[Footnote 40: See Iren. I. 31. 3; II. Praef. 19. 8.]

[Footnote 41: This expression is not found in Irenaeus, but is very common in Tertullian.]

[Footnote 42: See de praescr. 13: "Haec regula a Christo inst.i.tuta nullas habet apud nos quaestiones."]

[Footnote 43: See I. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulae in suo ordine quantumlibet quaeras et tractes." See de virg. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 44: See 1. c. 14: "Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis," and de vir. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 45: See de praescr. 21: "Si haec ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quae c.u.m illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... Superest ergo ut demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur ... Communicamus c.u.m ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." De praescr. 32: "Ecclesiae, quae licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae." That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the _regula fidei_, just as Irenaeus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 ("c.u.m aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suae verba profitemur, renuntia.s.se nos diabolo et pompae et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the baptismal confession is the _lex_. He also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de praescr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the pa.s.sages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: "regula sacramenti;" likewise V.

20, a pa.s.sage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit;" de bapt. 2: "h.o.m.o in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus;" de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of Tertullian. In de praescr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things "inter domesticos," but declares that they could not be communications "quae aliam regulam fidei superducerent."]

[Footnote 46: De praescr. 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter pa.s.sage is thus worded: "Unic.u.m quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici del sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc pa.s.sum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in coelo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."]

[Footnote 47: De praescr. 13.]

[Footnote 48: L.c.]

[Footnote 49: L.c.]

[Footnote 50: L.c.: "id verb.u.m filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum,"

etc.]

[Footnote 51: L.c.]

[Footnote 52: Adv. Prax. 2: "Unic.u.m quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius," etc.]

[Footnote 53: But Tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinae"

(according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.]

[Footnote 54: Note here the use of "contesserare" in Tertullian. See de praescr. 20: "Itaque tot ac tantae ecclesiae una est illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicae, dum una omnes.

Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et _contesseratio_ hospitalitatis, quae iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De praescr. 36: "Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis c.u.m Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."]

[Footnote 55: We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These pa.s.sages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.]

[Footnote 56: Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his att.i.tude is not typical.]

[Footnote 57: Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenaeus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H.

E. IV. 8. 2 ([Greek: en pente sungrammasin ten aplane paradosin tou apostolikou kerygmatos hypomnematisamenos]) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: [Greek: ho orthos logos] and -- 5 [Greek: emerisan ten henosin tes ekklesias phthorimaiois logois kata tou theou]; see also -- 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E.

V. 24. 6) used the expression [Greek: ho kanon tes pisteos] in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor. The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the [Greek: kata aletheian pistis] were those belonging to the Church. The _regula fidei_ is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by [Greek: to ekklesiastikon phronema] or [Greek: ho kanon tes archaias pisteos] the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenaeus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Praef., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenaeus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenaeus (ad Autol. II. 14): [Greek: dedoken ho Theos to kosmo k.u.mainomeno kai cheimazomeno hypo ton hamartematon tas synagogas, legomenas de ekklesias hagias, en ais kathaper limesin euormois en nesois hai didaskaliai tes aletheias eisin ... Kai hosper au nesoi eisin heterai petrodeis kai anudroi kai akarpoi kai theriodeis kai aoiketoi epi blabe ton pleonton ... houtos eisin hai didaskaliai tes planes, lego de ton haireseon, hai exapolluousin tous prosiontas autais.]]

[Footnote 58: This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl.

Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not?"); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression [Greek: he peri ton megiston h.o.m.ologia], Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this pa.s.sage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the pa.s.sage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free _kerygma_ of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig. Comm. in Joh. x.x.xII. 9 (see the pa.s.sage in vol. I. p. 155.).]

[Footnote 59: [Greek: He kyriake didaskalia], e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18.

165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc.]

[Footnote 60: We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the [Greek: Theos pantokrator] or [Greek: eis Th. p.] as such. But this designation of G.o.d is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Pa.s.sover Clement expounded the "[Greek: paradoseis ton archaion presbyteron]" which had been transmitted to him.]

[Footnote 61: Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV.

15. 98, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanon tee pisteos]; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: "whatever you do, do it to the glory of G.o.d,"

Clement remarks [Greek: hosa hypo ton kanona tes pisteos poiein epitetraptai]. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7.

41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find [Greek: ho kanon tes ekklesias (ekklesiastikos)]. In the first pa.s.sage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other pa.s.sages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the [Greek: didaskalia tou kyriou]); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1. 3; VI. 15.

124; VI 15. 131; VII. 16. 94, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanon tes aletheias]. In the first pa.s.sage it is said: [Greek: he goun kata ton tes aletheias kanona gnostikes paradoseos physiologia, mallon de epopteia, ek tou peri kosmogonias ertetai logou, enthende anabainousa epi to theologikon eidos]. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second pa.s.sage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: [Greek: parakatatheke apodidomene Theo he kata ten tou kyriou didaskalian dia ton apostolon autou tes theosebous paradoseos synesis te kai synaskesis]; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted [Greek: kata ton tes aletheias kanona], or [Greek: t. ekkles. kan.]; and continues (125): [Greek: kanon de ekklesiastikos he synodia kai he symphonia nomou te kai propheton te kata ten tou kyriou parousian paradidomene diatheke]. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church: "legem et prophetas c.u.m evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet." But at any rate the pa.s.sage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term "ecclesiastical canon." The following expressions are also found in Clement: [Greek: he alethes tes makarias didaskalias paradosis] (I. 1.

11), [Greek: hai hagiai paradoseis] (VII. 18. 110), [Greek: he euklees kai semnos tes paradoseos kanon] (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also [Greek: he kata ten theian paradosin philosophia], I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression [Greek: he theia paradosis] (VII. 16. 103), [Greek: he ekklesiastike paradosis] (VII. 16. 95), [Greek: hai tou Christou paradoseis] (VII. 16. 99), [Greek: he tou kyriou paradosis]

(VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), [Greek: he theosebes paradosis] (VI. 15.

124)). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls [Greek: to koinon tes pisteos] (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the [Greek: kata aletheian euangelikos kanon], and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: [Greek: kata ton kanona tou euangeliou] = [Greek: kata t. euang.]). In none of these formulae is any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. 1.

11, where he gives an account of his early teachers ([Greek: hoi men ten alethe tes makarias sozontes didaskalias paradosin euthus apo Petrou te kai Iakobou, Ioannou te kai Paulou ton hagion apostolon, tais para patros ekdechomenos hekon de syn theo kai eis hemas ta progonika ekeina kai apostolika katathesomenoi spermata]). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the [Greek: apostolike kai ekklesiastike orthotomia ton dogmaton]

(VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: [Greek: mia he panton gegone ton apostolon hosper didaskalia houtos de kai he paradosis] (VII. 17. 108).

But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: [Greek: autika didaxantos tou soteros tous apostolous he tes engraphou agraphos ede kai eis hemas diadidotai paradosis]. VI. 7. 61: [Greek: he gnosis de aute he kata diadochas]

(this is the only place where I find this expression) [Greek: eis oligous ek ton apostolon agraphos paradotheisa kateleluthen], ibid [Greek: he gnostike paradosis]; VII. 10. 55: [Greek: he gnosis ek paradoseos diadidomene tois axious sphas autous tes didaskalias parechomenois oion parakatatheke egcheirizetai]. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the "Old Church," for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic.

But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one pa.s.sage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: [Greek: Me ti oun, ei kai parabaie tis synthekas kai ten h.o.m.ologian parelthoi ten pros hemas, dia ton pseusamenon ten h.o.m.ologian aphexometha tes aletheias kai hemeis, all' hos apseudein chre ton epieike kai meden hon hupeschetai akuroun kan alloi tines parabainosi synthekas, outos kai hemas kata medena tropon ton ekklesiastikon parabainein prosekei kanona kai malista ten peri ton megiston h.o.m.ologian hemeis men phylattomen, oi de parabainousi]. But in the other pa.s.sages in Clement where [Greek: h.o.m.ologia] appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: [Greek: egkrateia somatos hyperopsia kata ten pros theon h.o.m.ologian]). In the pa.s.sage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine.

It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one pa.s.sage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.]

[Footnote 62: De princip. l. I. praef. -- 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the pa.s.sage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. x.x.xII.

9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here?]

[Footnote 63: That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, "because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Dollinger, "Hippolytus und Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: "The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer."

That there was a formulated [Greek: pistis kai h.o.m.ologia] in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII.

8). He says of Novatian, [Greek: anatrepei ten pro loutrou pistin kai h.o.m.ologian]. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar [Greek: pistis].]

[Footnote 64: The original of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.]

[Footnote 65: The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.]

[Footnote 66: Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one _symbol_ with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the a.s.sertion of Irenaeus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, "de trinitate seu de regula fidei," as well as the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 ... [Greek: apostas tou kanonos epi kibdela kai notha didagmata meteleluthen]), and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin).]

[Footnote 67: See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive.

To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr.

24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsacker, Rede bei der akad.

Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Koppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.]

[Footnote 68: "Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority." There are also various stages and degrees of "holy."]

[Footnote 69: I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the t.i.tle and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to a.s.sume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur's "tendency-criticism" has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) a.s.sumptions of the Tubingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a doc.u.ment ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated.]

[Footnote 70: The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.]

[Footnote 71: It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichaeans in the Byzantine age.]

[Footnote 72: Four pa.s.sages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. 1; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the pa.s.sage: "verba 'his scripturis' suspecta sunt, c.u.m interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit quod dictum est"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the pa.s.sage as certain evidence.

As to the third pa.s.sage ([Greek: mepote, hos gegraptai, polloi kletoi, oligoi de eklektoi heurethomen]), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as [Greek: graphe], and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels.

Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline Epistles).

This may perhaps explain how the author--like 2 Clem. II. 4: [Greek: hetera de graphe legei hoti ouk elthon kalesai dikaious alla hamartolous]--has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Pa.s.sages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: [Greek: legei ho theos: ou charis humin ei agapate k.t.l.] would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: [Greek: dio legei: egeire ho katheudon kai anasta ek ton nekron kai epiphausei soi ho Christos]. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual "[Greek: legei]". We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: [Greek: he graphe haute, hopou legei]. These examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps a.s.sume that the trite formulae of quotation "[Greek: graphe], [Greek: gegraptai]," etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the doc.u.ments in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following:--The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt _Christian_ writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.)]

[Footnote 73: See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv.-Citate Justins. Gott., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E.

IV. 22. 3; Stepha.n.u.s Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the formula: "Libri et epistolae Pauli viri iusti" ([Greek: hai kath' hemas bibloi kai hai prosepitoutois epistolai Paulou tou hosiou andros]), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the pa.s.sage, characteristically enough, is worded: "Libri evangeliorum et epistolae Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli"

or "Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."]