The Samaritans, who were at enmity with the Jews, recognized only the five books of Moses, and n corrupt version of the book of Joshua, as canonical. On the other side, the Egyptian Jews, for whom the Alexandrine version of the 01(1 Testament was made. received as canonical several writings which were rejected, or subordinated as apocry phal (see Apocrypha), by the Jews of Palestine. The primitive church, in the period which elapsed before the canon of the New Testament was completed, referred to the Old Testament for proof of doctrines; but, on account of the prevalent ignorance of the Ilebrew and Chaldee languages among the early Christians, the Alexandrine Greek ver sion was the authority employed. As this included the apocryphal books, rejected by the Jews of Palestine. the earliest Christian fathers made the same use of these writings as of the others; but the growth of criticism during the next two centuries was fatal to their reputation. or at•least to their authority. We do not find, however, that they were formally designated "apocryphal" until the time of Jerome (5th c.), though the Greek church, in the previous century, bad approximated to this mode of viewing them, by :thinning them to be not canonical, but only edifying, and also by issuing lists or cata logues of those books which were recognized as canonical. In the Latin church, on the other hand, these writings were received as canonical after the 4th c., though Jerome. Hilarius, Rutinus, and Junilius wished to distinguish them from the canonical books by the name of libri ecelesiastlei. The Protestants, at the reformation, returned to the dis tinction originally made by the Palestinian Jews between the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament and the apocryphal works included in the Alexandrine version and the Latin Vulgate. Luther, in his translation of the B., included the Apocrypha as " books not to be placed on a level with the canonical scriptures; but profitable for reading." The council of Trent, which seemed to think that the only safe path for Catholicism to pursue was the exact opposite of that on which Protestantism moved, declared that who ever denied the canonical character of the Apocrypha should he anathema.
The NEW TESTAMENT, or the collection of canonical scriptures containing the history and doctrines of Christianity, may be divided into three chief sections: 1. The historical books, or the four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. 2. The didactic and pastoral writings, which include the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy. Titus, and Philemon, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not state the writer's name), the two epistles of Peter, the three epistles of John. the epistles of James and Jude. 3. The prophetical section, consisting only of one book, the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John the Divine. The primitive Christians referred for proof of doctrine. etc., only, so far as we are aware, to the Old Testament, and quotations from it by the apostolic fathers are numerous enough; but we find few clear and certain references to the didactic portions of the New Testament. The reason of this appears to be, that the lapse of time had hallowed the 01(1 Testament. and given to it that superior authority which springs from venerable age. The generation which immediately succeeded that of the apostles—and indeed, so far as we can see, the same may be said of the apostles themselves—did not consider the apostolic writings of equal importance tx ieritinga with the sacred books of the Old Testament. Besides, most of the epistles were of little use in controversy, for the earliest heretics denied the apostleship of St. Paul; while both parties admitted the
authority of the Septuagint, and found in it their common weapons of argument. Nevertheless, we occasionally find references to the didactic portions of the New Testa ment, such as those to Romans. lst Corinthians, Epliesians. Hebrews. and James, in Clemens Romani's; to 1st Corinthians and Ephesiaus, in Ignatius; to Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2d Corinthians,' Galatians. Philippians, 1st Timothy, 2d Timothy, 1st Peter, and 1st John, in Polycarn. Still more uncertain aro the references of the apos tolic fathers to the gospels. The notices found in Barnithiss. Clemens Rom:inns, Igna tius, and Polycarp are only sufficient to indicate that all the great facts of Christ's life were known to the churches, and that the doctrinal significance of these had begun to be realized. They do not, however, demonstrate the existence of written gospels, but they prove that Christianity rests on a historic basis. Their silence in relation to the wntten gospels now constituting. is portion of the canon of the New Testament, is at first sight singular: hut when we retleta that the facts of the Saviour's life and teaching were apparently quite familiar to the churches—so familiar, indeed. that no explanation was needed in alluding, to them—we see that the necessity of the apostolic fathers quoting from the evangelists ceases. It is contended that any specific quotations would have been a work of supererogation; whereas, in the case of the didactic epistles, which were written originally for the benefit of particular churches, and conditioned by their special circumstances, and the contents of Which, therefore, could not be so well or widely known, quotations or allusions might more naturally be looked for. But evidence of this neyaitc character for the existence of the evangelical records, however probable, is very uncertain, and its uncertainty is increased by the use made of writings which, at a later period, were rejected as apocryphal. First, in the second half of the 2d c., more distinct references to the gospels are found in Palsies (died 163), in Justin Martyr (died 166 A.n.), in his pupil Tatinn (died 176), in Athenagoras (died 180), and in Theophilus, who wrote about the year 180. None of these writers, however, name the authors from whom they quote, thow*h NO:is—the earliest, but not the most trustworthy of them— bears direct and minute testimony to the existence of gospels by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, the catholic epistleS, and the Apocalypse, whence it has been concluded that the authenticity of the apostolic memoirs was not then settled, and perhaps not even investigated; but anonymous quotation seems to have been a characteristic carelessness of the time, for of this kind are 117 of Justin Martyr's references to the Old Testament. The great fact on which a constructive Christian criticism leans in regard to the evidence of these writers is, that they do not speak of the gospels or apostolic memoirs as things which had only recently made their appearance, but as well known and long established. Justin even states that the "apostolic memoirs" were regularly read in the churches for the edification of believers—a fact which clearly indicates their superior sanctity and general reception. The Tabingen school contend that these apostolic memoirs could not Nave been the canonical gospels, hut must rather have been the primitive evangelical records out of which the canonical gospels were formed; but it cannot be said that the criticism of Baur and his followers, in spite of its profound and searching character, has seriously imperiled the claim to apostolic antiquity put forth on behalf of the New Testament scriptures.