opinion of the church, are not fictitious but genuine and universally acknowledged, from others which, although they were disputed, were known to the greater part of ecclesiastical writers. And again, that we may discriminate between these and such as the heretics brought forward, under pretence of their being productions of the Apostles; such as the gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias, and some others, and the Acts of Andrew and of John and of the other Apostles; which not one of the whole list of ecclesiastical writers has ever thought worthy of being quoted. The character of their diction is very diverse from the style of the Apostles: and the spirit and tendency of their contents deviate so entirely from the true doctrines, as clearly to prove them to be the fabrications of heretics. Hence they cannot be classed even with the spurious writings; but must be denounced as absurd and impious."

The principal passage of Origen may be seen in his Commentary on Matthew and John, preserved by Eusebius. 1

2

It is true that in these passages, neither Eusebius nor Origen specifies the number of the universally received writings of the apostle Paul. But it is evident from other passages of Eusebius, that the epistle to the Hebrews is the only one which was not received into the number of the homologoumena. He says, "The fourteen epistles of Paul are well known (лoodnioi nac capes)3; yet it ought not to be concealed that some have excluded the epistle to the Hebrews, alleging that the church at Rome deny (avrileyɛoda) it to be Paul's :" and in another passage he remarks, that the epistle to the Hebrews παρὰ ̔Ρωμαίων τισιν ου νομιζεται του Αποστολου τυγχανειν,

1 Eccles. Hist. VI. 25.

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 3.

3 In "New Apology for the Revelation of St. John,” (published, Tübingen, 1783) p. 28 note 15, it is remarked that the expressions πoodytos and σαφης (well known) must be distinguished from ομολογεμένος universally received.

4 Euseb. VI. 20.

2

is by some Romans not regarded as a production of the apostle (Paul). And he elsewhere1 classes this epistle with the antilegomena, i. e. with those books which were not universally received. In like manner Origen excludes none but the epistle to the Hebrews from the universally received apostolical writings; and all the other epistles of Paul, he attributes, without the least hesitation, to that apostle, in innumerable instances; excepting that to Philemon, which from its extreme brevity would naturally be but seldom quoted; and yet even this epistle is in one passage expressly ascribed to Paul.3 Yet Origen was much disposed to express his doubts relative to the antilegomena; and it has been proved that he distinguished them from the homologoumena, by his manner of quoting them. Thus in his Commentary on John,5 he quotes the first epistle of James with these words, ως εν τη φερομενη τε Ιακωβε επιστολη ανεγ νωμεν, i. e. as we read in the reputed epistle of James; and in his Commentary on Matt. when citing the epistle of Jude, he adds, ει δε και την Ιουδα προσοιτο τις επιστολην, i. e. if we acknowledge the epistle of Jude. Thus also in his letter to Africanus,7 although he there undertakes to prove Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, still when pressed with the objection that it was not genuine, he waves the quotation which he had made from it, and passes on to another proof from Matthew. But still stronger are the terms in which he expresses himself when citing the Pastor of Hermas, which he regarded as a divine book ; ει δε χρη τολμησαντα και απο τινος φερομένης μεν εν τη εκκλησια γραφης, ου παρα πασι δε ὁμολογέμενης είναι θειας,

1 Hist. Eccles. VI. 13.

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 25.

3 In the 19th Homily on Jeremiah, §. 2.

4 See the Apology for the Revelation 6, note 2; and the work "On the object of the gospel history and the epistles of John," p. 106, &c. Tübingen 1786.

5 Tom. XIX. § 6.

6 Tom. XVII. § 30.

8 Lib. X. in Epist. ad Romanos, & 31.

79.

x... i. e. if we may venture to quote from a book that is commonly used by the church, yet not received as divine by the unanimous consent of all. And he himself informs us, that he cited passages from such books, "non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem proposita quaestionis," i. e. not for the proof, but illustration of the point under discussion.1 The principal passages of Origen, in which he quotes the Epistles, are the following:

For the Epistle to the Romans and the first of Corinthians, see Orig. contra Celsum, Lib. III. § 46-48.

For the second of Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians, idem Lib. I. § 48. 47. II. § 1.

For the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, Lib. VI. § 54. Lib. IV. § 49. 18. Preface, § 5.

For the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, Lib. V. § 17. Lib. VI. § 45, etc.

For the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Lib. I. § 63. Lib. IV. $70. Lib. III. § 48.

In like manner also the Acts of the Apostles, Origen expressly attributed to Luke; ὡς ὁ Λουκας εν ταις πράξεσιν twv añoστolwv eɣoaqɛ,2. i. e. as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles has declared. And the reason why he did not mention the book of Acts in the passages which Eusebius quotes from his Commentary on Matthew and John, was that Origen there wished to speak only of the Gospels, and of the writings of the apostles Paul, Peter, and John.

1 Vide Mag. für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, Stück 9. S. 17—26.

2 Lib. VI. contra Celsum, 11. See also the passage which Eusebius quotes from his Homilies on the Hebrews, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 25.

ILLUSTRATION 2.

The reference of Eusebius and Origen to the ecclesiastical tradition respecting the homologoumena; together with remarks on the nature of this tradition.

The passages in which this reference is contained, are those quoted in the last Illustration; together with another passage,1 in which Eusebius remarks, that the Gospel and first Epistle of John, which were classed with the homologoumena in ch. 25, were without the least hesitation received as genuine by the ancient and the present church.

Relative to the nature of this tradition, Eusebius, in his principal passage above quoted at length, uses the following language: άι κατα την εκκλησιαστικην παραδοσιν αληθεις και απλαστοι και ανωμολογημέναι γραφαι; i. e. the books which according to the tradition of the church are generally received as true and unadulterated; and Origen says (Euseb. Ec. Hist. VI. 25.) ως εν παραδοσει μαθων ; i. e. as I have learned from tradition. That by this εκκλησιαστικη παραδοσις is not meant the oral declarations of the contemporaries of Eusebius, is proved in the Apology for the Revelation, where it is evinced that this phrase of Eusebius signifies the testimony of writers, and especially of those prior to his day. This opinion is more fully discussed by Dr Flatt in his magazine,3 and vindicated against different significations which have of late been given to that phrase as used by Eusebius. Eckermann, in his dissertation "On the probable origin of the gospels and the Acts of the apostles," regards the word tradition in general, and also in the passage of Origen above quoted, as the then prevalent tenet or opinion of the church. According to his idea therefore, Eusebius and Origen

1 Hist. Euseb. III. 24.

2 p. 26. note 7.

3 See Flatt's Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, achtes Stück s. 75-86.

4 Theologische Beiträge (Theological Contributions) Band 5 Stück 2.

acknowledged the genuineness of the homologoumena for this reason, that it was a settled opinion of the church that the gospel of Matthew or of John &c, was really written by the person whose name it bears. The ground therefore of their reception of them was, that their genuineness was a traditionary dogma of the church. In the "Essay on the Canon of Eusebius,” by J. E. C. Schmidt,1 that writer explains the лapadosis exxindia σtinŋ as signifying the Canon which was settled by the church of Eusebius. And Münscher thinks it signifies the prevailing opinion of the Christian churches relative to the books of the New Testament; and adds that the private opinion of Eusebius, as well as of other learned men, may possibly have been at variance with it. The principal proof that παραδοσις εκκλησιαorinn signifies written tradition, or the testimony of those authors with whose works Eusebius was acquainted, is found in the leading passage itself relative to the canon.3 Here Eusebius describes the first class of sacred writings, the homologoumena, in the words before cited: οι κατα την εκκλησιαστικην παραδοσιν αληθεις απλαστοι και ανωμολογημέναι γραφαι i. e. books which according to the tradition of the church are generally received as true and unadulterated; but relative to the later class, that of heretical writings, he uses these words: av ovδεν εδαμως εν ΣΥΓΓΡΑΜΜΑΤί των κατα διαδοχας εκκλησιαστικων τις ανηρ εις μνήμην αγαγειν ηξίωσε, i. e. whom not a single one of the whole succession of ecclesiastical writers, has thought worthy of being quoted. The same idea is elsewhere 1 thus expressed : μητε αρχαιων μητε των καθ' ἡμας τις εκκλη σιαστικος συγγραφευς ταις εξ' αυτων συνεχρησατο μαρτυρίαις, i. e. no ecclesiastical writer, either in ancient or modern times,

1 Henke's Mag. für Religions Philosophie (Mag. for Religious Philosophy) Band V. Stück III. s. 451, &c.

2 Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte (Manual of the History of the christian doctrines) Marpurg 1797. vol. I. p. 246. 4 III. 3.

3 See that passage quoted in Illust. 1. supra.