books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal.

This is proved from passages in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Philastrius, Chrysostom, Rufin, Gregory the First, Augustine, Innocent the First, Anastasius, Leontius, Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, Isidore, John Damascene, &c.

5. A fifth argument to disprove the canonical authority of these books, is derived from internal evidence. Books which contain manifest falsehoods, or which abound in silly and ridiculous stories, or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine of acknowledged scripture, cannot be canonical. Now, the books in dispute are all, or most of them, condemned by this rule.

6. Finally, it is manifest that these books were not inspired, and therefore not canonical, because they were not written by prophets, but by men who speak of their labours in a way wholly incompatible with inspiration.

The Popish writers, to evade the force of the arguments of their adversaries, pretend that there was a twofold canon ; that some of the books of scripture are protocanonical, and others deuterocanonical. If by this distinction they only meant that the word canon was often used by the fathers with great latitude, so as to include all books that were ever read in the churches, or that were contained in the volume of the Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signifies the same, as is often expressed, by calling some books sacred and canonical, and others ecclesiastical. But these writers make it manifest, that they mean much more than this. They wish to put their deuterocanonical books on a level with the old Jewish canon; and this distinction is intended to teach, that after the first canon was constituted, other books were, from time to time, added; but when these books thus annexed to the canon have been pronounced upon by the competent authority, they are to be received as of equal authority with the former. When this second canon was constituted, is a matter concerning which they are not agreed; some pretend that in the time of Shammai and Hillel, two famous rabbies, who lived before the advent of the Saviour, these

books were added to the canon. But why then are they not included in the Hebrew canon? Why does Josephus never mention them? Why are they never quoted or alluded to in the New Testament? And why did all the earlier fathers omit to cite them, or expressly reject them? The difficulties of this theory being too prominent, the most of the advocates of the Apocrypha suppose that these books, after having remained in doubt before, were received by the supreme authority of the church, in the fourth century. They allege that these books were sanctioned by the council of Carthage, which met A.D. 397. But the story of the method pursued by the council of Nice, to distinguish between canonical and spurious books, is fabulous and ridiculous. There is nothing in the canons of that council relative to these books; and certainly they cited no authorities from them in confirmation of the doctrines established by them. And as to the third council of Carthage, it may be asked, what authority had this provincial synod to determine anything for the whole church, respecting the canon. But there is no certainty that this council did determine anything on the subject; for in the same canon there is mention made of Pope Boniface, as living at that time, whereas he did not rise to this dignity until more than twenty years afterwards, in which time three other popes occupied the See of Rome; so that this canon could not have been formed by the third council of Carthage. And in some copies it is inserted as the fourteenth of the seventh council of Carthage. However this may be, we may be confident that no council of the fourth century had any authority to add to the canon of scripture, books which were not only not received before, but explicitly rejected as apocryphal, by most of the fathers. Our opponents say, that these books were uncertain before, but now received confirmation. How could there be any uncertainty in regard to these books, if the church was as infallible in the first three ages as in the fourth? These books were either canonical before the fourth century, or they were not; if the former, how came it to pass they were not recognised by the apostles? How came they to be overlooked and rejected by the primitive fathers? But if they were not canonical before, they must have been made canonical by the decree of some council,

That is, the church can make that an inspired book which was never given by inspiration. This absurdity deserves mention, because, however unreasonable it may be, it forms the true, and almost the only ground, on which the doctrine of the Romish Church, in regard to these apocryphal books, rests. This is, indeed, a part of the Pope's supremacy. Some of their best writers, however, deny this doctrine; and whatever others may pretend, it is most certain that the fathers, with one consent, believed that the canon of sacred scripture was complete in their time they never dreamt of books, not then canonical, becoming such by any authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding to the canon what did not from the beginning belong to it, never seems to have entered the mind of any person in former times. If this doctrine were correct, we might still have additions made to the canon, and that too of books which have existed for hundreds of years. This question may be brought to a speedy issue with all unprejudiced judges. These books were either written by divine inspiration for the guidance of the church in matters of faith and practice, or they were not; if the former, they always had a right to a place in the canon; if the latter, no act of a pope or council could render that divine which was not so before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, than which nothing is more impossible.

It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek Bibles used by the fathers, contained these books; and therefore, whenever they give their testimony to the sacred scriptures, these are included. This argument proves too much, for the third book of Esdras, and the prayer of Manasses, were contained in these volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists. The truth however is, that these books were not originally connected with the Septuagint; they were probably introduced into some of the later Greeks versions, which were made by heretics. These versions, particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used promiscuously with that of the Septuagint; and to this day the common copies contain the version of the book of Daniel, by Theodotion, instead of that by the Seventy.

By some such means these apocryphal books crept into the Greek Bible; but the early fathers were careful to dis

tinguish between them and the canonical scriptures, as we have already seen.

That they were read in the churches is also true; but not as scripture; not for the confirmation of doctrine, but for the edification of the common people.

Some of the fathers, it is true, cited them as authority, but very seldom ; and the reason which rendered it difficult for them to distinguish accurately between ecclesiastical and canonical books has already been given. These pious men were generally unacquainted with Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in Greek, and frequently bound up in the same volume as the canonical scriptures, and observing that they contained excellent rules for the direction of life and the regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to them, and cited passages from them, and permitted them to be read in the church for the instruction and edification of the people.

But the more learned of the fathers, who examined into the authority of the sacred books with unceasing diligence, clearly marked the distinction between such books as were canonical, and such as were merely human compositions. And some of them even disapproved of the reading of these apocryphal books by the people; and some councils warned the churches against them. It was with this single view that so many catalogues of the canonical books were prepared and published.

Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains to show that the books called Apocrypha are not canonical, wé wish to avoid the opposite extreme of regarding them as useless or injurious. Some of these books are important for the historical information they contain; and especially as the facts recorded in them are, in some instances, the fulfil ment of remarkable prophecies.

Others of them are replete with sacred, moral, and prudential maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation of life and manners; but even with these, are interspersed sentiments, which are not perfectly accordant with the Word of God. In short, these books are of very different value, but in the best of them there is so much error and imperfection, as to convince us that they are human productions, and should be used as such; not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in the attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of virtue. Therefore,

when we would exclude them from a place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them as unfit to be read, but we would have them published in a separate volume, and studied much more carefully than they commonly have been.

And while we would dissent from the practice of reading lessons from these books, as scriptural lessons are read in the church, we would cordially recommend the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and, above all, Ecclesiasticus.

It is a dishonour to God, and a disparagement of his Word, to place other books, in any respect, on a level with the Divine Oracles; but it is a privilege to be permitted to have access to the writings of men eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a matter of curious instruction to learn what were the opinions of men in ages long past, and in countries far remote.-Alexander on the Canon.

APOLLINARIANS, heretics, who maintained that the Logos holds in Christ the place of the rational soul, and consequently that in him God was united with the human body and the sensitive soul. Apollinaris, the author of this opinion, was from A.D. 362, till at least 382, bishop of Laodicea, in Syria, and a zealous opposer of the Arians. As a man and a scholar he was highly esteemed, and was among the most popular authors of his time. When the Emperor Julian forbade Christians the use of schools and the study of the Greek classics, Apollinaris, with his father, of the same name, a teacher of languages, and a presbyter, composed imitations of them, for the use of the Christians: for instance, heroic poems and tragedies, from the historical matter of the Old Testament, and dialogues, in imitation of Plato's, from portions of the New. None of these works are now extant.

The doctrine of Apollinaris was first broached in the year 371, and has since been condemned as heretical by various councils since A.D. 375; among others, by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. Apollinaris, however, formed a congregation of his adherents at Antioch, and made Vitalis their bishop. The Apollinarians or Vitalians, as their followers were called, soon spread their sentiments in Syria and the neighbouring countries, established several societies, over which they appointed bishops,

and founded one even in Constantinople itself; but after the death of their leader, between the years 382 and 392, they separated into two parties, one adhering to the doctrine of Apollinaris, and the other, the Polemians, asserting that God and the body of Christ became one substance, and consequently paying divine honours to the human nature; for which reason they were called Sarcolatræ, and because they admitted the union of both natures in Christ, Synousians. They were forbidden, by imperial edicts in 388 and 397, to hold religious assemblies, and in 428, to have pastors, or dwell in cities. They were never numerous,and afterwards disappeared, partly among the orthodox, and partly among the Monothelites.

APOLOGY, a defence of any person or thing that is accused. The word, which was used in this sense by the profane Greek writers, passed over to Christian authors, who, having before been orators or philosophers, borrowed it as a technical term from the courts of justice. They gave the name of apologies to the writings which were designed to defend Christianity against the attacks and accusations of its enemies, particularly the Pagan philosophers, and to justify its professors before the emperors. Of this description were those of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Tatian, and others which are lost, written by Quadratus, Aristides, Melito, Miltiades, and Theophilus. To these might be added several works of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius; and, among the Latins, those of Lactantius, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, and Augustine, though they are published under another title. In modern times, we have Watson's Apologies for the Bible, Christianity, &c. ; and the defence of particular sects, as Barclay's Apology for the Quakers.

APOSTASY, a forsaking or renouncing our religion, either by an open declaration in words, or a virtual declaration of it by our actions. The primitive Christian church distinguished several kinds of apostasy; the first, of those who went entirely from Christianity to Judaism; the second, of those who complied so far with the Jews, as to communicate with them in many of their unlawful practices, without making a formal profession of their religion; thirdly, of those who mingled Judaism and Christianity together; and, fourthly, of those who voluntarily relapsed into paganism. Apostasy

may be further considered as, 1. Original, in which we have all participated, Rom. iii. 23;-2. National, when a kingdom relinquishes the profession of Christianity; 3. Personal, when an individual backslides from God, Heb. x. 38;-4. Final, when men are given up to judicial hardness of heart, as Judas. See BACKSLIDING; and Owen on Apostasy.

APOSTATE, one who openly abandons the true religion. The term is, in church history, applied by way of eminence to the Emperor Julian, who, though he had only been nominally a Christian when he came to the throne, fairly renounced the Christian religion, and did every thing in his power to re-establish paganism in the empire. Severe penal laws were anciently in force against apostates; and even by the statutes 9 and 10 of William III. c. 32, any person educated in, or having made profession of the Christian religion, who shall deny it to be true, shall be rendered incapable of holding any office, for the first offence; and for the second shall be made incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian, executor, legatee, or purchaser of lands, and shall suffer three years' imprisonment without bail. The punishment of the first offence, however, is remissable on the delinquent's publicly renouncing his error in open court, within four months after conviction.

APOSTLE, properly signifies a messenger or person sent by another upon some business. It is particularly applied to them whom our Saviour deputed to preach.-2. The appellation was also given to the ordinary travelling ministers of the church, Rom. xvi. 7, Phil. ii. 25; though in our translation the last is rendered messenger.-3. Apostle, in the Greek liturgy, is used for a book containing the epistles of St. Paul, printed in the order wherein they are to be read in churches through the course of the year. -4. It is likewise given to those persons who first planted the Christian faith in any place. Thus Dionysius of Corinth is called the Apostle of France, Xavier the Apostle of the Indies, &c.

APOSTLES CREED. A formula, or summary, of the Christian faith, drawn up, according to Ruffinus, by the apostles themselves; who, during their stay at Jerusalem, soon after our Lord's ascension, agreed upon this Creed, as a rule of faith, and as a word of distinction, by which they were to know friends from foes. Baronius, and some other authors,

conjecture that they did not compose it till the second year of the reign of Claudius, a little before their dispersion. As to their manner of composing it, some fancy that each apostle pronounced his article, which is the reason of its being called Symbolum Apostolicum, it being made up of sentences jointly contributed, after the manner of persons paying each their club (symbolum) or share of a reckoning.

But there is no reason to induce us to believe that the apostles ever composed any such creed. For, first, neither Luke, in the Acts, nor any ecclesiastical writer before the fifth century, makes any mention of an assembly of the apostles in order to the composing of a creed. Secondly, the fathers of the three first centuries, in disputing against the heretics, endeavour to prove that the doctrine contained in this creed was the same which the apostles taught; but they never pretend that the apostles composed it. Thirdly, if the apostles had made this creed, it would have been the same in all churches and in all ages; and all authors would have cited it after the same manner. But the case is quite otherwise. In the second and third ages of the church, there were as many creeds as authors, and one and the same author sets down the creed after a different manner in several places of his works; which is an evidence that there was not at that time any creed, which was reputed to be the apostles'. In the fourth century, Ruffinus compares together the three ancient creeds of the churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East, which differ very considerably in the terms. Besides, these creeds differed not only in the terms and expressions, but even in the articles, some of which were omitted in one or other of them, such as those of the descent into Hell, the communion of saints, and the life everlasting. From these reasons it may be gathered, that though this creed may be said to be that of the apostles in regard to the doctrines it contains, yet is it not to be referred to them as the authors and first composers of it. Who was the true author of it, is not so easy to determine; though its great antiquity may be inferred from hence, that the whole form, as it now stands in the English liturgy, is to be found in the works of Ambrose and Ruffinus, the former of whom flourished in the third, and the latter in the fourth century. Peter Gnapheus, bishop of Antioch in the fifth

century, first ordered the constant repetition of it in the church service.

APOSTOLATE, in a general sense, is used for mission; but it more properly denotes the dignity or office of an apostle of Christ. It is also used in ancient writers for the office of a bishop. But as the title apostolicus has been appropriated to the pope, so that of apostolate became at length restrained to the sole dignity of the popedom.

APOSTOLIC, apostolical; something that relates to the apostles, or descends from them. Thus we say, the apostolical age, apostolical doctrine, apostolical character, constitutions, traditions, &c. APOSTOLIC, an appellation anciently given to all such churches as were supposed to have been founded by the apostles; and even to the bishops of those churches, as being the reputed successors of the apostles. These were confined to four, viz. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In after times, the other churches assumed the same quality, on account, principally, of the supposed conformity of their doctrine with that of the churches which were apostolical by foundation, and because all bishops held themselves successors of the apostles, or acted in their dioceses with the authority of apostles.

The first time the term apostolical is attributed to bishops, as such, is in a letter of Clovis to the council of Orleans, held in 511, though that king does not there expressly denominate them apostolical, but apostolica sede dignissimi, highly worthy of the apostolical see. In 581, Guntram calls the bishops, met at the council of Macon, apostolical pontiffs, apostolici pontifices.

In progress of time, the bishop of Rome growing in power above the rest, and the three patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, falling into the hands of the Saracens, the title apostolical was restrained to the pope and his church alone; though some of the popes, and St. Gregory the Great, not contented to hold the title by this tenure, began at length to insist that it belonged to them by another and peculiar right, as being the successors of St. Peter. The council of Rheims, in 1049, declared that the pope was the sole apostolical primate of the universal church. And hence a great number of apostolicals: apostolical see, apostolical nuncio, apostolical notary, apostolical brief, apostolical chamber, apostolical vicar, apos

tolical blessing. The king of Hungary is styled apostolical king, apostolical majesty. Pope Sylvester II. bestowed this title on Stephen I. duke of Hungary, A.D. 1000, because he not only greatly promoted the faith in Hungary, but also, in imitation of the apostles, preached himself. Clement XIII. renewed the memory of this occurrence by giving the Empress-queen Maria Theresa the title of apostolical queen, in 1758.

APOSTOLIC FATHERS, an appellation usually given to the writers of the first century, who employed their pens in the cause of Christianity: their names are Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenæus. Of these writers, Cotelerius, and after him Le Clerc, have published a collection in two volumes, accompanied both with their own annotations, and the remarks of other learned men. The genuine epistles of the apostolic fathers were translated by Abp. Wake, who also prefixed to his translation a learned preliminary dissertation. Lond. 1693, 8vo.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, a collection of regulations attributed to the apostles, and supposed to have been collected by Clement, whose name they likewise bear. It is the general opinion, however, that they are spurious, and that Clement had no hand in them. They appeared first in the fourth century, but have been much changed and corrupted since. There are so many things in them different from and even contrary to the genius and design of the New Testament writers, that no wise man would believe, without the most convincing and irresistible proof, that both could come from the same hand. They were published both in Greek and English, by William Whiston, who contended vehemently for their divine authority. See Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Lond. 1711; Grabe's Answer to Whiston; Saurin's Ser. vol. ii. p. 185; Lardner's Cred. vol. iii. p. 11. ch. ult; Doddridge's Lect. lecture 119.

APOSTOLICI, or APOSTOLICS; the name of three sects who professed to imitate the manners and practice of the apostles. 1. The first flourished at the close of the second century. They had all things in common. known of their peculiar tenets. 2. Another existed in the twelfth century. It was composed of people of the lower classes. They were numerous; and their

Little else is