting them to their own

- doctrine by strange expositions. Thus they ap-
plied the parable of the man and his adversary, Mat ν 35.
to the relation of man to the devil, whose office
they held it to be ‘to convey the souls of the
dead to the Prince of the world, who in turn
gave them to an attendant spirit to imprison in
another body, till they had been engaged in
every act done in the world®.’

1 Clem. Alex. Str. iii. 2, ὁ δ. Iren. adv. Heer. i. 25, 6.

2 Iren. adv. Her. i. 25, 2. Hipp. adv. Her. vii. 81.
Epiphanius (Heer. xxvii. 2) says Πέτρον καὶ Ἀνδρέου καὶ
HavAov.—I do not know how to explain the special mention
of St Andrew. His connexion with St Peter is scarcely

sufficient roason.
3 Iren. i. 25, 4.

826 THE EARLY HERETICS.

The key-word of the system of Carpocrates

Their system in itself bore witness to the teaching of St Paul
Paul aa and St John. ‘Men are saved,’ he said, ‘by

faith and lore'; but the corollary which he drew
from this truth, on the essential indifference of
actions, seems to show that he did not combine
the teaching of St James with that of the other
Apostles’.

§ 5. Valentinus.

Shortly after Basilides began to propagate
his doctrines another system arose at Alexandria
which was the result of similar causes, and
moulded on a similar type. Its author, Valen-
tinus, like Basilides, was probably an Egyptian,
and his writings betray a familiarity with Jewish
opinions’. After the example of the Christian
teachers of his age he went to Rome, which he
chose as the centre of his labours. Irenseus

1 Tren. i. 25, 5: διὰ πίστεως yap καὶ ἀγάπης σώζεσθαι" τὰ
δὲ λοιπὰ ἀδιάφορα ὄντα, κατὰ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πῆ μὲν
ἀγαθά, πῆ δὲ κακὰ νομίζεσθαι, οὐδένος φύσει κακοῦ ὑπάρχοντος.

2 The fragments of Epiphanes, (Clem. Alex. Str. iii. 2,
δύ 6 sqq.) the son of Carpocrates, contain no direct scrip-
tural quotations; but the whole argument on justice reads
like a comment on Matt. v. 45. The passage in ὃ 7, μὴ
συνιεὶς τὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ῥητὸν λέγοντος᾽ διὰ νόμον τὴν ἁμαρ-
τίαν ἔγνων (Rom. vii. 7) is a remark of Clement’s—oumeis
referring to φησὶν in the former sentence. It is necessary
to notice this, as the words have been quoted as used by
Epiphanes. Cf. Epiph. Heer. xxxii. 4.

8 Cf. Epiph. Her. xxxi. 2. Massuet, Diss. i. 1, ὁ 1.

THE EARLY HERETICS. $27

relates that ‘he came there during the episco- cHa4P.1v.

pate of Hyginus, was at his full vigour in the
time of Pius, and continued there till the time
of Anicetus'” Thus he was at Rome when
Polycarp came on his mission from the Eastern
Church ; and Marcion may have been among his
hearers. His testimony in point of age is as
venerable as that of Justin; and he is removed
by one generation only from the time of St John.

Just as Basilides claimed through Glaucias Ηο received
the authority of St Peter, Valentinus professed Catt books as

to follow the teaching of Theodas, a disciple of ™
St Paul*. The circumstance is important; for
it shows that at the beginning of the second
century, alike within and without the Church,
the sanction of an Apostle was considered to be
a sufficient proof of Christian doctrine. There
is no reason to suppose that Valentinus differed
from Catholic writers on the Canon of the New
Testament. Tertullian says that he differed in
this from Marcion, that he professed at least to
accept ‘the whole Instrument,’ perverting the
interpretation where Marcion mutilated the text’.

1 Tren. adv. Heer. iii. 4,3 (ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 11).

2 Clem. Alex. Str. vii. 17, § 106.

8 Tertull. de Preescr. Heeret.: Alius manu scripturas,
alius sensus expositione intervertit. Neque enim si Valen-
tinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio
quam Marcion [manus intulit veritati?] Marcion enim ex-
serte et palam machera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad

CHAP. IV.

328 THE EARLY HERETICS.

The fragments of his writings which remain show
the same natural and trustful use of Scripture as
any other Christian works of the same period ;
and there is no diversity of character in this
respect between the quotations in Hippolytus
and those in Clement of Alexandria'. He cites
the Epistle to the Ephesians as ‘ Scripture,’ and
refers clearly to the Gospels of St Matthew, St
Luke, and St John, and to the Epistles to the
Romans and Corinthians (i.), and perhaps also to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to the first
Epistle of *St John‘.

materiam suam cedem scripturarum confecit. Valentinus
autem pepercit: quoniam non ad matcriam scripturas, sed
materiam ad scripturas excogitavit: et tamen plus abstulit,
et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque ver-
borum, et adjiciens dispositiones non comparentium rerum.

1 Very little is known of the writings of Valentinus.
Clement quotes Homilies and Letters; and in the Dialogue
against Marcion ἃ long passage is taken from his treatise
‘On the Origin of Evil.’ The quotations in Hippolytus are
anonymous.

2 The references are:

St Matthew v. 8. Clem. Str. ii. 20, § 114; xix. 17. Cf.
Clem. Str. l. ὁ.

St Luke i. 35. Hipp. adv. Heer. vi. 35 (τὸ εἰρημένον).

St John x. 8. Hipp. vi. 35.

Romans i. 20. Clem. Str. iv. 13, $92; viii.11; Hipp. vi. 35.

1 Corinth. ii. 14. Hipp. vi. 34; xv. 8. Cf. vi. 31.

Ephes. iii. 5. Hipp. vi. 35; iii, 14—18. Hipp. vi. 34
(i γραφή).

Hebr. xii. 22. Cf. Hipp. vi. 30.

1 John iv. 8. Cf. Hipp. vi. 29.

3 In an obscure passage (Clem. Str. vi. 6, 52) Valentinus
contrasts ‘what is written in popular books (ταῖς δημοσίοις

THE EARLY HERETICS. 829

But though no charge is brought against cHar. Iv.
Valentinus of mutilating the Canon or the books But he ts si
of the New Testament, he is said to have ing aiterat duced reba

troduced verbal alterations, ‘correcting without
hesitation’ as well as ‘introducing new explana-
tions!’ And his followers acted with greater
boldness, if the words of Origen are to be taken
strictly, in which he says that, ‘he knows none
other who have altered the form (uerayapatavras)
of the Gospel besides the followers of Marcion,
of Valentinus, and, as he believes, of Lucanus?.’
However this may be, the whole question belongs
rather to the history of the text than to the
history of the Canon; and the statement of Ter-
tullian is fully satisfied by supposing that Valen-
tinus employed a different recension from that
of the Vetus Latina. But it is of consequence
to remark that textual differences even in here-
tical writings attracted the notice of the early

βίβλοις) with that which is written in the Church,’ (ra yeyp.
dv τῇ ἐκκλ) By ‘popular books’ Clement understands
‘ either the Jewish or Gontile writings.’ The antithesis seems
to involve the idea of an ecclesiastical Canon.

1 Tertull. de Preescr. Heret. xxx.: Item Valentinus
aliter exponens, et sine dubio emendans, hoc omnino quio-
quid emendat, ut mendosum retro, anterius fuisse demon-
strat. The connexion of the passage requires the reading
antertus for alterius. Cf. p. 327, n. 3.

2 Orig. c. Cels. ii. 27. I have already given an expla-
nation of the passage in which Origen has been supposed to
connect the Gospel of Marcion with that of Valentinus:
Ῥ. 321, n. 4.

330 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cuaP.iv. Fathers; and is it then possible that they would

have neglected to notice graver differences as to
the books of the New Testament if they had
really existed? Their very silence is a proof
of the general agreement of Christians on the
Canon; a proof which gains irresistible strength
when combined with the natural testimony of
heretical writings, and the partial exceptions by
which it is occasionally limited.

The Valentinians, however, are said to have
added a new Gospel to the other four: ‘ casting
aside all fear, and bringing forward their own
compositions, they boast that they have more
gospels than there really are. For they have
advanced to such a pitch of daring, as to entitle
a book which was composed by them not long
since, “the Gospel of Truth,” though it accords
in no respect with the Gospels of the Apostles ;
so that the Gospel in fact cannot exist among
them without blasphemy. For if that which is
brought forward by them is the Gospel of Truth,
and still is unlike those which are delivered to
us by the Apostles—they who please can learn
how from the writings themselves—it is shown
at once that that which is delivered to us by the
Apostles is not the Gospel of Truth!” What

1 Tren. adv. Her. iii. 11,9. In the last clause I have
adopted the punctuation proposed by Mr Norton (ii. 305).
The common reading gives the same sense.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 331

then was this Gospel? If it had been a history °#4P. ιν.
of our Blessed Lord, and yet wholly at variance
with the Canonical Gospels, it is evident that
the Valentinians could not have received these
—nor, indeed, any one of them—as they un-
doubtedly did. And here then a new light is
thrown upon the character of some of the early
Apocryphal Gospels, which has been in part an-
ticipated by what was said of the Gospel of
Basilides'. The Gospel of Basilides or Valenti-
nus contained their system of Christian doctrine,
their view of ‘the Gospel’ philosophically, and A» expians-
not historically*: The writers of these new"

Gospels in no way necessarily interfered with

the old. They sought, as far as we can learn,

to embody their spirit and furnish a key to their

No mention of this Gospel, I believe, occurs elsewhere,
except in [Tert.] Preescr. Heret. c. 49. But I can see no
reason for doubting the correctness of Irenseus’ statement.
The book may have been brought prominently under his
notice without having had any permanent authority among
the Valentinians.

1 Cf. p. 321, ἡ. 4.

2 This common use of the word occurs Rev. xiv. 6, which
passage has given rise in our own days to the strangest and
most wide-spread apocryphal ‘Gospel’ which the world has
yet seen.

The ‘Gospel of Marcion’ may seem an exception, but it
will be remembered that he called it the Gospel of Christ. —
Christianity, in other words, as seen in the life of Christ.
Our Canonical Gospels recognize the human teacher by
whom it is conveyed to υ8---εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ κατὰ Mar-
θαῖον.

332 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. meaning, rather than to supersede their use.

᾿

The Valentinians had more Gospels than the
Catholic Church, since they accepted an autho-
ritative doctrinal Gospel.

The titles of some of the other Gnostic
Gospels confirm what has been said. Two are
mentioned by Epiphanius in the account of those
whom he calls ‘ Gnostics,’ as if that were their
specific name, the Gospel of Eve and the Gospel
of Perfection. Neither of these could be historic
accounts of the Life of Christ, and the slight
description of their character which he adds
illustrates the wide use of the word ‘ Gospel.’
The first was an elementary account of Gnosti-
cism, ‘based on foolish visions and testimonies,’
called by the name of Eve, as though it had
been revealed to her by the serpent’. The
second was ‘a seductive composition, no Gospel,
but a consummation of woe?.’

The analogy of the title of this ‘Gospel of

1 Epiph. Her. χχνὶ. 2: εἰς ὄνομα yap αὐτῆς [Εὔας] δῆθεν,
ὃς εὑρούσης τὸ ὄνομα τῆς γνώσεως ἐξ ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ λαλή-
σαντος αὐτῇ ὄφεως σπορὰν ὑποτίθεντι... ὁρμῶνται δὲ ἀπὸ
μωρῶν μαρτυριῶν καὶ ὀπτασιῶν...

In the next section Epiphanius quotes a passage from it
containing a clear enunciation of Pantheism of great interest.

3 Epiph. 1. c.: ἐπίπλαστον εἰσάγουσιν ἀγώγιμόν τι ποίημα, ᾧ
ποιητεύματι ἐπέθεντο ὄνομα, εὐαγγέλιον τελειώσεως τοῦτο φά-
σκοντες᾽ καὶ ἀληθῶς οὐκ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἀλλὰ πένθους τελείωσις.

Mr Norton has insisted on this point very justly: ii.
pp. 302 ff.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 330

Perfection’ leaves little doubt as to the charac- CH4?.Iv.
ter of the ‘ Gospel of Truth.’ Puritan theology %yoords
can furnish numerous similar titles. And the par- from other
tial currency of such a book among the Valenti- %° 06"
nians offers not the slightest presumption against cmon.
their agreement with Catholic Christians on the
exclusive claims of the four Gospels as records

of Christ's life. These they tuok as the basis of

their speculations; and by the help of commen-

taries endeavoured to extract from them the
principles which they maintained. But this will

form the subject of the next section.

§ 6. Heracleon.

The history of Heracleon, the great Valen- Thehistory

tinian commentator, is full of uncertainty. No-""™*™
thing is known of his country or parentage.
Hippolytus classes him with Ptolemsus as be-
longing to the Italian school of Valentinians' ;
and we may conclude from this that he chose
the West as the scene of his labours. Clement
describes him as the most esteemed of his sect’,

1 Hipp. adv. Heer. vi. 35: καὶ γέγονεν ἐντεῦθεν ἡ διδασκα-
Ala αὐτῶν διῃρημένη, καὶ καλεῖται 7 μὲν ἀνατολική τις διδασκα-
λία κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ δὲ ᾿Ιταλιωτική. Οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, ὧν
ἐστὶν Ἡρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος φασίν, x.r. ἃ. Clement of Alex-
andria made ἐπιτομαὶ ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότον καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς
καλουμένης διδασκαλίας.

3 Clem. Alex. Str. iv. 9, ᾧ 73: ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς
δοκιμώτατος.

384 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. and Origen says that ‘he was reported to have

- been a familiar friend of Valentinus'.’ Assuming
this statement to be true, his writings cannot
well date later than the first half of the second
century?; and he claims the title of the first
commentator on the New Testament.

There is no evidence to determine how far
the commentaries of Heracleon extended. Frag-
ments of his commentaries on the Gospels of St
Luke and St John have been preserved by Cle-
ment of Alexandria and Origen. And the very
existence of these fragments shows clearly the
precariousness of our information on early Chris-
tian literature. Origen quotes the commentary
on St John repeatedly, but gives no hint that
Heracleon had written anything else. Clement
refers to the commentary on St Luke, and is
silent as to the commentary on St John®. Hip-
polytus makes no mention of either.

1 Comm. in Joan. Tom. π. ᾧ 8.

3 Epiphanius, indeed, speaks of him as later than Mar-
cus (Her. xxxvi. 2). The exact chronology of the early
heretics is very uncertain. In fact, at least all those with
whom we have to do at present must have been contempo-
raries. It is surprising that Irenseus makes no mention of
Heracleon, since he was closely associated with Ptolemsous
against whom particularly his work was directed.

3 Clem. Alex. Str. iv. 9, §§ 73 sq. The second passage
which is commonly referred to his commentary on St Luke
(ap. Clem. Alex. frag. § 25) appears to me very uncertain :
ἕνιοι δὲ ὥς φησιν Ἣρακλέων, πυρὶ τὰ ὦτα τῶν σφραγιζομένων

THE EARLY HERETICS. 335

The fragments contain allusions to the Gospel 954». iv.

of St Matthew, to the Epistles of St Paul to the ™»
Romans and Corinthians (i.), and to the second the writigs
Epistle to Timothy!; but the character of the Testament.

Commentary itself is the most striking testi-
mony to the estimation in which the Apostolic

allusions
they

writings were held. The sense of the inspiration The doctrine

of the Evangelists—of some providential guid- =
ance by which they were led to select each fact
in their history and each word in their narra-
tive—is not more complete in Origen. The
first commentary on the New Testament exhibits
the application of the same laws to its interpret-
ation as were employed in the Old Testament.
The slightest variation of language was held to
be significant®. Numbers were supposed to con-

κατεσημήναντο οὕτως ἀκούσαντες τὸ ἀποστολικόν. Cf. Iren. adv.
Heer. i. 25, 6. No ‘apostolic injunction’ occurs to me likely
to have given rise to the custom.

1 Tho references are:

St Matthew viii. 12; Orig. in Joan, Tom. xiii. § 59.

Romans xii. 1; Orig. 1. c. § 25, i. 26; Orig. in Joan.
xiii. ὁ 19.

1 Corinthians, Orig. 1. c. § 59.

2 Timothy ii. 13; Clem. Alex. Str. iv. Le.

3 I cannot help quoting one criticism which seems to me
far truer in principle than much which is commonly written
on the prepositions of the New Testament. Writing on
Luke xii. 8, he remarks: ‘With good reason Christ says of
those who confess Him, in me (ὁμολ. ἐν ἐμοί), but of those who
deny Him, me (ἀρν. ἐμέ) only. For these, even if they con-
fess Him with their voice, deny Him, since they confess Him
not in their action. But they alone make confession in Him

don which

imply.

35 THE EARLY HERFYXS.
c#a7.5v. cal a bicden trath The whole record was

foun’ τὸ ce pregnant with spiritual meaning,
eomvered by the teaching of events in them-
selves real and instructive. It appears also that
differences between the Gospels were felt, and
an attempt made to reconcile them'. And it
must be noticed that autheritative spiritual
teaching was not limited to our Lord's own
words, but the remarks of the Evangelist also
were received as possessing an inherent weight’.

The introduction of commentaries implies
the strongest belief in the authenticity and au-
thority of the New Testament Scriptures; and
this belicf becomes more important when we
notice the source from which they were derived.
They took their rise among heretics, and not
among Catholic Christians. Just as the earliest
Fathers applied themselves to the Old Testa-
ment, to bring out its real harmony with the
Gospel, heretics endeavoured to reconcile the
Giospel with their own systems. Commentaries

who live in the confession and action that accords with Him;
in whom also [ic makes confession, having Himself embraced
them, and being held fast by them’ (Clem. Alex. Str. iv. 1. c.)

l (rig, in Joan. x. ᾧ 21: ὁ μέντοι ye Ἡρακλέων τό ἐν
φμισί" φησὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν τρίτῃ...

2 Tho fragments οὗ Heracloon are published (after Mas-
auat) at the ond of Stieren’s edition of Irenseus; but much
atill romains to make the collection complete. His commen-
tary on the fourth chapter of St John will illustrate most of
tho statements in thotoxt. Orig. in Joann. Tom. xiii. § 10 aqq.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 337

were made where the want for them was pressing. CHAP. Iv.
But unless the Gospels had been generally ac-
cepted, the need for such works would not have

been felt. Heracleon was forced to turn and
modify much that he found in St John, which

he would not have done if the book had not

been raised above all doubt’. And his evidence

is the more valuable, because it appears that he

had studied the history of the Apostles, and

spoke of their lives with certainty’.

In addition to the books of the New Tes- Heracteon
tament, Heracleon quoted the ‘Preaching οὔ Vac.
Peter. In this he did no more than Clement
of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzus; and
Origen when he mentions the quotation does
not venture to pronounce absolutely on the cha-
racter of the book*. It is quite possible that

1 Thus to John i. 3, οὐδὲ ἕν, he added, τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
καὶ τῇ κτίσει (Orig. in Joan. ii. § 8). He argued that John
i. 18 contained the words of the Baptist, and not of the
Evangelist (Orig. in Joan. Tom. vi. § 2); and in like manner
he supposed that the words of Ps. Ixviii. 10, used in John ii.
17, were applied not to our Lord, but to ‘the powers which
He had ejected’ (Orig. in Joan. x. 19). These forced inter-
pretatious were made from doctrinal motives, and in them-
selves sufficiently prove that St John’s Gospel was no Gnostic
work.

2 Clem. Alex. Str. iv. 1]. 6. : οὐ yap πάντες οἱ σωζόμενοι
ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον" ἐξ ὧν
Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευΐς (i.e. Θαδδαῖος), καὶ ἄλλοι
πολλοί.

δ Comm. in Joan. Tom, xiii. § 17. Of. App. B.

Ζ

CHAP. IV.

i

His Letler to
Fiora.

338 THE EARLY HERETICS,

it contained many genuine fragments of the
Apostle’s teaching; and the fact that it was used
for illustration! affords no proof that it was
placed on the same footing as the Canonical
Scriptures.

§ 7. Ptolemeus.

Ptolemeeus, like Heracleon, was a disciple of
Valentinus, and classed with him in the Italian
as distinguished from the Eastern School’. Ire-
neeus in his great work specially proposed to
refute the errors of his followers; and it ap-
pears that he reduced the Valentinian system
to order and consistency, and presented it under
its most attractive aspect.

Epiphanius has preserved an important letter
which Ptolemseus addressed to an ‘ honourable
sister Flora,’ in which he maintains the compo-
site and imperfect character of the Law. In
proof of this doctrine he quoted words of our
Lord recorded by St Matthew, the prologue to
St John’s Gospel, and passages from St Paul's
Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians (i.), and

1 The quotation which Heracleon made was in illustra-
tion of our Lord’s teaching on the true worship, John iv.
22, The passage in question is given by Clement, Str. vi. 5,
§§ 40, 41.

2 Hipp. adv. Her. vi. 35. Tertullian (adv. Val. 4)
places Ptolemseus before Heracleon.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 339

Ephesians'. He appealed, it is true, to an cnap. Iv.

esoteric rule of interpretation, but there is no-
thing to show that he added to or subtracted
from the Christian Scriptures. ‘ You will learn,’
he says, ‘by the gift of God in due course the
origin and generation [of evil], when you are
deemed worthy of the Apostolic tradition, which
we also have received by due succession, while
at the same time you measure all our statements
by the teaching of the Saviour?,’

Many other fragments of the teaching, ifF
not of the books, of Ptolemzus, have been pre-™

served by Irenseus*; and though they are full of
forced explanations of Scripture, they recognize
even in their wildest theories the importance of
every detail of narrative or doctrine. He found
support for his doctrine in the parables, the
miracles, and the facts of our Lord’s life, as well
as in the teaching of the Apostles. In the course
of the exposition of his system quotations occur
from the four Gospels, and from the Epistles of

1 Epiph. Her. xxxiii. 3 sqq.

2 Epiph. Heer. xxxiii. 7: μαθήσει yap, θεοῦ διδόντος, ἑξῆς
καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουμένη τῆς ἀποστολι-
κῆς παραδόσεως, ἣν ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς παρειλήφαμεν, μετὰ
καὶ τοῦ κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγος τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδασκα-
λίᾳ.

8 Iren. adv. Her. i. 1 sqq. After the exposition of the
Valentinian system is completed (i. 8, 5), the Latin Version
adds: et Ptolemeus quidem ita. There is nothing to corre-
spond to these words in the Greek.

Z2

Fragments of

is teach
enean®

340 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. δὲ Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (i.), Gala-

tians, Ephesians, and Colossians'. Two state-
ments, however, are made at variance with the
Gospels: that our Lord’s ministry was completed
in a year; and that He continued for eighteen
months with His disciples after His Resurrection.
The first, which has found advocates in modern
times, is remarkable because it is chiefly opposed
to St John’s Gospel, on which the Valentinians
rested with most assurance: the second was
held by Ptolemeus in common with the Ophites?.

§ 8. The Marcosians.

One sect of the Valentinians was distin-
guished by the use of Apocryphal writings.
‘The Marcosians, Irenzeus writes, ‘introduce

1 The following references may be noticed :

Matthew v. 18 (Iren. i. 3, 2); ix. 20 aq. (i. 3, 3); x. 84
(i. 3, δ); xiii. 33 (i. 8, 3); xx. 1 (ἰ. 8, 1); xxiii. 46; xxvi. 38
(i. 8, 2).

Mark v. 31 (i. 3, 3); x. 21 (i. 3, δ).

Luke ii. 42 (i. 3,2); iii. 17 (i. 3,5); vi. 13 (i. 3, 23); viii.
41 (i. 8, 2); ix. 57 sqq.; xix. 5 (i. 8, 3).

John xii. 27 (var. lect. i. 8, 2); i. 1 aqq. (i. 8, 5).

Romans xi. 16 (i. 8, 3); xi. 36 (i. 3, 4).

1 Corinthians i. 18 (i. 3, 5); xi. 10; xv. 8 (i. 8, 2); xv.
48 (i. 8, 3).

Galatians vi. 14 (i. 3, 5).

Ephesians i. 10 (i. 3, 4); iii. 21 (i. 3, 1); v. 13 (i. 8, δ);
γ. 32 (i. 8, 4).

Colossians i. 16 (i. 4, δ); ii. 9; iii. 11-(i. 3, 4).

3 Tren. adv. Heer. i. 3, § 3; i. 3, § 2; cf. i. 30, § 7.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 341

with subtlety an unspeakable multitude of apo- cHar.1v.

cryphal and spurious writings (ypagal), which
they forged themselves, to confound the foolish,
and those who know not the Scriptures (ypap-
pata) of truth!’ In the absence of further evi-
dence it is impossible to pronounce exactly on
the character of these books: it is sufficient
that they did not supplant the Canonical Scrip-
tures. At the same time their appearance in
this connexion is not without importance. Mar-
cus, the founder of the sect, was probably a
native of Syria?; and Syria, it is well known,
was fertile in those religious tales which are
raised to too great importance by the title of
Gospels.

Whatever the Apocryphal writings may have
been, the words of Irenzus show that they were
easily distinguishable from Holy Scripture; and
the Marcosians themselves bear witness to the

familiar use of our Gospels. The formularies But they s-
which Marcus instituted contain references to ἕν Gospels ;

the Gospel of St Matthew, and perhaps to the
Epistle to the Ephesians®. The teaching of his

1 Tren. adv. Heer. i. 20,1. Among these was a Gospel
of the Infancy (Iren. i. 20, 2), containing a similar story to
that in the Gospel of Thomas, c. 6.

2 This may be deduced from his use of Aramaic liturgi-
cal forms. Iren. i. 21, 3.

3 Iren. adv. Heer. i. 13, 8 (Matt. xviii. 10); i. 18, 2 (Epb.
iii. 16).

CHAP. IV.

342 THE EARLY HERETICS.

followers offers coincidences with all four Go-
spels. These Gospel-quotations present remark-

able various readings, but there is no reason to

suppose that they were borrowed from any other
source than the canonical books. Irenus evi-
dently considered that they were taken thence ;
and while he accuses the Marcosians of ‘ adapt-
ing’ certain passages of the Gospels to their
views, the connexion shows that they tampered
with the interpretation and not with the text’.

1 The various readings are of considerable interest when
taken in connexion with those of the Gospel-quotations of
Justin. They are exactly of such a character as might arise
from careless copying or quotation. In some respects also
they are supported by other authority. I have given the pas-
sages at length, that they may be compared with Justin.

Matt. xi. 25 sqq.: ἐξομολογήσομαί (-otpa—so Lat.
Int.) σοι, Πάτερ, κύριε τῶν οὐρανῶν (τοῦ ovp.) καὶ τῆς
γῆς, ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας (+ ravra—so Lat. Int.) ἀπὸ σοφῶν
καὶ σννετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις. Ova (vai),
ὁ Πατήρ, ὅτι ἔμπροσθέν cov εὐδοκία μοι ἐγένετο (οὕτως ἐγ. εὐ.
ἐμ. cov—Lat. Int. quoniam in conspectu tuo placitum factum
est). Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός pov’ καὶ οὐδεὶς
ἔγνω τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱός, καὶ τὸν Ὑἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ
ᾧ ἂν ὁ Yids ἀποκαλύψη. For the last clause, see p. 159, n. 2.

Matt. xi. 28,29: Setre...dpas καὶ μάθετε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ
τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας Πατέρα κατηγγελκέναι. ὃ yap οὐκ ἥδεισαν,
φησί, τοῦτο αὐτοῖς ὑπέσχετο διδάξειν. The last words show
that τόν.. κατηγγελκέναι formed no part of the quotation,
which agrees verbally with St Matthew, omitting one clause.

Matt. xix. 16: τί μελέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός,
ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Cf. p. 184. The passage is re-
ferred to by Ptolemeeus thus (Epiph. Her. xxxiii. 7): ἕνα
yap μόνον εἶναι ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν
ἀπεφήνατο. Cf. Mk. x. 18, and D in J.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 343

In addition to the Gospels the Marcosians cHaP.1v.
referred generally to St Paul in support of their sndthetesch-
peculiar opinions. ‘They said that Paul in ex-™
press terms had frequently indicated the redemp-
tion in Christ Jesus ; and that this was that doc-
trine which was (variously and incongruously)
delivered by them!.’

Matt. xxi. 23: ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει (ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦτο (ταῦτα)
ποιεῖς;

Mark x. 38: δύνασθε τὸ βάπτισμα βαπτισθῆναι, ὁ
ἐγὼ μέλλω βαπτίζεσθαι (βαπτίζομαι); Μέλλω Barr. answers
to Matt. xx. 22, μέλλω πιεῖν. Cf. p. 170.

Luke ii. 49: οὐκ oidare (so Tert. ἤδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ
πατρός μον δεῖ pe εἶναι;

Luke xii. 50: καὶ ἄλλο (=) βάπτισμα (τ δὲ) ἔχω βαπ-
τισθῆναι, καὶ πάνυ ἐπείγομαι εἰς αὐτό (πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως
Grov τελεσθῃ;) This change is a good instance of an inter-
pretative gloss.

Luke xix. 42: εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σὺ σήμερον (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
ταύτῃ) τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην: ἐκρύβη δέ (νῦν δὲ exp. ἀπὸ ὀφ-
θαλμῶν) σου.

Jobn xx. 24. Iren. i. 20, 2 sqq. Cf. Iren. i. 18, 4.

One passage causes me some perplexity. It stands thus
(Iren. i. 20, 2): ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι
ἔνα τῶν λόγων τούτων, καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον τὸν ἐροῦντα, ἐμφαίνοντός
φασιν, εἶναι διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸν ἀληθῶς ἕνα θεὸν ὃν οὐκ ἐγνώκει-
σαν. The Latin Version offers no various reading. Stieren
supposes that the words are taken from an Apocryphal Gos-
pel; but that is contrary to what Irenwus says. May we not
change ἐπεθύμησα into ἐπεθύμησαν, and refer to Matt. xiii. 17?
By this emendation ἐγνώκεισαν has a natural antecedent, and,
unless 1 am mistaken, the connexion of the passage is improved.

1 Iren. adv. Her. i. 21, 2. The phrase occurs in the
Epistles of St Paul to the Romans (iii. 24), Ephesians (i. 7),
and Colossians (i. 14). The words of the Marcosians may
consequently be taken as a testimony to these Epistles.

344 THE RARLY HERETIOS.

AP. IV. The coincidences with the other parts of the
vtarthey New Testament are less certain. An allusion to
New the Deluge bears a marked similarity to the pas-
sage in the first Epistle of St Peter'; and among
the titles of our Lord occurs ‘ Alpha and Omega,’
which appears to have been borrowed from the
Apocalypse*, Apart from this special coinci-
dence, the whole reasoning of the Marcosians
shows a clear resemblance to the characteristic
symbolism of the Apocalypse, which is distin-
guished by the sanction that it gives to a belief
in the deep meaning of letters and numbers.
And this belief, though carried to an extravagant
extent, lies at the bottom of the Marcosian
speculations, The principle of interpretation is
one which I cannot attempt to discuss, but it is
again a matter of interest to trace the general
agreement between the contents of the Canon
and the bases on which heretical sects professed
to build their systems. If we suppose that the
‘acknowledged’ books of the New Testament
were in universal circulation and esteem, we

1 Tren. i. 18,3; 1 Peter iii. 20. The recurrence of the
same word διεσώθησαν makes the similarity more worthy of
notice.

3 Tren. i. 14,6; 15,1. The allusion would be beyond
doubt if φησὶν αὑτὸν a καὶ ὦ could be translated, as Stieren
translates it, ipse δὲ dictt AetQ. It is evident from the next
sentence that φησὶ implies a quotation. Must we not read
αὐτός, ‘on this account he is... ?

THE EARLY HERETICS. 345

find in them an adequate explanation of the cuHaP.iv.

manifold developments of heresy. In whatever
direction the development extended, it can be
traced to some starting point in the Apostolic
writings’.

ᾧ 9. Marcion.

Hitherto the testimony of heretical writers The fit
to the New Testament has been confined to the % Cation that

recognition of detached parts by casual quota-
tions or characteristic types of doctrine. Mar-
cion, on the contrary, fixed a definite collection

1 At the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria is
usually published a series of fragments, entitled ‘ Short Notes
from the writings of Theodotus and the so-called Eastern
School at the time of Valentinus’ (ἐκ τῶν Geodérov καὶ τῆς
ἀνατολικῆς διδασκαλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνον χρόνους éxtropal).
The meaning of the phrase ‘ Eastern School’ has been ex-
plained already ; and tho testimony of these fragments may
be considered as supplementary to that which has been ob-
tained from the Valentinians of the West. But as I am not
now able to enter on the discussion of the authorship and
date of the fragments, it will be enough to givo a general
summary of the books of the New Testament to which they
contain allusions. They are these: the four Gospels; the
Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (i.), Ephe-
sians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy (i.); the
First Epistle of St Peter.

Epiphanius in his article on Theodotus of Byzantium, who
is commonly identified with the Clementine Theodotus, re-
presents him (Heer. liv.) as using the Gospels of St Matthew,
St Luke, and St John; the Acts of the Apostles; the First
Epistle to Timothy.

The passages are given at length by Kirchhofer, ᾧ 403 ff.

346 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.Iv. of Apostolic books as the foundation of his

system. The Canon thus published is the first of

which there is any record; and like the first

Commentary and the first express recognition

of the equality of the Old and New Testament

Scriptures, it comes from without the Catholic
Church, and not from within it.

The pecullar The position which Marcion occupies in the

- history of Christian'ty is in every way most

striking. Himself the son of a bishop of Sinope,

it is said that he aspired to gain the ‘ first place’

in the Church of Rome!. And though his father

and the Roman presbyters refused him com-

munion, he gained so many followers that in

the time of Epiphanius they were spread through-

out the world. While other heretics proposed to

extend or complete the Gospel, he claimed only

to reproduce in its original simplicity the Gospel

of St Paul’. But his personal influence was

great and lasting. He impressed his own cha-

racter on his teaching, where others only lent

their names to abstract systems of doctrine. If

Polycarp called him ‘the first-born of Satan,’ we

1 Epiph. Her. xlii. 1. What the προεδρία was is un-
certain. Probably it implies only admission into the college
of πρεσβύτεροι. Cf. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. i. p. 266. Mas-
suet, de Gnostic. reb. ᾧ 135.

2 Tort. adv. Marc. i. 20: Aiunt Marcionem non tam
innovasse regulam separatione Legis et Evangelii, quam re-
tro adulteratam recurasse.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 347

may believe that the title signalized his special car. iv.
energy; and the fact that he sought the recog-
nition of a Catholic bishop shows the position
which he claimed to fill.

The time of Marcion’s arrival at Rome? Hisdse.
cannot be fixed with certainty. Justin Martyr
speaks of him as ‘still teaching’ when he wrote
his first Apology, and from the wide spread of
his doctrine then, it is evident that some interval
had elapsed since he had separated from the
Church*. Consistently with this, Epiphanius 199. 1. ς.
places that event shortly after the death of
Hyginus; and Tertullian states it as an acknow-
ledged fact, that Marcion taught in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, but with a note to the effect
that he had taken no pains to inquire in what
year he began to spread his heresy*. This
approximate date, however, is sufficient to give
an accurate notion of the historical place which
he occupied. As the contemporary of Justin, he
united the age of Ignatius with that of Ireneeus.

He witnessed the consolidation of the Catholic

1 Petavius has discussed his date. Animadv. in Epiph.
Heer. xlvi. (p. 83); and Massuet much more fully and exactly,
de Gnostic. reb. § 136.

2 Just. Mart. Ap. i. c. 26.

8 Tert. adv. Marc. i. 19: Quoto quidem anno Antonini
Majoris de Ponto suo exhalaverit aura canicularis non curari
investigare; de quo tamen constat, Antonianus hereticus est,
sub Pio impius.

348 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cnaP. Iv. Church; and his heresy was the final struggle
of one element of Christianity against the whole
truth—-the formal counterpart of Ebionism,
naturally later in time than that, but no less
naturally a result of a partial view of Apostolic
teaching’.

Thecontents Marcion professed to have introduced no
innovation of doctrine, but merely to have re-
stored that which had been corrupted. St Paul
only, according to him, was the true Apostle;
and Pauline writings alone were admitted into
his Canon. This was divided into two parts,
‘The Gospel’ and ‘The Apostolicon’.” The
Gospel was a recension of St Luke with nume-
rous Omissions, and variations from the received
text*. The Apostolicon contained ten Epistles
of St Paul, excluding the Pastoral Epistles and
that to the Hebrews‘.

1 Marcion is commonly described as the scholar and
successor of Cerdo. But it is impossible to determine
how far Cerdo’s views on the Canon were identical with
those of Marcion. The spurious additions to Tertullian’s
tract, De Prescr. Horret. (c. li.), are of no independent
authority.

2 I have not noticed the title ‘ Apostolicon,’ or ‘ Aposto-
lus,’ in Tertullian; but it occurs in Epiphanius, and in the
Dialogue appended to Origen’s works.

8 Cf. p. 351, and note 1.

4 The Epistles were arranged according to Tertullian
(adv. Marc. v.) in the following order: Galatians, Corin-
thians (i. ii.), Romans, Thessalonians (i. ii.), Ephesians
(Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 349

Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming czar. ΙΝ.
that Marcion altered the text of the books which The text of
he received to suit his own views; and they
quote many various readings in support of the
assertion. Those which occur in the Epistles
are certainly insufficient to prove the point};

Epiphanius gives the same order, with the single excep-
tion that he transposes the two last (Her. xlii. p. 373).

Tertullian expressly affirms the identity of the Epistles to
the Laodiceans and to the Ephesians (v. 17); and implies
that Tertullian prided himself on the restoration of the true
title, quasi ef tn isto diligentissimus explorator. The language
of Epiphanius is contradictory.

The statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the
Epistle to Philemon are at first sight in opposition; but I
believe that Epiphanius either used the word διαστρόφως
loosely, or was misled by some author who applied it to the
transposition and not to the corruption of the Epistle. He
uses the same word of the Epistle to the Philippians, but
Tertullian gives no hint that that Epistle was tampered with
in an especial manner by Marcion. Cf. Epiph. Heer. xlii.
pp. 373, 374; Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 20,21. Again, Epipha-
nius says (id. p. 371) that the Epistles to the Thessalonians
were ‘distorted in like manner.’

1 The variations which Epiphanius notices are:

Eph. v. 31, = τῇ γυναικί. So Jerome.

Gal. v. 9, δολοῖ. So Lucif. &c.

1 Cor. ix. 8, ὁ νόμος + Μωυσέως. Cf. the following verse.

— x. 9, Χριστὸν for Κύριον. So D, E, F, G, &c.
— — 19, + ἱερόδυτον Cf. varr. lect.
— xiv. 19, διὰ τὸν νόμον. So Ambrst.

2 Cor. iv. 13, = κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον.

The language of Tertullian is more general. Speaking
of the Epistle to the Romans he says: Quantas autem foveas
in ista vel maxime Epistola Marcion fecerit auferendo 4020
voluit de nostri Instrumenti integritate parebit (adv. Marc. τ.

350 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHaP.iv. and on the contrary, they go far to show that

Marcion preserved without alteration the text
which he found in his MS. Of the seven

13); but he does not enumerate any of these lacuns, nor
are they noticed by Epiphanius. In the next chapter, after
quoting Rom. viii. 11, he adds, ‘Salio et hic amplissimum
abruptum intercises scripture, and then passes to Rom. x. 2.
Epiphanius says nothing of any omission here; and the lan-
guage of Tertullian is at least ambiguous, especially when
taken in connexion with his commentary on Rom. xi. 33.
It appears however from Origen (Comm. in Rom. xvi. 25),
that Marcion omitted the two last chapters of the Epistle.

In the Epistle to the Galatians it seems that there was
some omission in the third chapter (Tert. v. 3), but it is
uncertain of what extent it was. In Gal. ii. 5, Marcion read
οὐδέ, while Tortullian omitted the negative (1. c.).

The other variations mentioned by Tertullian are the
following :

1 Cor. xv. 45, Κύριον for ‘Adap. Cf. varr. lectt.

2 Cor. iv. 4, Marcion was evidently right in his punctua-
tion.

Eph. ii. 15, = αὐτοῦ.

— — 20, = καὶ προφητῶν.

— iii. 9, = ἐν.
— vi. 2, = last clause.

1 Thess. ii. 15, + ἰδίους. So D***, E** &c.

2 Thess. i. 8, = ἐν πυρὶ φλογός.

In addition to these various readings, Jerome (I. 6.) men-
tions the omission of καὶ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς in Gal. i. 1; and from
the Dialogue (6. 5) it appears that the Marcionites read
1 Cor. xv. 38 sqq. with considerable differences from the
common text.

The examination of these readings perhaps belongs rather
to the history of the text than to the history of the Canon;
but they are in themselves a proof of the minute and jealous
attention paid to the N. T. Scriptures. If the text was
watched carefully, the Canon cannot have been a matter of
indifference.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 351

readings noticed by Epiphanius, only three are ΟΗΔΡΙΝ.

unsupported by other authority; and it is alto-
gether unlikely that Marcion changed other pas-
sages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left
untouched those which are most directly opposed
to his system.

With the Gospel the case was different. The
influence of oral tradition upon the form and
use of the written Gospels was of long continu-
ance. The personality of their authors was in
some measure obscured by the character of their
work. The Gospel was felt to be Christ’s Gospel
—the name which Marcion ventured to apply
to his own—and not the particular narration of
any Evangelist. And such considerations as
these will explain, though they do not justify,
the liberty which Marcion allowed himself in
dealing with the text of St Luke. There can
be no doubt that St Luke’s narrative lay at the
basis of his Gospel; but it is not equally clear
that all the changes which were introduced into
it were due to Marcion himself. Some of the
omissions can be explained at once by his pecu-
liar doctrines; but others are unlike arbitrary
corrections, and must be considered as various
readings of the greatest interest, dating, as
they do, from a time anterior to all other
authorities in our possession’,

1 Of the longer omissions the most remarkable is that of

The text of

the

Gospel.

352 THE EARLY HERETICS.

CHAP. IV, There is no evidence to show on what grounds
Thecus of Marcion rejected the Acts and the Pastoral
ons Epistles'. Their character is in itself sufficient
to explain the fact; and there is nothing to
indicate that his judgment was based on any
historical objections to their authenticity. In
The acs. the Acts there is the clearest recognition of the
teaching of St Peter as one constituent part of
the Christian faith, while Marcion regarded it
| The Paton! ag essentially faulty; and so again, since he
claimed to be the founder of a new line.of
bishops, it was obviously desirable to clear away
the foundation of the Churches whose apostoli-
city he denied. This may have been the reason
why they were not found in his Canon; but it
is unsatisfactory to conjecture where history is
silent. And the mere fact that Marcion did
not recognize the Epistles, cannot be used as an
argument against their Pauline origin, as long

as the grounds of his decision are unknown.
The remain,” The rejection of the other books of the New
amet Testament Canon was a necessary consequence
of Marcion’s principles. The first Apostles,

the parable of the Prodigal Son (Epiph. p. 338). The quo-
tations from Marcion’s gospel are collected by Kirchhofer
(pp. 366 ff.)

1 In one passage, Epiphanius (p. 321), according to the
present text, affirms that he acknowledged, in part at least,
the fourteen Pauline Epistles; but there is evidently some
corruption in the words.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 358

according to him, had an imperfect apprehension czar. ΙΝ.
of the truth, and their writings necessarily par-

took of this imperfection. But it does not follow

that he regarded them as unauthentic because

he set them aside as unauthoritative’.

Apart from the important testimony which The pring
it bears to a large section of the New Testament he Genen
writings, the Canon of Marcion is of importance,
as showing the principle by which the New Tes-
tament was formed. Marcion accepted St Paul’s
writings as a final and decisive test of St Paul’s
teaching; in like manner the Catholic Church
received the writings which were sanctioned by
Apostolic authority as combining to convey the
different elements of Christianity. There is
indeed no evidence to show that any definite
Canon of the Apostolic writings was already
published in Asia Minor, when Marcion’s ap-
peared; but the minute and varied hints which
have been already collected tend to prove that,
if it were not expressly fixed, it was yet implicitly
determined by the practice of the Church. And,

1 Though Marcion did not make use of the other Gospels,
it appears that he was acquainted with them, and endea-
voured to overthrow their authority, not by questioning
their authenticity, but by showing that those by whose autho-
rity they were published were reproved by St Paul (adv.
Marc. Iv. 3): Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evan-
geliorum qus propria et sub Apostolorum nomine eduntur,

vel etiam Apostolicorum (St Mark), ut scilicet fidem quam
illis adimit suo conferat.

AA

354 THE EARLY HERETICS.

without attaching undue weight to the language
of his adversaries, it is not to be forgotten that
they always charge him with mutilating something
which already existed, and not with endeavour-
ing to impose a test which was not generally
received.

ᾧ 10. Tatian.

The history of Tatian throws an important
light on that of Marcion. Both were naturally
restless, inquisitive, impetuous. They were sub-
ject to the same influences, and were for a while
probably resident in the same city!. Both remain-
ed for some time within the Catholic Church, and
then sought the satisfaction of their peculiar wants
in a system of stricter discipline, and sterner
logic. Both abandoned the received Canon of
Scripture; and together they go far to witness
to its integrity. They exhibit different phases
of the same temper; and while they witness to
the existence of a critical spirit among Christians
of the second century, they point to a Catholic
Church as the one centre from which their
systems diverged.

Tatian was an Assyrian by birth, and a pagan,
but, no less than his future master Justin, an
ardent student of philosophy. Like the most
famous men of his age, he was attracted to

1 Tat. ad Gr. 18; Just. Ap. i. 26.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 356

Rome, and there he met Justin,—that ‘ most cHap. iv.
admirable man,’ as he calls him—whose influ-
ence and experience could not fail to win one
of such a character as Tatian’s to the Christian
faith. The hostility of Crescens tested the sin-
cerity of his conversion; and after the death of
Justin he devoted himself to carrying on the
work which his master had begun. For a time
his work was successfully accomplished, and
Rhodon was among his scholars. But afterwards,
in consequence of his elevation, as Irenseus
asserts, he introduced novelties of doctrine into
his teaching ; and at last returning to the East,
placed himself at the head of the sect of the
Encratites, combining the Valentinian doctrine
of A‘ons with the asceticism of Marcion!.

The strange vicissitudes of Tatian’s life con- The conse
tribute to the value of his evidence. In part he 473300"
continues the testimony of Justin, and in part
he completes the Canon of Marcion. Doubts
have been raised as to Justin’s acquaintance
with the writings of St Paul and St John; and
we find his scholar using them without hesitation.
Marcion is said to have rejected the pastoral
Epistles on critical grounds; and Tatian, who
was not less ready to trust to individual judg-

1 Tatian, Orat. cc. 42, 1, 35, 18, 19. Iren. adv, Her. i.
28, 1 (Euseb. H. E. 1v. 29). Epiph. Heer. xlvi. Cf. Iren. adv.
Heer. iii. 23, 8.

ΑΑ

CHAP. IV.

The testimo-
nies con-
tained in his
Address to
Greeks ;

and in his
fragments.

356 THE EARLY HERETICS.

ment, affirmed that the Epistle to Titus was
inost certainly the Apostle’s writing.

The existing work of Tatian—his ‘ Address
to Greeks’ — offers no scope for Scriptural
quotations. There is abundant evidence to prove
his deep reverence for the writings of the Old
Testament, and yet only one anonymous quota-
tion from it occurs in his Apology!; but it is
most worthy of notice that in the same work he
makes clear references to the Gospel of St John,
to a parable recorded by St Matthew, and pro-
bably to the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans
and Corinthians, and to the Apocalypse*. The
absence of more explicit testimony to the books
of the New Testament is to be accounted for
by the style of his writing, and not by his
unworthy estimate of their importance.

A few fragments and notices in other writers
help to extend the evidence of Tatian. Eusebius
relates on the authority of others, that ‘he dared
to alter some of the expressions of the Apostle
(Paul), correcting their style*’ In this there is

1 Orat. c. 15; Ps. viii. 5. The quotation occurs Hebr.
ii. 7; and it may be remarked, that just before Tatian uses
the word ἀπαύγασμα (Heb. i. 3).

2 St Matthew xiii. 44, 6. 30; St John i. 1, Orat. c. 5;
i. 8, 6. 193 i. 5, 6. 13.

Romans i. 20, c. 43 vii. 15, 6. 11.

1 Corinthians iii. 16; ii. 14, c. 15.

Apoc. xxi. sq. c. 20.

8. Euseb. H. E, iv. 29.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 357

nothing to show that Eusebius was aware of CHAP. Iv.

greater differences as to the contents of the New
Testament between the Catholics and Tatian
than might fall under the name of various read-
ings; yet in this it appears that he was deceived.
Jerome states expressly that Tatian rejected
some of the Epistles of St Paul, though he
maintained the authenticity of that to Titus’.
However this may be, it can be gathered from
Clement of Alexandria, Irenzus, and Jerome,
that he endeavoured to derive authority for his
peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the Corin-
thians and Galatians, and probably from the
Epistle to the Ephesians and the Gospel of St
Matthew*. Nor is this all: the name of one out
of ‘the great multitude of his compositions’ is
not the least important element of his testimony.

1 Pref. in Tit. (fr. xi. Otto.) Tatianus Encratitarum patri-
arches, qui ct ipse nonnullas Pauli Epistolas repudiavit, hance
vel maxime (hoc est ad Titum) apostoli pronunciandam cre-
didit, parvi pendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac
parte consentiunt assertionem.

It is probable that he rejected the Epistles to Timothy
(cf. Otto l. c.), but there is no evidence to prove it. Many
of the Encratites rejected St Paul altogether. Cf. p. 359,
note 1.

2 St Matthew vi. 19; xxii. 30; Clem. Al. Str. iii. 12, § 86
(fr. 2).

1 Corinthians vii. δ; Clem. Al. ]. 6. ὃ 81 (fr. 1); xv. 22;
Iren iii. 23, 8 (fr. 5).

Galatians vi. 8; Hieron. Comm. in l. (fr. 3).

Ephesians iv. 24; Clem. Al. 1. ς. ὃ 82 (fr. 8) ὁ παλαιὸς
ἀνὴρ καὶ ὁ καινός.

358 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cHap.iv. His Diatessaron is apparently the first recognition
of a fourfold Gospel.

The earliest mention of the Diatessaron' of

ες ‘ Tatian is in Eusebius. ‘Tatian,’ he says, ‘the

former leader of the Encratites, having put
together in some strange fashion a combination
and collection of the Gospels, gave this the name
of the Diatessaron, and the work is still partially
current’.’ The words evidently imply that the
Canonical Gospels formed the basis of Tatian's
Harmony; and that this was the opinion of
Eusebius is placed beyond all doubt by the pre-
ceding sentence, in which he states that ‘the
Severians, who consolidated Tatian’s heresy,

1 No notice is taken of the Diatessaron in Otto’s Edition
of Tatian. The most exact account of it with which I am
acquainted is that of Credner, Beitriige, 1. pp. 437 ff. He
endeavours to show that the Diatessaron was in fact a form
of the Petrine Gospel, and identical with that of Justin
Martyr (p. 444). When he says (p. 48) that the Diatessaron
is spoken of “ bald als eine von ihm selbst (Tatian) verfasste,
gottlose Harmonie aus unsern vier Evangelien, bald als ene
eigne, selbstindige Schrift,’ I confess that I do not recognize
his usual accuracy and candour.

2 Euseb. H. E. 1v. 29: ὁ μέντοι ye πρότερος αὐτῶν apyn-
γος ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγήν, οὐκ oid ὅπως,
τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν"
ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. Eusebius evidently spoke
from hearsay; but he attributes the title of the book to
Tatian himself, and makes no mention of any apocryphal
additions to the Evangelic narrative.

The term διὰ τεσσάρων was used in music to express the
concord of the fourth (συλλαβή). This sense may throw
some light upon the name.

THE EARLY HERETICS, 359

made use of the Law, the Prophets, and the cuap rv.
Gospels, while they spoke ill of the Apostle
Paul, rejecting his Epistles, and refusing to
receive the Acts of the Apostles'.’ .The next
testimony is that of Epiphanius, who writes that gpipnanius
‘Tatian is said to have been the author of the
Harmony of the four Gospels, which some call
the Gospel according to the Hebrews’. The
express mention of the four Gospels is important
as fixing the meaning of the original title. Not
long afterwards, Theodoret gives a more exact Theodore.
account of the character and common use of the
book. ‘Tatian also composed the Gospel ealled
‘«‘ Diatessaron,” removing the genealogies, and all
the other passages which show that Christ was

1 Euseb. I. c. Credner (p. 439) supposes that the term
Severianit was merely a translation of ¢yxparnrai. Origen
(6. Cels. v. 65) mentions the Encratites among those who
rejected the Epistles of St Paul. They received some Apo-
cryphal books also: κέχρηνται δὲ γραφαῖς προτοτύπως (ὃ πρω-
τοτύποις) ταῖς λεγομέναις Ἀνδρέου καὶ ᾿Ιωάννον πράξεσιν καὶ Θωμᾶ
καὶ ἀποκρύφοις τισί. (Epiph. Her. xlvii. 1.)

2 Epiph. Heer. xlvi. 1: λέγεται δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων evayye-
λίων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι ὅπερ κατὰ ᾿Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι.
Some perhaps may be inclined to change εὐαγγελίων into
εὐαγγέλιον.

No atress can be laid on the conjectural identification of
the Diatessaron with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Epiphanius appears to give no credit to it; and the belief
admits of easy explanation. Both books were current in tho
same countries, and differed from the canonical Gospels by
the omission of the genealogies. And few writers out of
Palestine could compare the books to determine their real
difference.

360 THE EARLY HERETICS.

(ΒΑΡ. 1Υ. born of David according to the flesh. This was
used not only by the members of his party, but
even by those who followed the Apostolic doc-
trine, as they did not perceive the evil design of
the composition, but used the book in their
simplicity for its conciseness. And I found also
myself more than two hundred such books in
our churches (in Syria), which had been received
with respect; and having gathered all together,
I caused them to be laid aside, and introduced
in their place the Gospels of the four Evan-
gelists'.. Not only then was the Diatessaron
grounded on the four Canonical Gospels, but in
its general form it was so orthodox as to enjoy
a wide ecclesiastical popularity. The heretical
character of the book was not evident upon the
surface of it, and consisted rather in faults of
defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret
had certainly examined it, and he, like earlier
writers, regarded it as a compilation from the

1 Theodor. Heeret. fab. I. 20 (Credn. p. 442): οὗτος καὶ
τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, Tas γενεα-
λογίας περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ
σάρκα γεγενημένον τὸν Κύριον δείκνυσιν. ᾿Εχρήσατο δὲ τούτῳ
οὐ μόνον οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολι-
κοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς συνθήκης κακουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνω-
κότες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι.
Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἣ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν ταῖς παρ᾽
ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην καὶ
τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον εὐαγγέλια. The
technical sense of κακουργία (malitia) forbids us to lay any
undue stress on the word.

THE EARLY HERETICS. 361

four Gospels. He speaks of omissions which cHap. tv.
were, in part at least, natural in a Harmony, but
notices no such apocryphal additions as would
have found place in any Gospel not derived from
canonical sources. The later history of the Later Syrian
Diatessaron is involved in confusion. Another
Diatessaron was composed by Ammonius of
Alexandria not long afterwards, and in process
of time the two were confused’. It is stated,
however, by Dionysius Bar Salibi, a writer of the
twelfth century, that Ephrem Syrus commented
on the Diatessaron of Tatian, and that Tatian’s
work commenced with the first words of St
John’s Gospel. The fact in itself is by no means
improbable, as appears from the narrative of
Theodoret, and from the use which Tatian else-
where made of the fourth Gospel; but its
authenticity is rendered questionable by a pas-
sage in Gregory Bar Hebreeus, who relates that
Ephrem commented on the Diatessaron of Ammo-
nius, and that the words in question were found
in that®, It is indeed quite possible that both
1 See note (2).

3 The original passages are given at length by Credner
(pp. 446 sqq.) Cf. Lardner, ii. pp. 444 sqq. Ebed-jesu
identifies Tatian and Ammonius (Credner, p. 449). The tes-
timony of Victor of Capua shows how great was the confo-
sion even in his time between the Harmonies of Tatian and
Ammonius (Lardner, p. 443). If there be no error in his
statement that Tatian’s Harmony was called ‘Diapente,
the fifth Gospel alluded to in the name was probably that

362 THE EARLY HERETICS.

cuap.iv. Harmonies began in the same way, and even
that the Harmony of Ammonius was a mere
revision of that of Tatian. But it is unnecessary
to discuss a point which if it do not confirm the
Canonical origin of Tatian’s Harmony, does not
in any way invalidate it.

The title All that can be gathered from history falls
in with the idea suggested by the title of the
book. And without strong external evidence
in support of another view, the title itself must
be allowed to have great weight. There can be
no reasonable doubt that the name was given to
the work by Tatian himself; and if the Diates-
saron was not a compilation of four Gospels,
what is the explanation of the number? If again
these four Gospels were not those which we
receive, what other four Gospels ever formed a
collection which needed no further description
than ‘the Four?’ I am not aware that any
answer has been given to these questions; and in
connexion with the belief and assertions of early
Fathers, they are surely decisive as to the sources
of Tatian’s Diatessaron. And thus once again, a
heretical writer is the first to recognize outwardly
an important fact in the history of the Canon}.
according to the Hebrews, and the title was given in con-.
sequence of the confusion already noticed.

1 Tatian’s Diatessaron is said to have contained one im-

portant addition (Matt. xxvii. 49), which is however found in
B, C, L., &c. Cf. Griesbach, ]. c.

CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART. 363

It must indeed have been evident throughout cHaP. tv.
the course of this chapter that the testimony of General
heretical writers to the books of the New Testa- ““""
ment tends on the whole to give greater certainty
and weight to that which is drawn from other
sources. So far from obscuring or contravening
the judgment of the Church generally, they offer
material help in the interpretation of it. And
this follows naturally from their position. As
separatists they fixed the standard by which they
were willing to be judged, if it differed from that
which was commonly received. And all early
controversy proceeds on this basis. The autho-
rity of the Apostolic Scriptures is everywhere
assumed: this is the rule and only exceptions
from the rule are noticed in detail.

A brief summary of the results which have conetv-
been obtained in the First Part of our inquiry The sume, ς
will show how far they satisfy that standard of πὸ ἔν
reasonable completeness which was laid down at
the outset. The conditions of the problem must
be fairly considered, as well as the character of
the solution; and it cannot be too often repeated
that the period which has been examined is truly
the dark age of Church-history. In the absence
of all trustworthy guidance every step requires
to be secured by painful investigation; and if

364 CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART.

concu- I have entered into tedious details, it has been

because I know that nothing can be rightly

neglected which tends to throw light upon the

growth of the Catholic Church. And the growth

of the Catholic Church is the comprehensive

fact of which the formation of the Canon is one

element.

i Thedk The evidence which has been collected is

tary tur” ©confessedly fragmentary both in character and
substance. And that it is so, follows from the
nature of the case. But when all the fragments
are combined, the sum exhibits the chief marks
of complete trustworthiness.

of wide It is of wide range both in time and place.
Beginning with Clement of Rome, the companion
of St Paul, an uninterrupted series of writers,
belonging to the chief Churches of Christendom,
witness with more or less fulness to the books of
the New Testament. And though the evidence
is thus extended, yet it is not without its points
of connexion. Most of the writers who have
been examined visited Rome: all of them might
have been acquainted with Polycarp.

ofunafected ‘The character of the evidence is no less strik-
ing than its extent. The allusions to Scripture
are perfectly natural. The quotations are pre-
faced by no apology or explanation. The lan-
guage of the books used was so familiar as to
have become part of the common dialect. And

CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART. 365

when men speak without any distinction of their CONCLU-
private opinion, it is evident that they express- ---- -
the general judgment of their time. The various
testimonies which have been collected thus unite
in one; and that one is the general judgment of
the Church.

This is further shown by the uniform ten- o fet
dency of the evidence. It is always imperfect,
but the different parts are always consistent. It
is derived from men of the most different charac-
ters, and yet all that they say is strictly harmo-
nious. Scarcely a fragment of the earliest Chris-
tian literature has been preserved which does not
contain some passing allusion to the Apostolic
writings; and yet in all there is no discrepancy.
The influence of some common rule is the only
natural explanation of this common consent.
Nor is evidence altogether wanting to prove the
existence of such a rule. The testimony of in- and sus
dividuals is expressly confirmed by the testimony jucsment of
of Churches. Two great Versions were current =
in the East and West from the earliest times,
and the Canons which they exhibit agree with
remarkable exactness with the scattered and
casual notices of ecclesiastical writers. And
their common contents—the four Gospels, the
Acts, thirteen Epistles of St Paul, the first gene-
ral Epistles of St Peter and St John—constitute
a Canon of acknowledged books. And this agree-

366 CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART.

concLU- ment of independent writers is not limited to

the practice those who were members of the same Catholic

ofheretics- Church: the evidence of heretics is even more
full and clear. And when they differed from the
common opinion, doctrinal and not historical
objections occasioned the difference.

The relation One circumstance which at first sight appeared

in regard to to embarrass the inquiry has been found in reality

™ to give it life and consistency. A traditional
word was current among Christians from the
first coincidently with the written Word. It is
difficult indeed to conceive that it should have
been otherwise if we regard the Apostles as
vitally connected with their age; but it is evi-
dent that the two might have been in many
ways so related as to have produced an unfa-
vourable impression as to the completeness of
our present Canon. But now on the contrary
the New Testament is found to include all the
great elements which are elsewhere referred to
Apostolic sources. Many imperfect narratives
of our Lord’s life were widely current, but the
Canonical Gospels offer the types on which they
were formed. In the first ages the New Testa-
ment may serve at once as the measure and as
the rule of tradition.

any of For the earliest evidence for the authenticity
Θ Vanon 18

a key to the of the books of which it is composed is not
e
early Church. confined to direct testimony. Perhaps that is

CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART. 3867

still more convincing which springs from their
peculiar characteristics as representative of spe-
cial types of Christian truth. No one probably
will deny the existence of distinguishing features
in the several forms of Apostolic teaching, and
the history of the subapostolic age is the history
of corresponding differences developed in early
Christian writers, and in turn transformed into
the germs of heresy. The ecclesiastical phase
of the difference is in every case later than the
scriptural; and thus, while I have spoken of the
first century after the Apostles as the dark age
of Church-history, the recognition of the great
elements of the New Testament furnishes a satis-
factory explanation of the progress of the Church
during that critical period, which on the other
hand itself offers no place for the forgery of such
books as are included in the Canon.

But while the evidence for the authenticity Yet

CONOLU-
SION.

---.-..-.. .

here are
ubts as

of the Canonical books of the New Testament is {othe con.

up to this point generally complete and satisfac-
tory, it is not such as to remove every doubt to
which the subject is liable. At present no trace
has been found of the existence of the second
Epistle of St Peter'. Andthe Epistles of St James
and St Jude, the second and third Epistles of

1 One coincidence has been pointed out to me which
deserves notice. The language of the well-known reference
to St Paul in Polycarp’s Epistle (c. 3) bears considerable

Canon, and

368 CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART.

conciu. St John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the
—— —— Apocalypse, were received only partially, though
they were received exactly in those places in
which their history was most likely to be known!.
(2) the idea of And more than this, the idea of a Canon
iberthan itself found no public and authoritative expres-
™ sion except where it was required by the neces-
sities of translation. But though during the first
age, and long afterwards, the Catholic Church
offered no determination of the limits and ground-
work of the Canon, they were practically set-
tled by that instinctive perception of truth, if it
may not be called by a nobler name, which can,
I believe, be recognized as presiding over the
organization of the early Church. The Canon of
Marcion may have been the first which was pub-
licly proposed, but the general consent of earlier
Catholic writers proves that within the Church
there had been no need for pronouncing a judg-
ment on a point which had not been brought
into dispute. The formation of the Canon may
have been gradual, but it was certainly undis-
turbed. It was a growth, and not a series of
contests.
resemblance to the corresponding passage in 2 Pet. iii. 15

(σοφία, ἐπιστολαί), but in the absence of all other evidence
it is impossible to insist on this.

1 Perhaps the Epistle of St Jude forms an exception to

this statement. But the history of the Epistle is extremely
obscure.

CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART, 369

In the next part it will be seen to what ex- conciu-
tent this agreement as to the Catholic Canon
was established at the end of the second century
And this will furnish in some degree a measure inthefre
of what had been already settled. The opinions
of Irenzus, Clement, and Tertullian were formed
by influences at work within the age of Polycarp;
and it is wholly arbitrary to suppose that they
originated the principles which they organized.

The result of

SECOND PERIOD,

HISTORY OF THE CANON FROM THE TIME OF
HEGESIPPUS TO THE PERSECUTION
OF DIOCLETIAN.

A.D. J 70——303¢

BB2

Τοῖς πειθομένοις μὴ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι συγγράμματα ras ἱερὰς
βίβλους ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος βουλήματι τοῦ
πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ταύτας ἀναγεγράφθαι καὶ
εἰς ἡμᾶς ἔληλυθέναι, τὰς φαινομένας ὁδοὺς ὑποδεικτέον, ἐχομένοις
τοῦ κανόνος τῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων
οὐρανίον éxxAnoias.—ORIGENES.

CHAPTER I.

THE CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS
AT THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY.

Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis quod nulli CHAP. 1.
doctrina diversa : hoc est testimonium veritatis. a
TERTULLIANUS.

Tue close of the second century marks a great thethree
stages of the

change in the character and position of the qrmect
Christian Church. It cannot be a mere accident

that up to that time the remains of its literature

are both unsystematic and fragmentary, a meagre
collection of letters, apologies, and traditions,

while afterwards Christian works ever occupy

the foremost rank in genius as well as in spiritual
power. The contrast really expresses the natural
progress of Christianity. At first its work was
chiefly with the heart; and when that was filled,

it next asserted its right over the intellect. And

this conquest was necessarily gradual and slow.

A Christian dialect could not be fixed at once;

and the scientific aspect of the new doctrines
could be determined only by the experience of
many efforts to unite them with existing systems.

It was thus that for a time philosophic views of
Christianity were chiefly to be found without

the Church, since the partial representation of

374 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

cHaP.1. its philosophic worth naturally preceded any ade-
quate realization of it. And perhaps it is not
difficult to see a fitness in that disposition of
events which committed the teaching of the
Apostles to minds essentially receptive and con-
servative, that it might be inwrought into the
life of men before it became the subject of subtle
analysis. However this may be, it is impossible
not to recognize the vast access of power which
characterizes the works of Irenzus, Clement, and
Tertullian, when compared with earlier writings,
both in their scope and composition. In them
Christianity asserts its second conquest: the
easiest and yet the most perilous alone remained.
It had won its way to the heart of the simple
and to the judgment of the philosopher: it had
still to claim the deference of the statesman.
And each success brought its corresponding trial.
When Wisdom (γνῶσις) was ranged with Truth,
it was not always contented to follow; and in
after times the subjugation of the imperial go-
vernment prepared the way for the corruption of

the Church by material influences.
The connex. But though the Fathers of the close of the
Fathewsof‘he second century are thus prominently distinguished
predeecwors. from those who preceded them, it must not be
forgotten that they were trained by that earlier
generation which they surpassed. They inherited
the doctrines which it was their task to arrange

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 375

and harmonize. They made no claims to any ©#4?P.1.

discoveries in Christianity, but with simple and
earnest zeal appealed to the testimony of the
Apostolic Church to confirm the truth of their
writings. They never admitted the possibility
of being separated from their forefathers; and if
it has been shown that the continuity of the
Christian faith has hitherto suffered no break,
from this point it is confessedly maintained with-
out interruption. One voice proceeds from Lyons,
from Carthage, from Alexandria, the witness and
the herald of the truth.

With regard to the Canon of the New Tes- How ths αω

tament this concord of doctrine is of the great- canon.
est importance. In it that which has been already
recognized in practice finds a formal expression.
As long as those lived who had seen the Apo-
stles—as long as the teaching of the Apostles
was fresh in men’s minds—it was, as has been
already seen, unlikely that their writings, as dis-
tinguished from their words, would be invested
with any special importance. But traditions
soon became manifold, while the books remained
unchanged: a catholic Church was organized,
and it was needful to determine the ‘ Covenant’
in which its laws were written: Christianity fur-
nished subjects for the philosopher, and it was
requisite to settle from what sources his pre-
mises might be taken. As soon as the want

376 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

cHAP.1. was felt it was satisfied. - As soon as an inde-

‘pendent Christian literature arose in .which it
was reasonable to look for any definite recog-
nition of the Apostolic writings, that recognition
is substantially clear and correct. With the
exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
two shorter Epistles of St John, the second
Epistle of St Peter, the Epistles of St James and
St Jude, and the Apocalypse’, all the other books
of the New Testament are acknowledged as Apo-
stolic and authoritative throughout the Church at
the close of the second century. The evidence
of the great Fathers by which it is represented
varies in respect of these disputed books, but the
Canon of the acknowledged books is established
by their common consent. Thus the testimony
on which it rests is not gathered from one
quarter, but from many, and those the most
widely separated by position and character. It
is given, not as a private opinion, but as an
unquestioned fact,—not as a late discovery, but
as an original tradition.

From this point then it will be needless to

aoe accumulate testimonies to the Canonicity of the

four Gospels, of the Acts, of the thirteen Epistles
of St Paul, of the first Epistles of St John and

1 The position of the Apocalypse is anomalous. If it
were not for its omission in the Peshito it would be up to
this time an acknowledged Book.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 377

St Peter. No one at present will deny that they cnap.1
occupied the same position in the estimation of
Christians in the time of Ireneus as they hold
now. But here one strange fact must be noticed :
the authenticity of the Apocalypse, which is sup-
ported by the satisfactory testimony of early
writers, was disputed for the first time in the
Western Church in the course of the third cen-
tury. In other words, there was a critical spirit
still alive among Christians which impelled them |
even then to test afresh the records on which
their faith rested.

But before dismissing the Canon of the ac- On what
knowledged books it will be well to revert once ™**
again at greater length to the manner in which
it is recognized by Irenzeus and his contempo-
raries. Their evidence, when considered in con-
nexion with the circumstances under which it is
given, will go far to establish the point to which
our investigations have all tended, that the
formation of a Canon was among the first in-
stinctive acts of the Christian society—imperfect
as the organization of the Church was at first
incomplete, but attaining its full proportions by
a certain growth as the development of the
Church was matured.

Nothing is known directly of the origin of i, The testi
the Gallican Church; but from several ritual 622%?
peculiarities its foundation may be probably

378 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

oHaP i. referred to teachers from Asia Minor’, with
which province it long maintained an intimate
connexion. And thus Gaul owed its knowledge
of Christianity to the same country from which
in former times it had drawn its civilization: the
Christian missionary completed the work of the
Phoceean exile. However this may have been,
the first notice of the Church shows its extent
1774.c. and constancy. In the seventeenth year of the
reign of Antoninus Verus it was visited by a
fierce persecution, of which Eusebius has pre-
served a most affecting narrative, addressed by
T™ Epistle the Christians of Vienne and Lyons to ‘the
Yimeest brethren in Asia and Phrygia, who held the
same faith and hope of redemption as them-
selves*.’ This narrative was written immediately
after the events which it describes, and is every-
where penetrated by scriptural language and
thought. It contains no reference by name to
any book of the New Testament, but its coin-
cidenc es of language with the Gospels of St
Luke and St John, with the Acts of the Apo-
stles, with the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans,
Corinthians (?), Ephesians, Philippians, and
Timothy (i.), with the first catholic Epistles of
St Peter and St John, and with the Apocalypse,
are unequivocal’. In itself this fact would

1 Palmer’s Origines Liturgice, i. pp. 155 sqq-
3 Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 3 Euseb. 1. c.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 379

perhaps call for little notice after what has cHap.1

been said of the general reception of the ac-
knowledged books at the close of the second
century, but it becomes of importance as the
testimony of a Church, and one which was not
- without connexion with the apostolic age even
at the time of the persecution. In the same
Church where Irenzeus was a presbyter—‘ zealous
for the covenant of Christ’”—Pothinus was bishop,
already ninety years old. Like Polycarp he was
associated with the generation of St John, and
must have been born before the books of the
New Testament were all written. And how then
can it be supposed with reason that forgeries
came into use in his time which he must have
been able to detect by his own knowledge? that
they were received without suspicion or reserve
in the Church over which he presided? that they
were upheld by his hearers as the ancient herit-
age of Christians? It is possible to weaken the
connexion of the facts by arbitrary hypotheses,
but interpreted according to their natural mean-
ing they tell of a Church united by its head with
the times of St John to which the books of the
New Testament furnished the unaffected lan-

guage of hope and resignation and triumph. And renews the
the testimony of Irenseus is the testimony of this Church of
Church. Nor was this the only point in which ;

1 Euseb. v. 4.

380 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

he came in contact with the immediate disciples
of the Apostles. It has been seen already that
he recalled in his old age the teaching of Poly-
carp the disciple of St John; and his treatise
against heresies contains several references' to
others who were closely connected with the
apostolic age. He stood forth to maintain no
novelties,-but to vindicate what had been believed
of old. Those whom he quoted had borne wit-
ness to the New Testament Scriptures, and he
only continued on a greater scale the usage
which they had recognized. When he wished to
win back Florinus, once his fellow-disciple, to
the truth, he reminded him of the zeal and doc-
trine of their common master, and how he spoke
of Christ’s teaching and mighty works from
the words of those who followed Him, And is it
then possible that he who was taught of Poly-
carp was himself deceived as to the genuine
writings of St John? Is it possible that he
decided otherwise than his first master, when
he speaks of the tradition of the Apostles by
which the Canon of Scripture was determined?*?

1 Cf. pp. 87 sqq.

2 Tren. adv. Her. iv. 33, 8: Agnitio (γνῶσις) vera est
‘ apostolorum doctrina et antiquus ecclesis status in universo
mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones
episcoporum quibus illi eam que in unoquoque loco est
ecclesiam tradiderunt; quee pervenit usque ad nos custodi-
tione sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plenissima neque
additamentum neque ablationem recipiens.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 3881
Φ

He appeals to the known succession of teachers 984».
in the Churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus,

who held fast up to his own time the doctrine

which they had received from the first age;

and is it possible that he used wrtings as
genuine and authoritative which were not re-
cognized by those who must have had unques-
tionable means of deciding on their apostolic

origin ?

From Lyons we pass to Alexandria. The ". εἶνε και
early history of the Egyptian Churches is not ¢ Church
more certain than that of those in Gaul. Tradi- |
tion indeed assigns the foundation of the Church
of Alexandria to St Mark, but the best evidence
for its antiquity is found in its state at the time
of the earliest authentic record which remains of
it. Not long after the middle of the second cen-
tury Pantzenus was dispatched on a mission to Pantenus.
‘India’ by Demetrius the bishop of Alexandria,
at the request of the nation itself!. After suc-
cessfully accomplishing this work he returned to
Alexandria, and ‘presided over the school (δια-
τριβη) of the faithful there.’ The school then
was already in existence, however much it may
have owed to one distinguished alike ‘ for secular

1 Euseb. H. E. v. 10. Hieron. de Virr. Ill. xxxvi. It
does not fall within our present scope to inquire into the
Hebrew Gospel which Pantenus found among the ‘Indians.’ |
The mention of the fact shows that attention was directed
to the sacred books.

382 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

_onaP.t learning and scriptural knowledge.’ Indeed there

is no absolute improbability in the statement of
Jerome!, who interprets the words of Eusebius,
‘that a school (διδασκαλεῖον) of the Holy Scrip-
tures had existed there after an ancient custom,’
as meaning that ‘ecclesiastical teachers had always
been there from the time of the Evangelist Mark.’
Without insisting however on the apostolic origin
of the school itself, it seems not improbable that
Pantsenus was personally connected with some
immediate disciples of the Apostles. Many con-
temporaries of Pothinus and Polycarp may have
survived to declare the teaching of St John; and
Photius in fact represents Panteenus as a hearer
of the Apostles*. At any rate there is not the
slightest ground for assuming any organic change
in the doctrine of the Alexandrine Church be-
tween the age of the Apostles and Pantezenus.
Everything, on the contrary, bespeaks its un-
broken continuity. And Clement, the second of
our witnesses, was trained in the school of Pan.
tenus. He speaks as the representative of a class
devoted specially to the study of the Scriptures,
and established in a city second to none for the
advantages and encouragement which it offered
to literary criticism. Like Ireneus, Clement
appeals with decision and confidence to the

1 Routh, i. 375.
3 Lumper, iv. 44; Routh, i. 377.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 383

judgment of those who had preceded him. His cHaP.1.
writings were no ‘mere compositions wrought
for display,’ but contained a faint picture ‘ of the
clear and vivid discourses, and of the blessed and
truly estimable men, whom it was his privilege
to hear.’ For though Alexandria was in itself
the common meeting-place of the traditions of
the East and West, Clement had sought them
out in their proper sources. As far as can be
gathered from the clause in which he describes
his teachers, he had studied in Greece and Italy δ᾽
and various parts of the East under masters
from Ionia, from Cele-Syria, from Egypt, and
from Assyria, and also under a Hebrew in
Palestine, before he met with Pantenus. ‘ And
these men,’ he writes, ‘preserving the true tra-
dition of the blessed teaching directly from
Peter and James, from John and Paul, the
holy Apostles, son receiving it from father (but
few are they who are like their fathers), came
by God’s providence even to us, to deposit
among us those seeds [of truth] which were
derived from their ancestors and the Apostles’.’

1 Clem. Alex. Str. i. 1, ὁ 11 (Euseb. H. E. v. 11): Ἤδη
δὲ οὐ γραφὴ εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τετεχνασμένη ἦδε ἡ πραγματεία ἀλλά
μοι ὑπομνήματα εἰς γῆρας θησαυρίζεται, λήθης φάρμακον, εἴδω-
λον ἀτεχνῶς καὶ σκιογραφία τῶν ἐναργῶν καὶ ἐμψύχων ἐκείνων
ὧν κατηξιώθην ἐπακοῦσαι λόγων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν μακαρίων καὶ τῷ
ὄντι ἀξιολόγων. τούτων ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὁ Ἰωνικός. οἱ
(Euseb. ὁ) δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος, τῆς κοίλης θάτερος

CHAP, I.

ili. The testi-
mony of the
African
Caurck.

Tertullian.

384 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

Of the African Church I have already spoken.
The venerable relics of the old Latin Version
attest the early reception of the New Testament
there, and the care with which it was studied.
In themselves those fragments are incomplete,
and often questionable; but they do not stand
alone. The writings of Tertullian furnish an
invaluable commentary on the conclusions which
have been drawn from them; and in turn his
testimony is the judgment of his Church; an
inheritance, and not a deduction.

Tertullian himself insists on this with charac-
teristic energy. ‘If,’ he says, ‘it is acknowledged
that that is more true which is more ancient, that

αὐτῶν Συρίας ἦν ὁ δὲ ἀπ' Αἰγύπτον: ἄλλοι δὲ ava τὴν ἀνατολήν,
καὶ ταύτης ὁ μὲν τῆς τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ὁ δὲ ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ “Ἑβραῖος
ἀνέκαθεν: ὑστάτῳ δὲ περιτυχὼν (δυνάμει δὲ οὗτος πρῶτος ἣν)
ἀνεπαυσάμην ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ θηράσας λεληθότα. Σικελικὴ τῷ ὄντι
μέλιττα, προφητικοῦ τε καὶ ἀποστολικοῦ λειμῶνος τὰ ἄνθη
δρεπόμενος ἀκήρατόν τι γνώσεως χρῆμα ταῖς τῶν ἀκροωμένων
ἐνεγέννησε ψυχαῖς. ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν τὴν ἀληθὴ τῆς μακαρίας σώ-
ζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ ᾿Ιακώβου,
Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου, τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πα-
τρὸς ἐκδεχόμενος (ὀλίγοι δὲ οἱ πατράσιν ὅμοιοι) ἧκον δὴ σὺν
θεῷ καὶ eis ἡμᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθη-
σόμενοι σπέρματα" καὶ εὖ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι ἀγαλλιάσονται, οὐχὶ τῇ ἐκῴρά-
σει ἡσθέντες λέγω τῇδε, μόνῃ δὲ τῇ κατὰ τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν
τηρήσει. The passaze is of great importance as showing the
intimate intercourse between different churches in Clement's
time and the uniformity of their doctrine. The use of the
prepositions is singularly exact and wortby of notice. I have
changed Klotz's punctuation, which makes the passage unin-
telligible.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 385

more ancient which is even from the beginning, CHAP. I.
that from the beginning which is from the
Apostles; it will in like manner assuredly be
acknowledged that that has been derived by
tradition from the Apostles which has been pre-
served inviolate in the churches of the Apostles.
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from
Paul; to what rule the Galatians were recalled
by his reproofs; what is read by the Philippians,
the Thessalonians, the Ephesians; what is the
testimony of the Romans, who are nearest to us,
to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel, and
that sealed by their own blood. We have more-
over churches founded by John.. For even if
Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, still the succes-
sion of bishops [in the seven churches], if traced
to its source, will rest on the authority of John.
And the noble descent of other churches is
recognized in the same manner. I say then that
among them, and not only among the Apostolic
Churches, but among all the churches which are
united with them in Christian fellowship, that
Gospel of Luke which we earnestly defend has
been maintained from its first publication!.’
1 Adv. Marc. iv. In summa si constat id verius quod
prius, id prius quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis:
pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod
apud ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus

quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint; ad quam regulam
Galatw sint recorrecti; quid legant Philippenses, Thessalo-

co

386 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

cHar.t. And ‘the same authority of the Apostolic

All
anuquly.

Churches will uphold the other Gospels which
we have, in due succession, through them and
according to their usage, I mean those of [the
Apostles] Matthew and John; although that
which was published by Mark may also be main-
tained to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark
was...’ ‘These are for the most part the sum-
mary arguments which we employ when we argue
about the Gospels against heretics, maintaining
both the order of time which sets aside the later
works of forgers (posteritati falsariorum preescri-
benti), and the authority of churches which up-
holds the tradition of the Apostles; because
truth necessarily precedes forgery, and proceeds
from them to whom it has been delivered!.’

The words of Tertullian sum up clearly and
decisively what has been said before of the evi-

nicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent,
quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo
signatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Johannis alumnas eccle-
sias. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion respuit, ordo ta-
men episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit
auctorem. Sic et cewterarum generositas recognoscitar.
Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam apostolicas sed apud
universas que illis de societate sacramenti confcederantur, id
evangelium Luce ab initio editionis sus stare quod cum-
maxime tuemur. The clause tn Johannem stabit auctorem is
commonly translated, ‘ will show it (the Apocalypse] to have
John for its author;’ but it is evident that such a translation
is quite out of place even if the words admit of it.
1 Adv. Mare. 1. c. Cf. adv. Marc. iv. ο. 2.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 387

dence of Irenzeus and Clement. All the Fathers
at the close of the second century agree in
appealing to the testimony of antiquity as prov-
ing the authenticity of the books which they
used as Christian Scriptures!. And the appeal
was made at a time when it was easy to try its
worth. The links which connected them with
the Apostolic age were few and known; and if
they had not been continuous it would have been

1 I¢ is almost superfluous to give any references to the
quotations from the acknowledged Books made by Irenzus,
Clement, and Tertullian; but many of the following are
worthy of notice on other grounds than as merely attesting
the authenticity of the books.

(a) The Four Gospels:

Iren. iii. 11, 8; Clem. Str. iii. 13, § 93; Tert.
adv. Mare. iv. 2.

(8) The Acts:

Iren. iii. 15, 1; Clem. Str. v. 12, § 83; Tert. adv.
Mare. v. 2.

(y) The Catholic Epistles:

1 John: Iren. iii. 16,8; Clem. Str. ii. 15, ᾧ 66;
Tert. adv. Prax. 25.

1 Peter: Iren. iv. 9, 2; Clem. Peed. i. 6, ᾧ 44;
Tert. c. Gnoet. 12.

(8) The Pauline Epistles:

Romans: Iren. ii. 22,2; Clem. Str. ii. 21, ᾧ 134.
1 Corinthians: Iren. i. 8, 2; Clem. Str. i. 1, § 10.
2 Corinthians: Iren. iii. 7, 1; Clem. Str. i. 1,§4.
Galatians: Iren. iii. 7,2; Clem. Str. i. 8, ᾧ 41.
Ephesians: Iren. i. 8,5; Clem. Str. iii. 4, ὁ 28.
Philippians: Iren. i. 10, 1; Clem. Str. i. 11, ὁ 53.
Colossians: Iren. iii. 14, 1; Clem. Str. i. 1, § 15.
1 Thessalonians: Iren. v. 6, 1; Clem. Str. i. 11,
§ 53.

cc?

CHAP. L

388 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

CHAP.1. easy to expose the break. But their appeal was

The testi-
mony is the

game when
ite original

never gainsayed; and it still remains as a sure
proof that no chasm separates the old and new
in the history of Christianity. Those great
teachers are themselves an embodiment of the
unity and progress of the faith.

This will appear yet in another light when it
is noticed that Clement and Irenrus speak from

notbetraced. Opposite quarters of Christendom, and exactly

from those in which we have found before no
traces of the circulation of the Apostolic writ-
ings. They tell us what was the fulness of the
doctrine on Scripture where the churches had
grown up in silence. They show in what way
the books of the New Testament were the
natural help of Christian men, as well as the
ready armoury of Christian advocates.

The evidence for the reception of the ac-
knowledged Books of the New Testament at the
close of the second century is not yet complete.

2 Thessalonians: Iron. v. 25,1; Clem. Str. v. 3,§ 17.
Titus: Iren. i. 16, 3; Clem. Str. i. 14, § 59.
1 Timothy ; Iren. i. pref. ; Clem. Str. ii. 11, § 52.
2 Timothy: Iren. iii. 14,1; Clem. Str. iii. 6, § 53.
The Epistle to Philemon is nowhere quoted by Clement .
or Irenzeus, but Tertullian, who examines the thirteen
Pauline Epistles in the fifth book against Marcion,
distinctly recognizes it.
(e) The Apocalypse:
Iren. v. 35, 2; Clem. Peed. ii. 10,§ 108; Tert. adv.
Mare. iii. 14.

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 389

Special causes hindered the universal circulation cHar.1.
of the other books, but these were regarded And it ine
throughout the Church as parts of an organic Gases
whole, correlative to the Old Testament, and of sacred books.

equal weight with it. They were considered to
be not only Apostolic, but also authoritative.
‘The Scriptures are perfect,’ Irensus says, ‘in-
asmuch as they were uttered by the Word of
God and His Spirit!;’ and what he understands
by the Scriptures is evident from the course of
his arguments, in which he makes use of the
books of the Old and New Testaments without
distinction. ‘There could not,’ he elsewhere
argues, ‘be ecither more than four Gospels or
fewer.’ That number was prefigured by types in
the Mosaic ritual and by analogies in nature, so
that all are ‘vain and ignorant and daring be-
sides, who set at nought the fundamental notion
(ἰδέα) of the Gospel*.” Clement again recognizes
generally a collection of ‘the Scriptures of the
Lord,’ under the title of ‘the Gospel and the
Apostle*;’ and this collective title shows that
the books were regarded as essentially one. But
this unity was produced by ‘the harmony of the

1 Tren. adv. Heer. ii. 28, 2. Scriptures quidem perfectes
sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dicts.

2 Iron. adv. Heer. iii. 11, 8 8q.

3 Str. vii. 8, ὁ 14: σφᾶς yap αὐτοὺς αἰχμαλωτίζειν.....τό τε
εὐαγγέλιον ὅ τε ἀπόστολος κελεύουσι. Elsewhere Clement
uses the plural ἀπόστολοι.

CHAP. I.

The testi-
mony of the

=
390 CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS

Law and the Prophets, and of the Apostles and
the Gospels in the Church'” All alike pro-

ceeded from One Author: all were ‘ratified by

the authority of Almighty Power*” Tertullian
marks the introduction of the phrase ‘New Tes-
tament,’ as applied to the Evangelic Scriptures.
‘If,’ he says, ‘I shall not clear up this poiut by
investigations of the Old Scripture, I will take
the confirmation of our interpretation from the
New Testament...For, behold, I observe a visible
and an invisible God, both in the Gospels and in
the Apostles...°.’

The clear testimony of Irenseus, Clement,
and Tertullian clear because their writings
are of considerable extent,—finds complete sup-
port not only in the fragments of earlier Fathers,
but also in smaller contemporary works. Athen-
agoras at Athens and Theophilus at Antioch
make use of the same books generally, and treat
them with the same respect‘. And from the

1 Str. vi. 11, $ 88. 2 Str. iv. 1, ᾧ 2.

8 Adv. Prax. 15: Si hune articulum questionibus Scrip-
ture Veteris non expediam, de Novo Testamento sumam
confirmationem nostre interpretationis, ne quodcumque in
Filium reputo in Patrem proinde defendas. Ecce enim et
in Evangeliis et in Apostolis visibilem et invisibilem Deum
deprehendo, sub manifesta et personali distinctione condi-
tionis utriusque.

4 Athenagoras quotes the Gospels of St Matthew and
St John, and the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, Co.
rinthians (i. ii.), and Galatians; and refers perhaps to the

AT CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 391

close of the second century, with the single ex- cHaP.1.
ception of the Apocalypse, the books thus ac-
knowledged were ever received without doubt
until subjective criticism ventured to set aside
the evidence of antiquity’.

In the next chapter I shall examine how
far the disputed books were recognized in the
several branches of the Christian Church, and
whether any explanation can be offered for their
partial reception.

Epistle to Timothy (i.), and to the Apocalypse. Theophilus,
in his books to Autolycus, refers to the Gospels of St Mat-
thew, St Luke (?), and St John; to the Epistles of St Paul
to the Romans, Corinthians (i. ii.), Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, Timothy (i.), Titus; to the first Epistle of St
Peter (?); and to the Apocalypse (Euseb. Η. E. iv. 24).

1 The assaults of the Manichees on the books of the New
Testament cannot be considered an exception to the truth
of this statement. Something will be said on them here-
after.

CHAPTER 1].

THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE
DISPUTED BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAP. II. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum catholicarum quam-
plurium auctoritatem [indagator solertissimus] sequatur.

AUGUSTINUS.

The question SEvEN books of the New Testament, as is well
De decided known, have been received into the Canon on
evidence less complete than that by which the
others are supported. In the controversy which
has been raised about their claims to apostolic
authority, much stress has been laid on their
internal character. But such a method of rea-
soning is commonly inconclusive, and inferences
are drawn on both sides with equal confidence.
In every instance the result will be influenced
by preconceived notions of the state of the early
Church, and it is possible that an original source
of information may be disparaged because it is
independent. History must deliver its full tes-
timony before internal criticism can find its
proper use. And here the real question to be
answered in the case of the disputed books is
not, Why we receive them? but Why should we
not receive them? The general agreement of
the Church in the fourth century is an ante-

-

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 999

cedent proof of their claims; and it remains to CHAP.1L

be seen whether it is set aside by the more
uncertain and fragmentary evidence of earlier
generations. If, on the contrary, it can be
proved that the books were known from the
first though not known universally: if any expla-
nation can be given of their limited circulation:
if it can be shown that they were more gener-
ally received as they were more widely known:
then it will appear that history has decided the
matter; and this decision of history will be con-

clusive. The idea of forming the disputed books rhe sccepe-
into a Deutero-canon of the New Testament Deutero-

(advocated by many Roman Catholics, in spite
of the Council of Trent, and by many of the
early reformers!), though it appears plausible at
first sight, is evidently either a mere confession
that the question is incapable of solution, or a
re-statement of it in other words. The Second
Epistle of St Peter is either an authentic work
of the Apostle, or a forgery; for in this case

1 Even Augustine appears to have favoured this view:
Tenebit igitur [scripturarum indagator] hunc modum in
Scripturis canonicis, ut eas que ab omnibus accipiuntur Ec-
clesiis Catholicis preeponat iis quas queedam non accipiunt;
in iis vero que non accipiuutur ab omnibus, preeponat eas
quas plures gravioresque accipiunt iis quas pauciores mino-
Yisquo auctoritatis Ecclesiss tenent. De Doctr. Chr. ii. 12.
In spite of the authority, however, it is clear that such a
statement can rest on no logical basis.

$94 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

CHAP. there can be no mean. And the Epistles of St
James and St Jude, and that to the Hebrews, if
they are genuine, are apostolic at least in the
same sense as the Gospels of St Mark and St
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles'. It involves
a manifest confusion of ideas to compensate for
a deficiency of historical proof by a lower stand-
ard of canonicity. The extent of the divine
authority of a book cannot be made to vary with
the completeness of the proof of its authenticity.
The authenticity must be admitted before the
authority can bear any positive value, which from
its nature cannot admit of degrees; and till the
authenticity be established the authority remains
in abeyance.

A summary The evidence which has been collected

ccucemae hitherto for the apostolicity of the disputed
books may be briefly summed up as follows.

The Epis ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews is certainly referred

to by Clement of Rome, and probably by Justin

Martyr; it is contained in the Peshito, though

probably the version was made by a separate

translator; but it is omitted in the fragmentary

1 J do not by any means intend to assert that every work
of an Apostle or Apostolic writer as such would have formed
part of the Canon; indeed I believe that many Apostolic
writings may have been lost when they had wrought their
purpose, but that these books have received the recognition
of the Church in such a manner that if genuine they must
be canonical.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 395

Canon of Muratori, and, as it appears, it was cHaP. 1.
wanting also in the old Latin version'. Except
the opinion of Tertullian, which has been men-
tioned by anticipation, nothing has been found
tending to determine its authorship. The
Epistle of St James is apparently referred to The plate
by Clement and Hermas, and is included in the
Peshito (according to some copies, as the work
of St James the elder); but it is not found in
the Muratorian Canon, nor in the old Latin’.
The Epistle of St Jude, and (probably) the two Judes ας.
shorter Epistles of St John, are supported by
the authority of the Muratorian Canon and of
the old Latin version; but they are not found
in the Peshito’. The Apocalypse is distinctly The Apece-
mentioned by Justin as the work of the Apostle
John, and Papias and Melito bear witness to its
authority: it is included in the Muratorian
Canon, but not in the Peshito*. No trace has
yet been found of the Second Epistle of St
Peter.

From this general summary it will be seen According t
that up to this time the Epistle of St James and
that to the Hebrews rest principally on the
authority of the Eastern (Syrian) Church: the

1 Cf. pp. 57, 203, 242, 258, 290.
2 Cf. pp. 57, 223, 243, 267, 290.
3 Cf. pp. 242, 284.

4 Cf. pp. 201, 84, 246, 243.

mm

396 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cHaP.t1. Second and Third Epistles of St John, and the
Epistle of St Jude, on that of the Western
Church: the Apocalypse on that of the Church
of Asia Minor. It remains to inquire how far
these lines of evidence are extended and con-
firmed in the great divisions of the Church up
to the close of the third century.

§1. The Alexandrine Church.

The import. Tue testimony of the Alexandrine Church,

Linen me as has been noticed already, is of the utmost

ones importance, from the natural advantages of its
position and the conspicuous eminence of its
great teachers during the third century. Never,
perhaps, have two such men as Clement and
Origen contributed in successive generations to
build up a Christian Church in wisdom and hu-
miity. Notwo fathers ever did more to vindi-
cate the essential harmony of Christian truth
with the lessons of history and the experience
of men; and in spite of their many faults and
exaggerations, perhaps no influence on the whole
has been less productive of evil!.

ΒΝ No catalogue of the Books of the New Tes-
tament occurs in the writings of Clement; but

1 Athenagoras is sometimes classed with the Alexandrine
school, but his writings contain no clear references to any
of the disputed books. Cf. Lardner, Pt. ii. c. 18, § 21; Supr.
p. 390.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 397

Eusebius has given a summary of his ‘Hypo- cuar.u.

typoses,’ or ‘ Outlines,’ which serves in some
measure to supply the defect}. ‘Clement, in his
‘ Outlines,’ to speak generally, has given concise
explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures
(πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαθήκου γραφῆς), without omitting
the disputed books: I mean the Epistle of Jude,
and the remaining Catholic Epistles, as well as
the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Reve-
lation of Peter. And, moreover, he says that
the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s, but that it
was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dia-
lect, and that Luke having carefully (φιλοτίμως)
translated it, published it for the use of the
Greeks, And that it is owing to the fact that
he translated it that the complexion (xpwra) of
this Epistle and that of the Acts is found to be
the same. Further, he remarks that it is natural
that the phrase ‘ Paul an Apostle’ does not occur
in the superscription, for in writing to Hebrews,
who had conceived a prejudice against him and
suspected him, he was very wise in not turning
them away from him at the beginning by affixing
his name. And then a little further on he
(Clement) adds: ‘And as the blessed presbyter
(? Panteenus) before now used to say, since the

Lord was sent to the Hebrews, as the Apostle Hebr. ii 1.

1 The testimony of Panteenus (?) to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, as a work of St Paul, will be noticed below.

$98 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

caaP.it of the Almighty, Paul, through his modesty,

inasmuch as he was sent to the Gentiles, does
not inscribe himself Apostle of the Hebrews,
both on account of the honour due to the Lord,
and because it was a work of supererogation
that he addressed an epistle to the Hebrews
also (ex περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς ᾿Εβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν)
since he was herald and apostle of the Gentiles’.
The testimony to the Pauline origin of the

to the Epistle Epistle to the Hebrews which is contained in this
brews:

passage is evidently of the greatest value. There
can be little doubt that ‘the blessed presbyter’
was Pantzenus; and thus the tradition is carried

to the Catho- UD almost to the Apostolic age. With regard

t c. 886,
A. C.

to the other disputed books, the words of Eu-
sebius imply some distinction between ‘the
Epistle of Jude and the Catholic Epistles, and
‘the Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation of
Peter.’ But the whole statement is very loosely
worded, and its true meaning must be sought
by comparison with other evidence. Fortunately
this is not wanting. Photius after commenting
very severely on the doctrinal character of the
‘Outlines,’ adds; ‘Now the whole object of the
book consists in giving, as it were, interpreta-
tions of Genesis, of Exodus, of the Psalms, of
the Epistles of St Paul, and of the Catholic

1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 14.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 399

Epistles, and of Ecclesiasticus'.’ The last clause cHaP.u
is very obscure; but whatever may be meant by
it, it is evident that the detailed enumeration
is most imperfect, for the ‘Outlines’ certainly
contained notes on the four Gospels. But if
Clement had distinctly rejected any book which
Photius held to be canonical, or treated any
apocryphal book as part of Holy Scripture, it is
likely that he would have mentioned the fact;
and thus negatively his testimony modifies that
of Eusebius, at least so far as that seems to
imply that Clement treated the Epistle of Bar-
nabas and the Revelation of Peter as canonical.
A third account of the Outlines further limits
the statements of Eusebius and Photius. Cas-
siodorus, the chief minister of Theodoric, in hist o 575,
‘Introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture,’
says: ‘Clement of Alexandria, a presbyter, who
is also called Stromateus, has made some com-
ments on the Canonical Epistles, that is to say,
on the first Epistle of St Peter, the first and
second of St John, and the Epistle of St James,
in pure and elegant language. Many things

1 Phot. Cod. 109. Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. i. p. 165.
For καὶ τῶν καθολικῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ (Bekk. ἐκκλη-
σιαστοῦ), Bunsen prints καὶ τῶν καθ. καὶ τοῦ καθόλον τό-
pou Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ. But surely ὁ καθόλου τόμος ᾿Εκκλη-
σιαστικός is ἃ marvellous phrase. The reference to the book
of Wisdom in such a connexion, however perplexing, is not
without parallel. Cf. p. 243.

400 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

CHAP. IL. which he has said in them shew refinement, but

some a want of caution; and we have caused
his comments to be rendered into Latin, so that
by the omission of some trifling details, which
might cause offence, his teaching may be im-
bibed with greater security!’ The notes which
follow are written on the first Epistle of St
Peter, the Epistle of St Jude (not St James),
and the first two Epistles of St John; and
they contain numerous references to Scripture,
and expressly assign the Epistle to the He-
brews to St Paul*. The scattered testimonies
which are gathered from the text of Clement's
extant works recognize the same books. He
makes several quotations from the Epistle to the
Hebrews (as St Paul’s)’, from the Epistle of St
Jude‘, and one among many others, from the
first Epistle of St John, which implies the exist-
ence of a second’; while he uses the Apocalypse

1 The passages are printed at length by Bunsen, l. 6. pp.
323 sqq.; and in the editions of Clement. Klotz, iv. pp. 52
8664.
- But it is added, that it was translated by St Luke:
Lucas quoque et Actus Apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnos-
citur et Pauli ad Hebrieos interpretatus epistolam. Cf. p. 397.

8 Clem. Al. Str. vi. 8, § 62: Παῦλος...τοῖς “Εβραίοις ypa-
Pov.

4 Str. iii, 2, ὁ 11: ἐπὶ τούτων οἶμαι... προφητικῶς ᾿Ιούδαν
ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ εἰρηκέναι.

δ Str. ii. 15,§ 66: φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ μείζονε
ἐπιστολῇ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκδιδάσκων.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 40]

frequently, assigning it to the Apostle St John!; cuap.u.
but he nowhere makes any reference to the
Epistle of St James*. There can then be
little doubt that the reading in Cassiodorus is
false, and that ‘Jude’ should be substituted for
‘James;’ and thus the different lines of evidence
are found to coincide exactly. Clement, it ap-
pears, recognized as canonical all the books of
the New Testament, except the Epistle of St
James, the second Epistle of St Peter, and the
third Epistle of St John. And his silence as to
these can prove no more than that he was unac-
quainted with them‘,

Origen completed nobly the work which onicex
Clement began. During a long life of labour
and suffering he learnt more fully than any one
who went before him the depth and wisdom of
the Holy Scriptures; and his testimony to their
divine claims is proportionately more complete
and systematic. Eusebius has collected the
chief passages in which he speaks on the subject
of the Canon, and though much that he says

1 Pred. ii. 12, § 119; Str. vi. 13, δ 107: ὡς φησιν ἐν τῇ
ἀποκαλύψει ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης.

2 The instances commonly quoted are rightly set aside
by Lardner, ii. 22, § 8.

8 Clement’s use of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
and of certain Apocryphal books will be considered in App.
B. It is enough to notice that there is no evidence to show
that he attributed to them a decisive authority, as he did to
the writings of the Apostles in the strictest sense.

DD

CHAP. II.

How Euse-
bius records
his evidence
in reference
to the Gos-
pels;

the .4pustolic
Episties.

402 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

refers to the Acknowledged Books, his evidence
is too important to be omitted. Like the
Fathers who preceded him, he professes only
to repeat the teaching which he had received.
‘In the first book of his Commentaries on Mat-
thew, Eusebius writes, ‘ preserving the rule of
the Church, he testifies that there are only four
Gospels, writing to this effect: I have learnt by
tradition concerning the four Gospels, which
alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God
spread under heaven, that that according to
Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards
an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first ;...
that according to Mark, second;...that accord-
ing to Luke, third ;...that according to John, last
of 411}.

‘The same writer, Eusebius continues, ‘in
the fifth book of his Commentary on the Gospel
of John, says this of the Epistles of the Apo-
stles: Now he who was made fit to be a minister
of the new covenant, not of the letter but of
the spirit, Paul, who fully preached the Gospel
from Jerusalem round about even to Illyricum,
did not even write to all the churches which he
taught, and sent moreover but few lines (στίχους)
to those to which he did address Epistles.
Peter, again, on whom the Church of Christ is
built, against which the gates of hell shall not

1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 26.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 403

prevail, has left behind [but] one epistle gene- c#ar. 1:

rally acknowledged; perhaps we may admit a
second, for it is a disputed question. Why need
I speak about him who reclined upon the breast
of Jesus, John, who has left behind a single

Gospel, though he confesses that he could make John asi. 36.

sO many as not even the world could contain?

He wrote, moreover, the Apocalypse, having been Te 2 Ape.
commanded to keep silence, and not to write 4”***

the voices of the seven thunders. He has left
behind also an Epistle of very few lines: per-
haps we may admit a second and third; since
all do not allow that these are genuine; never-
theless both together do not contain a hundred
lines.”

‘In addition to these statements [Origen] The Bpisue
thus discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews in his ὑπ

Homilies upon it: Every one who is compe-
tent to judge of differences of diction (ppacewy)
would acknowledge that the style (χαρακτὴρ
τῆς λέξεως) Of the Epistle entitled to the He-
brews, does not exhibit the Apostle’s rudeness
and simplicity in speech (ro ev λόγῳ ἰδιωτικόν),
though he acknowledged himself to be ‘simple
in his speech,’ i. e. in his diction (τῇ φράσει), but
it is more truly Greek in its composition (συν-
θέσει τῆς λέξεως). And again, that the thoughts
(νοήματα) of the Epistle are wonderful, and not
second to the acknowledged writings of the
DD2

404 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cuaP.u. Apostle, every one who pays attention to the

The testimo-
nies in the
Homili

reading of the Apostle’s works would also grant
me to be true.’ And after other remarks he adds:
‘If I were to express my own opinion, I should
say that the thoughts are the Apostle’s, but the
diction and composition that of some one who
recorded from memory the Apostle’s teaching,
and as it were illustrated with a brief commen-
tary the sayings of his master (αναμνημονεύσαντος
Kal ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντος). If then any
Church hold this Epistle to be Paul’s, we cannot
find fault with it for so doing (εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ
ἐπὶ τούτῳ); for it'was not without good reason
(οὐκ εἰκῆ) that the men of old time have handed it
down as Paul’s. But who it was who wrote the
Epistle, God only knows certainly. The account
(ἱστορία) which has reached us is [manifold,]
some saying that Clement, who became Bishop
of Rome, wrote it, while others assign it to Luke,
the author of the Gospel and the Acts.’

There are still two other passages in Ru-
finus’ version of the Homilies on Genesis and
Joshua, in which we find an incidental enumer-
ation of the different authors and books of the
New Testament. It is, however, impossible to
insist on these as of primary authority. Rufinus,
as is well known, was not content to render the

1 There can be no doubt that he was the author of it.
Cf. Huet, Origen. iii. 2.

cee

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 405

simple words of Origen, but sought in several cHapP. 1.
points to bring them into harmony with the
current belief; and the comparison of some frag-

ments of the Greek text of one of the Homilies

with his rendering of it shows clearly that he

has allowed himself in these the same licence

as in his other translations'. Still there is some-

thing of Origen’s manner throughout the pieces;

and in his popular writings he quotes parts of

the disputed books without hesitation.

The first passage is contained in a spiritual The pases
explanation? of the narrative concerning the Geeuw
wells which were opened by Isaac after the Phi- 18a
listines had stopped them, and the new wells
which he made. Moses, Origen tells us, was one
of the servants of Abraham who first opened the
fountain of the law. Such too were David and
the Prophets. But the Jews closed up those
sources of life, the Scriptures of the Old Tes-
tament, with earthly thoughts; and when the
antitype of Isaac had sought to lay him open,
the Philistines strove with him. ‘So then he
dug new wells; and so did his servants. Isaac’s
servants were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:

1 For instance, he adds such phrases as, “sanctus Apo-
stolus,” and translates ws οὐχ ἅγια τὰ Μωυσέως ovyypappara,
by “scripta Mosis nihil in se divine sapientise, nihilque operis
sancti Spiritus continere.” (Hom. in Gen. ii. § 2.)

2 Hom. in Gen. xiii. 2. A different explanation of the
wells is given Select. in Gen. viii. p. 77 (ed. Lomm.)

CHAP. I.

From a Ho-
mil on

406 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

his servants are Peter, James, and Jude: his
servant also is the Apostle Paul; who all dig
wells of the New Testament. But those who
mind earthly things strive ever for these also,
and suffer not the new to be formed, nor the
old to be cleansed. They gainsay the sources
opened in the Gospel: they oppose those opened
by the Apostles (Evangelicis puteis contradicunt:
Apostolicis adversantur).’

The last quotation which I shall make is
equally characteristic of Origen’s style. He has
been speaking of the walls of Jericho which fell
down before the blasts of the trumpets of the
priests. ‘So too,’ he says', ‘our Lord, whose
advent was typified by the son of Nun, when
he came, sent his Apostles as priests bearing
well-wrought (ductiles) trumpets. Matthew first
sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel.
Mark, also, Luke and John, each gave forth a
strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter, more-
over, sounds loudly on the twofold? trumpet of
his Epistles: and so also James and Jude. Still
the number is incomplete, and John gives forth
the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apoca-
lypse; and Luke while describing the acts of
the Apostles. Lastly, however, came he who

1 Hom. in Jos. vii. 1.
2 Duabus tubis. One MS. has a very remarkable reading,
ex tribus.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 407

said : “1 think that God hath shown us Apostles cHar. 1.

last of all,” and thundering on the fourteen
trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to
the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say,
all the instruments of idolatry, and the doctrines
of philosophers.’

Such appears to have been Origen’s popular lle
teaching on the Canon, in discourses which fa the Oreck

aimed at spiritual instruction rather than at cri-
tical accuracy ; and it remains to be seen how
far these general outlines are filled up in detail
by special testimonies. The first place is natu-
rally due to references contained in the Greek
text of his writings; and it is indeed on these
only that absolute reliance can be placed. It is
evident then from this kind of evidence, no less
than from all other, that, like Clement, he
received the Apocalypse as an undoubted work
of the Apostle St John’. Like Clement also
he quotes the Epistle of St Jude several times,
and expressly as the work of ‘the Lord’s bro-
ther ;’ but he implies in one place the existence
of doubts as to its authority*. In addition to
this he refers to the Epistle in circulation under

1 Comm. in Joan. T. i. 14: φησὶν οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει
ὁ τοῦ ZeBedaiov ᾿Ιωάννης.

2 Comm. in Matt. T.x. § 17 (Matt. xiii. 55, 56): καὶ Ἰούδας
ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν ὀλιγόστιχον μὲν πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῆς οὐ-

ρανίου χάριτος ἐρρωμένων Adyor...Id.:'T. xvii. 80 : εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν
᾿Ιούδα πρόσοιτό τις ἐπιστολήν...

CHAP. II.

In the Latin
Version.

408 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

the name of James!; but he nowhere, I believe,
either quotes or mentions the second Epistle of
St Peter?, or the two shorter Epistles of St
John. On the contrary, he quotes ‘the Epistle
of Peter, and ‘the Epistle of John‘,’ in such a
manner as to show, at least, that the other Epi-
stles were not familiarly known.

The Latin version of the Homilies supplies
in part what is wanting in the Greek Commen-
taries. It contains several distinct quotations
of the second Epistle of St Peter®, and of the

1 Comm. in Joan. xix. 6: os ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβου
ἐπιστολῇ ἀνέγνωμεν. Cf. Joan. xx. 10. He once quotes it
without further remark: ὡς mapa ᾿Ιακώβῳ, Select. tn Ps. xxx.
T. xii. p. 129. It may be concluded from one passage in his
Commentaries on St Matthew (c. xiii. 55, 56), in which he
notices that the St Jude there mentioned was the author of
the Epistle which bore his name, and St James the same to
whom St Paul refers, Gal. i. 19, that he was not inclined to
believe that the Epistle of St James was written by the Lord’s
brother.

2 It is impossible to insist on the doubtful reading. Comm.
in Matt. T. xv. 27: ἀπὸ τῆς [Πέτρου πρώτης] ἐπιστολῆς. The
text should be ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς" otherwise we should
expect προτέρας.

3 Select. in Ps. iii. (T. xi. 420): κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα ἐν τῇ
καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ mapa τῷ Πέτρῳ. Cf. Comm. in Joan. T. vi. § 18.

4 Comm. in Matt. T. xvii. 19: τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου καθολι»
κῆς ἐπιστολῆς. Id. T. xv. 31: ἡ Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολή. Yet cf.
p. 411, n. 3.

5 Hom. in Levit. iv. 4. Petrus dixit: ii. Pet. i. 4. Of.
Comm. in Rom. iv. 9. Hom. in Num. xiii. 8, ut ait quodam
in loco scriptura: ii. Pet. ii. 16, Cf. Hom. xviii. 5. f. Thus
also de Princ. ii. 5, 3, Petrus in prima epistola...

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 409

Epistle of St James, who is described in one ΟΒᾺΡ 11.
place as ‘ the brother of the Lord,’ but generally
only as ‘the Apostle';’ but even in this there is
no reference to the shorter Epistles of St John.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is quoted con-
tinually, both in the Greek and in the Latin
text, sometimes as the work of St Paul, some-
times as the work of the Apostle, and sometimes
without any further designation’.

On the whole, then, there can be little doubt Summary of
as to Origen’s judgment on the New Testament plot oa the
Canon. He was acquainted with all the books ment canon
which are received at present, and received as
apostolic the same as were recognized by Cle-
ment. The others he used, but with a certain
reserve and hesitation, arising from a want of
information as to their history, rather than from
any positive grounds of suspicion.

Clement, as we have seen, divided the Chris- asa whole.
tian books into two great divisions, ‘the Gospel,’

1 Comm. in Rom. iv. 8; James iv. 4.

2 The passage quoted by Eusebius from an Homily on
the Hebrews gives probably Origen’s mature judgment on the
authorship of the Epistle. In the earlier letter to Africanus
he says, after quoting Hebr. xi. 37: ἀλλ᾽ εἰκός τινα θλιβόμενον
ἀπὸ τῆς eis ταῦτα ἀποδείξεως συγχρήσασθαι τῷ βουλεύματι τῶν
ἀθετούντων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς οὐ Παύλῳ γεγραμμένην: πρὸς ὃν
ἄλλων λόγων κατ᾽ ἰδίαν χρήζομεν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ εἶναι Παύλον
τὴν ἐπιστολήν (T. xvii. p. 31). Though the date of this letter
is probably a.c. 240, the Homilies were not written till
after 245.

CHAP. ITI.

Dionysius.

A. Cc. 248.

410 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

and ‘the Apostle.’ Origen repeats the same clas-
sification'; but he also advanced a step further,
and found that these were united in one whole
as ‘Divine Scriptures of the New Testament’,
written by the same spirit as those before Christ’s
coming’, and giving a testimony by which every
word should be ‘established.

Among the most distinguished scholars of
Origen was Dionysius, who was promoted to the
presidency of the Catechetical School, about the
year 231 a.c., and afterwards was chosen Bishop
of Alexandria. During an active and troubled
episcopate he maintained an intimate communi-
cation with Rome, Asia Minor, and Palestine;
and in one place (referring to the schism of
Novatus) he expresses his joy at ‘the unity and
love everywhere prevalent in all the districts
of Syria, in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, and

1 Hom. in Jerem. xxi. f.

2 De Princip. iv. 1 (Philoc. c. 1): ...ἐκ τῶν πεπιστευμένων
ἡμῖν εἶναι θείων γραφῶν τῆς τε λεγομένης παλαιᾶς διαθήκης καὶ
τῆς καλουμένης καινῆς...

8 De Princip. iv. 16: οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ τῶν πρὸ τῆς παρου-
σίας ταῦτα τὸ πνεῦμα φκονόμησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἅτε τὸ αὐτὸ τυγχάνον καὶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς θεοῦ, τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων πεποίηκε καὶ
ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων.

4 Hom. in Jerem. i.

δ The well-known reference of Origen to the Shepherd
of Hermas (Comm. in Rom. c. xvi. 14. Cf. Comm. in Matt.
T. xiv. 21) evidently expresses a private opinion on the book,
and by no means places it on an equality with the Canonical
Scriptures. Cf. App. B.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 41]

Bithynia,’ and ‘in all the churches of the East}.’ c#ar. 1.
Important fragments of his letters still remain,
which contain numerous references to the New
Testament; and, among other quotations, he
makes use of the Epistle to the Hebrews as St Ep. to He
Paul’s*, and in his remarks on the Apocalypse
mentions ‘the second and third Epistles circu- é. iii. Joan.
lated as works of John,’ in such a way as to imply
that he was inclined to receive them as authentic’.
His criticism on the Apocalypse has been already Apocaigpse.
noticed. He had weighed the objections which
were brought against it, and found them insuf-
ficient to overthrow its canonicity‘, though he
believed that it was not the work of the Apo-
stle, and admitted that it was full of difficulties

1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 46; vii. 4.

2 Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 41: τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρ-
χόντων ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις ois καὶ Παῦλος ἐμαρτύρησε μετὰ χαρᾶς
προσεδέξαντο. Cf. Hebr. x. 34.

3 Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. vii. 25: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ
φερομένῃ ᾿Ιωάννου καὶ τρίτῃ, καίτοι βραχείαις οὔσαις ἐπιστολαῖς,
6 ᾿Ιωάννης ὀνομαστὶ πρόκειται ἀλλ᾽ ἀνωνύμως ὁ πρεσβύτερος
γέγραπται. Though the context implies that he held these
letters to be St John’s, yet he afterwards speaks of ‘his
Epistle,’ as if he had written but one (ἡ ἐπιστολή, ἡ καθολικὴ
ἐπιστολή). This may serve to explain the similar usage of
Origen. Cf. p.408. This mode of speaking is most remark-
ably illustrated in the records of the seventh Council of
Carthage (a. c. 256, Routh, Rell. iii. p. 130), where the second
Epistle of St John is thus quoted: Ioannes apostolus in
epistola sua posuit dicens (ii. John 10, 11). In the fifth Council
(Routh, p. 111) the first Epistle is quoted in the same words.

4 Cf. p. 307.

412 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cHaP.I. which he was unable to explain. ‘I will not
deny,’ he says, ‘that the author of the Apoca-
lypse was named John, for I fully allow (συναινῶ)
that it is the work of some holy and inspired man
(α γίου τινὸς καὶ θεοπνευστου); but I should not
easily concur in the belief that this John was the
Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James,
who wrote the Gospel and the Catholic Epistle.’
And he then adds the grounds of his opinion: ‘for
I conclude, from a comparison of the character of
the writings, and from the form of the language,
and the general construction of the book [of the
Revelation] that [the John there mentioned] is
not the same'.’ In this Dionysius makes no
reference to any historical evidence in support of
the opinion which he advocates, and consequently
his objections gain no weight from his position.
But the fact that he urged them is of great
interest, as showing the liberty which was still
allowed in dealing with the Canon. He set
forth the absolute authority of that which ‘ could
be proved by demonstration and teaching of the
Holy Scriptures’:’ he regarded it as a worthy
task, even in small matters, to ‘harmonize the
words of the Evangelists with judgment and good

1 Euseb. H. ΕἸ. ]. 6. : τεκμαίρομαι yap ἕκ τε τοῦ ἥθους éxa-
τέρων καὶ τοῦ τῶν λόγων εἴδους καὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου διεξαγω-
γῆς λεγομένης μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι.

2 Dion. ap. Euseb. vii. 24: ...rd ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι καὶ δι-
δασκαλίαις τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν συνιστανόμενα καταδεχόμενοι.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 413

faith': he allowed the Apocalypse itself to be CHaP. 11
the work of an inspired man; but nevertheless
he regarded the special authorship of the sacred
books as a proper subject for critical inquiry.
And this is entirely consistent with the belief
that the Canon was fixed practically by the
common use of Christians, and not definitely
marked out by any special investigation—that it
was formed by an instinct, and not by an argu-
ment. Dionysius exercised a free judgment on
Scripture, within certain limits, but these limits
themselves were already recognized.

It does not appear that the opinion of Dio- ἐλαία
nysius, on the authorship of the Apocalypse made ™
any permanent impression on the Alexandrine
Church; but, indeed, the few fragments of later
writers by which it is represented contain very
little that illustrates the history of the disputed
books. In the very meagre remains which
survive of the writings of Pierius, Theonas? (the 4.0. 265.

1 Dion. Ep. Canon. (Routh, iii. p. 225): καὶ μηδὲ δια-
φωνεῖν μηδὲ ἐναντιοῦσθαι τοὺς εὐαγγελίστας πρὸς ἀλλήλους
ὑπολάβωμεν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ μικρολογία τὶς εἶναι δόξει περὶ τὸ ζητού-
μενον... «ἡμεῖς εὐγνωμόνως τὰ λεχθέντα καὶ πίστως ἁρμόσαι προ-
θυμήθωμεν. He is referring to the accounts of the resurrection.

2 One passage of his famous letter to Lucianus deserves
to be quoted. As one step by which he was to bring his
master to the faith it is said: laudabitur et interim Evan-
gelium, Apostolusque pro divinis oraculis (Routh, iii. p. 443).
The common use of this collective term, as has been noticed
before, marks a period in the history of the Canon.

414 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cHaP.u. guecessor of Dionysius in the Episcopate), and
Phileas, I have noticed nothing which bears upon
Taxooroe it. Theognostus, who was at the head of the
Catechetical School towards the close of the
third century, makes use of the Epistle to the
prox Hebrews as authoritative Scripture'; and Peter
a.c.300. Martyr (the successor of Theonas) refers to it
expressly as the work of the Apostle’.

The testimony of the Alexandrine Church
meatotine to the New Testament Canon is thus generally
Church. uniform and clear. In addition to the acknow-

ledged books the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Apocalypse were received there as divine Scrip-
ture, even by those who doubted their immediate
apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistles of St
John were well known, and commonly received";

1 Routh, iii. 409: ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς γευσαμένοις τῆς οὐρανίου δω-
ρεᾶς καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν οὐδεμία περιλείπεται συγγνώμης ἀπολογία
καὶ παραίτησις (Hobr. vi. 4).

2 Routh, iv. 35: εἰ μή, ὡς λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπίλιποι δ᾽ ἂν
ἡμᾶς διηγομένους ὁ χρόνος (Hebr. xi. 32). The succession of
testimony does not end here. Alexander, who became
bishop about 313 a.c., and Athanasius, who succeeded him
(326 a. c.—373 a.c.), both quote the Epistle as St Paul's.
And Eutbalius (c. 460 4.c.) only mentions the doubts which
had been raisod on the question to refute them (Credner,
Einleit. ii. 498 f.)

3 Alexander, who has been mentioned above, in a
letter preserved by Socrates, quotes the second Epistle
as the work of ‘the Blessed John.’ Soer. H.E. i. 6, 30.
His testimony is valuable as indicating the tendency of
the Alexandrine Church, which is clearly seen in later
writers.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 415

but no one except Origen, as far as can be dis- cHar.u.
covered now, was acquainted with the Epistle of

St James and ii. Peter, and it is doubtful whether

he made use of them’.

In speaking of the Alexandrine Canon it is
impossible to omit all mention of the Egyptian
versions, which, even in their present corrupt τὴς 2p.
state, show singular marks of agreement with
the Alexandrine text. But the materials which
I possess at present are not sufficient to fur-
nish any satisfactory result, either as to their
exact age or as to their original form and
extent. Two versions into the dialects of Upper
and Lower Egypt—the Thebaic (Sahidic) and

1 In connexion with the Alexandrine Church it is con-
venient to notice Jutivs AFricanus, who wrote a famous
letter to Origen (cf. p. 409, π. 2) and studied at Alexandria,
and afterwards lived at Emmaus in Palestine (c. a. c. 220).
His method of reconciling the genealogies in St Matthew and
St Luke is well-known, and furnishes an important proof of
the attention bestowed in his time on the criticism of tho
Apostolic Books. He speaks generally of ‘all (the writings)
of the Old Testament’ (ὅσα τῆς madaias διαθήκης φέρεται,
Routh, ii. p. 226), thus implying (as Melito had done before
him) the existence of a written New Testament. It is un-
certain from the language of Origen whether he received
the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Axatotius, bishop of Laodicea, ς. a.c. 270, was likewise
an Alexandrian, but there is nothing in the fragments of
his Paschal Canons (Euseb. H. E. vii. 32) which bears on
the history of the disputed books; but he makes use of
2 Cor. iii. 12 8qq., giving to κατοκτρίζεσθαι (ver. 18) the sense
of ‘beholding,’ and not ‘reflecting.’

owaP. 11.

Memphitic.

416 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

Memphitic—date from the close of the third
century’. The few fragments of the Bashmuric
version which have been published seem to indi-
cate that it was not an independent work, but a
dialectic revision of the Thebaic*. Of this latter
version considerable portions have been pre-
served, and among them parts of all the dis-
puted books; but it is now impossible to decide
how far they are derived from one source. The
Memphitic version offers a far more hopeful
field for criticism. This has been published en-
tire from ancient MSS., and the store of these
has not yet been exhausted‘. It is then not

1 Hug has shown this fully and satisfactorily. Introd.
$91. Tho Thebaic Version is probably the older, and may
date even from the close of the second century. Davidson,
Introd. ii. 213.

2 Hug, Introd, ᾧ 96. Davidson, Introd. ii. 213.

3 Tho fragments were first collected in an Appendix to
the fac-simile of the Cod. Alex. by Woide and Ford; but
some additions have been since made, and they require a
careful revision.

4 The first edition was published by Wilkins, at Oxford,
in 1716, from MSS. at Oxford, Rome, and Paris, Schwartze
published the Gospels at Leipsic in 1846-47; and on his
death Bétticher continued his work, though in a different
form, and published in 1862 the Acts from four MSS. and
the Epistles from eight MSS., moro or less perfect; but bis
Prolegomena—barely a few lines—leave very much to be
desired. The order of the Epistles in ono Berlin MS. is
remarkable: Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews,
Timothy, Titus. The Apocalypse has not, I believe, yet been
published in this edition.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 417

unreasonable to expect that some scholar will crar.1.

point out in this translation, as has been done
in the Latin and Syriac, how far an older work
underlies the printed text, and whether that can
be attributed to one author. But till this has
been determined no stress can be laid upon the
evidence which the Version affords for the dis-
puted Catholic Epistles'. It is worthy of notice,
however, that the position in the MSS. occupied
by the Epistle to the Hebrews—before the Pas-
toral Epistles—is consistent with the judgment
of the Alexandrine Church, which received it as
the work of St Paul*.

ἢ 2. The Latin Churches of Africa.

At Alexandria, as has been said, the two The diver
streams of tradition from the East and from the #29 Sania he

West unite; but elsewhere they may be traced

1 Though the Ethiopic Version belongs to the next cen-
tury, I may notice that it contains the entire N. T. The
Acts however is contained only in one ΜΆ. in addition to the
two used in the printed Roman edition (1548-9), on which
no great reliance can be placed, as the Vulgate was used to
supply lacunz.

3. It may be observed here, that the Epistle to the Hebrews
is placed in the same position in the (Eastern) MSS. A, B,
C, H, and several others, and also by many of the Greek
Fathers. The [Western] MSS. Ὁ), E, F, G, on the contrary,
place the Pastoral Epistles after those to the Thessalonians.
There are also traces of another order: In B capitulorum
numeri tales appositi ut appareat eorum auctorem hane [ad
Hobr. ep.) post Ep. ad Gal. collocasse. Lachm. N. Τὶ ii. 587.

RE

CHAP. 1.

The opinion
of the Latin
Churches on

Taarei-
AN.

Crpmas,

418 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

each in its separate course. On the one side we
follow the Latin Churches of Africa: on the
other the Greek Churches of Asia. And both
again re-appear in close connexion at Rome—a
second centre of Christendom, but widely differ-
ent from the first.

In one respect the judgment of the Churches
of North Africa materially differed from that of

' Alexandria on the New Testament Canon. The

Alexandrine Fathers uniformly recognized the
Epistle to the Hebrews as possessed of Apostolic
authority, if not indeed as the work of St Paul.
The early Latin Fathers with equal unanimity
either exclude it from the Canon or ignore its
existence. The evidence of Tertullian on this
point is at once the earliest and the most com-
plete. Though the teaching of the Epistle offered
the most plausible support to the severe doc-
trines of Montanism, yet he nowhere quotes it
but in one place, and then assigns it positively
to Barnabas, the companion of St Paul, placing
its authority above that of the Shepherd of
Hermas, but evidently below that of the Apo-
stolic Epistles. In Cyprian, again, there is no

1 De Pudic. c. 20: Volo tamen ex redundsntia alicujus
etiam comitis Apostolorum testimonium superducere, ido-
neum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistroram.
Exstat etiam et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos: adeo satis

auctoritatis viro ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abe-
tinentise tenore, 1 Cor. ix. Et utique receptior apud ecclesias

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 419

reference to the Epistle; and on the contrary he cnar.u.

implicitly denies its Pauline origin. After enu-
merating many places in which the mystical
number seven recurs in Holy Scripture, he adds:
‘And the Apostle Paul, who was mindful of this
proper and definite number, writes to seven
Churches. And in the Apocalypse the Lord
writes his divine commands and heavenly pre-
cepts to seven Churches and their Angels'.’ It
will be remembered that the same reference to
the symbolism of the number of the Epistles
occurs in the Muratorian Canon’; and on the

very confines of the Latin Church, Victorinus, vicronuus.

bishop of Petavium (Pettau) in Pannonia, repro-
duces the same idea: ‘There are,’ he says,
‘...seven spirits...seven golden candlesticks...
seven Churches addressed by Paul, seven dea-
cons’,..” And even Jerome bears witness to the

epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho Pastore mechorum. Cf.
p. 285. The phrase de prozimo jure clearly implies that the
Apostles had the primum jus, to which an Apostolic man
approached nearest.

The allusions to the Epistle which have been found in
other parts of Tertullian’s writings are very uncertain.

‘De Exh. Mart. 11 med. Apostolus Paulus qui hujus
numeri legitimi et certi meminit ad septem ecclesias scribit.
Et in Apocalypsi Dominus mandata sua divina ot precepts
ceelestia ad septem ceclesias et eorum angelos scribit ΟΥ̓,
Testim. i. 20. Unde et Paulus septem ecclesiis scribit et
Apocalypsis ecclesias septem ponit ut servetur septenarius
numerus,

2 Cf. p. 241. 3 Vict. ap. Routh, Rell. iii. p. 459.

κεϑ

420 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cnar. 1. general prevalence of the belief, when he says:
‘The Apostle Paul writes to seven Churches, for
his eighth Epistle to the Hebrews is by most
excluded from the number'.’ Generally, indeed,
it may be stated that no Latin Father before
+98. Hilary quotes the Epistle as St Paul's; and his
judgment, and that of the writers who followed
him, was strongly influenced by the authority of
Origen’.
wa yet With regard to the disputed Catholic Epi-
feo'uiy, stles, the first Latin Fathers offer little evidence.
Jaan dee Tertullian once expressly quotes the Epistle of St
nan Jude as authoritative and Apostolic’. But there
is nothing in his writings to show that he was
acquainted with the Epistle of St James‘, the

1 Hieron. ad Paul. 50 (all. 103, iv. p. 574): Paulus apo-
stolus ad septem ecclesias scribit, octava enim ad Hebrmos
8 plerisque extra numerum ponitur.

2 The references in Lactantius are very uncertain,
though the coincidences of argument are remarkable. Ε. g.
Hebr. iii. 3—65 v. δ, 6; vii. 21, compared with Lact. Instit.
iv. 14 init. (quoted by Lardner).

3 De Hab. Muliebri 3: ... Enoch apud Judam Apostolum
testimonium possidet. This is the only reference which
occurs.

4 The references given by Semler, adv. Jud. 2 (James ii,
23); de Orat. 8 (James i. 13) are quite unsatisfactory. The
latter passage indeed seems to prove clearly that Tertullian
did not know the Epistle, for otherwise he must have quoted
it. The quotation de Ezhort, Cast. 7, non auditores legie
justificabuntur a deo sed factores, is from Rom. ii. 14, not
from James i. 22.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 421

second and third Epistles of St John’, or with the CRAP I
second Epistle of St Peter. In Cyprian there is, crraus.
I believe, no reference to any of the disputed
Epistles. Like several earlier writers, he quotes

the first Epistles of St Peter and St John, so as

to imply that he was not familiarly acquainted

with any other*; but a clause from the record of

the seventh Council of Carthage, at which he was
present, shows how little stress can be laid upon

such language alone. For after that one bishop

had referred to the first Epistle of St John as

‘St John’s Epistle,’ as though it were the only

one, Aurelius, Bishop of Chullabi, uses exactly suai.
the same words in quoting the second epistle*.

At the same time, however, the entire absence of

The well-known passage adv. Gnost. 12 does not in itself
necessarily show more than that Tertullian did not attribute
the Epistle to St James the elder; but the omission of all
reference to it there, when connected with the other facts, can
leave little doubt that he was unacquainted with it.

1 The reference in the treatise against Marcion, (iv. 16) is
certainly to i. John iv. 1, 2, and not to ii. John 7, though the
Latin has not preserved the difference between ἐληλυθότα
and ἐρχόμενον. Somo difficulty has been felt about the
phrase Johannes in primore Epistola (de Pudic. 19); but
Tertullian is there contrasting the teaching of i. John iii. 8, 9
with the passage at the beginning of his Epistle: i. John i. 8.
This sense of primoris is fully justified by Aul. Gell. i. 18, 2:
Varro in primore libro scripsit... Cf. nott. in J.

2 De Exh. Mart. c. 9: Potrus in epistola sua... ὁ. 10:
Johannes in epistola sua...

3 Cf. p. 411, 0.2.

cHaP. IL.

duct. adv.
‘Nowat.heret

iti, The Apor
calypee.
Tartu

Las.

Cvrntax,

Commoprax.

422 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

quotations from these Epistles in the writings of
Cyprian, and (with the exception of the short
Epistle to Philemon) from these Epistles only of
all the books of the New Testament, leads to the
conclusion that he was either ignorant of their
existence, or doubtful as to their authority. One
other passage alone remains to be noticed. The
judgment of Tertullian on the Epistle of St Jude
is confirmed by a passage in one of the contem-
porary treatises commonly appended to the
works of Cyprian, in which it is quoted as Scrip-
ture!; and this reference completes, I believe,
the sum of what can be gathered from early
Latin writers on this class of the disputed books.

But if the evidence for these Epistles be
meagre, that for the Apocalypse is most complete.
Tertullian quotes it continually as the work of
the Evangelist St John, and nowhere implies any
doubt of its authenticity, Cyprian again makes
constant use of it as Holy Scripture, though he
does not expressly assign it to the authorship of
the Evangelist St John’. Commodian‘ and

1 Ad Novat. Heret. p. xvii. (ed. Baluz.) (quoted by Lard-
ner): sicut scriptum est: Jude, 14, 15,

3 Adv. Mare. iii. 14: Apostolus Johannes in Apoca-
Pe De Opere et Elem. 14: Audi in Apocalypsi: Domini
tui vocem... So ad Novat. Her. p. ix.

4 Commod. Instr. i. 41. He interprets Antichrist of

Nero, who should rise again. The conjecture ii. 1, 17, operta
Johannis, is very uncertain.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 423

Lactantius' make several allusions to it; and, cHar.1.
with the exception of the Gospel of St John, it tactasucs
is the only book of the New Testament which

the latter writer quotes by name. From every
quarter the testimony of the early Latin Fathers

to the Apostolic authority of the Apocalypse is

thus decided and unanimous.

It appears then, that the Canon of the Latin ™ecss0,
Churches, up to the beginning of the fourth {urns
century, differed from our own by defect and not
by addition. The Latin Fathers were in danger
of bounding the limits of the Canon too straitly,
as the Alexandrine Fathers were inclined to ex-
tend them too widely. But the same causes which
kept them from acknowledging all the books
which we receive, preserved them also from the
risk of confounding Apocryphal with Canonical
writings. Notwithstanding the extent of Tertul- tree trom
lian’s works he refers only to two Apocryphal aide,
books; and one of these—the Shepherd of
Hermas—he rejects with contempt’: the other—
the Acts of Paul and Thecla—he declares to bea
detected forgery’. In Cyprian, though he freely

1 Lact. Ep. 42 f.:...sicut docet Johannes in Revela-
tione.

3 Tert. de Orat.12. Cf. de Pudic. 10: Sed cederem
tibi si scriptura Pastoris que sola machos amat divino
instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio eccle-
siarum etiam vestrarum inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur,
adultera et ipsa et inde patrona sociorum.

3 De Bapt. 17:...sciant in Asia presbyterum qui eam scrip-

424 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cuar.u. uses the Apocryphal books of the Old Testa-
“ ment, there is no trace of any Christian Apocry-
* phal book; and in the tracts appended to his
works there is a single condemnatory reference

to the ‘ Preaching of Paul’.’ Lactantius also once

alludes to the same book, but without attributing

to it any remarkable authority*; and elsewhere

he quotes the words of the Heavenly Voice at

our Lord’s Baptism, according to the reading of
zine! Justin Martyr*. But here the list ends; and on
whole the other hand, numerous passages in Tertullian,
Cyprian, and Victorinus show that they regarded

the books of the New Testament not only as a
collection but as a whole, not thrown together by

eaprice or accident, but united by Divine Provi-

dence, and equal in authority with the Jewish
Scriptures. The language of Tertullian has been

quoted already; and both Cyprian and Victo-

rinus found a certain fitness in a fourfold Go-

turam [Acta Pauli et Thecle] construxit, quasi titulo Pauli
de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore
Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.

1 De Bapt. 14: Est autem adulterini hujus, immo inter-
necini bay quis alius auctor tum etiam quidam ab
eisdem ipsis hsereticis propter hunc eundem errorem confictus
liber qui inscribitur Pauli preedicatio. On the name see
Routh, Rell. v. 325.

3 Lact. Inst. iv. 21: ... sed et futura aperuit illis omnia
que Petrus et Paulus Rome predicaverunt, et ea preedicatio
in memoriam scripta permansit ...

3 Instit. iv. 15: Tune vox de colo audita est: Filius
meus es tu; ego hodie genui to. Cf. p. 189.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 425

spel, as well as in the seven Churches addressed cHar.n.
by St Paul, so that the very proportions of the
Canon seemed to them to be fixed by a definite
law’. Nor was this strange; for the Old and
New Scriptures were in their judgment ‘fountains
of Divine fulness,’ written by ‘Prophets and
Apostles full of the Holy Spirit,’ before which
‘all the tediousness and ambiguities of human
discourse must be laid aside*.’

§3. The Church of Rome.

In passing from Africa to Rome we come to nome thean-
the second meeting point of the East and West; Alessnére
for it could not but happen that Rome soon be- 7
came a great centre of the Christian world. A
Latin Church grew up round the Greek Church,
and the peculiarities of both were harmonized by
that power of organization which ruled the
Roman life. But the combination of the same
elements at Alexandria and Rome was effected
in different modes, and produced different re-
sults, The teaching of the East and West was
united at Alexandria by the conscious operation

1 Cf. pp. 386,419. Cypr. Ep. uxxiii. 10: Ecclesia para-
disi instar rhores rigat quatuor fluminibus, id est evan-
geliis... Vict. (Routh, iii, 456): ...quatuor animalia anto
thronum Dei, quatuor animalia... It is, I think, unnecessary

to make any apology for the use of Cyprian’s letters.
2 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. i.; de Exhort, Mart. i. 4,

CHAP. τι.

1. The Latin
writers.

Apouie-
mies.

Victor,

Mixuctos
Faux.

Connauivs.
+ 252,

Novarvs.

426 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

of a spirit of eclecticism: at Rome by the silent
pressure of events. The one combination was
literary: the other practical. The one resulted
in a theological code: the other in an ecclesias-
tical system. And though it would be out of
place to dwell longer on these fundamental dif-
ferences of Alexandria and Rome—the poles of
Christendom in the third century—it is of im-
portance to bear them in mind, even in an
investigation into the history of the New Testa-
ment.

The earliest memorials of the Latin Church
of Rome are extreincly small, and contain very
little which bears on the history of the New
Testament Canon. Nothing survives of the
writings of Apollonius and Victor, the first Latin
authors whose names have been preserved. The
Octavius of Minucius Felix, like former Apo-
logies, contains no quotations from the Christian
Scriptures; and the subject of the two letters of
Cornelius, included in the works of Cyprian, is
scarcely more productive!. The treatises of No-
vatus, the unsuccessful rival of Cornelius, are
alone of such character and extent as to call for
the frequent use of the Apostolic writings; and
they do, in fact, contain numerous quotations
from most of the acknowledged books, But

* One quotation occurs from St Matthew (τ. 8); Ep. ii
(Routh, iii. 18.)

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 427

Novatus nowhere quotes any other Christian cuar. 1.

Scriptures; and the passing coincidences of
thought and language with the Epistle to
the Hebrews which occur in his essay On the
Trinity are very uncertain’; those with the
Epistle of St James and ii. Peter barely worthy
of notice*. It is also of importance to remark,
that, while in the later stages of the Novatian
controversy, when the Epistle to the Hebrews
was generally acknowledged, it is said that the
reading of that Epistle was omitted in some
Churches from the danger of misunderstanding
its teaching on repentance, no distinct reference
to it is made by Novatus or by his immediate op-
ponents, which could scarcely have been avoided
if it had been held to be authoritative in their

time.

The preponderance of the Greek element in {he Greek

the Roman Church, even during the third cen-
tury, at least in a literary aspect, is clearly
shown by the writings of Caius, Hippolytus, and

1 Do Trin. 26: Cum sedere [Christum] ad dexteram
Patris et a prophetis et ab apostolis approbatur (Hebr. i. 3;
but ef. Eph. i. 203i. Pet. 1ii. 22); id. 31: ... ut quamvis probet
illum nativitas Filium, tamen morigera obedientia asserat
illum Paterne voluntatis ex quo est ministrum (Hebr. v. 8);
td. 5. f. (Hebr. v.7); id. 16: sed vee est adjicientibus quomodo
et detrahentibus positum (Apoe. xxii. 18, 19).

3 De Trin. 8 (ii. Pet. ii. 5); id. 4 (James i. 17). The
latter passage indeed seems to me to show clearly that No-
vatus was not acquainted with the Epistle of St James.

CHAP. IL.

DK 1a.
250-269
4.0.

ΟΝ
¢. 213..c,

428 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

Dionysius. Of the first and last only fragments
remain; and nothing more can be gathered from
the slight remains of Dionysius than that he
recognized a New as well as an Old Testament
as a final source of truth’. Of Caius, it is re-
ported by Eusebius, that, when arguing against
the ‘new scriptures’ of the Montanists, he enu-
merated only thirteen Epistles of St Paul, omit-
ting that to the Hebrews*. Whether he received
all the remaining books of the New Testament is
left in uncertainty; and in the case of the
Apocalypse this is the more to be regretted,
because in one obscure fragment he has been
supposed to attribute its ailthorship to Cerin-
thus*. In close connexion with Caius must be
noticed a group of writings which were once
attributed to him, but are now, by almost uni-
versal consent, assigned to his contemporary
Hippolytus. Of these the most important is the
‘Treatise against all Heresies,’ to which frequent
reference has been made already in examining
the opinions of early heretics on the New Testa-
ment Canon. But apart from the testimony
which it thus conveys, I have noticed nothing in
it which bears upon the history of the disputed

1 Dion, Rom. fr. (Routh, iii. 374): Τριάδα μὲν κηρυττο-
μένην ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς σαφῶς ἐπίστανται, τρεῖς δὲ Θεοὺς οὔτε
παλαίαν οὔτε καινὴν διαθήκην κηρύττουσαν.

2 Euseb. H. Ε. vi. 20.
3 Ap. Euseb. H. E. iii, 28. Cf. p. 307, n. 2.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 429

books. Of the ‘Little Labyrinth’ and the cHaP.1.
‘Treatise on the Universe,’ only fragments re- Τὰ κα,

main. In one passage of the former work a
charge is brought against certain heretics of
‘fearlessly tampering with the Divine Scriptures,
while they said that they had corrected them;
so that if any one were to take the MSS. of
their several teachers and compare them together,
he would find them widely different....And how
daring this offence is even they must know; for
either they do not believe that the Divine Scrip-
tures were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and are
faithless, or they hold that they are themselves
wiser than the Holy Spirit. And what is this but
the conduct of madmen? for they cannot deny
that the daring act is their own, since the cor-
rections are written by their hand; and they did
not receive the Scriptures in such a form from
those by whom they were instructed; and they
have it not in their power to show the MSS. from
which they transcribed their readings'.’ This
refers chiefly, of course, to the text of Scripture,
and probably of the Old Testament, but it is no
less an evidence of the vigilance with which the
sacred writings were guarded, and of the divine
authority which was attributed to their words.
And elsewhere, in noticing the statement that a
revolution in Christian doctrine had happened
1 Euseb. H. E. v. 28. Routh, ii. 132 sq.

CHAP. τι.

‘The treatise
On the Uni-
were.

Hurrouy-
8.
ς. 220 a.c.

430 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

after the times of Victor, the same author re-
plies, that the assertion ‘would perhaps have been
plausible ifin the first place the Divine Scriptures
had not opposed it, and next also the writings
of the brethren before the time of Victor'....”
An appeal is thus made both to Scripture and
to tradition, and the line between them is drawn
distinctly. The peroration of the ‘Address to
the Greeks, on the Universe,’ has been well
likened to the conclusion of a Christian ‘Gorgias,’
painting in vivid and brilliant colours the scenes
of Hades and the Last Judgment. Many pas-
sages from the New Testament are inwrought
into the composition, but so as to lose much of
their original character; and it is consequently
impossible to point with confidence to the coin-
cidences of thought which it offers with the
Epistle of St Jude (or ii. Peter) and the Apoca-
lypse*. The undoubted writings of Hippolytus
contain quotations from all the acknowledged

1 Kuseb. 1. c.3 Routh, ii. p. 129.

3 Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 393 sqq. The passages
which seem most remarkable are the following:...¢» τούτῳ
τῷ χωρίῳ... ἀνάγκη σκότος διηνεκῶς τυγχάνειν: τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον
ὡς φρούριον ἀπενεμήθη ψυχαῖς, ἐφ' ᾧ κατεστάθησαν ἄγγελοι
φρουροί... (Jude 6; ii. Pet. ii. 4) ἐν τούτῳ δὲ τῷ χωρίῳ. «λίμνη
πυρὸς doBeoros...(Apol. xx. 10 844.) It may be observed
that in a passage shortly after this where the common text is
ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗ τὸν τῶν πατέρων χορόν...ὁρῶσι... we must read καὶ
οὗτοι τὸν τῶν π. x. Bunsen’s emendation οὐ τὸν τ. π. χ. does
not suit the description.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 431

books, except the Epistle to Philemon and the
firat Epistle to St John. Of the disputed books
he uses the Apocalypse as an unquestionable
work of the Apostle St John, and is said to have
written a commentary upon ἰδ). On the other
hand he is reported not to have included the
Epistle to the Hebrews among the Epistles of St
Paul*. But beyond this there is nothing to show
his opinion upon the contents of the Canon’.

From this then it appears that though there
is not sufficient evidence to establish a complete
view of the Roman Canon in the third century,
some points can be ascertained with satisfactory
certainty. By the Roman, as well as by the
Alexandrine and African Churches, the Apoca-
lypse was added to the acknowledged books;
but, like the African Church, it did not receive
the Epistle to the Hebrews among the writings
of St Paul. Apart, however, from the evi-
dence for particular books, it is evident that
as a whole the Apostolic writings occupied at
Rome, no less than elsewhere, a definite and
distinguished place as an ultimate standard of
doctrine.

1 Do Antichr. 36. Cf. 29.

2 Phot. Cod. 121 (Bunsen, Anal. i. 411).

3 Tho supposed reference toi. Pet. i. 21 in do Antichr. 2,
is wholly uncertain.

OHAP. 11.

Summary of
{he optaton
ofthe Roman
Chureh.

cmap. 11.

Seanty lite.
ature of the

ah

482 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

§4. The Churches of Asia Minor.

Tue great work of Irenseus written in the
wilds of Gaul and preserved for the most part
only in a Latin translation, is the sole consider-
able monument of the literature of the Churches
of Asia Minor, from the time of Polycarp to that
of Gregory of Neocesarea or even of Basil.
Still there is abundant proof of their zeal and
activity. At Ephesus and Smyrna, in Pontus
and Cappadocia, there were those who traced
back a direct connexion with the Apostles, and
witnessed to the continuity of the Faith.

During the Paschal controversy in the time
of Victor, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, ad-

. dressed a letter in the name of a ‘vast multitude’

of Asiatic bishops to the Roman Church, justi-
fying their peculiar usage by the example of
their predecessors'. ‘For these all,’ he says,
‘observed the fourteenth day of the moon
according to the Gospel, transgressing it in no
respect, but following it according to the rule

1 Euseb. H. E. τ. 24. The letter of Polycrates was
written in his 63th year, and Victor died 197 a.c.; Polycrates
then may have conversed with Polycarp and Justin Martyr.
He appears to have been of a Christian family (ἑξήκοντα wérre
ἔτη ἔχων ἐν Κυρίφ); and probably the episcopate had been
hereditary in it (ὅπτα μὲν ἦσαν συγγενεῖς μον ἐπίσκοποι ἐγὼ
δὲ ὄγδοοελ, At lenst every detail points to the unbrokea
unity of the Church.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 433

of faith’ Yet even this tradition was not
enougl: he had also ‘conversed with brethren
from the whole world, and gone through all
Holy Scripture’,” and so at length he was not
afraid to meet his opponents. Such was the
relation of Scripture and tradition in the resting-
place of St John within a century after his
death: such the intimate union of Churches
which were last blessed by the presence of an
Apostle. Apollonius, who is stated on doubtful
authority to have been also bishop of Ephesus’,
recognizes a similar combination of arguments
when he accuses Themison, a follower of Mon-
tanus, of ‘speaking against the Lord, the
Apostles, and the Holy Church,’ while in the
endeavour to recommend his doctrine, ‘he
ventured in imitation of the Apostle to com-
pose a Catholic Epistle‘ In addition to these
natural indications of the peculiar position

1 Euseb. 1.6. : οὗτοι πάντες ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσ-
σαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ πάσχα κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, μηδὲν παρεκ-
βαίνοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ἀκολουθοῦντες.

2 Euseb. 1. c.: οοἰσυμβεβληκὼς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀδελ--
φοῖς καὶ πᾶσαν ἁγίαν γραφὴν διεληλυθώς... These last words,
I believe, refer to the New Testament. Yet cf. Anatol. ap.
Euseb. H. E. vii. 32.

3 Routh, i. p. 465.

4 Apoll. ap. Eusob. H. E. v.18: Θεμίσων «ἐτόλμησε μεμού-
μένος τὸν ἀπόστολον καθολικήν τινα συνταξάμενος ἐπιστολήν...
βλασφημῆσαι εἰς τὸν Κύριον καὶ τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν
ἐκκλησίαν.

ΕΣ

CHAP. II.

Aroutomus.
e210 a.c.

CHAP. IL

fi, The
Chureh of
Iaanxvs,
€.135—200.

434 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

occupied by the Christian Scriptures generally,
Eusebius mentions that Apollonius ‘made use
of testimonies from the Apocalypse;’ and this
indeed would necessarily be the case in a con-
troversy with Montanist teachers, who affirmed
that the site of ‘the heavenly Jerusalem’ was no
other than the little Phrygian town which was
the centre of their sect.

It is uncertain at what time and under what
circumstances Ireneus left Smyrna on his mission
to Gaul. He was ‘still a boy, ‘at the com-
mencement of life,’ when he listened to Polycarp
‘in lower Asia;’ but yet he was not too young
to treasure up the words of his teacher, so
that they became the comfort of his old age’.

1 Euseb. l.c.: κέχρηται δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννονυ
Ἀποκαλύψεως. The description which Apollonius gives of
Montanus—otrés ἐστιν... ὁ Πέπουζαν καὶ Τύμιον Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὀνο-
μάσας (πόλεις δέ εἰσιν αὗται μικραὶ τῆς Φρυγίαε) τοὺς παντα-
χόθεν ἐκεῖ συναγαγεῖν ἐθέλων--- τῆλ Ὺ remind us of a ‘ prophet’
of our own times. Of. Epiph. Heer. xlix. 1: Χριστός,. «ἀπεκά-
λυψέ μοι (a Montanist prophotess) τουτονὶ τὸν τόπον εἶσαι
ἅγιον καὶ ὧδε τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατιέναι.

On the tradition which Apollonius mentions that the
Apostles were commanded by our Lord to remain twelve years
at Jerusalem, compare Clem, Al. Str. vi. δ, § 43; Lumper,
vii. 5 8qq.

2 Euseb. H.E. v.20. Cf. Iren. adv. Heer. iii. 3, 4 (Euseb.
Η. Ε. iv. 14), The date of Ireneus is much disputed, de-
pending on that of Polycarp. I have given that which
appears to be the most probable. Eleutherus was still bishop
of Rome when he wrote his great Treatise (adv. Her. iii,
3, 3.)

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 435

While a presbyter at Lyons, he was commended cuap.u.
by the Church there to Eleutherus bishop of c.1774.c.

Rome as ‘zealous for the covenant of Christ;’
and at a later time he continued to take a
watchful regard of ‘the sound ordinances of the
Church’ throughout Christendom. Eusebius! has
collected some of his testimonies to the Books
of the New Testament, but they extend only to
the four Gospels, the Apocalypse, i. John and

i. Peter; for he takes no notice of his constant “°°”

use of the Acts and of twelve Epistles of St Paul.
It is, however, of more importance that he has
neglected to observe the quotations which Ire-

neus makes from ii. John, once citing a verse i. Jon.

from it as though it were contained in the first
Epistle?. But in addition to the Apocalypse,
which Irenseus uses continually as an unques-

Ὁ. adv. Herr. i. 18, 3: Ἰωάννης δὲ ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθη-
ii. John, 11. In the same connexion it would have been

natural to quote ii. Peter and Jude.

1. ο. iii. 16, 8, Johannes in preedicta epistola...(ii. John, 7,
8), after quoting i. John ii. 18 sqq. Is it possible that the
second Epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first?
and may wo thus explain the references to two Epistles of
St John? The first Epistle, as is well known, was called ad
Parthos by Augustine, and some other Latin authorities; and
the same title, πρὸς Πάρθους, is given to the second epistle in
one Greek MS. (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Cle-
ment’s Outlines (iv. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola
ques ad virgines (παρθένους) scripta simplicissima est.
¥FF2

CHAP. 11.

486 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

tioned work of St John, this is the only dis-
puted book which he certainly acknowledged as
having Apostolic authority; and there are no
anonymous references to the Epistle of St James,
iii. John, ii, Peter or St Jude, on which any
reliance can be placed. Some coincidences of

παν te oe language with the Epistle to the Hebrews are

more striking; and in a later chapter, Eusebius
states that in a book now lost, Irenseus quoted
‘the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of
Solomon’” Agreeably with this, the Epistle to
the Hebrews appears to be quoted in the second
Pfaffian fragment as the work of St Paul; but
on the other hand Photius classes Ireneus with
Hippolytus as denying the Pauline authorship
of the Epistle. And this last statement offers
the most probable conclusion: Irenseus was,
I believe, acquainted with the Epistle, but he
did not attribute it to St Paul‘,

1 Tren. iv. 20,11: Joannes dominidiecipulus in Apocal psi...
Yet Ido not remember that he ever calls him an Apostle.

2 Euseb. H. E. v. 26. Iren. adv. Her. ii. 30,9: Solus
hic Deus invenitur qui omnia fecit...verbo virtutis sue (Hebr.
i. 3): iv, 11,43 of. Hebr. x. 1, &c.: v. 5,15 ef. Hebr. xi. δ.

3 Tren. fr. xxxvili. (p. 854): ὁ Παῦλος παρακαλεῖ ἡμᾶς
(Rom. xii. 1)...eal πάλιν (Hebr. xiii, 15),

4 Eusebius (H. E. v. 8) noticed that Irenseus quoted the
Shepherd of Hermas (adv. Her. iv. 20, 2) by the name of
‘Scripture.’ But several instances have been lately quoted
which prove the lax use of the word; and, as in the case of
Origen, a difference of private opinion makes the general
agreement of the Churches more conspicuous.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 437

One of the most distinguished converts of cHar.u.
Origen was Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus it Pontw.
(the Wonder-worker), bishop of Neo-Cssarea casoar ot

(Niksar) in Pontus. His chief remaining work
is an eloquent address delivered before his
master when he was about to leave him. From
its character it contains very little which bears
upon the Canon, and nothing in regard to the
disputed books. But in a fragment quoted from
Gregory in a Catena, occurs a marked coin-
cidence with the language of St James; and
Origen, in a letter which he addressed to
him, uses among other texts, one from the

Epistle to the Hebrews. From this as well ‘pial tothe

as from the mode in which Gregory treats the
writings of the New Testament generally, it
may be reasonably concluded that he accepted
the same books as Origen, to whom, indeed, he

owed his knowledge of the Scriptures. But in Foren con-
sending forth such a scholar to the confines of tas"

Asia Minor, Origin only repaid a benefit which

he had received. When he had been forced to 231 .c.

leave Egypt he found protection and honour at
the hands of Alexander, originally a Cappa-
docian bishop, who was advanced to the chair

1 Cat. Vat ap. Ghisler. Comm. in Ierem. i. p. 831: δῆλον
γὰρ ὡς πᾶν ἀγαθὸν τέλειον θεόθεν ἔρχεται. James i, 17.

2 Ep. ad Greg. 3: ἵνα λέγῃε οὐ μόνον τό: μέτοχοι τοῦ
Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν: ἀλλὰ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Θεοῦ (Hebr. iii. 14.)

CHAP.II.

Finmiuias.

438 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

of Jerusalem on the death of Narcissus, whom
he had previously assisted in his episcopal work.
Nor can these facts be without value in our
inquiry. It is surely no slight thing that
casual notices show that Christians the most
widely separated were really joined together by
close intercourse: that the Churches of remote
provinces, whose existence and prosperity was
first disclosed by the zeal of a Roman governor,
are found about a century after in intimate con-
nexion with Syria, Egypt and Greece. And
the evidence is yet incomplete; for among others
who visited Origen during his sojourn in Syria,
was Firmilian, bishop of Casarea in Cappadocia,
the correspondent and advocate of Cyprian’;
and thus for the moment an obscure corner
of Asia becomes a meeting-point of Christians
from every quarter, not only ‘as if they lived in
one country, but as dwelling in one house®,’
The single letter of Firmilian, which is preserved
in a Latin translation among the letters of
Cyprian, contains numerous allusions to the
acknowledged books, and in one place he ap-
pears to refer to the second Epistle of St Peter.
‘The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,’ he says,

1 Cf. Euseb. H.E. iv. 23: ἄλλη δ᾽ ἐπιστολὴ [Διονυσίου] ᾿
πρὸς Νικομηδίας φέρεται...

2 Eused Η. ΒΕ. vi. 27.

8 Firm. Ep. 75 (Cypr.) § 1.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 499

‘have anathematized heretics in their Epistles,
and warned us to avoid them!.”

But the influence of Origen was not domi-
nant in all parts of Asia Minor. Methodius, a
bishop of Lycia’, and afterwards of Tyre, dis-
tinguished himself for animosity to his teaching,
which Eusebius so far resented, if we may be-
lieve the common explanation of his silence, as
to omit all mention of him in his history, though
his works were ‘popularly read’ in Jerome’s
time*. There is nothing however, to indicate
that the differences which separated Methodius
from Origen extended either to the Interpre-
tation or to the Canon of Scripture; and thus
they give fresh value to his evidence by con-
firming its independence. Like earlier Fathers,
Methodius found a mystical significance in the

1 Firm, Ep. § 6: adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Pau-
lum beatos Apostolos...qui in epistolis auis heereticos exeecrati
sunt et ut eos evitemus monuerunt. In the same chapter
Finmilian notices (as unimportant) ritual differences between
the Roman and Eastern churches: circa celebrandos dies
Paschw et circa multa alia diving rei sacramenta...cecundum
quod in cseteris quoque plurimis provinciis multa pro loco-
rum et nominum (?) diversitate variantur...

2 Socr. H. E. vi 13: .. Μεθόδιος τῆς ἐν Λυκίᾳ πόλεως Neyo
μένης ᾽Ολύμπου ἐπίσκοπος. Socrates (I. 6.) alone mentions that
Methodius recanted his censures on Origin; yet probably his
words mean no more than that hé expressed admiration for
Origen’s character, and not for his doctrine.

8 Hieron. de Virr. Ill. 83.

onaP. I.
Hh Peter tt.

Maexopivs.
te.311 a,c.

CHAP. 11.

440 ‘TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE
number of the Gospels!; and his writings

~~ abound with quotations from the acknowledged

the Hebrews.

Frag. adv.
‘Cataphrygas.

books. He also received the Apocalypse as a
work of ‘the blessed John’ and as possessing
undoubted authority’. Besides this, numerous
coincidences of language show that he was ac-
quainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and
though he does not directly attribute it to St
Paul, he uses it with the same familiarity and
respect as he exhibits towards the Pauline
Epistles*.

The heresy of Montanus, as has been seen

‘already, occupied much of the attention of

Asiatic writers at the beginning of the third
century. The steady opposition which they
offered to the pretensions of the new prophets
is in itself a proof of the limits which they fixed

1 Sympos. de Cast. p. 391 p.

2 De Resurr. p. 326 B: ἐπίστησον δὲ μήποτε καὶ ὁ μακάριος
‘leds... Apoc. xx. 13. id. p. 828 Ὁ: πῶς δὴ ἔτι ὁ Χριστὸς
πρωτότοκος εἶναι τῶν νεκρῶν ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπο:
στόλων ᾷδεται; (Apoc. i. 5; Col. i. 18). Methodius is also
mentioned by Andreas of Cesarea with Papias, Irenseus and
Hippolytus as a witness to the ‘divine inspiration’ of the
Apocalypse (Routh, i. 15). He interpreted much of it alle-
gorically—els τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τὰς παρθενούσας (Sympos.
Pp. 388 a).

3 De Resurr. p. 286 ». Hebr. xii. δ, &¢. In the spurious
tract on ‘Symeon and Anna’ it is quoted as ‘the most divine
Paul’s’ (p. 427 p). Mothodius must be added to the many
before him who quote Ps. ii. 7, as uttered at our Lord’s
Baptism (Sympos. p. 387 Ὁ). Cf. pp. 424, 189.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 441

to the presence of inspired teaching in the σβαρ. π.
Church, and of their belief in the completeness ᾿
of the revelation made through the Apostles.

In an anonymous fragment which Eusebius has
preserved from one of the many treatises on the
subject this opinion finds a remarkable expres-

sion. For a long time, the writer says, I was
disinclined to undertake the refutation of the
opinions of multitudes ‘... through fear and
careful regard lest I should seem in any way

to some to add any new article or clause to the

word of the new covenant of the Gospel, which

no one may add to or take from who has deter-

mined to live according to the simple Gospel?.’ poe xx
The coincidence of these words with the con-
clusion of the Apocalypse cannot but be ap-
parent; and they seem to recognize a complete
written standard of Christian truth.

So far then there is no trace in the Asiatic 1 canon
Churches of the use of the Epistle of St Jude; Spee,
and the use of the Epistle of St James and of
the second Epistle of St Peter is at least very
uncertain. Methodius alone undoubtedly employs
the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but

1 Anat. adv. Cataph. ap. Euseb. v. 16 (Routh, ii. p. 183
844.): δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούμενος μή πῃ δόξω τισὶν ἐπισυγγρά-
uy ἣ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι (cf. Gal. iii. 16): τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ, ᾧ μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτ᾽ ἀφελεῖν δυνατὸν
τῷ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτὸ πολιτεύεσθαι προῃρημένῳ.

442 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

caar.. on the other hand the Apocalypse was recog-

Sree from

nized from the first as a work of the Apostle in
the districts most immediately interested in its
contents. The same may be said of the second
Epistle of St John, and the slight value of
merely negative evidence is shown by the fact
that no quotation from his third Epistle has yet
been noticed, though its authenticity is necessarily
connected with that of the second. But if the
evidence for the New Testament Canon in the
Churches of Asia Minor be incomplete, it is pure
and unmixed. The reference of Irenseus to the
Shepherd of Hermas is the only passage with
which I am acquainted which even appears to
give authority to an uncanonical book. Holy
Scripture as a whole was recognized as a sure
rule of doctrine. We acknowledge, said the
Presbytery to Noetus, ‘one Christ the Son of
God, who suffered as He suffered, who died as
He died, who rose again, who ascended into
heaven, who is on the right hand of the Father,
who is coming to judge quick and dead. This
we say, having learnt it from the Divine Scrip-
tures, and this also we know!,’

1 Epiph. Her. Ivii. 1; Routh, iv. p.243. MrurrapEs again,
with whoso country I am unacquainted, is said to have shown
‘great zeal about the Divino Oracles’ (Euseb. H. E. v. 17).
Anatolius of Laodicca has been mentioned already, p. 415.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 448

CHAP. IL.

§5. The Churches of Syria.

Nornmme more than the names of the succes- i Techuren
sors of Ignatius in the see of Antioch has been
preserved till the time of Theophilus, the sixth ‘Tosermuce,
in descent from the Apostles. Of the works 4c.
which he wrote, three books to Autolycus—
‘Elementary Evidences of Christianity'’—have
been preserved entire; but the commentaries
which bear his name are universally rejected as
spurious. Eusebius has noticed that Theophilus
quoted the Apocalypse in a treatise against spocaiype.
Hermogenes*; and one passage in his extant
writings has been supposed to refer to it’, The
reference, however, is very uncertain; nor can
much greater stress be laid on a passing coin-
cidence with the language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews‘. The use which Theophilus makes of
a metaphor which occurs in ii. Peter is much 4. Pee.
more worthy of notice’; and it is remarkable
that he distinctly quotes the Gospel of St John

1 Buseb. H. E. iv. 25: τρία τὰ πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον στοιχειώδη
φέρεται συγγράμματα.

2 Euseb. 1. 6.

3 Theoph. ad Autol. ii. p. 104. Apoe. xii. 3 sq.

4 Ad Autol. ii. p. 102. Hebr. xii. 9. Cf. Lardner, ii. 20,
25 aqq.

5 Ad Autol. ii. ς, 18 (p.92): ἡ διάταξις οὖν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦτό
ἐστιν, ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι
συνεχομένῳ ἐφώτισε τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν... Cf. ii. Pet. i. 19.

CHAP. II.

Sunartox.
6. 190 a.c.

444 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

as written by one of those ‘who were moved by
the Spirit'’

Serapion who was second in descent from
Theophilus has left a very remarkable judgment
on the ‘Gospel according to Peter,’ which he
found in use at Rhossus, a small town of Cilicia.
‘We receive, he says, when writing to the
Church there’, ‘both Peter and the other Apo-
stles as Christ; but, as experienced men, we
reject the writings falsely inscribed with their
names, since we know that we did not receive
such from [our fathers.....still I allowed the
book to be used,] for when I visited you, I
supposed that all were attached to the right
faith; and as I had not thoroughly examined
the Gospel which they brought forward under
the name of Peter, I said: If this is the only
thing which seems to create petty jealousies
(μικροψυχίαν) among you, let it be read. But
now, since I have learnt, from what has been
told me, that their mind was covertly attached
to some heresy (αἱρέσει τινὶ ἐνεφώλευεν) I shall
be anxious to come to you again; so, brethren,
expect me quickly...But we, brethren, having
comprehended the nature of the heresy which
Marcianus held—how he contradicted himself
from failing to understand what he said, you

1 Ad Autol. ii. 22,
3 Euseb. H.E. vi. 12. Routh, Rell. i. 452 sqq.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 445

will learn from what has been written to you— cnar.1.
were able to thoroughly examine [the book]
having borrowed it from others who commonly
use (ἀσκησάντων) this very Gospel, that is from
the successors of those who first sanctioned it,
whom we call Docete, (for the greater part of
[Marcianus’] opinions belong to their teaching),
and to find that the greater part of its contents
agrees with the right doctrine of the Saviour,
though some new injunctions are added in it,
which we have subjoined for your benefit!
Something then may be learnt from this as to
the authority and standard of the New Testa-
ment Scriptures at the close of the second cen-
tury: the writings of the Apostles were to be
received as the words of Christ: and those only
were to be acknowledged as such which were

1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 12; Routh, i. 452 sqq. The text of
the fragment is corrupt, and I havo ventured to introduce
some slight corrections by which the whole connexion ap-
pears to be improved. The middle sentence should, I believe,
be read thus: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀδελφοὶ καταλαβόμενοι ὁποίας ἦν αἱρέ-
σεως ὁ Μαρκιανὸς (καὶ [ὠς] ἑαυτῷ ἠναντιοῦτο μὴ νοῶν ἃ ἔλάλει

= ἀ] μαθήσεσθε ἐξ ὧν ὑμῖν ἐγράφη) ἐδυνήθημεν [= γὰρ] παρ᾽
ἄλλων τῶν ἀσκησάντων, κιτιλ. Many MSS. omit ἃ before μαθ.,
and the confusion of TAP with ΓᾺΡ is of constant occur-
renco. Tho changes of number—#ueis, ἐγώ, speis—seem to
prove that tho sentences (βραχείας λέξεις, a8 Eusebius calls
them) are not continuous. As far as I am aware, all follow
Valesius in translating καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ qui Marciano
praiverunt; but analogy supports tho rendering which I
have given.

446 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

cHaP.II. supported by a certain tradition. Nor can the

PaUL op
SamouaTa.

260—27 2.

conduct of Serapion in allowing the public use
of other writings be justly blamed. It does not
appear that the ‘Gospel of Peter’ superseded
the Canonical Gospels; and it is well known
that even the ‘Gospel of Nicodemus’ maintained
a place at Canterbury—‘ fixed to a pillar’—up
to the time of Erasmus.

The seventh in succession from Serapion was
Paul of Samosata, who was convicted of heresy
on the accusation of his own clergy, and finally
deposed by the civil authority of the heathen
Emperor Aurelian. Nothing remains of his
writings, but it is recorded that he endeavoured
to maintain his opinions by the testimony of the
Old and New Testaments, and his adversaries
relied on the same books to refute him. A
Synodical Epistle ‘addressed to Paul by the
orthodox bishops before his deposition’ has been
preserved!, in which, in addition to many other
quotations from the New Testament, the Epistle

Epistle to the to the Hebrews is cited as the work of St Paul’.

1 Doubts were raised as to the genuineness of this Epistle
by Basnage, and repeated by Lardner and Lumpor; but
Routh considers them of no weight (Lumper, xiii. 711 aqq. ;
Routh, iii. 321 sqq.) The question appears to depend alto-
gether on the good faith of Turrianus, who first published
the Epistle. The Epistle itself is almost made up of a col-
lection of passages of Scripture.

2 Ep. ap. Routh, iii. 299: ...cara τὸν ἀπόστολον. . καὶ πάλιν

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 447

And in another letter addressed to the bishops 084. 1.
of Alexandria and Rome by Malchion, a pres- Mazcaios.
byter of Antioch, in the name of the ‘bishops,
priests, and deacons of the neighbouring cities

and nations, and of the Churches of God,’ Paul

is described, with a clear allusion to the Epistle

of St Jude, as one who ‘denied his God and Jude.
Lord, and kept not the Faith which he himself

had formerly held’.’

The first traces of the theological school of Ti βολοοὶ y
Antioch which became in the fourth and fifth
centuries a formidable rival to that of Alexan-
dria, appear during the period of the controversy
with Paul. Dorotheus, a presbyter of the Church, Doxorasvs.
is described by Eusebius* as a man remarkably ἢ 200 mo
distinguished for secular learning, and ‘in his
zeal to understand the full beauty of the divine
[writings], he studied the Hebrew language, so
as to read and understand the original Hebrew
Scriptures.’ Lucian, another presbyter of An- Lvcur.
tioch, ‘ well trained in sacred studies',’ devoted

...Kal περὶ Μωυσέως: Meifova πλοῦτον ἡγησάμενος τῶν Αἰγύπτου
θησαυρῶν τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Heb. xi. 26). So again
just before, Heb. iv. 15 is incorporated in the text of the
Epistle.

1 Ep. ap. Euseb. H. E. vii. 30: ...τοῦ καὶ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν
ἑαυτοῦ καὶ Κύριον ἀρνουμένου, καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν καὶ αὐτὸς πρό-
τερον εἶχε μὴ φυλάξαντος. Cf. Jude 3, 4 (reading Θεόν).

2 Euseb. H.E. vii. 32.

3 Euseb. H. E. ix. 6: rots ἱεροῖς μαθήμασι συγκεκροτημένος.

CHAP. IL

f 211 a.c.

448 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

himself to a critical revision of the Greek text
of the Bible. In carrying out this work it is
said that he introduced useless corrections into
the Gospels; and the copies which he had ‘ fal-
sified’ were pronounced apocryphal in later
times!. In the absence of all evidence on the
question it is impossible to determine in what
respect his text differed from that commonly
received; but it may be noticed that there is
nothing to show that he held any peculiar views
on the Canon itself. Lucian died a martyr in
the persecution of Maximinus; and Rufinus has
preserved in a Latin translation a part of the
defence which he addressed to the Emperor on
his trial*. The fragment is of singular beauty,
and contains several allusions to the Gospels
and Acts; but it is more remarkable as con-
taining an appeal to the physical phenomena

1 Decret. Gelas. vi. § 14: Evangelia que falsavit Lucia-
nus Apocrypha. Credner (Zur Gesch. ἃ. K. 8, 216) regards
this as one of the additions to the original Decree of Gela-
sius (c. 500 a. c.) made at the time when it was republished
in Spain under the name of Hormisdas (c. 700—800 a. c.)

The next clause in the decree is, § 15: Evangelia que
falsavit Isicius Apocrypha. This certainly refers to the re-
cension of the New Testament published in Egypt by Hesy-
chius at the close of the third century, which is classed by
Jerome with that of Lucian; but nothing is known of its
character. The speculations of Hug are quite unsatisfactory.

2 The defence occurs in Rufinus’ version of Eusebius
(H. E. ix. 6). It is printed by Routh, iv. 5 sqq.; and I see
no reason to doubt its authenticity.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 449

connected with the Passion—to the darkness,
said by Lucian to be recorded in heathen
histories, to the rent rocks,-and to the Holy
Sepulchre, still to be seen in his time at Jeru-
salem.

Antioch was not the only place in Syria
where the Christian Scriptures were made the

CHAP. IL

ee ς-..

il The
Church of
Caesarea.

subject of learned and laborious study. Pam- pasrsinos.

philus, a presbyter of Csesarea, the friend of
Eusebius and the apologist of Origen, was ‘ in-
flamed with so great a love of sacred literature
that he copied with his own hand the chief part
of the works of Origen,’ which, in the time
of Jerome, were still preserved in the library
which he founded’. This library at Ceesarea is
frequently mentioned by ancient writers, and
when it fell into decay, towards the close of

1 Luc. ap. Routh, iv. p. 6: Si minus adhuc creditur,
adhibebo vobis etiam loci ipsius, in quo res gesta est, testimo-
nium, Adstipulatur his [que dico] ipse in Hierosolymis
locus, ct Golgothana rupes sub patibuli onere disrupta:
antrum quoque illud, quod avulsis inferni januis corpus
denuo reddidit animatum, quo purius inde ferretur ad ccelum
...Requirite in annalibus vestris: invenietis temporibus Pilati,
Christo patiente, fugato sole interruptum tenebris diem.
The rhetorical colouring of the passage cannot affect the
facts affirmed.

3 Hieron. de Virr. Ill. 75: Tanto bibliothecsw divines
amore flagravit... The phrase ‘divina bibliotheca’ means,
I believe, the collection of sacred Scriptures. Cf. Routh,
iii. 488. As to Pamphilus’ labours on the LXX. cf. Lardner,
ii. 59, 5.

Ga

CHAP. Il.

The Epistt:
to the
Hebrews.

The Catholic
Epistles.

450 TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE

the fourth century, it was restored by the care
of two bishops of the city. Its extent is shown
by the fact that Jerome found there a copy of
the famous ‘Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew;’
and memorials of it have been preserved to the
present time. The Coislinian fragment of the
Pauline Epistles, in which the Epistle to the
Hebrews is placed before the Pastoral Epistles,
contains a note stating that it was ‘compared
with the copy in the library of Saint Pamphilus
at Ceesarea, written by his own hand’.’ Nor is
this all. At the end of the edition of the Acts
and of the [seven] Catholic Epistles published
by Euthalius, it is said that the book was ‘com-
pared with the accurate copies contained in the
library of Eusebius Pamphilus? at Ceesarea ;’ and
though it is not expressly stated that these
copies were written by Pamphilus himself, yet
it is probable that they were, from the fact that

1 For the order of the Epistles in this MS. see Mont-
faucon, Bibl. Coislin. p. 253. Tischendorf, Proleg. pp. 73, 4.

2 Zacagni, Collect. p. 513: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ τῶν πράξεων καὶ
καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τὸ βιβλίον πρὸς ra ἀκριβὴῇ ἀντίγραφα τῆς
ἐν Καισαρείᾳ βιβλιοθήκης Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου. The last
genitives are ambiguous, and may refer to ἀντίγραφα or
βιβλιοθήκης.

The summary of verses given at the end (p. 513) does
not agree with numbers previously given; nor can I explain
the phrase τὸ πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν στίχοι κζ΄. But these difficulties
seem to show that Euthalius did not compose the whole
work, but in part transcribed it.

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 451

the summary of the contents of the Acts pub-
lished under the name of Euthalius is a mere
transcript of a work of Pamphilus!. If then this
conjecture be right, it may be inferred that the
seven Catholic Epistles were formed into a col-
lection at the close of the third century, and
appended, as in later times, to the Acts of the
Apostles. So much at least is certain, that
Pamphilus, a man of wide learning and research,
reckoned the Epistle to the Hebrews among the
writings of St Paul, whether he regarded it as
actually penned by the Apostle, or, like Origen,
as the expression of his thoughts by another
writer.

CHAP. IT.

Though Pamphilus devoted his life to the Pamphilus
polozy for
study of the Holy Scriptures, he never assumed °"*

the office of a commentator; but Jerome’s state-
ment that ‘he wrote nothing except short letters
to his friends,’ must be received with some
reserve*. In addition to the Summary of the

1 Montf. Bibl. Coislin. p. 78. Routh, iii. 610 8q. The
recurrence in the preface to this summary of a very remark-
able phrase found in the subscription of the MS. of the
Pauline Epistles copied from that of Pamphilus seems to be
conclusive on the point: εὐχῆ τῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν συμπεριφορὰν
κομιζόμενος. The Summary as it occurs in Zacagni (pp. 428
844.) is introduced quite abruptly; and Zacagni’s explana-
tion of the allusion to the youth of the writer (Pref. p. 63)
is unsatisfactory.

2 Hieron. adv. Ruf. iv. p. 419. Cf. iv. p. 347: Date
quodlibet aliud opus Pamphili: nusquam reperietis. Hec

GG2

CHAP. IL.

—

452 TESTIMONY OF TIE CHURCHES TO THE

Acts, already noticed, there can be no doubt
that the commencement of an Apology for
Origen occupied his attention during his last
confinement in prison. The first book which
bears his name, and was probably his work, has
been preserved; and the quotations from Origen
which it contains embrace distinct references to
the Apocalypse as the work of St John’, proving,
if the proof were necessary, that on this point
Pamphilus followed his master’s judgment.

In the Syrian Church? there are thus traces
of a complete Canon of the New Testament at
the beginning of the fourth century, and that
free from all admixture of Apocryphal writings.
The same district which first recognized a col-
lection of Apostolic writings in the Peshito, was
among the first to complete that original Canon
by the addition of the other works which we
now receive*, And bricfly, it may be said that

unum est. Jerome is speaking of the Apology for Origen,
but he was misled by the fact that Eusebius completed it.

1 Pamph. Apol. vii.: Apoc. xx. 13,6. I have not noticed
any other references to the disputed books in the Apology.

2 The Greek Syrian Church is of course not to be con-
founded with the native Syrian Church, which retained the
Canon of the Peshito; cf. p. 265, and P. iii. ch. 3,

8 One testimony from an Eastern Church has not yet
been noticed. In the Acts of a Disputation between Archelaus
Bishop of Caschar (or, as some conjecture, of Carrhse) in
Mesopotamia (? cf. Beausobre, Hist. Manich. i. p. 143) and
Manes there are several clear allusions to the Epistle to the

DISPUTED BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 493

wherever the East and the West entered into a cHapP. 1].
true union, there the Canon is found perfect; __
while the absence or incompleteness of this

union measures the corresponding defects in

the Canon.

This appears clearly on a summary review Of General sum- _
the results obtained in this chapter. At Alex-
andria and Ceesarea, where there was the closest
intercourse between the Eastern and Western
Churches, the Canon of the New Testament was
fixed, even if with some reserve, as it stands at
present. In the Latin Churches, on the con-
trary, no trace has yet been found of the use of
the Epistle of St James, or of the second Epistle
of St Peter; and the Epistle to the Hebrews was
not accepted by them as the work of St Paul.
But one of the disputed books was still received
generally without distinction of East and West.
With the single exception of Dionysius all direct
testimony from Alexandria, Africa, Rome, and
Carthage, witnesses to the Apostolic authority of
the Apocalypse.

Hebrews, though it is not quoted by name. Disp. Arch. et
Man. (Routh, Relliq. v.) p. 45, Hebr. vi. 8: p. 75, Hebr.
viii. 13: p. 127, Hebr. i. 3: p. 149, Hebr. iii. δ, 6. The
reference to ii. Pet. iii. 9 in p. 107, non enim moratus est in
promissionibus suis,is very uncertain. The Acts, however, are
at present in a very unsatisfactory form, existing for the most
part only in a Latin translation from the Greek, which was
itself probably a translation from the Syriac.

CHAPTER III.

THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND: APOCRY-
PHAL WRITINGS TO THE BOOKS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAP. 11]. Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit heeresie,
“~~~ etiam vetus consuetudo.—TERTULLIANUS.

i. Thetesti- ‘['ne controversies which agitated the Chris-
writes. tian Church from the close of the second cen-

he forms of e
heresy though tury to the commencement of the third show

the New practically, like those of the first age, what theo-
logical position was then occupied by the New
Testament. The form of the old errors was
changed, but their spirit gave life to new sys-
tems, Ebionism had sunk down into a mere
tradition!, but its principles were embodied in the
Christian legalism of the Montanists. The same
rationalistic tendencies which moved Marcion,
afterwards appeared in the questions raised on
the Person of Christ, from the time of Praxeas
to that of Arius. And the Simonian counterfeit

1 Haxthausen (Transcaucasia, p. 140) mentions the exist-
ence of a sect of Judaizing Christians (Uriani) at present in
Derbend on the Caspian. They have, as he heard, no know-
ledge of the Apostolic writings, but possess a Gospel written
by Longinus, the first teacher of their Church. It is to be
hoped that some light may be thrown on this strange state-
ment.

TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL WRITINGS. 455

of Christianity found a partial parallel in the cHap m1.

scheme of Mani, less wild, it is true, and more
successful. But each great school of heresy did
good service in the cause of the Christian Scrip-
tures. The discussions on the Holy Trinity
turned upon their right interpretation, so that
their authority was a necessary postulate to the
argument. The Montanists, while they appealed
to the fresh outpouring of the Spirit, did not pro-
fess to supersede or dispense with the books which
were commonly received. Even the Manicheans
found the belief in their divine claims so strong
that they could not set them aside as a whole,
but were contented to question their integrity.

The controversies on the person of Christ 1. Controver-
sies on the

first arose by a necessary reaction within the
Church against the speculations of the Gnostics
on the succession and orders of divine powers.
The simple baptismal confession, which became
the popular rule of faith', contained no reference
to the doctrine of the Word, and the unlearned
stumbled at the ‘ mysterious dispensation’ of the
Holy Trinity. ‘We are Monarchians, they said.
‘We acknowledge only one God*. This Mon-
archianism naturally assumed a double form,

1 Tert. de Virg. Vel. 1: Regula quidem fidei una omnino
est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in uni-
cum Deum...

3 Tert. adv. Prax. 3.

456 TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL

cma. 11 according as the unity of God was supposed to

(<) Patripa~

cme: Pad:

ς, ἐ 170 Ac,

) Unita-
in; Theo-

be rightly asserted by identifying the Son with
the Father, or by denying His proper divmity.
Praxeas and Theodotus stood forth at the same
time at Rome as the champions of these antago-
nistic opinions. Praxeas seems to have retained
his connexion with the Catholic Church; Theo-
dotus was excommunicated. But though they
differed thus widely in doctrine and fortune, both
held alike the general opinion of Christians on
the authority of the Apostolic writings. Ter-
tullian, who attacked Praxeas, with greater zeal,
perhaps, because he had proved himself a for-
midable opponent of Montanism, urged against
him various passages of the New Testament, with-
out hesitation and reserve, and answers an argu-
ment which he drew from the Apocalypse’. And
though the followers of Theodotus were accused
of ‘tampering fearlessly with the Holy Scriptures,’
it is evident that their corrections extended only
to the text, and not to the Canon itself*?. So like-
wise in the later stages of the Trinitarian contro-
versy, with Hermogenes, Noetus, Vero, Beryllus
and Sabellius’ on one side, and with Artemon and

1 Adv. Prax. xvii.: Interim hic mihi promotum sit re-
sponsum adversus id quod et de Apocalypsi Joannis profe-
runt. Apoc. i. 8,

2 Cf. p. 429.

3 Epiphanius (Heer. Ixii. 2) says that Sabellius borrowed
many points in his system from the “Gospel according to

WRITINGS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 457

Paul of Samosata on the other, the Scriptures c#HaP. 11.

were always regarded as the common ground on
which the questions at issue were to be settled.

In the midst of the discussions which were 3. Montan-

thus extending rapidly in the Church towards
the close of the second century, it was natural
that Christians should look around for some sure
sign of God’s presence among them, and for some
abiding criterion of truth. The urgency of this
want gave power and success to the teaching of

Montanus, A strict discipline promised to serve ¢. 170 4...

as a mark of the elect; and prophecy was offered
to solve the doubts of believers. But the relation
of the new prophecies to the Apostolic teaching
proves how completely the New Testament Scrip-
tures were identified with the sources of Chris-
tian doctrine. Tertullian, after he became a
Montanist, no less than before, appeals to them
as decisive. The outpouring of the Spirit, he
says, was made in order to remove the ambi-
guities and parables by which the truth was
obscured'; to illustrate and not to set aside the

the Egyptians.” There is, however, nothing to show that
Sabellius placed it in rivalry with the canonical Gospels. The
opinions of the Alogi on the writings of St John have been
noticed already, pp. 306 sqq.

1 De Resur. Carn. 8. f.: ...jam omnes retro ambiguitates
et quas volunt parabolas, aperta atque perspicua totius sacra-
menti predicatione [Spiritus Sanctus] discussit, per novam
prophetiam de Paracleto inundantem ; cujus si haussris fontes

458 TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL

cHAP.1I!. written Word!; to confirm and define what had
been already given, and not to introduce any-
thing strange or novel?. The ancient Scriptures

still remained a common treasure to Montanist

and Catholic alike’. Some there were certainly

among the Montanists who were not content with

this view of the position occupied by their pro-

phets, but the exceptions are not sufficient to

lessen the importance of the testimony which

they bear generally to the Christian Scriptures‘.

3. Manict:se- The Montanists proposed to restore Christi-
anity: the Manicheans ventured to reconstruct

it. Montanus proclaimed the presence of the

c.277s.c. Paraclete: Mani himself claimed to personify
Him, and to lay open that perfect knowledge

of which St Paul had spoken. While assuming

nullam poteris sitire doctrinam : nullus te ardor exuret 4029»
stionum... De Virg. Vel. 1: Que est ergo Paracleti ad-
ministratio nisi heec, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod scrip-
ture: revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora
proficitur?

1 Adv. Prax. 13: Nos enim qui et tempora et causas
scripturarum per Dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime Paracleti
non bhominum discipuili...

2 De Monog. 3: Nihil novi Paracletus inducit. Quod
premonuit, definit : quod sustinuit, exposcit.

8 Deo Monog. 4: Evolyamus communis instrumenta scrip-
turarum pristinarum.

4 Cf. Euseb. H. E. vi. 20. It is probable that Caius ex-
cluded the Epistle to the Hebrews from the number of 8t
Paul’s Epistles, in opposition to some Montanists (ἐπιστομί-
(ov). Cf. Schwegler, Montan. 287 f.

WRITINGS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 459

such a character it is more surprising that Mani cHap. μι.

received the Christian Scriptures in any sense
than that he brought them to the test ofa merely
subjective standard. And it is an important
symptom of the popular feeling of the time, that
the Manicheans called in question the integrity
and sometimes the authenticity of the Christian
records, but not the authority of their writers.
The grounds on which they did so are purely
arbitrary, and their objections are simple as-
sertions without any external proof!. Probably
they differed considerably among themselves in
their estimation of the Canonical books’. Thus
Augustine states that they rejected the Acts of
the Apostles as inconsistent with their belief in
the character of Mani’; but this explanation is
evidently insufficient, because the Montanists
received the book in spite of a similar difficulty,
and several writers use it without hesitation in
their controversies with Manichsans‘. Gene-
rally, however, he speaks of the Manicheans as

1 Cf. Beausobre, Hist. de Manich. i, pp. 297 sqq.

2 Beausobre is probably right in supposing that they
generally accepted the Canon of the Peshito (i. pp. 294 8q.);
but I do not think that he is right in limiting (p. 292) the
Epistole Canonicas (Aug. c. Faust. xxxii. 15) to the Catholic
Epistles, though that is the later meaning of the phrase.

3 De Util. Cred. 3. The Acta was generally much less
known in the East than the other books of the New Testa-
ment. Cf. Beausobre, I. δ. p. 293.

4 Cf. Lardner, ii. 63, 4.

460 TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL

cHAP.II. admitting ‘the New Testament,’ ‘the four Go-
gpels, and the Epistles of Paul,’ in which must
be included that to the Hebrews': but without
insisting on this evidence, it is an important fact
that they did not attempt to assail the Scriptures
historically. On the contrary, Augustine argues
against them (and his reasoning gains force from
his own conversion) that no writings can be
proved authentic if the books received as Apo-
stolic be not so: that every kind of evidence
combines to establish their claims, the rejection
of which must be followed by universal historical
scepticism?: that they had been circulated in
the lifetime of their professed authors: that they
had been received throughout the Church: that
they were in the hands of all Christians: that
they had been scrupulously guarded and attested
from the age of the Apostles by an unbroken line
of witnesses*. And thus the first critical assault
on the authority of the New Testament called
forth a noble assertion of its historic claims.

1 Aug. c. Faust. ii. 1; v. 1: de Util. Cred. iii. 7. For
the Epistle to the Hebrews, cf. Epiph. Her. Ixvi. 743 supr.
p. 452 n. 3; and, on the other hand, Beausobre, i. p. 292.

2 Aug. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. 29,60. Consequetur omnium
litterarum summa perversio, et omnium qui memorie man-
dati sunt librorum abolitio; si quod tanta populorum religione
roboratum est, tanta hominum et temporum consensione
firmatum, in hanc dubitationem inducitur, ut ne historis
quidem vulgaris fidem possit gravitatemque obtinere.

δ Aug. c. Faust. xxxii. 19; xxxiii. 6.

WRITINGS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 461

But while the Manicheans admitted the cHap.11
original authority of the Scriptures of the New Theweot

Testament, they appealed to other books for the
confirmation of their doctrines. When received
into the Catholic Church they were required to
abjure the use of numerous Apocryphal writings ';
and a bishop of the fifth century did not scruple
to assert that they had either ‘invented or
corrupted every Apocryphal book®’ Without
entering in detail into the parallels which the
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apoca-
lypses offer to the Canonical Scriptures, it is

evident that, as a whole, like false miracles and How these

false prophecies, they presuppose some authentic
collection which determined the shape and fur-
thered the circulation of the copy. And that
they are copies is evident from their internal
character; so that in one respect at least they
are instructive, as showing what might have been
expected from writings founded on tradition,
even when shaped after an Apostolic pattern®.

1 The whole forinula (ap. Cotel. PP. App. i. 537 544.»
referred to by Beausobre,) is extremely interesting. The
passage more directly bearing on our subject is: ἀναθεματίζω
πάντα τὰ δόγματα καὶ ovyypappara τοῦ Μάνεντος.. καὶ πάσας τὰς
Μανιχαϊκὰς βίβλους, οἷον τὸ νεκροποιὸν αὐτῶν εὐαγγέλιον, ὅπερ
ζῶν καλοῦσι, καὶ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦ θανάτου, ὃν λέγουσι θησαυρὸν
ζωῆς, καὶ τὴν καλουμένην μυστηρίων βίβλον... καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀποκρύ-
φων, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων...

2 Turibius, quoted by Βιδυδοῦτο, i. p. 348.

8 Beausobre (i. pp. 348 sqq.) has given a general review
of their contents ; and I have noticed them elsewhere.

462 TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL

cuap.1. Besides the direct imitations of the Apostolic
Other Apo books there are two other Apocryphal writings
wntings. —_ which deserve notice, because they represent no
canonical type,—the Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs and parts of the Sibylline Oracles.
The Apostles were contented to recommend the
Gospel to the Jews by the evidence of the Old
Testament, to the heathen by the testimony of
their own consciences, to both on the broad
grounds of its own divine character. But it was
natural that a succeeding generation should look
for more distinct intimations of the Hope of the
world than are to be found in the symbolism of a
nation’s history, or the indistinct confessions of
hearts ill at rest. By what combination of fraud
and enthusiasm the desire was gratified cannot
be told, but the works which have been named
The Tata’ represent the result’. In the Testament of the
rane. ‘Lwelve Patriarchs, and in some of the Sibylline
The Sibyitine Oracles, the history of the Gospel is thrown into
a prophetic form; and the general use made of
the latter writings, from the time of Justin
Martyr downwards, shows how little any other
age than that of the Apostles was able to origi-
nate or even to reproduce the simple grandeur of

1 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is quoted by
Origen (Hom. in Jos. xv. 6). Friedlicb has given a summary
of the probable dates of the Sibylline Oracles (Orac. Sibyll
Einl. § 32).

WRITINGS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 463

the New Testament. Besides numerous allusions ΟΗΑΡ. 111.
to the facts of the Gospels, and to very little else
connected with the life of Christ', these Apocry-

phal books contain several references to the
Epistles and to the Apocalypse*. And one pas-

sage from the Testament of Benjamin expresses

such a remarkable judgment on the mission and
authority of St Paul as to deserve especial

notice, particularly as the work itself comes from

the hand of a Jewish Christian.

‘I shall no longer,’ the patriarch says to his Jetimony to
sons’, ‘be called a ravening wolf on account of
your ravages, but a worker of the Lord, dis-
tributing goods to those who work that which is
good. And there shall arise from my seed in
after times one beloved of the Lord, hearing
His voice, enlightening with new knowledge all
the Gentiles,...and till the consummation of the
ages shall he be in the congregations of the
Gentiles, and among their princes, as a strain of
music in the mouth of all. And he shall be
inscribed in the Holy Books, both his work and

1 The fire in the Jordan at Baptism of our Lord (cf.
p. 191 n.) is the only fact which occurs to me. Orac. Sibyll.
vi. 6. Cf. vii. 84.

2 Test. Levi, § 18; Hebr. vii. 22—24. Issachar, ὃ 7;
i. John v. 16,17. Dan. ὃ 5; Apoc. xxi.

Orac. Sibyll. i. 125 sqq.; ii. Pet. ii. δ. Lib. ii. 167 8qq. ;
ii. Thess. ii. 8—10. Lib. viii. 190 sqq. Apoc. ix. &c.

8 Test. Benj. ᾧ 11.

CHAP. IIL

nents o
Christianity.

Cevsus.

464 TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL

his word, and he shall be chosen of God for
ever:..'.’

In addition to other evidence that of the
heathen opponents of Christianity must not be
neglected. Celsus, the earliest and most for-
midable among them, lived towards the close of
the second century, and he had sought his know-
ledge of the Christian system in Christian books.
He quotes ‘the writings of the disciples of Jesus’
concerning His life, as possessing unquestioned
authority?; and that these were the four Canon-
ical Gospels is proved both by the absence of
all evidence to the contrary, and by the special
facts which he brings forward’. And not only

1 It is perhaps impossible to fix with precision the date
of the Pistis Sophia (ed. Schwartze οὐ Petermann, Berl. 1851).
Petermann describes it simply as ‘ab Ophité quodam supe-
riori scriptum’ (Pref. p. vii.). It contains numerous refer-
ences to the Gospels of St Matthew, St Luke, and St John;
and once quotes St Paul (Rom. xiii. 7, p. 294). The only
apocryphal saying which I noticed in it is the well-known
phrase attributed to our Lord, ‘Be ye wise money-changers’
(p. 353); but of Philip it is said: iste est qui scribit res
omnes quas Jesus dixit et quas fecit omnes’ (p. 69).

2 Orig. c. Cels. ii. 13, 74.

8 The title of Cclsus’ book was Λόγος ἀληθής, and Origen
has answered it at length. The following references will be
sufficient: Matt. ii. Orig. c. Cels. i. 34; Mark vi. 3, id. vi.
36 (where Origen had a false reading); Luke iii. id. ii. 32;
John xix. 34, id. ii. 36. Celsus evidently considered that the
different Gospels were incorrect revisions of one original ;
id. ii. 27. ΑΙ] the facts which Origen quotes from Celsus
are, I believe, contained in our Canonical Gospels; yet cf.
Orig. in Cels. ii. 74.

WRITINGS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 460

this, but both Celsus'and Porphyry appear to cuap. 11.
have been acquainted with the Pauline Epistles!. Ponrnyny.
And in Porphyry at least the influence of the
Apostolic teaching can be distinctly traced, for
Christianity, even in his time, had done much to

leaven the world which rejected it?.

Conclusion of Second Part.

To pass once again from these details to a Summary of

wider view, it is evident that the results of the Period.
wor

last three chapters confirm what was stated at construct. κι.
the outset, that this second period in the History °°"

of the Canon offers a marked contrast to the

first. It is characterized not so much by the
antagonism of great principles as by the in-
fluence of great men. But their work was to
construct and not to define. And thus the age

1 Orig. c. Cels. i. 9; cf. i. Cor. iii. 19, i. Pet. iii. 15: id.
v. 64; cf. Gal. vi. 14. Porphyr. ap. Hieron. Comm. in Galat.
i. 15, 16 (T. iv. p. 233); ii. 11 (id. p. 244).

2 Cf. Ullmann, Stud. u. Krit. v. 376 sqq. His beautiful
letter to Marcella (ed. Mai, Mediol. 1816), the climax of phi-
losophic morality, offers nevertheless a complete contrast
to the Christian doctrine of the dignity of man’s body.

In other heathen writers there is little which bears on
the Christian Scriptures. Lucian in his True History (ii.
11 sqq.) gives a poor imitation of Apoc. xxi. But the striking
description which Aristrpes (ad Plat. ii. T. ii. pp. 398 sqq.
Df.) draws of the Christians is very worthy of notice, espe-
cially when compared with Lucian’s (de Peregr. ii. 13).
Loneinus’ testimony to the eloquence of ‘Paul of Tarsus’
(fr. 1, ed. Weiske) is generally considered spurious.

HH

466 CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND PART.

was an age of research and thought, but at the
same time it was an age of freedom. The fabric
of Christian doctrine was not yet consolidated,
though the elements which had existed at first
separately were already combined. An era of
speculation preceded an era of councils; for it
was necessary that all the treasures of the
Church should be regarded in their various
aspects before they could be rightly arranged.
There was, however, among Christians a
keen and active perception of that ‘one un-
changeable rule of faith,’ which was embodied in
the practice of the Church and attested by the
words of Scripture. Apologists for Christianity
were followed by advocates of its ancient purity
even in the most remute districts of the Roman
world, In addition to the writers who have been
mentioned already, Eusebius has preserved the
names of many others ‘from an innumerable
crowd,’ which in themselves form a striking
monument of the energy of the Church. Philip
in Crete, Bacchylus at Corinth, and Palmas in
Pontus defended the primitive Creed against
the innovations of heresy’. And the list might
be easily increased; but it is enough to show
that the energy of Christian life was not confined
to the great centres of its action, or to the men
who gave their character to its development.
1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23, 25, 28; v. 22, 46.

CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND PART. 467

The whole body was instinct with a sense of
truth and ready to maintain it.

CON-
CLUSION.

Yet even controversy failed to create a spirit which aia
of historical inquiry. Tertullian once alludes to any histori

synodal discussions on the Canon!, but as a
general rule it was assumed by Christian writers
that the contents of the New Testament were
known and acknowledged. Where differences
existed on this point, as in the case of the
Marcionites, no attempt was made to compose
them by a critical investigation into the history

of the sacred records. And in the Church itself Hence we

no voice of authority interfered to remove the
doubts which formerly existed, however much
they were modified by usage and by the judg-
ment of particular writers. The age was not
only constructive but conservative; and thus
the evidence for the New Testament Canon,
which has been gathered from writers of the
third century, differs from that of earlier date
in fulness rather than in kind.

But the fulness of evidence for the acknow-
ledged books, coming from every quarter of the
Church and given with unhesitating simplicity,
can surely be explained on no other ground
than that it represented an original tradition
or an instinctive judgment of Apostolic times.
While, on the other hand, the books which were

1 Tert. de Pudic. 11.
HH2

results, but

the old are
strongly con-
fi » 88

the

now-
ledged books,

the εἶ ted
books, and

CON-
CLUSION.

Apocryphal
writings.

468 CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND PART.

not universally received seem to have been in
most cases rather unknown than rejected. The
Apocalypse alone was made the subject of a
controversy, and that purely on internal testi-
mony'. For it is most worthy of notice that the
disputed books (with the exception of ii. Peter,
the history of which is most obscure) are exactly
those which make no direct claims to apostolic
authorship, so that they might have been ex-
cluded from the Canon, even by some who did
not doubt their authenticity. In the meantime
Apocryphal writings had passed almost out of
notice, and no one can suppose that they were
any longer confounded with the Apostolic books.
Nothing more, indeed, was needed than that
some practical crisis should give clear effect to
the judgment everywhere felt; and this, as we
shall see in the next chapter, was soon furnished
by the interrogations of the last persecutor.

' It is a satisfaction to find that the opinion which I have
given on the testimonies of Caius and Dionysius (pp.307, 411)
is confirmed by that of Minster in a special tract on the

subject: De Dionys. Alex. Judic. c. Apocal. Hafnia, 1826,
pp. 35 844. 67 sqq.

THIRD PERIOD.

HISTORY OF THE CANON FROM THE PERSE-
CUTION OF DIOCLETIAN TO THE THIRD
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE.

A.D. 303-307.

Solis cis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici® appel-
lantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullam
eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam.
—AUGUSTINUS.

CHAPTER I.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON DURING THE
AGE OF DIOCLETIAN.

᾿Ἐπληρώθη τό: πῦρ ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν οὐκ CHAP.1.
ἀφανιστικὸν ἀλλὰ καθαρτικόν. ---- ATHANASIUS.

Τηοόύοη we do not possess any public Acts of The persecu.
the Ante-Nicene Church relative to the Canon, <etian dt
the zeal of its enemies has in some degree sup- Catia "
plied the deficiency. During the long period of =4~
repose which the Christians enjoyed after the
edict of Gallienus, the character and claims of 261 «.c.
their sacred writings became more generally
known!, and offered a definite mark to their
adversaries. Diocletian skilfully availed himself
of this new point of attack. The earlier perse-
cutors had sought to deprive the Church of its
teachers: he endeavoured to destroy the writ-
ings which were the unfailing source of its
faith. Hierocles, the proconsul of Bithynia, is
said to have originated and directed the perse- 808--δ1}
cution?; and his efforts were more formidable "
because he was well acquainted with the history
and doctrines of Christianity.

1 Cf. Lact. Instit. Div. v. 2: Alius (Hierocles)...quedam
capita [Scripturee Sacre) que repugnare sibi videbantur
exposuit, adeo multa, adeo intima enumerans, ut aliquando
ex eadem disciplina fuisse videatur...preecipue tamen Paulum

Petrumque iaceravit...
2 Lact. Instit. Div. 1]. 6. De Mort. Persec. 16.

CHAP. I.

productive

of dissensions
amon

Christ ane
which led
necessarily

toa clearer
determina-
tion of the
Canonical
books.

472 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

The first result of this persecution was to
create dissensions within the Church itself. A
large section of Christians availed themselves of
the means of escape offered by lenient magis-
trates, and surrendered ‘ useless writings!,’ which
satisfied the demands of their inquisitors. Others,
however, viewed this conduct with reasonable
jealousy, and branded as ‘traitors’ (tradi-
tores) those who submitted to the semblance of
guilt to avoid the trials of persecution. And
the differences which arose on the question
became deep and permanent. For nearly two
hundred years the schism of the Donatists re-
mained to witness to the intensity and bitterness
of the controversy. But schism as well as per-
secution furthered the work of God. Hence-
forth the Canonical Scriptures were generally
known by that distinctive title, even if it was
not then first applied to them*. Both parties in
the Church naturally combined to distinguish
the sacred writings from all othera. The stricter
Christians required clear grounds for visiting the
‘traditores’ with Ecclesiastical censures*; and

1 Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. i. p. 205. Augustin. Brev. Coll.
Donat. ix. 568, Ε. F (ed. Bened.); c. Cresc. iii. 30. Credner
(Zur Gesch. d. Κι. 8. 66) gives another interpretation to
scripture supervacuc in the Acts of Felix.

2 Cf. Append. A. Credner, a. a. O.

3 Concil. Arelat. xiii.: De his qui scripturas sanctas tra-
didisse dicuntur...ut quicunque eorum ez actis publicis fuerit
detectus...

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 473

the more pliant were anxious not to compromise cHaP.1.

their faith, while they were willing to purchase
peace by obedience in that which seemed in-
different.

But though it is evident that an ecclesias- But st lost

tical canon must have been formed before the

close of the persecution of Diocletian, it is not ἴοτε.

to be concluded that no such Rule existed
before. The original edict which enjoined that
‘the Churches should be razed, and the Scrip-
tures consumed by fire...!° is unhappily lost;
and Christian writers describe its provisions in
words intelligible and definite to themselves,
but little likely to have been used by a heathen
Emperor. There can, however, be no doubt
that it contained an accurate description of the
books to be surrendered, and the official records
of two trials consequent upon it seem to have
preserved the exact phrase which was employed.
‘ Bring forward,’ the Roman commissioner said
to the bishop Paul, ‘the Scriptures of the Law.’
And Cecilian writing to another bishop Felix
says, ‘Ingentius inquired whether any Scriptures
of your law were burnt according to the sacred
law.’ Now whether this title was of Christian

1 Euseb. H. E. viii. 2.

2 Acta ap. Labbé, Concil.ii. 501 (ed. Mansi, Florent. 1759);
Augustin. ix. App. p. 29. Felix F. P. P. curator Paulo
Episcopo dixit: Proferte scripturas legis, et si quid aliud
hic habetis, ut preceptum est, ut jussioni parere possitis.

474 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.I. or heathen origin it evidently had a meaning

| sufficiently strict and clear for the purposes of
a Roman court: in other words the books which
the Christians called ‘divine’ and ‘spiritualizing’
(deificse), which were publicly read in their as-
semblies and guarded with their most devoted
care, were formed into a collection so well known
that they could be described by a title scarcely
more explicit than ‘the Bible.’

And what And what then were the contents of that

seen βοῇ COllection? The answer to this question must

after the 5 per- be sought for in the results of the persecution.

secution

Donate. No district suffered more severely than North
Africa, where schism continued the ravages
which persecution began. Donatus placed him-
self at the head of a party who opposed the
appointment of Cecilian to the see of Carthage
on the ground that he had been ordained by
Felix a traditor; and, in spite of the judgment
of a synod, confirmed by Constantine, the rup-

Paulus episcopus dixit: Scripturas lectores babent, sed nos
quod hic habemus damus. Afterwards the command is
simply: Proferte scripturas. Id. p. 509. Parenti Felici
salutem: Cum Ingentius collega meus Augentianum amicum
suum conveniret et inquisisset anno duoviratus mei, an ali-
que scripture legis vestre secundum sacram legem aduste
sint...(These passages are quoted by Oredner, a.a.O.) A
similar phrase occurs also in Augustine, Ps. c. Donat. T. ix.
Ῥ. 3B: Erant quidam traditores librorum de sacra lege. Cf.
Commod. Inst. i. Pref. 6. On the relation of the words lez,
regula and κανών, see Credner, ]. 6.

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 475

ture became complete. The ground of the cHap.1.

Donatist schism was thus the betrayal of the
Canonical Scriptures, and the Canon of the
Donatists will necessarily represent the strict
judgment of the African Churches. Now Augus-
tine allows that both Donatist and Catholic were
alike ‘bound by the authority of both Testa-
ments’,’ and that they admitted alike ‘the Ca-
nonical Scriptures.’ ‘And what are these,’ he
asks, ‘but the Scriptures of the Law and the
Prophets. To which are added the Gospels,
the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Apocalypse of John’. The only doubt which
can be thrown on the completeness and purity
of the Donatist Canon arises from the uncertain
language of Augustine about the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and no Donatist writing throws any
light upon the point‘. But with this uncertain
exception the ordeal of persecution left the
African Churches in possession of ἃ perfect
New Testament.

1 August. Ep. crxix. 3.

2 Aug. 6. Cresc. i. xxxi. 37: Proferte certe aliquem de
scripturis Canonicis, [quarum nobis est communis auctoritas]
Lhe last clause, if it be uncertain in this place, occurs
without any variation at the end of the chapter.

3 De Unit. Eccles. xix. 51.

4 The only disputed books from which I have noticed
quotations in Tichonius (Aug. c. Ep. Parm. T. ix. p. 11) are
the second Epistle of St John (Gallandi, Bib). Pp. viii. p. 124),
and the Apocalypse (id. pp. 107, 122, 125, 128).

476 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

CHAP. I. From Africa we pass to Palestine. Among
i Syrta— the witnesses of the persecution there was
e.270—40 Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus, afterwards
“ bishop of Cwsarea, and the historian of the
early Church. ‘I saw,’ he says, ‘with my own
eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and
razed to their foundations, and the inspired and
sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the
open market-place’.. Among such scenes he
could not fail to learn what books men held to
be more precious than their lives, and it is rea-
sonable to look for the influence of this early
Hisehsrac- trial on his later opinions. But the great fault
of Eusebius is a want of independent judgment.
He writes under the influence of his last infor-
mant, and consequently his narrative is often
confused and inconsistent. This is the case, in
some degree, with his statements on the Canon,
though it is possible, I believe, to ascertain his
real judgment on the question, and to remove
some of the discrepancies by which it is obscured.
His first ac- The manner in which he approaches the
Qpostolle ~— subject illustrates very well the desultory cha-
racter of his work. After recording the succes-
sion of Linus to the see of Rome, ‘after the
martyrdom of Peter and Paul,’ without any
further preface, he proceeds‘: ‘Of Peter then

1 H. E. viii. 2.
2H. E. iii. 3. The title of the Chapter is; Περὶ τῶν

DURING THE AGE UF DIOCLETIAN. 477

one Epistle, which is called his former Epistle, cnap.1.
is generally acknowledged; of this also the Writing of
ancient presbyters have made frequent use (κατα-
κέχρηνται) in their writings as indisputably
genuine (ἀναμφιλέκτῳ). But that which is cir-
culated as his second Epistle we have received
to be not canonical (evd:a@yxov); still as it ap-
peared useful to many it has been diligently
read (ἐσπουδάσθη) with the other scriptures. The
Book of the Acts of Peter and the Gospel
which bears his name, and the book entitled
his Preaching, and his so-called Apocalypse, we
know to have been in nowise included in the
Catholic! scriptures by antiquity (οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ev
καθολικοῖς παραδιδόμενα), because no ecclesias-
tical writer in ancient times or in our own has
made general use (συνεχρήσατο) of the testimo-
nies to be drawn from them...So many are
the works which bear the name of Peter, of
which I have recognized (ἔγνων) one epistle only
as genuine (γνησίαν) and acknowledged by the
ancient presbyters.

‘Of Paul the fourteen epistles commonly of s Paw.
received (ai δεκατέσσαρες) are at once manifest

ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων, yet he makes no allusion to the
Epistles of St John, and digresses to other writings.

1 1.0. canonical. This use of the word καθολικός is illus-
trated by the Concil. Carthag. xxiv. Int. Gr. (given in
App. D.)

ve #ecerveU as indi

wer Uh ered ‘Since the same
[ the end of the Epis
mention among ot!

Shepherd is said to

this book has been

fore it could not bec

book, though it has

most necessary for εἰ

elementary instructio

εἰσαγωγική). In con;
that it has been fon
μοσιευμένον) in church
some of the most anci

of it,

‘These remarks τὸ
παράστασιν) the divin
controvertible (dvavrip

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 479

Apostle St John. While doing this he quotes cHap.1.

from Clement the beautiful story of the young
robber, and then goes on abruptly to enumerate
‘the uncontroverted writings of the Apostle.’
The Gospel is placed first as ‘ fully recognized
in all the churches under heaven ;’ and so Euse-

bius proceeds to speak on the other Gospels, ore!

prefacing his criticism with some remarks on
Apostolic gifts which illustrate his view of in-
spiration'. ‘Those inspired and truly godlike
men (θεσπέσιοι καὶ ἀληθῶς θεοπρεπεῖς), I mean
the Apostles of Christ, having been completely
purified in their life, and adorned with every
virtue in their souls, though still simple and
illiterate in their speech (ἰδιωτεύοντες τὴν γλῶσ-
σαν), yet trusting boldly to the divine and mar-
vellous power given them by the Saviour, had
not indeed either the knowledge or the design
to commend the teaching of their Master by
subtilty and rhetorical art, but using only the
demonstration of the divine Spirit, who wrought
with them, and the wonder-working power of
Christ realized through them, proclaimed the
knowledge of the kingdom of heaven over all
the world (οἰκουμένη), giving little heed to the
labour of written composition (σπουδῆς τῆς περὶ
τὸ Noyoypagev). And this they did as being
wholly engaged (ἐξυπηρετούμενοι) in a greater
1H. E. iii. 24.

480 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.!. and superhuman ministry. For example, Paul
ΠῚ {80 showed himself the most powerful of all in
the means of eloquence, and the most able in
thought, has not committed to writing more
than his very short letters, although he had
countless mysteries to tell, as one who attained
to a vision of things in the third heaven, and
was caught up to the divine paradise itself, and
was counted worthy to hear unspeakable words
from those who had been transported thither.
The rest of the immediate followers (φοιτηταῖ) of
the Saviour, twelve Apostles, and seventy dis-
ciples, and innumerable others besides, were in
some degree blessed with the same privileges...
still Matthew and John alone of all have left
us an account of their intercourse with the
Lord....’ After this Eusebius discusses the
mutual relations of the Gospels, promising a
more special investigation in some other place,
a promise which, like many others, he left un-
fulfilled. He then continues: ‘ Now of the writ-
ings of John, in addition to the Gospel, the
former of his Epistles also has been acknow-
ledged as undoubtedly genuine both by the
writers of our own time and by those of an-
tiquity; but the two remaining Epistles are
disputed. Concerning the Apocalypse men’s
opinions even now are generally divided. This
question, however, shall be decided at a proper

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 481

time by the testimony of antiquity’. There is cuap.1.
nothing to show that Eusebius carried his inten- |
tion into effect, and, without further break, he

proceeds’: ‘But now we have arrived at this sum = up bis

point, it is natural that we should give a sum- the books of

mary catalogue of the writings of the New πὸ
Testament to which we have already alluded’.
First then we must place the holy quaternion of {«) ™ a Ac
the Gospels, which are followed by the account Ν᾿
of the Acts of the Apostles. After this we
must reckon the Epistles of Paul; and next to
them we must maintain as genuine (κυρωτέον)

the Epistle circulated (φερομένη) as the former‘

of John, and in like manner that of Peter. In
addition to these books, if possibly such a view
seem correct’, we must place the Revelation of
John, the judgments on which we shall set forth

1 The scattered testimonies which he quotes from Justin
(iv. 18), Theophilus (iv. 24), Irenseus (vi. 25), Origen (iv. 26),
and Dionysius (vii. 25) can scarcely be considered to satisfy
this promise.

2H. E. iii, 25.

8 ᾿Ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ras δηλωθείσας τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ypa-
gas. It seems incredible that there should have been any
difference of opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. Enu-
sebius had mentioned before all the books of the New Tees-
tament which he here accepts: Four Gospels, iii. 24; Acts,
ii. 22; fourteen Epistles of St Paul, iii. 3; seven Catholic
Epistles, ii. 23, iii. 24; Apocalypse, iii. 24.

4 Προτέρα not πρώτη. Cf. pp. 83. n. 3; 435, n. 2.

5 Et ye φανείη. The difference between this and εἰ ¢a-
vein below must not be left unnoticed.

I!

CHAP. I.

(8) The Dis-
puted Books

L Gene-
rally known.

2 Spe
rious,

482 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

in due course. And these are regarded as gene-
rally received (ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις).

‘Among the controverted books, which are
nevertheless well known and recognized by
most', we class the Epistle circulated under the
name of James, and that of Jude, as well as the
second of Peter, and the so-called Second and
Third of John, whether they really belong to
the Evangelist, or possibly to another of the
same name.

‘We must rank as spurious (νόθοι) the account
of the Acts of Paul, the book called the Shep-
herd, and the Revelation of Peter. And besides
these the epistle circulated under the name of
Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles;
and moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of
John, if such an opinion seem correct (εἰ φανείη),
which some, as I said, reject (ἀθετοῦσι), while
others reckon it among the books generally re-
ceived. We may add that some have reckoned
in this division the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, to which those Hebrews who have
received [Jesus as] the Christ are especially

1 Tywpipwr τοῖς πολλοῖς. Cf. H. E. iii. 38. The word
γνώριμος implies a familiar knowledge. It is a singular
coincidence that Alex. Aphrod. (de. an. 2, quoted by Ste-
phens) uses it in connexion with another Eusebian word.
Speaking of Time and Place he says: τὸ μὲν εἶναι γνώριμον

καὶ ἀναμφίλεκτον.

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 483

attached. All these then will belong to the “ΒΑΡ. 1.

class of controverted books.

‘It has been necessary for us to extend our {f) Heretics!

catalogue to these, in spite of their ambiguous
character (τούτων ὅμως τὸν κατάλογον πεποιή-
μεθα), having distinguished the writings which
are true and genuine (ἀπλάστους), and generally
acknowledged! according to the ecclesiastical
tradition, and the others besides these, which,
though they are not canonical (ἐνδιαθήκους) but
controverted, are nevertheless constantly recog-
nized (γιγνωσκομένας) by most of our ecclesias-
tical authorities (ἐκκλησιαστικών), that we might
be acquainted with these scriptures, and with
those which are brought forward by heretics in
the name of Apostles, whether it be as contain-
ing the Gospels of Peter and Thomas and
Matthias, or also of others besides these, as the
Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles,
which no one of the succession of ecclesiastical
writers has anywhere deigned to quote. And
further also the character of their language,
(φράσεως) which varies from the apostolic spirit
(παρὰ τὸ ἦθος τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ἐναλλάττει),, and
the sentiment and purpose of their contents,
which is utterly discordant with true orthodoxy,

1 Ἀνωμολογημένους. Ἀνομολογεῖσθαι differs from dpodo-
γεῖσθαι in bringing out the notion of examination, inquiry,
and judgment. Cf. H. E. ili. 3, 24, 385 iv. 7.

112

484 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

CHAP.1. clearly prove that they are forgeries of heretics;

whence we must not even class them among
the spurious (νόθοις) books, but set them aside
(παραιτητέον) a8 every way monstrous and im-
pious.’

This last passage in which Eusebius professes
to sum up what he had previously said upon the
subject, however imperfect and vague it may
appear in some respects, forms the centre to
which all his other statements on the books of
the New Testament must be referred. Here,
instead of quoting the authority of others, he
writes in his own person, and implies, I believe,
his own judgment on the disputed books’. In
order to determine what this was, it will be ne-
cessary to analyse briefly the classification which
he proposes. And at the outset it is evident, I
think, that he divides all the writings which laid
claim to Apostolic authority into three principal
" divisions—the Acknowledged, the Disputed, and
the Heretical. But these words, it must be
remembered, are used with reference to a par-
ticular object, and consequently in a modified
sense*. That a book should be ‘acknowledged’

1 In treating of the Eusebian Canon, I can only give the
conclusions at which I have arrived. The best separate
essay on it which I know, is that of Liicke (Berlin, 1816),
which is not, however, by any means free from faults.

2 Thus under different aspects the same book may be
differently described. The Epistle of Clement (i), for in-

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 4853

as Canonical, it was requisite that its authenti- CHA4?P.!.

city should be undisputed, and that its author
should have been possessed of Apostolic power ;
if it were supposed to fail in satisfying either
of these conditions, then it was ‘ disputed,’ how-
ever well it satisfied the other.

With regard to the first and last classes
there can be little ambiguity as to the limits
which Eusebius would set to them generally ;
the position of the Apocalypse (for a reason
which will be shortly seen) being left in some

uncertainty. But considerable doubt has been the sesomd,

felt as to the exact extent and definition of the
second class, though the words at the beginning
and end of the paragraph in which the disputed
books are enumerated, clearly state that they
were all included under one comprehensive title.
Yet it does not therefore follow that all the
books included in the second class were on
the same footing; for, on the contrary, this
class itself is subdivided into two other classes,
stance, is called ‘acknowledged,’ when the question of
authenticity only is at issue (Euseb. H. E. iii. 16, 38): but
‘disputed,’ with regard to canonicity (H. E. vi. 13).

Origen once adopts a triple division of books claiming
Apostolic authority somewhat different (Comm. in Joan. xiii.
17): ...€€era{ovres περὶ τοῦ βιβλίου [τοῦ κηρύγματος Πέτρου]
πότερόν ποτε γνήσιόν ἐστιν ἣ νόθον ἣ μικτόν (ἃ genuine work,
& spurious work falsely inscribed with St Peter’s name, or ἃ

work containing partly true records of St Peter’s teaching,
partly spurious additions to it).

CHAP. I.

486 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

containing, respectively, such books as were gene-
rally though not universally recognized, and such
as Eusebius pronounced to be ‘ spurious,’ that is
deficient in one or other of the marks of an
acknowledged book. ‘There are traces even of
a further subdivision; for this latter class again
is made up of subordinate groups, determined,
as it appears, by the common character which
fixed their position: the first group containing
the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, and the Apoca-
lypse of Peter, was not genuine; the second,
containing the Epistle of Barnabas! and the
Doctrines of the Apostles, was not apostolic.
And if this view be correct the ambiguous state-
ment as to the Apocalypse becomes intelligible,
because it was undoubtedly a genuine work of
John; and if that John were identical with the
Apostle, then it satisfied both the conditions
requisite to make it an acknowledged book:
otherwise, like the letter of Barnabas, it was
‘ spurious’.’

1 In speaking of Barnabas the companion of St Paul,
Eusebius takes no notice of the Epistle, and he nowhere
attributes it to him (H. E. i. 12; ii. 1; vi. 13). Cf. p. 49.

2 Though Eusebius does not here use the word ἀπόκρυ-
gos, yet as he elsewhere applies it (H. E. iv. 22) to the
books fabricated by heretics, it will be well to trace its
meaning briefly:

i. The original sense is clearly set apart from sight as
distinguished from the simple hidden, (κρνυπτός) the notion

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 487

According to this view of the passage, then, CHAP.1.
it appears that Eusebius received as ‘ Divine
Scriptures’ the acknowledged books, adding to

of separation or removal being brought prominently forward.
Cf. Sirac. xlii.12 (LXX.): θυγάτηρ πατρὶ andxpudos ἀγρνπνία.
Gen. xxiv. 43 (Aqu.); Dan. xi. 43; Col. ii. 3; Mark iv. 22;
Luke viii. 17; Matt. xi. 25; xxv. 18; i. Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii.
1; Col. i. 26 (ἀποκρύπτειν )ς φανεροῦν).

ii. From this sense various others branch out correspond-
ing to the several motives which may occasion the conceal-
ment. As applied to books, concealment might be caused
by their

(a) Esoteric value, as containing the secrets of a religion
or anart. Of. Ex. vii. 11, 22 (Symm.); Suid. in Pherecyde
(quoted by Stephens): .foxnoe δὲ ἑαυτὸν κτησάμενος τὰ Φοινί-
κων ἀπόκρνφα B:Sdia. As such heretics brought forward
writings under the names of prophets and apostles ; cf. Orig.
Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 28.

(8) Mysterious or ambiguous character, as containing
that which specially needs interpretation or correction from
its difficulty or imperfection. Cf. Sirac. xxxiii. 3, 9; (Xen.
Memor. iii. 5, 14; Conv. viii. 11). In the first sense the
word is applied to the Revelation by Gregory of Nyssa
(Orat. in Ordin. suam, T. 1. p. 876, ed. Par. 1615): ἥκουσα
τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν ἀποκρύφοις δι᾽ αἰνίγματος λέγον-
τος...; and in the other commonly to the so-called ‘ Apocry-
pha’ of the Old Testament. Cf. Orig. prol. in Cant. s. f.

(y) In the last sense the word offered a contrast to
δεδημοσιευμένος, and so came to be applied to books wholly
set aside from the use of the Church. Thus it is first used
by Irenseus, i. 20 (with some allusion probably to the claims
made by the writers of the books; cf. Clem. Str. i. 15, § 69):
ἀμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφῶν, ἃς αὐτοὶ ἔπλα-
σαν παρεισφέρουσιν...: Athanat. Ep. fest. (κανονιζόμενα, ava-
γινωσκόμενα, améxpupa) ; Cyril. Catech. iv. 36. Cf. Schlensner,
Lex. Vet. Test. and Suicer s. v.; and Reuss, Gesch. der
Heil. Schrift. § 318.

488 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.L them the other books in our present Canon, and

General view no others, on the authority of most writers, with

Tess this single exception, that he was undecided as

isolated tent to the authorship of the Apocalypse. It remains
for us to inquire how far this general judgment
is supported by the isolated notices of the dif-

ferent books scattered throughout his writings.
It will be noticed that no special mention is
made in the general summary of the Epistle to
the Episteto the Hebrews, but in the first quotation it is
expressly attributed to St Paul; and though
Eusebius elsewhere speaks of it as among the
disputed books'!, numerous quotations prove that
he regarded it as substantially St Paul’s, even if
it had been translated by St Luke, or (as he was
the Catholic MOTE inclined to believe) by Clement*?. With
regard to the Catholic Epistles, after speaking
of δὲ Somer of the martyrdom of James the First, he says:
mye” = ¢ The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is said
to be his. But I must remark that it is held by

1 Ἡ. E. vi. 13: Κέχρηται δ᾽ [ὁ KAnpns]...rats ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντι-
λεγομένων μαρτυρίαις... καὶ τῆς πρὸς “Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς, τῆς τε
Βαρνάβα καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ Ἰούδα.

3 Ἡ. E, iii. 38. For his use of the Epistle, see Eclog.
Proph. i. 20 (ed. Gaisfd, Ox. 1842): ὁ ἀπόστολος... ἐν τῇ πρὸς
Ἑβραίους συντάξει... φησίν: Hebr. i. 5; 80 iii. 23: ὁ θαυμάσιος
ἀπόστολος: Hebr. iv. 14; c. Marc. de Eccl. Theol. i. 20: καὶ
ἀρχιερέα δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος [Παῦλος] ἀποκαλεῖ λέγων"
Hebr. iv. 14; c. Mare. ii. 1. Comm. in Ps. (ed. Montfaucon,
Par. 1706) i. 175 sq., 248, &c.

3 H.E. ii. 23.

DURING THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 489

some to be spurious (νοθεύεται). Certainly not CHAP.!.

many old writers have mentioned it, nor yet the
Epistle of Jude, which is also one of the seven

so-called Catholic Epistles. But nevertheless we ot sevenca-
know that these have been publicly used with the =. ad

rest in most Churches.’ This, again, is thoroughly
consistent with his summary; for the allusion to
the order of the Catholic Epistles, and to their
definite number (seven), shows that even such
as were disputed were distinguished from those
which he likewise calls ‘disputed’ when men-
tioning the opinions of others, but ‘spurious’
when expressing his own. It is more important
to insist on this testimony, because though Eu-
sebius has made use of the Epistle of St James
in many places', yet I am not aware that he
ever quotes the Epistle of St Jude, the second
Epistle of St Peter, or the two shorter Epistles
of St John?.

The Apocalypse alone remains; and with of the Apoce-

regard to this book, the same uncertainty as
marks Eusebius’ judgment on its apostolicity
characterizes his use of it, though he shows a
certain inclination to abide by the testimony of

1 Comm. in Ps. i. p. 247: λέγει γοῦν ὁ ἱερὸς Ἀπόστολον"
James v.13; id. Ὁ. 648: τῆς γραφῆς λεγούσης" Prov. xx. 13;
James iv. 11. Cf. id. p. 446; c. Marc. de Eccl. Theol. ii.
26; iii. 2.

2 On the contrary cf. Theophania, v. 39 (p. 323, Lee).

490 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON, ETC.

cnaP.I. antiquity. ‘It is likely,’ he says in one place,
ss ¢ that the Apocalypse, circulated under the name
of John, was seen by the second John [the pres-
byter], if any one be unwilling to believe that it
was seen by the first [the Apostle]';’ and he quotes
it (though rarely in respect of its importance)

Reailt of the simply as ‘the Apocalypse of John?.’

From all this it is evident that the testimony
of Eusebius marks a definite step in the history
of the Canon, and exactly that which it was
reasonable to expect from his position. The
books of the New Testament were formed into
distinct collections—‘a quaternion of Gospels,’
‘fourteen Epistles of St Paul,’ ‘seven catholic
Epistles.’ Both in the West and in the East
the persecutor had wrought his work, and a
New Testament rose complete from the fires
which were kindled to consume it. That it
rested on no authoritative decision is simply a
proof that none was needed; and in the next
chapter it will be seen that the Conciliar Canons
introduced no innovations, but merely proposed
to preserve the tradition which had been handed
down.

1H. E. iii. 39.

2 Cf. H. E. iii. 18, 29. Eclog. Proph. iv. 30: κατὰ τὸν
᾿Ιωάννην: Apoc. xiv. 6. Cf. id. iv. 8; Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2;
κατὰ τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν ᾿Ιωάννον' Apoc. v.5. No reference to it

occurs, however, in his Commentaries on the Psalms and on
Isaiah, published by Montfaucon.

CHAPTER II.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON DURING THE AGE
OF COUNCILS.

Non doctrina et sapientia, sed Domini auxilio pax ec- cgap. qr.
clesis: reddita.—HIERONYMUS. -----ἕ-

No sooner was Constantine’s imagination constantine’s
moved by the sign of the heavenly cross (if we Holy Ber.
may receive the account of Eusebius), than he™"™"**™"
‘devoted himself to the reading of the divine
Scriptures,’ seeking in them the interpretation
of his vision’. And in after times he continued,
at least with outward zeal, the study which he
had thus begun. If his predecessors ‘had com-
manded the Inspired Oracles to be consumed
in the flames, he gave orders that they should
be multiplied, and embellished magnificently at
the expence of the royal treasury?.. One of his
first cares after the foundation of Constanti-
nople, when ‘a great multitude of men devoted
themselves to the most holy Church,’ was to
charge Eusebius with ‘the preparation of fifty
copies of the divine Scriptures, which he knew
to be required for the purposes of the Church,

1 Euseb. V. C. i. 32. 2 Euseb. V. C. iii. 1.

492 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHAP. II. written on parchment and convenient for use,
by the help of skilful artists accurately acquainted
with their craft!’ And as the emperor himself
set an example to his subjects ‘studying the
Bible in his palace’ and ‘giving himself up to
the contemplation of the Inspired Oracles’,’ he
was better able to persuade ‘weak women and
countless multitudes of men to receive rational
support for rational souls by divine readings,
in exchange for the mere support of the body>.’
as the rule 0 During the great controversies which agi-
tated the Church throughout his reign, Con-
stantine—‘ appointed by God as bishop in out-
ward matters‘’—_remained faithful to the same
great principle of the paramount authority of
Scripture. A historian of the Council of Nice
represents him as closing his address to the
fathers assembled there in memorable words.
‘Let us cherish peace and forbearance,’ he says,
‘for it would be truly disastrous that we should
assail one another, particularly when we are
discussing divine matters, and possess the teach-
ing of the most Holy Spirit committed to
writing; for the books of the Evangelists and
Apostles, and the utterances of the ancient
prophets, clearly instruct us what we ought to

1 Euseb. V. C. iv. 36. 2 Euseb. V.C. iv. 17.
3 Euseb. V. C. xvii.

4 Euseb. V.C. iv. 24. Cf. Heinichen, Exc. ad 1.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 493

think of the Divine Nature. Let us then banish CHAP. 1.
strife which gendereth contention, and take the
solution of our questions from the _ inspired
words!,’ Though we may admit that this speech
is due to the pen of the historian’, it is tho-
roughly consistent with phrases in Constantine’s
letters, which are of unquestioned authenticity.
Thus he charges Arius with teaching ‘things
contrary to the inspired Scriptures and the holy
faith,’ which faith was ‘in truth the exact ex-
pression of the Divine Law’.’

The criterion laid down by Constantine was noly scrip.
also acknowledged by the leaders of the con- ei toa τὰς
flicting parties in the Church. Alexander was during the
bishop of Alexandria at the time when the vesy,oa
opinions of Arius, ‘a presbyter in the city en- κα
trusted with the interpretation of the divine
Scriptures‘,’ first gained notoriety. He convened
a synod of many bishops of his province, when
Arius was condemned by ‘the testimony of the
divine Scriptures;’ and among other passages

1 Gelas. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 7. Theodor. H. E. i. 7.

2 Gelasius states (Pref.) that his work was composed
during the persecutions of Basiliscus (475 a.c.) Photius
has criticised the book, cc. 15, 88. Gelasius quotes i. Tim.
iii. 16, ὃ ἐφανερώθη, which is very remarkable in an Eastern
writer (Hist. ii. 22).

8 Ep. Const. ap. Gelas. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 27. Soer.
H. E. i. 6.

4 Theodor. H. E. i. 2.

494 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHAP. 1. which Alexander quoted, occur several from
the Epistle to the Hebrews (as the work of the
Apostle Paul), and one from the second Epistle of
‘the blessed John!.’ Arius on the other hand,
when sending a copy of his Creed to the Em-
peror, adds: ‘this is the faith which we have
received from the holy Gospels, according to

Matt. xxviil. the Lord’s words, as the Catholic Church and
the Scriptures teach, which we believe in all
things: God is our Judge both now and in the
judgment to come? The followers of Arius
repeated the assertion of their master; and
though some of them held the Epistle to the
Hebrews to be uncanonical, that opinion was
neither universal among them, nor peculiar to
their sect’.

1 Ep. Alex. ap. Gelas. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 3. (Soer.
H. E. i. 3). Hebr. i. 3; xiii. 8; ii. 10. ii. John 11. So
also Ep. Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. (Labbé, Concil.
ii. p. 14) σύμφωνα γοῦν τούτοις βοᾷ καὶ 6 μεγαλοφωνότατος
Παῦλος φάσκων περὶ αὑτοῦ" Hebr. i. 2.

2 Ep. Arii ad Const. Imp. (ap. Labbé, Concil. ii. p. 464.
Ed. Par. 1671).

3 Theodor. pref. Ep. ad Hebr. Epiph. her. lxix. 37.

The famous Gothic Version of ULpaizas, who is gene-
rally reputed to have been an Arian, contained ‘all the
Scriptures, except the books of the Kings,’ which were
omitted because they contained a history of wars likely to
inflame the spirit of the Goths. (Philostorg. ii. 5). Sixtus
Sinensis, however, says: ‘omnes divinas Scripturas in
Gothicam linguam a se conversas tradidit et catholice expli-
cavit’ (Massmann, p. 98). The version as it stands at

ee

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 495

The discussions which took place at Nice CHAP.I.
were in accordance with the principle thus laid Coun eneral
down, if the history of Gelasius be trustworthy}. A.D. 326,

Scripture was the source from which the cham-
pions and assailants of the orthodox faith derived
their premisses; and among other books, the
Epistle to the Hebrews was quoted as written by
St Paul, and the Catholic Epistles were recog-
nized as a definite collection’. But neither in
this nor in the following Councils were the Scrip-
tures themselves ever the subjeets of discussion.
They underlie all controversy, as a sure founda-
tion, known and immoveable’*.

present is clear and accurate, and shows no trace of Arianism.
(Massmann, 8. ἃ. Οὅ.). A great part of the Gospels and
Pauline Epistles has been published: the former chiefly
from the silver MS at Upsal; the latter from Italian MSS.

Massmann published a fragment of a Gothic Commen-
tary on St John, probably translated from the Greek of
Theodorus of Heraclea (p. 79), containing a quotation from
the Epistle to the Hebrews (Auslegung des Ev. Johannis
u. 8. w. H. Ε΄. Massmann, Munich, 1834).

1 Hist. Cone. Nic. ii. 13—23. Labbé, Concil. ii. 175—223.
Pheebadius (c. 359 a. c.) asserts the same fact.

2 Gelas. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 19. καθώς φησι καὶ ὁ
Παῦλος, τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς, τοῖς Ἑβραίοις γράφων Hebr.
iv. 12; id. ii. 19. ἐν καθολικαῖς ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Boa’
i. John iii. 6. Cf. ii. 22ὥ. For the Epistle to the Hebrews,
see also Sozom. H. E. i. 23.

8 Jerome (Pref. in Judith, i. p. 1169) says: quia hunc
librum synodus Niczena in numero sanctarum scripturarum
legitur computasse, acquievi postulationi tuse (to translate
it). No reference to the book of Judith occurs in the

496 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

CHAP. II. The canons set forth by the synods which
The Synods. followed the general Council of Nice, at Gangra

which imme-
lowed this in Paphlagonia, at Antioch in Syria, at Sardica

ciplinary and in Thrace, and at Carthage, were chiefly directed
to points of ritual and discipline, yet so that in
the last Canon of the synod at Gangra it is
said: ‘To speak briefly, we desire that what
has been handed down to us by the divine
Scriptures and the apostolic traditions should

be done in the Church!’,’
of Laadlcee. The first synod at which the books of the
' Bible were made the subject of a special ordi-
nance was that of Laodicea, in Phrygia Paca-
tiana; but the date at which the synod was
held, no less than the integrity of the Canon in
question, has been warmly debated. In the
collections of Canons the Council of Laodicea
stands next to that of Antioch, and this order
is probably correct. The arguments which have
been urged to show that it was prior to the
Council of Nice are on the whole of little mo-
ment, and the mention of the Photinians in the
seventh Canon, no less than the whole character

records of the Council, as far as I am aware, and it can be
only to something of this kind that Jerome alludes.

The holy Gospels were placed in the midst of the
assembled fathers at Chalcedon, but though it is commonly
stated that it was so at Nice also, I know of no proof of the
circumstance.

1 Conc. Gangr. Can. xxi f.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 497

of the questions discussed, is decisive for a later
date’ A natural confusion of names offers a
ready excuse for the contrary opinion. Gratian?
states that the Laodicene Canons were mainly
drawn up by Theodosius; and Theodosius (Theo-
dotus or Theodorus, for the name is variously
written) was bishop of Laodicea in Syria at the
time of the Council of Nice. But the statement
of Gratian really points to a very different con-
clusion; for Epiphanius mentions another Theo-
dosius, bishop of Philadelphia’, who is said to
have convened a synod in the time of Jovian
for the purpose of condemning certain irregular
ordinations‘, and his position coincides admi-
rably with that of the author of our Canons.
Internal evidence also supports their identifi-
cation; nor is it any objection that this Theo-
dosius was an Arian, for the Canons are chiefly
disciplinary, and such as could be ratified by
orthodox councils; and at the same time that

1 The name is omitted in the Latin Version of Isidore,
but it is contained in the Greek text and in the Version of
Dionysius Exicuus. Phrygia was not divided into different
provinces till after the Council of Sardis, hence the title—
Phrygia Pacatiana—points to a date later than 344 a. 0.
Cf. Spittler, Werke, viii. 68 (ed. 1838).

2 Grat. Decr. Dist. xvi. c. 11. [Synodus] sexta Laodi-
censis, in qua patres xxxii. statucrunt Canones LXI. (sic ed.
1648; Lx. ed. Antv. 1573), quorum auctor maxime Theo-
dosius episcopus exstitit.

8 Epiph. Heer. lxxiii. 26. 4 Philostorg. viii. 3, 4.

KK

CHAP. It.

c. 868 a.c.

498 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.. fact explains the omission of all reference to

~ the Nicene Canons, which would otherwise be
strange’.

The last Lao- The date of the Synod of Laodicea (which

dicene Canon

inthe print was in fact only a small gathering of clergy
from parts of Lydia and Phrygia?) being thus
approximately affixed, the question of the inte-
grity of the last Canon, which contains the cata-
logue of the books of Holy Scripture, remains
to be eonsidered. In the printed editions of
the Councils, the Catalogue stands as an undis-
puted part of the Greek text, and the whole
Canon reads as follows:
‘Psalms composed by private men (ἰδιωτικοὺς)
must not be read (λέγεσθαι) in the Church,

1 Cf. Pagi, Crit. ad Baron. ann. 314, xxv.; Baron. Opp.
Tom. vi. (ed. 1738). On the omission of the book of Judith
from the Old Testament Canon, said to have been recognized
by the Nicene Council, cf. supra, p. 495 n.

Beveridge fixes the date of the Synod about the same
time (365 a.c.), and supposes that it was summoned in
consequence of letters from Valentinian, Valens and Gratian
(Theodor. H. Εἰ. iv. 6) to the bishops διοικήσεως ᾿Ασιανῆς,
Φρυγίας, Kapodpvyias, Ἠακατιανῆς, urging them to hold a synod
on some who had been reviving the Homoousian contro-
versy, and also on the choice of men of approved faith for
the episeopate (Pand. Can. ii. 3, p. 193).

2 Gratian (1. c.) says it consisted of ‘ xxxii. fathers.’ Har-
duin quotes a different version of Gratian’s statement from
a Parisian MS, of Isidore: Laodicensis synodus, in qua
Patres viginti quatuor statuerunt Canones LIx. quorum
auctor maxime Theodosius episcopus exstitit, subscribentibus
Niceta, Macedonio, Anatolio, et ceteris.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 499

nor uncanonical (axavoucra) books, but only cuHap.u.
the canonical [books] of the New and Old
Testaments.

‘How many books must be read (avayiww-
oxea Oa);

Of the Old Testament: 1. The Genesis of
the World. 2. The Exodus from Egypt. 3. Le-
viticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. Jesus
the son of Nun. 7. Judges. Ruth. 8. Esther.
9. Kings i. ii, 10. Kings iii. iv. 11. Chronicles
iii. 12. Esdrasi. ii. 13. The Book of Psalms cl.
14. The Proverbs of Solomon. 15. Ecclesiastes.
16. The Song of Songs. 17. Job. 18. xii. Pro-
phets. 19, Esaias. 20. Jeremiah. Baruch. La-
mentations, and Letter. 21. Ezechiel. 22.
Daniel. Together xxii. books.

Of the New Testament: Four Gospels,
according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The
Acts of the Apostles. Seven Catholic Epistles :
thus: James i. Peter i. ii. John i. ii. iii. Jude i,
Fourteen Epistles of Paul: thus: to the Romansi.
To the Corinthians i. ii. To the Galatians i.
To the Ephesians i. To the Philippians. i. To
the Colossians i. To the Thessalonians i. ii. To
the Hebrews i. To Timothy i. ii. To Titus i,
To Philemon i.!

1 Cf. App. p. The Canons are variously numbered, but
the oldest and best authorities which contain both these
paragraphs combine them together as the Lixth Canon.

Cf. Spittler, a.a.O. 72.
KK@

bese

500 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

Of this Canon the first paragraph is recog-
nized as genuine with unimportant variations by
every authority; the second, the Catalogue of
the Books itself, is omitted in various MSS. and
versions; and in order to arrive at a fair estimate
_ of its claims to authenticity, it will be necessary
to notice briefly the different forms in which
the Canons of the ancient Church have been
preserved ',

The Greek MSS. of the Canons may be divided
into two classes, those which contain the simple
text, and those which contain in addition the
scholia of the great commentators. Manuscripts
of the second class in no case date from an earlier
period than the end of the twelfth century, the
era of Balsamon and Zonaras, the most famous
Greek canonists. Yet it is on this class of
MSS., which contain the Catalogue in question,
that the printed editions are based. The ear-
liest MS. of the first class with which I am
acquainted is of the xith century, and one is as

1 The authenticity of the Catalogue has been discussed
at considerable length by Spittler (Sammtl. Werke, viii. 66 ff.
ed. 1835), whose essay was published in 1776, and again by
Bickell (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, pp. 591 ff.) The essay of
Spittler seems to me to be much superior to that of his
successor in clearness and wideness of view. Spittler re-
gards the Catalogue as entirely spurious ; Bickell only allows
that it was wanting in some very early copies of the Canons,

and supposes that it may have been displaced by the general
reception of the Apostolic Canons and Catalogue of Scripture.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 60]

late as the xvth. The evidence on the disputed 55.4.1.

paragraph which these MSS. afford is extremely
interesting. Two omit the Catalogue entirely.
In another it is inserted after a vacant space.
A fourth contains it on a new page with red
dots above and below. In a fifth it appears
wholly written in red letters. Three others
give it as a part of the last Canon, though
headed with a new rubric. In one it appears
as a part of the 59th Canon without interrup-
tion or break; and in two (of the latest date)
numbered as a new Canon!, It is impossible

1 The MSS. with which Iam acquainted are the following:
(a) Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 26 (7), ssec. xi. inountis.
Cod. Misc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 170 (12), smc. xiv, xv.

These omit the Canon altogether.
(8) Cod. Barocc. Mus. Bodl. 185 (18), seec. xi. exeuntis.
Gives the Canon after a vacant space.
Cod. Vindob. 56, sec. xi. On a new page with red
dots above and below. (Bickell, p. 595.)
Cod. Seld. (Bibl. Bodl.) 48 (10), seec. xiii. All in red
letters.
(y) Cod. Baroce. (Bibl. Bodl.) 196 (16), anno ΜΧΙΠῚ ex-
aratus.
Cod. Misc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 206 ssec. xi. exeuntis.
Cod. Cant. (Bibl. Univ. Ee. 4. 29 22), ssec. xii.
These give the Catalogue under a rubric ὅσα---διαθήκης,
but not as a new Canon.
(3) Cod. Laud. (Bibl. Bodl.) 39 (21), sec. xi. ineuntis.
As part of 59.
Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 205 (18), seec. xiv. As a
new Canon.
Cod Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 158 (23), sec. xv. Asa
new Canon.

502 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.I- not to feel that these several MSS. mark the
steps by which the Catalogue gained its place
in the present Greek text; but it may still be
questioned whether it may not have thus re-
gained a place which it had lost before. And
thus we are led to notice some versions of the
Canons which date from a period anterior to the
oldest Greek MSS.

2, The Latin The Latin version exists in a threefold form.
The earliest (Versio prisca) is fragmentary, and
does not contain the Laodicene Canons. But
two other versions by Dionysius and Isidore are
complete'. In the first of these, which dates
from the middle of the sixth century, though it
exists in two distinct recensions, there is no
trace of the Catalogue. In the second, on the
contrary, with only two exceptions, as far as I
am aware, the Catalogue constantly appears.
And though the Isidorian version in its general
form only dates from the ninth century, two
MSS. remain which are probably as old as the
seventh century, and both of these contain it’.
So far then it appears that the evidence of the

The MSS. marked by italics are now, I believe, quoted
on this question for the first time; and for the account of
all the Bodleian MSS. I am indebted to the kindness of the
Rev. H. O. Coxe.

1 In the account of the Latin versions I have chiefly
followed Spittler, a. a. O. 98 ff. Cf. Bickell, 601 ff.

2 Spittler, p. 115. Cf. Bickell, p. 606,

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 503

Latin versions for and against the authenticity c#apP. 1.
of the Catalogue is nearly balanced, the testi-
mony of Italy confronting that of Spain.

The Syriac MSS. of the British Museum are 3. Syrise
however more than sufficient to turn the scale.
Three MSS. of the Laodicene Canons are found
in that collection, which are as old as the sixth
or seventh century. All of these contain the
fifty-ninth Canon, but without any Catalogue.
And this testimony is of twofold value from the
fact that one of them gives a different trans-
lation from that of the other two!.

Nor is this all: in addition to the direct 3 Systems
versions of the Canons, systematic collections Canons. pent ote
and synopses of them were made at various
times which have an important bearing upon
the question. One of the earliest of these was
drawn up by Martin, Bishop of Braga in Por. c. 580 4c. :
tugal, in the middle of the sixth century.

This collection contains the first paragraph of
the Laodicene Canon, without any trace of the
second; and the testimony which it offers is of 1578 4.c.

1 The MSS. are numbered 14, 526; 14, 528; 14, 629.
All of them contain 59 Canons. For the examination of
these MSS. I am indebted to the kindness of T. Ellis, Esq.,
of the British Museum.

The Arabic MS. in Rich’s collection (7207) is only a
fragment. Bickell consulted an Arabic translation at Paris,
which contained the Laodicene Canons twice, once with and
once without the Catalogue, (p. 592.)

504 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.1. more importance, because it was based on an
examination of Greek authorities, and those of a
very early date, since they did not notice the
councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chal-
cedon, which were included in the collections of
the fifth century’. Johannes Scholasticus, a
presbyter of Antioch, formed a digest of Canons
under different heads about the same time, and
this contains no reference to the Laodicene
Catalogue, but on the contrary the list of Holy
Scriptures is taken from the last of the Apo-
stolic Canons. The Nomocanon is a later revi-
sion of the work of Johannes, and contains only
the undisputed paragraph; but in a third and
later recension the Laodicene and Apostolic
catalogues are both inserted.
logue hot an On the whole, then, it cannot be doubted
part of the that external evidence is decidedly against the
Giodicewe authenticity of the Catalogue as an integral part
™ of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can
any internal evidence be brought forward sufli-
cient to explain its omission in Syria, Italy, and
Portugal in the sixth century, if it had been so.
Yet even thus it is necessary to account for its
insertion in the version of Isidore. So much is
evident at once that the Catalogue is of Eastern

1 Mart. Brac. pref. Incipiunt canones ex orientalibus
antiquorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino ipso vel ab
omni Bracarensi Consilio excerpti vel emendati.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 505

and not of Western origin; and, except in de- cHaP. Π.
tails of order, it agrees exactly with that given
by Cyril of Jerusalem. Is it then an unreason-
able supposition that some early copyist endea-
voured to supply, either from the writings of
Cyril, or more probably from the usage of the
Church which Cyril represented, the list of books
which seemed to be required by the language
of the last genuine Canon? In this way it is
easy to understand how some MSS. should have
incorporated the addition, while others preserved
the original text ; and the known tendency of
copyists to make their works full rather than
pure, will account for its genera] reception at
last.

The later history of the Laodicene Canons ΖΡ ster hu-

does not throw any considerable light on the Ganon.”
question of the authenticity of the Catalogue’.

Though they were originally drawn up by a pro-

an early ad-
dition to it.

vincial (and perhaps unorthodox) synod, they
were afterwards ratified by the Eastern Church
at the Quinisextine Council of Constantinople. 6924.c.
But nothing can be concluded from this as to
the absence of the list of the Holy Scriptures
from the copy of the Canons which was then
confirmed. The Canons of the Apostles were

1 It is commonly supposed that the Laodicene Canons
were ratified at the Council of Chalcedon (451 a.o.): Cone.
Chalc. Can. 1. But the wording of the Canon is very vague.

506 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHAP.11. ganctioned at the same Council; and though a
᾿ special reservation was made in approving them,
to the effect that the Clementine Constitutions,
which they recognized as authoritative, were no
longer to be received as canonical, on account of
the interpolations of heretics, no notice was
taken of the two Clementine epistles which were
also pronounced canonical at the same time’.
It is, then, impossible to press the variations be-
tween the Apostolic and Laodicene Catalogues
as a conclusive proof that they could not have
been admitted simultaneously*. The decision
of the Council contained a general sanction
rather than a detailed judgment. And this is
further evident from the differences between the
Apostolic and Carthaginian Catalogues which
were certainly ratified together>. So again, at

Justinian, by a special ordinance, ratified not only the Canons
of the four general Councils, of which that of Chalcedon was
the last, but also those which they confirmed.

1 Concil. Quinisext. Can. xx1. The Catalogue of the
books of Scripture in the last Apostolic Canon is curious;
but as a piece of evidence it is of no value. It was drawn,
I believe, from Syrian sources, and probably dates from the
sixth century. Cf. App. D.

2 Though the Catalogues differed in other respects, they
coincided in omitting the Apocalypse. Cf. App. D.

8 The later history of the Canon in the Greek Church,
which accepts the decrees of the Quinisextine Council, shows
that the ratification of these earlier Councils was not sup-
posed to fix definitely (which, indeed, it could not do) the
contents of Holy Scripture. Cyril Lucar (Confess. 3.) pro-

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 6507

a later time the Laodicene Catalogue was CHapP.1I.

confirmed by a synod at Aix-la-Chapelle in
the time of Charlemagne, and gained a wide

posed to admit ‘such books as were recognized by the synod
at Laodicea, and by the catholic and orthodox Church,’ but
he adds to the New Testament ‘the Apocalypse of the be-
loved.’ There is no Catalogue of the books of Scripture in
the ‘Orthodox Confession,’ but the Apocalypse is quoted in
it (qusest. 14), and as ‘Holy Scripture’ (quest. 73.) At the
Synod of Jerusalem (1672) Cyril was condemned for ‘rejecting
some of the books which the holy and cecumenical synods
had received as canonical, but no charge is brought against
him for adding to them, so that in this case the Cartha-
ginian and not the Laodicene Catalogue was the standard
of reference for the new Testament. (Act. Synod. Hieros.
xviii. p. 417, Kimmel.) In the confession of Dositheus the
Greek Church is said to receive ‘all the books which Cyril
borrowed from the Laodicene Council, with the addition of
those which he called ...apocryphal.’ (Kimmel, p. 467. Cf.
Proleg. § 11 on the Latin influence supposed to have been
exercised on these documents.) In the Confession of Me-
trophanes Critopulus the Canon of the Old Testament is
identical with the Hebrew, that of the New Testament
with our own, so that there are ‘thirty-three books in all,
equal in number to the years of the Saviour’s life.’ The
Apocrypha is there regarded as useful for its moral pre-
cepts, but its canonicity is denied on the authority of Gre-
gory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and Johannes Damas-
cenus, but no reference is made to the Laodicene Canon.
(Kimmel, ii. 105-6.) At the Synod of Constantinople a
general reference is made to the different catalogues in the
Apostolic Canons, and in the Synods of Laodicea and Car-
thage. (Kimmel, ii. 225.) In the Catechism of Plato and
in the authorized Russian Catechism, the Old Testament is
given according to the Hebrew Canon. On the other hand,
the authorized Moskow edition of the Bible contains the
Old Testament Apocrypha arranged with the other books.
Reuss, § 338.

508 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON ©

CHAP.IL currency in the Isidorian version of the Can-
ons. But there is no evidence to show that there
was on this account any doubt in the Western
Churches as to the authority or public use of
the Apocalypse. But though no argument can
be drawn against the authenticity of the Cata-
logue from the ratification of the Laodicene
Canons at Constantinople, that fact leaves the
preponderance of evidence against it wholly
unaffected. The Catalogue may have been a
contemporary appendix to the Canons, but it
was not, I believe, an integral part of the ori-
ginal conciliar text.

Hl. Thethird [0 is then necessary to look to the West

Canthage’ for the first synodical decision on the Canon
of Scripture. Between the years 390 and 419
a.c. no less than six councils were held in
Africa, and four of these at Carthage. For
a time, under the inspiration of Aurelius and
Augustine, the Church of Tertullian and Cyprian
was filled with a new life before its fatal desola-
tion. Among the Canons of the third Council
of Carthage, at which Augustine was present,
is one which contains a list of the books of

The Canon of Holy Scripture. ‘It was also determined,’ the

which Canon reads, ‘that besides the Canonical Scrip-
tures nothing be read in the Church under the
title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scrip-
tures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,

there.

DURING FHE AGE OF COUNCILS. 6508

Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of cHaP.11.
Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two
books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five
books of Solomon, the books of the twelve Pro-
phets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit,
Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books
of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament:
four books of the Gospels, one book of the
Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the
Apostle Paul, one Epistle of the same [writer]
to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle
Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude,
one book of the Apocalypse of John.’ Then
follows this remarkable clause: ‘Let this be
made known also to our brother and fellow-
priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those
parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon,
because we have received from our fathers that
those books must be read in the Church.’ And
afterwards the Canon is thus continued: ‘ Let
it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs
be read when their festivals are kept'.’

Even this Canon therefore is not altogether Anezplsss-
free from difficulties. The third Council of Canon”
Carthage was held in the year 397 a.c. in the
pontificate of Siricius; and Boniface did not
succeed to the Roman chair till the year 418 a.c.;

1 Cf. App. D. A collection of the chief catalogues of
Holy Scripture.

510 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.t. so that the allusion to him is at first sight per-
| plexing. Yet this anachronism admits of a rea-
sonable solution. In the year 419 a.c., after
the confirmation of Boniface in the Roman epis-
copate, the Canons of the African Church were
collected and formed into one code. In the
process of such a revision it was perfectly na-
tural that some reference should be made to
foreign churches on such a subject as the con-
tents of Scripture, which were fixed by usage
rather than by law. The marginal note which
directed the inquiry was suffered to remain,
probably because the plan was never carried
out; and that which stood in the text of the
general code was afterwards transferred to the
text of the original synod!.
ofan | At this point then the voice of a whole pro-
from the vince pronounces a judgment on the contents of
the Bible; and the books of the New Testament
are exactly those which are generally received
at present. But in making this decision the
African bishops put aside all notions of novelty.
Their decision had been handed down to them
by their fathers; and reverting once again from
Churches to men, our work would be unfinished

1 The Carthaginian Catalogue of the Books of Scripture
is found in the Canons of the Council of Hippo (393 a.c.)
But mention is made in that of ‘fourteen Epistles of Paul’
instead of the strange circumlocution given above. (Conc.
Hipp. 36.)

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 511

without a general review of the principal evi- cHap. 1.
dence on the Canon furnished by individual ᾿
writers from the beginning of the fourth cen-

tury. Nothing indeed is gained by this for a

critical investigation of the subject; for the
original materials have been all gathered already.

But it is not therefore less interesting to trace

the local prevalence of ancient doubts, and the
gradual extension of the Western Canon through-

out Christendom.

Turning towards the Eastern limit of Chris- t The oe
tian literature we find the ancient Canon of the 9"
Peshito still dominant at Antioch, at Nisibis, and
probably at Edessa.

The voluminous writings of Chrysostom, who (2) Anticcs.
was at first a presbyter of Antioch and after-”™
wards patriarch of Constantinople, abound in 407 a.c.
references to Holy Scripture; but with the ex-
ception of one quotation from the second Epi-
stle of St Peter*, which seems suspicious from
its singularity, I believe that he has nowhere
noticed the four Catholic Epistles which are not
contained in the Peshito, nor the Apocalypse’.

1 Cf. supr. pp. 265, sqq.

2 Hom. in Joan. 34 (al. 33) viii. p. 230, ed. Par. nova;
2 Pet. ii. 22.

δ Though Chrysostom nowhere quotes the Apocalypse
as Scripture, he appears to have been acquainted with it;
and indeed it is difficult to suppose the contrary. Suidas
(8. v. Ἰωάννης) says: δέχεται δὲ ὁ Χρυσόστομος καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς

CHAP. I.

8.
seripe

1429 a.0.

512 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

It is also in accordance with the same version
that he attributed fourteen Epistles to St Paul,
and received the Epistle of St James, ‘the
Lord’s brother,’ with the first Epistles of St
Peter and St John’. A Synopsis of Scripture
which was published by Montfaucon under the
name of Chrysostom, exactly agrees with this
Canon, enumerating, ‘as the books of the New
Testament, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, four
Gospels, the book of the Acts, and three of the
Catholic Epistles’. Theodore, a friend of Chry-
sostom, and bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia,
wrote commentaries on fourteen Epistles of St
Paul; and his remaining fragments contain
several quotations from the Epistle to the He-
brews, as St Paul’s?, But Leontius of Byzantium,
writing at the close of the sixth century, states
that he rejected ‘the Epistle of James and other
of the Catholic Epistles,’ by which we must
αὐτοῦ τὰς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν ᾿Αποκάλυψιν. If this be true, it is
a singular proof of the inconclusiveness of the casual evi-
dence of quotations.

1 It is however very well worth notice that PaLLapDIvs, a
friend of Chrysostom, in a dialogue which he composed at
Rome on his life, has expressly quoted the Epistle of St
Jude, and the third Epistle of St John, and makes an evi-
dent allusion to the second Epistle of St Peter. Dial. cc.
18, 20. (ap. Chrysost. Opp. T. xiii. pp. 68 o ; 79 D; 68 ©.)

2 Cf. App. D.

δ᾽ Comm. in Zachar. Ὁ. 542 (ed. Wegnern, Berl. 1834),
obs ἐχρῆν αἰσχυνθῆναι γοῦν τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου τὴν φωνήν...
Hebr. i. 7, 8. Cf. Ebed Jesu, ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. iii. 32, 3.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 6513

probably understand that he received only the cnap. n.
first acknowledged Epistles of St Peter and St "
John’. And though nothing is directly known
of his judgment on the Apocalypse, it is at least
probable that in respect to this he followed
the common opinion of the school to which he
belonged. Once again: Theodoret, a native of Tusoponrr.
Antioch and bishop of Cyrus in Syria, used the
same books as Chrysostom, and has nowhere
quoted the four disputed Epistles or the Apo-
calypse*.

Junilius, an African bishop of the sixth cen- (p) Nisibis,
tury, has given a very full and accurate account
of the doctrine on Holy Scripture taught in the
school of Nisibis in Syria, where ‘the Divine
Law was regularly explained by public masters,
just as Grammar and Rhetoric.” He enume- ,
rates all the acknowledged books of the New

1 Compare also what Cosmas says of Severian bishop of
Gabala, (Montf. Anal. Pp. p. 135, Venet. 1781). The words
of Leontius are: Ob quam causam (because he rejected the
book of Job) ut arbitror, ipsam Jacobi epistolam, et alias
deinceps aliorum Catholicas abrogat et antiquat. Non enim
satis fuit illi bellum contra veterem Scripturam suscipere ad
imitationem impietatis Marcionis, sed oportuit etiam contra
scripturam novam pugnare, ut pugna ejus contra Spiritum
Sanctum clarior et illustrior esset (c. Nest. et Eutych. iii.
ap. Canis. Varr. Lect. iv. 73. Ed. 1603).

2 Cf. Liicke, Comm. itb. Joh. i. 348. A Commentary on
the Gospels attributed to Victor of Antioch contains refer-
ences to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to the Epistles of
St James and St Peter (i.) Cf. Lardner, ii. c. 122.

LL

Apostles, that is: Jai
John...’ “As to the «
is considerable dou

Rexp ὅπου. tians',,.’ Ata very Τὰ

a Nestorian bishop of
century, has left a ca
the New Testament,
his summary of eccl
catalogue exactly ag
shito, including four
and ‘three Catholic
Apostles in every M
contains no allusion to

Bae. The testimony of

Sravs.

nately uncertain. Fo
all the books of ov
works, which are pres
not aware that therc

1 The passages are giv
3 Cf. App. D. It is

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 515

text more than one quotation of the Apocalypse, CHap. 11.
and perhaps an anonymous reference to the
second Epistle of St Peter’.

Johannes Damascenus, the last writer of the Jousssss

Syrian Church whom I shall notice, lived at a”
time when the Greek element had gained a
preponderating influence in the East, and his te.750a.c.
writings in turn are commonly accepted as an
authoritative exposition of the Greek faith.
The Canon of the New Testament which he
gives? contains all the books which we receive
now, with the addition of the Canons of the
Apostles. This singular insertion admits of a
satisfactory explanation from the fact that the
Apostolic Canons were sanctioned by the Qui-
nisextine Council, and their canonicity might
well seem a true corollary from the acknow-
ledgment of their ecclesiastical authority®.

The Churches of Asia Minor, which are now ii, Te
even more desolate than the Churches of Syria,“ “”””

1 Ephr. Syr. Opp. Syrr. ii. p. 332 c: Vidit in Apoca-
lypsi sua Johannes librum magnum et admirabilem et septem
sigillis munitum.... td. ii. p. 342: Dies Domini fur est. (Cf.
2 Pet. iii. 10.) Cf. Lardner, ii. 6. cii.

2 Cf. App. D.

8 The Canons of Carthage were ratified by the Quini-
sextine Council as well as those of the Apostles, and of
Laodicea. But the reservation in the Carthaginian decree
on the Canonical Books makes the discrepancy between that
and the Apostolic Catalogue less remarkable than that be-
tween the Laodicene and Apostolic Catalogues. But cf. p. 506.

LL2

uregory, bisnop ot
reisgac. rating the four (
Epistles of St Paul,
Gregory adds: ‘In
spired books; if -
these, it is not amo
and thus he exclud
Eastern Church, a
Epistles with the \
logue which bears t
monly (and rightly,
Auraio- contemporary Ampl
This extends to a
mer. Beginning wi
Gospels, of the Ac
fourteen Epistles o
‘but some maintain
brews is spurious,
grace [it shows] is 5
remains? Of the (

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 6517

one of John....The Apocalypse of John, again, cHarP. n.

some reckon among [the Scriptures]; but still
the majority say that it is spurious. This will
be the most truthful Canon of the inspired
Scriptures.’

The extant writings of Gregory do not Incidental
throw much additional light on his views on the Cony Nas.
Canon. Though he admitted the canonicity of
the seven Catholic Epistles, he does not appear
to have ever quoted them by name, and I have
only found one or two anonymous references to
the Epistles of St James'. But on the contrary,
he once makes an obvious allusion to the Apo-
calypse, and in another place refers to it by
name with marked respect*. This silence of
Gregory with regard to the disputed books,
though he held them all to be canonical, at least
with the exception of the Apocalypse, which he
does quote, explains the like silence of Gregory
of Nyssa, and of his brother Basil of Cmsarea, Grsoonr y
Basil refers only once to the Epistle of St James, ™“"~
and once to the Apocalypse, as the work of the
Evangelist St John’. And Gregory twice refers

1 Greg. Naz. Or. xxvi. 5 (p. 475); Jamesii. 20. Cf. Or. xu. 45.

2 Greg. Naz. Or. xxix. p. 536; Apoc. i. 8; cf. Or. xu. 45;
Apoc. i. 7; Id. Tom. i. p. 516 c (ed. Par. 1609): πρὸς δὲ
τοὺς ἐφεστῶτας ἀγγέλους, πείθομαι yap ἄλλους ἄλλης προστατεῖν
ἐκκλησίας, ὡς ᾿Ιωάννης διδάσκει με διὰ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως....

3 Basil. Const. Monast. 26 (Ep. St James); adv. Eunom.
ii. 14 (Apocalypse).

CHAP. IT.

The Apoca-
lypese re-
ceived by

ASDREW of
Cesarea, an
by

ARETHAS.

518 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

to the Apocalypse as a writing of St John, and
a part of Scripture; but makes no allusion to
the disputed Catholic Epistles!. All these fa-
thers, however, agree in using the Epistle to
the Hebrews as an authoritative writing of St
Paul?.

But whatever may have been the doubts as
to the canonicity of the Apocalypse which were
felt in Asia Minor at the close of the fourth
century, they wholly disappeared afterwards.
Andrew, bishop of Cesarea, at the close of the
fifth century wrote a commentary on it, prefacing
his work with the statement that he need not
attempt to prove the inspiration of the book,
which was attested by the authority of Papias,
Irenzus, Methodius, Hippolytus, and Gregory the
Divine (of Nazianzus’). Arethas, who is sup-
posed to have been a successor of Andrew in
the see of Cesarea, composed another com-
mentary on the Apocalypse, and adds the name

1 Greg. Nyss. Or. in ordin. suam, i. Ὁ. 876 (ed. Par. 1615):
ἥκουσα τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (in mysterious
words) πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους δι᾽ αἰνίγματος λέγοντος.... Apoc. iii.
15; adv. Apoll. 37 (Gallandi, vi. 570 Ὁ): τῆς γραφῇς ὁ λόγος
(Apoc.)

2 The works attributed to Cesarius (Gallandi, vi.) are
not the works of the brother of Basil, but evidently belong
to a later age. They contain references to St James (p. 5
Ὁ; p. 100 £), to 2 Peter (Πέτρος ὁ κλειδοῦχος τῆς βασιλείας
τῶν οὐρανῶν, Ὁ. 36 a) and to the Apocalypse, (p. 19 E.)

5 Proleg. ad Comm. in Apoc. Routh, Relliq. i. p. 15.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 6519

Basil to the list of the witnesses to its canonicity HAP. U.

given by Andrew!.
In speaking of the Churches of Syria 1"
omitted to notice that of Jerusalem because it

was essentially Greek. Cyril, who presided over ae
it during the middle of the fourth century, has Ὁ 86 a.c.

left a catalogue of the books of the New Tes-
tament in his Catechetical Lectures which he
composed at an early age*. In this he includes
all the books which we receive, with the excep-
tion of the Apocalypse; and at the close of his
list he says: ‘ But let all the rest be excluded
[from the Canon, and be accounted] in the
second rank. And all the books which are not
read in the Churches, neither do thou [my
scholar,| read by thyself, as thou hast heard.’

Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, was a 2*=amte.

contemporary and countryman of Cyril. In his
larger work against heresies he has given casu-
ally a Canon of the New Testament, exactly
coinciding with our own’; and though he else-
where mentions the doubts entertained about the
Apocalypse, he uses it himself without hesitation
as part of ‘the spiritual gift of the holy Apostle‘,

1 Cramer, Zcum. et Arethas Comm. in Apoc. p. 174, ap.
Routh, |. c. p. 41. Yet the words ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Βασίλειος are
wanting in one MS.

2 Cyr. Catech. iv. 33 (al. 22); cf. App. D.

8 Epiph. adv. ber. uxxvi. δ. App. D.
4 Epiph. adv. heer. vi. 85: ὁ ἅγιος ᾿Ιωάννης διὰ τοῦ evay-

cya.
14 nc.
Is1ponx.

te. 440 a,c,

Dorms.

te. 3954.0,

other books, and ai
the Apostles and t
young converts, thor
in the Canon. The
geries of heretics—
Athanasius takes no
opinion as to the ‘ac
books: in his judgr
ical'!, Cyril of Alex
sium, at the beginnir
use of the same boc
reserve. Somewhat
a@ commentary on {
though he states th
Peter ‘was account:
γελίου καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν κ'
ρίσματος τοῦ ἁγίου μεταδέδ

1 Athanas. Ep. Fest.

App. D. The gatalogut
tained in the S

DURING THE AGE OF councits. 521

Canon, though it was publicly read!’ And in cusp.

the middle of the fifth century, as has been

already seen’, Euthalius published an edition of Zormaws

the fourteen Epistles of St Paul, and of the
seven Catholic Epistles, with the help of the
MSS. which he found in the library of Pamphilus
at Ceesarea’.

After the foundation of Constantinople the % ΕΟ
new capital assumed in some degree the central none”

1 Did. Alex. ap. Bibl. SS. Patrr. vi. 6502: Non est igitur
ignorandum presentem epistolam esse falsatam (ὡς νοθεύ-
erat, Euseb. H. E. iii. 23, of the Epistle of St James), quae
licet publicetur (δημοσιεύεται, Euseb. |. c.) non tamen in ca-
none est (οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκός ἐστι. Euseb H. E. iii. 3).

2 Cf. pp. 449 sq. There is no evidence to show what
was the judgment of Euthalius on the Apocalypse.

3 Cosmas, an Alexandrian of the sixth century, at firet a
merchant and afterwards a monk, has left a curious work
On the World, in which, among other digressions he gives
some account of the Holy Scriptures. He enumerates the
four Gospels, the Acts, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, affirm.
ing that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written
in Hebrew and translated into Greek by St Luke or Cle-
ment. His account of the Catholic Epistles is obscure and
inaccurate. After answering an objection to one of his
theories which might be drawn from ii. Peter iii. 12, he
proceeds to say that the Church has looked upon them as
of doubtful authority, that the Syrians only received three,
that no commentator had written upon them. He says
particularly that Ironeus only mentioned two, evidently
mistaking Euseb. H. E. v. 8. Cosm. Indic. de mundo, vii.
p. 135. Anal. Pp. Venet. 1781. In the works of Drowrsivs,
falsely called the Areopagite, which probably belong to the
beginning of the sixth century, is 8 mystical enumeration of
the books of Holy Scripture, which includes the Apocalypse.

522 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

CHAP. Il. . position of ‘old’ Rome; and Rome became moré
clearly and decidedly the representative of the
Western Churches. The Church of Constantin-
ople, like that of Rome in early times, was not
fertile in great men. Strangers were attracted
to the imperial court, but I do not remember
any ecclesiastical writer of Constantinople earlier
than Nicephorus and Photius in the ninth cen-
tury. Chrysostom was trained at Antioch.
Cassian had lived in Palestine, Egypt, and Gaul,
as well as at Constantinople. Leontius, even
if he were a Byzantine by birth, was trained
in Palestine, and probably a bishop of Cyprus.

paneia® c, Cassian’s works contain quotations from all the
canonical books of the New Testament, except
the two shorter Epistles of St John; and there
is no reason to suppose that he rejected these.

Laorswwa _ Leontius has left a catalogue of the Apostolic
writings, ‘received in the Church as canonical,’
identical with our own'. A catalogue of the
books of Scripture, with the addition of the
number of verses in each book (Stichometria), is

Nicarnoats. appended to the Chronographia of Nicephorus?.

t&284.c. This contains all the books of the New Testa-
ment, with the exception of the Apocalypse, as

1 Cf. App. Ὁ.

2 Credner has examined the Stichometry of Nicephorus,
(cf. App. D.) in connexion with the Festal Letter of Atha-
nasius and the Synopsis Sacre Scripture (Zur Gesch. d. K.

§ iii.)

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 523

‘received by the Church and accounted canon- cHar. 1.

ical;’ but the Apocalypse is placed among the
disputed writings, together with the Apocalypse
of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel
according to the Hebrews’. So far then the
Canon of Nicephorus coincides with that of
Gregory, of Cyril, and of Laodicea, and it is
probable that he borrowed it, as it stands, from

some earlier writer. Photius, again, who lived Pari

a little later than Nicephorus, takes no notice
of the Apocalypse, though he certainly received
all the other writings of the New Testament.
And at a still later time it cannot be shown that

either CEcumenius in Thessaly, or Theophylact Equus
in Bulgaria, looked upon the Apocalypse as Apo- T#x0rar-

stolic; but with this partial exception, the Canon
of Constantinople was complete and pure’.

1 I have followed the text of Credner, a. a. O. p. 121.

2 Two later writers of the Greek Church deserve men-
tion as witnessing to the current belief of their times.
Nicernorvs Caxzisti, a monk of Constantinople, who wrote
an Ecclesiastical History about 1326 a.c., enumerates all the
books of the New Testament as we receive them. ‘Seven
Catholic Epistles, he says, the Church has received of old
time (ἄνωθεν), and reckons them most certainly (ὡς μάλιστα)
among the books of the New Testament....The Apocalypse
we know to have been handed down to the Church. The
books besides these are spurious and falscly named.’ (H. E.
ii. 45.) Lzo Attatius (7 1669) keeper of the Vatican Li-
brary in the time of Alexander VII., says that ‘in his time
the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse were received as truo

524 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cnap. τι. In the Western Churches the doubts as to
Sino the Epistle to the Hebrews continued to re-
Dourseato appear for some time. Isidore of Seville in
oe Hew reviewing the books of the New Testament says
that the authorship of the Epistle was considered
‘doubtful by very many (plerisque) Latin Chris-
tians on account of the difference of style!’
But this doubt was rather felt than declared;
and its existence is shown by the absence of quo-
tations from the Epistle, rather than by any open
attacks upon its authority. It is not quoted,
«37040. I believe, by Optatus of Milevis (Mileum) in
Africa, by Phebadius or Vincent of Lerins in
$4,800 4.0. Gaul, nor by Zeno of Verona’. Hilary of Rome
and Pelagius wrote commentaries on thirteen
Epistles of St Paul; but though they did not
comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, both
speak of it as a work of the Apostle’, But the
doubt as to the Epistle to the Hebrews was the

and genuine Scripture, and publicly read throughout all
Greece like the other Scriptures.’ Fabr. Bibl. Gr. V. App.
p. 38.

1 Isid, Proom. §§ 85—109. (V. 155 844. ed. Migne.)
Cf. App. D.

3 Pacian has been quoted as omitting all mention of the
Epistle, but in fact he quotes it as St Paul's, Pac. Ep. iii.
13: Apostolus dicit....et iterum....Hebr. x. 1.

3 Polag. Comm. in Rom. i. 17 (Hieron. Opp. xi. 649, ed.
Migne): Sicut et ipse ad Hebrwos perhibens dicit.... Hilar.
Comm. in ii. Tim. i.: Nam simili modo et in epistola ad
Hebreos scriptum est. Ambr. Opp. V. p. 411 (ed. 1567).

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 525

only one which remained', and the influence of cuap. 1.
Jerome and Augustine did much to remove it.

It was, indeed, impossible that the revised Teer
Latin Version of Jerome should fail to ταουἱὰ
insensibly the judgment of the Western Churches.
Jerome, who was well read in earlier fathers,
was familiar with the doubts which had been
raised as to part of the books of the New Tes-
tament, but in his letter to Paulinus, as well as
in many other places, he clearly expresses his
own conviction of the canonicity of them all?.
With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews and
the Apocalypse, he professed ‘to be influenced

1 At the Synod at Toledo (671 a.c.) a special decree
was made affirming the authority of the Apocalypse: Apo-
calypsin librum multorum conciliorum auctoritas, et synodica
sanctorum preesulum Romanorum decreta Johannis evange-
listee esse scribunt, et inter divinos libros recipiendum con-
stituerunt; et quia plurimi sunt qui ojus auctoritatem non
iant, eumque in ecclesia Dei preedicare contemnant; si
quis eum deinceps aut non receperit, aut a Pascha usque ad
Pentecosten missarum tempore in ecclesia non preedicaverit,
excommunicationis sententiam habebit. (Concil. Tol. iv. 17.)
These doubts are not, I believe, expressed by any Latin
father.

3 Cf. App. D. In his treatise ‘On Hebrew Names’ Je-
rome enumerates all the books of the New Testament in
order, except the second Epistle of St John, which contains
no name. The editions mark the names from the third
Epistle (Diotrephes, Demetrius, Gaius) as belonging to the
second. Cf. p. 435, n. 2. At the end, after noticing the
Apocalypse, Jerome explains some names in the Epistle to
Barnabas. This book was written about 390 a.c. The
treatise ‘On Ilustrious Men’ was written in 392 a. c.

CHAP. If.

526 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

not so much by the custom of his own time, as
by the authority of the ancients, and so he re-
ceived them both!’ The Epistles of James and
Jude, he says, gained authority in the course
of time, having been at first disputed*; and

1 Hieron. Ep. ad Dard. cxxix. § 3 (414 a.c.): Dlud nostris
dicendum est, hanc epistolam quz inscribitar ad Hebraos,
non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro eccle-
siasticis Greeci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli
suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabe vel Clementis arbi-
trentur; et nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit
et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quod si eam
Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas,
nec Greecorum quidem ecclesiz Apocalypsin Joannis eadem
libertate suscipiunt; et tamen nos utramque suscipimus,
nequaquam hbujus temporis consuetudinem sed veterum
scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque
abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere
solent quippe qui et gentilium litterarum raro utantur ex-
ewplis, sed quasi canonicis et ecclesiasticis. This very clear
and important passage shows that when Jerome speaks of
‘the Epistle to the Hebrews as not reckoned among St
Paul’s’ in bis letter to Paulinus (394 a.c.), we must sup-
pose that the doubt applies to the anthorship and not to
the canonicity of the writing. The distinct and decisive
reference to ancient and constant (abutuntur) testimony for
the two disputed books deserves careful attention. Cf.
Comm. in Eph. init.

2 De Virr. Ill. 2: Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, ...
unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quz de septem Catholicis est,
quee et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur,
licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem.

De Virr. 1]. 4: Judas frater Jacobi parvam, ques de
septem Catholicis est, epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro
Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium, a ple-
risque rejicitur, tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam et usu
meruit et inter sanctas scripturas computatur.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 527

he explains the different styles of the first and cuar.u.

second Epistles of St Peter by the supposition
that the Apostle was forced to employ different
‘interpreters’ in writing them!, Besides the ca-
nonical writings of the New Testament Jerome
notices many other ecclesiastical and apocryphal
books, but he never attributes to them canonical
authority*.

The testimony of Jerome may be considered Homer

as the testimony of the Roman Church ; for not
only was he educated at Rome, but his labours
on the text of Scripture were undertaken at the
request of Damasus bishop of Rome; and later
popes republished the Canon which he recog-

nized. Innocent’ and Gelasius‘ both pronounced {5 κα
1 Hieron. quest. ad Hedib. ii. (i. p. 1002, ed. Migne): “*

Habebat ergo [Paulus] Titum interpretem (ii. Cor. ii. 12, 18);
sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus evangelium, Petro nar-
rante et illo scribente, compositum est. Denique et duw
epistole que feruntur Petri, stylo inter se et charactere dis-
crepant structuraque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus diversis
cam usum interpretibus. Cf. de Virr. Ill. i.: Scripsit (Pe-
trus] duas epistolas que Catholice nominantur; quarum
secanda a plerisque ejus esse negatur propter styli cum
priore dissonantiam. Sed et evangelium juxta Marcum, qui
auditor ejus et interpres fuit, hujus dicitur. Libri autem
ὁ quibus unus Actorum ojus inscribitur, alius Evangelii, ter-
tius Preedicationis, quartus Apocalypseos, quintus Judicii [i. 6.
Herme Pastor], inter apocryphas scripturas repudiantur.

3 Cf. App. B.

3 Innoc, ad Exsuperium Tolos. Cf. App. Ὁ. The au-
thenticity of this decretal bas been called in question, but
not, perhaps, on adequate grounds.

4 Credner (Zur Geach. d. K. § iv.) has examined at great

CHAP. II.

528 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

all the books of the New Testament which we
now receive, and these only, to be canonical.
And the judgment which was accepted at Rome
was current throughout Italy. Ambrose at Milan,
Rufinus at Aquileia', and Philastrius at Brescia!?,

* completely confirm the same Canon.

length the triple recension of the famous decretal On Ec-
clesiastical Books. His conclusion briefly is that (1) In its
original form it was drawn up in the time of Gelasius, e.
600 a.c. (2) It was then enlarged in Spain, c. 500—700
a.c. (3) Next published as a decretal of Hormisdas (Pope,
514—523 a.c.) in Spain, with additions; (4) and lastly
variously altered in later times. Credner, a. a. O. 5. 153.
Cf. App. D.

1 Ruf, de Symb. Apost. § 36. Cf. App. D.

2 Philastr. Heer. Lx. uxi. 32. Cf. App. ἢ.

8 LucireR of Cagliari ({ 370 a.c.) in Sardinia quotes
most of the books of the New Testament, including the
Epistle to the Hebrews: Paulus dicit ad Hebrexos...Hebr. iii.
5 sqq. (Lucif. de non Conv. c. her. p. 782, 8. ed. Migne.)
To the testimony of Lucifer may be added that of one of
his followers, Faustinus, who frequently quotes the Epistle
to the Hebrews as St Paul’s: Paulus apostolus...ait in Epi-
stola sua...Hebr. i. 13. (de Trin. ii. 13. Cf. id. iv. 2; lit.
prec. ad Impp. 27.)

Cassioporvus (or Cassiodorius, Ὁ. 468—fc. 560 A.c.), chief
minister of Theodoric, in his treatise De Institutione Divi-
narum Litterarum, gives three Catalogues of the Holy Scrip-
tures: (1) according to Jerome, (2) according to Augustine,
(3) according to the ‘ ancient translation.’ In the two former
the Canon of the New Testament of course agrees with our
own. The last (cf. App. D.) omits by mistake (2) the Epistle
to the Ephesians; and only mentions Joannis Epistola ad
Parthos. But the evidence of Cod. D. has been brought
forward to show that the shorter Epistles of St John were
included in the Vetus Latina. Of. p. 284.

DURING THE AGE OF counciis. 529

The influence of Augustine upon the Western cxar.n.
Church was hardly inferior to that of Jerome; The Canon of

and both combined to support the received
Canon of the New Testament'. Yet even in
respect to this their characteristic differences
appear. Jerome accepted the tacit judgment
of the Church as a whole, and before that laid
aside his doubts. Augustine, while receiving as
Scripture the same apostolic writings as Jerome,
admitted that the partial rejection of a book
detracts from its authority’. He thus extended
to others a certain freedom of judgment, and
even exercised it himself. It is very probable
that he did not regard the Epistle to the He-
brews as St Paul’s; and, at Icast in his later
works, he sedulously avoided calling it by the
Apostle’s name’. But while he hesitated as to

1 Augustine has given a list of the books of the New
Testament exactly agreeing with our present Canon: de doctr.
Christ. ii. 12 (8). Cf. App. Ὁ.

2 Aug. lc, Tonebit igitur hunc modum in Seripturis
Canonicis, ut eas que ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis ca-
tholicis preeponat eis quas queedam non accipiunt:: in eis vero
que non accipiuntur ab omnibus, preponat eas quas plures
gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque aucto-
ritatis ecclesis tonent.

3 This is well shown by Lardner, ch. cxvii. 17,4. The
quotations in the Opus imperfectum c. Julianum (written at
the close of Augustine's life) are conclusive. Julian himself
quotes the Epistle as the work of ‘the Apostle,’ (iii. 395 v.
i;23.) Augustine in reply uses the following cireumlocu-
tions: quod vidit qui scribens ad Hebreoos dixit (i. 475 iv.

uM

530 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHaP.11. the authorship of the Epistle, he had no scru-
ples about its canonicity. And he uses all the
other books of the New Testament, without
reserve, alluding only once, as far as I know, to
the doubts as to the Apocalypse}.

This Cenon The Canon of the New Testament which was

threaghout Supported by the learning of Jerome and the

the West, and - . ° e
independent judgment of Augustine soon gained
universal acceptance wherever Latin was spoken.
It was received in Gaul and Spain, and even in
Britain and Ireland. Eucherius of Lyons in the
fifth century, Isidore of Seville at the close of
the sixth century*, Bede at Wearmouth in the
seventh century, and Sedulius in Ireland in the
eighth or ninth century, witness to its reception
throughout the West. And with the excep-
tions already noticed, all the evidence which
can be gathered from other writers,—from Pru-
dentius in Spain, and from Hilary, Sulpicius,
Prosper, Salvian, and Gennadius in Gaul,—con-
firms their testimony.

undisputedto =» From this time the Canon of the New Fest-

the era of t
Reformation. ament in the West was no longer a problem,

104); Sancta scriptura (ii. 179); sicut scriptum est (iii. 38 ;
iv. 76); cum legas ad Hebreos (iii. 151); illius sacre auctor
Epistole (vi. 22.)

1 Serm. cexcix. Et si forte tu, qui ἰδία [Pclagii] sapis,
hance Scripturam (Apoc. xi. 3—12) non accepisti; aut si ac-
cipis et contemnis...

2 Cf. App. Ὁ.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 531

but a tradition. If old doubts were mentioned, cHar.1.

it was rather as a display of erudition than as
an effort of criticism'. And thus the question
stood till the era of the Reformation. Then
first a hasty decree of the Council of Trent
confirming that of the Council of Florence,
finally determined the Canon and text accepted
by the Romish Church, and delivered it from
what was felt to be the dangerous interference
of scholars*,

In the reformed Churches the authority of

the Old Testament Apocrypha was strenuously ike tee
disputed, but doubts as to the received Canon ™

of the New Testament were only suggested by
individuals, and never supported by any public

sanction. Erasmus led the way in the contro- gaawos

versy, but with characteristic timidity qualified
the conclusions which seemed to follow from his
premisses, He denied that the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the second Epistle of St Peter, and the
Apocalypse, were apostolic works; but he added
that his doubts extended only to the authorship

1 Passages are given by Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. Scbrift.
$ 328 ff.

2 Sarpi, Hist. Concil. Trid. ii. p. 125 (od. upcxx.) His
tametsi propositis difficultatibus (as to the interpretation of
Scripture) in congrogatione Patrum, de consensu prope om-
nium probata vulgata editio, in presulum animos vehementi
inde impressione facta, quod dicebatur grammaticos episco-
porum et theologorum instituendorum potestatem sibi arro-
gaturos.

uM2

CHAP. II.

LuTHER.

CARLSTAD?7.

Ca LVIN.

§32 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

and not to the authority of the books’. Luther
placed the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles
of St Jude and of St James, and the Apoca-
lypse, at the end of his version, and on internal
grounds expressed himself strongly against their
canonicity*. A judgment so purely arbitrary
could not easily be maintained; and though
some of his followers extended his doubts to the
seven Antilegomena’, they received no direct
sanction from the symbolic books of the Lu-
theran Church, which admit the ‘prophetic and
apostolic writings of the Old and New Testa-
ment’ as a whole without further definition.
Yet the absence of any distinct ordinance on
the subject seems to allow differences of opinion;
and Lutheran theologians in later times have
not hesitated to use the freedom thus con-
ceded. |

In the Calvinistic Churches there was greater
variety of opinion. Carlstadt undertook to form
an entirely new classification of the Scriptures,
but his attempt was not received with any marked
favour‘, Calvin himself did not believe that

1 Cf. Preff. ad Antilegg. and the passages quoted by
Reuss, a. a. O, § 331.

2 Cf. Reuss, a. a. O, § 335. Luther's Table Talk, pp.
272 f. (ed. Bogue.)

8 9. g. Melancthon, Flacius, Gerhard.

4 Andreas Bodenstein, or Carlstadt, was originally a
friend of Luther, and afterwards of Bullinger, who describes

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 535

the Epistle to the Hebrews was St Paul’s, and cHap.n.
he doubted at least whether the second Epistle
‘of St Peter was a writing of the Apostle, but
still he did not reject those books as uncanon-
ical', Ccolampadius pronounced that the seven
Antilegomena were not to be placed on the
same footing with the other Scriptures, though
they were received*. Zwingli denied that the
Apocalypse had the character of a writing of
St John*. But the Belgian and French confessions

him as ‘ virum eruditissimum et exercitatissimum in sacria,
adde et profanis litteris ac disputationibus.’ His Essay, de
Canonicis Scripturis, was pablished first in 1520 while be was
still intimate with Luther. He died at Zurich in 1541, being
at that time Professor of Theology there. Credner has re-
printed the Essay, Zur Gesch. d. K. ὃ v. The division which
Carlstadt proposed was this: (1) Ordo Primus, Libri prime
note summeque dignitatis Ni. Ti. iv. Evangg. (2) Secundus
Ordo, Volumina posterioris Instrumenti secunde dignitatis hee
sunt: Pauli Epp. xiii. i. Petr. i. Joan. (3) Tertius Ordo,
Ni. Ti. Codices tertice celebritatis et ultimee sunt hi: Ep. ad Hebr.
Jac. ii. Petr. Dus senioris presbyteri. Jud. Apocalypeis. De
his libris, aut, ut certius Joquar, de auctoribus illarum episto-
larum disceptatur, ideo in postremum locum digessimus.
Credner, ἃ. ἃ. O. 410—12.

It is worthy of notice that Carlstadt places the Gospels
first, while Luther placed the Epistles of St Paul before the
synoptic Gospels. (Table Talk, I. c.)

1 Calv. Pref. ad Hebr. Inter apostolicas sine contro-
versia amplector....Ut Paulum agnoscam auctorem adduci
nequeo. Id. Pref. ad #&. Petr. Quia de auctore non constat,
nunc Petri nunc apostoli nomine promiscue uti mihi per-
mittam. He notices the doubts on the Epistles of St James
and St Jude, but dismisses them without discussion. He does
not notice ii, iii John.

2 Reuss, § 335.

534 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cnaP.1L enumerate as Canonical all the books of the

New Testament as they stand at present’.

The teaching The authoritative teaching of the Church of
gcea England on the Canon of the New Testament

Chureh.

is not removed beyond all question. In the
Articles of 1552 it was affirmed that ‘ Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to sal-
vation,’ but nothing was then said of the books
included under that title. In the Elizabethan
Articles of 1562 (and 1571) a definition was
added: ‘In the name of Holy Scripture we do
understand those Canonical books of the Old
and New Testament of whose authority was
never any doubt in the Church.” Then follows
a statement ‘Of the names and number of the
Canonical books,’ in which the books of the Old
Testament are enumerated at length. A list
of the Old Testament Apocrypha is given next,
imperfect in the Latin, but complete in the
English; and at the end it is said: ‘all the
books of the New Testament, as they are com-
monly received, we do receive and account them
for Canonical ;’ but no list is given*. A strict
interpretation of the language of the article thus

1 Conf. Belg. Art. iv. (1561—3 a.c.); conf. Gall. Art.
iii. (1559 a.c.) Niemeyer, Libri Symb. Eccl. Reform. 361

8qq.; 314 8qq.

2 Hardwick, Hist. of Articles, App. iii. p. 275. The Latin
text (1562) only notices the Apocryphal books, without dis-
tinguishing the Apocryphal additions to Esther, Danicl, and
Jeremiah.

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 535d

leaves a difference between ‘canonical books’ CHAP. 11.
and ‘such canonical books as have never been
doubted in the Church'.’ Nor is it a complete
explanation of the omission of a catalogue, that
the Articles were framed with a special reference
to the Church of Rome, with which the Church
of England had no controversy as to the New
Testament; for the Catalogue of the New Test-
ament books is given, not only in the French
and Belgian articles, which alone of the foreign
confessions contain any list of the books of
Scripture, but also in the Westminster Confes-
sion and in the Irish Articles?.’

But whatever may be the explanation of this me opinions
ambiguity,—even if we admit that the framers lish Beform-
of our Articles were willing to allow a cer-
tain freedom of opinion on a question which was
left undecided, not only by the Lutheran, but
by many Calvinistic Churches,—there can be no
doubt as to the general reception of all the
books of the New Testament as they now stand
by our chief reformers. Tyndale in his pro- tvroas.
logues notices the doubts as to the Apostolical
authority of the Epistles of St Jude and St

1 Some light may be perhaps thrown upon this strange
ambiguity, which, as far as I know, is not noticed in any
history of the Articles.

2 Confess. Fid. Cap. i; Niemeyer, ii. 1 ff; Hardwick, Hist.
of Art. App. vi.

536 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

cHAP. 1. James, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but

he adds, that ‘he sees no reason why they should
not be accounted parts of Holy Scripture’,’
Bishop Jewel rebuts Stapleton’s charge that he
rejected the Epistle of St James on the author-
ity of Calvin*. Bullinger’s Decades contain a
list of all the books of the New Testament in
‘the roll of the Divine Scriptures?.’ Whitaker
affirms that our Church receives ‘the same
books of the New Testament, and those only, as
were enumerated at the Council of Trent;
though he notices the doubts of the Lutherans
and of Caietan, in particular, as to the seven
Antilegomena‘. Fulke, again, in his answer to
Martin, states that the Holy Scriptures, accord-
ing to the acknowledgment of the English
Church, are ‘all and every one of equal credit
and authority, as being all inspired of God...’
But it is useless to multiply quotations, for I
am not aware that the judgment of the English
Church, as expressed by her theologians, has
ever varied as to the canonical authority of any
of the books of the New Testament. If she

1 He makes no preface to the Apocalypse.

2 Jewel, Defence of Apology, Pt. π. ix. 1.

8 Bullinger, Decades, i. p. 54, (ed. Park. Soc.)

4 Whitaker, Disp. on Scripture, c. xvi. p. 105, (ed. Park.
Soc.)

5 Fulke, Defence of the Translation of the Bible, p. 8,
(ed. Park. Soc.)

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 537

left her sons at liberty to test the worth of their
inheritance, they have learnt to value more
highly what they have proved more fully. The
same Apostolic books as gave life and strength
to the early Churches, quicken our own. And
they are recognized in the same way, by familiar
and reverent use, and not by any formal decree.

Conclusion.

Little now remains to be added on a retro-
spect of the history of the Canon. That whole
history is itself a striking lesson in the character
and conduct of the Providential government of
the Church. The recognition of the Apostolic
writings as authoritative and complete was par-
tial and progressive, like the formulizing of
doctrine, and the settling of ecclesiastical order.
But each successive step was virtually implied in
that which preceded; and the principle by which
they were all directed was acknowledged from
the first.

Thus it is that it is impossible to point to
any period as marking the date at which our
present Canon was determined. When it first
appears, it is presented not as a novelty, but
as an ancient tradition. Its limits were fixed
in the earliest times by use rather than by
criticism; and this use itself was based on im-
mediate knowledge.

CON-
CLUSION.

CON-
CLUSION.

538 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON

For it is of the utmost importance to remem-
ber that the Canon was never referred in the
first ages to the authority of Fathers or Coun-
cils. The appeal was made not to the judgment
of men but to that of Churches, and of those
particularly which were most nearly interested
in the authenticity of separate writings. And
thus it is found that while all the Canonical
books are supported by the concurrent testi-
mony of all, or at least of many Churches, no
more than isolated opinions of private men can
be brought forward in support of the authority
of any other writings. For the New Testament
Apocrypha can hold a place by the side of the
Apostolic books only so long as our view is
limited to a narrow range: a comprehensive
survey of their general relations shows the real
interval by which they are separated.

And this holds true even of those books
which are exposed to the most serious doubts.
The Canonicity of the second Epistle of St
Peter, which on purely historical grounds
cannot be pronounced certainly authentic, is
yet supported by evidence incomparably more
weighty than can be alleged in favour of that of
the Epistle of Barnabas, or of the Shepherd of
Hermas, the best attested of apocryphal writ-
ings. Nor must it be forgotten that in the
fourth century numerous sources of information

DURING THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 539

were still open to which we can no longer have | cox. |
recourse. And how important these may have -
been for the history of the Canon can be rightly
estimated by the results which have followed

from some recent discoveries, which have tended
without exception to remove specious difficulties

and to confirm the traditional judgments of the

Church.

But though external evidence is the proper
proof both of the authenticity and authority of
the New Testament, it is supported by powerful
internal testimony drawn from the relations of
the books to one another and to the early de-
velopments of Christian doctrine. Subjective
criticism when used as an independent guide is
always uncertain, and often treacherous; but
when it is confined to the interpretation and
comparison of historic data, it confirms as well
as illustrates. And no one perhaps can read the
New Testament as a whole, even in the pursuit
of some particular investigation, without gaining
a conviction of its unity not less real because it
cannot be expressed or transferred. But while
this must be matter of personal experience, the
connexion of the Apostolic writings with the
characteristic forms of early doctrine is clearer
and more tangible. Something has been said
already on this subject, and it offers a wide
field for future investigation. For the New

-
"εν

540 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON, &c.

Testament is not only a complete spring of
Christian truth; it is also a perfect key to the
history of the Christian Church.

To the last, however, it will be impossible to
close up every avenue of doubt, and the Canon,
like all else that has a moral value, can be
determined only with practical and not with
demonstrative certainty. But to estimate the
comparative value of this proof, let any one
contrast the evidence on which we receive the
writings of St Paul or St John with that which
we regard as satisfactory in the case of the
letters of Cicero or Pliny. The result is as
striking as it 1s for the most part unnoticed.
Yet the record of divine revelation when com-
mitted to human care, is not, at least apparently,
exempted from the accidents and caprices which
affect the transmission of ordinary books. And
if the evidence by which its authenticity is sup-
ported is more complete, more varied, more
continuous, than can be brought forward for any
other book, it is because it appeals with uni-
versal power to the conscience of mankind,
because the same Spirit in the Church which first
recognized in it the law of its constitution has
never failed to seek in it afresh guidance and
strength.

CON-
CLUSION.

APPENDIX A.

ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANOQN!,

THE original meaning of κανὼν (connected with MR, APPENDIX
κάνη, kava, canna, [canalis, channel], cane, cannon) is a —_———
straight rod, as a ruler, or (rarely) the beam of a balance ; scl use of”
and this with the secondary notion either (1) of keeping i. "iiterally.
anything straight, as the rods of a shield, or the rod (licta-

torium) used in weaving ; or (2) of testing straightness, as _

@ carpenter's rule, and even (improperly) a plumbline.

From the sense of literal measurement naturally fol- 3. Metapho-
lowed the metaphorical use of κανὼν (like regula, norma, ᾽
rule) to express that which serves to measure or determine
anything ; whether in Ethics, as the good man (Ar. Eth.

Nic. iii. 4, 5); or in Art, as the Doryphorus of Polycletus
(ὁ xavwv); or in Language, as the ‘Canons’ of Grammar’?.

With a slight variation in meaning, great epochs which
served as landmarks of history, were called κανόνες χρονικοί;
and κανὼν was used for a summary account of the contents
of a work—the rule, as it were, by which its composition
was determined’.

One instance of the metaphorical use of the word re-
quires special notice. The Alexandrine grammarians spoke
of the classic Greek authors, as a whole, as ὁ κανών, the

1 Credner has ny ted the early meanings of the word at
considerable lengt 5 Dnt cannot accept all his conclusions. (Zur
Gesch. d.k. 3

3 References fon all these meanings are given in the Lexicons.

3 Cf. Credner, p. 10. To this sense must be referred the Paschal
Canons of various authors, and the Euschian Canons of the New Tes-
tament.

542 ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON,

APPENDIX absolute standard of pure language, the perfect model of

composition},

3. Passively. By a common transition in the history of words, κανών,
as that which measures, was afterwards used for that which
is so measured. Thus a certain space at Olympia was
called xavwy; and in late Greek xavev (canon) was used for
a fixed tax, as of corn?. So also in Music, a canon is a
composition in which a given melody is the model on which
all the parts are strictly formed.

B. The Hecle- = So far we have traced the common use of κανών ; and

ofthe word. at first sight the application of the word to the collection
of classic authors seems to offer a complete explanation of
its use in relation to Holy Scripture; but the ecclesiastical
history of the word lends no support to such an hypothesis.

Lin the ~The word occurs in its literal sense in Judith xiii. 6 (LX X.)
for the rod at the head of a couch; and again in Job
xxxviil. 5(Aqu.) for a measuring line (1p, σπαρτίον, LXX.
linea, Vulg.)°

3. in the In the New Testament it is used in two passages of St

ment. Paul’s Epistles. In one (Gal. vi. 16, ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι (regula,
Vulg.) τούτῳ στοιχήσουσι) the abstract idea of the Chris-
tian rule of faith is connected by the verb with the primary
notion of an outward measure. In the second (ii. Cor x.
13—16, κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος (regula, Vulg.) κατὰ
τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι) the transition from an
active to a passive sense is very clearly marked.

te welcngs: In later Christian writers the metaphorical use of κανὼν

ha is very frequent, both in a general sense (Clem. R. ad Co-

rinth. 1, ὁ κανὼν τῆς ὑποταγῆς, c. 7; ὁ EvKrAENs καὶ σεμνὸς

τῆς ἁγίας κλήσεως Kavev) ; and also in reference to a definite
Tule (id. ο. 41, ὁ ὡρισμένος τῆς λειτονργίας Kavev*). One

1 1 Redepenning, Origines, i. 12.
3. Cf. Forcellinus and Du Cange, 8. v. Canon.
3 The word is used by Philo in connexion with παράγγελμα, Epos
and φόμος. Credner, ss. 11 f,

4 Credner (s. 15) thinks that the word even here describes an
ideal standard.

ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON, 543

use of the word, however, rose into peculiar prominence,
and is of great importance with regard to the history of
Holy Scripture. Hegesippus (cf. pp. 228 sqq.), according
to the narration of Eusebius, spoke of those who tried to
corrupt ‘the sound rule (τὸν ὑγιῆ κανόνα) of the saving
proclamation ;’ and whether the words be exactly quoted
or not, they are fully supported by the authority of sub-
sequent writers'. The early fathers, from the time of Ire-
neus, continually appeal to the Rule of Christian teaching,
—variously modified in the different phrases the Rule of
the Church, the Rule of Truth, the Rule of Faith?,—in their

1 In the Clementine Homilies the word κανὼν is of frequent occur-
rence. Thus the principle of a duality in nature and revelation is
described as ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφητικοῦ κανόνος, ὁ κανὼν τῆς συζνγίας
(Hom. ii. 15; 18, 33). In like manner mention is made of ‘‘ the
Rule of the Church” and of ‘‘ the Rule of Truth ;” and it was by this
Rule that apparent discrepancies of Scripture were to be reconciled,
by this that the unity of the Jewish nation was preserved (Clem. ad
Jac. 2, 19; Petr. ad Jac. 3; Petr. adJac. 1). Cf. Credner, as. 17 ff.

3 Each of these three phrasee possesses a liar meaning corre-
sponding to the notions of ‘the Church,’ ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Faith.’

i. Ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας expresses that Rule or governing prin-
ciple by which the Church of God, in ita widest sense, is truly held
together, and yet ually unfolded in the different stages of its
growth. In early Christian writers it ially described that which
was the common ground of the Old and New Testaments. Cf. Clem.
Al. Str. vii. 16, § 105 ; Orig. de Princ. iv. 9. But it is no less applied
to the peculiar Rule and order of the Christian Church ; yet still to
that Rule as being one, and not as made up of many rules. Cf. Corn.
ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 43. So also we find καγὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός,
Synod. Ant. Routh, Rell. iii. 291; Concil. Nic. Cann. 2, 6, δα.
And as applied to details, ὁ κανών: Conc. Neoces. Can. 14. Cf.
Routh, iv. 208. Yet cf. Syn. Ant. Routh, iii. 305.

ii, ‘O κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας. As the Rule of the Church regarded
the outward embodiment of divine teaching in a society, so the Rule
of Truth had reference to the informing life by which it is inspired.
Clem. Al. vii. 16. For the Christian this Rule was the expression of
the fundamental articles of his creed. Cf. Iren. adv. Her. i. 9, 4;
22, 1; Novat. de Trin. 21 ; Firm. Ep. (Cypr.) LXXYV.

iii. ‘O κανὼν τῆς πίστεως. The Rule of Truth, when viewed in
this concrete form, became the Rule of Faith. The phrase first occurs
in the letter of Polycrates (Euseb. H. E. v. 24), and repeatedly in
Tertullian (e. g. de Vel. Virg. 1.)

Credner has discussed these various phrases with his usual care
and research ; but it is surprising to find a scholar speaking repeatedly
of ὁ κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός (a. a. O. 8. 20—58).

APPENDIX

(8) The rude
of truth,
whether

APPENDIX
A.

---..... .

Abstract, or

Concrete
(the Creed.)

(y) The rule
of discipline.

544 ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON,

controversy with heretics ; and from the first, as it seems,
it was regarded in a double form. At one time it is an
abstract, ideal, standard, handed down to successive gene-
rations, the inner law, as it were, which regulated the
growth and action of the Church, felt rather than expressed,
realized rather than defined. At another time it is a con-
crete form, a set creed, embodying the great principles
which characterized the doctrine and practice of the Ca-
tholic Church. Thus Clement speaks of the ‘ Ecclesiastical
Canon’ as consisting in ‘the harmonious concord of the
Law and the Prophets with the dispensation (διαθήκη)
given to men at the presence of the Lord among them!.’
In other words, the Rule which determined the progress
of the Church was seen in that principle of unity by which
its several parts were bound together, ‘in virtue of the
appropriate dispensations [granted at successive periods ],
or rather in virtue of one dispensation adapted to the wants
of different times*.’ But this principle of unity found a
clear expression ‘in the one, unchangeable rule of faith3,’
the apostolic enunciation of the great facts of the Incar-
nation, in which all earlier revelations and later hopes
found their explanation and fulfilment.

At the beginning of the fourth century the word re-
ceived a still more definite and restricted meaning, without
losing the original idea involved in it. The standard of
revealed truth was the measure of practice no less than
of belief; and synodical decisions were regarded in detail

1 Clem. Al. Str. vi. 15, §. 125: κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία
καὶ ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε Kal προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Kuploy παρ-
ουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ. Cf. p. 548, n. 2.

3 Clem. Al. Str. vii. 17, § 107: κατά τε οὖν ὑπόστασιν κατά τε
ἐπίνοιαν κατά τε ἀρχὴν κατά τε ἐξοχὴν μόνην εἶναί φαμεν τὴν ἀρχαίαν
καὶ καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, εἰς ἑνότητα πίστεως μιᾶς κατὰ τὰς οἰκείας
διαθήκας, μᾶλλον δὲ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην τὴν μίαν διαφόροις τοῖς χρό-
νοις, ἑνὸς (τοῦ θεοῦ) τῷ βουλεύματι δι᾽ ἑνὸς (τοῦ κυρίον), συνάγουσαν
τοὺς ἤδη κατατεταγμένους, os προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς δικαίους ἐσομένους πρὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμον ἐγνωκώς.

3 Tertull. de Vel. Virg. 1.

ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON. 945

as ‘Canons’ of Christian action!. In particular the sum of APPENDIX

such decisions affecting those specially devoted to the mi-
nistry in holy things was the ‘Rule’ by which they were
bound ; and they were described simply as ‘ those included
in or belonging to the Rule,’ just as we now speak of ‘ ordi-
nation’ and ‘ orders?’

It was a further stage in the history of the word when
it assumed a definitely passive meaning, as when applied
to the fixed psalms appointed for festivals, or to the ‘Canon,’
the invariable element of the Roman Liturgy, in the course
of which the dead were commemorated or ‘ canonized?.’

1 The ordinances of Gregory of Neo-Cesarea (c. 262, A.C.) and
those of Peter of Alexandria (c. 306, a.c.), taken from his work περὶ
μετανοίας (Routh, iii. 256 ff.; iv. 23 ff.), are called ‘ Canons,’ but it
is probable that the title was given to them ata later time. The first
Council which gave the name of Canons to its decrees was that of
Antioch (341, 4.c.): in the earlier Councils they were called δόγματα
or dpa. Cf. Credner, p. 51 n.

3 The earliest instance of this use of the word with which I am
acquainted occurs in the Nicene decrees: Can. 16: πρεσβύτεροι ἡ
διάκονοι ἡ ὅλως ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζύμενοι. Can. 17: πολλοὶ ἐν τῷ
κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι. Can. 19: ..-περὶ τῶν διακονισσῶν καὶ ὅλως τῶν
ἐν τῷ κανόνι (all. κλήρῳ) ἐξεταζομένων. Cf. Conc. Ant. can. 6: ὁ αὐτὸς
δὲ ὄρος ἐπὶ λαϊκῶν καὶ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ
κανόνι (al. ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ καταλεγομένων). Conc. Chale. 2: ἥ ὅλως τινὰ
τοῦ κανόνος. But this κανὼν must not be confounded with the κατά-
λογος, though the same persons might be described as ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ
and ἐν τῷ κανόνι. Thus the two are joined, Conc. Trull. 5: μηδεὶς
τῶν ἐν ἱερατικῷ καταλόγῳ τῶν ἐν τῷ κανόνι... Again, Con. Tol. iii.
κ: qui vero sub canone ecclesiastico jacuerint... Athanas. (1) de Vir-
gin. i. p. 1082: oval παρθένῳ τῇ μὴ οὔσῃ ὑπὸ κανόνα. Cf. Conc. Ant.
1. The word κανονικοὶ first occurs in Cyril (Catech. Pref. 3, cf. Cone.
Laod. 15 ; Concil. Constant. 1, 6), and is found frequently in later
writers. Du Cange (8. v.) quotes a passage which illustrates very well
the origin of the word: Canonici secundum canones—an earlier writer
would have said canonem—regulares secundum regulam vivant.

Bingham (Antiq. i. 5, 10) and Credner (p. 56), though with hesi-
tation, identify the καγὼν and the κατάλογος, but the passages quoted
are, I think, conclusive against the identification.

3 Cf. Suicer, s. v.

The interchange of xavyovixds and καθολικός, not only in the title
of the seven catholic epistles but elsewhere, is a singular proof of the
muPposed universality of an authoritative judgment of the Church.
Cf. Euseb. H. E. iii. § ; Concil. Carthag. xxiv. (Int. Gr.)

There is a curious account of xavyomx}—the mathematical basis of
music—in Aulus Gellius, N. A. xvi. 18 ; and in other Roman scientific

NN

(8) Canon in

ἃ passive
sense.

546 ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON.

APPENDIX Hitherto no instance of the application of the word
_ κανὼν to the Holy Scriptures has been noticed, and the

to Holy 2 τα earliest with which I am acquainted occurs in Athanasius ;

The deriva. but the derivatives κανονικός, κανονίζω, occur in Origen’,

tives ofxaniv though these words did not come into common use till the

used beginning of the fourth century. In the interval Diocletian

but not eorn- had attempted to destroy the ‘Scriptures of the Christian

after the per- Law ;’ and as far as his efforts tended to make a more

Tiocletian. complete separation of authoritative from unauthoritative
books, they were likely to fix upon the former a popular
and simple title. Yet even after the persecution of Dio-
cletian the word canonical was not universally current.
Eusebius, I believe, nowhere applies it to the Holy Scrip-
tures; and its reappearance in the writings of Athanasius
seems to show that it was originally employed in the
school of Alexandria, and thence passed into the general
dialect of the Church.

(αγκανονικόσ. The original meaning of the whole class of words,
canonical, canonize, canon, in reference to the Scriptures is

writers the word canonicus is used to express that which is deter-
mined by definite rules, as the phenomena of the heavens. Cf. August.
de Civ. ὃ. iii. 15, 1, and Forcellinus, s. v.

1 Orig. de Princ. iv. 33, in Scripturis Canonicis nusquam ad pre-
sens invenimus. 74. Prol. in Cantic. s.f. Illud tamen palam est
multa vel ab apostolis vel ab evangelistis exempla esse prolata et Novo
Testamento inserta, que in his Scripturis quas Canonicas habemus,
nunquam legimus, in apocryphis tamen inveniuntur et evidenter ex
ipsis ostenduntur assumpta. 74. Comm. in Matt. ὃ 117. In nullo
regulari libro hoc positum invenitur. 74. Comm. in Matt. § 8.
Nec enim fuimus in libris canonizatis historiam de Janne et Jambre
resistentibus Mosi. Just before Rufinus says: Fertur ergo in Scrip-
turis non manifestis (i.e. apocryphis, as he elsewhere translates the
word.) The phrase, Prol. in Cantic. s.f. cum neque apud Hebrwos...
amplius habeatur in Canone, is probably only a rendering of κανονί-

-
Le Since these words are found in works which survive only in the

tin version, they have been suspected by Redepennin rigines,
i. 239) to be due to Rufinus, and not to Origen. Grocear follows
Redepenning without reserve. But I can see no ground for the sus-
picion. The fact that in one place we have regularis and in another
canonicus to express the same idea marks a translation.

ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON. 6547

necessarily to be sought in that of the word first used. APPENDIX

But κανονικός, like κανών, was employed both in an active
and in a passive sense. Letters which contained rules, and
letters composed according to rule, were alike called Canon-
ical}; and so the name may have been given to the Apo-
stolic writings either as containing the standard of doctrine
or as ratified by the decision of the Church. Popular
opinion favours the first interpretation?: the prevalent usage
of the word, however, is decidedly in favour of the second.
Thus the Latin equivalent of κανονικός, regularis, points
to ἃ passive sense, even though the analogy be imperfect.
Ecclesiastics, again, of every grade were called Canonici,
as bound by a common rule; and in later times we com-
monly read of canonical obedience, a canonical allowance,
and canonical hours of prayer.

The application of κανονίζω (βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, κεκα- (3) κανονίζω.

νονισμένα, ἀκανόνιστα) to the Holy Scriptures confirms the
belief that they were called canonical in a passive sense.
In classical Greek the word means to measure or form
according to a fixed standard®. As in similar terms the
notion of approval was added to that of trial; and those
writings might fitly be said to be canonized which were
ratified by an authoritative rule. Thus Origen says that
‘no one should use for the proof of doctrine books not

1 The canonical letter of Gregory of Cesarea (c. 262, 4.0.) is an
instance of the first kind (Routh, iii. 256 ff). On the littere formate
or canonice, cf. Bingham, ii. 4, §.

3 Even Credner has eanctioned this view: ‘The Scriptures of the
Canon (γραφαὶ xaydvos) are,’ he says, ‘the Scriptures of the Law :
those writings are canonical which obtain the force of Law: those
writings are canonized which are included among them’ (p. 67) 67).
Credner does not quote any instance of the phrase γραφαὶ κανόνος
nor do I know one; but he supports his view by reference to the
words scripture legis i in the Acts of Felix (cf. p. 473), and to littere
Jfdei in Tertullian (de Freacr. 14.)

2 Cf. Ar. Eth. N. ii. 3, 8, καγονίζομεν δὲ καὶ τὰς πράξεις... ἡδονῇ
καὶ λύπῃ. In later times the word was used to express r gram-
matical inflexion. Schol. ad Hom. Odyas. ix. 347: τὸ δὲ τῇ πόθεν
κανονίζεται ;

NN2

548 ΟΝ THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANON.

APPENDIX included among the canonized Scriptares!.’ Athanase
--- again speaks of ‘books which are canonized (κανονιζόμενα) |
and have been handed down’ from former time?. The |

Canon of [Laodicea] forbade the public reading of ‘books

which had not been canonized (axavomera).’ And δὲ 5

later time we read ‘ of books used in the Church and which
have been canonized 3.’ |

κανιόν. The clearest instance in early times of the application

of this word. of the word κανὼν to the Scriptures occurs at the end of the

enumeration of the books of the Old and New Testaments

commonly attributed to Amphilochius. ‘This,’ he says,

‘would be the most unerring Canon of the Inspired Serip-

tures,’ The measure, that is, by which the contents of the

Bible might be tried, and so approximately an index or

catalogue, of its constituent books‘. But the use of the

word was not confined within these limits. It was natural

that the rule of written, no less than of traditional teach-

ing, should be regarded in a concrete form. The idea of

the New Testament and the Creed grew out of the same

circumstances and were fixed by the same authority. Thus

Athanasius and later writers speak of books ‘ without the

Canon, where the Canon is no longer the measure of Scrip-

ture, but Scripture as fixed and measured, the definite

collection of books received by the Church as authoritative.

In this sense the word soon found general acceptance. The

Canon was the measured field of the theologian, marked

out like that of the athlete or of the Apostle by adequate

authority.

its later But though this was, as I believe, the true meaning of

the word, instances are not wanting in which the Scrip-

tures are called a Rule, as being in themselves the measure

1 Orig. Comm. in Matt. § 28: Nemo uti debet ad confirmationem
dogmatum libris qui sunt extra canonizatas scripturas.

3. Athan. Ep. Fest. App. D. The same phrase occurs in Leontius.

3 Niceph. Stichometria, App. D.

4 Amphil. Iamb. ad Sel. App. D.

ae

ON THE HISTORY OF THE WORD Kanon. 549

of Christian truth ; for they possess an inherent authority appENpIx
though it was needful that they should be ratified by an —~
outward sanction. At the beginning of the fifth century

Isidore of Pelusium calls ‘the divine Scriptures the rule

of truth!; and it is useless to multiply examples from later

ages. Time proved the worth of the Apostolic words.

The ideal Rule preceded the material Rule; but after a

long trial the Church recognized in the Bible the full
enunciation of that law which was embodied in her formu-

laries and epitomized in her Creeds,

1 Isid. Pelus. Ep. cxiv. ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί.

APPENDIX B.

ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS IN
THE EARLY CHURCH.

APPENDIX Two different classes of writings may be described as

ΕΣ ΤῚ
called A
cryphal

i. Writi

of Apostolic
men.

apocryphal in respect to their claims to be admitted amoag
the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. The first
consists of the scanty remains of the works of the imme-
diate successors of the Apostles: the second, of books pro-
fessing either to be written by Apostles or to contain an
authoritative record of their teaching. The history of the
first class consequently illustrates the limits by which the
idea of canonicity was confined; while the history of the
second class offers a criterion of the critical tact by which
the true and the false were distinguished by the early
Church. The two classes together offer an instructive
contrast to the New Testament, as a whole, no less in their
outward fortunes than in their inward character.

It would not have been surprising if the writings of
the Apostolic Fathers had been invested with something of
Apostolic authority, not indeed in accordance with their
own claims!, but by the pardonable reverence of a later
age for all those who had looked on the Truth at its dawn-
ing. Yet a few questionable epithets alone remain to
witness to the existence of such ἃ feeling; and no more
than three books of this class obtained a partial ecclesias-
tical currency, through which they were not clearly separated
at first from the disputed writings of the New Testament.

The Epistle of Clement, the earliest and best authenti-
cated of uncanonical Christian writings, is quoted by Ire-
naus, by Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen, without

1 Cf. pp. 66 ff.

ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS. 5d1

anything to show that they regarded it as an inspired APPENDIX
book}. Eusebius omits all mention of it in his famous
Catalogue of writings which claimed to be authoritative? ;

and though many later writers were acquainted with it, no

one, I believe, favours its reception among the Canonical
Scriptures.

The Epistle of Barnabas, in consideration of the name The Bpistc,
of the ‘ Apostle,’ and of the peculiar character of its
teaching, gained a position at Alexandria which it does not
appear to have ever held in any other place’. Eusebius
classes it among the ‘spurious’ books; and Jerome calls
it ‘ Apocryphal 4.’

The Shepherd of Hermas, again, which approximates The Shepherd
in form and manner most closely to the pattern of Holy “πα
Scriptures, though commonly quoted with respect by the
Greek fathers, is expressly stated by Tertullian to have
been excluded from the New Testament ‘by every council
of the Churches,’ Catholic or schismatic®.

Nor was it a mere accident that these three writings Honoured in
ion

occupied a peculiar position. They were supposed to be ofa mapponed
written by men who were honoured by direct Apostolic sanetion.
testimony. But the letters of Polycarp and Jgnatius, on

whose names the New Testament is silent, were never put

1 Clem. Al. Str. i. 7, § 38; iv. 17, § 107 (ὁ ἀπόστολος Κλήμην);
vi. 8, ξός. Cf. Str. ν. 12, g 81. Orig. de Princ. ii. 3, 6; Sel. in
Ezech. viii. Cf. in Joan. T. vi. 36.

3 Euseb. H. Εἰ. 111. 15. Cf. p. 482. This is the more remarkable
becavse he elsewhere mentions the Epistle with great respect, iii, 16
(μεγάλη καὶ θαυμασία ἐπιστολή). Cf. H. E. vi. 13.

3 Clem. Al. Str. ii. 6, § 31: εἰκότως οὖν ὁ ἀπόστολος Baprdfas...;
id. 7, § 35; ii. 20, $116: οὔ μοι δεῖ πλειόνων λόγων παραθεμένῳ μάρτυν
τὸν ἀποστολικὸν Βαρνάβαν, ὁ δὲ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἦν καὶ συνεργὸς τοῦ
Παύλου... Cf. Str. ii. 15, 67; id. 18, 884; ν. 8, καὶ 52; id. 10, § 64.

Orig. c. Cels. i. 63: γέγραπται ἐν τῇ Βαρνάβα καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ.
Comm. in. Rom. i. 24: ...in multis Scripture locis... Cf. de Princ.
iii. 2, 4.
4 Fuseb. H. E. iii. 25. Hieron. de Virr. Ill].6: Barnabas Cyprius...
epistolam composuit, que inter apocryphas Scripturas legitur.

5 Tert. de Pudic. to and 20. Cf. Hieron. in Hab. i. (i. 14.) The
references of Irenzeus and Origen to the Shepherd have been noticed
already, pp. 436, 410 nn.

aD2 ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL

APPENDIX forward as claiming Canonical authority’. And thus the
et high estimation in which the works of Clement and Bar-

nabas and Hermas were held, becomes an indirect evidence
of the implicit reverence paid to the Apostolic words, and
of the Apostolic basis of the Canon.

The usage of the Churches interprets and corrects the
judgment of individual writers. The Epistle of Barnabas
was read in the time of Jerome, but among the Apocryphal
Scriptures. The Epistle of Clement was publicly read in
the Church at Corinth and elsewhere?; and it was even
included (with the second spurious Epistle) in the Alex-
andrine MS. of the Bible*; but it was placed there after
the Apocalypse; and so in both respects it occupied a
position similar to that of the Apocryphal books of the
Old Testament, according to the judgment of our own
Church. The Shepherd, again, was long regarded as a
book useful for purposes of instruction; but it was defi-
nitely excluded from the Canon by Eusebius, Athanasius
and Jerome, who record its partial reception’. And, in a
word, no one of these writings is reckoned among the
Canonical books in any catalogue of the Scriptures’.

If then it be admitted, and this is the utmost that can

tolle Fathers. be urged, that these books were ever ranged with the
oned canon- Antilegomena of the New Testament®, it is evident that
ical.

1 Cf. Hieron. v. 1. 17 [Polyc. ad Phil. Ep.] in conventu Asie
egitur.
ὃ: Euseb. Η. E. iii. 16; iv. 22. Hieron. de Virr. Ill. rs.

3 The fact that this is the only copy of the Epistle now in existence
is in itself a proof of ita comparatively limited circulation.

4 Euseb. H. E. iii. 25; Athanas. Ep. Fest. T. i. 767.

5 The Catalogue at the end of the Apostolic Canons may seem an
exception to this statement, since it ratifies the two Epistles and Con-
stitutions of Clement; but it has been shown already that the pecu-
liarities of this Catalogue received no conciliar sanction. Cf. p- 506.

4. According to the old text of the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the
Apocalypse is classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as
Apocryphal ; but the truer text places it with the Apocalypse of
Peter, the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Bar-
nabas as disputed, while the remaining writings of the Apostolic
Fathers, with some other books, are Apocryphal.

WRITINGS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 553

they occupied that position in virtue of a supposed indirect APPENDIX
Apostolic authority, just as the other books were dis- ——:_—

puted, because their claims to A postolicity were also sup-
posed to be indirect’. And it is equally certain that those
who expressed the judgment “of the Church, when a deci-
sion was first called for, unanimously excluded them from
the Canon, while with scarcely less unanimity they included
in it the Epistles of St James and St Jude, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse and shorter Epistles of
St Jolm. The ecclesiastical use of the writings of the
Apostolic fathers was partial and reserved from the first,
and it became gradually less frequent till it ceased entirely.
Wider knowledge and longer experience denied to them the
sanction which it accorded to the doubtful books of the
New Testament.

Of A hal ]
pocryphal writings directly claiming Apostolic tL Apoe

authority, four only deserve particular notice, the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and the Gospels, the Preaching,
and the Apocalypse of St Peter. The Gospel according to
the Egyptians’, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla, never
obtained any marked authority ; and still less so the various
Gospels and Acts which date from the close of the second
century, and are popularly attributed to the inventive in-
dustry of Leucius®,

One passage which occurred in the Gospel according to The Gospel
the Hebrews is found in a letter of Ignatius, who does the Hebrews.

not, however, quote the words as written, but only on
traditional authority*. Papias, again, related a story ‘ of
& woman accused of many crimes before our Lord, which
was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews,’

1 The second Epistle of St Peter is the he only exception to this state-
ment ; and that is beset with peculiar historical difficulties on every
side,

3 Clem. Str. iii. 9, § 63; id. 13, 8 93: πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς
παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν τέτταρσιν εὐαγγελίοις οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητόν, ἀλλ’
ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους. Cf. [Clem.] Ep. ii. 12.

2 Cf. p. 461. 4 Ign. ad Smyrn. 3. Cf. Jacobson, L. c.

554 ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL

APPENDIX but the words of Eusebius seem to imply that he did not

refer to that book as the source of the narrative’. The
evangelic quotations of Justin Martyr offer no support to
the notion that he used it ag a coordinate authority with
the Canonical Gospels, but on the contrary distinguish
detail which it contained from that which was written in
the Apostolic memoirs?. Hegesippus is the first author
who was certainly acquainted with it; but there is nothing
to show that he attributed to it any peculiar authority’.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen both quote the book,
but both distinctly affirm that the four Canonical Gospels
stood alone as acknowledged records of the Lord’s life‘.
Epiphanius regarded ‘the Hebrew Gospel’ as a heretical
work based on St Matthew. Jerome has referred to it
several times®, and he translated it into Latin, but he no-
where attributes to it any peculiar authority, and calls δὲ
John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist. Yet the
fact that he appealed to the book as giving the testimony
of antiquity furnished occasion for an adversary to charge
him with making ‘a fifth Gospel®;’ and at a later time,
in deference to Jerome's judgment, Bede reckoned it among
the ‘ ecclesiastical’* rather than the ‘apocryphal writings’.

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. Cf. Routh, Relliq. i. 39.

3 Cf. pp. 191 ff.

3 Heges. ap. Euseb. H.E. iv. 22; Routh, Relliq. i. 277; supr.

. 233 ff.
PP 4 lem. Str. ii. 9, § 45 ; Orig. Comm. Hom. in Jer. 1s, § 4.

5 Dial. adv. Pelag. iii. 2: In Evangelio juata Hebrovos, quod Chal-
daico quidem Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum eat,
quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive ut pleri-
que autumant, ματα Matthcum, quod et in Cwesariensi habetur bil-
liotheca, narrat historia...Quibus testimoniis, 61 non uteris ad aucto-
ritatem, utere saltem ad antiquitatem, quid omnes ecclesiastici viri
senserint. Cf. de Virr. Ill. 2; in Isai. iv. c. xi.; id. xi. ο. xb; in
Ezech. iv. c. xvi. ; in Mich. ii. c. vii. (quoted with the Song of Solo-
mon, yet with hesitation) ; Comm. in Matt. i. c. vi. rt; id. ij. ς. xii
13; id. iv. c. xxvii. 51; Comm. in Eph. 111. 6. v. 4. Credner (Beitr.
i. 395 ff.) gives these and the remaining passages at length.

6 Julian, Pelag. ap. August. Op. imperf. iv. 88.

7 Bede, Comm. in Luc. init. quoted on Hieron. adv. Pelag, iii. 2.

WRITINGS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 6555

The Gospel of Peter has been already noticed. How appgnp1x
far this Gospel was connected with the ‘Preaching of .
Peter,’ which is quoted frequently by Clement of Alex- δὲ fare.
andria!, and once by Gregory of Nazianzus?, is very un- Poe”
certain’. There is indeed nothing in the fragments of the
preaching which remain which requires a severer censure
than Serapion passed on the Gospel. And it seems very
likely that both books contained memoirs of the Apostle’s
teaching based in a great measure on authentic tra-
ditions.

It has been already shown that it is uncertain whether not canoni-
the Gospel of Peter was regarded as Canonical at Rhossus* ; *”
and even if it had been so, the custom of an obscure town,
which was at once corrected by superior authority, cannot
be set against the silence of the other early Churches, and
the condemnation of the book by every later writer who
mentions it. The preaching of Peter, as Origen expressly
states, was ‘not accounted an ecclesiastical book,’ and
Eusebius repeats the same judgment®. Nor am I aware
that it was ever supposed to be a Canonical book.

The Canonicity of the Apocalypse of Peter is supported ΡΣ Pator.
by more important authority. The doubtful testimony of
the Muratorian Canon has heen considered before®. In
addition to this, Clement of Alexandria wrote short notes
upon it, as well as upon the Catholic Epistles and upon

1 Clem. Alex. Str. i. 29, § 182; vi. 5, ξὲ 39 ff; id. 6, $48; id.
rs, § 128.

3 Greg. Naz. Ep. ad Cesar. i. Credner, Beitr. i. 353, 259.

3 Some have argued that the Acts, the Preaching, the Doctrine
and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Preaching and Acts of Paul, and
the Preaching of Peter and Paul, were only different recensions of
the same work. It is perhaps nearer the truth to say that they were
all built on a common oral tradition. The variety of titles and forms
is in itself a conclusive argument against their general and public
reception. Cf. Reuss, § 253.

Cf. pp. 444 8q. .

5 Orig. de Princ. Pref. 8; cf. Comm. in John xiii. τὴ. Evuseb.
H. E. iii. 3.

6 Cf. p. 243.

556 ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS.

APpENpIx the Epistle of Barnabas!. But the book was rejected by

__*® _ Ensebius2, and, I believe, by every later writer.

Peculiarities Mention has been made already of the insertion of the

oftheNew two Epistles of Clement in the Alexandrine MS. Two
other MSS. contain notices of Apocryphal writings which
are curious, though they are not of importance. At the

Cod, Boers end of the Codex Boernerianus (G.) a MS. of the ninth
century, which contains the thirteen Epistles of St Paul
with some lacuna, after a vacant space occur the words:
‘The Epistle to Laodiceans begins [προς λαουδακησας (lau-
dicenses, g.) apyera:*]. This addition is not found in the
Codex Augiensis (F.) which was derived from the same
original as (G.), nor is there any trace of the Epistle iteelf.
Haimo of Halberstadt, in the ninth century, mentions the
Latin cento of Pauline phrases, which now bears the title,
‘as useful, though not Canonical‘, and the inscription in
(G.) probably refers to the same compilation.

Cod. Claro- In the Codex Claromontanus, (D.) again, after the
Epistle to Philemon, occurs a Stichometry of the books of
the Old and New Testament, obviously imperfect and cor-
rupt, and then follows, after a vacant space, the Epistle to
the Hebrews. This Stichometry omits the Epistles to the
Philippians, to the Thessalonians (i. ii.), and to the He-
brews; and after mentioning the Epistle to Jude thus con-
cludes: ‘the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of John,
the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd, the Acts of Paul,
the Revelation of Peter®.’ But Stichometries are no more
than tables of contents; and both the contents and the
arrangement of the different books in a MS. may have been
influenced by many causes.

ie a νἱ. τά. «et 23.
3 Tischdf. N. T. Reuss, § 271
5 Tischdf. Cod. Gare p- 468. Prolegg. xi. Cf A App. D.

APPENDIX Ὁ.

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT ON THE CANON.

For a long time after the first publication of the frag- APPENDIX

ment on the Canon by Muratori, his edition was the only
authority for the text, but during the last few years three
independent collations of the original MS. have been made’,
which fully confirm his judgment on ‘the unskilfulness of
the transcribers’ by which it has been defaced, and, though
slightly inconsistent, leave nothing more to be gained by a
fresh examination of its marvellous blunders. It is, per-
haps, impossible to restore the true text by the help of a
single corrupt MS.; and I have accordingly given the
fragment as it stands in the MS. on one page?, and on the
opposite side I have introduced those emendations which
seem tolerably certain, and marked such passages as seem
to me to have received no satisfactory explanation.

1 The first by Mr G. F. Nott (N), used ially by Dr Routh in
the second edition of his Relliquia, i. 403 ff; the second by Prof. F.
Wieseler, published by his brother, Prof. K. Wieseler , in the
Studien und Kritiken, 1847, pp. 816 ff. ; the third by Ὁ. Hertz (A),
published by Chev. Bunsen in his Analecta Ante-Niccena, i. pp. 137
sqq. Credner (Zur Geech. d. K. s. 73) simply reproduced the text
of Muratori (M).

* I have marked the lines of the original MS. and printed in
Italic capitals the words which are written in red ink. The fragment
is written in capitals and without stope, except in the few cases in
which they are inserted; but both in respect of these stops and of
several other small points the careful collations of Wieseler and Hertz
do not agree. Even Bunsen (B) differs from Hertz, I suppose, by
inadvertence.

APPENDIX

058 THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

10

I.

quibus! tamen interfuit et ita posuit | Zxrario zrar-
GELII LIBRUM sEcUNDO Lucan*® | Lucas iste medicas
post ascensum χρι. | cum eo Paulus quasi ut juris
studiosum j secundum adsumsisset numeni suo | ex opi-
nione concribset? Dmn tamen nec ipse | vidit in carne αἱ
ide prout asequi potuit. | ita et ab‘ nativitate Johannis
incipet dicere. | QuarTI EVANGELIORUM JORANNIS ει
pgciPo.is® | Cohortantibus condecipulis® et eps suis |
dixit conjejunate mihi’. odie tnduo et quid | cuique
fuerit revelatum alterutrum | nobis ennarremus eadem
nocte reve | latum Andree ex apostolis ut recognis |
centibus cuntis Johannis suo nomine [ cuncta discriberet
et ideo licit® varia [ singulis evangelioram libris® prin-
cipia | doceantur nihil tamen differt creden | tium fidei
cum uno ac principali spu de | clarata sint in omnibus
omnia de nativi | tate de passione de resurrectione | de
conversatione cum decipulis suis | ac! de gemino ejus

5 adventu!! | primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo. | se-

cundum 15 potestate!3 regali pre | clarum quod fotaram
est. quid ergo | mirum si Johannes tam constanter |
sincula* etiam in epistulis suis proferam!5 | dicens in

30 semetipsu!® que vidimus oculis | nostris et auribus

1 Das Fragment fingt nach einer liingern Liicke etwa mitten

auf der Seite an (W).

3 Lucan, H. Lucam, M. W.
3 Concribsct, W.N.; conscribset et concrissd, ΔΊ. (Routh, p. 405);

concricaet (ἢ) H. ; concrise, B

4 ad, H.; ab, W.; a, M. Cf. wv. 38, 47.

5 decipulis, W.
6 condescipulis, H. 7 om. W.
8 W. —lice, H. 9 om. libris, W.

10 ¢, M. B.; ac, W. H.

11 Spatium undecim fere litterarum vacuum manet, H.

12 Fore, Ν. Ἡ. 1 W. 1 littere in init. lin. fere evanide, H.
13 Duz vel tres littere, h. 1. (ante precl. W.) erase, Η.
14H. —singula, W. B. 15 proferat, M. W.
16 insemeipsu, W.

ON THE CANON. 559

II.
...quibus tamen" interfuit [et] ita® posuit. Tertium
Evangelii librum secundum Lucam Lucas iste medicus
post ascensum Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi tut juris
5 studiosum® secum® adsumsisset nomine suo ex ordine°
conscripsit (I)ominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne) ;
et idem‘ prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Jo-
hannis incepit® dicere. Quartum Evangeliorum Jo-
10 hannis® ex discipulis. Cohortantibus' condiscipulis et
episcopis suis, dixit: Conjejunate mihi hodie triduum,
et quid cuique“ fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis
enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andree ex apo-
15 stolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis, Johannes suo nv-
mine cuncta describeret-—Et ideo licet varia‘ singulis
evangeliorum libris principia doceantur nihil tamen
differt credentium fidei™, cum uno ac principali spiritu
20 declarata sint in omnibus omnia de [domini] nativi-
tate, de passione, de resurrectione, de conversatione"
cum discipulis suis®, ac de gemino ejus adventut......
25 primum in humilitate despectiis, quod fuit, secundum
potestate regali preclarum, quod futurum est’—Quid
ergo mirum si Johannes tam constanter® singula etiam
in epistolis suis’ proferat dicens in semetipso*: qua
30 vidimus ocults nostris, οἱ auritbus audivimus, et manus

* + ipse non, B. b tla εἰ, B.
¢ Itineris socium, B. Ut stare non potest: εἰ, R. An Leyen-
dum virtutis studiosum ἢ '

4 Secum. Cf. Act. xv. 37, R. e Lue. i. 3.

‘ Ideo, B. ε All. tncipit.

ἃ Johannes, sc. conscripsit, W.

' + is, R.B. k An quodcunque ?
' +a, B. male. ™ fides, Fr. W.
n+ Domini, R. B. 9 = guis, .C. male.

P B. primo—despecto ; Despectum (v. despectui) quod ford, R. ;
ratum eat, C.; secundo—preclaro, Ἡ R.C.B. Prinus—

Primo—quod
dispectus—secundus—preclarus—quod futurus, W
4 Β. instanter. τ B. epistola δια.

* B. semetipsum.

APPEN DIX

560 THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

APPENDIX = audivimus et manus nostra palpaverunt bec scripsimus!,
ΒΝ sic enim non solum visurem sed et auditorem | sed αἰ
ecriptorem omnium mirabilium dns? per ordi | nem

35 profetetur! Acta adtem omnium apostolorum | sub ano

libro scribta sunt Lucas obtime Theofi [165 conprindit

quia sub presentia ejus singula | gerebantur sicut‘ εἰ

semote passionem Petri | evidenter declarat sed et® pr-

fectionem Pauli ab® ur | be”? ad Spaniam proficescentis

40 Epistule autem | Pauli que a quo loco vel qua ex caus

directe | sint volentibus® intellegere ipse declarant*'

primum omnium Corintheis scysme heresis in | terdi-

cens deincepsb!° Calleetis circumcisione | Romanis autem

45 ordine™ scripturarum sed et? | principium earum 13 ease

——_

xpor *4 intimans?!5 | prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis
neces | se est ab!® nobis desputari cum ipse beatus |
apostolus Paulus scquens prodecessoris!7 sui | Johanuis
50 ordinem nonnisi nomenatiin sempte | ecclesiis scribst
ordine tali acorenthios | prima ad Efesius1® seconda ad
Philippinses’* ter | tia ad Colosensis”° quarta ad Calatas
quin | ta ad Tensaolenecinsis sexta?! ad Romanus® | sep-
59 tima verum Corentheis et Thesaolecen | sibus23 licet pro
correbtione iteretur una |tamen per omnem orbem
terre ecclesia | deffusa esse denoscitur et Johannis enim

1 W. Incipit pag. b. H.

3 s atramento maculatus sed satis bene dignoscendus, H.

3 Theophile, W. 4 sieuti, W. sicute (2) H.
> om. a, W. 6 ad in rasura, H.

* MS. urbes, 8. eraso, H.

8 MS. voluntatibus in volentibus correctum, H.

9 .B. 10H. Cf. W. 11 Ex ornidine corr.
13 et corr. inras. H. spiiter geschrieben, W.

13 Tren litters (sed 3) h. 1. erasse, H.

14 Xp. B.

8 Quatuor fere litt. spat. vacuum relictum, H.

18 ad, H. 17 preedecessoris, W. prodeceasuris ut vid. H.
18 Phesios, ΝΎ. 19 Philippensis corr. H.
Colosensea, W. 11 W,

us videtur potius quam os, H. Romanos, ΝΥ.

3 H.— Tensaolecensibus urspriinglich Tesaolecensibus, W.

2 &

ON THE CANON. 561

nostre palpaverunt, hac scripsrmus? Sic enim non ΔΡΡΕΝΡΌΙΧ
solum visorem [se], sed* et auditorem, sed et scriptorem
omnium mirabilium domini per ordinem profitetur.
35 Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta
sunt’. Lucas optime Theophilo comprehendit, quia°
sub presentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et semota‘
passione Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectione
Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis®. Epistole
40 autem Pauli, que, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa direct
sint, volentibus intelligere ips» declarant’. Primum
omnium Corinthiis schisma hzresis interdicens, deinceps
Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordinem scrip-
45 turarum, sed et principium earum esse Christum inti-
mans*, prolixius scripsit; de quibus singulis" necesse
est a nobis disputari, cum' ipse beatus apostolus Paulus,
sequens predecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, nonnisi
50 nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali: ad Co-
rinthios prima“, ad Ephesios secunda, ad Philippenses
tertia, ad Colossenses quarta, ad Galatas quinta, ad
Thessalonicenses sexta, ad Romanos septima. Verum
55 Corinthiis et Thessalonicensibus licet' pro correptione
iteretur™, una tamen per omnem orbem terre ecclesia
diffusa esse dignoscitur; et Johannes enim in Apoca-
lypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus dicit.
60 Verum ad Philemonem unam” et ad Titum unam,
et ad Timotheum duas pro affectu et dilectione; in
honorem® tamen ecclesie catholice in ordinatione”

* se, R. B. Ὁ. Ut nos, W

> = sunt. B. et in seqq. optimo (C. W.), quoad... Optime ea, KR
© qua, C. W.
ὦ decsse non modo, B. Remota...declarant, R. Semota...declarant,
C. Pastionem...profeaionem, R. C. B. W. Semote, W.
© + omiltit, ‘RB tee declarat.

8 + Paulus, W. » + non,
i oun B.
* primam, &c., B. fortasse rectius. primo, &c., R.
' scilicet, C. ὦ iteratur, .
" una.. due, Β. All, ° honore, Ο.

P ordinationem, B.
0Q

562 THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

APPENDIX in a | pocalebsy licet septem eccleseis scribat | tamen
- 60 omnibus dicit verum ad Filemonem' una’ | et attita
una et ad Tymotheum duas pro affec | to et dilectione
in honore tamen eclesie οδ [ tholice in ordinatione
ecclesiastice® | deacepline scificate sunt fertur etiam ad |
G5 Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli no | mine
fincte* ad heresem Marcionis et alia plu | ra que in
catholicam eclesiam* recepi non | potest fel enim cum
melle misceri non con | cruit® epistola sane Jude εἰ
superscrictio Johannis duas in catholica habentur εἰ
70 sapi|entia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius|scripta
apocalapse etiam Johanis et Pe | tri tantum recipimas’
quam quidam ex nos | tris legi in eclesia* nolunt pas-
torem vero | nuperrim δ᾽ temporibus nostris in urbe!
75 Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathe | tra urtis
Rome aeclesiz’* pio eps fratre | ejus et ideo legi eum
quidem oportet se pu | plicarevero in eclesia® popul
neque inter | profetas'' conpletum numero neque inter|
80 apostolos in finem temporum potest'*. | Arsinoi autem
seu Valentini vel Mitiadis’® | nihil in totum recipemus"
qui etiam novum | psalmorum Jibrum Marcioni con-
85 scripse | runt una cum Basilido assianum catafry | com

constitutorem

1 Philemonem, W ’, H. ena, B.
3 In fin. lin, et pag. sex fere | litt. spat. vacuum relictum, H.
4 fincte, W. ecclestam, W. Cf. wv. 73, δ.
6 congruit, W.

7 reciptmus: ¢ ex ¢ corr. H. 8 ecclesia, W.

᾿ a: t erasum, H. 10 aecclesie, W.

profetas, W. profestas: s in litura, H.
is Tn fin. lin. spat. quinque litt. vacuum relictum, H.
13 Mihi videtur mitiadis correctum ex motiaces, H. Valeentini, B.
14 recipimus, W.

ON THE CANON. 563

ecclesiastice discipline sanctificate sunt. Fertur etiam APPENDIX

65 ad Laodicenses*, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine
ficte ad heeresem * Marcionis, et alia plura que in
catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest: fel enim cum
melle misceri non congruit. Epistola sane Juda et
superscripti® Johannis due in catholicis® habentur ;

70 tet‘ sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius
scripta. Apocalypses etiam Johannis* et Petri tantum
recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia
nolunt. Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris

75 in urbe Roma Hermas* conscripsit, sedente' cathedra
urbis Rome ecclesiee Pio episcopo fratre ejus; et ideo
legieum quidem oportet, se publicare“ vero in ecclesia
populo, neque inter prophetas, completo’ numero, neque

80 inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest. Arsinoei™
autem seu Valentini, vel tMiltiadis" nihil in totum
recipimus. Qui° etiam novum psalmorum librum
Marcioni” conscripserunt, una cum Basilide, [et] Asi-

85 anfim Cataphrygum‘ constitutorem...

® + alia, R. : b heresim ? R.

ε possunt, W. supra script, B. superscript, Ο .

© Catholicis, B. Catholica, cexteri Cc. W.

cA ypeis ctiam Johannis. Εἰ Patri.. .Quem.. “w)

δ Herma, C. '+in, R? B.

K sed publicari, R. B. ' completo, B. completos, R. C. W.

= Arsinoi, B. Arsinoetum, R. Arsinot, C. W.
® vel Milt. transp. post Basilide, B. qui legit in seqq. conscripst,
Asiant, constitutoris,
© guin, Ο. P Marciani, C. fortasse rectius.
4 Asianorum Calaphrygum, R. W. qui + rgicimus.

002

-»

δθ4 THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT.

APPENDIX As I have already given (pp. 238 sqq.) a general view

______— of what I believe to be the purpose and connexion of the
fragment, little need be added here except to justify the few
changes which I have introduced into the text.

v. 1. tamen and δὲ cannot stand together. Bunsen’s
transposition removes the difficulty in part, but the εἰ
seems to have arisen from the repetition of the final
or initial ἐξ. The reference is evidently to Papias’ ac-
count: Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.

4. quasi ut juris. Though I believe that this is corrupt,
Routh’s note is worthy of attention.

8. incepit. ἤρξατο.

16—26. Et ideo...futuram est. This passage comes in
very abruptly, and it is not easy to see the exact force
of ideo and ergo in the next clause. In addition to
this there is a lacuna in v. 23, which points to some
compression of the original text.

29. The quotation (i. John i. 1) is not verbal, but the
word palpaverunt for contrectaverunt (trectaverunt,
tentaverunt) is to be noticed. Palpare occurs as the
translation of ψηλαφᾶν, Luc. xxiv. 39 ; but Tertullian
twice quotes the present verse with the Vualg. ren-
dering.

61. Sub. scripsit. Tamen in the next clause requires
some such distinct opposition.

69. Dr Tregelles has an interesting paper on this passage,

* Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Iv. April,
1855 ; but I believe that the text is hopelessly cor-
rupt.

APPENDIX Ὁ.

THE CHIEF CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE
FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES,

No.
A. Catalogues ratified by Conciliar authority :
1. The Laodicene Catalogue
2. The Carthaginian Catalogues; and ...... li.
3. The Apostolic Catalogue: both ratified at
the Quinisextine Council, Can. 2. ...... iii.

B. Catalogues proceeding from the Eastern Church:

]. Syria.
ΓΤ ΠΝ iv.
Johannes Damascenus.................- v.
Ebed Jesu .....ccccccccccccccsevccccccoeees vi.
2. Palestine.
Busebius..............cccceccecccccsceessscss Vi
Cyril of Jerusalem.....................0008 Viii.
Epiphanius,..........cccceccscecsseecsceees ix.
3. Alexandria.
OFigen .......0ccceceeesscnccccccecsctoeceeses Xx.
Athanasius. .......cccccccccsccsccacesccccece xi
4. Asia Minor.
Gregory of Nazianzus. ...............6.. xii.
Ampbhilochins,.............c0esecesceserens xiii.
5. Constantinople.
Chrysostom. Synopsis .................. xiv.
Leontius, ............scccccccccsscossecsccece xv.

Nicephorus ...........cssceceesccsescecceees XVi.

APPENDIX
D.

566 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX C. Catalogues proceeding from the Western Church :
: l. Africa.
Stich. ap. Cod. Clarom...........ce+0.... xv
AUguBtiNe. .......000ccccecnnccccccceres ene. XVI
2. Italy.
Muratorian Canon ......... one cccccccccces xvi.
Philastrius .........ceccccsccces otc ecccccees xix.
JOTOME. .........ccccccccccccccaccccaccccccces xx.
ΙΝ xm
Innocent..........ccccecccccccccscccccccccece xxi
[Gelasius]]. ..........00...e00s ἈΝ xxi.
Cassiodorus, ......... νον ces ccc cence ececcs xxit.
3. Spain.
Teidore, ..--cccccscsccncccccccncccccce sucess xxV.
1.
Concizium Can. LIx.® (Cf. Bickell, Stud. Idem Latine’. (V Eps. Is-
Laopicr- o, aes . 8
a u. Krit. iii. ss. 611 ff. ; pDor.*)

supr. pp. 498 sqq.)

νθ΄. “Ors ov δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς
ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα
βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανο-
νικὰ τῆς καινῆς καὶ παλαιᾶς
διαθήκης. Ὅσα δεῖ βιβλία

1 Idem Canon, nisi quod Ba-
ruch, Lamentationes εἰ Epistola
omittuntur, habetur in Capitular.
Aquiagran. c. xx. (Labbé, xiii.
App. 161, ed. Flor. 1767), hoc
titulo preeposito: De libris Cano-

Can. tx. Non oporte
ab idiotis psalmos compos-
tos et vulgares in ecclesiis’
dici, neque libros qui sunt
extra canonem legere, nisi
solos canonicos novi et vete-
ris testamenti.

1 E cod. reg. Mus. Brit. 11.
D. iv.

5 Dionys. Exig. heec tantum
habet: Non oportet plebeios peal-
mos in ecclesia cantart, nec libros
preter canonem leyi, sed sola sacra

nicts. us. Lectt. varr. vrolumina novi testamenti vel rete-
littera A notavi. ris, Cui consentt. intt. Syrr.

2 E cod. Bibl. Univ. Cant.
Ex. iv. 29. Coll. cod. Arund.
533 Mus. Brit. (Ar.)

3 Ar. τῆς 3. καὶ x.

Codd. Mus. Brit. 14, 526, 14,
528, 14, 529.

8 Ecclesia Bick. dict in eccle-
δὶ A.

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES.

ἀναγινώσκεσθαι" ' παλαιᾶς δια-
θήκης a’ Γένεσις, κόσμον,
κ. τ. λ.... καινῆς διαθήκης ᾿
εὐαγγέλια δ΄͵, κατὰ Ματθαῖον,
κατὰ Mapxov, κατὰ Aovxay,
κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην᾿ πραξεις dwo-
στόλων' ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαὶ
ἑπτά" οὕτως" ᾿Ιακώβον a

Πέτρου α΄. β΄» Ἴωαννον a’, β΄.
γ“ ‘lovda a’
Παυλον ιδ΄: πρὸς Ῥωμαίους
α΄ πρὸς Κορινθίους a’. β΄
πρὸς Γαλάτας a” πρὸς Ἔφε-

9 a
ἐπιστολαι

σίους α΄ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους

,- 4 - 4
α΄ προς Κολασσαεῖς a’ προς
Θεσσαλονικεῖς α΄. β: πρὸς
Ἑβραίους a’
α΄. β΄ πρὸς Τίτον a’

πρὸς Τιμόθεον
“wpos
Φιλήμονα α΄.

1 Ar. all. + τῆς.

3 Bick. all. τὰ δὲ τῆς κ, ὃ.
ταῦτα. τῆς δὲ κι 8. ταῦτα, Ar.

3 Bev. - οὕτως. Ar. =é. ob.

4 Cod. Cant. a’. 8’. Ar. 7.

5 Bick. + οὕτως.

4 Bev. Ar. + καί,

567

Que autem oporteat legi APPENDIX

et in auctoritatem recipi hxc’
sunt: Genesis... Novi Testa-
menti: Evangelium secun-
dum Matthzum, secundum
Marcum, secundum Lucam,
secundum Johannem. Actus
Apostolorum. Epistola Ca-
nonice® septem: Jacobi
una‘; Petri due, i. et ii.*;
Joannis tres, i. et ii. et iii.
δυάδα una, Epistole Pauli
numero* xiv.: ad Romanos’;
ad Corinthios dus*, i. et ii. ;
ad Galatas; ad Ephesios;
ad Philippenses; ad Colos-
senses; ad Thessalonicenses
dux*, i. et ii.; ad Timo-
theum duz, i. et ii.; ad
Titum ; ad Philemonem ; ad
Hebreos®.

5 Cod: Me. "
All. etA. Erangelia quatuor.
3 All. Catholice. A. Catholica
epistole.
4 Pari ἐξ. Jac. t. A.
5 All. = prima et sec.—pr. αἱ
sec. δὲ tert.

® Coll. Theod. et MS. Dies
sense ap. Amort. + Apocalyps
Johannis. Cf. Spittler, p. 107.

568 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX
D.

CoxciLium

CaRTHAGI-

KIEZSE,

iii. m.!
97 A.C.

Can. 39, (ita B.C. Can. 47.
Labbé, ii. 1177. Cf.
supr. pp- 508 seqq.)
Item placuit ut preter

Scripturas canonicas, nihil

in ecclesia legatur sub nomi-

ne divinarum Scripturarum.

Sunt autem Canonice Scrip-

ture he*: Genesis...Novi

autem Testamenti, evangeli-
orum libri quatuor, Actuum

Apostolorum liber unus,

Epistole Pauli Apostoli?

xiii, ejusdem ad Hebreos

una, Petri apostoli duz, Jo-

hannis‘ tres, Jacobi i., Jude

1.4. Apocalypsis Johannis }}-

ber unus®. Hoc etiam fratri

et consacerdoti’ nostro Bo-
nifacio, vel aliis earum par-
tium Episcopis, pro confir-

1 E cod. Coll. SS. Trin.
Cant. B. xiv. 44, ssec. xii. in quo
ordo canonum hic est: i.—xxxvil.
XLix, xLvii. xLviii. (Placuit—mi-
nistri), xLviii. (Quibus—fin.) +
Xxxxvill, ἄς. Collatis Codd.
Mus. Brit. (B) Cott. Claud. D.
9, 8:60. xi. ; (C) Reg. 9, B. xii.

2 Labbé = he.

3c. B.C.—L. Pauli ap. ep.

4 L. + apostoli = B,C.

5 L. Jude apostoli una εἰ Jac.
una.
6 L. ‘Quidam vetustus codex
sic habet: De confirmando isto
canone tranamarina ecclesia con-
sulatur.’

Ϊ B. coepiscopo.

II.

Idem Greee':

ὥστε ἐκτὸς τῶν καθολικῶν
γραφῶν μηδὲν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλη-
cia ἀναγινώσκεσθαι. ‘Opom
ἐκτὸς τῶν κανονικῶν γραφιν
μηδὲν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγι-
γώσκηται ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τῶν
θείων γραφῶν" εἰσὶ δὲ cavon-
καὶ ὃ γραφαὶ γένεσις" κ- τ.λ.
τῆς νέας διαθήκης. Evayyt-
λια 8° πράξεων τῶν ἀτοστο-
λων βίβλος μία" ἐπιστολαὶ
Παῦλον δεκατέσσαρες" Πε
τρον ἁποστόλον δύο" “Tova
αἀποστόλον α΄" ᾿Ιωάΐννον ἀτο-
στόλον γ᾽ ᾿Ἰακώβον ἀτο-

᾽ Φ s [2
oToAov μία'ὁ awoxalun

Ἰωάννον βίβλος μία" rovro'
4 “5 id ~ a

δὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ και συλλει-

TOUpy~ ἡμῶν Βονιφατίῳ καὶ

τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν αὐτῶν μερῶν

ἐπισκόποις πρὸς βεβαίωσιν

1 E cod. Bibl. Univ. Cant.
EE. iv. 29. Huic canoni neque
numerus preefigitur neque miniats
littera; in serie autem est xxiv™.

2 Bev. = τῶν.

3 Bev. + αἱ.

4 Cod. male τούτω.

δ Bev. = τῷ.

6 Cod. add. τούτεστι duarr.
locutt. commixt.

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 569

mandoistocanone innotescat, τοῦ προκειμένον κανόνος γνω- APPENDIX
quia a patribus ista accepi- ρισθῇ, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τῶν πα- ᾿
mus in ecclesia legenda’. τέρων ταῦτα ἐν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ
Liceat autem * Ἰορὶ passiones ἀναγνωστέα παρελάβομεν.
martyrum cum anniversaril
eorum dies celebrantur’.

1 C. agenda vitiose.

3 Ὁ. eiam.

8 B. dies cel. cor. C. dies
eor. celebr.

Il.

Can. uxxvi. (all. uxxxv.) (Bunsen, Anal. Ante- Car. Apost.
Nic. ii. p. 30)': “ἔστω δὲ ὑμῖν πᾶσι κληρικοῖς καὶ λαϊκοῖς
βιβλία σεβάσμια καὶ ἅγια" τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαθήκης...
ἡμέτερα δέ, τουτέστι τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, εὐαγγέλια τέσσαραΐἶ,
Ματθαίον, Μάρκον, Λουκᾶ, Ἰωάννου: Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ
δεκατέσσαρες" Πέτρον ἐπιστολαὶ δυο" ᾿Ιωάννον τρεῖς" ‘la-
κωβον μία" ᾿Ιούδα pia®s Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ" δύο, καὶ αἱ
διαταγαὶ ὑμῖν" τοῖς ἐπισκόποις δ᾽ ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν ὀκτὼ
βιβλίοις προσπεφωνημέναι, ὡς οὐ ypy δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων,
διὰ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς μυστικά" καὶ αἱ πράξεις ἡμῶν τῶν ἀπο-
στόλων.

IV.

De partibus divine legis‘, Lib. i. c. 2, (Gallandi, xii. pomce,
79 seqq.) Species [scripture ]...aut historica est, aut pro- ¢. 550 a.c.
phetica, aut proverbialis, aut simpliciter docens.

1 Hic Catal. integer exstat in Codd. Syrr. (Mus. Brit.) 14,
526, 14, §27, sec. vi. vel vii.; non autem in MS, Arab. 7207. Dion.
Exig. Canones tantum L. vertit.

Syr. + que antea memorarimus.

3 "I. u. om. cod. Bodl. ap. Bev. (Ueltzen.)

4 Syr. duce epp. meee Clementis.

δ᾽ Bunsen ὑμῶν ἴ err. typ.

6. Ad Primasium Episcopum (c. 553 4.0.) Pref.... [vidi) uen-
dam Paullum nomine, Persam genere, qui in Syrorum schola in
Nisibi urbe eat edoctus, ubi divina lex per magistros publicos, sicut
apud nos in mundanis studiis Grammatica et Rhetorica, ordine ac
regulariter traditur...cjus...reguias quasdam...in duos brevissimos
libellos...collegi...

570 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX C. 3. De historia... Discipulus. In quibus libris divim
continetur historia? Magister. In septemdecim. Geni,
Exod. i., Levit. i., Num. i., Deuter. i., Jesu Nave i,
Judicum i., Ruth i., Regum, secundum noes iv., secun-
dum Hebreos ii., Evangeliorum iv., secundum Msat-
theum, secundum Marcum, secundum Lucam, secur-
dum Joannem, Actuum Apostolurum i. 22. ΝΠ ali
Libri ad divinam Historiam pertinent? Af. Adjun-
gunt plures: Paralipomenon ii., Tob. i., Esdre ii, Ju-
dith i., Hester i., Maccab. ii.......

c.4. De Prophetia... D. In quibus libris prophetis su:
cipitur? M. In septemdecim. Psalmorum cl. lib. i,
Ose lib. i., Esaiz lib. i., Joel lib.i., Amos lib. i., Abdiz
lib. i., Jone lib.i., Michee lib. i., Naum. lib. i., Sopho-
nia lib. i., Habacuc lib. i., Jeremie lib. iL, Ezechiel lib.i,
Malachiz lib. i. Ceterum de Joannis A pocalypsi apud
orientales admodum dubitatur......

c.5. De proverbiis.

c.6. De simplici doctrina... D. Qui libri ad simplicem
doctrinam pertinent? Mf. Canonici sexdecim ; id est;
Eccles, lib. i.; et Epist. Paulli Apostoli ad Rom. i. ad
Corinth. ii. ad Gal. 1. ad Ephes. i. ad Philip. i. ad
Coloss. i. ad Thessal. ii. ad Timoth. ii. ad Titum i. ad
Philem. i. ad Hebr. i. Beati Petri ad gentes i. ; et beati
Joannis prima. D. Nulli alii libn ad simplicem doc-
trinam pertinent? M. Adjunguot quamplurimi quin-
que alias que Apostolorum Canonice nuncupantur;
id est: Jacubi i. Petri secundam, Jude unam, Joannis

c. 7. De auctoritate Scripturarum. D. Quomodo divi-
norum librorum consideratur auctoritas? Af. Quis
quidam perfect auctoritatis sunt, quidam medi, qui-
dam nullius. D. Qui sunt perfecte auctoritatis? M.
Quos canonicos in singulis speciebus absolute numera-
vinus, D. Qui medie? M. Quos adjungi a plo-

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 6571

ribus diximus. D. Qui nullius auctoritatis sunt? M. APPENDIX
Reliqui omnes. D. In omnibus speciebus he differ- ———_—
entie inveniuntur? M. In historia et simplici doc-

trina’ omnes; namque in prophetia medie auctoritatis

libri non preter Apocalypsim reperiuntur; neque in
proverbiali specie omnino cessata.

Vv.
De fide Orthodoxa, iv. 17". ἱστέον δὲ ὡς εἴκοσι καὶ δύο JOannns

5 a - ͵ \ . ~ AM ASCERUS.
βίβλοι εἰσὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς t 750 a.c.
Ἑ βναΐδος φωνης...... τῆς δὲ νέας διαθήκης εὐαγγέλια τέσ-
e YY A) M n 3 Ἁ M ‘ A LY
capa’ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον, τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον, τὸ κατὰ
Λουκᾶν", τὸ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην. Πραξέεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων

8 se ‘,
ἐπιστολαὶ ENTA

διὰ Λουκᾶ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ. Καθολικαὶ
ἸΙακώβον μία, Πέτρον δύο, ᾿Ιωάννου τρεῖς, ᾿ἰούδα μία. Παύ-
λον ἀἁποστόλον ἐπιστολαὶ" δεκατέσσαρες. ᾿Αποκαλυψιςῦ
φ ’ 9 ~ o ~ € ¢ φ ‘ 10 Α
Ἰωάννου εὐαγγελιστοῦ. Kavoves τῶν ayiev ἀποστόλων δια

Κλήμεντος.

VI.
Catal, Libr. omn. Ecclesiasticorum (Assemani, Bibl. Eas “κου.
t 1318 2.0,
Or. ili. pp. 3 9eqq-)

Cap. ii. Nunc abeoluto veteri
Aggrediamur jam novum TJestamentum:
Cujus caput est Mattheus, qui Hebraice
In Palestina scripsit.

1 Gallandii pravum interpunctionem oorrexi: doctrina: omnes

namque...
3 Ex edit. Lequien, Paris, 1713; collata vers. Lat. Joannis
Burgundionis (c. 1180 4. C.), civis Pisani, ex codd. Mus. Brit. Reg.
6, B, xii. (a); 5, D, x. (8); add. 15, 497 (γ).
> Evangelista +. 4 quod sec. M. be.
ὅ τὸ κ. A. = 8. 6 Canonice a. χα β.γ.
; + tertius punctis suppos. +.
= epistole +. sed man. sec. add.
. A pochalypsis γ.
10 R. 2428 καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ δύο διὰ Κλήμεντος, sed interpolatum
varie huncce codicem esse monuimus -)

572 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX Post hunc Marcus, qui Romane
.-. Locutus est in celeberrima Roma :

Et Lucas, qui Alexandriz
Grece dixit scripsitque:

Et Joannes, qui Ephesi
Greco sermone exaravit Evangelium.
Actus quoque Apostolorum,
Quos Lucas Theophilo inscripsit.

Tres etiam Epistole que inscribuntur
Apostolis in omni codice et lingua,
Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni;
Et Catholice nuncupantur.

Apostoli autem Pauli magni
Epistole quatuordecim?......

Cap. iii. Evangelium, quod compilavit
Vir Alexandrinus
Ammonius, qui, et Tatianus,
Illudque Diatessaron appellavit.
Cap. iv. Libri quoque quorum Auctores sunt

Discipuli Apostolorum.
Liber Dionysi, &c.

VI.
Evsenivs. (. E. in. 25.) Cf. supr. pp- 48] 8666.
t JAU a.c. .

ὙΠ].
Catech. iv. 33 (22 ed. Mill.) περὶ τῶν θειῶν Ὑραφῶν.

CYRILLvs,

tp Hierosl. Φιλομαθώς ἐπίγνωθι παρὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ποῖαι μέν elow αἱ
t 886 4.0. τῇς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βίβλοι, ποῖαι δὲ τῆς KaWwys...... ποὶν

σον φρονιμώτεροι ἦσαν οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπί-

σκοποι, οἱ τῆς ἐκκλησίας προστάται, οἱ ταύτας παραδόντες"

σὺ οὖν τέκνον τῆς ἐκκλησίας μὴ παραχάραττε τοὺς θεσμούς

ἐνόουν τῆς δὲ καινῆς διαθήκης τὰ τέσσαρα εὐαγγέλια" τὰ δὲ

λοιπὰ Wevderiypada καὶ βλαβερὰ τυγχάνει" ἔγραψαν καὶ
1 Ep. ad Hebreos locum ultimum obtinet.

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 573

Μανιχαῖοι κατὰ Θωμᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, ὅπερ, ὥσπερ εὐωδία τῆς APPENDIX

εὐαγγελικῆς προσωνυμίας, διαφθείρει τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀπλου-
στέρων. δέχον δὲ καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων"
πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ Ἰακώβου καὶ Πέτρον, Ἰωάννον
καὶ Ἰούδα, καθολικὰς ἐπιστολάτ᾽ ἐπισφράγισμα δὲ τῶν
πάντων καὶ μαθητῶν τὸ τελενταῖον, τὰς Παύλον δεκατέσσαρας
ἐπιστολάς" τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἕξω κείσθω ἐν δευτέρῳ. καὶ
ὅσα μὲν ἐν ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ἀναγινώσκεται, ταῦτα μηδὲ κατὰ
σαντὸν ἀναγίνωσκε καθεὶς ἥκουσας......

ΙΧ.

Ado. har. uxxvi. 5. Ed. Colon. 1682. Ei γὰρ ἧς ἐξ grirzans,

ἁγίου πνεύματος γεγεννημένος καὶ προφήταις καὶ ἀποστόλοις Ἦν οὔθ,

μεμαθητευμένος, ἔδει σε διελθόντα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως κόσμον
ἄχρι τῶν Αἰσθὴρ χρόνων ἐν εἴκοσι καὶ ἐπτὰ βίβλοις παλαιᾶς
διαθήκης, εἴκοσι δύο ἀριθμουμένοις, τέτταρσι δὲ ἁγίοις εὐαγγε-
λίοις, καὶ ἐν τεσσαρσικαίδεκα ἐπιστολαῖς τοῦ dyiov ἁποστό-
λον Παύλου, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πρὸ τούτων, καὶ σὺν ταῖς ἐν τοῖς
αὐτῶν χρόνοις Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων, καθολικαῖς ἐπι-
στολαῖς ᾿Ιακώβον καὶ Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννον καὶ ‘lovéa, καὶ
ἐν τῇ τοῦ Ἰωάννον ᾿Αποκαλύψει, ἕν τε ταῖς Σοφίαις, Σολο-
μῶντός τε φημὶ καὶ vied Σιράχ, καὶ πάσαις ἁπλῶς γραφαῖς
θείαις......

x.
Ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25. Cf. pp. 402 seqq.

ΣΙ.

Ex Epiat, Fest. xxxix. Ap. Theodorum Balsamonem srassisivs,
aera

in “ Scholits in Canones):” T. i. 767. Ed. Bened. Par.
1777. Μέλλων δὲ τούτων [ec τῶν θειῶν γραφῶν μνημο-
νεύειν χρήσομαι πρὸς σύστασιν τῆς ἐμαντοῦ τόλμης τῷ τόπῳ

1 Eadem epistola exstat in Vers. Syr. Mus. Brit., (Cod. 12, 168.
see. vii. v. vili.), quam nuper Anglicb reddidit vir reverendus, cui
mihi pro singulari οἶσε humanitate gratie agendw munt: The Festal
Letters of A jus, translated from the Syriac by the Rev, H. Bur-
geet, Ph.D. p. 131.

OntonsEs,
$233 2.c.

574 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMEST

APPENDIX τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Λουκᾶ, λέγων καὶ αὐτός, ἐπειδήτερ
Ὁ.

Graaorius
N AZIANZE-

τινὲς ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι davroi ta λεγόμειε
ἀπόκρυφα καὶ ἐπιμίξαι ταῦτα τῇ θεοπνεύστῳ γραφὴ, τερὶ
ἧς ἐπληφορήθημεν, καθὼς παρέδοσαν τοῖς πάτρο-
σιν οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι
τοῦ λόγον, ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ προτραπέντι παρὰ γνησίαν
ἀδελφῶν, καὶ μαθόντι ἄνωθεν ἑξῆς ἐκθέσθαι τὰ cavonfopen
καὶ παραδοθέντα, πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία, ἵνα ἕκα-
στος, εἰ μὲν ἡπατήθη, καταγνῷ τῶν πλανησάντων, ὁ &
καθαρὸς διαμείνας χαίρῃ πάλιν ὑπομιμνησκόμενος. ἔστι
τοίνυν τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία τῷ ἀριθμῷ τὰ
πάντα εἰκοσιδνο.......τὰ δὲ τῆς καινῆς [διαθιηΐκης βιβλιαῚ οὔκ
ὀκνητέον εἰπεῖν" ἐστὶ γὰρ ταῦτα" Ἐ αγγελία τέσσαρα" κατὰ
Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μάρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, xara ᾿Ιωάννην. Εἶτα
μετὰ ταῦτα Πράξεις ᾿Αποστόλων, καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαὶ'
καλούμεναι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἑπτα" οὕτως. ᾿ἾΙακώβον μὲν a,
Πέτρον δὲ β΄, εἶτα ᾿Ιωάννον γ΄, καὶ μετὰ ταύτας ἾἸούδα a.
Πρὸς τούτοις Παύλον ἀποστόλου εἰσὶν ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσ.-
capes, τῇ τάξει γραφόμεναιἦ ovTws’...... καὶ πάλιν ᾿Ιωάννον
ἀποκάλνψις" ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίον, ὥστε τὸν
διψώντα ἐμφορεῖσθαι τῶν ἐν τούτοις λογίων" ἐν τούτοις
μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας διδασκαλεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται. Maser
τούτοις ἐπιβαλλέτω, μηδὲ τούτων ἀφαιρείσθω τι.

ΧΙ.

Carm. xii. 31 (Ed. Benedict. Par. 1840). (περὶ τῶν
γνησίων βιβλίων τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς.)
Ματθαῖος μὲν ἔγραψεν Ἕ βραίοις θαύματα Χριστοῦ
Mapxos & ᾿Ιταλίῃ, Λοῦκας ᾿Αχαιΐαδι.
Πᾶσι δ᾽ ᾿Ιωάννης κῆρνξ μέγας, οὐρανοφοίτης.
Ἔπειτα Πράξεις τῶν σοφῶν ἀποστόλων.

1 Syr. = καθολικαί. 3 Syr. = γραφόμεναι.

3 Idem est ordo qui in editt. vulgg.

4 Metra Gregorius nullo certo ordine commiscet ; quod lectores
monitos velim, ne quis Apocalypsim versu proxime sequenti olim
commemoratam fuisse suspicetur.

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 575

Δέκα δὲ Παύλον τέσσαρές τ᾽ ἐπιστολαί. APPENDIX
Ἑπτὰ δὲ καθολίχ᾽", ὧν Ἰακώβον pia, -
Δύω δὲ Πέτρου, τρεῖε δ᾽ Ἰωάννου πάλιν.
Ἰούδα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἑβδόμη. Πάσας ἔχεις.
Εἴ τις δὲ τούτων ἐκτός, οὐκ ἐν γνησίοις.
XII
Tambi ad Seleucum. Ap. Gregor. Nazianz. Cf. Am- ax
philoch. ed. Combef. p. 132.

Καινῆς Διαθήκης ὥρα por βίβλους λέγειν
Εναγγελιστὰς τέσσαρας δέχον μόνους,
Ματϑαῖον͵ εἶτα Μάρκον, ᾧ Λουκᾶν τρίτον
Προσθεὶς ἀρίθμει, τὸν δ᾽ ᾿Ιωάννην χρόνῳ
Τέταρτον, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον ὕψει δογμάτων"

Βροντῆε γὰρ υἱὸν τοῦτον εἰκότως καλῶ
Μέγιστον ἠχήσαντα τῷ Θεοῦ λόγῳ.

Δέχον δὲ βίβλον Λούκα καὶ τὴν δευτέραν,
Τὴν τῶν Καθολικῶν Πράξεων ἀποστόλων.
Τὸ σκεῦος ἑξῆς προστίθει τῆς ἐκλυγῆς,

Τὸν τῶν ἐθνῶν κήρυκα, tov τ᾽ ἀπόστολον
Παῦλον, σοφῶς γράψαντα ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
Ἐπιστολὰς δὲς éwrd......

Τινὲς δὲ φασὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἕ βραίους νόθον,
Οὐκ εὖ λέγοντες" γνησία γὰρ ἡ χάρις.
Elev’ τί λοιπόν; Καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν
Τινὲς μὲν ἑπτὰ φασίν, of δὲ τρεῖς μόνας
Χρῆναι δέχεσθαι, τὴν Ἰακώβον μίαν,

Μίαν δὲ Πέτρον, τήν τ᾽ Ἰωάννον μίαν,
Τινὲς δὲ τὰς τρεῖο, καὶ πρὸς αὐταῖς τὰς δύο
Πέτρον δέχονται, τὴν Ἰούδα δ᾽ ἑβδόμην"
Τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Αποκάλυψιν τὴν Ἰωάννον πάλιν
Τινὲς μὲν ἐγκρίνονσιν, οἱ πλείους δέ γε
Νόθον λέγουσιν. Οὗτος ἁψενδίστατος
Κανων ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν......

1 1,9. καθολικαί. All. ἑπτὰ δὲ τὰ καθολίχ᾽... Λουκᾶς, Δέκά, ἑπτᾶ,
"Ἰούδᾶ, ot in carm. soqu. Spd, Λουκᾶ, relinquere quam corrigere malui.

APPENDIX
D.

NICEPHORUS,
Patr. Co

806—815
A.C.

576 CATALOGUES OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

XIV.

Synopsis Sacr. Script. Ap. Chrys. Tom. vi. p. 318 a.
Ed. Bened.: ᾿Εστὶ δὲ καὶ τῆς καινῆς βιβλία, αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ
αἱ δεκατέσσαρες Παύλου, τὰ εὐαγγέλια τὰ τέσσαρα, bdvo
μὲν τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘lwawov καὶ Ματθαίον"
δύο δὲ Λουκᾶ καὶ Μάρκον: ὧν ὁ μὲν τοῦ Πέτρου, ὁ ἐὲ
τοῦ Παύλου γεγόνασι μαθηταί. οἱ μὲν yap αὐτοπταὶ ἦσαν
γεγενημένοι, καὶ συγγενόμενοι τῷ Χριστῳ" οἱ δὲ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων
διαδεξάμενοι εἷς ἑτέρους ἐξήνεγκαν" καὶ τὸ τῶν πράξεων
δὲ βιβλίον, καὶ αὐτὸ Λουκᾶ, ἱστορήσαντος Ta γενόμενα"

a ~ ΓΝ Φ Π “-
καὶ τῶν καθολικών ἐπιστολαὶ τρεῖς.

XV.
De Sectis Act. ii. (Gallandi, xii. 625 seqq.) ... awapi6-

μησώμεθα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ βιβλία. τῶν τοίνυν ἐκκλησι-
αστικῶν βιβλίων τὰ μὲν τῆς παλαιᾶς εἰσὶ γραφῆς" τὰ δὲ
τῆς νέας....τῆς μὲν οὖν παλαιᾶς βιβλία εἰσὶ κβ΄... τῆς
δὲ νέας ἕξ εἰσι βιβλία, ὧν δύο περιέχει τοὺς τέσσαρας
εὐαγγελιστας" τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει Ματθαῖον καὶ Μάρκον, τὸ
ΝΑ ο “a 4 ? ’ , 3 A e °
δὲ ἕτερον Λουκᾶν καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην. τρίτον ἐστὶν ai πραξεις
τῶν ἀποστόλων. τέταρτον αἱ καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαὶ οὖσαι
° ’ ? , -~ 9 ‘ 3 μ e ΄ a e e
ἐπτα ὧν TPWTH TOV Ιακώβον ἐστι" ἢ β΄. καὶ ἢ γ.
Πέτρον" ἡ ὃ΄. καὶ ε΄. καὶ στ΄. Tov Ἰωαννον" ἡ δὲ ζ΄. τοῦ Ἰούδα.
4 a .
καθολικαὶ δὲ ἐκλήθησαν ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρὸς ἕν ἔθνος ἐγρά-
φησαν ὡς αἱ τοῦ Παύλον, ἀλλὰ καθύλονυ πρὸς πάντα.
πέμπτον βιβλίον αἱ ιδ΄. τοῦ ayiov Παύλου ἐπιστολαί. ἕκτον
® 4 e 8 ’ ~ tt 9 ’
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀποκαλυψις τοῦ ἀγίον ‘Twavvou,
~ t 9 4 c ae 9 ~ Φ .
ταῦτά ἐστι τὰ κανονιζόμενα βιβλία ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
o A ‘ °
καὶ παλαιὰ καὶ νέα, ὧν τὰ παλαιὰ παντα δέχονται οἱ
"EBpator.
XVI.
Cf. Credner, Zur Gesch. d. K. ss. 119 ff.'

§ i. Ὅσαι εἰσὶ θεῖαι γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι καὶ

1 Lectt. varr. vers. Lat. Anastasii (c. 870 4.C.) a ui .
Burn. (Mus. Brit.) 284, svc. xii. v. xiii. £. 283. Ppoeus ὁ Cod

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 577

κεκανονισμέναι. καὶ ἡ τούτων στιχομετρία, οὕτωε"... ὃ ii, APPENDIX

τῆς νέας διαθήκης.
α΄. ἘΕνϑαγγέλιον κατὰ MarQaior στίχοι βφ'.
β΄. Ἐναγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον' στίχοι β΄.
yf. Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν" στίχοι By’.
δ΄. Εϑαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην" στίχοι βτ'"
“. Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων στίχοι fe.
τ΄. Παύλον ἐπιστολαὶ 3* στίχοι er’.
CT. Καθολικαὶ" ζ΄. Ἰακώβου α΄. Πέτρον β΄. Ἰωάννον
7. ‘Tova α΄."
‘Onod τῆς νέας διαθήκης βιβλία κε΄."
§iv. Καὶ ὅσαι τῆς νέας ἀντιλέγονται."
α΄. ᾿Αποκάλνψις Ἰωάννον: στίχοι av?
β΄. ᾿Αποκάλνψιε Πέτρου' στίχοι τ΄"
7. Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή: στίχοι axe’?
δ. Εϑαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἑβραίουε' στίχοι fr’.
§ vi. Καὶ ὅσα τῆς νέας ἀπόκρυφα.
“α΄. "Περίοδος Πέτρον: στίχοι By’.
β΄. Περίοδος ᾿Ιωάννον" στίχοι .
Ὑ. Περίοδος Θωμᾶ- στίχοι aw’,
δ, Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Θωμᾶν: στίχοι jar."
ἐ. Διδαχὴ ἀποστόλων" στίχοι ε΄.
τ΄. Κλήμεντος α΄, 8 στίχοι, By"
ζ Ἰηνατίον, Πολυκάρπου, [Ποιμένος καὶ] Ἕρμᾶ"
στίχοι.

1 Cod. Hee sunt divine: scripture que recipiuntur ab coclesia ot
canonizantur. Harumque vereuum numerus ut subjicitur,... Hi autem
sunt novi Testamenti,

Cod. Tinoco. 2 Cod. + Hpi,

e Cod. Coisl. ap. Mont. p. 204: ἡὶ ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιωώνου...στίχοι
14 Cod. Clementis xxii, 8 Cod. Pastors... ?
PP

578 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX XVI.

Cod. Clarom. Versus Scribturarum Sonctarum’. .-- Evangelia ii
Mattheum ver. ΠΡΟ. Johannes ver. ti. Marcus ver. inc.
Lucam ver. iipcccc. Epistulas Pauli ad Romanos ver. ixn
ad Chorintios .1. ver. itx. ad Chorintiog .m. wer. Lxx. ad
Galatas ver. cccL. ad Efesios ver. cocLxxv. ad Timotheum
I. ver. covili. ad Timotheum .n. ver. ccLXxxviiii. ad Titum
ver. CXL. ad Colossenses ver. cori. ad Filimonem ver. L. ad
(sic) Petrum prima cc. ad Petrum .n. ver. cxu. Jacobi ver.
ccxx. Pr. Johanni Epist. coxx. Johanni Epistula .ii. xx.
Johanni Epistula .1m. xx. Jude Epistula wer. ux. * Bar-
nabe Epist. ver. pcoct. Johannis Revelatio icc. Actas
Apostolorum iipc. *Pastoris versi fil. * Actus Pauli ver.
iipcx. * Revelatio Petri conxx.

XVII.

AUousTINS, De doctr. Christiana ii. 12 (viii.) (ed. Bened. Par.
3, 1836). Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertias;

. 5 p Solertissimus

Ν indagator, qui primo totas legerit notasque habuerit, et si

nondum intellectu, jam tamen lectione duntaxat eas que

appellantur Canonice. Nam ceteras securius leget fide veri-

tatis instructus, ne preoccupent imbecillem animum, et

periculosis mendaciis atque phantasmatis eludentes pree-

judicent aliquid contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis

autem Scripturis, ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium

auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane ille sint, que

apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.

Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, ut eas

1 Ex edit. Tischdf. p. 468 eq. Nihil est in Greeco Cod. textu
uod stichometris respondeat, quam 6 codice Latino Scriba Grascus
( Alexandrinus). Equidem e Latina, seu potius ex Africana origine
eductam esse crediderim, et certe ssculo quarto antiquiorem. Neque

aliter censet Tischdf. Proleg. p. xviii.
* His quatuor versibus ..manu satis recenti prepositi sunt obeli.

(Tisch. p. 589.)

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 579

qua ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis Catholicis preeponat
eis quas quedam non accipiunt: in eis vero que non acci-
piuntur ab omnibus, prwponat eas quas plures gravioresque
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesize
tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravi-
oribus haberi, quanquam hoc facile invenire non possit,
eequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. 13. Totus
autem Canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationem
versandam dicimus, his libris continetur: Quinque Moyseos
...His quadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti Veteris termi-
natur auctoritas: Novi autem, quatuor libris Evangelii,
secundum Mattheum, secundum Marcum, secundum Lu-
cam, secundum Joannem; quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli
Apostoli, ad Romanos, ad Corinthios duabus, ad Galatas,
ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Thessalonicenses duabus,
ad Colossenses, ad Timotheum duabus, ad Titum, ad Phi-
lemonem, ad Hebreos; Petri duabus; tribus Joannis; una
Judz et una Jacobi; Actibus Apostolorum libro uno, et
Apocalypsi Joannis libro uno. 14 (ix) In his omnibus
libris timentes Deum et pietate mansueti, querunt volun-
tatem Dei.

XVIII.
Cf. App. B.

XIX.

Her. ux. (Gallandi, vii. 480 sqq.)...Statutum est ab paras
apostolis et eorum successoribus non aliud legi in ecclesia + ¢.387 λ.α.

debere catholica nisi legem et prophetas et Evangelia et
Actus Apostolorum, et Paulli tredecim epistolas, et septem
alias, Petri duas, Joannis tres, Jude wnam, et unam Jacobi,
que septem Actibus Apostolorum conjunctw sunt...

Her. uxt. Sunt alii quoque [heretici] qui Epistolam
Paulli ad Hebreos non asserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut
Bamabe esse Apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma epi-
scopi ; alii autem Luce Evangeliste aiunt Epistolam, etiam

PP2

580 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMEN

APPENDIX ad Laodicenses scriptam'. Et quia addiderunt in ea qu

dam non bene sentientes inde non legitur in ecckss;
et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legis:
populo, nisi tredecim epistole ipeius et ad Hebreos inte
dum...quia factum Christum dicit in ea inde non legite;
de posnitentia autem propter Novatianos xque.

Her, xxxii...sunt beretici qui Evangelium secundm
Joannem et Apocalypsim ipsius non accipiunt, et...in here
permanent pereuntes ut etiam Cerinthi illius heretici ex
audeant dicere, et Apocalypsim itidem non beati Joana
Evangelist et Apostoli sed Cerinthi heretici...

XX.

Ad Paul. Ep. tiii. § 8. ((. p. 548 ed. Migne).

Cernis me Scripturarum amore raptum excessisse me
dum epistole, et tamen non implesse quod volui......Ta»
gam et novum breviter Testamentum. Mattheus, Marcas
Lucas, et Johannes, quadriga Domini et verum Cherubim,
quod interpretatur scientie multitudo, per totum corps
oculati sunt, scintille emicant, discurrunt fulgura, pedes
habent rectos et in sublime tendentes, terga pennata et ube
que volitantia. Tenent se mutuo, et quasi rota in rots
volvuntur, et pergunt quocunque eos flatus Sancti Spirites
perduxerit. Paulus Apostolus ad septem ecclesias scmbit,
octava enim ad Hebreos a plerisque extra numerum
ponitur, Timotheum instruit ac Titum, Philemonem pro
fugitivo famulo (Onesimo) deprecatur. Super quo tacere
melius puto quam pauca scribere. Actus Apostolorum
nudam quidem sonare videntur historiam et nascentis Ee-
clesiam infantiam texere; sed si noverimus scriptorem
eorum Lucam esse medicum, cujus laus est in Evangelie,
animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius anime Jan-
guentis esse medicinam. Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas,
Apostoli, septem epistolas ediderunt tam mysticas quam

1 Gall. aiunt, Epistolam etiam correxi,

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 6581

succinctas, et breves pariter et longas : breves in verbis, APPENDIX

longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum lectione
cecutiat. Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta quot
verba. Parum dixi pro merito voluminis. Laus omnis
inferior est: in verbis singulis multiplices latent intelli-
gentie.

XXI.

Comm. in Symb. A post. ὃ 36. (Ed. Migne, Paris, 1849.) Rorixos

.- Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus est qui in veteri Testamento “
Legem et Prophetas, in novo Evangelia et Apostolos inspi-
ravit. Unde et Apostolus dicit: ii Tim. 3. Et ideo que
sunt novi ac veteris Testamenti volumina, que secundum
majorum traditionem per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum inspi-
rata creduntur, et ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens vide-
tur hoc in loco evidenti numero, sicut ex patrum monu-
mentis accepimus, designare.

§ 37. Itaque veteris Testamenti, omnium primo Moysi
quinque libri sunt traditi...

Novi vero quatuor Evangelia, Matthei, Marci, Luce,
et Joannis. Actus Apostolorum quos describit Lucas.
Pauli apostoli epistole quatuordecim. Petri apostoli due.
Jacobi fratris domini et apostoli una. Jude una. Joan-
nis tres. Apocalypsis Joannis.

Hec sunt que patres intra Canonem concluserunt, et
ex quibus fidei nostra agsertiones constare voluerunt.

§ 38. Sciendum tamen est quod et alii libri sunt qui
non canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, id
est Sapientia, que dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, que
dicitur filii Sirach...... Ejusdem vero ordinis libellus est
Tobia et Judith: et Machabezorum libri.

In novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris
seu Hermas, qui appellatur due vie vel judicium Petri.
Que omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen
proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.

0 ac.

582 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

APPENDIX Cesteras vero Scripturas Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in
Ecclesiis legi noluerunt.

Hee nobis a patribus tradita sunt, que (ut dixi) op-
portanum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem
eorum qui prima sibi ecclesie ac fidei elementa suscipiunt,
ut sciant, ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint

pocula.
XXII.
Inxocey- Ad Exsuperium ep. Toloseanum (Gallandi, Bibl. Pp.
Hp Rom | viii. 561 seqq.) Hee sunt ergo” que desiderata mo-

neri voluisti: Moysi libri quinque......Item Novi Testa-
menti: Evangeliorum libri itii; Pauli Apestoli Epietolx
xiili: Epistole Johannis tres: Epistole Petri duze: Epistola
Jude: Epistola Jacobi: Actus Apostolorum: <A pocalypeis
Johannis. Cetera autem que vel sub nomine Matthia, sive
Jacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis, que ¢
quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andree, que
a Nexocharide® et Leonida philosophis, vel sub nomine
Thome, et si qua sunt talia‘, non solum repudianda verum
etiam noveris esse damnanda. [Data x kal. Mart. Stili-
chone ii. et Anthemio virr. clarr. coss®.] (A.C. 405.)

XXIII.

Guvasivs. Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. (Cred-
ner, Zur Gesch. ἃ. K. p. 195 sqq. § 4. Item ordo Serip-
turarum Novi Testamenti, quem Sancta Catholica Romana

1 E cod. Coll. SS. Trin. (A) collatis, B. (Cf. p. 568, n.1) et
Cotton. Claud. E, V (Ὁ). (4) Pr 508, m1)

3 BD ; = ergo A Gall. 3 anexocharide, B.
4 ABD—alia Gall. δ = ABD.

DURING FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 583

suscipit et veneratur ecclesia}. Evangeliorum® libri iv, id appenpix
eat? sec. Mattheeum lib. 1. sec. Marcum lib. 1. sec. Lucam __~
lib. 1. sec. Joannem lib. 1. Item Actuum Apostolorum
liber unus‘.

δ 5. Epistole Pauli Apostoli num. xiii’.

δ 6. Apocalypsis® liber i. Apostolice epistole’? nu-
mero vii. Petro apostoli numero* ii. Jacobi apostolj, nu-
mero® i, Joannis apostoli 111". Jude Zelotis”.

XXIV.

De instit. die. Litt. cap. xiv". Scriptura Sancta secun=- casoponvs.
dum antiquam translationem in Testamenta duo ita divi- “ am 3
ditur, id est in Vetus et in Novum™. In Genesim...... 6
Evangelia quatuor”™, id est Matthei, Marci, Luce, Johan-

1 Recensionum que Damasi (D) et Hormisds (H) nomina pre
se ferunt lectt. varr. apposui; singulas quasque Codd. lectionen
Credner dabit. Id vero minime pretermittendum esse credo duos
Mus. Brit. codices decretum Gelasii de libris apocryphis continere,
nullo librorum 8. Scripture canone preeposito ; quorum alter (Cotton.
Vesp. B, 13, 12) ita incipit : Post propheticas εἰ evangelicas scripturas
atque apostolicas scripturas vel veteris vel novi testament, quas regu-
lariter suscipimus, sancta Romana ecclesia has non susceps.
Sanctam Synodum Nicenam... Alter vero (Add. 15, 222, sec. xi.)
eundem fere quem cod. L. (Credner, p. 178) textum exhibet, alio
tamen titulo: 7πούρε decretum Gelasts pape quem (sic) én urbe Roma
cum LXX. eruditissimis episcopis conscripstt. Equidem, ut verum
fatear, librorum ecclesiasticorum et apocryphorum indicem multo
majoris auctoritatis esse quam SS, Scripturarum canonem existimo.

3 ium, D. 3 = ἐᾷ est, H.

4 D. Actus Apostolorum liber ¢. post Apocalypsim ponit.

5 Credner, XIII. nulla variatione notata ; quum quatuordecim
in Codd. fere ΧΙΠῚ. scribatur, vereor ne Areval., cujus collationem
Cod. A. sequitur, eum in errorem induxerit. Epp. Pauli (+ apostols
H) numero ziv. D. H. indice addito.

© Item Apocalypsis Joannis (+ apostols Ὁ) lb. ὁ. DH.

7 Item epistole canonice D item cann. epp. H.

8 =numero DH.

9. Joannis Apost. ep. ὁ. Alterius Joannis. Preabyteri epp. i. D.

10 + epistola i D. + apostoli epistola H.

11 E cod. . Mus. Brit. 13 A, xxi. 7 (a): collatis codd. Cotton.
Claud. B, 13, 8 (8); Reg. 10 B, xv. 2 (7); 5 B, viii. 6 (8).

13 Edd. = tn.

13 Evangeliorum quatuor Mattheus, &c. By8 ; Evangelista quatuor,

584 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT.

APPENDIX nis: Actus Apostolorum: Epistole Petri ad gentes':

__"____ Jacobi*: Johannis ad Parthos: Epistole Pauli ad Romanos
una, ad Corinthios® duz, ad Galatas* una, ad Philippenses
una, ad Ephesios una’, ad Colossenses una, ad Hebreos
una, ad Thesasalonicenses’ dus, ad Timotheum due, ad
Titum una’, ad Philemonem una: Apocalypsis® Jo-

hannis.
XXV.
Bp, Hel - De ordine Librorum S. Scripture init’. Hinc occurrit
τ A.C

Testamentum Novum, cujus primum Evangeliorum libri
sunt quatuor, Mattheus’® et Marcus, Lucas et Johannes.
Sequuntur deinde Epistole Pauli apostoli xiiii. id est, ad
Romanos, ad Corinthios due, ad Galatas", ad Ephesios,
ad Philippenses, et ad Thessalonicenses due, ad Colos-
senses, ad Timotheum dus, ad Titum vero et ad Phile-
monem et ad Hebrsos singule epistole, Jacobi apostoli
una’, Petri due, Johannis 111... Jude una. Actus etiam
Apostolorum a Luca Evangelista conscriptus; et Apoca-
lypsis Johannis apostoli...quicquid extra hos fuerit inter
hee sacra et divina nullatenus recipiendum ™*.

1 Edd. + Jude. Sed omm. αβγδ.

3 Edd. + ad duodecim tribus. 3 Chorinthios γ.

4 Galathas αγδ.

; Edd. = ad Ephesios una err. typ. ; ad. Ephesios duce δ.

6 Tessalonicenses γδ. 7 ad Tit. ἃ. ad Tim. due β.

8 Apocalypsin δ.

9 E Cod. Reg. (Mus. Brit.) 5 B. viii. it) coll. Cod. Cotton.
Vesp. B. xiii. (b).—Cf. Isid. Proem. 88 86— 109.

10 + quoque b. a

13 Phil, a inne

14. iii or ἃ. 1δ recipienda Ὁ.

INDEX I.

Last of the Authorities quoted in reference to the Canon of
the New Testament’.

Acta Felicis, 473
Ethiopic Version, 417
Africanus, 8. Julius,
ippa Castor, 107
Alexander, Bp. of Jerusalem, 437
Alexander, Bp. of Alexandria, 414 n.

493
Alogi, 308
‘Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, 528

Ammonius, 361
AMPHILOCHIUS, 516
Anatolins, 41§ n.
Andrew, Bp. eee (Capp.) 518
Apollinaris, s. Claudi
Apollonius of Ephesus, 433
Apollonius of Rome, 426
Apostolic Canons, 506
Arabic Version of Erpenius, 266
Archelaus, 452 n.
Arehas, 518
Aristides, 93
Aristides Soph. 465 n.
Aristo of Pella, 106
Arius, 494
Arnobius, 138
Articles, XX XIX. 534
Athanasius, 520
Athenagoras, 136, 390 n.
Auct. adv. Cataphryg. 440
— de nen’ Te
— adv. Her. [Hippol.] 428
— Parv. Labyr. 4 18
Ane ad Novat. her. oan
ugustine, 52
‘Aurelius, 411 ?

Bardesanes, 260
Peat Be! 48
il, Bp. of Cwearea (Capp.), 517
Basilides, 318
» 305
Cosarius, §18 n.

1 The authorities which are merely noti
e

those which supply Catalogues of the

Caius, 307n. 468 n. 428

Calvin, 532

CARLSTADT, 532

tes, 325

Cartbege s. Council.

Cassian, 522

Ca8sIODORUS, 528 n.

Celsus, 464

Cerdo, 348 n.

Cerinthus, 304

Chrysostom. s. Johannes.

Claudius A pollinaris, 248

Clement of Rome, 27

Clement’s]} Second Epistle, Add.
lement of Alexandria, 137, 382,
387 n. 396

Clementine Homilies, 316

Codex ALEX. (A)

— Reervs (Ὁ),
— Coislin. 450
— Boerner. 556

Cohortatio ad Gentes [Justin], 206

Commodian, 422

Concil. AQUISGRANENSE, 566 n. 3.
— Carthaginiense (256 Δ. ©.),
411}.

Concil. CARTHAGINIENSE iii. 508
— CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM,
(1672), 507 ἢ

Concil. HIzROSOLYMITANUM, (1672),

id.

Concil. HIPPONENSE, §10n.
— Laodicenum, 496
— Nicenum, 494
— Quinisextum, 505
— Tolosanum, 525 n.
— Tridentinum, 531

ConFEssi0 BELGICA, 533

— GaLuica, i

Constantine the Great, 491

Cornelius, 426

Cosmas, 521 ἢ.

ere, 137, 418, 421, 422

ced in passing are printed in Italics:

w Testament iu Capitals.

586 INDEX I LIST OF AUTHORITIES.

Crrit, Bp. of Jerusalem, 519
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 520
Cyait Lucak, 506 n.

Damaseenus, s. Johannes.
Samper, Synod
, of, 266

Didymus, 520
Diognetus, Letter to, 95
Dionysius of Corinth, 206
Dionysius of Rome, 418
Dionysius of Alexandria, 410
Dionysius Areopagita, 531 n.
Dionysius Bar Salibi, 2
Donatiste, 474
Dorotheus, 447

itheus, 507 Ὁ.

EBEDJESU, 514

Ebionites, 190-1 n. 315
Elders quoted by Irenzus, 87
Ephrem Syrus, 514

Epiphanes, 326 n.
EPIPHANIUS, 510

Frasmus, §31

Eucherius, 530

Evsrsivus, Bp. of Ceesarea (Pal.),
138, 476.

Euthalvus, 531

Evangelists in Trajan’s time, 89

Faustinus, 528 n.

Firmilian, 438

Frag. de Resurr. [Justin], 205
» 536

GELASIUS, 527

Gennadius, 530

Gregory of Nazianzus, 516

Gregory of Neo-Cwearea, 437
Gregory of Nyssa, 517
Hegesippus, 228

Heracleon, 333

Hermas, 213

Hermias, 136

Hesychius, 448 n.

Hierocles, 471

Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, 530
Hilary of Rome, §24
Hippolytus, 430

Ignatius, 34
Innocent L, Bp. of Rome, 582

Irenseus, 379, 3870. 434
Ieidorus (f. il.), 324

Isidore of Pelusium, 520
Isidore, Bp. of Seville, 524, 530
JEROME, 580

JOHANNES DAMASCENDS, 515
Johannes Scholasticus, 504
Julius Africanus, 415 τι.
JUNILIUS, 513

Justin Martyr, 109

Justin the Gnostic, 315 n.

Lactantius, 138, 420n.

Latin Versions :—
Vetus Latina, 269
Vulgate, 288

Leo Allatius, 5230.

LEONTIUS,

Leucius, 461

Lucian of Antioch, 447

Lucian, 465 ἢ.

Inctfer, 528 τ΄.

Inher, 532

Malchion, 447

Mani, 458

Marcion, 345

Marcosians, 342 n.
Martyrdom of Ignatius, 86 n.
Melito, 245

Memphitic Version, 416
Menander, 304

Methodius, 43

Metrophanes Cru us, 507 ἢ.
Miltiades, 442 n.

Minucius Felix, 136, 426
Montanus, 457

Muratorian Canon, 235

Nicephorus Callists, 523 n.
Novatus, 426

CGcolampadius, 533
Ecumenius, §23

Ophites, 313 n.

Oplatus, 524

Oratio ad Gentes [Justin], 206

Origen τὸν, τοὶ
Confession, the, 507 2.

INDEX I. LIST OF AUTHORITIES 587
Pacian, 524, Sulpicius, 530
P sus, 512 n, Symmachus, Add.
Pamphilus, 449 Syryopsis 8. SoRIPTURA ap. Ath.
Pantznus, go, 381 §20 n.
Papias, 76 SrNorsts S. Sorreruns ap. Chrys.
Patripassians, 456 511
Paul of Samosata, Syrian Versions :—
Pelagius, 524 Peshito, 254

Philowenian, 263 n.

Pace Bp. of Alexandria, 414 Harclean, id.

PHILASTRIVB, 518
Phileas, 413

Polycarp, 44
Polycrates, 432
Porphyry, 455
Praxeas, 456
Prosper, 530
Prudentius, 530
Ptolemeus, 338

Quadratus, 92
Rorrvvs, 528

Salvian, 530

Saturninus, 320 n.

Sedulius, 530

Serapion, Bp. of Antioch, 444
Secthrant, 314

Severian, 513 n.

Sibylline Oracles, 462

Simon Magus, 301
aa hens pistle of the Church of,
49 ἢ.

Tatian, 136, 354
Tertullian, 137, 384, 387 n. 418, 420,

422

Testaments of the xii. Patriarchs, 462
Thebaic Version, 416

Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 512
Theodoret, 513

Theodotus, 345 0.

Theognostus, 413

Theonas, 413

Theophilus, 136, 390n. 443
Theophylact, 523
Tichontwus, 475 n.

Tyndale, 535

Ulphilas, 494 n.
Unitarians, 456

Valentinus, 326

Vietor of Antioch, §13n.

Victorinus Petaviensis, 4 19

Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of the
Churches of, 378

Vincent of Lerins, 524

Whitaker, 536

Zeno, 524
Zwingli, 533.

i.

. The teachin

. The teachin

. The teachin

eee

INDEX IZ.

A Synopsis of the Historical Evidence for the Books
of New Testament.

The characteristic teaching of | Concil.

the Apostles.

of St Peter.
Clement of Rome, 29
Polycarp, 45

of St James.
Clement of Rome, 31
Hermas, 221

of St John.
Clement of Rome, 31
Ignatius, 43

Letter to Diognetus, 100
Hermas, 225

. The teaching of St Paul.

Clement of Rome, 30
Ignatius, 40

Polycarp, 46

Letter to Diognetus, 100, 102
Justin Martyr, 204

Marcosians, 343
Test. of xii. Patriarchs, 463

. The teaching of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

Clement of Rome, 32
Barnabas, 50

ii, The Catalogues of the Books of

the New Testament’.

Amphilochius, 516

Nasius, 520

Augustine, 510
Canon Apostol. 569

Canon

urat. 238

Cod. Clarom. 577

* The Catalogues which agree with the received Catalogues are niarked by Italics

- (Hippo), 508
Cyril, ΩΝ “95
I
Ebed Jesu, 514

Epiphanius, 519
Eusebius, 476
Gelasius, 527
Gregor. Nazianz. 516
Jerome, 525
Innocent 1, 527
Johannes Damaac. 515
Isidore of Seville.
Junilius, §13

jus, 522
Nicephorus, id.
Origen, 402
Philastrius, 528
Rufinus, id.
Syn. 8. Script. (ap. Chrys.), 512

iii, The Evidence for the differes
parts of the New Testama

generally.

1, The Gos els.
Apostolic Fathers, 59
Letter to Diognetus, ror
Justin Martyr, 131

Evangelists in Trajan’s time, ¢

Claudius Apollinaris, 2

Peshito (iv), 258 #8
tes, 325

Valentinus, 327
Ptolemeus (iv.), 339
Marcosians (iv.), 342 -
Theodotus (iv.), 345 n.
Tatian, (iv.), 358
Tertullian (iv.), 387
Clement of Alex. (iv.), id.
Trenzeus (iv.), id.
Πίστις Σοφία, 464 τι.
Celsus (iv.), 464

a. The Catholic Epistles.

Seven :

Pamphilus (ἢ), 450
Eusebius (1), 489

1 In the case of the ‘ackn
than the beginning of the third

A SYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE, &c 589

Didymus ( ii. Peter), 520

Chrysostom, 511
Two (i. Peter, i. John):
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 512
Severian of Gabala (!), 513

3. The Epistles of St Paul.

Thirteen (without Ep. to Hebrews):
Caius, 428
Canon Murat. 241
Peshito, 258
Vetus Latina, 284
Tertullian, 387
Clement ξ Philemon), id.
Ireneus (= Philemon), id.
Hippolytus, 431
rian, 41

ictorinus, 14.

Ten (excluding Pastoral Epp. and

Ep. to Hebrews) :

Basilides, 324
Marcion, 348

Fourteen :

Origen (ἢ), 406
Donatiste (? Hebrews), 475
Eusebius, 477
sostom, 513
Euthalius, 521
Cosmas, 521 n.
Caassian, 522
Ambrose, 528

iv. Special Evidence for separate
Books’.

The Gospel of St Matthew :

Barnabas, 58

Papias, 7

Sen. ap. Iren. 88

Pantewnua, 00

Justin Martyr, 130, 156, 157,
165, 181, 185

Frag. de Resurr. 205

Dionysius of Corinth, 211

Hermas, 224

Hegesippus, 232

{Simon }, 303

owledged’ books I have not
century, as at that time all controversy ceases.

Cerinthus, 305
Ophites, 314
Sethiani, 315
Ebionites, 316
Clementine Homilies, 317
Basilides, 323
Valentinus, 328
Heracleon, 335
Ptolemeus, 338
Marcosians, 341
Tatian, 356
Athenagoras, 390
Theophilus, 391

The Gospel of St Mark:

Papias, 80

Justin Martyr, 130
Frag. de Resurr. 205
Canon Murat. 238
Clementine Homilies, 317

The Gospel of St Luke:

Justin Martyr, 131, 156, 157,

163
Frag. de Resurr. 205
Hegesippus, 232
Canon Murat. 238
Ophites, 314
Clementine Homilies, 317
Basilides, 323
Valentinus, 328
Heracleon, 334
Marcion, 348, 351!
Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378

The Gospel of St John:

Papias, 83

Sen. ap. Iren. 88

Justin Martyr, 178, 201.

Frag. de Resurr. 205

Cohort. ad Gentes, 206

Hermas, 224

Hegesippus, 233

Canon Murat. 238

Claudius Apollinaris, 249

Simon Magus], 303
hites, 314

Peratici, 315

Clementine Homilies, 317

Basilides, 323

Valentinus, 328

Heracleon, 334

ly carried this later

Tatian, 356

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378
Athenagoras, 390

Theophilus, ot

Polycrates, add. 433

The Acts:

Cohort. ad Gentes, 206
Hermas, 224

Hegesippus, 232

Canon Murat. 241

Peshito, 258

Letter of Church of Vienne, 378
Tertullian, 387

Clement of Alex. id.

Irenseus. (Cf. Iren. iii. 13, 3), id.

Bp. to Romans:
Clement of Rome, 57
Polycarp, id.
Sen. ap. Iren. 88
Letter to Diognetus, 102
Justin Martyr, 202
Melito, 247
Ophites, 314 *
Basilides, 323

Valentinus, 328

Heracleon, 335

Ptolemeun, 339

Tatian, 356

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378
Athenagoras, 390

Theophilus, 39!

Πίστις Σοφία, 464 n.

t. Ep. to Corinthians:

Clement of Rome, 56

Ignatius, 57

Polycarp, id.

Sen. ap. Iren. 88

Letter to Diognetus, ΤΟῚ

Justin Martyr, 203

Frag. de Resurr. 206

Cohort. ad Gentes, 206
Simon Magus], 303
phites, 314

Peratici, 315

Basilides, 323

Valentinus, 328

Heracleon, 335

Ptolemzus, 339

Tatian, 356

Letter of Ch. of Vienne (ἢ), 378

590 A SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Athenagoras, 3
Theophilus, or
ἑΐ, Ep. to Corinthians:
Polycarp, 57
Sen. ap. Iren.
Letter to Diognetua, 102
Ophites, 514

Ep. to Galatians :
Polycarp, 57
Letter to Diognetus, 102
Orat. ad Gentes, 206
Ophites, 314
Ptolemzus, 340
Athenagoras, 390
Tatian, 357
Theophilus, 391.

Ep. to Colossians :
Justin Martyr, 202
Cohort. ad tes, 206
Peratici, 315
Ptolemeeus, 340
Theophilus, 301

Ep. to Ephesians:
Clement of Rome, 57
Ignatius, 56
Polycarp (ἢ), 57
Letter to Diognetus, 102
Ophites, 314
Basilides, 323
Valentinus, 328
Ptolemzus, 340
Marcosians (3), 341
Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378
Theophilus, 391

Ep. to Philippians:
Polycarp, 56
Ignatius 0) 57
Letter to Diognetus, 102

Frag. de Resurr. 206

Sethiani, 315

Basilides, 323

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378

Theophilus, 391

i. Ep. to Thessalonians :
Ignatius (1), 57
Polycarp (1), 58

FOR THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 591

ut. Ep. to Thessalonians :
Justin Martyr, 203

ἃ. Ep. to Timothy :
Clement of Rome (ἢ), 57
Polycarp, 58
Barnabas (ἢ), 58
Letter to Diognetus, 103
Frag. de Resurr. 206
Hegesippus (1), 233 n.
Basilides (ἢ), 323
Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378

eophilus, 391

Athenagoras, id.

ti. Ep. to Timothy:
Barnabas, (1), 58

Polycarp, 58
Heracleon, 335
Ep. to Titus:
Clement of Rome (ἢ), 57
Letter to Diognetus, 103

Tatian, 357
Theophilus, 391

Ep. to Philemon:
Ignatius (1), 57 -
Ep. to Hebrews :

Clement of Rome, 57

Justin Martyr, 203
Pinytus, 212

Peshito, 258

Vetus Latina, 285

Ophites, 314

Valentinus, 328

Pantenus (ἢ), 397

Clement of Alexandria, 397, 409
Origen, 403, 409 .
Dionysius of Alexandria, 410
Theognostus, 414

Peter of Alexandria, id.
Alexander of Alex. 414, 493
Tertullian (3), 418
Lactantius (ἢ), 410

Novatus (), 427

Trenzeus (ἢ 436

Gregory Thaumat. 437
Methodius, 440

Synod. Antioch. 446
Pamphilus, 450

Archelaus, 452

Sibylline Oracles, 463

Test. of xii. Patriarchs, id.
Eusebius, 488

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 512
Pacian, 524 ἢ.

Pelagius, id.

Hilarius Diac. id.

Lucifer, 528 n.

Faustinus, id.

= Canon Murat, 241, cf. 244
= Caius, 428

= Trenseus, 436

= Hippolytus, 431

= Marcion, 348

= Cyprian, 418

= Novatus, 427

= Victorinus, 419

= Optatus Mil. 524

= Pheebadius, id.

= Zeno, id.

Ep. of St James:

Clement of Rome, 57
Hermas, 223
Peshito, 265
[Clement of Alex.], 397. Cf.
401
Origen, 407
Dionysiug of Alex, Add.
regory Thaumat. 437
Chrysostom, 512
Basil, 517
= Ireneus (Π), 436
= Tertullian, 420
= Theodore of Mopsuestia, 512

Firat Ep. of δὲ Peter:

Polycarp, 58

Papias, 83

Letter to Diognetus, 102
Hermas, 224

Peshito, 265

Basilides, 323
Marcosians, 344

Letter of Church of Vienne, 37
Tertullian, 387

Clement of Alex. id.
Irenzeus, id.

Theophilus (1), 391

Second Ep. of St Peter:

Clement of Rome. Cf. c. xi.;
4 Pet. ii.

6-9.
Polycarp (1), 368 n.

592 A SYNOPSIS OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, &

[Clement of Alex. 397. Cf. 401] | Apocalypse:

Origen (ἢ) 406, 408
Fimnilian (ἢ), 438
Theophilus (1), 443
Ephrem Syrus (!), 315
Palladius, 512

= Irenzeus, 436

= Tertullian, 421

= rian, id.

= Hippolytus, 431

=: Cosmas, 521

First Ep. of St John:

Polycarp, 58

Papias, 83

Letter to Diognetus, roo
Peshito, 265

Valentinus, 328

Letter of Church of Vienne, 378
Tertullian, 387

lrenzeus, id.

Clement, id.

Second and third Eps. of St John:

Canon Murat. (1), 242
Codex ΒΖ (iii.), 284
[Clement of Alex.], 397

— — Ep. ii. 400
Origen (?), 406; cf. pp. 407, 408
Dionysius of Alex. 411
Alexander of Alex. (ii.), 496
Aurelius (ii.), 421
Treneeus (ii.), 435
Tichonius (ii.), 475 n.
Palladius (iii.), 512 ἢ,

Ep. of Jude:

Canon Murat. 242
Clement of Alex. 397, 400
Origen, 407

Tertullian, 420

Auct. ad Novat. her. 422
Malchion, 447

Palladius, 512 n.

= Ireneus, 436

= Peshito,

Papias, 84
Justin » 201
Dionysius of Corinth, 211
Hermas, 223
Canon Murat. 243
Melito, 246
Vetus Latina, 287

» 344
Tatian, 356
Letter of the Ch. of Vienn
Tertullian, 387
Clement of Alex. id. 400
Irenzus, id. 435
Athenagoras (ἢ, 3
Theophilus, 391, ae
Origen, 403
Dionysius of Alex. (%), 41

Add.

Victorinus, 419
Tertullian, 422

Lactantius, 423
Hippolytus, 431
Apollonius, 434
Methodius, 440]

Frag. adv. Cataphr. 441
Pamphilus, 452

Sibylline Oracles, 463
Test. of xii. Patriarchs, id.
Lucian, 465

Tichonius, 475 n.
Eusebius (?), 489
Chrysostom (?), 511 n.
Ephrem Syrus, 515
Basil, 517

Dionysius Areop. 521
Gregory of Nyssa, 518
Andrew, id.

Arethas, id.

= Caius (so said), 307, 428
= Dionysius of Alex. 411
= Peshito, 265

= Chrysostom ἀν ΒΙῚΙῺ.
= (ξουπιοαΐϊὰβ (ἴ), 523

= Theophylact (8), id.

INDEX III.
Suljects tncidentally noticed.

Acts of Paul and Thecla, 423

Ἀνομολογεῖσθαι, 483 n.

Απόκρυφος, 486 n.

Apocryphal additions to the accounts
of our Lord’s Baptism, 189 n.
101 ἢ.

᾿Απομνημονεύματα, 115 Ὦ. 127 Ὡ.;
Justin’s quotations from, 155 n.

Apostolic Fathers, references in the,
to the Epistles, 57 n.; to the oon-
tents of the Gospels, 62 n.

Barnabas, lan of, in connexion
with New Testament, 54n.

Bibliotheca divina (Jerome's Version
of the Scriptures so called), 449

καθολικός, 4770.; ἢ καθ. ἐκκλησία,
34, 242}.

Canon of the Greek Church, 506 n.

κανονίζω, 547

Kavovixol, canonici, id.

κανών, 541 ff.; ὁ x. τῆς ἀληθείας,
17D. 543 D.; On. τῆς ἐκκλησίας, id.;
ὁ x. τῆς πίστεως, id.; οἱ ἐκ τοῦ
κανόνος, 545 D.

Carlstadt’s classification of Scripture,
531.

κατάλογος, 545

κατοπτρίζομαι (i. Cor. iii. 12), 415 Ὁ.

Clement of Rome, of, in
connexion with New Testament,
30 n.

Clementines, difference of Justin’s

ot sation from the, 187 n.

Beze (D), 176 n.

— Clarom. (D), 291

Δημοσιεῦσθαι, 4870. 511 ἢ.

Diatessaron, 358

Diognetus, Letter to: its lan
in connexion with New Testament,
102 n.; not Justin's, g6n.; con-
sists of two distinct parts, 98 n.

᾿Εξήγησις, 78

Gospel, use of the title, 331
— of Basilides, 321 ἢ. ; of Eve,
32; of the Ebionites, 190-1; of
erfection, 331; of Thomas, 314 n.;
of Truth, id.; according to the
Egyptians, 314. Add.; accord-
ing to the Hebrews, 359

Ignatius, lan of, in connexion
with the New Testament, 40 n.
Instrumentum, 276

John, St, two Epistles of, 84 n.

454 0.

Justin’s quotations from LXX. 143
Ὦ. ; variations in quoting of same
passage, 1s0n.; lan com-

pared with N. Τὶ 113 n.

Adyos (sermo, ratio), 273

Marcion’s various readings, 348 n.
Matthew, St, various recensions of,
316n.

Pistis Sophia, 464 n.

Προεδρία, 346 n.

Προκεῖσθαι (Ign. ad Phil. 8), 64

Rome, its relation to Alexandria in
third century, 425

Salutations of Apostolic writings,

Shepherd, late date of the, 220n.
QQ

Σεγή », 41. Epistle to Hebrews, 285 πὶ ;
Bart Ogee Le Magic, 301 nD. ; tation from Apocalypee, Bn:
his Cosmogony, 311 2. Testomentum Nowwm, 276
ὁ Σωτήρ, 93 2. Τριάς (Tvinitas, Tert. adv. Prax. 1.)
4

Tertullian, his duotations, “son; ν
compared with Latin version variations in language
Irenssus, 281n.; quotation from Me soon ™ of

Cambridge, August, 1855.

Prospectus of a Series of fManuals for Theo-

logtral Students now in course of publication by
MACMILLAN and Co., Cambridge.

It is now upwards of three years since the Prospectus of this

series was first issued. Three volumes have now been pub-
lished and several others are in an advanced state. The
reception which the volumes already published have met with
has fully justified the anticipation with which the publishers
commenced the series, and warrants them in the belief, that
their aim of supplying books “concise, comprehensive, and
accurate,’ “convenient for the professional Student and
- interesting to the general reader,” has been not unsuccessfully
fulfilled.

The following paragraphs appeared in the original Prospectus, and

may be here conveniently reproduced :—

“The Authors being Clergymen of the English Church, and the

series being designed primarily for the use of Candidates for
office in her Ministry, the books will seek to be in accordance
with her spirit and principles; and therefore in treating of
the opinions and principles of other communions, every effort
will be made to avoid acrimony or misrepresentation.

“It will be the aim of the writers throughout the series to avoid

all dogmatic expression of doubtfal or individual opinions.”
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOW READY.

I. A Mistory of the Christian Church from the

SEVENTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION.
By the Rev. CHARLES HARDWICK, M.A., Fellow of
St Catharine’s Hall, Divinity Lecturer of King’s College, and
Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, Author
of “Α History of the XXXIX Articles.” With Four Maps
constructed for this Work by A. Keith Johnston. Crown 8vo.
cloth, 10s. 6d.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“As a manual the student of Ecclesiastical History in the
Middle Ages, we ΝΟ English work which can be compared to
Mr Harpwicx's book. It has two great merits, that it constantly

4 the reader to the authorities, both original and critical, on

which tts statements are ἢ and that
tion tn dealing with subjects.” Gusto, Pree Ape 13, ty

Theological Mlarnals.

Mr Harpwicx’s Middle-Age Church History.

OPINIONS OF THE PrEss—vcontinued.
“ This om, ρα τανε hex Theological Manuals which

Messrs MacmiLuan, have in course of publication. If
the other volumes ofthe srt ‘are wal ol writien
as this, theological students will have good cause to thank them.”*—
CLERtcaL JOURNAL, Sept. 22, 1853.

“ It is full in references and authority, systematic and in
division, swith enough of life in the « tyle to counteract dryness

le from its brevity, and the results rather than

the principles of investigation. Mr Ganpwin is to be
on the successful achievement of a difficult task.” —Curistian Rx-
MEMBRANCER, October, 1853.

“ He has bestowed patient and extensive reading on the collection
of his materials ; he ha elcid the wth edge and he
sents them in an equable and compact style.""—Sprctator,

‘tember 17, 18538.

“‘ This book is ome of a promised series of ‘ THEOLOGICAL
Manvars.’ In one tery be taken ae o sign Of the times.
It ὦ a small : volume in appearance, but if is based on

authorities thus us referred (0, we Jind the most modern at well as
the most ancient, the continental as well as the English.”—Bnritisy
QUARTERLY, Nov. 1853.

μέ a μὴν the same diligent research and conscientious
acknowledgement of ities which | procured for Mr Harpwicx's
“ History of the Articles of Religion’ suck a favourable reception.” —
Notrs AND QUERIES, October 8, 1853.

“Τὺ a good method and good materials Mr Harvwick adds that

great virtue, a perfectly transparent style. We did not expect to find

great literary qualities in such a manual, but we have found them:
woe should be satisfled in thie respect with conciseness and intelligt-
bility ; but while this book has both, it is also elegant, wi og Fn finished,
and highly interesting.” —Nonconrormist, November

A History of the Book of Common Prayer,

together with a Rationale of the several Offices. By the Rev.
FRANCIS PROCTER, M.A., Vicar of Witton, Norfolk, and
late Fellow of St Catharine’s Hall. Crown 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

OPINIONS OF THE PREss.

“ Mr Proocren’s ‘ History of the Book of Common Prayer’ ts
by far the best extant....... Not only do the present ius.
trations embrace the whole range of inal sources indicated by
Mr Palmer, dut Mr Procrer compares present Bo Book t of Common
Prayer with the Scotch and American forms
sets out in full the Sarum Offices. “as a manual of extensies taforma,
tion, historical and ritual, with sound Church principles, we
are entirely satisfied with Mr Procter’s important volume.""—
CuaistTiaN RememMBRancer, April, 1855,

Theological Rlanuals,

Mr Procter, on the Book of Common Prayer.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS—continued.

“1: is a résumé of all that has been done im the way of ἐπ
tion in reference to the Prayer-Book, We admire the autho fii.
gence, and bear willing testimony to the extent and accuracy yo hia
reading....... A well-considered compilation ful ly bearing out tts title.
The author writes clearly, his authorities are are carefull stated y—the
origin of every pa part of the Prayer-Book has been diligently inves-
figates here are few questions or facts connected with τὲ which
are not cither sufficiently explained, or so referred to thut persons
interested me work out the truth for themselves.’’—ATHENZUM,
eb. 17, 1

“We can have little doubt that Mr Faocrsn's History of our
Liturgy will eill ‘g00n on super sede the well-known work of Wheatly, and

become a much book beyond the circuits of the University
for the more immediate ue of which i has been produced.” —NOoTES

AND QuERiEs, March, 1855.
“ fies dn very decidedly anti-Roman in its tone, we mo Weal ac-

a most valuable commentary on the successive texts of the formularies
ehemecloes, as they are exhibited either in the original editions. or in

he usefil of Bulley and Keeling —Dusuin Revirw (Roman
Catho ic) April, 1856.

“We can speak with just praise of this compendious but compre-
hensive volume. It 8 to be compiled with great care and judg-
ment, and has profied ted largely by "haa accumulated materials col-

lected by the learning and research of the last fifty years. It is
a manual of great ἐ value to the student of Eccleriastical Hi and
of almost equal interest fo every admirer of the Liturgy on Ser-
Ae Tas of the English Church."—Lonpon QuaRBTERLY REVIEW,
April, 1855.

“ Jt is indeed a lete and fairly-written history 0, the Liturgy ;
the dispassionate way in wh hich dioputed poines are toue
consciences what ought to be known

on, will prove to
to them, viz. r—that they me may without fear of com of compromising wg the prin-

ci 9 elical truth, give r assent and con-
tones, μ᾿, the Book 9 Comsnon Prayer. Mr Paocren has done a
service to the this admirable digest."—CnurRcH OF

NGLAND QUARTERLY, A 1855.

Ill. A General View of the History of the Canon of
the NEW TESTAMENT during the First Four Centuries.
By BROOKE FOSS WESTOOTT, M.A, Assistant Master
of Harrow School, formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge. Crown 8vo. cloth, 12s. 6d.

Theological Mlamwals.

IN THE PRESS.

A History of the Christian Church during the
Reformation. By CHARLES HARDWICK, M.A., Fellow
ef St Catharines Hall, Cambridge, Divinity Lecturer of
King’s College, and Christian Advocate in the University.

THE FOLLOWING WORKS OF THE SERIES
ARE IN PREPARATION.

An Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament,

with an Outline of Scripture History.

Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Hebrew
Text of the Prophet ISAIAH.

An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.
Epistles.

Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Greek
Text of the FOUR GOSPELS AND THE ACTS OF
THE APOSTLES.

Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Greek
Text of the CANONICAL EPISTLES AND THE APO-
CALYPSE.

A History of the Christian Church during tur
FIRST SIX CENTURIES.

Jrom the
Beginning of the XVIIth CENTURY TO’THE PRESENT
TIME.
An Historical Exposition of the Apostles’, Nicene,
and Athanasian CREEDS.

An Exposition of the Articles of the Church of
England.

Others are in progress, and will be announced in due time.

@iorks of the Rev. ARCHER BUTLER, late
᾿ Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of
Dublin.

“ May justly take rank with the first writings in our language.”—
THEOLOGIAN.

“ An eminent divine and a profound thinker.” —EneLish CHURCHMAN.

“ Poet, orator, metaphysician, theologian, ‘ nihil tetigit quod non ornavit.’”
—Dvusuw Universiry Macazine.

“ Discrimination and earnestness, beauty and power, a truly philoso-
phical spirit." —Britisn QuaRTERLY.

“ A burning and a shining light.”"—Br or Exeter.

“ Aman of whom, both as regards his life and his remarkable powers,
his Church may justly be proud.” —Guarpian,

I.

Sermons, Doctrinal and Practical, edited by the
Rev. J. WOODWARD, Vicar of Mullingar. Tsirnp Eprrion.
8vo. cloth, 12s.

“ Present a richer combination of the qualities for Sermons of the
first class than any we have met with in any living writer.”’—BRITISH
QUARTEBLY.

II.

Sermons, Doctrinal and Practical. Second Series.
Edited by J. A. JEREMIE, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity
in the University of Cambridge. 8vo. cloth. Nearly Ready.

Π|.

Lectures on the History of Ancient Philosophy.
Edited from the Author's MSS., by W. H. THOMPSON, M.A.,
Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge.

2 vols. 8vo. Shortly.

IV.

Letters on Romanism, in reply to Mr Nenwman's
ESSAY ON DEVELOPMENT. 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

“ A work which ought, to be in the library of every Student of Divi-
nity.”".-Be or St Davip’s.

By the Rev. BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, M.A.
late Fellow of Trinity College, and Assistant

Master of Harrow School.
An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,

including a new and improved edition of the “ Elements of the
Gospel Harmony.” Crown 8vo. In preparation.

Cambridge: Printed at the University Press.

CAMBRIDGE, August 1855.

MACMILLAN & CO.’S
PUBLICATIONS.

ZESCHYLI Eumenides.

The Greek Text with English Notes: with an Introduction, containing an
Analysis of C. O. Miiller’s Dissertations; and an English Metrical Translation.
By BERNARD DRAKE, M.A., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge; Editor
of ‘‘ Demosthenes de Corona.” 8gvo. cloth, 7s. 6d, -

ANTHOLOGIA Latina Selecta. In@ νο]8. Small 8vo.

Vou. I.—Containing select Epigrams of Catullus, Virgil, Claudian, Ausonius,
with others from the Anthologia Latina.

Vou. II.—Containing select Epigrams of Martial.

Edited with English notes, by J. E. B. MAYOR, M.A., Fellow and Classical
Lecturer of St. John’s College, Cambridge, Editor of Juvenal.

(Preparing.

ARISTOPHANES. The Greek Text revised, with a Com-
mentary. By W. G. CLARK, M.A., Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity

College. (Prepering.
ARISTOTELES de Rhetorica. The Greek Text, with English
Notes. By A Fe.tow or Tainiry CoLizcs. (Preparing.

ARISTOTLE on the Vital Principle. Translated from the

Original Text, with Notes. By CHARLES COLLIER, M.D., F.R.S., Fellow
of the Royal College of Physicians. Crown 8vo. cloth, 8s. 6d.

BEAMONT.—Catherine: or, Egyptian Slavery in 1852.
By W. J. BEAMONT, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, late
Principal of the English College, Jerusalem. Fcap. 8vo,

BENGELIT GNOMON NOVI TESTAMENTYI, in quo ex
Nativa Verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sen-
suum coelestium indicatur. Eptrio Tznt1a. Imperial 8vo. cloth, 18s.

BOLTON’S Evidences of Christianity.
The Evidences of Christianity as exhibited in the Writings of its Apologists
down to Augustine. An Essay which obtained the Hulsean Prise for the
Year 1852. By W.J. BOLTON, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
8vo. cloth, 62.
Aa

2 MACMILLAN ἃ CO’S PUBLICATIONS,

BRAVE WORDS for BRAVE SOLDIERS and SAILORS.
Tenth Thousand. l6mo. sewed, 2d.; or 10s. per 100.
[Printed for Distribution.

BUTLER (Professor Archer).—Sermons, Doctrinal and Prac-
tical. By the Rev. WILLIAM ARCHER BUTLER, M.A. late Professor
of Moral Philosophy in the University of Dublin. Edited, with a Memoir of
the Author’s Life, by THomas Woopwarp, M.A. Vicar of Mullingar.
With Portrait. Third Edition. 8vo. cloth, 12s.

BUTLER (Professor Archer).—A Second Series of Sermons.

Edited from the Author’s Manuscripts, by J. A. Jenzmixz, D.D. Regius
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. [Nearly ready.

BUTLER (Professor Archer).—Lectures on the History of
Ancient Philosophy. By the Rev. W. ARCHER BUTLER, late Professor
of Moral Philosophy in the University of Dublin. Edited, from the Author's
Manuscripts, by WiLtiam Herwoats TuomPsox, M.A. Regius Professor
of Greek in the University of Cambridge. 2 vols. 8vo.

[Nearly ready.

BUTLER (Professor Archer).—Letters on Romanism, in

Reply to Mr. Nzwman's Essay on Development. 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

CAMBRIDGE.—Cambridge Theological Papers. Comprising
those given at the Voluntary Theological and Crosse Scholarship Examine-
tions. Edited, with References and Indices, by A. Ρ. MOOR, M.A. of Trinity
College, Cambridge, and Sub-warden of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury.
8vo. cloth, 7s. 6d,

CAMBRIDGE PROBLEMS.—Solutions of the Senate-House

Riders for Four Years (1848 to 1851). By Ε. 7. JAMESON, M.A. Fellow
of Caius College, Cambridge. 8vo. cloth, 7s. 6d.

CAMBRIDGE PROBLEMS.—Solutions of Senate-House

Problems for Four Years (1848 to 1851). By N. M. FERRERS, and
J.8. JACKSON, Fellows of Caius College, Cambridge. S8vo.cloth 15s. 6d.

CAMBRIDGE PROBLEMS, 1854.—Solutions of the Pro-
blems proposed in the Senate House Examination, January 1854. By the
Moderators (W. WALTON, M.A. Trinity College, and C. FP. MACKENZIE,
M.A. Fellow of Caius College). In 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d,

CAMBRIDGE.—Cambridge Guide: Including Historical and

Architectural Notices of the Public Buildings, and a concise Account of the
Customs and Ceremonies of the University, with a Sketch of the -Places most
worthy of Note inthe County. A New Edition, with Engravings and a Map.
12mo. cloth, δι.

MACMILLAN ἃ CO.’S PUBLICATIONS. 15

TODHUNTER.—A Treatise on the Differential Calculus; and

the Elements of the Integral Calculus. With numerous Examples. By
I, TODHUNTER, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

TODHUNTER.— A Treatiso on Analytical Statics, with

numerous Examples. Crown 8vo. cloth, 10s. θά.
“Α first-rate text-book.”—Journal of Education.

TODHUNTER.—A Treatise on Plane Coordinate Geometry.

With numerous Examples. For the Use of Colleges and Schools. Crown 8vo.
cloth, 10s. 6d.

TODHUNTER.—A Treatise on Algebra, for the Use of
Students in the Universities, and of the Higher Classes in Schools.
(Preparing.
Also by the same Author,

An Elementary Work on the same subject, for the use of
eginners.

TRENCH.—Synonyms of the New Testament.
By RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, B.D., Vicar of Itchenstoke, Hants,
Professor of Divinity, King’s College, London, and Examining Chaplain to
the Bishop of Oxford. Third Edition, revised. Fcp. 8vo. cloth, 5s.

TRENCH.—Hulsean Lectures for 1845—46. Third Edition.
Cowtznts. 1.—The Fitness of Holy Scripture for unfolding the Spiritual Life
of Man. 2.—Christ the Desire of ali Nations; or the Unconscious Pro-
phecies of Heathendom. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 5s.

For VERIFYING DATES.
A perpetual Almanac for determining Dates past, present, and future; with
a Lunar Kalendar and Tables of the more important Periods, Zras, Festivals,
and Anniversaries. Price 6d.

5." This is so printed, that if the margin be cut off it may be carried in a
pocketbook.

WESTCOTT.—A general View of the History of the Canon of

the New Testament during the First Four Centuries. By BROOKE FOSS
WESTCOTT, M.A., Assistant Master of Harrow School; late Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. cloth, 12s. 6d.

WESTCOTT.—An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels;
Including a new and improved Edition of ‘The Elements of the Gospel
Harmony.” With a Catena on Inspiration, from the Writings of the Ante.
Nicene Fathers. Crown 8vo. cloth. (Prepering.

*,* These three books are part of a series of Theological Manuals which are now in

progress.

‘

16 MACMILLAN ἃ ΟΟ.8 PUBLICATIONS.

WESTCOTT.—An Introduction to the Study of the Canonical
Epistles; including an attempt to determine their separate purposes and
mutual relations. By BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, M.A. (Preperiag.

WILSON.—A Treatise on Dynamics.
By W. P. WILSON, M.A., Fellow of St. John’s, Cambridge, and Professer of
Mathematics in the University of Melbourne. 8vo. bds. 92. 6d.

WRIGHT.—Hellenica; or, a History of Greece in Greek,

with the Invasion of Xerxes; as related by Diedorus and Thecy-

dides. With Explanatory Notes, Critical and Historical, for the use of

Schools. By J. Wright, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Head-
Master of Sutton Coldfield Grammar School. 1!2mo. cloth, 3s. 6d.

8. This book ia already in use in Rugby and other Schools.

WRIGHT.—A Help to Latin Grammar;
or, the Form and Use of Words in Latin. With Progressive Exercises. By
J. WRIGHT, M.A. Crown 8vo. cloth, 4s. 6d.

THE JOURNAL

oF

CLASSICAL AND SACRED PHILOLOGY.
No. V. for June 1855, 42.
Volume I. for 1854, now ready, cloth lettered, 12s. δώ.
as Three Numbers published annually, at 4. ete

Gambritge: MACMILLAN & Co.
Gender: Bert & Darpy, 186, FLEst-stREET.
Dublin: Hovexrs & ΒΜΙΤΕ. @vinburg): Epmoxsrox & Doveras,
@rtord: J. H. & Jas. Pamxzn. Glasgow: Jas. MacLenose.

BR. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.