[49] See Kentish Bache's "Letters to Dr. Davidson," p. 22.
Our author says (p. 16): "'The Pastor of Hermas,' which was read in the churches, and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was quoted as inspired by Irenæus."[50]
[50] "Adv. Hær." iv. 20, § 2; Euseb. "H. E." v. 8, and cf. iii. 3.
The word Irenæus uses is _Graphé_, which is sometimes translated, when found in his works, _Scripture_, and at other times _writings_, as may best suit the argument of a critic like Dr. Davidson, who does so adapt the translation to suit his purpose.
Whatever erroneous notions might prevail as to apocryphal writings, the discrimination of Serapion, in regard to the Gospel of Peter, shows that such a work as the "Pastor of Hermas," in which, as Mosheim says, the angels are made to "talk more insipidly than our scavengers and porters," would not be put on a level with the books whose internal evidence, as well as historical pretensions, placed them in a much superior position. The contrast is too great for such men as Irenæus and Tertullian, as well as Serapion, not to have recognised the difference. The "gross forgeries" were too gross to be at once accepted as genuine by the Fathers of the slight critical faculty and the ready credulity of our author's argument.
Melito of Sardis, whose writings, it is generally agreed, belong to A.D. 176, because the fragment extant has a phrase indicating that Commodus had been admitted to share the Imperial Government with Marcus Aurelius, is the next witness. He writes to Onesimus, "a fellow-Christian who had urged him to 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 (Palaion) books." "Having gone 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." Dr. Westcott excites our author's ire because he says "that the use of the word 'old' in this way implies that there must have been a New Testament, and the form of language implies a familiar recognition of its contents." This is "truly astonishing," says our author. I remark, it is truly astonishing that any one should assert that the use of the adjective "old" in this sentence does not plainly indicate the existence of other books of a New Covenant or Testament. If the Jewish Scriptures had been merely described as _old books_, we could have understood the objection; but as the words occur, "_having learned accurately the books of the Old Testament_," we must side with Dr. Westcott, in spite of our author's astonishment.