(and many others) had been converted by witnessing the firmness which many of the martyrs exhibited. Comp. his Apology, ii. p. 96, and Dialog. cum Tryph. § 121 : Καὶ οὐδένα οὐδέποτε ἰδεῖν ἔστιν ὑπομείναντα διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον πίστιν ἀποθανεῖν, διὰ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ ὑπομείναντας καὶ ὑπομένοντας πάντα πάσχειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν ἔστι κ. τ. λ.

14 Origen contra Celsum, ii. 13, Opp. i. p. 400.

§ 30.

SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE.

Orelli, J. C., Selecta patrum ecclesiæ capita ad elonyntikηv sacram pertimentia, Turici, 1820. Comp. his essay: Tradition und Scription, in Schulthess über Rationalism. und Supranaturalism. Christmann, W. L., über Tradition und Schrift, Logos und Kabbala, Tübingen, 1825. Schenkel, D., über das ursprüngliche Verhältniss der Kirche zum Kanon, Basel, 1838. Sack, Nitzsch und Lücke, Ueber d. Ansehen d. heiligen Schrift und ihr Verhältniss zur Glaubensregel . . . drei Sendschreiben an Prof. Delbrück. Bonn. 1827. J. L. Jacobi, Die Kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition, etc. 1 Abth. Berlin, 1847. [J. H. Friedlieb, Schrift, Tradition und kirchliche Auslegung (for the first five centuries), Bresl. 1854. Kuhn, Die Tradition (early testimonies) in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1848, Daniel, Theolog. Controversen. William Goode, Divine Rule, repr. Phil. 2 vols. 1843. Palmer on the Church, vol. 2, pp. 11-93. E. B. Pusey, Rule of Faith. Perrone, Protest. and Rule of Faith, 3 vols. Rome, 1853; in French, 1854. Wiseman (Cardinal), in his Essays, ii, p. 108, sq. H. J. Holtzman, Canon und Tradition, 1859.]

The original living source of the knowledge of all Christian truth. was the Spirit of Christ himself, who, according to his promise, guided the Apostles, and the first heralds of Christianity, into all truth. The Catholic Church, therefore, considered herself from the first as possessing this spirit; and consequently, that the guardianship of the true tradition, and the development of the doctrines which it teaches, were committed to her.' A work which only the first church could perform, was to preserve the oral tradition, and to collect the written apostolical documents into a canon of Scripture. It was not until this canon was nearly completed that the tradition of the church, both oral and written, came to be considered, along with the sacred canon, as a distinct branch of the one original source.❜

'The doctrine concerning the Scripture and tradition can, then, be fully understood only when taken in connection with the dogma concerning the church (71).

2

On this account it is not correct to represent Scripture and tradition as two sources flowing alongside of each other. On the contrary, both flow from one common source, and separate only after some time. The same term kavov (regula scil. fidei) was first applied to both. For its usage comp. Suicer (Thesaurus Ecclesiast. sub voce) and Planck, H., Nonnulla de Significatu Canonis in Ecclesia Antiqua ejusque Serie recte constituenda, Gött.

1820. Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, § 40, 41. [Lardner, Works, v. p. 257.]

According to the Montanists, there are various historical stages or periods of revelation, viz., 1. The law and the prophets; the period of primitive revelation, which extends to the manifestation of Christ, and corresponds to the duritia cordis. 2. The period of the Christian revelation, ending with the person of Christ, and in the circle of the Apostles, and corresponding to the infirmitas carnis. 3. The period of the revelation of the Paraclete, extending to the end of time, and corresponding to the sanctitas spiritualis. Comp. Tertull. De Monogam. 14; Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 37. (This, however, refers primarily to the moral, and not to the doctrinal.)

§ 31.

CANON OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.

[Cosin, Scholastic History of the Canon, 4to, Lond. 1657, 1672. Du Pin, History of the Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old and New Test., 2 vols. fol. Lond. 16991700. Schmid, Historia Antiq. et Vindicatio Canonis V. et N. T. Lips. 1775. Jones, New and Full Method of settling the Canonic. Authority of the N. Test. 3 vols. Alexander, Canon of the O. and N. Test. ascertained. Philad. 1828. *Lardner, N., Credibility of the Gospel History (Works, i. to iv. and v. to p. 251). Alexander, W. L., on the Canon, in Kitto, Cycl. of Bibl. Liter. where the literature is given.] J. Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons bis auf Hieronymus, Zur. 1844, II.

[F. C. Baur, on the primitive sense of Canon (not, having the force of law, but, writings definitely set apart) in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. W. J. Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, und die Entstehung der N. Test. Schriften, 1852. Oehler, art. Kanon in Herzog's Realencycl. B. F. Westcott, Hist. of Canon of N. T. Lond. 1845. Testimonia Ante-Nicæna pro Auctoritate S. Script, in Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, Tom. v. 1848, pp. 336-354. Most Ancient Canon of New Test. R. Creswell, in Theol. Critic, Sept. 1852. Credner, Die ältesten Verzeichnisse der heil. Schriften, in Theol. Jahrb. 1857. Jan. Van Gilse, Disp. de antiquis. Lib. Sacr. Nov. Test. Catalog. Amstelod. 1852. P. Bötticher, Versuch einer Herstellung des Canon Muratorianus, in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1854. C. Credner, Gesch. d. N. Test. Canon, ed. Volckmar, Berlin, 1860.]

Before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, that of the Old Testament,' long since closed, was held in high esteem in the Catholic church. The Gnostics, however, and among them the Marcionites in particular, rejected the Old Test.' Gradually the Christian Church felt the need of having the writings of the apostles and evangelists in a collective form. These writings owed their origin to different causes. The apostolical epistles were primarily intended to meet the exigencies of the times; the narratives of the so-called evangelists' had likewise been composed with a view to supply present wants, but also with reference to posterity. These testimonies of primitive and apostolical Christianity, in a collected form, would serve as an authoritative standard, and form a barrier

against the introduction of all that was either of a heterogeneous nature, or of a more recent date, which was trying to press into the church (apocryphal and heretical). The Canon of the New Testament, however, was only gradually formed, and closed. In the course of the second century the four gospels were received by the church in the form in which we now have them,' with a definite exclusion of the gospels favored by the heretics. In addition, at the close of our present period, besides the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, there were also recognized 13 Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, however, only a part of the church considered to be a work of Paul, together with the first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter. With regard to the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistles of James, Jude, and the second of Peter, and, lastly, the Book of Revelation, the opinions as to their authority were yet for some time divided. On the other hand, some other writings, which are not now considered as forming a part of the Canon, viz., the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas, were held by some (viz. Clement and Origen) in equal esteem with the Scriptures, and quoted as such.* The whole collection, too (so far as it was had), was already called by Tertullian, Novum Testamentum (Instrumentum); and by Origen ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη.

9

A difference of opinion obtained only in reference to the use of Greek writings of later origin (Libri Ecclesiastici, Apocrypha). The Jews themselves had already made a distinction between the Canon [?] of the Egyptian Jews and the Canon of the Jews of Palestine, comp. Münscher, Handbuch, vol. i. p. 240, ss., Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 86 sq., and the introductions to the O. Test. Melito of Sardis (in Euseb. iv. 26), and Origen (ibid. vi. 25), give enumerations of the books of the O. Test., which nearly coincide. [Lardner, ii. p. 158, 159; 493-513. Stuart, Critical Hist. and Defense of the O. Test. Canon, p. 431, ss.] The difference between what was original, and what had been added in later times, was less striking to those Christians who, being unacquainted with the Hebrew, used only the Greek version. Yet Justin M. does not quote the apocrypha of the O. Test., though he follows the Septuagint version; comp. Semisch, II. p. 3, ss. On the other hand, other church writers cite even the fourth Book of Ezra, and Origen defends the tale about Susanna, as well as the books of Tobias and Judith (Ep. ad Julium Africanum); although he also expressly distinguishes the Book of Wisdom from the canon, and assigns to it a lower authority (Prolog. in Cant.). [Comp. Fritzsche, Kurzgef. Comm. zu den Apocryph. des alt. Test. 1853-6. J. H. Thornwell, Arguments of Rome in behalf of the Apocrypha, 1845. Stowe, on Apoc. in Bib. Sacra, 1854. Book of Judith, in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1856. Volckmar, Composition des Buchs Judith, Theol. Jahrb. 1857; and on Book of Ezra, Zürich, 1858, comp. Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. R. A. Lipsius, Das Buch Judith, Zeitschrift

f. wiss. Theol. 1859. A. von Gutschmidt, Apokalypse des Ezra, ibid. 1860. Bleek, Die Stellung d. Apocryphen, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853.]

Comp. Neander's Gnostiche Systeme, p. 276, ss. Baur, Christliche Gnosis, p. 240, ss. The Clementine Homilies also regarded many statements in the O. Test. as contrary to truth, and drew attention to the contradictions which are found there, Hom. iii. 10, 642, and other passages. Comp. Credner, l. c. and Baur, p. 317, ss. pp. 366, 367. [Lardner, viii. 485-489. Norton. 1. c. iii. p. 238.]

3

* It is well known that the words εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελιστής, had a very different meaning in primitive Christianity; comp. the lexicons to the N. Test. and Suicer, Thes. pp. 1220 and 1234.-Justin, M., however, remarks (Apol. i. c. 66), that the writings which he called ȧñоμvημоvεúμаτa of the Apostles, were also called evayyéλia. But it has been questioned whether we are to understand by evayyέhia the four canonical gospels; see Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. (Against him, Semisch, Denkw. des Justin, Hamb. 1848.) Concerning these drоuvn., and the earliest collections of the Gospel-narratives (ó kúptoç), the Diatessaron of Tatian, etc. comp. the Introductions to the N. Test. [Gieseler, Ueber die Entstehung und frühesten Schicksale der Evangel. 1818. Lardner, N., On the Credibility of the Gospel history. (Works, i. iv. v. to p. 251.) Norton, A., On the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Tholuck, A., in Kitto, 1. c. art. Gospel.]

♦ Irenæus, adv. Haer. iii. 11, 7, attempts to explain the number four on cosmico-metaphysical grounds: Επειδὴ τέσσαρα κλίματα τοῦ κοσμοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα, κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς. Στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πvevμa Šwñs k. T. 2. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2, 5. Clement of Alex. in Euseb. vi. 13. Origen in tom i. in Johan, Opp. iv. p. 5. For further testimonies of antiquity comp. the Introductions (de Wette, p. 103) [and the works of Lardner in particular].

5

Orig. Hom. i. in Luc. Opp. T. iii. p. 933, multi conati sunt scribere evangelia, sed non omnes recepti, etc. [The principal spurious gospels are the following: The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus; the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite; the Prot-evangelion of James; the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary; the Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate; the Gospel of Marcion; the Gospel of the Hebrews (most probably the same with that of the Nazarenes), and the Gospel of the Egyptians.] On these uncanonical Gospels, and on the Apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy and Passion of Christ, compare the introductions to the N. Test. and the treatises of Schneckenburger, Hahn, etc., Fabricius, Codex. Apocryph. N. Test. iii. Hamb. 1719, and Thilo, D. I. C., Cod. Apocr. N. Test. Lipsia, 1832. Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch. [Lurdner, Works, ii. 91-93, 236, 250, 251; iv. 97, 106, 131, 463; viii. 524535. Norton, 1. c. iii. p. 214-286. Wright, W., in Kitto, l. c. art. Gospels, spurious, where the literature is given.] The Acts of the Apostles became generally known at a later period. Justin Martyr does not refer to it, nor does he cite any Pauline epistle, though Pauline reminiscences are found in his works; see Semisch, p. 7, sq., and also his Apostolische Denkwürdigkeiten. On the Gospels of Marcion see the treatises of Franck (Studien und Kritiken, 1855), and Volckmar, Das Evang. Marcion's, Leipz. 1852.

[D. Harting, Quæst. de Marcione, Trajecti ad Rhenun, 1849. Hilgenfeld, Untersuchungen, Halle, 1850, and in Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1855. Ritschl, Das Evang. Marcion und die' Kanon. Evang. Tübing. 1817. Marcion and his Relation to St. Luke, in Church Review, Oct. 1856. Rud. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, Leipz. 1851; comp. O. B. Frothingham in Christ. Exam. 1852. Evangelia Apocrypha, ed C. Tischendorf, Lipz. 1853; comp. Ellicott in Cambridge Essays, 1856. Giles, The Uncanonical Gospels, etc., collected, 2, 8vo. Lond. 1853. C. Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. 1851; comp. Kitto's Journal of Sac. Lit. 1852.]

6

Comp. Bleek's Einleitung zum Briefe an die Hebräer. Berlin, 1828. De Wette, Einleitung ins N. Test. ii. p. 247. [Stuart's Comment. on the Epistle to the Heb. 2 vols. Lond. 1828. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c.

sub voce, where the literature is given.]

7

The Canon of Origen in Euseb. vi. 25. [Lardner, ii. 493-513.] The controversy on the Book of Revelation was connected with the controversy on millennarianism. Comp. Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, und die gesammte apokryphische Litteratur. Bonn, 1832, p. 261, ss. and 2d ed. [* Davidson, S., in Kitto, l. c. sub voce Revelation. Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, i. p. 290, ss. A. Hil genfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung. Jena. 1857.]

Clem. Strom. i. 7, p. 339, ii. 6, p. 445, ii. 7, p. 447 (ii. 15, ii. 18), iv. 17, p. 609, v. 12, p. 693, vi. 8, pp. 772, 773. Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. Opp. iv. p. 683. (Comment, in Matth. Opp. iii. p. 644.) Hom. 88, in Num. T. ii. p. 249. Contra Celsum i. 1, §63, Opp. i. 378. (Comment. in Joh. T. iv. p. 153), De Princ. ii. 3, T. i. 82. Euseb. iii. 16. Münscher, Handbuch, i. p. 289. Möhler, Patrologie, i. p. 87. [Lardner, ii. 18, 247, 528; ii. p. 186, 187; 249, 303, 304, 530-532.] The Apocryphal book of Enoch was put by Tertullian on a line with Scripture; De Cultu. Fem. i., 3. [On Enoch, comp. the treatises of Dillman and Ewald, 1854; Köstlin in Theo. Jahrb., 1856.

'Tertullian Adv. Marc. iv., 1. Origen De Princip. iv. 1. Gieseler in Dogmengesch. p. 93.

$ 32.

INSPIRATION AND EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Sonntag, G. F. N., Doctrina Inspirationis ejusque Ratio, Historia et usus popularis, Heidelberg, 1810, 8. Rudelbach, A. G., die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, mit Berücksichtigung der neuesten Untersuchungen darüber von Schleiermacher, Twesten, und Steudel. (Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Rudelbach and Guerike, 1840, i. 1.) Credner, De Librorum N. T. Inspiratione quid statuerint Christiani ante seculum tertium medium, Jen. 1828, and his Beiträge zur Einleitung in die Bibl. Schriften, Halle, 1832. W. Grimm, Inspiration, in Gruber and Ersch, Encyclop. sect. ii. vol. xix. [B. F. Westcott, Catena on Inspiration, in his Elements of Gospel Harmony, 1851, and Introd. to Gospels, 1860.] C. Wordsworth, Insp. of Holy Script., 2d ed. 1851 (also on the Canon). William Lee, The Insp. of Holy Scripture, Lond. 1854; New York, 1857. Patristic Test. to Inspiration, in Princeton Review, 1851. A. Tholuck, Die Inspirationslehre, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. (transl. in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1854), and in Herzog's Realencyclopädie. R. Rothe, Offenbarung, and Inspiration, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1859, 1860.]