Nevertheless, the idea of a strict and pure New Testament canon (see CANON) is not discernible in the church in Justin Martyr's time. There is no positiveevidence in favor of its existence; but this is not to be wondered at, for the consciousness of freedom in the Holy Spirit, which penetrated the Christians of the 1st c.; the opposition of what in continental theology are termed the Petrine and Pauline (q.v.), i.e., the Judaizing and anti-Judaizing parties, which does unquestionably appear to have existed; the still living tradition of the apostles; the difficulty of diffusing apostolic writings sent only to par ticular churches; the absence of criticism; the vacillation in-determining the point where the apostolic men ceased; the use in the worship of God of the Old Testament, and, in particular churches, of casual Christian writings not now looked upon us canonical: all these causes together operated in hindering, till the middle of the 2d c., a formal collection of New Testament writings of any compass or critical value. though it seems quite clear that they existed separately, and were regarded as the most authoritative records of the new dispensation. The earliest trace of such a collection (the ten Pauline epistles without the pastoral epistles) appears after the middle of the 2d e. in oppo sition to that gnostic perversion of primitive Christianity which had been introduced by Marcion of Pontus. The Maratorian Canon in the west, and the Pahito (q.r.) in the east, both belonging to this period, which has been called the "age of the apologists." furnish Important evidence in regard to the New Testament canon, for both refer to nearly every book now received as authoritative, the exceptions being. in the former, the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the lIebrews, and 2 Peter; in the latter, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse. In the close of the 2d, nod in the beginning of the 3d c., Iremeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian bear testimony to the recog nition of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline epistles, the bit Epistle of Peter, the 1st Epistle of John, and the Apocalypse, as canonical writings. But they do even more bear testimony to their recognition—they appeal to antiquity for proof of the authenticity of the books which they used as Christian Scriptures. On this point, Tertullian is especially precise, and his most convincing argument on behalf of the "surety of the gospels" is, that "the very heretics bear witness to them." They did not, it is admitted, acknowledge the whole of the New Testament canon, but this is explicable on the hypothesis, which is justified by investigation, that the portions rejected were those that seemed alien to their own opinions. Two distinct collections of writings are now noticed—the Iwitrumentam Etvingelicum, containing the four gospels; and the Infttrumtntain Apo8tolicurn, containing the Acts of the Apostles, along with the Pauline sod other epistles. Respecting several parts of the New Testament canon. differences Of opinion prevailed in early times, nor was the war of criticism closed until the 6th e, for considerable difference of opinion existed in regard to the value of the testimony of the early apologetic authors. Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. of the Epistleof .Tames, of Jude, of the 2d of Peter, and the 2d and 3d of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such ns those. of Hermas and Barnabas, which were decidedly rejected by the church. The Apocalypse was treated as a dubious part of the canon down to the 7th century. The learned and circumspect father, Ensebius, in the 4th c., in a passage of his Ghureh History, distinguishes three classes of the New Testament Scriptures: 1. Universally received Scriptures (lioniologommenn), the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles. the fourteen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of John, the 1st of Peter, and, with it certain reservation, the Apocalypse of John, 2. Scriptures not uni vernally received, or not received at all. These he calls "disputed" (antilegomena), and subdivides them into such as were generally known and approved by most—viz., the epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John; and such as were "spurious" (notha)- the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Institutes of the Apostles. and the Gospel of Hebrews. 3. Heretical forgeries
such as the gospels of Peter, Thomas, 3latthias, which Eusebius pronounces to be "altogether absurd and impious." The western church, which was more conservative and less critical than the eastern cdnirch, completed the canon with greater rapidity. Although the eastern council of Litodicea (360-3(i4), in determining the ration of the New Testament, excluded the Apocalypge, the western synods of Hippo-Regins (393) Carthage (397), the Roman bishop. Innocent I. (in the beginning of the aitli e.), and the (limcilinin Rriinunnm under Gelasins I. (494). recognized the entire canon of the New Testament as we find it in the present day. The doubts entertained by individuals respecting sonic parts of the canon had become exceptional and unimportant at the close of the ith century. Owing to the want of Greek scholarship, as also, perhaps, to the growing, idea of an infallible church papacy, there was no criticism worthy of the name during the middle ages. Doubts, therefore, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles of James and Jude were first revived, after a long quietude, at the time of the reformation. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Ilebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. Luther ventured to declare the Epistle. to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse "apocryphal." Melanclithon, Gerhard, and Cheninitz went in• the same direction, and even Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Ilebrews. But biblical criticism, for reasons both political and ecclesiastical, soon became dormant, and so remained for nearly two centuries, when it was revived by a liberal Catholic writer, Richard Simon (died 1712), who first conceived the plan of an historico-critical introduction" to the 13.. afterwards, the labors of Lowth, Semler, Herder, Griesbach, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others. gave a new impulse to scriptural exegesis. In Germany. we may name among writers on the conservative and orthodox side, the Catholic divines Jahn and Rug, with the Protestant writers, Eengstenberg, llltveruick, Guerike, Delitzseh, and Casperi: on the other side, Berthold, De Wette. Credner, Reuss: and since the publica dna of the Lye of ,Testis by Strauss, the "New Tlibingen school," with F. I3aur (q.v.) at Its.' head, has questioned the authenticity and apostolical of all the New Testa ment Scriptures, except the four larger epistles of Paul—to the Romans, the Corinthians (1st and 2d), and the Galatians. The critical labors of Ewald (especially on the Old Testament), of Hilgenfeld, and of Kelm have exerted important influence.
But, as might have been expected, the effects of the strife could not always remain con fined to Germany. They have been felt more or less over all Protestant countries- England, I Iolland, and America—and even Catholic France, which has no theology to con tend for, shows the influence of the new movement. Pcnaii (q.v.), who in his excited a vivid sensation, has followed up his first work by a series of volumes on thil early history of Christianity. In England, during the 18th c., several valuable apolo getic works published, such Lardner's Oecdibthty of the Govel Ilictory, and Paley's Harm Paulin. In the early part of the 19th e. appeared Horne s Introduction to the Study of the S•riptures, which has been reprinted. Since then, Tregclles, Davidson, Westcott, and numerous other scholars, have entered the field; and it is not too much to affirm, that, among the more earnest class of British theologians, there exists at this moment a keener spirit of impartial inquiry, as regards the foundations of biblical criticism, than Britain has ever previously witnessed. The practical tendencies of the Anglo-Saxon mind long restrained it from interfering in what seemed to be a mere maze of unprofitable speculation; but now that its deep and vital relations to the groundwork of men's actual and possible beliefs have begun to be felt, these very practical tendencies Are manifestly asserting themselves, and we may confidently anticipate that a large measure of attention on the part both of the clergy and laity will soon be given to this most important of all branches of knowledge.