Jerome. Augustine, on the other hand, and several councils in which he took part, namely, that of Hippo in 393, and those of Carthage in 397 and 419, decided expressly for admitting into the canon the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecelesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two Books of the Maccabees. Near the same time, a like judgment was rendered by the Bishop of Rome. These decisions secured the balance in the Latin Church in favor of the above-named apocryphal books, though long after this era there were here and there learned men in the Latin Church who manifested a conviction that these books were not to be accounted of full canonical worth. Even Gregory the Great quoted the first Book of the Maccabees as if its title to a place in the canon might be questioned. (Moral., XIX. 21.) See also list of others who made strictures upon the Apocrypha, as given by J. Gerhard (Loci Theol., I. § 89).

As the interval which separated the Church from the apostolic age was increased, and the traditions of that age were more liable to be questioned, there was naturally an increased incentive to fix the exact bounds of the apostolic literature, and thus definitely to circumscribe the oracles of the new dispensation. To this incentive, necessarily involved in the conditions of the case, was added the spur which came from the arbitrary conduct of heretics, in curtailing, remodelling, or adding to the apostolic writings. Marcion, for example, remodelled Luke, and rejected the rest of the New Testament, with the exception of ten Epistles of Paul (Tertul., Adv. Marcion, IV. 2, 3). A Gospel according to the Egyptians is mentioned by Hippolytus among heretical writings (Phil., V. 2), and was probably of quite early origin. Irenæus, speaking of a Valentinian sect, the Marcosians, says, "They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged to trouble the minds of foolish men and of such as are ignorant of the scriptures of truth." (Cont. Hær., I. 20. 1.) "The Church," says Origen, "has

four Gospels, heretics many; of which one is entitled according to the Egyptians, another according to the Twelve Apostles. Basilides also has dared to write a Gospel, and to inscribe it with his own name. I know a certain Gospel which is named according to Thomas and according to Matthias." (In Luc., Hom. I.) No doubt there is ample evidence that heretical parties gave much recognition to genuine writings, and their testimony enters into the sum total of proof for the apostolic origin of the New Testament books. But there was enough of arbitrary procedure on their part to intensify the natural demand within the Catholic Church for a fixed canon.

About the middle of the second century, at least within the limits of the third quarter of that century, there was rendered a very positive and general recognition of the Scriptural character of the great body of our present New Testament books. Even before this date there was a collection, whatever may have been its compass, which was read at the stated services of the Church; for we find Justin Martyr, in the earliest of his writings, stating that it was the custom of Christians to have the "Memoirs of the Apostles" read to the congregation on the first day of the week. (1 Apol., LXVII.) The so-called “Canon of Muratori," written probably about the year 170, indicates, notwithstanding its somewhat fragmentary character, that the Church of that date was substantially united upon the acceptance of the four Gospels, the Book of Acts, the Apocalypse, and nearly all of the Epistles. Only one uncanonical book, namely, the Apocalypse of Peter, is added to the New Testament list by this document, and concerning this it is said that it was not universally admitted. (See Westcott on the Canon.) The writings of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, men representing sections of the Church widely separated geographically, testify to a general acknowledgment of a like collection. In fine, we may say without hesitation that the Catholic

Church (that is, the great body of Christians of that age) in the latter half of the second century unanimously assigned a canonical character to the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter, and did not as a whole receive any book now reckoned uncanonical.

Among the remaining books of our New Testament, the Apocalypse was very largely quoted, and no church father of the first three centuries, except Dionysius of Alexandria, questioned its apostolic origin. He regarded it as "the work of some holy and inspired man," by the name of John, but not to be identified with the Apostle John. Some of the Greek fathers of the fourth century followed the opinion of Dionysius; but Athanasius and others contended for the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, and in the course of the fifth century their verdict became substantially universal in the Greek Church. The Epistle to the Hebrews was estimated very highly in the Greek Church, and was frequently quoted as a production of Paul. Origen often quotes it in this way, though in his more specific statement he decides that it is to be regarded as Pauline simply in substance, having been written by an immediate disciple of the Apostle. The early Latin fathers leave it unnoticed, or else decide against its apostolic authorship. Its right to a place in the canon, however, was commonly acknowledged in the Latin Church from the time of Augustine and Jerome. Some exception was taken to the Epistle of Jude and to the Second and Third Epistles of John, as appears from the testimony of Eusebius and Origen; but each of them was approved by individual writers in the first three centuries, and there was probably never in the Church at large a serious disinclination to receive them. The Epistle of James and the Second Epistle of Peter obtained little recognition from early writers, and, largely on this account, were regarded with doubt by Eusebius and some later authors. At the close of the fourth century, however, the

Church was substantially united upon affirming the canonical rank of these, as of all other books in our New Testament collection.

A few books besides those now in the canon were assigned, for a certain interval, and by a fraction of the Church, a canonical or semi-canonical character. We learn from Eusebius that the Epistle of Clement of Rome was read in many of the churches for a considerable time (III. 16, IV. 23), though this does not necessarily imply that it was placed fully on a par with the apostolic writings. Clement of Alexandria quotes the Epistle of Barnabas as the writing of the Apostle Barnabas, evidently attributing to it the character of sacred Scripture, and Origen treats it with nearly equal respect. (Strom., II. 6, 7, 20; De Prin., III. 2, 4.) Both of these writers indicate also by their quotations that they attributed a high degree of authority to the "Pastor 99 of Hermas. The way in which the "Canon of Muratori" mentions the Apocalypse of Peter has already been noted. According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria included the same among the books upon which he wrote brief comments. (VI. 14.) None of these books, however, were ever assigned a Scriptural character by any general authority, and in time they lost the partial recognition accorded them. As regards the larger and more essential portion of the New Testament canon, there was a marked unanimity in the Church from the first consideration of the subject.

2. INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. The writings of Philo indicate the existence at the opening of the Christian era of a very emphatic theory of inspiration. According to this exponent of the highest Jewish culture of Alexandria, the prophets were passive instruments in the hands of the revealing God, and even the Septuagint translation was inspired word for word. The human nature, he teaches, must sink below the horizon, and be lost in trance, before the divine orb can arise. "When the divine light shines the human light sets, and

when the divine light sets, this other rises and shines; and this very frequently happens to the race of prophets, for the mind that is in us is removed from its place at the arrival of the Divine Spirit, but it is again restored to its previous habitation when that Spirit departs, for it is contrary to holy law for what is mortal to dwell with what is immortal." (Heir to Divine Things, LIII.; Life of Moses, Bk. II., Chaps. V.-VII.; Rewards and Punishments, IX. Translation by C. D. Yonge.)

The earliest Christian writers who express any theory upon the subject of Scriptural inspiration approximate to the representations of Philo. Justin Martyr says that the utterances of the prophets were not their own, but the utterances of the Divine Word which moved them. (1 Apol., XXXVI.) In a writing attributed to him, the souls of the prophets are compared to a harp or lyre, upon which the Holy Spirit, as a kind of divine plectrum, descends, and from which He brings forth superhuman and accordant responses. (Cohortatio, VIII.) In like manner Athenagoras says that the Spirit from God "moved the mouths of the prophets like musical instruments," that the Spirit lifted Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets "in ecstasy" above the natural operations of their minds, and made use of them as the flute-player breathes into the flute. (Legatio, VII., IX.)

Perhaps it would be concluding too much to affirm that by such figures these writers meant to indicate absolute passivity, or the complete loss of self-consciousness in the inspired agent. Among the early Christians the distinct utterance of this theory was characteristic of the Montanists. Accordingly Tertullian, speaking as a Montanist, makes the following comment on the statement that Peter upon the Mount of Transfiguration knew not what he said: "Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on the principle which we maintain in the cause of the new prophecy, that to grace ecstasy or rapture is incident?

1