Clement of Ale.x. uses Ass. Mos. and 4 Ezr, and also many other prophetic A. unknown to us. He was a warm defender of the value of secret traditions, and used not only Jewish, and even heathen, but Christian secret books. He believed in a secret tradition entrusted by Christ to His disciples, and valued it highly {Strom, i. 11. 13. 14 ; V. 60-4). Some of these traditions were preserved in secret books, among which he cites certain a"" gospels and acts. Though he knows that heretics make a bad use of such books {Strom, iii. 29), yet his view oi A. &8 a, whole is extremely favourable. Origen is more discriminating. He finds a use for A. in NT interpretation. In 1 Co 2», 2 Ti 3», He 11", Mt 23"-" 27" he finds references to a" books, and says that 'not all A. current in the name of holy men are to be received on account of the Jews, since they perhaps invented some for the destruction of our true Scriptures and the confirma- tion of false doctrines ; but not all are to be re- jected, since some pertain to the demonstration of our Scriptures' (Comment, on Mt 23-'*). Origen seems, however, to have been influenced in his use of the word by the Jewish genuzim, for in his Evist. ad Afric. he speaks of Sus as made a"" by Jewish authorities, though the Christian Church did not so regard it. Jth and To, he says, the Jews do not possess even among their A.
• See Lipsius in Smith and Wace, Diet. 0/ Chrittian Biog. arU. ' Gospels' aud * AcU of Apostles.*
APOCRYPHA
APOCRYPHA
115
These books are not •secret' in the proper sense, and cun be called A. only in the sense of being withdrawn from publicity, and so from canonicity.
The defence of A. proper became more and more a mark of hereay. Even Orijren in ProL in Cant, ai^ues for their ex- clusion, because of the corrupt traditions, contrary to true faith, which they contain. They were long current in Gr., but found no pennanent place in the LXX, though the Oriental VSS received some of them, and one became current in lAt., though Vulg did not give it recognition (4 Ezr).
tUilcmter of Brescia (on Heresies, c. 3S3-391 A.D.) condemns the ' heresy which accepts only A., i.e. secrets of prophets and apostles, not can. scrii'tures' ; but he would allow A. to be read
* /or the sake of manners by the perfect,' not in the church, and Dot b^ all.
PruciUianut (tract iii.) ar^efl, from the generally accepted account of the restoration of the can. books by Ezra in 4 Ezr 14, for the value of the 70 secret books also, including 4 Ezr it«cif. Epiphanxnt also justilics by the same reference the use of vanous a»i hooka, which he thinks were translated by the Seventy in addition to the canonical.
The conviction, however, (rnulually prevailed tliat the cultiva- tion of secret books was dangerous, both because of the errors they contained and because of the sectarianism ttiey fostered. There could be no Catholic Church so long as sects could claim to possess either new revelations or a secret apostolic tradition.
Secret doctrines and hooka were cut off by the two principles, that valid inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and that only the books generally received in the churches were genuinely apostolic. No doubt a sense of the unchristian character of tfee books in question worked, together with the growing con- viction that their jKtssession was uncatholic, to bring about their condemnation. The gradually prevailing Catholic prin- ciple {quod xtbique, quod snnpcr, quod ab omniOwi) would give to th* very word apocryphu* the meanings : false, spurious, heretical.
The principle that only what the churches generally receive is apostolic is found in the Muratorinn Fragm^it (2i-id ctnt.). /r^TUPUJ stands early in the line of this growing Catholicism. Ue opposes the theory, which Clem. Alex, defends, of the existence and value of secret traditions (ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1, 14. 2, 15. 1), and condemns the 'countless multitude of a^ and spurious writings* which the Marcosians, appealing to Dn 12v, claim to possess, but which they really fabricate for themselves. £1 ege-tippus &\bo spc&ks of 'the so-called A.' (i.e. BO called by the heretics themselves), and says that 'some of them were written in his own time by certain heretics' (Eus. HE iv. 22. 8). Terttiilian charges the heretics with adding to Scripture 'secrets of A., hlosphenious fables '(/£e«tir. CarvjisOS); and writes a vigorous polemic against the Gnostic claim to possess a secret tradition (prcescr. 22-27). ■ He applies the word apocrj/phu* to an apoc. which he regards as spurious (Sliepherd), but not to Enoch, which he (as well as Irenieus) regards as genuine (de fmdic. 10, de anima, 2). Cyril of Jerua., in his Catechetics (iv. 83-6, ab. 348 a.d.), uses the word of all Jewish books except the 22 which are openly read In the churches. Cyril's insistence that the A., t.e. the books not read in the churches, are not to be read even in private, is evidently aimed against the distinction of three classes of books — those read in church, those read privately, and those wholly rejected. This distinction is as old as the Muratorian Fragment, which puts the Shepherd in such a middle class. It is implie(i by Origen, in his discrimination amon^ A. It is definitely formulated by Athananus, who, in his 39th Easter Letter (367 A.D.), gives the name A. only to the third class of books written by heretics as pleased their fancy, and i»ut forth as old, to lead astray the Hiniplo. Athanasius gives no list of these A., but Later lists teach us the current understanding of the word.