NOTES ON NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOIIY. BY / JOSEPH ADDISON ^LEXANDER, D. D. NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 1867. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1860, By CHARLES SCEIBNER, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for tho Southern District of New York. JOHN P. TROW, PRINTER, STEREOTYPER, AND ELECTROTYPER, 43 & 50 Grceno Street. PEEFAOE. The two fragments presented in this volume, include all that Dr. Alexander left in a condition fit for the press, of his remarkable Biblical and Historical Lectures. It had long been his purpose to write out these Lectures on Old and Kew Testa- ment History and Literature, but two causes ope- rated to prevent this : First, the pressure of his professional labours. Including the preparation of his Commentaries ; and secondly, the rapid strides he was constantly making in the knowledge of his subjects, never brought him to the point when he could satisfy his own mind that he was ready to print. It was this fact that gave such vivacity and originality to his instructions, his lectures to each succeeding class being the outpouring of his IV PREFACE. own acquisitions. These fragments alone remain to us. The brief skeletons of his biblical research, although covering hundreds of pages, could hardly be arranged, and never filled out, by any living man. I have felt some hesitation in printing beyond § 401, on account of its unfinished condition, but hoping that even these notes may be suggestive to the student of Ecclesiastical History, I concluded to insert them. S. D. A. New York, Nov. CONTENTS NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUKE. Statement of subject, Definitions, Etymologies, Literature in general, Specific applications. Sacred Literature, . The name Bible, Scripture, Biblical and Scriptural, Biblical Literature, . Its wider application, Interpretation to be exclud ed. Narrow application, History of the science, Uses of the study, . Isagogical theory and meth od, Home's scheme. Usual division. Historical method, . The two compared, . Division of the whole sub ject, Old and New Testament, Grounds for the distinction Objection answered, Order to be observed, New Testament Literature, Twofold method, German Introductions, Guericke and Reuss, Historical arrangement, BECTION 1 2-4 5 G V 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 80 31, 32 . 33 SECTION Isagogical arrangement, . 34 Topics of General Introduc- tion, . . .35 Seven preliminary ques- tions, . . 36-39 Objection answered, . 40 Proposed arrangement, 41, 42 Proposed reduction by elimi- nation, . . .43 Remaining topics, . . 44 Intermediate topic, . . 45 New Testament Canon, . 46 Definitions and Etymologies, 47 Question stated — Twofold method, . . .48 First fact, . . .49 Second fact, . . 50 Authority ascribed to Fa- thers and Councils, . 51 This testimony confirmed, . 52 Testimony of Athanasius, . 53 Gregory of Nazianzen — Cyril of Jerusalem — Council of Laodicea, . . .54 Canon of Eusebius, . . 55 " Origen, . . 56 *' Cyprian — Clemens Alexandrinus — Irenaeus, . 51 Muratori Canon — Peshito, . 58 Testimony beyond this point, 59 No secondary Canon, . 60 Doubtful Books, . .61 VI CONTENTS. SECTION Uniformity of Explanation necessary, . . G2 Doubts respecting Epistle to the Hebrews, . . G3 Doubts respecting Epistle of James, . . . 6-1 The four smaller Catholic Epistles, . . .05 The Apocalypse, . . 66 General result of this exami- nation, . . .07 Books excluded by settle- ment of the Canon, , 08 The second topic of General Introduction, . . 69 Four leading questions, . 70 First question, What is the original Language of New Testament? . .71 Second, Why was New Tes- tament written in differ- ent Language from Old Testament? . . 72 Its most satisfactory solu- tion, . . .73 Objection to this and its an- swer, . . .7-1 Twofold answer to third question, why the Greek Language was selected, . 75 Preparation of this Lan- guiige for Christian Reve- lation, . . .76 Tl>o fourth question, . 77 ComparaUve Philology, . 78 Classification of Languages, 79 Difference between these families of Languages, . 80 The true relation between Greek and Latin, , .81 Their origin still in doubt, . 82 Difference of the Greek and Roman greatness, . 83 Greek Dialects, . . 84 How they differ, . . 85 Macedonian Ascendancy, . 86 A!ex:nidria, . . .87 SECTION The Jews brought in contact with the Greeks, . Ilellen — Hellas, Hellenist applied to the Jews Hellenistic Dialect, . Hellenistic Literature, The depositories of Hellenis- tic Literature, The Septuagint, Josephus's origin of Septua- gint. Discrepancies in this ac- count, The oldest undisputed testi- mony. Question as to the extent of the Ti^mslation, . The most valuable part of the Pentateuch, . How regarded by the Jews before the Advent, Other Greek versions, Extreme opinions — Grin- field's doctrine, . How supported, Answer to these arguments, The true mean between these extremes, . Twofold use of Septuagint — Old Testament use, Uses with respect to New Testament, Uses with respect to quota- tions. Its philological relation to the New Testament, Its technical use. Best mode of studying the Septuagint, Best helps for such a study. Old Testament Apocrypha, Their uses, . Their division into classes. How defined — their admis- sion to the Septuagint, Tiioir differences. CONTENTS. Vll SECTION How to bo used by students of the New Testament, .118 Writings of Philo and Jose- phus, . . . 119 History of Philo, . .120 The character of his learning, 121 The value of his Avri tings, . 122 History of Josephus — his first work, . .123 His second great work, . 124 A third work still extant, . 125 His testimony in respect to Christ, . . .126 The language in which he wrote, . . .127 Apostohc Fathers, . .128 Clement of Rome, . . 129 Barnabas, Epistle of, . 130 Hermas, . . .131 Polycarp, . . .132 Ignatius, . . .133 Papias, . . .134 Epistle to Diognetus, .135 These works entitled to at- tention, . . .136 New Testament Apocrypha, 137 Gospels of the Hebrews, Egyptians, Peter, &c., . 138 Gospel of Nicodemus — Acts of Pilate, . . .139 Comparison with Old Testa- ment Apocrypha, . 140 Their bearing on the ques- tion of the Canon, . 141 SECTION Their philological use, . 142 The Greek of the New Testa- ment, ■. . .143 The Revival of Letters, . 144 Was not a religious move- ment, . . .145 The Biblical Humanists, . 146 Erasmus, . . . 147 Beza — Henry Stephens, . 148 Opposition to their views, . 148 A reaction, . . . 149 Hebraists and Purists, . 150 An incidental good from this controversy, . .151 Ernesti— Winer, . 152, 153 Difference between Idiom and Dialect, . .154 New Theory developed by Thiersch, . . .155 Contrasted with Winer's doc- trine, . . . 156 Hellenistic inferior to Attic Dialect, . . . 1.57 Conclusion of latest German Writers, . . .158 The way of investigating the Dialect, . .159 Lexicoais, &c., . . IGO Grammatik des Neutcsta- mentichen Sprachidioms of Winer,. . .101 Green's treatise of New Tes- tament Grammar, . 162 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. SECTION Important preliminaries to this study, . . 1 Two preliminary questions, 2 Etymology of terms the first thing, . . .3 Etymology of EngUsh word History — its definition, 4 One exception, . . 5 Distinction between Objec- tive and Subjective His- tory, . . .6 An example of this, . 7 Subjective History — its defi- nition, . . .8 Can never be exhausted, 9 All History eclectic, . 10 Elimination and division of History, . . .11 What is meant by Elimina- tion, . . .12 What is to be eliminated from History, . .13 How elimination differs from division, . . .14 Division either mechanical or rational, . .15 Civil and Religious History, 10 History of the Church, 17 Definition of Church History, 18 Etymology of the word Church, . . 19, 20 The use of this ni-cclc v/ord in the Classics and the Bible, . . .21 The widest application of the phrase "Church His- tory," . . .22 The early existence of the Church, . . .23 The promise of a Saviour (Gen. 3, 15), . . 24 How this promise gives com- plexion to Church His- tory, . . .25 The extent of Church His- tory, . . .26 Its division into Biblical and Ecclesiastical, . 27, 28 The difference between them essential — one inspired, the other uninspired, 29 Subdivision of Biblical His- tory into Old Testament and New Testament His- tory, . . .30 The three divisions of Church History, Old Testament, New Testament, and Ec- clesiastical, unequal in , chronological dimensions, 31 Ecclesiastical History, . 32 Its relation to Biblical or Sacred History, . . 33 The relation of Ecclesiastical CONTENTS. IX SECTION History to other sciences or fields of knowledge, 34 Its relation to Geography, Chronology, and Archieol- ogy, . . .35 Historical Geography, . 30 Chronology, . . 37 Uses of Historical Chronol- ogy, . . .38, 39 Archaeology, 40 Cannot be separated from History, . . 41, 42 Limitation of Archaeology, 43 Auxiliary Studies — Statistics — Diplomatics, and Histor- ical Philosophy. . . 44 Utility of History in general, 45 Abuse of the Maxim, " His- tory is Philosophy teach- ing by Examples," . 46 Benefits of Ecclesiastical His- tory, . . . 4*7, 48 Salutary moral influences of the study of History, . 49 The sources and materials of Ecclesiastical History, 50 Uninspired, numerous, and diversified, . .51 Have been divided into Mon- umental and Documen- tary, . . .52 What the first class includes, 53 The authorities of this class are originals, . .54 The arch of Titus and an- cient Christian tombs ex- amples, . . .55 Not as abundant as Docu- mentary, . . .56 Division of Documentary History into Private or Personal, Public or Offi- cial, . . .61 Definition of Public Docu- ments, . . .58 Documents of the first au- thority, . . .59 SECTION The extent of these mate- rials, . . .60 An inferior class, . . 61 Their extent, . . 62 A third class, . . 63 Symbolical Books, Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, &c., . . .64 Ancient Liturgies, . . 65 Rules and Statutes of Reli- gious bodies, . . 66 The Catalogue of materials not exhausted, . .6*7 Definition of Private Docu- ments, . . .68 The highest class of these, 69 Another class, . . 70 A residuary class, . . '71 This class not to be under- rated, . . . 72 Who have used these mate- rials, . . 73, 74, 75 The first three centuries al- most a blank in works on Ecclesiastical History, . 76 Works of Hegesippus, . 77 Julius Africanus, . .78 Not extant, . . .79 Why Ecclesiastical History was neglected at this pe- riod, . . 80, 81, 82 Eusebius and his writings, 83, 84 Epiphanius — Philostorgius — Sidetes, . . .85 Socrates — Sozomcn — Thco- doret, , . .86 Theodorus — Evagrius, . 87 Histories of the Latin Church mere translations — Sulpi- cius Severus — Orosius — Rufinus — Cassiodorus, . 88 Byzantine Historians, . 89 Effect of the subjugation of Western Roman Empire upon historical works, 90 William of Tyre — Matthew Paris, . . .90 CONTENTS. BECTION Beda ■ . 91 Gregory of Tours Venerabilis, Church History debased by increase of superstition, The lowest ebb of historical knowledge in the age be foi'e the Reformation, Revival of Letters, . Relation of historical knowl edge to Reformation Polemical writings of the great reformers — in what sense historical, . The first complete Ecclesias- tical History — a product of Lutheran Reformation, 97 Flacius, . . .98 His scheme of associated labour, . . 99, 100 The first appearance of the work, . . .101 Its effect upon the age, 102, 103 Its effect upon the Church of Rome, . Baronius, His " Annals," Reprinted several times, These works the parents of a vast and varied Literature, FraPaoli, . Morinus — Petavius — Tilli- mont — R. Simon — Fleury — Natalis Alexander, Bossuet, Ilottingcr — Spanheim — the Bassnages — Daill6 — Blon- del — Salmasius, . Usher — Pearson — Bcveridgo —Burnet — Dodwell — Cave — Bull — Bingham, Scheme of Calixtus, Spener — Seckendorf — a new method of writing Church History, . Pushed to extreme by God- frey Arnold, The Historians of the latter 92 9-1 95 9G 104 105 106 lOY 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 enCTION half of eighteenth cen- tury more nioderate, . 117 John Laurence Mosheim, . 118 His works, . . .119 Their character, . .120 The influence of his writings upon his successors, . 121 Rise of German Rationalism or Neology, . .122 Its effects upon Church His- tory, . . .123 Monographs, . .124 Their value, . . 125 Neander, . . .126 His works — Gieseler, . 127 Neander and Gieseler con- trasted, . . .128 Their works contrasted, 129, 130 Guericke, . . .131 Jacob i, . . .132 Schaff— Lunge, . .133 Hase, . . .134 Kurtz, . . .135 Effect of modern German cliangcs upon Roman Ca- tholic Historians, . . 136 Cr.ltivation of History iu England, . . .137 Milner, . . .138 Milman, . . . 139 J. C. Robertson— J. J, Blunt, 140 Charles Hardwick, . . 141 " Ecclesiastical History " of Palmer, . . .142 "Method," . . . 143 What is meant by it, . 144 It is essential, 145, 146, 147 Anecdotic composition, . 148 The chronological arrange- ment of events, . 149,150 The topical arrangement of events, . . 151, 152 The combination of these es- sential to the production of history, 163, 154, 155 Ancient writers on Ecclesias- tical History seldom rise CONTENTS. XI SECTION above Chronological Ar- rangement, . .156 Magdeburg Centuriators, . 157 Their Chronological Ar- rangement, . .158 Topical arrangement, 159, 160 Their immediate purpose was polemical, . .161 This m.ethod constructed a priori, . . .162 Intended for the early cen- turies, . . .163 Not intended to be perpetual, 1 64 It has given character to sub- sequent historiography, . 165 The real merit of the plan of the Centuriators, . 166 Cannot be read continuously, 167 The Romanists adopt a sim- pler form, . .168 A change in the mode of treating Ecclesiastical His- tory became necessary, . 169 The cliangc was gradual — reaches its culmination in the Institutiones of Mo- sheira, . . 110, 171 Mosheim's use of the Centu- rial Arrangement, . 172, 173 Its disadvantages, . • . 174 Methods of Ecclesiastical Historiography increase during the last half cen- tury, . . .175 Germans retain the Biblical system and change the chronological arrange- ment of subjects, . 176 The nature of this change, 177 Their change in the topical arrangement, . .178 Type of all thesjp modern methods, . . . 179 Regarded by tiie Germans and their imitators as the ultimatum of improve- ment, . . .180 BECTTON Objections to it, . .181 Objection of this school to the old arrangement, . 182 The objection partially ad- mitted, but with two quali- fying circumstances, 183, 184 A more specific charge against the centurial ar- rangement, . .185 The answer, . . 186, 187 A qualifying circumstance in favour of old arrange- ment, . . .188 The modern German school not united on one scheme, 189 DifScultics of the modern periodical arrangement, 190 Partial changes in the topi- cal and rubrical arrange- ment, . . .191 The essence of the rubrical arrangement, . .192 Objections to this system, . 193 The historical objection, 194, 195 Objection drawn from anal- ogy, . . . 196 Objection from practical ef- fects, . . . 197, 198 An improvement of both chronological and topical arrangement proposed, . 199 Change in the topical part, . 200 Not new, . . . 201 Change in chronological di- • vision, . ^ . .202 How this is to be* accom- pHshed, . . 203, 204 Its advantages, . . 205 The difference betvv^een this method and the one it su- persedes, . . . 200 This course of History di- vided into two unequal parts, . . .207 The first division a general survey, . . • 208 Confusion avoided l)y view- Xll CONTENTS. SECTION ing the pcriodologics suc- cessively and seriatim, Two conditions essential in this process, . .210, Begin with the simple and familiar, . Both of these conditions meet by dividing Church History into Ancient, Mid- dle, and Modern Ages, . The simplicity of this mode, . 214 Analogies to prove its reality and usefulness, These divisions useful even though imaginary. The boundary between the Middle ages and Modern tolerably well defined, Between First and Middle not so well, A general knowledge of these divisions useful, . 219 The eai'liest limits assigned to the ancient period — be- ginning of fourth century, 220 The latest limits — close of seventh century, . Midway between these an- other — end of sixth cen- tury, . . One on either side of this mean — end of sixth cen- tury — close of eighth cen- tury, . . 223, Amidst varieties, the great boundaries still distinct, . These three periods distin- guished as periods of For- mation, Deformation, and Reformation, More precisely the periods of Foundation and Division, Consolidation and Corrup- tion, Reformation and Di- vision, Descriptions of these periods might be multiplied, . 228 209 211 212 213 215 216 217 211 221 223 224 225 226 227 SchafP's description, . 229, 230 He prognosticates a fourth age, . . .231 The ethnological distinction of Kurtz, . . .232 These views to be combined with what is already known, . . .233 First great feature of the Ancient Period, . . 234 A second feature, . . 235 A third, . . .236 A fourth, . . .237 A last, . . .238 The first great negative dis- tinction of the Middle Age, . . . 239 The great schism, . . 240 The theological or doctrinal distinction of the Middle Age, . . .241 The worst peculiarity of this age, . . .242 Its only redeeming feature, . 243 The first great feature of the Modern Age, . . 244 A second, . . . 245 The Theology of this age, . 246 The divisions introduced by Reformation, . . 247 Growth of heresies in this age, . . .248 An intermediate division, . 249 The first six centuries — two periods, . . . 250 The seventh and eighth cen- turies neutral ground, . 251 Division of Middle Ages not so obvious, . . 252 A proposed division, . 253 Characteristic feature of each century to aid mem- ory, . . . 254, 255 Characteristic of 1st centurv, 256 " 2d " ". 257 " " 3d " . 258 " " 4th " . 259 CONTENTS. XUl SECTIOIT Characteristic of 5th century, 260 " " 6th " . 261 Close of doctrinal contro- versies and the series of ancient councils, . .262 Rise and progress of Moham- medanism, . . 263 Characteristic feature of 9th century, . . . 264 Characteristic feature of 10th century, . . . 265 Characteristic feature of 11th century, . . . 266 Characteristic feature of 12th century, . . . 26*7 Characteristic feature of 13th century, . : .268 Characteristic feature of 14th century, . . . 269 Characteristic feature of 15th century, . . . 2*70 Characteristic feature of 16th century, . . . 2*71 Characteristic feature of 1*7 th century, . . .272 Characteristic feature of 18th century, . . .273 Characteristic feature of 19th century, . . . 274 Periodologies, . .275 Great diversities of, . .276 A joint use of these recom- mended, . . . 277 The choice of periodologies how guided, . . 278 Arranged for comparison, . 279 Periodologies of Gieseler, Ne- ander, Guericke (Jacobi), Hase, Kurtz, and SchafiF, . 280 Gieseler's entitled to prece- dence, . . .281 How all periodologies are formed, . . .282 Modern periodologies vary as to the terminus a quo of Ecclesiastical History, . 283 Primary epochs of Gieseler, . 284 SECTION Salient points and critical junctures of Gieseler, . 285 What they are, . . 286 The field divided and subdi- vided, making twelve pe- riods in all, . . 287 Gieseler's first great period, . 288 This divided into three, . 289 His second great period, . 290 Subdivided into three, . 290 His third great period divid- ed into three, . . 291 His fourth, . . . 292 These subdivisions arranged in a continued series, . 293 Has not met with currency among later writers, . 294 Its specific faults, . . 295 Neander's Periodology free from these faults, . 296 His Periodology, . . 297 Guericke's Periodology, 298, 299 Jacobi's, . . ' . 300 Periodology of Hase, . 301 His divisions, . .302 His subdivisions, . . 303 Adopted by Kurtz with modification, . . 304 The great Phases of Kurtz, . 305 The first two Phases, . 306 Subdivided into minor or in- termediate fines, . . 307 Periodology of Schaff, . 308 His divisions, . . 309 His subdivision of ages into three periods — subdivision of first age, . .310 Subdivision of the second, . 311 " " " third, . 312 These smaller periods ar- ranged in continuous series, 313 Comparison of other period- ologies with this, . .314 Epochs of Englehardt, . 315 Periods of " . . 316 Periodology of Thiele, . 317 " Laniie, . 318 XIV CONTENTS. SECTION . 319 . 320 His subdivision, Division of Nicdncr, Of Lindner with his subdivi sions, . 321, 322, 323, Pcriodology of Fricke, The division of Abzog, Periodology of Postel, Of recent EngUsh writers, Of Pdmer, . Of Milman, . His works, . His " Periods," The use of Epochs, Their value, Their application, 835, 388, 339 After the epochs another class may be placed, . 842 A residuary class, . . 343 A catalogue of Periodologies, 344 Tlie best mode of using epochs. Another method, Specimen of the above method, . The great changes indicated by this method, . Different ways of construct- ing tables. Sources of materials. The topical survey of the field, Etymology of the word top- ical, . . . 352 Apphcationof the word, 353, 354 355 357 358 324 325 326 327 328 . 329 . 330 . 331 . 332 . 333 . 334 336, 337, 340, 341 345 846 347 348 349 350 351 ^yhat is a topic, Its definition, . . 356, The definition completed, . The arrangement of topics varies, Its advantages, Two methods of selecting and arranging topics. The Analytic and Synthetic methods, . The first the best for present purposes, . . 363 859 360 361 362 SECTIOX The second for one who makes this a study of life, 364 Another distinction, . 365 Both views may be turned to good account, . 366, Ecclesiastical History — what it is, thus viewed, . No exclusive method practi- cable, . . 369, How Ecclesiastical History might be divided — objec- tion to it, . Same objection does not lie against other divisions, . The best method, The general arrangement must be chronological, In selecting topics, the best events to begin with. Such an event, the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, . 876, The proximate causes of it, . Flavins Josephus, the princi- pal authority, The providential instruments of it. Where the details of it may be found, . Its effect upon the Jews, Its political effect, . Effect upon their religion, ^384, Effect upon their persecu- tions, Primary effect upon Chris- tian Church, Rise of Jewish Christian sects, How distinguished from the body of Christians, Differences among them- selves. Their view of the Lord, How they regarded Christ, , How they regarded Paul, . Sources of our information of them, . . .394 867 368 870 371 372 373 374 375 377 378 380 381 382 383 386 387 . 389 390 391 892 893 CONTENTS. XV SECTION Two sects, . . . 895 The Nazareans op Naza- rcnes, , . . 396 The Ebionites, . 397, 398 When they arose, . . 399 First mention of their gospel by Fathers, . . 400 Vriien the canon close?, . 401 Objective close of canon, . 402 Eusebian classification, . 403 Donbts gradually clear up, . 404 Not a mere passive acquies- cence, . . . 405 Unauthorized attempts to Avrito the life of Christ, . 406 Apocryphal literature, . 407 All not heretical, . . 408 Some claim places iu the canon, . , , 409 Classification of Apocryphal gospels, . . ' .410 Supplementary gospels, . 411 Evangeliiim Nativitatis, , 412 Gospel of Joachim and Anna, 41 3 Of Joseph, the Carpenter, . 414 Of Christ's Infancy, . . 415 Supplementary accounts of his Passion, . . 416 Acts of Pilate, . . 417 Apocryphal Acts, . .418 " Epistles, . 419 " Apocalypses, . 420 " Prophecies, . 421 Heathen " . 422 Disciphnary Pseudcpigrapha, 423 Apostolical Constitutions, . 424 Apostolical Canons, . 425 History of Canon thus illus- trated, . . .420 Apostolical Fathers, , 427 Their Simplicity and Piety, 428 Modern disposition to exag- gerate, . . . 429 Surprising only to Papists and Rationalists, . . 430 Providential inequality of Apostles and Fathers, . 431 SECTION Apostles, . . 432 School of Paul, . . 433 " Barnabas, . 434 " Hernias, . . 435 " John and Ignatius, 436 " Polycarp, . 437 " Papias, . .438 Anonymous School, . 439 Early propagation of Gospel, 440 Dearth of Information, . 441 Where the Gospel spread, . 442 Mode of Propagation, . 443 Twofold conflict of Church in eighteenth century, . 444 Heathenism, . . 445 Twofold preparation for Gos- pel, . . . .446 State of Heathenism at Ad- vent, . . .447 Barbarous Religions, . 448 Greek and Roman Heathen- ism, . . . 449 Mania for new religions, . 450 Relation of Philosophy to Mythology, . . 451 School of Greek Philosophy, 452 Heathen viewof Cln-istianity, 453 Reform of Heathenism, . 454 Apollonius of Tyana, . 455 Revival of old mvsteries, . 456 The Eclectic Philosophy, . 457 Basis not Christian, . 458 Its Founder, . . 459 Universal among educated men at end of third cen- tury, . . .400 Outline of till- ="^tom, . 461 Effect of Chrl^iiui.ity, . 462 Lucian, .. . . 463 First formal attack on Chris- tianity, . . . 464 Porphyry, . . . 465 Ilierocles, . . . 466 Best Christian waiters of the age called forth, . . 407 Oldest apologists — not ex- tant, . . 468, 469 XVI CONTENTS. BECTION Apologists still extant, 470-473 General character of these Apologies, Good end promoted by bad means, Persecution, Primary source of, . First Martyr, First check to Jewish perse- cution. Second source of persecu- tion. Less tolerant to Judaism, . Popular prejudices against the Christians, How promoted, . 483, Guericke's classification of persecutions. Persecution of first century, 486 First real persecution, 487, 488 New era in history of perse- cution, Extent of persecution, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Persecutions general but not uniform, . Old tradition of Legio Ful- minea, Persecuting laws unrepealed, Septimius Severus, . 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 484 485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 SECTION Persecution in Africa, . 498 Caracalla, . . .499 Syncetistic mania, . . 500 Alexander Severus, . 501 Maximin the Thracian, . 502 Gordian, . . . 503 Pauses between persecutions, 504 Decian persecution, . 505 Church weakened by repose, 506 Death of Decius, Valerian, Martyrs at Rome, Gallienus, Aurelian, Another interval, Diocletian, . Maximin, Galerius, Meeting of Emperors at Ni- comedia, . New edicts of persecution, . Change in government, Death-bed of Galerius, Constantino, Ten Persecutions, . Their names. Severity of Persecutors and number of martyrs — a question, . Noble army of martyrs. Good effects of persecution. Positive bad effects, 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 624 525 526 NEW TESTAMENT LITER ATUEE. NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. § 1. From lino^ to daub or smear (supine, li- tum\ comes litera^ a mark, and more especially a significant mark — a character — a letter of the al- phabet. The plural illtercB) denotes — 1, the letters of the alphabet collectively — 2, then any combina- tion of them in a written composition — whether smaller (e. g. a letter, or epistle, made up of a few letters ; or, as we say, " a few lines "), or larger (as a book) — 3, then books in general, or in the aggre- gate — and then 4 (subjectively), the knowledge of books (" book-learning "), education — as in Cicero's phrases, '^ sine Uteris," " nescire literas," the French " belles-lettres," and the English " man of letters," § 1. What is the ultimate root oi literature ? What is the pri- mary and secondary sense oiUtera? What are the idiomatic uses of the plural ? What traces of the same in French and English ? 4 NEW TESTAI^IENT LITEKATUEE. meaning much more than a man who " knows his letters." § 2. From litera itself comes the adjective lite- ratiis, in form a participle, but without a corre- sponding verb (as in English), meaning primarily lettered^ i. e. marked with letters, as a book is let- tered by the binder — but secondarily, acquainted with (possessed of) letters, (in the higher sense,) i, e. educated, learned. The j)lural of this Latin word {literati) is still used in English ; and although the old derivative (literate) is obsolete, except in certain technical or legal forms, its previous exist- ence is attested by its opj^osite, illiterate^ uneducat- ed, ignorant. § 3. From liter atus (or from literm directly) comes the abstract term, literatura^ meaning, in the classics, first, alphabetic writing; then gram- mar, philology, the science of language ; and last- ly, learning, education, or the knowledge of books. As distinguished from science in modern par- lance, literature may be defined as the knowledge of books as books ; not merely their contents or § 2. What is the primary and secondary sense of lltcrahis? What traces of this Avord in Enghsh usage ? § 3. What is the classical usage of Uteratura ? What is litera- ture^ as distinguished from science? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 5 substance, but tlieir form, text, language, style, ori- gin, and all that constitutes tlieir [critical and lite- rary] history. § 4. Tlie generic term, as tlms defined, admits of various specific applications to particular classes or kinds of books, wlietber differing in form of composition (as poetical and prose literature), or in date (as ancient and modern literature), or in lan- guage (as Greek and English literature), or in sub- ject (as medical and historical literature). In this sense every science (or branch of systematic knowl- edge) may be said to have its " literature ; " i. e., a collection of writings peculiar to itself. Thus the modern Germans use the term Litteratur to denote the bibliography of any given subject. § 5. Among the many possible distinctions and divisions of this nature, one of the most familiar, and at the same time most connected with our present studies, is that of Sacred and Profane Liter- ature. Profane^ according to its Latin etymology {pro § 4. How may this generic term be made specific ? "What rela- tion has Hterature to the sciences \ How do the Germans use the term litteraticr ? § 5. What is the correlative or opposite of Sacred Literature ? What is the derivation of Profane ? What is its positive meaning ? Wha;t is its negative meaning? How may they be exemplified? How is this to be defined? 6 NEAV TESTAMENT LITERATURE. fano^ before the temple, outside of the consecrated precincts), is primarily negative and simply means not sacred^ though in both languages it soon ac- quired the positive and stronger sense of irreverent, impious, and even blasphemous. The difference of the primary and secondary meaning may be seen in the equally familiar combinations, " profane history " and " profane swearing." The primary or negative sense must be determined by that of the correlative expression, " sacred." § 6. Sacred Literature may be taken either in a wider or more restricted apjDlication. In the for- mer, it denotes (objectively) the aggregate of books, or (subjectively) the knowledge of such books, on sacred subjects, and is then equivalent to Religious Literature. In the latter, it denotes the aggregate (or knowledge) of sacred writings^ i. e. inspired, and therefore of divine authority ; and is then equivalent to Billical Literature^ or the literature of the Bihle. % 7. This term {Bille) is immediately derived § G. What is the twofold sense of Sacred Literature ? What is its wider application ? What is its narrower application ? § 7. What is the derivation of Bible? What was the primary sense of ^i^\os ? What was its secondary sense ? How is pifiXiov used in the New Testament ? How is fii^\os there applied ? When was it first applied to the whole Word of God ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 7 from the Latin and Greek plural {Bihlia)^ a dimin- /M^ ntive of ^l^Xo^; (sometimes written ySuySXo?), which originally means the pa2:)t/rus^\imt, the inner bark of which was used of old as a material for writing ' — hence our paper, thongh composed of an entirely different substance. A secondary use of both the English and the Greek word is to signify any piece of wi'iting (as a bill of divorcement, Matt. 19, 7 ; or a book), in which sense it is applied to the divi- sions of the Old Testament — the " book of Moses " (Mark 12, 26)— the " book of Psalms " (Lnke 20, 42)— the " book of the Prophets " (Acts 7, 42)— but never to the whole of the Old Testament collec- tively. Its application to the entire Word of God, as the Book of Books, or Book Kar i^oxni^y appears to have been introduced by Chrysostom. § 8. Another common name for the whole Word _ . . . (^ ' of God is Scrijyture, from scriptura, scriho, corre- ^C^Z^t^ spending to the Greek ypa many was not without effect upon this branch of § 27. What is New Testament Literature? § 28. Wliat two theories and plans have been applied to it ? § 29. How was it affected by the sceptical theology of Gcr- 20 NEW TESTAMENT LITEliATUEE. learning, and was reciprocally aided by it. On tlic boundary between old doctrines and neology stands John David Micliaelis, of Gottingen, whose Introduction to the New Testament was originally published in 1750, carrying out the critical princi- ples of Richard Simon, and doing good service in relation to the text and ancient versions. To the fourth edition of this work were added valuable notes by Herbert Marsh, of Cambridge, afterwards Bishop of Peterboro', translated into German by the younger Eosenmiiller (1795). Between the first and fourth editions, Semler had begun to treat the subject rationalistically in his " Apparatus ad liber- tatem Novi Testament! Interpretationem " (1767), and his treatise on the free investigation of the Canon (1771 — 1775). The process thus begun was carried further by Eichhorn, in his Introduction, published during the first quarter of the present century (1804 — 1827), and reached its height in that of DeWette, the first edition of w^hich ap- peared in 1826, and the fifth in 1848. In the "mean time a reaction had begun, promoted by the learned and ingenious Roman Catholic, John Leon- ard Hug, whose Introduction appeared first in 1808 (fourth edition, 1817). many ? What were the principal New Testament Introductions of this school? Who may be considered as beginning the reaction ? NEW TESTAilENT LITEKATDRE. 21 § 30. Among those who contributed to this reac- tion was II. F. Giiericke, an orthodox and pious Lu- theran of Halle, in his Contributions to 'New Testa-' ment Introduction, occasioned by DeWette's publica- tions (1828), his Further Contributions (1831), and finally, his formal Introduction (1843), which may be regarded as a summary of all that went before, designed expressly to resist the infidel tendency of the age, and to maintain the inspiration and divine authority of Holy Scripture. This work was con- structed on the old isagogical principle ; but in its latest and best form, divided into General and Spe- cial Introduction, presenting first what relates to the ISTew Testament collectively, and then what is peculiar to the several books. § 31. After this work was printed, but before its publication, another of the same general character was brought out by a young Professor (Reuss) of Strasburg, in which the isagogical method was en- tirely discarded, and the subject treated, not as in- troductory to exegesis, but as a branch of history, § 30. Who continued it? What was the character and plan of Guerrckc's first edition ? § 31. What change was introduced by Reuss? What effect had this on Guericke? To what extreme did he go in his last edition? What is the true -view of these rival methods? Of what inconsis- tency was Guericke guilty ? (That of retaining the word Isagogik.) 22 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. and therefore chronologically ordered, under six suc- cessive topics, without any division into General and Special. This arrangement, disapproved by - Gnericke in the preface to his first edition, was adopted in the second (1853), after having been reissued by its author in a fuller and completer form. Not satisfied with this change, Gnericke denounces all adherence to the old isagogical method as behind the age and utterly unscientific ; whereas, both arrangements, as we have already seen, are views of the same object from two difi'er- ent points of observation, and the old one has ad- vantages peculiar to itself. § 32. As this historical arrangement, although not more scientific than the other, and practically less convenient for our purpose, is ingenious in it- self, and likely to remain in vogue until another is discovered, it may not be without use to introduce the scheme, as first proposed by Eeuss, and slightly modified by Gnericke. The whole subject is re- duced to six consecutive heads, without subdivision, and may be expressed as follows : 1. The history of the preparation for the Kew Testament revelation [or its antecedents]. § 82. Why is it well to be acquainted with the historical ar- rangement ? What are the six topics of Guericke and Reuss ? Vw^ NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUKE. 23 4 2. The history of its origin [viz., that of the Cjf^ several tooks, seriatim]. - ^ 3. Tlie history of their collection [or of the Kew Lt^Ml Testament Canon]. /> 4. The history of its preservation [or of the//^*^ New Testament Text]. ^ - 5. The history of its circulation or diffusion [^j(j4CMfj the aid of versions]. 6. The history of its usage or application ^ [in C^ the way of exegesis or interpretation]. § 33. Having thus exhibited the new historical arrangement of the subject, for the purpose of com- parison and reference, we now return to the more familiar and convenient isagogical method, which considers the whole subject, not as a chapter of literary history, but as a preparation for the work of actual interpretation, and divides it into two great parts, called General and jSpecicd Introdiic- tion / the former, as we have already seen, embrac- ing what relates to the New Testament or all its books, collectively ; the latter what belongs to the books singly, and can be satisfactorily treated, only by examining them in detail, and one by one. * So Reuss (not Guericke). § 33. What method will be used in this course ? What is the primary division of the subject? Why is the extent of general In- troduction variable ? 24 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Tlie first of these divisions, being rather a conven- tional or arbitrary than a scientific or a necessary one, may be expanded or contracted at our own discretion. § 34. But whatever be the topics comprehended under General Introduction, it is highly im]3ortant to arrange them, not at random, or by any arbi- trary method, such as the alphabetical, but on some rational intelligible principle, by which is not meant one that is purely philosophical or scientific, but simply one for which a reason can be given, as opposed to one that is merely accidental or capri- cious. Tlie best mode of obtaining such a method in the present case is by adhering to the isagogic principle, considering interpretation as the end to be attained, and then inquiring what preliminary ques- tions must be answered, or may be answered with advantage, before entering on the ultimate and main work of exegesis or actual interpretation. § 35. Taking the widest view of General In- troduction that has been proposed by any writer, and supposing the interpreter to be incited, not by § 34. How should its topics be arranged ? What is meant by a rational method ? To what is it opposed ? How may such a method be obtained? § 35. What is to be assumed in the apphcation of this princi- ple? What then is the first preHminary question? What other NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATIJKE. 25 mere literary curiosity, or vague desire of knowl- edge for its own sake, but by religious motives, and especially an earnest wish to know the will of God, the first preliminary question which might be ex- pected to present itself is this : What reason is there to believe a revelation possible or necessary — or, if this be granted, what reason -is there to be- lieve this book to be the Word of God — or this 'New Testament to be a part of such a revelation ? Supposing this to be determined, the next questions would be : What are the writings which compose this volume ? What detailed compositions have a right to a place in this collection? These two questions may appear to involve each other ; but the fact is certain that even where the inspiration ■ of the Bible, as a whole, is granted, there may be a doubt as to the parts of which it is composed. § 36. A third preliminary question, in the case supposed, is, whether this book, or these writings which compose it, are precisely as they were at first, and exhibit the ipsissima verba of the sacred question does it raise ? What is the next question ? What other question does it raise ? Why do these questions not involve each other ? § 36. What is a third preliminary question ? What other ques- tion does it raise ? What do these questions presuppose ? What is the previous question thus suggested ? 2 26 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. writers ; or if not, whether they can be restored to their original condition. The sohition, and even the investigation, of this question, presupposes some acquaintance with the language in which the book is written. It may, therefore, be presented as a pre- vious or intermediate question. What that lan- guage is — its origin — its history — its character — the means by wliich it may be mastered — and the sources from which illustrations may be drawn ? § 37. Supposing this essential knowledge to have been acquired, the question in relation to the text may be successfully pursued. But even when it has been answered, it is found that the book, al- though verbally intelligible, is obscured by per- petual allusions to remote times and places, to peculiar climates, soils, and products, to a state of society unlike our own, to personal habits, to do- mestic, social, civil, and religious institutions, of a' kind with which the reader has no personal ac- quaintance, and of which he must know something, in a general way at least, before he can attempt interpretation in detail, with any prospect of suc- cess. We may now suppose him to have gained this knowledge ; but before he enters on the work of exegesis with entire satisfaction, he will natu- rally ask another question, really including two. § 37. What is the fourth pi^eliminary qncstion ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUKE. 27 § 38. Tliis is the question : How — upon what princij)les, the work is to be carried on ? How far must the interpretation of this book as an inspired one, be different from that of a mere human compo- sition ? And a man of due humility and self-dis- trust would scarcely fail to add the question, What have others done before me in the effort to explain this book to others, or to understand it for them- selves ? What rules have they adopted or laid down ? and what are the results ? What means of illustration, and facilities for study, have they left to their successors ? And how may we avail oxwjfff selves of their assistance to the most advantage \: These concluding questions being satisfactorily an- swered, the way to a correct interpretation of this part of Scripture is completely open, and requires only to be diligently walked in. § 39. This may seem to place the business ^ of interpretation at too great a distance, and to hinder the approach to it by too many obstructions. But this discouraging impression may be rectified by recollecting that it is not the minute detail, in- § 38. What is the fifth preliminary question ? What is the sixth ? § 39. What objection may be made to the foregoing statement? How may it be answered ? What use may be now made of these questions ? 28 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. eluded under these successive topics, that is abso- lutely necessary as an introduction to the actual processes of exegesis, but only a correct acquain- tance with the main points upon which the rest de- 23end. When these are mastered, even in their prin- ciples or outlines, the very process of interpretation will throw light upon the others, and receive light from them by a mutual reflection. But interpreta- tion cannot even be begun, in an intelligent and profitable manner, without a previous solution, however general and superficial, of the questions which have been successively propounded, and the answers to which comprehend the whole of General Introduction in its widest sense. As an aid to the memory, let us briefiy recapitulate the questions, and observe their correspondence with the parts of Introduction. § 40. To the first question — (what reason have we to regard the Bible as the Word of God ?) — the answer is afforded by that part of Introduction, in the widest application of the term, which the Germans call Ajpologetik^ and which we, for want of any technical expression, call the Evidences of Revealed § 40. How is the first question to be answered? How is the second to be answered ? How is the third to be answered? How is the fourth to be answered ? What is the technical use of the terms " text" and " "riticism " ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. W Religion. To the second question — (what particu- lar writings are entitled to a place in this inspired collection ?) — tRe answer includes all that relates to what is technically called the Canon of {ScrijptuTG or of^ the New Testament. To the third question — (what is the original language, its affinities, its history, its character, the means of its elucidation ?) — the answer is afforded by that part of Introduction called New Testament [or BiblicaT] Philology. To the fourth question — (how may the exact words of the sacred writers be determined ? and how far has this been done already ?) — the answer is afforded by New Testament [or BihlicaT] Criticism^ i. e. of the text^ using both words in their technical and narrow sense. § 41. The fifth question — (what were the pecu- liar circumstances of the people mentioned in the Bible, as to country, climate, habits, institutions, some knowledge of which is necessary to a correct determination of its meaning ?) — opens the whole subject of Antiquities or Archo3ology\, including the Geograjphy of Scripture. Tlie answer to the sixth question — (what are the principles and laws of § 41. How is the fifth question to be answered ? How is the sixth question to be answered ? How is the seventh question to be answered ? Why may the sixth and seventh be transposed ? 30 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. biblical interpretation?) — corresponds to what is technically known as Heroneneutics, differing from Exegesis^ as tlie science from tlie art, or theory from practice. But as this is an inductive science, resting more upon experience and common sense than on any abstract speculations a priori^ it is not to be severed from the seventh and last question — (what has been already done in this department ?) — corresponding to the History of Interjjretation. Indeed, it may be found most convenient in prac- tice, to give this the preference in order of consid- eration,. so as to secure tlie advantage of historical induction in determining our rules and principles of exegesis. § 42. Such is a brief view of the topics compre- hended in the widest application of the technical term Introduction^ and actually treated in some works npon the subject, as for instance that of Home already mentioned (§ W). But in order to reduce the field to manageable compass [as well as to accommodate our own arrangements], it will be necessary to eliminate several of these topics, al- though not precisely on the same grounds. One of § 42. Where is this scheme carried out in its full extent? Why must it be reduced to narrower limits ? How may this be effected? Why may the evidences be omitted ? Why may Antiquities and Geography be omitted ? Why may Ilermencutics be omitted? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 31 . these, the first in our enumeration, though a funda- mental and preliminary question, belongs rather to Theology than to Introduction, and is either pre- supposed or included in that study. Another, holding the fifth place, may be excluded on the . ■ , i^isJ ground that it is rather a collateral auxiliary than . an introductory preliminary study. . This, with its vast extent and growing interest, requires it to be separately treated [as I hope it will be in our course of study]. The only other topic which can be omitted is that of Hermeneutics^ on the ground that it cannot well' be separately handled in connec- tion with the two great divisions of the Bible, but must be disposed of once for all, without regard to this conventional distinction. § 43. The elimination of these topics leaves us four, to constitute the first part of our present course, distinguished from the last part by the name of General Introduction. I. The New Testament Canon (or the books entitled to a place in the col- lection). II. The Neio Testament Philology (or all that relates to the Original Language). III. The I^ew Testament Text and Textual Criticism (by which we determine the ipsissima verba of the § 43. How many topics still remain? What is the first? What is the second ? What is the third ? What is the fourth ? What part of it belongs to Special Introduction ? 32 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATTEE. sacred writers). TV. The Exegetical History of the New Testament (including that of Yersions, ancient and modern, and that of schools and systems of interpretation, but excluding that of individual books and writers, which belongs to Sjxcial Intro- ditction.) % 44. The transition or connecting link between General and Special Introduction will be furnished by a topic which belongs exclusively to neither, and yet partially to both — to the second, as con- cerning the particular books — to the first, as neces- sarily j)receding their minute examination one by one. This is the topic of Classification and Ar- rangement, under which we may arrange some matters commonly connected with the Canon, such as the circumstances out of which the Christian Eevelation (or New Testament) arose, and the traces of an actual collection of the books into a volume ; the canonical history of each book, as detailed proof of its canonicity, belonging necessarily to Special Introduction. § 45. The first division, then, of General In- § 44. What is the transition or connecting link with Special In- troduction? How far does it belong to both ? What may be con- Teniently referred to this intermediate topic? § 45. What is the first topic of General Introduction? What are the questions which it undertakes to answer ? Why are these NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. 33 TRODUCTiON is the Canon of Scrvpticre^ or, according to the distribution which we have adopted (§ 22 — 26), that of the New Testament. By means of the arrangement just proposed (§ 44) we are enabled to reduce this topic to a reasonable compass, introduc- ing only what is absolutely necessary as a prelimi- nary to the others ; and in answer to the question, What shall we interpret? answer, the New Tes- tament. But what is the l!^ew Testament ? What volume is entitled to the name? The Book of Mormon, or the Koran, might be lettered the " N'ew Testament," but this would not entitle them to be so reckoned ; and even when we have iden- tified the volume as a whole, the question still re- mains to be decided. What books are entitled to a place in this collection? Are the twenty- seven books which now compose it those which were ac- knowledged by the church from the beginning — neither more nor less ? Tlie question with which we are directly here concerned is not whether these books are inspired, but whether they were so con- sidered by the church from the days of the apostles, and thereby entitled to a place in the Canon ? § 46. Tlie Greek word {Kavwv) may be traced to necessary as preliminary questions? How is this topic related to that of inspiration ? ' § 46. "What is the etymology of canon and canonical ? "What 2* 34 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. one originally meaning a cane or reed — then any straight rod suitable for measuring or for keeping other things straight — with specific application to the beam of a balance — or, as some say, to its per- pendicular support — but certainly denoting, as a secondary meaning, any rule or standard, physical or moral. It is then applied, by way of emi- nence, to the Rule of Faith and to the Scriptures, or inspired AVord of God, as constituting that rule.* The sense of list or catalogue attached by some to this word, is entirely derivative and later in its origin. The cognate adjective to canon is canonical, belonging to the Canon, or the Rule of Faith. Its correlatives and opposites, apocrypha, apocryphal, derived from aTroKpvTrrco, to hide from or to hide away, and variously used by ancient writers to de- note what is secret or mysterious, anonymous or of uncertain origin, spurious or counterfeit, untrue or fabulous, heretical or doctrinally false, but as a technical and ecclesiastical expression meaning sim- * "By the straight we judge both itself and the crooked, for the rule is singly the test of both {Kpir^s ajx^oiv b Kavdjvy Aris- totle de Anima, c. 5, § 16, ed. Trendelenburg, quoted by Archer Butler, vol. ii. p. 885 (ed. W. H. Thompson). is that of apocrypha ? "What are the various senses of apocryphal ? What is its technical and strict sense ? Why are the Apostolic Fathers not Apocryphal ? NEW TESTAIWENT LITEKATUKE. ^ 35 ply and specifically sometliing wliicli purports or claims to be a part of Holy Scripture, but is not so, perhaps with the accessory notion of uncertain ori- gin, by which the so-called Apostolic Fathers are exempted from the application of the term, though some of them were anciently regarded as inspired, and their writings read in public worship. § 47. The precise point to be determined under this head is the identity of the book which we call the New Testament, and of the writings which com- pose it now, with those acknowledged, under the same names, from the 'beginning, as belonging to the Canon or the Rule of Faith. There are two methods of conducting this inquiry, which may be distinguished as the a priori and a posteriori pro- cess. The first consists of a historical deduction in the order of time, tracing the origin of each book, and of the entire collection, with the proofs of their continued existence to the present time. This is the course adopted by those writers who prefer the Historical arrangement to the Isagogical .(§ 21, 22, 23). Under the latter plan which we are now pur- suing, this deduction may be most conveniently pre- sented in its outlines at the close of the General § 4*7. What is the precise point to be settled? What arc the two methods of proceeding ? What is the a priori method ? Where docs it properly belong ? What is the a posteriori method ? 36 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Introduction in connection with the subject of Clas- sification and Arrangement, and in its details in the Special Introduction to the several books of the 'New Testament. In this place, and in answer to the j)reliminary question just propounded, it will only be necessary to present in brief the a poste- riori argument for the identity of our New Testa- ment with that which came from the Apostles, set- ting out from undisputed and notorious facts be- longing to the present, and then tracing up the testimony to the very times of the Apostles. § 48. The fact from which we set out in this a posteriori process is the palpable and certain one, that the book now called the 'New Testament is the same in every language, and throughout the world. This statement has no reference to minute varia- tions of the text, which will be afterwards consid- ered, but to the collection as a whole, and to the smaller books of which it is composed. This uni- formity is the more remarkable, because it has no existence in the case of the Old Testament, one of the points of difference between most Protestants and the Church of Rome, relating to the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures ; whereas, although the § 48. What is the starting point in this inquiry ? How is this statement to be understood ? Is it equally true of the Old Testa- ment? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 37 "New Testament apocrypha are still more numerous, not one of tliem is anywhere regarded as belonging to the Canon, but all critics and all nations and all churches, are agreed in acknowledging the same 'New Testament, composed of the same twenty- seven books, neither more nor less. § 49. The next fact, equally notorious and cer- tain, although more remote from our immediate sphere of observation, is that this identity or unifor- mity Ims constantly existed for a period of more than 1400 years ; before as well as since the Refor- mation ; through the Middle Ages ; back to the close of the fourth century. The evidence of this fact is both negative and positive, arising from the absence of all contrary appearances throughout this series of ages, and confirmed by explicit testimony, at the date referred to, that the same Xew Testa- ment which we possess, and made up of the sai'ne books, was then both in public use and private cir- culation. This explicit testimony is afforded both by individuals and by collective bodies, of great eminence, and highly qualified to testify without mistake or partiality. § 50. In order to preclude all misconception as § 49. What is the next fact ? What is the twofold proof of it? What is the negative proof? What is the positive proof? 38 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. to tills point, It is proper to observe and bear in mind, that we appeal to fathers and to councils, not as judges, as the Church of Eonie does, but as .witnesses to matters of fact, of which they were personally cognizant, as well as ex officio. Tlie weight of the testimony is to be determined, as in other cases, by the character and standing of the witness as known aliunde^ by his opportunities of information, and his freedom from all motives to misrepresent. Measured by this rule, one man may deserve more credit than the largest council ; but in general the testimony of such bodies is pecu- liarly important, as embodying the testimony of great numbers ; as preceded often by inquiry and discussion; as expressed, not hastily and loosely, but with more or less precision and formalitjL,; ^..C and, lastly, as transmitted to us, not by vague tra-^ dition, but in solemn, and official acts» § 51. The fact already stated, that the Canon of the [N'ew Testament, at the close of the fourth cen- tury, was j)ei'fectly identical wdth that in universal § 50. What is the authority ascribed in this argument to fathers and councils? How is their testimony to be valued? What gives pecuUar weight to that of councils ? § 51. What is the testimony of Rufinus? Upon whose authori- ty does it rest ? What distinction does he make between canonical and other books? What dbes he say of the New Testament Apoc- rypha. NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. 39 use at present, is attested by Bufinus^ an eminent ^Uxa^ Fatlier of the Latin Cliurcli, wlio enumerates the books by classes, namely, the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen epistles of Paul, two of Peter, one of James, one of Jude, three of John, and the Key elation of the same Apostle. That this is no subjective judgment of his own, as to what books ought to be received on their own merits, but his simple testimony to a historical fact, appears from his adding to the list, " lisec sunt quae patres inter canonem concluserunt," using the word canmi just as we do, and describing it as closed or completed, not by him or his contempo- raries, but by the patres^ meaning, no doubt, those of the primitive or apostolic age. Tliat he does not understand by canonical (as Semler did) such books as were used in public worship, appears from his enumerating others which he calls ecclesiastici, and not canoiiici^ because the fathers willed them to be read in Church, but not to be adduced in proof of doctrine (such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and Old Testament Apocrypha), and then distinguishes from both classes the E"ew Testament Apocrypha, " quae legi noluerunt." The same facts are abundantly attested by the still more eminent contemporaries, Jerome and Augustin. § 52. This individual testimony, which would ^- 40 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. be almost conclusive by itself, is confirmed as to the most essential point, by two contemporary councils, both held in North Africa, then one of the most prosperous and enlightened portions of the Church, within the last ten years of the fourth cen- tury. The Council of Hippo (A. D. 393), after or- dering that nothing shall be read in church, under the name of Divine Scriptures, " prseter Scripturas canonicas," proceeds to specify them in the most deliberate and formal manner : " Sunt autem ca- nonicse scripturse evangeliorum libri quatuor," — then follows one book of Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, " ejusdem ad Hebrseos una," — 2 of Peter, 3 of .jf John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John, just the Canon of Rufinus, and our own. To this decree it is added : " de confirmando isto ca- none transmauna ecclesia consulatur " — and accord- ingly we find it confirmed, not only by a council at Carthage four years later (A. D. 397), but soon after by the bishop of Eome (Innocent I.), and long after by a Roman council (A. D. 494), showing that no change had taken place within a century, as none has taken place within the fourteen centu- ries that follow. § 52. How is his testimony confirmed ? What is that of the Council of Hippo ? By what other witnesses is it confirmed ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 41 § 53. Going further back in the fourth century, we find among the writings of Athanasius, the most eminent. Greek Father of that age, and the cham- pion of the Nicene faith against the Arians, a list of the canonical books of the New Testament, com- prising the 4 Gospels, Acts, 7 Catholic epistles, 14 of Paul, and the book of Revelation, as to which last it is added, that it was received as John's by the ancient saints (or holy) and inspired Fathers. This, although in favor of the book, implies that some held a different opinion, and is the first intimation that we come to in this retrograde inquiry, of the; least dissent from the existing canon, which was [ then received not only in the Greek and Latin, but ' the Syrian Cliurch, as we learn from the fact that Ephrem Syrus, its greatest representative, who died^ A. D. 378, quotes in his extant writings every one of our twenty-seven books. § 54. A contemporary Father of great emi- , ^ nence, Gregory ^ Nazianzei^ says of the Apoca- lypse that some receive it {eyKpivovaLv\ but that § 53. What is the testimony of Athanasius, or a contemporary writer ? What intimation does he give with respect to the Apoca- lypse? By what distinct branches of the Church 'Avas our canon then received ? § 54. What docs Gregory of Nazianzen say of the Apocalypse ? What is the canon of Cyril of Jerusalem ? What is that of the Council of Laodicea? Why is its genuineness not essential? \m^» 42 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. the majority pronounce it spiirions {ol TrXetoi;? voOov Xeyovat). Anotlier, equally distingnislied, Cyril of Jerusalem, omits it in his catalogue (including the 4: Gospels, with a positive exclusion of all others, as y^evheiriypa^a /cao /SXa^epa, Acts of 1 2 Apostles, T Catholic epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude —14 epistles of Paul), then adds : TAAOinATIA- NTAEBn KElSenENAETTEPni. Precisely the same canon is contained in a decree of the Council of Laodicea (360 — 364), which some reject as spurious, but which certainly belongs to the fourth century, and if not the testimony of a council, is 9 at least that of another (although an unknown) in- dividual. § 55. When we reach the early part of the fourth century we come to the famous canon of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, the confidential friend of Constan- tine the Great, and " Father of Church history." He divides the Christian boohs of his day into three great classes : I. ITomologumena, acknowledged, undisputed. II. Antilegomena, assailed or called in question. III. Notlia^ or {atopa kai dyssebe). % 55. What was the canon of Eusebius ? What books does he refer to the several classes ? What doubtful position does he give to the Apocalypse? How does he name the classes elsewhere? Why does he place the Apocalypse in the first and third divisions ? How is it judged by Dionysius of Alexandria — and why? NEW 5TAMENT LITEKATUKE. Under tlie first |]i€ad lie\Enni^i*aJea tii(^our Gos- pels, Acts, EpisllesiytteS^^(^iMm^ ^ imm- ber), 1 J(phn, 1 J^eteii^iM ABOcM.yp^ tt^e, (pavelr). Under tlie tlmm ilkdaA/^ several gospels V aijkiy(cm,jBi the j?iivostles, nov/ univer- sally r^*e<5te(^ as apocMJ^W,\ with the Book of Revelation, aal}e|c g 5g^ ^ lit^lg earlier, Origcn, the master of this Dionysius, and the most distinguished Father of that age, includes the Book of Revelation in a list of the canonical books, and names John as its I author, but omits the hve shorter Catholic epistles, and describes that to the Hebrews as containing Paul's thoughts in the language of another. He j elsewhere mentions that of James as current {(jyepo- fMevrj) under that name, and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 ! John, as doubted by others — and he once speaks of Peter's two epistles, and of John's in the plural number, and refers to those of James and Jude. His voluminous writings, some of which are lost, are said to contain abundant quotations from all the books now in the Canon. This may serve to show that mere omissions in these ancient cata- | logues must not be made to prove too much. ^)y^^^ii: § 57. Cyprian, Origen's contemporary in the ■ f . ,.c-f Western Church, refers to all the books now in the Canon, except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Clement of Alexandria, Ori- gen's predecessor and preceptor (A. D. 220), rec- § 56. What is the canon of Origen ? How does he vary from it elsewhere? What parts of the New Testament are quoted in his writings ? What may be inferred from this ? § 57. What is the Canon of Cyprian ? What is that of Clemens Alexandrinus ? What is that of Irena3us ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 45 ognizes the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Epistles of Paul, 1 of Peter, 1 of John, 1 of Jude, and the Book of Kevelation. Hebrews he supposes to have been originally written by Paul, and translated into Greek by Luke. Tlie same writer comments upon 2 John, and alludes to James and 2 Peter, without naming them. His contemporary, Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers (A. D. 222), mentions all the books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, "but represents Hebrews, though canonical, as the work of Barnabas. L^enseus, a connecting link between the second and third century, and also between the Eastern and the Western Church, does not mention 3 John, alludes to James and 2 Peter, without naming them, regards Hebrews as canonical, but not of Pauline origin, and recognizes all the other books as we do. '"'■ ' § 58. The Muratori Canon, a fragment found at I^^« in the 18th century, contains a list of the books read in churches in the time of Pius L, who was bishop of Rome during the second century, omitting James, and leaving 2 Peter doubtful, and giving Hebrews a different name, and not as- signing it a place with Paul's epistles. The Peshito § 58. What is the Muratori Canon ? What is the Peshito ? What books of the New Testament does it omit ? What lines of testimony here converge ? 46 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. or old Syriac version, made near tlie close of the : second century, or early in the third, omits 2 Peter, 2 j and 3 John, Jude, and Eevelation, all which are found in a few manuscripts, but probably of later date. As to most of the books, we have thus con- current testimony, at the end of the third century, from Gaul, Asia Minor, Egypt," Italy, and Car- thage. § 59. Beyond this point we have no formal catalogues, but only references and quotations, the paucity of which may be accounted for by the paucity of writings which contain them ; by the slow communication in the ancient world, which caused some writings to be late in gaining general circulation ; and by the authority which still belonged to oral tradition, making reference less necessary, even to books which were acknowl- edged as inspired, and therefore as canonical. But the aggregate testimony of the first and second cen- turies is amply sufficient to establish the reception of the Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, that to tlie Hebrews, though not always under his name, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Book of Revelation. § 59. What is the nature of the testimony beyond this point? How may the paucity of references be accounted for ? What is the sum of the testimonies of the first two centuries ? What is the result of the whole induction? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 47 Of the remaining books, tlie one most frequently alluded to is Jnde, then 2 John, then James, then 3 J^n, and then 2 Peter, which is not ex- pressly qnoted in the first or second century, though mentioned near its close by Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria. Tlie result of this induction may be therefore summarily stated thus, that 20 of the books now included in the Canon have been homo- logumena, or undisputed ab initio ; while the other seven are less frequently referred to in the early ages, and afterwards spoken of as antilegomena, though universally received into the Canon at the close of the fourth century. § 60. The question now is, not whether these seven books shall be received to an inferior place in the Canon, as proposed by Augustine and some of the Reformers, but rejected even by the Council of Trent ; but whether they are entitled to a position of perfect equality with all the rest. The obvious reason is, because there can be no such thing as half-canonical or half-inspired ; a writing must be § 60. Why can there not be a secondary canon ? What is the * true state of the question as to the antilegomena ? What is the natural presumption ? Where is the onus probandi ? What charge is brought against the ancient church ? How far is it well founded ? How may it be disproved in this case ? What absurd assumption would be otherwise required ? 4:8 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. either wholly so or not at all. l^or is the question, why should w^e receive these books, as they were certainly received at the close of the fourth century ; but why should we reject them. The presumption raised by their reception then, perhaps on evidence no longer in existence, throws the burden of proof on those who would exclude them. Nor is this presumption weakened by the charge of uncritical negligence, which some allege against the ancient church, a charge not wholly groundless with re- spect 'to the text, but shown to be so with respect to the Canon, by the very doubts and difficulties now in question ; unless we absurdly assume that the caution previously exercised was suddenly abandoned at the close of the fourth century. § 61. The only question which remains is, whether the acknowledged doubts and hesitations as to these seven books can be accounted for on grounds consistent w^ith their having been canon- ical from the beginning. It is not required that the proof be as clear and as abundant as it is in the case of the other books, but only that it be suffi- cient to remove all reasonable doubt upon the sub- § 61. What is the remaining question? "What is and what is not required as to the evidence ? How far (or in what case) are wo bound to acquiesce in the decision of the church at the close of the fourth century ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. 49 ject, and confirm the strong presnmption wliicli arises from the fact that at the close of the fourth century, the balance, which had oscillated for a course of ages, was unanimousl j held to preponder- ate in favour of tlie books in question. This deci- sion we are not only authorized, but bound, to acquiesce in, as the church has acquiesced in it for fourteen hundred years, provided we can find any probable solution of the question why these books, if canonical, were ever called in question. § 62. The sufficiency of such an explanation will not be impaired, but rather strengthened, by its not being uniform or perfectly identical in reference to all the books in question. Such a sameness might indeed be suspicious, or indicative of concert or contrivance for the purpose of secur- ing their admission to the Canofi. On the other hand, if all, or nearly all, admit of diiferent solutions, resting upon different circumstances in the origin and history, or in their character and contents, there will be no ground for the suspicion above mentioned, nor for any further hesitation in accept- ing the unanimous testimony of all Christian writ- ers at the close of the fourth century, that these books § 62. Why is perfect uniformity of explanation neither neces- sary nor desirable? What is now to be shown — and how ? 3 50 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. were entitled to an absolute equality in this respect, witli all tlie others, as having been canonical from the beginning. That there is varied yet harmo- nious solution in the case of all these books, we now proceed to show, going only so far into the de- tails as may be necessary for this purpose, and re- serving all the rest for other and more suitable occasions. (See above, §§ 44, 45). § 63. With respect to the Epistle to the He- brews, the peculiar and decisive fact is, that the ancient doubts had no relation to its canonicity, but only to its authorship, which is not an essential circumstance, since many books of Scripture are anonymous, and the authorship of some entirely uncertain. That some should have doubted whether Paul, whose name appears in all his other writings, would omit it in this one, was natural enough, es- pecially before men had considered any of the pos- sible solutions of this singular departure from his otherwise invariable practice, such, for example, singling one out of many, as that when the Apostle of the Gentiles found it necessary to address the § 03. What were the ancient doubts respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews ? How may they be accounted for ? How may the omission of the author's name be accounted for ? How far is this assumption necessary ? Why would this epistle be longer than the rest in becoming generally known ? NEW testa:^ient literature. 51 Hebrew Christians, lie omitted that official descrip- tion of himself which adds so mncli to his authority when writing to the Gentile churches. It is not necessary to affirm that this was really the reason, but only that it may be thus and otherwise ac- counted for, and also that the class of readers ob- viously addressed in this epistle would of course prevent its being known so early or diffused so widely as those which bore the author's name, and were addressed to Gentile churches or believers. § 64. The Epistle of James is not anonymous, but bears a name of doubtful application, having been really ascribed to three diiferent persons so called, namely, James the Son of Zebedee, James ~v<>o^^- the Son of Alpheus, and James the Brother of the f-^^^ Lord, whom many still believe to be distinct from both the others. This uncertainty might be suffi- cient of itself to cause some hesitation, which would be of course increased by the erroneous impression, current in all ages, of a doctrinal diversity between James and Paul as to the cardinal doctrine of jus- tification. If such an one as Martin Luther, in his zeal for that articulus stantis et codeatis ecclesise, could rashly for a time expunge this epistle from ^ 64. What was the first ground of hesitation as to the epistle of James? What was another more important ground? IIow did ft operate in later times ? Why is it now without force ? 52 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. the Canon, surely the same mistake might generate some doubt and hesitation in the ancient chnrch, although it was canonical from the beginning. § 65. Of the four smaller writings, Jude and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, it may be observed in general that they are all comparatively short and therefore furnish relatively little matter for quota- tion, which accounts for the paucity of references to them by the early Christian writers, a fact no more decisive of their being uncanonical than the same fact proves the same thing of the shortest of Paul's writings (the epistle to Philemon) which has never been disputed. Of Jude and 2 Peter in particu- lar, it may be further said that one cause of sus- picion, in the minds of some, was a remarkable resemblance, not in sentiment or substance merely, but in minute forms of expression, so that one might seem to have been copied from the other. Now on the natural though false assumption, that but one could be canonical, a view refuted by the ob- vious analogy of other scriptures,* it is easy to * Compare Ps. 14 and 53; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22; Isai. 36 38, and 2 Kings, 18. § 65. What remark applies to the four smaller catholic epistles ? What may be said of Jude and 2 Peter in particular? Why is there really no groimd for doubt or hesitation? What of 2 and 3 John ? What i:' 1' '" result of these considerations? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 53 imagine that tlic public judgment might be long embarrassed and divided, although finally con- vinced that each had held a place in the original canon. On the other hand, 2 and 3 John are both extremely short, being in fact the smallest distinct parts of the New Testament, and both in their immediate form and purpose very personal and private, and lastly both anonymous or half so, as the writer describes, but does not name himself. All these are reasons which in part accolmt for the deliberation of the ancients in admitting these epis- tles to the canon, though entitled to a place there ab initio. § 66. Different as these cases are from one an- other, they are no less difierent from that of the Apocalypse (or book of Eevelation) which is quite unique and sui generis. The main fact here is, that in tracing the books upward, after finding this one undisputed at the close of the fourth century, we come first to vague intimations, then to positive as- sertions, and at last to argumentative attempts at demonstrations, that it cannot be canonical ; but passing on still further, we discover it completely § 66. How does the case of the Apocalypse diflfcr from the others ? How may this be stated in the reverse order ? To what may the canonical history of this book be likened ? How may its omission in the Peshito be accounted for? What modern annl'^?"" 54 NEW TESTA3IENT LITERATURE. reinstated, and the recognition of it more or less distinctly running back to tlie very age of the apos- tles. In other words, the book was first received by all, then suspected or condemned by some, and then again unanimously recognized as genuine. It simply sufi'ered an eclipse, which like literal eclipses, w^as of brief duration, and has now been past for more than 1400 years. But how can we account for this eclipse — for this rejection of the book by certain Fathers, and for its omission in the old Peshito version ? If this last fact be conceded, as it is not by all writers of distinction, a sufficient explanation is afforded by the circumstance, that versions of the Scripture were originally made, not for private circulation but for use in public worship, and that this book may have been omitted as un- suited to that purpose, though believed to be can- onical, precisely as the Church of England now omits it almost wholly in her calendar of lessons, but expressly names it as a part of Holy Scripture in her articles of faith. A no less plausible and even satisfactory solution of the other fact in refer- ence to this book, namely, its exclusion from the canon by some Fathers of the third and fourth cen- throws light on this hypothesis ? How may the rejection of this book by certain councils and fathers be explained? What shows this explanation to be the true one? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. 55 tiiries, IS furnislied hj tlie well-kno^vIl circumstance, that cliiliastic doctrines of a very gross form tlien extensively prevailed, though constantly repudiated . by the church at large, and so abhorred by some Mi*u^'^^distinguished teachers that it tempted them to ' sweep away its alleged foundation by discrediting the part of Scripture which contained it. Tliat this dangerous principle of exegesis was maintained and acted on by some, is certain ; and that this great error was the cause of the eclipse before referred to, is apparent from the circumstance, that as soon as the obstruction offered by the cliiliastic errors dis- appeared, or was reduced to harmless compass, the Apocalypse shone forth again with all its ancient but mysterious splendour. ^67. We have now seen that in reference to all these once disputed books, there is, to say the least, a possible solution of the doubts which once ex- isted, perfectly consistent with their primitive and perfect canonicity, and, therefore, that we have no reasonable ground for refusing to accept the verdict of the church at the close of the fourth century, which put these seven books upon an absolute § 67. What is the general result of this examination ? How- does the evideuce for the genuineness of those books compare with that for other ancient writings, such as the Apocrypha, the Apostol- ical Fathers, the Greek and Roman Classics ? 56 NEW TESTAilENT LITEEATUEE. equality, in this point, with tlie other twenty. Of the whole collection, thus restored to its original completeness and unity, it may now be observed, in conclusion, that the proof of its authenticity and genuineness far surpasses not only that of all apoc- ryphal productions, which is saying nothing, nor that of any of the Apostolic Fathers, wdiicli is saying much, but that of any or of all the ancient writings in existence, with the single exception of the Hebrew Scriptures, which repose upon the same foundation, but without excepting the most valued and familiar of the Greek and Roman classics, whether Homer, Plato, Cicero, or Yirgil, the identity of whose im- mortal writings no one ever dreams of questioning, though far less ' satisfactorily attested than the twenty-seven boohs of the New Testament. § 68. The recej)tion of these twenty-seven books into the Canon is, ipso facto, the exclusion of all others which have ever claimed a place there, or have been considered as entitled to it. Tliis defini- tion or description comprehends two very different sorts of ancient writings, the Apostolical Fathers and the so-called Wew Testament Apocrypha. Some account of both will be given below, under § 68. What books are excluded by the Bettlement of the Canon ? Where does the description of these books belong ? What is the NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 57 tlie liead of Hellenistic Literature.* All that is necessary here is to guard against a false assump- tion of some German writers, that all these books, canonical and apocryphal were promiscuously used at first, and on precisely the same footing, but that out of these the imj)roving taste and judgment of the Christians finally selected those which consti- tute the present canon. Tliis hypothesis, though plausible, and seemingly innocuous, would lead to very dangerous conclusions, making it impossible to separate the elements, and leaving us but one al- ternative — either that both are equally inspired or neither. The true state of the case is, that no books except those now contained in the canon, were entitled to a place there ab initio ; that in- stead of the canonical books being chosen out of the whole mass of Christian writings, the apocry- phal books arose from imitation of them. The great number of the latter goes to show the neces- sity of caution and discrimination in the ancient church, and to enhance the evidence in favour of the Canon as it now is, by contrasting the small num- * Sec above, § 46, and below, §§ 129, 140. erroneous modern view of the relation originally borne by these books to those now in the Canon ? Why is this a dangerous hy- pothesis ? What is the true state of the case as to the Canon and Apocrypha ? How does this enhance the evidence in favour of the former ? 8* 68 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. ber of the books wbich it contains with the multi- tude which clamoured for admission, in the age suc- ceeding that of the Apostles. § 69. Having now determined, in a general way, what book is entitled to the name of the ITew Testament, and what are the writings which com- pose it, we are ready for the next inquiry, as to the original language, or what is technically called New Testament Philology. That this is in its proper place between the Canon and the Text (§ 43) is plain, because until we have identified the book, we cannot ascertain the language ; and until this is done, we cannot think of ascertaining the ipsissima verba, which of course have no existence even in the most exact translation. A familiar il- lustration may be borrowed from the case of one to whom a definite number of important papers have been solemnly entrusted for a certain purpose. The papers, it may be supposed, as well as the receptacle which holds them, are all sealed and labelled, and may thus be identified, before he opens them. But having ascertained that they are all in his posses- sion, he proceeds to examine their contents, and, as the first step, to discover in what language they § 69. What is the second topic of General Introduction ? Why is this its proper place in the arrangement of the topics ? How may this be famiUarly illustrated ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. 59 are written, and wlietlier it is one with whicli lie is acquainted ; after which he may consider the par- ticular expressions. § 70. If each of the twenty-seven books were writ- ten in a language of its own, or several in one and several in another, this whole topic would of course belong to Special Introduction. But as all the books, as far as we can trace them, are in one and the same language, what we have to say of it ap- plies tb the New Testament collectively, and there- fore forms a necessary part of General Introduction. (§§ 18, 30, 33.) It is all reducible to four leading questions : 1. What was the original language of the JS'ew Testament ? 2. Why was it different from that of the Old ? 3. Why was Greek selected for this purpose ? 4. What kind of Greek is used in the New Testament ? The answers to these ques- tions will constitute the topics of New Testa- ment Philology, as we shall treat it — dwelling chiefly on the last, or the history and character of the Hellenistic dialect, in which the New Testa- ment is written. § 71. The first question (what is the original § 70. Why does this topic necessarily helong to General Intro- duction ? To what four questions* may it ^e reduced ? Which of these will reauiro most atteutiou ? i' 60 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATURE. language of the "Nevf Testament ?) may seem super- fluous, or answerable in a single syllable ; but this has not been always an unanimous response. As examples of remarkable dissent from it may here be specified the notion of the Jesuit Harduin who, in his Commentary on the Kew Testament (1741), gravely insisted that all the books were written in Latin, except the Epistle to Philemon, which was written in Greek, then translated into Latin, and then retranslated into Greek. Tlie motive of this singular paradox was no doubt to put honour on the Latin Ytilgate, as declared to be " authentic " by the Council of Trent. A very different motive, the desire to escape from exegetical embarrass- ments, led Bolten, in his work on the Epistles (1800), to maintain that they were dictated by Paul in Aramaic, and written down in Greek by his amanuensis, whose errors of translation would ac- count for most of the existing difficulties. Both these opinions are remembered only as curiosities of literary history. The questions still raised as to one or two books, more particularly Matthew's Gos- pel, belong properly to Special Introduction, and § Vl. Why is the first question not superfluous ? What was Har- duin's notion ? What was Bolten's ? How are these opinions now regarded ? How is the general fact affected by the doubts as to one or two books ? NEW TESTA^IENT LITEKATUEE. 61 will there be fully treated. But even as to tliese books, it is not disputed that, so far as we can trace them, they have always worn a Greek dress, so that even if they were originally written in another lan- guage, which is not the case, as we shall see below, they can scarcely be regarded as exceptions to the general statement, that the whole 'New Testament is composed in Greek, j^ § 72. The fact suggested by the second question (why was the ISTew Testament written in a differ- ent language from the Old ?) is not to be regarded as a matter of course, since all the antecedent prob- abilities were in favour of Hebrew as having been already used for the same purpose, and thereby specially adapted to it, as well as invested with a certain sanctity, over and above the prestige of its antiquity and claim to be regarded as the oldest of. all extant tongues, if not the primitive language of mankind. To refer the adoption of another lan- guage in the Christian revelation to the sovereign will of God, is not explaining it, but simply a con^ fession that it cannot be explained. The question is not whether God so willed it, which is absolutely § 72. What is the second question ? Why is it not a matter of course ? Why were the antecedent probabilities all in favour of Hebrew ? Why is it not explained by a reference to the sovereign will of God ? 62 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. certain, but wlietlier he willed it for a purpose scrutable bv us. If so, tliougli under no necessity of knowing what that purpose is, we are at liberty to seek for it, and ascertain it, as an aid in solving other questions. § 73. The most satisfactory solution of this ques- ton is, that each revelation was conveyed by the vehicle best suited to its purpose — the national and local revelation in the language of the chosen peo- ple — the oecumenical or universal revelation in the language of the civilized world. In the age of the Old Testament the Hebrew was moreover in itself the best adapted to the ends of a divine revelation ; but at the close of the four centuries which inter- vened between the two, that language had not only never spread beyond the people who originally spoke it, but had ceased to be vernacular even among them ; while the Aramaic dialect which superseded it had neither the prestige of great an- tiquity, nor special adaptation, nor the sanctity of long association, nor remarkable intrinsic qualities to recommend it. § 74. It may be objected to this explanation, § is. What is the most satisfactory solution ? What change had Hebrew undergone during the interval of four hundred years between the Old and New Testament? Why had the Aramaic no claim to succeed it ? NEW i:estamf.nt litekatuke. 63 that it makes an invidious distinction between the Old and New Testament, as if the latter only were designed for permanent and perpetual use. But this is a mistake very easily corrected by observing, that the difference in question has respect only to the primary form of the communication, not to its continued use ; just as the form of Paul's epistles was determined by their being actually sent as let- ters to certain individuals and churches, though de- signed from the beginning to be permanently left on record for the use of all believers in succeeding ages. So, too, the Hebrew Scriptures, though origi- nally meant for the instruction of a single race, and, therefore, written in a language never used as a ver- nacular by any other, were designed from the be- ginning to form part of a perpetual and universal revelation of the will of God to all mankind throughout all ages. § 75. To the third question (why was Greek selected as the language of the Christian revela- tion ?) there is a twofold answer ; one extrinsic, or derived from outward circumstances ; one in- § 74. What objection is there to this explanation ? How may it be answered ? What analogy is furnished by the New Testament epistles ? § 75. What is the twofold answer to the third question? What fs the extrinsic reason ? 64: NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. trinsic, or arising from the qualities belonging to the language itself. The extrinsic reason is, be- cause at the time of the Advent, it was the most widely spoken language in the world, and, therefore, the best fitted for this purpose, irrespective of its character and structure. The intrinsic reason is, that it was also the most perfect language in itself, and, therefore, doubly suited to become the vehicle of such a revelation, especially after it had been in use for ages as the language of the oldest version of the Hebrew Scriptures. (See below, § 95.) § 76. This preparation of a language for the Christian revelation must not be regarded as for- tuitous, but providential, being part of an extensive preparation for the advent of the Saviour, going on for ages among Jews and Gentiles. This has some- times been described by saying, that among the Jews, God prejDared salvation for man (compare John 4, 22), and among the Gentiles, man for salva- tion ; both negatively, by experimentally evincing the futility and worthlessness of heathenism, and exciting the desire of something better, and posi- § 76. How is this connected with the providential preparation for the Advent ? How was it prepared among the Jews'? How among the Gentiles ? What was the negative preparation among the Gentiles? What was the positive preparation in general? What was it in particular ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 65 tively, by providing vehicles and forms for the Christian revelation. The negative process here described, may be distinctly traced in the history of the most enlightened heathen nations, and espe- cially in their condition at or just before the birth of Christ. The positive consisted partly in the gen- eral intellectual culture of the Greeks and others whom they influenced ; partly in the gradual ma- turing of the Greek language to be used in the !N"ew Testament. § 77. The fourth question as to the original lan- guage (in what kind of Greek is the New Testa- ment written ?) presupposes the existence of more kinds than one, or in other words, implies that the language had experienced certain changes, or ap- peared in diflerent forms, before it was made use of for this purpose. This makes it necessary to con- sider the origin and progress of the language, not in minute detail, but briefly, both for want of time, and because this part of the subject belongs rather to a previous stage of education, in which not only the language itself, but its history now generally occupies a prominent position. All that is neces- sary, therefore, is, a brief recapitulation of familiar § 11. What is the fourth question as to the original language ? What does it imply or presuppose ? What does this require to consider Crst ? Why may and must it be considered briefly ? 66 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. facts, or a rapid recollection of things previously- known. § 78. In doing this it will be convenient to begin with the affinities of Greek and its position in the family of languages to which it properly be- longs, as determined by Comparative Philology. The science designated by this phrase is one en- tirely of modern origin, having sprung up chiefly within half a century, but with a rapid growth, which has brought it to an almost instantaneous maturity. One of its marked results is an improve- ment in the scientific treatment of the several lan- guages subjected to comparison, arising from the light which they mutually throw upon each other. Another is a gratifying confirmation of the state- ments found in Scripture as to the original oneness of the race, and of its language. Tliougli all ob- scurities are not yet cleared up, this is the acknowl- edged tendency of all impartial and intelligent discussion and research, not only in Comparative Philology, but also in the kindred coeval science of Ethnology, or, as it is sometimes called. Ethnog- raphy. Tlie way in which Comparative Philology contributes to this end is by showing the affinity of § 78. Where is it most convenient to begin this recapitulation ? What is Comparative Philology ? What effect has it had upon the study of particular languages ? What is its tendency with respect NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 67 dialects apparently the most remote, and long re- garded, even by the learned, as wholly and hope- lessly heterogeneous. This again is brought about by exchanging the old fanciful and superficial ety- mologies founded on mere fortuitous resemblances of shape and sound, for a scientific and historical deduction, governed by fixed laws of permutation and analogy, and often leading to conclusions ut- terly unlike the premises or data, although ren- dered certain by an unbroken series of intermediate steps or changes. By this new and interesting process, forms of speech, the most dissimilar at present, may be traced back to a common origin, and thus the way prepared for an ultimate removal of tlie only serious obstruction to the identification of all known varieties of language, as diverging streams from one and the same fountain. § 79. Another fruit of the Comparative Phi- lology of modern times, is the division of all culti- vated language into two great families or stocks, excluding the Chinese and its derivatives, though spoken by a third part of the human race, as hav- to the authority of Scripture ? What other modern science coin- cides with it in this? How does Comparative Philology promote this end ? How is this assimilation brought about ? What may be expected from the further prosecution of this process ? § 79. To how many families may cultivated languages be now 68 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. ing really no structure, in the ordinary sense of the expression, or at least as never yet successfully sub- jected to a thorough ]3hilological analysis. With this extensive and significant exception, all the cul- tivated languages of earth, meaning thereby such as have been written long enough to have a litera- ture of their own, may be divided into two great classes. (I.) The Semitic (or Shemitish\ chiefly spoken by the race of Shem, but also called the Syro-Arahian^ Hebraic^ and by several other names which need not be enumerated here, and (11.) the Japhetic^ chiefly spoken by the race of Japhet, but more generally known by the comprehensive name of Indo-European, or the more specific one of Indo- Germanic, which at once suggests its vast exten- sion from the Indian to the German Ocean, com- prehending all the cultivated dialects of Europe, with several belonging to the south and west of Asia — the Sanscrit and its numerous derivatives — the Celtic, Teutonic, Scandinavian, and Slavonic dialects, — and intermediate between these the two classic lan- guages of Greece and Kome. The Semitic family is far inferior, both in superficial measurement and reduced? What is excepted from this classification, and why? What is meant by a cultivated language ? What names have been given to the first of these great families? What to the second? What its extent ? What languages does it include ? What docs the other familv include ? NEW TESTAltfENT LITEEATUKE. 69 number of affiliated languages, themost important be- ing Hebrew, Clialdee, Syriac, Arabic, and Etliiopic. § 80. Tlie most striking features of tlie Indo- European stock, by wliicli it is distinguished from the other, are, first, the direction of the writing from the left hand to the right ; then, the indis- criminate use of consonants and vowels, both as alphabetic characters and etymological elements ; the less conspicuous position of the verb among the parts of speech, or rather of verbal roots, as the origin of other words ; the absence of a definite and fixed form for these verbal roots, such as the trilite- ral [and dissyllabic] ; the exclusion of gender from the verb, and its restriction to the noun and pro- noun ; the greater variety of temporal and modal forms ; the disuse of prominal suffixes ; and an almost unlimited fertility, boundless liberty, and freedom in all other kinds of composition. It is to the last two features — the variety of verbal and of com- pound forms — that the most developed and ma- tured of the Indo-European tongues owe the flexi- bility and richness which distinguish them above all others. § 80. "What are the most palpable and striking points of differ- ence between these families of languages ? Which of these pecu- liarities especially contribute to flexibility and richness ? 70 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. § 81. Among the errors which have been ex- ploded by Comparative Philology is that which long prevailed as to the mntnal relation of the two great languages of classical antiquity, it being now held by the highest philological authorities, not only that the Greek is not the mother of the Latin, but that it is probably not even an elder sister, as a living writer, of great eminence in this department, argues from the absence of the article in Latin and the smaller number of particles denoting the rela- tions properly expressed by cases, both which pecu- liarities he looks upon as proofs of a later and more complete development of Greek, as we now have it.* But however this may be, the two are now regarded as collateral derivatives from a common stock, holding a central geographical position in tliis wide-spread family of languages, between its north-western and south-eastern limits, as well as in relation to their structure, being almost equi- distant from the superabundant richness of the Sanscrit stem, and the comparative meagreness of some Teutonic branches. * See Donaldson's New Cratylus, 2d edition (London, 1859). § 81. What ancient error has Comparative Philology exploded? What is now behoved to be the true relation between Greek and Latin? What is Donaldson's argument for this conclusion ? How much may be considered certain ? What is the relative position of these languages, local and structural? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. 71 § 82. Tlie origin, both local and historical, of these important languages is hidden in obscurity ; nor can it even be determined whether, or how far, they had a common basis in an older language ever actually spoken botli in Italy and Greece. The two great elements of classic Greek, still com- monly assumed, are scarcely known to us except by name, and that rather as an immemorial tradi- tion than as the result of modern philological an- alysis. We only know, and only in this way, that the basis of the language was Pelasgic^ and its later adventitious element Hellenic ; but the origin of these names, with the local habitation of the mother tongue, and the date of the supposed amal- gamation, are still subjects of conjecture and dis- pute, the settlement of which has thus far baffled the exertions both of philological and ethnographi- cal research. § 83. It is a characteristic circumstance in Greek and Roman history, that the palmy period of the latter is the period of consolidation under one great central power, whether republican or im- § 82. What point is still involved in doubt, as to the origin of Greek and Latin ? What is still assumed as to the elements of Greek ? How (and how far) are they known to us ? How far are they still uncertain ? S 83. What is the characteristic difference of the Greek and 72 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. perial in form ; whereas that of the former is the period of local separation into petty states, either hostile to each other, or at most united in a loose confederation. Whatever ground for this distinc- tion may be found in the national character of these two races, the difference certainly exists, not only in their social and political condition, but even in their language, and particularly in the fact with which we are immediately concerned, that Greek, as far back as we now can trace it as a cul- tivated tongue, existed, not as one, but under several provincial forms', called Dialects. § 84. The origin and relative antiquity of these old dialects is so obscure, that even their number is a variable quantity, some writers recognizing more, some fewer, just as we might hesitate or differ in determining how many distinct dialects exist among ourselves, and still more in the British isles, where such diversities are far more numerous and marked. The highest philological authorities, however, seem agreed in retaining the old quadruple division, only discarding what the earlier writers called the Poetical Dialect, as something not dependent upon Roman greatness ? How far does it extend to the language ? In what form do we first historically know the language ? § 84. What doubt is there as to the old dialects ? What one is repudiated by the modern writers? What is the twofold variation NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATURE. T3 local usage, but on literary fashion and prevailing taste. Omitting this, we may assume, in strict ac- cordance with the latest philological research, as well as with an older usage, two original or primary variations in the language, and two subsequent or secondary, probably occasioned by extensive and remote migrations of the Greek or Hellenic race. The first two are the Doric and Ionic, one distin- guished by its strength and harshness, and the other by its softer and more musical pronunciation, arising in a great degree, though not entirely, from a different combination and proportion of the con- sonants and vowels. After the settlement of Asia, in the proper sense, that is, the western provinces of what we now call Asia Minor, by Greek colo- nists, each of these ancient dialects received a colo- nial modification, the Asiatic counterpart of the Doric being the ^olic ; while, on the other hand, the name Ionic, like its parent form Ionia, became fixed in Asia, and the Grecian branch of the same great dialect was called the Attic. § 85. The general difference between these Greek and Asiatic dialects was the same as that commonly assumed ? How are they related to each other ? What were the two primary dialects ? What was their characteristic dif- ference ? What were the two secondary dialects ? § 85. How did 'they differ from the others? Were they anv 4 74 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. between the tribes who used them, the Ionian and ^olian cultivation tending more to a voluptuous softness, the Doric and the Attic to a masculine severity. It is also important to observe, that these provincial dialects, although originally noth- ing more than local variations of the spoken lan- guage, became afterwards distinct types of expres- sion and of composition, which were more or less promiscuously used, without regard to the writer's residence or nationality, as specially adapted to cer- tain styles and subjects. Thus the Doric dialect was used all over Greece in choral, the ^olic in lyric, the Ionic in epic composition ; while the Attic, though distinguished in every kind of lite- rary labor, surpassed all the rest in its inimitable prose, which, in the writings of Thucydides, Plato, and the Orators, is still the highest model of com- bined strength and beauty, the most exquisite sim- plicity, and the purest taste. This marked supe- riority in that specific form of composition, which is more and more required and practised as civili- zation marches onward, was at once the cause and the effect of the extraordinary galaxy of genius by which Athens is immortalized. In other words, it was because her language was so perfect, that so thing more than local variations in the spoken language? How were they used in different kinds of composition? How did the KEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. 75 many of her writers gained celebrity ; and yet, it may be said witli equal trutli, it was because lier writers were so liigbly gifted, that the Attic dialect attained the highest place by general consent, even while the states of Greece still remained aloof and independent of each other. § 86. The first great change from this condition, political and literary, was occasioned by the Mace- donian ascendancy, in both its stages, the first nnder Philip of Macedon, the second under his still more illustrious son, Alexander the Great. Mace- donia, lying on the northern boundary of Greece, and reckoned as belonging to it in the widest ap- plication of the name, was excluded from its stricter definition, and its people treated as barbarians by the national Hellenic pride, although the Greek descent of Philip and his royal predecessors was conceded, either as a subtle flattery, or in extorted admiration of his genius. By intrigue and influ- ence, as much as by mere military strength, he gained an ascendancy in every Grecian state, and Attic dialect surpass the rest ? Of what was this both the cause and the effect? How early was this superiority acknowledged? § 86. What caused a change in the pohtical and literary state of Greece? What was the first stage of the Macedonian ascen- dancy ? How were the Macedonians and their rulei'S regarded by the Greeks? How did Philip of Macedon gain his ascendancy? What was its social and political effect ? What was its effect upon 76 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. was finally acknowledged as the Protector of tlie whole, thus uniting the proud independent races, for the first time, in one nation, but purchasing this unity at the expense of all the local dignities in vfhich they gloried. The analogous effect upon the language was to fuse its local variations into one Koivr) BLoXeKTO'?, of which the Attic was the basis, but to which the others all contributed their quota both of idioms and vocables. The conquests of Alexander carried some knowledge of this common dialect to the verge of India, and gave it permanent establishment wherever permanent Greek colonies were founded, and especially in those Greek king- doms which were shared among the Macedonian generals, and preserved in a divided form the glories of that empire which existed undivided only seven years, and of that great conqueror who had personally no successor. § 87. Of these kingdoms, the most splendid on the whole was that of Egypt, where the Ptolemies succeeded one another, as the Pharaohs had of old. The importance of this new state was enhanced by the language? What was the basis of the koiu^ SiaAe/cros? What was the effect of Alexander's conquests ? Where was the Greek language introduced temporarily and permanently ? § 87. Which was the most important of these Greek kingdoms in the East, and why ? What was the position of Alexandria in the NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 77 that of the commercial mart established by the fore- sight and sagacity of Alexander, and distinguished, under his own name of Alexandria, for ages as a centre not only of commercial but of intellectual activity. As usual in all such cases, the activity of intercourse in trade, aroused and stimulated mental life ; the confluence from all parts of the world in- creased it ; Alexandria grew famous for its schools and libraries, among which was the greatest of the ancient world. Greek philosophy and learning here sought patronage or refuge from the decaying schools of Greece itself. It was in Alexandria that the race of Greek grammarians had its origin, whose soulless but invaluable labours first subjected the incomparable language to a microscopic criti- cism and minute analysis. These causes, in addi^ tion to their other manifold effects, could not fail to influence the language. It is still common to as- sume the existence both of a Macedonian and an Alexandrian dialect ; the one produced by the Macedonian conquests, both in Greece and Asia, the other by the Macedonian reign in Egypt ; though the traces of the former consist chiefly of a few de- tached words, said to be of Macedonian origin, and ancient world ? How was it distinguished in a literary way ? "What kind of learning had its origin and seat here? What effect had this upon the language ? What was the Macedonian dialect ? What 78 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. tlic latter first assumes a positive and independent character when afterwards developed as the Hel- lenistic dialect, by causes and in ways which we must now describe with some particularity. § 88. The next point to be considered is the providential means by which the Jews were brought in contact with the changes which have been de- scribed as flowing from the Macedonian conquests. The Greek kings of Egypt, in addition to their patronage of learning, took a lively interest in its inhabitants, contending with the Greek kings of Syria for the sovereignty of that diminutive but most important state, and when possessed of tire ascendancy, not only favouring the Jews at home, but encouraging their emigration into Egypt, where extensive colonies were settled under the first Ptol- emies, and a large proportion of the population of Alexandria was composed of Jews. This brought them into contact with the "Greek civilization, and produced a mutual action and reaction between Judaism and Heathenism, not without perceptible effects upon both systems, or at least on some of was the Alexandrian dialect ? In what form was it afterwards de- veloped? How must this form be considered? § 88. How were the Jews brought iuto contact with these changes? Who contended for the sovereignty of Palestine? What was the pohcy of the Ptolemies towards the Jews? What effect had this upon Judaism and Heathenism ? What was the origin of NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 79 their adherents. Tliis was the origin of the Sad- ducees or lax Jews, who inclined to assimilation with the cultivated Gentiles, in opposition to the Pharisees or rigid separatists not only in a social but a national sense. It also gave rise to that class of devont Gentiles whom we find in the 'New Tes- tament and elsewhere, treating the religion of the Jews with serious respect, without in every case embracing it. Another fruit of these relations was a further modification of the language, which had now become the universal medium both of business and of literary intercourse. The idiom or dialect which thus arose is called the Hellenistic. § 89. According to the national tradition of the Greeks, once discredited as fabulous, but now again received as the best authority to which we can get access, the name usually given to the whole race (i. e. by themselves) was derived from that of Hellen, a son of Deucalion (the Noah of the classical my- thology) who built a town in Thessaly to which he gave the name of ITellas, afterwards extended to the whole surrounding region, also called Phtlii- the Sadducees ? What was that of the devout Gentiles ? What effect had this upon the language ? § 89. Who was Hellen ? What was the primary application of the name Hellas ? What were its secondary applications ? Ho\7 far was the name Hellen extended? 80 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. Otis, or tlie country of tlie Myrmidons ; then still further to the whole of Uj)per (or Continental) Greece, as distinguished from the Pelopoimesus, or to Middle Greece, including parts of both ; and finally applied to all countries settled by tlie Greeks, including Asia Minor and the part of Italy called Magna Gr£ecia, in antithesis to which the mother country was sometimes spoken of as Old Greece (^ ap^ala eXkd^). By a similar extension, the name of the reputed founder was applied to his descendants, both in the singular and plural form {eXkrjv and eWn^ves:)/'^ with the corresponding ad- jective {€W7]vifco<;, comparative eW7]viK(t)T€pos) and adverb {iWrjvLKO)^), applied by Herodotus and Xen- ophon to the language, especially as purely spoken. § 00. Another derivative of "EXkriv was the verb €\Xr]VL^co, meaning to make Greek in any sense, as Thucydides applies the passive to a lan- guage (eXX7)vi(T6rjvai ttjv ryXctxrcraL), then to be Greek, or to imitate the Greeks, in manners, institutions, sentiments, but specially in sj)eech or language. The word was even used of native Greeks who paid particular attention to their diction, so that eWrj' * Hesiod nses the form TcaviXkrivis^ which also occurs in a sus- pected reading of the lUad. § 90. What adjective and verb come ivQVQ."Y.\Xriv ? What verb ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. 81 vl^€Lv sometimes means to speak good Greek. But a much more common application of the term is to foreigners who spoke the language, whether well or ill. This imitation of the Greek or assimilation to them, both in the wider and the stricter sense, was eWrjvLo-fjLo^;, while the person by whom it was prac- tised was a eXk'qvLvT€s Trpo€(p-f]T€vov. Philo de Vit. Mos. given by Epiplianius ? How is it given by Justin Martyr ? What is Philo's statement? § 96. How does Josephus tell the story ? Upon whose author- ity ? Who was Aristeas ? What is his account ? Who advised the translation ? What did Aristeas himself advise ? What did the king 88 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. him to complete liis collection of the laws of various nations, by adding those of Moses, or the Jews, and as these were written in an unknown character and language, counselled him to send for an authentic copy, and for competent translators from the Holy Land itself.^ He accordingly sent two ambassa- dors, of whom Aristeas was one, and Andreas, the captain of his guard, the other. These went to Jerusalem, with letters and presents to the High Priest, who sent them back with a copy of the law written on parchment in letters of gold, and accom- panied by six elders from each tribe, well ac- quainted with both languages. After being hos- pitably entertained for several days at court, they were conducted by Demetrius to an island, sup- posed to be that of Pharos, in the harbor of Alex- andria, where they executed their task, not singly or in pairs, but jointly ; the translation of each portion, when agreed upon, being written down in Greek by Demetrius himself. When their task * Aristeas himself advised liim to conciliate the Jews by ran- soming the (100,000) Jewish slaves in Egypt, which he did, by pay- ing 20 (Josephus says 120) drachms for each to the soldiers who owned them. do ? Who were the ambassadors ? What did they take with them ? What did they bring back ? How were the seventy received and treated? Where did they perform their task? Who was their amanuensis ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUKE. 89 was accomplislied, tliey were sent home loaded with gifts and hononrs. / § 97. There are some discrepancies in this ac- count — e. g. as to the power by which the Jews had been enslaved, whether Persian or Macedonian — which, taken in connection with the obvious at- tempt to play the Greek, while all the style and sentiments are Jewish, have led the modern critics first to suspect and then to condemn this writing as a forgery — prompted by a wish to give ecclesi- astical authority to a translation wdiich might other- wise have seemed suspicious to the stricter Jews, as having been made in a foreign country, and under the auspices of a heathen king. This sceptical criticism has perhaps been pushed too far, as there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the story it- self, which is certainly older than Josej)hus, whether written by Aristeas or not. That the version is of Egyptian origin, there is internal evidence ; and al- though it was certainly in general use among the Jews there, this is not at variance with the fact of its having been prepared originally under the direc- § 97. What suspicious circumstances are there in this narrative ? How is it regarded by the modern critics? What motive is imputed to the forgery? In -nhat respect have the critics gone too far? What part of the story is entirely credible ? What different pur- poses may this version have accomplished? What is the oldest 90 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. tion of the king, and for a political or literary, ratlier than a religious, purpose. Tlie oldest undis- puted testimony on the subject is that of Aristobu- /■^^ , I . lus, a Jewish Aristotelian in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, some fragments of whose writings are preserved in those of Clemens Alexandrinus and Eu- sebius the historian, in which he says that the whole of the law was first translated into Greek under Ptol- emy Philadelphus,* which may therefore be con- sidered an established fact, and the germ of all the subsequent embellishments. § 98. The use of the ambiguous term law in these accounts, has raised the question whether it is to be taken in its wide sense as denoting the Old Testament, or in its strict sense as denoting the Pentateuch, or books of Moses. Josephus says ex- pressly f that the latter only were translated by the seventy ; % but in the prologue to Ecclesiasti- * 'H Se oXt] epiirjveia rwu 5ia rod vijxov irdvruv. \ Ant. Prol. § 3. \ "Et Aristeas et Josephus et omnis schola Judasorum quinquc tantum libros Moysis a Ixx. translates asserunt." Hieron. in Ezech. v. undisputed testimony on the subject? "Where is it preserved? What does it amount to? "What may be considered certain, both from external and internal evidence ? § 98. What question as to the extent of the translation? What is the Jewish tradition as recorded by Jerome ? "What is the testi- NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 91 cus,* tlie writer speaks of the law, the prophecies, and the other Scriptures, as existing in both Ian- . giiages. From this it is now commonly inferred, that the version was gradually made, having been begun under Ptolemy Philadelphus (or his father), and completed by the 38th year of Ptolemy Phys- con, (B. C. 132).t § 99. Til at the version is the work of different hands, if not of different ages, is now very com- monly agreed to be established by a marked diver- sity, not only of mere style and diction, but of ability and skill and knowledge, both of Greek and Hebrew. The most valuable portion is the Pentateuch, not only as the oldest, but because the Egyptian authors or translators were particularly * 'O v6fJt.os Kai at'rrpoiprjTuai /cai raXoiira rS>v fiifi\ia>v. t 323 Ptolemy Soter (Lagi). 285 Ptolemy Philadelphus. 24*7 Ptolemy Euergetes. 222 Ptolemy Philopator. 205 Ptolemy Epiphanes. 181 Ptolemy Philometor. 170 Ptolemy Physcou. 117 Ptolemy (Soter) and Cleopatra. mony of the son of Sirach ? What inference is usually drawn from it? § 99. How does the plurality of authors appear? Which is the most valuable part, and why ? Which part of the Pentateuch is 92 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. qualified for that part of the task. Li the Penta- teuch itself some distinguish as the best part the book of Leviticus, and in the rest the book of Proverbs, while the lowest place is unanimously given to the book of Daniel, which is so defective or absurd, that another version (that of Theoclo- tion) was early substituted for it in the copies of the Septuagint version. § 100. At a very early period, perhaps soon after it appeared, this version became current among the Hellenistic Jews, not only in Egypt, but in other countries, and, according to tradition, in the Holy Land itself. It was even introduced into the Synagogues, but probably not to the exclu- sion of the Hebrew text, which is still used by the Jews throughout the world in worship, though ac- companied by vernacular translations for the bene- fit of those who are ignorant of Hebrew. A sim- ilar purpose was answered by the Septuagint in ancient times, when Greek was the language of the civilized world. It thus obtained extensive circu- lation, perhaps even among Gentiles, and was higlily best done? Which is the best of the other books? Which is the worst ? § 100. How was the LXX. regarded by the Jews before the ad- vent ? How extensive was its use ? Why did it not exchide the Hebrew text? What changed the feeling of the Jews respecting NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. 93 valued by the Jews tliemselves, until the virulence of anti-Cliristian controversy led tliem to denounce it as an inexact translation, and fall back upon the Hebrew original, or on more accurate Greek ver- sions, many of wliicli sprang into existence in the first and second centuries of the Christian era. Three of these are known to us by name, those of Aquila. Symmachus, and Theodotian, and three others, which are nameless, but distinguished as the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh, in the great work of Ori- gen,,the history of which, as well as of these ver- sions, ,as such considered, belongs to Old Testament Litpature. All that need be stated here is that all \j)TCse versioiis have ifoe^Ay^lost, and now exist in 1 fragments only, wi1ii[i/the exception of the oldest, ^ which h^srbe^4 preserved froni the same fate by its ecclesiasUcai employment, first in the Synagogue and then in the Greek or Oriental Church, where it till) maintains its ground, along with the original New Testament, and is the only one of these Greek i.j^ •^versions which, demands attention in the present i^c'^irse./^ V^xi^^ l\ ' \J § 101. The violent revulsion in the feelings of the Jews with respect to this time-honoured version it ? What did tliey use instead of it ? How many other Greek versions are known to have existed? Why were they not pre- served ? / 94 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. may be gathered from the foolish and extravagant expressions of the Talmud, e. g. that darkness over- spread the earth when it was finished, and that the sin of making it was equal to the sin of making the golden calf. A like depreciation, though from other motives, and expressed in other forms, has resulted in our own day by reaction from the oppo- site extreme of idolatrous attachment which pre- vailed throughout the Christian world for ages, an extreme which still exists, though now compara- tively rare. § 102. As a specimen of these extreme views may be cited the position occupied by Grinfield, one of the most learned Hellenistic scholars of the day, in his " Apology for the Septuagint " (London, 1850), namely, that the Septuagint version is in- spired and precisely equal in canonical authority to the Hebrew text, or rather superior to it, on ac- count of its affinity to the New Testament, arising from community of language, dialect, and diction, and from its being directly quoted in the New Tes- tament itself. If such a theory could be estab- lished, it would revolutionize the whole work of criticism and interpretation by requiring them to § 101. What extravagant expressions are used in the Talmud? What extreme opinions have existed since? ^ 102. What is Grinfield's doctrine ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 95 recognize a version and original alike and equally infallible, but in a multitude of cases quite irrecon- cilable. § 103. The arguments by which it is attempted to establish this extraordinary doctrine are in sub- stance tliese : 1. The antecedent probability that 0^^^\^ with the change of dispensations from a local to ^xii^^^"^ universal church, there would be a corresponding change in the language even of the older revela- tion, to adapt it to a new and more extensive use. 2. The fact that the New Testament was written in • r the very language of this ancient version, not only Wn Wv in Greek, but in the very kind of Greek, of which it furnishes the oldest sample.* 3. The derivation vft— of the New Testament terminology from this source.f ^ 4. The actual quotation from it, even when it dif- ouft/" q fers from the Hebrew.:]: 5. The fact (alleged with- x^J^ out proof) that our Saviour himself used this ver- ' sion from his childhood. 6. The fact (also asserted ^t, ^ without proof) that German and American neolog^ ^!^^ is owing to the neglect of Hellenistic learning, and- "' exclusive study of the Hebrew Sciptures. § 104. In answer to these arguments it may be * See below, § 109. f See below, § 110. % See below, § 108. § 103, How is it supported? 96 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. stated first, that they either prove too little or too much, i. e. either that an uninspired version was sufficient for all necessary purposes, or else that the Hebrew text is wholly useless, being superseded by a version equally inspired, and therefore really a new revelation, as maintained in theory by several of the Fathers, and in practice by the Greek Church to the present day. In the next place, the original and version cannot be equall}^ inspired, be- cause if they were they woi^ld agree, and if it be alleged that either is corrupt, which is it, and why should it have been suflfered to become so ? All the arguments employed to prove the point go to show that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is either sufficient or superfluous. It would be far easier to maintain, with some degree of plausibility, this last alternative, viz., that the Septuagint is not a version, but a new original, designed to super- sede the old forever. § 105. Between these hurtful and extravagant extremes, there is a golden mean in which the learned, after many oscillations of opinion, have been gradually settling, a position equally removed from the error of the Christian Fathers, who re- § 104. How may these arguments be answered ? § 105. What is the true mean between these opposite extremes? NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. 97 garded tlie Septuagint version as a second revela- tion, by wliicli the first had been legitimately su- perseded, and from that of the contemporary Jews, who, not content with rejecting its imanthorized pretensions to take precedence of the Hebrew text, repudiated and denounced it as an impious abomi- nation. This conclusion naturally prompts the question, how shall it be reduced to practice ? — or, what is the use to be legitimately made of the Sep- tuagint version ? § 106. The legitimate use of. the Septuagint is twofold, in relation to the Old and Xew Testament. Tliis is not a mere conventional distinction, but a radical and total difference, to show which it may be observed still more particularly, that the Old Testament use of this version is itself also twofold. In the first place, it is an important aid in deter- mining the text of the Old Testament [though often misapplied in this way], by showing how these old translators read it. In the next place, it affords assistance in determining the sense, by showing how these old translators understood it. In other w^ords, it is, when properly employed, a help both in Criticism and Interpretation. § lOG. What is the twofold use of the Septuagint ? What is its twofold Old Testament use? 98 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. § lOT. ITow both these uses of the Septuagint 'l^ersion — namely, the Critical and Exegetical — are wholly inapplicable to the ISTew Testament, which came into existence afterwards, and with whose text and meaning this old version can have no con- nection except indirectly, in a w^ay wholly different from that in which it may be made to bear upon. the Hebrew Scriptures. But, although not in the same sense or the same form, the Septuagint ver- sion is of no less value, possibly of greater, to the student of the New than of the Old Testament — and that in reference to three particulars which we shall specify. § 108. In the first place, the New Testament abounds in quotations from the Old, which are sometimes of the most important kind, such as prophecies fulfilled, or historical events explained, or general truths enforced by authoritative repeti- tion. These quotations, which occupy a larger space than careless readers may imagine, are some- times made directly from the Hebrew by original translation, but more frequently borrow^ed from the Septuagint version, as the one in common use, with § 107. Why arc these uses inapplicable to the New Testament' How many uses has it with respect to the New Testament ? § 108. What is its use with respect to the quotations? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 99 or without modification. This brings that version into close connection with the Christian revehition, as the sonrce of some of its most striking passages. § 109. But in addition to direct quotation, for- mal transfer of whole sentences or phrases from one part of Scripture to the other, tliere is a less promi- nent, but still more intimate, relation of the two, arising from community of language and identity, of dialect. The basis of the Christian or ISTew Tes- tament idiom lies in the Septuagint version, and can never be elucidated fully without reference to it. In other w^ords, it was the same peculiar form of Greek, which had its origin, or has its oldest ex- tant exhibition, in this ancient version, that was afterwards adopted by the Holy Spirit, as the vehicle or costume of the new revelation. § 110. Lastly, although really included in the previous specification, it maybe distinctly stated, on account of its important bearing both on interpreta- tion and theology, that a large part of the religious terminology or phraseology which characterises the IN'ew Testament is really of older date, and may be traced to this old version of the Hebrew Scriptures, § 109. What is its philological relation to the New Testament? § 110. What is its technical use? How may this use be ex- emplified ? 100 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. whicli had made many of these terms familiar to the Jews, long before they were incorporated into the language of the new or Christian revelation. As marked examples, serving to verify this general statement, may be mentioned the important terms, § 111. These important uses of the Septuagint version with respect to the New Testament, to- gether with its value as the oldest form of Hellen- istic composition, entitle it not only to a place in snch a course as this, but to more assiduous atten- tion as a part of ministerial training than it com- monly receives. The best mode of supplying this deficiency, would be by connecting the study of the Septuagint version with the thorough philological analysis of the Hebrew Bible, so as to compare the two by one simultaneous (or immediately succes- sive) process, an addition to our j)resent theological curriculum devoutly to be wished. § 112. The grammatical study of the Septuagint version is facilitated now by cheap and accurate editions of the text (such as those of Tischendorf, Yan Ess, and Yalpy), and by the reference to Sep- tuagint usage in the best Greek lexicons in common § 111. What is the best mode of studying the Septuagint? § 112. What are the best helps for snch a study? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 101 use, both general and special (siicli as Licldell & Scott's, Robinson's, &c.) ; while the means of more specific and minute investigation are afforded by the older works of Schleusner, Trommius, and others. [An efi'ort to promote this study, on the plan above suggested, will be made, if practicable, in connection with the present course.] § 113. Next to the Septuagint or old Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, stands, in point of age and philological importance, as a source of illustration to the Greek of the ISTew Testament, as well as a distinguishable form or phrase of Hel- lenistic Literature, a series or collection of an- cient writings, known as the Old Testament ApoG- rypha/^ The argument against the canonicity of these books, belongs entirely to Old Testament Literature, or Introduction, and will be treated under that head, with as much particularity as cir- cumstances may allow. In the meantime it may be as- sumed, as the conclusion of that argument, that all the books in question were uncanonical and uninspired. § 114. But though entirely without authority or * See § 4'7. § 113. What is the second group of writings belonging to the Hellenistic Literature? What part of the subject must be here omitted as belonging elsewhere? What will be assumed ad interim ? 102 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. use, as belonging to tlie Rule of Faith, these writ- ings are entitled to attention from their great an- tiquity, their Jewish origin, and their Greek (or rather Hellenistic) dress. The salutary prejudice among most Protestants against them, as unjustly claiming or assigned a place in the inspired canon, should not be pushed so far as to prevent our mak- ing a legitimate and prolitable use of them, as curious and ancient compositions, which contain some false docti'ines, more false facts, and still more of false taste, but are, nevertheless, interesting ; first, as sources or materials of history ; then, as illustrative of Jewish manners and opinions in the interval between the Old aixl IN'ew Testaments ; and odly, as throwing light upon the language of the latter ; which last is the only reason for assigning them a place in any systematic course, however meagre and imperfect, of New Testament Philology. § 115. The fact just stated will require us to de- fine with more precision the class of writings here referred to, some of which, if taken in the widest sense of the generic or collective term (Old Testa- § 114. Why are these books entitled to attention? What ex- treme or prejudice is to be avoided ? What are the three uses to be made of these books? What especially connects them with our present subject? § 115. Which of the Old Testament Apocrypha have no such NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. 103 ment Apocrypha), have no coimectioii with our present subject, such as the 4th book of Esdras, and the 5th book of Maccabees (so called), which are not now known to exist in Greek at all, what- ever may have been their original language. Of the much larger number which remain, some are certainly or probably mere Greek translations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals ; but this does not impair their philological value as specimens of Jewish Greek or Hellenistic composition, any more than in the case of the Septuagint itself. For this reason, and because, with the exception of a single book (Ecclesiasticus), which is avowedly translated from the Hebrew, the evidence of this fact is exclu- sively internal and conjectural, it will be best to treat them all alike, merely observing, once for all, that besides the book just mentioned, those re- garded by the latest critics as most probably trans- lated from some other language, are the books of Tobit, Judith, and 1 Maccabees, together with the brief composition called the Prayer of Manasseh ; whereas all the other books of Maccabees and Es- dras (which exist in Greek), the book of "Wisdom, the epistle of Jeremy, and the additions to Esther connection ? Into what classes may they be divided as to origin ? Why is this distinction unimportant for our present purpose ? Hovr is the line drawn by the latest critics? 104 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. and Daniel, are now commonl j regarded as original Greek compositions. The book of Barucli is re- ferred by some to either class, the first half having indications of translation, which the latter half does not exhibit. § 116. As the term Apocrypha is somewhat vague, and the number of books comprehended under it not perfectly determinate, it may be useful for our 2)resent purpose to define it by restricting it to those hooks which are found in the Septuagint version^ hut not in the original Hebrew. Plow they gained admission to the Greek translation, where we find them intermingled with the canonical books, can only be conjectured. The most probable oj^inion is that the Greek or Hellenistic canon of the Old Tes- tament, having no such protection as the Masora, or critical tradition of the Hebrew text, and the ofiicial or professional inspection of the Scribes, it was not always easy to determine whether books upon religious subjects, which were current among foreign or Greek-speaking Jews, were canonical or not ; and as no authority existed out of Palestine to settle such disputes, some corruption became un- avoidable. § 116. How may the Old Testament Apocrypha be conveniently defined ? How did they gain admission to the Septuagint version ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 105 §117. Although we are directly concerned only with the language of these books, and not with their intrinsic value, either literary or religious, it may not be amiss to observe, before proceeding further, that this value is as far as possible from being uniform or equal. On the contrary, the most remote extremes may here be said to meet, of eloquence and drivel, of the highest human wisdom and the silliest of nonsense. While the story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon, are at best in- genious fables in the style of Scripture, and the larger books of Tobit and Judith mere domestic or historical romances, and the additions to Esther, with the books of Esdras, mere gratuitous additions to the corresponding parts of Scripture, the two books of Maccabees, and more especially the first, are almost the only sources of our knowledge as to the period of the Maccabees or princes. On the other hand, with many indications of the doctrinal corruption of the Jews, the moral books of the Apocryphas abound in noble sentiments and true philosophy immeasurably higher than the heathen standard, and often rismg to a high degree of elo- quence, not only in the Greek, but in the English version, made at the same time with that of the in- § IIY. How do the books differ among themselves? Which are the best books, historic and moral ? 5* 106 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. spired Scriptures, and containing many words and phrases not to be found there, though all belonging to this well of English pure and undefiled. The two books, called Ecclesiasticus and "Wisdom, are the most successful imitations of the style of Solo- mon that have ever been attempted, and perhaps approach as nearly to Ecclesiastes and the Book of Proverbs as any uninspired writings could at any rate, much nearer than would be attainable by even the most gifted modern writer. One of these aprocryphal, but ancient compositions, is retained, not only by the Church of Rome, but by the Church of England in her daily service, as the Bencdicite^ or Canticle, to be said or sung in place of the Te Deum^ at the option of the minister. ^ OLD TESTAMENT APOCEYPHA. § 118. As to the use of these books in reference to the l^ew Testament it is of course not intended to advise the expenditure of time and labor upon such aprocryphal productions in the case of ordi- nary ministers, but only to indicate a source from which the best writers now derive important illus- § 118. How are these books to be used by the student of th© New Testament ? NEW TESTA^IENT LITEKATUKE. 107 trations of tlie language and external form of the l^ew Testament. At the same time there is a cer- tain amount of general knowledge with respect to the Apocrypha which may be reckoned almost in- dispensable to every educated minister and critical student of the Scriptures. Of this I have given a mere outline which may be filled up by private reading as you find desirable hereafter.* § 119. The next group of Hellenistic writings includes those of Philo and Josephus, put together as belonging to no other class, and as living nearly at the same time, namely, Philo contemporary with our Saviour, and Josephus belonging to the next generation. Although both were Jews, yet emi- nent Greek writers, and, therefore, in the strictest sense Hellenists,! there could scarcely be two writ- ers of the same class more unlike in their particular characteristics. Tliey were not even residents or natives of the same country, and were wholly un- like in their literary tastes and predilections, the one connecting Jewish learning and religion with * For a full description of the Apocryphal books, with the latest opinions in relation to them, see the 2d volume of Home's Intro- duction (new edition.) § 119. What is the next group of Hellenistic writings? Why are Philo and Josephus classed together ? How do they differ from each other ? 108 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. the Greek pliilosoj)hy, the other with Greek his% tory. Tlie one has been called the Jewish Plato, the other might be called the Jewish Xenophon. § 120. Of Philo's life we know but little beyond the fact that he was born and lived in Alexandria, where he enjoyed a high reputation both for elo- quence and learning, and was sent, about the year 42, to represent the Jews of Alexandria at Kome, in opposition to a heathen deputation led by Apion, and commissioned to accuse the Jews before Calig- ula, who treated Philo and his cause with great severity, refusing even to let him speak, and even threatening his life. Later legends or traditions of the Church represent him as a convert to Chris- tianity, and a friend of St. Peter whom he met at Pome, but as afterwards apostatizing. More au- thentic, no doubt, are the statements with re- pect to his high standing by Josephus and Eu- sebius. § 121. Philo's learning seems to have been wholly Greek, and chiefly philosophical. He is commonly supposed to have had no knowledge of the Hebrew language as he always quotes the Sep- § 120. What is known of Philo's history? What later legends with respect to him ? S 121. What was the character of Philo's learning? What was NEW TESTAMENT LTTEEATURE. 109 tuagint version, and sometimes betrays ignorance of the original. He is not considered an authority even with respect to Jewish usages and doctrines. The great aim of his life was to find the principles of Plato in the books of Moses, and thus to recon- cile his philosophical convictions with his heredi- tary faith in the Old Testament. This could be accomplished, even in appearance, only by the most unnatural interpretations {aWrjyopLat) of the Cosmogony and Primeval History, as well as that of the Patriarchs, together with the Life and Laws of Moses. These are accordingly the chief topics of his extant works, consisting of detached pieces, or perhaps of one continued work divided by his copyists or editors. The abstruse and uninterest- ing character thus given to his writings has caused them to be little read or known in later times, the principal exception being those in which he gives historical information, as to the Therapeutse and Essenes and as to his own embassy to Pome. On the other hand, his forced allegorical interpreta- tions are supposed to have exerted an imfavour- able influence, not only on the early heretics, but his favourite object? How did he endeavour to accomplish it? What parts of Scripture did he thus allegorize? What is the form of his extant writings? Why are they little read ? Which of them are most read ? 110 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. also on tlic great Alexandrian school of Catholic Theology. § 122. From what has now been said it will be seen that Philo's writings are of more importance as a specimen and part of Hellenistic Literatnre, than from any practical assistance which they yield in the criticism or interpretation of the !N'ew Testa- ment. That they are not wholly useless, even for this end, however, may be gathered from the long disputes resj)ecting the Platonic Logos, as it aj)- pears in Philo's writings, and the influence exerted by it on the Christian terminology ; as well as from occasional elucidations of particular expressions, where the classical and Septuagint usage fail us, and the only authority for certain senses is derived from Philo.* § 123. That we know far more of Josephus is owing partly to the popularity of his writings, partly to the gossiping and egotistical autobiogra- phy found among them. The main points of his * See for example the verb /coTOTTTpf^w, as explained by Hodge on 2 Cor. 3, 18 (p. 76.) § 122. What is the chief value of Philo's writings? Whp,t do they illustrate in theology ? How do they throw light on the Greek of the New Testament? § 123. Why do we know more of Josephus^ What are the NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Ill history, as there recorded, are his high extraction (priestly on his father's side, and royal on his mother's) ; his great advantages of education in the Holy Land, and his nnusnal precocity in learning ; his deliberate comparison of the three great sects or parties, and his final preference of the Pharisees ; his embassy to Kome in behalf of certain priests whom Felix had sent there for trial ; his success in this commission, and kind treatment by Poppsea, wife of Nero ; his shipwreck in the Adriatic, with a company of six hundred ; his advancement to im- portant public posts at home, both civil and mili- tary ; his settled opposition to the Zealots, and their consequent distrust of him ; his masterly defence of Jotapata against the army of Yespasian for seven, weeks ; the loss of the place by treason, and his favourable treatment by Yespasian and Titus ; his retm-n with them to Rome, and then again to Pal- estine, and ocular witness of the Jewish war until the downfall and destruction of Jerusalem. The History of this War is his earliest production, and appeared about A. D. 75, in seven books, two of salient points of his biography? What were his advantages of birth, education, and position? What points of contact with the history of Paul ? What public stations did he fill ? What was his relation to the Zealots ? What was his chief military achievement? How was he treated by the Roman conquerors ? How did he be- come a witness of the Jewish war ? To which of his works did it 112 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. whicli contain a rapid sketch of Jewish history, fed from Antiochus Epiphanes to the appearance of Yespasian in the Holy Land ; the other five, a most minnte description of the war that followed, and of which Josephus was not only an eye-witness, but a magna pars. § 124. Eighteen years later (A. D. 93), he brought out his "^ Ap')(ai6Ko^ia lovSaifcr), promised in his first work, and containing (in twenty books) an elaborate paraphrase of the Old Testament His- tory, with occasional deviations and additions, per- . ,5 haps founded on a national tradition, or derived /J*- J—- / from authentic sources, but in many cases, no ] doubt, merely conjectural or fanciful. After the ^close of the Old Testament, the history has more of an original and independent character, although it follows the books of Maccabees so far as they go. The period handled in the first books of the Jewish "War is more particularly treated here, down to the furnisli a subject and occasion ? When did this work appear ? How is it divided? What is the subject of the two first books? What is the subject of the rest ? What gives it great authority ? § 124. What was his other great work? What is the meaning of the title ? When did it appear ? How is it divided ? What is the first and larger part ? What is its relation to the Old Testament history ? What is probably the source of his variations and addi- tions? How are they to be received? What is the value of the later part? What older history does it follow ? What is common to both these great works of Josephus ? NEW TESTAMENT LITER ATUEE. 113 time of Gessius Florus, whose severities occasioned the great outbreak. § 125. A third w^ork of Josephiis, not to be con- founded with the second, from the similarity of the-; title, is his Two Books against Apion, concerning the antiquity of the Jews as a nation, in which he vindicates the truth of sacred history, and the doc- trines of the true religion, as he understood them, against heathen charges and objections. This work is valuable chiefly for the knowledge which it gives us of more ancient writings long since perished, such as the dynasties of Manetho. § 126. Besides the clear though incidental tes- timony which Josephus .bears to the existence and the character of Christ and John the Baptist, he is almost our sole dependence for the last years of the Jewish state, and often useful as a commentator on the earlier history. His credit as a historian has fluctuated greatly. The contemporary Jews con- sidered him a traitor to their cause, and accused him of falsifying history. This led their Christian opponents to the opposite extreme of overweening § 126. What third work of Josephus is still extant? What is its design ? What is its chief value ? § 126. What testimony does Josephus bear to Christ and his forerunner ? What are the different opinions on the passage which 114 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATIJKE. praise and confidence. Between these two extremes the opinion of the learned world has oscillated ever since. Some German writers do not hesitate to prefer his authority to that of the New Testament. Others argue from his flattery of Yespasian and Agrippa, that he cannot be relied upon. The pres- ent tendency, as in the case of Herodotus and other ancient writers, is to a more moderate and just appre- ciation of Josephus as a highly qualified and gen- erally trustworthy witness, although not free from the common lot of weakness and corruj)tion. § 127. Tlie Jewish War was written, as we learn from himself, in the language of his country, and translated into Greek for the use of Gentile readers. As he makes no such statement with respect to the Antiquities, we may suppose that the interval of eighteen years, which he chiefly spent at Kome, enabled him to use Greek in the first instance. He affects Attic elegance in composition, but occasion- ally shows his Hellenistic origin. Tlie waitings of Josephus are among the most popular of ancient works. They and Plutarch's lives are constantly reprinted in cheap editions, and circulate even relates to Christ ? How may the historical uses of his writings be summed up ? Why has his credit fluctuated ? How is it at present ? § 127. In what language did Josephus write ? How far are hia writings known to English readers ? NEW TESTAM]':NT literatuke. 115 among uneducated readers. Wliiston's rude but faithful version is witliin the reacli of all who read at all, both in the homeliest and in more attractive forms. § 128. The s i s ih group 'of Hellenistic writings (reckoning the New Testament itself as one) com- prises what are called the Apostolic Fathers on the verge of the first and second centuries. The name of Apostolic Fathers has been given to those unin- spired writers who were disci]3les, or at least con- temporaries of the Apostles. There are seven usu- ally reckoned, though the authenticity of several is still disputed. A full view of this subject belongs to the ancient period of Church History. Only so much of it will here be given as may be needed to complete our outline sketch of Hellenistic Lite- rature. § 129. The first place in the catalogue is com- monly assigned to Clement of Rome (or Clemens Romanus), represented by tradition as one of the earliest bishops of that church, and supposed to be § 128. What is the sixth group of Hellenistic writings? What is meant by Apostolical Fathers ? How many are usually reckoned ? Where does this history properly belong ? How much of it will here be given ? § 129. To whom is the first place commonly assigned? Where 116 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATURE. the person named by Paul in his epistle to the Philippians (4, 3), as one of his fellow-labourers. An epistle of this Clement to the Chnreh at Corinth was not only well known to the ancients, but actu- ally read in public worship, but when this was discontinued, perhaps on the final settlement of the Canon, the epistle was lost sight of until re-discov- ered in the seventeenth cojatury, as forming part of the contents of the famous Codex Alexandrinus, of which some account will be given in another place. It is an earnest exhortation to humility and con- cord, modelled upon Paul's epistles, but w^ithout much original or independent value. The same manuscript contains a portion of another composi- tion under the name of Clement, commonly called his second epistle, but more correctly described as a homily or discourse, and of very doubtful genu- ineness, as it is not mentioned by the ancient writers, though it may be of the same age, and available in illustration of the later Hellenistic dialect. Other writings, once ascribed to Clement, is he supposed to be named in the New Testament ? What work of his is mentioned by the ancient writers ? How was it then esteem- ed ? What is its later history ? What are its contents ? What is its character ? What other writing is ascribed to Clement ? Why is its genuineness doubtful ? How may it be used, whether genuine or not ? Wliat later writings have been falsely ascribed to the same person? Where does their history belong? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 117 such as the Clementina, the Apostolical Canons, Apostolical Constitutions, and a few decretal briefs or letters, are undoubtedly of later date, and will be here left out of view entirely, as belonging to the ecclesiastical history and literature of succeed- ing centuries. § 130. Under the name of Barncibas there is ex- tant an epistle which was certainly known to Clem- ent of Alexandria, and which many still regard as the production of the Barnabas so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's epistles ; while others infer from its allegorical interpreta- tions of Scripture, and the disrespect with which it seems to treat the institutions of the old economy, that it is of a later date, and either a forgery (or pious fraud), or possibly the composition of some other Barnabas, erroneously confounded with the primitive missionary or apostle. Even Eusebius and Jerome regard it as apocryphal, i. e., not be- longing to the Canon. § 131. Another name occurring in the JSTew Testament, and also as the author of an extant writing, is that of Hermas {Hermes)^ named by i^^ov^ § 130. What writing is ascribed to Barnabas? What are the opinions as to its author ? What are the supposed indications of later date ? How do Eusebius and Jerome regard it ? 118 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. Paul in liis epistle to the Koijians (16, 14), and in the title of a book called the Shepherd^ which we find referred to, as an ancient composition, by Ori- gen, in the third centnry. It consists of three parts, the first of which contains four Yisions, the second twelve Mandates, and the third ten Simili- tudes, the whole communicated by an angel in the form of a shepherd. Tliis book, though fanciful and mystical, was highly esteemed in the ancient church, being often read in worship, and regarded as inspired by such men as Origen and Irenseus. The Muratori fragment before mentioned, repre- sents it as the work of another Ilermas, the brother of Pius, who was bishop of Rome about the middle of the second century. The intrinsic value of the work is small, and even its literary interest for us not great, as it now exists only in the form of a very ancient Latin version. § 132. The same thing is partially true of an undisputed writing of the same class, an epistle of § 131. "Where is Hennas named in the New Testament? What work bears the same name ? How far back may it be traced ? How is it divided ? What are the contents of the several books ? What is the character of the whole ? How was it regarded by the an- cients? How by Origen and Irenceus? To whom is it ascribed in the Muratori fragment ? What is its literary and religious value ? Why is it comparatively unavailable for our immediate purpose? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 119 Polyearp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, and an eminent martyr under Marcus Anrelins (A. D. 1G8). This epistle is addressed to the Philip- pians, and is valuable chiefly on account of its cita- tions or references to the l^ew Testament. Of the Greek original there are only fragments extant, but a complete Latin version. § 133. Ostensibly much earlier in date, but of far more doubtful authenticity, are the famous epis- tles oi Ignatius^ bishop of ^inyrnft , and martyr, under Trajan, which have been a subject of dispute for ages. The maximum number is fifteen, but a majority of these, five in Greek, and three in Latin, are now unanimously looked upon as spurious. The re- maining seven exist in two forms (or recensions), a longer or a shorter, each of which is claimed to be the original by many learned writers. Within a few years a still shorter form in Syriac has been recently discovered, and is by some regarded as the original form, by others as a mere abridgment or mutilation of it, while a third class reject all three § 132. Who was Polyearp? When and how did he die? What extant writing bears his name? What is its chief value? § 133. Who was Ignatius? When and how did he die ? What extant writings bear his name ? What is the whole number of epistles? How many are now universally rejected? In what two Greek forms do the rest appear? What third form has been re- coutly discovered? What different estimates are formed of it? What 120 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. recensions as alike supposititious. The epistles are remarkable for earnest opposition to certain forms of heresy, and zealous assertion of the Divinity of Christ, but chiefly for the zeal with which they urge the claims of the episcopate, and which has given them importance in connection with exciting questions of church-government. "Whether written by Ignatius or not, their language is essentially the Greek of the ISTew Testament, and therefore Hellenistic. , § 134. Papias, bishop of Ilierapolis (and martyr), a^'^ ^ ' like Polycarp, is said to have been a disciple of St. -' " ^*t John, and a diligent collector of the sayings and do- .,' ings of our Lord, as preserved by oral tradition. His book (XoyL(ov Kvpca/ccov i^yjyrjcns:) exists only in frag- ments, preserved by Irengeus and Eusebius. The lat- ter describes him as a man of little mind and a srross Chiliast, which error was extensively promoted by his writings. § 135. With these Apostolical Fathers, com- monly so-called, is usually classed the anonymous r-K^-tfp writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, once ascribed to are the characteristics of the seven Greek epistles? "What has given them great interest in modern times ? What is their philolog- ical character ? § 134. Who was Papias? What book did he write? In what form has it been preserved? How does Eusebius describe him? What form of error did he help to propagate ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 121 Justin Martyr because found among his works, but now regarded as of earlier date, and by one wlio describes himself as airoa-Tokwv yevofj^evo^; /iaS7jTij<;. It is an eloquent defence of Christianity against the ob- jections of an intelligent heathen friend, and is much more elegant in style than most Hellenistic writings. § 136. l^ot only as a specimen of Hellenistic literature, but as a connecting link between the Apostolical and later Christian writings, these works are entitled to attention on the part of min- isters and others who are interested in the early church, though only few may be called to spend much time upon them. They have been translated into English more than once, the best known ver- sion being by an archbishop of Canterbury in the early part of the last century (Dr. Wake), wlio was disposed, however, to exaggerate their value. Among the editions of the original, there is a beauti- ful and cheap one in a single volume, edited by Hefele, a Eoman Catholic professor of high standing.* * Tubingen, 184'7 (3d edition). § 135. What anonymous work belongs to the same class? To whom was it formerly ascribed, and why? How does the writer describe himself? What is the subject of the epistle ? What is the character of its language ? § 136. Why are these works entitled to attention? Where do they exist in English ? What is the most convenient edition of the original ? 6 122 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATURE. § 137. The last group of writings that can be regarded as belonging to the Hellenistic class, even in the widest sense of the expression, are the Nev/ Testament Apocrypha, a heterogeneous mass of for- geries or pseudepigrapha, which sprang up, with a rank growth, chiefly in the second century,* in- tended partly to maintain and propagate heretical opinions ; partly to glorify the true religion by the unlawful means of pious frauds, but chiefly to fill up the supposed deficiencies and chasms in the canonical books of the E"ew Testament. Of these writings none are strictly doctrinal in substance, and only one or two epistolary in form, such as the epistle to the Laodiceans, supposed to be referred to in Col. 4, 16, and a third epistle to the Corinthians, supposed to be referred to in 1 Cor. 5, 9 ; to say nothing of the pretended correspondence between Paul and Seneca, or that between our Lord himself and Abgarus, king of Edessa. Some of these writ- ings are pretended prophecies, ascribed to heathen * Epiphanius mentions thousands of Gnostic Apocrypha, and Irenseus found, among the Valentinians alone, inerrabilis muUitudo apocri/pkorum et perperam scripturarum. § 137. What is the last group of Hellenistic writings? What do Irenreus and Epiphanius say as to their number? When do they most abound? What were their various designs ? Are any of them doctrinal? Which are epistolary in form? Which are prophetic? What apocryphal apocalypses arc there ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATURE. 123 seers (as tlie Sibylline books, in Homeric hexame- ters), or to real cliaracters in sacred history, such as the Book of Enoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaiah, all which con- tain express predictions of the Saviour and the Christian Church.^ § 138. But most of these Apocrypha are histo- ries, intended to supply the omissions of the Gospels or the Acts. Some, no longer in existence, but referred to by the ancient w^riters, such as the Gos- pel of the Hebrews, that of the Egyptians, that of Peter, that of Marcion, seem to have been mere corruptions of the canonical four gospels, made for the use of heretical sects. Others, still extant, and more properly denoted by the name Apocry- pha, do not purport to be complete histories oi Christ, but only supplements relating chiefly to his childhood and his passion. Of the former class, the oldest and the least extravagant is that called the Protevangelium of James the Less, designed to glo- * There are also spurious apocalypses under the names of Peter, Paul, Stephen, Thomas, and even John himself, all of which appear to have been more or less absurd imitations of the genuine Apoca- lypse. § 138. To what class do the most belong? What were the Gos- pels of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, Peter, Marcion, &c. ? What parts of fho Gospel History do the extant Apoci'ypha pretend to 124 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. rify tlie Yirgin Mary, not only as the Mother of our Lord, but by relating her whole history. An- other of the same general character is the Gospel of the N"ativity of Mary, purporting to be written by Matthew and translated by Jerome. A third is the history of Joachim and Anna, the nativity of Mary, and the infancy of Christ, chiefly occupied with miracles wrought by him in the flight to Egypt. A fourth is the history of Joseph the Carpenter, which dwells chiefly on the circumstances of his death, of which we have no account in the New Testament. Far more absurd than these is the Gospel of the Saviour's infancy, containing a multi- tude of silly and unmeaning miracles. Still worse is the Gospel of Thomas, which pretends to give the life of Christ, from his twelfth to his sixteenth year. The character of these books is evinced by their at- tempting to supply those omissions which espe- cially illustrate the veracity and wisdom of the true evangelists, and in a way as destitute of taste and common sense as of religious spirit and historical authority. give ? "What is the Protevangclium of James ? What is the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary ? The history of Joachim and Anna ? The history of Joseph the Carpenter? What is the Gospel of the Saviour's Infancy? The Gospel of Thomas? What is the charac- teristic difference between these and the canonical gospels? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 125 § 139. The other class of apocryphal gospels professes to complete the closing part of our Lord's history, by furnishing additional details as to his passion. Tlie Gospel of Xicodemus undertakes to give a formal record of the proceedings before Pilate ; an account of two of the resuscitated saints referred to by Matthew, 27, 52, and described as sons of Simeon ; and a description of our Lord's descent into hell. The Acts of Pilate is a name borne by three distinct works, only one of which is extant. The first was very ancient, being mentioned by Justin Martyr and TertuUian, and contained a re- port made by Pilate to Tiberius ; a communication of the latter to the Senate, proposing to place Christ among the gods-; and a letter of Tiberius to his mother. The second Acts of Pilate were of heathen origin, containing blasphemous perversions of the history as given in the Gospels. The third, still extant, like tlie first, though far posterior in date, purports to be a statement made by Pilate to Tibe- rius of the miracles, death, and resurrection of the Saviour. To these may be added an account of Pilate's punishment, and an epistle of Lentulus to the Roman Senate, containing a description of § 139. What is the other class of apocryphal gospels? What is the Gospel of Nicodemus ? How many books have been entitled Acts of Pilate? What did the first contain? What was the 126 NEW testa:ment liteeatuee. Christ's personal appearance."^ Tlie epistle of Len- tulus also originated in the middle ages, and seve- ral of tlic others are but little older, while a few of those first mentioned approach very nearly to the time of the apostles, and a large proportion are most probably not later than the second centnry, which may be regarded as tlie most j^i'olific period of this supposititious Jitjrature. § 140. It is worthy of remark that in this whole collection or farrago, there is not one book, how- ever small, which approaches in literary or reli- gious value to the better books of the Old Testa- ment Apocrypha. Indeed they may all be de- scribed as intrinsically worthless, and indebted for whatever adventitious value they possess to their indirect bearing on the genuine New Testament. Their use in this respect is threefold. 1. In the * There were many apocryphal lives of the Apostles current in the third and fourth centuries, chiefly of Gnostic origin and ten- dency. The fullest collection (that of Tischendorf ) contains thir- teen, of which seven have been recently discovered. The latest in date is the Historia Certaminis Apostolorum, which, though con- taining older materials, is probably as late as the ninth century. second? What is the one now extant? What other writings of the same class ? What Apocryphal Acts are there ? § 140. How do these books compare with the Old Testament Apocrypha? What is thoir intrinsic worth ? What is their adven- NEW TESTAl^IENT LITEEATUEE. 127 first place, tliej illustratCj by a glaring contrast, tlie perfection of the Scriptures, in comparison with writers of the same race and religion, and in some cases almost of the same age. Even the Apostol- ical Fathers answer the same purpose of exhibiting the difference between inspired and miinspired men of the same general character and class ; but the contrast is vastly more instructive as presented in these obvions imitations and professed improve- ments on the sacred record. § Ittl. In the next place, they illustrate the dis-' cretion, care, and even critical skill, with which the ancient chnrcli preserved the sacred Canon and as- serted its exclusive claims against so many, and such impndent, competitors. Not that the present Canon is, as some allege, a gradual selection made, as taste and judgment were improved, from a pro- miscuous mass originally equal in their claims and estimation — which would leave us no alternative but that of making all inspired or none — but be- cause these wretched imitations, all posterior in date to the Canonical Scriptures, by their intrinsic titious value ? How do they enhance that of the Canonical Scrip- tures? Why more so than the Apostolic Fathers? § 141. "What bearing have they on the question of the Canon? What is the false view of their original relation to it ? To what dangerous conclusion does it lead ? What is their true relation to it ? How do they corroborate the external testimony in its favour ? 128 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. meanness or absurdity, confirm the judgment of tlic ancients wliicli excludes tliem from the Canon, and corroborate the external evidence in favour of the twenty-seven books which now compose it. § 142. In the last place, these Apocrypha, in- trinsically worthless as they are, possess a certain literary interest, as samples of the language and the dialect employed in the ISTew Testament. But this, which is their only claim to notice here, has reference of course only to such books as now exist in Greek, whether as originals or versions. Some, which were written in that language, are now ex- tant only in translations, e. g. the Ascension of Isaiah, in Ethiopic ; the Epistle to the Laodiceans, in Latin ; the third to the Corinthians, in Ar- menian ; the Historia Certaminis Apostolorum, in a Latin version of a Greek version of a Hebrew original ; the History of Joseph, in an Arabic translation from the Coptic ; the l!^ativity of Mary, in a Latin translation from the Greek ; the Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, in an Arabic translation from the Syriac, &c. Some— e. g. the History of Joachim and Anna, the Acta Pilati, as now extant, &c. — seem to be Latin originals, while only a few, § 142. What is their philological use ? To which of them is this restricted ? IIow differ as to language ? Which of them do not NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. 129 but tliose the oldest, and in other respects the most important — such as the Protevangelimn of James, ^^.^^jUu the Gospel of Tliomas, and of Nicodemiis, the Ana- "«*^ baticon of Paul, the Testament of the Twelve Pa- triarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles — appear to have existed always in a Greek form. It is only with these, therefore, that we are concerned, as affording illustration to the Greek of the ITew Testament, and constituting the last class of writings which can be considered as belonging, even in the widest sense of the expression, to the field of Hellenistic Literature. [Besides more general and costly col- lections of the 'New Testament Apocrypha, Tischen- dorf has published critical editions of the spu- rious Acts and Gospels, each in an elegant octavo volume]. § 143. Having now surveyed the Hellenistic Literature in its outlines and its principal divisions, w^e return to our main theme, the Greek of the ]^ew Testament, and to the question, what kind ot Greek it is ? Before considering it for ourselves, exist in Greek at all? Which are Latin originals? Which are Greek originals ? Where are the New Testament Apocrypha col- lected ? § 143. What is the question now before us? What historical inquiry still remains ? How far back must it bo carried ? What was the state of learning in the middle ages ? G* 130 NEW TESTAIIENT LITEKATUEE. it will be well to glance at tlie history of opinion with respect to it, involving that of a most curious and protracted controversy, the results of which are still perceptible in this important field of sacred learning. To make this narrative intelligible, it will be necessary to begin as far back as the Eefor- mation — or rather in the period of darkness which preceded it, and during which ancient learning, as well biblical as classical, was banished from the Church by the universal prevalence of scholastic dialectics and metaphysical theology. § 144. The great religious revolution, which we call the Eeformation of the sixteenth century, was preceded and promoted by an intellectual or lite- rary revolution, known in history as the Eevival of Letters, i. e. an awakened interest in ancient, and especially in Greek and Latin, learning. A mighty impulse was imparted to this movement by the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and the downfall of the Eastern Empire (A. D. 1453), which scattered educated Greeks all over Western Europe, and especially through Italy, who thus became the teachers of the western nations, and by exciting an enthusiastic zeal for the Greek classics, produced § 144. What is meant by the Revival of Letters ? What great political event hastened it? How? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUEE. 131 indirectly an analogous effect in favour of Latin and even Hebrew studies. § 145. The Revival of Letters, altliougli provi- dentially conducive to the greater Eeformation which ensued, was not itself a religious movement. Some of its leaders, especially in Italy, were open infidels, and some affected to desire the restoration of the classical mythology. Even Popes and Car- dinals could talk and write about the gods as fami- liarly as any ancient heathen. And some, who did not go so far, still sought the revival of letters for its own sake, whence the whole class took the name of humanists^ or devotees of Literc^ Ilicona- niores, as distinguished from the barbarous scholas- tics, or illiterate priests and monks of the same period, some of whom are said to have denounced the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament as recent and heretical inventions. § 146. Some of the Humanists, especially in Germany and Holland, from previous habit or ecclesiastical position, gave particular attention to the Biblical part of ancient learning ; a few, such as Caprio or Reuchlin, to the Hebrew Bible, and a § 145. Was the Revival of Letters a, religious movement ? What was the religious ppirit of some of its leaders ? Who were the Humanists ? 132 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. greater number to the Greek Testament, editing the text, translating, annotating, with the great ad- vantage of familiar acquaintance with the Greek and Latin classics. The most eminent of this class was Erasmus, the most elegant of modern Latin writers, a devoted admirer of the Greek clas- sics, to w^hom the world is indebted for excellent translations and editions of the Fathers, for the earliest series of Greek Testaments, on which the common text is founded, and for a paraj)hrasc of the New Testament still unequalled in that kind of literature. § 147. But Erasmus, while contributing in this way to the Reformation, was a Humanist at heart, devoted more to learning than religion, and meas- uring even the Scriptures by a classical and heathen standard. It is not surprising, therefore, that with all his devotion to New Testament criticism and in- terpretation, he could speak of a " sermo apostolo- rum, non salum impolitus et inconditus, verum etiam imperfectus et perturb atis, aliquoties plane soloecissans," and that later winters, far less compe- § 146. Who were the Biblical Humanists ? Who was the most eminent among them ? How did he contribute to the reform ? § 14Y. What were his real motives ? What was his highest standard ? How does he describe the style of the "New Testament ? How was this idea carried out by others ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. 133 tent to judge, and less entitled to be heard, spoke in still more exaggerated terms of the solecisms and barbarisms of the sacred writers, arising from their ignorance of classic Greek, and from their Jewish education. § 148. Far more moderate and just was the judgment of two other eminent Greek scholars of the sixteenth century, Theodore Beza and Henry Stephens, also connected with the history of the text of the New Testament. Tlie former, in wi'it- ing on the gift of tongues, admits the Hebraisms of the sacred writers, but regards them as beauties (gemmas) and as more expressive of the truth than any other forms of speech could be. The latter, in the preface to his edition of 1576, gives the same decision, and exclaims against those " qui in his scripturis inculta omnia et horrida esse putant." But, notwithstanding these authorities, the super- cilious judgment of Erasmus still continued to be echoed by a series of inferior writers. § 149. This continued through the sixteenth century, and the first quarter of the seventeenth, but then a violent reaction took place, marked by § 148. What was the testimony of Theodore Beza and Henry Stephens ? How was it opposed by others ? § 149. How long did this opposition last? What reaction fol- 13tt NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUEE. the appearance of Sebastian Pfoclien's Diatribe de lingua3 Graecse Novum Testamentum puritate (Am- sterdam, 1629), followed by other writers upon both sides, two of the ablest being Heinsius for, and Gataker against, the Greek of the 'New Testament ; while Olearius and Leusden held the middle ground, that although it had many Plebrew idioms, and a general Hebrew modification, it was still Greek. The controversy lasted a whole century in the Re- formed Church, and then began afresh in the Lu- theran, where it continued many years. § 150. The extreme grounds taken by the He- braists and Purists, as these parties called them- selves, were equally untenable ; the one maintain- ing that the Greek of the New Testament was no Greek at all, but a barbarous Jewish jargon ; while the other held that it was pure and elegant accord- ing to the highest classical standard. Both pro- ceeded also on fallacious principles ; the Hebraists assuming that the presence of strange idioms and of a local tinge could destroy the identity of the lowed ? What may be regarded as the opening of the strife ? Who followed on both sides ? What middle ground was taken, and by whom ? How long did the controversy last, and where ? § 150. What were the parties called ? What were their extreme grounds ? What was the false assumption of the Hebraists ? What was that of the Purists? Why was bad Greek "not derogatory to NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATURE, 135 language ; tlie Pnrists that it was derogatory to the Scriptures to admit that they contained bad Greek. Tliis was only true uj)on the supposition that by " bad " was meant a language not adapted to an- sw^er its great purpose of expressing thought and conveying truth, but not if it merely meant the violation of some conventional factitious standard ; just as a house would be too had for a church, if men could neither see nor hear nor obtain shelter in it, but not if it were only bad in the sesthetic sense of not being Gothic, with pointed arches and painted windows. These extremes conduced to the ultimate triumph of the middle ground already mentioned, and which was finally expressed in Er- nesti's dictum, that the Greek of the New Testa- ment is composed of a classical and Hebrew ele- ment, and that they are only to be pitied who maintain that it is all good Greek [that is, accord- ing to the Attic standard], § 151. One incidental good resulting from this long and apparently pedantic quarrel, was the vast accumulation of real or pretended Hebraisms on the one side, and of classical parallels upon the other, which could only be collected in the course of the Scriptures"? In what case would it be so? What is the real case ? IIow may this be illustrated ? Which opinion ultimately triumphed ? What was Ernesti's dictum ? 136 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. many years and by a mnltitnde of hands, and wliicli have since afforded the materials of many valuable works, such as Lambert Bos on the Greek Ellipsis ; various illustrations from the usage of particular Greek writers by Raphelius, Kypke, Schoetgen, Yalckenaer, Krebs and others ; and the later lexicons and grammars, some of which will be particularly mentioned in another place. (See be- low, § 162). § 152. Since the days of Ernesti the old school of Purists has been quite extinct, and that of ex- treme Hebraists nominally also ; but there has not been wanting a strong tendency, especially in writ- ers of a lower rank, to multiply such idioms un- duly, and to seek them where some other explana- tion is sufficient and more natural. The great reformer of this last abuse is George Benedict Winer, the chief glory of whose life is the success with which he has defined and held possession of the true mean between all extremes, rejecting equally unfounded claims to classical correctness and gratuitous assumptions of exotic idioms, where the § 151. "What incidental good arose from this controversy? What important works have thus been brought into existence ? § 152. What has been the state of the question since Ernesti ? What abuse has still been practised ? Who reformed it? NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. 137 form of speech is really piir^ Gre*k, or common to all cultivated languages. § 153. It is important to observe that the merit of Winer did not lie in the discovery or demonstra- tion of any new principle, bnt simply in apjDlying, with consummate skill, the one already fixed as the result of the investigations and discussions of the two preceding centuries, reducing the number of alleged Hebrew idioms on one hand, and on the other reaffirming some which the Purists had de- nied. This process, from its very nature, can be only an approximate one, as men of equal learning and capacity may still difier as to the existence of a foreign idiom in a given case, and no man's judg- ment can be absolutely binding upon others as to all such cases, though undoubtedly correct in most, esj)ecially when uttered by a writer of such philo- logical precision, logical intellect, severe taste, and superior tact, as all acknowledge to have met in Winer. § 154. Another fact of some importance in defin- ing his position, is, that while he fully recognized the language of the ISTew Testament as genuine or § 153. What was and was not Winer's real merit? Why could not his work be absolutely finished? What were his qualifications for it ? 138 NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATUKE. real Greek, the ideiititj «f wlaicla. (5©Yild not be viti- ated by its pervading Jewish tinge or Hebrew idioms, especially when these had been reduced at least to probable dimensions ; he still denied to it the name of a Greek dialect, and gave it the generic one of Idiom (Sprachidiom), by which he seems to mean the aggregate of insulated and detached de- partures from the standard of a strictly correct usage, having no organic unity or common charac- ter, arising from the action of like causes, as in the case of local or provincial dialects, like those of ancient Greece. And yet the germ of this last theorv is found in Winer's own o-reat work, but only as it were in passing, and w^itliout a due effect upon his practice. The full development of this idea in its bearings upon exegesis, was reserved for younger and less practised hands. § 155. To H. J. Thiersch is commonly assigned . the praise of having first broached, or more prob- ii*jC .^^^y matured, the now prevailing notion of the '''^fvA^reek of the New Testament, as a co-ordinate and ' * ' independent dialect, determined in its origin and character by causes quite analogous to those which § 154. What did Winer still deny as to the Greek of the New Testament? What is the difference between idiom and dialect? Where is the germ of the modern -doctrine to be found ? § 155. Who first developed it ? What is the new theory ? NEW TESTAMENT LITEKATURE. 139 brought into existence the old dialects of Greece it- self, and equally productive in both cases of a sub- stantive, organic oneness, as remote as possible from simple aggregation of peculiar idioms, whether few or many. § 156. This, though it may not seem so at first sight, is a decided step in advance of the old doc- trine, even as exhibited by Winer, and of great im- portance in its bearing on the critical and learned study of the Christian Scriptures. It is one thing to regard their confessed peculiarities even as inno- cent or unavoidable departures from the standard of correct Greek usage, and quite another thing both in itself and in its influence upon the student, to regard the same peculiarities as part and parcel of a definite local and provincial dialect, as truly living and as truly Greek as the Attic or Ionic. The most admirable thoughts expressed in broken or exotic English, may command our intellectual respect and moral reverence, but cannot possibly excite our literary or aesthetic admiration, and al- though this is not essential to the highest ends of language, it materially lessens its enjoyment by the § 156. Why is this an advance even upon Winer's doctrine? State the difference between them ? How. may this be illustrated from our own language ? How may the illustrations be applied ? 140 NEW TESTAMENT LITER ATUEE. reader, in proportion to his native taste or cultiva- tion. So in the case before ns, the most firm be- liever in the inspiration of these writings, may be pardoned for pernsing them with less zest, of a lite- rary kind at least, wdien he believes them to be written in genuine but bad Greek, even in the lower sense of this expression, than when he is permitted to regard them as invaluable samples of a dialect as noble, in its way, as Attic or Ionic. § 15T. I say as noble in its way, because it would of course be preposterous to claim for it the qualities described as Attic purity, Ionic suavity, or Doric strength ; for these are to be measured by a standard of their own, which is esentially conven- tional and artificial, because resting on a variable taste and usage. But in reference to the highest end of language, to convey thought and reveal truth, this despised patois, as some have deemed it, may be just as perfect as the Greek of Plato ; while in reference to the truths revealed, they are immeasurably higher ; and this grandeur of the thoughts conveyed cannot fail to dignify and sub- limate the vehicle itself. ISTo language, even the § 157. In what sense must the Hellenistic be inferior to the Attic and other ancient dialects? In what sense may it be supe- rior ? How may this be illustrated by analogy ? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 141 most meagre and inelegant, can be snccessfully employed for tlie expression of the highest truths, without being in itself ennobled. If an ordinary missionary, wdio translates into the jargon of some African or Indian tribe, the sublimest doctrines of the true faith, thereby changes its whole character, how could such an one as Paul, in the power of his logic and the fervour of his eloquence, controlled and prompted by his inspiration, fail to bring even Attic Greek still nearer to perfection, at least as the expression of those glorious truths, which neither Plato nor Demosthenes, if suddenly apprised of them, could possibly have uttered. § 158. We may safely rest then in the paradox- ical but just conclusion of some recent German writers, both philologists and church-historians, that the Greek of the [N'ew Testament may claim not only a co-ordinate position with the old Greek dialects, as an organic form of the same language, but a place still higher, when considered as the dress, the channel, or the vehicle of saving truth. At the same time we may question or repudiate the undue refinements of the same school in attempting to discriminate the shifting preponderance of the § 158. "What is the conclusion of the latest German -writers ? With what caution must it bo roccived ? 142 NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUEE. classical and Hellenistic elements, not only in the cliiFerent books, but in the same books when the tone or subject changes.* § 159. It is this noble dialect, of Greek cxtvac- tion, but of Christian birth, the history of which we have been thus far tracing, and the main peculiari- ties of which we must now philologically analyze. These peculiarities fall into two great classes, the Lexicographical, relating to the sense of words, and the Grammatical, relating to their formal changes and syntactical construction. In investigating both it is the part of wisdom both to save time and facil- itate the process by resorting to those writers who present with most authority and clearness the re- sults of the great controversy which has been de- scribed, and the gigantic labours which grew out of it. From the earlier and more minute attention paid at first to lexicography, these helps are more abundant with respect to this department than to that of grammar. * This caveat is necessary even with respect to the admirable chapter on the subject in Schaff' s History of the ApostoHc Church (German ed. § 134, English ed. § 153). § 159. How are we now to investigate this dialect? How may its peculiarities be classified? How may we best conduct the in- vestigation ? In which department are the helps more numerous, and why? NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 143 § 160. Leaving wholly out of view tlie many works of older date, w^liicli have now been super- seded and almost forgotten, I may mention as the first direct attempt to gather np the fruits of the great controversy, Schleusner^s Lexicon in N. T. / originally published in 1792, soon after the solution of the long vexed question, and in a fourth edition, 1819, during which period, of nearly thirty years, it was the standard and authoritative work, though more remarkable for crude and undigested learning than for scientific method or exact philology. Su- perior in both, as well as in the richness of its clas- sical citations, was the Clams N, T. PJiilologica of Wahl^ the first edition of which synchronizes with the last of Schleusner (1819), while a third appeared as late as 1843. But long before this there arose a new lexicographer, BretscJmeider^ whose Lexicon Manuale in JN', T. (first edition, 1824 ; third edition, 1840), performed the same work as to Hellenistic writers which had been per- formed by Walil as to the classics. Tlie Clams N. T. PJiilologica of Wilhe (1841), is simply an improvement upon both these in philological com- § 160. What may be entirel)'' omitted in enumerating the helps? What was the first lexicon which presented the results of the great controversy ? What was its influence ? What were its defects ? What was the peculiar merit of Wahl ? What of Bretschneider? 14:4: NEW TESTAMENT LITEEATUKE. pleteness, but without an^ very novel features of its own. All tliese were neologists or rationalists, more or less decided. Soon after the appearance of Wahl's first edition, it was translated into Eng- lish by Dr. Edward Kobinson, now of 'New York, then of Andover (1825), who, ten years later, pub- lished a lexicon under his own name (1835). What he had done for Wahl, Dr. S. T. Bloomfield did for him, i. e. he edited Robinson's lexicon in London (1837), and a few years after brought out one of his own (184:0), the latest edition of which (that I have seen) appeared in 184:5 ; that of Eobinson in 1850. None of these books should be allowed to supersede the general Greek lexicon in study ; first, because the latter gives a wider view of classical usage ; and secondly, because the former exercise too much authority in exposition, although less suspected than avowed interpreters. § 161. Into the scale against these many lexi- cons, I throw a single grammar, the Graimnatih des I^eiitestamentichen Sjprachidioms of Winer (first edition, 1822 ; sixth edition, 1855), which, for a full third of a century, a whole generation of What is the character of Wilkes' Clavis ? What was the religious position of the men ? What was the origin of Robinson's lexicon ? What was that of Bloomfield's ? § lAl. What has been the one standard Greek for the last NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 145 human life, lias been unanimously recognized in Germany, and more slowly in other countries, as the standard and authoritative exposition of the theory which has been described already as the final product of the Hebraist and Purist contro- versy. Besides an English version of the first edi- tion by Professors Stuart and Pobinson, and a "New Testament grammar of the former, based on "Winer's, but intended to answer the purpose of a general Greek grammar, the original work was translated in this country about twenty years ago, but was found to be so hastily and incorrectly exe- cuted, that its use has long been discontinued. A new translation by Edward Masson, M. A., " for- merly professor in the University of Athens," has appeared this year in England, and simultaneously in Philadelphia. Tliis translation is far superior to the other, and as nearly perfect as is necessary for our purpose. § 162. Out of Winer's grammar, some years after its appearance, Professor Stuart framed an elementary Greek grammar, intended to embrace the valuable substance of the former, but without original or independent value. In 1842 appeared third of a century ? When was it first translated ? What became of this translation ? Who has recently translated it ? Where has it been republished? 7 146 NEW TESTAMENT LITERATUKE. in England a Treatise on New Testament Gram- mar, by Thomas Sheldon Green, an accomplished classical scholar and teacher, not claiming to be a complete system, but full of profound grammatical philosophy and nice discrimination, illustrated by a wide and copious reading of the classics, and al- though wholly independent of Winer (of whose ex- istence it betrays no knowledge), constantly tend- ing to the same conclusions, and sometimes going further in the same direction. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 1. The most important preliminaries to this stndy may be conveniently reduced to six lieads or topics — 1. Definitions. 2. Kelations. 3. Uses. 4. Sources. 5. History. 6. Method. § 2. The first of these includes the answer to two questions — {a) What is ecclesiastical history? — (b) How far does it extend ? § 3. In all such cases it is best to begin with the etymology of terms, when this can be determined without recondite research or fanciful conjecture. § 4. The English word history is derived, through the Latin hiatoria, from' the Greek laropla, which, according to its etymology and primary usage, de- notes information^ knowledge gained by inquiry, with particular reference to matters of fact, and 150 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. by a further limitation, to events or aclnal oc- currences. § 5. This last is the invariable usage of our own word, perhaps with the single exception of the technical phrase " E'atural History," in which the term retains its original and wider meaning. § 6. Some modern writers make a distinction be- tween Oljective and Subjective History, the first denoting the .events themselves, the second their recital or exhibition, either viva voce or in writing. § 7. "When we say that prophecy is verified in history, we use the word in its objective sense ; but when we say that the prophecies of Daniel are elucidated by the history of Greece, it is subjective. § 8. It is only with subjective history that we are concerned as a science, or a subject of instruction, which may be defined the science of events, or the methodical and rational investigation of what has actually taken place ; the methodical or systematic form distinguishing history, properly so called from chronicles or annals, which are mere collections of historical material. § 9. History, as thus defined, is necessarily un- bounded, and can never be exhausted, since some- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 151 thing may be added still to the most copious his- torical account, even of a day or hour. § 10. It follows that all history must be eclectic, in the sense of presupposing or involving a selec- tion from the great mass of accessible materials. § 11. The vast field of history may be reduced, without detracting from its value, by the twofold process of {a) Elimination and ijj) Division. § 12. Elimination, as here used, is the exclusion of some element, belonging to the subject in its widest definition, but not essential to its practical utility or purpose. § 13. "We may thus eliminate from history, as a subject of investigation, all that does not relate to the human subject, such as natural history and angelic history, as well as all that relates merely to the individual, and constitutes Biography, so far as this can be distinguished from History, of which it is, in fact, a species. § 14. Division differs from Elimination in exclud- ing no entire element of history, but merely one or more of its parts, by an arbitrary or conventional arrangement. § 15. Such division may be merely mechanical. 152 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. as in tlie case of Ancient and Modern History, which differ not at all in kind, bnt only in chron- ology ; or rational, as in the case of National His- tory ; or that of particular professions, sciences, or doctrines. § 16. Among the innnmerable possible divisions of General or Universal History, one of the most obvious and important is the old distinction be- tween Civil and Religious History, the first relating to men's temporal interests and mutual relations, the second to their spiritual interests and relations to their God, which cannot bo entirely divorced, but may predominate in different degrees, so as to give character and name to these two kinds of history. § 17. Under the genus of Religious History, the most extensive and important species is the History of the Church, which is indeed almost the same thing, since all the topics of Religious History may be included in Church History, except perhaps the history of personal religion and a few particulars of still less moment. § 18. The meaning of the phrase " Church His- tory," or rather its extent of application, will depend upon tliat of the term " Church," which although ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 153 absolutely used to mean the Cliristian Clmrcli, as such, admits of a much wider application. § 19. The word cliurcli has been derived by some from a Celtic root {cyrch or cylcli) meaning centre and then rallying-point or rendezvous ; but much more probably by most writers from a Greek phrase {olKia or eKtcK7]alcb KvpiaKrj) meaning the Lord's House or Congregation. § 20. "We are concerned with it, however, only as a modern version of a Greek word {eKKkrjarla) de- rived from a verb {iKKoXeco) meaning to evoke or call out, but suggesting also the idea of convoking or calling together as an organized body. § 21. The Greek noun is applied in the classics to the political or legislative bodies of the Grecian states, particularly Athens ; in the Septuagint ver- sion of the Old Testament, to the congregation of Israel, considered as the chosen people ; and in the New Testament, to the same body as reorganized on a Christian basis at the day of Pentecost. § 22. The widest application of the phrase " Church History " depends upon the question, how long there has been a body in existence correspond- ing to the essential definition of eicKkriaCa^ i. e. one 7* 154 ECCLESIASTICAL 'hISTOEY. called out. from the mass of men, and called to- gether in a separate society, by divine authority, and for a religious purpose. § 23. It is evident from Scripture that such a so- ciety existed long before the day of Pentecost, be- fore the Advent of our Lord, before the Babylonish Captivity, the reign of David, the Conquest of Canaan, the Mosaic Legislation, the calling of Abra- ham, the Universal Deluge. § 24. Its existence may be traced back to the Protevangelium, or first promise of a Saviour (Gen. 3, 15), with the accompanying prophecy of mutual hostility for ages between two great parties, " the seed of the serpent," represented by Satan, and " the seed of the woman," represented by Christ. § 25. The fulfilment of this prophecy gives colour or complexion to all history, in which the opposi- tion or antithesis of Church and World can be dis- tinctly traced from age to age, beginning with the contrast between Cain and Abel, followed by that between the posterity of Cain and Seth, until con- founded by the impious amalgamation of the " sons of God " and " daughters of men," which led to the general corruption of mankind and their destruc- tion by a deluge ; then reappearing in the family ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 155 of JSToah and the line of Sliem, made still more marked by the calling of Abraham, to be the father of a separate race, and permanently fixed by the Mosaic legislation, ceremonially distinguishing the chosen people, even externally, from every other, till the Advent of Messiah and the change of dis- pensations. § 26. Since then a church or chosen people has existed in all ages, the idea of church history must be equally extensive, reaching from the Fall of Man, or his ensuing restoration, to the present moment, and this last is a variable fluctuating point, it is continually growing in extent, as every day adds something to the field and the materials of history. § 27. The extent of the subject being still unman- ageably great, it may be conveniently divided, not by a mechanical and arbitrary process, but on prin- ciples arising from its very nature. § 28. The primary division is into two great parts, which may be designated Biblical and Ecdesias- tical History^ the latter comprehending all that is not recorded in the Word of God. § 29. The difference between these two parts is not merely circumstantial, but essential, being that 156 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. between inspired and uninspired history ; a ready- made authoritative record, and one to be con- structed from diversified materials by human skill and labour ; the one requiring mere interpretation, while the other calls for a dissimilar and far more complicated process. The application of the same mode of treatment to materials so unlike, has al- ways been the cause or the effect of sceptical mis- givings, if not of avowed unbelief in the divine authority of Scripture. § 30. As an additional facility in study and in- vestigation, Biblical History may be subdivided into that of the Old and that of the ]^ew Testa- ment, although the difference is here a circum- stantial one, implying no diversity of inspiration or authority, but only one of date, language, and specific form, requiring some diversity of method for the illustration and interpretation of these two great subdivisions of the Sacred History. § 31. The three divisions of Church History thus arising (Old Testament, New Testament, and Eccle- siastical), are exceedingly unequal in their chrono- logical dimensions, the first comprising about forty centuries, the third eighteen, the second less than one, but claiming full equality of time and atten- tion, on the ground of its absolute importance, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 15T springing from the dignity of its subject, tlie Life of Christ and the Acts of his Apostles, and on that of its relative importance, as the winding up of the Old Testament History, and the foundation of Ec- clesiastical History, without which both would be incomprehensible and worthless. § 32. According to these definitions and distinc- tions. Ecclesiastical History is the third great di- vision of Church History in the widest sense, be- ginning at the close of the New Testament Canon, or rather of the history which it contains, and reaching to the present time, or stretching indefi- nitely into the future. § 33. Tlie relation of Ecclesiastical History, as thus defined, to Biblical or Sacred History, is not coincident with that between the history of the ]S"ew and of the Old Dispensation, since a part of both these is contained in the ITew Testament, the Gospels belonging to the one, and the Acts of the Apostles to the other ; so that the limit of the two economics or dispensations does not fall between the Old and New Testament, but between the two historical divisions of the New. § 34. This brings us to the second introductory question (see above, § 1), namely, what relations 158 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. does Ecclesiastical History sustain to other sciences or fields of knowledge ? § 35. Besides its relation to Biblical History, whicli lias just been defined, it has points of con- tact with a multitude of subjects, some of which are so near akin to it, and practically so insepara- ble from it, that they may be classed together as its cognate or auxiliary sciences. The nearest and most necessary of these helps, to which the name just mentioned has been commonly applied, are three in number : 1, Geography ; 2, Chronology ; and 3, Archaeology. § 36. Historical Geography relates to the local- ities of history, and ascertains the places where events occurred ; and is therefore a subordinate auxiliary science, since the interest of the places depends upon that of the events, and not vice versa. § 37. The same thing is true of Chronology, the science of dates, as these derive their value from the events, of which they fix the time, and not the events from them. § 38. The principal uses of Historical Chronol- ogy^ so called to distinguish it from that which is merely arithmetical or astronomical, are to solve ap- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 159 parent contradictions, and to determine the mutual relation of events, especially as causes and effects, or antecedents and consequents. § 39. That the absolute chronology, i. e. the pre- cise day or even year, of an event, however inter- esting it may be and worthy of attention when it can be ascertained, is not essential to historical truth or to its beneficial uses, may be seen from the familiar fact, that men not unfrequently forget the exact dates of their own biography, without losing their distinct impression of its principal events in their mutual relations and their true succession ; or, to borrow Bossuet's illustration, from the slight effect of the acknowledged error in the Christian era on the history of the last eighteen hundred years. § 40. ArchcBology (from apxalo^^ ancient), the sci- ence of antiquity (hence called by the Latin name Antiquitates\ in its widest sense embraces ancient history, as in the Jewish Archaeology of Josephus ; but in its technical restricted sense, relates to usages or permanent conditions, as distinguished from events, which always involve change, so that nothing immutable can have a history, and the best tunes to live in are the worst to write about. 160 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOEY. § 41. This distinction, being artificial and conven- tional, cannot be rigidly insisted on, since archae- ology and history are partially inclusive of each other, and are always interchanging their materials, events becoming usages by repetition, and perma- hent conditions being liable to change, and thus continually passing from the field of archaeology to that of history. § 42. But even if they could be kept apart, their total separation would be undesirable, since they are necessary to illustrate and complete each other ; and accordingly the best historians are disposed to reunite them, by admitting much into their histories which formally belongs to archgeology, as in Ma- caulay's famous chapter on the change of manners and the mode of life in England, which is one of the most brilliant and instructive portions of his history. § 43. Ecclesiastical Antiquities or Archaeology is limited by arbitrary modern usage to the govern- ment and worship of the Church in the first six centuries ; but recent writers give it more exten- sion, among w^hom may be mentioned a learned and laborious American scholar (Dr. Lyman Cole- man). ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 161 § 44. The moderns, and especially the Germans, are accustomed to distinguish many other auxiliary studies, such as that of Statistics^ exhibiting the actual condition of the world, or any of its parts, as to population, industry, wealth, trade, &c., at a given time^ in which it differs both from History and Archaeology ; DiplomaticSj or the art of decy- phering and verifying documents ; IlistoricaZ Phi- lology^ distinguishing the dialects of different local- ities and periods ; and many others, which it is not necessary to enumerate, as such distinctions, if pur- sued too far, tend to defeat their own design by comprehending every thing, especially in this case, where the principal subject, that of History, has really so many points of contact with the other provinces of human knowledge. ( Vide sicpra^ §35.) § 45. In answer to the third preliminary question — What are the uses of Church History? For what reason or what purpose, is it to be studied ? — the utility of history in general may be argued from the space which it occupies in Scripture, and from the x^osition assigned to it in the literature of the wisest and most cultivated nations, as well as in every scheme of liberal study, which together may be represented as the testimony or the judg- 162 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. ment of the civilized world tliroughont a course of ages. § 46. The maxim that '' history is philosophy teaching by examples " has sometimes been abnsed, by making it the basis of specific prophecies or prognostications, which are usnally falsified by the event ; bnt this abnse does not destroy the lawful use of general experience, as a source of correct judgments in relation to the future ; just as long practice may be an invaluable guide to the physi- cian, though it does not enable him to predict with certainty the issue even of a single case. § 47. Of history in general, and of ecclesiastical history in particular, it may be said, that they illustrate, in an eminent degree, the laws of the divine administration ; evince the truth of prophecy by showing its fulfilment ; and in due subordina- tion to the study of God's word and of our own hearts, furnish the best school of human nature, although commonly postponed to that of frivolous society and superficial worldly wisdom. § 48. In addition to these benefits of all authentic history, that of the church contributes to the de- monstration of the truth of Christianity, by con- trasting it with every form of error, by recording its ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 163 triumplis over enemies and obstacles wliich seemed invincible, and by showing its invariable moral in- fluence where it prevails ; all this in spite of human errors and corruptions, not only in the world, but in the church itself. § 49. Among the salutary moral influences which have been ascribed to the judicious study of this subject, may be named the elevation and en- largement of the views beyond the petty bounds of personal, sectarian, or local interests ; the conse- quent discouragement of bigotry, and moderation of mere controversial zeal, without impairing men's attachment to the truth itself ; and lastly, the sup- pression of crude innovations, both in theory and practice, by showing that the same, if not in form in substance, have been canvassed and exploded centuries ago. But independently of all utilitarian considerations, authentic history, as well ecclesias- tical as general, demands attention on account of its intrinsic value, as a portion of that truth, which is the natural and necessary aliment of mind, and which would be entitled to regard on this ground, if it had no other practical effect whatever. § 50. The fourth preliminary question {vide supra^ % 1), is. From what sources, or of what 164 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOET. materials, is Ecclesiastical History to be con- structed ? § 51. It may be answered, in the general, first, tbat according to the very definition above given (§ 29), all the authorities are uninspired ; and, secondly, that they are incalculably numerous and endlessly diversified. § 52. In order to a more particular and positive solution of this question, the materials and sources of Ecclesiastical History have been divided into two great classes : 1st, Monumental ; and, 2d, Documen- tary. § 53. To the first class belong all historical ma- terials or authorities not contained in books, includ- ing monuments, not only in the narrow sense of tombs or sepulchres, but in the wide sense of relics or memorials of antiquity, particularly buildings, statues, paintings, medals, coins, inscriptions. § 54. Authorities of this class, when extant and accessible, have this advantage, that they are origi- nals ; whereas, the oldest books now extant are mere copies of copies. § 55. The utility of monumental sources or au- thorities may be exemplified by the arch of Titus, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 165 still standing at Rome, with the original carvings, representing the trinmph of the conqueror of Jeru- salem, from which are derived our common draw- ings of the sacred vessels and utensils of the temple, as carried in procession npon that occasion ; and also in a less degree hy the inscriptions npon ancient Christian tombstones, which are built into the wall of a gallery of the Yatican museum, and by which some light is cast on early customs and conditions of society. § 56. In Ecclesiastical History, however. Monu- mental sources and authorities are neither so abun- dant nor so valuable as the Documentary, or those contained in books or other writings, whether man- uscript or printed. § 57. These may again be subdivided into, 1st, Private or Personal ; and, 2d, Public or Official. § 58. By Public Documents, in this connection, are meant all official acts of public bodies or au- thorities, having direct or indirect ecclesiastical in- fluence or jurisdiction. § 59. The first place among these is due to the acts of councils, ecumenical or national, who claimed to represent the Church, and in her name decided questions both of discipline and doctrine. 166 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 60. Some idea of the vast extent of these materials may be gathered from the fact that be- sides a collection of these Acts of Councils in fonr folio volnmes, and another in twelve, there is one in eighteen, one (the best, that of Mansi) in thirty- one, and one in thirty-seven folios ; not to mention smaller , works, containing only national or local councils, such as Wilkin's Concilia. Magnse Britan- nise et Hibernise (4 vols. foL). § 61. Another class of these material, inferior in authority, but of great historical value, are the Acts of the Popes, or of the Papal See — the Eegesta — the Corpus Juris Canonici — the Briefs — the Bulls — and the Decretals. § 62. To give some idea, as before, of the extent of these materials, it may be stated that, although the Eegesta, prior to the close of the twelfth cen- tury, are lost, those belonging to the next four cen- turies are said to be preserved in the Yatican library at Eome, in two thousand folio manuscript volumes, which have never been accessible to Pro- testants, except in a solitary case, and then to a very limited extent. § 63. A third class of public documentary ma- terials are those contained in the archives or records ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKT. 167 of civil governments in Europe, some of which go back to the old Roman times, and all of which contain ecclesiastical matter, in consequence of the intimate connection between church and state since Constantine. § 64. Still more direct in their bearing on Church History are the collections of Symbolical Books, including Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, and other books of elementary instruction in the doctrines of religion, which of course afford impor- tant aid in tracing theological mutations. § 65. Similar light is thrown upon the history of worship, and indirectly upon that of practical religion, by the ancient liturgies, which, far from being uniform and homogeneous, are both nume- rous and various in a high degree. ^66. Of less intrinsic value, but of great histor- ical importance in relation to particular periods, are the rules and statutes of religious bodies, such as the Kegulse, or Constitutions of Monastic orders, which exerted a great influence upon society, and often give the key to circumstances otherwise inex- plicable. § 67. This is not proposed as an exhaustive 168 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. catalogue of public documentary materials, but rather as a sample of tlie most abundant sources, which may serve to convey an imperfect but defi- nite idea of the multitude of such materials, which exist, and may be used in the construction of Church History. § 68. Private Documents include all other writ- ings which can throw light on the history of the Church, and which, in reference to their authority and value as historical materials, may be thrown into three classes. § 69. Highest in this respect are contemporary books and papers, whether formally historical, di- dactic, controversial, practical, devotional, or epis- tolary, which last are regarded by the best modern writers as peculiarly important, especially when brought to light long after date, and evidently written without any view to publication ; so that the very compositions which are most emphatically personal and private often throw most light on public history, by revealing the true sentiments and secret motives of the leading actors, and are therefore gathered up, deciphered, and edited by learned men, with all the critical exactness that was once applied only to the classics or the Scrip- tures. A remarkable example is DeWette's edition ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 1C9 of Luther's letters, with the various readings of the different manuscripts, a work which throws a vivid light on Luther's character and history, as well as on that of the Reformation. A similar effect, though in a less degree, has been produced upon our own revolutionary history, by extracts from inedited or newly-published private correspond- ence, exhibited in Living's Life of Washington. § YO. !N"ext to these in value, as historical au- thorities, are works of later date, but made of con- temporaneous materials, especially when these are no longer in existence or directly accessible, in which case such works are the only succedaneum, imperfect though it be, for what has thus been lost. § 71. The third or residuary class includes all elaborations of historical material, not comprehend- ed imder either of the others, that is to say, a large proportion of the historical literature extant. § 72. This class, though the lowest in historical authority, — which must not be confounded with lite- rary merit, since the finest modern composition may have less weight as a witness than the most uncouth and ungrammatical contemporary fragment, — has the widest influence upon the general mass of read- 8 4» 170 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. ers, who neither will nor can resort to the original authorities, except by proxy, but for that very rea- son have the deepest interest in knowing that their proxies are reliable and speak the truth. § 73. We are thus brought to the fifth intro- ductory question {vide supra^ § 1), namely. Who have made use of these materials and brought them into history, and what has been the fruit of their labours ? § 74. The answer to this question comprises the History, Literature, or Bibliography of Ecclesiasti- cal History. § 75. It might have been expected that the early Christian Church would pay great attention to its own history, and bring it to a state of high perfec- tion, as so much attention had been paid to history, both by the classical and sacred writers (§ 45), and the highest models furnished of historiography, as well in Hebrew as in Greek and Latin. § 76. But this antecedent probability was so far from being verified by the event, that the first three centuries are almost an entire blank in this respect, few histories having been composed, and of those few none preserved entire. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 171 § 77. The oldest writer of church history, of whom we have any knowledge, was Hegesippus, a converted Jew of Asia Minor, who, about the mid- dle of the second century, by travelling and other- wise, collected the traditions of the Apostolic Age, now extant only in the shape of fragments and quotations, in the works of later writers. § 78. Tlie same may be said of the Chrono- graphia of Julius Africanus, written about a hun- dred years later. § 79. There is no proof that either of these works was a regular historical composition ; but, whatever may have been their form or character, they do not seem to have been so much in demand as to secure their preservation, though their disap- pearance may be owing to causes wholly indepen- dent either of their literary merit or the public taste. § 80. This remarkable neglect of Ecclesiastical History, in the. very period when it might have been expected most to flourish, has been imputed to the constant persecutions of the age ; but this is not a satisfactory solution, as they did not hinder other kinds of intellectual exertion ; and as some of the interesting liistorical documents of that age 172 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. whicli have been preserved owe both their exist- ence and their subject to these very sufferings ; such as the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, recorded by the church at Smyrna, and that of the persecution in the south of Gaul, by the churches of Lyons and Yienne (§ 498). § 81. A better explanation, although still not wholly satisfactory, is, that historical studies were excluded by the general attention to didactic and polemic studies, and especially to philosophical speculation, which, when pushed to an extreme, has always led to the neglect of history. § 82. A circumstance which may, at first sight, seem to favour the opinion that persecution was the cause of this neglect is, that the first change for the better took place under Constantine, by whom the church was freed from persecution ; but this, if it be more than mere fortuitous coincidence, cannot outweigh the facts just mentioned, as to other forms of intellectual activity. § 83. The oldest " Ecclesiastical History," now extant, is the work of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, in the early part of the fourth cen- tury ; the confi'-^^ential friend and spiritual guide of ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 173 Constantine ; a man of good mind and considerable learning ; of so mild a temper, even towards the erring, as to be suspected of agreement with them ; familiarly conversant with all the great events and persons of the day, and deriving great advantages as a historian from his free access to the archives of the empire, as well as to the library founded at Cesarea by his friend Pamphilus, from whom he is sometimes called Eusebius Pamphili. § 84. Besides his Preparatio Evangel, which is not so much historical as doctrinal, he wrote a Chronicle and an Ecclesiastical History, to which his account of the martyrs of Palestine, and his panegp'ical biography of Constantine, may be re- garded as appendices. Tliese works, and especially the Ecclesiasticar History, are disfigured by a style at once inflated and jejune, and by a method some- times wholly arbitrary or fortuitous, and sometimes simply chronological, without any attempt at a di- gested systematic form. Their chief merits are the personal testimony of a witness so competent and credible to the events of his own time, and the preservation of older documents, fragments and quotations, in a manner which detracts from the literary merit of the composition, but enhances its value as a storehouse of materials. 174 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 85. Tlie example of Eusebius was not without effect upon his contemporaries, and especially his followers in the next generation, some of whom wrote history chiefly for polemic purposes ; as Epi- phanius, to whom we are indebted for most of our knowledge of the ancient heresies ; and Philostor- gius, whose lost work was intended to maintain the Arian cause. Another lost historian of the fourth century is Sidetes, of Pamphylia, described as a copious, but confused and immethodical, writer. § 86. The next century produced several con- tinuators of Eusebius, whose history ends with the year 321 ; among the rest, two lawyers of Byzan- tium, Socrates and Sozomcn, and an eminent bishop, theologian, and interpreter, Theodoret ; all of whom cover nearly the same ground, being a little more than a hundred years. § 87. In the beginning of the sixth century, Theodorus, of Constantinople, wrote a continuation of Eusebius, which is lost, and an abridgment, which is extant, but of little value. The last Greek continuator of Eusebius, or of his continuators, is Evagrius of Antioch, about the end of the sixth century, who brought down the history until near that time. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKT. 175 § 88. Tlie Latin cliurcli-historians of the same age were little more than translators and abridgers of the Greeks. The Historia Sacra of the Gallic Presbyter, Sulpicius Severus, called the Christian Sallust, from his comparatively classic style, and the similar work of the Spaniard, Orosins, are nni- yersal histories, but contain mnch religions or ec- clesiastical matter. Ruffin or Rnfinns, an Italian translated and continued Ensebius. Casiodorus, an Ostrogoth in Italy, by compilation and abridgment, formed a mannal, which, with that just mentioned, remained in use as a text-book through the Middle Ages. § 89. During the Middle Ages there are no pro- fessed church-historians in Greek before Nicephorus Callisti in the thirteenth century ; but much eccle- siastical matter is Qontained in the Byzantine his- torians (from the end of the fifth to that of the fif- teenth century), as the Greek church was not only united with the state, but much involved in politics and court intrigues. § 90. The subjugation of the "Western Roman Empire (near the end of the fifth century) by the northern barbarians, was followed immediately by great intellectual depression, and remotely by ex- 176 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. treme devotion to scholastic studies, wliicli were equally unfriendly to liistoricrJ and classical pur- suits ; so that the medieval histories became mere chronicles or annals, among which two of the most celebrated are those of "William of Tyre and Mat- thew Paris, one relating chiefly to the east, the other to the west of Europe. § 91. As exceptions to the general dearth of history in the Middle Ages may be mentioned some who wrote the history of their own national churches ; such as Gregory of Tours in France, Beda Yenerabilis in England, Paulns Deaconus in Italy, and Adam of Bremen in the north of Europe. § 92. But besides the literary degradation of church-history in this period, • it was morally de- based by the increase of superstition, and especially that form of it called Hagiolatry, which led to a rivalry between the tutelary saints of different churches, provinces, and nations, to maintain which their biographies not only usurped the place of more important history, but were first embellished, and then forged, which did not prevent their being sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority, as legenda, or lessons to be read in public or private worship. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 177 whence our words " legend," ^' legendary," have become almost synonymous with '' fable," " fabu- lous." g 93. The general state of historical knowledge reached its lowest ebb in the age before the Refor- mation, and was intentionally kept there by the rulers of the church, whose policy it was to repre- sent the existing rites and doctrines as identical with those of the apostolic age ; an illusion which would instantly have been dispelled by any clear view of the intervening history. § 94. The Revival of Letters, which preceded and prepared the way for the Reformation, or Re- vival of Religion, gave the first shock to the pre- vailing ignorance, and by the sceptical criticism of such men as Laurentius Yalla, excited a spirit of in- quiry into early history as well as doctrine. § 95. This spirit of historical inquiry is related to the Reformation, both as a cause and an effect, having led the way to the correction of abuses, and the restoration of a purer faith and practice, which, in their turn, gave a stronger impulse to this class of studies. § 96. All the polemic writings of the great 8* 178 ECCLESlASTICAli HISTORY. Reformers are so far historical as they demonstrate the corruptions of the Church of Rome to be inno- vations, and contrast them with the simplicity and purity of ancient times ; but Luther and Calvin wrote no formal histories, as their associates* and successors, Beza and Melancthon did ; a circum- stance which seems to show, that the importance of Ecclesiastical History as a means of refuting eri'or, and establishing the truth, was more and more ap- preciated, as the work of Reformation advanced. § 97. The first complete Ecclesiastical History was the product of tlie Lutheran Reformation, al- though projected after Luther's death, by one of his most zealous disciples, Matthias Flacius called lUy- ricus, because a native of the ancient Rlyricum, a man of strong mind and great learning, and a strenuous opposer of the Church of Rome, but coarse in taste and violent in temper. § 98. To Flacius is due the bold and new con- ception of a history of the Church upon the largest scale, designed to expose the Romish errors in de- tail, and trace the progress of corruption from age to age. § 99. He had the sagacity to see, that such a work could be successful only in proportion to its ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 179 fulness and exactness, and to the weiglit of the authorities on which it rested ; as well as that it was beyond the strength of any one man, and could only be accomplished by associated labour. § 100. He therefore devised a well-concerted scheme of organization, consisting of five managers or directors {gubernatores)^ and under them ten labourers {pperarii)^ seven of whom were to collect materials, two to digest them, and the tenth to write them out. § 101. The first part or number of this great work appeared at Basel, from the press of Oporinus, in the year 1559, and the last in January, 1574, under the title of '' Historia Ecclesiastica, &c.," but as Flacius and his chief associates were then resident in Magdeburg, and as the centuries were issued seriatim, it has ever since been known by the name of the " Magdeburg Centuries," and its authors as the " Magdeburg Centuriators." § 102. Tliis publication acted as a blaze of light upon the darkness of the age, in which the rays which had already been omitted in particular dis- cussions were concentrated and reduced to a com- plete and regular historical arrangement. § 103. At the same time, it raised ecclesiastical history to a i:>osition, which it has ever since retain- 180 ECCLESIASITCAL HISTORY. ed, especially in Germany, and althougli it repressed for a time tlie spirit of original investigation, in a field wliicli seemed to be already exhausted, it eventually gave a new and mighty impulse to such studies, in both divisions of the great Protestant body, exciting Lutherans to continue the good work begun among themselves, and stirring up the Cal- vinists to emulation. § 104. Its effect upon the Church of Rome was still more remarkable, as it led, after various at- tempts to counteract its influence in other ways, to the preparation of a work of the same kind, de- signed ex|)ressly to refute it, and to establish, by historical evidence, the very system which the Cen- turies were meant to overthrow. § 105. The person chosen for this service was a young Dominican of great ability and learning, Cesar Baronius, who was afterwards rewarded for his labours by the dignity of a Cardinal. § lOG. Tlie " Annals " of Baronius made its first appearance in the year 1588, and was con- tinued by the same hand till the year 1607, the author having access to additional materials con- tained in the archives of the Papal See, and other repositories inaccessible to Protestants, {mde mjpra^ ECCLESIASTIC^VL HISTORY. 181 § 62) ; but while this seemed to give him some ex- chisiye advantages, it also tended to excite suspicion in his own chnrcli as well as among Protestants, as to the fidelity with which he had made use of these materials, so carefully withheld from public view. § 107. The " Annals," although now extremely rare, have been several times reprinted, with and without Henaud's continuation, bringing them down to the latter part of the sixteenth century. § 108. These two great works, themselves the fruit of theological discussion in the age of the Reformation, may be represented as the parents of a vast and varied literature, belonging to the province of Ecclesiastical History. § 109. Although the Annals of Baronius were intended to maintain the strictest form of Romish doctrine, the later historiography of that church was chiefly in the hands of its more liberal theolo- gians ; such as Fra Paolo (Sarpi), the classical and almost Protestant historian of the Council of Trent, to whom Pallavicino bears the same relation as Baronius to the Magdeburg Centuriators. § 110. To the same class may be referred a bril- 182 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. liant constellation of historians belonging to the Galilean or Komish church of France, among whom may be named Morinus, Petavius, Tille- mont, R. Simon, Flenry, and E'atalis Alexander, whose history was composed in such a spirit as to be put upon the Index of forbidden books at Home. § 111. The most elegant and eloquent of these Galilean historians was the famous Bossuet, the most admired preacher and accomplished champion of his church in that age, whose Discourse on Uni- versal History is not only a French classic of the iirst rank, but a noble view of the whole field from the highest Christian ground, though not without an eye to the exaltation of his own creed and com- munion. § 112. The Eeformed or Calvinistic churches of the seventeenth century furnished many zealous and successful rivals of the great historians of the previous age ; but it has been noted as a curious fact, that their researches tended rather to special than to general church history, though Hottinger in Switzerland produced a good work of that kind, while Spanheim and the Basnages in Holland, Daille, Blondel, and Salmasius in France, excelled in cultivating smaller fields. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 183 § 113. In the same century, the Church of England produced many eminent historical writers, chiefly on special or restricted subjects, among whom may be named as representatives. Archbishop Usher ; Bishops Pearson, Beveridge, and Burnet ; Doctors Dodwell, Cave, Bull, and Bingham, who is still one of the highest authorities in the department of Ecclesiastical Antiquities, or Christian Archaeology {vide supra^ % 43). § 114. The tone of church history continued to be controversial or polemic, more especially in Ger- many, until Calixtus, in the seventeenth century, attempted to introduce a more pacific and dispas- sionate mode of treating the subject, with a view to the promotion of his favourite scheme of reuniting all Christian churches, on the doctrinal and eccle- siastical basis of the first six centuries ; but the unpopularity of this scheme gave him little influ- ence on contemporary historiography. § 115. More success, in this direction, attended the efforts of Spener, the first founder of the Pie- tists, to moderate polemic rancour, and to make experimental piety the essence of church history, as well as of Christianity itself ; while the orthodox Lutherans of the same date, like the Calvinistic writers of an earlier day, spent their strength 184: ECCLESIASTICAI. HISTORY. chiefly upon special subjects, sucb. as the History of the Eeformation, as composed by Seckendorf and others. § 116. This new mode of writing history was pushed to an extreme by Godfrey Arnold, in the early part of the last century, who allowed his feel- ings as a Pietist, and therefore an opponent of the Orthodox Lutherans, to govern him so far^ that he espoused the cause of heretics in general, and, with- out embracing their opinions, undertook to show that they were often, if not always, morally in the right, and "the Church, as a body, in the wrong. This work, although it gave rise to a long and angry controversy, was deprived of permanent and popular effect by its paradoxical character and by its harsh and unattractive style. § 117. Though Arnold, strictly speaking, had no follower, his very excesses, v/hen contrasted with those of previous writers in the opposite direction, contributed still further to divest Ecclesiastical His- tory of its predominant polemic tone, and to pro- mote a more impartial and dispassionate treatment of the subject ; as appears from the tone of the most eminent historians in the first half of the eighteenth century, as well among the Lutherans (such as Buddeus, Fabricius, and Weismann) as ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 185 among tlie Calvinists (sucli as Jabloiist:i,Venema, J. A. Turretin, Lenfant, Beaiisobre and Le Clerc, or Clericus) ; and the same thing is measnrably true of Komish writers also (such as Orsi and Mansi). § 118. The danger now was that the controver- sial spirit wonld give place to one of cold indiffer- ence as to matters in dispute, even where the writer really adhered to orthodox opinions ; and this fear is thought by some to have been realized in the case of the next distinguished writer, who exerted a commanding influence both on contemporaneous and on subsequent historiography, John Laurence Mosheim, who died in 1755, after holding a con- spicuous position during many years, at Helmstadt and Gottingen. § 119. Besides a multitude of books and tracts on various subjects, chiefly belonging to Church History, he published two, which have never lost their place among the highest secondary or deriva- tive authorities (see § Yl) ; his '' Commentaries on the State of Christianity before the time of Con- stantino," and his " Institutes of Ecclesiastical His- tory, Ancient and Modern ; " both which have been translated into English, and the last of which, though now comparatively little used in Germany, 186 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. has long been a favourite text-book, both m Eng- land and America. § 120. Tlie works of Moslieim are distinguished, in addition to the absence of all warmth and pas- sion, by a thorough knowledge of the subject, rare acuteness and sagacity in critical conjecture and historical combination ; great completeness and ex- actness as to the essential facts of history ; extreme formality and clearness of arrangement, and espe- cially by classical elegance of Latin style, which last attraction is of course w^ anting, both in the free or rather loose translation of Maclaine, and in the accurate but awkward one of Murdock, who has added to the value of the original, considered as a storehouse of facts, but not to its beauty as a com- position by his numerous and often overloaded notes. § 121. The influence of Mosheim's better taste and temper may be traced in the German writers who succeeded him, among whom may be named as representatives, Baumgarten, Cramer, Pfaff, and tlie two "Walchs, father and son, several of whom, as well as others not here mentioned, have inde- pendent merits of their own. § 122. The next important change in historical ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOPwY. 187 writing and investigation was occasioned by the rise of German rationalism or neology, of which the reputed father is John Solomon Semler, professor at Halle, who, although educated in the strictest forms of Pietism, and never wholly emancipated from its influence, did more perhaps than any other person to shake the foundations of men's faith in the divine authority of Scripture, by calling every thing in question, and suggesting doubts as to the authenticity of almost every book in the Bible, a sceptical criticism which has been carried to still greater length by later writers, in reference both to Scripture and Church History, to which it was ap- plied by Semler himself, not in regular historical compositions, but in various confused, ill-written works, and, still more, through the intermediate agency of pupils and disciples. § 123. The sceptical tendency thus introduced into the study of Church History had very different effects on different classes ; in frivolous and shal- low minds engendering contempt for the whole sub- ject, and producing works of a satirical and scofiing tone, such as those of Spittler and Henke ; while in minds of greater depth and earnestness, even when destitute of strong faith in the truth of Christianity, it led to a laborious reconstruction of Church His- 188 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. tory by working iij) the original materials afresh, and giving them a new shape, either in general works (such as the gigantic one of Schrcickh), or special treatises (like those of Planek and Stiiudlin). § 124. To the latter class belongs an extensive literature of recent date, beginning near the. close of the last century, and flourishing especially dur- ing the first quarter of the present, being one of the good, incidental fruits of the new impulse given to historical research by the sceptical or rationalistic movement, which produced a strong taste and de- mand for monographs, or thorough and minute in- vestigations of some single doctrine, period, or per- sonage, derived directly from original authorities, and published as a separate and independent work. § 125. Besides the interest imparted to many distinct topics of Church History by this detailed and thorough mode of treating them, these mono- graphs were gradually storing up materials for new works of a general and comprehensive character, to fill the chasms or supply the place of those which had appeared before these new researches and ac- cumulations were begun ; the very same j)ersons sometimes taking part in both the processes, that is, distinguishing themselves as writers both of monographs and general church histories. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 189 § 126. The most signal instance of tliis twofold labour and success is that afforded by IN^eander, of Jewish birth, but Christian education, a child in spirit and in secular affairs, but in intellect a man, and in learning a giant, for many years an eminent professor at Berlin, where he died in 1850, and now acknowledged to have no superior as a general writer on Church History, but first distinguished, in his early manhood, as the author of invaluable monographs or special treatises on Julian the Apos- tate, on TertuUian, on Chrysostom, and on Bernard, each of wdiich, besides a full biography, including a large portion of contemporary histoiy, contains a crit- ical analysis of many ancient and important works. § 127. At the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the time seemed to be come for the reduction of these new or freshly gathered stores to a complete and systematic whole in gen- eral church histories ; a crisis indicated by the almost simultaneous commencement of two great works which are still unfinished, but unanimously reckoned, by all competent authorities, to be the two great master-pieces of the age in this depart- ment, one by Neander, which appeared in 1825, and the other in the preceding year, by Gieseler, who was already known as a learned and sagacious 190 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. critic, one of his ablest compositions being a review of ITeander's TertuUian, in which he developed his own theory of Gnosticism. § 128. The authors of these two works are as mnch alike in some points as they are unlike in othei's, the resemblance lying in their education and extent of reading, their official positions and professional employments, their integrity and truth- fulness, and their use, for the most part, of the same materials, both being thoroughly and equally familiar with the oldest authorities, and the freshest forms into which the raw material had been newly wrought ; the diiference lying in the calm impar- tiality of Gieseler as contrasted with the honest and enlightened zeal of JSTeander ; and in the moderate and unimpassioned rationalism of the one, com- pared with the warm but meagre Christianity of the other. § 129. The books themselves are as unlike as tlieir authors, both in plan and execution ; Gieseler's consisting of an exquisite selection from the very words of the original authorities, arranged as notes and strung together by a slender thread of -narra- tive ; ISTeander's of the very same materials, but digested in his own mind, and Avrought up into a flowing homogeneous narrative, exhibiting the ex- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 191 press of his character in almost every page and sen- tence ; the one as perfectly objective as the other is subjective in its whole design and structure ; the one enabling every reader to construct the history for himself, the other exliibiting it ready-made, but by the hand of a master. §. 130. The difference just mentioned may ac- count for the fact that Gieseler, although univer- sally applauded, and implicitly relied upon for facts and for materials, has founded no distinct school, and propagated no peculiar mode of writing his- tory ; whereas Keander has had many professed followers, who hold his principles, adopt his plans, and sometimes even imitate his style and manner. § 131. Among the most faithful and yet most independent followers of Weander may be men- tioned Guericke, who carries out his master's plan in a more compendious form, but with an almost bigoted attachment to the peculiar doctrines of Luther, and in a style so crabbed and involved as to forbid translation or convenient use in elementary instruction, although it has been eminently useful as a vehicle, not only of the best historical knowl- edge, but of sincere piety and sound religious prin- ciples in all essential points. 192 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 132. Anotlier representative of this school is Jacobi, less orthodox and pious than Guericke, but nearer to ISTeander in sentiment and spirit, and superior to both in clearness and simplicity of style and method, which, together with the fact that his work was suggested and commended to the public by ISTeander, as the best compendious view of his own system, although far from being a mere abridg- ment, makes it matter of regret that it has not yet gone beyond a single part or volume, extending not quite to the close of the sixth century. § 133. As other offshoots of I^eander's stock, though very different, in some points, both from him and from each other, may be named Schaff of Mercerburg and Lange of Zurich ; but as neither of these writers has yet brought his work below the Apostolic age, they can scarcely be considered as belonging to our present subject. § 134. Still more unlike Neander, botli in senti- ment and method, although evidently nurtured in his school, is Hase of Jena, a man of genius and of cultivated taste, and an original and brilliant writer, but unduly partial to the mere sesthetic and artis- tical relations of his subject, not so much a believer as an admirer of the Gospel (rather than a believer), and so often obscure from epigrammatic or laconic ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 193 brevity, and from rather presupposing than detail- ing facts, that he is scarcely more translatable or fit for elementary instruction than Guericke himself, though otherwise no two writers can be more dis- similar and even opposite. § 135. One of the latest and best German writers is John Henry Kurtz, now Professor at Dorpat, but for many years a Gymnasial teacher, which has given him a practical acquaintance with the wants of students, while his thorough knowl- edge of the Biblical History, on which he is the author of some admirable works, gives him a great advantage over some justly celebrated church his- torians. His facility and zeal as a maker of books have tempted him to vary their form and multiply their number to excess ; but all of them are sound, clear, wholesome in tendency, and admirably suited both to academical and general use. § 136. One of the most singular effects of mod- ern German changes in this science is the frequent adoption of the form and method common among Protestants, by Koman Catholic historians, includ- ing liberality of tone and abstinence from all po- lemic violence, but really by that means tending to insinuate their own views more effectually into the minds of unsuspicious readers ; while in Italy, and 9 194 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. even in France, works of this class still retain the bigoted exclusive form, by which they have always been distinguished from the v/ritings of Reformed theologians. Of the former, Alzog's " Universal History of the Christian Church " may be taken as a sample; of the latter, S. L'Homond's "History of the Church," as re- written by the Abbe Postel, for the use of schools and families in France. § 137. In the British isles. Ecclesiastical His- tory has been chiefly cultivated in the Church of England and the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, or by men instructed there, of late years more or less controlled by German influence, but never without much independent use of the original authorities, and almost always with the rare advantage of general culture, classical scholar- ship, and a native English style. § 138. Near the end of the last century, Joseph Milner, an Anglican clergyman of the evangelical or low-church party, and a man of greater piety and learning than sound judgment, wrote the his- tory of the church until the Reformation, with the avowed purpose of making practical religion or ex- perimental Christianity the great subject of his work, and passing over all that does not bear upon it, a plan injudicious in itself, and very imperfect in its exe- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 195 cution, doing credit to the author's own religions character and sentiments, and generally edifying to ' the ' readers of congenial spirit, but, as might have been expected, partial and onesided, and ex- ceedingly imperfect as a full view of the whole subject. § 139. Milman, now the Dean of St. Paul's, London, previously well known as a poet, an histo- rian of the Jews, and an editor of Gibbon, has also written a " History of Christianity to the abolition of Paganism in the Poman Empire," since con- tinued in his " History of Latin Christianity," ex- tending to Nicolas Y., a work distinguished by originality and erudition, an elegant though not an easy style, and free to a great extent from that apparent sympathy with German scepticism or latitudinarianism, with which some of his earlier works had been reproached, but not entitled to the praise of having carried Church History beyond the point where Gieseler and Neander left it. § 14:0. Equally scholarlike and elegant, and still more Christian in their tone, but at the same time still more Anglican in sentiment and prepossession, although free from any thing offensive in preten- sion or assumption, are the '' History of the Chris- tian Church to the Pontificate of Gregory the 196 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKT. Great," by J. C. Robertson, a beneficed clergyman in England, and tlie " History of the Christian Churcli during tlie first three centuries," by J. J. Blunt, late Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, the latter a posthumous collection of the Author's Academical Lectures ; the former intended for the use of general readers, as well as of students in theology § 141. One of the latest and best English works of this class is the " History of the Christian Church during the Middle Age, and during the Eeforma- tion," by the Rev. Charles Hardwick, formerly of Cambridge, then of Harrow, now of King's Col- lege, London, the two volumes forming part of a Series of Theological Manuals, for the use of can- didates for orders in the Churcli of England, pre- pared by several difi'erent writers, and nOw issuing at Cambridge. The two in question show an inti- mate acquaintance with the modern German litera- ture, as well as the original authorities, soundness on all essential doctrines, avowed attachment to the polity and worship of the author's church, but scrupulous courtesy and candor towards others, with a clearness of method, elegance of style, and beauty of typography not often found in combina- tion. ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. 197 § 142. Kone of these modern English writers on Church History, betray the slightest tendency or tenderness towards Romish error, such as may be traced in the " Ecclesiastical History " of Palmer, one of the Oxford Theologians, republished in America by Bp. Whittingham, of Maryland, and adapted to parochial instruction. This work, which is a small and slight one, without any pre- tension to original or independent value, is the only general Church History with which I am ac- quainted, representing or proceeding from the Pu- seyite or Pomish party in the Church of Engand. § 143. The sixth and last introductory topic is that of method, involving two questions, what method has been pursued by the best writers, and what method shall we adopt ourselves ; the answer to the second depending in some measure on the answer to the first, as we may profit by the fail- ures as well as the successes of our predecessors, without any annoyance on our part, since by stand- ing on the shoulders of a giant, even a pigmy may see further. § 144. By metJiod is here meant such a distri- bution or arrangement of a subject as is neither accidental, i. e. determined by causes independent of the writer's will and judgment ; nor arlitrary. 198 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. i. e. determined by his will alone ; but rational^ i. e. determined by an act of judgment, and for whicli a reason can be given. § 145. Method is essential to all science, even in the widest sense, because it enters into the very definition or idea of science, as rational or systematic knowledge ; but is especially important in those sciences which do not rest on demonstration, math- ematical or moral, and which do not therefore dic- tate their own method, as geometry and logic do. § 146. The choice of a good method is espe- cially important in historical studies, because there are so many ways in which the same facts may be stated, without any variation from substantial truth, as appears, not only from the usages of historical composition, but also from the usages of common life, no two men commonly adopting the same form or order in relating the most trivial incident. § 147. But while this makes the choice of a good method indispensable in all history, there is nothing in the nature of Ecclesiastical History in particular, requiring a method wholly peculiar to itself, by assuming which necessity, historians of the church have not only hindered the progress of their ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 199 readers, but gratuitously planted a great gulf be- tween this part of liistory and every other. § 148. The rudest and crudest form of historical composition is the anecdotic ; in which the mate- rials are arranged at random, or as they come to the historian's knowledge, or occur to his mind in the act of writing. § 149. The first step towards a rational method is the chronological arrangement of events in the order of their occurrence, which distinguishes chron- icles or annals, both from anecdotes on one hand, and from history properly so called upon the other. g 150. But this step, though essential, is not sufficient of itself, since it does not bring together things which belong together, or have an affinity arising from their very nature ; and yet this is the very end of method. § 151. The next step towards a rational method is the topical aiTangement, or the combination of things mutually similar or akin, whether contem- poraneous and successive or not. § 152. But neither is this sufficient of itself without regard to chronological order, because this order is essential to history, and if neglected, the 200 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. materials, liowever well arranged as topics, become wholly confused, or lose their historical character and bearing. § 153. These two methods therefore — and there seems to be no other not reducible to these — are both essential, not apart but together, and must be combined in order to produce a history ; and as this combination may exist in different proportions and be exhibited in various shapes, it still remains a question how it may be best effected. § 154. In answering this question, great use may be made of previous experience, or the history of the efforts which have been made to solve this problem. (See § 143.) § 155. In tracing this history, liowever, we need not go very far back, since the use of method, prop- erly so called in Ecclesiastical History^ is a matter of comparatively recent date. § 156. The ancient writers of Ecclesiastical History seldom rise above the simple chronological arrangement, and are often wholly arbitrary or for- tuitous in their arrangement, as may be seen from the example of Eusebius and his followers. § 157. The first genuine attempt at the solution ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOIIY. 201 of this problem was made by the Magdeburg Cen- tm-iators, who exhibit for the first time, a combined chronological and topical arrangement on the larg- est scale. (See §§ 97-101.) § 158. The chronical arrangement of this great work is by centuries, for which the singular reason is assigned, that there is really a cycle or complete revolution of events in every hundred years ; a theory never, perhaps, generally current, or long since exploded. § 159. The topical arrangement under each cen- tury consists of fifteen heads or rubrics, with a pre- fatory summary or general view, making sixteen in all — viz. : 1. General view. 2. Extent of the church. 3. Its external condition. 4. Doctrines. 5. Heresies. 6. Eites. 7. Polity. 8. Schisms. 9. Councils. 10. Bishops and Doctors. 11. Her- etics. 12. Martyrs. 13. Miracles. 14. Jews. 15. Other religions. 16. Political changes affecting the condition of the church. § 160. The fourth category, that of doctrine, is subdivided into more than fifty heads, the mere titles of which fill eleven folio columns, and consti- tute the framework of a body of divinity, as full and methodical as that of TertuUian. 0* 202 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 161. The extent and minuteness of this topic shows or confirms, what is certain otherwise, that the immediate purpose of this great work was po- lemical or controversial ; to promote which, great minuteness of specification was required, in order to assail the Church of Eome at as many salient points as possible. § 162. It appears from the preface or prospectus of the work, prefixed to the first Century, that the method was not framed by induction from a de- tailed survey of the materials, but constructed a friori,, as a framework, in or under which the ma- terials, when collected, were to be digested. § 163. It appears from the same preface, and from an inspection of the work itself, that this pro- visional arrangement was originally framed with reference to the early centuries, though afterwards extended, for the sake of uniformity, to all the others, without any change whatever, so that under each, down to the thirteenth, we find the rubric of miracles long after they had ceased, and that of martyrs when there were no persecutions, except so far as the historians were tempted to admit facti- tious or imaginary miracles and martyrs, for the very sake of filling up their j)igeon-holes or niches. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 203 § 164. The three facts stated in the last three paragraphs suffice to show that the arrangement of the Centuries, though admirably suited to a tem- porary purpose, was neither suited nor intended to be made perpetual, but is expressly represented by its authors as a first draught in an untried field, ad- mitting and requiring subsequent amendment. § 165. And yet this cumbersome and compli- cated system has given character to subsequent historiography, especially in Germany, the later changes being not of principle, but form, and all contributing together to give this part of history a character peculiar to itself, and to divorce it from all others. § 166. The real merit of the plan of the Centu- riators is its adaptation to its immediate purpose, and its convenience, even now, as a book of refer- ence in polemic theology, arising from the fulness and minuteness of its subdivisions, aided by a very comj)lete index to each Century. § 167. But however useful when referred to as a dictionary, it was made almost useless as a book to be continuously read, by the very circumstances just referred to, and by the dispersion of facts be- longing to the same subject under difi'erent and dis- 204: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. tant heads ; e. g. the history of an important her- esy might be divided between 'No. 4 (doctrine), No. 5 (heresies), No. 8 (schisms), ]N'o. 9 (councils), No. 10 (bishops and doctors), No. 11 (heretics), and No. 15 (civil or political events, which would include the action of the government in all its changes). § 168. The influence of this great work on method was naturally less in other churches, and we find accordingly some Romish writers adopting a much simpler plan, such as the biographical ar- rangement of Tillemont, who groups all incidents, as far as possible, around certain names or persons ; an arrangement highly useful in imparting life and individual interest to dry details, and, therefore, often revived since, among the rest, by Eudelbach and Bohringer of late years, but defective as a form of general history, because some topics cannot be reduced to it without an artificial violence, sufficient to condemn it as an aid to the understanding or the memory. § 169. But besides these foreign variations, changes became necessary in the mode of treating Ecclesiastical History, even in Germany, and in the Lutheran church, required by the gradual decline of the old controversial spirit, or rather by the new forms in which it revealed itself, as well as by a ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 205 gradual change, if not improvement, in tlie public taste. § 170. This change of method was almost in- sensible, and spread through many generations, but may be said to have attained its first development and elimination in the Institutiones of Mosheim. (See §§ 118-120). § 171. This change, however, though apparently so great, is not so much a change of principle as of detail and outward form, consisting in the simplifi- cation of what was complex, and the embellish- ment of what was rugged and uncouth, without departing from the "essential features of the older methods. § 172. He retains the centurial arrangement, not as founded in the nature of things (see § 158), but as commonly preferred and universally famil- iar, and improves it by distributing the centuries in four groups, which may be regarded as the form of the modern periodologies. § 173. In his topical method he retains the ru- brical arrangement, but reduces the number of di- visions, and adopts a more symmetrical adjustment, throwing the whole under the two heads of Exter- nal and Internal History, dividing the former into 206 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. Prosperous and Adverse changes ; tlie first including all additions to the area of Christianity, and friendly relations to the state and to society ; the latter all contractions of the field by conquest, persecution, or apostasy ; while under the internal head he groups, 1st, the history of learning, education, and philosophy ; 2d, Church government and teachers ; 3d, theology, didactic, biblical, polemic, moral ; 4:th, rites and ceremonies ; 5th, heresies and schisms. § 174. Tliat this is really the old Magdeburg method, in a somewhat improved shape, is evident not only from its very form, but from its practical efi'ects, as we still have heresies and heretics, doc- trine and doctors, theologians and theology, di- vided from each other in a very artificial rHncon- venient manner, so that the author is compelled in some parts of his work to abandon his own method as unmanageable, even by himself. § 1Y5. It was not to be expected that the new impulse given to historical inquiry by the sceptical (U'iticism (§§ 122-124), would leave the method of ecclesiastical historiography unchanged ; and ac- cordingly we find new methods multiplying very fast within the last half century. § 1Y6. But what is truly strange is that the ECCLESIASTICAL niSTORY. 207 Germans, even in tlie act of making all things new, should have I'etained the rubrical arrangement, at least in its essential princi2:)le, and made a thorough change only in the chronological arrangement of the subject. § 177. This change consists in discarding the centurial arrangement altogether, as a framework of the history, and substituting j)eriods of unequal length, determined by important points or epochs, without any reference to the centuries at all. § 178. Tlie only change in the toj)ical arrange- ment is a formal one, consisting in a further im- provement uj^on Mosheim's plan in point of clear- ness and simplicity, and the reduction of the heads to the smallest possible number that can be recon- ciled with the rubrical principle at all, which prin- ciple is still retained and rigorously carried out. § 179. These modern methods vary from each other in detail, but the essential type is that af- forded by !N"eander, who reduces all the topics to four heads or classes : 1. The enlargement and con- traction of the area of Christendom, including its relations to the state and to society. 2. Its organi- zation, government, and discipline. 3. Its doc- trines, controversies, heresies, and theologians. 4. 208 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. Christian life, including worshij), with its rites and forms, and practical religion as exemplified in the lives of its professors. The most important topic added by some modern church historians is that of Art as auxiliary to religion, including Poetry, Music, Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture, so far as they have been enlisted in the service of the church. § 180. This latest form of ecclesiastical histori- ography appears to be regarded as the ultimatum of improvement, not only by the Germans who in- vented it, but by their imitators and discijDles else- where, who sometimes apologize for using a less scientific and more popular arrangement, like that employed in secular or general history ; as if this resemblance were a necessary evil, and not the greatest jDossible advantage, and the strongest rec- ommendation of the method which exhibits it. (Quote as an example the last paragraph of Robert- son's preface.) § 181. It may, therefore, seem presumptuous, without any such apology, to question the per- fection of this modern and fashionable system, so far as it is really a new one, by objecting, not (only) to its details, but to its princij^le, and more especially to its beginning at the wrong end in its ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. • 209 process of improvement, retaining the rubrical ar- rangement notwithstanding its acknowledged in- conveniences, and making a thorough alteration only in the chronical arrangement, which was far less objectionable and defective. § 182. The objection made by this school to the old centurial arrangement is that it is arbitrary and mechanical ; a singular contrast to the doctrine of the Magdeburg Centuriators, who supposed it to be founded in the nature of the subject and the provi- dential laws which govern the succession of events (§ 158), a doctrine which however was abandoned (if it ever had been current) by, or before, Mosheim. (§ 173.) g 183. The fact alleged may be admitted, but with two qualifications, which materially influence its force as an objection ; first, that as all chrono- logical divisions are expedients to assist the mem- ory, not arising necessarily from something in the nature of the subject, but the fruit of " art and man's device ; " however rational and well-con- trived, their being contrived at all subjects them to the charge of being arbitrary, and to some degree mechanical or formal. § 184. The second qualifying circumstance is 210 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. really included in the first, but may be separately stated, namely, that the same charge lies against the very methods of division and arrangement which it is proposed to substitute for the centurial ; since every period ology that has ever been pro- posed is, after all, an artificial framework, which requires some eflwt of the understanding to insert it in its proper place, and still more efifort of the memory to keep it there. § 185. Sometimes this vague charge is made more specific, by alleging that the centurial ar- rangement absurdly presupposes all the various series of events, and sequences of causes and eff"ects, to be simultaneuosly wound up at the end of every hundred years ; whereas the threads are of unequal length, and while one falls short of the century an- other overruns into the next. § 186. But besides the false reproach thus cast upon the old arrangement, which (except in the case of the Magdeburg Centuriators) purports to be only an approximation and a practical convenience (§§ 1Y2-182), this plausible objection quietly ig- nores the fact, that the very same thing may be said with equal truth, though not true to the same extent, of every periodical arrangement that can be imagined ; for, however nearly such divisions may ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 211 approacli to the ideal standard, it will not be seriously alleged that any of them has succeeded in making all the threads of history coincident in their commencement and their termination, so that noth- ino^ overruns the mark or falls short of it. § 187. Tliat this is peculiarly the case with the centuries, as being more numerous and uniform, is true p but this difference of degree may be out- weighed by peculiar advantages of other kinds ; such as perfect uniformity of length, requiring no repeated effort of the understanding or the memory to retain or to recall them ; and their universal use, not only making them still more familiar, but maintaining the connection between this and other kinds of history, which all peculiar methods tend to weaken and destroy. § 188. Another qualifying circumstance in fa- vour of the old arrangement is, that even those who are most zealous for the Periods, and against the Centuries, are after all obliged to make the latter the substratum of their own plans, not only by re- ferring particular events to such and such a cen- tury, but by ascribing to whole centuries, as such, a definite distinctive character ; so that instead of superseding the old method by a new and better 212 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. one, they often spoil both by confounding and en- tangling them together. § 189. All this would be true if the modem German school had succeeded in uniting upon some one scheme or system of great periods to supersede the centuries ; but how much more when the re- sults are so endlessly diversified, that there seems ground to fear that the process of invention will defeat itself, by making all points salient and every notable event an epoch. § 190. ISTor is it merely the diversity and num- ber of the modern periodical arrangements that de- tracts from their utility, but also their exclusive character, when made the framework of a general church history ; in consequence of w^hich, he who follows Gieseler's method cannot make use of Meander's, even in the way of reference, without trouble and confusion, since the same event which stands at the beginning of a period in one, may stand at the conclusion of a different ]3eriod in another ; to say nothing of the general dislocation and distortion which result from the comparison or simultaneous use of methods so unlike and so ex- clusive of each other. § 191. While these objections may be made to ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 213 the entire change introduced into the chronical ar- rangement of Church History by the modern Ger- man school, tliere are others, of a very diiferent nature, to the partial change effected in the topical or rubrical arrangement, over and above the gen- eral objection which has been already stated (§ 181), that it is a partial change and not a total one. § 192. The essence of the rubrical arrangement, common to the earliest and latest German church- historians, is the practice of pursuing every topic, whether there be few or many, through the whole of every period, whether long or short, and then be- ginning with the next until the schedule is com- pleted, the divisions and the titles being absolutely uniform in every case. § 193. To this essential feature of the system in- vented by the Magdeburg Centuriators, and ad- hered to even by their harshest critics, notwith- standing endless variations in detail, and vast im- provements in simplicity and symmetry of form, there are various objections, which may however be reduced to three, drawn from History, Analogy, and Experience. § 194. The historical objection to the rubrical ar- rangement, as above described (§ 192), is that it 214 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. originated with the Magdeburg Centuriators, and was generated in the violent polemic fermentations of that age, a genesis which raises a presumption adverse to its permanent utility, since every age must have its own mode of assailing error and de- fending truth, even when the truth and error are unchanged, and since the world has long ceased to regard Church History as a mere offensive weapon or defensive armour in religious warfare. § 195. If this objection be well founded, the mere formal changes which have been made in the rubrical arrangement, however valuable in them- selves or in relation to some other standard, do not remove the ground of the objection, since an in- crease of simplicity and symmetry detracts from the original efficiency of this contrivance, which arose in a large measure from the very features which are thus removed, without relieving its de- fects and inconveniences, considered as a means to other ends. § 196. But as the origin of tliis plan could afford no good reason for condemning and rejecting it, if in itself good, an additional objection may be drawn from the analogy of history and histori- ography in general, to wit, that the method now in question is peculiar to Church History (except so ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 215 far as its example affected the practice of the secu- lar historians), having never been found necessary or expedient by historians of any other class or period, ancient or modern, sacred or profane ; a circumstance not only very strong, as a presump- tive proof, at least, that it is equally unnecessary elsewhere, but a key to the otherwise inexplicable difference of form and method, between this one kind of history and every other. (§ 147.) § 197. Even this peculiarity of form, however, would be quite as insufficient as its . mere historical extraction, to condemn the method, if it were not open to the practical objection, that instead of ex- citing greater interest in this important study, it has seemed to make it less attractive, and instead of aiding the memory, which some have made a reason for adopting it, has tantalized and weakened it, by endless rejDetition of the same monotonous and lifeless forms under which the actual variety of history is lost or hidden, like soldiers in a uniform, or mummers in a masquerade. § 198. One fact may be considered certain, however it may be explained, to wit, that no such method, or at least no such extensive and detailed application of it, would be tolerated in any field of liistory wliere a less artificial arrangem^ent lias be- 216 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. come familiar ; as, for instance, in the history of the American and French Eevolntions, or, what is nearly the same thing, the lives of Washington and Bonaparte, in writing which, although the ma- terials are so abundant and the phases or aspects of the subject so diversified, the thought of dividing the whole matter into periods, and then going through or over each in several successive journeys, first collecting all the military facts, then the polit- ical, and then the personal or private, has happily never occurred to any of the eminent historians, by whom these two great themes have been succes- sively handled, from Marshall to Irving, and from Scott to Thiers. # § 199. On the strength of these considerations, drawn from history, analogy, and practical eflfects, it may not be unlawful, after all, to a^ttempt an- other movement in advance, by improving, if pos- sible, on both parts of the method now in vogue, to wit, its Chronological and Topical arrangement ; especially as this change is projDOsed, at least in the first instance, only as a limited experiment, con- fined, both in its good and bad effects, to the classes of a single institution, and indeed to the in- structions of a single teacher. § 200. With respect to the Topical part of the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 217 system, tlie proposed change is to set aside tlie ru- brical arrangement altogether, as a framework run- ning through the history and determining its whole form, and to substitute a natural arrangement of thjj topics, by combining a general chronological order with a due regard to the mutual relative importance of the topics themselves ; so that what is prominent at one time may be wholly in the background at another, instead of giving all an equal prominence at all times, by applying the same scheme or formula to all alike. § 201. This natural method, so called to distin- guish it from every artificial or conventional ar- rangement, far from being new, is recommended by the practice and example of the best historians in every language and in every age ; affording a pre- sumptive, if not a conclusive, proof both of its the- oretical consistency and of its practical efficiency and usefulness, and at the same time a convenient means of keeping this and other parts of universal history in mutual connection and agreement with each other. § 202. With respect to the Chronical division and arrangement, the change proposed is neither to add one more to the exclusive schemes already ex- tant, nor to retain any one of them exclusively of all 10 218 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. the rest, but simply to avail ourselves of all of them, so far as they can be combined, both as in- trinsically valuable aids in historical study, and as a means of making all the most important sys- tems of Church History alike and simultaneously available. § 203. In order to accomplish this design, the chronological arrangement must be, as far ae possi- ble, separated from topical details ; so that instead of two conflicting methods crossing each other, and dividing the whole subject upon different and often inconsistent principles, there may be still two methods, and the same two, but distinctly and suc- cessively presented, not promiscuously mingled, both in the foundation and the superstructure of the history, considered as a building, but the one (the chronological division) underlying the other (the topical division), as a basis underlies the super- structure ; or, to use another architectural analogy, the one affording, as a framework, both the space and the form into which the other, as material, is to be arranged and built. § 204. This idea can be realized, if realized at all, only by taking two successive views or surveys of. the whole field ; one more general, the other more particular ; one conducted on a chronical, the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 219 other on a topical arrangement ; or in other words, by making the chronological division of the subject introductory, and prior to the topical details, which may then be treated in the form and order which experience may indicate as most convenient, with- out any subdivision or restriction, exce])t such as may be suggested by the nature, or the subject, or the taste and inclination of the writer. § 205. The two modes of division and arrange- ment being thus retained, but sundered, we obtain not only an exemption from the irksome and inju- rious necessity of breaking off in the examination of a topic because some imaginary line is reached, and must not be overleaped till every other topic has been brought up to the same mark, but also the opportunity of placing side by side as many chron- ological arrangements as we please, not only to compare them once for all, but to retain them and employ them, both as aids in the study of the sub- ject, and as keys to the respective systems which they represent, and of which they are constituent elements or component parts. § 206. The difference between the method here proposed, and that which it is meant to supersede, may be illustrated by the actual division of a literal fickl or tract of land by a system of walls and 220 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. ditches, which of course excludes every other sys- tem of the same kind, since the combination of the two, and still more of many, would cut up the sup- posed field into irregular and useless parts ; whereas any number of such systems may be drawn on paper, or even marked upon the surface of the ground, without interference or collision, and per- haps with great facilities of mutual comparison and combination. § 207. It is proposed then to divide the course of history before us into two unequal parts, the first and lesser part consisting of a general survey of the whole field, and of the various ways in which it has been or may be divided and subdivided, dis- tributed and arranged, for the purpose of a more detailed examination ; the second and larger part containing this detailed examination itself, in the natural order of its topics, unrestricted by the pre- vious chronological divisions, but with all the ad- vantage of assuming and referring to them, as a means of fixing dates, and of comparing the posi- tions occupied by any given topic or event in dif- ferent schemes or systems of Churdi History. § 208. Tlie first of these surveys, although the least thorough and extensive, derives great relative importance from the use wliich we propose to make ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 221 of it, as tlie foundation or tlie framework of the other, the completeness and success of which must therefore be dependent, in a great degree, upon the clearness and precision of this introductory and general view. § 209. The confusion and complexity which must arise from an attemj)t to look at various peri- odologies at once, may be avoided by surveying them successively and seriatim^ just as the face of any country may be studied, with the aid of skele- ton or outline maps, by confining the attention first to one physical feature, such as mountains, with the natural divisions which they form or mark out, then j)i'oceeding to another, such as streams and water-courses ; then superadding the political dis- tinctions and designations ; or as one previously familiar with all these, may use a railway map of the same region without difficulty or confusion. § 210. But in order to pursue this gradual pro- cess with advantage, it is important to begin right, i. e. not with what is complex and obscure, which would defeat the end at once, but with that which is comparatively simple, i. e. exhibiting the small- est number of dividing lines and consequent divis- ions, so that from these we may proceed almost 222 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. insensibly to those of a more minute and comjDlex cliaracter. § 211. Another most desirable condition, if at- tainable, in such a primary division of the subject, is that it be not only simple in itself, but familiar from extensive use and general application. § 212. If these two qualities could only be had separately and apart, it might be hard to choose between a simple method little known, and one more complex but extensively familiar. § 213. By a happy coincidence, however, both conditions may be said to meet in one mode of ar- ranging and distributing Oliurch History, to wit, the division into three great periods, the Ancient, Middle, and Modern Ages. § 214. The simplicity of this mode speaks for itself, while its previous and general familiarity ap- pears in the first instance, from its use in common parlance and in general usage, which have few ex- pressions more familiar than that of " Middle Ages," implying both the others ; and then from its adoption by all modern church historians, either tacitly and hidirectly, as by Mosheim, Gieseler, and JSTeander, or avowedly and formally, as by Guericke, Hase, [Xiedner], Kurtz, and Schaff. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 223 § 215. The reality and usefulness of tliese divis- ions are entirely independent of precision in tlieir boundaries ; as the latter may be variable and doubt- ful, while the former are self-evident and palpable ; just as a surveyor, before running a line or measur- ing a foot, may obtain, from an elevated point in the tract to be surveyed, a perfectly distinct impression of its principal features, — water, woodland, meadow, tillage, — not only in themselves, but in their rela- tive position and general comparative extent ; or as the student of ancient geography may learn as much as can be known, or need be known, as to the relative position of the tribes of Israel, and the states of Greece, without any bounding lines at all, which can only be assigned by guess ; as the mod- ern geographer or politician readily distinguishes between the northern, eastern, middle, southern, western States of the American Union, though the Imes of demarcation may be variously drawn ; as no man doubts the real difference between child- hood, youth, maturity, and old age ; or between mornmg, evening, twilight, night ; or between the seasons of the year ; although he cannot posi- tively draw the line or fix the point where any one of these divisions ceases and the next begins. § 216. The conclusion to be drawn from these 224 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. analogies is, that even if we were without any clefi- nite boundaries whatever between these three great divisions of the field of history, the divisions them- selves might be distinctly marked and nsefully em- ployed, the difference lying not in the edges, bnt the central map, or rather in the whole extent, as the prismatic colours of the rainbow may be per- fectly distinguishable, although they appear to fade into each other by a vanishing and almost imper- ceptible transition. § 217. The case however is not really so bad as we have here assumed, there being a tolerably well defined limit, especially between the Middle Ages and the Modern, w^hich are universally agreed to be divided by the Eeforraation, excepting onty some extreme ultramontane Papists, such as Postel (§ 136), who makes the Eeformation a mere subdi- vision in one of his great periods, extending from tlie fall of the Greek Empire to the close of the Council of Trent. (§317.) § 218. There is less unanimity in reference to the boundary between the First and Middle Ages, because the transition there is not- effected by a great revolution (religious, intellectual, and social), which is always definite in date, because sudden in its outbreak, however long its causes may have ECCLESIASiaCAL HISTORY. 225 been in operation ; but by a plurality of changes wbicli reacbed tbeir height, or attained maturity at different, although not at distant, points of time, just as different fruits ripen in succession, and yet all belong to the same season ; so that by making one or another of these changes prominent, we gain a somewhat different line of demarcation. § 219. Although, for reasons which have just been stated (§§ 215, 216), it is not absolutely nec- essary to decide between these various boundaries, it may be well to gain a general knowledge of them, by beginning with extremes, i. e. with the earliest and latest limits of the Ancient period, which have been proposed, and tlien proceeding to the intermediate lines, or those which have been drawn between them. § 220. The earliest limits which have been as- signed to the Ancient Period or First Age of Church History are, the beginning of the fourth century (Thiele), when persecijition ceased, and the church became united with the state ; and the close of the same century, when the empire was finally divided into two, and about to be flooded with bar- barians (Koeppen), both which make the First Age too short in proportion to the others for any practi- cal purpose. Nearly coincident with this is Mil- 10" 226 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. man's ancient period, to the abolition of paganism in the empire. § 221. The latest limit which has been assigned to the same period is the close of the tenth centnry, the period of the greatest darkness and the most extreme depression ; but this is open to an opposite objection. § 222. Midway between these two extremes is the close of the seventh century, after the sixth oecumenical council, which seems to have been in- dependently selected as the boundary by several historians of very different schools, such as Alzog (§ 136), Kurtz (§ 135), and Palmer (§ 142), who assigns as a reason, that the equilibrium was now disturbed, the heresies being no longer counter- balanced by the " holy oecumenical councils," nor the losses of the church at home by gains abroad. § 223. On either side of this mean line two others have been drawn, which are still more extensively adopted ; first, the end of the sixth century, re- garded by many of the older writers as the close of the ancient period and of the series of Church Fathers, and substantially adopted by Neander and his school, because the hierarchy was there complete ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 227 in tlie person of the first pope, Gregory the Great. (Guericke, Jacobi, Schaff, Kobertson, Hawkins.) § 224. Hase, and Kurtz in his earlier works, draw the line at the close of the eighth century, when the centre of gravity was transferred from the Koman to the German side, as represented by Charlemagne and his successors. (Mosheim, "Wad- dington, Lindner, Frick.) § 225. Amidst these variations as to precise boundaries, it still remains true that the three great periods are distinct and distinguishable ; and while the choice seems to lie between the last two lines, it may be well to retain' both, as distinct but com- patible divisions, and to look rather at the great characteristic feature, than at the precise bounds of the periods in question. § 226. As an aid to the memory, more useful than agreeable to good taste, the three great Periods or Ages may be designated by single words as the periods of Formation, Deformation, and Reforma- tion, or perhaps in better English, as the Forming, Deforming, and Reforming periods, a nomenclature not merely arbitrary, but founded on the mutual re- lations of the periods, since Reformation implies pre- vious Corruption, and Corruption original formation. 223 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. § 227. But as every period has more than one face or aspect, and cannot therefore be exhaustively described in one word, the three ages may be more precisely thongh less pointedly distinguished as (I.) the period of Formation and Discipline (not ecclesi- astical, but providential) ; (II.) the period of Conso- lidation and Corruption (or Petrifaction and Putre- faction), the cessation of activity, however brilliant in appearance (like the reign of Solomon compared with that of David), often coinciding with incipient corruption ; (III.) the period of Reformation and Division, the same principle which wrought the one, tending, when pushed to an extreme, to work the other. § 228. It would be easy to multiply descriptions of the three great periods or ages, founded upon partial views, and more especially on single aspects of their relative condition, some of which are inge- nious and just in theory, though not always practi- cally useful or available. § 229. Such is Schaff's description of the first age as that in which the subjective and objective, or the individual and aggregate, constituents of all church history, were held in equilibrio, or kept in due proportion to each other, not so much by a de- liberate and conscious effort, as by providential ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. causes ; and when these ceased to operate, one of the elements became predominant, and brought to view a new phase of the history. § 230. Tims in the Middle Ages, the objective was predominant, the right of private judgment and the sense of personal responsibility being merged in the authority and absolving power of the Church (which is the fatal spell of popery, entirely indepen- dent of her ceremonies and external form) y while in the third, or present period, the scales are re- versed, and the subjective is preponderant, the right of private judgment and the sense of personal responsibility having (among Protestants) almost entirely superseded the authority of the Church. § 231. From these vicissitudes already realized, the author ingeniously prognosticates a fourth age, yet to come, in which the equilibrium shall be re- stored and afterwards maintained, not, as in the first age, by accident or special divine interposition, but by conscious co-operation of the Church itself, en- lightened by its previous experience. § 232. Entirely different in form and principle, but equally ingenious and one-sided, is the ethnolo- gical distinction last proposed by Kurtz, and resting on the theory of three successive forms of civiliza- 230 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. tion, tliroiigli wliicli the Cliiircli is to pass, tlie Ori ental (or ^ Jewisli), the Classical or (Greco-Eoman), and the Modern (or Germanic in the wide sense of the term including Anglo-Saxon) ; the first form corresponding to the Old Testament history and the beginning of the Apostolical ; the second reaching to the close of the eighth century ; and the third belonging to the Modern Ages, the Middle Ages being the transition from the Greco-Roman to the Germanic form of civilization, under which there are included intellectual culture and social condi- tion. § 233. As no one of these partial and one-sided views of the difference between the three great pe- riods is sufficient of itself to represent them to the mind, it may be well to combine the truth involved in them with what we know besides as to the char- acter of these three ages, in a general description. § 234. The first great feature of the Ancient Period is the rapid simultaneous extension of the Church, and propagation of the gospel, in various directions, but with an impetus decreasing as we draw near to the Middle Ages. § 235. Another is the long-continued state of persecution, followed by relief, patronage, establish- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 231 ment or union with the state, and finally enslave- ment by it and subjection to it. § 236. A third characteristic is the gradual ex- pansion and development of church-organization, with an accompanying effort after outward unity, which seems at the close of the first age to be at- tained, by the consummation of the monarchical de- velopment in the primacy of Rome, or the com- mencement of the papal power, under Gregory the Great. § 237. A fourth feature of the Ancient Church is its conflict with error, first in the open and avowed hostility of Judaism and Heathenism, and then in the more covert and insidious enmity of her- esies, arising from the mixture of various forms of error with Christianity itself, leading, before the end of this first age, to the discussion and settlement of all the most essential doctrines on their present basis. § 238. The last characteristic of the First Age, is the absence of a fixed law or type of Christian experience, there being ample proof that personal re- ligion did exist and flourish, but with a freedom and variety of inner life peculiar to the times, including 232 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. many eccentricities and aberrations, not without some tokens of incipient corruption. § 239. The first great negative distinction of the Middle Age is this, that it originated nothing good, but only evil, while both good and bad things of an older date were still continued, although seldom without some exaggeration or corruption. § 240. The unity which seemed to be secured by the erection of the papal see, begins immediately to be dissolved by means of the Great Schism between East and "West. § 241. The theological or doctrinal distinction of the Middle Age, is the vast expenditure of thought and labor on the mere elaboration of results already gained in new and strange forms, more especially the mystic and scholastic, and the tendency to give these forms a stereotype or petrified rigidity, which, far from lessening or conciliating heresy and error, made them more numerous and desperate than ever. § 242. Tlie worst peculiarity of this age is the vast increase of superstition in its various forms, with its invariable accompaniment, moral deprava- tion, both of theory and practice. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 233 § 243. Its only redeeming or consolatory feature is tlie nnder-ciirrent of determined opposition to these evils, the reformatory tendency or movement, running through the Middle Ages, never entirely wanting, although varying in strength and clear- ness, sometimes appearing even in the dominant authorities, at others only among those who were regarded as opponents and directors, if not formally condemned as heretics and schismatics. § 244. The first great feature of the Third or Modern Age is the reaction against these great evils, the secession of a large part of the Latin Church, and the assertion of the right of private judgment, with a more or less complete return to apostolical simplicity and purity, all which is summed up in the word Reformation. § 245. Another feature not to be neglected, is the influence exerted by this great reaction on the residuary church itself for good and evil, for good in the correction of some errors and abuses, for evil in the aggravation and perpetuation of others. § 246. The theology of this age, as distinguished from that of the two others, is learned and critical, with tendencies to scepticism, more or less deter- mined. 234 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. § 247. Ill addition to tlie old division of the Greek and Latin Cliurchj and the new division of the latter introduced by the Eeformation, this period is characterized by further subdivisions, such as that of the Protestant body into Lutheran and Calvinistic ; and of these parts into others, by secession, disruption, or excision. § 248. Besides this tendency to subdivision, springing from the use or abuse of the right of pri- vate judgment, within the pale of Christianity itself, the third age is distinguished by a rank growth of heresies, both old and new, and by a singular vari- ety of anti-Christian errors, or new forms of infidel- ity, disowning the authority of Scripture, and abandoning the Christian name. § 249. An intermediate division between that of the Centuries and that of the Three Ages, may be obtained by grouj)ing the former, so as at the same time to divide the latter, not by arbitrary lines, but by discriminating things that really differ § 250. Thus the Early Age, or Ancient History, may be equally divided, supposing it to consist of six centuries (§ 223), by a line drawn at the close of the third century ; the first half difiering from the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 235 second as a period of persecution from one of es- tablisiiment ; as a period of rapid from one of slower pro]3agation ; as a period during Avliich the cliurcli was working off heretical admixtures, from one in which it was positively settling the great doctrines of religion. § 251. The seventh and eighth centuries may be regarded as a kind of debatable or neutral ground, like a lane, or narrow strip of litigated land between two farms, wdiich may be added to either w^ithout materially affecting any thing but its ex- tent. § 252. The divisions of the Middle Ages are not so obvious, but a definite basis for them is afforded by the extreme depression of the Church in the 10th century, and by the premonitions of the Ee- formation in the 14th and 15th. § 253. Upon this basis, the Middle Ages may be divided into three unequal parts ; the first in- cluding centuries YII. — X. (or, according to Hase and Kurtz IX.— .X) during which there was a grad- ual decline from the position of the ancient Church to its lowest condition in the 10th century ; the second including centuries XI. — ^XIII., during which there was a rise, but in a different direction, a new 236 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. kind of activity and life, and during which the great peculiar movements of the Age, the Papacy, Scliolasticism, Monachism, reached their height and full development ; the third including centuries XI Y. — XY., during which these same great inter- ests declined, and the reformatory tendency grew proportionally strong and visible. Tliough the Last or Modern Age comprises only three and a half centuries, each of which has a character or as- pect of its own, it may still be divided into two larger portions, each of which has a distinctive character ; the first consisting of the 16th and 17th, and characterized by the Reformation and its positive efi*ects, both on the Protestant and Un- reformed churches ; the other consisting of the 18th and 19th, and characterized by the more negative effects of the same causes. (See below, §§ 273, 274.) § 254. Besides all these divisions, it is w^ell to have some characteristic features of each century associated with it in the memory, the points se- lected being few in number, and, as. far as possible, peculiar to the periods with which they are con- nected. § 255. As a mnemonic aid, some use may be made of the Latin nomenclature commonly ascribed ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 237 to Cave (§ 113), and more or less modified by later writers, viz., 1. Seculmn Apostolicum. 2. Gnosti- enm. 3. IS'ovatianum (v. Cyprianum). 4. Ari- anum. 5. ]^estorianum (Pelagiarum, v. Augustinia- num). 6. Entycliianum. 7. Monothleticum (v. Muhammedanicum). 8. Iconoclasticum. 9. Pho- tianum (v. Obscurum). 10. Obscnrum (v. Tene- brioscum). 11. Hildebrandicnm. 12. Waldense. 13. Scholasticnm. 14. Wiclifianuin. 15. Syno- dale. 16. Reformatum. § 256. In characterizing the first century more particularly, due regard must be had to its unique position, as the period of transition from an old to a new world, from the Jewish to the Christian Church, and from Biblical to Ecclesiastical History, only the smaller part of it belonging strictly to the latter, while the whole may be divided into three nearly equal parts, or into the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, of Peter and Paul, and of the Apostle John ; with the additional as- sociated names of ITero and Domitian as persecu- tors, and of Simon Magus and Cerinthus as Here- siarchs. § 257. The second century presents the opening of the great twofold conflict of the Church, intellec- tual and physical, with persecution and brute force 238 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. on one hand, on the other with Judaism and Hca- thenism as open enemies, and with heresies arising from their fusion or amalgamation with Christian doctrine ; both which conflicts may be associated with the names of Trajan and the Antonines as per- secutors ; Marcus Aurelius and Celsus as heathen opponents of the truth ; Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin, as martyrs ; the latter also representing the Christian A]3ologists or champions of the truth against its heathen enemies, and the Christian Phi- losophers, or Platonizing theologians, whose ex- cesses partly caused the Gnostic heresies, of which the great opponent was Tertullian, though himself involved in the very different error of the Mon- tanists. § 258. The third century is marked by its dis- ciplinary schisms, represented by ISTovatian ; its Catholicism, represented by Cyprian ; its Greek or Alexandrian theology and learning represented by Origen, who was also the most eminent opponent of the Monenchian heresies, to which may be added Manicheeism, as a doctrinal feature of the age. § 259. The fourth century is marked by the end of persecution under Constantino ; the end of pagan- ism under Theodosiiis ; the disdsion of the empire between ]iis sons ; the first and second general ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 239 councils, occasioned by the Arian and Semiarian heresies, of which the chief opponents were Atha- nasins and tlie three Cappadocian doctors (Basil and the Gregories), who also favoured and contrib- uted to propagate the new system of ascetic and mo- nastic life. § 260. As prominent features of the fifth cen- tury may be named the Pelagian, Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies ; the third and fourth oecumenical councils, at which they were condemned ; Chrysos- tom, the greatest preacher, Augustin, the greatest theologian ; and Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the age ; the downfall of the western Koman empire ; and the conversion of the Franks to Christianity. § 261. In the sixth century the series of contro- versies and of councils is continued by the Mono- physite error and the fifth oecumenical council ; while additional landmarks are aflbrded by the legislation and the conquests of Justinian, and by the full development of the hierarchy, in the foun- dation of the papal power under Gregory the First (or Great). § 262. The series of ancient doctrinal controver- sies closes witli tliat of tlie Monothelites, and the 240 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. series of ancient councils with tlie Sixth and the Quinisextum ; bnt a more important feature of the age is the rise and progress of Mahometanism. § 263. This new religion made still further progress in the eight century by the Moorish con- quest of Spain, but w^as repelled from France by Charles Martel, whose son, Charlemagne, revived the Western Empire, and laid the foundation of the temporal power of the Pope by his donations ; while the Germans were brought within the pale of the Church chiefly by the labours of Boniface, thence called their Apostle. § 264. In the ninth century, the new preten- sions of the Papal See were fortified by forged de- cretals, under the auspices of Nicolas L, who, also, interfered in the eastern strife detween Photius and Ignatius, and thus contributed to the great schism ; while the western church was agitated by the pre- destinarian controversy begun by Godescalcus, and the broaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation by Paschasius Eadbert ; the reformatory tendency being represented by Claudius of Turin. § 265. The 10th century is the lowest depres- sion of the Church at large, and of the papacy in particular, which was a mere slave of political par- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 241 ties ; so that we have to look for great names to the world, such as Otho the Great in Germany, and Hugh Capet, the founder of a new dynasty in France ; a degradation only partially redeemed by the monastic organization of Clugny, and the nomi- nal conversion of the Scandinavian and Sclavonian races. § 266. The 11th century opens with a gen- eral panic in relation to the end of the world, fol- lowed by a general reaction ; and with a partial restoration of the j)apacy by Gabert or Sylvester II. ; followed by some signs of intellectual life in the Berengarian controversy ; which is connected, in its turn, with the rise of Ilildebrand, afterwards Gregory YII., the founder of the papal theocracy, who carried it out in theory, and in practice as far as he was suffered by the violent resistance of the German Emperors, particularly Henry lY. > § 267. The 12tli century is marked, on one hand, by its chivalry, crusades, and military orders ; on the other, by the conflict between mysticism and rationalism, represented by Bernard and Abelard ; the first development of scholastic theology, repre- sented by the " Sentences " of Peter Lombard ; and a new reformatory movement, represented by Peter Waldo, the reputed founder of the Waldenses ; 11 24:2 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. while the new pretensions of the Papacy were man- fully sustained by Alexander III. § 268. In the 13th century, all the great me- dieval interests were carried to their height ; the Papal Power by Innocent III. ; the Scholastic The- ology by Thomas Aquinas ; the Monastic Organi- zation by St. Francis and St. Dominic ; with the last of whom, or his immediate successors, we may associate the Inquisition. § 269. In the 14:th century begins the de- cline of the scholastic theology, with a correspond- ing rise of mysticism ; the end of the Papal Tlie- ocracy with Boniface VIII., followed by the Baby- lonish Captivity and Papal schism ; the rise of a vernacular literature in Italy, connected with the great names of Dante and Petrarch ; and a power- ful attempt at reformation made by Wiclif and the Lollards. § 270. In the 15tli century, the same work is continued or renewed in Bohemia by John Huss and Jerome of Prague ; in France, by the Keform- ing School of Paris ; and in the church at large, by the great Reforming Councils, but without im- mediate success, although the great end was, more or less, promoted by certain secular events, such as ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOliY. 243 the end of the Greek Empire, the Revival of Let- ters, the Invention of Printing, and the Discovery of America. § 271. The great feature of the 16th century is the Reformation, in its two main branches, Ger- man and Swiss, together with its introduction into various countries ; whether temporary, as in Spain and Italy ; or partial, as in France, Hungary, and Southern Germany ; or permanent, as in Northern Germany, Holland, England, Scotland ; or exclu- sive, as in Sweden and Denmark ; while in the Unreformed Church, the great features are the Or- ganization of the Jesuits and the Council of Trent. § 272. The 17th century is marked by the consolidation of the Protestant churches both in creed and discipline ; the religious war of Thirty Years, which ended in the establishment of Protes- tant rights at the Peace of Westphalia ; the Great Rebellion, Commonwealth, and English Revolu- tion, and the introduction of the church into Amer- ica by colonization. § 273. The 18th century may be character- ized as a period of revival, revolution, and reac- tion, the prominent traits of which are Pietism, Moravianism, Methodism, Enc^lish Deism, French 244 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Philosophy, and German Kationalism ; the great Kevolutions of America and France. § 274. The same features may be traced, through the first half of the 19th century, in the rise and fall of Napoleon ; the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire by the Greek Revolution, and of the Spanish Empire by that of Mexico and South America ; the second and third French revo- lutions, and the one now going on in China ; the disruption of the Scotch and several American churches ; the rise of Unitarianism, Universalism, Irvingism, Puseyism, Socialism, Communism, Mor- monism. Spiritualism ; while the great redeeming feature of the age is the frequent and extensive re- vival of religion, and the great benevolent move- ment in the Protestant churches for the circulation of the Scriptures, and diffusion of religious knowl- edge, reformation of morals, and eventual conver- sion of the world, by missionary enterprises, com- prehending in their scope Pagans, Mahometans, Jews, and those living under the corrupted forms of Christianity. § 275. The centurial and other chronological arrangements, which proceed upon the principle of uniform conventional divisions, have been su- perseded, in thn modern schools of ecclesiastical ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 245 historiography, by periodologies, or schemes made up of periods, defined, without regard to length or imiformity, by epochs, i. e. turning points or criti- cal junctures, where the current of events, or tide of history, reaches the high- water mark, and the re- flux or ebb begins. § 276. If the tide or current, to pursue this figure, were a single one, or if the many currents reached their height at once, it would be easy to adopt one general and comprehensive periodology ; but as the high tide of one stream or coast is not necessarily or always that of every other, so the crises of history may be variously chosen, and the exercise of this choice by the modern writers, has led to a great diversity of periodologies, or actual arrangements founded on this principle. § 277. Tlie exclusive use of any one pf these not only makes the others unavailable, but deprives us of the positive advantages attending their compara- tive or joint use, which are chiefly two ; first, in- creased facility in reading or referring to the words in which they are embodied ; and secondly, the aid which they afibrd in choosing epochs for ourselves, by showing what events have been pointed out as such by eminent historians. 246 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 2T8. In selecting from a multitude of perio- dologies, devised in modern times, especially in Germany, our choice may be guided by several distinct considerations, such as the celebrity or eminence of the inventor, the extensive use of the arrangement by others, and its intrinsic convenience or utility. § 279. When thus selected, they may be ar- ranged for actual comj)arison, to most advantage, in the order of their dates, as this enables us to trace the gradual process by which they grew out of and improved upon each other. § 280. It will be sufficient for our present pur- pose to confine our view, at least in the first in- stance, to the periodologies of Gieseler, ]S[eander, Guericke (Jacobi), Hase, Kurtz, and SchafiT, as fairly representing the improved modern methods, and afifording us the use of what is really most valuable in them all. § 281. Among these, Gieseler is entitled to precedence, not only as one of the most eminent, but also as the oldest ; for although he speaks of the periodological method as already generally in- troduced, and of its ^actual results as already very various, it is easy to perceive from his own arrange- ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. 247 ment, that the previous attempts were compara- tively rude and unsuccessful. § 282. In order to illustrate and exemplify the process by which all periodologies are framed, it may be well to give a more particular description of the one proposed by Gieselcr, than will be neces- sary in the case of any other, as the principle and modus ojperandi are substantially the same in all. § 283. As a preliminary fact of some impor- tance, it may here be stated, that the modern peri- odologies vary from each other as to the terminus a qiLO or starting point of Ecclesiastical History ; some going back to the Apostolic Age, or to the Life of Christ, and even beyond his birth ; while others begin at the close of the ISTew Testament history, e. g. IN'eander, who has treated the Evan- gelical and Apostolical History in independent works. On this account, the terminus a qiiem will be considered as a variable line or point, and only stated where it is essential to the completeness or the symmetry of the arrangement. § 284. The periodology of Gieselcr is deter- mined by the choice of three great turning points or junctures, which he designates as primary epochs : — I. The sole reign of Constantine, without 248 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. a rival or a colleaguCj from the year 324. II. The outbreak of the Iconoclastic or Image Controversy in the year 726. III. The Keformation, from Lu- ther's first public acts as a Eeformer, in the year 1517. § 285. Before and between these primary epochs, Gieseler assumes others, of less prominence, but still distinctly marked, in his opinion, as salient points and critical junctures. These are eight in number, equally distributed among the in- tervals already marked out by the others. § 286. Anterior to the first great ej)ocli, the sole reign of Constantino, the minor or intermediate points are the accession of the Emperor Adrian (A. D. 117), and that of Septimius Severus (193). Between the first and second (the Iconoclastic con- troversy), he assumes, as secondary epochs, the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Monothelite controversy, with the contemporaneous rise of the Mahometan religion (622). Between the second and third (the Eeformation), his subsidiary epochs are the Pontificate of ^Nicolas I., and the Pseudo- decretals forged with his connivance (858), and the transfer of the Papal See from Rome to Avignon (1035). Between his third grand epoch and his own time, he assumes, as intermediate points, the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 249 Peace of Westphalia (1648), and the fall of I^apo- leon (1814). § 287. By the major and mmor epochs thus as- sumed, the whole field is divided into four great periods, and each of these subdivided into three others, making twelve in all § 288. Gieseler's first great j)eriod extends from the beginning of the subject to the sole reign of Constantino (324) ; his second to the outbreak of the Image controversy (726) ; his third to the Ref- ormation (1517) ; his fourth to the date of his last volume (1848). § 289. The first subdivision of his first great period ends with Adrian (117) ; the second with Septimius Severus (193) ; the third with Constan- tine (324). § 290. The first subdivision of his second great period ends with the Council of Chalcedon (451) ; the second with Mahomet (622) ; the third with the Iconoclasts (726). § 291. The first subdivision of his third great period ends with Mcolas I. (858) ; the second with the transfer of the Papal See to Avignon (1305) ; the third with the Eeformation (1517). 11* ' 250 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 292. The first subdivision of his fourth great period ends with the peace of Westphalia (1648) ; the second with the fall of Napoleon (1814) ; the third with his own times (1848). § 293. These subdivisions may be also arranged in a continued series, with some advantage to the eye and memory. 1. To Adrian (11 Y). 2. To Sep- timius Severus (193). 3. To Constantine (324). 4. To the Council of Chalcedon (451). 5. To Ma- homet (622). 6. To the Iconoclasts (726). 7. To ISTicolas I. (858). 8. To the transfer of the Papal See (1305). 9. To the Eeformation (1517). 10. To the Peace of Westphalia (1648). 11. To the fall of Napoleon (1814). 12. To our own times (1848). § 294. This periodology bears upon its face suf- ficient indications of its being an early, although not a first, attempt at such arrangements ; so that it has met with little currency among later writers, either as a whole, or with respect to some of its particular distinctions and divisions. § 295. Specific faults, which have been charged upon it, are the excessive number of its subdivisions, and the arbitrary character of some of his distinc- tions ; for example, the selection of the Image Con- troversy as one of his great epochs, although less ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 251 important in its general historical relations than some others which might have been selected ; and the same objection has been made to several of his subdivisions, for example, to the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth. (§ 293.) § 296. Few if any of these criticisms can be made upon Meander's Periodologj, which greatly excels Gieseler's in simplicity and symmetry, as well as in the choice of the particular divisions ; whether this superiority arises from his having de- signedly improved upon his predecessor, or, which is made more probable by the remarkable diversity between them, from an independent exercise of taste and judgment. § 297. Instead of Gieseler's four great periods and twelve subdivisions, E'eander assumes six great periods, without any (chronological) subdivisions. His first period reaches to the end of the Diocletian Persecution, on the accession of Oonstantine the Great (A. D. 312) ; the second to the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590) ; the third to the death of Charlemagne (814) ; the fourth to Hildebrand or Gregory YH. (1073) ; the fifth to Boniface YIII. (1294) ; the sixth to Luther or the Reformation (1517). 252 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 298. Guericke, one of Meander's most faithful followers (§ 131), adopts his periods, completes them by adding, as a seventh, from the Reforma- tion to the date of his own last edition (1846), and groups the seven in three Ages, the first instance known to me of this arrangement. (§§ 213, 214). § 299. Guericke's division into Ages is -unequal and irregular, assigning two of ITeander's periods to the first Age, four to the second, and making the third co-extensive with the seventh period, added by himself. § 300. The same division into Ages is adopted by l!^eander's other follower and condenser, Jacobi, and the same subdivision of the first or Early Age, beyond which his published work has not yet gone. (§ 132.) § 301. The next periodology, in point of time, is that of Hase, originally published a year after Guericke's, agreeing with it in the general distribu- tion, but exhibiting a great improvement on it in simplicity and symmetry, as might have been ex- pected from the tastes and habits of the author, who appears to care at least as much for manner as for matter, for the form as for the substance, of Church History. (§ 133.) ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 253 § 302. Hase, like Guericke, divides the whole into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Church His- tory, but takes as the dividing line between the first and second, not the end of the sixth century, or the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590), but the institution of the German or new Western Em- pire by the coronation of Charlemagne (800). (See § 224.) § 303. Each of his ages or great periods is di- vided into two by a single intermediate epoch ; the first by Constantino (312) ; the second by Innocent III. (1216) ; the third by the Peace of "Westphalia (1648). § 304. This periodology of Hase is adopted, with a slight modification, by another popular his- torian, Kurtz (§ 135), who, in his earlier and smaller works, down to the last edition (1856), divides into the same three Ages, but as a line of subdivision in the second, for the death of Innocent III. (1216), substitutes the accession of Boniface YIII. (1294), an epoch belonging to the same century, but mark- ing another stage in the progress of the papacy, and probably adopted for the sake of a closer assimilation to Neander's method. (§ 297.) § 305. In Kurtz's larger work, which is not yet 254 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. finislied, he adopts a different arrangement, founded on tlie theory of three civilizations (§ 232), accord- ing to which the work, so far as it has yet been published, and so far as it relates to Ecclesiastical History in the strict sense (§ 32), is divided into two great Phases, so called, and not Periods or Ages, because not entirely successive but to some extent collateral or parallel, and therefore properly de- scribed as Phases, or partly contemporary aspects of the same objective matter. § 306. The first Phase, according to this scheme, is the developement of Christianity under the an- cient classic form of civilization, from the end of the Apostolic Age to the downfall of the Eastern or Greek Empire (1453). The second Phase is its developement under the medieval or Germanic form of civilization, from the fourth to the fifteeth centu- ry inclusive. § 307. Each of these Phases is chronologically subdivided by two minor or intermediate lines ; the first by the end of the Diocletian persecution (312), and by that of the series of ancient councils (692) ; the second by the close of the ninth and twelfth centuries respectively. § 308. The most finished of these modern peri- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 255 odologies, because combining the advantages and sliunning the defects of those which preceded it, is that of Schaff, in which the general arrangement is the same with that of Kurtz and Hase, and the subdivision no less symmetrical in form, while in fulness of detail it is neither so minute as Gieseler nor so measrre as Hase. "to' § 309. Schaff divides the whole into three Ages : I. The Primitive or Grseco-Latin Church, from Pen- tecost to Gregory the Great (590). 11. The Medi- eval Church, or Pomano-Germanic Catholicism, from Gregory the Great to Luther (151Y). III. Tlie Mod- ern or Evangelical Protestant Church, in conflict with the Church of Pome, from Luther to our own time (1853). § 310. Each of these Ages he divides into three periods ; the first into the period of the Apostolical church until the death of John (100) ; that of the Persecuted Church to Constantine (311) ; and that of the Established Church of the Grseco-Koman Empire, to Gregory the Great (590). § 311. The second he divides into the Kise of the Middle Age, or the planting of the church among the Germanic races, till the appearance of Hildebrand (1049) ; the Height of the Middle Age 256 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. (Papacy, Monachism, Scholasticism, Mysticism), to Boniface YIII. (1303) ; and the decline of the Mid- dle Age, and prej)aration for approaching changes, nntil Lnther (151Y). § 312. Tlie third he divides into the period of the Eeformation, or Productive Protestantism and Eeacting Romanism (century XYI.) ; that of Or- thodox-confessional and scholastic Protestantism, in conflict with ultramontane Jesuitism and semi- Protestant Jansenism (to the middle of century XYin.) ; and that of negative subjective Protest- antism — Rationalism and Sectarianism — with pre- monitions of a new or fourth age (to the middle of the 19th century). § 313. These smaller periods, like those of Gies- eler (§ 293), may be also arranged in a continued series : 1. To the death of John (100). 2. To Con- stantino (311). 3. To Gregory the Great (590). 4. To Hildebrand (1049). 5. To Boniface YIII. (1294). 6. To Luther (1517). 7. To the end of the 16th century. 8. To the middle of the 18th. 9. To the middle of the 19th. § 314. With these select ]3eriodologies, when thoroughly mastered and familiar, it may be im- proving to compare some others, in a more rapid, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 257 and less tliorongh manner, for the purpose of ob- serving botli their general agreement, and the points, whether great or small, in which they differ. § 315. Engelhardt assnmes five great epochs, I. The conversion of Constantino, and conse- quent establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire. II. The rise of Mahometanism, and con- sequent contraction of the Church, particularly in the East. III. Tlie reaction of the West against this hostile j)ower in the Crusades, and the elevation of the hierarchy to a monarchy. TV. The Reforma- tion, as the beginning of a new age and a thorough change throughout the Church. Y. The securing of the civil rights of Protestants, in the Peace of Westphalia as a condition of their free develope- ment. § 316. With these epochs he defines six periods : 1. From Christ to Constantino (625). 2. From Con- stantino to Mahomet (600). 3. From Mahomet to Gregory YII. (1073). 4. From Gregory to Luther (1517). 5. From the Reformation to the Peace of Westphalia (1648). 6. From the Peace of West- phalia to his own time (1830). § 317. The simplest periodology is that of Thiele, who assumes the three divisions which are 258 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. common to almost all arrangements : I. From Christ to Constantine. II. From Constantino to Lntlier. III. From Liitlier to his own time (1840). § 318. Lobegott Lange has -Q.ye periods, corre- sponding to as many stages in the progress of the hierarchy. The first extends to the Conncil of Nice (325) ; the second to the developement of the Eomish monocratical hierarchy, under Gregory the Great (590) ; the third to its completion nnder Gregory the Seventh (in the last third of the eleventh centnry) ; the fourth to its decline and fall in many states of Europe at the Reformation (in the first third of the sixteenth century) ; the fifth from the Reformation to his own time (1846). § 319. Two of these periods are subdivided : the first into (1) the period of Primitive Christianity (Urchristenthum) until the developement of Ecclesi- astical Hierarchy, and (2) the interval between that and the developement of the Aristocratical Hierar- chy ; the fourth into the (1) Decline and (2) Fall of the Romish Monocratic Hierarchy. § 320. Niedner, one of the most profound and accurate modern German Church Historians, but, at the same time, one of the most obscure and intri- cate, adopts the division into three great periods or ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 259 Ages, but terminates the first in tlie middle of tlie eighth century, and the second at the end of the 15th ; subdividing the three ages very unequally, the first, besides the Apostolical and earlier history, into (1) the conflict with Grasco-Roman heathenism (second and third centuries), (2) with oriental hea- thenism (fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries) ; (3) with Islam and Heathendom in tlie East and West (seventh and eighth centuries) ; the Second or Mid- dle Age into the Foundation of the Medieval Church (from the middle of the eighth to the mid- dle of the 11th century), its completion (from the middle of the 11th to the end of the 13th), and its decline (during the 14th and 15th) ; the Tliird or Modern Age into (1) the Eeformation, or the con- flict of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (during the 16th century) ; (2) the Ecclesiastical and Doctrinal developement of both (to the middle of the 18th century) ; (3) the scientific and sceptical developement of Protestantism (to the middle of the 19th century). § 321. Lindner, a younger writer of great merit, assumes three Ages, the first being that of the de- velopement of Christianity in the Grseco-Roman form (during the first eight centuries) ; the second the strife of the Grseco-Roman and Germanic civilization 260 ECCLESIASnCAL HISTORY. (during the next seven centuries) ; the third the triumph of Germanic culture in the Eeformation (during the last three centuries). § 322. He divides each age into two smaller periods, and characterizes each of these, first " po- litically," then " dogmatically ; " his first period, extending to 311, being that of the church under heathen persecution, and employed in excluding the Judaic and heathen element from its theology ; the second, extending to 814, that of its establish- ment and ultimate subjection to the state. § 323. In the Middle Ages, his first period, ex- tending to 1294, is that of the subjection of the state to the church, and of the civil to the canon law^ and also that of the scholastic reproduction of theology, together with the first signs of reaction and reformatory movement ; his second period, ex- tending to 1517, is that of the emancipation of the state from the thraldom of the hierarchy, and the developement of nationalities, and also that of con- flict between the Roman and Germanic mind in doctrinal discussion, with still clearer marks of a reforming tendency. § 324. In the third Age, Lindner's first division, extending to 1648, is the period of Protestant tri- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 261 umph over Popisli oppression, but subjection to the Protestant state, and of pnrified doctrine in conflict with Roman stiffness and enthusiastic laxity ; his second period is that of pietistical reaction against church and state, and effort after free organization, together with the conflict of the true doctrine with tlie extreme forms of pietism and rationalism. § 325. Fricke retains the usual distinction of three Ages, but terminates the first at Charle- magne's original accession to the throne (Y68), and describes it as comprising the rise of Christianity till the settlement of the great doctrines and of the constitution in the form of papal monarchy ; the second as the period or age of doctrinal stagnation and of papal usurpation, with opposition and reac- tion, both in church and state ; the third as the age of advancing freedom and political security, popish re- action and revival, Protestant orthodox rigidity, and general effort after peace and union not yet realized. § 326. The German Poman Catholic Church historian Abzog (§ 136) also adopts the favourite division into three Ages and six periods, the first age being that of the Church in the Grseco-Poman Empire, and comprising the first seven centuries ; the second that of the Church in the Germanic and Slavonic races, from the fourth to the 15th cen- 262 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. tury, inclusive ; the third from the ^' Western Schism," as he calls the Reformation, to the present time. Tlie first age he divides, as nsual, by Con- stantino (313) ; the second he divides by the acces- sion of Gregory YII. (1073), and subdivides by the death of Charlemagne (814), and Boniface YIII. (1303) ; the third age he divides by the Peace of Westphalia (1648). § 327. Yery different from this, and evidently calculated for the meridian of France not Germany, is the periodology of the ultramontane French his- torian Postel (§ 136), who assumes eleven periods, 1. From Christ to Constantino (313). 2. To the fall of the Western Empire (476). 3. To Mahomet (622.) 4. To the death of Charlemagne (814). 6. To the first crusade (1095). 6. To the death of St. Louis (1270). 7. To the fall of tlie Eastern Empire (1453). 8. To the close of the Council of Trent (1563), including the Reformation (§ 217). 9. To the death of Louis XIY. (1715). 10. To the elevation of Pius YII. (1800). 11. To the eleva- tion of Pius IX. (1846). § 328. Of the recent English writers on Church History (§ 141), Hardwick treats only of the Middle Ages and the Reformation ; Blunt of the first three centuries ; Robertson of the first six, w^hich he divides ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 2G3 like N"eander, whoso periods are also adopted by Waddington. (§ 140.) § 329. Somewhat different is the periodology of Palmer (§ 142), though he likewise assumes five great periods without subdivision : I. That of the Pure and Persecuted Church (to 320). II. That of Heresies and Holy CEcumenical Councils (to 680). III. That of Ignorance, "Worldliness, and Supersti- tion, with pious reaction and extensive conversions (to 1054). lY. That of Schism between the East and West, and of the height and decline of the Papal usurpation (to. 1517). Y. That of Refor- mation and Resistance, Schism and Infidelity (to 1839). § 330. The periodolog}^ of Milman (§ 139), is confused by extreme minuteness and by complica- tion with a topical arrangement, so that it is not easily compared with those already mentioned, but deserves attention, not only on account of his gen- eral celebrity, but as a key to his two important works upon Church History. § 331. Milman's first work (§ 139) extends from the birth of Christ to the abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire, and is divided into books and chapters, partly on a chronical and partly on a 264 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. topical method. His second work, the History of Latin Christianity, extends to the Pontificate of Nicolas Y. and is divided by the author into fourteen Periods, as he calls them, although some of them are not strictly Periods but Topics. § 332. The first of these " Periods " extends to the Pontificate of Damasus and his two successors (366-401) ; the second to Leo the Great (461) ; the third to the death of Gregory the Great (604) ; the fourth to the coronation of Charlemagne (800) ; the fifth to the end of his dynasty (996) ; the sixth in- cludes the series of German PontifiTs (1061) ; the seventh that of Italian PontifiTs, beginning with Gregory YIL (1073) ; the eighth the strife about investiture (during the 12th century) ; the nintli the height of the Papacy, to the formation of the Canoii Law, under Gregory IX. (1238) ; the tenth the conflict of the Popes and Emperors (to the death of Innocent lY. 1254) ; the eleventh the tri- umph of the Papacy until broken under Boniface YIIL (who died 1303) ; the twelfth the Babylonian Captivity till 1370 ; the thirteenth the Papal schism, the reforming councils, and attempts at union with the Greeks ; the fourteenth medieval art and revi- val of letters. A concluding topic is the advance of reformation and the rivalry of Latin and Teu- tonic Cliristianity. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 265 § 333. From tlie definition previously given (§ ^75) of the periodological arrangement, it will be seen tliat it makes nse of epochs only to define its periods, as the surveyor plants his stakes for the purpose of his measurements or observations, and when these are finished, removes or leaves them, which he v/ould not if the stakes had an intrinsic value, or were useful for anotlier purpose. § 334:. ISTow the epochs used in framing periodol- ogies are also valuable in themselves, or independ- ently of this use, as salient and turning points in history, to know which is a wide step towards the knowledge of the history itself^ but to select which the beginner is incompetent, unless assisted by the judgment of the best historians, as expressed in the selection of particular epochs as the basis or the framework of tlieir periodologies. § 335. In order to apply them to this use, it will be found a salutary exercise to separate them from the periodologies of which they form a part, espe- cially ^vlien this is done, not by mere transcription or dictation, but by the personal exertions of the individual student, to encourage which the follow- ing suggestions are presented, drawn from personal e7cperience. 12 266 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 336. Let all the epochs be collected from as many distmct periodologies as may be thought de- sirable, for instance from the twenty which have been described in the preceding paragraphs (§§ 284 -332) or from the six selected specimens first stated, and placed in a continued series, without reference to their position in the several periodological ar- rangements. § 337. Then let this aggregate or gross amount be reduced by eliminating all that does not properly fall under the description of an epoch, as for instance when a century, or half a century, its first third, or its last third, are employed as periodological distinc- tions, these being not real epochs, but expedients borrowed from the old centurial method. § 338. Let the list thus shortened be reduced still further by consolidating dates which really represent one epoch — such as the six dates in the reign of Constantino, his accession (311), his decrees of toleration (312, 313), the beginning of his sole reign (323, 324), and the first (Ecumenical Council (325) ; or the two dates in the life of Gregory the Great, his accession (590) and his death (604) ; or the corresponding points in the history of Boniface YIIL (1294 and 1303) ; or the three in that of Char- lemagne, his original accession (768), his coronation ECCLESIASTICAL UISTOKY. 267 as Emperor (800), and his death (814) ; or the two ill that of Gregory YIL, his original appearance (1049), and his election to the Papacy (1073) ; or the two dates assigned to the beginning of the Keforma- tion (the beginning of the century and the year 1517). § 339. The epochs thus reduced in number, may be then distributed by centuries, not as a permanent arrangement, but for the purpose of observing the difference between the centuries, as to the frequency or paucity of critical or turning points, some having none in the preceding poriodologies (viz. the 1st, 3d, and 12th), some only one (viz. the 6th, 10th, and 17th), some two (viz. the 2d, 9th, 15th, l^th, and 18th), some three (viz. the 8th and 14:th), some four (viz. the 5th, 7th, and 19th), some five (viz. the 11th and 13th), and one seven (viz. the 4:th, if every date be separately counted), but if all that really belong together be consolidated, only two. These differ- ences, although to some extent fortuitous, must have some basis in the true relations of the several cen- turies to one another. § 340. Another method of comparison is to ob- serve how many of the given periodologies agree in recognizing any epoch, which may be regarded as an indicatir)Ti of the extent to which it is acknowl- 268 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. edged by historians as a turning point or critical juncture. § 3'i:l. By tlie application of tliis process to tlie periodologies wliicli have been described, it will be found that the Eeformation has a place in twelve, the reign of Constantino in ten, that of Charlemagne in nine, the pontificate of Boniface YIII. in eight, that of Gregory YII. in seven, that 'e'f Gregory the Great in six, and the Peace of Westphalia in an equal number. § 342. ISText to the epochs which are thus found in from half a dozen to a dozen modern periodolo- gies, and may therefore be regarded as the most ex- tensively acknowledged, v/e may place a second class, containing such as have a place in three peri- odologies, as the third French Eevolution, or in two, as the ajDpearance of Mahomet in the seventh century, the close of the series of great councils near the end of the same, and the fall of the Greek Empire in the middle of the fifteenth. § 34:3. To these two classes may be added a resid- uary class of indefinite extent, containing all those epochs which are found in only one periodology, and whicli are therefore recommended only by the voice of indiviflral liistorians, but wliich may never- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 260 theless be real junctures in the history, and therefore valuable aids in understanding and retaining it. § 344. From the periodologies described above, omitting some dates whicli seem to be ill-chosen and unsuited to the end proposed, especially in Milman's list (§ 332), we may obtain the following residuary catalogue, arranged in chronological order. The reign of Adrian (117), Septimius Severus (193), Pon- tificate of Damasus (366), Council of Chalcedon (451), Leo the Great (461), Fall of the Western Em- pire (476), Iconoclasm (726), Nicolas I. (858), End of Carlovingian Dynasty (996), Breach between East and West (1054), First Crusade (1095), Death of Innocent III. (1216), Gregory IX. and the Canon Law' (1238), Death of St. Louis (1270), Babylonish Captivity (1305), Papal Schism (1375), End of Tri- dentine Council (1563), Death of Louis XIY. (1715), Accession of Pius YIL (1800), Fall of Napoleon (1814), Second French Kevolution (1830), Accession of Pius IX. (1846). § 345. The best mode of using the epochs thus arranged and classed, is first to master those of the first order, as most generally recognized ; and then, when these are perfectly familiar, to pursue the same course with the second, after which the resid- 270 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. uaiy class can be gradually added, and at the same time indefinitely enlarged. . • § 346. Another useful method of the same kind is to frame successively lists or tables, each contain- ing nineteen dates, or one for every century, the choice of which, if made by the student himself, in- volves an exercise of mind which must be useful in proportion to the difficulties that attend it. § 347. The following may be taken as a specimen of such a table, not to be permanently rested in^ but often and indefinitely varied. Century I. the fall of Jerusalem (70), II. Martyrdom of Justin (163), III. Decian Persecution (250), TV. Council of Nice (325), y. Fall of Western Empire (476), YI. Greg- ory the Great (590), YII. Mahomet (622), YIII. Iconoclasm (726), IX. Death of Charlemagne (814), X. Accession of Otho the Great (936), XL Gregory YII. (1073), XII. Alexander III. (1159), XIII. Boniface YIII. (1294), XIY. Wiclif (136p), XY. Fall of Eastern Empire (1453), XYI. Luther (1517), XYII. Peace of Westphalia (1648), XYIIL Wesley (1732), XIX. Fall of Napoleon (1814). § 348. When the points in such a list are really salient, they will indicate, in some degree, the great changes as they follow one another ; as for instance ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 271 In the table just presented, although not framed with any such design, we iind martyrdom (century II.) and persecution (III.) followed by the first (Ecumenical Council (lY.) ; the degradation of the Church in the ninth and 10th centuries suggested by the choice of emperors to represent them ; the subsequent rise of the papacy by the choice of three popes to represent as many centuries (XI. XII. XIII.), its decline and the growth of the refor- matory tendency, by the position here assigned to Wiclif(XIY.), &c., &c. § 31:9. Such tables may be constructed either on the principle of varying the epochs, i. e. choosing sometimes one kind of event and then another ; or on that of sameness, making all the points in any given table similar to one another, e. g. making out a series of great councils or assemblies, beginning with the Council at Jerusalem in the first century, and ending with the First Free Church Assembly in the nineteenth ; or, finally, avoiding both ex- tremes, as in the specimen first given. § 350. The materials for such lists may be drawn, in the first instance, from the periodologies already given ; then from the topical details to be given hereafter ; thirdly, from books of history, whether thoroughly studied or skimmed over for this very 272 . ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. purpose ; and lastly from the clironological tables, found in most such books or elsewhere, which last, however, unless used with moderation, will deprive the student of the benefit arising from his own exer- tions. § 351. Having taken our first or chronological survey of the whole field, we may now j)roceed, in exe- cution of our plan (§ 207), to the second or topical sur- vey of the same ground, beginning, as before, with the definition of terms, suggested by their etymology. § 352. From the Greek t6ito<:; meaning place^ comes (1) the adjective topical, used in medicine as the equivalent of local, from the Latin locus, and (2) the noun topic, applied by the ancient writers in a pe- culiar technical sense to certain parts of rhetoric and logic, as in the topics of Aristotle and Cicero, and in theology to the usual divisions {loci communes) of the system of doctrine (whence our popular usage of commonplace for that which is familiar, trite, or hackneyed), but in history and other sciences to their subdivisions or constituent parts. § 353. The name is not ]3roperly applied to insu- lated facts, as such considered, which are rather anecdotes, in the technical sense of the term, as de- noting, primarily, inedited, unpublished facts, and ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. ' 273 then detached or separate historical materials ; the accessory idea of something humorous or entertain- ing being altogether popular and adventitious. § 354. The same fact or event which, in itself considered, is an anecdote^ as just defined, may be a topic when regarded as holding a specific place in history considered as a systematic whole. § 355. But although the meaning of the word has been determined, a question still presents itself, in reference to the thing which it denotes. What constitutes a topic ? and how are the topics of Church History in particular to be determined ? § 356. Not every individual fact — nor even every great event — can be regarded as constituting a dis- tinct historical topic ; because such fact or event may be inseparable from others, or at least from its own minor and accompanying circumstances ; just as in a landscape, a particular object, as a tree or house, may be so situated with respect to others, that it cannot be surveyed apart, or constitute a separate object of vision. This is sometimes true of a whole series of successive events or a whole congeries of contemporary facts, which must be viewed together, in order to constitute a definite historical topic. 12* 274 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. § 357. We may now complete tlie definition of a topic, so far as it is necessary for our purpose, as a fact, or a series or a group of facts, forming one definite object of historical investigation, and occu- pying a definite place in history, considered as a systematic whole. § 358. The essential element in this complex idea, that of distinct objectivity, may vary in the case of difi'erent persons, some being able or accustomed to take in more at a single view than others ; so that no selection or arrangement of topics is to be re- garded as alone admissible exclusively of every other. § 359. Even in one and the same topical arrange- ment, it is best not to aim at an exact uniformity, either in quantity or quality, but to let it be con- trolled by circumstances, the topic being sometimes one event, such as the death of Julius Csesar, and at other times a series or system of events, such as the Eeformation or the French Eevolution. § 360. This liberty of choice, and flexibility of method, far from being a defect or disadvantage, as compared with mathematical rigour and exactness, is one of the great charms of historical study, and its loss one of the worst effects of all exclusive methods. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 275 § 361. There are two methods of selecting and arranging historical topics, which may be distin- guished as the Analytic and Synthetic, in the strict etymological sense and application of those terms. § 362. Tlie synthetic method begins with the minute details, and groups them, first in smaller, then in larger combinations, so as finally to form great masses ; while the analytic method takes these masses, and divides and subdivides, eliminates and simplifies, until it reaches the constituent elements with which the synthesis began. § 363. "While both these processes are useful in their proper place, and may be both employed al- ternately, though not together, the last is better suited to our purpose, since by descending from generals to particulars, a basis is secured for the fu- ture study of details ; whereas minute attention to the latter could extend to but a few, even of these, without imparting any general views whatever. § 364. For the study of a lifetime, or for original investigations, similar to those of Gieseler or JSTean- der, the synthetic method may be best, but not for a brief academical course, wholly preparatory in its purpose. 276 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. § 365. Another distinction which may possibly be useful is, that between two ways of viewing the particular topics when determined or selected ; either, on the one hand, as mere subdivisions of an organic whole, without individual vitality or sepa- rate existence, like the counties in a State, or the departments in France ; or, on the other hand, as so many organic wholes, forming a greater whole by federal combination, like the Swiss cantons or the States of our Union. § 366. Though both these views involve some truth, and may be turned to good account, the first is better suited to the exact sciences than to history, which consists in the aggregation of innumerable facts, not necessarily dependent on each other, and yet all related, and susceptible of rational as well as arbitrary combination. § 367. Instead, therefore, of assuming certain periods, and then cutting these into strips or slices by a uniform or rubrical division, we may let each topic reach as far as it will, or as we find conven- ient, using chronological divisions, not to cut them up, but simply to mark the surface, like the shadow on a dial. § 368. Ecclesiastical History, thus viewed, is a ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 277 congeries of minor liistories, each of whicli is, in a certain sense, complete within itself, bnt in another sense, incomplete without the rest. § 369. The nnmber, size, and form of these minor histories is not determined by the nature of the subject, or bj any other extrinsic necessity, but is variable and discretionary, so that no exclusive method is either practicable or desirable. § 370. So great is this variety and liberty of combination, that the same event may enter into more than one of these particular histories, or may be treated both as a separate topic and as a compo- nent of one more extensive. § 371. It would be easy to divide the whole field of Ecclesiastical History into a few great topics or minor histories, running through its entire chron- ological dimensions ; such as the history of Mis- sions or of Church Extension, that of Church Or- ganization, that of Doctrine, &c. But this would be only a slight modification of the rubrical meth- od, on a larger scale, and therefore more unmanage- able than when divided into centuries or periods. § 372. The same objection does not lie against some other similar divisions, such as the biographi- cal division into lives, or personal histories, or that 278 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. into the liistoiy of Councils, Controversies, Churches; all which have their own advantages, but none of which can possibly be made to comprehend all the materials or topics of Church History. § 373. The best method therefore is, instead of any uniform and rigid rule of distribution and arrangement, to select the topics for ourselves, tak- ing sometimes one event and sometimes many, as the subject of investigation, and dividing and com- bining them to suit our own convenience, and the end which we have immediately in view. § 374. The general arrangement must of course be chronological ; because all history, from its very nature, is so ; because this order throws the most light on the mutual relation of events ; and because it gives the most aid to the student's memory. § 375. In selecting the topics of Ecclesiastical History, it is best to begin with some connecting link between it and Biblical History — some event wdiose causes reach back and their effects forward, so as to touch both great divisions of the subject. § 376. Such an event is the destruction of Jeru- salem, A. D. 70, only six or seven years after the close of the New Testament history, and yet many years before the probable date of the Apocalypse. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 279 § 377. But besides its date, it is also recom- mended bj tlie connection of its causes and effects witli tlie liistoiy of the Cliurcli. § 378. The proximate causes of this great catas- trophe were the growing fanaticism and insubordi- nation of the zealots, on one hand, and the cowardly but cruel domination of the Roman procurators on the other ; both which causes seem to have grown worse and worse after the death of Christ, as if in execution of a special divine judgment. § 379. Our principal authority in reference to this great event is Flavins Josephus, a Jew of sacerdotal lineage, and a commander in the Jewish w^ar, but afterwards highly favoured by the Komans, and therefore accused by his own people of apos- tasy, and regarded by many Christians also as un- worthy of belief, while others go to the oj^posite extreme of preferring his testimony to that of the Scriptures ; the truth, as usual in such cases, lying between the two. § 380. The providential instruments of this destruction were the Roman armies, first under Yespasian, and when he was recalled to Rome by the death of Yitellius, under his son Titus, the delicise humani generis, who used to say " Perdidi 280 ECCLESIASTICAL niSTOKY. diem " when he had performed no act of beneficence ; a character probably exaggerated by the heathen writers, and measured by the heathen standard, but the comparative excellence of which is proved by his conduct in this siege, when Jews and Gentiles seemed to have changed places, the impious despe- ration of the former being strangely contrasted with the moderation and humanity of Titus. § 381. The details of this event may be found in Josephus, Prideaux, Milman, Kurtz, and others ; we are concerned only with its religious and eccle- siastical efi'ects. § 382. Its effects upon the Jews has reference to their government, their religion, and their per- secutions. § 383. The political effect was to destroy the Hebrew state or commonwealth, virtually at once, finally and formally, under Adrian, when an insur- rection, under a false Messiah, called Barlochba, led to the demolition of the city, the erection of another under the name of Capitolina, and the ex- pulsion of the Jews from Palestine, since which time they have had no existence as a nation or a body politic. § 384. As the Hebrew Church was a theocracy, ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOEY. 281 in wliicli cluircli and state were not only united but identified, the Jewish religion, as distinguished from the Christian, fell \^ith the state, having no local sanctuary, and the ceremonial service being almost entirely abandoned ; Providence thus stam^)- ing Jewish unbelief as not only wicked but aljsurd, by making the continuance of the temporary sys- tem practically impossible. § 385. It was not an exchange of ceremonial for spiritual worship, since this existed before, and the Jews themselves admit the continued obligation of the former, and expect its restoration under the Messiah. § 386. A third effect upon the Jews was the cessation of their persecutions, the spirit of which however was perpetuated in their schools and con- troversies, with a rancour which has been abun- dantly repaid by Christians. § 387. The primary effect of the destruction of Jerusalem on the Christian Church was to put an end to the Judaic controversy, by rendering the observance of the Jewish law impossible. § 388. Some Jewish Christians still adhered to it, with more or less tenacity, and thus gave rise to 282 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Jewish-Christian sects, the first of which we have any information. § 389. These were distinguished from the body of Christians by their observance of the law, and from tlie Jews by owning the Messiahship of Jesus. § 390. They difi'ered among themselves as to the necessity of the law, the person of Christ, and the authority of Paul. § 391. Some denied the absolute necessity of the law ; some affirmed it only of Jewish converts ; while others made it absolute and universal. § 392. Some regarded Christ as a mere man, others as something more, pretcrnaturally born, and endow^ed with extraordinary gifts ; others as a di- vine person. § 393. Some rejected Paul as an apostate, others owned him as an apostle. § 394. Our information as to these Jewish Chris- tians is derrived from Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Ter- tullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome : but it is very fragmentary and obscure. § 395. It is common to assume two sects, differ- ing in the intensity of their Judaic prejudices, the iN'asareans and Ebionites. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 283 § 396. The l^asareaiis or Nazarenes, a name ori- ginally given to all followers of CIiri:=t (Acts 24, 6), were the less Jewish class, who held the lowest views as to the law, and the highest as to Christ and Paul. § 397. The name of Ebionite is derived by Ter- tnllian from a man named Ebion, a very common ancient practice when tlie real derivation w^as un- known ; but by Origen more correctly from the Hebrew "ji^bx poor ; whether assumed by them- selves as being " poor in spirit," or the Lord's Poor (like the Panperes of the Middle Ages) ; or given in contempt by others, as belonging to the lower orders, or perhaps with reference to the pov- erty of the Mother Church, which some ascribe to the community of goods. § 398. The Ebionites were the more Jewish class, who held the lowest views of Christ and Paul, and insisted on the observance of the law as necessary to salvation. § 399. "When they arose is not positively known, perhaps immediately after the destruction of Jeru- salem — they were still in existence in the second century — ^perhaj)s much longer, and perhaps were merged in other sects (e. g. the Elcesaites). § 400. The gospel of the Xasareans and Ebion- 284 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. ites is mentioned by tlie Fathers, but whetlier as a creed or as a book is uncertain. Some identify it with the Gospel of the Hebrews, and others with the original of Matthew ; which leads us to another topic. § 401. Second connecting link — Definition of Ecclesiastical History (§§ 32, 33). — Terminus a quo — close of history in Canon. Hence the question — When was the Canon closed? Details belong to Introduction — or to E"ew Testament History — but outlines to beginning of Ecclesiastical History. § 402. Objective close of Canon — wdien last book written — reign of Domitian — 'near the end t)f the first century. — Subjective close of the Canon — when the question was finally determined in and by the Church. § 403. Eusebian classification — A. Homologu- mena — 4 Gospels — Acts — 13 Epistles of Paul — 1 of Peter — 1 of John. B. Antilegomena — {a) Hebrews (but only as to authors), ip) Apocalypse — first owned — then disowned by rationalists and anti- chiliasts — then re-owned, (c) James (considered by some antipauline) — 2d Peter — 2d and 3d Jolm — Jude — all short, and little quotable matter. C, Notha — wholly apocryphal and spurious. § 404. Doubts gradually cleared up — Church ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOBY. 285 became unanimous — not by authority of councils — these as yet only local — and mere witnesses — not judges — special Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360)-^ and Council of Hippo (393)— our present Canon, established by the 3d Council at Carthage (397). § 405. E'ot a mere passive acquiescence — or ran- dom choice — modern German fallacy — criticism unknown to the ancient Church — one of its most important functions — to separate the Canon from the mass of competitors — the vo'^a of Eusebius (§ 403). § 406. These of early origin— even Luke alludes to previous unauthorized attempts to write the Life of Christ — though not necessarily false — yet such would naturally spring up with the true. But § 407. Apocryphal literature flourished chiefly in the second century — much of it now lost — but enough left to show its character and origin — which was chiefly heretical — a rank growth from the soil of error — sp. Jewish-Christian sects and gnostics — Epiphanius speaks of '' thousands " of gnostic apoc- rypha — ^Irengeus (more j udicious, moderate, and an- cient) of an " inenarrabilis multitudo apocrypho- rum et perperum Scripturarum," among the Yalen- tinians alone. § 408. Some not licretical — only pious frauds — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. vaticinia post eventiim — or intended to fill chasms in Canonical books — now impossible — but then fa- cilitated by unsettled Canon. § 409. Some claimed a place in Old Testament — some in 'New Testament Canon — Aj)ociyphal Gospels — Acts — Epistles — Apocalypses — Principal collective editors — Fabricius — Thilo — ^Tischend orf. § 410. Classification of Apocryphal Gospels — I. Tliose claiming to be complete histories of Christ, e. g. Gospel of the Hebrews — Peter — the Egyptians — Marcion — All probably heretical corruptions of the 4 canonical gospels. All now lost. § 411. II. Supplementary Gospels — (1.) Of the infancy of Christ, e. g. (a) Protevangelium Jacobi Minoris — ^early history of Virgin — birth of Christ — comparatively simple and without exaggeration — Greek like that of the J^ew Testament — Date very early — read at the festivals of Mary in the Eastern Church. § 412. (2.) Evangelium Nativitatis Marise — same general character — Latin preface by two bishops represents Matthew as the author — and Jerome as the translator. Collection of very old aprocryphal traditions. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 287 § 413. 3. Gospel of Joachim and Anna — paren- tage and birtli of Virgin — infancy of Christ — flight to Egypt — infant miracles — Latin — ^purports to be by James. This also a collection of still older legends. § 414. 4. Gospel of Joseph the carpenter — Ara- bic translated from the Coptic — Life and death of Joseph — Moralizing — probably not older than the fourth century. § 415. 5. Gospel of Christ's infancy — Arabic translation from Syriac — full of absurd miracles. C. Gospel of Thomas — Life of Christ from fifth to twelfth year — still more extravagant and silly. § 416. I. Supplementary accounts of his Passion, e. g. (1.) Gospel of Mcodemus — written in Greek — formal record of trial before Pilate — and resurrec- tion of t^vo sons of Simeon — dated in reign of The- odosius — ^first part purports to be derived from He- brew work of Nicodemus — second part from older apocrypha — First mentioned in 13th century. § 417. (2.) Acts of Pilate — {a) such a book men- tioned by Justin Martyr — ^TertuUian — Eusebius — Epiphanius — Pilate's report concerning Christ to Tiberius ; with Tiberius's proposition to the Senate and letter to ]iis mother — {h) Under Maxirain — a 288 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. heathen forgery — same title — blashpemous calum- nies of Christ — read in schools by order of empe- ror — {c) A third book — same title — still extant — much later — Latin report of Pilate to Tiberius — with account of Pilate's punishment — also Epistle of Lentulus to Senate — with minute descrij)tion of Christ's, person — first mentioned in the Middle Ages. § 418. II. Apocryphal acts — mostly of gnostic origin — numerous in third and fourth centuries — 13 in Tischendorf's collection — chiefly of the third century — some re- written w^ith modification of gnos- ticism — all worthless — latest and largest — Ilistoria Certaminis Apostolorum — purports to be written in Hebrew by Abdias, disciple of the Apostles and first Bishop of Babylon — Greek by Eutropius — and Latin by Julius Africanus — really not older than ninth century — found in the 16th century — rejected by Paul lY. — Baronius, Bellarmin, and Tillemont. § 419. III. Apocryphal Epistles — {a) Christ and Abgarus — King of Edessa — preserved in archives — seen there by Eusebius — request to be healed — promise to send disciple — (h) Paul to the Laodi- ceans (Col. 4, 16), — only in Latin — a mere cento of scriptural phrases — {c) Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5, 9), with their answer, both extant in Arme- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 289 nian — {d) Paul to Seneca — old tradition of corres- pondence (Augustine and Jerome) — 13 short letters extant — ie) letter of Ignatius to Yirgin Mary — ask- ing information about Christ — and her answer re- ferring him to John — first mentioned by Bernard in 12th century — {f) letters of the Yirgin to the people of Messina, Florence, &c. §420. lY. Apocryphal Apocalypses. (1.) Of Pe- ter (Clem. Alex.) signs of judgment — (2.) Ascension of Paul (2 Cor. 12,) Aug. " fabulis plena stultis- sima praBsumtione." Epiphanius eays Cainite (3.) Thomas — (4.) Stephen — (5.) another of John — all wretched copies of canonical Apocalypse. § 421. Y. Apocryphal prophecies. (1.) Old Tes- tament, {a) Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs — • Imitation of Gen. 49 — Mysteries of the other world — Prophecies of Christ — rejection of Jews — fine style — mentioned by Origen — (Z>) Apocalypse of Moses — only two quotations in Syncellus — rejects circumcision — {c) Ascension of Isaiah — Imitations of Paul's conversation with Angel — Messianic Pro- phecies — Quoted by Origen, Epiphanius — Jerome — Greek lost — Latin version extant at Yenice — Ethi- opic at Oxford. § 422. (2.) Heathen prophecies — {a) Sibylline 13 290 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. books — Etymology of name {Ilio<; [Doric for Aibs;} BovXrj) — Yarro quoted by Lactantins — ^Ten Sibyls — Chief at Cuma — Tarquin — 3 books — burnt in Capitol — nncler Marius and Sylla (B. C. 183) — re- placed by collection — bm-nt again under ISTero (A. D. 64) — Sibylline books now extant — Homeric verse — by daughter-in-law of ISToah — evidently by Chris- tians — prophecies of Christ and Antichrist — ^Rome — Churcli — end of world — eruption of Yesuvius (A. D. 79) — sign of judgment — Nero's reappearance — Something later — gradual collection — second and third centuries — cited by Apologists — hence called Sibyllists — Celsus charged with forging — Disap- peared with Paganism in fourth century — reap- peared in 16th — only eight known till Mai discov- ered xi.-xiv.— best edition Alexandre's (1842) — (b) Hystaspes (Gushtasp) old Persian King — Christian prophecies — quoted by Justin Martyr and Clem. Alex. — {c) Hermes Trismegistus — Egyptian sage. § 423. lY. Disciplinary Pseud epigrapha — in- tended to give apostolical authority to ecclesiastical usages of third and fourth centuries — (1.) Apostoli- cal polity or discipline — in Greek, third century — Acts of Apostolical Council — All exhort and legis- late — Cephas besides Peter — also Martha and Mary — Part as old as beginning of second century ? ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 291 § 424:. (2.) Apostolical Constitutions — eight books — duties of laity and clergy — worship — widows and deaconesses — treatment of poor — martyrs — festi- vals — heresies — Mosaic law^ — liturgy — chari smata — ordinations — tythes — six books form one whole — called " Apostolic doctrine " in old versions — and in book itself — not ultra hierarchical — seventh and eighth each complete in itself — internal evidence of Syrian origin — last of third century — or beginning of fourth — Earlier than Council of ITice — quoted by Eusebius and Athanasius as " Doctrine of Apos- tles " — Cited as authority by Epiphanius — rejected by Concilium Quinisextum (692) as corrupted — but received in Eastern Church — unknown in West till 16th century — rejected by Baronius and Daille — now generally given up. § 423. (3.) Apostolical Canons — Appendix to Constitutions (§ 421), but also in separate form — Greek — Syriac — Ethiopic — Arabic — Longer form 85 canons — shorter 50 — peremptory tone — apostoli- cal authority — not doctrinal but disciplinary — made known in West by Dionysius Exiguus (end of fifth century) — rejected as apocryphal by Pope Ilormis- das— gradually current — recognized by Pseudo Isi- dore in East — imposed by Concilium Quinisextum. § 426. All this illustrates history of canon — 292 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. shows critical process — N'ew Testament homogene- ous — and superior — not only to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha — but to § 427. Apostolical Fathers — third connecting link — earliest uninspired Christian writers — contem- poraries and disciples of Apostles ; Mark and Luke excluded as inspired. § 428. Simplicity and piety — without inspira- tion — divine or human — Hence genuineness of ex- tant writings questioned — because early disposition to claim apostolical origin for later usages and doc- trines (§ 423) — no canon to prevent such frauds — not affecting rule of faith. § 429. But on the other hand — modern disposi- tion to exaggerate critical misgivings — Too much expected from Apostolical Fathers — whereas great gulf— immense descent from Apostles to Apostolical Fathers. § 430. Guericke says this surprising only to Pa- pists, who think successors no less inspired than Apostles, or to Rationalists, wdio think Apostles no more inspired than successors. § 431. Providential purpose of this inequality — to draw a broad line between the canon and all ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 293 other writings. If Origen, Athanasius, or Aiigiistin had immediately succeeded the Apostles — they might have rivalled them — but this prevented by a pause — during which the life of the Church was rather practical than intellectual. § 432. Collective edition of Cotelerius — recent one of Hefele. Translation by Archbishop Wake ; number usually reckoned seven — three disciples of Paul — three of John — and one anonymous — Paul as Apostle of Gentiles — John as last survivor. § 433. I. School of Paul — all supposed to be named in his epistles. — 1. Clemens Romanus (Phil. 4. 3) — early bishop — and martyr (Ruiinus) — (<^) Epis- tle to Corinthians — in Greek — exhortation to union and humility — read in churches — then lost sight of — 1628— Codex Alexandrinus — with LXX. and E'ew Testament — presented by Cyril Lucaris to Charles I. — ib) Same manuscnpt, fragment of second epistle to Corinthians — but no epistle — and probably not by Clement. — {c) Pseudepigrapha — {d) Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, (§§ 424, 425). — {e) Cle- mentina and Eecognitions. — (/*) Some pseudode- cretals, § 434. (2.) Barnabas — named in Galatians and Acts — one epistle extant — knoAvn to Clement of 294 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOEY. Alexandria — lost since ninth centnry — found in ITtli — ^first fonr and a half chapters only in old Latin ver- sion — allegorizes Old Testament — later than Fall of Jerusalem — depreciates ceremonial law — but pious — and some excellent ideas — reckoned apocryphal by Eusebius and Jerome (i. e. not inspired or canoni- cal) — spurious by 1\ eander — genuine by Gieseler. § 435. (3.) Hernias (Eom. 16, 14) " the Shep- herd " complete only in old Latin version — Angel as Shepherd instructs Hernias — three books : 1. Four visions (church as woman) ; + H. Twelve mandates (of Angel to Hernias) ; -f HI. Ten similitudes — Ab- struse and mystical — but read in churches — Origen and L^enasus call it inspired — Muratori Fragment (Caius ? ) ascribes to another Hernias — brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (c. A. D. 150). § 436. H. School of John — belonging to his later ministry — age not mentioned in the Scriptures. — (1.) Ignatius— »bishop of Antioch— martyred under Tra- jan (§ 490) — 15 epistles extant, 8 acknowledged to be spurious (5 Greek + 3 Latin)— 7 in Greek- written on way to Eomc — 1 to Polycarp — 5 to churches in Asia Minor and 1 to church in Eomc — warning ao'ainst heresies and discord — exhortations to rally round the bishops as representatives of Christ — Hence appealed to in episcopal controversy — One question as to long and short recension. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 295 whether long interpolated — or short curtailed. Third recension — discovered by Tatham (1838), edited by Cureton — glorified by Bunsen — refuted by Baur — only three epistles — in Syriac — less pre- latical — but also less trinitarian — meagre garbling of the seven — Anglicans hold to long form — Ger- mans to short — Inconclusive as to prelacy — {a) be- cause bishop may mean presbyter — (J) if diocesan, a new invention. § 437. (2.) Poly carp — disciple of John — bishop of Smyrna — martyr under Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 168, § 494). — Epistles to churches under persecution — only one preserved — to the Philippians — Greek only in fragments — entire only in old Latin version — ^many citations from New Testament — important Avitness as to Canon. § 438. (3.) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phry- gia — disciple of John (Irenseus) — Martyr under Marcus Aurelius (?) — collector of Christ's AOTIA — credulous and injudicious {o-fMiKpo^; vow, Eus.) but great infiuence — promoted Chiliasm — Only meagre fragments — ^preserved by Irenseus and Eusebius. § 439. III. Anonymous — Epistle to Diognetus — Description or Defence of Christianity — addressed to a heathen — Long ascribed to Justin Martyr — but 29G ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. very unlike — older — professed disciple of Apostles — more elegant — laxer as to Judaism — heathen gods nullities, not demons — First disproved by Tillemont — reaffirmed by Otto — (Excellent Patristic exercise ■ — Hefele's edition (§ 432) — Biblical Repertory, Jan. 1853. § 440. Early propagation of Christianity — an- other connecting link with apostolical times — abso- lute and relative historical importance. New Testa- ment, chiefly Peter and Paul. § 441. Remarkable dearth of information — almost a blank — perhaps to be explained by rapid and sim- ultaneous movement —if slower and successive, might be traced more easily. § 442. Edessa — Christian king — Abgarus (170) — Arabia — India — Bartholomew ? — Thomas ? — Pautas- nus — Origen — Gaul from Asia Minor — Britain from the same ? — or from Pome ? — Eleutherus and Lucius — Claims of various nations mostly fabulous. § 443. Mode of propagation — as at first — by es- tablishing radiating centres — ^Pome the last in the 'New Testament — then Alexandria and Carthage. § 444. Twofold conflict of the Church in the first centuries (§ 257) — Intellectual and physical — Intel- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 297 lectual conflict— (1) with avowed enemies — (2) with disguised enemies — A. Judaism (§ 391). § 445. B. Heathenism — (a) its origin — segrega- tion of the chosen people — the rest left to walk in their own ways — (h) its tendencies to atheism and pantheism — to superstition — to materialism — to na- ture-worship — to despotism. § 446. Twofold preparation for Christianity, (1) among the Jews — salvation for men — (2) among the gentiles — men for salvation ; (a) negative — convince of need — and worthlessness of human contrivances — (J) positive — with actual cultivation — preparation of language — as the garb of truth — Greek — most per- fect language — and when Christ came — the most prevalent — and therefore proper vehicle of oecumen- ical revelation. § 447. State of heathenism at the advent — offete — sense of want never greater — means of satis- fying it never less. § 448. Barbarous religions, i. e. neither Greek nor Eoman — comparativly little known — Eastern theosophi es — Buddhism — Parsism — western Druid- ism — spiritual tyranny — power destroyed in first century. Other barbarous religions, military or 13* 298 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § M9. Greek and Eoman Heathenism — origi- nally not tlie same — the Eoman sterner and pm'er — but assimilated after fall of Carthage and Corinth — increase of wealth and luxury — influence of Greek teachers — question as to Greek art — whether cor- rupting or redeeming (Tlioluck and Jacobs). § 450. Sense of spiritual want unsatisfied — mania for new religions — fostered by new conquests — rites and mysteries imported from Egypt and the East — Dea Syra — Mithras — Syncretism — highest ranks — even Emperors — Heliogabalus — Alexander Severus. (§§ 500, 501). § 451. Kelation of Philosophy to Mythology — (1 ) Antagonistic — condemned and ridiculed it — (2) Compromise — defended and explained it — symbol- ical interpretation — (3) Amalgamation — philosophy no longer speculation — but religion — especially after rise of Christianity. § 452. The greatest schools of Greek Philoso- phy extinct or metamorphosed, e. g. those of Plato and Aristotle still survived, and prevalent at Ad-' vent — those of (1) Epicurus — happiness the highest good — no Providence — the gods indifferent to man's conduct and condition — and (2) Zeno (Stoics) pain no evil — fate — indifFerentism — apathy — ISTo. 1 suited ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 299 the Greeks — No. 2 the Eomans. (See Acts ir, 18.) § 453. Heatlien view of Cliristianity — at first contemptuous — as barbarous fanaticism — or olFsboot of Judaism — then jealous — when it spread and be- came powerful — as new form of philosophy — all that was good in it known before — only in new form — But this led necessarily to § 454. "Eeform of Heathenism — (like that of Popery after the Keformation) — by reviving old systems — sp. that of Pythagoras — but no longer esoteric — popular — Goetes — Magoi — chief represen- tative § 455. Apollonius of Tyana — lived through the first century^perhaps an enthusiast more than an impostor — oldest authorities speak of him as a Goes — but the next age exalted him as an antichrist — religious teacher and thaumaturge — sp. his biogra- pher, Philostratus — but efi'ect transient. § 456. Revival of old Mysteries — ^Eleusinian — Dionysian — Oriental — Egyptian — purer theology ? — or mere freemasonry? — Still a failure — could not replace Christianity. § 45 T. Last effort — the Eclectic Pliilosophy — its 300 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. principle — take what is good in all systems — not only of philosophy — but of religion — thus sure to be better than any one — (a common fallacy — excels each only in detail — but has no unity or substan- tive existence ; illustrate by eclectic building or machine) — Christianity itself placed under contri- bution — but not its essentials — then would have been Christian, and chiefly in heretical corrupted form. § 458. Basis of course not Christian — but Hea- then Philosophy most like it — Platonism — hence Neojplatoiiism — suj)ported by whole strength of Heathenism — in decline of classic age — Forerun- ners — Plutarch (-1-120) — profound — serious — some- times almost Christian — favourite ancient with un- learned readers now — Ajpuleius (c. 170) — Maximus Tyrius (c. 190.) § 459. Proper founder of system — Ammonms Saccas of Alexandria (c. 243) — said to have been born and bred a Christian — seduced into heathen- ism by study of philosophy. Principal disciples and successors : Plotinus — also an Egyptian (c. 270) — ^Porphyry of Tyre (+ 304) — Jamblichus of Chalcis (-[- 333) — witnessed fall of Heathenism. § 460. End of third century — universal among ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 301 educated heathen — superseded other systems — ne- cessary part of education — studied by many Chris- tians — led to some corruptions. § 461. Outline of system — two sets of gods— dif- ferent spheres — mundane and extramundane — de- mons, good and bad — Koarfio<; votjto^ or rational uni- verse — material universe made by demiurge — oliro\- XoL might be satisfied with local and ancestral gods — ol (TTTovBaLoc should seek to know and be united with 6 vov<; or to ev — by ascesis — contemplation — and theurgy. § 462. Efi'ect on Christianity — led many to it — others satisfied without it — some led to oppose it — early tone of heathen ^vriters towards Christianity — ^Tacitus — Suetonius — Pliny — Marcus Aurelius — offended by enthusiasm. Of less note : Fronto — Crescens — Galen. § 463. Lucian — satirist of mythology — cynicism — and Christianity — promoted undesignedly by bearing witness to Christian fortitude and Philadel- phia. — His history of Peregrinus Proteus — aimed more at cynicism than at Christianity — founded in fact — (Peregrinus Proteus mentioned by A. Gel- liiis — Tatian — Athenagoras — ^Tertullian) — ^but em- 302 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. bellislied fiction — witli traits from Christian history — e. g. martyrdom of Polycarp. § 4:64:. First formal attack on Christianity — by Celsus — probably Epicurean, with Platonic mark — AAHSHX AOTOX-otAj known from Origen's refutation — some wit — but shallow — ignorant — malignant — makes Christ an ordinary Goes. § 465. Porj^liyrij (§ 459) — nobler and abler — fifteen books (KATA CHKISTINIAN/2K LOGOI) — only a few fragments in Eusebius — sceptical criticism — allegorical interpretation — contradictions — Moses and Christ — Peter and Paul — anachro- nisms — Daniel. Forerunner of rationalism — also wrote in defence of Heathenism (" Philosophy from the Oracles ") — large fragments in Eusebius. § 466. Hierocles — governor of Bithynia under Diocletian — both persecutor and polemic writer — {AOrOI^IAAAHSEI^nPO^XPlSTIANOTS ) — ^best part borrowed from predecessors — eked out with calumnious fables about Christ and Christians — prefers ApoUonius of Tyana. § 467. These attacks called forth the best Chris- tian writers of the age — sp. under Antonines — in Apologies — or regular defences of Christianity — some public or official — some popular or private. ECCLESIASTICAL lIISTOltY. 303 Of both tliesc some are lost — and some still ex- tant. § 468. Oldest apologists no longer extant — (1) Qnadratns— disciple of Apostles (Irenseiis) — Bishop of Athens (Eusebius) — reputed prophet — had seen men healed or raised to life by Christ — presented Apology to Adrian — lost since the seventh century — last mentioned by Photius — (2) Ariston of Pella — " Jason and Papiscus " — argu- ment from propliecy — sneered at by Celsus — de- fended by Origen. § 469. (3) Melito of Sardis — witness to Canon — presented apology to Marcus Aurelius — praised by Eusebius and Jerome — original lost — Syriac version found and published with an English trans- lation in 1855, by Cureton. (4) Claudius Apolli- nai'is — bishop of Hierapolis — praised by Eusebius and Jerome — now lost. (5) Miltiades — a rhetori- cian — presented apology to Marcus Aurelius — praised by Eusebius and Jerome — now lost. § 470. II. Apologists still extant : (1) Justin Martyr — born at Shechem in Samaria — heathen parentage and education — studied philosophy — tried all schools — but unsatisfied — at last instructed by an aged Christian — retained his philosopher's mantle — but travelled as a sort of missionary — 304 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. hated by the heathen — put to death at Eome (163-167) — at the instance of Crescens the Cynic (§462.) § 471. Two Apologies of Justin — first and longest to Antoninus Pius — second to Marcus Aurelius — a third against the Jews (Dialogue with Trypho)— Against the heathen IIEPI MONAP- XI AS) — refuted from their own philosophers. Some books of doubtful origin — two Exhortations to the Greeks. Book against heresies now lost — many pseudopigrapha — e. g. Epistle to Diognetus (§ 439). § 472. Tatian — disciple of Justin — author of first harmony (Diatessaron)—^ OrO:^nPOS HEL- LEN'AS — treats Greek heathenism with indiscrim- inate contempt. Afterwards became a Gnostic. § 473. (3.) Athenagoras — personal history un- known — Presbeia (intercession) ^:)^r^ Christianon — clear and logical^negative and positive defence — an- other work defends the resurrection against heathen objections. — (4) Theophilus ofAntioch — three books to Antolycus — a learned heathen friend — among the best apologies — shows great knowledge of Greek literature. Born a heathen — converted by reading the Scriptures — author of other exegetical and con- troversial works — now lost. (5) Ilerm.ias — history ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. 305 unknown— JI^^rPMO^ TflN EH/2 ^lAO^O- ^flN — satirical attack on heathenism — variously described as "geistvoll" (Kurtz) and "geistlos" (Jacobi). [Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix ?] § 474. General character of these Apologies — repel calumnies — atheism, misanthrophy — ^Thyes- ean feasts — incest — show the true character of Cliristianity — and expose the absurdity and wick- edness of heathenism — thus they dispelled many errors and prejudices — and diffused much light — both as to Heathenism and Christianity. § 475. But good end frequently promoted by bad means — e. g. (a) appeal to false authorities — Sibylline books — Hystaspes — Hermes Trismegistus — (h) identifying Christianity with the old Greek philosophy — {c) erroneous views of the relation be- tween Judaism and Christianity — depreciation of the Ceremonial law — even as a temporary institu- tion — {d) deficient views of spiritual Christianity — too superficial and external. § 476. Other side of great twofold conflict (§ 444). Persecution — coextensive with first three centuries. — ^Providential purpose or final cause — 1. To sift the Church and exclude hypocritical pro- fessors. 2. To harden and fortify it by endurance. 306 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Peculiarly necessary in the first age, as the forming period of the Church. § 477. Primary source of Persecution — the Jews — begins in ISTew Testament — Persecntion of Christ by the Pharisees — as the dominant party — which he especially denounced — and of the Apostles by the Sadducees — because they preached the resur- rection. § 478. The first martyr, Stephen — the second, James, the son of Zebedee — both led to the diffu- sion of tlie gospel — Persecution by Saul and of Paul (active and passive) — Jewish hatred embit- tered by the death of Christ — the Zealots. § 479. First check to Jewish persecution — the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (§ 387). Re- newed under Bar Cochba (or Bar Coziba) — aided by Rabbi Akiba — insurrection — three years war — Christians persecuted by both parties — put down by Julius Severus — Palestine wasted — Jerusalem razed — Roman colony — ^lia Capitolina — temple of Yenus — Jews banished for ages (Tert. and Jerome) — Circumcision and Sabbath forbidden — end of Jewish persecution. § 480. Secondary source of Persecution — Hea- thenism — necessary hostility to exclusive religion — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 307 law of Ten Tables — only one rcllgio licita — i. e. in Eome and Italy — tolerated religion of foreign conqnests. § 481. Less tolerant to Judaism — because ex- clusive — still less to Christianity — because more aggressive and successful — and without prestige of nationality and antiquity — (compare Turkigh and Prussian toleration). § 482. Po]3ular prejudice against the Chrstians — {a) as Atheists — because no images or temples — (Ij) as licentious — on account of secret and noctur- nal meetings — Lord's Supper a Tliyestean feast ! — ic) as unpatriotic — because declined civil and mili- tary service — not as unlawful pei' se — but as lead- ing to idolatry — (d) as misanthropical — because ab- stained from public amusements — and thought more of the future than the present. § 483. Promoted by mutual abuse of church and sects— and influence of Priests — and other in- terested parties — fomenting popular illusions — as to public calamities — anger of gods for desecration — ^Tertullian : " Deus non pluit, due ad Christi- anos ! " — " Si Tiberis ascendit in mgenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva — si coelum stetit — si terra 308 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. niovet — si fames, si lues, statim, Cliristianos ad le- onem ! " § 484. Common to government and people — fear of political ascendancy — chiliastic dreams — fall of empire — or real doctrine of Messiah's kingdom — submissive citizens but dangerous. § 485. Guericke's classification of Persecutions (1) governmental — (2) popular — (3) individual — Kurtz's : (1) Chronological division to Trajan — (2) to Marcus Aurelius — (3) to Philip the Arabian — (4) under Decius — (5) under Diocletian. § 486. Persecutions of first century — Early Em- perors — Tiberius — afraid to persecute — wicked but superstitious — conscience-stricken — traditional pro- position to deify Christ (Tertullian) — Claudius expelled Jews (Acts xviii.) — and Christians with them ? — (Quote Suetonius.) — As yet not distin- guished from the Jews. § 487. First real persecution — under Nero — con- flagration — wanton cruelty — false accusation — re- lated by Tacitus and Suetonius — ('' per flagitia in- visos " .... " exitiabilis superstitio "...." odio humani generis convicti.") — General or local — for- mer asserted first by Orosius (§ 88). Spanish in- scription to 'Nero. — First decree against Christian- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY. 309 it J ? (Tertullian says, other Neronic laws repealed). Perhaps meant to be general — bnt not executed. § 488. Successors of 'Novo spared the church—- until Domitian — political jealousy — Flavins Cle- mens — Flavia Domitilla banished to Pontia — John to Patmos — boiling oil (Tertullian) — date of Apoc- alypse — two of Christ's kinsmen — heirs of David (Hegesippus ap. Eusebius) — Temporary respite under Nerva. § 489. ISTew era in history of Persecution — reign of Trajan — not from ]3ersonal hostility — but policy — revived law^s against secret societies — (Blunt says I^ero's edict against Christianity). Correspond- ence with Pliny — no general rule — no inquisition — no anonymous charges — but if obstinate, to die — (genuineness of correspondence denied by Gib- bon and Semler — still disputed — but commonly received). — First regular law of persecution (Blunt says ]N"ero's) — but no heathen bigotry or fanatical zeal (" pessimi exempli nee iiostri seculi.") — Old Boman spirit — indifferent till conflict with civil au- thority — then inflexibly severe. § 490. Extent of Persecution — certainly to Pal- estine and Syria — Symeon, son of Clop as — nephew of Joseph (Hegesippus) — Bishop of Jerusalem — ar- 310 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. raigned — as Cliristian and Davidite — scourged — crucified (A. D. 107). — Antiocli — Ignatius — au- dience of Emj^eror — sent in chains to Rome — (wrote seven epistles on the way. § 436) — exposed in Coliseum to wild beasts — (A. D. 107-116.) § 491. Hadrian — zealous heathen — but forbade extra-judicial persecution — and tumultuary accu- sation — tradition of fourth century — built first churches — knew little of Christianity — cared less — profaned Jerusalem — report from Serenius Grania- nus, Proconsul of Asia Minor — instructions to his successor, Minucius Fundanus. § 492. Antoninus Pius — mild and benevolent — tried to quell persecution [Melito] — but people ex- cited by calamities — rescript ad commune Asiie — preserved by Eusebius — but nov/ thought spu- rious. § 493. Thus far political — not personal hostility — till Marcus Aurelius — most pious of heathen — yet hated Christianity — stoical contempt of its en- thusiasm and condescension (§ 462) — irrational and obstinate fanaticism — resolved to suppress it — not merely passive but active — espionage and torture — Extant edict — genuine (Neander) ? — or spurious ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOEY. 311 (Gieseler) ? — Law of Marcus Aiirelius in Pandects — punishing " religious superstition '^ with deporta- tion. § 494. Persecution general but not uniform — at Kome — Justin (165-168) — instigated by Crescens (§§ 462, 470.)— Worst in Asia Minor and Gaul- contemporary accounts (§ 80) — Smyrna — Polycarp — ^aet. 86 (§ 442) — disciple of John — Lyons and Yienne — Pothinus aet. 90 — Ponticus aet. 15 — slave Blandina — ashes in Phone. § 495. Old tradition of Legio Fulminea (or Ful- minatrix) — A. D. 174. — War with Quadi and Mar- comaiini — drouglit — storm — prayers of Christians — end of persecution (Claudius Apollinaris and Ter- tullian) — but anachronism — and heathen version — Jupiter Pluvius — Egyptian sorcerer. § 496. Successors of Marcus personally indiffer- ent — but persecuting laws unrepealed — at mercy of local governors — Commodus — Marcia — local perse- cutions — Asia Minor — Arrius Pontinus Proconsul (Tertullian) — Did the Emperor himself turn ? § 497. Septimius Severus — healed by Proculus, a Christian slave — anointed (James 5, 14) — hence favoured Christianity at first (Tertullian) — but af- terwards turned — cause unknown — Montanistic ex- 312 ECCLESIASTICAL niSTOKY. travagancc and prophecies of Christ's personal reign ? Edict forbidding gentiles, Judseos, or Christianos fieri (A. D. 203). § 498. Persecution raged in Egypt and ISTorth- west Africa — Alexandria — Leonidas — father of Ori- gen beheaded — Potamiena and her mother Marcella — Saturnus (" know me at the judgment ") — Per- petua of Carthage — slave Felicitas — contemporary record — with extracts from Jail Journal. § 499. Caracalla — misanthropic indifference — but persecution still continued — new practice of purchasing exemption — disapproved by earnest Christians. (TertuUian de Fuga in Persecutione.) § 500. Syncretistic mania (§ 450). Ileliogaba- lus priest of sun — wished to unite all religions in one ritual and temple — hence tolerated all — Chris- tianity included — (compare James II.) § 501. Alexander Severus (222) — more rational eclecticism — (anecdote — any religion better than a, tavern) — appreciated spiritual worship — bust of Christ ill his Lararium — with those of Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius — recognized church at Kome as legal corporation — influenced by his mother, Julia Mammsea — and she by Origen — (Orosius says she was a Christian — Eusebius says, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 313 j)ions, if ever a woman was) — golden rule on wall of palace — hence reputed Jew or Christian — nicknamed Archienus and Archisjnagogus. § 502. Ifaximin the Thracian (235) — murdered and succeeded Alexander — hated Christians for his sake — persecuted chief men — as his own opponents — earthquakes excited popular rage — reign too short to do much harm. § 503. Gordian (244)— left the Christians un- molested — Philip the Arabian — so tolerant — after- wards said to be a Christian — and called first Chris- tian emperor by Jerome — and to have been discip- lined by a bishop. (Eusebius as a tradition — Jerome as a fact.) He and Queen (Severa) also friends of Origen (§ 501.)— Origen against Celsus (§ 464) says persecution at an end — but to be renewed. § 504. Pauses between persecutions — intervals of rest and growth — increase of strength and num- bers — heightened expectations of ascendency — in- creased opposition — and prepared for new attack. § 505. Decian persecution — the most method- ical — extensive — inquisitorial — and cruel — hitherto the martyrs were few and easily numbered — (Ori- gen.) ISTow fell chiefly on bishops and clergy — but all required to sacrifice — flight allowed but not re- 14 314: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY. turn — confiscatioii of goods — many fled to desert — first anchorites — Paul of Thebes. § 506. Church weakened by repose — increase of apostates — Lapsi — classification. The 3 classes of the lapsed were : (1.) Sacrificati. (2.) Thurifi- cati. (3.) Libellatici — certificates of sacrifice regis- tered as heathen — condemned by zealons Christians — ("nefandus idololatriss libellus " — Cyprian cf. § 499) — Proportionate zeal and steadfastness of con- fessors — Legend of Seven Sleepers — Gregory of Tours — awoke under Theodosius II. (M7) and saw the cross everywhere. § 507. Death of Decius (251) seemed to lay storm — but people ronsed by plague and famine — Gallus urged to persecute — would if could — but hindered by political commotions — and soon died. § 508. Valerian (253) — at first favourable — but when Christianity spread in higher ranks — listened to his favourite MaGrian — banished ministers — for- bade meetings — next year began to slay ministers and chief laymen — so that Christians thought Kev. 13, 5 fulfilled. — (Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eu- sebius). § 609. Martyrs at Kome ; Bishop Sixtiis—aiid four deacons — one of them St. Lawrence — broiled ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 315 alive. At Cartilage : Cyprian — Christian courtiers now degraded — Acta — and life by Pontius — next year Persian war — death and captivity of Valerian — narrow escape of Church. § 610. Gallieniis spared Christians — perhaps from indolence — but n6t merely negative — impor- tant positive measure — beginning of end — two de- crees preserved by Eusebius — Christianity recog- nized as religio licita (259). § 511. Aitrelian — zealous heathen — but just and politic — long spared Christianity — restrained by decree of Gallienus — and occupied with military enterprises — at last digested plan of persecution — but execution prevented by military conspiracy — and death. § 512. Another interval — ^long pause in storm of persecution — seemed to be abandoned — Christi- anity allowed to spread for many years — but only preparation for the last and worst. § 513. Diocletian — (284) — zealous heathen — but good-natured — and cautious — afraid of Christians — respected act of Gallienus — wife and daughter Christians — but favourite scheme to restore empire — and with it the old religion — new organization — two Augusti and two Cesars. 316 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. § 514. Maximian — Augustus of the "West — perse- cutor before — Legend of tlie Theban legion — much embellished — simplest account — seventy Christian soldiers refused to march as-ainst their brethren and were massacred with their commander Mauritius — at St. Maurice. § 515. Galerius — son-in-law of Diocletian — and Cesar — bigoted and fanatical heathen — leader of that party — unwearied in conjunction with Maxi- mian — A. D. 298, purged army of Christians. § 516. A. D. 303. Meeting of Emperors at Mcomedia — consulted gods and men — Christian church there pulled down — next day — decree — clos- ing churches — burning books — new class of apos- tates — Traditores (i. e. librorum sacrorum) — subter- fuge — substituted other books — Christians excluded from office — Christian slaves from hope of freedom — edict pulled down — palace fired — charged on Christians. § 517. Four more edicts — prisons soon filled — height of persecution 304 — sacrifice or die — almost whole empire — wonders of lieroism and cowardice — but fewer lapsed than under Decius — new tor- ments — ^beasts revolted (Eusebius). Sanguine hopes — monuments to commemorate extirpation of Chris- tianity. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 317 § 618. Diocletian and Maximian abdicated (305) — Galerius and Constantius Chlorus succeeded — Constantius Chlorus had spared the Christians as much as possible — in Spain — Gaul — and Britain — Maximin continued persecution in the East — ex- clude from cities — forbade church-building— circu- lated forged Acts of Pilate — caused to be read in schools — sprinkled food in market with sacrificial wine. § 519. Galerius on death-bed — conscience-stricken — or hope of restoration by Christian God — first edict (311) — still extant — had tried to restore Chris- tians, who had left parentuin siwrum sectam — but in vain — " quamplurimi perseverant " — " indulgen- tiam credidimusporrigendam" — better be Christians than nothing — " ut denuo sint Christiani et conven- ticida sua componant " — provided nothing " contra disciplinam " — and pray to their God for us and the republic — that they may lead quiet lives. § 520. Constantino — son of Constantius Chlorus — same dispositions — j)roclaimed by army in Brit- ain — opposed by Maxentius in Italy and Africa — > ignoble bigot — turned against Christians because favoured by Constantino. On march against Max- entius — Constantino saw cross in sky — various ver- sions — certaMy put cross in hand of statue — and 318 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. adopted labarnm (doubtful etymology). Conquers Maxentius — Liciiiius in Illyricum — 312 edict tol- erating all religions misunderstood — 313 edict of Milan — allowing free profession of Christianity — -Maximin submits —and dies soon — Licinius quar- rels with Constantine and beads beathen party — war of life and death — Constantine conquers — end of persecution (323-4). § 521. Ten Persecutions — old reckoning — found- ed on Plagues of Egypt ?— or Eev. lY, 12-14 ? — or mere coincidence — Two accounts — Sulpicius Seve- rus — Historia Sacra (2, 33) — ten plagues predicted — nine past — that of Antichrist to come. Augus- tine (Civ. Dei. 18, 52) — " nonnullis visum est vel videtur " — ^no more persecution until Antichrist — but he thinks only ingenious conjecture — without inspired authority. § 522. 1. Nero. 2. Domitian. 3. Trajan. ( M. Aurelius A | j S. Severus A ) ' I Adrian S ) ' | Mamilius S f j Maximin A | ( Severus S [ '^^ Decius. 8. Valerian. j Aurelian A ] '-'■ I Diocletian S f ^^- Diocletian A. § 523. Question as to severity of persecutions — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. " 319 and number of martyrs — modern disposition to ex- tenuate — Dodwell — Semler — Hase — partly reaction from old exaggerations (e. g. St. Ursula and elerven thousand virgins — martyred on pilgrimage under Maximin (§ 502) — said to be mistake of tombstone — XIM(artyres) for XI (mi lie) partly from eon- founding earlier and later periods — few martyrs be- fore Origen (§ 509.) § 524. Some from wrong motives — sliame — van- ity — sympathy — fear — fanaticism — insanity. Still " noble army of marfyrs " — old Greek and Koman heroism matched by Christian martyrs. § 525. Good effects of persecution — providential purpose answered (§ 476), but not perfectly — hyj)o- crites and cowards after all. § 526. Positive bad effects — false notion of ne- cessity and merit — false standard of duty — undue attention to mere suffering — with some the whole of religion (like temperance — antislavery — antipop- ery — milieu ari anism — charity — now) — false posi- tion of martyrs and confessors — led to early contro- versy — and first schisms. BS2390 .A37 1867 Notes on New Testament literature and Princeton Theological Setninary-Speer Library 1 1012 00080 2530 1^