II. THE DISPUTED AND SPURIOUS WRITINGS. The second class comprised such as were not received with universal consent as genuine and apostolical, and admitted into the New Testament, but which were yet used and esteemed by many, and read in the churches."

Among these disputed and spurious writings, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, held the first place. This is evident from the term catholic Epistles, which he applies to them, and from the whole history of the canon, though in this also Vogel finds a reference to the canon of his own church at Cæsarea.

The Acts of Paul, the book of the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Doctrines of the Apostles, appear to have held the second rank. Here he does not include the Epistle of Clement, as he does vi. 13. But this arises not from carelessness, as Flatt supposes, (viii. 90,) nor because it was not contained in the canon of Cæsarea, as Schmidt (p. 455) and Vogel (vol. i. p. 22) suppose, but, perhaps, because no claim was made for its reception into the canon, (diaêýzy,) inasmuch as no one thought the apostle had any share in it.

Eusebius is doubtful to which of the above classes he

his notes. Schott's Isagoge historico-critica in libros N. T.; Jenæ, 1830. He maintains that Paul is not the author of this Epistle, in which he is joined by most of the eminent modern critics of Germany.]

a

Disputed (αντιλεγόμενος) is opposed to canonical (ἐνδιαθήκος,) (see iii. 3,) and is equivalent to οὐκ ἐνδιαθήκος: so νόθος is the opposite of γνήσιος, though νόθος is equivalent to νοθευόμενος, and means held not to be genuine, but only received by some. (Comp. ii. 13, and iii. 3.) To this class belong the writings known to many, (prógios rois пokhois,) (iii. 25,) read publicly in the churches, (Sedquooievμivos èv Exxkyolaıs.) (ii. 23, iii. 3, 31.)

shall reckon the Apocalypse of John, probably on account of the partiality with which he judged this book."

III. THE ABSURD AND IMPIOUS WRITINGS.

This class contains books forged by heretics, which in no respect can claim a place in the New Testament. Irenæus (i. 20) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. p. 437) call them apocryphal and spurious.

§ 25.

USE AND CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AMONG THE CHRISTIANS OF THE FIRST CENTURIES.

The holy Scriptures of the New Testament were placed in the same rank with those of the Old Testament, which also were read. This fact appears from the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Theophylact, Irenæus, and others. The latter writes, "Since all the Scriptures, both the Prophets and the Gospels, are well known." To the same purpose Origen says, "Let not any one depreciate the writings, which are received and believed to be divine, by all the church of God, who say the Law of Moses was the first-born, and the Gospel the first-fruit; for the perfect Logos continued to grow after all the fruits of the Prophets, until the time of the Lord Jesus." "The fact that the Logos wishes us to be wise, may be shown from the ancient and Jewish

Münscher, p. 326. Flatt, vol. viii. p. 92.

421, sqq.

Eichhorn, in N. T., vol. ii. p. Schmidt (in Henke's Mag. l. c. p. 456, sq.) erroneously finds the cause in the Cæsarean canon, to which Vogel, also, (p. 21,) supposes he referred. Eusebius does not decide upon the Gospel of the Hebrews. Flatt, 1. c. p. 96. Michaelis, Einleit. in N. T. vol. ii. p. 1033, sqq.

[See Appendix, B.]

writings which we use, and which are believed by the church to be no less divine than those written after the time of Jesus.""

But the Jewish Scriptures could only be read in the Alexandrian version; and therefore all the writings contained in that version were naturally made use of. Hence it comes to pass that Christian writers frequently cite the apocryphal as if they were canonical writings. For example, Irenæus says, "Jeremiah the prophet said," and cites a passage as Jeremiah's which is found only in Baruch iv. 36. Again, he cites Daniel the prophet, but refers to the apocryphal additions to Daniel, in the Septuagint, xiv. 4, 5.6

Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from Solomon, which is only found in the apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, xv. Again he writes, "The divine Scripture says," referring to words not found in the canonical books, but in Baruch iii.

Tertullian mentions the Wisdom of Solomon, that is, the apocryphal book, as if it were canonical. He cites a passage from Ecclesiasticus, as if the book were a

a

Ignat. Ep. ad Philad. c. 5, (§ 18.) Justin. M. Apol. i. c. 67, (§ 19.) Theophil. ad Autol. iii. 12. Iren. ii. 27, 2: Cum itaque universæ Scripturæ, et Prophetiæ, et Evangelia in aperto sint, etc. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. iii. p. 455, (§ 21;) iv. p. 475, (§ 22;) v. p. 561; vi. p. 659. Tertull. De Præscript. c. 36, (§ 22.) Origen, Com. in Joh. T. i. § 4. Opp. iv. p. 4: Twv pegouέvov γραφῶν καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐκκλησίαις θεοῦ πεπιστευμένων εἶναι θείων οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις λέγων πρωτογέννημα μὲν τὸν Μωυσέως νόμον, ἀπαρχὴν δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς πάντας τῶν προφητῶν καρποὺς, τῶν μέχρι τοῦ κυρίου ̓Ιησοῦ, ὁ τέλειος ἐβλάστησε λόγος. Cont. Cels. iii. p. 45. Opp. i. p. 476: "Οτι βούλεται ἡμᾶς εἶναι σοφοὺς ὁ λόγος, δεικτέον καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ 'Ιουδαϊκῶν γραμμάτων, ἢ οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς χρώμεθα, οὐχ ἧττον δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μετὰ τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν γραφέντων καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις θείων εἶναι πεπιστευμένων.

b Iren. v. 35; iv. 5.

с

Clem. Alex. Stromat. lib. v. p. 583. Pædag. ii. p. 161.

part of the divine Scriptures, introducing it with the phrase, "It is written." He speaks as follows on this theme: "I know the book of Enoch...... is rejected by some because it is not admitted into the Jewish collection. I believe they have supposed this book, written before the deluge, could not have survived that calamity of the earth which destroyed all things. But if this is their argument, let them remember that Noah, the greatgrandson of Enoch himself, survived the deluge. He might have heard it [the substance of the book] as a family story, and hereditary tradition, and have remembered what is said about his favor with God, and all his sayings, if Enoch had done no more than to command his son Methuselah to transmit a knowledge thereof to his posterity. Noah may, without doubt, have followed in transmitting this tradition, in consequence of this command, or else because he could not be silent respecting either the kindness of God the preserver towards him, or respecting the honor of his own family. If he could not so readily have received the command, the other cause would have led him to preserve the statement of that book. And then, even if the original writing was destroyed by the violence of the deluge, he could reproduce it in his mind; as, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in the siege, the whole body of Jewish literature was restored by Ezra. But since Enoch prophesies of the Lord in that same writing, we are by no means to reject any thing that belongs to us. And as we read that Scripture good for edification is divinely inspired, it seems for this reason [because it predicted Jesus] to have been subsequently rejected by the Jews, as also have some other writings which speak of Christ. Nor is it to be wondered at, that they have not received other writings which speak of him; for

they were not willing to receive him, himself speaking openly among men. To this it may be added, that Enoch had some value as an evidence with the apostle Jude."

a

As soon as the learned turned their attention to this subject, they adhered to the tradition and decision of the Jews in respect to the apocryphal writings, and thus returned to the true canon.

This appears from the writings of Eusebius, who says, "In the selections made by him, [Melito, bishop of Sardis, about 170 A. C.] the same author, beginning in his preface, makes a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament....... 'Melito sends greeting to his brother Onesimus. Since, in thy zeal for the word, thou hast often desired to have selections from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Savior and the whole of our faith, and hast also wished to obtain an

" De Cultu Fem. i. 3: Scio Scripturam Enoch...... non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur. Opinor, non putaverunt, illam ante cataclysmum editam, post eum casum orbis, omnium rerum abolitorem, salvam esse potuisse. Si ista ratio est, recordentur, pronepotem ipsius Enoch fuisse superstitem cataclysmi Noë, qui utique domestico nomine et hæreditaria traditione audierat et meminerat de proavi sui penes Deum gratia et de omnibus prædicatis ejus: cum Enoch filio suo Metusala nihil aliud mandaverit, quam ut notitiam eorum posteris suis traderet. Igitur sine dubio potuit Noë in prædicationis delegatione successisse, vel quia et alias non tacuisset tam de Dei conservatoris sui dispositione, quam de ipsa domus suæ gloria. Hoc si non tam expedite haberet, illud quoque assertionem Scripturæ illius tueretur. Perinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi in spiritu rursus reformare, quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis, omne instrumentum Judaicæ literaturæ per Esdram constat restauratum. Sed cum Enoch eadem Scriptura etiam de Domino prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est, quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari, a Judæis postea jam videri propterea rejectam, sicut et cætera fere, quæ Christum sonant. Nec utique mirum hoc, si Scripturas aliquas non receperunt de eo locutas, quem et ipsum coram loquentem non erant recepturi. Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.