Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 12

{170}

make selections for him from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the faith generally, and furthermore desired to learn the accurate account of the Old [------] Books;' 'having gone therefore to the East,' Melito says, 'and reached the spot where [each thing] was preached and done, and having learned accurately the Books of the Old Testament, I have sent a list of them.' The mention of 'the Old Books'--'the Books of the Old Testament,' naturally implies a definite New Testament, a written ant.i.type to the Old; and the form of language implies a familiar recognition of its contents."(1) This is truly astonishing! The "form of language" can only refer to the words: "concerning the Saviour and the faith generally," which must have an amazing fulness of meaning to convey to Canon West-cott the implication of a "familiar recognition" of the contents of a supposed already collected New Testament, seeing that a simple Christian, not to say a Bishop, might at least know of a Saviour and the faith generally from the oral preaching of the Gospel, from a single Epistle of Paul, or from any of the [------] of Luke. This reasoning forms a worthy pendant to his argument that because Melito speaks of the books of the Old Testament he implies the existence of a definite collected New Testament. Such an a.s.sertion is calculated to mislead a large cla.s.s of readers.(2)

The fragment of Melito is as follows: "Melito to his

1 On the Canon, p. 193. [In the fourth edition Dr. Westcott omits the last phrase, making a full stop at "Old." p. 218.]

2 It must be said, however, that Canon Westcott merely follows and exaggerates Lardner, here, who says: "From this pa.s.sage I would conclude that there was then also a volume or collection of books called the New Testament, containing the writings of Apostles and Apostolical men, but we cannot from hence infer the names or the exact number of those books." Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 148.

{171}

brother Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal for the word [------] to have extracts made for thee, both from the law and the prophets concerning the Saviour and our whole faith; nay, more, hast wished to learn the exact statement of the old books [------], how many they are and what is their order, I have earnestly endeavoured to accomplish this, knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire to be informed concerning the word [------], and especially that thou preferrest these matters to all others from love towards G.o.d, striving to gain eternal salvation. Having, therefore, gone to the East, and reached the place where this was preached and done, and having accurately ascertained the books of the Old Testament [------], I have, subjoined, sent a list of them unto thee, of which these are the names"--then follows a list of the books of the Old Testament, omitting, however, Esther. He then concludes with the words: "Of these I have made the extracts dividing them into six books."(1)

Canon Westcott's a.s.sertion that the expression "Old Books," "Books of the Old Testament," involves here by ant.i.thesis a definite _written_ New Testament, requires us to say a few words as to the name of "Testament"

as applied to both divisions of the Bible. It is of course well known that this word came into use originally from the translation of the Hebrew word "covenant" [------], or compact made between G.o.d and the Israelites,(2) in the Septuagint version, by the Greek word [------], which in a legal sense also means a will or Testament,(3) and that word is adopted throughout the New

2 The legal sense of [------] as a Will or Testament is distinctly intended in Heb. ix. 16. "For where a Testament [------] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" [------]. The same word [------] is employed throughout the whole pa.s.sage. Heb. ix. 15--20.

{172}

Testament.(l) The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original Hebrew signification, translated the word in the Gospels and Epistles, "Testamentum" and [------] became "Vetus Testamentum" instead of "Vetus Foedus" and whenever the word occurs in the English version it is almost invariably rendered "Testament" instead of covenant. The expression "Book of the Covenant," or "Testament," [------], frequently occurs in the LXX version of the Old Testament and its Apocrypha,(2) and in Jeremiah x.x.xi. 31-34,(3) the prophet speaks of making a "new covenant"

[------] with the house of Israel, which is indeed quoted in Hebrews viii. 8. It is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through Christ confirming the former one made to the Israelites, which has led to the distinction of the Old and New Testaments. Generally the Old Testament was, in the first ages of Christianity, indicated by the simple expressions "The Books" [------], "Holy Scriptures" [------],(5) or "The Scriptures" [------,(6) but the preparation for the distinction of "Old Testament" began very early in the development of the doctrinal idea of the New Testament of Christ, before there was any part of the New Testament books written at all. The expression "New Testament," derived thus

{173}

ant.i.thetically from the "Old Testament," occurs constantly throughout the second part of the Bible. In the Epistle to the Hebrews viii. 6-13, the Mosaic dispensation is contrasted with the Christian, and Jesus is called the Mediator of a better Testament [------].(1) The first Testament not being faultless, is replaced by the second, and the writer quotes the pa.s.sage from Jeremiah to which we have referred regarding a New Testament, winding up his argument with the words, v. 13: "In that he saith a new (Testament) he hath made the first old." Again, in our first Gospel, during the Last Supper, Jesus is represented as saying: "This is my blood of the New Testament" [------];(2) and in Luke he says: "This cup is the New Testament [------] in my blood."(3) There is, therefore, a very distinct reference made to the two Testaments as "New"

and "Old," and in speaking of the books of the Law and the Prophets as the "Old Books" and "Books of the old Testament," after the general acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus as the New Testament or Covenant, there was no ant.i.thetical implication whatever of a written New Testament, but a mere reference to the doctrinal idea. We might multiply ill.u.s.trations showing how ever-present to the mind of the early Church was the contrast of the Mosaic and Christian Covenants as Old and New.

Two more we may venture to point out. In Romans ix. 4, and Gal. iv.

24, the two Testaments or Covenants [------], typified by Sinai and the heavenly Jerusalem, are discussed, and the superiority of the latter a.s.serted. There is, however, a pa.s.sage, still more clear and decisive.

Paul says in 2 Corinthians iii. 6: "Who also (G.o.d) made us sufficient to be ministers of the New

{174}

Testament [------] not of the letter, but of the spirit" [------]. Why does not Canon Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite written New Testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but a distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which an apologist might make a telling argument? But proceeding to contrast the glory of the New with the Old dispensation, the Apostle, in reference to the veil with which Moses covered his face, says: "But their understandings were hardened: for until this very day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament" [------];(l ) and as if to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: "But even unto this day when Moses is read, the veil lieth upon their heart." Now here the actual reading of the _Old_ Testament [------]

is distinctly mentioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of Melito, "implies a definite New Testament, a written ant.i.type to the Old," but even Canon Westcott would not dare to suggest that, when the second Epistle to the Corinthians was composed, there was a "definite written New Testament" in existence. This conclusively shows that the whole argument from Melito's mention of the books of the Old Testament is absolutely groundless.

On the contrary, Canon Westcott should know very well that the first general designation for the New Testament collection was "The Gospel"

[------] and "The Apostle" [------], for the two portions of the collection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets [------]

{175}

[------],(1) and the name New Testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when Tertullian called the collection of Christian Scriptures _Novum Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum._(2) The term [------] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to the "New Testament" collection in any earlier work than Origen's _De Principiis_, iv. 1. It was only in the second half of the third century that the double designation [------] was generally abandoned.(3)

As to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which Dr. Westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded inference from Melito's expression, we may judge of its value from the fact that he himself, like Lardner, admits: "But there is little evidence in the fragment of Melito to show what writings he would have included in the new collection."(4) Little evidence? There is none at all.

There is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment to which Canon Westcott does not in any way refer, but which well merits attention as

{176}

ill.u.s.trating the state of religious knowledge at that time, and, by a.n.a.logy, giving a glimpse of the difficulties which beset early Christian literature. We are told by Melito that Onesimus had frequently urged him to give him exact information as to the number and order of the books of the Old Testament, and to have extracts made for him from them concerning the Saviour and the faith. Now it is apparent that Melito, though a Bishop, was not able to give the desired information regarding the number and order of the books of the Old Testament himself, but that he had to make a journey to collect it. If this was the extent of knowledge possessed by the Bishop of Sardis of what was to the Fathers the only Holy Scripture, how ignorant his flock must have been, and how unfitted, both, to form any critical judgment as to the connection of Christianity with the Mosaic dispensation. The formation of a Christian Canon at a period when such ignorance was not only possible but generally prevailed, and when the zeal of believers led to the composition of such a ma.s.s of pseudonymic and other literature, in which every consideration of correctness and truth was subordinated to a childish desire for edification, must have been slow indeed and uncertain; and in such an age fortuitous circ.u.mstances must have mainly led to the canonization or actual loss of many a work. So far from affording any evidence of the existence of a New Testament Canon, the fragment of Melito only shows the ignorance of the Bishop of Sardis as to the Canon even of the Old Testament.

We have not yet finished with Melito in connection with Canon Westcott, however, and it is necessary to follow him further in order fully to appreciate the nature of the evidence for the New Testament Canon, which, in default

{177}

of better, he is obliged to offer. Eusebius gives a list of the works of Melito which have come to his knowledge, and in addition to the fragment already quoted, he extracts a brief pa.s.sage from Melito's work on the Pa.s.sover, and some much longer quotations from his Apology, to which we have in pa.s.sing referred.(1) With these exceptions, none of Melito's writings are now extant. Dr. Cureton, however, has published a Syriac version, with translation, of a so-called "Oration of Meliton, the Philosopher, who was in the presence of Antoninus Caesar," together with five other fragments attributed to Melito.(2) With regard to this Syriac Oration, Canon Westcott says: "Though if it be entire, it is not the Apology with which Eusebius was acquainted, the general character of the writing leads to the belief that it is a genuine book of Melito of Sardis;"(3) and he proceeds to treat it as authentic. In the first place, we have so little of Melito's genuine compositions extant, that it is hazardous indeed to draw any positive deduction from the "character of the writing." Cureton, Bunsen, and others maintain that this Apology is not a fragment, and it cannot be the work mentioned by Eusebius, for it does not contain the quotations from the authentic Orations which he has preserved, and which are considerable. It is, however, clear from the substance of the composition that it cannot have been spoken before the Emperor,(4) and, moreover, it has in no way the character of an "Apology," for there is not a single word in it about either Christianity or Christians. There is

{178}

every reason to believe that it is not a genuine work of Melito.(1) There is no ground whatever for supposing that he wrote two Apologies, nor is this ascribed to him upon any other ground than the inscription of an unknown Syriac writer. This, however, is not the only spurious work attributed to Melito. Of this work Canon Westcott says: "Like other Apologies, this oration contains only indirect references to the Christian Scriptures. The allusions in it to the Gospels are extremely rare, and except so far as they show the influence of St. John's writings, of no special interest."(2) It would have been more correct to have said that there are no allusions in it to the Gospels at all.

Canon Westcott is somewhat enthusiastic in speaking of Melito and his literary activity as evinced in the t.i.tles of his works recorded by Eusebius, and he quotes a fragment, said to be from a treatise "On Faith," amongst these Syriac remains, and which he considers to be "a very striking expansion of the early historic creed of the Church."(3) As usual, we shall give the entire fragment: "We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relative to those things which have been declared respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your love that he is perfect Reason, the Word of G.o.d; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator together with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all in all; who among the Patriarchs was Patriarch; who in the Law was the Law; among the Priests chief Priest; among Kings Governor; among the Prophets the Prophet;

{179}

among the Angels Archangel; in the voice the Word; among Spirits Spirit; in the Father the Son; in G.o.d G.o.d the King for ever and ever. For this was he who was Pilot to Noah; who conducted Abraham; who was bound with Isaac; who was in exile with Jacob; who was sold with Joseph; who was captain with Moses; who was the Divider of the inheritance with Jesus the son of Nun; who in David and the Prophets foretold his own sufferings; who was incarnate in the Virgin; who was born at Bethlehem; who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger; who was seen of shepherds; who was glorified of angels; who was worshipped by the Magi; who was pointed out by John; who a.s.sembled the Apostles; who preached the kingdom; who healed the maimed; who gave light to the blind; who raised the dead; who appeared in the Temple; who was not believed by the people; who was betrayed by Judas; who was laid hold of by the Priests; who was condemned by Pilate; who was pierced in the flesh; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the dead; who appeared to the Apostles; who ascended to heaven; who sitteth on the right hand of the Father; who is the Rest of those who are departed; the Recoverer of those who are lost; the Light of those who are in darkness; the Deliverer of those who are captives; the Finder of those who have gone astray; the Refuge of the afflicted; the Bridegroom of the Church; the Charioteer of the Cherubim; the Captain of the Angels; G.o.d who is of G.o.d; the Son who is of the Father; Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen."(l)

{180}

Canon Westcott commences his commentary upon this pa.s.sage with the remark: "No writer could state the fundamental truths of Christianity more unhesitatingly, or quote the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments with more perfect confidence."(1) We need not do more than remark that there is not a single quotation in the fragment, and that there is not a single one of the references to Gospel history or to ecclesiastical dogmas which might not have been derived from the Epistles of Paul, from any of the forms of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Protevangelium of James, or from many another apocryphal Gospel, or the oral teaching of the Church. It is singular, however, that the only hint which Canon Westcott gives of the more than doubtful authenticity of this fragment consists of the introductory remark, after alluding to the t.i.tles of his genuine and supposit.i.tious writings: "Of these multifarious writings very few fragments remain in the original Greek, but the general tone of them is so decided in its theological character as to go far to establish the genuineness of those which are preserved in the Syriac translation."(2)

Now, the fragment "On Faith" which has just been quoted is one of the five Syriac pieces of Dr. Cureton to which we have referred, and which even Apologists agree "cannot be regarded as genuine."(3) It is well known that there were other writers in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius,(4)

{181}

which were frequently confounded.

Of these five Syriac fragments one bears the superscription: "Of Meliton, Bishop of the city of Attica," and another, "Of the holy Meliton, Bishop of Utica," and Cureton himself evidently leant to the opinion that they are not by our Melito, but by a Meletius or Melitius, Bishop of Sebastopolis in Pontus.(1) The third fragment is said to be taken from a discourse "On the Cross," which was unknown to Eusebius, and from its doctrinal peculiarities was probably written after his time.(2) Another fragment purports to be from a work on the "Soul and Body;" and the last one from the treatise "On Faith," which we are discussing. The last two works are mentioned by Eusebius, but these fragments, besides coming in such suspicious company, must for other reasons be p.r.o.nounced spurious.(3) They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which therefore is worthless, and, on the other hand, the whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of theological development.(4) Moreover, in the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of the same pa.s.sage in a Syriac MS., and an Armenian version of the extract as given above, with some variation of the opening lines, in both of which the pa.s.sage is distinctly ascribed to Irenaeus.(5) Besides the Oration and the five Syriac fragments, we have other two works extant falsely attributed to Melito, one, "De Transitu Virginis Mariae," describing the miraculous presence of the Apostles at the

{182}

death of Mary;(1) and the other, "De Actibus Joannis Apostoli,"

relates the history of miracles performed by the Apostle John. Both are universally admitted to be spurious,(2) as are a few other fragments also bearing his name. Melito did not escape from the falsification to which many of his more distinguished predecessors and contemporaries were victims, through the literary activity and unscrupulous religious zeal of the first three or four centuries of our era.

2.

Very little is known regarding Claudius Apollinaris to whom we must now for a moment turn. Eusebius informs us that he was Bishop of Hierapolis,(3) and in this he is supported by the fragment of a letter of Serapion Bishop of Antioch preserved to us by him, which refers to Apollinaris as the "most blessed."(4) Tischendorf, without any precise date, sets him down as contemporary with Tatian and Theophilus (the latter of whom, he thinks, wrote his work addressed to Autolycus about A.D. 180--181 ).(5) Eusebius(6) mentions that, like his somewhat earlier contemporary Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris presented an "Apology" to the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and he gives us further materials for a date(7) by stating that Claudius Apollinaris, probably in his Apology, refers to

1 It is worthy of remark that the Virgin is introduced into all these fragments in a manner quite foreign to the period at which Melito lived.

7 Eusebius himself sets him down in his Chronicle as flourishing in the eleventh year of Marcus, or a.d. 171, a year later than he dates Melito.

{183}

the miracle of the "Thundering Legion," which is said to have occurred during the war of Marcus Antoninus against the Marcomanni in a.d.

174.(1) The date of his writings may, therefore, with moderation be fixed between a.d. 177--180.(2)

Eusebius and others mention various works composed by him,(3) none of which, however, are extant; and we have only to deal with two brief fragments in connection with the Paschal controversy, which are ascribed to Apollinaris in the Paschal Chronicle of Alexandria. This controversy, as to the day upon which the Christian Pa.s.sover should be celebrated, broke out about a.d. 170, and long continued to divide the Church.(4) In the preface to the Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century, the unknown chronicler says: "Now even Apollinaris, the most holy Bishop of Hiera-polis, in Asia, who lived near apostolic times, taught the like things in his work on the Pa.s.sover, saying thus: 'There are some, however, who through ignorance raise contentions regarding these matters in a way which