the last clause "-to the " Scriptures of the Lord""will be clear when it is remembered that Dionysius 'warred against the heresy of Marcion and defended the rule of truth '" (παρίστασθαι κανόνι ἀλ.). Tischen

dorf, who is ready enough to strain every expression into evidence, recognizes too well that this is not capable of such an interpretation. Dr. Westcott omits to mention that the words, moreover, are not used by Dionysius at all, but simply proceed from Eusebius. Dr. Donaldson distinctly states the fact that, "there is no reference to the Bible in the words of Eusebius: he defends the rule of the truth ” (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας παρίσταται κανόνι).

(Tậ

It

There is only one other point to mention. Canon Westcott refers to the passage in the Epistle of Dionysius, which has already been quoted in this work regarding the reading of Christian writings in churches. "Today," he writes to Soter, "we have kept the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your Epistle, from the reading of which we shall ever derive admonition, as we do from the former one written to us by Clement." is evident that there was no idea, in selecting the works to be read at the weekly assembly of Christians, of any Canon of a New Testament. We here learn that the Epistles of Clement and of Soter were habitually read, and while we hear of this, and of the similar reading of Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles,"5 of the Pastor of Hermas, of the Apocalypse of Peter," and other apocryphal works, we do not at the same time hear of the public reading of our Gospels.

6

1 On the Canon, p. 166 f.

3 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 217 f. Euseb., H. E., iv. 23.

H. E., iv. 23.

5 Justin, Apol., i. 67.

Euseb., H. E., iii. 3; Hieron., De Vir. Ill., 10. 7 Sozom., H. E., vii. 9.

CHAPTER IX.

MELITO OF SARDIS-CLAUDIUS

APOLLINARIS-ATHENA

GORAS-THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.

WE might here altogether have passed over Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Lydia, had it not been for the use of certain fragments of his writings made by Canon Westcott. Melito, naturally, is not cited by Tischendorf at all, but the English Apologist, with greater zeal, we think, than critical discretion, forces him into service as evidence for the Gospels and a New Testament Canon. The date of Melito, it is generally agreed, falls after A.D. 176, a phrase in his apology presented to Marcus. Antoninus preserved in Eusebius1 (μerà Tоû maidós) indicating that Commodus had already been admitted to a share of the Government.2

Canon Westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, Melito speaks of the books of the New Testament in a collected form. He says: "The words of Melito on the other hand are simple and casual, and yet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. He writes to Onesimus, a fellow-Christian who had urged him 'to

1 H. E., iv. 26.

2 Basnage, Ann. Polit. Eccles., 177, § 3; Dupin, Biblioth. des Auteurs Eccl., i. p. 63; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 147; Tillemont, Mém. Hist. Eccl., ii. p. 707, note 1 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 193, note 2; Woog, De Melitone, § 5; cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 229.

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 (Tadav) 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 antitype to the Old; and the form of language implies a familar 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 Westcott 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 Tooí 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 assertion is calculated to mislead a large class of readers.2

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

1 On the Canon, p. 193.

It must be said, however, that Canon Westcott merely follows and exaggerates Lardner, here, who says: "From this passage 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.

brother Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal for the word (Móyov) 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 (Tadaιwv Bißriwv), 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 (λóyov), and especially that thou preferrest these matters to all others from love towards God, 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 (rà Tηs Taλaiâs dialýκns Biẞλía), 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 assertion that the expression "Old Books," "Books of the Old Testament," involves here by antithesis a definite written New Testament, requires us to say a few words as to the name of "Testament 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 God and the Israelites,2 in the Septuagint version, by the Greek word Aia@nky, which in a legal sense also means a will or Testament,3 and that word is adopted throughout the New Testa

1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26.

2 Cf. Exod. xxiv. 7.

3 The legal sense of diabńkŋ as a Will or Testament is distinctly in

1

66

ment. The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original Hebrew signification, translated the word in the Gospels and Epistles, "Testamentum," and παλαιὰ διαθήκη Taλaià Siαlýkη 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," Bißλos Ts SiaOnκns, frequently occurs in the LXX version of the Old Testament and its Apocrypha,2 and in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, the prophet speaks of making a new covenant" (kan Sialkη) 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" (rà Bißría), Holy Scriptures" (iepà γράμματα, οι γραφαί ἁγίαι), or “The Scriptures ” (αἱ ypapai), 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

or

tended in Heb. ix. 16. "For where a Testament (diabŋŋ) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (dialepévov). The same word diabýη is employed throughout the whole passage. Heb. ix. 15-20.

12 Cor. iii. 14; Heb. viii. 6-13, xii. 24; Rom. ix. 4, xi. 26-28; Gal. iii. 14-17; Ephes. ii. 12, &c., &c.

2 Cf. Exod. xxiv. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30; 2 Kings xxiii. 2; 1 Maccab. i. 57; Sirach, xxiv. 23, &c., &c.

In the Septuagint version, xxxviii. 31-34.

4 2 Tim. iii. 15.

5 Rom. i. 2.

Matt. xxii. 29.