Dissertationum Philologico-theol. de stilo N. T. syntagma a Jac. Rhenferdio collectum addita ipsius diss. de seculo futuro. Leov. 1701.

Syntagma diss. de stilo N. T, græco quas collegit Taco Hajo van den Honert, Amst. 1703.

a. The principal defenders of the purity of the N. T. style after Hen. Stephans and others, are

Sebasti. Pf henii diatr. de linguæ gr. N. T. puritate Amst. 1633. Balth. Stolbergii Liber de solœcismis et barbarismis græcæ N. T. dictioni falso tributis, Vit. 1681-85.

Blackwall's Sacred Classics, Lond. 1731.

Chr. S. Georgii Vindiciarum N. T. ab Ebraismis Libri III. L. 1732.

b. The writers who took a middle course.

Tho. Gatakeri Diss. de novi instrumenti stylo, contra Pfochenii diatri ben, Lond. 1648, and in his Opp. Criticis.

Jo. Olearii Liber de stilo N. T., 1721.

Jo. Henr. Michaelis d. de textu N. T. græco Hal. 1707 (cf. ejusdem diss. de usu LXX. interpretum in N. T. Hal. 1715.)

c. Those who contend that the whole style of the N. T. is Hebraic.

Jo. Vorstii Commentarius de Hebraismis N. T. curavit J. F. Fischerus, L. 1778.

Jo. Leusdenii de dialectis N. T. singulatim de ejus Hebraismis libellus singularis, iterum editus a J. F. Fischero. Accedunt Vorstii Commentarii de Adagiis N. T. Hebraicis, L. 1792.

Sam. Werenfelsii diss. de stilo Scriptorum N. T. Basil, 1698.

Morus in his Hermeneutics, reviews the arguments on both sides of this question. Add Seiler Hermen. p. 309. In the N. T. therefore, are to be found; what the Greeks would call Barbarisms; and in particular, Hebraisms, Syriisms, Rabbinisms, and modes of expression nearly allied to those which are characteristic of the Arabic and Persian languages, also Solecisms and Latinisms.

J. E. Kappii d. de N. T. græci Latinismis merito et falso suspectis L. 1726.

Chr. Sig. Georgii d. de Latinismis græcæ N. T. dictioni immerito adfictis, Vit. 1731.

Sig. Fr. Dresig Vindiciæ d. de N. T. græci Latinismis merito et falso suspectis, L. 1732.

Those words and phrases which are peculiar to the N. T. language, as to the sense in which they are used, are not altogether new, but were derived from the Sacred Prophets, from the usage of the Jews in general, or of those of their number, who had particularly philosophized on the subject of religion.

On the language of the N. T., consult Michaelis Introduction I. p. 101-223. Haenlein I. p. 376. Morus Herm. I. p. 195.

V. The several books of the N. T. were originally edited by their authors separately, as occasion offered, and sent to one or more Christian congregations. From these they were gradually disseminated; and as many spurious writings, claiming Divine authority, were circulated, all were diligently examined, the spurious rejected, the genuine approved and collected into one volume, which was probably not completed before the fourth century. It cannot now be fully determined, when or by whom this was done, nor what were the grounds of decision in every case; nor why, those, which were for sometime questioned, were received into the canon; yet the authenticity and integrity of the whole volume and of its several parts, can be satisfactorily determined ; and hence also the confidence and authority due to these records.

The origin of the several books and of the Gospels, will be considered in its proper place. There seems at first to have been smaller collections made, which did not always contain all the books of the same class, nor of the same author perhaps these collections were sometimes more, and sometimes less extensive, until at last, all the Sacred Writings were gathered into one Volume.

On the Canon of the N. T. The Canon of Eusebius. The books were divided into ὁμολεγόμενα, αντιλεγομένα, and

νόθα.

J. E. G. Schmidt ueber den Canon des Eusebius, Henke Magazin T. V. P. III.

C. C. Flatt ueber den Canon des Eusebius, in Flatt Magazin f. die Dogm. T. VIII.

This subject was still more fully discussed by Oeder and Semler. Walch Neueste Religionsgeschichte, T. VII.

Beleuchtung des Jued. und chr. Bibelkanons, vol. I. Hal. 1792.

Chr. Fr. Weber Beytraege zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons. Tueb. 1791,

Schroeckh. Kgesch. IX. Wagner Einl. in die heil. Buecher, and Muenscher Handbuch der christl. Dogmengesch. I.

Causes of diversity in the canons of different churches. The reasons, upon which the decisions respecting the canonical authority of the several books rested, were not always the same, nor always equally important. Augustin. de doctr. chr. II, 8.

authority of the church,

Junil. de part. leg. div. The after the seventh century interposed on this subject. The same canonical authority was always attributed to all the sacred books.

Authenticity refers, both to the age of the Sacred Writings, and to the authors to whom they were attributed. The arguments upon which this point is decided, are, 1st. Internal, derived from the sentiments, the style, and the nature of the subject. 2d. External, the testimony of christian writers, of heretics, of profane authors, and the comparison of the apocryphal with the genuine books. 3d. Mixed, the agreement of the general subject, and of the several parts, with the history of the times and of the authors. 4th. The weakness of opposing arguments.

Michaelis I. p. 4. Hænlein I. p. 39.

Lardner's credibility of the Gospel History, and his Jewish and Heathen testimonies to the truth of the christian religion.

E

Ausfuehrliche Untersuchungen der Gruende fuer die Aechtheit und Glaubwuerdigkeit der schriftl. Urkunden des Christenthums von Joh. Fr. Kleuker.

Paley's Evidences. Paley's Hora Paulinæ.

Jones' New Method of settling the Canonical authority of the N. T.

On the causes, multitude, and nature of the apocryphal books, see

Kleuker ueber die Apokryphen des N. T. Hamb. 1798. It is the fifth part of the work just quoted.

The Integrity of the N. T. consists in this, that no book anciently included in the canon, has been lost, and that none has been improperly added. And again, that no book has been so corrupted by interpolation or otherwise, either through carelessness or design, but that the genuine reading may be probably restored, and the true sense of the authors in doctrine, precept, and fact, be discovered. Integrity has been divided into critical and doctrinal, Haenlein, I. p. 261. Ernesti Inst. int. N. T.

Some have conjectured, that certain epistles and other writings of the divine authors, have not been preserved, and that some passages have been interpolated, but this does not affect the doctrinal integrity of the N. T.

Many unfounded opinions have been advanced on the designed corruptions, and improper emendations of the

N. T.

Pet. Wesseling diatr. de Judæorum archontibus et diss. de Evangeliis jussu Anastasii imp. emendatis 1738.

Barth. Germon de vett. hæreticis eccless. codd. corruptoribus. Libri I.

1718.

Bentley's Phileleutheri Lipsiensis Remarks on a late discourse on Freethinking, Cambr. 1725.

Since the time of Bentley, there has been much diversity of opinion, on the origin, number, use and importance of the various readings of the N. T.

Jo. Sauberti Epicrisis de origine auctoritate et usu varr. N. T. lectionum græcarum in genere, prefixed to his various readings upon Matthew,

Ad. Rechenberg d. de variantibus gr. N. T. lectionibus in ejus Exercitt. N. T. hist. eccl. et litt.

L. L. Frey Comm. de variis lectt. N. T. Bas. 1713.

Christ. Luderi d. de causis variant. lectionum SS. 1730.

Ant. Driessenii divina auctoritas Codicis N. T. vindicata a strepitu variant. lectt. Groen. 1733.

Add. Michaelis Introduction. Hænlein T. L

As early as the beginning of the second century the number of various readings was very considerable.-See

Griesbach. Curæ in hist. text. epp. Paull. p. 74.

By far the greater part of these discrepancies, makes no alteration in the sense.

The credibility of the Sacred Writers, relates both to their narrations and instructions. The arguments upon this subject are exhibited by the defenders of christianity and the scriptures.

VI. The scrupulous care taken of the Sacred Writings, and the custom of using them constantly in the church, is sufficient to convince us that they have been preserved from any serious alterations, yet they could not be entirely defended from the fate of all other ancient writings. The autographs appear to have perished early, and the copies which were taken, became more or less subject to those errors, which arise from the mistakes of transcribers, the false corrections of commentators and critics, from marginal notes, and from other sources. These errors may have been extensively propagated, and in some instances they may have had an origin anterior to any MS. or means of correcting the text

now extant.

Jo. Frickii Comm. de cura veteris eccl. circa canonem S. Scripturæ, Ulmæ 1728.