Testament [------] not of the letter, but of the spirit" [------]. Why does not Canon Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite written New Testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but a distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which an apologist might make a telling argument? But proceeding to contrast the glory of the New with the Old dispensation, the Apostle, in reference to the veil with which Moses covered his face, says: "But their understandings were hardened: for until this very day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament" [------];(l ) and as if to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: "But even unto this day when Moses is read, the veil lieth upon their heart." Now here the actual reading of the _Old_ Testament [------] is distinctly mentioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of Melito, "implies a definite New Testament, a written antitype to the Old," but even Canon Westcott would not dare to suggest that, when the second Epistle to the Corinthians was composed, there was a "definite written New Testament" in existence. This conclusively shows that the whole argument from Melito's mention of the books of the Old Testament is absolutely groundless. On the contrary, Canon Westcott should know very well that the first general designation for the New Testament collection was "The Gospel" [------] and "The Apostle" [------], for the two portions of the collection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets [------] {175} [------],(1) and the name New Testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when Tertullian called the collection of Christian Scriptures _Novum Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum._(2) The term [------] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to the "New Testament" collection in any earlier work than Origen's _De Principiis_, iv. 1. It was only in the second half of the third century that the double designation [------] was generally abandoned.(3) As to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which Dr. Westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded inference from Melito's expression, we may judge of its value from the fact that he himself, like Lardner, admits: "But there is little evidence in the fragment of Melito to show what writings he would have included in the new collection."(4) Little evidence? There is none at all. There is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment to which Canon Westcott does not in any way refer, but which well merits attention as {176}