$ 30.

Sources of Knowledge.

J. C. Orelli, Selecta patrum ecclesiæ capita ad isnynrieńv sacram pertinentia, Turici 1820 ss. Comp. his essay: Tradition und Scription, in Schulthess, über Rationalism. und Supranaturalism. W. L. Christmann, über Tradition und Schrift, Logos und Kabbala, Tübingen 1825. D. Schenkel, 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 in der Protest. u. in der alten Kirche : drei theolog. 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, 3 vols. Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 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.] J. L. Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, ein Beitrag zur neuern Dogmengeschichte u. Symbolik, Ludwigsburg 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 doctrine which it contained, were committed to her (1). A work which only the first Church could perform, was to preserve the oral tradition, and to collect the written apostolical documents into the 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 stream from the one original source (2).

(1) 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 H. Planck, 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.] Thus the word Tapádoois (traditio) originally comprehended the whole tradition of the doctrine of salvation, without distinguishing between the oral and the written, cf. Baur, Dg. s. 363 ff.

According to the Montanist view, there are various historical stages or periods of divine 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, which completes the remainder of history, and corresponding to the sanctitas spiritualis. Comp. Tertull. De Monogam. 14; Schwegler, Montanismus, s. 37. (This, however, refers primarily to the moral, and not to the doctrinal.)

§ 31.

Canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

Dillmann, über die Bildung der Sammlung der heiligen Schriften A. T. (Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1858, 3 vols.).

[Cosin, Scholastic History of the Canon, 4to, Lond. 1657, 72. Du Pin, History of the Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old and New Test., 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1699-1700. 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. T., 3 vols. Alexander, Canon of the O. and N. T. ascertained, Philad. 1828. *N. Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History (Works, i. to iv., and v. to p. 251). J. Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons bis auf Hieronymus, Zür. 1844, 2 vols. Hilgenfeld, der Canon und die Kritik des N. T. in ihrer geschichtlichen Ausbildung u. Gestaltung, Halle 1863. (Weiss, Stud. u. Kritik. 1864, 1.) Hilgenfeld, Histor. Krit. Einleit. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875.]

[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. T. Schriften, 1852. Oehler, art. Kanon. in Herzog's Realencykl. B. F. Westcott, Hist. of Canon of N. T., Lond. 1845; new ed. 1870, 74; also in Smith's Bible Dicty. Testimonia Ante-Nicæna pro Auctoritate S. Script., in Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, tom. v. 1848, s. 336-354. Most Ancient Canon

of N. T., 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. T. Canon, ed. Volkmar, Berlin 1860.]

Before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, that of the Old Testament (1), 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 Testament (2). 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 socalled evangelists (3) 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 (4), with a definite exclusion of the Gospels favoured by the heretics (5). In addition, at the close of our present period, besides the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, there were also recognised thirteen Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, however, only a part of the Church considered to be a work of Paul (6), 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,1 the opinions as to their authority were yet for some time divided (7). 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 (8). The whole collection, too (so far as it was made), was already called by Tertullian, Novum Testamentum (Instrumentum); and by Origen, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη (9).

(1) 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, Bd. i. s. 240 ff.; Gieseler, Dg. s. 86 ff., and the introductions to the O. T. Melito of Sardis (in Euseb. iv. 26) and Origen (ibid. vi. 25) give enumerations of the books of the O. T., which nearly coincide. [Lardner, ii. p. 158, 159, 493–513. Stuart, Critical Hist. and Defence of the O. T. Canon, p. 431 ff.] 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. T., though he follows the Septuagint version; comp. Semisch, II. s. 3 ff. 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 Tobit and Judith (Ep. ad Julium Africanum); although he also expressly distinguishes the Book of Wisdom from the canonical books, and assigns to it a lower authority (Prolog. in Cant.). [Comp. Fritzsche, Kurzgef. Comm. zu den Apocryph. des alt. Test. 1853-56. J. H. Thornwell, Arguments of Rome in behalf of the Apocrypha, 1845. Volkmar, 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. '[But see in note 7.]

1859. A. von Gutschmidt, Apokalypse des Ezra, ibid. 1860. Bleek, Die Stellung d. Apocryphen, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853. Bleek, Introd. to O. T., by Venables, Lond. 1869.]

(2) Comp. Neander's Gnostiche Systeme, s. 276 ff. Baur, Christliche Gnosis, s. 240 ff. The Clementine Homilies also regarded many statements in the O. T. as contrary to truth, and drew attention to the contradictions which are found there, Hom. iii. 10, p. 642, and other passages. Comp. Credner, Lc., and Baur, Gnosis, s. 317 ff., 366, 367; Dg. s. 378. [Lardner, viii. 485-489. Norton, 1.c. iii. p. 238.]

(3) It is well known that the words εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγε Xorns, had a very different meaning in primitive Christianity; comp. the lexicons to the N. T., and Suicer, Thes. p. 1220 and 1234. Justin M., however, remarks (Apol. i. c. 66) that the writings which he called åπoμvnμoveúμaтa of the apostles, were also called εὐαγγέλια. But it has been questioned whether we are to understand by evayyéλia the four canonical Gospels; see Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeitalter, s. 216 ff. (Against him, Semisch, Denkw. des Justin, Hamb. 1848.) Concerning these άπоμvnμ, and the earliest collections of the Gospel narratives (ó kúpios), the Diatessaron of Tatian, etc., comp. the Introductions to the N. T. [Gieseler, Ueber die Entstehung und frühesten Schicksale der Evangel. 1818. Lardner on the Credibility of the Gospel History. (Works, i. iv. v. to p. 251.) Norton on the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Supernatural Religion, new ed., London 1879, 3 vols. Archbp. Thomson, art. Gospels, in Smith's Dicty., and Pref. to Gospels in Speaker's Comm. Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, Camb. 5th ed.]

(4) Irenæus, Adv. Haer. iii. 11. 7, attempts to explain the number four on cosmico - metaphysical grounds: 'Eπcion 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 πνεῦμα ζωῆς κ.τ.λ. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 2. 5. Clement of Alex. in Euseb. vi. 13. Origen in Hom. i. in Johan., Opp. iv. p. 5. For further testimonies of antiquity, comp. the Introductions [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