respectful and careful consideration, yet, as a Protestant, I am not prepared to accept in every case, even in matters of doctrine, their unanimous, or rather, in this case, their uncontradicted consent. Our only

safe guide is the sacred text." I

Or, to take another instance of the application of principles to a concrete case, we may place side by side these two statements: "The internal difficulties urged against St. John's Gospel appear to be overborne by the weight of the external testimony, taken in conjunction with the characteristics and necessities of the Apostolic age.' "The usual point of departure in this inquiry to which Keim is the only exception has been a mustering of external evidence to the [Johannine] origin of the Gospel, to the results of which a greater weight has then been allowed in the final verdict than is admissible either from the character of the evidence or from that of the ecclesiastical tradition as to the origin of the New Testament writings generally." 3

Where opinions diverge so widely, which is to be accepted? If the extreme positions cannot be made good, how far are we to go in the direction of either? The answer to this question is commonly assumed without discussion. It usually forms a part of the stock of prepossessions with which a writer sits down to his work, and is not treated as a matter for argument. Yet the very diversity just exemplified shews that argument and discussion are needed. And it is with a view to further this result, and to contribute if possible to the obtaining a greater amount of con1 Beet, Epistle to the Romans, p. 262.

Liddon, Bampton Lectures, p. 224, n.

3 Wittchen, Der geschicht. Charakter d. Ev. Joh. p. 2, ad fin. Elberfeld. 1869.

sent on these matters, that I am permitted to offer in the pages of THE EXPOSITOR a series of articles "On the Value of the Patristic writings for the Criticism and Exegesis of the Old and New Testaments."

The third subject that might possibly be introduced -Doctrine-I propose not to take up, at least for the present. Criticism and Exegesis are wide enough, if not too wide; and I fear there will be a difficulty in treating them as concisely as might be wished; but I will do my best not to transgress the limits proper to a Magazine, or to forget the kind of public for which I am writing. Nor can I indeed claim to have new facts and new materials to bring to light. My own study of the writings in question has been incidental, rather than direct and continuous. All I can hope to do is to collect together some of the data that have presented themselves in this way, and to focus them, as it were, upon the particular point at issue. If some of the points adduced should seem to scholars trite and hackneyed, the excuse must be that their very triteness proceeds from their importance, and that they must needs be set before the reader, if he is to form a sound conclusion.

It might have been well perhaps if the reader could have been helped to form such a conclusion-if it could have been stated in some neat and crisp formula, which might be tested from time to time as the discussion proceeds. I doubt very much, however, if any such single formula is forthcoming. At all events it would be premature to lay down any hard and fast generalization. Our best plan will probably be to examine the witnesses first, and then to see what is the kind of result to which they lead.

It will clearly be advisable to break up the comprehensive heading "Criticism and Exegesis" into its parts. These will naturally be, (i.) the so-called Higher Criticism; (ii.) the so-called Lower Criticism; (iii.) Exegesis proper.

I. THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

Higher Criticism is a term that is commonly used to designate that branch of literary criticism which is concerned with the determination of the date, authorship, and character of the books to which it is applied. What kind of assistance do the patristic writings lend us towards this in the case of the Bible? The assistance that they give is of two kinds: partly unconscious, in so far as they contain quotations from or traditions respecting the books of Scripture, and so afford materials for modern criticism to work on; and partly conscious, in so far as the patristic writers I themselves exercise criticism similar to that which we are obliged to use now. The difference will be at once apparent between quotations introduced incidentally, or traditions which relate to definite matters. of fact, and speculative arguments and reasonings adduced in support of certain conclusions. This dif ference suggests a division of the subject of which we will avail ourselves, and confine the present paper to the first of these aspects, devoting a further paper to the second.

From the Old Testament the Fathers of the Church

The Church of Rome, as is well known, distinguishes between "Church Writers" and "Church Fathers," confining the latter designation to writers of acknowledged and unsuspected orthodoxy, and excluding such men as Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. I have included these in speaking of the "Patristic Writings," and have purposely chosen the vaguer expression with that object.

are too far removed in point of time to supply positive evidence of any great value. We shall have occasion. to see in the next paper how they dealt with disputed questions of canonicity and authorship; but they dealt with them not as being merely exponents of a tradition, but with the same conscious weighing of critical data that we are accustomed to now.

When we turn to the New Testament, it is well known that the evidence for the different books varies greatly. For some, e.g., Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews,1 the evidence is distinct and express before the close or the first century. The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians was probably written about A.D. 95,2 and it contains unmistakeable quotations from these three books. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether there is quite clear evidence for 2 Peter before Eusebius, though it has, indeed, at that time a lengthened history behind it.3 The great mass of important evidence belongs to the last thirty years of the second century, and the first ten or twenty of the third, beginning with the Muratorian Fragment, and including the three voluminous writers, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and

In the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the early date of the external evidence is of especial importance, on account of the advanced Christological doctrine of the Epistle. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands midway between St. Paul and St. John. It shews that all the antecedent conditions of the Johannean teaching were in existence before the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly, writers whose system compels them to place St. John's Gospel in the second century, have also endeavoured to assign an impossible date to the Epistle of Clement, and also to that to the Hebrews (so Baur, Schwegler, Volkmar).

* The great majority of critics assign the Epistle to this date. The number includes Bishop Lightfoot, the Leipsic editors, and M. Renan. It is rather noticeable that Harnack (Patr. Apost. Fasc. I. Part i. p. 55, Ed. 2), while contending for this date, declares "his conviction" that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written before the time of Domitian. This conclusion is facilitated by the assumption that the Epistle was originally addressed to Rome. The arguments against it, and in favour of the ordinary date, are not, indeed, decisive, but yet seem to carry with them a certain balance of probability. 3 Euseb. H. E. vii. 3.

Tertullian. It becomes, then, a matter of considerable moment to decide what degree of weight is to be attached to the tradition of which these three writers are the chief representatives.

Here, as elsewhere, it is necessary to take into account the special circumstances of each writer. The position of Tertullian cannot be considered, on the whole, very favourable for the transmission of a sound and well-established tradition. Though the phenomena of the Old Latin Version shew that the Gospel very early found its way into Africa, still there is no reason to think that it was conveyed thither by the Apostles. Nor has the name of a single member of the subapostolic generation come down to us as forming a link between the Apostles themselves and the next age of African tradition. The antecedents, both of Tertullian himself and the Church to which he belonged are unknown to us. It must have been in existence for some time. Of so much we may be sure, but of nothing more. Tertullian personally had received as good an education as his province could give. His natural gifts were great. As a rhetorician his style is brilliant. For rapid cut and thrust of argument, and for vehemence of impassioned invective, he has, perhaps, hardly an equal. But Goldsmith's saying about Johnson would apply to him rather too well: "If his pistol missed fire, he would knock you down with the butt end of it." He was far from fastidious as to the quality of his arguments so long as they served his turn. He was a controversialist to the core. Neither his abilities nor his ideals were those of a scholar. Legal practice and forensic oratory ranked first in Africa. A forensic and rhetorical standard