objections which were raised in later ages to its genuinenesst. To these testimonies nothing seems needful to be added; for at the end of the second century the point was one admitting of no question at all. If farther authorities as to the matter of fact were needed, we only have to refer to Hippolytus at Rome, and Origen in Palestine or Egypt, in the former part of the third century. Those who prefer evidence to subjective surmises, will find no difficulty as to the judgment which they should form ".

THUS the testimony of the Muratorian Canon is in full accordance with what, as we learn from other sources, were received in the second century as Divine books of the New Testament. This list brings into one focus the rays of truth which elsewhere shine as it were separately. It may be noticed that this Canon recognizes the Apocalypse, Jude, and apparently 2 and 3 John, all of which in the former part of the fourth century were" doubted by some." There is not one of these writings as to which we have elsewhere to go for testimony beyond the limit of those who lived in the second century.

On the other hand, this Canon gives no sanction to any writing as a book fully received as part of the New Testament, which has since been rejected as spurious.

The evidence, as given throughout this Part, is taken rather on the principle of selection, than as stating all that can be brought forward.

t It is worthy of some remark that so much evidence in favour of this book comes to us from Asia Minor, the very country to the Churches of which it was sent: Polycarp of Smyrna, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus with his early connection with Ephesus, and Papias of Hierapolis, the neighbour city to Laodicea.

u So much has been said as to the difference of phraseology and style between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, that it is well to bear in mind that in many cases, even in ordinary writing, the subject forms the style: how peculiarly then must this have been the case with John in writing the Apocalypse, where the vividness and intensity of the subjects cause the things communicated to be presented so forcibly that all other considerations give way grammatical constructions change or

are resumed, just as the subject seems to demand.

St. John's style appears to have been peculiarly moulded according to the language of others which he records :-(this remark is made without in any degree overlooking the fact of inspiration in all its fulness ;) and this one consideration may cause much difficulty to disappear. In the Gospel and the Revelation the portion is considerable which records the language of others. In Bishop Lloyd's Oxford Greek Testament the number of lines in the Apocalypse is 1460; of which 564, nearly twofifths of the book, are the words of language which he records. In the same edition, in the Gospel of St. John the number of lines is 2340, of which more than half, 1370, are simply recorded words.

PART V.

The Books not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.

§ 1. FOUR books, which now form part of the New Testament, are not mentioned in this ancient list-Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and James: from whatever cause the omission arose, it may be regarded as certain that the writer must have been acquainted with the former two, and probably with the Epistle of James also. These four must be considered irrespective of the Fragment; and as to them on some points we may have to go beyond the limit of the second century.

HEBREWS. The collection of St. Paul's Epistles, known in the second century as aπóσToλos, contained the thirteen to which his name is prefixed, all of which are mentioned in the Fragment. But besides these there is the Epistle to the Hebrews, about which the question was not so much the canonicity as the authorship. Its early reception and use are therefore to be considered wholly apart from inquiries as to the writer.

The reception and use of this book in the Apostolic age itself is proved by the manner in which Clement of Rome interweaves the words and thoughts taken from it with that which he was writing. This was observed of old, as we know from Eusebius : . . . καὶ τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν τῇ ἀνωμολογημένῃ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἣν ἐκ προσώπου τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας τῇ Κορινθίων διετυπώσατο. ἐν ῇ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους πολλὰ νοήματα παραθείς, ἤδη δὲ καὶ αὐτολεξεὶ ῥητοῖς τισὶν ἐξ αὐτῆς χρησάμενος, σαφέστατα παρίστησιν ὅτι μὴ νεὸν ὑπάρχει τὸ σύγγραμμα. veòv ὅθεν εἰκότως ἔδοξεν, αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγκαταλεχθῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ ἀποστόλου. (H. E. iii. 37.)

As to the use made of this Epistle by Clement, it has been said "allusions prove nothing;" however in such a case as this they prove a great deal. He who approvingly interweaves extracts from a writing claiming authority, so far as in him lies sanctions that authority; and this Clement has done. It would be long to give the reiterated passages in

....

a Jerome's account of Clement may be compared :-" Clemens quartus post Petrum Romae episcopus, siquidem secundus Linus fuit, tertius Anacletus; tametsi plerique Latinorum secundum post Petrum apostolum putent fuisse Clementem. Scripsit ex persona Romanae ecclesiae ad ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem epistolam, quae et in nonnullis

locis publice legitur, quae mihi videtur characteri epistolae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fertur, convenire. Sed et multis de eadem epistola, non solum sensibus, sed juxta verborum quoque ordinem abutitur. Omnino grandis in utraque similitudo est." (De Viris Ill. xv.)

which Clement uses the thoughts and words of this Epistleb: much is shewn by one allusion. He says (c. 9), λάβωμεν Ενώχ, ὃς ἐν ὑπακοῇ δίκαιος εὑρεθεὶς μετετέθη, καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνατος. Now whence does he obtain the peculiar statement, "his death was not found?" not from Gen. v. 24, in which we find simply καὶ οὐκ εὑρίσκετο, without a word about death. But in Heb. xi. 5 we read, πίστει Ενωχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον καὶ οὐχ ηὑρί σκετο, κ. τ. λ., where a reader might suppose the nom. to οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο to be θάνατος, and thus the strange remark of Clement has evidently originated.

Justin Martyr says of our Lord (Apol. i. 63), καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται καὶ ἀπόστολος (compare also § 12): the latter designation is only found in Heb. iii. 1.

Eusebius (H. E. v. 26), when speaking of the writings of Irenaeus, mentions βιβλίον τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας Σολομῶντος μνημονεύει, ῥητά τινα ἐξ αὐτῶν παραθέμενος.

In his extant writings we find allusions to this Epistle; "Solus hic Deus invenitur, qui omnia fecit, solus omnipotens, et solus pater condens et faciens omnia, et visibilia et invisibilia, et sensibilia et insensata, et caelestia et terrena, verbo virtutis suae." (C. H. ii. 30. § 9.) See Heb. i. 3.

"Rursus autem qui nude tantum hominem eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum, perseverantes in servitute pristinae inobedientiae moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo Dei patris, neque per Filium percipientes libertatem." (C. H. iii. 19. § 1.) See Heb. iv. 2.

66

[Exteriores munditiae], “ quae in figuram futurorum traditae erant, velut umbrae cujusdam descriptionem faciente lege atque delineante de temporalibus aeterna, de terrenis caelestia." (C. H. iv. 11. § 4.) See Heb. x. 1; viii. 5 ; ix. 23.

5;

ὅπου γε Ενωχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ θεῷ, ἐν σώματι μετετέθη, τὴν μετάθεσιν τῶν δικαίων προμηνύων. (C. H. v. 5. § τ.) See Heb. xi. 5, which is more connected verbally with the citation of Irenaeus than is Gen. v. 24.

But although Irenaeus certainly knew, and to some extent used this Epistle, it is stated by Photius that he denied it to be the work of the Apostle Paul C.

πέρατα τῆς γῆς· καὶ πάλιν λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν, Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου [Ps. cx. 1]. (cap. 36.)

In the second of the Fragments published by Pfaff in 1715, as bearing the name of Irenaeus (ed. Stieren, p. 854, W. W. Harvey, ii. p. 500) it is said, καὶ ὁ Παῦλος παρακαλεῖ ἡμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ἡμῶν. καὶ πάλιν, ̓Αναφέ

Clement of Alexandria, however, not only ascribed this Epistle to St. Paul, but, in speaking of his predecessor Pantaenus apparently, he says, ἤδη δὲ ὡς ὁ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος ἀπόστολος ὢν τοῦ παντοκράτορος, ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἑβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος ὡς ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεσταλμένος, οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν Ἑβραίων ἀπόστολον· διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμήν, διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς Εβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ άπóσтоλov. (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14.)

Clement quotes from Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. v. ver. 12 (Strom. vi. 8. p. 771 Potter) expressly: he is spoken of by Eusebius as saying that it was Paul's, and written to the Hebrews in Hebrew, but carefully translated by Luke and given forth to the Greeks; whence he says the complexion of this Epistle as translated is the same as that of the Acts. (H. E. vi. 14.) So that although at Alexandria it was regarded as Pauline, its actual form and phraseology (differing so much from the Epistles which bear the Apostle's name) was deemed to be rather of the school of Paul than from the Apostle himself. The theory of a translation appears to have been assumed to meet supposed difficulties.

Tertullian expressly cites this Epistle as the work of Barnabas: "Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superducere idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctorati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore, Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem?' Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho pastore moechorum [sc. Herma]. Monens itaque discipulos, omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nec rursus fundamenta paenitentiae jacere ab operibus mortuorum. Impossibile est enim, inquit, eos qui semel inluminati sunt, et donum caeleste gustaverunt, et participaverunt spiritum sanctum et verbum dei dulce gustaverunt, occidente jam aevo cum exciderint, rursus revocari in paenitentiam, refigentes cruci in semetipsos filium dei et dedecorantes. Terra enim, quae bibit saepius devenientem in se humorem et peperit herbam aptam his propter quos et colitur, bene

ρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως τοῦτ ̓ ἔστι καρπὸν χειλέων : where Heb. xiii. 15 seems to be equally with Rom. xii. I attributed to St. Paul.

It is needless to say how keenly the genuineness of these Pfaffian Fragments was debated, and what different opinions still exist on the subject; the good faith of Pfaff himself seems to have been doubted by no one. The more general feeling amongst scholars seems now to be in favour of these Fragments. Probably

Irenaeus did not so connect Heb. xiii. 15 with Rom. xii. 1, as to assert that St. Paul was the author of the former Epistle.

Photius's statement rests on what he cites from Stephanus Gobarus (of the sixth century): ὅτι Ιππόλυτος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναί φασι. Cod. 232. (ed. Bekker. p. 291 b. 12.) Does Stephanus mean that they said this Epistle was not Paul's, or that they did not say it was his?

dictionem Dei consequitur; proferens autem spinas reproba et maledictioni proxima, cujus finis in exustionem. Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam paenitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat. Optime enim legem interpretabatur, et figuras ejus jam in ipsa veritate servabat." (De Pudicitia 20.)

It has been said that Tertullian nowhere quotes this Epistle but in one place (that given above); but while the sparing use made of it contrasts greatly with his citations from the collection of Epistles bearing St. Paul's name, there are other traces of his acquaintance with it and use of it. Thus, "Nam et Enoch justissimum non circumcisum nec sabbatizantem, de hoc mundo transtulit, qui necdum mortem gustavit, ut aeternitatis candidatus jam nobis ostenderet nos quoque sine legis onere Moysis Deo posse placere." (Adv. Judaeos 2 d.) The words "qui necdum mortem gustavit" come from Heb. xi. 5, and not from Gen. v. 24. "Translatus est

Enoch et Helias, nec mors eorum reperta est, dilata scilicet. Ceterum morituri reservantur, ut antichristum sanguine suo extinguant." (De Anima 50.) Here the statement "their death was not found" springs from the same misconstruction of Heb. xi. 5, as was made by Clement of Rome.

In Hippolytus, in the early part of the third century, we find but little certain use of this book, in contrast to the citations from all the collection of Epistles bearing St. Paul's name, with the exception of that to Philemon; so that Photius (cod. 121 e) is probably right in saying that he did not ascribe the authorship to St. Paul. But the little that we do find is worthy of notice, as shewing that those are mistaken who have overlooked what exists.

εἰπὼν τὰ ἑξῆς λέγει λοιπὸν ὡς ἐξ οἰκείου προσώπου ὁ χριστός, . . . (expounding the 69th Psalm of our Lord) διὸ κατ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἠδολέσχουν οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν πύλαις (lxviii. 13 LXX. ἐν πύλῃ) ἔξω γὰρ τῆς πύλης (Heb. xiii. 12) με ἐσταύρωσαν. (Demonst. adv. Judaeos 3. ii. p. 3 Fabricius, pp. 64, 5 Lagarde.)

¿μteσeîv eis tàs xeîpas Toû bεoû, Heb. x. 31. (De Susanna, p. 276 Fabr., p. 149 Lagarde.)

Sià Oavátov Tòv lávaтov VIKOV (De Chr. et Antichr. 26. p. 4 Fabricius, p. 13 Lagarde) appears to be a reminiscence of Heb. ii. 14f.

d This work of Tertullian appears to have been of late doubted by some scholars; but there appear to be no grounds for rejecting at least the former part. But even if it is not But even if it is not Tertullian's, the objection will not apply to his book De Anima, from which an allusion is immediately cited.

e Ed. Bekker 94 a. 1. 33. Compare also

what Photius quotes as to Hippolytus from Stephanus Gobarus.

f If the genuineness of Hippolytus Tepì xeporov@v, from the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, were certain, the citation of Heb. xiii. 17 αὐτοὶ γὰρ . . . . ἀποδώσοντες (p. 89 Lagarde) would be worthy of especial notice, but the use of the above passages suffices.

....