warnings imply that Scripture-reading was common among the laity. The gradual widening of the distinction, or rather the separation, between the clergy and the laity was the work of the middle ages; and, among other means of preserving traditions inviolate and maintaining the exclusive character and sacred authority of the hierarchy, the B was held in the background, even while there was no direct prohibition of its common use. In 1080, Gregory VII. ordained that Latin should be the universal language of Rom. Cath. worship, and consequently excluded all vernacular readings of Scripture in public assemblies. Again, with regard to the Waldenses, Innocent III., 1199, prohibited the private possession and reading of Scripture (excepting the portions contained in the Breviary and the Psalter) without priestly permission and supervision. Similar prohibitions were repeated at Toulouse (1229), at Béziers (1233), and with regard to Wickliffe, at the synod of Oxford (1383). Ultimately, the recognized Latin version, or Vulgate, was more and more decidedly made the sole authorized Church version. Indeed, as early as 1234, the synod of Tarragona denounced as a heretic any one who, having a translation of the B., refused to surrender it to be burned within the space of eight days. As, however, it soon appeared plain that little could be effected by such prohibitions, milder measures were employed. The Tridentine Council, being required to pronounce on the question of B. translations, purposely employed a word of ambiguous meaning in styling the Vulgate simply authentic;' but nothing was determined on Biblereading among the laity. This was done first in the publication of the first Index Librorum Prohibitorum soon after the Tridentine Council. Afterwards, the rules of the church, placing the use of the Scriptures under the supervision of the bishops, were more and more strictly defined. The publication of the New Testament with practical annotations by Paschasius Quesnel (1687), gave occasion to the Rom. Cath. Church to speak more definitely on the reading of the B. by the laity in the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius, 1713. New ordinances were issued by Pope Pius VII. in his brief to the Abp. of Gnesen and Mohilew (1816) against translations formerly authorized; again by Leo XII., in his condemnation of B. societies (1824), and by Pius VIII. All these ordinances of the Rom. Cath. church imply that it is dangerous to give the B. freely to the laity, and that, therefore, no vernacular versions ought to be used without interpretations taken from the Fathers, and an especial papal sanction.

BIBLE, THE: name given by Chrysostom, 4th c., to the collection of sacred writings recognized by Christians as the documents of their divinely revealed religion. Both as regards language and contents, they are divided into two parts-the Old and New Testament, or rather the Old and New Covenant; for the word testamentum is a translation into the later Latinity of the 2d c. of the Greek diatheke, 'covenant.' The history of the Old Testament is connected with that of the New by a series of writings not received by Protestants as canonical, and collectively styled the Apocrypha (q.v.).

The OLD TESTAMENT is a collection of 39 books, written mostly in the Hebrew, and partly in the Chaldaic language, and containing all the remains of Hebrew-Chaldaic literature down to the middle of B.C. 2d c. By an artificial arrangement under the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the number of books has been limited among the Jews to 22. These writings were spoken of in the time of Christ, and for some indefinite period before his time, as graphé, Scripture, or Holy Scripture, or, as 'the Law and the Prophets.' Sometimes the Psalms and the remaining holy writings (hagio grapha) are distinctively noticed. The usus loquendi of th New Testament (Matt. xi. 13; xxii. 40; Acts xiii. 15; Luke xxiv. 44; etc.) is evidence of this. The Law comprised the Pentateuch, or the first five books. The Prophets were subdivided into earlier and later: the former including the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and the latter containing the three great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel-as well as the twelve minor prophets. The third division of the Old Testament embraced the hagiographa, consisting of the books of Job, Proverbs, Psalms, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther, together with the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. With regard to the order of these several books, the Alexandrine translation, the Fathers of the Church, and Luther, on one side, differ from the Jews; again, among the Jews, the Talmudists differ from the Masoretes, while a difference is also found between Spanish and German MSS. Hence have sprung the different arrangements of the books of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is generally adduced in proof of the existence of these books in a collected form as early as B.C. 285, but an examination of the Aristean fiction (see ARISTEAS and SEPTUAGINT) is sufficient to show that at that period no more than the Pentateuch was translated into Hellenistic Greek. The earliest indubitable notice is found in the prologue to the Alexandrine translation of the book of Jesus, son of Sirach, written by his grandson probably about B.C. 130, which demonstrates that the Law and the Prophets then existed in a collective form; but this language does not prove that the third division was then concluded, though neither does it disprove it. This conclusion is first definitely ascertained from the catalogue given by Josephus, who lived after the middle of the 1st c. of the Christian era,

while Philo, who lived A.D. 41, quotes casually from nearly the whole of them.

As regards the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, there has been much discussion in modern times. The generally received opinion is, that the various books were originally written wholly or chiefly by the persons whose names are affixed to them, except Judges (Samuel), Ruth (Samuel), Esther (Mordecai), Kings and Chronicles (Ezra and Jeremiah), and perhaps Job (Moses?); but that these MSS. having perished in the destruction of the first temple, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, the members of the Great Synagogue (q.v.)-which included Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and afterwards Si mon the Just-50 years after the building of the second temple, acting in accordance with a divine commission, rewrote the Old Testament; or rather made a recension of other existing copies, to which were subsequently added the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus the canon was concluded. This was the belief of the Jews themselves at a later period; the Pirke Aboth (Sayings of the Fathers), one of the oldest books of the Talmud, as well as other Jewish records, distinctly assert it. It is, however, simply a tradition, and, though possibly true, is necessarily incapable of either demonstration or refutation. In the absence of any direct and conclusive evidence on this point, the contents of the Old Testament have been minutely analyzed by modern German critics, who have attempted to show that they bear internal evidence of having been composed generally at a later period than is ordinarily believed. Their work, since taken up by English, Dutch, and French scholars, of whom perhaps the most notable are Colenso (see NATAL) and Kuenen, has been prosecuted with keenness and vigor. See HIGHER CRITICISM, THE.

The Samaritans, who were at enmity with the Jews, recognized only the five books of Moses, and a corrupt version of the book of Joshua, as canonical. On the other side, the Egyptian Jews, for whom the Alexandrine version of the Old Testament was made, received as canonical several writings which were rejected, or subordinated as apocryphal (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 Hebrew and Chaldee languages among the early Christians, the Alexandrine Greek version 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, had approximated to this mode of viewing them, by affirming them to be not canonical, but only edifying, and also by issuing lists or catalogues 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, Rufinus, and Junilius wished to distinguish them from the canonical books by the name of libri ecclesiastici. The Protestants, at the Reformation, returned to the distinction 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 Roman Catholicism to pursue was the exact opposite of that on which Protestantism moved, declared that whoever denied the canonical character of the Apocrypha should be 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, Thessaloni. ans, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, the Epistle to the He. brews (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 Old 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 writing of equal importance as writings 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 there are occasional references to the didactic portions of the New Testament, such as those to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and James, in Clemens Romanus; to 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, in Ignatius; to Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, and 1 John, in Polycarp. Still more uncertain are the references of the apostolical Fathers to the gospels. The notices found in Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, 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. Not demonstrating the existence of written gospels, they yet prove that Christianity rests on a historic basis. Their silence in relation to the written gospels now constituting a portion of the canon of the New Testament, is at first sight, surprising; but when it is considered that the facts of the Saviour's life and teach. ing were apparently quite familiar to the churches-so familiar, indeed, that no explanation was needed in alluding to them-the necessity of the apostolic fathers quoting from the Evangelists disappears. It is contended, that any specific quotations would have been a work of supereroga tion; whereas, in the case of the didactic epistles, written originally for the benefit of particular churches, and conditioned by their special circumstances, 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 negative 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 Papias (d. 163), in Justin Martyr (d. 166), in his pupil Tatian (d. 176), in Athenagoras (d. 180), and in Theophilus, who wrote about 180. None of these writers, however, name the authors from whom they quote, though Papias-the earliest, but not the most trustworthy of them-bears direct and minute testimony to the existence of gospels by Matthew, Mark, John, to the catholic epistles, and to 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 ref erences to the Old Testament. The great fact on which 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 Tübingen school contend that these apostolic memoirs could not have been the canonical gospels, but must rather have been the primitive evangelical records out of which the canonical gospels were formed; but even the profound and searching criticism of Baur and his followers has not seriously imperilled the claim to apostolic antiquity put forth on behalf of the New Testament Scriptures. See GOSPELS.

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 positive evidence 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