CO") HISTOEY CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES CHRISTIAN CHURCH. EDWARD ''reUSS, PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASBURG. TRASiSLATED FKOM THE SECOND FEENCH EDITION WITH THE AtTTHOE's OWN COERECTIOXS AND REVISION, BY DAVID HUNTER, B.D., LATE SCHOLAR AND FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. EDINBURGH: JAMES GEMMELL, GEORGE IV. BRIDGE. 1884. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAP. I. — Use of the Old Testament in the Apostolic Church 1 Reading of the 0. T. in the Jewish Synagogues ... 1 This reading continued in the Christian churclies ... 4 Was the canon of the 0. T. closed then? ... ... 6 The bearing of the Septuagint on this question ... 7 The apostolic theory of inspiration ... ... ... 12 CHAP. II. — The Writings of the Apostles in the Primitive Church 15 How these writings were disseminated ... ... 15 How the custom arose of reading them in public ... 17 Their gi'owing influence on Christian teaching ... 21 But no notion yet of any canon of Scripture ... ... 24 CHAP. III. — First Beginnings of a Collection op Apostolic Writings ... ... ... ... ... ... 28 The prejudice in favour of the early closing of the canon 28 Arguments advanced for the early closing, ... ... 29 The inspiration of the apostles was not at first held to apply to their writings ... ... ... 33 Facts against the early closing ... ... ... 35 Examination of Christian writers between 130 and ISO 37 Papias ... ... ... ... ... 37 Ej>istk to Diognetus ... ... ... ... 38 Hegesippus ... ... ... ... ... 39 Melito of Sardis ... ... ... ... 39 Claudius ApoUinaris .. . ... ... ... 40 Dionysius of Corinth .. . ... ... ... 41 Treatise against Montanism ... .. ... 42 Athenagoras (tll7) ... ... ... ... 43 Letter from the Church of Lyons ... ... 44 Martyrdom of Polycarp ... ... ... 45 Martyrdom of Ignatius ... ... ... 45 The Pa.sto?' of Hermas ... ... ... 45 Justin Martyr ••• ••• ••• ■•• 46 CHAP. IV.— Heresy Attitude of heretical writers towards apostolic books The Jewish Christians The Gnostics The attitude of both prove non-existence of a canon Marcion's treatment of the gospels ... Tatian's Diatessaron The existence of pseudonymous books Marcion and the Pauline epistles CHAP, v.— Catholicism Growing importance of tradition And increasing value of the apostolic writings 57 57 58 61 64 66 69 71 72 77 77 VI CONTENTS. Influence of Montanism and Gnosticism on the concep- tion of Scripture ... ... ... ... 82 Opinion of certain Catholic writers — Theophilus of Antioch ... ... ... 84 Irenaeus and Tertullian ... ... ... 85 CHAP. VI. — The Collections in Use towards the End of the Second Century The 3hiratoi-ia7i Canon (lS0-i90), Discussion of its statements .. ... Irenaeus (+202) Tertullian (190) ..._ Clement of Alexandria (190) CHAP. VIL— Bibliography ... Two distinct parts in the collection of the N.T. The order of the books in the collection The term. Catholic Upistles ... CHAP. VIIL— The Third Century ... Slow progress of the canon in the third century The Syriac version or PescA'iio Origen (184-253) ... _ The School of Alexandria and the Apocalypse The Apostolic Constitutions .... Cyprian of Carthage (+260) ... Hilary of Poitiers (+368) Philastrius of Brescia (fabout 387) ... Toranius Rufinus (410) Different estimates of certain books in East and West Jerome (329-420) Augustine (354-430) The Synod of Carthage (397) The Epistle of Pope Innocent I. (405) 92 94 98 103 106 112 117 117 120 123 125 125 127 129 138 141 144 CHAP. IX. — The Fourth Century — Statistical Retrospective 146 Eusebius of Oaesarea (270-340) 148 His diiiiculty about the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse... ... ... ... .. 154 His position towards certain apocryphal books . . . 156 Testimony of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Clermontanus 158 The Bibles prepared for the Emperor Constantine ... 160 CHAP. X. — Attempts AT Codification — The Eastern Church ... 163 Athanasius (296-373) ... 164 Gregory of Nazianzus (+390) ... ... ... 167 Cyril of Jerusalem (t386) ... ... ... ... 169 Didymus of Alexandria (+.394 or 399) ... ... 171 Epiphanius of Salamis (+403) ... ... .. 172 The School of Antioch — Theodore of Mopsuestia (+428) 174 Chrysostom (+407) 175 Theodoret (+450) ... ... 177 Council of Laodicea (363) ... ... ... ... 180 Apostolic Canons ... ... ... ... ... 181 CHAP. XI. — Attempts at Codification — The Western Church 185 185 187 192 192 193 200 205 207 CONTENTS. Vil PAGE CHAP. XII.— Theory and Terminology ... ... ... 208 Uncertainty still prevails about the canon ... ... 208 Results established by the previous chapters .. . ... 210 Meaning of the term canow, cawo?iica^, etc. ... ... 217 The books placed by the Fathers in a second canon ... 220 Meaning oi the term, apocryphal ... ... ... 22,3 General criticism of the testimony of the Fathers ... 226 CHAP. XIII.— The Middle Ages ... ... ... ... 232 Various catalogues of the biblical books ... ... 232 The decree of Pope Gelasius I. (492-496) ... ... 2.33 The Syn opsis of Holy Script lire ... ... ... 236 Junilius, De jMrtibus legis divhiœ ... ... ... 238 Cosmas Indopleustes (535) ... ... ... ... 240 Euthalius (459) ... ... ... ... ••• 241 Leontius of Byzantium (590) ... ... ... 242 Anastasius Sinaita (t599) ... ... ... ... 242 Cassiodorius (t562)... ... ... ... ... 242 Pope Gregory the Great (t604) ... "... ... 243 Isidore of Seville (t636) 244 The Council of Trullum (691-2) ... ... ... 247 John of Damascus (t754) ... ... ... ... 248 Nicephorus of Constantinople (t828) ... ... 249 Raban Maur of Mayence (t856) ... ... ... 250 The evidence of Bibles and Manuscripts ... ... 252 Peter of Clugny (tll56) ... ... ... ... 257 Hugo of St. Victor (+1141) 257 John of Salisbury (+1182) 258 Thomas Aquinas ... ... ... ... ... 258 Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century) ... ... 260 Peter of Blois (+1200), and Hugo of St. Cher (+1263) ... 261 Nicolas de Lyra (+1340) ... ... ... ... 262 The Albigenses, Cathari, and Waldenses ... ... 263 CHAP. XIV.— The Renaissance 266 Position of the canon at the end of the fourteenth cen- tury 266 Bullof Pope Eugenius IV. (1439) ... ... ... 267 Thomas Cajetanus ... ... ... ••• 270 Erasmus ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 271 CHAP, XV,— Official and Modern Catholicism ... ... 274 Decree of Council of Trent ... ... ... ... 275 Discussion of the decree ... ... ... ... 280 Sixtus of Sienna ... ... ... ... .•■ 282 Decisions offthe Eastern Church ... ... ... 283 Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625) ... ... ... 284 Cyrillus Lucaris (1629) ... ... 285 Present state of the canon in the Eastern Church . . . 287 CHAP. XVI.— The Theology OF THE Reformers ... ... 290 The principles of the Reformation, and their application to the canon ... ... ... ... 290 Opinions of Calvin, Zwingle, and Petrus Vermilius ... 294 Statements in the Helvetic Confessions of Faith ... 298 Statements in the Scotch Confession and the thirty-nine Articles ..: 299 All these base canonicity on the witness of the Holy Spirit 304 VIU CONTENTS. Practical difficulties of this theory ... As seen in the position assigned to the Apocrypha Opinions of Luther His principle of canonicity ... Opinions of Melanchthon, Brentz, Flacius Carlstadt (+1541) ... Translator's note on the position of the Apocrypha early English Bibles .. . CHAP. XVII.— The Confessional Schools The common neglect of the theologians of 17th century Apparent adherence to the principles of Calvin and Luther Gradual return to the principle of tradition ... The treatment of the 0. T. Apocrypha Relation of the terms Scripture and Word of God The Consensus Ilelveticiis (1675) Attacks made by Protestants on the Apocrypha The Synod of Dort (1620) ... Treatment of the N. T. books The polemic of Martin Chemnitz CHAP. XVIII. — Criticism and the Church Some words of retrospect and prospect Influence of Protestant theology on the notion of the canon Similarity of results among Protestants and Catholics Growth of traditionalism in the Reformed Churches Recoil from excessive traditionalism Influence of Pietism on the Lutheran Church Influence of Rationalism Rise of the historical method Semler Semler's use of internal evidence His theory of inspiration His theory of the canon Concluding remarks — hopes for the future 306 307 320 332 333 336 339 341 341 343 345 352 354 357 359 362 363 366 371 371 373 374 376 379 382 385 388 388 390 393 396 400 AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION. The History of the Canon of the Holy Scnptures in the Christian Church recounts all the facts relating to the col- lection of the Apostolic writings, considered as a distinct whole and possessing a special dignity and value for the Church, for its creed and. its theology. It traces the origin of this collection, its gradual formation, its vicissitudes down to the present day, and the dogmatic theories connected with it. And as the Christian Church has at all times recognised a similar or equal value in the sacred code of the Jews, this history will also include the facts relating to the Old Testament, in so far as these belong to the history of Christianity or of the Christian schools. This is not the fii^st time that I have publicly entered on a discussion of these matters. A discussion of them forms part of my book in German on the general history of the New Testament.^ Several people have honoured me by expres- sing a desire to see that book translated into Fi-ench, but I have refused on the ground that its method and form were unsuitable to French readers. This present book, therefore, is quite new. It deals with the same materials, but for diflferent readers, and on a different plan. I hope thus to make response to a very flattering appeal, without incurring the reproach of repeating myself. The French work first appeared in the form of detached articles in the Revue de Théologie, published at Strasburg. From these articles a selection was made, with some changes and additions to form this work, so that this second edition, which has been called for in a few months, is really a third edition. It has further been carefully revised, and enriched with some accessory details. As to the matter and spirit of the book, I do not believe it to be necessary for me to make a profession of principles. I wish to be an historian, and nothing more. I shall leave the facts to speak for themselves ; or, at least, the commen- ' Geschichte der HeUir/en Schriften N. T., by Ed. Reuss. A fifth im- proved edition of this work appeared in 1874. X AUTHOR s PREFACE, taries which I may have to add when the real or apparent contradictions of the witnesses might arrest the reader, will never be confused with the materials furnished by the history, and, in this way, each one will be left to form his own opinion. When the points on which the historian must touch are still burning questions, it is his duty more than ever to make the facts tell their own tale. And he fails in this duty, not only when he interprets them wrongly, but also when he does not present them in their nat viral order, or when he is reticent regarding them. My readers who are familiar with theological controversy, will be astonished, perhaps, to find no special chapter dis- cussing several books recently published in our language on the canon ; but I have simply to reply that, though these books have suggested the writing of my own, I have sought to avoid all polemical dispute. True science disdains forms which are not homogeneous with it. Where these books deal with the historical facts, I have implicitly expressed my opinion regarding them by the manner in which I have handled the same facts ; the reader will form his own from the documents placed before him. But he will readily be convinced that these books are rather theoretical works, and as such, only reproduce a conception which is already old, and which has been sufficiently discussed, in the place belonging to it, in the general scheme of the evolution of ideas and institutions. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. M. Reuss's History of the Canon has long been known to scholars ; it is now translated in the hope of bringing it more prominently before the English-reading public. I share the opinion of many, in believing it to be the best history of the canon that has yet been written. Much has been published in Britain of recent years on the subject, but chiefly in support of a dogmatic prepossession against, or in favour of, the canon as it now stands in our English Bible. The treatment of the whole subject has been too often based on the quotation of proof passages from the early Fathers. Thus, on the one hand, a book like Charteris's " Canonicity," while valuable in its accumula- tion of facts, may mislead where it does not confuse, since it tacitly assumes the existence of a closed canon at a very early date. A weight is laid on the passages which they cannot bear, and the historical growth of the canon is altoo:ether ignored. On the other hand, writinos like " Supernatural ReHgion," when discussing the beaming of the same passages on the origin of the gospels, are equally deficient in historical imagination. On both sides, it seems to be believed that, if the Scriptures are to have any value, they must have come into existence, as did Minerva in the mythological fable, distinct, full-grown, complete. The defenders of the canon, as it now stands, labour to prove that it was so ; its assailants find it very easy to demolish all such proof. But, on both sides, the main question is overlooked. For it is not enouoh to arsjue that this book was used by Justin Martyr, that other quoted by Irenaeus, when the real question is — " How came the canon of Scripture to be composed of these books, so many and not more ? " Nor is it sufiicient to demonstrate that Justin Martyr was not acquainted with our present gospels, when we remember that there must have been stages of transi- tion, before the written book gained more authority than the spoken word, and the occasional and scattered writings of the apostles were collected to form a Neiv Testament. The great value of M. Reuss's work lies in his clear concep- tion of an historical growth in the canon. He bases his discussion, not on single passages, but on the general position which the Scriptures held in the Christian writ- ings of succeeding generations. Perhaps the most striking feature is his discussion of the theologians of the Middle Ages and of the Reformation. His wide acquaintance with xii TRANSLATORS PREFACE. the facts, his impartial weighing of the evidence, his historical insight, and the clear logic of his exposition, make the study of his book an epoch in the reading of every candid student of Scripture. A scientific conception of the history of the canon is still far from being general in Britain, and there are probably many who will be astonished to find that the closing of the canon, in the proper sense of the term, did not take place till the period of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, if even then ; while there are others who may be agreeably disappointed to find that there has been so much practical consensus of opinion on the question. The claims of such minor books as Esther, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John to canonicity may be considered very doubtful ; but there is no reasonable doubt that the other books of Scripture have universally, and from an early date, commended themselves to the Christia,n consciousness as containing the revealed word of God. If it be asked on what grounds these books, and no others, commended themselves — i.e., what principle of definition guided the formation of the canon — it must be answered that no such principle was ever formulated by the early Church. Even still, there is much division of opinion regarding the definition. The common principle, which may be stated in the words of Dr. Westcott, " It is to the Church that we must look, both for the formation and the proof of the canon,"^ is simply an appeal to tradi- tion. It is diametrically opposed to the principle laid down by the Reformers, especially by Calvin, which prin- ciple is clearly stated in the Westminster Confession : " The authority of the Holy Scripture dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God," and this testimony of God is further explained to be " the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by, and with, the word in our hearts." If M. Reuss himself gives no strict definition of the canon, he at least prepares the way for one ; and on this point his last two chapters are very suggestive. The translation has been made from the second French edition, with certain additions and corrections made by M. Reuss for a future tliird edition. The proof-sheets have been revised by him throughout, but I willingly hold myself responsible for any errors which may still be found in the text. David Hunter. St. Mary's, Partick, Glasgow, Oct., 1883. ' Westcott, History of the Canon of the N. T., p. 12. HISTOEY CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER I. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. In the times of Jesus Christ and of the apostles, the sacred books of the Old Testament were used for the purposes of edification in the Jewish communities ; and hence they were regularly read to the people in the synagogues, both on festival-da3^s and at the ordinary meetings for prayer. The origin of this practice is unknown. The tradition of the Talmud traces it back to Moses, and founds it on the facts related in Deut. xxxi. ; ^ but in the entire history of the Israelites previous to the exile, there is no trace of the e:jistence of the synagogues, nor of readings of the kind ' Comp. also Josephus, Contra Apio7iem, ii., 17 : Uao-T»; £i3?o//a?a; èa-< 2 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUllES. indicated. The first allusions to sucli institutions are found only in the literature posterior to the exile/ and all this organisation appears to have been the fruit, and also one of the most powerful means, of the ecclesiastical and national restoration, by which Judaism àt last entered on the path of its final consolidation. ^ In the time of the apostles, the custom was already ancient, ^ existing wherever there was a synagogue, and essentially bound up with the local or sabbatic worship. It is natural to suppose that at first these readings were made solely from the Mosaic law. That is the opinion of some Jewish scholars, who trace the practice of reading- passages from the prophets likewise, to the time of the Toersecution of Kinor Antiochus, durino- which the Jews are said to have had all copies of the Pentateuch taken from them. This explanation, it is true, does not appear to me very probable. The high esteem in which the second volume of Holy Scripture was held, could not fail to obtain for it at an early period a place similar to that assigned to the first ; but it appears to me to be true that the use of the prophetical books is more recent, because select portions only were read from the various books of the collection, while the law was read consecutively from beginning to end. In Palestine the text of the Pentateuch was formerly divided into 153 Sedarhn (j)aragraphs), corre- sponding to the sabbaths of three consecutive years ; later, in the synagogues of Babylon, there was adopted a division into 54 Parasches (sections), calculated for a single year. This last division finally came into general use, and is now ' Nehem. viii. — The fact related in 2 Kings xxii. has quite another bearing. " See Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, B. 1, chs. ii. and iii. ' Acts XV. 21 : SX yiiiZy âp^aluv — xarèc w'oXiv- — Iv raîi aviayroyâi; koltÙ rràv USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 3 marked in all editions of the Hebrew Bible. As to the jDrophots, we must remember, in the first place ,that the Jews included under that collective name, not only tlie fifteen })rophetical Ijooks proper (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets), but also the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. From a period before the apostolic age, religious exercises usually ended with the reading of a passage taken from one of these books. These passages, therefore, were disconnected fragments, isolated from one another, simply pericopes or lessons, as they were called afterwards in the Cliristian Church. Such a custom was subject to many variations ; and indeed the scanty in- i'ormation we possess on these points, goes to show that successive changes were made in practice. In any case, the Haftares (final lessons) marked now in our printed Hebrew Bibles, do not appear to go back farther than the middle ages. Apart from all this, the New Testament bears testimony to the fact that the custom of this double reading already existed. It is true that all the passages which may be cited on this point are not equally explicit. From, what Luke relates of the preaching of Jesus at Nazareth (Luke iv. IG), it might be inferred that the reader was left perfectly free in his choice of a passage. The same author in a verse already quoted (Acts xv. 21), and Paul also (2. Cor. iii. 15), make express mention only of Moses as read in the synagogues. But in another place (Acts xiii. 27), the prophets are men- tioned formally in the plural, and there is nothing to prevent the inclusion of Moses in the number. In the same chapter a few lines before,^ mention is made of the reading of the law and the prophets, in tenns which undoubtedly show that the author is speaking of a regular and oflicial practice. But there is more than this. This same practice is attested still ' ver. 1.5 : avcéyvcuai; rov yof/.ov ko.) tu\i TpofriTuv. 4 HISTOTIY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUEES. more strongly by the frequent use of the phrase, the laio and the pvopliets, ^ on all occasions when the Scriptures of the Old Testament in general are spoken of. This means that at that time these two parts alone were used in ordinary reading, and therefore, in the minds of the hearers, represented the sacred code. Such was the state of things at the death of Jesus, when His disciples began to associate more closely with one another, and to form communities more and more numerous and distinct. I do not need to remind my readers, that those of the believers who belonged to the Jewish nation did not cease to frequent the synagogue, and that to them the public reading of the sacred books continued therefore to be a familiar practice. They soon introduced into their own special meetings, even before their final separation from the Jews, the same means of edification as were used in the J ewish religious gatherings ; and later, when the schism was complete, these means were preserved and be- queathed to succeeding generations. I shall not stop here to collect the passages which speak of prayers, of singing and preaching ; I shall confine myself to what concerns the pubhc reading of the texts. There is, indeed, in the whole of the New Testament only one passage (1 Tim. iv. 13) where mention is made of this reading. The attempts made to find positive traces of it elsewhere" have been vain. But we may succeed in establishing the fact by very probable inductions. In the first place, it is indisputable that in the second century and later, the Church read the Old Testament, and it is hardly probable that a return would have been made to this practice if the apostles had 'Or, also, Moses and the Prophets (Matt. v. 17, vii. 12, xi. 13, xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16, 29, 31, xxiv. 27, 44; John i. 40; Acts xxiv. 14, xxviii. 23 ; Rom. iii. 21). See Reuss, Geschichte der Heilirjp.n SchriJ'teii des A. T., § 413. "^ Acts ii. 47 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 10. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. O let it drop. Then it is obvious, not only from the didactic books of the New Testament, but also from all that we are told of the preaching of the first missionaries, that the evangelic teaching was primarily and essentially based on Scripture prophecy, and that the texts of Scripture were continually quoted, either to give to the facts of the gospel history their religious and providential meaning, or to give sanction to the doctrines contained in them. Quotation was made most of all when the doctrines seemed to be in contradiction with the former revelation or opposed to the traditional beliefs. Hence there is hardly a page in the New Testament in which the Old is not cited with a dog- matic purpose, or indication given by the writers of great familiarity with its texts. But if this is a fact beyond dis- pute for writers and preachers, we must suppose something of the same familiarity to have existed among readers and hearers, in so far, at least, a,s we cannot imagine them to have been entirely passive in presence of the great questions put before them.^ Now, when we think of the extreme rarity of copies among individuals, how impossible it was for most members of the Church to. procure and possess all that vast and precious library, we naturally infer that their acquaintance with the Old Testament must have come from public readings. In most cases, these readings must have been the only possible means, and in all cases they were the most direct and simple means of such a familiarity. The Pasan or Jewish origin of the various members of the Church made no difference on this point. They all received the same instruction from the apostles. Besides, many of the Greek proselytes had frequented the synagogues be- fore presenting themselves for baptism ; and the apostles, who never for a moment thought of diminishing the dignity of the Old Testament, or of doubting its Divine origin, had ' See on the contrary, Acts xvii. 11, viii. 28 ; Gal. iv. 21, &c. 6 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. as little intention of founding the faith of their Pagan disciples on any basis other than that on which their own convictions rested. But here arise some special questions, all the more inter- esting that they will recur all through the history of the Christian canon, and are not settled to this very day. It has, for instance, been asked what was the form or the extent of the collection of sacred books in the apostolic age. Was the canon of the Old Testament closed, and was it the same as we have now in our Hebrew Bibles ? or did it not, perhaps, include some other books ? Every possible answer has been given to these questions without arriving at any certain result. There are, however, some facts which should not be neglected in the discussion. In the first place, we must not lose sight of the fact that all Christians could not make use of the original Hebrew. The ancient language of the prophets was no longer spoken ; it differed as much from the usual language of the Palestinian Jews, as the French of Sire de Joinville or the English of Wycliffe differs from that of the nineteenth century ; and it could not be understood without some literary education. Hence the reading of the texts was accompanied with an inter- pretation in the vulgar idiom. This interpretation was still more indispensable for the Jewish communities, which, either in the maritime towns of their own land, or still more in foreign lands, had absolutely forgotten the language of their fathers, even in its latest forms, in order to adopt Greek, or what they believed to be Greek. It cannot be proved that so early as the first century of our era, readings were made in the synagogues of sacred texts in the Aramean dialect, but this was incontestably the case in later times ; the inter- pretation may still have been oral. With greater reason we must admit that it was the same with Greek, although there already existed written translations. We know that long USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 7 aftei", in the time of the Emperor Justinian, opposition was still made by the Jews to the official use of these Greek translations. ^ But what was the custom of the Christians ? Did they .submit to the demands of this linguistic ortho- doxy, or did their pressing desire for edification prevail over the tenacity of forms ? We do not know. We know absolutely nothing of the fortunes of the celebrated Greek version of Alexandria (the Septuagint) before the time when the Cliurch and Christian theology made use of it almost exclusively. This historical point would be less obscure if the numerous quotations from the Old Testament in the apostolic books were of a nature to guide our judgment. But on the one hand we have a series of texts, undoubtedly taken from the Septuagint, and faithfully reproducing the peculiarities, the unusual forms of expression, various readings, and exegeticai mistakes of that version ; while, on the other hand, we have as many texts in which the Christian writers seem to have translated the original themselves, whether agreeing with the Hebrew against the Alexandrine translators, or adopting a version equally remote from both texts. I shall not stop to prove these facts by analysing some passages of special significance ; that would take me too far away from my main subject. I content myself with asserting the fact that the Septuagint was known among Christians, and was consulted by them from the first uentury, but that it did not enjoy an absolute or exclusive authority as was afterwards the case, and apparently was not used even where its use might have been of great ad- vantage. In fine, we are unable to form any clear idea of the manner in which the readings from Scripture may have been organised within the primitive Church, especially in Greek- sj^eaking countries. On the one hand, we cannot affirm ' Codex, Tit. 2S, Nov. 146. 8 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. that in all the churches copies of the Septuagint already- existed and were used. Still, on the other hand, as there must have been very few persons out of Palestine wlio could have understood the original well enough to give an oral interpretation to a Greek audience after a reading from the Hebrew, the use of a written Greek translation, among Christians at least, becomes very probable. Now, it is important to remember that the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible were not in all respects alike, even apart from the value of the translation. It is well known that the latter includes several books not found in the former — viz., the books of Judith, Tobit, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees — which were after- wards known in the Church as the Apocrypha of the Old Testatment. Were these books also in the hands of the Greek Christians of the first century, and were they- put on the same level as the others, in so far at least as the Septuagint was used ? This question has been answered sometimes in the affirmative, sometimes in the negative. Some have con- tended that these books had no authority even among the Greek Jews ; others have found in the New Testatanent numerous allusions to one or other of them. Certainly, very striking parallels may sometimes be found between the Epistle of James and Ecclesiasticus, between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon — nay, between certain passages of St. Paul and the same works ; but though the ideas already current in society, or common to thinkers of the same century, may appear in their writings, this does not prove that the last-comers borrowed directly from their pre- decessors, and above all, it does not prove that in borrowing they acknowledged them to have a dogmatic authority. This is the aspect of the question which is most essential. In all the New Testament, no one has been able to point out a single dogmatic passage taken from the Apocrypha and USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 9 quoted as proceeding from a sacred authority. Hence, whatever may have been the practice followed in the various Christian communities, it must be said that tlie apostolic teaching, so far as we are acquainted with it, adhered to the Hebrew canon. Still it would be a mistake to exaggerate the importance of this fact. There are some considerations which seem to me to prove that what we call in our day the question of the canon, was not for the apostles and their immediate disciples, as it has been for Protestant theologians, a matter of supreme moment or a matter depending on à priori criticism and a precise theory of inspiration. In the first place, if the silence of the authors of the New Testament regarding the Greek books, called the Apocrypha, were of itself sufficient proof that these books were not in the hands of the first Christians, were neither read nor consulted by them, this same argument might be advanced against certain writings in the Hebrew collection, which also the New Testament does not mention, and to whose authority it makes no appeal. Among these writings there are not only historical books, whose contents were not suited to the ai)ostles' teaching (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther), but also writ- ings in which the traditional orthodoxy professes to find very positive and very detailed revelations of the Gospel (Canticles), or, at least, texts to be used with a similar pur- pose (Ecclesiastes). It is evident that for the apostles these books had no canonical value in the Christian sense of the word — i.e., they could not be used in constructing the dogma of the New Covenant. This observation is not new ; it was made in the sixteenth century, by very orthodox Lutheran theologians, as we shall see further on. It acquires special importance from its connection with a still greater question. Is it quite true that the Hebrew canon, as we possess it, was closed before the time of the apostles ? No 10 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUEES. one can ^ prove it. ^ On the contj-aiy, I have established elsewhere, that in the time of Josephus the books, called the Hagiographa, ' were not yet gathered into a clearly defined collection, and that certain Hebrew documents, which now form part of them, seem even to have been unknown to that author. Commonly the attempt is made to prove the integrity of the Hebrew canon for the apostolic age, by the terms which Luke uses (xxiv. 44) ; but it is easy to see that in that passage he is simply enumerating the bocks in Avhich Messianic prophecies were found. The name Psahns cannot possibly have included also such books as Ezra and Chronicles. In the second place, though the apostles in their writings are silent regarding certain canonical books of the Old Testament, they make quptations which prove that the notion of the canon, as it was afterwards defined by theo- logy, and above all by Protestant theology, was unknown to them. I do not wish to insist here on certain passages which cannot be found in the Hebrew text — e.g., John vii. 38 ; Luke xi. 49 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; James iv. 5 ; Matt. ii. 23, etc. — and which not only many modern interj^reters, but also Origen and other fathers, have believed to be taken from apocryphal books now lost ; for after all they may be con- sidered as quotations made from memory, and for that very reason more or less inaccurate. I shall insist more on facts to which they allude for a didactic purpose, and which are indisputably drawn from extra-canonical sources. What Paul says of the magicians of Egypt (2. Tim. iii. 8) is not necessarily extracted from a book, but it is at any rate taken from a tradition wdiich may appear open to suspicion. The examples of religious courage and constancy extolled ^ See on this point, Reuss, GescJiichte der Schrl/ten des A. T., §411 ff, 544, 579 ff. = Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 11 by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. S-l, ff) are undoubtedly copied in part from the history of the Macca- bees ; and just as he presents these latter to the admiration of the faithful as having claims equal to those of the heroes of sacred antiquity, so the documents relating the life of both must have had an equal value in the eyes of the writer quoting them. The Epistle of Jude (vers. 9. 14.) not only reproduces some traditions which are somewhat peculiar and may very well have been taken from works of an apocry- phal nature, but it makes an express appeal, as to an autho- rity existing before the Flood, to a book which we have still in our hands, and which no one assuredly is willing to consider authentic or divinely inspired.^ From all this it follows, at least, that we should not be too hasty in attributing to the apostles the theories regarding the canon wdiich were formulated by Protestant theology. "VVe shall find, by-and-by, analogous facts in the writings of their disciples and immediate successors. But this is not all. I have still another very singular fact to put before iny readers, a fact too often neglected though of considerable importance for the history of the canon. Among the books of the Old Testament, there are several in which the Greek text is veiy different from the Hebrew text, either because it is a new form of it, or because additions have been made by other hands. Thus in the book of Paniel, the Greek re- cension inserts the Song of the Three Children in the furnace, and the stories of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon. Thus the book of Jeremiah has not only undergone a complete * [This is the mucli-discussed book of Enoch. It had long disappeared ; but in 1773 Bruce brought three MSS. from Abyssinia containing a trans- lation in Ethiopie. It was edited, and translated into English by Arch- bishop Lawrence in 183S ; but the standard edition is now that of Dilhnann (Leipsic, 1851). The allusion in ver. 6 of Jude has also been traced to this book. According to Origen, allusion is here made to an apocryphal work. The Ascension of Moses ; but the passage does not appear in the fragment that has siirvived in Latin.] — Tr. 12 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. transformation in the order of its contents and chapters, but there have been also added to it an epistle of the prophet and what is called the book of Baruch. The book of Esther has been enriched by a series of documents professing to be official. Finally, the book of Ezra' occurs twice in two very different forms. Now it is not merely probable, it is proved by testimonies which I shall present in their proper place, that the Christians who made use of the Greek Bible and were not, like Origen and Jerome, sufficiently learned to compare it with the original, knew and read the books just mentioned only in the form of the Greek version, or, we would now say, in the apocryphal form. To what date does this fact go back ? We are no longer able to determine the exact time when these additions were made, but very possibly they were in existence before the Christian era. I have shown that the historian Josephus knew only the Greek recension of several of these books. We shall see later, that this was the case with almost all the fathers of the Church. Having thus proved that the history of the canon of Scripture in the apostolic age is not so simple and clear, nor so consistent with the notions commonly received as some would like to make it, I shall further say a word or two re- garding the theological aspect of the question. On this point there is not the least doubt that the apostles, and, as a rule, the Christians of their time held the law and the prophets to be divinely inspired," and therefore held the words of Scripture to be, not the words of men, but the words of God. It is the Spirit of God who speaks by the mouth of the sacred authors f and the prophets in writing ' [Ezra and Esdras are different forms of the same name. In our English Bibles, Ezra is applied to the canonical book and Esdras to the two books of the Apocrypha ; in French, the one form Esdras is applied to both.] — Tr, ' For this whole question, I refer my readers to Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Afje, i., p. 352. 3 Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21 ; Heb. iii. 7, iv. 7, ix. 8, &c. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, lo hold a special position wliicli excludes the idea of any common and human mistake (eV mevfian, Matt. xxii. 43). In this respect, king David, considered as the author of all the Psalms (Acts iv. 25 ; Heb. iv. 7), shared in the privilege of the prophets (Acts ii. 30, &c.) ; and in consequence of the liturgical use made of these sacred songs by the synagogue, the book of which he was supposed to be author shared the honours rendered to the two parts of Scripture which were used for the public reading (Luke xxiv. 44). But above all, by studying the exegetical methods of the Jewish doctors and the apostles, which were ail but identical, we come to the conviction that the notion of inspiration then included all the elements of excellence and of absoluteness which have been given to it in later definitions. Indeed, it is only from this point of view that we can explain to ourselves how so many texts relating to a distant past — simple narratives, songs expressing the joys or regrets of an individual, or of the people at a particular crisis — could con- tinually and confidently be translated into positive and special predictions, such as might occupy the spirit of specu- lation in the schools, or nourish and exalt the religious senti- ment of the masses. When we see an essentially divinatory method of interpretation applied to members of phrases detached from the context, to words completely isolated,^ this method which no one now would venture to apply to any work sacred or profane, is in exact harmony with the conception formed of inspiration. For inspiration was not supposed to be restricted to a general direction of the mind 'of the authors, but to imply also the dictation of the verj' words. In any other view we should have to charge the apostles with being purely arbitrary in their exegesis, as we know to be actually the case in numerous instances which put the science of our days to great difficulty. ' For instance, Matt. ii. 23 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Heb. ii. 13, &c. 14 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUHES. Here, then, are two facts duly established at the outset of our discussion : on the one side, a theory of inspiration which permitted no confusion between sacred and profane literature ; on the other side, a practice which betrays some hesitation, a certain vagueness in the demarcation of the two literatures, or, more exactly, the absence of any decision definitely and rigorously limiting the canonical code, and enumerating the books which it ought to include. In other words, in selecting the books which were to compose the Scriptures, we might either take a theological or dogmatic point of view, in which case we should be disposed to re- strict the number ; or we might take a practical or ped- agogic point of view, in which case we should rather be inclined to extend the circle of books having a religious value. We shall find that the entire history of the canon in the Christian Church resolves itself finally into alterna- tions between these two points of view. CHAPTER IL THE WKITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE TRIMITIVE CHURCH. All that I have said hitherto relates to the Old Testament only, and has a bearing on the usages introduced into the Church, owing to the natural connection of the latter with the synagogue. I have not yet spoken of the writings of the apostles, because I am in a position to assert that these writings, during the remainder of the first century and at least the first third of the second, were not yet read publicly in any regular and liturgical fashion, as I believe the books of the prophets to have been read. I shall devote this second chapter to proving this assertion, relating in general terms the varying fortunes during the period indicated, of the books which afterwards composed the New Testament. The first point to be examined here, is the mode in which these books were disseminated ; for when we remember the limited means of publicity in the apostolic age, it would be wrong to suppose that the apostles had nothing to do but send copies to all the existing churches. Nevertheless that is the unconscious supposition of those who hold that the canon — i.e., the oflicial collection — was formed simul- taneously everywhere as each new text was issued. The apostolic books may be divided into two categories according to their origin and the form of their publication. There are, in the first place, those which were originally ad- dressed to particular communities. These had from the first a public character, and were in a very advantageous position for acquiring authority, and, consequently, for being dis- .seminated. In this category we naturally place the Epistles •of Paul, except where the authenticity of one or other of IG HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. them may be disputed on sufRcient grounds. If, as most critics think, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written for a particular church (certainly not the church at Jerusalem), it too must be mentioned here. Now we see clearly enough, from texts we can consult, what took place in regard to these epistles. Generally they reached their destination by means more or less accidental.^ Sometimes the occasion of writing them was equally accidental. They were ad- dressed or sent to the heads of the communities, who on that account were charged with general and individual salu- tations," and who caused them to be read to the meeting of the faithful, a course so natural, that the apostle only speaks of it once (1. ïhess. v. 27) in his earliest epistle. The same officials had to communicate these letters to other neighbouring communities when the apostle expressed a de- sire for it. In this way, of course, the Epistle to the Gala- tians must have been put in circulation after its arrival in the leading church of the province ; for if there had been only one church there, we would not understand how it should be nowhere designated by the name of its locality. Thus, the Epistle to the Colossians must have been com- municated to one other church at least, if not to several (Col. iv. 16 ; comp. ii. 1). Thus also the Epistles to the Corinthians, at anyrate the second (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1), are encyclical, and it is well-known that many exegetes have adopted a similar hypothesis regarding the Epistle to the Ephesiaus. The epistles may have been communicated in various ways, either by the transmission of the original, or by copies. Even in the former case, it is very probable that every church that received a missive of this kind, took care to have it copied before returning the loan. For all 'Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. IS f; Epli. vi. 21 f; Col. iv. 7 ; Tit. iii. 13. ^ These salutations are always iiitrodnced by the exhortation : à^z-âfrairêi. WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 17 the churches which had had personal and often very in- timate relations with the author of the writing communi- cated, were alike interested in preserving it as a pledge of affection, as the precious title-deed of a relation whose in- effaceable remembrance was the happiness of the first gene- lation, and the glory of those that came after. There is no trace, in the literature of that epoch, that these epistles were publicly read on fixed days from the very date of their arrival. As they were in part devoted to special circum- stances, that does not seem probable. Some time elapsed before they were read regularly; and even long afterwards, when they had been diffused among Christians at a dis- tance, we do not find that they were used for liturgical or periodical readings. What I have just said is not founded on bare assertions, or on inductions more or less plausible. Some works or fragments, which have survived to us from the fifty years following that of the apostles, contain direct information on this point ; but before collecting them, and to avoid repeti- tion, let me further say a word regarding the second category of the apostolic writings. This contains the writ- ings intended for a wider circle of readers — e.g., the gospels and some of the epistles, commonly called Catholic. I in- clude in it also the two books of Luke, though apparently they are addressed to a single individual ; for at that time dedication rather favoured than limited the circulation of a book. So, too, the introductions to the First Epistle of Peter and to the Apocalypse have more of the nature of a dedication than of an epistolary address. These books, which, moreover, were almost all more lengthy than Paul's letters, must, like all writings of that age, have acquired a circulation among the public, in proportion to the interest attached to their authors when known, or still more to their contents. Thus we see that in this respect they were not 18 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUllES. all placed in the same position, and had not the same chances of success. Luke's work, certainly the latest of the historical writings, and also the most complete, made its way into notice much more slowly than the others ;^ while the Epistle of James had much difficulty in attracting at- tention beyond the locality of its publication. In general, the writings of this second category appear to have had more difficulties to overcome than the Epistles of Paul. The latter were pastoral letters, having a certain official character, and were therefore public property ; while the others were, at first, only private property, in the hands of persons who had in some way or other procured them. So nmch was this the case that, during all the period of which we are now speaking, we find no mention of any public use of them, and almost no trace of their existence, though I do not mean to call it in question. In any case, the diffusion of all these writings was not regulated, organised, or directed by the care or action of any central power, which for that matter never existed after the destruction of Jerusalem. If indeed such a power did exist for a few years, it had com- pletely lost control of the religious movement which was .spreading in the heathen world, long before Paul wrote his first epistle. I do not on that account admit that the work of diffusing the rising literature of Christianity was done by commercial speculation, or, as we might now say, the book-trade. The immense majority of the Christians were common people, and the common people did not read. The gospel was still diffused, or, rather, had all along been dif- fused and put into shape, by oral instruction. The need for replacing this by other less simple means would not be felt, since the apostles and their successors continued to visit the ' Papias was acquainted only witli the two first gospels, and quotations from texts peculiar to Luke are very rare in the authors of the second cen tury, in comparison with those taken from Matthew. WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 19 cliurclies/ and everywhere, even in the smallest community, the traditional teachino- was abundant and careful.- The O men chosen to direct the churches and to preserve untouched the sacred trust of the gospel are recommended to the faith- ful as guides to be relied on, worthy of their submission and esteem.^ The numerous terms used in the New Testament to designate the teaclnng of the apostles express, without exception, the idea of oral instruction. Everywhere the question is of speaking and hearing, of discourses and auditors, of preaching, proclamation, and tradition,^ and never once of writing and reading, except where there is express allusion to the books of the Old Testament. And later, when the writings of the first disciples and mission- aries came within reach of persons who were literate, they might decidedly prefer the oi'al source for acquaintance with evangelic facts, because it was more abundant.* At any rate, while the great value of the apostolic documents was recognised, it was not forgotten that the publication of ' Acts viii. 14, ix. 32, xi. 22, xiv. 21, xv. 25, 36, 41, xviii. 23, XX. 1, 17 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 12 ; 2 Cor. vii. 6f, viii. 6, xii. 18 ; Phil. ii. 19f, Col. iv. 10 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Titus iii. 12. ^ Acts XX. 17, 28 ; Titus i. 5, 7 ; Epli. iv. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 8, xiv, , &c. 3 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; Phil. ii. 29 ; Col. i. 7 ; 1 Thess. v. 12 ; Clement Ep. ad Cor. i. 42; Ignat. ad PhUud. 7 ; Magncs. S, 13. * 'EiuyyiXiov, ilia.yy'.KiaTr,i, iVKyyiXi^Kr^ai, Rom. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15, etc. ; Luke ix. 6; Acts viii. 4, etc.; 2 Tim. iv. 5. — K-^puyf^a, >:r,pv%, unpijcrruv, Titus i. 3 ; 1 Cor. ii. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. 11 ; Matt. x. 7 ; Acts xx. 25. — napâ2o(n;, fra.pa'èi^ivai, 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Luke i. 2 ; Acts xvi. 4. — '^la.prupla, fcotprupiiv, fiâprvi, Acts i. 8, xxii. 18, xxiii. 11 ; Rev. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 15, etc. — " \votï,is Toi ffrifiaros, Eph. vi. 19. — Aaya;, Acts iv. 31 ; James i. 22, etc. — \oyos axons, 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Heb. iv. 2. — \a\i7v. Acts xviii. 15 ; Titus ii. 15. — 'Akovhv, Eph. i. 13 ; 1 John ii. 7, etc. — Wxpoàffêai, James i. 22, etc. Comp. especially Rom. x. 14-17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2 ; Gal. iii. 2, 5 ; Heb. ii. 1-4. 5 Papias, apud Eusebium, iii. 39 : où yap rk Ik ran )S//3x/«y TosuZroi fn ù0iXi7y vTiXafijiavov oira, rà crapà. Zcirn; Çavr,; xai (/.ivoûri};. This testimony IS all the more interesting that the author professes to be acquainted witli two written accounts of the life of the Lord, the one by IMatthew, wi-ittuu in Hebrew, and the other by Mark (about the year 120). 20 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. those few pages was but a very small part of the work of evangelising the world. " Guided by the Holy Spirit and endowed with a miraculous power, the apostles carried everywhere the proclamation of the kingdom of God, caring very little about committing it to writing, because they had to fulfil a ministry more elevated and exceeding humari strength. Paul, the first among tliem by his power of speech and the excellence of his ideas, left but a small number of very brief epistles, though he might have said many things more which God had deigned to teach to him alone. The other companions of the Lord, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, were not less instructed, and yet only two of them composed memoirs, and that through force of circumstances."^ But if, fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of most of the first disciples of Jesus Christ, their writings were not yet used regularly and periodically for the common edification of the faithful at the hours of meeting and prayer, it does not follow that these writings were forgotten or disregarded. On the contrary, the un- broken relations which the churches, especially those of Greece and Grecian Asia, maintained with one another, soon led to the interchange of the Christian writinos which each possessed. I say Christian ivrithigs purposely, for I do not mean to confine this remark to the apostles only. Corres- pondence went on between the disciples of the apostles and their churches, as Paul had given example, and even if the writings attributed to wdiat are called the Apostolic Fathers,^ ' Eusebius, HiJ^t. Ecdes. iii. 2-4. ^ This expression is generally taken to denote men who knew the ajjostles personally. This interpretation is erroneous if we look to the origin of the term, and could not be applied to all the Apostolic FatJiers. The term àvroirTokix.'o; is met for the first time in the MarUjrolofjy of St. Polycarp, ch. 16 ; but, as it is joined there to orpoipnTixo;, it clearly does not contain any chronological signification. He is speaking of the religious tie which united the bishop of Smyrna to the apostles, and of the gift of prophecy which he possessed (;v toTs y.af hf^ù; p^^^^'ovoi; ^licitTKaXo; lev. x,at ■Tfoip. yivof/.tvo;) . WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE rROIITIVE CHURCH. 21 — i.e., to the writers who must have flourished between the years 90 and 130 — were not all authentic (which is very probable), they are at least of high antiquity, and, in any case, they may be of use to us as evidence. Clement of Rome then was said to have written to the Corinthians, Polycarp of Smyrna to the Philippians, Ignatius of Antiocli to a certain number of churches, chiefly in proconsular Asia. These letters were not the only ones in their time; far from it. From them I shall draw considerable material for my History of the Canon. In the first place, these letters establish the fact of the interchange mentioned above. Thus, Polycarp says to the Philippians, at the very end of his epistle ■} " I have received letters from you and from Ignatius. You recommend me to send on j^ours to Syria ; I shall do so, either personally or by some other means. In return, I send you the letter of Ignatius, as well as others which I have in my hands, and for which you made request. I add them to the present one : they will serve to edify your faith and perseverance." We do not know what the letters were, of which this author is here speaking. If they were apostolic ^vritings, then the Philippians did not yet possess them all ; if they were later works, then the churches at this time were using for their edification other writings than those of the apostles. Certain it is, that this epistolary exchange continued to a still later date.^ In the second place, these same epistles furnish us with direct proof that the writings of the apostles had not only extended beyond the narrow circle of their first origin or local destination, but that they were already exercising a ' Polycarp, ad Phil. ch. 13 ; comp. Euseb. iii. 36, 37. I quote this text and some others, ■without inquiring into its authenticity, which is suffi- ciently doubtful. The inferences to be drawn from them lose nothing of their value, even if these texts are of a later date. ^ Euseb. iv. 23, v. 25. 22 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCllIPTURES. marked influence on the teaching. There are, indeed, in these epistles no quotations by name, with some rare ex- ceptions to which I shall return by-and-by, and the texts of the apostles are nowhere appealed to expressly and literally as authorities ; but they are sometimes made use of tacitly, in a way not to be mistaken. In certain passages, the ex- hortations are couched in the formulas employed by those illustrious predecessors, and the conviction is readily. formed that the writers of this second generation were already studying the works of the first. Thus, the Epistle of Clement presents accurate enough reininiscences of some passages in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians, and above all, in that to the Hebrews ; ' those of Ignatius, more numerous and certainly more recent, con- tain others, which take us back to the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, as well as to the Gospel of John : - finally, the very brief Epistle of Polycarp has fre- quent allusions to apostolic passages, notably to Acts, the First Epistle of Peter, the First of John, the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the First to Timothy.^ One point more : this use is purely homiletical or rhetorical. Nowhere is the reader warned by an apostle's name, or by a formula of quotation, or by any notice whatever, that the words which we at once recognise as borrowed have a special value difierent from that of their context.^ I said that there exist some exceptions to this usage. ' Clement, ad Cor. i. 24, 32-3G. = Ignatius, ad Magnes, ch. 10 ; ad Ephes. ch. 18 ; ad Horn. ch. 3, 7 ; ad Philad. ch. 1 ; ad Smyrn. ch. 6, etc. 3 These allusions are more i^recise in that part of the epistle of which the Greek text is lost. Like Daillé and other critics, I am suspicious of the authenticity of that part. 4 This liomiletic use goes back further still. See, in the Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apo)iv W}irro?.r,v Tov y-xx-afiou Xlauxov roZ avorToXov. T; vfi,7v sypcc^it ; ^ Polyc, loc, cit., ch. 3 : o x.a) àvùt hfùv iypci^iv i'^rio-roXà; il; â; iàv lyxv- VmTl àv^nêriViffûi oliùodcfiiiffêcci x. t. X. 3 Ignatius, ad Eplies. ch. 12; comp. Paul, Ephes. i. 16. "* See, e.g., Ignat. ad Ephes. ch. 14, ch. 19 ; ad Sniyrn. ch. 1 ; ad Polyc. 2. Polycarp ad PMI. 2. Clement ad Cor. ch. 46, &c. 24 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Jesus, when risen, said to the disciples, " Take hold, touch me, and see that I am not a spectre without body."^ Clement quotes the following words : " Be merciful, that you may ob- tain mercy ; pardon, that you may be pardoned ; according as you do, so will be done to you : according as you give, so it will be given to you ; according as you judge, so will you be judged ; according as you will show kindness, so will kindness be shown to you — with the same measure with which you will mete, it will be measured to you again."^ A still more curious fact of the same kind is found in the epistle which bears the name of Barnabas, and is earlier, in my opinion, than those of which I have been speaking. When it comes to treat of the Sabbath, it declares that the Christians spend the eighth day in rejoicing, because on that day Jesus rose again, appeared to His disciples, and ascended into heaven.^ Whoever wrote this sentence was either unacquainted with the gospels of Matthew, of Mark, and of John, and with the Acts of the Apostles, or did not regard them as authoritative ; for none of these docu- ments permit us to suppose that the resurrection, the appearances, and the ascension of Jesus took place on one and the same day, as the text of the third gospel seems to represent/ These extracts, which might be multiplied, will convince us that there is as yet no question of textual quotations of canonical gospels, consulted exclusively for the history of the Lord. But there is more. In place of the canonical texts which sometimes fail us, we find others to which the ' Aa/3£T£, ipriXaÇriffccTl fil Koù tlm Sri oîiK ù/ù 'Sai/icôviov ù'-'P'^'f- BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WETTINGS. 39 first time used for books and not for the abstract, primitive notion. Along with the law and the prophets, we have the gospels mentioned here as a regular source of faith and Christian instruction. I draw attention to this point that the gospels were the first to attain this honour, and I only observe further that the text gives no help in forming an opinion as to the number and choice of those books. As to the apostles, allusion is made to their oral teaching and not to their writings. I have no wish to diminish the force of this testimony, though modern critics are inclined to con- sider the two last chapters as not authentic. In a history where exact chronology is impossible, some dozens of years of difierence cannot cause any great difficulty. Another author of this period, Hegesippus, of whom the historian Eusebius has preserved some fragments,^ says, in speaking of his travels, that he had everywhere found the churches and the bishops continuing in the true faith as preached b}'" the law, the prophets, and the Lord." Further, it is said that in his writings there are to be found extracts from the Hebrew and Syriac gospel and from Jewish tradi- tions. These notes sufficiently prove to us that the author, so far as apostolic books are concerned, possessed or used but one gospel. Of this gospel Eusebius knew nothing pre- cise, and he speaks of it so as to betray his ignorance ; but in any case it was different from those which were finally adopted by the Church. As Hegesippus nevertheless de- clared himself to be in communion of faith with the churches he visited, it follows that in liis time a collection of canoni- cal books had not yet become the test of orthodoxy. Some pages further on,^ Eusebius cites another author — Melito, bishop of Sardis, who also lived towards the middle ' Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 22. * opêo; Xoyo;. . . . à; à i/ôfios Kttpùmi xa) o'i Trpo^rrrizi xat ô xûpio;, loc. Cit. 3 Euseb. Hlst. Ecdcs. iv. 2G. 40 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCKIPTURES. of the second century. Among his numerous works there was one on the Apocalypse of John. Whether this was a commentary or an essay, it was certainly the first instance of a study made of an apostolic work. But the curious fact should not pass unobserved that the Apocalypse was the first to be honoured in this way. This confirms what I said before regarding the conception, which the contempo- raries of Melito had formed of inspiration, and it is not the only nor the most striking confirmation of my remarks. The same writer had also composed a work which, ap- parently, included a series of extracts from the Old Testa- ment intended to support the Christian faith. Eusebius has transcribed the preface of this work, which contains an enumeration of all the books of the Old Covenant, and speaks of it in such a way as to show that Melito had no idea of any other collection of sacred books. Eusebius, who is so anxious to collect the opinions of the ancients in regard to the canon of the New Testament, would not have failed to direct attention to those of Melito, if he had found the least trace of them. It may be remarked in passing, that the catalogue above mentioned omits the book of Esther. As we shall see later on, this was neither the fault of the copyist nor unwitting forgetfulness on the part of the author. In the few fragments preserved to us of Claudius Apollinaris,-' bishop of Hierapolis and contemporary of Melito, there is some discussion of the controversy which had arisen in Asia Minor on the subject of Easter-day. Apollinaris was the first bishop of that country who main- tained that Jesus, in the year of His death, had not eaten the paschal lamb but had been crucified on the day on which the Jews were eating it. His adversaries made ap- ' Chron. Pasch. p. 13. ed. Dindorf. [This is the form of the name in the oldest Greek MSS. but Latin writers commonly use ApoUinarius]. Tr. — BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 41 peal to Matthew ; but he declares that they are mistaken and that they have against them both the Law and the gospels. This last expression, unless it be extended to in- clude works now lost, can only refer to that of John, for he alone of those now existing supports the opinion of Apol- linaris. This shows that the gospels were in his time consulted on questions of ecclesiastical discipline, and that they had already come to be compared with one another. A little later came Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,^ the author of a great number of epistles addressed to various churches. In the analysis which Eusebius gives of them, we find a very interesting passage, extracted from a letter to the Romans, and telling that on that same day, a Sunday, they had been reading the letter which the Romans had just written to the Corinthians, and that they would not fail to read it subsequently for the instruction of the faith- ful just as they had read the epistle written formerly by Clement. This shows that, in this locality and probably elsewhere, the public readings included epistolary communi- cations. I shall make no difficulty in granting that, if Clement of Rome was read at Corinth sixty years after his death, the Apostle Paul had the same privilege. This would be the most ancient testimony (though only by in- ference) to a periodical reading of the epistles. Still it is certain that those of the apostles were not the only ones thus used. In another place, Dionysius complains that his letters had been falsified by interpolations and abridg- ments, but adds that there was nothing astonishing in this, since some had dared to treat in the same fashion the evan- gelic writings (ypacpai KvpiaKai). This last text permits the supposition that the gospels, or gospels know^n and read at Corinth in the time of Dionysius, were still undergoing al- ' Eusebius, Hkt. EccL, iv. 23. 42 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. terations such as history proves to have been made in times earlier. I might pass over in silence an anonymous fragment which Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. v. IG, 17), extracts from an extensive work against the Montanists. In all probability, the author wrote only towards the end of the century, at a time when opinions relative to the canon were already much more settled. But seeing that the author, whatevei- be said of him, says absolutely nothing on our subject, I have no wish to dispute the chronological place claimed for him. In his preface, this author declares that he hesitated some time before deciding to write his book, not that he distrusted his ability to refute the error or to bear testimony to the truth, but because he feared to incur from certain people the reproach of desiring to add new ordinances to the word of the new evangelic covenant, to which word nothing ought to be added, and from which word, nothing- ought to be taken away by any one who wishes to live according to the gospel.^ By rashly employing here the term Neiv Testament instead of Neio Covenant, some were led to suppose that this passage directly proves the existence of the New Testament, in the modern sense, as a collection closed and complete from the middle (?) of the second century. But it is evident that, even if the author in speaking of the %oovd of the New Covenant, had' certain writings in mind, he docs not in any way determine their number and form, and therefore does not help us a step further than we had reached without him. Besides I maintain that he is not speaking here of books but of the faith legitimately preached in the church that had been constituted according to authentic tradition. This faith he wishes to defend against the more or less eccentric innova- ' . . . fjLri rrn oi^co Tiiriv l'ri(ruyyfâ,Çin '/J l'^ioiarârriffêai tS t7,s toZ lùayyiXÎûU xai'jn; oiaérizti; Xoyu x. t, X. BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 43 tions (some kind of revivals) wliicli the Phrygian sect was making. This is proved by a remark which the same author makes further on . " Tlie special kind of pretended prophecy to which this false prophet (Montanus) is trying to give currency'", is found nowhere, and with no one under the Old or the Neiu Covenant,'' and with reference to this, he cites a series of names of Christian prophets, looth those belonging to the time of the apostles, such as Agabus and the daughters of Philip, and those belonging to the century following, such as Quadratus, together with some contem- poraries. At the same time he makes use of a saying of the Apostle^ to the effect that the gift of prophecy was to exist in the whole church, until the coming of the Lord. This latter passage proves two tilings : — first, that by New Covenant the author does not mean the book we call the New Testament, and, secondly, that the author, notwith- standing his anxiety not to encroach on the rights of the evangelic word, is not well acquainted with the written texts, or handles them very freely. While we are Meauino- amono- the p^ccounts which Euse- o o o bius gives of the Montanists, I may say in passing that he also cites a certain Apollonius.^ This Apollonius wa-ote in the same strain against this sect, and Eusebius notes in him, as worthy of remark, quotations from the Apocalypse and the assertion that Jesus had ordered the apostles to re- main twelve years at Jerusalem. But we have further to consult the authors whose works have been preserved to us in their entirety as well as divers documents of less extent but also entire. In the first place, there are the works of Athenagoras who died about 177 ; an Apology by him and a treatise on the Resurrection ' Where did the apostle say this ? In spirit it is a legitimate inference from 1 Cor. xii. xiv ; still the text does not furnish the exact words. 'Euseb., Hist. EccL, loc. cit., ch. 18. 44 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCKIPTUIIES. «till exist. From this treatise it is manifest that the author had read what Paul says in 1 Cor. xv.; once he quotes it ; ^ but beyond this, the texts of the New Testament though very numerous on this subject, are not quoted and have not even influenced his style. In the Apology, phrases or expressions borrowed from St. Paul,^ occur a little more fre- quently, but no quotations, while the author more often cites words of Jesus Christ wliose tenor conforms generally to the text of the Sermon on the ]\Iount. Still, among these textual quotations, there is one for which we would vainly search in our canonical gospels. The Lord is said to have given precise instructions as to the manner in which Chris- tians were to give each other the fraternal kiss, that no guilty thoughts might arise and compromise their salvation.' The formulas of quotation are here so positive that it must be acknowledged that the author had a written text before him. We possess, almost complete, an account of the persecu- tion of the Christians in Gaul, under Marcus Aurelius ; it is contained in a letter addressed by the churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia Minor.* This letter may go back to the year 177 and possibly enough Irenaeus, who later was bishop of Lyons, may have had some part in the writing of it. However, as that is not certain, we can consider the letter by itself Of all the literary monuments of that period, it contains most allusions to the apostolic books. We find in it phrases, evidently borrowed from Romans, Philippians, First and Second Timothy, First Peter, and Acts ; further, a sa^dng of the Lord which we know only from the Gospel of John, once even a direct and textual ■ Kara riv à'z-ôrroXov. De Bc'SKrr. 16 ; coiiip. also ch. 9 and 19. - Romans, Galatians, Fii'st Timothy. Comp. Athen. leg. ch. 13, 16, 37. 3 Ibid., ch. 32 : -srccXiv hf^iv yAyùvro; toZ Aoyov. . . . Kai ivKpifmvro;. . , . ^ Eusebius, Hid. Eccl. v. 1. BEGINNINGS OF A COLLF.CTION OF AFOSTOLI CWRITINGS. 45 quotation, described as from Scripture. Strange to say this quotation, which besides is loose in form, is taken from the Apocalypse.^ To the same period may be assigned the account of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp which is printed in the collec- tions of the Apostolic Fathers.- It is not altogether free from critical suspicion, but I do not wish here to enter on a discussion immaterial to my present purpose. In it also are found phrases borrowed without acknowledgment from the books of the a})ostles, from Romans, First Corinthians, and from the gospel narrative ; but in regard to the quotations from the last, we cannot exactly say whether the author had a written copy before him. The account of the martyrdom of Ignatius printed in the same collection, is much more suspicious. It exists in as many as eight different forms, and Eusebius was not ac- quainted with it. I therefore mention it merely. In the least amplified edition, the Old Testament is sometimes quoted,^ the New nowhere directly. We can see in it many traces of the Epistle to the Romans and of Paul's history as related in the Acts ; but that is all. We pass to one of the most read and most highly extolled works of the first centuries, the Pastor of Hernias. This book, which we shall by and by see raised to the dignity of canonicity, nowhere quotes directly the Old or the New Testament. Nevertheless, as a matter of course, many passages in it are influenced by biblical language ; and, in regard to the New Testament in particular, there are not a few allusions to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels, in ' . . . . 'iva h ypct^h -rknpcjêîj, o a)ic;/,o; Oiyofji.riCor.Tca Ïti kcÙ h iîaccio; oixaicauyiru 'in; comp. Rev. xxii. 11. - Conip. Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. iv. 15. 3 Among others the passage from Leviticus vhich the author may perhaps have taken or copied from "2 Cor. vi. IG. At all events, the yiypuTTai I'efers to iloses. 40 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUlîES. the Pauline Epistles,and in the First Epistle of Peter. But the famous sicut scriptum est, the binding formula of quotation to which great importance is rightly attached, is never found on these occasions. On the other hand, it is employed to introduce a quotation from an apocryphal book.^ We come finally to the author who, among all belonging to this period, is the most important both for the history of theology in general, and specially for the history of the canon. This is Justin Martyr. I have reserved him for the end of this chapter, that I might connect him with the general results of our studies on the period he represents. The autlientic works by him are not numerous, but they are far more extensive than all we have been reviewing, and at several points they touch on the history of the canon. Of all his contemporaries, Justin depends least on tradi- tion and uses most frequently and most regularly written records when he is discussing theological proofs. To his mind the ultimate test of evangelic truth is the argument drawn from the prophecies.- The prophecies are the most direct and indisputable indications of the action of the Word, which is the only source of truth for mortals ; and this characteristic of prophecy is confirmed above all by its ful- filment. Hence Justin bases his apologetic and polemic arguments on the relation between the prophetic texts of the Old Testament (inspired by the Word) and the facts in the history of Jesus as stated in the Memoirs of the apostles. These two kinds of quotations, win'ch are very frequently ' Hernias Pastor Vis. 2. ch. 3, sicut scriptum est in Heldam et Modal. This was the title of a book founded on an incident in the history of Moses (Numbers xi. 26). ^ The miracles may be the effect of magic, the narrators may lie ; àkxk Tùîs vpoipnTiuouiri xar' àvâyKrrJ 'Triiêci/iiêa ûià, to cpav .... jiVi^ //.ly'iffrn xai àx-flêi(TTârn àrrcliilu {AjJof. i. 30, p. 72). How could we believe of one crucified, that he is the eldest son of the Eternal and the judge of the world, if we had not had the prophecies previous to his birth and did not see their fulfilment? (IhkL, ch. 53, p. 88. Comp. Dial. c. Tryph. 32, p. 249.) BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 47 employed, are almost the only quotations to be found in him. The didactic books of the New Testament are not once mentioned throughout his writings, though it seems to me impossible to maintain that he was not acquainted with them. On the other hand, we find often enough phrases and ideas which recall, either the Gospel of John, or the Epistles of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews (but neither the Pastoral nor the Catholic Epistles). Above all, it is to be observed that the quotations from the Old Testament sometimes agree more closely with the text of Paul (whose name is never mentioned by the author^)than with the text of the Septuagint. Justin's apologetic method has as its corollary or rather as its basis, a very rigorous theory of inspiration. He is in truth, the doctor of the ôeoirvf varia or plenavy inspiration. From him comes the famous explanation Avhich has had great success in the Church, that the prophets were to the Holy Spirit, what the flute is to the musician. " Inspiration," he says, " is a gift which comes from above to holy men. To receive it, they need neither rhetoric nor dialectic ; they must give themselves up simply and purely to the action of the Holy Spirit that the divine bow, descending from heaven and playing on them as on a stringed instrument, may reveal to us the knowledge of heavenly things."^ This definition has been very inappropriately understood to re- late to every kind of biblical composition. It is importp.nt to remember that Justin applies it only to what can rightly ' It is to be noted that Justin attaches a theological value to the number of the t'welve apostles {Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 42.) which is prefigured in the Old Testament and cannot therefore be changed. Further, in the same book (ch. 35), the author declares in the most emphatic terms that those who give permission to eat of the hleoxouvrei are false prophets, Coaip. Acts XV. 29 ; Rev. ii. 14, 20 ; with 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 23 ff. * . . . . 'ma ToBiîcoDi^ ovpiDioû KXTton TTKnicrpav, UKTVip hpyayjo y.iêff.pn; rivo; h Xvpa; Toti Oixaiois àvOpâiTi ^p^'fismv, rhv râv êi)uv riftiv arroKaXi-^-zi yvâiriv [Coll. ad Or., ch. S.) 48 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. be considered prophecy — i.e., from Lis point of view, to the whole of the Old Testament/ and to anything, outside of tliat collection, which bore the same character. That is why neither the gospels, nor the epistles are ever quoted as inspired books. The latter are not quoted at all as I have just said ; the gospels are appealed to as historical documents proving the fulfilment of the inspired prophecies. But be- yond the Old Testament, Justin was acquainted with other prophetic books which he quotes as such and which he re- garded as entitled to all the prerogatives of prophecy. Three of them he quotes by name. The first is the Apocalypse whose author, John, one of Christ's apostles re- ceived a special revelation regarding the millenial reign." Then comes the Sibylline Books from which he borrows a good deal; he explains their metrical defects by the power of the inspiration which prevailed in them.^ Finally, the book of a prophet now unknown, one Hystaspes who long afterwards was quoted by the later fathers, is expressly put on the same level as the Sibylline Books and the sacred authors of the Old Testament, " the devils alone being able to restore a law which forbade the reading of them, so profitable to men."'* Let me add further, that Justin, consistently with himself, maintains that the Old Testament is to be regarded not as the property of the Jews to whom Providence in- trusted it provisionally but as the property of the Christians, ' And not once to what we call the New Testament, which J ustin never employs for theological demonstration neither as a whole nor in its parts. The words of Christ, of the Logos, do not need to be called inspired, be- cause the Logos is himself the author of all inspiration. They are inde- pendent of the books containing them. - Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 81. 3 IvvaTvi I'TriTrvoU {Coh. ad. fjr. ch. 16, ch. 37, 38. Apol. i. 20, 44). On the use which the Fathers make of the Sybilline oracles, comp. generally the article in Vol. vii. of the Nouvelle Revue, pp. 199 if. ■t Apol. i. 20, 44. I have explained this passage in the article quoted in the preceding note. BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WAITINGS. 49 to whom it belongs both as a collection of books and as containino- dooma.^ Justin would have said, " The Old Testament is tlie canon of the Christians" " if that term had been in use in his day. He goes a step further, and is the tirst among the Christian writers we know, to proclaim the inspiration of the Septuagint.^ From what I said in my first chapter it will be understood that this fact is of great importance for the sequel. But the point most interesting for the history of the canon is to get acquainted with Justin's gospels, for, except- ing the Apocalypse, they are the only apostolic writings expressly quoted by him, and he even speaks of them as books used in worship. " On the day of the sun (Sunday)," he says,* " all those of us who live in the same town or district assemble together, and there is read to us some part of the memoirs of the apostles, or of the writings of the prophets, so much as time permits ; then, when the reader has finished, the president gives an hortatory application, after which we rise for common prayer ; afterwards bread, wine, &c., are brought." Here, then, according to an explicit testimony which may go back to the year 140, we find the gospels regularly read along with the Old Testament. For there can be no doubt that these Memoirs of the apostles are gospels and nothing else. Justin says so himself a few lines previous,' and in such a way as to remind us that this word gospels, in so far as it is used of books, is a popular ' oL» ai/Toi; àXX' rifiiv 'h Ix. rouruv Oixtp'ipli ^i^ccffKaXia . . , . a.1 T-h fif/,ir'ipefûli>i7i[iila, 'iiaX^'"^' **' "'' ccvTod oioa^éînri [DiCll, C. Tr7j2]h., 48). 3 oî à'TTof/.vi^ft.ovivo'avTiç h. ch. 43, 100. Comp. Matt. i. 16 ; Luke iii. 23. ' Dial. c. TryjjJi. ch. 77, 78, 88, 102, 106, seven times. J |y ')'aeter haec nostra (Pseudo- Tertull., Praescr. 49), His disciples called it the true gospel {ev. verltatis), and Irenaeus (iii. 11) designates it as in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evange- His. But what Tertullian says of it {loc. cit. 38), as well as the little treatise of his disciple Ptolemaeus, which Epiphanius {Haer. 33) preserves to us, and the extracts printed at the end of Clement's works, hardly go beyond the canonical texts (see Reuss., Geschichte des N. T. §§ 245, 508). I may also mention here the gospel of tlie Egyptians, quoted frequently by Clement, Origen, and Epiphanius, and used in what is called the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, a Catholic work. This book contained words of .Jesus Christ which were undoubtedly apocryphal, but were sometimes reproduced without any suspicion. HERESY. 71 It is proper here to remind my readers that in the second century there also appeared a great number of pseudonymous books — i.e., books falsely attributed to authors of the first century. I have no wish at present to discuss this kind of literature; still it is important to remark that the very possibility of producing it with any chance of success proves that the church did not yet possess an official collection so distinct that exclusion from it was enough to condemn a book and stamp it as prohibited. This remark applies specially to a great number of apocryphal Acts of various apostles, mostly of Gnostic origin, wherein the plan, generally romantic and full of marvels, served to introduce their authors' doctrines, which were put in the mouths of the heroes. Such books (and the same may be said of many gospels) were much read by those who greedily accepted all stories of miracles ; the only precaution taken was to suppress the heretical dis- courses. Mutilated or expurgated editions circulated with- out hindrance in the Catholic Churches. A great number of these Gospels or these Acts, called heretical or Gnostic by the Fathers, have come down to us, and have been printed in recent years. But in most cases, the heterodox elements have altogether disappeared. They were read in this form in the churches, conjointly with the canonical books, on saints' days (Joseph, Mary) and on the days of the apostles they celebrated." We know further, that the apocalyptic form was sometimes also employed to introduce to the pub- lic doctrines opposed to ecclesiastical tradition, or merely the fancies, more or less inoffensive, of some excited brain. The epistolary form was less suited to this kind of theological industry ; still it too was represented in the pseudonymous ' For all these matters, see my GescMchte des N. T. §§ 236, 279, wliere are given the patristic proofs for each detail. 72 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. library of the period, which was far richer than that of the apostolic writings. Let us return to the history of the latter, and to the use made of them by the heretics. There is still one most interesting fact to be pointed out to my readers. The first trace in all ancient Christian literature of the existence of a collection of apostolic books, is connected with the name of the heretic Marcion. I have already said that this Gnostic philosopher, occupied with the necessity for basing his system on apostolic texts in order to obtain acceptance for it, chose from among them those least unfavourable to his views, after altering them however (as it appears), and suppressing everything which did not agree completely with his theory. His collection consisted of two parts, which he called the Gospel and the Apostle} The first division I have already discussed ; the second in- cluded ten epistles of Paul. It would be wrong to call this a scriptural Canon in the sense which afterwards was current in the church, for Marcion was far from regarding Paul as an absolute authority. Still less should any great literary importance be attached to his collection, as if it proved anything whatever against the authenticity of the epistles not contained in it. Nevertheless this collection is very curious ; for it is easy to see that it was made quite independently, and with no previous usage to determine its form. So much may be clearly inferred from the list of the epistles, as Marcion had classed them, accord- ing to the authors who mention it. He placed them in the following order : Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon, Philip- pians. Epiphanius makes a great outcry about this arrangement, because in his time — i.e. in the fourth cen- ' Among the authors who can be consulted on this point, are specially Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. and Epiphanius, Haer. 42. HEKESY. 73 tiiry 1 — another arrangement had been general!}' adopted. Much clamour was also made about the substitution of the name of the Laodiceans for that of the Ephesians. But these very peculiarities, which had no connection whatever with the author's theological prejudices, should direct our attention to the collection itself When he put the name of Laodicea in the passage where we now read that of Ephesus, Marcion may have simply made a conjecture based on Col. iv. 16, a conjecture which many moderns, not Mar- cionites, have likewise adopted ; but he may also have had in his hands a manuscript which did not contain the name Ephesus, such as existed in the time of St. Basil" and exists even yet at the present time.^ At any rate as he had not the least interest in preferring one name to the other, it may be inferred that no constant tradition, no collection officially circulated, was in existence to determine his choice. The order adopted for the epistles is still more significant. This order is evidently based on the chronology. According to the general consent of modern criticism, Marcion was wrong about the epistles to the Thessalonians, but criticism supports him regarding all the others ; and it must be agreed that in this he gave evidence of great exe- getical sagacity, or that he received good instruction from others who before him had already been making similar re- searches. The order which was finally adopted in the Catholic Churches is not at all rational, for it consists in l^utting the longest epistles first and ending with the shortest, or in assigning their places according to the political importance of the cities. Now I ask which of the two arrangements is the earliest, that which shows so great ' It is not true that the order of the books of the New Testament was constantly the same in the local manuscript collections. I shall return to this point further on. ^ Basil, c. Eunom. i. 224. 3 The Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. 74 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. an understanclincj of real and living historv and of its im- portance for the study of the texts, or that which betrays so profound an historical ignorance, such complete forgetfulness of the necessity of connecting the reading of the espistles with the memories of their origin, a deference for Rome, un- known in the early days of the Church, methods in short so poor and superficial ? Let there be no mistake about my meaning. I do not maintain that in Marcion's time no Catholic Church had as yet any collection of epistles (I have even shown that the contrary is very probable) ; but I think that in all the extent of territory traversed by Marcion, no church, not even Rome, possessed the collection which was afterwards inserted in the canon — i.e., the collec- tion complete, closed and arranged in the order which was finally adopted. I have even material proofs of this and to these I shall return by-and-by. It is useless to prolong this discussion for which there would be no lack of materials, although we have them only at second hand and in a very fragmentary state, the authen- tic documents having long ago perished, with the exception of a very small number.^ The result of our researches is clear enough, and it is this — that in a portion of the Church which was notable at this period, but of little importance for the future, the use of the apostolic writings was almost unknown, and was restricted to evangelic narratives whicli ' The summary here made of the results of the testimony of the heretics applies at the same time to the testimony of the pagans on which the English apologists of the last century laid so much weight, using it to refute the pagans of their time who denied tlie antiquity of the books of the N. T. This kind of defence is no longer necessary for rational people. Celsus (whose writings are preserved only in Origen's extracts) also attests that certain writings, gospels, and epistles, were in his day read and quoted in the Christian Church. His quotations prove equally the existence and propagation of books now non-canonical. JSTowhere does he speak of a col- lection closed and official ; and he even indicates, though he does not make war on the Gnostics, that the text of the gospels was undei-goiug alteration (■mXkuxV f^ira'^Xâ.TTiiy, Orig., C. Ccls.U. 27). HERESY. 75 the Catholic Fathers of the next century found to be in part open to grave suspicion. The Gnostics, on the other hand, manifest great interest in these writings. They not only use them homiletically, but they also make commen- taries, opposing them to the tradition of the Church against which they were making war. They go even so far as to alter their form to suit their polemics or their theories. For this purpose they also quoted apostolic tradition ; ^ but they found it in the texts of the apostles interj^reted in conformity with the words of the Lord, and not in the mouths of the bishops. It was by virtue of this latter form of tradition that Gnosticism was arrested on the threshold of the Church, and not in the least by an official collection of books of a canon of the New Testament, the very ex- istence of which would have refuted their claims. For had there been a canon, the orthodox church would have had nothing to do but protest against the pseudonymous writ- ings of the Gnostics ; the recent origin of these books could liave been demonstrated simply by comparing them with the authentic instrument. We have seen that the members and leaders of the churches, so far from proceeding in this way iand repelling Gnosticism by the previous question, do not themselves adhere to any invariable list of writings reputed to be apostolic. ' (à.'trotrroXix.h •^a.faèoiri;) >iv ix. ^ia.^/>^T)s xa) >if/,Hs '7rapiiXr,^ocfiiv [/.îrà x.a.1 raO xavovlireti ■TrctvTa; roùs Xiyav; ri toD (ruTTJfos S/SairxaX/a (Ptolem., EjJ. ud Flovatll, ap. Epiph., Haer., 33. CHAPTER V. CATHOLICISM. The use or the abuse of the names and the books of the apostles among the Gnostics of the second century might react in two ways, ahnost diametrically opposed, on the spirit and method of their adversaries. The most direct and, from a psychological point of view, the most natural effect, was to cause a more exclusive adherence to that source of Christian instruction which Gnosticism neglected or rejected — viz., tradition. This was not only supported by the very names to which heresy appealed, but it also presented a double advantage in that it was a uniform and self-consistent authority, and contained teaching which had always kept in the van of the development of Christian thought, and might therefore be easily applied to the debates of the day. Apart altogether from the results ob- tained by philosophical speculation which professed to base itself on texts, which results were open to suspicion from their diversity and their novelty, the labour necessary for attain- ing them, this exegetical study, so arduous, uncertain, and arbitrary, brought into relief the advantages of the earlier and more usual method pursued in the church. That method consisted in accepting simply and frankly whatever was transmitted from one generation to another by the mouth of the bishops. This did not hinder the homiletic use of the apostles' writings, which there was no intention of restricting ; but it prevented the possible errors of a sub- jective interpretation, which could only be held within bounds by a positive and distinct rule. What I am stating here is no gratuitous supposition ; it is a fact attested by all CATHOLICISM. 77 the organs of the rising Catholicism ^ — i.e., of that universal Christian Church which, at the end of its victorious contest with Gnosticism, had put to flight not only a speculative philosophy which was fundamentally opposed to the gospel of the Bible, but also a Jewish prejudice, and had at the same time arrived at complete self-consciousness. In proof of this it would be sufficient to give a few out of many possible quotations, or I might do without proof al- together, since the CathoHc Church has remained faithful to its principle down to our own time. The Tide of faith which united and guided the Church consisted in believing and teaching the existence of one God who had made the world from nothing by His Son, the Word, who after having appeared to the patriarchs and inspired the prophets, had finally become flesh in the womb of the Virgin, that He might come to preach a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; and who, crucified, risen from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father, sends now the power of the Holy Spirit to direct believers, and will one day return to receive them into glory and to punish un- believers with fire eternal." That is the whole of Chris- tianity, the rule, the canon of the Church.^ It deals with principles and facts, not with books. No doubt there may be a desire for greater knowledge on more than one point ; but, if the essential truth is known, it is better to remain in ignorance than to learn what ought not to be known. It is faith that saves, and not the study of the Scriptures. Faith adheres to the rule and arrives at its end by submitting to its law ; study is a matter of curiosity, and the glory result- ' The name of the Church Catholic is found for the first time in the letter from Ignatius to the Church of Smyrna, and then in the letter from the same church written about the martyrdom of Polycarp. From this period onward, it was in general use. ^ TertuU., Dc prœ.scr. liaer. cli. 13. , 3 liegula Jîdei, xavàv îxKXnineca-rixc;. 78 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. ing from it is infinitely less important than salvation.^ Thus, so far from making appeal to Scripture, or placing discussion on a ground where victory is always uncertain, the right way is to begin by asking where is the true faith by whom and to whom Christian teaching has Ijeen transmitted ? Then only will it be seen where the true interpretation of Scripture and the true traditions are." Beyond this, an exegetical debate will have no other effect than that of up- setting your stomach or your brain.^ The heretics will always be able to escape you if you try to refute them by scriptural proofs ; there is only one sure means of vindicat- meritiœ studio. Cedat curio- sitasjidti, cedat gloria sabiti (Tertull., loc. cit. 14). - Ergo non ad scripturas provocaiidum est, nee in his constituendum cer- tamen quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est . . . nunc solum disputandum, est cid competat fdes ipsa ? a quo et per quos et quibns sit tradita disciplina qua fiunt Christ'mni ? ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinai et Jidei, illic erit Veritas scriptzirarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum (Ter- tull., loc. cit. cli. 19). ' Nihil proficit congressio scripturarum nisi ut axit stomachi quis ineat eversionem aut cerebri (Tertull. I. c. ch. 16). * Thv ?ra,faioiTit tÛv àTeffrôkav Èv '^eée-ri IttxXntrlr •nâf.iffTiv àvayiafiffat toÎ; TaXnOri ipav iêïXov(r4, xal ï^o/itv »u.Ta.piCf/.iLv tov; wxi T-tv ÙTToffT'oXuv xaraora.: t-Tcc; 'yiioxè- ■xavs xai roui ^iahï,afiiitv; avrov; 'in; rif^ûv (Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 3.) 5 Su7it multa verba in Scrij>turis divinis quœ vossunt trahi ad eum sensum quem sibi xmusquisque sponte prœsumsit . . . ideo ab eo oportet intelUgentiam SS. discere qui earn a majoribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam servat (liecogn., x. 4'2), CATHOLICISM. 79 It is needless to multiply quotations on this point. The Protestant opposition of the sixteenth century c)f itself testifies that Catholicism remained only too faithful in its attachment to this principle of subordinating Scripture to tradition, and only too logically pushed it to all its conse- quences. Still it would be unjust, if we neglected to note another tendency which arose at the same time, and may also be regarded as a natural re-action against the pre- sumptuous boldness of Gnosticism as well as the impoverish- ing stagnation of the Jewish-Christian spirit. The same theologians who pleaded so energetically for the privilege of tradition, were also the most eloquent panegyrists of the apostles, and the first to recognise in them explicitly a special and exceptional inspiration. It is not difiicult to state the causes of this movement, which resulted in causing a great advance to be made on the question of the canon. In the first place, according to a law of the human mind, the distance which separated the generation living after the middle of the second century, from the glorious period of the foundation of the church, increased the glories of that period to the imagination. The daily experience of the im- perfections of the actual reality made the picture of the primitive state appear brilliant as an ideal ; in face of more than one symptom of corruption, the communities of the first age seemed to be free from every fault ; miracles, grown rare, and hardly known except by hearsay, shed a great lustre over the age in which they had been frequent ; and the religious and dogmatic dissensions which agitated the churches and absorbed its best forces, caused many to turn with bitter regret to a time in which it was supposed these had been unknown.^ Ah ! if they had really read and ' Mj_3^f< Tuv Tcri p^pituv Tapeivo; xaêapà, 'Bf/.tiv£v h IxxXruriK, Iv ah'/iXeo rrou Tii ÇetiXivûVTCtiv tiffin tots tu» Tapci(phlpziv ixi^iipoôvfuv tov vyirj xaviva rav ffurnpir.u xnpvyiA.a.To;, 'fif S o Upls rut àrroffrcXeiiv xh"' S'^K^S' '^ov /S'"" riXo; •ra.piXriXÎiêii t» V yivik iKi'ivr), rnnixavra ttJs àê'iou ^Xâvtjs rii» àp^riv ixâ/xliaviv w a-iffraffi; x. t. X» (Hegesippus, ap. Euseb., iii. 32.) 80 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. meditated on the epistles, as certain modern authors main- tain they did, they would have found numerous proofs to the contrary, they would have seen exhortations, reproaches, acts of discipline, incessant discussions, just as there were a hundred years later; and, certainly, in our opinion, the generation which remained steadfast in its faith in spite of the coldblooded Roman laws and the insensate rage of a population drunk Avith blood, was not unworthy of re- ceiving the heritage bequeathed to it by the simpler and sometimes less enlightened enthusiasm of its fathers. But custom and discussion had somewhat chilled its ardour ; there was not the same ready devotion to chimerical hopes, and for that reason many loved to invigorate their moral forces by returning to the past. The more the heavenly Jerusalem once so eagerly expected faded away fi^om the eyes of the Church, the more the colours that had been lent to it enhanced the remembrance of what once had been ac- complished in the earthly Jerusalem, and of what had come forth from it for the salvation of the world. If this was specially the view of the masses who rightly estimated their immediate surroundings though they were deceived by the perspective, we must not refuse praise to the leaders of the churches, to the theologians above all and writers, for the deference and respect which they as gene- rally but more intelligently showed towards the memory of their illustrious predecessors. Not only were the apostles extolled as the founders of the churches which might al- ready have been celebi-ating the centenary of their origin, had their rough fortunes given them leisure to think of chronology ; not only were the names and persons of the apostles made resplendent by the reflected glory of the Lord ; but all admiration was given to the literary monu- ments which some of them had bequeathed to posterity ; a modest pleasure was felt in recognising the spirit that had CATHOLICISM. 81 dictated their ■writings ; and with a complete abnegation of self-esteem, their admirers marked the distance which separ- ated the glowing eloquence, the sublime teaching, the preg- nant brevity of those few pages, fi'om the colourless imitations of a more recent period, the authors of which would certainly be the first to acknowledge their barren coldness, their dull and wearisome prolixity. The difference was one that could not be ovei'looked, and literary instinct, quite as much as religious sentiment, was soon compelled to give a special place to such of the writings of the first generation of Christians as had fortunately been saved. The unfamiliar form of the Greek idiom which the apostles had used, so far from presenting any difiiculty to writers who looked more to the subject-matter, gave a special outward distinction to these writings, and brought them into closer contact with the more ancient sacred literature which had been read only in that form. In the case of the most fertile author of the . first century, and the most indefatigable missionary founder of churches, there was further a necessity for show- ing personal gratitude, which necessity was increased by the opposition his name and glory were always en- countering from a considerable part of Christendom. Paul's importance was bound to grow in the eyes of the com- munities of Syria, Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, Egypt, and Rome, simply because in other spheres, narrower in a double sense, his memory and his preaching were some- times passed over in affected silence, sometimes secretly or openly attacked. To the churches of these countries, he was the apostle par excellence, and if they had no intention of pushing their zeal to the extent of excluding other apostles who were extolled exclusively by the Jewish-Chris- tians, at least not one of these apostles could, from a literary point of view, dispute with him the first place. This attitude of mind towards those who had inaugurated F 82 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. the great work, an attitude right enough in itself and universally upheld by succeeding generations, will appear to us all the more natural that it has been constantly assumed in similar circumstances towards the most distin- guished teachers of the great periods of history. With what a halo these illustrious theologians, who were them- selves so modest towards their predecessors, and whose authority is consecrated by the name Fathers as by a kind of proper name — with what a halo they are surrounded in the eyes of all those who have not broken with tradition 1 How often too have our reformers, in the midst of an age more inclined to discuss every title than to acknowledge any superiority whatever, not only been surrounded by a respect justly due to them, but also clothed with a de- cisive authority to which they were the last to lay claim ! By the side of so many faults and so much vanity, this in- stinctive deference for true greatness, above all when it re- acts on the will and is not falsified by the prejudices of dialectic analysis, is a happy and comforting trait in human nature. I cannot pass over in silence another fact which may have exercised a certain influence on the formation of the idea of inspiration, I mean Montanism. The most salient feature of this special religious tendency was the exaggeration of that principle, the assertion of a unique claim on the part of some to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, above all to prophecy. If up to this time the action of the Holy Spirit on the inner life of the faithful had always been spoken of in such a way as to exclude no one, these claims to a privileged communi- cation now taught Christians to distinguish between the ordinary and the extraordinary, between the natural and the miraculous ; and further, as the pretended extraordinary inspiration of the new prophets, in its strange and disorderly manifestations, seemed like a caricature of what had been CATHOLICISM. 8 3 attributed to the ancients, Christians came to recognise in the inspiration of the prophets and apostles a phenomenon really special and unique. By rejecting Montanism not only * in its errors but also in the evangelical part of its principles, the Church drew a line of demarcation round apostolic times, and expressed its opinion that these were distinguished from later times, not only by exceptional historical facts but also by religious and psychological facts j)eculiar to that })eriod. The Gospel had not intended to restrict these facts to the first century ; but sentiment, which does not permit of such distinctions, had gradually given place to reflection, and' some external circumstance alone was needed to give the latter an occasion for formulating its categories and defining its laws. Finally, there was still another and more direct way in which the methods adopted by the Gnostic philosophers increased the estimate of the writings of the apostles even within the pale of the Church. If the heretics claimed to found their doctrines on these writings, there was all the greater reason that the Catholics should study them from the same point of view, whereas, up to this time, they had been content to found their teaching on a tradition still pure and living. When the books were put forward to contradict or modify this tradition, and there was no room for doubting their authenticity, it was natural that the fact should be examined and the pretended difference verified. On the other hand, as the dissenting schools were also producing unknown or suspected books in support of their systems, the orthodox found it necessary to distinguish more clearly the two classes of works and assure themselves of their respective value. In these two directions, the great struggle fought in the domain of pure dogma had its results also in a more precise knowledge, a more profound study, a more careful examination of a literature which hitherto had only been 84 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. employed to a limited extent, and could not but gain by being more fully known. It was also about this same time, according to history, that there began a universal propaga- tion of the apostolic books, a greater activity on the part of individuals and churches in collecting and utilising them, • whether in theological discussions, or in the readings made at public assemblies. This fact I am going to establish by an attentive analysis of the authors of the end of the second century and beginning of the third. I shall point out by turns what relates to the general point of view just noted as an advance in theological ideas, and what concerns the detail of literary and ecclesiastical facts. The first author, in the order of time, who furnishes clear evidence of this advance, is Theophilus of Antioch. In the course of his A-pology^ after speaking of the prophets of the Old Testament and of their inspiration, proved both by their foretelling the future and by their perfect agreement, and after likening them to the Greek Sibyl, he goes on else- where- to put the Gospels on the same level, expressly claiming for the latter the same inspiration as for the former. It is true that on this occasion the author is only making a comparison between texts from the prophets and axioms from the Sermon on the Mount in order to establish the unity and excellence of revealed moralit}^, so that we might be tempted to refer the inspiration of which he speaks not so much to the evangelic hoolcs as to the person of the Lord who speaks in them. But in other passages he clearly attributes this inspiration, if not to the writings taken ^ Theoph. 0.d AutoL, ii. 9: ol toO éioD avépa-roi ■^rviv/xaTolpôpoi WitJfidTo; aytav, v'Tt aVTOv Tov êiov i[A'7r\iivffêivri; xal ffoipiffeivTig lyivovro ûiooioaKTot. . . . âoyava êiov yi)i'of^i\iot. . . . Kat oi'X, iiS >! Sûo âXXà TXtien; lyivvtenfocv vapà'Efipa,i'iitSf àXXà xal ■rap"'EXXti(ri Si'/SuÀXa, y.xl ■râvri; ÇiîXa àXX^Xois xal (riJf/,(pava i'ip-^xairi». . . . (comp. ii. 33, 35). ^ ^ Ax'oXovêa ivpîo-iciTiiii KoX ra tÛv -TrpoÇrirùv xal tÛv ivayyixiuv 'îx,''^') ^'^ "''' ^*'^» ^à.\,ra; <7r)iiiiy.a.Tûipopov; \n ■Xvivf/.x'n êiov X%Xa.Xr,xiva,i (lil. 12). CATHOLICISM. 85 objectively, at least to their authors. Thus, some pages further on, he quotes a phrase from the first Epistle to Timothy with the formula: the divine word,^ a formula which not only indicates the intrinsic value of the passage quoted, liut ought certainly to remind us of its supernatural origin. Elsewhere," when developing the doctrine regarding the hypostatic and creative Word, Theophilus analyses first in this sense the narrative of Genesis and then transcribes, as if to summarise and confirm his theory, the first lines of the Gospel of John. He thus considers the latter to be inspired though still distinguishing it from the Holy Scrijitures, a term reserved for the Old Testament. This last distinction is specially interesting as marking the progressive develop- ment of theological ideas. It clearly shows how the notion of a privileged inspiration, by which the Apostles were elevated to the rank of the prophets, was gradually added to the very much earlier conception of the Holy Scripture — i.e., of the Old Testament. If the apology for Christianity addressed by Theophilus to the pagan Autolycus has furnished me with only a few texts relating to my special purpose, it is quite different with the two writers who closely followed him. They are much engrossed with the necessity for defending the pure gospel against heresy, and continually assert, as the basis and source of all legitimate Christian teaching, the collective, unanimous, and equal authority of the apostles and of tradi- tion. These of course are Irenaeus and Tertullian, the true representatives of Catholicism in the ancient sense of that word, and, in some sort, the founders of it in theological literature. It is altogether superfluous to collect from these authors passages proving that everywhere they make much of tradi- ■ iii. 14 : ô htos Xoyo;. 11. _■_ : ai i^yia.1 ypafal kuI -râvrî; ol Tvîuf.i.a'rafipol, i^ àv 'laccvv/i; Xiyii a. r. X 8G HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. tion ; that, accoi'ding to them, the Spirit of God comes to individuals only by means of the Church in its corporate capacity, so much so, that it may be said not only that the Church is where the Spirit is, but also that the Spirit is where the Church is ; ^ that the guardians of tradition, the regularly constituted heads of the various communities, principally of those founded by the apostles themselves and of Rome above all," are also the best teachers of the truth ;^ that entire peoples may believe in Christ and carefully pre- serve the ancient tradition without the aid of paper and ink ;^ in short, that if by chance the apostles had written nothing, recourse would have to be made to the tradition of the churches founded by them, and this would be done without any danger of mistake.^ It is therefore by a singular delusion that certain modern authors transform these Fathers into Protestant theologians, solely intent on the absolute and exclusive authority of the apostolic scrip- tures, and setting out from this gratuitous supposition, which is entirely contrary to the spirit and the texts of the period, infer the existence of a scriptural canon which had been for some time fixed and universally adopted. Still, on the other hand, if Irenaeus and Tertullian felt before all the need of being consciously in communion with the earliest churches, of asserting the uninterrupted suc- cession of the legitimate channels of tradition, and conse- ' Irenaeus iii. , 24, § 1 : Uln enim cccleftia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et uhi Spiritus Dei ibi ecdesia. . . . cujus non 2}cirtici2/ant omnes qui non currunt ad ecclesiam. = Irenaeus iii., 1, §2; comp. TertuU., Adv. Marc, iv., 5. De Praescr, 36. 3 Irenaeus iv. , 26, § 5 : Discere 02)orttt veritattm ajnul quos est ea qua. est ah apostolis ecdesice successio ; comp. § 2. ■* TlokXÙ iêvn TU)/ liapliupeov TUti li; XpiirTov mcTTivovTUDi ^oipl; ^aprov xal f/,;Xctvos yiypafiif/ivriv 'i^ovn; àià ^v. ày. Iv raî; napûicci; t'/jv ireur'/jpîav xui Triv àp^aiav vrapoi^oo-iv ÇvXâaffovri;. . . . (Iren. , iii. 4, § 2.) 5 Ibid,, J §1 : ... . ovx, àp 'ion (prJTai Ix^pu^av, ô KVfioi Qîôa^iv, à-TrôiXToXiii ■raf'ùax.a.v. — Tert., Prœscr., 36 : [Ecclesia) legem et p)rophetas cmn evangelicis et apostolicis Uteris miscet. 3 Ireu iii. 21, § 4. Let me observée, in passing, that inspiration is claimed for the Septuagint on the same grounds and to the same extent as for the prophets and the apostles. •* Universae scriptnrae, et pn'Ophetiae et evangelia (Iren ii. 27 ; comp. Tert. , De praescr, 14 s. s passim. De resurr. carnis, 22, 25, 27, etc.) CATHOLICISM. 89 more than once I shall have to return to facts of this kind. But it was precisely against this subjective criticism that the authors I am analysing took up their stand. According to them, the churches which, from the earliest times, have been in possession of the writings of the apostles, are always a guarantee for their authenticity, and against their agree- ment there is no appeal.^ It is true this did not prevent any book which presented itself under the name of an apostle but was not generally known from being examined from a dogmatic stand-point, in order to have its value determined.^ Besides these Fathers, who were thoroughly conservative and champions of tradition, we have others who were more influenced by the philosophical movement, But while these claimed for themselves the right of study and the glory of a science more advanced and more profound than that of the common herd, and therefore plumed themselves on the name of Gnostics, they none the less remained at- tached to the principles of Catholicism, both for the sub- stance of their beliefs and for their standards of the truth. Thus in regard to the apostolic writings, they make declar- ations very similar to those I have just recorded. For the period which we are considering provisionally, the principal author to be consulted is Clement of Alexandria. If we do not find in him those energetic protestations which appear on every page of Irenaeus and Tertullian, at any rate he also ^ Tert., De prœscr. 36, quoted a little ago. — Id., Depudic. 10, in speak- ing of the Pastor of Hernias : db omni concilio ecclesiarum falsa judicatur. — Id. , De prœscr. 28 : Qiiod apud multos imum invenitur, non est erratum. Audeat ergo aliquis dicere illos errasse qui tradiderunt, ' Eusebius (vi. 12), relates a noteworthy instance. The bishop Serapion, a contemporary of Irenaeus, had found a pretended gospel of Peter in use in his diocese. At first he saw no harm in it and did not proscribe it ; but when he discovered in it traces of Docetism, he put his churcli on their guard against this book, while he protested his attachment to Peter and all the apostles, nirpov kuI tov; âXXcvi àaoff-ToXsu; à'TTooi^cfjt.îêu. m; Xpicrrôv. 90 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. knows no other rule than the harmony of the Church with the apostles/ and the harmony of the apostles with the prophets.^ With him, too, the frequent quotations taken from the epistles are expressly introduced as the words of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles are represented as pos- sessing completely all the gifts which other believers receive only partially. But it is important here to remember that the speculative school, of which Clement was one of the first and most bril- liant representatives, finding itself hampered by the narrow limits of the traditional teaching, and at the same time obliged to prove its agreement with that teaching or with Scripture, revived the hermeneutic method of the profound and hidden meaning which had already corrupted the theo- logy of the Jews and was thenceforth to invade that of the Christians. Everywhere parables, allegories, mysteries;^ were discovered ; and if in other places we see the beautiful thought of Jesus maintained, that the simple are best able to understand the gospel, provided they possess the neces- sary moral qualities, here we see theologians pride them- selves on a special sagacity, look with pity on simple believers, glory in that wrongly applied saying of the ' Strom, vii. pp. 762 f. 'H/mv fj.'ovo; à I» uÙtccÎ; xaTa.y>)pâiTiti (rù> rZ iùayyiXiM iv ovôficcTi Xpia-Toù ù; fiiat (Tuvâyavrat yiZffiv. This last passage expressly says that this harmony exists in so far as the Scriptures are explained in the Clii'istian sense, and this must be everywhere understood. This Christian sense was simply tiie traditional faith. 3 narra ypaifti à; Iv ■!rapa(ioX-/i s'ipy,fiiv/i (StrOm., V. p. 575). — Outs, n '^rpolpnTilx aî/Tî i ffuiT'/ip XTXâ; Ta êiia fA.v(rTripia à'rrKpê'iy^aro àXX' Iv 'rapajioXai;. . . . 'Eyxpvirr- ovTai TOV vovv al y fecial 'iva ^tiTtiTixoi V'riiipx'>>/*'V, . . . toi; ÏxXixtoi; tuv àvlpui'X'uv Toi; ix TiTTiu; ili yvucriv iyxpiToi;, Tvspuvf/.iva to. uyia fÂ,virTnpia, TrapuptoXui; lyxaXv- ■TTTii-ai ». T. X. {Ibid., vi. pp. 676 11.) CATHOLICISM. 91 apostle that knowledge is not possible to eveiy one,^ and pursue the noble and perilous aim of extending its domains. Those whose faith was summarised in the few lines which finally became the universal credo and are known to us by the name of the Apostles' Creed, had doubtless no need to trouble themselves about exegesis for proving its authority ; nor did their profession of respect for the apostles (as may well be supposed) contain any Protestant meaning of oppos- ing their writings to ecclesiastical tradition. As to the philosophers, I mean the school of Alexandria and many other theologians who took part in scientific work in the development of theology, they no doubt professed an equal respect for Scripture, but they wrought constantly and with a very marked, but, in some respects,^ regrettable success in transforming the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of the Church. ' Strom, vii. p. 763. ^ It is needless to enter into the details of this special series of facts. Every one knows the wildness of patristic exegesis ; what seems to be less known, or less remarked, is the quite as great and more guilty wildness of modern exegesis. CHAPTER VI. THE COLLECTIONS IN USE TOWARDS THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. I HAVE now established this much that, before the end of the second century, Catholic theology had raised the writings of the apostles to the level of those of the prophets ^ in regard to their inspiration and authority ; it remains now for us to examine what were the writings to which this privilege was accorded, and to draw up a list of them. This part of our work would be very easy, if there existed any- where an official document, a synodal declaration of this period, or even a catalogue made by a known and trust- worthy author, for this might have told us in few words what was the complete series of apostolic books adopted by the church. We possess indeed two texts which may and ought to be quoted here. Unfortunately neither of them belongs to Greek Christianity, and they therefore cannot be completely relied on for establishing its usages. Beyond these, we are confined to scattered, accidental passages in the authors of the time. By uniting these passages, by comparing them with one another, we may succeed, not in restoring the canonical collection of the New Testament as it existed &t that time (for I shall prove ' And not as it is sometimes pnt in our day, the Old Testament to the level of the New. The inspiration of the prophets, as well as the privileged posi- tion which they and their books on that accoimt held, was an undisputed fact in theological science and in popular belief ; it was contested only by Gnostic Antinomianism. The prophets could not grow in dignity. — TertuU., Depudic, ch 12 : Xos in apostoUs quoque veteris legis formam scdutamus. COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 93 tliat none existed), but in jBnding out what were the books read more or less generally to the people in their assemblies, and cited as authorities in the writings of theologians. Of course I shall give special attention only to what con- cerns the writings of the apostles ; still, to clear away every prejudice, I shall once more remind my readers that the Christian theologians of this period knew the Old Testament only in its Greek form (in the Septuagint), and consequently tliat they made no distinction between what we call canonical books (Hebrew) and apocryphal books (Greek). They quote both with the same confidence, with the same formulas of honour, and attribute to them an equal authority based on an equal inspiration.^ As this fact needs no lengthy demonstration, I pass to my chief subject and summon the witnesses in order, as was done with pre- ceding generations. I shall not spend time in discussing Theophilus of Antioch, an author who must be put at the head of this new series for reasons already given. The few direct quotations found in his book have all been mentioned already. It may be added that there are also in his writings frequent reminiscences of Paul's epistles," j^erhaps even of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the first of Peter, although these last amount only to the use of one word.^ There are no traces of the Acts, nor of the Apocalypse, nor of the other Catholic epistles ; on the whole, he is one of those wdio scarcely use the Avritings of the apostles except for rhetorical or homiletical purposes, ' See e.g. regarding Wisdom, Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 515, Sylb. [it êi'ia. iToipitt.) ; ibid., v. 583 [ô laXofiùv) ; Tertullian, Adv. Valent., cli. 2 (ip»a Sophia, non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis) ; regarding Ecclesiasiicus, Tertullian, Exhort, cast. , ch. 2 {sictit scriptum est) ; regarding the story of Bel and the Dragon, Irenaeus, iv. 5 {Daniel propheia) ; regarding Baruch Irenaeus, v. 35 (Jeremias propheta); Clement, Paed., ii. 161 {h ê-Aa ypaÇri) etc. Regarding the tlieory, see Irenaeus, iii. 21, § 4, quoted above. = Comp. e.g. i. 6, U ; ii. 16, 17, 22, 36 ; iii. 2. 3 a-T'.pia Tpo^h (ii. 25, Heb. v. 12) — àê'./MTo; il^uXnXarpîI^ii (ii. .34, 1 Pet. iv. 3). 94) HISTORY OF THE CANOX OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. and in this respect he might have l^een ranked along with his predecessors. I shall, however, note this other fact that he is the first Catholic writer who speaks by name of the Apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Some modern critics have availed themselves of this circumstance to suppose that the book only dates from the middle of the century ; but I have shown that for a long time previous the Gnostic teachers had made this gospel the subject of their speculative studies. The silence of the Catholic writers then arises from more causes than one, and the ex- planations I have given regarding the general progress of ideas ought to dispel all doubts on this point. In chronological order we come now to a document much more important, because it is the earliest that contains a genuine catalogue of apostolic books. This is the celebrated fragment known by the name of the Muratorian Canon. Muratori was an Italian scholar. He had found in a manu- script of the eighth century, belonging to the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and formerly in the convent of Bobbie, a little treatise in very bad, or at least far from intelligible, Latin. Some lines of it were missing both at the beginning and the end, but the part preserved contained the names of the books which the Catholic Church (term in the text) is said to acknowledge as apostolic, and to which it appeals as an authority against the heretical books. Muratori had this fragment printed in his Italian Antiquities of the Middle Ages,^ in 174^0, and since that time several scholars have applied themselves to study it in its bearings on the history of the canon, and have made new collations of the manu- script. Most of these critics have made an outcry about the copyist's ignorance, the frightful barbarity of his Latin, his ' L. A. Muratori, Antlqziitates Italiae medii aevi, iii. 854. See the fac-simile of the fragment in the work by the late S. P. Tregelles. Canon Muratorianus, Oxford, 1867, 4. COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 95 gross solecisms. Corruptions, omissions, faults of translation, liave been vseen in it to any extent ; and some, making the most of all these faults as facts convenient to their purpose, have manipulated the test in an arbitrary fashion to obtain from it what they wished, to efface awkward statements and insert in it titles which were wanting. All this cannot be tolerated by good and healthy criticism. I admit that the copyist had before him an original which had in part become illegible ; ^ but the gi^eater part of its alleged faults in Latin may be regarded as caused by a pronunciation evidently local or provincial, and a very vulgar dialect. The great im- portance and the curious peculiarities of this document compel me to devote some time to its examination. I give a complete analysis, which is supported in the notes by the transcription of the text in its authentic form. The list of the apostolic books included at first four gospels, and Luke and John are named as the authors of the last two. The writer of the treatise insists on the con- nection and conformity of these four books in regard both to the facts narrated and to the spirit that dictated them. That to begin with is a very important point. This number four, these gospels forming a collection by themselves and opposed to everything analogous which might exist in the literature of the time — these are facts quite new in the history of the canon, and their novelty is not due merely to the accidental silence of the earlier authors. On the contrary, my nai-rative has shown that the usages were very different, that there was no oftjcial decision or choice made regarding the source of the evangelic history in the previous period, when oral tradition was still contending for ' The text begins, after leaving a space blank, with some words relating, it would appear, to the gospel of Mark, and passes immediately to the third gospel. 96 HISTOKY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. the first place with the written texts, and favouring a freer use of the latter/ After the gospels, the author passes to the Acts of the Apostles. With regard to Acts, the Catholic Church recognises only one single work, that of Luke, beginning with these words: Optime Théophile, and narrating what had taken place in the presence of the author.- As the legend of Peter's martyrdom was at that time attracting much attention, as well as the tradition of a journey made by Paul to Spain, the author expressly adds that it is not found in Acts, but elsewhere.^ Observe that this is the first direct mention of the book of Acts in all ancient literature. In the paragraph devoted to the epistles of Paul, the author fixes their number and order, and adds various ob- servations which we must not neglect. I place the entire ' As this first part cannot give rise to any doubts, I do not copy the text of it. - Luke's work being anonymous, the author of course transcribed the first words in order to indicate it sufficiently. Further, it is clear from what he says of it liow far the readers at this period were from being critic- ally exact. No one now-a-days will admit that Luke was everywhere an eye-witness. . . . acta autem 07miium ajjostolorum sub uno lihro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofi le comprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicut et semote passionem 2Ktri evidenter déclarât sed profectionem pmuli ab ur be ad spaniam itroficescentin . . . 3 Is this an allusion to Luke xxii. 33, or perhaps even to John xxi. 18? Or have we here some notice of a lost book ? As to the journey to Spain, it seems to me rather that there is a negative wanting in the text, or that the author had Rom. xv. 24, in mind. In this latter case, a member of the phrase would be wanting altogether, which appears to me very doubtful. The original bears some traces of correction, but as these have no influence on the points important for us, I shall not discuss them. COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 97 passage before my readers.^ "The Epistles of Paul/' it is said, " themselves declare for whom the}" were intended, whence and with what purpose they were written. Thus, to the Corinthians, the apostle forbids the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians, circumcision ; on the Romans he inculcates the order of the scriptures of which Christ is the chief (i.e. he unfolds to tliem the general plan of revelation) : all this is developed at lengtli, and I shall have to speak of it in detail." Then, passing to another idea, the author con tinues : " Though Paul, following the example of his prede- cessor John," wrote by name only to seven churches — viz., ' epistuke antem 2)auli quoi a quo loco vel qua ex cmisa directe* sint volentiMis intellegere ipse declarant 2)rimum omnium corintheis scysme heresis hi terdicens deinceps callactis circumcisione* romanis autem ordine scripturarum sed et principium earum esse christiim intimans. . .f 2'>rolexius scrijmt de quibus sincolis necci< se est ad nobis desputari cum ijjse beatus apostolu>i pauhts sequens p)rodecessoris sui johannis ordlnem nonnisi nomenatim semjytœm ecclesiis scribat ordine tali a corenthios prima ad cfesios seconda ad 2'>^dippinses ter lia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas quin ta ad tensaolenecinsis sexta ad romanos septima verum corentheis et thensaolecen sibus licet 2^'''^ correbtione iteretur una tamen per omnem orbem ter7xe ecclesia deffusa esse denoscitur et johannis enim in a pocahbsy licet seblem eccleseis scribat tamen omnibus dicit verum ad 2}hilemo7iejn tina ft ad titum iina et ad tymotheum duas 2)ro afftc to et dilectione in honore tamen ecclesiœ ca tholice in ordinatione eclesiastice di'scej)Hne sanctijicate sunt * It is to be remembered that ancient orthography put c for ce and that m and n are often indicated by strokes (here omitted) over the preceding vowels. + Tliere seems to be a word wanting here. - This idea, that Paul must have written to as many churches as John (in the Apocalypse) is passed from one author to another down to the end of the Middle Ages. Note that John is represented as writing lirst, though 98 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. the Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Gala- tians, Thessalonians and Romans (there are two epistles to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, because of reprimands that had to be made), still it is known that there is but one single Church spread over the whole earth. In the same way John, while addressing only the seven churches in the Apocalypse, has them all in view. As to epistles to Philemon, Titus and Timothy, which were written by the apostle from motives of friendship, they be- came sacred when ecclesiastical discipline was organised." This means no doubt that these epistles, which were private in their origin, became public and official documents be- cause the Church drew from them the principles of her government. Two things must strike us here. One is the very peculiar order in which the epistles are enumerated. Nowhere else do we find this order ; and as it is im|)ossible to see any principle in it whatever, chronological or other- wise, I cannot help supposing that the author had in his hands a collection that had been formed in a purely for- tuitous manner — i.e. just as the copies of each epistle had been obtained. At any rate tradition had little influence over it, and with this text before us, it can no longer be said that Paul's epistles were collected from the very first — i.e., from the time of their composition or at least soon after, that they might be handed down to posterity in the form of a complete collection. Then also we see here for the first time that theology, while still recognising the primitive destination of each letter, expressly regards them as the common possession of the church, not only because the whole Church may profit by them, but also because the sacred writers had this universal destination directly in he is generally placed at the end of the century. This proves that at first it was remembered that the Apocalypse had been written before the ruin of Jerusalem and not lender Domitian, as is maintained by those who do not understand it. COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 99 view. It is easy to understand tliat this point of view had to be adopted generally and explicitly before the scriptural canon of the New Testament could be formed. After enumerating the Pauline Epistles accepted by the Church, the author names several other writings which the Church rejects/ but which, if I rightly understand him, were all circulating under the name of that Apostle. He specially mentions an epistle to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians. It is quite possible that even in the second century there may have been some idea of repairing by an apocryphal compilation, the loss of a letter to the Laodiceans, of which loss there was believed to be an indication in Col. iv. 16 ; but it is beyond all question that this compila- tion was not the document which still exists under that name in Latin and which will be noticed later. As to the letter to the Alexandrians, no other ancient writer speaks of it. Modern critics are inclined to see in it the Epistle to the Hebrews, which our text passes over in silence. Certainly if the latter epistle was written to any particular community, there are a thousand reasons for thinking of the Church at Alexandria more than any other. Still, as it is anonymous, the question arises how our author could have spoken of it as fabricated under Paul's name. That would be intelligible only if the copies of his time had borne that name, which is not found in our ordinary manuscripts. Further, only a prejudiced and very superficial reader could see in it any trace of Marcion's heresy.^ However that may be, the '■ fcrtur etiam ad laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli no mine Jincte ad hœrcsem marcionis et alia plu ra qiicer in catholicam eclesiam recepi non potest fel enim cum melle mi^ceri non con cruit - It has been proposed to read : ad haen''«'m Marcioim rcjutandam, or to put a comma before these words, so as to make them say this : besides tlie epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, oihrrf fabricated to favour Marcion, in short other books still (perhaps Acts of Paul). 100 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCEIPTURES. author declares that he wishes to have an apostoKc collection pure and without alloy ; he not only seeks out the authentic books, but also ehminates with care the false merchandise ; he does not wish to mingle gall with the honey .^ The few lines devoted to the epistles usually called Catholic present several difficulties." Still it is evident that the author is not acquainted with the Epistle of James, nor with the two of Peter ; in addition to that of Jude he only names two of John. But there are three words in the. text which invite criticism. In the first place, what does this expression mean: there is indeed in the Catholic Church an epistle of Jude and two of John ? Are we to suppose that the author alludes here to some opposition made to these epistles, or does it mean that he himself doubts their authenticity ? In this case his remark would be connected with the last phrase where mention is made of the Wisdom of Solomon, written, he says, by friends of that king in his honour. But what is this book doing here ? Ought we perhaps to change the text and read : {ut for et) these epistles are called by the names of Jude and John, just as Wisdom is named after Solomon — i.e., these apostles, to say truth, did not write them with their own hand ? Finally, what are we to make of that impossible word : superscrictio ? Are we to read superscripti (the aforesaid John) because he has already been under discussion, or superscriptione — i.e., if we adhere to the superscription, the title ? This is far from ' The poor play on words {/ll ami mdle) seems of itself to prove that we possess the document in the original, and not as a translation from Greek. ^ . . . . cjmtola sane jude et superscrictio johannis dvMs in catholica habentur et sapi ientia ah amicis salomoiiis in honorem ij^mis scripta 3 By this name, the author appears to have meant to designate either the (apocryphal) Wisdom, or Proverbs, which were also at times designated in this way. The Jewish doctors did not regard Proverbs as composed by Solomon himself (see ch. xxv., xxx.. xxxi.) COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 101 probable since the author has already spoken of one at least as an authentic writing. All the same, it is clear that it is very difficult to say exactly what was his meaning ; but this does not authorise the rash changes in his text by means of which attempts have been made to insert the epistles passed over.^ I direct special attention to the omission of the tivo epistles of Peter. This forms another argument to be urged in favour of the hypothesis that this canon was composed in the Latin Church, and not in the Greek Church, though many scholars now-a-days regard it only as a bad translation , of a Greek original. We have one other Latin witness who i confirms us in believing that even the first epistle of Peter penetrated but slowly into the West. Finally, the series of apostolic books ends with the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, of which the author says that they alone of all the Apocalypses then existing were received in the Church. He remarks, however, in regard to the Apocalypse of Peter, that some refuse it the honour of being used officially in the Church.^ Such is the famous Muratorian Canon, about which there has been so much writing and discussion for the last twenty years. The text clearly is not free from errors ; but there is no trace of lacunœ or of corruptions such as would permit ' Some tliiiik themselves jr.stified in taking these Uvo epistles of John to be the second and third (which many early writers did not consider to be apostolic), because the first epistle was mentioned before along with the Gospel. But in the previous passage, the author does not enumerate it in the series of the sacred writings ; he only appeals to it to prove (i. 1.) that the Gospel was written by an eye-witness. Here he i-eturus to it in the order of the books. Another explanation to which I shall have to return would be given by saying that tlie first and second epistles were, by a mis- conception, joined into one. See p. 105. " apocalapse etiam johannis et pe tri tantum rccipimus quatn qtddam ex nos tris leyi in ecclesia nolunt 102 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCKIPTURES. US now to make alterations on it for the sake of some book not mentioned in it. It gives the names of four gospels, of Acts, of thirteen Pauline epistles, of three other epistles and two Apocalypses, and it does so with a dogmatic purpose, to form what was afterwards called the canon — i.e., the list of authoritative books. It remains for me to inquire con- cerning its date and origin. To these two questions the answer cannot be doubtful. After speaking of Apocalypses declared to be canonical, the author names still another, the Pasto7' of Hermas, which he says had been written recently^ in our time, while Pius occupied the episcopal chair of Rome.^ This Pius, the first of the name and brother of Hermas, was bishop about the year 156. As it is said that the Pastor was read in the churches, a custom recommended by our author, though he refused it a place either among the prophets whose canon was closed or among the apostolic writings, some time must liave elapsed between the publica- tion of Hermas and the composition of the document before us. Hence the date generally accepted lies between 180 and 190. Further, the language, the rejection of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or at least the silence observed regarding it, everything down to the mention of the city of Rome and its bishop, betrays a Latin and probably African pen. One point more : it is very important to remai'k that the author does not express his own individual views, but sets before us the usage established in his ecclesiastical sphere. On the 1 2iastorem vero nujiirrime teinporihus nostris in urhe roma herma conscripsit sedente cathe tra urbis romae pio episcopo fratie ejus et ideo legi quidem eum oportet se p)u plicare vero in ecdesia popido neque inter profettas completum numéro neque, inter apodolos in finem temporum potest. COLLECTIONS TOWAEDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 103 other hand, he sets it before us only as a witness, and his treatise is not an official document.^ I pass now to Irenaeus. He nowhere gives the names of the books contained in his apostolic collection, but his scrip- tural quotations are so numerous that by scrutinising them we can, without risk of error, reconstruct that collection. As Irenaeus was a native of Asia, was full of respect for Rome, and was bishop of Lyons, it may be boldly affirmed that in certain respects his testimony is of greater weight than that of his contemporaries, whose ecclesiastical horizon was much more limited. Hence Eusebius even made this Father the subject of a work such as I am about to undertake ; but he left it very imperfect.^ I main- tain that Irenaeus had before him the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, one of Peter, two of John, and the Apocalypse of John; consequently, with the exception of three books (Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter, on the one hand ; the epistle of Peter, on the other), precisely the same list as is presented to us in the African treatise published by Muratori. Still, this list calls for some observations in detail. In tlie first place, I insist on this fact, already mentioned on a former occasion but now placed beyond question for the history of the canon, that in the time of Irenaeus the Church Catholic had ceased to consider any but our four gospels, or, rather, one single gospel in four forms.* This fix- ing of the number and selection is final ; it even became so much a matter of principle — I would almost say an article of faith — that theological scholasticism was already trying to find a reason for it : not in historical recollections, nor in ' The document closes with some lines relating to heretical books whicli have not come down to us. The numerous and gratuitous conjectures about the name of the author are of no interest. - Eusebius, Hist. eccl. v. 8. ^ TO ivayyixtov Tirpâf/.opÇnv, Ircnaeus, iii. 11, § S. 104 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCKIPTURES. a literary criticism of which nobody had any idea, but in a class of facts quite foreign to the question. There are four gospels because the Church represents the world, and, just as the world has four cardinal points whence four winds blow, so the gospel ought to be for the Church a quadruple column breathing both incorruptibility and life. The gospels are further represented by four cherubim : that of John, which begins with the generation of the word, has for its emblem the lion ; that of Matthew, which begins with the genealogy, corresponds to the human figure ; that of Luke, which begins with Zacharias the sacrificing priest, suggests the ox ; that of Mark, finally, which ends in prophecies, is like the eagle.^ That we may not have to return to it, I may say once for all that contemporary and later authors no longer show any variation from this fixing of the four gospels.^ This theological idea of one single gospel narrated under four forms or having four faces, explains the true meaning of the title which our gospels bear in Greek and in Latin, as well as in several modern versions. This title no- where suggests the idea of a composition at second hand, as if the proper name were not the writer's but the name of a guarantee or primitive witness.^ But the proper and original meaning of the word gospel is still reflected in this ' Irenaeus, loc. cit. — As is well known, this symbolism was afterwards inverted without thereby becoming more spiritual. It has continued to be one of the favourite forms of traditional symbolism. Later exegetes exerted tliemselves to endow theology with other parallels of the same kind. The four gospels are the four rivers of paradise, the four elements of the imiverse, the four sides of Noah's ark, the four rings of the ark of the covenant, the four constituent parts of man's body, the four letters of Adam's name, etc. (Jerome, pra^f in Matth. ; Pseudo-Jerome, Expos, iv. ew. ; Athanasius, Syn. S. S. ii. 155 ; Alcuin, Disp. puer., ch. 8, etc). = Clem. Alex., Strom, iii. 465; TertulL, Adv. 3farc. iv. 2ff; Origen, (qmd Eusebium vi. 14 ; Jerome, Prœf. in Matth. ; Jerome, Prœf. in cvv. ad Damasum, etc. 3 ihccyy. KC.Ta {seCUUdum, aCCOrdirtf] to) fiaTTêaiov, etC. COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. lOo formula, while in common usage the name was already com- ing to signify a book and to be used in the plural. I must now make some remarks on the epistles quoted by Irenaeus. Of the Pauline epistles, there would be wanting, it must be confessed, the Epistle to Philemon ; but I do not for a moment hesitate to suppose that this silence arises solely from the fact that Irenaeus had no occasion to quote it, every other explanation being improbable. As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is nowhere quoted in his great work, I may for it refer to a passage in Eusebius, where he speaks of having found it quoted in a small work of Irenaeus now lost. The allusions which some profess to find in the tests we can verify are imaginary," or, rather, their very insignificance and the absence of all direct quota- tion from an epistle so rich in theological ideas, prove in- directly that the bishop of Lyons was not acquainted with it, or did not acknowledge it. The Epistles of John present a curious fact. The first is quoted very explicitly in a passage ^ in which considerable extracts are made from it ; but Irenaeus always speaks of it in the singular, as if there existed only one to his knowledge. Among these extracts, nevertheless, there are some belonging to the second epistle, and these extracts are introduced with the very same formula — in the aforesaid epistle, in ji^'o^^'dida e^ristola. It must be concluded from this that in the copy which Irenaeus possessed,* the text of the two epistles was not separated, but apparently formed one whole. Some have been in- ' Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. v. 26. Comp. Photius, Cod. 232. ^ Irenaeus, iii. 6, § 5, Moses Jidelis famulus is taken from Num. vii. 7 ; and ii. 30, § 9, God created the universe hy His poicerful word does not even correspond with Heb. i. 3, and is a thought so familiar to the theology of the second century, that no special quotation was needed for expressing it. 3 iii. 16. § 5 fF., in epistola S2ta, Iv rj? l-mrroX^. Comp. i. 16, § 3. * And perhaps in others. See above what was said on the same subject in connection with the Muratorian Canon (v. 101). lOG HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCHIPTURES. clined to find a trace of the Epistle of James in a passage where Irenaeus calls Abraham a friend of God ; ^ but this surname was not invented by James. It is found else- where in ancient literature, and notably in a passage in Clement of Rome, the substance of which has passed as it stands into the argument of Irenaeus; this argument, in other respects, being quite different from that of James. The latter reference seems to me all the more natural that we find elsewhere ^ the epistle of Clement praised at great length by our author. Finally, with regard to Peter, Irenaeus knew positively only his first epistle, from which he borrows some phrases, but which he very rarely quotes in any direct way.^ I have found in Irenaeus only two extra-canonical quota- tions introduced with the consecrated formula. Scripture (ypafj.oius roi; rrpoÇiriTai; x. t. X. 3 Jei-emiah xxxi. 32. * Matt. xxvi. 28 : xai^h liaé^xn, novum testamentum (for novum fœdiLs). s 2 Cor. iii. 6 f ; Gal. iv. 24 f ; Heb. viii. S, ix. 15, etc. 120 HISTOEY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. lation of the Greek word, gave predominance to a term of jurisprudence which was foreign to the thought of the original, and which soon became the equivalent of the term before in use,^ although the remembrance of the primitive value of these diverse expressions was not at once lost.^ Later this remembrance was lost, and the name Testament for the collection itself was finally consecrated in such a way that the older and more logical terminology disappeared.^ The order in which the various books contained in the two collections of the New Testament were arranged, was not everywhere and always the same. This fact is of little importance in itself; still it may serve to prove that the collection was not made at a very early date and by a superior ecclesiastical authority, but, successively, according to necessities and means and no doubt in several places at once. It would be difficult otherwise to explain how the lists came to vary in this respect. As to the four gospels the canon of which was the first to be closed, the order of the books as we have it now in all our editions, was fixed from the second century,* but it was not the only one in use. For, if the place assigned to each evangelist at first was determined by the supposed chrono- logical sequence of the dates of their gospels, it was perhaps more natural still that care should be taken of the respective dignity of the authors in such a way as to give the apostles the precedence over their disciples.' The latter arrangement, in which John follows Matthew and Mark ^ Instrumentum, vel, qiiod magis us^d est dicere, festamentum (Tert., Adv. Marc. iv. 1). Novum testamentum (Tert., Adv. Prax. 15). Utrumque testamentum (Tert., De piulic. 1). ^ Totum instrumentum utriusque testameiiti (Tert., De pudic. 20). 3 Scriptura oinnis in duo testainenta divisa est (Lactant., Inst, div, iv, 20, * Muratorian Canon ; Iren., iii. 1. § 1. Clem, and Orig., ajmd. Euseb., vi. 14, 25. Jerome, Vulgate, etc. s Conxtituimus evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere . , , et Apostolicos, ctcm ApostoUs et j)ost Apioslolos . . . Nobis Jxdem ex Apostolis BIBLIOGRAPHY, 121 comes last, was preferred, as it appears, by tlie Latin Church. At least the oldest Western MSS. follow it implicitly. It is also the order of the Gothic version, and down to the ninth century it was preserved in the Greek copies. A modifica- tion of it was introduced in another series of documents in which Mark stood third and Luke last, and this order pre- dominated in the East till the fifth century, so much so that some modern critics have preferred it for their editions of the Greek New Testament. The thirteen Epistles of Paul do not always follow each other in the same order as I have already had occasion to remark in speaking of Marcion and the Muratorian Canon. Still, notwithstanding the diversity of the lists preserved for us by the Fathers or in the manuscripts, a certain uni- formity is observable in so far as they are nearly always arranged so as to form three groups, the members of which are kept distinct. The first group is composed of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians and the Galatians, and these always stand first in the collection ; the second gTOup includes the five short epistles addressed to various churches, Thessalonians most frequently coming last in it, sometimes first" or third.^ Finally, the last group embraces the epistles addressed to individuals, and in regard to this I have already noted some variations. It is not yet time to speak of the place to be given to the Epistle to the Hebrews, since it did not form part of what was called the Aijostle at the end of the second century. Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex AiJostoUcis Lucas et Marcus instaurant (TertuU., Adv. Marc, iv. 2). ' Codices Vercdlcnsis, Veronensis, Brixianus, Corheiensis, Cantabrigiensis Palatinus [For some account of these iMSS. of the old Latin versions, see Smith's Diet, of the Bible, iii. 1692 f. and Scrivener's Pfeni Introduction., pp. 256 f.] * Codd. Décret. Gelasii, various readings. 3 Augustine apud Cassiod. Divin, lect., ch. 13. — The Albigensian Version, Lyons MS. 122 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. In regard to the Catholic Epistles, the question is more complicated. When once their number had been brought up to seven, there was first this great diversity in the arrangement that the East assigned the first place to James and the West to Peter ; then the others were placed in every possible form of mathematical combination and permutation by the various authors and churches, which is one more proof that the collection was closed gradually and that opinion was fluctuating. At the same time these are facts of no importance to us at this moment. For the period under consideration, there can be no question about fixing the rank of these epistles, for the simple reason that they were not yet in a collected form. We found Tertullian attaching the Epistle of John to the Apocalypse ; we found in the same writer, in Irenœus and in Clement, scattered quotations taken from the Epistles of Jude, of Clement, of Barnabas, from the first of Peter, and the second of John, which books undoubtedly did not form with one another one single collected work. I readily admit that each of these Fathers placed entire confidence in the writings of which he thus made use, and accorded to them the same authority. I believe simply that they possessed these epistles only as isolated writings,^ and that copies of the Scriptures which did not include them all, perhaps even those which did not include any one of them, were not generally regarded as incomplete. It is no less probable that these diverse epistles, admitted in greater or less number into the sacred collection, were finally added to it under a special name. This special name, which I have already employed, has been variously explained. The term ca^/ioZic is undoubtedly opposed to heretical f but in this sense it would not have ' That is a plain inference from the incontestable fact that each Father cites different epistles. " Euseb., Hut. eccl, iii. 3, iv. 23, vvitliout distinguishing between the apostolic books and others. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 123 been reserved for the epistles in question to the exclusion of those of Paul. For the same reason, it cannot be taken here as meaning writings received by the Churches or recog- nised as sacred Scri})tures.^ The true signification of the word is indicated by the etymology alone. They are letters with a general destination, a characteristic all the more strongly marked as the Pauline epistles were all addressed to special churches or persons. Thus, the First Epistle of John is named the catholic, to distinguish it from the two others which are addressed to single individuals.^ The same designation was used for the letter written by the apostles from the conference at Jerusalem,^ and for that of Barnabas.^ In all these cases, the historical sentiment pre- dominated over every other consideration. Not till later did the name Catholic Einstles become merely a conven- tional term for the non-Pauline epistles inserted in the Canon.'' In this sense the two short Epistles of John pre- sented no difficulty. The same fact also explains why the Epistle to the Hebrews never figured in the number of Catholic Epistles, among which it should have been placed from its nature and title. When it was admitted into the canon, it was everywhere received as a Pauline epistle; and it was not admitted till a date at which the terminology was definitely fixed, as I have just said. Still the primitive meaning of the word was never completely lost.*' The name Catholic E])istles was not adopted by the Latin ' Euseb., ii. 23, even speaks of Catholic Epistles which were not re- ceived. - Dionys. Alex, apud Euseb., vii. 25. Orig., j^atishn. ^ Acts XV. Clem. Strom., iv. 512.. * Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 63. 5 Euseb., ii. 23 ; vi. 14. ^ Leontius de Sectis [Sœc, vi.), ch. 2 : KaeoXmot.) \x,>r,ên'roi.)i l'^itlà.v où vpo; Iv 'iêtoi lyfaipmntv, à; al tov XIavXov, à\Xa KOtSôXou Trph; trâtTa.— According to a Scholiast, the Epistle of James is put first oTt ttj; tov n'lrpou xaûoXmoTÎpa. lirriv (Cotderii PP. ap. prœf. in Barn.) 124 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Church, which preferred to call them canonical epistles — i.e., recognised as apostolic. This term, to which I shall have to return, prevailed at the period during which the seven epistles were received into general use.^ But this digression has made us lose sight of the chrono- logical order of the facts ; I hasten to resume the thread of my narrative. ' Cassiod, Div. lect., ch. 8. Pseudo- Jerome, Prolog, in Epp. can. CHAPTER YIII. THE THIRD CENTUEY. The question of the Canon did not make much progress in the course of the third century. The collection, which generally included four gospels, the Acts, the Apocalypse, thirteen epistles of Paul, and the epistles of Peter and of John, as already mentioned, was in some localities enlarged by the addition of several other writings, formerly neglected or put in the second rank ; but no official decision was any- where given in the direction of fixing definitely the choice and the list of the sacred books, and even the number of testimonies at our disposal for simply ascertaining the state of things at this period is very limited. This proves that the theologians of the day did not consider the question so pressing as we are inclined to suppose. Besides, most of the testimonies to be quoted from this period are private judgments, individual opinions, as was the case also in the previous period, at most, only valuable information as to which books were received in certain localities. We must be specially on our guard against supposing that these opinions always exercised a direct and prevailing influence on ecclesi- astical usages. I have already stated, on the strength of the express words of Tertullian, that in this century there was no official declaration proceeding from a central authority (which did not exist), and that therefore the recognition of the apostohc writings and the order of those included in the usual collection were fixed by the traditional custom of the principal, and particularly of the most ancient churches. The critical or scientific studies of the learned, so far as any were carried on, were of very little weight. From the 126 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. principal churches, the metropoUtan, the collection naturally passed into all the churches of one particular province, and thus without difficulty considerable uniformity was estab- lished among them. This uniformity could not but show itself most of all in places where the apostolic writings were known and used only through a translation. I cannot be far wrong in saying that the need of a translation would be nowhere felt before the period when the nucleus of the collection had already been formed in the Greek Church, and for its use. It would be a singular thing that the Latin or Semitic Churches should, in this respect, have anticipated the Greeks, who were the depositaries and guardians of the books of the apostles ; besides it would be contrary to all we know of the propagation of the Gospel at that period, since contemporary writers affirm that it was propagated by the ministry of the living word, and that the Scriptures came later.^ I maintain, therefore, that the first translations made for the foreio;n churches, which had for a lonijer or shorter period been in existence, must have always included a certain number of books connected with one another by usage, and that the very idea of a special collection, closed and definite, must have been formed more readily and more distinctly in the minds of the Latin and Semitic Christians, who, from the very first, received an entire collection of holy books, than in the minds of the Greeks, among whom time was needed to efface the remembrance of the slow and gradual formation of the collection. To convince ourselves of the correctness of this observation, we have only to con- sider the difference in standpoint and reasoning between Clement and Tertullian — the difference observable in the numerous extracts already given from these two writers. Hence it is not by mere chance that the earliest ' Irenaens, Adv. haer., iii. 4. THE THIRD CENTURY. 127 attempt to form a complete and methodical list of the writings in the evangelical collection was not made in the Greek but in the African Church, and dates from a period which cannot be much later than that of the j&rst Latin translation itself. That is a second fact in strict accordance with what was stated above, and confirming in all respects my theory. At the other extremity of the Christian world, in the interior of Syria, where Greek civilisation had not succeeded in crushing the national genius, we meet with another trans- lation into the vulgar tongue, which we must consider for a little. The precise date of its origin can hardly be deter- mined. The Syrians themselves attribute it to an apostle ;^ but no dependence can be placed on such legends. The common opinion of modern orientalists assigns it to the end of the second century, or to the first half of the third. The date of its origin is not of so much importance, when I can affirm that for hundreds of years the Syrian churches were content with this work, although it was incomplete as com- pared with the final form of the Greek New Testament." For this version, which soon acquired in the country and its schools an official authority, differs in several points from the collections we have hitherto been considering, whether of the Greek theologians or the Latin churches. On the one hand, it does not contain the Apocalypse ; on the other, it adds to the Pauline epistles the Epistle to the Hebrews ' The supposition that the idiom of this version is exactly that spoken by Jesus Christ may be pardoned in fathers more pious than learned ; it does not admit of more serious discussion. ' In the Old Testament the Syriac Version (Peschtto) is limited to the Hebrew canon, arranged, however, in a peculiar fashion. Job comes immediately after the Pentateuch ; Ruth stands between Canticles and Ecclesiastes ; the latter is followed by Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; the minor prophets are inserted between Isaiah and Jeremiali. The collection ends with Daniel. At a later time, however, editions were published witli various modifications. 128 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUEES. as fourteenth and last, and puts the two epistles of Peter and John before that of James. There are here three inno- vations which demand closer consideration. The one that surprises us least, and is most easily justified, is the addition of the Epistle of James. We understand that in the East, in the neighbourhood of Palestine, in a sphere where Jewish Christianity might exercise a certain influence, this ancient work commended itself to special attention, whereas the churches under Paulme influence might neglect it, or even ignore its existence. It is to be observed, nevertheless, that its reception into the canon seems to have been due to an oversight, or, at least, to be connected with a mistake re- garding the person of the author. The special title which precedes the volume of the Catholic Epistles, in the ancient Syriac version, expressly says they were written by the three disciples who were witnesses of the Lord's Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Now, without in- sisting on the point that the precise designation of the place is purely legendary, it is a fact that the James, who was there present, was the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, and in no case could he be the author of this epistle, no matter what opinion we adopt regarding the person of its author, or the number of apostolic personages bearing the name of James. Still, this shows that in the Church of Sj^ia also, there was no intention of putting anything in the sacred collection except works belonging to immediate disciples of the Lord. For the same reason, the Epistle to the Hebrews figures here only because it was attributed to the Apostle Paul, and not as an anonymous but authentic monument of the teaching of the first century. I go further, and say that the insertion of these two epistles seems to prove of itself, notwithstanding the lack of all direct evidence, that they were received on an equal footing, and read in the Greek churches of Syria at the time when THE THIRD CENTURY. 129 the Syi'iac version was made. It is not at all probable that the collection contained in this version was formed in an independent manner, or even in contradiction to the usages among the nearest neighbours. This ought to be true, particularly of the Epistle to the Hebrews, any knowledge of which, especially in regard to the author's name, could come only from the Greeks. The omission of the Apocalypse leads me likewise to maintain that the re- action against this book had already begun among the Greeks at the date of the Syriac translation, or, at least, that the Eastern Churches no longer regarded it as a book suitable for the edification of the people, although the theologians favourable to Chiliastic views continued to set great store on it. In any case, these facts justify the chronological place I have adopted for the document under discussion. If its origin were placed much earlier, the hesitations, the contradictions, the silence which I have elsewhere noted in regard to the books in question, would be inexplicable.! Among the Fathers of the third century to be consulted, there is not one that can be compared to Origen, either for the number of interesting facts furnished by him or for the confidence inspired in us by his vast erudition. Still the most striking features in the mass of facts furnished by him are the uncertainty of the results, the want of precision in his point of view, and the facility with which he passes in turn from scientific discussion to popular usages. That is already visible in what he says of the Old Testament. It will be remembered that the Greek Church was not at that time very sure of its choice between the Hebrew canon and the Septuagint. The learned Origen does not put an end • The canon of the ancient Syriac version is not known simply by the existing MSS., which might be incomplete ; it is exjDressly recognised and confirmed by the Syrian authors of the centuries following. I 130 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. to this uncertainty. When enumerating the books of the f)ld Testament,^ he fixes their number at twenty-two, which is the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and this suggestive parallel is repeated again and again by later authors." But the order of the books is evidently of Greek origin, and foreign to the official form of the Hebrew canon. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ai'e added to the other historical books, and these in turn are separated from the Prophets by Psalms and the three books bearing Solomon's name ; Daniel figures between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, while Job and Esther come last. Further, when naming Jeremiah, the author expressly mentions his epistle, which gives ground for supposing that he acknowledged the canonicity of the Greek form of that prophet's book as well as of the books of Daniel and Esther. As to the apocryphal writings proper, he names in the passage quoted only the books of the Maccabees, which he distinguishes from all the others as not belonging to the catalogue of the twenty-two.^ But we possess in the works of Origen two other writings containing much information on this point. His friend Julius Africanus writes him a letter regarding the story of Susanna, calling it a pure fable as it is not found in the Hebrew text, and declaring that nothing should be recognised as an integral portion of the Old Testament except what had been trans- lated from that original.'* Origen, in a very lengthy reply, maintains the opposite thesis, and defends the authenticity and even the inspiration of that story, as well as of the story of Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Childi'en, the ' Selecta in Psalmos, Op]). , xi. p. 378, ed. Lomm. The whole passage is transcribed by Eusebius, vi. 25. ^ The enumeration itself is incomplete since the copyist has omitted the book of the twelve minor prophets, 3 'i^co rouTuv iiTTi TO, Maxxx[iaixâ (loc, cit.) ^ i^ i(ipaluv rois eWria-i fit,iTili\r,ên vâvf o'?' '''''■«'' "^ >'-''■' àvi tcov fjt,i-u tov Infovv ypaCiVTav xal Iv Ta7; iKKKriixtcei; êiieov ùia.i cri-^iffTivy-ivuiM. THE THIRD CENTURY. 133 these books are designated by a common and distinctive name, which puts them in the same rank as those of the Old Testament. They are the books of the Covenant, or, as Tertullian would have said, the books of the Testament} The use of the singular in this formula has special signific- ance, because it removes the last trace of any difference between the two parts of the sacred collection.^ The terms canon, canonical, terms of which I have already made occasional use by anticipation, did not yet exist apparently in a literary sense. By the ecclesiasticcU canon^ was still meant the traditional rule, the established and regular usage. But I am in haste to come to facts more unexpected. To begin with, Eusebius has preserved to us a very curious passage regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews. According to him, Origen said:^ "The style of this epistle does not bear the characteristics of Paul's ordinary diction. Paul acknowledges himself to be no practised writer, whereas this is classical in style, as all competent judges will agree. On the other hand, no one can fail to see that its thoughts are admirable and in no respect inferior to the apostolic writings which are generally recognised. I am therefore of opinion that the ideas are the apostle's, but that the form of their expression is due to some one who reproduced them from memory. Hence, if any church holds it to be Paul's, that church does not err, for the ancients had some grounds ' Tcc £v t"/! liueriKYi (iifiXia, a.\ iv1iâêrix.oi liilùXoi. ïliey are the Same to which he also gives the name o'^oXoyoû^îva, i.e., the books which all the churches agree in accepting. - This unity is expressly set forth (Ji ■sa.Xa.tk lia.êr,Kn àpx/i toO ivayyiXiou) i. in Jo., ch. 15. 3 K'xvàv \xx\ntritt,pàs, h[toXoyriâXXzTat yap. . . . 'luavvn;. . . . £!rî IxKXtitria ypaçh où -rapà ^âtn 3ï ûix.o\oyovfiivn uiat ûtîa. (in Matt. vol. xiv. ch. 21). Qui a nonnullis contemni videtur [De princ. iv. 11). Comp. Horn. 1 in Psalm xxxvii. Horn. 8 in Num. In Luc. hom. 35. 0pp. v. p. 21S. ■* u Ti; va-foihipi^iriit [Hom. in Jerem. XV. 4). s" tu iplXov ■rapa^ix^"'^'^' (^'ol. XX. in Joh., ch. 12. Comp. De pirinc, ii. 1, § 5). s xnpvyf/.a Uirpov, doctrina Petri (De princ, preface, § 8). Respondendum quoniam ille liber inter ecclesiasiicos non habetur et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ipsa scriptura neque alterius cuiuspîam qui Spiritu Dei fuerit in- spiratus. 138 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCEIPTURES. claim to serve as a rule for the church. He distinguishes them into three categories: those that are authentic (legiti- mate), those that are suppositious (bastard), and those that are partly both (mixed), i.e., that may have, in spite of their general apocryphal character, elements of a value incontest- ably superior.^ Authenticity, or legitimacy, as may be seen, is not taken here in an exclusively literary sense. The School of Alexandria of which Origen was the most learned and most brilliant representative, was in an em- barrassing position in regard to a book of which no special mention has been made in these last pages. We have seen, that at a very early period the Apocalypse was held in special, even exceptional, regard ; that, as a prophetic book, it was the first of all the writings of the first century to be ranked by theology with the inspired Scriptures. This exceptional position was retained by it so long as Chiliasm, or the belief in the coming of the thousand years' reign of the elect, prevailed in the church and was admitted by the principal theologians. But towards the end of the second century a reaction had set in against this belief, which had grown more and more materialistic, and the Alexandrine Fathers in particular laboured for the spread of more spiritual views regarding the general essence of Christianity, and specially regarding the last things. The Apocalypse, which was eminently favourable to the views already cur- rent, must have given them trouble, and, as traditional opinion seemed to put its claims beyond all attack, the Alexandrines had recourse to an interpretation which caused the eschatological predictions to disappear, leaving only allegorical pictures of the present state of humanity or of the church. Origen most of all gave support to this kind of interpretation which soon prevailed in the church.- Still ' 'E^iTCc^onTi; Tifi Tov /S;/3ÀiOu ^ronp'ot ttoti yvniri'ov Icrnv îi v'oêov n //.iKTciy (vol. xiv. in J oh. ) » See Origen, DejJrinc, ii. 11, § 6. In Matt. 0pp., iv. 307. THE THIRD CENTURY. 139 the new method met with opposition, and an Egyptian bishop, named Nepos, published a volume of criticism against the Allegorists^ which made much noise, as it frankly re- asserted the literal meaning of a book which up to that time had been so highly prized by Christians. The most learned of Origen's disciples, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, made extraordinary efforts to remove this opposition ; he held public conferences with the partisans of Chiliasm, and wrote besides a treatise " On the Promises,"' of which Eusebius has preserved several very interesting fragments. Among other points, we find in them that Dionysius, while professing respect for a book which others before him, he ■ says, had rejected as unworthy of an apostle and had attri- buted to a heretic, tries to establish a doubt regarding the person of the author. He alleges various reasons for not identifying its author with the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistle, and he concludes that probably another apostolic personage of the name of John, either Mark or rather a certain presbyter of the Church of Ephesus whose tomb was still to be seen in that city, wrote this Apocalypse. He does not, however, dispute its inspiration. I shall not discuss here the value of the arguments of Dionysius, which recall those adduced by Origen in support of his theoiy regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 1 shall insist only on the one fact of the sudden change of o]:)inion in regaixl to the Apocalypse, and of the effect which this change produced on its canonical authority. There is here every proof that it fell into neglect and disesteem, so soon as the current began to withdraw from the hopes that had formerly excited the visionary enthusiasm of the first gene- rations. The book was bound to follow the fate of the ideas consecrated in it, and the allegorical interpretation, the busi- ' 'EXiy^os àXKtiyofiTTÙv ap. Euseb., Hint. eccl. vii. 24, * ^tpl I'TtayyiXiZy (Eusebius, loc. cit.) 140 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. ness of scholars only, could do no more than hinder the people from turning away from the prophet when they had ceased to believe in the prophecy. But if this were the case, as no one can doubt, what is to be said of the basis on which finally the choice of the church rested when forming its sacred canon ? On the one hand we have Origen recom- mending the inclusion of an epistle that was still doubtful, because its contents seemed to him excellent, while at the same time he confesses that he does not know who wrote it, and that the elegance of its style makes it impossible for him to attribute it to an apostle. On the other hand we have Dionysius advising the exclusion of a prophecy which had long been received, but was opposed in the letter to his theology, while he seeks for it a perhaps imaginary author who is to be responsible both for the solecism in form from which he wishes to relieve the apostle and for those peculi- arities in the subject-matter with which he is unwilling to burden his own conscience. But I hasten to add that the fate of those books did not depend on the individual opinion of our two learned theologians. They themselves felt the pressure of an opinion more generally entertained, before lending to it the support of their own personal authority, which was no doubt very powerful. We may conclude from all this that the tradition which, as we have seen, pre- dominated in the formation of the canon of the New Testa- ment, did not rest necessarily and everywhere on primordial guarantees, on the testimonies of the first age ; otherwise these fluctuations of opinion would be inexplicable, and ecclesiastical usages could not have been modified from time to time in accordance with systems, nay, according to the taste of a particular age or school. The Greek Church of the third century furnishes us with scarcely any more texts to be consulted on the history of the canon. A hundred years after Origen we shall find THE THIRD CENTURY. 141 things just where we left them. I simply remark that the testimonies, commonly fragmentary, which have come down to us from this period prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been accepted without difficulty in the East as a work of Paul ; at least, there is no trace of any opposition on the point. Still, I shall not leave the Eastern Church and pass to the no less interesting details furnished by the Latin authors, without calling the attention of my readers to a book which in its first form must belong to this same period, and which, for more than one reason, still presents matter of great historical interest. This is the famous com- pilation known under the name of the Apostolic Gonstitu- tions, a vast collection of laws and ordinances touching the government of the Church, worship, discipline, and similar subjects, intermingled with moral teachings. The apostles appear in it as a kind of legislative body, speaking in their collective name, and ruling with a sovereign authority all that concerns the wants and duties of the Christian common- wealth. It is, in truth, the earliest ecclesiastical code, and its importance is hardly lessened by the pretentious form in which it is drawn up. Modern scholars are generally agreed in as- signing the principal part (Books I. -VI.) to the third century, while they make the appendices (Books VII., VIII.) a hundred years later. The passages therefore in this work, which relate to the history of the canon of the New Testament, ought to be mentioned here. In the first place, let me quote the place which the apostles claim for themselves in the economy of Providence. " Every generation," they say,' " has had its prophets who interpreted the will of God, and were the means of his call to repentance : before the deluge, there were Abel, Shem (sic), Seth, Enos, and Enoch ; in the time of the deluge, Noah ; in the time of Sodom, Lot ; after the cataclysm, Melchisedec, the patriarchs, and Job ; in ' Const Apost. ii. 55. 142 HISTORY OF THE CA.NON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, Egypt, Moses ; among the Israelites, in addition to the latter, Joshua, Caleb, and Phinehas, and others ; after the Law, angels and prophets ; then, further, God himself by his incarnation in the Virgin ; a little before His coming, John, the forerunner ; finally, after His Passion, we, the Twelve, and Paul, the chosen vessel. Witnesses of His presence Trapouo-t'as), with James, the brother of the Lord, and seventy- two other disciples and the seven deacons, we heard from his own mouth, etc." Among the injunctions laid upon the Church, there is that of reading the Scriptures. Thus it is ordained^ that during the night preceding the Passover Sunday there shall be read the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms until cock-crow, then the baptism of catechumens shall take place, and the Gospel be read (jo eùayyeXtov). In another passage- a complete enumeration is made of these Scriptures : — " The reader, placed in an elevated chair, shall read the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, and the Return,^ further, those of Job, Solomon, and the sixteen prophets. At the end of every two pericopes* an- other shall intone the Psalms of David, and the congregation sing the responses. After that there shall be read our Acts and the epistles of our fellow- worker, Paul, which he ad- dressed to the churches by direction of the Holy Spirit ; then a deacon or a presbyter shall read the Gospels which we, Matthew and John, have ti-ansmitted to you, and which the fellow- workers of Paul, Luke and Mark, have left to you." It will be observed that no mention is made here of any one of the Catholic Epistles or of the Apocalypse. This fact of itself, alone, authorises us in assigning an early date either to the composition of the book itself, or to the usages ' Const. Apost. V. 19. ' Const. Apost. ii. 57. 3 Ezra and Nehemiah. 4 àyctyjûff/.ard. It is evident that here only readings or extracts are under discussion. THE THIRD CENTURY. 143 which it consecrates. In another passage^ the faithful are put on their guard against the pseudepigrapha. It is not to the names they bear, it is said, that we must give heed, but to their contents and spirit. Finally, in a passage of the appendix,^ where he is speaking of the enthroning of the bishop, Peter prescribes also the reading of the Law, the Prophets, the Epistles, the Acts, and the Gospels, without entering into the details. We shall hardly go wrong if we see in these summary enumerations an index of the number of the volumes of which the sacred library was composed, and the care bestowed on reading a portion from each volume. This supposition is further confirmed by the venerable us- ages of the Catholic Church and of the Lutheran Churches.^ I shall be able to pass rapidly over the Latin authors of this century, for to them the canon of the New Testament seems to have remained in its primitive simplicity, and almost in the same state as we saw it in the Muratorian Canon. The mo.st salient feature is the tenacity with which the West refused to recognise the Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul. This unanimous refusal is supported much later by an author all the more worthy of credit that he is him- self of a different opinion.* The fact is proved in particular for the Roman presbyter, Caius, and for the Italian bishop, Hippolytus, who has grown so famous in our days,® but whose works are lost. In a fragment of Victorinus, bishop ' Const. Apost. vi. 16. = Const, Apost. viii. 5. 3 1 say nothing here of other passages (i. 5, 6 ; ii. 5) -where the 0. T. is more particularly spoken of ; a distinction is there established between what has a permanent value and what only concerns the Jews. * Jerome, De Viris III., ch. 59 : Apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Paidi ap. non hahetur. Comp. Euseb,, Hist, eccl., iii. 3, vi. 20. Placed at a greater distance and having no doubt a less complete acquaintance with the literature of the West, the latter expresses himself in a less decided fashion, •rapa. 'Vufiman Ttfft. S Jerome and Eusebius, II. cc. ^ Steph. Gobarus ap. Photius, Cod. 232. 144 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. of Petabium, in Pannonia/ the number of the churclies to which Paul is said to have written is expressly limited to seven, as to a sacred number. In the works of Lactantius there is no trace of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Later, when opinion had changed, attempts were made to explain this dislike of the early fathers to the epistle, by saying that the orthodox theologians were prejudiced against this epistle by the abuse which the heretics made of it. The Arians, it is said, appealed to the passage in iii. 2; the Novatians, who denied repentance to the renegade (lapsi), availed themselves of vi. 4 and x. 26.- But in what remains to us of Novatian himself,^ no use is made of the epistle, and if its authenticity and authority had been acknowledged previ- ously, it is far from probable that the orthodox fathers would have sacrificed it, simply to get rid of an exegetical argument which was inconvenient to them. The most celebrated and the most important Latin author of the third century, the Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, will also give us most complete information on the state of the canon. In the Old Testament, he makes no diiSculty about using the apocryphal books Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the Maccabees, and he quotes them as inspired writings. As to the New Testament, the elements of which it is com- ])osed appear to him to be determined beforehand by mys- tical reasons. The gosj-)els are four in number, like the rivers of Paradise ; ^ Paul and John wrote each to seven churches as was prefigured by the seven sons spoken of in the song of Hannah.'' The first of Peter and the first of ' De fabrica mundi, ap. Ca^-e, Hist. Lit. 1720, p. 95 : pofitea (non nifd) sinfjidarihiiH 2')ersonis scrijjsit ne excederet modum septem ecclesiarum. Comp. the same. In Ajwc, p. 570, ed. Paris, 1654. - Ambrose, De Poenit. ii. 3. Philastr., Haer. 89. 3 C4allaiKli, Bill. P.P., vol. iii. ■» Cyprian, Ep>p., 73. 5 Id., D( Exhort, mart., ch. 2. Adv. Jud., i. 20. Conip. 1 Sam., ii. 5. THE THIRD CENTURY. 145 John are the only Catholic Epistles known or quoted by Cyprian, I may add further that the Latin theologians were far from sharing that kind of antipathy against the Apocalypse which, as we have just seen, sprang up and gained ground in the bosom of the Eastern Church during this same cen- tury. I quoted just now the testimony of Cyprian on the point. Hippolytus/ Victorinus," Lactantius, as partisans of Chiliasm, professed great veneration for this book, and this opinion was so predominant among the Latins that, as we have seen elsewhere, Lactantius exalts in the most emphatic manner the Sibylline prophecies, and does not hesitate a moment about placing them on a level with inspired writ^ ings. The only author who is an apparent exception, is the presbyter Caius, an adversary of Chiliasm. According to Eusebius {Hist, eccl., iii. 28), Caius accused the heretic Cerinthus of having deceived the world by producing under the name of a great apostle, pretended revelations com- municated by angels. This passage has often been inter- preted as if it applied to the Apocalypse of John, which Caius would thus seem to have rejected and treated as an apocryphal work. But this is not stated explicitly, and above all Eusebius does not appear to have understood him in this fashion. The great apostle might very well be, either Paul or Peter ; at least this epithet was not given to John in the early church. ' He had written a defence of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John {Op}}, ed. Fabricius, p. 38. Jerome, Dc Vir. ill., 61. Andreas, Prolog, in Apoc). = Jerome, I.e., 18. The traces of Chiliasm have disappeared from his coinmentary in the recension -which has come down to us. CHAPTER IX. THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE, We have now come to the epoch in which Christianity, having gained a decided victory over the old religion of the empire, and having no longer anything to fear either from a distrustful polic}'' or from popular antipathy, was free to develop and organise itself in all directions according to its spirit and its needs. What use did it make of this freedom of movement which up to this time had been unknown ? We do not find that any advantage was taken of it for remodelling social institutions that had sprung up and developed in difficult times and under the blows of persecu- tion. It was left to time, to the instincts of future genera- tions, the exigencies of circumstances, the convenience of governments or individual interests, to modify these institu- tions, complete them, or adapt them to the genius of each ■epoch or country. That which predominated from the first day of the emancipation, so to speak, from the day after the last judicial murder ; that which occupied first the ctdtivated minds that could lead the way in thought, and then the masses ; that which for centuries absorbed almost all the religious activity of the church, enslaved all its powers and finally exhausted them, was speculation, the infatua- tion for transcendental questions, the demand for defining metaphysical notions, for analysing them and drawing inferences from them ; in a word, for chanszino^ reliofion into theology and theology itself into a matter for the learned and for dialectics. This has a bearing on our special history inasmuch as ali this work was begun, continued, and, so to speak, accomplished, at least in its most important and THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 147 most decisive parts, without the Church being in possession of a clear and precise theory regarding the standard of dog- matic truth, or of an official collection of the sacred books carefully limited and generally recognised. Not but that there were certain writings of the Old and New Testaments regarding whose authority all were agreed, and against which there could not be raised the least doubt, the least contradiction ; but the number and the list of these books were nowhere definitely determined ; and, besides, there was a crowd of others whose claims were not verified, which were used neither uniformly nor generally, and held a vague and fluctuating position between sacred and profane litera- ture, a position that might at any time embarrass science and disconcert the faithful. For the historian, this fact alone is enough to prove that the formation of the sacred collection was a matter of local custom, unconscious tradition, practical needs, relations more or less intimate, more or less accidental between the various churches. It was in no sense whatever an inherit- ance from the apostolic age, complete and guaranteed from the first, and running no risk of alteration in its form or materials. But it is not my duty here to interpret the facts ; I have only to recount them and let them speak for themselves. What the modern historian can establish by the study of early writers and the analysis of the literary documents of the first centuries — viz., the absence of any clearly defined canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicœa, and the varia- tions of opinion regarding the various parts of our existing collections — all this was established through the same methods by the contemporary historian, who had himself been struck by the facts to which I now call attention, with this single difference that he had them before liis eyes, while modein science has had to begin by discovering them anew. 148 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Eusebius of Caesarea (for my readers will have divined that I wish to devote this chapter to him) was the most erudite of the theologians of his day. If he leaves much to be desired as an exegete or an apologist for Christianity, he had, on the other hand, one quality which was wanting in all his predecessors as in all his contemporaries, the instinct for historical research. I use the word instinct purposely. His ecclesiastical history is an invaluable collection of materials, the fruit of the most meritorious labour ; but it is nothinfc more. And we have reason to congratulate our- selves on this, for his notes acquire all the more interest and value that he is clearly incapable of blending them into a true pragmatical history of the Church. What renders them most of all precious to us, is the very marked attention which he directs to all that concerns the history of the Christian Bible. He read a prodigious number of authors, for the most part now lost, and in the extracts he gives from their writings he never fails to note the use they made of Scripture, the list of books which they quote in passing or fully discuss, the judgments they pronounce on them. What is the reason of this anxiety? If we were still in possession of all these authors, would we not have more pressing ques- tions to address to them on the jn-oblems specially which occupied the age of Eusebius, the problems of dogmatic and speculative theology ? But, unless I am strangely deceived about the state of things at the beginning of the fourth century, it will not be difficult to explain why the bishop took so much care to register these numerous individual testimonies. Their relative value was all the greater that there nowhere existed any official declaration having an absolute value, no canon of a synod, no collective agreement among churches or bishops, no letter from a pope or mandate from a patriarch, and, above all, no apostolic decision. Of all these there is not the shadow of a trace in this lonsc series THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 149 of literary notices, so painfully, so conscientiously amassed by a man who, after all, had not sought them from any vain curiosity, but with the distinct purpose of reaching some- thino- certain. And, when all is done, the most positive result to which he comes is still uncertainty, and an uncertainty so great that he gets confused while making a statement of it. This may be seen fr;.m the analysis of his summary. He returns to this subject in several passages of his third book, to one of which, the twenty-fifth chapter, we must de- vote some attention. I am going to transcribe it entire and study it carefully, so as to institute a comparison between its parallel texts. Let me begin by saying that Eusebius, in the absence of any official list of the canonical writings of the New Testament, finds it the simplest way to count the votes of his witnesses, and by this means to distribute all the apostolical or pretended apostolical books into three categories : — (1) Those on whose authority and authenticity all the churches and all the authoi's he had consulted were agreed ; (2) those which the witnesses were equally agreed in rejecting ; and (3) an intermediate class regarding which the votes were divided. This division is certainly very far from being scientific ; as a matter of theory and dogma, it is •even absurd ; but it is very practical, and, above all, it is one to inspire us with great confidence, wheieas a more riirid and dosfmatic classification might have seemed to us to be more the work of the theologian than of the historian. Further, the very terms used by Eusebius to designate the different classes of books are so far from being precise and clearly defined that they continually confuse the discussion, or rather the report he makes of the state of things. From his historical point of view, he wishes to call the books of the first category the liomologiiinena^ or books universally ' 'OfioXoyov/jLtva, ù.^avTLfj>r,ra, uvaf^^'CKin-ra., IvliàêyiKa. This last term IS un- translatable. Still, though a synonym -with the three others, it cleai'ly 150 HISTORY OF THE CANOX OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. recognised ; those of the second (i.e., of the intermediaiy class) the antilegomena,^ or contested books. But with these terms, which are perfectly clear and natural, he con- tinually mixes others borrowed from a different order of ideas, and these other terms have contributed not a little tc> mislead modern scholars in the interpretation of his texts. I am thinking here chiefly of an expression which we have already met in Origen, but to which Eusebius gives a slightly novel meaning. He uses the term vôôa, hastunh, {apocryphxi), not exactly for fictitious writings, 'pseudeiû- grapha, works bearing falsely an author's name, nor, again, for books which are to be rejected from a dogmatic point of view, but simply for works which do not bear, so to speak, the stamp of canonical legitimacy, which are not warranted b}' the mass of votes as are those of the first class. I beg my readers to take note of this, and to remember, when reading the translation I am going to give of the texts from Eusebius, that this term illcgitiinate, with its derivations, does not imply in the author's thought any reproach of literary falsification or dogmatic heresy, but simply states that there was no general ecclesiastical adojîtion of the writings, and that consequently they either were, or ought to be, held inferior. The following is the chief passage in which Eusebius sums up the facts he has been able to establish by his literary researches-': — "Now that we have come to this says something more. It not only affirms the unanimity of their reception or use, but, no doubt, implies also the theological idea of a normal rule. I shall translate it in this sense: hooka of tlw Covenant, i.e., containing the testimonies or authentic documents of Revelation. But, as this privileged character given to certain books rested exclusively on a very ancient tradi- tion, it is understood that as a general thesis, it could only be attributed to the homologumena. ' ùvTi\iyoiA.i\ia, yvcufifia Tins xoWais. " Eusebius, Hist, eccl., iii. 25: 'ESXcyovVlvravea yivo/Aivou; avax.-ipaKaiuvaa'eat ràs ^t)\ahiira; TTJ; xaivTJ} ^laêrixvn ypaÇâ;. xal Ih raxrlav iv vrpUTois riiv àyiav ràv ivayyiXiuy nTpaxT^jv. oh 'écrirai ri tZv -rpà^iuv tÙv à-r. ypa(pr,, fitrà Si raUT'/tv ràç THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 151 point in our narrative, it seems to us fitting that we should give a list of the Scriptures of the New Covenant reeardinof which there has been discussion. In the first rank we must place the sacred quaternion of the Gospels ; it will be followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles ; after this we must rank the Epistles of Paul, and next to them we must receive that which is known by the name of the first of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter. To these must be added, if it be thought right, the Apocalypse of John, to which we shall return. These are the books which stand in the class of those universally acknowledged- In the class of contested books, which, however, are recog- nised by most, it is usual to place the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and those which are named the second and third of John, whether they come from the evangelist or some other person of the same name. Among the illegiti- mate books we must rank the Acts of Paul, what is called the Pastor, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle attributed to Barnabas, and the work entitled Institutes of the Apostles ; further, as I said, if it be thought right, the Apocalypse of John, which some reject, as I said, while others include it tlavKau xaraXixTiov iTierroXâs aïs é|^î tvv Çipofiivti)/ 'litidvvou "rfùTipav xaï oi/.olùi; tzv TliTfov xvpuTiot l'jriariXriv, ItI tdvtoi; tcixtîov, iïyi Çamin, thv àTôKixXv^iv 'luo.vjov. . . , xaî TCLVTO, fi\\) Èv o/ioKoyovfrnoi;. Tuv o àvTi\tyofji.iviti)i, yveoplfiuv o ouv o[/.u; Toi; TToWoî:, 71 Xiyofisvti 'la>iû(ieu ÇipiTUi xaî il 'loiîSa, tJts YliTpov ^ivripa iTia-Tokn xal h ivofial^ofiivn ^ivTipa xal rpiT» 'Itudwaw lÏTî reû ivayyiXiffTov Tuy^dvou/rai, un xal ér'ipov ofjLuyù^ou Xxi'iiu. 'E» Toi; voéoi; xaTaTirà^êea xal tÛv ïlavXsu -rpéXiai n ypa^ri, ri Xiyi/A.iMo; •^roi/j.riii, xal h ùvoxàXv^i; Ïl'-Tpov, xai rdi/T}] xal ivs à \v 'TsXUo'Ta.ii ix»Xr,(rlui; Ci^ri/y^offiîufiivMV, tujv ti TcoiTîk&i; v'ûêui Kcù TTJs à-!rocal iv vpo; 'Elùpair,u;, TTpo; tt]; 'Vuf/.aiut iKuXnirla; à; //.h ITauXou cùirav aûrriv àvnXiyKrêai (f>r,ffavTt;, où tlxaiov àyioi7\. lOUl., VI. lo : . . . «■TO TÛy àvTiXsyofcîvMv ypa(pûv' T7J; Tî \iysf/.'ivyi; 'SoXif/— (àivTo; a-ûfia; xaî rrj; 'inaoù rcù -ipâ^, "■O.l ttj; Tpô; 'Ejipaioii; IviitTûXtJ;, rrj; re hapyiâfîa xal KXyj/A-vTo; x,al 'lot/'oa. 3 Ibkl., iii. 38. 4 //j/,^.^ yi. 13, 14. loG HISTORY OF THE CAKON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Both are mentioned further in another passage which we cannot overlook. After narrating at length the history and martyrdom of James, the bi'other of the Lord, Eusebius adds,^ " It is to him that the first of what are called the Catholic Epistles is attributed. It should, however, be known that it is illegitimate. Only a few ancient authors mention it, as well as that other which bears the name of Jude and also stands among the Catholic Epistles. Still we know that both are used along with the others in most churches." This passage is specially interesting because it furnishes us with the last piece of evidence that the terms illegitimate and disj^ided have with Eusebius exactly the same meaning. He does not mean to say that the Epistle of James is a work forged, or heretical, or unworthy of being read by the faithful ; on the contrary he attests that it was read and recommends it ; he expresses no doubt re- garding the person of the presumed author, but he knows tliat all the churches do not regard it as a book of the first rank, no doubt because it is not by one of the twelve, and he mentions this lack of the highest legitimacy. In this same class of books of a second rank, Eusebius also put, as we saw, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor, the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. Elsewhere he adds to these the Epistle of Clement. All these writings, I repeat, have their place in this list by the same title as the five disputed Catholic Epistles. I have just quoted a passage in which the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement are enumerated among the disputed books, be- tween the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Jude.^ In the same place this classification is repeated almost in ' Ibid., ii. 23 : d i ■x-pûrn rtov ivo/^caXefiivav «aeoXixav iviffTeKuv i^iiai Xiyirai, IffTiov Be as vùêiviTai ftîv. . . . ofiu; Sj ta-fnv xal ravras /xirà rùv Xoi^rûv I» vXiUrais ciènf/,oiriiiifiiva; iKKXriiriais. ' vi. 13 (see Note 2 on the preceding page). THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 157 the same terms.^ Elsewhere he even says, when speaking of Clement : " There remains of him a great, admirable epistle, written in name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, and universally acknowledged. " We know that it has from an early date been publicly used in most churches and is so still in our day."^ Here, then, is the same Epistle of Clement raised to the rank of the un- disputed writings ; ^ there were so many opinions in its favour, and such was the general use made of it ecclesias- tically in the fourth century. The Acts of Paul are de- scribed, in a very favourable manner, as not undisputed.^ As to the Pastor, it should be known, says Eusebius, that it meets with opposition : it cannot therefore be placed among the undisputed books ; others, however, consider it indis- pensable for elementary teaching. For this reason it is used in the churches, and I see that several very early authors make use of it.^ The only point on which Eusebius contradicts himself, is regarding the Apocalypse of Peter which he puts sometimes among the disputed books, some- times among the heretical books ; ^ and even here he is only re})eaitng the divergent opinions of his predecessors with- out reconciling them. What now is the conclusion to be drawn from all these facts ? Are we to place in our canon of the New Testa- ' vi. 14. Clement of Alexandria in his Outlinrs (T-TOTUTrûiru;) passes in review all the canonical Scriptures, not neglecting tlie disputed books : fj.noi TO.; àt/TiXiyofiîvas "^apiXéàti, T'/iv 'laûSaX£y&/, xairàs XoitÙs xaéaXinàs I'TriariiXa;, TTit Ti liapvâfia «aï tyiv Xl-rpôu Xîyof/.iv^v œ-ToxâXu-v^/v. " 111. 16 : TouTûv Tov KX'/.fMvTo; ôfj.oXo'youfi'iv/i fjùa l'TrKTToXh (plpiTai [nyàXn tî y.aï ûavfiairla. . . . rauTtiv Iv ■TrXuarai; ixxXuffiai; iri tov koivov ^ilrifiao-iît/f^iv/iv -TaXai ri xa) Kaê Yifiâ; auTov; 'iyvrufnv. 3 iii. 38 : . . . . tou KXnfmro;, iv Tri à.Mùif/.oXoyYi/Aiv/^ Tapa •prâiriv. '• iii. 3 : ovoï fiiiv ràj Xtyofiiva; aVTov Tpa^n; sv àva.fiut what books he thinks necessary into these sets. Now, if such a liberty could be granted to a simple scholar by a sovereign who had lately found at Nicsea how difficult it is to maintain agreement among theologians, and who would certainly not lightly run the risk of a new quarrel in his own capital, it is evident that every one more or less must have had this liberty, no competent authority having ever decided the questions regarding the canon. But the astonishing part of it is that this same Eusebius, who took care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of opinion in regard to certain books apostohc or supposed to be so, and who, in that same passage, amuses himself by speaking to us of his double sheets in sets of three or four, has not a w^ord to sa}' to us regarding the choice he made on this great occasion. For we cannot but see that this choice must have fixed the component parts of the collection, at least within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople — i.e., in the most important part of Christendom. Fifty magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a great influence' on future copies. But, I repeat, Eusebius does not tell us what he caused to be put in them. Did he abide by the principle of following the unanimity of opinion, of restricting himself to the undisputed books ? Or did he ' Eusebius, I. c. : . . . . ràv ô-'iuv '^■/{Ka'oh ypa:çZv, L-i (/.oXivto. rf,}/ r' Wiiv XP^^'^ '''? '^^1' \xx\r,ffla.; X'lyca avayxalav s'lvai yiyiâa-xîi:, L 1C2 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. make the limits of the collection wider, while he preserved established usages, traditional customs (as the text of the emperor's letter seems to insinuate) ? We do not know. There is no doubt that he admitted the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but what about the Apocalypse, with which almost no one at that time in the East would have anything to do ? And what about the "beautiful and admirable Epistle of Clement universally received by the churches ? " In any case, the silence of Eusebius on this fundamental point does not arise from the New Testament of that day being a set of books •strictly defined, as it is in our day. It would be ex- ])lained more naturally in this way, that if the commission given by the emperor and executed to his satisfaction was a fact very honourable for the illustrious bishop wlio was liardly considered by his colleagues to be of strict orthodoxy the details of the execution might not be to every one's taste, and it would be better to pass by anything which might give rise to cavilling. CHAPTER X. ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. The critical work of Eusebiiis, which we have been ana- lysing, has proved to us that there was no official decision about the apostolic books, and no uniformity in the usage of the churches towards the middle of the fourth century. It has also shown us that there was a growing necessity for coming to some definite understanding on a point so fundamental. Thus, we are not surprised to see the most illustrious theologians of the second half of this same cen- tury make reiterated efibrts to put an end to all uncertainty and to fix opinion on certain ]3oints of detail, regarding which doubt was ceasing to pay respect to long-standing usage. Here we enter on the most interesting period of the history of the canon ; for we find here very numerous and express testimonies, together with catalogues of the sacred books, which more and more approach those that have been adopted in modern chui'ches. But these docu- ments themselves demonstrate that the end they proposed was not reached, that the unity was not obtained, that the principles followed were divergent, that, in more than one respect, the theory of the schools conflicted with the practice of the churches, in short, that science had not succeeded in endowing Christendom with an exact scriptural code. The study of the texts will fully justify the title I have given to this chapter ; it will bring to our notice a series of attempts, the very number of which proves a fact which modern apologetics seek in vain to disguise — viz., that, at a period so far removed from primitive times, there was no longer any means of doing better. These observations are all the 1G4 HISTORY OF THE CANOX OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. more important that the testimonies to be collected will be no longer like those of preceding generations, occasional allusions or heterogeneous facts, but judgments purposely delivered, opinions taking the attractive form of dogmatic thesis, or even regulations sanctioned by the common suff- rages of persons invested with a public authority. I shall bring together, in one chapter, the testimonies of the Easterns ; another will contain those of the Latins ; a third will be devoted to a systematic recapitulation of these elementary facts, the explanation of the terminology con- nected with them, and an estimate of the general results. Let us beoin with the most celebrated theologian of the fourth century, the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (f 372). From what we know, he appears to have been the first prelate who took advantage of his position at the head of a vast and important diocese to settle the question of the biblical canon. It was an ancient custom for the Egyptian patriarchs, at the beginning of each year, to publish the ecclesiastical calendar — i.e., to settle the date of Easter, on which most of the other festivals depended, and on the same occasion to address to the faithful pastoral letters, or,, as we would now say, episcopal charges. In one of these epistles,^ which was written for the year 865, if the number it bears in the manuscripts (39) refers, as is supposed, to the year of the author's pontificate, he deals with Scripture, and gives the complete list of the books composiiig it. He begins by setting forth the utility and necessity of such a list, when numerous heretical books were circulating in the Church ; and, to excuse his boldness,- he quotes the example of the evangelist Luke, who decided to narrate the history of the Lord, because others had attempted to introduce suspicious matter into it. It needed boldness therefore to ' Atlianasius, Ej). festal. Ojip. ed. Montfaucon, ii. 38 f. *' ^p'^^cro/^ai Tfo; ffivTaffiv TTJs Ificcvrov toX/atj; tm rvria rod iVayyiXurrov Aavxâ x. T. \. ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 1G5 draw up a catalogue of the holy books. That single word reveals these facts to every one who does not obstinately close his eyes to evidence — viz., that the catalogue was not up yet drawn up officially, and that it was not easy to draw it so as to please all the members of the Church. But let us look at the catalogue itself. In the Old Testament, Athan- asius reckons twenty-two books, according to the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Through Origen we are acquainted both with this number and its curious explanation ; but, in spite of a coincidence which could not be fortuitous, the catalogue of the patriarch differs from that of the professor, both in the order of the books and in the books themselves. With Athanasius, Job is put between Canticles and Isaiah ; Daniel comes after Ezekiel; the book of Ruth is counted as an independent work, distinct from Judges. On the other hand, the book of Esther is deliberately omitted .altogether. As this omission is contrary to the usages of the Synagogue and cannot be founded on a point of dogma, it must be concluded that it was due to some ancient custom, whose influence the patriarch did not think it right to resist. We shall find that he was not the only one of his century who held the same opinion, and, as Ave have already seen, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, had two centuries before ex- pressed a similar opinion, both for himself and for those around him. Such an opinion could only have been founded, at first, on the absolute difference between the spirit of this book and that of the Gospel. Finally, it is almost superfluous to note that Athanasius attributed canonicity to the Greek texts of the books of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Ezra, without giv- ing any heed to the differences between the Septuagint and the original. That would be certain, even although the tex t of his charge did not say so in so many words.^ But the point ' 'Up'.ftia; y.tt.1 ffv; «.vrZi 'Bapovx, ê(r\toi r.a.1 i-ricrToXn.- — The epistle of Jeremiah which the ancients regarded as a separate work, forms with us the last IGG HlSTOllY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUEES. which gives special importance to this document is, that in the New Testament he enumerates all the twenty-seven books which we now include in it, and excludes every other book. The seven Catholic Epistles are attached to Acts ; the Epistle to the Hebrews is inserted between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to Timothy ; and the Apocalypse is reinstated in its ancient rights and honours. Besides this collection of writings, called divine on the faith of tradition and recognised as the only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel/ Athanasius notes certain other books inferior in dignity and used habitually in elementary instruction. In this latter class he places Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Tobit, Judith, the Pastor, and the Apostolic Constitutions. I shall have to return to this classification and to the theological terms which are used to distinguish its component parts.^ As the document we have just been studying is a pastoral charge, and not a critical dissertation, the author brings no proof to support his decisions. He himself calls them bold and they are indeed bold, especially as regards the number of the Catholic Epistles. If he makes appeal on this point to the traditions of the fathers, he goes much beyond the testimonies of history, which a short time before had been so carefully collected by his learned theological antagonist, Eusebius. But my readers now know them too well for me to need to return to them. Let it be enough to show that the individual opinion of the patriarch of Alexandria was far from becoming the general law of the Church. The liberty,, or rather the uncertainty, continued afterwards as before. chapter of the book of Baruch. But m the Greek Bibles it is separated from this by Lamentations. ' 'TTaoa^oêïvTa 'jtKTTivê'uTO, n êùa. I'nai (iifiXttt. . . , Tavra TriyaX tov cruTrip'iou, , . . £v ToiiTOi; fiovois TO TTji ilKTi^iio.; oioa>rxa.?.ûo\i ^uayyiXi^irai. * I shall not stop here to consider another text printed in the works of Athanasius, the Synopsis S.S. wliich belongs to a much later date. ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHUECH. 167 We see this in a contemporary of Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus (f 390), who was no less illustrious as a theologian, and no less attached to the Ni cœan orthodoxy. He, in turn, sees the necessity for drawing up a catalogue of the biblical books, and, whether it was that the subject seemed to him worthy of it or that he wished to aid the memory of his readers, he put it into verse.^ So far as concerns the Old Testament, he agrees with Athanasius — twenty-two books, twelve being historical, five poetical, and five prophetical. Esther is wanting. In the New Testament there is just this little difference that the seven Catholic Epistles come only after the fourteen by Paul ; but what is more important, the Apocalypse is omitted, and omitted designedly. For, after having named the Epistle of Jude and in the same verse, so that there is no room for suspecting an omission on the part of the coj)yist, he declares that these are all and that beyond these books there are none legitimate.* Still, it is to be observed that this exclusion implies no unfavourable judgment regarding the book considered in itself. Indeed, we find elsewhere in the works of the same Father, though very rarely, some quotations from the Apocalypse, and in the work now under discussion he calls the author of the Fourth Gospel the great herald who has traversed the heavens,'* a name which of course marks him as the author of the Apocalypse. The legitimation refused to this book is therefore not the authenticity in the literary sense of the word, but the privilege of being ranked among those writings which were to regulate ecclesiastical teaching. In the editions of Gregory's works there is another piece ' Gregor. ÏSTaz., Carm. 33. 0pp. ed Colon, ii. 98. - These not being enumerated, we do not know in what place he put the Epistle to the Hebrews. lï ri rouTav Ikto; ovx it ytnriois. * y.npv^ f^iya; olfa'»o(poir'/i;. 1G8 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. of verse called Iambics to Seleucus, which relates to our subject. Modern criticism attributes it to a friend of the preceding writer, to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium in Asia Minor (towards 880). Its author enters into more details of literary history, and, if the poetry does not gain thereby, that fault is amply atoned for in our eyes by the facts with which the text supplies us. ' Amphilochius, too, belongs to that phalanx of Greek Fathers who, in regard to the Old Testament, stoutly held out against the admission of the six books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees) wholly foreign to the Hebrew canon, though this did not prevent them from receiving all the others, notably Daniel and Jeremiah, in the amplified recension of the Septuagint. He also mentions expressly the ex- clusion of Esther in terms which show that he approves of it, and that this was the opinion of most.^ The list of the books of the New Testament presents several details worthy of remark. John is named the fourth among the evangelists according to the chronological order, while the author assigns him the first rank because of the elevation of his teaching. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke are «tyled catholic, no doubt to contrast them with the numerous apocryphal and heretical Acts which were then in circula- tion. After them come the fourteen Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews being the last, and the author defending it against its detractors.^ There remain ^ the Catholic Epistles, which some say are seven in number, others three ; those of James, Peter, and John, one of each. The author does not add a word to decide the question. He ' Tins *6 Çcca-L T>)V vpoi 'E^paUv; vâêrtv, ci» lô XiyovTSs' yvtKria yap h X,^-pi}' 3 iliii rl \oi'!riv, , . . 4 rivis fiiv 'i'Tna, Çxiriv, oi àé rpii; fiova; p^pTivat "hïpi^infai. . . . ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 1G9 ■does the same Avith the Apocalypse, though, after liaving mentioned the ditFerence of opinions on this book, he says that most are for rejecting it.^ The most curious feature is that, having thus stated the doubtful right of several books to be included in the sacred collection, the poem ends with this incredible phrase : " This is perhaps the most exact list of the inspired Scriptures," ^ a phrase which by its hypo- thetical form furnishes the last proof that his list is not founded on any official or generally acknowledged rule. There is another contemporary who treats the question of the canon in honest prose, and, what is more important, as ■Si chapter of popular theology. I refer to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (-f* 386).^ In his Catéchèses there is a passage on our subject which deserves to be read, and I place its sub- stance before my readers. The author begins by estab- lishing the intrinsic unity of all Scripture and recommend- ing the exclusive reading of the îiomologumena.^ Passing to the Old Testament, he relates at length the legend of the seventy-two interpreters shut up in as many separate •chambers, and each in seventy-two daj's completing the translation of the whole sacred code of Israel, their transla- tions agreeing in every single word. Having thus proved the inspiration of the Septuagint, the author proceeds to ' T'/iv àè ÙToxâXv^iv JcoocvvoO viXf) iioênv \i'yov tol; airûii ^pôvoi; •rpâ^i^i rut 'A-proirrôXeuv. This does not mean that " the Acts were written previous to, or about this period," as some have believed it possible to translate it, but that the Catholic Epistles form with the Acts a volume which is placed in the general series before the volume of the Epistles of Paul, and that the book of Acts contains the narrative of facts contemporaneous with the composi- tion of these epistles. 3 It is none the less curious that he here insists on the fact that tlie Catholic Epistles form with Acts one whole. Is it perhaps that he may- get a total number which presents a mystical meaning ? I leave to any one who pleases the task of going over calculations so superfluous. 174 HISTORY OF THE CANOX OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. The sequel of my discussion will throw some light on a fact apparently inexplicable. Let me at present simply affirm that Epiphanius had no firmly settled opinion regarding the nature and value of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament (as we now call them) and of some other books -^ in other words, that his mathematical and mystical tendencies could not bring him to any precise result. But if the leaders of orthodoxy were so far from being fortunate in this work which is supposed to have been very «impie, how many difficulties had to be encountered by those who were not so much influenced by popular practice ! I am thinking now of the theologians of the School of Antioch, of men who, in the eyes of modern science, were infinitely superior to most of their contemporaries in all that concerns biblical studies. Even yet their sound exegesis, guided by a rare historical instinct and a sympathetic intel- ligence with the true needs of the Christian public, may be used with profit, while no sensible interpreter now dreams of drawing inspiration from the allegorical eccentricities brought into fashion by Origen. Unfortunately the works proceeding from this school are in great part lost ; we know its opinions only in a fragmentary way, and through the reports of ignorant and prejudiced opponents. Thus the celebrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (1428), who in his time received the honourable surname of the Exegcte, is accused by them not only of having interpreted Scripture in a poor and paltry fashion (which means that he clung to the proper sense of the text and despised the sterile abund- ance of mystical allegories), but also of having rejected some books from the number divinely prescribed? He rejected, ' Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are, from tlieir doubtful value, called àf^çixixra (Hcier. 8, tom. i. 19). The Apostolic Constitutions are a word of God, (lio; x'oyû; {Hcier., 80); doubtful, but not without value, Iv àf^ÇiXixTu «xx' ovK aSixifioi {Haer., 70). " Leont. Byzant. Contra Nastor. et Eutych, iii. (sec. vi.) : Theodorus ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 175 it is said, the Epistle of James and other Catholic Epistles, the titles of the Psalms, Canticles, Chronicles, and Job. It is evident that in this case the accusers did not even under- stand the opinions they were attacking. In regard to Job, Theodore seems to have considered the framework of this book as a poetic fiction and not as genuine history ; his in- terpretation of the Psalms seems to have led him to regard the inscriptions they bear as open to suspicion ; and in both cases he gave proof of a sagacit}'- far from common in his day. The rejection of Canticles leads us to suppose that he gave a purely literal interpretation of it, the result of which could not have appeared to him to be for the edification of the Christian Church, Chronicles also may have appeared to him unsuitable for edification, both on account of their interminable lists of proper names, and their useless repeti- tion of facts already given in Kings. In other words, his decisions were not those of a critic disputing the antiquity of these books ; he was rather a practical theologian, estimat- inof them accordina; to the needs of the church. As to the particular Catholic Epistles which Theodore excluded from the collection, there were many even in the opposite camp who were allied with him on that point. In his own camp he had on his side a colleague still more illustrious than himself. This was the man to whom his church and posterity have given the highest eulogiums and honours, John Chrysostom, the great orator, the popular exegete par excellence (t 407). In none of his works, which are almost all on practical and popular theology, do we find any trace of the Apocalypse or of the four smaller Catholic Epistles.^ Among his works there has been printed an . . . audet contra gloriam Spiritus sancti, cmn omnes scripturas Mimiliter et démisse inter pretans, turn vero a numéro ss. Scripiurarum divine p)raetiXticna(^of/.'iyeov où Tav à-rcxpûipav fièv h ^pÛTti ItiittoX'^. rhv yàp ^suripccv xai rpiTtiv ol -pra-ip-; à'raxavôviZ.Svo-i (Clirysost. O}}})., vi. 430). Opp,, XI. 391 : XTOiffêi (ii(ix!a,