The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-11-17

bound together in our existing Bihle OF very
unequal value. but It is n nice problem to deter
mine what amount OF credenco or sanctity
should attach to multitude Of other writings.
which on one or another ground have been in
vested with n sacred character in jewish or
early Christian times. No reader OF tho Scrip
turcs can be held competent to Judge the au-
thentlcity Of their contents without knowing
something OF tho evidence upon which
other material WINS rcicctcd. II seems.
moreover. that there nre no less than
sixteen books missing from Il. Old Testament
which clearly ought to be therc-which are. Mt
all events. referred to in one place or another
in tho Biblo as II they were component parts OF
tho veritable Hebrew Scripture. Such are tho
prophecy OF Enoch. the books OF Nathan. Jehu.
and Seraiah. and two volumes known to have
boon penned by Isaiah and Jeremiah but which
have disappeared. On tho other hand there nre
fourteen books extant which the Roman Cath
ollie Church claims belong properly TO the
Old Testament. and which II accordingly
prints. These are tho writings known
as apocryphal which Protestants have taken the
responsibility OF casting out. hut NJ TO the suf-
nciency OF the grounds upon which this action
has been taken-at least in certain instances
modern critical opinion. rs well as that
OF the Christian world. is quito evenly
lament we find no fewer than forty-one
apocryphal books now in existence which ut
various epochs have challenged with more or
less success. the authority of sacred writings.
Thus In Arabic and Latin we have tho So
called Gospel OF the Infancy OF tho Saviour. a
three-iod version in Ethlopic Coptic and
Greek OF tho narrative OF Joseph Of Arama-
thea. the Epistles OF Clement and Barnabas In
Greek. and tho Acts Of PLATE. written both
In Greek and Latin. Beside this list
OF forty-one works now eXtant must be
placed another catalogue OF apocryphnl or
psoudepigraphal Christian Scriptures which
have persisted. but which are quoted 10y writer's
OF the first four centuries after Christ. Among
these we ind such titles as the Episilo OF
Christ 10 Peter and Paul the Gospel accord
ing 10 tho twelve Apostles aud tho Gospel OF
Bartholomew. the Acts of John and tho Acts
OF Andrew. and the Gospel according 70 the
Hebrews. In n word the books collected I'M
der the namo OF the New Testament and nc
cepted By Protestant churches as tho exclusive
repository OF truth touching their subject mat
ter. constitute but small part OF the writings
which have purported to interpret the history
and doctrines OF Christ. and to which moro or
less OF credit has been accorded by patristic
writer's.
vi COuTSo tue question Arises. now 10 we
know that the books which we have in our Bible
are Just those that ought TO be there We do not
know. When we look into the matter we nre
astounded TO ind that question Of import ap-
parently so momentous connot be answered At
all. Mr.. Sunderland points out that when. by
whom. or In what manner. the canon OF the Old
Testament was settled no ono can tell. Perhaps
II is more proper to say that 1t never was set
tied. The nrst step toward tho forma-
ton OF definite. exclusive compilation
seems to have boon taken by Ezra IA tho
nth century before Christ. after which various
obscure influences consplred 10 carry the pro-
cess forward. until by the time Of Jesus tho
Hebrew Scriptures had assumed something
like their present shape. Yet II appears that
there never was time. previous To- tho cstab-
lishment Of Christianity. when the Jews were
perfectly agreed rs to which books were canon
ical. nor has the Christian Church since that
period been at all unanimous upon the subject.
At the present day. indeed. one-half Of the
Christian world contends that fourteen oxtant
Apocryphal books esteemed spurious by Protest
ants ought TO bc held true parts OF the Old Tcs-
lament. and A. such actually publishes them
In It's Bible. On the other hand. the settlement II
the New Testament canon. II settlement Il can
be called seems to have been reached in most
haphnzard and unsatisfactory way. We must
bear In mind that for n long period after the
Gospels and various epistlrs came into existence
they were much less esteemed than the old He-
brew Scriptures. Indeed. up TO tho middle Of the
second century-and this is a point whose boar
ing on a fundamental tenet Of the Roman Cath
ole Church il obvious cuough-they were far
from being so highly valued ns the oral trad-
tons OF those churches in which any Of the
Apostles had preached. For ages aitcrward the
several congregations continued To- use side 10y
side with tho Scriptures which make up our
New Testament to-day various books which we
rcpudate. Hardly one % tho ercat writers
and Fathers Of tho early Church draws the line
~ canonicity Just whero wO draw 1t. Thus
Irenwus, one Of the earliest and most authori-
tatiye. rejects five books which we have now.
viz. Hebrews. Jude. james H.. Peter Ill. while
he sets great store by our discarded Shepherd
Of Hermas." and calls 1t " Scripture" Again.
Clement classes three apocryphal works.
TO wit. tho Apocalypse OF Peter" the
Epistle OF Barnabas." and the book Just
mentioned. as OF equal value and authority
with Hebrews. John H.. and Jude. The cele-
brated Tertullan cast out all the books Of tho
New Testament except the four Gospels. Acts.
thirteen Epistlcs Of Paul. the Revelations. aud
John /. Even Athanasius quotes IA number Of
the apocryphal writings as OF equivalent worth
and inspiration with those comprised in our
present Bible. 1t Is sometimes claimed
that the Council Of Laodicea 1868 A. d. settled
tho canon finally; but IL this were SO. then we
are wrong in excluding Baruch from our
Old Testament and in admitting Reyela-
tons 10 our New. Nor can II be maintained
that the work was done at the Council OF Car
thage some thirty years later. since in that casa
we should have no rightt0 debar Ecclesasticus.
Wisdom. Tobit Judith. and First and Second
Maccabees from our present Bible Asamattor Of
fact. Catholic theologians concede thnt the canon
was not settled until tho Council Of Trent but "a
thoy hold their Church iufallible In its decis-
ions. they may claim. since tho Trentne decree.
to have an authentic Scripture collection. But
there can he no foundation for such claim on
tho part OF Protestants. For lot US glance
very briefly at some conflicting opinions
OF our great Protestant reformers. Luther
thought the book OF Esther dill not be-
long in the Old Testament. but he pronounced
/. Maccabees not unworthy 10 be admitted. and
Siriach no pronounced a right good book pro-
ceeding from wise man." and accordingly he
allowed place TO both Of these so-called apocry-
phnl works among the canonical writings He