the Jews, Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang.; Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. Orat. viii.; Augustine, Tract. adv. Judaeos.]

[Baur, Dogmengesch. 156, says that Athanasius, Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Augustine elevated apologetics, by representing Christianity as the perfect religion in comparison with all others-viewing it in the light of the philosophy of religion and of the general religious history of mankind. Augus tine's work, De Civitate Dei, is the grandest attempt to consider Christianity as realizing the idea of a divine plan and order for the world-as containing the immanent idea of the world and its history; even the greatness of the Roman empire is fully seen only in its relation to Christianity.]

§ 118.

MIRACLES AND PROPHECY.

[Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed. 1844, ii. 233-336, The Nicene Miracles.]

Since the Christians were constantly accustomed to appeal to miracles and prophecies in support of the truth of their religion, it became important to define more precisely the idea of a miracle. Augustine did this by defining miracles as events which deviate not so much from the order of nature in general, as from that particular order of nature which is known to us.' With regard to prophecies, many passages of the Old Test. were still applied to the Messiah, which had no reference to him, and the truly Messianic passages were taken in a narrower sense than historical interpretation required. The apologists also appealed to Christ's prophecy respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, which had long since received its accomplishment, to the fate of the Jewish nation,' and the similar judgment with which God had visited the old Roman world, and compared these events with the triumphant spread of the gospel.* And, lastly, even Augustine takes notice of the Sibylline oracles, mentioned by Lactantius."

1

Augustine de Utilitate Cred. c. 16: Miraculum voco, quidquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet. De Civ. Dei lib. xxi. c. 8: Omnia portenta contra naturam dicimus esse, sed non sunt. Quomodo est enim contra naturam quod Dei fit voluntate, quum voluntas tanti utique conditoris conditæ rei cujusque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura...quamvis et ipsa quæ in rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda considerantibus cunctis, si solerent homines mirari nisi rara.-The nearer the Canon of the Bible was brought to a conclusion, the more necessary it became to make a distinction between the miracles related in Scripture, as historically authenticated facts, and those miracles which were generally believed still to occur in the church. Respecting faith in miracles in general, Augus

tine employed a free criticism; De Civit. Dei xxi. c. 6, 7 (in reference to wonderful natural phenomena, but his language is also applicable to other miraculous stories of the age): Nec ergo volo temere credi cuncta, quæ posui, exceptis his, quæ ipse sum expertus. Cetera vero sic habeo, ut neque affirmanda, neque neganda decreverim. Comp. De Util. Cred. 1. c.; De Vera Rel. 25 (Retract. i. c. 13)... Concerning the miracles related in Scripture, it was of importance to distinguish the miracles performed by Jesus from those wrought by Apollonius of Tyana, to which Hierocles and others appealed. Augustine, therefore, directed attention to the benevolent design of Christ's miracles, by which they are distinguished from those which are merely performed for the purpose of gaining the applause of men (e. g., the attempt to fly in the presence of an assembled multitude), De Util. Cred. 1. c. Comp. Cyril Alex. Contra Jul. i. 1.: Ἐγὼ δὲ, ὅτι μὲν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀπηλλάγμεθα ἐμβροντησίας καὶ πολὺς ἀποτειχίζει λόγος τῶν ἐκείνων τερθρείας τὰ χριστιανῶν, φαίην ἄν· κοινωνία γὰρ οὐδεμία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου.—On the view of Gregory the Great respecting miracles, see Neander, Kirchengesch. iii. p. 294, 95.

Augustine gives a canon on this point, De Civit. Dei xvii. c. 16, ss., comp. xviii. 29, ss., and below, § 122, note 4.

3

Aug. De Civ. Dei iv. 34.....Et nunc quod (Judæi) per omnes fere terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius veri Dei providentia est. Comp. xviii. c. 46.

✦ Arnob. ii. p. 44, 45: Nonne vel hæc saltem fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi, quod jam per omnes terras in tam brevi temporis spatio immensi nominis hujus sacramenta diffusa sunt? quod nulla jam natio est tam barbari moris et mansuetudinem nesciens, quæ non ejus amore versa molliverit asperitatem suam et in placidos sensus adsumta tranquillitate migraverit? Aug. De Civ. Dei v. 25, 26, xviii. 50....inter horrendas persecutiones et varios cruciatus ac funera Martyrum prædicatum est toto orbe evangelium, contestante Deo signis et ostentis et variis virtutibus, et Spiritus Sancti muneribus ut populi gentium credentes in eum, qui pro eorum redemtione crucifixus est, Christiano amore venerarentur sanguinem Martyrum, quem diabolico furore fuderunt, ipsique reges, quorum legibus vastabatur Ecclesia, ei nomini salubriter subderentur, quod de terra crudeliter auferre conati sunt, et falsos deos inciperent persequi, quorum causa cultores Dei veri fuerant antea persecuti.

* Lactantius iv. 15, sq., Augustine De Civ. Dei xviii. 23. Cyril Alex. Contra Jul. i. 1. But the enemies of Christianity maintained, even in the times of Lactantius, non esse illa carmina Sybillina, sed a Christianis conficta atque composita.

§ 119.

SOURCES OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE-BIBLE AND TRADITION.

During the present period both the Bible and Tradition were regarded as the sources of Christian knowledge.' The statement of

Augustine, that he was induced by the authority of the church alone to believe in the Gospel, only proves that he considered the believer (subjectively), but not the Bible (objectively), to be dependent on that authority. It was rather the case, that in ecclesiastical controversies and elsewhere the Bible was appealed to as the highest authority,' also in practice most urgently recommended to the people. It was constantly held in reverence as the purest source of truth, the book of books."

'Nihil aliud præcipi volumus, quam quod Evangelistarum et Apostolorum fides et traditio incorrupta servat; Gratian in Cod. Theod. l. xvi. tit. vi. 1, 2. 2 Adv. Man. 5: Evangelio non crederem, nisi me ecclesiæ catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. This passage is to be compared in its whole connection: see Lücke, Zeitschrift für evangel. Christen. i. 1, 4. Lücke justly rejects, ibid. p. 71, the expedient adopted by older protestant theologians, e. g., Bucer and S. Baumgarten (Untersuchung theologischer Streitigkeiten, vol. iii. p. 48), viz., to assign to the imperfect tense the signification of the pluperfect "according to the African dialect." Comp. also Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), p. 276. [Protestant theologians have been disposed to explain it as meaning, "I was first led to the Bible by the tradition of the church;" but without doubt it rather means, "The authority of the church is the witness for the divinity of the Scriptures; for how could I convince unbelievers if I were not permitted to appeal to the authority of the church? I must depend upon this to know what the canon of Holy Writ is, and its right interpretation." Yet in arguing against the Donatists, he proves the authority of the church from the Scriptures, allowing no argument to be valid which was not derived from this source.] On a similar declaration of Gregory the Great, that he reverenced the four general councils as much as the four Gospels (Lib. i. Ep. 25, and lib. iii. Ep. 10), see Lau, ubi supra, p. 330.

3

• Athanasius Contra Gent. i. p. 1, b. : Αὐτάρκεις μὲν γάρ εἰσιν αἱ ἁγίαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν. Cyrillus Hierosol. Cat. 4 et 5. Chrys. Contra Anomœos xi. (Opp. i. p. 542). Augustine Doct. Christ. i. 37: Titubabit fides, si scripturarum sacrarum vacillet auctoritas. Ibid. ii. 9; De Baptismo contra Donatistas, ii. 3, and many other passages, especially Ep. 19 ad Hieron. (comp. § 122, 2).

Aug. Ep. 137 (Opp. ii. p. 310); [Scriptura Sacra] omnibus [est] accessibilis, quamvis paucissimis penetrabilis. Ea, quæ aperte continet, quasi amicus familiaris sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum atque doctorum.-De Doct. Christ. ii. 42: Quantum autem minor est auri, argenti vestisque copia, quam de Ægypto secum ille populus abstulit in comparatione divitiarum, quæ postea Hierosolymæ consecutus est, quæ maxime in Salomone ostenduntur, tanta fit cuncta scientia, quæ quidem est utilis, collecta de libris gentium, si divinarum scripturarum scientiæ comparetur. Nam quicquid homo extra didicerit, si noxium est, ibi damnatur, si utile est, ibi invenitur. Et cum ibi quisque invenerit omnia, quæ utiliter alibi didicit, multo abundantius ibi inveniet ea, quæ nusquam omnino alibi, sed in illarum tantummodo Scripturarum mirabili altitudine et mirabili humilitate discuntur. Comp. Theodoret.

Protheoria in Psalm. (Opp. T. i. p. 602); Basilii M. Hom. in Ps. i. (Opp. i. p. 90); Rudelbach, 1. c. p. 38, and Neander, Gewichtvolle Aussprüche alter Kirchenlehrer über den allgemeinen und rechten Gebrauch der heil. Schrift, in his Kleine Gelegenheitsschriften, Berlin, 1839, p. 155, ss. Chrysostom, too, is far from making salvation dependent on the letter of Scripture. In his opinion it would be much better, if we needed no Scripture at all, provided the grace of God were as distinctly written upon our hearts as the letters of ink are upon the book. (Introduct. to the Homilies on Matth. Opp. T. vii. p. 1). In the same manner Augustine says, De Doctr. Christ. i. 39 Homo itaque fide, spe et caritate subnixus, eaque inconcusse retinens, non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos. Itaque multi per hæc tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt. Unde in illis arbitrare jam impletum esse quod dictum est (1 Cor. xiii. 8): Sive prophetæ evacuabuntur, sive linguæ cessabunt, sive scientia evacuabitur, etc.

§ 120.

THE CANON.

Lücke, über den neutestamentlichen Kanon des Eusebius von Cäsarea. Berlin, 1816. Spittler, L. T., Kritische Untersuchung des 60sten Laodicäischen Kanons. Bremen, 1777. On the other side: Bickel, in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1830, part 3, p. 591, ss. [Stuart, Critical History and Defense of the Old Test. Canon, p. 438, ss. 447, ss. Westcott, Hist. Canon N. Test. Lond. 1855. C. Wordsworth, Inspiration and Canon, Phil. reprint, 1851. Credner, Gesch. d. N. Test. Kanons, ed. Volckmar, Berlin, 1860. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, Bd. vii. 1859. H. J. Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, Tübing. 1859.]

The more firmly the doctrine of the church was established, the nearer the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, the principal parts of which had been determined in the times of Eusebius,' was brought to its completion. The synods of Laodicea,' of Hippo, and (the third) of Carthage,' contributed to this result. The theologians of the Eastern church distinctly separated the later productions of the Græco-Jewish literature (i. e., the apocryphal books, Libri Ecclesiastici) from the Canon of the Old Testament Hebrew national literature. But although Rufinus and Jerome endeavored to maintain the same distinction in the Latin church, it became the general custom to follow the Africans and Augustine in doing away with the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Test., and in considering both as one."-The Canon of the Manicheans differed considerably from that of the Catholic church.

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 25, adopts three classes, viz., óuoλoyoúμeva, ἀντιλεγόμενα, νόθα (whether and in how far the last two classes difered, see Lücke, 1. c.).—To the first class belong the four Gospels, the Acts of the

Apostles, the Epistles of Paul (including the Epistle to the Hebrews), the first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter; to the Antilegomena belong the Epistles of James, Jude, the second of Peter, and, lastly, the second and third Epistles of John. With regard to the book of Revelation, the opinions differ. The following are reckoned among the vó0a; Acta Pauli, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apostolical constitutions. The άтола каì dvoσeßñ ranked below the νόθα.

The Synod of Laodicea was held about the middle of the fourth century (between the years 360 and 364). In the 59th canon it was enacted, that no uncanonical book should be used in the churches, and in the 60th a list was given of the canonical books in Mansi, ii. 574. The doubts of Spittler Bickel has endeavored to refute in his dissertation (referred to above) in the Theol. Stud. und Kritiken for 1830. In this list all the Hebrew writings of the Old Testament are received, and the apocryphal books excluded (with the exception of the book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah). The canon of the New Test. is the same as ours, except the book of Revelation, which, however, was considered genuine in Egypt (by Athanasius and Cyril). But mention is made of the seven Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, is ascribed to Paul (especially on the authority of Jerome).-For further particulars see the introductions to the New Test., and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 287. [Comp. Thornwell's Apocrypha, 1847.]

3

A. D. 393, and a. D. 397. These synods number the Apocrypha of the Old Test. among the canonical books. Comp. the 36th canon Conc. Hippon. in Mansi, iii. 924, and Concil. Carth. 11. c. 47, Mansi, iii. 891. Innocent I. (A. D. 405) and Gelasius I. (A. D. 494?) confirmed their decisions.

4

Rufinus, Expos. Symb. (1. c.) p. 26: Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non catholici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, ut est Sapientia Salomonis et alia Sapientia, quæ dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur...... Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiæ et Judith et Maccabæorum libri. He places the Shepherd of Hermas on the same footing with the Apocrypha of the Old Test., and maintains that they might be read, but not quoted, as authorities, "ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam." Comp. Hier. in Prologo Galeato, quoted by De Wette, Einleitung, i. p. 45. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 284 sq., is very instructive upon the Apocrypha, and the way it was treated in this period. [Origen, in his Hexapla, had carried out the distinction between the old Hebrew books and those extant only in Greek; and all the Greek fathers of this period followed his example. Athanasius distinguishes the κανονιζόμενα, the ἀναγινωσκόμενα (not canonical, but useful), and the ȧπóкρvа (fictitious works by heretics). In the Old Test. he received only 22 Hebrew works; what is now called the Apocrypha he reckoned in the second class, and in the third class he put the so-called pseudepigrapha. The Greek church to the present day follows this order. The fact that they (and Origen) put Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, was in consequence of these works being appended to the genuine writings of Jeremiah in the MSS, of the Septuagint. In the Latin church, Hilary, Rufinus, and Jerome, also followed Origen, Jerome enumerates the 22 books of the Old Test., and adds: