(g) "The Assumption of Moses." Of this Apocalyptic work a large fragment only-in a Latin translation from the Greek-has been preserved, containing an address of Moses to Joshua. Its date is probably about 45 A. D., and the writer is considered by some to be a zealot on account of the "AntiPharisaic" tone. It is to this writing that Jude 9 most probably refers.

(h)"The Book of Jubilees," or "Little Genesis," is a free paraphrase, with fantastic additions, of Genesis and part of Exodus, originally written in Hebrew. It is probably a product of Rabbinic (? Pharisaic) teaching in the earlier half of the 1st century A.D.

(i) "The Sibylline Oracles." The greater portion of this strange collection of fictitious prophecies must have been composed by Christian writers. The earlier portions however are evidently of Jewish origin.

(3) The allusion to "Jannes and Jambres " in 2 Tim. iii. 8 is probably based upon a Jewish apo cryphal work dealing with legendary adventures attributed to Moses.

2. THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

A very different inquiry from that upon which we have just been occupied is presented by the History of the Canon of the New Testament. In the case of the Old Testament we have seen that the difficulties, which beset our knowledge of writings derived from a period extending over more than a thousand years, are complicated by the lack of evidence bearing upon the date of their individual recognition. But in turning to the Canon of the New Testament we have to deal with the literary work of a single generation; we are concerned with writings of whose existence in the Church, after the interval of a century, the evidence is, generally speaking, abundant and convincing.

The idea of a Canon of New Testament Scripture was only gradually developed. The books of the N. T. are chiefly incidental in character. Each was written for some special purpose. The writers shew no sign of following any uniform plan. They have apparently no thought that they are contributing to an authoritative collection of Scriptures. Neither in the form nor in the contents of their writings is there any trace of designed literary cooperation. Any theory of Apostolic collaboration, by which it could be supposed that the N. T. Canon was originally authoritatively issued or its use imposed upon the Church by the Apostolic circle, would be contradictory to the character of the books themselves. It would no less lack the support of any trustworthy testimony from the scanty records of the primitive Church.

During the first decades of the Church's history the need of a collection of Apostolic writings was not felt. (1) The Jewish Canon of Scripture seemed sufficient to supply the religious wants of the Christian community Our Lord had appealed to it as the foundation of His teaching and as the witness of His mission (e. g. Matt. v. 17; Lk. xxiv. 44; Joh. v. 39). The Apostles quoted it copiously, both in speeches and letters. The language and thought, which first gave expression to the Christian faith, had been steeped in the study of the Hebrew Scriptures.

(2) Again, by the side of oral teaching the value of writings in the Apostolic age would not at first be appreciated. Due weight needs to be given to the important factor of "oral tradition" in the earliest stages of Christian teaching. Its influence can even now be traced without difficulty. Beneath the agreement of the Synoptic Gospels we can discern the outlines of a common Evangelistic "tradition," which was preached in all the Churches. There are not wanting indications that the substance of Apostolic teaching must have followed some similar line of narrative (cf. St Peter, Acts ii. 14, &c., iii. 12, &c., iv. 8, &c., xiii. 16, &c.; and cf. 1 Cor. xi. 23-26, xv. 3-6). Indeed so long as eyewitnesses of the events of our Lord's Life and Death and Resurrection, and the hearers, followers and companions of the Apo

stles could personally testify to the truth of the Gospel message, so long would the oral witness be preferred to the written record.

(3) Perhaps, also, we ought to take into account the influence on the minds of many Christians of the belief that the Lord would shortly return and set up His kingdom on earth (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 2). In view of this impending consummation, the need of Apostolic writings was scarcely likely to present itself in any considerable degree.

But the lapse of time quickly demonstrated the insufficiency of merely oral teaching. For while Christian communities everywhere multiplied and the Church spread into far distant regions, the members of the Apostolic circle became fewer. The sacred tradition was committed to those who were not gifted with miraculous powers of memory or inspiration. There was every reason to fear that in the process of transmission the substance of the Apostolic message would suffer in accuracy and proportion by the omission or by the exaggeration of its details, or, as was perhaps most to be expected, by the interpolation of unauthorised and even legendary materials.

Before the first generation of Christians had passed away, the importance of securing an authentic record of the Gospel narrative had unquestionably made itself felt. Numerous narratives seem to have been written to meet the demands of the Christian converts (Luke i. 1-4). Those that had been written or that claimed to have been written by the hand, or with the special sanction, of members of the Apostolic circle, would soon acquire preeminent distinction. The veneration for such memoirs would increase, as the survivors of the Apostolic generation became fewer. During the first century it would have been natural-and it would not have been difficult-to procure from the principal survivors some degree of ratification for such narratives (cf. Joh. xxi. 24), and to separate them from less authentic compositions. It is only reasonable to presume that the early Christians would have based upon such well-ascertained foundation their preference for certain forms of the Gospel narrative. Some such recognition, however informal, will best account for the rapid and general acceptance, in the course of the next two or three generations, of our three Synoptist Gospels. The special scope and distinct character of the Fourth Gospel, while separating it in time and purpose from the Synoptist narratives, imply the writer's supposition that the contents of these were already familiar to his readers. For its claim to authoritative knowledge (Joh. xx. 30, 31, xxi. 24, 25) and its evident purpose of counteracting certain erroneous doctrines enhance the significance of the fact that its general plan, being supplementary to-and therefore in some measure dependent onan acquaintance with the three earlier Gospels, presupposes their recognised position in the Churches.

A corresponding interest was aroused to preserve the writings of the Apostles. Even letters which had their origin in some incident of passing or personal interest obtained a peculiar value, both from the position of the Apostles in the Christian community and from the recognition that to them had been granted the gift of Divine Inspiration. At quite an early period it would appear that unscrupulous men did not hesitate to seek their own advantage from the forgery of an Apostle's name (2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17). The Apostles employed letters as a means of instruction to the Churches. And although we have only one example of an Epistle issued by their collective authority (Acts xv. 22), it is evident that in their individual sphere of influence they wrote letters of instruction intended for systematic local circulation (e. g. 1 Thess. v. 27; 1 Cor. i. 2; Col. iv. 16). Undoubtedly many Apostolic letters perished (cf. 1 Cor. v. 9 and Col. iv. 16). But the importance of their contents, and the authority of the writers, led to many of them being carefully preserved. Those addressed to large Churches (e. g. at Philippi or Rome) or groups of Churches (e. g. 1 Cor., Eph., 1 Pet.) enjoyed a better chance of permanent survival than those addressed to individuals, partly on account of the greater notoriety which they quickly obtained, partly on account

of the greater number of copies which would be made of public letters as compared with those of merely private interest. Familiarity with their contents was produced by the repeated public reading of these letters in the general assembly and in the religious services of the Christian communities. Copies were transcribed both for public and private use; and in their rapid circulation through the Churches we gain an explanation of the influence which an Apostolic work quickly exerted over the language and thought of almost contemporary writers (cf. the resemblance between Rom. and i Pet., Jude and 2 Pet.). The liturgical use of Apostolic writings began at a very early time. In the absence of the Apostles and after their death these letters as well as other venerated writings were read aloud in the place of assembly (cf. Clem. Ep. ad Cor.).

This is probably the explanation of 2 Pet. iii. 16, where the writer of the passage clearly refers to a collection of Pauline Epistles, and expects his readers to be acquainted with them as embodying the teaching of the Apostle. There is no reason to suppose that the Christians of the earliest age had any idea of elevating Apostolic writings to a position of equal authority with the Canon of the Old Testa

ment.

A.D. 70-120. The Apostolic Fathers. The few and fragmentary Christian writings of the period immediately following upon the destruction of Jerusalem have been closely examined for the evidence which they may furnish respecting the existence or the authority of the N. T. writings. Being for the most part letters of simple exhortation, consolation, and warning, addressed in times of trouble to Christian communities, they have none of the precision of doctrinal treatises or of systematic argument. Their testimony to the N. T. Scriptures is all the more forcible from its indirect and incidental nature; for it shews that Apostolic writings were already widely known and closely studied.

(a) The Apostolic Fathers contain only two1 direct quotations from the writings of the N. I. They are each, however, of especial significance. Clement of Rome writing to the Church of Corinth (Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.) appeals to St Paul's 1st Ep. to Cor.: Polycarp writing to the Church at Philippi (cap. iii.) quotes St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. In each case it is obvious that the name of the Epistle is mentioned in connexion with and in honour of the Church which is being addressed. The Christian Bishop appeals to an Epistle of St Paul, in which he takes it for granted that the members of a Church will be especially interested. In each case the Epistle is cited by name because the writer, addressing the same Church as the Apostle, is confident, in appealing to that Epistle, that the readers will be as well acquainted with it as himself.

(b) The extant writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Barnabas present numerous coincidences of language with the books of the N. T. Thus, taking the Epistles first, Clement makes use of Rom., 1 Cor., Eph., 1 Tim. (?), Tit. (?), Heb., Jas.; Ignatius of 1 Cor., Eph., Phil. (?), 1 Thes. (?), Philem. (?); Polycarp of Acts, Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph. (?), Phil., 1, 2 Thes. (?), 1, 2 Tim., 1 Pet., 2 Pet. (?), 1 Joh. With the Gospels the coincidences are less frequent, but undoubted instances of coincidence can be found with the writing of St Matthew, and some probably with St Luke; the 4th Gospel was almost certainly known to Ignatius.

These coincidences not only testify to the existence of the N. T. writings at the beginning of the 2nd cent., but they shew that the leaders of the Christian Church were already accustomed to steep themselves in Apostolic teaching preserved in writings. The frequent recourse to the Apostolic phrases, especially in Polycarp's Epistle, implies the expectation on the part of the writer that he is employing language familiar to his readers, which, if suitable to his purpose, will come with greater force and authority than any words of his own.

1 "The direct mention of the Ep. to the Ephesians" by Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes. xii.) "is extremely doubtful." (See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, Vol. II. Sec. i. p. 23.)

The absence of any direct formula of citation in no way diminishes the value of the evidence of the Apostolic Fathers in the recognition of the N. T. books. For even in quotation from the books of the O. T. these writers customarily omitted it. At a time when the idea of a N. T. Canon had scarcely been formed, we should not naturally expect to find the formula which only occasionally precede quotation from the O. T. applied to Apostolic writings. When therefore in the Ep. of Barnabas (iv. 5) the formula "As it is written" introduces a quotation from St Matthew, it argues the peculiar veneration in which this writing was held.

No unprejudiced reader would be inclined to deny the force of the correspondences of language in the Apostolic Fathers with the books of the N. T., on the ground of small verbal divergences. It is unreasonable to repudiate this branch of evidence on the assumption either that the coincidence of language is fortuitous, or that the coincidence is due to literal correspondence with other Gospels and Epistles than those which have survived.

Altogether although we do not gather that any authoritative collection of N. T. books existed, the use that was so freely made of the Apostles' words shews that their writings were carefully treasured and studied. Especially noteworthy is the passage of Ignatius, in which (Ep. to Phil. viii.) "the Gospel" is mentioned by way of antithesis to "the archives" of the O. T. In another passage the words (Ep. to Phil. v.) "taking refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus and in the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church. Yea and we love the prophets also, &c." are doubtless best explained on the supposition that men had begun to regard the Gospel narrative and the writings of the Apostles as in some sense inspired repositories of divine teaching.

Although such expressions are sufficiently indefinite to include the substance of the oral teaching of the Church or even of Apocryphal Gospels, it may be claimed that the presumption is strongly favour of the view that reference is made to those writings, which each generation of the Church has handed down to its successors.

To this or to the beginning of the next period belong the "Shepherd of Hermas," the Remains of Papias, and the "Teaching of the Apostles." "The Shepherd of Hermas," which was perhaps written early in the 2nd cent., contains no direct quotation from O. T. or N. T. The language shews almost certain coincidences with 1 Cor., Eph., Jas., 1 Peter, the influence of the teaching of St James being especially noticeable. The writer seems to have been acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels; and there are some grounds for supposing that he was familiar with St John's Gospel and the Apocalypse. The testimony of Papias, Bp of Hierapolis, is of exceptional importance, partly because he was in all probability a disciple of the Apostle St John, partly because he is the first who alludes by name to the writers of the Gospels. His chief work, written apparently about 120, was An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, in 5 books, of which unfortunately only a few fragments have been preserved to us in the pages of Eusebius (Hist. Eccles.). Papias' work was not the formation of a new or improved Gospel, but an exposition of the recognised narratives, with illustrations from ecclesiastical traditions, respecting our Lord's life and teaching, which were not included in the recognised Gospel narratives. In the brief extant fragments he refers by name to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark. Eusebius, who was acquainted with his work, records that Papias quoted from 1 John and 1 Pet, and acknowledged the Apocalypse to be "divinely inspired." According to very probable testimony Papias referred also in his book expressly to the Gospel of St John.

The absence of any reference to St Luke and the Epp. of St Paul is strange. It is possible that at that early period in the history of the Christian Church the fusion of the Jewish and Gentile elements of the to abstain from the use of those Apostolic writings Church was still imperfect, and that Papias wished in which the spirit of Judaism was less pronounced.

At the same time no great stress need be laid upon the alleged omission. The extant remains of Papias are limited to a few lines, and there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that these fragments contain no allusion to one of the Gospels or even to one group of N. T. writings. The selection of such extracts as have been preserved is due to the special purpose of Eusebius. Any omission is to be tested by Eusebius' plan of only giving extracts from early writers so far as they were illustrative of their use of certain disputed books: and as in his own time the Pauline Epistles were not questioned, it is not to be expected that his extracts would supply any evidence as to their recognition by Papias.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Christian element of this strange work is probably to be assigned to this period. It contains no direct citation from a book in the N. T. It draws, however, very largely from St Matthew's Gospel, and clearly alludes to St Luke. Probable coincidences of language occur with 1 Cor., 1 Pet. and Jude, possibly also with Eph., 2 Pet. (?) and Apoc. The reference to "the Gospel" in such expressions as "the Lord commanded in His Gospel" (viii. 2), "according to the teaching of the Gospel" (xi. 3), "as ye have in the Gospel" (xv. 3, 4), when compared with the similar usage of Ignatius, seems to presuppose acquaintance with a Gospel narrative generally recognised in the Church. (?) 120-170. The Age of the Greek Apologists. The Christian literature of this period is of far more extended range than that of its predecessor. It marks the first real contact of the Christian with the heathen world. Christian writers contend for the existence of the Church, both in the defence of the Church against the abuse of secular power, and in the maintenance of Christian doctrine against the misrepresentations of Jewish foes and the perversions of the Gnostics.

The Epistle to Diognetus-an anonymous workconsists of two fragments, of which the latter portion is sometimes assigned to about 130, while the first part is possibly of yet earlier date. In both portions the influence of Johannine and Pauline teaching is indisputable. Although not containing any direct citations, it presents clear coincidences of language with St Matthew and the Acts, and allusions to the language of Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.; while the similarity of phraseology with Eph., Phil., 1 Tim., Tit., 1 Pet. renders it probable that these Epistles were also known to the writer.

Justin Martyr († circ. 148) was a Samaritan Greek by birth and for a considerable time a resident in Rome. In his references to the Gospel narrative he relies upon "the Memoirs of the Apostles." The general scope of these allusions corresponds with the contents of our Synoptic Gospels; and when we find in addition to this a general coincidence of language with the words used in the Synoptist narrative, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Gospels to which he refers were at any rate in the main our Canonical Gospels. Objections to this view, based upon the inexactness of his quotations, do not affect the accuracy of our main contention. For in most cases the verbal similarity with our Gospels is far more striking than the divergency. Again, the analogous inexactness of his quotations from the O. T. is sufficient to refute these objections; an investigation into them shews that he attached no special importance to literal accuracy in citation. It is a disputed question, whether he was acquainted with the fourth Gospel or not. All that can be said is, (a) that he refers to a doctrine of the Logos, (b) that the absence of any quotation from that Gospel in his writings would be more strange, if his allusions to Epistles which we know he accepted were less faint. The Apocalypse he quotes by name (Dial. §81); and his acquaintance with St Paul's Epistles is confirmed by clear coincidences of language with Rom., 1, 2 Cor., 1, 2 Thess., Col., Phil., I Tim. It is claimed that "the Catholic Epistles and the Epp. to Tit. and Philem. alone of the writings of the N. T. have left no impression on the genuine or doubtful works of Justin Martyr" (Westcott, Canon, p. 172).

The writings of Justin contain the first clear proof of the beginnings of a N. T. Canon. He records the fact that a collection of Apostolic writings was read along with the prophets in the religious services of the Christian Church on Sundays, and formed the subject of comment and practical exhortation. (See Apol. I. 67.)

From the hand of Dionysius, Bp of Corinth-a younger contemporary of Justin-we have a few important fragments (preserved by Eusebius), which contain allusions to St Matt., 1 Thess., Apoc. His evidence is important as shewing that at Corinth the Ep. of Clement was publicly read in the Churches. Now as that Epistle appeals to St Paul's Ep. to Cor., we may feel practically certain that Pauline Epistles were read in Dionysius' time in the public services. Dionysius' language points also to the recognition of Christian Scriptures. He speaks of them as "the Scriptures of the Lord," and denounces any attempt to adulterate them.

The Fragments of Melito, Bp of Sardis (circ. 170), contain clear traces of the influence of St John's teaching and writings, preserve allusions to various N.T. books, and testify to the use of N. T. Scriptures in Christian worship.

The writings of Theophilus, Bp of Antioch (circ. 170), shew acquaintance with our four Gospels, and contain clear coincidences of language with most of the Pauline Epp., Heb., 1 Pet., and very possibly with 2 Pet. His testimony is also of importance on account of his declaration that the writers of the N. T. books were divinely inspired.

A few extracts from the Memoirs of Hegesippus (who died about 180) contain allusions to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke, and possibly of St John, but their interest for our purpose lies chiefly in the separation which he makes between "the Gospels" and Apocryphal writings.

At this point we may notice the so-called Muratorian Fragment on the Canon published by Muratori at Milan in 1740. This is a Latin MS. of the 7th or 8th cent., apparently the translation of a Greek document, which purported to come from the hand of a contemporary of Pius, Bp of Rome (circ. 139-154). It probably represents the opinion of the Roman Church on the subject of the N. T. Scriptures in the latter part of the 2nd century. In its unmutilated condition the Fragment, which opens with the last words of a sentence referring to St Mark's Gospel, almost certainly began with a mention of St Matthew. It speaks of St John's as the fourth Gospel, and remarks upon the unity and inspiration of the Gospel narratives. The Acts are mentioned as the work of St Luke. The Fragment enumerates 13 Epistles of St Paul, those to Churches in the order of 1, 2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., 1, 2 Thess., Rom., and those to individuals in the order of Philem., Tit., 1, 2 Tim. Two Epistles are expressly excluded on the ground of their being forged "in the name of Paul," one to the Laodicenes, the other to the Alexandrians. The Epistle of St Jude and two Epp. of St John (probably 2nd and 3rd) are also acknowledged. The Apocalypses of St John and St Peter are also received, but it is added that "some" objected to the latter being read in the Church. The Shepherd of Hermas is excluded from the Apostolic writings, and certain Apocryphal compositions are denounced. It may be taken for granted that the omission of 1 Pet. and 1 Joh. is due to the mutilated condition of the Fragment, since the genuineness of these Epp. was at this time practically undisputed. It may be questioned whether the omission of Heb. and Jas. is not to be accounted for in the same way. The Apocalypse of Peter is the only book here acknowledged which is not found in our Canon; and the mention of doubts as to its rightful position tacitly recognises the authority of the other writings.

Further important testimony as to the extent of the N. T. Scriptures recognised about this date in the Churches of the E. and W. is supplied by the two early versions, Syriac and Latin, which contained the books most usually read in the Christian services.

The Peshitto or Syriac Version of the N. T. was

probably made for the Syrian Church of Edessa and the neighbouring district about the middle of the 2nd cent. In its earliest form it seems to have included all the books of our N. T. Canon with the exception of 2, 3 John, 2 Pet., Jude and the Apocalypse. The interest of this version is increased when we remember that the language represents the vernacular spoken in Palestine at the time of the Apostles.

The Old Latin Version, which represents the testimony of the early African Church (not the Roman, in which Greek was the prevalent language for the first two or three centuries), seems to have existed late in the second century. The only books wanting in it are Heb., Jas., 2 Pet.

The testimony of these two versions deserves especial attention. (a) It represents the official and public approbation of Churches; (b) of the books included in our Canon only one (i. e. 2 Pet.) is not found in either Eastern or Western N. T.; (c) no Apocryphal book is introduced; (d) the translations illustrate the need that was felt of extending to foreign Churches the knowledge of the Greek Apostolic writings recognised as sacred and authoritative.

The evidence to be obtained from this period would be incomplete without some notice of the confirmatory testimony supplied by the chief heretical systems. The heretics, who represent partial views of Christian teaching, constantly sought to recommend their position by appeals to Apostolic writings, which they could safely assume would be received by all. If therefore their range of Scripture is limited, it is commended to us on grounds of special security, and is assured to us by the very conditions of heretical approbation.

The teaching of the Ophites-one of the earliest heretical systems-offers undoubted witness to St John's Gospel; and extracts from their writings shew acquaintance also with St Matt. and St Luke, with Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph. and possibly also to Heb. and Apoc. Those Ebionites, who are represented by the Clementine Homilies, were animated by the utmost hatred of St Paul, but accepted a form of Gospel narrative. Basilides, an Egyptian, writing in Hadrian's reign (117-138), although availing himself of independent sources of tradition, clearly refers (in the extracts preserved by Hippolytus) to St Matt., St Luke, St John, Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Eph., Col. and 1 Pet. (?). His reference to St John is especially noteworthy as probably the earliest direct allusion to the 4th Gospel. Valentinus, who flourished in Egypt shortly after Basilides, seems to have accepted the Scriptures of the Christian Church; and Heracleon, his friend and disciple, wrote the earliest known commentary on N. T. writings, which certainly included St Luke and St John. Fragments of Heracleon's Commentary found in the writings of Origen and Clement reveal a belief in the inspiration of the N. T. Scriptures and the early custom of ranking them with the O.T. Ptolemaeus, another follower of Valentinus, appears to have made use of our Four Gospels and of the Pauline Epp., Rom., 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Col.

The sect of the Marcosians seems to have been familiar with the Four Gospels, and probably also with the Apocalypse.

With Marcion of Sinope, who taught at Rome about 140, is associated the first formation of a Canon of Apostolic writings. In his hostility to Judaism he not only excluded the O. T., but also selected for his purpose only such Apostolic writings as appeared to him free from taint of Judaism. With this idea he accepted as his Gospel a revision or modification of St Luke, and as Epistles the Pauline Epp. Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom., 1, 2 Thess., Laodicenes (Ephes.), Col., Philem., Phil. (the order according to Tertullian). The fact of Marcion having selected a Canon out of the books recognised by the Church is proof that Apostolic writings were at that period widely known, and suggests the probability that in his time a Canon of N.T. Scripture existed in certain Churches. Tatian, an Assyrian and a disciple of Justin Martyr,

is said to have adopted like Marcion a Canon of his own. His extant work "An Address to the Greeks" contains allusions to St Matt., St John, Rom., 1 Cor., Apoc.; and other fragments shew his acceptance of Gal., Eph., Tit. His greatest work was the "Diatessaron," a harmony of the Four Gospels. The attempt to prove that this could not refer to our Four Gospels has recently been exploded by the publication of the Armenian Version of Ephrem Syrus' (+243) Commentary on Tatian's Díatessaron, which includes passages from the Four Gospels and the Acts.

The Montanist movement, which took its rise in Phrygia about the middle of the 2nd cent. and spread very extensively, was based in its simplest form on the recognition of the special operation of the Holy Spirit as the "Paraclete," an undoubted proof of the use and influence of the fourth Gospel. Accused of subverting Christian doctrine, the Montanists defended themselves by the assertion that the New Revelation of the Paraclete was supplementary to, not subversive of, the Apostolic teaching: this defence implied the recognised authority of the Apostolic writings. The Alogi, who may possibly be identified with the extreme opponents of Montanism, rejected St John's Gospel and Apocalypse probably as countenancing too strongly the doctrine of spiritual gifts. The fact that they ascribed the 4th Gospel to Cerinthus is interesting; for in support of their view they could not appeal to any tradition, but rested their opinion upon internal evidence.

Celsus, the chief literary opponent of Christianity in the 2nd cent. (circ. 170), appears to have quoted the Four Gospels as authoritative records of the life of Christ and to have made use of Gal., 1 Cor., 2 Thess., 1 Tim.

To sum up the evidence. Within a hundred years from the destruction of Jerusalem the chief Apostolical writings had been collected, read in the Churches, and regarded as inspired. Of the Canonical Books of our N. T. only one, i.e. 2 Peter, has so far failed to receive satisfactory testimony. The position of the Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Epp. of St Paul, 1 Pet., 1 John, and, so far as we can see, Apocalypse, was at the close of this period that of authoritative Scripture. Concerning the other books, Heb., Jas., 2, 3 John, Jude, doubts in some quarters were entertained; and in their case it may be noted (a) that Heb. and Jas. seem to be referred to in the earliest Christian writing (Clem. Rom.); (b) that the local doubts respecting them turned upon the question of their Apostolicity (c) that 2, 3 Joh. and Jude from their brevity and limited range may well have escaped observation or failed to obtain wide circulation, and are not opportune for purposes of citation. The obscurity in which 2 Pet. remained must apparently have been due either to the peculiar nature of its contents or to some special circumstances, which retarded its early dissemination.

170-303. From the Time of Irenæus to the Persecution of Diocletian. The important writings of this period, which mark the new intellectual ascendency of the Church, illustrate from different quarters of the Christian world the general, though not absolutely uniform, agreement which prevailed respecting the range of the N. T. Scriptures.

The Churches of Gaul. The Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (Euseb. H. E. v. 1), written immediately after the persecution of Antoninus Verus (177) to "the brethren in Asia and Phrygia," contains unmistakable allusions to St Luke, St John, Acts, Rom., Cor., Eph., Phil., 1 Tim., 1 Pet., 1 John, Apoc. Pothinus, the Bishop of Lyons, who perished, at the great age of 90, in this persecution, formed a link with the Apostolic age. He is said to have derived his Christian teaching from the disciples of St John.

Irenæus, Bp of Lyons, born in Asia Minor about 120, as the disciple of Polycarp, the pupil of St John, and as the friend and successor of Pothinus, in a very direct manner inherited the traditions of the Apostolic generation. He seems also to have enjoyed an intimate acquaintance with the customs and condition of the Church in Rome. His testimony

therefore demands especial attention, representing as it does tradition from Apostolic times and acquaintance with the usages of three groups of Christian communities, Asiatic, Roman and Gallican. His chief work "Against Heresies," written about 180, may fairly claim to embody the orthodox views of the Church of his day. In his writings allusions are made, it is asserted, to every book of the N. T. except Philem., Jas., 2 Pet., 3 Joh., Jude, books which from their brevity may either have afforded no material for purposes of reference or have failed to secure as yet any widespread recognition. Fanciful as were his views respecting the symbolism of the number "four," his mention of the "quadruple gospel," which must clearly be identified with the four Canonical Gospels, implies that their especial recognition had long been established (c. Hær. III. 11. 8). His quotations from the N. T. are made in the same way as from the O. T. Writing with exceptional knowledge of Christian controversies, his language respecting the authority of Scripture would reflect the deliberate opinion of the Church in his lifetime.

The Church of Alexandria. Titus Flavius Clemens (165-220) succeeded Pantænus in the presidency of the celebrated school of theological instruction at Alexandria. He appears by his usage to acknowledge the authoritative character of all the books of our N. T. with the exception of Jas., 2 Pet., 3 John. His work entitled "Outlines" is stated by Cassiodorus († 576) to have included notes on the Catholic Epistles 1 Pet., Jas.1, 1, 2 John. He was of opinion that the Ep. to the Hebrews was to be received as a Greek translation by St Luke of the writing of St Paul. Clement freely alludes in his writings to the works of Clemens Romanus, Shepherd of Hermas, Ep. of Barnabas, Apoc. of Peter, &c., but though acquainted with their contents he does not recognise them in the same way as the Apostolic Scriptures. He frequently refers to the Apocalypse of St John, and we possess in Latin his notes on the 2nd Epistle. He nowhere refers to Jas. or 2 Pet. Origen (186-253), who succeeded Clement in the superintendence of the Catechetical school (203), contributes by his matchless learning, persevering labours and extensive journeys something more than the evidence of a single Alexandrian scholar. He acknowledges the sacred authority of the same books as Clement had received. He is the first to refer by name to Jas., although not as if he held it to be of Canonical authority. He refers to Jude, but implies that its position was disputed. The Ep. to Heb. he pronounces to be "Pauline in thought but not in language and style," and therefore prefers to withhold his opinion on the matter of its authorship: "Who it was who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly." He quotes the Apocalypse as Apostolical in origin and canonical in authority. He alludes to Clem. Rom., Shepherd of Hermas and Ep. of Barnabas; but although he may have read and recognised them for private use, there is no evidence that he considered them of equal rank with the Scriptures of the N. T.

His recognition of the Apostolical Scriptures as standing on a footing of complete equality with the writings of the O. T. is shewn by the phrase "the Scriptures believed by us to be divine both of the Old and of the New Covenant" (De Princip. IV. 1).

Dionysius, one of Origen's successors in the school of Alexandria, and afterwards Bishop of the same place (248), appears in a fragment of his writings (preserved by Eusebius) to have regarded Heb. as a Pauline Epistle; he also quotes Jas. and implies that he acknowledges 2, 3 John. His testimony, however, is chiefly remarkable for the fact, that in his writings we first find expressions of doubt respecting the Apocalypse. Apparently he accepted its Canonicity and acknowledged its inspiration, but

1 But the extant (Latin) "Outlines" shew that James is wrongly

mentioned by Cassiod. for Jude.

2 We cannot place any confidence in the genuineness of the quotations from 2 Pet. occurring in the Latin Version of his Homilies.

on the ground of its style denied it to be the work of St John. His opinion, though unsupported by any external evidence, is of special interest as affording proof, (a) that the limits of the Canon were not yet fixed, and (b) that great freedom of criticism was permitted and exercised at that early time, and that hence the admission of books into the Canon was no mere automatic process of blind veneration for reputedly Apostolic works. The Churches of North Africa. Tertullian's writings belong to the close of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century. His later works were written after he had embraced Montanism. He appeals, as to inspired Scripture, to the Four Gospels, the Acts, 13 Epp. of St Paul, 1 John, 1 Pet. The Apocalypse he quotes without expressing any doubt as to its Apostolic origin or claim to Canonicity. Jude he once quotes as an Apostolic work. "Hebrews" he considers to be the work of Barnabas, and, although placing it above "the Shepherd of Hermas," does not include it among the N. T. Scriptures. He shews no sign of being acquainted with Jas., 2, 3 John, 2 Pet.

Tertullian's position is reproduced by Cyprian, Bp of Carthage († 256), who makes no use of the disputed Epistles but constantly refers to the Apocalypse. The Church of Rome. The testimony of this Church is sufficiently represented by the Muratorian Fragment (referred to above, p. 11), and by Hippolytus, Bp of Portus, who in the early part of the 3rd cent. defended the Canonicity of St John's Gospel and the Apocalypse.

The Churches of Asia Minor. It will be remembered that of the disputed books Irenæus, who represents the tradition of Asia Minor, recognised 2 John and Apoc. Gregory of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus (cire. 230), who seems to have known Jas., and Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (circ. 250), who seems to allude to 2 Pet., represent the influence of Origen's teaching. Methodius, Bp of Lycia († 311), an opponent of Origen, acknowledges the Apocalypse, and shews acquaintance with Heb., though not esteeming it of Pauline authorship.

The Syrian Churches. The Christian Church of this region is represented by the Peshitto Version (see above, p. 11), which omits of our Canon Jas., 2, 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse, but includes all the other writings. Serapion, Bp of Antioch (190), who found a "Gospel of Peter" in use at Rhossus in Cilicia, although not prohibiting its being read, criticised its character by the light of the recognised writings of the Apostles.

Pamphilus, a learned presbyter of Cæsarea, who perished in the persecution of Diocletian (307), is the last name that we need record in this period. There is good evidence to shew that he recognised Heb. as a Pauline Epistle, accepted the Apocalypse, and acknowledged seven Catholic Epistles.

In conclusion it appears that at the beginning of the 4th century all the books of the N. T. were known in the Churches of Alexandria and Cæsarea, but that doubts respecting 2, 3 John, 2 Pet. hindered their complete recognition. In the Churches of Rome and Africa, Jas. and 2 Pet. had not yet been acknowledged, and the Ep. to the Heb. was excluded from the Pauline writings. The Apocalypse was generally received, except in the Syrian Churches and by Dionysius of Alexandria.

Very striking is the unbroken unanimity in the acceptance of the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Epp. of St Paul, 1 Joh., 1 Pet. The doubts regarding the Canonicity of the disputed books are based upon the uncertainty as to their Apostolic origin. Of the shorter of these Epp. it is possible to assume that they escaped observation rather than called for unfavourable criticism.

From the Persecution of Diocletian (303) to the Close of the Canon. It was needful that the tradition thus generally established throughout the Church should receive some final sanction. Hitherto indeed the tendency towards a uniform Canon of Scripture does not appear to have produced any attempt at rigid definition. The persecution of Diocletian gave the