m"1

I 1

'•' ¦..•'' • .'ill ' !*•» \ ! *
¦•¦•¦•¦•>¦'>:'- -te •¦:¦', •'

YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Rev. Herbert D. Gallaudet.

HISTOEY

OF IHE

CANO]^ OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
m THE CHRISTIAN CHURCa

HISTOEY
OF THH
CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
IN THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BY
EDWARD REUSS,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASBDRG.

TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION WITH
THE author's OWN CORRECTIONS AND REVISION, BY
DAVID HUNTEE, B.D.,
LATE SCHOLAR AND FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OP GLASGOW.

SECOND EDIXION.

EDINBUEGH:
E. W. HUNTEE, 19 GEOEGE IV. BEIDGE.
1891.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
CHAP. I. — Use of the Old Testament in the Apostolic Chuech 1
Reading of the 0. T. in the Jewish Synagogues ... 1
This reading continued in the Christian ohurclies ... 4
Was the canon of the O. 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 Chuecii 1 5
How these writings were disseminated ... ... 15
How the custom arose of reading them in public ... 17
Their growing influence on Christian teaching ... 21
But no notion yet of any canon of Scripture ... ... 24
CHAP. ni. — First Beginnings op a Collection of 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 180 37
Papias ... ... ... ... ... 37
Epistle to DiogTietus' ... ... ... ... 38
Hegesippus ... ... ... ... ... 39
Melito of Sardis ... .,. ... ... ;?9
Claudius Apolbnaris ... ... ... ... 40
Dionysius of Corinth... ... ... ... 41
^ Treatise against Montanism ... .. ... 42
Athenagoras (+117) ... ... ... ... 43
Letter from the Church of Lyons ... ... 44
Martyrdom of Polycarp ... ... ... io
Martyrdom of Ignatius ... ... ... 4.5
The Pastor of Herm as ... ... ... 45
Justin Martyr -.• ••• ••• •¦¦ 46

.CHAP. IV.— Heresy ...
Attitude of heretical writers toM-ards apostolic books
The Jewish Christians
The Gnostics ... .. ..;
The attitude of both prove non-existence of a canon
Marcion's treatment of the gospels ...
Tatian' a 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 575S (il
6.40669 717277
77 79

82

vi CONTENTS.

Influence of Montanism and Gnosticism on the ooncep
tion of Scripture
Opinion of certain Catholic writers —
Theophilus of Antioch ... .•• ••• °|
Irenaeus and Tertullian ... ••• ¦¦• °^
CHAP. VI.— The Collections in Use towards the End of the
Second Century ... ¦•¦ ¦•¦ ••• ••• ^2
The Muratorian Oanon {180-190), ... ... .¦¦ 94
Discussion of its statements . ... ... ••• 98
Irenaeus (t202)  103
TertulHan (190)  106
Clement of Alexandria (190)  U'-i
CHAP. VII.— Bibliography ... ... ... ... ... 117
Two distinct parts in the collection of the N.T. ... 117
The order of the books in the collection ... ... 120
The term Catholic Epistles ... ... ... ... 123
CHAP. VIII.— The Third Century ... ... ... ... 125
Slow progress of the canon in the third century ... 125
The Syriac version or PescAJio ... ... .. 127
Origen (184-253)  129
The School of Alexandria and the Apocalypse ... 138
The Apostolic Oonsiiivtions ... .. ... ... 141
Cyprianof Carthage (+260) ... ... ... ... 144
CHAP. IX. — The Fourth Century — Statistical Retrospective 146
Eusebius of Oaesarea (270-340) ... ... 148
His diifioulty 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 (+386) ... ... ... ... 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
CflAP. XI, — Attempts at Codification — The Western Chdrcu 185
Hilary of Poitiers (+368) ... ... ... ... 185
Philastrius of Brescia (+about 387) ... ... ... 187
Toranius Rufinus (410) .. ... ... ... 192
Different estimates of certain books in East and West .. 192
Jerome (329-420)  J93
Augustine (354-430) ... ... ... ... 200
The Synod of Carthage (397) ... ... ... 205
The Epistle of Pope Innocent I. (405) ... ... 207

CONTENTS. vii
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 canoTO, canomJcaZ, etc. ... ... 217
The books placed by the Fathers in a second canon ... 220
Meaning ot th.e term apocryphal ... ... ... 223
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) ... ... 233
The Synopsis of Holy Scripture ... ... ... 230
SvcaiM-as, De partibv,s legis divince ... ... ... 238
Cosmas Indopleustes (535) ... ... .. ... 240
Euthalius (459) ... ... ... ... ... 241
Leontius of Byzantium (590) ... ... ... 242
Anastasius Sinaita (+599) ... ... ... ... 242
Cassiodorius (+562)... ... ... ... ... 242
Pope Gregory the Great (+604) ... ... ... 243
Isidore of Seville (+636) ... ... ... ... 244
The Council of TruUum (691-2) ... ... ... 247
John of Damascus (+754) ... ... ... ... 248
Nicephorus of Constantinople (+828) ... ... 249
Raban Maur of Mayence (1856) ... ... ... 250
The evidence of Bibles and Manuscripts ... ... 252
Peter of Clugny (+1156) ...  257
Hugoof 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 Albigeuses, 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
CriAP. XV, — Official and Modern Catholicism ... ... 274
Decree of Council of Trent ... ... ... ... 275
Discussion of the decree ... ... ... ... 280
Sixtus of Sienna ... ... ... ... ... 282
Decisions of the 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 appUca;tioD
to the canon ... ... ... ... 290
Opinions of Calvin, Zvvingle, and Petrus Vermilius ... 294
Statements in the Helvetic Confessions of Faith ... 298
Statements in the Scotch Confession and the thirty-nine
Articles ... ... ... ... ... 299
AU these base oanonicity on the witness of the Holy
Spirit ... ...  ... 304

vm CONTENTS. PAOX
Practical difficulties of this theory ... ... •¦• 308
As seen in the position assigned to the Apocrypha ... 307
Opinions of Luther ... ... ... ... 320
His principle of oanonicity ... ... ... ... 332
Opinions of Melanchthon, Brentz, Flacius ... ... 333
Carlstadt (+1541) ... ... ... ... ... 336
Translator's note on the position of the Apocrypha in
early English Bibles ... ... ... ... 339
CHAP. XVII.— The Confessional Schools ... ... ... 341
The common neglect of the theologians of 17th century 341
Apparent adherence to the principles of Calvin and Luther 343
Gradual return to the principle of tradition ... ... 343
The treatment of the O. T. Apocrypha ... ... 352
Relation oi the teims Scripture and Word of Ood ... 354
The Consensus Helveticns {1615) ... ... ,, 357
Attacks made by Protestants on the Apocrypha ... 359
The Synod of Dort (1620) ... ... ... ... 362
Treatment of the N. T. books ... ... ... 363
The polemic of Martin Chemnitz ... ... ... 366
CHAP. XVIII. — Criticism and the Church ... ... ... 371
Some words of retrospect and prospect ... ... 371
Influence of Protestant theology on the notion of the
canon ... ... ... ... ... ,1573
Similarity of results among Protestants and Catholics ... 374
Growth of traditionalism in the Reformed Churches ... 376
Recoil from excessive traditionalism ... ... 379
Influence of Pietism on the Lutheran Church ... 3S2
Influence of Rationalism ... ... ... ... 335
Rise of the historical method ... ... ... 388
Semler ... _ ... ... ... ... ... 333
Seraler's use of internal evidence ... ... ... 390
His theory of inspiration ... ... ... ... 393
His theory of the canon ... ... ... ... 396
Concluding remarks — hopes for the future ,., ... 400

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION.

The History of tlie Canon of the Holy Scriptures 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 first 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 French, 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
different 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 TMologie, 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-
¦ GescMchte der Heiligen 8chriften_ 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'
natural 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 wiU 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 ihe 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
altogether ignored. On the other hand, writings like
" Supernatural Religion," when discussing the bearing 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 enough to argue 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 sufficient 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 New 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 translator's 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 Christian 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 third 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. Maey's, Paetick, Glasgow, Oct., 1883.
' Westcott, History of the Canon of the N. T., p. 12.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The work of M. Reuss on the History of the Canon had long
been known to scholars when its translation was undertaken
some years ago, and in its English form it has had some part
in modifying general opinion in this country regarding the
Canon of Scripture. Its great value lies in its firm grasp of
the idea of an historic evolution. So many books have been
written with a dogmatic prejudice for, or against, the Canon as
it now stands in oiu' English Bibles, that impartial minds will
turn with pleasure to a book which brings the Canon under the
ordinary conditions of circumstance and growth. Behind many
misconceptions in the minds of certain assailants and defenders,
lies the chief misconception that the Scriptures, to be of value,
must have come into existence distinct from all other writings
and complete as a collection. It is secondary to argue that this
book was, or was not, used by Justin Martyr, that other quoted,
or not quoted, by Irenteus, when the real questions are : — " How
came certain books to be set apart from others % " and " How
were so many set apart and no more ? " If M. Reuss does not
give a direct answer to either of these questions, he keeps them
before the mind through the whole of his book, and furnishes
materials from which the reader may frame his own answer.
The translation was made from the second French edition and
had the benefit of certain additions and corrections by M. Reuss.
DAVID HUNTER.

St Mary's, Partick.
Glasgow, June i8go.

HISTOEY

CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
m 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-days 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
existence of the synagogues, nor of readings of the kind
¦ Comp. also Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii., 17 : (xitrns ilih/nihs It!
A

2 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
indicated. The first allusions to such 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 at 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
persecution of King Antiochus, during 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 Sedarim (paragraphs), 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 Eeuas, History of Christian Theology.in the ApostoUc Aqe, B. 1, cha.
ii. and iii.
' Acts XV. 21 : ix ymZ, xfxalut—xaTX crcKiv—i, txTi rvtuyaym; xxrx tS»

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 3
marked in all editions of the Hebrew Bible. As to the
prophets, we must remember, in the first place ,that the Jews
included under that collective name, not only the fifteen
prophetical books proper (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the
twelve Minor Prophets), but also the books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings. From a period before the
a-postolic 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 Christian Church. Such a custom
was subject to many variations ; and indeed the scanty in
formation 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. 16),
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 terms which undoubtedly show that the
author is speaking of a regular and official practice. But
there is more than this. This same practice is attested still
' Ver. 15 : avotyvuiris tov vofioo xati Tuv ^p/KpttTUv.

4 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
more strongly by the frequent use of the phrase, the lam
and the prophets,^ 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 iu
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 Jewish 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
public 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. 46 ; Acts xxiv. 14,
xxviii. 23 ; Horn. iu. 21). See Eeuss, GescMchte der Heiligen Schriften
des A. T., §413.
= Acts ii. 47 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 16.

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 5
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
oontinually 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 aU 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, as 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 aU cases they were the
most direct and simple means of such a familiarity. The
Pagan or Jewish origin of the various members of the
¦Church made no difierence 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 readingof 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
after, in the time of the Emperor Justinian, opposition was
stUl 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 Church 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
esegetical 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
century, 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, especiaUy in Greek-
speaking countries. On the one hand, we cannot affirm
' Codex, Tit. 28, 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 who 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 Testatment-
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 aU
the New Testament, no one has been able to point out a
single dogmatic passage taken from the Apocrypha and

USE OP 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 the
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 cb 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
liands 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
apostles' 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 SCRIPTURES.
one can prove it. ^ On the contrary, 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
books in which Messianic prophecies were found. The name
Psal/ms cannot possibly have included also such books aa
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 quotations 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 interpreters, 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 which may appear open to suspicion.
The examples of religious courage and constancy extolled
¦ See on this point, Beuss, Geschichte der Schriften des A. T., § 411 ff,
544, 579 ff.
= Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

USE OP THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. H
by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 34, 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
stiU in our hands, and which no one assuredly is willing to
consider authentic or divinely inspired.^
From aU this it follows, at least, that we should not be too.
hasty in attributing to the apostles the theories regarding
the canon which were formulated by Protestant theology.
We 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 my
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 whicli the Greek
text is very 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 Daniel, the Gre^k 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 much-discussed book of Enoch. It had long disappeared ;
but in 1773 Bruce brought three MSS. from Abyssinia containing a trans
lation ia Ethiopic. It was edited, and translated into English by Arch
bishop Lawrence in 1838 ; but the standard edition is now that of Dillmann
(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 J but the passage does not appear in the fragment
that has survived in Latin.] — Tr.

12 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
transformation in the order of its contents and chapters, hut
there have been also added to it an epistle of the prophet
and what is called the book of Barucb. 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 Englisji
Bibles, Ezra is applied to the canonical book and Esdras to the two boofes
of the Apocrypha ; in French, the one form Esdras is applied to both.]— 3?f.
' For this whole question, I refer my readers to Beuss, History 0}
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, i., p. 352.
3 Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21 ; Heb. iii. 7, iv. 7, ix. 8, &c.

USE OP THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 13
hold a special position which excludes the idea of any
common and human mistake (cV Trvevnan, Matt. xxii. 43). In
this respect, king David, considered as the author of aU tho
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 very
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 SCRIPTURES.
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 religions
value. We sh^U find that the entire history of the canon
in the Christian Church resol-^es itself finally into alterna
tions between these two points of view.

CHAPTER II.
THE WRITINGS OP THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE 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 aU the existing churches. Nevertheless
that is the unconscious supposition of those who hold that
the canon — i.e., the official 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

16 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
them may be disputed on sufficient grounds. If, as most
critics think, tbe Epistle to tbe 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. Thess. v. 27) in his earliest epistle. Th&
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 weU-known that many exegetes
have adopted a similar hypothesis regarding the Epistle to
the Ephesians. The epistles may have been communicated
in various ways, either by the transmission of the origiuaV
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. 18 f; Eph. vi. 21 f^
Col. iv. 7 ; Tit. iii. 13.
= These salutations are always introduced by the exhortation : iirrifxM

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
ration, 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 SCRIPTURES.
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 much 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 hia
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 with 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
churches,^ and everywhere, even in the smallest community,
the traditional teaching was abundant and careful.^ The
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 teaching 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 oral 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. lO ; Titus iii. 12.
= Acts XX. 17, 28 ; Titus i. 5, 7 ; Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25 ; Phil. i. 1 ;
I 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 Philad. 7 ; Magnesi 8, 13.
« ^iicyyiXisv, ivuyytXidTns, ivayyiXiZiriai, Eom. i. I ; 1 Cor. iv. 15, etc. ;
Luke ix. 6 ; Acts viii. 4, ete. ; 2 Tim. iv. 5. — Kripuy/^x, xipu^, xrificmiv,
Titus i. 3 ; 1 Cor. ii. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. 11 ; Matt. x. 7 ; Acts xx. 25. — nxpxSins,
«xficii'Sitxi, 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Luke i. 2 ; Acts xvi. 4. — MapTvpia, ft,a,pru(iiv,
/txpri/s, Acts i. 8, xxii. 18, xxiii. II ; Rev. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 15, etc. —
"Avoi^is <rou (tTcfixTcs, Eph. vL 19. — Aaym, Acts iv. 31 ; Jamfes i. 22, etc. —
Acyos xxotis, 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Heb. iv. 2. — AajnTn, Acts xviii. 15 ; Titus ii.
15. — 'Axiiuv, Eph. i. 13 ; 1 John ii. 7, etc. — ' Axpuxflxi, James i. 22, etc.
Comp. especially Rom. x. 14^17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2 ; Gal. iii. 2, 5 ; Heb. ii. 1-4.
s Papias, apud Eusebium, iii. 39 ; Ow yap ru Ix ruv ^t^^lw roffadrev pii
w^fiXsrv vTei^ufA^xitov offa t« ^apa ^a/fftis ipeuvTis xat ftsvovfftis. This testimony is
all the more interesting that the author professes to be acquainted with
two written accounts of the life of the Lord, the one by Matthew, written
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 human
strength. Paul, the first among them 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 writings which each
possessed. I say Christian writings 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
thoir churches, as Paul had given example, and even if the
writings attributed to what are called the Apostolic Fathers,'
' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 24.
' This expression is generally taken to denote men who knew the apostles
personally. This interpretation is erroneous if we look to the origin of the
term, and could not be applied to all the Apostolic Fathers. The term
ivatTckixis is met for the first time in the Martyrology of St. Polycarp, ch.
16 ; but, as it is joined there to •rpcfxrixis, 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 (ei- toTs xaff vi/ias y^p'ovoij ^ila,trxit\os av. Ktti vrpoip. ytvofictvof).

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 21
— i.e., to the writers who must have fiourished 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 Antioch
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 yours 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 writings, 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 tho 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. Buseb. 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 Jose nothing of
their value, even it these texts are of a later date.
" Euseb. iv. 23, v. 25.

22 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
marked influence on the teaching. There are, indeed, in
these epistles no quotations by narae, 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 reminiscences of some
passages in the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Goi-inthians, 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 whp,tever, that the words which we at once recoarnise o
as borrowed have a special value different from that of their
context.* I said that there exist some exceptions to this usage.
' Clement, ad Cor. i. 24, 32-36.
= Ignatius, ad Magnes. ch. 10 ; ad Ephes. ch. 18 ; ad Bom. ch. 3, 1 ; ad
Philad. ch. 1 ; ad Smyrn. ch. 6, etc.
3 These allusions are more precise in that part of the epistle of which the
Greek text is lost. Like DailW and other critics, I am suspicious of the
authenticity of that part.
" This homiletic use goes back further still. See, in the Reuss, History of
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, Vol. Tl., p. 264, what I have said on
the use which the Epistle of Peter makes of James, Romans and Ephesians.

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 23
These are interesting in several respects. The three authors
now before us do speak by name of certain Epistles of Paul,
when they are writing to the churches which had received
these epistles. They speak of them as documents belonging
stiU to those churches, as being their special heritage. They
speak of them by way of reminder, or of exhortation to read
them and meditate on them. Such an exhortation therefore
was still necessary. Thus Clement tells the Corinthians to
take Paul's letter to convince themselves that the Apostle
had written to them before of matters analogous to the sub
ject of their dissensions.' Polycarp, in order to preach
righteousness to the Philippians, avails hiraself of the
example of the illustrious and blessed Paul, who preceded
hira among them, both in his preaching directlj' and in the
letter written to them, which letter will still serve to edify
them, if they are willing to study it.^ Ignatius, finally, re
minds the Ephesians ' that they are the colleagues of Paul,
that elect instrument of God, in whose footsteps he himself
desires to walk, and who in his epistle professes always to
pray for them.
Let me add, in order to omit nothing, that in these same
authors occasional mention is made of the evangelic history
and of certain words of Jesus.* In most of the cases, it is
difficult to say whether the facts have been taken from a
written source or from oral tradition. If the former be the
case, we must at least admit that the quotations have been
made from memory. They do not agree with our canonical
texts. I shall cite some instances. Ignatius relates that
' Clement, loe. cit., ch. 47 : ccvaXu^irt rn* ivurToXr.v rov /iaxapieu UuvXoo rou
aToffTokov. Tl vficiy eypa^pti ;
' Polyc, loc. cit., ch. 3 : o xa) uvm V[a7v iypa-\piv i^iffrokas iis u; ixv iyxu-
irrnTi ^mniSriirtffh oixoiofiiiffSai x, t. A..
3 Ignatius, ad Ephes. ch. 12; comp. Paul, Ephes. i. 16.
* See, e.^., Ignat. ad Ephes. ch. 14, ch. 19 ; ad Smyrn. ch. 1 ; ad Polyc. 2.
Polycarp ad PhU. 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 tbe
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 ])lace of the canonical
texts which sometimes fail us, we find others to which the

' Aa^irt, "^tiXaipviiraTi jui xat i^srs Sti ovx tifi,i "iaifjLcnov aiFufAarov {ad
ch. 3 ; comp. Luke xxiv. 39).
" Clem. loe. cit. i. 13 ; comp. Luke vi. 36 ff.
3 Ep. Bamab. ch. 15 : ayofnv t«v fifispav. t«v eySoiiv ets tinppeirvvyiv iv « xa"! o
Itiiravs uvsffrti ix vtxpuv xat tpavepaihis avi^n us vovs ovpavtvs.
¦» Comp. also the last phrase of ch. 7, appealed to as a word of Jesua
Christ and not found in our gospels.. Another of the same kind in ch. 4.

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 25
Church did not afterwards assign the same value. Thus I
must direct attention to the fact that Clement does not
hesitate to invoke, along with the "blessed" Paul, the
" blessed " Judith,' thus placing on the same line and using
the same term for writings which we are accustomed to con
sider very different from a theological point of view. But
that was not this writer's point of view ; his conception of
the canon was different from ours, or, rather, there was at
that time no precise conception of the canon. After this,
we shall raise no dispute on finding in the same writer a
quotation taken from the Book of Wisdom," no doubt an in
direct quotation — i.e., not preceded by a formula distinguish
ing it from the context, but, in this respect, exactly like
nearly all those taken from the epistles of the New Testa
ment, Clement had read Wisdom as he had read certain
epistles : he makes use of his readings for the advantage of
those he wishes to instruct; that is aU.
But even when these authors have express formulas of
quotation, and of Scriptural quotation, we are not always
sure of finding the formulas followed by canonical texts.
Thus the same Clement uses " It is written '' to introduce
phrases for which we might vainly search the whole Bible,
but which may have been taken from apocryphal books.'
The author of the epistle which bears the name of Barnabas
quotes, as taken from a prophet, the following words : " When
shall these things be consumed ? When the wood shall be
cut down and lifted up, and there shall drop blood from
it."* In another place, the Scriptures, according to him,
' Clement loc. cit, ch. 55. It is the first mention of the book of Judith
among the ancients.
^ Clement, loc, cit. -. Tis ipsT aurZ* <ri ivotntras ; « tU atTurrynTiTat ru xpdru
r^; icz^'s ahrou ; comp. Wisdom xii. 12.
3 Ch. 50 : yiypa^rat fjLvnrHffopi.at vifiipars aya6ns xui uvaarntrca vftt/s ix ruv
inxojv vfiSv ; comp. 4 Esdras ii. 16. — ch. 23 : w ypafvi Xiysf TuXai^aipoi utriv ei
di^o^ot oi ditrra^ovris rm ^u^viv x. r. X.
Barn. ch. 12.

26 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
say: "At. the end of the times, the Lord will deliver to
destruction the sheep of the pasturage, their fold and their
tower." ' In Ignatius, too," we find a quotation of this kind,
in which he tells us the Holy Spirit said, "Do nothing
without your bishop ! " These are evidently not canonical
texts ;. and the formula, " It is written," and others similar to
which so much weight is now attached, ought to awaken
suspicion, especially on the part of those who attach most im
portance to them. I fully admit that these formulas imply
the recognition of a scriptural authority specially inspired,
and therefore exalted above every purely human work of
literature. It is all the more significant that they are
scarcely ever employed in the Greek texts of the apostolic
fathers, when they are quoting from the words of the
apostles, whereas they often occur in connection with quota
tions of a suspicious origin.
All these facts might be supported further by considera
tions based on the nature and tendency of the evangelic
teaching contained in the documents in question. It might
very easily be shown that the allusions made in them to
phrases of St. Paul do not prove that the authors intended
to reproduce exactly the teaching of the apostle, to confirm
or comment on it. I have elsewhere ' given an exposition of
the dogmatic substance of the epistles of Barnabas and
Clement ; and unless we close our eyes to the evidence, we
cannot fail to recognise between them and the epistles of
the apostle a great difference in this respect. It would he
easy to establish the same fact in regard to the theology
of the epistles of Ignatius. But discussions of this nature
may here be put aside. These authors are for us witnesses
to be consulted regarding what was said and believed in
" Epist. Bam. ch. 16.
' Ignat. ad Phi ad. ch. 7.
3 Reuss, History of Christian Theology, E.T. Vol. II., B. vi.

WRITINGS OP THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 27
their time by themselves, by the churches in whose midst
they lived. In this capacity they must be heard, whatever
be the value of their theology. I believe that their evidence
justifies me in saying, that towards the year 130 the writ
ings of the apostles, while continuing to be diffused through
Christendom, and already serving directly or indirectly for
the instruction of the faithful, did not yet form a special col
lection intended to be used along with the Old Testament
in the periodical and regular readings ; that tradition was
valued and employed with the same amount of confidence ;
and that, where scriptural, inspired authorities were to
be quoted, they were selected outside of what we now call
the New Testament, and this was done without any very
exact conception of a canon, without any very prudent
choice of texts, and without showing any very close attach
ment to the letter.

CHAPTER HI
FIRST BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS.
By formulating this absolutely negative result, I place my-
self in opposition to the traditional opinion, that a canon of
of the New Testament — i.e., a collection more or less com
plete and official of apostolic writing — existed from the end
of the first century. I must, therefore, before going further,
examine the proofs advanced in favour of this pre-supposi-
tion. The course of my narrative wiU furnish numerous other
arguments in support of my views, and will bring out the
causes which for a long time hindered the formation of such
a canon, as well as those which finally led to it.
We can readily understand that at a later period, when
aU the churches had been for centuries in possession of the
complete Bible, and there no longer existed any disputes re
garding its various components and their right to form part
of it — we can readily understand how men would easily per
suade themselves that it had been so from the first. Just as
the laws of optics annihilate, to the observer's eye, the dis
tance which separates the more distant stars from those
nearer, so did the ecclesiastical institutions which were suc
cessively established in the course of the first centuries,
naturally appear, to the generationsfollowing(very indifferent
to historical criticism), as if they were all contemporaneous
in their origin, as if they all dated from the very foundation
of the church. The more these institutions were held in
respect, the greater was the inclination to attribute them
directly and imraediately to the will of the apostles. The
rites, the liturgical forraulas, the rules followed for the
government of the church, the discipline, in short all the

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 29
laws and customs to which the growing needs of an
organism, becoming more developed and complicated, had
given rise — all these were regarded, and are in part re
garded still, as the work of these first leaders of Christianity.
The canon of Scripture is no exception. If what was said
on this question in the ninth century' is to be admitted as
irrefutable evidence, we must in the same way accept the
much earlier evidence regarding the mass, and many other
forms of worship or hierarchical regulations — evidence found
in writings composed for the very purpose of supporting
them, and received on that account by the public of their
time." As to our special subject, I can even show how the
pre-suppositions of the middle ages arose. They are at
bottom closely connected with another very gratuitous
opinion regarding the relation of our gospels to one another,
and founded solely on exegetical conjecture. We find that,
in the fourth century,' much attention was devoted to this
relation, and that there finally arose a belief that John,
writing last, wished siraply to complete the narratives of
the three others, and thereby attest thera after having
read them. This view rested on a very arbitrary and
partly legendary chronology, and on a conception of the
Fourth Gospel as unworthy as it was insufficient. But
when John had once attained the honour of closing the first
part of the canon of the New Testament, only one step more
had to be made in order to assign to him also the work of
making the official collection of the second part.
The modern authors who accept this tradition believe
that they find more direct proof of it in some passages
from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Christians of Phila-
' Photii Codex. 254.
" See, further, what I shall say regarding the Constitutions and apostolic
canons. 3 Euseb., Hist. Eccles. iii. 24. Jerome, Catal. ch. 9.

30 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
delphia. The passage in that treatise runs thus: "I stand
by the gospel as by the flesh of Christ, and by the apostles
as by the body (or college) of the presbyters of the church,
I love the prophets also, because they hope in Christ, and
they too have themselves proclaimed the gospel." ' He is
supposed here to be speaking of the Bible as containing the
prophets, the gospels and the epistles. But even if the
name of the gospel ought to be taken as recalling more
especially the historical element of the Christian faith, which
may be granted without difficulty, we are not bound to
think of a written form of it ; the singular, and the use of the
same terra in what is said of the prophets, are even expressly
opposed to such a view. And in regard to the apostles
here considered as a kind of directing council for the whole
church, it is evident that the author did not mean to speak
exclusively of those who had written books. All this is
amply confirmed by another passage (ch. 9) where the
same names again appear: " Christ is the gate by which the
patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the Church enter.
The prophets foretold him, the gospel is the accomplish
ment." No one wUl maintain that the terms gospel and
apostles must here relate to the books. In the same epistle,
there occurs a passage which may appear more significant
still : " " I have heard some say that they would believe in
the gospel only in so far as they found it in the records ;
and when I told them that it was written, they replied to
me that that was the very point to be proved. This is what
I say to the people of that kind : " My records, my authentic
' Ign.atius, ad Philad., ch. 5. . . . vpairipvyuv r^ ibayyikm us' oapxi 'Inrnl
xai roTs ave&raXois as vplfffilirspiai ixxXltffias x- r. A.
° Ignat. ad Philad., ch. 8 : Uxoura, nvm Xiyivraiv, on lav fih iv ro's ipxu'is
tupu, iv ru ihayytXita oh mffrivu. \xai Xiyovros fAou avrols on ysypxvrai, a^ixpiHff^*
fiot on nrpoxurai.^ 'Efioi SI ap^itd itrn 'liiirovs Xpiffrag, ra aitxra [v. 1. ah6ivri»ii\
apx^a 0 rratipos airod ». t. X. In place of the bracketted clause, the text
of the second recension reads : ro7s ii roiovrots iyu Xiyu.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 31
records, are Jesus Christ, His cross. His resurrection, etc." As
records' are mentioned here, some have hastily taken this to
be a palpable proof of the existence of the canon, of the
official and complete collection of the New Testament-
Some would even see in it a direct appeal to the exclusive
authority of Scripture, an exaltation of Scripture over every
other source of the knowledge of the gospel. On the con
trary, the author looks at the fact and the cause from a
quite different point of view, and the passage has another
meaning altogether. Taking his stand on the Pauline
theology, to which as a rule he remains more faithful than
Clement and the pseudo-Barnabas, Ignatius declares his.
preference for immediate faith in Christ, for the faith based
on facts, as opposed to that which needs to be supported by
exegetical discussions. The adversaries whom Ignatius has-
in mind are evidently persons little inclined to believe,,
Judaisers for instance, against whom, after all, a strong and
immediate conviction has more weight than a careful exe
gesis. This father then rejects or despises that very apolo
getic method which Justin Martyr extols as the only one of
practical value.
In the lack of positive proof that there existed an official
.collection of apostolic books from the end of the first cen
tury, resort has been made in France" (for I do not know
that in Germany such an argument has been brought for
ward or held valid) to a process of reasoning believed to be
beyond dispute. There existed, it is said, a canon of the-
Old Testaraent ; the books which composed it were held in
the deepest respect, because they were unhesitatingly re
garded as the result of direct inspiration, as the word of
' A various reading in the first phrase is apxatiis and the old translation.
runs : — in veteribus. Sut this does not agree with what follows, though in.
substance the interpretation is accurate.
= [And in Britain, as recent discussions have shown].^?V.

32 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
God. A fortiori, all this must have been true of the writings
of the apostles, since the revelation of the New Covenant was
more excellent than that of the Old. This reasoning would
be, though not altogether orthodox, at least quite legitimate,
if the point were to give an account of the theological ideas
and standpoint of our century, for which, in many respects,
the New Testament is above the Old. But when the point
at issue relates to the first or second century, the reasoning is
unsound. No doubt the Gospel was placed above the Law,
and Christ incomparably higher than Moses : of that there
can be no question ; but it did not follow that the few
pastoral exhortations which certain apostles had committed
to writing out of the great number they had preached, that
the few narratives of the life and miracles of the Lord,
¦which began to circulate in the churches along with the
xich and abundant oral tradition from which they were fed
¦daily and which told them as much and more — it did not
follow, we say, that these various writings were sure to be
placed above the books of the prophets. To these latter a
special place and value were assigned in the rainds of Cliris-
iians, because from age to age they had been the record of
the revelations bearing on the advent of Christ, which re
velations the previous generation had at last seen fulfilled.
So true is this, that by-and-by we shall find the Apocalypse
the first among the books of the first Christian century to
be elevated to the rank of writings specially inspired (in the
theological sense of the word), because far more than all the
others, or rather the only one of them all, it shared in that
prophetic character which was then the sole title to what
we would now call canonicity. As to the evangelical his
tories, we must keep this fact clearly in view, that the
miraculous narratives in them were accepted by every one
with the greatest eagerness, not because they were written,
but because they had been heard, known, and believed long

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 33
before they were written. The books in this category, so
far from having the value of a unique and privileged source,
only occupied as yet the rank of secondary evidence.
Moreover, we should take care here not to make mistakes
regarding the value of words. Though, in placing myself at
the standpoint of the period we are now studying, I claim
for the prophets of the Old Testament an inspiration which
fully ju.stifies the exceptional position of their writings, I do
not mean to say that there was any refusal to acknowledge
the inspiration of the apostles. Only there was nothing ex
ceptional in the latter. It might be regarded as relatively
greater than that of many other Christians, or than most, or
than aU, if you will ; but it was not different in kind. Had
not Jesus proraised the Holy Spirit to all his disciples ?
Does not the apostolic history affirm on every page that this
promise was richly fulfilled ? Had not the apostles, in their
theoretical teaching, incessantly exalted this promise and
this fact into a fundamental principle ?' It matters not that
the action of the Holy Spirit had been manifested some
times by the sanctification of the will, sometimes by the
illumination of the intelligence, because the spirit is the
same in aU these manifestations. And, to guide the judg
ment of the faithful concerning these, the apostles had no
where made appeal to their own writings, but to a special
gift of the same Spirit of God, that of discernment," granted
to several in the communities. When Paul is enumerating
the charisms or free gifts of the Holy Spirit,' we would not
be surprised to see him making special mention of the gift
of writing, for, as we do not hear hira preach, we admire
' Comp., for instance; John xiv. 16, xv. 26, xvi. 7-15 ; Acts ii. 14, ff,
iv. 31, viii. 15 ff, a. 44, xi. 15 f., xv. 8, 28, etc. ; Rom. viii. 9, 14; 1 Cor. iii.
16, vi. 19, vii. 40, xii. 3 f ; 2 Cor. i. 22, iii. 17 f ; Eph. iv. 30 ; 1 Thess.
V. 19 f ; 1. John iv. 2, etc.
' Aiixptiris rSv wvtufidTuy, I Cor. xii. 10 ; 1 Thess. v. 21 ; 1 John iv. 1.
3 1 Cor. xii. ; Rom. xii. 0

34 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
especially that gift which he possessed raore than any of his
colleagues ; and the fact that so few of the disciples applied
theraselves to this form of instruction proves that it was a
vocation quite as special as that of the apostleship or the
diaconate. And yet Paul is so little concerned about the fate
of his epistles which were intended for his contemporaries,
that in his enumeration he forgets this precious gift. But
not only do the apostles speak of inspiration as universal
and equal among Christians ; their successors continually
say the same. All the Apostolic Fathers speak of that full
effusion of the Holy Spirit on all the faithful, and expressly
claim it for themselves.' In our days, by the very means
of that gift of discernment of the spirits which was promised
us, we measure without effort the enormous distance that
separates the immortal pages of Paul from the dull and ab
surd allegories of Barnabas and his silly tales about hyenas
and weasels (Barii. ch. 8 f ) ; we do not for a moment think
of placing in the same category the assurance of the future
life, given to the Christian by his fellowship with the risen
Saviour (1 Cor. xv. 12 ff.) and the proof of the resurrection
drawn frora the story of the phoenix-bird (Clement, loc. cit.,
ch. 25) ; and we neither need nor wish to connect redemption
with the red thread of the harlot of Jericho (Clement, ch.
12). But the discernment of spirits did not hold good at
the precise time of which we are speaking. I affirm the
contrary. It is sad to think, but none the less true, that the
increasingly luminous halo with which the succeeding gene
rations surrounded the venerated heads of the first apostles,
was not the reflection of the completer illumination shed on
men's minds by their writings, but a kind of optical effect
increased by distance and chiefly produced by the lighln-
' uxviptis m. ay. 'ixxuris itri ¦rdvras, Clem, ad Cor., ch. 2, 46 : Barn., ch.
16 : esoj olxiT iv iiiiiv. . . . iv ifilt vpctpunuoiv. Comp. ch. 9, 19. Ignat. ad
Philad., ch. 7. Polyc. ch. 9. Herm. Pastor, ii. mand. 3 etc.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 35
dim to us, brilliant to them — of legends which were at
tiraes simple and graceful, at times coarse and absurd.
But to return, let me, before entering on the details, point
out two general facts which must influence our estimate of
the causes that may have hastened or delayed the formation
of a canon of the New Testament. In the first place, it
must not be forgotten that, at the opening of the second
century, the Christian Church was still divided, or was
already divided, into two camps which had almost no com
munion with one another, and whose differences had not
yet been settled by any decision of men, nor by the slower
but raore decisive judgment of time and their own progress.
So long as this state of things lasted, so long as neither of
the two parties could declare itself to be the only true
Church, the Catholic Church, there could be no thought of
a universally recognised collection of the writings of the
apostles. The Christians of the circumcision, remaining
faithful to the law, and persisting in regarding it as obliga
tory, would not hear Paul spoken of as an apostle, and in
general saw no necessity for extending the Holy Scriptures
by adding works of a recent origin. They had been ac
customed to hear the story of Christ's life read in a book
which some attributed to Matthew and others simplj'' called
the Hebrew gospel; but this was a means of edification and
nothing more.' I am willing to admit that this same
gospel — and . for the same reason also the Epistle of James
— did not penetrate into the Pauline churches. Before any
collection could be made which would erabrace writings of
these two shades of opinion, their differences had to be
smoothed down, or the schism so widened that the most
advanced and best inspired party might claim to be the
only representative of the true Church of Christ. This im
portant advance was made, imperceptibly and by the force
' See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 27. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. i. 26.

36 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of circumstances, during the course of the second century—
the chief cause being the resistance made to Gnosticism by
the communities and bishops who were the heirs of the
apostolic tradition. I shall presently have to show how this
movement had an influence on the formation of the canon.
There is a second fact to which I direct the attention of
my readers, as proving the non-existence of an official canon
at the period we are considering. Let us suppose for a
moment that the apostles, or the last survivor among them,
did fix, close, and sign a collection of this kind, how, then, is
it to be explained that afterwards and for centuries there ex
isted in the Church, and among the raost learned and exalted
theologians, so much uncertainty regarding the canonicity
of certain books ? If John had promulgated this code,
could the Greek churches have by turns venerated and
rejected his Apocalypse? If Peter had already in his
hands the complete collection of the epistles of Paul, could
Tertullian have attributed to Barnabas the Epistle to the
Hebrews, while Clement attributed it to Luke, and Origen
cried, " God alone knows the author of it ? " If a book had
been included in the canon by the only competent authority,
would it have been omitted afterwards by a doctor or a
church without a cry of indignation being at once raised
from all sides ? What right would any one have had to
increase the volume by new works? How could the
numerous fabricators of apocryphal books have hoped to
deceive the public, and how could the public have let itself
be taken in by a fraud so patent ? There is no room for
hesitation. If it is true that the canon of the New Testa
ment was not only fixed and closed at the death of the
last apostle, but was also recognised and guaranteed by him
or by his coUeagues, then all the writings, regarding whose
apostolic origin the Church had doubts afterwards, or which
siraply remained unknown to certain churches, are made

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 37
suspicious in the highest degree by the very fact of that
doubt or that absence ; or rather, they have lost their claims
to canonicity. For, if Providence commissioned the apostles
themselves to make the canon, it must have remained the
same as it came from their hands ; they alone are its legiti
mate vouchers, just as, from the standpoint of orthodox
Protestant theology, they alone are the privileged inter
preters of the evangelic thought itself One might go still
further back and say: If the apostles theraselves formed
the canon, how does it happen that several of their writings
have not come down to us ? ' To this question there is but
one answer, an answer poor, desperate, compromising, but
given more than once in our days, viz., that these writings
were not inspired !
Let us now run over the authors and works or fragments
of Christian literature belonging to the period between 130
and 180, so far as they have come down to us. It was an
important period, for during it the Catholic Church severed
itself entirely frora Jewish Christianity on the one hand
and philosophic syncretisra -(Gnosticisra) on the other. Un
fortunately this series of testiraonies is neither numerous
nor rich in facts. StiU there is not one which does not
make its little contribution.
The first author to be mentioned here is Papias, bishop of
HierapoUs, of whose writings some very interesting frag
ments have been preserved by Eusebius." In his work
entitled Exposition of the Words of the Lord, he declares his
desire to adhere rather to oral tradition than to books.' The
historian quotes two passages regarding the origin of the
gospels of Matthew and Mark, from which it is apparent
' I. Cor. V. 9 ; Col. iv. 10, 16 ; Luke i. 1 ; 3 John, 9. Comp. Polyc.
ad Phil., ch. 3, and the interpreters of 2 Thess. iii. 17.
' Hist. Eccles. iii. 39.
3 oh yap ra, ix ruv ^(Ixiuv roffovrov fn ui^iXuv v^sXdfifiavov ofav ra veapa X^fftts
ipuvns '^a'l fisvovffrjs.

38 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
that the two gospels known to Papias were not precisely
the same as we now possess under these names. Eusebius
further affirms that he had found some mention (or at least
some traces), of an epistle by John and one by Peter. The
historical notices therein contained do not always agree
with the canonical narratives. For instance, the death of
Judas is told in quite a different way from the same incident
in Matthew and Acts.
We pass to the famous Epistle to Diognetus, which js
frequently printed at the end of the works of Justin Martyr,
and bas by some critics been placed in the sarae rank as the
writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Of all the writings of
the second age, it approaches most nearly the apostolic
teaching in tone and expression. We do not find in it any
quotations, properly speaking, but we do find some scattered
reminiscences, less of texts than of ideas, from the Sermon
on the Mount, as well as from Paul and John.' These
reminiscences attest a certain familiarity with these authors,
but not the need of invoking their authority. Once, how
ever, on the last page, a v/ord is quoted textually from Paul
with a formula which contains no theological element." But
special attention has been directed to a passage where, in
speaking of the revealing Word and of the graces with
which he has enriched the Church, the author saj-s:
" Thenceforth the fear of the law is sung, the grace of the
prophets is recognised, the faith of the gospels is established,
the tradition of the apostles is guarded, and the grace of the
Church leaps for joy." ' When we compare this passage
with those of Ignatius examined above, a difference, ap
parently slight, but very significant, is ob.servable. The
gospels appear in the plural, and the word is here for the
' Epist. ad Diogn. ch. 6, 6, 9.
° Ep. ad Diogn., ch. 12 : i irifroXos xiytt, 1 Cor. viii. 1.
Oh. 11 : ttra ifo^os voftov ^oerai, xa) ^poipnruv p^dpis yivutrxtrai, xal ihayytXiiuv
Ttffrts 'idpvrai, xat avoffroXuv vapatoffts ^vXdefftrai, xai ixxXnffias X''-?'^ ffxtpra.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 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, aUusion 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 difference 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 by 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 comraunion of faith with the churches
he visited, it foUows that in his 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.
* op^os Xoyos. . . . us 0 vDi^os xnpvTrti xai oi vrpo^ytrai xat o xvpios, loc. cit.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 26.

40 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
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
ApoUinaris,' 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.
ApoUinaris 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 thera 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 nuraber 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 telUng 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. StiU 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-
geUc writings (ypa^ol KvpianaC). This last text permits the
supposition that the gospels, or gospels known and read at
Corinth in the time of Dionysius, were still undergoing al-
" Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 23.

42 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
terations such as history proves to have been made in
times earUer.
I might pass over in silence an anonyinous fragment
which Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. v. 16, l7), 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, whatever
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 frora 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 Neio Testament instead of New Covenard, some
were led to suppose that this passage directly proves the
existence of the New Testaraent, in the modem 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 word of the New Covenant, had certain
writings in mind, he does 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-
^ . . . fih ^>l a^u rtffiv ivtffvyypoi^lty ri 'iviSiardrriffSat ru rr,s rov ihayyiXita
xaivr,5 "^laSrixyji Xoyu x. r. X.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 43
tions (some kind of revivals) which the Phrygian sect was
making. This is proved by a remark which the same
author makes further on . " The 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 New Covenant," and with reference to this, he
cites a series of names of Christian prophets, both those
belonging to the time of the apostles, such as Agabus and
the daughters of PhiUp, 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 things : — first, that by New
Covenant the author does not mean the book we caU 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 gleaning araong the accounts which Euse
bius gives of the Montanists, I may say in passing that he
also cites a certain ApoUonius." This ApoUonius wrote 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 hj hira 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 SCRIPTURES.
still 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 whose tenor conforms generally
to the text of the Sermon on the Mount. StiU, 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 raight 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 sorae 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,
PhiUppians, First and Second Timothy, First Peter, and
Acts ; further, a saying of the Lord which we know only
from the Gospel of John, once even a direct and textual

• Kara rh amrroXov. De Bcsurr. 16 ; comp. also ch. 9 and 19.
' Romans, Galatians, First Timothy. Comp. Athen. leg. ch. 13, 16, 37.
3 Ibid., eh. 32 : ^aXtv r./cTv Xiyovros rev Acyov. . . . ttai iort^ipovres. . . .
'' Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 1.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLI CWRITINGS. 45
quotation, described as frora 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 apostles, 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 raartyrdora of Ignatius printed in tbe
same coUection, 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 ampUfied edition, the Old Testaraent 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 Hermas. 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, raany
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
* . , . . 'tva n ypaip^ veXtipuSTi, o avo/zos dvofjLnffDiru 'in xai a iixxtos "^ixaiuHru
in ; comp. Rfiv. xxii. 11,
' Comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 15,
3 Among others the passage from Leviticus which the author may
perhaps have taken or copied from 2 Cor. vi. 16. At all events, the
yiypavrai refers to Moses.

46 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the Pauline Epistles, and in the First Epistle of Peter. But the
famous sicut scnptum 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 tho period he represents.
The authentic 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
argnraents on the relation between the prophetic texts of
the Old Testaraent (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, which are very frequently
' Hermas 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 ; aXXa.
rots vpoip^TSUoufft xar' dvdyxyiv ^TTniofjLlSa aid ro opav .... iitrip f/,iytirrn xat
dxnhtrrdrn am'Sii%is (Apol. i. 30, p. 72). How could we believe of cue
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? (Ibid., 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
rae 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 Gaspel 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
sometiraes agree more closely with the text of Paul (whose
narae 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 ScoTrveva-Tia or plenary inspiration.
From him comes the famous explanation which 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 frora 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 important.
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 twelve 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 iiSuXilvra are false prophets. Comp.
Acts XV. 29 ; Rev. ii, 14, 20 ; with I Cor. viii, 4, x. 23 ff.
^ . . . . "va roBituvi^ohpavov xanov ^Xvixrpov, uffVip opydvu xt$dpois rivos n Xvpas ¦
rots iixuiois dv^pdirt ^pufisvov, rviv ruv hiuv «jw7v dvoxaXv'^y^ yvufftv {Coll. ad]
Gr., ch. 8.)

48 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
be considered prophecy — ie., frora his point of view, to the
whole of the Old Testaraent,' and to anything, outside of
that collection, which bore the sarae 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 frora 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
sarae 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 provisionaUy but as the property of the Christians,
' And not once to what we call the New Testament, which Justin 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-
j)endent of the books containing them.
= Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 81.
3 iitvar), i-rimola {Ooh. ad. gr. 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 NouveUe Bevue, pp, 199 ff,
¦• Apol. i, 20, 44, I have explained this passage in the article quoted in
ithe preceding note.

-- BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 49
to whom it belongs both as a collection of books and as
containing dogma.' Justin would have said, " The Old
Testament is the canon of the Christians" " if that term had
been in use in his day. He goes a step further, and is the
first 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,* " aU 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
prophfets, 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 expUcit
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
^ ohx ahroi; dXX' y\{MV h ix roiiruv itatpipit tt^airxaXia . . . . ai rii fi/iiripa hofft(isti^
itaipipoutrat ^ifiXot {Coh. ad Or., ch, 13).
¦ = The Holy Spirit predicted by the prophets all that relates to Jesus
Christ : rd xara 'lytiroxjv vdvra {Apol. i, 61 ; comp, ch. 50).
3 hia iuvaftu rh Ip/atviiav yiypdiptat. . . , with the fable well known through
the account of Aristeas. raira ou fivSet ! (}oc. cit.)
4 Apol., i, 67 ; rd avrof^vyifLovlvfiara ruv d^QffroXuv ^ ra ffvyypdfA,fAara ruv
KrpotprtTuv dvaytvurxsrai /ii;cf"' ^^7X^9^*'
^ oi dnrroXoi iv ro~s ysvu/imts i« a'uruv aW/ivyi/iovlhfiairiv a xaXiTrat liayyixta
{loc. cit., 66). D

60 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
term, introduced naturally, when the preaching of the gospel
(in the religious sense) became connected with reading to
the people the facts of the history of the Lord. It must
not for a moment be forgotten that the term, in this sense,
is not found in authors previous to this period.' But the
name Memoirs, which Justin gives to the gospels, is still
more striking. The name was not absolutely new. Some
time before, Papias, when giving an account of the composi
tion of Mark's gospel, had twice used the same term, tellino'
how that disciple used to collect from the preaching of Peter
the historical elements which the apostle happened to
mention (as iixvt]iJ.6vevo-cv), and put them together in writing
as well as he could reproduce them from memory (in
d7r€iivt]ii6v€va-svy On the Other hand, Origen, in order to ex
plain in what sense the Epistle to the Hebrews might be
attributed to St, Paul, says, that the thoughts belong to the
apostle while the expression must have been given by
some one who reproduced the thoughts from memory
{dirofivriiiovfia-avTos).^ Euscbius directs attention to the fact
that Irenaeus speaks somewhere of the airoiivrjuovfiiiara
(memoirs, recollectioas, narratives) of an apostolic presby
ter,* The significance of the term would therefore not be
doubtful. It is evident that, to Justin's mind, it denoted
something quite different from the writings of the prophets,
which were in.spired miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and
in which neither the memory nor any other human faculty
had any active part. Observe further that our author
' The last chapter of the Epistle to Diognetus would form the only ex
ception, if it were older than Justin's Apology — which there is reason to
doubt, = Papias, apud Euseb, iii. 39, Comp, Nouvelle Revue ii, 61. In the
Clementine Becognitions, Peter also is made to say (ii. 1), In consuetudimi
hdbui verba domini quae ab ipso audieram in memoriam revocare.
* Origen apud Euseb, vi, 25,
¦• Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 51
declares plainly that these Memoirs had no authority in
themselves, but that Christians put faith in thera because
the prophets (of the Old Testaraent) ratified and sanctioned
their narratives beforehand.' Prediction alone is the test of
ti'uth, because it alone is an exclusively divine raanifesta-
tion, and Christ Hiraself ordains us to obey not huraan
teachings, but that which prophets have announced and He
Himself has taught." Thus, whatever has not been said by
Christ or a prophet, is human teaching.
This expression. Memoirs of the Apostles, occurs pretty
frequently in Justin's writings, while he rarely uses the
term, gospel. I have already shown that he employs this
word in the plural ; I may now add that, in all probability,
he saw no need for resorting in addition to oral tradition.
On the contrary, from the tendency and method of his
theological labours, it raust have been important to him to
have always at hand written documents acknowledged to
be authentic and sufficiently ancient. Hence he asserts that
the Memoirs to which he appeals contain all that concerns
the life of the Saviour,' and that they were composed by the
apostles and their companions.* What gospels, then, were
these ? For eighty years German critics have been writing
volumes on this question. Justin does not cite any proper
name. Once, indeed, when telling that Jesus gave surnames
to several disciples, among others to Peter, he says that this
is told in His (duroC) Memoirs.^ As Justin nowhere else
speaks of Memoirs, or rather, of Recollections of Jesus
' OiV l^itrrEvirafiiv i^u'Svi xai ro vpo^vinxov wvsufia rovro 'itpv {Apol., 1. 33 j
comp. Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 119).
^ Ovx dv^pu^uots 'hthdyfji.ast xixiXtvirfii^a w-r' avrov rov Uptcrou ^ithir^at, dXXa
rots itd ruv fiaxapiuy Tfpo^nruv xtipu^hifft xai it' avrov Stoaxhttrt {Dial. C.
Tryph., 48).
3 oi d^ofi.v9ifiOVtvffoivrBS vravra rd ^tpi rau irurripos {Apol., loc. Cit.).
^ a (bviut ywo ruv d^oirroXuv xai ruv ixiivots ,jrapaxoXovSn<Fdvrav irwrtra^^at
{Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 103). These last words remind us of Luke's preface.
5 Dial. V. Tryph. ch. 106. Comp. Mark iii. 16.

52 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Christ (as Xenophon said. Recollections of Socrates), but of
Memoirs of the Apostles, the pronoun here can only refer to
Peter, the author of the book in question. A gospel of
Peter existed in ancient times,' and not impossibly Justin
had known and consulted it among others. At any rate, I
would prefer this interpretation to that which raakes it the
Gospel of Mark, here attributed to Peter. But as in every
other passage, without a single exception, he speaks of
Meraoirs of the apostles (in the plural), I should rather be
inclined to correct the text and to restore the plural, which
would suit exactly the rest of the phrase."
Apart from all this, the question of knowing what gospels-
Justin had in his hands can only be settled by a study of
the extracts of which he gives a very large number. Most
of these extracts may, without much difficulty, be referred
to our Synoptic Gospels, especially to Matthew and Luke,'
provided that we do not insist on a perfectly and rigorously
literal coincidence. It is no doubt true that even such a
coincidence would not absolutely prove identity, because
the other gospels which were in circulation at the time, or
which had been in existence at a previous date, might have
a great resemblance to ours. But since it is beyond dispute
that these particular gospels were widely spread in the-
churches in Justin's time, I see no reason for hesitation in
supposing that he was acquainted with them. As he made-
use of the gospels only to show the fulfilment of prophecy,.
he did not attach rauch iraportance to the letter ; and the
iraperfect resemblance between his quotations and our
canonical texts ought not of itself to determine our judg
ment. At all events it is remarkable that several of
' Origen, ad Matt. xiii. 54 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 3, 25, vi, 12 ;.
Jerome, Catal. ch, 1, ch, 41 ; Theodoret, Haeret. fab. ii, 2,
° He changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, which is also told in.
THEIB memoirs.
3 There are also some reminiscences of John's text, but very few.

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 53
Justin's quotations, in which the text differs from ours,
occur word for word in other works, such as the Clemen
tines, regarding the sources of which critics are not more
agreed. This coincidence would lead us to suppose that
Justin's variations are not all to be attributed to defects of
memory. Further, when Justin recurs several times to the
same point in the evangelic history, he generaUy makes use
of the same expressions. This fact seeras to suggest that
he depended on one written source, and consequently, if
such quotations differ from our canonical texts, we are bound
to infer that he used a gospel now lost. But putting aside
these details to avoid everything which might have the air
of over-subtlety and passing to more essential points, let us
examine whether he mentions the same facts, and only those
facts related in the canonical gospels. If the point had al
ways been discussed in this way, it would have appeared
less difficult. Let us look, then, at some of the historical
facts which Justin speaks of having found in the Memoirs
of the Apostles. We leave it to our readers to decide on
their value and origin.
The genealogy of Jesus, which Justin recognises, is always
that of his mother Mary. It is she who is descended from
David and the patriarchs. Nothing is said about Joseph.
Now our gospels only give genealogies of Joseph, and say
nothing of Mary's family.' Every time that Justin speaks
of the Magi, he makes thera come from Arabia." This, in
substance, does not contradict Matthew's narrative; but I
cannot help thinking that Justin had read this proper name
in the source which he was fond of consulting. Jesus was
bom in a cave ' near the viUage, because there was no room
for him in the houses. This detail, which is unknown to
' DiaZ. c. Tryph. ch. 43, 100. Comp. Matt. i. 16 ; Luke iii. 23.
' Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 77, 78, 88, 102, 106, seven times..
-J Iv ffTuXa/ii {Dial c. Tryph. ch. 1^). ii

54 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
our gospels, is also given elsewhere,' and has been retained
in ecclesiastical tradition. When Jesus came out of the
water, after having received baptism, a fire was kindled in
Jordan," The voice from heaven on this occasion uttered
these words : " Thou art my Son ; to-day have I begotten
thee, according as David foretold."' Jesus wrought at the
trade of a carpenter, and made ploughs and other agricultural
implements, Quirinus is called the first procurator of
Judea and not governor of Syria,^ which is a great dif
ference, and may to sorae extent lessen the difficulties of a
well-known passage in Luke, The miracles of Jesus are
regarded by the Jews as produced by magic, or as illusions,'
At Gethseraane, the sweat fell in great drops from the brow
of the Lord ; but Justin does not give the special designa
tion which is found in Luke, and regarding which there had
already been so much discussion.' Contrary to the narrative
of all our four gospels, he affirms that, when Jesus was ar
rested, 7iot a single m,an came to His aid, and in proof of this
he appeals to Ps, xxii, 11, This testimony, according to
Justin's theory developed above, had of course more weight
than modem narratives, unless it be supposed that Justm
possessed a gospel in which the incident of Peter and
Malchus was omitted,* All the disciples abjured tbeir
" Evang. Jacobi, ch, 18 ; Evang. infant, p, 169, Fabr, ; Origen, contra
Celsum i. 51 ; Eusebius, Vita Constant.iu. 40.
' orvp dv^fh iv rif 'lopldvy {Dial. c. Tryph., ch, 88, Coll. Fabric, Cod.
apocr., iii, 654. Sibyll. vi,, vii. ; comp. Nouvelle Revue vii, pp. 235, 238).
3 Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 88, 103 ; Psalm ii. 7 ; Clement of Alex,, Peed., i. fl ;
Augustine, De consensu ew. ii, 14, are acquainted with this formula (see
Luke iii. 22 ; Matt, iii, 17), It exists in Codex D.
* Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 88 ; comp. Mark vi. 3, Origen maintains {cotiira
Celsum vi. 36) that this is not found in any canonical gospel.
5 Apol. i. 34.
* fcaytxii ifavrarix (Dial. c. Tryph., oh. 69. Clementine Becognitions, L 58.
Lactantius, Instit. div. v. 3).
' Died c. Tryph. ch. 103. Comp. Luke xxiii, 44.
^ tuiils, ouii f^iXP*^ '"^^ dvipucrov, {iitihiv airu uvrvipx^v (loc. cit.)

BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS, 55
Master until after the resurrection.' This exaggeration,
which is several tiraes repeated, is unknown to our gospels.
Instead of the story which the latter give about the cor
ruption of the soldiers by the party of the Sanhedrin, Justin
speaks of various attempts made by Jewish agents selected
and sent through the whole land for the purpose of accusing
the disciples of having removed the corpse, &c." Finally,
words of Jesus, which are not found in the canonical gospels,
are recorded in several passages.' If these quotations do
not compel us to attribute to Justin the knowledge and use
of a gospel differing from those which the Church finally
and exclusively adopted, it must, at the very least, be
granted that he considered the extra-canonical tradition to
be an authority equally worthy of respect, and that in any
case the question had not yet emerged in his day of what
was afterwards called the canon of the New Testament.
If now, after carefully weighing all the testimonies dis
cussed in this chapter, I affirm that there is in them no
trace of the existence of any official catalogue, however in
complete, of the books of the New Testament, I shaU not
incur the reproach of having based my arguments on the
accidental silence of some few authors. So far as theory
was concerned, the Christians were still able to do without
such a collection, whether, like Justin, the}'- found the
force of Gospel in the mysteries of the letter of the prophets,
or whether, like Ignatius, they felt it confirmed by the
power of tho spirit and by its own internal testimony,
' Apol. i. 50, Dial. c. Tryph., 53, 106 : d'rUrwav dpvnrdpiivoi.
' Dial c. Tryph., ch, 17, 108 ; Matt, xxviii. 12 ff,
3"Eo'ovrai irxii'/'ara xxi aipUus (Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 35). — 'Ey ols av ifias
xaraXdfiu, iv rovrois xal xp'tvu (ibid., eh. 47), — E; ayatrSrs rovs dya«uvrxs Vfcas
rl xxiviv Ttoiiirt ; xxi yap oi sopvoi rovro itotovirtv (Apol. i. 15), — '\Movs ivivaat
ipcas Ta nrot/tarfoiva ivSvfiarx lav ^rpd^u/iiv rds airov svToXaj iorirxero (Dml. t,
Tryph., ch, 116),— "oi-i h7 airiv vxtilv. . . . xai fxXtv •gxpxyivnuiittat t>
'\l(00(taXril^ xai r'orl to"s /nalnra's airov (TVfi^xiuv xxi irufi(payitv x. r. X. ; COmp.
Matt, XX. 17 ; Mark x. 32 ; Luke xviii. 31,

56 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
As to their practice, they sought edification in the reading
of the apostoUc books which they had in their hands; eveu
at that date they caused them to be used for the instruction
of the faithful, and that regularly. In regard to the gos
pels, this is a positive fact ; in regard to the epistles, it is
possible ; but the choice of the books was not fixed and
regulated by any authority. We have seen that apocry
phal books, or at least books afterwards excluded from the
canon, were quoted, lent, and officially read. The canon of
the Old Testament is no raore fixed than that of the New.
Melito excludes Esther from it ; Clement adds Judith. In
several respects the prophets are preferred to the apostles ;
the latter are never regarded as holding the first rank. The
miraculous inspiration of the Septuagint is insisted on far
more emphatically than that of the writers of the first
century, considered as such. In the opinion of the
theologians, the Apocalypse excels all the other apostolic
writings. Tradition disputes the place of the Scriptures or
is held in equal respect. Through lack of a critical spirit
and religious discernment, men, otherwise well-meaning, are
the dupes of gross literary frauds. All these facts belong to
an impartial history of the canon, and cannot be neglected if
the history is to be something more than the expression of
pre-conceived opinion.

CHAPTER IV.
HERESY,
In the two preceding chapters, I have carefully collected
from the Christian authors before 180, all the facts bearing
upon the use which the church at this period made of the
apostolic writings, and the authority which it assigned to
them. But as yet we have only consulted writers of one
single category or of one single party, viz., those who knew
and professed themselves to be the depositaries or direct
inheritors of the authentic teaching of Jesus Christ and his
first disciples. These writers, if regarded from the stand
point of the Church's later development, must indeed be
held to have represented and preserved the true apostolic
belief, to have been the orthodox party. But side by side
with them, there were authors quite as numerous and of
very various opinions, v^^hose teaching was held to be more
or less erroneous and was therefore combated with an in
creasing energy. The chief result of this struggle was to
fix dogma more precisely, to separate raore clearly what
was thenceforth called Catholicisra — i.e.,the Church universal
and its creed — from heresy or dissent ; for it should be
observed that this terra, heresy, according to its etymology,
denoted at first every kind of division. It was only later,
when dogmatic controversies had assumed a preponderating
importance, that the word obtained the narrower meaning
which finally prevailed.
The phases of this conflict between apostolic tradition or
orthodox Catholicism and the various aberrations of heresy
are well suited for casting some light on the history of the
canon, or raore correctly, they forra a veiy essential part of

58 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
it. The general mode of treatment, it is true, has been to
take advantage of what are caUed the testimonies of the
heretics, in order to prove that even' they recognised the
authenticity of the books of the New Testament and could
not escape from their authority ; and the conclusion has
been drawn a fortiori that the orthodox church must have
been in possession of a canon already formed and closed.
This method of argument is very plausible so long as we
are only establishing the great antiquity or authenticity of
certain books, and of books about which there is no dispute,
but it is not quite sound when it attempts to prove the
existence of an official canon. It gives to certain facts a
force which does not belong to them, passes over others in
silence, distorts some by considering them from the stand
point of a different century, and consequently imposes on
the historian the duty of putting thera all in their true
light. And, in the first place, a clear distinction must here be
drawn between two tendencies diametricaUy opposed to one
another, and both widely separate from the Catholicism
which began to grow up in the course of the second cen
tury. These two tendencies were Judaic Christianity and
Gnosticism. Judaic Christianity — i.e., the Christianity which main
tained the perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law (as it was
understood and applied at the time of Jesus Chiist) — was not,
whatever may be said of it, a heresy in the sense of having
sprung from a secession, from an orthodox church pre
viously established. The books of the New Testament
themselves show that this was not the case.' I am well
aware that it neither understood nor exhausted the inner
teaching of the Gospel ; but as an expression of the convic
tion of the masses, it had the previous claim of antiquity and
' Eeuss, History of Christian Theology. Books iii, , iv.

HERESY, 51)
might, if it pleased, make use of its claim to designate as
heretics all those who did not adopt its fundamental
principle.' This Judaic Christianity finally became
heretical itself, not through any formal or official declaration
of the so-called Catholic Church, but imperceptibly through
the growing ascendency of the latter, in whose bosom tlie
development of Christian life and theological science was
richer, more rapid, more victorious. But during the whole
of the period with which till now we have been occupied^
it had not yet come to be considered or called heretical.
On the contrary, the bond of a common origin which linked
it with the Church universal was stiU very firm, and the
example of such raen as Justin and Hegesippus shows that
the transitions from one shade of opinion to the other were
sometimes not easUy perceived nor easily defined. No
doubt amongst the Judaising party, there were already
rising tendencies and systems more or less removed from the
simplicity of the teaching of the first age, and soon strange
and comproraising elements were added by some to a tra
dition which at first had only sinned by its poverty." But
these were exceptions, and most of the churches with this
shade of opinion refused to be drawn away into such
eccentricities. Now it is certain, as I have already had
occasion to say, that, at this particular period, these churches
not only had no official coUection of apostoUc writings, but
that they did not use these writings, even singly, for their
edification in public or private. All that we find in them
is a written history of the Lord, a gospel (as was the phrase
before the middle of the second century) which some
possessed in an Aramaic form, others in Greek, which was
soraetiraes attributed to Matthew, soraetiraes to Peter, sorae-
^ roils Xiyovras 'oviaiovs itvat ixuroiis ftxl ohx ucrtv (Rev. il. 9).
' I have here specially in mind gnostic Ebionism, represented by the
Clementines, a work' of the second century. This work is directly opposed
to Paul and its gospel quotations abound in elements outside of the canon.

<30 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
times to the apostles in general,' which in matter and form
resembled very much our three first gospels, but also con
tained so many divergences that they were remarked by a
more critical or more exacting age."
What do all these facts prove for the history of the
canon ? Shall we say that the Jewish Christians separated
themselves from a church which was in possession of an
official, or at least widely-used, collection of apostolic books ;
and that, for some reason or another, they rejected these
books, and no longer made use of them after becoming
familiar with them ? Such an explanation would be very
singular, and very much opposed to the nature of things.
The nucleus of the collection which afterwards became
official was, on the one hand, the Pauline Epistles, as might
have been expected after my previous remarks; and, on the
other hand, those evangelic narratives for which there was
sufficient authentication. As to the latter, we have just
seen that they were not everywhere the same, and that they
varied in their fulness of detail ; and regarding the epistles,
no one will contradict me when I affirm that it was not in
the churches of Palestine they were first collected. They
were collected in Greece, in Asia Minor, in short, abroad ;
and the fact that they did not penetrate into the com
munities which foUowed the Palestinian tradition proves of
itself that the canon, as it existed later, was not a heritage
from the primitive Church, but was formed, diffused, and
' xxrx MurlJaLov, xard Uirpov, xard roiis tu^txx, xxS* ^Ejifxtavs, ro i^pxTxtv, ro
cvpt'XKov, etc.
' For these facts, which are now placed beyond all dispute, I refer to the
works dealing with the history of the gospels. It is useless to transcribe
here the numerous passages from Irenaeus, Jerome, Epiphanius and other
Fathers, which speak of Jewish Christians and their Gospel. It must only
be remembered that these Fathers looking from the standpoint of their
period and of the Catholic tlieory of their time, are inclined to treat the
Jewish Christians as dissenters. See Reuss, Geschichte des N.- T. Sect. 198,
199, and especially Credner, BeitrSlge, vol, i, . -• j

HERESY, Cl
propagated slowly, progressively, on Unes parallel with the
theological and religious movement of the time.
With the Gnostics, matters took a different course. In
their case we have not to do with churches whose origin
goes back to the cradle of Christianity, who were nourished,
so to speak, by a purely local tradition, and who were little
influenced by any results of the evangelic spirit produced
beyond their own narrow sphere. On the contrary, we
have to do with individuals, with philosophers, with
founders of schools, who sought to secure the triumph of
their hazardous and daring speculations on the most
difficult problems of metaphysics over the traditional beliefs
of the Jews and the Christians, which they thought too
simple and insufficient. What was the origin of these men ?
Were they foreigners — i.e., thinkers of pagan origin who
acquired influence over the Church by some false appear
ances of a community of feeling — or were they Christians led
astray by the ill-regulated demands of their reason, or dis
satisfied with the too popular theology of the Gospel ?
Science has not yet succeeded in giving a definite answer to
this question, though for my part I should be inclined to
accept the former supposition. But as we are, after all,
dealing with many different men, placed in very different
positions and confining themselves to systems raore different
stiU, it would be well that their methods and results should
not lead us to assign the same point of departure to all alike.
At any rate, one fact is certain regarding them all : they all
put forward theories of reUgious philosophy, fundamentally
different from anything in the pastoral teaching of the
Church which could rightly bear that name, or rather their
doctrines were so utterly out of harmony with that teaching
that, apart from all direct contradictions, they were clearly
not so much theologians to be expelled because they had
becorae heretical, as phUosophers to be debarred from enter-

(32 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
ing because tbey were still unbelievers. And yet they were
anxious to enter, or, if you wish, to remain in, not certainly
for the sake of any material advantages, but because Chris
tianity, of all the religions and systems which their syncre
tism had used for building up new doctrines regarding the
origin of evil, the relations of the infinite with the finite,
and man's means of raising himself towards God — Chris
tianity, 1 say, had furnished them with the most abundant and
the most precious material, and at the sarae time the Church
contained the audience raost disposed to listen to them.
In this position how could these promoters of Gnosis — i.e.,
of religious philosophy — succeed in getting support for their
theories ? The difference between these and the traditional
beliefs circulating in the Church was too plain to give them
any hope of imposing thera on the public. The guides of
the flocks, ever present and vigilant, could oppose them
with contradictions, effectual as well as formal, whenever
they ventured, if I may say so, to speak in their own private
name. They had therefore to seek some starting-point out
side, and there could be no doubt about their choice. The
members of the Church who were making theology — i.e., who
were trying to demonstrate the evangelic faith traditionaUy
taught — had recourse to the Old Testament, to prophecy, to
the spirituaUstic interpretation of the law. Now, Gnosti
cism, at least in its chief forms, was very pronounced in its
antipathy to tbe law and all connected with it, regarding it
as the product of a very imperfect or even lying manifesta
tion. The Gnostics were fond of putting Christ into direct
contradiction with the law. They were thus led naturally
to seek in the words of the Lord, in His history, in every
thing that could be regarded as the reflection of His thought,
the proof of this antagonism and the confirmation of their
own theories. From ecclesiastical tradition they appealed
to the facts on which it was itself based, while they

HERESY. 63
explained the facts in a new way; they appealed to the
texts which gave the most authentic and most immediate
representation of these facts. These texts, no doubt, were
not unknown to the churches; but up to this time such
teaching had not been discovered in them ; edification had
been found in them ; but they had not been made the object
of a studied, scientific exegesis, because Christians already
possessed with less trouble all that could be learned from
them. The Apocalypse was the only exception, for reasons
which every one will understand. The Gnostic philosophers
were the first to apply this method to tho gospels and the
epistles ; they were the first exegetes of the apostolic books.
The Fathers who afterwards took up the struggle with
Gnosticisra are unanimous in directing attention to this
fact.' It is not necessary for rae to pause over the estiraate
of this exegesis, to describe its means and its tendency, to
give examples of its defective and arbitrary results." It is
the fact itself, this particular kind of theological work,
which interests us by its novelty. And this fact is aU the
more curious that the very existence of several parts of the
New Testament was first revealed to us by these exegetical
studies of dissenting philosophers. Thus the gospel of John,
the name of which first occurs araong the Catholic party
in a writer whom I have not yet had occasion to name, in

' Only through them are we acquainted with it. Basilides -wrote 24
looks of i^nytinxd sis ro tiayyixtov. Heracleon was the author of commen
taries on Luke and on John. Fragments of various other authors are
•collected in Grabe, Spicil., VoL II, Fabric, Bibl. gr., Vol, V,, etc,
''Irenaeus, Adv. haer.. Ill, 12: Scripturas quidem conftentur, interpreta-
fiones vero convertunt. TcrtuU,, Praescr., 38 : [ValentinnsJ sensus exposi-
tione intervertit . . . He did not falsify the texts, et tamen plus abstulit
¦et plus adjecit auferens proprietates singulorum verborum et adjiciens dis-
positiones non comparentium rerum. Euseb. Hist, eccles., iv,, 29 : pi^pSvrai
lilayyiXiott s'otus epftmtvovns ruv iipuv rd voyjfiarx ypaipuv x. r. X. Irenaeus, in his
first book, Origen in his commentary on St. John, and the imro/^ai added
to the works of Clement of Alexandria, furnish numerous examples.

64 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
Theophilus of Antioch, about the year IbO, had been com
mented on forty years before by a Gnostic author !
Here several interesting questions emerge, over which we
must pause for a little. First of all, can we determine the
Ust of the apostoUc writings, which the various leaders of
Gnosticism must have had in their hands, or which they
recommended and expounded to their followers ? Does our
knowledge of them permit us to say that there already
existed an official collection which they had simply to borrow
from the orthodox Church ?
The answer to this question is complicated rather than
difficult, because every doctor held a different attitude
towards the texts according to the nature of his system.
But they had this in common, that the choice and use which
they had to raake of the apostolic literature were decided
by their theories, exactly as was the case with the Catholics.
in more than one instance as we shall see. The scriptural
labours of the Gnostics prove, in the first place, what hardly
needs such proof, that the books they quote existed and
were acknowledged to be the compositions of the apostles ;
they prove next a point which is no longer disputed, that.
these latter enjoyed universal respect in the sphere in which
they had been acknowledged during their lifetime ; but they
prove further that the appeal made to their authority was
subordinate to the interests of the doctrine which was to be
established in each special case. Now, as the apostolic texts
do not quite preach the Gnosticism of the second century,.
it is unnecessary to show that appeal was made to them
only so far as they were believed to be of use in supporting
the special point. The number of passages to be utilised in
this way might be very great, whenever a certain amount
of willingness and exegetical skiU was applied ; and abova
aU when the method in general use among Jews and Chris
tians, was to pay no attention to the context, and to make

HERESY. 65
much of isolated phrases, scraps of phrases, or single words.
But it was possible also to abstain from such abundance of
quotations, and to keep to one or the other book as seemed
to be most suited for the purpose. Thus one philosopher
confined hiraself to the words of the Lord, who was regarded
as the revealer of aU the raysteries of the world," and sought
to extract these mysteries from preaching which, to common
eyes, was purely moral and popular. Another, struck by
the mystical and speculative spirit of the Fourth Gospel
and recognising even in the author's favourite terms some
colouring of his own gnosis, could not but find it very easy
to bring the shades of opinion into more perfect harmony.' A
third, rauch occupied with the antithesis between the Gospel
and the Law, which he exaggerated to the extent of detecting
the traces of an absolute raetaphysical dualism, could not
but lean exclusively on that apostle in whom he detected an
analogous tendency, or at least a tendency less opposed to
his own, while he rejected with disdain all writings which
seemed to him tainted with Judaism.*
It would be impossible to explain these widely different
proceedings, if, at this period, the canonical collection of the
Church had been fixed and closed. We nowhere find the
Fathers accuse a Gnostic of disputing the authenticity of
sorae particular book ; they merely state that he does not
make use of it, that he does not recognise its authority.^ But
' Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur (TertuU., Pressor., 38).
^ UxyyiXtov itrrtv 9} ruv v,rtpxotf/ji,iuv yvuffts (Basil, ap. Hippol,, Philos., p
243), Comp, note 1 on page 63.
3 Heracleon ap. Origen, in Jo., passim.
* See, in regard to Marcion, the details in the pages that follow,
s Cum ex scripturis arguuntur, in acctisationem convertuntur ipsarum
scripturarum quasi non recte habeant neque sint ex auctoritate (Iren,. III., 2).
— Ista hceresis non recipit quasdam scripturas, et si quas recipit . . . ad
dispositionem instituti sui intervertit ; et . . . non recipit integras etc. (Tert. ,
Pressor., 17). — (Apelles) ruv eiSxyyeXiuv n rov d,7ra<fraXov rd dpia'xovrx airu
mfiirat (Hippol,, loc. cit., p. 259) etc. £

66 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
we have seen, and we shall see again, that this Uberty existed
also in the other camp, that it was still the common right
of aU, Wherever a more frequent use of apostolic texts is
observed, so as to justify the statement that such a writer
appears to make use of the entire code} such a statement
frora the pen of a CathoUc author of later date can only
mean that the writer makes more numerous and less exclusive
quotations than usual. This might be said of the short
letter from the Christians of Lyons quite as much as of
Justin's comparatively voluminous works.
But further, the authentic texts of the apostolic age did not
always furnish, I need not say, the materials for the proof
sought in them ; raore often still, it happened that these texts
were in direct contradiction to the theories of the day. In
such a case several expedients were used, simple enough if no
official canon existed, but very hazardous, not to say quite im
possible, if an official canon did exist. I said that the Gnostics
applied their exegesis chiefly to the words of the Lord in
order to deduce from them their own dogmas ; but these
words were either circulating still in a purely traditional
forra, or they were recorded in certain writings more or less
different, more or less widely known, but not yet approved
by any ecclesiastical authority and all used in the same
fashion just as occasion demanded. Now there was nothing
easier than to form new coUections of this kind, either by
making simple extracts frora those they possessed, or by
combining several books, or even by composing narratives
under the direct infiuence of the ruling ideas of the system.
There are well-known examples of each of these three
methods. As to the. system of making extracts, it is weU-known
that Marcion, who was the most distinguished leader of this
period, and whose importance is proved by the books written
' See the note of Tertullian on Valentinus (p, 65),

HERESY. G7
against his teaching long after his death, was accused by
the Fathers of having mutilated the Gospel of Luke, I
shaU not dispute the fact, although we can no longer verify
it, but I shall simply observe that his adversaries in any
case put the matter in a wrong Ught, They write at a
much later period when Luke's book was included in the
ecclesiastical collection ; they are indignant that Marcion
should have left out some chapters or passages, and they
caU him a forger. But Marcion had no intention of making
the people believe that his edition was that of Luke, and thus
obtaining for it the sanction of an apostoUc narae. He did not
call it by that name, he called it the gospel (i.e., the history)
of Christ; it was the summary of what he judged to be true
and good in that history, a summary meant to serve as a basis
for the instruction of his disciples. He raight have composed
a gospel more freely ; he might have given an edition quite
new, just as we take it upon us to edit manuals of bibUcal
history for the young ; he preferred to keep to a book al
ready in existence, either because it was the only one he
knew, or more likely because it was the one which seemed
to have most of the spirit of the Pauline theology. And still
finding in it elements which seemed to him to contradict
the Pauline spirit, he simply suppressed them,' He was,
no doubt, a heretic ; but he was not a forger. What he did
clearly proves that in his time the gospels were still com
positions private in character and used at discretion, like all
ordinary books," and that they were not yet instruments
(TertulUan's expression) — i.e., official documents, authentic
' Contraria quaeque suae sententice erasit . . . competentiareservavit (Tert.,
Adv. Marc, iv, 6, We learn also from old writers that his disciples con
tinued to make alterations on it.
'^ It is right to remember here that in the second century the apostolic
texts were treated -with some freedom even by Catholics. The history of
the various readings is very instructive on this point. It was not till much
later that scrupulous care was taken for the diplomatic preservation of tho
text.

68 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
writings in the juridical sense of that terra,' Besides,
Marcion was neither the first nor the only Gnostic teacher
who acted on this principle, only the others were less in
fluential, and less outcry was made about them. Thus the
Fathers often describe copies of Matthew without the gene
alogy, or speak in general terms of violent alterations in the
texts." But we must guard against giving too much weight
to their assertions, as they sometimes contradict each other,
and in every place show that they had only a vague know
ledge of the facts. Thus the same Epiphanius, who accused
the followers of Cerinthus of mutilating a Matthew, speaks
elsewhere of their gospel as if it had been fundamentally
different frora those of the Catholic Church ;' while Irenseus,
rauch earlier than he, tells us that this same sect preferred
the gospel of Mark ! * What, indeed, are we to think of the
testimony of these authors, when we see the most learned
' The critical examination of the statements in the Fathers (especially in
Tertullian and Epiphanius) regarding Marcion and his gospel would lead
me too far at present. I prefer to admit the principal assertion of these
authors, that I may not seem anxious to escape from a serious diflSculty. See
further my Geschichte des N, T, § 246. The Fathers further accuse Marcion
of having mutilated in the same way the epistles of Paul. If the fact is
true, it must be explained in the same way as his treatment of the gospel.
But here there is more positive reason for suspecting the accusation.
Among the reproaches made against Marcion's text, there are a good many
which simply prove that at that time there were various readings in the
copies ; and more than once, the reading of Marcion, condemned by the
deeply prejudiced ignorance of his adversaries, is the very reading adopted
in our best printed editions.
' Jerome, Adv. Lucif, ii, 100 ed, Trib, Ad eos venio hcereticos qui
evangelia laniaverunt, Sataminum quemdam, et Ophitas. . . . et Carpocratem
et Cerinthum et huius successorem Hebionem (!) quemdam. — Epiphanius,
Haer. , 28, 5, in speaking of the party of Cerinthus, says : xpZvrxi rZ xxrx
MofT^aiflv tuxyyiXiu d^o fiipovs xxi oit^ oXu. — Origen, 0pp., iv. 52. Buaei.
says of Apelles : Evangelia purgavit. — Epiphanius, Haer. 44, 4, apostro
phises the same Apelles : it a ^evXsi Xx/i^avsts d?ro rvs iiias ypafijs, xxi a ^ouXii
xxrxXif,t^dvsii, apa yovv xpirfls 'ixxSiffas x. r. X. — Euseb., Hist. Eccl., V, 28, etc,
5 Epiphanius, loc. cit. xxx, 14,
? IreuKus, Adv. haer. iii, 11, § 7.

HERESY. 69
among thera vnventing the very heretics whom he accuses
of rending the Scriptures ? '
The second method of bringing the gospels known in the
churches into agreement with the new and heretical
doctrines professed, was to bring together suitable materials
so as to form a new book, what we would now call a Har
mony. It has often been conjectured that the book from
which Justin made his numerous quotations was such a
work, containing texts from our canonical gospels and frag
ments from another gospel now lost. But there is one com
position of this kind whose existence is certain, Tatian, an
Assyrian philosopher, who was converted to Christianity
and became a disciple of Justin, but afterwards adopted a
very rigid asceticism and became leader of the sect of the
Encratites (as we would say, leader of a temperance society),
composed a gospel which must have been arranged according
to the method indicated," It was still in existence in the
time of Eusebius, who does not appear to have examined it
closely, and who knew it under the name of Hiatessaron
(which means pretty much, book or summary of four).
This name, which raay not have been given by the author
hiraself, since the work of Tatian was known to the public
by other title.?,' would naturally lead us to suppose that the
book contained our four canonical gospels, combined into
one narrative, as has since been so often done. But
Theodoret* tells us that it was not a simple harmony,
and that it omitted the genealogies and all the passages
relative to the human sonship of the Lord ; and if Epipha-
' See in the note above what Jerome says about a supposed Ebion, founder
of the Ebionite sect !
' Euseb., Hist, Eccl. iv. 29 : (rwdfudv nvx xal cvvxyuyhv ruv iiayylXiuv ovx
010 o9rus irvvSiis.
3 Epiph., Haer. xlvi. 1, says that it was also called the Goapd of the
Hebrews. Victor of Capua, in his preface to the Harmony of ihe Gospels,
calls it Dia pente. Comp. Fabric, Cod. apocr. i, 378.
* Theod., Haeret. fabh. i. 20.

70 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
nius is not wrong in bringing it into connection with what
was caUed the Gospel of the Hebrews, it must undoubtedly
have contained elements foreign to our four canonical books.
At any rate, Theodoret found it widely current in his
diocese, where even the Catholics (in the fifth century!)
used it without suspicion, and made no difficulty about the
simplification of the harmonised text;' their bishop took
the trouble to coUect about two hundred copies of it, which
he put aside — i.e., destroyed, in order to replace them by
canonical gospels.
Finally, I said that certain Gnostics reached their end
more directly by composing new gospels. That does not
exactly mean that they always invented both the miracles
and the discourses of Jesus Christ which they put into
their books. The name I give to these compo.sitions is
justified if they were based partly on a tradition not yet
fixed in writing. Of course this tradition raight be open to
suspicion, and I by no means profess to maintain the authen
ticity of the details which they thought fit to collect in this
manner. * dXXd xxi 01 rois x^offroXixoZs Wopilvot ^oypox^i, rhv rTjs irvvH»*lS xaxovpyixv ollK
iyvuxoris, dXX' d^Xovtrrtpov us ffvvro/icj ru fiijiXiiu ^pyiirdfitvoi (loC. cit.^
' Origen in Luc. 0pp. iii. 933 : Ausus Juit Basilides scribere evangelium
et suo nomine iitulare. Comp, Jerome, Prooem. in Matth. Eusebius (iv, 7)
attributes to him npanihis uvhvoiias ; but what Clement of Alexandria
(Stromata i. 340, iii. 426 ; Sylb.) quotes from Basilides agrees -with our
texts, Valentinus also had his own gospel, suumpraeter haec nostra (Pseudo-
Tertull., Praescr. 49), His disciples called it the true gospel (ev. veritatie),
and Irenaeus (iii. 11) designates it as in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evange-
liis. 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 the 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. 7 1
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 Uterature ; still it is important to remark
that the very possibility of pi-oducing 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 soraetiraes 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 Geschichte des N, T. §§ 236, 279, where
are given the patristic proofs for each detail.

72 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Ubrary of the period, which was far richer than that of the
apostoUc 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 coUection 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 frora 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 coUection 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
Ust of the epistles, as Marcion had classed them, accord
ing to the authors who mention it. He placed them
in the foUowing order : Galatians, Corinthians, Romans,
Thessalonians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon, Philip
pians. Epiphanius makes a great outcry about this
arrangement, because in his tirae — 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,

HERESY, 73
tury ' — another arrangement had been generall}' 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 coUection 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 tirae 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 coUection 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 modem criticism, Marcion was
wrong about the epistles to the Thessalonians, but
criticism supports hira regarding aU 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
putting 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 oolleotions. I shall return to
this point further on.
' Basil, c. Eunrnn. i, 224,
3 The Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.

74 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
an understanding of real and living history 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 coUection 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 apostoUc writings was almost
unknown, and was restricted to evangelic narratives which
' 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 the 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 existeuoe and
propagation of books now non-canonical. Nowhere does he speak of a col
lection closed and ofiicial ; and he even indicates, though he does not make
war on the Gnostics, that the text of the gospels was undergoing alteration
(froX^a-^^ filrx-rXdrniv, Orig., C. Cels.H. 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 raaking war. They go even so far as to
alter their forra 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 interpreted 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 Gnosticisra 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
have 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 and repelling Gnosticism by the previous question, do
not themselves adhere to any invariable list of writings
reputed to be apostolic.
' (dvaffraXtXTj crapuooffts) ^v ix otxoo^rjs xxi !tfis7s ^xpttX7i<pafA.tv fllrd xal roO
xavoviffat vuvrus rois X'oyovs rl, rod ffurrjpos 'hihxffxxXia(Vto\eUi., Ep. ad Flovam,
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, almost 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 appUed 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
raouth 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 ' — ie., of that universal
Christian Church which, at the end of its victorious contest
with Gnosticism, had put to flight not only a speculative
phUosophy 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 CathoUc Church has remained faithful to
its principle down to our own time. The ride of faith
which united and guided the Church consisted in beUeving
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 frora 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 raatter 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,, Deprmscr. haer. ch, 13.
3 Regula fidei, xavuv ixxXnirtaffnxos.

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 been transmitted ?
Then only wUl 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
ing the truth, and that is to consult tradition as it has been
preserved in the churches by the bishops whom the apostles
instituted, or by their successors.^ There are too many
things in Scripture to which any meaning we please may
be given ; the comprehension of it must therefore be sought
among those who received it themselves in an authentic
manner from the hands of their predecessors."

' Ignorare melitis est ne quod non deheas noris quia quod debes nosii
Fides tua te salvum facit non exercitaUo scripturarum. Fides in regvla
posita est, habens legem, et salutem de observatione legis ; exercitaUo autem
in curiositate consistit, habens gloriam solam de peritice studio. Cedat curio-
sitas fidei, cedat gloria saluti (TertuU,, loc. cit. 14),
= Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nee in his consUtuendvm cer-
tamen quibus avi nulla aut incerta victoria est . . . nunc solum disputavdim
est cui competat fides ipsa ? a quo et per quos et quibus ait tradita discipUiia,
qua fiunt Christiani ? ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplines et fidei,
illic erit Veritas scripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum (Ter
tuU,, loc. cit. ch, 19).
3 Nihil proficit congressio scripturarum, nisi ut aut stomachi qvis ineat
eversionem aut cerebri (TertuU. I. e. ch, 16),
¦* Thv vrxpxootrtv ruv d^orroXuv iv ^dirti ixxXniric^ vrd^nrriv dvxyto/piirat roi; rxXtih
opxv iHXoviri, xal B%ofi6v xarapt/^/iiiv rot's vvo r^v dvoffroXuv xarxurx'.t.rxi 'vrieuo-
TTous xal rois ^ix'Bi^afzi'itvs airois Va/ff hfiiuv (Iren,, Adv. haer., iii. 3.)
5 Sunt multa, verba in Scripturis divinis quos vossnnt trahi ad eum semum
quern sibi unu^quisque sponte prcesuansit . , . idea ab eo oportet intelligenMan
SS. discere qui earn a majoribua :ecundum veritatem sibi traditam servai
(Recogn., x. 42),

CATHOLICISM. 79
It is needless to multiply quotations on this point. The
Protestant opposition of the sixteenth century of 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 Gnosticisra as weU as the impoverish
ing stagnation of the Jewish-Christian spirit. The sarae
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 difficult to
state the causes of this moveraent, 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 dailj'- experience of the im
perfections of the actual reaUty made the picture of the
primitive state appear brilUant as an ideal ; in face of more
than one symptom of corruption, the communities of the
first age seemed to be free frora 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
^^/t?' '''*"' TflTE xpovuv vapHvos xaSxpd ifiiiviv h ixxXfiffix, iv d^vjXu Tov ffxaru-
(poiXsvovrav itfflrt r'tiri ruv 'ffxpxipHipitv i^t^sipovvruv rov vytrj xavova rod trurrtpiov-
>tvipvy[/,aro;. 'Us VI itpis ruv d^OffroXuv xh"^ £/A«^£i rou liiav rsXos vxplXviXvhi ri.
« yivia ixiivn, rnvtxxvra rrjs diiov vrXxvfis rhv dp^hv iXxpt^avsv « avirruets 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, ju.st 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 with 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
Jerusalera once so eagerly expected faded away from 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 Jerusalera, and of what had come
forth from it for the salvation of the world.
If this was specially the view of the raasses 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 celebrating the centenary of their origin,
bad 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 Uterary monu
ments which sorae 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 adrairers marked the distance which separ
ated the glowing eloquence, the sublime teaching, the preg
nant brevity of those few pages, from 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 overlooked, and Uterary 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 unfamUiar
form of the Greek idiom which the apostles had used, so
far from presenting any difficulty to writers who looked
more to the subject-matter, gave a special outward distinction
to these writings, and brought thera into closer contact with
the more ancient sacred Uterature 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, sometiraes 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
Uterary point of view, dispute with hira the first place.
This attitude of raind towards those who had inaugurated

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 tbe more natural that it has been constantly
assumed in similar circumstances towards the raost distin
guished teachers of the great periods of history. With
what a halo these iUustrious theologians, who were them
selves so modest towards their predecessors, and whose
authority is consecrated by the narae Fathers as by a kind of
proper name — with what a halo they are surrounded in the
eyes of aU those who have not broken with tradition !
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 sUence 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 tirae the action of the Holy Spirit on the inner
Ufe 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 Uke a caricature of what had been

CATHOLICISM. 83
iattributed 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 Une of demarcation round apcstolic 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 peculiar to that
period. The Gospel had not intended to restrict these facts
to the first century ; but sentiraent, which does not perrait
of such distinctions, had graduaUy given place to reflection,
and some external circumstance alone was needed to give
the latter an occasion for forraulating its categories and
defining its laws.
Finally, there was still another and raore 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 tbera 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 re.sults 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 coUecting 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 Uterary and ecclesiastical facts.
The fir.st author, in the order of time, who furnishes clear
evidence of this advance, is Theophilus of Antioch. In the
course of his Apology} 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 estabUsh the
unity and excellence of revealed raorality, so that we might.
be tempted to refer the inspiration of which he speaks not,
BO rauch to the evangelic hoohs as to the person of the Lord
who speaks in thera. But in other passages he clearly
attributes this inspiration, if not to the writings taken
' Theoph. Cid Autol., ii. 9.: oi rov hov xvSpu^ot ^nv/ixrofepoi wivfixros aytm
, . . v-r xirov rov Hov ifitorvivff^svrss xal tro^iffSivns iyivavro hoVtoxxroi. . . .
epyaya hov ysvo/isvot. . . . Kal oi^ its « ovo dXXd ^Xsioyss iyivvtinffxy ,7rxpx Efipatgtf,
dXXd xal rrxp' "EXXiltri ^ifivXXx, xxi ^xyris iplXx xXXviXois xal irvpo^uva lipnxxftv,
. . . (comp, ii, 33, 35).
^ ' AxoXovSa ivpitrxirxt xxi rit ruv wpo^viruv xal ruy itiayyixiuy i^uv, itu ro rovt,
wdvrxs irviv/iaro^ipous hi rnv/tart hov XlXaXtixivai (iii. 12).

CATHOLICISM. 85
objectively, at least to their authors. Thus, some pages
further on, he quotes a phrase frora the first Epistle to
Timothy with the formula: the divine ivord} a formula which
not only indicates the intrinsic value of the passage quoted,
but ought certainly to remind us of its supernatural origin.
Elsewhere," when developing the doctrine regarding the
hypostatic and creative Word, TheophUus analyses first in
this sense the narrative of Genesis and then transcribes, as
if to sumraarise 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 Scriptures, 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 graduaUy 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 superfiuous to coUect from these authors
passages proving that everywhere they make much of tradi-
' iii, 14 : I htos Xiyos.
11. Z2. : at xyiai ypa^al xal TrdvTis oi Vvivfixro^opot, i^ uv 'ludyvns Xiyit x. r. X

86 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tion ; that, according to them, tbe Spirit of God comes ta
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, tho
regularly constituted heads of the various communities,
principaUy of those founded by the apostles themselves and of
Rome above aU," 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 raade to the tradition of
the churches founded by them, and this would be done
Avithout 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 tirae 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 earUest churches, of asserting the uninterrupted suc
cession of the legitimate channels of tradition, and conse-
' Irenaeus iii. , 24, § 1 : Ubi enim ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et vii Spiritm
Dei ibi ecclesia. . . . cujus non participant omnes qui tion cun-uni ad
ecdesiam. = Irenaeus iii., 1, §2; comp. TertuU., Adv. Marc, iv., 5. De
Praescr, 36.
3 Irenaeus iv. , 26, § S : Discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea gm est
ah apostolis ecclesice successio ; comp. § 2.
* TloXXd Uvtl ruv fiap/ixpuv ruv tis Xpiirroy triirnvovruv X"/^ X^f'" *"' l^'^'I't
ytypxft/civtty lf;^fli'TSj hd orv. ay. iv rxis xxphiais rw tfurmpiay xat mv apxxi^*
irapdiofftv ^vXaffffovris. , , . (Iren., iii. 4, § 2.)
S Ibid., §1 : .... eix ap' thzt vpos rds dpxaiorxra; doraSpa/iety ixxXnffixs. , . .
Xxfieiv ro dtr^aXks xal ivapyis ;

CATHOLICISM. _ 87
quently the authenticity of tradition itself, they were bound
also, as I have already indicated, to assign a special value to
the apostolic writings. These formed the first link in that
long series of testiraonies which constitute tradition ; they
were, so to speak, the surviving representation of its starting-
point, and thus served to control and support all that had
foUowed. Scripture and tradition, then, are two facts, two
witnesses, two inseparable authorities. By following the
rule of the Church, we make ourselves heirs of the apostles,
and, through thera, of Christ:' tradition interprets Scrip
ture." While, with the heretics, falsification of texts and
alteration of docrines go side by side, in the CathoUc Church
the integrity of both is both a fact and a mutual guarantee,"
The apostles knew everything, and have transmitted every
thing to us,* All the faithful have the Spirit of God, but
aU the faithful are not apostles. The Spirit, such as the
apostles received, exists where there is prophecy, the gift of
miracles, the gift of tongues,' In order to get acquainted
with the truth, we must go back as far as possible, to the
apostles themselves, and, that we may not faU of our pur
pose, we must keep to the churches founded by them, and
to the apostolic writings preserved in these churches." In
'/a ea regula incedimus quam ecclesia ah apostolis, apostoU a Christo, Ghristus
a Deo tradidit. . . ego sum haeres apostolorum (Tert. , Praescr 37, comp. 20, 2 1 ) .
' Omnis sermo (credenti) constdbit si scripturas dUigenter legerit apud eos
qui in ecclesia sunt presbyteri apud quos est apostolica doctrina (Iren. iv
32, § 1 ; comp. the passages quoted at the beginning of this chapter). The
necessity of this interpretation was founded, not on the imperfection of the
Scriptures, but on the relative feebleness of men : Scriptures quidem perfectce
sunt quippe a verba Dei et spiritu ejus dictce, nos autem secundum quod minores
sumus, etc, (Iren. ii 28, §§2, 3.)
3 TertuU,, Praescr. 38.
</W. 22,
s TertuU, , Exhort, east. 2. This work, written from the Montanistic point
of view, does not mean to restrict these privileges to the apostles only.
' Si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio qiiod ah
apostolis, pariter utique constabit id esse ah apostolis tradilum qu/>d apud
ecdesias app. fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii

88 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
this way the Gospel, which was preached at first with the
voice, has, by the wiU of God, been comraitted to writing,
that it might become the foundation and mainstay of our
faith.' The teaching of the apostles is connected with that
of the prophets, for the Lord, predicted by the latter and
reaUsing their predictions, gave to His disciples the mission
of being the spiritual guides of the huraan race." It is the
same Spirit who announced the coming Christ by the mouth
of the prophets, interpreted their oracles by the pen of the
(seventy) ancients, and by the apostles declared that the
times were accomplished," Finally, the two collections are
united, and, consequently, are placed on the same level
under a common name.
This intimate and general agreement between tradition
and Scripture which Irenaeus and Tertullian present to us
as a fact and as a principle, is also in their eyes the supreme
criterion of what was afterwards called the canonicity of
each of the apostoUc books — i.e., of their claims to have a
normal authority in the Church. No doubt nothing was
more common at this period than to see certain documents
alternately extolled or rejected, according as they supported
or contradicted the favourite theories of theologians ; and
hauserint, ad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, etc. (Tert, Adv.
Marc. iv. 5. ) Percurre ecclesias apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolo
rum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas authenticae literae eorum recitantwr,
etc. (Id. De praescr, 36.) This latter passage miglit terapt us to believe
perhaps that the epistles were not yet read generaUy ; but no doubt the
author wishes only to indicate what is the guarantee of the authenticity of
these writiugs.
' Irenaeus iii. 1.
^ Ibid,, i, 8: ^paipyfrat ix7jpu%xv, 0 xvpios l^iox^iv, d^offroXot ^apiouxav. — Tert.,
Prcescr., 36 : (Ecclesia) legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis Uteris
miscet. 3 Iren iii, 21, § 4, Let me observe, 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 scripturae, et prophetiae et evangelia (Iren ii. 27 ; comp. Tert.,
Depraescr, 14 s.s passim. De resurr. carnis, 22, 25, 27, etc.)

CATHOLICISM. 89
anore 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
und champions of tradition, we have others who were more
influenced by the philosophical moveraent, 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 prcescr. 36, quoted a little ago, — ^Id,, Depudic. 10, in speak
ing of the Pastor of Hermas : ab omni concilio ecclesiarum falsa judicatur. —
Id, , De prcescr. 28 : Quod apud multos unum 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 harra in it and did not proscribe it ;
but when he discovered in it traces of Docetism, he put his church on their
guard against this book, while he protested his attachment to Peter and all
the apostles, Uirpoy xal rois dXXov; di'offroXovs a5rfl3/;^fl/i£^« us Xpia-rov.

yo HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
knows no other rule than the harraony of the Church with
the apostles,' and the harraony of the apostles with the
prophets." With him, too, the frequent quotations taken
frora the epistles are expressly introduced as the words of
the Holy Spirit, and the apostles are lepresented as pos
sessing corapletely 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 raoral 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. *Hj«ri» fji,ovos a Iv ahrats xarayvtpdffas rats ypa^xtt, r'n*
uvrotrroXtxiiv xxi ixxXyiirtxirnxny <ruZ,uy 'opSorofjtixv ruv ^oyptxruv, xard ro tiixyyiXtow
ipiorarx fiiol.
^ Strom., vii. p. 757 : 6^optsv rm dpx'hv rvis ^I'SatrxaXias rov Kvpiov, ^ix « rav
^po^iiruv, ^id ri rod ilayylXiov, xxi ttx ruv d^otrraXuv. — Ibid., vi. p, 676: *0
xavuv 0 ixxXvifftaffrixos h cvfi^uvia vof^ov rs xxi vrpo^viruv rjj xard rvjv xvpiou orxpeuffixt
Txpiitihofiiv^ ttaS^xvi. — Ibid., iii, p, 455 : vof^os xxi rrpa^nrxt ffbv rep ihayyiXiip iv
ovifixrt Xpta'rov tis fiixv ffvydyevrat yvufftv. Tliis last passage expressly says
that this harmony exists in so far as the Scriptures are explained in the
Christian sense, and this must be everywhere understood. This Christian
sense was simply the traditional faith.
3 Xlaffx ypxfh us i» vapa^oX"^ tipn/iivM (Strom., v. p, 575), — Otlrt i trpoftima
-ovri 0 ffurvtp a^Xus rd hlx pt-vtrrvipia dvefhy^xro dXX' iv xapafioXaLs. . . . 'Eyxpvrr-
evrxt rov veOv ai ypa<pxl 'ivx ^vtritrixel vvexpxufi.lv. . , . ro7s ixXixrots ruy dvSpu^u*
rots IX Ttffrtus iis yvufftv iyxpirots, rnpovfAivu rd uytx fivffr^ftx ^CfiafioXals tyxaXv.
rrrirai x. r. X. (Ibid., vi. pp. 676 ff.)

CATHOLICISM, 91
apostle that knowledge is not possible to every one,' and
pur.sue the noble and peiilous 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
weU be supposed) contain any Protestant meaning of oppos
ing their writings to ecclesiastical tradition. As to the
phUosophers, 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
kno-wn, or less remarked, is the quite as great and more guilty wildness of
modern exegesis.

CHAPTER VL
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 tbe 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 at that time (for I shall prove
' And not as it is sometimes put in our day, the Old Testament to the level
ef the New. The inspiration of the prophets, as well as the privileged posi
tion which they and their books on that account 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,,
De j^iidic, ch 12 : Nos in apostolis quoque veteris legis formam salutamus.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 93
that none existed), but in finding 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 onl}'- to what con
cerns the writings of the apostles ; still, to clear away
every prejudice, I shall once raore reraind my readers that
the Christian theologians of this period knew the Old
Testament only in its Greek form (in the Septuagint), and
consequently that they made no distinction between what
we caU 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 ray 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 aU been raentioned already. It may be added that
there are also in his writings frequent reminiscences of
Paul's epistles," perhaps 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 CathoUc epistles ; on tho
whole, he is one of those who scarcely use the writings of
the apostles except for rhetorical or homiletical purposes,
' See e.g. regarding Wisdom, Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 515,
Sylb, (i hia ffofla) ; ibid., v, 583 (S SaXo/iuv) ; Tertullian, Adv. Valent., ch, 2-
(ipsa Sophia, non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis) ; regarding Ecclesiasiieus,
Tertullian, Exhort, cast., ch. 2 (sicut scriptum est) ; regarding the story of
Bel and the Dragon, Irenaeus, iv. 5 (Daniel propheta) ; regarding Baruch
Irenaeus, v. 35 (Jeremias propheta) ; Clement, Paed., ii. 161 (« hia ypxipi).,
ete. Regarding the theory, see Irenaeus, iii. 21, § 4, quoted above,
= Comp, e.g. i. 6, 14 ; ii. 16, 17, 22, 36 ; iii, 2,
3 ffripld rpofprt (ii, 25, Heb. V. 12) — uhpotros t^uXoXxrplix (ii. 34, I Pet. iv. 3).^

9-t HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and in this respect he might have Ijeen ranked along with
his predecessors. I shall, however, note this other fact that
he is the fir.st CathoUc 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 raade this gospel the subject of
their speculative studies. The silence of the Catholic
writers then arises from raore 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 corae now to a document much
more important, because it is the earliest that contains a
genuine catalogue of apostoUc books. This is the celebrated
fragment known by the name of the Muratorian Ca/non,
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 Bobbio, 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
fegment printed in his Italian Antiquities of the Middle
Ages, ' in 17-iO, 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, Antiquitates Itcdiae medii aevi, iii. 854. See the
iac-simile of the fragment in the work by the late S. P. TregeUes. Cawm
Muralorianus. Oxford, 1867, 4.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 95
gross solecisms. Corruptions, oraissions, faults of translation,
have been seen in it to any extent ; and some, making the
most of aU these faults as facts convenient to their purpose,
have manipulated the text 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 greater 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 ira
portance and the curious peculiarities of this document
eompel 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 Ust 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
Jour, these gospels forming a collection by themselves and
opposed to everything analogous which might exist in the
.Uterature of the tirae — these are facts quite new in the
Jiistory of the canon, and their novelty is not due merely to
the accidental silence of the earlier authors. On the
•contrary, my narrative has shown that the usages were
very different, that there was no official decision or choice
:made regarding the source of the evangelic history in the
jirevious period, when oral tradition was still contending for
' The text begins, after leaving a space blank, with some words relating,
dt would appear, ¦to the gospel of Mark, and passes immediately to the third
gospel.

96 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the first place with the written texts, and favouring a freer
use of the latter.'
Alter the gospels, tlie author passes to the Acts of the
Apostles. With regard to Acts, the Catholic Church
recognises only one single work, that of .Luke, beginning
vnih these words: Optime Theophile, 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 tlie
text of it.
= Luke's work being anonyinous, the author of course transcribed the
first words in order to indicate it sufficiently. Further, it is clear from
what he says of it how far the readers at this period were from being critic-
aUy exact. No one now-a-days will admit that Luke was everywhere an
eye-witness. . . . acta autem omnium apostolorum
sub uno libra scribta sunt lucas obtime theofl
le comprindit quia svh praesentia eius singvla
gerebantur sicut et semote passionem petri
evidenter dedarat sed profectionem pavli ab ur
be ad spaniam proficescentis . . ,
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,
" theraselves declare for whom they 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 them the general plan of revelation) ; all this
is developed at length, and I .shall have to speak of it in
detail." Then, passing to another idea, the author con
tinues : " Though Paul, foUowing the example of his prede
cessor John," wrote by name only to seven churches — viz.,
'  epistulce autem
pauli quce a quo loco vel qua ex causa directs*
sint volentibus intellegere ipse declarant
primum omnium corintheis scysme heresis in
terdicens deinceps caMactis circumcisione*
romanis autem ordine scripturarum sed et
principium earum esse christum intimans. . .t
prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis neces
se est ad nobis desputari cum ipse beatu,s
apostolus paulus seqvxns prodecessoris sui
johannis ordinem nonnisi nomenatim semptcsm
ecclesiis scribat ordine tali a corenthios
prima ad efesios seconda ad philippinses ter
tia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas quin
ta ad iensaolenecinsis sexta ad romanos
septima verum coreniheis et thensaolecen
sibus licet pro correbtione iteretur una
tamen per omnem orbem terrce ecclesia
defiuaa esse denoscitur et johannis enim in a
pocalebsy licet sebtem eccleseis scribat
tamen omnibus dicit verum adphilemonem una
et ad titum una et ad tymotheum duas pro affec
to et dilectione in honore tamen ecclesice ca
iholice in ordinatione eclesiastice
descepline sanetificate sunt 
* It is to be remembered that ancient orthograpliy put e tor ce and that m and » are often
indicated by strokes (here omitted) over the preceding vowels.
t There 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 first, though
G

98 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the Corinthians, Ephesians, PhiUppians, 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), stiU it is known that
there is but one single Church spread over the whole earth.
In the same way John, whUe addres,sing only the seven
churches in the Apocalypse, has them aU in view. As to
epistles to Philemon, Titus and Timothy, which were
written by the apostle from raotives 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 impossible
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 compcsition 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 raay profit by thera, but also because the
sacred writers had this universal destination directly in
he is generaUy placed at the end of the century. This proves that at flrst
it was remembered that the Apocalypse had been written before the ruin of
Jerusalem and not under 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 that 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 sorae idea of repairing by an
apocryphal corapilation, 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 corapila
tion was not the document which still exists under that
name in Latin and which wUl 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 sUence. 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. StiU, 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
¦  fertur etiam ad
laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli no
minefincte ad hceresem marcionis et aliaplu
ra quce in catholicam eclesiam recepi non
potest fel enim cum melle misceri non con

' It has been proposed to read : ad haeresem Marcionis rejutandam, or to
put a comma before these words, so as to make them say this : besides the
epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, others fabricated to
favour Marcion, in short other books still (perhaps Acts of Paul).

100 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
author declares that he wishes to have an apostolic collection
pure and without aUoy ; he not only seeks out the authentic
books, but also eUminates with care the false merchandise ;
he does not wish to mingle gaU 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
naraes 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 raade 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 tbat impossible word : supersorictio ?
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 (fel cum melle) seems of itself to prove that we
possess the document in the original, and not as a translation from Greek.
' . . . . epistola sane jude et supersorictio
johannis duas in cathoUca habentur et sapi
ientia ah amicis salomonis in honorem ipsius
scripta 
3 By this name, the author appears to have meant to designate either the
(apocryphal) Wisdom, or Proverbs, which were also at tiraes 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. AU 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 two
epistles of Peter. This forms another argument to be urged
in favour of the hypothesis that this canon was coraposed in
the Latin Church, and not in the Greek Church, though
many scholars now-a-days regard it onlj'- as a bad translation
of a Greek original. We have one other Latin witness who
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 rauch writing and discussion for the last twenty
years. The text clearlj^ is not free from errors ; but there
is no trace of lacunae or of corruptions such as would permit
' Some think themselves justified in taking these two 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, tlie 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 returns to it in the
order of the books. Another explanation to which I shall have to return
would be given by saying that the first and second epistles were, by a mis
conception, joined into one. See p. 105,
^  apocalapse etiam johannis et pe
tri tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nos
tris legi in ecclesia nolunt 

102 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
US now to make alterations on it for the sake of some book
not mentioned in it. It gives the naraes 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 rae 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 naraes still another, the
Pastor of Hermas, which he says had been written recently
in our time, while Pius occupied the episcopal chair of
Rorae.' 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 have elapsed between the pubUca
tion of Hermas and the composition of the document before
us. Hence tbe 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 remark that the author
does not express his own individual views, but sets before
us the usage estabUshed in his ecclesiastical sphere. On the

'  pastorem vero
nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe
roma herma canscripsit sedente cathe
tra urbis romae pio episcopa fratie
ejus et idea legi quidem eum oportet se pu
plicare vero in ecdesia papula neque inter
profettas completum numero neque
inter apostolos in finem tempmum potest.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS 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 coUection, 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 raay be boldly affirmed
that in certain respects his testimony is of greater weight
than that of his contemporaries, whose ecclesiastical horizon
was rauch 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
Ust as is presented to us in the African treatise published by
Muratori. Still, this list calls for some observations in
detail. In the first place, I insist on this fact, already mentioned
on a former occasion but now placed beyond question for
the history of the canon, tbat 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 eveu 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 sorae lines relating to heretical books which
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,
' ro lixyyixiov rirpd/t.op(pov, Irenaeus, iii. 11, § 8.

104 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
a literary criticism of which nobody had any idea, but in a
class of facts quite foreign to tbe 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 conteraporary and later authors no
longer show any variation frora this fixing of the four
gospels." This theological idea of one single gaspel 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 nan^e 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
themselves to endow theology with other parallels of the same kmd.
The four gospels are the four rivers of paradise, the four elements of the
universe, 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, prmf in Matth. ; Pseudo- Jerome, Expos, iv,
evv. ; Athanasius, Syn. 8. S. ii. 155 ; Alcuin, Disp.puer., oh. 8, etc).
= Clem, Alex,, Strom, iii. 465; TertuU., Adv. Marc. iv. 2£f; Origen,
apud Eusebium vi. 14 ; Jerome, Praf. in Matth. ; Jerome, Proef. in ew. ad
Damasum, etc.
3 ihxyy. xard (sccuudum, according to) Marrfxlov, etc.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 105
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 sraall work
of Irenaeus now lost. The allusions which some profess to
find in the texts 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 praedicta epistola. 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. Eccl. v. 26. Comp. Photius, Cod. 232.
° Irenaeus, iii. 6, § 5, Moses fidelis famulus is taken from Num, vii, 7 ;
and ii, 30, § 9, God created the universe hy His powerful xoord 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.
^ iii, 16, § 5 ff,, in epistola sua, iv rj? iTrirroXtp. 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).

106 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTITRES,
cUned to find a trace of the Epistle of Jaraes in a passage
M'here Irenaeus calls Abrahara a friend of God ; ' but this
surname was not invented by Jaraes, 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. FinaUy, 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 quotar
tions introduced with the consecrated formula. Scripture
(ypa4tfi, Scriptwra). One is connected with the epistle of
Clement ; the other, which is raore express, with the Pastor
of Hermas,* We know that these two v.'ritings were held
in considerable esteem, very much circulated and publicly
lead for the edification of the faithful. Thus the power of
practical and traditional usage was strong enough, even with
this Father, to break through the line of demarcation, which
was too recently drawn to adjust itself everywhere to the
exigencies of the system.
The celebrated contemporary of Irenaeus, Tertullian,
presbyter of the Church of Carthage, is quite as important
for my history, though on other grounds. I was able to
consider the Bishop of Lyons as a witness to ideas and
usages adopted, not only in his immediate surrounding.s,
but also in the distant countries with which he had main-
• iv. 16, § 2. Comp, James ii. 23 ; Clem,, ad Cor. 10,
' Irenaeus, iii, 3, § 3.
3 iv, 9, § 2, Petrus in epistola sua.
* Comp. note 2 on this page and iv, 20, § 2,

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 107
tained very direct relations. In this respect, Tertullian
occupies a more modest place. He simply tells us what the
Church of Africa knew, believed, received ; I make no claira
that he should speak for the Greeks. On the other hand,
his scientific method makes him a very valuable witness,
because his quotations from Scripture do not occur sporadic-
aUy, occasionaUy, without order and succession, as with
Irenaeus ; but, when he is discussing a special point of
ethics or dogma, he loves to pass in review the various
parts of Holy Scripture from one end to the other
according to the order of the books, that he raay obtain
from them the proofs of his assertions. We can therefore
easily ascertain the state of the sacred collection as he had
it, whereas, in other writers, the silence observed regarding
a book may be attributed to chance, and even textual
quotation may be sometimes insufficient to e.stablish the
canonical value of the source from which it is drawn. Here
we have to do with actual dogmatic proofs, and no hesita
tion can be permitted when dealing with a method so strict
and so careful to distinguish (as was said above) inspired
and privileged writings from those which were only used
popularly and occasionally.
Thus, in his polemic work on the Resurrection of the Flesh,
after treating his subject according to the teachings of the
prophets,' he declares (ch, 33) his purpose of passing to the
gospels, and, in fact, he there collects all the passages suit
able for throwing light on the thesis he is defending. He
connects with them (ch. 38) a text from the Apocalypse,
which he introduces as taken from the volume of John ;
whether it be that the identity of the authorship had
suggested this order or that in his collection the Apocalypse
' We must not let ourselves be deceived by appearances when in this
first part of the book we see from time to time comparisons between the
prophetic books and the apostolic books.

108 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
did actually come next to the gospels.' Then he passes
(ch. 39) to the testimonies of the apostolic documents. This
term he applies in the first place to Acts, from which he
borrows some passages, and next to the epistles of Paul,
which furnish him with a long and copious series of passages.
Nothing is wanting except some of the Pastoral Epistles,
Finally, in ch. 62, the author closes the discussion with a
saying of Christ. It is impossible not to be struck by the
fact that not one of the Catholic Epistles is quoted directly
or indirectly, although he would not have failed to find in
them texts supporting his dissertation.
In another work on Chastity, where he protests energetic
ally against the indulgence shown to sins of the flesh and
the readiness with which they are pardoned even in the
Church (Tertullian starts here from the rigid standpoint of
Montanism), he foUows the same method exactly. He
begins by declaring that he intends to seek out his proofs
in the Old and New Testaments (ch. 1) ; he does not, how
ever, linger long over the former, which raight furnish him
with raoral precepts but with few rules of discipUne, and
hastens to pass on (ch. 6) to Christ and the apostles. He
discusses the bearing, first of some parables, then of some
acts of the Lord (ch. 11) which seem to favour indulgence;
finally, he comes (ch. 12) to the apostolic document, in
which, as above, the Acts stand foremast, and next to them
the epistles of Paul. Everywhere he lays stress on the
texts which favour austerity, and tries to weaken the
meaning of those opposed to it, e.g., the pardon granted
to the incestuous person at Corinth. Finally, he de
votes a long chapter (19) to John, who this time is
mentioned last. He not only discusses passages taken
from the Apocalypse, but also, and in detail, the First
' For all questions of this kind, and the ineaning of the technical termt
connected with them, I refer my readers to the foUowing chapter.

CO.X.LECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 109
Epiutle. After that he sums up as if he had completed his
analysis of the apostles (ch. 20). But he is willing to go
further, and produces the subsidiary testimony of a com
panion of the apostles — a man who ought to possess a cer
tain authority, since Paul praises his self-denial as equal to
his own — viz., Barnabas. From hira there has come down
an epistle " to the Hebrews," which the Churches generally
prefer to the Pastor of Hermas — that apocryphal work cited
by the champions of immodesty.' And he quotes the famous
passage of Heb. vi, which has been such a stumbUng-block
to ancient and raodern orthodoxy, and which was Luther's
chief reason for rejecting the epistle. This book of Tertullian
presents to us therefore several phenomena which it may be
very useful to point out. His apostolic document, in addition
to the gospels, evidently included Acts, the epistles of Paul,
and the Apocalypse, to which was added the first epistle of
John," but nothing more. The epistles of Peter are not
found in it any raore than in the Muratorian Canon, and it
is no mere raatter of chance that all these documents be
longing to the African Church are agreed on a point so
remarkable. We see besides that this Church attributed
the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas, and that Tertullian
has no idea that it might be Paul's ; he is not acquainted
with any tradition naming Paul as the author. Finally, we
ascertain that, in addition to the documents analysed by
our author as having undisputed authority, he speaks also
of other books received by the Churches, but received in
another sense — viz., as means of edification, as useful and
' Volo tamen ex redundantia alicnius etiam comitis Apostolorum testirao-
nium superduoere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam
magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis
auctoritatis viri ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore
• . , . (I Cor. ix. 5) . . . . et utique receptior apud ecclesias ep.
Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum.
^ I would see no difficulty in adding also the second, in accordance with
the remark already made in regard to Irenaeus (p. 105).

110 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
valued book.s, but quite distinct frora those belonging to the
sacred volurae.
Let us further consider for a moment a third treatise by
Tertullian, entitled Concerning Flight in Persecution. Here,
too (ch. 6-9), we meet with testimonies frora the New Testa
ment in the same order and with the same number of parts:
first, the Lord in the Gospels, then the apostles — i.e., the
history of the Acts, the epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse,
and the first epistle of John. How are we to explain this
consistency, this uniformity of exclusion in the choice of the
texts, if the author's collection contained more books ?
We have just seen, however, that Tertullian also speaks
of books in a second category, and that he included among
these the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pastor of Hermas,
the latter work, to which he himself was strongly opposed,
being greatly liked and circulated in his day. But these
were not the only books of this kind. He is acquainted
also with the epistle of the apostle Jude} which might have
rendered him great service in his work I)e Pudicitia, had
he considered it canonical. He quotes it only once in order
to corroborate his own highly favourable opinion of the
book of Enoch, which he extols as a prophetic Scripture,
earlier than the Deluge. He seeks further to explain its
miraculous preservation, as the Jews, according to him, re
jected it only becaui3e it preaches Christ, and, to crown all,
he applies to it the famous passage in 2 Tim. iii. 16, in
order to justify his predilection. And still he knows quite
well that this book does not belong to the canon of the Old
Testament. Here then we have at once two deutero-
canonical books. But only in one of the numerous works
of TertulUan (Scorpiacc odAj. Gnosticos, ch. 12 ff.) do we find
the Epistle of Peter mentioned, both by the name of its
author, and as an epistle to those of Pontus ; and criticism
' De hahitu muliebri, ch. 3.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. Ill
is still in doubt regarding the authenticity of this treatise,
suspecting it to be a translation from a Greek original.
But whether or not this suspicion is correct, whence comes
this singular reserve regarding a book which offered so
many texts for use, and which had for a long time been
circulated and received in the churches of the East ? There
is but one reply : this epistle was not known in the West
till later, and was not included in the oldest collections
made for ecclesiastical use. That is why the Muratorian
Canon does not speak of it at all, why Irenaeus quotes it so
seldom, and why TertuUian does not rank it among the
apostolic documents, quoting it but once in aU his writings.
As for the Epistle of James, Tertullian knows nothing and
says nothing about it, and, in an author who is by no means
sparing in proper names and direct quotations, some in
direct allusions, for that matter purely imaginary, do not
make up for such a sUence.'
I shaU not leave Tertullian without noticing a literary
fact which is of some importance. He read the writings of
the apostles in a Latin translation, and not in the original.
This translation, of which he was not the author, had been
in existence for some time, and had been used in the
churches of Africa, perhaps even in other churches for any
thing we know. But if we are thus led to date this collec
tion back at least to the period 160-180, it is not wonderful
that it did not contain a very large number of books. If it
be true, as we cannot reasonably doubt, that the collection
was formed by exchange or communication among the,
' These pretended allusions do not bear a moment's serious examination.
The most striking, apparently, is that in which an apostle is mentioned
who had said : non auditores legis justificahuntur a Dea, sed factores (De
Exhort. Cast., ch. 7) ; but this apostle is Paul (Rom, ii. 13) and not James
(i, 22). As to Abraham, the friend of God, I refer my readers to the
corresponding remark on Irenaeus (p. 106). Besides, the treatise containing-
this allusion (Adv. Judeaos, ch. 2) is an apocryphal compUation.

112 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
ancient churches, the slower propagation of certain books
has a very natural explanation. And is it an impossible
supposition that, when the first coUection had been made at
a certain time, the writings known only later should have re
mained outside of the collection, though authentic and cordi
ally welcomed ? Is not this the very basis of the history of
the canon for the next two centuries ? The difficulties,
contradictions, impossibilities arise only to those who sup
pose that the apostles themselves formed and closed a
scriptural code.'
Let us now pass to the East and see what we can learn
regarding that region from the third great theologian of the
close of the second century, Clement of Alexandria. On the
whole it may be said that his canon — i.e., the collection
traditionally used in bis church — is very nearly the .same as
that of the Latins; but, in addition to this collection, a
Christian literature of the second rank, more abundant than
in the West, is frequently quoted, and with much favour.
This second class specially demands our attention." Regard
ing the first, it is enough to say in passing that it included
the four Gospels, Acts, and the thirteen epistles of Paul,
two epistles of John," one of Peter, and the Apocalypse of
John. The works of Clement have not all come down to us.
There is one in particular whose loss we must regret — viz,,
the Hypotyposes, if it be true that that book contained a
' I leave untouched the question so warmly debated, whether there were
more than one ancient Latin translation. The numerous publications,
recently, of fragments of ancient Latin versions previous to that of Jerome,
seem to me to have decided the matter, and at the same time to confirm
the supposition that these versions were at first only partial.
' Eusebius had already observed this comparative abundance, and he
directed attention to it in the passage where he speaks of Clement (Hist.
eccl., vi. 13, 14).
3 Quite distinct from one another. He quotes the first ¦with the formula ¦
i> Ts5 /iEt^oyi ivtffroXyi.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 113
succinct analysis of all ihe canonical scriptures.^ But this
assertion does not seem to deserve credit; for the last
ancient author " who speaks of it, after having really read
and studied it, protests against the heresies he had observed
in it, and declares that they are explanations of Genesis,
Exodus, the Psalms, the epistles of Paul, the Catholic
Epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. Still these explanations must
have been very unequal in length; for, according to the
collected fragments of them, six books out of eight must
have been devoted to the Pauline Epistles alone : the first
book could then have treated only of the Old Testament,
and as to the last, which seems to have been preserved in
a Latin edition,^ it embraced the four (or five) Catholic
Epistles then known.
In regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we know from
Eusebius that Clement held it to be a writing of the
Apostle Paul, in the sense that Paul had composed it in
Hebrew and Luke had translated it into Greek, Indeed, in
his writings which survive, Clement quotes it without hesi
tation under Paul's name. This then was his own personal
opinion, and also, no doubt, that of those around him. It is
none the less true that the hypothesis of a Hebrew original
is untenable, that the reasons given for the absence of the
author's n^me are absurd,^ and that the very arguments, when
joined to the contrary tradition of the Latins, prove that

* vdffns rtjs iv^ixSnxev ypx<pns ivtrerfitipciyxs "Stvjyftfftts (Euseb,, loc. cit.)
' Photius, Cod. 109,
3 Adumhrationes dementis presbyteri in Epp. Petri [i.], Judae et Johannis
[i,, ii.], in 0pp. ed. Potter. This perhaps is the work which Cassiodorus
(De. div. led., ch. 8) says he caused to be done, taking care to erase from it
everything offensive, AUqua incaute locutus est quae nos ita transferri
fedmus in latinum ut exclusis quihusdam offendiculis purificata doctrina ejus
securior (sic) posset hauriri. Only in place of Jude he mentions James,
which may have been simply an inadvertence, •
* See espcc, Strom, iv. pp. 514, 525 ; vi. p. 645.
5 Euseb, vi. 14. H

114 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCEIPTURES.
in reality no one knew anything positive regarding the
origin of the book.
The Epistle of James is nowhere quoted, and, as to the
allusions to it which sorae find, I have only to repeat what
was said on the preceding occa.sion. That of Jude is named
on several occasions.
The most curious phenomenon in our Alexandrine philoso
pher is the stress he lays on the inspiration of those very
books, belonging to what we have called the second category,
in other words, not included in the collection generally used
in the Church. I note here the Pastor of Hermas,' the Epistle
of Barnabas (of course the epistle which commonly bears that
name, and which most modern critics regard as a work be
longing to the end of tbe first or the beginning of the second
century, but do not attribute to a companion of Paul) ; * the
epistle of Clement of Rorae to the Corinthians,' with which
we have already met as a book for edification ; even
books positively apocryphal, but occasionaUy employed, and
furnishing at times somewhat long extracts, such as the
Apocalypse' and Preaching of Peter, the Gospel of the
Hebrews and that of the Egyptians, the book called TradA-
tions of the Apostle Matthias^ and a pretended work of
Paul, in which the Sibylline books and the prophet
Hystaspes,' without counting a mass of anonymous quota
tions which we are no longer able to verify, but which must
have been taken from various lost gospels. These quota-
^ Biius « "hvv^f^ts h ru 'Epfioi xard d^oxaXv^^tv xlyovffa fttffi (Strom., i. 356 ;
comp. ii. 360, 384 ; iv. 503).
' Bxpvdlixs dmffroXos (Strom, ii. 373, 375 ; comp. 389, 396, 410 ; v. 571,
677 ; vi. 646).
3 Strom, i. 289 ; iv. 516 (dmffroXos) ; vi. 647.
¦* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14 ; comp. S^t. Theod. p. 806.
s Strom, i. 357; ii. 380; iii. 436; vi. 635 f., 678. The Gospel of the
Egyptians, though carefully distinguished from the four others, is never
theless cited as o xvpios (iii. 452, 453, 465).
' Strom, vi, 635.

COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 115
tions we have already met with in the various Greek
fathers.' Clement, in introducing such quotations, employs
without hesitation the term, Scripture.
Nevertheless, the testiraonies I have collected and ana
lysed in the two last chapters give great probability, if not
complete certainty, to the following suppositions. In the
last quarter of the second century, the theological idea of
the privileged authority of the apostles, as founders of the
Church and writers, had as a fact caused a distinction to be
drawn between their books and all the other writings
which had for a longer or shorter period been circulating in
Christendom, and were used for the edification of the faiths
ful, partly in public readings. This distinction was based
on the apostolic dignity of the authors and was guaranteed
by tradition. But this rule was modified or made precise
by several subordinate considerations. Thus, two gospels
were received which had not been written by apostles, for
the simple reason that tbey had long been consecrated by
public use, and that coramon opinion placed them in close
relation with certain apostles. The book of Acts was added
for the same reason, aU the more that it formed one whole
with the third gospel." Besides these historical books, there
was the Apocalypse of John, which was the first of all
apostolical writings to be regarded as inspired. Finally, there
were the Epistles, especiaUy those of Paul, which were
distinguished both by their nuraber and by the lasting
interest shown in thera by the churches which that apostle
had founded. They forraed the nucleus of the second part
' See, for example, Strom, i. 354 ; iv. 488 ; v. 596 ; vi. 647, &c.
' Still, as this book did not come under either of the two chief divisions
of the collection, it must have been recommended by other arguments.
Quam scripturam qui non recipiunt, nee spiritus sancti esse possunt qui
necdum spiritum sanctum agnoseere possint discentibus missum, nee ecdesiam
defenders qui, quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus, probare
non habent (Tert., Praescr. ch. 22).

116 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of the collection, and it was among the Pauline churches,
as opposed to Jewish Christianity, that this collection arose.
Further, there were two epistles of John' and one of Peter,
What we call the third of John and the second of Peter
were still unknown at the period indicated; at least no
trace of them is to be found in the authorities we are able
to consult. Finally, the epistles of James and Jude were
not contained in this apostoUcal collection, their authors
being generally held to be the brothers of Christ, and, by
that title, distinguished from the Twelve. Still we saw
that the epistle of Jude was held in much greater favour
than that of James, for it seems to have spread more
quickly ; whereas we have ascertained that in the West, at
least in Africa, even the epistle of Peter received but tardy
recognition. But we have also seen that, in addition to
this collection, sacred and in some respects privileged from
the theological point of view, popular teaching and even
learned discussion drew material from other sources. There
was no official law on this point, but a simple tradition
which left each Father of the Church more or less at liberty.
Thus, Clement could make abundant use of apocryphal
literature, while Tertullian, situated at a distance from this
doubtful abundance, imposes great restraint on himself,
without altogether resisting the attractions of books that
excited his sympathy or curiosity."
¦ This number may very well have been the result of an error. Sse above
on p. 105 and Note I on p. 101.
= I might quote other texts to prove that in the second century the dis
tinction between the authentic works of the apostles and other books of
suspected origin was not established so clearly as it was afterwards. But
it is superfluous to insist on an incontestable fact.

CHAPTER VIL
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Under this title I shall bring together certain facts ex
clusively Uterary, and these wiU complete what I have to
say on the history of the Christian canon at the end of the
second century. Hitherto we have been discussing the
theological principles which led to its formation and the
elements of which it was composed. We have no acquaint
ance yet with the collection as a Uterary whole. On this
point there are still some very interesting, and in certain
respects very significant, notices to be gleaned among the
authors already analysed.
First of aU, we must get rid of the idea that the different
books of what we now call the New Testament formed at
that time a single volume — a compact whole, so to speak.
The material conditions, the state of the art of writing, and
the means then at the disposal of the Christians, made this
impossible ; and historically, they were too near the sources
of the collection to have lost already the remerabrance of its
formation. Now, it must be remembered that at first two
distinct collections were formed, independent of one another,
that of the gospels and that of the Pauline epistles. Of
these two coUections the former was used at an earlier date
than the other for regular and public reading. The adoption
of the second, which already existed separately and was
thenceforth employed for the same purpose, was almost con
temporaneous with that general ecclesiastical movement
which resulted in the formation of what was called Catholi
cism, the Church Catholic, the Church distinct frora the
Jewish-Christian communities which wished to reraain

118 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
stationary, and from the Gnostic schools which strove to
drag it out of the sphere marked for it by the authentic
tradition of preceding generations.
Further, the writers we have been studying last were
stiU aware of the existence of two different coUections, and
distinguished them by different names, which are in part
purely conventional, and afford all the more certain proof
of my thesis. The first, containing the evangelical narra
tives, was called siraply the Gospel ; the other, containing
the epistles of Paul, was called the Apostle, a term which
was not changed or enlarged till the addition of Acts and
some other epistles had rendered it absolutely necessaiy,*
Tertullian, the lawyer-theologian, introduced and popu
larised the term evangelic and apostolic instrument — Le.,
document, charter, official decree, brief of proofs and iUus
trations — and thus succeeded in giving a very distinct and
brief indication of the special value of these books as legal
and public writings." This division was even regarded as
analogous to the forra and traditional designation of the Old
Testament (Law and Prophets),' I need hardly observe
that the use of the singular, the apostle, could only be
explained by the fact raentioned above — i.e., that the
Pauline epistles alone appeared in the second part of
the collection as it at first existed. We can see from the
' ro iiayyixtov — o dnffroXos (Clcm., Strom., vii, 706,) Evangelium Domini
— ApostoU Uteres (TertuU, , De hapt. , ch, 15, ) ri tiayytXixd — rd dvoffreXixx
(Iren,, i, 3, § 6,) Mvangelicce, apostolica Uteres (Tert,, De prcescr., 36;
comp. Adv. Projx., 15,)— The author of the dialogue De recta in Deum fide
(0pp. Orig., vol. xvi.) introduces a personage who maintains (p. 309) :
Siptus wXiov rov ivxyyiXiov xxi rov xvoffroXov oi ^txo/tt^a. The meaning of this
last term, applied to Paul exclusively, could not be doubtful,
" Instrumentum evangdicvm, apostoUcum (Tert,, Adv. Marc.iv.2. De
pvdic. 12). Instrumentum Maysii^ert. , Adv. Hermog. 19.) Instrumentum
prapheticum (Tert. , De resurr. cam. 33). Instrumentum Joannis, Pavli{Te'rt,. ,
De resurr. cam. 38, 39), hutrumenlum Actarum (Tert,, Adv. Marc. v. 2).
3 Clem. Alex,, Strom., vi. 659: Sl/ios xal -itpaifmrat — ' AtiffroXot aiv r^
iayytxiu. — This parallelism in substance and form is called /iowixh ffv/upuvix.

BIBLIOGRAPHY, 119
very terms eraployed by Tertullian, and quoted in the note
on page 118, how this second part was gradually extended
and increased. To the single instrument of the Apostle
there were added other instruments with equal claim, that
of John (the Apocalypse and the First Epistle) and that of
Acts, and all these materials made up the instrument of the
apostles, composed of the books of various authors.
But things did not stop there. The difference to be made
between the Scriptures which had already belonged to the
Synagogue and those which had sprung up within the
Church, was naturally more marked than that which
existed between the respective elements of each of the two
principal parts. Special names were therefore needed to
recall this more fundamental division. Thus the Old Testa
ment, as a whole, was designated according to an ancient
usage, sometimes by the name of the Law, sometimes by
that of the Prophets. As for the New Testament, the term
Gospel or Apostles "¦ was used indifferently, and this usage
being introduced freely and graduaUy, we frequently find
passages where apparently three co-ordinate parts are
spoken of" The theological notion to which this double
series of instruments — i.e., of written and official documents
— referred was older than Christianity itself; it was the
notion of the double alliance of God with His people,
already conceived by the prophets,' reproduced expUcitly by
Jesus,^ and included in the teaching of the apostles as one
of its fundamental ideas." The only innovation to be noted
here is that Latin theology, influenced by an inexact trans-
' TertuU,, Adv. Marc, iii, 14: Lex et Evangelium; Adv. Hermog., 45 :
Prophetae et apostoU.
Clem, Alex., Strom., iii, 445 : yopt-os xxi n'po(p7jrai ffvv ru iiff.yyiXiu^ v. 561 :
TO svuyyiXtov xxi oi dvoffrOXot opt-oius rois icpo^rtrxts x. r..X.
' Jeremiah xxxi. 32.
* Matt, xxvi, 28 : xxivh iixHxn, novum iestamentum (for novum fcedus).
* 2 Cor, iii. 6 f ; Gal. iv. 24 f ; Heb. viii. 8, ix. 15, etc.

120 HISTORY 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 remerabrance 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 away
that the older and more logical terminology disappeared,'
The order in which the various books contained in the
two coUections of the New Testament were arranged, was
not everywhere and always the sarae. This fact is of little
importance in itself; still it may serve to prove that the
collection was not raade at a very early date and by a
superior ecclesiastical authority, but, successively, according
to necessities and means and no doubt in eeveral 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 fir.st 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 su})posed 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 foUows Matthew and Mark
'Instrumentum, vel, quod magis tisui est dicere, testamentum (Tort., Adv.
Marc. iv. I). Novum testamentum (Tert., Adv. Praz. 15). Utrumqw
testamemtum (Tert., Depudic. 1).
" Tatum instrumentum utrivsque testamenti (Tert. , De pudic. 20).
3 Scriptura omnis in duo tesiamenta divisa est (Lactant., Inst, div, iv, 20,
* Muratorian Canon ; Iren., iii. I. § 1. Clem, and Orig., apud. Euseb,,
vi. 14, 25. Jerome, Vulgate, ete.
5 Constituimus evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere . . . et
ApostoUcas, cum Apostolis et past Apostolos . . . Nobis fidem ex Apostolis

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 121
comes last, was preferred, as it appears, by the 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 forra three groups, the members of which
are kept distinct. The fu'st group is composed of the
Epistles to the Roman,s, the Corinthians and the Galatians,
and these always stand first in the collection ; the second
group includes the five short epistles addressed to various
churches, Thessalonians most frequently coming last in it,
sometimes first" or third.' Finally, the last group erabraces
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 Apostle at
the end of the second century.
Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant
{TertuU., Adv. Marc, iv. 2).
' Codices Vercellensis, Veronensis, Brixianus, Corbeiensis, Cantabrigiensis
Palatinus [For some account of these MSS. of the old Latin versions, see
Smith's Diet, afthe Bible, iii. 1692 f. and Scrivener's Plain Introduction.,
pp. 256 f,]
' Codd. Decret. Gelasii, various readings.
3 Augustine apud Cassiod. Divin. led., 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 nuraber 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 raoment. 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 TertulUan
attaching the Epistle of John to the Apocalypse ; we found
in the same writer, in Irenseus and in Clement, scattered
quotations taken frora 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 adrait that each of these
Fathers placed entire confidence in the writings of which
he thus raade use, and accorded to them the same authority,
I believe siraply that they possessed these epistles only as
isolated writings,' and that copies of the Scriptures which
did not include thera all, perhaps even those which did not
include any one of them, were not generaUy 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 sjjecial name.
This special name, which I have already employed, has
been variously explained. The term catholicis undoubtedly
opposed to heretical-^ but in this sense it would not have
" That is a plain inference from the incontestable fact that each Father
cites different epistles.
° Euseb., Hist, eccl., iii. 3, iv. 23, without distinguishing between tho
apostolic books and others.

BIBLIOGRAPHY, 123
been reserved for the epistles in question to the exclusion
of those of Paul. For the sarae reason, it cannot be taken
here as raeaning writings received by the Churches or recog
nised as sacred Scriptures,' 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 frora the two
others which are addressed to single individuals." The
same designation was used for the letter written by the
apostles frora the conference at Jerusalera,' and for that of
Barnabas.* In all these cases, the historical sentiraent pre-
dorainated over every other consideration. Not till later
did the narae Catholic Epistles becorae 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 tUl 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 Epistles 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., passim.
3 Acts XV. Clem. Strom., iv, 512,,
* Origen, Contra Celsum, i, 63.
s Euseb., ii. 23 ; vi. 14.
' Leontius de Sectis (Scsc. vi.), ch. 2 : xahxtxxi ixif,inffxv itrs/Sin oh •a-pis h
Vves iypdipviffav, us ai rod HavXov, dXXd xx^oXou vtpos 'Tavra. — According to a
Scholiast, the Epistle of James is put first on rrjs rov Tlirpov xahXixoripa irriv
(Cotderii PP. ap. prcef. in Barn.)

1 24 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Church, which preferred to call thera canonical epistles — i,e.,
recognised as apostolic. This terra, 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 VIIL
THE THIRD CENTURY.
The question of the Canon did not make much progress in
the course of the third century. The coUection, whicli
generaUy 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 Ust 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 incUned 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 mo,st, only valuable information as to
which books were received in certain localities. We must be
speciaUy on our guard against supposing that these opinions
always exercised a direct and prevaiUng influence on ecclesi
astical usages, I have already stated, on the strength of
the express words of TertulUan, 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 apostoUc writings and the order of those included in
the usual coUection were fixed by the traditional custora 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 metropolitan, the collection naturally
passed into all tbe churches of one particular province, and
thus without difficulty considerable uniformity was estab
lished araong 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 foreign churches, which had for a longer 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 coUection, closed
¦and definite, must have been formed more readily and more
distinctly in the minds of the Latin and Semitic Christians,
who, frora the very fitrst, received an entire collection of
¦holy books, than in the rainds of the Greeks, among whom
time was needed to efface the remembrance of the slow and
gradual formation of the coUection. To convince ourselves
of the correctness of this observation, we have only to con
sider the difference in standpoint and reasoning between
Clement and TertuUian — the difference observable in
the numerous extracts already given from these two
•writers. Hence it is not by mere chance that the earUest
¦ Irenaeus, Adv. haer., iii. 4.

THE THIRD CENTURY. Vll
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 first 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 civiUsation 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
coraraon opinion of raodern orientalists assigns it to the end
of the second centurj', 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
xjontent 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 (Peschito) 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 Jeremiah. The coUection
¦ends with Daniel. At a later time, however, editions were published with
various modifications.

128 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
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 Jaraes. We understand that in the East, in
the neighbourhood of Palestine, in a sphere where Jewish
Christianity raight exercise a certain influence, this ancient
work comraended itself to special attention, whereas the
churches under Pauline infiuence raight 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-
.'iisting 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 raatter what opinion we adopt regarding the
person of its author, or the number of apostoUc personages
bearing the name of James. Still, this shows that in the^
Church of SjTia also, there was no intention of putting
anything in the sacred collection except works belonging
to iramediate disciples of the Lord. For the sarae 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 itseff, 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 Syriac 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 tbe 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 remerabered 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 raight be incomplete ; it is expressly recognised and
confirmed by the Syrian authors of the centuries foUowing,
I

130 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
to this uncertainty. When enuraerating the books of the
Old Testament,' he fixes their nuraber at twenty-two, which
is the nuraber 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 are 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 corae last. Further, when naming Jeremiah,
the author expressly mentions his epistle, which gives ground
for supposing that he acknowledged tbe canonicity of the
Greek form of that prophet's book as weU 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 Children, the
' Selecta in Psalmos, 0pp., 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 %^u rovruv iffri rd Maxxufiaixx (loc. cit.)
' is, ifipxiuy rots (XXtiffi /ilrt^Xihi ,irdy6' offa r^s vaXatds ^latrtxtis (fipirai (Ep.
Afric. ad Orig., ch. i. In Orig. 0pp., xvii. p. 18.)

THE THIRD CENTURY. 131
additions to the Book of Esther, and lastly, Judith and
Tobias?. He professes that the Jews might possibly have
mutilated the text, and concludes by saying that the usages
of the Synagogue should not prevaU over those of the Church
which makes no difficulty about using these books.' This
then was the traditional custom which to Origen could not but
be an authoritative rule in conflict with historical science.
After this it wiU not be surprising to find him elsewhere quot
ing the Wisdom of Soloraon, Ecclesiasticus," and the books of
the Maccabees, as the Scriptures, the Word of God,' and raak
ing frequent reference to them. Origen went further. He
used even to admit that, outside of the Bible in books reaUy
apocryphaV there were inspired passages which the apostles
with their own inspiration could easily discern and repro
duce, whUe other Christians, no longer enjoying that gift,
would do better to avoid these books. By way of proof he
cites sorae passages from the New Testament, for which we
search the Old in vain,^ and he has not even a suspicion
that the apocrypha, circulating in his time and containing
these passages, may have themselves borrowed them from
the apostles.
The same phenomenon of a science, uncertain of its grounds
and incessantly conflicting with an imperious tradition or
with practical convenience, also appears in what Origen
tells us of the order of the apostoUc books. When dealing
with the different statements found in his numerous works
' Orig. ad Afric., ch. 13, lac. cit., p. 42 : i$px7oi ru Tu^ix oi xpuvrai. . .
dXX icrti ^puyrxt ru Tufiix xi ixxXnfftai, tffriov x. t, X.
' Qui liber apud nas inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet (Homil. 18 in
Numer. ).
3 h'os Xoyos, scriptures (De princip., ii. 1, § 5. Homil. in Lev. I. T. -vi. ;
¦ill Jo., ch. 19; in Matt., Trad. 31; Contra Cdsum, iii, 72; viii. 50.
Philoeal, ch. 22. ) See in general the indices to his works.
¦• l» dvoxpvipats, in secretis. See Prolog, in Cantic., 0pp. xiv. 325, Comm.
¦in Matt. iv. 238 f. ; v. 29.)
s Matt, xxiii. 37, xxvii, 9 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8 ; Heb. xi. 37 ff ;
Acts vii. 51 f.

132 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
or preserved to us by Eusebius,' some have formed a theory
that he contradicted himself at various epochs of his life,
or even that those writings which no longer exist in the
original were altered in translation. All things considered,
there is no need of such expedients to understand his con
clusions. Everything is explained and reconciled, if we
keep sight of what I have so often repeated — viz,, that the
canon of the New Testament was not closed in Origen's
time, and that, along with the most entire submission to
traditional authority when sufficiently established, there
was room for independence in aU questions not yet decided
by custom. Let us turn our special attention to these
questions. Thus, in regard to the Gospels, it is hardly
necessary to prove that Origen in the raost explicit raanner
declares the four generally received to be the only ones
which can be and ought to be considered as inspired; he
founds his statements on the text of Luke's preface and on
the authority of the church, which has raade its choice
araong the great nuraber that had come into existence."
Thus, too, the Acts written by Luke, and the thirteen
Epistles of Paul which have long been gathered in one
volume, need no longer to be mentioned, now or afterwards,
as integral parts of the Scriptures posterior to Jesus, and
believed in the churches to be divine.' For that matter all
' Euseb., Hist, eccl., vi. 25.
" Homil. i. in Luc. (0pp. v. 87^ .' Ut sciatis non solum quatuor evangelia
sed plurima esse conscripta s quibus haec quae habemus electa sunt et tradita
ecclesiis ex ipsa pracemio Lucas cognoscamvs. . . . Hoc quod ait: "conati
sunt, " latentem habet accusationem eorum qui absque gratia Spiritus sancti
ad scribenda evangelia prosilierunt. Matthaeus, Marcus, Joannes et Lucas
non conati sunt scribere sed Spiritu sancto pleni scripserunt . . . Ecdesia-
quatuor habet evangelia, haeresis plurima . . . Quatuor tantum sunt pro
bata . . . In his omnibus nihil aliud probamus nisi quod ecclesia, i.e.,
quatuor tantum evangelia esse recipienda. Comp, i, in Joh., ch, 6 (Opp. i.
p. 13).
3 Contra Celsum^ iii, 45 : The theological proof is given ofro rm ^ocXutZp
XjBtt iou^ccixaiv ypafifx.o'.Taiv ol; xxt vifiiis ^p^fiii'xj oi}^ nTTov Se xex) as"? Tmv fiiTtt to*
iTjtrovv 'ypatpivreav xal ev ToiTs IxxXjienms 6iteav uyat 9nTnrT£u/x.iveay.

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 Testaraent. 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 forraula has special signific
ance, because it reraoves the last trace of any difference
between the two parts of the sacred collection," The terras
canon, canonical, terms of which I have already made
occasional use by anticipation, did not yet exist apparently
in a literary sense. By the ecclesiastical canon? was still
meant the traditional rule, the established and regular
usage. But I am in haste to come to facts raore unexpected. To
begin with, Eusebius bas 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 apostoUc
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 sorae one who reproduced them
from memory. Hence, if any church holds it to be Paul's,
that church does not en-, for the ancients had some grounds
' rx iv r"ri %KHxri ^t/iXtx, xi ivhxhxoi fii^Xoi. Thej are the same to which
he also gives the name oiioXoyovi/.ivx, i.e., the books which all the churches
agree in accepting.
' This unity is expressly set forth (« ,gxXaid ^txtrixtn dpx'i "^'v liayytxlou)
i. in Jo., ch, 15,
3 xxviiv ixxXnffixffnxis (Euseb., vi, 25.)
' Euseb., loc. cit. : i ^''taxritp rrjs Xilius. . . . ovx 'ix" ''' " Xoyu 'Hturixov
rov xtroffriXou. . . . xXXd iffrly ffvvHfflt rm Xi^lus iXXuv'xurtpx. vas i i'Tiffrx/ay-}
xpivttv (ppxffiuy ttx^opds, optoXoyviffxi xv. vxXtv n av on rd voriftxra rrjs i^TtffrcXiji
iavfAXffiu iffri, xxi oh tivripx ruv x^offroXixuv efioXoyovfiivuv ypaptf^xruv.

134 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
for transmitting it to us as that apostle's. Nevertlieless,
God alone knows who wrote it, and on this point tradition
mentions sometiraes the name of Clement of Rome, some
times tbat of Luke."' Clearly Origen here has had before
hira several opinions soraewhat opposed to each other, and
he is seeking to harmonise thera in a more or less plausible,
but quite arbitrary manner. The Epistle to the Hebrews,
which in the West was attributed to Barnabas, was re
garded in the East sometimes as written by Paul, sometimes
as a work by one of his friends or disciples, sometimes even
as a translation made from a Hebrew original. The Alex
andrine scholar is not aware of the first opinion ; he tacitly
rejects the last, though it was that of his illustrious master,
Clement ; he cannot rely on the Eastern tradition, which
had arisen simply frora conjecture ; finally, his critical
sagacity does not permit him to assign it to Paul. But the
high admiration entertained by him for a book, which more
than any other of the first century consecrates the theological
and exegetical method which he raakes the basis of all his
studies, suggests to him a new theorj'-. This hypothesis, made
at a venture, seemed to reconcile the hesita.tions of criticism
with the instincts of a popular opinion that was favourable to
it, and was beginning to gain ground. In the works remain
ing to us, Origen makes very frequent use of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and cites it sometimes with Paul's name, some
times without it. In one passage," he distinguishes it from
the books manifestly canonical, and speaks of its author as
an unknown person, at the sarae tirae adding that it could
be proved to be by the apostle, though many persons dis
puted the fact.
^ . . . , rd fiiv voKfixrx rov dvoffroXov, vi Ti ^pdffis xxi n avvhffis dcro/ivnfiovtv-
trxyros rivos rd diroffroXtxx xxi uff^spsi ffx^^*^yP^^^^^^^^S '^d tipKfuiva wo rov
oihxffxdKov X. r. X.
' Epist. ad Afric., ch. 9. The facts given regarding the death of the
prophets by him who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (l ypx'4'xs), w
¦oiisvl ruv ^xyspuv ^t^Xiuv yiypafifoiyx.

THE THIRD CENTURY. 13,5
Eusebius has also preserved another passage of Origen
regarding the epistles of Peter and John, wherein, for the first
time, there is some discussion of the two writings attributed
to these apostles, which I have not yet mentioned. "Peter,"
it is there said, " on whom the Church of Christ is built,
left one single epistle which is generaUy acknowledged,
perhaps a second, for this is doubtful. John (besides the
Go.spel and the Apocalypse) left also a very brief epistle,
perhaps a second and a third, for aU are not agreed about
their authenticity."' These three epistles are nowhere
quoted in the Greek works of Origen ; when he speaks of
the first of Peter, he calls it siraply the epistle (in the .singu
lar, without a figure) — the CathoUc Epistle," although the
second is no less entitled to this epithet. But, in the Latin
texts, we find allusions to this second epistle, and even
direct quotations.
The epistles of Jaraes and Jude, too, are quoted with
some hesitation. The former is introduced as a work con
sidered to be by Jaraes,' and the author is described as a
brother of the Lord,* which description, according to the
ideas of the time, distinguished him from the Twelve. Jn
the same way, Jude is very explicitly called a brother of
the Lord, and distinguished from the apostles ; and for this
reason his epistle, though recomraended as full of celestial
grace and quoted several tiraes, is not included araong the
writings whose authority is indisputable,^ Here, too, the
name of apostle is given to James and Jude in those works
* Euseb,, loc. cit. : Vlirpos piiav ioriffroXiiv optoXoyoufiiyviy xxraXiXot,TSv. 'iffreooi
xai ^svripav d/ift(ixXXsrxi yxp. . . . *loidvvvi5. . . , i^lffroXvlv ^dvu oXiyuy ffrixuv.
tffradi xal isvripay xal rpirtjv'i^el oh ordvris <pxfflyv7iffiovs iivai rxvras.
° For instance : In Joh., torn. vi. ch 18. In Psalm 3 (Opp. xi, 420). — In
Matt, vol, XV. ch. 27, there must also be read a^ro rri; Xlirpov i,xiffroXijs.
-* « ^spofAiyT] *Ixxujiov i^tffroXvl (xix, in Joh., ch. 6).
< Tom. X. in Matt. ch. 17.
5 ti ns wfoffoiro rh 'lovix imffroXtiv (tom, xvii. in Matt, ch, 30), Comp.
tom. X. ch. 17 ; xiii. 27 ; xv, 27).

136 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
of Origen, which have been preserved only in a Latin tranis-
lation, I do not on this account attempt to suggest that
the translator knowingly and wilfully altered the text, though
such a supposition is warranted by what we know of him.
It is enough to say that, in Origen's opinion, the writings
of the brothers of Christ, as well as some other epistles not
yet consecrated by general and undisputed usage, might be
used perfectly well for the edification of the faithful and for
the requirements of theological discussion, along with the
writings already included in the usual coUection, al
though science could stiU draw a distinction between the
two categories of books. This explains how, in certain of
Origen's works, more practical in their tendency and exist
ing only in translation, we find an enumeration either of
eight apostolic writers, or of twenty-seven books of the
New Testament. Thus, in his thirteenth homily on Genesis,
when speaking of the pits dug by the servants of Abraham
and Isaac, he compares the former to the authors of the Old
Testament, and the latter to the four evangelists and the
apostles, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude, Thus, too, in his
seventh homily on Joshua, the same personages sound tho
trumpet to overthrow the walls of the raystical Jericho, a
syrabol of paganisra, and in such fashion that Peter and
Luke hold two trumpets, John five, and Paul fourteen.
Our theory removes other difficulties arising from the
supposition that Origen placed on the same level all the
writings we have just been discussing. If he had done so,
his canonical coUection would have been not only (as is
beUeved) quite as complete as the others, it would have
been still fuller ; for he complacently quotes several other
books, using the same forraulas, sometimes pious, sometimes
hesitating. Thus the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas
do not appear to him less worthy of attention than they
' For instance : De Princ. iii, 2. Comm. in Ram. iv. 8, v. 1.

THE THIRD CENTURY. 137
did to his predecessors. He identifies the foimer of these
authors with a personage recommended by Paul, and in
this fact finds an additional motive for attributing to it a
certain authority ;' the second is even quoted, along with
Luke and Paul, in support of a theme under discussion.
But above all he extols the Pastor of Hermas on many
occasions and has no doubt of its inspiration, though he
regrets that every one is not of his opinion.' He is not
equally convinced of the reality of the claims of tho Gospel
of the Hebrews, or the Acts of Paul ; still he understands >
that others may value these books, and of this circumstance
he avails himself to quote them in their turn.* Nor are
these quotations unimportant, such as we are making daily;
he attributes to them an authority whicb, if not absolute
(for that belongs only to the homologumena), is at least
relatively superior to every other. Origen knows very well
how to distinguish from these books others which deserve
no credence and usurp titles not belonging to them. Thu.s,
for example, he discusses very sensibly the value of a book
called the Preaching of Peter, whicb was in circulation in
his time, and he refuses to recognise any authority in its
teaching.^ While speaking of this work, he is even led to
make a scientific classification of the works which might
' Vol. vi. in Joh., ch. 36.
' Contra Cels. , i. 63.
3 Qvai scriptura mihi valde utilis videtur et ut puto divinitvs inspirata
(Comm. in Rom,. Book x, ch. 31). '^iponivvi \v rip ixxXnffia ypatph oh ^xpd ^afft
il o/ioXoyovfiivt! tivxt hix (in Matt. vol. xiv. ch, 21), Qui a nonnullis contemni
videtur (De princ. iv, 11), Comp, Hom. 1 in Psalm xxxvii, Hom. 8 in
Num. In Luc. hom. 35. Opp. v. p. 218.
¦• ii ns irxfxSlxirxt (Hom. in Jerem. xv, 4). it ru ipixov •jrxpxhix^'^'" (vol.
XX, in Joh., ch, 12. Comp. De princ, ii. I, §5).
s X7ipvy!i.x nirpov, doctrina Petri (De princ, preface, § 8). Respondendum
quoniam ille liber inter ecdesiasticos non habetur et ostendendum quia neque
Petri est ipsa scriptura neque alterius cuiuspiam qui Spiritu Dei fuerit in-
spiratiis.

138 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
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, eleraents of a value incontest
ably superior.' Authenticity, or legitiraacy, 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-
barras.sing position in regard to a book of which no special
mention has been raade in these last pages. We have seen
tbat 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 coraing 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 raaterialistic, 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, raust 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^erx^oyris OTipi rov (ii^xiou ororspov voTS yvnffiov iffrtv ^ vohy ?i ftixroy (vol.
xiv. in Joh. )
' See Origen, De princ, ii. II, § 6. In Malt. Opp., iv. 307.

THE THIRD CENTURY. 139
the new method met with opposition, and an Egyptian
bishop, naraed Nepos, published a volume of criticism against
the AUegorists' which raade rauch noise, as it frankly re
asserted the literal raeaning of a book which up to that
tiine 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 fijid in them that Dionysius, while
professing respect for a book which others before hira, be
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 narae 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
theory regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews ; I shall insist
only on the one fact of the sudden change of opinion in
regard 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 disesteera, so soon
as the current began to withdraw from the hopes that had
forraerly excited the visionary enthusiasra of the first gene
rations. The book was bound to foUow the fate of the ideas
consecrated in it, and the allegorical interpretation, the busi-
' 'EKiyxos dWnyoptffrZv ap. Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii. 24.
' ortpl IvayyiXiuv (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 frora the prophet when they had ceased
to believe in tbe 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 seeraed to him exceUent, 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
hira 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 unwiUing to
burden bis 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
frora all this that the tradition which, as we have seen, pre
dominated in the forraation of the canon of the New Testa
ment, did not rest necessarUy 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, coraraonly fragmentary, which have come down
to us frora 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 shaU not leave the Eastern
Church and pass to the no less interesting details furnished
by the Latin authors, without caUing 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
pUation known under the narae of the Apostolic Constitu
tions, a vast collection of laws and ordinances touching the
government of the Church, worship, discipline, and similar
subjects, interraingled with raoral 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 forra 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 VIL, 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 fkst 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.
' Canst Apast. ii. 55.

142 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Egypt, Moses ; araong the Israelites, in addition to the
latter, Joshua, Caleb, and Phinehas, and others; after the
Law, angels and prophets ; then, further, God hiraself by his
incarnation in the Virgin ; a Uttle before His coraing, John,
the forerunner ; finally, after His Passion, we, the Twelve,
and Paul, the chosen vessel. Witnesses of His presence
Trapovulas), with Jaraes, 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' tbat 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 (to evayyfkiov). In
another passage" a complete enuraeration 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 tho 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 transmitted to you, and which
the fellow-workers of Paul, Luke and Mark, have left to
you." It wiU be observed that no mention is made here of
any one of the CathoUc 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.
* dyxyvtifffoard. It is evident that here only readings or extracts are under
<3iscussion.

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 cf 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 shaU hardly go wrong if we
see in these sumraary 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
incst 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 fragraent of Victorinus, bishop
' Const. Apost. vi. 16,
' Canst. Apost. viii, 5.
5 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 HI. , ch, 59 : Apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli
'ap. non hahstur. 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,
^xpx Puftaiuv riffi.
s Jerome and Eusebius, U. cc.
^ Steph. Gobarus ap. Photius, Cod. 232.

144 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of Petabium, in Pannonia,' the number of the churches to
which Paul is said to have written is expressly Umited 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 (lap&i), availed
theraselves of vi. 4 and x. 26." But in what remains to us
of Novatian himself,' no use is raade of the epistle, and if its
authenticity and authority had been, acknowledged previ
ously, it is far frora 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 iraportant 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 raakes no difficulty 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
posed appear to him to be determined beforehand by mys
tical reasons. The gospels 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. Cave, Hist. Lit. 1720, p. 95 : postea (non nisi)
singularibus psrsonis scripsit ne excederet modum septem ecclesiarum. Comp.
the same. In Apoc. , p. 570, ed. Paris, 1654.
' Ambrose, De Poenit. ii. 3. PhUastr. , Haer. 89.
3 Gallandi, Bibl. P.P., vol. iii.
* Cyprian, Epp., 73.
5 Id., De Exhoj-t. mart., ch. 2. Adv. Jud., i. 20. Comp. 1 Sam,, ii. 5.

THE THIRD CENTURY. 145
John are the only CathoUc 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 thera on a level with inspired writ
ings. The only author who is an apparent exception, is the
presbyter Caius, an adversary of Chiliasra, According to
Eusebius (Bist. 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 seera 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 hira 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
(Opp. ed. Fabricius, p, 38, Jerome, De Vir. ill., 61, Andreas, Prolog, in
Apoc). ' Jerome, I.e., 18, The traces of Chiliasm have disappeared frora his
commentary 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 poUcy 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 raake 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
reraodelling social institutions that had sprung up and
developed in difficult tiraes 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 thera, or adapt thera to the genius of each
epoch or country. That which predominated from the first
day of the eraancipation, so to speak, frora the day after the
last judicial murder ; that which occupied first the cultivated
minds that could lead the way in thought, and then the
raasses; 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 thera ; in a word, for changing religion into
theology and theology itself into a matter for the learned
and for dialectics. This has a bearing on our special history
inasmuch as aU this work was begun, continued, and, so to
speak, accompUshed, at least in its raost 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 coUection of the sacred books
carefully Umited 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 nuraber 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 generaUy, and held a vague
and fluctuating position between sacred and profane litera
ture, a position that might at any time embarrass scienca
and disconcert the faithful.
For the historian, this fact alone is enough to prove that
the formation of the sacred coUection 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 frora the apostolic age, complete and guaranteed from the
first, and running no risk of alteration in its form or materials.
But it is not ray duty here to interpret the facts ; I have
only to recount thera 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
<anon of Scripture at the Council of Nicsea, and the varia
tions of opinion regarding the various parts of our existing
coUections — 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 his eyes,
while modem 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 aU 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 raost raeritorious labour ; but it
is nothing raore. 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 raarked 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 thera on the probleras specially whicb
occupied the age of Eusebius, the probleras of dogmatic and
speculative theology ? But, unless I am strangely deceived
about the state of things at the beginning of the fourth
century, it wiU 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 apostoUc decision. Of
aU these there is not the shadow of a trace in this long series

THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 149
of literary notices, so painfully, so conscientiously amassed
by a man who, after all, had not sought thera from any vain
curiosity, but with the distinct purpose of reaching some
thing certain. And, when aU is done, the most positive result
to which he comes is still uncertainty, and an uncertainty
so great that he gets conf jsed while making a statement
of it. This raay be seen fi .,ra the analysis of his suramary.
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 rae 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
aU the churches and all the authors 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, whereas a more
rigid and dogmatic 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 homologumena,^ or books universally
' 'OfioXoyovptiva, dvavTlppriTa, dvapt^iKixra, iy'Std^Kxa. This last term is un-
¦trauslatable. StiU, though a synonym with the three others, it clearly

1.50 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
recognised ; those of the second (i.e., of the intermediary
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 to
mislead raodern 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 raeaning. He uses the term v66a, bastards,
(apocrypha), not exactly for fictitious writing,?, pseudepi
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 legitiraacy, which are not warranted by
the raass 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 terra illegitimate, with its derivations, does not imply
in the author's thought any reproach of literary falsification or
dograatic heresy, but siraply states that there was no general
ecclesiastical adoption of the writings, and that consequently
they either were, or ought to be, held inferior.
The following is the chief passage in which Eusebius
suras 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 uoanimity of their reception
or use, but, no doubt, implies also the theological idea of a normal rule. I
shall translate it in this sense : boohs of the 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,
* dvTtXtyopjoiya., yvuptpia Tots voKKots.
^ Eusebius, Hist. eccl. , iii, 25 : "EuKoyoy VivravSa, yivepilvovs dyaxs^aXatuffOff^ai.
rds itiXuhiffas rijs xaivTjs "StaSnxvis ypafds. xal in raxrUv iv ^jtpuTots riiv uyUivruy
iva.yyi\luv TiTpaxriv. oTs '4virat ti ruv Trp6.^iuv ruv dv. yrix^r,. (f.irx ii rairrnv ras

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
regarding which there has been discussion. In the first
rank we must place the sacred quaternion of the Gospels ;
it will be foUowed 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 shaU 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 Jaraes, the
Epistle of Jude, and those which are naraed 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
HauXou xaraKixriov i,7riffro\6.5 ols i^T]s rtiv tpipofiivtiv 'ludvvov vpoTipav xal ofioius rhv
TliTpov KvpuTioy icrtffroXviy. i^rl rovTets TaxTiov, iXyi ^avitt], mv ditoxdXv^iy ludvvov.
. , . xal TavTa pi,iv iv eptoXoyov/isyois. ruv o dvrtXtyofiivuy, yvupipouy o ovv Optus Tots
iTflXXotj, M Xiyofiivv] 'laxufiov ipipiTat xal « 'lov^a, ijn Tlirpov iivripa ivtaroXn xal «
ovopia^opi.ivn ^ivripa xal rpir» 'ludvvov stre rev iiayysXtffrov rvyxdvouffat, itn xal
ETtpov opiuvvpiov ixitvu. 'Ev rots vohts xaranrdx^u xal ruv UavXsv ^pd%iuv rt ypa<pi\,
0 rt Xsyoptivas votptviv, xal h dvexdXv^is TX'-rpov, xai afpos Tovrots n <pipofi%yn 'Bapvdfia
irirroXvi, xal ruv xwost'oXuv al Xiyopttvat ^tia^^ai' h't it, us 'i<P'/iv, vt 'ludvvov
d^oxdXv^t;, it ipaviLv}, ^v Ttvts, us ^(p»jv, dhrovffty h'tpat is 'tyxpivovfft roTs o(AoXoy~
ev/jiivot;. ij^ri, i' tv rovTots Ttvis xal To xa^ 'E^paiovs ihayyiXtev xartXt^av. . . .
TaOra /ih irdvra ruv avrtXiyopoivuv hv iXn 'Avayxatus H xal rovruy o'/ius Tcv xard-
Xoyov wtvtotvipti^a, itaxplvavrts rds re xark T»y ixxXtjfftaffTtxTiv vapdiofftv dXrihts xal
drXdffrovs "al dvu/mXnyrfiiyas ypa(pas xal rds dXXas sropa Txvras, ovx 'ivitaHxovs
fiv aXXct xal dvTiXtyo/^iyas, 'o'fius Ss *api, nXilffTots ruy ixxXvrtaffnxSv ytyvuffxo-
Itlvai' 'tv tliivat lx'"f^" airds n ravras xal rks ovofiaTi ruv droffToXuv vfos ruv
alptTixuv trpoiSipopiivas. . . . oVsv ohi' iv yohts aiJrct xararaxrtov, aXK us drova
rdyTii xal ivfffft^yj vapatrririov.

152 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
amongst tbe books universally acknowledged. Finally,
some place in this category the Gospel acccording to the
Hebrews, which the Jewish-Christians use by preference.
AU these books may be ranked in the class of those which
are disputed. But we have been obUged to draw up the
catalogue carefully, taking pains to distinguish the Scrip
tures that are true and authentic according to the traditions
of the Church and are universally received, from the others
which are not considered to be books of the Covenant, but
are disputed, though known to raost ecclesiastical authors.
In this way we can draw a clear line between these books
and others produced by heretics under the names of various
apostles, such as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of
Matthew, or the Acts of Andrew, John, etc., books to which
no writer belonging to the legitimate succession in the
Church has ever deigned to appeal, and which betray their
apocryphal and heretical origin as much by their strange
style as by doctrines opposed to the true faith. They
should not be ranked even among the illegitimate books,
but should be rejected as absolutely absurd and impious."
This passage is exceedingly instructive, and we must
pause over it for a little. In the first pld,ce, it is clear that I
was right in saying that the author distinguishes three cate
gories of books. Those who persist in discovering four are
misled by a prejudice founded on raodern habits of thought,
Eusebius expressly says that he wished to draw up the
double catalogue of the homologumena and the aniilegomena,
which have this in common that their credit is established in
the churches, though in different degrees, by the votes of the
doctors, and this he did that he might be able to distinguish
thera from the heretical books which are unworthy of any
such honour. It is only by making this absolute separation
from the last class, that he finds himself able to direct atten
tion also to the relative difference between tbe two first.

THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 153
This difference, I repeat, does not depend on the tendency
more or less orthodox of the teaching, on which point there
would certainly have been no compromise, nor on the
author's personal opinion regarding the apostolic authenticity
of each writing, but solely on the reception, raore or less
general, which these writings had in the churches, or rather
on the testimonies, more or less unanimous, which the
historian found in previous authors. Eusebius explains him-
eelf after the same fashion in two other passages. Thus, in
a passage where he is speaking of Peter, he distributes the
writings bearing the name of that apostle into the three
categories as indicated above, the first epistle being acknow
ledged and undisputed, the second disputed ; while the Acts,
the Gospel, the Preaching, etc., are not reckoned at all
among catholic works, as no ecclesiastical author grants
them his suffrage,' Then he continues '"¦ : — " In what foUows
I shaU take care to indicate the authors of each age who
make use of any disputed book, and to report what they
say both of the books of the Covenant or Scriptures
universally received as well as of those which do not belong
to these classes." Elsewhere he says, when finishing the
part of his work relating to the apostolic age proper: —
" That is what has come down to us relative to the apostles
and their time, as well as to the Holy Scriptures which they
left to us; to the books, which, though disputed, are neverthe
less consecrated to public use in most of the churches; lastly
to those which are absolutely apocryphal and contraiy to the
true apostolic faith." ' Everywhere there are three classes
' I must return later to what this passage (iii. 3.) also says of the
Apocalypse of Peter.
r.useb,, H^st. eccl., iii, 3 : •jrpo'tovffns it ttjs leroptas 'jrpovpyov ^ot^ffopiat
vtoffK/invafftat rlvts ruy xard xP'""'i ixxXtifftarTixuv ff-jyypaipiuv orclais x'txpivrat
Tm xvTtXtyofcivuy, riva T3 oripi Tuv ivitaMxuv xa! o/noXoyovpoiyuy ypafuv, xal offd
npi TUV /th Toiotnoiv dvTols sXpnrat.
loia.. 111. ol: , , , , XV rt xaraXtXoivafftv r.ptZv Upuv ypxptptdruy, xal ruv
avriXtyo/tivuv /civ I'/tus V iv ^Xtlffrats ixxXtitrixts itir.ficffuvfiivuy, rZv rt rtavrlXus
tiluv xal rfis droffroXixijs ipfoiolUs iXXorpiuv.

154 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and not four. The modern critics who have preferred this
last number have been misled by the use whicb Eusebius
makes of tbe word illegitimate, used hj him as synonymous
with disputed, avTiKeyofievos. There has been unwillingness
to recognise this fact, which, however, has been already
established by the first passage copied above, and which
will be amply confirmed by tho details to which we are
now coming.
Let me first direct attention to this very curious fact that
Eusebius absolutely does not know what to do with the
Apocalypse of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to
the forraer, we saw that he first places it among the books
universally received, adding, however, this singular phrase :
if it be thought right ; then, some lines lower, he returns to
it and places it araong the illegitiraate (disputed) books,
adding a second time his expression of doubt. There is in
this a want of precision and logic, I had almost said, a
striking absurdity, which would be inexplicable if we did
not know that in regard to this book there had arisen a
conflict between ancient custom and recent tendencies,
between the favour of primitive tiraes and the disfavour of
conterapoi aries. When applied to this sudden change of
opinion, the classification of the historian was insufficient.
We raust not reproach him with calling tbe same book at
once disputed and undisputed, .since there prevailed unani
mity and disagreement, adoption and rejection, in two
different and successive periods. And as he knows too well
that this change in regard to the Apocalypse is only the
consequence of another change which had taken place in the
current of religious ideas, he does not venture to pronounce
a decided opinion, but leaves his readers free to follow their
own personal sympathies.
As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Eusebius is in a
similar, though less embarrassing position. His general

THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 15.>
catalogue does not narae it in any of the three categories.
As it is impossible to suppose that a writer of the fourth
century should have been able to avoid considering it, we
may rightly infer that in this passage he includes it with
out special mention among the Epistles of Paul, the num
ber of which he does not specify. As an actual fact, their
number is elsewhere given as fourteen, and that in terms
showing that the author entirely adopts this calculation.
StUl he adds : "It is right at the same time to mention that
several reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the ground
that it is disputed by the Church of Rome as not Pauline."
Here it is at once evident that Eusebius agrees with the
Greeks who in his time commonly attributed this epistle to
the apostle Paul, and for this reason he has no hesitation in
ranking it among the undisputed books. He mentions the
opposition of the Latins without attaching any great
weight to it in the balance of his criticism. In another
place, however, his impartiality makes him rank it among
the disputed books, between Wisdora and Ecclesiasticus on
the one hand, Barnabas, Clement and Jude on the other".
His personal opinion is that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and
that Clement translated it into Greek ; ' he professes to
prove this by the similarity between the style of the
anonymous epistle, and that of the bishop of Rome, in which,
he adds, there are many phrases borrowed frora the former.
The Epistles of James and Jude were, in tbe passage
quoted above, reckoned among the disputed books. This
description is repeated several times regarding the latter.''
Und., iii, 3 : rov it navXov wpoitiXot xal ffa(piis al itxariffffapts. on yt pt^v
Ttvts nhrnxafft rhv orpos 'EjlpaUvs, jfpos rijs 'Pupiaiuv ixxXtiff'tas us poij navX,!v evffav
avrttv dvrtXiytffffat ^nffavrts, oi itxatov dyvotTv.
Iota,, VI, 13 : . . . d^o tu, dvriKiyoftivuv ypaipuv' rijs Tt Xtyoptivios loXopt-
uvTos ffoptas xal ttjs 'Itjffov rov "Stpdx, ***^ "^V^ "^P^* ^Efipaiovs iviffToXTJs, ttjs ts
Bof »(i/3o xal KXi/avros xal 'lauSa.
' Ibid., iii. 38. « Ibid., vi. 13, 14,

156 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Both are raentioned further in another passage which we
cannot overlook. After narrating at length the history
and raartyrdora of James, the brother of the Lord, Eusebius
adds,' " It is to him that the first of what are called the
Catholic Epistles is attributed. It should, however, he
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 becau.se it
furnishes us with the last piece of evidence that the terms
illegitimate and disputed have with Eusebius exactly the
same raeaning. He does not mean to say that the Epistle
of Jaraes is a work forged, or heretical, or unworthy of
being read by the faithful ; on the contrary he attests that
it was read and recomraends it ; he expresses no doubt re
garding the person of the presumed author, but he knows
that 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 sarae 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 CathoUc 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 sarae place this classification is repeated almost in
' Ibid., ii, 23 : ev ij ^punt ruy ovo/ia^optivuv xaSoXtxuy itrtffreXuv tivat XlytTOt.
iffTtov it us vchvtrat ptiv. , . . 'optus 51 tff/tiy xal ravras fi,tTb..Tuv Xoituv 'tv rXiifTOtl
itifiptOffttvpjLiyas 'ixxXrifflais.
' vi. 13 (see Note 2 on the preceding page).

THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. loT
the same terms.' Elsewhere he even says, when speaking
of Clement : " There reraains of hira a great, admirable
epistle, written in narae of the Church of Rorae to the
Church of Corinth, and universally acknowledged, "We
know that it has frora 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 raade of it ecclesias^
tically in the fourth century. The Acts of Paul are de
scribed, in a very favourable manner, as not undisputed,^ Aa
to the Pastor, it should be known, says Eusebius, that it
meets with opposition : it cannot therefore be placed araong-
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 sometiraes araong the disputed books, sorae-
times among the heretical books ; * and even here he is only
repeaitng the divergent opinions of his predecessors with-.
out reconciling thera.
What now is the conclusion to be drawn frora all these-
facts ? Are we to place in our canon of the New Testa-
' vi, 14, Clement of Alexandria in his Outlines ('ttroTwuffti!) passes in
review all the canonical Scriptures, not neglecting the disputed books :
fitiii rhs xvrtXiyopbivas traptX^uv, rhv ^lovia Xiyu, xal rds Xotords xa^oXixds 't^tffroXds,
Tiiv rt Bapvd[ia xal Titv Tlirpov Xsyo/iivfiv d^voxdXv^ty.
^ IU, 16 : Tauraw rov KXyift-ivros opooXoyouptivn ptla s^tffToXh ^tpiTai utydXvt rt xal
iavfiaffia. . . . ravrvtv 'tv vXtiffrais 'txxXnffiais e:rl rov xotvov iii9ifiofftivfi.svm ^dXai-.
Tt xxi xxf 9ifias xvTois 'iyvu/itv.
3 in, 38: . . . . rov KXn/itvros, iv ry dvup^oXayviptsv^p ^xpd crao-zv,
* 111, 3 : oiii pirn rds Xtyopiivxs airov vpd%sts 'tv dva/Af'tXsxrats ^aptiXn^a.
^ Ibid. : iffTtoy us xal rovro vrpos pt,iv rtvuv dvTtXiXtxTat, it' eis oix S,y iv ofioXoyo-..
Vfttvois Tihiti, y^' eripuv it dvayxaiorxrov ois /idXtffra it7 ffToixttufftui tiffxyuytxTJi-
xixpiTai. fl^£v iji»] xal iv ixxXtifftats tffpttv airo itiyifteffiivpisvov. x. r. X.
^ Compare the passages quoted above, iii. 3 and -vi, 14.

158 HISTORY OF THE CANON OP THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
ment tbe Acts of Paul and the Epistle of Clement, or are we
to reject the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse ? By
no raanner of means. But the statements of Eusebius, so
positive, so impartial, so rich in facts which without hira
would have been lost, show us plainly that the Church in
the raiddle of the fourth century did not yet possess any
official canon, clearly defined, closed and guaranteed hy
any authority whatever; that usage, differing in different
localities, nay, according to individual tastes, was still the
-decider of many questions ; and neither the literary authen
ticity, nor the name of the authors, alone guided custom or
•determined whether a book was to be received or rejected.
Let rae make my meaning clear. So far from refusing to
•certain books the glory of having had a place formerly in
the collections commonly used or the right of having a place
there still, I raaintain that in the time of Eusebius these
¦collections were in part much more extensive than they are
in our day.
For this statement I can produce documentary evidence.
The Codex Sinaiticus, which is reckoned the oldest MS.
•existing of the Greek Bible, includes in the Old Testament
the Apocrypha, and in the New Testament the Epistle of
.Barnabas and the Pastor. The Codex Alexandrinus in the
British Museum likewise contains an Old Testament com
plete, and in the New Testament Clement of Rome.' These
-are documents which may go back to the age of Eusebius, and,
if they are not to be considered so old, they would furnish
• still better proof of the persistence of certain customs so differ-
¦ent frora ours. It must not be forgotten above all that these
fine copies in large size on parchment were not made for in-
' There exists no other ancient MSS. containing the N.T. complete.
The Codex Vaticanus is incomplete from tho beginning of the ninth chapter
-of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; the Pastoral Epistles and the Apocalypso
are wanting in it, aud it is impossible to say whether all these books, or
j)erhaps more, were contained in it when complete.

THE FOURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 159
dividuals, but for use in churches. Here is another proof
better .still. The Codex Claromontanus, now placed in the
National Library at Paris, and including the thirteen
Epistles of Paul, written by a hand belonging to the seventh
century, presents at the end of the text the copy of an old
complete Ust of the books of the Old and New Testaments,
with the number of lines in each book, what was then called
a stichometry.' In the Old Testament, the historical books,
•enumerated in their usual order down to Chronicles, are
foUowed by the Psalms and ^e,five books of Solomon," then
by the sixteen prophets, the three books of the Maccabees,
Judith, Ezra,' Esther, Job, and Tobias. When dealing with
¦such a confused medley, we cannot but acknowledge that
•the church in which or for which the collection was made
up in this fashion, had no idea of the original diversity of
•the books which are here enumerated promiscuously. The
New Testament first presents to us the four gospels (the
number is expressly given) in the following order: — Matthew,
-John, Mark, Luke; then come the Epistles of Paul (no
number indicated) to the Roraans, two to the Corinthians,
to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, two to Timothy, to Titus,
-to the Colossians, to Philemon, two to Peter. This last
piece of information is evidently due to the carelessness of
the copyist, who continued mechanically the preceding
formula. The omission of the Epistles to the PhiUppians
and to the Thessalonians can only arise from a similar
¦cause. Then follow the Epistle of James, three of John, the
Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of
-John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pastor, the Acts of Paul,
" The same list is also found in the Codex Sangermanensis which is now
at St. Petersburg, but which is only a copy of the Codex Claromontanus.
It is reproduced by Coutelier, in his edition of the ApQStoUc Fathers i. p. 6,
-&. Simon, Eist. du Texts du N. T. p. 423, and other authors.
' Including, as is well known. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
' Under this name is always included the book of Nehemiah.

160 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and the Revelation of Peter. These three last books are
exactly those which we saw Eusebius place among the dis
puted books along with James, Jude, etc. As to the Epistle
of Barnabas, we cannot doubt that we have here our Epistle
to the Hebrews, which used to bear that name in the
African Church, and which would otherwise be omitted in
this list. The Codex is Grseco-Latin, and belongs to the
West. A later hand has added the text of the Epistle to
the Hebrews after the catalogue which we have been dis
cussing. But let us leave the manuscripts, though they are some
times more important and raore eloquent witnesses than the
Fathers theraselves; I shall return to thera in connection
with the period of the Middle Ages. We are not yet done
with Eusebius. The history of this author presents a
curious fact. About the year 332, the Emperor Constantine,
wishing thoroughly to organise the Christian worship in his
capital, applied to the bishop of Caesarea, asking him to get
fifty copies of the Bible made by practised scribes and
written legibly on parchment. At the same time the
emperor apprised him in a letter still preserved to us,' that
everything necessary for doing this was placed at his com
raand, among other things two public carriages. Eusebius,
tells how he acquitted himself of his coraraission by sending
to the emperor magnificent volumes coraposed of double
sheets in sets of three or four, and that he received the
thanks of the prince. Two public carriages for fifty Bibles f
that gives us some idea of the dimensions of the work, and
confirms what I said above regarding the number of the
volumes which were to be found in a complete coUection,
The simplest calculation leads me to think that these were
complete Bibles, the Old Testament being included. The
emperor asks for fifty o-mMOTia of the Holy Scriptures ; this
' Eusebius, Vita Const., iv. 36, 37.

THE I OURTH CENTURY — STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE, 161
¦word should "not be translated volumes (otherwise the car-.
riages must have been miserable vehicles), but sets of volumes,
copies complete and properly arranged. -At this point, how
ever, an interesting question arises, the raost iraportant of
all, and to this the text of Eusebius gives no reply. The
emperor asks for fifty copies of the Holy Scriptures, " those
which you acknowledge to be the most necessary to be put
together and used, in the opinion of the church " (or, regard
heing had to the church),' Thus Eusebius will be free to
put 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 Uberty, 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 teU us at some length about the fluctuations of
opinion in regard to certain books apostolic 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 word to say 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 raost iraportant part of Christendora, Fifty
magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a
gi-eat influence on future copies. But, I repeat, Eusebius
does not teU 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. i - . . . tuv hluv S«Xa3« ypa^uv, uv ptdXtffTa Tvtv t' 'sxiffxiuh)*
»«i rhv XPV'" "^"h "^VS ixxXriffias Xoyu dvayxaiav ttvat ytyvaiffxtts.

162 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
make the Umits of the collection wider, while he preserved
estabUshed usages, traditional customs (as the text of the
emperor's letter seems to insinuate) ? We do not know.
There is no doubt that he adraitted the Apocrypha of the
Old Testaraent 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
sUence of Eusebius on this fundamental point does not arise
from the New Testaraent of that day being a set of books
•strictly defined, as it is in our day. It would be ex
plained raore 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 who was
hardly 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 Eusebius, which we have been ana
lysing, has proved to us that there was no official decision
about the apostolic books, and no uniforraity in the usage
of the churches towards the raiddle of the fourth century.
It has also shown us that there was a growing necessity
for coraing to sorae definite understanding on a point so
fundaraental. Thus, we are not surprised to see the raost
illustrious theologians of the second half of this same cen
tury make reiterated efforts to put an end to all uncertainty
aud to fix opinion on certain points of detail, regarding
which doubt was ceasing to pay respect to long-standing
usage. Here we enter on the raost interesting period of
the history of the canon ; for we find here very numerous
and express testiraonies, together with catalogues of the
sacred books, which more and more ajiproach those that
have been adopted in modern churches. 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 confficted 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 modem
apologetics seek in vain to disguise — viz., tbat, at a period
so far removed from primitive times, there was no longer
any means of doing better. These observations are all the

164 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
more important that the testiraonies to be collected wiU be
no longer like those of preceding generations, occasional
allusions or heterogeneous facts, but judgraents purposely
delivered, opinions taking the attractive form of dogmatic
thesis, or even regulations sanctioned by the coraraon suff
rages of persons invested with a public authority. I shall
bring together, in one chapter, the testiraonies of the
Easterns ; another will contain those of the Latins ; a
third will be devoted to a systeraatic recapitulation of these
elementary facts, the explanation of the terminology con
nected with thera, and an estimate of the general results.
Let us begin with the most celebrated theologian of the
fourth century, the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (t 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
sarae 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 365, 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 coraposing it. He begins
by setting forth the utiUty and necessity of such a Ust,
when nuraerous heretical books were circulating in the
Church ; and, to excuse his boldness," he quotes the example
of the evangeUst Luke, who decided to narrate the history
of the Lord, because others had attempted to introduce
suspicious raatter into it. It needed boldness therefore to
' Athanasius, Ep. festal. Opp. ed. Montfaucon, ii. 38 f.
•* Xp^ffoftxi vrpos ffvffrafftv rijs 't/iXvrpvToXfcijs r^rvtru rov liayytXiffrooAovxax.T.X..

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 165
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 aU the raerabers 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 tbat 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 infiuence the patriarch did not think it right
to resist. We shall find tbat he was not the only one of his
century who held the same opinion, and, as we have already
seen, MeUto, 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
.' 'Itpt/iias xal ffiy xiru Bapovx, ^pTJvot xal i^tffroXvi. — The epistle of Jeremialr
¦which the ancients regarded as' a separate work, forms with us the last

166 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
which gives special importance to this document is, that in
the New Testament he enuraerates 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 coUection 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 docuraent we have just been studying is a pastoral
charge, and not a critical dissertation, the author brings no-
proof to support bis 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 in the Greek Bibles it is separated!
from this by Lamentations.
* xapxiofiivra ^tffrtuSiyra rt iiia itixt ^ifiXix. ... ravra ortiyal rod ffurttptoo.
. . . iv rovrots ftivots ro rrjs lifftfiiias itiaffxxXitov tvxyytXi^trxt.
' I shall not stop here to consider another text printed in the works of
Athanasius, the Synopsis S.S. which belongs to a much later date.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 167
We see this in a contemporary of Athanasius, Gregory of
Nazianzus (t 390), who was no less illustrious as a theologian,
and no less attached to the Nicsean 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 naraed the Epistle of Jude and in the same verse,
so that there is no room for suspecting an omission on the
part of the copyist, he declares that these are all and that
beyond these books there are none legitiraate.' StiU, it is to
be observed that this exclusion iraplies no unfavourable
judgment regarding the book considered in itself. Indeed,
we find elsewhere in the works of the sarae Father, though
very rarely, sorae quotations frora 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 hira 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 privUege of being ranked among those
writings which were to regulate eccle.siastical teaching.
In the editions of Gregory's works there is another piece
' Gregor. Naz,, Carm. 33, Opp. ed Colon, ii, 98.
' These not being enumerated, we do not know in what place he put the
Epistle to the Hebrews. 3 'liiySa i' iffr'iv i^ioptt]. Tlxffas tx^'^i
ti rt rovruv 'ixros oix 'tv yvtirtots.
* xipv"^ fi'iyxs ovpavotpoirns.

168 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
of verse caUed 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 380). 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 ampUfied 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 naraed the fourth araong the evangelists
according to the chronological order, while the author
assigns hira the first rank because of the elevation of his
teaching. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke are styled
catholic, no doubt to contrast them with the numerous
apocryphal and heretical Acts which were then in circula
tion. After thera corae 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
^ rovrots '/epoffiyxptvovffi rnv 'EffSnp rivts.
^ Ttvis oi ^affl ryjv vFpos ^Efipaiovs voSviv,
oix li Xiyovrfs' yvnfflx yap h x^f'^'
3 ttiv rl Xot^Tov. ....
* rtvis pjiiv ^orra tpariv, al i^ rplis ftovas
Xf^i'ai iix"^",!' • • •

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 169
does the same with the Apocalypse, though, after having
mentioned the difference 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 raost exact list
of the inspired Scriptures," " a phrase which by its hypo
thetical forra 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
a chapter of popular theology. I refer to Cyril, Bishop of
Jerusalem (f 386),' In his Catecheses 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 recoraraend-
ing the exclusive reading of the homologumena.^ Passing
to the Old Testaraent, he relates at length the legend of the
seventy-two interpreters shut up in as many separate
chambers, and each in seventy-two days 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
* TTiv ii dvroKxXv^tv 'luavvoO vrdXtv
rtvis ptiv lyy.pivovfftv, ol TrXilovs ii yt
voPhv Xiyovfftv. . .
^ . . . . ovros d^tviiffrxros
xavuv dv itn ruv ho,jrvtvffruv ypx<puv.
3 Cyrill. Hieros., Catech. iv. p. 67.
* He appears, however, to take this word in a larger ineaning than
Eusebius, because it is in close connection with a new terminology, to
which I shall return. If I am not deceived, the words antilegomena and
¦apocrypha mean the same thing with him ; they do not imply any literary
'(critical) reproach, but exclusion from the catalogue of normative writings :
'Eriyvu^t vxpd rijs 'txkXrtffixs <!rotxt pt.iv ttfft rijs vaXxtds itaHxm fii^Xot, oroiat ii
rTJs xatvTJs xxi ptot piyjiiv ruv dvroxpv'puv dvayivuffxt. o yap rd orxpd ^dfftv opioXoyav-
jfttvx fin ttous, rl Vlpl rd dpttpi^xXXopotvx rxXaiTTupus ptxrrtv ;

170 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
enuraerate the twenty-two books which their work contains,
and whicb the Christian disciple ought not to put on a
level with the Apocrypha. The enumeration itself shows u.s
once more, as with the Fathers previously analysed, a
Hebrew canon in a Greek recension — i.e., the exclusion of
the six books already mentioned, which are absolutely
foreign to the Hebrew canon, and the reception of the Greek
additions with which the Bible of Alexandria had enriched
some others.' These twenty-two books thus translated, and
these only, the disciple is to read ; they are read by the Church
and have been handed down by the apostles and the ancient
bishops, to whom the present generation owes respect and
deference. Cyril attempts also a new division of the Old
Testament : (1) Five books of Moses, to which are added
Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, as sixth and seventh ; (3) flv&
other historical books, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and
Esther ; (3) five books in verse ; (4) five prophetical books,
headed by that of the Twelve. I shall return elsewhere to
this manner of reckoning. In the New Testament, the
author does not attempt to reduce the catalogue to a
significant number. In this respect he is not more advanced
than his predecessor,s, who certainly would not have failed
to discourse regarding the number, if that had been already
fixed. He Umits himself therefore to analysing the collection
into its chief eleraents, without entering on the details : four
Gospels, the Acts, seven Catholic Epistles, fourteen Pauline,
All the others are to be placed apart in a second rank,"'
Here, then, the Apocalypse is formally excluded ; the dis
ciple ought not to read it ; for, adds the author, what is not
read in the assembUes, ought not to be read in private. We
* 'Itptpoiov pcia fiiTd xxi Bxpoix **i Spnvav xxi i^ftffreXijs. — These various
witnesses do not make separate mention of the story of Susanna, of Bel
and the Dragon, simply because these additions were integral parts of thft
book of Daniel.
^ "rd ii Xotrd irxvra ^u xtiff^u iv itvrtpu.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH, 171
might be tempted to believe that Cyril forbade the Apo
calypse only to the young because it was hardly suited to
their knowledge ; but such cannot have been his motive, for
his Catecheses also include the eschatological dogmas, and in
the fifteenth, for instance, where he is treating of the Anti
christ and where the Apocalypse ought to have furnished
him with the most direct texts, he expressly declares, with
out naming that book, that he is borrowing from Daniel
and not from the Apocrypha, I repeat that in this designa
tion of a book which others put in the canon, he does
not touch on the question of authenticity, but he refuses to
it the normative character of scriptures divinely inspired.
Though all these Fathers contradict Athanasius on the
subject of the Apocalypse, it might be said that they repre
sent churches very remote frora that of Alexandria, and
that the infiuence of the Egyptian patriarch did not extend
beyond his own diocese. This would make no difference to
my assertion since the very point I maintain is that no
agreement existed among all the churches. But I go
further, and say that there was no agreement even in the
city where Athanasius had his see. In an exegetical work
on the seven Catholic Epistles, a work now extant in a
Latin translation, Didymus, director of the school of Alex
andria (f 392), pronounces formally against the canonicity
of the Second Epistle of Peter.' In order to understand
rightly the terras he uses, they must be re-translated into
Greek, which is not difficult. It is then evident that the
author does not mean to ,«peak of a literary falsification, but
simply of what Eusebius had called the non-legitimacy
(falsata = voeei€Tai); the epistle was in use in the church
(publicatur = SeSruioa-Uvrai), but had no canonical and norma
tive authority for theological teaching. That is one more
' Non est ignorandum prcssentem epistolam esse falsatam quas lied pub-
licetur rum tamen in canons est (Didymi Alex. opp. Col., 1531, foi. civ.)

172 HISTORY OF THE CANON OP THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
proof that the two categories of books supposed to be apos
tolic were not separated by any definite selection.
We come now to Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in
Cyprus (t 403), one of those Fathers who were most careful
about their orthodoxy and most anxious to take note of all
the heresies. In his works he recurs several times to the
number of the sacred books, and, at first sight, it might be
supposed that, in his opinion at leaist, the question was one
definitely settled with something like arithmetical precision.
Thu.s, in his treatise on Weights and Measures,^ he goes into
ecstasies over the mysteries of that famous number 22
with which we are acquainted. There were twenty-two
works by God during the six days of creation, twenty-two
generations frorh Adam to Jacob, twenty-two letters of tho
alphabet, and twenty-two sextarii in a modius. Therefore,
there are also twenty- two books in the Old Testament, or
rather there are twenty-seven, because the Hebrew alphabet
contains five letters that have two forms. The order in
wliich Epiphanius gives these books should interest the
critics who believe that tho Christian Bibles were stereo
typed from the apostolic age: Pentateuch (.5), Joshua, Job,
Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Chronicles (2), Kings (4), Proverb.s,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra (2), Esther. These are made into
twenty-two by counting Chronicles, Kings, and Ezra, each
as one. We have still Lamentations left, it is true ; the
author does not know what to make of it, and mentions it
at the end as an additional book. As he has thus succeeded,
well or iU, in carrying the number of the books of the Old
Testament from twenty-two to twenty-seven, without giving
up the mj'stic privileges of the former of these figures, we
would naturally expect to see him adopt the same figure
for the New Testament. But in the case of the latter,
' Epiphan., De Pond, et Mens. ap. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra., p. 477.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 17S
Epiphanius seeras to attach no iraportance to such a calcula
tion, or rather, as I have already indicated, the nuraber was
not settled in the church, and could not therefore be raade
the subject of mystical speculation. This is evident in
another passage where his text presents a strange enough
anomaly : " The raan," he says,' " who is regenerated by the
Holy Spirit and instructed in the apostles and prophets,
ought to have perused history from the creation of the
world down to the time of Esther, in the twenty-seven
books of the Old Testament reckoned as twenty-two, and
in the four gospels, and in the fourteen Epistles of St,
Paul, and in the Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John
and Jude, which preceded thera, and which are united to.
the Acts of the Apostles belonging to the same period," and
in the Apocalypse of John, and in the Wisdora of Solomon
and of the son of Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), in a word, in
all the Holy Scriptures." I admit that Epiphanius in
cluded in his collection the seven Catholic Epistles, though
he does not say so ; I do not at all maintain that he put
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the New Testament ;' but I
cannot without reraark pass from this singular addition of
two " divine books," which are nevertheless out Of place
and unclassed in the passage where they are mentioned..
If they deserve such a description, why do they not appear
in their proper place ? If not, why are they named at all ?
" Epiphanius, Haeres., 76, Opp. torn. i. p, 941, ed, Petav.
* xaliv rous w/jo rovruv xal ffiv rats 'tv rots airuv XP^^O'S ^pdl^tfft ruv 'AoroffroXuv.
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.
^ It is none the less curious that he here insists on the fact that the-
Catholic Epistles form with Acts one whole. Is it perhaps that he may
get a total nuraber which presents a mystical meaning ? I leave to iany onet
who pleases the task of going over calculations so superfluous.

174 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The sequel of ray discussion wUl throw sorae light on a fact
apparently inexpUcable. Let rae at present simply affirm
that Epiphanius had no firraly settled opinion regarding the
nature and value of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament
(as we now caU them) and of some other books ;' in other
words, that his matheraatical and raystical tendencies could
not bring him to any precise result.
But if the leaders of orthodoxy were so far from being
i'ortunate in this work which is supposed to have been very
•simple, 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 Eonegete, is
accused by thera 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 raystical allegories), but also of having rejected some
books from the number divinely prescribed!^ He rejected,
' 'Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are, from their doubtful value, called
¦d/ifiXixra (Haer. 8, tom. i. 19). The Apostolic Canstitutiona are a word of
•God, hTof Xoyos (Haer., 80); doubtful, but not without value, iv dpuptXixr^
ixx' oix dioxt/iot (Haer,, 70).
' Leont. Byzant. Contra Nestor, et Eutych. iii. (sec. vi.) : Theodoru*

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 175
it is said, tbe 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 Psalras seeras to have led him to regard
the inscriptions they bear as open to su.spicion ; and in both
¦cases he gave proof of a sagacitj' far from common in his
¦day. The rejection of Canticles leads us to suppose that ho
gave a purely Uteral 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
ing them according to the needs of the church. As to the
particular Catholic Epistles which Theodore excluded frora
the collection, there were many even in the opposite camp
who were allied "with hira on that point.
In his own camp be had on his side a colleague still more
illustrious than himself. This was the raan to whora his
•church and posterity have given the highest eulogiuras and
honours, John Chrysostora, 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 beeiji printed an
. . . audet contra gloriam Spiritus sancti, cum omnes scripturas humiliter et
demisse interpretans, tum vera a numero ss. Scripturarum divine praescripto
•et indicate eas separans.
' In the 6th homily on Genesis (p. 40, Montfaucon) some have supposed
¦that 2 Pet. ii. 22 was quoted ; but the passage refers to Prov. xxvi, I I.

176 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
anonymous and incomplete treatise, entitled Synopsis of
Holy Scripture.^ This treatise the learned Benedictine
editor thinks himself able to attribute to Chrysostom, for
reasons sufficiently probable. It contained, to begin with,
a very detailed analysis of the contents of the whole Bible.
Of this there has only been preserved the greater part of
the Old Testament, and nothing of the New. Tobit and
Judith are put between Esther and Job, as is generally the
case in Catholic bibles. After Job come Wisdom, Proverbs,
then after a blank, Ecclesiasticus and the Prophets. .It is
evident therefore that the author adheres purely and simply
to the canon of the Septuagint, and that, in this respect, he
is less scrupulous than most of the fathers we have con
sulted in this chapter. It is all the more interesting to find
him having scruples regarding the New Testament. His
analysis is preceded by an introduction presenting a general
view, literary and historical, of the Bible. This introduc
tion ends with an enumeration of the books of the New
Testament. Ihey are the fourteen Epistles of Paul; the
four Gospels, two being by John and Matthew, disciples of
Christ, two by Luke and Mark, the one a disciple of Paul,
the other of Peter ; then the book of Acts and the three
Catholic Epistles." An old scholiast has added on the mar
gin of the MS., " Observe that he does not speak of the
Apocalypse."' The conclusion frora all this is that, at the
end of the fourth century, the collection used in the diocese
of Antioch — i.e., in the Greek Church of Syria — was exactly
the same as that which had been in use two hundred years
before, and -with which we are acquainted through the
ancient Syriac version. For there can be no doubt regard
ing the three Catholic Epistles — they are the epistles of
' Opp. ed. Montfaucon, vi. pp. 308 f.
" It even says : xal ruv xxloXtxZv itrtrroXa) rptls (p. 318), a tum of expres
sion which indicates the decided exclusion of other Catholic Epistles,
3 ffiipciiuffat «rj ei pivn/^ovtvtt rijs dvexxXif^ius.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 177
James, John, and Peter. In the same volume of Chrysostom
there is a homily which Montfaucon does not venture to at
tribute to him, though he believes it to belong to the same
school of Antioch. When making a quotation from the first
Epistle of John, the homily says that this epistle is received
in the Church and is not apocryphal, whereas the second
and third are not recognised as canonical by the fathers.'
Let me quote further a passage from Chrysostom, showing
that he too valued the sacred books, not by the theories
of theologians, but by the salutary teaching the masses
might derive from them. In his ninth homily on the
Epistle to the Colossians, where he is exhorting his hearers
to read the Holy Scriptures, he says: "Buy the.se books,
which are the medicine of the soul ; if you wish no other,
at least buy the New Testament, the Apostle, the Acts, the
Gospels."" The Apostle, par excellence, is he on whom the
orator was at that moment preaching and whose glory eclipses
the names of the other authors of epistles. According to the
received reading, Chrysostom would seem to have spoken only
of the Gospels and the Acts as books absolutely necessary and
to have passed over all the epistles in silence, even those of Paul,
The last ¦writer of this school whose works we possess
was Theodoret (t 450). He knows no other reason for ex
cluding the Epistle to the Hebrews than Arianism, and he
supposes that the canon has been mutilated by heretics.'
This instance shows how completely previous facts had been
forgotten, and how unanimous tbe orthodox Eastern Church
had become in thinking favourably of that epistle.
ruv ixxXtlfftat^Ofoivuv oi ruv dvoxpvipuv /civ il vpurvi 'tortffroXri. Tnv yap itvripxv
xxi rpirw ol ^xrifts d^exxvoviZ/avfft (Chrysost. Opp., vi. 430).
Opp., xi. 391 : xrdffh ^t^Xia (pxpfiaxa rm ^vxTJS. ti p^Jiiiv ^rtpov ^ovXtrh
rviv yovv xaivhv xrnffaffh, rev droffroXov, rds wpx^its, rd lixyyiXta. Montfaucon
prints ruv iroffroXav rds ^px^tis, but the omission of St. Paul in a homily on
a text from that apostle would appear to me quite as singular as that
construction. 3 Theodoret, Prooem. in Hebr., Opp. iii. 541, ed. Hal.

178 HISTORY OF THE CANON.OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Up to this point I have been coUecting the testimonies of
the principal Greek Fathers of the second half of the fourth
century. We have seen that these testimonies do not at all
agree with one another, neither regarding the canon of the
Old Testament nor regarding the elements of which the
sacred coUection of the New Covenant ought to be com
posed. In other words, we have seen that regarding several
writings, the general opinion was not at all fixed. But,
after aU, these testimonies are frora siraple individuals who
are expressing their own personal views, and who, not'with-
standing the high consideration they enjoyed, cannot throw
a decisive weight into the scale of history. We possess
other docuraents of a raore general character : on the one
hand, translations of the Bible whicb, as I have already
reraarked, could not but be raade frora coUections comi^lete
and exactly deterrained; on the other hand, decisions of
councils or other declarations in a form more or less official.
Let us see if these documents estabUsh, any more than the
texts just analysed, that uniforraity of the scriptural canon
of which traditional science speaks, and for which we have
been seeking in vain up to this point.
The national Church of Syria continued to use its trans
lation caUed the Peschito, consecrated by long-continued
usage. It did not contain, as is well known, the Apocalypse
and four Catholic Epistles ; but we have just seen that the
Greek Christians in Syria were equaUy content with this
less extensive coUection. This does not mean that the five
antUegomena were unknown in Syria ; we know; the con
trary by the works of the most celebrated Syrian theologian
of this period, Ephraim (t 378). He makes use of them,
and his exaraple is one raore proof that the Une of demarca
tion between the various classes of books was uncertain and
fluctuating here as elsewhere.
The same fact is revealed, but bj totally different symp-

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 179
toms, in the Aethiopic Church in Abyssinia, to which country
Christianity had penetrated towards the period of the
Nicsean Council, and where the Christians soon possessed a
Bible in the national tongue. No complete manuscript of it
now exists, but, frora the numerous mutilated copies which
have been exarained and frora the text of the canons that
formerly regulated this church, it is clear that in it were
read not only all the books which the Church of Egypt, the
metropolitan of the Church of Abyssinia, received in the
time of Athanasius, but also the apocrypha of the Old
Testament and a certain number of piseudepigrapba — e.g.,
the book of Enoch mentioned in the Epistle of Jude, the
fourth book of Ezra, the vision of Isaiah, &c. The originals
of these works are now lost, but they have been in part pre
served through this very Aethiopic translation. There are
¦even manuscripts existing in which it is plain that Enoch
and Job preceded the Pentateuch, siraply because these two
patriarchs are more ancient than Moses, and the position
given to the former of these two books seems to imply a
presumption of its canonicity. In a list of the holy books
(included in what are called the Apostolic Canons,' as they
are received in the Aethiopic Church), their total number
is carried up to 81, of which 46 are for the Old Testament
.(the Apocrypha all included), and 35 for the New. This
latter number is explained by the addition of the eight books
of the Apostolic Constitutions, and at tbe same tirae betrays
the Greek origin of the catalogue. The division into eight
books does not appear in the Aethiopic version of the Con
stitutions.^ I shall close this long series of testimonies by
' See further on p, 182,
' As to the Armenian literature, of which I ought at this point to say
¦something, I do not know it sufficiently well to say what Was the primitive
canon of the churches of that nation. The editions printed in our time
might well be more or less directly dependent on the Vulg.ate. Still, so far
as I have been able to compare them, they present some peculiarities worthy

180 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
bringing before my readers two very interesting texts which
can both pretend to a kind of official authority.
There is first the famous .sixtieth canon ' of the Council of
Laodicea, commonly but ¦wrongly regarded as the definite
rule on the subject of the canon for the Eastern Church.
This CouncU of Laodicea is uncertain in date, but plausible
argnraents place it in 363, It was a siraple provincial
synod which had no pretention to raake laws for the
universal Church ; and, if its canons were afterwards adopted
outside of its pro^vince and included in the collections of
ecclesiastical rules, this was not in the least owing to the
official position of their first authors. The fifty-ninth of
these canons of Laodicea forbids in the church the use of
psalms composed by private individuals (modern hymns as
compared with those of David) or of non-canonical books.
The canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are
alone to be employed in liturgical usage." Then follows a
sixtieth canon giving the list of these canonical books, and
giving it evidently as complete and official. It is true that
the authenticity of this canon has been much doubted in
our day ; and certainly if exterior proofs — i.e., proofs drawn
from manuscripts and quotations — were alone to decide this
question, we would perhaps be bound to cease assigning
this text to the Laodicean Fathers, But I confess that
this question of authenticity concerns me very little. The
of remark. They include three books of the Maccabees, inserted among the
other historical books ; they change the order of the prophets ; they put the
Epistle to the Hebrews before the Pastoral Epistles, and add at the very end
Ecclesiasticus, a second recension of Daniel, the Prayer of Manasseh, a third
epistle to the Corinthians, and the legend of St. John, It may be that some
of these works formerly occupied a more honourable place,
' The narae canons, as every one knows, is given to the laws and regula
tions emanating from councils or other ecclesiastical authorities. The
simultaneous use of this term in two different senses cannot here give rise
to any confusion.
" «r/ eh ill titurixois •^axpoois X'tylffUxi iv r^ ixxXviffia oiii dxaveviffrx ^tfoXlA
AXXd /iova rd xavovtxd rij; xatvTJs xxi veaXxtas itx^xfis.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION — THE EASTERN CHURCH. 181
Ust itself is positively very old ; it is identically the same
with that given by Cyril of Jerusalem, so that, if it must be
assigned to a later date, it might always be said that its
editor took it from a Father contemporary with the Council.
It is all the more important to lay stress on this fact, since
the fifty-ninth canon itself, whose authenticity is un
questioned, reproduces a principle which, as we saw, was
also formulated by CyrU and raost energetically recom
mended. From all this, I do not hesitate to say that the
sixtieth canon of Laodicea, authentic or not, expresses
regarding the sacred collection an opinion belonging posi
tively to the fourth century and adopted by several Greek
Fathers of different countries ; in the Old Testaraent, twenty-
two books without the Apocrypha ; ' in the New Testaraent,
twenty-.six without the Apocalypse. And this oraission of
the Apocalypse is by no means a simple raeasure of peda
gogic precaution, indicating that this book is not of a nature
to be read in public. If the text of the sixtieth canon is
authentic, its sUence regarding the Apocalypse excludes that
book from the number of canonical writings ; and if it is
not authentic, so that the classification given in the fifty-
ninth article does not apply to it," we know none the less
from Cyril what meaning we must attach to it.
The second collection of ecclesiastical regulations, old
enough to be discussed in the present chapter and containing
a text relative to our subject, is that which the Greek Church
has received under the name of Apostolic Canons, and which
traditional opinion declares to be of a very early date.
Among the arrangements contained in this canon, there may
' It is understood that in the case of Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther, we
have lo do with the Greek recension, for the text says formally : 'itpipoias
xal Bxfoix, fpTJvot xal 'tffrtffroXii. See the note on the canon of Athanasius,
p. 165.
' It would be so quite as much from the standpoint of any one who added
Article 60.

182 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
no doubt be some very ancient ; still, as a collection, they
were probably not in existence before tbe fifth century, and
were then added as an appendix to the eight books of the
Constitutions. In the recension adopted in the East, there
are eighty-five articles.' The foUowing concern us here.
The sixtieth pronounces the deposition of any one who should
pubUcly use in the Church pseudepigrapha and impious
books. The eighty-fifth recommends to all, both clerical and
lay, the books of the Bible as venerable and sacred, and gives
a complete catalogue of them. In the Old Testament the
order is the same down to Esther as with us ; then come
three books of the Maccabees," Job and the others in the
received order, -with no other apocryphal books. At the
end of the Old Testament it is said ; " Further you will add,
for the instruction of youth, the Wisdora of the very learned
Sirach,' Our own books (it is the apostles who are speaking)
— i.e., those of the New Testament, are : four gospels, four
teen epistles of Paul, two of Peter, three of John, one of
James, one of Jude, two of Clement and the Constitutions,
which I, Clement, dictated to you bishops in eight books, but
which must not be used in public before every one, as they
contain mystical things.* Finally, the Acts of ourselves, the
apostles." At first sight, this list seems singular enough; but on
closer examination, it can be explained without much
difficulty, and even the date of its coraposition may be
approximately determined. At bottom, it is the Ust which
we have seen raore than once in the course of the fourth
century : the Old Testament without the Apocrypha, the
¦ The Latin recension of Dionysius Exiguus includes only the first 50,
' Some MSS. also mention Judith after Esther.
3 i^uSiv vpiLv ^pafftffreptifffu piav$xviiv vfiuv reis vioiis rhv ffeipixv rev oreXvpiahdt
.'S.tp&x- * An allusion to the parts of worship in which the catechiimena did not
take part.

ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION— THE EASTERN CHURCH. 183
New without the Apocalypse. At the same time, I ara
much incUned to beUeve that this article has been altered
several times. The Maccabees raay have found an entrance
contrary to the opinion of the first editor, as is the
case very probably with the book of Judith which
is added in some manuscripts. Still, we saw that Origen,
while putting aside the other apocrypha, expressly men
tions the Maccabees as a kind of complement of the Old
Testament. Ecclesiasticus in like raanner is recoraraended
by Athanasius and Epiphanius ; the former of these Fathers
(who adds to it also the Constitutions) assigns it a place
analogous to that reserved for it here. Finally, in regard to
the epistles of Clement, we have also met with them in the
Codex Alexandrinus, which raust have been written, like
this article of the Apostolic Canons, in the course of the fifth
century at the very latest.
My readers will demand no other proofs' before accepting
this fact which I have advanced — viz., until after the fourth
century, the Eastern Church, though speaking of a scriptural
canon, though feeling the need of it both for science and
popular instruction, though making efforts to establish it by
means of its theologians, legists, and synods, did not suc
ceed in producing absolute uniforraity on this point araong
the doctors and the dioceses, or in fixing a sure and invari
able line to separate the inspired canonical books from those
of a quite different value. If aU the attempts I have re
corded fell short of their end, and if, after all, there was
agreement towards the end of the second century only
regarding what had been already sanctioned by usage, it is
because the canon, whether in the earUest times or later,
was formed oidy by this ecclesiastical usage, in part local
and accidental, and was not formed according to scientific
principles and methods, nor by the ascendency of one
primordial and pre-eminent authority. Hence, the greater

184 HISTORY OP THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the distance from the point of departure, the less possible it
was to efface the divergences of opinion. The generations
preceding having pronounced no supreme decree, the genera
tion of Athanasius carae too late to gain universal currency
for the decree which it dared ' to formulate.
* ig i/iaaTcO reX/iK (Athanas. Ep.fest., I, c.)

CHAPTEE XL
CONTINUATION— THE WESTERN CHURCH.
Let us see now whether the Latin Church was more
fortunate or better advised than her elder sister at this
period when, more than at any other, literary glories were
blazing on the theological horizon at the two extremities of
the Christian world. The West had less science, fewer
resources, perhaps even less interest in concerning itself
with this question from the dogmatic point of view ; but on
the other hand it was more inclined to consider the ques
tion from the standpoint of ecclesiastical discipline and
more capable of settling it as a matter of administration,
being still very much under the influence of imperial
traditions in government. If, then, it had come to a
definite solution, this would prove not so rauch the intrinsic
value of the rule adopted, as the imperious necessity for
solving the question, and the powerful means used for that
end. If, on the contrary, that end was not attained, the
opinion expressed at the close of the preceding chapter will
receive the most striking confirmation.
I begin with Hilary of Poitiers (1368), who forms, so to
speak, the intermediate link between the two churches, his
speculation and exegesis connecting him in a very marked
way with the East. In the Prologue to his Coraraentary
on the Psalms, he gives a Ust of the books of the Old Testa
ment, copied literaUy from the text of Origen which we
have analysed;' the same analogy to the alphabet, the
same order of the books, the sarae oraission of the Apocrypha,
the same express mention of the letter of Jeremiah. There
' Hilarii Pict., Prol. in Ps. § 15. Comp. Euseb,, vi, 25.

186 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
is, however, at the end a curious addition. To these twenty-
two books, he says, there are added Judith and Tobit, m
order to make up the number of the letters of the Greek
alphabet. Very probably the Bishop of Poitiers was not
the first to make this discovery, especially as he takes care
to add that the Koraan alphabet stands midway between
the two others. But it would be a great mistake to infer
from this that he at least held this number to be fixed and
the canon of the Old Covenant to be defined in lirait. The
other apocrypha are in his eyes not less the works of the
prophets, the Scriptures to be quoted on the same level as
the other Scriptures.' As to the New Testament, some
importance should certainly be attached to the fact that aU
the Fathers, Hilary as well as those of the Eastern Church,
abstain from mentioning any fixed number for this coUec
tion, as they do for the Old Testament. Why do they not
appeal to the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, by count
ing Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Timothy as single
epistles, as is done with certain Hebrew books, or by doing
the same with the Catholic Epistles ? There is but one
answer ; but it is enough : no number was fixed officially.
In this case the abstention is all the more remarkable that
Hilary might have brought out the perfect harmony be
tween the two collections, since hjs canonical coUection of
the New Testament only contained twenty-two books, like
that of Origen, and there is not in all his writings the least
trace of the five disputed Ca,tholic Epistles. When it is
remembered that this author lived more than a century
after the celebrated professor of Alexandria, in totally dif
ferent surrounding.?, at a period when the current collection
had been enriched by some books in many dioceses, is it
' For Wisdom, see De Trin., i. 7 ; Psalm 135 § II ; for Ecclesiasticus,
Prol. in Ps. § 20 ; for Susanna, Psalm 52 § 19 ; for 2 Maccabees, Psalm
134 § 25 ; for Tobit, Psalm 129 § 7. .

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH, 187
not astonishing that he should have been able to adhere to
an authority so ancient and so distant, without giving heed
to what was going on near him ? Like Origen, he assigns
the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul' contrary to the general
usage of the Latins ; like Origen, he is acquainted with but
two CathoUc Epistles as forming part of the canon, con
trary to the usage of all the churches of his tirae, I leave
to my readers the task of drawing frora these facts the
logical and legitiraate conclusions ; but the facts seera to rae
to condemn the thesis I have been contending against, and
to demonstrate that at this period the collection was not
closed and fixed. Hilary, observe, was one of the piUars of
orthodoxy. I pass now to an Italian author, Philastrius of Brescia
(t towards 387). We have from him a list of 150 heresies,
from which list we obtain very instructive inforraation re
garding the state of the canon in the West towards the end
of the fourth century, and also unfortunately regarding the
profound ignorance which from that time began to manifest
itself even among the leaders of the church. In § 88," he
takes occasion to speak of a " heresy called apocryphal (!),
i.e., secret, a heresy which accepts only the prophets and
the apostles, but not the canonical writing.s, i.e., the law
and the prophets, viz,, the Old and New Testament,"' To
make some sense out of this rigraarole, we raust change the
text and suppose that the author said or raeant to say that
these heretics read only, books pretending to be prophetic
and apostolic, pseudepigrapha. Or perhaps he had heard
some vague talk about sects rejecting the Mosaic law,
and, for want of positive knowledge, reported the fact badly.
' De Trinit,, iv. § 11.
' Edition of Fabricius, 1721. The numbers vary in the editions.
' Haeresis est etiam quae apocrypha, i.e, secreta dicitur, quae solum pro
phetas d apostolos accipit, non scripturas canonicas, i.e., legem et prophetas,
vetm sdlicet et novum testamentum.

188 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Further on he adds that " the apostles and their successor?
have decreed' that no one in the Catholic Church should
read anything but the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, the
Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, and seven others added
to the Acts." Clearly in this Philastrius was copying a
catalogue of Eastern origin, and even his assertion that he
is transcribing an apostolic decree rests on an illusion till
then foreign to the Latin Church but forraulated in express
terms in Greece or Asia, as I have shown at the end of the
preceding chapter. The only circumstance which might
justify a doubt on this point is the omission of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and it must be admitted that in this the
author wrote under the influence of the established usage
of his country. He says in continuation ; " The hidden —
i.e., apocryphal — writings are to be read by the perfect for
moral edification, but not by every one, because the unintel
ligent heretics have made in thera all kinds of additions
and rautilations."" This last phrase gives us the raeasure
of the intelligence of the Bishop of Brescia himself, and
shows us how useless it is to resort to critical conjectures in
order to prevent him from saying things without common
sense. For never had it occurred to any one in the Church
to recomraend the reading of the books of the heretics for
forming the morals of the perfect, while forbidding them to
those who are not perfect. Philastrius has evidently faUen
here into the strangest confusion. The Greek Fathers had
recognised in the apocrypha of the Old Testament (Ecclesi
asticus, Wisdom, Tobit, etc.) a relative value and permitted
them to be used in instruction, while refusing at the same
' Statutum est ab apostolis d eorum successoribus non aliud legi debere in
ecclesia catholica nisi legem d prophetas et evangelia d actus et Pauli Ire-
decim epistalas et septem alias, etc.
' Scripturae autem abscanditcLe, i.e., apocryphae etsi legi debent morum
causa a perfectis, non ah omnibus legi debent, quia non intdligentes multa
addidenmt et tulerunt qtme voluerant haeretici.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 18ft
time to put thera on the level of canonical books. He, on
the other hand, though beUeving hiraself to be reproducing
their opinion, is thinking of the pseudonyraous Acts of
Andrew, of John, of Peter, etc., whose miraculous results he
wUlingly accepts as suitable for edification, while he rejects
the doctrines inserted in them by the heretics.
Having thus established the true meaning of this para
graph of our author, let us see what he says elsewhere on
the same subject. If hitherto it has been possible for us to
believe that he observes a prudent reserve regarding the
apocrypha of the Old Testaraent and makes the example of
the Greeks his rule, copying them without understanding
them, we shall soon discover that such is not the case.
These books are in his eyes writings inspired like the-
others; they were written by prophets, Solomon among-
others ;' and Philastrius on this point does not depart from,
the usage of the Western Churches in the form in which I
shall afterwards state it. There is the same confusion in
regard to the New Testament. A Uttle ago tbe Apocalypse-
did not appear in the nuraber of the books declared to he-
canonical by the apostles and their successors, because the-
Eastern Fathers, from whom this notice is borrowed, held
that opinion at this period. But § 60 reproaches the heretics.
for rejecting the Gospel and Apocaljrpse of John, and this.
last book is eraployed as canonical in the course of the
work." It is clear that everywhere a distinction must be-
drawn between Philastrius the editor and Philastrius the
compUer. He copies more or less exactly texts of Greek
origin without even observing that they contradict himself.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, which was likewise omitted in,
the preceding text, is frequently quoted in other passages.
' See e.g., regarding Wisdom, Haer., 26, 95, 108, 110 ; for Ecclesiasticus,^
Boer., 26 ; for 2 Maccabees, Haer., 18 ; for pseudo-Daniel, Haer., 96,
' See e.g., Haer., 42,

190 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
as an apostoUc writing.' He even devotes to it a special
paragraph where his confusion of ideas is again manifest ;
not kno'wing how to strike his course in the controversy
between the Greeks and the Latins, he transcribed alter
nately notes borrowed from both. His text runs thus:'
" There are persons who do not acknowledge the Epistle to
the Hebrews to be by Paul, but say that it is by the
apostle Barnabas or by Clement, Bishop of Eome ; othera
attribute it and also the Epistle to the Laodiceans to the
evangelist Luke. They wish, indeed, to read the writings of
the blessed apostle ; and, because some people badly advised
have made certain additions to it, it is not read in the
church. It is much read by sorae ; but to the assembled
people only his thirteen epistles are read, sometimes that to
the Hebrews. Its elegant style and rhetoric have caused
some to say that it is not Paul's ; and it is not read because
it is said in it that Christ was made, as well as on account
of what is said about penitence, etc."' What are we to
think of this passage, and how are we to give to it any sort
of intelligible meaning ? I shall not stop to ask how
Philastrius can rank as heretics aU the Fathers who have
uttered one of the above-mentioned hypotheses regarding
the Epistle to the Hebrews, just after declaring that the
apostles and their successors gave official recognition to only
thirteen epistles by Paul. A contradiction so glaring is
explicable only in a writer whose whole work consists in
' Haer., 117, 122, 127, 134, 144, 150, etc.
' Haer., 89. Haeresis quarundam de ep. Pavli ad Hebraeos.
3 Sunt alii quoque qui ep. P. ad H. non adserunt esse ipsius sed dicunt
aut Barnabae esse Ap. aut Clementis ep. alii autem Iauxja ev. ajunt epistoloM
etiam ad Laadicenses scriptam. Scripta b. ApostoU quidem volunt legere.
Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene sentientes inde non legitur in
ecdesia. Etsi legitur in quibusdam non tamen in ecdesia legitur popvlo nisi
tredecim epp. ejus et ad Hebraeos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit
sermone plavsibili, inde nonputant esse ApostoU. Et quiafadum Christum
dicit in ea inde nan legitur, etc.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 101
accumulating frora all quarters scattered notices which ho
heaps together in his miserable compilation without trying
to bring them into harmony, perhaps -without knowing
Greek enough to understand thera, and certainly without
knowing Latin enough to raake hiraself understood. But I
shaU ask a bishop who counts heresies by the dozen, where
he learned that people badly advised have made additions
to the Epistle to the Hebrews ? What are these additions ?
And when did the church ever renounce one of its sacred
books, because an outsider was supposed to have soraewhere
altered a copy ? Or is it possible to imagine that heresy
had ever succeeded in falsifying them all ? But what am I
saying? If the church no longer -wished to read this
epistle to the people because there were passages in it
apparently favourable to heresy,' then it was the Catholics
and not the heretics who thus excluded it from the canon.
It may be seen from these considerations what kind of
witness we have here, and we might have spared ourselves
the trouble of subjecting him to a preliminary exaraination,
if some of his raodern critics did not raake hira the subject
of a critical and philological skill worthy of such a raodel.
The two authors we have just been consulting were
evidently under the influence of the Greeks in the opinions
they express regarding the extent of the biblical collection.
•Only Hilary represents a more ancient phase of traditional
opinion than does Philastriu.s, who besides understands
nothing of the divergences he finds, and is acquainted
neither with their origin nor bearing. We come now to a
' The author alludes to iii. 2 and vi. 4, which might be said to be written
in the sense of the Arians and Novatians. If he asserts that the epistle,
lu the opinion of certain people, contained a passage suspected of Arianism,
we .should remember that at the same period it was said in the East that
the Arians alone rejected this epistle because it was too openly against
them. These contradictions arise from the habitual practice of attributing
to a heresy every difference in literary judgments, the origin of which was
no longer known.

192 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
third Latin author, who was equally familiar with the ideas
of the East where he had lived for a long time, but was
more desirous of positive facts, and adopted the views pre
valent in his time. Toranius Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia
(¦f 410), reproduces, all but exactly, what we have already
found in Athanasius : in the Old Testament the Jewish
canon, including Esther ; in the New Testament the com
plete series of the books now placed there, with the seven
Catholic Epistles, the Epistle to tho Hebrews, and the
Apocalypse. In the next chapter I shall have to give some
attention to his ideas and dogmatic definitions regarding the
sacred books. At present I simply state that in drawing up^
this catalogue, he appeals to no official authority, no
standard and authorised edition, but only to the tradition
of the Fathers.' We have sufficient information regarding
the value of this tradition which, even in the time of
Rufinus, was far from being fixed on all points,
I have just been proving that the East had a certaini
influence on the opinions of the Latin authors of whom I
have been speaking. But, in general, the West was
separated from the East on several very important points.
in its ecclesiastical and liturgical traditions regarding the^
use of the Bible. At first, the Latin churches did not share
in that kind of repulsion for the Apocalypse which we have
noted araong the Greeks ; then they were not willing, or
they did not know how, to make any distinction between
the difierent eleraents of which the Old Testaraent was com
posed (primitive Hebrew canon and additions of the
Septuagint), as their Latin Bible did not furnish them with
the means; finally, the Epistle to the Hebrews, added to-
tbe Greek collection at the beginning of the third century,
' Rufini Expos, in Symbol., ch. 37 ; Quae sunt N. ac V.T. volumina quae
secundum majorum teaditionbm per ipsum Sp. B. inspirata cebduntue et
ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur in hoe loco evidenti numero, sicut:
ex palrum monumentis accepimus, designare.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 193
was hardly known in Italy, in Africa, in Gaul, where it was
introduced with much greater difficulty than certain other
epistles formerly less widely circulated, because it was
anonymous, and the volume of Paul's epistles had for
centuries been closed and known.' This last fact is so well
established that I do not think it necessary to coUect all the
testimonies proving it for the fourth or fifth centurj'. I
prefer even to reraind my readers that this exclusion was
not universaL Besides the writer,': already named, there
may be quoted others who admit the Pauline origin of the
epistle — e.g., Lucifer of Cagliari, and Arabrose of Milan ;
while Zeno of Verona, the deacon Hilary of Rorae, Optatus
of Mile vis, and others less known, represent the raajority.
Their dissension, which is of no importan-ce so far as the
authenticity or origin of this epistle is concerned, is of great
importance for the historj' of the canon.
It is this same difference between the Greeks and the
Latins which engrosses and embarrasses the two most cele
brated theologians of this period in tbe Western Church,
Jerome and Augustine. Their testimony is specially interest
ing, because while we read it we cannot help thinking that
they are making, so to speak, an inventory of the opinions
and usages of their tirae, as Eusebius had done at another
period, and that the results they give are what might be
caUed the last utterance of tradition. We shaU see that the
generations foUowing down to the sixteenth century under
stood their testimony in this way. Let us therefore give
most careful attention to what they say.
In the works of Jerome there are several catalogues of
the sacred books, two being complete and embracing tbe
whole Bible. The first is the famous Epistle to Paulinus,
' Latina consuetvda non recipit, etc, (Jerome, Inlsai. iii,, 6). Multilatini
dvhitant, etc, (Id, In Matth. xxvi,) Apud Romanos usque hodie quas
Pauli ep. non habetur (Id, Catal., 59. Comp, In Zach., viii,, etc)
N

194 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
printed as a prologue in aU the old editions of the Vulgate;
the second is his preface to the translation of the four books
of Kings. There is besides a recension of the New Testa
raent in the first chapters of his History of Ecclesiastical
Writers. Use might be made also of nuraerous passages in
his other works. To make tbe matter clearer, I shaU treat
separately the different questions here presented.
The preface to Kings enumerates the books of the Old
Testament in general, according to the Jewish custom : five
books of the Law, the first and the last prophets to the
number of eight, and nine hagiographa — in all twenty-two.
Only, to get this number, be had to join Ruth with Judges,
and Lamentations with Jeremiah, Hence Jerome says
that, if they are left in their place in the last volume,
there will be a total of twenty-four books, which may be
accepted because there are also twenty-four elders round
the throne of God in the Apocalypse, Still the order of the
hagiographa is different frora that in our Hebrew Bibles,
and we do not know whether it was altered by Jerome
himself, or stood thus in the copies of his time. The cata
logue in the Epistle to Paulinus differs frora all the others
we know, and is a fresh proof that the old Bibles had no
fixed order. Job precedes Joshua in it ; the prophets come
immediately after Kings ; next to thera come David and
Solomon, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. As five
of these books are double, they represent the five final
letters of tbe Hebrew alphabet and complete the number of
twenty-seven. This puerile desire for mystical analogies
constantly reappears, and I direct attention to it once more
to establish the fact that the canon of the New Testament
was not solid enough in its basis to permit such ingenious
analogies. The most interesting point of all in these two
catalogues is, that they are positively based on the tradition
of the Synagogue, As Jerome had studied the Hebrew text,

CONTINUATION— THE WESTERN CHURCH. 195
an accoraplishraent of which no other Father since Origen
could boast, the fact is beyond doubt. Elsewhere he declares
formally that Wisdora, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, are
not in the canon.' But he cannot withdraw himself
altogether frora the customs of his Church, and his attach
ment to tradition is more powerful than his scruples as a
scholar, his devotion greater than his logic. Thus, in his
preface to the book of Tobit, he says : '" " The Jews have
excluded it from the list of the Holy Scriptures, and have
reduced it to the rank of the hagiographa.' Now they
reproach me for having translated it, against their principles,
in a Latin Bible, But I have preferred to displease the
Pharisees and yield to the invitations of the bishops," who
evidently asked that the book should not be left out. The
preface to Judith runs thus : " With the Jews this book is
ranked among the hagiographa, and its authority is con
sidered to be insufficient for settling controverted points.
But as the Council of Nicjea reckoned it among the Holy
Scriptures, I have yielded to your invitation, etc." I
suppose no one wUl be angry with Jerome for having made
it a point to agree with the Nicsean Fathers in everything ;
and, if we cannot but suppose that he was mistaken about
that councU's opinion, it would nevertheless be a fact that
he did not refuse Judith a place in the canon of the Bible.
I do not intend to avail myself of these two texts for draw
ing any inference that Jerome raixed the Apocrypha with
the other books of the Old Testament. On the contrary,
I know the care he takes in his translation of Daniel and
Esther to separate the two component elements by marks
' Prol. galeat., p. 13. Praef. ad Salom., p. 18. O74). tom. III. ed.
Francf. ' Quem Hebrcsi de cataloga div. S.S. secantes his quae hagiographa memo-
rant manciparunt . . . sed melius essejudicans displicere Pharisaeoru/m
jvdicio et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, institi utpotui,
3 Just now the hagiographa were Job, Psalms, Solomon, Daniel, etc. 1

196 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and critical notes. But I was anxious to prove that tho line
of demarcation is always fluctuating, and that a writer so
soUcitous as the illustrious monk of Bethlehem of running
counter to no opinion which could caU itself orthodox, was
led from tirae to tirae to make concessions in two opposite
directions. The raatter had not been settled in a supreme
court, and there was a risk of compromising oneself what
ever one said.
In regard to the New Testament, the dedication to
Paulinus enuraerates all our twenty-seven books, the Acts
coraing after Paul's Epistles. It is not so rauch an historical
and literary introduction as a piece of soraewhat high-
flown rhetoric, and yet Jerorae speaks in it as if the
canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews were very doubt
ful.' From what we have estabUshed above, the phrase he
uses (that this epistle is excluded from, the number by most
churches or theologian.?) can have no other raeaning than
that indicated. Still, when he coraes to write the simple
prose of the literary scholar, he makes more critical reserves.
He knows and writes tbat the authorship of the second
epistle that bears Peter's name is disputed by mo«^;" and,
when he adds that this arose from the difference of style, he
thereby reveals not so much the motive for excluding it, as
the expedient invented by the defenders of its authenticity.
He himself professes elsewhere that this difference arises
from the apostle having used in turn various secretary
interpreters,' thus insinuating at one stroke and with incon
ceivable levity that we possess only translations, or even
editions, made freely according to general directions from the
' Paulus Ap. ad septem ecclesias scribit ; octava enim ad Hebraeos a
PLEEISQT7E extra numerum ponitur.
" Catal. Vir. III., oh. I : Secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter
styli cum priore differentiam.
3 Ex quo intdligimus pro necessitate rerum eum diversis usum esse inter-
pretibus (Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 11 : Opp. iii. 102).

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 197
Bishop of Bome.^ He knows likewise that the Epistle of
James was considered to have been written by another in
that disciple's name (whom he makes a cousin of the Lord
in order to put hira in the number of the Twelve, contrary
to the general opinion of the first centuries) ; but he adds
that in time it gained a footing." He reports that the
Epistle of Jude is rejected by raost because it appeals to an
apocryphal testiraony ; nevertheless, he says, it was already
at a very early period reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.'
Let us note this word plerique, the most, which so con
stantly recurs with him. It clearly reveals to us a fact
which we ought not to neglect. If we reckoned only the
authors whora we can stiU consult, the terra in question
would hardly be justified ; on the other hand, it is far from
probable that there were so raany opponents or critics
among the authors now lost. But Jerome's expression ¦will
be fuUy explained, if we suppose that most of the churches
had a collection less complete than that known to our wit
nesses, who were all more or less occupied with theological
quarrels. It seems to me that the books which were not
included in the collection at the time when it was formed —
i.e., at the end of the second century — raust have had great
difficulty in gaining an entrance everywhere even in the
most reraote churches. The succes.sive increase, in turn
attempted, loatronised, or resisted by various scholars, must
long have remained a question for the school and study,
and cannot easUy have penetrated to the masses and popu
lar usage. If this view of the case be not an illusory con
jecture, Jerome's plerique gives us more reliable informa-
' For Jerome also hwws that Peter was for twenty-five years Bishop of
Home. It is an integral part of his testimony.
' Catal. , ch. 2 : Qua,e et ipsa ah alio quodam sid) nomine ejus edita
asseritur, licet pavlatim tempore pracedente obtinuerit autoritatem.
^ Ibid. ch. 4 : Quia de libra Enoch qui apocryphus est assumit testimonium
a plerisque rejicitur ; tamen auloritatem vetustate et vsv meruit.

198 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
tion about the canon of the fourth century than all the.
catalogues I have hitherto copied.
But let us continue our examination of Jerome. This is
what he says regarding Paul :' " He wrote nine epistles to
seven churches, besides to his disciples, two to Timothy,
one to Titus, and one to Philemon. Tbe epistle, entitled
to the Hebrews, is considered not to be his because of the
difference in style, but to be by Barnabas, according to
TertulUan, or by Luke, according to others, or by Clement
of Rorae, who was supposed to have comraitted the
apostle's thoughts to writing," Jerome, for his own part,
adopts the least tenable hypothesis of all, that of a Hebrew
original and a tran,slation made by another hand. More
over, when he comes to speak of this epistle, he usually
introduces it with a doubtful formula," Thi3 is true even
in the passage where he most frankly expresses his desire
to see it received in the West as it was in the East, and
where he naively invites the Greeks and Latins to adopt
each other's antilegomena, setting his own syncretism before
them as an example. This passage is so very curious that
I must ask my readers to think over it. It shows how
carelessly critical opinion was formulated, since the author
has no fear of falling into the raost fiagrant contradictions
fall Greek authors attribute it to Paul, though most believe
it to be by Barnabas or Clement), of affirraing things which
' Catal., 0. 5.
' Comm. in Tit., i. and ii.; in Ephes., ii.; in Ezech., xxviii, etc. : si qv/is
vult recipere ; in Amos, viii,: sive Pauli sive alterius esse putas ; in Jerem.,
xxxi, : quicunque est ills qui scripsit.
3 Ep. ad Dardan., Opp. iii, 46 : Illud nodris dicendum est hanc ep. non
solum ah eccl. orientis sed ah omnibus (?) retro graeci sermonis scriptorihus
quasi Pauli ap. suscipi, lied eam plbeiqite (I) vd Barnabae (? I) vel de
mentis arbitreniur et nihil iktbkesse cujus sit cum ecdesiastici viri sit d
quotidie lectione eccl. celebrdur. Quad si eam latinorum consuMudo non
recipit inter S.8. canonicas, nee Graecorum ecd. apacalypsin eadem libertater
suscipiunt, et tamen NOS utraque suscipimus nequaquam hujus tempoeis con-
tuetudinem sed veterum auctaritatem sequentes.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH, 199
we know positively to be imaginary, and insinuating that
the churches of his time abandoned the healthy tradition of
the Fathers, because they do not accept a proper name
which he himself declares to be, after aU, a matter of in
difference, I insist on all these details in order to make it
manifest that in no case was the fourth century fit to
finish a critical ta.sk which the second had had to leave in
complete. The following is a last note of Jerome on the Epistles of
John :' "He wrote one single epistle, which is acknowledged
by all the learned raen of the church. The two others
which begin with these words, etc. . . . are attributed to a
presbyter John, whose tomb is still pointed out at Ephesus."
I do not lay much stress on this hypothesis ; I do not know
a single ancient author who gave it out before Jerome ; but
I see in it a new confirmation of what was advanced above.
The fact of the omission of the two short epistles which
bear John's name is estabUshed for certain by Jerome's
note ; but, while this omission arises, in my opinion, from
their not appearing in the primitive canon, Jerorae and
perhaps others wish to explain it as the sequel of a con
jecture already made by Dionysius of Alexandria in regard
to the Apocalypse. But this opinion of the scholars of the
time, however incontrovertible, would certainly not have
been a cause of exclusion. We have hardly ever seen any
book excluded from the canon which once had a place
there ; but I have sufficiently shown how difficult it was to
obtain an entrance for any who were not in it from the be
ginning. Thus Jerome, in spite of the raost strongly avowed in
tention of giving to the Bible of the people an authentic
' Catal., ch, 9 : Scripsit unam epistolam quae ab universis ecclesiasticis et
eruditis viris probatur. Reliquae autem duae. . . . Joannis presbyteri
aaseruutur (comp, oh, 18)— In another place (Ep. ad Evagr., Opp. ii, 220)
he makes no difficulty about attributing these epistles to the evangelist.

200 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and readable text, and also a unity of design — Jerome, the
learned philologist, the diligent compiler, the indefatigable
visitor of foreign countries and curious libraries, has only
succeeded in showing how far removed his age was from
this unity, and in furnishing to the centuries after him the
raeans of perpetuating the uncertainty and of never for
getting the divergences of tradition and of ecclesiastical
custom.?. We shall now see how far his illustrious contem
porary, the Bishop ofHippo, was more successful, Augustine,
the raan of theory, the theologian par excellence, whose
genius paved the way for the reforra of the sixteenth
century, and stUl rules, in certain aspects, the teach
ing of the schools. With him, the need of putting an
end to these eternal hesitations about certain parts of the
canon was rauch more imperious, the authority of any
decision much more absolute, the interest in the work of
criticism much feebler, and the means of carrying it on
rauch raore insufficient than with Jerome. But, for want of
historical investigations, he had to recomraend and assert two
means of arriving at the end — dogmatic rule and the interven
tion of authority. On this ground we shall see him at work.
It would not be difficult to gather from the numerous
works of Augustine phrases equally doubtful regarding the
books on which opinions varied — e.g., reserves made regard
ing the value of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament,' or
the Epistle to the Hebrews." But the very rareness of such
passages in these vast folics, where biblical texts are quoted
' Contra Gaudent., i. 31 : Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabce-
arum non habent Judcei . . . sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter si
SOBEIE legatur vel audiatur. — Civ. Dei., XVII., 20 : Salomonis tres lihri
recepti sunt in auctaritatem canonicam . . . alii duo . . . propter doquii simi-
litudinem ut Salomonis dicantur obtinuit consuetudo ; non autem esse ipsivs
non duhitant dactiores. Eos tamen in auctaritatem maxime occidentalis anti-
quxLvs recepit Ecdesia.
' De pecc. mer., i. 27: Ep. ad. Hebrceos nonnullis incerta; magis me
mavd auctaritas eccl. orientalium qu^ hanc quoque in canonicis habet. Expos,

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 201
in thousands, proves how little the author concerned hira
self about critical questions, and we ought not to stop at
isolated and inconsequent words, when we find elsewhere
an exact and systematic exposition of the author's own con
viction. We understand that he may have found an occa
sional pleasure in showing casually his acquaintance with
the state of such questions. There exists in his dogmatic
works a very expUcit and complete passage which relieves us
from making any troublesome search for such facts as shall
enable us to form an opinion regarding the substance of his
thought of the extent of his Bible. This passage stands in the
second book of bis Christian Doctrine} He treats there of
biblical studies, recommending them very strongly, and giv
ing instructions at once sensible and spirited, not such as his
own exegesis, unfortunately, would lead us to expect. The
following is the part which concerns us at present : " The
most intelligent investigator of the divine Scriptures is the
man who first reads over only the books that are called
canonical, even though he does not yet understand them
perfectly. Once instructed in the true faith, he wiU read
the others with more security, and ¦will no longer run any
risk of being led astray in his weakness by the wanderings
and lies of the imagination." " Here at the very outset
there is an important point to be noted. It is very evident
that in Augustine's eyes all the divine Scriptures are not
canonical Scriptures, since he recomraends the reading of
the latter first of all and the reservation till a later tirae of
in Rom., § 11 : Nonnulli eam in canonem S. S. recipere timueruut ; sed quoquo
modo se habeat ista qucestia ccett. — Adv. Julian., iii., 85 : Fidelis fidei prcedi-
color qui scripsit ep. ccett. Comp. Civ. Dei. , xvi, 32.
' De Doctr. Chr. ii. 12 f. This part of the work, it is important to observe,
was ¦written before the Council of Carthage, 397.
'Erit divinarum scripturarum solertissimus indagator qui prima totas
legerit notasque hahusrit, dsi nondum intdlectu jam tamen lectione, duntaxat
eas quae appdlantur canonicm. Nam cceteras securius leget fide veritatis
instrudus ccett.

202 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
those books of the divine Scriptures which are not canonical
In a different form, it is the same fact as that we have so
often met with already, the existence of two collections, the
one more exclusive, the other raore copious. The only
difference to be raarked here is that the terra divine boohs
or scriptures is very positively given to the latter coUection.
Divine and canonical are therefore not quite synonymous,
and we~see from this first step that Augustine is siding both
with the liberty which reigned in practical usage and with
the doctrinal demands of the school. But this very dis
tinction argues a raore exact consciousness of the theological
point of view, and necessitates a more or less precise
principle for directing the choice of the faithful. Let us
hear what he says further : " In order to know what are the
canonical Scriptures, you must follow the authority of the
greatest possible number of Catholic Churches, especiaUy of
those which were founded by the apostles and had the
honour of receiving the epistles. Those received by all tho
churches wiU therefore be preferred to those received only
by some. Of these latter, those will be preferred which are
received by the greatest nuraber and by the most consider
able churches, to those which possess only the fewest and
least important suffrages. If we were to find some patronised
by the majority, while others were patronised by a respect
able minority, in that case, no doubt very rare, I believe
their value would be the sarae." I raight have fine sport
in criticising such a raethod of verifying the canonicity of
^ In canonicis S.S. ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurium auctaritatem
sequatvr, inter quas sane illce sunt quos apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas
accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in SS. canonicis vt eas quae
acdpiuntur ab omnibus ecclesiis catholicis prcepanat iia quas qucedam non
accipiunt ; in eis vera quce non accipiuntur ab omnibus prceponat eas quas
plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis
ecdesice tenent. Si autem alias invenerit aspluribus alias a gravioribus haheri,
quanquam hoc facile invenire non passit, aequalis tamen auetoritalis haheri-
das puto.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 20S
the holy books ; it is enough for me to say that it was im
practicable. No simple beUever ever had the means of
gathering, counting, and weighing thus the suffrages of all
the churches in Christendom, an Italian or an African, still
less than others, since all the witnesses quoted by Augustine
were in Greece and Asia, unless he were thinking by pre
ference of Rome itself I might add that those who try to
set up against me the authority of the Bishop of Hippo,
prudentiy suppress the better part of his text, and take care
themselves not to proceed in the same way. We have only
to remember that his principles issue in that famous saying
which is diametricaUy opposed to the basis of aU Protestant
theology : " I would not beUeve in tbe Gospel, if the
Catholic Church did not guarantee to me its authenticity," '
But I have other reflections to make which go more directly
to the heart of the question. There are then canonical
Scriptures which are preferable to others ? There are some
which are not admitted by all the churches ? There are some
which are patronised only by a respectable rainority 1 But
if all this is to have any raeaning, does not the illustrious
bishop here raake, without wishing it, a double adraission,
very inconvenient for his Protestant adrairers ? On the
one hand, he adraits this cardinal fact that the canon was
neither closed nor uniform, and that it included, in its more
extended forms, components having very various authority ;
on the other hand, he declares that this authority is not at all
in the books, that it is not a privilege attached to their origin,
hut depends on the chance they have had of being circulated
in the churches, of being received by a larger or smaller nura-
her of communities. And, as the text itself shows that he was
speaking more especially of the epistles, Augustine evidently
cannot deny that several of these, even in his day, were far
' Contra ep. Manich., c. 5 : Egoevangdio non crederem nisi me catholicce
ecdesice auctaritas cammovcret.

20-i HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
from possessing all the suffrages of the churches. That
being so, it is of little iraportance to us to know his own
opinion, because he declares hiraself that it is not a question
of history, or internal criticisra, or individual appreciation,
but of statistics. And this was how the science of the canon
stood with a writer who was undoubtedly the greatest
theologian of the early Church.
After considering the theory, let us look now to the
application. We are bound to suppose that Augustine him
self performed the statistical work he recommends to others.
Indeed, he adds to what we have just been reading, a com
plete catalogue of all the books of his Bible ; he introduces
it even with the remark that it is the collection from which
the choice will have to be made ; ' but he concerns himself
little with the greater or less authority of the various
canonical Scriptures, as depending on the number of testi
monies in their support. He speaks as if he were absolutely
ignorant of the state of things in the Eastern Churche.s. We
conclude from it that in Augustine's opinion this difference
had no practical bearing. The theologian could and
should make distinctions ; the pastor and the preacher had
no need of thera. His list is as follows : there are first two
series of historical books in the Old Testaraent, the one
from Genesis to Chronicles, forms a chronological whole ; the
second, very different in this respect, contains books having
ho connection with one another, and standing in no chrono
logical order : " Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the Maccabees,
Ezra. Then corae the Prophets, a book of David, three of
Solomon ; " for the two others. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are
said to be Solomon's, only because of a certain resemblance ; "
¦ In quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus.
' Quae neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur. — I abstain from all
comment. 3 De quodam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur, qui tamen, quoniani in
auctaritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 205
though they are to be counted among the prophetic
books, because they have merited to be received as
authoritative," which means, received as canonical. Tbe
list ends with the minor and greater prophets, and the total
of the books of the canon of the Old Testament is brought
up to 44.' This is exactly twice the nuraber given by " the
majority and the raost venerable of the Fathers ; " but,
according to Augustine, it is that of the Church" and only
Jews can have any other. In his New Testaraent he had
all the twenty-seven books which stand in our Bibles. It
is true that the Epistle of Jude is wanting in the Ust as
given in the editions of Augustine ; but that raay be only
an old error of the copyist.
Practice was decidedly more powerful than theory. Tha
need of fixity, generaUy felt as it appears, caused several
African synods to turn their attention to the canon. Even
in 393, before Augustine became bishop, the bishops
assembled at Hippo had had to draw up a list of the holy
books ; but the acts of this council, in their present form, seein
open to criticism.^ This is of little importance, since from
the year 397 and under Augustine's direct influence, a.
synod of Carthage took up the raatter anew and consecrated
what had been previously adopted,^ by deciding that in the
assemblies of the Church, only canonical books should be
read under the narae Divine Scriptures. An exception was
made in favour of the Legends of the Martyrs. The list of
the canonical books attached to this decree includes the Old.
Testament from Genesis to the Psalter, then five books of"
' His quadraginta quatuor libris V . T. terminatur auctaritas.
' Comp Retract., ii. 4.
3 Civ. Dei xviii. 26 : Liber Judith, quem sane Judcsi in canons non re-
dpere dicuntur. Ibid., 36 : Machabcei, quas non Judcsi sed ecclesia pro..
canonicis hahct (comp. xvii. 20, and Contra Gaud. i. 31. quoted above.)
* ConcU Hippon., ch. 36, ap. Mansi, iii. 924.
5 Condi. Carthag. iii. 47. ap. Mansi, iii. 891.

206 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
Solomon, the Prophets, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, and two
books of the Maccabees ; in the New Testament, four
gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, another by the
.same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of
James, one of Jude and the Apocalypse. Finally, it was
decided that the Church across the sea (Rome) should be
consulted about this list. Several points for reflection are
here presented. In the first place, the synod no longer ad
mits that there are divine Scriptures which are not
canonical and thus gets rid of the .subtle and embarrassing
distinction made by the author of Christian Doctrine. That
was simpler at any rate. Augustine had also slipped into
his list a little remnant of erudition when he said that
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were said to be Solomon's only
because of a certain resemblance;' tbe Fathers of Carthage
quite simply put five books of Solomon. That too was
sirapler. But it was more difficult to decide about the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Within the memory of man the
Africans had only had thirteen Epistles of Paul. Augus
tine, more learned than the others, warmly recommended a
fourteenth. It may be seen from tbe text quoted above
what a strange forraula was eraployed to airange the matter
to everybody's satisfaction. As to the confirmation from
beyond the seas, it never carae, because at Rome the
Legends of the Martyrs were not read. Perhaps there were
other reasons ; but the very fact that the Holy See was con
sulted proves of itself that the canon was not fixed, and that
the canon of the Italian churches was not even known at
Carthage !
Still the Africans were not alone in seeking to get out of
, a position in which they were always speaking of canonical
books without knowing exactly what they were. The un-
¦ Later (Retract., ii. 4) he even acknowledges that he had since learnt
-, that Soloraon was not the author of 'Wisdom.

CONTINUATION — THE WESTERN CHURCH. 207
certainty was such that one of the greatest bishops of Gaul,
Exsuperius of Toulouse, applied to the Pope to know what
he was to do in this matter. Innocent I. (405) allowed him
self to be much pressed, as the answer was not easy and
the see of Rorae had no interest in bringing the dispute to
an end, and finally decided to send a list,' This list agrees
in the main with that of Carthage, but it gives the series of
the books quite differently from first to last and altogether
suppresses the objectionable forraula about the Epistle to
the Hebrews," Thus the variations are reproduced ad in
finitum throughout all this history, and, unless we say the
Pope had not opened his Bible, we raust conclude tbat the
Eoman coUection had been forraed differently from that of
Africa, However that may be, the letter of Innocent was not
known in the latter country. In 419 a new Synod of
Carthage again took up the question of the canon, repro
duced its old list (with this single change that in place of
saying 13-1-1, it was now understood to be better to say 14),
and again decreed that the Bishop of Rome should be asked
to confirm a canon which was said to have been received
from the Fathers,
' Innoe. Ep. ad Exsuper. Tolas, ap. Mansi, iii. 1040,
' Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Ruth, Prophets, Solomon (five books),
Psalter, Tobit, Job, Esther, Judith, Maccabees, Ezra, Chronicles, Gospels,
Paul (14 epistles), John, Peter, Jaraes, Jude, Acts, Apocalypse,
' Condi. Carth., v., ch, 29 ; ap. Mansi iv,, 430.

CHAPTER XIL
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY,
Almost all the works which treat of the history of the
canon stop at the point we have now reached, at the end
of the fourth century. It is supposed that, as the Councils
of Laodicea and Carthage sanctioned and published official
lists of the holy books, there was nothing more, henceforward,
to be said. I am of a totaUy different opinion. It is ea.sy
to prove that the debate was not terminated by these
Synods — especially as they were only provincial assemblies
and contradicted one another in tho raost fiagrant raanner —
that the uncertainty, the divergences, the investigations,
the attempts at codification continued to the fifth century
and in the centuries foUowing, to the two extremities of the
Christian world, with means of enquiry raore and more
insufficient, with decreasing chances of success, and, unfor
tunately, also with an increasingly perceptible lack of
intelligence for the subject-matter of the question and for its
theological bearing. But, before continuing ray narrative,
I have still to present a series of more general observations
on the fourth century.
Let me for a raoraent grant, with the majority of my
predecessors, that at the end of this century the canon was
so weU fixed that the generations foUowing had only to
accept it tranquilly and, after no great lapse of time, might
even have convinced themselves of its being fixed from the
very first, as many French and EngUsh theologians in our
day stUl suppose. Yet even on this hypothesis, it must be
acknowledged that the decision of Laodicea is quite different
from that of Carthage. The two Synods lay it down as a

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 209
principle that only canonical writings are to be read in the
Church ; but the lists they give differ frora one another.
In the East the Apocalypse is excluded ; in the West it
is inserted. In the West the Old Testaraent is composed of
all the writings contained in the Septuagint, without any
distinction of origin ; in Asia the six books totally unknown
to the Synagogue are rejected, while others are received in a
recension which in part was very different from the Hebrew
original. Is all this the consequence of an arbitrary
selection, or is it the result of critical study ? This ques
tion is not to be settled by a single yes or no ; it demands
serious examination.
Among the facts I have been bringing out hitherto, the
one which has recurred most constantly and which must
have struck my readers raost, is not the variation in the
lists, but the lack of clearness in the very conception of the
canon ; in other words, it is the uncertainty of the theo
logical idea of the collection of the sacred Scriptures, As this
fact cannot be explained in accordance with the principles
prevailing in Protestant schools, it is judged inadmissible.
Consequently many authors seem not to know that the
canon has its history ; and they continually confound two,
or even three, questions radically different — viz., the origin
and authenticity of each book in the Bible frora a literary
point of view, the intrinsic value of the book from a
theological point of view, and the formation of the collection
of books. This last question alone engages us here : it is a
question of history and nothing raore. It is not ray part to
teach what idea we should form of inspiration, what rank we
are to assign to the prophets or to the apostles. Dogmatic
theology defines that inspiration ; faith determines that rank
according to the religious elements it finds in the sacred
books. We wish simply to see how the Bible we now
possess was forraed ; and since it certainly did not fall from

210 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the sky complete, as Mussulman doctors say of their Koran,
science has the right and the duty of inquiring into its origin.
Up to this point the foUowing are the results established in
our investigation.
When Christian preaching began, the Old Testament, as
it existed in the Synagogue, was used by the Church, not
only as a book of edification in the practical and popular
sense of that word, but also as a code of revelation, as the
Word of God in an absolutely special and privileged sense,
though frora the first a certain divergence in the theological
ideas regarding it manifested itself For, while some (the
Jewish Christians) continued to insist on its legal character,
others preferred to recognise in it a prophetic character, and,
in regard to the direct application, to recognise this solely.
But in spite of this diversity of sentiments, the volume was
for the entire Church that which it had been for the Syna
gogue, the book which was read before the assembled com
munity, the text on which the faithful meditated for their
spiritual direction, the source from which they drew their
knowledge of the ancient revelations, and the proof of what
had been revealed through the apostles. It was a book
standing by itself, entirely distinct from every other book.
This state of things underwent a certain change only at the
time when, and in the countries where, the Hebrew
original had to be replaced by translations. These trans
lations not only gave certain books in a new and very much
altered form, but also included books not found in the
primitive collection. In proportion to the learning of those
who used them, this difference was observed and commented
on, or neglected and ignored, and imperceptibly two, or
even three, recensions were in coraraon use at the same
tirae in the churches. As philological and historical know
ledge graduaUy disappeared, the raajority soon lost sight of
these diverse elements. In the West, in Ethiopia, in

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 211
Armenia, in all the countries where the Scriptures existed
only in the forra of a translation, only the raost learned paid
any heed to the diversity, and then not with the purpose of
introducing any reforra, but to invent some plausible justi
fication for existing usages. In other places, a minority,
better placed or more instructed, were anxious to separate,
at least in theory, the books of Greek origin frora those
which had formed the Hebrew canon ; but these latter even
were accepted in the amplified Greek forra, because the
phUological raeans of re-establishing the priraitive text did
not as a rule exist. Jerome was almost the only scholar
who imposed such a task on himself, and his success in it
was of no public advantage. His Latin translation, used
even now in our day, .distinguishes the two elements by
critical notes, but does not eliminate anything. There
were, therefore, as I said, two editions of the Bible of the
Old Testament, the one more extensive than the other;
¦and it is quite clear that in practice — i.e., in ecclesiastical
readings, in the instruction of the people, in serraons and
catechisings — the eleraents peculiar to the one edition were
used with no less confidence than those coramon to both.
Even theology, whether dogmatic or polemical, did not
always observe the Une of demarcation very strictly ; science
¦alone traced the line, and it had to do so without disturb
ing the traditional order. We shaU see by-and-by how
this came about.
In regard to what we now call the New Testament, the
histor}' is more complicated and much less understood.
By a natural enough iUusion, it has been supposed that, as
' ihere was, at the beginning of the church, an Old Testa
ment quite complete and acknowledged, there must also
have been a New Testament, the very narae of the first
supposing the immediate addition of the second. It has
then been bastilj' concluded that the last surviving apostle

212 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
at least raust have collected bis own works and those of his
coUeagues in order to endow the church with an authentic
and official body of texts, equal or even superior in dignity
to the books of the prophets. A conscientious examination
of tbe facts and the testimonies has shown us that this was
not tbe course of events. According to tbe apostles them
selves, the New Covenant was to be directed and vivified
by the Spirit, while the Old was founded on the letter. In
any case, the Scripture (i.e., febe Old Testaraent by itself),
for a long time after the apostles, was the basis of the evan
gelic teaching. This evangelic teaching was propagated by
simple oral transmission, and was held to be .sufficiently guar
anteed by the succession of the bishops which could be
traced back even to the disciples of the Lord, This teach
ing, raoreover, was so siraple that it was suraraarised in a
formula which our children still learn by heart, and to it
there were added practical exhortations and consolations of
hope, the coraraon heritage of all the faithful. Still, all
these elements of Christian instruction rested on historic
facts, on the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ,
The narration of these facts formed an essential part of the
teaching. Christians soon came to seek for such narrative.?,
and to read thera together. Thus a general and public use
began to be made of certain books proceeding from the
circle of the first disciples, and this use was so soUdly con
firmed by its abundant results, that soon steps were taken
to prevent the insertion of any suspected book among the
docuraents bequeathed by the first generations. After the
raiddle of the second century, the church had fixed its-
choice and raarked out four gospels araong the large num
ber already in circulation. At quite as early a period, the
hortatory letters of the most respected doctors or bishops-
were read in several churches ; efforts were made to pro
cure and coUect them. It was natural that in Greece and

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 213
Asia Minor the name and writings of Paul should receive
most attention. Accordingly we find that about the time
indicated there was already in existence a collection of
Paul's epistles. When tbe circumstances of the faithful
became raore trying and more fiUed with teraptation, it was
all the more iraportant to reanimate their courage by the
contemplation of the first origins of the church and by the
powerful eloquence of tbe founder of so many comraunities.
Other apostoUc writings were soon added to these first
elements. Writings were discovered and put into circula
tion, ¦writings which hitherto had been left in obscurity or
used only by the individuals possessing one of the few
copies. Nevertheless it was not till the first half of the
third century that all the existing literary productions of
high Christian antiquity carae into general knowledge.
But before this epoch, two things had already appeared
which exercised a very marked influence on the destinies of
the New Testament, In the first place, the custom of making
pubUc and regular readings frora the writings of the apostles
was introduced long before the collection was in any degree-
complete, and hence the coUections in the various churches
soon differed from one another. Some were not acquainted
with the writings whicb were adraitted in other places;
others refused to admit books not known to thera frora the
first, preferring to keep to those already received araong
them and consecrated in their eyes by long custom ; others
received these additions, but in varying proportions ; others
finaUy, and these were the most numerous, assigned thera a
secondary place. If it be remembered how far the Church
in the first centuries was frora having a centralised organisa
tion, and how freely and independently local custoras could
develop themselves, no one will be surprised at this diversity:
Besides, it embarrassed Christian life and popular teaching
SO little, that it might have existed unnoticed, bad not

214 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURFS.
scientific theology been bound to consider it. But at the
very time when thefse readings from apostolic writings be-
carae regular, and began to forra everywhere an integral
part of worship, some progress in theological ideas had taken
place. By the very struggle which the Church had had to
wage against Gnosticism, it had learned to appreciate more
accurately the distinction between its own creed and this
exotic philosophy, and to base its own traditional teaching
more firmly. It was not long in assigning to its first masters
a privileged place, ranking them among the prophets. Their
writings necessarily shared in this same honour, and were
put on a level with the inspired books of Moses and his
successors. A code of the New Covenant was at last added
to that of the Old.
From this point of ¦view it was a raatter of great im
portance to draw a distinct line, marking off the books that
were to enjoy this prerogative. If the idea of such a
canonical collection had existed from the first century, per
haps it would not have been very difficult to form it in such
a way as to secure its remaining thenceforth invariable.
But a hundred years later, the tirae had passed for this.
The usage of the readings had consecrated writings which
had not been coraposed by apostles properly so called : other
books which raight claira such a title — at least in the opinion
of more than one theologian — had not had the advantage
of being known soon enough or widely enough, to obtain
general acceptance without very great difficulty. As
theology could not establish a rule to decide the choice, or
rather as it was entirely dependent on a tradition which had
arisen and gained strength in complete independence of aU
theological forraula, theologians had soon to face numerous
difficulties as ray analysis of the testiraonies of the two latter
centuries has established on every page. Theory aspired
towards a rigorous selection, and from its own point of view

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 215
was perfectly right, for it was a raatter of rauch moraent to
purify from all alloy the texts which alone were to have an
indisputable authority in the ever-widening discussions of
theological questions. Practice sought to utilise everything
suitable to its purpose, and was particularly afraid of divest
ing itself of any one means of action — i.e., of any book used
in popular instruction, which, perhaps, was not of the
number of those extolled by theory, but had the immense
advantage of being already familiar to the class least easy
to initiate in abstract theories. This explains why so raany
Fathers and excellent theologians did not hesitate to eulogise
the Pastor of Herraas, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and other
writings of a siraUar nature.
This also explains the difference between the rules of
Laodicea and Carthage. The bishops of Asia had regard to
theory, the interests of the school, the rules of dogma and
faith, the theological code ; their decision is only a link in
the long chain of dograatic decisions forraulated by Eastern
councUs, The bishops of Africa had regard to practice, the
ecclesiastical code, the interests of worship and popular in
struction, respect for established forras, which they were
unwilling to sacrifice to a necessity purely scientific ; their
decision falls into the category of the disciplinary statutes for
which the West all along had a great legislative aptitude.
The former were unwilling to admit anything which had not
positive proofs of canonical dignity and divine origin ; the
latter were unwiUing to exclude anything sanctified by
usage, Theformer were afraid to burden theraselves with any
addition open to suspicion ; the latter, to irapoverish thera
selves without plausible raotive, by rigorously applying a
principle which was not at aU farailiar to thera. To this prin
ciple they did horaage, almost against tbeir will, when they
accepted an epistle stiU unknown to most of the churches.'
' I have already quoted several passages from Augustine, clearly showing

216 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I have just been characterising tbe two points of view by
reducing tbera to their simplest expression ; but I have not
meant thereby to convey that the two parties were always
clearly aware of the true origin and nature of this diverg
ence. Both professed to settle the canon — i.e., the normal
collection of the Scriptures ; and by using the sanie term with
a different connotation, they introduced great confusion into
aU that was said on this iraportant subject. This confusion
raanifests itself so soon as the necessities of dogmatic theology
take their place beside the traditional cu.stoms of the Church,
and my readers have been able to convince themselves by
every page of my narrative that the efforts made on all sides
to reach a solution of the question, a definite catalogue of
the holy books, always came to nothing because it was im
possible to evolve from the debate one chief principle to
which every other might have been sacrificed. The theo
logians, on the contrary, were at pains to find middle terms
which would satisfy everybody and everything, but they
only raade the confusion greater than before.
We have seen that Eusebius, in drawing up his statistics
of the New Testaraent, concerned himself only with the use
raade of each book in the various churches. His division
into horaologouraena and antilegoraena rests only on' this
external principle of distinction, and the dograatic question
plays as sraall a part in it as the question of authenticity.
The Acts of Paul belong to the antilegoraena on the
sarae grounds as the Epistle of Jaraes ; the uncertainty of
his process is even so great that the Apocalypse and the
that this was the point of view among the Latins. I give another, which is
very much to the point, Hilary of Aries had been astonished that the
Bishop of Hipposhould citetheauthority of the Wisdom of Solomon, theGallic
theologians being at that time more familiar with the ideas of the Greeks
than were the Africans. Augustine replies : Nan debuit repudiari sentenlia
libri Sapientice qui meruit in ecclesia Christi tarn longa annositate recitariet.
ah omnibus cum veneratiane divince auctoritatis audiri (Hilar, ap. Aug. Ep.
226, et Depr<£dest. i. 27).

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 217
Epistle to the Hebrews are put in both classes. But the
generation of Greek theologians who adorned the second
half of the fourth century were too much engaged in the
discussion of dogma to be content with such an unscientific
method. We find, therefore, in them a series of terras
hitherto unknown, or at least unfarailiar to their predecessors,
of terms which henceforth were to have their place in the
language of the school and the Church. I have had to use
them by anticipation, and I was able to do so without fear
of being misunderstood ; but it is proper to pause here and
estimate their true value.
Of all these terms the raost famous and the most iraportant
is the word Canon, which I have put in the title of this
work. This word, in addition to its theological value, has
received various dissimUar meanings in the applications
of common life, which applications are aU justified by its
etymology. With the Greeks' it meant originally a cane,
a stick for measuring or determining a straight line ; in the
figurative sense, it denoted every kind of rule — e.g., in the
mathematical sciences, in philology, and even in the sphere
of moral ideas. Later, the gr.immarians and critics of
Alexandria understood, by this technical term, the series of
authors who were to serve as models, or standards for
purity of language, or, as we would now say, who were to
be considered classic. In the New Testament, the word is
also employed sometiraes in the sense of a rule, a principle,"
perhaps even a line of demarcation or direction.^ Araong
ecclesiastical authors it is used soraewhat frequently in the.
same sense, especially when they are speaking of religious
and dogmatic truth. The rule, which was to guide men in
the search for this truth, and raore particularly in the
'Comp. Stephani Thesaur. I. gr. ed. Paris s.v. xavuv.
' Gal. vi, 16 ; comp, Phil, iii, 16, where the reading is uncertain,
^ 2 Cor, X, 13 ; comp. Clem, ad Cor., 41.

218 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
comprehension of the Scriptures, was ecclesiastical tradition,'
just as the Scriptures in tbeir turn were to serve as a rule
for the teaching of the Church ;" and the perfect agreement
of these two authorities was the supreme rule, the true
ecclesiastical canon?
It is under this raeaning, too, that the question arises of
canonical books, or a scriptural canon. Only modern
writers are not agreed regarding the raanner in which these
expressions were derived frora the primitive conception,
some seeing in it by preference, if not exclusively, a dog
matic purpose, others restricting its value to a purely
literary significance. I must say frankly that there seems
to me to be an error here on both sides, inasmuch as the
interpreters of patristic theology have in general thought
there existed only one single meaning of the word, whereas
in truth the two elements are represented in it, and take
the first rank by turns, just as each author's point of view
was raore or less scientific, his language more or less popular.
It is a fact that the expression canonical boolcs* is frequently
taken in the dogmatic sense, as denoting writings which
are to regulate teaching, because they are the fruit of a
special inspiration, and the Church therefore regards them
as having a standard authority. Only it is not very clear,
whether this adjective is to signify that these books contain
the canon, i.e. the rule of faith itself, directly ; or whether,
' 'iXepoivets rov xxvovas rns 'ifjtraO XptffroO xard iixiexhv ruv d^offreXuv ovpxvUu,-
ixxXwixs (Origen., Deprinc., iv, 9).
= Chrysost., Homil. 58 in Genes., Opp., iv, 566: xxvuv rSs iUxs ypipxris
opposed to e'txitot Xoyifffioi. Isidor, Pelus,, Epp., iv. 114: rov xav'ovx rrjt
dXtihixs, rds htxs ^9i/il ypx^as, xaro'jrrivffuf/Liv. Iren., iii. II, regvla veritatis.
3 xavuv ixxXwixffrtxos, a term which we have already found in Clement
and Eusebius with different applications. It must not be forgotten that
the use of the term canon has never been restricted to the Bible. There
were canons of councils, canon law, the canonical life, canons of cathedrals,
etc. All these expression? have at bottom the same origin and are derived
from a primitive meaning anterior to our canon of Scripture.
* ^t^xix xavevtxd, libri canonici, regulares.

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 219
as others think, and as seems raost reasonable, it indicates
that they form the canon, i.e. the collection of books which
is to furnish the standard. This latter explanation seems
to me preferable, because the adjective canonical always
reminds us of a plurality' of writings possessing authority
as a collective whole, and I do not know a single text where
this interpretation proves insufficent. Further, it leads us
hy a very natural transition to the purely Uterary signific
ance of the terra. For it cannot be denied that by
canon the Fathers very often understand the collection itself,
or even the siraple catalogue of the books forraing it. It is
erident then that the dogmatic sense is not attached to the
word, but forms part of its connotation. Thus, at the end
of the enumeration of the biblical books, made in Article 85
of what are caUed the Apostolic Canons, it is said : " These
are the provisions to be observed in regard to the two
canons;"" thus too, at the end of the poem of Amphilochius,
we read these words : " This is what may be considered as
the most exact canon (catalogue) of the inspired Scriptures."
The common point in the two acceptations of tbe terra is no
doubt the suggestion of a theological standard, but it is still
more the notion directly contained in the word, of some
thing definite, determined in number as in quality.^ That
also explains to us why this term is not found before the
second half of the fourth century; Eusebius even does not
appear to have known it.^ The Greek Fathers of that
' Thence, too, the phrase : nonincanoneestlJ)i(\.ym. alex. I.e.), synonymous
with: in cataloga SS. divinarum (Jerome, Praef. in Joh).
' ntO™ oripl xavivuv iiariraxiu (Can. Ap., 85.) See above, p. 181.
^ ^i?tXia oix d'epiffrx dXX' upiffpiivx. — certo canone comprehensi libri (Pseudo.
Athan., Synops. S.S. Opp., ii, 96).
* Unless use be made of the passage in vL 25, where he says that Origen
recognises only four gospels, following in that respect the ecclesiastical
canon. I believe, however, that in this place the word only means a tradi
tional rule. The term canonizatae scripturae is found in Origen (iv. 239.
lomm.), but it is due entirely to the translator.

220 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
epoch were far raore occupied than any of their predecessors,
with tbe necessity of determining the privUeged books, and
drawing up a catalogue of them. The previous attempts of
this nature were only rare exceptions, and there was no
imperative necessity for a special technical term.
In ordinary language the second of the two acceptations''
of which I have just been speaking, naturally became the
more popular, and finally formed by itself the notion of the
canon. In this sense was forraed the verb canonise — i.e., to
insert a book in the catalogue of the canonical writings, to
place it in the regulating and standard collection,' It is
.superfiuous to quote texts here in support of my statement;'
more than enough will be found in the extracts from the
Fathers, contained in the two preceding chapters,
StiU the sarae Fathers to whom we owe, if not an unvary
ing definition of the canoji — i.e., an unvarying list of the
books reputed to be canonical — at least a clearer notion of
canonicity — i.e., of the specially divine character of these
books ; these same Fathers, I say, were not able, and in fact
were not willing to take frora the hands of the faithful, or
the library of their own churches, all the non-canonical
writings which were used in public reading or for the
edification of the coranlunity. They attempted therefore to
place these in a category by themselves, or, as was also said,
in a second canon — i.e., in a collection of less authority, of
inferior dignity. These formed a collection of books not to
be studied with the desire of deriving from them the rule
of faith and teaching, but to be read for religious edification
and raoral training, a coUection of books intended not for the
dograatic investigations of scholars, but for the practical
teaching of the church. The Greeks, raore exacting on this
' ^t/ixla xxvovtZopitvx, xixxvovifffiiva, libri intra canonem conclusi, in canoneM
recipere (Athan,, Ep.fest., I. c, Isidor. Pelus, Ep. i, 369. Eufin, in Sywh.,
c, 37. August, iw ifoBi,, § 11, etc)

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY, 221
point than the Latins, were unwilling to grant the favour
of such a reading to any but catechumens,' a restriction
which they did not succeed in establishing generally. In
this category were placed (1) the six books of the Old
Testament not found in the canon of the Synagogue,
especiaUy the two Wisdoms. Of these the one bearing
the name of Jesus, son of Sirach, was so much in fashion in
the early church, that to this day, in Latin, French, and
English, it is called Ecclesiasticus — i.e., the book of the
church, the book of edification par excellence." These books
are useful, it is .said, but have no authority in raatters of
faith, and are not deposited in the Ark of the Covenant.
Athanasius also ranks the book of Esther in this category.
But no Greek Father ever placed in it the additions to
Daniel and Jeremiah, which in the Greek text form in
tegral parts of the work of these prophets. (2) The anti
legomena where they had not already attained the honours
of canonicity. Thus, e.g., if the Catholic Epistles had not
been read in an increasing number of churches, no one
would ever have thought of putting them in the canon. It
was the same with the Apocalypse.^ (3) A certain number
of other books, the official use of which died out after the
' See, e.g., the definition given by Athanasius, I. c. -. iffri xa) inpa fit^xla
roorm i'^othv, ev xaiovt^ofi,tva pAv rirv,ru/isvx Se ^xpa ruv ,raripuv dvxytvuffxinSxt.
rets xprt ^poffipxepttvets xxi fiovXo/iivots xarfixt'tff^xi rov rrjs lifft^ilas Xo'yov. Comp,
what was said in chap, x., regarding Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufin,, I. c. :
Sciendum quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a majori-.
hus appellati sunt. . . . quos legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen
profcrri ad auctoritatsm fidsi confirmandam.—Bt^xix dvxytvuffxopavx (Athan,,
I. c), iv iivripx (xa»«n), Cyril of Jerusalem, I. c.
' Jerome, Praif. ad Salom. : Sicut Judith et Tobies et Machab. libras legit
quidem ecdesia sed ea inter canonicas SS. non recipit, sic et haec duo volumina.
(Sap., Sir.) legit ad cedificationem plebis, non ad auctaritatem dogmatum con-
'ptnumdam. — Epiph, loc. cit. : uSrat ;^p»J<r/ja«i pciv t'tfft xal ti^iXiptot dXX' Its
uptSfiov ptiruv odx uvaipipovrat, iio ovi' iv rip rrjs itxHxvis xi^uru dvtriSnffav.
' rhxeird t^u 'iv itvripcp (Cyrill,, Catech., I. c.). — Apocalypsis in ecclesiis.
legitur, neque enim inter apocryphas SS. habetur sed inter ecdesiasticos.
(Jerome, In Psalm. 149).

222 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
fourth century — e.g., the epistles of Cleraent and Barnabas,
the Pastor, the Apostolic Constitutions, and some other
Uterary productions posterior to the apostolic age, regard
ing which I refer ray readers to the notices extracted from
Eusebius, Athanasius, and other authors. (4) HomUies of
celebrated Fathers, letters from other communities and
their bishops," and legends of martyrs, the very name of
which recalls that custom,'
Of course such a distinction, though justified in the eyes
of the theologians, was above the capacity of the people in
general. The texts read in religious solemnities could not
but be of equal value to most of the audience, and scholars
must have tried in vain to raake the simple faithful retain
more or less subtle classifications, the meaning of which
escaped them. But there was still another inconvenience.
If, before this division into two classes, the learned had not
been able to agree on a uniform catalogue, it was much
worse when there were two. So far from the way being
paved for the final settlement of the superior canon, the
confusion had only been doubled. We found several
Fathers, including Jerome the most learned of all, taking up
by turns the two points of view, and ranking the same
books sometiraes in the second canon, soraetiraes in the first
or rather in one single canon, sometimes leaving the readers
to decide for theraselves. As soon as the churches could
recognise their position, they made efforts to get out of it.
The double classification, good in theory, was abandoned in
practice. In the East the faithful were told to read only
what was canonical. In the West everything that was read
to the people was called canonical.
I have still to explain a terra quite as frequently em-
' Jerome, Catal., 115.
' Epistolcs communicatorice, xnvmixd ypapiiLxra (Euseb., vii. 30.)
3 Euseb., iv, 15, v, 4. Condi. Carth , iii, ch. 47. Augustine, pasAni,

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY, 223
ployed as that of canon and its derivatives, but more vari
able in its signification and hence raore difficult to define.
It is the word apocryphal. Now-a-days this word is cora-
monly used (outside of theological discussions) in the sense
of fictitious, lying, and it is certain that the Fathers sorae-
times used it also in this acceptation, as .synonymous with
pseudepigraphic (bearing a false title') ; but it is quite as
¦certain that this acceptation is neither the only one, nor the
most ancient, nor that v/^hich was definitely adopted into
theological language. In Greek, the word signifies what is
hidden, secret; hence the Latin theologians simply speak
¦of secret books where the Greeks spoke of apocryphal
books. And here we must at once reject the explanation
given by Augustine,^ an explanation satisfactory neither to
philologist nor historian. He thinks that the terra apocry
phal was given to the books whose authors where unknown
(hidden). There is no doubt that attention was paid to the
name of the authors, only in so far as it was important to
verify fictitious titles. In my opinion the term apocryphal
applies first of all to the contents of the books, to contents
which were hidden, mysterious, inaccessible to the ordinary
intelligence, or rather which had to be concealed from sim
ple, feeble minds, from those whose faith and morals might
be shaken by reading thera. Cleraent of Alexandria uses it
in the first sense when he says that the disciples of Prodicus
boast of possessing apocryphal books of their master,^ and
so Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius when they see in the
Apocalypse an apocryphal — i.e., mysterious and obscure —
' Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., iv. 36.
' Luke xii. 2 ; comp. viii, 17. Mark iv. 22. Col. ii, 3.
3 Sifixlx dnxpvipx, libri secreti. See the passages from Origen and his
translator iu chap, viii. p. 131.
¦• Quorum origo non claruit patribus (De civit. Dei, xv. 23). Comp. Gloss.
«d decret. Gratiani dist. 16 : sine certo auctare.
^ Strom., i. 304 ; ^ifiXov; doroxpifovs xd^oOfft xlxrr,ff$ I.

224 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
writinw.' Origen uses it in the second sense when he says*
that the story of Susanna exists in Hebrew, but that the
Jews, desirous of conceaUng from the people everything
hurtful to the honour of the chiefs and judges, suppressed it
in the book of Daniel, though it has been preserved
in the apocrypha. The meaning here cannot be questioned ;
for the author is contrasting these apocryphal books with
the books well-known, and he says further ' that to this day
the Hebrew original ranks araong the forbidden works. He
Says, moreover, that it is otherwise with Judith and Tobit,
which do not appear even in the Jewish apocrypha,^ Ac
cording to this, an apocryphal book is a work which the
persons charged with the direction of the flock, do not per
mit to be read in the Church," while the books read in tho
assemblies are called public or published works,^ a term we
have raet with several tiraes in the Fathers. Of course,
from this point of -view the works of the heretics were the
apocryphal books par excellence, since they are to be hid
rather than read.' Also we often find the term apocryphal
taken to be synonymous with corrupting, perverse, danger
ous,^ and for this reason the apocrypha form a third class in
addition to the canonical and ecclesiastical books, as in the
catalogue of the festal epistle of Athanasius.
Still, among Latin theologians the term apocryphal is
' Greg. Nj ss, , Or. de ardin. , ii, 44 : 'luxvws iv d^oxpv^ots it a'tviyptxrot
Xiyil. — Epiph., Hcer., 51 : iid rd ^aHus xal orxorltvus liptlptiva.
' rriptiTXev dve rvis yvufflus rev Xaod, uv rtvx ffuT^irxt iv dvoKpv<pots {Orig. Oct
Afric, c. 9).
3 Ibid., C. 12 : ro t^pxixov ly dffro'pp-flreis xlifAtvav.
* Ibid., 0. 13 : oiiii yxp 'ixeufftv xird xx) 'tv d-roxpv^ots i^pxiffri.
5 Rufin., in Symbol, I. c. : quos in ecdesia legi noluerunt.
^ litfiXix ititi/tofftsvpiivx, puhlicari, to be read in the church (Didym,, 1. c.)
1 dxoxpvipTjs poxxxov fl xixyvuffius x\ix (Synops. S. S. in Opp. Athan., ii, 55).
' fixxfitpes (Cyril,, I. c). fiope^otes (Constit. ap., vi. 16). afpirtxis (Athan,,
Ep. fest., I. c). Comp. Iren., i. 20. TertuU., De anim, c. 2. Grig,,
Prol. in Cant. : Appdlantur apocrypha prapterea quod in iis multa corruptcL
et contra fidem ver am inveniuntur.

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 225
employed in quite a different sense. They oppose it purely
and simply to the term canonical, so that it is synonymous
with ecclesiastical;' and that is why to this day we speak
of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, without mea,ning
thereby to say that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are dangerous
or heretical books." In another aspect we have seen above'
that the same authors maintain the distinction between the
Apocrypha and the ecclesiastical books. I ara right,
therefore, in saying that the very efforts made to reach a
more precise theory of the canon and more rigorous defini
tions, were a continual source ot new confusion. To be
certain of this, we have only to read the explanation which
Isidore of Se^ville gives of the terra under our notice, an
explanation combining without criticisra the heterogeneous
elements of aU the previous definitions.' In support of ray
assertion, I might further quote numerous passages frora
Latin authors of the sarae epoch ; but I think the fact
sufficiently established by the testiraonies already placed
before my readers. Besides, the history of the Middle Ages,
' Jerome, Catal. 6 : Barnabas composuit epistolam ad aedificandam
ecdesiam quae inter apocryphas legitur. — Id. Prolog, in Reges (after enume
rating the Hebrew books) : quidquid extra hos est inter apocrypha
pmendum. ' The term thus took a somewhat vague signification, and we cannot
always be sure whether or not it contains an allusion to heretical books, —
Jerome, Ep. 7 ad Lactam : Caveat omnia apocrypha et si quando ea non ad
dogmatum veritatem sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit sciat non
eorum esse quorum titulis praenatantur multaque his admixta vitiasa et
gi andis esse prudentiae aurum quoerere in luta. Does this apply to the
Apocrypha of the Old Testament, or did Jerome think that a woman may
find specks of gold even in the mud of heresy ? Comp. a similar passage of
Philastrius, above in chap. xi. (p. 188).
.3 Isidor. Hispal. Etymol. , vi. , 2 : Apocrypha autem dicta i.e., secreta, quia
in dubium veniunt. Est enim occulta origo nee patet pcdribus, ex quibus
usque ad nos auctaritas veracium scripturarum certissima suecessione pervenit.
In iis apocryphis dsi invenitur aliqua Veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla
ett in iis canonica auctaritas, quae recte u, prudentibus judicantur non esse
eorum credenda quibus adscribuntur. Nam multa svh naminibus prophet-
arum et apostolorum ah haerdicis proferuntur, dc.

226 HISTORY OF THE CANON OP THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
which has very -wrongly been neglected by those writing that
of the canon of the Scriptures, wiU furnish me with one occa
sion more for pro-ving this absence, both of a theological
theory distinctly formulated for guiding the choice of the
books, and of a definite and invariable official catalogue
of the books theraselves.
The raention of tbe Middle Ages, just raade by anticipa
tion, and the implied engageraent to continue my narrative
beyond the point at which raost authors stop, suggest another
reflection which I may suitably insert in this place. As a
general rule, those who collect frora the writings of the
Fathers, passages relative to the books of the apostles, do^so
with the intention of proving the authenticity of these books,
so that they are really not writing a history of the formation
of the New Testament during the first centuries, but rather a
demonstration or externa.l proof of the correctness of the col
lection as it now exists. I willingly admit that science under
takes this latter task ; I grant even that it is not without
its utility, though I do not share the illusions of those who
expect from it a final solution of all critical questions.
The testimonies nearest to the apostolic age,so far as any exist,
are too incomplete, too indefinite to satisfy all requirements ;
and those which do not sin in these ways are too distant
from the primitive period to have absolute value. Even if
such value were assigned to thera, they are always of a
nature to leave doubts on raany points. If raodern criticism
has conceived raore or less serious doubts regarding the
authenticity of certain books of the New Testaraent, formerly
regarded as horaologouraena, still it ranks thera among the
productions of an age anterior to that in which the positive
testiraonies of the Fathers begin. As to those regarding
which the most suspicious criticism has not dared to raise
doubts, the conviction of their apostolic origin rests on
grounds of authority quite different frora that of a semi-

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY 227
fabulous tradition or the rhetoric of some authors wholly
unaccustomed to historical studies. But further, supposing
even that these testimonies are never wrong regarding the
names of the authors, or have never given different naraes
for one and the same book, does it follow that they are
equally sure in regard to all the other historical questions
which present theraselves in connection with these writings ?
Must we accept aU the chronological, geographical, or lin
guistic conjectures invented by their unsound exegesis ?
The Epistle to the Galatians will then have been written at
Eome, the Apocalypse at the end of the century, the Fourth
¦Gospel by a centenarian Apostle, the Gospel of Matthew in
Hebrew ? I see no difference between these questions and
those above, and I do not see why the conscientious historian,
finding hiraself obliged to reject as inadraissible the tradi
tional solutions given to the one, should profess an iraplicit
faith for those recoraraended by the other. If he is prudent,
he will accept thera only so far as they are warranted by
facts,' Considering this so-called external proof frora what
ever point of view I wiU, I regard it, therefore, as extremely
feeble, insufficient, and open to suspicion, and I have not paid
much attention to it either in this present work or elsewhere.
Let us not ask the Fathers for things they cannot give us,
and, above aU, let us be distrustful of ourselves in weighing
their testimonies ; we are only too much inclined to exalt
their authority when they speak in conformity with our own
views, while we affect not to listen to them whenever they
•doubt or hesitate, or are not agreed with one another or
with our preconceptions. Tho only thing we can ask of
them in perfect security, the only thing, too, that they can
give in any satisfactory measure, is the information which
wiU acquaint us with the state of opinion and usage in the
¦ The original French is sous binifice d'inventaire, equivalent to the phrase
in Roman law sub beneficio inventarii.

228 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
various localities and at the various times represented by
them. By limiting ourselves to researches of this kind, we
shall not narrow in the least the field of science, and we run
much less risk of going wrong.
I have another no less iraportant reraark to raake, which
may reassure those who raight be disposed to fear that I
hold too cheaply what in their eyes (but not in the opinion
of Protestant theology) is the most solid foundation for the
authority of the apostolic writings. I have just been calling
the above process of quoting the Fathers iUusory and un
certain ; to what would it come if it were consistent with
itself and were applied with sincerity ? Those who extol it
are wont to make a great display of proofs on behalf of the
documents which least need proof, and when, in regard to
those that do not need proof, they find themselves obliged
to express opinions that may become compromising, they
can only neutralise these opinions by exaggerating or
weakening the strength of each particular testimony, accord
ing as it is favourable or unfavourable to the thesis they wish
to maintain. Frequently, they resort to a suppression pure
and simple of the testimonies that are inconvenient. That
is not an historical method, nor is it sound criticism. I
have done something very different. While traditional
science, having in view the gropings of the fourth century
in regard to the canonical coUection, exerts itself to deny
the most patent facts, for fear of sacrificing the only basis
supposed to be solid for the apostolic authenticity of this or
that book of the New Testaraent, I have confined myself
to establishing that the collection was formed slowly in the
course of time, and that the prolonged absence of several
books is explained by reasons absolutelj' independent of
their origin. The theory that the canon was coraposed by
the apostles theraselves, strews, as at random, doubt and diffi
culties all along the path of the history, while an unpre-

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY, 229
judiced study of the latter drives away the phantom
of a wholly gratuitous hypothesis, and at the same time re
moves the greatest stumbling-blocks strewn along the route.
Whatever merit there raay be otherwise in these reraarks,
they will do good in reminding our Protestant theologians
that in any case the coUection has been formed in accordance
with a principle foreign to our Church. That principle is
tradition, the succession and authority of the bishops. In
the first centuries, so long as the Christian communities
were independent of one another, local custoras, arising frora
diverse and fortuitous circumstances, might vary in regard
to readings for edification as they did in many other things.
The unity of the Christian churches, founded on the heredi
tary bond which attached them to that of the Apostles,' had
no need of any more material support, e.g., a written and
uniform code ; and if, as times went on, we can congratulate
ourselves on seeing everywhere the same nucleus of apostolic
books, serving as a source of instruction to the faithful, this
agreement even when established by the language of the
school," rested on no official decision whatever. Later, when
the Church entered into closer connection with the empire,
submitted to a more oligarchic constitution, and felt an
increasing need for laying down rules, synods, and along
with these, popes undertook to convert into law what had
already been consecrated by custom. The diversity of
custom necessarily prevented the law frora being uniform,
though uniformity is a thing which prejudice has first to
invent in order to give itself the satisfaction of finding it
' Eeclesiae universae quae apostolicis de sacietate sacramenti canfcsderantur
etc. (TertuU., Adv. Marc, iv. 5). Tat et tantae ecclesice, una est. Ilia ab
apostolis prima ex qua amnes .... Omnes probant unitatem ; communicatia
pads et appdlatio fraternitatis, et contesseratio hospitalitatis: quae jura non
alia ratio regit quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditia (Id., De Praescr., o.
20; comp. c. 32, 36).
° See above in chap, ix, p. 149, regarding the origin and value of the term.
homx>loguomena.

230 HISTORY OF. THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
again in history. Thus, at all periods, under aU regimes,
for discipline as for dogma, hence also for the canon which
is connected with both, tradition ruled the Church, inspired
the doctors, opposed the strongest bulwark to heresy ; tradi
tion also undertook the task of directing the choice of the
holy books. This choice, though its results have not been
always and everywhere the same, may have been excellent,
at least as good as was possible with the means and material
at its disposal ; but Protestant theology, -which has no desire
to elevate tradition, and professes in every other respect to
insist on having it first verified, is bound to do the same
with regard to the canon of Scripture ; it is bound to seek
out sorae other standard than the process which is the very
thing to be verified.
But I raay go further and explain, in a simpler and more
rational way, the fact of these nuraerous variations, these
unceasing hesitations, which I have shown to exist during
the whole course of this long work. How came it that the
early Church did not succeed in determining clearly what
now seems to our Church a raatter of prime necessity ? To
this only one answer can be given. At the tirae when it
would have been the easiest thing in the world — i.e., when
the apostles and their first disciples were still aUve — an
official collection of their writings, a collection destined to
serve as law, was not a raatter of prirae necessity. So far
indeed was it from existing, that the absence of the thing
and of the idea was noted as the characteristic sign of the
new covenant of God -with men, inaugurated by Christ and
cemented by the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself, in response to
those who asked of him a law, a rule of conduct, a positive
direction, referred them to Moses and the prophets,' whUe at
the sarae tirae he declared that the kingdom of heaven
rested on a condition other than that of the authority of
' Matt. xix. 18. Luke xvi. 29.

THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 231
their letter.' Paul in turn, developing the Master's thought,
expressly opposed the spirit to the letter, tbe principle of
the new economy to that of the old, life to death.-' The
apostles, when recoraraending and practising the reading of
the prophets, in order to trace in thera the adrairable ways
and purposes of Providence preparing the salvation of men,
took care not to put themselves in the place of Him, of
whom they were only witnesses. He had reserved for hira
self to abide in direct and immediate communion with all
those who should henceforth come to him to cast on him
their cares, the burden of their sins increased by the burden
of legality. He wished to deliver them from the yoke of
both, and he had promised to do so by one single means, by
sending them his spirit, to instruct and sanctify them,
Alas! humanity knew not how to understand this high
vocation; it experienced again the need of institutions
similar to those which had served to educate the people of
Israel; but as centuries elapsed before the last trace of the
spiritualism of tbe Gospel was effaced, which spiritualism
had at last to be re-discovered anew in its literary remains,
this fact proves how great was its primitive energy.
¦ Matt. V. 21 f. ; xi. II f. ; xix. 8 etc. Comp. John i. 17.
' 2 Cor. iii. 6 f. Comp. Gal. iv. 24 f, ; Eom. viii. 15 f. etc.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE MIDDLE AGES.
I RESUME the thread of my narrative in order to conduct
the readers who have been willing to follow me thus far,
across a field which, as a rule, is less attractive in ecclesias
tical Uterature, and has hardly been explored as yet in the
interests of the history of the canon. For that matter, if the
chief point were to collect opinions or count suffrages which
had a certain weight in solving disputed questions, I might
spare rayself the trouble of disturbing the dust that covers
the forgotten voluraes of the authors of the Middle Ages.
Experiencing no scientific need, such as that which engages
us at this moment, they could not pretend to the privi
lege of instructing us on points regarding which we had
hitherto been ignorant, and of dissipating doubts which their
predecessors had not succeeded in silencing, or had even
helped to produce. I shall therefore not consult them in
order to learn from them what opinions we are to hold
about the origin of any particular book about which there was
dispute in early times; I consult them only about the state of
the canon in their respective spheres ; and I think not only
that they are quite admissible as witnesses in this great de
bate, but also tbat their testimony is rauch more instructive
than is supposed by those who through routine or ignorance
neglect them. We have to deal with a period of decadence
and barbarism, which saw all the institutions of antiquity —
governraent.s, laws, sciences, arts and letters — perish in suc
cession, that on their ruins might be built the Christian
Church as the last refuge for the old civiUsation which was
departing, and the cradle of a new and better civilisation.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 233
This period is generaUy considered to be conservative and
stationary on all points connected with religious beliefs ;
and, certainly, literary and historical criticism raust have
been the least anxiety of that golden age of legend and
tradition, which felt neither need nor taste for criticisra, still
less possessed raeans or courage for exercising it. But just
for that very reason, I attach a certain iraportance to the
facts I am going to state. They "will serve to verify the
conclusions we have drawn frora our previous researches.
I shaU begin by placing before my readers a series of
catalogues of the boly books, some composed by theologians
of greater or less distinction in one or other of the churches,
others proceeding from various authorities and invested
with an official character.
The first document of this kind is known as the decree of
Pope Gelasius I., who occupied the holy see in the last years
of the fifth century (492-496). This decree is included in
the code of the canon law,' and contains a long enumeration
of aU the "writings which can and ought to have authority
in the Catholic Church, especiaUy those of councils and
orthodox Fathers ; to which is added the series of synods or
authors considered heretical or open to suspicion. The
origin and date of this document are not quite certain.
There are manuscripts attributing it to Pope Damasus, a
contemporary of St. Jerome ; others bringing it down to the
pontificate of Hormisdas (514-523). The first chapter, which
contains the Ust of the biblical books, is wanting in many
manuscripts, especially in those bearing the name of Gelasius,
and may perhaps have been added at a later date. This
same chapter also betrays its more recent origin by a
circumstance which is directly interesting to us, and ought
to excite our curiosity to the highest degree — I mean the
numerous variations presented in the list of the Holy Scrip-
¦ Gratian., p, 1, (list. 15, 3, Mansi, vol, viii, 146.

234 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tures, and proving conclusively how far the Latin Church,
even at the beginning of the Middle Ages, was frora having
a uniforra Bible.
The foUowing is tbe substance of this pretended decree,'
whose importance for our critical history is not lessened in
the least by the doubts regarding its official value. The
books of the Bible are divided into several categories, or, if
you will, several volumes in the editions which have come
down to us. There is first of all what is entitled Ordo
Veteris Testamenti, which raay also be taken to be the
general title of the Old Testament, though it contains only
the half — viz., the five books of Moses, the historical books
from Joshua to Chronicles, the Psalter,three books of Solomon,
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. These two last titles are some
times wanting ; on the other hand sometimes five books of
Soloraon are raentioned. Then comes the order of the pro
phets, in which the name of Baruch is sometimes joined to
that of Jeremiah, and the series of the minor prophets is
generaUy different frora the Hebrew and existing recension.
FinaUy, the Old Testament ends with an order of the histories
which includes the books of Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther,
Ezra, and the Maccabees, the order being invariable only
for the first and the two last. So, too, in the order of ihe
Scriptures of the New Testament, the list varies ad infinitum
with th3 exception of the gospels, which always occupy
the first rank." The Epistles of Paul are very diversely
numbered ; that to the Hebrews usuaUy occupies the last
place, but there are also copies which speak of only thirteen
epistles by Paul just as there are sorae which omit the
Apocalypse. In the catalogue of the CathoUc Epistles, the
author of the last is regularly called Jude the Zealot, and
' Credner has a lengthened discussion of this decree in his Beitrdge our
Geschichte des Canons, 1847.
' For example, Paul, Apoc, Acts, Cath. — Acts, Paul, Apoc, Cath. — etc.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 235
the two short epistles pf Jobh are attributed in several
copies of an author different frora that of the first. Without
pausing over the long list of apocryphal books rejected by
the decree, I shall ask how such variations, at a date com
paratively so recent, can be explained ? Whence come
these hesitations, these divergences, these literary notices
even, which betray research raade in earlier authors ? The
answer cannot be doubtful. These same doubts, these same
hesitations, were found in the early writers that were most
influential during the whole course of the Middle Ages,
especially in Jerome, There they were discovered, and the
authority of such a name prevented them frora falling into
oblivion. But only the coraplete absence of any definite
and obligatory decision regarding the canon, and above all
the secondary place given to the Scriptures after tradition,
can explain to us why the Papacy itself did not consecrate
an unvarying catalogue of the holy books, or did not even
feel the need of atterapting such a consecration. It is
curious to verify the fact that the interest taken in collect
ing and preserving the rare fragraents of tradition (for ex
ample, the conjecture about the two epistles of John the
Presbyter) the bearing of which fragraents was no longer
seen, was stUl superior to that of the standard uniforraity of
the canon. This is seen especially in the second part of the
decree which contains what might be caUed the earliest
index of prohibited books. In it stand numerous titles of
works which assuredly no one had ever seen at Rome, or
which had at least been long out of circulation ; but their
names were still carefully registered, because they had been
found in earlier docuraents. This ascendency of tradition is
a fact of the highest importance in the history of the canon;
it furnishes us with indirect or negative proofs in places
where modem prejudice only sees inconsistencies.
' Joannis apostoU epistola una ; alterius Joannis presbyteri epistolcs dwB.

236 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Another list of the bibUcal books, of much more uncertain
date and origin, is the Synopsis of Holy Scripture^ printed
in several editions of the works of St. Athanasius, but
certainly not written by that author, and assigned by modern
critics to a rauch more recent period, though it is difficult to
fix it exactly. But, though no one can in these days appeal
to this docuraent as an authentic testiraony of the fourth
century, I shall take care not to neglect it. I believe it to
be a kind of coraraentary or paraphrase raade by some un
known person on the analogous text of the festal epistle of
the illustrious patriarch of Alexandria. The catalogue
agrees with that of the epistle in almost all the detaUs,
while at the same tirae it gives indications of a more modern
point of view. Thus the twenty-two books of the Old
Testament are reckoned exactly as in the old list (Ruth
standing by itself and Esther being excluded) which con
stitutes a peculiarity remarkable enough to establish the
relationship of the two docuraents. So, too, the author of
the Synopsis appends to the list of the canonical books of
the Old Testament a second series of books not canonical,
but reserved for the reading of catechumens " — viz., the
Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and
Tobit. That is textually the distinction drawn by Athan
asius, only the latter also mentions the Apostolic Constitutions
and the Pastor, which the former passes over in silence,
probably because the church, as time went on, had aban
doned the use of thera. Our commentator adds a note to
inform us that, according to early writers, the book of Esther
is canonical among the Hebrews, whUe Ruth is counted as
an integral part of Judges, so that even in the hypothesis of
this second conjecture, the nuraber 22 is retained which ap
parently was the great point. On the subject of the Apo-
^ ^vvo-i^is iorirofjios rrjs Hias ypx<py,s.
ov xavovi^ofiivx piiv, dvaytyurxefitva ii ptovov reis xarriXev/ilvets.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 237
calypse which Athanasius includes in his list without re-.
mark, our author finds it necessary to add that it was
received as the work of John the theologian, and admitted
as canonical by early and inspired Fathers,' a note which
implies the fact that other Fathers, perhaps not so early and
at any rate otherwise inspired, did not share in that opinion,
After giving a coraplete enuraeration of all the biblical
books, the author of the Synopsis takes them aU up again
in the same order that he may inter into more or less ex
tended details by way of intl eduction. Then he adds a
catalogue of antilegoraena and apocrypha, which .shows that
he was drawing from different sources without using any-
criticism, and that his notion even of the canon could hardly
have been farther frora being precise and settled. Under
the head of antilegomena he once raore introduces Wisdora,
Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, and with them
four books of tbe Maccabees, the Psalms of Solomon, the
story of Susanna, the Acts of Peter, John, and Thomas ; the
Gospel of Thomas, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the in-.
spired extracts frora. the Cleraentines," which means no doubt
an orthodox recension of that famous roraance. The con--
fusion of the author's ideas betrays itself most of aU in the
fact that he ends his list of the antilegomena with these
words — Ihese are the books which are read.^ This would lead
us to think that the terras antilegomena and deutero-canon--
ical were with him .synonymous ; but be imraediately adds
that he has enuraerated thera only by way of memorandum,
because they are raore worthy of being hid than of being-
read.^ I see no other way of harmonizing these con
tradictory statements than by saying that an ignorant,
' itxtiiffa us ixiivov xal 'tyxpihlrx vve orxXai dyiuv xxi wtv/ixroipopuv oraripuv,_
' rd KXupifvrtx s| uv pttrKtiiafflnffav 'ix\iyivra rd dXnSiffrtpa xxi howtvirrx.
^ ravra rd dvaytvuffxopotva.
* dvoxpvtprjs ixaXXov ij dvxyvurtus d^ta.

238 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
compUer coUected them from various sources, without suc
ceeding in reconcUing thera, perhaps without perceiving
that they are irreconcilable.
Another text, curious in a different way, may serve to
prove that well on in the sixth century, the criticisra of the
canon did not so ranch lack liberty in its raethods as means
for being profitable to science and the church. We possess
a treatise on the Holy Scriptures by a certain Junilius, who
was long supposed to have been an African bishop, but
according to recent researches,' rau.st have been a civil
functionary high in place at the court of Constantinople.
In this essentially dograatic treatise, we find, among others,
two singular enough classifications of the books of the Bible
— the one based on their contents, the other on the degree
of authority they are supposed to enjoy. According to the
former, the author reckons four classes of books : (1) the
historical books, Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
Gospels and Acts ; to these books several add Chronicles,
Job, Tobit, Ezra, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees ; (2) the
prophetical books; to this category the author refers the
sixteen prophets properly so called, enumerating them in
chronological order, and also the Psalter and the Apocalypse,
regarding which last the Eastern Fathers had special doubts ;
(3) the proverbial books — i.e., the Proverbs of Solomon and
Ecclesiasticus ; some add Wisdom and Canticles ; (4) the
books of simple doctrine (didactic books) — viz,, Ecclesi
asticus, fourteen Epistles of Paul, one of Peter and one of
John, to which very raany add five other epistles called
canonical (Catholic), As to their respective value, these
books have either coraplete authority, or medium authority,
or no authority at all. To the first class belong those
¦ See Kihn, Theador v. Mopsuestia und Junilius, Friburg 1880, The
treatise of Junilius is known under the name De partibus legis divines
(Gallandi, Bibl. P.P., tom. xii). The true title is: Instituta regularia
divince legis. Kihn gives a critical edition of it.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 239
named in the first rank in each series ; to the second, those
marked as added by several ; to the third, all the others.'
It is difficult to say exactly of what books the author was
thinking when speaking of the third class, all the more that
he ranks it with the others under the general title of divine
books. Still from a phrase just a little obscure, he seems to
have had in view, among others, Wisdora and Canticles.
The question naturally arises, whence can such a system of
¦classification have come to an author of the sixth century^
in whose surroundings ecclesiastical usages had long ago
-succeeded in implanting quite different principles. We know
now that Junilius took his information frora a source which
we must connect directly with the ancient school of Antioch.
The kind of disfavour with which he treats so great a
number of biblical books, or, if you will, his bold and non-
traditional mode of selection, cannot be the result of an his
torical or literary criticism ; it must have been inspired by
•considerations of practical utility, such as forraerly prevailed
among the Greek theologians of Syria. To this sphere also
we are directed by the exclusion of the Apocalypse, and sorae
¦of the CathoUc Epistles. Perhaps Junilius himself did not
understand the bearing of his system. At any rate, he does
not seem to have been afraid of provoking complaints on the
part of his readers, though the question of the canon is said
¦to have been definitely settled for them by public docu
ments. The East did, for some tirae later, preserve feeble remains
¦or confused remembrances of tbe critical theories or tradi
tions which had formerly been put in circulation by the
learned lectures of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of
' Quomoda divinarum librorum cansideratur auctaritas ? Quia quidam
.perfectce auctoritatis sunt, quidam medics, quidam nullius. Qui sunt perjectce
auctoritatis? Quas canonicas in singulis speciebus ahsolute enumeravimus.
¦C«8 medics ? Quas adjungi a pluribus disxAmvs. Qui nullius auctoritatis sunt?
-Reliqui omnes (I. t, p, 81).

240 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Mopsuestia. But serious studies had so much degenerated
in a land faUing into the saddest decay, that the last repre
sentatives of a once famous school were unable even to ex
pound with clearness and moderation the critical theses they
had inherited. We have a striking example of this in
another author of the sarae epoch. Cosmas' (535), an
Egyptian monk, who had formerly travelled rauch as a
merchant, inserted in the fifth book of his Christian Topo
graphy, a catalogue of the- Holy Scriptures, in which he
simply passes over in silence the Catholic Epistles and the
Apocalypse, while extolling the value of the Bible and the
salutary effects of an assiduous reading of the sacred texts-
As regards the Apocalypse, its omission would not give the
author's corapatriots rauch concern ; it was difierent with
the Epistles. Hence Cosraas saw himself obliged afterwards
to justify their exclusion. He boldly affirms that the
church in every age has regarded thera as doubtful, and
that not a single author has raade account of them or in
cluded thera in the canon. He cites to this effect, Irenaeus,
Eusebius, Amphilochius, and other Fathers, even Athanasius,
according to a doubtful reading of the text ; he grants that
sorae receive all these seven epistles, that the Syrians admit
three, that others distinguish those which may have been
written by apostles from those which were the work of
certain presbyters, and at this point he recalls the .story of the
two Johns of Ephesus, But the very variety of these
opinions appears to make hira. inclined towards a more
radical criticism. The fact that people spoke of the first,
the second, the third of John, seems clearly to indicate to
' Cosmas Indopleustes, Topagr. chr. II. xii, ed. Montfaucon (Coll. nov.
P.P., tom. ii.), Book v. pp, 242, f.
'^ Id,, ibid., B. vii. pp. 290 f. : rds xaSoXtxds dvixahv ti ixxXtiffia dpi(pt[ixXKe-
fiivxs ix^^' *"' ^xvrts Se ot voroptvYifiariffavris rds ffiias ypatphs etlrl us airuv Xoye*.
itretriffxro, dXXd xx) ot xdvoviexvrts ras 'ivitaSirovs fi'i^Xovs ffrdvrts us dpupifieXevt
uiiras 'tSn'Jfxv. . . .

THE MIDDLE AGES. 241
him that there is but oiie author, the man to whom early
writers positively assign the two latter — viz,, the presbyter
of Ephesus. He concludes that a good Christian ought not
to rest his faith on books so doubtful, but only on those
which are generally recognised as canonical, and teach all
that it is useful to know.' There is no need here to direct at
tention to the author's exaggerations and errors ; still less
shall I proceed to conclude from his statements, that the
seven Catholic Epistles were not very generally regarded as
canonical in the age and country in which he lived. But I
insist once more on this incontestable fact, that the canon
was settled by custora and not by an act of authority, that
it was not a dograa ; for otherwise an opposition so decided
and so unjustifiable as that of Cosraas, would certainly have
raised a tempest and called forth disciplinary measures.
Moreover, there is apparent in this author a special motive
of antipathy against the Catholic Epistles. In his work he
exhibits a particular theory of the world against which a
passage from the second epistle of Peter (iii. 12) was urged.
Not having learning enough to meet the objection by a
critical examination of this epistle, he found it more con
venient to reject the whole volume in which it was included,
because he had heard certain rumours regarding its origin.
StiU we shall not be so severe on the facile decision of
Cosmas, when we reraeraber that the seven Catholic Epistles
only came into use at the public readings in the second half
of the fifth century. The Egyptian bishop, Euthalius, seems
to have divided thera about 462 for the first tirae into
sections or pericopes, to be read in due order at the usual
aissemblies of the faithful." Up to this date, these epistles
' oi xph vtv rev riXtiov ;(;;^iff-7-iavov, ix ruv dpt^il^aXXG/^ivuv 'i9rtffrvipiZ,lffSxi, ruv
iiiixSiruv xa) xetvus opioXoyovptivuv ypxifuv ixxvus vdvra pivivvovruv x. r. X.
' Euthalii episc. Sulcensis editio actuum et epp. ed. Zacagni (Collect, manum.
vet. ecd., Rome 1698, tom. i.), p. 529: r'nv rZv dvayvuffiuv dxpt^tffrartiv roptm
foptlts rtxvaXoynffavrts dvaxi^x\aiuffxpttffx. Q

242 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
were not always put together in one voluine, nor were they
everywhere adraitted into the ordinary course of official
readings in the Eastern Churches, ancient usage maintaining
its ground long after the time at which science had ceased
to have doubts regarding any one among thera. The work
of EuthaUus raust have been called forth by a need more
universaUy felt, but it may also have contributed to produce
and extend that need.
I shall mention only in passing the catalogues of Leontius
of Byzantiura (560), and of Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of
Antioch (f 599). The forraer is coraplete for the New Testa
ment, and for the Old it adheres to tbe Hebrew canon, except
that it omits Esther.' In this, the influence of Athanasius
is traceable, or rather there is one raore proof that the
authority of a writer justly renowned in the orthodox
church was the raost decisive argument in such questions,
and procured acceptance even for peculiarities which had
completely passed out of knowledge. The catalogue of
Anastasius reckons 60 canonical books in all, 34 for the Old
Testament (without the Apocrypha) and 26 for the New
(without the Apocalypse). That is the catalogue which was
drawn up at Laodicea.
The sarae century furnishes us also with two iUustrations
frora the Latin Church which raust not be neglected, though
the history of the canon has not rauch to ga;in frora their
testimonies. One of these is Cassiodorius, once minister and
senator at the court of the King of the Ostrogoths ; he died
in 562 in a convent founded by hiraself at Viviers: the
other is Pope Gregory the Great.
Araong other books for the instruction of his raonks,
Cassiodorius wrote a treatise on the Holy Scriptures," in
which he inserts three catalogues of biblical books, differing
' Leont. Byz. de sectis, ch, 2. ap. Galland. tom, xii,
= M, A.me\TiC3.ss,ioAorideinstitutianediv. liU. Opp.ed. Paris, 1600, tom. ii.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 243
more or less from one another, but, according to him, equaUy
venerated by the CathoUc Church.' The first is that of
Jerome, who reckons 22 books for the Old Testament and
27 for the New, completing along with the Holy Trinity,
the true author of these books and of the predictions con
tained in them, the total sum of 50, a mystic sign of the
year of jubilee and therefore of the remission of sins. The
second is taken from St. Augustine, who reckons 22 historical
and 22 prophetical books of the Old Testament, and 27
books in the New, which, added to the Trinity, make up
the perfect and glorious nuraber 72." The third is taken, it
is said, from the Septuagint, or, according to a more rational
if not raore authentic reading, from an old translation, i.e.,
from a copy which the author had beside him. By a .singu
lar inadvertence, Cassiodorius found in it only 70 books,
though this Bible had been as coraplete as that of Augustine,
because he had forgotten to transcribe the title of the
Epistle to the Ephesians. But he is as far from observing
this as from seeing what caused the great difference between
the first and second catalogues, a difference which, apart
from counting the books separately, arose from omitting or
adding the Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent ; still less does
he take any pains to justify his total figure, in which he
proceeds at once to recognise the seventy palm-trees of the
station at Elim (Exod. xv. 27).
Gregory (t604) gives no catalogue ; but from his various
works there may be brought together notices of sufficient
interest regarding the questions with ¦w;hich we are now en
gaged. Just as in regard to the text in the Bible he seeks
to recommend Jerome's new translation, while dealing gently
' Nunc videamus quemadmodum lex divina tribus gensribus divisionum a
diversis patribus fuerit intimata quam tamen veneratur d concorditer suscipit
universarum ecclesia regionum (I. c. , f . 384 v).
° Cui cum s. trinitatis addideris unitatem fit totitis libri competens et gloriosa
perfedia (ibid., f, 3S0 r).

244 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
with the prejudices of those who adhered to the old version,'
so his judgment is somewhat hesitating on the value of the
Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent, When quoting Maccabees,
for instance, he raakes excuse for appealing to the testimony
of a book not canonical, but published for the edification of
the Church ;" the authors of Tobit and Wisdom are some
times quoted as certain just or wise menf but in other
passages when quoting them, he does not hesitate to pro
nounce the name of Solomon or the sacred term Scripture.
As to the New Testaraent, we learn frora hira, and for the
first tirae, tbat Paul wvote fifteen epistles, but that the Church
adheres to the nuraber fourteen,^ because fourteen, broken up
into ten and four, represents both the Law (the Decalogue)
and the Gospel. This ingenious discovery was reproduced
by many posterior authors. Gregory does not tell us here
which is Paul's fifteenth epistle, but we shall meet with it
again more than once in the sequel of this history.
In the works of Isidore of SeviUe (i'636) there are three
catalogues, identical in substance and complete so far as the
traditions go, whicb were generally accepted by the Latin
Church.^ Still this celebrated bishop is too learned and too
anxious to show his learning to efface all traces of the criti
cism of previous centuries. Thus in the Old Testament, the
Apocrypha, with Esther, are put at the end as a fourth class,
their authors being unknown ; in the New Testament he
runs together, without observing the contradiction, the two
forraulas which speak of Paul's fourteen epistles and of the
' Novam editionem edissero sed ut comprobatianis causa exigit nunc navam
nunc veterem per testimonia assumo ut quia sedes apostolica cui proesideo
utraque utitur (Prcef. in Job).
' Moral, in Jab., xix, 17.
3 Quidam Justus (ibid., x, 6); quidam sapiens (ibid., v, 25 ; vi, 7j xix, 13).
¦• Quamvis epistalas quindedm scripserit sancta tamen ecclesia non ampliva
quam quatuordecim tenet (ibid. , xxxv, 25).
sjsidori Hisp. de affic., i. 12. Etym., vi, 2. Lib. procemior. in V. et N,
T. init.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 24»
seven churches to which the apostle is said to have written.
He raentions the doubts of the Latins regarding the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and the opposition made to several of the
Catholic Epistles;' but, when all is said, all the books
enumerated, even those of the fourth class, are equally
inspired, and their true author is the Holy Spirit." The
author's critical reserves are in truth nothing raore than
faint echoes of his readings in Jerome,
My readers wiU have observed that Isidore, while display
ing his erudition in what concerns the Apocrypha of the Old
Testament and the disputed epistles of the New, mentions
no doubt regarding the Apocalypse. For this, there was
probably a special reason ; it is impossible to suppose that
be was not acquainted ¦with the fact. Indeed, we know that
a council of Toledo in 633, at which Isidore was present,
took up the book in question in order to decree its canon
icity, and to pronounce excomraunication against those who
should refuse to receive it or to take from it texts for their
preaching at a certain period of the year.' I assume that
Isidore's sUence in regard to this controversy was intended,
that the decree might not be weakened by the untimely
recollection of a greater freedom in other churches. But the
decreee itself, with its quite unusual severity, seems to have
' Ad Hebrcsas ep. plerisque Latinis incerta propter dissanantiam sermonis.
Eandem alii Bamaham, alii Clementem canscripsisse suspicantur. Petri. . . .
secunda a quibusdam eius esse non creditur propter stili distantiam. Jacobus
mam scripsit epistolam quae et ipsa a nonnullis eius esse negatur. Joannis
epistolas tres idem Joannes edidit quarum prima tantum a quibusdam eius
esse asseritur (De Off., I.e.).
° Wisdom was rejected by the Jews from the canon because of its
Christological testimonies.
3 Concil. Tolet., I'V. ap. Mansi, X, p. 624, c, 17 : Apacalypsin librum
multorumconcilim-um auctaritas et synodica ss, praesulum romanorum decreta
Joannis ev. esse perscribunt et inter divinos libras recipiendum constituerunt,
sed quamplurimi sunt qui eius auctaritatem non recipiunt atque in eccl. Dei
praedicare contemnunt. Si quis eum deinceps aut non receperit, autpascha
usque ad pentecostem missarum tempore non praedicaverit excommunicationis
sententiam habebit.

246 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
had an immediate connection with the anti-Arian reaction
which had taken place among the Visigoths a short tune
before. The Gothic Bible did not apparently contain the
Apocalypse; at least the remains of it permit this supposition.
The Latin Catholics were naturally led to impose the ortho
dox Bible on the populations that had recently entered into
the pale of the orthodox church,and to attach a comparatively
exaggerated iraportance to points of difference. It is above
all to be observed here that the Arian Goths also did not
receive the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but on this point
the Latin Catholics were far from being radically opposed
to them. In the West, it was still an open question. Besides,
very little importance can be attached to anything Latin
authors say on these points. Isidore, who only compiled
books, raay still pass for a learned man for his age ; his
successors cannot claira that raodest merit. Thus the cata
logues given by the bishops Eugenius and Ildefonsus of
Toledo, the one in verse the other in prose, adhere to the
most complete enumeration ¦without adding any remarks
either critical or polemical. The latter is even a Uteral
copy frora the passage of Augustine which I have already
placed before my readers. Further, these Spaniards seem
to have had a raore decided interest in insisting on the limi
tation of the biblical canon. We know that in the fifth
century, and probably later still, their country was inundated
with apocryphal and heretical books," i.e., with legends of
suspicious origin (Gnostic or Manichsean) which spread the
poison of heresy by the very attraction of the marvellous
' We find, e.g., in Cassiodorius (l. c. ch, 8,) that he was obliged to get
Chrysostom's homilies on that epistle translated from the Greek, because
there existed no exegetical work in Latin which he could put into the
hands of his monks.
' Turribii episc Astur. Epistola de non recipiendis apocr. scripturis in.
Opp. Leonis M. ed. Ballerin,, i, 711. Leonis Ep. ad eundem (ibid., i.
706).

THE MIDDLE AGES. 247
stories, and with which the guardians of orthodoxy could
find no other fault.
While the West saw theological science graduaUy re
duced to the reading of some selected authors of the fourth
and fifth centuries, or to extracts made from their works
and variously modified, the East still maintained a last
relic of activity, though it shared equally in the general de
cay. But in our special and restricted sphere, this slight
difference hardly made itself felt. On the contrary, I have
a fact of some importance to mention which proves suffi
ciently that a positive science of the canon did not exist
oven in the Greek Church, and that the regulations whicli
professed to put an end to the eternal hesitations resulted,
at the end of the seventh century, just as they did three cen
turies before, in perpetuating the hesitations, even in con
secrating them. In 691 and 692, under the Emperor Jus
tinian IL, a council was held at Constantinople, in the part
of the palace called TruUum,' the first cecumenical council
which took up the question of the biblical canon, at least
implicitly. By one of its first decrees, it deterrained the
series of the authorities which were to make law in the
Church. Araong these authorities there are reckoned the
85 so-called apostolical canons ; then a certain number of
synods, notably those of Laodicea and Carthage ; finally a
great number of fathers, among others Athanasius and
Amphilochius. Now it is unnecessary for me to remind ray
readers that, so far as the list of the biblical books is con
cerned, this .sanctioned tbe most incongruous and contra
dictory opinions. All my readers know what a great differ
ence there is between the list of Laodicea and that of Car
thage, what difference there was between Athanasius and
many Greek Fathers of his century quite as orthodox as
he, what extra-canonical books were given to the church
' Concil. Trvllanum, ap. Mansi, xi. 939.

248 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
by the ancient rules attributed to the apostles : in a word
there is not a single one of all the writings regarding which
there were various opinions in the preceding cen turie.s, there
is not one which this decision does not both admit and re
ject, declare canonical and exclude from the canon.' It
might be said that the members of the council had not even
read the texts thus sanctioned. The fact is, that the Bible
and its canon did not engage their attention very much.
The essential point for them was to determine orthodoxy
and discipline on other points of more immediate importance
in relation to their own times ; a detail of so little bearing
in practice could not attract the attention of those who
were preparing the formulas to be submitted for the sanc
tion of the assembly. If the Church of Eome rejected that
council, it was certainly not on account of these difficulties,
for they existed in her own midst ; she had many other
reasons for being discontented with its decrees."
A decision like this, neither clear nor positive, was not
one that would efface from later theological literature
all the recollections of criticisra, aU the traces of a diver
sity which nevertheless was far frora being in harmony
with the spirit of a generation devoured by the need of re
ligious uniformity. At least I can produce for the cen
turies following further material proofs of the fact which I
have been anxious to establish throughout my narrative.
The celebrated John of Damascus (t754), the first Christian
theologian who tried to reduce the doctrines of the church
' The apostolic canons admit the seven Catholic Epistles, but they like
wise admit the Apostolic Constitutions ; while these latter exclude the seven
epistles. As for the Apocalypse and the Apocrypha of the Old Testament,
it is superfluous to pass in review the contradictory declarations.
' The second Council of Nicaea (787), chiefly occupied with the task of
re-establishing the worship of images, subscribed to the decrees of the
Council of Trullum without entering into a critical examination of them.
It only proscribed the Epistle to the Laodiceans which had found a place in
some copies of the Bible.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 249
to a systematic form, naturally takes up the question of the
canon in his great dograatic work.' He divides the Old
Testament into four Pentateuchs or groups of writings, each
composed of five books : the Law, the Scriptures, the
Poems, and the Prophets." In this classification, Job, con
trary to custom, is ranked among the poetical books ; Ezra
and Esther are relegated to an appendix ; the Apocrypha,
notably Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are not counted at all.'
In the New Testaraent, he enumerates in continuation of
the 27 canonical books, the 85 so-called canons of the
Apostles, and even, according to a various reading, the two
Epistles of Clement.
Half a century later, the patriarch Nicephorus of Con
stantinople (1828) inserted in his Abridgment of Chrono-
graphy, a catalogue of the holy books, which is curious in
more than one respect. His Old Testament is composed
of 22 canonical books, among which stands Baruch (inserted
under a special number between Jeremiah and Ezekiel), but
not Esther, The New Testament reckons 26 books, without
the Apocalypse, Then, under the title of antilegomena,
come the Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Psalms of
Solomon, Esther, Judith, Susanna, Tobit, the Apocalypses
of John and Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel
of the Hebrews, Finally, there comes a long Ust of
apocrypha, among which may be noted the Constitutions
the epistles of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Pastor.
This document is also included in the Latin translation of
the Ghronography, made towards the end of the ninth
century by the Roman librarian, Anastasius. The title of
' Joannis Damasc. De Orthod. Fide, iv. 17.
' h vopt,oltffia or five books of Moses ; rk ypxftTa, Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles ; al onx'tpi's fiifixoi. Job, Psalter, Solomon ; « ^pofnrtx^.
»See above (p. 170) the similar classification by Cyril of Jerusalem,
3 ivxptrct [<,iv xal xxXal dW oix dptifievvrat oiii ixiivre Iv Tsi xt/iiiru, a phrase
borrowed from Epiphanius,

250 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
each book is accorapanied by a figure indicating the number
of lines it contains. These figures are wanting only in the
CathoUc Epistles, where the translator took care to add
thera. This catalogue, however, does not appear to be the
work of the historian who has transmitted it to us. It
must be rauch raore ancient, as may be seen by the critical
results it represents, by the mention of several works which
probably were not in existence in the tirae of Nicephorus
(such as the Gospel of the Hebrews), as well as by the
absence of any bibliographical note for the Catholic Epistles,
a fact which can hardly be explained except by supposing
an origin antecedent to the tirae when these epistles were
generally included in Bibles, But even with this supposition,
the document of which I am speaking has a peculiar interest
for the knowledge of the state of the question of the canon
in the tirae of Nicephorus, By inserting it in his work, the
patriarch as much as says that he has no better list to give,
and that he does not consider this list to be incompatible
mth the orthodoxy of the Church of which he is the
head. The feeble re^vival of literary activity in the West which
characterises the Carlovingian epoch, furnishes us with
hardly any new materials for the history of the canon. The
theologians of Gaul and Germany knew only the translation
of Jerome, and the catalogues they give are usually in agree
ment with the Vulgate, The most fertile exegete of the
ninth century, Raban Maur, archbishop of Mayence (J85G)
gives a complete catalogue of 72 biblical books, at the same
tirae raentioning the doubts of earlier writers regarding the
antilegoraena ; but in this there is nothing very reraarkable,
for it is ])lain from the very first that all this critical science
is Uterally borrowed from Isidore, beyond whom the
researches of French learning hardly found it necessary or
' Kab. Maurus, de Instit. cleric, ii., 53 f.

, THE MIDDLE AGES; 251
prudent to venture. The old distinctions were no longer
kept up.' In the same way, though his contemporary, the
Bishop Aimon of Halberstadt (1853) is at pains to defend
the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews," this does not
mean that the epistle had raet with opposition in the raonas-
teries along the Saale ; the author is only taking pleasure in
the adornment of his work with sorae raorsel of science
picked up in the course of his reading,' Still I might quote
examples of a more independent judgment. Thus the
anonymous author of a work on biblical miracles * formally
declares his desire to exclude tbe stories of Bel, the dragon,
and the Maccabees, because they have no canonical authority.
Thus, too, Notker Labeo, a monk of St, GaU (|912), applies
this same criticisra to the books of Esther and Chronicles,^
The narae of Charleraagne hiraself maj' find a place in
this history of the canon. The powerful emperor, who set
much store on being the defender and bulwark of the Church,
did not think it beneath his dignity to watch over the
purity of the Scriptures,^ which does not raean, however,
that he engaged in the criticism of the canon. I have in
another work' had occasion to prove that he was con
cerned only about the exactness of the Latin copies, which
were growing more and raore faulty through the ignorance
' Has (II. apocr. V. T. ) maderno tempore inter S.S. enumerat ecclesia
legitque eos sicut ccsteras canonicas (Id,, Prol. in Sap.)
°Haimon. Halb. Hist, sacr., iii. 3.
3 There exist many other lists in the authors of the ninth and following
centuries, but it is useless to reproduce them here ; they are only copies of
one another.
?Anonymus Anglus, de Mirab. S.S. in Opp. Augustin, tom. xvi., ed.
Bass., B. ii,, 32 f,
5 Notker Labeo, de Viris Illustr., ch, 3 : Non pro auctoritate sed tantum
pro memoria et admiratiane habentur.
^ Volnmus et Ua missis nostris prcscepimus ut in ecclesiis libri canonici
veraces habeantur (Baluzii Capitul. r. franc, i., 210).
1 Fragments relatifs ct Vhist. de to Bible fr. (Bevue de th4ol., first series,
ii., pp. 65 f).

252 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of the scribes.' As to the coUection itself, it is to be beUeved
that the emperor adhered to general usages. Moreover,
Pope Adrian I. had sent hira a coUection of ecclesiastical
laws, among which was also the letter of Innocent I. to
Exsuperius of Toulouse. Of this letter I have already given
the substance ; it contained a coraplete list of the sacred
books. It is true that a capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle (789)
is often quoted, wherein an appeal in regard to the biblical
canon is raade to the decision of the Council of Laodicea.
This would practically raean that the Church of the French
empire officially rejected tbe Apocrypha of the Old Testa
ment and the Apocalypse. In this way it has been inter
preted by several authors. But the results of modern
criticisra justify us in thinking that the appeal to the decree
of Laodicea refers only to the prohibition against reading
in church other books than those received as canonical, while
the Ust itself, which now forms the sixtieth article of the
acts of that Synod, was neither known to the coraposers of
those of Aix-le-Chapelle, nor reproduced by them.
Before going further, let us glance at another class of
documents more eloquent than the Fathers and more posi
tive than the councils on questions relative to the canon : —
these are the Bibles theraselves which have survived from
that period. I have already had occasion to point out the
importance of their testimony ; I am wilUng to grant that
this iraportance diminishes in proportion as we advance to
wards modern times ; stiU it will not be superfluous to say
some words about it in passing. In speaking here of
Bibles, I am using a term hardly suited to the facts. At
least, there is scarcely anything but the Latin translation,
of which there stUl exist some copies complete, or supposed
to be complete, and belonging to a date before the eleventh
' Igitur quia cures nobis est ut nostrarum ecclesiarum status ad meliora
semper prof ciat . . . universes V, et N.T. libras librariarumimperilia
depravatas carreximus (Capitul., I.e. p. 203).

THE MIDDLE AGES. 253
century. In the Greek language (the Septuagint and the
New Testaraent) there is not a single one beyond the three
or four very ancient MSS. of which I have already spoken.
But an examination of the detached parts which have come
down to us, several belonging to the Carlovingian period,
cannot fail to be very instructive. Thus it is very useful to
note the fact that there exist twice as many copies of the
Gospels (upwards of 500) as of the Epistles ; that the Epistles
of Paul, of which we possess about 260 copies, were tran
scribed much more frequently than the Catholic Epistles ;
that the Apocalypse was copied and consequently read and
employed much raore rarely than these last, not a hundred
copies being in existence. These figures clearly show that
the conception of the canon of the New Testaraent was not
essentially a dograatic fact (according to which all the parts
of the text should have been regarded as equally sacred and
necessary) but rather a point in ecclesiastical practice,
subordinated to needs that were independent of the theories
of the school. If the Apocalypse forraed the only exception
here, we might believe that copies were rare, solely on ac
count of the disfavour with which criticism received that
book in the East. But this very disfavour was based on
prejudices not connected with historical science, and cer
tainly in the contrary case, there would be no explanation
for the comparative scantiness of the copies of the Pauline
Epistles whose authenticity nobody doubted. Among the
volumes containing these epistles, there are several which
include only thirteen. Thus, to speak only of manuscripts
anterior to the tenth century, the Epistle to the Hebrews is
entirely wanting in Codex G (Dresden) ; it is given only in
Latin, and not in Greek in Codex F (Cambridge); it is
added by a much later hand in Codex D (Paris) ; it did not
succeed in obtaining a settled place among the other
epistles to which it was added ; for it is put sometirae,^

254 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
between Thessalonians and Timothy, sometimes after the
Epistle to tbe Colossians, most frequently after the Epistle
to Philemon, as an appendix added by way of afterthought
to a coUection already complete. This variation, apparently
quite fortuitous, in the place assigned to it, is a sure index
of the persistence of tbe traditional doubt. The numerous
Latin manuscripts preserved to us have not yet been suffi
ciently exarained in relation to the history of the canon ;
stUl I ara in a position to mention some facts which provo
that researches made in this direction would not be fruitless.
Thus we often find that fifteenth epistle of Paul already
mentioned, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, a little apocryphal
document of unknown origin ; it is a poor compilation of
Pauline phrases, made solely with the purpose of filling up
a supposed lacuna in apostolic literature.' It has no fixed
place in the Bibles, standing sometimes after Galatians,
sometimes quite at the end, often too before the Pastoral
Epistles. From the Vulgate it passed into the German and
Roraance translations of the Middle Ages. I have met with
it in the version of the Albigenses." It was so generaUy
considered to be authentic, to be an integral part of the
Bible, that it was included in it at the time of the invention
of printing and long afterwards. I might quote a series of
editions, Latin, German and others, containing it, and the
number of them is probably greater than I am aware of.'
It is besides not the only book of this nature which was
confounded with the Bible. In a MS. of the Dresden
Library, the Pastor of Hermas is inserted between Psalms
and Proverbs ; the number of the books of the Maccabees is
sometimes increased to four; the Uttle work, caUed the
' CoL, iv, 16,
' Revue de Theol. First series, v. p. 335.
3 It exists in no Greek MS. Codex G of the Pauline Epistles ends with
the title " Ta the Laodiceans,'' corrupted into ¦rpos Aaouiaxnffas afxtrai
'tviffroXYi ; Vjut the text is not there.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 255
Prayer of Manasseh and unknown to the East, had the
chance of continuing in its usurped place down to our own
time. In speaking of these manuscripts, I have already crossed
the limit of the Carlovingian period from which previously
the testimonies were gathered. There still remain to be
gleaned some interesting details in the vast field of the
period of scholasticism. As every one knows, that period
is characterised by the total absence of historical studies
and an excessive demand for theoretical subtlety, and for
system-making. StiU this characterisation is not enough
here. Other elements are to be recognised in the spiritual
life of the generations preceding the epoch of the Reforma
tion, Exegesis there was none, or rather what bore that
name was composed of mystical drearaings, allegorical in
terpretations appUed by preference to the texts least fer
tile for Christian edification ; and these lucubrations, some
times ingenious and clever, often impregnated with a spirit
of profound piety, but more frequently dull, far-fetched and
•absurd, came raore and raore to be regarded as the necessary
accompaniment of a text, the students of which persuaded
themselves that it had been written only to serve for such
studies. The gloss^ or comment, above all when raade
under a name known and venerated, when it took the de-
¦cisive charms, so to speak, of a lexicographic assertion, be
came an integral part of the text, was confounded with it,
first as a marginal note, then by various kinds of intercala
tions. Historic knowledge regarding the biblical books
and their authors was nothing but a tissue of legends (many
•of which, be it said parenthetically, have passed into the
science of French and English Protestantism), and spread
aU the more easily that the dominating tendency towards
' On the meaning and history of this term, see my article in Herzog's
-Real-Encyclopadie, Vol. v. pp. 192 f. sec. ed.

256 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
allegory went very well -with the taste for the marvellous,
the sarae poetic lustre being shed on these two elements ap
parently foreign to one another. In general, there no longer
existed any distinction between what was canonical or apo
cryphal — or rather, one might be tempted to say, the
legendary stories of the lives of biblical people were better
kno^wn and raore relished than the simple and sober narra
tive of the Gospel ; the didactic books of the Old as of the
New Testament had fallen into oblivion.' On the other
hand, the books of ritual, which were indispensable to wor
ship and were therefore more widely circulated and more
popular than the Bible itself, became almost of necessity an
integral part of the canon, since they were canonical in the
primitive and fundamental meaning of the word, i.e., they
were fixed by ecclesiastical authority. The terminology it
self introduced or consecrated this confusion ; and pubUo
usage, which was every day bringing together the biblical
texts and the formulas of the liturgy, gave to both the same
rank," Dora Mabillon found in the monastery of Bobbio a
very old liturgical book containing a catalogue of the holy
books in which the New Testaraent was reckoned as having
28 books ; fourteen and seven epistles, the Apocalypse, Acts,
the gospels, and a book sacramentorum — i.e., the raissal.
When the theological idea of the canon was so corapletely
forgotten, there cannot be any great interest in gathering
frora the principal authors of the scholastic period, in-
' For further details, I may refer to what I have said in my Fragments
sur V Histoire de la Bible fr. (Bevue de Th6ol., first series, iv.) and espe
ciaUy in my treatise. Die deutsche Historienbibd vor der Erfindung des
BucherdrucTcs, Jena, 1855.
= Aurel. Agricola De Chr. ecd. politia, ed. Bitter i. 156 : Sacros libros ap-
pdlamus illos qui canonicas continent V. et N. T. scripturas quce in sacra
liturgia leguntur. Hujus generis patissimum sunt evangelia atque aposto
lorum epp. et acta, tum ex V. T. prophetarum scripta. His addimus missai
canonem quem inter sacros libras merita recensemus. *
^Mus. Ital.,i.ZQQ. ''

THE MIDDLE AGES. 257
dividual opinions regarding the forra and tenor of the sacred
collection. Still, as ray narrative is the first of its kind in
France, I would rather run the risk of wearying my readers
than of making any notable omission. Besides, the names
to be cited are not unknown in the history of the Church
and of literature. From the details I am going to give, it
will be seen that the science of St. Jerome was quite enough
stiU for the schools, only instead of being imperfect, in
sufficient as it had been forraerly, it had, for a disinherited
generation, becorae bold and superfluous.
Peter of Clugny (tll56) reckons 22 authentic books in
the Old Testaraent, in addition to which there are six others
he cannot pass over in silence ; these, though unable to
attain the same distinguished rank, have still deserved, by
their excellent and necessaiy contents, to be received by the
Church.' Hugo of St, Victor (tll41) speaks to similar pur
pose when he says of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament
that they are read but not ¦written in the canon." As for
the New Testaraent, he reckons in it eight books in two
orders or series : on one side, the four gospels ; on the other,
the Acts, Paul, the canonical epistles, and the Apocalypse.
He speaks further of a third order which includes in tbe
first rank the Decretals, then the writings of the orthodox
Fathers. This third class is evidently not formed according
to the dignity of the books (since the two other classes make
up the New Testament), but in order to draw a distinction
between what is pecuUar to the Christian Church and what
it has in common with the Synagogues. At the same tirae
he declares that the books of this third order are not assirai-
lated to the canonical books, but to those which are simply
' Petri Cluniac. Ep. ii. B. i. ; . . . restant post hos authenticos II. sex non
reticendi libri (Wisd., Eccles., Judith, Tobit, Mace.) qui, etsi ad illam
suUimem prcecedentium dignitatem pervenire non potuerunt, propter lauda-
bHem tamen d pemecessariam doctrinam ab ecclesia suscipi meruerunt,
' Hugon. a S. Viotore Elucidd. de S.S. c 6.
B

258 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
read.' John of SaUsbury, bishop of Chartres (tll82), when
recalling the various lists of Cassiodorius, declares," that for
his part, he adheres to Jerorae as the author raost worthy of
faith in these raatters. In bis opinion, therefore, there are
22 books in the Old Testament ; the Apocrypha (to which
he adds the Pastor, telUng us he never saw it) are not in
the canon, though they are piously received as edifying to
faith and reUgion.' When speaking of the New Testament,
this author repeats all he had read in Jerome about the
doubts of the ancients relative to the antilegomena, without,
however, attaching raore iraportance to thera than we attach
to other curiosities of tradition. But he reckons fifteen
Pauline epistles, and on this point the opinions of his age
prevail very decidedly over the claims of the learned monk
of Bethlehem,*
Speaking generally, the science of those times was entirely
second hand, and no great weight can be given to the ap
pearances of criticisra found here and there in authors who
were mere compilers. The Church and its tradition were
everything ; individual knowledge was nothing ; and we
would do well to raaster this truth completely if we are to
appreciate its inevitable consequences and guard against de
ceiving ourselves about the effects which would be produced if
the sarae causes were again to corae into operation. The great
St. Thoraas Aquinas,^ no doubt, does not show his science in a
very brilUant light, when he states that before the synod of
' The same distinction of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is also made
by Bichard of Saint- Victor (Exceptt., ii. 9.), by Pierre-le-Mangeur (re
garding whom I may refer to my article in the Revue, vol. xiv.), and others.
Still it is not the opinion of all authors.
' Joann, Sarisber, Ep. 172, ad Henric. camit.
3 Quia rsligianem d fidem aedificant pie admissi sunt.
* Quindecima quae eeclesiae Laadicensium scribitur, licet (ut ait Jeronym/us)
ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab apostola scripta est I
5 Thorn. Aquin,, Prolog, in ep. ad Ilehr.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 259
Nicaea sorae doubted whether the Epistle to the Hebrews
was Paul's, as if the synod of Nicaea had had anything to do
with the raatter ; but we must not exaggerate the import
ance of the definition given by the unknown author of a
gloss inserted in the body of the canon law,' which gloss
distinguishes in the Bible, books of different value. Ideas
continued to be fluctuating, theories to be uncertain, for the
simple reason that all practical interest in the question had
died out.
While the science of the West, in so far as it existed, leans
on Jerome (since it maintains after a fashion the distinction
of the Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent), the science of the
East prefers to adhere to the official authorities whose
decisions it delights to recall, without reraoving their con
tradictions. Indeed, in the numerous coinraentators on
ecclesiastical law," there are not so much complete catalogues
as indications of the texts that decide the question of the
canon. These texts are especially the 85th of the Apostolic
Canons, and the decree of the council of Constantinople
(TruUanum, 692) and, subsidiary to these. Fathers quoted
hy that council, the synod of Carthage and sometiraes tbe
synod of Laodicea, but rarely its famous 60th canon which
gives the list of the holy books, but appears not to have
been kno-wn generally at this time. Frora what has been
said of aU these texts, it is raanifest that, even apart frora
the one last raentioned, they were not at all agreed about the
details. This simply proves that the authority of decrees
when given, and that of the Fathers, were in fact more im-
' Decret. Gratiani, P. i, dist. 19 c. 6 : Potest esse quod omnes recipiantur,
non tamen quod omnes eadem veneratiane habeantur.
' E.g. Zonaras, Alexius Aristenus, Theodorus Balsamon, Arsenius, Bias-
tares, whose works are brought together in the collections of the canonists.
The passages relative to our subject were first collected by Credner,
Geschichte des Canons, p. 251 f.

260 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
portant than the question of the canonicity of any particular
book. As tbe 85th canon serves here as basis and point of
departure, the addition of the Apocrypha and the Apocalypse
(this latter being omitted in that article), is soraetimes
mentioned as optional ; the exclusion of the Epistles of
Clement and of the Constitutions (whicb are included in it)
is justifled, either by the other texts, or by the heretical
falsification the latter had undergone. But both, exceptions
are mentioned with profound indifference for the question
itself, which the jurists left to the theologians, thej' in turn
no longer paying any attention to it,
1 shall cite further Nicephorus Callistus, an author of the
fourteenth century who, in his Ecclesiastical History,^ in
serted an extended note on the biblical canon. It is clear
from that note that he explicitly and unreservedly accepts
the New Testament complete, with the 27 books as we have
it. He has read Eusebius ; he knows and reproduces all
that was said before about the seven disputed books ; but
he thinks that the doubts regarding thera have finally been
dispelled, and he affii-ms that tbe Churches are unanimous
on this point,"
Several symptoms, however, appear in the midst of that
(lark period, and announce a coraing change in the direction
of theological studies. The religious and literary movement
which characterises the second half of the twelfth century,
was not slow in reacting on the sphere we are now explor
ing. I do not think I ara wrong in directing attention first
to a feeble effort, raade by a small nuraber of theologians,
to break through the narrow limits of Latin science, the
common Bible and allegorical interpretation, that they raight
inquire a little into the forra and meaning it had among the
¦ Niceph. Callisti Hist, eccles. ii. 45 f.
" ravra poiv t! xal dpuft^oXa rots trportpov Ho^av, (SXV oh it&ffais is {ffrtpov rats
Sir' eipavov ixxXtiffiats ro Avavrtpprirev iffxnxera iyvuxa/tiv.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 261
Jews. The remembrance of the difference, as we have just
seen, had never been completely effaced ; but even those
who assigned a special place to tbe six apocrypha were ac
quainted with the rest only in the usual form. Now it is
interesting to establish the fact that a beginning was raade
of locking raore to the primitive form of certain books,
and soon also of using new lights for comprehension of
the texts. Modest as it is, this opening of modern science
deserves to be noted. It is perhaps connected with some
more intimate relations between the Christian theologians
and the learned exegetes of the Synagogue, who flourished
at that tirae on both sides of the Pyrenees.
Thus we find in the works of Peter of Blois' (tl200) a
catalogue of the books of the Bible, which not only takes
into consideration the division of the canon of the synagogue
(though the order of the hagiographa is different in the
Hebrew Bible), but mentions also the title given to each
book by the Jews. At the same time, the author is not
sure of his facts, since he hesitates to detach Ruth and
Lamentations from the books of Judges and Jeremiah, with
which they are connected in the Latin Bible. He ranks in
a fourth order the apocryphal books which the Jews exclude
from the canon, while the Church of Christ honours tliera,
and preaches frora them as divine. It is obvious that the
antipathy against the Jews contributed to raaintain these
apocrypha in the canon." A sirailar catalogue is given by
the Dorainican, Hugo of St. Cher (tl263), in the prologue of
his series of sermons on Joshua. I transcribe it in a note
that my readers may at the same tirae have an idea of the
form which science assumed in the hands of these powerful
dialecticians, and of the literary taste with which their
" Petr. Blsesensis, de divisione et scriptoribus ss. II,
' This catalogue by Peter of Blois is not the only one of the century
which reproduces the Hebrew titles.

262 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
lucubrations were fraraed.' The list in it is arranged from
the Hebrew canon, though there is no doubt that tbe author
had his science at second hand, and was corapelled to use a
Uttle liberty for the sake of versification, which all the
same had not caused him very great anxiety. When he
places the Pastor araong tbe apocrypha of the Old Testa
raent, the illustrious cardinal spares us the trouble of going
into an ecstasy over his innovations; besides it is a peccadillo
that will be pardoned to hira rauch more readily than his
unfortunate division of the Bible into chapters, by which he
has gained an unhappy immortaUty.
In the following century, the Norman Franciscan, Nicolas
de Lyra (+1340), is already availing himself of his acquaint
ance with Hebrew ; but his merits belong raore to the his
tory of exegesis than that of the canon. The reserves he
raakes regarding the canon hardly surpass those of his
predecessors in boldness,"
A century later (for progress was not very rapid in those
days) carae the Greeks, classical studies, the Platonic phil
osophy, tbe great movements of opposition to Rome, things
which exercised more or less influence on the march of
biblical studies. But the effects they produced fall only in
part into the scheme of ray narrative, and I prefer to speak
of them in a special chapter.
' Quinque libros Maysi Josue Judicum Samuelem
Et Malachim ; tres prcecipuos bis sexque prophetas
Hebrceus rdiquis censet prcecellere libris.
Quinque vocat legem, reliquos vult esse prophetas.
Pod hagiographa sunt : Daniel David Esther et Esdras
Job Paralipomenon et tres libri Salomonis.
Lex vetus his libris perfecte tota tenetur.
Restant Apocrypha : Jesus Sapientia Pastor
Et Macchabceorum libri Judith atque Tobias.
Hi quia sunt dubii sub canone non numerantur,
Sed qui vera canunt ecclesia suscipit illos.
' Nic. Lyr. Postilla (passim) in the prefaces to the Apocrypha : Non
sunt de canone sed per consuetudinem romance ecdesice leguntur.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 263
I shall conclude this present chapter by reminding my
readers of a second symptora of awakening, more imraedi
ately fertile than that we have just been discussing. I raean
the religious raovements connected with the narae of the
Waldenses, Albigenses, and other sects who tried to free
themselves frora the yoke of Roman tradition. As this op
position was based on the Bible, at least in part (though
not so much so as the Protestant historian would Uke
to affirm), the dominant church found itself under the
necessity of recurring to the Bible for its defence and
polemics. As the first versions in the popular tongue owed
the light to these tendencies, they occupy a very important
place in the history of the Holy Scriptures.' At present I
confine myself to reproducing briefly what is connected with
the history of the canon. The Albigenses or Cathari, as
dualists, rejected generally the Old Testament, whose origin
they attributed to the evil principle (the devil) ; still from
several contemporary testimonies it would appear that this
opinion was not shared by all the members of the sect, and
that some confined themselves to a selection which meant
the rejection only of the Law and the historical books. The
proofs of these facts ¦wiU be found in my preceding works
on the subject; it is superfluous to repeat them here. Be
sides, this wholly subjective and dograatic criticism,
exercised by men who had broken with the church, did not
change the natural course of ideas, and could only prove one
thing — viz., that in the raost opposite camps the Bible had
-to bend to the exigencies of systems. Tbe Cathari did not
make their selection to secure the purity of the texts, but
rather to favour their heretical theology ; and they were in
no position to reproach the Catholics with adding certain
non-canonical books, for tbey themselves sought edification
' See my articles in the Revue, First Series, ii. p. 321 j v. p. 321 ; \i. p.
()5.

264 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
in reading Apocryphal books, such as tbe Vision of Isaiah.'
As to the New Testament, we do not need to consult the early
writers, since we possess still a complete copy of it in which
the Apocalypse is placed between Acts and the CathoUc
Epistles, and the fifteen epistles of Paul at the end," They
had moreover a work attributed to the Apostle John. The
text of this work has been re-discovered ; it was of a nature
to .support their special dogmas.'
As to the Waldenses, I may simply repeat here what I
have proved at length elsewhere — viz., that the common
opinion which gives them the honour of having made a
careful separation between tbe Apocrypha of the Old Testa
raent and the canonical books, is false and erroneous on
every point. It is founded on a pretended Confession of
Faith, dated 1120, which is now known to be forged, at
least antedated, and to belong at the earliest to the year
1532.'' The Waldenses of the Middle Ages were acquainted
and could be acquainted with the Vulgate only, as it was
generaUy received in their tirae; it is even very doubtful
whether they had a coraplete version of it. But of the four
supposed Waldensian manuscripts of the New Testament,
there are two which also contain Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
' Moneta, Summa adv. Cathar., p. 218 ; Dicunt prophetas bonos fuisse,
aliquando autem omnes damnabant prater Isaiam cuius dicunt esse quem
dam libellum in qua habetur quod spiritus Isaice raptus a corpore usque ad
septimum cesium ductus est in qua vidit qucedam arcana quibus vehementissime
innituntur. ° In this order . . . Phil., Thess., Col., Laod., Tim. &c
' Thilo reprinted it in his Codex apocryphus, p, 884 f.
¦• Ara sensegon li hbres apocryphes li qual non son pas receopu de li he-
brios, mas nos li legen (enaima dis Hierome al prologs de li proverbi) per
lenseignament del poble, non pas per confermar laulhorita de las dodrinas
ecdesiasticas. — For the proofs that this Confession of Faith ia not authentic,
see Revue, First Series iii. p. 326 f, I take this opportunity of saying
that Mr. Gilly's work ( The Romaunt Version of the Gospel of St. John, with
an introductory history of the Version of the Waldenses) swarms frora be
ginning to end with faults and errors.

THE MIDDLE AGES. 265
In spite of these reserves, which I am bound to make for
the sake of historical truth, it is none the less just to say
that these religious moveraents, though powerless in chang
ing the traditional form of the Bible and ignorant of any
necessity of innovation in that direction, contributed much
to pave the way for a more serious reform.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE RENAISSANCE.
From all the facts or testiraonies with which the literature
of the Middle Ages, and above aU the period of the domina
tion of scholasticism furnishes us, we have been able to draw
these conclusions : that a vague remembrance of the uncer
tainty of the canon had been preserved in the schools, that
the learned deUghted to parade on occasion whatever shreds
of historical knowledge they had been able to coUect in their
reading, but did not know how to use them in combating
traditional opinions, or in raaking the least change in re
ceived usages. In fact, all the Latin Church received the
Bible in the form in which it has been preserved to our
day, and the Greek Church, which forraerly had considered
it iraportant to give a more exclusively theological value to
the notion of the canon, had insensibly corae to be in harmony
with the sister church as to the extent of the collection.
Still it wiU not be out of place to say once more that this
result was brought about by usage, and not by any official
and peremptory decision made by authority. On this point,
things were no further advanced at the end of the fourteenth
century than they had been at the end of the fourth ; appeal
was made at one and the same tirae to the rules laid down
at Laodicea and Carthage, which contradicted each other,
and to those of TruUura which assigned the sarae authority
to tbera both. Exclusive use was made of the text of Jerome,
who presented in a confused mass the elements of the
double canon, and carefully distinguished between them in
his prefaces. From the standpoint of a scriptural theology
such as ours, such a state of things would have been intoler
able. The reality of the fact, and the absence of all greater

THE RENAISSANCE. 267
inconvenience which might have resulted from it, prove of
themselves that the theology of the Middle Ages, or rather
Christian theology at the time when official Catholicism
was coming into existence, was not based on biblical teach
ing as such to the exclusion of all other, but on an ecclesi
astical tradition sufficiently powerful in itself to have noth
ing to fear from the fluctuations of opinion which scarcely
touched the outer fringes of the system. The Bible had its
. practical value ; it was of use for private and common edifi
cation; in that respect it lost nothing by being enriched and
extended. As to its dogmatic teaching, the elementary truths
it consecrated had, frora the first and quite independently,
become indisputable axioms for every meraber of the
church ; and the science of the schools when it did corae to
discuss questions for which Holy Scripture gave no clear
and direct reply, soon ceased to consult it, turning by pre
ference to the authorities which bad succeeded in deciding
them, and in promulgating their opinions. The discussion
of the scriptural canon presented no practical interest
whatever, and that explains how a question which to us
seems all-important, should have remained without answer
lor six centuries.
But it also explains why this same question remained
undecided even when the atterapt was made to resolve it
officially. Down to the close of the Middle Ages, the see of
Rome had not deUvered any categorical opinion on the
canon of the Bible. The letter of Innocent I. to the bishop
of Toulouse had not been promulgated solemnly as a general
law of the church ; the decree of Gelasius or of Hormisdas
could scarcely have had any greater authority, as may be
seen firom successive alterations of its text. The papacy
was not therefore bound by its antecedents in such a way
as to be obUged to regard as heresy all freedom of opinion
on the subject of the canon, while at the sarae time it re-

268 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
raained in the narrow circle of the traditional reserves ; it
had no raotive powerful enough to make it break through the
neutrality. At the tirae of the CouncU of Florence (1439),
or at least in consequence of the efforts then made to win
back the schismatic Greeks, it chanced that Pope Eugenius
IV. published a buU regarding the canon. This bull may be
considered to be the first document of the kind emanating
from tbe holy see in a perfectly authentic way, and professing
to represent the belief of the whole church of which the Pope
was head. It does not indeed form part of the acts of the
council,' and on that account voices were raised even at
Trent in the denial of its authority. But the opposition did
not succeed, and, since the decisions formulated on these
two occasions are after all textually the same, I have no
reason for lessening the importance of the earlier decision.
At any rate, from my own point of -view, that creates no
difficulty ; though from the standpoint of ecclesiastical
tradition, it may be said that if the Council of Trent had
recognised the bull of Eugenius IV. as a synodal decision, it
would never have permitted. the question of the canon to be
debated anew within its pale. Be this as it may, the buU of
which I am speaking declares all the books contained in the
Latin Bibles then in use to be inspired by the sarae Holy
Spirit," without distinguishing thera into two classes or
categories ; Tobit and Judith are placed between Nehemiah
and Esther ; Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus between Canticles
and Isaiah ; Baruch before Ezekiel, and two books of the
Maccabees at the end of the Old Testament. In the New
there are reckoned fourteen Pauline epistles, that to the
' It may be found in the collection of P. Hardouin, Act concil., ix. 1023,
and elsewhere.
= Unum atque eundem Deum V. et N. T. h. e. legis et proplietarum atque
evangelii profitetur (ss. ecclesia romana) auctorem, quoniam eodem Spiritu
s. inspirante utriusque Testamenti sancti loquuti sunt, quorum libros suscipit
et veneratur, qui titulis sequentibus continentur. . . .

THE RENAISSANCE. 26£>
Hebrews being last, and the Acts coming immediately be
fore the Apocalypse. This catalogue hardly interests us
but for one fact of very'slender importance : throughout the
list it consecrates no book which had not bad its place in
the Latin Church for a thousand years ; but it did not go so
far as to give canonical honours to the Epistle to the
Laodiceans, which we have found some of the most illus
trious scholastics extolling. To repeat once more, there ia
therefore ground for saying tbat the Church of Rome con
cerned herself very little with the caprices or the theories of
its great writers, and continued to walk with a firm step in
the path marked out by the ancient usages of its ritual.
All that did not prevent theologians, in the second half of
the fifteenth century, from expressing themselves on the
.subject of the Apocrypha with the frankness of their pre
decessors. Their frankness was more simple than daring ;.
for, while protesting their profound admiration for these
books, they reject them from the canon, and, while apparently
desirous of contesting their authority, they extol their
qualities, -so that for lack of any precise conception of the-
canon, the mass of Christians and even the majority of clerics
must have despaired of grasping the true difference. In a
note I quote, as an exaraple, the opinions of Alphonsus
Tostatus, bishop of Avila in Spain (11455) and of the Car
thusian Dionysius de Rickel, surnaraed the ecstatic doctor
(tl47l), two of the most fertile exegetes of their day; the
one having left twenty-seven, the other twelve folio voluraes
of coraraentary on the Bible.'
' Alphonsi Tostat. Praef. Quaest. i., in Scr  Alii sunt libri qui.
ad S.S. pertinent qui in canone non sunt sed quartum locum ebtinent . . . hos
apocryphorum loco censent. Quanquam horum doctrina ad convincendum . . .
minus idonea sit et auctaritas nan ita ut caeterorum solida, s. tamen ecclesia.
etsiprioribus minorem eis tamen auctaritatem accammodat. Dionys,, Carthus.,
Prolog, in Sirac. ; Liber iste non est de canone quanquam de eius veritate non
dvhitatur.

270 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
But it was quite another matter when, at the opening of
tbe following century, the vivifying breath of a new literary
and scientific life was added to that general need of religious
reform, which to all tirae constitutes the glory of that epoch.
We shaU see by-and-by how, in the bosom of Protestant
societies, this moveraent exercised a powerful and profound
influence on the question of the canon. I content myself
here with stating that, even beyond this sphere, the arena
of learned debate was opening up, and that the first totter
ing steps of historical criticism were attempted by a science
which had to pass through a second childhood, before being
to any extent sure of itself No doubt this criticism had no
very remarkable results, but it must not be forgotten that the
absolute necessity for conservative stability, felt all the more
keenly that the attack frora without was energetic and the
orisis perilous, tied the hands even of the most enlightened
CathoUc doctors, who were afraid of compromising graver
interests by yielding too much to the irapulses of subjective
thought, even in ordinary questions. But just because
the position of affairs was governed by considerations of this
kind, I raust set down even the slighest attempts at innova
tion araong those who belonged to the party of resistance.
Among the representatives of the higher Romish clergy
who are quoted as witnesses during the first years of the epoch
of the Reformation, a eulogistic appeal is raade to the Cardinal
"Thomas de Vio, bishop of Gaeta, and known by the name of
that see (Cajetanus.) From him there has come down a
.series of biblical comraentaries in tbe Uteral sense, and the
lesearch displayed in them was of itself an iraraense ad
vance for the science of those tiraes. These comraentaries
are accompanied by introductions to the various books, in
which the author does not shrink from dealing with questions
of criticisra. In regard to the Old Testaraent, he gets out
of any difficulty by raeans of a definition of canonicity which

THE RENAISSANCE. 271
might be applied to any kind of book ; " still behind the
procedure there was a mental reservation, which becomes
more obvious in what he says regarding the antilegomena of
the New Testament. Thus he disputes overtly the Pauline
¦origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; hs avails hiraself of
St. Jerome's doubts to cover his criticism ; but he discusses
very seriously some of the internal arguments which justify
him in reproducing these doubts. Only he professes to say at
the end tbat he is not anxious to insist on the result obtained,
-and that he wUl conform to usage in choosing the narae of
the author." His book contains siraUar opinions regarding
the Epistles of James, of Jude, and tbe second and third of
John.' Still he defends the canonicity of the second Epistle
of Peter. This is intelligible so soon as we recoUect that
the doubts expressed regarding tbe other epistles relate only
to the apostolic dignity of the authors, who seera to hira to
have been of an inferior rank, and that they do not affect
the authenticity of the names given to them. On the other
hand, the case is quite different with Peter. The author of
the second epistle pretends positively to be the apostle, and
the criticisra of the learned cardinal was not strong enough
to discuss such a pretention.
Similar reservations, or if you will, criticisms, are found
in the exegetical writings of Erasmus of Rotterdam. They
are bolder even, more decidedly independent of tradition ;
¦on the other hand, the protestations of submission to the
' Possunt did canonici — i.e., regulares, ad aedificationem fdelium.
" Prooem. in ep. adHebr., foi, 374, ed, Lugd, 1556 : De auctare huius epis-
¦tolae certum est communem usum eeclesiae nominare Paulum ; Hieranymus
tamen non audet affirmare, etc. Et quaniam Hieronymum sortiti sumus
regulam ne erremus in discretione II. canonicorum (nam quos ille canonicas
tradidit canonicas habemus), idea dubia apud Hieronymum epistolae auctare
exHstents dubia quoqus rsdditur epistola, quoniam nisi sit Pauli non perspi-
cuum est esse canonicam. . . Nas tamen loquentes ut plures Paulum auctorem
Mominabimus. '' Ibid., foi. 410, 454, 455.

272 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
judgment of the :Church, I might almost have said, the
author's paUnodes, are raore expUcit, more ardent. Erasmus,
whose historical knowledge, , critical instincts, and literary
taste were incessantly drawing hira farther away fron»
Rorae, was easily brought back again by his need of repose
and his religious indifference. He in no way felt the vocation
of the raartyr, and easily endured that he should not be
perraitted to say what he could not be prevented from
thinking. His controversies with the theologians of the
Sorbonne, the vigilant guardians of orthodoxy, are very
in.structive in this respect,' " The arguments of criticism,
estimated by the rules of logic, lead rae," he says, " to dis
believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews is by Paul or Luke,
or that the second of Peter is the work of that apostle, or
that the Apocalypse was written by the evangelist John.
All the same, I have nothing to say against the contents of
these books which seera to rae to be in perfect conformity
with the truth. If, however, the Church were to declare
the titles they bear to be as canonical as their contents, then
I would conderan ray doubts, for the opinion forraulated by
the Church has raore value in ray eyes than human reasons,
whatever they raay be."
Thus, at the very opening of the new era, there arose this
cardinal question, which, as we shaU see, was clearly put
and courageously approached by the Reforraers : " Is canon
icity exclusively attached to the narae of a certain number
of privileged persons, so tbat a purely Uterary doubt involves
the rejection of a book, or does it depend on the book's
• Declar. ad censuram facult. theol. paris (Opp., ix., 864) : Juxta sensum
humanum nee credo epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucas, nee secun-
dam Pdri esse Petri, nee Apacalypsin esse Joannis apostoU. . . Si tamen
titvlos recipit Ecclesia, da/mno dvhitationem meam ; plus apud me vald ex-
pressum Eeclesiae judicium qua/m ullae rationes humanae. — Supput. errorum
£eddas(Opp. ix.,594) •. Scripsi semper fuisse duhitatum (deep, ad Hebraeos),
non scripsi ab omnibus dubitatum . . . et ipse, ta ingenue fatear, adhue
dubito, nan de auctoritate, sed de auctare.

THE RENAISSANCE. 273
intrinsic value so that it may exist even when the tradition
is accepted with reservations ? We have hardly any right
to be astonished that Catholicism in the sixteenth century
was .startled to see such a question raised. Protestantism
followed closely enough in that direction. Neither Erasmus
nor Luther foresaw the consequences it entailed ; but their
adversaries and their successors, without perceiving them
more clearly, were guided by unerring instinct when they
sought to crush them from the fir.st, I shall return after
wards to what concerns Protestant science. In the Catholic
camp, the official declarations of the authorities and the half-
arguments of conservative erudition vied with each other in
trying to bridle the boldness of those who, from a literary
necessity rather than in religious revolt, were emancipating
themselves from the yoke of tradition. The Sorbonne pro
scribed purely and simply all doubts regarding canonicity,'
A provincial synod, held at Sens in 1528 and transferred
later to Paris, denounced as schisraatical and heretical every
one who should refuse to recognise the canon of Carthage,
of Innocent or of Gelasius, or who should have the presurap-
tion to interpret the Scriptures otherwise than the Fathers
did ;" while the learned Dominican of Lucca, Pagnini, knows
no other means of neutralising the inconvenient efiect of
Jerome's liberties than to send his readers back to the
authority of Augustine, who, without being raore certain of
his facts, has at least the assurance of prejudice.^
' D'Argentr6, Collect, judic, ii. 52; Jam non est fas Christiana de illis
dvhitare. ' Cone. Senonse, Deer., 4, ap. Hard., ix., 1939 : In enumerandis cano-
nicce scriptures libris qui praescriptum ecdesice usum non ssquitur, Cartha-
ginense concilium iii., Innocentii et Gelasii decreta et denique defnitum a ss.
patribus librorum catalogum respuit, aut in exponendis scripturis non pascit
haedos juxta tabernacula pastarum, sed fodit sibi cisternas dissipatas quae
continere non valent aquas, et spretis orthodoxorum patrum vestigiis proprii
spiritus judicium sequitur, is veluti schismaticus et haeresean omnium inventor
. . . reprimatur.
^ Santis Pagnini Isag. ad ss. litt., 1536, c, 15.

CHAPTER XV.
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM,
According to the pragraatism of history, we should now
tum our attention to the influence which tbe reforming
moveraent of the sixteenth century exercised on the notion
of the biblical canon. But this influence was so powerful,
and the consequences drawn frora the new principles, partly
imraediate, partly evolved in the growth of ideas, continued
so long to dorainate over the progressive march of the whole
of Christian Theology, that I prefer to discuss this develop
ment as a whole, instead of interrupting my narrative with
facts foreign to the sphere of Protestant science, I propose
therefore to proceed at once with my statement of the facts
belonging to the history of the churches that remained faith
ful to tradition. These are not at all numerous, and they
are generally easy to grasp.
The questions connected with Holy Scripture had not
Deen the last to be raised in the great debates whicb agitated
Central Europe during the second quarter of the .sixteenth
century. In certain aspects they might be considered as the
most iraportant of aU, because they dealt with the supreme
criterion of truth, and led to nothing short of shaking the
very foundation on which rested the edifice of the Roman
Church. No doubt the mere discussion regarding the cata
logue of the sacred books, the canonicity of the Apocrypha
and the Antilegomena, a discussion which up to this point
we have been following out in aU its phases with scrupulous
attention, would not of itself have been a very new or very
iraportant raatter of controversy, had it not been connected
with other theological problems which were far more impor-

official and MODERN CATHOLICISM. 275
tant in their bearing, and were solved by the Reformers in
a sense contrary to tradition. Among these problems were
the authority of Scripture and its original text, which was
vindicated against tradition, the current Latin version and
patristic coraraents. Before questions so entirely novel as
these, the confused rerainiscences, the timid caprices of a
petty literary criticism vanished. Hence, when the theo
logians of the Council of Trent, after hesitating for a long
time, had decided to formulate the orthodox CathoUc dogma
in aU particulars in order tbat they might have a precise
system to oppose to heresy, they began with articles con
cerning the Holy Scriptures.
The council being constituted in the last days of 1545,
the first months of the following year were partly occupied
in drawing up, in preparatory meetings or congregations,
the decree which, its authors thought, would for ever put
an end to all quarrel or divergence of opinion regarding the
Bible and its canon. These preliminary debates were long
and interesting,' and prove more than anything else how
much reason I had for saying that never before had the
canon been officially fixed. If it had been fixed, the prelates
and canonists assembled at Trent would not have failed to
make appeal purely and siraply to the authority of the for
mer decision ; whereas we learn, not without sorae agreeable
surprise, that the question was treated as if it were still
untouched. For, after decreeing without much difficulty that
the tradition of the Church was of irrefragable authority,
they proceeded to draw up a catalogue of the canonical
books just as had been done formerly at Laodicea and Car
thage, as well as by Popes Innocent and Gelasius. But there
were four different opinions regarding the manner of drawing
' For details, I must refer my readers to the historians of the Council,
particularly to Sarpi (French edition of Basle, 1738, tom, i., p. 266. f.), and
Pallavicini (Istoria del cone, di Trento, vi,).

276 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
up this catalogue. Some wished the books to be di-vdded
into two classes, one containing those that had always been
received without contradiction, the other those which had
soraetimes been rejected or regarding which doubt had
existed. This proposal was virtually a return to the division
of Eusebius, and was of no value, practical or theoretical.
Its supporters^, among whom is named the Dominican Louis
of Catana, appealed to the example of St. Augustine,
St. Jerome, and St. Gregory, alleging that thes3 fathers had
followed an identical or analogous procedure. Other orators,
araending the preceding proposal, wished the books to be
distinguished into three kinds — those that had always been
acknowledged as divine ; those that after sorae dispute had
finally been included in tbe canon (the six epistles and the
Apocalypse, as well as certain pericopes of the Gospels to
which I shall have to return) ; finaUy, those which had never
been acknowledged — viz., the seven Apocryphal books of the
Old Testament,' with the additions to Daniel and Esther,
This second proposal agreed in principle and very closely in
nomenclature with that of the Protestants, especially of
Luther. A third proposal was simply to recommend the
example of the Council of Carthage — i.e., to neglect all dis
tinctions and place in the catalogue all books usuaUy con
tained in the Bible, without adding anything which would
open up the dogmatic question. This proposal, if it had
been carried, would have been an official consecration of the
existing state of things. The biblical canon would have
included all the books used in the offices of the Church ;
the thorny question would have been avoided of examining
whether they had all an equal right to be there, a question
of small importance so long as the authority of tradition
was reserved, but one that raight become compromising by
' -Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, two books of the Maccabees,
and Baruch.

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 277
bringing into confiict the most Ulustrious vouchers of
tradition. The last proposal was to declare all the books as
they are found in the Latin Vulgate to be equally canonical
and of divine authority. It is curious to find that there was
great perplexity about the book of Baruch, which is not
mentioned by narae in any of the old catalogues that had
been used as precedents ; but the consideration that the
Church soraetiraes uses it in her offices, turned the vote in
its favour, and in support of this vote it might also be said
that the Fathers had regarded this book as an integral part
of that of Jeremiah.
When all the theologians present had expressed their
opinions, a special sitting was held on the 9th March to take
the vote and proceed with the forraation of the catalogue.
On this occasion, the partisans of the first systera joined those
of the second and voted for the triple distinction, while the
proposal of those desiring to leave the dogmatic question un
touched did not receive sufficient support, and was brought
up again in the form of an amendment demanding the sup
pression of aU detailed nomenclature. There were therefore
three proposals laid before tbe council, and as no agreement
could be come to, the course was taken of drawing up three
different minutes of the decree to be given, and of proceeding
to the vote at a later sitting when the question should be
more thoroughly considered. This sitting took place on the
15th March, and the majority, we are- not told in what pro
portion, voted for the systera I mentioned last, and accord
ingly all distinction between tbe various books, whatever
might be its origin and purpose, was peremptorily sup
pressed and conderaned. Thus the council did not hesitate
to place itself in contradiction with raost of the orthodox
Greek Fathers and a good number of the most illustrious and
esteemed Latin Fathers. The dograatic principle of the
authority of Scripture had been put beyond attack by the

278 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
prominence which the Reformation gave to it, and the council
saw no other raeans of bringing tbe principle into harmony
with the traditional usages of the Church which at first had
been founded on a different basis. There was perhaps an
other raotive still for this decision, a raotive less exalted but
more pressing; this was the desire and need, one raight even
say the raoral necessity, for upholding the Vulgate. As
an actual fact, several sittings during the second half of
March were devoted to the question, which text was to be
canonized. Voices very eloquent and very learned were
heard, pleading the cause of the originals, and pointing out
the defects of the received translation. The need of a new
official tranislation, or eventually the liberty of revising the
work from tirae to time, was the natural consequence of
that opinion. But the same raajority that had just voted
tbe entire and absolute canonicity of the Apocrypha, shrank
frora the prospect of a work so difficult or a liberty so peril
ous, and preferred to decree the privUege of inspiration to
St. Jerorae, or to claira it for themselves that they might
provide a guarantee for the work of the too modest trans
lator. The power of the secret motives for this second de
cision will be understood when we estimate the value of the
reasons given publicly in support of it. God, it is said
among other reasons, had given an authorized Scripture to
the Synagogue and the New Testament to the Greeks ; it
would be doing injustice to Hira to think that the Roman
Church, His well-beloved, should not have received the like
benefit; the Holy Spirit therefore dictated the translation
just as He had before dictated the originals.
After discussing the question of the perspicuity of Scrip
ture or the right of interpretation clairaed for individuals, as
weU as the question of the anathema to be pronounced against
opponents, a solemn sitting, the fourth of the council, was held
on the 8th of April. It was the first sitting at which articles

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM, 279
of dogma were formulated, and two decrees were then proraul-
gated. The one was intended to raake the authoritj'- of tradi
tion and Holy Scripture equal, as well as to consecrate the
official catalogue of the books of Scripture, and ended in a for
mula of anatheraa. The other declared the Vulgate to be the
authentic and approved version, of which a proper and official
edition was to be printed, interdicted further the free and
uncontrolled interpretation of the Bible, and at the same
time established a censorship of the religious press. This
second decree was not accompanied hy any formula of an
athema, because it was thought too rauch to condemn as
heretical everyone who should give a new explanation of
some particular passage, perhaps unimportant.' I do not
give the catalogue itself, for all ray readers are acquainted
with it from the existing CathoUc Bibles, in Latin or other
languages. It is the same as that of Eugenius IV,, or that
of the Council of Florence, with this exception only, that the
Acts of the Apostles are placed imraediately after the Gospels,
' Dbcretum de canonicis scRiPTUEis : ss. synodus. . . . perspieiens hanc
veritatem et disciplinam contineri in II. scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus,
quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis accsptcs aut ab apostolis Sp. s. dictante
quasi per manus traditoe ad nas pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum exempla
secuta omnes libros \ . d N. T., quum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee
non traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel
ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu s. dictatas d continua suecessione in ecd.
cath. conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.
Sacrorum vero librorum indieem huic decreta adscribendum censuit ne cui
dvhitalio suboriri possit quinam sint qui ah ipsa synoda suscipiuntur. Sunt
vero infra scripti, etc. . . . Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus
suis partibus, prout in eccl. cath. legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina
editions habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit et traditiones prce-
dictas sciens contempserit, anathema sit. . . .
Deoeetum de editioi^e et Tjsn ss. LiBKOBUM : Insuper eadem ss. synodus,
eonsiderans nan parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesice Dei, si ex omnibus
latinis editionibus quce circumferuntur ss. librorum, qucenam pro authentica
habenda sit innotescat, statuit et dedarat ut haic ipsa vetus et vulgata editio,
quce longo tot scecvlorun. vsu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in puhlicis lectio-
nibus, disputationibus, prmdicationibus et expasitionibus pro authentica ha-
beatur et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prcsiextu audeat vel prcesumat. , . .

280 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I shall say nothing further of the other parts of the decree,
as they are not connected with the history of the canon.
As to the parts connected with the canon, I cannot but
insist on the point I have already brought forward, that in
the circurastances the Catholic Church could hardly come to
any other conclusion. Had the Protestant Reforraation not
taken place, the indecision regarding such questions might
have continued. Perhaps science would have had some
liberty in its developraent, even if that were to be slow and
timid ; but, when face to face with a rival and conquering
principle, there was no alternative but to give way or to
extol the opposite principle no less decidedly. What took
place in regard to this special question, reappeared at almost
every point along the whole line of attack ; and it has long
been an obvious fact that, when the Council of Trent suc
ceeded in erecting a barrier against the advance of Protes
tantism, which was for the tirae insurraoun table, it repressed
and crushed out all that remained of expansive vitality in
the Catholic theology, thus sacrificing a fair part of its
future to the necessities of the raoraent, which were not well
apprehended. The Protestants, who rightly deplore the
victory gained on this last gi-eat occasion by the spirit of
hierarchy over the reform desired hy peoples and kings,
would do well to meditate on the natural results of a policy
which styles itself conservative, but is in reality pregnant
with dangers and suicidal. When they break out into bitter
reproaches against those who dared to raise to the level of
a sacred original a Latin translation, iraperfect in sense as
weU as in language, they should not forget that, tUl recently,
they have practically done the sarae in regard to current
translations which are no less iraperfect, and have not even
the privilege of great antiquity.
In ray opinion, there cannot be the least doubt as to the
bearing of the decree of Trent. The councU raost certainly

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 281
wished to efface every trace of difference between the books
included in the current Latin Bible, so far as such difference
affected their authority and inspiration, and to raise the
Vulgate to the dignity of the original in this sense, that
the science of exegesis or dograa was not to have the
right of citing the primitive texts against the interpreta
tion given by the ancient translator. This last thesis has
had a considerable number of opponents araong Catholic
theologians themselves, -who think they can mitigate the
force of the decree by regarding it merely as a measure of
protection against the dangers of an unlimited liberty of
translation and interpretation. As this question is foreign
to my special subject, I shall not stop to discuss it. As to
the other point, it may be said that Catholic orthodoxy has
always considered the debate as definitely closed, all the
more that the solution of the council gave to the poleraic
against Protestants a means of attack, which was easy to
manage, and, above all, intelligible to the masses.' At the
same time it is interesting to state that, since the promulga
tion of the decrees of the council and down to our own day,
there have always been theologians of the Roraan Church
who affected to raaintain the distinction between what they
called proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books. Only,
according to them, this distinction was founded solely on
this, that the canonicity of some having come into recognition
more lately than that of others, it had no theological value.
No doubt from the standpoint of the Church's abiding infal-
libiUty, such a method of classification has nothing offensive;
stiU it is difficult not to see in it a last atterapt of historical
criticism to protest again.st the .silence imposed on it, or, if
you will, an argument paltry enough in the mouth of those
who were trying to make official theory prevail over the in-
' See the special works, such as, Bellarmine, De Verba Dei, i ; Jos. Barre,
Vindiciae II. deuteracan. V. T., Pans 1730 ; Alo. -Vincenzi, Sessia iv. cone.
trid. vindicata. Borne, 1842 tom. iii,, etc

282 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
defeasible claims of history. At any rate, there is ample
testimony to the fact in the CathoUc literature of the three
last centuries.
The Dominican Sixtus of Sienna' makes the distinction
indicated with a curious frank simplicity. The canonical
books of the second order, he" says — viz., Esther, Tobit,
Judith, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesias
ticus, the stories of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the
Son^ of the Three Children, the two first books of the
Maccabees, the last chapter of Mark (v. 9-16), the passage
in Luke about the angel assisting the Lord (xxii. 43 f), the
story of the woraan taken in adultery (John viU.), the
Epistle to the Hebrews, five of the Catholic Epistle.s, the
Apocalypse — all these were regarded as apocryphal by the
Fathers ; but they were read to the catechuraens, who were
not believed to be capable of understanding the canonical
books ; " later, they were given to all the faithful, but only
for edification, and not for the purpose of finding in them
confirraation of dograa; finally, it was decreed that they
should be received as having irrefragable authority. This
raanner of understanding or expounding the history of the
canon does not require discussion ; it is raore important to
say that it was very popular, and was reproduced more than
once by other scholars.' The authority of all these books,
they say, was not always the same ; now their dignity is
perfectly equal. Although new revelations are no longer
granted to the Church, she may, after some time, be more
assured of the truth of a work than she was before. The
' Sixti Senensis Bibliotheca sancta, 1566, p. 1.
" Easque apud solas catechumenas, nondum canonica lectionis capaces (!)
legi permiserunt ; deinde pracedente tempore apud amnes fideles recitari con-
cesserunt.... demvm inter S. S. irrefragabilis auctoritatis assumi voluerunt.
3 Bellarmine, I.e. Anton, ci, Matre Dei, Pradudia ad ss. II. intell., 1G10^
p. 85 f. L. E. du Pin, Dissert. Prilim., 170), I, I, § 6. Mt. Gerbert,
Princip. theol. exeg., 1757, p. 101. J. B. Glaire, Introd. aux livres de I'A.
et du N. T., IS43, 1, 79 f. Scholz, Einl, 1845, I, 263.

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 283
opinion of some theologians,' who think that the difference
between the two classes was not completely effaced at Trent,
that it was not spoken of because it was quite well known
— this opinion is declared rash, as all books are equally
inspired and canonical, and must have for Catholics the
same force and the same authority. Only it is agreed that
in controversy with Jews and Protestants, the books rejected
by the latter cannot be of so rauch use as the others."
The history of the canon in the Latin Church terminates,
therefore, with the Council of Trent. Then it was closed
and fixed, but not before. Since that epoch, the question
has no longer been agitated in a sense contrary to the official
decision.' The vast patristic erudition of that iUustrious
phalanx of Benedictines by which the age of Louis XIA''.
was glorified never touched on it. Richard Simon himself,
though his bold criticism alarmed all parties and all schools,
and his great work explores aU the details of the history of
the text and of versions of the Bible, seeras to have been
ignorant that there was also a history of the canon. This
silence can certainly not be explained by want of knowledge ;
quite as little can I attribute it to religious indifference.
But the historical fact, which should be discussed by appeal
to testimonies and examination of docuraents, had becorae
an article of faith, sanctioned by an anathema, and was
thereby placed beyond all discussion.
The Greek Church, again, built on the same dogmatic
basis as its sister-church, and living by tbe same traditions,
was not slow in arriving at a sirailar conclusion after fluc-
' Bern, Lamy, Appar. bibl., 1696, p, 335. J. Jahn, Einl. ins A. T.,
1802, I, 140, etc.
= Glaire, I. c, p, 118.
3 In our times, some Catholic scholars have dared to express doubts — e.g.,
regarding the origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Feilmoser, Einl., 1810,
p. 241, Lutterbeck, Neutestl. Lehrbegr., II,, 245) ; but they do not speak
of exclusion from the canon, and such opinions are too isolated to permit
me to say that Catholic science has entered on a new path.

284 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tuations stUl more serious and no less prolonged. It will be
remembered that at the time of the Reformation, the Greek
Church was able to extol at one and the same tirae the con
tradictory decrees of Carthage and Laodicea. In other
word.s, the old theory of its great theologians, who wished
carefully to distinguish between the norraative documents
of the faith and the simple books of popular edification, was
forced to give way insensibly in practice to usage. The
usage was all the more imperious that the science which
should have counterbalanced it had grown more feeble and
more estranged from biblical studies. The two series of
books were, in fact, confounded with one another in the
East as in the West, and anything that scholars knew and
said about their difference scarcely crossed the threshold of
their cells.
Only during the course of the seventeenth century did
the question of the canon becorae the subject of a sort of
controversy among the Eastern churches, and then, by a
strange combination of circumstances, it was settled in har
mony with the decree of Trent. That we may better un
derstand the importance of the changes which came at last
to be generally adopted, I shall begin by citing several de
clarations made by prelates in high places who were anxious
to maintain as far as possible the theory of the early Greek
Fathers. The first of these is a confession of faith by a
Macedonian monk, Metrophanes Kritopoulos, afterwards
patriarch of Alexandria, composed about 1625' when he
was travelling in Germany. It declares that the word of
God is partly written, partly preserved orally, in the tra
dition of the church. The written word is contained in the
books of the Bible, in number 33, representing the number
of years which the Saviour spent on this earth. Of these
bookfs, 22 form the Old Testament, 11 the New. This cal-
' Manumenta fidei eccl. or., ed. Kimmel, 1850, tom, ii. p. 104.

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 285
culation is obviously based on the naraes only of the authors
in each category of the apostolic books, Paul counting as
one, the Catholic Epistles as four. In the Old Testament,
he excludes the Apocrypha, at the sarae time saying that
they are to be esteemed for their practical utility without
claiming for them the honour of canonicity which the
church had never granted them.' The author is here faith
ful to the custoras of the early church, with this exception,
that he includes the Apocalypse in the nuraber of canonical
books. We find the sarae views in a stiU raore faraous
theologian, the Cretan Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of
Alexandria, later (after 1621) of Constaninople, and well-
known frora the tragic end to which he was brought by the
theological jealousies of his co-religionists and the under
hand policy of the Porte. He too published in 1629 a con
fession of faith, in which" he treats the Apocrypha in the
same way as his colleague and contemporary, and explicitly
adds' the Apocalypse to the New Testaraent by a certain
turn of phrase which shows that the addition, though not
made from his own personal predilection, was at least an
innovation, and that he was bound to notice it in passing,
since he had promised to give the canon of Laodicea.
There exist other documents of this epoch, which prove that
the insertion of the Apocalypse in the canon of the East was
neither rare nor isolated.'' In general, the doubt which be
fore had been justified by the recollections of tradition or
* avo^Xyrrovs ptiv ovx hyevpt,tia, oreKKit yap ii6txb. orXtlffrou 'tvxlvov x^ta 'ipovipti..
Xtrat ravrats. *fif xavovixhs 3e xal xvStvrtxas evii,rer' d^sSg^ara ti rov XptffroO.
ixx\r,ffia X..T. X.
" Cyrilli Lucaris confessia, in Monumentis (loc. cit. i, 42),
^ ais ffwdtrra/iiv xal rhv dvexiXvi^iv rev ttya^vf-ivov.
* A catalogue in very bad verse, and to all appearance a little earlier in
date, is reported by the author mentioned in the note below, and ends wj*h
these lines : iioXeyixTi 5' dfraxdXvip'S vaKtv
rfpayli viipvxi rriffin rrjs p.i^'K'v rdfftis.

286 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the prejudices of dogma, could no longer be maintained at
a tirae when there was no science to defend or dispute it,
and when the whole Ufe of the church was concentrated in
a purely exterior worship. Besides, the two theologians I
have just named had gone to study in the Protestant uni
versities of Switzerland, Germany, and Holland ; they had
maintained intimate and continuous relations with different
scholars in these countries ; all of which no doubt furnished
additional reasons to the mass of the Greek clergy for being
suspicious of biblical studies, so far as they had any ten
dency to follow their leaders into such forbidden ground.
They preferred to speak of criticisra in the way it was
spoken of at Rorae, as a thing henceforth settled and com
plete,' and Cyril especially, as the most prominent and the
most envied, had cruel experience of the result of the sus
picions he had awakened regarding his orthodoxy. They
cost him his life, and not even his deatii could satisfy his
adversai ies. He was conderaned for heresy by a synod held
at Jassy in 1C42, and thirty years later at Jerusalera, anew
confession of faith was sanctioned which canonized also the
Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent. The terras used in it for
this pui'pose are soraewhat curious. Clearly the bitterness
of the orthodox against Lucaris had much to do with the
decision, and tbe frank simplicity with which they pre
tended to confirra the existing rules, while at the sarae time
they were raaking light of the Catholic theologians and even
of the synods to which they appeal, is wortliy of an assembly
which very probably was acquainted with the Fathers only
' Lea Allatius (tl669) de libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum, p. 36, ap. Fabric.
Bibl. gr. T. V. : Alio tempore de scripturis hisce disceptatum est in eamque
Hum sententiam a plerisque, non esse eorum auctarum quos praef erunt ....
attamen hisce temporibus, tanla est vis veritatis, fixum, in Graecorum animis
mansit  epistolas cathalicas d apacalypsin veram d genuina/m esse
scripturam et uti talem puhlice in officOs per totam Graeciam, quemadmodum
el alias divinas scripturas, legunt.

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 287
by hearsay, and was all the more able to lavish epithets on
those with raore acquaintance.' It roundly declared that to
deny the canonicity of the storj' of Judith, of Susanna, or of
the Dragon, is to reject the Gospels themselves, neither
more nor less, and it is easy to suppose that such language
was used to influence the uncertain and confirra those al
ready convinced.
And in this respect it may be added that these results
were fully attained. So far as I am acquainted with the
modern theological literature of the Greeks, no voice has
since been raised to raake appeal from the Fathers of
Jerusalem to those of Laodicea. I have before me a splendid
¦quarto edition of the Greek Bible, printed at Moscow in
1821 by the order, and under the auspices of, the Holy Synod
of the Russian Empire. It contains aU the texts of the
Septuagint," and even more ; for we find in it the two recen
sions of Ezra, and four books of the Maccabees, added to the
other historical books : the minor and major prophets also
¦come before the seven hagiographa. At the same time I
must state certain symptoras which go to show that the
Eastern church attaches no great importance to the solution
of the question of the canon. No opposition, in fact, is made
to the reception of the Apocrypha; their legitimacy is not
openly questioned ; but neither is it thought necessary to
' Confessia Dosithei, 1672, Qv,cest. S (Manumenta, I.e., i. 467): ffroixovvris ru
xavovi rijs xahXtxTJs 'ixxXriffias Itpav ypafhv xaXov/^tv IxsTva (ravra d^ip o KSptWos
-iiro rrjs iv Xaoiixtia ffvv'oiov ipxviffxpuvos dptSpi,ti xal ^rpos rovrots d,ffip dffvvirus xal
xpiaSus tir ovv 'ihxoxaxo'jpyus d,roxpvipx xaruvop^affi. . . . (here comes a list of
the Apocrypha of the Old Testament), . . . fi/iiis yi,p xal ravra yvwix rijs
ypa^TJs ptipti xpivofitv, on h orapailffaffa dpx^^^ ffvvrihia xai h xaL 'ixxknffla yvriffta
¦&xt rh, liph tiayyiXtx xal ravra sTva; rrjs dylas ypaipTJ; /iipi dvapi.^t^'o\us ¦jrapiiuxi,
¦xal rovruv « &pvtiffis 'ixtlvuv 'iffrtv dhrriffts x. r. X.
' Thus, of course, the book of Baruch is intercalated between the
Prophecies and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the Apocryphal Epistle
¦of the same author is put before Ezekiel. The book of Esther is completed
by additions, and the volume of Daniel contains all that forms chaps, xiii-
^vi, in the Latin Bibles.

288 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
insist on thera. Thus in the confes.sion raost approved in
the East, the confession of the Patriarch of Kiew, Peter
Mogilas, which is usually known as the Catechism of the
Russians (1640), no catalogue of the books of the Bible is
given.' Again in an official declaration by the patriarch
Dionysius of Constantinople, annexed to the very acts of the
Synod of Jerusalem," it is simply said that the catalogues
of the Apostolic Canons of Laodicea and Carthage do not
agree with one another, but that the omission of certain
books in the Old Testament does not imply that they are
to be rejected as profane ; on the contrary, they are anything
but conteraptible.' While reading such phrases, we might
be tempted to say, that between tbe Latin Church and the
' Further, this document which is very minute in every part, aud enters
into many subtleties regarding the practice of religion, does not contain
the smallest paragraph concerning Holy Scripture, It is merely said
(Quest, 4) that an orthodox Christian must believe that all the articles of
faith taught by the Church have been transmitted to it by the Lord through
the apostles, and have been interpreted and approved by the oecumenical
councils (r^fiire/ vd xpary. . . . vrus o\a rd dpfpa rtis oriffTtus rijs ophi'o^ov 'txxKvjffias
^vat vrapa^iiopi,iva d,jra rov xvpiov pii re ptiffcv ruv avoffroKuv rov us rhv ixxXtjfflav xal
a: oixovpttvixal rvvoiot rd ipptvivtvovffav xat rd i^oxipiaffav') ; and, by way of ex
planation, it is added that the authority of these articles rests in part on
Holy Scripture, in part on ecclesiastical tradition and the teaching of
synods and Fathers {^x^i^ff* ro xvpos xal rm ioxtpjcaffiav, ptipes dvo rhv 'ixxK. otap-
dioffiv xal dvo rhv itiaffxaxiav ruv ffvv'oiuv xal ruv dyiuv oraripuv.) In Quest, 72,
it is said that the Holy Spirit is the author (^ivpiriis) of Scripture, and has
preached it (upitXnfft) by means of many fellow-workers (ffwipyuv). For this
reason Qtd rhv dipoppohv raurtiv"), we must believe that everything decreed by
the orthodox synods came to them from the Holy Spirit. Further, texts
are frequently quoted in this catechism, both for dogmas and moral pre
cepts. But the peoples who follow the Greek rite are acquainted with
Scripture only by the regular reading of the pericopes, which is everywhere
done in a language not understood — e.g , throughout Greece in ancient
Greek, throughout Russia in Sclavoniau of the tenth century.
" Manumenta, I. c. ii. 225.
3 cffa piivrot ruv rijs vaXatas italixns fitfiXlut ry doraptlpoKrit ruv iyteypdfuv oi
ffvptxiptXapc^dvovrat, oix drffrpondZovrat ravra htxtv rovreu us iivtxd riva xxi
fiifinXa, 'AXXd xxXd xal 'tvdpsrd rpocxyoptvirat xal six dor'o^Xnra rvyxdveuffi
QieXev.

OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 289
Greek Church, there is still sorae difference in the conception
of the canon, though their official catalogues are the same.
The Greek Church, having lost the thread of its dogmatic
tradition, no longer possesses, it would seem, the energy
necessary to take hold of it again, or to create a new one,
and the apathy of indifference marches on side by side with
the obstinacy of ignorance and routine. I do not know at
this present moment whether any change has taken place in
this respect.

CHAPTER XVL
THE THEOLOGY OP THE REFORMERS,
I USE the term theology designedly in the title of this .
chapter, with which we enter on the most interesting part
of this history, and at the same tirae conclude our investiga
tions. Up to this point we have constantly seen that the
coUection of the Holy Scriptures, formed at first by practical
needs and according to varying local usage.s, was also pre
served and transmitted under the rule of a tradition some
times uncertain and capricious, and that science made vain
efforts to determine its form and contents in a definite
manner and according to theoretical principles. For the
Catholic Church, as we have seen, the official definition of
the canon was not given tUl the Council of Trent, and even
then it was not guided by any theological axiom ; it was
simply and purely the consecration of a state of things
founded on usage.
It may be said, without fear of error, that the leaders of
the reforming movement had from the first some perception
of the necessity for placing the question of the canon on
another basis, and connecting it with sorae ruling principle
which should be based on the theology of the Gospel, At the
beginning of their work, they saw theraselves forced to break
with the tradition of the Church on raore than one point; and
in order to justify their oppo.sition, and raaintain the struggle
with confidence and success, they had constantly to appeal
to the holy books. These very facts compelled them to
place the authority of these books on an independent basis,
to free them, so to speak, from the tutelage of the Church,
and vindicate for them a positiou which would shelter them

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 291
from the caprices of opinion and the weaknesses of exegesis.
For just as it became necessary to seek the criterion of the
true meaning of the texts elsewhere than in the homilies of
the Middle Ages, so it was henceforth irapossible to appeal
to St. Jerome for a decision regarding the canonicity of each
book in the usual canon, all the more that the learned Father
had hardly been in the habit of settling these questions.
Still, it would be wrong to suppose that it was easy to
decide which part to take, which line to follow, in determin
ing the canon and formulating the theory of it. In our days,
it is true, we persuade ourselves that it was quite a simple
matter, A great number of our contemporaries imagine
that the Reformers, inscribing on their banner the principle
oifree investigation, began by sweeping away all traditional
beliefs, in order to reconstruct anew a system of Christianity,
and that, if our age still finds some elements to be suppressed,
it is solely because the principle, was imperfectly applied in
former times. It is supposed, without saying it in so raany
words, that this free investigation must have been made in
name and by means of the emancipated reason. In other
words, there is a tendency to regard the founders of the
Protestant Churches as the first pioneers of the philosophical
rationaUsra which began to prevail in last century. I shall
not stop to refute this view, which could only find currency
among those ignorant of the history and Uterature of that
memorable period. It -will be sufficient to observe that a
theology which, wrongly or rightly, but always with im
perious energy and powerful unanimity, proclaimed as its
fundamental dogma the absolute incapacity of tbe moral
faculties of man, ought not to run the risk of either praise
or blame, for having vindicated for the human reason the
perilous privilege of the initiative or of suprerae jurisdiction
in reUgious matters. It could not then in any shape subor
dinate tbe Bible, the immediate work of God, to that same

292 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
reason, which bad fallen so sadly frora what it was in the
beginning, I call the Bible the imraediate work of God ; for it is to
be remerabered here, that the dograa of the inspiration of
tbe Scriptures was not in the least weakened by the anti-
hierarchical tendencies of Protestantism, On the contrary,
it acquired all the force that was taken from that of the
authority of tbe Church. Indeed this dograa, while existing
theoretically in the theology of the Fathers and Pontiffs, was
to sorae extent neutralised in practice by the fact, that the
privilege of being the channel of the Holy Spirit did not
belong exclusively to the prophets and apostles, but also to
the Catholic Church as a constituted body. It is conceivable
enough that the authority of the latter, being more per
manently and visibly exercised, should, in the eyes of the
masses, throw into the background, and to some extent ab
sorb, the authority of a code with which most of tho faithful
were hardly acquainted except by hearsay. On this head it is
not wrong to say that the Reformation, when it opposed the
Bible to tradition and to the authority of popes and bishops,
assigned to the -written word of God the first place in the
order of religious facts.' When we see the Protestant theo
logians of the first half of the sixteenth century, with the
exception of some undisciplined spirits who prided them
selves on a special, inward illuraination, all raake appeal to
Scripture, and to it alone without reserve, .for the confirma^
tion of the truth they taught, and the settlement of aU
' I very much regret that the necessity of confining myself to my special
•task prevents rae from developing further this fundamental point, Tho
liistory and influence of the scriptural principle, sometimes opposed to the
principle of tradition, sometimes combined with it, and thus giving birth
both to Protestant theology itself, and to the divergence of the parties
which arose among the churches of the Reformation, wonld be a fine sub
ject for a writer who was impartial and familiar with the literature of the
time. I take the liberty of directing the attention of my readers to the
work of M. Holtzmamh, Kanon und Tradition.

THE- THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, ' 293
vexed questions, we cannot deny that the conception of the
, canon had becorae eminently and essentially theological,
such as the Greek Fathers of the golden age of ecclesiastical
theology had already conceived it, though they had not been
able to gain general acceptance for their point of view.
There is no longer any question of liturgical proprieties to
be settled, provincial usages to be preserved, means of edifica
tion to be multiplied, practical considerations, such points
in short as we have so often observed before in the vicissi
tudes of this history. The canon was henceforth what the
term meant — a rule, a norm, a law, or rather the law of
creeds. But this is the very reason why I said just now that the
question of the canon, so far from being simplified, seemed
of neces,sity to bristle with new difficulties. When the dignity
of the code was increased, and a special place was assigned
to it among the pro-vidential means which might aid in the
religious education of men — ^when, so to speak, it was raade
divine — it became all the more vitaUy important to raark out
its limits, withdraw from it all impure alloy, and distinguish
carefully its proper contents frora the additions made to it
at various times by the ignorance or the piety of raen. So
long as the chief point was to know what public or private
readings would edify Christendora, the presence of a doubt
ful book, provided it served the purpose of edification,
caused neither trouble nor danger ; tbe Church was there to
watch over the purity of dogma. It was quite otherwise
when authority was transferred from the Church to the
Scriptures exclusively. How then was a test to be applied
without the risk of falling into uncertainty or even into
error ? That was the problem which had to be solved, and
the problem was aU the more difficult that it was raised by
a more absolute theory, and was complicated by all the
prejudices and contradictions arising from ancient usage,

294 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
Those who now think otherwise, and who suppose or profess
that the question of the canon was definitely settled by the
Reforraers, make it evident that they have never gone back
to the original sources, and that the question has never been
presented to their minds in any other aspect than that
which it raust have had in tbe Catholic Church — viz,, that
the canonicity of the books was decided by the testiraony of
the Synagogue and the Fathers. Now, nothing was further
frora the thoughts of Luther, Calvin, and their illustrious
associates — nothing was raore fundamentally opposed t&
their principles, than to base the authority of the holy books
on that of the Church and its tradition, to have the
Fathers turned out on guard, and to bring their catalogues
on parade, with the reservation of reraoving their ob
scurities and contradictions by forced and violent inter
pretations, as is the custora now. They understood perfectly
well that nothing could have been raore illogical — nay, more
ruinous — to their system than to assign to the Church the
right of raaking the Bible, when they had disputed her right
of making dogma, for the one includes the other.
As the theology which in our day calls itself orthodox
has forgotten — I might almost say, has denied — this prin
ciple, it will be right to place before the eyes of ray readers
sorae authentic and explicit texts. Let us first hear what is
said by Calvin. He was one of the first to deal with this
question, not in any casual way, but in a thoroughgoing
fashion. He says:' — "There are several in this pemidous
error that the Scripture has no more weight than is given to
it by the consent of the Church, as if the eternal and in
violable truth of God were founded on the pleasure of men.
For they, showing contempt of the Holy Spirit, make this
' Institutes, first French edition, 1541, p. 19 (translated from the Latin
of 1539, p. 11. The editio princeps [Latin] of 1536 does not contain any
treatise ou the Scriptures). In the last edition of the work, see B, I,, ch. 7.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 296
demand : Who will certify to us that the Scriptures come from
Ood; who will assure us that they have been preserved in
their entirety doion to the present day; and who will
persuade us that one look is to be received and another
rejected, if the Church is not our guarantee on all these
matters ? Hence they conclude that it lies in the power of
the Church to determine what reverence we owe to the Scrip
tures, and what books ought to be included among
tliem? Thus these blasphemers, wishing to exalt an un
limited tyranny under cover of the Church, care not in what
absurdities they involve themselves and others, provided they
can gain this point among the simple that all things are in
ike power of the Church. Now, if this be so, what would
become of the pure consciences that seek certain assurance of
eternal life, when they saw all the promises concerning it
based solely on the judgment of men ? " On the other hand,
to what contempt from the unbelieving would our faith be
exposed ? Under what suspicion would it be placed in the
eyes of all, if it were founded on the mercy and good
pleasure of men ? ... As to their question, how are we to
know that the Scriptures came from God, if we cannot refer
to the decree of the Church, we might as well ask how we are
to learn to distinguish light from, darkness, white from black,
bitter from sweet." '
' The liberty af distinguishing between the apocryphal booTcs (edition 1562).
' When it is said ta them that it is enough that the Church has settled it,
will they be content with such an answer ? (Edition of 1562. )
^ II y en a plusieurs en cest erreur pemicieux, que VEscriture n'a non
plus d'impariance que ce qui luy en est danni par le consentement de
I'Egliss ; comme si la virite de Dieu eternells d inviolabls estoit fandie sur le
plaisir des hommes^ Car Uz font csste demands nan sans grand opprabre
contre le saind Esprit : Qui est celuy qui nous certifiera que VEscriture est
procedie de Dieu? et qui nous asseurera qu'dle a esti gardee ensanentier
iusques A nastre temps ? qui nous persuadera que Vun des liures doit estre
receu en obdssanee et I'autre peut estre rsietti ? n'estoit que I'Eglise bailie
reigle de toutes ces chases. Pour tant ilz concluent que cela gist en la determina
tion del' Eglise, de saiioir quelle reuerence nous deuons d, VEscriture et quelz

296 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
I have quoted frora Calvin first, because in France he is
the best known of the writers to be cited in this connection,
though, unfortunately, he is still too little known. In
chronological order, however, he does not corae first in tho
illustrious phalanx of witnesses I ara going to bring forward.
Long before hira, Zwingle summed up the same principles in
the first of the theses proposed by hira for the conference at
Zurich (1523). "Whoever," he says, "pretends that the
Gospel is nothing without the patronage and approbation of
the Church is in error, and speaks blasphemy," ' And this
thesis he developes by supporting it with a series of Scrip
tural passages, which give to divine truth and the Scripture
containing it a higher guarantee, and at the same time exalt
them both above the assault of human weaknesses,
" It is not true," says Petrus Vermilius in his turn, " that
the Scriptures take their authority from the Church, Their
certitude is derived from God and not from men. The
Word came before the Church, It is from the Word that
the Church holds its vocation. The Spirit of God wrought
in the hearts of the hearers and readers of the Word, so that
they recognised the speech to be not of huraan origin but
truly divine. The Spirit, therefore, and not the Church,
liures doiusnt estre comprins en icells. En cssts maniers ces blasphematetirs,
voulans deuer une tyrannie desbordie souz la couuerture de VEglise, ne se
saucient de qudles absurditez ilz s'enueloppsnt eux et les autres, moyennant
qu'ils puissent gaigner ce poinct entre les simples que toutes choses sont loisihles
d, I'Eglise. Or si ainsi esioit, que deuiendroyent les poures consciences qui
cherchent certaine asseurance de la vie derneUe, quand elles verroyent toutes
les promesses d'icelle consister et estre appuyies sur le seul iugement des
hommes ? D' autre part d quelle moquerie des infideles nostre foy seroit-elle
exposie ? En quells suspition viendroit-elle envers tout le monde ? si on avait
cdle opinion qu'dle eust son fandement au mercy et bon plaisir des
hommes? . . . Touchant ce qu'ilz interroguent comment nous cognoislrons
que VEscriture est sortie ds Dieu, si nans n'auons recaurs au decret de VEglise,
autant vaut comme si quelqu'un demandoit dont nous apprendrons d, discerner
la lumiere des tenebrcs, le blanc du noir, I'aigre du doux.
' Quicunque Euangdion nihil esse dicunt, nisi ecdesice calcului et adpro-
batio accedat, errant et Deum blasphemant (Zwinglii Opp. ed, Sch., I, 195).

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 297
establishes the authority of Scripture."' It is true that the
canonical writers began by being merabers of the Church. ;
but it does not follow that the Scriptures derive their dig
nity from this and not rather frora God and his Spirit. The
kind of authority which the canon can draw from the testi
mony of the Church is good, strictly speaking, for common
minds ; it is not sufficient to assure consciences." This point
of view is diametrically opposed to that of the Catholic
Church, which no one formulated in raore decided fashion
than St, Augustine when he said : ' " I would not believe
in the Gospel without the authority of the Church." It
is curious to see how rauch pains were taken by aU tho
Protestant theologians, Calvin especially, to interpret in an
inoflensive way this declaration made by an author on whom
they were more dependent than they were aware of, and
much moi e than they dared confess.'
With such explicit testimonies before us, we shall without
difficulty understand the raeaning and drift of the declara
tions regarding the notion of the canonicity of the holy
¦ P, M, Vermilii Loci communis, cl, iii,, 1. iii, § 3 : Non eM verum quod
assmnunt, Scripturam habere auctaritatem ab ecclesia. Ejus enimfirmitas a
Deo pendet non ab hominibus. Et prius est verbum, et quidem firmum ac
certum, quam ecclesia. Nam ecclesia per verbum vocata fuit. Et Spiritus
Dei agit in cordibus audientium verbum et illud legentium ut agnascerent
mn esse humanum sermonem sed prorsus divinum. A Spiritu itaque accessit
auctaritas verba Dei, non ab ecclssia.
' Wolfg, Musoulus, Loci communes, p. 228 (Bas, 1560) : Agnosco scrip-
tores canonicas esse membra eeclesiae, verum quod inds colligitur scripturam
non esse authenticam sine autaritate eeclesiae, pla/ne nega . . . cananicae scrip
turae autoritas suprema ac perpetua non est aliunde qua,m ex Deo, et sacri
ecriptores non eeclesiae, sed Sp. S. instindu, ideoque non tanquam membra
eeclesiae sed tanquam interprdes Dei et ministri Spiritus scripserunt. Scrip-
tura.autoritatem ex eo habet apud rudes et inexercitatos quod ecclesia eam
habet pro canonica, verum hoc genus autoritatis non est tantae firmitudinis ut
conscientias fidelium seeuras reddere possit.
3 Augustine, Contra epist. fundamenti, ch, . 5 : Ego etangelio non crederem
'nisi ms mavsret ecclesias auctaritas.
^ Calvini Instit., u, i, § 23. Edit, postr, 1, c. 7, § 3. Muscul,, I. c, p,
229. Vermigli, I. c.

298 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
books which were inserted in raost of the Reformed Con
fessions of Faith.'
The first Helvetic Confession of Faith, composed at Basle
in 1536, contains the above principles by iraplication, but
does not set thera forth very clearly. It siraply says in few
words that the canonical Scriptures, the Word of God trans
mitted by the Holy Spirit and comraunicated to the world
by the prophets and apostles, is the raost perfect and most
ancient philosophy, and alone contains in a perfect way the
whole of religion and the whole of morality. The interpre
tation of the Scriptures ought to be sought from them
selves, and theraselves alone, with the help of the rule of
faith and charity ; the Fathers raay be usefully consulted
in so far as they themselves practised this kind of inter
pretation." If in this text the criterion of canonicity, such
as I have indicated above, is not directly formulated, it is at
least cpntained in it indirectly. For if the organs of the
Church, as such, are not qualified to determine the meaning
of Scripture, and the privilege of authoritative interpretation
is expressly reserved for the Scriptures theraselves, it is evi
dent a fortiori that the sarae wiU be true in regard to the
composition of the canon.
The second Helvetic Confession, composed in 1566 by
' The Lutheran formulas nowhere touch on this question, and for the
most p.art are silent regarding the Scriptures altogether. The Augsburg
Confession and the Apology only indicate in passing the superiority of tho
Scriptures over tradition. The Formula of Concord (1576) alone expresses
in plain terms the principle universally recognised by Protestants that the
Bible (praphetica et apodolica scripta V. et N. T.) u the only and supreme
rule of faith and teaching (Epit. p. 570).
^ Conf. hdv., I. art. 1 : Scriptura canonica, verbum Dei Spiritu S. tra-
ditum et per prophetas apastolasque mundo propasitum, omnium perfsciis-
sima et antiquissima philosophiai pidatem omnem, omnem vitae rationem
sola perfecte cantind. — Art. 2 : Huius interpretatio ex ipsa sola pdevda est,
vt ipsa interprss sit sui, caritatis fideique regula moderante. — Art. 3 : A qw
interprdatianis genere, quatenws patres Tion discessere, eos ut interpretes scrip
turae recipimus et veneramur.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 299
Beza and BulUnger, enters into raore positive detail on these
principles, but with the sarae general meaning. " We
believe and confess," it says, " that the canonical Scriptures
of the holy prophets and apostles are the true Word of God,
and that they hold sufficient authority from themselves and
not from men."' Then after establishing the nature and
bearing of this authority and the raanner in which the
Christian is made to feel it, the text discusses at length the
value of the authority of the Fathers and of the Church, and
declares, " We recognise as orthodox and authentic no other
hiterpretation of the Scriptures than that which is drawn
from the Scriptures theraselves, by raeans of the preliminary
study of the languages, context, paraUel passages, those
specially that are more clear, and which, being conformable
to the rule of faith and charity, turns to the glory of God
and the salvation of men."
The Confession of the churches of France proclaims the
same principle. " Ju.st as the word contained in the
canonical books comes from God alone," it says, " so can its
authority have no human foundation, and for that reason
too, n.o one, not even the angels, has a right to add any
thing to it or take away anything from it.""
Not to multiply quotations too much, 1 shaU confine my
self to mentioning one other, the Scotch Confession of 1560,
which has a very forcible statement to the sarae effect. In
its nineteenth article, after vindicating in the previous
article for the Scriptures theraselves — i.e., for tbe Holy Spirit
that dictated thera — the exclusive right of interpreting
them, it goes on to say : " As we beleeve and confesse the
' Conf. helv., II. o, i. : Credimus d confitemur scripturas canonicas . . .
ipsum esse verum verbum Dei et audoritatem sufiicientem ex semet ipsis, wm
tx luminibus habere.
'Gmf. Call., Art. 5 : Credimus verbum his libris (canonicis Art. 4) com-
prehensum ab uno Dea esse profeetum, quo etiam una, non autem hominibus,
nilatur ipsius autoritas, etc.

soo HISTORY OF THE CANON OP THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and raake the man of
God perfite, so do we affirra and avowe the authoritie of the
sarae to be of God and nether to depend on men nor
angelis. We affirme therefore that sik as allege the Scrip
ture to have na uther authoritie bot that quhilk it has
received from the kirk to be blasphemous against God and
injurious to the trew kirk, quhilk alwaies heares and obeyis
the voice of her awin spouse and Pastor, bot takes not upon
her to be raaistres over the sarain."'
After these quotations there can be no doubt about the
Protestant principle, nor about its intiraate connection with
the special question we are studying with the help of his
tory. It is proper, however, to remark that this principle
had not equal prorainence in all the countries that took
part in the moveraent of the Reformation. Thus the
Anglican Confession (the Thirty-nine Articles) says coldly,
" In the name of the Holy Scriptures, we do understand
those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of
whose authority there was never any doubt in the church"
and further — " All the books of the New Testament, as they
are commonly received, we do receive and account them
canonical," Usage therefore, tradition, the Church, in the
eyes of the authors of this confession, presented a sufficient
guarantee, so sufficient that there was no need to seek one
more elevated or more solid. In the same way we read in
the Confession of Bohemia, composed in 15.35, at a time
when the Protestant principle could not yet have been un
derstood in all its clearness and in all its applications : " Our
party teach in common agreement that the Holy Scriptures
are to be recognised as indisputably true and authoritative,
as they are contained in the Bible, received by the Fathers,
' The only allusion in this confession to the canon is in these words, " The
bulks afthe Auld and New Testamentis, those bulks, we mean, quhilk of the
ancient have been reputed canonicall." [Trans,]

. THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. SOI
and endowed by them with canonical authority,"' Among
the Lutheran forraulas, there is also one which raight bo
mentioned here. It is the one composed by Brentz for the
Duchy of Wurtemberg in 1552," But we shall see after
wards that the forraula eraployed in it was, on the contrary,
intended by its author to consecrate a very iraportant re
servation. But since, according to these forraulas expressed in raore
than decided terms, the Christian does not need and is not
bound to consult ecclesiastical tradition, in order that he
may learn to discern the authentic and genuinely inspired
elements of the Bible from those which error or fraud may
have added, what criterion then wUl he have, what means
more mfallible can be offered hira ? If we continue to read
the pages of CaMn foUowing the one above quoted, we
shall find the answer to this questioa The Scriptures
themselves, their character, their teaching, their spirit, their
very forms, and above aU the effects they produce on ua
when we do not hinder their working — these reveal their
origin and truth, and thus impress on us the truths they
proclaim with an indisputable authority, but not in spite of
ourselves nor by any kind of constraint. For it need hardly
be said that the heart, stUl hardened by sin, is not apt td
receive from the word of God such an impression at onco
demonstrative and salutary. So, too, Protestant theology,
when it wished to put in a more scientific forra the fact I
have just described, did not hesitate to say that it is the
Holy Spirit' which in our very hearts bears witness to the
' Conf. Bohem. Art, I  docent scripturas sacras quae in bibliis ipsis
cc/ntinentur et a patribus receptae autaritateque canonica donatae sunt pro veris
labendas de.
' Conf. Wurtemb. p, 540 : sacram scripturam vocamus eos canonicas libros
V. et. N. T. de quorum autaritate in ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est.
' P, Viret, De vero verbi Dei ministerio (1553), I. c, 5 : , , , , quotiescun-
qiie nobis externus sermo, ¦ sive scripta, sive viva voce proponitur, hoc apud nos
confestim statuamus oportet, nullam illi quidem vaci carpareaeviminesseatqve

302 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Scriptures, whether by convincing us of their canonicity
{i.e., of their character as inspired and authoritative books)
immediately and directly as by intuition, or by teaching us
to distinguish from them all that has not this same
character. Far from fearing that this kind of demonstration
was insufficient, they expressly proclaimed it as preferable to
every other. Those very men who did not hesitate to ac
knowledge that the canon had been formed under the
auspices of the early church insisted, nevertheless, that the
church had been able to proceed only in so far as it was
guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it by no raeans derived
therefrom an authority superior to that of Scripture.' " If
we wish," says Calvin, " to make provision for consciences,
so as to keep thera frora being agitated in perpetual doubt,
we raust take the authority of the Scriptures as higher than
human reasonings or proofs or conjectures. In other words,
we must found it on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit,
For granting that in their own majesty, there is sufficient
ground for reverencing thera, yet they begin truly to touch
us when they are sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Being then illurainated by His power, we believe, not on
our own judgraent nor on the judgment of others, that the
Scriptures are from God; but above all human judgment,
we decide beyond dispute that they were given us from
the very raouth of God, just as if with the eye we were
oonteraplating in thera the Essence of God  Such a
sentiment can be produced only by celestial revelations, • I
say nothing but that which every believer experiences in
facultatem, nisi Deus sui spiritus magisterio in animos illapsus vivo illo suo et
efficaci verba intus docuerit hominum mentes arcanaque sua affiatu aspiraverU.
—II, c. 3 : Deus solus suo Spiritus affiatu corda movet  Nam ne
ipsum quidem externum Christi ministerium quo in hac mortali vita defimo-
tus est, hac fuit prceditum facvltate nisi quoties arcana sui spiritus instinctit
_patsr quosfilia addudurus erat traliere voluit 
' Vermigli, Zoci commun. cl. I. 1. ¦vi. § 8.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 303
himself, except that the words are far beneath the dignity
of the argument."'
I regret that I am not able to transcribe at greater length
this entire chapter of our great French theologian, and to
add similar extracts frora other Protestant authors of that
period. They at least stiU understood the generous words
of the apostle in 1 Cor. vii 40, and did not fear to go -wrong
in applying it," But I hold it important above all to estab
lish the fact that it was not merely Calvin's own private
¦opinion, for in that case my assertion would not be proved.
On the contrary, the thought which he was the first to
develop systematically, and with as much eloquence as con
viction, appears everywhere beneath the discussions, parti
cularly the polemical discussions of the period, and has even
' The original French runs thus : "Si nous vaullons bien pauruair aux con-
mences, si qu'elles ne sayent point agities en perpetuelle daubte, il nous faut
prendre Vauctoriti de VEscriture ds plus hault que des raisons ou indices ou
toniectures humaines. Cest d, scauoir que nous lafondions sur le tesmoignage
inteneur du Sainct Esprit. Car iacoit qu'en sa propre maiest4 die ait assez
de quay estre reverie: neantmoins die commence lars d, nous vrayement toucher
quand die est scdUe en nos cosurs par le Sainct Esprit. Estans done
¦Uhminez par la vertu d'iceluy, desid, nous ne crayons pas ou d, nostre iuge-
.ment, ou d, cduy des avltres, que VEscriture est de Dieu : mais par dessus
¦tout iugement humain nous arrestons indubitdblement qu'dle nous u. esti
¦drnmie de la propre bouche de Dieu, tout ainsi que si nous contemplions d
I'ceU V Essence de Dieu en icelle. . . . C'est un tel sentiment qu'il ne se peut en-
¦gendrer que de reudations celestes. Ie ne ditz aultre chase que ce qu'un
chrncun fidele experimente en say : sinon que les paroles sont beaucoup in-
.firieures d, la dignite ds V argument."
' Nullius hominis mortalis animus verbi divini et ccdestium rerum capax
esse poterit nisi a Deo illustretur et daceatur. Max, ut hac fit, tam certum et
indubitatumfit homini verbum Dei ut veritate divina firmius et certius nitatur
¦quam omnibus Uteris utcunque obsignatis. . . . Solus spiritus docet omnia
¦quos ds Deo scire hominem convenit (Zwinglii Opp., i. 196 seq). — Dixerint
'diqui: nos spiritu destituti sumus. Quibus ego regeram: si spiritu vacui
ealis, quomoda audetis vos appellare Christianas? Nemo est vere christianvs
cui tam parum spiritus huius concedatur quin valeat ex sacris Uteris haurire
¦ef iudicare qwE necessaria sunt ad salutem (P. M. Vermilii Loci commxmes,
¦cl. 1. 1. -vi, § 5), — Danum divinum est vera interpretatio et iudicii reditvdo,
¦<ic. (Melanchthon. Opp., vii, 396.)

304 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
been placed by Protestant theology in official formulas.
Thus, tbe second Helvetic Confession distinctly declares,
that the effect of the preaching and reading of the Holy
Scriptures, which are the only source of true wisdom,
theology, and piety of the reformation and government cf
tbe Church, depends on the internal illuraination of the
Holy Spirit,' The Confession of the Churches of the Low
Countries after enuraerating the books of the Bible, adds :"
" These are the only books we receive as holy and canonical,
i.e., as a suprerae rule of our faith, and we believe without
reser\'-e all that is contained in them, not so much because the
Church receives them as such, as because the Holy Ghost wit
nesses in our hearts that they proceed from God and bear in
theraselves His seal," The French Confession speaks to the
same purpose, though using an expression which is a Uttle less
exclusive. It says:' not merely according to the unanimous
feeling of the Church, but much raore according to the witness
of the Holy Spirit and the inward conviction He gives us; for
He it is who teaches us to distinguish them from other
ecclesiastical writings."*
This theory, which bases canonicity on the internal
witness of the Holy Spirit, is not an isolated idea, an
accidental conception, an expedient devised in some parti-
' Conf. Helvet. II, o. 1 : Neque arbitramur prcedicatianem extemam esse
inutilem, quoniam psndsat institutio vercs religianis ab interna Spiritus illvmi-
natione. Quanquam enim nemo veniat ad Chridum nisi intus illuminetur
per Sp. S., scimus tamen, dc.
' Conf. Belg. , Art. 5 : Hosce libros solos pro sacris d canonicis recipimus. . . .
idque non tam quad ecclesia eas pro huiusmodi recipiat d approbet, quam
imprimis quad Sp. S. in cordibus nodris tedetur a Deo profectas dss, com-
probatianemque eius in se ipsis habeant.
3 Conf. Gall. , Art, 4 : .... idque non tantum sx communi scclesics consensn
Bed etiam multa magis ex testimonia d intrinseea Sp. S. persuasione, qu/> sug-
gerente docemwr illos ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis discernere.
* The French edition, published at Montpellier in 1825, effaced this little
touch of distinction. It does not contain an authentic text of the si'iteenth
¦century, but a somewhat free edition of it in modem French,

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 305
cular case to raeet polemical necessities, to escape frora the
pressure of the Catholic principle that tradition is authori
tative. On the contrary, it is very closely and very naturally
connected with the fundamental theses of Protestantism,
with the dogmas of regeneration, justification, faith, in short
with that precious eleraent of evangelical raysticism which
was not foreign even to the spirit of the Middle Ages, but
which had been banished frora official theology by the
ascendency of Scholastic rationaUsra, and the crushing sway
of the constitution of the Roraan Church. In so far as it
concerned the new theology to deraonstrate, not that .such a
book was by such an author but that it contained the word
of life, argnraents purely historical, and the testiraonies of
the Fathers lost all value and had to give place to what the
apostle long ago bad called " deraonstration of spirit and
power," Let me add that Cal-vin did not go too far when
he appealed to the experience of the faithful to confirm his
views. Indeed, in the domain of evangelical facts, purely
rational proofs are always incoraplete, or they move in a
circle of ideas which gives thera no bold over the religious
conscience, as raay be seen frora the despairing irapotence
of ordinary apologetics ; whereas inward experience is the
surest control over theory. This truth is as old as Christi
anity, for it was proclairaed first by Jesus hiraself (John vii.
16, 17), But it has never been to the taste of scholars,
orthodox or neologian ; they have always had stout faith in
the power of their dialectics. On the other hand, pure and
simple piety, especially in the sphere of Protestantism, did
not fSil to hear the word of God, to feel it, so to speak, in
virtue of that mysterious contact of the eternal Spirit there
revealed with the soul which opens itself to his beneficent
working. It has been reraarked that this action is not
uniform in all individuals, and tbat, according to the dis
positions of character and temperament, according to the

306 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
current of ideas at each epoch or in a particular circle, the
impression received from reading the Holy Scriptures would
vary very considerably, that one raight be edified and touched
by a writing which raight have Uttle or no influence on an
other, and vice versa. The Psalms and Gospels, the Prophets
and Epistles, the Song of Soloraon and the Apocalypse, have
in turn had a greater or less attraction for hearts and minds,
and these varying phenoraena must not be neglected since
they are still visible araong ourselves. In the raain, they do
not constitute a triuraphant instance against the Protestant
theory above stated, because that theory is not intended to
deny the variety of dispositions araong men, nor the diversity
of God's ways in the work of salvation,
StiU the conscientious historian cannot help showing that
this theory, in .spite of its intrinsic truth, its elevated point
of view, and its conformity with the essence of the Gospel,
has proved to be insufficient in practice, and that those who
had forraulated it were the first to diverge from it, and to
drift into strange inconsistencies. The reason of this is very
simple. The Bible did not fall from heaven as a complete
whole : it is coraposed of nuraerous elements, which were
added one after the other in the course of time ; and this
work of collection is a fact of history which calls for the ex
pression of a deliberate judgment by the ordinary ways and
means of historical science. Now, as soon as an absolute
theory comes into direct contact with the concrete facts which
are independent of it, it must either seek to fashion them in
its own way, which is alway dangerous and creates unceasing
difficulties, or, preserving an instinctive perception of the
realities it encounters, it relaxes its own rigidity, and thus
sacrifices, by concessions or negligence, that which consti
tuted its vitaUty, Nothing is more interesting, but nothing
also is less kno^wn and studied in France, than the embar
rassments, the hesitations, the inconsistencies of the old

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 307
Protestant theology on the question of the canon. The
primitive theory was clear, broadly conceived, homogeneous
with the entire system, which raakes the attempts at ap
pUcation all the raore astonishing to us in their diversity
and uncertainty. My readers have already perceived this
from some of the extracts frora the confessions of faith which
I have put before thera; but these same documents, to
gether ¦with the Protestant editions of the Bible and the
writings of the Reformers, furnish us with a raass of instruc
tive details on this point deserving consideration for raore
than one reason.
Let us consider for a moment tbe first fact, the fact most
generally known and therefore apparently very easy to un
derstand or justify — I raean the separation of the so-called
Apocryphal books from the body of the Old Testament.
My narrative has sufficiently shown how, at the time of the
Reformation, the question of the place to be assigned to
these books was stiU in suspense, between the routine which
placed them on a level with the others, and the re-awaken
ing science which remembered, a little confusedly, the
secondary rank they had formerraly occupied. Now it is
weU-known that frora the first, the Reforraers and their ad
herents, with remarkable unanimity, refused to recognise
these books as canonical in the sense indicated above. In
the editions of the Bible they were placed apart, with a
special collective title, and usually with a notice explaining
the purpose of the separation, or guiding the readers how to
form their opinion. That I may not dwell too long on a
fact which needs no demonstration, I shaU content myself
with transcribing in a note ' some of these titles or extracts
' The Bibles of Zurich, the oldest that are complete (1529), present this
inscription : Disz sind die bilcher Die bey den alten vnder Biblische gschrifft
nit gszelt sind, auch bei den Ebreem nit gefunden. Then foUows a preface
which begins with these words : Disc Imcher, sa hie den Biblischen angehenckt,
sind der meinung von vns gstruckt, nit das sy in ward vnd acht dsr heiligen

308 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
from these notices, taken from the German editions and re
produced with some slight changes in the IVench Bibles.
In the latter the historical eleraent, contained in the notice
to readers, shows sorae superficial appreciation of the usages
of the early Church, and the utility of these writings is not
so rauch insisted on. The Genevan Bibles of this first
period — and I have a whole series before rae — thus express
themselves : — " These books, called the Apocrypha, were at
all times distinguished from those which were without
difficulty held to be the Holy Scriptures ; for the ancients,
wishing to anticipate the danger of sorae profane books
being mixed up with those that did certainly proceed from
the Holy Spirit, made a roll of them which they called the
canon, .signifying by this word that all included therein was
a certain rule to which adherence raust be given. In re
gard to these books, the name Apocrypha was given to them,
denoting that they were to be considered private writings,
and not authentic like public deeds. Wherefore, there is
the same difference between the first and the second as be
tween a deed passed before a notary and sealed for recep
tion by all, and the note of hand of a private individual. It
is true that they are not to be despised, inasmuch as they
contain good and useful doctrine. At the same time, it is
very right that what was given us by the Holy Spuit,
gschrifft gleich gehalten werden sSllind, sunder das denen so auch Hebe zu diesen
biicheren habend zelasen, weder mangel nach Mag ware, vnd das ein yetlieher
funde das jm schmackte : dann ab sehon disc bilcher vnder die Biblisclien
heyliger schrifft bilcher, weder von den alten noch von vn'i gezelt, sind doch vU
ding darinn, die Biblischer gschrifft, dem glauben vnd Hebe, heins wags wider-
strdbend, ja auch etlich jren grund in Gottes ward fmdend. The Bibles of
Luther (1534 et seq. ) have only a general and very simple title : Apocrypha,
das sind bilcher so nicht der heyligen Schrifft gleich gehalten, vnd doch nvtzlich
vnd gut zu lesen sind. There is no general preface, but there are special
introductions to each book which, while remarking on their iuferiority, take
•5are to direct attention to the qualities for which they may be commended
to the notice of Christian readers, [Regarding English Bibles, see note at
the end of the chapter.]

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 309
should have pre-eminence above what carae frora raen."'
Then foUow a sentence or two which were omitted from the
editions after 1559. " Wherefore, according to the saying
of St. Jerome, let aU Christians read them and take from
them doctrine of edification. But let thera, however, be
warned that they ought not to take thence full assurance of
the articles of their faith ; because it is not sufficient testi
mony, etc." There are also Protestant Bibles of this period
which, whUe maintaining the .separation, speak of the Apo
crypha ¦with a certain favour, on the ground that the funda
mental cause of their rejection by the synagogue was
nothing else than the difference of language, and the fact
that they treat of things not conforming to tlie customs of
ihe Jews  Wherefore, reader, seeing that from all
flowers the fly raay draw liquor to make honey, without re
garding where it is planted, whether in the field or in the
garden, so from all books thou shalt be able to draw raatter
suitable to thy salvation without being guided by the Jews.
. , , , Since, therefore, all have the same source and whole
some root, in spite of any pruning the Jews may have
' The old French original runs thus : Ces livres qu'on appdle Apocryphes,
ont esti de tout temps discemez d'auec ceux qu'on tenoit sans difficulte estre de
VEscriture saincte. Car les Anciens vavlans preuenir le dangler qu' aucuns
liures prof anes nefussent entremeslez auec ceux, qui pour certain estoyent pro-
cedez du sainct Esprit, en ont fait vn rolle qu' ilz ont nommi Canon : signi-
Jians par ce mot, que tout cs qui sstoit Id comprins estoit reigle certaine, d
laquelle il se fallait tenir. Quant d ceux cy, ilz Ieur ant imposS nom d' Apo
cryphes : denatant qu' an les deuait tenir pour escritures priuAes, et non pas
authentiques, comme sont les instrumentz publiques. Parquoy il y a telle
difference entre les premiers et les secondz, comme entre un instrument pass6
devant un nataire, et seelMpaur estre receu de tous, et vne cedule d'vn homme
particulier. II est vray qu'ilz ne sont pas d mespriser d' autant qu'ilz cantiennent
honne doctrine et utile. Toutesfois c'est bien raison, que ce qui nous a esti donni
par le sainct Esprit ait preeminence pardessus tout ce qui est venu des hommes.
' The original runs : Parquoy, suyuant le dire de sainct Jerosme, que tous
Chrestiens les lisent et en prennent doctrine d'edificatian. Mais qu'ilz sayent
eependant aduertiz qu'ilz ne dayuent point Id prendre pleine asseurance des
articles de Ieur Foy : paurce que ce n'est pas tesmoignage suffisant, etc.

310 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
made on thera, do not fail to read tbera and to take from
thera doctrine and edification"' (Lyons, de Toumes, 1551,
etc). I wUUngly adrait that Calvin's pen took no part
in this composition. The authoritative edition of 1588
presents a new composition of some extent. This re
views the testiraonies of the Fathers and suras them up
in the following propositions : "These books are not
divinely inspired like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, and
being of private declaration, they ought not to be received
nor produced publicly in the Church so as to serve as a rule
for the articles of our faith. At the same time we may use
them privately to draw instruction from them, as rauch be
cause of several fine examples set forth in them, as because
of notable sentences they contain." "
This arrangement was easily proved to be an innovation,
and much advantage was taken of it by Catholic polemics,
with the view of prejudicing the people against the Protes
tant Bibles. The authors, therefore, of raost of the Reformed
Confessions judged it right to lay down the principle of it
in these charters of their respective churches.' In this way,
' In the original French : Parquoy, lecteur, veu que de toutes fleurs la
movehe peult tirer liqueur d faire mid, sans avoir eagard ou die soit plantie,
au champ ou au jardin, ainsi de tous ces liures icy tu pourras retirer chose
duisante d ton salut sans te reigler par les Juifs. . . . Puis donq que tous ont
vne mesme source et saine racine, pour vne resecation qu'en ontfaite les Juift
ne laisse de les lire et en prendre doctrine et edification.
' The original is : Ce jie sont pas liures diuinement inspires comme le reste
des sainctes Escritures, mais qu' estans de partieuliere declaration ilsnedoiuent
point estre receus au praduits publiquement en VEglise comme pour seruir de
reigle aux articles de nostre foy. Toutesfois on s'en peut seruir en particulier
pour en tirer instruction tant d cause de plusieurs beaux exemples qui nous f
sont proposes, que de notables sentences qu'ils cantiennent.
^ Conf. Helvet., II. art. I : Interim nihil dissimulamus quosdam V. T.
libros a veteribus nuncupatos esse Apocryphas, ab aliis Ecdesiasticas, utpote
quas in ecclesiis legi voluerunt quidem, nan tamen proferri ad auctaritatem ex
his fidei canfirmandam. — Conf. Gall., art. 4 : . , . (libri ecclesiastici) qui, ut
sint utiles, non sunt tamen eiusmodi ut ex iis canstitui possit aliquis fidei arti-
cuius. — Thirty-Nine Articles, art, 6 : And the other books, as Hierome

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, .311
the distinction assuraed an official and dograatic character,
and thus served to consecrate the theological conception of
the canon. The Lutheran formulas disdain to elevate this
custom to the dignity of an article of faith; and, truth to
say, they found no need for it, as I shall show in the course
of this narrative,
Ha-ving now established the fact, I have still to connect it
with the theory. Here I am naturally led to put two ques
tions, diametrically opposed, but equally embarrassing.
First of aU, if the so-called Apocryphal books have not that
essential quality which gives a special value to the others,
why have they been preserved in the coUection, placed even
in the very midst of those which are regarded as emanating
from divine inspiration, and therefore authoritative ? The
orthodox Cal-vinist theologians, who in our days have
applied the principle more rigorously, and have completely
eliminated them from the Bible, "wiU readily grant to me
that it was illogical to retain them under any reservations
whatever. For no amount of usefulness which one or other
of these books might present ought to be a sufficient reason
for assigning to thera that honour, otherwise the Bible
might have been further enriched by preference with
numerous monuraents of Christian piety, from the ApostoUc
Fathers, who at one tirae were admitted, down to the books
of the Reforraers theraselves, which were eagerly read by
thousands every day. The insertion, let rae rather say, the
saith, the Church doth read for exampls of Ufe and instruction oj manners;
but yet doth it not apply them ta establish any doctrine. — Conf, Belg,, art, 6 :
Differentiam constituimus inter libras sacros et apocryphas, quos quidem eccle
sia legere et ex iis documenta de rebus cum libris canonicis consentientibus
desumsre potest. At nequaquam ea ipsorum vis et autoritas est ut ex ullo
testimonia ipsorum aliquod dogma de fide aut reUgione Christiana certo con-
stitui possit, etc. The -Waldenses, after consulting (Ecolampadius (see the
letter ^e wrote to them in Scultetus, Annal. evang., ii,, 313), expressed
themselves in the same way in their Confession of Paith, On this point I
refer my readers to what was said above at the end of Chap. XIII, (p, 264).

312 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
preservation, of these books, by raeans of a note distributing
blarae and praise in uncertain proportions, was evidently
a corapromise between tbeorj^ and practice, a concession
made to usage, to tradition, nay even, as the translators of
Zurich frankly confessed, to individual taste. They had not
the courage altogether to suppress an element to which
the custora of so raany centuries had given a kind of
consecration. But I raay also raise the opposite question, and ask by
what motive they were infiuenced in raaking the separation?
Was it really in virtue of the sovereign principle of the
inward testimony of the Holy Spirit ? Would it be quite
true to say that the first Protestant theologians, while un
moved by the enthusiastic eloquence of the author of Wisdora,
so much extolled by the Alexandrians, felt the breath of
God in the genealogies of Chronicles, or the topographical
catalogues of the book of Joshua ? Did they really find so
great a difference between the miracles of the Chaldean
Daniel and those of the Greek Daniel, that they felt bound
to remove two chapters from the volume which bears
Daniel's name ? I have some difficulty in believing that
they arrived at the distinction they drew by any test of
that kind. On the other hand, it is very siraple to suppose,
or, rather, it is very easy to prove, frora their own declara
tions, that their purpose was to re-establish the canon of the
Old Testaraent in its primitive purity, such as it must have
existed, according to common opinion, among the ancient
Jews — i.e., as we know it in our Hebrew Bibles, As an
actual fact, tbey do not fail to invoke the custora of the
Hebrews in the notices of which I have given extracts.
Speaking frankly, it was the best thing for them to do.
They had for this the exaraple of the most learned Fathers,
and we must guard against reproaching their stiU imperfect
science that they did not beforehand submit to more careful

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 313
criticism the tradition in regard to the forraation of the
Hebrew canon. But I must caU attention to this fact that
their procedure was exactly that which in principle they
had condemned; they impUcitly acknowledged the authority
of tradition, and thus they returned to the very position
which they had loftUy declared their intention of quitting
as untenable. The theologians were not slow in seeing this.
They tried to place the authority of the Hebrew canon on a
more solid basis than that of the inspiration of the Jewish
doctors, who were absolutely unknown, but to whom the
collection in its actual forra was attributed. They derived
this authority frora the testiraony of the New Testament,
fi-om Jesus and the Apostles. As the value of this testimony
was beyond dispute, and the fact of quotations being made
fi-om the Old Testament pre-supposed the homogeneity of
the Spirit that had inspired them both, it must be acknow
ledged that this kind of demonstration adapts itself without
difficulty to the theological principle above set forth. But
if it respects the principle, it also Uraits its appUcation.
Indeed, the canonicity of every book in the Old Testaraent
wiU depend now on its being quoted by an apostolic writer ;
for the collection, taken as a whole, is usually quoted -with
this formula : the law and the prophets, which forraula, as
we know, includes only those parts of the Bible which were
used in public readings and recital Only once Psal/ms is
added, in order to be quite complete (Luke xxiv. 44). And
even though this circumstance should not forra a coraplete
proof, it raust be said that tbe absence of aU quotation frora
a particular book proves of itself that tbe spirit of that book
is not in intimate contact -w'.th that of the gospeL In a
passage to which I shaU afterwards refer, Luther recognises
this very clearly, inasmuch as he declares that it is not the
title of a work nor the name of its author which assures to
it canonical dignity, but the position it takes in regard to

314 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the evangelic faith ; ' and we shaU see afterwards how freely
he pronounces judgraent regarding the hagiographa. It
was from this point of view, no doubt, that the Fathers set
out when they removed tbe book of Esther from the canon.
What I am saying may appear a little rash : I hasten,
therefore, to add that the most orthodox Protestant
theologians did not shrink from this logical consequence
when they perceived it. Thus Flacius, the Lutheran par
excellence, does not hesitate to say that, in default of any
positive declaration by the Apostles regarding the number
of the authentic books of the Old Testament, this number
may be known without much difficulty from the quotations,
direct or indirect, contained in the apostoUc writings. And,
in this way, be sets himself to draw up a catalogue in which
naturally most of the hagiographa are wanting — Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, &c. ; " and he thinks thereby to have proved that
the Apostles approved exactly the same books regarding
which there had never been any doubt araong the Jews,
And Flacius had learning enough to know that the books
just named had been raatter of serious controversies among
the doctors of the Synagogue. By this inference, he returned
into the circle of ideas dominated b} the theory of the Spirit,
a circle from which there had been an unconscious depar
ture when an attempt was raade to settle the question by
rabbinical tradition.
If the definition of the canon of the Old Testaraent placed
the Reforraers in a difficulty, the work to be done on that
' By way of example, I direct the attention of my readers to Canticles,
which the apostles could not have passed over in silence, if the mystical
interpretation given to it by their successors had the least foundation. It
is well known that Luther rejected it also.
" Centuriae Magdeb. s. Sist. Eccl. N.T., ed. Semler, i,, 29, 451 : Etsi
numerus librorum authenticorum V. T. ab apostoUa ex professo nominatim
nan est expressus, tamen hund obscure ex citatianibus conjectari potest quod
eos pro certis et prabatis hdbuerint de quibus antiquitas iudaica nunquam
dubitamt. Citantur enim, etc.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 315
of the New was to produce many more uncertainties ; for
unless they put themselves at the feet of the scholastic
doctors, they had not even a uniforra and early enough
tradition on which to fall back. Hence on this point there
is apparent araongst thera a great divergence in methods
and results. The theologians in the two churches — at least,
the Germans and the Swis,s — were perfectly acquainted with
the state of the critical questions in so far as it could be
learned from reading the Fathers : they knew that several
books had been received into the canon only at a very late
date and after long fluctuations of opinion. But in regard
to this fact, they did not all pronounce the same judgraent
nor follow the sarae principles in their judgment. This of
itself shows that the question of the canon, raore particularly
that of the Ust in its details, was not practically a cardinal
question for Protestant theology whose centre of gravity was
placed elsewhere. Let us, therefore, pass in review the
different solutions given, beginning -with the Reforraed,
As a general thesis, the theologians of the Swiss churches,
while recognising the uncertainty of ti-adition regarding cer
tain books, and theraselves professing doubts about their
origin, do not concern themselves rauch about that fact, and
are not alarmed by it. Thus Musculus mentions the seven
antilegomena, and under that narae assigns them a secon
dary rank, but nevertheless includes them in the general
catalogue of the New Testament,' In the same way
(Ecolampadius, when consulted by the Waldenses on the
Scriptural canon, tells them of six antilegomena as holding
an mferior rank among the books of tbe New Testaraent,"
" Wolfg, Musculi Lod Communes, p, 221 : Mece madediae non est ut de
Slis pronunciem, sintne earum sub quarum naminibus exstant, vel secus.
Jvdicia tamen veterum hoc efficiunt ut minus sim illis quam cceteris scripturis
mtriclus, licet haud facile quaevis damnanda censeam quae in illis leguntur.
'(Ecol, ap. Scultd. I.e.: In N.T. quatuor evangelia cumadis app. et
quatuordecim epistolis Pauli et septem catholicis una cum Apocalypsi red-

316 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
The Epistle to the Hebrews is not included in this excep
tion. But neither he nor his corapatriots show any hesita
tion in raaking appeal to the testiraony of these same books
in theological discussions. It was, therefore, a simple ques
tion of historical criticism, which was not brought into
opposition with the Protestant principle, or which was
decided in favour of these books according to that same
principle. Since their contents appeared to Christian senti
ment to emanate from the Holy Spirit, the name of the
authors, who were perhaps not Apostles, made little
difference. Or, perhaps, was it the lack of that inward and
imraediate deraonstration which prorapted the distinction ?
That is certainly the case with Bucer and Zwingle. The
former insists on this point that the early Church recognised
only the twenty horaologouraena' as undoubtedly proceeding
from the Holy Spirit. The latter rejects the Apocalypse,
declaring himself unable to regard it as a Biblical book ; '
whereas he quotes, incessantly and without distinction, the
authority of the other books naraed above, especially the
Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Hebrews, having
written comraentaries on both these books. Calvin is stUl
raore instructive on these matters. He is profoundly con
vinced that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the work of
Saint Paul,' and he has a very learned discussion on this
head, taking up the historical and internal arguments for and
against. But this does not prevent him from pronouncing
the most brilliant eulogium on the work, as furnishing
pimus, tametsi apacalypsin cum epp. Jacobi et Judae d ultima Petri et
duabus posterioribus Joannis nan cum caeteris conferamus.
' Buceri Enarrat. in Evv., foi. 20,
= Bemer Disputation (Zwinglii, Opera, ii, 1, p. 169): Us Apocalypsi
nemend wir kein kundschafft an dann es nit ein biblisch buch ist. [With the
Apocalypse we have no concern, for it is not a Biblical book,] Comp. De
darit. verbi Dei, p. 310 : Apocalypsis prorsus non sapit os et ingenivm
Joannis. Possum ergo testimonia si vdim reiicere.
' Ego ut Paulum autorem agnoscam adduci nequeo (Praef. in Comment.)

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 317
material for Christian teaching, nor of quoting it at every
moment as an authority in his own dogmatics.' Here,
evidently, the canonicity " was decided by the Spirit, and not
by the Apostolic origin, still less by the tradition of the
Church, which for that matter was quite uncertain. In the
same way, Calvin defends the canonicity of the Epistle of
James, while at the same tirae he confesses his ignorance in
regard to the author, and wUlingly adraits that the latter
may not have been an Apostle. The essential point to him
is still the certainty which he gained as an exegete that the
text of the book raay be placed in perfect harmony with
what is preached elsewhere. His opinion regarding the
second Epistle of Peter is still more remarkable. The
religious impression he receives from it appears to him
decisive for its canonicity ; critical reasons make him actually
lean towards its non-authenticitj'-. And he is prevented
from purely and siraply rejecting this epistle, not by the
testimony of the Fathers, which seems to hira insufficient,
nor hy certain analogies which raight be drawn, but solely
by the consideration that the excellence of its contents,
appears to be irreconcilable with the fraud which would
resultjfrom the narae of the Apostle being put to a writing
altogether fictitious. He concludes frora this that a disciple
of Peter may have written it under the auspices of his
master, and according to his directions.' The sarae reason
¦ Once only, in the edition of 1536, he names Paul as the author, never
elsewhere nor afterwards. Nor does he wish to avoid expressing his opinion.
Thus, wlien introducing a passage of this epistle in continuation of one taken
from Colossians, ho says explicitly that it is from another apostle (teste altera
apostolo). Instit. ii., 16, 6. (Tom, ii,, p, 374),
' Boni quidam viri hanc suppasititiam epistolam crediderunt, quae omni
tamen ex parte apostoUcum spiritum vere redolet (Opp. i., 678).
' . . . , Quamvis aliqua noiari possit affiinitos, fateor tamen manifestum esse
diserimen quod diversos scriptores arguat. Sunt et aliae prababiles coniec-
turae ex quibus calUgere liceat alterius esse patius quam Petri. Interim om
nium consensu adea nihil habd Petro indignum ut mm spiritus apostalici et
gratiam ubique exprimai. Quod si pro canonica recipitur Petrum autarem

318 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
also deterrained tbe place he assigns to it; for he alone,
araong all tbe Reformers, separates it from the first epistle
by inserting those of John and James,' a very curious
pecuUarity which modern editions, modified by orthodoxy,
have taken care to efface. Thus everywhere Calvin is
guided by that kind of religious intuition which I have
characterised above, so that ecclesiastical tradition is con
sulted only to a very subordinate extent, and never prevails
over the other criterion. And certainly, from a theologian
and dialectician so skilful, so certain of himself and his
axioms, we could not expect an illogical conclusion. Some
have believed it possible to affirm that he rejected the
Apocalypse, because it was the only book of the New Testa
raent, except the two short Epistles of John," on which he
wrote no coraraentary. But that conclusion is too hasty.
In the Institutes, the Apocalypse is sometimes quoted like
the other Apostolic writings, and even under John's name.
If there was no commentary, it was simply that the illus
trious exegete, wiser in this respect than several of his
contemporaries and many of his successors, had understood
that his vocation caUed him elsewhere,"
fateri oportet quando .... fictia indigna esset ministro Christ . ... Sic
igitur constitua, si digna fide censetur, u, Petro fuisse prof ectam, non quod eam
scripserit ipse sed quod unus aliquis ex discipuUs ipsius mandato complexui fuerit
quae temporum necessitas exigebat. . , . Certe quum in omnibus epistolae partiius
spiritus Christi maiestas se exserat eam prorsus repudiare mihi religio est.
' I have before me six editions, Latin as well as French, of the Commentary on
the CathoUc Epistles, aU issued under the author's own eyes between 1551 and
1562. ° It might be said -with more probability that Calvin did not acknowledge
the canonicity of these two writings. He never quotes them, and he quotes
the first Epistle of John in a way to exclude them : Joannes in sua canonica.
Instit. iii., 2, 24; 3, 23. (Opp., ii., 415, 453.)
3 -When the second Helvetic Confession, art. ii., declares: damnaw/us vudaUca
somnia quod ante iudieii diem a/ureum in terns sitfuturum saeculmm et pii regna
mundi occupaturi oppressis suis hostibus invpiis, that proves, not that there was a
desire to reject as an apocryphal writing the Apocalypse which literally promises
that golden age, but that ordinary exegesis had succeeded in effacing from it ttcjc
Jewish dreams.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 319
The few notes that have just been read already show that
the Protestant principle of canonicity may, in application,
lead to different opinions. The Swiss theologians felt this ;
but, in place of modifying it for that reason, or abandoning
it, they preferred to yield to it aU the liberty of action it
could claim. It must be granted that in this they were
right ; for they thereby showed, in regard to the truth they
were called to defend, sounder faith, raore praiseworthy
confidence, than if they had been anxious to place it under
the safeguard of an official and authoritative catalogue. No
Helvetic Confession of Faith gives the list of books that are
to be recognised as apostolic and canonical. They aU
•confine themselves to the principles of the Gospel, judging
that its substance, faithfully forraulated and accepted, would
guide every member of the Church in the distinction to be
made between the books.
But the Reformed theologians of some other countries
were not of the same opinion. The Confession of La
RocheUe, in its third article, contains tbe coraplete list not
¦only of the Hebrew canonical books, but also of those of the
New Testament, such as it was in every one's hands. Any
further examination into the canonicity of any book what
ever, whether made by the methods of historical criticism,
or made in appUcation of tbe principle expressly consecrated
hy the very next article and quoted above, thus became not
simply superfiuous, but forbidden and dangerous. I merely
state that, according to tbe literal expression of this third
•article, it is permitted to Frenchmen, and even enjoined on
them, not to believe that Paul is the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, since a clear separation is made between it
•and Paul's other epistles.' This sraall liberty is refused to
the Reformed of the Netherlands, whose Confession Cart. 4)
' Epistolae Pauli, nempe ad Bomanos una, ad Corinthios duae . ... ad Fhile-
¦monem una. Epistola ad Hebraeos, Jacobi epistola etc.

320 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Ukewise contains a list, and in this list fourteen epistles of
Paul. Finally, the Thirty-nine Articles of the AngUcan
Church do not give theraselves the trouble of enumeration.
They limit themselves to registering the canonical and
apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and in regard to the
New simply say that coraraon opinion will be followed.'
But even these last facts are such as might in some sort
be adduced in favour of the Protestant principle of the
demonstration of the Spirit. For, to some extent, if less
directly, they show that the fundamental thesis of the
Gospel, as it had been conceived by Protestantism, seemed
so thoroughly established, so completely raised above all
dispute, so positively guaranteed by Biblical teaching, that
no necessity was anywhere seen for fortifying it or defend
ing it by a preUminary scrupulous examination of the
Scriptural authorities, thereby getting rid of some books
which raight appear to favour a different conception. From
this side no danger was perceived, either for the faith itself
or for the system which was its expression. On the con
trary, as we have just now seen from the instance of the
Apocalypse, the dogmatic theory already had so rauch pre-
dorainance that it regulated even the interpretation of the
texts. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was considered
quite superfiuous to sift the canon. We are thus not at all
corapelled to believe that the French, English, and Dutch
theologians carae to insert these official lists of sacred books
in their Confessions of Faith, only by forgetting and deny
ing the principle which had forraed the point of departure
for their theology, and by falling back into the beaten paths
of the traditional raethod.
StiU, at a rauch earlier period, and with a boldness of
logic which he did not show in everything, Luther had given
1 "AllthehooksoftheNew Testament, as they are commonly received, wedoreceive
and account them canonical."

THE THEOLOGl OF THE REFORMERS. 321
prominence to this same principle in such a way as to lead
to quite different applications of it. For him, too, as for
Calvin and his school, the Gospel, the whole of Christianity,
was summed up in the great thesis of salvation by grace, of
the sinner's justification by faith alone in Christ aud His
expiatory death, to the absolute exclusion of all raerit by
works. This truth was the cardinal point of all his theology,
of aU his spiritual and religious life. Criticism, exegesis,
historical opinion, all his science, in short, was subordinated
to that axiom. Whether he arrived at this con-viction from
the study of Augustine or the reading of the Bible, it raatters
little ; he had always found it confirraed beyond dispute in all
parts of Scripture, by the Old Testamentas by the New, so that
in his eyes the theological principle of the Gospel and that of
a Scriptural revelation were very much identified with one
another. But as the former took the lead of the latter, both
by its intrinsic importance and the priority of its conception,it
thus became the rule and criterion. Later on, Cal-vin said, in
somewhat general terras, that the Holy Spirit, speaking in us,
teaches us to recognise the Scriptures as trulyinspired by God ;
whereas Luther, expressing hiraself raore clearly and positive
ly, and at the sarae tirae putting his principle more within
the gra.sp of the body of the faithful, said that canonicity was
determined by what each Biblical book, real or pretended,
taught regarding Christ and the salvation of men. All the
other criteria, even the naraes and dignity of the authors,
true or supposed, were of no iraportance. Thus, in his cele
brated preface to the translation of the New Testament,
after setting forth the nature, purpose, and conditions of the
new economy, he adds that it is also the means of estimating
aU the books and distinguishing tbe best. According to this
standpoint, the Gospel of John and tbe Epistles of Paul
(especiaUy the Epistle to the Roraan.s) together with the First
of Peter, are the very kernel and raarrow of aU the books, those

322 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
which ought to be the daily bread of the Christian, They are
much to be preferred to the others, particularly to the three
first gospels, which speak raore of Christ's miracles than of
His teaching, though the latter leads us to salvation, whUe
His works profit us nothing. In these books, to which may
be added the Epistles to the Galatians and the Ephesians,
as weU as the First of John, may be found everything neces
sary to salvation, even if one were never to see any other
book.' " There, too," he says elsewhere," " is the true touch
stone for testing all these books, when it is apparent
whether or not they insist on what concerns Christ, since all
Scripture ought to show us Christ (Rom, iii,) ; and Saint
Paul (1 Cor, ii,) wishes to know nothing but Christ. That
whicb does not teach Christ is not ApostoUc, though Peter
or Paul should have said it ; on the contrary, that which
preaches Christ is Apostolic, even if it should come from
Judas, Annas, Herod, and Pilate ! "

1 Preface to the New Testament, 1522 ( Opera Germ. , LXIII, ed, Erlangen, p, 114) :
Alts diesem alien hannst du nu recht urtheilen unter alien Bilchern und Unter-
schied nehmen welches die besten sind. Denn namlich ist Johannis Evangelion
und S. Pwuli Episteln, sonderlich die zu den Bomern, und S. Peters erste Spistel,
der rechte Kern und Mark unter alien Bilchern. . . . denn in diesen findist du
nicht viel Werk und Wunderthaten Christi beschrieben, du findist abergar mdster'
lick ausgestrichen wie der Glaube an Christum Siind Tod und Holle iiberwindet
und das Leben Gerechtigkeit und Seligkdt gibt, welches die rechte Art ist des
Evangelii. Denn wo ich je der dns mangeln sollt, der Werke oder der Predigt
Christi, so woUt ich Heber der Werk mangeln. Denn die hulfen mvr nichts, aher
seine Wort die geben das Leben. . . . (darum) ist Johannis Evangelion das dnige
sarte recht Haupteoangelion und den andern dreien weit fOrzuziehen und hoher zu
heben. Also auch S. Paulus und Petrus Episteln weit iiber die drei Evcmgdien
Matthcei Marci und Luces filrgehn. Summa, S. Johannis Evangel, und seine erste
Epistel, S. Paulus Episteln, sonderlich die zu den Bomern, Galatem und Ephesern,
und S. Petrus erste Epistel, das sind die Bilcher die dir Christum zeigen und alles
lehren das dir eu wissen noth und selig ist, 6b du sehon kein ander Buch nummer
sehest noch hbrest.
2 Preface to the Epistle of James (Works, I. c, p, 157) : Das ist der rechte
Priifestdn alle Bilcher zu taddeln wenn man siehet ob si Christum treiben oder
nicht; sintemal alle Schrift Christum zdgd (Rom, iii.), und S. Paulus nichts
denn Christum wissen will (1 Cor. ii,). Was Christum nicht lehrd, das ist noch
nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Pdrus oder Paulus lehrete; wiederumb was

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 323
We may not be able to follow Luther in all his conclu.sions,
and we may make reservations in regard to his critical
estimates ; but we are bound to acknowledge that he was
consistent in the appUcation of the principle, and that he
knew how to place it on a more solid basis than did Calvin.
The latter might be reproached with supplying a soraewhat
subjective criterion, which would leave it possible to each
individual to take his tastes and prejudices as a testiraony
of the Holy Spirit. Luther, on the contrary, when he
found the measure of canonicity in a religious axiom which
he had not invented, which was actuaUy and textually
preached in many passages of Scripture itself, and to which
no other could be opposed — Luther, I say, occupied a stronger
position, one rauch less exposed to the chances of a fluctuation
in opinion, to a sudden change in the ideas and systems of
men. It is true that, from this point of view, the material
principle of Protestantism is placed above the forraal
principle, the Gospel of grace above the written word which
bears testiraony to it ; but an attentive study of the history
of the origins of the Reformation shows us that this step
was quite natural at the beginning of tbe moveraent, and it
is in accordance with strict logic to give precedence to the
truth itself, over the witness that attests it,' And those
who affirm their desire to preserve and faithfully continue
the theology of the Reformers, ought to be the last to reverse
the order of ideas which prevailed at its formation. But
when some in our days go so far as to speak of Luther's
Christum predigd das ware apostoUsch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus und
Serodes that.
' This applies specially to Lutheran theology. As to that of the Calvinist
Churches, the fact is not quite so perceptible, as I have already shown in
part ; and the further we go from the beginning of the Reformation move
ment, the greater the preference shown for the formal principle, e.g., in
Holland, in Prance, and especially in England. That is obvious in all the
later development of Protestant theology, I shall note the cause of this
•divergence when I come to the next period.

324 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
foolishness, in connection -with the method of which I have
just given an account, because in sorae detail they do not
share his opinion, that only proves that, with the modern
champions of an orthodoxy, professing to be privileged,
ignorance and fatuity go hand in hand.
The words just quoted from Luther may serve at the same
time as coraraentary on a proposition with which we have
already raet in the confessions of faith, and which was
destined ultiraately to becorae the sovereign principle of
exegesis in the schools. When it was declared that all
interpretation raust conform to the rule of faith, the latter
was certainly understood to mean the fundamental doctrines
of the Gospel as Protestantism conceived them. There wa,s
a con-viction that these doctrines present so faithful a
sumraary of the essentials of revealed truth, that the Bible
could not possibly contain anything opposed to them ; and
hence, passages more obscure or apparently at variance
with the dogma, would naturaUy enough receive their true
meaning, or their raost fruitful application, when brought
into raore direct contact with one another, and with the
dograa itself Whenever, therefore, a conscientious study
of the texts led to the conviction that there was a certain
incompatibiUty between what was regarded as the very
foundation of the Gospel and what professed to be part of
Scripture, there could be no hesitation about the choice to
be raade. They had to adhere to the Gospel in whose name
they had dared to break with Rome, and on which was
founded the salvation of individuals and the entire Church t
they had to decide, though with regret, on the sacrifice of
some pages whose absence would in no way compromise the
truth, rather than enfeeble the truth by making too easy a
concession to traditional usage. He who is wUling to
acknowledge this fact, that the Reformation was not a
simple reaction against reUgious tyranny nor the product of

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 325
a philosophical criticism, but the claim of a positive religious
belief, profoundly felt and raised to the dignity of an absolute
principle, wiU also grant that the procedure I have just
spoken of hypothetically, would have been natural enough
and perfectly legitimate. Indeed, the canon was not to the
Reformers a more or less coraplete coUection of aU that could
have been written at a certain date, or by a certain class of
persons, but the body of books believed to have been destined
by God to bear testimony to a certain reUgious truth, which
was clearly defined, and could admit of no contradiction or
compromise. It followed, therefore, that the contents, the
teaching, the spirit itself, must finally decide regarding the
canonicity of each book.
What I have suggested by way of hypothesis, became for
Luther at the very outset of his career as a Reformer a
very serious reaUty. He thought hiraself bound, for the
very reasons I have been indicating, to dispute the canonical
dignity of several books of the New Testament, I raean, pf
course, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the Apocalypse. He did not indeed suppress
them in his editions, but from the first he relegated them to
the end of the volume ; and in the tables of the contents
placed at the top, he separated their titles from those of the
books reputed to be canonical by an interval all the raore
significant that the twenty-three first alone were numbered
whUe the four last were not. But stiU raore interesting to
us is his stateraent of the raotives for this separation. It is
found in the various prefaces he gave to his translation.
Everywhere lie raentions the doubts or the opposition these
books encountered in antiquity, though that is a very
secondary matter with him. But, while passing lightly
enough over the facts, he exaggerates their importance.'
1 Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews : Bisher haben wir die rechten
gewissen Hauptbiicher des N. T, gehabt. Diese vier nachfolgende aber haben

326 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
Nor is he quite irapartial, since he represents the Epistles of
James and Jude as generaUy rejected, while he does not say a
word about the nature of the reception formerly given to the
Second Epistle of Peter, Still it is easy to see that the decisive
reason to hira for the rejection is precisely that dogmatic
incompatibility of which I have just been speaking, and
which, rightly or wrongly, was henceforth for him and his
exegesis an incontestable fact, Luther does not hesitate to
acknowledge anything fine and excellent he may, -with his
fastidious views, find in these books — the austerity of James
in vindicating the divine law, the practical teaching which he
ingeniously extracts from the Apocalypse, and specially the
masterly statement of tbe Epistle to the Hebrews regarding
Christ's priesthood. He forgets however that if the latter
epistle is not canonical, the very idea of that priesthood has
no longer any authentic guarantee. But he insists more on
the points that are opposed. The Epistle of James ' derives
justification from works; in interpreting the Old Testa
raent, it contradicts Paul ; it does not speak of Christ, His
death. His resurrection. His Spirit ; it speaks of a law of
Uberty, while we know from Paul that with the law are
vorzeiten ein ander Ansehn gehabt. [Hitherto we have had the right and
genuine books of the New Testament, The four that follow have in former
times been otherwise regarded], . . . He quotes in particular the passage
ii,, 3, as not coming from an apostle, and certainly not from St, Paul, —
Preface to the Epistles af James and Jude : Diese Ep. Jacobi, unewohl de
von den AUen verwcrrfen ist, dc. [This Epistle of James, though it is rejected
by the Fathers, etc] , . . That of Jude is a simple extract from the second
of Peter, and is, moreover, filled with quotations drawn from apocryphal
books, welches auch die alten Vdter heweget hat diese Epidd aus der Haupt-
schrift zu werfen [which also moved the early Fathers to reject it from the
canon of Scripture.] See also the two prefaces to the Apocalypse.
' Aufs erste dass sie stracks loider S. Pauhim und alle andre Schrift den
Wsrken die Gerechtigkeit gibt. . . . Aufs ander dass sie will Christenleut lehren
und gedenckt nicht dnmal des Leidens, der Auferstehung, des Odstes Christi. Et
nennet Christum etlich mal aber er lehrd nichts von ihm sondem sagt von gemdnem
Glauben an Gott. . . . Dieser Jacobus thut nicht mehr denn treibet zu dem Gesetz
und seinen Werken und wirft unSrdig dns ins ander. . . . Er nennet das GesetX

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 327
associated bondage, sin, anger, and death. The Epistle to
the Hebrews,' in three places (ch, vi., x., xii), refuses repen
tance to sinners after baptism, contrary to all the gospels and
to aU Paul's epistles. Th e Epistle of Jude " also, when judged
by what is fundamental in the Cliristian faith, is useless.
In the Apocalypse ^ there are only images and -visions, such
as are found nowhere else in the Bible ; and notwithstand
ing their obscurity, the author has the boldness to add to
them threats and promises, while no one knows what
he means ; and after all Christ is neither taught nor
acknowledged. It may be compared to the fourth book of
Ezra; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not perceptible in it.
I am not called on to discuss here the real value of these
opinions. I adhere, however, to ray statement, that, though
the different standard applied to the Uterature of the first
century prevents the modern historical school from subscrib
ing to Luther's opinions, it does not prevent thera from
acknowledging that these were natural and legitiraate in
any one who set out from a purely dogmatic standpoint
and subordinated Scripture to his system exclusively Pauline,
or, if you wiU, Augustinian. Nevertheless, it raay be said
that he did not intend to pronounce pereraptory and in
disputable verdicts. In spite of his strong convictions, he is
aware of the subjective nature of his reasonings, and wiUingly
ein Gesetz der Frdheit, so es doch S. Paulus dn Gesdz der Enechtschaft, des
Zams, des Tods und der Sunde nennt. . . .
1 Ueber das hat sie dnen harten Knoten dass de. . . . stracks vemeinet und
versaget die Busse den Sundem, nach der Taufe. . . . welches, wie es lautet,
schdnet wider alle Evangdien und Episteln S. Pauli zu sdn, . . .
" Darum ists doch dne unnSthige Epistel unter die Hauptbiicher zu rechnen
die des Glavliens Grund legen sollen.
0 Mir mangelt an diesem Buche nicht einerld dass ichs weder apostolisch noch
prophetisch halte. Aufs erste und dllermHst, dass die Apostel nicht mit Gesichten
umbgehn. . . . denn es auch dem ap. Ampt gehuhrt kldrlich und ohn Bild oder
Bedcht von Christ zu reden. . . . Auch ist so kein Prophet im A. T. . . .
dass ichs fast gleich mir achte dem 4ten B. Esras u. allerdinge nicht spiiren
ham dass es von dem H. Gdst gcstdld sd. Dazu dunkt mich das allzuvid dass er
10 hart sdn eigen Buch befiehlt, und draud wer etwas davon thue, vun dem werd

328 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
adraits that every one is not of his opinion. He writes
a second preface to the Apocalypse ' in order to attempt an
interpretation of the book which at first he professed not to
understand, and this interpretation is not grounded on a
science sure of its method,?, but on his own polemical pre
judices. He exalts the good intentions of tho unknown
disciples who composed the epistles in question, and making
use of an iraage borrowed from Paul, and applied to all the
doctors in turn, even to those he recomraends," he regrets
only that the straw and wood are raingled with the precious
raaterials in these works of edification.^ It has often been
charged against him as a crime that he employs this image.
But his preraises being granted, it is both exact and spiritual,
and can only offend those who have ceased to be his faithful
disciples, and wish to impose on others a yoke he had
broken. StUl it must not be supposed that the opinions of Luther
were only casual suggestions, sallies of the moment. It is
true that at times he yields to some raoraentary impulse,
that we find in bis works many inconsistencies and many
contradictions ; in other words, that to the last he continued
to learn and to advance. But if his criticism of the canon
is always Umited to these few protestations more or less
Gott auch thun ; wiederumb sollen selig sdn die da halten was drinnen steht, so
doch niemand wdss was es ist. . . , Mein Gdst kann sich in das Buch nicht
schicken, u. ist mir die TJrsach gnug dass ich sein, nicht hoch achte dass Christus
drinnen weder gelehrt noch erkannt wird. , . ,
" Preface to the Apocalypse ,• In this book I leave it to every man to make
out his awn meaning ; I ivish no ane ta be bound ta my views or opinion , . .
let every man hold what his spirit gives him. . . . Preface to the Epistle of
Jaraes ; Therefore I cannot plaee it among the right canonical works, but I
do not wish thereby to prevent any ane from sa placing it and extolling it as
seemeth goad to him.
' Opera Oerm. ed. Erlangen, LXIII, , p. 379.
3 Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews .¦ And though he does not lay the
foundation of faith, still he builds gold, silver, precious stones (1 Car. iii,);
therefore it should not hinder us, if perhaps there are mingled with these

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 329
subjective,' and that it nowhere enters on the discussion of
any settled and consistently applied scientific theory, it is
not the less fitted to show that his theology, while fully ex
tolling the Word of God and its inspiration, always placed
the spirit above the letter, the Gospel above its organs, and
that it received the truth for its own sake and not because
of any external guarantees.
In order to bring out more clearly the high value he attri
buted to his theological criterion, I ought further to raention
here some of his opinions regarding different books of the Old
Testament, These latter were positively better defended,
as a whole, by that same tradition which did not afford
equal protection to aU the -writings coraposing the apostolic
¦canon, and it was generally thought that, after elirainating
the Apocrypha, the canon of the Synagogue was raised above
aU criticisra. But Luther's exegesis was skilful in discover
ing the evangelical element in the documents of the Old
-Covenant, and he did not hesitate to acknowledge his dis
appointments in this respect when his sagacity was de
ceived, and at once to draw frora this fact conclusions
.similar to those he had uttered regarding the four deutero-
wood, straw, or hay, but we should receive such fine doctrine with all honour.
. , . Preface to the New Testament ,• Thess are the books which show thee
Christ, and teach all that is necessary far thee to know. . . . Wherefore St.
James' Epistle is a true epistle of straw compared unth them, far it contains
nothing afan evangdicaZ nature.
' They are, however, not so rare as might be supposed. An attentive
reader finds numerous traces of them in almost all parts of his works, I
take the liberty of pointing out a few. In his Sermons on the Epistle of
Peter, he speaks disdainfully of that of James, as saying not a word of the
most essential part of the Gospel, and infers that the author was not an
apostle (Opera Oerm. , LI, p, 337 ; comp, X, 366), He complains (VIII. 267)
that among the pericopes used in the Church, there are some taken from
the Epistle of James, which cannot be compared with the apostolic writings,
as neither conforming to pure doctrine, nor written by an apostle. Never
theless, he takes them as texts for his sermons, and makes use of them for
edification. In the exordium of another sermon on the first chapter of the
Bpistle t9 the Hebrews (vii., p. 181), he makes a stately eulogium of tha

330 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
canonical books of the New Testament. On this point I
shaU quote from the interesting coUection of Table Talk}
some examples which so clearly carry the stamp of his
genius, and owe so little to the spirit of his ordinary sur
roundings that their authenticity cannot be doubtful. They
will show how far his inteUigence, raore practical than
learned, was able soraetiraes to grasp tbe meaning of the
facts, or decide beforehand questions which had not yet
arisen in his day. Thus, speaking of Ecclesiastes," he
says : " This book ought to be more complete : it wants
raany things ; it has neither boots nor spurs, and rides in
siraple sandals as I used to do when I was still in the con
vent. Soloraon is not its author," etc. Evidently this criti
cism applies to the theology of the book in which Luther,
with justice, did not recognise the spirit of his own — i.e., of
the theology of the Gospel. " The Proverbs of Solomon,"
he continues, " are a book of good works; they are collected
by others who wrote them when the king, at table or else
where, had just uttered his raaxiras. There are added the
teachings of other wise doctors, Ecclesiastes and Canticles,
are, besides, books not of one piece : there is no order in
these books ; all is confused in them, which fact is explained
bj' their origin. For Canticles too were composed by others
from the sayings of Solomon, who therein thanks God for
work for its christological doctrine ; but he drily declares that it is not by
Paul, whose style is not so rhetorical. Some, he adds, attribute it to
Apollos, Now the fact is that he himself was the first to venture on this
conjecture (Comm. in Oenes., c, xlviii. Opera Latina, Erlangen, XL, 130),
which is now widely adopted. Elsewhere (Opera Oermana, XVIH, p, 39)
when preaching on the allegory just mentioned (1 Cor, iii,), he thinks that
with the test there spoken of, we shall find that Paul preached Christ more
purely than Peter, etc. Any apostolic origin is distinctly denied to the
Epistle of Jude, vol, X. 366 ; LII, pp, 272, 284 (Oerm. )
' Opera Oerm., LXII, pp, 128 ff.
" The original German runs : Dies buch sollt vOlliger sein, ihm ist z/a viel
abgebrachen, es hat weder Stiefelnoch Spam, es reitdnur inSocken, gleich wie
ich da ich nach im Kloster war.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 331
the obedience which is a gift of heaven, and the practice of
which at home, or in public, brings peace and happiness,
like to conjugal harraony." ' " As to the second book of
Maccabees," he say elsewhere, " and that of Esther, I dislike
them so rauch tbat I wish they did not exist; for they
are too Jewish and have many bad Pagan elements,"" " The
preachings of the prophets were not composed in a complete
fashion. Their disciples and their hearers frora tirae to tirae
-wrote fragments of them, and thus what is now found in
the Bible, was forraed and preserved," " The books of Kings
are a hundred thousand steps in advance of those of
Chronicles, and they also deserve more credit. Still they
are only the calendar of the Jews, containing the list of their
kings and their kind of government." " Job raay have
thought what is written in his book, but he did not pro
nounce these discourses. A man does not speak thus when
he is tried. The fact at bottom is real ; but it is like the
subject of a draraa with a dialogue in the style of Terence's
comedies, and for the purpose of glorifying resignation."*
" Moses and the prophets preached ; but we do not there
hear God himself For Moses received only the law of
angels and has only a subordinate mission. People are not
urged to good works by preaching the law. When God
himself speaks to men, they hear nothing but grace and
mercy. The intermediate organs, angels, Moses, emperor, or
burgomaster, can only comraand ; we ought certainly to
obey them : but only since God spoke by the Son and the
Holy Spirit, do we hear the paternal voice, the voice of love
and grace."^
' Opera, I.e. p. 128, and Vol, LXIIL, pp, 35, 37, 40.
' Vol, LXIL, p, 131 ; Ich bin dem Buchund Esther sa feind dassichwollte
lie waren gar nicht vorhanden j denn sie judenzen zu sehr unci haben viel
heidnische Unart.
3 Vol, LXn,, pp, 132 f,
* Interpretation of the Sixth eh. afJohn,1532.0pera Germ., XLVII., p. 357.

332 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
After all I have just said, it will be easy to convince my
readers that to Luther the authority of Scripture was no
thing but an abstract principle, in other terms, that he never
studied, reasoned, or taught, so as to begin by fixino' the
canon, reserving only the right of seeing afterwards what
truths this authority would reveal to him, and would ordain
him to believe. On the contrary, his supreme rule, his own
special canon, was always a very concrete principle, anterior
and superior to all Scripture : Christ crucified and a Saviour.
According to hira, all the Bible from one end to the other
should preach Christ; each one of its parts should be judged
according to the measure in which it fulffis that end. The
faults, the weaknesses that raay be discovered and observed
on this point in raore than one book, do not compromise
tbe essential matter. What matter all the verses that re
main above and beyond, provided we have and know him
who is the Master and Lord of Scripture ? "If, in the debates
in which exegesis brings no decisive victories, our adver
saries press the letter against Christ, we shall insist on
Christ against the letter." As Luther's theory ended con
sistently in this, it is evident that the opposition between
it and the Catholic system was not the same as the difference
between Scripture and tradition ; it was rather the differ
ence between a living, active faith in the person of the
Saviour, and implicit, passive submission to the authority of
the Church. If we had no other proof of this raan's genius,
it would be sufficiently established by this fact, that after
three centuries of hesitations, contradictions, and misunder
standings, the question which he solved is again proposed
in the sarae terms in the very bosora of Protestantism.
Let us not forget to say that Luther, armed with the
theory I have just expounded, was perfectly justified in
pleading the cause of the Bible against those who prided
theraselves on a pretended internal illumination and rejected

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. o33i
the authority of Scripture, On his part this polemic was
not inconsistent ; for according to hira, the Holy Spirit pro
mised and granted to the beUever acts in an imraediate
manner, but connects this action with the external (i.e.
written) word, which thus serves as a kind of form or body
for it. On the other hand, Luther avoided quite as certainly
the opposite excess of those who would have liked to can
onize the letter, since he demanded, first of all, an explicit
and positive adhesion to what he had recognised as the
fundamental thought of the Gospel, and thus ran no risk of
confounding the eternaUy true and salutary word of God
with the collection of books, which only bears testiraony to
it in very unequal proportions. For a man so profoundly
pious as Luther, this distinction was not an error, nor a
piece of weakness, as minds of another kind raight suppose
it to be : it was an absolute necessity.
Objection wiU of course be taken that such a theory could
hardly issue in any rigorous definition of the canon, even
less so than with the unscientific methods of the early
Church. That is perfectly just ; but I see no great harm in
it, and, what is more, Luther's fellow- workers and imraediate
successors were of the sarae opinion. Indeed, we find araong
them some little variety on points of detaU, as their common
theory permitted great freedom in estimating and using
various parts of the sacred code, I shall bring this chapter
to a close by some notes taken from writings of the first
generation of Lutheran theologians, while I reserve for the
following chapter the study of the retrogression made by
their successors.
Melanchthon, who makes no explicit statement on this,
point when formulating his principles, frequently quotes the
Epistle to the Hebrews, above all in regard to Christ's sacri
fice; but he carefully avoids attributing it to Paul, and
always introduces it with an anonymous designation. As

334 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
to the Epistle of James, he has occasion raore than once' to
discuss its texts when he -wishes to refute the doctrines
opposed to the fundaraental thesis of Protestantism ; but he
does not enter on the critical question. His exegesis enabled
bim to neutralise the author's propositions, where Luther
could refute them only by the absolute rejection of the
book," Finally, the Apocalyspe leaves no mark any
where on his theology, and is passed over in silence. Above
this detailed criticism there is in Melanchthon, as in his
coUeague and friend, the supreme principle of the Christian
faith dominating the question of the canon. Thus we may
explain how, in the preface of the last editions of his Loci,
and when recapitulating the component parts of the Bible,
in order to characterise them from the doctrinal point of
view, be could confine himself in the New Testament to
naming the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, It was not
that he rejected the rest, but he thought the point to be of
little iraportance.
Brentz, the reforraer of the Duchy of Wurtemberg, is
equally acquainted with tbe non-canonical books of the
New Testament, and puts them in the same rank as the
Apocrypha of the Old. These, as we may well suppose, are
what had formerly been the antilegomena. He does not
propose to reject them absolutely, but he asks by what
right they were put on the same level as the canonical
scriptures.' He insists specially on this point, that the
' Apol. Confess. August., pp. 107 f , 182, 254 f,, 263, 296, Rechb,
' Luther somewhere jests about the trouble Melanchthon had taken to
"bring the statements of Paul and James into agreement, "Faith justifies j
faith does not justify. I shall put my doctor's bonnet on the man who will
make that rhyme, and I wish to pass for a madman." (Opera derm.,
LXIL, p, 127.)
5 Scia in his apocryphis libris multa pistatis docwmenta canMneri. Sapientia
Sal. ; etc. . . . Habent et epistolae quae inter cathalicas enumeramtw et apoca
lypsis Joannis suam utilitatem. Non igitur iudicamus has libros prorsus
abiiciendos. Sed illud nunc quaeritur .... num liceat vd uni creaiurae.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 335
Epistle of Jaraes could not be put in harmony with the
apostoUc doctrine, without the help of a forced interpretation.
Flacius, the ardent champion of pure Lutheranism, the
fiery adversary of Melanchthon, in his great work on
hermeneutics,' divides the books of the Bible into three
classes — the canonical -writings, the doubtful, and the
apocryphal. By these last, which according to hira have
no great authority, or none at all (for his definition is
ambiguous)," he means the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.
The doubtful books — i.e., those which have been sus
pected' — are the second epistle of Peter, that to the
Hebrews, those of Jaraes and Jude, the two latter of John,
and the Apocalypse. But he does not insist on this distinc
tion, nor base it on any principle of criticisra, nor deduce
from it any practical consequence. The separation he
makes between the doubtful and the apocryphal is always
in favour of the forraer. Elsewhere,'' in a work in which
he was aided by friends devoted like himself to exclusive
tendencies, he applies himself to a raore thorough discussion
of the value of the antilegomena of the New Testaraent,
He tests them in complete accordance with Luther's
¦example — i.e., from the dograatic point of view. Only he
puts in a plea for the Apocalypse, in which he finds nothing
•contrary to the analogy of faith. But as for James, Jude,
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, he simply reproduces his
master's arguments,
quamvis apostolicae, quamvis angelicas, vsl alicui hominum coetui, quoeunque
nomine, ad scripturam (ad libras veras canonicas) alios incertae originis
addere, eandem iis autoritatem tribvere. . . . (Brentii Apol. Confess, Wir-
temb., pp. 824 f.)
' Flacii Clavis S. S., part ii., I, p, 46.
' Apocryphi quibus nulla eximia autoritas tribuitursunt: Sap. Sal, etc. . . .
Hi libri licet biblico canoni nunc addantua; tamen nullius autoritatis apud
-intdligentes scriptores habentur.
3 Dubios dico de quibus dubitatum est.
¦• Centur. Magd., ed. Semler i., 452 f. Comp. U. Regii Int. hcc. comm.,
p. 42,

336 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I shall mention one author raore, to whora I should, per-
hap.s, have given even the first rank, had I followed the
chronological order. He was the only one of the Protestant
doctors of that age who wrote a special work on the theory
of the canon. This was the celebrated colleague of Luther
at Wittenberg, Andreas Bodenstein, who is better known by
the name of Carlstadt,' and died in 1541 as a professor at
Basle. As is well known, he stood out among all the
prominent theologians of his time as the most logical
champion of the exclusive authority of Scripture, and
pushed his radical hostility to ecclesiastical tradition to
iconoclastic extremes, which Luther was equaUy energetic
in opposing. This very raan becarae the advocate of tradi
tion on this special point, and in such a way as wittingly
to contradict the theory which would have pleased him
best. The following is shortly the substance of his book.
After speaking with enthusiasra about the raajesty of Scrip
ture, and establishing its indisputable authority in every
thing connected with dogma and institutions, he comes to
inquire what basis there is for the canonicity of each book,
and begins by analysing in succession the texts of Augustine
and Jerome in relation to this question. Then expressing a
preference for the distinctions drawn by the latter, and
adopting the division usual among the Jews, as well as the
information furnished by Eusebius and the Fathers of the
fourth century, he concludes by combining these two
eleraents, and establishing three orders or classes of books,
to which he assigns a different dignity — at least, in so far
as the New Testament is concerned. The first class con
tains the Law, or the five books of Moses (though he does
' De canonicis scripturis Ubellus : Witt, 1520, quarto. He issued a brief
summary of it in German : Wdche bilcher heilig und biblisch seind (ibid.
eod.). The original, become extremely rare, was reprinted in 1847 by
Credner with notes {^r Oeschichte des Canons, pp. 291 f, ) •

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS, 337.
not hesitate to declare that Moses is not their author in the
rigorous meaning of the word), and the four gospels, which
are the most brilliant lamps of Divine truth.' To the
second class belong, on the one hand, the prophets— -¦i.e,, the
books of Joshua, Judges (with Ruth), Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah (with Lamentations), Ezekiel, and the twelve
Minor Prophets ; on the other hand, the fifteen epistles
universally received and undoubtedly Apostolic — viz,,
thirteen by Paul, one by Peter, and one by John, To the
third, finally, are relegated the hagiographa, as they are
brought together in our Hebrew Bibles " (with the exception
of Ruth and Lamentations), and the seven antUegomena of
the New Testament, which occupy the lowest rank in
regard to canonical dignity. The chief, or rather the sole
motive, which the author advances for this distinction, is
the amount of attestation given by early writers. Thus, in
his eyes, the Apocalypse and the Epistle to the Hebrews
are put stiU lower than the Epistles of James, Jude, and
John, because the latter were admitted to the canon at an
earUer date. Carlstadt expressly adds that the rank he
assigns to the Epistle to the Hebrews is not determined by
any inferiority in its intrinsic value. In short, Carlstadt's
theory is absolutely different from that of Luther, This is
evident frora his preference for the Gospels over the writings
of St, Paul, and especiaUy from his polemic on the question
of the Epistle of James, ¦* to which poleraic he returns on
several occasions with a certain bitterness. He also avails
himself of the faraous saying of Augustine, to which I have
' Libri primes notes gummmque. dignitatis N. T. totius veritatis divines da-
rissima lumina.
' See note on p, 10.
5 Infimum autoritatis divince locum.
* Jacobi epistola nihil usque sententiarum habd quad more possit canonicis
Uteris communiri. Si fas est vd parvum vd magnum facers quod placet,
futurum tandem erit dignitates et autoritates librorum e nostra pendere
¦facultate.

338 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
before directed attention ; for, he says, it is by the recogni
tion and the testiraony of the Church that we know what
books are genuinely evangelical, and how raany epistles
there are by the apostles.
If Luther's personal opinions were not adopted by all the
theologians of his school, they at least prevailed in practice,
in so far as all the editions of the Gerraan New Testament
down to our tiraes have preserved the order and arrange
ment he introduced, separating the Epistle to the Hebrews
frora the Epistles of Paul, and those of Jaraes and Jude from
the other Catholic Epistles. There exist even editions of the
Greek New Testaraent, not very old, which were made by
Lutheran theologians, and in which the canon is thus modi
fied,' Further, Luther's prefaces for a long time were put
at the head of each book, and thus gave currency to his
critical opinions." These determined also the form of the
Bible in several other national versions, made originally
frora Luther's version, in countries ranged under the
banner of the Augsburg Confession, for instance, in
Lower Saxony, the Netherlands, and partly in Sweden.
There are even editions which give to the four books set '
apart by Luther a special title, designating them as Apo
crypha, like those of the Old Testament. I shaU have
occasion to return to these details.
Whatever impression ray readers raay have received from
the facts stated in this chapter, I have at least proved that
the Reformers, while claiming a very important place in the
dogmatic system for the notion of tbe canon, and while
successful in connecting it very closely with the general
' Halle, Orphan House, 1740, etc.
° In our days these prefaces, which are no longer found in the current
Bibles, have been several times printed by themselves in collections intended
for the public, but in such a way as to eflfaoe all the characteristic peculiar
ities I have been pointuig out, Marcion, who is called a forger, did not do
BO much as that.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 339
principles of their theology, did not attain to any uniforraity
in the application of the theory to facts and questions of
detail; that their science was not able to determine the
natural and legitimate relation between the testiraony of
tradition and the intrinsic religious principle ; that the
symbolic books even contain on this point divergent rules
or assertions, and in raore than one instance contradict thera
selves. Still we have also seen that, in spite of these dif
ferences, no serious controversj'- arose amoug them or their
churches about the settiement of the canon, while the
fraternal bond that should have united the various fractions
of the friends of the Reformation, was enfeebled or broken
by Uvely theological discussions on so many other points
which, to us now, have lost rauch of their iraportance. That
shows most convincingly that the question of the canon was
something raore to our iUustrious fathers than the question
of drawing up a literary catalogue, and in this way of
vie-wing it they were all agreed.
[Note on the position of the Apocrypha in early English Bibles. — In the
«arly English Bibles (excepting the Douay version, 1609) the Apocrypha
stands detached between the 0. and N. T, The first English Bible (Cover-
dale's, printed at Zurich, 1535) has this title for the collection — "The
books and treatises which among the Fathers of old are not reckoned to be
of like authority with other books of the Bible, neither are they found in
the canon of the Hebrew." The preface is in the same strain : — "These
hooks which are called Apocrypha are not judged amongst the doctors to be
of like reputation with the other Scriptures, as thou mayest perceive by
St, Jerome in Epistola ad Paulinum, and the chief cause is this, there are
many places in them that seem to be repugnant unto tlie open and manifest
truth in the other parts of the Bible. Nevertheless, I have not gathered
them together to the intent that I would have them despised or that I
¦should think them false, for I cannot prove it." In what is usually called
Matthew's Bible, the preface runs thus : — "In consideration that the books
before are found in the Hebrew tongue received of all men . . . the others
following, which are called Apocrypha (because they were wont to be read,
not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart), are neither
found in the Hebrew nor in the Ghaldee, in which tongues they have not
long been written . . . and that also they are not received nor taken to be
legitimate, as well of the Hebrews as of the whole Church, as St. Jerome

340 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
showeth, we have separated them and set them aside, that they may the
better be known to the intent that men may know of which books witness
ought to be received and of which not,'' This preface goes on to quote the
authority of Eusebius for asserting that these books had been corrupted and
falsified in many places. The critical knowledge of these early translators-
may be judged from the fact that in several editions (1539, 1540), the word
Hagiographa is substituted for Apocrypha in the above preface, and the
same explanation made to serve. In later Bibles two lines of treatment
may be observed. In all editions of Cranmer's Bible and the Bishop's
Bible, the distinction between the other books and the Apocrypha is very
much effaced. The title of the still separate collection is, " The volume of
the books called the Hagiographa,'' or " The volume of the books cillstl
the Apocrypha, containing the books following," or " Tho fourth part of the
Bible." No note is added to draw attention to any difference in the
authority of the books. On the other hand, in the Genevan version (com
monly called the Breeches Bible), which was much favoured by the Puri
tans, the preface draws a strict line of distinction, "The books that follow
in order after the prophets unto the N. T. are called Apocrypha — i.e., books
which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded
publicly in the church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian
religion, save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other Scriptures
called canonical to conflrm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded ;
but as books proceeding from godly men were received to be read for the
advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history and for the
instruction of godly manners, etc," In King James's version (1611),
usually called the Authorised -\^ersion, the books stand between the 0. and
N, T,, under the title Apocrypha, but without preface or note. The Douay
Bible (1609-10), printed for English Roman Catholics, distributes the Apo
crypha among the canonical books of the 0. T, , and maintains a polemic in
their favour in the prefaces. One sentence will show the critical stand
point, " Who seeth not that the canon of the Church of Christ is of more
authority with all true Christians than the canon of the Jews ? " When
the house of tradition is thus divided against itself, how can its authority
continue ? ] Trans.

CHAPTER XVIL
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS,
The theologians, who foUowed the generation of tho Re
formers down to the beginning of the eighteenth century,
are much less known outside the narrow circle of professed
historians ; and even in regard to a still raore recent epoch, it
may be said that those at least, who siraply continued the
dogmatic tradition of the early schools, are in our day alraost
completely forgotten. They are, in particular, seldom con
sulted for their opinions on the questions which here concern
us. We have been so accustomed to represent the scientific
work of that period as sterile and stationary, that we have
thought it unnecessary to make any detailed study of it ;
and the unattractive forra of the works it produced has in
general the starap of a dull, dry scholasticism, such as to give
ample excuse to exacting or timid readers. Nevertheless,
the writers of this middle age of Protestantism do not deserve
all the disdain of their successors. Not to speak of the
great scholars, of the philologists who did honour chiefly to
the Calvinistic countries and acaderaies, I take leave to
affii-m that the interpreters of the theory also, however de
pendent in regard to the forraulas elaborated by their pre
decessors, frequently rise above the level of routine, and raay
be studied to good purpose by those who wish to forra an
exact conception of the raoveraent of modem ideas. The
great revolution which took place in this sphere last century,
•cannot be understood nor justly estiraated without some
more intimate acquaintance -with what preceded it and pre
pared for it, I propose, therefore, to take a glance through

342 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
dusty quartos containing the dull and prolix science of the
confessional schools, that I raay draw from thera a new series
of materials for my history of the canon.
Note the phrase confessional schools which I have put at
the head of this chapter. It is intended to characterise a
particular phase of the development of Protestant theology,
a phase which began about the tirae of the death of the last
great Reforraers, and during which the Confessions of Faith
were the exclusive and ofiicial standard of teaching. From
that time, science, but lately regenerated and quickened b}^
the powerful action of a supreme religious principle and
deriving increased energy from its recent proclaraatipn, wa&
subordinated to the no less powerful but rauch less vivifying
law of the formulas, in which that principle, -with its most.
important applications, had finaUy found an expression
both rigid and precise. Whereas at first the theology of
justification by faith in Christ had drawn its strength
directly from the word of God, so much so that it could
make claim to limit the latter in accordance with iis own
fundaraental axiom, the nearest source frora which it now
drew strength was the Symbol, the Gospel turned into a
systera and coraposed, not under inspiration from above, but
often amid the din of controversies, and soraetimes -with the
afterthoughts of comproraise. That which had been an
exceUent rallying-cry, whether to organize opposition against
Rorae or to serve as a charter of liberty, becarae the barrier
which divided the churches and arrested progress. The
effects of this change in the position of the doctors and the
doctrines naturally raade themselves felt, though in different
degrees, in all branches of ecclesiastical science and govern
ment. I have only to concern myself here with what
relates to ray special subject. As to this latter, tho influ
ence of the new methods made itself felt, even when the
texts of the symbolic books in no way prejudged the com-

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 343
position of the scriptural canon. But the iraperious need of
defining everything, systeraatizing everything, subordinating
everything, in short, to a work of dialectic reasoning, soon
led the Swiss Calvinists, and a Uttle later the Lutherans of
all countries, to the result which the English, Dutch, and
French had consecrated from the first — ^viz., to a definite
settlement of the canon, based essentially on usage and
tradition, I shall first note this interesting fact, that the dogmatic
works of that period contain chapters raore and raore lengthy
on the Scriptures, tbeir origin, composition, authority, and
other quaUties, whereas, formerly, and especially in the
Lutheran Church, no need had been felt of investigating a
point which in its fundamental conception was an axiom for
every one. As to this fundamental conception, I must say
in the first place that, at first sight, what I have been able
to call the Protestant theory of the canon is not changed by
the successors of Luther and Calvin, The permanent anta
gonism of the Romish polemics did not permit the pos,sibility
of losing sight of the principle which exalted the authority
of Scripture over that of tradition,' We, therefore, find
everywhere great prorainence given to the theses which
have been already developed in the' preceding chapter, and
which I need not again discuss at length, such theses as :
Scripture holds its authority from itself, i.e., frora God who
mspired it; Scripture is the supreme judge in matters of
faith and for everything relating to salvation ; Scripture is
the source of aU authority in the Church, and the latter can
• In practice, frequent appeal was raade to the testimony of the orthodox
Fathers of the first five centuries, in the interest of the purified dogma, and
especially in questions of sacred criticism, it being understood always that
this testimony was favourable to the thesis defended. But when some
theologians, with the purpose of conciUation, wished to raise this practice
to the dignity of a principle, it was very quickly remembered that this was
illogical, and an outcry was raised against the syncretism.

344 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
as Uttle pretend to exercise any patronage over Scripture as
it can pretend to have inspired it,'
That is not aU, The theory explicitly maintained, in the
two churches, the difference already noted between the
imperfect, insufficient, pedagogic conviction, in regard to
the value of Scripture and its contents, which was produced
by historical testimonies and argnraents furnished from
external facts, and the immediate, absolute, saving conviction,
which was produced by the inward action of the Holy Spirit
in the believer's heart Without the active concurrence of
this divine power, the true faith which accepts the word of
God as such does not exist." The theory (I insist on this
term) did not therefore repudiate the mystical element of
the theology of the Reformers. On the contrary, the differ
ence between Catholicism arid Protestantism was sometimes,
and rightly, reduced to this simple expression, that the
former regards the Church, the latter the Spirit, as the
supreme guarantee of Scripture, and thereby of all revel
ation. The apostles themselves, it was added, had need of
this guarantee to obtain a hearing frora the people they
addressed, tbeir authority not residing in their own person
alities, though they were incontestably the organs of God'
Their successes were gained beyond doubt, because the
' See among a hundred others : Hier. Zanchius ds S. S. (Opp., Gen,
1619, tom, viii,, P, i,) p, 339. J. Cameron, Prcslsctt. de verba Dei (Opp.,
Oen, 1642), p. 492. H, Alting, Loci communes (Opp., Amst, 1646, tom, i,,
pp. 271, 296), Mos, Amyraldus, De testim. Sp. S., in Thes. Salmur, i,, p,
125, L, Cappellus, De summa eontrovers. iudice, ibid,, p, 101, J, H,
Heidegger, Corpus theol. chr., 1700, p, 30. M. Chemnitz, Examen cone.
trident., loc, i,, c, vi,, § 7 f, J, Gerhard, Loci theol., ed. Cotta, tom, i.,
pp, 9 f, Abr, Calovii Criticus sacer, 1673, pp. 57 f. J. Mussei Introd. in
theol., p. 290. J. W, Baior, Campend. theol. positives, 1712, p, 81, J. Pc,
BndAei Instit. th. dogm., 1724, pp, 147 f.
= Zanchi, I. c., pp. 332 f, D, Chamier, Panstratia cath., 1627, P, i.
B. vi., c, i,, § 7 and c, iv, J, Cloppenburg, Exercitt. super locos comm.
{Opp. theol., Amst, 1684, tom, i.), pp, 704 f. Calovius, I. c, pp, 43 f, etc.
3 Cameron, I. c, pp. 458 f.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 345
word they preached was true, sublime, and efficacious ; but
these qualities were raanifested only to those on whom God
wrought by the simultaneous action of bis Spirit.' And
since the Roman Church also claimed that Spirit for itself.
as its permanent guide, a distinction had to be drawn
between what was called the public Spirit and the private
Spirit, and the thesis had to be proclaimed as a Protestant
principle, that the action of the Spirit is private — i.e., is
addressed directly to the individual -without the intervention
•of the Church," Up to this point we have been on the
ground of the principles set forth in the preceding chapter.
Notwithstanding, when we study more profoundly the
use which theology raade of these principles, we soon see
that it hardly ever descended frora the abstract, I had alraost
said glacial, heights of theory into the lower and better ex
plored region of practical questions; and nothing is so curious
as the movement of ideas, withdrawing raore and raore from
what had been at first an intuitive conception, a conception
belonging to the sphere of the religious sentiraent, rather
than to that of inteUigence and deraonstration. Thus, in the
¦controversy against Catholicism, much stress was laid on
this action of the Holy Spirit in favour oT Scripture ; but
the need for guarding against the pretensions of the Ulurain-
ated, who disdained the written word and subordinated it to
individual, permanent inspiration, as well as against the
subjective criticism of which Luther had set a dangerous
example, led theologians on to a series of definitions, analyses
and restrictive clauses dictated by prejudices foreign to the
primitive conception they were defending. Hence in the
end, aU was regulated by conventional combinations, and
the action of the Holy Spirit, maintained as a theory, became
¦ Amyraldus, De testim. Sp. S., in Thes, Salmur,, i,, pp. 117 f. Buddeus,
I c, p, 103.
"Chamier, I. c, iv,, § 4, Cameron, I. c, p, 467.

346 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
in fact useless and superfiuous. I should add that the funda
mental contradiction between the old point of view, and the
principles now prevailing, makes itself felt chiefly in a ctrtain
obscurity, which generally reigns in the exposition of these
raatters. Let rae try, however, to bring out the most salient
points of the system as we find it developed in the authors
of this period.
Of the two kinds of conviction which might exist regard
ing the authority of the Word of God, that derived from the
action of the Holy Spirit (fides divina) and considered the
most important, was treated in general with rauch brevity,
I might even say, -with decreasing interest. It must also be
said that soon there were appended to it discussions
altogether scholastic which prove of themselves that the
priraitive thought of the Reformers had been dropped out
of sight. The first point was to determine the part of the
Spirit and the part of Scripture in the influence to be exer
cised ; then to indicate precisely the succession of the
eleraentary facts in the action itself;' finally, to consider
whether the power of the Spirit is a proper force added to
that of Scripture, or whether the spiritual effect is produced
by the latter, inasrauch as the Spirit acts in it without any
need for distinguishing two active principles." AU these
anatoraical processes applied to inward religious experiences,
betray dispositions and tendencies very different from those
whicb had formerly guided Protestant theology in its theory
of canonicity.'
' Form. Cone., p, 656 : Homo verbum Dei prcsdicatum neque intelligit
neque intelligere potest, donee virtute Sp. S. per verbum prcsdicatum con-
vsrtatur.— Man remains a stranger to the -Word of God, so long as he is not
converted by the Spirit, and the Spirit is to touch him only by means of the
Word, Comp, Buddeus, I. c, p, 107, Quenstedt, TJieol. did. pol., i,,
169 f. etc,
= See the article by M. Saigey on Pajonism (Revue de theol., first series,
vol, xiv,, p. 339,)
3 A similar impression is received from the dialectical attempts made (e.g.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, 347
On the other hand the theologians of this period discussed
at great length the eleraents and sources of what was called
the human conviction {fides humana). They rightly said
that this only furnished probabilities in regard to Scripture,
and that it needed to be sanctioned by the other to convey
to us entire certainty. But the very care bestowed on this
part of the dogma proves that, practically, it was considered
the most essential, and the arguments supporting it were
held to be more efficacious than any others. The proofs
which were to produce this .purely huraan and preparatory
conviction, were divided into internal and external.' The
former were derived both from the form and contents of
Scripture; the latter frora its antiquity, tbe providential
propagation of the Gospel, the faith of the martyrs, the
manifestations of the divine justice in history, the credibility
of the BibUcal narratives, the character of the authors,
miracles and predictions, finaUy and speciaUy the testimony
of the Church. AU these proofs, according to the theologians,
were only to produce a strong presuraption in favour of the
Bible ; stUl, the power attributed to thera was such that the
argument kept in reserve to give what was called the divine
conviction, could add nothing more conclusive or more
palpable. Nevertheless, they adhered to the traditional for
mula, which consecrated it, and defended it with vigour
when Cartesianisra," invading the schools of Holland, sup
posed it possible to rest satisfied with the others. They in-
by Calovius, Crit. sac., pp, 44 f.) to demonstrate that the proof of the
authority of Scripture derived from the -W-ord of God is not stained by the
logical vice of petitio principii.
' Comp, Cameron, I. c, pp. 417 f. 475. Zanchi, I. c, p, 337, Heidegger,
Z, c, pp. 25f. Baier, Comp. theol. posit., pp, 84 f. Buddeus, I. c, pp,
101 f,, 134 etc.
' See the literature of this controversy directed especiaUy against Herm.
Alex, Eoell, professor at Utrecht, in Buddeus I. c, p, 107. Comp. Gisb.
Voetii Problem, de S. S. (Dispp. sd., Utr. 1669, P. V.), pp. 3 f. Val.
Alberti Cartesianismus Belgia molestus, 1678. ¦

348 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
stinctively felt that, if they abandoned it even in theory,
their dialectics would thenceforth be hardly distinguishable
frora that of their rationalistic adversaries.
Let us consider for a moraent these two sets of proofs, in
order to bring out sorae very characteristic symptoms of the
change that was taking place in the science whose history
we are studying. In regard to the internal proof which, as
we said, consisted in founding the authority of Scripture on
its contents, they did not hesitate, to acknowledge that ab
solute certainty about the naraes of the authors was not in
dispensable, provided the judgraent to be passed on the
ground-work, the doctrine, is such as to dispel doubt' StUl
we should not lose sight of the fact that this kind of demon
stration, farailiar as it is to most of our theologians, is hardly
applied by thera except to Scripture considered as one whole
and with reservation of the critical questions in detail or
the doubts whicb might arise in regard to one or other of
the books. In these special discussions, they preferred to
use the historical arguments which thus came to hold a more
and raore important place in the history of the canon," I
am far from blaming this prejudice in every legitimate case
since the facts under discussion were historical, I only wish
to notice that science was in a period of transition and crisis,
consequently in a false position. Scholars began to see that
the canon is properly the object of an historical science ; but
on the one hand the methods and resources of that science
were still but little developed and were entirely dominated
by a theory independent of them, and on the other hand
this theory had already lost the fresh energy of its origin
' Cameron, I. c, p, 473, -VoBtius (l. c.) frankly declares that the titles
of the books and the inscriptions of the psalms do not form an integral
part of the canon,
= Amyraut (De testim. Sp. S., % 27, inserted in the first vol, of the Theses
of Saumur), very clearly avows that, by means of this distinction, the
proofs were more easily managed.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 349
and was finding it necessary to seek in history the supports
it had formerly been able to disdain.
Among the historical or external arguments, there was
one in particular which deserves the attention of my readers.
It is the argument derived frora the testiraony of the
Church, This is a raost iraportant point to us, because we
are concerned to know in what sense Protestant theology
intended to use this arguraent (which it did use more and
more) without falling back into the paths of Catholic
traditionalisra. On this point they had of course to.
determine the rights and the duties of the Church in rela
tion to Scripture. In conformity with tbsir theory, they
had to limit the Church's part to that of a witness, and in
general to insist on the services it might render in watching
over the preservation of the collection, rather than on its
professed privilege of defining the collection on its own
authority.' But this reserve was not made by all the dog
matic writers. The necessity for making very complete
enumerations imposed on the Church the duty '^ of approving
and recei-ving Scripture, recoraraending it by attestation,
drawing up the official catalogue of the canonical books,,
preserving the raanuscripts, making a faithful translation of
them, composing in harmony with it the symbolic books and
catechisms, giving tbe interpretation of difficult and obscure
passages, &c, I do not very well see the difference between
this Ust of duties and the list of rights claimed by the
CathoUc Church. Charaier^ before this, when recounting
" Hence the formulas : x.^ifa^yuyia, ministeriale indicium, non magisteriale
indicium J ansa, non causa; medium per quod, non propter quad; non quia
ecdesia scripturas authenticas dicit, tales sunt, sed quia sunt, ecclesia tales
JMcKcaietc, Comp. Heidegger, I. c, pp. 28 f. Chemnit'z, Examen cone.
trid., I. c, §§ 9 f. Gerhard, I. c, p, 10, Quenstedt, Theol. didact. polem.,
i., 94, Baier, I. c, pp. 113 f. Calov., Crit. Sacr., pp. 66 f. etc.
' Off da ecclssice, Cloppenburg, I. c, p. 708.
' Pansirat. cath., B. vi,, ch, i,, § 5,

350 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
the proofs for the authority of Scripture, had placed in
the first rank the testimony of the Church, and had spoken
of internal argnraents as only secondary. It is quite super
fluous to enter into any more detailed criticism of these
facts in order to show that the theory, having ceased to
express any immediate and personal conviction, was no
longer powerful enough to arrest science on the slope which
was leading it back, as regards this particular dogma, to the
principles so strongly condemned, or, at any rate, despised
by the Reforraers.
On the whole, the fact is worthy of notice that theology
did not succeed in extracting frora these nuraerous and
learned discussions any clear and precise definition of the
notion of canonicity. The theological eleraent, to which
alone the growing science of Protestantism gave heed, was
more and more mixed with the historical element, and was
specially influenced by the necessity for stability and uni
formity, so that the one embarrassed the other, and even
corrupted it to some extent. There are still sorae special
facts of a nature to show the erabarrassraent which this
confusion was incessantly creating, and which they at
tempted to overcome by insufficient or even unfortunate
combinations. The celebrated professor of Saumur, Joshua de la
Place,' weU says that the term canon raay be taken in
two senses — as a body of regulating and authoritative
dograas, and as a list or collection of books regarded as
eontaining the word of God. But, in place of seeking to
reduce these two notions to unity, he contents himself with
enumerating the signs by which it may be known whether
or not a dogma is canonical, and then with discussing a
series of quite different arguments to prove that thes
canonical coUection of the Old Testaraent ought not to
' Placaeus, De canone (in Syntagm. thes. Salmur., tom. i.), pp. 63 f.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. Sol
include the Apocrypha. These are two facts which thus
remain completely isolated frora one another.
His no less famous colleague, Moses Arayraut,' is not raore
happy when he tries to corabine the principle of the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit with that of the relative
authority of the testimony of the Church, He distinguishes
, three degrees of intensity in tbe communication of the
Spirit which was made with a -view to the discernment
.(hiaKpuTis^ of the canonical Scriptures. Those who originally
formed the two coUections (the author hazards no conjec
ture on this point) raust have possessed the Spirit in an
¦exceptional degree — viz., on a level with the prophets and
Apostles. Those who simply had the mission of preserving
them in their integrity, by preventing heretics from
mutUating them or introducing into thera anything hetero
geneous, needed the Divine assistance only in a less degree ;
such was the case with the great councils. Finally, the
last degree is that given to the faithful in general, who do
not need to raake the canon or preserve it, but have to be
¦convinced in themselves of its authenticity. It is difficult
here to say which creates raost wonder, the idea the author
appears to have formed of the working of the Holy Spirit,
or the frankness of his historical prejudices, or tbe distance
separating him from the theory of the Reformers, It is
evident that science was being fatally dragged in a direc
tion it wished to avoid, and in place of taking the courageous
resolution of retracing its steps, was seeking to hide frora
-itself the feebleness of its position,"
The explanation I have just been reproducing made
'Amyraldus, De testim, Sp. S. (ibid.), p. 129,
" A third theologian of Saumur, the illustrious Cameron, expresses himself
with much greater circumspection. The Church, he says, when making
the canon, recognised the books that were to form it by certain characteris
tics ; it did not, therefore, proceed on its own authority, but with the use
¦of means which are still at the disposal of every believer (Prceledt. de verba
-Dei, I.e., p, 475),

352 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
iramense concessions to the Catholic systera, and on that
account it does not appear to have been rauch favoured by
a generation of theologians with whom polemics formed the
science or, if you wish, the art par excellence. At least I
have found it nowhere else. Still I have found something
approaching it. While abstaining carefully frora pro
nouncing the narae of the Church as the author of the canon
or distinguishing various degrees of the spirit, certain Pro
testant writers were content with admitting that there were,
whether among the ancient Israelites or the Christians,
pious individuals possessing the gift of discernment, and
that to thera the honour is due of having composed the two
canonical coUections,' Evidently by placing these indivi
duals in an antiquity sufficiently remote, they could pass over
the uncertainties of the Fathers and do without a repetition
of the investigation, which threatened to be inopportune,
though two centuries before it would have been considered
the right and even the duty of all Christians,
There is still another critical reflection to make, and per
haps I have done wrong not to make it sooner. Almost all
the strange turns given to a question which at the bottom is*
simple enough, proceed from a circumstance to which I have
not yet directed express attention and to which I shall have
to return. It must be reraerabered that in the eighteenth
century the only point of difference to be discussed
between Catholics and Protestants (so far as concerned the
naraes of the sacred books), was the canonicity of the
Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Sufficient account is not
taken of tbe influence that fact exercised on the exposition
of principles. I am prepared to affirm, for instance, that the
passages of the various authors I last named, were written
by men prejudiced by this special fact. Every raeans was
sought to escape frora the dileraraa, proposed by their adver-
' Buddei Institt. theol. dogm., pp, 142 f.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, 353
saries, who insisted on the iUogical reasoning of opposing
now the privilege of individual inspiration to the judgment
of the Church, and again the authority of tradition to the
caprices of innovators. That will also explain the curious
paragraph from Du Moulin,' which we would not understand
rightly if we consider it as a kind of absolute theory. But,
just because I make, allowance for the special occasion which
inspn-ed its author, I have a right to say that the latter,
absorbed by the detaUs of his controversy, lost sight of large
principles and got confused to tbe extent of moving in a
circle. For his reasoning, when freed from all extraneous
matter, amounts - to this : we first accept the Bible because
we believe in the Church that gives it to us, then we shall
accept the Church because we have believed in the Bible.
As an actual fact, things went on and do still go much in
this way ; but obviously there is neither theological prin
ciple nor scientific method in it.
It wiU not be wrong then to speak of a notable change
passing over the current of ideas, and the construction of
system in the schools of Protestantism, Let me add that to
' The Church places Scripture in our hands, but since by this Scripture
God has touched our hearts, we do not believe that it is Holy Scripture
because the Church says so, but because it has made itself felt and God has
touched our hearts by it ; without which virtue the testimony of the Church
is only a probable aid, producing a confused belief and a slight impression.
For no one can have certain knowledge that the testimony his Church
renders to Scripture is true, if he does not previously know that this Church
is orthodox and well grounded in the faith, and this can be known for cer
tain only after knowing the rule of the true faith, which is the word of God
(Buckler of the Faith, new ed. 1846, p. 51),
^Comp, Qeiha,iA, Loci theol., l, ch, i,, § 30 : Testimonium ecclesice nee
unicum nee prcscipuum sst argumentum (librum aliquem esse cananicum) sed
accedunt interna xpirnfix et ipsius Spiritus S. testimonium. Initium quidsm
fieri potsst ab ecdesice testimonia sed postea scriptura et Spiritus S. per scrip
turam luculentissims de ss tsstatus. Theory said (ib., § 33) : Scriptura est
nMmrrcs. Credimus scripturis canonicis quia sunt scriptures canonica — i.e.,
quia a Deo profedcs et immediata Sp. S. inspiratiane sunt perscriptce, non
autem idea illis credimus quia de illis ecdesia tesiatur.
Z

354 HISTORY OP THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
my raind this change was only very natural, from the
moraent that it was recognised, and proved that the raasses
cannot rise to tbe height of the few who are gifted minds
and accompUshed Christians, It may even be said that
time and habit were of themselves sufficient to produce this
change. According to Luther, the canon was to be deter
mined exclusively by tbe evangelic principle of justification
by faith ; according to Cal-vin, Scripture was guaranteed as
a whole and in its parts by its own qualities, regarding
which the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit furnished
the necessary illumination. Insensibly the conclusion was
reached that this guarantee is an admitted fact, and that
there is no room for verifying a result universally accepted.
The testimony of the Holy Spirit becarae superfluous ; the
analogy of faith was recognised; the authority of the previous
opinions — i.e., of the tradition of the Church, was substituted
for tbe criteria forraerly extolled. The only thing left was to
seek out sorae formula for reconciling two points of view so
utterly different, and to give to the early Church the advan
tages of the conquests made by the new Church.
This transformation of ideas may be regarded in still
another aspect, which will perhaps better reveal to us its
raeaning. At the outset of the Reformation, the two terms
Scripture, and Word of God, were not eraployed as identical,
and Lutheran theology especially raaintained the distinction
for a very long time. In our symbolic books,' the Word of
God is the doctrine revealed even before Scripture, written
in the Bible and preached from it. In that sense, this notion
is both wider and narrower than that of Holy Scripture.
For though everything, in the holy books, may serve for
edification, everything does not directly relate, is not
necessary, to salvation — i.e., canonical in the special sense.
' See, for instance, Apol., p, 267. Smalc, pp, 331, 333, Form. Cone.,
pp. 670, 818, etc.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. S55
On the other hand, the word of God, known even to the
patriarchs, appears still in every sermon that is conformable
-with evangelic truth, even though BibUcal expressions are
not literally reproduced in it Now, it is irapossible to
avoid observing that gradually the two notions were confused
¦with one another. Scripture, and Word of Ood became
synonymous terms. That took place with tolerable rapidity
in the Calvinistic schools,' because they were accustomed
fi-om the first to regard the Bible as a homogeneous whole."
That I may not seem intentionally to forget it, I shall
only remind my readers in passing that with the increasing
ascendency of the traditional principle in the constitution of
the canon, the definition of inspiration became raore rigorous.
In both churches, it was finally extended to the very words
of the sacred texts ; and, if sorae theologians still spoke of a
certain accoramodation of the Holy Spirit to the character or
particular style of his secretaries, others held that the purity
of that style, called in question by sorae Hellenist philologists,
ought to be made an article of faith. But all these details
belong rather to a history of dogma than to that of the canon,
and I put thera aside in order to speak further regarding
some special applications of the new theories.
The canon of the Old Testament was not the object of any
critical discu.ssion during the period under consideration,
with the exception of the great question of the Apocrypha,
on which I am about to enter. When any author took the
trouble to make a defence of Ecclesiastes, or Canticles, or the
' See already the second Helvetic Confession, Art. I.
' If we wish to form an idea of the simplicity with which the questions
•concerning the canon were finally treated, we have only to see how Du
Mojilin refutes his adversary. His adversary reproaches Protestants with
being necessarily Ulogical, since they cannot deduce the authentic list of
the canonical books from a text of Scripture, though they appeal to Scrip
ture as the only source of all truth. "It is enough," he says, " ta take the
Bible in the original tongues and run over the titles afthe books " (l. c. p. 38).
In other words, a book is canonical because it appears in my copy.

356 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
story of Esther, he had before him none but imaginary foes,
and the arguments for the defence were in keeping with the
attack.' The worthy exegesis of the seventeenth century had
its resources, and could, with little difficulty, make light work
of the importunate scruples of Athanasius or Luther. But it is
interesting to observe that the canonicity of the code of the
Old Covenant was demonstrated solely by means of histori
cal proofs, or proofs pretending to be historical. The Jewish
Church, it was said, had known the authors and seen the
autographs ; it was therefore quite in a pcsition to furnish
all the guarantees required." The closing of the canon is
officiallj' raentioned in the last lines of the last prophet,
which declares clearly enough that inspiration would cease
till the coraing of the new Elijah,' The Apostles declared
that God had confided his oracles to the Jews, and neither
the apostles nor the primitive Christian Church accuse the
Jews of having arbitrarily increased or diminished the col
lection, Christ and his disciples borrow testimonies from
it, thereby bearing their own testimony to it. This last ar
guraent, however, is hardly used except in a negative form
and against the Apocrypha ; for it was remembered that all
the books of the Old Testaraent are not quoted in the New,
and this fact was used by controversialists to overwhelm
Protestant criticism."
But there is one fact which in quite another way shows
' Canticles and Esther should be translated as types and allegories. The
absence of the name of God in these books, so far from betraying a profane
spirit, is a warning to the reader admonishing hira to seek it under the
figure of one of the personages therein represented (Placaei Opp., torn, i.
pp, 666, f,),
' Placaeus, De Canone, I. c, p, 67, Buddei Institt., p, 136, etc,
3 Heidegger, Corpus theol. chr., loc. ii. § 43.
* Gerhard, Lod, tom. i. p. 5.
5 Si idea canonici non sunt quia non citantur, ergo Nahum et Sophonias, qut
non citantur, canonici non sunt; Aratus contra, Menander et Epimenides-
prafani poetes, canonici quia dtantur (ap. Alting, Lad comm. , p, 285),

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 357
the tendencies of the Reformed theology, when the reaction
had set in towards the authority of the tradition. The
learned works of ray illustrious countryraan, L, Cappellus, on
the criticism of the text and the various readings of the Old
Testament, had roused the distrustful orthodoxy of the Swiss
theologians, and after the launching of many quartos against
the rash professor of Sauraur, whose coUeagues also were
suspected to be unsound on predestination, the orthodox
succeeded in drawing up the formula caUed the Consensus
Helveticus (1675), and procuring its adoption by the govern
ment of some cantons. In this formula the vowel-points
and the accents were declared to be di-vinely inspired and
to form an integral part of the canon.' This Confession of
Faith, the last that was officially promulgated in the Pro
testant Churches, was also the most advanced expression of
the despotic traditionaUsm which had invaded the theology
of the Reformed schools; and the violent comraotions which
it soon provoked, and which led to its revocation, were, in
the sphere of dograatic science, the first symptora of an
awakening which had already begun to regenerate the
Lutheran Churches in the sphere of practical religion. That
did not prevent the points from being canonised, as the
result not of any indi-vidual caprice but of tbe general
spirit of the studies of the tiraes, nor did it prevent the
majority of theologians" frora accepting that canonisation.
Nor did it prevent others from growing impassioned on a
" Art, i, i Deus verbum suum nan tantum scripta mandari curavit, sed
etiam pro scripta vigilavit, ne Satanos astu vitiari passit. Prainde. ... me
apex quidem vel iota unicum peribit. — 2 : In specie hebraicus V. T. codex
¦quem ex traditions ecclesice judaicce accepimus, tum quoad consonas, tum
quoad vocalia s. punda hWtivit'ros.
' See, for example, Gerhard, Loci, ii. 267, f, Voetius (I. c, p, 4)
thought that the accents, in so far as they are musical signs, are of human
invention ; but, in so far as they are signs of punctuation, they share in the
canonical dignity of the text. He extended this pri-vilege to the Greek
accents of the New Testaraent.

358 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
point no less doubtful, viz,, tbe forra of the consonants which
was supposed to have reraained the same since the deluge,'
As to the apocryphal books of the Old Testaraent, Protest
ant science never deviated from the principles of the
Reformers by which they were excluded from the canon.
StiU, on this particular point, as on others raore iraportant,
ideas and procedure varied. Some were content with main
taining the dograatic distinction as an accepted fact, and did
not enter on any criticism of detail. Others, while con
tinuing to speak of these books with rauch moderation and
with some esteem, were led by their polemics to oppose the
Catholics who asserted their absolute canonicity. This they
did not only with denials based on their general principles,
but also with charges so impassioned, attacks so virulent
and exaggerated, that they were at the sarae tirae airaing a
blow at the sounder opinion of Protestant theologians them
selves, and preparing the ground for analogous attacks on
the Bible in general. Of these two tendencies, the first
showed itself soraewhat generally in the Lutheran schools ;
the second graduaUy prevailed araong Calvinists, though I
do not raean to say that on the two sides there was perfect
agreement on such points. At bottom this divergence is
explained very naturally by the different progress which
the conception of the canon had made in the two churches.
The number of special treatises on this question was con
siderable, because the anti-Romish controversy was one chief
source of the Uterature of the day." I shaU confine myself
here to sorae characteristic extracts.
' Critical science began to turn its attention to the comparatively recent
origin of what is called square -svriting. It is assailed by Buddeus (Instt.
dogm., p. 98. Hist. eccl. V. T., p. 997).
' See, for example, J. Rainoldi Censura II. apocr., I61I. Mg. Hunnius,
Dica pontificiis scripta ob falsi crimen in S. S., 1622, Chr, Kortholdt, De
libris apocr. V. T., 1664, GI. -Wemsdorf, Quod I. Sap. et Eccl. pro canoni
cis non sint habendi, 1728, H, Benzel, De II. V. T. apocryphis, 1733, etc.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 359
Those who desired to place themselves at the standpoint
of the Reformers were ingenious in finding forraulas which
might justify, against the two extrerae opinions, the secon
dary place commonly assigned to these books, and should
also be inteUigible to the people, growing raore and raore
indifferent to scholastic subtleties. Thus Hollaz said : in
codice sunt, non in canone, they are in the Bible, but not
in the canon, a phrase which has meaning only from the
standpoint of priraitive Lutheranisra, for this set up an
exclusively theological and non-traditional standard for the
notion of canonicity. Others' insisted that the term
apocrypha is intended to recall a fact, the doubtful origin
of these -writings, and not an opinion, as if it was forbidden
to read thera. In England, Prideaux, whose orthodoxy on
other points is beyond aU suspicion, distinguished between
a canon of faith and a canon of raanners, and thus with one
stroke of his pen and without incurring the reproach of
syncretism, justified both the separation and the addition of
the books, in conformity -with the usage introduced into the
Bibles of the sixteenth century. Frora this point of view
some theologians, not raany it is true, regarded this contro
versy as of sraaU iraportance, since salvation did not depend
upon it. The Apocrypha added no new truth to those
taught by the canonical books, and the Protestant
Church lost nothing essential by refusing to place them
in the canon." They were rejected therefore to save any
recantation. StiU, when we inquire into the raotives for depreciating
the Apocrypha, we generaUy find criticisra availing itself of
arguments which infringed on the principle of Protestantism,
' Absconditi i.e., originis occulta:, nan abseondendi i,e,, quasi nan legendi.
They were also called canonici xard n, i.e., rdatively canonical. Gerhard,
Lod, tom, i,, p, 3, Chemnitz, Exam. cone, trid., l.c.,% 20. Baier, I, c, p. 119.
Quenstedt, I. c, pp, 61, 235.
' Placeeus, De canons (Synt. thes. Salm., tom, 1,), p. 64,

360 HISTORy OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
or, at least, proved that that principle had no longer its
primitive energy. Criticism insisted on the silence of the
Synagogue -without reraerabering that the authority of the
Church had been cast off; on the absence of prophetic types,
though with sraall efibrt these would have been found in
the Apocrypha quite as much as in hundreds of the passages
in the Hebrew code that were arbitrarily interpreted ; on
the want of originality, the unfavourable opinions of some
Fathers, and other like faults,' A greater number con
demned them because they are not -in Hebrew, the proper
language of the Old Covenant, the natural language of
God," the primitive language of humanity,' This point was
a favourite theme of criticisra, because, while vindicating
the use of Greek for the New Testament only and Hebrew
for the Old Testament, it attained the double purpose of
refuting the canonicity of the Apocrypha and the authority
of the Vulgate.
Those, on the other hand, who preserved raore positive re
merabrance of the old criterion, the witness of the Holy
Spirit, diligently sought in the Apocrypha for historical
errors, heresies, absurdities, all sorts of faults, to establish
the point that religious sentiment was not wrong in exclude
ing them from the canon. It is fair to say that on many
points of detail, the learned sagacity of the criticism deserves
praise ; only, it may be asked, on what principle was it so
severe on this occasion and so extraordinarily lax at other
tiraes ? But so very far from this severity being joined
with dignity of language, an enlightened appreciation of
Uterary forms, good taste and impartiaUty, the critics rivaUed
one another in heaping on the Apocrypha the epithets
'Zanchi De Scr. S., I. c., pp, 439 f. Placaei Camp, theol., i,, ch, 6.
(Opp., tom, i,, p, 667). Baier, I. c, p. IIO. Buddeus, Institt. dogm.,
p. 144, etc.
' Du Moulin, I. c, p, 33,
3 Buddeus, Hist. eccl. V. T.,i., 235, etc

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 361
-suggested by contempt and prejudice. The Apocrj^pha were
hated because the Catholics were hated ; they were said to
be fiUed with fables, errors, superstitions, lies, impieties;' and
the violence of such attacks is surpassed only by the silUness
of the proofs urged in support of thera. One chides the son
of Sirach for having said that the witch of Endor caUed
forth the spirit of Samuel, orthodox exegesis pretending that
it was only an evil spirit. Another discredits the story of
Susanna, by finding it absurd that Joachim should have had
a garden, since the Jews were captives. One is scandalised
by the costume of Judith as she went to the camp of Holo-
femes; another laughs over tbe name of the angel Raphael; a
third protests against the raethod of driving away demons
by smoke, I have read one who is genuinely grieved be
cause the demon of the book of Tobit is sent for ever to
Upper Egypt, whereas Jesus only banished others into a
desert from which they had a chance of returning." Not
one of these ardent champions of the purity of the canon
foresees that criticisms so puerile, so unworthy of the subject,
and so pointless, wiU end in showing to .superficial and scoff
ing minds the ways and means of sapping the authority of
the whole Bible ; and that the scoff's thrown at the head of
the Uttle fish of Tobit,^ -will sooner or later destroy Jonah's
' Falsa, supsrsUtiosa, mendacia, suspeda, fabulosa, impia. — Comp. Cha
mier, Panstr. cath., P, i,, B. v. Alting, Loci, I. c, pp, 282 f, Du Moulin,
/, c, p, 34, Cloppenburg, Exercitt., I. c, pp. 709 f. Alb, Regis Exercitt.
deU. can. d apocr., i.-iii,, 1715, passim. Heidegger, Carpus th., p. 37. —
Most of these arguments are found among Lutherans, but are discussed by
them with less passion. See, for example, Gerhard, Loci, ii., pp, 134 f,
' It is curious to compare this unmeasured bitterness -with the consider
ation shown towards the most pitiful apostolic lucubrations, not canonised
by the CathoUgs, e.g., the letter of Jesus to king Abgarus (Alb, Regis
Exercitt, I. c, iii,, 49),
•' Quid primum deprehendam ? An quad piscis ita exsiliit et dum clamat
pudlus nan potuerit .resilire ? Et magnum oportuit esse quia resilire non
potuit et quia dsvoraturus srat Tobiam. Idem tamen a puero trahitur in
siccum. Hem, quam subito immutatus! Nam quum prius sturionem aut

362 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
whale. AU this arose, first from the bad taste of the times,
then, too, from the need for overwhelming adversaries whose
arguments were not a whit better; but stiU more it presents
an unmistakeable symptom of a fact which emerges during
the whole of this period — viz., that the question of the canon
assumes a different aspect The canon, so to speak, is no
longer in a permanent state of forraation according as the
Holy Spirit speaking in its acts immediately on the men
deriving instruction from it. It exists now as a fact, with
limits determined by tradition and consecrated by usage.
All contained in it is a priori different frora what is outside
of it; it is exempt from aU iraperfection, raised above all in
quiry, and cannot but gain from the depreciation of what
has remained without. The theory is changed, and we need
not be astonished that the demonstration of it is also changed
both in nature and means.
It will perhaps be asked how carae it that Churches,
which were neither scandalised nor disgusted by criticisra
so poor and desperate, did not go a step further and exclude
siraply, and purely, the Apocrypha frora the Bible they
were printing. That would have been rational, and less
hurtful to the people. This question of suppressing the
Apocrypha was actually raised in the Synod of Dort,' by the
representatives of all the Reformed Churches. The rigorous
dialecticians with Gomar of Leyden and Dlodati of Geneva
at their head, took the lead in all the fundamental discussions,
and urgently demanded that, once for all, an end should be
put to the unhappy mixture of heterogeneous eleraents.
They seized the occasion for heaping up against the books
to be proscribed, critical arguments of every kind, though
thunnum credebamus, nunc nobis apparet lucius aut gobio (Chamier, I. c,
ch, V,, § 4),
¦ Acta Syn. Dordrac., 1620, Sess. viii, f, Comp. the supplementary
notes taken from the journal of the deputies from Zurich in Zeitschr. fUr
hist. Theol., 1854, p. 645,

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 363
one single argument, that of the theological conception of
the canon, might have been sufficient, had the preceding
generation succeeded in raising it to the dignity of a clearly
defined axiom. They reraained a rainority. Ecclesiastical
usage, the habits of the people, the opinion of the early
Fathers, the fear of the storm which an innovation raight
cause, all the reasons which routine and indecision throw
into the balance of the debate, finally carried a conservative
vote. The vote showed the inabUity of the Church, and of
science, to settle a question which both of thera obstinately
placed on a false basis. The new official translation of the
Bible, which had just been decreed, was bound therefore to
include the Apocrypha ; only for the consolation of the
vanquished, an offer was raade to bestow less pains on them
than on the canonical books, to print them in small characters,
and put thera at the very end of the volurae after the New
Testament. Even still, the foreign deputies reserved to their
respective churches tbe right of taking their own course on
this last point.
As to the canon of the New Testament, the Reformed
theologians were spared aU further labour. Calvin's treat
ment of the subject was to serve them as a rule ; their hands
were in part bound even by the Confessions of faith. Hence
many dogmatic writers do not touch this question as, indeed,
it was not a question to them, and there was no actual con
troversy about it. Those who consider it in passing, and
who vouchsafe to remeraber that there exist what are called
antilegomena, merely raention the fact as a curiosity in
literary history hardly worthy of notice," all the less that the
canon was officially closed by the apostle John hiraself^ Or,
if they do enter into detaUs, they reason in such a superficial
'Chamier, 2. c, P. i., B. iv,, ch, 2, Cloppenburg, Z. c, Alting, ?. c,
'Placaei Opp., I. c, p. 666 : Dubitatum est quidem aliquando sed nulla
ivsta causa fuit dubitandi.
3 Heidegger, Z. c, §§61, 62.

364 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
way that one wonders whether they expected to convince
any one. The early Church, says one, was on its guard
because of the great numbers of apocryphal books that were
circulating everywhere ; tirae was needed in order to make
sure of the canonicity of certain epistles. And an explanation
like this was believed sufficient to maintain the axiom
according to which the word of God can be recognised
intuitively and without mistake ! Doubts, says another
may have existed even in the second age, because the testi
mony of tbe first had not the sarae degree of assurance for
aU the apostoUc writings ; later on, the Holy Spirit put an
end to these doubts by corapleting tbe canon. But this
would lead us to suppose tbat the Holy Spirit failed those
who were nearer to the beginning of the church, and ought
to have had a better chance of being well instructed ! The
Epistle to the Hebrews was rejected by the presbyter Caius
in the third century, and then by tbe Socinians ; besides,
there are certain difficulties, and the readers to whom it was
addressed were people quite obscure. That is what the
criticism, not the knowledge, of a third amounts to. It is
exactly the same as the knowledge, not the criticism, of his
successors. In his first ardour, we read elsewhere, Luther
¦ J. H. Hettinger, Qucestt. theol. centuriae, 1659, p, 178. J. Cameron,
Pradedt., I. c, pp, 476 f. Alb. Regis Exercitt. I. c, iii., pp, 41 f. Even at
an earlier date, Zanchi (Opp., viii,, P. i,, pp. 328, 443, 481 ; P, ii,, p, 673 ;
Miscell., ii,, p, I) simply quoted the favourable testimonies of the Fathers
and suppressed the others, Theodore Beza, in his annotated editions of
the New Testament, pauses only over the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the Apocalypse in his critical considerations. Like Calvin, he declares
these two books to be really inspired and therefore canonical ; but, regard
ing the authors, he has no definite conviction. As to the Epistle, sunt
prababiles conjedurce ex quibus nee Pauli esse nee hebraice unquam fuisse
scriptam apparet, a phrase which he omits in the later editions. As to the
Apocalypse, he sees no peremptory reason for not assigning it to the apostle
John, though the style rather betrays the pen of the evangelist Mark.
Of this conjecture no notice was taken at the time, but it has been adopted
in our days by a criticism, whose sagacity is become proverbial.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 365
made light of the Epistle of James ; but now it is better
appreciated. However Calvinistic a theologian raight be,
he would rather overlook this peccadillo than enter on a
somewhat tickUsh discussion; now-a-days, however Lutheran
a theologian raay be, he raakes no scruple of calling Luther
a fool. Such coraparisons will not be out of place when
they show the particular kind of progress which was still to
be made.
The history of the canon of the New Testament in the
Lutheran schools during this period presents raore interest
and gives indication of more serious study ; the result is the
same, but reasons are given for it. At first, during the rest
of the sixteenth century, there was no hesitation in foUowing
Luther's course in regard to the four books which he had
separated from the others ; it would be quite superfluous to
quote naraes since, as I said before, the very editions of the
Bible attest the fact' But the distinction is further estab
Ushed by official documents, so famiUar had it becorae even
to laymen. Thus, to cite only one exaraple, the Agenda or
Ecclesiastical Constitution published in 1598, by the magis
trate of Strasburg, very explicitly confirms it."
' By way of example, I shall quote the polyglot Bible published at Ham
burg in 1596, in six vols, folio, by Pastor Dav. Wolder. It is preceded by
a table of contents in which the books of the Now Testament are divided
into canonical and non-canonical. These latter include the Apocalypse
(without the author's name) and three epistles, of which one (Hebrews) ii
of an uncertain authorship, the two others (James and Jude) are by known
authors (csrtarum auctarum). It is important to note that the canonicity
is not determined here by the certainty of the origin.
' P, 6 : DieweU aber beydes von alters liero und auch heutigestages it ge^
ringer streit ist wdches die wahrs echte und unzweiveUge bucher seien. . . .
so erkldren unr dass wir desshalb gdnzlich der Meynung seisn wis D. M.
Luther Ishret. . . . im N. T. aber die Ep. an die Ebrder wie auch Jacobi
und Judce und die Off. Joh. nit so gewiss fur Schriften der App. kSnnen
gehalten werden ab es sonst wohl gute und nutzKche bucher seynd wdchs wahl
mogsn in dsr Kirchs gslsssn werden aher allein zur Aufbawung der Oemeinde
und nit streitige Artikel damit zu bekrefftigen. [But since there has been,
both in old times and now, no small strife as to which are the true, genuina

366 HISTORY OF THE CANON OP THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Still frora the moraent that theological science took hold
of this question, it was put on another basis. It cannot be
concealed, that Luther's separation of the Epistles of James
and Jude, the Epistle of the Hebrews and the Apocalypse,
had not been made on strictly scientific principles. His
successors, without exactly repudiating his criticism, com
bined its results with the old distinction between the
horaologouraena and the antilegoraena to which they attached
great iraportance. In this way they carae to differ from
Luther on two points. Instead of four books being omitted
from the list of those undoubtedly canonical, there were
seven; and, in place of basing this classification on a
•dogmatic theory, they took their stand on historical facts.
They thus abandoned Luther's great principle ; but at the
flame time they were making some distant preparation for
the return, whether in the Church or in science, to tradi
tional usages, precisely as had been done a thousand years
before. The Lutheran theory, on the special point before us, is
clearly set forth, as it was formulated from the middle of
the sixteenth century in the celebrated polemical work of
Martin Chemnitz, entitled : Examination of the Council of
Trent.^ The author there shows that canonicity ought to
and indisputable books, ... we declare that we are entirely of Luther's
opinion, , , . in the N, T., however, the Ep, to the Hebrews, as also, of
J ames and Jude and the Apoc. of John, cannot so certainly be considered
writings of the Apostles, though otherwise they are good and useful books
which may be read in church, but only for the edification of the congrega
tion and not for the support of disputed articles,] This passage was sup
pressed in the edition of 1670, and in 1751 Prof, Lorentz proved in an
academical dissertation that the two texts are not contradictory, the flrst
saying the same as the second,
' Examen concil. trid., loc. i., sect, 6, §§ 9 f,— § 15 : QucBfUo est, an ea
scripta, de quibus in antiquissima ecclesia dubitatum fuit, idea quod testifica-
tianes primitives ecdesice de his nan cansentirent, prcesens ecclssia possit facsre
cAnonica ? Pantificii hanc autoritatem usurpant, sed manifestissimum est
ecdesiam nulla modo eam habere ; eadem enim rations possd etiam vd canon-

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 367
rest on the fact of inspiration, and the testiraony of the
primitive Church, Where the latter is wanting, it cannot
be replaced by opinion or the usage of a raore recent age.
For this reason the seven books that in early times were
held to be doubtful, should still be considered doubtful.
The demand for some testiraony frora the primitive Church,
in order to establish the canonicity of the apostolic writings,
raay seera a very hard condition ; but Chemnitz thought
otherwise. According to him, John had seen and approved
of the three first gospels ; he had had his own approved by
the Church of Ephesus (xxi, 24, 25). Paul had set a special
mark on his epistles, and Peter (2 Ep, iii. 15) had seen and
recommended them. It is curious to see that the illustrious
¦controversialist professes to found the canonicity of Paul's
Epistles on the testimony of a text which itself seems
¦doubtful to him.
This distinction then was maintained, and there does not
appear to have been an}^ opposition on. the point. Even
the Reformed theologians saw no necessity for entering into
oontroversy with the Lutherans, which clearly proves that
the question was not regarded as affecting dogma,' The
seven books were boldly terraed apocrypha, and this narae
was justified by the assertion that they could not be used
in the sarae way as the others for establishing dogmas." I
may also cite here the remarkable fact that the faculty of
theology at Wittenberg, in its official censure of the cate
chism of the Socinians, charges them, araong other heresies,
icos libras reiicere vel adulterinas canonisare. Tota haec rss psndet e certis
testificationibus eius ecclesice qum tempore apostolorum fuit, etc, § 25 : Nullum
igitur dogma ex istis libris exstrui debet quod nan habet certa et manifesta
.fundamenta in canonicis libris. . . .
' W, -Whitaker, Dispp. de SS. (1590), contr, i., qu. i., ch, 16 : Si Lutherus
aut qui Lutherum sequuti sunt aliter senserint aut scripserint ds quibusdam
¦libris N. T., ii pro ss respandeant. Nihil ista res ad nos pertinet qui hac in
¦re Lutherum nee ssquimur nse defendimus.
' L, Osiander, Instit. theol. chr. (1582), p, 37 : Qui sequuntur libri non

368 HISTORY OE»THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
-with the heresy of effacing the difference between th&
canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament,'
The first step was made in a contrary direction when to-
the latter there was accorded a value superior to that of the
Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent." This was done, because
the O. T. Apocrypha, which had formerly been spoken of
with rauch esteem, suffered afterwards from the polemic
waged against the decisions of the Council of Trent, but also^
because, from tbe Christian standpoint, a difference had to be
recognised between the two groups of books. Others tried at
least to claim a greater authority for some of the contested
prorsus in pari sunt cum priaribus autaritate, prapterea quad de autoribus
eorum subdubitatur. Itaque in diiudicandis religianis controversiis non ean
dem vim prabatianis cum priaribus abtinent. . . . Apocalypsis propter magnam
obscuritatem et quia loannis thealagi, non apostoU, inscriptianem habd, non
inter authentica app. scripta numeratur. — N. Selneccer, Exam, ordin.,
1584. — M, Hafenreffer, Loci theol., 1603; Apocryphi libri N. T., sunt:
posterior ep. Petri, etc. Hi apocryphi libri quanquam in diiudicatione dog
matum autoritatem nan hahent, -quia tamen quce ad institutionem et cedifica
tionem faciunt plurima continent cum utilitate et fructu privatim legi et
publice recitari possunt. — J. Schreeder, Aphorismi e comp. th., 1599, Disp, I,
thes. 16 : Apocrypha N. T. sunt : Ep. ad Hebrceos, etc,
' Ausfuhrliche Widerlegung des arianischen Catechismi welcher zu liakau
1608 gedruckt. . . . durch die Theol. FaJcultat zu Wittenberg, I6I9, p. 13,
' Hafenrefier, I. c. : Si apocryphas libros inter se conferimus iUi qui in
Novo quam qui in Vdere Test, comprehenduntur, maiarem habent autorita
tem. — P. Balduin, idea dispos. bibl., p. 68, sq. Ed diserimen inter apocry
phas V. et N. T. Ex illis nulla confirmari possunt dogmata fidei sed propter
moralia tantum leguntur in ecclesia ; horum autem maiar est auctaritas ita
ut Noa-NITLI.1 etiam ad probanda fidei dogmata sint idonei, prcssertim ep. ad
Hebraeos et Apocalypsis. — C. Dieterich, Institt. catech., 1613, pp. 19 f. .
Apocryphi N. T. non sunt usque adea duhii nse quidquam e diamdro cano-
niece scr. contrarium continent. . . . etsi de iisdem in ecclesia fuit dubitatum a
quibusdam, ab aliis tamen fuere recepti. Dubitatum fuit de autare, non de
doctrina. Errant autem pantificii qui absolute parem autoritatem eum cano
nicis apocryphas II. habere dictitant.—li. Hutter, Loci comm., 1619, p. 17,.
claims for the Apocrypha of the N. T. auctaritatem quandam, such that
they occupy a place immediate between those of the 0. T. and the canoni
cal books. — B. Menzer, De S. S., Disp, i,, th. 25 f, : Libri apocryphi primi
ordinis s. ecclesiastici N. T. in nostris ecclesiis fere eandem abtinent cum
canonicis autoritatem.

THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 369
.books.' In the course of time, people grew raore and more
famiUar with the idea that the difference between the two
classes of apostolic writings consisted at bottom only in the
degree of certainty regarding their respective origins and
not in dogmatic variations of greater or less importance."
Now, pro-vided that, from the nature of the teaching, the
characteristics of the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit could
be recognised in it, the canonicity was sufficiently estabUshed
and it was not necessary to this result that the name of the
authors should be known in an equally indisputable way,*
It was preferred therefore to choose for classifying thera
terms that were quite inoffensive; e.g., canonical books of the
first and second series, or of the first and second canon.^
But this purely forraal distinction finaUy disappeared.
The doubts it recalled were no longer shared by the
theologians, and no one felt disposed to maintain the nega
tive in questions of criticism. It therefore rested solely on
a long-past fact, almost forgotten, with no actuality. The
Lutheran authors of the eighteenth century who raake any
' Mg. Hunnii Disp. de Scr. can., 1601 (Dispp. Witt., 1625, tom, i,) pp.
156 f. He sacrifices only the Epistles of James and Jude, while he says of
all the seven antilegomena : extra canonem sunt et apocryphis accensentur.
Comp. too Balduin, I. c.
'Abr, Calo-vii Syst, lace, theol., 1655, tom. i., p. 513 : Nonnulli ex ortho-
doxis ep. ad Hebrceos, etc, . , . deuteracanonicas libros vacant quod in ecclesia
iis aliquando contradidum fuerit; qui tamen agnoscunt eosdem pro iic-
vnicrois habendos esse nee canonicam illis autoritatem in firmandis fidei
dogmatibus deragant. — Andr. Quenstedt, Theol. did. pal., <^. iv., qu, 23,
p. 235 : Disceptatum fuit de his libris, non ab omnibus sed u, paucis, nan,
semper sed aliquando, nan de divina eorum autaritate sed de autoribus secun-
dariis. Sunt cequalis autoritatis cum rdiquis nan autem aequalis cognitioms
apud homines.
3 Schreeder, De princip. fidei, c. i., p. 146 : Ut liber pro canonica habea-
tur, non requiritur necessario ut constet de autare secumdario s. scriptare, satis
est si constet de prima autare qui est Spiritus sanctus.
< Libri canonici primi et secundi ordinis, prota-deuterocananici. J. Ger
hard, Loci theol, ed. Cotta. i., p. 6 ; ii., p. 186. Quenstedt, I c. Baier,
Comp. theol, p, 120. J. Ens, De U. N. T. canone, c. 6, 12,
2 A

370 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
mention of it in passing,' merely do so to defend Luther
from the charges raade against him on this point ; and
they make a very expeditious defence by perverting his
meaning." ' Buddeus, I. e., p, 146 : Dubitatum olim fuit; etiam nostri doctorea ali
quando Jicesitarunt ; postquam autsm cunda adeuratiori studio discussa et
explorata sunt, nullum temere, cur recipi non debeant, superesse potest
dubium. — J. G. Pritii Introd. »« N. T., 1737, pp. 37 f. : Inter canonicas
libros nudum ordinem nullamque eminentiam agnoscimus : etsi quoque da-
remus incertum esse auctorem, inde tamen immerita ad negandam libn
autoritatem canonicam canduditur. — J. W. Rumpsei Comm. crit. ad U.
N. T., 1757, p. 188: Hodie distindia ilia expiravit.—J. A. Dietelmaier,
TTieol. Beitr., 1769, i., 377 : Heutiges Tages koennten unr diesen Unterschied
zur Noth entbehren; well er aber doch nach einigen Oebrauch hat und besorgli-
cher Massen bald noch einen mehrern bskommsn m6chts(\), so ist flsissigzu
erinnern dass die Zusdtze proto- deutero- nicht einen vsrschiedenen Werth
anzeigen sallsn, sondem eine frvhere oder spdtere Aufnahme. — Ch. F.
Schmidt, Hist, et vind. canonis, 1775, p. 56 : Impune et sine ulla impietatis
nota licuit priscis ambigere de II. N. T. quorum divina origo istis tempori
bus nondum satis nota esset. . . . quod nunc post perspeda darissima argu-
menta, traditianem perpetuam ecclesice constitutumque publicum eorum usum
indulgeri nequit.
' Pfeiffer, Crit, sac, 1688, p. 359. Gerhard, I. c, ii,, 223.

CHAPTER XVIIL
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH.
I HAVE narrated the History of the Canon of the Holy
Scriptures in the Protestant Church down to the middle of
the eighteenth century. To say truth, it ends there. The
canon — i.e., the official collection of the sacred books — has
not changed since. In so far as we have to consider it as
one of the forras of the religious faith and life of the
Christian comraunity, it has undergone no variation. The
doubts of scholars, which have since been put forward,
sometimes timidly, soraetimes with a certain amount of
noise, have had the value only of individual opinions ; and
their influence on usages and institutions has been the less
that in most cases they have reraained unknown to the
general pubUc, The results of a science too bold and rash
to inspire universal confidence have in no way encroached
on the heritage of tradition. At most, they have increased
the number of the eleraents of dissolution, which for nearly
one hundred years have been secretly raining the theological
edifice erected in the sixteenth century, and that edifice on
some future day will be replaced by a new construction
more in harraony with the primitive thought of the Gospel,
and therefore raore enduring.
With this fact before me, I might have considered my
task as ended. The readers who had kindly followed rae
thus far, in order to gain acquaintance with the various
evolutions of a principle seldom well defined and more
seldom still applied with any rigour, the readers who are
attentive to the teaching of history, would have, at least,
carried away the feeUng that the ways and methods of

372 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
forraer days had ended only in the result we have stated,
and that, this result being unsatisfactory, the science of
Christianity raust build tbe conception of the Scriptural
canon on another basis. Theology is already seeking this
basis ; it has tried, and is still trying, to prepare it and
consolidate it, either by tbe processes of theory or by the
help of history. But the work is only begun. Those who are
devoting to it tbeir powers do not deceive theraselves about
the sraaU success as yet obtained, nor about the greatness of
the difficulties to be overcorae. Even the need for this vast
and uncertain work is still so far from being generaUy felt,
that the historian who would wish to present a summary of
what has already been done would run the risk of exaggerat
ing the importance of his facts, or, at any rate, his own
power of appreciating thera.
In adding, therefore, one raore chapter to ray history of
the canon, I do not desire to continue a narrative which I
consider finished ; still less do I desire to begin a new narra
tive which raight never be finished. There is no doubt
that, if only I succeeded in giving things their true
colour, the very actuality of the subject would increase
its attractions both for myself and for the public. But the
elements and materials on which I should have to work are
so different in nature, the interests concerned are so new,
the predominating tendencies quite as remote from old pre
judices as old raethods are recognised to be insufficient, and
the whole is so profoundly permeated with the spirit of modern
science, that I should certainly be wrong in presenting the
actual state of things as the simple continuation of what
formerly existed, the raoveraent of to-day as the direct effect
of the stagnation in which, as we have seen, the generous
efforts of the Reformers ended. My purpose is more modest.
I wish simply to bring my work to a suitable close, to round
it off, by first casting a retrospective glance over tbe results

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH, 373
acquired. These results, to some definite, to others provi
sional, deserve both these epithets, according as we regard
them frora the scientific or practical point of view. This
will lead rae in the second place to indicate summarily the
new elements introduced by our fathers into this particular
sphere of the vast field of theology, elements cultivated with
more or less success by our contemporaries, and in any case
destined to play a great part in the future development of
Christian studies. Finally, I shall try to state precisely
the divergence existing between the traditional path and
the innovations extolled by independent science, and to
mark out the route by which one day perhaps the school
and the Church wiU come to a reconciliation of their equaUy
legitimate interests.
It is impossible to deny that Protestant theology had
raade, in regard to Scripture, an important and salutary pro
gress over the theology of the Middle Ages. When it
claimed for the sacred code, as a right and as a fact, the first
place, the supreme authority, it had at the same tirae ex
perienced the need of formulating the conception of the
canon clearly and precisely, and of not being content with
vague eulogiuras. These vague eulogiuras had accommodated
themselves in early tiraes to tbe caprices of custom, and more
recently had not prevented the holy books from falling into
obli-vion among the faithful, and into the bondage of tradition
among the learned. Unfortunately this progress did not
succeed in ripening all tbe fruits it might have borne. The
fundamental principle regarding tbe definition of the canon
and common to the two fractions of the growing Protestan
tism had consisted, as we have seen, in buUding the author
ity of the written word on the internal testimony of the
Holy Spirit— ¦i.e,, on the assent of the Christian conscience,
an assent spontaneous, instinctive, free from aU reserve
and hesitation, independent of tradition and deUvering itself

374 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
with confidence to the mysterious and salutary action of the^
principle of life placed by Providence in that particular
means of grace. We have seen with what astonishing
rapidity this point of view was abandoned in the schools-
to give place to another diametrically opposed to it ; or
rather how, by transitions which explain the fall but do not
excuse it, theologians carae to neglect, to weaken, at last to
bury a theory which frora the vital eleraent of the system
had becorae a dead letter, and then to substitute for it a
scaffolding of conventional argnraents, for the most part-
without solid basis, and at all events quite unknown to the
body of the faithful. The same stiffness of the forraulas,
the same dialectical routine which had changed the living
and victorious faith of the Reformers into a catalogue of
abstract and powerless theses and tbeir inspired eloquence into
a dry, arid scholasticism, finally banished from the study of
the Bible, and consequently from the conception of the canon
among orthodox Lutherans and Calvinists, everything of the
nature of iraraediateness in the religious sentiment, though
that is the indispensable correlative of the fact of inspir
ation. It is very remarkable and very significant that at the
close of the development which I have just characterised in
two words, and which we have been studying thoroughly,
the scriptural canon was the same among Protestant as
araong Catholics, with one single exception hardly woi-th
raentioning. This result would certainly be deeply iraportant
if the two .sides had reached it by different routes, if Pro
testant theology with its new principle had furnished a
verification of Catholic tradition. But I have shown that,.
where that principle was freely used — i.e., with Luther and
his friends or immediate disciples, and to sorae extent with
Calvin — it brought out sorae raanifest differences of details,.
and that these differences finaUy disappeared not by applying

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 375
the theory of the Reforraers raore firraly, perhaps raore legiti
mately, but by abandoning it by returning to the old
methods, the time-honoured customs. In spite of the energy
of the religious raoveraent of that epoch, neither the Church
nor the school felt itself equal to following their new leaders
in a path apparently so hazardous ; and what raight be per
mitted to these illustrious raen seemed much too perilous
and compromising to men of the second and third rank.
On this point, therefore, we raust make allowance for the
reserve of such men even while we regret it. The shock
had been sudden and deep ; the reaction was equally intense.
The desire for stabiUty, though unfortunately pushed to ex
cess, was a natural manifestation of the spirit of the time, I
might call it the result of circumstances. That desire
hastened the fixing of the canon and settled tbe list of the
sacred books. The dogma of inspiration could tolerate no
hesitation about the details and still less the preservation
of an intermediate class of deutero-canonical writings, by
establishing which science had at first avoided the embar
rassing necessity of coraing to any conclusion regarding
questions not yet clearly seen. An illusion was kept up re
garding the little progress raade by the new theology in
the department of history. There was no hesitation in pro
nouncing judgraent on points regarding which inquiry had
hardly been coramenced. In places where the Reforraers
had sought above all to raake themselves acquainted with
the spirit, examining their own inward experience, their
successors confined theraselves to ascertaining the pro
per narae, and for this purpose were very often content
with reading the current ticket and accepting the cunent
mark. The proofs of these facts have been given at length
in the preceding chapters. Besides, there is no one, even in
France, but knows bow theological tradition, after Luther
was estabUshed in the Lutheran Churches regarding the

376 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Apocalypse, and historical tradition, after Calvin, in the
Reforraed Churches regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews.
These examples may be sufficient
I have just said that with one single exception the Scrip
tural canon was the sarae araong Protestants as araong
Catholics, but that this difference was hardly worth men
tioning. This assertion raay appear strange and hazardous,
when it is remerabered how desperately the canonicity of
the Apocrypha of the Old Testaraent was discussed between
the two parties. No doubt tbe canon proper, in the doc
trinal sense, contained in the one church some books more
than in the other ; but this difference had no great weight,
neither from the grounds on which it was based, nor from
the use which science could make of it, nor in ecclesiastical
practice. In this last respect it amounted for the faithful
to a different order of the books in the different copies.
The dogmatic theory was nowhere trararaelled by disputes
regarding the vaUdity of a quotation, or rather these quota
tions, handed down from one generation to another, were no
more than one of the conventional forras of debate, and did
not exercise the smallest infiuence on the march of ideas.
Finally, as to the grounds for the difference raaintained in
principle, there is no harra in saying that if there was any
thing more feeble than the arguments of the defenders of the
Latin tradition, it was the arguments of their adversaries.
For the latter, without knowing it or desiring it, went far
beyond the raark, and, by neglecting the only solid basis on
which Protestantism could rest a theological notion of the
canon, persisted in placing it on tbe very same ground on
which Catholicism had done nothing but go astray.
But I shall go further, and say that this deviation from
the principles of the Reformers entailed other consequences
of a deplorable kind, not only for science, but also for the
Church. Luther and Calvin, in -vindicating the exclusive

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 377
authority of the Bible as opposed to the Catholic principle
of tradition, had intended to remain in close and permanent
communion with the Word of God, so as to submit to its
control their conceptions, their teaching, and their institu
tions. The very freedom with which they criticised the
composition of the traditional collection was both a symptom
of the direct interest taken in it by their religious sentiment,
and a guarantee for the sincerity of their affirmations.'
Now, though the principle of which I am speaking subsisted
in theory and was constantly invoked in the controversy
with Rorae, the fact is that secretly its authority was soon
divided with a totally different principle, the very principle
which was publicly disputed. This principle had been only
imperfectly recognised and conquered at the origin of the
Reforraation, but its erapire would have disappeared of pure
necessity if advance had been raade in the path so gloriously
opened, if the fertile germ of the Gospel had been developed
and freed from all extraneous eleraents. Protestant theology,
in place of becoming more and raore biblical, which it could
not be altogether at first, becarae traditional, as the Catholic
theology had always been. On both .sides, orthodoxy in
cluded raany things of which neither prophets . nor apostles
had ever drearaed. The confessions of faith, though they
had been generous raanifestos of evangelic eraancipation,
became stiff and cold as codes, aU the raore imperious that
they were more scholastic, more void of Christian life, and
raore unintelUgible to the general body of the faithful. It
was not the spirit of the Bible, but rather the spirit of
Aristotle, which inspired that conventicle of Bergen, whence
issued the Forraula of Concord, as it was called, and tbe
conderanation of Melanchthon ; and the unfortunate debates
which long before had been agitating French Switzerland
on the question of predestination, and which ended in the
trial of Bolsec, might have foretold the rapid fall of a science

378 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
too fond of its own logic and too careless of acquiring fresh
-vigour by constant contact with the simple and legitimate
aspirations of sentiraent and conscience. And if that
happened in the raiddle of the sixteenth century, what was
to take place later when the current of ideas, at first so
powerful and limpid, had slackened and gi-own troubled?
Protestant theology, founded, as it said, on the Bible, carae
at last not to open it ; in raore than one university there
was not a single course on exegesis ; the students no longer
needed it ; everything was defined, settled, fixed. Thousands
of passages had received their official explanation, which
was raaintained all the raore doggedly that it was arbitrary,
and the generous efforts of a raore thoughtful piety,
endeavouring to restore to the people the book whose
treasures scholars believed themselves to have exhausted,
were revUed quite as furiously as were the feeble attempts
of science itself to correct the methods and sweeten the
language of the discussion.
Such was the state of things brought about by the spirit of
traditionalism which had carried Protestant theology away,
such was the price given for an advantage which the early
Church (I raean the Church of the raartyrs and not the
Church of popes and councils) had foregone and run no
risk. That advantage was the absolute certainty of the
canon, a catalogue of the holy books officially fixed, a legal
inventory of the archives of inspiration. It was still the
theology of the old Judaisra so well characterised by St.
Paul, when he calls it the rainistry of the letter and of death,
hiaKovia ypap-jmros Ka\ Bavdrov. Fortunately, the power of life
inherent in th'e gospel, though neutralised for a tirae by the
persistence of the work of systematizing, at length regained
its Uberty of expansion and freed itself from the restraints
of the school. This salutary revolution, which had been
long prepared or at least desired, manifested itself in the

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 379
last quarter of the seventeenth century. It appeared simul
taneously in tbe three great fractions of the Christian
Church, but its chances for the future varied according to
the respective nature of these fractions. In aU three, the
Bible was replaced, not theoretically but in actual usage,
on the pedestal of honour. Frora it, and not frora tradition,
instruction and edification were sought, and theological
studies, placed henceforth in more direct contact with the
needs of tbe community, entered on a new course of develop
ment. Not that the discussion of the canon itself was
revived ; but the use raade of what had been handed down,
proved that there was soraething better to bed one in this
sphere than to write dissertations on the forras without
penetrating into the spirit. At any rate, as I have alreadj^
said, the fate of these atterapts at regeneration was not the
same everywhere, and the effects tbey produced had scarcely
any reserablance to one another.
Within the pale of the Catholic Church, Jansenisra, vainly
recommended by the best and raost serious men of the time,
men who united the eloquence of good taste to that of a
good exaraple, appeared only to prove a truth, often con
firmed since and now generally recognised. That truth is
the immutability of the Romish institution, the impossibility
of its retrograding a single step, of changing ever so little in
direction, of playing a wider part in individual development,
of suffering the least encroachment to be raade on its visible
and perraanent authority, by making any concession what
ever to a principle which would threaten to cast off its
control. It was vain for the Jansenists to start a controversy
-with the Protestants, their nearest neighbours, that they might
obtain forgiveness for their own assertions of independence.
That piece of feebleness did not save thera, and they had not
even the consolation or honour of buying with their own pains
and mortifications the liberty of a raore fortunate generation.

580 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
In the churches of the Reforraed rite, the raoveraent was
more varied and more powerful. It succeeded in breaking
down the artificial barriers which hindered it at first, but not
without faUing into various errors. While in Switzerland
the exaggerations of orthodox literalism went so far as to
give birth to theories more comproraising than conservative,
the arid scholasticism of the school was strongly shaken
in the Low Countries by the increasing ascendency of the
Biblical system of Cocceius. This celebrated professor of
Leyden attempted a complete restoration of theology, by
basing it on Holy Scripture without subjecting himself to
the traditional scheme of its eleraents, or to the rule of its
prescribed methods. He frankly recognised the gradual
evolution of the divine revelations as thej' appear in their
authentic monuments ; and, when transferring this principle
into the teaching of dogma, he introduced for the first time
the historical point of view in a science which for more
than a century had lived on hardly anything else than
abstraction. Unfortunately, an iraraoderate taste for types
and allegories, and hence a preponderating influence of
iraagination in exegesis, deprived this principle of much of its
proper fruits ; and, as his disciples, according to the general
rule, iraitated the raaster's faults raost of all, history has not
inscribed his name among the genuine reformers of the
science. At the same period, France, Holland, England
showed rival zeal in the arena of philological labours, Louis
Capellus at Saumur, and the editors of the polyglot Bible of
London, were collating texts, and creating critical science in
spite of the obstacles put in their way by routine. The
Arminians of Arasterdam were already beginning to employ
criticisra in discussing graver questions. But everywhere
the first energy of the work evaporated ; nor should this
relaxation of zeal, which was felt aU along the line, be attri
buted to external causes, such as the revocation of the Edict

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 381
of Nantes. The true cause seems to rae rather to Ue in this
fact, that towards the end of the seventeenth century, theo
logy, chiefly by its own fault, ceased to be the first of the
sciences, the science which had almost exclusively engaged
the attention of the studious for a hundred and fifty years.
It was now the turn of phUosophy, the mathematical and
physical sciences, history, law. AU disposable powers, those
above aU that were conscious of themselves, turned their
backs on a study in which, according to its accredited
representatives, there was nothing more to be done, and
nothing more to be gained but anathemas or worse. This
almost universal desertion was fatal to theology, and might
have been fatal to Christianity, had Christianity been depen
dent on the tendencies of the age. This movement also,
joined to the raoral effects of the political fermentation, and
to the influences of a superficial philosophy, led in England
to the arbitrary and superficial lucubrations of the free
thinkers, or to that luke- warra and colourless latitudinarian-
ism, whose knowledge consisted in masking indifference, and
whose tactics were only the making of concessions. The very
natural reaction produced Methodism audits fervour, at tiraes
eccentric, re-vived tottering convictions and created new ones.
Its road, rough as it was, was far removed from the thorny
paths of science, and, as it addressed itself specially to the
masses, it needed missionaries and not theologians. In the
national Church, theology, neglecting too readily the know
ledge acquired by study, and believing no longer in progress,,
was soon reduced to a mere polemical parade, made with
rusty weapons against exploded or misunderstood theories,.
and to drawing-room apologetics in which conventional
arguments drawn up by people unacquainted with history
or phUosophy, are weU suited for tranquiUizing souls more
afraid of doubt than of error. Thus, by quite different raeans,
the developraent of ideas was arrested in all the caraps. The

382 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
increasing division into sects, was neither the result nor the
forerunner of inteUectual work. All ecclesiastical activity
tended in a different direction ; it continues to produce
numerous fruits of Christian charity, which, at the same
tirae, have often a very pronounced flavour, and reserable
manufactured products bearing a trade mark.
The Lutheran Church, speciaUy in Germany, got entangled
in other ways and arrived at different results. There ap
peared first in it the great religious movement known in
history under the name of Pietism. This powerful and
happy reaction against orthodox scholasticism did not tend
in the least degree to bring into question any dogma of Pro
testantism, to raise irreverent doubts regarding any one
book of the sacred collection, to break up the canon and,
consequently, the systera. What it wished was to re
store the Bible to the people, to the gospel its popularity,
to nourish those who had been famishing for the word of
Ood, with other food than incomprehensible definitions,
hollow forraulas, and savage denunciations. It sought to
awaken the inner life, to bring the sinner face to face with
his Saviour without hiding Hira by parchments, to raise the
voice of peace and consolation, too long choked by the con
fused noise of theological quarrels as desperate as they were
superfluous. Pietism, like every reaction, had its weak side,
its defects and its troublesome consequences ; it concerns us
here merely to show the change it produced, more by instinct
than of set purpose, in the conceptions regarding Scripture
and its place in the Church — in other words, in the notion
of the canon. To begin with, the symbolic books and the
forraal theology derived frora it were put aside, not because
of any sceptical or aggressive criticisra, but simply because
each believer was brought directly to Christ and the
apostles. That which did not proceed from their mouth lost
the value hitherto attributed to it. Not so much the

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH, 383
essence as the forra of traditional teaching was put in ques
tion. Unfortunately this forra had finaUy pervaded every
thing, so that the defenders of orthodoxy soon foresaw, and
rightly foresaw, that encroachment would be made also on
the essence. Frora this tirae forward, the distinct formulas
of Lutherans and Calvinists were no longer absolute in im
portance. At the feet of Christ there was room for all who
experienced the need of hearing him, and he who had
welcomed publicans and harlots, be in whose name the
apostles had called men of every nation, the children of God,
on the sole condition that they repented and believed, he
¦could not possibly be thought to demand a prelirainary
guarantee pro-vided by the theological police. This was
not said : there was no clear consciousness of it ; but prin-
•ciples were loudly proclairaed which were bound to lead to it ;
and principles never fail to produce their natural conse-
•quences. Sorae preparation was made for the union of the
two churches ; the necessity for that union was felt more and
more; but it was accomplished only by sacrificing that
which had formerly rendered it irapossible. In another
direction, as religious life was brought back to a personal
communion with the Sa-viour, the Bible, destined to nourish
that Ufe, was of raore use in raaintaining it than when it
was only a repertory of arguments, an arsenal of weapons ;
but it was of use just according to the dispositions of indi-
-viduals and the ease with which its truths were assimilated.
Each one found in it what be needed and no raore, and each
one was sure of not failing in bis search ; but all did not
seek in the same manner. Convinced beforehand that the
entire volume encloses an inexhaustible treasure of the
wisdora and grace of God, each one made confident use of
the part most accessible to him, or of the part which fur
nished the richest product for his particular needs. There
might be in this illusions and eccentricities. Thus, the

384 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Apocalypse, so raiserably raaltreated by orthodox exegesis,
becarae, in a certain sphere of Pietisra, the centre of spiritual
studies and aspirations. Still there was assigned to the
religious conscience a large part in the appreciation of the
elements of Scripture, so far at least as their practical im
portance was concerned; and the theory of the internal
witness of the Holy Spirit, without being spoken of in so
raany words, again became the essential principle, much
more even than it had been in the time of Luther himself
Pietism had raade a breach in scholastic orthodoxy, not
so rauch by learned and solid argnraents as because it had
raet a need long felt vaguely, and because the liberty of ex
pansion, claimed by it for the religious sentiraent, conciliated
the suffrages of all those who detested the tyrannical raon-
opoly of the official theology. But it had not power to
maintain itself at the head of the movement it had called
forth. Every emancipation, even the most legitiraate, gives
rise to tendencies which go beyond the original mark, or,
profiting by the greater latitude granted for the time to new
ideas, push out in a direction quite opposed to it. Pietism
raade tbe raistake or had the inherent defect of despising, of
suspecting science, which at this very period was preparing
to usher in a glorious era. No doubt it did not advance at
first with well-assured step. Adventurous and rash, it
beUeved itself often to be at the end of its labours when they
were not seriously begun ; it boldly marked out routes across-
regions stiU unexplored ; it pretended to reap before it had
even cleared the ground ; it created systems before it had
gained experience ; and traditional prejudices which were
the result of long toil and which habit had raade dear to less
fickle or less exacting rainds, were continually replaced by
other prejudices, which had sprung frora a passing caprice
to be overturned on the morrow. Science of such a kind
had to contend with theology regenerated by piety quite as

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH, 385
much as with the theology that condemned aU reforra on
principle. Unfortunately neither the one nor the other had
arms powerful enough to contend with success against the
.spirit of the age which was plunging with enthusiasm
into the path of progress and light, in no way careful to
measure its steps by its strength, spurred on by the resist
ance it met with, and carried forward by the impetuous
current of opinion. What I am now saying appUes rauch
less to Germany where the influence of Pietism neutralised
a good part of the force which might have become hostile
to positive theology or even to religion, than to other
countries where the new ideas came into direct opposition
with the rough and inflexible theories of a past age. But
there is no need that I should paint this conflict in detail
The insipid pleasantries of the author of La Bible enjin
expliquee did no injury to the essence of Christianity, any
more than the ill-humoured attacks of the Wolfenbilttel Frag
ments; and the sacred trust of the Church resisted with equal
success and with no great efforts the atrabilious sallies of
Chubb and Toland, the romantic frivolities of Doctor Bahrdt,
and the ignorant prating of a De La Serre or a MardchaL
Let us, however, consider for an instant a phase of modem
development, or rather a party narae which in our days and
speciaUy in France is raade responsible for aU the opinions,
which, in regard to the canon, depart frora the fixed conclu
sions of ancient theology, I raean the Rationalism which pre
vailed almost universally at the beginning of this century,
and whose traces have not yet wholly disappeared. This
rationaUsra was not simply a method as it had been to the
scholastics in the Middle Age.s, or more recently to Descartes
and Wolf It had formed itself into a .system and pretended
to construct Christianity and theology with the sole help of
the huraan reason, aided no doubt by the teaching of the
Gospel; but the Gospel, continually controUed by reason, was
2 B

386 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
to be considered only as a more antique suramary of truths,
quite analogous in origin and meaning to those which raight
now be discovered and demonstrated, and which belonged
essentially to tbe domain of raorality. This rationalism, an
essentially theoretical systera of theology, or, if you will, of
phUosophy, ignorant of all history or rather incapable of
turning attention to it in consequence of its coraplete sub-
jectivisra, may deserve the reproach of having impoverished
the conception of Christian facts, exalted the power of the
human faculties at the expense of the action of God, and de
spised the most precious element of teaching ; but it is quite
wrong to accuse it of ha-ving assailed the BibUcal canon and
used criticism to gat rid of an inconvenient and indis
putable testimony, RationaUsra never raade any attempt in
this direction. Inspired by the moral philosophy of Kant,
it fought with pleasure in the Bible itself the foreshadow-
ings of its own axioms, "and did not hesitate to use for this
purpose the arbitrary processes of an exegesis recomraended
by tbe Ulustrious philosopher of Koenigsberg hiraself But
this art of knowing bow to find in the texts precisely what
is sought — i.e., what had been previously declared to be
necessarily true, this art now justly decried but once in
fashion among others than rationaUsts and still a little in
fashion among those who are not rationalists at all, this art,
I say, practised frankly by the exegetes of this school and
with the avowed purpose of defending Scripture against
those who rejected it altogether, freed them completely from
the trouble of getting rid of any particular part of the Bible
by violent operatioils. The meaning of texts was twisted ;
but whole raembers were not amputated from the body of
revelation ; the canon was not changed. The rationaUsts,
like the orthodox and the Pietists, might have a certain pre-
dUection for one book of the Bible over another ; but, as
- they attached no great value to any book, they accommodated

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 387
themselves to all, or rather accommodated all to their system.
We have seen Dr. Paulus of Heidelberg assert vigorously that
the Epistle to the Hebrews was PauUne, in the very year in
which Dr. Tholuck abandoned the defence of the PauUne
authorship as hopeless. When Schleierraacher,the first theo
logian to deal RationaUsra a mortal blow, was the first also to
deny the authenticity of the Ejnstle to Timothy, Wegsch eider,
the chief of the rationalist party, took on himself the reply.
The Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch was Valiantly main
tained by the rationaUst Eichhorn, long after the super-
naturalist Vater had proved it to be inadmissible.
But these examples, which might easily be raultiplied, re
mind rae that I ara not writing a history of theology ; I
have proraised only to finish the history of the canon of the
Holy Scriptures. Let me then recapitulate what I have just
said, in order to prove that, if inodern theology has entered
on other ways and formulated other views than those of our
fathers in regard to the composition of the canon, this was
not the result of a mere change of theory. There may be —
I wilUngly believe there are — among contemporary writers
who tiU now have not yielded to the arguments of a doubt-
creating criticism, some who find theraselves compelled by
their dogmatic convictions to refuse consent ; but this
criticisra, though it was soraetiraes turned into a' party
question, sprung, nevertheless, frora a different soil than that
¦of theory. It is the legitiraate daughter of a principle, or, if
you Uke, an instinct which was almo,st unknown to the
-ancients. Pagans, Jews or Christians, Catholics and Protes
tants, and which modern critics even, both orthodox and
rationaUst, have hardly recognised, or, at any rate, have
hardly placed at the service of the science — the historical
-sense. I say tbe historical sense, just as we say the sense
of seeing or hearing; for, just as the man deprived ot
certain organs cannot receive the impressions that corae

388 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
through these organs, so a particular kind of mind is needed
in order to estiraate rightly and without any sub
jectivity facts outside of us or long past. By one of these
raysterious evolutions of the huraan mind to which we have
no key, it was the eighteenth century, the century of
theories, the century which gave birth to a subjectivism so
boundless as to end in denying the reality of the world, it
was this same century which first awakened the historical
sense. From (hat tirae it graduaUy became a power of the
first rank in the vast doraain of intelligence, an instruraent
which, in the hands of the workers of scientific\progress, has
enriched the labourers by increasing their field of activity.
It was a Uttle after the raiddle of the last century that
the historical and objective raethod began to free itself frora
the bonds of history, and was appUed for the first tirae to
the questions now before us,' This change in the direction
of theological work is connected -with the narae of a raan
whom nature had not fashioned for a prophet or the leader
of a party. John Solomon Seraler had none of those
qualities which make reformers, neither the consciousness of
a great purpose, nor the enthusiasm of a noble cause, nor
the sentiment of personal superiority. He had been reared
in the atmosphere of a soraewhat narrow Pietism, but the
taste for study, the passion for books, had won the day over
the contemplative and sentimental tendencies fostered in
hira by his education. He was dominated by tbe need for
reading, learning, acquiring, not only in his youth, but all
his life long, so much so, that he had never any leisure for
examining into the riches of his iraraense knowledge, nor
the patience for bringing it into any kind of order. He did
not know how to bring clearness into his conceptions,
precision into his opinions, lucidity into his expositions..
When reading the innnraerable voluraes he has written, pre
faces, notes, and appendices rivalling the text itself in length.

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH, 389
we have difficulty in gathering from them his system, in
grasping his fundamental ideas. It was therefore not his
talent, still less his genius (he had less genius than most
celebrated men), that placed him at the head, not of a
school, for he did not form one, but of a movement for which
men's minds were ripe, and which was aU the more vigorous
that it was not dependent on the personal ascendency of one
man over others. I would even say that he rather followed
it by instinct, than called it forth with full consciousness.
Too feeble to direct it, too dira-sighted to settle beforehand
. its future march, he bequeathed to it his name, only because
he was the first to enter on that path, and because be long
remained the raost erudite, the most indefatigable, the most
fortunate in making real or illusory discoveries, and the
most frank in communicating thera to the public, in an age
when the powers directed to this kind of work were in
general deficient, and when the courage of novelty was hardly
shared by any but the forlorn hope of investigation. Pro
foundly pious, eminently conservative by conviction, he
deUvered the rudest blows againist traditional conceptions.
He -wrote against the Deists, and unintentionally furnished
them -with raaterials and argnraents. Wholly occupied with
the polemics of the day, he never came to construct an edi
fice on the ruins he heaped together. Such were the
beginnings of modern historical studies, as applied to the
question of the Biblical canon. If the ideas of this pioneer
of the science came down to succeeding generations to serve
them as principles, it was not due to his superior raind, but
to their intrinsic worth, and this sarae worth has preserved
to posterity the remembrance of Semler.'
' Semler, Abhandlung vonfreier Untersuchung des Kanon, 1771 f. 4 vols.
In directing attention to Seraler's influence, I have no desire to pass over
those who prepared for his coming (J. Alph, Turretin, De S.S. interpretandae
mdhodo, 1728,) or who along with him vindicated the rights of criticism
(Lessing, Theol. Nachlass, 1784.)

390 . HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Seraler's innovations had a bearing on various parts of
the question of the canon. I shall note three of the leading
points, which will, at the same tirae, serve as terras of di-vi-
sion for a brief sumraary of the later developraent of the
science. His attention at the very outset was directed to this fact,
that the canon had not always been the same in the early
Church, or at least, that the witnesses to be consulted differ
from one another, and that, in regard to certain books,
tradition is not merely wavering but is actually unfavour
able to their canonicity, or even to any presumption of their
apostolic origin. He thus carae to the conviction that it
was irapossible to harraonise witnesses equally early, and
frora our point of view, equally authoritative. He also felt
an instinctive and justifiable antipathy to the meana
employed by conventional orthodoxy for getting rid of thes©
inconvenient testiraonies, raeans whicb consisted sometimes
in ignoring them entirely, soraetimes in altering their mean
ing by forced interpretations. All this led him by pre
ference to search in the texts themselves for information
regarding their origin, since the statements of tradition were
not enough to place the history of the apostolic literature
on a solid basis. In other words, what we now call internal
criticism was added to the study of external testiraonies.
And,, as. these external testiraonies did not go back to so
early a date as the writings under discussion, writings, too,
which raight be heard in their own case, it followed that, in
all cases of doubt and even where doubt had never existed,
the science rested on solid ground only when the arguments
drawn frora the sacred writers theraselves had confirraed or
corrected tradition. I shall not enter on the details of Semler's-
investigation, or on the iraraediate results of his criticism.
I shaU rather repeat with sorae eraphasis that these results-
do not concern us so rauch as his method. That raethod

CRITICISM AND THE' CHURCH. 391
has never since been abandoned ; its legitimacy was at last
generally acknowledged ; it is only its application to details
that has continued to foment controversy. Not only did the
partisans of the new ideas make use of them, as weapons of
war ; the defenders of the old opinions had to follow their ad
versaries on their own domain, more than once finding occa
sion to reduce too hasty conclusions to their just value, or to
be the first to say the truth regarding literary facts before
understood iraperfectly. These researches and debates have
been going on for raore than a hundred years, without losing
any of their iraportanceor their interest. Advancing by round
about ways, getting entangled in wrong paths, exaggerating
sometiraes the value of a clue, soraetiraes the solidity of a
conjecture, borne along by the need of the intelligence to
arrive at soraething definite, criticisra has coraraitted raany
mistakes, seen raany hypotheses come into the world still-
bom, had often to retrace its steps after apparently wasting
its strength. I grant all that, I shall even say frankly
that the results universally adopted by aU scholars worthy
of being heard without distinction of school, are not very
numerous ; that it is very improbable that the controversy
wiU ever end in a general and complete agreeraent ; in fine,
that the science ought never to take rank as having nothing
more to learn, StUl iramense progress has been made ;
ground has been conquered, which will not be disputed by
any one who has learnt to distinguish between these radi
cally different things — facts and theories. Criticisra (I mean
that which seeks truth sincerely and unreservedly), is no
longer the weapon or the pri-vilege of a party ; it is not now
a weapon at' all, unless against historical error. It is a
method for finding the truth of facts, a method for the use
of all, indispensable to all, suspected only by ignorance,
neglected and decried solely by those who tremble instinct
ively for what they had previously learned, and who for

S92 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
that reason -wish facts to bend to their theories instead of
basing their theories on facts. On this very point we can
show the iraraense advantage of this raethod over that which
makes facts dependent on axioras, and judges thera accord
ing to preconceived theories. The philosopher, the theoriser
will many times be terapted to sacrifice the facts to his
principles ; when these are laid down, be will pass over
everything inconvenient, deny or pervert everything contra
dictory. Besides, theories do not correct nor transforra one
another ; they replace and succeed one another ; they are
;>verturned by facts. The historian, on the other hand,
though liable to be deceived like any other man, does not
fear this experience because his work, as he pursues it, is of
necessity a verification, and the discovery of error, far from
being to him raatter of discourageraent, or an ob.stacle to be
persistently got rid of, is, in his eyes, an advance, a conquest.
But I ara forgetting that I have not to write an apology.
Let rae resurae, then, by saying that, touching this first
point, the generation which preceded us entered frankly into'
the new arena opened to it, and tbat our generation followed
it aU the more successfuUy, that long use has given to the
science an exact knowledge of its methods, and the fu'st
gropings have given place more and more to intelligent and
rational work, Now-a-days, aU the details regarding the
composition of every Biblical -writing are carefully studied
before the theological explanation is undertaken ; the possi
bility of writing the history of Hebrew Uterature is raore
visible ; the history of the literature of Christianity in its
dawn is already marked in firm outlines; in short, the
history of the formation of the coUection, the sources of
which, on the whole, run with aU desirable abundance, has
positively reached a degree of certainty which wiU be
further increased, and which theorists are making vain
efforts to depreciate.

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 393
A second point, to which Seraler caUed the attention of
his conteraporaries, is the special character of the BibUcal
¦writings or their inspiration. As the question here is not
one siraply of method, but one of positive views directly
affecting dogma, the adoption of Seraler's view has naturally
been much less general, the opposition raore vigorous, and
the systeras to this day have remained more at variance.
This, however, has not prevented tbe professor of Halle
from exercising great influence on the question; on the
contrary, there are very few comtemporar3'^ schools whose
doctrines do not in some way bear traces of his ideas.
Semler was one of the first among Protestant theologians to
think seriously of modifying the received notion of inspira
tion, Tbat notion had already in his day been strongly
shaken, but it stUl preserved officially all the rigidity
bequeathed to it by a scholasticism, deficient in sentiment, and
without the slightest tinge of psychology. Unfortunately,
Semler on his part, or rather his whole century, was equally
deficient ; only he was raore disposed to deny what he did
not experience, while orthodoxy, without being less dry and
prosaic, at least adraitted the fact of inspiration as an in
explicable privilege of certain mortals holding a special place
among men. To Semler, inspiration raeant the raoral Ulumi-
nation of men in general He has, therefore, been often
¦caUed the coryphaeus or chief of rationalism, and indeed
there was rauch greater affinity between hira and the
rationalistic school, though the latter, as I have already
remarked, remained indifferent to what had most occupied
the learned critic. StiU it is more accurate to say that
rationaUsra was in the air, and that the philosopher could
not free hiraself frora it any more than the historian, since
the illustrious thinker of Koenigsberg raade it one of the
•corner-stones of his system. This may be sorae excuse for
Seraler. Besides, neither the one nor the other deserves to

394 HISTORY OP THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
be confounded with the crowd whicb professed to march
under their glorious flags, while taking as little as possible
of the work. In any case, it ought to be sufficient to have
noted, in passing, this particular eleraent in the revolution
which passed over theological ideas. Every one understands
that the theory of inspiration is very closely related to the
conception of the canon ; we have been nieeting with it aU
through our history ; but, just because it is a raatter purely
of theory, I may dispense with entering on details. I shall
confine rayself to the statement that dogmatic science con
tinued to develop, to be changed, to advance in a notable
way on this point as on so raany others. The present gene
ration, without being able to flatter itself on having for ever
fixed the scientific conception of a fact, which, as essentiaUy
raystical and individual, eludes all purely dialectical pro
cesses, is very far in advance of the formula that prevailed
a hundred years ago. But an immense advantage has been •
gained- by recognising the necessity of conceiving the fact of
inspiration, otherwise than as a mechanical pressure exercised
by a raotive force on a passive instrument, of connecting it
with another faculty of the soul than the pure intelligence,
of bringing it into closer relation with what con.stitutes the
essence of the spiritual life of all Christians, of radically
reforming the traditional theory of the Spirit of God and
bringing it back to the Biblical conception which on no
other point has been so sadly disfigured or rather abandoned
by the rationalism of the orthodox schools. I raay dispense
here with any profound treatment of this subject, the French
public having frequently had to consider it in recent j'ears.
For among us, too, the scholastic conception, put forward in
all its crudity, has provoked very general protestations.
French theology, bom but yesterday, is trying in its tum to-
find a formula more adequate for defining a religious fact
which science formerly disfigured by its sophisms, but whicb

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 395
our science, fortunately for itself, cannot do without. If
only it succeeds in understanding the fact, its regeneration
wiU be effected.
Nevertheless, modern theology, a daughter of that reaction
whose primitive character we are at this moraent trying to
grasp, has not confined itself to correcting the theoretical con-
' ception of inspiration. By its very refusal to attribute the
origin of the apostolic books to a cause absolutely external to
the wiU and conscience of their authors, it naturaUy under
took to point out sorae other cause raore in harmony with the
laws of psychology and history, and at the same time raore
fittedfor resolving tbe innnraerable exegetical problems which
from the old point of view had been insoluble, and had
sapped the basis of the theory itself. Here, again, Semler
marked out the new route. Taking up the ideas already
foUowed instinctively by Grotius and Le Clere and more
. openly professed by Turretin, profiting, too, by the tendencies
of Pietism which had restored to the" sacred writers a good
part of their individuaUty, he entered resolutelj^ on the path
of historical interpretation and applied himself to the study
, of the social land religious conditions amid which the con-
-victions of the disciples of Jesus were forraed. On this
study he based his explanation of their books, I do not
hesitate to say that be was not altogether fortunate iU this
work of exploration and reconstruction. He, too, brought to
it his share of prejudices ; and, what is still worse, though
he showed ranch sagacity in eliminating the errors with
which traditional history swarmed, he was not equaUy
skilled in recognising and defending the real facts. Thus,
for instance, he had dwelt on a fact, which no one before
him had noted with so much clearness, the presence and in
fluence of certain Jewish ideas in the priraitive Church.
He taught science, which has since iraproved on his concep
tion but has not abandoned it. to distinguish Jewish Chris-

396 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tianity frora Paulinism ; but he was quite wrong in marking
off" their limits, assigning to Jewish Christianity more than
one element which was an integral part of the Gospel it
self, and neglecting too much the objective study of the
Go.spel, or rather betraying generaUy a certain awkwardness,
it raight even be said, a radical incorapetence, in seizing its
true essence. Thus, again, he was able to recognise every
where in history (he was himself the creator of the history
of dogmas) the variety, the divergence of the systems ; he
destroyed for ever the old prejudice of orthodoxy that
the dogma of the Church has always been the same ;
but the intiraate relations of the phenoraena he was ob
serving, the suprerae law of these evolutions of religious
thought, in a word, the pragraatism of that history, escaped
him. In spite of these faults which I have no desire to con
ceal, I am bound to say that his fundamental ideas, especially
where they tended to change raethods, have been justified
by experience. I shall cite as one raore proof only this fact
very easy to verify — viz., that the exegesis of our century,
even the most conservative, bears the stamp of the historical
point of view whUe rationalistic exegesis has disappeared
without hope of return. The natural origins are. studied on
the soil where the Bible was forraed, which by no raeans ex
cludes the belief in the providential action of the Spirit of
God ; and consequently the question of the canon,- in so far
as it depends on the study of the texts, has entered irrevoc
ably, not into the sphere of a doubt which would be the
eneray of faith, but into the sphere of facts which can only
give to faith a raore soUd basis.
But tbe question of the canon is also closely allied with
the theory^ and this is the third and last point I have to
treat. On the subject of the canon, modem science has
been least sure of its beginnings : its progress has been least
•visible and most disputed, AU this just because it is not a

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 397
question of the facts in themselves, but of their subjective
appreciation, let me say rather, their relation to systems
which, without exception, have been partly formed in inde
pendence of facts. In very truth, the whole history of con
temporary theology lies in this. It cannot of course enter
into my views to exhaust such a subject by introducing it
incidentally. But I wish to point out sorae salient and
characteristic points in what is universally recognised to be
the most profound religious crisis since the Reformation, a
crisis suspected and cursed by some, extolled by others, and
confronting all.
From the very first, when in consequence of the historical
discoveries true or false which had been made, the apostolic
writings were deprived of that absolute authority they had
hitherto enjoyed, and of that character of intrinsic homo
geneity which justified their distinct separation frora all
other literature, it became necessary to seek a definition of
the canon which would take into account the results of
historical criticism and still explain what makes the BibUcal
writings a reaUy distinct and special literature. On this
point, the first attempts of science were not happy. By one
of these caprices to which the huraan raind so readily
yields, Semler, the champion of rights of history, began by
substituting for it what was simply his own personal con
viction. He pretended that the canon, even in the early
church, had only been the catalogue raore or less official of
the books read to the people for their edification, thus ne
glecting the dogmatic element which was the main point,
and adhering only to one of tbe forras of its application.
' Not but tbat in certain respects this opinion may be de
fended, and some support to it is given by -the customs and
usages of the Latin Church ; but, after all, the theology of
the Fathers, chiefly that of the golden age of the Eastern
Church and the very history of the institutions, are anything

398 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
but favourable to it In any case, its author corabined it
with another thesis, proclairaed as the principle henceforth
to be foUowed, which thesis made the canonicity of every
book depend on what he called its practical or moral utility.
The historian here was completely effaced by the moralist,
the preacher, the man charged with the instruction of the
people ; and as such, when the point is closely exarained, he
received the mission of making and unmaking his own canon
according to the moral needs he was able to advance, and the
corresponding qualities he was able to recognise in each
Biblical writing, I shaU not wa.ste time in pro-ving that
Christianity is not raerely a systera of raorality, above all in
the sense which Seraler and his age raeant ; that point of
¦view has long been left behind. StiU less is it necessary to
prove that the sacred authors did not wish to be simple
echoes of the natural law. Let rae rather point out here
sorae details. First of all, I should say in defence of
Seraler that his test of canonicity, though it could not be
accepted by Christian theology, and the theology of Protest-
tanisra in particular, had a distant analogy with that of
Luther, inasrauch as the great Reforraer also set up a theo
retical axiom as the supreme rule determining the value of
each element in the traditional canon. Only Luther's axiom
was an evangelic truth, the very truth which brought about
the rupture with Rome ; while Seraler's contained nothing
specially Christian or Protestant, This being recognised, it
may be asked what interest he had in speaking of a Biblical
canon at all. This question -wUl seem less superfluous when
it is found to help us to a better acquaintance -with the
somewhat arbitrary methods which Semler used for recon
ciling theoiy and practice. As an actual fact, he did not go
very far in his negations, and the parts of the canon which
he elirainated purely and simply were by no means numer
ous. On this point he was not so bold as Luther, Esther,

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 399
"Canticles, the Apocalypse, were the chief victims on the
altar of tis principle,- and the two latter were immolated
with equal stubbornness and bad taste. But what he did
not reject, he accommodated by interpretation to the general
tendencies of his theology, and in this, the chief defect of his
method, he had the raost nuraerous and faithful disciples. '
Jt is difficult to understand how a criticism undertaken in
the name and for the benefit of historj^ — i.e., of objective
knowledge — could have been involved in the least justifiable
•errors of a narrow and poor subjectivism. Still this defect
is exceeded by another eccentricity which did not form a
..school. That was the distinction estabUshed by Seraler be
tween private religion and public or official religion, for
which he not only professed a respectful deference, and
which he would not deliver to the mercies of an indepen
dent discussion. Was not this antithesis of an esoteric and
an exoteric teaching, a confession of feebleness, an anachron
ism, which nothing seemed to justify for there was nothing
to make it necessary.
AU these gropings, all these errors and inconsistencies, are
¦explained when we remeraber what studies must be that
have been freed suddenly from rigid tradition and a jealous
authority, but have before them an obstacle more difficult
to surmount, a danger more likely to disturb their vision.
These were the very novelty of the situation which came
-face to face with the erapire of habit, the old prejudices un
wittingly retained and added to new prejudices which
hastened to take the vacant place of the old. On the one
hand, there was the pleasure of criticising, discovering,
advancing, a pleasure all the more irresistible that it had
been long denied ; on the other hand, there was that con-
:servative instinct so profoundly rooted in the German raind.
They raight be called two poles exercising their attraction
alternately, and increasing thereby the uncertainties of the

400 HISTORYOF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
present raoraent, while guaranteeing progress for the future.
These inconveniencies may be regretted; suffering even
may arise from their imraediate effects ; they are inherent
in human nature. Providence, in promising to man so richly
endowed that he would find satisfaction for his aspirations
after truth, desired also that he should seek it ; success is
the reward of the work. The truth is that science has
advanced, and by advancing it has grown fond of movement.
It has traversed distances which render a return to its former
position, not only difficult, but irapossible ; it has entered on
paths from which before all else it raust seek the issue ; and
it will certainly not discover the issue by returning on its
steps or stopping half-way : it must finish its work.
But its route is strewn with ruins ! But the doubt which
professes to iUumine it, begins invariably by extinguishing
the only larap that gave security ! But the sacred books are
descending raore and more into the rank of simple historical
docuraents ! But the authority of Scripture is sapped, and
with it how many other authorities 1 These complaints are
the order of the day; they are almost general in France,
They do not proceed only frora the ignorant raass whom the
spirit of party can terrify by phantasmagoria ; they reach
us also from those who, strong in their convictions and
satisfied -with what they possess, desire nothing more.
These latter, on their own authority niarking out in the
garden of science trees with forbidden fruit, believe that
reason, now raore prudent than in the beginning, will prefer
the nakedness of an eternal infancy to the knowledge of
good and evil, lest it should be driven out of a paradise
-without labour, and be corapeUed unceasingly to puU up the
thistles and thorns which have been permitted to grow
abundantly in the field of the human raind. But such
coraplaints are largety exaggerations, arising from a false
estiraate of the facts, or frora personal irapressions which

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 401
cannot give the true measure of things. Where they are
weU-founded, they are far frora authorising any absolute
conderanation of historical criticisra in itself; they rather
raark the elements of a real progress, I might say, the young
fruits which are already visible in spring, and with the aid
of heaven, -wUl one day form the harvest expected in
autumn. There may indeed have been sometiraes too great
haste in destroying ; wrong roads raay have been pursued
and false Ughts foUowed; but, in alraost aU cases, the science
itself was the first to discover the true cause of error, while
traditional and conventional opinion was siraply putting
forward denials that refuted nothing and proved nothing.
If doubt still seeras to occupy too large a place in raodern
science, that is because science has recognised the great
value of doubt as a raeans of research. Science has no
fears for itself nor for the truth ; science knows that reason
is forced by its own nature to overcome doubt before
attaining any positive result, and that there is no worse
method of overcoming doubt than that of stiffing or proscrib
ing it. If now the books of the Bible are consulted chiefly as
the documents of reUgious thought, such as was long ago
formed in circumstances favoured by Providence, at decisive
epochs of history, the part thus assigned to them is certainly
nobler than that they played, when, under pretext of regu
lating by them the reUgious thought of the times, raen made
them the passive instruments of the current philosophy or
of partisan interests, the humble servants of dogmatic argu
ment, the weapons of controversy unceasingly re-shaped on
the anvil. If the Old Testaraent is now no longer used as
in the days of our fathers, for constructing Christian dograa
by raeans of exegetical manipulations as repugnant to good
taste as to coraraon sense and fairness, its own nature, its
religion and poetry, its raorality and legislation, the holy
enthusiasm of its prophets, and the epic simplicity of its
¦ 2 0

402 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
traditions, these, considered in their true light, have gained
by the change ; and the radiance which Hebrew literature
thus casts across the centuries, stands out against the pro
found night of pagan antiquity, and becomes more brilliant
when the air is freed from the mists of theology. If, in
establishing the authority of the New Testaraent, we no
longer pause over proper naraes open to doubt, but go
straight to the truth which it proclaims and enforces on the
conscience, are we acting contrary to the counsel which Jesus
was the first to give regarding his own claims ? Will his
claims vanish away if we give heed to do what he commands
us, to draw inspirations from his exaraple, to enter into
communion with his living holiness, in place of losing
precious time in dissecting his personality ? When his
claims are verified by the process which he gave to his
disciples and all are bound to follow, will they not continue
to assure to him that absolute authority from which we
derive the right of bearing his name ? And inasmuch as
his regenerating personaUty was reflected with greater
brilliancy on his immediate surroundings, men, ideas, or
books, will not that privileged circle for ever continue to
possess a legitimate influence on the Church and on theology,
an influence better assured than if it were founded on claims
purely Uterary and therefore open to dispute ? In short,
the part of the Holy Spirit will not be less, far from it, if,
according to modern theology, its action extends to remote
spheres, if it is recognised in the most varied forms, if its
power is revered in effects whose greatness is perhaps
revealed only to exercised intelligences. It wUl not be less
if, instead of enclosing it in narrow formulas with no trace
of its quickening contact, theology permits it to blow
where it listeth, and studies it first in the inner experiences
of the soul, before seeking to define it in the phenomena of
history.

CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 403
I have thus given in rapid outline the direction taken by
theology since it began to seek a solid basis for itself in his
torical criticism. The conviction has grown that the
¦question of the canon of Scripture is more or less closely re
lated to all the problems that have been raost discussed in
these latter days, even when that particular question has
not been raised. The question has assumed larger propor
tions than formerly, and I was right in saying that the
scherae of narration, sufficient for the narrow circle of early
tiraes, would have to be greatly enlarged for recounting the
various phases that have appeared in contemporary literature.
The time is not yet come for science to draw its final con
clusions ; stiU sorae facts are now placed above discussion
and wUl no longer lose their weight. Araong such facts,
there is first, in regard to theory, this fact, that inspiration
has appeared and stUl appears in different degrees, and that
no forraula will succeed in drawing an absolute distinction
between the inspiration of all Christians and that of the
sacred writers; and secondly, in regard to practice, this,
that theology has no longer any interest in altering the tra
ditional composition of the canon, since it returns with full
oon-viction to the Protestant principle of appeaUng to the
testimony of the Spirit of God, and therefore claims no longer
to stand between that Spirit and the believer, controlling
their mutual relations. For theology, to believe in tbe Bible
raeans before all else to believe that it is revealed directly
to heart and conscience ; but it is also to believe that the
power of this revelation is not diminished by the inequality
of its forms, or the inferiority of one or other of its organs.
Theology, in short, does not believe Christianity and the
Church to be in danger, though the sarae credit be not given
to the story of the raassacres caused by a Persian queen, a
story containing aU the persistent hatred of the Synagogue,
as is given to the holy eloquence of an apostle of Jesus

404 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Christ: or though the Wisdora of the Son of Sirach, extolled
by the Fathers, be placed, as Luther wished, side by side
-with the sentences of Solomon. In other words, the question
of the canon no longer consists in the problera of drawing
up a list of books : that conception has had its day. Theo
logy airas henceforth at a higher mark, and the very fact
that it has learned to place before itself a more elevated
task, is some assurance that the task will in the end be
accomplished.

THE END.

S. Cowan &' Ce., PritUers, Perth.

INDEX NOMINUM ET RERUM.
Tlie Headings of Chapter.'^ are entered m small capitals.

Page
Acrs of Apostles, drst men
tion, . . , . 96
known to Irenaeus, 103
,, to Tertullian, . 110
„ to Clement of
Alexandria, . . 112
iEthiopic Bible, . . .179
Aimon of Halberstadt, . 251
Albigenses, .... 263
Amyraldus, view of canoni
city, . . . .351
Antilegomena, meaning of, . 150
term used in Synopsis of
Scripture, . . . 237
Kst by Nicephorus, . 249
howplacedby Musculus 315
how placed by (Ecolam
padius . . . 315
Apocalypse, first to be recog
nised as inspired, . 32
quoted by ApoUonius, , 48
in Muratorian Cation, lOI
quoted by Irenseus, , 103
„ by Tertullian, . 110
,, by Clement, , 112
notincludedin Peschito, 127
how regarded in Alex
andria, . . . 138
uot mentioned in Apos
tolic Constitutions, . 143
valued in the "West, , 145
opinion of Eusebius, . 154
included in Codex Sinai
ticus, . • . 158
and in Codex Claromon
tanus, . - ,^159
recognised by Athana-'
sius, . . - .165
omitted by Gregory, . 167
Cyril,. - 170
Chrysostom, 176
Council of
Laodicea, 181

Page
Apocalypse, omitted by Apos
tolic Canons, . . 182
rejected by Z-wingle, . 316
canonicity disputed by
Luther, . . .325
and its inspiration denie d, 327
Apocrypha of O.T., List of, 8
parallels in N.T., . . 8
never actually quoted in
N.T,, , . . 9
no canonical value for
apostles, ... 9
part of Hagiographa, . 10
additions to canonical books 11
not included in Pes
chito, . , 127, note
treatment by Origen, . 130
quoted by Cyprian as
inspired, . . . 144
included in Codex Sinai
ticus, . . . 158
partly included in Codex
Claromontanus, . 159
treatmentby Athanasius, 165
rejected by Amphilo
chius, . , ,168
received by Chrysostom, 176
included in iEthiopic
Bible, . . .179
treatment by Jerome, . 195
treatment by Augustine, 204
approved by Synod of
Carthage,. . . 209
included in Synopsis of
Scripture, . . . 286
opinions of theologians
of fifteenth century, . 269
treatmentby Reformers, 307
in Genevan Bibles, . 308
in Confessional articles, 310, note
why put along with
canonical books? . 311

INDEX.

Page
Apocrypha of O.T . —
why distinguished from
canonical books'? . 312
because not quoted in
N.T., . . 313
how treated by Brentz
and Flacius, , . 834
howplaced in early Eng
lish Bibles, 339, note
CathoUc and Protestant
¦views, . . 352
attacked by Protestants, 359
omission discussed at
Synod of Dort, . 362
Sooinian estimate, . 367
Apocrypha of N.T. —
as used by Clement of
Alexandria, . 114
treatmentby Origen, . 136
treatment by Euse
bius,. . . 151,156
includedin Codex C'l.aro-
montanus, . .159
Apocryphal,meaniiigofterm, 223
ApoUonius, quotes from
Apocalypse, . 43
Apostolic Canons, . . l-Sl
Apostolic Cmistitiilion.1. origin
and evidence on canon 141
Apostolic Fathers, meaning
of term, 21
Apostolic Writing.s in
Prlmitive Chckch, 1.5-27
some with special desti
nation, . . .15
some Catholic, . . 17
Catholic writings more
slowly disseminated, 1 8
oral instruction preferred, 19
how writings disseminated, 16
not at first read regu
larly . , 16, 17
how quoted by Aposto
lic Fathers, 22
seldom named, . 22
three direct aUusions, . 23
not yet generally dif
fused in A.D. 1.30, , 27
certain have disappeared, 37
Athanasius, his testimony, 164-166
recognizes apocryphal
books, . . .166

Page
Athenagoras, testimony re
garding Canon, . 44
Augustine, , . . 200-206
not all Scriptures canon
ica], . , .201
his saying regarding
authority of Scripture, 203
his list of books, . , 204
makes Hebrews a four
teenth epistle, . , 266
Authority of Scripture, . 292
opinion of Calvin, 2i)-t
opinion of Zwingle, . '2',)li
opinion of Petrus Ver
milius, . . 296
statement in Helvetic
Confession, . . 298
statement in Scotch
Confession, , , 299
statement in Thirty-
nine Articles, . . 300
derivedfromHolySpirit, 301
difficultiesof this theory, 306
Luther's theory and
practice, . , 332
in Confessional schools, . 343
discussions regarding it, 346
Protestant view of tra
dition, . . . 349
based on testimony of
Spirit . . . 373
Barnabas, Epistle of, alludes
to resurrection of Jesus, 24
how treated by Eusebius, 156
includedin Codex Sinai
ticus . 1 58
andin Codex Claromon
tanus, . . . ¦ 1 59
Calvin on inspiration and
tradition, . . . 294
on Ep. to Hebrews, . 316
Canon, from dogmatic or
from practical point
of view,

theory uot yet fixed .\. I). 130,
meaning of term, .
canonical books, .
a secondary canon,
Canonical, apostles' theory
different, .
Canonicity, Luther's theory,
Calvin's theory, .

14 27
217218220 10
.321
316

INDEX.

„ , Page
Carlstadt, his division of
biblical books, . . 836
returns to authority of
tradition, , . . 887
Cassiodorus, lists of books, 242
Catholicism, . . 76-91
its canon of faith, . . 77
subordinates Scripture
to tradition, . 77-79
its growing estimate of
Scriptures, . 79-81
its relation to Montan
ism, , , , . 82
forced by Gnostics to
Study Scripture, . 88
its representatives, Ire-
nseus and Tertullian, 85
Catholicism, Official and
Modern, . . 274-289
Council of Trent, . . 275
Sixtus of Sienna, . 282
Eastern Church, . . 283
Metrophanes Kritopou
los, ... 284
Cyrillus Lucaris, . . 285
Charlemagne, . . 251
Chemnitz, Examination of
Councilor Trent, . 366
Chrysostom, . . 175-177
Church Catholic, first men
tion, , 77, note
Clement of Kome, alludes to
Ep. of Corinthians, . 28
quotes certain words of
Jesus, ... 24
quotes ' ' blessed " Judith, 25
quotes book of Wisdom, 25
quotes books now un
known, ... 25
Clement of Alexandria, his
use and estimate of
Scripture, . . 89
his coUection of N.T.
books, . ¦ • 112
quotes as Scripture cer
tain other books, . 114
Cocceius, his bibUcal system, 380
Codex Claromontanus, . 159
Codex Sinaiticus, its canon, 158
Confessional Schools, 341-870
neglect of theologians of
17th century, • . 341

Page
Confessional Uoctkine —
return to the principle
of tradition, , , 345
treatment of O.T. Apo
crypha, , . . 325
relation of terms Scrip
ture and Wora of God, 354
Consensus Ilelveticus, . 357
Protestant attacks on
Apocrypha, . 359
Synod of Dort, . 362
Chemnitz, . . .366
Collection of Apostolic
Writings, its begin
nings, . . 28-56
not complete in first
century, . . 28, 29
said to have been made
by John, . . 29
argument for N.T. canon
from existence of O.T,, 31
this argument refuted, . 32
delayed by Church divi
sions, ... 35
proved by uncertainty of
the Fathers not to
exist early, . . 36
testimony of Papias, . 37
Epistle of Diognetus, , 38
Hegesippus, . . 89
Melito, . . 39
Claudius ApoUinaris, . 40
Dionysius of Corinth, . 41
Work against Montanists
quoted by Eusebius, 43
Athenagoras, . . 43
Epistle from churches of
Lyons and Vienne, . 44
Martyrdom of St Poly
carp, ... 45
Martyrdom of Ignatius, 45
the Pastor of Hermas, . 45
Justin Martyr, . 46-55
Concillium TruUanum, . . 247
Consensus Helveticus, . . 357
Constantine's Bibles, . 160-162
Corinthians, Epistles, en
cyclical, • , ,16
Cosmas Indopleustes, , . 240
CouncU of Florence, . 268
CouncU of Laodicea, . .180
Council of Trent, 275-282

INDEX.

Page
CouncU of Trent, proposals
about drawing up Ust, 276
decrees of Council, . 279
canonization of Vulgate, 281
Criticism and the Church, 371-404
retrospect and prospect, 371
influence of theology on
canon, . . . 373
gro-wth of traditionaUsm, 376
influence of Pietism, . 882
influence of KationaUsm, 385
Semler, . . . 388
concluding remarks, . 400
Cyprian of Carthage, his use
of Scripture, . 144
CyrU of Jerusalem, his testi
mony, . . .169
omits Apocalypse, . 170
CyriUus Lucaris, . . 285
Early Collection of N.T.
Books, , , 92-116
Theophilus of Antioch, 98
Muratorian Canon. 94-102
Irena3us, , . ,103
TertuUian, . . 106
Clement of Alexandria, 112
Eastern Church —
attemps at codification, 163-184
Athanasius, . . 164-166
Gregory of Nazianzus, 167-168
Cyril of Jerusalem, 169-171
Didymus of Alexandria, 171
Epiphanius, . . . 172
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 174
C!hrysostom, . . 175
Theodoret, . . .177
Peschito, . .178
Ephraem Syrus, . .178
jEthiopic Bible, . . 179
Council of Laodicea, . 180
Apostolic Canon, . . 181
opinions on canon . 283
indifference to canon, . 288
Ecclesiasticus, paraUels to
Epistle of James, . 8
Epistle of Diognetus, its
testimony, . . 88
Epistle to the Hebrews,
opinions as to its
authorship, . . 36

Page
Epistle to the Hebrews, not
mentioned in Murec-
torian Cation, . . 99
perhaps quoted by Ire-
nseus, . , . 105
placed in second cate
gory by Tertullian, . 110
held by Clement to be
Pauline, . . .113
included in Peschito, . 127
Origen's views, . . 183
loug rejected in West, . 143
opinion of Eusebius, . 154
includedin Codex Claro
montanus, . . 159
opinion of Philastrius, . 191
placed in doubt by Jerome, 198
made a fourteenth epis
tle by Augustine, . 206
CaMn's opinion, . .316
how it stands in Confes
sion of La Rochelle, . 319
its canonicity disputed
by Luther, , . 325
quoted by Melanchthon, 883
Epiphanius of Salamis, his
testimony, . . 172
Erasmus, . . . 271-273
Esdras, . . . .12
Eugenius IV., BuU of Pope, 268
Eusebius of Csesarea, . 148-162
makes list of testimonies, 148
divides books into three
categories, . . 149
his opinions generaUy, . 150
treatment of apocalypse
and Hebrews, . .164
his Bibles for Constan
tino, . . .160
Fourth Century, . 146-162
Eusebius of Csesarea, 148-158
Codex Sinaiticus, . . 158
Constantine's Bibles, . 160
Fourth Gospel, John named
its author by Theo
phUus of An-tioch, . 94
alsoin Muratorian Canon, 95
Galatians, Epistle circulated, 16
Gelasius I,, Decree of Pope, 283
Gnosticism, indirect influ
ence, on formation of
canon, ... 36

INDEX.

Gnostics  61
their methods of dealing
with Scripture, 62-70
were the first exegetes, 63
their testimony to exis
tence of certain books,
their harmonies of Scrip
ture,
Gregory I., opinions of books,
Gregory of Nazianzus, his
testimony,
omits Apocalypse,
Iambics to Seleucus,
Hagiographa, not complete
coUection in time of
Josephus,.
Hegesippus, testimony on
Canon,
Helvetic Confessions of Faith,
Heresy, its testimony to
Canon, . . 67-75
original meaning of word, 57
two chief forms in early
times,
testimony of Judaic
Christianity,
the Gospel of Jewish
Christians,
the Gnostics,

6469
243
167167
168

10
39
298

68
59
59 61
Gnostic use of Scripture, 62-66
Marcian, . . 66-68
Tatian's Diatessaron, . 69
pseudonymous books, . 71
Marcian's Canon, . . 72
Hilary of Poitiers, . . 185
Homologumena, meaning of, 149
Hugo of St Cher, . . 261
Hugo of St Victor, . . 257
Ignatius, alludes to Epistle
to Ephesians, . . 23
quotes certain words of
Jesus, ... 24
quotesuncanonicalbook, 26
ad Philadelph.' quoted as
to existence of canon, 30
gives faith in Christ
pre - eminenc eoverbe-
lief in writings, . 81
testimony in Martyrdom of, 45
Inspiration, in apostoUc theory, 12
of David as author of
Psalms, . . - 13

Page
Inspiration, in Jewish the
ory, .... 13
of Apocalypse, . . 32
of aU the apostles, . 33
not asserted of writings, 33
in opinion of Reformers, 292
more rigid views, . . 365
Semler's theory, . . 393
Irenseus, his collection of
N.T. books, . . 103
knew _/o«/- gospels only, 103
quotes certain epistles, 105
has two extra-scriptural
quotations, . . 106
as representative of
Cathohcism, . . 85
liis estimate of tradition, 87
Isidore of SeviUe, . . 244
Jansenism, its struggle for
freedom, . . . 379
Jerome, . . . 193-200
his list of the books, . 193
opinions regarding Ha
giographa, . . . 194
opinion regarding Epis
tle of Hebrews, , 198
Jewish Christians, . . 68
their gospel, . . 59
John of Damascus, . . 248
John of SaUsbury, . 258
Judith, quoted by Clement, 25
JuniUus, commonly called
Africanus, . . 238
Justin Martyr, makes much
of phophecy, . . 46
father of plenary inspira
tion, .... 47
held; Septuagint to be
inspired, ... 49
gives account of Chris
tian Worship . , 49
use of term, Memoirs of
Apostles, . , . 49
quotesfreely but inaccu
rately, ... 52
mentions facts not found
in the gospels or con
tradictory; . . 58
Laodiceans, Epistle to the, . 264
Law and the Prophets.
divinely inspired, . 12
mentioned in N.T. . 3, 4

6

INDEX.

Page
Luther, his theory of canon
icity, . . .321
disputed canonicity of
Hebrews and Apoca
lypse, . . .825
denied inspiration of
Apocalypse, . . 327
his opinions regarding
O.T. books, . . 330
separated four N. T.
books, . . . 366
Lyons and Vienne, Epistle
from churches of, . 44
Maccabees, apocryphal book, 8
quoted in Epistle to
Hebrews, . . .11
Manuscripts, E^vidence of, . 253
Marcion, his use of Luke's
gospel, ... 67
his canon or coUection, . 72
his order for Pauline
Epistles, ... 72
Melanchthon quotes Hebrews, 833
Metrophanes Itritopoulos, . 284
Middle Ages, . . 232-266
various lists of books, 232-250
evidence of Bibles and
MSS  262
opinions of Scholastics, 256
Montanism, its estimate of
Scripture, . , 82
Montanists, writing against, 42
Muratorian Canon, . 94-102
description of it, . . 94
its list of the Gospels, . 95
mentions Acts, . . 96
its list of Pauline Epis
tles, . . . " 97-99
its mention of the Catho
Uc Epistles, . . 100
its mention of Pastor of
Hermas, . . , 102
text of it quoted, 96, 97, 100102
Nicolas de Lyra, . . , 262
Nicephorus CaUistus, . . 260
Nicephorus of Constanti
nople, . . .249
Old Testament, use in
Apostolic Church, . 1-14
use in synagogue wor
ship .... 1

Page
Old Testament, mention iu
N.T. of method in
which publicly read, 3, 4
quoted in apostles'
preaching, . . 5
accepted by apostles as
authoritative, . . 5
when was its canon
closed? ... 6
when read, translated
into vernacular, . 6
quotations in N.T, some
times from Hebrew,
sometimes from Sep
tuagint, ... 7
canon not closed in time
of Josephus, . . 10
differences between He
brew text and Septua
gint, ... 11
Origen, his evidence on the
Canon, . . 129-140
his canon of the O.T., . 180
canon of N.T. not closed, 132
his -vdew of Epistle to
the Hebrews, . . 183
his opinion regarding
the Catholic Epistles, 135
attaches value to certain
other writings, . . 136
his attitude towards
Apocalypse, . , 138
Papias, acquainted only with
two first Gospels, 18, note
prefers oral tradition, 19, note
his testimony, . . 37
Paetor of Hermas, in Mura
torian Canon, . .102
quoted by Irenseus, . 106
placed in second cate
gory by TertuUian, . 110
regarded as Scripture by
Clement, . . .114
howtreatedbyEusebius, 156
included in Codex Sinai
ticus, . . . 158
and inCodex Claromon
tanus, . . . 159
Peter of Blois, . . 261
Peter of Clugny, . . 257
Petrus Vermihus on author-
. ity of Scripture, . 296

INDEX.

.r. Page
Pentateuch, how di-rided for
reading, ... 2
Peschito, its origin and con
tents, . . . 127
contains Epistle to the
Hebrews, . . .128
does not contain Apoca
lypse, . . .128
Philastrius of Brescia, . 187
Pietism, its influence on
theology, . . 382
Polycarp, aUudes to Epistle
to PhiUppians, . 23
Martyrology, . 20, note
mentions interchange of
epistles, ... 21
testimony in Martyrdom
of . . . .46
Prophetical Writings, what
they included, . . 3
when read in worship, . 2
Quotations, extra- canonical
inN.T., ... 10
Raban Maur, . . . 250
Rationalism, its handling of
Scripture, . . 385
Reformers, Theology of, 290-340
application of principles
of Reformation to
canon, . . . 290
opinions of Calvin and
Zwingle, . . 294
statements in Helvetic
Confessions, . . 298
in Scotch Confessions, . 299
in Thirty-nine Articles, 300
basis of canonicity, . 304
position given to Apo
crypha, . 307
opinions of Luther, 320
opinions of Melanchthon, 888
Caristadt, . . 836
Apocrypha in early English
Bibles, . . . 339
Renaissance, . . 266-278
canon at end of 14th
century, . . ¦ 266
BuU of Pope Eugenius
IV., . . ¦ 267
Thomas Cajetanus, . 270
Erasmus, . • .271
Scotch Confession of 1660, . 299

Page
Scripture, relation to Word
of Ood, . . .864
Semler, his general position, 889
his resort to internal
evidence, . . . 390
his theory of inspiration, 393
Septuagint, quoted in N.T., 7
used among Christians, 7
differences from Hebrew
O.T., ... 8
differencesfromHebrew text, ... 11
held by Justin Martyr
to be inspired, . .49
Sixtus of Sienna, . . 282
Synod of Dort, discussed
omission of Apocrypha, 362
Tatian's Diatessaron, . . 69
TertuUian, his method of
quoting, . . . 107
books quoted in c?eJSLCst(;'r., 107
books quoted in rfc Castit., 108
books quoted in de Fuga, 110
makes Hebs. and Pastor
of Hermas deutero-
canonical, . . 110
used Latin translation, 111
as representative of
Catholicism, . . 85
his estimate of tradition, 87
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 174
Theophilus of Antioch, his
use of Scripture, . 93
his Apology, . 84
Theory and Terminology 208-231
meaning of term canon, 217
books placed by Fathers
in second canon, . 220
meaning of apocryphal, . 223
criticism of testimony of
Fathers, . . .226
Third Century, . . 125-145
coUection favoured by
translation, . . 126
evidence of the Peschito, 127
evidence of Origen, 129-140
evidence of Apostolic
Constitutions, . . 141
evidence of Cyprian, . 144
Thirty-nine Articles, . . 300
Thomas Aquinas, . 258

8

INDEX.

Page
Thirty-nine Articles —
Thomas Cajetanus, 270
Toranius Rufinus, . . 192
Tradition, its influence with
Protestants, . . 374
Protestant -view of, . 849
Vulgate cononised by Council
of Trent, . . 278, 281
Waldenses, . . . 264
Western Church, attempts
at Codification, 185-207
Hilary of Poitiers, . 185
Philastrius of Brescia, . 187

Page
Western Church —
Toranius Rufinus, . 192
differences between East
and West, . . 192
Jerome, . . 193-199
Argustine, . . 200-205
Synod of Carthage, . . 205
Epistle of Innocent I., . 207
Word of God, relation to
Scripture, . . . 354
Zwingle on authority of
Scripture, . . 296

:3 , Akb 5,"*JS!)-^^5i^
./V'-*^ "
•l-r ; 
'i:?fl
:i^-^>*M
fc.Wt»}
,•}"#..•
'r..?.?
H^t'
/¦W:
r^^i':
;;.»>•«