Century and beginning of the third

The point of transition to the last quarter of the 2nd cent. will be the most convenient opportunity for considering the impugners of St. John’s writ- ings, commonly called the Alogi. The evidence which has so far come before us, if it is in any respects unfavourable to the authenticity of any NT writings, is so by way of defect. Even such a writer as Marcion appears mainly as a witness for the Canon. We have now, however, to notice a body of persons who are specially characterized by their refusal to acknowledge one group of writings —those attributed to St. John. Much attention has of late been directed to this phenomenon. It has been discussed in particular from opposite points of view by Zahn (Kan. i pp. 220-262) and Harnack (NT um d. J. 200, pp. 58-70, and Chronol. i. pp. 670, 671) ; see also Light- foot (Clem. Rom. ii. p. 894) and Sanday (Inspiration, p. 14f.). The chief documents are Iren. III. xi. 12 (which refers only to the rejection of the Gospel) ; Epiph. Her. li. ; and Philaster, lx. The value of the last two is that in all probability they derive their information from a lost work of Hippolytus. It is not, however, altogether easy to distinguish the conjectures of Epiphanius, and his disquisitions on points that interested him, from the matter which he took from his authority, while Philaster’s notice is very brief. The motive for these opinions was primarily dogmatic, not critical, though those who held them sought to strengthen their case by pointing out differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, and by strictures upon the imagery of the Apocalypse (see Epiph. /.c.). It was ‘in order to frustrate the gifts of the Spirit,’ Irenzens tells us, that ‘some do not admit that form of the Gospel which is according to John, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete.’ One kind of extravagance begets another. Because the Montanists appealed to Jn 14-16 in urging their wild views and preposterous claims, these others were for denying the authority of that Gospel itself. Again, the Montanists and many other Christians in the 2nd cent. were millenarians, and supported their materialistic notions by a literal interpreta- tion of the Apocalypse. Consequently, those who were repelled by millenarianism were tempted to call the authenticity of that work in question. The theory of the Alogi, that Cerinthus was the author of the Johannine writings, must have been suggested first in the case of the Apocalypse, and extended to the Gospel; for while, according to the best information which we possess, Cerinthus was a millenarian, his Christology had nothing in common with that of the Fourth Gospel. Thus NEW TESTAMENT CANON 537 the rejection of the one work was, in part at least, associated with that of the other; in part, however, the attack on the Apocalypse was more widely spread, and had more lasting effects (cf. Eus. HE iii. 28 and vii. 25). The name Alogi seems to have been Epiph- anius’ invention. He gave it both as a jest and to betoken their refusal to accept the Gospel which contained the doctrine of the Logos. Whether they in reality objected to this doctrine, or this was simply Epiphanius’ inference, is not clear. But if they did, they might here again find a common ground of opposition both to the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. It should be observed that the Alogi, by their association of the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse in a common condemnation, and the attribution of them both to Cerinthus, are witnesses to the tradition, that both were by the same author, and that, in assigning them to a heretic who was contemporary with St. John, they are also witnesses to their antiquity. Harnack lays special stress on the fact that the Alogi were not visibly separated from the Church, and apparently did not intend to depart from the Christian faith. Δοκοῦσι καὶ αὐτοί, says Epiphanius, τὰ ἴσα ἡμῖν πιστεύειν (l.c. ὃ 4). Yet the agreement of which he speaks seems to be only relative. He is comparing their position with that of more pro- nounced heretics, such as the Gnostics. Further, it is to be remembered that the machinery did not exist in the 2nd cent., which there came to be in the Church of after-times, for passing judg- ment on erroneous opinions. And, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the number of those who rejected the most important work at least, the Gospel, was considerable, and it is certain that they produced no lasting impression. At the same time, the instance of the Alogi illus- trates a stage in the reception of the NT Scriptures. It shows that beliefs which this party opposed had not yet obtained that firm hold upon the minds of all which only clear definition and a prescription of many generations can give. But that these beliefs were neither of recent growth nor limited to a narrow area, we plainly see from the works of the age we have now reached which have come down to us, Among the earliest is the treatise of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, which is in the form of a vindication of the Christian faith, addressed to a philosophic heathen friend. He dwells upon the inspiration of the apostles. With the Holy Scrip- tures, i.e. the OT, still best known by this title, he couples ‘all the inspired men’ {πνευματοφόροιν, expressly mentioning John. He quotes Jn 11. as from ‘the apostle’ (ad Autol. ii. 22, and ef. ib. ix. 10). Im iii, 12 he speaks of ‘the Gospels’ in the plural, and asserts that the con- tents of the Prophets and the Gospels are in harmony with the law, ‘because all the inspired men spoke by one Spirit of God.’ Again (ib. 18), after citing a passage of OT he refers to ‘ the still more urgent injunction of the Evangelic Voice.’ and quotes Mt 5%-®; and he compares the Gospel with Isaiah, quoting Mt 5 (ib. 14). We may here suitably refer to the Ep. ad Diognetum, a work of similar aim, the birthplace and date of which cannot be fixed with certainty, but which may with most probability be assigned to about the same time. In ec. xi. the writer enumerates ‘ the fear of the Jaw,’ ‘the grace of the prophets,’ ‘the faith of the Gospels,’ ὁ the tradition of the Apostles.’ It is, however, when we pass to writings of a different class, designed for the refutation of heresy or the instruction of the faithful in the Christian life and creed, to Ireneus (adv. Her., composed 538 NEW TESTAMENT CANON NEW TESTAMENT CANON a ., ς-ς before A.D. 190), and the works of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, composed near the end of the 2nd and beginning of the Srd cent., that for the first time, in place of the partial gleams afforded by the remains of former generations, we have a flood of light upon the thought and practice of the Church. We must review the evidence as to the position of the writings of the NT in the generation we have now reached, and consider what inferences may be drawn therefrom as to their reception. (1) Writings whose place in the Canon was al- ready at and from this time fully secured.—The express statements of the eminent writers just named, and their ordinary assumptions, leave no doubt as to the inspired authority attributed to by far the larger part of our NT in the important Churches of which they were members, or with which they were well acquainted and maintained active relations. In common they recognize (a) our four Gospels, and none besides; (8) 18 Epp. of Paul, ie. all which bear his name in our NT, except that to Heb.; (γ) the Acts, 1 P, 1 Jn. These form also the class called afterwards by Eusebius ‘ acknowledged writings.’ (a) Remarks as to the area from which this evidence comes.—It may have been observed that hitherto we have been almost exclusively con- cerned with the faith and usage of Greek-speaking Christians, and that we are so mainly still. By the mention of Tertullian the fact is for the first time brought before us of the hold that Christianity had obtained, comparatively recently, at the epoch of which we are speaking, among a Latin-speak- ing people. In Rome itself, alike in the Ist cent. and throughout the 2nd, the Church was mainly Greek. It may be well here to point out the special advantages belonging to the Greek-speaking Christians of the first few generations, as witnesses in regard to the NT writings. Not only are we best acquainted with the expansion of the Church to the west, north, and north-west of Jerusalem, through Greek-speaking cities, but to all appear- ance that was by far the greatest expansion in apostolic times. Here lay the scenes of St. Paul’s labours, with which his Epistles and the Acts have rendered us familiar. More dimly we see the figures of several of the Twelve, including St. Peter and St. John, moving and working in these same regions, when they voluntarily left or were driven from their home. It was in consequence of the spread of the gospel among populations whose ordinary language was Greek, to meet the needs of converts made from them, that all the writings of the NT came into existence. This is true even of the First Gospel in the form in which we have it. Here and there some other Christian writing may in early days have won a position similar to that of the books received as canonical. We may have an example of this in the Gospel accord- ing to the Egyptians. But special circumstances of language and locality so well account for this in an outlying district, that such an instance does not detract from the force of the testimony of other parts of the Church. It seems strange, however, at first sight that the Christians of Palestine and of the Aramaic-speak- ing East should have received the NT writings from the West, with one probable exception—the Ep. of James. Yet such was the fact. The Hebrew Christian community at Jerusalem was virtually broken up by the siege and capture of the city, A.D. 69-70. After the suppression of Bar- cochba’s revolt (A.D. 135) a Greek Church arose there. In other parts of Palestine the Hebrew Christian Church had to contend, during the latter part of the Ist and earlier part of the 2nd cent., with a strong Jewish reaction. What progress the gospel made beyond Jordan to the east and north-east, through the labours of any of the Twelve, or the preaching and example of more ordinary Christians who fled from Palestine when Jerusalem fell, and to what extent the Christians of those districts in the 2nd cent. may thus have traced their lineage to the Church of apostolic days, and have cherished its traditions, it may be impossible to discover. But this at least may be said: we hear of no work written in Hebrew or Aramaic by an apostle, or immediate companion and follower of the apostles, except the one attributed to St. Matthew. The Gospel according to the Hebrews may have embodied this work, and doubtless contained traditions that had been current among Hebrew Christians; but it would seem not to have been preserved long in an un- corrupted form, and it is noteworthy that it obtained no enduring authority even in the East. As regards the history of the Canon of the Syrian Church, it may suffice here to allude to the strange hold which Tatian’s Diatessaron obtained there. It was popularly used as a substitute for the Gospels, to the neglect of the reading of them in public worship—an abuse which had to be dealt with by authority as late as the 5th cent. But such a fact is of importance as throwing light upon the history of that Church generally, not as bearing on the authenticity of the Gospels. [The subject of the history of the Canon in the Syrian Church is a very obscure one: for discussions of it see especially Zahn, Kan. i. ο. 8, and Harnack’s criticism thereupon in Ν᾽ um 200, § 10.] Primarily, then, in dealing with the history of the Canon of NT, we have to fix our thoughts upon Greek-speaking Christendom, though we may now join thereto the Christians of the Roman province of N. Africa, who were far more closely bound up with it than the Christians of the East were. Tertullian is fully aware that he and the other Christians of his portion of the Church, who were but ‘of yesterday,’ had simply received the faith and its documents from more ancient Churches. It was probably here that a translation of the NT into Latin was first made, and expressions used by Tertullian have been commonly thought to show that one already existed in his time. But if, as Zahn has argued (Kan. i. 48-60), the task was not accomplished till later, though before the middle of the 3rd cent., it was not for want of recognizing the value and authority of the writings held to be apostolic. Tertullian’s works certainly prove this. It is not material, therefore, for our present purpose to decide exactly when a Latin version was first made. Now, although there are some Churches of note as to which we have no direct information for the period in question, even within that portion of Christendom the bounds of which we have indi- cated, we are justified in assuming that throughout the whole of it there was substantial agreement as to the sacred writings of the New Dispensation, to the extent to which it is found in the writers whose works have come down to us from that time. In view both of the eminence of those men and their wide knowledge of the Church, and the intercourse which existed between different parts of it within the area described, there could hardly have been any considerable divergences on serious points which have remained concealed. _ It is to be added that, even for those regions within the limits defined—in particular the Greek Churches of Syria and of the central and eastern parts of Asia Minor—as to which evidence is lacking at this epoch, it is forthcoming shortly afterwards, and there is not a trace of any doubts in regard to the books above enumerated. To the close of the 2nd cent. or first years of the NEW TESTAMENT CANON 8rd belongs most likely the earliest actual list of the writings of NT which we possess. It is called after Muratori, its discoverer. It has now been rendered highly probable that it was the work of Hippolytus. [On the Muratorian fragment see esp. Zahn, Kan. ii. 1-148, and Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ii. 405-413.] Though the earliest list of the kind that has come down to us, it may not have been the earliest made. Melito, bishop of Sardis (6. A.D. 170), in a fragment which Eusebius has preserved (HE iv. 26), gives a list of ‘the books of the Old Covenant,’ and the phrase seems naturally to suggest by contrast the existence of a list of the books of the New. Further, at the time we have reached, the name of ‘Scriptures’ is given to the new sacred books equally with the old (see Iren. adv. Her. ii. 58. 2). And a conception has been formed of a NT, as a collection of books which made a companion to the OT, and the name even of ‘Testament’ is so applied in Clem. Alex. and Tertullian [Clem. Strom. v. 85; Tertull. de Pudic. 1]. Tertullian also employs the word ‘instru- mentum,’ or in the pl. ‘instrumenta’ (i.e. ‘the document’ or ‘the documents’), considering it more expressive. It should be observed that such a conception was found possible, although the contents of the collection of writings had not been in all respects certainly determined. The usage of heretics confirms what is known as to that of the Church. The Valentinians were but the most numerous and widely spread Gnostic sect. Valentinus, according to Tertullian, used ‘a complete Instrument,’ which must be taken to mean all the books of Scripture which Tertul- lian himself acknowledged (Prescr. Her. c. 38). Whether the remark was true or not of the founder of the school himself, it was so undoubtedly of the Valentinians in the last quarter of the 2nd cent., as may be gathered from Irenzus’ treatise, as well as from Tertullian. It answered their purpose best to accept the NT Scriptures acknowledged in the Church, and to make them the vehicle of their own tenets by means of allegorical interpretation. (b) The inferences that may be drawn as to the previous history of the reception of these writings in the Church—In estimating the force of the evidence in this respect, it will be desirable to distinguish between the value of the personal reminiscences of individual writers in regard to traditions about the books of the NT, and the significance of the general belief of the Church. The testimony of individuals, founded on what they themselves remembered, might be of great weight. That of Irenus is so in particular. Too much stress may sometimes have been laid upon it. Possibly his opportunities for knowing the mind and teaching of Polycarp may have been rather more restricted than they have been assumed to be by some ; and he may have known no other man, besides, belonging to the generation which actually overlapped that of the apostles. But he certainly knew other Asiatic Christians older than himself, who must have been acquainted as he was, or better than he was, with the testimony both of Polycarp and of contemporaries of Polycarp, who had passed away before him. With such oppor- tunities for correcting his own impressions, it is hardly possible that he should have been at fault as to simple facts which he believed that he re- membered. It is therefore altogether unreason- able to suppose, as Harnack does, that, in spite of his very distinct statement as to Polycarp’s reminiscences of John the Apostle, he is in his own memory making a confusion with another Jobn. (Comp. Harn. Chronol. i. p. 333 ff, with Gwatkin’s answer in Contemp. Review, Feb. 1897, and Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 90 f., 265. ] But the position which the greater part of the NEW TESTAMENT CANON 539 writings of the NT held in the last two or three decades of the 2nd cent. in the common view of the chief Churches of Christendom, and approxi- mately, at least, of the Church throughout the Roman Empire, i.e. of by far the larger part of the Church, is a more remarkable fact than any recollections, however clear, of particular men could be. In certain respects there has come a change in the manner of regarding these writings since the middle, not to say the beginning, of the century. The line of distinction is more sharply drawn than before it was, between the writings which could be rightly reckoned apostolic and all others. Controversy with Gnosticism had had its effect. Writings of more or less decidedly heretical tendencies had been put forth under the names of apostles. The Church was compelled to be watchful. A certain vividness and emphasis may also be noticed in the manner in which Irenzus, for instance, asserts the fourfold completeness of the evangelic testimony. The perception of the uniqueness of the four records has been rendered more precise, and with this there has also come a fuller sense of the distinct value of the contri- bution made by each, and of the richness of their harmony when combined. And as the notion of a Canon of NT Scriptures is becoming more definite (the name is not used), the authority of those books, which were beyond question and on all hands allowed to have a right to a place in it, is enhanced. But the amount of the change that has taken place may easily be exaggerated. The appearance of abruptness which it has, when we compare earlier documents with the works of this time, is certainly due to our want of information. The voice of the Church at the end of the 2nd cent. in respect to the writings of the NT is simply the full utterance of a conviction which has long been virtually held. Irenzeus so evidently believes himself to be defending the immemorial faith and tradition of the Church, that he could not have been conscious of any alteration, within his own experience, in such an important matter as the apostolic authority attributed to the chief NT writings. Moreover, such a hold as they had manifestly obtained could not, in the nature of things, have been acquired recently and at a bound in that generation. We have seen how large a measure of agreement there was upon the subject on the part of a number of eminent Churches. Putting aside that of N. Africa, which was of later origin than the rest, these were all founded in the Apostolic Age itself, with the possible exception of Alexandria, which must have arisen at least in the generation im- mediately following. And though these Churches are all situated within the Greco-Roman world, they exhibit widely different characteristics and thorough independence. No one of them could dictate to the rest; no one of them exercised over the rest an influence so dominant that its example would be silently followed. Rome would not have readily yielded to Asia Minor, nor Asia Minor to Rome, on such a matter as the Scriptures which they had been accustomed to acknowledge; nor would either of these have yielded to Antioch or Alexandria. Nor was unanimity brought about through discussions and conferences. Differences on other subjects appear and are debated, but not on this. It should be observed, also, that the authority which the writings of the NT possessed was not based, as we in our day might be inclined to imagine, ‘on a judgment of the Church, either formal or implied, as to their surpassing moral and spiritual power, their inspiration. It rested on the belief that the writings in question were authentic embodiments of the witness and teaching of the apostles. This was the point testified to by 540 NEW TESTAMENT CANON a number of independent and mutually confirma- tory lines of tradition, maintained in communities which were bound by strong sanctions to be faithful to that which they had received from the past. These communities, too, had a continuous cor- porate life that reached back to the first age of the Church, or its confines; and at the time we are considering they were still separated from it only by two or three generations. It is difficult to imagine that a belief thus guaranteed could have been substantially erroneous, even though it does not become apparent to us in its full strength for a century after the death of most of the apostles. And the more indirect indications from the inter- vening generations, though they are, owing to various causes, less distinct than we could wish, make for the same conclusion. (2) Writings whose position continued to be for a time doubtful.—Before this epoch is left, a few words must be said on the amount of recognition then in divers quarters accorded to other writings, besides those above mentioned, which (a) were eventually included in the NT, as well as to some which (4) did not obtain a place there. (a) And first as to the Apocalypse. So far as the sources of evidence which come before us up to the beginning of the 3rd cent. are concerned, there would be no sufficient ground for placing it in a different category from those whose position was already fully assured. Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement, Hippolytus, all regarded it as a genuine work of the Apostle John, and Can. Mur. includes it as such. It continued, moreover, always to be recognized as Scripture in the Western Church, and on the whole this seems to have been the view throughout of the Church of Alexandria. We know, however, that at a later time it was not received as canonical in Syria and Asia Minor, and this so generally as to point to a long-stand- ing difference of usage in those regions, though from what cause the difference arose we do not know. In this respect chiefly the testimony to it differs from that to the writings called ‘acknow- ledged.’ Of two other of the writings which for a time were not reckoned in this class, it may likewise be said that they deserve to be so on the evidence afforded at the period now under review, considered by itself—2 Jn and Ep. of Jude. Ireneus twice cites words from the former as John’s (adv. Her. i. 9. 3; iii. 17. 8), though in one case he seems to confuse the 2nd with the Ist Ep. The Mur. Can. recognizes 2 Epps. of John, and Clem. Al. (Strom. ii. 66) speaks of John’s ‘ greater Ep.,’ plainly implying that he knows of at least one other. It may seem strange to us that if the 2nd Ep. was acknowledged, the 3rd, which bears marks of the same authorship, should not have been so with equal distinctness. But the address of the former to ‘the Elect Lady,’ which may have been understood as a symbolical name for the Church, May account for this. We may gather from the language of Mur. Can. respecting the number of the Churches to which St. Paul’s Epp. are written, etc., that ‘catholicity ’ of address was a considera- tion in determining the authority to be attributed to writings by the Church, as well as apostolicity of origin. The Ep. of Jude is not quoted by Irenzus, but this may be accidental. It is included in Can. Mur., and Clement commented on it. Tertullian also quotes it as apostolic. We turn now to the interesting subject of the light in which the Ep. to the Hebrews was regarded. The signs of its use in Clem. Rom. have been referred to ; but its position remained ambiguous owing to uncertainty as to its authorship. This is strikingly illustrated by Tertullian’s language (de NEW TESTAMENT CANON Pudicitia, 20). He attributes it to Barnabas, 8 companion of apostles, and one who had even borne in a certain sense the title of an apostle. Yet, evidently, even while Tertullian sets a high value upon the Epistle, he does not esteem it in the way that he would have done if he had believed it to be by St. Paul himself. Similar considera- tions, no doubt, influenced others. They read, and were willing to profit by, the Epistle, but shrank from claiming for it full apostolic authority. Irenzus nowhere appeals to it as Scripture in any writing of his which we possess, and it is not included in the Muratorian list. On the other hand, it would seem to have been very highly appreciated at Alexandria, and Clement of Alex- andria asserted its Pauline authorship, while he explained the differences between its style and that of his other Epp., and its similarity to that of the Acts, by conjecturing that Luke translated it (ap. Euseb. HE vi. 14). Of use of the Ep. of James—it we are to put aside, as it appears we should (see Westcott, Canon, pp. 362, 363), a statement of Cassiodorus in regard to Clem. Alex.’s lost Hypotyposes—there is no sign till the next period, beyond those parallelisms in Hermas which haye been noticed. ‘There are also no clear traces of 2 Peter or 3 John. (b) We pass to writings which were for a time candidates, so to speak, for admission, but which were ultimately rejected. With the Apocalpyse of John the Mur. Can. couples that of Peter, though it adds in respect to the latter that some Christians were against having it ‘read in church.’ In other quarters it would seem the Zp. of Clem. Rom., the Pastor of Hermas, and the Ep. of Barnabas were read as works of special authority, on the ground, which was true in the case of the first-named only, that they were by companions or personal disciples of the apostles. At some time, also, the 2nd Ep. of Clem. (so called) was joined with the 1st in the same honour. But it is difficult to determine exactly the relation of these writings to the Canon, from our want of knowledge as to the principles on which the practice of public reading in the assemblies was regulated. Undoubtedly, the selection of the books which might be read publicly played a part in the formation of the Canon, and in impressing the idea of the sacredness and authority of the books so used upon the minds of Christians. But it is not to be supposed that the significance of the public reading was the same, or that the rules for it were conceived in the same spirit, everywhere and always (see art. CANON in vol. 1. p. 349%), From the mere fact, therefore, that a particular work appears to have been read in certain Churches, it is not safe to infer that even in these Churches it was regarded as possessing the fullest inspired authority. B. SECOND PERIOD, 6. A.D. 220-823.—The most important fact of this period is the work and the influence of Origen. Their results cannot be measured with precision; but the effect of his labours—alike as a thinker bent on the compre- hensive ascertainment of Christian truth and as a textual critic of, and commentator and homilist upon, Holy Scripture, coupled as they were with a wide knowledge of the practice of different parts of the Church—must necessarily have been great in promoting the settlement of the Canon of NT. And his teaching was perpetuated and spread by many scholars, e.g. by his successors in the school of Alexandria, by Pamphilus, who preserved it at Cesarea, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, who carried it into the heart of Asia Minor. The testimony of Origen confirms the evidence of the preceding period—within which, indeed, half his life fell (A.D. 186-253) —as to the writings about NEW TESTAMENT CANON which there was practically universal agreement in the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Church. He accepts all that have been enumerated under this head, on the authority of the Church’s tradi- tion, and also the Apocalypse (Eus. IE vi. 25). Passing to the remaining writings of NT, we may first note as of special significance his position, which resembles that of Clement, in regard to the Ep. to the Hebrews. He points out the difference of style between it and the unquestioned writ- ings of St. Paul, but adds that ‘the thoughts are wonderful and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings’; and he gives it as his own opinion that ‘the thoughts are the apostle’s, but the diction and composition that of some one who recorded from memory the apostle’s teaching, and as it were illustrated with a brief commentary the sayings of his master’ (ap. Eus. ib.). The history of the reception of this great Epistle shows strikingly what were the conditions which—it was held—must be satisfied in the case of a book in- cluded among the NT Scriptures. ‘There must be apostolic authorship, or dependence upon apos- tolie teaching; and this was a point to be deter- mined by tradition, which did not necessarily involve the employment of tests difficult to apply, such as that of inspiration. Nevertheless a test of authenticity was also found, consciously or unconsciously, in the harmony between the spirit of the books received as apostolic and that of the apostolic doctrine preserved in the Church. Doubts as to the authorship of Ep. to Heb. stood in the way for some time of the recognition of its inspira- tion. And it may be that if it had not come to be more closely associated with the name of St. Paul than facts warranted, it would never have fully ranked as Scripture. But, on the other hand, those who seem to have done most to secure this result, notably Clement and Origen, were profoundly impressed with its spiritual power and general agreement with St. Paul’s teaching. In Origen’s writings we have the earliest refer- ences by name to Ep. of James (Comm. in Joan. τ, xix. 6, etc.) ; he also quotes from Zp. of Jude (Comm. in Matt. x. 17, ete.) as if he himself received it, but alludes to the doubts existing in regard to both of them. It seems reasonable to sup- pose that the former of these Epp. was brought to the notice of Origen more particularly through his residence in Palestine. The conjecture that it had for long been treasured in Syria is confirmed by the fact that it was recognized as authentic and canonical at Antioch and in the Syriac-speaking Church, where 2 and 3 Jn and Jude, as well as the Apoc., were refused acknowledgment at the end of the 4th cent. Origen appears to have known the 2nd Ep. of Peter, but not to have regarded it or the two lesser Epp. of John as genuine. The position of the Apocalypse in the 3rd cent. is illustrated by the attitude of one who belonged to the same school as Origen, and outlived him only by a few years, Dionysius, the eminent bishop of Alexandria (ἃ, 265), He discussed the question of its authenticity, and declared himself unable to believe that it was by the Apostle John, the author of the Gospel, on account of its style; yet the cautiousness and reverence of his tone in speaking of the work is an indication of the high regard in which it was commonly held (ap. Eus. JTF vii. 25). Lastly, Husebius in his Ecclesiastical History, when he has arrived nearly at the end of the Apostolic Age, makes important statements as to his own views and the views and practice of his contemporaries in respect to the apostolic writings (HE ii. 38. 25; iii. 3 ; 24. 17,18; 25). These bring us to the close of our second period in the history of the Canon. For this work of Eusebius—which contains, indeed, most of the information that he Ὁ4] NEW TESTAMENT CANON supplies on this subject, though he lived to A.D 340—terminates with, and seems to have been com- posed shortly after, the pacification of the empire under Constantine. In spite of some want of clear- hess in his language, he helps us greatly to realize the state of things prevailing. The uncertainty and disagreement which still continued concerning certain books perhaps impress us most. It is from Eusebius that we derive the familiar classification into ‘acknowledged ᾿ (ὁμολογούμενα) and ‘ disputed’ (ἀντιλεγόμενα) and ‘spurious’ (νόθα) books. Never- theless it was a step towards the final decision of the questions at issue, that they should be thus definitely posed. And the notices bearing on the Canon of NT, gleaned from writers of generations earlier than his own, which according to promise he gives in the course of his history, are intended to contribute to the attainment of this object. Eusebius nowhere includes works which have ultimately been accounted apocryphal or unin- spired in his class of ‘disputed’ writings. These consist, according to his fullest passage on the subject (iii. 25), of the Epp. of James and Jude, 2 and 3 Jn, and 2 P, which, as we gather from ii. 23. 25, were already regarded in many Churches as forming together with 1 P and 1 Jn a collection of 7 Catholic Epistles. With the Apocalypse he deals somewhat curiously. He first enumerates it among the ‘acknowledged’ books, adding, ‘if that should appear to be the right view’ (εἰ daveln—ambiguous like the Eng. trans. given), and then again refers to it among the ‘spurious’ with a similar saving clause. The mode of treatment adopted by him in this case is to be accounted for by the fact that those who did not admit the Johannine authorship for the most part desired its definite rejection on doctrinal grounds ; whereas the claims of the Epp. above named to be regarded as apostolic were for the most part questioned simply on the ground of defect of evidence for their early and widespread use. On the other hand, Eusebius cannot bring himself to name the Ep. to Heb. anywhere except among the ‘ acknowledged’ books, and as one of 14 Epp. of Paul. In so doing, he reflects, no doubt, the belief of the greater part of the Greek-speaking Church, in which he was most at home. At the same time, he allows that ‘it is not fair to ignore the fact that some have rejected the Ep. to Heb., asserting that it is disputed by the Church of Rome as not being Paul's’ (iii. 3). With the exception of this statement, we know nothing of the Canon of the Church of Rome and the Churches dependent upon her, or of the Church of N. Africa, during the period under considera- tion. C. CONCLUDING PERIOD.—In the age ushered in by the victory of Constantine, many causes were at work tending to fix the Canon. The Scriptures were endeared, and the difference between them and all other books was emphasized, by the recol- lection of the last persecution, in which their destruction had been made a principal aim; and zeal for them found exercise in the multiplication of fresh copies. Now, also, large volumes, com- prising the entire Greek Bible, began probably to be made, such as those fifty magnificent ones which Constantine ordered Eusebius to have prepared at the expense of the royal treasury (Kus. Vit. Const. iv. 36). The Scriptures were thus vividly pre- sented as a distinct whole, and the question of their limits was raised in a very practical manner. Further, the definition of the Church’s creed led naturally to a fuller settlement of her Canon of Scripture. And thus, when the ties between the Latin-speaking Church and Athanasius had first been drawn closer through the conflict with Arian- ism, and when afterwards the conservatives of the East had embraced the Nicene faith, and East and — 542 NEW TESTAMENT CANON NIBHAZ West were united in common sympathies, the | not be too much to say that all their speculations and labours same Canon came in course of time to be received. Lists of the NT Scriptures have come down to us from various parts of the 4th cent. ; but, in spite of the many Councils that were held during this period, most of these lists rest on the authority of individual Fathers, though representing, no doubt, the faith and practice of the portions of the Church to which they belonged. The earliest Synodical decree on the subject which is of certain date and authenticity belongs to the close, almost, of the century. The Acts of the Synod of Laodicea, according to some MSS, contain a catalogue of the books of Scripture, but it is probably a later addition. The date of this Synod has also been matter of dispute, though it most likely took place A.D, 363 (see Westcott, Canon, p. 439 f.). The Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem in his Cate- chetical lectures (6. A.D. 340) corresponds with our own, With the single exception that he omits the Apocalypse (Catech. iv. 33). In the Canon given by Athanasius ( Fest. Ep. 39, A.D. 367), we meet for the first time with one the same in every respect as our own. So, too, is that of Epiphanius (er. 76). Turning to the West, the list known as the Cheltenham Catalogue, which appears evidently to be of the 4th cent. and to belong to N. Africa, differs from Athanasius’ in omitting the Ep. to Heb., but in that point only. In A.D. 397, how- ever, the 3rd Council of Carthage, in its Canon on the subject of the Scriptures, includes this Ep., and thus gives the contents of NT as at present received ; while Ambrose a little earlier is a witness for the Church of Milan, and Rufinus for that of Aquileia, to the same effect. In Asia Minor, near the close of the 4th cent., the Apocalypse was not received. So we gather from the lists of the Council of Laodicea (Gregory Naz. Carm. i. § 1. 12, and Amphilochius, ad Seleucum (ap. Greg. Naz. ii. ἃ 2. 87). The latter appears, also, to allow the legitimacy of opposite views on the subject of 2 and 3 Jn, 2 P, and Jude. The great Greek teachers of Antioch—Chrysos- tom, Theodore, and Theodoret—seem to have been of the number who did not receive, or who had doubts respecting, these Epp. as well as the Apocalypse, while they accepted Ep. to Heb. and Ep. of James. Their Canon would thus be the same as that of the Peshitta. In process of time, in spite of the influence which this version exer- cised, the Canon in use even in the more distant parts of the East appears to have become assimi- lated to a considerable degree to that of the rest of the Church (see, eg., statements of Junilius in Westcott, p. 451). The Canon was synodically determined for the Catholic Church of East and West by the Quini- sext. Council, A.D. 691, which confirmed the decrees of 3rd Council of Carthage. The Reformation of the 16th cent. made no change as to the books of NT received as Scripture, opinions of individuals, such as that of Luther in regard to Ep. of James, having met with no general assent. But it tended to throw more stress on the recognition of the inspiration of the sacred books, by comparison with the tradition of apostolic authority, which counted for most in their actual collection by the early Church. Lireratvre.—J.S. Semler may be said to have given the first impulse to the free critical inquiries of modern times into the history of the Canon of NT, both by his writings in general and in particular by his Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, W771. Among writers who in the early part of the present century sought to investigate the subject systemati- cally in this spirit, C. A. Credner holds the foremost rb 3 see his Zinleitung in das Neue Testament, 1836, Beitrage eur Geachichtad. Kanons, 1847, and his Geschichte des NT Kanons, which was edited with notes by G. Volkmar, and published (1560) after Credner'’s death. Of the Tibingen school, the rise of which was contemporary with Credner’s later life, it would had a bearing on the subject of the Canon of NT. Aiming as they did at a complete reconstruction of Christian history, they subjected the ks of NT and the remains generally of early Christian literature to a criticism which was compre- hensive and penetrating, though seriously biassed. At the same time, their attack upon opinions commonly received stimulated fresh research on the part of those who were unable to accept thelr theorles. It would be unsuitable to attempt here to enumerate even the principal writings in which during these controversies particular documents, portions of the evidence relating to the books of the NT, or the true conception of the early history of the Church, were discussed. As an important work, however, specifically on the Canon, we must not omit to mention Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Testa- ments, by Ἐς Reuss, a writer holding a middle Nata (Ist ed. 1842, Eng. tr. from 5th revised and enlarged German edition, 1514, by E. L. Houghton). The most eminent of the later mem- bers of the Tiibingen school, A. Hilgenfeld, modified in some important respects the views before put forward; see esp. his Historisch-kritische Einleitung indas Neue Testament, 1875. The views of this school have been represented in England in a comparatively moderate form by 8. Davidson in his Introduc- tion to the Study of the New Testament of 1868 (21882, 31894), and in their most extreme form in the work entitled Super- natural Religion (1st ed. 1874, complete ed. 1879). . B. Lightfoot examined the latter work in a series of Essays (col- lected and repub. 1889). The chief recent advances in the subject have been due to the colossal labours of J. B. Lightfoot in his works on /gnatius of Antioch (1585) and Clement of Rome (2nd ed., pub. 1890, shortly after his death), and of Th. Zahn in his Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons (1838), preceded by his Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, and the brilliant review of the actual state of knowledge in regard to early Christian docu- ments by A, Harnack in his Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur (vol. i. 1897), with which his brochure Das N Tum das Jahr 200 (1889), a critique of the first part of Zahn’s History of the Canon, may be compared. The last-named writer has made some important concessions to those who, like the two before mentioned, have defended the orthodox position, though he has approached the subject with different prepossessions from theirs. This approximation to a common judgment, at least on certain points, is a sign of solid progress. The weighing of the differences which still remain, with a view to taking account of whatever truth there is in the arguments urged on each side, may be suggested to the student as a path which promises further advance. To turn to less voluminous works: Westcott’sGeneral Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (1st ed. 1855, 7th ed. 1896) continues to be the most complete work on the subject, which is at the same time compendious. With it may be read Sanday on Jnspiration (1893). The various Introduc- tions to the NT deal with the subject; the treatment of it in B. Weiss’ Manual of Introduction (1886, Eng. tr. 1887) may be specially recommended. V. H. STANTON.