more thoroughly inspired apostolic teacher, he who, according to the testimony of his Brother Paul, once played the hypocrite, besides denying his master, thrice? The first Epistle of Peter, at least, is received as authoritative; while the Epistle of Barnabus, one who was equally worthy with Peter, (being "a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith") is not reckoned as a reliable source of Christian doctrine! Have we not here a "plentiful lack" of consistency?

If we are not to accept the Epistle of Barnabus as an authoritative standard of truth, because he was not, in the loftiest and most peculiar sense, an apostle, why should we so accept the Gospels of MARK and LUKE? They were not Apostles, in any sense! They do not claim that they ever received any commission either to preach or write; whereas Barnabus was, by direction of the Holy Ghost, expressly separated to the work of a religious teacher: and yet, forsooth, his written teachings are not to be taken as authority!

Dr. Lardner accepts, as authoritative, the writings of Mark and Luke, although they were not apostles, because they bear testimony concerning matters that are simply historical. He thinks one might be competent to write what Jesus said and did, and at the same time not sufficiently endowed, by the Divine Spirit, to teach and expound his doctrine. But this sort of reasoning amounts to nothing as respects the case of Barnabus; for he was especially commissioned by the Holy Ghost. * Galatians, ii. 11-13.

Commissioned, for what? Why, to teach religious doctrine, I suppose. Or does one need special, divine illumination to enable him to relate mere historical facts? Alas! the truth is too plain to be evaded, that Dr. Lardner, candid as his works show him to have been, generally,-was, like many others, sometimes influenced unduly by canonical prejudice. It seems to me that we ought, in consistency, to receive the Epistle ascribed to Barnabus, as a canonical book, if we think he was really the author of it.

The Shepherd of Hermas, the longest of the writings contained within the Apocryphal New Testament, is admitted by ecclesiastical historians and Biblical scholars generally, to have been in existence as early as the middle of the second century. It is said that the celebrated Origen considered it divinely inspired. It is rather whimsical; but contains, perhaps, as much instruction as the Song of Solomon.

Of the seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius, there are said to be two copies still extant, somewhat different from each other. Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, inclines to the opinion that one of them may be genuine; though he says, "The whole subject of the Ignatian epistles in general, is involved in much obscurity and perplexity."*

He admits that these epistles, whether genuine or

* Institutes of Ecclesiastical History; First Century, Part 2d, chapter ii. § 20.

spurious, as well as the Gospels of the Infancy, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and other books, now deemed apocryphal, were written at a very early period.

OTHER APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS.

There were in existence, at a very early date, several other apocryphal books, as they are termed, only a few of which are now extant,-the majority of them being lost. Rev. Jeremiah Jones, in his "New and Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament," mentions about seventy writings of this character, that were alluded to by various writers during the first four centuries of the Church, and some of which were attributed to Jesus.

Prof. Stuart, of Andover, mentions one book, which he says bears evidence of being very ancient, in which it is stated that the prophet Isaiah literally ascended on high, and visited the loftiest heaven, (the seventh) having, on his way thither, passed through six subordinate heavens. He subsequently descended, bringing Christ down with him. I extract the following from Mr. Stuart's remarks upon this production:

"The Ascension of Isaiah. Such is the general title given to a singular book, of no small interest to the critic who is concerned with Christian antiquities. Several of the early Christian writers have referred to this production; and some have quoted a part of its contents in

such a way, as to show that it was written in Greek. From the sixth century, however, nearly down to the present time, with the exception of only now and then a solitary voice, a deep silence has reigned among ecclesiastical writers of all classes respecting it; and it is but a few years since, that the learned counted it among the works which were irretrievably lost. Happily, a little more than twenty years ago, Dr. Laurence, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, came into possession of an Aethiopic translation of this work, which he procured from a bookseller in London, who had purchased it among a parcel of miscellaneous books at auction, without any knowledge as to whence it came, or what it contained. In 1819, Dr. Laurence gave to the world the contents of it, in Aethiopic and in a Latin translation with notes, to which he subjoined an English version, and a critical dissertation in the same language."*

Gieseler admits that this book was in existence as early as in the second century. He thinks it was composed sometime during the period between A. D. 117 and 193.†

REMARKS UPON SOME OF THE BOOKS IN THE CANONICAL NEW TESTAMENT. WHEN WERE THE CANONICAL WRITINGS FIRST SEPARATED FROM THOSE CONSIDERED APOCRYPHAL?

I omitted to notice, in passing, a verse in the first epistle of John, which has been the occasion of much

*Stuart's Commentary on the Apocalypse, vol. i. Introduction, § 6. +Text-Book of Eccl. History, First Period, Second Division, § 50.

controversy. It reads thus: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one." This passage has been frequently appealed to, as a proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural. But it is now, I believe, pretty generally considered as an interpolation. At least, it is admitted that the verse was excluded from nearly all the Greek copies of the New Testament which were in existence before the invention of printing.

Dr. A. Clarke, though himself a zealous Trinitarian, gives up the passage as spurious. He says:

"Of all the MSS. yet discovered which contain this epistle, amounting to one hundred and twelve, three only, two of which are of no authority, have the text."*

"Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the ever-blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the proper and essential divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which doctrines I have defended by many and even new arguments, in the course of this work, I cannot help doubting the authenticity of the text in question."†

In my last lecture, I alluded to the fact that modern critics are not entirely agreed respecting the language in which the Gospel of Matthew was originally written. Some suppose its author to have written in Greek; others think that he wrote in Hebrew, or the language

*"Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses," at the end of Comments on 1 John, v.

+ Comments on the verse.

*See note on page 169. See also remarks on p. 39.