edged books. But there are some who place among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which the Hebrew Christians are especially pleased. These, then, are all of the disputed books; we, however, have made this catalogue, necessarily distinguishing those writings which, according to the tradition of the church, are true, and genuine, and acknowledged, from those others which do not belong to the New Testament, but are disputed, though they are known to most of the ecclesiastical writers, that we might be able to know these writings themselves, and those also adduced by the heretics in the name of the apostles, such as contain the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, and others beside them; or those which contain the Acts of Andrew and John, and the other apostles, of any one of which no one in the series of ecclesiastical teachers has ever thought it worth while to make mention in his works. And, still further, the style differs widely from that of the apostles; and the opinions and doctrines contained in them, differing as far as possible from the true orthodoxy, prove clearly that they are the production of heretics. Therefore they are not only to be classed among the spurious, but to be rejected, as utterly absurd and impious."

In preparing this catalogue, Eusebius follows the tradition of the church, as he tells us himself. By this tradition of the church, he does not understand merely what was current in his church," not merely the opinion prevalent in the Christian communities,' nor the oral tradition, nor merely the written tradition contained in

See Schmidt, on the Canon of Eusebius, in Henke's Magazin, vol. v. p. 455. Vogel also approaches this opinion.

See Münscher, l. c. vol. i. p. 321, sq.

See K. C. Flatt, on the Canon of Eusebius, in Flatt's Magazin, vol. viii. p. 79, sqq.

ecclesiastical writers, but both the oral and the written, so far as he could ascertain it, in the historical investigations he made for the sake of answering the question, Which of the writings that pretend to belong to the New Testament really do belong to it?

eager

However, Lücke, in his Inquiry on the Canon of Eusebius, thinks he refers only to the written tradition, and cites the following passage as proof: "One Epistle of Peter, which is called his First, is acknowledged; and anciently the elders used it in their writings as undoubtedly genuine. We have not learned from tradition that what is called his Second Epistle belongs to the New Testament; but, as it appears useful to many, it is ly read with the other Scriptures. But concerning the work called his Acts, and that named the Gospel according to him, that styled his Preaching, and the work denominated the Apocalypse, we do not know that they have been handed down as catholic writings. For no ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has ever made use of testimony derived from them. But, in the course of this history, I shall attempt to show, in

a

Hist. Eccl. iii. 3: Πέτρου μὲν οὖν ἐπιστολὴ μία, ἡ λεγομένη αὐτοῦ προτέρα, ἀνωμολόγηται. Ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ οἱ πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι ὡς ἀναμφιλέκτῳ ἐν τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν κατακέχρηνται συγγράμμασι· τὴν δὲ φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν· ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη γραφῶν. Τό γε μὴν τῶν ἐπικεκλημένων αὐτοῦ πράξεων, καὶ τὸ κατ' αὐτὸν ὠνομασμένον εὐαγγέλιον, τό, τε λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ κήρυγμα, καὶ τὴν καλουμένην ἀποκάλυψιν, οὐδ ̓ ὅλως ἐν καθολικοῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένα· ὅτι μή τε ἀρχαίων, μή τε τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς τις ἐκκλησιαστικὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις. Προϊούσης δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας, προέργον ποιήσομαι σὺν ταῖς διαδοχαῖς ὑποσημᾔνασθαι, τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων, ὁποίαις κέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων· τίνα τε περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθή κων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων γραφῶν, καὶ ὅσα περὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων αὐτοῖς εἴρηται. ̓Αλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὀνομαζόμενα Πέτρου, ὧν μίαν μόνην γνησίαν ἔγνων ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὁμολογουμένην, τοσαῦτα. For the oral tradition, comp. iii. 3, 31.

their order, what disputed writings were used by any of the ecclesiastical authors, in conformity with the spirit of their time, and what they have said upon the canonical and acknowledged writings, and upon such as were not of that class. Such, then, are the alleged works of Peter; but I know only one Epistle which is genuine and acknowledged by the most ancient Fathers."

In his judgment upon the style and contents of these writers, Eusebius, for the most part, follows the earlier authorities.

In respect to their apostolical character, which was made more or less certain by the traditions of the church, he divides the books of the New Testament into three classes. Some, however, think he makes but two classes; others, four; while some other writers think there are three classes, with two subdivisions." This division may be gathered from the following passages: "Let it be classed with the spurious writings,......" "All these belong to the disputed books.”

C. F. Schmidt, Hist. crit. Can. p. 356. Bertholdt, p. 129. But these two authors make a different division.

Weber, Beit. Gesch. d. Kanons, (Tub. 1791,) p. 142, sqq. Münscher, l. c. p. 323, sqq. J. E. C. Schmidt, 1. c. p. 453, Einleit. p. 12. Stroth's German version of Eusebius. Hug, Introd. § 20. Eichhorn, Einleit. in N. T. vol. iv. p. 54. Hänlein, Einleit. vol. i. p. 112. Rössler, Bibliothek. d. Kirchenvätern, vol. iv. p. 74. Flatt, 1. c. vol. viii. p. 28, very justly, takes a different view. Lücke, l. c. p. 6. Vogel, vol. ii. p. 7. [It may be thought surprising that such various opinions should prevail on this point. To me it appears Eusebius makes four classes of books in use among the Christians, and peculiar to them, viz. I. Writings of undoubted genuineness and value, (óμokoTobuɛva.) II. Writings generally, but not universally received, (artikeyouɛrα.) Both of these are in the present New Testament. III. The spurious writings, (róða,) which seem to have been written by good men, with a good design, and ascribed to some historical person, who was not their author. IV. Absurd and impious writings, (¿τола пávíη xal dvoσε3ñ.) His mixed writings belong to the second class. Here, then, are two classes of canonical, and two of uncanonical writings.]

“And among them, he [Clement] uses even testimony from the disputed books, ...... from the Epistle to the Hebrews, from that of Barnabas, and Clement, and Jude.” « Not passing over the disputed writings, I mean the Epistle of Jude, and the other catholic Epistles, that of Barnabas and the book called the Apocalypse of Peter." “Sacred writings ...... disputed, indeed, but read by many in most of the churches. ...... Some utterly spurious and foreign to the apostolical orthodoxy.” “ Let it be understood that the Epistle of James is spurious.” “Let it be understood that this [the book of the Shepherd] is disputed by some, on whose account it is not placed among the acknowledged books. But by others, especially such as need elementary instruction, it is judged most necessary; for which reason, it is now publicly used in the churches, and I have understood that some of the most ancient writers used it." a

I. THE ACKNOWLEDGED WRITINGS.

The first class comprises the writings of the New Testament which were universally acknowledged as the

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24: Ἐν τοῖς νόθοις κατατετάχθω και...... ταῦτα μὲν πάντα τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων εἴη. vi. 13: Κέχρηται δ' ἐν αὐτοῖς (Κλήμης) καὶ ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν μαρτυρίαις...... τῆς πρὸς ̔Εβραίους ἐπιστολῆς, τῆς τε Βαρνάβα καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ Ἰούδα. vi. 14: Μὴ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελθών· τὴν ̓Ιούδα λέγω καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς καθολι κὰς ἐπιστολὰς, τήν τε Βαρνάβα καὶ τὴν Πέτρου λεγομένην ἀποκάλυψιν. iii. 31: ̔Ιερὰ γράμματα ἀντιλεγόμενα μὲν, ὅμως δ' ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις παρὰ πολλοῖς δεδημοσιευμένα . τά τε παντελῶς νόθα καὶ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ἀλλότρια. ii. 23: Ιστέον ὡς νοθεύεται ( ̓Ιακώβου ἐπιστολή). iii. 3: Ιστέον ὡς καὶ τοῦτο (τοῦ ποιμένος βιβλίον) πρὸς μὲν τινῶν ἀντιλέλεκ ται, δι' οὓς οὐκ ἂν ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις τεθείη. Ὑφ' ἑτέρων δὲ ἀναγκαιό τατον οἷς μάλιστα δεῖ στοιχειώσεως εἰσαγωγικῆς, κέκριται· ὅθεν ἤδη και ἐν ἐκκλησίαις αὐτὸ δεδημοσιευμένον, καὶ τῶν παλαιοτάτων δὲ συγγραφέων κεχρημένους τινὰς αὐτῷ κατείληφα,

......

genuine productions of the apostles. Here belong the four Gospels, the Acts, fourteen Epistles of Paul, the First of John, and the First of Peter.

Respecting the Pauline writings, he says, "The Epistles of Paul, fourteen, were known and undoubted." But his judgment varies respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. "It is not right to conceal that some reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying it is disputed by the church of the Romans as not being Paul's. (See vi. 20. Compare vi. 13, and iii. 38.) For, as Paul had written a letter of instruction to the Hebrews in the language of their mother country, some say that Luke the evangelist, others that Clement, translated that writing. The latter appears the rather to be true, inasmuch as the Epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar style." From this it appears that Eusebius actually ascribes this to Paul. Vogel finds here a reference to the canon of Eusebius's own church.'

• The term acknowledged (¿uoloɣoíuevos) is to be understood in reference to the New Testament, (naivi Sia0an,) and so is the term canonical, (¿vSiáonxos.) But he uses genuine (7votos) in relation to the authors. (Compare iii. 3, and vi. 13, in the note of this §, with iii. 16.) One acknowledged Epistle is, indeed, ascribed to this Clement, iii. 38: "and the Epistle of Clement, which is, indeed, acknowledged by all."

• iii. 3: Τοῦ δὲ Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες. See his wavering judgment on the Epistle to Hebrews, iii. 3: Ou yɛ μÝv Tives ἠθετήκασι τὴν πρὸς Εβραίους, πρὸς τῆς ̔Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησίας ὡς μὴ Παύλου οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἀντιλέγεσθαι φήσαντες, (see vi. 20,) οὐ δίκαιον ἀγνοεῖν. (Comp. vi. 13, vi. 25, § 23.) iii. 38: 'Eẞgalors did tñs rarglov płótins ἐγγράφως ὁμιληκότος τοῦ Παύλου, οἱ μὲν τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Λουκᾶν, οἱ δὲ τὸν Κλήμεντα ἑρμενεῦσαι λέγουσι τὴν γραφήν. Ο καὶ μᾶλλον εἴην ἂν ἀληθὲς, τῷ τὸν ὅμοιον τῆς φράσεως χαρακτῆρα τήν τε τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπισ τολὴν καὶ τὴν πρὸς Εβραίους ἀποσώζειν. See Flatt, vol. viii. p. 88, sq. Vogel, vol. i. p. 19, sq.

[See the valuable articles of Mr. Norton on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Christian Examiner, vol. iv., v., and vi. Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hug's Introd. § 144-147, and

VOL. I.

11

?