of confidence to be placed in the language of the Bible.  The doctrine of its plenary inspiration—­a doctrine which many in modern times either openly or virtually deny—­was now received without abatement or hesitation.  Even Origen, who takes such liberties when interpreting the sacred text, admits most fully that it is all of divine dictation.  “I believe,” says he, “that, for those who know how to draw virtue from the Scriptures, every letter in the oracles of God has its end and its work, even to an iota and particle of a letter.  And, as among plants, there is not one but has its peculiar virtue, and as they only who have a knowledge of botanical science can tell how each should be prepared and applied to a useful purpose; so it is that he who is a holy and spiritual botanist of the Word of God, by gathering up each atom and element will find the virtue of that Word, and acknowledge that there is nothing in all that is written that is superfluous.” [448:3]

It has been already stated [448:3] that little difference of sentiment existed in the early Church respecting the books to be included in the canon of the New Testament.  All, with the exception of the Gnostics and some other heretics, recognized the claims of the four Gospels, [448:4] of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistles of Paul, of the First Epistle of Peter, and of the First Epistle of John.  Though, for a time, some Churches hesitated to acknowledge the remaining epistles, their doubts seem to have been gradually dissipated.  At first the genuineness of the Apocalypse was undisputed; but, after the rise of the Montanists, who were continually quoting it in proof of their theory of a millennium, some of their antagonists foolishly questioned its authority.  At an early period two or three tracts [449:1] written by uninspired men were received as Scripture by a number of Churches.  They were never, however, generally acknowledged; and at length, by common consent, they were excluded from the canon. [449:2]

The code of heathen morality supplied a ready apology for falsehood, [449:3] and its accommodating principles soon found too much encouragement within the pale of the Church.  Hence the pious frauds which were now perpetrated.  Various works made their appearance with the name of some apostolic man appended to them, [449:4] their fabricators thus hoping to give currency to opinions or to practices which might otherwise have encountered much opposition.  At the same time many evinced a disposition to supplement the silence of the Written Word by the aid of tradition.  But though the writers of the period sometimes lay undue stress upon the evidence of this vague witness, they often resort to it merely as an offset against statements professedly derived from the same source which were brought forward by the heretics; and they invariably admit that the authority of Scripture is entitled to override the authority of tradition.  “The Lord in the Gospel, reproving and rebuking,