principal spurious Gospels are the following: The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus; the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite; the Protevangelion of James; the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary; the Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate; the Gospel of Marcion; the Gospel of the Hebrews (most probably the same with that of the Nazarenes), and the Gospel of the Egyptians.] On these uncanonical Gospels, and on the Apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy and Passion of Christ, compare the introductions to the N. T. and the treatises of Schneckenburger, Hahn, etc., Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N. T., 3 vols. Hamb. 1719, and D. I. C. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T., Lipsia 1832. Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch. [Lardner, Works, ii. 91-93, 236, 250, 251, iv. 97, 106, 131, 463, viii. 524-535. Norton, 1.c. iii. p. 214-286.] The Acts of the Apostles became generally known at a later period. Justin Martyr does not refer to it, nor does he cite any Pauline Epistle, though Pauline reminiscences are found in his works; see Semisch, s. 7 sq., and also his Apostolische Denkwürdigkeiten. On the Gospel of Marcion, see the treatises of Franck (Studien und Kritiken, 1855), and Volkmar, Das Evang. Marcions, Leipz. 1852. [D. Harting, Quæst. de Marcione, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1849. Hilgenfeld, Untersuchungen, Halle 1850, and in Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1855. Ritschl, Das Evang. Marcion und die Kanon. Evang., Tübing. 1817. Marcion and his Relation to St. Luke, in Church Review, Oct. 1856. Cf. Sup. Religion, and Dr. Lightfoot's arts. in Contemporary Review, with Concessions in new ed. of S. R. 1879. Rud. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, Leipz. 1851. Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. C. Tischendorf, Lips. 1853; comp. Ellicott in Cambridge Essays, 1856. Giles, The Uncanonical Gospels, etc., collected, 2 vols. Lond. 1853. C. Tischendorf, Nov. Test. Apoc. 1851-63; translated in Ante-Nicene Liby.]

(6) Comp. Bleek's Einleitung zum Briefe an die Hebräer, Berlin 1828. De Wette, Einleitung ins N. T. ii. s. 247. [Stuart's Comment. on the Epistle to the Heb., 2 vols. Lond. 1828. Delitzsch, Comment. on Hebrews, Leipz., and (in Eng.) Edinb. Articles in Smith, Herzog, and Kitto.]

(7) The Canon of Origen in Euseb. vi. 25. [Lardner, ii. 493-513.] The controversy on the Book of Revelation was connected with the controversy on millenarianism. [Hilgen

HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. 1.

H

feld (Einl. ins N. T. s. 407) says the Apoc. was universally acknowledged as St. John's in the first two centuries.] Comp. Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, und die gesammte apokryphische Literatur, Bonn 1832, s. 261 ff., and 2d ed. [Introd. to Apoc. in Alford's Comm. Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, i. p. 290 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung, Jena 1857.]

(8) Clem. Strom. i. 7, p. 339; ii. 6, p. 445; ii. 7, p. 447 (ii. 15, ii. 18); iv. 17, p. 609; v. 12, p. 693; vi. 8, p. 772, 773. Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. Opp. iv. p. 683. (Comment. in Matt. Opp. iii. p. 644.) Hom. 88, in Num. t. ii. p. 249. Contra Celsum, i. 1, § 63, Opp. i. 378. (Comment. in Joh. t. iv. p. 153). De Princ. ii. 3, t. i. 82. Euseb. iii. 16. Münscher, Handbuch, i. s. 289. Möhler, Patrologie, i. s. 87. [Lardner, ii. 18, 247, 528; ii. p. 186, 187, 249, 303, 304, 530-532] The (apocryphal) Book of Enoch was put by Tertullian on a line with Scripture; De Cultu Fem. i. 3. [On Enoch, comp. the treatises of Dillmann and Ewald, 1854; Köstlin in Theol. Jahrb. 1856.]

(9) Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iv. 1. Origen, De Princip. iv. 1. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 93.

$ 32.

Inspiration and Efficacy of the Scriptures.

G. F. N. Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis ejusque Ratio, Historia et usus popularis, Heidelberg 1810. Credner, De Librorum N. T. Inspiratione quid statuerint Christiani ante seculum tertium medium, Jen. 1828, and his Beiträge zur Einleitung in die Bibl. Schriften, Halle 1832. A. G. Rudelbach, die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, mit Berücksichtigung der neuesten Untersuchungen darüber von Schleiermacher, Twesten, und Steudel. (Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Rudelbach and Guerike, 1840, i. 1.) W. Grimm, Inspiration in Ersch and Gruber, Encyklop. sect. ii. Bd. xix. Tholuck in Herzog. [B. F. Westcott, Catena on Inspiration, in his Elements of Gospel Harmony, 1851, and Introd. to Gospels, 1860. C. Wordsworth, Insp. of Holy Script., 2d ed. 1851 (also on the Canon). William Lee, The Insp. of Holy Scripture, Lond. 1854; New York 1857. A. Tholuck, Die Inspirationslehre, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. (transl. in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1854), and in Herzog's Realencyklopädie. R. Rothe, Offenbarung, and Inspiration, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1859, 60.]

That the prophets and apostles taught as they were moved by the Divine Spirit, was the universal belief of the ancient Church, founded on the testimony of Scripture itself (1). But this living idea of inspiration was by no means confined to the written letter. The Jews, indeed, had come to believe in the verbal inspiration of their sacred writings before the Canon of the New Testament was completed, at a time when, with them, the living source of prophecy had ceased to flow. This theory of verbal inspiration may have been, in its external form, mixed up to some extent with the heathen notions concerning the pavтIký (art of soothsaying) (2), but it did not spring from them. It showed itself in an adventurous form in the fable respecting the origin of the Septuagint version, which was believed even by many Christian writers (3). The teachers of the Church, however, in their opinions respecting inspiration, waver between a more and less strict view (4). Verbal inspiration is throughout referred by them more distinctly to the scriptural testimonies of the Old rather than of the New Testament (5); and yet we already find very positive testimonies as to the inspiration of the latter (6). They frequently appeal to the connection existing between the old and the new economies (7), and, tacitly, between the two parts of Scripture. Origen goes to the opposite extreme, and maintains that there had been no sure criterion of the inspiration of the Old Testament before the coming of Christ; that this inspiration only follows from the Christian point of view (8). All, however, insisted on the practical importance of the Scripture, its richness of divine wisdom clothed in unadorned simplicity, and its fitness to promote spiritual edification (9).

(1) 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 19-21.

(2) Philo was the first writer who transferred the ideas of the ancients concerning the pavTIKń (comp. Phocylides, v. 121; Plutarch, De Pythia Oraculis, and De Placitis Philosophorum, v. 1) to the prophets of the O. T. (De Spec. Legg. iii. ed. Mangey, ii. 343; Quis div. rerum Her., Mangey, i. 510, 511; De Præm. et Poen. ii. 417; comp. Gfrörer, l.c. s. 54 ff. Dähne,

1.c. s. 58). Josephus, on the other hand, adopts the more limited view of verbal inspiration, Contra Apion, i. 7, 8. [For a full view of the opinions of Philo and Josephus, see Lee, Insp. Append. F.] The influence of heathenism is wholly denied by Schwegler (Montan. s. 101, 102 ff.); against this, Semisch, Justin Mart. ii. s. 19; Baumgarten-Crusius, comp. ii. s. 52 and 53 (with the remarks of Hase). At any rate, "the Jewish and heathen notions of prophecy only gave the forms, into which flowed the Church idea of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures." The idea of the μavтIKη was carried out in all its consequences by one section of the Christian Church, viz. the Montanists, who attached chief importance to the unconscious state of the person filled with the Spirit, comp. Schwegler, Montanismus, s. 99. [Brief and good statement in Gloag, Messianic Prophecies, Edin. 1879.] Allusions to it are also found in the writings of some Fathers, especially Athenagoras, Leg. c. 9. Κατ ̓ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν κινήσαντος AUTOÙS TOû Belov TVεúμатоs. Comp. Tert. Advers. Marc. iv. c. 22. Origen speaks very decidedly against it; Contra Cels. vii. 4, Opp. i. p. 596.

Eich

(3) The fable given by Aristæus was repeated with more or less numerous additions and embellishments by other writers, comp. Josephus, Antiq. xii. c. 2. Philo, De Vita Mos. (Mang. ii. 139 ff.). Stahl in Eichhorn's Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Literatur, i. s. 260 ff. horn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. § 159-338. Rosenmüller, Handbuch für Literatur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese, ii. s. 334 ff. Jahn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. § 33-67. Bertholdt, § 154-190. De Wette, i. s. 58. Münscher, Handbuch, i. s. 307 ff. Gfrörer, s. 49. Dähne, i. 57, ii. 1 ff. [Davidson, Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Edin. 1839, p. 35-44. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith's Dict. of Bible.] According to Philo, even the grammatical errors of the LXX. are inspired, and offer welcome material to the allegorical interpreter, Dähne, i. s. 58. Comp. Justin M. Coh. ad Græc. c. 13. Irenæus, iii. 11. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 410. Clement perceives in the Greek version of the original the hand of Providence, because it prevented the Gentiles from pleading ignorance in excuse of their sins, Strom. i. 7, p. 338.

(4) Philo had already taught degrees in inspiration, comp.

De Vita Mos. iii. (tom. ii. p. 161, ed. Mangey). The apostolical Fathers speak of inspiration in very general terms; in quoting passages from the O. T., they use indeed the phrase: λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, or similar expressions, but they do not give any more definite explanation regarding the manner of this inspiration. Comp. Clem. of Rome in several places; Ignat. ad Magn. c. 8, ad Philadelph. c. 5, etc. Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis, § 16. Justin M. is the first author in whose writings we meet with a more definite doctrinal explanation of the process, in the locus classicus, Cohort. ad Græc. § 8 : Οὔτε γὰρ φύσει οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώσκειν ἀνθρῶποις δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα κατελθούσῃ δωρεᾷ, οἷς οὐ λόγων ἐδέησε τέχνης, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἐριστικῶς τι καὶ φιλονείκως εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, ἵν ̓ αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, ὥσπερ ὀργάνῳ κιθάρας τινὸς ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν θείων ἡμῖν καὶ οὐρανίων ἀποκαλύψῃ γνῶσιν· διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ὥσπερ ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος καὶ μιᾶς γλώττης καὶ περὶ θεοῦ, καὶ περὶ κόσμου κτίσεως, καὶ περὶ πλάσεως ἀνθρώπου, καὶ περὶ ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι κρίσεως, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστιν εἰδέναι, ἀκολούθως καὶ συμφώνως ἀλλήλοις ἐδίδαξαν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ταῦτα διαφόροις τόποις τε καὶ χρόνοις τὴν θείαν ἡμῖν διδασκαλίαν παρεσχηκότες. Whether Justin here maintains a pure passivity on the part of the writer, or whether the peculiar structure of the instrument, determining the tone, is to be taken into consideration, see Semisch, s. 18, who identifies the view of Justin and that of the Montanists; Schwegler, Montanism. s. 101; and Neander, Dogmengesch. s. 99. ["Justin transfers the Platonic relation of the Nous to the νοερόν in man, to the relation of the λόγος to the σπέρμα λογικόν, the human reason allied to the divine"] From the conclusion at which Justin arrives, it is also apparent that he limits inspiration to what is religious, to what is necessary to be known in order to be saved.-The theory proposed in the third book of Theophilus ad Autolycum, c. 23, has a more external character; he ascribes the correctness of the Mosaic chronology, and subjects of a similar nature, to divine inspiration [lib. iii. c. 23: ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τοῦ κόσμου