down among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had
been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among
the acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was
used by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:--
'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ...
eirêsthô]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and
those which are not acknowledged among all.'
This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is
thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows
an appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is
essentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision
of a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the
unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in
which our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not
settled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the
writings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question;
but there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about
which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore
proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways.
This is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he
pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book
belonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); but as
regards the undisputed Canonical books he only professes to mention
them, when such a writer has something to _tell about them_ ([Greek:
tina _peri_ tôn endiathêkôn eirêtai]). Any _anecdote_ of interest
respecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek: tôn mê
toioutôn]), will be recorded. But in their case he nowhere leads us to
expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and
however precise [38:1].
This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter
and St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings.
The Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as
Eusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the
Epistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the
historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act.
Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St
John, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St
John's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts
at this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as
follows [39:1]:--
'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning
these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly
([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been
said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them.
Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera])
of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among
our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients,
while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse
opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day,
among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall
receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from
the testimonies of the ancients.'
After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the
results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage,
important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.
Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is
observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes
concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere
references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford
important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical
authority.
Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which
our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question,
after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he
actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with
the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means
of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus
and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping
assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next
to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us.
But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to
the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of
Polycarp, of Irenæus, and others; and, as these writings are still
extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a
definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this
test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not,
then it is worthless.
Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains
several references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written,
whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present
to discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and
martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself
allows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ...
makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than
this; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul
and Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He
simply remarks that Clement, by
'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the
(Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it
word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the
document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5]
This is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and
too close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the
Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is.
The IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of
their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven
letters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension,
whether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read;
and to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the
writer Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius
then presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels
(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire),
_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as
a dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that
receiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of
St John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it
goeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent
Him,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of
St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as
'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in
every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages
which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet
of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives
respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this
one sentence [41:9]:--
'Writing to the Smyrnæans, he has employed expressions (taken) I
know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--
"And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after
the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him
([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,
feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,
'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asômaton]]; and immediately they
touched Him, and believed."'
It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of
this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the
Hebrews [42:1].
Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that
we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our
author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.
'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of
the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He
altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,
and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new
confirmation of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic
writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this
result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be
hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His
Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares
the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And
he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is
the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to
conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?
From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the
Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it
is confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In
Polycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our
Gospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in
the Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he
is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious
quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more
doubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So
far as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more
than that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: dêlôtheisê]) writing
([Greek: graphê]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek:
pheromenê]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the
First (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a
Judaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be
partially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in
an earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes
from Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be
mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is
purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely
ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language
nevertheless this Epistle is saturated.
When we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar.
This Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of
Evangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical
Gospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without
referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be
detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these
sayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of
the Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called
Gospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages
recall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New
Testament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made
mention ([Greek: memnêtai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying
that it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5]
His mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more
instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work
addressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_
[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work
Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention
points of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly
have been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the
Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning
of the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:--
'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek:
pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at
the first ([Greek: en prôtois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him.
Then he says, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him,
and without Him was not anything made."'
This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious
and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference
[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one
solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any
book of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But
of the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus)
has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all
the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of
Theophilus to the Canon.
One example more must suffice. IRENÆUS [44:6] in his extant work on
heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St
Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul,
the exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he
directly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the
exception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons
addressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of
references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of
three columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenæus_. Yet of all this
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to
have quoted a passage from Irenæus, relating to the succession of the
Roman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St
Paul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the
Canon contains no hint that Irenæus recognised the existence of any one
of St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the
Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as
illustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by
referring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:--
'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a
promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities
the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in
which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached
them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) writings, and
Irenæus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and
first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.'
He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the
circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two
quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which
Irenæus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers
to the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:--
'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the
Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle
of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise
also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows,
but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then
spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: hê graphê]] 'which says,
"First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all
things;"' and so forth.'
This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament
which he adduces from the great work of Irenæus. In a much later
passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this
Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he
mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of
Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.'
From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel
justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of
Eusebius:--
(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in
forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.
(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references
which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had
never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct
and by name, it had no value for him.
(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii)
the thirteen Epistles of St Paul.
(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes
which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they
were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias,
and of the Four Gospels in Irenæus.
(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the
_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally
acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for
instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to
the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was
acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy
an exceptional position.
Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit
in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent
procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with
tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the
books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he
mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias,
Polycarp, and Irenæus), though in the Church no doubt was ever
entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought
that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of
silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.
(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be
considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been,
disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting
either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in
Clement of Rome and Irenæus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in
Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and
Irenæus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing
the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only
thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews
with the rest.' [47:3]
(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but
which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier
Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he
mentions the one quotation in Irenæus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he
states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he
records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of
the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has
commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of
Peter [47:4].
It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his
treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication
of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his
contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.
The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the
whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one
isolated passage from Hermas in Irenæus, though it is quoted
anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul,
though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited
by name.
It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but
also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be
depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the
following rules for our guidance:--
(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the
books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits
which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenæus makes
this point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author
relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], he omits to mention others which
contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
question, _e.g._ that St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors
of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few
lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were
acquainted with St John [48:3], he omits the context, from which we find
that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the
Fourth Gospel, for it declared that Christ's ministry extended much
beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the
Fourth Gospel against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists.
(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When
Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a
Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were
direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may
fairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or
both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is
the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the
Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter
in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a
doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might
fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for
instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have
passed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered
them decisive.
I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am
unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows
[49:2]:--
'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies
from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter."
As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we
must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'
[49:3]
For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and
I am not aware of any.
The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'