Sidor som bilder

opposes them to those which were falsely attributed to the Apostles, Tavs ονοματι των Αποσολων προφερομεναις.-He places the Revelation of St. John also under the νοβα or αντιλεγομενα, for this reason, because the majority of the ancients. doubted whether they thould consider it as the writing of St. John the Apostle, or of some other perfon, consequently as genuine or fpurious. Lastly, he also classes the Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Feter, the Acts of Paul, and the Epistle of Earnabas, under the volle (or, autoaeyouhevo). Now among the ancients none ever thought these books divine, but their authenticity indeed has been called in question.

These arguments evince, if I mistake not, that Eusebius speaks here of the authenticity, not of the divine inspiration of those writings which existed in his time under the names of

I See above, p. 48, note 4.


the Apostles, Evangelists, and aportolical men. His intention in this place is not to mention what writings were considered as divine; but to ascertain the three following points :1. What writings were received by the ancients as genuine works of the Apoftles, Evangelists, and apoftolical men: -2. Of what writings the authenticity had been called in question:-And 3. Those which were entirely rejected, as spurious.

On these points the opinion of the three first centuries was as follows: * Ι. Ομολογεμεναι γραφαι (ανωμολογημεναι; or, aangers. xai athasol) writings which were universally received as the genuine works of the persons whose names they

bear. ·

In this class Eusebius reckons, 1. The four Gospels; 2. The Acts of the Apostles; 3. The Epistles of St. Paul; 4. The first Epistle of St. John; 5. The first Epistle of St. Peter. The


Revelation of St. John might also pers haps be placed in this class, because fome think its authenticity. incontrovertible, yet the majority leave the matter undetermined".

II. Artideyouevzu, writings on whose authenticity the ancients were not unanimous; which some held to be suppofititious'..

According to Eufebius, even these have the majority of voices among the ancients in their favour. He expressly calls them, yowgipe o ólews Tous Todos (writings acknowledged by most to be genuine), and maps TE15015 TWw Exxan01&Fixwe goguwoxojuevo (received by the majority). A few doubted of their authenticity; and therefore. Eusebius ranks them under the contested, autoå Eyopeva, or vol%.

See above, p. 166. . : He names these writings also vodao gece pai, spurious writings ; . that is, according to the opinion of some. These vobar do not, therefore, compose a diftmét class, as is the general supposition.


[ocr errors]

In this class he enumerates, of the wriüings of the New Testament, l. The Epistle of St. James; 2. The Epiftle of St. Jude; 3. The second Epistlé of St. Peter; 4. The second and third Epistles of St. John. The Revelation of St. John, he adds, is also by fome placed in this class

And, of other writings, the Acts of St. Paul; The Shepherd of Hermas; The Revelation of St. Peter; the Epiftle of Barnabas; The Doctrines of the Apostles; and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

III. ATOTO xau durosen, (absurd and impious); Writings which had been universally rejected as evidently spurious.

In this class he includes the Gofpels of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias;

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

? For in early times some believed that this work was not composed by John the apostle, but by a prefbyter of the same name, or by some other person. See the following 5th chapter of this book.


the Acts of Andrew, of John, and of other Apostles. These writings, says he, contain evident errors, are written in a stvle entirely different from that of the Apostles, and have not been thought worthy of being mentioned by any one of the ancients.


« FöregåendeFortsätt »