Skip to main content

Full text of "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament During the First Four Centuries"

See other formats


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 maiginalia 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 tliis resource, we liave 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 individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm 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 attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming 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 liabili^ 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 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



■■it- -i 11.' • "_* 

Iftidii kw 


or Tum 


IPrmteH at tf^e Gntbnnts ^xtss. 


[7%e Author reserves the right qf translation.'] 




or TBI 







(iDambrtlKge : 


//P/. ^. /^s^. 

EuAdywf o htha<rKa\o^ tjfjitiv eXtyev' 

riNecee TPAneziTAi aokimoi. 











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 Tubingen School in 


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 usiu^ 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 



believe, the sure blessing of those who seek ri^tlj 
to penetrate into their meaning. 

Whatever obligations I owe to previous writers 
are, I hope, in all cases duly acknowledged. That 
thej 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 modem 
controversy ; and the same change will free me from 
the necessity of discharging the unwelcome office of 
a critic. Yet it would be ungratefrd not to bear wit- 
ness to the accuracy and frdness 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 Grreek fEtthers, 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 Origen 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 frur 
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 Labb^, as far as my experience 


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

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 Koman and African Churches 
was printed before I saw Milman's * Latin Christi- 
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-Nicaena.' It is, how- 
ever, a great satisfaction to me to find that Dr Mil- 
man mamtains that the early Boman 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. 


Jult/y 1855. 


p. 9, 1. 3 from bottom, /or (d) read 3. 

p. 84, 1.8 A /or 10 read 11. 

p. 236, 1. 3 „ for patre read fratre. 

p. 288, 1. 11 ,» fi>r vobis read nobis. 

p. 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. hser. p. 111. 

p. 179, n. On the LeoHones VekriaruB 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 (zi. Ed. Otto), as it was pub- 
lished by Orabe, there is a remarkable coincidence of thought with 
L John i. 5 f. Cf. Ebrard, Krit. d. Ev. Gesch. 890. 

p. 235. Cf. App. C. for the collations of Wie«eler and Bunsen. 

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

p. 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, Relliq. 
I. 141 ff*. 

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

p. 285. Cf.p. 4l8,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 Symmachus was an Ebionite. He 
then adds (c 17) : 'And moreover notes (virofAviifiaTa) of Symmachus 
are still extant (^cperai), in which he appears (doKti) to support the 
heresy which 1 have mentioned, directing his efforts to the Gospel 
according to Matthew.* The last phrase is obscure (irpdi rd Kara 
MarOatov dvortivofitvos) ; but if its meaning be that Symmachus 


exerted himself to Hhow 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 
Sjrmmachus 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. 
111. Liv. p. 894. 

The quotations in the so-called Second Epistie qf Ckmeni, are on 
several accounts worthy of notice. One passage occurs (c. 2) prefaced 
with the words in-epa di ypa<pi\ Xe^tfi, which coincides verbally with 
Matt. ix. 13, oh ydp—^fiaprcaiKovt (Cf. Just. Ap. i. 15 : de resurr. 8). 
A second quotation is introduced with the phrase Xeyci 6 Khpitn i» riS 
§uayy€\lif (c.8), but this only agrees in sense with Luc. xvi. 10 (Matt. 
XXV. 21) ; though it is repeated by Irenaeus (ii. 34, § 3). The other 
quotations are anonymous, marked only by Xeyci or (priai, whether they 
agree with the Canonical Gospels (cc. 6, 9) or differ from them (cc. 3, 4, 5). 
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. Horn. xvii. 6. Just. 
Ap. i. 19 : c. 6. Cf. Matt. vi. 24. Clem. Recogn. v. 9. Just. Ap. L 15. 
The passages found in this fragment, which occur also in the Gospel 
of the Egyptiaru (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 {cdp^ iyiv€n-o^ John L 14); and in another remark- 
able quotation prefaced by Xeyei h irpo<f>riTuc6v \6yov (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.) 

p. 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 Luc. xxii. (Gallandi, 
BibL Pp. xiv. App. p. 117. Cf. Proleg. V.) 6 yap 0€o«, <t>ri<rly,dirtt' 
pafrrot i<m KaK&v. James i. 16. 

p. 435, n. 2. Cf. p. 526, 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. 
Liaur. i. pp. 72, 397, 477) notices several other MSS. which contain the 

p. 528, 1. 5. The text of Cassiodorus is given in Appendix D, on 
the authority of several MSS., which all include the Epistle to Ephe- 
sians, and omit that of St Jude, in both cases differing from the com- 
mon text. 




A general view of the difficulties which afiected the 

formation and proof of the Canon . 1—4 

i. The FoTmation of the Canon was impeded hy : 

1. Defective means of communication ... 5 

2. The existence of a traditional Rule of doctrine 

Bat the Canon. was generally recognized at 
the close of the second century . . • 8 
ii. The Proof of the Canon is affected hy : 

1. The uncritical character of the early Fathers 10 

2. The casual nature of their evidence . .13 

3. The fragmentary state of early Christian 

literature 14 

The Canon rests on the comhined judgment of the 

Churches 15 

FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 70-170. 
Chaptsr I. 


(A.D. 70-120.) 

The general character of the Suh-Apostolic Age con- 
servative and yet transitional 23 

Its relation to the history of the Canon .... 24 
Sectim I The relatUm of the Apostolic Fatken to the 

teathing of (he Apoetks. 
§ 1. CLEMENT qf Rome, 

His legendary history and office . • .27 

His firet Epistle in relation to St Paul, St 

James, and St John 30 

The view which it gives of the position of the 
Christian Church 32 


5 2. IGNATIUS. '^"^ 

The general characteristioB of the IgnatiAn Epi- 
stles common to all the shorter Epistles, and 
consistent with the position of Ignatius . . 34 
Their connexion with the teaching of St Paul 
as to Judaism (p. 40), and to the Church (p. 41 ) ; 

and with St John 43 


His Epistle eminently Scriptaral (p. 44). Its 
connexion with St Psteb, and with the Pa»- 

twai Epistles 45 

The special value of Polycarp's testimony • . 47 

The Epistle qf Barnabas authentic, but not Apo- 
stolic 48 

Its relation to the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 
regard to the mystical interpretation of Scrip- 
ture (p. 51), and to the Mosaic Dispensation . 52 
Section iL The relation of the Apostolic Fathers to 
the Canon of the New Testament. 
How far their testimony was limited by their position . 55 
Their testimony to 

(a) The Books of the New Testament, (1) ex- 

plicit (p. 56% and (2) incidental . . .57 
They do not witness so much to written 
Gospels (p. 59), as to the great &cts of 

Christ's Life 60 

($) Theauthority of the Apostolic Writings . . 62 
Modified by (1) their position (p. 63), and (2) 
by the gradual recognition of the Doctrine of 

Inspiration 64 

Still they agree to place themselTes below the 
Apostles 66 

Chapter 1 1. 


(A.D. 120—170.) 

The wide range of Christian literature during this period 69 
Justin Martyr is its true i^presentatiye .71 



The work of the Apologists twofold, to determme the 
relation of Christianity (1) to Heathendom, and (2) 
to Judaism . 72 

This latter work to he compared with the conflicts of 

the Apostolic age 74 

Christian literature still wholly Greek ; the e£Pects of this 75 

§ 1. PAPIAS, 

His date (p. 76), and character (p. 77). The true 
purpose of his Enarratwns (p. 78); and his 
testimony to the Gospels of St Matthew (p. 79), 
&T Mark (p. 80), St John ; to the Catholic 
Epistles, and to the Apocalypse .... 83 
How it is that he does not aUude to the Pauline 

writings 84 

[The Martyrdom of Ignatius, p. 86, n.] 

§ 2. The Elders quoted by Irenaus 87 

§ 3. the Evangelists in the time of Trajan ... 89 

§ 4. The Athenian Apologists, 

QUADRATUSi^. 91) and ARISTIDES . . 93 

§ 5. The Letter to Diognetus. 

Its authorship (p. 96), compound character (p.97)j 

and date 98 

Its testimony to the teaching of St Paul and St 

John (p. 100), to the Synoptic Gospels (p. 101 )» 

and to other parts of the New Testament . 102 

The Gnostic element in the second part • . 103 
§ 6. The Jewi^ Apologists. 

The Dialogue qf Jason and Papiscus {ARISTO 

ofPella) . • 105 



Some account of the studies^ labours^ and writings 

ofJustin 109 

A preliminary statement of the relation of his 

books to the Gospels 112 

i. The general coincidence of Ju8tin*8 evangelic 

quotations with our Gospels, in (1) Facts 

(p. H5): e.g., (a) The Infancy (it.), (p) 



the Miamon of John Baptist (p. 118)^ (7) the 
Paanon (p. 119) ; and (2) in the account of 
our Lord's teaching (p. 121), both (a) in lan- 
guage (p. 122), and (fi) in substance . . 123 

it Justin's special quotations from the Apostoiic 
Memoiri ........ 125 

The quotations in the Apology (p. 127), and in 
the Dialogue 129 

Coincidences with St Matthew, St Mark, and 
St Luke 130 

Justin's description of the Memoirs compared 
with TertuUian's description of the Gospels 
(p. 131); the substance of what he quotes from 
(p. 133), and says of them .... 134 

Objections to the identification of the Memoirs 
with the Gospels : 

1. No mention of their writers' names . 135 
Yet Evangelic quotations are generally anony- 
mous (p. 136), as also quotations from the pro- 
phets 139 

2. The quotations differ from the Canonical 

text 141 

Yet not more than Justin's Old Testament quota- 
tions (p. 142) ; in which he both (a) combines 
(p. 144), and (/3) adapts texts .... 147 
The identification justified by an examination : 
(a) Of the express quotations from the Me- 
moirs 154 

(j3) Of the repetitions of the same peculiar 

reading ....'.. 161 
These various readings may be classed as 
synonymous phrases (p. 163), glosses 
(p. 170), and combinations, whether of 
words (p. 172), or of forms (p. 173); and 
admit of illustration from MSS., e,g,, 

Cod. D 176 

(7) Of the coincidences with heretical Gospels 178 
The differences from these are far more nu- 
merous and striking 187 


9. The coincidences of Justin's nanatiye with 

Apooyphal traditions 188 

The voice (p. 189), and fire at the Baptism 
(p. 191); and other &cts (p. 192), and 
words (p. 193), which are to he explained 
as exaggerations (t6.)> or glosses . . . 195 
Summary of Justin's testimony (p. 197), in con- 
nexion with the Muratorian Canon (p. 200). 
How ftr he witnesses to the Gospd of St John 
(p. 201), and to the Apocalypse (ib,); and to 
the writings of St Paul (p. 202), especially in 
quotations from the Old Testament . . • 204 
The testimony of the doubtful works attributed 

to Justin 205 

S 8. DIONYSIUS, of Corinth, and PINYTUS. 
What Dionysius says of the preservation of 
Christian writings (p. 207) ; and how it bears 

on the New Testament 208 

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

with different parts 211 

Pinytus refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews • 212 
§ 9. HERMAS. 

The condition of the Church of Rome at the 

middle of the third century .... 214 
How far the Shepherd represents its character • 216 
The history of the book (p. 217), its character 
(p. 220), in relation to St Jakes (p. 221) ; and 
its connexion with other books of Scripture . 222 
The Christology of Hennas in connexion with 
that of St John (p. 225). He is falsely accused 

ofEbiomsm 227 


The supposed Ebionism of Hegesippus (p. 228), 

opposed to the testimony of Eusebius . . 229 
The character of his Memoirs in connexion with 
the Gospels (p. 282), and with Apocryphal 

books 233 

§ 11. The Muratorian Fragment^MELITO^ 





The date of the Muratorian Canon (p. 236), its 
character (p. 237 )> and its testimony to (a) the 
Gospels (p. 238), (/3) the Acts (p. 241), (y) the 
Epistles of St Panl (ib,), 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 251 

Chapter III. 



How far they help to determine the Canon . . . 253 
§ 1. The Peshito. 

Its language (p. 254), and prohahle origin (p. 256). 
Syrian traditions on the subject • • • 259 

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 265 

§ 2. The Old Latin FersUm. 

The Roman Church originally Greek (p. 269), 
while Africa was the home of Latin Christian 
literature (p. 270), of which the Fetus 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 by existing MSS. . 278 

The quotations in the Latin Version of Irensus 
(p. 280), and MSS. in which the Vetus Latina 
is now found 283 

How far its influence can be traced in the present 
Vulgate 288 



Application of this argument to the laognage of 
il Peter (p. 288), St James (p. 200), the Epi- 
stle to the HehrewB 290 

The importance of these eaijj versions (p. 292), 
in comhination • • 294 

Chapter IV. 


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

partial and progressive 299 

§ 1. 7:^ Heretical Teachers of the ApoHolic age. 

SIMON MAGUS (p. 801), and the Great An- 
nouncement 801 

(p. 805). The latter acquainted with the 
writings of the New Testament (t6.). How the 
Apocalypee came to he ascrihed to him (p. 806), 
and thence the other wriUngs of St John . . 808 
The importance of early heretical teaching in 
relation to the New Testament (p. 809), as a 
link between it and later speculations . 810 

§ 2. The Ophites and Ebumites. 

The contrast between these sects (p. 815). The 
Ophites (p 818), Peratici and Sethiani (p. 814), 
of Hippolytus. What writings the Ebionites 
received (p. 816). The testimony of the Cle- 
mentines 817 


The position (p. 319), and date of Basilides (p. 
320). What books he used (Jb.); what he is 

said to have rejected 324 



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


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

used another Gospel 890 

Other Gnostio Gospels 832 


His commentaries (p. 834). What hooks they 

recog^nize 206 — 837 

§ 7. PTOLEMMUS, 838 

§ 8. The Marctmans, 

They used apocryphal writings (p. 840), hut also 
the Gospels (p. 841), and the writings of St 

Paul 844 

§ 9. MARCION. 

The Canon of Marcion the earliest known . 345 

His portion (p. 846), and date (p. 847). What 

books he received 848 

The text of his edition (p. 849), and the principles 

by which he was guided 25Z 

§10. T ATI AN. 

The relation of Tatian to Marcion (p. 854). His 
importance (p. 856). What Scriptures he re- 
cognizes 35f> 

An account of his Diatessaran .... 858 

General Nummary, 

L The evidence fragmentary; but wide, unaf- 
fected, uniform, and comprehensive . . . 864 

u. The authenticity of the Canon a key to the 
history of early Christianity .... 866 

Still (L) partial doubts remained as to certain 
books (p. 367), and (ii.) the idea of a Canon was 
not expressed 868 

SECOND PERIOD. A. D. 170-803. 

Chapter I. 


Three stages in the progress of Christianity (p. 
373). How these are connected (p. 874), and the 
bearing of this on the histoiy of the Canon . . 875 



On what gronnds the Canon of acknowledged 

books rests 376 

The testimony of (L) the Galilean Church (p. 

377), The Ejristle of the Churth of Vienne (p. 

ffIS), IRENMUS 379 

ii The AlexandHne Church,-- P J NTMNUS 

(y, 281% CLEMENT 382 

ill. The African Churchr-TERTULLIAN . 384 
All these writers appeal to antiquity (p. 386), 

and recognize a collection of sacred hooks . • 389 

Chapter II. 



The problem of the disputed books at first histo- 
rical (p. 392). A summary of the evidence up 
to this point . • 395 

1. The Alexandrine Church,^CLEMENT (p. 396). 

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 413 

The Egyptian Versions 415 

2. The Latin Churches of Africa. 

As to the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 418), the 
Catholic Epistles (p. 420), the Apocalypse . 422 

The Latin Canon defective, yet free from Apo- 
cryphal additions 423 

3. The Church of Rome. 

i. Latm wniers, — MINUCIUS FELIX^ 

il Greek writeTs^-'DIONYSIUS—CAIUS (p. 

4. The Churches of Asia Minor. 

1. Ephesus, POLYCRATES (v. ^2). APOL- 

2. Smyrna, IRENMUS 434 

3. Pmtus. G22EGO/ir of Neo--Ca?sarea (p. 437), 




METHODIUS . . • . . .439 
The Asiatic Canon Defectiye • • • .441 
§ 5. 77ie Churches of Syria. 

1. Antioch, THEOPHILUS (p. 443), SERA- 
PION (p.444), PA UL of Samoaata (p. 446), 

2. Ciuarea. PAMPHILUS .... 463 

Chapter III. 


General connexion of the forms of heresy with the New 

Testament 454 

1. Controveisies on the person of Christ . . 455 

2. Montanim 457 

3. ManicfuBism (p. 458). Use of Apocryphal 
Books by the Manichees 461 

The testimony of Apocryphal Writings. The SibylHne 
Oracles (p. 462), and the Testament qf the Tttdve 

Patriarchs 463 

The testimony of heathen writers. Celsus^ Porphyry . 464 
Summary of second part 465 

THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 303-597. 

Chaptbr I. 


The persecution of Diocletian directed against the 

Chri8tianbooks(p. 471), its results .... 472 

1. InAJHca. TheDonatUts . .474 

2. In Syria. EUSEBIUS .... 476 



Chapter II. 


CONSTANTINE'S zeal for Holy Scripture (p. 401), as 

a role of oontroveny (p. 492), accepted on all sides . 498 
The use of Scripture at the Council of Nice . 494 

L The CouncU qfLaodicea 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), (3) Systematic Arrange- 
ments of the Canons (t6.) Result . . 504 
ii The third Council qf Carthage, 

The Canon of the New Testament ratified there . 508 
How this Canon is supported by the testimony 
of Churehes. 
i. The Churehes of Syria. 

1. Antioch, Chrtsostoh (p. 511). Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (t6.). Theodoret. . . 513 

2. Nisibis, Junujus (p. 513), Ebed Jesu. . 514 

3. Edessa. Ephrem Strus ib. 

Johannes Damascenus. 515 

iL The Churches of ^na Minor. 

Gregory of Naz. (p. 516). Ahphilochius (ib,) 

Gregory of Nyssa 517 

Basil (ib.) Andrew and Arethas. • . . 518 

iiL The Church of Jerusalem. 

Cyril (p. 519). EpiPHANiuSi .... 519 

iv. The Church of Alexandria. 

Athanasius (p. 520). Cyril. Isidore. Didyuvs 
(ib.) EuTH alius 521 

Y. The Church of Conttantinople. 

Ca8SIAN(p.522). LeONTIUS (tft.) NlCEPH0RU8(t6.) 

Photius (p. 523). CEcuMENius. Theophylact 523 
tL The Churches of the West. 

Doubts as to the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 524). 
The Canon of JEROifB (p. 525). Ambrose. 
RuFiNus. Pbilastriub (p. 528). Augustine. 529 


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


The Council of Trent (p. 531). Erasmus (ib,) 

Luther (532). Carlbtadt (ib,) Calvin. 

The XXXIX. Articles (p. 5U). The English 

Refifrmers, ••••..• 535 

Conclusion 537 

App. A. On the history of the u>ord Kayd^, . . • 541 
App. B. On the use of Apocryphal books in the early 

Church 550 

App. C. The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon • 557 
App. D. A collection of early catalogues qf the books 

qfthe New Testament 565 

Tho truth of our ReligioD, like tho truth of common matters^ introduc- 
is to be judged by all the eyidence taken together. tion. 

Bf Butleb. 

A GENERAL survev of the History of the Canon a general 


forms a necessary part of an Introduction to the JjJ^^*"*" 
writings of the New Testament. A full exa-^^hutory 

. oftheBook* 

mination of the objections which have been raised 
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 tho collection of books 
which constitute tho original written Rule of the Christian 
Faith. For the history of the word see Appendix A. 


nrnjoDuc- 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 

A mere series of quotations can convey only 

on many 

f'*""^ 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. 
•merfaiiTto Thc. qucstiou of the Canon of Holy Scrip- 
"SSSS!^ ^^^6 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. Modem 
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 


the Books of the New Testament are now felt intb«duc. 

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 it i* hard to 

** realisethe 

inquiry into remote and intricate events are in JSprobkmf 
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, indeed, admi- 
rably suited to criticise whatever falls within 
their immediate range; but the; will need a 
careful a(\justmcnt when they are directed to a 
more distant field. Moreover, remote objects 
are often surrounded by an atmosphere different 



iNTHoguc- from our own, and it is possible that they may 

be grouped together according to peculiar laws 

cSiSr'Sir-'**' ^^^ subject to spccial influences. This is cer- 

SfSidl^T tainly true of the primitive Church; and the 

ch.^.^ differences which separate modem Christendom 

from ancient Bome, morally and materially, are 

only the more important, because they are fre« 

quently concealed by the transference of old 

words to new ideas. 

iSth totoe ^ little reflection will shew how seriously these 

^^'iS: difficulties have influenced our notions of early 

l»roof of the 

c:«°<» Christendom ; for the negative conclusions of some 
modem 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. 
I. Hie For I. It cannot be denied that the Canon was 

SjSedby fixed gradually. The condition of society and 
the internal relations of the Church presented 


obstaxJes to the immediate and absolute deter- intuodug- 


mination of the question which are disregarded " 

noWy 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 O) defective 
ideas of communication are suggested by the rail- ~'j'""***<*- 
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 J^'^^jJiy*** 
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- 

^ This fact, howeyer, 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 
chrcuhited among Christians at the end of the second cen- 
tury. — 'Genuineness of the Gospels,' i. pp. 28—34. (Ed. 2. 


iNTRODuc- posed connexion with specific forms of Chris- 


though not This fact, which has been frequently neg* 

^^*^' 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 alio (8) 2. Thc formal declaration of the Canon was 


duS^iVS JiO^ l>y ftoy means an immediate and necessary 

*' consequence of its practical settlement. As long 

as the traditional Rule of Apostolic doctrine was 

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


generally held in the Church, there was no need ^^^^^ 
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. 

ever, gave 

over the condition of the Church. As soon as the JS^n suie, 
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. vn. 17, $ 106: xar» it mp\ tovs 'Adpuu 
wov Tov pcurikws \p6vovs ol rat alpf<rti£ iinvoritravrt^ y€y6vatn 
mi fiixp^ y* ^^ *ApT«avlvov tov irpta-fivripov dicrcivay ijAiKias 
KaBantp 6 Bao-iXc/di/r, kqv rXavKcay iirtypaKfnjrai MdaKoKoVj 
«( avxowriv avroc, t6v Utrpov ipfifjvta' toaavras dc ical OvaXcy- 
TUfOP Ocodadi aKtiKoivai tftipovaiVf yvtopipiOi d* ovto^ y€y6v€i 
JlavKov, — Cf. [Hipp.] adr. Hsereses, vn. 20, where we must 
read Mareiov (Clem. Al. Str. vu. 17, § 108.) 



iNTRODuc- word of the Apostles became natural and deci- 
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. 
It least, to- From the close of the second century the 

ward* the 

sS^iSL 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 Ireneeus 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 thcm^ Before that time there 

1 It will be well once for all to giro a general view of 
the opinion of the most advanced critics of Tubingen 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 CoRiNTHiAKS (i. ii.) 
Ep. to Romans (capp. i. — jiy,) 
Ep. to Qalatians. 

ii. Original sources of the Gospels: 

1. Ebionitic. The Oospd according to the He- 

St Matthew, a revision of this (a. o. 130 — 
134. Baur, Kan, Ew, s. 609, anm.) 

2. Pauline. TJie Oospd adopted by Mareion. 
(Probably : Schwegler, Nackap, Zeit. i. 284.) 

St Luke. 


is more or less difficulty in making out the intkoduc. 

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 

ill. SuppoBititiooB writings forged for party purposes. 

1. Ebionitic: 

(a) Conciliatory: 

£p. of St James (c. 150 a. c. Schwegler, i. 
8. 443.) 

The Clementine Homilies. 
The Apostolical ConstittUions, 
Clemevit, Ep. u. 
03) Neutral: 

St Mark (late ; after St Matthew : Baur, 

ii. £p. St Peter (c. 200 a. c. Schwegler, i. 

£p. St JuDE (late, id. 521.) 
Clementine Recognitions. 

2. Pauline: 

(a) Apologetic: 

i. Ep. Peter (c. 115. Schwegler, ll. 3.) 

Krjpvyfia Uirpov. 
(0) Conciliatory: 

St Luke (c. 100 a. c. Schwegler, n. 72.) 

The Acts (same date, t^. s. 115.) 

Ep. to Romans, capp. zy.^ ztL (same date, 

id. s. 123.) 
Ep. to PHnjppiANS (c. 130 ? ii. s. 133.) 
Clement. Ep. L 
(y) ConstructiTe (Katholisirend) : 

The Pastoral Epistles (l30 — 150 a. c. 
Schwegler, ii. 138.) 
Ep. of Polycarp. 
Epp. of Ignatius. 
(d) A peculiar Asiatic derelopment : 

Ep. to Hebrews (c. 100 a. o. Schwegler, 
n. 809 ) 


iNTBopuc- coincides with the clearer view which is after- 

wards gained. 

li. Hie prM{f II. Here however we are asain beset with 

of the Canon 

^^uffl^ 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 
m iiytheun- !• Thc Spirit of thc ancient world was essen- 
racteroftiM tiallv uucritical. It is unfair to speak as if 

flnt two cen- •' * 

tuiiea, Christian writers were in any way specially dis- 
tinguished by a want of sagacity or research. 
The science of history is altogether of modem 
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 CoLOssiANS (a little later, id, s. 289.) 

Ep. to Ephesians (a little later, id. s. 291.) 

Gospel and Epistles (?) of St John (c. 150. 

Schwegler, id. 8. 369 ; Baur, 350 ff.) 

It will be at once eyident how mach critical sagacity 

lies at the base of this arrangement, apart from its historic 


The Epistles to the Thessalonians and to Philemon are 
rejected, but Schwegler does not giro any explanation of 
their origin. 

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


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 in the 

uw of Apo- 

meaning. As soon as the Christian Church had gnn|^^ 
gained a firm footing in the Eoman 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 wuh rettrie- 

tioiu by the 

of books appears startling; but the Church of Church, but 
England follows the same principle with regard 


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 {aroix^io)' 
0-19 €1(70701711:17) 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 ^ 

cftreiMiyby But the first Christian writers — and here 


writen,tui 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. 
SSimS"**** As soon, however, as a practical interest attached 
po^M:^*"' to 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 Boman inquisitor^ without the 
charge of apostasy, the Apocryphal writings sunk 

I Euseb. H. E. m 3, p. 90. 

> Fragm. Ino. de Canone, s. f., speaking of Hermas. 

s Tertull. de Bapt. 0. 15. 

^ Iq the persecution of Diocletian. See below. 


at once into their proper place. There was no intooduc- 

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 

2. This fact suggests a second difficulty by (2) by the 
which the subject is affected : the earliest testi- S^'*^*" 
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, 

* See Appendix B. * On the use of Apocryphal writings in 
the earl J Church/ 


iNraoDuc- but not negatively : they may show that a writing 

was received as authoritative, but it cannot 

fairiy be argued in the first instance that another 
which is not quoted was unknown or rejected as 
which must Still, though the use of Scripture is, in a 

be oombined 

MtaiogSSs: 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 

Mid (3) by its 3. The track, however, which we have to 


character. foUow is oftcu obscurc 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 

I To these may perhaps be added the original elements 
of the Clementines and the Apostolical Canons and Consti- 


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 modem 
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, dear in faith, 
and jealous of innovation. 

It is then to the Church, as 'a witness and But the for- 
keeper of holy writ,* that we must look both for ^*?[,£j 
the formation and the proof of the Canon. The ^jj[;*JJJJ5^ 
written Rule of Christendom must rest finally on SSyf *" 
the general confession of the Church, and not on 
the independent opinions of its members. Private 
testimony in itself is only of secondary import- 
ance : its chief value lies in the fact that it is a 
natural expression of the current opinion of the 

It is impossible to insist on this too often or 


iNTBODuctoo 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. 

t»tiSony*S To make use of a book as authoritative, to as- 
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 manoeuvred 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. 
andpopuur Thcrc is, howcvcr, still another way in 
aiKTriS; which WO 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 

* This is very well argued by ThierBch in his * Vereuch 
zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts fUr die Kritik 
der N. T. Schriften,' ss. 305, ff. ; and in his answer to Baur, 
* Einige Worte Uber die Aechtheit der N. T. Schriften.' 
Erlaogen, 1846. 


individuals, so far as they convey the judgment introduc- 

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 
oar books will be more convincing ^ 

Such appear to be the characteristics and gMapituia- 
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, 

^ This will explain how much troth 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. 



iNTRonuc- 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 difierent 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 Kule 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 r the second, to 
the persecution of Diocletian ; and the last, to the 
third Council of Carthage. Later speculations on 



the question in part belong more properly to imtroduc- 

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 difiiculties 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. 





A.D. 70 — 170. 

^ofios v6fU}v ^dcrai jcal 7rpo<f>ijTa>tf xapis yiv»aK€Tai 
Kol tvayytXlay irtuns idpvrai Koi drrooToktatf napa^oaif 
<f>vXao-0'crat Koi iKKkfjalas X^P^* triuprq.. 




A.D. 70—120. 

HeaTon lies aboat us in our infancy. chap. i. 


The condition of the Church immediately after hm lub- 

apostolic a^e 

the Apostohc age was not such as to create or wM^r^at^ve, 
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 (Eel. iv.)> Tacitus 
(Hist. T. 13), and Suetonius (Vcsp. c. 4), express this feeling 
in memorable words. Percrehuerat OrienU totOt says the 
last writer, vettu et consiofu opinio esse in/atis tU eo tempore 
Judced profecti rerum potirentur. The year of which bo 
speaks is a.d. 67 — the most probable date of the martyrdom 
of St Paul. 


and tnasi 

CHAP. I. assumed the form of an intiemecine war^ The 
times were conservative, and not creative. 

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. 

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 

^ ChriBtianity as yot appeared to strangera only as a form 
of Judaism, even where St Paul preached, and consequently 
was a religio licUa, Of. Gieseler, Kiri^tengesehichU, i. 106, 
and his reff. 

« Cf. Mohlcr, s. 60. 

Its literature 
all epbtolary. 


new fellowship in Christ overpowered all other chap, l 
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 

With regard to the History of the Canon the The evidence 

** of the Apo- 

Apostolic Fathers occupy an important place — JJJ'lh J*****" 
undesignedly, it may be, but not therefore the °°* 
less surely. Their evidence, indeed, is stamped 
with the characteristics of their position, and 
implies more than it expresses ; but even directly direct and 
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 indirect, 
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 

The first point must be examined with care ; 
for it is very needful to notice the proofs of the ^^^S^^T 
continuity of the representative forms of Chris- tJ^SfdSc- 

" *^ trine, 

tian doctrine at a time when it has been sup- 


CHAP.L 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 
though often 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 hare sought in every 
case to try and correct my own yiews : 

MoHLEB (J. A.) PcUrologiei Regensburg, 1840. 
SoHLiEMANN (A.) Die Clemmtinen^ Hamburg, 1844. 
DoRNSB (J. A.) Die Lehre von der Person ChrUti, Stutt- 
gart, 1845-53. 
ScHWEGLEB (A.) DoB nachopostolische ZeitcUter^ TQbin- 

gen, 1846. 
Lechleb (G. y.) Da$ apostoliache und nachapostolische 
Zeitcdter^ Ilaarlcm, 1851. 

Sect. I. — The Relation op the Apostolic Fathers 
TO THE Teaching of the Apostles. 

j 1. Clement of Rome. 
The history of Clement of Rome is invested chap, l 

with a mythic dignity, which is without ex- The legend- 

*' & J' ary history of 

ample in the ante-Nicene Church ^ The events ^"»«°*- 
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. 

* For instance, he was identified with Flavins 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. AT. 

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

A The chief authorities are quoted by Hcfcle, 1. c. 


CHAP. I. 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. 

Writing. M- Writings which were assigned to the author- 
signed tohim. ^ ° ^ ^ ° ^ 

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^. 
Hutndi- The historical position of Clement is illus- 

tional office. 

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, bb. 67 
sqq. who defends their authenticity, which Noander thinks 
possible (Ch. H. ii. 441.) 

> Schliemann gives a very full account of them : 50 ff. 
(the Homilies) ; 265 ff. (the BeeogrUtiofui), 

s Cf. Bunsen's Hippolytua, iii. 145 sqq. (the Canons) ; il. 
220 sqq. ; and App. (the Constitutions), 

4 In addition to the letters of Clement, the Cod. Alex. 
contains also three beautiful Christian hymns. Cf. Bunsen, 
Hippolytus, iii. 133 sqq. Their existence in the MS. proves 
no more than their eeelesiastieal use. 

« On the authority of Origen ap. Euseb. II. E. vi. 26. 

< Photius (quoted by Credner, Einleit, 271) mentions this 


he is charged with a two-fold office : he appears chap. i. 

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 

The relation of the first Greek Epistle, which The leiaiion 

*^ ' of tbefint 

alone can be confidently pronounced authentic \ §£^!!1£''^ 
to our Canonical Books is full of interest. In its ^°^ 
style, in its doctrine, and in its theory of Church 
government, it confirms the authenticity of dis« 
pnted books of the New Testament'. 

The language of the Epistle of St Peter has in ttyie. 
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 gennineness of the letter without any good 
ground (NacKap, ZeU. ii. 125 sqq.)« He has been answered 
by Biinsen, Ritschl, and others. C^. heehler,AposL ZeU. 309 n. 

Its integrity appears to be as unquestionable as its au- 

The second 'Epistle^ is probably part of a homOy, but 
this most be examined afterwards. 

* The date of Clement's letter is disputed, for it depends 
on the order of his Episcopate. Hofele (p. xxzt.) places it 
at the close of the persecution of Nero (a.d. 68—70). The 
later date (circ. 95) seems more probable. 


CHAP. I. 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 
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 

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

(a) Coincidence with St Peter in words not elsewhere 
found in the £pp. or PP. App. : 
aya$<moita — o^gX ^ ny g ■ w olfunov, (Perhaps no more.) 
O) With St Peter and St Paul : 

€Vfrp6(rB€KT0 i r aw €ivo(l>po<rvvtj — tmucoif— wo^cpi 
^iXadeX^/la — ^iXofrvidy 4^iK6(€Pos, 

(y) With St Paul : 

oficra/icXiTrof — fyKparrvftrBiur^ \€irovpy6st Xeiroupy/o, 
XeiTovfjycI V — fiaKapiO'fA6s — oticnpfiol -^ iroXire/o, woXi- 
Tcvctr (Polyc.) — a€fiv6st atiiv&nis — xP^arfvofAat, 

(d) Peculiar to Clement : 

tuKict^dXXoiovp — aircJvoia— /SovXiytrit— Ucrevctr— KoX- 



affirmed. 'Through faith and hospitality {Sia chap.i. 

wiariv Kat (piXo^eviav) a son was given to Abraham j^|^^^°' 
in old age, and by obedience {St i/Vaifo^y) he 
offered him a sacrifice to God.' ' Through faith 
and hospitality Rahab was saved {efjdOfi^).' * We 

are not justified by ourselves (Si eavrwv) nor 

by works which we have wrought in holiness of 
heart, but by our faith {Sid r^s Tr/o-recw), 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 usstjAMss, 
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 stJoB** 
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 (evoTrrpil^ofieOa) His spot- 
less and most excellent visage ; through Him the 

1 cc. X., xii. 

* c. xxxii. The distinction snggeeted between the JiruU 
cause and the instrument by the double use of dt^ is very 

s c. zxzill. 

^ cc. iii., xiz., zzL, &o. Cf. Schliemann, b. 414. Herm. 
Past. Mand. yii. (p. 363.) 

^ c. yii. vmivryKfp' the use of the word is remarkable. 


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

Eputietothelififht^' 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« 

Indiscipline. And yct more than this: the Epistle of 

in nuutenoi 

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 
{iiruTKowov^ KOI SiaKovous) for the ordering of the 
future Church'.' At the same time earnest warn- 
ings are given against 'division and parties^' 
which, as we see from the pastoral epistles, arose as 
soon as the rules of ecclesiastical discipline were 

1 0. xxxri. Nothing but the original, perhaps, can con- 
vey the exquisite beauty of the last words : i} davvms ical 

Our ninderstanding is like a flower in a sunless cavern till 
the light of Gk)d falls on it. 

> c. XLif. 9 c. xLir. 


drawn closer. But this is not all; for the times chap.l 

of the * offerings and services ' of Christians are rttiud. 
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- JJjjp^^ 
ment which is thus obtained, is beyond all sus-^/'^^' 
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, 

^ C. XL. 'id. 




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 peeuifar Thc Icttcrs which bcar the name of Iimatius 

ities of the ^ 

j£^ 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 comhination. They had to 
do with essence, and not with form. But after the destruo- 
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. 

* The term first occurs Ep. ad Smyr. viii. : Sfirov av <l>apj 6 
inlcKOTTOSt €K(i t6 rrkrjBof (orco* c^airtp onov op jj Xpiarbs 'irjcrovtg 
^K€i i) KaBoKiKTj €KKki]<ria, The comparison is between the 
individual church of which the Bishop is the centre, and the 


its constituent members as an outward body chap. i. 

of Christ. The image which St Paul had explicable by 

the image 

sketched is there realized and filled up with jjif^^^,^ 
startling boldness. The Church polity of the (eS^vl""^** 

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 andmuabie 
by a vigorous and logical teacher presiding over gjjj^^'^^*"*- 
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 
"Vrhich had been detected and condemned by 
St John^ 

It is unnecessary to enter here into the con- The time 

"^ general eha- 

troversy which has been raised about the Ignatian SiX rtSSr 
Epistles ^ If any part of them be accepted as ** ''^^ 

wuvenal charch of which Christ is the head. Cf. Mohlcr, 
M. 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, howerer, was a letter yrom Smyrna, 

1 Cf. Domer, i. 144 sqq. 

* Hefele gircs a fair summary of the controversy. It 
it hut right to confess that the more carefully I have studied 



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 autheor 
ticity ; but even at the first view it seems to bo 
one far more likely to have been imitated than 
invented. The exaggerations of the copy bring 
and it could out morc clearly the traits of the original. It 

not MsUy 

wnttdjto i°" 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* 
SSriwKii- But when the character was once portrayed it 
ofiercd 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 satis* 
factory close. But this would carry us far beyond the liouta 
of our Essay. In the following pages I shall refer to the 
seven Epistles, marking the passages found also in the Sy- 
riac Version. 

lUy imi 


as the representative of ecclesiastical order and chap. i. 

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

The traditional aspect of these two great Thisehanc 

^ ter moreover 

teachers harmonizes with their real historical jjjjjjf«j;{f- 
position. The letter of Clement falls within the uS?; mS^' 
Apostolic age ; and Ignatius was martyred in the 
reign of Trajan'. So that his letters probably a.d. i07. 
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 lettera 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 

^ Popular traditions frequently embody a character with 
dngular beauty in some one trait Thus Ignatius is said to 
have instituted the custom of singing hymns antiphonally 
' from a rision of angels whom he saw thus singing to the 
Holy Trinity' (Socr. H.B. yi. 8). Cf. Bingham, Orig. EecUs. 
iy. 434. 

* Pearson, followed by many later writers, fixed Ignatius' 
martyrdom in 116. Hefele and Mohler prefer the earlier 


CHAP. 1. appeals to the analogy of the Levitical priest- 
hood ; Ignatius insists on the idea of a Christian 
hisietten. The circumstances under which I&niatius 

though ® 

Sl^JSil^ wrote necessarily impressed his letters with A 
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 

1 Ad Eph, xi. 

^ This feeling is expressed with touchiDg simplicity in 
the Epistle to the Romans, which, as is well known, is moat 
free from hierarchical yiews. MmjfjLovtvfTt iv rj irpo<nvxi 


In this way the letters of Ignatius complete chap.i. 

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- formaiast 
tius, when taken together, mark a harmonious Jf][he°SSr** 
progression in the development of the idea of a chureh. 
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 conunentary 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 Theeon- 
chief types of Apostolic teaching, one stands {g^Jg; 
forth in them with peculiar prominence. The "^|j"Jj«J 
image of St Paul is stamped alike upon their 

vfJMP rfjs fv 2vpiq tKKKrjaiaSf rjris ain\ ifiov iroifjJvt rf Gcf 

lyatm) (c. ii.)* The passago is omitted in the Syriac Ver* 


c"^P- '■ 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 
8t Paul in Thc coutrovcrsy against Jewish practices is 

refrrrace to t^ o «- 

Judaism, couductcd as stcmly 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 {Xpianavianioi*) as a system 
contrasted with Judaism. Judaism (loviaiaimoi) 
is ' an evil leaven that has grown old and sourV 
* To use the name of Jesus Christ and observe 
Jewish customs is unnatural {aroirov *)•' * 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 dyamf, dyan^if, and 6 ovpav6sf while St Paul and Clo* 
ment generally use ol ovpavoL 

The words common to St Paul and Ignatius only are 
very numerous, o. g. db6Kifios — dpct^xtiv — dwfpltnratrrot—' 
tiCTpioiiar^—lv6rq% — Btipionaxiiv-^lovtaia'iJu&s — oi«i/*i;i'— o2xo« 
vopia (met.)"— <^v(rio{;y. 

Those peculiar to Ignatius are still more: e.g. dyuxf^pos 
^-^dfiipKrros — drrlylrvxov—^compoundB of &$iost w dfi^cor, 
d^ionoKapiOTos — airodivX/ff <r^ai — dpociCtcOtu^ipow, hmtrig 
—compounds of 6i6s, as 6€obp6pos, 6€otf>6po% — KOKOfrtxvla^^ 
ffidpiuucov, (The references are made to the shorter Epistles 
without distinction). 

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

> Ad Magn. x. < Ibid. 


not received grace'.' At the same time, like chap. i. 
St Paul, Ignatius regards Christianity as the 
completion, and not the negation, of the Old ^Si^tli^ 
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 (ait&os) 
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 t*>echureh. 
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. TiiL 

' Ad Magn, viii. The reference to Silence (Styif), which 
forms an important element in Yalentinianiem, was a serious 
objection to the authenticitj of the Ig;natian letters till the 
discoTery of the * Treatise against Heresies/ 19 ow it appears 
that the same phraseology was used in the 'Great An- 
nouncement,' an authoritatire exposition of the doctrines of 
theSimonians, and consequently it must have been current in 
Ignatius' time (Hipp, adv, Hasr, tI. 18.) Cf. Bunsen, Hip- 
pofytuif i. 57 ff., whose opinion on the subject, however, 
seems improbable. 
' £ph. T. 23'Sqq. 



CHAP. L 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. As a 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 all*.' Believers are 
subject to the Bishop as to God's grace, and 
to the presbytery as to Christ's law*; 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 V 

1 Ad Eph. vi. < Ad Eph. iii. 

« Ad Eph, T. * Ad Magn, iii. 

Ad Magn. ii. ^ Ad Magn, ri. 


The Ignatian writings, as might be expected, chap. i. 

are not without traces of the influence of St^jg^g*"* 
John. The ch-cumstances 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 (apaywyev^), but love is the 
road that leads to God^.' The Eternal (aiSios) 
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 life®.* 
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 life,] speaking within him, and bidding 
him come to his Father®.' Meanwhile his enemy 

1 Ad Magn, t. * Ad Eph. xir. 

» AdEph.iT. (Syr.) 

* Ad Magn. c. riii. (quoted above.) 
» Ad PhOad. ix. Of. John x. 7. 

Ad TrcUL ix.: o^ x*P'^ ^ aXrj6iy6v Qv ovk fx^'M^* Of* 
ad Eph. iii. : *I.X. to ddtdieptTov fjfuap Qv... 

"^ Ad Rom. Til. Tho Syriac text, which is shorter, gives 
the same seoBe. Cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53. 

* Ad Rom, 1. c. The last clause is wanting in the Syriac» 


CHAP. L is the enemy of his Master, even ' the ruler of 

this age^' 

§ 3. Polycarp. 

Theierip- The short epistle of Polycarp contains far 

^S^cSl^'t more references to the writings of the New 
^ 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 
Illustrates with the chicf parts of our Canon ; and the mode 

the catIv ine~ 

thodofquo- 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 

yet the boldDess of the metaphor seems in Ignatius' manner. 
nOp ^(XcSvXoy, * fiery passion for the material world,' which 
forms a good contrast with vdup C^p, * liring water,' is cer- 
tainly, I think, the true reading. Cf. John iv. 13; Tii. 38. 

^ Ad Rom, 1. c. : 6 ipx^iv rov alapos tovtov, Cf. John 
xii. 31 ; xvi. 11 : d Spx»p rov K6afiov tovtov, 1 Cor. 11. 6, 8. 

2 The authenticity of Polycarp's Epistle stands quite un- 
shaken. Cf. Schliemann, s. 418 anm. Jacobson, ad vit. Polyc. 
n. q. Schwegler, ii. 154 sqq., has added no fresh force to 
the old objections. 

The fragments of 'Polycarp's Responsions' given by 
Fevardeutius in his notes on Ireneeus (ill. 3) cannot, I 


A scriptural tone naturally involves a catho- ch^p- ^ 
licity of spirit. Polycarp, next to Clement among JJJg^^ew 
the early Fathers, embraces in his epistle the ISdS^^^ 

, , dally with 

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, lave 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 J^"'*"' 
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, xxyii. sqq. In single words the 
likeness is not less remarkable. 

« Schwegler, ii. 167. — ^Polyc. ad Phil. c. iii. Cf. Jacob- 
son's note. 

» Euseb. H. E. ir. 14. 

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


CHAP. I. bits more frequently the tone of St Peter, 
when he spoke at last as the expounder of ih.e 
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 
OS 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 
tt»p«(o»i 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 The following passages from 8t Peter maj be noticed : 

1 Pet. i. 8 (c. i.) ! i. 13{c. ii.); i- 21 (o. ii.); iii. 9 (o. iL)j 
ii. 11 (c. T.) i IT. 7 (c. 7) ) ii. 22, 24 (c. riii.). 

We may perhaps comparQ abo tbe referencefl to St Paul: 

2 Pet. iii. 15; Pol;c. c. iii. 

On the other hand, see c. iii. (1 Tim. ri. 10 i vi. 7) ; c. t. 
(2 Tim. ii. 12); c. iii. (1 Tim. ii. 2.) 

Tbe inscriptiona of the epUtles of the Apostolic Fatheti 
are not without special significance, Polycarp nritea 'iktot 
vfitir Koi (tpfivri ;' in tho Now Testament «X«or occun in tha 
salutations of tbe Pastoral Epistles of 2 John and Jnda 
Ignatius, with one exception (ad PhUad.), says ' itKnara x<if* _ 
ptir.' Cf. James i. 1. Clement, in the name of tho Churd 
of Rome, uses the common Pauline salutation ' 


bf the second century, was familiarly recognized ch*p. l 
in its double form, without one mark of doubt, 
almost frithin the verge of the Apostohc age', o. i.i>. loe. 
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 

The dangers which impressed their peculiar ^^°" *• 
character on the Ignatian letters have given '""^ 
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 he 
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 "j;"^ 
more important than that of any other of the u^^t* 

1 The epUtle of Polycarp was written iliortl; after the 
Mutyrdom of Ignatius, and its date consequently depends 
on that. Cf. cc. ix., ziii., and Jacobson's note on the last 
pasage, which remores LDcke's objection. 

> Among the pecnlioritios of Folycarp's language are 
the following : be has in common with St Paul only airo- 
ItXaMr — ippa^f — i<^iKapyvpot — rh mX^r — /loraioXayia — 
wpavciv. Of bis coincidences with St Peter, which consist 
In whole phrases and not in single words, we hare already 
■poken. The following words are not found oliewbere in 
ft* Patrr. App. or in the New Testament, /"V^fui — drani- 

[Paul) — androfioc (owoTO/iia, St Paul). 


cHAP.L 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. 

§ 4. Barnabas. 
Theietter.of Thc arguments which have been urged 
Mithenue. agamst 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 {(pepofxevrj), 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. 

* Iren. iv. 3, 4. * Iren. 1. c. 

* H. E. iii. 26 ; yI 14. 


among the Apocryphal Scriptures. In the Sticho- chap. i. 

metria of Nicephorus it is classed with the Anti- 

But while the antiquity of the Epistle isbutnotApo- 
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 S 
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.d. 62'; and the letter contains not 
only an allusion to the destruction of the Jewish 
Temple S but also afiirms the abrogation of the 
Sabbath, and the general celebration of the 

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

3 Hefele, Daa Sendschreiben des AposteU Barnabas, ss. 
166 ff. 

< Hefele, B8. 37, 159. 

* c. xvi. : dia yap t6 9roXf/ictv avroi/s Ka6up€67j [6 vabsl xmh 
Tc5» ixPp^^ ^^* f'** avToi ol tS>v €)(6p^v vnrjpirai avoticodo/iij- 
vovfTiv avT6v, Hefele'B punctuation {ix^piiv' vvv jc.t.X.) 
cannot, I think, stand. The writer calls attention to the 
present desolation of the temple. 



CHAP. I. 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 affecta 

or Canonical, the integrity of the Canon. Jerome evidently 
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 no 
reason to believe that he received his appoint^ 
ment to the Apostolate directly from oiu* 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 *. 

lu relation As a monumcut of the first Christian age the 

to the Epistle ^ 

totheHe- Epistle is fuU of interest. Among the writings 
of the Apostolic Fathers it holds the same place 
as the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testa- 

1 C. XV. f. : dii Koi ayofi€v rrju ijfxtpav r^v oyB6fjv tls cv- 
(f>poavinjv jc.T. X. Cf. Ign. ad Magn. ix. 

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


ment. There is» at least, so much similarity chap. i. 
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 

The mystical interpretations of the Old Tes- in regard to 

the mysticftl 

tament found in the Epistle to the Hebrews g^^^^p. 
are marked by a kind of reserve. The author ***'** "* 
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 arc addressed to promis- 

* Hebr. v. 11 sqq. 



CHAP. I. 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 
fVirnish 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'. 

Dte iS^tiSl ^^^ y^^ more than this : the general spirit of 
the Epistle of Barnabas is different from that of 

1 c. ix. f. 

> c. X. Yet the passages aro quoted by Clement of 
Alexandria. Cf. Hefele, Das Sendschreiben u. s, u;., s. 86. anm. 
« Hcbr. ir.. Barn. xv. 


the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the latter it is <^hap. i. 
shown that there lies a deep meaning for us 
under the history and the law of Israel. The 
old Coyenant 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 sensed Even circumcision, as they 
practised it, was not the seal of God's covenant, 
hut 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 (traiSayaryoi) 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. * Barn. c. xir. 

• cc iii., ii. * c. ix. * cc. xy., xyI, 


CHAP. I. 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 
catholicity 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 vrords than for coincidences with any parts of the 
New Testament. He has dpoKMul^fiv — €V€fyyrffia^»{9Mwot§t<r' 
Bm, in common with St Paul ; and among his peculiarities 
may be noticed dxtpaioavvrj — Blyvafios — Biy\»araos — du 

wXojcapdia — Opaavnjs fravafmpTTjros — nXaafJM, d¥airkiavtc$tu 

'—'irpo<f}ay€poikr0M — (rvXXiJfrrft)/!— vntpaytmav. 

Sect. II. — The Relation op the Apostolic Fathers 
TO THE Canon op the New Testament. 

The testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is chap, l 
not, however, confined to the recoirnition of the Thetesw. 

^ ^ monyofthe 

several types of Christianity which are preserved p£S2nto 
in the Canonical Scriptures: they confirm thetament 
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 bad heard the living voice how far mo- 

*^ *=* dlOed by the 

of Apostles were unlikely to appeal to their J,^^|i*' 
written words. It is an instinct which always 
makes us prefer any personal connexion to the 
more remote relationship of books. Thus Fapias 
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 Fapias affirmed the exact 
accuracy of the Gospel of St ]VIark, and quoted 
testimonies {mapTvpiaii) from the Catholic Epistles 
of St Peter and St John. So, again, IrensBus 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 

CHAP. I. of His mighty works and teaching. And still all 

was according to the Scriptures {iravra avfKpwva 
rah ypa(f>a7i) ; so that the charm lay not in the 
novelty of the narrative, but in its vital union 
with the fact. 
(«) Their (a) In thrcc instances^ in which it was 

teiClniooy to 

SSnmJtm- natural to expect a direct allusion to the Pau- 

orS^ieit, 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 ApoUos*. ' 'Those who are borne by 

martyrdom to God,* Ignatius writes to the Ephe- 
sians, * pass through your city ; ye are initiated 
into mysteries {(rvfiiivaTai) with St Paul, the 
sanctified, the martyred, worthy of all blessing 

who in every part of his letter (ev 'jrcurfi 

eirKTToXri) 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. ir.) is, howeyer, 
worthy of notice. 

2 Clem. c. xLvii. 

> The reference in avfifjLvarai to Eph. v. 32 seems clear 
when we remember the whole tenor of Ignatius' letter. 'Ey 
vdoTi fir. is not necessarily, I think, 'in eyery letter/ but» 
*ln every part of his letter;' compare Eph. ii. 21, irocra 
oticodo/ii; (not iraaa rj oIk.^ * Every part of the building.' 


you, into which, if ye look diligently, ye will be chap. i. 

able to be built up to [the fulness of] the faith (Sjinddentai. 
given to you^' 

Elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers there 
are clear traces of a knowledge of the Epistles 
of St Paul to the Bomans, 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 beUeve, no 
coincidences of language with the Epistles of 
Jude, John (ii. iii.), and Peter (ii.)* 

The instances quoted by Hefele are otherwise explained by 
Winer, N. T. Ghrammaiikf s. 132 (ed. y.) The passage is 
not found in the Syriac. 
1 Polyc. c. iii. 

> 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 (o. xxxy.) ; 1 Corinthians (c. xLTii.) ; 
Ephesians (c. xlyi.) ; 1 Timothy ? (c. yii.) ; 
Titus ? (c. ii.) ; Hebrews (cc. xviL, xxxti., 
&c.) ; James (c. x. &c.) 
Ignatius. 1 Corinthians (<td Ephea. xriii.); Ephesians 
(ad Ephei. xiL); PhiUppians? (ad Philad. 
yiii.) ; 1 Thessalonians ? (ad Ephe», x.) ; 
Philemon ? (ad Ephei, o. ii., &c.) 
PoLTCABP. Romans (c. vi.); 1 Corinthians '(o. xi.); 2 
Corinthians (cc. ii., iv.) ; Galatians (cc. iii., 
xii.) ; Ephesians (c. xii. ?) ; Philippians (c. 


CHAP. I. These incidental references, it is true, are 

Thepe«iH« anonymous. The words of Scripture are in- 
J?ffiSr* 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- 
iiiuitnted by versation. If the quotations from the Old Tes- 

the quotA- 

tlSoidTJi- tament in the Apostolic Fathers were uniformly 
^ 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 Testaments Clement uses 

iii., xi.) ; 1 Thcssalonians (?) (c. ii., ir.) ; 

1 Timothy (c. ir.); 2 Timothy (c. v.); 1 

Peter (cc. i., ii., &c.) ; 1 John (c. vii.). 
Barnabas. Matthew (c. iv.); 1 Timothy? (c. xiL); 2 

Timothy? (c. vii.). Cf. Hefele, 88. 230—240. 
^ Bam. Ep. c. x. : Xcycc avrois Maxr^r cV r^ Acvrcpoyofi^y. 
The la8t wofd8 may be an interpolation. Elsewhere Bar- 
nabas mentions the writer's name : c. iv. Daniel ; c. xii. 
David, Esaias ; c. tI., x., xii. Moses, Perhaps the peculiar 
usage of the writer will confirm the reading of the Latin 
Ycnion (o. 4), siotU seriptiun est, applied to a passage of 


Ihe general formula, * It is written/ or even chap, i. 
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 alH; 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 u 

can beap- 

cidences between the Apostolic Fathers andgj^^**** 
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. 
Bcfcrences in the sub- apostolic age to the 

St Matthew. Otherwise Credner's doubts do not seem un- 
reasonablo (Beitrli^, i. 2S.) 

In the second 'Epistle' of Clement there is the same 
explicitness of reference as in Barnabas, c. iii. Eeaias; c. vi. 
Ezeehiel. So likewise St Matthew's Gospel is called ypa<l>v 
(c. ii.) The fact is worth notice. 

^ c. xzyi. (Job), &c., xxzii. (David), cannot be considered 
exceptions to the rule. 

> The reading of the Latin Version, c. xi. aicut Paulus 
doeetf seems to bo less open to suspicion than that in c. xii. 
ut hii 8cripturis dictum est (Ps. It. 5 ; Eph. It. 26), which is 
at least quite alien from Polycarp's manner. 

< £. g. cc. xx?ii., Lir. So also Ignatius ad Trail, yiii. 


CHAP I. 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 gnat fin- Thc ' Gospcl ' which the Fathers announce 

tnret of 

gSii^iy* includes all the articles of the ancient Creeds*. 
"^"^ Christ, we read, our God, the eternal Word, the 

1 cc. xiii., xLTi. (etn-fv), compared with Acts xx. 36. The 
past tense in Ignat. <id Smt/r. iii. appears to be of a di£Perent 

Barnabas, on the other hand, uses a present tense (cc. It. 
yii.) when quoting words not found in the Canonical Gospels. 

' On the use of oral and written Qospels in the first 
age, compare Qieseler, iiber dU Enstehung u. $. w,, ss. 149 


Lord and Creator of the world, who was with chap.i. 
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 
Be 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 Bam, inscr. ; c. lii. ; cul Epha, inscr. ; Ign. 
ad Ma>gnes. Till. : Barn. v. : Ign. ad Magnet, tI. 

* Clem. ZTJ. : Ign. ad Magnes, tH. : Bam. ziL : Ign. ad 
Smyr, i., ad Trail, ix., ad Ephes, xix. : Ign. ad Ephes, xx. ; 
Ign. ad Ephes. xix. 

• Ign. ad Smyr, i.; Ign. ad Rom, tiiL: Barn. ix. 

^ Ign. ad Magnes, xi., ad Trail, ix., od Smyr, i. : Bam. 
Tii. Ignatius alludes also to anointing the head of Christ 
(John xii. 3), ad Eplies, xvii. 

* Bam. X7.: Ign. ad Magnes, ix. : Clem. xxir. : Polyc. ii. : 
Ign. ad Magnes, ix. : Ign. ad Smyr, iii. 


CHAP. I. He shall come to judge the quick and the 

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 Besurrection of Christ, their hopes were 

(fi) to their (jS) 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 Bam. XV, : Polyc ii. : Bam. Tii. : Polyo. ii. 
There are also numerous references to discoarses of 
our Lord which are recorded in tho gospels : 

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

(Matt xxtI. 24.) 
Ignatius, ad EpJies, vi. (Matt. x. 40) : ad Troll, xL 
(Matt. XV. 13) : ad Ephes, v. (Matt, xviii. 19) : 
ad Philad. vii. 
Polycarp, c. ii. (Matt. vii. 1 sqq., x. 16) : c v. (Matt. 
XX. 28): c. vi. (Matt. vi. 12): c. viL (Matt. vi. 
13, xxvi. 41.) 
Barnabas, c. iv. (Matt. xx. 16, xxv. 5 sqq.) : o. v. 
(Matt. ix. 13): c. xix. (Luc. vi. 30): 0. v. 
(M^tt. xxvi. 31): cf. Hefelo, s. 233. 
Barnabas refers to two sayings of our Lord not found 
in our Gospels : c. iv., vii. : and so perhaps Ign. ad Smyrm 
iii. (yet cf. Luke xxiv. 39.) This is no proof of the use of 
Apocryphal Gospels: cf. Gieseler, Uber dis Enstehung dor 
8chri/i. Ev\K ss. 147 ff. 

« 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. 


men who had seen the Apostles^ who had hcai\l crap. i. 

them, and who had treasured up their writings 
as the genuine reeords of their teaching, the 
character of their evidence is equally in accord- 
ance with their peculiar position. It will be"*^"***^y 
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 ^^^^^^^ of 
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 Besurrection 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. His Cross, and Death, and Besurrection, and the 

Faith through Him^' 
(2) the gra. Tt cannot, however, be denied, that the idea 

dual percep- 

d^n/of 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. 

which foi. The successors of the Apostles did not, we 

lowed from 

of thi aS? admit, recognize that the written histories of the 
firus^c- * Lord, and the scattered epistles of His first dis- 


1 Ad Philad. viii. The passage is beset with many dif- 
ficulties, but the translation which I have ventured to 
give seems to remove many of them. UpoKtiaBai. is con- 
tinually used of a question in debate: Plat. Euthyd. 
279 D. KOTayeXatTTov diprov t wakai irp6K(irai rovro traktv 
irpoTiBivai, Resp. viii. 533 £. etc. In place of cV roU dp* 
xaiois we may read cV toU dpxdonj according to Voss* 
conjecture. The sense would be unchanged. The sud- 
den burst of feeling (Jpo\ dc k. r. X.) is characteristic of 


eiples^ would form a sure and sufficient source chap.i. 
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. As 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 


CHAP. L basis and moulded the expression of the corn- 

its gnat lootimon creed. They reco^ize the fitness of a 

extent and " ^ 

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 
a 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 ^ 

^ 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 oon-> 
sidered as drawn from the Apostolic age. It will be con* 
venient to notice this when speaking of Papias (c. iL $ 1.) 



A.D. 120 — 170. 

Ou cMMT^s ft6yoy r6 tfpyop, dXX^ fitytBovs itrriv 6 CHAP. IL 

Xpicmavurfi6s, — ^loNATIUS. 

The writings of the Apostolic age were all The wide 

. ii.-f/* scope of the 

moulded in the same form, and derived fromgJj^lSSeof 
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 oeeukmedby 


then to maintain its groimd amid systematic ^1}^^ 
persecution, organized heresies and philosophic 
controversy. The name of the Christian had the Empire, 
already become a by- word' ; and it was evident 

1 Of. Mohler, 88. 179 ff. 

' It is probable that 8ome of the Christian parts of the 
SibyUine Oracles (Libb. vi., yii.) also fall within this period. 
Of. Friedlieb, Oractda StbyUiruh Einleit. ss. Lzxi., Lii. 

Very little is known of the prophecies of Hystaspes. 
Of. LQcke, Comm. ti. d* Schri/ten des Ev, Johannes^ ir, 1. 
88. 46 f. 

< Jost. Mart. Ap. i. 4. (p. 10, n. 4. Otto.) 

70 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 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- 

Heresie*. tcctiou. The ApostoUc 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 

Fhiiowphy. 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. 

Themnains But although the entire literature of the age 


eveT,icMity. ^as 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 

^ Ep. ad Diogn. i. : 6p& .... {nr€p<nrov^kue6ra cc rijv Stoat* 
fitiav T&v Xptariavav fiaStiv .... ripi re GtA vtnfn66T€tt ml 
ir»ff 6pTj(rKfvoPTtg .... oCt€ rovv POfii(ofi€yovs vird r&v 'EXXi/MBr 
Otovs Xoy/^oFTOi, oCrt rrjv 'lovdauov dcco-cdoi/zov^ay (jwkAtro'cvatm 
.... The whole passage is yery interesting as showing how 
the ohjcct and fonn of Christian worship, and the character 
of the Christian life, would strike a thoughtftd man at the 

> Collected hy Ronth, ReliiguuB SacrcBt (Ed. 2. Oxon. 


' Enarrations ' of Papias, the Treatises of Justin chap. ii. 
and Agrippa Castor against Heresies, the nu- 
merous works of Melito, the Chronicles of Hege- 
gippus, 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 Jiutinxe- 

PRientf the 

mere accident which preserved the writings of S?oSS°' 
Justin. As the Apologists were the truest re-^'^o' 
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 


CHAP. II. each case the fulfihnent 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. 
Thcflnt This, then, was one great work of the time, 

wore of tm ^^ 

S^i^^Vf that Apologists should proclaim Christianity to 

the rdatlon , ^- _.. , . .1 j« • f{ 

^ghrij*^ be the Divme answer to the questionings ofj 
********^' heathendom, as well as the antitype to the Lawi 
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 K 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 
{dilatcB paulisper divifUB lectianes), that they 
might not be blinded by the sudden sight of its 
unclouded glory*. 
wKf^Se Th® recognition of Christianity as a reve- 

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

from Ju- 

^ JosUn's use of the prophecies of the Old TcBtament it 
no exception to the rule; but of this we shall speak in § 7. 
> Lactant. IntUt. v. 4. 


some sense, a special message for the heathen, chap, n. 
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 itsmctioii. 
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 Theoisisby 

^ ^ which this 

conflict which was then carried on was not the SSut***^*** 
repetition, but the sequel of that of the Apo- 
stolic age'. The great crisis out of which it 

1 Just. Mart. Ap. i. 46 : 02 furh X&yov pu^auprtf Xpurrunmi 

'HpojcXciroff Kxxi o\ ^fiotoi ovrotr, iv Pappapois dc 'A^paafi . . • . 
Cf. Ap. ii. 18. 

s Some modem writers have confomided together the 
different steps by which the distinction of Jew and Oentile 
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 Oentiles (cvo-c^ccr) to the Chris- 
tian Church. Acts x., zi. 

2« The freedom of (Pontile conyerts f^om the Cere- 
monial Law. Acts XT. 

3. The indifference of the Ceremonial Law for Jewish 
conyerts. 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 

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 iElia, and 
the establishment of a Gentile Church 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 heayen, 
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 natiu^y made a 

SS?^ tahed ^^* effort to regain their original power. It was 
fltoSofthT' 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- 
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. 

JjgjJ««« Apart from heretical writings the effect of 
this movement may be traced under various 
forms in the contemporary literature. And as 

element, U evolved in the history of the Church. This is 
an instance of the true 'i)e?elopment,' which organizes, but 
does not create. 



the Apologists represent the Greek element in chap.ii. 
the Churchy 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 5>«»te»«»»» 

*■ loll, now- 

still preserved the same form as in the Apo- SSi^**""^ 

stolic age. It was wholly Greek: the work of 

the Latin churches was as yet to be wrought in 

silenced It is the more important to notice 

this, because the permanent characteristics of 

the national literatures of Greece and Bome 

reappear with powerful effect in patristic writings. 

On the one side there is universality, freedom, ^•»«o' 

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 

^ Of the Chreek literatoro of the Italian Charches we shall 
speak hereafter. 

> 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) 


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

^ 1. Papiaa. 

Th«dateor 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- 
rapoUs in Phrygia' in the early part of the 
second century. According to some accoimts 
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. Ul. zyiii. ; Papias — 
Hierapolitanus Episcopus in Asia; and also from a com- 
parison of Euseb. H. E. iii. 36, 39, 31. 

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

s 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 
(ttn€v) .... or John or Matthew .... or any other of the 
Lord's disciples ; as what Aristion and the Eider (Presbyter) 
John, the Lord's disciples, say (Xryovo-iv).' The natural 
interpretation of these words can only be that the Apostles 
^Elders in the highest sense, 1 Pet. y. 1 — were already 
dead when Papias began his inrestigations, and that he dis- 
tinguished two of the name of John, one an apostle, and 


A church was formed at Bierapolis in very chap, n. 
early times^; and it afterwards became the resi- 
dence of *the Apostle Philip and his daughters V "**fte*£^ 
whose tomb was shown there in the third cen- 
tury ^ This fact seems to point to some close 
connexion with the churches of Judaea ; but the 
city was also remarkable in another respect. 
The Epistle of St Paul to the neighbouring 
church of Colosssa 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 influenced 

another the presbyter, who was alire at that time. Of. 
Dayidson, 1. c. 

^ It is said that he suffered martyrdom (Steph. Gobar. 
ap. Gaye, i. 20) at Pergamus in the time of Aurdius (▲.d. 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 (dptxpu^p), and he had treasured 
up the tradition in his memory (icakng ifmifA6vtwra). The 
necessity for such a work as his would not, indeed, be felt, 
as Bettig has well obserred, till the first generation after 
the Apostles had passed away. Of. Thiersch, Venuch u. t . uf. 
s. 438. 

a Coloss. iy. 13; Euseb. H.E. iii. 31. Cf. Routh, ii. 25. 

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

* Cf. Iron. y. 33. 


CHAP. 11. Since he stood on the verge of the first age 

^n««oo«m 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' {Aoyiwv KvpiaK&y ij^fiyfio'is^). 
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. 

SpuSS* * 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 (5e), the mention of 
his interpretations (al epjuLtjveiai), convey the 

itwBBexDo- idea that his reference to tradition might seem 

ntory, and *^ 


1 Pap. L c. : ovK oKv^aa dc aoi Koi Stra frorr waph t&p irpcer- 
pvreptop KoKas ^yuaOov iral koXaos €/Avrfii6ptva'a, (rvyKarard^ai 
rait €pfAfjV€iais, dtap€ficuovfi€vot vntp avrav dXij^cioy, ae. r. X. 

s In accordance with this Tiew of Papias' book we find 
him mentioned with Clement, Pantsenus, and Ammonius, as 
* one of the ancient Interpreters (cfi/Ti^nov) who agreed to 
understand the Hexacmoron as referring to Christ and the 
Church.' (fr, iz., z.) The passage quoted by Ironcsus from 
'the Eiders' (r. ad f.) may probably be taken as a specimen 
of his style of interpretatioa 


Tumecessary to some, and that it was, in fact, only ohap.ii. 
a secondary object : — ^in other words, they imply 
that there were ahready 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 ^' 

This conclusion, which we have drawn from PapiM'tc«ti- 

mooy to the 

the apparent aim of Papias' work, is strongly ^'^'^'^ 
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 mut. 
each one interpreted them as he was able V The 
form of the sentence (/mev ouy) would seem to 

1 Eiuebius, 1. c. gircs 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 yii. 53-TiiL 11. 
To these must be added the account of Judas (fr. iii. Bouth.) 

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

' Euseb. I c. : Mar da tor /xcy oZv '£/3pai<9i dtaXcicr^ ra 
\Ayia <TV€ypa^aTo' fjpfii^vfvae d* (xvra ds ^p dvvaT6s tKaaros. 
It is difficult to giro the full meaning of ra \6yui, rh Kvpiaxii 



cHAP.u. introduce this statement as the result of some 

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 abready 
accessible to Greek readers : the time was then 
past when each one was his own interpreter. 
St haek. The account which he giyes 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. 

XSyta — the Gospel — the sum of the words and works of the 

The sense, I beliere, would be best expressed in this 
passage by the translation : ' Matthew composed his Ootpd 
in Hebrew,' ginng to the word its necessary notion of scrip- 
tural authority. Of. Acts yii. 38 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; Heb. y. 12 ; 
1 Pet. It. 11. Polyc. ad PhU, c. rii. ; Clem, od Cor, L 
19, 63. 

Dayidson (Introd. i. 65, sqq.) has reyiewed the other 
Interpretations of the word. 


For he took heed to one thing — to omit none chap.ii. 
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 

" * from his de- 

here described cannot be the Canonical Gospel S^k^foSl-^' 
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' (Kijpuyfia 
Herpovji or some similar work*. In short, we its come- 
must suppose that two different books were 
current under the same name in the times of 
Papias and Irenaeus — ^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 Eaeeb. I. c. : leal roO^ 6 frpta-pmpos Aryc* MapKot luv 
ipfujP€VT^s TLirpov yw6pAvoi oaa €/APrifjL6v€V(r€ tucpifitis lypa^cv, 
ov fi€rroi ro^ci rii vtr6 rov Xpurrov fj \€x6(VTa fj vpaxStyra* oikt 
yap rJKOva'€ rov Kvpiov oCrt frapfjKokov&iia-€P avr^' vorrpov d^, 
a»ff ^<l>ffi^t Utrp^t ts irp6s riig XP^^^^ iirottiro rhs dtdacrxaXiar, 
dXX* oix <^<nrcp avvra^uf tS>v Kvpuuc»p woiovfuvos \6yav' 
£<m oddtp ijpxipTt MdpKot ovTois ^via ypdyjtas <us dntfunjfii* 
vrucrry* Mi yhp enotrjcraro 7rp6votavt rov /ti^dcV wp fJKova-t wapa^ 
Xiirciy $ y^tvawrBai ri cV avrois* 

Barton and Heinichen rightly read Xc^yooy, for which 
Routh has Xoyt«>y. I do not think that Xoyia>y could stand in 
luch a sense. As the word occurs again directly, and was 
used in the title of Papias' book, the error was natural. 

s Schwegler, i. 458 fif. ; Baur, Kritische UnUrmchungen^ 
538 f. 



^^^- ^^' 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 
Howw» guch a series of improbabilities*. There is, how- 

must under- '^ 

S^*^" 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 Iron. adr. Hser. ili. 1.1; Clem. Alex. fr. ap. Euseb. 
Ti. 14 ; Grig. fr. ap. Euseb. ti. 25 ; Euseb. H, E. li. 15. 

^ Cf. Davidson, Introd. i. 158 sq., who supposes that 
John was * mistaken in his opinion.' 


ment of the other Synoptie Evangelists very chap.ii. 
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. 

In addition to the Gospels of St Matthew Hiiteto- 

*■ mony to St 

and St Mark, Papias appears to have been Jjf "'*^^**" 
acquainted with the Gospel of St John^ Euse- 
bins also says explicitly that he quoted 'the 
former Epistle of John, and that of Peter like- } gjj^ 
wiseV He maintained, moreover, 'the divine 

^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 24: Mar3aios fUp yap irp6rtpop 
'Efipaloit Kijpv(aSf tis l/icXXcy koL €<f>* Mpovf Zcvoc, warpi^ 
yXttrrjj ypaffi% nappJSovs rh kot* ovt^p r^oyycXiov, rh Xctirov rg 
alrrov vapwaiq^ rovroiv d^* «y corcXXcro, di^ r^c ypoffn^t 
dartnkfipov. The written Gospel was the sum of the oral 
Gospel. The oral Gospel was not, as far as we can see, a 
Life of Christ, but a selection of representative events from 
it, salted in its great outlines to the general wants of the 
Church, and adapted by the sereral Apostles to the peculiar 
requirements of their special audiences — ?yia, ov rafcc, vpht 
rhs XP*^ [t»p (Lcov<$yr«»v.] 

s The Gospel of 6t 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 beliefe that it is genuine. 
There is also an allusion to it in the quotation from the 
* Elders' found in Irenocus (Lib. y. ad f.), which probably 
was taken from Papias (fr. v. Routh, et nott^) 

' Euseb* 1. 0. : Ki\prjTai itaprupiais an6 r^s 'Iomzivov nportpat 



CHAP. II. inspiration^ of the Apocalypse, and probably 
apocaltpm. commented upon part of it^ 
Buthemaket There is, however, one irreat chasm in his 

no mention * o 

ta^i 8?'* testimony. Though he was the friend of Poly- 
LcKB. 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. 
niedutin<>- As wc gain a clearer and fuller view of the 

tkm between ^ 

lSfd'(^u^e Apostolic age it becomes evident that the fusion 
the Apoftoiic between the Gentile and Judaizing Christians 
was far less perfect than we are at first inclined 
to suppose. Both classes, indeed, were essen- 
tiaUy 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 

iiriaToXTJSf Koi dfr6 rijs Utrpov 6fioic^s, The language of Eiue- 
bius is remarkable : rj 'la>ayyot; nporipci^ and 17 nerpoir-— not 
fj ^lioawov irpaTfj and 17 Utrpov irporipOy as in H. E. y. 8. Oan 
he be quoting the titles which Papias gave to them ? In thei 
fragment on the Canon (see below, $ 10) two Bpistles only of 
St John are mentioned. 

1 Andreas, Prolog, in Apoc. (fr. viii. Bouth.) 


defined the limits of their teaching ^ This di- chap.ii. 

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'ooked 
but precious memorials of the first age, then it '^^ 
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 trace 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 rapiatwM 
Papias furnishes a characteristic link in the his- SSrw?''*** 
tory of Christianity. As far as can be coi\jec- * 
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. iL 7—9. 

' Eiueb. H. E. iiL 36 : canjp ra ndrra ^i fiaXiara Xoyi»- 


CHAP. It. 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^ 
hu^elwSw ^® stands as the representative of * the Twelve/ 
S^l 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 ^ 

TOTos (in all respects of the greatest erudition) Koi r^t ypa(l>rjt 
ctdi7/xa>y. This disputed clause is quite consistent with what 
Eusebius says elsewhere (iii. 39) : <T(f>6dpa yap rot a-fwcpof «y 
t6v vovVf <os av tK rSv ai/rov X(fy6}y T€Kfijjpafi€vop ciircijr, [6 
nairias] <f)aiverai. The preponderance of external OTidence 
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 narratire 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 inrented at a later 
time. The history contains coincidences of language with 
the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans (c. 3), Coiinthiaiui 



^ 2. The Elders quoted by Irenceus. 
Papias is not, however, the only represen-nieeridence 

'' •/ X of the second 

tative of those who had been taught by theJ^Sj* 
immediate disciples of the Apostles. IrenaeusgoflnSto 
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 lefl wanting by his 
evidenced Thus^ Hhe elders, disciples of theHbtetu- 

mony is com- 
pleted by 
that of other 

(i., ii ), Galatians (c. 2), and 1 Timothy (c. 4). At the close ' £><>«"•' 
of the first chapter there is also a remarkable similarity of 
metaphor with 2 Pet. L 19. Bat the parallelism between 
many parts of the narratiye with the Acts is still more 
worthy of notice, because, from the nature of the case, 
references to that book are comparatiyely rare in early 
writings. See especially chapp. 4, 6. 

1 They hare been collected by Routh, ReUiquias S<Mcrc9f 
i. 47 sqq. Eusebius notices the quotations, but did not know 
their source (EI. E. y. 8). It is clear that Irenssus appeals 
to seyeral authorities ; and it appears also that he quoted 
traditions as well as writings: e. g. iy. 27 (45). *Atidivi a 
quodam Presby tero,' &c. ; iy. 31 (49). ' Talia qundam cnar- 
raus do antiquis Presbyter, reficiebat nos et dicebat,' &c. 
The other forms of quotation are : vird rod icp€iTTopos yfimv 
ttpriTm (i. Pref. 2)— 4 Kptiaxrap (sic) i}/m5v ll<f>rj (i. 13, 3)— 
quidam dixit superior nobis (iii. 17, 4) — ex yeteribus quidam 
ait (iii. 23, 3)— senior Apostolorum discipulus disputabat 
(iy. 32, l)— Xcyovo-iy ol nptapvrtpoi rnp XiroordXttv itaOtjTai 
(y. 5, 1)— 1<^»7 r« t»v vpofitfiv/Kdriop (y. 17, 4) — quidam ante 
DOS dixit (iy. 41, 2) — 6 0«tos irp^apvrri^ .... €wip€fiQriKt .... 
€lw9ip (L 15, 6). The last precedes some Iambic lines against 
Marcus : cf. Grabe, L e. 


CHAP. II. 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 fVom 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, afler 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 
(Mait. xxvi. 24), the judgment of disbelievers 
(Matt. X. 15) ; and also makes use of the Epistles 
to the Bomans (as St Paulas), 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 Iren. t. 6, 1 ; Fr. vii. (Routh.) 

« Iren. ir. 27 (46) ; Fr. t. (Routh). The oblique con- 
struction of the whole paragraph proyes that Iren»ui is 
giving accurately at least the general tenor of the Elder's 
statement ; and the quotations form a necessary part of it, 
and cannot haye been added for illustration. E.g. Non 
debemus ergo, inquit ille Senior, superbi esse .... sed ipsi 
timere . . . . et ideo Paulum dizisso : Si enim ncUuralibui 
ramis, $o. (Rom. xi. 21, 17.) 

9 Iren. iy. SI (49) ; Fr. yi. (Routh). The reference to Si 


Thus each great division of the New Testa- chap. ii. 

ment is again found to be recognized in the J[J;SuIl!*iSS 

simultaneous teaching of the Church. We have each gnat <». 

vision of the 

already traced in the disciples of the Apostles JJSJ**^" 
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 Fapias as well as the 
teacher of Irenaeus. 

§ 3. The Evangelists in the reign of Trajan. 


Hitherto Christianity has been viewed in its The changi 

in our potr 

inward construction : now it will be regarded in ^*^^ 
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«»iy 


notice that Eusebius introduces the mention Sj^uud * 


Matthew (xi. 19) is remaricable from being introduced by 
^ Inquit ;' that to St John (tui. 56) is moro uncertain. 


cH^P"* of New Testament Scriptures into the striking 
description which he gives of the zeal of the 
first Christian missionaries. 'They discharged 
A.i>. 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 (o T$y wiarew^ X0709), and to de- 
liver to them the Scripture of the divine Gospels 
(tjJ^ twv OeicDv evayyeXlcov irapacicovat ypa(f>iip^)J 
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 — * meii 
inspired with godly zeal to copy the pattern of 
the Apostles ** — the written Word again appears. 

ThufPantie- PantaBuus, towards the end of the second cen- 

nufl found the 

oageuf St tury, penetrated * even to the Indians ; and there 
^d?iS?°^ it is said that he found that the Gospel according 

dUmi, e, A.D. * ^ 

'**• to Matthew had prevented his arrival, among 

some there who were acquainted with Christ, 

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 37. 

> Euseb. H. E. iii. 24 : MarBaiog .... *E$paioi9 Kqpv^ 
. . . . r6 XcifTov rjj avrov vapovfrit^ tovtois a<f> mv (orfKktrOf 6m 
rfjt ypa<l>fjs carrnXijpov, The traditions of the origin of the 
Gospels of St Mark and St Luke point to the same fact, 


to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had chap, il 
preached, and given on his departure {Kara* 
Xei^ai) 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. 7^6 Athenian Apologists. 
At the same time at which the first Evan- Thepiaoe 

and oocasion 

gelists were extending the knowledge of Chris- ^^^^ 
tianity, the first Apologists were busy in con- 
firming its authority ^ While Asia and Eome 
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 Elcusinian 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 a.i>. 
suffered himself to be initiated ; and probably 
because the Emperor was thus pledged to the 

1 EuBeb. H. E. r. 10. Cf. Heinichen, l. c, et add, Pan- 
tscnus was at the bead of the Catechetical School of Alexan- 
dria in the time of Commodus (Euseb. r. 9) ; and his journey 
to India probably preceded his appointment to that office. 

9 Eoseb. H. E. iil. 37. 


CHAP. iL 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. AD. 130. visit to the city, Quadratus, ' a disciple of the 

Apostles S^ offered to him his Apology, which is 

said to have procured the well-known rescript to 

Minucius in favour of the Christians*. 

Thechancter This Apology of Quadratus was generally 

J^°'^- 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 ^Z The single 

passage which he has preserved shows that 

^ Hieron. de Ftrr. lU. xiz. It is disputed whether the 
Apologist was identical with the Bishop of the same name, 
who is said to hare * brought the Christians of Athens agun 
together who had been scattered by persecution, and to have 
rekindled their faith' (Euseb. H. E. ir. 23). The narratlre 
of Eusebius leaves the matter in uncertainty. (Cf. iii. 37 ; 
iy. 3, with iv. 23). Jerome identifies them (1* c* > ^P* ad 
Magn. 84), and Care supports his view (Hist. Litt. i. an. 
123). Cf. Bouth, Rell, SaeraSt i. 72 sq. 

> Cf. Bouth, 1. c. The details of the history are very 
obscure. If Jerome speaks with strict accuracy when he 
Bays, * Quadratus .... Adriano principi Eltusinm sctcra tnvi- 
Benti librum pro nostra religione tradldit,' the Apology must 
be placed at the time of Hadrian's first risit ; otherwise it 
seems more likely that it should be referred to the second. 
Pearson (ap. Bouth, p. 78) fixes the date on the authority of 
Eusebius (?) at 127. The rescript to Minucius is found in 
Just. Mart. Ap. L ad f . 

* H. E. It. 3 : ^{ o^ lovyypdfifun'oi] kotiMv ^orl Xa/inpii 
TfKfi^pta rrjs re rot) dvbp6t diawolaf icai r^s dtroirroKiK^s dpBo^ 


Quadratus insisted rightly on the historic worth chap, n. 
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 om* times ^* 

A second * Apology for the Faith,'—* a ra- The Apoiogy 
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: Tov M 
2«r7poff rjfi&v rh, Hpya it\ napijv' dkrjBrj yiip ^v' ol $€pantvm 
$€rr€t' ol apaararrtf cV mKp&v' o\ ovk w<f>3rj<ray /aSpop Btpa* 
frrv6fX€POi koI apiarafjL€voit dXXa Koi dfl napovrif' oit^ riridi^ 
fjLOvvTos yu6vo¥ TOV Icmjpos^ oKkh mi dvaKXayivrot ^trav inl 
Xp^pov iKap6pf »(rrt naX th roiff j^fitrtpovg xP^'^^*^' TiP€£ avr&p 
d<l>UopTo (Euseb. H. E. ir. 3). The repetition of 6 2<»ri)p 
absolutely is remarkable ; in the New Testament, and in the 
Apostolic Fathers, it occurs only as a title. The usage of 
Quadratus clearly belonp to a later date. It appears again 
in the Letter to Diognetus (c. 9), and rery frequently in the 
fragment on the Resurrection appended to Justin's works 
(co. 2, 4, 6, 7, &c.) 

s Hieron. de Virr, III. xx. Yolumen nostri dogmatis 
rationem continens. Fragm, Martyrolf ap. Bouth, p. 76. 


CHAP. iL as Btill 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 K Aris* 
tides, in fact, like Justin, was a philosopher ; and 
did not lay aside his former dress when he be- 
came a Christian ^ 
BouiwuneK Nothinfif, it will be seen, can be drawn di« 
lie doctrine. Yectij from thcsc 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, rir 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. L c. apud philologos ingenii ejus indicium est; 
ad Magn. Ep. 84 (Routh, p. 76). Apologeticum pro Chris- 
tianis obtulit contcztum philosophorum sententiis, quem 
imitatus postea Justinus, et ipse philosophus. 

s Hieron. 1. c. Domer (i. 180) says the same of Quad- 
ratus, but I cannot tell on what authority. Probably the 
names were interchanged. 

> Tet Grabe's conjecture with regard to the rule attri- 
buted to Quadratus in a Martyrology ' ut nulla csca a Christ 
tianis ropudiaretur, quae rationalis et humana est,' seems rery 
plausible. Routh, p. 79. 


prophecy* ; and yet he appealed with marked chap, n. 
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 

§ 5. The Letter to Dtognetus. 

In addition to the meagre fragments just The letter to 
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 Not written 

by JmUOf 

^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 37; r. 17. ^^ 

> Hieron. ad Magn. 1. c. : fide rir sapicntiaque admira- 
bilifl. Another Tery remarkable testimoDy to the character 
of his teaching is found in the Martyrolog, Ram, (ap. Routb, 
p. 80). Quod Christus Jesus solus esset Deus prsesente ipso 
Imperatore luculentissime peroraTit. 

3 Like the Epistles of Clement it is at present found 
only in one ancient MS. Cf. Otto, Just, Mart, ii., proleg* 
xiT. zz. sqq. Stephens may hare had access to another. 


06 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 
a 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 

purely Greek, that it procccded from Marcion^ It may be 
the work of Quadratus' or Aristides ; but it is 

1 The evidenco 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, inTol?ed» and 
careless ; while that of the Letter to Diognetus is simple^ 
"rigorous, and classical. (3) Justin regards idolatry, Judaism, 
even Christianity itself, ' from a different point of riew. 
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. c. Tr. zLiii.)* 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. 
il. 13), so that they were not, ercn in appearance, lenft 
uncared for by God before Christ came (ad Diogn. c. 8). 
The second ground is in itself decisiye ; the doctrinal dif- 
ferences can be more or less smoothed down by the com- 
parison of other passages of Justin: e.g, Ap. i. 9; Dial. o« 
Tr. 46 f. 

s Lumper (ap. Mohler, 165) and Gallandi (ap. Hefele^ 
Lzriz.) suggest Apollos. Bunsen (Hipp. i. 187) 'belioTOS 
that he has proved (in an unpublished work) that [the first 
part] is the lost early letter of Marcion.' 

< Cf. Domeri L 178 anm. 


anougli that we can regard it as the natural out- chap, n. 
pouring of a Greek heart holding converse with 
m Greek mind in the language of old philoso- 

The question of the authorship of the Letter The Letter 

^ contUtsof 

thus left in uncertainty, that of its in-*''°i*^ 
tegrity still remains. As it stands at present it 
consists of two parts (cc. i. — 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 nieirdunc- 
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 
fiuth: 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 
imited with 'the faith of the Gospels and the 

^ Of. Otto, ii. p. 201, D. The words arc : ko) »dt ryKoir^p 
ff7x* t6 arriypaffiov, 



CHAP. II. tradition of the Apostles' as contributing to the 

wealth of the Church ^ 
Th«(Uteor Indications of the date of the writings are 

theLettcrto ^ 

DiogiMcui. jj^^ 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 conTey by words any notion 
of the Tariations in tono, and language, and maimer, which 
are instinctlTely felt in comparing two cognate, bat separate 
books ; and yot the distinction between the two parts of the 
'Letter to Diognetus' seems to me to be shown clearly by 
those subtle, but most real differences. In addition to this 
the argument is completed at the end of c. x. according to 
the plan laid down in c. i. ; and the close of c. zi. seems to 
imply a different motire 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. zi.: tjp x^*" f4 ^vw&p ivtyvmrn, 
C. zii.: ^fl» troi Kopdia yySxris,) 

There may hare been a formal conclusion afler c. z., 
but oren now the termination is not more abrupt than that 
to Justin's first Apology, and it expresses the same motiTe-^ 
a regard to future judgment (c. z. f. ; Just. Ap. i. 68.) 
In c. vii. there is a lacuna. Of. n. (2.) 

^ C. 'vii.: [ovx op^s] irapapdk\ofi€vovs3rjpiois ... It IS impOS- 

sible to read the words without thinking of the martyrdom 
of Ignatius, which may, indeed, have suggested them. 

Just before napaPaK\ofX€vovs there is a lacuna ; ovx ^p^f is 
introduced from the next sentence. The MS. has the note: 
ovTuts Koi cV r^ avTiypa<\><f (vpov ryKOTnjp, iroXaionirov ovroff 
(Otto, ii. p. 184, n.) It is quite unnecessary to alter the 
last words as Otto wishes. Cf. Jelf, Or. Gr. } 710 c. 



Presence (wapovaia) still lingered in the Church \ chap, n. 
The first condition can hardly be satisfied before 
the reign of Trajan ; and the second forbids us to t'* ii7 a.d. 
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 f the Saviour has been only ^now' set forth ^ 
The concluding fragment is more recent, but 
stilly I believe, not later than the first half of the 
second century. The greater maturity of style, Thedateof 
and the definite reference to St Paul, can bejjj^ 
explained by the well-known activity of religious 
thought, and the early advancement of Chris- 
tian literature at Alexandria ^ And everything 
else in the writing betokens an early date. The 

^ C. Tii.: ravra r^r vapowrlas airrov diiyfutra. The word 
does not occur in this sense in the Apostolic Fathers. Justin 
speaks of the second vapovvia without alluding to its ap- 
proach : Dial. c. Tr. cc. zzxi., xzxii. 

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

3 c. zii.: 6 dircWoXor. The antagonism between the Ser- 
pent (ijdom^) and Eve (aiaBrjats) was commented on by Philo, 
Leg. AUeg. ii. §§ 18 sqq. Tfjv 6<f>iofjMxop oZv yvta^irjp din'iT(rrr€ 
Koi JcaXXicrroir dyS>va tovtov StaBXriirov .... Ktna rfjs tovs Skkovs 

atrarras vucwnfs ijbov^s (§ 26.) Cf. Just. M. Dial c. 100 

and Otto, I c. 



CHAP. XL author speaks of himself as *a disciple of Apo- 
stles and a teacher of Gentiles^' The Church, 
as he describes it, was still in its first staged 
The sense of personal intercourse with the Word 
was fresh and deep. Eevelation was not then 
wholly a thing of the Past^ 
Both parti In one respect the two parts of the book are 

ihlS^^i^e united, so far as they exhibit a combination of 

of St Paul 

and St John, 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 (Tr/ooa- 
yairriaavTa)* 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 c. xi. init. 

' C. xii. f.: ... (Tflonfpiov litiKwrai kcX cMotoKoi awtrlCoW' 
raif Ka\ t6 icvpiov naa^a vpotpxtraif xal jcXi^pol avvayovTcu^ kuX 
yutrh. K6<rftov apfi6(ovTaif Koi didacxooy aylovs 6 A&yos fiKJypalvmip 
di ot narrjp do^^croi. I hare adopted the admirable emen- 
dation KKrjpoi (1 Pet. T. 3) for icrjpoi, printed by Bunsen 
(Hipp. i. p. 192), though in p. 188 he seems to read xaipoL 
It does not appear on what authority Otto says * Designantor 
eerei, quibus Christiani potissimum tempore paschali uteban- 
tur ;' if it were so, Krjpoi frwayovrai. would still be a manrellouB 
expression. Cf. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. ii. 461 sq. The 
phrase napaioatt dirooT^kav <l>v\a(ra'€Tai is of no weight 
against this opinion. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 16 ; iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 2. 

' The phrase already quoted, (note (2)) *tho Lord's 
passover adranccs/ seems to point to the early Paschal con- 
troversy. If a special date must be fixed, I should be inclinod 
to suggest some time between 140—160. 


mlgected all things that are in the earth, ••« unto ohap. ii. 
whom (v|m)'He sent His only-begotten Son, to 
uliom He promised the kingdom in heaven {rrjv 
iw oipcu^ (ictaiXeiay), and will give it to those who 
lore H]m^' 6od*s will is mercy : ' He sent His 
Son as wishing to save {w awl^wy) ...sxid not 
to condenm ;' 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 edifiethV 

The presence of the teaching of St John is Sj^^**** 
here placed beyond all doubt. There are, how- ^S^iSm 
ever, no direct references to the Gospels through- !>»«*«»• 
out the Letter, nor, indeed, any allusions to our 

^ c. X. Cf. 1 John iT. 19, 11 ; Eph. r. 1; John iiL 16; 
[James i. 12.] I cannot call to mind a parallel to the phrase 
ij iw ovpav^ PatriXtieu 

« CO. xi., xii. Cf. John i. 1, 18 ; 1 Cor. viu. 1. The 
phrase vappriiri^ XoXc ly is peculiar to St John among the New 
Testament writers with the exception of Mark rill. 82. *E$ 
dyamis T»y aircMcaXv^^<yra>y is a very note- worthy expression. 


CHAP. If, Lord's discourses ; and with regard to the Syn- 
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 ^ 
other refcf. The influencc of the other parts of the New 

Mtli^ Testament on the Letter is clearer. In the 6r8t 

letter to Dl- 

ofoetus; and part thc prescncc 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 Eomans, 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 

I Compare Matt. ti. 25-31 ; xix. 17, with co. ix., viii. ; 
and also Matt. r. 44 ; xix. 26, with cc. ti., iz. 

> The following phrases may he noticed: awM^ofuU 
Ttwa Tivos — r6 advvarov rijs TJfi€T€pas (^i;<rfo»c — ri r^t Btwrt" 
P^ias fivaniptov — olKovoftlap iriorevro'^ai — rf^wnyy ml dk;fuovp* 
y6s (Hebr.) — fiifujrrjs GeoC — Kara irapKa (jjp — koup^ SwOprnwot, 

Among the Pauline words are : napt^pwtuf (1 Cor. ix. 13) 
^-^tofrifitui — druridai/iovia — x^PTy^^v — OTwy^eta— irpoo'dfrf- 
furos^-'irapMTovpxu — iroKirtvofmi — d<l>6apiria — cVcXoyif^ ifuiko- 
yovfi€Pmf—^vn6<rraa'i9 (Hebr.) 

The peculiarities in the language of the Letter may be 
judged from these examples : vntpaTrovia(€iv — irpo«irff;^f o^-^ 
i(ofioiova-$ai — iyKaTaaTrfpl(€Uf — dir(piv6fjTot — iroiroierifrn^r ; 
ytpaip€tv — ^ro<^odci;r — funjaucaiulv, 

< Compare c. iz. with Rom. iii. 21-26, and Gal. ir. 4; 


the second 'fragment there is, in addition to the 
references to St John, to the Gospels generally, J^JJJ^SJ"* 
and to the Epistle to the Corinthians already 
mentioned, an apparent reminiscence of a passage 
in the First Epistle to Timothy ^ 

The conclusion of the Letter has, however, The'onortio* 

' ' element !••* 

a farther importance as marking the presence of nle^SJ^ 
a new element in the development of Christian 
philosophy. Knowledge {yvHaiis) 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 truths The 
groundwork of this teaching lies in the relation 
of the Word to man. The Licamation of the 

and c. T. with 2 Cor. tI. 9, 10. The folio wmg refcreDces 
also are worthy of remark: Acts ztIi. 24, 25 — c. iii.: 
Eph. iv, 21-24 — c. ii. ; Phil. iii. 18 sqq. — c. r. : 1 Tim. iii. 
16 — c. iv.: Tit. iii. 4 — c. ix.: 1 Pet. iii. 18 — c. ix. 
^ Cf . 1 Tim. ilL 16 with c. xi. * o. xii. 


cHAP.iL Eternal Word is connected intimately with 

Birth flrom time to time in the heart of the 
believer ^ Hie 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 ^ 
Howcof 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 OZro£ 6 cm apx^ft 6 Kawhs (fxafiis Koi [nakmbf] fvpc^cW 
itaX iravTOTt vfos iv ayiov Kapiicus y€vviofji€Pos (c. xi.) 

' C. xi.: ... cfTiyyo^ai; a A6yo£ 6/icXfi di' »y /SovXcnu St€ 

3 c. xii.: didaiTKav ayiovs 6 A&yos €\/<f>paawrai. 

It 18 to be remarked that the Word appears in both 

parts of the Letter rather as the correlatiTO to Reason 

in man, (^o»4 dc \6yoi dXi^^iJr, c. xii. — 6 Otbs .... rfjp iXrf&€ittw 

Koi rhv A6yov t6v ayiov koL antpiv6rjTov avBptonoit ivibpwn .... 

c. Tii.), than as the expression of the creative Will of God. 
Of. Domer, i. p. 411. 

^ 'O yhp vofiiCav cIdcW ri avtv yvwr€»i akriBovi leai futprv 
povfJLftnjs vir6 rrjs C^fjs, ovk tyva .... c xii. 

* EvoyyfXiW iria-ris idpvrai .... c. xi. 



5 6. The Jewish Apologists. 

The conclusion of the Letter to Diognetus mS^SS^^ 
offers a natural transition to the few relics of theju<ura. 


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 
a 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- jh. DWogue 
piscus,' has been preserved*. It appears to have p»fSwm. 
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 GenesiB is ftllegorized. In later writers such 
interpretations became generally current The contrast 
which the fragment offers to the Epistle of Barnabas is rery 
instructire, as showing the opposite extremes dedudble from 
the same principles. 

s Routh, i. 95—109. 

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


CHAP- u, thought that it was fitter for pity than for ridi- 
cule ; but Origen speaks highly of its dramatic 
skills 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 ^e Church to which he belonged*. 
The general plan of the writer, however, is 
exactly characterbtic of the position which a 
teacher at Pella may be supposed to have occu« 

It! character, picd. It was his objcct to represent a Hebrew 
ChrUtian convincing an Alexandrine Jew 'from 

to the translation is appended to many editions of CypriaiL 
Of. Boutb, p. 109. 

1 Orig. 0. Gels, vr, 52.: nafriVjcov rivht koL *latmnt^ ain- 
Xoyuor tyv^v (in the words of Celsus) ov yikwrot dXX^ ftaXXoir 
Acovff Koi fdawj9 a$ia». The book, as Origen allows, was 
more adapted in some parts for the simpler sort of men 
than for the edacated : dxn^fitvov fUw n irp6t rovt iroXXo^ 
Kol air\ov<rr€povs frtWcox x^P^ ovfiffaKtaBcUf ov iirjp oUv re 
ml avprrwT€povg Kttnjaai (1. 0.). Afterwards he adds : jcairocyc 
oIk. ay€vy€99 ovd* dir/xirttf rf 'lovdoik^ wpoawr^ rov Mpov 
larafUvov irpbs t6v \6yov, 

s Origen and Jerome quote the Dialogue without men- 
tioning the author's name; and it is not giren in the Pre- 
face of OelsuB. The fragment quoted from Aristo by Euse- 
bius (H. E. iir. 6) appears to belong to an entirely different 
work. Maximus (7th cent.) is the earliest writer who attri« 
butes the Dialogue to Aristo, adding: tjv [duxXc^cy] KXi^fuyf 

Aovjcoy <f>ri(ry dvaypaylrai. This tradition is probably due to 
the identification of Jason with the Jason mentioned in the 
Acts (zTii. 5). 

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


the Old Testament Scriptures, (ex tZv *IouSaiK£v chap.ii. 
ypa(pwif), 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 6od» the Creator of the World'. 
The words, though few, are key-words of Christie 
vanity, 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 tim writiii«i 



* Pref. Cels. ap. Roath, p. 97 : Orig. 1. c. 

« Orig. 1. 0. : — Cols. Pref. L c. : — Hieron. QitcBst. Hdir. 
ii. 507 (ap. Boutb, p. 95). In the last instance he reads 
Gen. i. 1, In Alio fecit Deos coDlum et terram. Of. Bouth, 
p. 100. 

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

It may be concluded from Origen's notice 0* O') that the 
doctrine of the Resurrection of the body suggested some of 
Celsus' objections, probably in connexion with the Second 
Adyent. The reference to 'a strange and memorable 
narrative ' contained in one of the Christian books probably 
refers to the dialogue (compare c. 53, p. 200, itdt, with c. 52, 


cHAP.u. Apology. Hitherto we have noticed in succea- 
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 descents Eusebius speaks of him as a 
contemporary of Saturninus and Basilides, and 
adds, that he was the most famous among th«* 
many writers of the time ' who defended the 
doctrine of the Apostles and the Church chiefly 
on philosophic principles {XoyiKwrepovy.* In par- 
ticular, he composed 'a most satisfactory (cicai/ai- 
Taroi) refutation of Basilides,^ in which he noticed 
his commentaries on the Gospel, and exposed 
the claims of certain supposititious {dvvirapKToi) 
prophets, whom he had used to support his doc- 

■howtigntof trines. This slight iact shows that historic 

historical eri- ^ 

'*®*^ 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 

1 Yir Talde doctiu. Hieron. de Vir, III, xxi. His Jewish 
descent appears to follow from the fact that he charged 
Basilides with teaching * indifference in eating meats offered 
to idols' (Eoseh. H. E. ir. 7); yet see Just. M. Dial. o. 35. 
His controTorsy with Basilides probably indicates some con- 
nexion with Alexandria. 

3 Euseb. L c. 



^ 7. Justin Martyr. 
The writings and character of Justin Martyr Thecomm. 

*^ rative ftilneM 

stand out in clear relief from the fragments and j!dSSof°°^ 
names which we have hitherto reviewed. In- 
stead of interpreting isolated phrases we can 
now examine complete and continuous works : 
jDstead 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 Soman 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. L 1. 

^ Ap. i. 26: 2;(cdov irovrrr fi€v Zafuipciff, ^lyoi hi jcul 
ip aXXoiff tBpftrtp, dg t6p irparop B^hv €k*1vov (Simon) 6noKo* 
yovm-ts [€K€i¥ov] Koi irpoaKVPovai, Cf. Dial. c. 120. It is an 
instructivo fact that SadducsBism also prerailed in Samaria. 
[Ilipp.] Adv, Hcer, ix. 29. 

110 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. First he applied to a Stoic ^; but after some 
HiaownM. time he found that he learned nothins: of God 

count of lilt ^ 

SSSidSST^*^ 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 t%i. 
them both. So Justin thought that he was no 
philosopher at all ; and still yearning for know- 
ledge (t^ "^^x^ ^^* airapytoarif) 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 translaUon 
from his own striking narratire. Dial. cc. iL sqq. 


from Plato to the Prophets, from metaphysics chap.h. 

to faith. * Pray before all things/ were the last 
words of this new master, Hhat 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 

" V ' thetruepW- 

^ustin adds, 'and I was possessed with a love for io«>phy- 
*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. 
{aa(l>a\rj t€ xai (Tv/xf^opov). Thus then, and for 
this cause, am I a philosopher.' 

In the strength of his new conviction he tra- Th«wjdeex- 

^ tent of Ju»« 

veiled far and wide to spread the truth which he ^••"•««- 
had found. In the public walk {xysttu) at 
Ephesus he held a discussion with the Jew 
Trypho, proving from the Old Testament that 
Jesus was the Christ. At Eome he is said to 
have established a school where he endeavoured 
to satisfy the doubts of Greeks. Everywhere he 

1 Dial. c. Tu. f. 

< This phrase, in connexion with the phrase immediately 
below, PovKoifuiv ay . . . iravrar . • . fi^ d<f>iaTaa6ai t&p tov Zoftr^- 
poff \6ymv, seems to point to Christian Scriptures co-ordi- 
nate with the Old Testament. The nature of the first inter- 
Tiew with Trypho precluded any more immediate mention 
of them at the time. 


CHAP. 11. appeared * as an ambassador of the Divine Word 

in the guise of a philosopher ^^ 
Hhnume. His activitv 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 b^ 
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. 
'^^•IJ^Su*®" The evidence of Justin is thus invested with 
hufb^uto peculiar importance; and the difficulties by 


TMmiire, 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. K the Cohortatio 
ad Gentiles be Justin's, we must add Alexandria to the cities 
which he Tisited (c. ziii). Compare Semisch, DenkwUrd, 
Just. 88. 2 ff. 

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

s Euseb. H. E. iv. 18. 

s 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 
Gospol-references are chiefly confined to the former. 



render our inquiry into its extent and character ohap. ii. 
easier and more intelligpible, 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 miu. 


be explained and harmonized. At first the dif- v^o^'^^^ 
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 SemiBch, DenkwUrdigkdten Justins (Ham- 
burg, 1848); Credner, Beitrdge, i. 92—267 (Halle, 1832); 
Schwegler, Naehapoitolische ZeiuUUr, 1. 217—231. 



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 opmion 
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 emn- In ouc rcspcct all thesc theories are alike. 

mon ground 

rotaJcL**" They presuppose that Justine's quotations cannot 
be naturally reconciled with a belief in his use 
of our Gospels^. This is their common basis ; 

1 These yarious hypotheses are examined clearly and 
satisfactorily by Semisch, ss. 16 — 33. 

s BeitrSge, i. 266, &c. 

> 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 


and instted of examining in detail the various chap.ii. 
schemes which have been built upon it, we may 
inquire whether it be itself sound. 

The first thing that must strike any one who i.Thece< 

" nenl coinci' 

examines a complete collection of the passages to?f^SSi^ 

• . . • . 1 • • • •. • tioM with 

m question, is the general coincidence m range owjo«j<f»«: 
and contents with our Gospels. Nothing, forS!^*" 
instance, furnished wider scope for Apocryphal 
narratives than the hbtory 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)Hita<s 

count of th« 

bonsiden more doubtfuL Credner's words are well worthy 
of notice : ' Justin kannte in der That, wie es auch kaum 
anders denkbar ist, unsere Eyangelien .... Nur allein fiber 
die Bekanntschaft Justin's mit dem Et. des Johannes Uisst 
ftich, ausser der aUgemeinem Analogie, nichts Bestimmtes 
nachweben' (Beitrfige, i. 25S). It was, however, unlikely 
that his conclusions should be allowed to remain so incom* 
plete. Schwegler, for instance, says (i. 232) : * ... so hat er 
(Justin) ohne Zweifel die cva/ycXia Kcerit. MarBaiow, MapKW, 
u. 8. f., bei donen es Qberdiess eine Frage ist, ob sie damals 
Bchon existirten, nicht gekannt, sondem ausschliesslich das 
Bogenannte Erangelium Petri .... oder das mit dcmselben 
identische Hebrfler-eTangelium benQtzt. . . .' 



cHAP.n. Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, 
and David ^ — that the Angel Grabriel was sent to 
announce His Birth to the Virgin Mary 'i— that 
this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 
(vii. 14)3 — ii^Q^i 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 bom, and laid by Mary in a 
manger^ — ^that while there wise men from Arabiai 

^ Dial. 0. Tr. cc. 100, 120 : t( »p jcaroyci 4 Mapia rh yfW. 
Gf. 0. 43. This interpretation of the genealogies was pro- 
bably adopted early. 

2 Dial. 0. 100. Luke i. 35, 3S. 

s Apol. i. 33. Matt. i. 22. 

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

<( Apol. i. 34 ; Dial, c 78. Matt. ii. 5, 6. The quotation 
(Mic. T. 2) In Justin agrees rerbally with that in St Matthew, 
and differs very widely from the LXX., with the exception 
that Justin omits t6v *l(rpaTJX, Cf. Credner, BeUr, ii. 148 L 

Apol. i. 34 : tir\ Kvpriviov rov vfitT€pov cy *Iovdat^ ir/MMnoy 
ytvofiipov tmTp6irov. Dial. o. 78. Cf. Credner, BeUr, i. 232 f. 

7 Dial. c. 78 : . . . 'En-cid^ '100:7^ ovjc cfxcv fv t^ 1M0/9 
ciccii^ ir€v jcaroXvcrai, cy dc (rirrjXal^ rivi avptyyvt T^g 
KtifiTit JcarcXvcre' ical rSrt avr&p Srrwif ^Kti irtrSKti ij Mapla 
rhvXpiarhv icai iv <[>aTP^ avr^v crc^c/jcci. . . Luke iL 6..« 
dyffcXipfv aMp iv ^on^ (sic) duSri ovk ^p avrols rSn^s ip r^ 
KoraKvfjum, The two accounts seem to be simply supple- 
mentary. Later Fathers (e.g. Orig. 0. Cels* i 61) speak 


gtdded by a star, worshipped Him, and offered chap, n. 
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 Him^ — 
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 Care without any nusgiring that they contradict St 
Liike. Thilo has collected the aathorities on the question : 
Cod. Apocr. i. 381 sqq. 

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

s Ap. i 33. Matt 1. 21. 

s Dial, cc 78, 103. Matt. ii. 19—23. 

* DiaL c. 78. Matt itL 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 (an\»s) to be put to 
death.' Of. c. 103. So, again, it is not insignificant that he ap- 
peals to the prophecy (Jerem. xxxi. 16) in a different manner* 
St Matthew says simply, nSre inkripiiBrf r6 priBw' but Justin 
more definitely, tovto ^f>o<ffriT€V€To ftcXXrtv ylvta^ai. He 
transforms a typical erent 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. 


CHAP. II. tist^ He tells us, moreover, that this John the son 
^S*if tht ^^ Elizabeth, came preaching by the Jordan the 
jlh!uhe^ 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 voice of one crying; 
for He that is mightier than I will soon come 
(fjf^ec), 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 
a 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. 8S. Luke ii. 40 ; Hi. 23. The explanation of 
the oicrcl of St Luke is to be noticed. 

' DiaL c. 88, (cf. c. 49); Matt. iii. 1, 4; Luke L 13; 
John i. 19 sqq. The phrase 'looyyov KaOtCofuwov in\ rov 
'lopdayov, repeated by Justin (Dial. 88. 51) is changed into 
Ka3(Cofi4pov cirl t6v *lopboanjif in c,49. There can be no reason 
to think with Oredner (p. 218) that Justin found the words 
in his Gospel. 

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

* Dial. cc. 103, 125. The order of the Temptations 
followed by Justin is therefore apparently that of St Matthew. 
Bemisch, s. 99 arun. 


Himself recogoized John as the Elias who should chap. ii. 
precede Him, * to whom men had done whatso- 
erer they listed ;' and thus he relates how Herod 
pat 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 gpiven her on a charger, and that so John was 
put to death K 

Henceforth, after speaking in general terms (y) hu ae- 

^ r- o o count of the 

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. zrii. 11—13. 

3 Ap. i. c. 48 ; Dial. o. 69. Matt. ir. 23. 

* Ap. 2. 36 ; Dial. c. 53. The Tereion of the prophecy 
ia different in the two passages. The first part, howerer, in 
both agrees with the LXX. and differs from St Matthew; 
the hist wcMrds, on the contrary, agree better with 8t Matthew 
than with the LXX. Cf. Semisch, ss. 117—119. 

4 Dial. c. 17. « Dial. c. 104. 

• Ap. i. 66. Cf. Dial. 41 ; 70. 
7 Dial. c. 106. 


CHAP. 11. His disciples were present ^ the prayer', the 
bloody sweaty the arrest\ the flight of the 
ApostIes^ 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 Besurrection on Sun- 
day ^^ 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'^. 

omenx The samc particularity, the same intertexture 

character of 

dlJSS'"*^* 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 

I Dial. c. 99. s ibid. 

s Dial c. 103. Cf. Ap. 50 ; Dial. 53. « Ibid. 

» Ibid. • Dial. c. 102. t Dial. c. 103. Luke xrlil. 7. 

« Dial. c. 97. Cf. Ap. i. 85. 

9 Ap. i. 38; Dial. 101. lo Dial. o. 99. 

II Dial. 0. 105. Luke zxiii. 46. » Dial c. 97* 
" Ap. i. 67. " Dial. cc. 53, 106. Ap. i. 50. 
ifi Dial. 108. Matt, xxriii. 13. Bee ii. (2), (y), below. 
l« Ap. i. 61. 17 Dial 132. Ap. i. 46. 


broad resemblance remains unchangied. The chap.ii. 
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, s: coind- 

deoce In the 

however, to the teaching of the Saviour, and not JJJJS^; °' 
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 Howfltfju*. 
he could bring men to listen to the teaching of ,^2^^ 
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 o«p«*- 
their proposed end, has furnished an objection 

122 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS^ 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 
Gosper — ^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 

johiiT. 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. 

coinddeneM It has bccu already shown that the incidents 

in ungusss* 

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 


interweaves the words which we find at present chap. il 
separately given by St Matthew, St Mark, and 
St 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 foreigii 

And more than this: with the omission ofcotacM««« 

■amepsBBage differ. Compare Ap. i. 15, Dial, c 96; Ap. L 1^ 
Dial. c. 101 ; Ap. i. 16, Ap. i. 62 ; Ap. i. 16, Dial. 76. 

1 (a) Matthew and Luke : Dial. c. 17 ; c. 51 ; c. 76 ; 
Ap. i. 19 ; 
(/3) Matthew and Mark : Ap. i. 15. 
s E. g. Ap. i. 15, 43 ; DiaL cc 49 ; 77, 78, &c. 
* (a) Words characteristic of St Matthew : e, g, fiatrCktla 
r&w olpeamw — fMakaiUa — [ha n\fjp»$j r6 prfiiw^ do 
Resnrr. o. ir.]^— ^ fron^p 6 cy rots tAffKOfdit 
^/5/w^— /3p€xtir— oKiTcXXfiv (act.) 
03) Words characteristic of St Luke: e.g. x4p< 

tlayytKlCtaBai — vlht v^iorov. 
(y) Words characteristic of St John : e, g. rtVya Btw 
— frpoaicvyovftitp A<$y^ koX aktjBtl^ T4/i«Frf £— rA 

^ The differences of language which I hare noticed are 
the following: kcup6v woUirt (Ap. i. 15, hia)—^^pfUKra irpo- 
Parmw (Ap. i. 16 ; Dial. c. 35. Cf. Hebr. zi. 37) — o-icoXo- 
mvdpnp (Dial. c. 76) — ^cvdoircfcrroXoi (Dial. c. 36)— di«uo- 
awrjw Koi twri^unf vkrjpowr^ai (DiaL C. 93) — 7 icXcir (Dial, 
c* 17)— a/Ml (freq.) Credner (p. 260) quotes M, r^ oi^/iori 
o^rov as a peculiarity, but surely without reason. Cf. 
Matt, zriii. 5 ; zxir. 5. Mark ix. 39. Luke ix. 48, 49 ; xxL 8. 


cHAP.n. the Parables S which are rather lessons of wia^ 
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 West^y 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^*, on the goodness of God only ^^ on the 
tribute due to Caesar ^^^ on the two command- 

I Tbe only referencds to the Parables are, I believe, to 
that of the Sower, and of the Talents (Dial. c. 126). 

^ Dial. c. 47 : At^ koI 6 riiUrtpoi icCpiog *lrf<rov£ Xptar^t 
€iirtp' *Ey oU &y vfiav KaTctKafin, cV rovrois Koi Kpipti (jcpivti^ 
Credner). Dial c. 36. See below, ii. (2), (y). 

s Dial. c. 61. Matt. iv. 17. 

* Ap. i. 16, 16. Dial. cc. 96, 106, 116, 133. 

» Dial. c. 76. « Ap. i. 16. 7 Ap. i. 19, 

8 Dial. c. 82. Matt. z. 22. 

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

10 Dial c. 61. Matt. zi. 12—16. 

II Ap. L 63 ; Dial. c. 100. Matt. zi. 27. 

" Dial. c. 107. W DiaL cc. 76, 100. 

1* Dial, a 76. " Ap. i. 16. 

18 Ap. i. 16. Matt. ziz. 12. DiaL c. 81. Luke zz* 36, 36. 

" Ap. i. 16; DiaL c. 101. " Ap. L 17. 


menfs^y the woes against the Scribes and Fhari- chap. n. 

sees^ the prophecy of false teachers^, the de- 
nouncement of the future punishment of the 
wickedS 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 'ii. Jusua'i 
quotations from the Gospel-history in the early ^u^in 
Fathers are almost uniformly anonymous. The c^^* 
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 foimd 

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

« Dial. cc. 17, 112, 122. 

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

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

* Ap. 1. 61. Dial. c. 53. 

' Vksra/unjftoptvfjLara tw !\iro<rn$X»F, Gf. p. 127, noto 2. 

oftbe Apo- 



cHAP.n. ^tten 'aU things concerning Jesus Christ.* 
TheiMtureof The pcculiar objects which he had m view in his 
^l!^&^ extant writings did not suggest, even if they 
thcJem^^ 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. On^ 
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 
g^eat 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*. 
Thediflfeient The manner in which Justin alludes to these 
'•wchjMj^ Memoirs of the Apostles in his first Apology, 

In hU Apo- 

fail DUiogue. The word was probably borrowed from Xenophon's well- 
known book. In yariouB forms it appears frequently in 
ecclesiastical Qreek. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 (p. 81, note 1); 
v. S-j >i. 25. 

* Ap. i. 67. 

* Dial. c. 103. See p. 131, note 3. 


and in his Dialogue with Trypho, confirms what chap.ii. 

has been just said. If his mode of reference 
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 V 

This difference is still more striking if ex- Thequots- 

^ Uoot in the 

amined closely. Every quotation of our Lord's -^p^^^w- 
words in the Apology is simply introduced by the 

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

* It wiU be useful to give a clasBification of aU the pas* 
Bages in which Justin quotes the ' Memoirs/ wiUi the forms 
of quotation. The following will suffice : 

(a) Generally: r^ airofivfjfioytvfiaTa tvp d9ro<rr<{. 
X<»y. Dial. c. 100, yrypafifjjpop €P r, airofiv, r. air.; cc. 101, 
103, 104, 106, cV r. dfrofu^. r. air, yfypcnnxu ; c. 102, ^y r. 
anofiy. r. air. dcdi7Xo»rai : o. 106, cV r. dnofu^, r. oir. di/Xovrot : 
C. 88, t^ptnjrav ol dir6aTo\ou 

(fi) Specially : Dial. c. 106 : yrypaifiOat, cV rotr ano/unffuf 
rtvfiairtp avrov (i.e. UtTpov); c. 103 [dvofiprfnoyiC/iara] i 
tf^Tjfu vjrd Ttiy dnoarSKc^y avrov jcal rvv ^Ktiyott irapaKoKavBri<rdp^ 
T»v avrrtrdxBak* 

(y) radiroiiptifiovtvfiaral Dial. c. 105, dird r. oirofir. 
tfidBofifp : c. 105, cV r. dnofAv, tfuiBov : cc. 105, 106, 107, dp 
diro/iy. y€ypairTM, 


cBAP. u. phrases, ' thus Christ said,^ or * taught,* or ' ex- 
horted ;' His words were their Svm witness. For 
the public eimits of His Life Justiq refers to the 
Enrolment of Quirinus and the Acts of Pihite^ 
He quotes the 'Gospels^ onlj 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 

^ Ap. i. 84 : tit Koi fui$f 19 Kvtur^ cV rwy oroyfXM^i^ tmf 
yf H»M«»^i» cVl KvpijwW. Cap. 35 : ical ravra Srt yryowt dvKiir^ 
^u^iy f ic rwy «Vl novriov HiXdrov yfvoficywr aim»y. Whether 
Jiwtlii rtiforml to tho apocryphal « Acts of Pilate,' which 
wo now JmYo, or not, is of no importance : it is only neoes- 
■ary to roniark tlio kiwi of oYidonco which he thought beet 
suIUmI to liU dosign. 


prophetic Spirit said that this would come to chap.ii. 
paaaK* 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 Thequou- 

tiona in the 

in the Apology. In the Dialogue the case ^»**'w"«- 
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- 

^ Ap. i. 33: ttff ol carofunjiJkOP€va'a»T€t irdyra rk wfpi rot) 
awrfipot iffMor 'lijo-ov Xpurrov i^lia^ay. Credner (p. 129) 
raises a 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 <dl ihing$ (irtpX waprtap) 
that Jesus began to do and to teach' (Acts i. 1). The co- 
incidence is at least yery worthy of notice. It remores the 
difficulty, even if it do not also point to the yery source of 
Justin's language. 

s Ap. i. 66. The conjecture that a KaXtlrai ruayycXia 
is a gloss is yery unfortunate. It could not bo 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. 

• Ap. i. 67. 

^ Dial. c. 10 : ra h rf \tyofUpf ivayyMXlf, 



CHAP. iL ledgment of a written record ; but from time td 
time, when reference is made to words of more 
special moment, so to speak, it b added that 

coincuteneei tiiey gj^ gQ < 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 dearly. 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 

stiiATHnw, 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 

stifAEK, were sons of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges^ 
tended to signify that He was the same through 
whom the surname Israel was given to Jacobs 
and Joshua to Oshea'.' Now the surname given 

1 Cf. below, ii. (2), (a). 

s Dial. c. 49 ; Matt. zrii. 13 ; cf. below, L o. 

s Dial. 0. 106; Mark iii. 16, 17. 


to James and John is only found at present in chap. ii. 

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 hy 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, b equally clear. 
'And Jesus, as He gave up His Spirit upon the stLuKi. 
cross,' he writes, 'said, " Father, into Thy hands 
I commend my spirit:^ as I learned from the 

But this is not all: in bis Apolo^ Justin a more 

* ^•' exact deicnp- 

speaks of the Memoirs generally as written by lutto^*!? or 
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 me^.'*' The description, it will be 

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

s Dial. c. 106; Luke zziii. 46. 

' Dial. C. 103 : iv roU airo/itnfftovfVfuuriVf S, (ftrjfu vir6 rmw 
Jtnwrr6X»p aimv Koi tAp cVcivocff irapaKok€vBria'arr»p (Luke i. 3) 
<nnT€Tax^h [y<Vp<>'rTcu], &ri l^ft»t titrtX $p6iifioi Konxttro^ 
abrw tvxofupov koX \tyorrot* IlapeX^rrw, c2 dvyan(r, r6 ironf* 
pior rovro. Luke xzii. 44 ; (Aiatt. xxri. 39). The omission 
of the word cufiorot was probably suggested by the passage 
in the Psalm (zzi. 14) which Justin is explaining, (Semisch, 
p. 147). It cannot haye arisen from any Docetic tendency* 


CHAP. n. seen, 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 
coippared thosc of Tertulliau, who says^ : 'we lay down as 
Tcrtuuian. |^ 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 (rv. 43, 
44) is omitted by yery important authorities, but I cannot 
find that atfuzrov alone is omitted elsewhere than in Justin. 
Of. Griesbach, with Schulz's additions, ad l. 

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

1 TertuU. Adv. Marc. iv. 2 : Gonstituimus imprimis eraii- 
gelicum instrumentum apostolos autores habere, quibus hoc 
munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum; 
si ot apostolieoSf non tamen solos sed cum apostolis et post 
apostolos .... Deniquo nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes 
et Mattheeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et MarcuB ia- 


Lord Himself; that if [it includes the writings chap. n. 
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 Themb- 


from the Memoirs, Justin refers to them else- uuSJi'SSS 
where in his Dialogue for facts and words from 
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 

^ It is interesting to compare this summary of special 
references with the list of all Justin's Erangellc references 
giren already, pp. 115 ff. 

> Dial. 0. 105. s Dial, c 88. 

< Dial. c. 103. « Dial. c. 104. 

« Dial c. 106 ; Matt. xxri. 30. 

7 Dial. 0. 102; Luke xziii. 9. ^ Dial. o. 111. 

• Dial. c. 101 ; Matt, xxrii. 39—43. 


CHAP. iL likewise Justin quotes from them His reproof of 
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 wmmjry This thcu is the sum of what Justin says of 
of ttof 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. t. 20. 

a Dial. c. 107 ; Matt. xii. 38—41. 

3 Dial. c. 100 ; Matt. zi. 27. 

^ Ap. i. 66 : ^ JcaXctrat rvayycXia. Dial. 0. 100 : iif rf 
cvayycXc^ yrypairrai. This view of the essential oneneus of 
the Gospels explains very naturally the freedom with which 
different narratires were combined in quotation. Irenseus 
was the first apparently to recognize, howeyer, imperfectly, 
Tariety in this unity. 


the whole mass of Justin^s anonymous references chap.ii. 
to the life and teaching of Christ, the general 
effect b 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 Boman Canon and 
to Irenaeus, 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 <>^Bd[i°°!.l? 
that there are fatal objections to this identifica- SSfoS)^ 
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 o) tim 


peculiar circumstances in Justin s case which ^^^^^J^ 

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 Tbcoon>ei« 
of Chrises life and words he made an advance "«8»«*to 


beyond which the later Apologists rarely pro-" ^' 


gg^P- "♦ ceeded^ Tatian, his scholar, has several allusions 
to passages contained in the Gospeb of St Mat- 
thew and St John, but they are all anonymous*. 
Aihenagaras 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- 
gelists Theaphilu8, in his Books to Autolycus, 
cites five or six precepts from ' the GospeP 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 Spirits In 
Hermiaa and Minucitu Felix there appears to be 
no reference at all to the Gospels. The usage 

1 Cf. Norton, Gknuineness of the Gospels, i. 137; Se- 
miscb, 83 ff. 

s Orat. c. Gr. 30; Matt. ziii. 44. Cf. Fragg. i, ii; Matt, 
▼i. 24, 19; zxii. 30. Orat. c. 5; John i. 1: c. 4; John ir. 
24 : c. 13 ; John i. 5 : c. 19 ; John i. 3. 

s Apol. p. 2 ; Matt. t. 39, 40: p. 11 ; Matt r. 44, 45: p. 
12 ; Matt t. 46, 47 : p. 36 ; Matt t. 28 : ApoL p. 37 ; Mark 
X. 6, 11 : Apol. p. 12 ; John zrii. 3. 

* Ad Autolycum, iii. § 12, p. 124 : tfri fi^y ical ir€p\ iueaim 
oavmjgf fjg 6 p6fiot ttprfKtp, djcdXov^a (vpioicenu Koi rh t&p irpo» 

<l)6povt iv\ fTPfvfMn-i 0fov XcXaXi;iecyai. If the Commentaries 
attributed to him were genuine ho wrote on the four Evan* 

Cf. ad Autol. iii. p. 126 ; Matt. t. 28, 32, 44, 46 ; ri. 3 : 
Lib. ii. p. 92; Luke xriii. 17 : Lib. ii. § 22. p. 100; John i, 


t>f TertulUan is very remarkable. In his other chap. ii. 
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'. Cf^prian^ 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 

^ Apol. cc. xxi (pp. 67, sqq.) ; zxxix. (p. 93.) 

* The only passage I hare noticed is c. zzzi. (Matt. r. 
44.) The same is true of the imperfect book * ad Nationes.' 

• Protrep. § 69. 

^ Ad Demetr. c. i ; Matt. viL 6 : c. zziT ; John zril. 8. 



CHAP, u. the first book, for instance, Origen quotes oar 
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 Laetantiw 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^ 
Amobiua, again, makes no allusion to the Go* 
spels ; and EusebitM, 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/ 
(Prseparatio Evangelica), yet always does so 
without referring to the Evangelist of whose 
writings he made use. 

It would be easy to extend what has been 
said : — ^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 c Lxiii ; Luke t. 8. He also quotes the GospelB of St 
Luke and St Mark by name for facts, cc. lx, Lxii ; and St 
Matthew three times as used by Celsus, cc. zxxir, zzxTiil* 


s Instit. T. 4. s Instit. ir. 8. 

The custom 
of anony- 
mous refer- 
ence even 
•till more 


peculiarly characteristic, but likewise traceable 
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 
wliich he drew them. 

Justin's method of quotation from the Old Tht c«e or 


Testament may seem at first sight to create a J££."* ****** 
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 occiurs 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, 

1 Iq the Apostolic Fathers scriptural qaotations are 
almost nnirersaUy anoDymoos. Of. p. 58. 


CHAP. II. 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 prophets 
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 refen of the Ncw Testament. * Moreover also among 

to the Apo- ^ 

jSfnty'^ 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^ . . J 

1 e. g. Ap. i. 32 : Mmvaijt vp&rot rwv wpotfnjrwv .... 
*K(ratag SXXot wpfxfujnjg .... 

^ Ap. i. 14, 30 : rrjp oirc^ci^iy ijdrf froirfa'6fi€Ba ov roU X^ 
yovcri ni<rr€voyT€S dkXa roU 7rpo(f)rfT€vov(n npiiv ^ ytptaBcu, «or 
apayitrip n€iB6fitP0i .... 

* Dial. c. 81 : In-cira ical nap* ^/itr am^p rit, f Hwofui 'loKiy- 
yrjfy cfff TC9V cnroorAcoy rot; Xpurrov, tv dirojcoXv^ct ytvofjJvg 
alnrf X^*^ ^^ irofti7<rciy ^p 'UpovirdXijii rovs rf ^fitrip^ Xpiar^ 
frurrfvaturaff irpof ^if rrvcrc . . . The coDstraiiied maimer of thU 

► ♦•■-S". — 

•••■•T"-.-'-i» '<* 

•LOGISTS. 145 

lerent parts of hiap. i 

iVom diflcTcnt 

q; the presence 
liaptist, against 
.)C\s it not seem 
•» was made in 

told to lAfoses J".;;" ^'-^ 
:inb, xxvii. 18), 


43, GO. Cf. c. 77. 


> arc f(>iin«I almost 
lie ]>ialogui\ b(>iiig 
•it uiircasoiiablo to 
■»re porliaps oxflu- 
al history of the 
: at ions arc almost 
ist of i)ro[)heoic3 

• of sense. 

tlie irenoral prin- 
lont not** Cnotp U, 

• wliioli ho ijuotos 
.uuount of verbal 


CHAP. iL 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. 

Thegenenu But, at the samo time, it is to be noticed 


t^i^iSSS^ that Justin appears to be remarkable for free- 
tament ^ dom, uot ouly 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 Semiscb 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. L 5 (Plat, 
Resp. T. p. 473) ; Ap. ii. 10 (Trin. p. 28 c) 


tbey have been once fixed they will serve as a chap. n. 
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 \ 

^ Norton has brought forward some good passages from 
the first Apology (Note E. $ 2); and Semisch has carried 
out the inrestigation 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 pnuse 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 rariations cannot be explained on the 
supposition of differences in M8S., will be useful for those 
who wish to examine the question for themselres. 

(a) Free quotations, giring the sense of the original text : 
Gen. i. l-»3 Apol. i. 59 

— iii. 16 

— vu. 16 

— xi. 6 

— xrii. 14 
Exod. iii. 16, 17 

XTU. 16 

— XX. 4 

— • xxxii. 6 
2 Sam. Tii. 14 sqq. 
1 Kings xix. 14 sqq. 
Job i. 6 
Exra vi. 21 (?) 

Dial. c. 102 

— c. 127 

— c. 10 
Apol. I. 63 
Dial. c. 49 

— c. 94 

— c. 20 
Dial. c. 118 

— c. 39 

— c 79 

— c. 72 


_cHAPja The first and most Striking phenomenon in 
(a)coinbi. his quotations is the combination of detached 

nation of ^ 



Isai. i. 7 



— iu. 16 

— T. 25 

— ix. 6 

— - xxry. 6 sqq. 

— XLii. 16 

JAY, 9 

LXTl. 1 

Jerem. yii. 21, 22 

— xxxi. 27 
Ezech. iii. 17—19 

— xir. 20 

— xxxyii. 7 
Ho8. i. 1 

Joel ii. 28 
Zech. ii. 6 
— xii. 10 sqq. 

03) Adaptations of the text : 

Gen. xxxY. 1 
Exod. Hi. 5 
Numb. xxi. 8, 9 

Apol. i. 47 


Dial. c. 82 

— c. 27 

— c. 133 
Apol. i. 35 

48. Cf. Matt. xi. 5. 

Dial. c. 122 

— c. 138 

— c. 22 

— c. 123 

— c. 82 

— c. 46 
Apol. i. 32 
Dial. c. 19 

— c. 87 
Apol. 1. 52 

Deut. xi. 16 sqq. 

— xxi. 23 

— xxni. 26 

— XXX. 16, 19 

(y) Combinations of different passages : 




Dial. c. 60 
Apol. i. 62 

— 61 
Dial. c. 94 

— c. 49 

— c. 96. Cf. Gal. iii. 10. 

— c. 96 
Apol. i. 44 

n. XI. 1, 10 1 A 1 • •« 

, . ^^} Apol. 1. 32 

imb. xxiT. 17 J '^ 

»8alm xxi. 17— -19) .. 

— ni. 6 J 

[sai. Liii. 12 1 ^^ 

— Lu. 13-F*Lm. 8 J 


texts, sometimes taken from different parts of chap.ii. 
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 ^2?^*** 
to place his hands on Joshua (Numb, xxvii. 18), 

Zech. ii. 6 

Isai. xiiii. 5 I 

Joel iL 13 r 

Isai. Lziii. 13 I 
— udT. 11 i 
Ezech. zzxrii 
Isai. XLY. 23 

rU. 7) 


Exod. m. 2, 14, 15 63 

IsaL Til. 10—161 

Lsai. Tii. 10—10) 

— Till. 4 \ 

— Til. 16, 17 J 

DiaL cc. 43, 66. Cf. c. 77. 

Jerem. ii. 13] 

Isai. xTi. 1 > — c 114 

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 ezda- 
siToly 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 sense. 

These passages will serTO to illustrate the general prin- 
ciples of Justin's quotations. In a subsequent note (note 2, 
p. 150) we shall giTO a table of those texts which he quotes 
differently, in order to show with what amount of verbal 
accuracy he contented himselfL 



CHAP. II. when God said to him : And I will impart to 
him of the Spirit that is in thee^?' (c. xL 17). 
So, agiun, when showing that the Word is the 
Messenger (0776X09 Kal awwrroKos) of Ood» 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 (o wv), the Ood 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 fm'saken 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 hare omitted this quo- 

> Apol. i. 63. Ezod. 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.' 

s Dial. c. 114. Credner (ii. 246) remarks that Barnabas 
(0. zi.) connects the two former passages together; yet his 
text is wholly different from that of Justin. Cf. Semisch, 
262 anm. 


(Jerem. iii. 8). In the Apology the intertexture cha p.ii. 
of various passages is still more eomplicated. inthe 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; 
xiiii. 5). 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 ? (IsaL Lxiii. 13). The glory, which our 
fathers blessed, is turned to our reproach' / (Isai. 
Lxiv. 11). 

The same cause which led Justin to combine J^) Ad«|ic»- 

tlon of texts. 

various texts in other places led him to com- 
press, to individualize, to adapt, the exact wordfi 

1 Ap. i. 52. The last clause onp^nmu th tp i^Kimimw 
is quoted in the Dialogue (c. 14) as from HoBeOf Hy^trat 6 
Xa6t vfimw mil yvt^put tls hv t^Kfrniatuf, The reading in the 
LXX. is iftiPKi^ovTOi np6v lu i.¥9 »y Kor^px^aturroy which 
arose from a confusion of the Hebrew letters *^, ^. The 
rendering which Justin gires occurs John zix. 37 ; Apoc. i. 7. 
Cf. Credner, pp. 293 ff. 



CHAP. II. 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. 

intiie Dta- 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 

intheApo- with conciseness and forced 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. 

* PI. Tim. p. 36 B. ravTTjv cZv r^v (varaaiv vaatip ^iirkffp 
Kara /i^xor axio'aSf fjJ<njv irp^r fittnjv iKoripav aKkrjkait oto» ;(t 
(x) irpcxr/SaXflDif KoriKait'^v tU kukKov . . . Jostin's quotation of 
the passage is characteristic : *Exiao'tp ovr6y [sc. r^ vl6¥ rov 
0€ov] tp ry navTi, 


beasts encountered them, vipers, and asps, and cbap.h. 
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 (eirl) 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 Thewvaria- 

tioosin many 

peculiarities of Justin's quotations by supposing 2^™?*'** 
that he intentionally deviated from the conunon "•°*°^* 
text in order to bring out its meaning more 

1 Apol. i. 60. From the comparison of John iii. 15, I 
prefer lo pat the stop after iv air^, Credner (p. 28) omits 
iw apparently by mistake. It will be obsenred that in the 
quotation each chief word is changed : frpocr/SXcirciv is substi- 
tuted for c^crjSXcVciy ; awCfcBai for 0p; and wKrrtvtuf is 
introduced as the condition of healing. These changes are 
also preserred in the second allusion to the passage, Dial, 
c. 94, which otherwise approaches more nearly to the LXX. 


^^^^- "' dearly : in others he may have followed a tradi- 
tional rendering or accommodation of scriptural 
l^uiguage, 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 

1 In the Apology: Zephaniah for Zechariah (o. 35); 
Jeremiah for Daniel (c. 61) ; 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. iz. 9) is rightly quoted, Dial. c. 53 ; the next 
(Dan. yii. 13) in Dial. c. 76. Gf. Semisch, 240 anm, 

s A general yiew of the passages which Justin quotes 
more than once will give a hetter idea of the yalue of this 
argument than anything else. The following list is, I beliere, 
fairly complete. The sign || indicates agreement; K dif- 
ference; K K, &c., dljQTerence from both, &c., the forms 
before given ; y. 1., yy. 11. marks the existence of yarious 
readings which seem of less importance: — 


If then it be sufficiently made out that Jiistin chap. n. 
dealt in this manner with the Old Testament, ^ij',^^^ 

Gen. i. 1, 2 Ap. i. 59 | Ap. i. 64; r.l. 

— iii. 22 DiaL 62 | Dial. 159 

— XT. 6 — 92. Of- Dial. 119 

— xviii. 1, 2 — 56 I DiaL 126 yy. 1L 

— — 13, 14 Bqq. — 56 1 — 126 yy. U. 

— xix. 24 — 56 K — 127. Cf. c. 129 

— xxYiiL 14 — 58 I — 120 y. 1. 

— xxxii. 24 — 58. Cf. Dial. c. 126 

— xLiz. 10 Dial. 52 | Dial. 120 K Ap. i. 32 

(o^roXcfcO H H Ap. i. 54. Cf. 
Credner, ii. pp. 51 sqq. 

— — 11 Dial. 54. Cf. c. 76 
Numb. zxiY. 17 Ap. i. 32 K Dial. 106 
ProY. Yiu. 21—25 Dial. 61 | Dial. 129 yt. U. 
Pb. i. 3 Ap. i. 40 | DiaL 86 

— iL7,8 I —122 

— iii. 5 — 38 K — 96 

— xiz. 2—5 — 40 I Dial. 64; 42 (y. 4) 

— xxiL 7, 18, 16 — 35 K c. 38 K K DiaL 98 

— xxiY. 7 — 51 |Dial. 127 K c.36 X H 


— XLY. 6—17 DiaL 38 | Dial. 63 y. 1. ; 56 <yy. 

6,7); 86 (v. 7) 

— Lxzii. 1-5, 17-19 Dial. 34 H Dial. 64 K K c. 121 

— xcyL 1—4 — 73. Cf. Ap. L 41 (1 Chro.ZYi.) 

— xcix. 1—7 — 37 I Dial. 64 yt. U. 

— ex. 1—3 — 82 I Ap. i. 45 
Isai. i. 3 Ap. L 37 | Ap. i. 63 Y. 1. 
9 — 53 K DiaL 140. Cf. Dial. 

c. 55 

16—20 — 44 I Ap. L 61 (- Y. 19) 

23 Dial. 82. Cf. c 27 

— ii. 5, 6 — 135. Cf. c. 24 

— iii. 9, 10 — 17 I Dial. 133 y.L; c. 136 y.L 

— Y. 18—20 I — •— Y.L; K Ap. L 

49 (y. 20) 

152 THE AGE OF THE GBEEK AFOLOOISTB. which was Banctioned in each 'jot and tittle^ 
Kvujgfe^ by the authority of Christ Himself, which was 
ahready 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 

i. Yi. 10 Dial. 12 X Dial. 33 

— vii. 10—17) 

— yiii. 4 J 

— 43 I Dial. 66 TT. IL 

zi. 1 Apol. i. 32 K Dial. 87 

— zxiz. 18 Dial. 78 K Dial. 27 K K o. 140 


— — 14 Dial. 32 H Dial. 78 K H c. 38 

K X X c. 123 

— xxxT. 4—6 Apol. i. 48 K Dial. 69 

— ZLii. 1—4 Dial. 123 K Dial. 135 

— Lii. 15— Liii. 1 sqq. Ap. i. 50 || Dial. 13 ty.II. 

— LT. 3—5 Dial. 12 X — 14 

— LTii. 1, 2 Ap. i. 48 n Dial. 16 rr. 11. 

— Lxiy. 10—12 — 47 X — 25 X X Ap. i.52 

(T. 11) 

— LZT. 1—3 Ap. i. 49 X Dial. 24 

— Lxvi. 1 — 37. Cf. Dial. 22 
Ezech. jar. 20 Dial. 45 X Dial. 44 X X c. 140 
Dan. Til. 13 Ap. L 51 X Dial. 31 

Kicah T. 1, 2 — 34 || Dial. 78 

Zech. ii. 11 Dial. 115 X Dial. 119 

Mai. i. 10—12 Dial. 28 || Dial. 41 yt. U. 

The only passage of any considerable length whicL caU- 
bits continuous and important yariations is Isai. zLii. 1 — 4. 
Of. Credner, ii. 210 sqq. 

It will be noticed that the number of texts repeated 
with yerbal accuracy is rerj smalL 


his manuscript to ascertain the exact words of charh. 
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 with a 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 F^'!' ^ 


cHAP.n. quotations would be tedious and unnecessary. 

gl^^j;;^ It will be enough to examine, (l)those wh'ch are 

ioi»«r"* 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 
trluSoH^ Seven passages only, as far as I can discover^, 

M^S^ are alleged by Justin as giving words recorded ia 

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 
ijeir agree- Striking. Of the seven five agree verbally with 
the text of St Matthew, or St Luke, exhibiting, 

^ Ap. i. 66 (Luke zx. 19, 20), and Dial. c. 103 (Luke 
zxii. 42—44) are not merely quotations of words, but con- 
cise narratires. 

Differences in detail supposed to be deriTod from Justin's 
Memoirs will be examined in the next diyision (3). 



indeed, three slight various readings, not else- chap. ii. 
where found, but such as are easily explicable' : 

1 The passages are these : 

1. Dial. 0. 103: oiros 6 diafiokot , . . , hf rois anoiunf 
ftoiKfvfuuri rS»p airooT(SXa>y yrypanrtu irpocrcX^y avr^ ml 
wtipaCiOP luxpi Tov tlirtiP avrf * IIpoa'KMnrja6p fioi' ml airoKpU 
pturBok ttvT^ t6p XpcoT^y* ^Yirayr 3ir/(ro» fiov, carapa' 
Kvpiop t6p OtSp vov wpoo'KVPiia'tis jco'l avr^ fi6p^ 
Xarp€v(r€ic = Matt ir. [9], 10. The addition ovlan yuov is 
supported by good authority. The form of the quotation 
explains the omission of ytypanrat yap, which Justin, indeed, 
elsewhere recognizes, c* 126 : mroKplptrat ykp aur^' rrypcnr- 
rai' Kvptop t6p 6t6Pf jc. r. X. 

In the Clementine Homilies the answer assumes an 
entirely different complexion (Hom. yiiL 21) : iwoKpufofttpot 
o^ t[<l>ff' Trypanrai' Kvptop t6p Ot6p aw iffofiffOija'^ nal 
aifT^ Xarptvo'tis fi6pop, 

2. c. 105 : ravra ilpriKhmi tp rois mroftvfjpoptvfuuri yiypcar^ 
nu* *'BiiP fiij vtpiaatvaji vp&p ij diKaiocvprj wXtiop tSp 
ypaiiiiarittp jcal ^apio'ai^Pt ov nij tlatXOrfTt tlf rijp 
fiaaiXtiap r&p ovpay&y=Matt. T. 20. The transposition 
vpMP i) due. is probably correct. For Clement's Tariations 
in quoting this verse see Griesbach, Symh, Crit, ii. 251. 

3. C. 107 : ytypanrai tp roils mrofunjpowvfuurtp or* ol dw6 
TOV yipovt vfi£p trvCtirovprtt twr^ IXfyoy, Sri Acifoy ijptp 
frfjpttop. Kai oM^KpiPoro avroit* Ttpta nopripii jcal fioixaXls 
irrfptlop ^iri^iyrri, «al affptiop ol doOrjatrai aifToig *l 
p^ t6 affptiop *I«ya«'Matt. xii. [38], 39. The first part, 
as its form shows, is quoted freely; our Lord's answer 
differs from the text of 8t Matthew only in reading avroit 
for avTJ. Such a confusion of relatires with an antecedent 
like yf ycck is very common. Cf. Luke x. 13 (ca^fif wi -cu) ; 
Acts ii. 3 (iKaBiatp -ay). Winer, N. T, Oramm., $ 47. 

4. C. 49 : 6 rjp4Ttp09 Xpurrhs flprJKti, , , ,*H\ias p€P 
eXfvo-rroi jcal diroKarao'Tiiati irapra' Xcytt dc vpip, ^ri 
'HXiOf ifdrf i(X^c, jcal ovk tiriypno'ap avrbp, dXX' tnolrj^ 
irap avT^ oca rj0€\rfa-ap. Koi ytypcamu ori t6t€ avprjuap 
ol naBriralf on w€p\ *loappov rov fianriirTov tlwtp 


cHAP.n. the sixth is a compressed summary of words re- 
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- 
sjtances ; and it must be seen whether their dis- 
agreement from the Synoptic Gospels is such 
as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining 
Their dif The first passage occurs in the account which 

^attj MTii. Justin gives of the Crucifixion, as illustrating 
asl]"* 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 

avro(ff» Matt. xriL 11—- 13. The express quotation (t. 13) 
agrees exactly with the text of St Matthew, and Credner 
admits that it must hare been taken from his Oospel 
(p. 237). In the other part the text of St Matthew has 
tpxn-ai (wpSrov is, at least, very suspicioosX and ip avr^ 
but the preposition is omitted by D, F, it. cop., &c. Cred- 
ner insists (p. 219) on the yariation cXcvo-co-^oi (repeated 
again in the same chapter); with how much justice the 
Tarious readings in Luke xxiii. 29 may show. See also Gen. 
XYiii. 17. dinarp€<l>» (Dial. 56); airoorpiy^ (Dial. 126); 
dpaarpe^ro (LXX.) Of. p. 170, and the next note. 

5. c. 105: ml airodidovs t6 mmifia iirl r^ aravp^ ffirc* 
Uarcp, tit ;(f(pdr aov napariBtfiai t6 nvtvfid /iov' »s 
jcal ^jc r»p anofunjfiovtvfiamp «al roOro c/Aa^y = Luke XXiii. 46. 
The quotation is rerbally correct: wapariBtftat, and not 
wapaBj^trofuu, is certainly the right reading. 


save Him^"' These exact words do not occur chap.ii. 

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. JJ^j^'j^' 
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 : Ol 6t»povpTts oMp i<rravp»fuvov Ka\ 
fff^aX^r ^Kturros txlvavp ital rii x*^^ bUarptf^op itai roit 
fiv^ttiifpauf hf oXXffXocff ^ dupivovwrtt f TKryop tlp«»v€v6fi€P<H 
Tovra a Koi iv rois an'Ofunffio¥€VfAaa'i t£p airooTc{Xo»y avrov 
yeypanreu, Yl6v Btov iavrhv IXryf, KctraPhs irtpifrartirci' aao-am 
ainhv 6 Of ^. The account in the Apology (i. 38) appears to 
prove that Justin gives only the substance of the Erangelie 
account: IravptiBivTos yhp avrov cfc(rrpc</>oy r^ X*^^ '^^ 
^kIvop rat KtffxiKas \tyoPT9g' 'O vtKpovt avaydpat pvada3» 
iavr6v. It is strange that in the quotation from the Psalm 
(Dial. 1. c.) the words a»aur» avrbv are omitted, though 
they are given in o. 98. 


CHAP. II. 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 (671^^) and not a present {yivwaKeiy. 

There are here three various readings to be 
noticed. ^ All things have been delivered to me 
(irapaSeioTcuy for < all things were (aor.) delivered 
to me {wapehoOfiy — ^the transposition of the words 
* Father' and ' Son' — the phrase, ^ those to whom- 
soever the Son reveal [ffim],' for * he to whom- 
soever the Son will (fiovXtirai) reveal [ffim].' 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, 

^ DiaL c. 100 : xai ip rf cvoyytX/^ d^ yrypaimu tln^p 
[6 Xpicm^'] llapTa fUH napalbiboTcu vtr6 tov vctrp&g' Km o^W 
yamaKti rhm nartpa tt puf 6 Ms' ovdi t6v vMr cj fi^ 6 *^b^ 
Ktt\ ols hr 6 vl6t iwoKoKinfrff. The last word airoKoKvy^ haring 
no immediate subject, is, I beliere, eqairalent to 'makes a 
revelation,' i. e. of His own nature and of the nature of the 
Father. So, I find, Augustine takes the passage: Qucut, 
Ew, i. 1. 

' Ap. i. 81 (bis.) Oredner (i. 248 ff.) insists on the 
appearance of this reading ?yM0, as if it were a mark of the 
influence of Gnostic documents on Justin's narratire. It is 
a sufficient answer that the reading is not only found in 
Marcion and the Clementines, but also repeatedly in Cle* 
mont of Alexandria and Origen (Qriesb. Sytnb. Crit. 11. 271). 
Cf. Semisch, p. 367. 

s Cf. John Tii. 39 : dtbofuvw, do$€P. 


80 that it cannot prove anything against Justin's chap. n. 
use of the Canonical Gospels K 

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, IrensBus 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 Of. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. 1. c. 

* The extent of the rarietieB of reading, found in ortho- 
dox authorities independent of Justin, may be shown by the 
following scheme: 

|frftyiM»(rJCfi| \irarcpa/ \vl69 j XkoI ovdtU) 

lo25c J 

Credner (i- p. 249) quotes from Irenseus (ir. 6, 1) * et 
cui rerelare FcUer Toluerit,' but I can find no authority for 
such a reading. The mistake shows at least how easy it is 
to misquote such a text 

• Iren. ir. 6, ($ 1, 7, 3: Nemo cognosdt ip^lLmf °^"^ 


CHAP. iL likewise quotes the text seven times in the same 
order as Justin^ and four times as it stands in 
the Gospels K If, indeed^ Justin's quotations were 
made from memory no transposition eould 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 ^ 

f Paterl ^ ^ rPatrem^ . . rPiliufl) f cm roluerit }^ 
IFiliufl J ^ (Filium J \Pater/ |qaibuBCunqaej 

-,.,. freyelare ) 

1 Semisch, p. 369. E. g. Adr. Hser. ii. 2, 43 (p. 766 o.) ; 
ii. 1, 4 (p. 466 B.) 

> Semisch has well remarked (p. 366) that the word 
trarphg immediately preceding may have led to the transpo- 

To avoid repetition it may be well to gire the passage 
as it stands in yarions heretical books, that Justin's inde- 
pendence of them may be at once evident. 

(a) Mareion (Dial. ap. Orig. § 1, p. 283): ovdtls Zypt^ 
t6p wctT€pa €l ftrj 6 vi^r, ovdi rhv vi6v rtr yivtia-Ktiy il fuj 6 
narrip. The reading of the Marcionite interlocutor is appa- 
rently accepted in the argument. Directly afterwards, how- 
ever, the words are given: ovhth ytywcrjcci t6v vlhv tl fiff 6 
wanfp, and ovdtU oUt r6p vl6v. These variations are found, 
it is to be remembered, in an argument between Chrittiana. 

(fi) CUmei^tines. Hom. xvii. 4 : ovdils tyw» rhv vmpa tl fifj 
6 vl6t, «as ovdi t6p vl6v ris oVitP [cidcy Ored. }] tl fii^ 6 iror^p 
ml oZr ^ fimikflTtu [fiovKtrai Gred.9 CoteL] 6 vl6s taroKoKv^tu, 


If the direct quotations which Justin makes chap. n. 

from the Apostolic Memoirs supply no adequate ^^Jffi^ 
proof that he used any books different from our S^S^ 
Canonical Gospels, it remains to be seen whether <ai 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 mUst look for it. 

It has been remarked already that a false ^^*f^ 
quotation may become a tradition. Much more ^^^1^ 
is it likely to reappear by association in a writer 
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, Horn, xriii. 4, 13, 20 
(part). The difference of Justin's reading from this is clear 
and striking. Gf. Recogn. ii. 47. 

^ See Semiscb, pp. 330 sqq. Any critical commentary 



CHAP. iL sages of the LXX. with constant variations, of 

which no traces can be elsewhere founds 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 
Th^icf The real nature of the various readings of 

^to^in 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 famish a crowd of instances. I 
intended to giro a collection from Griesbach's SymbolcB 
CWtiecB— only from Clement and Origen — but it proTed too 

1 £. g. Isai. xiii. 6 sqq. Crodner, ii. pp. 165, 213 sqq. 


generally into synonymous words and phrases, 
transpositions, marginal glosses, and combina- 
tions of parallel passages ^ This classification Jutun't 
will serve exactly for the recurrent variations in SSta^to"' 
Justin ; and as it was made for an independent catk». 
purpose it cannot seem to have been suggested 
by them, however closely it explains their origin. 

In the first group of passages which Justin i. synony- 


quotes in his Apology from the 'precepts of^**™^ 
Christ,* he says : * Now concerning our affection 
{(TTefyyeiv) for all men He taught this : If ye love Piwtin- 
them which love you tohat strange thing do ye ? ^^^ '*• ^^ 
for ihe fomieatora 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 doV The whole form of the quo- 

1 This classification is giren by Schulz in his third 
edition of the first rolume of Griesbach's New Testament, 
pp. zzzriii., sqq. He has illustrated each class by a series of 
examples, which may be well compared with Justin's quota- 

' Ap. i. 15 : Htpi df Tov orr/iyrtv Sntarrat ravra tdiba(€P* 
"Bl aytarart rovt dyair&pras vfiag, rl Kaivbp iroiftrr; {Mt,: 
rba fiurBhp cx*^^! •^••* ^^^ vfuv X^^^ ^^0 Kal yitp ol 
w6pvoi (JfiE. .* ol rcXtfyai. Lc,: ol afiapr»\oi) rovro iroiov<n» 
(Luke yi. 32 ; Matt. y. 46) .... Eh dc t6 Koiwrnvtip rois dto^ 
lu9oi£ Koi fjajt€P np6t d6(a» noitip ravra l<^* Ilayrl rf 
alrovvTi didoTt (fiidov all. ^s) koi t6p fiov\6fi€Pop (^cXovra 
Mt,) daptiaaa-Bai fiff avroarpaKpfJTt (-js Mt.) JLl yhp daptiCtrt 



CHAP, u. 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 yeT 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 T 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^ V The change of 
the word {Kaivo^ for irepuraos) which alone re- 

srop* wp IkiriCert Xa/3cur, rl K<uv6y irouirt; (Lc. ut tupra) 
Tovro Ka\ ol rcX»vai frotova-ip (Matt. T. 42; Luke TL 30). 
In all the quotations from Justin I hare marked the varus- 
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 
gires I have not noticed it, unless it be of grave importance. 
For instance, in the second passage, Xa^iv is read for 
mroXafii'iv by ' B, L ;' and in the first rovro for t6 avT6 by 
• 1 Cant. It.' 

1 Matt. T. 47: W frtpura^v froicrre; In this verse we 
must read iBvtxoi for rtkAvai ; but rtXSivai is undoubtedly the 
right reading in the corresponding clause in r. 46; and 
thus the connexion of the words is scarcely loss striking 
than before. At the same time Justin may hare read 
rcXcSyac: the vene is not quoted by Clement, Origen, or 


mains to be explained — ^if it were not suggested chap.ii. 
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 Chrisfs 
teaching. The repetition of the phrase in two 
passages closely connected was almost inevitable. 

The recurrent readinn in Justin offer another second in- 
instance of the substitution of a synonymous t^**'^^^"> 
phrase for the true text. He quotes our Lord 
as saying : * Many shall come in my name clothed 
without in sheep-^HnSf 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- 

^ The phrase Kai»6p iroccTv occurs in Plato, Resp. iii. 
899 B. It is possible that ntpura^v iroicZy may be found 
elsewhere, but I doubt whether it would be used in the 
same sense; irtpwah npaa-o'tuf has a meaning altogether 

s Dial. c. 35; (Apol. i. 16): IIoXXol rXcvot>irntt (i^fouen 
Ap,) M rf 6v6fiaTl fjujv t(t»6ty (+/i<y Ap*) ivdtdvfiivoi 
bipfkara wpopdrop, tfati&tv dt tlci (^^cr Ap.) Xvkoi ipirayfs 
(Matt. zxIt. 6 ; Tii. 15). Immediately below Justin quotes : 
Upofrtx^^ <nr6 rcip ^^eubotrpoKfnfT&Vt otru^g iXtvaoprai, (^PX"'^ 
Tof Jft,) vp6s vfjtas €^<aB€v, ir. r. X. (Matt. vii. 15: cV Mvfiaat 
vpoPamp), The phrase Mvpara irpoP&mv is Tery strange, 
and though there is no rariation apparently in the MSS. 
lUppaai has been conjectured. Gf. Schulz. in I. Semisch has 
remarked that ivdtdvfiivoi hippara shows traces of the 
text of St Matthew (p. 340). 

166 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. trated by the single reference made to the verse 
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. 
Another In closc conucxion with these various readinirs 

insuwct. ^ 

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 {vtto) 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 * the Pharisees and scribes.* Once 
again the text is given obliquely : * Christ said 
that He must suffer many things of (airo) the 
scribes and Pharisees, and be cnicified...' 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 

^ Clem. Al. Protr. § 4 : \vkoi nabiois irpoparav ^fKfHta''- 

9 Dial. C. 76: *Ep6a yap irp6 rov aravp^iBrjvai' Act rhm 
vl6p rov dvBp^irov iroXXa iraBtuf Ka\ diroBoKifiaaBfjvai vir6 (an6 
Xe.) rS>v ypafifiaritiv Ka\ ^apia-ainv (nptcfivrip^v koX 
apxiL9p€«»v Koi ypa/ifiar€»v Lc) kqI a-ravpnBfjpai (dnoKToyO^vai 
Lo.) Koi tJ Tplrif rip.ip^ difa<n^vai. Of. CC. 100; 51. 


chief priests and scribes/ and ' crucified' for * put chap, ii. 
to deaths* 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 {airo) the chief priests 
and elders... ;' again ' ...of the chief priests and 
Pharisees and scribes... ;' again ' ...of the elders 
and chief priests and scribes of thepeaple^.* In 
corresponding texts a similar confusion occurs 
both in manuscripts and quotations^ The second 
variation is still less remarkable. Even in a later I'Uke xxw. 
passage of St Luke the word ^ crucified' is sub- 
stituted for 'put to death/ and Ireneeus 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 
tfie chief priests, and be refected, and crucified, and 
rise again on the third day^.^ * The Son of Man 

1 Id Matt zri. 21 vjr6 is read by Cod. D ; in Mark viii. 
31 it is supported by B, C, D, &c, and must be received into 
the text ; in Luke ix. 22 air6 appears to be the reading of all 
the MSS. From this note it wiU appear how little weight 
could be rested on the reading viro in Justin, eyen if it were 

« Griesbach, Symh. Crit. p. 291. 

s See the various readings to Matt. xxvi. 3, 59 ; xxrii. 41. 

^ Iren. iii. 18, 4 : Ex eo enim, inquit, coepit demonstrare 
discentibus (to his disciples), quoniam oportct ilium Hleroso- 


CHAP. iL must suffer many things, and be rejectedi and 
crueifiedy and rise again the third dayK' 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 Gospelsi 
or used any other records of Christ's life. 

A ]ui in- Another quotation of Justin's, which may be 

■turn show- 

Ihmm'Vm classed under this same division, is more instruc- 



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 far your enemies, and love them that hate 
you, and bless them that ciurse you, and pray for 

lymam ire et multa pati a saeerdotibus, et r^robari et emeu 
figi et tertia die resurgere (Matt. xri. 21 ; Luke iz. 22). The 
words et reprobari form no part of the text of St Matthew. 

I Id, iii. 16, 5: Oportet enim, inquit, Filium hominis 
multa pati et reprobari et cntcifigi et die tertio resurgere 
(Luke iz. 22). 

< Dial. c. 06. 8 Ap. i. 14. 


them that despitefully use you^? ' The repeti- chap, il 
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 claused Irenseus gives the precept in 
another shape : * Love your enemies, and pray far 
them that hate youV Still more in accordance 
with Justin, Tertullian says, 'It is eiyoined on 
us to pray to God for our enemies, and to bless 
our persecutors ^' It would be useless to extend 
the inquiry further. 

^ Ap. i. 15: ECx^irBt vwip rSw ix^P^^ vfk&v koX 
ayairart rovs fiiaovpras vfias (ayimart rovs ^;(^/>ovff v/M»y, 
KoKns iroi€iT€ Tciis fucTovo-iv vfiBs Xc.) Ka\ (ssLic,) fvXoyfirc rovff 
Koraprnfitvovs vfuv mil tOx^f^^* (npoo'tvxffr^ Mt, Le,) imip 
T»p €trrfptaC6pT»y vfiat (Luke yi. 27, 28. Cf. Matt. y. 44). 

^ Griesbacb, Symh. Crii. pp. 253 sq. 

< Adv, Hcer, ill. 18, 5 : Diligite inimicos yestroB et ortxte 
pro eis qui vos oderurU, 

^ Ap. 31 : PrcDceptum est nobis ad rednndantiam benig- 
nitatis etiam pro tntmiew Deum orare, et persecatoribus nos- 
tris bona precari. 


cgAP.n. Transpositions are, perhaps, less likely to 
,21^2?°'^ recur than new forms of expression ; at least I 
a. oionet. haye not noticed any repeated in Justin. One 
or two examples, howeyer, show the nature of a 
nwpio- large class of glosses. Every scholar is familiar 
fo^ftteat ^^jj 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 
instmeeof poiut of sight^ The most important instance in 

the interpre- * *-' * 

i^jSoL" Justin 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 came, whose shoes I am not worthy 

^ Matt. zxiy. 40 ; Luke zrii. 34 (where, however, iropa- 
Xa/i^averai is read by * D, K,' &c. See John xxi. 18, varr. 
leeU.) Cf. Winer, N. T. Grammatik, § 41, 42. 


to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy chap.ii. 
Ghost and with fire^...' The whole quotatioiii 
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 

^ Dial. C. 49. (Cf. C. 88) : 'Eyw fup vfias PairriCn h viari 
tls fitrayouuf' JK^t di (y^t C. 88) 6 I(rxvp6rtp6g ftov (6 di 
^i<r» /Aov 9px6iu9ot Iax^p6rtp6s futv iarl Mt. tfpx^fu ^i 6 
la-xyp&rtpos Lc.) oZ ovk «lfu lKajf6t .... irvpi. O^ t6 wtvop 

avTov (=if^) tp Tj X acr/ScW^ (Matt. iii. 11, 12 ; Luke 

iii. 16, 17). For the insertion of avrov see Mark yil. 25; 
Apoc. Tii. 2 ; and varr. kctt, Winer, § 22, 4. 

s Fragm. § 25 : iy» fiip vfias vbari fianrriiifHj Zpx^^ ^ 
fiov oirifrta 6 Pairri^wp vfuit tp irPiVfiari ical irvpl.,.,T6 
yhp iTTvop tp rj X^^P^ avrov rov biaKa$apai lijp a\» Koi 
avpo^tt r6p (TiTOP tls rrjp dwoBiJKrip (ciri^io/y, Grie&b.) r6 dt , , , 

' Comm. in Joan. yi. 16. Id. ri. 26 : cyc^ PanTi{» ip 
vBari, 6 dc ipx^p-fPos fitr ifi€ Ia'xyp6r€p6s fiov iarif <wt6s 
vfuis ptnrriafi h irvtvfiari ayt^. Cf. Griesb. Symh, Crit, ii. 
244» who seems to hare confounded the Eyangclist and the 


CHAP. n. futures in different quotations of the same verse K 

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. 
nttiSr*^ The remaining instances of repeated varia- 

S?w231***^ 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 V It so 

1 Cf. p. 166, n. 2. 

' Dial. C. 76; Ap. i. 16: froXXol ipovtri fiot rj rjyiipt^ 
tKtlvff ('^Ap, ip ff. Tff 17. Mt.) Kvpt€, Kvpu, ov rf a-f 6v6iJLan 
€(l>ayofitP Ka\ iirlofiiv Ka\ {= Mt.) irpo€<t>riT€va'afi€v (dvwficiff 
iirou^a-aiuy Ap.) Koi (+ r^ a^ 6v6fiaTi Mt.) baifiSvia i^par 
Xofify; (+ mil rf o-^ 6v. Bvpdfi€is noXKis iirov^a-ofitvl Mt,) 
Ka\ (+ r&rt Ap. Mt.) ipS {SfAoXoyi^ara Mt.) avrois' diroxw 
purt an ifiov (prooem, Mt. "On ovSeVoTf eyvcav vpJai' . . . . + oZ 
ipya{6fitvot rfjp Apofxlay. + ipydrat rfjs dpofilas Ap.) Matt, vii, 
22, 23. Cf. Luke xiiL 16, 17, from which each new word in 
Justin is borrowed. 


happens that Origen has quoted the same pas- chap, il 
sage several times with considerable variationsy 
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 in Thy name eai 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 imrighteousness^' 
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 combio*. 


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 8epulchreSj appearing beautiful without, uatt uiii. 
but within full of dead men's bones, paying 
tithe of mint, and swallowing the camel, blind 

1 Griesb. Symh, CSrii, ii. p. 262. 


CHAP. n. 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 

^ Dial. CO. 112; 17. The common passage nms thiis: 
rd^oi K(icoviafi€voif t(»$€v <l>aip6fi€P0t topcuot Ka\ €arm$€P 
(ia; de, c. 17) yc/xoircff ofrret^p yexpttv. The correspondiDg 
clause in St Matthew is (c. xxiii. 27) : ^i napofioidCrrt rd^r 
KtKOPiafiepoiSf oiTiPts t^nOtp fUv {fxuvopreu dpaioi taioBtP de 
y€fiov(riv 6(rrwv v€Kp&v Koi naarjt aKoBaptrias. For irapopMaf^m 
Lachmann reads 6fiouiC(T€ with B. Clement (Griesb. Symb* 
Crit. ii. 327) has o/iotoc cWc (Peed. iii. 9, ( 47). 

« Dial. c. 17. 

^ Clem. Lc. : t^B^v 6 Td<l>0£ tfiaivtrat »paios, c(ro»^cir 
dc y€fin . . . Iron. ir. 18, 3 : Foris enim sepiUcrum apparet 
/ormosum ; intus autem pUnum ett,... The passage stands 
so also in D and d. 


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^ : ^ Woe to you, for ye are unseen tombs^ Luiwxi.44. 
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 oeneniTitw 

of Ihete quo- 
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 arc at least as important as their 
common divergence from the words of the Evan- 
gelist'. This fact alone is sufficient to show that suppoatng 
Justin did not exactly reproduce the narrative SS ml?* 
which he read, but made his references gene-"*^^' 
rally by memory, and that inaccurately. Under 
such circumstances the authority of the earliest 
of the Fathers, who are admitted on all sides 

^ Luke xi. 44 : Oval vfup (irt tart [» m r^] funffuTa [» ra] 
a^f/Ka Koi ol IMp^nroi wtptnarovms tinum ovk oldaa-tp. So 
D a b c, Lucif. ; Griesbach marks the reading as worthy of 

> I have not noticed the yariation in the reference to 
Luke X. 16 : <$ ifwv okovvv ciicovci rod oiroorc^Xoyrdff fit (Ap* 
i. 62. Cf. 16), becanse it is contained in several MSS. and 
translations : Dd., Sjrr., Ann., ^th.y &c. 

s The following passages may be compared : Dial. c. 97 ; 
Apol. L 10 « Luke ▼!. 36 ; Matt. y. 45. For the repetition 
of xpi7<rrol Koi olicripfiopts compare Clem. Strom, ii. 59. $ 100: 
ikt^fiovts Koi olKTipfiovts. Dial. c. 101; Apol. i. 16 » Matt, 
zix. 16, 17 ; Luke xriii. 18, 19. 

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 Justing 
the parallel gains in direct force as much at 
oye^en tf least as it loses in point. But even if it were not 

taken from ^ 

*^^ 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- 
•£x«mpieof scrvcd in the Codex Bezce (D) — ^the gift of the 
****• Eeformer 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 

I Though I am by no means inclined to assent without 
resenre to the judgment of Bomemann 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 the middle, or at least towu-ds 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- 


readings of this MS. with those of Justin must chap. ii. 
have been noticed already ; and if it had perished, 
as well it might have done, in the civil wars 
of France S many texts in Clement and Irenseus 
would have seemed as strange as his peculiarities'. 

metrical MS., which in turn was based upon another still 
older. (Of. Credner, i. 465). 

In Luke xr., 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), 
Y. 13. iavTov t6p Piop for rrfv ovaiav avTov, 

21. 6 bi vios €tntp avr^ (transp.) 

23. fvcy«arf . , . [icoi Bvatn-t] for ivtyKoarrts , , . 6wrar9. 

24. tvpiBi) + SipTi. 
27. aiTtvTOP + avry. 

[28. fjp(aTo [} irapcucakiip] ccepit rogare^ Vulg.] 

29. f ( aly&p for Zpitftop (hsedum de capria, d.) 

30. rf dc vl^ (Tov T^ Kara<f}ay6pTi irapra fierii r<Sy 
noppwp Ka\ i\$6prif fBvtrat o-ircvr^v fidtrxop* 

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 ; tL 5 ; 
xri. 8 ; Acts r. 22 ; xr. 2 ; xviii. 27, &c. Credner has exa- 
mined many of the readings of D (Beitrlige, i. 452 ff.), but 
he has by no means exhausted the subject. 

1 Initio belli civllis apud Gallos, an. MDLXII., ex 
coenobio S. Irensei, Lugduni, postquam ibi diu in pulvore 
jacuisset, nactus est Beza . . . Mill, ProUg. N. T. 1268. 

> The following examples will serve to confirm the 
statement : 



CHAP. iL 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 
(y)coind. But it is Said that some of Justine's quota- 

JSJ3? 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- 

Matt. xi. 27. One such passage has been already con- 
sidered incidentally S 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 

John Hi. s, our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus* : ' For 


Matt, xxiii. 26. ^ci>$(v . . . Clem. Peed, iii. 9, $ 48 ; Ireo. 
ir. 18, 3. 

Luke xii. 27. oHvf ynf^ci oCrr v<f>aivtt. Clem. P<xd, ii. 

— xix. 26. irpotrriBrnu. Clem. Strom. Til. 10. upoort- 

Luke xii. 11. ip^pna-iv. Clem. Or. (Griesb. ii. 377). 

— xii. 38. tJ €(nr€ptpj <l>v\aKfj, Iren. r. 34, 2. 

Cf. Hug, IntroductioD, i. § 22. It is needless to multiply 

» Cf. p. 159, n. 2. 

> Cf. Semifich, § 25, pp. 189 ff. 


Christ said, Except ye be bom again (avayevvrf- chap.ii. 
OiJTe) 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 all'/ In the Clementines the 
passage reads : * Thus sware our Prophet to us, 
saying : Verily I say unto you, except ye be barn 
again (avayevvffiriTe) with living water into the 
name of the Father, Son, [and] Holy Spirit, ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of h£aven*.* 
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. 

^ Ap. i. 61 : Koi yhp 6 Xpurr^s furcv* *Ay fi^ avaytvyrf- 
BfJTt, oif fi^ tl<n\$rjTt tit T^v /SacrcXfuxy rc»v ovpav&v, "Or^ 
de irol advyorov tit rhs fii^rpat r&v rtKovativ rovt awa( 
fytvofUifovs ifiP^paif ifiaytphv iraaiv ifrri, 

' Horn. xi. 26 : ovras yhp r^plv &pov€V 6 irpo(ftrir7)t tlimiv, 
'Afi^v (+afi^ Joh.) hfiv Xryo» (X. v. Joh.) i^ p^ avaytpvif 
6!JTt (rtff y€innn$j, Joh.) vdari {"cSyri, tls ivopa narpht, 
viov, aylov nvtvparot, ov p^ tlartXBriTt {ov ivvarai tla» 
Joh,) fls T^v /SaciXcioy tS>p oiipav&y (rod Qtov, Joh.) Cf. 
Matt. ZYiii. 3 (Schwegler, i. p. 218). Cf. Recog. ti. 9. Sio 
enim nobis cum sacramento reriu propheta testatus est, 
dicens: Amen dico yobis, nisi qnis denuo r«MUui fuerit 
(apayfwmiBj Sp»&€v) ex aqu& » non introibit in regna ecelc 

s Mill quotes the Lectiones VeUsvanas. (Cf. ProUgg. 1311, 
1507) as giTing the reading difaytnniBtjwat : Verc. and Ver. 
(ap. Lachm.) have renatm fuerit. He cites also two MSB. 



CRAP. n. 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 (avayepvSurOaif 
avayevvfjaK) 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 (yevvtfi^yai avtaOev)^ on the 
other hand, is not only peculiar, hut ambiguous. 
Kor 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 horn 
agiain from above {avayewriOfj avwOev) he shall not 
see the kingdom of heaven.* So also in the 
Apostolical Constitutions the words arc quoted 
thus: 'The Lord says. Except a man be bom 

as reading tlar€\$(iv io y. 3. The later editors have not 
marked the rariation. 

1 The earliest examples of this Christian use of the 
words are 1 Pet. i. 3, 23. Clem. Horn. tH. 8 ; xi. 26 (imme- 
diately before the quotation); xi. 35. Justin, Ap. L 61. 
Cf. Credner, i. p. 301 f. 

s De Poenit. T. ill. p. 183 (Semisch, p. 196) : tap /ii; ris 
dpaytPPrjOj Spt^Otv^ ol fiij tdji rijif PaciKtiav rav ovpap&p. 


{y€vvr]9^) of water and Spirit, he shall not enter chap, ii. 
into the kingdom of heaven ^' If these parallels 
are insufficient to show that the quotation of 
Justin is merely a reminiscence of St John, atgoind^^ 
least, they indicate that it was not derived from £^^Sfof 
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- umul t. m. 
ing a coincidence between Justin and the Cle- 
mentine Gospel, illustrates yet more clearly the 
existence of a traditional as well as of an 

1 Const Apost. Ti. 15 (Semisch, I, e,): Xcyri 6 icvpiot' ii» 
fui Tit yfvnfBj i( vdarot Ka\ wptCftarotf ov fi^ tlvikOff tit rt^ 
ficurtXtiop T&p ovpapAp, For ytwtnjBj the common reading 
is ffairrtaBj, which is probably a gloss on ytvp, /( v. xai iry. 
No instance of fianriCw tx TUf6t occars to me. 

s Schwegler (i. 218) has pointed out a passage in the 
Shepherd of Hennas which alludes to the same traditional 
saying : Nocesse est, inquit, ut per €iquam haheant aseendertf 
ut reqniescant. Non poterant cUUer in regnum Dei tntmrtf, 
qoam ut deponerent mortalitatem prions Titee (iii. 9, 16). 
The coincidence of the latter clause with St John, and not 
with JusUn, is to be remarked. 


CHAP. II. 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 {iarw) 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 communis 
cation be, Tea, 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 (aXXos) oath : but let 
{ijT(v)your yea be yea, and your nay nay^...* Cle-- 
ment quotes the latter clause in this form as ' a 
maxim of the Lord 3;' and Epiphanius says that 
the Lord in the Gospel bids us ' not to swear, 
neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, 

^ Apol. i. 16 (Clem. Horn. xix. 2 ; Matt. y. 34, 37) : frtpl 
di rod fifj ofUfvvai Sk»t, rdkfjB^ dc Xcyciy dci, ovrcor irapf/tffXcv- 
<raro* ijJj 6ii6<niT€ Sk»s* forco dc (+6 \6yos, Mt.) vfiAp ri 
(» Ml) ¥01 pai Koi t 6 (^Ml) ot oC' t6 di ircpicrcr^v rovrwp ix 
Tov fTomjpov {t(m¥ + ML, Clem.) 

In Clem. Horn. Hi. 55 the passage stands: tart^ vfi&p 
t6 va\ pal, t6 oir oH' t6 yap, /t.r.X. 

' James y. 12: np6 narrnp dc, dif\<l>ol fiov, {jJj 6fiwv€Tft 
fuir^ r^ ovpap6p /i^€ r^p yijp ftrjrt aXXov ruA 6pKOP* ijm di 
VfiAp r6 pa\ pal Ka\ t6 ot oC, tpa fiij \ftr6 Kpia-ip ir€(nfT€, 

' Strom. T. 14, § 100 : t6 xvpiov pffT6p* tarm (not ^tm) 
vfA»p, K,r,\, Cf. Lib. TiL 11, § 67, where the sentence is 
again quoted in the same form. 


neither by any other (erepoi) oath : but let (^t«u) ^^^^- "- 
your yea be yea^ and your nay nay ; for that which 
is mare (wepuraorepov) than these is in its origin 
(iwapx^i) of the evil one^' In the Clementine 
Homilies the words are: '[Our master] coun- 
selling us said : Let (earw) 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 J{j[j^j*>^^i7. 
our Lord, when he limited the true application J'^*^"** 
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. adr. Hser. i. 20, 6 ; (i. p. 44) : [rov KupUw] iw 
rf cuayytXi^ Xiyopros' {jJj iyanrptn fi^ t6p ovpap6p iiJfTt n^r 
yfjv fu^rt trtpov rivk 6pK09f' aXX* IJTm vfiAif t6 poI pal icaX 
t6 oO oO' t6 frtpi<ra'6T€pop yap rovrttp ix. rov vopijpw 


' Horn. xix. 2 : avpfiovktv^p \6 dcdacrjcciXoff] tipffiup' ta-rtt 
vfiAp r6 pal pal Kal t6 oO oH' t6 dc frtpiaavp rovrttp €k rov 
WQPfipov itrrlp. 


CHAP. n. 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 thing 8^.^ In the Dialogue : ' Why callest 
thou me good ? One is good, my Father which 
is 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 anoiher place (Ch. IV.) whether 
the passages quoted by Ireneeus were corrupted by the Mar* 
cosians or simply misinterpreted. 

3 Ap. i. 16 (Mark x. 18 ; Luke ZTilL 19) : ovbiit ayaB6t 
ft fjJj fi6vos («Uf Mk.f Le.) 6 Bt6s, 6 iroii^crar* ra irdrra 
(s MCf Lc.) In St Mark Dd combine the former words, 
reading fi6vo9 tis B(6s. Several other old Latin MSS. 
give solus (Griesb. I, e.). 

The concluding words occur just before, and are to be 
considered as 'an addition of Justin's suggested by the cir- 
cumstances of the time, and his late controTersy with 
Marcion' (Credner, 1. 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. 

' Dial. 0. 101 ; Marcos, ap. Iren. i. 20, 2 : ri fi€ Xcyrir 
ayae6p (Lo. xviii. 19); tU ivrw aya06f (Mt. xix. 17), 6 
wariip fiov, 6 (= Marcos.) ip rots ovpapols. 


words are : * Call me not good. Ths Good is One, chap, ii. 
my Father which is in Iieaven^.'* 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 
in 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 Mmtt ur. 

^ 41. 

1 Horn. ZTiii. Zi It^rj iit \iyt dya$6v' 6 yhp aya$^ c& 
coTcV, 6 frar^p 6 €P rolr ovpavoit. 

* Epiph. Adv, H<Br. Lxix. 19 (i. p. 742); 57 (p. 780) 
as quoted by the Arians; and in Lziz. 67 (p. 781) he accepts 
the reading as his own. Semisch, p. 373. 

' Marcion read (Epiph. Adv. Hoer, xLii. p. 315): fi? fit 
Xcycrc dyaBop' €is ivrtv dya06ff 6 frarifp. In the refcu 
tation (p. 339) his text is giren: fu} fit Xc/r ayaB6v' tU 
Mtrrw dyaOott 6 Ocdr 6 Uar^p, For the passages of Clement 
(6 wanjp) and Origen (6 Oc^r 6 vav^p) see Griesb. Symb. 
Crit, pp. 305, 388. 

^ Peed. i. 8, $ 72 : tiapprjhfiv \tyti' ovbtlt dyaBos *l p^ 
6 wanip pov 6 tp roir ovpapols, Semisch, p. 372. The 
passage has been OTorlooked by Qriesbach. 


CHAP. n. 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 
into 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 {iwayeiv for TropeueaOai), 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 

^ The connexion of Dial. c. 97 with Horn. iii. 57 (Matt, 
y. 45) has been noticed already: p. 175, note 3. The 
reference to Luke xi. 52 in Dial. c. 17, where ras jcXcTr txtrt 
stands for 5;>arc ttjp jcXci^a r$r yyucrcflor, is Tcry different 
from that in Clem. Horn. iii. 18, where the phrase is Kparovo't 

* Dial. 0. 76 ; Clem. Horn. xix. 2 ; Matt. xxt. 41 : vwaycrc 
(Mt. irop€V€<r$€ an €fiov) tit t6 o'Kdros {Mt, irvp) t6 i^ti^ 
T€pop {Mt, alttytov) t fjroiyiavfp 6 varffp {-^ fiov, Mt.} r^ 
aaravq, (dta/3A^, Mt,, Clem.} koH roir ayyeXois ovroO. 

The reading, 6 ^roifiao'tp 6 nan^p fiov, is supported by D, 
and by many Fathers ; so that we may suppose that it was 
early current in the canonical Gospel. Irenieus, again, 
once omits dv ipov (iii. 23, 3) ; in two other places it is 
omitted by some MSS. (ir. 33, 11 ; 40, 2) ; in the remaining 
place it appears to be read by all (it. 28, 2). 

< The old Latin yersion of Ireneeus has in the two 
first quotations <»bite, and in the two last diicedite (Vulg.). 
The yariation is not noticed by Lachmann. The words ai^ 
confounded, Luke yiiL 42. 


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 passafife of St Matthew ^ DimsKncet 

'^ ^^ betwMQ 

It would be easy to show that the difierences iSSSi VST 
of Justin's quotations from the Gospel-passages ciememina. 
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 Quia DiT. Salr. $ 13 (Semisch, p. 377). 

How eMily such a passage might be altered may be seen 
from Epiphaniiu's quotation of the sentence of the just: 
d€in't tK dt$t&p fiov ol tvkoyriiUpoi =^ ols 6 wariip fiov 6 
otpdvios tOtro ri^y fiaviktlav irp6 Karapokijf xdafiov' cirfi- 
mura yhp mai ibrnKori iuh <^ayriy* idl'^an ffol inorliraTi fit' » 
yvfM»6s Koi mpupdktri fit (Hnr. 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. 

s An examination of the following passages common to 
Justin and the Homilies will fully confirm this statement : 

Matt. ir. 11 


TUl. 21 

Dial. cc. 103; 125 

— T. 39. 40 


XT. 6 

Apol. 16 

(TiUke Ti. 29) 

Matt. Ti. 8 


ui. 55 

— 15 

— vii. 15 


xi. 35 

— 16 ; Dial. c. 85 

— Tiii. 11 


TUl. 4 

Dial. 0. 76 

— X. 28 


XTIU. 3 

Ap. 19 

— xi. 27 


— 4 

— 63; Dial. c. 100 

— xjx. 16 


— 3 

— 16; — c. 101 

Luke Ti. 36 


iii. 57 

— 15; — c. 96 

— xi. 62 


— 18 

— 17. 


CHAP. iL are found in both books places tbeir 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 

a coinei- The relation of Justin to the Apocryphal 


iSS^mm" Gospels introduces the last objection which we 
finditZS!!?' 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 


Evangelists, or recorded by them with serious chap, il 
rariations 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 ao- 
quainted with details of His Life treasured up 
by such as the elder of EphesusS 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 Jf^JJ^* 
seem an exception to this statement, really con- nS'^aiee, 
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: 
'Thoii art my Son; this day have I begotten p^ «• 7. 
Thee.' Augustine mentions the reading as 
current in his time'; and the words are fbund 

1 Dial. C. 3 : nakaUt rtt wpttrfivrriu 

s All the passages are gi^en aboTe, pp. 155 f. 

s August de Com. Ew. ii. 14. lUud Tero quod nonnulli 
codices habent secundum Lucam (iii. 22), hoc lUA voce sonu- 
isse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, FiUua meui es tu, effo 
hodie genui te ; quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus gnecis 
non inTcniri 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 



cHAP.n. 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 meV 
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 : EnclUrir 
diorifC, XLix. (14). Cf. Lectt. Varr. (T. vi. p. xxir. ed, 

^ Cf. Qriesb. ad Luo. iii. 22. The quotation of the 
words by Clement of Alexandria (Peed. i. § 25) is omitted in 
his SyniolcB Critiem (ii. 363). 

> Dial. c. 103 : ical y^p ovros 6 dta/3oXor Sifui rf dpo/Sijwiu 
avT6p <krd rov irorafiov rod 'lopdovov, rrjs (jxavfjs avr^ Xc;(^c<n7ff* 
Yi6s fiov €1 <rvy ryoo a^yitpov yryiwriKa ae' €V Tols dirofunjfiovfV' 
fuxai tSv airooT^kav ytypanrai fr/oocfX^wv air^ koX mipd^nw 
fitXP^ ^^^ ctircTy avr^* ELpoaicvvrffrdv fioi. The same words are 
quoted again (c. 88) without any reference to the Memoirs. 

The words occurred In the Ebionite €k)spel : Epiph. Hofr* 
xzz. 13. It is erident, however, that the narratire 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 ftrom some third source. Cf. StrausB, 
Leben Jew, i. 378, (Ed. 2, quoted by Semisch, p. 407, n.) 


that Justin gives no authority for the disputed cHAP.n. 


This apparent mixture of two narratives is The«re 

* *^ kindled in 

still more remarkable in the mode in which ^^^'^^ 
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 
HimV 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 

1 Dial. C. 88 : Ka\ rcfrc t\36vTos rov ^Irjavv M, t6w *Iop- 
bayrjv worafiov, tvBa 6 *IaMxyin;r ifimrri^f^ KortkBovTos rov 'li^crov 
hrX r6 vboap km irvp dvrj<f>$fj iv rf *lopdavg Koi avabvvrot avrov 
awo rov vdaros »s nfpurrtpav t6 ayiov wvfvfta irrtirnjvtu hr* 
avrhv typa^av ol diroaroXoc avrov rovrov rov Xpurrov fifuiv. 

In the Ebionite Gospel (Epiph. 1. c.) the legend is giren 
differently: <or avrfkBtv airh rov vdaros, ^voLyrj<raw ol ov« 
pavol , , , , Koi €v$vs ircpicXafi^c t6p roirov <f>»s /^cya. OttO 
(ad 1.) quotes a passage from ' a Syriac liturgy' which may 
indicate the origin of the tradition : ' Quo tempore adscendii 
ab aquis, iol inclinavU rudios moB* 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. 

> The details of the Transfiguration furnish an illna- 



The mnain- 
ing *AvO' 
renon la 



Matt. xiL 24; 
xxTiL 63; 
John riL IS. 

If ark Ti. a 

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 Hhe 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- 
iDg-place, (Ezod. xir. 20; 1 Kings viii. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 16). 
Light is the outward mark of special conyerse with Him ; 
Ex. xzxiT. 30. 

^ Dial. c. 69: ol dc kcu ravra 6pc»vr€t yiv6fi€va ifHurrcurUiw 
/tayiKrjv ylpttrOai tktyov' KCLi yap fioyov twai avT6v eT6kfi»v Xryriy 

cat \aojr\dvov, Cf. Apol. i. 30, and Otto's notes. 

' August, de Cons, Ew. i. 9 : Christum propterea sapi- 
entissimum putant fuisse quia nescio quss illicita noyerat.... 

' C. Cels. yi. 36 : ovdafiov tSp iy ralf iKKKijaiais <f>fpofUtfo»p 
ff&iyycXi«v ttKTwp avr^r 6 'Itfcrovs aPoyvypanrroA, 


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 life^' 

In addition to these details Justin has re- rndiuoui 


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 V 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 Hebrews ^;^ but even if it were 
so, the tradition must have existed before the 

1 Dial. c. 88: ravra y^/> rd rcicrovuc^ tpya tipya{(To hf 
ijfBptmois ciPf &poTpa jcal C^ryOf diii rovrmv Ka\ ra r^r buocuocrvmif 
irv/ifioka dtdaaKctw nil firtpyfj filov. OttO refers to the 
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (c. 38), and to the Goepel of 
Thomas (c. 13), for similar traditions. The latter narrative 
(ipoTpa Ka\ (vyovs /iroici, said of Joseph,) shows a remark* 
able coincidence of language with Justin. 

' Dial, c 47 : ^ rjfUrfpos uvptot 'li/crovr Xpccrr^r cZrcv* *Ey 
olir hf vftas «iraXd/9«>, tv rovrocr icai Kpiv&. Cf. Otto, <td L 

s Clem. De Div. Serv. $ 40. 

4 Semisch, p. 394. 

» Cf. Credner, L 247. 



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- 
sies ^' 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 ruleV 
Lactantius also affirms that ' both Christ Himself 
and His ambassadors foretold that many sects 
and heresies would arise... V 
ExMggtn- Elsewhere Justin generalizes the statements 

of the Gospels with what may seem natural 
exaggerations. 'Herod,^ he says, 'conmianded 

1 Dial, c 35 : c fire ydp . • .tfavvrai crxtcrfuira ml alp€mi9. 
Of. 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. The passage is quoted by Justin be- 
tween Matt. xziy. 5 (yii. 15) and Matt. zxir. 11, 24 ; and dis- 
tinguished from them. 

' Hom. ZTi. 21 : taoprtu yap, «r 6 Kvpios thrtPf y^€vda' 
YrdcrroXoc, ^cvdcir irpo^^rai, alpivm, <f>ikapxuu. The word 
^t€vbatr6irTo\oi occurs likewise in St Paul (2 Cor. zi. 13), in 
Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. iy. 22), in Justin (L c), in Ter- 
tullian {PrcMcr, hanreL c. ir. quoted by Otto,) and in other 
authors ; so that it may point to some traditional yersion of 
our Lord's words. Gf. Semisch, p. 391, anm, 

* Inst. Dir. ir. 30, (Semisch, p. 393) : Ante omnia scire 
DOS conyenit, et ipsum, et legates ejus prsodixisse, quod pla* 
rimsB secta) et hsereses haberent ezistere, quse concordiam 
sancti corporis rumperent. Cf. Tertull. 1. c. where the pas- 
sage is apparently ^ferred to the text of St PauL 


all the children in Bethlehem to be slain mthotU chap, it 

exception};* yet he states in another place with 
more exactness that 'Herod slew all the children 
who were bom in Bethlehem about the time of 
Christ's birthV Again, when speaking of the 
calumnies of the Jews about the Resiurection, 
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 ^f» "^"*- 
is everywhere spoken against.^ 

More frequently he interprets the text; as^^K^o: 
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 Hhe Magi from Arabia^ And this 

1 Dial. c. 78 : iravras airX»ff rovs Yratddr rovt iw BtffKtifi 

3 DiaL C. 103 : wayras rovs cV Bc^cc/i iiuiwov rov tcaipov 
ytwrjOtpras Yraidar. Origen quotes the passage with some 
yariations: navra ra iraidta ayciXc r^ cV Bf/^cf/i, jcol /r 
(asiracrO roir 6piot£ o^r^r, air6 durovs it.r. X. Conun. in 
Matt. irii. 11. 

' Dial. C. 108 : ayhpas x'c/>oroyi;(raiTCff cjcXcrro^r tit wao'av 
r^v olKovfi€Prjv cWfi^rorv, Krfpwrtrovrtf ^i aipt<ri£ ris iBtot 
ical Swofios iyiytprtu imh 'li^crov rtmn VakCKaiov irXoyov .... 

* Dial. C. 78 : airoypa<f>TJt oijoifs tp tJ *Iovdaif totc np^rtit 
iie\ Kvprjptov avikriBvOu anh Na(ap€Tf tvOa f leci, tU Btffkufi^ 
SBfP ^r, dyoYpa^lratrBai. 



oHAP.n. very commonly happens when the gloss is 
|nw|n«^ suggested by a prophecy. Thus he alludes to 
^' the cave in which our Lord was bom, because 

iml roiiL Isaiah had said that ' He shall dwell in a high 

16. (LXX.) ^ 

cave of a strong rock ^.' He speaks of the Star 
which rose in heaven^ not in the East' — the day- 
spring (di/aroXf^), because our Lord Himself is 

zeehTLis. describcd as 'the Day-spring/ — 'the Star of 

^^' 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 'he bound his foal unto the vine^f— that 'there 
was no one, not even one, at hand to help Him 
[when betrayed], though He was without sin/ 

pi.xxiLii. 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,^ 

uiTiu.8. as 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 HimV 

^ Of. p. 116, note 7. It should hare been added that 
Epiphanios actually quotes 8t Luke for the statement. 

> Dial. c. 106 ; 78. 

s Apol. 32. Justin interprets the prophecy in the same 
way in the Dialogue (c. 63), without affirming this parti- 

4 Dial. c. 103. 6 Apol. 35. 

Dial. c. 53. 7 Apol. 50. 


referring to the prophecy of Zechariah quoted 

by St Matthew, and the picture of Christ's g^jJJ^7. 
sufferings and loneliness in Tsaiah. ^^' 

Such is the analysis of Justin's quotations R^pituin- 
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 Theintemai 
of Justin's quotations show us something of the uSa^ ^'^ 
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 

198 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. use of any other Evangelic records. Justin 
NojnMin lived at the period of transition from a tradi* 

Justin of the ^ 

^^HM^lpo- tional to a written Gospel, and his testimony iq 
ST^ 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 Jostin's quotations and cor Go- 
spels is so intimate that they cannot hare been indepen<- 
dent. The only alternatiye — 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 Erangelists exhibit the narratire in the 
simplest form. At the same time it is eyident that the 
original oral Gospel oould not hare been so long preserred 


His coincidences with heretical or apocryphal chap. n. 

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 

If we glance at his historical position "^^^Sm^- 
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 
ei\joyed 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 Tery great extent in it8 first purity without the counter- 
check of written Gospels. The tradition and the record 
mutually illustrate and confirm one another. 


CHAP. n. such esteem, and had acquired a firm place in 
inr^ontoihe commou life of Christians. He could not, at 
rad bw^ 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. 

* Ab, for example, when Serapion reproyed certain in 
the church at Rhossus for the use of ' the Gospel of St 
Peter,' (Euseb. H. E. n. 12) ; or when Theodoret substi- 
tuted the canonical Gospels for the Harmony of Tatian, 
of which he found ' aboye two hundred in the churches/ 


Gospels which were enumerated in the early co^-tl 
anonymous Canon, and whose mutual relations 
were eloquently expounded by Irenseus. 

This then appears to be established, both by HowfltfJo*. 
external and internal evidence, that Justin's ^,Sii^'' 
* 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 mnd to the 

^ r .^r other work* 

is the only book of the New Testament to which JJJSJ^J 
Justin alludes by name. Even that is not quoted, Th« apo. 


1 C£ pp. 121, 123 (note 3), and Credner, i. 253, ff. Justin's 
acquaintance with the Valentinians prores that the Gospel 
oould not hare been unknown to him (Dial. c. 35). The 
references to St John hare been collected by Otto (Illgen's 
ZeUsehri/t /Ur TheologUj 1841, ii. pp. 77, ff ; 1843, i. 34, ff; 
cf. LQcke, Comm. H. cL Ev. Joh. pp. 29, ff. Ed. 2.) The 
chief passages are John iii. 3—5, (Ap. i. 61. ct p. 178); 
!• 13, (Dial. c. 63) ; L 12, (Dial. c. 123) ; xu. 49, (Dial. c. 
66); Tii. 12, (DiaL c. 69); LQcke (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 ri. 


cHAP.iL 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 

Th« wriHnci P<u*t of the books, and various Pauline forms of 
expression and teaching show that the Apostle 
of the Gentiles had helped to mould his faith 

oaoitiant. and words'. Thus he says, ' We were taught 
that Christ is the Jlrst-bom {irpwroroKos) of God :* 
'we have recognized Him as the first-bom of 
God and before all creatures:' 'through EUm 
God arranged {Koa^itja-ai) all things V Elsewhere, 
he uses the example of Abraham to show that 
circumcision was for a sign and not for righteous- 

Bamant, uess, sincc he ' being in uncircumcision, for the 
sake of the faith, in which he believed God, was 

^ Cf. p. 140. Apol. i. 28 : 6 apxty^nii r«v kokS^v daif»6p9»p 
o^iff jcoXciroi jcal traravas Ka\ diajSoXor coincideB remark* 
ably with Apoc. xz. 2. The other passage to which Otto 
refers (a. a. 0. 1843, i. 42) Dial. c. 46 || Apoo. zzi. 4, seems 
more uncertain. 

s Otto, a. a. 0. 1842, ii. pp. 41, ff. The absence of all 
mention of the name of 8t Paul can create no difficulty 
when it is remembered how Justin speaks of 8t Peter (cwa 
r«y airooToXtty) and of the sons of Zebedee (oXXovr dvo dd€Xm 
tfHws. Dial. c. 106.) 

< Apol, i. 46 i Dial. o. 100 ; ApoL ii. 6 ; cf. Col. L 


justified and blessed '/ • By faith {irltrrei) 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 corhukiam. 
glory from the heavens, when also the man of 
the falling away (o t$5 airo<rra(ria9 avOpanrosiy^^ 
the man of lawlessness (c. 32) — who speaketh u-TUstaxo- 
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 g^i,,^^ 

^ Dial. c. 23 : leal yap tdrr^t 6 ^Afipaofi h iicpopvari^ »p 
di^ ri^y nlirrip, l)y iwUirtwrM rf ^f^ iduuum3vf. The depar* 
tare from the Paulme point of yiew is to be noticed ; aa 
faith is here represented as the moving cause (fUa ace.), and 
not as the instrmnental {dtii gen,) cause, or aa the spring 
(<V) of justification. 

> DiaL c. 13. > Dial. c. 131. 

* Dial. c. Ill ; 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 1 Cor. ii. 4, f. 

» DiaL c. 110, (cf. c. 32.) 2 Thess. IL 3, ff. 

Apol. 1. 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 | Hebr. 
iz. 13, f ; c. 34 I Hebr. viii. 7» f. 

The references to the Acts are uncertain. Cf. Ap. i. 49 | 
Acts ziii. 27, 48. Otto, a. a. O. Still more so those to the 
Pcutaral and CkUhoUe Epittla, 

204 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. The most remarkable coincidences between 

terSSl^^ Justin and St Paul are found in their common 
£u?ta %o- quotations from the LXX. It is possible, indeed, 

tationa from 

i^ 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. 
XL 3. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, 18. In the LXX. the teit stands : 
{rfkSp ^{rjik»Ka r^ Kvpi^ vaFroKparopi^ Sri ryieorcXiin^y a€ 
(y. 14. rijp dco^iD/y crov, v. I, at) ol viol *Ia-pai;X* (y. 14 *l- ml) 
rd Bva-uurrrfptd aou KontrKO^^caf ical rovs npo^^rat arov dwiicrtuHW 
iw pofKf)aiq, jcal viroXcXfi/ii/MU iy» fiotwraros koX {riroviri r^v 
y^XO^ V^""^ ^<o^lif auniw .... y. 18 : JtaraXci^is fV *lapafj/K 
4irra x^Xuidaff aifdpwVf wcarra ydpora h ovk e^Kkatrop y6w rf 
BooA • . . • 


verbally with the quotation of St Paul in the chap.h. 
Epistle to the Bomans, 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 

In the other writings besides the Apologies g^imott to 
and Dialogue, which are commonly attributed to /(^di'iS* 
Justin, the references to the New Testament 
exhibit the same general range. In the frag- 
ment on the Besurrection 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 ThoBO passages are : 

Apol. L 0. 52 = Rom. ziy. 11. Isai. zly. 23. 
Dial. c. 27 * Rom. iii. 12—17. Ps. zir. 3, 5, 10 ; czzxix. 4. 

— c. 95 = Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxrii. 26. 

— c. 96 = — iii. 13. — xd. 23. 

— c. 39 = — Eph. ir. 8. Ps. Lzriii. 18. 

Isai. Lix« 7, 8. This passage was omitted in the list giveiii 
p. 144. 

s The reference of Dial. c. 12 to Phil. iii. 3 is yery 

s (a) 8t Matthew, xzii. 29 (c. ix.) ; 30 (o. IL) ; xzriii. 17 
(c. ix.) 
(/3) St Mark, xtL 14, 19 (c. ix.) 
(y) St Luke, xxif. 38, 39, 42 (c. ix.) 
id) St John, xiT. 2, 3 (c. ix.) ; xx. 25, 27 (c. ix.) ; xi. 25 
(cf. c. L) 


CRAP. iL there are coincidences of language with St Panics 

Epistles to the Corinthians (i.)> the PhilippianfiT, 
^Sac^Sho. *^^ ^ Timothy (i.)^ In the * Address ' and * Ex- 
ffootf Gen- }|Qfta^QQ ^ 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'. 
Geneni n- A Combination of these different results tnll 


g^ve 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. DionysiiAS of Corinth and Pinytus. 
Connexion of In thc last scctiou it was shown that the 


jrtAjurtta 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. XT. 53 ; c. 10. Philipp. iii. 20 ; c. 9 (7). 1 Tim. 
il 4; c. 8. ' 

> John Tiii. 44 ; Cohort, o. 21. Acts vii. 22 ; Cohort, 
c. 10. 1 Cor. ir. 20; Cohort, c. 35. 1 Cor. xii. 7—10; 
Cohort, c. 32. Galat iy. 12 ; t. 20, 21 ; Orat c. 5. Coloss. 
i* 16 ; Cohort, c 15. 

s Hioron. de Vir, lU, zxriL Clamit sub Impp. L. Anto- 


iion are taken from a letter to Soter, a bishop of 
Borne. His testimony is thus connected both 
chronologically and locally with that of Justin. 
There is no room lefl 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,' mniceount 
Dionysius writes to Soter, *and we read yourchSSS°' 
letter ; from the reading of which from time to ^ 
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. Aarelio Commodo. Roath (i. p. 177) 
fixes his death aboat 176, when Commodus began to reign 
jointly with his father. 

1 Euseb. H. E. ir. 23 (Roath, p. 180): Tfjv a^fupov o^p 
KvpuucfiP aylap fjfi€pa» dirfyayofuv, fV § aycyM»/i€y vfi&v rijp 
/frtoToXiyy' rjv t^fup dti wort apoyunia-Kovrtt pov$€rti<rBai^ ^ 
cal rrip wportpaw ^fup itii KXi]fi€vros ypaif^turctp. The plural 
pronoun (vfiS>p) is to be noticed. Cf. p. 66, n. 1. 

The first clause is somewhat obscure. J£ Kvpuuajp be 
not a gloss ayiap ^ft€pap must be taken, I think, as a predi* 
cate, as I hare translated it. 

* De Praescr. Hseret. o. zzxtI. 


cHAP.iL 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 ColosssB, 
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. 
Howfkrwi^ Dionysius, it is true, says nothing in this 
S^Ms- 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 g^ves 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 jalone is a proof 
of the perpetuity of the complete form of faith 
which it exhibits. The Catholicity of the Co- 
rinthian Church is, indeed, expressly affirmed in 
another fragment. Just as Clement appealed 

1 Of. pp. 29, ff. 


to the labours of ^ St J^eter and St Paul, placing chap. ii. 
them in clear and intimate connexion ^ Diony- 
sius describes the Churches of Rome aftd Coriiitti 
as their joint plantation. * For both/ he says, 
* having come to our -city 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 foreijni hu tetu- 
churches — ^his * inspired industry ' as it has been SSIiSSie'*** 
called^ — ogives an additional weight to his evi- chuiehM. 
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. 

s Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 (Routh, 1. c.) : Tavra (al. ravTjj) 
Koi vfitis dih Ttjs Too'aimjs vovBtaiat^ r^r anh Ilcrpov xol 
IlavXov <f>vTtiaw y€vyrj$tiaay 'F»fiai<ov rt koi ViopwOitav trvyv- 
MfMurart, Jtol yap afAxfxo Koi tU rr^v rjftertpav K6pip$ov ^vrcv- - 
aarrtf ^paSf 6fu>(tt>r tdiba(caf' Sfiolas di koi tls rfjv 'iroXiav 
6p6(r€ dida^yrcr ifiapTvprfa'a» xarh r^y aMv Kaip6v, It is 
difficolt to fix tho exact sense of Sfioim and 6fjL6a'€ in the 
last clause. I belieye that Sfioiais is to be taken with tho 
whole sentence, and not with dM^aprts: and that 6fi6a't 
expresses simply 'to the same place.' Bishop Pearson's 
interpretation (Routh, p. 192) seems to rest on false ana- 

< Euseb. II. E. iy. 23 : Mios ^cXoiroy/a. 

* Euseb. 1. c. The description which Eusebius gives of 
the Letters accords with what might hare been conjectured 
of tho characteristic faults of tho churches. 'H niw wp6t 



CHAP. II. glimpse thus given of the communication be- 
tween the churches shows their general agree- 
meikit, 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 

Hu direct re- Thcrc wcrc, indeed, heresies actively at work, 

ference to the 

SSt aSiJil but their progress was watched. Some of their 
""*** 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 

• AaKf^aifioviovt opOobo^las KanD^rjTiK^f flp^vrjs re Koi evciateis 
V7ro$€TtKi^' i} dc rrpos \6rjvaiovs dtepyeriKfj Triorewr Koi r^s Karh 
t6 €vayy€Kiov TroXiretaf .... aWrj 5c . , , rrpbs fiiKOfiijUeas <f}€p€'' 
raif iv n n)y MapKioivos atpeatv 7roXc/i&>v, r^ rrjs a\rjdfias frapU 
oraroi Kavovi . . . The Cretan churches ho warns ligainst ' 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 conyorsation, or heretical deceit. 
From these casual traits we can form a picture of the early 
Church, real and life-like, though differing as widely from 
that which represents it without natural defects as from that 
which deprives it of all historical unity. 


Testament, {twv KvpioKwv ypa<f)wv)f when they chap.ii. 

havd laid hands on those which make no claims 
to their character {Ta7^ ov Toiavrany.'* 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 (irapiaTaaOai) the Rule of Truth *.* 
The Eule of Truth and the Rule of Scripture, 
as has been said before, mutually imply and 
support each other. 

The language of Dionysius bears evident coin^dmcet 
traces of his familiarity with the New Testa- SJ^F^' 

The short fragment just quoted contains 
two obvious allusions to the Gospel of St Mat- Matt.xuLS4. 

^ EuBob. 1. C. : *Ejri<rT6\as yap adcX^e^v d{t<»(ravr»F fi€ 
ypa'^cUf typa^a* kcX ravras ol tov diajSoXov d7r6aTo\oi (i(av/«y 
ytyifiiKoy, a fiiv i^aipovtrr^s, a de irpoort^cvrcf, otr t6 o^l 
/cciroi. ov Bavfiatrrov apa tl Koi rwv KvpiaKmv padiovpyija'ai 
Ti9€£ [rivaSf liouth] cViiSc/i^Xi^n-at ypaKJiuPy oirort kqI tois ov 
roiaCrais ciri^c/SXijicao't. It is mentioned that Bacchylidos and 
ElpistuB urged him to write to the churches of PontuB 
(Euseb. 1. c.)» it is, then, possible that he alludes to the 
corruption of this very letter by the Marcionitcs. The 
parallel thus becomes complete. 

« Cf. note, p. 210. 




cHAP.n. thew and the Apocalypse; and in another pas- 

AHt.xxu. sage he adopts a phrase from St PauFs first 

fthL li. Epistle to the Thessalonians K 

Fwjjijmtof 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 

Hebr. T. i2~ 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. 

The value of If our rccords be scanty, at least they have 


"oenii. 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 

^ Euseb. I. c. : . . . roifs aviovras ddcX^ov; <is re leva var^p 
<l>iK6oTopyog irapaxaXSv, 

* Euseb. 1. c. : . . . avriTrapaKokei de a-Ttpporipai^hij iror^ 
ptrabMvai rpo<^^ff reXrtorcpoir ypdppaaiP iaavBis t69 
irap avr^ \a6» wrodpi^tavra, »r p^ diariXovs rois yaXaKTti^ 
dtaiP MioTpifiovres XSyoit rj vr^mtUd ayory^ XaOoitw Kara" 


examined in this section do not amount to more tHAP.ii. 
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 modem 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 

§ 9. Hermas, 
As we draw nearer to the close of this transi- AgeoCTri 

view of Um 

tional period in the history of Christianity, itchS!!^hSe- 

oemry to tbe 

becomes of the utmost importance to notice ^^tcritjj^ 
every sign of the intercourse and harmony of H^tS^ 
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 


CHAP, n. 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. 
The con. This is uot the place to attempt to give any 

25!!JS^*the outline of the history of Christianity. But it is 
thcMoond 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 nuddle 
of the second century'*, were to be found repre- 
sentatives of distant churches and conflicting 
sects. At Eome, Justin, the Christian philosopher, 
opened his school, and consecrated his teaching 
by his martjrrdom. 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 Ccrdo and Marcion «ought 

1 The space might bo limited oven more exactly to the 
Episcopato of Anicetus (157 — 168). Hegcsippus came to 
Rome during that time, and Valentinus was then still allTO 
(Euseb. II. E. IV. 22; Irenseus, ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 11.) 

> Iren. ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 


to propagate their errors, wad met the champions Qhap. n. 
of orthodoxy. Nor was this all : while the at- 
tractions of the Imperial City were powerful in 
bringing together Christians from different Iflnds, 
the liberality of the Boman Church extended its 
influence abroad. 'It has been your custom/ 
Bionysius 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 Eomans a custom handed 
down to you by your Boman 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 traces of these momentous facts 
would have survived than can be traced in the 
subtle disquisitions of critics. Once invest Chris- 

1 Dionys. ap. Euscb. H.E. iv. 23. Routb, i. p. 179. 


CHAP. II. tianfty with life— -let fiie men, whose very per- 
sonality seems to t>e lost in the fragments which 
bear their name, be regarded as busy workers 
in due 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 
JJjffwwtde- These general remarks seem necessarily 
uSiteity.^" 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 Scripture. 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. \Miile 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- 
2J«jhanus ment is never destroyed by catholicity. The 
Church"*" Boman Chiurch, in which we have seen collected 

1 Hogosippus ap. Eusob. H. E. iv. 22. Gf. p. 214, noto 1. 


an epitome of CbristenJIto, ^had yet its own chap.ii. 
characteristic tendency towards form and order. 
Of this something has been said already in 
speaking of Clement^ ; but it appears m a 
simpler and yet maturer character in the ' Shep- {^^JJJ^^J. 
herd of Hennas/ the next work which remains iS?.**'"*^' 
to witness of its progress. 

This remarkable book — a threefold collection '^^^^Z 
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- b«°- *^- 
temal 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' Bxtenuieri- 

*" dence of iu 

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 Home, while 
the Bishop Pius, his brother, occupied the chair 
of the Boman Church'.' This same statement is 

* Cf. pp. 32, &c. 

s Routh, I. p. 396 : Pastorom rero nuporrime tempori- 
bus nostris id urbe Roma Henna [Hermas] coiucripsit, se- 
dente [id] cathedra urbis Romse ecclesisD Pio episcopo fratre 
ejus. £t ideo legi cum quidcm oportet, se publicare [sed 
publlcari] vero in ecclesid populo, nequo inter propbotas 
completum [completos] numoro, nequo inter Apostolos, in 
finem temporum potest. 


CHAP. If. repeated in an Early Latin poem against Mareion, 
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 obsciured 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 Irenseus 
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 S but 

1 Of. Routh, p. 427 ; Ilofclc, p. Lxxii, where the autho- 
rities are given at length. 

a Cf. p. 217, note 2. 

8 Iron. (iv. 20) ap. Euscb. II. E. v. 8: Kokas ovp tJvep 
ij ypa^rj i; Xeyovcra, irpSrov fravrap iriarfvaov ori €« fWl* 6 
Gc6ff, 6 TO. iravra Kr'uras Ka\ ra i^rfs (Mand. i). It may bo 
reasonably supposed that Hermas here uses words sanctioned 
by common usage. 

^ Str. I. 17. § 85; i. 29. § 29; ii. 1. § 3. In three other 
places he quotes the book simply by the title of the ' Shop- 
herd :' Str. n. 12. § 66; iv. 9. § 76; vi. 6. } 46. 

The references which Tortullian makes to the book (cfo 


he does not distinguish his name by any honorary chap. ii. 
title, and is wholly silent as to his date and posi- 
tion. The identification of the author of the 2"«S" *"f 

identifles Its 

* Shepherd' with his namesake in the Epistle to ?hi^a%SSSB 


the Bomans 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 Hcrmas 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- 

FudieUidy oc. 10, 20) throw no direct light upon its date or 
authorship. He. simply affirms that it was * classed by evert/ 
council of the Churches among the false and apocryphal 
books/ The testimony is important on other grounds : it 
prores that the Canonicity of books was a question debated 
in Christian assemblies. 

1 Orig. Comm. in Bom. Lib. x. $ 31. Puto tamen quod 
Hennas iste sit scriptor libelli ejus, qui Pastor appellatur, 
qus8 scriptura valde mihi utilis ridctur, et, ut puto, dirinitus 
inspirata. He then goes on to eiplain the omission of any 
remark upon his name, showing that he is speaking from 
conjecture and not from knowledge. In § 24 he raises the 
question whether ApeUes be not identical with Apollos. Cf. 
Hem. in Luc. xxv. 

lu thcokigi- 
oftl Import- 


UAP. II. bius and Jerome, the next writers who repeat 
' 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. 
niechiwM^ Internal evidence alone is sufficient to prove 
^nk. 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, 
can scarcely belong to an earlier period*. Theo- 
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. E. ni. 3 ((paa-ip), Hieron. Gatal. x. (asserunt.) 

s The following appear to be some of the weightieet 
proofs of its late date : 

(a) The teaching on penitence (Vib. iii. 7 ; Mand. it. 1 ; 
Sim. Yii.)> fasting (Sim. v.). The allusions to stationm 
(Sim. T. 1), subirUroductCB (Sim. iz. 11). 

O) The account of the orders in the Ghurcb (Yis. iii. 5). 

(y) The teaching on Baptism (Sim. ix. 16) as necessary 
even for the patriarchs. The revival of this belief in Mor- 
monlsm 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 


goished from Jewish forms. The peril arose chap.ii. 

not from the recollection of the old, but from 
the organization of the new : its centre was not 
at Jerusalem, but at Bome. At Jerusalem Chris- 
tian doctrine was grafted on the Jewish ritual ; 
but at Bome a Judaizing spirit was busy in 
moulding a substitute for the Mosaic system^ 
The one error was necessarily of short continu- Le«aiintone, 

^ but not J u- 

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 Reuuon to 
the same relation to the Epistle of St James as 8tJ«n«i. 
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 Dumber twelre to symbolize the 
uniTersality of the Church — the spiritual Israel. Hi duo- 
decim montes, quos vides, duodecim sunt gentes, quss totum 
obtinent orbem (Lib. m. 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 so 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 PUgrinCz ProgruSf and 
higher praise than this cannot be given to such a book. 


CHAP. II. a law of liberty, centering in man'^s deliyerance 
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 foimd 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 
iSJJn.kl'*** '^^^ * Shepherd' contains no definite quota- 
"^^'' 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* T. 3 : Si autom prectcr oa quse mandayit Dominus 
aliquid boni adjccoris, majorom dignitatom tibi conquircs, 
ct honoratior apud Dominum ens, quam eras futurns. Cfl 
Mand. iy. 4, in connexion with 1 Cor. rii. 39^ 40. 


directed against the misuse made of it>. The chap.ii. 

scope of the writer gave no •opportunity 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 occur 
throughout the book. The allusions to the 
Epistle of St James*, and to the Apocalypse ^ ^^^S^ 
are naturally most frequent, since the one is 
most closely connected with the * Shepherd' by The oospeu. 
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, itcrum nega [sc. Dominum]. 
Frope est DominuB convertoiitibus, sicut scrip turn est in 
Ileldam ot Modal, qui yaticinati sunt in solitudioo populo. 
The sense of the passage seems to be : Tou may, if you 
please, again deny Christ in persecution, vainly relying on 
general promises of repentance. Cf. Numb. xi. 26, 27. 

3 The coincidences of Hermas with 8t James are too 
numerous to be enumerated at length. Whole sections of 
the ' Shepherd' are framed with evident recollection of 8t 
James's Epistle: e. g. Vis. iii. 9; Mand. ii. ix. xi ; Sim. y. 4. 
Of the shorter passages one or two examples will suffice : 
Mand. xii. 6, 6 = James iv. 7. 12; Sim. rili. 6 >■ James ii. 7. 

s The symbolism of the Apocalypse reappears in the 
'Shepherd.' The Cburch is represented under the figuro 
of a woman (Apoc. xii. 1 ; Vis. ii. 4), a bride (Apoc. zxii. 
2; Vis. iy. 2): her enemy is a great beast (Apoc. xii. 4; Vis. 
iv. 2), The account of the building of the tower (Vis. iii. 
5), and of the array of those who entered into it (Sim. viii. 
2, 3) is to be compared with Apoc. xzi. 14 ; yi. 11 ; vii. 9, 14. 


CHAP. IT. teaching^ That these were no other than our 

Gospels, is at Wast rendered probable by the 

fact, that he makes no reference to sutf apocry- 

• phal narrative : and the opinion is confirmed by 

The AOt. a dear allusion to ftie Acts'. In several places 

St jofm. again St Johns's teaching on *the Truth' lies 

at the ground of Herraas' words^; and the 

I St Peter, parallels with the First Epistle of St Peter are 

Hiireution vcrv worthv of uoticc*. 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 EphesiansS 

Hermas distinctly recognizes the great truth 

which is commonly regarded as the characteristic 

Doctrine of ceutrc of his teaching?. 'Faith,' he saVs, '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 Tho 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. 3; Matt, 
xviii. 3, with Sim. ix. 29. 

2 Vis. iv. 2 =« Acts iv. 12. 

8 Mand. iii. = 1 John ii. 27 ; iv. 6. 
•* Vis. iv. 3 = 1 Pet. i. 7 ; Vis. iv. 2 = 1 Pet. v. 7. 
6 Sim. V. 7- 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; Sim. ix. 13-=Eph, iv. 4; 
Mand. iii. (cf. Mand. x. l)'eEph. iv. 30* 


saved. Abstinence, the second virgin, is her chap.i t. 
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 alP.' 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£^ltoQ^"h 

Si John. 

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 

^ Vis. iii. 8 : Prima quidem eamm, qu» continet [tiirrim 
t. e. ecclesiam] manu, Fidti rocatur; per hanc salvi fient 
electi Dei. Alia vero, quee succincta est, et Tiriliter agit, 
Abitmmtia vocatur; hsec filia est Fidei . . . CieteroD autem 
quinque . . .filia invicem sunt . . .Quum ergo Berrayeris opera 
matriB earum, omnia poteris cnstodire. 

' Clem. Sir, ii. 12: npoiTyrtrai fiiv wltrntf <l>6fiot di oUo* 
dofAt7f reXrtoZ dc 7 ttyam), 

> Sim. Tiii. 3 : In corde eorum qui credidenmt [Michael] 
inserit legem. Yisitai igitur eos, quibus dedit legem, si earn 


C H-^P- '^ 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 V '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. 

3 Sim. ix. 2: . . . petra altior moDtibus illis erat, et quad- 
rata erat, ita ut posset totum orbem sustinere. Vetus autem 
mihi Yidebatur esse, sed habebat novam portum, qute Duper 
Yidebatur exsculpta. Et porta ilia clariorem splendorem quam 
sol babebat . . . Sim. ix. 12 : Petra heec et porta Filius Dei 
cst...Filius quidom Dei omni creature antiquior est, ita ut 
in consilio Patri suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam. 
Porta autem propterea nova est, quia in consummatione in 
noyissimis diebus apparuit [all. apparcbit] ut qui assecuturi 
sunt salutem, per eam intront in regnum Dei. 

8 Sim. ix. 14. 

* Sim. ix. 12. Cf. note (6). 

6 Sim. ix. 12 : Porta vero Filius Dei est, qui solus est 
accessus ad Deum alitor ergo nemo iutrabit ad Deum nisi per 
Filium ejus. 

^ Sim. ix. 1 : effigie Ecclesise locutus est 
tecum. IIle...Spiritu8 Filius Dei est. The conception is 
very worthy of notice. On the details of Hernias' doctrino 


It would be difficult to find a more complete c^^p* ^^ 
contrast to Ebionism than these passaires afford. ^H'^^j®'^* 

* ^ of his doc- 

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 

of the Trinity — especially of the relation of the Son to the 
Holy Spirit — this is not the place to enter. Cf. Dorner, 
i. 195 ff. 




§ 10, Hegesipptis, i 

ofHflgfr- The name of Heeesippus has become a 

rippusto ® ^'^ 

"*"**^ 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 
PauP. 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 * fiishop of the Circum- 
cision V 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. ; 
Ball maintained the true view in answer to Zwicker. 

* Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. Cf. p. 234, n. 

s Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. Rotith, i. 208 ff. All the details, 
however, are not drawn from Nazaritic asceticism. 


Hebrew convert of our own time' ; but of Ebion- chap. ii. 

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 Biuebiiu* 

^ tMttanony to 

his opinions by mere negations. Eusebius, who ^^^^ 
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 V 

1 It IB Btrange that the conduct of St Paul \% not more 
frequently taken as a commentary on hk teaching. Apart 
from the testimonieB in the Acts, St Paul himBelf says, in 
an epiBtle 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. 

^ Euseb. H. £. It. 7 : irapriy€v c^r fi€<rop 7 aX^&tia wktiovs 
4avTTJt {nrtpfJMXOvt, . . di iYYpa<f>»w ttnodti(tc»w Kara t&p dOtmw 
alptir€»w arparrvofifyovf iv rovro&r tyvmpi(€To 'Hyifcr&inror. . • 


CHAP. II. whose ' orthodoxy and sound faith, conformable 
to the Apostolic tradition, was shown by their 
writings ^' Hegesippus in fact proves that the 
faith which wc have already recognized in its 
essential features at Ephesus, Corinth and Rome, 
was the faith of Christendom. 


ii"f<S3^" Not being content to examine only the records 


of his native Church, Hegesippus undertook a 
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 {ip9i^ 
\oyoi), in which the Church had continued up 
to the time of his visit*. What these * right 

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 21 : tav xal th ijfAaf rrjs anoaroKudjs 
napad6a'€»s rj rov vyiovs irurreax tyypatjios Kor^XOfv dpOodo^ia^ 
On Bucb a point the eTidenco of Eusebius is concIuBiye. 

s This journey took place during the bishopric of Ani- 
cetus (151 — 160 A.D. Euseb. H. E. iv. 11), and Hegesippus 
appears to have continued at Rome till the time of Eleu- 
therius (169—184 a.d.). The Paschal Chronicle fixes his 
death in the reign of Commodus (Lumper, iii. 108). Jeromo 
speaks of him (de Virr. HI, xxii.) as vicinus ApostoHcorum 
temporunif so rendering, as it appears, the phrase of Eu- 
sebius M rQff wpmTris tS)v dnoarSkmv y€vofUvos diaboxos (H. £. 
ii. 23). This would represent him as a younger contem- 
porary of Polycarp. 

8 Euseb. H. E. ir. 22 : rijv avr^v napa iravrmp ira/>c/Xi7<^c 

^ Euseb. H. E. iv. 22 : jcat Infptvtv if €KKKrf(ria ij KopiMmv 
iv rf 6p6^ \6y€^ H^XP^ TLplpjov ivuTKonfvovrot iv Kopivl^ • ols 
avvifu^a irXccov tU 'PcD/ii^y, Koi avvduTpiyfta rois KopivSiois 
ijfiipat Uawds' iv tus (rwav€iimffjL€V r^ ^P^V ^^^' 


principles' were, is evident from the fact that chap. n. 

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 Irenseus the Creed of the Church was essen- 
tially unchanged. 

Hegesippus embodied the results of his in- JJ^J[*J[Jf*" 
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. I. c. Cf. H. E. iii. 16; and p. 207. 

s Euseb. I. c : cV iKdarjj dc diadoxi (in each episcopal 
succession) Kal cV iKatTrjj irAct ovTm£ c^ci o»r 6 pdfios laipvrrti 
Koi ol irpo(f)^Tai kqI 6 Kvpiot, 

8 Do Virr. III. I. c.: • • . omne^ a passione Domini usque ad 
suam eetatem Ecclesiasticonim Actuum texens historias. . . 

* H. E. ir.S : eV ircWc b^ cvv (rvyypafifAoinp olros rifv dvktanj 
irapddoaip rod dwoaToKiKOv Kt^pvyfiaTOt airXovordrj; owtq^i 
ypoK^rjs vtrofjonjiiaTurdiupos. . . 





cHAP.u. place, 'the fullest record of his own opimon^.' 
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 Chiu-ch, with such illus- 
trative details as the subject required ^ 

Tnwet of The compilation of such a book of Chronicles 

■eriptunl * 

¥nf ^ gav<5 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 

1 H. E. iv. 22 : cr ircvrc rots tls tjfuis i\$ovin» virofu^fuun 
Ttjt iduiff yin»ya)% irKTjpfaTanjw fjanjfitiw icaraXcXoiircv. 

3 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 fifih book. There is 
no definite quotation from any earlier book. 

' The chief passages occur in the account of the mar- 
tyrdom of St James (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23). ['O vUit roD 
dy6p»Trov] KaBtfrai iv rf ovpavS c/c ^((imv t^s fifyakrjs iwa/itc^t 
Koi /icXXci tpxfO'6<u rirt rdoi/ vc^cXcai/ rot; ovpavov, Cf. Matt, 
xxyi. 64. For the variation /icXXci tpx€<r6ai (for ipx^' 
fitvov) cf. p. 170, n. 1. Ai#eaioff ci Ka\ irp6<r<afrow ov Xa/A- 
fiaw€is. This phrase irp, Xa/i. only occurs Luke zz. 21 ; 
Gal. li* 6. Maprvs otros dktiB^s *lovdaiois T€ kqI '^EXXi/o'c 
yryttnjrai &n ^Irjaovs 6 \purr6s €<rrt, Cf. Acts xx. 21. 

It 18 to be noticed that he refers to Herod's fear of 


speaks of the 'Door' of Jesus in his account of chap.ii. 
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 f Jj^^, 
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 
EbionUe Gospel (Euseb. iii. 32). 

1 It has been supposed that he alludes to a passage in 
St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9), as ' vainly said,' and contrary to onr 
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. IzIt. 4, ra^c ytypanrai'), and that it is inn 
mediately followed by fj/uw dc mrtKokvi^tw «. r. X. Hegesippus 
evidently refers to some sect (tovs ravra <f>aijJrovs) who claimed 
for themselves the true and solo possession of spiritual mys- 
teries. Cf. Routh, i. pp. 281, 282. The quotation is said to 
have been found in the 'Aaeensio Eaaim* and the 'Apocct- 
lypsis ElicB.' (Cf. Routh, 1. c. ; Domer, i. 228). 

It proves nothing that Eusebius does not state that 
Hegesippus recognised the Pauline Epistles. Even when 
giving an express account of the references to the books of 
the New Testament in Ireneeus, 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 i; ^cvdo»yvfior yvwrit (I Tim. 
vi. 20), but it must be uncertain whether the words so stood 
in the original text. 


CH4P. II. 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 unauthoritatiye 
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 Umit 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. It, 22 : Zk re rov Kaff 'Efipmovg r^ayycXtov 
Koi rov Svpcoxov #eat Idiat cV rijs 'ESpatdos dtaXccrov npa 
riOrjaiVt ifi(l>aivfov c£ 'Efipalav tavrhv ir«irt<nrcv#e(yai * koX SkXa 
dc o»ff CLP €*£ 'lovdaiic^r dypa^ov napadSattds fiprjftxtvtv€i, Bj t^ 
Svpiojc^y we must, I think, understand the Aramaic recension 
of the Gospel .according to St Matthew. Melito, as Roatb 
has obsenred, speaks of 6 2vpos Koi 6 'EjSpatoc in reference 
to a reading in the LXX, where the natural meaning is the 
Syrian translation (translator) and the Hebrew original. 

a Cf. p. 231, n. 2. 


the existence of some written record of its sub- chap. ii. 
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 Hhe his- 
torical work of Hegesippus^' 

§ 11. TTie Muratorian Fragment on the Canonr'^ 
Melito — Claudius ApoUinaris. 

The Latin Fragment on the Canon, first pub- G«n«i«i«c- 

® » I- count ofthc 

lished by Muratori, in his Antiquitatea Italica\ SSS.* 
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. 

s Antiquit. Ital. Med. ^vi, iii. 851 sqq. (Milan, 1740). 
The best edition of the fragment is in Routh, RelL SacroB^ 
i. 394 sqq. (ed. 1846), who obtained a fresh collation of the 
MS. Credner has also examined it in his Zur Oeschiehte 
de$ Canom, 71 sqq. (1847), but he appears to hare been un- 
acquainted with the second edition of Routh. These editions 
supersede the earlier. 

^ Murat. I. c : Adserrat Ambrosiana Mediolanensis Bib- 
llotheca membranaceum codicem, e Bobiensi acceptum, 
cujus antiquitas pcene ad annos mille accedere mihi risa est. 
Scriptus enim fuit litteris majusculis et quadratis. Titulus 
pnefixus omnia tribuit Joanni Chrysostomo, sed immerito. 


CHAP. 11. 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^^jj^ The date of the composition of the fragment 
^^ is 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 antiquUsimum ad Oanonem 
Divinarum Scripturarum spectans. 

1 Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus yestris in urbe 
Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbig Roinn 
ecclosisB Pio episcopo patre ejus. The date of the episcopate 
of Pitu is Tariously giyen 127 — 142 and 142—157. 

s The omissions will be noticed below, p. 243. 


Though it adds but little to what has been chap.ii. 
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 S25«Mto 
the authorship of the fragment. Muratori sup- ■lul!!' 
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 whichprotebifa 


the fragment belonged is scarcely more certain JJSJ^^ 
than its authorship. The form of composition ^ 
is apologetic rather than historical, and it is not 

1 Cf. Routh, p. 398 ff. 
s Simon de Magistris, ap. Routh, p. 400. 
< Hippolytus and his Age, i. p. 314. 
^ Such U also the decision of Oredner, a most impartial 
judge: p. 93. 


CHAP. iL 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 Boman Church. 

Tbetesti. The Fragment commences with the last 

mony which i . « 

th^Slii'* 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 e.g. 'De quibua siDgulis Decesse est a yobis dispu- 
tari' — * Reclpimus' — * Quidam ex nostris.' 

' e. g. juris studiosum = rov di/ca/ov ^t/Xon/K— Dominum 
tamen nee ipse yidit in carne, et idem prout assequi potuit 
ita et a natiyitate &c. — Johannes ex discipulia — principia, 
principalis = opxai^ apxeuos (Iren. y. 21. 1) — nihU d^jfert 
credentium fidm — ei Johannes entm — fertur = tptptrai — 
recipi non potest - ov dvvaT6p cot& — ad hnresim Marcionie. 

> The fragment will be given at length in App. C, to 
which reference must be made for the original text of the 
passages here quoted. 


fellow-disciples and bishops John said: ** Fast chap.ii. 

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, uohni. i. 
and heard with our ears, and our hands have 
handled^ these things have we writterTf 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 JJ^^JJf^' 
St Matthew, it is impossible not to believe that ^•**™®"y- 
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 

^ Cf. Routh, pp. 409 sq. 



CHAP. II. various points are taught in each of the Gk>8pels, 
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 
[of 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 c€u*e 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 

^ Uno ac prineipali Spiritu. Routh, on the authority of 
the glossary of Philoxenus, translates prineipcUis hy i/yc- 
fAowiK6s, hat principium occurs twice in the fragment as the 
representative of apxit <^d it seems to me that dpxaios in 
a cognate sense suits the context here. 


his lifethne, and yet he speaks of them as if ohap. il 

they had always possessed it. 

Next to the Gospels the book of the Acts (3) x^ uic 
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 ; (y) to um 


of these nine were addressed to Churches, and^^*"^ 
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 ieven, 



CHAP. II. 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/ 

(8) To the At this point the Fragment diverges to 

di»putodC». '^ o o 

tuSfi^' spurious or disputed books, and the exact words 
flXlnSan are of importance. ' Moreover,^ it is said, ' there 


^^^* is in circulation an Epistle to the Laodiceans, 
[andj 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 

^ Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Aleseandrians. 
The attempt to identify it with the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
unsupported by the slightest evidence. The Epistle to the 
Laodiceans is also involyed 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.' Gf. Routh, pp. 420 sqq. 
The cento of Pauline phrases published under the name by 
Fabrioius is evidently a late work. 


among the Catholic [Epistles] K And the book ^^^' "- 

of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon, 

in his honour [is acknowledged]. We receive, («)andto 

the Apoea- 

moreover, the Apocalypses of John and Peter *n*e- 
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 "*'"^ 
others : and so the Fragment ends abruptly. 

It will then be noticed that there is no iuomi»ion«. 
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-Th«trueez. 

' planationof 


1 The MS. reading is in Catholuia^ and Ronth (i. 425 ; 
ill. 44) has shown that Tertullian (de Pnescr. hssr. 30) and 
later writers sometimes omit eeelssia. The whole context, 
however, seems to reqmre the correction, and I find that it 
has been adopted by Bunsen (Hippolytns, ii. 136), who first 
gave what is certainly the tme connexion of the passage. 
I do not know whether there is any earlier instance of 
KaffokiKfj iirurroXrf than in a fragment of Apollonius (Eoseb. 
r. 18), who was a contemporary of Tertullian. 

* The context, I believe, shows that the ivuo letters of 
St John are the two disputed letters. Compare, howeyer, 
p. 83, n. 3. Cassiodorus (6th cent) again speaks of two 
Epistles of St John. 



CHAP. II. 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 jdace, 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, 
Ireneeus, 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 
Tiew, the details of it can be reserved for the Appendix. 


position it is eaefy to explain the omissions; ohap.ii. 
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 MauT owit- 
Sardis, in the time of Marcus Antoninus, adds a *''"'*^<*'* 
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. 
s Melito presented an Apology to Marciu Antoniniu after 
the death of Aurelicui Venu (169 ▲•o.); and, at appean 


oHAP. II. 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 (iroXaca!i') 
Books f ' 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 (furck rod ircu^g, ir. 26), 
at a time when Commodus was admitted to share the im- 
perial power (176 a.o.)* His treatise on the PassoTer pro- 
bably belongs to an earlier date. The persecution ' in which 
Sagaris was martyred' (Euseb. L c), was probably that in 
which Polycarp also suffered (167 a.c.)* 


one of his essays is evidently borrowed from chap.ii. 

St Paul — 'On the hearing of Faith"/ The Bon^Ls; 
mere titles of his other works are very instruc- hi* writingB 
tive, as showing how far Christian speculation ^ircf^' 
had extended even in the earliest times. Scarcely ^<« 
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 {irepi \ovrpo\f)^-ovL the Creation 
(^KTicvi) and Birth of Christ, on the Nature of Man, 
and on the Soul and Body — on the Formation 
of the World (Tre/oi 7rXaa-«o>$), 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 bean witness distinctly to the doctrine of St 
John : [XpioT^r] Oc 6f aXi;^^ irpoauivtos vnap^wf (Routh, p. 
122)— rov XpAOToi) a^rov trrot Ofov A^yov irpd aJUiwmw iaitip 
BpvfiTKiVTtti (Bonth, p. 118). One phrase in another fragment 
^-iymro (ifnjo-iff iroXXi; (Routh, p. 116) — 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- 
langoage in the fragments of Melito. But he speaks of our 
Lord as haring spent thirty years in privacy (Luke iii. 28), 
and three years in his ministry (St John) : of his carrying 
his cross (p. 122 : John xiz. 17) : and he calls Him the Lamb 
(p. 124 : John i. 29). 

' Euseb. H. E. ir. 26. 


CHAP. n. believe that its doctrine and constitution were 

dianged by a series of forgeries. 
SoSJiiIa- ^^ testimony of Melito finds a natural 

Si^Slomt confirmation in a fragment of a contemporary 

'thtOoipth* XT n^ 

5yj^J*J: writer S Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hiera- 
hSEM^tuM polls'. 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 sufiered 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 ClaadiuB Apollinarifl also presented an apology to 
Marcos Antoninus, Hieron. de vtrr. iU. xxri. Cf. Eoseb. H. E. 
iv. 26. 

* There is not any sufficient ground for doubting the 
genuineness of these fragments ' On Easter,' in the fact that 
Eusebios mentions no such book by ApoUinaris. The words 
of Eusebios (U. E. ir. 27) that there were many works of 
ApoUinaris in circulation, of which he enumerates only 
those which had come into his own hands : rov If XiroX* 
Xunplov woKkmp vap^ woXXoif a'o»Co/ACM»r rii th iffiar cXMrv 
^orl n(^... The two fragments are preserTod in the Poa- 
ehal or AUamndnnB ChronieU (tH. Cent.)- Cf. Routh, 1. pp. 
167 sq. 

* Claod. ApoU. fr. ap. Routh, i. p. 160 : ml dtrfyovmxu 
MarAubv ovrm Xrycir «k ptpoqitaavf' 6Bnf dirvfiiit>»9^ rr r^ 
p6fi^ i) Mdyo-if avrmPt koI aTturta{€Uf doxf i kot ovrovf n& c^oy- 


and recognized ; their authority is placed on ^h^p- "• 
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. 8uini««ryof 
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 ApollinariB 18 preservedy in whieh 
he makes an erident allusion to St John's Gospel (ziz. 34), 
and in such a way as to show that it had become the sab- 
Ject of oarefiil interpretation. He speaks of Christ at 6 ti)v 
aylaw v\tvpap cncrvn^^lff, 6 ilexes cjc rfjt nXtvpag avrov rii dvo 
vaXuf KoBapo'ta^ vtnp itdi clfMf \6yop Koi nvtvfta, 

* Athknaooras and Thbophilub might perhaps hare 
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. Irennus himself connects them at 
intimately as his master Polycarp connects the age of the 
Apostles with that which immediately followed it. Tatuh 
will be noticed in Chap. it. 

The beautiful letter of the Church of Smyrna giving an 
aoeount of the martyrdom of Polycarp, written shortly after 
it (168 A.o. Cf. Mart. Polyc. c. 18), contains several allosioDB 
to books of the Now Testament : e. g. Matt. x. 23 « c. iy. ; 
Matt. xxri. 66 ^ c. ri. ; Acts ix. 7 « c. ix. ; Acts xxi. 14 « c. ri. ; 
1 Cor. ii. 9~c. ii. ; Bom. xiii. 1, 7"0. x. And in addition 

250 THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. been shown that one book alone of the New 
Testament remains unnoticed : one apocryphal 
book a\pne, 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 Beyeral Pauline words: i^opdCtaBai, fipafitlop^ 6 
a^rffvdi)r Oedr. 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 Dore in c. 16. For ntpurrtpa kqI, by the change of 
one letter, and the omission of I before a n following, he 
gires the true reading irtpl arvpoKtu 


menty in its integrity, gives an adequate explana- chap. ii. 
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. Pomtistui 

'^ ^ *^ itnainiDflbr 

It is still necessary to inquire how far a Canon «"««»»<»• 
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 



CHAP. m. Jam totam Christi corpus loqultar omnium linguis : 

et quibus nondam loqaitur, loquetor. — ^AuGUSTOfUB. 

Thediffloii. It is not easy to overrate the difficulties which 
^^ow beset any inquiry into the early Versions of the 
•ions. 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 


the New Testament. And so far as there is chap, in. 
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^Tb?!!^ 
this first Period — the original Versions of the nttafSi 
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 


CHAP. III. 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 )iand. 
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. 

§1. The Peshito\ 

The Pohito Almost universal opinion assigns the Peshito^ 

3??Sacu- or * simple' Syriac (Aramaean) Version to the 

SS^^toUc most remote Christian antiquity. The Syriac 

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. TL Vernones SyriacoR^ Simplex^ Phi'- 
loxeniana et Hierosolymitana, denuo examinaUB d, J. G. 0. 
Adler. Hafnioey mdcclxxxix. Horce SyriacoB, auctore N. 
Wiseman S. T. D. Tom. i. Romce, MDCOoxxvni. Wichkl- 
HAU8 (T.), I>e N. T, vernone Syriacd quam Pesehitho vocant 
Libri iv. Hadis, 1850. 

> This title seems to be best interpreted 'simple/ as 
implying the absence of any allegorical interpretations. Hug> 
Introd. § Lxii. 


the New Testament'; and though their tradition chap. iil 
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 (Aramaean) 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 life*. 
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 

^ Etheridge's Syrian Churches, pp. 166 ff. 

> Wiseman, Horss Syriacse, pp. 69 sqq. 

s John ▼. 2 ; zix. 13, 17, 20. Acts zxL 40 ; xzil. 2 ; 
xxTi. 14. (Of. Apoc ix. 11 ; xtL 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 Aramiean. Daridson, Biblical Criticism, 1. 9; 
Etheridge, Horss Aramucse, p. 7. In the conclusion to the 
Book of Job in the LXX. ' Syriac' appears to be used for 
the true Hebrew. 

^ An accurate examination of the Gospel of St Matthew 
in the Peshito, with a yiew 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 belieye, is found also in later writers, seems 
to hare been one of the impurities of the Palestinian dialect 
of which Bar Hebrseus speaks. (Cf. p. 256, note 1). Hug's 
proof of the derivation of the Syriac from the Greek is 
7ery unsatisfactory: e.g. he supposes that the translator 


oHAP. m. 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 arga« 
ments, they serve to show how intimately the 
Feshito was connected with the wants of the 
early Christians of Palestine. 

The Pethito The dialcct of the Peshito, even as it stands 


JJfi^JJI*- now, represents in part at least, that form of 
Aramaic which was current in Palestine ^ In 
thb 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 coi^eeture at prcscut our ouly guide. But if a conjecture 


mistook rcKytty for twxv^p in Matt. zi. 19, when really the 
reading tfpyiop, giren 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 Hebrseus says that there were three dia- 
lects of Syriac (Arameean*): 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. 


be allowed, I think that the various facts of the chap. hi. 
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'. 

IVIany circumstances combine to give support how uus 
to this belief. The early condition of the Syrian ■"?««»***• 
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 Bection 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. Dayidson, Biblical Cri" 
ticiimf I. p. 247 ; Wichelhaus, p. 73. 

3 The actiyity 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. 

3 Hug, Introduction, § 66 ; Etheridge, Horco Aramaicsey 



cHAP.m. have ventured to specify the place at which I 
Tbchtatort- believe that this revision was made^ Whatever 

otl imnort* 

l! 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 {rfi rod Xpiarrov 
irpoaavcLKeiTai irpoafiyoplqi), 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. 62. It is but fair to say that the Syrians attributed the 
work to one translator. 

The Oospels 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,) 

^ That it was made at some place out of the Roman 
Empire is shown by the translation of orpaTi&rai by *jRo- 
maru' in the Acts. [Cf. Acts xzriii. 15; Appitis Forut.] 
But this is not the case in the Gospels, which, as we hare 
conjectured, were translated earlier and in Palestine. Cf. 
'Wichelhaus, pp. 78, ff. 

s Horas Syriacss, p. 101. » Euseb. H. £. ii. 1. 


retained its preeminence among the cities of its chap. ui. 

As might be expected tradition fixes on Jiggj^^Tio 
Edessa as the place whence the Peshito took!h!p«S^5 
its rise. Gregory Bar Hebrteus^ one of iheomnyBar 
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 ^^^ 
the fifth century. He tells us, moreover, that 
* messengers were sent from Edessa to Palestine 
to translate the Sacred Books f and though this 

1 The following testimoniefl from Gregory — ' inter suos 
fenne kpitucmtotos' — are given by Wiseman: Quod rero 
Bpectat ad banc Syriacam [Yersionem Y. Ti.] tree faenmt 
sententin ; prima quod tempore Salomonis et Hiram Regum 
conversa fuerit; secunda quod A»a sacerdos, quum ab 
AflsyriA missus fuit Samariam, eum transtulerit ; tertia tan- 
dem quod, diebus Admi Apostoli ot Ahgari Regis Osrhoeni 
versa fuerit, quando etiam NoTum Testamentum, eadem 
simplici forma traductum est. p. 90. Cf. Adler, p. 42. 

Occidentales [Syri] duas babent versiones, Simplicem, 
qufio ex Hebraico in Syriacum translata est post adventum 
Domini Cbristi, tempore Adan Apostoli, vel, nt alii dicunt, 
tempore Solomonu ftlii Dayidis et Htramif et f^guratam .... 
p. 94. 

Jacdbut Ede$$enui dicit interpretes illos, qui miss! sunt 
ab Adai Apostolo, et Abgaro Rege Osrhoeno in Palmtinam, 
quique rerterunt Libros Sacros .... p. 103. 



CHAP. III. statement refers especially to the Old Testa* 
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 

WMtof No other direct historical evidence remains 

rariy syruui 

literature. ^ 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 

Bardesanet. fragment of Bardcsaues 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 (Eusob. Prep. Erang. 
Ti. 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 : Grot) d* inwtwrayrot 
irdvra bwara Kal a»€fiir6dtaTa' rj yap fiuivov jSovXi^crfc rit 
dv$(<mjK€v; (Rom. ix. 19). 


existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible ^ chap. in. 
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- HtgtHpput, 
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, Bphrtm 


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 f he speaks of the 
* Translator' as one whose words were familiar'; 

1 Bardesanee — ^Valentiniana) secUo primum discipuluB . . . 
Tir erat litterarum gnarus, qui etiam ad Antonioum episto- 
lam Bcribere ausus est, multosque Bermones contra Marcio- 
nitas atque simulacrorum hsereses tnin composoit (Moses 
Choron. ap. Wichelhaus, p. 57). Cf. Euseb. H. E. ir. 30. 

' Euseb. H. E. it. 22. Ik rt rov waff 'Efipmovs tlayytkiov KtA 

TOV Sv/NOiCOV, Koi IdlWS tK TTJS 'Efip€udoS diakfKTOV TtPO TlBtlOy^y 

ifufxjutmp i^ 'Efipmrnw iavrov irtfrurrtviupai (quoted by Hug). 
' Hone SyriacsB, pp. 116, 117. 


CHAP, m. 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 ^ 

Th« p^ito Another circumstance serves to exhibit the 

recftv<d by 

rila'UJto " 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 Feshito 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 Edeuene 
and Palestinian dialects alone can account for the obacu- 
rities which Ephrem geeks to remoYe. The instanoet 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 EpUcopus is preserred in only one 
place. Acts zz. 28. Elsewhere it is hathisho (presbyter). 
The name of deacon is preserred. Wichelhaus, p. 89. 

s Hone SyriaccD, p. 108. 


of theological criticism; but no one ever sup- oBAP.m. 
planted the Peshito for ecclesiastical purposes ^ 

1 Dr 'Wiseman enumerates twelre VenionB of the Old 
Testament. The most important for the criticism of the 
New Testament are the Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the 

The Philoxenian derires its name from a Bishop of 
Mabng or Hierapolis, in Syria (a.d. 485 — 618), in whoee 
time it was made, by one Poiycarp, for the use of the Mono- 
physites. Of this yersion only fragments remain ; and it is 
uncertain whether it included all the books of the New Tes- 
tament Adler, p. 48. Wiseman, p. 178, n. Adler supposes 
that an early Mediceo-Florentine MS. (a.d. 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.d., reyisod the Philoxenian 
translation by the help of some Greek MSS., and seems to 
Kayo attempted for the Syrian Version what Origen did for 
the Septuagiut. The Oxford MS. of this Translation con- 
tains the ieven catholic Epistles, but omits the Apocalypse. 
Adler, pp. 49 sqq. 

The Palestinian Version exists in an Eyangelistarium of 
proper lessons for the Sundays and Festiyals of the year. 
It is remarkable that the pericope, John yii. 53 — yiii. 11, 
which is wanting in the other Syriac yersions, is contidned 
in this in a form which agrees with the text of Cod. D. 
The dialect in which it is written is yery similar to that of 
the Jerusalem Talmud : and thus Adler, who first accurately 
examined it, gaye it the name of the Jerusalem Version. 
Adler, pp. 140->145 ; 190, 191 ; 198 — 202. 

In addition to these Versions there is the Karkaphenaiaii 
recension of the Peshito made by an uncertain Jacobitio 
author (Wiseman, p. 212), chiefly remarkable for the singular 
order in which the books are arrange<l. The N^ew Teetar 
ment Canon is the same as that of the original Peshito, but 
the Acts and three Catholic epistles stand first as ans book; 
the fourteen Epistles of St Paul follow next ; and the four 



and uMdas 
the bub of 
oCher tram- 

The Arme- 

cHAP^iii. Like the Vulgate in the Western Chureh, the 
Peshito became in the East the fixed and un- 
alterable Rule of Scripture. 

The respect in which the Peshito was held 
was further shown by the fact that it was taken 
as the basis of other Versions in the Elast. 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 Council of Ephesus, 431 a. c), an Armenian 
Version was made from the Syriac in the ab- 
sence of Greek MSS/ 

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 

<]enenU re- 

Gospels in the usual order come last. (Wiseman, p. 217). 
This recension has been accurately examined by Dr Wise* 
man, 11. cc. 

^ Etheridgo, Horn Aramaicse, pp. 44, f. 


of the second century. The text, even in its chap, iil 
present corrupt state, exhibits remarkable agree- SgJSJf* ^ 
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 is ^ 

The Version exists at present in two distinct Ttepment 

itate of the 

classes of MSS.* Some are written in the ancient v««ioii. 
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 Thtsyiiui 


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, endeaToured to prove that the Peshito 
was made as late as the fourth century. Dr Wiseman has 
fully refuted him, pp. 110 sqq. 

> Adler, p. 3. 


oHAP.nL tained in the Syrian Churches, and in those 
which depended on their authority ^ It is repro- 
duced in the Arabic Version of Erpenius, which 
535 A.D. was taken from the Peshito*. Cosmas', an Egyp- 
tian traveller of the sixth century, states that 
only three Catholic Epistles were received by 

e.650. ^^^ Syrians. Junilius mentions two Catholic 
Epistles as undoubted — ^i. John, i. Peter— while 
the remaining five were received * by very many V 
Dionysius Bar Salibi^ in the twelfth century, 
alludes to the absence of the second Epistle of 

ti3i8 kj}. St Peter from the ancient Syrian Version. Ebed- 
je8u^ 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 

1599 A.D. Diamper^. 

1 Ephrem Syrtu^ howerer, admitted the seven Catholic 
Epistles and the Apocaly]>se ; 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. 

3 In e4 (sc. Arabic^ Erpenii) Actus App., Epp. Pauli, 
Jac., i. Pet., i. Jo. e Syra Simplici fluzisse prohibentor, 
Apocalypsis poUus e Copt& : Eyangelia yero (item ii. Petr. 
iL iii. Jo., Jud. ?) Originem miztam habere videntur. Tischf. 
Prolegg. Lxzrii. 

* Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Ejinons, s. 105, n. 

^ Junilius ap. Reuss, § 312. Credner, Zur Gesch. d. 
Ranons, a. a. O. ' Hug, § 64. 

Assemani, Bibl. Or. ap. Adler, p. 34. 7 Adler, p. 35. 


Such then is the Canon of the Syrian cHAP.m. 
Churches^. Its general agreement with <>^^ ^^^g^j;^^ 
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 fear Gospels — the Acts — the Catholic 
Epistles — the Epistles of 6t Paul. In the Karkaphensian 
recension, as we haTO seen, the order is in part inrerted; 
and Jacob of Edessa follows the same arrangement, placing 
• the Gospels last. Wichelhaos, p. 84. 


CHAP. HI. is sufficient to show that the Canon was not 

fixed without painful criticism. 
J»j»^*j|Wto There is still another aspect in which the 
Sa!tfe^ 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 
spetiiii5. 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- 



§ 2. The Old Latin VersionK 

At first it is natural to look to Italy as the ^riSIn nte- 
centre of the Latin literature of Christianity, Smtow 

"^ Greek, and 

and the original source of that Latin Version of '^*'*"°- 
the Holy Scriptures, which in a later form has 
become identified with the Church of Eome. 
Yet, however natural such a belief may be, it 
finds no support in history. Bome 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 Home 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 Eoman Church he 
wrote in Greek ; and in the long list of saluta- 

1 The best original inTestigation into the Old Latin 
Yenion is Wiseman's Remarks on some parts of the con* 
troversy concerning 1 John v. 7, originally printed in the 
Catholic Magazine, ii., iii., 1832, f.,and republished at Rome, 

Lachmann has reproduced his arguments, with some new 
illustrations : Not. Test. t. i., pref. ix. ff. 

s Cf. Wiseman, iii. pp. 3GG — 7. Bunsen's Hippolytus, 
ii. 123, sqq. 

* Bunsen, I.e. says 'two, Clement and Victor.' But I 
cannot see on what ground Siztus (Xystus, Euseb. H. E. iv. 
% ; cf. yii. 5) and Pius are not included in the number. 


CHAP. Ill, 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 lan- 

^*^ guage of Christians. The churches of Vienne 
and Lyons used it in the history of their per- 
secutions ; and Irenseus, 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. 

Afwcauthe Meauwhilc, however, thouirh Greek continued 

true spring of ' o 

liSi^or to be the natural, if not the sole language of 
the Roman Churchy the seeds of Latin Chris- 

1 Jerome spoakB of Tertullian as the first Latin writer 
after Victor and Apollonius. Victor was an African by 
birth; and he appears to hare used Greek in the Paschal 
controversy. Polycrates at least addressed him in Greek : 
Eoseb. H. £. t. 24. It is disputed whether Apollonius' 


tianity were rapidly developing in Africa. No* chap, 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 Bome. 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 delirery — the Senate— suffi- 
ciently explains the fact. Cf. Lumper, ir. 3. 

^ August, c. Donat. ep. [de Unit. Eccles.] c. 37. De 
nobis, inquiunt [DonatistsDJ, dictum est, Erunt primi qui 
erant novissimi. Ad Africam enim ETangelium postmodum 
renit; et ideo nusquam litterarum apostolicarum scriptnm 
est Africam credidisse . . . Augustine answers : . . . nonnuUss 
barbarsD nationes etiam post Africam crediderunt; undo 
oertum sit Africam in ordine credendi non esse norissimam. 

s Apol. i. 37. c. 200 a.d. > Ad. Scap. c. 5. 



CHAP, in. the Eoman Church preserved their distinct na- 
tionality in their language. Carthage — the 
second Home — escaped the Graecism 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 TertuUian. But 

Hie vHut ^ though we speak of TertuUian as the first Latin 

LaiiHa is the ^ *^ 

***^*^/|J^" 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 difl&culty 
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 


with a reality, and not with a mere ' creation of chap. m. 
a critic's fancy.' 

The language of TertuUian, if candidly ex- Totuiiian af- 

• - a - firms tlw tx- 

amined, is conclusiye on the point. A fewg^^^f 
quotations will prove that he distinctly recog- n^ t^^ 

« . DMDt In hit 

nized a current Latin Version, marked by a^"*- 
peculiar character, and in some cases unsatis- 
factory to one conyersant with the original text. 

' Keason,' he says, * is called by the Greeks John 1. 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 (sennonalis)^ but 
existed in self-contemplation (rcUionalis) '.^ From 

1 Adr. Praz. c. 5 : [Rationem] Gn^d \6yop dioant, quo 
Tocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in usu 
est nostrorum, per aimplicitatem interpretationis, termonem 
dicere in primordio apud Deum fiMse, cum magis rcUumem 
competat antiquiorem haberi : quia non sermonalis a prin- 
dpio, sed rationalis Deus, etiam ante principium, et quia 
ipse quoqne sermo, ratione consistens, priorem earn at sub- 
stantiam soam ostendat : tamen et sio nihil interest. It will 
be noticed that Tertullian uses the word prineipium (so 
Vulg.) and not primordium. He quotes the passage with 
that reading: ady. Hermog. 20; ady. Praz. 13, 21. This is 
another mark of the independence of the current translation 


274 EARLY \£RSI0N8 

CHAP, m. 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 

1 cor. TiL ao. 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 : 
If however her husband shall fall asleyp, as if it 
were said of the future...^ ^ The connexion of 

The Latin authorities used by Lachmann all (e sil.) trans- 
late \6yos by verbum, 

1 De Monog. c. 11: Sciamus plane non sic esse in 
Qreeco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum sylla- 
barum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem: n a uiem 
darmierit (? dormiet) vir e^tM, quasi de future sonet • . . • 
The general meaning of Tertullian is clear, but I cannot 
see the force of his argument as applied to dormierit : that 


this passage with the last is evident. An am- cbat.ul 
biguons 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 tniw. 
lation of some of the books of the New Testa- g^^oT*" 
ment was current in Africa in TertuUian's time, books, 
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 i^ with the aor, (yet 
cf. Tert ii. 393 (edamus) with Vulg. (manditeavermui)). 
In an earlier part of the chapter he quotes : ft a%Umn morhtm 
Jkurit. For Koififi3j A &c. read dfroBupfj. Is it possible 
that the reading of G is a confusion of Kotfui3§ and iukoU 
firfToi (cf. 1 John T. 15, Sic.% and that Tertullian read the 
latter? If so, the 'eversio duarum syllabarum' would be 
intelligible ; otherwise we must, I think, read <2orm£tf . 
1 Adr. Marc. iv. 2. 

T 2 


CHAP. III. < 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 
{SiaOiiKfi) would naturally find a place in a 'simple^ 
version ; otherwise it is not easy to see how it 
could have supplanted the commoner term*. 

Theitate- Thus far then the evidence of Tertullian 

nientf of Au- 

tiJftotS** decidedly favours the belief that one Latin Ver- 
»ioo. ^' 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 Adr. Marc. ir. 1 : . . . duos deos dividens, proinde dU 
renos, alterum alterius inatrumentiy rel, quod magis usai est 
dicere, tettamenti . . . 

s The phrase Novum TestamevUum was used both of the 
Christian dispensation and of the records of it : adr. Marc, 
ir. 22 ; adr. Praz. 31. 

Instrumentum is used in late Latin of public or official 
documents: o. g. Instrummta litis — Instrumentum imperii 
(Suet. Vosp. S)'-'InstrumenH pubUeiaucUiritas (Suet, Cal. 8). 
It is a favourite word with Tertullian : Apol. i. 18, Tnstru' 
merOum litteraturoB; adr. Marc. t. 2, Instrumentum atU^ 
rum; de Resurrec. Gamis, 39, Apostolus per totum pene 
instrumentum; de Spectac. 5, Instrumenta ethniearum Utte* 


acquaintance with both Greek and Latin, yen* chap. hi. 

tured to translate it^' But while we admit that Hbtme 
this may be a true account of the manner in 
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. ChriBt. ii. 16 (11): Ut enlm caique primis 
fidei temporibus in manus renit codex grsecus, et aliqoan- 
tulum facultatis sibi utriusque lingiuD habere yidebatar, 
ausus est ioterpretari. This can only refer, I beliere, to 
translation, and not to the interpolation of a translation 
already made. Lachmann's explanation of the passage 
(pref. xir.) is quite arbitrary, if I understand him. The 
Old Version arose out of prirate efforts, and was afterwards 
corrupted by prirate interpolations; but the two facts are 
to be kept distinct. 

> There is a clear trace of such an ecclesiastical re- 
cension in Aug. de Con. Ety. ii. 128 (66) i Non autem ita 
se habet rel quod Joannes interponit, yel eodiees Eeclmatiici 
interpretaiionia untcOcB. He is speaking of the quotation 
(Zech. ix. 9) in Matt. xxi. 7, compared with John xii. 14, 15. 

s 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 rersions,' as they may be called) as the 


CHAP. iiL 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 proyes 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 firesh 
revision and not to an independent transUtion 
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 reoen^ 
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 general commendation'. 

mS^Si^ The outline which we have roughly drawn 


is fully justified by the documents which exhibit 

1 Ang. de Doctr. Christ, ii. 16 (ll). This was no less 
true of the Old than of the New Testament. 'Of. Aug. 
Epp. Lxxi. 6 (4) ; Lxxxii. 36 (5). 

s Aug. de Doctr. Christ ii. 22 (15): In ipsis antem 
interpretaUonibus, Itala cssteris pneferatur ; nam est Teri>o. 
rum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiso. The last clause 
probably points to the character by which the luda wag 
distinguished from the A/rieana. If, as I be1ieYe» Tertul- 
lian's quotations exhibit the earliest form of the latter, 
* clearness of expression' was certainly not one of its merits. 
The connexion of Augustine with Ambrose naturally explains 
his preference for the Itala. 


the various forms of the Latin Version before chap. 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 TertuUian 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 eyident, I think, that Tertallian has pro- 
serred the original text of the African rersion from a oom- 
parison of his readings in the following passages, ^taken 
from two books only, with those of the other authorities : 

Acts ill. 19 — 21 ; de Resurr. Cam. 23 (It. p. 255). 

— ziii. 46 ; de Fuga, 6 (iii. p. 183). 

— XT. 28 ; de Pudic 12 (It. p. 394). 
Rom. T. 3> 4 ; c. Gnost. 13 (ii. p. 383). 

— yi. 1—13; de Pudic. 17 (ir. p. 414). 

— Ti. 20—23 ; do Rosurr. Cam. 47 (iii* p. 303). 

— Til. 2—6 ; de Monog. 13 (iii. p. 163). 

— Tiii. 35—39; c. Onost. 13 (ii. p. 383). 

— zi. 33 ; adr. Jlermog. 45 (ii. p. 141). 
-^ xii. 1 ; de Resurr. Cam. 47 (iii. p. 306). 

— xii. 10 ; adr. Marc. t. 14 (i. p. 439). 

The Ibt of remarkable readings in the other books is 
equally striking. The Version which Tertullian used was 
marked by the use of Greek words, as machcera (adr. Marc, 
ir. 29; o. Gnost. 13); sophia (adr. Hermog. 45); ehoieui 
(de Resurr. Cam. 49). Some peculiar words are of frequent 
occurrence, e. g. tingo (pcarrl{«ot)^^elwquentia (dfuifnla). 


CHAP. iiL current Version from that which he was himself 

inclined to substitute for it^ 
Srui%2i ^® htiwe no means of tracing the history of 

not be tndd the Versiou before the time of TertuUian ; but 

beyond the 

timeoTTBr. jjg existeucc thcu is attested by other contem- 
porary eyidence. The Latin translation of Ire- 
naeus 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 Vettis Latina ap- 

1 As a Bpecimen of the text which TertuIIian*B quota- 
tions exhibit I hare giren his rarious readings in two 
chapters. The references are to the marginal pages of 
Semler's edition. 

Matt. L 1. geniiurcB (iii. 302) generaiionis, 

16. generavit (genuU) Joseph, rirum Marin, ex (de) 

qua ncueitwr (noUus est) Christus (iii. 387). 
Matt i. 20. tuMm quod (quod enim) ... (1. o.) 

23. ecce yirgo conoipiet (so a. b. c.) in utero et 

pariet filium (iii. 381) cujus et vocabiiur (Iren. i. 
voectbunt) nomen Emmanuel . . . (iii. 267). 
Rom. i. 8. gratias agit Deo per dominum nostrum («i) 

Jesum Christum, (ii. 261). 
Rom. i. 16, 17. non enim iim pitdet EvangelU (erubesoo 
Evangelium) .... Judaeo (-b primum o. BG, &o.) et 
Greece; quia justitia (justitia enim) . . . (i. 431). 
Rom. i. 18. = amnem, eorum, (I. o.) 

20. inyisibilia enim 0^ (ipsius) a conditione (erea- 

tura) mundi de factkamentis (per ea quas facta sunt) 
intellecta visuntur (eonspiciuntur) (ir. 250). Gf. ii. 141. 
Inrisibilia ejus ab institutiane mundi fetetis ^us (so 
HiL) conspiciuntnr. 
> Cf. Grabe, ProUg, ad Iren, ii. $ 3 (ii. p. 36, ed. Stieren). 
3 Cf. Lachmann, N. T. i.y pref. x. f. 


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 Tho relation of the text of Tertullian's quotatiooB to 
that of the Latin Translation of Irencens ib rery intereBting, 
as may be seen from the following examples. The Tariations 
from the Vulgate (V) (Lachmann) are given in Italics: 

Matt. i. 1. generationis Iron. 471, 505 (ed. Stieren): 
^enUwrcB Tert. 

— — 20. quod enim hahet in utero (ventre) Iren. 505, 

638: quod in ea natum est. Tert. 

Matt. iii. 7, 8. Cf. Luke ili. 7 : Progenies — ^fmctum, Iren. 

457 : genimina— fmctum (fructus,iT. 803). Tert. ii. 05. 

Matt. iii. 11. Palam habens in manu ejus od emundandam 

aream suam, Iren. 569 : Palam (all. rentilabrum) in 

manu poriat ad purgandam aream Buam. Tert. iL 4. 

Cf. iii. 172. 

Matt IT. 3. Bitua Alius Dei. Iren. 576. Tort. ii. 189. 

(As Vulg.) Iren. 774 ; Tert. ii. 199. 
Matt. ir. 4. non in pane tantum (e. tr.) vtvti. Iren. 774 ; 

non in solo pane (bo a; tr. V.) tfivit Tert. ii. 313. 
Matt. ir. 6. Iren. p. 775 - V; Si (u «9 Alius Dei, dojioe te 
hine : Scriptum est enim, quod mandavit angelis Buif 
(tr.) iuper te, fi< te manibus suis toUantf neeubi ad 
lapidem pedem tuum offendas (tr.) Tert. ii. 189. 
TertuUian and the Translator of Irenivus represent re- 
Bpectivelj, I believe, African and Gallic recensions of the 
VeUu LaHna, 


CHAP. Ill, 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 Ghiul 
and its reception there, the period will seem too 
short. Now the beginning of TertuUian's literary 

The inferior activity cauuot bc placed later than c. 190 a.c.» 

limit of its 

<i^- 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 Cauou of thc Old Latin Version coin- 

the Vetut 

J3*j^{»»n- eided, I believe, exactly with that of the Mura- 
Mwr^Han toriau fragment. It contained thc four Gospels, 


the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St Paul, the three 
Catholic Epistles of St John, thc first Epistle of 
St Peter, the Epistle of St Jude and the Apo- 


calypse. To these the Epistle to the Hebrews chap, iil 
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 
Sufinus (in his Latin Version of Origen'). 

The MSS. in which the Old Latin Version is ^,^^^ 

oi the Ver- 

found are few, but some of them are of great "~°' 
antiquity. In the Gospels Lachmann made use Theootpeit, 
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 enumerates 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 timacc% 
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 
Finnilian, ap. Cj/pr. Epp, lxxv. Even if Ironoeus himself 
was acquainted with the Epistle of St James (adv. Hcer. 
V. I. 1), no argument can be built on the reference to prore 
the existence of the Epistle in a Latin Version. 

« The MSS. are described by Tischendorf, N. T. Proleg. 
pp. Ixxxir, sqq. Lachmann, N. T. I, Prolog, xii, sq. 


ciup.m. date. The Pauline Epistles are represented by 


TiMBpiaUM two MSS. of the sixth and ninth centuries. But 

there is no MS. which gives the .original form of 
gj2{J>o«« the text of the Catholic Epistles. The Oodex 
Bez(B has alone preserved a fragment of the 
third Epistle of St John which is found inmie- 
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- 
The evidence Thc evideucc of TertulUau as to the Old 

of TertullUn 

S^Sdty of I^^^i*^ Canon may be taken to complete that 
stJuSe. * 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 CuU. Foem. c. ni. 


of Enoch, as if the quotation by St Jude were chap, uu 
decisive, it may be assumed that Tertullian 
found the book in the * New Testament' of his 

On the other hand his single direct reference J^aSS?* 
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 saysS The disci- 
pline of the Apostles is thus clear and decisive. 
'...I 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 i cor. iz. e. 
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. o. zx. 

> Tertull. 1. c. : Impossibile ost euim eon qui Bomel ilia- 
minati sunt (Y, tr.) ti donum coelesto gustayerant (V. tr. 


CHAP. UL 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 spiritiim nanctum (Y. 
paHieipes sunt facti sp. b.)» ^t verbum dei diilce gustaTemnt 
(V. tr, gustay. nihilaminus bonum d. t.), oeeidente jam <bvo 
cum exciderint (V. virtutesque tcBCuli ventwi et prolapsi tunt) 
rursus revoeari in poeniientiam (Y. renoTari r. ddpcen,% r^- 
figentes croci (Y. rurtrnn cruci figentes) in semetipws (Y. 
sibimet ipsis) filium dei et dedecorcmtes (Y. osteniui habentes). 
Terra enim quce bibit scepius {foyeniontem tfi se humorem (Y. 
siepe yen. super so bibens imbrem) et peperit herbam aptam 
his propter quos et colitur, (Y. generans h. opportunam illis 
a quibxis c), benedictionem dei consequitur (Y. accipii b. a 
Deo): proferens autem spinas ( Y. + et tribulos) reproba (Y, 
+ est) et malodic^iont (Y. maledicto) proxima, cujus finis in 
exustionem (Y. c. eonsummatio in combustionsm)* 

The number and character of the yarious readings per- 
haps justify the belief that the translation giyen was made 
by Tertullian himself. It is certainly independent of that 
prcsenred in the Yulgate and in the Claromontane MS. 


Hebrews. The one was the mark of the Apostle : chap. hi. 
the other was not, nor yet stamped by direct 
Apostolic sanction. 

Tertullian quotes the Apocalypse very fre-TheApocn. 
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 Eome of the most important variouB 
readings : — 

Apoc i. 6 : Regnvm quaqus nos et sacerdotes . . . .de exh. 
cast. c. 7. 

ii. 20 — 23: Jezebel qua so prophseten dicit et 

docet atque seducU servos meos (id fomicafidtim et 
edendum de idolothytis. Et largitus turn ill! $pa^ 
tium iemporis ut poenitcntiam iniret, nee Tult earn 
inire nomine fomicationis. Ecce dabo earn in 
lectum, et machos ejtu cum ipea in maximam 
pressuram, nisi poenitentiam egerint operum ejus. 

rii. 14: Hi sunt qui vcniunt ew ilia preasttra 

magna, et lavemnt vestimenium suam et eandido' 
virunt ipaum in saDgoine agni, c. Gnost. c. xiL 


cHAP.iu. Internal evidence is not wanting to confirm 
Sui?\Sj!**^® results drawn from other sources. The 
nuyf"^ 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 language The secoud Eoistlc of St Peter offers the 

of S Peter. *^ 

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.) CancordanHas Bibliorum Sacrorutn 
VulgcUcB EditioniSf Parisiis, MDCCCLIII, appear to be com- 
plete and satisfactory as far as the Siztino text is concerned, 
but it is impossible not to regret the absence of all reference 
to important various readings. 


Latin text of the Epistle not only exhibits con- chap, m. 
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 : 
leoiMoyof, fcoruon (i. 4); iyKpartia, fabstifientia (i. 6); 
irXcorafcir, mperare (i. 8); apyot, v<»euu8 (icL); 
{nnvddCttw, satagere (i. 10; iii. 14; iii. 15» deire 
operam); napcvaia, prceserUia (of Christ) (i. 16) ; 
Mypwa-is^ eognitio (i. 2, 3, 8 ; ii. 20 ; cf. Bom. iii* 
20 ?); dpxaiotf ff oriffinalis (ii. 5). 
(fi) Differences from the renderings in 1 Peter: 
fr\ff$vv€(rB€u, adimpUri (i. 2) ; mvUiplicari (1 Pet. i. 2). 
imOvfiiaj eoncupUcentia (i. 4; ii. 10; iii. 3); denderium 
(1 Pet. i. 14 ; ii. 11 ; iv. 2, 3); so also 2 Pet ii. 18. 
nipth, retervare (ii. 4, 9, 17; iii. 7); cotuervare (1 Pet. iv. 3). 

(y) Differences from the translation of St Jade: 
aXoyos, ffirratianabilis (ii. 12); muttu (ver. lO). 
tf>Btip€aB€Uf perire (id.); corrumpi (id.) 
(Tvyrvcoxcio^oiy luxuriare vobUeum (13); eanvivari (rer. 12). 
A^£aiy $eetoB (10); majestcUes (9). 
6 C^<l>os Tov aK6TovSf caligo tenebrarum (17) ; proeeUa Une^ 

brarum (13). 
Words marked f occur nowhere else in the New Testa- 
ment Yulgate : those marked ff occur nowhere else in the 
whole Vulgate. 



CHAP. in. possible that the two Epistles may have been 
received 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 TertuIIian 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. 

stjamet. The trauslatiou 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 ^ 

Thecputieto Thc Latin text of the Epistle to the Hebrews 

the Hebrews. '^ 

exhibits the most remarkable phenomena. As it 

1 The following peculiarities may be noticed in the ycp- 
Bion of 8t James : 

dfrXtfff, ffaffluenter (i. 6) } anX&nfs, simplicUaa (2 Cor. Tiii. 

2 ; XX. 11, &a) 
oUadai, oesthnare (i. 7); existimare (Phil. i. 17). 
dyarnjTol, dUtcti^ dUectisnmi (i. 16, 19 ; ii. 5 ; so Hebr. vi. 

9 ; 1 Cor. zt. 58) ; elsewhere carissimi (twenty 

drifiaCeLVf fexhonorare (ii. 6); elsewhere inhonarare, eon* 

tumdia afieere, 
(ra>Crcy, salvcu'^ (i. 21 ; v. 16, 20); generally salvum faeere^ 

foZvta esse and /m. 


stands in the Vulgate it is marked by numerous chap, hi. 
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, 

TrXrjpovy, supplere (ii. 23) ; elsewhere implert^ adimpUre, 

dyv6sf pttdieus (in. 17); elsewhere sanetuSf cuttua. 

dnoTiBfaBiUf ahjicere (i. 21) ; elsewhere (five times) depomre, 

fiaKapiC<Of fbecUifico (v, 11); YroXc/icIv, fbdligero (It. 2); oUr 
TipfuoVf fmiserator (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 
themselyes, 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; ir.l, 3, 13; y. 11; yi. 8, IC; yii.lS; x.33 



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 

anoeofthe ^ * 

fhi^alHy**' testimony of these most ancient Versions to our 
°"* 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- 


lects. They furnish a proof of the authority of chap.ui. 
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; butnMnwitt 


their very imperfection is not without its lesson. S?8^£n 
The Western Church has, indeed, as we believe, ^ 
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 


CHAP. III. that bad determined. So far they witnessed to a 
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 
T^ea^ To obtain a complete idea of the judgment 

t^^^L. 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 Apocrjrphal 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 


Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of St chap. iir. 
James were at once received in the Churches to ^^^SSr 
which they were specially addressed; and ^x- 1"""******" 
temal 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- 
ledged 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 


CHAP. in. 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. 



Kon periclitor dicere, ipsas quoque Scriptures sio esse ex 
Dei Yolnntate disfK^itas ut haeretids materias submiais- 
tnrent. — Tertullianvs. 

The New Testament recognizes the exist- chap.iv. 
ence of parties and heresies in the Christian The import- 
society from its first origin ; and conversely, the K£!SSu»^ 


earliest false teachers witness more or less 
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. 

Still further: even negatively the history ofSJJS^S? 

tli# Nmv TW* 

the Ante-Nicene heresies establishes our general tynentoo 
conclusions. The first three centuries vrere SS^StiSn. 


CHAP. 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, restlesB, 
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 {aira^ 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- 

nseus, Tertullian, Origen, and later writers, insist 


much and earnestly on the fact that heretics chap.iv. 
sought to maintain their own doctrines from 
the canonical books, fulfilling the very prophecy icor.xLi9. 
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 K 

It has, however, been already noticed that 25,J^h«». 
they did not all accept the whole Canon. How ^ISui,^!!^' 
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 Iren. Adr. Hser. iii. 12, 7. 

s De Prsescr. Hser. c. 14. Sed ipsi de scripturis aganty et 
de Bcripturis suadcnt ! Aliunde scilicet suadere [non] pos- 
sent de rebus ftdei, nisi ex litteris fidei. Cf. Lardner^g 
Jliiiory of Heretics, Bk. i. § 10. 


CHAR IV. their opponents, but the expression of their own 

'*"*'^^ 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 Bis 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, 

TheAmda- Thc first OToup of heretical teachers exhi- 

fmS^hLa bits in striking contrast the two conflicting 

the lint. 

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 



embodiment of the antichristian element of the chap, iv. 
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 ?*^;sJfy!Sl 
Fathers, one, Clement of Bome, was invested 4^?^^^ 
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 Gittae, is 
invested by the common consent of all early 
writers with mysterious importance as the great 
hseresiarch, 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 V the history and doctrine of 

^ 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. 

> [Origenis] Philosophumcna, sive omnium hseresittm 


CHAP. IV. 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 
Thjwitom « the Great Announcement \* which was published 
rUul^rin under his name, and contained an account of 
^nnounce. thc rcvclation 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 doe- 
trine^. In the fragments which remain there 
are coincidences with words recorded in the 

refutatio, e Cod. Par. ed. E. Miller. Oxon, mdcccli. 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 pro?cs that it must hare been 
written by a contemporary of Hippolytus at Rome, if not by 
Hippolytus himself. Dollinger has presented the arguments in 
support of Hippolytus' claims in the most isttsfactory fmn. 

^ *Aw6(fiaa'ts — *Air6<l>aa'tt fityaXrj, Hipp. adv. Hser. fi. 9, 
Bqq. * Announcement' hardly conveys the force of the ori- 
ginal word, which implies an official or authoritative decla- 

3 Bunsen suggests Menander (i. 54), apparently without 
any authority. 

^ He quotes it constantly with tho words Xeycc dc 6 Si/i«0yy 


Gospel of St Matthew', and probably with a chap. it. 
passage in the Gospel of St John^ Beferenee 
is ako 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 Testaments 

Not only did the Simonians make use of the Thesimon. 

i«ns recog- 

Canonical books, but they ascribed the forgeries ulJirtt? o/tSi 
current among them to * Christ and his disci- '^^**'^**' 
pies, 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. adr. Hcer. vi. 16=: Matt. iii. 10. The various 
readings are singular: iyyvsydp nov, ^i^o-tV, 17 d(ivrj irapk 
rht pi{at rov dMpov icr.X. 

Simon's description of Helen (Hipp. vi. 19), as 'the 
strayed sheep,' (t6 irpofiarov rh irtirkavrjfiivov) is an evident 
allusion to the parable (Luke zr.) The substitution of 
wtfrXmnjfUvoy for dnokaXb^ is to be noticed. Cf. Matt, xriii. 
12, 13, (ro irXay»/iCM)v) ; Iren. i. 8, 4. Bunscn supposes diat ho 
combined the parable with the healing of the Syro-Fhoeni- 
dan's daughter. Cf. Uhlbom, Die Homilien, u. s. w. 296. 

' Id. Ti. 9. OtxT^n/ptov de Xcyct tufcu rbv ivBpwwov tovtop 
t6v c( aifjLarmv ytytvtipivov (John i. 13) Ka\ KaroiMw cV ovr^ 
r^p dwtpayrov livyapiv, tjv pi^av tami riav oXa>v (jirjaiy, 

Bunsen (i. pp. 49, 55) considers the statement that Simon 
manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father (Hipp, 
yi. 19), as a reference to John vi. 21 — 23 

• Adv. H»r. yi. 13. rovro cor*, ^lycrt, ri tlpiffuvop, "ipa 
fii7 aifv r^ K6ap^ KaTaKpi$»fttv (1 Cor. xi. 32). 

* Constit. Apost. vi. 16, 1. Oidaptv yhp Sri ol irtpX 2t- 
poya Kcd KXt6fiiov l»bfj awTd(avT€£ /3i/3Xia rir' opopari Xpiorov 
jcal rnp iiaBrfrmp avrov irtpi<f>€povauff ftp dtrarrjv vpMP r&p ire^c- 
Xi;ieoro>y Xpivrhp kqI ij/iap roits avrov dovXovr. 


CHAP. IV. but ako 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. 

lienander. Menaudcr, 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 ^,* 

2 nm. iL la reminds us of the error of ' Hymensus and 
Philetus, who said that the resurrection was 
passed already ;' otherwise I am not aware that 
anything which is known of his system points 
directly to the Scriptures. 

ScertSSS While Simon Magus represents the intellec- 

Mag^^ 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 Iren. i. 23, 5. ReBurrectionem enim per id, quod est 
in eum baptisma, accipere ejus discipulos, et ultra non poeee 
mori, sed peraeyerare non senescentee et immortales. 

^ Hipp. ady. Hier. vii. 33. 


become a science. The traditional opponent of ohap. i v. 
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 ™^*;jg^ 
substance of the Gospel history. He must have mJ*"^ 
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 deaths and of His resurrection'. 
'The Cerinthians,' Epiphanius says, 'make use of 
St Matthew's GospeP (the Gospel according to 

1 Epiph. L 2, Hser. xzriii. 

> Hipp. adr. Hser. I. c Epiph. 1. c. What Epiphanius 
sajB (H»r. xxTiii. 6) of Cerinthus* teaching Xpurrbp n-eiror- 
Stpai Koi €<rravp»a&(u /iifir«» di ryTytp^oi, /mXXciv dc MarturSiu 
IStom rj KsMkov ywrirai ptxpAv ovocmurif, is to be taken as 
describing Epiphanius* deductions from his teaching, and not 
as giTing Cerinthus* dogmas. 

' Epiph. Hser. zxriii. 5. Xpmtmu y6p rf xonk BforMbv 

ZwapKw. It is not known in what the mutilation of the 
Gospel consisted. But that he did not remote the whole of 



CHAP. IT. the Hebrews) like the Ebionites, on aeeount of 
the human genealogy, though their copy is not 
entire. •• The Apostle Paul they entirely rqjecip 
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 aU 
the books attributed to the Apostle. And on 
the other hand, it is the popular belief that the 
fourth Grospel was written to refute his errors. 
The coincidence is singular, and it is necessary 
to consider on what grounds these assertions 
have been made. 
Hjj^^j*^ The transition from Judaizing views to Chi- 
iiim. 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 Epiphaoius says, zxx. 14: 6 fUP yhp ILrfpu^Bos Koi Kap' 
noKpag T^ avrf XP^M'*^ dfjBtp wap avroif tvayytkif atr6 r^f 
apx^g Tov Korii MarBaSop fvoyycXiov dia T§f y€W€aKoyiaf jSovXoMxu 
wapwrwf €K mr^fWTos *lwr^ koL Mapias c2rcu r^ Xptondr. 


pure was confounded with the glosses by which chap, iv. 
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 DionjB. Alex. ap. Eoseb. H. E. iii. 28, 
s Theodor. Fab. Hieret. ii. 3 (ap. Eouth, iL 139). The 
fiunoos fragment of Cains is ambiguoiu: ap. Euseb. L o. 
I may express my decided belief that Caius is not speaking 
of the Apocalypse of St John, bnt of books written by Oe- 
rinthns in imitation of it The theology of the Apocalypse 
is wholly inconsistent with what we know of Cerinthui^ 
▼lews on the Person of Christ. 


CHAP. IV. 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 camaL^ The 
Chiliasm of Cerinthus is here distinctly brought 
forward as the ground of what can only be con* 
sidered as a coiyecture; and Dionysius, who 
gives it at length, was unwilling to embrace it. 
Thaodier That the ascription of the Apocalypse to 

Sta^itS" Cerinthus was in fact a mere arbitrary hypo- 
G^ttaf. 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. 

I Epiph. Hfer. li. 3. The history of the sect is very 
obBOure, but we have only to do with the fkct, which is 
sufficiently supported by Epiphanius' authority. 


Nothing indeed can be more truly opposite chap. iv. 
to Cerinthianism than the theology of St John. ^^<^",^y 
The character of his Gospel was evidently influ- ££^ 
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 

This relation of the first heretics to the tim impoit. 


Apostles is of the utmost importance. Like the tSSf Ant' 
early Fathers, they witness to Catholic truth nuytej^ 
rather than to the Catholic Scriptures: theySZ^^^ 
exhibit the correlative errors as the Fathers 
embodied its constituent parts. The real per* 
sonality of Simon Magus and Cerinthus is raised 

310 THE EABLT HEBETIGS. beyond all reasonable doubt. The general 
eharacter 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 fidse 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 diversiiy ; 
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. 

neyftmna But whcu it is Said that the perfect princi- 

link between ' * 

£^^ pies of Gnosticism may be detected in these 

later neculik « 

t^ou- 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- 


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 Introduce 
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, 

^ There is some conftwion in the account given by Hip- 
po! jtiuu In the first part, where he refen to the ' Great 
Announcement,' the cosmogony of Simon appears to be 
expressed in a physical form. Fire is the fundamental 
element of the uniyerse. This I believe to be the original 
form of his theory. Afterwards in a passage nearly iden- 
tical with the account of IrensBus, we read of creating angels, 
of an arbitrary Moral Law, of the secondary inspiration of 
the prophets (adr. Hser. vi. 19; Iren. i. 23). Uhlhom, 
wrongly I think, takes the opposite view of the relatire 
dates of the two systems (a. a. O. 293.) 

> Epiph. Hier. xxviii. 1, 2. 


CHAP. IV. when error was combated with an intense 

of its present danger ? The books which <daim 
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 Ebicnxtes. 
^twra^ure While Simon Magus appeared in some mea- 
!S^itelr%i. 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 
The Ofkiut. 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 


was not a mere corruption of Christianity, but chap. it. 
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 TteOputei 
describes appear to have been the first who as- Hippoiytiu. 
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- TMrttm- 
ment Scriptures. The passages given from their 2S[J 
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 c. Gels. Ti. 28. 

^ Adv. Hier. t. 6. /mt^ ^ ravra ^tit£ktirap immbt IVm^^ 
ncovf, (JMaKoyrts fu$yoi rii P6Btj yumaiuuf, Cf. 1 Oor. ii. 10 ; 
Apoe. ii. 24. 

• Adr. H»r. t. 7. 

^ The dMcription of their opinions is constantly prefaced 
by the words fPaahf or ^i;<rt. 

^ The following list of references, which might be 


CHAP. TV, They made use ako of th^ Gospel acoording to 
the Eg3rptians» and of the Gospel of St Thomas ^ 

ThBPenuei The Peratici and Sethiani are placed by 
Hippolytns in close connexion with the Ophites. 
The passages of the esoteric doctrine {afroppfpra 
lULvariipia) of the Peratici which he brings to 
light, contain obvious references to the Gt>8pel 
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. 3 sqq., p. 113; 
zxiii. 27, raxfKn iart MKovtafupoi, Cf. Bupr., p. 174, where I 
should haye referred to this passage — p. Ill ; rii. 21, p. 112 ; 
zxi. 31, p. 112; iii. 10, p. 113; tU. 6, p. 114; rii. 14, Id, 
p. 116. 

St Luke xriL 21, p. 100 ; xvii. 4, p. 102 (?) ; xriii. 19 
-I- Matt. T. 45, p. 102; xi. 33, p. 103. 

St John iv. 10, pp. 100, 121; x. 34 + Luke ri. 35, p. 106; 
iii. 6, p. 106 ; i. 3, 4, as Tischf. p. 107 ; iii. 1^12, p. 108 ; tL 
53 + xiii. 33; Matt. xx. 22, p. 109 ; T. 37, p. 109 ; x. 9, p. Ill; 
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. 
OaL iii. 28, &c., p. 99. 

Eph. iii. 16, p. 97; v. 14, p. 104. 

Hob. T. 11, p. 97. 

1 Their use of the 'Oospel 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 
Oospels 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. Tlschendori^ Evv. Apocr. Pref. p. xxxix. 


thians (L), and to the Colossians^ The writangs 
of the Sethiani again allude to the Gospel of 
St Matthew and to the Epistle to the 'Philip* 
plans ^ 

Apart from these special references the whole THefntni 

imlinony oC 

system of the Ophites bears clear witness to the i^^mtodw 
authenticity of St John's Gospel. Everything jSS?****'* 
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 Colosssd 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 tim jcmou- 

1 St John iii. 17 (r& tlptinipow) p. 125 ; iil. 14, p. 134 ; 
i. 1*^, p. 134 (wrongly dirided by the editor?); viiL 44, 
p. 136 ; X. 7» p. 137. 1 Cor. xi. 32 (i) ypa^) p. 125. OoL 
iL 9 (rd XcT^fKvoy) p. 124. 

9 Matt X. 34, p. 146. PhiL ii. 6, 7, p. 318. 

' The accoont of the Ophites is concluded by a Bummary 
of the opinions of Justin, a Gnostic. The use of Isaiah 
Ixiv. 4 in his teachuig fully justifies the conjecture which I 
proposed abore, p. 233; and I think it rery likely that 
Hegesippus had him in riew when he wrote. In the quota- 
tions made from his writings there are apparent references 
to Luke xxiil 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 obsenres, to Apoc. iii. 14. 


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 

wiMtboou Christian life. Like Cerinthus they received a 

or cht N«w 

g*J2Kid. "^^^*^^ recension of St Matthew's GU>spel^ 
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.' 

Theterti. This exclusive use of St Matthew did not 

many of the 

Of^t'^f^^- always prevail. In the Clementines, which are 
a product of the Ebionitic school, there are 

1 Iron. adv. Hser. i. 26, 2. Solo eo quod est seoanduin 
Matthssum evangelio utantur et Apostolum Paulum recusant, 
apostatam earn 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 Qospel. I believe them to have been the 
following : 

(a) The original AranuBon text. 

(1) A revision (?) of this included in the Peshito. 

(2) An interpolated text used by the Naxarenes, 
which contained the first two chapters, and is 
described by Jerome. 

(3) A mutilated and interpolated text used by the 

O) An [apostolic] translation in Greek. 


dear references to the four Evangelists. The chap, iv. 
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 fromTbemie 

TAlueof thtf 

the documents of these primitive sects is neces- ^SSS^ 
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 hare been modified by 

s Clementii R. quas feruntur Homilice xz nune prknwn 
iniegfXB. Ed. A. R. M. Dressel. Gottingss, 1853. 

Horn. ziz. 20. At^ Koi rott avrov iiaBrfratt Kar Id lav 
^ircXvff TTJs r»y ovpav&y ficuriktiat fivanjpta, Cf. Mark It. 34 : 
Kor Idiay rocr naffrfrais avrov (?) circXuc iravra. This is the 
only place where rirtXvM occurs in the Gospels. Cf. Uhl- 
hom, a. a. O. 122. 

' Horn. ziz. 22. SBtv Koi [6 didaaicJoXor iJ/amv mpl rov 
4k ytpenjt wrfpov koI oKi^Xc^raiTor wap* avrov c£mi[(ova'i 
roTr /io^racr], tl otros ^fiaprtv rj ol yovtit airov iva 
Tv<l>\6f ytvvrfBj, oircxpiyoro* oCrt otr6s ri tfiiaprtv oifrt 
ol yovttt avroVf dXX' iva di avrov (ftaptpmBj i} ivpofus 
rov G€ov rrjf aywoias hapjivfi rk afAapn^iuira, Cf. John iz. 1, 
sqq. TJhlhom, 122 ff. 


CHAP. IV. authors and the precise date of their composi- 
tion. It is possible that Hippolytns 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 argumenti^ 
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 afiects 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 Testamient 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. Baailides and Isidorus. 

Thechaneter The casc, howcvcr, docs uot tum wholly on 
SiEdS.^'**" anonymous evidence. The account of Basuides 
given by Hippolytus is composed mainly of pas- 
sages from his own writings which fully establish 


the inferences which have been hitherto drawn, chap, iv. 
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. adr. Hser. yii. 26: 7 ypo^ Xtyw oIk h diioKroit 
avBpvfKivfis ao^car \6yois dXX* cr didojcroftr nv^vfutros (1 Gor. 
ii. 13); yii. 25: yrypatmu^ <l>rfal' koI 17 Kritrif oMf <rv<rrrMi(rif 
K.r.X. Rom. rilL 22, ko. 


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 iseems, an Alexandrine, and 

HUdate. probably of Jewish descent. He is said to have 

lived ' not long after the times of the Apostles*/ 

and to have been a young^er contemporary of 

Cerinthns, 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 Ebtdrian'; 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 nuuie un Sincc hc Uved on the verge of the Apostolic 

g;^j^f*<i« times it is not surprising that Basilides made 

cii^of^use of other sources of Christian doctrine 


1 ScUuminus, or SatomiluSf of Antioch, is generally 
placed in close connexion with Basilides He was a schohur 
of Menander, whose opinions he advanced. All the aoooimtB 
of his doctrine appear to be derired from one source, and 
they contain nothing which bears on the history of the 
Ganon. Hipp. adv. Hser. vii. 28; Iren. adv. Hnr. i. 24; 
Epiph. Hier. xziii. 

s Arehd. et Man, Disp,, Bouth r. p. 197 . . . Basilidee 
quidam . . . non longe post nostrontm Apostolomm tempera . . . 
Cf. Routh, i. p. 268. Enseb. H. E. It. 7. 

s Cf. Pearson, Vind, Ign. ii. 7, ap. Lardner, Tiii. 360. 

« Cf. supra, p. 108. 


besides the Canonical books. The belief in divine ofiAp. iv. 
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 

^ Eusebitu appears to consider the prophecies as for- 
geries (H. E. iy. 7). They may, howerer, hare been * OrU 
ental books which he met with in his journey into the 
East,' as Lardner suggests (yiii. 390). Isidorus wrote a 
commentary on the prophecy of Parchor, which giTee 
authority to the conjecture : Clem. Alex. Str. tL 6, $ 53. 

s Clem. Alex. Str. Til. 17, i 106. 

' Hipp, adr Hnr. tu. 20 : Ba<riXcidi;r roiwp xai *laidmpat 
6 BaciXfidov frcur yviftrmt jcol fui%r^r, (fnunif tlpriKtvai MarBlaw 
aifToU Xdyovr airojcpv<^oi/(, ott ^icoihtc wapii rov 2«nfjpat hot* 
Idiap didaxBtis. Miller corrects the MS. reading Martftv 
into Mor^oibv, wrongly, I bellere. Cf. Clem. Alex. Str. tH. 
17, § lOS. 

4 The few notices of Basilides' Gospel or Commentariee 
are perplexing. Origen is the first who mentions a Ootpel 
as written by him. Hom. i. in Luc: Ausus fiiit et Basilides 
scribere OTangelium, 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 €k>spel of Ba- 
silides as identical with that of Maroion and Valentinus: 



CHAP. i¥. 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 ^ 

ravro dc upfjrai irpos rovs air6 OvaXewrbfov ml BcunX/dov 
Au Tovs an6 UapKitowos. — ?;(ov<ri yiip mu atrroi rht Xri^cr (the 
qootatlons from the Old Testament in Loke z. 27) cv rf 
Koff cavTovr cvoyycXiy (fr. 6. in Luc.) The last clause^ 
howe?er, need not refer to more than the Mardonites. 

I am not aware that there are any more references to 
the work of Basilides as a Ooipd; hut Agrippa Castor 
mentioned 'four and twenty books (nampa wpbg roitQ) 
tiKoat) which he composed on the Gospel' (Euseb. H. B. 
IT. 7) ; and Clement of Alexandria quotes sereral passages 
from the twenty-third book (Str. ir. 12, $$ 83 sqq.), and 
another quotation from the thirteenth book {tradatus) 
occurs at the end of the ' discussion between Archelaus and 
Manes' (Routh, r. p. 197). 

The character of these quotations show that these Com- 
mentaries cannot hare formed part of a Gospel in the 
common sense of the word, but it appears that Basilides 
attached a technical meaning to the term : Evayyikiow ^arl 
Kor* avrovff (the followers of Basilides) 17 r&p {mtpKoafumi^ 
yycMTcr, »s dcd^Xoorac, fjv 6 fityas apx^v ovk TJmaTOTo (Hipp, 
adv. Hser. Til. 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, Origenos, ii. 69. 

1 Hipp. adr. Hocr. vii. 27 : Tty€vrffUvrft di Tfjt ytviennt r§r 
vpodtdrjKt^fitinjs, ycyovc wairra 6/io/<or kot avrovf ra mp\ rov 
^mTfjpoSf <off cV roir cvoyycXtoir yfypanrrau He gave a mys- 
tical explanation of the Incarnation, quoting Luke i. 36 
(«. § 26). 

s See p. 323, note (1). 


For in spite of his peculiar opinions the testi- ohap.iy. 
mony of Basilides to our ' acknowledged' books whMCteKm. 


is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages ^i"^'^ 
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 K 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 beloDgs to an earlier date ; for this belief 

1 The following examples will be BufficioDt : 
St Matthew 11. 1 sqq. p. 243. 
St Luke i. 35, p. 241 (t6 tlprffUpop), 
St John i. 9, p. 232 (r6 Xcy. cV rot r cvoyy.) ; ii. 4, p. 242, 
Bomans Till. 22, p. 238 (tlr yrypaimu), p. 241 ; t. 13, 14, 
(id.) Cf. Orig. Comm. in Rom. c. 6. 

1 Corinthians ii. 13, p. 240 (i} ypa4>ii) ; xv. 8 (p. 240). 

2 Corinthians xii. 4, p. 241 (yrYpatrrai), 
Ephesians iii. 3, p. 241. 

Colossians i. 26, p. 238. 
Philippians ii. 9, p. 230. 
1 Tim. ii. G, p. 232 (?) Kcupol Huh. 
« Clem. Str. ir. 12, } 83 (1 Pet. iv. 14—16), quoted by 
Kirchhofer, p. 416. 


824 THE EARLY HERETICS. cannot have originated with him ; and if we go 

back but one generation we are within the age 

of the Apostles. 

h^v«^!£t!S ^° ^^^ other hand, Basilides is said to have 

fto^K*^ anticipated Marcion in the rejection of the Pas- 


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. 
ituhnu, 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 [opistolas] 
integras repudiandas credidenmt : ad Timotheum videlicet 
utramque, ad Hebrseos, et ad Titum. £t si quidem redde- 
rent causas cur eas apostoli non putarent, tentaremus aliquid 
respondere et forsan satisfacere lectori. Nunc vero cum 
hasretica auctoritate pronuncient et dicant: Ula epiatola 
Pauli est, hiec non est, ca auctoritate repelli se pro veritate 
intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescuut falsa simulare. 


§ 4. Carpocrates. ^°^'^^' 

The accounts of Carpocrates are very meagre, Jjjgjyg, 
and all apparently come from one source. He ^SSSSy. 
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 Irenaeus it may benMCttrpo- 
concluded that the Carpocratians received ourgjjjjj" 
Canonical Gospels, adapting them to their own 
doctrine by strange expositions. Thus they ap- 
plied the parable of the man and his adversary, ]U[£J[i|f|^ 
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, $ 6. Iren. adv. Hser. i. 25, 6. 

s Iren. adr. Hser. i. 25, 2. Hipp. adv. Hser. rii. 81. 
EpiphaniuB (Hser. zxTii. 2) says Ua-pov koX Xvdpcov col 
novXov. — I do not know how to explain the special mention 
of Si Andrew, His connexion with St Peter is scarcely 
sufficient reason. 

s Iren. i. 25, 4. 


CHAR IV. The key- word of the system of Carpocrates 
^binSX ^^ ite^^ ^^^ witness to the teaching of St Paul 
sT^i^i^d and St John. ' Men are saved/ he said, * by 
faith and love^;^ 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. Vcdentinua. 

Thed^of 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. Irenaeus 

^ Iren. i. 25, 6 : dia wiarttot yhp Koi ayamis ati^ftrBai' rit 
dc Xot9ra adia<l>opa Svro, Kark rfjv d6(ap r<o'y dvBpwraVf irfj fiitw 
6ya6a, irrf dc kxikcl voyl^tfrOai^ ovdcvor (f>v<r(t kokov virapxoprot, 

' The fragments of Epiphanes, (Clem. Alex. Sir. iii. 2, 
$$ 6 sqq.) the son of Carpocrates, contain no direct scrip- 
tural quotations ; but the whole argument on justice reads 
like a comment on Matt. t. 45. The passage in § 7, fi^ 
cn/vftcU r6 roO dTroarSkov ptfrhv \eyovTot' di^ v6fun) r^y ofiofh' 
riaw ryycDv (Rom. vii. 7) is a remark of Clement's — trvntls 
referring to (f>fj<riy in the former sentence. It is necessary 
to notice this, as the words hare been quoted as used by 
Epiphanes. Cf. Epiph. Hser. zzzii. 4. 

* Cf. Epiph. Hasr. zxzl. 2. Massuet, Diss, i. 1, § 1. 


relates that 'he came there during the episco- ohap.iv. 
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 Borne 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 throuirh Glaucias HeitedTcd 
the authority of St Peter, Valentinus professed cSSSite 
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 Hhe whole Instrument/ perverting the 
interpretation where Marcion mutilated the text'. 

1 Iron. adr. Hser. iii. 4, 3 (ap. Euseb. H. E. ir. 11). 

s Clem. Alex. Str. yii. 17, § 106. 

s Tertull. de Proescr. Hocret. : Alius manu scriptural, 
alius sensus ezpositione intenrertit. Neque enim si Valen- 
tinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio 
quam Marcion [manus intulit Tcritati ?] Marcion enim ex- 
Borte et palam machsera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad 


cuAP. IV. The fragments of his writiDgs 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 
Bomans and Corinthians (i.), and perhaps also to 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to the first 
Epistle of «St John^ 

materiam suam csedem Bcriptaramm confecit. Valentiniis 
autem pepercit : quoniam non ad matcriam scripturast sed 
materiam ad scripturas excogitayit : et tamen plus abstulit, 
et plus adjecit, auferons proprietates singulorum quoque rer- 
borum, ot adjicieoB dispositiones non eomparentium rerum. 

1 Very little is known of the writings of Valentinns. 
Clement quotes Homilies and Letters ; and in the Dialogue 
against Marcion a long passage is taken from his treatise 
' On the Origin of E^il.' The quotations in Hippolytus are 

* The references are : 

8t Matthew r. 8. Clem. Str. ii. 20, § 114; xix. 17. Cf. 
Clem. Str. 1. c. 

St Luke i. 35. Hipp. adr. Haer. yi. 35 (r6 tlptjfuwov). 

St John z. 8. Hipp. yi. 35. 

Romans i. 20. Clem. 13,^92; Tiii.ll ; Hipp. yi. 35. 

1 Corinth, ii. 14. Hipp. tI. 34; zt. 8. Cf. vi. 31. 

Ephes. iii. 5. Hipp. ▼!. 35; iii. 14 — 18. Hipp. ti. 34 

Hebr. xii. 22. Cf. Hipp. yi. 30. 
1 John iy. 8. Cf. Hipp. yi. 29. 

s In an obscure passage /Clem. Str. yi. 6, 52) ValentintiB 
contrasts ' what is written in popular books (nus dtifUHrUng 


But though no charge is brought against ohap.iv. 
Valentinus of mutilating the Canon or the books 2^Si»ttS 
of the New Testament, he is said to have in- JoSSttoSf 
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 (Mera^^a/oa^oyras) 
of the Gospel besides the followers of Marcion, 
of Valentinus, and, as he believes, of Lucanus V 
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 

fiifikoit) with that which is written in the Church,' (r^ yyp* 
^ Tj imek,) By 'popular books' Clement understands 
' either the Jewish or Gentile writings/ The antithesis seems 
to inrolve the idea of an ecclesiastical Canon. 

1 Tertull. de Prsescr. Hseret. xxx. : Item Valentinus 
aliter exponons, et sine dubio emendans, hoc onmino qnie- 
quid emendat, ut mendosum retro, anterius fuisse demon- 
strat. The connexion of the passage requires the reading 
cmterku for aUeritu. Cf. p. 327, n. 3. 

* Orig. c. Cels. ii. 27. I have already giren an expla- 
nation of the passage in which Origen has been supposed to 
connect the (jospel of Marcion with that of Valentinus: 
p. 321, n. 4. 


OHAP. 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. 

and to have Thc Valcntinians, however, are said to have 

u«ed another 

^^p^ 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 
?iaw 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 

* Iren. adv. Hser. iii. 11, 9. In the last clause I hare 
adopted the punctuation proposed by Mr Norton (ii. 805). 
The common reading gires the same sense. 


then was this Gospel ? If it had been a history ohap. iv. 
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^«^^ 
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 beliere, occurs elsewhere, 
except in [Tert.] Pr»scr. Hseret c. 49. But I can see no 
reason for doubting the correctness of Irenseus' statement. 
The book may hare been brought prominently under his 
notice without baring had any permanent authority among 
the Valentinians. 

1 Cf. p. 321, n. 4. 

' This common use of the word occurs Rev. zir. 6, which 
passage has giren 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 Oo9pel of Chriit. — 
Christianity, in other words, as seen in the life of Christ. 
Our Canonical Gospels recognize the human teacher by 
whom it is conreyed to us — cvoyycXioy Xpurrov icarck Mar- 



cHAP.iY. meaning, rather than to supersede their use. 
The Valentinians had more Gospels than the 
Catholic Church, since they accepted an autho- 
ritative doctrinal Gospel. 

other oiKM- Thc titlcs of somc of the other Gnostic 

tic <Oo»pelt.* 

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 serpents The 
second was ^ a seductive composition, no Gospel, 
but a consummation of woe^' 
JJ*^^> The analogy of the title of this ' Gospel of 

1 Epiph. Hror. zzW. 2 : tls Svofia yap avnjs [Evas] ^7^, 
tit tvpovoTjs t6 Svofta ttjs yim<rtm (( dtroicaXv^foDr roO XoXi;- 
otUTor avT^ 6<l>t<os tnropav vtroTiBivrt . . . 6pf»MVTai dr dird 
ympw fjMpTvpi&v Ka\ otrraauav . . . 

In tho next section Epiphanius qaotos a passage from it 
containing a clear enunciation of Pantheism of great interest. 

^ Epiph. I. c: imnXturrop tlaayovaiv aywyifidwi mirffuif f 
vouirtvfiari circ^rvro Svofia, iwryyiXiov rcXctcDcrroDr roOro ^o 
CKOVTMs* KalaXffBw ovk. ruayycXioy rovro oKXa nivBovs rcXriMtrtff. 

Mr Norton has insisted on this point rery justly: ii. 
pp. 302 ff. 


Perfection' leaves little doubt as to the charac- chap.iy. 
ter of the * Gospel of Truth/ Puritan theology J&^'^S** 
can furnish numerous similar titles. And the par- ttomaom 

* ChristiMU 

tial currency of such a book among the Valenti- !i5*<rfXJ*" 
nians offers not the slightest presumption against 
their agreement with Catholic Christians on the 
exclusive claims of the four Gospels as records 
of Christ^s life. These they took 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. 

J 6. HeracUon, 

The history of Heracleon, the great Valen- JJ^J^JJ, 
tinian commentator, is full of uncertainty. No- "°**'***^ 
thing is known of his country or parentage. 
Hippolytus classes him with Ptolemseus 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 8ect^ 

1 Hipp. adv. Heer. tI. 35 : xai yiyovwif irrtvBw i) dtdoiriBa- 
\la avTwy ^ijjprjfAfVfj^ ical icoXfiroi 17 fiiv dwarokucrf rif didmrra- 
Xia KOT avToiff 17 dc ^IraXuartK^, Ol fuv tnrh rrjs 'iraKlagy tip 
iariv 'HpaicKtt^v «eal TLroKtyMiot (ftaa-iv^ k,t. X. Clement of Alex- 
andria made nrirofuil tx to»v Oeodorov Koi rfjs awaroXiKtjs 
ica\ovfi€vrjs didacricaXiar. 

< Clem. Alex. Str. ir. 9, $ 73 : 6 ttjs OvaXfrnvov ax"^^ 


CHAP. IV. and Origen says that ' he was reported to have 
been a familiar friend of Valentinus^/ Aamiming 
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. 

His com. There is no evidence to determine how far 


theGoqwu. ^^ Commentaries of Heracleon extended. Frag- 
ments of his commentaries on the Gospels of St 
Luke and St John have been preserved by Cle» 
mcnt 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 commentai*y on St John^ Hip- 
polytus makes no mention of either. 

1 Comm. in Joan. Tom. n. $ 8. 

s EpiphaniuB, indeed, speaks of him as later than Mar- 
CU8 (Hser. xzxvL 2). The exact chronology of the early 
heretics is rery uncertain. In fact, at least all those with 
whom we hare to do at present must hare been contempo* 
raries. It is surprising that Irenseus makes no mention of 
Heracleon, since he was closely associated with Ptolemnus 
against whom particularly his work was directed. 

s Clem. Alex. Str. It. 9, H 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 : 


The fragments contain allusions to the Gospel chap, iv. 
of St Matthew, to the Epistles of St Paul to the JSJaIS^ 
Bomans and Corinthians (i.)> and to the second S^^ums 
EpisUe to Timothy ^ ; but the character of the *«•«■»»«>»• 
Commentary itself is the most striking testi- 
mony to the estimation in which the Apostolic 
writings were held. The sense of the inspiration Thedoettine 

of Inmlni- 

of the Evangelists — of some providential guid- S^iSp^. 
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 significants Numbers were supposed to con- 

Korroi^fii/yayro ouroor dicovo-oyrcr rh oYrooToXurc^y. Cf. Iren. adv. 
HflBf. i. 25, 6. No 'apostolic injunction' occurs to me likely 
to hare giren rise to the custom. 

* The references are: 

8t Matthew yiii. 12 ; Orig. in Joan. Tom. ziii. $ 69. 

Bomans zii. 1 ; Orig. 1. c. $ 25, i. 25 ; Orig. in Joan, 
ziii. $ 19. 

1 Corinthians, Orig. 1. c. § 59. 

2 Timothy ii. 13; Clem. Alex. Str. ir. L c. 

' 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 zii. 8, he remarks : ' With good reason Christ says of 
those who confess Uim, in mt (ofiok, iv c/ioi), but of those who 
deny Him, me (apv, ifit) only. For these, even if they con- 
fess Him with their Toice, deny Him, since they confess Him 
not in their action. But they alone make confession in Him 

:i^ 4>* 

^^i^' Kftal a fasfidea tnoL The vfcole 

fomd to &e pre^BflBi vitk frfijiilnri 
e^wrerei br tike t4*-^)ii»g of evcsts 
•drei real azkd xxutracdre. It appears ako thai 
difr€TeDce« betvecn the Goepdi vera fdt^ and 
Mn attempt made to reooocile them'. And it 
must be noticed that aatharitatiTe qnitnal 
teac-bin^ wa^ not limited to oar Lorfs own 
worcLs, bat tbe remarks of the ETangelist alao 
were receired a^s posseaaing an inherent weight*. 
7>mfm*4 Hie introduction of commentaries impliea 

''^HH"^ the Htron^^cst belief in the authenticity and an- 
thority of the Xew Testament Scriptores ; and 
this belief becomes more important when we 
notice the source from which they were derived. 
'Ilicy took their rise among heretics, and not 
among Catholic Christians. Just as the earliest 
Fathers applied themselves to the Old Testa- 
ment, Ui bring out its real harmony with the 
OoHpcl, heretics endeavoured to reconcile the 
(fOHi>cl with their own systems. Commentaries 

who livfl ill thn confession and action that accords with Him; 
in whom also Jfo makes confession, having Himself embraced 
tlii'.m, and hoin^ hisld fast by them' (Clem. Alex. Str. !▼. 1. c.) 

' Orif(. in Joan. x. $ 21 : 6 fiirroi y€ 'H/kucXcW t6' ip 
Tfntrl' iprjtr\v dirrl rov* iv rpirij.,, 

^ Tho fragments of Ileracloon are pablisbed (after Maa- 
sunt) at the end of Btioron's edition of Irenseus ; but much 
mill riHiiairiN to make the collection complete. His commen- 
tary on tho fourth chapter of St John will illustrate most of 
the statements in tho text. Orig. in Joann. Tom. xill. § 10 sqq. 


were made where the want for them was pressing, chap. iv. 

But unless the Gospels had been generally ac- 
ceptedy 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- HenciMm 

quoted tJto 

tament, Heracleon quoted the 'Preaching ofJ^SrS^. 
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, Mt cy, he added, tvf cV rf xScfif 
Koi rg jcTiVfi (Orig. in Joan. iL $ 8). He argued that John 
L 18 contained the words of the Baptist, and not of the 
Erangelist (Orig. in Joan. Tom. ri. § 2) ; and in like manner 
he supposed that the words of Ps. Ixyiil. 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- 
pretations were made from doctrinal motires, and in them- 
seWes sufficiently prove that St John's Gospel was no Gnostic 

^ Clem. Alex. Str. ir. 1. c. : ov yhp wavrtf ol €r»(6fi€9iH 
tifjtokdyrjaap r^y dUk rrjt (fiiovrjt Sfiokayiap Koi i(^$ov' cf «Sy 
MorAuo^, ^ikiinrosf 0»fias, Arvts (i. e. Gaddatbc), mi SXKoi 

s Gonun. in Joan. Tom. xiii. § 17. Of. App. B. 



CHAP. IV. 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 

J 7. PtoUmceus, 

JJ»jgriM«> Ptolemeeus, like Heracleon, was a disciple of 
™*^ Valentinus, and classed with him in the Italian 
as distinguished from the Eastern School ^ Tre- 
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. 
^uJ^^ Epiphanius has preserved an important letter 
which Ftolemseus 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 PauPs 
Epistles to the Eomans, Corinthians (i.), and 

1 Tho quotation which Heracleon made was in illustra- 
tion of our Lord's teaching on the true worship, John ir. 
22. The passage in question is given by Clement, Str. ti. 5, 
JJ 40, 41. 

2 Hipp. adv. User. vi. 36. TertuUian (adr. Val. 4) 
places Ptolemseus before Heracleon. 


Ephe8ians^ He appealed, it is true, to an chap.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 wortiiy 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, if Pngngtsof 
not of the books, of Ptolemseus, 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 Epipb. Hsor. xzxiii. 3 sqq. 

> Epiph. Heer. xxxiii. 7 : fioB^a-it yap, Btov dcddyror, i(^s 
Koi T^p TovTov apx^P Tf Koi yivw7)(TWj a^unffutnf r^s dirooroXc- 
Kfjf frapad6a'i<os, tjv cc dutdoxjjs koX fjfitU irap€ikriif>aiuvy fura 
Koi rov Kcofovltrai irdvras rovs \6y09 r^ rov awrrjpos Matricar 

s Iren. adv. Hasr. i. 1 sqq. After the ezpoBitio 1 of the 
Valentinian system is completed (i. 8, 5), the Latin Version 
adds : et Ptolemcsus fuidem ita. There is LOthing to corre- 
spond to these words in the Greek. 



CHAP. IV. St Paul to the Romans^ Corinthians (L), Gala- 
tians, EphesianSy and Colossians^ Two state- 
ments, however, are made at varianee 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 modem 
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 Ptolemseus in common with the Ophites*. 

§ 8. The Marcosiana. 
TheMareo- Ouc scct of thc Valcutinians was distin- 


S^id**"" guished by the use of Apocryphal writings. 
'The Marcosians," Irenseus writes, introduce 

1 The following references may be noticed : 

Matthew r. 18 (Iren. i. 3, 2); ix. 20 Bq. (1. 3, 3); x. 34 
(i. 3, 5); xiii. 33 (i. 8, 3); xx. 1 (i. 3, 1); xxiii. 46 ; xxvL 38 
a 8, 2). 

Mark v. 31 (i. 3, 3) ; x. 21 (i. 3, 6). 

Luke ii. 42 (i. 3, 2) ; iii. 17 (i. 3, 6) ; vi. 13 (i. 3, 2) ; viii. 
41 (i. 8, 2) ; ix. 67 sqq. ; xix. 6 (i. 8, 3). 

John xii. 27 (var. lect. i. 8, 2) ; i. 1 sqq. (i. 8, 6). 

Romans xi. 16 (i. 8, 3) ; xi. 36 (i. 3, 4). 

1 Corinthians i. 18 (i. 3, 5); xi. 10; xr. 8 (i. 8, 2); xr. 
48 (i. 8, 3). 

Galatians vi. 14 (i. 3, 5). 

Ephesians i. 10 (i. 3, 4); iii. 21 (i. 3, 1); r. 13 (i. 8, 5); 
V. 32 (i. 8, 4). 

Colossians i. 16 (i. 4, 6); ii. 9; iii. 11- (i. 3, 4). 

s Iren. adv. Har. i. 3, § 3; i. 3, § 2 ; cf. i. 30, $ 7. 


with subtlety an unspeakable multitude of apo- chap. iy. 
cryphal and spurious writings (ypafpat), which 
they forged themselves, to confound the foolish, 
and those who know not the Scriptures (ypofi' 
fiara) of truth K* 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 

Whatever the Apocryphal writings may have 
been, the words of Irenseus show that they were 
easily distinguishable from Holy Scripture ; and 
the Marcosians themselves bear witness to the 
familiar use of our Gospels. The formularies ButAtjnid- 
which Marcus instituted contain references tOoS^if^'^ 
the Gospel of St Matthew, and perhaps to the 
Epistle to the Ephesians^ The teaching of his 

1 Iran. adT. Hser. i. 20, 1. Among these was a Ootpel 
of the Infancy (Iran. i. 20, 2), contaming a similar story to 
that in the Gospel of Thomas, c. 6. 

s This may be dedaced from his use of Aramaic liturgi- 
cal forms. Iran. i. 21, 3. 

s Iran. adT. Hnr. i. 13, 3 (Matt, xriii. 10) ; i. 18, 2 (Eph. 
iii. 16). 


CHAP. IV. followers offers coiDcidences 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. Irenseus 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 yarious 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 haye giren the pas- 
sages at length, that they may be compared with Justin. 

Matt. xi. 25 sqq. : c^o/ioXoyi^o-o/uit (-oO/iat— -so Lat. 
Int.) <roi, narc/>, Kvpic t£v ovpav^v (rov ovp.) Ka\ rtft 
yfjsj on air€Kpvyjras (+ ravra — so Lat. Int.) dno troifimp 
jcai o-vptTCiv icai dirficaXvyjras avra pfjniois* Ova (wai)^ 
6 HaTfjpf oTi IffiirpoaBev aov €vdoKta fioi rycprro (ovnor iy. cv. 
c/i. a-ov — Lat. Int. quoniam in couspectu tuo placitum factum 
est). Havra fioi trap€d6Bri viro rov Harpds fiov' Kal ovd€\f 
tyv^a rhv Hartpa ei pri 6 Yi<$r, Koi roi' Yl6v ti fxrj 6 Harrfp koI 
f lip 6 Ylos diroKoKvylnj. For the last clause, see p. 159, n. 2. 

Matt. xi. 28,29: devrr. . . v/xar Ka\ fia$€Tt aw* c/iov 
rhw r^r aktjBfias TLartpa KorrfyytXKfyai, t yap ovic fjlituraPf 
(fnfO'it TovTo avTois vnitrxn'o bitd^iv. The last words show 
that T6p.,.KaTrfyyt\K€vai formed no part of the quotation^ 
which agrees yerbally with St Matthew, omitting one clause. 

Matt. xix. 16: ri fit Xeyccr ayaOop; tls itrrXp dyaBos^ 
6 narfjp ip roit ovpavoU, Cf. p. 184. The passage is re- 
ferred to by Ptolcmseus thus (Epiph. User, xxxlii. 7): cm 
yap i»6pop tipai dyaB6p Oe^y rhp iavrov rrartpa 6 trtartip ^fx&p 
dnffPjjpoTo, Cf. Mk. z. 18, and D in I, 


In addition to the Gospels the Marcosians chap, iv. 
referred generally to St Paul in support of their JJSJf *J^|f»**" 
peculiar opinions. * They said that Paul in ex- ^^' 
press terms had frequently indicated the redemp- 
tion in Christ Jems ; and that this was that doc- 
trine which was (variously and incongruously) 
delivered by them^' 

Matt. xxL 23 : tv iro/f dwdfici {t^QVirii^ rovro (roOra) 

Mark X. 38: bvyatrB* rh fidima-fia PanTia-Brjvaif 6 
cyflt fuXk» PasrrlCta'Bm (fioTrriCofuu) ; MeXXtt Pofrr, aDBwers 
to Matt. xz. 22, fuXKm iriclv. Cf. p. 170. 

Luke ii. 49: ovk oldorc (soTert. jdurt 6ti cf rott rov 
vaTp6t fiov dec fit tlvat; 

Luke zii. 60: koI aXXo (=)/3airrc<r/ia (+dc) tx^ iSair- 
TKrBfjpaif ica\ ircani eirtiyofun tls avT6 (nS>s avpixoftai €»s 
Stov TtXtaB^ ;) This change is a good instance of an inter* 
pretatiTe gloss. 

Luke xix. 42: tl ?yya>r kqI av o^fitpov (cV r§ >7/a</>? 
ravTu) rii 7rp6s eipifyi^y* ticpvfif) de (vvy dc eVp. dir6 6<f>m 
BaKfi&p) trov. 

John XX. 24. Iren. i. 20, 2 sqq. Cf. Iran. i. 18, 4. 

One passage causes me some perplexity. It stands thus 
(Iren. i. 20, 2) : eV r^ tlprjKttHU trokXaicis tirtBCfirjaa dicovtrai 
Ira r&y Xdya>y rovrflsv, Koi ovk tf<rxop t6p cpovvra, ip^Mbovrdt 
(fMauff thfcu d«a rov Ms r6p dXriBw fva Bmop tv cvk. cyMSiCfC- 
coy. The Latin Version offers no rarious reading. Stieran 
supposes that the words ara taken from an Apocryphal Qot- 
pel; but that is contrary to what Iremeus says. May we not 
ehange imBvprja'a into ivtBvprjaay, and refer to Matt. xiii. 17? 
By this emendation iywoKturay has a natural antecedent, and* 
unless I am mistaken, the connexion of the passage is improred. 

1 Iran. adv. Hser. i. 21, 2. The phrase occurs in the 
Epistles of St Paul to the Romans (iiL 24), Ephesians (i. 7)» 
and Colossians (i. 14). The words of the Marcosians may 
consequently be taken as a testimony to these Epistles. 


AP. IV. The coincidences with the other parts of the 
w tethty New Testament are less certain. An allasion to 
n£|;^^ 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 eoind- 
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 Iren. i. 18, 3 ; 1 Peter iii. 20. The reourrenoe of the 
same word hu<TiiBrjtra» makes the similarity more worthy of 

> Iren. i. 14,6; 15,1. The allusion woald be beyond 
doubt if <^i;crly avrhv a kcX <o could be translated, as Stieren 
translates it, ip$6 $e dicU A elO. It is erident from the next 
sentence that ^irl implies a quotation. Must we not read 
aifr6sf * on this account he is... ?* 


find in them an adequate explanation of the ohap.iv. 
jnanifold developments of heresy. In whatever 
direction the development extended, it can be 
traced to some starting point in the Apostolic 
writings \ 

§ 9. Marcion. 
Hitherto the testimony of heretical writers The nm 


to the New Testament has been confined to the ^|2^^. 
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' (tK r&v e^od^rov xal r^s 
dwarcXus^s didtuTKokiag icar^ rovr OuiXcyriyov ;(pdyov£ ciriro/io/). 
The meaning of the phrase ' Eastern School ' has been ex- 
plained already ; and the testimony of these fragments may 
be considered as supplementary to that which has been ob- 
tained from the Yalentinians 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 give 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, Oalatians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy (i.); the 
first Epistle of St Peter. 

Epiphanius in his article on Theodotus of Bysantium, who 
is commonly identified with the Clementine Theodotus, re- 
presents him (Hser. liv.) as using the Gospels of St Matthew, 
St Luke, and St John ; the Acts of the Apostles ; the First 
Epistle to Tunothy. 

The passages are giren at length by Kirchhofer, $ 403 ff« 



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 
Conunentary 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. 
Thenceuiiw Thc positiou which Marcion occupies in the 
■**^**^- history of Christianity 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 thc 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 PauP. 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. Hser. xlii. 1. What the vrpocd/xa was is un- 
certain. Probably it implies only admission into the college 
of n-pro-idvrrpoi. Gf. Bingham, Orig. Eecles, i. p. 266. Mas- 
suet, do Gnostic, reb. $ 135. 

* Tort. adv. Marc. i. 20: Aiunt Marcionem non tarn 
innoTasse rcgulam separatlone Legis et Eyangelii, quam 
tro adulteratam recurasse. 


may believe that the title signalized his special chap, 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 arriyal at Kome^ nitikte. 
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 lae.i^A.c 
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 acciurate notion of the historical place which 
he occupied. As the contemporary of Justin, he 
united the age of Ignatius with that of Irenseus. 
He witnessed the consolidation of the Catholic 

^ PetaYiUB has discuBsed his date. AnimadT. in Epipb. 
Hasr. xWi. (p. 83); and Massuet much more fully and exactly, 
de Gnostic, reb. § 136. 

* Just. Mart. Ap. i. c. 26. 

> Tert. adv. Marc. i. 19 : Quoto quidcm anno Antonini 
Majoris de Ponto sue exhalaverit aura canicularis non curari 
iuTestigaro ; de quo tamen constat, Antonianus hmreticus est, 
sub Pio impius. 


CHAP. IV. Church ; and his heresy was the final straggle 
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 ^ 

Theeontmts Marciou profcsscd to have introduced no 

of hisGuKMH. '^ 

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 yicws on the Canon were identical with 
those of Marcion. The spurious additions to TertuUian's 
tract, De Proucr. Hasret, (c. 11.), are of no independent 

> I hare 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 Of. p. 351, and note 1. 

^ The Epistles were arranged according to Tertullian 
(ady. Marc, y.) in the following order: Galatians, Corin- 
thians (i. ii.), Romans, Thcssalonians (i. ii.), Ephesiaos 
(Laodioeans), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon. 


TertuUian and Epiphaniiis agree in affirming char iv. 
that Marcion altered the text of the books which J^j^^ 
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 ^; 

EpipbaniuB gives the same order, with the tingle excep- 
tion tiiat he transposes the two last (Heer. 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 ei in isto dUigentiarimui 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 
belieTO that Epiphanius either used the word duurr/xS^«i>« 
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. Gf. Epiph. Hser. xlii. 
pp. 373, 374 ; Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 20, 21. Again, Epipha- 
nius says (id. p. 371) that the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
were ' distorted in like manner.' 

1 The yariations which Epiphanius notices are : 

Eph. T. 31, » Tfi ywaucL So Jerome. 

Gal. T. 9, doXou So Lucif. &o. 

1 Cor. ix. 8, 6 v6fios + M»wrf»g. Cfl the following Terse. 

— X. 9, Xpiarbp for Kvpiop. So D, E, F, O, &c. 

— — 19, + Up6dvT09 Cf. Tarr. lect. 

— xiT. 19, diii t69 p6fio9. So Ambrst. 

2 Cor. IT. 13, » Kara rd ytypaftfAtpow, 

The language of Tertullian is more generaL Speaking 
of the Epistle to the Romans he says : Quantas autem foTeas 
in ista toI maxime Epistola Marcion fecerit auferendo qaao 
Toluit de nostri Instrumenti integritate parebit (adv. Marc. t. 


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 seyen 

13); but he docs not enumerate any of these lacunaey nor 
are they noticed by Epiphanius. In the next chapter, after 
quoting Rom. viii. 11, he adds, 'Salio et hie amph'ssimom 
abruptum interciscB scripturse,' 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. xL 33. 
It appears however from Origen (Comm. in Rom. xvi. 25), 
that Marcion omitted the two 4a8t 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 
ovdt, while Tertullian omitted the negative (1* <^*)- 

The other variations mentioned by Tertullian are the 
following : 

1 Cor. XV. 45, Kvptov for 'Ada/A. Of. varr. lectt. 

2 Cor. iv. 4, Marcion was evidently right in his punctual- 

Eph. ii. 15, K avTov. 

— — 20, = Koi 7rpo(f>rjTiip, 

— 111. 9, ^ tp. 

— vi. 2, = last clause. 

1 Thess. ii. 15, + idiovs. So D***, E** &c. 

2 Thess. i. 8, «* cV mpl (fikoyos. 

In addition to these various readings, Jerome (1. o.) men- 
tions the omission of Jtai 6eov Ilarpos in Gal. i. 1 ; and fit>m 
the Dialoguo (c. 5) it appears that the Marcionites read 
1 Cor. XT. 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 


readings noticed by Epiphanius, .only three are chap.iv. 

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 Jg^^JJ^f 
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 tho longer omissions the most remarkable is that of 


CHAP. IV. There is no evidence to show on what groundi 

TtecMwor Marcion rejected the Acts and the Pastoral 

''^^ Epistles'. Their character is in itsdf 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 Acta, the Acts thcrc is the clearest recognition of the 

teaching of St Peter as one constituent part of 

the Christian faith, while Marcion regarded it 

^^^Moni as 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 imknown. 

STiSkl^Sf* The rejection of the other books of the New 

uoMDt 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 eyidently some 
corruption in the words. 


according to him, had an imperfect apprehension chap. iv. 
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 Theprind- 

pleson which 

it bears to a large section of the New Testament 5|^ ^JSed. 
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 Oospels, 
it appears that ho was acquainted with them, and ondea- 
▼oured to overthrow their authority, not hy questioning 
their authenticity, hut by showing that those by whose autho- 
rity they were published were reproved by St Paul (ady. 
Marc. IV. 3): Connititur ad destruondum statum eorum evan* 
geliorum quss propria et sub Apostolonim nomine eduntur, 
Yol etiam Apostolicorum (St Mark), ut scilicet fidom quam 
illis adimit suo conferat. 

A K 



CHAP. iv. without attaching undue weight to the language 
of bis 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 

J 10. Tatian. 

Therebiuon The history of Tatian throws an important 
lurdon. 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. 
Theerentftii. Tatian was an ASvSyrian by birth, and a pagan« 

new of hlf 

^^^' 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 

^ Tat. ad Gr. 18; Just. Ap. i. 26. 



Bome» and there he met Justin, — ^that ' most chap, iv. 
admirable man/ as he ealls 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 E-ast, 
placed himself at the head of the sect of the 
Encratites, combining the Valentinian doctrine 
of iEons with the asceticism of Marcion^ 

The strange vicissitudes of Tatian's life con- Theoop*©. 

^ queot impor- 

tribute to the value of his evidence. In part he i?iS»«. 
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- 

' Tatian, Orat. cc. 42, 1, 35, 18, 19. Iren. adv. H»r. i. 
28, 1 (Euseb. H. £. iv, 29). Epiph. Hier. xlyi. Cf. Iren. adr. 
HsBT. iii. 23, 8. 

A aS 


CHAP. IV. ment, affirmed that the Epbtle to Titus was 

most certainly the Apostle's writing. 
Thetestimo- The existiui? work of Tatian — ^his 'Address 

niet coo« ^ 

?dS5Ji"to^ 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 Sfc 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. 

«ndbihi» 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 

* Orat. c. 15 ; Ps. viii. 6. The quotation occurs Hebr. 
ii. 7 ; and it may be remarked, that just before Tatian uses 
the word dnavyaafia (Heb. i. 3). 

2 St Matthew liii. 44, c. 30; St John i. 1, Orat. c. 5; 
i. 3, c. 19; i. 6, c. 13. 

Romans i. 20, c. 4; vii. 15, c. 11. 

1 Cocinthians iii. 16; ii. 14, c. 15. 

Apoc. zxi. sq. c. 20. 

8 Eustb. H. E. W. 29. 


nothing to show that Euscbius was aware of chap, iv. 
greater diiTerences 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 deceiyed. 
Jerome states expressly that Tatian rejected 
some of tlie 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, Irenseus, 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. ) TatianuB Encratitanim patri* 
arcbcs, qui ct ipso nonnullas Pauli Epistolas repudiavit, haoe 
Tel maxime (hoc est ad Titum) apostoli proDunciandam ore- 
didit, panri pendens Marcionis et allorum qui cum eo in hao 
parte consent! unt assortionein* 

It is probable that he rejected the Epistles to Timothy 
(cf. Otto 1. c.)* but there is no OTidence to prore it. Many 
of the Encratites rejected St Paul altogether. Cf. p. 369, 
note 1. 

s St Matthew ri. 19 ; xxii. 30 ; Clem. Al. Str. iii. 12, § S6 

(fr. 2). 

1 Corinthians vii. 5; Clom. Al. I.e. § 81 (fr. 1); xr. 22; 
Iron iii. 23, 8 (fr. 6). 

Galatians y\. 8 ; Hieron. Comm. in 1. (fr. 3). 

Ephesians it. 24 ; Clem. Al. L c. § 82 (fr. 8) 6 wakatU 


CHAP. IV. His Diatessaron is apparently the first recognition 

of a fourfold Gospel. 
gjJJJJj; The earliest mention of the Diatessaron^ of 

IrTtlS^"' Tatian is in Eusebius. * Tatian/ he says, ' the 

by Kuebiui. % i n 

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, Beitr^e, i. 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 ^ hald als eine Ton ihm selhst (Tatian) vcrfiuste, 
ffottlose Harmonie aus unsem Tier Eyangelien, hald als erne 
eigne, eelhstdndige Schri/t,* I confess that I do not rccogniie 
his usual accuracy and candour. 

' Euseh. H. E. IV. 29 : 6 fitvroi yt irp&rtpos avr&v apxf' 
yog 6 Tariayof mfvafptiay Tiva jcal crvyayovyifv, ovk o^ oirwr, 
rS>9 twiyyfXiuiv awBtis, to dta rtaaaptov rovro frpoafov6fjLatntp» 
t Ka\ wapd rifrip tMri vvp (f)€p€TM, Eu8ehiu8 eyidently spoke 
from hearsay; hut he attributes the title of the book to 
Tatian himself, and makes no mention of any apocryphal 
additions to the ETangelic narrative. 

The term diai T€a<rap»p was used in music to express the 
concord of the fourth (oi/XXo/S^). This sense may throw 
some light upon the name. 


made use of the Law, the Prophets, and the chapiv. 
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 Bpiphaoiut. 
' 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 Theodom. 
account of the character and common use of the 
book. ' Tatian also composed the Gospel called 
" Diatessaron," removing the genealogies, and all 
the other passages which show that Christ was 

1 Eiueb. I. c. Credncr (p. 439) supposes that the term 
Sevsriani was merely a translation of cyjtpanp-ai. Origen 
(c. Gels. y. 65) mentions the Encratites among those who 
rejected the Epistles of St Paul. They received some kpo* 
cryphal books also : KexprjvTM di ypa(f>aig nporoTvir»s (? vp»' 
TOTvwoig) rait Xtyofiipaif 'Ap^piov Koi 'loMiyyov npa^tauf Ka\ 6tt/ia 
Koi JhroKpv<l)ois tutL (Epiph. Hser. xlvii. 1.) 

' Epiph. Heer. xlri. 1 : Xcyrroi dc to ^ul rtaaap^av rvoyyv- 
XiW vn avTov ytytvrjaBat ontp Kara 'Efipaiovs tip€S Kokovtri, 
Some perhaps may be inclined to change cuayycXiW into 

No stress can be laid on the conjectural identification of 
the Diatessaron with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
Epiphanius appears to giyo 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 


CHAP. IV. bom 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 Grospels, 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) : oZrot Ka\ 
r6 dta Ttaaapav KakovfjLtvov tntvriBtiKtv cuoyyrXiov, ra^ yerca- 
Xoyias ir€ptK6rfrat Koi ra SX\a otra cjc oirfpfiaros Aa/3id Kara 
trapKa yty€tnjp.€vov t6v Kvpiov bfiKwaiv. *Exp^oxtTo dc rovr^ 
ov pj6wop ol T^s fKtivov ovfifAopias oKka koi ol rois oirooroXc- 
KoU in6fitiH)i boyfiaait r^r Trjs avvSqicrjs xaKovpyicuf oi/K cyi*i»-> 
icoTts, aXX' a7rXovtrr€pop of cruvrofuo r^ fii^Xitj^ j^pi^otificMM. 
Eipop dc Koya TrXfiovs rj duuco<rias fiifi\ovs roiavrav w rals wap 
ijfiiv f JcicXi7(r/aif nTi^rjfitvat koi iraaas avvayay^p dmBifuiP koH 
TO. TtiP rcrropoDV wvayytXiarap dpTfiaf'iyayop titctyytXta. The 
technical sense of Kaicovpyia (malUia) forbids us to lay any 
undue stress on the word. 


four Gospels. He speaks of omissions which chap.iv. 
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 utet syrun 
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 conunented 
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 Hebrseus, 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). 

s The original passageB are giren at length by Credner 
(pp. 446 Bqq.) Of. Lardner, il. pp. 444 sqq. Ebed-jeBU 
identifies Tatian and AmmoniuB (Credner, p. 449). The tes- 
timony of Victor of Capua shows how great was the confu- 
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 'Diapcnte/ 
the fifth Qospel alluded to in the name was probably that 


CHAP. IV. Harmonies began in the same way, and even 
that the Harmony of Ammonias 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. 

UStoSSron. ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ 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 gplven 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 giren in eon*. 
sequence of the confusion already noticed. 

^ Tatian's Diatessaron is said to have contained one im- 
portant addition (Matt, xzyii. 49), which is howerer foond in 
B, C, L., &c. Cf. Qriesbach, 1. c. 


It must indeed have been evident throughout chap, i v. 
the course of this chapter that the testimony of gjjj^^^ 
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 conclu- 
been obtained in the First Part of our inquiry The sum. 

* " mary of the 

will show how far they satisfy that standard of *'"* ^"^ 
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 


coNCLu- 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 

Mrridmce "^^^ evidence which has been collected is 

ury,Cr' 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. 

ofunAffccied Thc charactcr of the evidence is no less strik- 


ing than its extent. The allusions to Scriptiure 
are perfectly natural. The quotations are pre- 
faced by no apology or explanation. The Ian* 
guage of the books used was so familiar as to 
have become part of the common dialect. And 


when men speak without any distinction of their conclu- 

. 8I0N. 

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- otfatM 

*' uniformity, 

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- mnd sus- 
tained by the 

dividuals is expressly confirmed by the testimony {V,S^JJJ.°' 
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 conunon 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- 


coNCLu- ment of independent writers is not limited to 
.. — z — those who were members of the same CSatholic 
of herada. (jhyy^jj . ^jj^ 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. 
Th« relation Qnc circumstancc which at first sieht appeared 

ofScripCure ® '^'^ 

iS'i^^ta^ 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. 

thCTtik!t'"of ^^^ ^^^ earliest evidence for the authenticity 
akey*to^ui? of thc books of which it is composed is not 

hUcorr of the 

early Church, coufincd to dircct tcstimony. Perhaps that is 


still more convincing which Bprings 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 arc included in the Canon. 

But while the evidence for the authenticity Yet then m 

(1) doubts M 

of the Canonical books of the New Testament is gn'tTcrflSi 
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^ And the Epistles of St James 
and St Jude, the second and third Epistles of 

1 Ono coincidcnco bos bocn pointed out to mo which 
deserres notice. Tho language of the well-known reference 
to St Paul in Polycarp's Epistle (c. 3) bears considerable 


coNCLu. 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 ^. 
(» the idea of And morc than this, the idea of a Canon 
iJIlE^uum 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 

resemblance to the corresponding passage in 2 Pet. iii. 15 
(<ro^ui, fYTurroXai), but in the absence of all other evidence 
it is impossible to insist on this. 

^ Perhaps the Epistle of St Jude forms an exception to 
this statement. But the history of tlie Epistle is extremely 






In the next part it will be seen to what ex- ^i!gfe"- 
tent this agreement as to the Catholic Canon „J rz 

^ The mult of 

was established at the end of the second century, ^thu ^^ 

to beiought 

And this will furnish in some degree a measure JJ,2i^5S 
of what had been already settled. The opinions 
of IrensBus, 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. 






A.D. 170—303. 


Tois naOoiiivois fx^ dvOp^nav tipcu tnryypofifiaTa rits Upi^ 
piPKovs aXX* cf itnirpoiag rov ayiov nv€VfiaTos /3ovXi{fuirt rov 
waTp6s rSiv SXutv dia *lrj<rov Xpiarov ravras away€ypaxfi&€u Koi 
€is ijfJMs i\rj\v$€vai, ras (JMivofUvas 6dovs vrrodcuercoy, €xofUwoi£ 
rov Kap6vo£ rfjs 'irjirov Xpiarov Kara dia^xV^ ^^ dnoardkctp 
ovpaviov €iuckTfa-ias, — Origenes. 



CommunicamuB cum EccleBiis Apostolids quod nulli chap. i. 
doctrina di versa : hoc eat testimonium reritatis. 


The close of the second century marks a treat The time 

»tag» of ttie 

change in the character and position of the£}j^*!jy. 
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 


CHAP. L 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 Irenseus, 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 (yvwaii) 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, 
nieeonnex- But thoufifh the Fathers of the close of the 

km of the ° 

wooS*i2^ second century are thus prominently distinguished 

predecctton. from thosc who prcccdcd 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 


and harmonize. They made no claims to any ch^p» '- 
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- SSSiui. 
tament this concord of doctrine is of the great- oSoZ 
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 


CHAP. 1. was felt it was satisfied. - As soon as an 

pendent Christian literature arose in .which it 
was reasonable to look for any definite recc^ 
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. 
The Canon of From this point then it will be needless to 
l?Sf dSSSf accumulate testimonies to the Canonicity of the 
centwr four Gospcls, of the Acts, of the thirteen Epistles 
of St Paul, of the first Epistles of St John and 

1 Tho 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. 


St Peter. No one at present will deny that they chap, l 

occupied the same position in the estimation of 


Christians in the time of Irenseus 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 dismissin&r the Canon of the ac- on what 

^ groumliU 

knowledgcd books it will be well to revert once ""^^ 
again at greater length to the manner in which 
it is recognized by Ircneeus 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 *• Thettrti- 

^ mooT of the 

the Gallican Church ; but from several ritual oSSST 
peculiarities its foundation may be probably 


oHAP L referred to teachers from Asia IMQnor^ 


which province it long maintained an intixnate 
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 
Phocsean exile. However this may have been, 
the first notice of the Church shows its extent 
177 A. 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 
^^pMie j^i^Q Christians of Vienne and Lyons to 'the 
Yff!;;^^'^ 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- 
cidencesof 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 Liturgicee, i. pp. 155 sqq. 
3 EuBeb. U. E. V. 1. s Euseb. 1. c. 


perhaps call for little notice after what has chap, l 
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 Irenseus 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 bom 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 ho 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 ^JJjJJJJJJ** 
the testimony of Irenseus is the testimony of this chu^% 


Church. Nor was this the only point in which 

1 EuBob. y. 4. 


CHAP. I. he came in contact with the immediate diacii^es 
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 
noyelties,«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 feUow-disciple» to 
the truth, he reminded him of the zeal and doo- 
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*? 

* Cf. pp. 87 Bqq. 

3 Ircn. adv. User. iv. 33, 8 : Agnitio (yycoo-tr) 7era est 
' apoBtolorum doctrina et antiquus ecclcsiro status in universo 
mundo et character corporis Christi secundum succcssiones 
episcoporum quibus ill! oam quoQ in unoquoque loco eet 
ecclesiam tradidenint; qusc peryonit usque ad nos custodi- 
tione sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plonissima neqae 
additamentum noque ablationem recipiens. 



He appeab to the known succession of teachers ch^p- l 
in the Churches of Borne, 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 

From Lyons we pass to Alexandria. The it Thefoti- 


early history of the Egyptian Churches is not mSSJSio. 
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 Pantsenus was dispatched on a mission to '^'<n*«c- 
' 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 {Sta- 
Tpifi^) of the faithful there.' The school then 
was already in existence, however much it may 
have owed to one distinguished alike ' for secular 

* Euscb. II. E. V. 10. Hieron. de Virr. 111. xxxtI. It 
does not fall within our present scopo to inquire into the 
Hebrew Gospel which Pantsenus found among the 'Indians/ . 
The mention of the fact shows that attention was directed 
to the sacred books. 


CHAP. L learning and scriptural knowledge/ Indeed there 

is no absolute improbability in the statement of 
Jerome ^ who interprets the words of Eusebius, 
' that a school {SiSaaKoKelov) 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 Pantsenus 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 Pantsenus. 
Everything, on the contrary, bespeaks its un- 
ommL broken continuity. And Clement, the second of 
our witnesses, was trained in the school of Pan- 
taenus. 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 Irenseus, Clement 
appeals with decision and confidence to the 

1 Routh, i. 375. 

9 Lumper, iv. 44; Routh, i. 377. 


judgment of those who had preceded him. ESs ohap.i. 
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 soiurces. As far as can be 
gathered from the clause in which he describes 
his teachers, he had studied in Greece and Italy * 
and various parts of the East under masters 
from Ionia, from Coele-Syria, from Egypt, and 
from Assyria, and also under a Hebrew in 
Palestine, before he met with Pantaanus. ' 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 arc 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. L 1, } 11 (Euseb. H. E. v. 11): "Hdff 
dc oi ypa<f)fj wis hri^ti^w rtrtxvairiiMvri ^dc rj npayfiartia akXd 
fioi vnofUf^fiara tls yfjpas OfuravpiC^TtUy Xj^Btis ff^apfuucoPf ttdtt- 
\op dr€xiws Koi <rKioypa<f>ia t£p ipapy»p Ka\ €fii^vx»P tKtawp 
w Korq^uoBriv aroKovo'cu, \6y»p re ical ap^p&p lAoicapwp koi rf 
Srrc d(io\6y»p. rovrnv 6 flip rirc rijs 'EXXadof 6 'l»puc6t' oi 
(Euseb. 6) dc fVl rrjf fityahit 'EXXodof, r^f Ko(krft Bartpos 


CHAP. I. Of the African Church I have ah^ady spoken. 
SinT^f uS' The venerable relics of the old Latin Venioa 
ckuiSt. attest the early reception of the New Testament 
there, and the care with which it was studied. 
In themselves those fragments are incompIete» 
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 Chiurch; an 
^ inheritance, and not a deduction. 
Tertuuian. Tertulliau himsclf insists on this with charac- 

teristic energy. ' If,' he says, 'it is acknowledged 
that that is more true which is more ancient, that 

aMiv ^vpias ^v 6 dc air* Aiyvirrov' aXXoi dc ova r^v avarokrip, 
Koi ravTrfs 6 fi€v rfjs tS>v \aavpi<av 6 de iv Uakaiaripij Efiptuos 
dvtKadev vorary be nfptTvx<^v (dvvdfiei 5c olrros vpSros ^p) 
ay^iravtraftfjp iv Aiyvnr^ Bripaaat XfXfjBortu SMCcXuti^ r^ opn 
fiiXiTTOj TrptxfyrjTiKov re Kal dirooroXucoO XtifJMPos ra ^wOt} 
dp€7r6fievos dtc^pardv ri yMoo-ccor XP*if^ ^°^^ '''^^ dxpottfttprnp 
ivryiwijtrt ^X"*^' "^^* °^ A**'' ^^ akriBrj rris fieucapiaf <r*- 
(opns didao-JcaXiaff napaboaiv tvBift anh Hirpov re koi *Iiuh0/3ov» 
*l<aawov T€ Kal UavXov, rtav ayiav dnoaToktoVf frais irapa nar 
Tp6t tK^tx^pevos (oXiyoc de oi irarpafTiv opowi) rjKOV drj arm 
6f& Koi fir rjpas ra Trpoyovuca eKtlva koi airoaroXiKa KoraBif^ 
<r6p€voi (nreppara' koi eS otd' on dyakkuKrovrai^ ovx^i rj ttcffipd- 
aei i^aBevTts Xcyo) rj^c, povrj fie rfj Kara r^v vrrofnjp^iwfw 
r^pifo-f i. The pa8Ba;;e is of great importanco as Bhowing the 
intimato intercourse between different churches in Clement's 
time and the uniformity of their doctrine. The use of the 
prepositions is singularly exact and worthy of notice. I have 
changed Klotz*8 punctuation, which makes the passage unin- 


more ancient which is even from the beginning, ^^^^' 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 chiurches], 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. W, In summa si constat id verius quod 
priuB, id priuB quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apottolii : 
pariter utiquc constabit id esso ab Apostolis traditum quod 
apud ecclosias Apostolorum fuerit sacroBanctum. Videamui 
quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauBerint; ad quam regulam 
Oalata) sint rocorrecti ; quid legant PhilippeoseSy Theasalo- 



CHAP. I. And ' the same authority of the Apostolic 
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*.' 
iJuJuK?!* ^ The words of Tertullian sum up clearly and 
decisively what has been said before of the evi- 

nicenscB, Ephesii; quid etiam Roman! de proximo sonent, 
qoibuB evangolium et Pctros et Paulas sanguine qaoque sac 
sigiiatum rcliquerunt. Habemus et Johannis alumnae ecde- 
sias. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion respuit, ordo ta- 
men episcoporum ad originom reconsus in Joliannem stabit 
auctorcm. Sic et cssterarum generositas recognoscitar. 
Dice itaque apud illas, nee solas jam apostolicas sed apud 
uniyersas qusQ illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id 
eyangelium Lucas ab initio editionis suso stare quod com- 
maxime tuemur. The clause in Johannem stabU auctorem is 
commonly translated, ' will show it [the Apocalypse] to hare 
John for its author ;' but it is evident that such a translation 
is quite out of place even if the words admit of it. 
^ Adr. Marc. 1. c. Of. ad?. Marc. It. c. 2. 



dence of Irenseus and Clement. All the Fathers chap, l 
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 It is almost superfluous to give any refereuoes to the 
quotations from the acknowledged Books made by IrensBUs, 
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 Oo^pelf : 

Iren. iu. 11, 8; Clem. Str. iii. 13, § 93; Tert. 
adr. Marc. ir. 2. 
03) TheAeU: 

Iren. iii. 15, 1 ; Clem. Str. t. 12, § 83 ; Tert ad?. 
Marc. T. 2. 
(y) The Catholic Epistles : 

1 John: Iren. iii. 16, 8; Clem. Str. ii. 15, $ 66; 

Tert. adv. Praz. 26. 
1 Peter: Iren. ir. 9, 2; Clem. Pnd. i. 6, $ 44; 
Tert. c. Gnost. 12. 
(d) The Pauline EpistUs : 

Romans : Iren. ii. 22, 2 ; Clem. Str. ii. 21, $ 134. 

1 Corinthians: Iren. i. 8, 2; Clem. Str. i. 1,§ 10. 

2 Corinthians: Iren. iii. 7, 1; Clem. Str. i. 1,$4. 
Oalatians: Iren. iii. 7, 2; CleuL Str. i. 8, $41. 
Ephesians : Iren. i. 8, 6 ; Clem. Str. iii. 4, $ 28. 
Philippians: Iren. i. 10, 1; Clem. Str. L 11,$ 53. 
Colossians: Iren. iii. 14, 1; Clem. Str. i. 1, §15. 
1 Tbessalonians : Iren. t. 6, 1; Clem. Str. i. 11, 




CHAP.L easy to expose the break. But their appeal was 
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. 

netiiti. This will appear yet in another light when it 

moDT is tbs 

{Sf'JJj^^ is noticed that Clement and Irenteus speak from 
SttetnMd. 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. t. 25, 1 ; Clem. Str. v. 3,§ 17. 
Titus : Iron. i. 16, 3 ; Clem. Str. i. 14, § 69. 

1 Timothy ; Iron. i. pref. ; Clem. Str. ii. 11, $ 52. 

2 Timothy : Iron. iii. 14, 1 ; Clem. Str. ill. 6, § 53. 
The Epistle to Philemon is nowhere quoted by Clement 

or Irenccus, but Tertullian, who examines the thirtem 
Pauline Epistles in the fifth book against Mardon, 
distinctly recognizes it. 
(f) The Apocalypse : 

Iren. 7. 35, 2 ; Clem. Psed. ii. 10, J 108 ; Tert. adr. 
Marc. iii. 14. 


Special causes hindered the universal circulation chap. i. 

of the other books, but these were I'eg^ded ^«dit h^ 
throughout the Church as parts of an organic SS^^ 

IccCicyn of 

whole, correlative to the Old Testament, and oft»endt»ockM. 
equal weight with it. They were considered to 
be not only Apostolic, but also authoritative. 
' The Scriptures are perfect,' IrensBus 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 cither 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 
(iSea) of the Gospel V 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 Ircn. adr. Heer. li. 28, 2. Scriptune quidem petfectiB 
sunt, quippe a Vcrbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dict». 
3 Iron. adr. Hoer. iii. 11, 8 sq. 
' Str. yii. S,§ 14: atj>as yap avrovt tuxfJLak«»Ti{tw t6 rt 

tvayyiXiov S rr dfr6vTo\og KiXtvcwri. Elsewhere Clement 
uses the ploral dn6rr6koi. 


CHAP. I. 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'/ Tertulliaa 
marks the introduction of the phrase ' New Tes- 
tament/ as applied to the Evangelic Scriptures. 
' If/ he says, ^ I shall not clear up this point 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... V 

^"**^.v The clear testimony of Irenseus, Clement. 

moor of fn% * 

£!^oS^|^and Tertullian,-— clear because their vmtingB 
<!»<»• 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. « Str. iv. 1, J 2. 

s Adr. Prax. 15 : Si hunc articulum qusestionibuB Scrip- 
tursB Veteris non expediam, de Noto Testamento sumaxn 
confinnationem nostrse interpretationis, ne qaodcumqne in 
Filium reputo in Patrem proinde defendas. Ecce enim et 
in Evangeliis et in Apostolis Tislbilem et inyisibilem Deum 
deprehendo, sub manifesta et penonali distinctione condi- 
tionis utriusque. 

* Atbenagoras quotes the Gospels of St Matthew and 
St John, and the Epistles of St Paul to the RomanB, Go- 
rinthians (i. ii.), and Galatians; and refers perhaps to the 


close of the second century, with the single ex- chap, i. 
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. 

EpiBtle to Timothy (!.)> and to tho ApocalypBO, Theophilus, 
in his books to Aatolycus, refers to tho 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. H. E. iv. 24). 

' The assaults of the Manichecs 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- 



CHAP. II. In Canonicis ScripturiB Eccleeiamm catholioamm qoam- 
planum auctoritatem [indagator Bolertissimus] sequatur. 


iTi^qu««ioD Seven books of the New Testament, as is weH 
fotedecittod known, have been received into the Canon on 


evidence less complete than that by which the 
others are supported. In the controversy whidi 
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 ^arly 
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- 


cedent proof of their claims; and it remains to 
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 hbtory has decided the 
matter; and this decision of history will be con- 
elusive. The idea of forming the disputed books Theaorepi. 

■nc6 of • 

into a Deutero-canon of the New Testapaent ^>«5»»- 

^^ oanoD DO 

(advocated by many Roman Catholics, in spite th!lp!!%taD. 
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 hare favoured this fiew: 
Tenebit igitur [scripturarum indagator] huno modum in 
Scripturis canonicis, ut eas qun ab omnibus accipiuntur Ec- 
clesiis Catholicis pneponat iis quas qussdam non aoeipiunt; 
in iis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, proponat eas 
quas plures gravioresque accipiunt iis quas pauoiores mino- 
risquo auctoritatis EcclesisD tenont. De Doctr. Chr. ii. 12. 
In spite of the authority, however, it is clear that such a 
statement can rest on no logical basis. 


^^^•^ 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 involyes 
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. 

Awmmary The evidcuce which has been collected 

of theevl- 

JgJ^*" hitherto for the apostolicity of the disputed 
books may be briefly summed up as follows. 
J»^^ The Epistle to the Hebrews is certainly referred 
*''*^' to by Clement of Eome, 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 

^ I do not by any means intend to assert that every work 
of an Apostle or Apostolic writor as such would hare formed 
X)art 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. 


Canon of Muratori, and, ajs it appears, it was chap, a 
^ranting also in the old Latin version ^ Except 
the opinion of Tertullian, which hajs been men- 
tioned by anticipation, nothing has been found 
tending to determine its authorship. The 
Epistle of St James is apparently referred toTtejepMu* 
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 Judtf 
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 ii|i#«h 
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 

From this general summary it will be seen ^,JJ^Jy ** 
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 

^ Of. pp. 67» 203, 242, 268, 290. 
« Cf. pp. 67, 223, 243, 267, 290. 
3 Of. pp. 242, 284. 
« Cf. pp. 201, 84, 246, 243. 


CHAP. II. 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 Ahxandrine Church. 

ne import. The testimouy of the Alexandrine Church, 
AiSSSdrtn^ ^ h^ been noticed already, is of the utmost 
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- 
mility. No two 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 eviP. 
climbiit. No catalogue of the Books of the New Tes- 

tament occurs in the writings of Clement; but 

^ 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. 


Eusebius has given a summary of his 'Hypo- chap.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 
{irdati^ Tfji evSiaO^Kou ypot<prfi\ 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 Beve- 
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 {(piKorl/jLwsi) 
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 {ypwra) 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 
( ? Pantsenus) before now used to say, since the 
Lord was sent to the Hebrews, as the Apostle Hebr. m. i. 

^ Tho testimony of Pantsenus (?) to the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, as a work of St Paul, will be noticed below. 



CHAP. iL of the Almighty, Paul, through his modestj, 
inasmuch as he was sent to the Grentiles, does 
not inscribe himself Apostle of the Hebrews^ 
both on account of the honour due to the Lordt 
and because it was a work of supererogation 
that he addressed an epistle to the Hebrews 
also (ec irepiovaias koI T0T9 £/3pa<oc9 eiriirreXXcfy) 
since he was herald and apostle of the Grentiles V 
The testimony to the Pauline origin of the 

toOeKj^ Epistle to the Hebrews which is contained in this 

'^""' passage is evidently of the greatest value. There 
can be little doubt that ' the blessed presbyter' 
was Pantonus; and thus the tradition is carried 

to ^«o^ up almost to the Apostolic age. With regard 
to the other disputed books, the words of £u- 
sebius imply some distinction between <the 
Epistle of Jude and the Catholic Epbtles,^ 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 

t e. 88S, this is not wanting. Photius afler 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 

^ Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. 



Epistles, and of Ecdesiasticus^' 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 foiu* 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 Bevelation 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 his * «• ^^» 

A. c. 

' 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 Koi r«5y Ka$o\ucn¥ Ka\ rov iKKkfjauurrucov (Bekk. tacKff 
aiaarov), Bunsen prints koI r»y koB, koi rov Ka66\ov r<^ 
fiov 'EKKXfiaiaariKov, But surely 6 KaB6kov T6ftog *£»cX>^- 
o-uicrrucdff is a marvellous phrase. The reference to the book 
of Wisdom in such a connexion, however perplexing, is not 
without parallel. Cf. p. 243. 


GHAP. II. which he has said in them shew refinement, bat 
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 assigpi the Epistle to the He- 
brews to St Paul'. The scattered testimonies 
which are gathered from the text of Clements 
extant works recognize the same books. He 
makes several quotations from the Epistle to the 
Hebrews (as St Pau^8)^ 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 

^ Tho passages oro printed at length by Bunsen, 1. c. pp. 
323 sqq. ; and in the editions of Clement. Klotz, iv. pp. 52 

2 But it is added, that it was translated by St Luke : 
Lucas quoquc et Actus Apostolorum stylo cxsecutus agnos- 
citur et Pauli ad Hebrecos interpretatus epistolam. Cf. p. 397. 

^ Clem. Al. Str. vi. 8, § 62: nav\o£„.ToU 'Efipalotf ypd- 

^ Str. iiL 2, $ 11: eVt tovt»¥ oifiai„.irpo<lniTiK£g *Ioudav 
iv r§ cfTioToX^ flpJiKtvaim 

^ Str. ii. 15, $ 66 : (fMivrrai b§ Kai 'loKuvi^r iw rjj fififoM 
eirtaroX^ rar dia<f)opiig t»v dfiapruip f jcdtda(ric»y. 


frequently, assigning it to the Apostle St John ^; chap.ii. 

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 okiokn 
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 Paed. ii. 12, $ 119; Sir. Ji. 13, § 107: »s <pnirt» h rg 

3 The instances commonly quoted are rightly set aside 
by Lardner, ii. 22, § 8. 

' Clement's use of the writings of the Apostolic FaUiers 
and of certain Apocryphal books will be considered in App. 
B. It is enough to notice that there is no eyidence to show 
that he attributed to them a decisive authority, as he did to 
the writings of the Apostles in the strictest sense. 



CHAP. II. refers to the Acknowledged Books, his evidence 
HowEuiw. is too important to be omitted. Like the 

biud recfurds ^ 

m^lfJ^n Fathers who preceded him, he professes only 
peif, 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 arc 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 aU »; 

the .ipMtoiic * 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 chiu*ches which he 
taught, and sent moreover but few lines {ai-i-^ou^) 
to those to which be 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. ti. 25. 


prevail, has left behind [but] one epistle gene- <^hap. ii. 
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 
Grospel, though he confesses that he could make JohnxxLss. 
so many as not even the world could contain ? 
He wrote, moreover, the Apocalypse, having been J^'^p^ 
commanded to keep silence, and not to write '^'^ '* ** 
the voices of the seven thundei*s. He has left 
behind ako 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 

' In addition to these statements [Origen] J^^ 
thus discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews in his 
Homilies upon it : Every one who is compe^ 
tent to judge of differences of diction {(ppdactow) 
would acknowledge that the style {jfapaxr^p 
T^9 Xefewy) of the Epistle entitled to the He- 
brews, does not exhibit the Apostle's rudeness 
and simplicity in speech (to ev Xoytp iSiwTucop)^ 
though he acknowledged himself to be ' simple 
in his speech,' i. e. in his diction {rp (ppaaei), but 
it is more truly Greek in its composition (ayv- 
0€a€i T^ Xi^ew^y And again, that the thoughts 
(i/017/uara) of the Epistle are wonderful, and not 
second to the acknowledged writings of the 



CHAP. II. Apostle, every one who pays attention to the 
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 (avanvrmiovevaavTOi 
Kal (io'Trepcl a")(o\ioypa(j)tiaairroij. If then any 
Church hold this Epistle to be PauPs, we cannot 
find fault with it for so doing {ev^oKifielTto xal 
ewi TovTt^); for it was not without good reason 
{ovK eiKtj) 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 
{laropia) 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.' 
SSi?iiS^ There are still two other passages in Ru- 
Homiue*. gu^s* vcrsiou 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. 


simple words of Origen, but sought in several chap. il 

points to bring them into harmony with the 
current belief; and the oomparbon 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 J^^^o- 
explanation' of the narrative concerning theoe!^. 

Ocn. xxtI. 

wells which were opened by Isaac after the Phi- *•»">* 
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 
foimtain 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 as ovx oyia no M«)v<rc»ff ovyypdfifMara, 
by ** scripta Mosis nihil in se divime sapientise, nibilque opens 
sancti Spiritus contincre." (Horn, in Gen. ii. § 2.) 

* Horn, in Gen. xiii. 2. A different explanation of the 
wells is giren Select, in Oen, rilL p. 77 (ed. Lomm.) 


CHAP. n. 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).' 
From a Ho- The last Quotatiou which I shall make is 
joAmm. 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 

^ Horn, in Jos. rii. 1. 

> Duabus tubiB. Ono MS. has a very remarkable reading, 
ex tribui. 


said : ^' I think that God hath shown us Apostles chap. ii. 
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 J^£*t^" 
teaching on the Canon, in discourses which iTtS^^^ 

• . . . • Text 

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 

^ Oomm. in Joan. T. i. 14: ^^ciy o$p iv rj ^ntMcoXv^i 
6 rov Zc/3cdatov 'loxivin/ff. 

3 Gomm. in Matt. T. z. $ 17 (Matt. xiii. 55, 66): ical *Iovdar 
iypca^fv mtrrok^v okiy6aTi)(OP fitp nevkrjpvifJLitniP dc rijs ov- 
popiov xapiTOff tppdfsmiv X($yo»y...Id. T. xvii. 30 : rZ dc nil rrjv 
*lovda irp6fTovr6 rit twicrrok^p,,. 


CHAP. II. 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. 
v«Stoi*"° 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 

^ Comm. in Joan. zix. 6: cis iv ij f^tpoyAVfi *Icucttj3ov 
inuTToKfi d¥€yva)fi€v, Cf. Joan. xz. 10. He once quotes it 
without further remark : »s iraph *Iaica>)3^, Select, in P« . xxz. 
T. zii. p. 129. It may ho concluded from one passage in his 
Commentaries on St Matthew (c. ziii. 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 ho was not inclined to 
believe that the Epbtle of St James was written by the Lord's 

s It is impossible to insist on the doubtful reading. Comm. 
in Matt. T. xv. 27 : dir6 -njs [llcrpov irpaJnyr] cVioroX^^. The 
text should be dno t^s Ilcrpov iiriaroXfjs' otherwise we should 
expect irpoTfpas, 

^ Select in Ps. iii. (T. xi. 420): Kara rA \€y6fuwa iv t§ 
KoBokucj f ircoToX^ irapa r^ Hirpio. Cf . Comm. in Joan. T. vi. § 18. 

* Comm. in Matt. T. xvii. 19 : rA airo rov 'Ioniwov lea^oXc- 
tajs firurroKfjs, Id. T. xv. 31 : 7 'louxwov ctrioroXiJ. Yet cf. 
p. 411, n. 3. 

* Horn, in Levit ir. 4. Petrus dixit : ii. Pet. i. 4. Cf. 
Comm. in Rom. iv. 9. Hom. in Num. xiii. 8, ut ait quodam 
in loco scriptura: ii. Pot. ii. 16. Cf. Ilom. xviii. s. f. Thus 
also de Princ, ii. 5, 3, Petrus in prima epistola... 


Epistle of St James, who is described in one ^^^^ ^ 
place as ' the brother of the Lord,' but generally 
only as 'the Apostle M' 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 or 

Oiigen's opi- 

as to Origen's judgment on the New Testament ^SSS^ 
Canon. He was acquainted with all the books 
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- ma whole, 
tian books into two great divisions, 'the Gospel,' 

^ Comm. in Rom. ir. 8 ; Jamee ir. 4. 

^ The passage quoted by Ensebius from an Homily on 
the Hebrews gives probably Origen's mature judgment on the 
authorship of the Epistle. In the earlier letter to Africanos 
he says, after quoting Hebr. xi. 37 : ciXX* thcos tipo ffKtfi6fuwo9 
air^ Trjs tls ravra dirod€i((ci>s avyxpfjo'ao'Otu r^ /SovXcvftori rw 
aBtTovvr^v r^v rYrurroX^v €os ov IlavX^ ytypaiifUvtjir irp6t 6v 
SXXwf \6yciv KOT Iblav XpiC^f^^ *^^ air6b€t(iv rov tlvtu Havkov 
rijp iirurroKiiv (T. zTii. p. 31). Though the date of thb letter 
is probably a. c. 240, the Homilies were not written till 
after 245. 


CHAP. II. 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^ 

DioNvaiuB. Among the most distinguished scholars of 
Origen was Dionysius, who was promoted to the 
presidency of the Catechetical School, about the 

A. c. 248. 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 IVIinor, 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 Horn, in Jorem. zxi. f. 

3 Do Princip. ir. 1 (Philoc. c. 1): ..M t&v irarttrrtvfupmif 
ijfiiv €ivcu Bdonv ypa(^Siv ttjs t€ \€yofi€vrjs iraXauLs diaB^Kfft mi 
rrjs KoXovfjJvrjs kcuv^s.,, 

^ De Princip. ir. 16 : ov fi6vov dc mpX tS>v irp6 rrjs napov^ 
clas ravra t6 nvtvpa <^KOp6fiTfa€Vt oXX* arc t6 avrb rvyxavop m 
afr6 Tov €v6s Btov^ rh Sfxoiop icai cttI Ta>¥ cvayyfXca>y irciroii^Kc ica2 
€ir\ T&v aTTCNrr Afioy. 

^ Horn, in Jerem. i. 

6 The welI-kno¥m reference of Origen to the Shepherd 
of Hernias (Gomm. in Rom. c. xyi. 14. Of. Comm. in Matt 
T. zir. 21) evidently expresses a private opinion on the book, 
and hy no means places it on an equality with the Canonical 
Scriptures. Gf. App. B. 


Bithynia,* and ' in all the chnrches of the East^' chap. ii. 
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 ^J^ ''^' 
Paul's ^ and in his remarks on the Apocalypse 
mentions 'the second and third Epistles circu- **-*" John. 
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 Apoeutn^. 
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 fuU of difficulties 

1 Euseb. H. E. ri. 46 ; Tii. 4. 

S DiOD. ap. Euseb. H. E. ▼!. 41 : ttjv ipnayfjv t&p {map- 
x6mii>p 6fioU»t tMiPoit ols koi IlavXor tfAOfirvpffirf fitrii X*V^ 
wpovM^vTo, Cf. Hebr. z. 34. 

* DioD. ap. Eiiseb. H. E. tU. 26: aXX* oudc or r^ ttvrtp^ 
<l>€pofiiyu 'Iamiivov xai rpirji^ Koiroi fipax*iatg offcnur inumXaigf 
6 *l»€annjt dpoiiaarl wp6KtiTiu aXX* mmwfi»g 6 vptirPvnpot 
yrypawrai. Though the context implies that he held tbete 
letters to be St John's, yet he afterwards speaks of ' his 
Epistle,' as if he had written but one (7 ririOToXi;, 7 KaBoKucrj 
hrurrokrf). This may senre 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, Roath, Rell. ill. p. 130), where the Hcond 
Epistle of St John is thus quoted : Joannes apostolus in 
epistola sua posuit dicens (ii. John 10, ll). In the fifth Coundl 
(Routh, p. Ill) the first Epistle is quoted in the same words. 

* Cf. p. 307. 


CHAP. II. which he was unable to explain. 'I will not 
deny/ he says, ^ that the author of the Apoca> 
lypsc was named John, for I fuUy allow (cri/rauiw) 
that it is the work of some holy and inspired man 
{dyiov rivo£ xal OeoTrveuarou) ; 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 

^ Eusob. H. E. 1. C. : rticfiaipofuu yap €k Tt roO rjBovt ixa' 
rtpviv KOi rov rS>v X(fya>v fidovs kclI r^r tov fiifiXlov dic^cryit- 
y^s \€yofUvrf£ fifj tAv avrov €ivai, 

^ Dion. ap. Euseb. Tii. 24: ..,ra rals dirobfi^ta-i jcol di- 
BaaKoKiais tS)V 6yi»v ypa<fmv frvvicrTavofitva icaTad€)(6fAtvoi, 


faith ^f he allowed the Apocalypse itself to be 
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- iSSSiie^' 
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* (theA.o.266. 

1 Dion. Ep. Canon. (Routb, iii. p. 225): Koi fu;d^ dio- 
<^yctif fjoibi (vavnova-Oai rovt cvayycXiWar np6s ciXX^Xovr 
v9roXa)3a>/A€y, aXX* tl koI fwepokoyia t\s «(rai d<$(ci ntpl t6 ^ifiw* 
fi€vov..,ijfi('L£ €vypcifi6pms TO \9\BivTa KCii nitrr^s 6pfi6a'ai irpo- 
6vfiTi3a>fi€v, He is referring to the accounts of the resurrection. 

' One passage of his famous letter to Lucianus deserres 
to be quoted. As one step by which he was to bring his 
master to the faith it is said : laudabitur et interim Evan^ 
gdiumt Apoitolusque pro dirinis 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. 


<=HAP. II. successor of Dionysius in the Episcopate), and 

Phileas, I have noticed nothing which bears npfm 

thuwud.- it. Theognostus, who waa at the head of the 

Catechetical School towards the close of the 

third century, makes use of the Epistle to the 

p„„ Hebrews as authoritative Scripture'; and Peter 

X.C.3U0. Martyr (the successor of Theonas) refers to it 

expressly as the work of the Apostle*. 
aunnivyor 'I'he testimony of the Alexandrine Church 
rHKioFthe 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*; 

' Routh, iii. 409 : rtrl Si rmt yni<rafui«ir r7C oipariov Sa- 
ptas ml nXfiudtlcrtv oiiitiua irtpiXfiVtrot <7vyyMpi)r ^oXoyta 
mi KapainjiTK (Hobr. tL 4). 

' Routh, IT. 3S : t! ^ij, wc Xiyti 6 (nrdirroXot nriXiircx A* ir 
■Jfuf iiiiyoiiirovs 6 xp^"^ (Hebr. xi. 32). The suceewioii <rf 
i«Btiinonj does not end here. Alexander, who became 
bishop about 313 a.c, and Athanasiiu, who Buooeeded him 
(326 A.c. — 373 A.C,}, both ([uote the Epistle aa St Paul's. 
And Eutbalius (c. 4G0 a. c) only mentions the doubts which 
had been raised on the question to refute them (Credner, 
Einleit. ii. 408 f.) 

^ Alexander, who has been mentioned above, in a 
letter preserved b; Socrates, quotes the second EpistU 
as the work of 'the Blessed John.' Socr. U. E. i. 6,30. 
His testimony is valuable as indicating tbe tendenej of 
the Alexandrine Church, which is clearly seen in later 


but no one except Origen, as far as can be dis- chap.ii. 
covered now, was acquainted with the Epistle of 
St James and ii. Peter, and it is doubtfid 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 J]^ SK,^ 
state, show singular marks of agreement with 
the Alexandrine text. But the materials which 

1 possess at present are not suflScient 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 

' In connexion with the Alexandrine Church it is con- 
renieot to notice Julius Africamub, who wrote & famous 
letter to Origon (cf. p. 409, n. 2) and studied at Alexandria, 
and aftervards lived at Emmaus ia Palestine (e. a o. 220). 
His method of reconciling the genealogies in St Matthew and 
St Luke is well-known, ond furnishes an important proof of 
the attention bestowed in his time on the criticiBm of the 
Apostolic Books. Ho epcaks generally of ' all [the writingt] 
of the Old Testament* (Stra i^c iroXa/ac iuidiKTis ^iprrat, 
Routh, ii. p. 22G), thus Impljzng (as Mclico had done before 
him) the eiistenre of h written New TettAment. It is un- 
certain from the language of Origen whether he received 
the Epiflilo to the Hebrews. 

A>'ATOLiLr»<, bishop of Laodicea, c. a. c. 270, was likewise 
an Alexandrian, but there is nothing in the fragmenU of 
his Paschal Canons (Euseb. H. E. vii. 32) which bean on 
the history of the disputed books; but he makes use of 

2 Cor. iii. 12 sqi)., giving to KororrpiitirBai (ver. IS) the sense 
of 'beholding,' and not 'reflecting.' 


OBAP. II. Memphitic — date from the close of the third 
century'. The few fragraents of the Bashmuric 
version which have been pubhahed seeni to intU- 
cate tliat it was not an independent work, but a 

nhMe. dialectic revision of the Thebaic*. Of this latter 
Teraion 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 

jfmpMtic. 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 

* Hug has Bbown this fully and Batisfactorilj. Introd. 
§91. Tho Thebiuc Version h probably the older, and pisj 
date ercn from the cloeo of the second century. DaTidaon, 
Introd. ii 213. 

* Hug, Introd. $ 96. Davidson, Introd. ii. 213. 

' Tho fragments were first collected in an Appendix to 
the &c-ainiile of the Cod. Alei. by Wolde and Ford ; but 
somo addiiionB bare been since made, and they require a 

* Tho first edition was published by Wilkins, at Oxford, 
in 1716, from MSS. at Oxford, Rome, and Paris. SchwtutM 
published the Ooapcls at Leipsic in 1846-47 ; and on hia 
death Buttichcr continued his work, though in a different 
fonn, and published in 1862 the Acts from four USS. and 
the Epistles from eight MSS., mora or less perfect ; but bis 
Prolegomena — barely a few lines — iesTO very much to be 
desired. The order of the Bpistlos in oao Berlin MS. ii 
remarkable; Colossians, Tbessaloniana, PUbmon, Bebrtwi, 
Timothy, Titus. Tho Apocalypse has not, I beliere, y«t bean 
pubUihed in this edition. 


unreasonable to expect that some scholar will chap.ii. 
poiat 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*. 

§ 2. The Latin Churches of Africa. 
At Alexandria, as has been said, the two Ttwoinr. 
streams of tradition from the East and from the b^^"* 
West unite; but elsewhere they may be traced 

1 Though the .Ethiopic Tenion belongs to the next cen- 
tury, I may notice that it containa the entire N. T. The 
Acta however is contwned only in one MS. in Addison to the 
two used in the printed Roman edition (164S-9), on which 
no great reliance can be placed, ai the Tulgate was lued to 
tnpjily lacunK. 

' It may be obterted here, that the Epiitle to the Hebrews 
is placed in the same position in the [Eastern] MSS. A, B, 
C, H, and several others, and »bo by mftoy of the Greek 
Fathere. The [Western] MSS. D, E, F, G, on the contrary, 
place the Pattoral Epistle* after those to the Thessalonians. 
There are also traces of another order: In B atpitolonmi 
notneri tales appositi at appareat eonun anetorem hwie [ad 
Hebr. ep.] pott Ep. ad Gal. cellocasse. Lachm. N. T, if. fi87. 


CHAP. iL each in its separate course. On the one side we 
follow the Latin Churches of Airica: on tbe 
otiier 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. 
Tbcopiaion In onc Fcspcct the judgment of the ChunJies 
cbuieha od q( Nofth AJHca materially differed from that of 
lifaStt?''' Alexandria on the New Testament Canon. The 
""' Alexandrine Fathers uniformly recognized the 
Epistle to the Hebrews as possessed of Apostcdic 
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 
Tmr L- 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 
Hernias, but evidently below that of the Apo- 
cvi-LiAs. stolic Epistles'. In Cyprian, again, there is no 

> De Pudic. c. 20: Tolo taman ex redundantia alici^oi 
etiam comitia Apoatotorum tettimonium superducere, ido- 
noumcou6rmuidi de proximo jure diBciplinam magiitronun. 
Exstat etiam et Bornabce tituluB ad HebmoB: adeo ud> 
auctoritatis Tiro ut quein Fauliu juxta se conBtitu«rit in aba- 
tioentire tcnore, 1 Cor. ii. Et utique receptior apnd e 


reference to the Epistle; and on the contrary he cBAP.n. 
implicitly denies its Pauline origin. AAer ena- 
merating many places in which the mystical 
number seven recurs in Holy Scripture, he adds: 
' And the Apostle Paul, vho was mindful of this 
proper and definite number, vritea to seven 
Churches. And in the Apocalypse the Lord 
writes bis diviue 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, vicraaiwi. 
bishop of Petavium (Pettau) in Pannonia, repro- 
duces the same idea: 'There are,' he says, 
' spirits... seven golden candlesticks... 
seven Churches addressed by Paul, seven dea- 
coas'...' And even Jerome bears witness to the 

cpistoU BunftbfB illo apocr^pho Poetore mtechonim. Cf. 
p. 285. The phrue dt proximo jur» clearly impliet that tho 
Apostles had the primum jut, to which an Apoatolio mBU 
approached nearest. 

The alluBinns to the Epietle which haTe been foond in 
other parte of Tertulllan'B writing! are very nncertain. 

' De Gih. Mart. II med. ApoBtoliu Panltu (]ui bajos 
numeri legiiimi et certi meininit ad septem ecclesia* Bcribit. 
Et in Apocalypsi Dominui mandata sua divina ot prsecopta 
e<Elestia ad Eeptem ccclesiu et eorum angeloa scribit Cf. 
Tettim. I. 20. Unde et Paulns Beplem ecclesiiB «cribit et 
Apocaljpsia eoclcsiaa aeptem ponit nt Hrretur lepteiiarius 

* Cf. p. 241. 3 Tict ftp. Ronth, Hell. ili. p. 459. 

B B 2 


CRAP. iL ^oerftl prevalence of the belief, when he mys : 
' The Apostle Paul writes to seren Cbun^es, fiff 
his eighth Epistle to the Hebrews is by moit 
excluded from the numberi.^ Generally, indeed, 
it may be stated that no Latin Father before 

t MB. Hilary quotes the Epistle as St PauTs ; and his 
judgment, and that of the writers who followed 
him, was strongly in6uenced by the authority of 

IL n<ffp(- With regard to the disputed Catholic Epi* 

iS^'iifln. sties, the first Latin Fathers offer little evidence. 

tmtdi. Tertnllian once expressly quotes the EpisUe of St 
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 

> Hieron. nd Paul. 60 (all. 103, ir. p. STl) : Paulo* apo- 
■toluB ad septem ecolesias acribit, octara enim ad Hebneot 
a pleriaqne eitra nomerum pooitur. 

1 The referenc«8 in Lactantioa are ret; tmcertain, 
though the coiucideDces of arguoiont are remaricable. E< g. 
Hebr. iii. 3—6 ; t. 6, 6 ; til 21, compared with Laot. Initit. 
It. 14 init. (quoted by Lardnar). 

> De Hab. Muliebri 3 : . . . Enoch apud Jadam Apoitolmn 
teeUmORium pogsidet This ib the only reference which 

* The references giren by Semler, ado. Jud. 2 (James ii> 
23) ; dt Oral. 8 (James i. 13) are quite unsatisfactorj. Tbo 
Utter passage indeed seems to prove clearly that Tertalliaa 
did not know the Epistle, for otherwise he must haTe quoted 
lb The quotation dt Exhort. Cait. 7, non audUorm ttffil 
jutHfiMiwntur a deo led faetortM, is from Rom. il. 14, not 
from Junes i. 22. 


second and third EpisUeB of St John', or with the '^*''- "- 
second Epistle of St Peter. In Cyprian there is, ctrum. 
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 Epiatle of St John as 
' St John's Epistle,' as though it were the only 
one, Aureliua, Bishop of ChuUabi, uses exactly Auuim. 
the same words in quoting the second epistle'* 
At the same time, however, the entire absence of 

The well-kDown pasuge adv. Onott. 12 doea not Id iUelf 
oeeeMarilj sbow more than that Tertullian did not attribnta 
the BpUtle to St Jamea the elder; but the omiiiion of all 
reference to it there, wheo connected with the other facta, can 
leafe little doubt that he wai unacquunted with it. 

1 The reference in the treatise against Marcion, (iT. 16) ii 
certwnly to i. John i*. 1, 2, and not to ii. John T, though the 
Latin has not preaerred the difference between AijXvMra 
ftnd ipxiittror. Some difficulty hu been felt about the 
phrase Johanna in primon Epiilola (de Pudic. 19); bat 
Tertullian is there contrasting the teaching of i. John iii. 8, 9 
with the paseage at fA« btjfinning of hit EpUtU : I. John i, S. 
This sense ot primorit is fully justified by Aul. Gell. i. 18,2: 
Tarro in primore libro seripsit... Of. nolt. m I. 

* De Eih. Mart. c. 9 ; ,Petnu in epiitola lua . . . e. 10 : 
Johannes in epistola lua . . . 

» Cf. p. 411, n. 2. 


CHAP. n. 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 oS iheax 
existence, or doubtful as to their authority. One 
other passage alone remains to be noticed. The 

v^f1&(t ju'^'"^'^^ <^f TertuUian on the Epistle of St Jade 
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. 

tii. T^ Apf But if the evidence for these Epistles be 
meagre, that for the Apocalypse is most complete. 

tmidi- Tertullian quotes it continually as the work of 
the Evangelist St John, and nowhere implies any 

cvr>ii!i. 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 

comioDu^. the Evangelist St John'. Commodian* and 

1 Ad NoT&t. Heeret. p. xrii. (ed. B&liu.) (quoted by Lard- 
ner): sicut Bcripturo est: Jude, 14, 16. 

* Adr. Marc. iii. 14: Apostolus Johannes in Apon- 
lypsi . . . 

3 De Opera et Elsem. 14; Audi in Apocaljpai Domini 
tni TOcem ... So ad Kovat. Hnr. p. iz. 

* Commod. Instr. i. 41, Ho interprets Antichrist of 
Nero, who should rise again. The conjecture ii. 1, 17, optria 
Johannit, is very anoertMn. 


Lactantius* make several allusions to it; and, chap.h. 
with the exception of the Gospel of St John, it i-iciiiti". 
is the only hook of the New Testament which 
the latter writer quotes hy 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 Jf^^VJ^ 
Churches, up to the beginning of the fourth fcSi^^bS" 
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- fr^ rram 
lian's works he refers only to two Apocrypha] JSa^-. 
books; and one of these — the Shepherd of 
Hermas — he rejects with contempt': the other — 
the Acts of Paul and Thecla — be declares to be a 
detected forgery^. In Cyprian, though he freely 
1 Lact. Ep. 42 t. : . . . licut docet JohuiDes in Rov«1a- 

s Tert. de Orat. 12. C(. de Padic. 10: Sed cederem 
tihi li ecHptura Putom qim sola in<»choe amat dirino 
in«truni«nto meniisiet incidi, li non ab omni condlio eoel«- 
siarum ctiam TMtraruni inter apocrypha et falaa judiearetnr, 
sdultera et ipsa et inde patrona Bociomm. 

> De Btipt 17: ...BoUiit in Atia prctbjtemro qai earn acrip. 


uses the Apocryphal books of the <Md Teota- 
ment, there is no trace of any Christian Apocrf- 
phal book ; and in the tracts appended to his 
works there is a single condenmafory reference 
to the 'Freachingof 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 
f Justin Martyr^ But here the list ends; and on 
the other hand, numerous passages in Tertulliao, 
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 
caprice or accident, but united by Divine Provi- 
dence, and equal in authority with the Jewidi 
Scriptures. The language of Tertulliao has been 
quoted already; and both Cyprian and Victo- 
rinus found a certain fitness in a fourjbtd Go- 

turam [Acta Pauli et Theclie] coDBtruiit, quui titulo Pkuli 
de luo cumulaitB, conrictuni atque coDfeeaum id m amora 
Pauli feciiie, loco decewisBe. 

' De Bapt. 14: Est autem adulterini hujus, immo intor- 
neoini baptUmatis, si quia alius auctor tnm etiam quidam ab 
eisdem ipsis bnreticit propter huDceundera errorem eonflctnt 
liber qui inHcribiCur Pauli prodicatio. On the name see 
Routh, Reli. V. 326. 

* Lact. Inet. ir. 21 : ... led et futura aperuit illi* omnia 
qun Petrut et Paalui Roms pnedicaTenint, et ea pnsdicatio 
in memoriam scHpta pennanait . . . 

* Initit. ir. 16: Tono vox de ooelo audita mt: Flliiu 
mens ei tu ; ego hodie genu! to. Cf. p. 189. 


spel, as well as in the teven Churclies addressed cHiy.n. 
by St Paul, so that the very proportions of the . 
Canon seemed to them to be fixed by a de6nite 
law*. Nor iraa 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 Borne. 

Ih passing from AJrica to Rome we come to Bowtiwi 
the second meeting point of the East and West; sJsi^ 
for it could not but happen that Rome soon be- """^" 
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 Cr. pp. 3S6,41D. Cfpr. Bp. uiiii. 10: Eccletift para- 
disi instar . . . arhorei rigat quatuor fluminibut, id Mt eran- 
geliii . . . Vict. (Bouth, iii. 1M) : . . . quatuor aninuilia aota 
thronuQi Dei, quatuor animalia ... It is, I think, unneceuary 
to ouJte aoj apology for the vie of Cypriati'i letter*. 

1 C7pr. de Orat. Dom. !. ; de Exhort Hart. I. 4. 


CRAP. 11. of a spirit of eclecticism : at Home by the sileitt 
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 ia mind, even in ao 
investigatioD into the history of the New Testa- 
LTtu Latin Tfac earlicst memorials of the Latin Church 
of Kome are extremely small, and contain very 
little which bears on the history of the New 
AroiLo- Testament Canon. Nothing survives of the 
vrcTo*. writings of Apolloniua and Victor, the first Latin 
authors whose names have been preserved. The 
MiiiTcina Octavius of Minucius Felix, like former Apo- 
logies, contains no quotations from the ClirisUan 
Scriptures ; and the subject of the two letters of 
cnijiiiLiiti. Cornelius, included in the works of Cyprian, is 
Nu»*tDi. 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. Bnt 

Oa« quotation occun from 8t Matthew (r. 8); Ep. H 
(Roiitb,Ui. 18.) 


Novatus nowhere quotes any other Christian ch*p- h. 
Scriptures ; and the paesing 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 iL Peter barely worthy 
of notice*. It is also of importance to remark, 
that, while in the later stages of the Novatiao 
controTcrsy, 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 

The preponderance of the Greek element in llv,^"™* 
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 Trio. 26 : Cum ledere [ChriBtam] ftd dextenm 
Patriset a prophetis et ab apoitolii approbatur (Hebr. i. 3; 
but cf. Eph. i. 20; i. Pet lii. 22) ; it^. 31 ; ... ut laamTis probet 
ilium natiritu Filium, tamen morigent obedienti« ataerat 
ilium Patemte voIuDtatii « quo eat minUtrum (Htbr. t. 8); 
id. 8. f. (Hebr. v. T) ; id. 16 : »ed jk ett adjidentibus quomodo 
et detrahentibuB pocitum (Apoc. xiii. IB, 19). 

» Da Trin. 8 (ii. Pet. li. fl); id. 4 (Jame« i. 17). The 
latter pusage indeed leemi to me to ihow c)e«-1]r tbat No- 
ratua wai not acquainted with the Epiitle of 8t Jamei. 


cHAp.n. Dionysius. Of the first and last only fragments 
DiovniDi. remain ; and nothing more can be gathered from 
*.o. the Blight remains of Dionysius than that he 

recognized a New as well as an Old Testament 
Clio*. as a final source of truth*. Of Caius, it is re- 

t. 313X.C. 

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 receired 
all the remaining books of the New Testament is 
left in uncertunty ; 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 authorship to Cerin- 
thus^. In close connexion with Calus 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 
Tbc TmiHH ' Treatise against all Heresies,' to which frequent 

■|M<nII Hi- ° ^ 

"**"■ 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 

' Dion. Rom. fr. (Routh, iii. 374): Tpuifia fu* cifpvTrv 
^'rqi' wri r^r 6tim ypa^^t o'O'^c Arurrarrat, rptis it e«ite ofct 
itaKaia* ai!r< mivigr StoAjici]* laipiTTOvirtar, 

* EiMcb. H. E. tL 20. 

* Ap. Euieb. H. E. iii. 28. Cf. p. 307, n. JL 

books. Of the 'LitUe Labyrinth' and the ch^p.u. 
* Treatise on the Univerfle,' only fragments re- J^Jtm. 
main. In one passage of the former irork a 
charge is brought against certain heretics of 
'fearlessly tampering with the Divine Scriptures, 
while they said that they had corrected them ; 
ao that if any one were to take the MSS. of 
their several teachers and compare them together, 
he would find them widely difi'erent,..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, io noticing the statement that a 
revolution in Christian doctrine had happened 
> EoMb. U. E. r. 28. Rontb, ii. 132 iq. 


- after the times of Victor, the same aathmr re- 
plies, that the assertion 'would perhaps hare beea 
plausible if in the first place the Divine Scriptureg 
had not opposed it, and next also the writings 
of the brethren before the time of Victor'....' 
An appeal is thus made both to Scripbire and 
to tradition, and the line between them is drawn 
distinctly. The peroration of the 'Address to 
the Gh^eks, on the Universe,' has been weU 
likened to the conclusion of a Christian ' Goi;giaa,' 
painting in vivid and brilliant colours the scenes 
of Hades and the Last Judgment Many pas< 
sages from the New Testament are inwrooght 
into the composition, but so as to lose much of 
their orig^o^ 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 tiuBeb. ]. c.'} Routh, ii. p. 120. 

s BuDsoa, Anal. Ante-Nic i. 393 sqq. The puaagn 
which seem most remarkable are the folloiriDg;...Ar twry 

Tp X'P'V ■ ■ ■ O'^n) <TKiros daimtat TvyjfOMir nuro t4 }[eipSn^ 
as <ppoupio¥ anirifiTidri ifm](a'is, Irfi' f «ar«rraftjq-aip SyytXot 
(Ppoupei... (Judo 6; ii. Pet. ii. 4) ir rovr^ii Tf x^P^V-'-^H"^ 
mrpic diT-ddTTou... (Apol. IX. 10 Bqq.) It maybe obserTed 
that in a pauage shortlj after this where the common text it 
oAXa KOI ou rir r&r itaripton ](op6r.,.6pairi... we must read n>i 
otrroi T&v TDv w. X- Bunaen's emondatioa ou -ri« r. w. x- doei 
not suit the descriptioii. 


books, except the Epistle to Philemon and the °h*^-"- 
first Epistle to St John. Of the disputed books 
be uses the Apocalypse as an unquestionable 
work of the Apoetle St John, and is said to hare 
written a commentary upon it'. On the other 
band be is reported cot to have included the 
Epifitle to the Hebrews among the Epistlea of St 
Faul^ But beyond this there is nothing to show 
bis opinion upon the contents of the Canon^. 

From this then it appears that though there 5i;,",3ffi^' 
is not sufficient evidence to establish a complete ofJ^^ST™" 
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 

1 Do Antichr. 36. Cf. 29. 
« Phot. CoJ. 121 (BuDseo, Anal. i. 411). 
■ The mpposed reference toii. Pit. i. 21 in do Antichr. 2, 
is wholly uncertain. 



§ 4. Th« Oatrehe* of Asia Minor. 

iiyiiM- Thk great work of IreiueiiB written in Htm 

<ut wilds of Gaul and preserved for the most put 
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 tiiat 
of Gregory of Neocesarea or even t^ BanL 
Still there is abundant proof of their seal and 
activity. At Ephesus and Smyrna, in Pfmtus 
and Cappadocia, there were those who traced 
back a direct connexion with the Apostles, and 
witnessed to the continuity of the Futh. 
^^ During the Paschal controversy in the time 

™ of Victor, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, ad< 
jMir. 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 f>f 
their predecessors'. 'For these all,' he says, 
' observed the fourteenth day of the mooD 
according to the Gospel, transgressing it in no 
respect, but following it according to the rule 

1 Euseb. II. E. r. 24. The letter nf Poljcnioa wm 
written in his 65th jcar,and Victor died 197 A. c; PoIjcratM 
then may hare convened with Polycftrp and Jnatin Mttrtyr- 
Ho appears to hare been of a Chriatian famil j (I'^mpra wnrr 
trtj Ixtf if TLvpiif); and probablj the epbeopato had been 
hereditary in it (nrra fwc )ina> avyyaiii fm nritrjcovM ^jw 
hi SyAooc). At lerat every detail points to the nnhroken 
unity of the Church. 


of faith'.' Yet even this tradition was not chaf.ii. 
enouglr: 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. ApoUonius, who is stated on doubtful *«"-lo»hii. 
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 Enseb. I. C. : oJroi Trdvnc €T^pijo-a» TTpi ^itipaf r^t rta- 
aaptmimiiiiaTyis roti (rdo^a cara rb luayyiXiaf, lUjiir traptK- 
^iyoyri! aX\a nari r^i' (mwMi T^i irtoTtst waiKovSoOmi, 

> Euieb. 1. c.: ..,<n/fiff4ffKijKic roit litri r^t olKoviiir^t aitX- 
<^ic cat watrav ayiiw ypn^i^i- du^rj^vSat... These lait wordli 
I believe, refer to the New Tostameat. Yet cf. Anatol. ap, 
Euseb. H. E. »ii. 32. 

> Routb, i. p. 465. 

* Apoll.ap. Euseb. H.E. V. 18: ©tfuirair ..«r<SX/u;<r« jujiaw 
firrot Toi' ittiirtokM' taStiXiiejp rivo avyraSaiuros JwurroKifi'... 
ffkatrifntitiiirai th riy Kvpiov mi Toiit oirocrTAavt nai n)V dyiW 



cRAP.u. occupied by tfac Christian Scriptures generally, 
Euaebius mentionB that ApoUoaius 'made use 
of testimonies from the Apocalypse;' and this 
indeed would aecessarily be the case in a coo- 
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'. 
Ik^of ^^ i^ uncertain at what time and under what 

iHuim. circumstances Irenieus lefl Smyrna on his misfion 

c. 139 -wo. . 

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 Eoseb. 1. c. : Ktxpt^at St ml paprvpUxu Imi r^r 'lataniMi 
'AiroKoXv^aic. The description which Apolloniiu gires of 
MonttmiU — oSrdf iarur...i nitrot/fai- mi TvfUiH' 'itpoviraX^fi jio- 
liairat (iriSXcit 9( ^^a^v qStqi /uk/miI r^c 4/itryutr) rovs wtumt- 
xiBtv Uti inmayayta tdfkur — ma; remind ub of a ' prophet' 
of our own times. Cf. Eptph. Hier. lUi. 1 : Xpurr6t...iwm- 
Xtrfrt pm (a MotttaniBt prophetess) tovtovi riv rAnw t&w 
iyimr Kal u9( Tijr 'lipamraX^it <V tou ovpovof ttrrUrat. 

On the tradition which ApoHonius mentions that the 
Apostles were commanded bj our Lord to remain twelve jeta 
at Jerusalem, compare Clem. Al. Str, ri. 6, $ 48; LDrnper, 
rii. 6 sqq. 

1 EuBob. H. E. T. 20. Cf. Iren. adr. Hter. iii. 3, 4 (Euaeb. 
H. E. IT. 14). The date of Irenieiu is much disputed, de- 
pending on that of Polycarp. I hare given that whidi 
appears to be the most probable. Eleutherus was still bishc^ 
of Rome when he wrote his great Treatise (odT. Hnr. uL 


While a presbyter at Lyons, he waa commended chap.ii. 
by the Church there to Eleutherus bishop ofc.i;T*.c. 
Rome OS '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 bis 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- 
nseus makes from ii. John, once citing a verse a ji 
from it as though it were contained in the first 
Epistle*. But in addition to the Apocalypse, 
which Ireuieus uses continually as an unques- 

1 H. E. T. 8. 

* Iron. &dv. Hter. )■ 16, 3 : 'Isotvijc St t rov Kvpiou imAf- 
T^...ii. John, 11. Id theiame conneuon it would hive been 
nataral to quote ii. Peter end Judo. 

1. c. iii. 16, 8, Johutne* in prtedictaepi(to1*...0i- Jolm, 7, 
B), afier quoting i. Jobn ii. 18 *qq. Is it po«iibie that the 
■econd Epistle wai looked upon u an appendix to the flnt? 
and maj wo thus eiplun the references to two Epiitles of 
St John ? The flret Bpiatle, u is well known, wu called ad 
PariKot bf AuguBtine, and Bome other l«tin authoritiei; and 
the nme title, trpic nopAivf, ia giren to the Becond epittle in 
one Greek MS. (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of CI»- 
menfe Outlines (ir. 66) says: Becnnda Johannii epistola 
qua ad rirgines i,wap6i*oiit) scripta umplicialnu eat 
r FS 


CHAP. It. tioaed work of St John', this ia the only dis- 
puted book which be certainljr 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 coiDcidences of 

K /Meit oi language with the Epistle to the Hebrews are 
more striking; and in a later chapter, Slusebius 
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 
FfafiSan fragment as the work of St Paul'; but 
on the other hand Photius classes Irenseus with 
Hippolytus as denying the Pauline authorship 
of the Epistle. And this last statement offers 
the most probable conclusion : Iremeus was, 
I believe, acquainted with the Epistle, but he 
did not attribute it to St Paul^. 

' Iron. iv. 20, 11 ; Joannes dominidiscipuluB in Apocaljpu... 
Yet I do not remember that he ever calls him an ApoBtle. 

2 Euscb. H. E. T. 26. Ircn. adv. Hccr. ii. 30, 9: Sohu 
hie Deus inTcnitur qui omnia fecit. ..verba vir(utia ttue (Uebr. 
i. 3) : IT. II, 4 ; rf. Hebr. i. 1, &c. : v. 5, 1 ; c£ Hebr. xi. B. 

* Iron. fr. iixnii. (p. 8S4): 6 nau\os wapoKaku ^/lat 
(Rom. xii. l)...>al iraXiF (Ilobr. liii. IS). 

< EusebiuE (H. E. t. 8) noticed that IrenKOB quoted the 
Shepherd of Hernias (adv. Hofr. it. 20, 2) by the name of 
'Scripture.' But several inatancoa have been lately qnotod 
which prove the Isi tue of the vord ; and, as in the cue of 
Origen, a difference of prirato opinion makes the general 
agreement of the Chnrchoa more conipicuoiu. 


One of tbe most diBtinguished converts of chap. ii. 
Origeo was Gregory surnamed ThaumaturguB lu- ''mmr 
(the Wonder-worker), bishop of Neo-Cnsareea ousMTof 
(Niksar) in Pontus. His chief remaining work 
ia an eloquent address delivered before his 
master when be 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 ffi^^'*' 
as from the mode in which Gregory treats tbe 
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 P"^^"- 
sending forth such a scholar to the confines of2S*!™^°' 
Asia Minor, Origin only repaid a benefit which 
he had received. When he had been forced to 331 1.0. 
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. Obitler. Comm. in lerem. i. p. B31 : i^Xor 

yip lit irar ayeSin TiXtimi S»66ir Jpx^Ttu. J&tn<!S i. 17. 

1 Bp. ad Qreg. 3 : an ^iygr oti firor ri' /itntjiot roS 
Xpiorm ytyirafm- aXXd ml itrnj(ot rov Btav (Uebr. iil. 14.) 


cHAP.iL of Jerusalem on tbe death of Narcissus, whom 
he had previously assisted in his episcopal work. 
Not can these facta be without r^ue in our 
ioquiry. It is surely no slight thing that 
casual notices show that Christians the most 
widely separated were really joined together hy 
close intercourse : that the Churches of remote 
provinces, whose existence and prosperity was 
first disclosed by the zeal of a Roman govemor, 
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, 

FimnLui. was Firmilian, bishop of Cssarssa in Cappadocia, 
the correspondent and advocate of Cyprian'; 
and thus for the moment an obscure comer 
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*.' 

3S6 AC. 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, 

' Cf. Euaeb. H. E. it. 23 ; SU^ «" imirroXli [Auwvvtiw] 
irpit NuafiTSiai rfiiptTat... 

* Buseb H. B. tI. 27. 

» Finn. Ep. 75 (Cypr.) § 1, 


' bave anathematized heretics in their Epistles, ob'p- i 
and warned us to avoid them',' «.«»■«. 

But the influence of Origen was not domi- ff^^'° 
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 wc may be- 
lieve the common explanation of his silencCi as 
to omit all mention of him in bis 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 

t Firm. Ep. $ 6 : adbac etiam infftmana Petrum et Pnu- 
lom be&tos ApoatoloB.-.qui in epiBtolJB Bois brereticoa enecntti 
sunt et ut eoB eritemuB moaneruot. In tho Bame chapter 
Firmilino noticeB (as animportant) ritual differenceB betweeo 
tho Roman and Easteni cburcbeB: circa celebrandM din 
PsBChsi et circa multa alia dirinie roi Bacramenta...tecnndut& 
quod in ctcteriB quoque plurimii proTiDciia multa pro loco- 
rum et nominuTT) (?) diversitate Tariantur... 

* Socr. H. E. Ti. 13 : .. MtASSur t^t cV Avn'g nSKiat Xryo- 
fMnit 'oXu/nroc tnlatoito!. Socrates (1. c.) alone mentiotu that 
Metbodiui recanted bia censurcB on Origin ; jet probably hie 
words mean no more than that be eiprossed admiratioa for 
Origen's ch&racter,and not for bis doctrine. 

* Hieron. de Tirr. lU. 83. 


OHA?. II. number of the Gogpels'; and hia writbigH 
abound with quotations from the acknowledged 

^'ySm^ books. He also received the Apocalypse as a 

tnw.-wxi ffoj.]^ Qf n^Q blessed John* and as posaesnng 
undoubted authority*. Besides this, numeroas 
coincidences of Language show that he wag ao> 

m7 ^b^ quaiated with the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and 
though he does not directly attribute it to St 
Paul, be uses it with the same familiarly and 
respect as be exhibits towards the Pauline 

The heresy of Montanua, as has been seen 
already, occupied much of the attention of 
Asiatic writers at the beginning of the third 
century. The steady oppositioo which they 
offered to the pretensions of the new prophets 
is in itself a proof of the limits which they fixed 

1 SjmpoB. de Cast. p. 391 s. 

^ De ResutT. p. 326 b : iniimi<rof it p-^inrn ui 6 fianapat 
'luaymit... Apoc. XI. 13. id. p. 328 d: vat t^ ^i i Xpiojit 
wpwnSroJtDc (ivoi rur vtKpuy iiro rav irpix(ti]T»» ml r«»i> owo- 
vnSXur airrm ; (Apoc. i. 6 ; Col. i. 18). MetbodiuB U also 
mentioned b; AndreaB of Coearea with Papios, Irenteni and 
Hippolytas as a witneea to the 'divino inspiration' of the 
Apocalypse (Routh, i. 1£). He JDlcrpreted much of it all«- 
gorically — »it tijv VmAijo-i'a* nai rat napSirovirat (Sympoa. 
p. 388 a). 

> De Resurr. p. 286 d. Hebr. xii. S, Sic, In the spntioiu 
tract on ' Sjmeon and Anna ' it is quoted as ' the moat dintn 
Panl's ' (p. 427 d). Mothodios must be added to the manj 
before him who quote Pa. ii. T, aa uttered at our LotA 
B&ptigm (SyropoB. p. 387 d). Cf. pp. 424, ISO. 


to the presence of inspired teaching in the 
Church, and of their belief in the completeoees 
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'.' jjf^j""- 
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 nu cumm 
Churches of the use of the Epistle of St Jude ; ^"- •*< 
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 

t Anat. adv. Catapb. ap. Euseb. r. 16 (Routh, ii. p. 183 
■qq.}: StSiuc *ai ifivXajSaOfKHc fi)| ng H^a tiit'w tmavyypa- 
ipiir 1) <iriSuiniiTiT(irA» (cf. Oal. iil. 1G) '■ ru r^i tou liayytXiou 


cHAP.n. on the other hand the Apocalypse waB recog- 
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 oC 
merely negative evidence is shown by the fitet 
that no quotation from his third Epistle faaa yet 
been noticed, though its authenticity is necessarily 
connected with that of the second. But if the 
evidence for the Kew Testament Canon in the 
Aj^A« 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 uncanoaical 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 <rf 
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'.' 

• Epiph. Hter. Irii. 1 ; Routh, ir. p. Z43. Mii.TiAitxa agMn, 
with whose coaotry I am un&c<)uainted, is aaid to bare Bhown 
'great zeal about the DiTino Oracles' (BuBflb. H. E. t. 17). 
Anatolius of LaodiccK has b«oQ meationed already, n. 4ij[. 


§ 5. The Chwchea of Syria. 

NoTHiNO more thao the names of the 8ucce»- l Ttxchundi 
sors of Ignatius in the see of Antioch has been 
preserved till the time of Tbeophilus, the sixth rBi™Lm. 
in descent from the Apostles. Of the works *-c- 
which he wrote, three books to Autolycus — 
'Elementary Evidences of Christianity'' — have 
been preserved entire ; but the commentaries 
which bear his name are universally r^ected as 
spurious. Eusebius has noticed that Theophilus 
quoted the Apocalypse in a treatise against 4 
Hermogenes' ; and one passage in his extant 
writings has been supposed to refer to it'. The 
reference, however, is very uncertain ; nor can 
mucli 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 oc«u8 in ii. Peter is much a. ivir. 
more worthy of notice'; and it is remarkable 
that he distinctly quotes the Gospel of St John 

I BuBeb. U. E. IT. 2S : rfila ra Kpit AirriKvKor aroix*'»il 
iftiprrai (rvyypafifuira. 
3 Euseb. 1. c. 

* Tbcoph. ad Autnl. ii. p. 104. Apoc. zii. 3 iqt]. 

* Ad Aulol. ii. p. 102. Uebr. xii. 9. Cf. Lardner, ii. 20, 
25 sqq. 

^ Ad Autol. ii. c. 16 (p. 92): f iiara^it etn rou Otoireuri 
iarir, 6 X6yor airov i^a'iru* £aatp Xvj^vor /r otx^iian 
wnxoiur^ i^not rti* W tAparir... Cf, ii. Pet. i. 19. 


cniF. II. as written by oae of those ' who were mored hj 
the Spirit'.' 

>»"""■ Serapion who was second in descent from 

Theophilus has left a very remarkable judgment 
OD the ' Gospel according to Peter,' which he 
found in use at Rhossus, a small town of Cilicia. 
'We receive,' be says, when writing to the 
Church there*, 'both Peter and the other Apo- 
stles OS 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 Fetcr, I said : If this is the only 
thing which seems to create petty jealousiea 
ifUKpo^vylav) 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 {a'lpeaei tiv! ive^mXeutv) 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 
Harcianus held — how he contradicted himself 
from failing to understand what he said, jon 

1 Ad Autol. ii. 22. 

* Euseb. H. E. vi. 12. Bouth, Bell. i. 4fi2 sqq. 


will learn from what has been written to you — chap.ii. 
were able to thoroughly examine [the book] 
having borrowed it from others who commonly 
use (adKtfiTdvTwi') this very Xiospel, that is from 
the successors of those who first sanctioned it, 
whom we call Docetie, (for the greater part of 
[Marcianus'] opinions belong to their teaching), 
and to find that the greater part of ita 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 

■ Etueb. H. E. ri. 12; Itoutb, t. 452 iqq. The t«zt of 
the fragment is corrupt, and I hare ventured to introduce 
some Blight coiTQctioiiB by which tho vholo conneiion ap- 
peuB to be improTCd. Tho middle 8antenceBhoulil,IbeUeTe, 
be road thus: iJ^uTc ii a8t\if>ol uiTaKa&Sfimi /moias Jr alpi- 
iTttos MapKiatot (koI [ioc\ tavref TjKirruivro ftTj fovw a (XoXfi 
[= a) iia$ii(rtv6f «f ar vfur iypa^t)) iivvTj&rjufW [= yap'j Ttap 
aXXuv ruv aaKTfaaifraf, k.tX. Many USS. omit S before imB., 
and tho confusion of TAP with TAP ia of conatant occur- 
rence. Tho changes of number — ^fnir, ''yfu. ij/itiv — seem to 
prove that tho scntencca ippaxflat Xi$in, at Eusobius calls 
Ibem) arc not continuous. As far ns I am annre, all follow 
Talesius in translating itarnpfafu'wH' airou qui Afat-aajto 
prmverunti but analogy supperts tho rendering which I 
have given. 


CHAP. II. supported by a certain tradition. Nor can the 
conduct of Serapion in allowing the public xae 
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 * — np 
to the time of Erasmus. 

pavl or 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 

280—272. Emperor Aurelian. Nothing remains of his 
ii^Titings, 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 

gjgjj^ <*« to the Hebrews is cited as the work of St Paul*. 

1 Doubts were raised as to the genuineness of this Epistle 
by Basnago, and repeated by Lardner and Lumpor; but 
Routh considers them of no weiglit (Lumper, xiii. 71 1 sqq. ; 
Routh, iii. 321 sqq.) The question appears to depend alto- 
gether on the good faith of Turrianus, who first pablished 
the Epistle. The Epistle itself is almost made up of a col- 
lection of passages of Scripture. 

^ Ep. ap. Routhy iii. 299 : ...<car^ t6p mr6<rToKop,,.Kal ir£Ur 


And in another letter addressed to the bishops chap, ii. 
of Alexandria and Rome by Malchion, a pres- mai.cbioi. 
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^*'*^ 
Lord, and kept not the Faith which he himself 
had formerly held'/ 

The first traces of the theological school ot^^H^^^ 
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, i>o«ora»u8. 
is described by Eusebius* as a man remarkably 
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-Luouir. 
tioch, * well trained in sacred studies^' devoted 

BtlfTovpwv t6v 6p€tdurfi6y rov Xpurrov (Heb. xi. 26). So again 
jQBt before, Heb. iv. 15 is incorporated in the text of the 

1 Ep. ap. Euseb. H. E. yii. 30: ...rov ml T6y Br^v t6p 
iavTov Koi Kvptov dpvcvfiivovy Koi t^v many ^y Koi airrht irp6^ 
T€f>oy €ixf firj (f)v\a(aPTos, Cf. Judo 3, 4 (reading &f6y). 

* Euseb. H. E. vii. 32. 

' Euseb. H. E. ix. 6 : toi£ Upois yMBrnuun ovyKtKpvnuUyot, 


CHAP. iL himself to a critical revisioii of the Greek text 
of the Bible. In carrying oat this work it is 
said that he introduced useless corrections into 
the Gospels ; and the copies which he had * fid- 
sified' were pronounced apocryphal in later 
times'. In the absence of all CTidence 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 Tiews 
on the Canon itself. Lucian died a martyr in 

1 211 A.C. 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 triaP. 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. yi. $ 14 : Evangclia quae falsarit Lucia- 
nus Apocrypha. Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. 8. 216) regards 
this as one of the additions to the origmal Decree of Gela- 
sius (e. 500 A. c.) made at the time when it was republished 
in Spain under the name of Uormisdas (c. 700 — 800 a. c) 

The next clause in the decree is, § 15 : Erangelia qu» 
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 Eusebios 
(H. E. !x. 6). It is printed by Routh, ir. 5 sqq. ; and I see 
no reason to doubt its authenticity. 


conDected 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 gj^JJJj^^ 
where the Christian Scriptures were made the ^^^'^^ 
subject of learned and laborious study. Pam- PAMPHiLm. 
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 Csesarea is 
frequently mentioned by ancient writers, and 
when it fell into decay, towards the close of 

1 Luc. ap. Routh, it. p. 6 : Si minus adhuo crcditur, 
adhibobo Tobis etiam loci ipsius, in quo roe goBta est, teetimo- 
nium. Adstipulatur his [quae dico] ipse in Hierosolymis 
locus, ct Golgotbana rupes sub patibuli onere disrupta: 
antrum quoque illud, quod aTuIsis infemi januis corpus 
denuo reddidit animatum, quo purius inde ferretur ad coelum 
...Requirite in annalibus Testris : iuTenietis temporibus Pilati, 
Cbristo patiente, fugato sole interruptum tenebris diem. 
The rhetorical colouring of the passage cannot affect the 
facts affirmed. 

3 Hieron. de Virr. HI. 75: Tanto bibliothecss diTinss 
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. 



CHAP. II. 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 
TkeKpisUf Pauline Epistles, in which the Epistle to the 
HArtvci. 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 Csesarea, written by his own hand^' Nor is 
this all. At the end of the edition of the Acts 
Thecaixoiic 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 Euscbius Pamphilus^ at Csesarea ;* 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 

I For the order of the Epistles in thiB MS. see Mont- 
y faucon, Bibl. Coislin. p. 253. Tischendorf, Proleg. pp. 73,4. 

> Zacagni, Collect, p. 513 : drrcPki^Bfi dc rwr wpd^^p xal 
Ko^XiKnv inurroXSv r5 fitfiXiov vp6s ra dxpifiij aPTiyptufM r^r 
fV Kourapfcg /ScjdXto^ia;^ EifO-t^iou rov Ila/i^tXov. The last 
genitives are ambiguous, and may refer to dwrlypaupa or 

The summary of verses given at the end (p. 613) does 
not agree with numbers previously given ; nor can I explain 
the phrase r5 nphs tfiavTov arixoi kC* But these difficulties 
seem to show that Euthalius did not compose the whole 
work, but in part transcribed it. 

. "^ .^. .^ «■■< I < ^ m i ; w>i»iiW 


the summary of the contents of the Acts pub- chap. ii. 
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 

Thoujrh Pamphilus devoted his life to the p«nmhfiu«- 

o * Apounj 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 
reserved In addition to the Summary of the 

1 Montf. Bibl. CoiBlin. p. 78. Routh, iii. 610 sq. The 
recarrence in the preface to this Bummary of a yery remark- 
able phrase found in the subscription of the MS. of the 
Pauline Epistles copied from that of Pamphilus seems to be 
conclusire on the point : tyxo t§ vnip i;fM»y rfjp <rufin€pi(fH>piaf 
KOfuC6fui'os. The Summary as it occurs in Zacagni (pp. 428 
sqq.) is introduced quite abruptly; and Zacagni's explana- 
tion of the allusion to the youth of the writer (Pref. p. 63) 
is unsatisfactory. 

> Hieron. adr. Ruf. it. p. 419. Cf. ir. p. 347: Date 
quodlibet aliud opus Pamphili: nuiquam reperietis. Hoc 

o o 2 


cHAP.iL Acts, already noticed, there can be no doabt 
that the commencement of an Apology for 
Origen occupied his attention during his last 
confinement in prison. The first book which 
bears hb name, and was probably his work, has 
been preserved ; and the quotations from Origen 
which it contains embrace distinct references to 

Recoffnisca thc Apocalypsc as the work of St JohnS proving, 

eaijfpse, jf ^^ proof wcrc ncccssary, that on this point 
Pamphilus followed his master^s judgment. 

Tfiesyrun In thc Syrian Church* there are thus traces 

CaiujQooin- *^ 

pi^ of a complete Canon of the New Testament at 
the beginning of the fourth century, and that 
free from all admixture of Apocrj^phal 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 received And briefly, it may be said that 

unum est Jerome is speaking of the Apology for Origen, 
but he was misled by the fact that Eusebias completed it. 

^ Pamph. Apol. vii.: Apoc. xz. 13, 6. I hare not notieed 
any other references to the disputed books in the Apology. 

s The Greek Syrian Church is of coui'se not to be con- 
founded with the native Syrian Church, which retained the 
Canon of the Peshito ; cf. p. 265, and P. iii. ch. 2. 

3 One testimony from an Eastern Church has not yet 
been noticed. In the Acts of a Disputation between Arcfaeliuis 
Bishop of Caschar (or, as some conjecture, of Carrfaso) in 
Mf^opotaoiia (? cf. Beausobre, Hist. Manich. i. p. 143) and 
Maiics there are soTeral clear allusions to the Epistle to the 

-iM— ^*0 #iii^*>i»J^^»>— »J«iM^I 


wherever the East and the West entered into a chap. ii. 
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 oeneraifum. 


the results obtained in this chapter. At Alex- 
andria and Csesarea, 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, Home, and 
Carthage, witnesses to the Apostolic authority of 
the Apocalypse. 

Hebrews, though it is not quoted by name. Disp. Arcb. et 
Man. (Routh, Relliq. t.) p. 45, Hebr. r\, 8: p. 75, Hebr. 
Till. 13 : p. 127, Hebr. i. 3 : p. 149, Hebr. iii. 5, 6. The 
reference to ii. Pet. iii. 9 in p. 107, non enim moratui est in 
promissionibuB fuif, is yery uncertain. The Acts, howerer, are 
at present in a rery unsatisfactory form, existing for the most 
part only in a Latin translation from the Greek, which was 
itself probably a translation from the Syriae. 



CHAP. 111. Quodcunquo adyersua yeritatem sapit, hoc erit hseresif, 
etiam retus coiisuetudo. — Tebtulliai«us. 

i. Thetesu- The controversics which a^ritated the Chris- 

mony of o 

writei^ tian Church from the close of the second cen- 

The form* of e% % t • % t 

SSSwirSull** ^^""y to the commencement of the third show 
thi^j^i^ 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 Haxtbausen (Transcaucaeia, p. 140) mentions the exist- 
ence of a sect of Judaizing Christians (Uriani) at present in 
Dorbend 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- 


of Christianity found a partial parallel in the chap hi. 
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 Manichseans 
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 \ conirow- 

^ sies on the 

first arose by a necessary reaction within the cSSt **^ 
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 S 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 GodV This Mon- 
archianism naturally assumed a double form, 

1 Tcrt. do Virg. Vcl. 1 : Regula quidem fidel una omnino 
est, sola immobilis et irreforroabilis, crcdendi Bcilicet in uni- 
cum Deum... 

^ Tert. adv. Prax. 3. 



cuAT. m. acecHidiiig aa the onitj of God mas a u |n> oae d to 
be rigfatlv aaseited by identiQiiig the Soa wiA 
the Father, or by denying Hk proper dhrndfj. 
Praxeaa and Theodotos stood forth at the same 
time at Rome as the champions of theae antago- 
imi M^^ nistic opinions. Fraxeas seems to haTe retained 
cTiTO AX, ^^ connexion with the Catholic Oiurdi ; Theo- 
dotos 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 Fraxeas, 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 hebitation and reserve, and answers an argu- 
rfin^rJKi '^c^^ 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 Hcrmogenes, Noetus, Vero, Beryllus 
and Sabcllius^ on one side, and with Artemon and 

1 Adv. Prax. xvii. : Interim hic mihi promotum Bit re- 
Bponsum adTorsus id quod et de Apocalypsi Joannis profe- 
runt. Apoo. i. 8. 

* Cf. p. 429. 

' Epiphanius (Heer. Ixii. 2) says that Sabcllius borrowed 
many poioU in hb system from the '' Gospel accordiDg to 


Paul of Samosata on the other, the Scriptures chap, m. 
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 s. Monun- 
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 c iro a.c. 
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, howerer, nothing to show that 
Sabcllius placed it in riralry with the canonical Gospels. The 
opinions of the Alogi on the writings of 8t John have been 
noticed already, pp. 306 sqq. 

1 De Resur. Carn. s. f.: ...jam omnes retro ambignitates 
et quas volunt parabolas, aperta atque perspicua totius sacra- 
ment! pnedicatione [Spiritus Sanctus] discussit, per noTam 
prophetiam de Paraclete inondantem ; cujus si haosoris fontes 




CHAP. II K^ written Word^; to confirm and define what had 
been already givcn^ and not to introduce any- 
thing strange or novel*. The ancient Scriptures 
still remained a common treasure to Montaniat 
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^ 
Manici :«^ Thc Moutauists proposed to restore Christi- 
anity : the MauichsBans ventured to reconstruct 
it. Montanus proclaimed the presence of the 
c. 277a. c. Paraclete: Mani himself claimed to personify 
Him, and to lay open that perfect knowledge 
of which St Paul had spoken. While assuming 

nullain potoris sitire doctrinam : nullus to ardor ezuret qiUB- 
stionum... Do Virg. Vel. 1 : Quee est ergo Paracleti ad- 
ministratio nisi hscc, quod disciplioa dlrigitur, quod tcrip- 
tun» rcTelantur, quod intellectus reformatur^ quod ad meliois 

^ Adv. Praz. 13: Nos enim qui et tempora et cansaa 
Bcripturarum per Doi gratiam inspicimus, mazime Paracleti 
non bominum discipuli... 

s De Monog. 3 : Nihil novi Paracletus indacit. Quod 
prsemonuir, definit : quod sustinuit, exposcit. 

3 Do Monog. 4 : Eyolyamus communia instromenta Bcrip- 
turarum pristinarum. 

* Cf. Euseb. H. E. vi. 20. It is probable that Caius ex- 
cluded the Epistle to the Hebrews from the number of Si 
Paul's Epistles, in opposition to somo Montanists (ciri9ro|u- 
(tty). Cf. Schwegler, Montan. 287 f. 



such a character it is more surprising that Mani chap. hi. 
received the Christian Scriptures in any sense 
than that he brought them to the test of a merely 
subjective standard. And it is an important 
symptom of the popular feeling of the time, that 
the Manichseans 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 Manichseans^ Gene- 
rally, however, he speaks of the Manichseans as 

^ Cf. BeauBobre, Hist, de Manich. i. pp. 297 sqq. 

> Beausobro is probably right in supposing that they 
generally acct^pted the Canon of the Peshito (i. pp. 294 sq.) ; 
but I do not think that he is right in limiting (p. 292) the 
EpistolcB CananicoB (Aug. c. Faust, xixii. 15) to the CcUholie 
Epistle?, though that is the later meaning of the phrase. 

3 De Util. Cred. 3. The Acts was generally much less 
known in the East than the other books of the New Testa* 
ment. Cf. Beausobre, 1. c. p. 293. 

* Cf. Lardner, ii. 63, 4. 


CHAP. III. admitting * the New Testament/ * the four Go- 
spels, and the Epistles of Paul/ in which most 
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 iL 1 ; V. 1 : de Util. Crod. Hi. 7. Far 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, cf. Epipb. Hser. Izri. 74 ; supr. 
p. 452 n. 3 ; and, on the other hand, BeauBobre, i. p. 292. 

^ Aug. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. 29, 60. Consequetur omnium 
litteranim gumma pervorsio, et omnium qui memorim man* 
dati sunt libronim abolitio ; si quod tanta populonim religione 
roboratum est, tanta hominum et temporum conBensione 
firmatum, in banc dubitationem inducitur, ut ne histoiia 
quidem Tulgaris fidem possit grayitatemque obtinere. 

' Aug. c. Faust, xzxii. 19; zzxiii. 6. 


But while the Manichseans admitted the chap, in . 
original authority of the Scriptures of the New 5^;^°jJ,, 
Testament, they appealed to other books for the nanichMs.'^ 
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 uieie 

attest the 

false prophecies, they presuppose some authentic SSy ° **^ 
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 formula (ap. Cotcl. PP. App. i. 637 sqq., 
referred to by Beausobrr,) is extn^mely interest iDg. The 
passage more directly bewaring on our subject is : apa$€futTi{» 
noma ra dt^yfiara ica\ cvyypofifiara rot; MmvTos,,.Kal ndcras rits 
MavixaiKas ^ifiXovt, olov to pgKpoimop avriiP fvayycXcoy, oirfp 
(£)¥ KokovfTif Koi TOP Sfjo-avpop Tov BapoTov, tp Xtyovai Bricavpop 
{(arjt, Ka\ ttjp iuiKovyL€vriP fixKmfpliap /^i/3Xor...«eai Trfp t&p awoKpir' 
0a)r, Koi T^p r(ur dirofivrifiOPtvfiaTmp.,. 

> Turibius, quoted by Bcausobro, i. p. 348. 

' Bcausobre (i. pp. 348 sqq.) has given a general rcTJew 
of their contents ; and I have noticed them elsewhere. 



CHAP. III. Besides the direct imitations of the Apostolic 
Other Apo< books thcFC afc two other Apocryphal writings 
writings. ^hich 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- rcprcscnt thc result ^ In the Testament of the 

mntt of the ^ 

uZrcht!"' Twelve Patriarchs, and in some of the Sibylline 
^Jiaf'"' 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 

^ The Testament of the TvreWo Patriarchs is quoted bj 
Origcn (Horn, in Jos. xr. 6). Fricdliob has giron a summary 
of thc probable dates of the Sibylline Oracles (Orac SibylL 
Einl. $ 32). 


the New Testament. Besides numerous allusions chap. ni. 
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 Jj*pj2!*"y ^ 
8ons^ ' 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 (of. 
p. 191 n.) is the only fact which occurs to me. Orac. Sibyll. 
Ti. 6. Cf. Tii. 84. 

s Test. Len, § 18; Hebr. yii. 22 — 24. Issachar, { 7; 
i. John T. 16, 17. Dan. § 5 ; Apoc. xxi. 

Orao. Sibyll. i. 125 sqq. ; ii. Pet. ii. 5. Lib. ii. 167 sqq.; 
ii. Thess. ii. 8 — 10. Lib. riii. 190 sqq. Apoc. iz. ice. 

» Test. Benj. } 11. 


CHAP. iiL his word, and he shall be chosen of God for 

Th« evidence In addition to other evidence that of the 

of the heft- ■' * /• r^t • • • « 

!!rat»o?^ heathen opponents of Christianity must not be 
chrbiiantty. 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. 
CftLsts. 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 (cd. Schwartze ct Petcrmann, JBM. 1861). 
Petcrmann describes it simply as * ab OphitA quodam supe- 
riori scriptum ' (Pref. p. Tii.). It contidns 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 : isto est qui scribit ret 
omnes quas Jesus dixit et quas fecit omnes ' (p. 69). 

« Orig. c. Cels. ii. 13, 74. 

' The title of Celsus' book was A($yor akijOfis, and Origen 
has answered it at length. The following references will be 
sufficient: Matt. ii. Orig. o. Cels. i. 34; Mark tL 3» id. tL 
36 (where Origen had a false reading) ; Luke iii. id. iL 32 ; 
John xix. 34, id. ii. 36. Celsus eridently considered that the 
different Gospels were incorrect revisions of one original ; 
id. ii. 27. All the facts which Origen quotes from GelBOt 
are, I believe, contained in our Canonical Gospels ; jet cf. 
Orig. in Cels. ii. 74. 

this, but both Celsus'and Porphyry appear to chap. in. 

have been acquainted with the Pauline Epistles*. ??""^**- 

T (304. 

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 gJ'J'fSJ^^Jf 
wider view, it is evident that the results of the pStoST*"** 

Itt work to 

last three chapters confirm what was stated at~j^jj^^^. 
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. 
T. 64 ; cf. Gal. vi. 14. Porphyr. ap. Hieron. Comm. in Galat. 
i. 15, 16 (T. iv. p. 233); H. 11 (id. p. 244). 

s Cf. Ullmann, Stud. a. Krit. r. 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. 
II sqq.) gires a poor imitation of Apoc. xii. But the striking 
description which ABisrmES (ad Plat. ii. T. ii. pp. 398 sqq. 
Df.) draws of the Christians is yery worthy of notice, espe- 
cially when compared with Lucian's (de Peregr. ii. 13). 
LoNoraus' testimony to the eloquence of * Paul of Tarsus' 
(fr. 1, ed. Weiske) is generally considered spurious. 



c()N- was an aire of research and thought, but at the 

CLUSION. ^* • 

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. 

it WW fertile Thcrc was, however, among Christians a 

in controvert 

''"* 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 remote 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, 26, 28 ; t. 22, 46. 


The whole body was instinct with a sense of con- 

•^ CLU8I0N. 

truth and ready to maintain it. 

Yet even controversy failed to create a spirit ^^t^w^ 
of historical inquiry. TertuUian once alludes to Sy KiSk 

. • criticitm. 

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 

• gain no new 

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-«>«oid«re 

itrongly con- 

ledged books, coming from every quarter of the ra«rds'£ 
Church and given with unhesitating simplicity, '"^j^ »«>*/. 
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 thedispuud 

bocks, and 

1 Tert. de Pudic 11. 

H H 2 


coN-_ not universally received seem to have been in 
- most cases rather wiknown than rgected. 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 
Apocryphal not doubt thcir 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 g^ve 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 IB a satisfaction to find that the opinion which I hare 
given on the testimonies of Gains and Dionysius (pp.307, 411) 
is confirmed by that of Munster in a special tract on the 
subject : Do Dionys. Alex. Judic. c. Apocal. Hafma^ 18% 
pp. 35 sqq. 67 sqq. 



A.D. 303—397. 

Solid CIS Scripturanim libris qui jam Canonici* appol- 
lantur, didici hunc timorem honorcmque deferre, ut nullum 
eorirm auctorcm scribendo aliquid errasse firmussime credam. 

— AcausTiNus. 




*En\fjp»Ori rd* nvp ^\6op fiaXtip €v\ r^w yfjp ovk CHAP. I. 
d<f>avtaTuc6v aXKit jca^a^ucdv.— Athanasius. 

Though we do not possess any public Acts of TiMpeneeu. 

tion of Dio- 

the Ante-Nicene Church relative to the Canon, SlS? tai^t 
the zeal of its enemies has in some degree sup- SEmJo^ 


plied the deficiency. During the long period of •"***» 
repose which the Christians enjoyed after the 
edict of Gallienus, the character and claims of ^i a.c. 
their sacred writings became more generally 
known ^ and o£fered 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- sos-sii 

A C 

cution'; and his e£forts were more formidable 
because he was well acquainted with the history 
and doctrines of Christianity. 

1 Cf. Lact. Instit Dif. t. 2: Alius [Hierocle8]...quiBdam 
capita [Scriptune Sacrss] quse repugnare sibi videbantur 
ezposuit, adeo multa, adeo intima enumerans, ut aliquando 
ex eadem diBciplioa fuisse ?ideatar...pr8ecipae tamen Paulum 
Petrumque iacerayit... 

s Lact lofitit. Dir. 1. c. De Mort. Penec. 16. 


CHAP. I. The first result of this persecution was to 

productive create dissensions within the Church itself. A 


chhrtfant large section of Christians availed themselves of 
necMMriiy thc meaus 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 
to a clearer of thc controvcrsy. But schism as well as per- 


r?LSfniV* 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 others. The stricter 
Christians required clear grounds for visiting the 
'traditores** with Ecclesiastical censures'; and 

1 Of. Neander, Gh. Hist. i. p. 205. Augustin. Brer. ColL 
Donat. iz. 568, e. f (ed. Bened.); c. Cresc. iii. 30. Credner 
(Zur Gesch. d. K. b. 66) gives another interpretation to 
scripturcB 8uperv<icuce in the Acts of Felix. 

2 Cf. Append. A. Credner, a. a. O. 

3 Concil. Arelat. ziii.: De his qui scripturas sanctas tra- 
didisso quicunque eorum ex actis pubUeii fuerit 



the more pliant were anxious not to compromise chap. i. 
their faith, while they were willing to purchase 
peace by obedience in that which seemed in- 

But though it is evident that an ecdesias- gj.*jjjj^ 
tical canon must have been formed before the mi^^e 
close of the persecution of Diocletian, it is not ''^• 
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 Csecilian 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. 

s Acta ap. Labb^, ConciLii. 501 (ed. Mansi, Fhrent. 1769); 
Angustin. ix App. p. 29. Felix F. P. P. curator Paulo 
Episcopo dixit: Proforte icriptitrcu le^itf et si quid aliud 
hie habetis, ut prssceptum est, ut Jussioni parere possitis. 


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' 
(deifies), 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 

this Canon 

^ftmn^e collection ? The answer to this question must 
after the war- bc sought for iu the rcsults of the persecution. 

lecution in ^ ^ 

^DwSSsu. 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 Csecilian 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 Constan tine, the rup- 

Paaliu episcopus dixit : Scripturas lectores babent, sed nos 
qaod bio habemus damus. Afterwards the command is 
simply: Proferte scripturas. Id. p. 509. Paronti Felici 
salutem : Cum Ingentius coliega meus Augentianum amicom 
suum conreniret et inquisisset anno duoviratus mei, an ali* 
qusB 8criptur<B legis vestras secundum sacram legem adostas 
sint...(Tbese passages are quoted by Credner, a. a.0.) A 
similar phrase occurs also in Augustine, Ps. c. Donat. T. ix. 
p. 3 B ; Erant quidam traditores librorum de sctcra lege. Cf. 
Oommod. Inst. i. Pref. 6. On the relation of the words lex, 
regtda and kop^p, see Credner, 1. c. 


ture became complete. The ground of the chap. i. 
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 a perfect 
New Testament. 

1 August. Bp. cxziz. 3. 

' Aug. c. Cresc. i. xxxL 37 : Proferte eerie aliqaem de 
Bcripturis Canonicis, [quarum nobis est communis auctoritas] 
...The last clause, if it be uncertain in this place, occurs 
without any rariation at the end of the chapter. 

' De Unit. Eccles. ziz. 61. 

^ The only disputed books from which I have noticed 
quotations in Tichonius (Aug. c. £p. Parm. T. iz. p. 11) are 
the second Epistle of St John (Gallandi, Bibl. Pp. Tiii. p. 124), 
and the Apocalypse (id. pp. 107, 122, 125, 128). 


CHAP. I. From Africa we pass to Palestine. Among 

RvuuH^ the witnesses of the persecution there was 
e. 270—340 Euscbius the friend of Pamphilus, afterwards 

A C 

bishop of CsBsarea, 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 

Huchawc- trial on his later opinions. But the great fault 
of Euscbius 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. 

Hit first M- The manner in which he approaches the 

count of the * * 

cSSS!"*^ 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. 

2 H. £. Hi. 3. The title of the Chapter is : Uwpii rmw 


one Epistle, which is called his former Epistle, chap. i. 
is generally acknowledged ; of this also the 2f^^^ 
ancient presbyters have made frequent use {Kara- 
Kcxp^vrai) in their writings as indisputably 
genuine {dvajuL<pi,\€KTip). But that which is cir- 
culated as his second Epistle we have received 
to be not canonical (ivSidOriKov) ; still as it ap- 
peared useful to many it has been diligently 
read (iairov^curOti) 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 (ovSi o\w^ iv 
KaOoXiKoi^ irapaSiod/uieva), because no ecclesias- 
tical writer in ancient times or in our own has 
made general use {awexpiiaaro) 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 {eyifwp) one epistle only 
as genuine {yvtfaiaii) and acknowledged by the 
ancient presbyters. 

* Of Paul the fourteen epistles commonly or at mw. 
received (ai SeKareaaape^) are at once manifest 

tnurrokw r»v airoar^kvp, yet he makes no allusion to the 
Epistles of St John, and digresses to other writings. 

1 i. o. canonical. This use of the word xaBokucSs is illus- 
trated by the Concil. Carthag. zziv. Int. Gr. (given in 
App. D.) 

— - ".•-^,^eu as indi 

ml"' ' ^ince f Iio same 

the end of the Epia 

mention among otl 

Shepherd is said to 

this boolt has been 

fore it could not bet 

>xx>i. thongh it has 

most necessarj' for ti 

elementary inatnictio 

™<>-/»7i,,'). In o„„, 

that it has been for 

w>»i«w.'»,) in chureh 

some of the most anoi 

of it. 

'These remarks a 
"'("'"■o™) the divin. 
eontrojertible tf™„,^ 


Apostle St John. While doing this he quotes chap. i. 
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 ^^^T joffi* 
in all the churches under heaven ;' and so Euse- j^ieni le- 

mariu on the 

bins proceeds to speak on the other Gospels, oon>eu. 
prefacing his criticism with some remarks on 
Apostolic gifts which illustrate his view of in- 
spiration'. 'Those inspired and truly godlike 
men (0€<77r€O'ioi xal aXfjOvis deoTrpeTreTs), 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 {iSiwrevovTe^ ri/i/ yXwtT' 
<Tav), 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 (oi/coi/^ei/i?), giving little heed to the 
labour of written composition {aTrovS^i t^« trepi 
TO \oyoypa(f>€7v). And this they did as being 
wholly engaged {e^vrrripeTovjuLevoi) in a greater 

» H. E. iii. 24. 


CHAP. I. and superhuman ministry. For example, Panl 
who 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 {(poiTtrrcd) 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 



time by the testimony of antiquity ^ There is chap.i. 
nothing to show that Eusebius carried his inten- 
tion into effect, and, without further break, he 
proceeds*: *But now we have arrived at this gunnuphu 
point, it is natural that we should give a sum- ^^J^^ 
mary catalogue of the writings of the "New**"**"** 
Testament to which we have already alluded'. 
First then we must place the holy quaternion of JjJJJj^ 
the Gospels, which are followed by the account 
of the Acts of the Apostles. After this we 
must reckon the Epistles of Paul ; and next to 
them we must maintain as genuine {Kvpwreov) 
the Epistle circulated {(pepofiepti) 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 scattored testimonies which he quotes from Justin 
(ir. 18), Theophilus (ir. 24), Irenseus (ri. 26), Origen (it. 26), 
and Dionysius (rii. 25) can scarcely be considered to satisfy 
this promise. 

« II. E. iii. 26. 

4>af* It seems incredible that there should hare been any 
difference of opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. Eu- 
sebius had mentioned before all the books of the New Tes- 
tament which he here accepts : Four Gospels, iii. 24 ; Acts, 
ii. 22 ; fourteen Epistles of St Paul, iii. 3 ; seren Catholic 
Epistles, ii. 23, iii. 24 ; Apocalypse, iii. 24. 

^ UpoTtpa not irptoTTf. Gf. pp. 83. n. 3 ; 436, n. 2. 

fi El yr <f>av€iri. The difference between this and ri </;a- 
ptitj below must not be left unnoticed. 




CHAP. I. in due course. And these are regarded as gene- 
rally received {iv ofjLoXoyovfxivoi^). 
<s)TheD/#. <Amon^ the controverted books, which are 

jniUd Books ^ 

rtapiSSmi, 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. 
t^pm- t We must rank as spurious (voOoi) 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 (cl (paveiri), 
which some^ as I said, reject (dderoi/o-i), 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 TvfopliKAv Tois noXkoU, Gf. H. E. iii. 38. The word 
yv^pifios implies a familiar knowledge. It is a singular 
coincidence that Alex. Aphrod. (de. an. 2, qaoted by Ste- 
phens) ases it in connexion with another Eusebian word. 
Speaking of Time and Place he says: t6 fUw c&oi ypnpifiow 
Ka\ Qpafi<f)i\€KTov, 


attached. All these then will belong to the chap.i. 
class of controverted books. 

* It has been necessary for us to extend our SooET**'**' 
catalogue to these, in spite of their ambiguous 
character {tovtwv ofiw^ tou KaraXoyov Trevonf- 
iuLe6a), having distinguished the writings which 
are true and genuine {dnXdarovi), and generally 
acknowledged^ according to the ecclesiastical 
tradition, and the others besides these, which, 
though they are not canonical (evSiaOiiKov^) but 
controverted, are nevertheless constantly recog- 
nized (7i7i/ci;(r/coMei/a9) by most of our ecclesias- 
tical authorities {eKKXriataariKwii), 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, 
{(ppcureu^) which varies from the apostolic spirit 
(irapa to fiOoi to airoaToXiKov evaXXaTTei), and 
the sentiment and piu*pose of their contents, 
which is utterly discordant with true orthodoxy, 

1 *Apc»fAo\oyTjfA«pov£, *A¥Ofio\oyti(r6ai differs from ^/aoXo- 
ytiirOai in bringing out the notion of examination, inquiry, 
and judgment. Cf. U. £. lii. 3, 21, 38 ; iv. 7. 



CHAP- '♦ clearly prove that they are forgeries of heretics ; 
whence we must not even class them among 
the spurious (i/odox?) books, but set them aside 
(irapairriTeov) as every way monstrous and im- 
Tw«^pj^ This last passage in which Eusebius professes 
^SSSi ^ 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 
2rb5)&dK dfl'ini to Apostolic authority into three principal 
it, ofVhich" 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 gire the 
conclusions at which I hare arriyed. The best separate 
essay on it which I know, is that of LUcke (Berlin, 1816), 
which is not, however, by any means free from faults. 

' Thus under different aspects the same book may be 
differently described. The Epistle of Clement (1), for in- 



as CanoDical, it was requisite that its authenti- _chap^^ 
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 3JJ5^2J|„ 
felt as to the exact extent and definition of the £to i^ 
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 canonlcity (H. E. ri. 13). 

Origen once adopts a triple dirision of books claiming 
Apostolic authority somewhat different (Gomm. in Joan. ziii. 
17) : ,..f$tTa{ovT€S irtpl rov /3t/3Xiov \tov lajpvyfUKrot Uirpov] 
fr6T€p6v 7F0T€ '/vf^o'iSv taruf rj v6Bo¥ tj fwcr^if (a genuine work, 
a spurious work falsely inscribed with St Peter's name, or a 
work containing partly true records of St Peter's teaching, 
partly spurious additions to it). 



^^^'^' 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. £. i. 12 ; ii. 1 ; vi. 13). Gf. p. 49. 

> Though Eusebius does not here use the word airdxpv- 
(f>osy yet as he elsewhere applies it (H. £. ir. 22) to the 
books fabricated by heretics, it will be well to trace its 
meaning briefly : 

i. The original sense is clearly get apart from sight as 
distinguished from the simple hidden^ (K(nmT6s) the notion 


According to this view of the passage, then, <^hap.l 
it appears that £usebiu8 received as ^Divine 
Scriptures' the acknowledged books, adding to 

of separation or removal being brought prominently forward. 
Of. Sirac. zlii. 12 (LXX.) : dvyanjp irarpi air6Kpv<f>o£ aypvfrvia. 
Gen. zziy. 43 (Aqu.) ; Dan. zi. 43 ; Col. ii. 3 ; Mark it. 22; 
Luke Till. 17; Matt. zi. 25; zzt. 18; i. Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 
1 ; Col. i. 26 {anoKpxmrtiv X <f>aptpovv), 

ii. From this sense various others branch out correspond- 
ing to the sereral motives which may occasion the conceal- 
ment. As applied to books, concealment might be caused 
by their 

(a) Esoteric ralue, as containing the secrets of a religion 
or an art. Cf. Ez. yii. 11, 22 (Symm.); Suid. in Pherecyde 
(quoted by Stephens) : fj<ncrja'€ dc iavrbv icnja'dfKPog rii ^oun^ 
Ktav a7r6Kpv<l)a fiifiXia, As such heretics brought forward 
writings under the names of prophets and apostles ; cf. Grig. 
Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 28. 

(/S) Mysterious or ambiguous character, as containing 
that which specially needs interpretation or correction from 
its difficulty or imperfection. Cf. Sirac. zzziii. 3, 9 ; (Xen. 
Memor. iii. 5, 14 ; Conr. riii. 11). In the first sense the 
word is applied to the Reyelation by Gregory of Nyssa 
(Orat. in Ordin. suam, T. i. p. 876, ed. Par. 1615) : ^icovo-a 
rov cvoyycXicrroO *Ioi>ayyot; rV anoKpv<f>ois di alviyfiaros Xryor- 
Tof... ; and in the other commonly to the so-called ' Apocry- 
pha ' of the Old Testament. Cf. Grig. prol. in Cant. s. f. 

(y) In the last sense the word offered a contrast to 
MTjfio(ri€Vfi€voSf and so came to be applied to books wholly 
set aside from the use of the Church. Thus it is first used 
by Irenoeus, i. 20 (with some allusion probably to the claims 
made by the writers of the books ; cf. Clem. Str. i. 16, § 69): 
dfiv$TfTOP wXfjBos dnoKpvf^tav itol v6$tav ypa<f>£Pt it avroi SirXa- 
(rav vapttaxJHpova-iv.,,; Atbanat. Ep. fest. (Ka»awi(6iJitvat tUfO' 
yi¥^vK6ptva, dir6Kpv<f)a) ; Cyril. Catech. ir. 36. Cf. Schlensner, 
Lez. Vet. Test, and Suicer s. v. ; and Reuss, Gesch. der 
Heil. Schrift. $ 318. 


C HAP. L them the other books m our present Canon, and 
Srhta"cMS5 ^^ others, on the authority of most writers, with 
TertunentT this Single exception, that he was undecided as 
^USS^v!"^ ^ *^® 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 siunmary of the Epistle to 

JJj^l^'othe 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 Paulas, even if 

it had been translated by St Luke, or (as he was 

thecattoiic morc inclined to believe) by Clement*. With 

regard to the Catholic Epistles, after speaking 

of « </«jj2» of the martyrdom of James the First, he says' : 

Sd^gen- ' ' The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is said 

to be his. But I must remark that it is held by 

^ H. E. Yi. 13: KixpfjTat d* [6 JLki]firis].,.TaU ott^ r&v dm- 
\ryofUva)v fiaprv plait,,, koi rrjs itpht 'Efipalovt ririoroX^r, rrj^ re 
Bapvafia koi KXiffiiprot Koi *Iovda. 

> H. E. iii. 38. For his use of the Epistle, see Eclog. 
Proph. i. 20 (ed. Oaisfd, Ox. 1842): 6 dir6(rTo\os...€v rj wp^s 
'Efipaiovs avimi^€i.,.(f>rj(riv' Hebr. i. 5; so iii. 23: 6 Oavfuurios 
djnJoToXof • Hebr. iy. 14 ; c. Marc, de Eccl. Theol. i. 20 : icol 
dpxifpia dff avrbv 6 avrhs d7r6aro\os [HavXot] diroKakti Xryc^y 
Hebr. ir. 14 ; c. Marc. ii. 1. Comm. in Ps. (ed. MontfaucoDy 
Par. 1706) i. 175 sq., 248, kc. 

» H. E. ii. 23. 


some to be spurious (voOevcTai). Certainly not ^^-^p-'- 
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 of Mwrnc*. 


know that these have been publicly used with the •«i^«x* 
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 withofthe^ixNM- 
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 

^ Comm. in Ps. i. p. 247 : Xcyri yovp 6 Up6s *Air6arokos' 
James t. 13; id. p. 64S: rrjg ypa(f)fjs Xtyovarjt' ProT. zx. 13; 
James ir, 11. Cf. id. p. 446; c. Marc, de Eccl. TheoL ii. 
26 ; iii. 2. 

> On the contrary cf. Theophania, t. 39 (p. 323, Lee). 



cH^i;_ antiquity. 'It is likely/ he says in one place, 
* 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) 

^vtu^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 

1 H. E. iii. 39. 

2 Gf. H. £. iii. 18, 29. Eclog. Proph. iv. 30: Kara r^ 
'laMuon^v Apoc. xiy. 6. Cf. id. iv. 8 ; Demonstr. Et. yilL 2 : 
KOTO, rrfv *AiroKaXvylnv 'laapvov Apoc ▼. 6. No reference to it 
occurs, howerer, in his Commentaries on the Psalms and on 
Isaiah, published by Montfaucon. 




Non doctrina et sapientia, sed Domini auxilio pax ec- chap. ii. 
clesiffi reddita. — Hierontmus. 

No sooner was Constantine's imagination comtantine's 
moved by the sign of the heavenly cross (if we "^ gjjjp;^ 
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. « Euseb. V. C. liL I. 


CHAP. II. written on parchment and convenient for use, 
by the help of skilful artists accurately acquainted 
with their crafl^' 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'.' 

M the rule of Durfng the fi^rcat controversies which agi- 

ooDtroveny. o o o 

tated the Church throughout his reig^, 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. » Euseb. V. C. ir. 17. 

« Euseb. V. C. xvii. 

* Euseb. V. C. It. 24. Cf. Heinichen, Exc. ad 1. 


think of the Divine Nature. Let us then banish chap.ii. 
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 Mn truth the exact ex- 
pression of the Divine Law'.* 

The criterion laid down by Constantine was Hoiyscnp- 
also acknowledged by the leaders of the con- ^^^ 
flicting parties in the Church. Alexander was dSHnglte 
bishop of Alexandria at the time when the 2Jg»oJS|. 
opinions of Arius, 'a presbyter in the city en-****^"^ 
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 Cone. Nic. ii. 7. Theodor. H. E. i. 7. 

* Gelasius statos (Pref.) that his work was composed 
during the persecutions of Basiliscus (476 a. c.) Photius 
has criticised the book, cc. 15, 88. Gelasius quotes i. Tim. 
iii. 16, & €<l>ap€pi»$rif which is rery remarkable in an Elastem 
writer (Hist. ii. 22). 

' Ep. Const, ap. Gelas. Hist. Ck>nc. Xie. ii. 27. Socr. 
H. EL i. 6. 

* Theodor. H. E. i. 2. 


CHAP. II. 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. xxTiii. the Lord's words, as the Catholic Church and 

19. ' 

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^. 

^ Ep. Alex. ap. Qelas. Hist. Cone. Nic. ii. 3. (Socr. 
IL E. i. 3). Hebr. i. 3 ; xiii. 8 ; ii. 10. ii. John 11. So 
also Ep. Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. (Labbe, Concil. 
ii. p. 14) (TvyL(fxdva yovv Touroir ^oq. kclL 6 fteyako(l>€ap6raTot 
Haxlkos <i>aiTKfav ntpl avrov' Hebr. i. 2. 

^ Ep. Arii ad Const. Imp. (ap. Labb^, Concil. ii. p. 464. 
Ed. Par. 1671). 

3 Theodor. pref. Ep. ad Hebr. Epiph. hcer. Ixix. 37. 

The famous Gothic Version of Ulphilas, who is gene- 
rally reputed to hare 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 Qoths. (Philostorg. ii. 6). SixtuB 
Sinensis, howerer, says: 'omnes dirinas Scripturas in 
€K)thicam linguam a se conrersas tradidit et catbolice expli- 
cayit' (Massmann, p. 98). The version as it stands at 


The discussions which took place at Nice ^"^^"^ 
were in accordance with the principle thus laid cJSlScffS?*' 
down, if the history of Gelasius be trustworthyi. 1.0/325. 
Scripture was the source ^om 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 subjects 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, a. a. 0.). A great part of the Gospels and 
Pauline Epistles has been published: the former chiefly 
from the siUer 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 Et. Johannis 
u. s. w. H. F. Massmann, Munieh, 1834). 

1 Hist. ConcNic. ii. 13—23. Labbe, Concil. ii. 175—223. 
Phoebadius (c. 359 a. c.) asserts the same fact. 

s Gclas. Hist. Cone. Nic. ii. 19. KoBtis <f)ri<rt koI 6 
UavkoSf r^ (TKivos rfjs cxXoy^Ci rots 'Efipalott ypaff>tAv' Hebr. 
IT. 12; id. ii. 19. cV KaBokiKoit ^IcMwyrjt 6 rvayycXurr^f /So^* 
1. John iii. 6. Cf. ii. 22. For the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
see also Sozom. H. E. i. 23. 

3 Jerome (Pref in Judith, i. p. 1169) says: quia hunc 
librum synod us Nicsena in numero sanctarum scripturarum 
legitur computasse, acquievi postulationi tu» (to translate 
it). No reference to the book of Judith occurs in the 


CHAP. II. The canons set forth by the synods which 

Sli«*'£5Sl. followed the general Council of Nice, at Gangra 

k^^tut' in Paphlaffonia, at Antioch in Syria, at Sardica 

SiSSSSl 1^ Thrace, and at Carthage, were chiefly directed 

to points of ritual and discipline, yet so that in 

the last Canon of the synod at G-angra 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 ^* 

JftSdiSiu The first synod at which the books of the 

Its (Ute. 

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 

^ Cone. Gangr. Can. xxi f. 


of the questions discussed, is decisive for a later chap. ii. 

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 St/ria at the 
time of the Council of Nice. But the statement 
of Gratian really points to a very different con* 
elusion ; for Epiphanius mentions another Theo- 
dosius, bishop of Philadelphia^ who is said to 
have convened a synod in the time of Jovian c,ae^A.c. 
for the purpose of condemning certain irregular 
ordinations S 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 

^ The name is omitted in the Latin Version of Isidore, 
but it is contained in the Greek text and in the Version of 
Dionysius Exijsruus. Phrygia was not divided into different 
provinces till afUT the Council of Sardis, hence the title — 
Phrygia Pacatiana — points to a date later than 344 a.0. 
Cf. Spittler, Werke, Wii. 68 (ed. 1836). 

s Grat. Deer. Dist. z^i. c. 11. [Synodus] sexta Laodi- 
censis, in qua patres zxzii. statuerunt Canones lxi. (tic ed. 
1648 ; LXiii. ed. AntT. 1673X quorum auctor maxime Theo- 
dosius episcopus exstitit. 

9 Epiph. Uter. kxUL 26. * PhUostorg. TiiL 3, 4. 


cHAP.ii. fact explains the omission of all reference to 
* J, 

the Nicene Canons, which would otherwise be 
TheiMtLao- The date of the Synod of Laodicea (which 

dioen0 Craon 

kiSitCJi'' w^ ^^ ^*^^ ^"^y * 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 considered. In the printed editions of 
the Councils, the Catalogue stands as an undis- 
puted part of the G-reek text, and the whole 
Canon reads as follows : 

* Psalms composed by private men {jLhiwTiKov^) 
must not be read {Xe^/ecQai) in the Church, 

^ Cf. Pag], Grit, ad Baron, ann. 314, xzy. ; Baron. 0pp. 
Tom. yi. (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. 

BoTeridge 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, Yalens and Gratian 
(Theodor. H. E. \y. 6) to the bishops dtouc^crffloff 'Acrcoy^ff, 
^fwyias, Kapo<f)pvyiaSf UaKOTiavfjs, urging them to hold a synod 
on some who had been reriying the Homoousian contro- 
yersy, and ako on the choice of men of approyed fiuth for 
the episcopate (Pand. Can. ii. 3, p. 193). 

^ Gratian (1. c.) says it consisted of ' xxxii. fathers.' Har- 
duin quotes a different yersion of Gratian's statement from 
a Parisian MS. of Isidore: Laodicensis synodus, in qu4 
Patres vi^nH qiMtuar statuerunt Canonee Lix. quorum 
auctor maxiroe Theodosius episcopus exstitit, subBoribentibus 
Niceta, Macedonio, Anatolio, et ceeteris. 


nor uncanonical (aKapoviffra) books, but only chap.ii. 
the canonical [books] of the New and Old 

'How many books must be read {avayipw" 

Of the Old Testament: I. 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 
i. ii. 12. Esdras i. 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 Romans i. 
To the Corinthians i. ii. To the Galatians i. 
To the Ephesians i. To the Philippians. i. To 
the Colossians i. To the Thes^^alonians i. ii. To 
the Hebrews i. To Timothy i. ii. To Titus i. 
To Philemon i.* 

1 Cf. App. D. The Canons are rariouily numbered, but 
the oldest and best authorities which contain both these 
paragraphs combine them together as the uxth Canon. 
Cf. Spittler, a. a. O. 72. 

K K2 



CHAP. II Of this Canon the first paragraph is recog- 

nized as genuine with unimportant variatioiis 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 

SSJiIto M- ^^ ^^ claims to authenticity, it will be necessary 

^^jSrtSlb^to notice briefly the different forms in which 
the Canons of the ancient Church have been 

uS^^ "^^^ Greek MSS. of the Canons may be divided 

into two classes, those which contain the simple 
text, and those which contain in addition the 

with Scholia, 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, Tiii. 66 ff. 
ed. 1835), whose essay was published in 1776, and agiun 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 hare been displaced by the general 
reception of the Apostolic Canons and Catalogue of Scripture. 



late as the xvth. The evidence on the disputed 
paragi-aph 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 59 th 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 I am acquainted are the following : 
(a) Cod. Barocc. (Bihl. Bodl.) 26 (7), ssec. xi. inountis. 

Cod. Miic. (Bibl. Bodl.) 170 (12), 8»c. xir, xt. 
These omit the Canon altogether. 

03) Cod. Barocc. Mus. Bodl. 185 (18), sa)C. xi. exeuntis. 
Gives the Canon after a yacant space. 
Cod. Vindob. 56, siec. xi. On a new page with red 

dots above and below. (Bickell, p. 595.) 
Cod. StUL (Bibl. Bodl.) 48 (10), ssec. xiii. All in red 
(y) Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 196 (16), anno MXLm ex- 
Cod. Misc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 206 seec. xi. exeuntis. 
Cod. Cant. (Bibl. Univ. Ee. 4. 29 22), bbbc. xii. 
These give the Catalogue under a rubric ova — dta^ioyr, 
but not as a new Canon. 

(d) Cod. Lauef. (Bibl. Bodl.) 39 (2l), bsdc. xi. ineontb. 
As part of 59. 
Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 205 (18), snc. xiv. Ab a 

new Canon. 
Cod Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl) 158 (23), sec. xr. As a 
new Canon. 

CHAP. n. 


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. 

veSSii*^" 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 Dio^ysius and Isidore are 
completed In the first of these, which dates 
from the middle of the sixth century, though it 
exists in two distinct recensions, th^^e 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 belieye, quoted 
OD this question for the first time ; and for the account of 
all the Bodleian MSS. I am indebted to the kindness of the 
Rot. H. O. Coze. 

^ In the account of the Latin versions I have chiefly 
followed Spittler, a. a. O. 98 ff. Cf. Bickell, 601 ff. 

2 Spittler, p. 116. Cf. Bickell, p. 606. 

Latin versions for and against the authenticity chap. ii. 

of the Catalogue is nearly balanced, the testi- 
mony of Italy confronting that of Spain. 

The Syriac MSS. of the British Museum are ^Jjjg^ 
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 i sy«tein»- 
versions of the Canons, systematic collections Smuf 
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 A.r. 
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 *^^8 a.c 

^ The MSS. are numbered 14, 526; 14, 528; 14, 629. 
All of thorn 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.) 



cHAP.iL 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 difierent heads about the same time, and 
this contains no reference to the Laodicene 
Catalogue, but on the contrary the list of Holy 
Scriptiu*es is taken from the last of the Apo- 
stolic Canons. The Nomocanan 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. 
JJJ,^^ On the whole, then, it cannot be doubted 
^ of the that external evidence is decidedly against the 
cSSSr* authenticity of the Catalogue as an integral part 


of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can 
any internal evidence be brought forward suffi- 
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. Brae. pref. Incipiunt canones ex orientalibus 
antiquorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino ipso yel ab 
omni Bracarensi Consilio excerpti yel emendati. 


and not of Western origin ; and, except in de- chap, ii. 
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 Sfy^i'toitl' 
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 general reception at 

The later history of the Laodicene Canons JJ;^J*»- 
does not throw any considerable light on the c«noS^ 
question of the authenticity of the Catalogue*. 
Though they were originally drawn up by a pro- 
vincial (and perhaps unorthodox) synod, they 
were afterwards ratified by the Eastern Church 
at the Quinisextine Council of Constantinople, cwa. 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.c): Cono. 
Chalc. Can. i. But the wording of the Canon is very Tague. 


CHAP. II. sanctioned at the same Council; and though & 
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. xxi. The Catalogue of the 
books of Scripture in the last Apostolic Canon b 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 Quiniseztine 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^ 


a later time the Laodicene Catalogue was chap.ii. 
confirmed by a synod at Aix-la-Cbapelle 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- 
loTod.' 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' (qusest. 73.) At the 
Synod of Jerusalem (1672) Cyril was condemned for 'rejecting 
some of the books which the holy and oecumenical synods 
had receired 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. Uieros. 
xTiii. 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.' (Rimmel, p. 467. Cf. 
Prolog. § 11 on the Latin influence supposed to have been 
exercised on these documents.) In the Confession of Me- 
trophanos 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 yam 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 Ore- 
gory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and Johannes Damas- 
cenus, but no reference is made to the Laodicene Canon. 
(Rimmcl, 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. 
ReusB, § 338. 

808 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON 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. 

II. The third It is then necessary to look to the West 

Council ot ^ 

caithage. f^j. ^j^^ gj,g^ 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 

Thecanonof Holy Scripture. * It was also determined,' the 

Scripture J V , 

JjSriJed" 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, 

Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of chap.ii. 

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, Ezeehiel, 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 5Si^flI?" 
free from difficulties. The third Council ofcanoo. 
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.o.; 

1 Cf. App. D. A collection of the chief catalogues of 
Holy Scripture. 


cHjip II. so that the allasion to him is at first sight per- 
plexing. Yet this anachroniffln 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 synods 

ofFathen^ At this point then the voice of a whole pro- 

oo the Canon 

fJSIth*^ 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 

^ The Carthaginian Catalogue of the Books of Scripture 
18 found in the Canons of the Council of Hippo (393 a. o.) 
But mention is made in that of 'fourteen Epistles of Paul' 
instead of the strange circumlocution giren above. (Cone 
Hipp. 36.) 


without a general review of the principal evi- chap. ii. 
denee 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- 1. The 

churches of 

tian literature we find the ancient Canon of the ^•'^• 
Peshito still dominant at Antioch, at Nisibis, and 
probably at Edessa^ 

The voluminous writings of Chrysostom, who (*» Antioch. 
was at first a presbyter of Antioch and after- ^'^' 
wards patriarch of Constantinople, abound in t407A.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, eqq. 

3 Horn, in Joan. 34 (al. 33) riii. p. 230, ed. Par. nora; 
2 Pet. ii. 22. 

> Though Chrysostom nowhere quotes the Apocalypse 
as Scripture, he appears to hare been acquainted with it; 
and indeed it is difficult to suppose the contrary. Snidas 
(s. T. *l»dvyrji) says: dcx«ratd( 6 Xpifa^crroiiov icac ror rir«rroXaf 


CHAP. u. 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 
gr»iop»i#s. 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 
THFODOEi Catholic Epistles*. Theodore, a friend of Chry- 
"429A.0. 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 

airrov ras rpcir koi r^v 'AttokoXv^iv. If this be true, it is 
a singular proof of the inconclusiTeness of the casual eri- 
dence of quotations. 

1 It is however rery well worth notice that Palladiub, 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 eri- 
dent allusion to the second Epistle of St Peter. Dial. oc. 
18, 20. (ap. Chrysost. 0pp. T. xiii. pp. 68 ; 79 d; 68 o.) 

a Cf. App. D. 

* Conim. in Zachar. p. 642 (ed. Wegnem, Berl. 18S4), 
ots ^XPI^ al<r)(yp$fjvai yovv tov fiOKapiov UavXov rifp ffi^unjv.,, 

Hebr. i. 7, 8. Cf. Ebed Jesu^ ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. iii. 32, 8. 


probably understand that he received only the chap. ii. 
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 tbbodoiir. 
Antioch and bishop of Cyrus in Syria, used the 
same books as Chrysostom, and has nowhere 
quoted the four disputed Epistles or the Apo- 

Junilius, an African bishop of the sixth cen- ifi) sitibu. 
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 Coxnparo also what CoBmas says of SoTerian bishop of 
Gabala, (Montf. Anal. Pp. p. 135, Venet. 1781). The words 
of LcoiitiuB arc : Ob quam causam (because he rejected the 
book of Job) ut arbitror, ipsam Jacob! epistolam, et alias 
deincops aliorum Catholicas abrogat et antiquat. Non enim 
satis fuit illi bellum contra Teterem Scripturam suscipere ad 
imitationem impietatis Marcionis, sed oportuit etiam contra 
scripturam noram pugnare, ut pugna ejus contra Spiritum 
Sanctum clarior et illustrior esset (c. Neet. et Eutych* iii. 
ap. Canis. Varr. Lect. iv. 73. Ed. 1603). 

> Cf. LUcke, Comm. ilb. Job. 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. 


Apostles, that is: Jai 
John...' ' As to tlie j 
is considerable dou' 

■•D. tians'.,.' Ataverym 
a Nestorian bishop of 
century, has left a ca 
the Kcw Testament, 
hia summary of eccl 
catalogue exactly ag 
sbito, including four 
^ and ' three Catholic 
Apostles in every iA 
contains no allusion to 

wt The testimony of 

nately uncertain. Fo 
all the books of ou 
works, which are pres 
not aware that tbert 

1 The paougea t 
s Cf. Add. D. 

It i» ■ 


text more than one quotation of the Apocalypse, chap. ii. 
and perhaps an anonymous reference to the 
second Epistle of St Peter \ 

Johannes Damascenus, the last writer of the iouAvvEB 
Syrian Church whom I shall notice, lived at a"*"'* 
time when the Greek element had gained a 
preponderating influence in the East, and his^<;*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 churehMof 
even more desolate than the Churches of Syria, 

^ Ephr. Syr. 0pp. Syrr. ii. p. 332 c : Vidit in Apoca- 
lypsi sua Johannes librum magnum et admirabilcm et septem 
sigillis munitum.... id, ii. p. 342: Dies Domini fur est. (Cf. 
2 Pet. iii. 10.) Cf. Lardner, ii. c. cii. 

a Cf. App. D. 

s The Canons of Carthage were ratified by the Quini- 
seztine 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. 50G. 

LL 2 

urcgory, msnop ol 
I.e. rating the four ( 
Epistles of St Paul, 
Gregory adds ; ' In 
spired books; if ' 
these, it is oot amo 
and thus he ezclud 
Eastern Church, a 
Epistles with the A 
logue which bears 1 
monly (and rightly, 
^ contemporary AmpI 
This extends to a { 
mer. Beginning wi 
Gospels, of the At 
fourteen Epistles o 
* but some maintain 
brews is spurious, 
grace [it shows] is j 
remfuns ? Of the ' 


one of John.... The Apocalypse of John, again, chap. 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 

The extant writings of Gregory do notjjgjjj^ 
throw much additional light on his views on the S^%u'. 
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 CsBsarea. J"*®***^ 
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 Qreg.Naz. Or. zzyi. 5 (p. 475) ; James ii. 20. Of. Or. zl. 45. 

2 Greg. Naz. Or. zziz. p. 536 ; Apoc. i. 8 ; cf. Or. zL. 45 ; 
Apoc. i. 7; Id. Tom. i. p. 516 c (ed. Par. 1609): irpor dc 
Toi/s €<j}€irTcrras ayycXovf, wtiBofiai yap akkovs oXXi^r irpoorarcir 
tnKkrjaias, cor 'loxivr^f didocricct /if dta r^r dfroicaXv^c«»r.... 

3 Basil. Const. Monast. 26 (Ep. St James); adr. Eonom. 
ii. 14 (Apocalypse). 


CHAP. ir. 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 

The Apoca- But whatcvcr may have been the doubts as 

lypte re- "^ 

ceivedby ^^ ^j^^ cauouicity of the Apocalypse which were 
felt in Asia Minor at the close of the fourth 

Andrew or ccntury, thcy wholly disappeared afterwards. 

^y Andrew, bishop of Csesarea, 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, 
Irenaeus, Methodius, Hippolytus, and Gregory the 

armthas. Divine (of Nazianzus^). Arethas, who is sup- 
posed to have been a successor of Andrew in 
the see of Ceesarea, composed another com- 
mentary on the Apocalypse, and adds the name 

1 Greg. Nyss. Or, in ordin. suamy i. p. 876 (ed. Par. 1615): 
tlKovaa Tov cvayycXiorov *l<oavvov cv airoKpv^kOLt (in mysterious 
words) irpos tovs roiovrovs bi* aiviy/xaror Xcyoyror.... Apoc. iii. 
15 ; adr. ApoU. 37 (Gallandi, yI. 570 d) : rrjs ypa^s 6 \6yos 

^ The works attributed to Ca)8ariu8 (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 
D ; p. 100 e), to 2 Peter (Ilcrpor 6 KXudovxos r^r fiaaiktlas 
Tmp ovpav&v, p. 36 a) and to the Apocalypse, (p. 19 E.) 

* Prolog, ad Comm. in Apoc. ^outh, Belliq. i. p. 15. 


Basil to the list of the witnesses to its canonieity ohap. u. 
given by Andrew ^ 

In speaking of the Churches of Syria IchJSlidJe 
omitted to notice that of Jerusalem because it 
was essentially Greek. Cyril, who presided over ct«il. 
it during the middle of the fourth century, has t see 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 ^"■a**^*- 
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, (Ecum. et ArethcB Camm, in Apoe. p. 174, ap. 
Routh, 1. c. p. 41. Yet the words 6 cV ayloit Baatkttot are 
wanting in one MS. 

2 Cyr. Catoch. ir. 33 (al. 22); cf. App. D. 
s Epiph. adr. bier, lxxti. 5. App. D. 

4 Epiph. adv. hser. Li. 35: 6 oyiot 'Imanfiif di^ rov cvoy- 

other books, and ai 
the Apostles and t 
young converts, thoi 
in the Canon. The 
genes of heretics— 
Athanasius takes no 
opinion as to the ' ac 
books : in his judgit 
ical'. C;ril of Alei 
sium, at the beginnii 

!. use of the same hot 
reserve. Somewhat 

c. a commentary on t 
though he states th 
Peter ' was account' 

ytklev ml rwv (frurraXuv k 
plafutTot Tov aylov iitraiii 
1 Atbanaa. Ep. Feat. 
App. D. The Catalogue 
tained in the Si/noptii ! 


CaDon, though it was publicly read'.^ And in 
the middle of the fiflh century, as has been 
already seen*, Euthalius published an edition of edtbaliui. 
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 CeBsarea'. 

After the foundation of Constantinople thech^or 
new capital assumed in some degree the central ■wrx^ 

1 Did. Alex. ap. Bibl. SS. Patrr. tj. 650 b ; Nop est igitur 
igDoruidum pneBentom epiBloIam esse falaatam (cur roSti- 
rrai, EuBob. H. E. iii. 23, of the Epietle of St JameB), qaa 
licet publicetur (ttiiioauirrai, Eiucb. t. c) non tamen in ca- 
none e«t (oi* Ma8<tic6s t'rri. Euseb H. E. iii. 3). 

* Cf. pp. 449 sqq. There is no evidence to show what 
wat the judgment of Euthsliui on tbe Apocaljpse. 

* CosMAS, an Alexandrian of the liith century, at first a 
merchant and afterwarda a monlc, hna left a curious work 
On the World, in which, among other iligresBiona he gire* 
■ome accotint of the Holy Scriptnrea. He enumerateB the 
four Oospeli, the Acts, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, affirm- 
ing that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originall; written 
in Hebrew and trantUted into Greek bj St Luke or Cle- 
ment. His account of the Catholic Epistles is obscure and 
inaccurate. After answering an objection to one of his 
theoriea which migbt be drawn fWtm ii. Peter iii, 12, be 
proceeds to say that the Church has looked upon them aa 
of doubtful authority, that the Syrians only received three, 
that no commentator had written upon them. He sayi 
particularly that Ironsus only mentioned two, eridentlj 
mistaking Euseb. H, B. r. 8- Cosm. Indie, de mundo, rii. 
p. 136. Anal. Pp. Veoet. 1781. In the works of Diortbids, 
fiiliely called the Areopagitt, which probably belong to tb« 
beginning of tbe sixth century, it a mystical enumeration of 
the books of Holy Scripture, which includei the Apocalypse. 


CHAP. II. position of ^ old' Rome ; and Rome became mord 
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. 

A^it'*!**^ 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. 

LiowTius. 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 

NicBPHOBua. appended to the Chronographia of Nicephorus*. 

1 828 A.C. This contains all the books of the New Testa- 
ment, with the exception of the Apocalypse, as 

1 Cf. App. D. 

^ Credner has ozamined the Stichometry of Nicephorus, 
(cf. App. D.) in connexion with the Festal Letter of Atha- 
nasiuB and the Synopsis Sacrce Scriptures (Zur Gesch. d. R. 
} iii.) 


' received by the Church and aecounted canon- chap, ii. 
ical;' but the Apocalypse ie 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 Nicephonis 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 '^"^ 
a little later than Nicephorus, takes no notice 
of the Apocalypse, though be 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 ^(JJ"""" 
in Bulgaria, looked upon the Apocalypse as Apo- Jj^'""' 
stolic; but with this partial exception, the Canon '■^'"'*" 
of Constantinople was complete and pure*. 

1 I have followed the text of Credner, a. a. 0. p. 121. 

1 Two later writers of the Greek Church deatrre mea- 
tioD M witnessing to the current belief of their times. 
NlCEPBORUH Callisti, a monk of Constantinople, who wrote 
an Ecrlesiastioal Hiitor; about 13ZG A.t;., enumerates all the 
books of the New Testament as we receire (hem. ' SeTen 
Catholic Epistles, he saTi, the Church has receired of old 
time (Sva>6tr), and reckons them moit certainly (ui /idXiora) 
amon|r the books of the New Testament.... The Apocalypse 
we know to have been handed down to the Church. The 
books beaidea theM are iparioiu aad falsely named.' (H. E. 
ii. 45.) Leo Ai.i.ATica (flQSS) keeper of the Vatican Li- 
brary in the time of Alexander Til., says that ' in his time 
the Catholic Epistles and ApocalypM were received as true 


CHAP. u. In the Western Churches the doubts as to 
•.Thii the Epistle to the Hebrews coodnued to re- 
D^wa'aio appear for some time. Isidore of Seville in 
ih^Mnwi. 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, 
c. 370 i.c. I believe, by Optatus of Milevis (Uileum) in 
Africa, by Phoebadius or Vincent of Lerins in 
t e.3Bo *.o. Gaul, nor by Zeno of Verona*. Hihu^ of Home 
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 ^I 
Greece like the other Scriptures.' Fabr. Bibl, Qr. T. App. 
p. 33. 

1 Isid. Prvem. ^ 86 — 109. (T. 165 sqq. ed. Migne.) 
Cf. App. D. 

1 Pacian haa been quoted as onutting all mention of the 
Epiatle, but in fact he quotes it as St Paul's. Pac. Ep. iii. 
13: Apostolus it«ruin.,..Uebr. x, I, 

3 Pelag. Comm. in Rom. i. 17 (Hieron. 0pp. xi. 649, od. 
Migne): Sicut et ipse ad Uebneos perhibens dictt,... Hilar. 
Comm. in ii, Tim. i. : Nam siraili modo et in epistola ad 
Hebrteoi scriptum est Ambr. 0pp. V. p. 411 (ed. 1667). 


only one wbicb remained', and the influence of chap. ii. 
Jerome and Augustine did much to remove it. 

It was, indeed, impossible that the revised SS.?S' 
Latin Version of Jerome should fail to mould 
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 Bpecial decree 
was made affirming the authority of the Apocalypie: Apo- 
calyptin llbnim muUoruro concilioruTn auctoritat, et Bynodics 
MDCtorum pncBulum ItomanorDm decreta Johaonit ennge- 
liBtte ease Bcribunt, et inter dirinos libros recipieiidum con- 
stiiueruDt ; et quia pluriuii sunt qui ejus auctoritaieoi nOD 
rocipiant, eumque in ecclwia Dei pnedicare contemoant ; li 
quii eum deioceps aut non rcceperit, aut a Pascha usque ad 
Pcntecoston tniiBaruni tempore in eccletia non prtedicaTerit, 
eicomroDnicatioiiis aententiam babebit. {Concil. Tol. iv. 17.) 
Theae doubts are not, I believe, expressed by any LaUn 

* Cf. App. D. In his trestiBe ' On Hebrew Names' Je- 
rome enumerates all the books of the New Testament in 
order, except the second Epistle of St Jobn, which contains 
no name. The editions mark the names from the third 
Epistle (Diotrepbes, Demetrius, Guus) as belonging to the 
leeond. Cf. p. 435, n. 2. At the end, afi«r noticing the 
Apoealypee, Jerome explains some namea in tht EpittU to 
BanuJtxu. This book was written aboat 890 a.c. The 
treatiae'On Dlutrioiis Uen' was written in 802 a. o. 


CHAP. II. not so much by the custom of his own time» as 
by the authority of the ancients, and so he re- 
ceiTcd them both^' The Epistles of James and 
Jude, he says, gained authority in the course 
of time, having been at first disputed*; and 

1 HieroD. Ep. ad DaitL exxix. § 3 (414 a.c.): Hind nostris 
dioendtim est, bane epistolam quae inscribitar od Hfbrwo^ 
non solom ab ecclesiis orientis, eed ab omoibos retro eccle- 
siastieis GrsDci sermonis Bcriptoribos, quasi Panli apoatoli 
suscipi, licet pleriqae earn Tel Bamabn Tel Olementis arbi- 
trentnr; et nihil interesse cujos sit, cam eccleeiastici Tin ait 
et quotidie ecclesiarom lectione oelebretur. Qaod si earn 
Latinomm consuetudo non recipit inter scriptoras canonicas, 
nee Orsecorum qaidem ecclesisB Apocalypun Joannis eadem 
libertate suscipiant; et tamen nos atramqae snscipimiiB, 
neqaaqoam bajns temporis oonsnetudinem sed Tetemm 
scriptorum auctoritatem seqaentes, qui plerumqne utriusque 
abutuntur testimoniis, non at interdam de apocryphis facere 
Solent quippe qai et gentiliam litterarum raro atantor ex* 
emplis, sed quasi canonicis et ecclesiasticis. This rery clear 
and important passage shows that when Jerome speaks of 
'the Epistle to the Hebrews as not reckoned among St 
Paul's' in his letter to Paulinas (394 a. c.)> we must sup* 
pose that the doabt applies to the authorship and not to 
the canonicity of the writing. The distinct and decislTe 
reference to ancient and constant (odutuntur) testimony for 
the two disputed books deserres careful attention. Cf. 
Gomm. in Eph. init. 

> De Virr. HI. 2: Jacobus, qui appellaturfrater Domini,... 
unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quse de septem Catholicis est, 
qute et ipsa ab alio qaodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, 
licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. 

De Virr. 111. 4: Judas frater Jacobi parram, quas de 
septem Catholicis est, epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro 
Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium, a pie- 
risque rejicitur, tamen auctoritatem yetustate jam et usi) 
meruit et inter sanctas scripturas computatar. 


he explains the different styles of the first and cbap. h. 
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 aad apocryphal 
books, but he never attributes to them canonical 

The testimony of Jerome may be considered "i^'*' 
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 Getasius* both pronounced J™,^;^ 

■ IlieroD. quKlt. ad Hedib. ii, (i. p. 1002, ed. Migne): '"*'' 
Habebftt ergo [Paului] Titnm interpretem (ii. Cor. ii. 12, 13); 
■icut et beatuB Fetrus Marcum, cujiu erangelium, Petro nar- 
nnie et illo icribentc, compoaitum eat. Denique et dna 
epistoUe quB feruntur Petri, stjio inter te et characters dis- 
crepant itructuraque rerborum. Ei quo intolligimuB direniB 
cam uaum intcrpretibus. Cf. de Virr. III. i.: ScripBit [Pe- 
trui] duaa epiBtoiaa qiue CatholicB nominantur ; quamm 
Becandn a plerlaqae ejus cue negatur propter Btjli cum 
priore diBBOoantiam. Sed et eTaogelium juica Marcum, qui 
auditor ejus et interpret fuic, hujuB dzcitur. Libri autem 
e quibus luiUB Aetorum cjuB inBcribitur, alius Erangelii, ter. 
tius PnEdicationiB, quartua ApocalypBCOB, quintuB Judicii [i. e. 
Ilennce Factor], inter apociyphaa BcripturaB repudiaDtnr. 

» Cf. App. B. 

1 Innoc. ad Euuperium Toloa. Cf. App. D. The au- 
tlianticitj of thiB decretal baa been called in qnestiOD, but 
not, perhapa, on adequate grounda. 

* Credner (Zur Qeach. d. K. $ ir.) faai examined at great 


CHAP. 11. 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 

c. 340—397 was currcnt throughout Italy. Ambrose at Milan, 

f4iOA.c. Rufinus at AquileiaSand Philastrius at Brescia', 

tc. 387A.C. 1 1 /. 1 ^ • 

completely confirm the same Canons 

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 Gelasios, «. 
600 A. c. (2) It was then enlarged in Spain, e. 600 — 700 
A. c. (3) Next published as a decreVil of Hormisdas (Pope, 
614 — 623 A. c.) in Spain, with additions ; (4) and lastly 
variously altered in later times. Gredner, a. a. O. 8. 163. 
Cf. App. D. 

1 Ruf. de Symb. Apost. § 36. Gf. App. D. 

2 Philastr. Hcer. lx. lxi. 32. Gf. App. D. 

3 Lucifer of Gagliari (f 370 A. c.) in Sardinia quotes 
most of the books of the New Testament, including the 
Epistle to the Hebrews : Paulus dicit ad Hebra?os...Hebr. iii. 
6 sqq. (Lucif. do non Gonv. c. hser. p. 782, b. 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.. .sut in Epi- 
stola sua...Hebr. i. 13. (de Trin. ii. 13. Gf. id. It. 2; lit. 
prec. ad Impp. 27 ) 

Gassiodorus (or Gassiodorius, b. 468 — fe. 660 A. a), chief 
minister of Theodoric, in his treatise De InstUuiUme Divi- 
narum Litterarttm, gives three Gatalogues of the Holy Scrip* 
tures: (1) according to Jerome, (2) according to Augustine, 
(3) according to the ' ancient translation.' In the two former 
the Ganon of the New Testament of course agrees with our 
own. The last (cf. App. D.) omits by mistake (?) the Epistle 
to the Ephesians; and only mentions Joannis Epitiola ad 
ParthoB. But the evidence of God. D. has been brought 
forward to show that the shorter Epistles of St John were 
included in the Vetu» Ladna. 0£, p. 284. 


The infiuence of Augustine upon the Western ■ 
Church was hardly inferior to that of Jerome; ][>»< 
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 doubta. 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 least in bis later 
works, he sedulously avoided calling it by the 
Apostle's name*. But while he hesitated as to 

1 Aaguitine hu gWen a list of the booki of the New 
Testament eiactlj Bgreeing with our preBent Canoo: de doctr. 
ChrUt. ii. 12 (8). Cf. App. D. 

* Aug. 1. c. Tooebit igitur hunc modum in Scriptnria 
CanonicU, ut cas que ab omnibuB accipiuntur Bccleaiis ca- 
tbolicis pneponat eii quu queedam non accipiunt ; in eia *ero 
qun noa accipiuntur ab omnibus, piKponat eu quas plnret 
graTiorcsquc nccipiunt oil quae pauciorea mlnorisque ancto- 
ritatii occlceisB toni-nt. 

» This is well shown by Lardner, ch. cirii. 17,4. Tli9 
quotations in the Oput imperfeetum c. /ultanum (written at 
the close of Augustine's life) are conclusiTe. Julian himself 
quotet the Epistle as the work of ' the Apostle,' (iii. 30; r. 
i;23.) Aogustine in replj nses the following circumlocu- 
tions: quod Tidit qni scribens ad Bebneoa dixit (L 47} ir. 


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 Canon Thc Cauou of the New Testament which was 

roost widely 

SlSSjhout supported by the learning of Jerome and the 

the VVot, and 

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 Test- 

the era of the 

Retormauon. j^^igut iu the Wcst was uo longcr a problem, 

104); Sancta scriptura (ii. 179); sicut scriptum est (iii. 38; 
iv. 76); cum legas ad Hebrseos (iii. 161); iliius sacne auctor 
EpistolsB (ti. 22.) 

1 Serm. ccxcix. £t si forte tu, qui ista [Pclagii] sapis, 
hanc Scripturam (Apoc. zi. 3 — 12) non acccpisti; aut si ao- 
cipis et contemn is... 

« Cf. App. D. 

Dunma the age of councils- 531 

but a tradition. If old doubts were mentioDed, chap. ii. 
it was rather as a display of erudition tban as 
an effort of criticism'. And thus the question 
stood till the era of the Beformation. 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 J^;;^^ 
the Old Testament Apocrypha was strenuously umn^'tw 
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- EiAixos, 
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 Passagoi are giTen bj R«uh, Gewh. d. Heil. Schn'ft. 

' Sarpi, Riat. Concil. Trid. ii. p. 126 (od. UDCXX.) Uia 
tamotsi propositii difflcultUibns (u to tho interpretation of 
Scripture) ia eongrogatione Patmm, de coiueiuu prope om- 
nium probata Tulgata edUio, in prveulum uiimos TebementI 
inde iinproBsione facta, quod dicebatur grammatical epiico- 
ponun et tbeologomm inttituondorum potettatem aibi arrO' 


CHAP. 11. and not to the authority of the books'. Luther 

LuTBjB. placed the Epistle to the Hebrews, the £pistle8 
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 Churchy 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- 

CARLWADT. I^ ^1^® 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 

caltih. 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, § 336. Luther's Table Talk, pp. 
272 f. (ed. Bogue.) 

s e. g. Melancthon, Flacius, Gerhard. 
4 Andreas Bodenstein, or Carlstadt, was originally a 
friend of Luther, and afterwards of BulUnger, who describes 


the Epistle to the Hebrews was St Paul's, and chap.ii. 
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^ CEcolampadius 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 * Timm eruditiBsimum et ezercitatissimum in sacris, 
addo et profanis litteris ac disputationibus.' His Essay, de 
Canonicis Seripturis^ was pablishod 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. § r. The division which 
Carlstadt proposed was this: (1) Ordo Primus, Libri primce 
notm summcequs dignitatis NL Ti, It. Erangg. (2) Secundos 
Ordo, Volumina pasUrioriM Instrumenti Bcctindce dignitatis hcee 
sunt : PauH Epp. xiii. i. Petr. i. Joan. (3) Tertius Ordo, 
iVt. 7^'. Codices teriice eeUhritatis et ultimm sunt hi: Ep. ad Hebr. 
Jac. ii. Petr. Duse senioris presbyteri. Jud. Apocalypsis. De 
his libris, aut, ut certius loquar, de auctoribus illarum episto- 
lamm disceptatur, ideo in postremum locum digessimus. 
Credner, a. a. O. 410 — 12. 

It is worthy of notice that Carlstadt places the Oospelt 
first, while Luther placed the Epistles of St Paul before the 
synoptic Gospels. (Table Talk, 1. c.) 

* Calr. Pre/, ad Hebr. Inter apostolicas sine contro- 
rersia amplector....IJt Paulum agnoscam auctorem adduci 
nequeo. Id. Pre/, ad ii. 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. 

s Reuss, $ 335. 


cHAP.iL enumerate as Canonical all the books of the 

New Testament as they stand at present'. 
ThetMcMnc The authoritatlTe teachinir of the Churdi of 
^jj^*** England on the Canon of the New Testament 
is not remoTed 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 CHd 
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. jt. (1661 — 3 a.c); conf. Gall. Art. 
Hi. (1559 A. c.) Niemeyer, Libri Symb. Eccl. Reform. 361 
sqq. ; 314 sqq. 

3 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, Daniel, and 


leaves a difference between 'canonical books^ chap.ii. 
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 Theopinfooft 
ambiguity, — even if we admit that the framers jjjjj »«««»• 
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- tvkdali. 
logues notices the doubts as to the Apostolical 
authority of the Epistles of St Jude and St 

1 Some li^^ht 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; Hard wick, Hist, 
of Art. App. Ti. 


CHAP. II. James, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; bat 
he adds, that * he sees no reason why they should 
not be accounted parts of Holy Scripture ^' 

jawau Bishop Jcwcl rebuts Stapleton's charge that he 
rejected the Epistle of St James on the author- 

BuLLuoBA. ity of Calvin '. Bullinger'^s Decades contain a 
list of all the books of the New Testament in 

writaue. * the roll of the Divine Scriptures^' Whitaker 
affirms that our Church receives Hhe 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 

iSi?*' 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 

^ He makes no preface to the Apocalypse. 

• Jewel, Defence of Apology, Pt. n. ix. 1. 

s Bullinger, Decades, i. p. 64, (ed. Park. Soc.) 

* Whitaker, Disp. on Scripture, c. xti. p. 105, (ed. Park. 

» Fulke, Defence of the Translation of the Bible, p. 8, 
fed. Park. Soc.) 


left her sons at liberty to test the worth of their cluSion 
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. 


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- For it is of the utmost importance to remem- 

CLU810N. *^ 

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 

were still open to which we can no longer have con- 

^ ^ CLU810N. 

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 

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 


CON. 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 is 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 



TnE original meaning of Kavmv (connected with n^p appbtoix 

Kavfi^ Kovva^ canna^ ^canalu^ channel^ eane^ cannon) is a 

ttraight rod^ as a ruler ^ or (rarely) the beam of a balance; ticaiuMof 
and this with the secondary notion either (1) of keeping i. LitmUy. 
anything straight^ as the rods of a shield, or the rod (/loo- 
torium) used in weaving ; or (2) of testing straightness, as 
a carpenter's rule, and even (improperly) a plumbline. 

From the sense of literal measurement naturally fol- s- Heupbo- 
lowed the metaphorical use of Kovmv (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 Dor3rphorus of Polycletus 
(o Kavtov); or in I^anguage, as the 'Canons' of Grammar '. 

With a slight variation in meaning, ^eat epochs which 
served as landmarks of history, were called xai^ovev 'xpoviKoi; 
and ica»m¥ was used for a summary account of the contents 
of a work — the rule, as it were, hy 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 o Ka¥mv^ the 

* Credner has investiffated the early meanings of the word at 
considerable length, but I cannot accept all his conclusions. (Zur 
Gesch. d. k. 3— o8.) 

* References for all these meanings are given in the Lexicons. 

> Cf. Credner, p. 10. To this sense must be referred the Paaehal 
Canons of various authors, and the Euscbian Canons of the New Tes- 


APPENDIX absolute standard of pure lan|i^ge, the perfect model of 
'. composition^. 

& PuiiTeiy. By a common transition in the history of words, Kaimv^ 
as that which measures, was afterwards used for that which 
is so measured. Thus a certain space at Olympia was 
called Kavdv ; and in late Greek Kovmv (canon) was used for 
a fixed tax, as of com'. 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. Ttie Ecde- Sq far we have traced the common use of icavwy ; and 

of the word, at first sight the application of the word to the collectioa 
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 hy|>othesis. 

Lxx **** ^^® word occurs in its literal sense in Judith xiii. 6 (LXX.) 
for the rod at the head of a couch; and again in Job 
xxxviii. 5 (Aqu.) for a measuring line (ijj, <rirapTioi/, LXX. 

linea^ Vulg-)* 
h ^\ ** In the New Testament it is used in two passages of St 

"»«>«• Paul's Epistles. In one (Gal. vi. 16, oa-ot t« kovoVi (r^ula, 

Vulg.) TovTtf a-Toi^tjaovai) 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, Kara ro /x€Tpot> tow Kauovo^ {regulcBy Vulg.) KaTO. 
Tov Kavova ij/jimv €v dWoTpltf Kavovt) the transition from an 
active to a passive sense is very clearly marked. 
uc^iiSfniSr- ^° ^^^^ Christian writers the metaphorical nse of Kawmv 
la)*A*.Tnjii ^ ^^n frequent, both in a genend seme (dem. R, ad Co- 
taUw widflrt |i^,|/^, 1^ Q icavwv tiJ? i/VoTay^c, C. 7> ® cwicXei/c icai cre/tiKK 

tJ? ayia? KXy/crewc Kavoiv) ; and also in reference to a definite 

rule (id. C. 41, o wpt<rfji€t>o^ rij^ Xcirovpyta^ »cai/«v^). Qno 

^ Redepenning, Origines, i. ii. 

' Cf. ForcelllDus and Du Cange, 8. v. Canon. 

' The word is used by Philo in connexion with rapdyyt^^^fi^ Xpoi 
and p6ftos. Credner, bs. i i f. 

* Credner (g. 15) thinks that the word even here describes an 
ideal standard. 


use of the word, however, roee iDto peculiar prominence, appendix 

and is of great importance with regard to the history of 

Holy Scripture. Hegesippus (cf. pp. 228 sqq.), according ^^^^ 
to the narration of Eusehius^ spoke of those who tried to ***''***' 
corrupt 'the sound rule (to» vytrj Kovova) 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- 
xueus, continually appeal to the Rule of Christian teaching, 
—variously modified in the different phrases the Rule of 
the Churchy the Rule of Truth, the Rule of Faith\— in iheit 

^ In the Clementine Homilies the word Kaydnf is of fi*equent occur- 
rence. Thus the principle of a duality in nature and revelation is 
described as 6 \&yos toO xpoiprjTiKoO xaydvos, 6 komCup rijs <rv{\rylas 
(Horn. 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. ad Jac. i). Cf. Credner, ss. lyff. 

' Each of these three phrases possesses a peculiar meaning corre- 
sponding to the notions of * the Church/ * the Truth/ ' the Faith.* 

i. 'O Koywv TTJi iKkXriclas express^ that Rule or governing prin- 
ciple by which the Church of God, in its widest sense, is tnuy held 
together, and yet gradually unfolded in the different stages of its 
growth. In early Christian writers it specially 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 Chnstian Church ; yet still to 
that Rule as being one, and not as made up of many rules. Cf. Com. 
ftp. Euseb. H. £. vi. 43. So also we find icayfa»' ixKXiiaiaffriKdtf 
Synod. Ant. Routh, Rell. iii. '291 ; Concil. Nic. Cann. 1, 6, &c. 
And as applied to details, 6 xavthw: Cone. Neocaes. Can. 14. Cf. 
Bouth, iv. 108. Yet cf. Syn. Ant Routh, iii. 305. 

ii. *0 xoMor r^ iXifitlai. 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. Hier. L 9, 4 ; 
11, I ; Novat. de Trin. 11 ; Firm. Ep. (Cypr.) LXXV. 

iii. *0 icoj^ Tfji xlffT€un. The Rule of Truth, when viewed in 
this concrete form, became the Rule of Faith. The phrase first oocars 
in the letter of Polycrates (Euseb. H. £. v. '24), and repeatedly in 
Tertullian (e. g. de Vel. Virg. i.) 

Credner has discussed these various phrases with lus usual care 
and research ; but it is surprising to find a scholar speaking repeatedly 
of 6 xonoy iKK\riffiaffTuc6s (a. a. 0. w. 10—58). 


APPENDIX controversy with heretics ; and from the first, as it seenu^ 

it was regarded in a douhle form. At one time it is an 

Abttraoc, or i^i^g^f^^ ideal^ Standard, handed down to snocessive gene- 
rations, the inner kw, as it were, which regulated the 
growth and action of the Church, felt rather than ezpreesed, 
cooeratt 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 (^la^iyVif) 
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 Q^ranted at successive periods J, 
or rather in virtue of one dispensation adapted to the virants 
of different times'.' But this principle of unity found a 
clear expression Mn the one, unchangeable rule of faith V 
the apostolic enunciation of the great facts of the lucar- 
nation, in which all earlier revelations and later hopes 
found their explanation and fulfilment. 
(y) The rule At the beginning of the fourth century the word le- 
^^"^ 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 sy nodical decisions were regarded in detafl 

^ Clem. Al. Sir. yi. 15, §. 115 : kwCjv iKkXTfO'icurrucbs ^ aimpHa 
Kot ^ avpupiopia t^fMv re Ktd wpo^r/jruif ry icard Hjp toO Kuplov Tap- 
ovalcuf TapadidofUirg liiaBi^icQ. Cf. p. 548, n. 2. 

* Clem. AL Str. vii. 17, § 107: Kard re oPf irwharaffip Kord re 
Mvoiouf Kard T€ dpx^¥ Kard re iJ^oxh^ fj^mpf e&oi <pafjL€p rV dpxfitaw 
Kcd xaOoXiK^y iKK\rsalay, els hcrrfra irUrreuts fu&i Kard rAj oUelas 
SiaOifKaSf fjiSKKov Bi icard rV Sta^i^Ki/y t^p fuop 5ia^pois rocf XP^ 
pois, ^6; {toO deov) rQ ^vXe^fiOTi St* Ms {toO Kvplov), cvpdyowrwf 
rovs ijZri KaraTerayfUyotn, oi/s wpwipurep 6 ^e6s Buccdovs iaoiiipovt Tp6 
KaTafioXijs Kdcfiov iypwKiis. 

> TertulL de Vel. Yirg. i. 


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 staire in the history of the word when (<> canon in 
it assumed a definitely passive meanings as when applied 
to the fixed psalms appointed for festivals, or to the ^ Canon/ 
the invariable element of the Roman Liturg}% in the course 
of which the dead were commemorated or *' canonized^.* 

^ The ordinances of Gregory of Neo-Csesarea (c. 262, a. 0.) and 
those of Peter of Alexandria (c. 306, A. c), taken from his work x€pl 
fUToyolas (Routh, iii. 156 ff. ; iv. 23 ff.), are called ' Canons/ but it 
is probable that the title was given to them at a later time. The first 
Council which gave the name of Canons to its decrees was that of 
Antioch (341, A. c.) : in the earlier Councils they were called SiyfuiTa 
or 6poi. Cf. Credner, p. 5 1 n. 

* The earliest instance of this use of the word with which I am 
acquainted occurs in the Nicene decrees: Can. 16: wpec^&Ttpoi if 
IkdKOifoi rj S\ws hf rQ kopAih ^(era^o/ievot. Can. 1 7 : xoXXoi iv t<^ 
KaMl}Pi i^eraj^onevoi. Can. 19: .,.x€pl tCjp SiOKOPKraCjv Kcd Skun rCtv 
h Tip Koi^i (all. icXi^p^) i^rrajpo/Uvonf. Cf. Cone. Ant. can. 6 : 6 airrds 
6i 6poi ixl XaiKup xal xpeafivrdfKJv Kal 5touc6vcar Kcd Tdyruw tC» iy r^ 
Kapdvi (al. iw T(p icX'fifHfi KardKcyofiipu}!'). Cone. Chalc. 2 : if SKus rii^d 
rov Kcwbi'os. But this Kavwp must not be confounded with the xard- 
\oryos, though the same persons might be described as iv t^ KaraXoyt^ 
and iv tQ xavon. Thus the two are joined, Cone. Trull. 5 : fi,7f6€ls 
rw¥ iv lepaTiK(p KaTa\6y(fi tuv iv rQ KOMbvi,.., Again, Con. Tol. iii. 
5 : qui vero fub canone ecclenoMico jacuennt,,. Athanas. (?) de Vir- 
gin, i. p. 1052 : ovcd xapBivif) r^ /ij) o^cin inrb KOMbva. Cf. Cone. Ant. 
I. The word KovoviKoL first occurs in Cvril (Catech. Pref. 3, cf. Cone. 
Laod. 15 ; Concil. Constant, i, 6), and is found frequently in later 
writers. Du Cange (s. v.) quotes a passage which illustrates very well 
the origin of the word : Canon ici 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 Kopotv and the xardXcryof , but the passages quoted 
are, I think, conclusive against the identification. 

• Cf. Suicer, s. v. 
The interchange of Kovovixb^ and iro^oXurdf, not only in the title 

of the seven cathouc epistles but elsewhere, is a singular proof of the 
supposed universality of an authoritative judgment of the Church. 
Cf. Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 ; Concil. Carthag. xxiv. (Int. Gr.) 

There is a curious account of xorortin^ — ^the mathematical basis of 
music — in Aulus GeUins, N, A. zri. 18 ; and in other Roman scientific 



APPKNDix Hitherto no instance of the application of the word 

Kavtiv to the Holy Scriptures has been noticed, and the 

toHoiy^lai^ earliest with which I am acquainted occurs in Athanasius ; 
The'dertT*- hut the derivatives KavoviKo^^ Kavovij^tt^ occur in Origen^ 
wm^huT^ though these words did not come into common use till the 
*"***'*^ ■ beginning of the fourth century. In the interval Diocletian 
but nocoom- had attempted to destroy the ' Scriptures of the Christian 
after the per- Law;' and as far as his efforts tended to make a more 

•eeutioQ of . • • 

modetian. 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 tbe general 
dialect of the Church. 

{a)KmvoyiK6f. Tho origiual meaning of the whole class of w^ords, 
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. Augfust. 
de Civ. U. iii. 15, i, and Forcellinus, s. v. 

^ Grig, de Princ. iv. 33, in Scripturis Canonicis nusquam ad pne- 
sens invenimus. Id. Prol. in Cantic. s. f. Illud tamen palam est 
multa vel ab apostoUs vel ab evangelistis exempla esse prolata et Novo 
Testamento inserta, quse in his Scripturis quas Canonicas habemua, 
nunquam legimus, in apocryphis tamen inveniuntur et evidenter ex 
ipsis oetenduntur assumpta. Id. Ck>mm, in Matt. §117. In nullo 
rtgtdari libro hoc positum invenitur. Id. Comm. in M&tt. § aS. 
Nee enim fuimus in libris canonizatis historiam de Janne et Jambre 
resistentibus Mosi. Just before Rufinus says : Fertur er^ in Scrip- 
turis non manifestis (i. e. apocryphis, as he elsewhere translates th« 
word.) The phrase, ProL in Cantic. s. f. cum neque apud Hebnaos... 
amplius habeatur in Ckinone, is probably only a rendering of mvorl- 

Since these words are found in works which survive only in the 
Latin version, they have been suspected by Redepenning (Origines, 
i. 239) to be due to Rufinus, and not to Origen. Credner foUom 
Redepenning without reserve. But I can see no ground for the sui- 
picion. The fact that in one place we have re^jrularig and in another 
canonicus to express the same idea marks a translation. 



necessarily to be sought in that of the word first used, appendix 

But Kayo¥tKik, like Kavtivy 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 fiivour of the second. 
Thus the Latin equivalent of kokovikoc, regularity points 
to a passive sense, even though the analogy be imperfect. 
Ecclesiastics, again, of every grade were called Canonieiy 
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 Kavovlf^m (fitfikia Kavovttjofktva^ iceica- (3) 
Hoviafjiiva, dKavovKTTo) 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 

^ The catnoDical letter of Gregory of Csaarea (c. 161, A.o.) is ui 
instance of the first kind (Routh, iii. 156 ff). On the liUera: fiimuUm 
or canoniccBf cf. Bingham, iL 4, 5. 

* Even Credner has sanctioned this view : ' The Scriptures of the 
Canon {ypatfxd irai^of) 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). 
Credner does not quote any instance of the phrase ypa/^al Ka»(mn, 
nor do I know one ; but he supports his view by reference to the 
words tcripturcB Ictps in the Acts of Felix (cf. p. 473)> and to Uttene 
fidei in Tertullian (de Pnescr. 14.) 

> Cf. At. Eth. N. ii. 3, 8, koiw/^)m<f W koI xAf T/Hi^f...^if 
ira2 \inrji. In later times the word was used to express regular gram- 
matical inflexion. Schol ad Horn. Odyss. ix. 347 : rd S^ tj rrbBw 



APPENDIX indaded among the canooiaed Scriptures'/ A&ammm 

—-- agiun speaks of ^ books wbidi aie Ganoniaed (Kamom^opam) 

and have been handed down' from former time'. Tke 
Canon of [[Laodicea]] forbade the public reftding of *boob 
which had not been canoflnaed (oKamomta^a),' And at a 
kter time we read ' of books used in the Chun^ and wUdi 
have been canonized '.' 

hji i^r. The clearest instance in early times of the application 

orthk wont of the word Katmv to the Scriptures occurs at the end of the 
enumeration of the books of the Old and New Testameots 
commonly attributed to Amphilochius. 'This,' he sajs, 
^ would be the most unerring Canon of the Inspired Scrip- 
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 natonl 
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 theolop^an^ marked 
out like that of the athlete or of the Apostle by adequate 
n^einin ^"^ 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 

^ Orig. Comm. in Matt. § 28 : Nemo uti debet ad confirmationem 
dogmatum libris qui sunt extra canonizatas acripturas. 

* Athan. Ep. f'est. App. D. The same phrase occure in Leontiui. 
' Nioepb. Sticbometria, App. D. 

* Ampbil. Iamb, sd Sel. App. D. 


of Christian truth ; for they possess an inherent authority appendix 

though it was needful that they should be ratified by an ' 

outward sanction. At the beginning of the fifth century 
Isidore of Pclusium 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. 

^ Igid. Pelus. £p. cxiy. 6 koo^ rift ^ftO(ia% aX Bwu ypa^l. 




APPENDIX Xyto different classes of writings may be described is 

apocr3rphal in respect to their claims to be admitted amoag 

of writing* the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. The fint 

called Apo- . - . • % 

cryphai. consists of the Scanty remains of the works of the imme- 
diate successors of the Apostles : the second, of books pr(h 
fessing either to be written by Apostles or to contain u 
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 thor 
outward fortunes than in their inward character. 

of Apoi^c ^^ 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 a 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 Bputk The Epistle of Clement, the earliest and best authenti- 
oated of uncanonical Christian writings, is quoted by Ire- 
na;us, by Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen, without 

1 Of. pp. 66 ff. 


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 belieye> favours its reception among the Canonical 

The Epistle of Barnabas, in consideration of the name Th# xpifCfe 
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 ^. ^usebius 
classes it among tlie ^spurious' books; and Jerome calls 
it ' Apocryphal V 

The Shepherd of Hermas, again, which approximates The M<pkmi 
in form and manner most closely to the pattern of Holy 
Scriptures, though commonly quot(*d 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 Honmimi in 
occupied a peculiar position. They were supposed to be of a lujppowd 
written by men who were honoured by direct Apostolic lanccion. 
testimony. But the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius, on 
whose names the New Testament is silent, were never put 

1 Clem. Al. Str. i. 7, § 38 ; iv. 17, § 107 (6 &xo<rro\os KX^fttft); 
vi. 8, § 65. Cf. Str. V. II, § 81. Orig. de Princ. ii. 3, 6 ; Sel. in 
Ezech. viii. Cf. in Joan. T. vi. 36. 

* EuBeb. H. E. iii. -25. Cf. p. 48a. This is the more remarkable 
becavse he elsewhere mentions the Epistle with great respect, iii. 16 
{fieydXrf xal Oavficurla ^rurroXi^). Cf. H. £. vi. 1 3. 

' Clem. Al. Str. ii. 6, § 31 : fU&rbfs ot>¥ 6 dir<l<rToXos Boprd/Sas...; 
1^* 7» §35; ii> ^O, §116: 06 fJUH ^€1 ir\€i&¥(ov \byu» irapaBffUytfi fidpTW 
t6» iiTocrdKiKittf Bapi'd^ay, 6 hk twp i^ofiifKoirra yjp koI av¥€py6s rov 
IlaiJXou... Cf. Str. ii. 15, §67 ; id. 18, §84 ; v. 8, § 51 ; id. 10, § 64. 

Orig. c. Cels. i. 63 : yiypawrcu iv rj Bapyd^a Ka0dKnc^ IwtffToXi, 
Comm. in. Rom. L 34 : multis Scripturse locis... Cf. de Princ. 
iii. 2f 4. 

* Kuseb. H. E. iii. 15. Hieron. de Virr. III. 6 : Barnabas Cyprius... 
epistolftm compoeuit, qxite inter apocryphas Scripturas legitur. 

* Tert. de Pudic. 10 and 20. Cf. Hieron. in Hab. i. (i. 14.) The 
references of Irensus and Origen to the Shepherd have been noticed 
ah-ea^ly, pp. 436, 410 nn. 


APPENDIX forward as claiming Canonical authority^. And thus tlie 
- ■ _ 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. 
But no where The usage of the Churches interprets and corrects the 
ceived Into judmnent of individual writers. The Epistle of Barnabas 

the Canon. ,.,. ^^ i i* it 

was read m 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, Atbanasins 
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^. 
The writings If then it be admitted, and this is the utmost that can 
toiicPatEen be urged, that these books were ever ranged with the 
oned canon- Antilegomena of the New Testament^, it is evident tliat 


* Cf. Hieron. v. I. 17 [Polyc. ad Phil. Ep.] in conventu Asiae 

* Euseb. H. E. iii. 16; iv. 23. Hieron. de Virr. HI. 15. 

^ The fact tliat this is the only copy of the Epistle now in existence 
is in itself a proof of its comparatively limited circulation. 

* Euseb. H. E. iii. 15 ; Athanas. Ep. Fest. T. i. 767, 

° 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. Of. p. 506. 

* According to the old text of the Stichometry of Nicephonis, the 
Apocalypse is classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as 
Apocryphal ; but the truer text places it with the Apooalvpse of 
Peter, the (irospel 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. 


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 Apostolicity 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 John. 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 Apocryphal writings directly claiming Apostolic u. Apoory- 
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 passaee which occurred in the Gospel according to The Ootpti 

- , . ^ ■ccordlngto 

the Hebrews is found in a letter of Ignatius^ who does the Hebrewi. 
not, however, quote the words as written, but only on 
traditional authority^. Papias, again, related a story *' of 
a woman accused of many crimes before our Lord, which 
was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews^' 

^ The second Epistle of St Peter is the only exception to this state- 
ment ; and that is beset with peculiar historical difficulties on every 

* Clem. Str. iii. 9, § 63 ; id. 13, § 93 : xpuh-or fUy offv h rtlit 
ra/>a$e5o/A^<M} i^fu> rirrapiTiv e^77eXi<Mf oOk ixof^^ "^o ^ifror, dXX' 
hf T(f Kar* Alyvirrlovs. Cf. [Clem.] Ep. ii. n. 

* Cf. p. 461. * Ign. ad Smym. 3. Cf. Jaoobeon, I c. 


APPENDIX but the words of Euaebius seem to imply that he did not 

refer to that book as the souroe of the narrative^. The 

evangelic quotations of Justin Martyr offer no support to 
the notion that he used it aj a coordinate authority with 
the Canonical Gospels, but on the contrary distinguish a 
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 affinn that the four Canonical Gospds 
stood alone as acknowledged records of the Lord's lile^. 
Epiphani us regarded Hhe 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 St 
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 veith 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".* 

^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. Cf. Routh, Relliq. i. 39. 

* Cf. pp. 191 ff. 

* Heges. »p. Euseb. H. E. iv. 22; Routh, Belliq. i. 277; supr. 

PP- "^S.^ f- 

* Clem. Str. ii. 9, § 45 ; Orig. Comm. Horn, in Jcr. 15, § 4. 

* Dial. adv. Pel^. iii. 2 : In Evangelio^iwcfa Hebraaot, quodChal- 
daico quidem Syroque sermone, scd Hebraicis litteris scriptum wt, 
quo utuntur usque hodie Nazaroni, secundum apoittolos, give ut pleri- 
que autumant, jwrta MatiJiamm, quod et in Ctesariensi habetur bib- 
liotheca, narrathi8toria...Quibu8 teRtimoniis, si non uteris ad aucto- 
ritatem, utere saltern a<l antiquitatera, quid omnes ecclesUuitici viri 
senserint. Cf. de Virr. IlL 2 ; in Isai. iv. c. xi. ; id. xi, c. xl. ; 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. 11; id. ii. c. xiL 
13; id. iv. c. xxvii. 51 ; Comm. in Eph. iii. c. v. 4. Credner (Beitr. 
i. 395 fF.) gives these and the remaining passages at length. 

* Julian, Pelag. ap. August. Op. unperf. iv. 88. 

' Bede, Comm. in Luc, inii. quoted on Hieron. adv. Pelag, iii. 1. 


The Gospel of Peter has been already noticed. How appendix 

far this Gospel was connected with the * Preaching of 

Peter,' which is quoted frequently by Clement of Alex- SlSSJL 
andria^, and once by Gregory of Nazianzus^, is very un- pSct^ 
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- 

It has been already shown that it is uncertain whether not canons 
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 p* ^S^Sir 
by more important authority. The doubtful testimony of 
the Muratorian Canon has been considered before ^ In 
addition to this, Clement of Alexandria wrote short notes 
upon it, as well as upon the Catholic Epistles and upon 

> Clem. Alex. Str. i. ig, § i8i; vi. 5, §§ 39 ff; id. 6, § 48 ; id. 

* Greg. Nat Ep. ad Caeur. i. Credner, Beitr. i. 353, .^59. 

> Some have annied 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 onfy diflferent recensions of 
the same work. It is [lerhaps nearer the truth to skv 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 sq. 

* Orig. de Princ. Pref. 8; cf. Comm. in John xiiL 17. Euseb. 
H. E. iii. 3. 

* Cf. p. 243. 


Cod. Boer- 

APPENDIX the Epistle of Barnabas^. Bat the book was rejected hj 

"• Eusebios^, and, I believe, by every later writer. 
Pecuiiaridet Mention has been made already of the insertion of the 
of the New two Epistlos of Clement in the Alexandrine M& Two 


other MSS. contain notices of Apocrjrphal 'writings whidi 
are curious, though they are not of importanoe. At the 
end of the Codeas Boemerianui (G.) a MS. of the ninth 
century, which contains the thirteen Epistles of St Paal 
with some lacunse, after a vacant space occnr the words: 
' The Epistle to Laodiceans begins [wpo^ XaovBatcffo-a^ (km- 
dieentes^ g.) apx^Tai^^' '^^^ addition is not found in the 
Codfix Augiensii (F.) which was derived from the same 
original as (G.)? nor is there any trace of the Epistle itadl 
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. 

In the Codex Claromontanui^ (D.) again, after tiie 
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 Jnde thus oon- 
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. 

OhL Claro- 

^ Eueeb. H. E. vi. 14. 
8 Tiachdf. N. T. p. 687. 


■ lb. iii. 43. 
* Eeuss, § 271. 

» Tischdt Cod, Clarom. p. 468. Prolegg. xi. Cf, App. D. 



For a loDg time after the first publication of the frag- appendix 

ment on the Canon by Muratori, his edition was the only ' — 

authority for the tezt^ 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 de&ced, 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)> uaedpartUlly by Dr Routh in 
the second edition of his JtdUquia, i. 403 ft; the second by Prof. F. 
Wieseler, published by his brother, Prof K. Wieseler (W), in the 
Studien und Kriiiken, 1847, pp. 816 ff. ; the third by D. Hertz (H), 
published by Chev. Bunsen in his Analecta AnU-Nicosna, i. pp. 137 
sqa. Credner (Zur Qesch. d. K. s. 73) simply reproduced tne 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 stops, 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 




quibuB^ tamen interfiiit et ita posiiit | Tkrtio mrjuh 

GBLii UBRUM sBcvyoo LucAS* | Lncfts iste medieoi 

post ascensum ^i. | cum eo Paoliis quiisi nt juii 

5 studiosum j aecaDdum adsiimauset nameni suo | ez opi- 

nionc concribset^ Dmn tamen nee ipse | Tidit in came et 

ide proat asequi potnit. | ita et ab^ nativitate Johanois 
incipet dicere. | Quarti evasgbliorum J'ohannis mi 

10 DECipoLis^ I Cohortantibus condecipulis® et eps saiB | 
dixit conjejunate mihi^. odie triduo et quid | caique 
fuerit revelatum alterutrum | nobis emuunremas eadem 
node reve | latum Andres ex apostolis at recognis | 

15 ccntibus cuntis Johannis suo nomine | cancta diacriberet 
et ideo licit ^ varia | singulis evangeliomm libris* prin- 
cipia I doceantur nihil tamen differt creden | tiam fidei 

20 cum uno ac principali spu de | clarata sint in omnibin 
omnia dc nativi | tate de passione de resanectione | de 
conversatione cum decipulis suis | ac^® de gemino ejus 

25 advcntu^^ | primo in humilitate dispcctus quod fo. | se- 
cundums^ potestate^ regali pre | clarum quod fotomm 
est. quid ergo | minim si Johannes tarn constanter | 
sincula^^ etiam in episinlia tm proionm^ | dieeea in 

30 semetipsu^^ quse vidimus oculis | nostris et aariboa 

' Das Fragment fangt nach einer langem Liicke etwa mitten 
auf der Seite an (W). 

■ Lucan, H. Lucam, M. W. 

' Concribtft, W. N. ; conacribut et concrmet, M. (Routh, p. 405^ ; 
concric*d (f) H. ; concritet, B. 

* ad, H. ; oi, W. ; a, M. Cf. w. 38, 47. 

* decipuUs, W. 

* condtscipuliff H. ^ om. W. 

8 w. —licet, H. » om. liJbrU, W. 

^0 cf, M. B. ; ac, W. H. 

^* Spatium undecim fere litteranim vacuum maaet, H. 
" Fort, N. H. ? W. ? Uttene in init. lin. fere evanidae, H. 
" Duae vel trea littere, h. 1. (ante prtrr/. W.) erasae, H. 
" H. -^nfjula, W. B. " proferat, M. W. 

*• intemeijJtu, W. 




...quibus tamen' interfuit fet] ita** posuit. Tertium 
Evangelii librum secundum Lucam Lucas isle medicus 
post ascensum Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi tut juris 

5 studiosum" secum*^ adsumsisset nomine suo ex ordine* 
conscripsit (Dominum tamen nee ipse vidit in carne) ; 
et idem' prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Jo- 
bannis incepit' dicere. Quartum Evangeliorum Jo- 

10 bannis** ex discipulis. Cobortantibus* condiscipulis et 
episcopis suis, dixit : Conjejunate mihi bodie triduum, 
et quid cuique^ fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis 
enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andrece ex apo- 

15 stolis, ut recoj^oscentibus cunctis, Jobannes suo no> 
mine cuncta describeret — Et ideo licet varia^ singulis 
evangeliorum libris principia doceantur nibil tamen 
difiert 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 8uis% ac de gemino ejus adventut 

25 primum in humilitate despectus, quod fuit, secundum 
potestate regali prseclarum^ quod futurum est** — Quid 
ergo mirum si Johannes tam constanter'* singula etiaui 
in epistolis suis' proferat dicens in semetipso': quoB 

30 vidimtu oculu nostrisy et auribui audivimiUy et manut 

■ + ipse mmf B. *» ita rf, B. 

<" Itinerit 90cium, B. Ut stare non potest : el, R. An Legen- 
dum virtutis Hudiotum t * 

* Secum. Cf. Act. xv. 37, R <" Luc. i. 3. 

' IcUo, B. f AU. incipU. 

^ Johanne»t so. conscripnty W. 

* + M, R. B. ^ An quodrunque t 
> +a, B. male. - Jide$, Fr. W. 

» + Domini, R. B. « ^zmtit, .C. nude. 

P B. primo—deapecto ; Dftpeetvm (v. detprctui) quod foret, R. ; 
Primo — quod ratum est, C. ; tecundo — pradaro, R. C. B. Primus — 
ditpectus — secundut — prctdarus—quod futvrut, W. 

<i B. inManter, «• B. epidola tua. 

* B. itmetiptum. 


APPENDIX audiviinus et manus | nostras palpaverunt beecscripsimitt^i 
.... ' _ sic enim non solum visurem sed et auditorem | sed et 

scriptorem omnium mirabilium dns^ per ordi | nem 

35 profetctur ^ Acta atitero omnium apostolomm | anb ano 

libro scribta sunt Lucas obtime Tbeofi | le' oonprindit 

quia sub pra'sentia ejus singula | gerebantur sicut^ et 

semote pasiisionem Petri | evidenter declarat sed et^ pro- 

fectionom Pauli ab^ ur | be^ ad Spaniam proficesceotU 

40 Epistulaa autem | Pauli quae a quo loco vel qua ex cann 

directe | sint volentibus^ intellegere ipse dedannt*! 

primum omnium GorintUeis scysme heresis in | terdi- 

censdeincepsb^^Callaetiscircumcisione | Romanis antem 

45 ordine^^ scripturarum sed et^* | principium eamm^ 

^par^^ intimans^* | prolexius scripsit de quibos sinoolu 
neces | sc est ab^^ nobis desputari cum ipse beatos i 
apostolus Paulus scquens prodecessoris^^ sui | Johanius 

50 ordinem nonnisi nomenatim sempte | ecclesiis scribit 
ordine tali acorentbios | prima ad Efesius^^ seconda ad 
Philippinses^^ter | tia ad Colosensis^quarta ad Calatas 
quinj taad Tcnsaolenecinsis sexta^^ ad Romanus^ { sep- 

55 ti ma varum Corentheis et Thesaolecen | sibus^ licet pro 
corrcbtionc itcretur una | tamen per omnem orbem 
terras ccclesia | deffusa esse denoscitur et JoUannis enim 

* W. Incipit i)ag. b. H. 

* a atramento inaculatuH sed satis bene dignoseendus, H. 

' Thi'opkUc, \V. ^ »iruti, W. 9icute{'\) H. 

JJ om. rf, W. * arf in rasurd, H. 

^ MS. urbeSf *. eraso, H. 

^ MS. voluntatibus in votenfibiis correctum, H. 

».B. i»H. Cf.W. " Ex or««,n« oorr. 

^* d corr. in ras. H. spater geschrieben, W. 

13 Tres litteraB {sed f) h. 1. erasae, H. 

^* XPM. B. 

" Quatuor fere litt. spat, vacuum relietum, H. 

^•^ ad, H. *' pnffdectMoriSy W. jyrodecfutnirrh ut vid. H 

" Ef€«io8, W. >» Philipj^n^is corr IL 

=» Cd<Meuse4f. W. « . W. 

** us videtur potius quam o*, H. Romanotf, W. 

** H. — TctisaoUcensihws urapriinglich TesaoUctiutibut, VV. 


nostra p€tlpaverunt, hate icripnmuM ? Sic enim non appendix 
solum visorem Qse], 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 prsesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et semota' 
passione Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectione 
Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis*. Epistolas 

40 autem Pauli, quae, a quo loco> vel qua ex causa directie 
sintf volentibus intelligere ipssd declarant ^ Primum 
omnium Gorinthiis schisma hseresis interdioens, deinoeps 
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 beat us apostolus Paulus, 
sequens praedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, nonnisi 

50 nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali: ad Co- 
nn thios prima ^, ad Ephesios secunda, ad Philippeuses 
tertia, ad Colossenses quarta, ad Galatas quinta, ad 
Thessalonioenses sexta, ad Romanes septima. Yerum 

55 Corintbiis et Thessalonicensibus licet* pro correptione 
iteretur", una tamen per omnem orbem teme 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 affcctu et dilectione; in 
honorem*" tamen ecclesice catholicae in ordinatione' 

• «r, R. B. C. Ut no8, W. 

^ = sunt B. et iu seqq. optimo (C. W.), qwxid^.OpHme ea, K. 
*= qua, C. W. 

^ deeue non modo, B. Jlemofa„.declarant, R. Semota.,.declarani, 
C. Pas9ion€m,,,profeeiumem, R. C. B. W. Semott, W. 
« + omiaU, W. f R. B. ipte dedairat, 

t + Pattlvs, W. ^ + non,B. 

* cur, B. 

^ primam, ftc, B. fortane rectios. primo, kc, R. 

' Mcilicet, C. ■ itcratur, W. 

" una...du{€, B. AIL ^ honortf C. 
p ordinationemf B. 



APPENDIX in a I pocalebsy licet septem eccleseis acribai | iamen 

60 omnibus dicit verum ad Filemonem^ nna* | et altita 
nna et ad Tymotheum doas pro afiec | to et dilectione 
in honore tamen eclesise ca | tholioe in oHinatiflnft 
ecclesiastice' | descepline scificate sunt fertnr etiam ad | 

(i5 Laudecenses alia ad Alezandrinos Paul! no | mine 
fincte^ ad heresem Marcionis et alia pin | ra qns in 
catholicam eclesiam* recepi non | potest fel enim cam 
melle misceri non con | emit' epistola sane Jade et 
superscrictio Johannis daas in catholica hab^itnr et 

70 sapi I entia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsins | scripta 
apocalapse etiam Jobanis et Pe | tri tantnm rediHrniis' 
quam quidam ex nos | tris legi in eclesia* nolont pu- 
torem vero | nuperrim e* temporibns nostris in nrbe j 

75 Roma Henna conscripsit sedente cathe | tia uibis 

Bomse aeclesise^^ pio eps fratre | ejus et ideo Icgi enm 
quidem oportet se pu | plicarevero in eclesia* popdo 
neque inter | profetas" conpletum numero neque inter | 

80 apostolos in finem temporum potest". | Arsinoi auten 
seuYalentini Tel Mitiadis" | nihil in totum recipemns" 
qui etiam novum | psalmomm librum Marcioni con- 

85 scripse | runt una cum Basilido assianum catafry I cam 

1 Philemonem, W. ^ una\ H. una, R 

> In fin. lin. et pag. sex fere litt. spat vacuum relictum H. 

• fincttgf W. ' eccUtiam, W. Cf. w. 73, 76. 

• congruU, W. 

' reciptmus : t ex e coir. H. ® eccUsia, W. 

• rf ; t erasum, H. ^® aecdesia, W. 
1^ profettoi, W. profettoi : s in litura, H. 
^' In fin. lin. spat, quinque litt. vacuum relictum, H. 
^' Mihi videtur mitiadU correctum ex motia4X9, H. VdUa^t^t ^ 
^* rtcipimva, W. 


eoclesiasticffi diBcipHnad sanctificatee sunt. Fertor etiam APPmvDix 

65 ad Laodioeii8e8% alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine '- 

fictee ad baeresem^ Marcionis, et alia plura quce in 
catholicam ecclesiam lecipi non potest °: fel enim cum 
melle misceri non congruit. Epistola sane Jndsd et 
snperscripti** Johannis duae in catholicis* habentur; 

70 tet' sapientia ab amicis Salomonb in bonorem ipsius 
scripta. Apocalypses etiam Jobannis' et Petri tantum 
lecipimus, qnam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia 
nolunt. Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris 

75 in urbe Roma Hennas*^ conscripsit, sedente* catbedra 
urbis Romas ecclesias Pio episcopo fratre ejus ; et ideo 
legieum quidem oportet» se publicare^ vero in ecclesia 
populo, neque inter propbetas, complete' numero, neque 

80 inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest. Arsinoei™ 
autem seu Valentini, Tel fMiltiadis" nibil in totum 
recipimus. Qui° etiam noTum psalmorum libmm 
Harcioni' conscripserunt, una cum Basilide, Qct^ Asi- 

85 aniim Catapbrygum'^ constitutorem... 

* + alia, R. ^ htgrtfim t R. 

« potmni, W. * »upra aeripti, R tupeneripto!, C. 

* CaUkelieii, K Caiholiea, caeien, 'ut^C.W. 
f ApoealyptU etiam Jokannit, El Petri. . .quern. . . (W.) 

* Iferma, C. i +tn, R? B. 

^ 9ed publieari, R. B. * complete, B. compleloe, R. C. W. 

■ Artinoif B. Areinoetum, R. Areinoi, C. W. 
" vd MiU. transp. post Bojnlide, B. qui legit in seqq. coneeriptit, 
Aiiani, conetitutoris. 

« qttin, C. P Marciani, C. fortaaie rectius. 

^ Aiianomm Caiaphtyfptm, R. W. qui + r^jicimue. 



APPENDIX As I have already given (pp. 238 sqq.) a geneiml Tiew 
.* of what I believe to be the purpose and connexion of the 

iragment, little need be added here except to justify the few 

changes which I have introduced into the text. 

V. 1. iamen and et cannot stand together. Bunsen's 
transposition removes the difficulty in part, but the et 
seems to have arisen from the repetition of the final 
or initial it. The reference is evidently to Papias' ac- 
count : Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 

4. guoii utjurU. Though I believe that this is corrupt, 
Routh's note is worthy of attention. 

8. incepit. tip^aro, 

16 — 26. Et ideo...futurum est. This passa^ comes in 
very abruptly, and it is not easy to see the exact foroe 
of ideo and er^a 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 pcUpaverunt for cantrectaverunt (jrectavenmtt 
tentaverunt) is to be noticed. Palpare occurs as the 
translation of yl/ti\a<pdv^ Luc. xxiv. 39 ; but TertuUiaa 
twice quotes the present verse with the Vulg. ren- 

61. Sub. scripsit. Tamen in the next clause requires 
some such distinct opposition. 

69. Dr Tregelles has an interesting paper on this passa^ 
Journal of CUustcal and Sacred Philoloffy^ rv, April, 
J 855; but I believe that the text is hopelessly cor- 






A. Catalo^es ratified by Conciliar authority : appktoix 

1. The Laodioene Catalogae i. 

2. The Carthaginian Catalogues ; and ii. 

3. The Apostolic Catalogue: both ratified at 

the Quinisextine Council, Can. 2 iii. 

B. Catalogues proceeding from the Eastern Church : 

1. Syria. 

Junilius iv. 

Johannes Damasoenus v. 

Ebed Jesu yi. 

2. Palestine. 

Eusebius. vii. 

Cyril of Jerusalem viii. 

Epiphanius ix. 

3. Alexandria. 

Origen X. 

Athanasius xi. 

4. Asia Minor. 

Gregory of Nazianzus. xii. 

Amphilochius xiii. 

5. Constantinople. 

Chrysostom. Synopsis xiv. 

Leontius xv. 

Nioephorus xvL 



C. Gatalopfues proceediog from the Weatem Church : 

1. Africa. 

Stich. ap. Cod. Clarom. xn. 

Augustine. xm 

2. Italy. 

Muratorian Canon 


Jerome , 



[Gelasius]] , 


3. Spain. 



coxciLiuM Can, Lix.' (Cf. Bickel], Sti^. 

auMi. u, Krit. iii. ss. 611 ff.; 

y()3 A.c. j^o \ 

supr. pp. 498 sqq.) 

vO . On OV Be? (6l«0TlKOVV 

\l/a\fAov^ XeyeaSai €v Tif 
eKKAijo-i^, ovCe aKavouiaTa 
I3i/3\iay aWa jxova to. tcavo- 
¥iKa Tfj^ Kaivtj^ Ka\ iraAaiac' 

Idem £aHne\ (Tebs. Isi- 

Can. Lix. Non opoiM 
ab idiotis psalmos compoei- 
tos et Tulgares in ecclesiis' 
dici, neque libros qui soot 
extra canonem legere, nisi 
solos canonicos novi et vete- 
ris testament!. 

^ Idem Canon, nisi quod Ba- 
ntch, Lartventationes et Epistola 
omittuntur, habetur in Capitular. 
AquUgran, c. xz. (Labb^, ziii. 
App. i6r, ed. Flor. 1767), hoc 
titulo pneposito : Dt libria Cano- 
nicis, Sa>cerdotibuB, Lectt. Tarr. 
littera A notavi 

■ E cod. Bibl. Univ. Cant. 
Ee. iv. 19. Coll. cod. Arund. 
533 Mua. Brit. (At.) 

• Ar. ri7t t. koX k. 

1 E cod. reg. Mua. Brit. 11. 
D. iv. 

' DionjB. Exig. luec tantnm 
habet : Non oportet pUbeiot ptai- 
mot in eeclena cantari, nee librM 
ptxBler canonem Ufji, ted toia tacra 
volumina novi testctmenti tti ttte- 
ria. Cui consentt. intt. Syrr. 
Codd. Mu8. Brit, 14, 526, 14, 
5^8, 14, 529. 

' EccUtta Bick. dies m eeck- 
$iit A. 


awayivwaKCaSai' ' iraXaia? Sia- 

ic. T. X,... Kaiv^^ dtad^Ktj^*' 
evayyeXta c\ Kara MaT^moy, 
Hard MdpKoWf Kara Aohkov, 
Kara ^luduvriw wpd^a^ airo- 
<rTo\90¥' €7naTo\at KaBoXiKoi 
ewTQ' ovT*M • iaK»po¥ a • 

7 • louda a* €iri(rToXai 
riavXov i3'** irpov *P«0/iaiov« 
a • irpo^ KopiwdioiK a, f^' 
wpo^ VaXdTa^ a' irpd^ *E^€* 
iriov^ a'* irpoc <I>iXi9rirf|<rioi/c 
a • vpoK K.o\aa<rQ€K a* wpd^ 
Oeo-o-aXowKCK a, P' irpov 
Kftpaiov^ a' irpd^ Tifx6d^o¥ 
a,/j' wpd^ TiTO¥ a* *wpd^ 
^iKtjfAova a, 

* Ar. all + TTts, 

» Bick. alL Td «* T^ IC a. 
raOra, rijt di k, 8. raOro. Ar. 
' Bev. = otJr(#t. Ar. = i. oh. 

* Cod Cant. a'. /T. Ar. 7. 

* Bick. + ourctft. 

* Bev. At. + koL 

Quae autem oporteat legi appendix 
et in auctoritatem recipi haec * ' 

sunt : Genesis . . . Novi Testa- 
menti: Evangeliam secan- 
dum Matthseam, secundum 
Marcum, secundum Lucam, 
secundum Johannem. Actus 
Apostolorum. Epistol® Ca- 
nonicffi ' septem : Jacobi 
una^; Petri due, i. et ii.*; 
Joannis tres> i. et ii. et iiL^; 
Judse una. Epbtolas Pauli 
numero*ziv.: adBomanos^; 
ad Corinthios duas*, i. et iL ; 
ad Galatas; ad Ephesios; 
ad Philippenses ; ad Colos- 
senses; ad Thessalonioenses 
duas*, L et ii.; ad Timo- 
theum du£e, i. et ii. ; ad 
Titum; ad Philcmonem ; ad 

1 Cod. A«. 

' All. et A. EtangdiaqwAuoTn 
' AIL Caikoliag, A. Catholka 

* Petri ii, Joe. i. A. 

' AIL a prima et tee. — j»r. et 
eec, et tett, 

* AIL et A. B Attflierv. 
' Cod.+ee. 

8 A\L=^dwe. 

* ColL Theo<L et MS. Diea- 
senae ap. Amort. + Apocalt/ptii 
Johannu, C£ Spittler, p. 107. 






a07 A.c. 


Can. 39, (ita B. C Can. 47- 
Labbe, ii. 1177- Cf. 
8upr. pp. 508 seqq.) 
Item placuit nt pneter 
Scripturas canonicas, nihil 
in ccclesia legatur sub nomi- 
ne divinarum Scripturanim. 
Sunt autem Canonicae Scrip- 
turas hae*: Genesis... Nov! 
autem Testamenti, evangeli- 
orum libri quatuor, Actuum 
Apostolonim liber unus, 
Epistolas Pauli Apostoli* 
xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos 
una, Petri apostoli duas, Jo- 
hannis^ tres, Jacobi i., Jndie 
i.', Apocalypsis Johannis li- 
ber unus*. Hoc etiam fratri 
et consacerdoti ^ nostro Bo- 
nifacio, vel aliis earum par- 
tium Episcopis, pro confir- 

1 E cod. ColL S& Trin. 
Cant. B. xiv. 44, sok;. xii. in quo 
ordo canonum hie est : L-xxxvii. 
xLix. xLvii. xLviii. {Placuit — mi- 
nislri), xLviii. {Quibua — ^fin.) + 
xxxxviii. &c. ColUtis Codd. 
Mu8. Brit. (B) Cott. Claud. D. 
9, ssec. xi. ; (C) Reg. 9, B. xii. 

a LabW = fue. 

' c. B. C. — L. Pauli ap. ep, 

* L. + apottoli = B. C. 

^ L. Juda apottoli una et Jac, 

^ L. 'QuidamvetustuB codex 
flic haljet: De confinnando isto 
canone tranamarina occlesia con- 

" B. cotpucopo. 

Idem Greece*: 

mere CfCToc timt KaBolkam 
fpa<pm¥ fXfi^€¥ €9 Tp mXf- 
<ri^ dmtytmmo'KCtrBau '0;mmk 
CKTOt TMy' MayorivMy 7p^^ 
fjiflhiw €9 T^ €icfcXf|0'ift 09071- 
ywo-fcifxai «w* ovofiari rm 
Oiiuw ypaipm¥' CiO-i 8c mavon-^ 
jcai * ypaipctk •yereiri?' k. t. A. 
T^c veav Sia6ffici|^. Evqttc- 
Xia S*' wpa^euw *ri5v a-roirr*- 

UapXov SfKaTecro-a^cv* lit* 
Tpov a^oa-ToXov 8110* *IovCa 
dwoarroXov a* ^Imdwmtw d^o- 
(TToAov y ' luKw/Sov oro- 
UToXou pia' dwoKaKvyj/tK 
*ludy¥OV 0if3\o^ fjkta' xorro* 
he Ttf^ a$cA,0w acai oiiXAci- 
TOVpy» ifpvtf BoKi^aTiw koi 
TO?? aWoK rraitf clvtHv fiepmw 
ivnTKowoi^ wpo^ ficfBaimcw 

IE cod. Bibl. Univ. Cant. 
Ee. iv. 29. Huic canoni neque 
numeruB pnefigitur neque miniaU 
iittera ; in serie autem e»t xxiv*. 

* Bev. = rCav, 
» Bev. + eO. 

^ Cod. male roi>rw. 

* Bev. = Tfp. 

* Cod. add. roi>rc<rrc duarr. 
locutt. commixt. 


xnandoistocanone innotescat, 
quia a patribus isia accepi- 
mus in ecclesia legenda\ 
Liceat autem ' legi passiones 
martjrum cum anniversarii 
eorum dies celebrantur*. 

Tov trpoKCifiivov Kawoyo^ yvu^ APPENDIX 

pi<r6^f iveiZtj vapa rmw ira- 

reptov TOVTa iv r^ eKKkfjaria 
avayvmarea ^ap€\afio/x€v. 

1 C. agenda vitiose. 
s C. etiam, 
' B. diet cd, tor, 
tor, eeUbr, 

C. diet 


Can. Lxxvi. (all. lxxxv.) (Bunsen, Anal. Ante- Cak apost. 

NlC 11. p. 30) : E<rT» d€ vpLiy wcuri KXtiptKoT^ nai XaiicoT? 
fiifikia a€pd<niia kq\ ayia* Tfj<i /ui€ir iraAaia? liaOtJKti^ . . . 
tl^€T€pa l€, TovTCcTTi T^c Kaiufj^ liaOtiKfj^^evayyeKta retrvapa*, 
MardaloVy MdpKov^ AovKci^ *Ia>aWou* TlavKov ivurroKai 
Z€Kar£<r<rap€^' Tltrpov cVkttoAoi Zvo' *ludvirov tock* *Ia- 
K»fiou tAta' *lovha fxia*' KXtj/xevTOK einaroXa)* 3wo, koi at 
tiuTayai vpTv* tok eviaKowot^ ht ifiov KXif/tjicrro* €¥ 6kt» 
pi^XioK wpo<Twe(pi0vriiJi€vaif ac ov ^pfj ZrjfAo<n€v€t¥ iir\ irdvrttv^ 
6ia Ta €» avTOi^ /uii;<micd* koi at irpd^CK iffiiuv t»¥ dwo* 


De partihut divinas legi$*^ Lib. i. c. 2, (Gallandi, xii. J""'^iJ{J' 
79 seqq.) Species [scripturse^ . . .aut historica est, aut pro- c, 650 a.c. 
phetica, aut proTerbialis, aut simpliciter docens. 

^ Hie Catal. integer exBtat in Codd. Syrr. (Mui. Rnt.) 14, 
5?6, 14, 5^7, luec. vi. velvii. ; non autem in MS. Arab. 7207. £>ion. 
£xig. Canones tantum L. vertit. 

^ Syr. + qwB arUea memaravimut, 

' *!. fi. om. co<i. Bodl. ap. Ber. (Ueltien.) 

* Syr. dua epp. mea CUmentit, 
' Buusen vfiQpl err. typ. 

• Ad PrimaHium Epiflcopum (c. 553 A. 0.) Prrf. ... [vidil quen- 
dam Paullum nomine, Persam genere, qui in Syrorum scnola in 
Nifiibi urbe est edoctus, ubi divina lex per magiBtros publicos, licut 
apud no8 in mundanis studiia Grammatica et Rhetorica, ordine ac 
reg^ulariter traditur...cjus...regulas duos breTiaaimos 
libellos . . . collegi . . . 



APPENDIX c. 3. De historia. . . Duc^uhts. In qmhas fibril £fiDi 
' oontinetiir historia? MaguUr. In septemdecdm. €ko.i» 
Exod. i., Levit. i.. Nam. i., Deuter. L, Jesa Nave i.» 
Judicum i.y Ruth i., Regam, secundum no8 \y^ eoeim- 
dum Hebrasos ii., Evangeliorum W; secundum Mat- 
thseum, secundum Marcum^ secundum Ijucam, secun- 
dum Joannera, Actuum Apostolurum i. />. Nulli aHi 
Libri ad divinam Historiam pertinent? JIf. Adjun- 
gunt plures : Paralipomenon i\., Tob. i., Esdrad iL, Ju- 
dith i., Hester i., Maccab. ii 

c. 4. De Prophetia. . . 2>. In quibus libris prophetia sos- 
cipitur ? M, In septemdecim. Psalmorum cL lib. I, 
Osad lib. i.^ Esaise lib. i., Joel lib. i., Amos lib. i., Abdis 
lib. i., Jonae lib. i., Micbseae lib. i., Naum. lib. i^ SophcH 
nia9 lib. i., Habacuc lib. i., Jeremiae lib. L, ESaechiel lib.L, 
Malachiae lib. i. Caeterum de Joannis Apocalypsi apod 
orientales admodum dubitatur 

c. 5. De proverbiii, 

c 6. De nrnplici doctrina,. . D, Qui libri ad simplioem 
doctrinam pertinent? M. Canonici sexdecim ; id est; 
Eccles. lib. i. ; et Epist. Paulli Apostoli ad Rom. i. ad 
Corinth, ii. ad Gal. i. ad Ephes.- i. ad Philip, i. ad 
Coloss. i. ad Thessal. ii. ad Timoth. ii. ad Titum L ad 
Philem. i. ad Hebr. i. Beati Petri ad gentes i. ; et beati 
Joannis prima. D. Nulli alii libri ad simplicem doc- 
trinam pertinent ? M. Adjungunt quamplurimi quin- 
que alias quae Apostolorum CanonicsB nuncupantor; 
id est : Jacobi i. Petri secundam, Judas unam^ Joannis 

c. 7* De auctoritate Scripturarum. D. Quomodo divi- 
norum librorum consideratur auctoritas? jyf. Quia 
quidam perfectae auctoritatis sunt, quidam mediae, qui- 
dam nullius. D, Qui sunt perfectae auctoritatis ? M. 
Quos canonicos in singulis speciebus absolute namen- 
vimus. D. Qui mediae? M. Quos adjuugi a pin- 


ribus diximas. D. Qui nnllius auctoritatis sunt ? M. appendix 

Reliqui omnes. D. In omnibus speciebus has differ- '. 

entias inveniuntur? M. In historia et simplici doc- 
trina* omnes; namque in prophetia mediae auctoritatis 
libri non praster Apocalypsim reperiuntur; neque in 
proverbiali specie omnino oessata. 


Defide Orthodaasa, iv. 17*« Itrriov Bi «« eiKoat Kot Ivo J^^"^Jj^^ 

^t/3\oi €ta\ rrj^ iraXaia^ ZiadiiKt]^ Kara to <rTOi^€?a rfj^ ^ 760 a.c. 

*£/?|L>aiSo9 (pwvri^ Tfj^ 66 v€a^ hiadtJKti^ evayy€\ia* TeC" 

aapa' to* Kara MardaFov, to Kara MdpKoy^ to Kara 
AovKav^y TO Kara *lmdv»fiy» H panel's rw¥ ayttav airoo'ToXtav 
Sia AovKa TOW €vayy€\tiTTov, Kado\iKa\* iiriaroXal €irTa' 
*laKta^ov fAta, Uirpov^ 3vo, *lwa»»ov Tpc??, *Ioi;§a /mia. Ilai^- 
Xov diroa'ToXov cxicrToAai' ZeKaTeaaape^, AiroKa\u\l/t^* 
*Itod»yov €vayy€\ia'Tov, Kavdvcv Ttav ayitoy diro<rToXtov^^ hia 


CataL Libr. omn. Eecle$ia$t\corum ( Assemani, Bibl. £«»> Jho- 
^ ... o \ U318A.0. 

Or. ui. pp. o seqq.) 

Cap. ii. Nunc abednto Teleri 

Aggrediamur jam novum Tettamentum : 
Cujus caput est Matthaeus, qui Hebraice 
In Palasstina scripsit. 

^ Gftllandii pravum inierpunctionem oorrexi : doctrina : omnet 

* Ex edit Lequien, Parii, 171 3; collata vera. L&t. Jo«DDi« 
Barg^ndioiiiB (c. 1180 A. c), dvis Pisani, ex codd. Mus. Brit. Beg. 
6, B, xii. (a) ; 5, D, x. (fi) ; add. 15, 407 (7). 

* Evanf/dista y. * quod sec M. &c. B. y. 

^ rd /c. A. = /9. * CanonietB a, CaikoUccB /9. 7. 

7 + teriiut punctis tuppos. 7. 

* St epidola 7. sed man. see. add. 
' ApochcUyptis 7. 

^^ R. 1418 /cai ^FMrroXai i6o did KXi//ieKrof, sed interpoUtum 
vane hunooe oodioem esBe monuimua (Leq.) 


APPENDIX Post hunc Maiciis, qui Romane 

' Locutus est in oeleberrima Roma : 

£t Lucas, qui Alexandria 

Grsce dixit scripdtque: 
Et Joannes, qui Ephesi 

Gra?co sennone exaravit Evangelium. 

Actus quoque Apostolorum^ 

Quos Lucas Theophilo inscripsit. 
Tres etiam Epistol® quae inscribuntur 

Apostolis in omni codice et lingua, 

Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni; 

Et Catholicae nuncupantur. 
Apostoli autem Pauli magni 

Epistolse quatuordecim ^ 

Cap. iiL Evangelium, quod compilavit 

Yir Alexandrinus 

Ammonius, qui, et Tatianus, 

lUudque Diatessaron appellavit. 
Cap. iv. Libri quoque quorum Auctores sunt 

Discipuli Apostolorum. 

Liber Dionysi, &c. 


EusMius. (H. E. iii. 25.) Cf. supr. pp. 481 seqq. 

t ;hu a.c. 


CTBILLC8, CafecA. iv. 33 (22 ed. Mill.) ir€p\TiSv Bci^v ypa<p^w. 

Kg, Hieroiol. <I)|Xo/uia0«c iiriyvudi mapa rfj^ iKK\ri<ria^ iro?ai /uteV elctw al 

1386 A.c. ^^5 iraAaia^ 6iadr}Kri^ fiifi\ot, woTai Be rrj^ Katvfj^ woAv 

aov <ppo»ifXutT€pot fi<ra» oi AtroaroXoi xai ol apYaZoi €ir(- 
aKoirot, ol Ti/c iKKXtjala^ trpoaraTai, ol TavTn^ 'fapahov^e^' 
(TV ouy reKvov rrj^ £KicAf}(ria« /miy irapa'^apaTre tou9 Oe<raoJc 

T^? Zi Kaiinj^ ZiadriKti^ rd T€(T<rapa evayyeXta* Tct ^c 

Aoiira \lr€vl€iriypa<pa Ka\ /SXa/Scpd Tvyj^dvei' eypayl^av 

^ Ep, ad ffebneot locum ultimum obtinet. 




Maw^^roi Kara dtt/tar tiayfiXiaii, S-Kip, ma'Ktp liaZ'ta Ttji APPENDIX 
tuayytXiiifjV -rpoirmiHiii'ia*, iia<p0c!pti tos i^kj^i tibip oirAav- — . . — — . 
<rrtpmy, iij^ov ii itol to* ■wpd^tii tw¥ im^tKa aVatrToAof' 
irpov TOUTon ti nai tIi! eVra 'latii^ov Kai IltTpoir, 'Iggavmir 
KOI 'loiifo, KaSoXiitat iitiirTokas' inur^pdytana it rir 
rarritv «oi /inflijTBii to TcXcvTaror, to's llauXov ifKatiaaapav 
iiritrroXaf to ci \otwa nvra «f« kciVSw e* S((iT<pi|i. kqi 
ooo fift (t> cKiXqirioiT yiii] aKiYU'wo'''CTOt, tovto ^qSc koto 
oavTow dtafitmint KttSm* tJKOuaa^ 


Adv. har. Lxxvi. 5. Ed. Colon. 1682. Ei fip qt ff KFirH»iui, 

oVfou rrtiiia-Toi -,(-,tnn)iii>o<i ical ^po^n-raiO ko'i oioo-tuAoh ^j.^a'^c. 
HtpaOrtTtviiinfK, iltt at \it\Q6rTa dit apj^i: ydrciitiat koquov 
aXP' '^"' AlvSiip j^poruv it t'lKOat ko'i tirTo ^i/3Xai^ iro^aiot 
ciadiJKyiv, t'lioai Ovo dpiBfiouiiiroit, TtTrapoi it dyioi^ tiayyt- 
KloK, Kol t* Ttaa-apantaJiitKa iinoToXoK Tou dyiov oVikfto- 

Kov UaiKc 

trpo TOVTflV, Kol ovv 

QfTav j^¥Oii npd^ttri T«f dwotrroXmr, KaSoXitaT^ *iri- 
OToXaU 'lasii(iuv no'i Xlirpou KOi 'Imdryou itoi 'loirjo, icai 
ir Tp Toi' 'iBarmu 'AwotaXu^rti, *r tc Toit £o0iaiT, ZoAo. 
fi»n-<>< TC ^ij^i iinl vi'iiv Sipo'ji;, KOI iro'trait oVXm ypaiptin 

Ap. Euaeb. H. E. tL 25. Cf. pp. 402 seqq. owe..-. 

JSr Epitl. Fttl. xxxix, J;;. 7%w(ferum Baltamontm Anrnjiim, 
in " 5bio«w in Canonet^ :" T. i. 76?. Ed. Bened. Par. "^UTS.'* 

1777. Mt'XABir !t TOiiTBv Qbc. Ti» eciBV Y^a^Mfl] /int/io- 
rcv'tii' J^pijiropai vpdt trua-Taam tJ? cpavTou To'A/trtt T^ TtiVy 

> Eadcm vfostoU «ut>t in Ven. Syr. Miu. Brit., (Cod. 17, i6S. 
■tec. Tii. T. Tiii.), qDam nupcr Anglicb nddidit tIt rarereDdiu, cui 
raihi pro unffulAri qm hamuiUte gntin ■gendn niiit: Tit Pttal 
Lctten o^ AuuautAit, InaidaUdfnm lAt Sgriat bg At Set. B. Bvr- 
gm. Ph. D. p. 137. 


APPENDIX rod evayyeXiarov AovKa, \iymv ica} ckVT-at, cvccSifVf^ 

! Tivcc €^€'X€ipri<ra» dvaTa^airBat #aifToI« nXejopem 

awoKpvipa Ka\ iirifxi^at Tovra Tp 0€ow¥€ua^r^ ypa/^^ vc^i 
fj« iir\ri<popiiOtifA€Vy Ka6«« wapiZoirav to?« var^a- 
ciif oi air' dp')^rj^ avrowTat Ka\ vwfipcvrai y€90p.€Wi 
rou \6yov^ eZo^e Kdfio\ wptyrpctwiwTi wapd ynitim 
dheXtpMif, Ka\ fAaOowTi avttBew e^^^ CKdea-Oai Ta xapovi^o^icM 
Koi irapaZoOem-a, iri<rT€v6erra t€ B(7a €itfat fiifiXta, Tms cco^ 
<rTo«, €1 /J16V tjfrarridri, Karayvm rmw w\ctvri<rdtrrmy^ 6 U 
KaQapo^ hiafAclua^ X^'^P^ iraAiv mrofiipLUffa-KOfiepo^, cm 
roiwv rfj^ fi€v iraAaiac $ia6f|Kf;« ^ifixla tm dpiBfim ta 

wdvra €iKO<nZvo to W tiJ« icaiirf^ [^SiaOy/icfic fit/3X»a^ om 

OKvriTeov tW^iv' ianyapTavTa' EvayycAia Teaaapa' koto 
Mardurov, Kara ^lapKov, Kara AovKav^ Kara *Imdvwtiv. £7ra 
fxerd raura Ilpd^ei^ *Airo<rr6\toy^ Ka\ cirio-roAai Ka^oAicoi' 
fcaAoJ/xeyai T»y avoaroKtay cirTa* ovrw^. ^laictifiov fnew a, 
rier^ou Sc /S*, e^Ta *ltadvvov y, Ka\ fxera ravra^ *Iovha a, 
Tlpo^ toJtoi? HavXov airoaroXov €i<n» eiriarroXai ZeKaric* 

trapes, rp rd(et ypa<p6fic»ai* owt«?' kqi waXiv *lmdwo9 

airoKaAuxj^K * raura ▼ijyai rou atorrjpioVy m<rr€ to? 
Bix^floi^ra €fA<pop€7a'dai ruv €» rovroi^ Xoyltov ev Tovrtnt 
/u(oyoi9 TO rrj^ ^vaefiiia^ ^iZavKaXetov evayyeXi^en-au MifScK 
Toi/TOK €vi/3aXX€rto, fAti^i rovrtov a<paip€ia-$ti» ti. 

obwmrids Cartn. xii. 31 (Ed. Benedict. Par. 1840). (weoi rar 

irus. yvriaifuv (iipXimv rti^s oeowcvarov ypa<pri^,) 

MardaTo*! fAtv €ypa\l/€y 'Efipaiot<! Oavfiara Xpicrrov 

Ma^KO^ 8' 'IraAijy, AouKac 'A;^aifa8i. 
nacc 8* 'I«ai/i/>7C Ktipv^ fJ^^ya^, ovpa¥o<pogrfi^\ 
"Eireira Upd^ei^ rmv <ro<pwv awoardXmv, 

^ Syr. = jca^oXiJca/. * Syr. = ypa^fiepoi, 

* Idem est ordo qui in editt. vulgg. 

^ Metra Gregorius nullo oerto ordine commisoet ; quod lectont 
monitos velim, ne quia Apocalypsiin versu proxixne sequenti olmi 
commemoratam fuisse suspicetur. 



s<' n. 

IiIAou TtltBttpU T cVllTTOAai. 


i a K, 

ifloA-V'. -' 


DU p!a. 


hi Ui- 

rpow, TfliT* S 

- ■].<£» 

.o« M^K«. 

'Wta £' cVtIk i^io/tn. 



Er T, 

t Ut 

OBTBr «T<K, 

OM (I- 


e. 380 ^ c. 

Iambi ad SeUueum. Ap. Gref[or. N&nanz. Cf. Am- Anaiio- 
philoch. ed. Combef. p. 132. 

EiIa77tXicrTa« Ttirirapat iij^ou itonom, 
MarOaioii, ti-ra MapKor, y Aowitai' Tphov 
tlpo<r6fK apiSiiti, TOW S* 'luafr^v j^povf 
TtrapTor, aWd rpuTor Z^frei Zoytt'*''^uW 
Bpon-qt 70^ ulot TOuraii finormv Kakm 

At'^ou Si ^;/3*Oi. AoiKa Ka\ T^Y itvTfpar, 
Ti)* TBI Ka^oAiKiTv ripa^ttii' aVoa-ToAwv, 
To (TKCVut <fi7t irpoirriflti T^t tuAiry^T, 
Tov Tav (Brir Hitpvaa, ran -r anaatoKov 
TTauAov, ao^it ypa'^arro ratt c«i(Ai|<riait 

EirnTToAaT *H tTTO 

Tiwt B< Ipaai Trjii vpm 'K^palov^ roBoii, 
Oilit ei Ai70iT«' 7i^»io 70'p q yapn. 
Er«" T( Aoiito'k; KaOoAiicav tVitfToAuv 
Tin*! /((»i (n-Tti ipairi; o! 5* Tptis fio'tvit 

Mia» Je IIcTpov, Tffll t' 'I»o'iiipdu (''""i 
"Tmii a TuV Tpta, Hal irpoi niiTaS tot ti< 
TltTpov Jtjjoi^ai, T»j» 'loiiSa i' ipioiitit' 
Tij* o' 'AvonaAui^iv Tijir 'IitafKiti iroArr 
Tirit fiC* ifKp'ivovaif, o! irAEiom £(' 7c 
Ka'0Dr kifov^m, OuTof d^toiiaraTo* 
Karvv OB c'lj tbii flcovMviTTtiir ypa<pmr 



'. Synoptis Saer. Script. Ap. Chrys. Tom. vi. p. 318 a. 

Ed. Bened. : 'Eo-ri Zi xai t^« koiv^c jSt/SXia, at eirio-ToAai 
al h€KaT€a<Tap€K HavXoVy ra evayyeXia tu Tea-frctpcL^ Zio 
fA€v T»y fxadriTUv tou ^piCTOv luawov Ka\ ^InrBaiov 
hvo he AovKO, Kot MdpKOv' tap 6 fiiv tou Tlen-pov, o t€ 
TOW YiavXov yeyovaci nadrjTai, ol nev yap avToirTa\ tja-tuf 
yeycvrifxevoi^ icai avyyeyofievot rw Xpicrw* ol h€ irap cxeivwy 
BiaBc^a/ACvoi €iC €T€pow i^^veyKav' koi to t£v irpd^evp 
c€ /SiftXiov, Ka\ avro AovKa, i<rTopti<ravTO^ Ta yevofiepa' 
Kai Tm¥ KaSoXtKtov iiri<TToXa\ rpc??. 


LiorauB. De Sectis AeU ii. (GaUandi, xii. 625 seqq.) . . . dwaptB- 

/xri<ra)fji€6a Ta eKKXtiaiaa-TiKa /St/Sxla, twv toivvv ckkXi7o-i- 
ao-TiKWv /3t/3xltov Ta fiev Ttj^ iraXaia^t ctffi ypa<f>rj^* to. le 
Ttj^ via^..,.Tti^ fA€v ovy iraAoia? Qiftxia clori K/3',...Tfj^ 
de vea^ ef elci (3tfiXia, iv huo v€pi€')^€t touc Tca-aapa^ 
evayyeXiiTrd^' to fiev yap e^ci MarOaToif Ka\ ^IdpKOp, to 
Ce €Tepo» AovKay xai Iwdwriw, TpiTov eaTiv al Trpd^et^ 
Twv a7ro<TToXoav, TCTapTov al KadoXiKai €Vi<TToXa\ ovcrai 
etTTa' UP irpuTti top laKtopov €<rTi* rj p . kqi 17 y . 

WiTpOV 17 B*. KOti ۥ KCLl ITTm TOP ^llOaVPOV* f\ Sc ^. TOW 'loifBa. 

KaOoXiKcu Be eKXijOtjaap cVciBi; ov irpo^ fp eO^o^ iypd" 
(jirfaap wv al top WapXopy dXXa KadoXop wpo^ n-dpra. 
vefAiTTOP Pt/Sxlop al iS . top aylop TlapXop iirto'ToXciL Zktop 
ccTiv »/ diroKdXpyl/i^ top aytop Itaavpop, 

TapTa icFTi Ta Kavovi)^dfA€Pa jStpXia €P t^ €KKXrj<Tia 
KOt iraXaia Kat v€a, top Ta iraXaia iravTa Bc^ovrai 01 

N1CBPHOED8, Cf. Credner, Zur Gesch. d. K. ss. 119 ff.' 

800—815 § 1. 0<rai ciai deCai ypaipat €KKXri<riaKjfi€tHZi kqi 


^ Lectt. Tan*, vers. Lat. Anastasii (c. 870 ▲, c.) apposui e Ckxi. 
Burn. (Mu8. Brit.) 384, bsbc. xil v. ziii. t 283. 


■ciiaravKrficMli. Koi ij Tuiiraii' <rTi]^o/iCTpia, outim ... § il> AP?BNDIX 
Tqt ctot SiaAfiift. 

o'. Eiafyi\iOK Kara tdaTOaToV" orij^oi fi'p- 

p. EJaT^fAiov Kara Mofiiiov* aTijftn Jf. 

y', Eiayye\io¥ Kara Aomtar' OTijfoi ^j;'- 

E'. EuorYCXiDi' KOTO 'Imatvtl'' irTij^oi jSt'.' 

i'. Upa^tn Ttir d*omaXm^ vtSj^oi fit', 

r- Haikor twiiTToXtti iS'* tf-Ti^oi t-r . 

^. KaSoXiKoi* ^. 'IttKii^tni a. YltTpou ff". 'Ittarvoa 

'Ofiou Ti}t Mat Sui9if(qt 0i(i\ia nr'.' 

§ IT. Kol omii Tq* t4ai amyiformi* 

a , A'WOKokv^n 'loamruir' OTijfOi av'J 

p. 'AwonaktrffK TltTpou' trTijfoi t'.' 

y. Raprafia fwnTToXij" irTi^oe jarp'.' 

0. EiayyiXior icara '^^pa'iotn' arivoi fir'." 

§ vi- Kal oira rqt Mat aVdipu^a. 

■a'. "Ilc/iioSot neTpow' im'^or fi'i^rv. 

/?. IltpioEot 'luaiwou" (TTijjoi fix-" 

y. TlipSoiiK Ou/ia' ffTijjm a\f/. 

i", Eva77(Aiov (QTa Git^av* o-tiVoi ar'." 

«'. Ai£a^' avpiTTO^Mr* o'TiJJoi r'. 

r*. KAij/i(i-roc a', ^- o-ti^oi, fix'* 

^. 'lyrarlov, T]o\v<cap*ov, pioifWHit iioi] "Efifiia' 

' Cod. Ha mnl divma *er^*ni gtur rteipiunlur ab ndetia « 
canon iianfur. llarvmqut vemiitm nuiiurui tU niljidtur. ...Hi aitfnw 
mnt non TtManiaili. 

' Cod. nocca _ • Cod. + fyUata. 

* Cod. + Simul mpten ; vertut no ioOC. 

* Cod. Simul nierii quidm Tatanenti IZri xxll et mm vH. 

* Cod. B quibtit ttovi eonlradiaiuT. ' Cod. It. 

' Cod. luiDCco. • Cod. Icocm. '• Cod. Hoc. 

" Cod. + Itinmrium PatiU. nr. ililW. " Cod. iU. 

" Cod. Coiat. ap. Montf. p. 3O4 ; 4 irotitiinf'a 'luirwiH/„.rTtxot 

" Cod. Clmentu maau. " Cod. PuMrit... t 



D. XVI. 

cig^ctorjw, Fernu Scribturarum Sanctarutn}. ... iETangriia liiL 
Matthaeum yer. hdc. Johannes ver. If. Maicm Ter. Idg- 
Lucam ver. TIdcccc. Epistuloe PauK ad Romanos Yer. vkl, 
ad Chorintios .i. yer. ilx. ad Chorintios .n. ver. lxx. ad 
Galatas yer. oocl. ad Efesioe yer. coclxxv. ad Timotheam 
.1. ver. ocviii. ad Timotheum .n. ver. ccLxxxviiii. ad Utom 
yer. cxL. ad Colossenses yer. ocLi. ad Filimoiieiii ver. l. ad 
(nc) Petrum prima cc. ad Petrum .n. yer. cxi^. Jacobi yer. 
ccxx. Pr. Johanni Epist. coxx. Johanni Epistula .ii. xx. 
Johanni Epistula .in. xx. Jadae Epistula ver. lx. ' Bar- 
nabas Epist. yer. jkocl. Johannis Revelatio ico. Actus 
Apostolorum ITdg. 'Pastorts yersi im. 'Actus Paoli yer. 
iiLDcx. ' Reyelatio Petri oolxx. 


iX^' ^^ ^^^' Chrutiana ii. 12 (viii.) (ed. Bened. Par. 

I43Q^Q^ 1836). Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertissimns 
indagator, qui primo totas legerit notasque habuerit. ^ » 
nondum intellectu, jam tamen lectione duntaxat eas que 
appellantur Canonical. Nam caeteras securius leget fide yeri- 
tatis instructus> ne pra^occupent imbecillem animam et 
periculosis mendaciis atque phantasmatis eludentes pne- 
judicent aliquid contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonids 
autem Scripturis, ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium 
auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane iUae sint, qu» 
apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere merueront. 
Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, ut 

1 Ex edit. 'Hachdf. p. 468 eq. Nihil est in Gneoo Cod. textu 
quod stichometrisB respondeat, quam e codioe Latino Scriba Gneciia 
ft Alexandrinus). Equidem e Latina, seu potius ex Africana orurine 
deductam esse crediderim, et oerte ssbcuIo quarto antiquiorem. ^^nne 
aliter censet Tischdf. Proleg. p. xviii. ^ 

■ His quatuor versibus ..manu satis recenti pnepoeiti sunt obelL 
(Tiich. p. 589.) ^^ 


qu89 ab omnibus aocipiuntur ecclesiis Oatholicis pneponat app^dix 

eiB quas qusedam non aocipinnt : in e«8 vero quse non acd- '. 

piuntur ab omnibus, prsponat eas quas plures gravioiesque 
aocipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisqueauctoritatis eccksiie 
tenent. Si autem alias inyenerit a pluribus, alias a gravi* 
oribus baberi, quanquam hoc &cile invenire non possit, 
a^qualis tamen anotoritatis eas habendas puto. 13. Totus 
autem Canon Scripturarnm in quo istam considerationeni 
▼ersandam dicimus, his libris continetur: Quinque Moyseos 
...His quadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti Yeteris termi- 
natur auctoritas: Novi autem, quatuor libris Evangelii, 
secundum Matthaeum, secundum Marcum^ secundum Lu- 
CBxn, 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 Hebrseos ; Petri duabus ; tribus Joannis ; una 
Judae et una Jacobi; Actibus Apostolorum librc> uno, et 
Apocalypsi Joannis libro uno. 14 (ix) In his omnibus 
libris tintentes Deum et pietate mansueti, quserunt volun- 
tatem Dei. 


Cf. App. B. Om. MuraL 


ffanr, LX. (Crallandi, vii. 480 sqq.)"*Statutum est ab philas- 
apostolis et eorum successoribus non aliud legi in ecclesia t'c.aB7A.c. 
debere catholica nisi legem et prophetas et Eyangelia et 
Actus Apostolorum, et Paulli tredecim epistolas, et septem 
alias, Petri duas, Joannis tres, Judas imam, et unam Jacobi, 
quae septem Actibus Apostolorum conjuncta* sunt. . . 

Ha?r» LXi. Sunt alii quoque [lia^retici^ qui Epistolam 
Paulli ad Hebraeos non asserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut 
Bamabae esse Apostoli aut Clementis de nrbe Roma epi- 
scopi ; alii autem Lucae Eyangelistas aiunt Epistolam, etiam 



APPENDIX ad LaodiceDses scriptam \ Et quia addidenmt in ca fui- 

'. — dam non bene sentientes inde non legiior in ecdda; 

et si legitnr a quibusdam, non tanaen in eoclena kfpte 
popnlo, nisi tredecim epistolie ipdna et ad Hdxneos iitai* 
dum...quia fiictum Christum dicit in ea inde non kypiv; 
de poenitentia autem propter Novatianoe «qiie. 

Hcpr. xxxii...sunt baeretici qni Cvan|^Iiiun secimdnii 
Joannem et Apocaljpsim ipeius non accipiunt, et. ..m ham 
permanent peremites nt etiam Cerinthi illius hieretici eeae 
audeant dioere, et Apocaljpsim itidem non beati Jotmni 
Evangelists et Apostoli sed Cerintbi basietici... 


Hiwojff. Ad Paul Ep. Liii. § 8. Q. p. 548 ed. Migne). 
d94A.D. Cemis me Scripturarum amore raptum ezcesBisse ido- 
dum epistolse, et tamen non implesse quod volui Tin- 
gam et novum breviter Testamentum. Matthseus, Maicos, 
Lucas, et Johannes, quadriga Domini et Terum Cherubim, 
quod interpretatur scientiae multitudo, per totum corpiB 
oculati sunt, scintilla? emicant, discurrunt fulgura. pedes 
habent rectos et in sublime tendentes, terga ])ennata et ubi- 
que volitantia. Tenent se mntuo, et quasi rota in lott 
volvuntur, et pergunt quocunque eos flatus Sancti Spiritoi 
perduxerit. Paulus Apostolus ad septem ecclesias scribit, 
octava enim ad Hebra^os a plerisque extra numemm 
ponitur, Timotbeum instruit ac Titum, Philemonem pro 
fugitivo famulo (Onesimo) deprecatur. Super quo tacere 
melius puto quam pauca scribere. Actus Apostolorum 
nudam quidem sonare videntur bistoriam et nascentis £o- 
clesiam infantiam texere; sed si noverimus scriptorem 
eorum Lucam esse modicum, cujus lata ettt in Evangdmy 
animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius aninue lan- 
gnentis esse medicinam. Jacobus^ Petrus, Joannes, Judis^ 
Apostoli, septem epistolas edidenint tarn mysticaa quam 
^ Gall. <nunt, Epittolam etiam correzi. 

succinctas, et breves pariter et longas : breves in verbis, appendix 

longas in sententiis, nt rams sit qui non in earum lectione _ 
ccecutiat. Apocalypsis Joannis tot babet sacramenta quot 
verba. Pamm dixi pro merito voluminis. Laos omnis 
inferior est: in verbis singulis multiplices latent intelli- 


Comm. in Symb. ApoiU § 36. (Ed. Migne, Paris, 1849.) Bcvivua. 
. . .Hie igitur Spiritus Sanctus est qui in veteri Testamento ^* ^^' 
Legem et Propbetas, in novo Evangelia et Apostolos inspi- 
ravit. Unde et Apostolus dicit : ii Tiro. 3. Et ideo quae 
sunt novi ac veteris Testamenti volumina, quae 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, Mattbcei, Marci, Lucae, 
et Joannis. Actus Apostolorum quos describit Lucas. 
Pauli apostoli epistolae quatuordeciro. Petri apostoli duae. 
Jacobi fratris domini et apostoli una. Judae una. Joan- 
nis tres. Apocalypsis Joannis. 

Haec sunt quas patres intra Canonem concluserunt, et 
ex quibus fidei nostras assertiones constare voluerunt. 

§ 38. Sciendum tamen est quod et alii libri sunt qui 
non canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, id 
est Sapientia, quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, qus 

dicitur filii Sirach Ejusdem vero ordinis Hbellns est 

Tobias et Judith : et Machabasorum libri. 

In novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris 
sen Hennas, qui appellatur duae viae vel judicium Petri. 
Quee omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen 
proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. 


APPK?Dix Cteieras vero Scriptnias Apocryphas nominanint, quas in 

'. Eoclenis legi noluemnt. 

Haec nobis a pairibns tradita mmi, qm (at dizi) op* 
portannm visnm eat hoe in loco dedgnare, ad instractifmeni 
eoram qui prima sibi ecclesia^ ao fidei elementa snscipiimty 
nt soiant, ex quibns sibi fontibus verbi Dei hanrienda sint 

isKocur- Ad Ex9uperxum ep, Tolotanum} (Oallandi, BibL Pp. 


Sp. Rom viii. 561 seqq.) Haec sunt ago' quce desiderata mo- 

neri voluisti: Moysi libri quinqoe, Item Novi Testa- 

menti: Evangeliorum fibri iiii; Panli Apoaioli Epistola 
xiiii : Epistolas Jobannis tres: Epistolse Petri dune: E^Nstofai 
Judtie: Epistola Jacobi : Actus Apostolorum: Apocalypos 
Jobannis. Caetera antem quad vel sub nomine Matthias, siye 
Jacobi minoris, yel sub nomine Petri et Jobannis, quae ^ 
quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andreae, quae 
a Nexocharide' et Leonida pbilosophis, yel sub nomine 
Thomae, et si qua sunt talia^ non solum repudianda verum 
etiam noyeris esse damnanda. [Data x kal. Mart. Stili- 
chone ii. et Anthemio yirr. cUurr. coss^^ iA' ^- ^05.) 


GBLA8IUS. Decretum de libru reeipiendii et non reeipiendts. (Cred- 

ner, Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 195 sqq. § 4. Item ardo Scrips 
turarum Novi Testamenti, quern Sancta Catholica Banuma 

1 E cod. CoU. Sa Trin. (A) collatifl, B. (Cf. p. 568, n. i> et 
Cotton. Claud. E, V (D). 

■ BD ; = erffo A CfalL • aneaooeharide, B. 

* ABD-Hdta GWl. » = ABD. 


iuicipit et venercUur eeclma^. Evangelioram' libri iv, id appendix 
est' sec. Matthceum Hb. 1. sec. Marcum lib. 1. sec. Lucam ' 

lib. 1. sec. Joannem lib. I. Item Actunm Apostolorum 
liber unus^ 

§ 5. Epistoke Pauli Apostoli num. xiiii*. 

§ 6. Apocalypsis,* liber i. Apostolicse episiola^^ nu- 
mere vii. Petro apostoli numero* ii. Jacobi apostolj, nn- 
mero^ L Joannis apostoli iii*. Judse Zelotis'*. 


Ds ifiitU, d%9, LitU cap. xiv". Soriptura Sanota secun- OAauoDomoi. 
dnm antiquam translationem in Testamenta duo ita divi- ^* ^'J^^^^ 

ditur, id est in Yetus et in Novum ^'. In Genesim 

Evangelia quatuor'*, id est Mattbaei, Maroi, Lucse, Johaa- 

> Recensionum qua Damaid (D) et Hormisde (H) nomina pro 
se fenmt lectt. varr. apposui; siogulaB quasque Codd. leotion«fi 
Credner dabit. Id vero minime pnetermitiendum esse credo duoe 
Mus. Brit, codioea decretum Gelasii de libris apoGTyphis contiiiere, 
nullo libroram S. Soriptune canone pnepodto ; quorum alter (Cotton. 
Vesp. B, 13, I a) ita indpit : Pott propneticat et evangdicaa scripturai 
atque apottoliccu teripturas vd vderU vd novi tedamenU, qua$ remt' 
lariter nucipimutf tanda Bomana eeclena hoi non prokibd mtsetpL 
Sanctam Synodum NieoBnam,., Alter vero (Add. 15, 333, sec xi.) 
eundem fere quern cod. L. (Credner, p. 178) textum exhibet, aUo 
tamen titulo : Incipit decretum Odaaii papce quern (sic) in urbe Roma 
cum LXX, erudUistimii episeopii contcripeit, Equidem, ut verum 
fatear, librorum eccleeiasticorum et apocryphorom ind&cem multo 
majoris auctoritatis esse quam SB. Scripturanim canonem existimo. 

* EvangeUwn, D. > » «2 eit, H. 

* D. Actui Apotlolcrum Itber t. poet Apocalypsim ponit. 

' Credner, xiii. nulla variatione notata ; sea quum quatuordecim 
in Codd. fere xnii. scribatur, vereor ne Areval., c^jus collationem 
Cod. A. sequitur, eum in errorem induxerit. Epp. PauU (-^apoetoU 
H) numero xiv, D. H. indioe addito. 

* Item ApocalyptU Joannis (+ apoetoli D) lib. i, DH. 
^ Item epittola canonicae D item cann, epp, H. 

* B num>ero DU. 

* Joannis Apod. ep. t. AUerius Joannis, Predtyteri epp, ii. D. 
^^ + epislola i D. +apoeloli epistola H. 

11 £ cod. Reff. Mus. Brit 13 A,xxi 7 (a): oollatiB codd. Cotton. 
Claud. B, 13, 8 (/3) ; Reg. 10 B, xv. 1 (7) ; 5 B, viii 6 («). 

w Edd. = f ». 

^* Evangeliorum quaiuor Matthteus, kc prfi ; Evangdittx q^iaJtW)r, 

A I - 1*^ ■ 


iiPPBNoix nis: Actus Apostolorum : Epistole Petri ad gentes': 
— J?L_ Jacobi": Johannis ad Parthos: Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos 
una, ad Corinthios' du«, ad Galatas^ una, ad Philippenaes 
una, ad Ephesios una', ad Colossenaee una, ad Hebneos 
una, ad Thessalonioenses* duce, ad Timotheum duae, ad 
Titum una^ ad Pbilemonem una: Apocalypeis* Jo- 


BpfuLpili. -D« ardine Lihrorum S, Scripturw init*. Hinc oocurrit 

t638A.c. Xestamentum Novum, cujus primum Evangeliorum Kbri 
sunt quatuor, Matthceus'^et Marcus, Lucas et Johannes. 
Sequuntur deinde Epistolas Pauli apostoli xiiii. id est, ad 
Romanos, ad Corinthios du®, ad Oalatas", ad Ephesios, 
ad Philippenses", et ad Thessalonicenses duse, ad Colos- 
senses, ad Timotheum duce, ad Titum vero et ad Pbile- 
monem et ad Hebneos singulae epistolsp, Jacobi apostoli 
una*', Petri du«, Johannis iii.^^ Juda? una. Actus etiam 
Apostolorum a Luca Evangelista conscriptus; et Apoca- 
lypsis Johannis apostoli... quicquid extra hos fuerit inter 
hcec sacra et divina nullatenus recipiendum 


^ Edd. + JwJUt. Sed omm. oPyB. 

' Edd. + €ul duodecim tribtu. ' Chorinthios 7. 

^ Galathaa ayi. 

' Edd. = ad Ephenot vna err. typ. t €td, ^Epketiot dum 8. 

• TesaaUmicmtei yS. ' ad Tit. u. ad Tim. due /J. 
^ ApoctUypnn d. 

• E Cod. Reg. (Mu8. Brit.) 5 B. viu. (a) ; ooll. Cod, Cotton. 
Vesp. B. xiii. (b).— Cf. Isid. Proem. §§ 86—109. 

^^ + quoque b. " Qalathat ab. 

" PhUipetues a. " =» una a. 

" iiii or 9k. ^' recipienda b. 


Hit of the Autharitiei quoted in reference to the Canon of 

the New Testament*. 

Acta Felicia, 473 

jEihiopic Venion, 417 

Africanus, s. JuHub, 

Affrippa Castor, 107 

AUxander, Bp. of Jenisalem, 437 

Alexander, Bp. of Alexandria, 414 n. 

Alopi, 308 

Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, 518 

Amimoniua, 361 

Amfhilochids, 516 

Anatoliug, 415 n. 

Andrew, Bp. of Csesarea, (Capp.) 518 

ApoUinaris, s. Claudius, 

ApoUonitu of Ephesus, 433 

ApoQoniua of Rome, 426 

Apostolic Canons, 506 

Arabic Fern'em of Erpenius, 266 

Archelaus, 453 n. 

Areihas, 518 

Aristides, 93 

ArieUdes Soph. 465 n. 

Aristo of Bella, 106 

Aritu, 494 

Amobixu, 138 

Articles, XXXIX. 534 

Athanasius, 510 

Athenafforas, 136, 390 n. 

Anct. adv. Catapkryg. 440 

— de Mundo, 430 

— adv. Hffir. [Hippol.] 418 

— Parv. Labyr. 438 

— ad Novat. laer. 417 
Augustine, 529 
AwtUua, 411 

Bardetanes, 160 

Barnabas, 48 

Batil, Bp. of Cesarea (Capp.), 517 

Basilides, 318 

Bede, 530 

BvUinger, 365 

CcBBarxfu, 518 n. 

Caius, 307 n. 46S n. 418 

Calvin, 53a 

Cablbtadt, 531 

Carpocrates, 325 

Carthage, s. Council. 

Catsian, 533 

Cabsiodobub, 538n. 

CeUiu, 464 

Cerdo, 3480. 

Cerinthus, 304 

Chrysostom. s. Johannes. 

ClaudiuB ApoUinarit, 348 

Clement of Rome, 37 

[Clement's] Second Epistle, Add. 

Clement of Alexandria, 137, 383, 

387 n. 396 
Clementine Homilies, 316 
Codex Alex. (A) 

— Rkoihb (C), 

— Coislin. 450 

— Boemer. 556 
Cohortatio ad Gentes [Justin], 3o6 
Commodian, 433 

Condi. Aquibobanxhbi, 566 n. i. 

— Carthaginienae (356 A. a), 

ConciL Cabthaotniiksb iii. 508 

(1673), 507 n. 

Concil. HlKBOSOLTMITAKUlff, (1673), 


Concil. HiPFONBKBS, 5 ion. 

— Laodicenum, 496 

— Nictenum, 494 

— Quinisextum, 505 

— Tolotanum, 535 n. 

— Tridentinum, 531 


— Galuca, id. 
Constantine the Great, 491 
Cornelius, 426 
Cosmas, 531 n. 
Cyprian, 137, 418, 431, 43a 

I The authorities which are merely noticed in passing are printed in Italics: 
those which supply Catalogues of the New Testament hi Capitals. 



Ctbil, Bp. of Jerusalem, 519 
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 530 
Ctbil Luoab, 506 n. 

DamaaMDua, a. Johannea. 


iHamper, Synod of, 166 
JHdymut, 510 
DiognetoBi Letter to, 95 
Dionyaiua of Corinth, 106 
JHamytiua of Borne, 418 
IMonyaiua of Alexandria, 4x0 
DiONTBiUB Areopaffita, jjii n. 
JHonysiui Bar Salwi, 300 
DonaUatfl, 474 
Dorotheus, 447 
DotitkeuM, 507 n. 

Ebbdjesu, 514 

Ebionites, 190- in. 315 

Elders quoted by IrensBUB, 87 

Ephrem Syrus, 514 

^nphanea, 336 n. 

EpiFHAions, 519 

EratmuB, 531 

Eucheriut, 530 

EusEBius, Bp. of Cssarea (PbL)^ 

138, 47^- 
EvihaUiuM, 5a I 
Evangelists in Tnjan's time, 89 

FautUnui, 538 n. 

Firmilian, 438 

Eraff. de Resurr. [Justin], 305 

Gelabiub, 537 
Qtnnadiut, 530 
Greoort of Nasdanzus, 516 
Oreyory of Neo-Cjeaarea, 437 
Oregory of Nyssa, 517 

Hegesippus, 338 

Heracleon, 333 

Hermas, 313 

Bermias, 136 

Hetychius, 448 n. 

ffierocletf ^71 

ffilary, Bp. of Poictiera, 530 

Hilary of Kome, 534 

Hippolytus, 430 

Ignatius, 34 

ISnocsnt L, Bp. of Rome, 583 

Irenn^f 379» 3^7 n. 434 

liidorvi (t BasiL), 334 

Itidore of Pelusium, 530 

Indore, Bp. of Seville, 534, 53P 

Jbbomi, 580 

Jmod, 536 

Johawnea Ckryiotiom/iu, 511 

JohanncB Scholastietu, 504 
JvUua Africanvi», 415 n. 


Justin Mkrtyr, 109 
Jwiin the Gnostic, 315 n. 

Ladamtiui, 138, 430 n. 
Latin Versions : — 

Yetus LatinA, 369 

Vulgate, 388 
Leo AUaJUm, 533 n. 
LeucivM, 461 
Luciaa^ of Antioch, 447 
Loffian, 465 n. 
Lwifer, 538 n. 
//ttfW, 533 

Malchion, 447 

Mani, 458 

Marcion, 345 

Marcosians, 343 n. 

Martyrdom of Ignatius, 86 n. 

Melito, 345 

MemphUic Vernon, 416 

Menander, 304 

Methodius, 439 

Mdrophanee OrHopulug, 507 n. 

MiUiadei, 443 n. 

MinuciiU Fdix, 136, 436 

Montanus, 457 

Muratorian Canon, 335 

Nicephorus, 533 
Nicephorua CaUidi, 533 n. 
Novatus, 436 

CEcolampadiui, 533 

(Ecumenitu, 533 

Ophites, 313 n. 

Oi>latua, 534 

Oratio ad Gentea [Justin], 306 

Oriffen, 137, ¥>i 

Orthodox Oonfeetion, the, 507 n. 



Pacian, 514 n. 

Palladiut, 51111. 

Pamphilua, 449 

Pantsenufl, 90, 381 

Papias, 76 

Patripaaeians, 456 

Paul of Samouta, 446 

PdagiuM, 514 


PdeTf Bp. of Alexandria, 414 

Philabtriub, 528 

PkiUaa, 413 

Phosbadiutf 514 

PhoHtu, 513 

Pierwa, 413 

Pmytus, 111 

Puitis Sophm, 464 n. 

Polycarp, 44 

Polycrates, 433 

Porphyry, 465 

Praxeas, 456 

Prosper, 530 

Prudentius, 530 

Ptolemieus, 338 

QoadratuB, 91 

BuFiHUB, 518 

iSa/Wan, 530 
Satuminus, 3200. 
SeduUuB, 530 

Serapion, Bp. of Antlooh, 444 
SdKxanif 314 
iSbwrum, 513 n. 
Sibylline Oracles, 463 
Simon Maffus, 301 
Smyma, Epivtle of the Churoh of, 
149 n. 

Sulpieinu, 530 

Synmiachus, Add. 

Synopsis S. SoRiFTUBii ap. Ath. 

510 n. 
Snropsis S. Sobiftubji i^. Ghiys. 

5" _ 
Syrian Veraiona : — 

Peshito, 154 

PhUooomianf 363 n. 

Hardtanf id. 

Tatian, 136, 354 

Tertullian, 137, 384, 387 n. 418, 410, 

TettatMnts of the xU, Patriarchi, 467 
Thd>aic Vernon, 416 
Tlieodore, Bp. of Mopsueetia, 513 
Tkeodorei, 513 
TheodotuB, 345 n. 
TheoffnoBtut, 413 
ITieonas, ^13 

TheophiluM, 136, 390 n. 443 
Theophylact, 533 
TVcAontitf, 475 n. 
TyndaU, 535 

UlphiUu, 494 n. 
Unitariane, 456 

ValentinuB, 336 

Ftetor of Antioch, 5130. 

FictortmM PeUuneiuis, 419 

Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of the 

Chorches of, 378 
VincefU of Lerins, 534 

WhUaker, 536 

Zeno, 534 
Zmngli, 533. 


A Synopsis of ths Historical Evidence far the Bookt 

of New Testament. 

i. The dtaracterUtie teoMng of 
the Apostles, 

I. The teaching of St Peter. 
Clement of Rome, 39 
Polycarp, 45 

1. The teachinff of St James. 
Clement of Home, 31 
Hennas, lai 

3. The teachinff of St John. 

Clement of Home, 31 
Ignatius, 43 

Letter to Diognetos, 100 
Hennas, 335 
Melito, 347 n. 
Cerinthus, 306 
Ophites, 315 
Carpocrates, 316 

4. The teaching of St Paul 

Clement of Home, 30 

Ignatius, 40 

Polycarp, 46 

Letter to Diognetus, 100, X03 

Justin Martyr, 304 

Hermas, 334 

Carpocrates, 336 

Maroosians, 343 

Test, of xii. Patriarchs, 463 

5. The teaching of the Epistle to the 

Clement of Rome, 33 
Barnabas, 50 

iL The Catalogues of the Bocks of 
the New Testament^. 

Amphilochius, 516 
AthanatiiUf 530 
AugustiTne, 539 
Canon Apostol. 569 
Canon Murat. 338 
Cod. Clarom. 577 

Comea. Oarlkaq. (Hippo), 508 

— [Laod. ], 498 
Cyril, 519 
Ebed Jesu, 514 
Epipkaniua, 519 
Eusebius, 476 
OeUuitu, 537 
Gregor. Naaanz. 516 
Jerome, 535 
Innocent 1. 537 
Johannes Damaac. 515 
Itidore of Seville. 
Junilius, 513 
Leontius, 533 
Kicephorus, id. 
Origen, 403 
PhUattriiU, 538 
Rt^ntu, id. 
Syn. S. Script, (ap. Chrys.), 513 

ilL Tlie Evidence/or the differet 
parts of the New Teetamet 
I. The Gospels. 

Apostolic Fathers, 59 

Letter to Diognetus, loi 

Justin Martyr, 131 

Evangelists m Trajan's time, ^ 

Claudius Apollin&riSy 348 

Peshito (iv.), 358 

Carpocrates, 335 

Yalentinus, 337 

Ptolemffius (iv.), 339 

Marcosians (iv.), 342 

Theodotus (iv.), 345 n. 

Tatian, (iv.), 358 

TertuUian (iv.), 387 

Clement of Alex, (iv.), id. 

Ireneeus (iv.), id. 

IXurris Zo^£a, 464 n. 

Celsus (iv.), 464 

3. The Catholic Epistles. 
Seven : 
Pamphilus (?), 450 
Eusebius (^), 489 

* The Catalogues which agree with the received Catalogues are maiked by Italka 



Didymus (T ii. Peter), 570 

£uttialiu8, 5^1 

Cassian (= ii. iii. John), $22 

Ambrose, 538 

Peshito, 265 

Chrysotitom, 511 
Two (i. Peter, i. John) : 

Theodore of Mopsueetia, 513 

Severian of Gabala (?), 513 

3. The Epistles of St Paul 

Thirteen (without Ep. to Hebrews) : 

Caius, 418 

Canon Marat. 34 x 

Peshito, 258 

Vetus Latina, 384 

Tertullian, 387 

Clement (= Philemon), id. 

Irensus (= Philemon), id. 

Hippolytus, 431 

Cyprian, 41^ 

victorinus, id. 
Ten (excluding Pastoral Epp. and 
Ep. to Hebrews) : 

Basilides, 334 

Marcion, 348 
Fourteen : 

Origen (?), 406 

Donatists (? Hebrews), 475 

Eusebius, 477 

Chrysostom, 513 

Euthalius, 531 

Cosmas, 531 n. 

Cassian, 533 

Ambrose, 538 

iv. Special Emdence for separate 

The Gapdof St Matthew: 

Barnabas, 58 

Papias, 70 

Sen. ap. Iren. 88 

Pant»nus, 90 

Justin Martyr, 130, 156, 157, 
165, 181, 185 

Frag, de Resurr. 305 

Dionysius of Corinth, 3 1 1 

Hennas, 334 

Hegesippus, 333 

[Simon Magus], 303 

CerinthuB, 305 
Ophites, 314 
Sethiani, 315 
Ebionites, 316 
Clementine Homilies, 317 
Basilides, 333 
Valentinus, 338 
Heracleon, 335 
Ptolemeus, 338 
Maroosians, 341 
Tatian, 356 
Athenagoras, 390 
Theophilus, 391 

The Goapd of St Mark: 
Papias, 80 
Justin Martyr, 130 
Frag, de Resurr. 305 
Canon Murat. 338 
Clementine Homilies, 3x7 

The Qotpd of Si Luke: 

Justin Martyr, 131, 156, X57, 

Frag, de Besurr. 305 

Hegesippus, 333 

Canon Murat. 338 

Ophites, 314 

Clementine Homilies, 317 

Basilides, 333 

Valentinus, 338 

Heracleon, 334 

Marcion, 348, 351 

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378 

The Qotpd of St John: 
Papias, 83 
Sen. ap. Iren. 88 
Justin Martyr, 178, 30 x. 
Frag, de Resurr. 305 
Cohort, ad Gentes, 306 
Hennas, 334 
Hegesippus, 333 
Canon Murat. 338 
Claudius Apollinaris, 349 
[Simon Magus], 303 
Ophites, 314 
Peratici, 315 

Clementine Homilies, 3x7 
Basilides, 333 
Valentinus, 338 
Heracleon, 334 

1 In the case of the 'acknowledged* books I have not generally carried this liter 
than the beginning of the third century, as at that time aU contioveqy 



TatUn, 356 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 378 

Athenagons, 390 

Theophiius, 391 

Polycratee, add. 433 

The Acts: 

Cohort, ad Gentes, 406 

Hermaa, 314 

HegenppuB, 131 

Caoon Murat. hi 

Peshito, 358 

Letter of Church of Vienne, 378 

Tertttllian, 387 

Clement of Alex. id. 

Irenseus. (Cf. Iren.iii. 13, 3)) id. 

Bp, to Ramans: 

Clement of Borne, 57 

Polycarp, id. 

Sen. ap. Iren. 88 

Letter to Diogxtetos, xoa 

Justin Martyr, 303 

Melito, 347 

Ophites, 314 ^ 

Basilides, 333 

Yalentinus, 338 

Heracleon, 335 

PtolemseuH, 339 

Tatian, 356 

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378 

Athenagoras, 390 

Theophilus, 391 

nUrra Zo^a, 464 n. 

». Ep. to Connthians: 

Clement of Rome, 56 

Ignatius, 57 

Polycarp, id. 

Sen. ap. Iren. 88 

Letter to Diognetus, lOi 

Justin Martyr, 303 

Frag, de Resurr. 306 

Cohort ad Gentes, 306 

[Simon Magus], 303 

Ophites, 314 

Peratici, 315 

Basilides, 333 

Yalentinus, 338 

Heracleon, 335 

PtolemsuB, 339 

Tatian, 356 

Letter of Ch. of Vienne (t), 37S 

AtheniffonM, 590 
llieophilua, 391 

Polycarp, 57 

Sen. ap. Irea. 88 

Letter to DiognetaB, loa 

Ophites, 514 

Basilides, 333 

Athenagoras, 390 

Theophilus, 391. 

Ep. to Golatians : 
Polycarp, 57 

Letter to Diognetus, 101 
Orat. ad Gentes, 206 
Ophites, 314 
Ptolemseus, 340 
Athenagoras, 390 
Tatian, 357 
Theophilus, 391. 

Ep. to Colostians: 

Justin MarWr, 101 
Cohort, ad Gentes^ 106 
Peratici, 315 
Ptolemsus, 340 
Theophilus, 391 

Ep, to Ephesians: 

Clement of Rome, 57 
Ignatius, 56 
Polycarp (?), 57 
Letter to Diognetus, 103 
Ophites, 314 
Basilides, 333 
Yalentinus, 338 
Ptolemeus, 340 
Marcosians (?}, 341 

EpistleofChupchof Yienne, 378 
Theophilus, 391 

Ep. to Philippians: 
Polycarp, 56 
Ignatius (0, 57 
Letter to Diognetus, Toa 
Frag, de Resurr. 306 
Sethiani, 315 
Basilides, 333 

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 378 
Theophilus, 391 

t. Ep. to Tkessahniant : 
Ignatius (1), 57 
Polycarp (!), 58 


u. Ep. to TheatcUoniam : 
Justin IdartyTi 303 

t. Ep. to Timothy: 

Clement of Rome (?), 57 

Polycarp, 58 

Barnabas ()), 58 

Letter to Diognetus, 103 

Frag, de Kesurr. 206 

Hegesippus (?), 233 n. 

Basilides (?), 313 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 378 

TheophiluB, 391 

Athenagoras, id. 

ii, Ep. to Timothy: 

Barnabas, (?), 58 
Polycarp, 58 
Heracleon, 335 

Ep. to Titu8: 

Clement of Rome (?), 57 
Letter to Diognetus, 103 
Tatian, 357 
Theophilus, 391 

Ep. to Philemon: 
Ignatius (!), 57 

Ep. to Hthrewa: 

Clement of Rome, 57 

Justin Martyr, 303 

Pinytus, an 

Peshito, 358 

Vetus Latina, 385 

Ophites, 314 

Yalentinus, 318 

Pontaenus (?), 397 

Clement of AlezandriAy 397, 409 

Origen, 403, 409 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 410 

Theognoetus, 414 

Peter of Alexandria, id. 

Alexander of Alex. 414, 493 

Tertullian (T), 418 

Lactantiu» (?), 430 

Novatus (?), 437 

Irenseus (1) 436 

Gregory Thaumat. 437 

Methodius, 440 

Synod. Antioch. 446 

Pamphilus, 450 

Archelaus, 453 

Sibylline Oracles, 463 

Test, of xii. Patriarchs, id. 

Eusebius, 488 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 513 

Pacian, 534 n. 

Pelagius, id. 

Hilarius Diac. id. 

Lucifer, 538 n. 

Faustinus, id. 

= Canon Murat. 341, of. 344 

aCaiuB, 438 

s Irenseus, 436 

= Hippolytus, 431 

sMarcion, 348 

=» Cyprian, 418 

= Novatus, 437 

= Victorinus, 419 

s Optatus Mil. 534 

aPhcebadius, id. 

= 2ieno, id. 

^. of ^ James: 

Clement of Rome, 57 

Hermas, 333 

Peshito, 365 

[Clement of Alex.], 397. Cf. 

Origen, 407 

Dionysius of Alex. Add. 
Gregory Thaumat. 437 
Chrysostom, 513 
Basil, 517 

= Irensus (?), 436 

ssTertuUian, 430 

B Theodore of Mopsuestia, 5 1 3 

FirtlEp. of St Peter: 
Polycarp, 58 
Papias, 83 

Letter to Diognetus, 103 
Hermas, 334 
Peshito, 365 
Basilides, 333 
Marcosians, 344 
Letter of Church of Vienne, 37 
Tertullian, 387 
Clement of Alex. id. 
Irenieus, id. 
Theophilus (f), 391 

Second Ep. of St Peter: 

Clement of Rome. Cf. c xi. ; 

3 Pet. ii. 6-9. 
Polycarp (?), 368 n. 


[Clementof Alex. 397. Cf. 401] 
Origen (?) 406, 408 
Firmilian (?), 438 
Theophilus (?), 443 
Ephrem Syrus (?), 315 
PalladiuB, 51a 
^Irenseus, 436 
sTertullian, 421 
s^rprian, id. 
= Hippolytus, 431 
ssGoemas, 521 

First Ep, of St John: 

Polycarp, 58 

Papias, 83 

Letter to Diognetus, 100 

Peshito, 365 

ValentinuB, 328 

Letter of Church of Vlenne, 378 

Tertullian, 387 

IrenseuB, id. 

Clement, id. 

Second and third Eps. of St John: 
Canon Murat. (?}, 342 
Codex Bezae (iii.)» ^84 
[Clement of Alex.], 397 

— — Ep. iL 400 
Origen (?), 406 ; cf. pp. 407, 408 
DionysiuB of Alex. 41 1 
Alexander of Alex, (ii.), 496 
Aurelius (ii.), 421 
Irenasus (ii.), 435 
Tichonius (ii.), 475 n. 
PaUadius (iii.), 512 n. 

Bp, ofjude: 

Canon Murat. 241 
Clement of Alex. 397, 400 
Origen, 407 
Tertullian, 420 
Auct. ad Novat. hser. 422 
Malchion, 447 
Palladius, 512 n. 
= Irenaeua, 436 
= Peshito, 

Papias, 84 
Justin MarWr, ooi 
DionyriuB of Corinth, 21 ^ 
Hennas, 333 
Canon Murat. 243 
Melito, 246 
VetuB Tjatiim^ 387 
Marcoeians, 344 
Tatian, 356 

Letter of the Ch. of Vienn 
Tertullian, 387 
Clement of Alex. id. 400 
Irenseus, id. 435 
Athenagoras (?), 390 
Theophilus, 391, 443 
Origen, 403 
Dionysius of Alex, (f), 41 

Victorinus, 419 
Tertullian, 42 a 
Cyprian, id. 
Commodian, id. 
Lactantius, 433 
Hippolytus, 43 1 
Apollonius, 434 
Methodius, 440] 
Frag. adv. Cataphr. 441 
Pamphilus, 453 
Sibylline Orades, 463 
Test, of xiL Patriarchs, id 
Lucian, 465 
Tichonius, 475 n. 
Eusebius (?), 489 
Chrysostom (?), 511 n. 
Ephrem Syrus, 515 
Basil, 517 

Dionysius Areop. 521 
Gregory of Nyssa, 518 
An(&ew, id. 
Arethas, id. 

= Caius (so said), 307, 438 
= Dionysius of Alex. 411 
= Peshito, 265 
= Chrysostom (?^, 5110. 
= (EcumeQius (?), 533 
=Theophylact (?), id. 


Sulfjectt incidenially noticed. 

Ads qfPaul and Theda, 413 

Apofto\oy€ta$ai, 48311. 

Ar6ir/ov0or, 486x1. 

Apocryphal additiooB to the acooimts 
of our Lord's Baptism, 189 n. 

ATOfunjifunf€^fiaT<i, 115 n. 137x1.; 
Justin's quotationB from, 15511. 

Apostolic Fathers, references in Uie, 
to the Epistles, 57 n. ; to the con- 
tents of the Oospels, 61 n. 

Barnabas, lanffuage of, in coimezion 
with New Astament, 54 n. 

BibUotkeca dwina (Jerome's Version 
of the Scriptores so called), 449 

JTO^Xcirdt, 477x1.; 17 Ka$, iKkXffffUi, 

Canon of the Greek Church, 506 n. 

«owr^tf, 547 

kopwucol, eanoniei, id. 

jroi^r, 541 ff.; 6 jr. r^ dKii0€lat, 

^1^' 543 ^',^K, rijt iKKXfffflat, id. ; 

6 K. rfjt TlffTtwt, id.; ol ix roO 

KOMiwot, 545 n. 
Carlstadt's classification of Scripture, 

KordXayot, 545 

KorowTplibfAtu (i. Cor. ilL ii), 415 n. 
Clement of Rome, language of, in 

ooxmexion with New Testament^ 

30 n. 
Clonentinee, difference of Justin's 

quotation from the, 187 xi. 
Cod. Bez»(D), 176 n. 

— Qarom. (D), 191 

LfifuocitvcOai^ 487 n. 591 xl 

DiatessaroD, 358 

BiognetuB, Letter to: its language 
in connexion with New Testament, 
loan.; not Justin's, 96 n.; con- 
sists of two distinct parts, 9)9 n. 

•EeijT^if, 78 

Grospel, uiie of the title, 331 

— of Basilides, Ji x n. ; of Eve, 

§31; of the Ebionites, 190-1; of 
Perfection, 333 ; ofThomas, 314 n. ; 
of Truth, id. ; according to the 
Egyptians, 314 n. Add.; accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, 359 

Ignatius, language of, in ooxmexion 

with the New Testament, 40 n. 
Intirumenium, 176 

John, St, two Epistles o( 84 n. 


Judaism, steps in separation of, ftt>m 
Christianity, 73 n. 

Judaudng Christians on the Caspian, 

Justin's quotations from LXX. 143 
n. ; variations in quoting of same 
passage, 150 xl; language com- 
pared with N. T. 193 n. 

A^TOf (lermo, ratio), 473 

Mardon's various readings, 348 n. 
Matthew, St, various reoenaiona o( 

Pistis Sophia, 464 n. 

npoeipUif 340x1. 

lIpoK€ur$ai (Ign. ad Phil. 8), 64 

Bome, its relation to Alezandim in 
third oentoiy, 415 

Salutatioxis of Apostolic wrHiiigi, 

46 n. 
Schwegler's classification of aarfy 

Christian literature, 8 n. 
Shepherd, late date of the, «9oa« 




Ztri (IffnatX 41 n. 

Simon Magos, hii Hagip, join.; 

hii Cosmogony, 3x1 n. 
6 ^uHip, 93 n. 

TerinlBan, his quotations, iSon.; 
compared with Latin yenion of 
IreiuBiia, 981 n.; quotation from 

E^iistle to HebroiiB, 1850. ; quo- 
tation frtnn Apocalypa^ 087 n.; 

T/Mdt [Trimta8,Tai. adr. Praac LV 

Vulgate, Tariatioui in language o( 

Camtridge, Auguii, 18M. 

Pbospectus of a Series of £HwnXi!Sibi tOt fE^tO- 
lOQftSl SbttAVtntSf DOW in course of publication by 
MACMILLAN and Co., Cambridge. 

It is DOW upwards of three years since the Prospectus of this 
series was first issued. Three Tolumes hare now been pub- 
lished and several others are in an adTanced 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, comprehensiye, and 
accurate,*' "conyenient for the professional Student and 
• interesting to the general reader," has been not unsuccessfully 

The following paragraphs appeared hi the original Prospectus, and 
may be here conreniently 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 m 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 doubtful or individual opinions.** 


I. A History qf the Christian Church from the 

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 *< A History of the XXXIX Articles.** With F<mr Map$ 
constructed for thJU Work hy A. KeUh Johmton, Crown 8vo. 
cloth, 10». 6d, 

Opinions of the Press. 

"Am a wuanud fir tMe ttudeni of EedBiiatHeal HiHory in ikt 
Middle Aget, we hune no Englitk work which can he eomJHored to 
Iblr Hardwick*! booh. It hoe two great merite, that it constantlg 
refirs the reader to the anthoritiet, both original and critical, on 
which its etatemente are founded; and that it preeervee a hut propoT" 
tion in dealing wUh varUnu ttdoieU"^QfJAMJ>iAM, AprU 12, 1864. 

Mr Hardwice's Middle-Age Church History. 

Opinions of thb Pbbss— «(mfiiiti«i. 

" Tkig/brmt om of a §eri€9 of Tkeologieal MamuiU wkkk 
M«m BLlomillan, Cambridgt^ km in eoune ofpmblieaHom, If 
the other voluwtet of the seriee are as lofff (and ear^idbf wfitUae 
at this, theological studetds woill have good cause to tlumk fAoa.**— 
Clbrical Joubn al, Sept. 22, 1853. 

** It isJkB in references and anthorily^ tgstemoHe andfbrmud in 
division, vriih enotigh of li/e in the style to eomnieraet the drffmess 
inseparable from its brevity, and exhibiting the resnUs rather than 
the principles ofhmesHgaHon, Mr Hardwiok is to he congmiylated 
on the suceeesfid achieventent of a difficult lorA. '^—Chbistiait Rs- 
MSMBBAROBB, October, 1868. 

"He has bestowed patient and extensive reading on the colleetiom 
of his materials ; he has selected them tvithjudament; and he nre- 
sents them in an equable and compact style, "SrEOtATom, Sep- 
tember 17» 1868. 

" T%is booh is one of a promised series of ' Thbolooical 
Manuals.* In one retpeet, it may be tahen as a sign of^ the times. 
It is a small unpretenmng volume in appearance, but it is based om 
learning enough to have sufficed, haff a centurv since, fbr the ground 
of two or three quartos, or at least/or several portly octavos. For 
itspurposeit is admirable, giving you a car^fiuand tnteUigeni sum- 
mary of events, and at the same tnne indicating the best sources of 
information fbr the /farther guidance of the student. Among the 
authorities ihtu referred to, we find the nutst modem as well as 
the most ancient, the continental as well as the English,'* — Bbitibb 
Quabtbrlt, Nov. 1863. 

" It is distinguished by the same diligent research and co ns cien t ious 
acknowledgement of authorities which procured fbr Mr Hardwicr*8 
' History of the Articles of Relipon' such afitvourable rec^ftion,*''- 
NoTKS AND QuEBiBS, Ootober 8, 1853. 

" To a good method and good materials Mr Hardwiok adds that 
great virtue, a perfectly transparent style. We did not expect to find 
gr^ literary qualities in such a manual, but we hare found them : 
we should be satisfied in this respect with conciseness and intetHgi' 
bUity; but while this booh has both, it is also elegant, hiahly finidked, 
and highly interesting," — NoROORFOBif ist, November 80, 1863. 

11. A Hi-story of the Book qf Common Prayer^ 

together with a Rationale of the several Offices. By the Rer. 
FRANCIS PROCTER, M.A., Vicar of Witton, Norfolk, and 
late Fellow of St Catharine's Hall. Crown 8to. cloth, lOt. 6i. 

Opinions of the Pbess. 


Mr Pbooteb*8 * History of the Book of Common Prayer* is 

by far the beet commentaru extemt Hot only do the present iUus- 

trations embrace the whole range of oriainal sources indicated by 
Mr Palmer, but Mr Prooteb compares the present Booh ofCommen 
Prayer with the Scotch and American forms : and hefirequcHdy 
sets out infidl the Sarum Offices. As a manual of extensive iufbrma^ 
turn, historical and ritual, in^bued with sound dhurch principles, we 
are entirely satined with Mr Pboctbb'b iw^rtant wdume»**^» 
Chbistiar Rbmembbanckb, April, 1866. 


%ol0gkal Pmrnals. 

Mr Pbocteb, on the Book of Common Prayer. 

Opinions of the Pbbss — continued, 

** Rita H$wm£ of all ihtU has hem done in the way of vmesHaa* 
turn m r^fkrtsMe to the Prayer'Booh, We admire the author* $ aUi^ 
gence, and bear willing tetttnumg to the extent and accuracy of hie 

reading A well-contidered compilaHonJully hearing out its title. 

The author wrUee clearly, hit outhoriHet are carejhilly Haled, — the 
origin of every pari <^f the Pra^er-Booh has heen diJfigenilu invee" 
tigaiedg—and there are Jew guetttont or facte connected with it which 
are not either sufficiently explained, or so referred to that persons 
interested may worh out the truth for themsdves." — ATHBN.suir, 
Feb. 17, 1865. 

"We can have UttU doubt that Bfr Pbootbb'^ History of our 
Liturgy will soon supersede the weU-hnown worh of Wheatly, and 
become a much-used kand-booh beyond the circuits of the University 
for the more i m m edi a te use of which it has been /mooKceci.'*— Notes 
AND QuBRUU, Ifarch, 1800. 

" Although very decidedly anti»Roman in its tone, we gladly aC' 
cept it as a substitute for the dull and dreary dogmatism ofWheaUj, 
It presents in a popmar and agreeable narrative, the history of those 
variations to whteh so much attention has heen directed during the 
late eventful controversies; and while it contains a very careful^ 
learned and tcholarlihe exposition of these changes, it alsojumishes 
a most valuable commentary on the successive texts of the formularies 
themselves, as they are exlubited either in the original eattions. or in 
the usefid manuals of BvUlej and Reeliog. — Dublin Revubw {Roman 
Catholic) April, 1855. 

<* We can speak with just praise qf this compendious but comprs' 
hensioe volume. It tmpears to be compiled with great care andjudg* 
ment, and has profited largely by the accumulated materials col' 
l»cted by the Uarmna and research of the last fifty years. It is 
a manual of great vaxue to the student of Ecclesiastical History and 
of almost equal interest to tvery admirer of the Liturgy ana Ser- 
vices of MS English Church, — London Quabteblt Review, 

**Itis indeed a cosmleie and fahiy •written history of the Liturgy; 
and from the dispassionate way in which disputed po^ts are touched 
on, will prove to many iroublea consciences what ought to be hnown 
to them, vix, : — that tney may wiihoutfear of compromising the prin^ 
eijdes of evangeKeal trutht give their assent and consent to the con* 
tents of the Booh of Common Prayer, Bfr Pbocteb has done a 
great service to the Church by this admirable digest," — Chubcb of 
£noland Quabteblt. April, I860. 

III. A General View of the History of the Canon qf 

the NEW TESTAMENT during the Pint Poor Centuries. 
By BROOKE F088 WE8TG0TT, M.A., Assistant Mnster 
of Harrow School, formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 
Cambridge. Crown 8to. cloth, 12t. (UL 

^^e0loigital lEtmsIs* 


A HisUyry cf the Christian Church during the 

ReformaiioD. By CHARLES HARDWICK« M.A., Fellow 
«f fit Gatharine's Hall, Cambridge, Divimty Lectarer of 
Kin^s College, and Christian Advocate in the UniTersity. 


An Introduction to the Study qfthe Old Testament^ 

with an Outline of Scripture History. 

NoteSi Critical and Explanatory ^ on the Hehrem 

Text of the Prophet ISAIAH. 

An Introduction to the Study qfthe Gospels. 


NoteSy Critical and Eocplanatory^ on the Greek 


Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Greek 


A History of the Christian Church during the 


from the 


An Historical Exposition of the Apostles\ Nicene, 

and Athanasian CREEDS. 

An Exposition of the Articles of the Church qf 

Othore are in progress, and will be announced in dae Ume, 

WiOtka of the Eey. AECHER BUTLER, late 
Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of 

" May justhf take rank vnth the first wriiinga in our languojfe/*^' 

'' An eminent divine and a profound thinker "^Enqiasb Chubohmak. 

" Poet, orator, metaphysician, theologian, ' nihil tetigit quod non omatnt,"* 
— Dublin UinvEiifflTT Magazinb. 

'* Discrimination and earnestness, beauty and power, a truly phUoso- 
phical spirit," — Bbituh Quabteblt. 

*'A burning and a shining light." — Bp of Exeteb. 

"A man of whom, both as regards his life and his remarkable powers, 
his Church may justly 6e protK^."— Guabdian. 


Sermon$9 Doctrinal and Practical^ edited by the 

Rev. J. WOODWARD, Vicar of Molllngar. Tbibd Edition. 
8vo. cloth, 12f. 

** Present a richer eombination of the qualiHetfor Sermont of the 
first class than any we have met with in any living ipriter.**— Bbituh 



Sermons, Doctrinal and Practical. Second Series. 

Edited by J. A. JEREMIE, D.D., Regius Profeasor of Divinity 
in the University of Cambridge. Svo. doth. Nearly Ready. 


Lectures on the History (^ Ancient Philosophy. 

Edited from the Anthoi^s MSS., l^ W. H. THOMPSON, MJL, 
Regtos ProfesBor of Greek in the Umveni^ of Cambridge. 
2 vols. Sra Shorty. 


Letters on Romanism^ in reply to Mr Nenrman's 

ESSAY ON DEVELOPMENT. 8vo. doth, lOf. 6tf. 

" A work which ougkijto be in the libraqf of every Siiidad of Did' 
iidy.**— Bp of St Datid^b. 

late Fellow of Trinity College, and Assistant 
Master of Harrow School. 

An Introduction to the Study of ths Gospels, 

inclnding a new and improved edition of the " Elements of the 
Gospel Harmony." Crown 8to. In preparaJUon. 

Cambridge: PrinUd <U the Unioersiiy Pr$u, 

CAMBRIDQB, Augutt 1855. 



JBSCHTLI Eomenides. 

The Greek Text with English Notes : with an Introduetion, containing an 
Analysis of C. O. Milller's Dissertations ; and an English Metrical Translation. 
By BERNARD DRAKE, M.A., FeUow of King's CoUege, Camhridge; Editor 
of " Demosthenes de Corona." Bto. cloth, 7«. dd, 

ANTH0L06IA Latma Selecta. In 2 vols. Small 8vo. 

Vol. I.— Containing select Epigrams of Catullus, Virgil, Claudian, Anionini, 
with others fron the Anthologia Latina. 

Vol. II. — Containing select Epigrams of Martial. 

Edited with EnglUh notes, hy J. E. B. MAYOR, M. A., Fellow and Claatieal 
Lecturer of St. John's College, Cambridge, Editor of Juvenal. 


ABISTOPHANES. The Greek Text revised, with a Com* 

mentary. By W. O. CLARK, M.A., Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity 
College. [Prtpmrinff. 

ABISTOTELES de Rhetorica. The Greek Text, with English 

Notes. By A Fellow ov Tkinitt Collxox. [Priy«r<iv. 

ARISTOTLE on the Vital Principle. Translated from the 

Original Text, with Notes. By CHARLES COLLIER, M.D., F.R.8., FeUow 
of the Royal College of Physicians. Crown 8to. cloth, S«. 6d, 

BEAMONT.— Catherine : or, Egyptian Slavery in 1852. 

By W. J. BEAMONT. M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, latt 
Prtaicipal of the English College, Jerusalem. Fcap. 8to. 


NatiTa Verborum Ti simplidtas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritaa ien- 
suum coelestium indicatur. EniTio Txrtxa. Imperial 8to. cloth, 18«. 

BOLTON'S Evidences of Christianity. 

The Evidences of Christianity aa exhibited in the Writings of its Apologist! 
down to Augustine. An Essay which obtained the Hulsean Prise for the 
Year 1852. By W. J. BOLTON, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. 
8to. cloth, 6«. 




Tenth Thonsand. 16ino. tewiii ti. ; or 10«. per 100. 

[PrimitdM ^>Mnkmath 

BUTLER (Professor Archer).— Sermons, Doctrinal and Prac- 
tical. By the Rev. WILLIAM ARCHER BUTLER, M.A. Ute Professor 
of Moral Philosophy in the UniTersity of Dublin. Edited, with a Memoir of 
the Author's Life, by Thomas Woodwako, M.A. Vicar of MuUiagar. 
With Portrait. Third Bdltlon. 8to. cloth, 12«. 

BUTLER (Professor Archer).— A Second Series of Sermons. 

Edited from the Author's Manuscripts, by J. A. Jbrxmib, D.D. Befius 
Professor of Dirinity in the UniYorsi^ of Cambridge. INmrig rmig. 

BUTLER (Professor Archer).— Lectnres on the History of 

Ancient Philosophy. By tlye Rev. W. ARCHER BUTLER, late Professor 
of Moral Philosophy In the UniTersity of Dublin. Edited, flrom tlie Autkw's 
Manuscripts, by William HsrwoaTH Thompsom, M.A. Regius Professor 
of Greek in the University of Cambridge. S Tols. 8to. 

[Ntmrlf readf. 

BUTLER (Professor Archer).— Letters on Romanism, in 

Reply to Mr. Newman's Essay on Development. 8vo. cloth, 10«. 6d. 

CAMBRIDGE.— Cambridge Theological Papers. Comprising 

those given at the Voluntary Theological and Crosse Scholarship Ezamtes- 
tions. Edited, with References and Indices, by A. P. MOOR, M.A. of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, and Sub-warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. 
8yo. cloth, 7«. 6d, 

CAMBRIDGE PROBLEMS.— Solutions of the Senate-House 

Riders for Four Years (1848 to 1851). By F. J. JAMESON, M.A. FeUov 
of Caius College, Cambridge. 8vo. cloth, 7«. 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. 8to. cloth 15«. Bd. 

CAMBRIDGE PROBLEMS, I854u-Solution8 of the Pro- 

blems proposed in the Senate House Examinarion, January 1854. By tht 
Moderators (W. WALTON, M.A. Trinity College, and C. F. MACKENZIE, 
M.A. Fellow of Caius College). In 8vo. cloth, lOt. 6d, 

CAMBRIDGE.— Camhridge Guide : Including Historical and 

Architectural Notices of the Public Buildings, and a concise Account ef tht 
Customs and Ceremonies of the University, with a Sketch of the 'Plaees most 
worthy of Note in the County. A New Edition, with EngniTingt and a Msp. 
12mo. cloth, b*. 



TODHUNTER.— A Treatise on the Differential Galcnlns ; 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. M. 

TODHUNTER. — A Treatise on Analytical Statics, with 

numerous Examples. Crown 8to. cloth, 10*. 6<<. 


A firs^ra^ text-hook."— ^onmai o/ EditeaiioH, 

TODHUNTER.— A Treatise on Plane Coordinate Geometry. 

With numerous Examples. For the Use of Colleges and Schools. Crown 8to. 
cloth, 10«. 6d. 

TODHUNTER.— A Treatise on Algebra, for the Use of 

Students in the UniTersities, and of the Higher Classes in Schools. 

Also by the same Author, 

An Elementary Work on the same subject, for the ose of 


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. TUrd Edition, revbed. Fcp. 8to. cloth, 5s. 

TRENCH.— Hnlsean Lectures for 1845—46. Third Edition. 

CoMTXMTs. l.—The Fitness of Holy Scripture for unfolding the Spiritual Life 
of Man. S. — Christ the Desire of all Nations ; or the Unconscious Pro- 
phecies of Heathendom. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 5«. 


A perpetual Almanac for determining Dates past, present, and ftiture; with 
a Lunar Kalendar and Tables of the more important Periods, JBras, Festivals, 
and Anniversaries. Price Sd. 

*•* This is so printed, that if the margin be cut off it may be carried in a 


WESTCOTT.— A general ^ew of the History of the Canon of 

the New TesUment during the First Four Centuries. By BROOKE FOBS 
WESTCOTT, M.A., Assistant Master of Harrow School; late Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. cloth, lis. M. 

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, ttxna the Writings of the Ante- 
Nieene Fathers. Crown 8vo. cloth. [Prspmrimg. 

*4* These three books are part of a series of Theological Manuals which are now in 




WESTCOTT.— An Introduction to the Stndy of the Canonical 

Epiitlet; ineludinf sn Attempt to dtCwmiiM tbdr aepirKte pnipoMt aati 
mutttia lelatkHM. By BROOKS F088 WE8TCOTT, M.A. 

WILSON.— A Treatise on Dynamics. 

By W. p. WILSON, M.A^ FeUow of it. J6kn% CmMdft, and PnteMr of 

IfAthematics in the UnlTenity of MelWsino. Iro. bdt. 9«. 64, 

WEIGHT.— HeUenica; or, a History of Greece in Greek; 

boginniiig with tho IiiYMion of Xerxes { m lelAtad by Diodome and Tkscy- 
didet. With Explanatory Notes, Critical and Historical, for the use of 
Schools. By J. Wright, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Heed- 
Master of Sutton Coldlleld Grammar School. ISmo. cloth, U. 6d. 

*»* This book ia already is use in Eugby and other SchooU. 

¥nftIGHT.— A Help to Latin Grammar ; 

or, the Form and Use of Words in Latin. With ProgressiTe Exercises. By 
J. WRIGHT, M.A. Crown 8vo. doth, 4«. td. 




^0. r./er/vM 1855,4*. 
Volume I. for 1854, now ready, cloth lettered, IS*. M. 


*•* Three Numbers published annually, at 4«. each. 

€l«Mtgc: MACMILLAN ft Co. 

Itndai : Bxl& u Dau>t, 186, Flxst^txxxt. 

BttbKn : Hodoxs 8c Smith. C^OInburf t : £x>momstox ft DouoLAt, 

l^xf(r^ : J. H. ft Jas. Paxxxx. CrliSfSlD : Jas. Maclxhosb.