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.

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 Ilist. 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.]

2

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, 1. 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 droμvпμovεvμaтa of the Apostles, were also called evayyéλia. But it has been questioned whether we are to understand by evayyéλia the four canonical gospels; see Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. (Against him, Semisch, Denkw. des Justin, Hamb. 1848.) Concerning these droμvnu., and the earliest collections of the Gospel-narratives (ó Kéocoç), 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: Ἐπειδὴ 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 πVεvμA Šwns 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].

'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. [Lardner, Works, ii. 91–93, 236, 250, 251; iv. 97, 106, 131, 463; viii. 524– 535. 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 Denkwür digkeiten. On the Gospels of Marcion see the treatises of Franck (Studien und Kritiken, 1855), and Volckmar, Das Evang. Marcion's, Leipz. 1952.

[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 Josu 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. 2d. ed. Andov. 1833. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce, where the literature is given.] '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.] 9 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.

Sormtag, 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, Studien und Kritiken, 1859, 1860; and, Zur Dogmatik, 1863.

That the prophets and apostles taught under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was the universal belief of the ancient church, founded in the testimony of Scripture itself.' But this living idea of inspiration was by no means confined to the written letter. The Jews, indeed, had come to believe in the verbal inspiration of their sacred writings, before the canon of the New Testament was completed, at a time when, with them, the living source of prophecy had ceased to flow. This theory of verbal inspiration may have been, in its external form, mixed up to some extent with the heathen notions concerning the μavtikń (art of soothsaying),' but it did not spring from them. It showed itself in an adventurous form in the fable about the origin of the Septuagint version, which was current even among many Christian writers.' The fathers, however, in their opinions respecting inspiration, wavered between a more and less strict view. Verbal inspiration is throughout referred by them more distinctly to the scriptural testimonies found in the Old, rather than in the New Testament ; and yet we already find very positive testimonies as to the inspiration of the latter. They frequently appeal to the connection existing between the Old and the New Testaments,' consequently implying that the two parts of Scripture belong together. Origen goes to the opposite extreme, and maintains that there had been no sure criterion of the inspiration of the Old Testament before the coming of Christ; that this inspiration only follows from the Christian point of view. All, however, insisted on the practical importance of the Scripture, its richness of Divine wisdom clothed in unadorned simplicity, and its fitness to promote the edification of believers.'

2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 19-21.

2 Philo was the first writer who transferred the ideas of the ancients concerning the pavTIKη (comp. Phocylides, v. 121, Plutarch, De Pythia Oraculis, and De Placitis Philosophorum, v. 1), to the prophets of the O. Test. (De Spec. Legg. iii. ed. Mangey, ii. 343, Quis div. rerum Her; Mangey, i. 510, 511; De Præm. et Pœn. ii. 417, comp. Gfrörer, l. c. p. 54, ss. Dähne, 1. c, p. 58). Josephus, on the other hand, adopts the more limited view of verbal inspiration, Contra Apion, i. 7, 8. [For a full view of the opinions. of Philo and Josephus, see Lee, u. s. Append. F.] The influence of heathenism is wholly denied by Schwegler (Montan. p. 101 sq.); against this, Semisch, Justin Mart. ii. p. 19; Baumgarten-Crusius, Comp. ii. p. 52 and 53, with the remarks of Hase. At any rate," the Jewish and heathen notions of prophecy only gave the forms, into which flowed the church idea of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures." The idea of the pavrikh was carried out in all its consequences by one section of the Christian church, viz., the Montanists, who attached chief importance to the unconscious state of the person filled with the Spirit, comp. Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 99. Allusions to it are also found in the writings of some fathers, especially Athenagoras, Leg. c. 9.

Κατ ̓ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου πνεύματος. Comp. Tert. Advers. Marc. iv. c. 22. Origen speaks very decidedly against it; Contra Cels. vii. 4. Opp. i. p. 596.

'The fable given by Aristeas was repeated with more or less numerous additions and embellishments by other writers, comp. Josephus, Antiq. xii. c. 2. Philo, De Vita Mos. 660. Stahl, in Eichhorn's Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur, i. p. 260, ss. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. § 159-338. Rosenmüller, Handbuch für Litteratur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese, ii. p. 334, ss. Jahn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. § 33–67. Berthold, § 154-190. De Wette, i. p. 58. Münscher, Handbuch, i. p. 307, ss. Gfrörer, p. 49. Dähne, i. 57, ii. 1, ss. [Davidson, S., Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Edinb. 1839, p. 35-44. The same in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literat. art. Septuagint.] According to Philo, even the grammatical errors of the LXX. are inspired, and offer welcome material to the allegor ical interpreter, Dähne, i. p. 58. Comp. Justin M. Coh. ad Græc. c. 13. Irenæus, iii. 21. Clem. of Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 410. Clement perceives in the Greek version of the original the hand of Providence, because it prevented the Gentiles from pleading ignorance in excuse of their sins, Strom. i. 7, p. 338.

• Philo had already taught degrees in inspiration, comp. De Vita, Mos. iii. (Tom. ii., p. 161, ed. Mangey). The apostolical Fathers speak of inspiration in very general terms; in quoting passages from the O. Test., they use indeed the phrase: λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, or similar expressions, but they do not give any more definite explanation regarding the manner of this inspiration. Comp. Clement of R. in several places; Ignat. ad Magn. c. 8, ad Philadelph. c. 5, etc. Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis, § 16. Justin M. is the first author in whose writings we meet with a more definite, doctrinal explanation of the process, in the locus classicus, Cohort. ad Græc. § 8 : Οὔτε γὰρ φύσει οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώσκειν ἀνθρώποις δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα κατελθούση δωρεᾷ, οἷς οὐ λόγων ἐδέησε τέχνης, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἑριστικῶς τι καὶ φιλονείκως εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, ἵν ̓ αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, ὥστπερ ὀργάνῳ κιθάρας τινὸς ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν θείων ἡμῖν καὶ οὐρανίων ἀποκαλύψῃ γνῶσιν· διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ὥσπερ ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος καὶ μιᾶς γλωττης καὶ περὶ θεοῦ, καὶ περὶ κόσμου κτίσεως, καὶ περὶ πλάσεως ἀνθρώπου, καὶ περὶ ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον μελ λούσης ἔσεσθαι κρίσεως, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστιν εἰδέναι, ἀκολούθως καὶ συμφώνως ἀλλήλοις ἐδίδαξαν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ταῦτα διαφόροις τόποις τε καὶ χρόνοις τὴν θείαν ἡμῖν διδασκαλίαν παρεσχηκότες. Whether Justin here maintains a pure passivity on the part of the writer, or whether the peculiar structure of the instrument, determining the tone, is to be taken into consideration, see Semisch, p. 18, who identifies the view of Justin and the Montanistic; Schwegler; Montanism, p. 101; and Neander, Dogmengesch. p. 99. [" Justin transfers the Platonic relation of the Νοῦς to the νοερόν in man, to the relation of the λόγος to the σπέρμα λογικόν, the human reason allied to the divine.”] From the conclusion at which Justin arrives, it is also apparent that he limits inspiration to what is religious, to what is necessarv