The Fragment next mentions the Acts of the Apostles, ascribing the authorship to Luke. There is also a reference of some kind to Paul's journey into Spain, and perhaps to the martyrdom (passionem) of Peter, but the text is so corrupt at this place, that the critics differ in regard to the meaning.

The epistles of Paul are next spoken of: first the genuine, and then the spurious. After remarking that these epistles themselves give information respecting their authenticity, place of origin, and purpose, the writer first makes particular mention, on account of their importance, of the epistles to the three churches at Corinth, Galatia and Rome. He then distinguishes the epistles which St. Paul addressed to a church, from those which he wrote to individuals. The former, whose catholicity he connects with the sacred number seven, he names in the following order: Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Romans. This arrangement differs from that of the Vulgate, which the English Bible follows, and, as Wieseler remarks, is a refutation of Baur's hypothesis that only Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans were accepted as genuinely Pauline by the early church, the remaining epistles being afterwards falsely attributed to him. Baur founded this hypothesis upon the fact that, in the canon of Marcion, Galatians, Corinthians and Romans precede the other epistles. But the order in the Muratorian canon begins with Corinthians, ends with Romans, and places Galatians fifth in the series. After thus mentioning the nine epistles of St. Paul to particular churches, the fragment names the four pastoral letters, namely Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy.

Having thus specified thirteen genuine epistles, the writer notices two writings, which he says have been falsely attributed to St. Paul, but which should not be received as canonical in the Catholic church because "it is not proper to mingle gall with honey." These two are an epistle to the Laodiceans and an epistle to the Alexandrines. The first is generally supposed to be that spurious writing attributed to St. Paul upon the strength of Colossians iv, 16; the second, is thought by many critics (among whom are Semler, Eich

horn, Hug, Schleiermacher, Guericke and Wieseler) to be no other than the Epistle to the Hebrews,-a supposition which Wieseler contends is very probable, in view of the fact, that the characteristics of the epistle to the Hebrews adapt it much more to the Jews of Alexandria, than to the Jews of Palestine. Bleek and other critics, on the other hand, contend that by the epistle to the Alexandrines is meant an apochryphal book, now lost, which was written by a follower of Marcion, in defence of Gnosticism.

The Muratorian canon next mentions the Epistles of Jude and John. The Epistle of Jude is spoken of in such a manner as to leave no doubt that the one in the received canon is meant. The phraseology respecting John's epistles is a little doubtful in its meaning. "Two epistles of the above-mentioned John are received," is the statement (et superscripti Johannis duae). Some critics, (Zimmermann and Hug,) suppose that this language covers the three epistles of St. John, the second being regarded as only an appendix of the first. Others, (Schleiermacher and Credner,) think that by "duae" are meant the second and third epistles, the first epistle having previously been alluded to in connection with the Gospel of John. Others still, like Wieseler, suppose that only two of John's epistles are mentioned in the Muratorian fragment, -namely, the first and second-the third epistle not being recognized as a part of the New Testament canon.

Lastly, the Apocalypse of John is spoken of in connection with an Apocalypse of Peter. The first of these the writer alludes to in another passage in the fragment, saying that "although in the Apocalypse John writes to seven churches, yet he means it for all." Respecting the canonicity of the Apocalypse of Peter, the fragment remarks that some are unwilling to have it read in the church.

The Muratorian fragment omits the first and second epistles of Peter, the epistle of James, and the epistle to the Hebrews; unless the epistle to the Alexandrines is taken for it, -in which case the testimony of this writer of the second century is against both its Pauline authority and canonicity. The omission, however, of such parts of the New Testament

canon as these, can not be accounted for by the supposition that they were not received by the church to which this unknown author of the second century belonged, but must be attributed to some other cause. Because the authenticity of the first epistle of Peter was never disputed, and it is quoted by Polycarp and Papias-both of them as early as the writer of the Muratorian fragment. The epistle to the Hebrews and that of James were confessedly known to the Roman church from the beginning, and their canonicity was better and more early established than that of the epistle of Jude,—which yet is mentioned in the Muratorian canon. That the second epistle of Peter should have been omitted does not create so much surprise, as its authority was not established until a late day.

We have, then, the testimony of a document written as early as the year 160, that the canon of the New Testament, then received by the Christian Church, was the same that it is now and ever has been. A catalogue is more convincing evidence for the existence and authority of Scripture than quotations from single books; because it shows that the church has fixed upon a list that is exclusive of all other writings. The author of this "Fragment" expressly mentions some writings which claimed to have apostolical authority, but which the church to which he belonged rejected. Such a fact proves that the New Testament was not left in uncertainty until the councils of Laodicea and Hippo. These councils only set their seal upon a work that had been done long before by the united. voice of the primitive church. The teaching of this fragment of Muratori is, that the New Testament canon was essentially as much settled in the year 160 as it was in the year 360 or 390.

1869.] THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE WORD-PICTURES. 107

ART. VII-THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE WORD-PICTURES.

By Prof. WILLIS J. BEECHER, Galesburg, Ill.

The Bible is preeminently pictorial.

A vivid imagination characterizes Oriental peoples. Among polytheists, this trait finds expression in sculptures of the gods, or in clothing the sun, the moon, fire, earth, animals or other objects, with divine attributes. Restricted among the Hebrews from these channels, it threw itself all the more strongly into their religious literature. Both Testaments are marked by the Hebrew passion for word-pictures. The prose of the Scriptures is only less pictorial than their poetry.

Now a picture is sometimes intended accurately to represent a thing. If the engravings in a book on Natural History do not exactly correspond to the shells, birds and insects they represent; if they do not impress the sight just as the things themselves would impress it; then they are untruthful. The same holds of stereoscopes, photographs, and all portraits of men or things that are understood to be actual likenesses of their originals.

But it is also the frequent office of a picture merely to present the essential character of its subject, disregardful of particular features. I see a portrait of the apostle Thomas. I am aware that no authentic likeness of him has been handed down. The one before me must have been drawn from somebody's imagination. But it so delineates the face as to give it a certain character. If that character agrees with my conception of the character of Thomas, I pronounce the picture truthful; although I know that substantially the same traits might be indicated by a hundred other casts of features, and have no idea which one of the hundred is actually the face of Thomas. Or, in the familiar engraving of Washington crossing the Delaware, no one supposes that, at some particular moment in December, 1776, Washington, his horse, the piece of artillery, the soldiers, the ice, et cetera, were respectively in the precise position in which the artist has delineated them. If only the picture suggests the

historical facts, and awakens the emotions appropriate thereto, it accomplishes its purpose.

But it is not fair, in such instances, to identify the absence of statistical truth with the absence of what is commonly called literal or historical truth. What if the last mentioned picture does not accurately give the number of Washington's men, or the inclination of the river's bank, or the distances of the snowflakes, or the angle at which his horse's knee is bent? Is it, therefore, any the less true to history?

The didactic truth expressed in a picture must ordinarily be reached through its pictorial truth. You can not get at it by anatomical dissection or mathematical measurement. It must be taken as a whole, and not as a collection of disintegrated atoms. Imagination must act, not to distort the picture, not to add to it or subtract from it but to reproduce it, as a picture, in consciousness. It will not answer the purpose for reason to analyse it, and tie up the parts in logical bundles, and stow them away in consciousness. One would thus cognize, not the picture, but only the canvas and colors and frame-timber of which the picture was made. Nothing will do but that the picture itself be grasped and imaged in the mind. This being done, it will spontaneously suggest the didactic truth it was designed to convey. You may seek additional information. You may thereby correct and widen and deepen the truth that has been suggested. But this truth itself, which is always the important truth of the picture, you can not reach by any statistical process. You can know it only by first knowing the picture itself, by the aid of imagination, and then allowing it to suggest its own lesson.

Suppose that some one, having counted heads and made measurements, should affirm that our engraving teaches, that Washington, on horseback, in a snowstorm, by night, with one piece of artillery and just the number of men whose forms appear in the engraving, crossed the Delaware, in the midst of floating masses of ice, to attack a well-appointed British force at Trenton. Suppose, again, that some critic