CASTILLO DE L encoura"cd by an exposition, on somewhat strange lines, of the preface, and also a long exhortation at the close. The temptations of our Lord, and is specially warned against spiritual question which criticism must endeavour to answer is, pride and contempt of other men. The book closes with an appeal whether the Canons of Hippolytus are the original from for love and mutual service, based on the parables in St Matthew which the Egyptian Church Order is derived, or whether xxv. an earlier body of canons lies behind them both. At 2. It is impossible to estimate the position of the present it is probably wise to assume that the latter is Canons of Hippolytus without some reference to allied the true explanation. For the Canons of Hippolytus documents. (&) The most important of these is what is appear to contain contradictory regulations (e.g., cc. 2 now commonly called the Egyptian Chuvch Order. This and 4 of the presbyters), and also suggest that they have is preserved to us in Coptic and .ZEthiopic versions, of received a considerable supplement (after c. 23). There which Achelis, in his synopsis, gives German translations. is, however, no doubt that they present us with a more The subject-matter and arrangement of these canons cor- primitive stage of Church life than we find in the Egyptian respond generally to those of Hippolytus; but many.of Church Order. The mention of sub-deacons (which, after the details are modified to bring them into accord with Riedel’s fresh manuscript evidence, cannot now be disa later practice. A new light has been thrown on the missed as due to interpolation) makes it difficult to assign criticism of this work by Hauler’s discovery (1900) of a a date much earlier than the middle of the 3rd century. The Puritan severity of the canons well accords with Latin version (of which, unfortunately, about half is missing) in the Verona palimpsest, from which he has the temper of the writer to whom the Arabic title attrialso given us large Latin fragments of the Eidctscahci butes them; and it is to be noted that the exhortation at (which underlies books i.-vi. of the Apostolic Constitu- the close contains a quotation from 2 Peter actually attritions, and which hitherto we have only known from the buted to the apostle, and Hippolytus is perhaps the earliest Syriac). The Latin of the Egyptian Church Order is author who can with certainty be said to have used this somewhat more primitive than the Coptic, and approaches epistle. But the general style of Hippolytus, which is more nearly, at some points, to the Canons of Hippolytus. simple, straightforward, and strong, is in marked contrast It has a preface which refers to a treatise Concerning with that of the closing passage of the canons; moreover, Spiritual Gifts, as having immediately preceded it; but his mind, as presented to us in his extant writings, appears neither this nor the Coptic-yEthiopic form has either the to be a much larger one than that of the writer of these introduction or concluding exhortation which is found in canons; it is as difficult to think of Hippolytus as it the Canons of Hippolytus. (6) The Testament of the Lord would be to think of Origen in such a connexion. How, is a document in Syriac, of which the opening part had then, are we to account for the attribution? There is been published by Lagarde, and of which Rahmani (1899) evidence to show that Hippolytus was highly reverenced has given us the whole. It professes to contain instruc- throughout the East: his writings which were in Greek tions given by our Lord to the apostles after the resurrec- were known, but his history was entirely unknown. He tion. After an introduction containing apocalyptical was supposed to be “a pupil (yvwpigos) of apostles” matter, it passes on to give elaborate directions for the (Palladius, 4th century), and the Arabic title calls him ordering of the Church, embodying, in a much-expanded “ chief of the bishops of Rome,” i.e., archbishop of Rome. form, the Egyptian Church Order, and showing a know- It is hard to trust this attribution more than the ledge of the preface to that document which appears in attribution of a Coptic discourse on the Dormitio Marta the*3 Latin version. It cannot be placed with probability to “ Evodius, archbishop of the great city Rome, who was earlier than the latter part of the 4th century, (c) The the second after Peter the apostle” (Texts and Studies, Apostolic Constitutions is a composite document, which iv. 2-44)—Evodius being by tradition first bishop of probably belongs to the end of the 4th century. Its first Antioch. A whole group of books on Church Order six books are an expanded edition of a Didascaha which bears the name of Clement of Rome; and the attribution we have already mentioned; its seventh book similarly of our canons to Hippolytus may be only an example of expands and modifies the Didache : its eighth book begins the same tendency. The fact that Hippolytus wrote a by treating of “ spiritual gifts,” and then in c. 3 passes treatise Concerning Spiritual Gifts, and that some such on to expand in like manner the Egyptian Church Order. treatise is not only referred to in the Latin preface to The hand which has wrought up all these documents has the Egyptian Church Order, but is actually found at the been shown to be that of the interpolator of the Ignatian beginning of book viii. of the Apostolic Constitutions, Epistles in the longer Greek recension, id) The Canons introduces an interesting complication; but we cannot of Basil is the title of an Arabic work, of which a German here pursue the matter further. Dom Morin’s ingenious translation has been given us by Riedel, who thinks that attribution of the canons to Dionysius of Alexandria (on they have come through Coptic from an original Greek the ground of Eusebius, H.E. vi. 46-5) cannot be accepted book. They embody, in a modified form, considerable in view of the broader church policy which that writer represents. If the Hippolytean authorship be given up, portions of the Canons of Hippolytus. 3. We now approach the difficult questions of date and it is probable that Egypt will make the strongest claim authorship. Much of the material has been quite recently to be the locality in which the canons were compiled m brought to light, and criticism has not had time to inves- their present form. The authorities of chief practical importance are Achelis, TexU tigate and pronounce upon it. Some provisional remarks, Unters, vi. 4 (1891); Rahmani, Testamentum Domini (1899) 5 therefore, are all that can prudently be made. It is plain uHauler, Didascalm Apostolorum (1900); Riedel, KircUnreMsthat we have two lines of tradition : (1) The Canons of quellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (1900). (j. A. B.) Hippolytus, followed by the Canons of Basil; (2) the Canovas del Castillo, Antonio (1828Egyptian Church Order, itself represented (a) by the Latin version, the Testament of the Lord, and the Apos- 1897), Spanish statesman, was born in Malaga 8th February tolic Constitutions, which are linked together by the same 1828.’ Educated in his native town, he went to Madrid preface (or portions of it), (ft) by the Coptic and Hkhiopic in 1845, bent upon finding means to complete his literary versions. Now, the Latin preface points to a time when and philosophical studies. His uncle Don Serafin EsteCalderon, found him a situation as clerk in the the canons were embodied in a corpus of similar materials, banez Madrid-Aranjuez railway, but Canovas soon took to or, at the least, were preceded by a work on “ Spiritual journalism and literature, earning enough to support himGifts.” The Canons of Hippolytus have a wholly different 560
CANOVAS
