appear also very carefully to have translated all the editions, if we may so call them, i.e. all the varying forms which they met with of these ritual and other rules,-to have translated them and kept them as if they were distinct sets of canons, though they were only the same in various editions.

7. The Didascaly, or great Constitution-that which we have often mentioned as being the substance of the first six of our eight books. It is a portion of this which the late Mr. Platt printed with an English version for the Oriental Translation Fund. In Ludolf, pp. 334, 335, the titles of the chapters of this Didascalia are given, translated from Wansleb. These were compared by Grabe with an Arabic MS. in the Bodleian, and found to agree with it; and in his little essay he drew out a comparative table of the contents of these versions with the Greek Constitutions in eight books, from which he concluded that there were several dislocations, the arrangement of considerable portions being different in the two. Of the text itself no part was printed till 1834, when Mr. Platt published a large portion, accompanied by an English translation and notes. The MS. he used contained this portion only, going down to the thirteenth chapter of the fourth book of our Greek. So far as this goes there are no dislocations, and the text shows that what appeared to Grabe, judging from the titles of chapters, to be dislocations, are not really such.

Mr. Platt, in editing and translating this work, compared it carefully with the Greek; the result of his comparison and his general judgment of the version, is given in the following words from his Preface:

'It is, in fact, a very loose and inaccurate translation of the 'Apostolical Constitutions. The subjects occur in the same order as in the original, and the translation of clauses, and even of particular words of the Greek text, may be perpetually traced throughout; but many additions are made to it, and the omissions are yet more numerous; and they are often omissions of a kind that entirely obscure or destroy the sense. The latter part of an argument, for instance, will be omitted, ' and then the inference follow: in the Greek text the whole argument having been stated, the connexion is natural and obvious, but here of course it is entirely obscured. So, in quoting texts from Scripture, part of a passage will be given, and the very clause of it which relates to the point in hand ' omitted.

6

6

To form any conclusion from such a translation as this, either as to the original reading of any passage in the Greek Constitutions, or as to the ancient doctrine and discipline of 'the Church, must of course be very hazardous.'

Our own examination of this version fully confirms us as to

the general correctness of this view, especially in the point of omissions, of which there are most certain proofs. Whether the passages that are in the Ethiopic and not in the Greek, are additions, is not so clear. They may have been retrenched by the Greek editors out of the earlier text. Indeed, since it is certain, from the citations of S. Epiphanius, that the Greek text has undergone very considerable modifications, it yet remains to be ascertained to what extent the Ethiopic represents an earlier state of the Greek text. A comparison of portions of the Syriac version with the Ethiopic shows that the latter agrees with the Greek in points in which that shows a later condition than the Syriac, as indeed the late period at which the Æthiopians were christianised would imply.

IV. ARABIC.-We place the Arabic translations last because they are the most recent, and have probably been themselves made from Oriental versions. Of these there are several extant. Of two in the Bodleian Library a very copious account was given by Grabe. They contain a translation of the thirty canons of which Wansleb has given an account in his history of the Church of Alexandria, part v. chap. 1; of the little tract on the Duc Via, which we have already seen in Coptic and Greek, and of the Didascaly, or first six books of the Constitutions. Grabe gives the titles of the chapters of the Didascaly, and compares them with the Greek, and the titles of the thiopic. In regard to the latter, as we have said, he is occasionally mistaken, as appears now that we have the text itself. But the result of his examination was, that there had been a considerable difference of arrangement of portions of the Didascalia; besides, there are in the Arabic five chapters which are not in the Greck, which it would appear from the titles of the chapters are also in the Ethiopic. Some extracts are given from these chapters by Grabe, to show (against Whiston) that they taught the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. The difference of arrangement between the Ethiopic and the Greek has been noticed; but the Arabic differs from both. These ancient books seem to have been treated with very little ceremony by those who took in hand to edit, or re-write, or translate them.

We fully concur in the wish that has been expressed for the publication of the different versions; though we apprehend the treatment of the text has been so free that very little, in a critical point of view, will be gained by it. Still the cause of truth, and our knowledge of what was actually the condition in which these books were when in the hands of the Easterns, will be promoted. That much will be gained for our knowledge of the early or riginal state of the Greek text, except from the Syriac, we cannot hope.

Having now considered the nature and value of the different texts and versions of these ancient productions that are now known to be extant, we will state the result as regards each several document, the existence of which is indicated by them.

I. The Dua Via. This is the tract printed in Greek by Bickell, and extant also in Coptic, Æthiopic, and Arabic; it is that which bears upon the face of it marks of the highest antiquity, and which is preserved to us in the most pure and uncorrupted state. In this respect it is markedly distinguished from all other remains of the same class; for whilst the others appear to have been considered as common property, free to be altered and modified by the will of any one, this tract, as far as we can see, has been retained inviolate; internally there is scarcely a trace of anything in it which has the semblance of an interpolation; and all the versions which we have present it entire, and with few variations beyond those probably arising from mistakes of translators; a circumstance, we conceive, which may be taken as an indication that it was viewed with respect, and regarded as a work of authority. Its antiquity appears from its simplicity: its referring only to the earliest orders of the ministry (for bishops, presbyters, readers,' deacons, with widows and women ministering to the poor, alone are mentioned): its absurdities, if viewed critically; and the fact, that, notwithstanding these absurdities, it held a place in these ancient collections of so-called Apostolic documents. Reverence for its antiquity alone could give it this position. The Constitutions show what the works of the third century were in their air of literary pretension and studied rhetorical style. This work belongs to an entirely different class. Now, is this little book the Διδαχὴ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων, mentioned by Eusebius, Athanasius, and others? Is it that spurious but pious work which was read amongst Christians in the fourth century, and which had been ordered by the fathers to be used by persons who were disposed to embrace the Christian religion, which is classed with the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Revelation of Peter? The work certainly corresponds in its substance with these marks. It sets forth a picture of the moral character required in Christians, specially as contrasted with practices which prevailed commonly among the heathen, and were not regarded as sins; and gives rules respecting the ministers of the Churches, which, without exposing Christian doctrines to the scoffing curiosity of Gentiles, would give a convert some notion of the institution into which

1 The Reader's is the first office that is mentioned besides Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that by Tertullian, De Præsc. Hær. ch. 41, cir. 200. But the way in which he mentions the office, as well known, and adopted by heretics (Alius hodie episcopus, cras alius; hodie diaconus, qui cras lector; hodic presbyter, qui cras laicus'), shows that it was a settled and recognised office.

he was to be admitted. Its apparent antiquity, careful preservation, and this its general character, certainly suggest the possibility of its being the work in question; and there are two further facts which fall in with such a view.

1. In Ruffinus on the Creed, as has been already stated, we find a list of sacred books nearly corresponding to those in Eusebius and Athanasius, whom he appears to have followed; but in the place of the Teaching of the Apostles,' we have 'the Book of the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter.' From this it would seem to be the same book under another name; we cannot otherwise account for the Doctrina Apostolorum being omitted; for, be it observed, he himself found it under that name in translating Eusebius' list, but yet does not mention it here.'

It is important to observe further, that the Duæ Viæ, or Judgment of Peter,' is never heard of anywhere else which, if it were a book received and read, as its position in Ruffinus' list implies, is at least very strange, so much so, indeed, that critics have thought that it must be some known apocryphal book or other, under a different name. That it is the Doctrina Apostolorum would, we repeat, be most probable, from its taking the place of that book in Ruffinus' list.

Now the publication of this work may, perhaps, afford the true solution, as it shows that its contents and character are such as might allow of either name. It is, in fact, the teaching or teachings of the Apostles throughout. They are represented as meeting to agree upon instructions to be sent out to all the Churches, and each Apostle contributes his share to the collected Teachings. The word Siday, as it is used in the New Testament, refers chiefly, we need scarcely observe, to practical teaching, not to doctrine, as we use the word. Therefore we have preferred translating its title, The Teaching of the Apostles.'

Again, this title, The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter, seems quite as truly to represent the little book; for it begins. by a description of the two ways' of life and death, in a passage which we shall cite presently; and in three places S. Peter is represented as giving judgment definitively, and we may say authoritatively. It might then equally well be called, Teaching of the Apostles,' or 'The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter.' And the concurrent fitness of these three names is an argument of no little weight to show that this is really the book so described.

The

1 Ruffinus' words, speaking of extra-canonical books, are: 'In Novo Testamento libellus, qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermetis, qui appellatur Duæ Viæ, vel Judicium Petri; quæ omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.' We conceive that by the 'qui appellatur,' &c. a distinct work is intended.

Lastly, we have the catalogues of sacred books (given above, p. 275), with the number of lines (σTixo) in each, according to the established mode of stichometrical writing. It is of course a precarious ground of argument, on account of the different lengths of the lines in different books, but the fact falls in with our view. The number of στίχοι in the Διδαχὴ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων, or Doctrina Apostolorum, was 200; the number in the Book of Canticles was 280; now, if this tract, newly printed by Bickell, and the Book of Canticles, were printed in the same type and lines, the number of lines in the former would be 223, of the latter 268. If we allow for the varying lengths of the orixo, the correspondence may so far confirm the other arguments for the identity of our tract and the Doctrina Apostolorum of the ancient Church.

It is true that we do not find in this book the passage cited from the Doctrina Apostolorum, in the pseudo-Cyprian De Aleatoribus; and in none of the texts does it bear the name of Διδαχὴ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων. These are difficulties, the former of which we must leave as a difficulty, only suggesting that there may have been other forms of the book; and that it may have shared in some Versions the fate of other elementary parts of the Constitutions. As to the title, it is to be remembered that in no case does this work appear as a separate treatise. It is in the Versions the first portion of a collection of Apostolic' ordinances, and the title, Canons of the Apostles,' is that of the collection considered as a whole.' The word didaɣn, however, is used to express the substance of its contents, as we read, Do thou, Peter, utter ToÚTwv Tŵv λóywv Tηv didaxnv,' and the words with which it is introduced as an insertion into the Epistle of S. Barnabas, are, μεταβώμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ἑτέραν γνῶσιν καὶ διδαχήν.

The later Greek canonists have indeed stated one after another that the Διδαχὴ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων, which Eusebius and Athanasius mention, is the eight books of Constitutions. But this, if it were not on other grounds impossible, would, as Archbishop Ussher long ago observed, be inconsistent with the fact that the Sidayn was a book suited for the use of new converts; whilst the Constitutions were, as the last Apostolical canon says, not to be read by the unbaptized, because their contents referred to the Christian mysteries; and further, it is inconsistent with the size of the work as described in the stichome

1 In the Vienna MS. (see Lambecius, tom. viii. p. 906) it is found amongst the portions of the Hippolytean Collection, which are detached in a different order from that in which they are usually found. The title which it has there is evidently not correct; it is Aἱ Διαταγαὶ αἱ διὰ Κλήμεντος, καὶ Κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστι καὶ τῶν ἁγίων Αποστόλων. The name of Clement does not occur in the tract.