[Footnote 4: Matt. x. 20; Luke xii. 12, xxiv. 49; John xiv. 26, xv. 26.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, iii. 5; Acts i. 5, 8, x. 47.]
[Footnote 6: Acts ii. 1-4, xi. 15, xix. 6. Cf. John vii. 39.]
[Footnote 7: John xv. 26, xvi. 13.]
[Footnote 8: To Peraklit was opposed Katigor, ([Greek: katêgoros]), the "accuser.">[
[Footnote 9: John xiv. 16; 1st Epistle of John ii. 1.]
[Footnote 10: John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and following. Comp.
Philo, De Mundi opificio, § 6.]
[Footnote 11: John xiv. 16. Comp. the epistle before cited, l.c.]
It is unnecessary to remark how remote from the thought of Jesus was the idea of a religious book, containing a code and articles of faith. Not only did he not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of the infant sect to produce sacred books. They believed themselves on the eve of the great final catastrophe. The Messiah came to put the seal upon the Law and the Prophets, not to promulgate new Scriptures. With the exception of the Apocalypse, which was in one sense the only revealed book of the infant Christianity, all the other writings of the apostolic age were works evoked by existing circumstances, making no pretensions to furnish a completely dogmatic whole. The Gospels had at first an entirely personal character, and much less authority than tradition.[1]
[Footnote 1: Papias, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 39.]