quidquid extra hos est, est inter apocrypha ponendum. But the Latin church generally followed Ambrose, Augustine, and the above named councils. As to the New Test., it was generally received, in the course of the fourth and fifth centuries, in the form in which we now have it. As the church became more united, those that had doubted about some of the books accepted the general tradition. In the fourth century all of the seven General Epistles were received as a part of the canon. Jerome, in his Epist. ad Dardanum, says the only differences were, that the Latin churches did not receive the Epist. to the Hebrews, nor the Greek church the Apocalypse, though he himself held both to be genuine. In Africa the Hebrews was in the canon of Augustine and of the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Innocent I., in his Epist. ad Exsuperium, A. D. 405, puts the Hebrews in the canon. In the East the Apocalypse was received by Athanasius and Cyril of Alex., and also by Ephräm the Syrian and Epiphanius; but Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzum, Chrysostom, and Theodoretus, did not recognize it. Since the sixth century, however, it has been in the Greek canon. Athanasius applies the same distinctions to the books of the New Test., etc., as (above) to the Old; he receives as canonical those we now have; as dvayivwokóμeva, the so-called Doctrine of the Apostles and the Shepherd of Hermas; as άлóкρvoa, the works falsely ascribed to apostles. So Rufinus makes three classes, reckoning the Shepherd of Hermas and the Judgment of Peter among the Libri Ecclesiastici.]

5

Aug. De Doct. Chr. ii. 8, and other passages quoted by De Wette, 1. c. Comp. Münscher, Handb. iii. p. 64, ss. Gregory the Great, Mor. lib. xix. c. 21: Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad ædificationem ecclesiæ editis testimoniam proferamus. He makes only a relative distinction between the Old and New Test., lib. i. Hom. 6, in Ezech.: Divina eloquia, etsi temporibus distincta, sunt tamen sensibus unita. Comp. Lau, 331.

6

Münscher, 1. c. p. 91, ss. Trechsel, über den Kanon, die Kritik und Exegese der Manichäer. Bern. 1832. 8. The authenticity of the Old Test., and the connection between the Old and the New Testaments, were defended in opposition to the Manicheans, especially by Augustine, De Mor. Eccles. Cath. i. c. 27, De Utilitate Credendi, and elsewhere.

§ 121.

INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION.

[Davidson S., Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 111-162. Lee on Inspiration, Appendix G, pp. 423-448.] On the literature, comp. § 32.

The idea of inspiration, in this as in the previous period, was understood by some in a dynamic and spiritual sense, by others in a mechanical and external sense. Not only were the contents of Holy Writ considered as divinely inspired,' but it was also esteemed an offense to suppose the possibility of chronological errors and histori

cal contradictions on the part of the sacred penman. And yet, in other instances, their different peculiarities as men were not overlooked, but made use of, to explain the diversities of their mode of thought and style."—The Origenistic allegorical system of interpretation gave way in the East to the sober grammatical method of the Antiochian school. In the West, on the contrary, some intimations of Augustine led to the adoption of a fourfold sense of Scripture, which was afterwards confirmed by the scholastic divines of the next period."

This may be seen from certain general phrases which, having originated in the preceding period, had now come into general use, such as Oɛía ypapń, κυριακαὶ γραφαί, θεόπνευστοι γραφαί, coelestes litters (Lact. Inst. iv. c. 22), as well as the simile of the lyre (comp. § 32, note 4), which was applied in a somewhat different sense by Chrys. Hom. de Ignat. Opp. ii. p. 594.

2

* Eusebius of Cæsarea says that it is Oрaσù кaì проñεTÉS to assert that the sacred writers could have substituted one name for another, e. g., Abimelech for Achish ('Ayxovs); Comment. in Ps. xxxiii. in Montfaucon, Coll. Nov. T. i. p. 129. That Chrysostom designates the words of the apostle, not as his, but as words of the Holy Spirit, or of God (in Ev. Joh. Hom. i. Opp. T. viii. p. 6, de Lazaro Conc. 4. Opp. i. p. 755, and elsewhere), may partly be ascribed to his practical and rhetorical tendency. As he calls the mouth of the prophets the mouth of God (in Act. App. Hom. xix. Op. T. ix. p. 159), so Augustine (De Consensu Evv. i. 35) compares the apostles with the hands which noted down that which Christ, the head, dictated. He also calls (in Conf. vii. 21) the Sacred Scriptures venerabilem stilum Spir. S. He communicates to Jerome his theory of inspiration in the following manner (Ep. 82. Opp. ii. p. 143) Ego enim fateor caritati tuæ, solis eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud, quam vel mendosum esse codicem,* vel interpretrem non assecutum esse, quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque præpolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. Nevertheless, he admits (ibid. p. 150, § 24) that the canonical authority may be restricted, inasmuch as in reference to the dispute between Paul and Peter, he concedes to the former an undoubted superiority. Comp. De Civ. Dei xviii. 41: Denique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et

A challenge to textual criticism! [So, too, De Consensu Evangelistarum, comparing the accounts of Mark and Luke of the words from heaven at Christ's baptism: Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est: "Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te;" quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliquid quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cœlo sonuisse. Comp. Lee, loc. cit. p. 424.]

terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. Unde non immerito, cum illa scriberent, eis Deum vel per eos locutum, non pauci in scholis atque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris atque in urbibus cum doctis atque indoctis tot tantique populi crediderunt.-His opinion concerning the miraculous origin of the Septuagint version accords with that of the earlier fathers, ibid. c. 42-44, where he attributes (as many ultra-Lutherans afterwards did in reference to the Lutheran translation) the defects of that translation to a kind of inspiration which had regard to the circumstances of the times. But behind this fantastic notion lies the grand idea of a revelation, which continues to manifest itself in a living way-an idea which is above the narrow adherence to the letter, and is expressed in the belief in tradition.-Similar views probably induced Gregory the Great to say in reference to the researches of learned men relative to the author of the book of Job, that it was not necessary to know the pen with which the King of kings had written his royal letter, but that it sufficed to have a full conviction of its Divine contents. Thus he assigns, on the one hand, the authorship of this book to the Holy Spirit, while, on the other, he leaves. open all discussions concerning the human instruments-discussions which were chiefly dreaded in later times. Gregory the Great, Moral. in Job. præf. c. 1, § 2; the other views of Gregory, see in Lau, ubi supra.

Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia, who in this respect went perhaps farther than any other writer, assumed different degrees of inspiration. He ascribed to Solomon, not the gift of prophecy, but only that of wisdom, and judged of the book of Job and the Song of Solomon only from the human point of view. Hence the fifth Ecumenical Council found fault with him on this very account; Mansi, ix. 223. [Comp. Lee, ubi supra, p. 443-8.] But Chrysostom, and also Jerome, admitted human peculiarities, the one in reference to the gospels (Hom. i. in Matth.), the other with respect to the apostle Paul (on Gal. v. 12). Chrysostom even finds a proof of their credibility in the minor disagreements of the gospels; for, he says, if all agreed in every thing, the enemies would suspect collusion (in Matth. Hom. 1, § 2). Jerome finds in Paul solecisms, hyperbata (transpositions of words and clauses), and abrupt periods (on Ephes. iii. and Gal. v. 12). Basil the Great says respecting the prophets (in the commentary on Isaiah commonly ascribed to him, Opp. T. i. p. 379, ed. Ben.): "As it is not every substance which is fitted to reflect images, but only such as possess a certain smoothness and transparency, so the effective power of the Spirit is not visible in all souls, but only in such as are neither perverse nor distorted" (Rudelbach), p. 28. gustine (De Consensu Evang. ii. 12) asserts, that the evangelists had written, ut quisque meminerat, ut cuique cordi erat, vel brevius vel prolixius: but he is careful not to be misunderstood, lib. i. c. 2: Quamvis singuli suum quendam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius ignarus voluisse scribere reperitur, vel ignorata prætermisisse, quæ scripsisse alius invenitur: sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non superfluam coöperationem sui laboris adjunxit.-Arnobius calls the style of the biblical writers sermo trivialis et sordidus (Adv. Gent. i. 58), but he also sees in this proof of their truthfulness: Nunquam enim veritas sectata est fucum, nec quod exploratum et certum est, circumduci se patitur orationis per ambi

Au

tum longiorem. The barbarisms and solecisms he compares (c. 59) to thorns on fruit. Etenim vero dissoluti est pectoris in rebus seriis quærere voluptatem, et cum tibi sit ratio cum male se habentibus atque ægris, sonos auribus infundere dulciores, non medicinam vulneribus admovere. Moreover, even the language of the schools has its abnormities: Quænam est enim ratio naturalis aut in mundi constitutionibus lex scripta, ut hic paries dicatur et hæc scella? etc.-Concerning Gregory Nazianzen, comp. Orat. ii. 105, p. 60. See Ullmann, p. 305, note.-Epiphanius opposed very decidedly the notions derived from the old pavτiký (comp. § 32), according to which the inspired writers were entirely passive, and supposed that the prophets enjoyed a clear perception of the divine, a calm disposition of mind, etc. Comp. Hær. 48, c. 3, and Jerome Procem. in Nahum, in Habacuc et in Jesaiam: Neque vero, ut Montanus cum insanis feminis somniat, Prophetæ in exstasi sunt locuti, ut nescirent, quid loquerentur, et quum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent, quod dicerent. Though Jerome allows that human (e. g., grammatical) faults might have occurred, yet he guards himself against any dangerous inferences which might be drawn from his premises (Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. lib. ii. ad cap. iii. 1): Nos, quotiescunque solecismos aut tale quid annotamus, non Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli criminantur, sed magis Apostoli assertores sumus, etc. According to him, the divine power of the word itself destroyed these apparent blemishes, or caused believers to overlook them. "The opinion of these theologians manifestly was, that the external phenomena do not preclude the reality of the highest influences of divine grace." Rudelbach, P. 42.*

4

Theodoret, who may be considered as the representative of this tendency, rejects both the false allegorical and the bare historical systems of interpretation, Protheoria in Psalmos (ed. Schulze), T. i. p. 603, in Rudelbach, p. 36. (He calls the latter a Jewish rather than Christian interpretation.) Comp. Münter, über die antiochen. Schule, 1. c. and Neander, Church History, ii. p. 353. The hermeneutical principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia are here of special weight. See Neander, Dog. Hist. p. 283-5. [Neander, judging from Theodore's general position, conjectured the value of his commentaries in this matter, "if more of them had come down to us." The conjecture has been confirmed by the discovery of the commentaries. See the extracts as

given by Jacobi, in the notes to Neander's Hist. of Doctrines, in Ryland's translation, as above.]

It is remarkable that Augustine, on the one hand, understands all biblical narratives in their strictly historical, literal sense; and, on the other, leaves ample scope for allegorical interpretation. Thus he takes much pains, De Civ. Dei xv. 27, to defend the account of the ark of Noah against mathematical and physical objections (he even supposes a miracle by which carnivorous animals were changed into herbivorous); nevertheless, he thinks that all this had happened only ad præfigurandum ecclesiam, and represents the clean and unclean animals as types of Judaism and Paganism, etc. [Comp.

*Thus Jerome and Chrysostom answered those who would put the epistle to Philemon out of the Canon, because it contained only human matters, who took umbrage at the parkóvns which the apostle ordered (2 Tim. iv. 13), that employment in human affairs did no damage to divine things. See Neander, Hist. Dogm. p. 284.

also Davidson, 1. c. p. 138, where another specimen is given.] The passage De Genes. ad Litter. ab. init.: In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet, quæ ibi æterna intimentur, quæ facta narrentur, quæ futura prænuntientur, quæ agenda præcipiantur, has given rise to the doctrine of a fourfold sense of Scripture; comp. with it De Util. Cred. 3: omnis igitur scriptura, quæ testamentum vetus vocatur, diligenter eam nosse cupientibus quadrifariam traditur, secundum historiam, secundum ætiologiam, secundum analogiam, secundum allegoriam; the further exposition of his views is given ibid. [Davidson, 1. c. p. 137]. According to Augustine, seven things are necessary to the right interpretation of Scripture, Doctr. Christ. ii. 7: timor, pietas, scientia, fortitudo, consilium, purgatio cordis, sapientia. But he who will perfectly interpret an author, must be animated by love to him, De Util. Cred. 6: Agendum enim tecum prius est, ut auctores ipsos non oderis, deinde ut ames, et hoc agendum quovis alio modo potius, quam exponendis eorum sententiis et literis. Propterea quia, si Virgilium odissemus, imo si non eum, priusquam intellectus esset, majorum nostrorum commendatione diligeremus, nunquam nobis satisfieret de illis ejus quæstionibus innumerabilibus, quibus grammatici agitari et perturbari solent, nec audiremus libenter, qui cum ejus laude illas expediret, sed ei faveremus, qui per eas illum erasse ac delirasse conaretur ostendere. Nunc vero cum eas multi ac varie pro suo quisque captu aperire conentur, his potissimum plauditur, per quorum expositionem melior invenitur poëta, qui non solum nihil peccasse, sed nihil non laudabiliter cecinisse ab eis etiam, qui illum non intelligunt, creditur. . . . . . Quantum erat, ut similem benevolentiam præberemus eis, per quos locutum esse Spiritum Sanctum tam diuturna vetustate firmatum est? Even misunderstanding of the Scriptures (according to Augustine) is not corrupting, so long as the regula caritatis is observed; one may err about a text without becoming a liar. He who, with good intent, though with wrong exegesis, is steering loosely towards the one end of edification (the love of God), is like him who runs to the goal across the fields instead of in the beaten road. Yet we must always try to set such an one right, lest he get into the way of wandering from the true road, and so in the end run to perdition; De Doct. Christ. i. 36.

§ 122.

TRADITION AND THE CONTINUANCE OF INSPIRATION.

The belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures neither excluded faith in an existing tradition, nor in a continuance of the inspirations of the Spirit. Not only transient visions, in which pious individuals received divine instructions and disclosures,' were compared to the revelations recorded in Scripture, but still more the continued illumination which the fathers enjoyed when assembled in council." But as the Scriptures were formed into a canon, so, too, in course of time it became necessary to lay down a canon, to which the ecclesiastical tradition, developing itself on its own historical foundation,